Treaties With American Indians

Treaties with American Indians
www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

An Encyclopedia of
Rights, Conﬂicts, and Sovereignty
VOLUME I
Donald L. Fixico
EDITOR
Santa Barbara, California • Denver, Colorado • Oxford, England

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

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

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

Contributors
Donna L. Akers Jean Bedell-Bailey
University of Nebraska, Lincoln Martin, South Dakota
Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi People v. LeBlanc, 1976
LeFlore, Greenwood
Pushmataha Yale D. Belanger
University of Lethbridge
Joseph P. Alessi Aboriginal Title
United States Military Academy
Old Briton Brant, Joseph
Washakie (Pina Quahah, Scar Face) Crowfoot
Inuvialuit Final Agreements–June 1984
Laurie Arnold
The Newberry Library Phil Bellfy
House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953 Michigan State University
Public Law 280, 1953 Constitution Act (Canada), 1982
Termination LaDuke, Winona
Métis
Dewi I. Ball Pontiac
University of Wales, Swansea Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson
Doctrine of Discovery Treaty)–September 7, 1850
Government-to-Government Relationship Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario
Indian Removal
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, Sally Colford Bennett
1973 Johnson County Community College
Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999 Black Hawk
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Chouteau, Auguste
Washington, 1968 Forsyth, Thomas
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Fort Harrison, Indiana
Washington, 1977 Gaines, Edmund Pendleton
Sovereignty Greenville, Ohio
Treaty Jesup, Thomas S.
United States v. Wheeler, 1978 St. Joseph, Michigan
Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax St. Louis, Missouri
Commission, 1965 Tippecanoe River, Indiana
Winters v. United States, 1908 Vincennes, Indiana
Wabash River, Indiana
Helen M. Bannan Wells, William
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
Wauneka, Annie Dodge Donald R. Bennie
University of Guelph
William Bauer Constitution Act (Canada), 1867
University of Wyoming
California, Eighteen Unratified Treaties, 1851–1852 Ned Blackhawk
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Opechancanough

x Contributors
Robert D. Bohanan Phillippe Charland

Jimmy Carter Library Université de Québec à Montréal
Watie, Stand Canonicus
Robyn Bourgeois Anjali Choksi

University of Toronto Hutchins Grant & Associés
Self-Government Agreements (Canada) Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867
Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada)
John P. Bowes Specific Claims (Canada) (with Lysane Cree)
Dartmouth College
Caldwell, Billy Ryan L. Church
Pokagun Los Angeles, California
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833 Allotments
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978
Daniel L. Boxberger
Western Washington University C. Blue Clark
California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest Oklahoma City University Law School
Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties
Jay H. Buckley
Brigham Young University D. Anthony Tyeeme Clark (Meskwaki)
Clark, William University of Illinois
Lewis, Meriwether Harjo, Suzan Shown
Charles W. Buckner Richmond Clow

University of Memphis University of Montana
Deer, Ada E. Spotted Tail
William Campbell
McMaster University Gavin Clarkson
Gadsden, James University of Michigan
Curtis Act, 1898
Jack Campisi Morton v. Mancari, 1974
Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center Rice v. Cayetano, 2000
Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829
Michael C. Coleman
Roger M. Carpenter University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
National Museum of the American Indian Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of
Riel, Louis Assimilation, 1794–1930
Uncas
Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh
Martin Case Center for Desert Archaeology
Minneapolis, Minnesota Eskiminzin
Cass, Lewis Sacred Sites
Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin
Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota Lysane Cree
Hutchins Grant and Associés
Rene Casebeer Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy
University of Washington Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian
Camp Stevens (Walla Walla), Washington Nation, 1960
Medicine Creek, Washington Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim
Agreements (Canada)
Alexandria E. Casey Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim
Michael S. Casey Agreement–September 6, 1993
Graceland University Specific Claims (Canada) (with Anjali Choksi)
Geronimo (Goyathlay)

Contributors xi
Steven L. Danver C. S. Everett

Journal of the West Vanderbilt University
Burke, Charles H. American Indian Policy Review Commission
Indian Water Rights and Treaties Blount, William
Little Turtle Doak’s Stand, Mississippi
Mankiller, Wilma Pearl Lea, Luke
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States,
1968 Angela Firkus
Ouray Cottey College
Trust Responsibility Leupp, Francis Ellington
Meriam Report, 1928
Leigh Darbee Oshkosh
Indiana Historical Society
Harrison, William Henry Andrew H. Fisher
Tecumseh College of William and Mary
Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington),
Jennifer Nez Denetdale 1974
University of New Mexico Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering
Barboncito Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. Oregon,
Manuelito 1969
Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868 Sohappy, David, Sr.
David H. DeJong Donald L. Fixico

Prima-Maricopa Irrigation Project Arizona State University
Deloria, Vine, Jr. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Apology,
2000
S. Matthew DeSpain Cobell Case, 1996
University of Oklahoma Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act,
Doaksville, Oklahoma 2005
Jerome, David H. National Museum of the American Indian, 2004
Pike, Albert Sand Creek Massacre Site Return, 2002
Seminole Tribe of Florida Purchase of Hard Rock
Sonia Dickey Café, 2007
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Carson, Kit Hugh W. Foley, Jr.
Long Walk, 1864 Rogers State University
Atoka Agreement, 1897
Alan C. Downs Bearskin, Leaford
Georgia Southern University Harjo, Chitto
Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou
Canyon de Chelly, Arizona Andrew Frank
Massasoit Florida Atlantic University
Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973 McIntosh, William, Jr.
Antonie Dvorakova Ritu Gambhir

University of Chicago New York University
Black Kettle Inuit
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–October 28, Nunavut Land Claims Agreement–May 25, 1993
1867
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Granville Ganter
Etc.–September 17, 1851 St. John’s University
Red Jacket
R. David Edmunds
University of Texas at Dallas
Northeast and the Great Lakes

xii Contributors
Tim Alan Garrison Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842

Portland State University Treaty with the Chippewa–September 30, 1854
Southeast and Florida
Ross Hoffman
Deborah Gilbert Trent University
State University of New York, Stony Brook Indian Act of Canada, 1876
Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes) Tom Holm
Ridge, John Rollin University of Arizona
Reservations and Confederate and Unratified
Bradley J. Gills Treaties, 1850–1871
Arizona State University
Doolittle Committee Arthur Holst
Trail of Tears Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Carole Goldberg Commerce Clause and Native Americans
University of California, Los Angeles Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania
Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View
Chris Howell
Kevin Gover Red Rocks Community College
Arizona State University Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794
Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814
Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation Battle of the Thames, 1813
Pamela Lee Gray Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox

Purdue University University of Cambridge
Boudinot, Elias Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971
Fort Sumner, New Mexico Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim
New Echota, Georgia Agreement–April 1992
Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta) Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to August 30,
Ridge, Major 1921
S. Neyooxet Greymorning Cornelius J. Jaenen

University of Montana University of Ottawa
Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778 Canada
Kimberly Hausbeck Bruce E. Johansen

Nova Southeastern University University of Nebraska, Omaha
Domestic Dependent Nation Canassatego
Indian Country Captain Jack
Plenary Power Dull Knife
Emathla, Charley
Karl S. Hele Handsome Lake (with Barbara A. Mann)
University of Western Ontario Hendrick
Bagot Commission (Canada) Jackson, Helen Hunt
Deskaheh Johnson, William
Dumont, Gabriel Kicking Bird
Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870 Metacom
Royal Proclamation of 1763 Seattle (Seath’tl)
Treaty of Montreal–August 7, 1701 Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi)
Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright Eyes, Inshta
Troy Henderson Theamba)
Loyola University of Chicago United States v. Kagama, 1886
Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837

Contributors xiii
Theodore J. Karamanski Phil Konstantin

Loyola University of Chicago San Diego, California
Chicago, Illinois Hawkins, Benjamin
Michilimackinac, Michigan
Helen M. Krische
Anne Keary Watkins Community Museum of History
University of Utah American Indian Self-Determination and Education
Indian Rights Association (IRA) Act of 1975
Longest Walk, 1978
Watkins, Arthur V. Janne Lahti
University of Helsinki, Finland
Michael J. Kelly Fort Laramie, Wyoming
Creighton University
Jefferson, Thomas Denise Lajetta
Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, 1990 The Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection of the
Supremacy Clause University of Virginia
Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785 Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969
United States v. Dion, 1986
United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980 Amanda Laugesen
Williams v. Lee, 1959 Australian National University
American Indian Movement (AIM)
Penelope M. Kelsey Indian New Deal
Rochester Institute of Technology Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972
Treaty with the Six Nations–November 11, 1794
Laurie Leclair
Clara Keyt Toronto, Ontario
Arizona State University Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873
Banks, Dennis
Means, Russell Lloyd L. Lee
Arizona State University, West Campus
Clara Sue Kidwell Executive Order Reservations
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Guardianship/Wardship
Indian Appropriations Act, 1871
Cooper, Douglas H. Stacy Leeds
Joyce Ann Kievit Indian Treaty Making: A Native View
Tempe, Arizona
Opothleyahola Peter D. Lepsch
Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Monteau and Peebles
Chickasaw, Creeks, and Seminole–April Trust Land
28–July 19, 1866
Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830 Tamara Levi
Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835 University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Annuities
C. Richard King Pratt, Richard Henry
Washington State University
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988 Anne-Marie Libério
University of Paris IV, Sorbonne
Annie Kirby Hitchcock, Ethan Allen
University of Wales, Swansea
Collier, John Fred Lindsay
General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887 San Francisco, California
Indian Reorganization Act, 1934 Adair, William P.
Adams, Hank

xiv Contributors
Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 James McIntyre

Jemison, Alice Mae Lee Moraine Valley Community College
Joseph Fort Harmar, Ohio
Osceola Knox, Henry
United States v. Creek Nation, 1935
Mark Edwin Miller
Patricia A. Loew Southern Utah University
University of Wisconsin, Madison Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP)
Buffalo Nonrecognized Tribes
Sandy Lake, Minnesota State-Recognized Tribes
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825
John Bear Mitchell
Brad D. Lookingbill University of Maine
Columbia College of Missouri Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (with
Lone Wolf (Guipähgo) Micah Pawling)
Sitting Bull
Bradford W. Morse
Jean-François Lozier University of Ottawa
University of Toronto Canadian Indian Treaties
Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, September
1760 Daniel S. Murphree
University of Texas, Tyler
Priscilla MacDonald McGillivray, Alexander
Toledo, Ohio
De La Cruz, Joseph Burton Caryn E. Neumann
Ohio State University
Barbara A. Mann Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831
University of Toledo Pitchlynn, Peter
Handsome Lake (with Bruce E. Johansen) Worcester v. Georgia, 1832
Kurt T. Mantonya Greg O’Brien

Topeka, Kansas University of Southern Mississippi
Council Grove, Kansas Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849
Federally Recognized Tribes
Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968 Sharon O’Brien
Patricia S. Mariella Indian Treaties as International Agreements
Arizona State University
Property: Land and Natural Resources Caoimhín Ó Fearghail
University of Maryland
Aliki Marinakis Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883
University of Victoria
Erasmus, George Henry Knut Oyangen
Iowa State University
Robert O. Marlin IV Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811
University of Houston, Clear Lake St. Clair, Arthur
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 Wayne, Anthony
Elk v. Wilkins, 1884
Vera Parham
Ron McCoy University of California, Riverside
Emporia State University Oakes, Richard
Crazy Horse (Tašunka Witko)
Sitting Bear (Setangya or Satank) Linda S. Parker
San Diego State University
Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements

Contributors xv
Micah Pawling Bruce A. Rubenstein

University of Maine University of Michigan, Flint
Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (with Chivington, John Milton
John Bear Mitchell)
Deborah Rubenstein
Larry S. Powers St. Clair County Community College
University of Memphis Dearborn, Henry
Indian Territory Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe
Jay Precht Susan Sánchez-Barnett

McNeese State University Baltimore County Public Schools
Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903
Indian Claims Commission (ICC) Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955
Edward D. Ragan John Savagian

Old Dominion University Alverno College
Powhatan Aupaumut, Hendrick
Akim D. Reinhardt Daniel Edward Shaule

Towson University Toronto, Ontario
Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the
Jurisdiction (with John R. Wunder) Mississauga–October to November 1923
Martin Reinhardt Bradley Shreve

Reinhardt & Associates, Brighton, Colorado University of New Mexico
Trust Doctrine Bellecourt, Clyde
Cochise
Jon Reyhner Santa Fe, New Mexico
Northern Arizona University Williams, Roger
Dodge, Henry Chee
Southern Plains and the Southwest Steven E. Silvern
Salem State College
Justin B. Richland Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians
University of California, Irvine v. Voight et al., 1983
Mitchel v. United States, 1835 Reserved Rights Doctrine
Barnett Richling Michael A. Sletcher

University of Winnipeg Yale University
British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty–April 8, 1765 Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775
Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations–July 31,
Chad Ronnander 1684
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17,
Dodge, Henry 1789
Paul C. Rosier Eric R. Smith

Villanova University University of Illinois, Chicago
Northern Plains Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Right of Conquest
Ezra Rosser Right of Occupancy/Right of the Soil
Loyola University of New Orleans
Cohen, Felix S. Gregory E. Smoak
Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823 Colorado State University
Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and
Bannock–July 3, 1868

xvi Contributors
Elizabeth Sneyd James Bay and Northern Quebec

Royal Military College of Canada Agreement–November 11, 1975
Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement–May 29, 1993 Nisga’a Final Agreement–April 27, 1999
Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement–May 29, 1993 Northeastern Quebec Agreement–January 31, 1978
St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber Company v.
Scott L. Stabler The Queen (Canada), 1887
Grand Valley State University R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996
Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh)
Tim Watts
Michael A. Stewart Kansas State University
University of Oklahoma Ross, John
Treaty of Ghent, 1814
Gray H. Whaley
Gordon Stienburg Western Michigan University
University of Toronto Dalles, The, Oregon
Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960
Charles E. Williams
Paul H. Stuart Clarion University
Florida International University Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort
Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties Stanwix–November 1768
April R. Summitt Waziyatawin Angela Wilson

Arizona State University, Polytechnic Campus University of Victoria, British Columbia
Cornplanter Little Crow
Satanta
John R. Wunder
Céline Swicegood University of Nebraska, Lincoln
University of Chicago Tribal Government Authority versus Federal
Indian Removal Act, 1830 Jurisdiction (with Akim D. Reinhardt)
Andrew J. Torget Jason M. Yaremko

University of Virginia University of Winnipeg
Jackson, Andrew Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2–August 1871
Parker, Quanah Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874
Canadian Indian Treaty 5–September 24, 1875
Tracey L. Trenam Canadian Indian Treaty 6–August 28, September 9,
Aims Community College 1876
Assimilation Canadian Indian Treaty 7–September 22, December
4, 1877
Özlem Ülgen Canadian Indian Treaty 8–June 21, 1899
University of Sheffield Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay
Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia Treaty)–November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906
(Canada), 1973 Canadian Indian Treaty 10–September 19, 1906,
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997 August 19, 1907
Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development Gayle Yiotis
(Canada), 1980 National Museum of the American Indian
Dawes, Henry Laurens

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

Volume I
Introduction, xxi
Thematic Essays
Governments and Treaty Making Statutes as Sources of Modern
Indian Treaty Making: A Native View 5 Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming,
and Repatriation 109
Federal Policy and Treaty Making:
A Federal View 13
Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights
Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian
Treaties 27 Property: Land and Natural Resources 133
Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties 39 Indian Water Rights and Treaties 143
Indian Treaties as International Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering 147
Agreements 49 Tribal Government Authority versus
Federal Jurisdiction 161
Historical Periods Treaties and American Indian Schools
Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829 69 in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930 179
Indian Removal and Land Cessions,
1830–1849 83 Related Treaty Issues
Reservations and Confederate and Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements 195
Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871 95 Canadian Indian Treaties 209
Regional Essays
California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest 225 Northern Plains 251
Canada 235 Southeast and Florida 259
Northeast and the Great Lakes 243 Southern Plains and the Southwest 267
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

Introduction
PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP is the most commonly There are 374 ratified treaties and 16 agreements.
used phrase in the language of Indian treaties. The The first treaty was concluded in 1778; the last one,
intent of the United States as a young country was to during the late nineteenth century. The shortest
persuade Indian communities to deal only with the treaty is with the Kickapoo in 1820. The treaty is 16
United States. Many things were unsettled following lines long, with 8 Kickapoo leaders and 6 American
the American Revolution, and the tribes found them- officials who signed, involving $2,000 to be paid for
selves in the middle of it. In the early years of U.S.- Kickapoo removal. The longest treaty is the Treaty
Indian relations, the tribes also had common interest with the New York Indians of 1838 at Buffalo Creek
with the British, the French, and the Dutch. in New York; that treaty is 15 pages long. The
Indian agents and other government officials in Potawatomi signed the most treaties of any tribe, a
the United States negotiated more than four hun- total of 26. The biggest gathering was the council
dred treaties and agreements with American Indi- held at Medicine Lodge, Kansas, during October
ans; treaty talks occurred for more than one hundred 1867, at which 500 soldiers met with more than
years. Interestingly, Indian and white leaders met at 15,000 Plains Indians gathered from the Cheyenne,
various sites that often had been the meeting places Arapaho, Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche. The
for previous trading and council meetings. Negotiat- largest number of treaties were signed in 1825 and
ing in Native languages and English through inter- 1836, 20 each year; 19 treaties were signed in 1855, 18
preters was difficult, although some Native people in 1865, and 17 in 1832.
spoke some of the white man’s tongue. Beginning in In regard to categories, 229 treaties involve
1778 with the Delaware, when the United States ceded lands; 205 are about payments and annuities;
negotiated its first successful treaty with an Indian 202 include the phrase peace and friendship; 115 are
tribe and ratified it, a historic precedent was set, one about boundaries; 99 address reservations; 70
that has made Native Americans a unique minority include civilization and agriculture; 59 are about
in their own country. For the record, Indian tribes in roads and free passages; 52 address the sovereignty
what is now the United States also made treaties or the authority of the United States or tribes; 49
with the British, the French, the Confederate States include allotment and guaranteed lands; 47 contain
during the Civil War, and with other Indian tribes. gifts, goods, or presents; 38 contain provisions on
In Canada, the federal government negotiated education; 34 contain provisions on hunting, fishing,
seventeen treaties with the First Nations peoples, and gathering rights; 28 authorize forts and military
starting in 1871 and ending in the twentieth century. posts; 25 include trade; 12 address railroads; several
These consist of thirteen numbered treaties plus the include agents for the tribes; and a few treaties deal
four Robinson and Williams treaties. with one or more of the following: stolen horses,
The mid-nineteenth century represented the returning prisoners, slavery, returning criminals,
zenith of treaty making; during the next twenty intruders, scalping, alcohol, missions, and mail
years, the practice sharply declined. A rider attached routes.
to a congressional appropriations act in 1871 ended Treaties between Indian tribes and the United
the Indian treaty-making business in the United States are binding agreements. For Native peoples,
States, although agreements were negotiated until each step of the negotiation was important, not just
1917. The Act of 1871 did not end the recognition of the resulting words on a piece of paper. Indian
Indian treaties, however; it merely halted the treaty- agents, military officials, and officials of the Indian
making process. Office met with Native leaders to begin negotiations,
U.S.-Indian treaties often included more than which usually began with a council held at a previ-
one tribe, and some tribes signed many treaties. ously agreed-upon site. To Native people, the chosen

xxii Introduction
site was important, and the talk itself was just as sig- whites in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
nificant as the resulting treaty or agreement. The site more than 250 indigenous languages were spoken.
itself, such as the one near Medicine Lodge in south- The role of interpreters, both Indian and white,
western Kansas and Prairie du Chien in western became crucial to treaty negotiations. The varying
Wisconsin, set the tone of the council. Medicine protocols among tribes for holding councils com-
Lodge has made a lasting impression and is repelled American officials to learn about tribal leaders
enacted every five years. before talks of a serious nature began. Cultural dif-
The first meeting, or council, between Indian ferences added to language barriers as problems
and white leaders likely made or broke the tone of arose, often intensifying the clashing views of Indi-
the talks. The council was a fundamental concept ans and whites over land. One perceived land and
among the Indian nations, and tribal protocols var- what it meant economically, and the other under-
ied from tribe to tribe. Unsure of how to approach stood the earth philosophically and celebrated it
the various tribes, federal officials depended upon with ceremonies. The same commodity became
local whites, guides, and traders to introduce them homeland for both sides, and ensuing treaties
to the tribes in their areas. Familiar with the ways of named who owned the land. A new culture of treaty
the Indian tribe, these individuals advised officials making emerged from the older Indian way of hold-
how to approach Native leaders. ing council and talking.
In learning the protocol for dealing with tribes, Gift giving played a crucial role in the early con-
federal officials experienced difficulty in meeting tact and negotiations between Indian and white
with more than one tribe at the same time. They leaders. Federal officials typically brought gifts of
made the mistake of trying to get enemy tribes to inexpensive items such as mirrors, metalwork, and
meet at the same council. Even tribes who met only beads to get the Indians into a peaceful frame of
sometimes, such as the Plains Indians, who gathered mind that would lead to the discussion of bigger
annually during the summer to hold the Sun Dance, issues, such as land cessions. As mentioned, at least
had a mutual understanding of the importance of forty-seven treaties contained provisions for giving
the arrival at camp, as exemplified by the Medicine gifts and presents. Officials understood the impor-
Lodge Council in 1867. Dressed in their finest cere- tance of generosity and sharing among Native peo-
monial garb, a tribe also sometimes wanted to be the ples and used this against them, hence the “Great
last to arrive so that other tribal groups would White Father” in Washington held a position of
acknowledge that an important group had arrived. respect and generosity.
Protocol is involved in any type of summit, The cultural difference between Indians and
council, or important discussion involving conflict- whites proved to be enormous. In addition to the
ing interests, especially if there are deep differences language barriers, both sides operated from different
between cultures. In the general situation of treaty mind-sets; each held different ideas about what was
talks, white officials learned a lot about the impor- important for the negotiations and what the negotia-
tance of kinship relations in forming an agreement, tions meant. Native leaders and federal officials had
especially if it resulted in an alliance between the a challenging situation to overcome before they
two sides. Early treaties—those concluded before could begin successful discussions. It is said that, on
the mid-nineteenth century—were often peace one occasion Osceola, the noted leader of the Semi-
treaties, for the United States wanted tribes to nole in Florida, disagreeing with tribal leaders who
acknowledge their relationship with the new nation signed the Treaty of Fort Gibson in 1833, stabbed his
and abrogate relations with the British and the knife through the two pieces of paper on the table.
French. Bringing about peace following a battle or This was his angry response to all treaties, letting
other conflict created balance between two oppo- others know that his mind was set on going to war.
sites, and this tranquil state of existence fostered It is likely that this did happen since there is a hole in
mutual respect between the two parties and a need the original treaty kept in a vault at the National
for ceremonial acknowledgement. Thus, smoking Archives in Washington.
the pipe was germane to solidifying the new rela- “Touching the pen” became a common occur-
tionship of nonconflict. rence during Indian treaty making. Native leaders
The language barrier between the two sides were unable to write their names because they did
caused great skills in diplomacy to be exercised. not know the English language, and therefore white
During the height of contact between Indians and officials asked Native leaders to “make their

Introduction xxiii
mark”—which was of little importance to American a nation, thus an Indian nation must have one signif-
Indians, who believed that the spoken word was icant leader or chief. This was not the case with
superior to any words on a piece of paper, which many tribes, such as the Muscogee Creek, the
might be blown away by the wind or destroyed; the Ojibwa, and others, who had leaders for each town
spoken word would always be remembered. Several or village and settlements scattered over a vast
treaty councils witnessed impressive oratory articu- region of the country.
lated by tribal leaders. This was not the white way. Discussion of the treaty’s provisions was
The majority of Indian treaties verify the marks another critical phase of Indian treaty making. Both
made by the tribal leaders. In other situations, the sides met with an agenda of needs, according to
leaders refused to hold the white man’s writing their thinking, and they lobbied to obtain agreement
instrument, and the federal officials asked the Native from the other side. Some acute Native leaders saw
leaders to touch the pen after the names were writ- that education was an important part of the future of
ten by the official in charge. their people and wanted educational assistance in
The most important concern for Native peoples the form of teachers. Common provisions included
in treaty negotiations was their sovereignty. Sover- goods and annuities over a number of years and per-
eignty is an important issue of concern resulting haps blacksmiths. Most of all, large sums of money
from the U.S.-Indian and Canada-First Nations were paid to the tribes for their lands.
agreements. The signing of a treaty creates binding The next phase consisted of the results of
responsibilities between both sides and includes the treaties—some of which caused important changes,
respectful recognition of each for the other. Theoreti- such as the exchange of enormous tracts of land for
cally, the relationship between the two sides is one of perpetual gifts, or changes in fishing or hunting
a sovereign forming an agreement with another sov- rights on ceded lands. The treaties led to a new era in
ereign—that is, government-to-government in a lat- Indian-white relations and actually marked the
eral relationship of similar status. The status is one of decline of the strength of Indian nations. This decline
international law and based on each party to the became evident as tribes such as the Potawatomi,
treaty having faith in the agreement and recognizing Delaware, Chippewa, and others signed several
each other as being sovereign. treaties with the United States. After 1800, the fed-
Trust is a meaningful legal responsibility eral government almost always had the leverage in
between two nations and their people, and treaties treaty talks.
established this reciprocal relationship. Both sides of Strategies of treaty-making involve several
a treaty agreement must abide by the provisions and motives, all of which resulted in the decline of the
must continue to fulfill the responsibilities outlined Indian nations. These strategies involved introduc-
in the document. That trust responsibility continues ing the idea of one nation, one leader; setting bound-
into this century, in the hands of the assistant secre- aries; manipulating leadership; making chiefs; court-
tary of the Department of the Interior, who super- ing treaty signers; and giving gifts to influence tribes
vises the Bureau of Indian Affairs for all tribes in the and their leaders. Such actions almost always were
United States. directed toward Indian men, not toward women
Treaties were a systematic procedure for dealing (although, in many tribes, women held the authority
with Indian tribes. By examining the history of these to select their leaders).
agreements, some assessment can be made about Peace was the main objective in the early U.S.
them in stages or phases. For example, treaty negoti- treaties until about 1850. The federal government
ations, talks, or councils were the first step in this found it much easier to make peace with the Indian
system of agreements. During these important gath- nations than to fight them, which proved costly,
erings, significant Indian individuals were recog- especially as great effort was needed just to find
nized and acknowledged so the representatives of them. The United States signed 374 treaties but
the United States would know who they were deal- fought more than 1,600 wars, battles, and skirmishes
ing with. In some cases, such as the Prairie du Chien against Indian tribes. The Navajo Treaty of 1849 and
meeting, “making chiefs” occurred; this happened the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 were negotiated with
more than once when government officials per- peaceful objectives in mind rather than more land
suaded certain individuals to sign for their tribes as cessions. The Fort Laramie agreement involved mul-
leaders. The federal government operated on the tiple groups of the Northern Plains, Sioux, Gros Ven-
political philosophy that a head of state represented tre, Mandan, Arikara, Assinaboine, Blackfeet, Crow,

xxiv Introduction
Cheyenne, and Arapaho. Boundaries were set to ther diminished the territories of the tribes. Indian
keep them apart, with additional provisions for lands were further reduced by the systematic cre-
roads and military posts included as part of the ation of “permanent” reservations.
treaty. Control of tribal movements was the final strat-
The establishment of boundaries for tribes was egy and result of the treaties. With treaties in place
another goal for government officials as they and with military power greater than that of the
treated with Indian leaders. Many tribes hunted tribes, the United States could enforce control over
over vast territories; government officials were able the weakened Indian nations. Once the leaders were
to contain tribes within certain areas, and they undermined and control exerted over them, Indian
reminded leaders of the boundaries established in superintendents controlled the Indians and condi-
the agreements. Officials introduced Native peo- tions on the almost two hundred reservations
ples to the idea of land ownership and individual throughout Indian country.
ownership. In 1858, the Sisseton and Wahpeton Land was the central issue of U.S.-Indian
Sioux signed a treaty in Washington, D.C., agreeing treaties. As more settlers arrived from England and
to new reservation boundaries. This led to the sur- other countries, the need for more Indian land
veying of the tribal land for division into individual placed considerable pressure on the Indian tribes. A
eighty-acre allotments. In this way, tribal lands domino effect began to occur as eastern seaboard
were reduced in size. tribes of the Atlantic coast retreated inland, thereby
At times, the United States undermined and encroaching on the hunting domains and farming
manipulated leadership to get the lands it wanted. areas of tribes nearby to the west. The expansion of
The importance of kinship played a vital role in white settlement across the Appalachian Mountains
treaty making between Indians and the United caused the newly formed United States to treat with
States. Federal officials learned of the importance of the inland tribes. British agents and traders worked
kinship and symbolic bonds in tribal communities among the Indian nations to gain their allegiance
and used this knowledge to develop a tribal depen- and convince them to reject the proposed talks of
dence on the “Great White Father” in Washington. federal officials.
When the leaders of tribes refused to negotiate, fed- At the same time, other European interests in
eral officials sought out other Indians who were the form of French, Scots, and Irish traders proved
more easily persuaded to sign treaty documents. successful in obtaining acceptance among tribes.
Land acquisition was the principal reason for These trading activities made it more difficult for the
treaties and was pursued to such an extreme extent United States as more Americans pushed into the
that, by the end of the nineteenth century, American Ohio Valley and the back country of the Southeast.
Indians held less than 2 percent of the land that they The most obvious kind of treaty called for tribes
had once possessed totally. The unleashed white set- to surrender their lands. In less than thirty years,
tler became an uncontrollable force to consume from 1801 to 1829, federal officials made thirty-one
Indian lands. Such was the settlers’ greed that fed- treaties with the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee
eral officials were forced to deal with tribes, which Creek, Cherokee, and Florida tribes. These cession
resulted in many Indian removal treaties or war. A treaties extinguished Indian title to all of the area
domino effect occurred as eastern tribes moved onto east of the Mississippi River from the Ohio River to
lands of interior groups, who moved onto lands of the Gulf of Mexico.
western tribes, and so forth. Officially, treaties had to be ratified by the U.S.
Expansion of the United States was another goal Congress and signed by the president of the United
of government officials. During the Civil War, fed- States. Congressional ratification was most active
eral officials negotiated, and the government rati- during the 1800s, as federal officials met with Native
fied, eighteen treaties that called for expanding the leaders at an increasing rate. Treaty making fell into
territory held by the Union. During the three years a pattern: More and more treaties were negotiated
between March 1862 and March 1865, federal offi- with eastern tribes, who were thus forced to keep
cials concluded treaties with the Kansa, Ottawa, moving westward; the Delaware, for example, were
Chippewa, Nez Percé, Shoshone, Ute, Klamath, forced to remove at least nine times.
Modoc, Omaha, Winnebago, and Ponca Nations. Unratified treaties were agreements not con-
These agreements included land cessions and fur- firmed by the U.S. Congress. Naturally, many agree-

Introduction xxv
ments were submitted to Congress; most submis- I would like to express appreciation to the fol-
sions were ratified, and some had their provisions lowing individuals at Arizona State University, who
amended. It is estimated that between forty-seven have been helpful in the completion of this project
and eighty-seven treaties were unratified. Most over the last two years: President Michael Crow;
Native leaders did not understand the ratification Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth
process and believed that all the agreements they Capaldi; former Provost Milton Glick; Vice President
made were official. David Young, Divisional Dean Debra Losse; former
Chairperson Noel Stowe of the History Department;
and Chairperson Mark von Hagen. I am grateful for
Organization of the Encyclopedia the support from the ASU Foundation, which spon-
This encyclopedia is intended as a comprehensive sors my Distinguished Professorship of History, and
reference tool for anyone interested in American for ASU as a leading university that supports schol-
Indian treaties with the United States. In these three arship in American Indian history. I especially want
volumes, the larger number of U.S.-Indian treaties, to thank Clara Keyt as a research and editorial assis-
their lengths and complexity, and the complexity of tant. I thank my research assistants during the final
Canada-Indian treaties are described. The volumes phase: Matt Garrett, Cody Marshall, and Kristin
are organized in sections. The first volume consists Youngbull; they have helped to track down a lot of
of major essays that explain various perspectives on information as well as doing other chores. With their
Indian treaties, and regional treaties. In the second help, after I moved to Arizona, the boulder was
volume, entries are included that describe each pushed the rest of the way to the top of the moun-
treaty; short entries address treaty sites and terms; tain in the sun with a smile.
and there are primary source documents of many Appreciation is also expressed to all the contrib-
treaties. The third volume contains a historical utors who wrote entries and the noted scholars who
chronology, brief biographies of noted individuals wrote the essays for the encyclopedia. Nor would
involved in the treaties, and a section on treaty- this project have been possible without the patience,
related issues. effort, and tremendous understanding of my good
friend and editor, Steven Danver. Thank you to Car-
oline Price for the tremendous illustrations; and to
Acknowledgments April Wells-Hayes for the thorough copyedit of the
This three-volume project has been the work of manuscript. I wish all editors were like Vicki Moran
many people. I have often felt like an academic who guided this project smoothly through all its pro-
Sisyphus, facing the enormous task of rolling the duction stages. I am especially grateful to my wife,
big boulder up the mountain. More than three hun- Professor April Summitt, whose words of support
dred people have helped, supported, and written encouraged me to complete this project. I am also
entries or essays for this encyclopedia. I am grateful grateful to my son, Keytha Fixico, who has patiently
for the help of the following individuals, who waited for me so that we could go to a movie and do
assisted with this project in the early years at the other son-and-dad stuff. Always, I am grateful for
Center for Indigenous Nations Studies at the Uni- the support of my parents, John and Virginia Fixico;
versity of Kansas: research assistants Viv Ibbett, and I want to acknowledge my four tribes—the
Melissa Fisher Isaacs, David Querner, and Elyse Shawnee, Sac and Fox, Seminole, and Muscogee
Towey. I appreciate the support given my work by Creek—to whom this three-volume encyclopedia is
Chancellor Robert Hemenway, Provost David Shu- dedicated.
lenburger, former Associate Dean Carl Strikwerda,
and former Dean Kim Wilcox at the University of Donald L. Fixico
Kansas. Arizona State University


Thematic Essays
Governments and Treaty Making
Indian Treaty Making: A Native View 5
A Federal View 13
Legislation, Treaty Substitutes,
and Indian Treaties 27
Relevant Court Cases Related
to Treaties 39
Indian Treaties as International Agreements 49
Historical Periods
Colonial and Early Treaties,
1775–1829 69
Indian Removal and Land
Cessions, 1830–1849 83
Reservations and Confederate
and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871 95
Statutes as Sources of Modern
Indian Rights: Child Welfare,
Gaming, and Repatriation 109
Treaty Responsibility
and Reserved Rights
Property: Land and Natural
Resources 133
Indian Water Rights and Treaties 143
Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering 147
Tribal Government Authority versus Federal
Jurisdiction 161
Treaties and American Indian
Schools in the Age of
Assimilation, 1794–1930 179
Related Treaty Issues

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements 195
Canadian Indian Treaties 209

Governments and
Treaty Making

Indian Treaty Making: A Native View
L
ike other peoples, American Indians have Treaties are legally binding agreements between
L
always been concerned with preserving their sovereigns; they are also called compacts, covenants,
cultural autonomy, retaining their land, and conventions, and memoranda of understanding. Regard-
maintaining political sovereignty. One way tribes less of the nomenclature, these treaties have been a
have preserved their legal rights is by entering into critical part of the American Indian past and are of
treaties and agreements with other sovereigns. continuing importance to tribal governments today.
Approximately 370 Indian treaties were ratified by In fact, tribal governments continue to negotiate
the United States (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1999, treaties and agreements with various sovereigns,
181). A number of other treaties that resulted from particularly state and local entities (Deloria, P., and
negotiations between the United States and Indian Laurence 1994, 381).
tribes were never ratified by the U.S. Senate and U.S. federal policy ended treaty making with
remain unenforceable. tribes in 1871. In March of that year, Congress placed
Indian tribes entered into treaties with other a rider on an appropriations bill that ended the prac-
sovereigns for different reasons and with varying tice of Indian treaties in the United States (25 U.S.C.
results. Treaties created military and political § 71). Prior to that date, the executive branch would
alliances, authorized trade, defined political and negotiate treaties with the tribes, and the Senate
jurisdictional boundaries, divided natural resources, would either ratify the treaty or not. Some treaties
established and maintained peace, ensured commu- involved monetary payments to tribes, for which
nity survival, and at times provided for the final dis- Congress needed to appropriate funds. The House of
solution of tribal governments. Representatives objected to this process because they
As a matter of tribal law and policy, a treaty is a were being asked to fund items included in treaties
binding agreement between two or more nations. despite the fact that the House had played no role in
Treaties are legal agreements that Indians expected to treaty negotiations. Although the legislation of 1871
be binding (Wilkinson and Volkman 1975, 612). prohibited the federal government from negotiating
Although not every tribe negotiated treaties with the further treaties with Indian tribes, the law on the
United States, the political consequences of treaty books differs from what actually happened.
making and the legal principles that flow from court Tribes continued as sovereigns, with territorial
cases involving treaty interpretation continue to control over lands and natural resources. The federal
define the legal status of tribal governments within government continued to have a government-to-
the United States today (Monette 1994, 617–618). government relationship with tribes, and political
Even the tribes that never entered into treaties with negotiations continued, although not by means of
the United States benefit from the resulting legal formal treaties as they had before.
framework of Indian nations as sovereigns. Today, As a practical matter, the United States con-
there are more than 560 federally recognized tribes tinued to negotiate formal agreements with tribal
within the United States, including Alaska Native vil- governments well into the 1910s; however, rather
lages. Treaties were the foundation of federal recogni- than being submitted to the Senate for ratification,
tion of Indian tribes as sovereigns (Porter 2004, 1601). these new agreements were presented to Congress
Although treaties were common among the and adopted or rejected by both the Senate and the
tribes in the southeastern United States, the Wood- House of Representatives. In this form, the post-1871
lands (eastern United States), the Great Plains, and agreements with tribes took the form of congres-
the Northwest, many tribes in other regions did not sional enactments rather than ratified treaties. The
routinely negotiate treaties with the United States. most common examples of these agreements are the
For example, few ratified treaties will be found tribally specific enactments to implement allotment
between the United States and tribes in California or on particular reservations. After lengthy negotia-
between the United States and the Pueblos of the tions with tribal governments, federal agents pre-
Southwest (Brann 2003, 754–755). The United States pared formal allotment agreements with the consent
did not enter into treaties with any of the Alaska of tribal officials. These agreements were formally
Native sovereigns (Case and Voluck 1978, 16–17). presented to Congress and adopted as legislation
5
6 Governments and Treaty Making
instead of ratified as treaties. The federal-tribal owned or controlled by other tribes. Tribes reached
diplomatic process, followed by tribal consent and agreements that recognized boundaries between
federal approval, was essentially the same as the tribal lands and passage between those territories.
treaty-making process prior to 1871. All these negotiations predated European contact
Modern tribal governments continue to enter and influence. In fact, much of the Indian treaty-
into agreements with other tribes and with state and making process was passed from the tribes to their
local governments. Tribal and state governments fre- European counterparts, who freely adopted Indian
quently negotiated cross-deputization agreements treaty-making procedures and diplomatic decorum
between each other as two sovereigns. These agree- in the negotiations that followed.
ments address the jurisdictional ambiguities of law For instance, Indian treaty negotiations often
enforcement in Indian country and typically involve involved long ceremonial meetings, during which
shared law enforcement authority in otherwise- past transgressions were set aside, friendships
disputed areas. The agreements permit tribal police renewed, and gifts exchanged between the parties as
officers to make arrests on lands that would other- a sign of goodwill (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1995,
wise be under the jurisdiction of the state, and vice 685). These formalities and ceremonial gestures pre-
versa. In some areas of the country, where state and ceded any discussion of new parameters or terms of
tribal jurisdiction depends on the ownership of agreement. In this regard, American Indians influ-
neighboring parcels of land, these ongoing agree- enced the manner in which future negotiations
ments are necessary to public safety and effective would take place, and federal negotiators embraced
policing (Pommersheim 1995, 161). many of these concepts.
Tribes and states also enter into revenue-sharing The influence of European and subsequent U.S.
agreements as a means of resolving conflicts of taxa- treaty-making traditions also altered the way Indian
tion jurisdiction (Fletcher 2004, 5–7). These agree- tribes negotiated. There was a shift away from
ments are typically referred to as compacts. Where tax reliance on oral agreements toward a focus on writ-
jurisdiction is ambiguous or where collection of tax ten documents. Prior to European contact, the treaty
revenues proves burdensome, tribes and states have negotiations of tribes were committed to memory,
negotiations compacts in lieu of federal court litiga- with the entire discussion constituting the binding
tion. One sovereign agrees not to pursue tax claims agreement of the parties. The non-Indians’ insistence
in court, whereas the other sovereign agrees to share on memorializing agreements in writing altered the
tax revenues with the first sovereign. In some com- treaty-making process and, over time, changed the
pacts, the sovereigns agree how the funds are to be way tribes entered into the negotiating process. The
spent in a mutually beneficial manner both for citi- result was a shift in focus: today, many Indian peo-
zens of the state and for citizens of the tribe. ple might know the words of the treaty document
but not the context in which the negotiations arose.
Indians and non-Indians alike initially ap-
Treaty Making Past and Present proached the early treaty negotiations with little or
For more than five hundred years, tribes have no knowledge of each other’s traditions or beliefs.
entered into treaties with the United States and with The language barrier routinely would have made
other international governments. Tribes entered into fluid communications nearly impossible, yet agree-
various treaties with Great Britain, Spain, and other ments were made. In coming together, each side
European sovereigns prior to the American Revolu- influenced the treaty process of the other sovereign,
tion (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1999, 103). and a unique system of negotiations emerged that
For centuries prior to European contact, tribes included elements of both the Indian and the Euro-
negotiated with other tribes agreements akin to the pean traditions.
treaties they would later negotiate with European The first treaty between America and an Indian
countries and ultimately with the United States. By tribe was completed during the Revolutionary
the time Europeans arrived, tribes were already War, the Treaty of Fort Pitt (Treaty with the
skilled in negotiating treaties and agreements for a Delaware) in 1778. The Delaware made a formal
variety of purposes. Tribes had formed military alliance with the American revolutionaries, and the
alliances and political confederations for centuries. tribe permitted colonial troops free movement
Tribes also had elaborate trade routes that across their territory. In exchange, the Americans
required access to vast territories, including lands agreed to build a fort inside the Delaware Nation to

protect the community when soldiers were else- Cherokee Nation as a result of a post–Civil War
where engaged. Beyond its historical significance, treaty with the United States. The Cherokee Nation,
this treaty was important because it established that like the Osage, the Muscogee Creek, the Seminole,
tribes were sovereign entities with the power of and other Indian nations, entered into treaties of
diplomacy. It also established, in a legal context, that alliance with the Confederate States in 1861. When
tribes were property owners with full dominion the Civil War was over, the United States reestab-
over territory, including the right to exclude others lished ties with the Cherokee Nation, but the Chero-
from their territory. The Delaware were in a position kee Nation agreed to several concessions, including
of strength when negotiating with the colonies. the settlement of other tribes on Cherokee lands.
The relative strength of the Delaware dimin- These post–Civil War treaties were among the last
ished over time, and the tribe later found itself in a official treaties between Indian nations and the
much weaker diplomatic position. Yet whether in United States. The post–Civil War treaty with the
strength or in weakness, the Delaware continued to Cherokee is unique because it precipitates additional
negotiate treaties with other sovereigns to accom- treaties between tribes on the request of the United
plish their goals. States. Rather than using force to require the Chero-
In 1867, the Delaware entered into a treaty with kee Nation to accept the relocation of other Indian
the Cherokee Nation that arguably led to a political tribes, the United States acknowledged that the
dissolution of the Delaware (Treaty between the tribes would work out the terms of relocation and
Cherokee and Delaware–April 8, 1867). The new citizenship in an intertribal treaty. This illus-
Delaware negotiated citizenship rights within the trates how, even toward the end of formal treaty
Cherokee Nation to preserve legally protected status making with the United States, tribes were viewed
for the Delaware people and to ensure a friendly as sovereigns who negotiated with each other and
place to settle. with the United States as a means of diplomacy.
The Delaware story is important because it The United States officially ended treaty making
demonstrates how a sovereign can enter into treaties between the federal government and tribal govern-
for various purposes at various times. Sometime ments in 1871 (25 U.S.C. § 71). The United States con-
tribes are in a position of strength, and sometimes tinued to make formal agreements, although they
tribes face political or physical annihilation. In each were not considered treaties, with tribes well into the
circumstance, the sovereign made a contextual deci- twentieth century. One of the most common subjects
sion and chose to negotiate a treaty to protect its of these agreements was the allotment of tribal
interests or to mitigate a situation. Just as there was lands.
no uniform Delaware approach to treaty making In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the federal
over time, there is no uniform Native perspective on government pushed for Indian lands to be allotted.
treaty making. Rather than holding land in a contiguous land base
In 1867, the Cherokee and the Delaware were with a property law system governed by tribal law,
both in politically weak positions relative to the the United States pressured tribes to divide their
United States. In fact, both tribes were pressured to lands and allow individual Indians to own lands
enter into the intertribal treaty by the United States, without the control or oversight of the tribes. The
and the treaty was executed by both tribes, not in U.S. Congress passed the General Allotment Act as a
Delaware or Cherokee territory, but in Washington, statement of federal policy; however, the federal
D.C., in the presence of, and for the benefit of, fed- allotment policy was not self-executing (Royster
eral officials. 1995, 7–15).
The Delaware were being removed by the Allotment of reservation lands was generally
United States from their territory and relocated implemented only after elaborate negotiations and
inside Indian Territory. Most of the Indian Territory treaty making with the affected tribes. Some tribes
lands had been accounted for, and the federal gov- were successful in avoiding the allotment of their
ernment needed land to implement the Delaware lands altogether. The majority of tribes were pres-
relocation. In a treaty with the United States, the sured to allot their lands, and the details were out-
Cherokee Nation agreed to accept the Delaware lined in tribal agreements with the United States.
along with the Shawnee. The Cherokee agreed both In fact, more than twenty agreements between
to the relocations and to the inclusion of the the United States and tribal governments were made
Shawnee and Delaware people as citizens of the in the years 1876–1895. The United States did not

stop making treaties; it simply relabeled the process agreement divided tribal lands into individual allot-
and extended ratification rights to both houses of ments and provided for the ultimate dissolution of
Congress rather than to the Senate alone. the tribal government as a condition precedent to the
During this period, the tribes did not have the extension of U.S. citizenship to tribal members.
same political and military strength they once had Several shifts in federal policy occurred after
had. By this time, tribes had typically been relocated allotment. Since the 1960s, there has been a con-
to reservations or to diminished land bases. Even sistent trend away from the termination of tribal
though very few tribes were militarily conquered by existence toward a policy of respecting tribal self-
the United States, in previous treaties many tribes determination. Tribal governments have rebounded
had agreed to become protectorates of the United and have resumed the exercise of their inherent sov-
States and had thereby abandoned any effort to ereign powers, including the right to negotiate
maintain their own troops. treaties and agreements with other sovereigns.
With no military threat and with increased eco- Indian treaty making continues throughout
nomic dependency of tribes on the federal govern- Indian country today. Many tribes continue to make
ment, the United States continued to gain political agreements with state and local municipalities and
power over the tribes. With increased political with other tribes.
power, the United States began to interfere with mat- Historically, the Cherokee Nation has com-
ters that had previously been internal to the tribe, pleted twenty-two treaties since 1721, first with
including how the tribes governed themselves. Great Britain and then with the United States. The
Increased federal involvement in internal tribal mat- contemporary Cherokee Nation continues to make
ters quickly led to an effort by the federal govern- treaties and currently maintains more than twenty
ment to change the land tenure systems inside ongoing agreements with state, county, and city law
Indian country. enforcement agencies. Most of the agreements were
As such, the allotment agreements were heavily negotiated in the 1990s, and additional negotiations
coerced by the federal government, and the tribes for new agreements are pending.
were powerless to demand many concessions. The The Navajo Nation and the State of Arizona
tribes felt that, if they did not participate in the have negotiated agreements to control the distribu-
agreements, the federal government would unilater- tion of tax revenues between the two sovereigns and
ally act to allot their lands. The tribes were faced to cooperate in the delivery of youth and family pro-
with two options: either to allow Congress to pass a tective services. The Navajo Nation is geographically
law permitting allotment of tribal lands without located within three states, and each of the sovereign
tribal consent or input, or to enter into negotiations states has engaged in negotiations with Navajo
with the federal government for the allotment of Nation officials.
tribal lands on terms more agreeable to the tribes. Tribes in the Puget Sound and Great Lakes areas
Those tribes that entered into negotiations with the have recently negotiated intertribal agreements that
federal government for the allotment of tribal lands ensure equitable rights to fish and wildlife harvests.
did so under duress. Although the tribes vehemently Tribes throughout the country are currently engaged
opposed allotment, they negotiated allotment to in intertribal cooperatives to restore buffalo herds,
avoid being completely voiceless in the process. manage water resources, and clarify jurisdiction.
Tribal input in the allotment process was better than A foundational principle of federal Indian law
no negotiation at all (Leeds 2005, 64–66). has been the role of the federal government in Indian
The federal perspective in negotiating the allot- affairs, to the exclusion of the states. Early cases and
ment agreements was that allotment would end federal statutes preclude states from negotiating
tribalism and prepare Indian people for ultimate cit- treaties with tribal governments. However, when
izenship in the United States. This would make formal federal treaty making came to an end, states
Indian people members of a national minority and and local governments increased their willingness to
end the notion of tribal sovereignty. Therefore, negotiate with tribes, realizing that treaties and
many of the allotment agreements included provi- agreements are mutually beneficial.
sions that dissolved tribal governments and pro- In at least three areas, the federal government
vided for U.S. citizenship. has authorized states to enter into agreements with
The Atoka Agreement of the Choctaw and tribes: (1) law enforcement, (2) the care and custody
Chickasaw Nations in 1897 is a prime example. The of Indian children, and (3) gaming. Tribes that

engage in casino-style gaming routinely negotiate could return home to get the proper assent from
with the states compacts that dictate revenue shar- their tribal constituents.
ing, maintenance of roads, and other governmental Tribes approached the treaty-making process in
infrastructure. These agreements routinely lead to vastly different ways, according to the political,
shared law enforcement responsibilities and clarify social, and cultural contexts. Tribal peoples, like their
jurisdiction of tribal and state courts. counterparts throughout the world, make political
Tribes do not need authorization from the fed- and diplomatic decisions for innumerable reasons.
eral government to negotiate agreements with other The viewpoints and motivations of the Indian lead-
sovereigns. The right to negotiate and make treaties ers who negotiated and signed treaties are equally
is an important component of inherent sovereign diverse. Like sovereigns the world over, tribes have
powers, and tribes will continue to exercise this leaders who fall into different camps. Some leaders
power into the future. Indian treaties are hardly are true statesmen who represent their people in dif-
relics of the past. The ability to negotiate and reach ficult situations and make the tough decisions based
valid legal agreements with other sovereigns is a on what they sincerely believe to be in the best inter-
critical and active component of modern tribal est of their constituents, with or without popular
sovereignty. support. Other leaders succumb to greed and allow
personal gain to influence their decisions, even to the
detriment of the people they represent. Indian coun-
The Diversity of try has had a host of leaders in both camps.
Tribal Perspectives The Indian treaty-making process involved
The Native perspective of treaty making is diverse. leaders who made sincere assessments of the diffi-
More than 560 federally recognized tribal govern- culties faced by their nations and made decisions to
ments have entered into several hundred treaties, enter into treaties even though the will of the people
both ratified and unratified, with the United States. did not wish to enter into treaties. Other leaders
Many other treaties have been negotiated with entered into treaties that directly benefited them per-
tribes, states, and foreign countries. The sheer num- sonally. In the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of
ber of negotiations and resulting treaties suggests 1830 (Treaty with the Choctaw), Chief Greenwood
there is no single Native approach to treaty making. LeFlore of the Choctaws consented to have the
From tribe to tribe, the customs, laws, languages, Choctaw people removed from their ancestral lands
and philosophies greatly differ. It follows that the and relocated to Indian Territory. Nonetheless, he
concepts of treaty making and diplomacy are dis- was permitted to remain in Mississippi and to main-
tinctive as well. tain ownership of his lands (Foreman 1934, 26).
Many differing factors lead to negotiations, Other tribal leaders received favorable land alloca-
depending on the tribes involved. Many tribes never tions and monetary payments in exchange for sign-
entered into treaties with the United States. Other ing treaties that bound their nations to opposite
tribes entered into multiple treaties with multiple fates.
sovereigns. The Cherokee Nation, for example, has From the perspective of the United States, treaty
negotiated treaties with Great Britain, the United making is a power of the executive branch of gov-
States, and the Confederacy, and with several Indian ernment subject to Senate ratification. Federal agents
tribes, most notably the Shawnee and the Delaware. were sometimes sent out into Indian country to
The Choctaw Nation entered into treaties with Spain negotiate treaties. At other times, tribal representa-
prior to entering into multiple treaties with the tives went to Washington, D.C., or other destinations
United States. The Kashaya Pomo tribe in California outside their home territories to negotiate.
entered into a treaty with Russia in 1817. Other From the tribal perspective, the authority of
tribes have entered into treaties with Mexico and individuals or groups within the tribe to participate
Canada (Deloria, V., and DeMallie 1999, 106–108.) in negotiations varied. In several instances, the indi-
Tribes sometimes negotiated treaties that were viduals recognized by the federal government as
never ratified either by the United States or by their having the power to sign treaties were not the indi-
tribal citizens. The U.S. Senate failed to ratify eigh- viduals who had the right to speak on behalf of the
teen Indian treaties after the tribes had agreed to all tribes. As a result, many tribal communities have not
the provisions (Prucha 1994, 244). But in other cir- recognized certain treaties that the United States has
cumstances, negotiations ended so that tribal leaders ratified and implemented. The federal government

has sometimes declared individual Indians chiefs for from their people to speak and negotiate with other
the purpose of obtaining signatures, regardless of sovereigns in matters of trade, war and peace, and
whether the individuals were recognized by the political relationships, but they likely would have
tribes as the official leaders. The United States con- lacked the authority to convey real property.
tinued this practice well into the 1960s by appointing Other tribes did not believe that a small group
tribal leaders for purposes of securing signatures on of people had the authority to represent the full
leases and other legal documents. In these instances, body politic of the tribe, and instead required the
the federally appointed “chiefs” were not popularly approval of general councils before decisions could
elected by the tribal communities. be made. For instance, some treaties had provisions
Some tribes had treaty councils or treaty delega- that affirmatively required subsequent amendments
tions that were clearly sanctioned by the tribal peo- to the treaty to be submitted to a popular vote of the
ple as spokespersons. The Chickasaw Nation, in the tribal people. A single delegate would not have had
1890s, issued official notarized certificates from the the authority to bind the tribe to treaty amendments
tribal government to individuals who were official (Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche of 1867; Lone
delegates to Washington (Viola 1995, 81). These indi- Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 1903). Still other tribes
viduals had the right to negotiate on behalf of the were required to consult particular groups of com-
people and the ability to enter into treaties and bind munity constituents, such as elders or women,
the people they represented. But unlike their federal before a final decision or deal could be completed
counterparts, many of those who had the apparent (Berger 2004, 105).
authority to negotiate treaties were limited in terms
of the subject matter they could concede and were
limited in their powers. The Treaty as a
Some tribes had elaborate property law schemes Negotiation Process
of their own and would freely engage in land ces- In the early days of treaty making with Europeans
sions and land trades. Contrary to some historical and then with the Americans, the process of treaty
accounts, it was not a foreign concept to some tribes negotiation was of more importance to the tribes
to purchase or exchange lands. Many of the tribes in than the legal document that followed. The tribal
Indian Territory in the late 1800s maintained elabo- representatives tended to place more importance on
rate property journals as a matter of official tribal the discussions between the negotiators, the context
government records. These journals are similar to that brought the parties together, the fellowship and
the current county land records in which are interaction between the people involved, and the
recorded deeds and various types of land transac- oral representations and positive assurances made
tions, such as leases, easements, and land sales trans- by the parties (Sullivan 2004, 684–686).
actions. In these tribes, individual citizens could Following the negotiations, the federal repre-
own the surface of the land and were free to alienate sentatives would typically create a written docu-
those lands to other tribal citizens. The underlying ment that constituted the agreement of the parties.
estate, however, was owned by the tribe to preserve Given the fact that few tribal representatives spoke
the contiguous land base and protect territorial sov- English—the written language used in most Indian
ereignty from outside encroachment. treaties—it was the spirit of the negotiations that
Other tribes viewed land as a sacred object that were important to tribal communities, not the piece
could not be traded, sold, or otherwise negotiated. of paper that followed. Tribal leaders who could not
On this philosophy, the Lakota people have refused read or write English routinely placed their marks in
to accept money judgments due to them from fed- the form of an X on the treaty document to register
eral court decisions in which they prevailed on stak- assent to the terms of the document, despite the fact
ing claims. They view return of the land as the only that they were relying on oral promises rather than
solution. Tribes that embraced this philosophy his- on an independent review of the treaty text.
torically would not have conveyed their lands to the Promises and affirmations that were made during
United States through treaties. For such tribes, the the negotiations were as binding, from the Native
authority of the tribal leaders would have been lim- perspective, as the document that followed.
ited to other subject areas in diplomacy. Those tribal Therefore, tribes that later sought compliance
leaders might have possessed delegated authority with oral promises of negotiations were disen-

chanted with the non-Indians’ strict reliance on the up their right to hunt and fish. The case involved
words of the final, written version of the treaty. From several treaties with Chippewa Indians in the Great
the Native perspective, the spirit of the treaty should Lakes region: the Treaty with the Chippewa–October
prevail over the treaty document itself. The spirit of 4, 1842; the Treaty with the Chippewa–August 2,
the treaty was the crux of the promises made in 1847; and the Treaty with the Chippewa–September
good-faith negotiations and not the technical inter- 30, 1854.
pretation of words on paper.
The federal courts, when first reviewing the
treaties in legal proceedings, tended to agree that the The Force and Effect of Treaties
negotiations and historical context were important Many of the guarantees in Indian treaties are
in addition to the treaty text. The federal courts promises that were intended in perpetuity. They are
adopted a set of interpretive rules, to be applied in typically not limited by time. The Treaty with the
treaty cases, that give accord to the Native perspec- Choctaw, 1830, contains language typical of the time
tive of treaty making. These interpretive rules, period to indicate that the treaty was final and that
known as the canons of Indian treaty construction, no further territorial incursions would occur:
have been the basis for tribal legal victories for treaty
enforcement. The canons require that Indian treaties The Government and people of the United
and agreements be liberally construed in favor of the States are hereby obliged to secure to the said
Indians. The canons require that the treaty be inter- Choctaw Nation of Red People the jurisdiction
preted not literally but as the tribe would have and government of all the persons and property
understood the treaty at the time the agreement was that may be within their limits west, so that no
made. In essence, the federal courts that have Territory or state shall ever have a right to pass
applied the canons of Indian treaty construction give laws for the government of the Choctaw Nation
life to the spirit of the treaty rather than relying of Red People and their descendants; and that
solely on a strict interpretation of the text (Wilkinson no part of the land granted them shall ever be
and Volkman 1975, 623–634). embraced in any Territory or State. (ibid. at
Although the federal courts began developing Article 4)
these canons in the 1830s with the legal opinions of
Justice Marshall, the canons have been applied Despite the permanent language in the treaties
recently to take into account the Native perspective that suggests the treaties will live on forever, the
and the negotiations themselves. In a recent U.S. United States has failed to comply with most
Supreme Court case, Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of treaties, at least in part. History tells us that the
Chippewa Indians, various treaties with the Chippewa United States always breaks treaties but that Indians
were interpreted to preserve the right of certain believed that a treaty was sacred and could not be
tribes to hunt, fish, and gather in lands that were broken. This story is far too simplistic. Context and
otherwise ceded to the United States. Relying on the circumstances change for tribes just as they change
canons, the Court concluded that the tribal rights for sovereigns the world over. And, although the
survived despite the fact that, in the treaty, the federal government’s history of unilaterally break-
Chippewa agreed to “fully and entirely relinquish ing treaties is well documented, changing tribal cir-
and convey to the United States, any and all right, cumstances and reversals of tribal diplomatic deci-
title, and interest, of whatsoever nature the same sions should also be noted. Tribes, too, have
may be, which they may now have in, and to any abrogated treaties unilaterally.
other lands in the Territory of Minnesota or else- As previously noted, some tribes entered into
where” (Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indi- treaties with competing factions in order to secure a
ans, 526 U.S. 172 1999). favorable stance with the victor of a foreign war.
Strictly interpreted, the treaty language could be During the American Revolution, tribes entered into
viewed as a full cession of all rights to the land. The treaties of alliance with both Great Britain and the
Court, however, went beyond the written words in colonies. Allegiances change, and treaties are renego-
the treaty and considered the larger context, giving tiated. During the American Civil War, tribes with
weight to the tribe’s perspective. The tribe would not long histories of relations with the federal govern-
have understood, at that time, that they were giving ment entered into treaties with the Confederacy.

Conclusion Foreman, Grant. 1934. The Five Civilized Tribes.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
The treaty-making process between the United Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1975. Indian Treaties
States and Indian tribes has evolved over the cen- 1778–1883. New York: Interland Press.
turies and continues today in various forms. The Leeds, Stacy. 2005. “By Eminent Domain or Some
most important legacy of Indian treaties is the legal Other Name: A Tribal Perspective on Taking
framework they created. American Indian tribes are Land,” 41 Tulsa Law Review 51.
governments that have negotiated with other sover- Monette, Richard A. 1994. “A New Federalism for
Indian Tribes: The Relationship between the
eigns in an array of political contexts. Modern tribal
United States and Tribes in Light of Our
governments are the outgrowth of indigenous Federalism and Republican Democracy,” 25
nations with centuries of experience in diplomacy University of Toledo Law Review 617.
both internationally and domestically. Pommersheim, Frank. 1995. Braid of Feathers:
Stacy Leeds American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
References and Further Reading Porter, Robert. 2004. “The Inapplicability of American
Berger, Bethany R. 2004. “Indian Policy and the Law to Indian Nations,” 89 Iowa Law Review
Imagined Indian Woman,” 14 Kansas Journal of 1595.
Law and Public Policy 103. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
Brann, Amy C. 2003. “Comment, Karuk Tribe of The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
California v. United States: The Courts Need a University of California Press.
History Lesson,” 37 New England Law Review Richter, Daniel K., and James H. Merrell, eds. 2003.
743. Beyond the Covenant Chain: The Iroquois and Their
Case, David S., and David A. Voluck. 1978. Alaska Neighbors in Indian North America 1600–1800.
Natives and American Law. Fairbanks: University University Park: Pennsylvania State University
of Alaska Press. Press.
Clark, Blue. 1999. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights Royster, Judith V. 1995. “The Legacy of Allotment,”
and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth 27 Arizona State Law Journal 1.
Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sullivan, Julie E. 2004. “Legal Analysis of the Treaty
Debo, Angie. 1970. A History of the Indians of the Violations That Resulted in the Nez Perce War
United States. Norman: University of Oklahoma of 1877,” 40 Idaho Law Review 657.
Press. Viola, Herman J. 1995. Diplomats in Buckskin: A
Deloria, P. S., and Robert Laurence. 1994. History of Indian Delegations in Washington City.
“Negotiating Tribal-State Full Faith and Credit Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Agreements: The Topology of the Negotiation Wilkinson, Charles, and John M. Volkman. 1975.
and the Merits of the Question,” 28 Georgia Law “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty
Review 365. Abrogation: ‘As Long as the Water Flows,
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999. or the Grass Grows Upon the Earth—How
Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Long a Time is That?’” 63 California Law
Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979, vol. 1. Review 601.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1996. “‘The People of the
Fletcher, Matthew L. M. 2004. “The Power to Tax, the States Where They are Found Are Often Their
Power to Destroy, and the Michigan Tribal-State Deadliest Enemies,’ The Indian Side of the Story
Tax Agreements,” 82 University of Detroit Mercy of Indian Rights and Federalism,” 38 Arizona
Law Review 1. Law Review 981.

A Federal View
F
F
or nearly one hundred years of federal treaty more respectful of tribal sovereignty and property
making with the Indians, from 1778 to 1869, than had the colonists. In particular, settlers from the
the federal government’s main objective colonies had persistently encroached on tribal lands
remained constant: acquisition of as much Indian and engaged in fraudulent trade practices with the
land as possible while minimizing the cost in Amer- Indians, prompting violent Indian response and calls
ican lives and dollars. The U.S. Senate ratified more from the colonists for British military aid. Britain
than 365 Indian treaties during this period in pur- intervened to prevent such offenses to the tribes
suit of Indian land and other resources. The federal because the alternative was involvement of British
government chose treaties as the primary vehicle for troops in costly warfare, and because otherwise the
Indian relations, not only because the European Indians might favor France or Spain, which also had
powers that settled North America had established interests in North America. Not surprisingly, the
such a tradition but also because treaties were Indian nations viewed Great Britain more favorably
deemed the most effective instrument for achieving than they did the new government representing the
American land acquisition goals while minimizing settlers.
the loss of non-Indian lives. Other objectives of fed- To deal successfully with the tribes, the former
eral treaty making changed over time, correspond- colonies knew that unity was essential. Tribes could
ing to changes in broader federal Indian policy. For all too easily exploit rivalries among the colonies
example, in the early years, an important policy aim through separate dealings. Indeed, British policy
was to ensure the loyalty of Indian nations to the had long been to take advantage of divisions among
Americans rather than to compete with European the tribes. Thus, although individual colonies had
powers such as England and Spain. During the mid- interests in land acquisition and trade that drew
dle period, the goals of peace and land acquisition them toward individual arrangements with Indian
were pursued through a policy of removing Indian nations, the newly confederated colonies made col-
nations to reservations far from non-Indian commu- lective overtures. And because of tribal expectations
nities. Toward the end of the treaty-making period, born of decades of relations with the British, the
when tribes could no longer threaten alliance with form such overtures took was predetermined.
European powers and non-Indian settlement west- Appointed representatives of the newly united
ward made separation impossible, treaty provisions colonies, known as commissioners, invited large
to facilitate assimilation of tribal members into non- numbers of tribal representatives from particular
Indian society became more central to the treaty- regions to assemble for what was sometimes called a
making process. council or a treaty. The Continental Congress, which
appointed these commissioners, assigned three dif-
ferent groups to deal with Indians in the north,
Establishment and Conduct of south, and middle areas of the new nation. In each
Indian Relations through Treaties sector, the commissioners carried on Native-inspired
When America declared its independence from ceremonial practices first introduced by the British,
Great Britain in 1776 and embarked on the war to such as condolence ceremonies expressing grief over
free itself from British rule, one of its major chal- one another’s losses, presentation of gifts and strings
lenges was to ensure that tribal forces would become of wampum, and speeches of goodwill. Out of these
allies or at least remain neutral. To attack British first councils emerged an informal alliance with the
troops positioned on the St. Lawrence and the Great Oneida and a formal written treaty with the
Lakes, the Continental Army needed to cross Delaware, signed and sent to Congress in 1778. This
through territory of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois treaty was the first the Americans concluded with an
Confederation) and the Lenni Lenape (the Delaware) Indian nation and the only one entered into during
in New York and the Ohio valleys. But the obstacles the Revolutionary War. Due to wartime exigencies,
to securing the friendship or neutrality of these the Treaty of Fort Pitt (Treaty with the Delaware)
Native nations were formidable. During the focused more on military and political relations than
pre–Revolutionary War period, Britain had been far on land acquisition. But even that treaty addressed
13
property issues, as it acknowledged and guaranteed When Native resentment over the post–Revolu-
the territorial rights of the tribe. tionary War treaties began to manifest itself in pan-
During the brief period of the Articles of Con- tribal alliances and threats of war, Congress and the
federation, from 1781 to 1787, American treaty administration reassessed their approach to treaties.
making continued, but the government’s practices Framers of the new Constitution of 1787 strongly
during that time did not set precedents for subse- affirmed exclusive federal power over Indian affairs.
quent government policy. Although most Indian In Article I, Section 8, known as the commerce
nations had remained allied with the British during clause, the Constitution linked congressional control
the Revolutionary War, the tribes had not partici- over Indian relations to similar authority over rela-
pated in the treaty of peace in 1783 between the tions with foreign nations and among states. Implicit
United States and Britain. Weakened by war but no in this linkage was the view that Indian tribes, like
longer immediately threatened by the British, the foreign countries and states, were governments and
American government wanted to dictate terms of to be dealt with as such. The Constitution did not
peace to the Indians while still minimizing further directly specify, however, that these dealings with
hostilities. The dominant view in Congress was that Indian nations were to be by treaty. Its references to
the Indians had been conquered and therefore sur- treaties were more general. The Constitution autho-
rendered their lands and other claims. Secretary of rized the president “by and with the Advice and
War Henry Knox warned, however, that forcing Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
terms on the tribes would require military engage- two thirds of the Senators present concur”; prohib-
ment that risked either defeat or a bad reputation ited states from making treaties; and acknowledged
abroad. that properly made treaties would be the supreme
Congress again chose treaties as the preferred law of the land.
means of dealing with the tribes and again In his first administration, however, George
appointed commissioners to “negotiate” with the Washington continued the pattern of conducting
tribes. This time, however, the commissioners’ most Indian relations via treaty and instituted the
directions were to insist on treaty terms involving same ratification process for Indian treaties that was
land cessions and prisoner return rather than to used for foreign treaties. Until the Senate provided
secure the assent of the tribes. Commissioners aban- its ratification by two-thirds vote, the treaties could
doned most of the pretense of adhering to Native not take effect. A remaining question was how much
ceremonies associated with treaty making. As a the Senate would become involved in the treaty
result of this approach, although the Continental negotiations themselves. President Washington
Congress concluded eight treaties with Indian made some early attempts to engage the Senate in
nations during this period, Indian dissatisfaction planning for treaty negotiations. Because the treaties
with treaty terms precluded the possibility of a real entailed significant U.S. financial commitments for
and lasting peace. land purchases, gifts, payment of Indian debts to
Furthermore, complicating and defeating traders, and other purposes, as well as drawing of
American treaty-making initiatives during this boundaries in which settlers and speculators had an
period was uncertainty about the role of states in intense interest, political support was essential. Pres-
negotiating treaties with the Indians. The provision ident Washington soon realized, however, that secur-
in the Articles of Confederation dealing with control ing detailed advance instructions from the Senate
of Indian affairs was ambiguous, at once declaring would be cumbersome and detrimental to U.S.
and then disclaiming congressional power over strategic interests. Later in his administration, he
Indians who were “members of the states.” To add limited his requests to more general guidance.
to the confusion, the section ended with a proviso The return to bilateral, treaty-based Indian rela-
that “the legislative right of any State within its own tions under the new Constitution reflected a hard-
limits be not infringed or violated.” States such as nosed calculation of the relative costs of war and
New York took this language to mean that they had land purchases. Washington’s secretary of war,
authority, under the Articles of Confederation, to Henry Knox, estimated that the cost of fighting the
make their own treaties and proceeded to seek land Indians would be at least $2 million and the loss of
cessions on their own, capturing lands that settlers lives immeasurable. In contrast, eliminating the Indi-
had occupied in violation of congressional bans and ans’ cause for grievance by compensating them for
federal treaty terms. land confiscated under earlier treaties would cost

Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal View 15
less than $20,000. Knox’s analysis is manifest in the be transferred without its permission. Thus, the bur-
earliest treaties of this period. Notably, land that the den of overcoming Indian resistance to sale fell upon
United States had claimed by right of conquest of the the federal government. The settlers and speculators
Iroquois and the Northwest tribes in the Treaties of did not really care how the land became available for
Fort Stanwix (Treaty with the Six Nations) and Fort non-Indian settlement and purchase; they just
McIntosh (Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.) of 1784 wanted more land at low cost and without the haz-
and 1785 were purchased from those same Indian ards of war. Because Indians were not U.S. citizens
nations via the two Treaties of Fort Harmar in 1789 capable of voting, the federal government was politi-
(Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.; Treaty with the Six cally accountable only to the non-Indian population
Nations). and adopted methods suited to meet the settlers’
During this early period under the Constitution, and speculators’ demands.
federal legislation accompanied treaties as a means Federal treaty negotiators resorted to an array
of conducting Indian affairs but did not really of sharp or unsavory methods for obtaining Indian
detract from bilateral agreements as the primary treaties. They also took advantage of government
means of carrying on relations with the tribes. The policies, as well as practices by settlers and traders,
only major piece of legislation, the Non-Intercourse that undermined tribal resistance. Finally, the
Act of 1790, aimed its mandates at non-Indians more United States used its superior control over its own
than at the tribes. It prohibited trade with the Indi- populace to give itself the sole power to purchase
ans absent a federal license, required federal Indian land, in what is known as a monopsony. The
approval of all land transactions with the tribes, and cumulative result of these stratagems was the
applied federal criminal laws to Indian country wholesale transfer of tribal lands to the federal gov-
except where the crimes were committed by one ernment via treaty, with minimal compensation to
Indian against another or where an Indian offender the tribes.
had already been punished by the tribe itself. These The shadier methods of acquiring land by treaty
provisions actually facilitated treaty relations by included taking advantage of superior knowledge of
removing causes for conflict between the United the English language, dealing with individuals or
States and the tribes, such as fraudulent trading groups that were unauthorized to sell, offering secret
deals and improperly authorized land transactions. “gifts” to tribal leaders, playing off one tribe against
Many violations of the Non-Intercourse Act were another, and threatening force. The Cherokees com-
simultaneously treaty violations. plained, for example, that in their treaty of 1791 the
The fact that the United States chose to deal federal negotiator had inserted rights for the Ameri-
with Indian nations via treaties does not really cans without the Cherokees’ knowledge. They fur-
answer the question of whether these treaties were ther charged that the negotiator had bribed the inter-
truly voluntary, bilateral agreements. It was impor- preter to recite the land cession as involving a
tant to the federal government, both to avoid hostili- smaller amount of land than was actually inserted in
ties with the tribes and to present an honorable face the treaty and the payment for the land as twice the
to European nations, to deal with Native nations on amount written in the treaty.
a consensual basis. At the same time, the political The United States frequently tried to locate the
pressure from settlers and speculators was intense to most agreeable tribal leader to conclude land ces-
expand the territory available for white settlement. sions, paying little attention to tribal political organi-
And the United States, saddled with Revolutionary zation or the legitimate authority of the individual(s)
War debts and a new nation to build, was eager to involved. Fortunately for the United States, the
gain control of tribal lands so it could resell to the tribes lacked any effective mechanisms for restrain-
settlers and speculators at a profit. ing unauthorized individuals from making such
From the earliest years of English settlement, it deals. In 1825, after the head chiefs of the Muscogee
had been accepted legal doctrine that the tribes had Creek Nation had refused to sell tribal lands and had
some kind of property claim to the lands they occu- departed the treaty council, the treaty commission-
pied, one that must be extinguished before Euro- ers nonetheless pronounced the council a legal one
peans and their descendants could take full title. Pre- and proceeded to make an agreement with a minor
sumably, that meant that the Indians could refuse to chief. The fact that the treaty offered protection to
sell. And the federal government, like its British the signer suggests that the treaty commissioners
colonial predecessor, had decreed that no land could knew their transaction was with a person of dubious

authority to bind the Muscogee Creek Nation. In Another frequently successful strategy of the
1835, with the United States determined to fulfill its United States was to exploit intertribal conflicts over
promise to Georgia to remove the Cherokee from claims to land. Sometimes overtly, sometimes
that state, the United States deliberately chose to implicitly, the United States would warn tribes that,
treat with Major Ridge, the leader of a minority bloc if they did not enter into treaties of cession for par-
of Cherokee supporting removal, rather than with ticular tracts, the federal government would make a
John Ross, the staunch opponent of removal who treaty for the same land with a competitor tribe.
had a majority following. The treaty that was con- Thus, the Muscogee Creeks were surprised to learn
cluded with the Ridge faction specified that it would that the United States had purchased their lands
not be binding unless approved by the Cherokee from the Choctaws. And in 1818, the United States
Nation in council. But after the council met and sought to persuade the Cherokees to sell by threat-
rejected the treaty, the United States sent notice to ening to make a deal for the very same land with
the Cherokees to meet with federal negotiators to the Chickasaws. William Henry Harrison was a
conclude a new treaty. This notice provided that any notoriously successful practitioner of this strategy,
Indians who did not attend would be deemed to taking advantage of the fact that villages sometimes
have approved any treaty signed by the negotiators. included members of several tribal groups that
When the Ross party boycotted the gathering, leav- shared common areas. He would induce representa-
ing only a small number of Ridge supporters, the tives of one group to make a cession, threatening
United States signed a treaty with them anyway— others that they would get nothing if they refused to
the Treaty of New Echota (Treaty with the Chero- go along. That is how he secured a cession of
kee–December 29, 1935). The preamble to the treaty Piankashaw lands in southwestern Indiana in 1804.
justified U.S. reliance on only a small portion of the Theoretically, the tribe that had not made the first
Cherokee Nation by noting the history of negotia- deal could have held out for a separate payment.
tions with the Cherokee and the prior warning that But the United States stuck to a policy of paying less
nonattendance would be treated as assent to the for later claims. And in any event, once settlers
council’s actions. After outraged Cherokee leaders entered the land following the first sale, the land
complained of the methods used to secure the treaty, became depleted of game and less valuable to the
Senator Henry Clay sought to prevent its ratification, remaining tribe.
proposing that the Senate refuse to approve it based Not only did the United States seek to impress
on the absence of authority on the part of the Chero- the tribes with its economic and military might by
kee who signed it. The Senate rejected this proposal sending troops along with treaty negotiators, it
by nearly two to one. sometimes resorted to threats of force to secure
Sometimes the United States bought off the treaty cessions of land. In negotiations with the
legitimate tribal leaders with side deals, which Choctaw in 1820, Andrew Jackson found the tribal
might or might not be acknowledged in the lan- leaders adamantly opposed to selling their land. He
guage of the treaty. In 1790, for example, the Treaty informed them that the United States would wage
of New York with the Creeks ceded most of the war, destroy them, and remove them despite their
Creek lands in Georgia to the United States. “Secret opposition. More circumspectly but no less effec-
articles” in the treaty guaranteed a perpetual salary tively, in 1809 William Henry Harrison informed the
of $1,200 per year to the head chief of the Creek and reluctant Miami that, if they continued to refuse to
perpetual salaries of $100 per year to lesser chiefs. sell their land, he would “extinguish the council
The Chickasaw treaty of 1805 entailed federal pay- fire.” Such threats are antithetical to the notion of a
ments of nearly $5,000 to assorted tribal leaders, a free exchange.
common feature of treaties made at that time. And a The federal government also took advantage of
treaty of 1855 with Pacific Northwest coast tribes private non-Indian practices that made treaty mak-
(Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc.–January ing and land cessions more advantageous for the
22, 1855) (Kappler 1975, 669–673) used special cash American side. Prominent among those practices
annuities for the chiefs to overcome tribal hostility were illegal settlement by non-Indians on tribal
and secure concessions of land. American leaders lands and trading with the tribes that resulted in
such as Andrew Jackson understood, however, that hefty Native debts.
the bribery must be kept secret, or the influence of Illegal settlement by non-Indians weakened the
the chiefs would be destroyed. Indians’ position in treaty bargaining in two ways.

First, the presence of non-Indians on tribal lands exchange for cessions of land. The treaties of 1805
brought new microbes, to which the Natives had lit- between the United States and the Cherokee, Chick-
tle resistance. Death and disease left the tribal lands asaw, Choctaw, and Creek, in which the United
abandoned or worth little to those Natives who States acquired eight million acres of land, con-
remained. Second, non-Indian presence and settle- formed to this pattern. After 1825, nearly all the
ment, especially agricultural pursuits and animal treaties signed with tribes in the Old Northwest Ter-
husbandry, depleted the game that supplied an ritories, including the Sac and Fox, the Miami, and
important component of the Natives’ livelihood. the Ottawa, allowed for traders’ claims. The United
Land cleared for agriculture diminished the forest States was sometimes skeptical of the amounts the
habitat for wild game, non-Indians hunted the traders claimed, demanding investigations and
game, and domesticated livestock competed with insisting on documentation. And disputes over the
the game for food. After the game disappeared or traders’ practices sometimes precipitated conflict
fled elsewhere, the lands held less value for the with the tribes, leading the United States to place
tribes, and the Indians were far more willing to limits on the exchanges through the Non-Intercourse
enter into treaties of cession. For the settlers, the les- Acts and otherwise. But the accumulation of debts
son was clear: trespassing on tribal lands would provided incentives both for the Indians to cede
ultimately be rewarded by the availability of new lands in the treaties and for traders to lobby for such
land. It is difficult to imagine a greater incentive for treaties.
illegal non-Indian settlement on lands previously Perhaps the most powerful factor producing
guaranteed to the tribes. Illegal settlement persisted land cession treaties with the Indians was the federal
despite the federal prohibitions on such settlement government’s effective control over who could pur-
and the concern of the United States that squatters chase lands from the tribes. Like the British, the
would infuriate the Indians and precipitate costly United States determined that it would be highly
wars. Of course, legal settlement had some of the advantageous to the non-Indian population as a
same impact as illegal settlement—non-Indians whole to restrict the market for Native lands. Partly
reaching the furthermost reaches of land purchased it was a military calculation. Speculators and other
from the tribes would also spread disease and thin private parties that had done business with the
the game, yielding further land cessions. And the tribes in the early decades of European settlement
United States encouraged such settlement by selling sometimes cheated the Indians, misstating boundary
lands purchased from the Indians at a discount, lines or providing defective goods in exchange for
hoping for large benefits down the line through the land. The tribes often responded to such prac-
future land sales. tices with attacks on local settlers, and the settlers
The other private practice that the United States expected the U.S. military to come to their rescue.
saw as a boon to treaty negotiations was the trading Requiring federal permission for the sale of tribal
that took place between non-Indians and tribe mem- lands, as provided in the Non-Intercourse Acts,
bers. Contact with Europeans had left the Indians helped prevent such outbreaks.
dependent on trade goods such as guns and cooking From a business point of view, the absence of
utensils; and after the decline of the fur trade due to multiple bidders for tribal lands left the tribes at the
depleted stocks of game, land was the major asset mercy of the federal government. Once the War of
the tribes could use to exchange for such goods. As 1812 eliminated the opportunity for Native dealings
Indian trade debts accumulated, the traders pressed with Great Britain or any other European power, the
the United States to arrange land cessions that United States had a monopsony—a buyer’s monop-
would put cash in the hands of the Indians, who oly. Freed from the possibility of bidding wars, the
would in turn be obliged to use the funds to repay non-Indian population could benefit from rock-
their debts. Alternatively, traders recommended cut- bottom sales prices to the United States, so long as
ting out the middle step and giving the cash directly the United States was willing to forgo substantial
to them. For example, by the end of the eighteenth profits. In fact, the United States was in such a supe-
century a single trading firm, Panton, Leslie and rior bargaining position by virtue of its monopsony
Company, had acquired many of the debts owed by that it could afford a 5,000 percent markup on the
members of the southeast tribes. Panton, Leslie lob- land and still sell at prices advantageous to the set-
bied the U.S. government to make treaties in which tlers. As Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton
the Americans would pay off tribal debts in noted in 1826, the United States was buying land

from the Indians at two cents or less per acre and traders and to create jobs for political cronies, not to
selling it to settlers for $1.25 per acre or more. Some compensate the Indians or provide for their future
tribes did better, especially as they came to value well-being. Ultimately, however, federal treaty mak-
their remaining land and to resist parting with it. But ing ended because the House of Representatives
the Senate was vigilant in amending treaties to became resentful of demands that it appropriate
reduce the size or duration of payments, and the money to fulfill obligations contained in treaties it
U.S. Claims Commission, more than one hundred had had no part in ratifying. A particular source of
years later, awarded more than $800,000,000 to tribes irritation was a provision in the Osage treaty of 1868,
mostly for “grossly inadequate and unconscionable” replicated in some other treaties that ceded Indian
payment for ceded lands. lands directly to the railroads rather than to the gov-
The treaty system of pressure, trickery, and hard ernment for addition to the public domain and resale
bargaining, coupled with the outward form of bilat- to needy settlers. But members of the House were
eral, consensual relations, suited American interests also unhappy with treaties of 1867 and 1868 involv-
well. Straightforward conquest would have cost too ing tribes of the plains along with the Navajo, com-
much in lives and dollars. Bargaining in accordance plaining that they supplied the tribes with too much
with honorable principles of contract would have money over too long a period of time, thereby delay-
cost too much as well and would have taken more ing the day when tribe members would feel pressure
time than eager settlers, speculators, and traders to give up their tribal affiliations, accept non-Indian
were willing to tolerate. The treaty policy the United “civilization,” and become self-reliant. Attacking the
States adopted required some Indian wars and took treaty-making system more broadly, one representa-
longer than some U.S. citizens wished. It reflected a tive asserted that “the idea of this Government mak-
compromise between the rough-and-tumble fron- ing treaties with bands of wild and roving Indians is
tiersmen, who preferred swift seizure of tribal lands simply preposterous and ridiculous. It is not good
at the risk of war, and the interests of well-placed judgment or statesmanship; it is child’s play, nothing
easterners who wanted to treat the Indians more more and nothing less.” Beginning in 1868, the
honorably and respect their property rights. House refused to appropriate funds to fulfill
Indian treaties represented such peculiar bar- promises made in the 1867 and 1868 treaties, despite
gains that influential Americans began to question the fact that the Senate had ratified the treaties.
their use altogether. Georgia’s governor, speaking in Finally, in 1871, the impasse between the houses of
1830 at the height of the Cherokee removal contro- Congress ended when they agreed upon legislation
versy, declared that “treaties were expedients by that would affirm the validity of past treaties but
which ignorant, intractable, and savage people were declared that “hereafter no Indian nation or tribe
induced without bloodshed to yield up what civi- within the territory of the United States shall be
lized peoples had a right to possess by virtue of that acknowledged or recognized as an independent
command of the Creator delivered to man upon his nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States
formation—be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the may contract by treaty.” Henceforth, agreements
earth, and subdue it.” Congress expressed a similar might be made with the tribes, but they would only
view, stating that payment for tribal lands was “but become law when enacted into legislation by both
the substitute which humanity and expediency have houses.
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 Specific Treaty Objectives
allowed to the claims of civilized communities over and Provisions from a
those of savage tribes.” Federal Perspective
By the middle of the nineteenth century, even The only treaty made during the Revolutionary War,
those who viewed themselves as friends of the Indi- the Treaty of Fort Pitt with the Delaware Nation
ans raised doubts about the treaty system, calling it a (1778), manifests the fledgling American nation’s
farce. Henry Whipple, Episcopal bishop of Min- desire to gain support in its conflict against Great
nesota in the 1860s, urged the United States to deal Britain. Each signer agreed to assist the other in
with the tribes as wards rather than as independent times of war, and the Delaware specifically agreed to
nations. The real purpose of the treaties, he allow free passage to U.S. troops across its lands. The
observed, was to pay worthless debts of the Indian United States, in turn, agreed to build a fort so that

the Delaware elders, women, and children could be “good faith” and directed its Indian agents to reduce
protected while the warriors “engaged against the such sources of irritation to the tribes as fraudulent
common enemy.” The sovereignty of the Delaware is traders and encroaching settlers. The result was a
acknowledged in a requirement that representatives series of treaties, exemplified by the Treaty of Hol-
from both nations, sitting together, be empowered to ston with the Cherokee, made in 1790 and reaf-
try individual wrongdoers, either Indian or non- firmed in 1794, and the Treaty of Canandaigua with
Indian. So eager was the United States for a the Iroquois, made in 1794. These treaties more
Delaware alliance that it also promised to guarantee clearly recognized that the Indian nations were
the territorial integrity of Delaware lands and to reserving their own lands; clarified boundaries
allow friendly tribes, under the leadership of the where they had been in dispute; increased the
Delaware, “to form a state whereof the Delaware amount of compensation through annuities, goods,
nation shall be the head, and have a representation and otherwise to be paid to the Indians; and, in the
in Congress.” This treaty made little difference dur- case of the Iroquois, affirmed that the United States
ing the war, and the Indian representation in Con- would not claim any Indian lands unless the Indians
gress never came to pass. wished to sell them. War with the Indians erupted
With so many tribes having sided with Britain nonetheless in the Northwest Territory, as the Indi-
during the Revolutionary War, the earliest postwar ans appeared to be unifying under the leadership of
Indian treaties aimed at land acquisition and the Tecumseh (Shawnee), among others. It was not until
return of prisoners but also at affirming the exclusive the Battle of Fallen Timbers, in 1794, when the British
loyalty of the tribes to the United States and main- demonstrated their reluctance to come to the aid of
taining peace with the tribes. Convinced that it had the Indians, that the United States was able to
conquered the tribes when it defeated the British, the achieve the larger treaty cessions of land that non-
new federal government believed it could use the Indian settlers craved. In the Treaty of Greenville,
treaties to demand additional tribal lands of the Six which followed that conflict, the Indians relin-
Nations, the tribes of the Old Northwest, and the quished their claims to the southern two-thirds of
southeastern nations. Thus, treaties such as those at Ohio and a small part of what is now Indiana in
Fort Stanwix, Fort McIntosh, Fort Harmar, and exchange for compensation and continued hunting
Hopewell set boundary lines, with Indian settlement rights in the ceded lands. But because the United
allowed on one side and outlawed on the other. States remained militarily weak, with isolated forts
These treaties also included acknowledgements by dotting a far-reaching boundary along the Ohio, it
the tribes that they were “under the protection of the continued to pursue diplomacy with the Indians
United States and of no other sovereign whatso- rather than attempting to subdue them through
ever.” To assure the dominance of the United States brute force. Indeed, both the Treaty of Canandaigua
and to avoid sources of conflict, these treaties also and the Treaty of Greenville were concluded through
reserved lands for U.S. military forts and trading ceremonies showing respect for Indian ways, return-
posts, denied American protection to illegal settlers ing to Indian-preferred vocabulary, such as “Great
on Indian lands, and required that the tribes deliver Father” for the United States.
up Indians who committed certain crimes against Even the boundaries created by these more sub-
American citizens. stantial treaties of cession were difficult for the
The simultaneous goals of peace with the Indi- United States to maintain, however, given the politi-
ans and acquisition of their lands were difficult for cal pressures from non-Indian settlers. So, in these
the federal government to maintain, however. The early decades of the nation, leaders such as Wash-
tribes resented their dispossession under the treaties, ington’s secretary of war, Henry Knox—and, later,
and the land-hungry settlers ignored even those Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and
boundaries, establishing themselves on lands allo- James Monroe—held out hope that the Indians
cated to the Indians. Furthermore, in the years before could be persuaded to part with even larger tracts of
the War of 1812, the British remained a persistent land if the men would only give up hunting as a
threat to the fledgling United States, and the possi- way of life and take up agriculture, which had
bility of an Indian-British alliance worried American heretofore been the province of women. As Jefferson
political leaders. Concerned about the possible out- said in 1803, “[W]hile the Indians are learning to do
break of war with the Indians, Congress announced better on less land, our increasing numbers will be
its intention to deal with the Indians on the basis of calling for more land, and thus a coincidence of

interests will be produced between those who have Jefferson’s negotiating team produced mixed
land to spare and want other necessities and those results, with the Cherokees and the Creeks reluc-
that have necessities to spare and want land.” The tantly ceding as little land as possible and the
treaties of this time reflected that objective. Thus, for Chickasaws and the Choctaws offering more. The
example, the Treaty of Greenville (Treaty with the Treaty of Mount Dexter with the Choctaws, made in
Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Kappler 1975, 39–45) 1805, illustrates the treaty terms most sought by the
specified that a tribe could ask that a part of its United States during this period. In exchange for a
annuity be paid out in the form of “domestic ani- large cession of lands in southern Mississippi Terri-
mals, implements of husbandry, and other utensils tory, the United States paid $50,000, $48,000 of
convenient for them, and in compensation for use- which was to enable the tribe “to discharge the debt
ful artificers who may reside with or near them, and due to their merchants and traders. . . .” Jefferson
be employed for their benefit.” focused heavily on the location of the ceded lands in
Indian debts to traders also figured into the relation to U.S. military objectives in the South. A
treaties of the young United States. As the numbers treaty the same year with the Creeks included
of game and fur pelts on Indian lands diminished allowance of a horse path through Creek country as
due to non-Indian encroachment, Indians had well as the sought-after land cession, but compensa-
much less to exchange for the manufactured goods tion paid was not specifically targeted for debt
to which they had become accustomed, and found repayment.
themselves in greater and greater debt to traders. In the Northwest Territory, then governed by a
As of 1803, for example, the Creeks alone owed young William Henry Harrison, the federal govern-
$113,000. The only thing of value that the Indians ment’s objective was to prevent Indian wars by
had to offer was their land. But given the federal removing non-Indian settlers trespassing on Indian
government’s restrictions on transfer of Indian lands and to facilitate cessions by resolving bound-
lands to private parties, the Indians could not settle ary disputes among the many tribes in that area and
their debts by giving land directly to the creditors. fostering Indian assimilation. As traditional means
So the non-Indian traders began to pressure the of subsistence declined for the tribes, treaties on such
U.S. government to negotiate land cessions with the terms became easier to achieve. In the 1809 Treaty of
tribes, with the expectation that federal compensa- Fort Wayne with the Delaware, Potawatomi, Miami,
tion to the tribes would quickly be diverted to sat- and Eel River tribes, for example, the United States
isfy the mounting obligations. Thus, debt satisfac- acquired more than two and a half million acres at
tion and land acquisition proved to be comfortable less than two cents an acre, giving the United States
companions as U.S. treaty aims. President Jefferson control over the land in the Old Northwest. In words
even suggested that the Indians be encouraged to that ring hollow in hindsight, Harrison assured the
run up such debt at U.S. factories that they would Indians that “[t]he United States would always
become impelled to “lop them off” with land adhere to their engagements. To do otherwise would
cessions. be offensive to the great spirit and all the world
In the first decade of the nineteenth century, the would look upon them as a faithless people.” This
United States pursued these aims with an emphasis expressed concern about world opinion probably
on proper diplomacy; Jefferson’s secretary of war, counted for little with federal officials, because the
Henry Dearborn, urged his negotiators to use “all European powers of the day were busy conducting
prudent means in your power . . . to reconcile [the their own colonial campaigns. For them to condemn
Indians] and to remove every obstacle to their the United States in its treatment of the Indians
mutual friendship.” In addition to seeking land and would have been hypocritical and contrary to their
debt repayment, Jefferson wanted to obtain rights-of- own interests.
way through Indian country for roads that would Other treaties of this era, such as the treaty with
knit the growing nation together, to consolidate the the Osage made in 1808 and ratified in 1810,
newly acquired western territory of the Louisiana affirmed that the Indians would not sell lands to any
Purchase, and to secure the Mississippi valley against foreign power or to citizens of the United States
foreign invasion. The Spanish presence in Florida without approval of the federal government, and
was a particular concern; Jefferson noted in 1808 that offered certificates redeemable for trade at the fac-
the United States needed a strong buffer of militia tory or fort, but only to Indians who remained
between Indians and Spanish-controlled Florida. friendly to the United States. The treaties of this

decade reflect the growing inequality of power that provisions for removal of the Indians, entailing
between the United States and the Indian nations, exchange of lands east of the river for lands to the
the tribes acknowledging the friendship and protec- west, found their way into the treaties. One illustra-
tion of the federal government and the treaties them- tion of this new thrust was the treaty of 1817 with
selves establishing terms that were less and less the Cherokee, in which they gave up two large tracts
accommodating to the tribes. At the same time, these in Georgia and North Carolina for land of equivalent
treaties also acted as a relatively new form of politi- size on the Arkansas and White rivers. Eleven years
cal recognition of the tribes. By attesting to the legiti- later, the same group of western Cherokee signed
macy of the Indian tribes with whom it signed for- another treaty moving them beyond the western
mal treaties, as well as the tribes’ “Indian title” to boundary of the Arkansas Territory, with emphatic
their lands, the United States was consolidating the language promising them a “permanent home, . . .
status of Indian nations as distinct political entities. that shall never, in all future time, be embarrassed by
Although the U.S. negotiators may not have having extended around it the lines, or placed over it
intended this result of governmental recognition, the the jurisdiction of a Territory or State. . . .” Although
ingrained practice of dealing through treaties led the many Cherokees steadfastly resisted this plan, a sig-
United States along that path. nificant number had chosen to move west.
Although the Treaty of Fort Wayne (Treaty with Along with the dissenting group of eastern
the Delaware, Etc.–June 7, 1803) succeeded in shift- Cherokees, many other tribes were unwilling to
ing land from tribes to the United States, it did not exchange lands and remove. So, with them, the
produce peace with the Indians, many of whom con- United States settled for cession of the largest tracts
sidered its Indian signers unauthorized to make possible, reserving small domains for the tribes and
such an agreement. Siding with the British in the heavily promoting the tribes’ shift to agrarian
War of 1812, these Indians also suffered the conse- pursuits.
quences of U.S. victory. Indeed, Francis Paul Prucha, One interesting issue that arose with regard to
who has written definitive works on Indian treaties, these reserves was whether the reserved lands could
describes the War of 1812 as “a watershed in the his- be held by the Indians in private ownership, or fee
tory of treaty making with the Indians.” With defeat simple. A treaty in 1817 negotiated with the Wyan-
of the British in 1812 and the Creeks in 1814, the dot, Delaware, Shawnee, Seneca, and others at the
Indians no longer posed a serious threat east of the Rapids of the Miami incorporated such a scheme.
Mississippi, and the United States assumed the dom- But this form of tribal landholding threatened the
inant position in North America. Postwar treaties legally questionable but rapidly exploding private
with Indian tribes confirmed this arrangement market for rights to acquire former Indian lands
through terms that were less and less accommodat- once the United States extinguished the Indians’
ing to the tribes. For example, the punitive 1814 right of possession. These “rights of preemption”
treaty with the Creeks at Fort Jackson ceded would be valueless if the Indians acquired full own-
immense Creek land holdings, roughly twenty mil- ership through the treaty. So the treaty had to be
lion acres in Alabama and Georgia, without compen- modified before the Senate would ratify it; and this
sation. Under the treaty, the land was deemed “an treaty, as well as future treaties with other tribes,
equivalent for all expenses incurred in prosecuting specified that reserved lands would be held “in the
the war to its termination.” The treaty also gave the same manner as Indian reservations have been
United States rights to establish military and trading heretofore held.”
posts and roads within Creek territory, and all hos- With little room to bargain in this immediate
tile Creeks who had fought against the United States postwar period, the Indians focused on the form and
were to be surrendered. amount of their compensation. A particular concern
Over the next fifteen years, treaties with the of the United States was to avoid perpetual annuities
Indians produced larger and larger land cessions. as much as possible, because they were inconsistent
With lands now available west of the Mississippi with the U.S. goal of assimilation. Like rehabilitative
through the Louisiana Purchase, the United States alimony in modern-day divorce cases, payments to
began to seek relinquishment of all Indian lands east Indians were to be made only for the period of time
of the river and removal of the tribes to guaranteed it would take, as treaty negotiator William Clark
lands in the West. Although this idea did not origi- wrote, “to teach them to subsist themselves by the
nate after the War of 1812, it was only after the war arts of civilized life. . . .” In the treaty of 1825 that

Clark negotiated with the Osages, for example, live- treaty promises to the Indians, arguing that the very
stock, farming utensils, and technical assistance signing of these treaties implied that Indian commu-
were primary elements. A treaty of 1826 with the nities had governments of their own not subject to
Potawatomi, typical for its time, promised annual the laws of the United States. Not only did the Con-
sums for the education of Indian youth. stitution require adherence to the treaties, but so did
Toward the end of the 1820s, as positions of Christian morality, which made it a sin to violate
power and tactics changed, U.S. negotiators began to one’s solemn commitments.
suggest that treaties were not the best way of dealing Georgia and its supporters, including Baptist
with the tribes. In the South, Andrew Jackson, who missionary Reverend Isaac McCoy and Georgia
had risen to prominence in wars with the Creeks, politician Wilson Lumpkin, contended in response
argued that Indians have only “possessory rights to that treaties had been a huge mistake and were
the soil, for the purpose of hunting and not the right nothing more than a mockery and a farce. How,
to domain,” concluding that “[C]ongress has the full Lumpkin asked, could a guardian make a govern-
power, by law, to regulate all the concerns of the ment-to-government agreement with its own ward?
Indians.” Jackson rejected the idea that Indians were Those sharing his view pointed to the treaty provi-
independent nations with rights of sovereignty, a sions acknowledging the Cherokees’ dependence
position echoed in the statement of the secretary of on the United States, as well as the reality of
war, Henry Calhoun, that “it is perfectly absurd to changed circumstances. Although agreements are
hold treaties with those within our limits, as they made precisely to protect against changed circum-
neither are, nor can be, independent of our govern- stances, that fact did not appear to give Lumpkin or
ment.” This critique of treaty making was to gain the others of his ilk any pause. In the end, the
force over time; but the practice continued for more Cherokee bill passed; Jackson signed it into law on
than another forty years, with more than sixty-seven May 28, 1830. Unwilling to acquiesce, the Cherokee
Indian treaties ratified while Jackson himself was made passionate appeals to Congress and pursued
president. their cause through litigation before the U.S.
Treaties of the Jacksonian period of the 1830s Supreme Court. In two decisions rendered by Chief
pressed hard on the Indians to remove from areas in Justice John Marshall in 1832, the Court affirmed
the East that were occupied or coveted by non- the Cherokees’ status as a “domestic dependent
Indians. In the Old Northwest, a majority of the nation” (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia) occupying and
treaties provided for the reduction of the land base governing a territory that was not subject to Geor-
without removal. But several provided for permis- gia state law (Worcester v. Georgia). These decisions
sive removal and eight for obligatory removal. Some established rules of interpretation, or canons of con-
of these treaties reserved land for chiefs or other struction, for Indian treaties. Among those rules
individuals or bands that refused to migrate beyond were requirements that treaties be interpreted as
the Mississippi. the Indians would have understood them and that
In the South, even more powerful storm clouds ambiguities in treaty language be resolved in favor
of removal gathered. The best-known treaties dur- of protecting the Indians’ sovereignty and property.
ing this time involve the Cherokee, whose national In effect, the Court established, as a general default
sovereignty and right to refuse sale of their lands position, that treaties would not defeat preexisting
had been recognized in the Treaties of Hopewell Indian rights, whether inherent in the tribes or rec-
(Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785) and Holston ognized in earlier treaties, unless Congress was
(Treaty with the Cherokee, 1791). When Georgia clear in expressing its intent to do so. These princi-
boldly extended its laws over Cherokee territory, ples reflected basic rules of contract interpretation
and the federal government could not persuade the that favored the much weaker party in negotia-
remaining Cherokees to sell their land and leave for tions, especially when that party is forced to negoti-
the Indian Territory, the stage was set for a national ate in a foreign language. They also may have
debate on the sanctity of Indian treaties. A bill to stemmed from the Court’s awareness that Indians
remove the Cherokee without their consent made its were not sewn into the constitutional fabric in any
way through the Congress, prompting angry way that resembled consent.
protests and avid defense. The Jackson administration snubbed Chief Jus-
Protestant minister Jeremiah Evarts was the tice Marshall’s decision and continued to foist
most vocal and eloquent proponent of keeping removal treaties on the Cherokee and other south-

ern tribes. Even as the debate over Cherokee and brutally carried out the removal. Although the
removal swirled about the Capitol, the Choctaw suffering of the Cherokee was immense, it was
capitulated to what they believed was inevitable, redeemed to some extent by the treaty provisions
signing the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (Treaty affirming political autonomy and land rights of the
with the Choctaw, 1830). Indeed, Jackson’s negotia- Indian nations, born of the Cherokees’ victory in
tors had told them that, if they refused to move Worcester v. Georgia and the forceful pro-treaty
west, state law would be imposed on them, and rhetoric of Jeremiah Evarts and others. Even Presi-
their tribal existence would no longer be recog- dent Jackson could not abandon treaty making,
nized. The treaty offered many inducements and though he thought it a farce. The practice was too
reassurances to secure the Choctaws’ land cessions embedded in American and Native thinking about
and emigration. Departing from past practice, the proper ways of conducting relations.
new lands west of the Mississippi were granted to During this same period, outside the South the
the tribe in fee simple, “to inure to them while they same pressures for removal prevailed, and U.S.
shall exist as a nation and live on it.” Furthermore, treaty policy took a similar form. However, in the
the United States promised that, in exchange for Old Northwest, the tribes were smaller and had been
removal, it would secure to the Choctaws “the juris- moved about on numerous occasions already, lead-
diction and government of all the persons and prop- ing to some variations from the southern treaties.
erty that may be within their limits” and would pre- Thus, although groups of the Ho-Chunk and
vent the establishment of any state or federal Potawatomi tribes entered into relatively standard
territory upon their lands. Protection against unau- removal treaties, some other tribes managed to stay
thorized intruders as well as domestic and foreign put. The western bands of Chippewa, for example,
enemies was included as well. And additional annu- made the treaty of 1837, signed at Fort Snelling, in
ities and schooling for Choctaw youth were also which they gave up large wooded tracts in eastern
part of the package, along with houses for the Minnesota and north central Wisconsin in exchange
chiefs. For those who could not bring themselves to for annuities, settlement of traders’ claims, payoffs to
leave, individual lands would be allotted in fee powerful leaders, and retention of hunting, fishing,
within the ceded territory. and rice-gathering rights on the ceded lands “during
The treaty with the Choctaw was followed over the pleasure of the President of the United States.”
the next three years by similar treaties with the Although President Zachary Taylor tried to effect
Chickasaw, the Creeks, and the Seminoles. But the removal in 1850, the Chippewa remained in place,
Cherokees, most of whom had refused to leave for and the unilateral nature of the removal order ulti-
the West under the 1817 and 1828 treaties, tried to mately led the Supreme Court to declare it void.
resist removal, staking their position on the favor- Removal fever also found its way into treaties
able ruling they had received from the U.S. Supreme with the New York tribes. A powerful land company
Court. At this point, the United States was able to held preemption rights to the Indian lands and
exploit a division within the Cherokee Nation, one wanted the Indian title extinguished. Furthermore,
that pitted the Treaty Party, made up of those who the City of Buffalo was eager to expand into areas
wanted the best bargain possible in light of then part of the Iroquois territory. Treaties in 1831
inevitable removal, against a group of adamant and 1832 with the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin
removal opponents. Only 350 Cherokee among the had provided land for westward-migrating Oneidas.
nearly 20,000 remaining in Georgia supported the But the Treaty of Buffalo Creek in 1838 with the
Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which was tailored Seneca and other New York Indians succeeded in
much like the Choctaw Treaty of Dancing Rabbit achieving land cessions without actually resettling
Creek, ceding eastern lands in exchange for new the tribes on the territory in Kansas that was set
lands in the West to be held in fee simple. While the aside for them. The Seneca and the Oneida remain-
payment amounts differed, the only major distinc- ing in New York stayed on in the state, albeit on
tion between the Cherokee and Choctaw treaties was tracts much smaller than before.
that the Cherokee agreement did not allow individ- The removal plan, premised as it was on the
ual allotments within the ceded lands. potential for complete separation of Indian from
More than 15,000 Cherokees signed a petition non-Indian populations, broke down in the 1840s
protesting the treaty of 1835 and attesting to its ille- and 1850s as improved transportation, acquisition
gitimacy. Nonetheless, President Jackson forcibly of new territories in the Southwest and Northwest,

and increased immigration caused non-Indian set- Elsewhere in the West, however, treaty making
tlement to catch up with the Indians’ western lands, was actively under way during this period of the
destroying their traditional means of subsistence. 1840s and 1850s. On the plains, for example, the
Suddenly, federal treaty policy had to contend with destruction of buffalo herds that accompanied west-
new clashes between settlers and the tribes and had ern settlement prompted the commissioner of Indian
to find ways the two groups could coexist. Many of affairs, William Medill, to seek relocation of the Indi-
the newly encountered tribes violently resisted ans into “colonies” north and south of the main
encroachment on their lands, and combating them routes of migration. The Indians would also be com-
stretched the capacity of the relatively young nation. pensated for the rights-of-way and for loss of the
Moreover, the legal apparatus that accompanied buffalo. Thus arose the Treaty of Fort Laramie of
some of these new tribes, especially the fee land title 1851 with the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow,
of the Pueblo tribes formerly under Mexican rule, Assiniboine, Gros Ventre, Mandan, and Arikara, in
presented new challenges. Treaties continued to be which boundaries were set among the tribes and
the preferred mode of conducting Indian relations with the United States, and the Indians pledged
during these years, and dozens were ratified; but peace with the United States and cessation of hostili-
there were notable exceptions and breakdowns in ties among themselves. The tribes further agreed to
the process, and the types of treaty terms began to allow the United States to build forts and roads
shift. within their territories and to pay restitution to non-
Treaties of the 1840s and 1850s focused less on Indians harmed while lawfully passing through the
removal west and more on confining the western Indian lands. For its part, the United States promised
Indians on smaller and smaller reservation tracts so generous annuities of $50,000 per year for 50 years
that non-Indian migration and settlement would not and to protect the Indians from predation by the
be impeded. The alternative possibilities of curtail- whites. This treaty was later superseded by others
ing emigration or protecting the Indians against tres- less favorable to the tribes.
pass were politically difficult for a U.S. government A few years later, in negotiations with tribes
accountable only to the non-Indians; and the old west of Missouri and Iowa, another commissioner of
policy of removing the tribes to an area beyond Indian affairs, George W. Manypenny, made a con-
white immigration and settlement was no longer certed policy of including treaty provisions for allot-
physically possible. Confinement on small reserva- ment of reserved lands. This new policy of allotment
tions was the preferred solution simply because was designed to break up the tribal estate by con-
there was no place further west to move the Indians verting tribal ownership into private ownership title
that had not already been settled by non-Indians or held by individual tribal members. Although some
occupied by other tribes. federal policymakers tried to argue that private
Sometimes the demands of non-Indian settlers ownership would benefit the Indians, a powerful
were so great that multiple tribes had to be collected, reality was that allotment served non-Indian inter-
more or less arbitrarily, onto a single reservation. ests in land acquisition. Once in private ownership,
Thus, for example, in the Pacific Northwest most of the lands became much more accessible to non-
the treaties were made with “confederated tribes Indians through tax sales, adverse possession, and
and bands” in order to limit the amount of territory sharp dealing. Foreshadowing Congress’s enactment
set aside for the Indians. The experience in Califor- of the General Allotment Act of 1887, this treaty
nia was even more extreme. After the Treaty of policy of allotment also envisioned termination of
Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war with Mexico in tribal existence in the near future. Another feature of
1848, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify any treaties at Manypenny’s treaty policy was an end to permanent
all with the California Indians, because the lands annuities as a form of payment for land cessions.
that the proposed treaties had set aside for them Under his treaties, the Indians were required to
were considered too valuable by the whites, and relinquish all claims to funds owed under previous
there was nowhere else to place the reservations. treaties, and newly promised payments were to be
Only after several decades had passed and sympa- paid to the tribes on a rapid timetable. This new
thy for the “landless” California Indians had method of payment was consistent with the plan for
mounted did Congress and the executive branch near-term termination of tribal entities. Among the
establish small reservations, or rancherias. many treaties made on this basis were those with the

Otoe and Missouria tribes in 1854 and the Shawnee strongly resist any “civilizing” efforts by the United
in the same year. States.
A series of treaties made during this period with Dole’s position won out, but only for the next
the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, negotiated by ter- five years. Skirmishes with the Indians along the
ritorial governor Isaac Stevens, largely adhered to emigrant trails and fears for the security of the
the framework of the Manypenny treaties. Nonethe- newly constructed transcontinental railway led the
less, they had to take into account the tribes’ resis- United States to sponsor the Peace Commission in
tance to moving from their ancestral lands and giv- 1867, giving over treaty-negotiating authority to a
ing up their traditional fishing practices. So specially qualified group of civilian and military
Governor Stevens strategically located the reserva- leaders. Its charge was to minimize the causes for
tions so as to avoid non-Indian settlements while war among the Indians while securing the routes
protecting the tribes’ means of subsistence. Further- west and moving the Indians toward greater assimi-
more, he included provisions reserving to the tribes, lation. Typical of the treaties that emerged from that
on their ceded lands, “[t]he right of taking fish, at all process were those with the Sioux and the Navajo,
usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . . in both made in 1868. These treaties attempted to allay
common with all citizens of the Territory. . . .” In a the Indians’ concerns about loss of land and sover-
series of later cases, the federal courts eventually eignty by securing tracts to them for their “absolute
ruled that this provision guaranteed one-half the and undisturbed use and occupation” and positing
catch from these areas to the tribes, decisions that that no cessions of land shall be valid “unless exe-
provoked angry outcries from non-Indian commer- cuted and signed by at least three-fourths of all the
cial and sport fishers. adult male Indians occupying the same.” The
Notwithstanding the recognition of traditional United States also agreed to arrest and punish “bad
fishing practices in the Stevens treaties, most treaties men among the whites” who committed wrongs on
of the 1840s and 1850s, and even more so those of the the Indians and to compensate those Indians who
1860s, focused on transforming Indians into agricul- were thus injured. At the same time, the Indians
turalists. Some treaties, such as those with the agreed to turn over to the United States, for punish-
Mescalero and Jicarilla Apache in 1853, actually ment, any “bad men among the Indians” who com-
included agreements by the Indians to settle on the mitted wrongs against outsiders. Most of the provi-
lands allotted to them and to “cultivate the soil and sions in these treaties, however, were devoted to
raise flocks and herds for a subsistence.” However, pressing the Indians toward lives as farmers and
this plan was not always backed up by establish- ranchers. The United States obligated itself to build
ment of reservations with soil and water adequate schools, to provide agents and teachers who would
for successful farming. Non-Indian settlers were live on the reservation, and to allocate tracts for
reluctant to see rich agricultural lands in Indian farming, seed, and agricultural implements to any
ownership and pressed the United States to exclude tribal member so inclined. The Indians, in turn,
them from the reservations. agreed to compel their children up to the age of six-
Indian treaty making slowed somewhat during teen to attend school. For the Navajos in particular,
the Civil War. Yet during this time, a powerful a major inducement for signing the treaty was the
debate over the desirability and utility of Indian opportunity to return from exile to their ancestral
treaties emerged within the federal government, homeland in the Southwest.
reaching a crescendo in 1864. Military leaders such
as General John Pope wanted to employ the over-
whelming force of the United States to end the treaty The End of Treaty Making
system, stop the flow of annuity payments under Although non-Indian opposition to Indian treaties
earlier treaties, and manage the Indians regardless of had surfaced during the Jackson administration,
their consent. The commissioner of Indian affairs, fueled by the views of Jackson himself, antagonism
William Dole, strongly resisted this approach, argu- toward such instruments became more pointed and
ing instead that the United States should continue its widespread at the end of the 1860s. The reasons
long-standing policy of using force only to the point were manifold. Some pointed to the inability of the
where the Indians could be induced to agree to U.S. military, stretched thin across the growing
treaty terms. Otherwise, the Indians would more nation, to make good on American promises to

protect boundary lines established in the treaties. References and Further Reading
As Episcopal bishop Henry Whipple wrote, “We Andrew, John A., III. 1992. From Revivals to Removal:
send ambassadors to make a treaty as with our Jeremiah Evarts, the Cherokee Nation, and the Search
for the Soul of America. Athens: University of
equals, knowing that every provision of that treaty
Georgia Press.
will be our own, [and] that those with whom we Banner, Stuart. 2005. How the Indians Lost Their Land:
make it cannot compel us to observe it. . . .” Many Law and Power on the Frontier. Cambridge, MA:
spokesmen of the time contended that it was a Harvard University Press.
farce to treat with Indians as if they were separate Jones, Dorothy. 1982. License for Empire: Colonialism by
and sovereign nations when they had no effective Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University of
governments and laws of their own. Although Chicago Press.
Kades, Eric. 2000. “The Dark Side of Efficiency:
such statements ignored the traditions of dispute
Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Expropriation of
resolution and social control that remained alive American Indian Lands,” 148 University of
within tribal communities, they also reflected the Pennsylvania Law Review 1065–1190.
deterioration of many such institutions under the Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and
impact of non-Indian settlement and Indian Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC:
administration. Government Printing Office.
Ultimately, in 1871, the Congress abolished Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1975. Indian Treaties
future treaty making with the Indians. Among 1778–1883, 3rd ed. New York: Interland.
Newton, Nell Jessup, ed. 2005. Cohen’s Handbook of
other things, the House of Representatives had
Federal Indian Law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
become frustrated over the fact that it was required Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
to appropriate funds to fulfill treaty obligations but The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
did not have a voice in the decision to ratify those University of California Press.
treaties. Although the United States continued to Richter, Daniel K. 2001. Facing East from Indian
make agreements with the Indian nations and to Country: A Native History of Early America.
enshrine those agreements in legislation, the era of Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Satz, Ronald. 1975. American Indian Policy in the
treaty making had come to an end because treaties
Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
no longer served federal policy objectives. The Press.
United States had already acquired vast quantities Trennert, Robert A., Jr. 1975. Alternative to Extinction:
of Indian land and didn’t need treaties to finish Federal Indian Policy and the Beginnings of the
the job. Reservation System—1846–51. Philadelphia:
Carole Goldberg Temple University Press.

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes,
and Indian Treaties
L
egislation affecting the indigenous tribes and But general Indian legislation was even more pro-
L
peoples in the United States included laws foundly influenced by the general trend of federal
that stated general policy directions, laws legislation. This is because an objective of Congress
that established and regulated the burgeoning in framing Indian legislation has been to influence
Indian Service, laws that authorized appropria- the direction of development of Indian communi-
tions, and laws that appropriated funds to carry out ties. The desired direction has been influenced by
Congress’s intent. All these laws were significant developments in American society and by prevail-
for the dealings of the United States with Indian ing assumptions about the likely directions for
tribes and peoples. During the treaty period, the development. Indian legislation followed trends in
laws provided a framework for the U.S. representa- the society, including general laws enacted by Con-
tives who met with the Indian tribes to negotiate gress to apply to all citizens. In America, Harold
treaties. Legislation delineated Indian policy, pro- Hyman has suggested that five laws contributed to
vided the framework for Indian treaties, and appro- a singularly American development of public
priated funds to carry out federal policy. Indian leg- policy: the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the North-
islation expressed Congress’s sense of the nature of west Ordinance of 1787, enacted by the Continental
contemporary American society, and the progres- Congress before the ratification of the Constitution;
sion of Indian legislation reflected the progression the Homestead and Land Grant College Acts of
of American social organization more broadly con- 1862, enacted by the first Civil War Congress; and
sidered. After Congress ended treaty making with the GI Bill of 1944, enacted in anticipation of the end
the Indian tribes in 1871, legislation provided the of World War II (Hyman 1986). Each of these laws
framework for the negotiation of the agreements was important in shaping Indian policy, although
that substituted for treaties in the late nineteenth none was specifically directed toward Native Amer-
century. These treaty substitutes were subsequently ican people.
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 Trade and Intercourse
twentieth century, intergovernmental agreements Prior to American independence, colonial legisla-
between the tribes and the United States and indi- tures and royal provincial governors dealt with
vidual states again became an important way of tribes within the confines of their territories. After
regulating the relations between the United States the French and Indian War, the Crown preempted
and the Indian tribes. management of relations with the tribes of the Ohio
In the United States, Indian legislation has valley. Article IX of the Articles of Confederation,
included congressional statements of general Indian adopted in 1778 during the American Revolution,
policy, laws creating and regulating the Indian Ser- gave the Continental Congress the power to deal
vice, laws and treaties dealing with specific tribes or with Indian tribes located in the West on a govern-
groups of tribes, and appropriations acts that pro- ment-to-government basis; the states were in charge
vided the funds to carry out Indian policy. Most of relations with local tribes.
studies of federal Indian policy have concerned The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided for a
statements of general Indian policy, legislation rectangular survey of the area west of the
directed at specific groups of Indians, and the imple- Appalachian Mountains, with one 640-acre section
mentation of these statutes. The laws creating and in each township to be devoted to support of the
regulating the agencies responsible for carrying out public schools. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
Indian affairs, and appropriation acts, although less specified the methods of sale and settlement of the
studied, have been important in determining the surveyed lands. By providing for the organization
course of Indian affairs. of new states in the territory north and west of the
General Indian legislation at times shaped Ohio River, the ordinance contemplated the orga-
events in the field and at times responded to them. nization of the western territories on the model of
27
the eastern states. The ordinance promoted and sions for education and training in agriculture
accelerated the westward expansion of the United along with regulation of trade and commercial rela-
States. tions with whites.
The source of federal authority in Indian affairs
is the Constitution, which gives the Congress ple-
nary power in Indian affairs. The commerce clause Removal
(Article I, Section 8) provides that “Congress shall In 1800, the United States comprised sixteen states:
have the power . . . to regulate commerce with for- Vermont (admitted in 1791), Kentucky (admitted in
eign nations, and among the several states, and with 1792), and Tennessee (admitted in 1796), in addition
the Indian tribes.” The supremacy clause (Article to the original thirteen colonies. By 1830, an addi-
VI) provides that the “Constitution, and the laws of tional seven states had joined the union, including
the United States which shall be made in pursuance Louisiana (admitted in 1804) and Missouri (admitted
thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be in 1821), the first states to be organized with territory
made, under the authority of the United States, shall west of the Mississippi River. In addition, by 1830
be the supreme law of the land.” Initially, as implied territorial governments had been organized for
in the commerce clause, the emphasis of congres- Michigan (in 1805), Arkansas (in 1819), and Florida
sional legislation was on regulating trade with the (in 1822). The population of the United States, enu-
Indian tribes. The Indian Trade and Intercourse merated at 5.3 million at the 1800 census, had grown
Acts, enacted between 1790 and 1834, provided for to 12.8 million by 1830. Growing population and the
the disposal of Indian lands and the regulation of organization of territorial and state governments in
Indian trade. the West and South put pressure on Indian people
The Indian Intercourse Acts went beyond the living east of the Mississippi River.
regulation of trade, however. Congress attempted Removal, the forced or voluntary relocation of
to regulate the legal relations between Indians and Indians from tribal lands occupied at contact to
whites and, most significantly, to promote the “civi- new lands in the West, began before Congress
lization” or acculturation of the Indians by provid- enacted the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (4 Stat.
ing material assistance and instruction in agricul- 411). Sometimes removal was voluntary, as tribes
ture. Perhaps necessary in an era when the United moved west to avoid European Americans or in
States contended with such European powers as search of increased opportunity. But often removal
Great Britain, Spain, and France for domination of was coerced, as whites harassed Indians and as
the North American continent, the Indian Inter- many favored removal because they believed that
course Acts were designed to insure adherence to the isolation of Indians from whites would promote
United States hegemony in North America on the acculturation to European American culture, or
part of the Indian tribes. The conclusion of the War “civilization.”
of 1812 served to secure the northern frontier of the The Indian Removal Act envisioned the
United States. Although the war did not result in exchange of Indian lands east of the Mississippi
American expansion to the north as some Ameri- River for new lands to the west. Eastern Indians
cans had hoped it would, competition with Euro- were to be resettled at the western frontier of white
pean powers for domination of the North American settlement. The act resulted in the negotiation of
continent diminished. The Indian Civilization Fund removal treaties with most of the eastern tribes and
Act of 1819 (3 Stat. 516) portended future develop- forced and voluntary relocations to “Indian coun-
ments in Indian affairs. The act, which remained in try” west of the Mississippi River during the 1830s
force until 1873, authorized annual appropriations and 1840s. Some foresaw the development of a
to the Civilization Fund, from which “benevolent “permanent Indian frontier” to the west of Mis-
societies,” for the most part Protestant missions to souri and Arkansas. However, the migration of
the Indians, received funds to acculturate Native U.S. citizens to northern Mexico, followed by the
Americans by instructing Indian adults in the Euro- establishment of the Texas Republic (1836) and the
pean American style of agriculture and Indian chil- Mexican War (1846–1848), together with the resolu-
dren in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Many of tion of the “Oregon Question” (1846), stimulated
the treaties negotiated by the United States with the westward expansion by white Americans and lim-
Indian tribes during this period included provi- ited the extent of Indian country to present-day

Legislation, Treaty Substitutes, and Indian Treaties 29
Oklahoma and the Dakotas. Only isolated reserva- for more liberal land measures to facilitate westward
tions remained in Kansas and Nebraska as a result expansion by whites.
of a second round of removals in the 1850s. The early reservation system depended upon
the army to enforce compliance with the new bound-
aries and prevent armed conflict between tribes and
Concentration between Indians and whites. It also required an effi-
During the 1840s, the United States acquired a vast cient administration of the Indian Office, which had
inland empire. The acquisition of territory in the the responsibility of administering the reservations
Northwest following settlement of the Oregon Ques- and, increasingly, of providing food rations to substi-
tion (1846) and in the Southwest following the tute for hunting grounds given up by the tribes. The
annexation of Texas (1845), as well as the American Indian Office’s responsibilities increased as a result
victory in the Mexican War (1848), provided the of the many treaties negotiated during the 1850s.
United States, at the beginning of the 1850s, with an However, little improvement in Indian Office
expanded western empire. A large number of Indi- administration followed the decade’s rash of treaty
ans, who were increasingly likely to conflict with making. The coming of the Civil War exacerbated
whites, lived in the newly acquired territories. But administrative problems. Although the pace of white
Congress contemplated a civilian administration of westward movement hardly slowed, the army with-
Indian affairs as part of its regulation of the new drew troops from frontier areas to fight the Confed-
interior regions of the continent. When Congress cre- eracy, and Congress and the president devoted pri-
ated a “Home Department,” the Department of the mary attention to the war rather than to Indian
Interior, in 1849, it transferred Indian affairs to the administration.
new department, along with the General Land Four laws enacted in 1862 by the first Civil War
Office, the Patent Office, and the Pension Office (“An Congress set the stage for the development of the
Act to Establish the Home Department,” 9 Stat. 395). West and influenced subsequent federal Indian leg-
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) ended islation. The Homestead Law of 1862 (12 Stat. 392)
the war with Mexico. Mexico ceded a significant provided for the distribution of the public lands, in
amount of land to the United States, amounting to quarter-section parcels of 160 acres each upon pay-
the northern third of the nation. Article IX of the ment of a nominal fee, to settlers who would agree
treaty provided that citizens of Mexico residing in to improve the land and live on it for five years. The
the ceded territory would become citizens of the size of the homesteads, larger than the minimum
United States. This provision affected the Pueblo required for subsistence farming, signaled Con-
Indians of New Mexico, who had been recognized as gress’s intention that the West would be settled by
citizens of Mexico. The treaty provided the United entrepreneurial farmers, who would raise cash
States with a vast inland empire and stimulated the crops. The Morrill or Land Grant College Act (12
continued development of the West. Stat. 503) provided for education in the “agricultural
Prior to the Civil War, the objectives of removal and mechanic arts” to the children of homesteaders.
of Indians from the path of white settlement and The Pacific Railroad Act (12 Stat. 489) would pro-
concentration of the tribes in isolated areas guided vide a means to transport goods to market, whereas
U.S. Indian policy. In the 1850s, the concentration of the Department of Agriculture Act (12 Stat. 387) pro-
Indians on reservations (limited geographic territo- vided for the development of a research agency that
ries reserved for Indian tribes) replaced the old was to investigate the best methods of agricultural
objective of simple removal. On the reservations, production. When the Pacific Railroad was com-
Indians would be protected from whites and helped pleted in 1869, thereby increasing traffic between
by Indian agents to adapt to white civilization. Thus, the East and the West, pressure on Indian lands
for example, the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 (11 intensified.
Stat. 749) provided for a reservation for the western After the Union victory in the Civil War (1865),
Sioux, and the treaty of 1854 with the Chippewa (10 the United States established a new federal agency,
Stat. 1109) reserved lands in northern Wisconsin and the Freedmen’s Bureau, to provide limited support
Minnesota for the Ojibwe. These and other treaties to African American former slaves who had been
freed land for settlement by white Americans even freed as a result of the war (“An Act to Establish a
as politicians of the new Republican Party pressed Bureau for the Relief of Freedom and Refugees,”

1865, 13 Stat. 507). These efforts were supported by inspection to oversee civilian administration. Later
missionary associations, including several that were in 1867, reporting to the Senate on “Indian hostilities
also involved in missions to the Indians supported on the frontier,” Commissioner of Indian Affairs
by the Civilization Fund. In the Indian Territory, Nathaniel Taylor recommended an intensified pro-
tribes that had supported the Confederacy were gram of tribal consolidation on reservations. Warlike
forced to sign Reconstruction treaties. The treaties tribes would be confined on large reservations from
with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and which all whites except government employees
Seminole tribes (1866) freed the slaves held by those would be excluded, and an intensive acculturation
tribes, granted freedmen tribal membership, and program would be attempted.
subjugated the tribes to authority of the federal gov- Congress created the Indian Peace Commis-
ernment. The Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty of sion, headed by Taylor, in 1867 (16 Stat. 319). The
1866 (14 Stat. 799), for example, in Article IX declared commission negotiated with many of the western
that Cherokee freedmen and “all free colored per- tribes treaties that embodied the consolidation doc-
sons who were in the country at the commencement trine. A clear line should be drawn between civil
of the rebellion . . . shall have all the rights of native and military responsibilities, the commission recom-
Cherokees.” mended. Opposed to transferring Indian affairs
The end of the Civil War increased the pace of from the Interior Department to the War Depart-
Indian removals from the states of Kansas and ment, the commission recommended a revision of
Nebraska and from the western Great Plains. In the the laws regulating intercourse with the Indians and
decade and a half following the end of the Civil War, administrative reforms to ensure “competent and
the Indian Office removed a large number of tribes faithful” personnel.
to Indian Territory, including such plains tribes as The recommendations of the Indian Peace Com-
the Kiowa, the Comanche, the Cheyenne, and the mission, together with the ongoing processes of
Arapahoe, and tribes formerly settled on reserva- removal and concentration, provided the Grant
tions in Kansas and Nebraska, including the Sac and administration, which took office in 1869, with its
the Fox, the Potawatomi, the Wichita, the Osage, the Indian reform policy. Hailed by contemporaries as a
Pawnee, the Iowa, and the Otoe. new departure in Indian affairs, the Peace Policy, as
Postwar treaties with noncombatant tribes the Grant reforms were known, attempted to
reflected renewed federal power. The Navajo treaty improve administration rather than to reformulate
of 1868 (15 Stat. 667) permitted the Navajo, who had the goals of federal activity. Two major elements of
been removed from their homeland to eastern New the Grant administration’s program, church nomina-
Mexico in 1864, to return to familiar territory to the tion of Indian Service officials and the creation of the
west but within defined reservation boundaries. The Board of Indian Commissioners, were administra-
treaty also provided for the distribution of land to tive changes. The third element was expressed as
individuals “wishing to commence farming” (Article “Peace on the reservations, war off.” Indians remain-
V), compulsory education for Navajo children (Arti- ing on the reservations were to be subject to a purely
cle VI), and the construction of railroads across the civil administration; those leaving without permis-
new reservation (Article IX). sion were assumed to be at war with the United
In 1865, Congress created a joint special com- States and were to be subject to military discipline.
mittee “to conduct an inquiry into the condition of Congress created the Board of Indian Commis-
the Indian tribes and their treatment by the civil and sioners (BIC) in 1869 (16 Stat. 40). Similar to the
military authorities” (13 Stat. 572). The Doolittle boards of inspection called for by the Doolittle Com-
Committee, so named after its chairman, Senator mission, the BIC was no doubt modeled on the state
J. R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, was a congressional boards of charities created by a number of states,
response to the Indian wars and the political turmoil beginning with Massachusetts in 1863. Like the state
resulting from them. The committee found that the boards of charities, the BIC was an unpaid advisory
Indians were decreasing in population due to dis- body that visited Indian reservations, compiled sta-
ease, wars, and loss of hunting grounds; it recom- tistics, and made recommendations on Indian
mended against the transfer of the Indian Office to administration. BIC members wanted to abolish
the War Department, a solution to the agency’s reservations, the Indian Service, and tribalism. The
administrative problems favored by some. Instead, Dawes Act of 1887 and subsequent Indian legislation
the committee advocated the creation of boards of to World War I reflected this point of view.

In a provision of the Indian Appropriations Act When tribes such as the Ponca resisted removal, they
of 1871 (16 Stat. 566), Congress ended the treaty rela- found an increasingly sympathetic audience in white
tionship with the tribes. Although the precipitating reform groups.
cause was the unwillingness of the House to be left After the abandonment of removal as a policy,
out of the process of treaty making, terminating the diminutions in the Indian land base resulted from
treaty relationship was consistent with the spirit of such factors as the discovery of mineral resources
the reservation policy, in which the domination of on reservations and from the early experiments in
the United States was emphasized. The ending of the allotment, in which surplus land remaining after
treaty relationship symbolized the federal govern- each Indian had received an allotment of land was
ment’s objective of breaking up the tribal relation- opened to settlement by whites. The discovery of
ship and individualizing the Indians. Eli Parker, gold in the Black Hills of Dakota Territory resulted
Grant’s first commissioner of Indian affairs, had ear- in the Sioux Agreement of 1876, which removed the
lier requested an end to the “fiction” of treating the hills from the Great Sioux Reservation, opening
tribes as independent nations in his annual report them to white settlement and exploitation. Similarly,
for 1869. the discovery of gold and silver on the Ute Reserva-
As was true for all nineteenth-century social tion in 1879, combined with an uprising against
policy in the United States, work was favored over their agent, resulted in the removal of the Ute from
idleness. Congress viewed Indian labor as an essen- their Colorado home. Although some reformers
tial part of the process of Indian “civilization.” In protested the Ute removals, they ultimately acqui-
1875, in Section 3 of the Indian Appropriations Act, esced. Albert B. Meacham, a prominent Indian
Congress attempted to make Indian labor a require- reformer, served on the Ute Commission, which
ment for the receipt of rations. The act provided that supervised the removal. White reformers supported
land reduction schemes in part because they wanted
[f]or the purpose of inducing Indians to labor Indians to adopt land use patterns similar to those
and become self-supporting . . . the [Indian] of European Americans. In addition, white pres-
agent shall require all able-bodied male Indians sures on Indian lands were so great that reformers
to perform service upon the reservation and the believed that the Indians “would have to give up
allowances provided for such Indians shall be most of their land to retain title to any” (Hagan
distributed to them only upon condition of the 1976, 165).
performance of such labor. (18 Stat. 420) If a tribe held good farmland, white pressures
for removal led reformers to advocate allotment
Criminal jurisdiction remained an area of tribal even where mineral resources were not discovered.
autonomy. In Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883), the Supreme They viewed allotment as doubly beneficial. The
Court found that Indian tribes retained criminal experience of property ownership would encourage
jurisdiction over their members. In response, in a civilization and acquisition by the Indians of the
section of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1885 habits of hard work, thrift, and acquisitiveness,
known as the Major Crimes Act (23 Stat. 385), Con- which were presumed to characterize the white pop-
gress placed Indians accused of committing the ulation at its best. In addition, by providing protec-
crimes of “murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with tions for the Indian title, commonly a prohibition
intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny” under the against alienation for a twenty-five-year period,
jurisdiction of the United States, thus overriding allotment would forestall efforts at removal and
tribal or other Indian authority. enable the Indians to retain at least a portion of their
homeland.
On the reservations of central and western
Assimilation and Allotment Indian Territory, which were better suited to cattle
By the early 1880s, the concentration policy had to be grazing than to cultivation, a different pattern of
abandoned as unworkable. There were fewer truly white intrusion developed. The contractors who
isolated regions to which Indians could be removed. supplied the agencies with beef allowed the issue
Further, the results of removals, particularly of herds to graze on Indian lands. Texas cattlemen who
Northern Plains tribes to the Indian Territory, were began driving their herds north to Dodge City,
unacceptable. Unaccustomed to the climate, Indians Kansas, in the 1870s similarly exploited reserva-
died at an increasing rate on the new reservations. tion grasslands. In the late 1870s, agents at the

Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Kiowa-Comanche Reser- The General Allotment Act of 1887 (24 Stat. 388),
vations began to charge ranchers grazing fees, using also known as the Dawes Act after its sponsor, Sena-
the proceeds to supplement meager congressional tor Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, provided for the
appropriations for supplying the Indians with division of reservation lands, at the discretion of the
rations. Although the grazing fees were of doubtful president, into allotments, which became the prop-
legality, sporadic attempts by Washington officials erty of individual Indians. Each allotment was a
to regulate their collection were ineffective until quarter section (160 acres) in area. Upon allotment,
Congress legalized leasing allotments held by old or the Indian became a citizen. The title to the allotment
disabled Indians in 1891 (26 Stat. 794). was held in trust by the United States for twenty-five
Allotment, the division of Indian lands held by years. At the end of this period, the allottee received
a tribe in common into individually owned tracts, a fee simple patent to his allotment. Henceforth, he
had a long history. The allotment of Indian lands or she would enjoy full control of the allotted land,
was practiced as early as the seventeenth century in which became subject to property taxes. “Surplus”
the American colonies. Before the Civil War, reserva- lands, those remaining after all Indians on a reserva-
tions in Alabama and Mississippi were allotted as a tion had received their allotments, were to be sold by
means of facilitating the sale of Indian lands to the United States in units not to exceed 160 acres.
whites. After the war, the allotment of Indian reser- The objective of the act was the integration of the
vations was employed as an expedient to prevent Indians into American society as independent farm-
the removal of tribes to more remote areas, by ers. Not coincidentally, through the surplus land
demonstrating the willingness of tribal members to sales and through an 1891 amendment (26 Stat. 794)
become civilized. Thus, the Santee Sioux of permitting the leasing by non-Indians of allotments
Nebraska, threatened with the loss of their reserva- held by elderly and disabled Indians, the allotment
tion on the Niobrara River and removal to Indian policy facilitated the penetration of the remaining
Territory, petitioned the commissioner of Indian Indian lands by white ranchers and farmers. In gen-
affairs in 1869 to allot their reservation so that they eral, the act, like the Homestead Act of 1862 that it
might hold secure tenure on it. Similarly, when the resembled, reflected a land ideology that favored
Omaha tribe of Nebraska was threatened with small landholdings and opposed in principle the
removal to Indian Territory in 1882, Alice C. Fletcher, ownership of units of land too large to be worked by
the pioneer American ethnologist, proposed allot- an individual entrepreneur.
ment as an alternative. Miss Fletcher was visiting the The Dawes Act made special provisions for rail-
Omaha. She went to Washington to argue against the road rights-of-way across reservations and for modi-
tribe’s removal, carrying a petition requesting allot- fications in areas suitable only for grazing. The act
ment. Successful in her mission, Miss Fletcher probably accelerated the process of allotment, even
returned to supervise the allotment of the reserva- though in many cases Congress enacted special legis-
tion. After the passage of the General Allotment Act lation based on agreements with the affected tribes.
of 1887, she was to supervise the allotment of several For example, the Great Sioux Agreement of 1889 (25
other plains reservations. Stat. 888), which created the Sioux Reservations of
The frequency of special allotment acts applied North and South Dakota, provided for their allot-
to specific tribes both before and after the passage of ments. The Five Civilized Tribes of Indian Territory
the General Allotment Act led historian William T. had been exempt from the provisions of the General
Hagan to suggest that the course of policy develop- Allotment Act. In 1893, however, Congress created a
ment was little affected by the act. In his view, reser- commission to negotiate the dissolution of the tribal
vations would have been allotted with or without a governments and the allotment of tribal lands in “the
general allotment law. Most of the treaties negotiated Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation, the Chicka-
in the 1860s included provisions for eventual allot- saw Nation, the Muscogee (or Creek) Nation, [and]
ment; similarly, Congress in 1875 provided that Indi- the Seminole Nation” (27 Stat. 557). The retired Sena-
ans severing their relations to their tribes could tor Henry Dawes, the author of the General Allot-
homestead on public lands under the provisions of ment Act, served as the commission’s first chairper-
the Homestead Law (18 Stat. 402). The possession of son. The commission supervised the enrollment of
private property, especially the separate farm, came members of the five tribes and attempted to negotiate
to be viewed as the key to Indian civilization and to allotment. When the tribes resisted, Congress enacted
the maintenance of an Indian land base. the Curtis Act of 1898 (30 Stat. 498). The Curtis Act

authorized the allotment of tribal lands, dissolved the and 1990s to promote federal government use of
tribal governments, and paved the way for the even- Indian energy sources and to allow Indian firms to
tual admission of Oklahoma as a state. participate in the Department of Defense’s Mentor-
The Dawes Act made no provision for the leas- Protégé Program (P. L. 100–581, 1988, 102 Stat. 2940;
ing of allotments. When Congress approved the leas- P. L. 103–345, 1994, 108 Stat. 4572). The Snyder Act
ing of allotments made to old people and the dis- of 1921 (42 Stat. 208) provided explicit authorization
abled in 1891 (26 Stat. 791), it also modified the size for federal expenditures “for the benefit, care, and
of allotments, providing for the allotment of one- assistance of the Indians throughout the United
eighth of a section (eighty acres) to each eligible indi- States,” including education, health care, industrial
vidual and for double allotments of lands suited development, the maintenance of water sources,
only for grazing. A series of additional congressional and general expenses of government. The act repre-
actions in the 1890s extended the scope of leasing. In sented a change in government policy because it
1894, Congress authorized the leasing of unsold sur- departed from reliance on treaty provisions for the
plus lands for farming as well as for grazing pur- support of American Indians and represented the
poses (28 Stat. 305). Sections 13 and 23 of the Curtis first recognition of a general federal obligation to
Act of 1898 authorized the leasing of Indian Territory Indian people.
allotments and provided for mineral leases as well Another post–World War I statute, the Indian
(30 Stat. 495). Congress broadened the criteria for Citizenship Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253) made all Indi-
permitting the leasing of allotments again in 1900, ans born in U.S. territory citizens of the United
providing “inability,” in addition to age and disabil- States. Citizenship as a status had long represented
ity, as a ground for leasing (31 Stat. 229). The leasing the goal of assimilationist white Indian reformers.
provisions, combined with the surplus land provi- The Indian Citizenship Act represented the high
sions of the Dawes Act, permitted extensive white point of assimilation, as it envisioned the integration
intrusion into what had been reservation lands. of Indian people into American society as individu-
The Burke Act of 1906 modified the citizenship als. Later Indian legislation would move away from
provisions of the Dawes Act by deferring citizenship the assimilationist goal and strengthen tribes.
until expiration of the trust period (34 Stat. 182). Forty years of experience with the Dawes Act
However, the secretary of the interior could autho- led to the recognition that it had failed to deal ade-
rize the issuance of a fee simple patent to allottees he quately with the “Indian problem.” By the late 1920s,
found to be competent before the end of the twenty- American Indians had not taken their places along-
five-year trust period. For allottees found incompe- side white American farmers as independent entre-
tent at the end of the twenty-five-year trust period, preneurs. Rather, the allotment policy had led to an
the trust period could be extended upon the order of even more drastic diminution in the Indian land
the secretary. The immediate effect of the Burke Act, base than had been envisioned by its framers.
however, was probably to hasten the end of the trust Unable to secure credit and inexperienced in farm-
period for many allottees. Competency commis- ing, holding allotments in many cases too small to be
sions, particularly active during the Woodrow Wil- economically viable, allottees sold or leased their
son administration (1913–1921), were active in end- holdings or lost their lands through nonpayment of
ing the trust period ahead of schedule. state and local taxes. Allotments that remained in
trust status became fragmented as the original allot-
tees died and interest in allotments was divided
A Transitional Period among an increasing number of heirs.
The Buy Indian Act, Section 23 of the Act of June 23, In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge’s secretary of
1910 (36 Stat. 861), provided that the Indian Service the interior, Hubert Work, asked the Institute for
should buy Indian products and contract with Government Research (soon to become the Brookings
Indian laborers in preference to non-Indian sources. Institution) to conduct a survey of Indian affairs with
This Progressive Era legislation was intended to recommendations for administrative action. The
promote the integration of American Indians into report of the institute, known as the Meriam Report
the economy of the United States and would (after Lewis Meriam, the technical director of the sur-
become important a half century later as Indian vey), was published in 1928. Together with Laurence
tribes attempted to promote economic develop- F. Schmeckebier’s The Office of Indian Affairs, pub-
ment. Congress amended the act during the 1980s lished in 1927 as Number 48 of the institute’s Service

Monographs of the United States Government, the and to provide for the purchase of lands to be
Meriam Report was the most comprehensive survey added to the reservations. A credit fund enabled the
to date of the Indian programs of the federal tribes to get capital to finance economic develop-
government. The report blamed the unanticipated ment projects. Thus, tribes were to be organized as
consequences of the allotment policy on the govern- business corporations, even as the national econ-
ment’s insistence on allotting land to tribes that were omy was to be organized industry by industry.
unprepared for the individual ownership of property.
It recommended that the wishes of the Indians
involved be taken into account prior to allotment. The Termination Movement
The report concluded that the goal of work with the The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or GI Bill, of
Indians should be integration into white society if 1944 (58 Stat. 284), provided educational benefits for
they desired it. But if they did not, the goal should be a generation of World War II veterans. The law revo-
to enable the Indians “to live in the presence of [the lutionized higher education in the United States. The
prevailing] civilization at least in accordance with a GI Bill also provided health care for veterans and
minimum standard of health and decency.” gave them access to credit for homeownership and
business development. The law established the basis
for a postwar middle class and an increasingly sub-
The Indian New Deal urban society. In Indian affairs, Congress followed a
Early New Deal legislation, a response to the stresses similar course, emphasizing investment in individu-
of the Great Depression, provided for the corporate als and their economic and social development. Dur-
organization of the U.S. economy. The National ing World War II, Congress reduced funding for the
Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 195) created Indian Service’s community-based activities and
the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and increased funding for health and education services
provided for the organization and regulation of the directed toward individual Indians. The Indian Ser-
economy by industry councils representing owners, vice promoted Indian migration to urban areas to
workers, and the government. Until the Supreme work in defense plants.
Court ruled the act unconstitutional in 1935, the In 1946, in order to “streamline” administration,
NRA represented the Roosevelt administration’s Congress authorized substantial delegation of
major effort to promote economic recovery. authority from the secretary of the interior to the
Two days after the enactment of the National commissioner of Indian affairs and from the com-
Industrial Recovery Act, Congress passed the missioner to subordinate officials in the field (60 Stat.
Indian Reorganization Act (IRA; 48 Stat. 984). The 939). In 1947, an administrative reorganization
Wheeler-Howard Act, as the IRA was known, resulted in the creation of five regional headquarters,
stopped further allotments of tribal land and or area offices, in Minneapolis, Billings, Portland,
enabled tribes to organize themselves as govern- Phoenix, and Oklahoma City. Also in 1946, Congress
ments and as corporations for purposes of eco- created the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICC; 60
nomic development. The act had been drafted in Stat. 1049). The ICC was established to hear claims
the Department of the Interior by John Collier, against the United States arising from treaty dis-
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s commissioner of Indian putes, thereby streamlining the claims process. The
affairs, and his associates. Collier wanted to restore Indian Office was officially designated the Bureau of
and preserve Indian communal life and Indian cul- Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1947.
ture while improving the economic status of the Following the conclusion of World War II, a
Indians. He saw the act as a means of doing so. movement for the termination of federal responsibil-
Corporate development would provide an eco- ity to the Indians and for the transfer to the states of
nomic basis for Indian life, while tribal govern- the federal government’s health, education, welfare,
ments would provide the basis for a separate politi- and law enforcement functions dominated Indian
cal order. As tribal governments and corporations affairs. The movement was supported by the Hoover
became viable, the Indian Office’s role would Commission on the reorganization of the federal
become consultative and advisory. Other provi- government in 1949, based on its rejection of the Col-
sions of the act enabled the secretary of the interior lier position of separate development of the tribes.
to restore unsold surplus lands to the tribes, to The Hoover Commission called for the integration of
extend the trust period of allotments indefinitely, the Indians into American life, transfer of the bureau

to the proposed successor to the Federal Security Indian New Deal after World War II, the basic legis-
Agency, and the transfer, as rapidly as possible, of lation was not repealed, and the tribal governments
federal services to state auspices. continued to function. The new Democratic adminis-
In 1953, Congress endorsed the Hoover Com- tration of 1961 brought an end to the termination
mission’s program of federal disengagement and movement. Stewart Udall, secretary of the interior
Indian integration. The Termination Resolution, as under Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon John-
House Concurrent Resolution No. 108 (67 Stat. B132) son, disavowed the policy in 1961. Presidents John-
was known, called for the termination of federal son and Nixon both explicitly rejected termination in
responsibility for American Indians as quickly as special Indian messages to Congress in 1968 and
possible. Congress terminated federal responsibility 1970. Ultimately, federal responsibility for the Amer-
for a number of tribes during the 1950s, notably the ican Indians would be reduced through the eco-
Klamath tribe of Oregon (P. L. 83–587, 1954, 68 Stat. nomic development of the tribes.
718), the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin (P. L. 83–399, The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (P. L.
1954, 68 Stat. 250), and the Paiute tribe of Utah (P. L. 88–452, 78 Stat. 508) strengthened the tribal govern-
83–762, 1954, 68 Stat. 1099). Other legislation pro- ments established under the Indian Reorganization
vided for the removal of restrictions on the sale of Act, as they designated themselves Community
alcoholic beverages to Indians (P. L. 83–277, 1954, 67 Action Agency (CAA) Boards. Consequently, the
Stat. 586), for the transfer of responsibility for Indian War on Poverty increased the power of the existing
health from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the U.S. tribal governments on the reservations rather than
Public Health Service, and for a relocation program creating new power centers, as it often did in urban
to encourage Indian migration to urban areas. Public areas. Tribal governments began to administer a
Law 280 (67 Stat. 588), also passed in 1953, enabled wide variety of welfare and economic development
the states to extend law enforcement jurisdiction to programs. During the late 1960s, a number of Great
Indian reservations without consulting the tribes Society programs established “Indian desks.” Tribal
involved. All of these measures attempted to solve governments became increasingly sophisticated in
the “Indian problem” by promoting the integration shopping for federal agencies willing to finance pet
of the Indian into American society through the projects. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
removal of special services and special protections. Programs, similar in size and format to the catalogs of
The National Congress of American Indians, an the large mail-order houses, was a fixture in every
organization of tribal governments established tribal office library.
under the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Still, the federal programs of the 1960s failed to
Act, and some white-led reform groups opposed the improve the relative position of the American Indi-
termination movement of the 1950s. ans. By the end of the decade, they were still the
The Hoover Commission had recommended nation’s most deprived minority group, whether the
transferring services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs measure was nutritional level, educational accom-
to agencies that provided similar services to the gen- plishment, median income, or morbidity and mortal-
eral population. The Transfer Act of 1954 (P. L. 568, 68 ity rates. In part, the effects of the Economic Oppor-
Stat. 674) transferred Indian health services from the tunity Act on the tribes were deceptive. The act
Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Public Health Service provided the illusion of local control, while the effect
in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. of federal guidelines was to create a tribal bureau-
Legislators intended this and related acts to be a pre- cracy controlled in large part by the “memorandum
lude to the termination of special status and services writers” who occupied the Indian desks of the fed-
for Indians, but the results were quite different. The eral granting agencies. Guidelines also resulted in a
Public Health Service moved to improve the health uniformity of programs across the many supposedly
status of Indian people and during the 1960s com- locally controlled CAAs.
peted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide an The African American civil rights movement of
increasing array of services to Indian reservations. 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
Self-Determination was particularly true among the relocated Indians
Although the termination movement moved the fed- of the cities, who were increasingly critical of the
eral government away from the principles of the goal of assimilation, whether by termination or by

tribal economic development. They were also criti- Later congressional legislation emphasized eco-
cal of the tribal governments, which they viewed as nomic development, returning to the business orga-
corrupt political machines. On the Pine Ridge nization provisions of the Wheeler-Howard Act of
Reservation, by the early 1970s urban militants had 1933. The Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982
allied with conservative older Indians who had (P. L. 97–382, 96 Stat. 1940) authorized tribes to con-
opposed the Indian Reorganization Act in the mid- tract with energy companies and others to develop
1930s. They called for a return to the situation that the mineral resources on Indian reservations. In the
had prevailed before the passage of the Dawes Act. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (P. L. 104–330,
Then, they said, the government dealt with Indian 102 Stat. 2467), Congress attempted to strike a bal-
tribes as units without attempting to influence their ance between state and tribal interests. The act
internal affairs. Political power within the tribes reflected the growing importance of gambling as a
would be based on ascribed status: family ties, age source of tribal economic development. Congress
and wisdom, demonstrated leadership. recognized tribal interests in gaming but required
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 77) tribes to negotiate with states before providing Class
extended the protections of the Bill of Rights to III gambling—that is, gaming that goes beyond tra-
American Indians by restricting tribal governments’ ditional tribal games and bingo. The law established
dealings with their citizens. The act prohibits tribal the National Indian Gaming Commission to oversee
governments from interfering with religious free- negotiations between tribes and states.
dom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Paul H. Stuart
The statute provides most of the restrictions on gov-
ernment action included in the first ten amendments References and Further Reading
to the U.S. Constitution. As an exercise of Congress’s Commission on Organization of the Executive
plenary power in Indian affairs, this legislation pro- Branch of the Government. 1949. Indian Affairs:
A Report to the Congress. Washington, DC:
vides an exception to the general expansion of tribal
Government Printing Office.
powers after 1960. Commission on the Rights, Liberties, and
In 1973, Congress passed the Menominee Responsibilities of the American Indian. 1966.
Restoration Act (P. L. 93–197, 87 Stat. 770), reversing The Indian: America’s Unfinished Business.
the termination of the Menominee tribe nearly Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
twenty years earlier. The next year, Congress created Institute for Government Research. 1928. The Problem
the American Indian Policy Review Commission of Indian Administration: Report of a Survey made
at the request of Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary
(P. L. 93–580, 88 Stat. 1910). The Indian Education
of the Interior, and submitted to him February 21,
Assistance and Self-Determination Act (P. L. 93–638, 1928. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
88 Stat. 2206), enacted in 1975, finally ushered in the Hagan, William T. 1961. American Indians, rev. ed.
era of self-determination that Presidents Lyndon Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson and Richard Nixon had called for. The law Hagan, William T. 1976. “The Reservation Policy: Too
made it possible for tribes to contract with federal Little and Too Late.” In Indian-White Relations: A
agencies to provide services to their members and to Persistent Paradox, ed. Jane F. Smith and Robert
subcontract with other entities to deliver those ser- M. Kvasnicka, 157–169. Washington, DC:
Howard University Press.
vices. The law encouraged devolution of implemen-
Hyman, Harold L. 1986. American Singularity: The
tation authority from the federal government to 1787 Northwest Ordinance, the 1862 Homestead
tribal governments and gradually resulted in an and Morrill Acts, and the 1944 G.I. Bill. Athens:
expansion of tribal government organizations. The University of Georgia Press.
final report of the American Indian Policy Review Joint Special Committee. 1867. “Condition of the
Commission, issued in 1977, supported the self- Indian Tribes,” U.S. Senate Reports, 39th
determination policy. Other laws enacted during the Congress, 2nd Session, No. 156, Serial 1279.
Kelly, Lawrence C. 1975. “The Indian Reorganization
decade also strengthened tribal governments—
Act: The Dream and the Reality,” Pacific
notably, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (P. L. Historical Review 44 (August): 291–312.
95–608, 92 Stat. 3069) gave tribal courts primary Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The United
jurisdiction in cases involving Indian children and States Government and the American Indians. 2 vols.
provided funding to tribes for child welfare services. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Schmeckebier, Lawrence F. 1927. The Office of Indian Stuart, Paul. 1990. “Financing Self-Determination:
Affairs: Its History, Activities, and Organization. Federal Indian Expenditures, 1975–1988,”
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. American Indian Culture and Research Journal
Stuart, Paul. 1977. “United States Indian Policy: From 14(2): 1–18.
the Dawes Act to the American Indian Policy
Review Commission,” Social Service Review
(September): 451–463.

Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties
T
T
reaty law is one of the major underpinnings of assessment that they were “a political anomaly”
federal Indian law. Throughout the history of (oddity) in the nation’s history because the docu-
the United States, courts have interpreted, mis- ments and the ties did not fit neatly into European
interpreted, dismissed, and denied the terms of treaty American historical categories (Prucha 1994, 1, 289).
articles signed with Indian tribes. Treaties have long- Native nations preceded the European American
standing implications for national and international presence; Indian tribes were neither foreign nations
relationships; their impacts sometimes have a wide nor domestic states but entities in between in their
reach. American Indian treaties with the U.S. govern- interaction with the federal government. The leading
ment are one of the major characteristics that make Indian scholar of the last century placed treaties at
the Indian experience unique for the American the very bedrock of the entire federal-Indian rela-
nation. Because indigenous nations met the earliest tionship (Deloria 1996, 970–971).
Europeans and subsequent immigrants, American The interpretation of treaty rights frequently
Indians have had a long and continuing relationship drives much contemporary litigation that focuses on
with both the European predecessors and the descen- Indian sovereignty and rights. Controversies often
dants of the American republic’s founders. Treaties focus on American Indian treaties and claims of the
with indigenous nations became a major vehicle for violation of treaty rights. Across the nation, local
Native land cessions for the later American republic. conflicts involved controversies over long-standing
For American Indians, land cessions at first treaty obligations toward descendants of the original
were viewed simply as a temporary accommodation signers of Indian treaties. American Indians continue
for guests. Natives approached bilateral agreements to raise treaty rights as the basis for their claims to
from a perspective radically different from that of hunt, to fish, or to regain lost territory, such as the
European Americans. How they concluded treaties Black Hills for the Sioux. American courts have rec-
had a bearing on their interpretation of treaty law. ognized the long-term implications of Indian treaties
Indigenous peoples strove to strike bargains for Native rights. Treaties created a trust relationship
between kinfolk. Outsiders could be turned into fic- with the U.S. government that is the heart of federal-
tive relatives through elaborate adoption and wel- Indian policy. Provisions of some treaties signed
coming rituals. Rituals involving the sacred pipe between the federal government and American Indi-
were called calumet ceremonies. There were numerous ans are still in effect. Other provisions sometimes are
tribal variations on the form of the rituals (Sabo revived in court opinions to have renewed impact
1992). Once converted into a kinship relationship, upon contemporary events. The recognition of his-
the parties to a sacred agreement shared mutual toric treaty rights to resources, lands, and position
obligations and responsibilities for reciprocity. Once within the national republic contributes to the rich
made brothers, kinfolk did not betray the fealty of a legacy that helps constitute Indian country. Indian
brother without the direst of consequences. That was treaties have an impact not only within the United
especially true when the supreme creative force of States but also internationally. During the colonial
the universe had sanctioned the agreement through period, tribes in the eastern and southwestern por-
the proper performance of ceremonies. tions of the United States concluded alliances with
Indigenous people and their nations did not fit European nations, and some claim a continuous rela-
easily or comfortably into normal political or legal tionship. Emigration, migratory wildlife, whaling,
arenas for the American republic’s leaders. Justices and more are affected. American Indian treaties
who dealt with the topic early in the history of the make up a significant part of the ongoing demands
United States referred to the legal situation as a from Native peoples for acknowledgement of their
peculiar relationship. The judiciary deemed the sovereignty and their rights.
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 Powers of Treaty Making
Indian policy issues in the United States summa- Courts point to the U.S. Constitution as the funda-
rized his research into Indian treaties with the mental source guiding the judiciary’s examination
39
and determination of the impact of treaties. Article sions. After the declaring of American independence
II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution declares, in 1776, the rebellious colonies sought Indian allies,
“The President shall . . . have power, by and with the or at least Native neutrality, during the Revolution-
advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, ary War. Following the successful revolution, which
provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. secured independence, the fledgling American gov-
. . .” In the Constitution, Article VI, Section 2 pro- ernment also entered into agreements with tribes to
vides that “[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the secure peace, to identify borders, and to make allies
United States which shall be made in pursuance for the postwar period.
thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be Courts have interpreted treaties with Native
made, under the authority of the United States shall tribes in a variety of ways throughout U.S. history,
be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in but they have always recognized treaties as superior
every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the to the law of any individual state. In 1905, the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary Supreme Court set out the historical fact of treaty
notwithstanding.” The United States dealt with making with tribes, acknowledging that an Indian
Indian tribes as “distinct, independent political com- treaty is “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a
munities” (Worcester 1832, 559) through treaties. grant of rights from them—a reservation of those not
Chief Justice John Marshall and the Court, in the granted” (U.S. v. Winans 1905, 381). A treaty did not
famous Worcester decision of 1832, voided Georgia give rights to Indians; rather, through their treaty,
state laws impinging upon the Cherokee Nation Indians granted away rights they already had. Ide-
because the laws were repugnant to treaties, to the ally, treaties are agreements negotiated between
U.S. Constitution, and to the laws “giving effect to equals. Like the federal powers set forth in the Con-
the treaties” (ibid., 562). Still earlier, the same justice, stitution, Indian tribes possess inherent powers, not
in a majority opinion, referred to the phrase in the ceded through treaties, that are not articulated until
commerce clause of the Constitution. That clause needed. Tribes retain or reserve sovereign powers
gave Congress the power to “regulate commerce unless expressly granted away by treaty or expressly
with foreign nations, and among the several states, taken from the tribe through federal statute. Some-
and with the Indian tribes” (Article III, Section 8). time treaties simply acknowledged rights that Indi-
The decision found tribes to be neither foreign ans “from time immemorial . . . always had and
nations nor domestic states, deeming Indian tribes to enjoyed” (Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly 1941, 78).
be “domestic dependent nations” with a relationship The Court has reasoned that a treaty between the
to the United States that “resembles that of a ward to negotiators for the United States and an Indian tribe
his guardian” (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831, 17). is essentially a contract between two sovereign
Justice Smith Thompson’s noteworthy dissent in nations. The judiciary has acknowledged the varying
1832 favored Indian nation status in part based upon circumstances under which treaty negotiations have
the treaty interaction (ibid., 50). taken place through the nation’s history. Most often,
Scholars have argued that American Indian sov- agreements arose out of unequal relationships. Obvi-
ereign rights should be recognized in a new era as ously, treaties made under threat were inherently
reserved rights under the terms of treaties (or agree- unfair and one-sided. Sometimes, U.S. negotiators
ments), as well as under the Tenth Amendment of sidestepped American Indian opposition to the
the U.S. Constitution, which contains the wording terms they presented and simply affixed signatures
“All powers not granted in this Constitution shall be or Xs to the document or, in the case of the Kiowa in
reserved to the States, or to the people” (Wilkins and 1892, returned to the nation’s capital and added the
Lomawaima 2001, 120; Deloria 1996, 972). Tribes still marks to the end of the document (Clark 1999, 48). It
retain sovereignty and still exercise inherent rights of was a fraudulent tactic but an expedient one. At
self-government. Those powers have existed since other times, U.S. authorities reacted to Indian oppo-
time immemorial. Some tribal leaders seek renegoti- sition by passing laws seizing Indian territory, such
ated treaty terms, insisting on more inclusive advan- as Black Hills legislation in 1877 or allotment in sev-
tages, territorial acquisitions, and recognition of eralty acts. Over time, as the relative power position
expanded rights. between the United States and Indian nations
Colonies negotiated with tribes, and European changed, the U.S. government imposed terms on
nations concluded agreements with indigenous disparate groups that allegedly represented entire
nations, to secure amity, trade, allies, and land ces- Indian nations, and then the Senate quickly ratified

Relevant Court Cases Related to Treaties 41
the “treaty” as if it had come from the wellspring of payment of annual annuities to Pawnee tribal mem-
the demands of a whole Native nation. bers, are still in effect. At other times, courts have
Around the time of the American Civil War, a recognized Indian treaty rights long after the origi-
growing clamor arose among government agents, nal historical circumstances had radically changed.
missionaries, and other leaders, calling for an end to Beginning in the late 1960s, federal courts upheld
treaty making with tribes. Part of the expressed con- the Northwest tribes’ treaty “right of taking fish” in
cern arose from ongoing conflicts between govern- the region (U.S. v. Washington 1975, 683). Other
ment agencies over which branch, military or civil- examples occurred in the 1980s and in 1999, when
ian, would control Indian affairs. Another reason the Supreme Court ruled that Chippewa Indian
related to U.S. insistence on reflecting the changed band members retained their rights for hunting,
situation between the national government and fishing, trapping, and gathering, both on and off
tribes. Pressure from business interests that believed their reservation (the latter are called usufructuary
they were hampered in their dealings with Native rights), that were guaranteed to them under their
peoples as a result of the constraints of treaties treaty (Lac Courte Oreilles v. Voigt 1983; Minnesota v.
added another excuse. Other people sought more Mille Lacs 1999, 176; Wilkinson 1991). From time to
Indian lands, believing treaties stood in their way. time, Congress also enacts legislation to implement
The clash between the houses of Congress over ulti- terms of past treaties. One example is the Pacific
mate control of Indian affairs, involving executive Salmon Treaty Act, passed in 1985 (P. L. 99–5, 99
branch privileges, helped determine the outcome. Stat. 7). The measure established a U.S.-Canadian
Congress responded to the call and in 1871 enacted commission that included Indian representation to
an amendment to an Indian appropriations bill that oversee the protection of tribal treaty international
halted treaty making with tribes (Act of 3 March fishing stocks. The commission tries to address prob-
1871, 16 Stat. 566, sect. 1). The act stated that treaties lems arising from the multinational impact of North
made prior to 1871 were not affected, that “. . . no Pacific fishing resource questions. Additional chal-
obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified lenges are posed by the enforcement of treaty terms
with any such Indian nation or tribe prior to March and congressional appropriation of funding to sup-
3, 1871, shall be hereby invalidated or impaired.” In port the implementation of treaty terms.
the future, the president could authorize executive
agreements with consenting tribes, agreements that
would be ratified by both houses of Congress The Canons of
(Prucha 1984, I, 527–533; Wunder 1985). Agreements Treaty Construction
that could be ratified by both houses of Congress Ambiguous Expressions Must Be
continued to be made until 1911. Thereafter, Con- Resolved in Favor of Indians
gress authorized numerous measures that directly The conditions under which two sides negotiated
dealt with Indian lands and rights, but the enact- treaties left much to be desired, as a result of power
ments were not officially termed treaties. Two exam- differentials, language and cultural barriers, and a
ples are the federal acknowledgement, in the con- host of other problems. Discerning what a figure in
temporary era, of the Mashantucket Pequot in their history thought or believed with certainty is next to
land claims settlement act in the state of Connecticut, impossible, given the lapse of time and the difficul-
and recognition of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (usually ties of documentation. Jurists have struggled
called the Tigua) within the state of Texas in 1988 through the years with the basic question of how to
(former, 25 U.S.C. § 1751, 1988; latter, 101 Stat. 666). interpret treaty language and how to reconcile
Although such measures are called land settlement treaty rights with congressional and court desires,
acts now, they are in reality agreements negotiated local and state demands, to end the terms of treaties.
with tribal governments, once termed Indian Courts established rules under which treaties could
treaties. Contemporary tribal compacts with state consistently be interpreted for a period of time. The
and local governments perform the same function as rules regarding treaties are called canons of construc-
historic bilateral treaties. tion (or guidelines). Judges have held that any sig-
Treaty terms varied widely in the length of time nificant ambiguities in interpretation of treaty rights
they ran and the effects they had. Courts sometimes must be resolved in the favor of Indians because of
have ruled that the terms of a particular article of a language barriers and as a result of cultural differ-
treaty no longer hold. Some treaty terms, such as the ences. When brothers erected fishwheels on the

Columbia River, relying on their state license to per- negotiations. The federal government often coerced
mit them to take a large amount of fish, Yakima tribe members into negotiating. “The Indian Nations
Indians objected because of the rapid depletion of did not seek out the United States and agree upon an
fish resources. The Indians insisted on recognition exchange of lands in an arm’s-length transaction.
of their treaty right to fish. In 1905, the Supreme Rather, treaties were imposed on them and they had
Court ruled that treaties must be interpreted as the no choice but to consent” (Choctaw Nation v. U.S.
Indians would have understood them. The Indians 1970, 630–631). Just before the turn of the twentieth
could fish on the river (U.S. v. Winans 1905, 371). In century, the Supreme Court restated an earlier
Winters v. U.S. (1908, 576), the same Court ruled decree that an Indian treaty “therefore must be con-
that, if ambiguities occur in the interpretation of strued, not according to the technical meaning of its
agreements and treaties, “ambiguities will be words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which
resolved from the standpoint of the Indians.” they would naturally be understood by the Indians”
“Doubtful expressions are to be resolved in favor of (Jones v. Meehan 1899, 11; Choate 1912, 675; Washing-
the weak and defenseless people who are wards of ton v. Washington Fishing Assn. 1979, 676). In 1979, the
the nation, dependent upon its protection and good Court examined fourteen treaties among four Puget
faith” (Carpenter v. Shaw 1930, 367). In part, the Sound tribes in the Pacific Northwest, involving the
Court reasoned that American Indians could discern issue of treaty negotiations over rights to territory
neither the meaning of English phrases as a foreign and to fish; the Court ruled, “It is absolutely clear, as
language nor the disguised meaning of English Governor [Isaac] Stevens himself said, that neither
words and phrases, even if the Natives spoke some he nor the Indians intended that the latter ‘should be
English (Winters 1908, 577). Moreover, the McClana- excluded from their ancient fisheries,’ and it is
han decision of 1973 asserted, in a case that exam- accordingly inconceivable that either party deliber-
ined state taxation of a reservation resident’s ately agreed to authorize future settlers to crowd the
income, that the Indians’ dire circumstances sur- Indians out of any meaningful use of their accus-
rounding the forced signing of a treaty in 1868 lent tomed places to fish. That each individual Indian
credence to the interpretation of the document in would share an ‘equal opportunity’ with thousands
favor of the Indians (McClanahan 1973, 174). This of newly arrived individual settlers is totally foreign
canon of construction has wide application. It has to the spirit of the negotiations. Such a ‘right,’ along
been applied to Indian grazing rights that carried with the $207,500 paid the Indians, would hardly
with them priority rights within a national forest have been sufficient to compensate them for the mil-
even though the Indian treaty and subsequent lions of acres they ceded to the Territory [of Wash-
agreement made no mention of those specific rights ington]” (ibid.). In a shocking pronouncement, if
(Swim v. Bergland 1983, 716–718). In 1999, the Court treaties were signed between roughly equal sover-
also upheld such a reading of treaty rights in a deci- eigns, the Court reasoned, then each side was due
sion dealing with Chippewa Indians’ hunting and roughly half the fish harvest (ibid., 687). Because the
fishing rights across a swath of the southern Great tribes’ populations had dwindled while the settlers’
Lakes region (Mille Lacs 1999, 200, 206). numbers had exploded, the smaller tribes received
as much of the fish harvest as the much larger sur-
Treaties Must Be Interpreted rounding non-Indian populace.
as Indians Understood Them
Although court opinions have weighed in on all Treaties Must Be Construed in Favor of Indians
sides of treaty interpretation, one of the mainstays of The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that treaties
viewing an Indian treaty has been that the document are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the Indians
must be interpreted according to what the Indians when there is disputed language about the imple-
thought the articles meant. This is another major mentation of the terms of a treaty (ibid., 676, 678;
canon of treaty construction. As an example, the Choctaw Nation v. U.S. 1970, 432; Mille Lacs 1999, 200).
Choctaw treaty of 1830 provided that “in the con- This is yet another major canon of construction. One
struction of this Treaty wherever well founded doubt of the most generous interpretations of Indian treaty
shall arise, it shall be construed most favorably language was in the Winters decision of 1908, in
towards the Choctaws” (Treaty of 27 Sep. 1830 at which a federal district court held that it was implicit
Dancing Rabbit Creek, 7 Stat. 333, Article 18). After in the treaties that sufficient waters for tribal use
all, the United States sought out Native tribes for were preserved, preceding and preempting any

other rights subsequently established by state law or tions in 1997 and found in favor of the Indians. The
use. The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion. The court stated that “if the [Act] can reasonably be con-
tribe not only had treaty rights guaranteed to it but strued as the Tribe would have it construed, [then] it
also had reserved to it all the rights necessary to must be construed that way” (Ramah 1997, 1432;
carry out the purpose of the treaty, including the first Muscogee v. Hodel 1988, 1445).
use of scarce water for Indian agriculture. Courts
have rendered similarly supportive rulings in favor
of Indian rights under other treaties (Swim 1983, 716; Plenary Power
Grand Traverse Band 1998, 639). This canon of con- The U.S. Congress gave to itself the political author-
struction also has broad application to other areas of ity, also called plenary power, to enact laws altering
Indian country. An appeals court in 1998 applied the Indian policies. Plenary power also has an effect
liberal interpretation of a treaty from 1855 to grant upon Indian treaties. In its major statement on the
Yakima Indian truck drivers who were hauling subject, the Supreme Court ruled, in the infamous
reservation timber over state highways immunity decision involving the Kiowa leader Lone Wolf, that
from state vehicle permit fees (Cree v. Flores 1998, the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gave
769, 771). The same year, another appellate court Congress sweeping power over American Indians.
proclaimed that members of a Chippewa band could Indeed, Indian treaties were similar, in the Court’s
anchor their commercial fishing vessels at a public view, to federal statues (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 1903,
dock on the shore of a lake, as a result of construing 568; Warren v. Tax Comm 1965, 380.) As such, under
Indian treaties from 1836 and 1855 liberally in favor this approach Congress has the authority to limit
of the Indians, even though the documents did not rights promised to Indian tribes in treaties. Going
say anything specifically about commercial mooring back in time, after the American Civil War, amid a
rights (Grand Traverse Band 1998, 638–639). growing chorus to open Indian lands to pioneer set-
Court pronouncements have extended the max- tlement, Supreme Court justices reasserted congres-
ims for benefiting Indians when interpreting treaties sional plenary power in a decision regarding
to the examination of federal statutes. The canons of tobacco manufactured just inside the boundary of
treaty construction have been applied broadly to the Cherokee Nation. Article 10 of the Cherokee
federal statutes dealing with American Indians. A treaty of 1866 had clearly pledged that the Cherokee
unanimous Court in 1974 found that administrative could sell merchandise without paying “any tax
rules and regulations should favor tribes in inter- thereon which . . . may be levied by the United
preting treaty law (Morton v. Ruiz 1974, 229). Fur- States” (15 Stat. 167). In its decision, the Court rec-
thermore, where Indians are concerned, the normal ognized congressional authority to modify an
rules of interpretation for statutes do not apply: “. . . Indian treaty and to enact a measure in direct viola-
federal statutes are to be construed liberally in favor tion of the treaty “as if the treaty were not an ele-
of Native Americans, with ambiguous provisions ment to be considered” (Cherokee Tobacco 1870, 621).
interpreted to their benefit” (EEOC v. Cherokee Nation The Court relied upon what is called the “last-in-
1989, 939). Similarly, the usual deference shown in time” rule, under which a congressional statute that
court for agency administrative interpretation of is the latest enactment in time supersedes a previous
ambiguous statutes also does not apply to American treaty. Among succeeding examples is the Court’s
Indians (Muscogee [Creek] Nation v. Hodel 1988, ruling in 1882 that legislation creating the State of
1444–1445; Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe 1985, 766; Oneida Colorado in 1875 “repeals . . . any existing treaty”
County 1985, 247; Connecticut v. U.S. Dept. of the Inte- blocking its path (U.S. v. McBratney 1881, 623). Four-
rior 2000, 92; Ramah Navajo Chapter 1997, 1462). Two teen years afterward, the Court also stated that
additional examples illustrate the trend. A circuit Indian treaties “should not be made an instrument
court in 1982 held that the secretary of the interior for violating the public faith by distorting the words
had violated the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ regula- of a treaty,” thereby jeopardizing the rights of citi-
tions regarding petroleum leases, and any doubt zens in Wyoming fully to regulate hunting (Ward v.
over interpreting the regulations had to be resolved Race Horse 1896, 516). Since the latter could be
in favor of the Indians (Jicarilla v. Andrus 1982, 1332). amended or repealed, therefore, Congress could
An appeals court applied the same sentiment to BIA alter the terms or even abolish the terms of treaties
interpretation of an ambiguous statute regarding with tribes. Still later, the same high tribunal ruled
complicated educational funding formula calcula- that it was unfortunately “too late” for the president

of the United States to protect the Indians in their can Indian title to Seneca land coveted for the
treaty rights and left the Natives to the fate of con- Allegheny Reservoir. The Kinzua Dam project cre-
gressional whim (U.S. v. Winans 1905, 75). ated the reservoir. The Court concluded that Con-
gress must have known and considered the cata-
strophic impact of flooding 10,000 acres of Indian
Takings land, as well as using the remaining 2,300 acres for
The most notorious decision regarding the outright highway access to serve the reservoir (Seneca Nation
seizure of Indian Territory is the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S. 1965, 56; Josephy 1984). When the Court
v. U.S. opinion of 1995. In that pronouncement, the approved the seizure of Tuscarora Indian land for a
Court voiced the draconian assumption that the hydroelectric project that would drown Native land,
United States could take Indian lands, even those Justice Hugo Black wrote a stinging dissent. He
protected by treaties. Moreover, the Court decreed, diverged from his colleagues’ determination that
under the Fifth Amendment the United States could public utilities, acting under license from the Federal
seize Tlingit lands in Alaska without payment Power Commission, could condemn Tuscarora lands
because of the false contention in the ruling that “the for a power project. Alarmingly, the Court ruled that
savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their “general Acts of Congress apply to Indians as well as
ancestral ranges by force” used by the conqueror to others in the absence of a clear expression to the
(Tee-Hit-Ton 1955, 289). The Tee-Hit-Ton band had no contrary” (FPC v. Tuscarora 1960, 120). Justice Black
treaty relationship with the United States. Congress remarked that “great nations like great men should
had not enacted legislation recognizing their lands keep their word” (ibid., 142)
or status. No recognition, no rights. As Congress had
not authorized ownership, Indian occupancy “may
be extinguished by the Government without com- Abrogation
pensation” (ibid., 288). Tribes lost their land rights To end or take away a treaty’s effect is to abrogate it.
because the conqueror took them. If unprotected by Courts have ruled that treaty terms may be violated
a treaty or a federal statute, then, the Court ruled, or altered if new circumstances arise that necessitate
the United States could take Indian lands without the change. Lawmakers have also rationalized the
due process of law, without just compensation, and abrogation of Indian treaties when the delegates
without concern for the usual requirement that such wanted to open Indian lands to further sale and set-
a taking of the land needed to be for a public pur- tlement. In its clearest expression of opposition to
pose. Constructing federal statutes so they state con- Indian treaties, at the start of the twentieth century
gressional intent to abrogate treaty rights, including in the Lone Wolf decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
vested property rights for which compensation must held that congressional plenary power granted to
be paid under the Fifth Amendment, avoided the that body full rights to end the terms of any Indian
obligation for financial payment. Through its deci- treaty when Congress deemed it necessary to carry
sion in Shoshone v. U.S. (1937), the Supreme Court out national policies. Judges drew from earlier
announced that treaty rights are a form of property Court edicts such as Cherokee Tobacco and Kagama.
and as such are under the protection of the Fifth The Lone Wolf opinion announced, “The power
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically, the exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty.
just compensation clause. If those rights are taken . . . [It] was never doubted that the power to abro-
away, then compensation must be paid. gate existed in Congress, . . . particularly if consis-
In 1980, the Court repudiated the taking of tent with perfect good faith towards the Indians”
Indian lands without compensation at the same time (Lone Wolf 1903, 568). The Court subsequently
the jurists also repudiated the most flagrant exercise chipped away at the Lone Wolf doctrine, but the pro-
of plenary power where American Indians are con- nouncement has never been fully repudiated and
cerned. In U.S. v. Sioux Nation, the Court held that remains established law.
just compensation must be paid under the Fifth Justice Edward Douglass White’s “good faith
Amendment if treaty rights are violated (U.S. v. effort” in the decision set a standard for violating
Sioux Nation 1980, 408). When seizing more than 20 Indian treaty rights and taking Indian land that suc-
percent of the Tuscarora Indian reservation for a cessive courts tried to follow. Courts looked for evi-
hydroelectric project, the Court invoked slim evidence that congressional deliberations considered
dence that Congress intended to abrogate the Ameri- some impacts from the abrogation of a treaty’s

terms. The high court has upheld the rule that Con- on occasion courts have held that, even if not stated
gress must clearly express its intent to abrogate an at all, the mere enactment of a statute violating a
Indian treaty (Missouri v. Holland 1919, 417, 421; treaty meant that Congress had considered all the
Mattz v. Arnett 1973, 505). consequences and intended to alter the treaty. This is
The decision of 1968 regarding the Menominee termed “implied abrogation.” In its decision of 1986,
tribe of Wisconsin supported Indian treaty rights justices surmised that “the [C]ourt believes that Con-
and found that the pertinent legislation, such as the gress would have” circumscribed Native hunting
tribe’s termination act in 1954 (68 Stat. 250) and Pub- and treaty rights. To the Court there was clear evi-
lic Law 280 in 1953 (67 Stat. 588) passed by the same dence—however, never stated—that Congress had
Congress, did not specifically mention Indian hunt- considered the consequences of violating treaty
ing and fishing rights falling under state jurisdiction. rights. In the clash over Indians’ use of feathers of
The Supreme Court applied the “not lightly species protected under federal and international
implied” test and ascertained that the Menominee wildlife enactments, the most noteworthy pro-
Termination Act did not abrogate those rights. More- nouncement involved two Yankton Sioux Indians.
over, the Court, in a remarkably solicitous attitude, The Court held that legislation to protect endan-
reported it did not believe that Congress intended to gered bald eagles and the requirement for permits
abrogate Native treaty rights in “a backhanded way” for Natives to take eagles for religious purposes
(Menominee 1968, 412). Building upon that decree, reflected Congress’s belief “that it was abrogating
the Court later added that it felt “extreme reluctance the rights of Indians to take eagles” even under
to find congressional abrogation of Indian treaty treaty guarantees (Dion 1986, 740, 743). Justices
rights in the absence of explicit statutory language so assumed that Congress must have discussed the
directing” (U.S. v. Washington 1975, 689). consequences and must have known the impact.
In a more recent announcement, the Supreme Opinions following in time have taken the presump-
Court ruled that, when Congress enacted legislation tion in a different direction. Jurists have held that, if
to protect the endangered bald eagle and required an old treaty or agreement did not specifically men-
permits for Indians to take eagles for religious pur- tion a modern need, then it was neither permitted
poses, such action reflected Congress’s belief “that it nor reserved to the tribe (Oregon Department 1985,
was abrogating the rights of Indians to take eagles” 754, 767, 770). In 1991, a district judge in Wisconsin
even under treaty guarantees (U.S. v. Dion 1986, 743; ruled that rights for Chippewa Indians reserved
Laurence 1991; Townsend 1989). Earlier, the Court under 1837 and 1842 treaties did not include the
attempted to clarify its stance when it said, in the right to harvest timber commercially (Lac Courte
Menominee decision in 1968, that treaties cannot be Oreilles 1991, 700). In 2001, the Court added a bitter
abrogated “in a backhanded way.” Instead, the twist to the usual interpretation of statutes in favor
Court held that there must be clear and explicit lan- of Indians when it ruled that any tax exemption aris-
guage to abrogate Indian treaties when Congress ing from Indian gaming must have been clearly and
enacts legislation. In 1986, however, the Court opin- explicitly expressed, turning the canon of construc-
ion lessened the requirement and expanded the tion on its head (Chickasaw Nation v. U.S. 2001, 90).
impact. The Court held that there need be only During the term of Chief Justice William Rehn-
“clear evidence that Congress actually considered quist, the Court drastically narrowed many rights
the conflict between its intended action on the one for Indian tribes. Brusque opinions sidestepped
hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose tribal sovereignty in favor of state intrusions into
to resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty” Native governmental activities. Throughout U.S. his-
(U.S. v. Dion 1986, 740; U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad tory, American Indians have faced local and state
1941, 354). opposition to Native rights. Local and state authori-
Courts have sanctioned the violation of treaty ties have sometimes ignored Indian rights or at other
rights in a variety of other ways. Courts have seen fit times actively enforced local and state regulations
to permit the violation of Indian treaty rights under that violated indigenous rights. State officials have
the so-called conservation necessity standard for eroded or denied Indian rights to fish, hunt, and
states to impose regulations on Indian hunting, fish- gather for seasonal needs. That line of reasoning
ing, and gathering rights in the interest of enforce- echoes in court opinions. Anti-Indian groups, when
ment of state conservation regulations (Puyallup Tribe not slinging vitriol over the subject of Indian rights,
1968, 398; Antoine 1974, 207–208). More disturbing, advocate either terminating tribes and abolishing

tribal rights or severely restricting those rights Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, 112 F. 3d 1455 (10th
(Williams and Neubrech, 1976). Some of the assump- Cir., 1997).
tions are reflected in Court rulings. In 1998, a major- Seneca Nation of Indians v. U.S., 338 F. 2d 55 (2d Cir.,
1964); cert. denied, 380 U.S. 952 (1965).
ity opinion remarked that American Indian tribal
Shoshone v. U.S., 304 U.S. 111 (1937).
rights will “fade over time” (South Dakota 1998, 798). South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 118 S. Ct. 789
The chief justice, in a biting 1999 dissent, acidly com- (1998).
mented that Indian treaty rights are only “temporary Swim v. Bergland, 696 F. 2d 712 (1983).
and precarious” (Mille Lacs 1999, 219–220). Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S., 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
C. Blue Clark U.S. v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986).
U.S. v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886).
References and Further Reading U.S. v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881).
Court Cases U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 314 U.S. 339 (1941).
Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1974). U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).
Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 (1930). U.S. v. Washington, 520 F. 2d 676 (1975).
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). U.S. v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905).
Cherokee Tobacco, 78 Wall. 616 (1870). Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896).
Chickasaw Nation v. U.S., 534 U.S. 84 (2001). Warren Trading Post v. State Tax Commission, 380 U.S.
Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912). 685 (1965).
Choctaw Nation v. U.S., 397 U.S. 620 (1970). Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger
Connecticut v. U.S. Department of Interior, 228 F. 3d 82 Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658 (1979).
(2d Cir., 2000). Winters v. U.S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908).
Cree v. Flores, 157 F. 3d 762 (9th Cir., 1998). Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cherokee Books and Articles
Nation, 871 F. 2d 937 (10th Cir., 1989). Chambers, Reid P. 1975. “Judicial Enforcement of the
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians.”
362 U.S. 99 (1960). Stanford Law Review, 27 (May): 1213–1248.
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Clark, Blue. 1999. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights
Director of Michigan Department of Natural and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth
Resources, 141 F. 2d 635 (6th Cir., 1998). Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Cecil Andrus, 697 F. 2d 1324 Cohen, Fay. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing
(10th Cir., 1982). Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights.
Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Cohen, Felix. 1942. “Indian Treaties.” In Handbook
Indians v. Lester Voigt, 700 F. 2d 341 (1983). of Federal-Indian Law, ed. Felix Cohen, 33–67.
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Washington, DC: Interior Department/
Indians v. State of Wisconsin, 758 F. Supp. 1262 Government Printing Office. [Repr. by
(W.D.Wis., 1991). Interior Department, 1958; UNM, 1972; ed.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903). by Rennard Strickland, Mitchie, Bobbs-
Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly, 39 F. Supp. 75 (1941). Merrill, 1982].
Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973). Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1996. “Reserving to Themselves:
McClananan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 Treaties and the Powers of Indian Tribes.”
(1973). Arizona Law Review, 38, 3 (Fall): 963–980.
Menominee Tribe v. U.S., 391 U.S. 404 (1968). Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes,
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin:
U.S. 172 (1999). University of Texas Press.
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1919). Jones, Dorothy V. 1982. License for Empire: By Treaty in
Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. 759 (1985). Early America. Chicago: University of Chicago
Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974). Press.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F. 2d 1439 Josephy, Alvin, Jr. 1984. “Cornplanter, Can You
(D.C. Cir., 1988). Swim?” In Now That the Buffalo’s Gone, ed. Alvin
Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York Josephy, Jr., 127–150. Norman: University of
State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985). Oklahoma Press.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Laurence, Robert. 1991. “The Abrogation of Indian
Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753 (1985). Treaties by Federal Statutes Protective of the
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, Environment.” Natural Resources Journal, 31
391 U.S. 392 (1968). (Fall): 859–886.

Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The Wisconsin Chippewa.” Wisconsin Law Review
United States Government and the Indians. 2 vols. (May-June): 375–414.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. 1975.
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation:
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los ‘As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows Upon
Angeles, and London: University of California the Earth’—How Long a Time Is That?”
Press. California Law Review, 63 (January): 601–661.
Sabo, George. 1992. “Rituals of Encounter: Williams, C. Herb, and Walt Neubrech. 1976. Indian
Interpreting Native American Views of Treaties: American Nightmare. Seattle, WA:
European Explorers.” Arkansas Historical Outdoor Empire.
Quarterly, 51 (Spring): 54–68. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together:
Townsend, Michael. 1989. “Congressional Abrogation American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace,
of Indian Treaties: Reevaluation and Reform.” 1600–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yale Law Journal, 98 (February): 793–812. Wunder, John R. 1985. “No More Treaties: The
Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. Resolution of 1871 and the Alteration of
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Indian Rights to Their Homelands” in
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Working the Range: Essays on the History of
Press. Western Land Management and the Environment,
Wilkinson, Charles F. 1991. “To Feel the Summer in ed. John R. Wunder, 39–56. Westport, CT:
the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the Greenwood Press.

Indian Treaties as International Agreements
Development of the European
Nation State and International Law
C
ommunities of peoples have negotiated the Portuguese reached the Madeira Islands and
C
agreements with one another for thousands ushered in the European age of exploration. Seven
of years. Treaties dating from Babylonian, years later, Portuguese explorers had reached the
Assyrian, and Hittite times still exist, written in Azores; in 1456, the Cape Verde Islands.
cuneiform on clay tablets and laying out terms of Four years before Bartholomeu Dias sailed
peace, land exchange, and trade. First applied to the around the southernmost tip of Africa in 1488, King
negotiation process rather than to the document, the John of Portugal had declined to support Christo-
term treaty ultimately came to mean an agreement pher Columbus’s proposal to sail eastward. Acquir-
made by the highest authority, or sovereign, as ing the support of Queen Isabella of Spain, Colum-
opposed to sponsions and other agreements made bus rediscovered the Western Hemisphere in 1492.
without the full commission of the sovereign To avoid conflict with Portugal, Queen Isabella
(Grotius 1925, 391). The current understanding of requested that Pope Alexander VI divide these
treaties, as documents negotiated to establish rela- newly discovered oceans and lands between the two
tions among states and as a primary source of inter- nations. In 1494, Pope Alexander VI, following nego-
national law, developed as Europe moved from the tiations between King John II and Queen Isabella,
Middle Ages to the Renaissance. issued the Treaty of Tordesilla of 1494, dividing the
In the fifteenth century, the Catholic Church, earth by drawing a demarcation line 370 leagues
despite its history of corruption and schisms, west of the Cape Verde Islands.
retained its preeminent power as the religious and As the wealth from these new lands swelled the
secular European authority. The pope, considered Spanish and Portuguese coffers, the French and
God’s representative, possessed the authority to English explorers, disputing the pope’s authority to
crown and dispose of secular rulers, to settle dis- divide the earth, sent their own explorers to claim
putes, to excommunicate individuals from the body new lands. Papal authority came under decided
of the Church and from everlasting salvation, and to political attack in 1576 when the French jurist and
bestow legitimacy on new ideas and fields of knowl- natural law philosopher Jean Bodin published The
edge or declare them heretical. Three hundred years Six Books of the Commonwealth. Contained within
later, technological advancements, discoveries of these essays was the new philosophical concept of
new lands and resources, and the rise of the nation- sovereignty. Sovereignty, Bodin argued, was the
state had severely undermined the authority of the existence of a unified authority in a political commu-
Catholic Church. nity. As the sovereign, the French king held absolute
The introduction of multiple masts and sails and perpetual power within the French state (Bodin
and construction of the caravel (a small, three- 1576). The monarch derived this total authority to
masted ship) allowed European rulers to expand govern from God, not from the pope. As sovereign,
their trade and commerce and to sail to new parts of the king possessed the authority to make laws bind-
the world, where they found lands of untold ing on its subjects, to declare war and peace, to
resources, sizes, and possibilities. Johannes Guten- establish state offices, and to act as the final court of
berg’s invention of movable type around 1450 redress.
opened education and knowledge to those beyond As the political, economic, and military powers
the Church. The adoption of gunpowder from China of the developing European nation-states grew and
between 1500 and 1600 created a military revolution, the pope’s authority declined, monarchs recognized
allowing European rulers the means to solidify and the need to regulate their interactions through the
expand their control over their lands in continental development of binding international legal princi-
Europe and in the newfound territories. ples and documents, which bore an assortment of
All these technological improvements assisted names, including treaty, agreement, act, statute, and
the Portuguese and the Spanish in their rediscovery covenant, among many others. By 1739, Jean
of Africa and the Western Hemisphere. In 1420, Barbeyric had listed sixty subjects of treaties. A ref-
under the direction of Prince Henry the Navigator, erence in the 1427 British Rolls of Parliament is the
49
first known European use of the term treaty (Meyers Suárez, and Francisco de Vitoria (the latter two
1957, 579). Approximately a quarter century later, known as among the first proponents of interna-
the printing of papal bulls in 1461 is recorded as the tional law) vociferously argued against Spanish poli-
first publication of an international document. The cies in the Western Hemisphere, raising questions
first collection of treaties was published in 1643, five and putting forth principles relating to just war, the
years before the negotiation of the Treaty of West- proper means of obtaining title to inhabited lands,
phalia, identified by many scholars as the first mod- statehood, and the just treatment of peoples. Often
ern treaty leading to the development of modern referred to as the father of human rights, Vitoria
international relations (Liverani 1980, 50). argued that the proper mode for relating to the
International law at this time had no prescribed Native inhabitants was through negotiations and
procedure or format for treaty making. As long as treaties. Only if the Native inhabitants refused to
the appropriate sovereign authority had approved conclude treaties establishing a relationship with
the negotiations and provisions, the agreement con- Spain could the Spanish legally and morally go to
stituted a treaty, whether written or oral. In 1758, war. Slowly but eventually, Spanish laws in theory
Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss jurist, published the (but not always in practice) reflected the ideas and
Law of Nations, considered the first textbook on inter- principles espoused by these thinkers.
national law. In the Law of Nations, Vattel defined a As explorers and settlers traveled to the Western
treaty as “[a] compact entered into by sovereigns for Hemisphere, increasing the competition among the
the welfare of the State, either in perpetuity or for a European powers, rulers directed their representa-
considerable length of time . . .” (Vattel 1916, 160). tives to negotiate with the Indian nations for access
The highest state authority could only enter into to land, resources, and trade and to form military
treaties (ibid., 160). In Sections 220–221, Vattel alliances. As suggested by Vitoria, the negotiation of
emphasized the principle that became a fundamen- treaties proved the most effective procedure for
tal rule of international law, pacta sunt servanda, that accomplishing these objectives. The total number of
treaties are “sacred” and must be upheld. States that treaties concluded by Spain and the other European
violate “the faith of treaties”—a faith that is sacred— nations with the Indian nations is unknown. Many
violates the law of nations. Treaties, the European early treaties were oral, their existence known only
theorists agreed, created international norms that are through descriptions written at the time of the coun-
binding and inviolable. cils and the subsequent agreements. Over time,
European representatives, needing to prove the exis-
tence of these agreements to their competitors, for-
Treaty Negotiation malized the agreements in written form. Many of
between European Powers these documents have disappeared or remain hid-
and Indian Nations den in state and personal archives and personal col-
The Spanish monarchs, who were highly religious lections throughout the world.
as well as legalistic, held innumerable discussions As discussed below, European states in general
and councils to determine the proper treatment of regarded the treaties concluded with the Indian
these newly discovered inhabitants and their lands. powers as equal to and as legally binding as the
Laws were published and revised, and conquests treaties they concluded with one another. Vattel also
stopped for various periods as the most highly addressed this issue in Law of Nations, stating that
regarded intellectuals of the Spanish realm debated “faith of treaties has no relation to the difference of
any number of issues. Were these Natives a natural religion, and cannot in any manner depend upon it.”
part or a new branch of animals or humanity? Did As for treaties concluded with infidels, Vattel, citing
their nature as heathens allow the Spanish to Grotius, states that only natural laws and not spiri-
enslave them, to take their lands, to make war and tual law were to govern the “Rule of treaties of
conquer them, and to forcibly convert them to Nations” (ibid., 162). Grotius, too, had earlier
Christianity? referred to this issue, pointing out that treaties made
Spanish laws and policies toward the Native between equal sovereigns and those made between
inhabitants and their lands initially allowed the unequal sovereigns differed in subject matter, not
unspeakable annihilation of Native communities validity. Treaties between equal sovereigns generally
and confiscation of their lands and resources. The- dealt with the return of captives, the restoration of
ologians such as Bartolomé de Las Casas, Francisco property, commerce arrangements, and mutual

assistance. Treaties between strong and weak heads objectives through give-and-take. Although they
of states, in which an impairment of sovereignty supposedly remained legally binding, the treaty
resulted, discussed indemnities, withdrawal from procedure and document, once concluded, had ful-
territory, and the surrender of fortresses. filled their purpose.
Treaty making, no matter the time or culture, This differing cultural understanding of agree-
involves a negotiation process followed by a sym- ments further affected the two cultures’ choices of
bolic acceptance of the agreed-upon terms. As did negotiation procedures. Given the sanctity and total-
most societies, the Indian nations of North, Central, ity with which many tribal peoples imbued their
and South America possessed their own traditional decisions, the agreement had to be thoroughly con-
forms of negotiating agreements, resolving disputes, sidered and supported. In many tribes, those given
and ending wars. Vine Deloria, Jr., and Raymond J. the authority to negotiate did not possess the power
DeMallie, in their important two-volume work, Doc- to ratify. Depending upon the particular tribal
uments of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agree- arrangement, decisions may have required the sup-
ments, and Conventions, 1775–1979, describe two of port of clan leaders, the approval of related bands, or
these procedures. The Indian nations in the Great full tribal consensus. This decision-making process
Lakes area solidified their agreements with the often proved lengthy and infuriating to the Euro-
exchange of wampum and gifts. Other Indian nations peans and (especially later) to the Americans, who
employed special and sacred ceremonies that, once preferred to settle issues quickly and smoothly.
performed, signified the end of hostilities and the The Dutch negotiated one of the first known
restoration of mutual peace. Among the Sioux peo- treaties in North America, with the Iroquois in 1613
ple, the sacred pipe ceremony restored peace among (Van Loon 1968, 22–26). D’Arcy McNickle discusses
enemies. DeMallie and Deloria (1999) also provide a an important treaty concluded between the Mo-
general overview of Indian treaty-making proce- hawks and Dutch in 1643 that may have played a
dures. No matter the tribe’s particular negotiation role in the Mohawks’ annihilation of the Huron
procedure or the ultimate symbol of acceptance, the Nation in 1645. France concluded many treaties with
tribal parties, like the western world, regarded the tribes, including a treaty of friendship with the
negotiations and ensuing agreements as binding. Onondaga on June 2, 1622, two with the Six Nations
Although the Native and the western worlds in 1633 and 1635, and two with the Huron Nation in
both regarded their negotiated agreements as legiti- 1641 and 1645 (McNickle 1973, 130). The total num-
mate and valid, Deloria and DeMallie (1999) point ber of pre–Revolutionary War treaties concluded by
out a subtle but important distinction between the England and the colonies with the Indian nations is
two cultures in their understanding, approach, and unknown. Benjamin Franklin published thirteen
ultimate responsibility to these agreements. Among treaties concluded by the Pennsylvania colony with
Native communities, agreements— especially those various tribes from 1738–1762 (Boyd 1938). Later, on
ending a state of conflict—represented a sacred com- Canada’s behalf, Great Britain concluded eleven
mitment by each side to alter their relationship with treaties with Indian nations living within Canadian
one another. The agreement to establish peace was a boundaries. It is interesting to note that Canada did
decision to actively create “a distinct state of being.” not receive the authority to negotiate treaties as a
It was not, as understood in western society, simply sovereign entity until the passage of the Statute of
an agreement to desist from certain practices that Westminster in 1931. Another fifty-four treaties con-
caused conflict. From a cultural perspective, Indian cluded between the English colonies and the eastern
nations understood treaties and agreements as tribes from 1677 to 1768 appear in a 1917 collection
sacred. The words, whether spoken or written, were by H. DePuy (DePuy 1917). Deloria and DeMallie
living representations of each party’s commitment to include information on another five treaties that
the other. England concluded with various non-Iroquoian
The western approach to treaty making was of tribes, such as the Chippewa, the Potawatomi, the
a different and far more practical magnitude. Ottawa, and others, between 1777 and 1798.
Although, as Vattel emphasized, states were bound The treaty of 1752 between Governor Peregrine
by natural law to honor their treaty commit- Thomas Hopson and the Micmac Indians serves as
ments—otherwise they were of little benefit—the an example of the many treaties concluded during
treaty process was an efficient procedure and the pre–Revolutionary War period. The treaty com-
treaties a practical vehicle for obtaining one’s prised eight articles, the first of which renewed

former treaties. The second article established an Spain agreed, and in the treaty signed at Pen-
alliance between the parties, and the third and sacola on June 1, 1784, the Creeks promised to
fourth articles detailed the signatories’ agreements “maintain an inviolable peace and fidelity toward
on trade and hunting and fishing practices. The fifth Spain” and agreed to the formation of a mutual
and sixth articles stipulated the payment, agreed to defense alliance (American State Papers, 279). This
by the English, to the tribe in return for their negotia- treaty was the first of several that Spain concluded
tions. In the seventh article, the tribes agreed to with tribes in western Florida for military alliances
assist shipwrecked mariners, and the final article and for small land cessions for the construction of
provided a procedure for resolving disputes (DePuy Spanish forts and trading stations (Holmes 1969,
1917, 30). 140–154).
Two years later, in October 1754 in Philadelphia, Although the Creeks promised in the Pensacola
the Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania treaty to obey the “sovereign orders” of the
colonies negotiated one of their most important province’s commandant, the Spanish clearly did not
treaties with the Six Nations (McNickle 1973, 137). In consider the Creeks to be stripped of the external
a treaty of military alliance, the Six Nations agreed to sovereignty. In 1786, the Muscogee Creek Nation,
align themselves with the English in their war without consulting their Spanish allies, waged war
against France—an alliance that may have saved on Georgia for refusing to stop settlers from moving
England’s claim to the eastern half of the United onto the Creek lands. The Creeks reminded their
States (ibid., 132.). A final example is a multilateral protector that the Pensacola treaty provided for a
treaty negotiated in 1758 among the Pennsylvania mutual alliance, and Spain contributed arms and
and the New Jersey colonies and the Six Nations, the ammunitions to the Creek’s war.
Delaware, the Minnisink, and other Indian tribes to Six years later, changes in the political and
settle a land dispute between New Jersey and the commercial climate persuaded the Creek Nation to
Minnisink Indians and to cede formerly purchased sign the Treaty of New York with the newly formed
lands back to the Six Nations (DePuy 1917, 44). United States on August 14, 1791. Though dis-
Spain, as mentioned earlier, concluded a num- pleased, the Spanish governor conceded that he
ber of treaties with Indian nations throughout the was powerless to alter the situation, as the Creeks
Western Hemisphere. Within the area that became were an independent nation and could treat with
the United States, DeMallie and Deloria list two whom they pleased. In the treaty, the United States
groups of Spanish treaties negotiated with the agreed to pay the Creeks for lands taken by Georgia
Indian nations. The first list includes treaties reached citizens. In return, the Creeks offered friendship
between Spain and the southeastern Creek, Semi- and accepted protection from the United States
nole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Cherokee nations over Creek lands located with the American sphere
between 1784 and 1802. The second group covers of influence. The Creeks refused, despite U.S. objec-
treaties negotiated between Spain and the tions, to relinquish Spanish protection over those
Comanche, the Navajo, and the Apache from 1786 to Creek lands within the Spanish sphere. The Creeks
1819 (DeMallie and Deloria 1999, 106–107). also rebuffed the American offer to establish trade
The Spanish treaties with the southeastern relations with the United States, preferring to main-
Indian nations are particularly interesting for their tain the services of the English. Article 2 of the
insight into the Europeans’ view of Indian treaties. treaty further illustrates the Creeks’ decision to
Following British cession to Spain of its claims to maintain their external independence. In this arti-
Florida, the Muscogee Creek chief, Alexander cle, the Creeks agreed not to negotiate with any
McGillivray, wrote to the Spanish governor, asking individual, state, or citizen of a state. They did not,
that Spain accept the Creek Nation as a protectorate: however, agree to refrain from treating with other
foreign nations. Two years after the Treaty of New
If in the event of war Britain has been York, the Creeks, along with the Alibamon,
compelled to withdraw its protection from us, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Talapuche nations,
she has no right to transfer us with their former signed another treaty with Spain to protect their
possessions to any power whatever contrary to boundaries against American encroachment and to
our inclination and interest. We certainly as a provide the tribes with certain necessities. In Article
free Nation have a right to choose our protector 19, the tribes agreed to maintain an offensive and
. . . (Caughey 1938, 64–65) defensive alliance among the Chickasaw, Creek,

Choctaw, Talapuche, Alibamon, and Cherokee Whereas, the enemies of the United States have
Nations. endeavored by every artifice in their power, to
Mexico’s independence from Spain did not end possess the Indians . . . with an opinion, that it
the use of treaty making as a vehicle for settling dis- is the design of the states (to) take possession of
putes among the various tribes and between the their country; to obviate such false suggestions,
provincial and national governments, especially the United States do engage or guarantee to the
along the southern border areas. Annual reports of aforesaid nations of Delawares, and their heirs,
the commissioner of Indian affairs in 1872 and 1874 all their territorial rights, in the most fullest and
refer to Mexico’s efforts to secure its borders by ample manner, as it hath been bounded by
negotiating agreements with the Apache. DeMallie former treaties. (Article Six 1975, 3)
and Deloria list more than twenty treaties, an esti-
mated one-third of the treaties Mexico negotiated The success of the United States in negotiating
from 1821 to 1850, with Indian nations currently with the Delaware was significant, for most eastern
found within the U.S. boundaries. Even Russia, tribes, having found their dealings with the colonists
which settled only briefly in the continental United less than honorable, aligned with the British. The
States, signed a treaty in 1817 with the Pomo Indi- Americans did succeed in obtaining the support of
ans, located north of present-day San Francisco. 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
Early American Treaties American victory.
with the Indian Nations By the late 1780s, Congress had recognized the
As the outbreak of war appeared imminent, England failure of the Articles of Confederation as a govern-
and the new revolutionary government engaged in a ing document. In 1789, the states ratified the Consti-
flurry of negotiations with the Indian nations, each tution, establishing a stronger central government
seeking military allies or, at minimum, Indian neu- with control over a federal system. Article II, Section
trality in the war. Not surprisingly, the new Ameri- 2, clause 2 granted to the president “[the] Power, by
can government, operating under the Articles of and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
Confederation, adopted the English procedure of make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
negotiating with the Indian nations through treaties. present concur.” On May 25, 1789, President George
This tradition, in fact, directly affected the colonies’ Washington directed Secretary of War Henry Knox
agreement over the treaty-making power in Article to deliver two treaties to the Senate for its first action
IX of the Articles of Confederation. Fearful that the of advice and consent. President of the Senate John
new Congress would negotiate unfavorable treaties Adams received in Knox’s package two treaties that
concerning land cessions, southern representatives the Continental Congress had negotiated with
to the Constitutional Convention insisted that all Indian nations at Fort Harmar. On June 12, the Sen-
treaties required the support of nine states for ate selected a three-member committee to consider
approval. these treaties. On September 8, the Senate Executive
The new government concluded its first treaty Journals noted that the Senate had adopted a resolu-
in 1778, with the Delaware Nation. Differing little in tion advising the president “to execute and enjoin an
subject and tone from treaties later concluded with observance of” one of the two treaties, the treaty
European nations, the United States promised peace with the Wyandot and other Indian nations.
and friendship with the Delaware Nation, estab- After receiving the Senate’s approval, President
lished trade between the two nations, and instituted Washington sent another communication to the Sen-
a procedure for punishing transgressors. Of particu- ate, asking the Senate to clarify whether Indian
lar interest was Article 6, which guaranteed that, if treaties required Senate approval:
the Delaware, in concert with other tribes, wished to
form a state within the Union, the Delaware would The treaties with certain Indian Nations, which
be appointed leaders of the congressional delega- were laid before you with my message of the
tion. Of further importance was the treaty’s forth- 25th of May last, suggested two questions to
right response to British charges that the United my mind, viz: 1st, Whether those treaties were
States planned to seize Indian lands illegally and to be considered as perfected, and, conse-
violate its promises to honor prior treaties: quently as obligatory, without being ratified. If

not, then 2ndly, whether both, or either, and Over time, the treaties concluded by the United
which of them, ought to be ratified? (Ralston States with the Indian nations became increasingly
1920, 15) formal and legalistic, using the style and form and
covering the subject matter common to all treaties of
The Senate assigned the question to another the time. Indian treaties, written in the same lofty
three-member committee. The following day, the language, were divided into preamble, body, and
committee reported its conclusion that Indian salutation. The treaty concluded between the United
treaties did not require Senate approval. The full States and the Creek Nation in 1790 at New York
Senate rejected the recommendation and responded opens with the following preamble:
to Washington that the Constitution required Senate
ratification of all treaties negotiated with Indians. The parties being desirous of establishing
For the next three years, representatives and permanent peace and friendship between the
government officials remained at odds over the Con- United States and the said Creek Nation, and
stitution’s intent regarding the extent and form of the citizens and members thereof, and to
the Senate’s advice prior and during the negotiation remove the causes of war by ascertaining their
process. To Washington’s dismay, during the first limits, and making other necessary, just and
few years the Senators took it upon themselves to friendly arrangements: the President of the
play an integral role in the negotiation process. In United States, Secretary for the Department of
1794, the Senate issued its first refusal to consent to a War, whom he hath constituted with full
treaty transmitted from the executive branch. This powers for these purposes, by and with the
“first” also involved an Indian treaty—a treaty that advice and consent of the Senate of the United
the executive branch had concluded with the Illinois States and the Creek Nation, by the under-
and Wabash nations without advance Senate signed kings, chiefs and warriors, representing
involvement. It is unclear whether the Senate’s the said nation, have agreed to the following
refusal to consent to the treaty arose from their objec- articles: . . .
tions to the treaty’s terms or from their lack of prior
involvement. The salutation reads, “In witness of all and
The United States adopted similar procedures whole Creek nation, the parties have hereunto set
whether negotiating with European powers or the their hands and seals, in the City of New York, with
Indian nations. International law requires that a the United States, this seventh day of August, one
valid treaty must be negotiated on the authority of thousand seven hundred and ninety,” after which
the highest sovereign. Every nation has developed each participant affixed his signature.
its own diplomatic procedures and documentation In keeping with Grotius’s (1925) discussion of
to assure the negotiation authority of other parties. international treaties, Indian treaties dealt with the
In 1786, Congress authorized the War Department to fixing of boundaries (Treaty of January 21, 1785;
manage Indian relations. The executive branch con- Treaty of November 28, 1785; Treaty of August 19,
tinued this procedure under the new Constitution, 1825), the promise of mutual assistance (Treaty of
placing the Indian Office (the precursor of the January 9, 1789; Treaty of July 22, 1814), the
Bureau of Indian Affairs) under the authority of the exchange of prisoners and hostages (Treaty of Octo-
War Department. From 1824 until the creation of the ber 22, 1784; Treaty of January 21, 1785; Treaty of
Department of the Interior in 1849, the Department November 28, 1785), and the establishment of gar-
of War regulated Congress’s relationship with the risons and forts (Treaty of June 16, 1802; Treaty of
Indian nations. Once the president or Congress November 10, 1808). Also included as subjects of
requested the negotiation of a treaty and Congress negotiations, were provisions on passports (Treaty of
appropriated the necessary funds, the secretary of July 2, 1791; Treaty of August 7, 1790), extradition
war issued a document or commission to the nego- (Treaty of July 2, 1791; Treaty of March 12, 1858;
tiators outlining the government’s objectives for the Treaty of June 19, 1859), white immigration onto
treaty. Whether the government’s interest lay in land Indian lands (Treaty of May 24, 1835; Treaty of
cessions, trade, alliances, or other matters, these doc- March 6, 1861), and the right to declare war and con-
uments provided general instructions concerning clude treaties with third powers (Treaty of August
the promises made and the funding allowed. 24, 1835; Treaty of May 26, 1837).

The new government’s decision to entrust the at their exclusion from the Treaty of Peace negotia-
State Department to maintain copies of Indian tions. Joseph Brandt, chief of the Mohawk, in partic-
treaties among their files of other international ular voiced his opposition to the treaty, pointing out
agreements further illustrates that the United States that King George had given his personal guarantee
regarded Indian treaties as international agreements. that the British would protect the Mohawks’ aborig-
Listed first in State Department records is a treaty in inal lands in New York State and Canada. Anxious
1722 between the Six Nations and New York and to reduce their allies’ concerns, in Article 3 of the Jay
Pennsylvania. In 1837, the State Department com- Treaty the British negotiated an agreement that the
missioned Samuel D. Langtree and John Louis Indian nations could freely travel and trade goods
O’Sullivan to publish the Indian treaties concluded across the new border.
between 1789 and 1813. The following year, the U.S. government con-
Further evidence exists that, in addition to using cluded a treaty with several Indian nations, includ-
international treaty standards of procedure, form, ing, among others, the Wyandot, the Miami, the
and tone in negotiating Indian treaties, the United Delaware, the Shawnee, and the Chippewa. During
States regarded Indian treaties as having an interna- this period, the relations that traders established
tional impact on its domestic and foreign policy with the Indian nations often determined and sym-
decisions. As noted above, Indian treaties deter- bolized the tribes’ relationship with Americans.
mined the structure of treaty making under the Arti- Given that the United States possessed no jurisdic-
cles of Confederation. Indian treaties constituted the tion over Indian lands, the U.S. government had no
first set of treaties delivered to the Senate and control over traders admitted onto Indian lands. In
rejected by the Senate under the new Constitution. an effort to control traders and commerce with
The precedent for obtaining Indian lands through Indian nations, the government included, as a point
treaties ultimately allayed concerns that President of negotiation with tribes, an article that requested
Thomas Jefferson had overstepped his executive tribes to admit only those traders who had obtained
authority in concluding a treaty with France for the the proper license from the U.S. government. Upon
Louisiana Purchase in 1803. The necessity to subject hearing of this treaty stipulation, Great Britain
Indian treaties to the same international legal stan- expressed concern that this provision violated Arti-
dards as all treaties also affected U.S. foreign policy cle 3 of the Jay Treaty. The following year, the United
decisions. In 1795, England expressed concern to the States agreed to negotiate an explanatory note, a
United States that an American treaty signed that document recognized under international law as
year with several Indian nations had abrogated part having the status of a binding treaty, reaffirming the
of the Jay Treaty of 1794 negotiated between England stipulations of the Jay Treaty by stating that the
and the United States the previous year. treaty concluded with the tribes at Greenville,
The Treaty of Peace ending the American war of August 3, 1795, “can not be understood to derogate
independence had left several outstanding issues. in any manner from the rights of free intercourse and
Until France’s declaration of war on England in commerce, secured by the third article . . .” (Respect-
1792, another war appeared imminent between ing the Liberty 1794).
England and the United States. Now anxious to neu- The U.S. recognition of the international legiti-
tralize American involvement in this war, England macy of the treaties concluded between the Indian
agreed to sign the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and nations and other European powers is further illus-
Navigation, referred to as the Jay Treaty, with the trated in Article 6 of the 1803 treaty concluded
United States in November 1794. This treaty between the United States and France for the
resolved several key conflicts between the two Louisiana Cession:
nations by creating a joint commission to settle
boundary disputes, reestablishing American trade The United States promise to execute such
with the West Indies, providing for British with- treaties and articles as may have been agreed
drawal from forts in the Old Northwest, and reaf- between Spain and the tribes and nations of
firming the rights of Indian nations vis-à-vis the new Indians until by mutual consent of the United
American boundary. States and the said tribes or nations other
The Indian nations had fought alongside the suitable articles shall have been agreed upon.
British in the war as their equals and were incensed (Treaty with France 1803)

The Treaty of Peace of 1776, the Jay Treaty of all eastern tribes to lands west of the Mississippi had
1794, and the Explanatory Note of 1796 did not end become an important political platform for presiden-
the competition and suspicion between the United tial hopeful Andrew Jackson. A few of the southern
States and England. By 1812, war had again broken states, such as Georgia, had passed state laws
out between the two powers, and again both sides assuming jurisdictional control over tribally held
sought the alliances of the Indian nations. The great lands. Now president, Jackson introduced legislation
Shawnee chief Tecumseh clearly foresaw the danger in Congress giving the tribes the choice to move
that the United States posed to Indian people and west or stay in the South and submit to the state
worked tirelessly to create a confederacy of tribes laws. The tribes and their supporters loudly
from Canada to Florida to fight with the British. A protested passage of this removal bill, pointing out
brigadier general in the British army, Tecumseh that the United States possessed no jurisdiction over
expressed disgust upon hearing of Britain’s capitula- the Indian nations and that such legislation violated
tion to the Americans two years later. previous treaties and laws recognizing Indian sover-
At the peace negotiations concluding the war, eignty and title to their lands.
England sought recognition from the United States Well known among European powers as an
of an independent Indian buffer state. In a treatise American leader with little integrity in warfare and
written before the negotiations, Nathaniel Atcheson even less honor in upholding promises, Jackson had
laid out nine points on which Great Britain should no use for the niceties of law, whether domestic or
negotiate the treaty, emphasizing that the Indian international. Jackson’s philosophy was based
nations were “independent both of us and of the entirely on necessity; whatever was necessary to
Americans” and that their independence should be expand the glory of the American republic was just.
secured. Three of the nine points dealt with the sta- Congress passed the removal bill by a mere five
tus and security of the Indian nations: a new bound- votes.
ary line for the Indian Territory; that the Americans The Cherokee Nation responded to the bill’s
not be allowed to erect forts, military posts, or other passage by filing an injunction before the U.S.
public property in Indian Territory; and that Great Supreme Court as a foreign nation. As a foreign
Britain guarantee the boundaries of the Indian state state, the tribe’s attorney, former U.S. attorney gen-
(Atcheson, 1814). eral William Wirt, argued that the State of Georgia
For months, negotiations stalled over the Amer- possessed no authority to execute “certain laws
icans’ refusal to recognize an Indian buffer state. The [that] . . . go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a
British finally relented upon the agreement of the political society and to seize for the use of Georgia
United States in Article 9 to restore tribal rights to the lands of the nation which have been assured to
the 1811 status quo. After ratification of the Treaty of them by the United States in solemn treaties . . .”
Ghent, ending the War of 1812, both the United (Cherokee 1831). The Cherokees, Wirt stated, had
States and England negotiated new treaties with been sovereigns from time immemorial, “acknowl-
their former Indian enemies during the war, restor- edging no earthly superior.”
ing recognition of tribal rights to their prewar status. The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case proved espe-
The War of 1812 ended the Indian nations’ abil- cially inconvenient for John Marshall. A political
ity to serve as a master player in the international opponent of Andrew Jackson, Marshall fully real-
intrigues of the East. With the East in firm control, ized that Jackson would ignore any Supreme Court
the United States turned its attention to the Mexico decision that contravened his political agenda
Gulf and Florida region, where General Andrew (Cherokee 1831). For a president to ignore a Supreme
Jackson fought against the English, the Spanish, and Court decision so early in the nation’s history would
their military allies, the Muscogee Creek Confeder- jeopardize the Court’s future role in U.S. politics, a
acy, for final control of the region. role not well articulated by the constitutional
From the British, the United States had inherited authors. Wishing to avoid a showdown with Jack-
the right to treat with and secure lands from the son, Marshall sought to have the case dismissed.
Indian nations of the Old Northwest. Over the next By cleverly employing domestic law to answer
several decades, U.S. forces solidified their control of questions of international law and manipulating the
this area by negotiating with the tribes in groups, very meaning of treaties, Marshall ruled that the
pairs, and individually. By the late 1820s, the public Cherokees had no standing to bring the case directly
clamor, especially from the southern states, to move to the Supreme Court as a foreign nation. The

treaties signed between the Cherokee Nation and the the “same necessity and on the same principle” as
United States, Marshall argued, had placed the those treaties concluded with France (Cherokee 1831).
Cherokees under the protection of the United States.
Through this action, Marshall concluded, the Chero- The words treaty and nation are words of our
kees had given up their foreign status and had own language, selected in our diplomatic and
become “domestic, dependent nations.” legislative proceedings, by ourselves, having
In his dissent, Justice Smith Thompson refuted each a definite and well-understood meaning.
Marshall’s analysis that the Cherokees had placed We have applied them to Indians, as we have
themselves under U.S. protection. By comparing the applied them to the other nations of the earth;
sixth article of the Treaty of Hopewell with the they are applied to all in the same sense.
Cherokees in 1785 with the twenty-seventh article of (Worcester 1832)
the U.S. treaty with England in 1794, Thompson
argued that both provisions dealt with the extradi- In Cherokee Nation, Marshall had used Indian
tion of wanted criminals from Cherokee and English treaties in part to prove that Indian nations were not
territory, respectively. foreign states. In Worcester, he had applied interna-
tional legal principles to show how Cherokee treaties
The necessity for the stipulation in both cases proved Cherokee sovereignty and independence.
must be, because the process of one government Within two years, Marshall had cleverly manipu-
and jurisdiction will not run into that of lated and interpreted the role and status of Indian
another; and separate and distinct jurisdiction treaties to serve conflicting purposes—a masterful
. . . is what makes governments and nations feat not lost on future generations of American
foreign to each other in their political relations. judges.
(Cherokee 1831) The Worcester victory provided the tribes with
no practical protection. Hoping to find a new life free
The Cherokees refused to give up. The follow- of white interference, many tribes negotiated treaties
ing year, Samuel Worcester, Elizur Butler, and two with the United States to move their people west.
other missionaries deliberately broke a Georgia law The U.S. military forcibly “assisted” those individu-
requiring a state license to live on Indian lands. als and groups who were too reluctant or too slow.
Georgia officials arrested the men, who were sen- The removal of the eastern tribes slowed the govern-
tenced to four years in prison at hard labor. Once ment’s hunger for tribal lands only briefly.
again, William Wirt appeared before the Supreme Looking for new lands, the United States had
Court to argue the inapplicability of Georgia’s laws attempted on more than one occasion to purchase
over Cherokee lands. This time, Wirt based his case Texas from Mexico. In 1836, Texas declared her inde-
on the argument that the Constitution granted “the pendence from Mexico. During her nine years as an
regulation of intercourse with the Indians” exclu- independent republic, Texas concluded twelve
sively to the federal government. The government, treaties with various indigenous tribes, including the
Wirt argued, exercised this power through treaties indigenous Tonkawa, Comanche, Wichita, and
and congressional acts. Any attempts by states to Apache, as well as with immigrant bands from the
alter or void federal law violated the Constitution. Cherokee, Delaware, and Shawnee nations, fleeing
Marshall agreed with the plaintiffs, finding the white encroachment of their aboriginal lands.
Georgia laws to be an unconstitutional interference Congress annexed Texas in 1845 and a year later
with the treaties concluded between the United added the Oregon Territory. Victory in the Mexican
States and the Cherokees. To support his ruling, War added the entire Southwest in 1848. The discov-
Marshall discussed the proper legal interpretation ery of gold in California (1849) and Colorado (1858)
that should be accorded to Indian treaties. In analyz- brought waves of settlers across tribal lands in the
ing the first negotiated treaty of the United States West. Five years later, the Gadsden Purchase com-
with the Delaware Nation, Marshall found that “[in] pleted the present exterior boundaries of the United
its language and in its provisions, [the treaty] is States. In ten short years, the country’s population
formed, as near as may be, on the model of treaties increased by 32 percent and its size by 70 percent.
between the crowned heads of Europe.” The treaties Between 1830 and 1860, eight states and five territo-
concluded by the United States with the Indian ries were added to the Union. To open up this newly
tribes in general, as Marshall pointed out, arose from acquired territory to settlement, the government

embarked on a negotiating frenzy with tribes, secur- changes in traditional negotiation and approval pro-
ing 174 million acres of land in fifty-three treaties cedures, including prohibiting the participation of
with tribes between 1853 and 1857. Native women and demanding that tribal councils
For a period, the Civil War interrupted the west- forgo their time-consuming consensus building and
ern exodus as the North fought to preserve the provide immediate, on-site decisions. Commission-
Union. After declaring its independence from the ers were also not above appointing any group of
United States, the Confederacy quickly entered into Indians as tribal chiefs and investing them with the
treaty negotiations with the Indian nations in the authority—that is, coercing them with alcohol— to
important border regions. The politics between the sign treaties. Although treaties signed under duress,
Union and the Confederacy proved especially disas- or without the sovereign’s authority, are illegal, on
trous among the Indian nations referred to as the only a few occasions did Congress refuse to ratify
Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the the Indian treaties placed before them. Living under
Chickasaw, the Creek, and the Seminole. In each of corrupt agents and with little access to food, many
these tribes, a handful of tribal citizens, primarily the tribes increasingly were forced to sign successive
wealthier mixed bloods, had adopted the southern treaties that ceded more of their lands, required their
agricultural system, which required slave labor in children to attend manual labor schools, and allotted
order to be economically efficient. Casting their lot communally held lands to individual owners.
with the Confederacy, these groups seceded from In still other instances, tribes negotiated treaties
their own tribal nations and established rebel gov- in good faith with U.S. representatives, only to find
ernments. later that Congress had refused to ratify them or had
To solidify their relationship, especially their altered their provisions without tribal approval. The
military and economic contributions, the Confeder- most egregious example involved more than twenty
acy signed approximately nine treaties with these treaties that the California tribes had negotiated with
rebel governments and several western tribes. The the federal Treaty Commission in 1851. The gold
Confederate treaties were quite liberal in the Con- rush had started, and the government directed the
federacy’s recognition of tribal authority, land, and Treaty Commission to treat with the Indians to
resources. In return, the rebel groups accepted the secure title and access to their lands. Convinced that
protection of the Confederacy but retained the the remaining lands the tribes had reserved for their
authority to make treaties with other Indian nations. use also contain gold, the California representatives
In the meantime, the de jure tribal governments, prevailed upon their colleagues to leave the treaties
arguing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (treaties unratified. For the next fifty years, the physical loca-
must be upheld), continued to support and fight for tion of these documents, now referred to as the “lost
the Union, frequently in battles against their own treaties,” was unknown. Without proof of the areas
people. After the war, the United States demanded they had ceded and those they had retained as reser-
that the Five Civilized Tribes renegotiate their vation lands, the tribes (except for those in the north-
treaties with the federal government. The resulting ern part of the state) were left dependent upon the
treaties, supposedly in retaliation for the tribes’ trea- government to provide them with a land base.
son, were actually negotiated with the southern
tribal representatives, who were far more willing to
grant away tribal rights and lands than were those The End of Treaty Making
who had fought and died for the Union. Initially responsible for enforcing the treaty-
Until the Civil War, treaty negotiations with established boundaries between Indian and white
individual tribes often followed a typical cycle. The lands, the military’s role changed from defending
earliest treaties dealt with peace, friendship, tribal lands from the encroachment of white settlers
alliances, and land cessions. As immigrants flooded to suppressing tribes and often evicting them from
to new western frontiers that encroached on tribal their own lands. As the western wars escalated, Pres-
lands, hostilities multiplied. To avoid costly battles, ident Ulysses S. Grant in 1867 appointed the Peace
the American government pressured tribes to cede Commission to study the situation. The commission
increasingly large areas of land—cessions containing reported that the western hostilities primarily
lands often already sold to settlers by eastern specu- derived from the government’s refusal to keep its
lators. As America’s strength grew and the powers treaty commitments and from its repeated demands
of tribes declined, treaty commissioners demanded for more tribal land cessions. Other government offi-

cials, such as Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely powerful individuals . . . I greatly fear that the
Parker, a Seneca, pointed to the treaty process as the adoption of this provision to discontinue treaty
root of the problem, arguing that Congress should making is the beginning of the end in respect to
stop making treaties with the tribes and pass legisla- Indian lands. It is the first step in a great scheme
tion to civilize them and open their lands to settle- of spoliation, in which the Indians will be
ment. plundered, corporations and individuals
Except for a few remaining Plains and South- enriched, and the American name dishonored
west tribal groups, governmental policies and in history. (McNickle 1973, 208)
actions had subdued and weakened most tribes,
lending some credence to the argument that tribes The amendment in 1871 did not end the federal
no longer possessed the political power to negotiate government’s negotiations with tribes for lands and
treaties as equals. Justice Department officials coun- other matters. In the place of treaties, the govern-
tered vigorously that treaty making remained an ment negotiated agreements, documents that were
effective tool for negotiating with tribes and main- similar to treaties in content and effect but required
tained that ending treaty making without tribal con- the approval of both congressional houses before the
sent was both illegal and dishonorable. president’s signature. By the close of the nineteenth
Whether tribes retained the capacity to negoti- century, the United States had negotiated more than
ate treaties was of less concern to most policymakers five hundred ratified and nonratified treaties with
than was the potential control that outside interests various Indian nations.
stood to gain from a change in the treaty-making The end of treaty making allowed the govern-
policy. Under the current system, the executive ment new freedom to legislate and establish policies
branch took the lead in negotiating treaties, leaving and programs designed to educate and assimilate
the Senate only with the authority to confirm or Indian people into the dominant society. Supportive
refuse the treaty. The House of Representatives, jeal- of the rider and eagerly waiting in the wings to assist
ous of the Senate’s role, was left to appropriate funds the government in their endeavors were the eastern
for decisions into which they had had little input. reformers, philanthropists, and churches. In 1874,
Which tribes were contacted, which lands were pur- Congress passed a bill requiring tribal members to
chased, and which resources were acquired led to perform “useful labor” in return for their annuities,
decisions that had immeasurable impact on the rep- even though annuities represented payments for
resentatives’ constituents and the economic fortunes lands already ceded. The following year, in a prelude
of their districts. Once again, Indian tribes became to the Dawes Act, individual Indians were encour-
unwitting pawns in a competitive power play aged to obtain land under the Homestead Act. In
among the various branches of government and offi- 1879, Congress instituted the rudiments of an Indian
cials representing competing railroad, mining, live- educational system with the establishment of the
stock, and land speculation interests, among others. Carlisle Indian School, whose intentions were
In 1871, the House of Representatives attached cogently summarized by the school’s director in tes-
the following rider to an appropriations bill: “. . . timony before Congress: “We accept the watchword,
[T]hat hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the let us by patient effort kill the Indian in him and save
territory of the United States shall be acknowledged the man” (Gates 1885, 131).
or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or As traditional tribal society broke down with
power, with whom the United States may contract the education of the young, the rise in power of the
by treaty” (16 Stat. 566). Senator Eugene Casserly of Indian agent, and the teaching of Christianity, the
California eloquently pinpointed the reason for the government increasingly supplanted Native prac-
rider’s passage: tices with the Anglo system. Congress authorized
Indian police forces and an Indian court of appeals.
I know what the misfortune of the tribes is. In 1886, through the passage of the Seven Major
Their misfortune is not that they are red men; Crimes Act, the federal government assumed juris-
not that they are semi-civilized, not that they diction of major crimes committed by Indians. A
are a dwindling race, not that they are a weak year later, Congress passed the most assimilative
race. Their misfortune is that they hold great piece of legislation to date, the Land in Severalty Act,
bodies of rich lands, which have aroused the or the Dawes Act, as it became known. Far surpass-
cupidity of powerful corporations and of ing any previous infringement on tribal life, the

Dawes Act provided for the allotment of reservation vide the government with virtually any legal angle
lands among tribal members, with individuals necessary.
receiving either 40 acres of farmland or 160 acres of The first major challenge to the U.S. assumption
grazing land. Land left after the allotment process of authority came in the 1886 U.S. v. Kagama decision
was sold to white settlers as surplus. Within less (Kagama 1886). The previous year, Congress had
than 20 years, Congress had moved from treating tacked the Seven Major Crimes Act onto an appro-
with the tribes as national entities and acknowledg- priations bill. The legislation provided the federal
ing their rights to their land and internal sovereignty government with the authority to assume criminal
to restructuring the tribes’ internal affairs and jurisdiction over Indian individuals who had com-
attempting to dissolve their reservations. mitted one of seven major crimes on Indian lands.
Tribes were not consulted about these govern- Until then, tribes had handled violations of their
mental changes and policies, and many leaders laws according to their own codes and processes. On
protested and lobbied strongly against their imposi- what basis could the federal government claim to
tion. Eventually, some tribes took their complaints have this authority? Tribes had not delegated this
to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to deter- specific authority to the federal government in any
mine on what authority the federal government jus- of their treaties.
tified its assumption of such widespread authority The government spuriously claimed that Con-
over a sovereign people. The question was not eas- gress’s authority to pass the Major Crimes Act fell
ily answered. The U.S. Constitution clearly estab- naturally under its authority to regulate commerce
lished the federal government as a government of with the tribes. The commerce clause, Justice Samuel
enumerated powers, meaning that the federal gov- F. Miller ruled, was not the source of the govern-
ernment could exercise only those powers granted ment’s authority. The government had recognized
by the Constitution. Heretofore, the federal govern- the tribes as semi-independent, “not as States, not as
ment had regulated its relationships with the Indian nations, but as separate people, with power of regu-
nations primarily through the treaty process, which lating their internal social relations and thus not
affirmed that each sovereign possessed exclusive brought into the laws of the Union or of the States
authority to make and enforce its own laws in its within whose limits they resided,” Miller acknowl-
own land. The treaties negotiated between the U.S. edged; but Congress had now decided to govern the
government and the tribes dealt with national issues tribes through federal legislation (Kagama 1886,
of trade, land, and military alliances. With few 381–382). The tribes’ dependent condition warranted
exceptions, tribes had not given the United States this change in procedure, Miller asserted. Admitting
the authority to enter their lands or to enforce their that the actions of the federal government had weak-
laws. When tribes had delegated authority to the ened the tribes, they were, nonetheless, now wards
United States, it was to improve the lives of their of the nation, and the United States had a responsi-
community. For example, Indian governments in bility to care for its wards. In a masterful and convo-
Indian Territory had for years protested to the sur- luted reinterpretation of treaty law, Miller reasoned
rounding governments that the latter’s failure to that the source of U.S. authority to care for the tribes
control lawlessness had caused the problem to spill derived from the very treaties the tribes had negoti-
into tribal lands. Tribal governments had neither the ated with the United States. The United States had
resources nor the inclination to handle what they offered its protection to tribes in their treaties. Legis-
perceived as an outside problem. Eventually, tribes lation such as the Major Crimes Act fulfilled this
gave the United States the authority to enter tribal promise of protection.
lands in pursuit of these criminals, a fact that the To conclude that Indian treaties, which tribes
courts later used to justify U.S. authority over had negotiated as protection against the federal gov-
Indian lands. ernment and unwanted governmental incursions,
For the federal government to claim individual had now become the ultimate source of the govern-
control over Indian people would require the courts ment’s authority over tribes, has to be one of the
to “domesticize” the previously international legal most tortuous reinterpretations of law yet found in
principles that had regulated the treaty relationship American history. Marshall had stressed in Worcester
between the United States and the various tribes. that Indian treaties represented the government’s
But, as John Marshall had illustrated, a little judicial acknowledgement and agreement to protect tribal
ingenuity, creativity, and manipulations could pro- self-government; they did not imply the destruction

of the protected. After the Kagama decision, the pro- eases, famine, and cultural genocide. Against all
tections that tribes thought they had negotiated to odds, they had survived, bringing into the century
preserve were nonexistent. an understanding of their identities, their nation-
In 1903, in the Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock decision, hood, and the values their ancestors had fought to
the Supreme Court indicated the extent to which the protect.
government was prepared to divest tribes of their Over the next hundred years, the U.S. govern-
guaranteed treaty provisions (Lone Wolf 1903). Arti- ment continued its unrelenting attempt to convince
cle 12 of the Treaty of Medicine Lodge stipulated that indigenous peoples to forgo their cultures, wisdom,
Congress could not dispose of certain reservation and communal identities by embracing and disap-
lands without the consent of three-fourths of the pearing into the American maelstrom. By doing so,
adult males. Unable to secure the necessary votes, Indian people would become materially and socially
the government took the land and sold it. Lone Wolf, self-sufficient, as had the millions of immigrants
on behalf of himself and other members of the who had accepted American ideals. As had their
Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache tribes, charged the ancestors before them, Indian people in large mea-
government with disposing of tribal property in vio- sure refused. The general U.S. population and its
lation of the Treaty of Medicine Lodge and the pro- public officials possessed little comprehension and
tections afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. even less patience for this refusal, imposing assimila-
Constitution. tionist and terminationist policies on Indian people
In an unbelievable decision, the Court reasoned in various forms without their consent throughout
that the tribes had misconstrued their treaty and had the twentieth century.
overlooked their dependent status and the govern- In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the
ment’s role as their guardian. To hold Congress to treaty process had managed the relationships of the
the treaty would limit the government’s authority to United States with the Indian nations. In the twenti-
care for and protect the Indians. The Court conceded eth century, the very existence of Indian treaties pro-
that previous courts had described tribal land rights vided an unbreachable psychological, legal, sym-
as sacred as fee simple, but these cases had involved bolic, and historical link between the United States
protecting tribal lands from the states and individu- and its indigenous peoples, between the past and the
als. The treaties could not constrain the federal gov- future, and between the legal and truly moral.
ernment because of the federal government’s As the preceding discussion illustrated, Con-
responsibility to care for its wards. Citing an earlier gress and the courts can and have legally reinter-
case, the Court ruled that the federal government preted, misinterpreted, and ignored Indian treaty
was limited only by those “. . . considerations of jus- rights and histories to meet broader domestic poli-
tice as would control a Christian people in their cies and objectives. American constitutional law is
treatment of an ignorant and dependent race” replete with Supreme Court decisions, such as Chero-
(Beecher 1877). Within less than a hundred years, the kee Nation v. Georgia, U.S v. Kagama, and Lone Wolf,
U.S. courts had legally manipulated or “domesti- that deftly manipulated the existence, status, and
cized” international legal principles that recognized protections afforded by treaties to protect Indian
and protected international independence, sover- nations and individuals.
eignty, and treaties into domestic sources of author- As discussed previously, tribes, especially in
ity that allowed the federal government unlimited later years, were often at a considerable disadvantage
control over Indian people. during the treaty negotiation process. Federal nego-
tiators either purposefully or ignorantly negotiated
binding agreements with individuals not authorized
Indian Treaties in the to represent the tribe, at times resorting to bribery or
Twentieth Century to intoxicating pliant tribal members as “chiefs.”
The United States closed the nineteenth century hav- Because agreements were written in English, tribes
ing abrogated treaties, forcibly taken Indian lands were often totally dependent upon the facility and
and lives, and destroyed tribal cultures through the honor of the individual translator.
brute force and legal manipulations. Indian commu- In some instances, government officials threat-
nities embarked on the twentieth century greatly ened to withhold rations or annuities owed by
diminished in numbers, land, and resources and earlier treaties until the tribe agreed to the provi-
having experienced one hundred years of war, dis- sions of a new treaty. Other tribal leaders found

themselves with the choice of agreeing to a treaty or restore tribal sovereignty and tribal governmental
facing the threat of war or starvation. In other powers, several cases pointed to tribal treaties as
instances, tribes had negotiated and upheld their proof of inherent tribal powers. In three important
agreements in good faith, only to find years later cases decided between 1959 and 1973, the Supreme
that the Senate had struck out provisions, added Court ruled in favor of Navajo sovereignty based on
new ones, or refused to ratify the treaty and com- the protections inherent in their 1868 treaty with the
pensate the tribe for their land cessions. In at least United States.
thirteen cases, when notified that Congress had In the Williams v. Lee case in 1959, the Court held
altered the treaty, tribes rejected it upon its return that the Navajo treaty of 1868 protected the Navajos’
for approval. authority to exercise control over internal issues—in
To assist in adjudicating a particularly complex this instance, the tribal courts’ exclusive jurisdiction
legal area, the courts frequently develop a series of over a non-Indian’s collection of a debt from an
relevant principles or tests to guide judicial analysis. Indian on the reservation (Williams 1959). In the War-
To compensate for these inequalities in the negotia- ren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission case, the
tion process and for the lack of precise language, and treaty of 1868 also prevented the State of Arizona
to ensure a balanced interpretation of the rights at from collecting state taxes from non-Indians whose
issue, the Supreme Court has established several businesses lay within reservation boundaries (War-
principles or canons of construction for use in adju- ren 1965). In the McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Com-
dicating Indian treaty issues. The canons include mission case of 1973, noting that Indian sovereignty
these principles: that ambiguities in treaties must be provided “a backdrop” against which to interpret
resolved in favor of the tribes; that Indian treaties Indian treaties and federal policies, the Court ruled
must be interpreted as the Indians would have that Arizona could not collect state taxes from Indi-
understood them; that Indian treaties must be con- ans whose “income was derived from reservation
strued liberally in favor of the Indians; and that sources” (McClanahan 1973).
reserved rights must be explicitly extinguished by The Supreme Court also invoked the existence
later treaties or congressional action. The following and protection of Indian treaties in two of its most
cases exemplify these standards: Carpenter v. Shaw, resounding victories for tribal sovereignty. In 1974,
280 U.S. 363, 367 (1930); DeCoteau v. District Court, in Morton v. Mancari, the Supreme Court ruled that
420 U.S. 425, 447 (1975); Bryan v. Itasca County, Min- the Bureau of Indian Affairs policy of providing spe-
nesota, 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976); Jones v. Meehan, 175 cial preference for Indians did not constitute racial
U.S. 1, 10 (1899); U.S. v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, discrimination in violation of the Equal Employment
116 (1938); Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, Opportunity Act (Morton 1974). Federal laws regard-
631 (1970); Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 684–685 ing Indians were passed to fulfill the government’s
(1942); Washington v. Washington State Commercial unique political relationship with tribes. This rela-
Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 690 tionship, the Court emphasized, was illustrated in
(1979); and County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, part by its “history of treaties” with tribes.
470 U.S. 226, 247 (1985). Each tribe, tribal history, and Four years later, in United States v. Wheeler, the
negotiated treaty is unique, the Supreme Court Supreme Court considered whether the U.S. Consti-
emphasized in the Minnesota v. Mille Lacs decision tution’s bar against double jeopardy precluded a
(Minnesota 1999). The proper interpretation of a par- Navajo man’s trial in federal court on a charge aris-
ticular treaty requires an in-depth historical investi- ing out of the same offense for which the Navajo
gation of the era in which the tribe negotiated the tribal court had convicted him (U.S. 1978). The fed-
treaty, including but not limited to an examination of eral courts were not prohibited from trying the indi-
government policy, archival records of congressional vidual, the Court concluded. The Navajo had not
debates and treaty negotiations, and tribal oral and given up their “jurisdiction to charge, try, and pun-
written histories. ish members of the Tribe for violations of tribal law”
Not surprisingly, a review of the Court’s appli- in either their 1849 or their 1868 treaty with the
cation of the canons of construction in Indian treaty United States. Therefore, the man had broken the
cases over the last half century or so reveals a rather laws of two sovereigns and could be tried by both
uneven and judicious use of the canons, depending sovereigns.
upon the importance of the issue in question. During The federal court’s willingness to employ its
the 1970s, a time of stated congressional policy to canons of construction in Indian treaty cases has

proven essential in protecting tribal hunting and strongly worded dissent to the decision, Justice
fishing rights. Among many tribes, hunting and fish- Hugo Black wrote, “I regret that this Court is to be
ing represented far more than economic subsistence. that governmental agency that breaks faith with this
Hunting and fishing symbolized and taught cultural dependent people. Great nations, like great men,
values and one’s responsibilities and orientation to should keep their word” (Federal Power Commission
one’s surroundings. Over time, outside develop- 1960). This ruling was also relevant in the DeCoteau
ments and populations crowded out many tribal v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District
peoples, preventing them from pursuing the hunting case (DeCoteau 1975).
and fishing rights guaranteed by their ancestors. In Two weeks before the Supreme Court handed
the 1960s through the early 1990s, tribal peoples down the Wheeler decision, which emphasized that
moved to reclaim these treaty rights, first through tribes possessed inherent sovereign powers predat-
fish-ins and protests and later through court battles. ing those of the United States, the Supreme Court
Non-Indian fishing interests, representing the sport ruled in the Oliphant case that tribes did not possess
and commercial industries, responded to the tribal the authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over
actions with harassment, violence, and lobbying non-Indians (Oliphant 1978). The case arose from the
efforts. Suquamish tribal court’s conviction of two men for
In general, courts from the Northwest to the disturbing the peace during Chief Seattle days. The
Great Lakes have concluded that tribal ancestral convictions were invalid, the men argued, as the
leaders intended to preserve tribal fishing and hunt- Suquamish possessed no jurisdiction over non-
ing rights for their descendants in the treaties they Indians. In line with previous case law and canons of
negotiated with the United States more than a hun- construction, the Court should have determined
dred years ago. In the United States v. Michigan case whether the Suquamish had forfeited their rights in
of 1979, for example, Judge Joel Fox ruled that treaties to handle criminal matters within their own
Michigan tribes preserved their right to fish in Lake lands, or whether Congress had expressly removed
Michigan in their treaties of 1836 and 1855 (U.S. such authority from the tribes. After a selected
1981). Tribes in Wisconsin and Minnesota won simi- review of congressional legislation from 1834 to the
lar lawsuits based on interpretation of historic present, the Court rationalized that Congress had
treaties (Menominee 1968; Minnesota 1999). In a series intended to preempt the field. Previously, the Court
of northwest fishing cases involving the Treaty of had operated on the principle that tribes retained
Medicine Creek of 1854 (Treaty with the Nisqually, their inherent governing rights and rights to
Puyallup, Etc.), the courts interpreted “The right of resources unless specifically removed or limited
taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and through treaties or by Congress. The new rule now
stations, is further secured to said Indians in com- read that tribes could not legislate on matters limited
mon with all citizens of the Territory . . .” to allow by treaties or statutes (old test) or in areas that con-
treaty tribes with 50 percent of the allowable salmon flicted with the overriding interest of the United
catch (Washington 1979). States as the superior sovereign. Exactly what was
The courts have failed to apply their canons of considered to be in the “interest of the overriding
construction consistently when interpreting Indian sovereign” the Court did not say, beyond stating that
treaty provisions. Perhaps not surprisingly, the the federal government had a responsibility to pro-
majority of these cases have occurred when such tect its (non-Indian) citizens.
applications would result in Indian ownership of The 1981 Montana v. United States decision, like
former lands now needed for economic develop- the Lone Wolf decision in 1903, illustrated the
ment and the finding that tribes retained jurisdiction Supreme Court’s willingness to mangle previously
to handle non-Indian criminal activities within tribal established Indian law and tests. This case involved
lands. For example, in the Federal Power Commission the right of the Crow Nation to regulate hunting
v. Tuscarora Indian Nation case of 1960, the Supreme and fishing rights within their reservation bound-
Court, by ignoring its own canons of construction aries, in this instance the regulation of non-Indians
and reinterpreting history, concluded that three on nonmember lands. As the Crow Nation’s attor-
treaties negotiated in the 1700s to protect tribal lands ney argued, without the right to control all hunting
conveniently did not include Tuscarora lands. The and fishing within reservation boundaries, it was
ruling allowed for the submersion of traditional Tus- impossible to establish and administer legitimate
carora lands beneath a lucrative energy project. In a conservation measures. Furthermore, the Crow had

never given up their authority to regulate any American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, vol. 1.
aspect of their reservation hunting and fishing 1832–1861. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.
rights, and no federal legislation had extinguished Article Six, Treaties between the United States and the
Several Indian Tribes from 1778 to 1837. 1975.
their right.
Millwood, New York: Kraus Reprint.
The Crow Nation, the Court ruled, did not pos- Atcheson, N. 1814. A Compressed View of the Points to
sess the right to regulate non-Indians fishing and be Discussed in Treating with the United States of
hunting on non-Indian lands within the reservation America. London: Rie.
boundaries. To support this tenuous claim, the jus- Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517 (1877).
tices relied on their interpretation of the Treaty of Bodin, J., 1576. The Six Books of the Commonwealth.
Fort Laramie (Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.) of 1851, Abridged and translated by M. J. Tooley.
Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1955.
finding that nowhere was it “suggested that Con-
Boyd, Julian P., ed. 1938. Indian Treaties Printed by
gress intended to grant authority to the Crow Tribe Benjamin Franklin, 1738–1762. Philadelphia:
to regulate hunting and fishing by nonmembers on Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
nonmember lands” (Montana 1981). The Court could Caughey, John W. 1938. McGillivray of the Creeks.
only arrive at such an interpretation by completely Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
ignoring its own tests that required Indian treaties to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831).
be interpreted as the tribes would have understood DeCoteau v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial
them (few people envisioned in 1851 the problem of District, 420 U.S. 425 (1975).
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie, eds.
whites fishing on Crow land), to contain an express
1999. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy:
extinguishment of authority, and to resolve any Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979,
ambiguities in favor of the tribe. vols. 1–2). Norman: University of Oklahoma
Despite periods of egregious failures and the Press.
courts’ tendency to interpret Indian treaty rights in DePuy, H. 1917. A Bibliography of the English Colonial
line with the national political agenda and climate, Treaties with the American Indians: Including a
the United States has refused to completely abandon Synopsis of Each Treaty. New York: Lennox Club.
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation,
the guarantees and promises that it negotiated as a
362 U.S. 99, 137–138 (1960).
young nation. Even after two hundred years of con- Gates, Merrill. 1885. “Land and Law as Agents in
flictual history, the United States legally regards Educating Indians,” Journal of Social Science,
Indian treaties as the supreme law of the land. As 113–146, quote by Captain Henry Pratt.
contracts between sovereigns, the supremacy clause Grotius, H. 1925. In Livy, Book IV, in De Jure Belli Ac
of the Constitution governs the legal status of Indian Pacis Libri Tres (The Classics of International
treaties within U.S. law, mandating that Indian Law), J. Scott (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Holmes, Jack. 1969. Spanish Treaties with West
treaties possess the same effect and force of federal
Florida Indians, 1784–1802. Florida Historical
law and supersede state law. States did not—and Society, 48 (140–154).
still do not—possess the requisite sovereignty to Liverani, Mario. 1980. International Relations in the
enter into treaty relationships. Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC. New York:
Congress and the courts today recognize tribes Palgrave MacMillan.
as domestic dependent nations possessing a govern- Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L.
ment-to-government relationship with the federal Ed. 299 (1903).
government—a status supported by the continuing McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S.
164 (1973).
viability of Indian treaties. The treaties and agree-
McNickle, D’Arcy. 1973. Native American Tribalism.
ments negotiated by Indian nations with the United London: Oxford University Press.
States will continue to play a critical role in the Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S.
recognition of tribal sovereignty and in the protec- 404 (1968).
tion of Indian lands and resources. Meyers, D. P. 1957. “The Names and Scopes of
Sharon O’Brien Treaties.” American Journal of International Law:
51, 579.
References and Further Reading Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians. 526
“Act Ending Treaty Making,” March 3, 1871, U.S. U.S. 172 (1999).
Statutes at Large, 16: 566. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981).

Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974). Treaty of May 24, 1835, 7 Stat. 450.
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). Treaty of August 24, 1835, 7 Stat. 47.
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: Treaty of May 26, 1837, 7 Stat. 533.
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los Treaty of March 12, 1858, 12 Stat. 997.
Angeles, and London: University of California Treaty of June 19, 1859, 12 Stat. 1037.
Press. Treaty of March 6, 1861, 12 Stat. 1171.
Ralston, Hayden. 1920. The Senate and Treaties, Treaty with France for the Cession of Louisiana, April
1789–1817. New York: Macmillan. 30, 1803, 8 Stat. 200, TS 86.
Respecting the Liberty to Pass and Repass the Borders and U.S. v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886).
to Carry on Trade and Commerce. 1974. U.S. v. Michigan, 653 F. 2d277 (6th Cir. 1981).
Explanatory Article to the 3rd Article of the U.S. v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978).
Treaty of November 19, 1794. Van Loon, L.G. 1968. “Tawagonshi: Beginning of
Toscano, M. 1966. The History of Treaties and the Treaty Era.” Indian Historian, June, 22–26.
International Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Vattel, E. 1916. The Law of Nations, The Classics of
Hopkins Press. International Law. Ed. J. Scott. Washington,
Treaty of October 22, 1784, with the Six Nations, 7 DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Stat. 15. Vitoria, Francisco de. 1917. De Indis and De Jure Belli
Treaty of January 21, 1785, with the Wyandots and Reflectiones. Sec. 2, titles 6 & 7, “On the
others, 7 Stat. 16. Indians and on the Law of War,” ed. Ernest
Treaty of November 28, 1785, 7 Stat. 18. Nys, trans. John Pawley Bate. New York:
Treaty of January 21, 1785, 7 Stat. 16. Oceana, 1964. Originally published
Treaty of November 28, 1785, 7 Stat. 18. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Treaty of January 9, 1789, with Wyandot, 7 Stat. 28. Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380
Treaty of August 7, 1790, 7 Stat. 35. U.S. 685 (1965).
Treaty of July 2, 1791, 7 Stat. 39. Washington v. Washington State Commercial
Treaty of June 16, 1802, 7 Stat. 68. Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S.
Treaty of November 10, 1808, 7 Stat. 107. 658 (1979).
Treaty of July 22, 1814, with Wyandot, 7 Stat. 118. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).
Treaty of August 19, 1825, 7 Stat. 272. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).

Historical
Periods

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829
F
or the first fifty years of the republic, the within and on the borders of the thirteen colonies.
F
United States, in its relations with the Indian In writing the Declaration of Independence, the
tribes within its borders, focused its diplo- committee of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin,
matic and political energies on ending wars and John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sher-
establishing peaceful relations, controlling trade, man made special note of the tribal threats to colo-
asserting supremacy, extending its criminal and nial survival: “He [King George III] has excited
civil jurisdiction, and securing titles to the tribal domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
lands. To achieve these goals, the United States endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our
entered into 159 treaties with Indian tribes between frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose
1775 and 1829 (Deloria and DeMallie 1999, 183–190). known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished
In doing so, it adopted the precedent established destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
nearly two hundred years earlier by European sov- Although they grossly overstated the situation and
ereigns—that of negotiating treaties with Native expressed it in polemical terms, the Revolutionary
polities. Under the prevailing international law, the War leaders had good reason for concern. At the
land belonged to the sovereign in whose name it end of the French and Indian War (1754–1763), a
was discovered, but the Indian tribes that occupied conflict in which most of the Indian tribes border-
the land had a perpetual right of use. This right ing the colonies had joined the French, England had
could be extinguished only by abandonment, by a established a policy restricting colonial settlement
“just war,” or by purchase, the last being the most on Indian lands. The restrictions began in 1763,
common means. These legal principles were enunci- when the Crown issued a proclamation prohibiting
ated by the Spanish jurist Francisco de Vitoria in settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. The
1532 and quickly became the law of nations. superintendents for Indian affairs, John Stuart for
The treaties negotiated in the half century cov- the southern district and Sir William Johnson for
ered by this essay may be divided into three time the northern district, negotiated treaties with the
periods: the united colonies during the Revolution- various Indian tribes in 1767 and 1768 that estab-
ary War, the Continental Congress under the Articles lished the boundary line envisioned in the Procla-
of Confederation, and the United States under the mation of 1763. That line ran from a few miles west
Constitution. The last time period began with the of Fort Stanwix (in present-day Rome, New York)
United States engaged simultaneously in war and in in the north to the Gulf coast of Florida. There were
diplomacy: war in the Northwest Territory, war and to be no colonial settlements west of this line. Addi-
diplomacy in the South, and diplomacy in western tionally, the colonies were required to pay a series
New York, all resulting in peace treaties and land of taxes to simultaneously recoup the Crown’s costs
cessions. The same pattern was followed during the incurred during the French and Indian War and
first three decades of the nineteenth century: wage maintain the Crown’s continuing protection against
war when necessary, treat with tribes as policy Indian attacks—a requirement to which the
required, and, above all, secure land cessions either colonists vehemently and, in some instances vio-
as war reparations or sales. The Northwest and the lently, objected.
South remained foci of federal attention, and It is not surprising that with few exceptions—
although western New York ceased to be a concern, most notably the Oneida and the Tuscarora, who
it was replaced after 1803 with the lands west of the supported the colonial cause—the Indian tribes west
Mississippi River. 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 princi-
The United Colonies pal threat to their lands, and consequently an
during the Revolutionary War alliance with the French served their collective pur-
From the first skirmish at Concord and Lexington pose. Now roles had changed. England appeared
in April 1775, Revolutionary War leaders were ready to protect Indian lands against American
aware of the threats posed by the Indian tribes incursions.
69
70 Historical Periods
In this situation, the most the American officials [the tribes] Promised to be true and faithful Subjects”
could hope for was that the tribes would remain (ibid., 78, 79).
neutral and perhaps give some quiet support. To The informality of treaties ended with the
accomplish this goal, the Continental Congress Delaware treaty in 1778. The treaty contains seven
entered into seven treaties or agreements with the articles: a mutual forgiveness of all prior offenses; a
following tribes: guarantee of peace, friendship, and mutual assis-
tance in cases of war; free passage of American
Six Nations, Delaware, and Shawnee (1775) troops across Delaware territory to attack English
Seneca, Cayuga, Nanticoke, and Conoy (1776) forts; and fair, impartial trials of Delawares and
Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and Malecite Americans who violated either nation’s laws. In
(1777) addition, the United States agreed to appoint an
Winnebago (1778) agent to regulate trade; guaranteed Delaware terri-
Fox (1778) tory in perpetuity; and, most interestingly, invited
Delaware (1778) the Delaware Nation “to join the present confedera-
Cherokee (1779) tion, and to form a state whereof the Delaware
(Deloria and DeMallie 1999, 183; ASP 1832, nation shall be the head, and have a representation
61:1, 1). in Congress” (Kappler 1904, 3; 7 Stat. 13). The Chero-
kee treaty of 1779 contains all the provisions found
Except for the Delaware and Cherokee treaties, in the Delaware treaty, with the exception of the
these were informal agreements. Although the statehood offer. Both treaties sought to ally the tribes
treaties in 1775 and 1776 differ in details, they have to the United States in exchange for protections
in common two elements: an explanation or justifica- against the two major causes of enmity: dishonesty
tion of the rebellion against English authority and an in trade and incursions on tribal lands.
appeal for tribal neutrality concerning the conflict
between England and the colonies. Witness the
speech of John Walker at the Treaty with the Six The Continental Congress under
Nations, Delaware, Shawnee and Ottawa in October the Articles of Confederation
1775. He pressed the tribes to remain neutral and to Although written in 1777, the Articles of Confedera-
recognize that they and the United Colonies had a tion did not become officially operational until 1781.
common destiny. The sticking point was the insistence by the “land-
less” states—those without claims to western lands—
Brothers we wish to Cultivate so strict a that the “landed” states surrender their claims to the
Friendship with you as that your Enemies United States. Maryland, in particular, held up accep-
shou’d be Considered as ours, and our tance of the articles until Virginia agreed to surrender
Enemies as yours. . . . Brothers you have no its claims to the Northwest Territory (the area north
doubt heard of the dispute between us and of the Ohio River, now the states of Ohio, Indian,
some of our Fathers evil Counsellors beyond Michigan, and Illinois) and what is now Kentucky.
the Great Water, in this dispute your Interest is Other states with western claims were New York,
Involved with ours so far as this, that in Case Massachusetts, Georgia, and North Carolina. Many
those People with whom we are Contending of the claims overlapped, and all were for lands
shou’d Subdue us, your Lands your Trade your occupied by a large number of Indian tribes. Further
Liberty and all that is dear to you must fall complicating matters, the Articles of Confederation
with us, for if they wou’d Distroy our flesh gave the United States sole control over war and
and Spill our Blood which is the same with peace but a vague mandate over Indian affairs.
theirs; what can you who are no way related According to Article IX, the Continental Congress
to or Connected with them Expect? (Deloria had the “sole and exclusive right and power of . . .
and DeMallie 1999, 55) regulating trade and managing all affairs with the
Indians, not members of any of the states, provided
The treaties with the Winnebago and the Fox, that the legislative right of any state within its own
negotiated by Colonel George Rogers Clark in limits be not infringed or violated. . . .” Because a
August 1778, tied the tribes to an “Alliance and number of states contained sizable areas occupied by
Friendship with the United States of America and Indian tribes, and because these states were anxious

Colonial and Early Treaties, 1775–1829 71
to gain title to these lands, Article IX preserved the demand a cession of land as reparations for the costs
rights of states to negotiate with the Indian tribes, of the war. The latter demand deviated radically
even at the risk of a general war and in contraven- from Washington’s recommendation to use the long-
tion of the interests of the United States. established practice of purchasing land from Indian
But the states were not the only ones to be con- tribes or, more precisely, purchasing the Indian
cerned about the stability of relations between the tribes’ right of use of the land. However, during the
United States and the Indian tribes. Congress also 1780s the United States faced an enormous debt and
faced that concern, which for them had its roots in no means to repay it, as well as a vengeful, restive
the Treaty of Paris. Although the Treaty of Paris (Sep- population intent on settling on the very lands under
tember 3, 1783) ended the Revolutionary War and tribal control. From Congress’s point of view, the
established the Mississippi River as the western solution to these two problems was to exact retribu-
boundary of the United States as far south as tion from the hostile Indian tribes via the relinquish-
Florida, it made no provision for ending the wars ment of land.
with the Indian tribes that had joined the English, Between 1784 and 1786, the United States nego-
and therefore it furthered the possibility of unstable tiated the following six treaties with hostile tribes:
relations with those tribes. As a result, it was clear to
the Continental Congress that peace treaties with the Treaty at Fort Stanwix with the Seneca,
hostile tribes were a necessity. Mohawk, Onondaga, and Cayuga {1784)
The crucial question was, What should be the Treaty at Fort McIntosh with the Wyandot,
terms of any peace treaties with the warring tribes? Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa (1785)
General George Washington provided an answer in Treaty at Hopewell, South Carolina, with the
a September 1783 letter written to James Duane, a Cherokee (1785)
delegate to the Continental Congress. Washington Treaty at Hopewell, South Carolina, with the
expressed concern that, in the absence of a quick res- Choctaw (1786)
olution of hostilities, the Indian lands would “be Treaty at Hopewell, South Carolina, with the
over run with Land Jobbers, Speculators, and Mo- Chickasaw (1786)
noplisers or even with scatter’d settlers” against the Treaty at Fort Finney at the mouth of the
best interest of the United States. Normalizing rela- Great Miami River with the Shawnee
tions with the tribes was imperative in order to pre- (1786)
vent a situation that Washington believed to be
“pregnant of disputes both with the Savages, and These treaties have five provisions in common.
among ourselves . . .” (Prucha 1994, 1). To this end, First, they required the tribes to surrender all prison-
Washington felt that the tribes should be informed of ers and, in the case of the treaties at Fort Stanwix,
the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, should be Fort McIntosh, and Fort Finney, required the Indian
required to return all prisoners, should agree to a tribes to provide tribal leaders as hostages to assure
boundary line between the United States and them- the prompt prisoner return. The three treaties at
selves, and should grant to the United States a ces- Hopewell added the return of property, including
sion of land. Washington believed that the United slaves. Second, the United States offered the Indian
States, for its part, should give assurances that it tribes peace and protection, which served to end
would “endeavour to restrain our People from Hunt- hostilities and to provide the United States with sole
ing or Settling” in Indian country as well as prevent control over the Indian tribes. Third, the United
dishonesty in trade. Washington concluded his letter States defined the territorial boundaries of the
by recommending that the lands ceded to the United Indian tribes, reserving land for Indians’ sole use
States be purchased instead of seized by force (ibid.). and occupancy and taking ownership of the remain-
“In a word there is nothing to be obtained by an der. Fourth, the United States agreed that crimes
Indian War but the Soil they live on and this can be committed by Americans on the tribal lands would
had by purchase at less expence, and without that be punished. Fifth, the tribes were to surrender to
bloodshed . . .” (ibid., 2). the United States any Indian who committed crimes
In the winter of 1784, the Continental Congress against Americans.
completed its plans for ending hostilities with the A number of treaties contained additional pro-
Indian tribes still at war with the United States. To visions specific to the situations between the United
each tribe, the Congress would offer peace and States and particular tribes. In the Fort Stanwix

treaty, the United States guaranteed the lands of the system of governance for the Northwest Territory.
Oneida and Tuscarora in appreciation of their loyalty The Continental Congress’s intention to survey and
to the colonial cause during the Revolutionary War. sell the land in the Northwest Territory, combined
Similarly, the Fort McIntosh treaty restored tribal with the increasingly frequent incursions on Indian
rights and property to those Delaware who had lands by hunters and squatters, made war inevitable.
remained loyal to the United States. The Hopewell Within a year of the passage of the Land Ordi-
treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw nance of 1785, the United States began surveying
contained guarantees of fair trade. Additionally, the and settling the Northwest Territory. To make the
Cherokee were offered the opportunity to send a point that the United States considered the land its
representative to the Continental Congress. property and would countenance no interference
Upon hearing the terms announced by the con- with its settlement, General George Rogers Clark
gressional negotiators at the treaty conferences, the ordered attacks on Shawnee villages in 1786.
Indian negotiators were nearly unanimous in their Although the attacks resulted in the unremitting
opposition. They argued that they had not waged hostility of the Shawnee, they had a salutary effect
war against the United States without provocation, from the American point of view: they served to sep-
they had never sued for peace, and they were not arate those Indian tribes closer to American terri-
empowered to grant the cessions demanded. How- tory—Seneca, Delaware, Wyandot, and Chippewa—
ever, they argued without success. These treaties from those more remote and thus less subject to U.S.
were not made at arm’s length: the terms were dic- intimidation—Shawnee, Miami, Wea, Piankashaw,
tated by the U.S. commissioners, and the tribes were Potawatomi, and Kickapoo.
told to accept them or face annihilation. The words Exacerbating the Continental Congress’s prob-
of Richard Butler, who negotiated the treaty with the lems concerning Indian relations were the actions of
Shawnee at Fort Finney on behalf of the United some of the states with sizable Indian populations.
States, illustrated the Continental Congress’s atti- Georgia held treaties with the Cherokee and the
tude: “The destruction of your women and children, Creek in 1783 and again with the Creek in 1785 and
or their future happiness, depends on your present 1786. Massachusetts negotiated its claims to what is
choice. Peace or war is in your power; make your now the western part of New York State with the Six
choice like men, and judge for yourselves” (Downes Nations in 1788. But New York State was by far the
1977, 297). most aggressive in securing Indian lands. It negoti-
Once the Indian delegates returned home and ated with the Oneida for a large tract of tribal land in
their tribal leaders and members heard the terms 1785, a year after federal guarantees to that land, and
imposed, the Indian tribes rejected the terms. As the again with the Oneida in 1788, as well as with the
news of the high-handed way the Indian tribes at the Onondaga in the same year and with the Cayuga the
treaty conferences had been treated, other Indian following year. New York went so far as to send
tribes, not party to the treaties but neighbors and individuals to disrupt the federal Treaty of Fort Stan-
allies of those who were, joined in opposition. The wix (Treaty with the Six Nations) in 1784, although
result was a loosely formed confederacy of Indian this effort failed to prevent the signing of the treaty.
tribes in the Northwest Territory, the area north of In the final days of the Continental Congress,
the Ohio River to the Mississippi River and includ- the United States sought to reaffirm its treaties made
ing Ohio, Indiana, southern Illinois, Michigan, and a between 1784 and 1786 with the hostile tribes by
small piece of western Pennsylvania. signing two treaties at Fort Harmar in January 1789.
Although mindful of the rejection and opposi- The first, with the Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa,
tion by the tribes, the Continental Congress pro- Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Sac, repeated the terms
ceeded to legislate for the area as though its title of the treaties of Fort McIntosh (Treaty with the
were clear and peace prevailed. In 1785, it passed Wyandot, Etc., 1785) and Fort Finney (1786; Kappler
“An Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of dispos- 1904), but in a shift of policy, the United States made
ing of lands in the Western Territory,” which pro- a payment to the Indian tribes of $6,000 in goods for
vided for the survey of the lands between the Ohio the land taken (Kappler 1904, 16–18). The second
River and the Great Lakes and their subsequent divi- treaty, with the Six Nations of New York, repeated
sion into six-mile-square townships. The land was the terms of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), and it,
then to be sold to settlers. In 1787, the Congress too, contained a payment in goods for land: $3,000.
passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a As the Mohawk under Joseph Brant were not in

attendance at the treaty, they were denied any pay- manner as any other treaty entered into by the
ment. The terms of both treaties were dictated by United States. Once negotiated, they were submitted
Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory, to the Senate for its advice and consent, which was
who hoped that the treaties would end the warfare. given by a two-thirds vote, and then proclaimed by
However, most of the tribes in the Northwest Terri- the president.
tory had refused to attend; of those who were pres- The Department of War, headed by Secretary
ent, none were represented by their principal chiefs. Henry Knox, was charged with the implementation
The treaties were repudiated by the tribes, making of Indian policy. Knox, like Washington, believed it
war in the Northwest Territory inevitable. 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
Treaties under the to the lands they possess and offered to purchase by
United States Constitution treaty what they were willing to sell. He was certain
The United States under the Constitution began that the tribes would be willing to sell sections of
functioning in April 1789, beset with a myriad of land at reasonable cost. He explained, “As the settle-
Indian problems, including an inevitable war with ments of the whites shall approach near to the
the tribes in the Northwest Territory. However, Indian boundaries established by treaties, the game
unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitu- will be diminished, and the lands being valuable to
tion made the United States supreme in the conduct the Indians only as hunting grounds, they will be
of Indian affairs. The Congress has the sole power willing to sell further tracts for small considerations”
“To regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes” (ASP 1832–61:1, 13–14).
(Article I, Section 8) and to declare war (Article I, But first the nation had to deal with a war in the
Section 8). It granted to the president the power to Northwest Territory, hostilities in the South, and a
make treaties with the advice and consent of the Sen- possible war with tribes of the Six Nations in west-
ate (Article II, Section 2). ern New York. To meet these threats, the War
The first treaties to reach the president and the Department formulated a threefold approach: First,
Senate were the two negotiated at Fort Harmar. They the United States would wage war on the tribes
raised a serious question regarding the handling of along the Wabash River, principally the Miami. Sec-
Indian treaties. Did Article II, Section 2 of the Consti- ond, the United States would carry on negotiations
tution apply to treaties between the United States with the southern Indian tribes, particularly the
and Indian tribes? Washington proceeded on the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, and the Creek. Third, the
assumption that a treaty with an Indian tribe should president, with the approval of the Senate, would
be treated as any other treaty would under the Con- send a commissioner to settle differences with the
stitution. He sent the two treaties, supporting docu- Six Nations, principally the Seneca, who were angry
ments, and a report from Secretary Henry Knox to over the forced land concessions at Fort Stanwix and
the Senate in May 1789. The following month, the Fort Harmar.
Senate appointed a three-member committee to The United States made two unsuccessful
review the treaty and accompanying materials. The attempts to defeat the Indian tribes north of the
Senate was uncertain of the status of Indian treaties; Ohio. In the summer of 1790, General Josiah Harmar
after much consideration, the Senate advised Wash- led an army of 1,453 militia and regulars against the
ington to carry out the treaty (Prucha 1994, 70–71). Miami, and after destroying a number of villages,
This did not satisfy Washington, and he so the army was defeated. The following year, territo-
informed the Senate. He pointed out that treaties rial governor Arthur St. Clair assembled an army of
made by subordinates were not official until ratified 2,770 and marched into Miami country. There he met
by the sovereign “and I am inclined to think it would an army consisting of Miami, Wyandot, Chippewa,
be adviseable to observe it in the conduct of our and Kickapoo, led by the Miami chief Little Turtle.
treaties with Indians . . . It strikes me that this point The results were disastrous for the United States. Of
should be well considered and settled, so that our the 1,400 U.S. troops who participated in the battle,
national proceedings in this respect may become more than 900 were killed or wounded. The rest
uniform, and be directed by fixed, and stable princi- retreated to the safety of Fort Hamilton (now Cleve-
ples” (as quoted in Prucha 1994, 72). The Senate land, Ohio) (Mahon 1988, 150; Downes 1977,
agreed; Indian treaties were to be treated in the same 317–318). After the battle, General Anthony Wayne

replaced St. Clair. Wayne was ordered to raise and step of appointing Timothy Pickering, with the con-
train an army to defeat the tribes in the Northwest sent of the Senate, as Indian commissioner to the
Territory. New York tribes. Between 1790 and 1794, Pickering
The problems with the Six Nations in New York held a series of conferences with the Six Nations to
and the tribes in the South were largely the result of keep them neutral and to resolve outstanding differ-
white settlers committing crimes against Indians ences.
within tribal territories, dishonest traders who While the United States pursued its military
cheated the Indians with shoddy goods and exorbi- efforts in the Northwest and its diplomatic efforts
tant prices, and states and citizens who forced or with the Six Nations, it had to contend with frequent
tricked the Indian tribes into selling their lands at border depredations in the South. With its limited
paltry rates. To remedy these conditions, Congress in resources, the United States could not engage in a
1790 passed the first of a series of laws known as the war against the Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and
Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts. These acts sought Creeks, nor could it afford to have these tribes join
to regulate trade by licensing the traders who with the Indian tribes north of the Ohio. In response
entered Indian country, making individuals who to the dilemma, Washington chose a diplomatic
commit crimes in Indian country subject to state or approach, holding a number of treaty conferences
territorial laws and punishments, and prohibiting with the southern Indian tribes. In 1790 and 1791, the
the sale of Indian lands to individuals and to states United States negotiated treaties with the Creeks and
“whether having the right of pre-emption to such Cherokee respectively. The two treaties contained
lands or not, unless the same shall be made and duly essentially the same provisions: the tribes recognized
executed at some public treaty, held under the U.S. protection and “no other sovereign whosoever”;
authority of the United States” (1 Stat. 137–138). The the tribes would return all prisoners; their bound-
last provision applied only to the original thirteen aries would be surveyed and guaranteed by the
states, which were acknowledged to have retained United States; the tribes were free to punish any citi-
the preemption right, that is, the right to purchase zen or inhabitant of the United States who settled on
the Indian lands within their borders; however, the their land; hunting and entry on tribal land without
United States determined when that right could be a passport by citizens or inhabitants of the United
exercised, when Indian title could be extinguished. States were forbidden; fugitives from justice were to
The Act of 1790 was temporary, set to expire in June be returned to the United States, and individuals
1793, but Congress renewed and strengthened the committing crimes on Indian land were to be pun-
act in March of that year. (Congress continued to ished according to the laws of the state or territory
renew and revise the act in three-year increments where the Indian lands were located; both sides
until 1802, when it was made permanent. Although would refrain from retaliation; the tribes would give
the act was modified throughout the period, the notice of any threats against the United States; and
essential provision prohibiting individuals from pur- lastly, so that the Indian tribes “may be led to a
chasing Indian land and the restrictions on states greater degree of civilization, and to become herds-
doing the same remained.) men and cultivators, instead of remaining in a state
President George Washington affirmed the proof hunters,” the United States would supply domes-
tection of Indian land guaranteed by the Indian ticated animals and farm implements. Although
Trade and Intercourse Act to the Seneca chiefs Corn- these treaties did little to quell the border depreda-
planter, Half-Town, and Great-Tree in December tions, their provisions set the tone, format, and lan-
1790. Responding to a litany of complaints, Wash- guage for subsequent treaties.
ington informed them of the provisions of the act The year 1794 proved to be a turning point in
and added, “Here, then, is the security for the Indian-United States relations and territorial policy.
remainder of your lands. No State, nor person, can The previous summer, a U.S. delegation had met
purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty, with the Ohio tribes to negotiate a settlement but
held under the authority of the United States. The had no success. The tribes insisted that the United
General Government will never consent to your States accept the Ohio River as the boundary
being defrauded, but it will protect you in all your between the parties, which the U.S. commissioners
just rights” (ASP 1832–61:1, 142). In addition to the rejected. Negotiations having failed, Knox directed
assurances Washington gave to the Six Nations that General Anthony Wayne to begin an offensive to
their lands would be protected, he took the further secure the Ohio valley. Wayne waited until the sum-

mer of 1794 to begin his campaign, and after build- petuity. In exchange, the Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga,
ing a string of forts on the Maumee and the Great and Oneida surrendered all claims to any other land
Miami rivers, he moved to meet the Indian army, within the United States. The treaty was signed by
which numbered some two thousand. Wayne pro- Timothy Pickering for the United States and by fifty-
ceeded deliberately toward the Indian camp at nine “sachems and war chiefs” of the Six Nations,
Fallen Timbers, which was protected by an English including Cornplanter, Red Jacket, Farmer’s Brother,
post, Fort Miami. The tribes had been led to believe the Seneca prophet Handsome Lake, and the Stock-
by English officials in Canada that the English bridge chief Hendrick Aupaumut.
would support them militarily and that war between Although both sides were aware of Wayne’s vic-
the United States and England was imminent. But tory at Fallen Timbers months before, this did not
when Wayne, whose forces outnumbered the Indi- greatly affect the final results. The principal U.S.
ans, attacked, the English took no action. Although interest in the treaty was to gain an unconditional
the Battle of Fallen Timbers, on August 20, did not surrender of any Six Nations claims to land in the
destroy the tribes’ ability to fight, the failure of the Ohio Valley. Pickering justified the return of the
English to help resulted in dissolution of the Indian Seneca lands in western New York, saying that the
fighting force. Wayne went on to destroy Indian vil- United States never had a right to the land because
lages and crops unopposed. The war in Northwest the preemption right belonged to Massachusetts, the
Territory was over, but the United States had yet to lands lay within the boundaries of New York State,
negotiate a settlement of all grievances with the Six and the Seneca would never have agreed to the
Nations of New York, the tribes in the South, and treaty without the return.
those it had defeated in the Ohio valley. There were other problems concerning tribal
The United States began the process of settling land and New York and Massachusetts claims to be
tribal grievances even before the commencement of resolved, and they presented some knotty legal and
the offensive in the Northwest. In June 1794, the political issues. The Indian Trade and Intercourse acts
United States negotiated a treaty with the Cherokee made provision for the original thirteen states and
at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, affirming the bound- Vermont and Maine, which had been parts of original
aries and other provisions of the treaties of 1785 and states, to treat for land with tribes within their
1791 and granting the Cherokee annually “goods boundaries. There were two restrictions on the states:
suitable for their use” worth $5,000 “in lieu of all for- they could only negotiate at a federally held treaty at
mer sums” (Kappler 1904, 26). Two years later, the which a U.S. commissioner was present, and they
United States made a similar treaty with the Creek; could only negotiate the price to be paid to the tribe
they confirmed the boundary provision of the treaty that held the right of use. New York State, under the
of 1790 and the boundaries set by the treaties with leadership of Governor George Clinton, aggressively
the Chickasaw, the Cherokee, and the Choctaw sought the purchase of tribal lands and in 1795 nego-
(1785–1786). In return, the United States made a one- tiated land sales with the Oneida, the Cayuga, and
time payment of $6,000 in goods to the Creek. the Onondaga, much to the consternation of Secre-
The efforts of the federal government to prevent tary of War Timothy Pickering. John Jay succeeded
the Six Nations of New York from joining the Ohio Clinton as governor of New York in 1795, and he
tribes had been largely successful. By the fall of 1794, chose to comply with the Indian Trade and Inter-
Timothy Pickering was ready to settle their griev- course Act, resulting in three federally held treaties.
ances, having met in council with the Indian leaders The first of these was a treaty in 1796 with the Seven
and heard their complaints during the preceding Nations of Canada: Caughnawaga and St. Regis
three years. He called for a treaty council at (Mohawk), Lake of Two Mountains (Nippising, Iro-
Canandaigua, New York, which lasted some two quois, and Algonquin), St. Francis (Sokoki Abe-
months and ended in November. The treaty naki), Becancour (Eastern Abenaki), Oswegatchie
acknowledged the lands of the Oneida, the (Onondaga, Oneida, and Cayuga), and Lorette
Onondaga, and the Cayuga in New York State to be (Huron). By this treaty, the Seven Nations surren-
theirs; nullified the land cession of the Treaty of Fort dered all their claims to land in New York, except for
Stanwix, returning to the Seneca the land taken, what is now the St. Regis Reservation in upstate New
except for a four-mile strip along the east bank of the York along the St. Lawrence River, for “the sum of
Niagara River from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie; and one thousand two hundred and thirty-three pounds
granted the Six Nations an annuity of $4,500 in per- six shillings and eight-pence, lawful money” of New

York State and an annuity of 213 pounds, 6 shillings, Two additional transactions to which a U.S.
and 8 pence. A year later, under the leadership of Indian commission was present require mention. In
Joseph Brant and John Deserontyon, the Mohawks 1823, the owners of the preemption right purchased
surrendered their tribal claims in New York for from the Seneca a tract of land for $4,286, and in 1826
$1,600. New York State negotiated treaties under fed- the Seneca sold to the same group a second tract of
eral auspices with the Oneida in 1798 and 1802, 86,887 acres for $48,260. Neither sale was ratified by
although the latter treaty was never ratified by the the Senate or proclaimed by the president.
Senate or proclaimed by President Jefferson. Returning to the Northwest Territory, the Treaty
Finally, in 1802 the United States held two of Greenville, which ended the war in that region,
treaties with the Seneca. These were unusual in that was signed on August 3, 1795, by General Anthony
they were negotiated for the benefit of individuals, Wayne and chiefs of the Wyandot, Delaware,
in apparent violation of the Indian Trade and Inter- Shawnee, Ottawa, Chippewa, Kickapoo, Miami
course Acts, which contained an absolute prohibi- (including the Piankashaw, Wea, and Eel River
tion against individuals purchasing Indian land. The bands), Kickapoo, and Kaskaskia. In all, sixty-nine
Seneca lands were a unique case. They were the sub- chiefs incribed their marks on the treaty, including
ject of nearly 150 years of dispute over who held the Little Turtle, the great Miami chief, and Blue Jacket, a
preemption right, Massachusetts or New York. chief of the Shawnee. The treaty was similar in form
Massachusetts claimed the right from a grant by to those that had preceded it: it declared the parties
King James I to the Plymouth Company in 1621 to all to be at peace; required that prisoners be exchanged
the land, from sea to sea, between the 40th and 48th and that the United States hold ten Indian chiefs
parallels north. New York based its claim to the hostage until the exchange was completed; included
Seneca lands on a grant from King Charles II to his a major cession of land north of the Ohio River, plus
brother James II, Duke of York. The dispute lingered specific sessions for forts, trading posts, portages,
until 1786, when representatives of the two states and so forth; and obligated the tribes to warn the
met in Hartford, Connecticut, and agreed to a com- United States of any hostile intent by others. In
promise that gave preemption to Massachusetts and exchange, the United States gave the tribes $20,000
jurisdiction to New York. Massachusetts then sold its in goods and a perpetual annuity of $9,500 to be
preemption right to the 6 million acres of Seneca divided among them. The tribes were empowered to
land to private speculators, who in 1788 purchased expel illegal settlers; trade would be opened with the
from the Seneca 2.6 million acres for $5,000 and an United States, retaliation restrained, and all former
annuity of $500 (New York State Assembly Docu- treaties voided.
ment 51 1889:16–18).
The owners of the preemption were unable to
convince the Seneca to sell any more of their remain- Treaties and National
ing 3.4 million acres until 1797. In that year, Robert Territorial Expansion, 1800–1829
Morris, acting as agent for the owners, met with the Four policy goals defined treaty making during the
Seneca under the authority of a U.S. Indian commis- first decades of the nineteenth century: land acquisi-
sioner and negotiated the Treaty of Big Tree, tion, changing tribes to agrarian-based economies,
whereby the Seneca sold some 3.2 million acres for managing trade, and securing and maintaining
$100,000 in Bank of the United States stock, reserv- peaceful relations. First and foremost was the acqui-
ing for themselves approximately 200,000 acres on sition of land to satisfy the flood of immigrants and
nine reservations in western New York State (ibid., Americans moving westward. This meant the sur-
131–134). In 1802, the Seneca agreed to exchange render of large sections of tribal land upon which
with owners of the preemption forty-two square the tribes depended for subsistence. To compensate
miles of land of their Cattaraugus Reservation for an for the land losses, the United States sought to con-
equal amount along Cattaraugus Creek. In a sepa- vince the tribes to give up hunting and adopt Euro-
rate treaty negotiated at the same convention, the pean American farming and, by providing funds for
Seneca sold Little Beard’s reservation of two square schools, to adopt American ways. To supply the
miles for $1,200. These treaties were signed by the tribes with products they could not raise or manu-
most prominent men in the Seneca Nation, including facture, the United States proposed to establish trad-
Cornplanter, Farmer’s Brother, Red Jacket, and ing posts, sometime called factories, on the dimin-
Handsome Lake. ished tribal lands. This would have the salutary

effect of reducing complaints from tribes about the provisions of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts.
unfair practices of individual traders and would The act of 1802 contained a description of the bound-
keep out any foreign influences potentially threaten- ary between Indian country and the United States,
ing to the United States. It would, in addition, pro- continued the prohibitions against settlement on
vide the federal government with information con- Indian land, provided for the punishment of crimes
cerning tribal affairs, invaluable for treaty committed in Indian country, required the issuance
negotiations. Finally, the treaties would establish of passports to enter Indian country and licenses to
and confirm peace and commit the tribes to recog- trade, prohibited the sale of alcohol, and authorized
nize the United States as their sole protector. This the president “in order to promote civilization
was of particular importance because Spain, France, among the friendly Indian tribes, and to secure the
and England possessed land on the nation’s borders continuance of their friendship, . . . to cause them to
and, through trade and alliances, had great influ- be furnished with useful domestic animals, and
ence with many of the tribes east of the Mississippi implements of husbandry, and with goods and
River. money, as he shall judge proper . . .” (2 Stat.
The problem of foreign involvement in what the 139–146).
federal government considered internal national Achieving what had emerged as national
issues became particularly acute in 1802, when Presi- policy—the acquisition of tribal land without resort-
dent Thomas Jefferson learned of Spain’s secret ing to conquest—depended on convincing the tribes
transfer of the Louisiana Territory to Napoleon. to change their lifestyles; to accomplish this, the
However, the threat of a French occupation of New tribes would have to abandon hunting and adopt
Orleans, and thus control of the Mississippi River, agriculture. “The extensive forests necessary in the
was removed when the United States in 1803 pur- hunting life will then become useless,” Jefferson
chased France’s preemption right west of the Missis- wrote to Congress in 1803, “and they will see advan-
sippi River, an area of some 828,000 square miles. tage in exchanging them for means of improving
That left Spain in control of Florida, and the English their farms and of increasing their domestic com-
along the nation’s northern border. forts.” Jefferson saw that federal government trading
Although President Jefferson was initially con- posts were an essential part of national policy
cerned that the purchase was unconstitutional, in the (Prucha 2000, 21). Thus, trade provisions were incor-
end pragmatic factors overcame philosophical ones, porated in many of the subsequent treaties.
and Jefferson embraced the purchase. The United
States had nearly doubled its size and brought The South
within its boundaries a then-unknown number of Between 1801 and 1829, the United States made
tribes, yet it had not cleared its title to the area it had thirty-nine treaties with the Chickasaw, Choctaw,
secured from England in 1783 nor settled its rela- Creek, Cherokee, and Florida tribes. These treaties
tions with the tribes that occupied these lands. Jeffer- extinguished Indian title to all of the land east of the
son recognized that the tribes east of the Mississippi Mississippi River from the Ohio River to the Gulf of
River were growing ever more opposed to selling Mexico, except for specific reservations of land for
any of their land, while at the same time the tribal use and occupancy. The first two treaties were
demands for land were increasing exponentially. The with the Chickasaw and the Choctaw in 1801. Col-
dilemma for the national government was how to lectively, they gave the United States permission to
gain title without provoking another series of Indian build a road across tribal territory from Tennessee to
wars. “Natchez in the Mississippi Territory.” These treaties
Jefferson made no departure from the Indian cut a road diagonally from the northeast to the
policy established during Washington’s administra- southwest across the tribal territories. In addition,
tion. Congress had enacted the Indian Trade and the Choctaw treaty included a provision for the re-
Intercourse Act in 1790 and had renewed and modi- marking of the boundary lines set by the English
fied the act in 1793, 1796, and 1799. In the 1796 before the Revolutionary War and a relinquishment
renewal of the act, Congress established a system of of land east of the Cumberland Mountains (Royce
government-owned trading posts “for the purpose 1900, Pl. LXII).
of carrying on a liberal trade with the several Indian For their cessions, the Chickasaw received $700
nations, within the limits of the United States” (1 in goods, and the Choctaw received $2,000 in goods
Stat. 452). In 1802, Congress made permanent the (Kappler 1904:2, 41–43). In 1805, the Cherokee

agreed to allow a road to run through their territory On the other side of the coin, because of “an
to connect Knoxville, Tennessee, with New Orleans. unprovoked, inhuman, and sanguinary war, waged
The tribe was paid $1,600 (ibid., 61). by the hostile Creeks against the United States”
Having gained rights-of-way to the Mississippi (Kappler 1904:2, 77), the Creek were forced by the
River across tribal lands, the United States set out to treaty of 1814 to surrender more than twenty million
secure the intervening land. This involved land in acres in Georgia and Alabama (Prucha 1994, 11). The
four states—Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and treaty referred to the Creek war of 1813–1814, fought
South Carolina—and in the Territory of Mississippi. against the United States by an Upper Towns band
The western part of Tennessee belonged to the of the tribe. It took a combined force of American,
Chickasaw and the Cherokee tribes. The United Cherokee, Choctaw, and Lower Creeks to defeat the
States title to Chickasaw land was cleared by three Upper Creeks and end the war. No compensation
treaties in 1805, 1816, and 1818; Cherokee land was was granted to the Creek tribe in this treaty, even
purchased in 1805, 1806, and 1819. though a part of the tribe had remained loyal to the
The Choctaw land was located in Alabama and United States and assisted in the defeat of their fel-
Mississippi. By treaties in 1802, 1803, 1805, 1816, and low tribesmen.
1820, the Choctaw surrendered their claims in the Although the majority of the treaties negotiated
two states. In 1814, the Creek sold their land in with the southern tribes represented the sale of ever-
Alabama. Most of the remaining Creek land was diminishing tribal lands, several made after the
located in Georgia. To clear title to this land, the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, which ended the War of
United States negotiated seven treaties with the 1812, provided for the exchange of land east of the
Creek for land in Georgia: 1802, 1805, 1818, two in Mississippi River for land in the Louisiana Territory.
1821, 1826, and 1827. The Cherokee also occupied This possibility, a land exchange instead of a sale
land in Georgia, which they sold in 1804 and 1817. In and reservation, had been foreseen by President Jef-
1816, they also sold a part of their territory in South ferson in 1803 and had been incorporated into law
Carolina. For their land cessions east of the Missis- the following year. In 1804, Congress passed legisla-
sippi River, the four tribes received the following tion establishing a system of governance for the
compensation: the Cherokee, $209,500 and $8,000 in Louisiana Territory. A provision in the act authorized
perpetual annuities; the Chickasaw, $449,815; the the president “to stipulate with any Indian tribes
Choctaw, $282,000 and $9,000 in perpetual annuities; owning lands on the East side of the Mississippi, and
the Creek, $1,427,000 and $23,000 in perpetual annu- residing thereon, for an exchange of lands the prop-
ities (Kappler 1904, 2). Included in these totals were erty of the united States, on the West side of the Mis-
funds set aside for the construction and operation of sissippi, in case the said tribe shall remove and settle
schools for tribal children. thereon . . .” (2 Stat. 283).
Not all of the money stipulated to be paid by the The Cherokee treaty of 1817 was the first to con-
United States went to the benefit of the tribes. The tain a provision for a land exchange. In exchange for
Choctaw’s $50,000 went to cover money owed to surrendering land in Georgia, those who chose to
traders; $250,000 of the Creek funds were earmarked emigrate were given an equal number of acres in the
for a similar purpose. The Cherokee were paid newly formed Territory of Arkansas. The head of
$43,760 to indemnify individual tribal members for each emigrating household was given a rifle and
damage caused by the U.S. Army and citizens. Pay- ammunition, a brass kettle or beaver trap, and a
ments were made to specific individuals in the blanket for each member of the family. Those who
tribes, very often chiefs or prominent warriors. remained east of the Mississippi River and desired to
George Guess (Sequoyah) received $500 in the become citizens were to receive 160 acres of tribal
Cherokee treaty of 1828 “for the great benefits he has land. The annuities due the Cherokee tribe would be
conferred upon the Cherokee people, in the benefi- divided proportionately between the two groups. A
cial results which they have are now experiencing treaty with the Choctaws in 1820 contains similar
from the use of the Alphabet discovered by him” provisions: land in the Arkansas Territory for their
(Kappler 1904:2, 207). The same treaty allocated land in Mississippi, equipment for the emigrating
$1,000 for the purchase of a printing press. The families, and citizenship and land for those remain-
Choctaw chiefs and warriors received $14,972 for the ing in the state of Mississippi.
assistance against the Upper Creeks in the Pensacola These treaties ran into immediate opposition
campaign during the War of 1812. from settlers in the Arkansas Territory, so much so

that they required renegotiation. In 1825, the ing it a capital crime to sell land. Their attitudes fur-
Choctaw were forced to surrender a large portion of ther hardened following the Creek war, largely
the land they had acquired in Arkansas and to because of sales made by the Lower Creeks. Finally,
accept a cash payment and an annuity of $6,000 in 1825, when the leader of the Lower Town Creek,
instead. In 1828, the Cherokee found themselves in William McIntosh, a supporter of removal and active
the same situation. They were forced to exchange opponent of the Upper Town Creek, signed the
their seven million acres in Arkansas for an equal treaty of 1825, the Upper Creeks killed him for ced-
amount of land west of the Mississippi River. The ing Creek land.
treaty described their title in the following terms: Nonetheless, by 1829 much of the tribal land of
the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and
Whereas, it being the anxious desire of the Florida tribes had been lost, and many of the tribal
Government of the United States to secure to members had moved across the Mississippi River.
the Cherokee nation of Indians, as well those More importantly, tribal governments had been
now living within the limits of the Territory of damaged by factional disputes that, in the cases of
Arkansas, as those of their friends and the Cherokee and Creek, had led to a prolonged and
brothers who reside in States East of the at times violent struggle.
Mississippi, and who may wish to join their
brothers of the West, a permanent home, and The Northwest and Louisiana Territories
which shall, under the most solemn guarantee The United States followed the same policy objec-
of the United States, be, and remain, theirs tives and negotiating procedures with the tribes in
forever—a home that shall never, in all future the Northwest Territory that it had followed with the
time, be embarrassed by having extended southern tribes. However, the problems of dealing
around it the lines, or placed over it the with the Northwest tribes were much more compli-
jurisdiction of a Territory or State . . . (Kappler cated and convoluted than in the South. In the
1904:2, 206; emphasis in original) Northwest, the United States found multiple tribal
claims of ownership to the same lands and a contin-
In addition to the land guaranteed to the tribe, uing and growing resentment against the United
the United States granted the Cherokee “a free and States among members of the affected tribes. Tribal
unmolested use of all the Country lying West of the feelings were fed by the land forfeited by the tribes
Western boundary” of their reservation, which in at the Treaty of Greenville in 1795 (Treaty with the
1828 meant all of Oklahoma. Wyandot, Etc.) and by the waves of settlers who
Florida remained under Spanish control until showed little concern for the boundaries between
1819, when the United States completed its pur- Indian land and that belonging to the United States.
chase. General Andrew Jackson, one of the principal To be fair, not all the fault lay with the settlers.
negotiators of treaties with the southern tribes, had Although the United States had gained title to a siz-
invaded the territory in 1818, precipitating the First able area in the Northwest Territory, the boundaries
Seminole War. Although that action caused a diplo- of the land cession were not well defined, which led
matic flap, it allowed the U.S. negotiator, John inevitably to disputes. The United States endeavored
Quincy Adams, to pressure Spain to sell its preemp- to remedy this in 1803 by entering into a treaty with
tion right to the land. In 1823, the United States nine tribes—Delaware, Shawnee, Potawatomi,
forced the weakened Florida tribes to sign a treaty Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Piankashaw, and
whereby they surrendered all the territory, except Kaskaskia—to define the boundary (Kappler 1904:2,
for a small reservation, for $6,000 worth of “imple- 49), but by then settlements had been established on
ments of husbandry, and stock of cattle and hogs” tribal lands, necessitating new concessions by the
and a $5,000 annuity for twenty years (Kappler tribes.
1904:2, 141). During the first decade of the nineteenth cen-
It should not be assumed that these land trans- tury, the United States entered into a series of treaties
actions were accomplished with the full agreement with individual tribes and groups of tribes covering
of the tribes involved; quite the contrary. The Chero- millions of acres of land in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan,
kee tribe split over the provision for removal in the and Illinois. The provisions of these treaties were
treaty of 1817. The National Council of the Creek, led essentially the same: a land cession in exchange for
by the Upper Creeks, had passed a law in 1811 mak- cash or goods and/or an annuity, generally for a

specified number of years. A treaty with the Fox, Iowa, Winnebago, Kansas, and Winnebago,
Kaskaskia, “originally called the Kaskaskia, joined the English. All would face U.S. negotiators at
Mitchigamia, Cahokia and Tamaroi,” in 1803 pro- war’s end.
claimed that, because these tribes “from a variety of The first signs of the impending conflict
unfortunate circumstances . . . are reduced to a very occurred in 1810 with skirmishes between the two
small number,” the tribe could no longer use its sides. The following year, General William Henry
extensive territory and therefore “do relinquish and Harrison marched against Prophetstown, Ten-
cede to the United States all the lands in the Illinois skatawa’s village on Tippecanoe Creek. Ten-
Territory.” The tribe reserved but 1,630 acres for its skatawa’s force came out to meet Harrison’s, and
own use. For this sale, the tribe had its annuity although the results were inconclusive, the Prophet
increased to $1,000, and because a majority of the lost support among his Shawnee followers. In 1812,
tribal members were Catholics, the United States the English declared war on the United States and
agreed to pay $100 to the Catholic priest for seven openly joined Tecumseh. Hostilities continued, cul-
years (Kappler 1904:2, 49–50). In 1809, the United minating in the Battle of the Thames in Ontario,
States signed four treaties; the first, with the Canada, in the summer of 1813, where Tecumseh’s
Delaware, Potawatomi, Miami, and Eel River Miami, forces and their English allies were defeated by the
gave the United States a large cession in Indiana. U.S. forces, and Tecumseh was killed.
What was unique about this treaty was that a por- With the death of Tecumseh, Indian resistance in
tion of the promised annuity depended upon indi- the Northwest collapsed, but there remained the war
vidual treaties with two tribes that were not parties with England, which continued for another year. The
to the original treaty, namely the Wea and the Kick- Treaty of Ghent, signed in December 1814, ended the
apoo. They signed separate treaties agreeing to the war between the United States and England. By its
terms of the treaty of 1809. terms, the United States agreed to make peace with
Although the language of these treaties and the warring tribes and to restore to them “all the pos-
those in the South suggests that they were the prod- sessions, rights, and privileges” they had possessed
uct of arms-length agreements, that the U.S. negotia- in 1811 before the start of hostilities.
tors were sensitive to the needs and interests of their In 1815, President James Madison appointed
tribal counterparts, nothing could be farther from commissioners to end hostilities with the tribes in
the truth. From the first opening session of a treaty the Northwest and Louisiana Territory. In all, the
council, the pressure brought to bear on the tribal commissioners negotiated twenty treaties with
negotiators was unremitting. If the presence of U.S. twenty-two tribes on both sides of the Mississippi
troops at the treaty council and the veiled threats of between 1815 and 1817. These treaties, although they
the U.S. negotiators did not result in the desired land varied slightly in detail, generally speaking con-
cessions, often tribal negotiators were bribed. It is no tained clauses that established “perpetual peace and
wonder that by 1810 the tribes in the Northwest friendship” between the parties, recognized past
were preparing for war. As early as 1805, two treaties signed by the parties, forgave injuries com-
Shawnee leaders were advocating a return to the mitted by the parties, and returned any prisoners.
ways of their forefathers. Led by Tenskatawa (the The treaties of peace and friendship were but a
Prophet) and his brother Tecumseh and supported prelude to an intensive period of land acquisition.
by the English in Canada, some of the tribes in the The concerns of the United States were threefold: to
Northwest had organized to oppose the United complete the acquisition of the land in the North-
States. Tecumseh’s movement split the tribes; those west, including Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula
who supported Tecumseh in whole or part were of Michigan; to secure title to land along the west
mainly the Shawnee at Prophetstown and the Kick- side of the Mississippi River; and to establish rela-
apoo, Ottawa, Chippewa, and Piankashaw; those tions and supremacy over the tribes farther west. To
who joined the Americans included the Wyandot, accomplish the first objective, the federal govern-
Sandusky, Seneca, Delaware, Sac, and the main body ment made seventeen treaties between 1818 and
of the Shawnee. The Miami, one of the most power- 1829 (see Table 1). By these treaties, the United States
ful tribes, remained neutral despite attacks on its vil- secured most of the Indian title in the area, with the
lages by the Americans. In addition, the tribes far- exception of Wisconsin. The nineteen treaties made
ther west, which included the Sioux, Menominee, with the tribes to the west of the Mississippi River

secured for the nation control of the Mississippi While busy with the land acquisitions just
River, land for settlement, and a place to move the described, the United States began its preparation
eastern tribes (see Table 2). 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
Table 1 acknowledged the supremacy of the United States
Treaties of Cession, by State (Northwest) 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
Number
of treaties with the Ponca, Sioux, Cheyenne, Arikara,
State Treaties Tribes Involved Ministaree, Mandan, Cree, Pawnee, and Omaha. In
Ohio 4 Potawatomi, Wyandot, Seneca
all, the United States made fifty-three treaties
(Ohio), Delaware, Shawnee, between 1818 and 1829 with the tribes in Michigan,
Ottawa, Chippewa, Wea, Miami Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and west of the
Indiana 11 Potawatomi, Wyandot, Seneca Mississippi River.
(Ohio), Delaware, Shawnee,
Ottawa, Chippewa, Wea, Miami,
Kickapoo Conclusion
Michigan 9 Potawatomi, Wyandot, Seneca In the six decades between the commencement of
(Ohio), Delaware, Shawnee, the American Revolution and the election of Andrew
Ottawa, Chippewa, Wea, Miami, Jackson as president, the United States moved its
Winnebago
borders across the continent. The policy of incremen-
Illinois 9 Sac, Chippewa, Ottawa, Peoria, tal acquisition through purchase established during
Kaskaskia, Potawatomi, Wea,
the Washington administration served the national
Delaware, Kickapoo, Winnebago
interest throughout the period. Through the treaty-
Wisconsin 5 Sac, Chippewa, Ottawa,
making process, the nation acquired millions of acres
Potawatomi, Winnebago
from Indian tribes. Besides the loss of their land, the
Note: Many of these treaties contained cessions of land in more same treaty process also resulted in the displacement
than one state.
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.”
Table 2 Jack Campisi
Treaties of Cession, by State
(West of the Mississippi) References and Further Reading
American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, vol. 1.
Number 1832–1861. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.
of Deloria, Vine, Jr. and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999.
State Treaties Tribes Involved Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties,
Louisiana 1 Quapaw Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979, vol. 1.
Arkansas 4 Quapaw, Osage Downes, Randolph C. 1977. Council Fires on the Upper
Indian Territory 3 Quapaw, Osage Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the Upper
Ohio Valley until 1795. Pittsburgh: University of
Missouri 6 Kickapoo, Sac, Fox, Iowa, Pittsburgh Press.
Osage, Kansa, Shawnee Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and
Treaties, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Government
Kansas 3 Osage, Kansa, Shawnee
Printing Office.
Nebraska 6 Kansa Mahon, John K. 1988. Indian-United States Military
Situation, 1775–1848. In Handbook of North
Iowa 1 Sac, Fox
American Indians, vol. 4, History of Indian-White
Note: Many of these treaties contained cessions of land in more Relations, ed. William C. Sturtevant, 144–162.
than one state. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

New York (State) Legislature. Assembly. 1889. Report Royce, C. C. 1881. “Cessions of Land by Indian Tribes
of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian to the United States: Illustrated by those in the
Problem of the State of New York, Appointed by the State of Indiana.” In First Annual Report of the
Assembly of 1888. Albany, NY: Troy Press. Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the
Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 1994. American Indian Smithsonian Institution, 1879–80, 247–262.
Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Washington, DC.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of “Treaty of Fort Finney or Treaty with the Shawnee,
California Press. January 31, 1786.” 1904. In Indian Affairs: Laws
Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 2000. Documents of United and Treaties, vol. 2, comp. and ed. Charles J.
States Indian Policy. Lincoln: University of Kappler, 16–18. Washington, DC: Government
Nebraska Press. Printing Office.

Indian Removal and Land Cessions,
1830–1849
T
T
he Indian removal policy implemented by the sippi will be found only in the pages of the historian
U.S. government in the early nineteenth cen- . . .” (Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams 1998, 94). A
tury resulted in dozens of land cession component of early American Indian policy, which
treaties with Indian groups east of the Mississippi began under President Washington and continued
River. Under the removal policy, treaties were nego- under his successors until President Andrew Jack-
tiated with numerous eastern tribes, including the son, was the “civilization” plan. Under this program,
Choctaw, the Chickasaw, the Cherokee, the Semi- the U.S. government urged Indian peoples to adopt
nole, the Muscogee Creek in the South, and more American notions of economy, politics, and gender
than twenty tribes in New York, the Great Lakes roles. This meant that Indians should abandon hunt-
area, and along the Mississippi River north of the ing as a source of sustenance for agriculture, espe-
Ohio River. These treaties ceded millions of acres of cially the production of such cash crops as cotton.
land to U.S. control and forced the relocation of tens Differing views about the proper use of land divided
of thousands of Indians to Indian Territory. The Indians and European Americans from the earliest
causes of the removal policy arose from many days of contact; eastern Indians pointed out that
sources, including American economic growth, the they already grew vast quantities of corn, squash,
movement of American settlers west and south, beans, pumpkins, and sunflowers. Indian men
racism toward Indians, and the assertion of states’ hunted deer and other animals to provide meat pro-
rights. Although most Americans supported Indian tein for their families’ diets and to engage in the fur
removal for one reason or another, some opposed it trade, which the U.S. government sought to manipu-
as an unjust policy. Indians responded to the call for late. Indian women farmed among the matrilineal
removal in a variety of ways; some accepted the eastern tribes, and Indian men tended to view such
apparent inevitability of removal and negotiated work as “women’s work,” contrary to American
treaties to their best possible advantage, whereas understandings of gender roles. The U.S. “civiliza-
others refused to accept removal by fighting back tion” policy sought to turn Indian men into farmers
legally and physically, staying in their homelands, and Indian women into spinners and weavers of cot-
or moving somewhere other than Indian Territory. ton, thus challenging Indian cultural concepts at a
The impact of the removal treaties was as dramatic basic level. In addition, and more to the point of land
as any other episode in the long history of Indian- cessions, the U.S. government insisted that Indians
white relations and continues to shape affairs in who no longer hunted required far less land and
Indian country and throughout the United States. thus should sell their excess acreage to the United
States to be sold, in turn, to European American set-
tlers. Indians greeted the “civilization” plan with
Origins of the Removal Policy mixed reactions. A minority of elite and well-
The U.S. government policy that removed Indian connected individuals and families in all the eastern
groups east of the Mississippi River to Indian Terri- Indian groups adapted rather easily to a market-
tory in the first half of the nineteenth century based economy resting on the production of cotton,
stemmed from many causes, but key officials had wheat, and other commodities. These people insti-
suggested the eventuality of Indian removal virtu- tuted cultural modifications such as private prop-
ally from the moment the United States became a erty, slave ownership, and constitutional govern-
country. War hero George Washington declared in ment, in accordance with broader American
1783 that “[the] gradual extension of our settlements patterns. Nevertheless, Indian groups as a whole
will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to remained staunchly resistant to land cessions, thus
retire . . .” (Wallace 1993, 38). Under the new Consti- negating one of the principal desired effects of “civi-
tution, which went into effect in 1789, government lization” from the American perspective.
officials increased the push for Indian removal. In Although he did not put Indian removal into
1789, Secretary of War Henry Knox suggested the action, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to
inevitability of removal, asserting that “in a short advocate the possibility of removal. In late 1802 and
period the idea of an Indian this side of the Missis- early 1803, Jefferson wrote several letters and issued
83
official messages urging the creation of federally run ans. The War of 1812 essentially eliminated that
trading posts, with the intent, among other pur- threat when the United States defeated British forces
poses, of putting Indians into debt. He realized that outside New Orleans and in Canada, thus encourag-
the fur trade was a dying practice east of the Missis- ing American emigration westward, especially into
sippi River and that Indians would have to pay their the Old Northwest region of Ohio, Michigan, Wis-
debts by land cessions. Jefferson also suggested that consin, Indiana, and Illinois. With the end of the War
any Indian group offering military resistance to the of 1812, a major economic transformation began,
United States would be driven from the East. He fur- called the Market Revolution by historians, which
ther added that Indians “will in time either incorpo- encouraged Americans of all ranks to seek out profit-
rate with us as citizens of the United States, or making enterprises. That shift from a predominantly
remove beyond the Mississippi . . .” (Getches, subsistence-based lifestyle to one that sought profit
Wilkinson, and Williams 1998, 95). In July 1803, by any available means increased pressure on east-
word reached Jefferson that the purchase of the ern Indians to give up land.
Louisiana Territory from France was complete, and Economic, demographic, and local pressures for
he and other government officials recognized imme- Indian removal increased in the early nineteenth
diately that the United States now owned a vast area century. Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, perfected in 1793,
west of the Mississippi River to which Indian people and other new cotton processing machines enabled
in the East could be banished. The Louisiana Pur- the efficient processing of short-staple cotton that
chase provided the inspiration and the area for pro- grew well throughout the interior of the Deep South.
removal advocates to remove eastern Indians and to As a result, European American settlers relocated to
construct a clear-cut dividing line between Ameri- the Mississippi Territory, established in 1798 and
cans and Indians. encompassing present-day Mississippi and Ala-
The War of 1812 furthered the cause of Indian bama, to cultivate cotton. These newcomers began
removal in a number of important ways. Unified demanding access to Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek,
eastern Indian resistance to the United States became and Cherokee lands in those areas. In Georgia, the
extremely difficult with the defeat of the pan-Indian calls for Cherokee removal reached new heights
movement led by Tecumseh and his brother Ten- when gold was discovered on Cherokee lands in the
skwatawa, the Prophet, in the Great Lakes area. late 1820s. In the north, the completion of the Erie
Never again would a multitribal force arise east of Canal in 1825 across the state of New York encour-
the Mississippi River to counter American expan- aged European American emigration to the west and
sion. In the South, Indian groups remained divided, dramatically increased pressures on Indians from
and during the War of 1812 the militant Red Stick New York to Wisconsin to move westward. Other
Creeks failed in their attempt to stem American internal improvements, such as railroads and more
expansion and American influences on their people. canals, encouraged American westward migration,
Andrew Jackson, as major general of the Tennessee resulting in rapid population growth in the newer
militia, led the U.S. and Indian forces that defeated western territories. The white population north of
the Red Sticks, who had attacked and killed some the Wabash River in Indiana, for example, exploded
four hundred Americans at Fort Mims, north of from 3,380 in 1830 to 65,897 in 1840. The short-lived
Mobile. Jackson’s forces, aided by Choctaws, Chero- Black Hawk War in 1832, in which the Sac and the
kees, and non-Red Stick Creek, defeated the Red Fox Indians fought white settlers in Indiana and
Sticks at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend on the Tal- Wisconsin, further sharpened northern voices
lapoosa River in 1814. Jackson, at the subsequent against Indians remaining in the East. The cries of
Treaty of Fort Jackson, forced all Creeks to cede settlers in the southern and other western states
about twenty-three million acres. Jackson then highlighted another major component of Indian
moved his forces south and defended New Orleans removal, the conflict between states and the federal
from British attack, earning himself national government over Indian relations and control of
celebrity. land. States demanded control over all lands within
The United States had found it difficult to their borders, while the federal government insisted
enforce its will against Indians as long as another that, according to the Constitution, it alone could
European power, especially Britain, resided in east- negotiate with Indians who maintained a treaty rela-
ern North America and maintained trade with Indi- tionship with the United States. Settlers and elected

Indian Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849 85
officials in the newer western states grew increas- Pro-removal forces in America received a boost
ingly strident in their denunciation of Indians, and in 1828, when one of their own, Andrew Jackson,
violence sometimes resulted. was elected president. A former congressman, sena-
No matter how much a particular Indian group tor, and judge from Tennessee, Jackson had gained
became “civilized,” Indians encountered uncompro- fame during the War of 1812 when, as head of the
mising racism among Americans in the early nine- Tennessee militia, he led the fight against the Red
teenth century. One renown western politician, Stick Creek Indians and then won the Battle of New
Henry Clay of Kentucky, said he did not “counte- Orleans. After the War of 1812, Jackson participated
nance inhumanity towards [Indians],” but he did not in several land cession treaties with the southern
“think them, as a race, worth preserving,” because Indian groups and urged them to begin migrating
they were “essentially inferior to the Anglo-Saxon west of the Mississippi. By 1820, Jackson’s efforts
race” (Garrison 2002, 25). Among European Ameri- had opened up nearly fifty million acres for Ameri-
cans, belief in the unique manifest destiny of the can settlement by compelling southern Indians to
United States and in racial explanations for human cede parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mis-
behavior became firmly entrenched in the early sissippi. In addition, Jackson led an invasion of
decades of the nineteenth century. Perhaps more than Spanish Florida in 1818 against the Seminole and the
any other American of the pre-removal generation, remaining Red Stick Creek Indians, killing several of
Lewis Cass, as governor of the Michigan Territory their chiefs and two British agents whom Jackson
from 1813 to 1831 and then as secretary of war under accused of inciting the Indians to attack Americans.
Andrew Jackson from 1831 to 1836, formulated the Jackson then captured Spanish Pensacola, and after
racist moral justification for Indian removal. Conve- Spain sold Florida to the United States in 1819, Jack-
niently ignoring the horticultural and agricultural son briefly became territorial governor of Florida in
reality lived by most eastern Indians, Cass argued 1821. By 1823, Jackson was running for president of
that land must be turned over by Indian “hunters” to the United States. He won the most votes but did not
American agriculturalists, who would make more gain the needed majority of electoral votes in the
productive use of it. Only through removal west of election of 1824, which resulted in the “corrupt bar-
the Mississippi, Cass urged, could Indian people gain” that brought John Quincy Adams to the presi-
acquire the time and space to become “civilized.” dency. Nevertheless, Jackson’s actions in Indian
Cass ridiculed those who “would give to a few naked affairs forced the hands of the Monroe (1817–1825)
and wandering savages, a perpetual title to an and Adams (1825–1829) administrations to seek vol-
immense continent,” and he insisted that “the Indi- untary removal among eastern Indians—a call that
ans shall be made to vanish before civilization, as the select groups of Indians heeded by moving west into
snow melts before the sunbeam” (Wallace 1993, 45). Arkansas, Louisiana, and even Texas (part of Spain
Ironically, Indian success under the tenets of “civi- until Mexican independence in 1821), but that most
lization” made them a greater menace to white eastern Indians ignored. In the 1828 election, Jackson
Americans. The Cherokee, who had formed a consti- and his Democrat Party won easily over Adams,
tutional government and aggressively asserted their establishing as commander-in-chief of the entire U.S.
sovereignty after the War of 1812, had moved far military the man made famous as an Indian fighter,
toward economic self-sufficiency by growing and who possessed a proven record of supporting Indian
selling cotton, further entrenching their claims to removal.
their land. Racial justifications for taking Indian land State politicians, especially in the South, saw in
thus became predominant after 1815, as white Ameri- Jackson a staunch supporter of states’ rights, and
cans greedily sought access to Indian land. Racism they responded to his election, even before Jackson
surfaced even among Americans who acted in the was inaugurated as president, by passing laws
perceived best interests of Indians. Many American extending state jurisdiction over Indian lands. Geor-
groups who sought to assist Indians, such as Protes- gia was the first state to do so; on December 20, 1828,
tant missionaries, eventually supported Indian it adopted legislation extending state jurisdiction
removal west of the Mississippi, like Cass, as a over Cherokee lands in northwest Georgia, although
method of buying time for Indians to become more the state delayed enforcement until June 1830 to give
acculturated to American customs away from the Jackson and the federal government time to support
threats of their American neighbors. their action. Alabama passed a law extending its

jurisdiction over Creek Indian lands in January 1829. ans of their land. The legal mechanism for removal
Mississippi passed a resolution claiming jurisdiction was in place; all that remained were treaties to be
over Choctaw and Chickasaw lands within its bor- negotiated with each tribe establishing the particu-
ders that was signed into law by the governor on lars of their deportation.
February 4, 1829. Thus, southern states enabled Jack-
son to mask Indian removal as a solution to the
emerging conflict between states’ rights and federal The Removal Treaties: The South
jurisdiction and power. In his first State of the Union Treaty with the Choctaw at Dancing
address in December 1829, Jackson urged eastern Rabbit Creek, 1830
Indians to remove west voluntarily or become sub- The first American Indians to have the Indian
ject to the laws of the states. After much debate and a Removal Act forced upon them were the Choctaw of
close vote in Congress, during which certain Whig Mississippi. Certain Choctaw leaders, notably
politicians—especially the deeply religious Senator Greenwood LeFlore, responded to Mississippi’s
Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey—argued extension of state laws over Indians in February 1829
against Indian removal on moral grounds, President by attempting to negotiate a removal treaty on
Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law on behalf of all Choctaw before the Removal Act had
May 29, 1830. been passed by Congress. The proposed treaty con-
Jackson defended the Removal Act’s passage at tained generous compensation for the Choctaw, but
the time by emphasizing that this bill “puts an end it did not reflect the will of most Choctaw people.
to the possible danger of collision between the President Jackson forwarded the treaty to the Senate
authorities of the General and state Governments, on anyway in May 1830, but the Senate, noting signifi-
account of the Indians” (Satz 2002, 44). The act called cant Choctaw opposition to the LeFlore treaty,
on the president to negotiate removal treaties with decided not to approve it. Jackson then invited
Indian groups and to exchange lands west of the Choctaw representatives to meet him at Franklin,
Mississippi River for Indian lands in the east. In his Tennessee, to negotiate a new treaty, but they
State of the Union speech that December, Jackson refused and instead suggested a meeting within
applauded the act on humanitarian terms, stating Choctaw territory in September 1830. Secretary of
that removal at federal government expense pro- War John Eaton and former Indian agent John Cof-
vided Indians with a chance of survival and demon- fee, Andrew Jackson’s nephew by marriage, repre-
strated the “humanity and national honor” of the sented the United States at the treaty grounds at
United States in taking action to save “these people” Dancing Rabbit Creek. Eaton and Coffee, using Jack-
(Wallace 1993, 123). Jackson also insisted that the son’s rationalization, warned the approximately five
Removal Act was “so just to the States and so gener- thousand Choctaw in attendance that they could not
ous to the Indians—the Executive feels it has a right prevent the state of Mississippi from taking over
to expect the cooperation of Congress, and of all their lands and that therefore the Choctaw ought to
good and disinterested men” (Satz 2002, 44). Jackson cooperate in removal and gain terms as favorable as
attacked critics of the Removal Act and exposed the possible from the United States. The Choctaw
ethnocentric and racist essence of the new policy by remained deeply divided over removal; after two
asking, “[W]hat good man would prefer a country weeks many of them left the treaty grounds having
covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand decided not to give up their lands. American agents
savages to our extensive Republic, studded with convinced the remaining Choctaw, including the
cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished three leading chiefs LeFlore, Nitakechi, and Mushu-
with all the improvements which art can devise or latubbe, to sign the treaty on September 27, 1830.
industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 Each of these chiefs, along with several other
happy people, and filled with all the blessings of lib- Choctaw with American connections, received per-
erty, civilization, and religion?” (Satz 2002, 44). sonal sections of land in Mississippi as a form of
Despite Jackson’s generous line of reasoning in sup- bribery to ease their resistance to removal. These
port of Indian removal, the Indian Removal Act individuals either stayed in Mississippi, as did
forced Indians to choose between removal and LeFlore, or sold their sections for profit.
retaining some autonomy, or subjection entirely to The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was ratified
the laws of the state wherein they resided. There was by the U.S. Senate on February 24, 1831. According
no doubt that the states intended to dispossess Indi- to its provisions, the Choctaw ceded all of their land

east of the Mississippi River in exchange for land, ing food and shelter, eventually attacking white set-
annuities, and other assistance on land west of the tlers and seizing crops and livestock in revenge. In
Arkansas Territory that became known as Indian 1836, Cass finally intervened, not as guarantor of
Territory. The Choctaw were to leave Mississippi Creek rights but instead to forcibly remove the
within three years. The vast majority migrated west remaining Creeks west of the Mississippi. The U.S.
under situations of near starvation; many died along military accomplished what diplomacy could not,
the way. A few hundred moved that first winter after and by 1837 almost all of the fifteen thousand or so
the treaty was signed, and the rest moved in the next Muscogee Creek had emigrated to the West.
few succeeding years. Individual Choctaw could
stay in Mississippi on specific allotted sections of Treaties with the Chickasaw, 1830 and 1832
land if they so chose, but all communally held land Chickasaw leaders also sought to acquire the best
was dissolved. William Ward, the U.S. agent terms possible after the passage of the Indian
assigned to manage the allotment process, through Removal Act. In the summer of 1830, Chickasaw rep-
fraud and incompetence did not register all of the resentatives met with U.S. delegates, including Presi-
individual claims, however, and many Choctaws dent Jackson, at Franklin, Tennessee, and a treaty
who chose to stay did not receive title to their lands was signed on August 31. The Chickasaw agreed to
and were forced to relocate anyway. As historians cede their lands east of the Mississippi River in
have noted, Choctaw who tried to remain in Missis- exchange for an equal amount of land in the West,
sippi became victims of fraud, intimidation, and but when a suitable area could not be found, this
land speculation. The early 1830s are known as the treaty became void. New negotiations for removal
“flush times” in Mississippi history, for whites were undertaken in 1832 in Chickasaw territory at
squatted on and seized Choctaw lands with no Pontotoc Creek. On October 20, a treaty was signed
regard for Indian rights or fair play. Yet a couple of that ceded Chickasaw lands to the U.S. government;
thousand Choctaw managed to stay in Mississippi the lands were to be surveyed and sold immediately,
amid discrimination and poverty and are the basis of and each adult Chickasaw was to receive a tempo-
the Mississippi Choctaw of today. rary allotment, which would also be sold and all
monies therefrom placed in a fund to cover the costs
Treaty with the Creek, 1832 of removal. Whites quickly settled on the Chickasaw
Muscogee Creek leaders responded to Alabama’s lands beginning in 1832, despite a provision of the
extension of jurisdiction over their lands by propos- treaty promising that the U.S. government would
ing that they cede lands but retain blocks of private prevent white intrusion until the Chickasaw had
reserves within Alabama under the control of indi- actually left Mississippi. A suitable new homeland in
vidual families. They took these proposals to Wash- the West was not found until January 1837, when the
ington, D.C., in March 1832. Secretary of War Lewis Chickasaw and Choctaw met at Doaksville, Choctaw
Cass disagreed with the size and number of the Nation, in Indian Territory, and the Choctaw sold the
reserves, but he reached a compromise with the western part of their new territory to the Chickasaw.
eight Muscogee Creek chiefs on March 24. The Although this agreement between the two tribes was
resulting treaty was not specifically a removal treaty, not a treaty with the United States, Jackson submit-
for even though the Creek agreed to cede all their ted it to the Senate for approval anyway, which was
lands east of the Mississippi River, they were to accomplished in February 1837. Further details
receive allotments in Alabama that could be sold or about the exact extent of territory and rights granted
retained under Creek ownership. By April 2, the U.S. the Chickasaw were decided in two additional
Senate had unanimously ratified the treaty. agreements between the two Indian nations in 1854
Although the treaty called on the U.S. government and 1855.
both to assist those Creek who wished to emigrate
west and to guarantee Creek title to allotted lands in Treaties with the Seminole, 1832 and 1833
Alabama, the federal government refused to assist Florida settlers had long complained about Indian
Creek in Alabama when whites seized their lands “depredations” committed by the Seminole, and
anyway. Land speculators took advantage of the Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi plantation own-
remaining Muscogee Creek and perpetrated frauds ers protested that runaway slaves found refuge
resulting in utter turmoil and loss of the Creeks’ among these Florida Indians. Border disputes
homes. The Creek wandered around Alabama seek- between Americans and the Seminoles had exploded

into full-scale war in 1818, when forces led by ing for an injunction to prevent Georgia’s seizure of
Andrew Jackson invaded Florida to punish Semi- Cherokee lands. Attorneys for the Cherokee argued
noles and capture African Americans who lived that, as an independent nation, the Cherokee could
among them. In 1823, after Spain transferred control not be subject to state jurisdiction. Chief Justice John
of Florida to the United States, the Seminole signed a Marshall sympathized with the Cherokee position
treaty with the United States at Fort Moultrie that but declined to issue an injunction against Georgia,
ceded the bulk of the Florida peninsula to U.S. con- because Indian nations in the United States were
trol. Discord between the Seminole and Americans “domestic dependent nations” rather than indepen-
continued, however, as the Seminole found living dent foreign nations; an Indian nation’s relationship
difficult on their reduced acreage. Fulfilling his to the United States therefore “resembles that of a
charge under the new Indian Removal Act, Colonel ward to his guardian,” thus disqualifying the nation
James Gadsden negotiated a removal treaty with the from suing in the Supreme Court. The Cherokee had
Seminole Indians at Payne’s Landing in northeastern gained some sympathy for their plight across the
Florida on May 9, 1832. The treaty of 1832 stipulated United States, and they eagerly pursued another
that removal was conditioned on the Seminoles chance to bring the issue of their sovereignty to the
agreeing to settle in the western territory that the Supreme Court. Effective in March 1831, Georgia
War Department had chosen for them. Under required any white person living in Cherokee coun-
duress, the seven Seminole who journeyed west to try to have a license issued by the state. Missionaries
inspect their new land signed a new removal treaty Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler ignored this
with American agents there at Fort Gibson on March condition, were subsequently arrested by Georgia
28, 1833. The treaty declared that the Seminole authorities, and appealed their case to the Supreme
agreed with the location of their new lands, accepted Court. In that case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Mar-
political unification with the Creek Indians, and shall declared Georgia’s extension of state law over
assented to immediate emigration. Upon their return the Cherokee unconstitutional and ordered the
to Florida, the Seminole agents renounced the Fort release of the missionaries. Georgia refused to abide
Gibson treaty as coerced, and the Seminole refused by the decision, and the executive branch of the fed-
to abide by the stipulations of either treaty. Mean- eral government had no legal way—short of military
while, a Seminole band that lived along the intervention—to compel Georgia’s compliance had it
Apalachicola River signed a separate removal treaty so desired. The Cherokee won their legal battle, but
with Gadsden in October 1832, and they migrated to Georgia’s refusal to honor that decision nullified
Texas in 1834. The confusion over which Seminoles their victory.
had authority to accept removal for other Seminoles After 1832, the Cherokee became less united in
created an impasse that resulted in a bitter, drawn- their determination to hold onto their lands, and a
out war between the Seminole and the United States significant minority, called the Treaty Party, worked
that began in 1835 and was often referred to as the to get a removal treaty signed with the U.S. govern-
Second Seminole War. That war did not end until ment beginning in 1834. A group of these men signed
1842, when all but a fragment of the Seminoles had a removal treaty with Secretary of War John Eaton in
been killed or forcibly removed; it cost the United Washington, D.C., and Jackson submitted it to the
States $30 million–$40 million and 1,500 dead sol- Senate in June 1834. The Senate, however, tabled the
diers. Pockets of Seminole and their African Ameri- treaty, refusing to discuss it. Aware that there existed
can brethren remained in Florida, however, and their a group among the Cherokee willing to sign a
descendants are still there. removal treaty, the Jackson administration sent a rep-
resentative to the Cherokee Nation in February 1835
Treaty with the Cherokee at New Echota, 1835 to negotiate with them. The “treaty party” was domi-
A few thousand Cherokee had voluntarily moved nated by four related men who aspired to elite status:
west after Georgia claimed possession of their lands Major Ridge, his educated son John Ridge, and his
in December 1828, but the bulk of the Cherokee two nephews, the brothers Elias Boudinot and Stand
refused to leave their homeland and instead fought Watie. Opposing them were the majority of Chero-
removal through the legal system. In 1830, after the kee, united under the leadership of principal chief
passage of the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee John Ross. Ridge and his relatives signed a removal
Nation sued Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court, ask- treaty on March 14, 1835, but it was rejected by the

Cherokee Council and thus nullified. In December Treaties with Ohio Valley Indians, 1831–1832
1835, another meeting with U.S. negotiators was held By 1830, many former Ohio Valley Indians had
at New Echota; only about two hundred Ridge sup- already signed treaties with the state of Ohio requir-
porters attended. A removal treaty was signed on ing them to move north to the Great Lakes or west to
December 29. The Cherokee Council condemned the the Mississippi River Valley. Various bands of these
treaty, and Ross appealed to the U.S. Senate to reject groups had already moved west of the Mississippi
it, but the Senate approved it by a one-vote margin. River before 1830, and these final removal treaties
The Treaty Party Cherokee emigrated to Indian Terri- sought to remove those who remained in the East
tory immediately, whereas the treaty required the rest and to settle any potential eastern land claims. Presi-
of the eastern Cherokee to leave by May 23, 1838. dent Jackson appointed Ohioan James B. Gardiner to
Ross and the more than 15,000 other Cherokee who negotiate removal treaties with remaining Indian
opposed the treaty appealed repeatedly to have the groups in Ohio. In August 1831, Gardiner signed
Treaty of New Echota voided, but they encountered treaties with a group of Shawnee and the Ottawa
little sympathy in the U.S. government. General Win- that ceded all their lands in Ohio in exchange for
field Scott arrived in the Cherokee country in the new lands in the western country beyond Missouri.
summer of 1838 to oversee the forced relocation of Profits gained from selling the ceded Ohio lands
the Cherokee, which resulted in numerous deaths were to be used for infrastructure improvements,
and the loss of property at the hands of rapacious such as mills, in the new lands; the remainder of the
whites. The split among the Cherokee continued after money was to be invested on behalf of the Indians.
removal: anti-removal Cherokee killed the two The Wyandot in Ohio insisted that they be allowed
Ridges and Boudinot, and Watie and Ross competed to inspect and approve of the new western lands
for political power from the late 1830s through the before agreeing to removal. When objectionable
Civil War in the 1860s. Meanwhile, a few hundred reports of the western lands came back, they refused
Cherokee managed to stay within the mountainous to emigrate. Thus, in the removal treaty signed by
western border of North Carolina, where their Gardiner and the Wyandot on January 19, 1832, the
descendants live today. 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
The Removal Treaties: The North to any place they may obtain a right or privilege
Unlike the large, basically homogenous Indian soci- from other Indians to go” (Prucha 1994, 186–187). In
eties of the South, Indian groups farther north in October 1832, several former Ohio Valley Indian
New York, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi groups, including the Piankashaw, Wea, Peoria, and
River Valley were smaller, more splintered societies Kaskaskia in Illinois and the Shawnee, Delaware,
that in many cases had already migrated dramati- Menominee, and Kickapoo, who had left Ohio
cally from place to place in the years since the Amer- decades earlier and were living at Cape Girardeau
ican Revolution. Though their particular histories and other points along the upper Mississippi River,
and circumstances differed from the southern Indi- met with William Clark at St. Louis and signed
ans, northern Indian groups confronted the same treaties for their removal west of Missouri.
insistent U.S. government and the same rapacious
attitude among white Americans. Negotiating from Treaties with New York Indians, 1831–1842
a position of strength, the United States signed The various Iroquois and other Indian groups in
treaties with the numerous northern groups to for- New York ceded millions of acres to the United
malize their removal to the West and to clear up con- States and other interests in the decades after the
flicting land claims. From 1829 to 1851, the United American Revolution. In 1831 and 1832, additional
States signed eighty-six ratified removal treaties Oneida, Stockbridge, and Brotherton Indians
with twenty-six Indian groups in the North. In many migrated to former Menominee lands in Wisconsin
cases, removal for the northern tribes was a continu- as a result of treaties involving the Menominee and
ation of their peripatetic history, though that does the United States. In 1838, residents of western New
not mean that they all accepted removal without York, particularly Buffalo, insisted that Indians
resistance or that they did not try to acquire the best remaining in the state, especially the Seneca, remove
possible terms. west beyond Missouri. A removal treaty with

Seneca and other New York Indians, such as rem- Potawatomi along the Tippecanoe River in Indiana
nant Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, St. and the United States were signed in October 1832.
Regis, Stockbridge, Brotherton, and Munsee peo- These agreements resulted in land cessions for the
ples, was signed at Buffalo Creek in 1838. Most Wis- Potawatomi, but they also established around 120
consin land reserved to the New York Indians by reserves of land east of the Mississippi River for
previous treaties was also ceded for lands west of individual Potawatomi families. Because these
Missouri. When President Van Buren submitted the treaties did not specifically require Potawatomi
treaty to the Senate in April 1838, there erupted sig- removal to the west, Lewis Cass insisted on a large
nificant opposition to the treaty from the Indians treaty meeting with the Potawatomi, calling for their
and certain missionary groups, who contended that removal; the meeting was held in Chicago in Sep-
portions of the treaty were fraudulent and that a tember 1833. Catholic Potawatomi were allowed to
truly representative body of Indian chiefs did not remain in Michigan because of their conversion to
sign. Nonetheless, the Senate ratified the treaty, Christianity, although the Potawatomi did agree to
based on certain revisions, made in June, that transfer most of their eastern land titles for five mil-
required the Indians to reapprove the treaty. New lion acres west of Missouri. Dozens of Americans
signatures by more Indian leaders were obtained by insisted that they deserved payment from the sale of
September 1838, and the treaty was sent back to the eastern Potawatomi lands and government annuities
U.S. government for approval. The Senate and Pres- to cover supposed costs for services rendered in the
ident Van Buren passed the new treaty back and form of trade debts, injuries from conflicts such as
forth, neither seeking to be the sole body authoriz- the Black Hawk War of 1832, severance pay for old
ing the questionable treaty. When the Senate, seek- Indian agents and merchants, missionary activities,
ing the president’s recommendation, returned the schools, and so on. President Jackson forwarded the
treaty to his desk, Van Buren responded, “That Chicago treaty to the Senate in January 1834, despite
improper means have been employed to obtain the concerns about the legitimacy of many of the claims.
assent of the Seneca chiefs there is every reason to The Senate approved the treaty that May but
believe, and I have not been able to satisfy myself changed the area of western land that the Pota-
that I can, consistently with the resolution of the watomi were to receive, as Missouri desired the area
Senate of the 2d of March, 1839 cause the treaty to originally promised to the Indians. The treaty would
be carried into effect in respect to the Seneca tribe” not be valid until the Potawatomi agreed to the new
(Prucha 1994, 205). In January 1840, Van Buren lands, and the United States did not find any
again presented the treaty to the Senate, where it Potawatomi willing to do so until seven representa-
was bitterly debated and resulted in several tied tives signed the revised treaty months later. The Sen-
votes over the issue of whether or not the Indian ate ratified the revised treaty on February 11, 1835.
signatures had been obtained fraudulently. Eventu- Further treaties with individual Potawatomi land-
ally, Vice President Richard Johnson broke the tie, holders between 1834 and 1836 resulted in the ces-
and the revised treaty was accepted by simple sion of nearly all their lands east of the Mississippi
majority vote in the Senate in March 1840. In spite of River. One Potawatomi group in Indiana consisting
its passage, the complicated treaty of 1838 did not of around 850 persons refused to move west; they
result in the movement westward of many New were seized by the U.S. military and forcibly
York Indians. A new treaty with the Seneca in May marched west in 1838, and at least 40 Potawatomi
1842 reestablished their reserves in New York and died along the way.
allowed them to stay there.
Treaties with the Miami, 1833–1841
Treaties with the Potawatomi, 1832–1836 Much of the U.S. effort to extinguish Miami Indian
The Potawatomi negotiated nineteen separate land title east of the Mississippi was enveloped in
treaties with the United States during the removal similar efforts to remove the Potawatomi, as their
period. There were numerous Potawatomi villages lands bordered one another. Coming on the heels of
and bands possessing fragmented areas of land in the Black Hawk War of 1832, the United States
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, which attempted to get the Miami Indians of Indiana to
resulted in the large number of treaties with them. In sign removal treaties in 1833. That initial effort
total, the Potawatomi still claimed more than five failed, but a treaty was signed with them on October
million acres until 1832. Three treaties between the 23, 1834, at the Forks of the Wabash. The Miami

ceded most of their remaining lands in Indiana, but In the Pine Tree Treaty of 1837, so named
individual Miami were allowed to maintain allot- because the United States sought access to timber
ments in the state, and the treaty did not explicitly resources on Chippewa land, the Chippewa ceded
call for Miami removal. President Jackson disap- millions of acres in Wisconsin and Minnesota, but
proved of that stipulation and delayed the treaty’s the treaty did not call for their complete removal
hearing by the Senate. His successor, Martin Van from the east, and the Chippewa retained usufructu-
Buren, submitted the treaty to the Senate in October ary rights to the ceded lands. In the Copper Treaty of
1837, and final approval came in December of that 1842, named for the copper deposits on Chippewa
year. Americans in Indiana opposed the treaty lands, the Chippewa ceded most of northern Wis-
because it allowed Miami to remain in the state on consin to the United States while still retaining
individual landholdings, so new treaties were nego- usufructuary rights; the area experienced a copper
tiated. In 1838, a treaty between the Miami and the mining boom for the rest of the nineteenth century.
United States assigned individual landholdings in In 1850, President Zachary Taylor issued an execu-
the East. The Miami insisted that only tribal mem- tive order extinguishing Chippewa usufructuary
bers could get such grants, that grants should not be rights in the ceded lands and ordered their removal
given to non-Miami who had married into the tribe. to unceded lands in Minnesota. The subsequent
Six Miami chiefs also traveled to Kansas to examine forced march of Chippewa west in the winter of
new lands. In 1840, Miami chiefs negotiated an unof- 1850–1851 has been termed the “Wisconsin Death
ficial treaty with the Indian agent assigned to their March” because more than four hundred Chippewa
area, seeking financial remuneration in return for died. Some Chippewa did manage, however, to
their removal to the West. This treaty, although not retain small tracts of land across northern Min-
initiated at the federal level, was submitted to the nesota, northern Wisconsin, and the Upper Penin-
Senate by President Van Buren anyway and sula of Michigan.
approved on May 15, 1841. Removal for most Miami The eastern Sioux ceded their lands east of the
occurred in 1845–1846, although some Miami contin- Mississippi in Wisconsin at a treaty meeting in
ued to own and live on individual land grants in Washington, D.C., in 1837. Their remaining lands in
Indiana. Minnesota came under increasing pressure from
European American settlement, especially after the
Treaties with the Winnebago, Minnesota Territory was created in 1849. In 1851, the
Chippewa (Ojibway), Eastern Sioux, eastern Sioux ceded most of their land in Minnesota,
and Menominee, 1829–1851 but land squatting by settlers and foot dragging by
Treaties with these Indians involved land in Wiscon- the federal government impeded until 1860 the final-
sin and, to a lesser extent, in Michigan and in Min- izing of payment for those lands and of the actual
nesota. Henry Dodge, Wisconsin territorial governor boundaries of the Sioux reserves remaining in south-
and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs, ern Minnesota.
played the major role in enacting removal treaties The Menominee ceded portions of their Wiscon-
among these groups. In 1829 and 1832, the Win- sin lands in a series of treaties beginning in 1831, the
nebago signed treaties ceding some land in Wiscon- most spectacular being the 1836 treaty that ceded to
sin in exchange for a small strip of land west of the the United States more than four million timber-rich
Mississippi River between the Sioux to the north and acres in eastern Wisconsin. The Menominee dis-
the Sac and Fox to the south. A portion of the Win- agreed sharply, however, over the legality of these
nebago population moved west, but this land was cessions, and many Menominee refused to move for
untenable, for the neighboring Indian groups warred decades—or ever. In October 1848, the Menominee
against each other. A small group of Winnebago who signed a removal treaty exchanging their lands in
did not have authority to cede lands traveled to Wisconsin for territory across the Mississippi River
Washington, D.C., in 1837 and signed a treaty calling in Minnesota, but they refused to leave and finally
on all Winnebago to abandon their Wisconsin lands relocated along the Wolf River in Wisconsin in 1852.
and move west. Some Winnebago obeyed the treaty The amount of land ceded by Indian people as a
stipulations by moving west and eventually settling result of the removal treaties is staggering. In the
in Nebraska; other Winnebago, despite losing title to South, where the largest areas of eastern land under
their lands, stayed in Wisconsin, refusing to abandon Indian control existed, the Choctaw ceded more than
their homeland. ten million acres in Mississippi; the Chickasaw

ceded more than two million acres in Mississippi Horsman, Reginald. 1967. Expansion and American
and Alabama; the Creek ceded about five million Indian Policy, 1783–1812. East Lansing:
acres in Alabama; and the Cherokee ceded almost Michigan State University Press.
Kappler, Charles J. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and
eight million acres in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee,
Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC:
and North Carolina. Thus began a land craze in the Government Printing Office.
South, as white venture capitalists, land companies, Lancaster, Jane F. 1994. Removal Aftershock: The
plantation owners, and small farmers all sought Seminoles’ Struggles to Survive in the West,
quick access to the newly opened lands. The result- 1836–1866. Knoxville: University of Tennessee
ing antebellum South, the South in the period Press.
between 1830 and 1860, came to be characterized by Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995.
rapidly expanding cotton production and African The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with
Documents. Boston: Bedford Books of St.
American slavery in the areas abandoned by Indi-
Martin’s Press.
ans. The creation of the unified, white-dominated, Prucha, Francis Paul. 1962. American Indian Policy in
antebellum South would not have been possible the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and
without Indian removal, which had ironic conse- Intercourse Acts, 1790–1834. Cambridge, MA:
quences for the relationship between the states and Harvard University Press.
the federal government. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The
Greg O’Brien United States Government and the American
Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
References and Further Reading The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
Akers, Donna L. 1999. “Removing the Heart of the University of California Press.
Choctaw People: Indian Removal from a Raffert, Stewart. 1996. The Miami Indians of Indiana: A
Choctaw Perspective.” American Indian Culture Persistent People, 1654–1994. Indianapolis:
and Research Journal 23: 63–76. Indiana Historical Society.
Beck, David R. M. 2002. Siege and Survival: History of Remini, Robert V. 2002. Andrew Jackson and His Indian
the Menominee Indians, 1634–1856. Lincoln: Wars. New York: Penguin.
University of Nebraska Press. Rogin, Michael Paul. 1975. Fathers and Children:
Carson, James Taylor. 1995. “State Rights and Indian Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the
Removal in Mississippi, 1817–1835.” Journal of American Indian. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Mississippi History 57: 25–41. Ronda, James P. 2002. “‘We Have a Country’: Race,
Clifton, James A. 1987. “Wisconsin Death March: Geography, and the Invention of Indian
Explaining the Extremes in Old Northwest Territory.” In Race and the Early Republic: Racial
Indian Removal.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Consciousness and Nation-Building in the Early
Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 75: 1–39. Republic, Michael A. Morrison and James
DeRosier, Arthur, Jr. 1970. The Removal of the Choctaw Brewer Stewart, eds. Lanham, MD: Rowman
Indians. Knoxville: University of Tennessee and Littlefield.
Press. Royce, Charles C. 1899. Indian Land Cessions in the
Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of United States. Washington, DC: Government
the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Printing Office.
Foreman, Grant. 1932. Indian Removal: The Emigration Satz, Ronald. 2001. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Norman: Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in
University of Oklahoma Press. Historical Perspective. Madison: Wisconsin
Foreman, Grant. 1946. The Last Trek of the Indians. Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Satz, Ronald. 2002. American Indian Policy in the
Garrison, Tim Alan. 2002. The Legal Ideology of Jacksonian Era. Norman: University of
Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Oklahoma Press.
Sovereignty of Native American Nations. Athens: Sellers, Charles. 1991. The Market Revolution:
University of Georgia Press. Jacksonian America, 1815–1846. New York:
Getches, David H., Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert Oxford University Press.
A. Williams, Jr. 1998. Cases and Materials on Sheehan, Bernard W. 1973. Seeds of Extinction:
Federal Indian Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group. Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian.
Gibson, A. M. 1963. The Kickapoos: Lords of the Middle Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Border. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sleeper-Smith, Susan. 2001. Indian Women and French
Green, Michael D. 1982. The Politics of Indian Removal: Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the
Creek Government and Society in Crisis. Lincoln: Western Great Lakes. Amherst: University of
University of Nebraska Press. Massachusetts Press.

Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1973. The American Indian and
Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma the United States: A Documentary History, vol. 4.
Press. New York: Random House.
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1999. Jefferson and the Indians: Young, Mary Elizabeth. 1961. Redskins, Ruffleshirts
The Tragic Fate of the First Americans. Cambridge, and Rednecks: Indian Allotments in Alabama and
MA: Harvard University Press. Mississippi, 1830–1860. Norman: University of
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1993. The Long, Bitter Trail: Oklahoma Press.
Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill
and Wang.

Reservations and Confederate
and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871
F
F
rom the point of view of U.S. policymakers, tions with the United States. Many of these territo-
Indian reservations were a necessary aspect of ries were not, strictly speaking, parts of the U.S. pub-
American expansion, nationhood, and state lic domain that were “reserved for the use of” Native
building. The creation of reservations, or reserves, nations. For example, when the Five Civilized
aboriginal homelands, or areas indigena, was equally Tribes—the Cherokee, Muscogee Creek, Seminole,
the result of the larger European colonial relation- Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations—were removed
ship with indigenous peoples in the Americas, from their traditional homelands in the East, the
Africa, Asia, and Australia. Whatever they were lands they acquired in the newly established Indian
called, the establishment of these defined, often iso- Territory carried titles in fee simple, thus making
lated and greatly compressed indigenous living them relatively well protected from further white
spaces by means of treaties, agreements, and con- encroachment. Many other so-called reservations
ventions was a distinct phase in the process of were in reality greatly diminished homelands that
American expansion. Often, reservations were sim- had never become legally a part of the U.S. public
ply the remnants of indigenous homelands. The domain. Technically, one could argue that Native
United States, however, removed a number of nations, not the federal government, had by treaty
Native nations from their homelands to distant ter- reserved these lands for their own use. Still, as most
ritories acquired from other indigenous peoples of the Native nations had concluded some form of
through treaties. diplomatic relations with the United States, the fed-
Between 1850 and 1871, when the federal gov- eral government sent agents to the reservations in
ernment officially ended the treaty-making process, order to oversee the implementation of treaty provi-
more than a hundred Native American treaties were sions and generally to maintain order within their
ratified, principally to institute some semblance of designated areas of responsibility. Agents were also
order on the American frontiers. Most of these were sent as negotiators to the Native nations to acquire
“peace and friendship” treaties concluded to curtail more lands. Until 1849, the agents and the imple-
the warfare between the Native peoples who owned mentation of Indian policies were under the bureau-
the land and the migratory whites who coveted it for cratic control of the U.S. Department of War. Hence,
themselves. Essentially, the federal negotiators and the developing “reservation system” was viewed as
the governing bodies of the Native American nations a military operation, and in fact many of the agents
mutually agreed that strict boundaries between for years to come were army personnel. The State
whites and Indians must be established and main- Department, arguably the agency that should have
tained before any kind of peace could be realized. maintained diplomatic relations with Native nations,
Native negotiators were always seeking peace—or, had little to do with Indian affairs except to record
perhaps, the simple absence of war—so that their the final ratified treaties with the tribes.
peoples could enjoy the permanence of a homeland The reservation system itself became a highly
and the security of physically possessing recognized bureaucratic and permanent American institution.
political boundaries. In short, between 1850 and After 1849, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, most often
1871, the United States entered into the phase of referred to as the Indian Office, existed under the
colonialism that rested on the ideas of restricting the Department of the Interior. The “Indian Problem”
movements of indigenous peoples, defining the had essentially boiled down to the impossible
boundaries between the races, and removing any administrative predicament of securing more space
and all obstacles to the placement of European for non-Indian settlement while at the same time
American colonies in the American West. maintaining peace with the Native nations that had
to survive on increasingly smaller parcels of land.
The Indian Office gained greater discretionary
Reservations authority over Indian affairs during this period and,
As it came to be used in the period, the term reserva- by way of administrative fiat, began to emphasize
tion applied to nearly every piece of ground occu- subtle variations in policy. For major Indian policy
pied by Native nations having formal treaty rela- decisions, Congress, the executive branch, and the
95
Supreme Court set the agenda and formulated the domain, most often acquired through Native land
general approach to Indian affairs. The Indian Office cessions in treaties, went to subsidize the laying of
implemented, administered, and evaluated the track. The railroads, in turn, fed off the timber, coal,
details of policy and within this particular context oil, and steel industries. It is little wonder that many
was often able to direct or redirect the course of of the treaties signed during the period granted rail-
Indian-white relations. road rights-of-way through Indian lands, and in
From the very outset of European imperialism, most cases the Indian lands that were acquired by
numerous individuals advocated the “civilization” the United States went immediately to subsidize the
and eventual assimilation of Native Americans into railroad system without ever having been made a
the dominant society. George Washington promoted part of the public domain.
the notion of “civilizing” Indians in his inaugural Between the years 1850 and 1861, a spate of
address. The idea underpinned the reservation sys- treaties were concluded to open and secure the lands
tem in one important way. Because the Native for the United States on the Pacific coast. Through-
nations’ land bases were becoming smaller with out the period, gold seekers were pouring into the
each new treaty, the Indian Office introduced Euro- newly acquired territory of California. From the
pean American farming methods, livestock produc- beginning of the gold rush in 1849, whites had
tion, various home industries such as wool spinning begun an arbitrary but widespread massacre of
and weaving, and Christianity in the effort to pro- indigenous populations. The remnants of the Cali-
mote “civilization” among the indigenous nations. It fornia nations that survived the slaughter either fled
was thought that “civilization” and especially its into isolation to avoid the heavily armed, remorse-
accoutrements—the spinning wheels, livestock, and less, death-dealing whites or sought sanctuary
farm implements—would help Natives survive on around the old Spanish missions. By 1850, when Cal-
what lands they had left. Native peoples, especially ifornia was admitted to the Union, most Native lead-
on reservations that had been established by treaty, ers would probably have thought it wise to avoid
were quickly becoming regarded as “wards” of the any and all contact with the whites, no matter their
U.S. government and, as such, more or less arbitrar- intentions.
ily subjected to the caprices of the Indian Office California had been ceded to the United States
bureaucracy. Ultimately, this system of domestic under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and so
colonialism deprived Native nations of the ability to claimed title by right of conquest. As a result of the
experience change on their own terms. The agents Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823),
enforced cultural and economic changes on the however, the federal government nevertheless recog-
Native peoples so that they could eke out a meager nized that Indians possessed the “right of occu-
living on their very much smaller domains. Dimin- pancy” to the land. In consequence, the government
ished land bases for Native Americans meant, in sent a three-man commission to California to con-
turn, the opening of more territory for white settle- vince Native Americans to accept the jurisdiction of
ment. White settlement, it was thought, would fur- the federal government and to recognize U.S. sover-
ther encourage civilization and allegiance to the eignty over California. By January 1852, the commis-
United States among the Native peoples. In this sion had negotiated eighteen treaties with 139
chain of reasoning, the ultimate aim of the reserva- Native American bands, towns, confederated
tion system was to fulfill the goal of American Mani- groups, and tribal subdivisions. The treaties estab-
fest Destiny in as orderly and relatively nonviolent a lished reservations and provided for the payment of
fashion as possible. annuities and the services of teachers and black-
smiths, and promised to provide the Native groups
with subsistence in the form of livestock. The negoti-
Surplus Lands ations went to naught, however; because the Senate
The opening of more land for white settlement could not grasp the intricacies of California Native
between 1850 and 1871 also paved the way for the sociopolitical organization and because the costs of
“take-off” period in American industrial growth. It carrying out the provisions of the treaties were
opened greater acreage not only to farmers and becoming very high, it rejected their ratification.
ranchers but also to the logging and mining indus- Federal agents were also occupied with negoti-
tries. Railroads were building, and especially after ating treaties with the tribes of the Oregon and
the Civil War, large grants of the American public Washington Territories. The main thrust of treaty

Reservations and Confederate and Unratified Treaties, 1850–1871 97
with the Native nations located in the territories, the

making in the 1850s actually centered on these two Senate did not ratify the Willamette Valley treaties.
potential states of the Union. In 1848, the United In 1906, however, Congress wrote a provision
States and Great Britain agreed, after years of dis- into that year’s Indian Appropriation Act authoriz-
pute, to draw a boundary demarcating the line ing the secretary of the interior to investigate the
between the United States and Canada. The U.S. number of Clatsop, Chinook, and Tillamook people,
claim to what became the Oregon Territory—the either signatories of the treaties or their descendants,
present states of Oregon and Washington—was ten- who were affected by the land cession. In 1851, tribal
uous. There were several trading posts, both British leaders had negotiated monetary settlements to be
and American, in the region, but until the 1830s paid over the course of ten years. The Native leaders
white settlement was relatively insignificant. After had insisted on the payments because their peoples
1831, American immigrants began to pour into the were in a serious decline as a result of white intru-
Willamette Valley in Oregon and the Columbia River sion and basically did not want the federal govern-
basin in what is now Washington. The United States ment to obtain the land without some kind of
had no legal claim to the territory—either by right of exchange or benefit. Because the Senate failed to rat-
discovery or by conquest in a just war—but they had ify the treaties, the payments were not forthcoming.
the numbers. Eventually, Great Britain bowed to the During the first years of the twentieth century,
land-hungry Americans, and in 1850 Congress the federal government became interested in clarify-
passed the Oregon Donation Act, establishing a spe- ing both the status of Native peoples under law and
cial commission to negotiate with and extinguish the the validity of U.S. land claims. On the one hand, the
land titles held by the tribes of the Oregon Territory. government was attempting to end the reservation
This commission, although abolished in February system and extract itself from the “Indian business.”
1851, nevertheless negotiated six treaties with sev- On the other, there was a growing interest in protect-
eral bands of the Kalapuya and Molala nations. The ing what was left of tribal lands so that, as individu-
law abolishing the Donation Act commission trans- als, Native people would possess a level of income
ferred its duties to the superintendent of Indian that would make their gradual assimilation into
affairs. As a result, the Donation Act commission’s American society less abrupt, confusing, and pain-
treaties were not ratified. Anson Dart, the superin- ful. For whatever the reason, Congress prompted a
tendent, completed at least thirteen treaties with count of the populations of the tribal signatories of
tribes in western Oregon on which the Senate took the Willamette Valley treaties and in 1913 appropri-
no action. While Dart’s treaties with the bands of the ated $66,000—a sum greater than the original,
Tillamook, Clatsop, and Chinook languished in the agreed-upon remuneration—to pay the surviving
Senate, the administration and Congress divided the tribal members for the loss of their lands.
Oregon Territory into the separate territories of Ore- This compensatory action proved that even
gon and Washington and gave the power to negoti- “unratified” treaties could indeed become operable.
ate with the tribes to the territorial governors. In the case of the Willamette Valley treaties, both
parties—the federal government and the Native
nations—mutually agreed to reconstitute the mem-
Unratified Treaties bership of the tribes in order to fulfill the treaties’
Many of the settlements negotiated with the Native stipulations. The treaties were thus “ratified” bilater-
nations of Oregon and Washington, although still ally because both sides actually complied with the
arguably valid and thus operable, nevertheless have provisions of these specific conventions.
been relegated to status of “unratified” or “invalid” The “unratified” treaties with the Chinook,
treaties. The numerous agreements with these tribes Tillamook, and Clatsop did not provide the United
signed in 1851 are cases in point. Dart’s treaties of States with clear title to the rest of Oregon and Wash-
1851 with the Clatsop, Tillamook, and Chinook ington. Over the span of only two years, sixteen
bands ceded the entire Willamette Valley of Oregon treaties were negotiated and eventually ratified with
to the United States. These treaties were negotiated several other nations of the Northwest. In September
primarily to transfer legally the already white- 1853, the headmen of the Rogue River peoples
occupied valley to the U.S. public domain. Because signed away a large portion of Oregon Territory,
of the change in policy directing the governors of from which they agreed to be removed to another
Washington and Oregon to negotiate agreements “selected” site at a later date. In the same month, the

Umpqua of Cow Creek, also in Oregon, gave up and division of the Umpqua and Kalapuya reserved
another large tract with the provision that a small lands into twenty-, forty-, sixty-, and eighty-acre
section of land be “deemed and considered an lots. The lots would be distributed to single males
Indian reserve until a suitable selection shall be and to families according to the number of immedi-
made by the direction of the President of the United ate members. A single man would receive twenty
States for their permanent residence.” In effect, the acres; a family of two would get forty acres; families
Umpqua and Rogue River peoples transferred their with three to five members would receive sixty
title to the land to the United States, and a portion acres; and a family of six or more could claim eighty
was reserved for their temporary use. acres. Families had to work the land, or their allot-
The very next year, another Umpqua band and ments would be redistributed to other tribe mem-
the Rogue River leaders were negotiating new bers. The treaty also stipulated that, when Oregon
treaties. Under the Rogue River treaty of 1854, a por- eventually attained statehood, its legislature could
tion of the previously reserved land known as the not remove any of the federal restrictions placed on
Table Rock reserve was to be put aside as a reserva- the Indian allotments. Here, in one fell swoop, the
tion for the Rogue River people and for other dis- federal government attempted to encapsulate the
placed Native bands. The Table Rock land was to be intentions of the “civilization” policy. In the first
both a reservation and a refuge until the federal gov- place, it was thought that the individual or private
ernment deemed it necessary to remove the people ownership of property would immediately infuse
once again. The Rogue River leaders did, however, the allottee with the urge to cultivate the land and
secure a provision in the new treaty stipulating that, thus gain an income. In theory, private property
should a future removal take place, the Nation would liberate the allottee from tribal customs and
would share individually the $15,000 payment for dependence on extended family members and
their lands, as had been secured in the negotiations would ultimately promote self-reliance. The preemp-
of the previous year. In the same month, federal tion of state jurisdiction over the allotments was an
agents negotiated a new treaty with the Cave Creek equally significant step in the attempt to woo Indi-
band of the Rogue River people. The new treaty ans away from their identities as members of sepa-
included the Chasta and Scoton tribes and secured a rate, sovereign nations. An allottee would, presum-
previously unceded stretch of the Rogue River valley ably, owe his first allegiance to the federal
and lay along Applegate Creek. The new Umpqua government as the guarantor of the individual’s real
treaty included the confederated Kalapuya peoples’ property.
ceded lands along Calapooia Creek and the Illinois Every treaty of the period contained an article
River in Oregon. Like the Rogue River agreement, that not only established peace but also promised
the treaty provided for a residential reserve and cash perpetual amity between the signatories. The Native
remuneration to be paid as annuities. The Chasta of nations that negotiated the treaties literally became
Oregon also negotiated a new treaty in 1854 ceding a protectorates of the United States. As such, their sov-
large tract of land essentially bordering the lands ereignty, especially in a domestic sense, was not
that had formerly belonged to the Rogue River and eroded in the least. They did, however, enter into a
Umpqua peoples. Moreover, the Chasta were to be trust relationship with the United States that has
removed to the Rogue River’s Table Rock Reserva- been maintained to this day.
tion. The Chastas were promised $2,000 annually for Three ratified treaties negotiated in Oregon Ter-
the next fifteen years for the land; thereafter, their ritory were concluded in 1855. In January, the Kala-
payments would be combined in the Table Rock puya nation entered into another treaty with the
annuities, of which the Chastas would receive a full United States, one that surrendered more lands
share. All the negotiations in Oregon in 1854 con- along the Columbia River to the Cascade Mountains
tained “civilization” provisions. The Native nations for the sum of $145,000, to be paid in decreasing
were to receive farm implements, blacksmith ser- amounts over a period of twenty years. The follow-
vices, schoolhouses, medical care, and livestock. ing June, the United States concluded a convention
The Umpqua treaty furthered the government’s with several bands of Walla Walla and the Wasco
“Indian civilization” policy in another important Nation at The Dalles in Oregon. Not only did the
way. It contained a provision for the allotment of treaty of The Dalles cede more territory to the Amer-
reservation lands at the discretion of the president of icans, but it also secured for the Walla Walla and
the United States. Allotment meant the surveying Wasco the right to fish in “usual and accustomed sta-

tions.” This provision essentially said that the Walla eral agents, however, were given the power to judge
Walla and Wasco peoples could take fish even out- whether or not American “depredation” claims
side the boundaries of their assigned reservations. against the tribes were “satisfactorily proven.”
The treaty in December with the Molala nation extin- Hence, while the Native nations were asserting the
guished the tribe’s “right, title, interest and claim” to sovereign capacity to enter into protectorate status
the territory bordering the lands surrendered by the and take up the responsibility for the actions of their
Umpqua, Chasta, Scoton, and Rogue River peoples peoples, the Americans were assuming an extensive
the year before. Except for the Indian reservations, political jurisdiction over the tribes.
the title to the entire Oregon Territory had shifted In June 1855, several Native nations and the
to the United States. United States negotiated three treaties at Camp
The Washington Territory treaties were equally Stevens in the Walla Walla valley. The Walla Walla,
extensive in terms of land surrendered in a relatively Cayuse, and Umatilla peoples concluded an agree-
short period of time. Between December 1854 and ment whereby, in exchange for $100,000, they ceded
July 1855, the Native nations gave up their “right, a large tract of land in Washington and agreed to be
title, interest and claim” to the land from the north- moved to a reservation. These confederated nations
ern border with Canada, to Oregon in the south, and were to remove to a reservation chosen by the presi-
from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Great Plains dent of the United States, which was to be surveyed
in the east. The lands around Puget Sound and along for allotment when the president deemed it in the
the Columbia River were especially desirable. The best interests of the Indians to do so. In separate
fishing, the timber, the fine harbors, the access to the treaties, the Yakima and Nez Perce agreed to nearly
Pacific Ocean whaling grounds, and the fertile farm- the same stipulations. In July, at Hell Gate in the Bit-
lands were much too valuable to the Americans for terroot Valley, the Flathead, Kutenai, and Pend d’Or-
them to remain in Indian hands. The titles to the vast eille Nations surrendered most of the western half of
tracts of land surrounding Puget Sound were trans- the territory and agreed to move onto smaller reser-
ferred to the United States in five treaties concluded vations within their former national boundaries.
between December 1854 and June 1855. The Medi- Almost the entire territory of the future state of
cine Creek convention, signed with the Nisqally, Washington was in the hands of the United States.
Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squaxin S’Homamish, Ste- Except for a few provisions dealing with reser-
hchass, Tapeeksin, Squiaitl, and Sahewamish on vation boundaries and amounts of money pledged
December 26, 1854, gave up the southern end of the to the tribes, the treaties negotiated in Washington
sound. A month later, the Duwamish, the Territory were all very similar in wording and in
Suquamish, and several other nations agreed to the form. Treaties in the 1850s were becoming more or
Point Elliott treaty, which secured the eastern flank less standardized. All of the Washington Territory
of Puget Sound for the United States to a very great and a few of the Oregon treaties, however, provided
depth. In June 1855 came the Point No Point treaty, that the Native nations would retain the right to fish
by which the Clallam, Twana, and Chemakum ceded in their usual and accustomed “stations” or
the lands west of the Point Elliot treaty, thus giving “grounds” and even to set up buildings in these
up nearly all of the Olympic Peninsula. The rest of places to cure the catch and house the fishermen
the peninsula was secured in the Neah Bay treaty of during the seasonal fish or whale migrations. The
June 1855 with the Makah, and the Quinault River Native negotiators essentially secured the right to
treaty of July 1855 with the Quinault, Queets, Hoh, fish even outside the boundaries of their reserva-
and Quileute peoples. These treaties contained pro- tions. These fishing rights, guaranteed by treaty with
visions under which the Native nations pledged the United States, would later become a long-drawn-
eternal friendship with the United States and out battle between the Native nations and the state
promised not to harbor anyone suspected of break- of Washington. In the end, the treaties superseded
ing the law. The Point Elliot treaties, for example, state fish and game regulations, thereby conceding a
stipulated that, should any Indian “violate this degree of Native sovereignty.
pledge” and harm an American citizen in any way, While a number of officials were sedulously
the tribe’s annuities would be used to compensate seeking to open up the territories of Oregon and
the victims. In essence, the Native nations agreed to Washington, others were equally preoccupied with
become protectorates of the United States and securing the land routes over which the whites
assume liability for the actions of their citizens. Fed- would come in droves to the northwest coast and

California. One of the first of these was the Navajo U.S. military authority. It was thought, perhaps, that
(spelled Navaho in the original document) treaty of the assumption of U.S. jurisdiction over all white
1849. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the crimes would end the almost constant state of war
Native nations of the Southwest were specifically between white immigrants and the Apache.
placed under the “exclusive jurisdiction and protec- The Comanche-Kiowa-Apache treaty of the next
tion” of the United States. The Navajo treaty, one of year was signed at Fort Atkinson in the Indian Terri-
“peace and friendship,” ceded no land and estab- tory. These Native nations agreed to end warfare,
lished no reservation but bound the Navajo Nation both between themselves and against the United
to the U.S. laws governing the trade and intercourse States. They agreed, as did the Apache in the Santa
between Indian and American citizens. For the pur- Fe treaty, to forgo incursions into Mexico and restore
poses of enforcing these laws, the Navajo Nation captives to both the Mexican government and the
was subjected to a jurisdictional annexation to New United States. The treaty also carried a free-passage
Mexico Territory. The annexation meant that the clause and bound the Comanche, Kiowa, and
Navajos were to repatriate American and Mexican Apache to a provision that called for the laying out
captives and return all property taken in raids. The of permanent roads through their territories. The
Navajo were also to deliver to the authorities of New Native nations agreed to the erection of military
Mexico Territory the murderer or murderers, pre- posts and to refer cases of white criminality to mili-
sumably Navajo, of one Micente Garcia. tary authorities.
According to the reasoning at the time, the The pressing need on the part of the United
United States by right of conquest took the territory States to ensure the passage of immigrants to the
from Mexico. Presumably, the Spanish had secured West Coast led to the demand for the Native nations
legitimate title to the land of the American South- to surrender more land in what would become the
west either by way of conquest or by right of discov- states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, and
ery, according to the established European means of especially Kansas. The list of treaties with the tribes
acquiring new lands. Mexico gained the title from of these areas was remarkably long. Native nations
Spain when it rebelled and became an independent that had been removed from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
state. and Michigan and as far away as New York to the
On the other hand, U.S. negotiators nevertheless “permanent Indian frontier”—a space that roughly
realized that the Navajo Nation, like the Native peo- covered what today is southern Nebraska and all of
ples of California, had, at minimum, a right of occu- Kansas and Oklahoma—were forced to reduce their
pancy to their lands. In consequence, federal agents landholdings once again to tiny reservations or
negotiated a “free and safe passage through the terri- move south into Indian Territory. These land ces-
tory of the aforesaid Indians” so that white immi- sions affected the land bases of the Seneca,
grants might traverse northern New Mexico Terri- Delaware, Miami, Mdewakanton, Wahpakoota, Sis-
tory in route to California. The treaty also stipulated seton, and Wahpeton Sioux, Wyandot, Sac and Fox,
that a string of military posts be established “to Oto and Missouri, Shawnee, Omaha, and Iowa
afford protection to all the people and interests of the Nations. The Miami, Peoria, Kaskaskia, Kickapoo,
contracting parties.” The right of occupancy also Chippewa, Winnebago, and Ottawa Nations also
elicited the agreement that the federal government surrendered huge amounts of territory, all with the
would “at its earliest convenience, designate, settle promise of annuity payments, the protection of the
and adjust” the boundaries of the Navajo national federal government, and, most importantly, peace.
domain. The list of unratified treaties that attempted to
“Free-passage” treaties were negotiated with reduce Native landholdings to the bare minimum
the Apache in 1852 and with the Comanche, Kiowa, and institute peace all along the American frontier
and Apache (Plains) in 1853. The former treaty was was equally lengthy. Some of these treaties were
signed at Santa Fe, New Mexico Territory. It estab- negotiated with nations that had never before dealt
lished peace and, to enforce the safe passage of with the Americans. Others were stopgap agree-
whites and maintain order, contained a provision ments made to quell violence either immediately or
whereby the Apache agreed to the erection of U.S. until more comprehensive conventions could be
military posts in their country. They also approved worked out. A number of these treaties could, in fact,
the stipulation that all cases of aggression by whites contain provisions that might be operable simply
against them and their property would be referred to because Congress has referred to them in other

treaties or in making appropriations to fulfill one or range worked out a new and detailed treaty in 1855.
another promise made to Native nations. In format much like most of the treaties of the
The Fort Laramie treaty of 1851, like the Navajo period, the Blackfeet agreement was intended to set-
treaty of 1849, stands out in this period because it tle territorial boundaries and maintain order along
did not call for a land cession on the part of the the northern immigrant trail to Washington Terri-
Native nations. Basically, it was a peace concord that tory. Peace and friendship were declared between
defined the national boundaries of several indige- the United States and the Native nations as well as
nous peoples of the northern plains. The Sioux, Gros between each one of the signatory Native peoples.
Ventre, Mandan, Arikara, Assiniboine, Blackfeet, The Native parties to the treaty also agreed to cease
Crow, Cheyenne, and Arapaho Nations all partici- hostilities, except in self-defense, with the Crow,
pated in the negotiations and agreed not only to the Assiniboine, Cree, Snake (Shoshone), and several
stipulated national borders but also to the building Lakota bands. The Blackfeet consented once again to
of roads and military posts within these boundaries. their national boundaries, as had been “recognized
Ostensibly, the roads were for the free and safe pas- and defined by the treaty of Laramie,” even though
sage of white immigrants on the trail to the West Congress had amended the 1851 convention almost
Coast, and the military posts were erected in order to to the point of invalidity.
protect both Indians and whites from each other’s Perhaps the main point of the Blackfeet treaty
potential depredations. The federal government, in was to secure a common hunting ground for the var-
compensation, was to pay the Native nations $50,000 ious signatories and to allow whites both to live in
a year for fifty years “for their maintenance and the and to pass through the large Blackfeet Nation
improvement of their moral and social customs.” 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
Land Payments as a common for the taking of buffalo, and for other
Probably because no land cession was agreed to in purposes only by way of certain designated points of
the Fort Laramie treaty, Congress did not pass on it entry. Although the Assiniboine Nation was not
without altering one of its most important provi- party to the treaty, it was specifically mentioned as
sions. Congress essentially decreased the fifty annual one of the groups with hunting rights within Black-
payments to ten, with another five to be paid at the feet territory. The treaty went on to stipulate that all
discretion of the president. This sum of money was Indians were to stay in their respective lands except
hardly enough to aid the nearly fifty thousand mem- when on hunting forays. The treaty allowed for the
bers of the several Native nations involved in the construction of roads “of every description” and the
negotiations; from the point of view of the Native establishment of telegraph lines and military posts.
leaders, it was a serious breach of the agreement U.S. citizens were allowed the free navigation of all
they had made. The congressional amendment made streams and rivers and the permanent use of land,
the treaty’s standing hazy at best, even in the eyes of timber, and other natural resources for the erection
the whites. Charles J. Kappler, in his 1904 compila- of “agencies, missions, schools, farms, shops, mills,
tion of treaties, stated that the Fort Laramie treaty stations, and for any other purpose for which they
was “never ratified or printed.” It was nevertheless may be required.” For the effective opening of the
valid even in its altered form, and the Native Blackfeet Nation to American colonization, the
nations, although they voiced concern over the Blackfeet, Piegan, Blood, and Gros Ventre were to
changes made, complied with its provisions. receive $20,000 annually for a period of twenty
Four years later, however, some of the Native years. The president, however, could increase the
nations involved in the Fort Laramie treaty, as well annuity to $35,000 should circumstance warrant the
as some of those engaged in making agreements increase.
with federal agents in Washington Territory, were The main thrust of treaty making during the
once again at the negotiating table. The Blackfeet 1850s was to acquire more land and thereby gain
Nation (consisting of, and so recognized by the political efficacy within the territory claimed by the
United States, the Piegan, Blood, and Blackfeet United States as its national domain. Underlying the
proper); the Gros Ventre from east of the Rocky acquisition of control over Native territories were
Mountains; and the Flathead, Upper Pend d’Oreille, strategies calculated to smooth over the hostilities
Kutenai, and Nez Perce from the west side of the aroused when Native Americans were displaced or

confined to smaller tracts of land. One such strategy by the United States, provided that the secretary of
was the introduction to Native peoples of the con- the interior audit the Chickasaw account “from time
cept of private property by way of allotment in sev- to time.” The Chickasaws would have the “privi-
eralty. For example, in 1858 the Sisseton and Wah- lege” to review the audit and submit objections to it
peton Sioux penned a treaty in Washington, D.C., within a reasonable amount of time. The cost to the
that agreed to new reservation boundaries and to United States was ultimately quite low. The four-
having them surveyed with the intent of dividing mile-square parcel in Tennessee, for example, which
the reservation into individually owned, eighty-acre had been originally set apart as a reservation under
plots. The ultimate reason for the acceptance of this the provisions of the Chickasaw treaty of 1818, was
new treaty was simply that the U.S. Senate reneged to be purchased at a rate of no more than “one dollar
on the Sisseton-Wahpeton agreement of 1851. The and twenty-five cents per acre.”
Senate unilaterally struck the provision in the treaty Two years later, the Chickasaws were back at
of 1851 that set apart a large tract of land for the Sis- the negotiating table. When removal took place, the
seton-Wahpeton on the Minnesota River, and instead Chickasaw and Choctaw were effectively placed
offered a sum of money “at the rate of ten cents per together on one large piece of land that made up
acre” to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Nation. Other than most of what would become southern Oklahoma.
providing excuses for amending the treaty of 1851, The Chickasaw and Choctaw leaders more or less
the new convention provided for the same lands to agreed to this circumstance, very likely because they
be allotted, which in turn considerably reduced recognized that, since they were culturally and lin-
Sisseton-Wahpeton landholdings. Individual tribe guistically tied, the two nations were once one. By
members, instead of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Nation, 1854, however, the jurisdictional lines between the
were to hold the land. two peoples had become unclear. The United States
was brought into the dispute over the Chickasaw-
Choctaw boundaries, and a new treaty was negoti-
Addenda Treaties ated. Essentially, the two nations agreed to draw a
The federal government negotiated no fewer than line between themselves: the Chickasaw jurisdiction
five treaties or addenda to treaties with the Musco- was established in the western half of the territory,
gee Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw in the the Choctaw in the east.
1850s. These tribes had been forcibly removed from The dispute did not end, and the very next year
their homelands in the southeastern United States to the Chickasaw and the Choctaw agreed to a redraw-
the Indian Territory (present Oklahoma) in the ing of the boundaries between the two nations and
1830s. Not all their tribe members, however, had to lease their lands west of longitude 98° to the
made the trip. A large number of Choctaws United States. The two nations separated completely.
remained in Mississippi, and the Chickasaws had The Choctaw received a sum of money out of Chick-
not ceded a four-mile-square parcel of land in Ten- asaw funds and ceded all of the land west of 100°
nessee to the United States. The removal of the Semi- longitude. The nations agreed to the establishment
nole Nation from Florida had started a costly war, of military forts and roads and to railroad and tele-
and even as late as the 1850s, small bands of Mika- graph rights-of-way.
suki Seminoles were still living in the Florida back- Similar jurisdictional and national disputes had
country and fighting American soldiers. arisen between the Creek and the Seminole. The
In 1852, the Chickasaw entered into negotia- United States was still attempting to remove the
tions with the federal government, primarily to set- remnants of the Seminole Nation in Florida to the
tle several of the tribe’s claims to particular lands. Indian Territory. Those Seminole who had been
Additionally, the cost of the Chickasaw removal had forcibly removed were moved, again because of lin-
far exceeded the funds allocated for the purpose. guistic and cultural ties, onto the lands of the Musco-
The treaty of 1852 was intended to clear up the cost gee Creek Nation. The Creek treaty of 1856 essen-
of removal, to clear the title of Chickasaw lands that tially ceded a tract of land to the Seminole. A
had not been ceded east of the Mississippi River, and sovereign Seminole Nation was thus established in
to address the allegations of corruption that had the hope of getting the Seminole in Florida to cease
resulted in the override of Chickasaw removal hostilities and migrate to the Indian Territory. The
funds. The Chickasaw Nation agreed to forgo claims Seminole Nation West, as it was called, would send a
to territories in the east for money to be held in trust delegation to Florida “to do all in their power to

induce their brethren remaining [in Florida] to emi- The first Confederate treaties were negotiated
grate and join them in the west.” The usual conces- with the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw in North
sions to the railroads, military posts, roads, and tele- Fork Town on the Canadian River in the Creek
graph services were also made. The effort to Nation. The Creek treaty, although concluded on
“induce” the Florida Seminole to remove was not July 10, 1861, nevertheless referred to the Seminole
successful. While some Seminole did, indeed, treaty of August 7 of the same year in order to clarify
migrate west after the treaty of 1856, the core of the the exact boundaries and jurisdictions of both
Mikasuki Seminole in the east remained in Florida to nations. A supplementary article was added to the
this day. convention to address the claims of the Apalachicola
By the end of March 1861, the United States had band. Under two previous treaties with the United
succeeded in securing the title to nearly all of its States, the Apalachicola still had reserves of land in
claimed territory west of the Mississippi River. Save Florida. The Confederacy acknowledged their claims
for a very large tract of land recognized as “the Great and agreed to pay for the claims and the property
Sioux Nation” on the northern plains, most of the the Apalachicola lost in their removal to the Indian
Indian Territory (present Oklahoma), a very large Territory. Remnants of the Apalachicola still living in
portion of New Mexico Territory, and smaller reser- Florida would be encouraged to move west and
vations dotting the land, the Americans now held all reunite with their kinsmen as part of the larger
of what would become the continental United States. Creek Nation. In the same supplement, the Seminole
The Cheyenne and Arapaho had ceded eastern Col- were guaranteed payments for their lost property
orado in February of 1861, and on March 6, the and land in Florida “in consequence of their hurried
united Sauk and Fox and Iowa Nations gave up title removal west.”
to most of Iowa and parts of Nebraska. The Choctaw and Chickasaw signed a single
treaty with the Confederacy. Concluded on July 12,
the treaty was lengthy and detailed. It contained
Confederate Treaties more than sixty articles, many of which focused on
All of the great land cessions of the 1850s con- clearing up the financial arrangements of land sales
tributed fuel to the oncoming holocaust of the Amer- and annuities. The Confederate government in Rich-
ican Civil War. The opening of the entire West Coast, mond essentially took on the U.S. debt to, and
Iowa, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, assumed the federal trust responsibility for, the
and much of New Mexico Territory meant the possi- Choctaw and the Chickasaw. Moreover, the Confed-
bility of bringing in several states into the union. eracy agreed to pay the Chickasaw close to $700,000
Most of these territories, in accordance with several as reimbursement for funds invested by the United
legal compromises, would not become slave-holding States in the state bonds of Maryland, Indiana, Ten-
states. Southern politicians, of course, saw the orga- nessee, Illinois, and Arkansas and in stocks issued by
nization of states such as Iowa, Minnesota, the Richmond and Danville railroad and the
Nebraska, and Kansas as a threat to their continued Nashville and Chattanooga railroad.
power in Congress, to their economic systems, and The Seminole treaty was agreed to in August at
to their sectional culture, all of which were built on the Seminole Council House, and the Confederate
chattel slavery. Cherokee convention was concluded in October at
When the Civil War broke out in April 1861, the Park Hill, Cherokee Nation. The Confederacy had
newly formed Confederate States actively began to thus made binding agreements with all of the so-
seek Native American allies. The Confederacy was called Five Civilized Tribes, establishing itself as the
especially interested in the Indian Territory, which protector of the Indian nations. All these treaties
could serve as a buffer between Union Kansas and offered the Native nations a good deal more than the
Confederate Texas, and with the mineral-rich New Union promised. Native soldiers, who were to be
Mexico and Arizona territories. Albert Pike, whose equipped by the South, would not have to fight
complete title was commissioner of the Confederate except in defense of their own territory. The Confed-
States to the Indians west of Arkansas, negotiated eracy would assume all of the Union’s debts and
nine treaties with twenty-one Native nations, at four annuity payments, in addition to a permanent allo-
different locations. All of the tribes with which Pike cation to pay for certain services, such as schools,
negotiated with were located at the time in the insane asylums, health care, and orphanages. The
Indian Territory. Native nations were also given the option of sending

delegates to the Confederate House of Representa- devastated. And the fighting continued there even
tives. Most importantly, perhaps, was that the Con- after the surrender at Appomattox.
federacy pledged its protection from invasion and Predictably, war fever engulfed the western ter-
affirmed each nation’s title to its lands in fee simple. ritories and states and led to the inflicting of bar-
The negotiations at Park Hill produced Confed- barous cruelties on the Native nations. War broke
erate treaties with the Osage, confederated Seneca out in Minnesota between the whites and the Santee
and Shawnee, and Quapaw Nations. Like the Sioux. Instead of attempting to use diplomacy,
treaties made with the Five Tribes, these agreements which perhaps could have averted the Santee war,
were somewhat formulaic. The treaties guaranteed the whites treated genuine Santee complaints as acts
annuities, the services of teachers, blacksmiths, and of rebellion, eventually trying and convicting many
landholdings. The Confederacy also agreed to sup- of the Santee men in a military court. California mili-
ply the tribes with arms to be used in their self- tiamen stormed into Arizona and New Mexico seek-
protection. The same kinds of guarantees were given ing rebels, only to set off a lengthy war with the
in treaties to a number of Native groups in the west- Apaches and Navajos. The old scout Kit Carson was
ern Indian Territory, including the Comanche, enlisted to carry on a frightful roundup of the
Wichita, Caddo, Waco, Tawakoni, Anadarko, Navajo, which led to their imprisonment at Fort
Tonkawa, and western Shawnee and Delaware Sumner. In 1864, the Colorado Volunteers attacked
tribes. Confederate agents obtained an agreement and slaughtered the Cheyenne at Sand Creek,
with the Comanche of the Staked Plains to offer a notwithstanding the fact that the Cheyenne were
treaty of friendship with the Kiowa, in order to stop peacefully living on the lands guaranteed to them in
completely raids into Texas. their 1861 treaty with the United States. The horror
On the surface, the Confederate treaties of the Sand Creek massacre produced a period of
promised a remarkably peaceful settlement for most general conflict between the Native nations of the
of the Native nations living in or near what is now Great Plains and the Union.
Oklahoma. The Confederate treaties not only estab- From a certain perspective, agents of the United
lished friendship between the nations and the Con- States were indeed attempting to ease the tensions
federacy but also between all the Native treaty sig- with several Native nations during the war and try-
natories. Each treaty contained an oath of “perpetual ing to deal with them diplomatically. The federal
peace and brotherhood” with all the Native nations government negotiated and ratified eighteen treaties
that made treaties with the Confederacy. The during the war. Between March 1862 and March
Comanche swore not to raid other Native nations; 1865, exactly three years, treaties were concluded
Cherokee and Osage pledged to end long years of with the Kansa, Ottawa, Chippewa, Nez Perce,
animosity; the Wichita promised to live in peace and Shoshone, Ute, Klamath, Modoc, Omaha, Win-
forgive those tribes that had threatened them in the nebago, and Ponca Nations. All these agreements
past. The Confederacy presumably obtained the included land cessions and further diminished the
safety of its largest state, Texas, and opened the rest territories of the tribes involved. Several established
of the Southwest for Confederate expansion. “permanent” reservations or removed the nations to
The Confederate-initiated peace in the Indian smaller concentrations of landholdings. Despite its
Territory, however, was not to be. Before the ink was focus on winning the Civil War, the United States
dry on the treaties, Creeks and Seminoles loyal to the was nevertheless still very much involved in secur-
Union attempted to escape to Kansas, and numerous ing title to new lands in the West.
Cherokee began to doubt the wisdom of allying When the fighting between the whites ended,
themselves with the South. Eventually, fighting the United States simply resumed its avowed con-
erupted between loyal and Confederate Indians all quest of the western territories, with a side trip to
over the territory. All-Indian regiments were raised renegotiate treaties with the nations that had signed
for both the Union and the Confederacy. These mili- on with the Confederacy. The United States
tary units were even to go into combat outside the extracted a heavy price from the nations that signed
territorial limits of the Native nations. The promise Confederate treaties, even though large factions
that the nations would not have to fight unless in within the tribes had repudiated them and had
defense of their own country was quickly made served in Union regiments. The Osage were forced
moot. Union and Confederate invasions from to cede most of their large reservation and confine
Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas left the Indian Territory themselves to the Indian Territory. For the land ces-

sion, they were to receive the proceeds of the sale of judges and to have representation in the Cherokee
their lands in Kansas and Missouri, from which the national government. A U.S. court was to be estab-
federal government established a fund to build lished in the Indian Territory “nearest to the Chero-
boarding schools. Portions of Osage land were to be kee Nation” and was to have jurisdiction over all
directly handed over in fee simple to several individ- matters civil and criminal involving whites and
uals. Certain chiefs and mixed-blood citizens of the blacks. The Cherokee court system retained jurisdic-
Osage Nation were awarded direct payments of tion in Cherokee cases only. The Cherokee were also
Osage funds and grants of land. The Osage put required to take a census of the nation and to partici-
themselves under the protectorship of the United pate in an Indian Territory-wide general council in
States and agreed to be removed from the ceded order to regulate intercourse between the Indian
lands within a six-month period of time. The federal nations and with the “colonies of freemen resident in
government also extracted railroad rights-of-way said Territory.” The federal government obtained the
through Osage country. Finally, the Osage submitted agreement from the Cherokee to resettle “civilized”
to a new kind of treaty provision that stated, Indians in the Cherokee Nation and admit them as
“Should the Senate reject or amend any of the above citizens (a Delaware and a Shawnee band eventually
articles, such rejection or amendment shall not affect were so settled). More Cherokee land was to be
the other provisions of this treaty.” The Senate, in ceded for the future resettlement of several
other words, could change the treaty as it liked, “friendly” Native nations. The idea of resettling
whereas the Osage were bound to the agreement no “friendly” Native nations in the Indian Territory
matter what. 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
Reconstruction Treaties numerous other Native nations that had surrendered
The Five Civilized Tribes each agreed to reconstruc- their lands in Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Texas,
tion treaties that not only ceded territory but also Nebraska, the Dakotas, and as far away as New York
gave up land for the resettlement of Native nations and Oregon.
from Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri. The Chero- The years between 1865 and 1868 produced a
kee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole very long list of Native American treaties with the
agreed to abolish slavery and admit the freed slaves United States, some ratified, some simply set aside
to citizen status within their respective nations. The until more comprehensive agreements could be
new treaties gave away railroad rights-of-way but made. Four unratified but very important treaties
promised the nations that white intruders would be that fitted the category of stopgap measures were
removed from their territorial boundaries. the covenants that ended the Civil War in the Indian
The Cherokee treaty of 1866 was perhaps the Territory. On June 19, 1865, the principal chief of the
most comprehensive of the several “reconstruction” Choctaw Nation, Peter Pitchlynn, agreed to cease
treaties. It first contained a provision declaring the “acts of hostility” against the United States, and
Confederate treaty of 1861 null and void, even four days later, Confederate Brigadier General
though the Cherokees had already repudiated it in Stand Watie, who also had taken the title of princi-
1863. Notwithstanding this repudiation, the United pal chief of the Cherokee Nation, agreed to do the
States argued that the previously existing Cherokee same. The Chickasaw Nation capitulated on July 14.
treaties were nevertheless insufficient. A portion of In September, Union negotiators arranged what was
the Cherokee Nation was set aside for former slaves in effect an armistice between Union forces and
and for free blacks who had resided in the Cherokee Confederate and Union Indians in the Indian Terri-
prior to the Civil War, who individually could take tory. Emissaries from the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw,
160-acre plots should they desire to move there Chickasaw, Osage, Seminole, Seneca, Shawnee,
within a span of two years. This land, however, was Quapaw, and Euchee peoples essentially agreed to
not to be “set apart until it shall be found that the accept protectorate status under the United States
Canadian district is not sufficiently large to allow and end any acts of aggression between themselves.
one hundred and sixty acres to each person desiring That these treaties were not ratified was very likely
to obtain settlement under the provisions of this arti- due to the fact that these groups were seen as com-
cle.” The residents of this reserve-within-a-reserve bat units rather than as Native nations. Thus, the
were enabled to elect their own local officers and treaties were thought to be more akin to the surren-

ders of the individual Confederate armies under War generals William Tecumseh Sherman and
Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, and Edmund Kirby Alfred Terry, negotiated two of the most significant
Smith. Military leaders, especially those acting in treaties on the Great Plains: the treaties of Medi-
rebellion against the United States, were not heads cine Lodge in 1867 and Fort Laramie in 1868. Nei-
of state authorized to conduct formal international ther treaty ended the conflict completely. Their
relations. very existence, however, ultimately led to the end
Most of the unratified treaties of 1865, 1866, of formal treaty making altogether. In a very real
and 1867 were measures under which Native sense, the Native nations involved in these treaties
nations surrendered title to vast territories in the negotiated from a position of relative strength,
West. This round of treaty making was also an something that the United States was not ready to
effort on the part of the United States to restore its countenance.
claim to authority over the relations with Native The general warfare on the southern plains was
nations. All the Native nations were doubtless a series of strikes and counterstrikes conducted by
aware of the terrible internecine struggle the Amer- the United States and the southern branches of the
icans had just fought and were probably willing to Cheyenne and Arapaho and the Kiowa, Plains
deal with the winner in order to restore orderly Apache, and Comanche. The Cheyenne Dog Soldiers
relationships with the whites. These treaties, espe- had carried on an effective hit-and-run campaign
cially those made with the Paiute, Shoshone, Crow, against numerous civilian and military targets. The
several bands of the Apache, the Arikara, Mandan Kiowa and Comanche went on joint raids into Texas
and Hidatsa, the Assiniboine, the Brule and Oglala and New Mexico and, in the view of American offi-
bands of Lakota, and the Bannock, were very likely cials, were severely disrupting trade and immigra-
either not even submitted for ratification or had tion routes. Although there were a few pitched bat-
been made by unauthorized military personnel tles, mostly between small parties of whites and
seeking an immediate end to hostilities or by those Natives, by and large the war on the Southern Plains
seeking to earn a measure of fortune or fame for between 1865 and 1867 was a costly, confusing, and
negotiating the surrender of large tracts of Native bitter period of guerrilla warfare. The American
lands. press was continually calling for an end to Indian
Several agreements in the period also went depredations. The army could not find and defeat
unratified for the same reasons, because they were the tribes in decisive battle, but the continued con-
superseded by subsequent negotiations at the level flict had begun to wear the Native leaders down.
of formal treaties, or because they were simply nulli- When the Great Peace Commission proposed a
fied by certain events. War was the event that cer- meeting that would secure peace at Medicine Lodge
tainly voided most of the agreements and treaties, Creek in Kansas, many of the Native leaders came
ratified or not, with several Native nations of the with high expectations.
Great Plains and the Southwest. The Apache were Actually, three treaties were negotiated at Medi-
embroiled in a continuous war of attrition for their cine Lodge. The first was with the Kiowa and
mineral-rich lands in Arizona and New Mexico terri- Comanche. Basically, the price of peace was confine-
tories that ultimately would last until the 1880s. The ment to a relatively large reservation in southwest-
numerous agreements and ratified treaties made ern Indian Territory and the withdrawal of opposi-
with the individual bands of the Lakota Nation, the tion to the construction of roads and rail lines into
Yanktonai, the northern and southern branches of Colorado and New Mexico. Heads of families could
the Cheyenne and Arapaho Nations, the Kiowa, select tracts of land not exceeding 320 acres to
Plains Apache, and Comanche in 1865 were but engage in agricultural pursuits, the boundaries of
interludes of diplomacy in a lengthy conflict that which would be recorded in the “Kiowa and
began with the massacre at Sand Creek and engulfed Comanche land book.” The issuance of farming
all of the peoples of the Great Plains. implements, the services of a blacksmith and a
Because of the continuing violence, Congress physician, and the establishment of reservations
created the United States Indian Peace Commis- schools were promised. Two important provisions in
sion on June 20, 1867. The “Great Peace Commis- the treaty would eventually become causes for
sion,” headed by Commissioner of Indian Affairs renewed conflicts, one resulting in open warfare and
Nathaniel G. Taylor and including famous Civil the second in a famous court case.

In Article 11 of the treaty, the Kiowa and the U.S. Army and forced its withdrawal from the
Comanche retained the right to hunt the territory forts. Like the Native nations of the southern plains,
south of the Arkansas River “so long as the buffalo the Lakota and Cheyenne had disrupted the build-
may range thereon.” With the building of roads and ing of the railroad through Nebraska. When the
rail lines, immigrant whites, the army, and sports- whites began to invade the Powder River country
men came to these hunting grounds in droves. The and erect the forts, however, the alliance launched an
great slaughter of the herds had already begun by all-out and decisive campaign. The army’s with-
the time the Native leaders signed the Medicine drawal prompted the call to diplomacy and the
Lodge agreements. Then, in 1871, a Pennsylvania peace conference at Fort Laramie in 1868.
tannery discovered that bison hides had commercial Again, three treaties were signed. The first was
value. The hides could be used not only for the man- with the Lakota bands, the Yanktonai, the Santee,
ufacture of leather goods but also as belting for and the Arapaho. The Great Peace Commission’s
machinery. Commercial buffalo hunting soon treaties were remarkably formulaic, worded nearly
became a leading industry in the West. The Kiowa the same as those signed at Medicine Lodge except
and Comanche saw the slaughter as a violation of for the detailed boundaries of the new Great Sioux
their guaranteed right to hunt, and a war to save the Nation in the Dakotas. The Crow Nation, although
buffalo broke out. It would last until well into the an enemy of the Lakota-led alliance, signed the sec-
1870s. ond treaty, which established their present reserva-
Article 12 of the treaty provided that no further tion in Montana. The Northern Arapaho and Chey-
cession of Kiowa-Comanche land could be made enne penned a separate treaty in which they agreed
without the agreement of three-fourths of the male to relinquish all land claims outside the southern
population of the tribes. When, thirty years later, Cheyenne-Arapaho Reservation in Indian Territory,
the federal government moved to allot the Kiowa- and lands were set aside for them in the Lakota
Comanche Reservation, leaving surplus land to be Reservations. The Cheyenne and Arapaho Nations,
set aside for white settlement, no three-fourths in short, were left with little choice except to live
majority tribal consent was sought or obtained. A either with their southern cousins or with their
lawsuit, launched on behalf of Kiowa chief Lone Lakota allies. Later, the northern Arapahos would be
Wolf, argued that allotment was in violation of moved to a reservation shared with their former ene-
Article 12 of the treaty. The Supreme Court, in Lone mies, the Shoshone, and the Cheyenne would be
Wolf v. Hitchcock, decided in 1903 that Congress had removed to the Indian Territory.
plenary authority over the tribes and could there- Four more ratified treaties were signed in 1868,
fore abrogate unilaterally the provisions of a prior with the Ute, Cherokee, Navajo, Shoshone-Bannock,
convention. and Nez Perce nations. In effect, they were the last
The second Treaty of Medicine Lodge was effec- treaties of their kind. In 1871, the House of Represen-
tively an act of union between the Kiowa, tatives added a proviso to the Indian Appropriations
Comanche, and Plains Apache. The Apache agreed Act that ended the practice of treaty making with
to join the Kiowa and Comanche on the reservation Native nations.
and to abide by the same provisions of their compre- Tom Holm
hensive convention. The third Treaty of Medicine
Lodge enjoined the southern Cheyenne and Arapa- References and Further Reading
hos to abide by nearly the same provisions as the Brown, Dee. 1970. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An
Kiowa and Comanche but confined them to an area Indian History of the American West. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
immediately to the north of the Kiowa-Comanche-
Cohen, Felix. 1958. Handbook of Federal Indian Law.
Apache Reservations. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
War on the northern plains centered on a Originally published 1942.
Lakota-led campaign against the illegally occupied Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999.
military forts along the Bozeman trail in Montana. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy, Treaties,
Under the Oglala leader Red Cloud, the alliance con- Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979. 2 vols.
sisting of all of the Lakota bands plus the Yanktonai Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford M. Lytle. 1983.
and Santee Sioux and the northern branches of the
American Indians, American Justice. Austin:
Cheyenne and Arapaho Nations soundly defeated University of Texas Press.

Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge: Price, Monroe E., and Robert N. Clinton. 1983. Law
The Story of the Great Treaty Council as Told by and the American Indian: Readings, Notes and
Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma Cases. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company
Press. Law Publishers.
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
Treaties, vol. 2., Washington, DC: Government The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los
Printing Office. Angeles, and London: University of California
Kickingbird, Kirk, et al. 1980. Indian Treaties. Press.
Washington, DC: Institute for the Development
of Indian Law.

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 the tribe. The Major Crimes Act (23 Stat. 385, 1985)
federal Indian policy, they are second in marked the first time Congress had unilaterally
importance to the statutes enacted by Con- extended federal criminal jurisdiction over crimes by
gress. Statutes, rather than treaties, have come to and against Indians.
define the scope of tribal authorities and immunities It was in this post-treaty era that the “plenary
and the rights of individual Indians. We know that power” of Congress over Indians and their property
statutes supersede treaties in importance from two was first articulated by the Supreme Court. Decades
pertinent facts. First, every treaty between the of failed tribal efforts to prevent encroachment on
United States and the Indian tribes has been broken. their homelands had left the Indians confined to
Second, the way Congress breaks a treaty with an reservations and unable to practice their traditional
Indian tribe is by enacting a statute to that effect. subsistence. They were left utterly dependent on the
Although it may seem odd that a treaty can be done rations and supplies that had been promised in the
away with so easily, the Supreme Court has held various treaties. Ironically, the Supreme Court, in
squarely that Congress has the power to break an upholding the constitutionality of the Major Crimes
Indian treaty unilaterally (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, Act, cited this tribal dependence on the United States
1903). The only legal issue of interest regarding the as the source of Congress’s power over the tribes:
breaking of Indian treaties in any particular case is
whether Congress actually intended to do so (e.g., These Indian Tribes are the wards of the nation.
United States v. Dion, 1986). They are communities dependent on the United
Federal Indian policy has been defined primar- States, dependent largely for their daily food;
ily by statute from the beginning. An early order of dependent for their political rights. . . . From
business for the first Congress was the enactment of their very weakness and helplessness, so
the first Trade and Intercourse Act (1 Stat. 137, 1790), largely due to the course of dealing of the
which forbade transactions affecting Indian land if federal government with them, and the treaties
Congress had not approved the transaction. The act in which it has been promised, there arises a
limited the tribes’ authority to dispose of their prop- duty of protection, and with it the power.
erty. Subsequent Trade and Intercourse Acts defined The power of the general government over
federal policy in the years following the adoption of these remnants of a race once powerful, now
the Constitution. The federal government alone weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary
would treat with the tribes, acquiring tribal land for to their protection, as well as to the safety of
the growing American nation while reserving land those among whom they dwell. It must exist in
for the ongoing needs of the tribes within the terri- that government, because it has never existed
tory of the United States. anywhere else; because the theater of its
The era of forced removal of tribes from the exercise is within the geographical limits of the
East, South, and Midwest also was defined by a con- United States; because it has never been denied;
gressional statute. The Indian Removal Act (4 Stat. and because it alone can enforce its laws on all
411, 1830) set the policy. The removal treaties the Tribes. (United States v. Kagama, 1886, pp.
affected the congressional policy, and many tribes 383–385)
were moved west.
With the congressionally mandated end of Having had its power confirmed by the Court,
treaty making in 1871 (16 Stat. 566, 1871), statutes Congress put its power to use in the Dawes General
became ever more important in defining Indian Allotment Act (26 Stat. 794, 1887). The Dawes Act
rights. By 1885, for example, Congress had taken to was the next of the defining statutes that established
itself the authority to subject Indians to federal court federal policy for decades. The dependence and
criminal processes for crimes committed by Indians poverty of the tribes, combined with their often-vast
against other Indians, regardless of the local law of reservations, led Congress to believe that the most
109
beneficent policy toward Indians was to convert allotment agreement for the opening of the Kiowa-
them into yeoman farmers and herders, to unsettle Comanche-Apache Reservation in Oklahoma Terri-
them from their tribal relations, and to bring non- tory. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek of 1867
Indian settlers among them to teach them the Ameri- (Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache)
can agricultural way of life (Prucha 1984, 659–671). required that three-fourths of the tribal men must
To that end, Congress authorized the president, in all consent to any cession of the lands guaranteed by
cases where any tribe or band of Indians has been, or the treaty. Lone Wolf claimed that three-fourths had
shall hereafter be, located upon any reservation cre- not consented to the allotment agreement and that
ated for their use, “. . . whenever in his opinion any many of the consents had been obtained by fraud
reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 560–561). Notwithstanding
advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes, the treaty provisions to the contrary, the Supreme
to cause said reservation, or any part thereof, to be Court held that Indian consent simply was not
surveyed, or resurveyed if necessary, and to allot the required. The Court did not consider whether Lone
lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian Wolf’s claims were true, because “[p]lenary author-
located thereon” (24 Stat. 388). ity over the tribal relations of the Indians has been
Individual Indians were to receive from the exercised from the beginning, and the power has
tribal domains individual parcels of land for their always been deemed a political one, not subject to
use as farms and ranches. These allotted parcels be controlled by the judicial department of the gov-
were to be held in trust by the United States for a ernment” (ibid., 565). It did not matter that the
period of twenty-five years, during which the Indian treaty had been violated:
owners were expected to become self-sufficient
farmers and ranchers. Upon the expiration of the The power exists to abrogate the provisions of
trust period, they would receive patents in fee. After an Indian treaty, though presumably such
receiving their patents in fee, Indians were to “have power will only be exercised when circum-
the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil stances arise which will not only justify the
and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they government in disregarding the stipulations of
may reside” (24 Stat. 390). the treaty, but may demand, in the interest of
The tribal lands remaining after eligible Indians the country and the Indians themselves, that it
had received their allotments were to be opened for should do so. When, therefore, treaties were
settlement by non-Indians. Significantly, the open- entered into between the United States and a
ing of lands for non-Indian settlement was to be Tribe of Indians it was never doubted that the
accomplished by negotiation with the tribes. The power to abrogate existed in Congress, particu-
secretary of the interior was authorized to negotiate larly if consistent with perfect good faith
with the tribes for the purchase of their reservation towards the Indians. (ibid., 566)
lands “in conformity with the treaty or statute
under which such reservation is held” and “on such Noting that it had recently held that “full
terms and conditions as shall be considered just and administrative power was possessed by Congress
equitable between the United States and said tribe over Indian tribal property,” the Court concluded:
of Indians” (24 Stat. 389). The agreements negoti-
ated by the secretary would take effect when In effect, the action of Congress now
approved by Congress. complained of was but an exercise of such
Though nominally requiring the consent of the power, a mere change in the form of invest-
tribes, the Dawes Act was the centerpiece of a policy ment of Indian tribal property, the property of
of coercive assimilation featuring concerted federal those who, as we have held, were in substan-
efforts to destroy Indian political and social organi- tial effect the wards of the government. We
zation, Indian religion and language, and every- must presume that Congress acted in perfect
thing else that made Indians different from white good faith in the dealings with the Indians of
people. Even the requirement that the allotment which complaint is made, and the legislative
agreements conform to the relevant tribal treaties branch of the government exercised its best
proved to be empty. In 1903, the Supreme Court judgment in the premises. In any event, as
heard Kiowa chief Lone Wolf’s challenge to the Congress possessed full power in the matter,

Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation 111
the judiciary cannot question or inquire into zealous pursuit of his vision, Collier would alienate
the motives which prompted the enactment of many, both Indian and non-Indian, who made a
this legislation. (ibid., 568) profession of Indian policy. This and the diversion
of federal resources to World War II would ulti-
With the Court’s decision in Lone Wolf’s case, mately defeat the reorganization policy. Still, the
the ascendancy of Congress’s unilateral power in IRA had a dramatic impact in some tribal
Indian affairs was complete. Policy would henceforth economies and set the stage for the current policy
be made by Congress through statutes. Congress of Indian self-determination by establishing feder-
might seek the consent of the tribes, or it might not. ally sanctioned tribal institutions for the gover-
Henceforth, when Congress chose to seek tribal con- nance of reservation Indians and the provision of
sent, it did so out of benevolence, not legal necessity. services in Indian communities.
The allotment experiment and the whole policy But first would come the “termination” policy.
of coercive assimilation proved disastrous for the The failure of the reorganization policy to deal effec-
tribes. Few of the allotted Indians became self- tively with poverty on most reservations, along
sufficient, and Congress had to extend the trust with Collier’s oppressive tactics in pressing the
period. Most Indians never received their fee policy, alienated key members of Congress. At the
patents. Many who did receive their fee patents sim- same time, the impressive performance of Indian
ply were not prepared for the competitive American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, as well as
economic system, and many soon lost their lands to Indian workers in war industries, suggested that all
sharp dealing by unscrupulous non-Indians, to poor that was needed for Indians to achieve self-
federal guardianship of their interests, or to simple sufficiency was to free them from the oppressive
misfortune (Prucha 1984, 763–813). Although Con- oversight of the Indian Bureau. Thus, Congress
gress optimistically made citizens of all Indians (43 would “terminate” the tribal-federal relationship
Stat. 253, 1924), the Indians’ poverty and their alien- and leave Indians free to make their way in the
ation from the larger society were not overcome. world without ongoing federal supervision of their
Their tribal systems of support for one another were affairs (Fixico 1986, 91–97).
deliberately suppressed, and they were destitute, Like its predecessors, the termination policy
ignorant, and ill. New policy was desperately was defined by congressional enactments: House
needed. Concurrent Resolution 108 (67 Stat. B132, 1953), and
The new policy arrived in the form of the Indian Public Law 83–280 (67 Stat. 588, 1953). H.C.R. 108
Reorganization Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 984, 1934), yet had no legal effect, but it set the stage for implemen-
another super-statute that defined an entire era of tation of the termination policy by declaring,
Indian policy. The IRA rejected all the assumptions
underlying the policies of the allotment era. Rather [I]t is the policy of Congress, as rapidly as
than suppressing tribal political institutions, tribal possible, to make the Indians within the territo-
governments were to be revitalized through consti- rial limits of the United States subject to the
tutions adopted by the tribes and approved by the same laws and entitled to the same privileges
secretary of the interior. Rather than promoting and responsibilities as are applicable to other
exclusively individual self-sufficiency, the IRA pro- citizens of the United States, to end their status
hibited further allotment of tribal lands and sought as wards of the United States and to grant them
to establish and capitalize tribal enterprises to all the rights and prerogatives pertaining to
develop reservation resources. Rather than trying to American citizenship. (p. B132)
destroy tribal cultures, Indians’ cultural practices
would be accepted, and their arts and crafts would H.C.R. 108 directed the secretary of the interior
be promoted. to prepare a report with legislative recommenda-
The architect of the new policy, Commissioner tions for implementing the policy. Praised as a policy
of Indian Affairs John Collier, had a vision of tribes of freeing Indians from federal supervision, termina-
as communal economic entities bound together by tion was also a withdrawal of federal programs
primordial spiritual understandings of the proper upon which the tribes had come to rely.
relationships among humans, nature, and the While waiting for the secretary to make recom-
sacred (Philp 1977, 1–3, 159–160). In his idealistic, mendations as to which tribes should be termi-

nated, Congress proceeded with another key The Indian nations had always been consid-
statute, Public Law 83–280. Consistent with the ered as distinct, independent political
theme of affording Indians the same privileges and communities, retaining their original natural
responsibilities as other citizens, Public Law 280 rights, as the undisputed possessors of the
made Indians in several states subject to the crimi- soil, from time immemorial . . . The very term
nal jurisdiction of the states in which their reserva- “nation,” so generally applied to them,
tions were located. Specifically, reservations in means “a people distinct from others.” . . .
Alaska, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Reserva- The words “treaty” and “nation” are words
tion), California, Nebraska, Wisconsin (except the of our own language, selected in our diplo-
Menominee Reservation), and Oregon (except the matic and legislative proceedings, by
Warm Springs Reservation) were subjected to the ourselves, having each a definite and well
authority of state courts. The other states were understood meaning. We have applied them
given the option of assuming civil and criminal to Indians, as we have applied them to the
jurisdiction if they chose. Tribal consent was not other nations of the earth. They are applied
required. to all in the same sense.
Termination began in earnest in 1954. That year
the Klamath, Menominee, and several other tribes As for their status as “dependent” nations, Mar-
were the subjects of termination legislation. In 1956, shall said that this dependence was not an utter sur-
legislation terminated three tribes in Oklahoma, and render of the sovereign rights of the tribes. To the
in 1958, legislation authorized the termination of contrary,
dozens of California rancherias. In general, termina-
tion meant the sale of the tribe’s land or transfer of [T]he settled doctrine of the law of nations is,
the land to a corporation owned by tribal members. that a weaker power does not surrender its
The trust status of the land was terminated, and it independence—its right to self-government, by
was subject to state taxation. Tribal members lost associating with a stronger, and taking its
their immunities to state laws and state taxes, and protection. A weak state, in order to provide for
federal programs that had long provided needed its safety, may place itself under the protection
social services to Indians were ended. In the case of of one more powerful, without stripping itself
the largest of the terminated tribes—the Klamath of the right of government, and ceasing to be a
and the Menominee—tribal members shortly fell state. . . .The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct
into poverty and tribal society into disarray (Prucha community, occupying its own territory, with
1984, 1047–1056). boundaries accurately described, in which the
The best that can be said of the termination laws of Georgia can have no force, and which
policy is that the damage was limited both in scope the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter,
and in time. Fewer than three percent of the Indian but with the assent of the Cherokees them-
population belonged to terminated tribes, and by the selves, or in conformity with treaties, and with
early 1960s, the policy was halted. Many terminated the acts of congress. (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,
tribes, including the largest ones, have since been 520)
restored to federal status as Indian tribes.
The history of congressional policy since 1832
has led the Court in a much different direction in
The Effects of Past Policy modern case law. The Court has been required to
on Modern Tribal Rights synthesize the wildly shifting policies of Congress
Modern statutes define tribal rights in ways much over two hundred years and to consider the conse-
more favorable to the tribes, as will be discussed in quences of past policies on tribal authority. This is no
detail following. The older statutes and the treaties, small challenge. How is the Court to reconcile policy
however, continue to define tribal rights, particularly themes as wildly different as treaty making and
when it comes to the jurisdiction of the tribes and coercive assimilation allotment, reorganization and
their courts. Chief Justice Marshall in 1831 famously termination?
defined tribes as “domestic, dependent nations” The truth is that they cannot be reconciled, yet
(Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 17). The following year, the Court must still decide cases, and its recent deci-
Marshall pursued this thought, saying, sions tend to dispense with the idea of tribes as inde-

pendent states. Indeed, the Court, speaking through the history of congressional Indian affairs policy on
Justice Thurgood Marshall, remarked on the evolu- modern tribal authority, the Court declared, “‘Indian
tion of the Court’s Indian law doctrine in 1973: law’ draws principally upon the treaties drawn and
executed by the Executive Branch and legislation
This is not to say that the Indian sovereignty passed by Congress. These instruments, which
doctrine, with its concomitant jurisdictional beyond their actual text form the backdrop for the
limit on the reach of state law, has remained intricate web of judicially made Indian law, cannot
static during the 141 years since Worcester be interpreted in isolation but must be read in light
was decided. Not surprisingly, the doctrine of the common notions of the day and the assump-
has undergone considerable evolution in tions of those who drafted them” (206). Looking
response to hanged circumstances. . . . back over the 150 years of policy since the Worcester
[N]otions of Indian sovereignty have been decision, the Court found that Indian tribes were
adjusted to take account of the State’s deprived, over time, of any sovereign powers
legitimate interests in regulating the affairs of “inconsistent with their dependent status,” and that
non-Indians. . . .This line of cases was the three branches of the federal government shared
summarized in this Court’s landmark an “unspoken assumption” that tribes lacked the
decision in William v. Lee: “Over the years authority to try and punish non-Indians for viola-
this Court has modified (the Worcester tions of tribal laws.
principle) in cases where essential tribal The Oliphant rule has taken on a life of its own
relations were not involved and where the and is invoked in any circumstance in which tribes
rights of Indians would not be jeopardized. assert authority over persons not members of the
. . . Essentially, absent governing Acts of tribe. In Montana v. United States (1981), the Court
Congress, the question has always been ruled that the Crow tribe could not regulate hunting
whether the state action infringed on the and fishing by a non-Indian on land that was within
right of reservation Indians to make their the Crow Reservation but owned by non-Indians.
own laws and be ruled by them.” The Court went on to say that tribes have regulatory
(McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of jurisdiction over non-Indians on fee lands only in
Arizona, 171–172, quoting Williams v. Lee exceptional circumstances. In Duro v. Reina (1990),
1959) the Court said that tribes did not have jurisdiction
to try and punish Indians who are members of other
The Court went on to remark that “[T]he trend tribes.
has been away from the idea of inherent Indian sov- A few years later, in Strate v. A-1 Contractors
ereignty as a bar to state jurisdiction and toward (1997), the Court held that tribal courts have no juris-
reliance on federal pre-emption. . . . The modern diction over personal injury actions brought by non-
cases thus tend to avoid reliance on platonic notions Indians against non-Indians where the accident caus-
of Indian sovereignty and to look instead to the ing the injury took place on a state-owned highway
applicable treaties and statutes which define the lim- right-of-way within the reservation. In its decision in
its of state power.” Thus, unlike the findings in the Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley (2001), the
Worcester case, the existence of tribal authority does Court said that the Navajo Nation could not tax the
not defeat state authority, even on the reservations. It guests of a hotel located on non-Indian-owned land
is the exertion of federal power, mostly through con- within the reservation. And most recently, in Nevada
gressional statutes, that define tribal authority: “The v. Hicks (2001), the Court denied a tribal court juris-
Indian sovereignty doctrine is relevant, then, not diction over a trespass action against a state game
because it provides a definitive resolution of the warden alleged to have tortiously damaged property
issues in this suit, but because it provides a backdrop owned by an Indian and located on Indian trust land.
against which the applicable treaties and federal In each of these cases, the Court said that it was fol-
statutes must be read.” lowing the policies established by Congress in Indian
The effect of relegating Indian sovereignty to a treaties and Indian affairs statutes.
“backdrop” may be seen in subsequent cases limit- Even as the Court has restricted tribal authority
ing tribal authority. The mold for the future of tribal over non-Indians, it has consistently upheld the
jurisdiction was made in 1978 in Oliphant v. application of tribal law to tribal members and pre-
Suquamish Indian Tribe. Commenting on the effect of vented the application of state laws to reservation

Indians without explicit congressional consent. ceedings regarding custody of Indian children. Most
Thus, in Williams v. Lee (1959), the Court struck down interestingly, Congress has even employed its ple-
state jurisdiction over an action by a non-Indian nary power to reverse a Supreme Court decision in
against an Indian where the cause of action arose on one instance. Recall that the Court in 1990 ruled that
the reservation. Only the tribal court could hear the a tribe lacked criminal jurisdiction over an Indian
action. Similarly, in Fisher v. District Court (1976), the who was a member of a different tribe (Duro v. Reina,
Court ruled that state courts could not hear an adop- 1990). In 1991, Congress responded by confirming
tion proceeding where all parties were reservation the authority of tribes to try and punish nonmember
Indians; the jurisdiction of the tribal court was exclu- Indians for violations of tribal law (105 Stat. 646).
sive. In the area of criminal jurisdiction, the Court The Supreme Court recently upheld Congress’s
held in United States v. Wheeler (1978) that tribes retain authority to do so (United States v. Lara 2004).
inherent authority to try and punish their members The scope of tribal powers, therefore, depends
for violations of tribal law, even where the United less on the inherent sovereign authority of Indian
States has also exercised jurisdiction over the crime. tribes and more on treaties and congressional
States also have been consistently denied statutes. Although the treaties remain partially in
authority to tax and regulate reservation Indians. In effect and form the foundation for understanding
Warren Trading Post v. Arizona State Tax Commission subsequent developments, statutes have come to
(1965), the Court prohibited the application of state play a dominant role in most issues of tribal jurisdic-
sales taxes to purchases by Indians on the reservation. Congress has not often employed its Indian
tion. Similarly, in McClanahan v. State Tax Commission affairs authority to explicitly define tribal jurisdic-
of Arizona (1973), the Court held that states may not tion in recent years, but when it has done so, the
tax income earned by Indians on their reservations. results have generally favored the tribes since the
States may tax non-Indians for their transactions on end of the termination era. This outcome is consis-
Indian land in some circumstances (Cotton Petroleum tent with the policies expressed in the flurry of
Corporation v. New Mexico, 1989), but they may not statutes passed since the end of termination. The
tax non-Indians where federal policies in support of pressing question in modern Indian policy is, To
tribal activities would be adversely affected by such what extent shall Congress use its plenary power to
taxation (White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 1980; restore tribal authorities?
Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New
Mexico, 1982).
Congress has rarely ventured into this jurisdic- Statutes and the Indian
tional maze in recent years, seemingly content to Self-Determination Policy
permit the Court to define the extent of tribal author- Unlike previous policy eras, no single statute can be
ity. From time to time, though, Congress steps in. said to be the centerpiece of current federal Indian
Recall that in 1953, Congress enacted Public Law policy. The sheer number of important statutes
83–280, which authorized states to assume jurisdic- passed in the last forty years prevents any single
tion over the reservations whether or not the tribes statute from dominating the discussion. Even as ter-
consented. In 1968, Congress enacted the Indian mination was losing favor, a new policy was being
Civil Rights Act (82 Stat. 77), which amended P. L. created. President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty
280 to require tribal consent to any future extensions and Great Society legislation was not addressed pri-
of state jurisdiction. The ICRA also placed important marily to the problems of Indian tribes, but Indian
conditions on exercises of tribal powers by extend- concerns nevertheless received unusual—but appro-
ing many of the requirements of the Bill of Rights to priate—levels of attention. For example, tribal needs
tribal governments. were specifically addressed in the Economic Oppor-
Congress occasionally finds it necessary to con- tunity Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 508, 1964), which made
firm tribal authority over certain matters. In the tribes eligible for funding for youth programs, com-
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 3069), Con- munity action programs, and the Volunteers in Ser-
gress confirmed the exclusive authority of tribal vice to America (VISTA) program, among others.
courts over child custody matters involving reserva- The Neighborhood Youth Corps, the Job Corps, and
tion Indian children, and gave tribes and Indian par- Operation Head Start brought new programs and
ents extraordinary rights in certain state court pro- funding to the reservations. And unlike Bureau of

Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs, independent of Federal control without being
Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) funds were cut off from Federal concern and Federal
administered directly by the tribes. Although OEO support. (Ibid., 566–567)
funds were hardly sufficient to make a dent in the
problem of Indian poverty, they had the collateral In the decade following President Nixon’s mes-
effect of increasing tribal governments’ capacity to sage, Congress enacted many statutes that funda-
administer federal programs and, in turn, increased mentally changed federal Indian policy. Congress’s
the desire of tribal governments to take over other increased level of activity was attributable in part to
federal programs for the reservations (Prucha 1984, the reestablishment of a Senate committee specializ-
1091–1100). ing in Indian affairs.
In March 1968, President Johnson proposed a The Indian Affairs Committees in both the
new Indian policy with a new goal, “a goal that ends House of Representatives and the Senate had been
the old debate about ‘termination’ of Indian pro- abolished in 1946. In 1975, Congress established a
grams and stresses Self-Determination; a goal that commission to review Indian policy. The American
erases old attitudes of paternalism and promotes Indian Policy Review Commission consisted of three
partnership self-help” (Public Papers of the Presidents senators, three U.S. representatives, and five Indian
1968–1969 1970, 335–344). The new policy was car- private citizens. The commission was charged with a
ried on and expanded in the Nixon administration. comprehensive review of all aspects of federal
Indian policy since the allotment era had suffered Indian law and policy, as well as the administration
from a belief that only two policy approaches were of Indian programs by federal agencies. In anticipa-
possible. One approach, represented by the allotment tion of receiving the commission’s report and recom-
and termination policies, held that Indians must be mendations, the Senate in 1977 established a tempo-
de-tribalized and all special federal programmatic rary select committee with legislative authority over
support withdrawn. The other, represented by the Indian affairs.
reorganization policy, held that tribal governments The Select Committee on Indian Affairs was
were the proper vehicles for Indian progress and that supposed to complete its work in only two years.
tribal governments required federal assistance and That proved unrealistic. As more and more issues
oversight that were often smothering. In 1970, Presi- came before the committee, the life of the commit-
dent Nixon attempted to take the best and reject the tee was extended, and the committee ultimately
worst of each of these policy traditions. In his Special was made permanent in 1984. The existence of a
Message on Indian Affairs on July 8 (Public Papers of Committee on Indian Affairs with broad legislative
the Presidents 1970 1971, 564–576), President Nixon and oversight authority played and continues to
repudiated both the termination policy and the pater- play a large role in the great volume of Indian
nalism that had long characterized the federal gov- affairs legislation that has been enacted since its
ernment’s relationship with the tribes. He concluded establishment.
that neither termination nor paternalism were accept- The Indian affairs statutes enacted since
able bases for modern policy: President Nixon urged a policy of Indian self-
determination have been impressive in breadth.
Self-Determination among the Indian people The last forty years have seen important legislation
can and must be encouraged without the threat on topics ranging from social services to cultural
of eventual termination. In my view, in fact, resource protection to environmental regulation to
that is the only way that Self-Determination tribal administration of federal programs and
can effectively be fostered. beyond. Indian policy has been changed funda-
This, then, must be the goal of any new mentally. Tribal governments now directly adminis-
national policy toward the Indian people to ter dozens of service programs previously adminis-
strengthen the Indian’s sense of autonomy tered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
without threatening this sense of community. Health Service. Tribal cultures that were sup-
We must assure the Indian that he can assume pressed so aggressively during the allotment era
control of his own life without being separated now enjoy federal protection. Tribes regulate reser-
involuntarily from the tribal group. And we vation environments with federal support. In large
must make it clear that Indians can become measure, tribes and their members have been

relieved of the overbearing federal presence of the more firm and certain than speculative claims rest-
past with no withdrawal of federal support, just as ing on treaties, executive orders, and statutes that
President Nixon proposed. A review of some of the created the reservations but made no specific provi-
more important statutes follows. sion 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
Restoration Acts and Land communities.
and Water Settlement Acts
The rejection of the termination has been quite thor-
ough in the last three decades. The Menominee tribe Tribal Administration
and the Klamath tribe, the largest of the terminated of Federal Programs
tribes, were restored to federal recognition in 1973 As noted previously, the Office of Economic Oppor-
(87 Stat. 770) and 1986 (100 Stat. 849), respectively. tunity provided funds directly to tribal govern-
Several other terminated tribes have been restored as ments to operate service programs on the reserva-
well (Cohen 2005, 168). tions in the 1960s. In 1975, Congress aggressively
Southern and eastern tribes that brought land expanded the concept to include virtually all pro-
claims seeking redress for wrongful takings of their grams administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
land in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were and the Indian Health Service. The Indian Self-
able both to resume their status as recognized Indian Determination Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 2006, 1975) pro-
tribes and to receive cash and property in settlement foundly changed the relationships between tribal
of their claims. Congress has enacted legislation set- governments and the two agencies most responsible
tling the claims of the Narragansett (92 Stat. 813, for the welfare of Indian tribes. Under the act, tribes
1978), Penobscot, Passamaquoddy and Maliseet (94 may request to contract with the agencies to admin-
Stat. 1785, 1980), Mashantucket Pequot (97 Stat. 851, ister programs on their reservations. The agencies
1983), Mohegan (108 Stat. 3501, 1994), and Gay Head can almost never deny a tribal request. The Self-
Wampanoag (101 Stat. 704, 1987) tribes, among oth- Determination Act was amended in 1994 by the
ers. These legislative settlements required the tribes Tribal Self-Governance Act (108 Stat. 4270), which
to give up their claims to many hundreds of thou- further expands tribal authority in administering
sands of acres; but, realistically, the tribes were quite service programs on reservations. Congress has also
unlikely to recover through the judicial process all of applied the Self-Determination Act model to pro-
the lands they claimed. In exchange for a theoretical grams administered by the Department of Housing
legal right to vast portions of the eastern United and Urban Development through the Native Ameri-
States, these tribes received statutory assurances of can Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
smaller but still valuable territories and ongoing of 1996 (110 Stat. 4016).
intergovernmental relationships with the United Congress has also made substantive reforms to
States. specific programs and created new programs for
Similarly, a number of western tribes sued to Indian communities. The Indian Health Care
redeem their rights to water for their members and Improvement Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 1400), the Indian
their lands. Since the onset of the self-determination Law Enforcement Reform Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 473),
era, Congress has enacted water rights settlements and the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (107 Stat.
for the Gila River Indian Community (118 Stat. 3499, 2004), established enforceable standards for impor-
2004), the Tohono O’odham Nation (96 Stat. 1274, tant health, public safety, and justice programs. The
1982), the Pueblo of Zuni (117 Stat. 782, 2003), the Indian Education Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 334), the
Paiute tribe of Utah (114 Stat. 737, 2000), the Yavapai- Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance
Prescott Indian tribe (108 Stat. 4526, 1994), the San Act (86 Stat. 334), the Indian Education Assistance
Carlos Apache tribe (106 Stat. 4740, 1992), the Fallon Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 2213), and the Tribally Con-
Paiute-Shoshone Indian tribes (104 Stat. 3289, 1990), trolled Community College Assistance Act of 1978
and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Commu- (92 Stat. 1325) reformed school programs serving
nity (102 Stat. 2549, 1988), among others. As with the Indian students and led to the establishment of
eastern land claims, these water settlements often dozens of tribal colleges, creating higher education
required tribes to abandon much larger, but still the- opportunities for reservation residents where none
oretical, claims to water. These statutory rights are had existed before. These programmatic reforms,

focusing as they do on the key areas of health, edu- This landmark legislation is discussed in detail
cation, and law and order, reflect the still-expanding that follows.
commitment of Congress to improving conditions
on reservations. Tribes were consulted throughout
the legislative process and helped make these impor- Environmental Regulation
tant improvements. Congress has also begun weaving tribal govern-
ments into national regulatory regimes, building
upon the inherent authority of the tribes over their
Economic Development members and their territories. Federal environmen-
Congress has also attempted to address the poverty tal regulatory laws generally require the Environ-
that has persisted since the traditional tribal mental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish and
economies were destroyed and the reservations enforce standards for various sources of pollution.
established in the nineteenth century. Much of The EPA may delegate primary enforcement author-
Indian country remains desperately poor, and no ity to the states. These federal laws generally apply
solution has yet been found for most of the largest to Indians, Indian tribes, and their reservations.
tribes. Still, progress has been made, and the tribes Before 1986, though, these statutes generally did not
themselves have been the primary engines of provide a regulatory role for Indian tribes, and
progress on this issue. According to the census states generally lack regulatory authority on Indian
bureau, from 2002 to 2004 the Indian poverty rate of lands, especially over Indians. Though the EPA had
24.3 percent was nearly twice that for all races (12.4 authority to regulate the environment on Indian
percent) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2005). The tribes reservations, the system of delegating authority to
now have ongoing programmatic support from the local governments broke down when it came to
United States. In 1974, Congress enacted the Indian Indian reservations.
Financing Act (88 Stat. 77). The act created a direct Congress therefore amended several major fed-
loan program, a revolving loan guarantee fund, and eral environmental statutes between 1986 and 1990.
an interest subsidy program to help tribes and The Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environ-
Indian business owners borrow money for their mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
enterprises. Congress has also attempted to improve (CERCLA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
management of both tribal and individually owned and the Clean Air Act were amended to permit the
lands held in trust for Indians by the United States. EPA to treat tribes in the same manner as it treats
The Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983 (96 Stat. states, under certain circumstances and for certain
2517) and the American Indian Trust Fund Manage- purposes. The national regulatory system thus now
ment Reform Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 4239) constitute involves government-to-government partnerships in
earnest efforts by Congress to help the tribes make which the federal government, states, and Indian
the most of their single largest asset: fifty-five million tribes play important roles in the establishment and
acres of land. enforcement of environmental standards within and
In like manner, Congress has tried to help the near Indian reservations.
tribes increase their returns on the mineral resources In 1986, Congress amended the Safe Drinking
of the reservations. The most significant of these Water Act to authorize the EPA to treat tribes as
efforts, the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 states under the act (100 Stat. 642). The CERCLA was
(96 Stat. 1938), abandoned the outdated and also amended in 1986 so that tribes “shall be
exploitative model of leasing to outsiders in return afforded substantially the same treatment as a state”
for insufficient royalties, authorized more modern (100 Stat. 1706). Tribes can enter into cooperative
and creative relationships between tribes and min- agreements or contracts with the federal government
eral producers, and reduced federal involvement in to carry out remedial actions for hazardous waste
tribal decisions. releases and submit claims to the superfund for
In 1988, the most important economic devel- damages to tribal natural resources.
opment legislation of all was passed: The Indian Congress amended the Clean Water Act in
Gaming Regulatory Act (102 Stat. 2467). Since the 1987. Congress authorized the EPA administrator to
act’s passage, gaming has provided many tribal “treat an Indian tribe as a State” for purposes of
communities with badly needed discretionary establishing water quality standards and issuing
income to support tribal government operations. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

permits (101 Stat. 76). The authorization for tribal tribal lands. The NAGPRA is discussed in detail that
regulation refers to waters “within the borders of follows below.
an Indian reservation.” Congress clearly antici- The statutes of the self-determination era have
pated that all areas within the reservation, includ- expanded tribal authority in numerous respects.
ing non-Indian-owned lands, would be subject to The statutes fall well short of acknowledging Indian
tribal regulation. tribes as independent sovereigns and thus are not
The Clean Air Act was amended in 1990 to like the early treaties made when there was some
authorize tribes to be treated as states for purposes equality in the federal-tribal relationship. Nor does
of the act (104 Stat. 2464). Like the amendments to Congress await formal tribal consent before creating
the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act authorizes statutory rights for Indians and tribes, as was true of
the treatment of tribes as states for purposes of the Indian treaties ratified by the Senate. However,
management and protection of air resources statutory rights do resemble treaty rights in some
“within the exterior boundaries of the reserva- respects. Nearly all the statutes discussed above,
tion.” especially those that permit tribes to assume respon-
The amendments to these federal environmen- sibility for federal programs, take effect at the
tal laws mark an important policy decision by the option of the tribes. For example, tribes may choose
Congress. Rather than leaving the tribes to endure to assume responsibility for BIA and IHS service
the application of federal or state laws on environ- programs, or they may require the agencies to con-
mental quality, Congress has created the opportunity tinue to provide the services directly.
for tribes to take that responsibility to themselves. Furthermore, the reestablishment of the Senate
Equally important, the statutes make tribes key Indian Affairs Committee and the ever-increasing
threads in a national regulatory tapestry, hardening and effective participation of tribes in American elec-
to at least some degree the place of tribes in Ameri- toral politics have created a congressional environ-
can federalism. By doing so, the statutes go beyond ment in which it is unlikely that major legislation
the treaties, which envisioned the reservations as affecting Indians would be enacted over broad
islands outside the reach of general federal laws, and tribal opposition. Indeed, most if not all of the self-
tribes as entities unable to participate directly in determination era statutes were passed at the urging
implementing national policy. of tribal governments. The plenary power of Con-
gress, so frequently engaged to the disadvantage of
the tribes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
Cultural Resource Protection centuries, has regularly been employed for the bene-
From the end of treaty making in 1871 until the reor- fit of tribes in the last forty years. As discussed
ganization policy of the 1930s, the United States shortly, Congress has even used its plenary power to
engaged in an organized assault on tribal culture. create statutory Indian rights well beyond those of
Modern statutes, though, give favorable attention to other Americans.
Indian cultural and religious practices and lan-
guages. In 1978, Congress passed the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act (92 Stat. 469), which Examples of Statutes
expressed the policy that Native American religions Expanding and Protecting
were entitled to constitutional protection. In 1989, Important Tribal Rights
Congress passed the National Museum of the Amer- The importance of statutory rights in modern Indian
ican Indian Act (103 Stat. 1336), which established a reservation life is easily demonstrated by close
museum on the Capitol Mall in Washington for the examination of three self-determination era statutes:
presentation of Indian cultures. Finally, in 1990, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Indian
Congress passed the Native American Graves Pro- Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and the Native
tection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 104 Stat. American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
3048), which required that human remains and (NAGPRA).
items of cultural significance in the possession of
federally funded museums be returned to the tribes, The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
and created tribal rights in the disposition of human The Indian Child Welfare Act (92 Stat. 3269) is a
remains and cultural items found on federal and prominent example of modern Indian affairs legisla-

tion. Tribes were concerned with the practices of dren or terminations of parental rights of Indian par-
state and private social service agencies regarding ents are required to be transferred to tribal courts,
Indian children. These agencies were placing Indian unless either parent objects or unless the state court
children into white foster families and adoptive finds “good cause” not to do so. In proceedings that
families with little or no regard for the wishes of the remain in state court, the child’s tribe has the right to
tribes or the cultural needs of the children. In intervene at any point in the proceeding. Impor-
response to these tribal concerns, Congress passed a tantly, judgments of Indian tribal courts in child wel-
statute that gave Indian tribes the primary role in fare matters must be afforded full faith and credit by
the placement of Indian children, as well as granting all federal, state, and tribal courts.
the tribes extraordinary authority to prevent state The rights of tribes and Indian parents are fur-
courts from making such determinations in certain ther expanded in provisions regarding involuntary
circumstances. custody and termination proceedings in state courts.
Section 2 of the act recites a series of congres- For example, if a state court “knows or has reason to
sional findings that served as the backdrop for the know that an Indian child is involved,” the Indian
substance of the legislation. Acknowledging the fed- parent or custodian and the Indian child’s tribe must
eral responsibility to Indian people and the special be notified of the proceedings and of their right of
place of children in ensuring the future of the tribes, intervention (92 Stat. 3071). No placement or termi-
Congress found that nation proceedings can be held until at least ten days
after the parent or custodian and the tribe are noti-
[A]n alarmingly high percentage of Indian fied. If they request additional time to prepare for
families are broken up by the removal, often the proceeding, that request must be granted. Fur-
unwarranted, of their children from them by ther, if an Indian parent or custodian is indigent, the
nontribal public and private agencies and that state court must appoint counsel.
an alarmingly high percentage of such children When seeking a foster care placement or termi-
are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive nation of parental rights regarding an Indian child,
homes and institutions; and . . . the States, the agency seeking the placement or termination
exercising their recognized jurisdiction over must demonstrate that “active efforts have been
Indian child custody proceedings through made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative
administrative and judicial bodies, have often programs designed to prevent the breakup of the
failed to recognize the essential tribal relations Indian family and that these efforts have proved
of Indian people and the cultural and social unsuccessful” (92 Stat. 3072). A foster care placement
standards prevailing in Indian communities can be ordered only if the court finds, by clear and
and families. (92 Stat. 3269) convincing evidence, “that the continued custody of
the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely
Based on these findings, Congress declared that to result in serious emotional or physical damage to
federal policy would henceforth be to “protect the the child.” A termination of parental rights requires
best interests of Indian children and to promote the an even stronger showing. Termination may not be
stability and security of Indian tribes and families” ordered unless the evidence shows beyond a reason-
(ibid). This would be done by promoting the place- able doubt “that the continued custody of the child
ment of Indian children in foster or adoptive homes by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in
that “reflect the unique values of Indian culture,” serious emotional or physical damage to the child”
and by providing assistance to Indian tribes in the (ibid.).
operation of child and family service programs. Even when an Indian parent is seeking a volun-
The ICWA went further still, providing for tary foster care placement or termination of parental
broad tribal jurisdiction over placements of Indian rights, the ICWA makes sure that the parents’ and
children and, extraordinarily, allowing tribes to pre- the tribes’ rights are protected. Such consent must
empt states in the exercise of such authority in many be in writing. The presiding judge must certify that
circumstances. Indian tribes were given exclusive the “consequences of the consent were fully
jurisdiction over custody matters involving Indian explained in detail and were fully understood by
children living on reservations. Further, state court the parent or Indian custodian,” and that the parent
cases involving foster care placements of Indian chil- or custodian either “fully understood the explana-

tion in English or that it was interpreted into a lan- approved, or specified by the Indian child’s
guage that the parent or Indian custodian under- tribe; (iii) an Indian foster home licensed or
stood” (ibid). Moreover, consents to termination approved by an authorized non-Indian
made prior to or within ten days of birth are invalid licensing authority; or (iv) an institution for
under the act. In the case of a foster care placement, children approved by an Indian tribe or
an Indian parent or custodian may withdraw con- operated by an Indian organization which has a
sent at any time, and the child must be returned. program suitable to meet the Indian child’s
Similarly, even where a parent has agreed to a ter- needs. (ibid.)
mination of parental rights or to an adoptive place-
ment of an Indian child, the consent may be with- If the child’s tribe establishes a different order
drawn at any time prior to the entry of a final decree of preference, the state court is obliged to follow
of termination or adoption. If consent is withdrawn, that order “so long as the placement is the least
the child must be returned to the Indian parent or restrictive setting appropriate to the particular
custodian. Finally, even after a final decree is needs of the child” (ibid). The preferences of the
entered, a parent may withdraw consent for up to child and the Indian parent are to be considered as
two years if he or she can show that the consent was well.
obtained through fraud or duress. If the court finds Congress also permitted tribes to undo state
such fraud or duress, “the court shall vacate such jurisdiction created by Public Law 280.
decree and return the child to the parent” (ibid.) Under the ICWA, tribes in Public Law 280 states
Furthermore, if a foster care placement or termina- may reassume jurisdiction over child custody pro-
tion of parental rights is done in violation of the ceedings that have been under the authority of state
ICWA provisions described above, the Indian parent courts. A tribe must petition the secretary of the inte-
or custodian and the Indian child’s tribe may peti- rior and present a plan for exercising such jurisdic-
tion to have the placement or termination invali- tion. The secretary then may approve the plan if,
dated. Most extraordinarily, perhaps, the child need after considering factors specified in the ICWA, he or
not actually be a member of an Indian tribe to be an she finds that the tribe’s plan is feasible.
“Indian child” under the act. A child need only be The ICWA is significant in several respects. First
“eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and . . . and foremost, the specific ousting of the states from
the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe” jurisdiction over custody proceedings involving
for the ICWA to apply (92 Stat. 3270). Indian children on the reservations is an aggressive
State court adoptive placements and foster care use of Congress’s plenary power over Indian affairs.
and preadoptive placements must also comply with Some states and private social service agencies
substantive standards in the act. Section 105 of the objected to the ICWA, but Congress did not yield,
ICWA requires that, in any adoptive placement of an choosing rather to defer to tribal opinions in this sen-
Indian child under State law, “a preference shall be sitive area. Further, the ICWA actually overrides the
given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, substantive law of the states. Any state law that is
to a placement with (1) a member of the child’s inconsistent with the ICWA is essentially replaced by
extended family; (2) other members of the Indian the relevant ICWA provisions in proceedings involv-
child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families” (92 Stat. ing an Indian child. Family law matters have tradi-
3073). tionally been the exclusive domain of the states, and
Furthermore, any child accepted for foster care for Congress to intervene so directly to supersede
or preadoptive placement must be placed in “the state law in such matters was unprecedented. The
least restrictive setting which most approximates a plenary power that was used to harm tribal interests
family” and in which any special needs of the child a century ago has become a formidable force in the
may be met (ibid.). The child must be placed within defense of tribal interests now.
reasonable proximity to his or her home. Finally, in Finally, the ICWA seeks to empower tribal gov-
any foster care or preadoptive placement, ernments to assume responsibility for the critical
functions of the child welfare system. In addition to
a preference shall be given, in the absence of the tribal rights listed above, the act authorized the
good cause to the contrary, to a placement establishment of programs at the Department of the
with—(i) a member of the Indian child’s Interior to assist tribes in exercising their authorities
extended family; (ii) a foster home licensed, under the act. The Department of the Interior was

authorized to make grants to tribes to help them to ing on Indian lands [and] the establishment of Fed-
establish licensing systems for foster homes; to oper- eral standards for gaming on Indian lands . . . are
ate and maintain facilities for counseling and treat- necessary to meet congressional concerns regarding
ing Indian families; to employ child welfare profes- gaming and to protect such gaming as a means of
sionals in tribal courts; to provide education relating generating tribal revenue” (ibid.). To carry out the
to child and family assistance; and to provide legal federal regulatory role, the act establishes the
representation for Indian families involved in child National Indian Gaming Commission, a three-
custody proceedings. Even off-reservation Indian member regulatory commission whose chairman is
organizations are eligible for federal funding for pro- appointed by the president and approved by the
grams designed to help assure the appropriate place- Senate.
ment of Indian children under the ICWA. In these The IGRA establishes a three-tier system for the
respects and more, the ICWA marked a major turn- regulation of Indian gaming. Class I gaming, which
ing point in the willingness of Congress to use its includes social games and traditional tribal gam-
Indian affairs power in ways that favor tribes, even bling activities, is regulated exclusively by the tribes
over the objections of states and private interests. For without federal or state involvement. Class II gam-
these reasons, it is noteworthy legislation that ing, including bingo and similar games (and elec-
demonstrates the extent to which tribal rights and tronic versions of such games) and card games that
powers are increasingly the result of federal statutes. 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
The Indian Gaming wagering such as at horse and dog tracks, requires
Regulatory Act of 1988 the approval of the state in which a tribe’s gaming
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (102 Stat. activity is located and is subject to a complex of fed-
2467) is the most important Indian affairs legislation eral, state, and tribal regulatory laws.
in recent times. Unlike other self-determination era The act permits tribes to engage in Class II
statutes, the IGRA was passed largely in response to gaming if the gaming is located in a state “that per-
concerns raised by state governments rather than the mits such gaming for any purpose by any person,
tribes. In Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. Cali- organization or entity (and such gaming is not oth-
fornia (1987), the Supreme Court held that Indian erwise specifically prohibited on Indian lands by
tribes could conduct commercial gambling on their Federal law)” (102 Stat. 2472). The tribe must adopt
reservations so long as similar activities were an ordinance regulating gaming, and the National
allowed off the reservations by state law. Because Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) must approve
states permitted many types of gambling—from the ordinance. The tribal ordinance is required to
state lotteries to horse racing to charitable bingo to provide, with only rare exceptions no longer rele-
commercial casinos—the Cabazon decision opened vant, that the tribe will be the sole owner of the
the door to many forms of commercial Indian gam- gaming enterprise. Further, the tribal ordinance
ing. Both Congress and the states were concerned must limit the uses of tribal gaming revenues to five
that tribal gaming would be vulnerable to criminal specific purposes: “(i) to fund tribal government
activity. The tribes, on the other hand, were anxious operations or programs; (ii) to provide for the gen-
to defend their right to conduct gaming with a mini- eral welfare of the Indian tribe and its members; (iii)
mum of federal and state interference. to promote tribal economic development; (iv) to
In October 1988, Congress enacted the IGRA. donate to charitable organizations; or (v) to help
The act bore the marks of compromise; fine distinc- fund operations of local government agencies” (102
tions were drawn between different types of gam- Stat. 2473). Tribes may pay out gaming revenues to
bling, and regulatory authority over Indian gaming tribe members on an individual basis if the tribe
was divided among the states, the tribes, and the prepares a plan for allocating revenues to the pur-
federal government. The purposes of the act poses described above and the secretary has
included providing a federal statutory basis for the approved the tribal plan.
conduct of Indian gaming, empowering the tribes to The tribal ordinance must require annual out-
regulate gaming to prevent infiltration by organized side audits of the gaming enterprise and must
crime, and declaring “that the establishment of ensure that “the construction and maintenance of the
independent Federal regulatory authority for gam- gaming facility, and the operation of that gaming is

conducted in a manner which adequately protects nance that meets all the requirements of a Class II
the environment and the public health and safety” gaming ordinance as described above, and the ordi-
(ibid). The tribe must also establish a system for nance must be approved by the commission. The
licensing gaming employees and conducting back- great difference in the regulation of Class II and
ground investigations of “primary management offi- Class III gaming is that Class III gaming may be con-
cials” and “key employees” of the gaming enter- ducted only in conformance with an agreement
prise. The tribe must notify the NIGC of the results entered into by the tribe and the state in which the
of background investigations before issuing gaming gaming activity is to take place.
licenses and again when it issues a license. If the This concession to state authority was a contro-
NIGC provides to a tribe reliable information estab- versial provision of the act when it was passed and
lishing that a manager or other key employee is not remains controversial. Tribes sought to prevent state
eligible for a license, the tribe must suspend the regulation completely, whereas states wanted to reg-
employee’s license and, after a hearing, may revoke ulate all gaming on the reservations, including Class
the license. These requirements are to ensure that II gaming. Congress did not seem inclined to estab-
licenses are not granted to persons “whose prior lish a federal regulatory agency to oversee all of the
activities, criminal record, if any, or reputation, details of Class III gaming activities, and so the mat-
habits, and associations pose a threat to the public ter was left to agreements—“compacts”—entered
interest or to the effective regulation of gaming, or into by tribes and states.
create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, The development of a tribal-state gaming com-
or illegal practices and methods and activities in the pact begins with a tribe’s request to a state to com-
conduct of gaming” (ibid). mence negotiations. If the negotiations proceed well
Contracts for the management of tribal gaming and produce an agreement, all that remains is for the
enterprises must be approved by the commission. secretary of the interior to approve the compact. The
Prior to approving such a contract, the chairman of act authorizes tribes and states to include provision
the commission must verify that the contract con- relating to
tains certain terms ensuring that the tribe can ade-
quately regulate the gaming enterprise and that the (i) the application of the criminal and civil laws
tribe’s financial interests are protected. The contract and regulations of the Indian tribe or the State
must provide for a minimum guaranteed payment that are directly related to and necessary for, the
to the tribe. The term of the contract cannot exceed licensing and regulation of such activity; (ii) the
five years, unless the chairman of the commission allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction
finds that the capital investment required for the between the State and the Indian tribe necessary
enterprise and the expected profit justify a longer for the enforcement of such laws and regula-
term of up to seven years. If the manager is to be tions; (iii) the assessment by the State of such
compensated with a percentage of the revenues from activities in such amounts as are necessary to
the enterprise, the manager may receive only such a defray the costs of regulating such activity: . . .
percentage of the net revenues as the chairman of the (vi) standards for the operation of such activity
NIGC determines to be “reasonable in light of sur- and maintenance of the gaming facility,
rounding circumstances” (102 Stat. 2480). The man- including licensing; and (vii) any other subjects
agement fee may not exceed 30 percent of net rev- that are directly related to the operation of
enues, unless the chairman finds that the capital gaming activities. (102 Stat. 2476)
investment and income projections for the enterprise
justify an additional fee of up to 40 percent of net The authorization to states and tribes to com-
revenues. pact for the application of state laws and state juris-
The regulatory process for Class II gaming diction is extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented
under the IGRA thus is comprehensive. The process in federal Indian affairs statutes.
for tribes wishing to engage in Class III gaming is If the parties agree to a compact, there is little
more complicated still. First, the gaming enterprise reason to object to the process. If the negotiations do
must be located in a state “that permits such gaming not go well, however, the process becomes complex
for any purpose by any person, organization, or and controversial. At the request of tribes, Congress
entity” (102 Stat. 2475). The tribe must adopt an ordi- added a requirement to the IGRA that a state, once

asked to start negotiations, must negotiate “in good tribes to operate casinos on an exclusive basis in the
faith.” Should a state fail to do so, the tribe had the state. Furthermore, the Department of the Interior
option, 180 days after the request for negotiations, to has issued regulations that establish a process by
sue the state in federal district court. If the court which a tribe can petition the secretary to issue Class
found that the state failed in its obligation to negoti- III gaming procedures for the tribe if the state refuses
ate in good faith, the court could initiate a process in to negotiate in good faith and asserts its sovereign
which the state and tribe were given 60 days to com- immunity to prevent the federal courts from inter-
plete a compact. If they failed to agree in that time, vening.
they were required to submit their “last best offer” to A major consequence of the IGRA—and the
a mediator appointed by the court. The mediator most ironic one—is that, because they were required
then selected the compact “that best comports with to get the states’ permission to conduct Class III
the terms of” the IGRA and submitted the compact gaming, the tribes have had to develop great influ-
to the parties (102 Stat. 2478). If the state consented ence in state political systems. Those processes have
to the compact selected by the mediator within 60 been swayed by the financial resources the tribes
days, the compact was submitted to the secretary for can now devote to their political efforts. The tribes
approval. If the state did not consent, the secretary objected strongly to the requirement of state
was authorized to consult with the tribe and to issue approval for Class III gaming, yet that requirement
“procedures” under which the tribe would be per- has led them to unprecedented influence in state
mitted to conduct Class III gaming. politics.
In the years shortly following enactment of the Violations of the act can result in criminal penal-
IGRA, this process produced some extraordinary ties. Any gambling on reservations not in compli-
results. Wisconsin and Connecticut, for example, ance with the act is a federal crime. Theft from an
faced with the possibility of a court-ordered media- Indian gaming establishment is criminal as well;
tor, and the possibility that the secretary and the theft of more than $1,000 can be punished with a fine
tribes would determine how Class III gaming could of up to $250,000 and a jail term of up to ten years.
be conducted on the reservations, entered into com- Theft by employees and holders of gaming licenses
pacts that have left tribes with the exclusive right to can be punished with a fine as large as $1,000,000
own and operate casinos in those states. and a jail term of twenty years.
As other states faced the same challenge, how- The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is water-
ever, resistance to the IGRA compacting process shed legislation in many respects. Despite its obvi-
increased, and the states were ultimately successful ous importance when it was being considered, few
in upsetting the process entirely. In Seminole Tribe of could have anticipated the truly phenomenal effects
Florida v. Florida (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that it would have in many Indian communities.
the IGRA provision permitting suits in federal courts Between 1995 and 2004, revenues from Indian gam-
against the states was a violation of the states’ sover- ing grew from $5.4 billion to $22.6 billion. Approxi-
eign immunity. mately 225 tribes in twenty-eight states are engaged
Although this appeared to give the states the in gaming. Some 250 Class III tribal-state gaming
upper hand in dealing with the tribes on gaming compacts have been approved. Gaming is by far the
issues, the decision in the Seminole case has not largest source of revenue for many Indian tribes.
slowed the explosive growth in Indian gaming. This bounty, however, is not evenly distributed
Instead, tribes have managed to use state political across Indian country. Two hundred tribes in Alaska,
processes and institutions to gain the compacts for example, are unable to engage in Indian gaming.
required by the IGRA, even where state officials are Tribes in Utah are also unable to conduct gaming
reluctant to enter into compacts. In California, for because all gaming is prohibited in Utah. Further,
example, tribes persuaded voters to enact changes to most of the largest reservations—such as those in
the California constitution that left the tribes with North and South Dakota and Montana—do not gen-
the exclusive right to operate slot machines in the erate large amounts of revenue due to their rural
state. In New Mexico, the tribes gained sufficient locations and the endemic poverty on those reserva-
influence in the state’s electoral and political tions. Thus, although gaming has been a successful
processes to persuade the legislature to enact and the economic development strategy, most of the largest
governor to approve a new state law that permits tribal populations do not receive much benefit.

Still, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has Indian control over cultural items obtained from
widely succeeded in its objective to assist tribes in such lands after the effective date of the statute.
their efforts at economic development and self- With respect to Native American cultural items in
sufficiency. The IGRA is different from most Indian the possession of federal agencies and museums,
affairs legislation in an important sense. The IGRA the NAGPRA imposes specific duties on the muse-
seemed to invite state authority onto the reserva- ums and agencies, most notably the duty to prepare
tions in a major way, over the objections of many inventories of Native American human remains
tribes. Indeed, it seemed to some that the tribal vic- and associated funerary objects and summaries of
tory in the Cabazon case was undone in large part in the other categories of cultural items, and the
the IGRA. In truth, however, the Court’s Cabazon duty to repatriate all of these items to culturally
decision was thin soil in which to grow the major affiliated tribes or descendants upon request.
industry that Indian gaming has become. It was only The first key provision of the NAGPRA relates
with Congress’s ratification of the tribes’ right to to cultural items found on federal or tribal lands. If
offer commercial gaming that the industry had a human remains and associated funerary objects
firm and comprehensive legal basis. Through inge- were or are discovered on federal or tribal lands
nuity and persistence, the tribes overcame the hur- after November 1990, they belong to the lineal
dles created in the IGRA and have become important descendants of the deceased. (An associated funerary
players in a major American industry. object is an object from a grave, and both the object
and the human remains “are presently in the posses-
sion or control of a Federal agency or museum.” The
The Native American Graves term also includes items exclusively made for burial
Protection and Repatriation Act purposes or to contain human remains (104 Stat.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatri- 3048). If the lineal descendants cannot be determined
ation Act (104 Stat. 3048) is another example of the (or if the objects are unassociated funerary objects,
creation and protection of extraordinary rights for sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony), and
Indians. Like the IGRA, the NAGPRA was enacted they are discovered on tribal land, they belong to the
over the objection of powerful interests unaccus- tribe on whose land they were discovered or to the
tomed to being disadvantaged for the benefit of tribe with the closest cultural affiliation with the
Indians. In the case of NAGPRA, museums, univer- object. (An unassociated funerary object is an object
sities, and other elements of the scientific communi- from a grave, and the remains are not in the posses-
ties were deeply concerned that congressional limits sion or control of the federal agency or museum, but
on their access to Indian graves, antiquities, and the objects can be identified as related to specific
cultural objects would inhibit the search for knowl- individuals or families or to known human remains
edge of the origins and experience of humans in or as having been removed from a specific burial site
North America. Despite these concerns, Congress of an individual culturally affiliated with a particular
enacted a statute intended to empower Indians Indian tribe.)
and Indian tribes seeking to protect the graves of If objects are discovered on federal lands, they
their ancestors and culturally significant property belong to the tribe whose aboriginal territory (as
from becoming—or remaining—possessions of non- determined by a judgment of the Indian claims com-
Indian institutions. mission or the court of claims) included the land
The NAGPRA is meant to ensure that “cultural where the objects were discovered, unless another
items” of Native Americans are protected. Cultural tribe demonstrates a stronger cultural relationship to
items include human remains, “funerary objects” the objects, in which case they belong to the tribe
(objects placed in a human grave), “sacred objects” with the stronger cultural relationship. This estab-
(objects needed by religious leaders for traditional lishment of Indian ownership of such items on fed-
religious practices), and “cultural patrimony” eral lands is extraordinary in U.S. law. Generally, the
(objects with historical, traditional, or cultural owner of land also owns property found on or in the
importance to a Native American group or culture, land. The NAGPRA, however, permits Indians and
as opposed to property owned by an individual Indian tribes to assert ownership of cultural items
Native American) (104 Stat. 3048–49). The NAG- found on federal lands.
PRA increases the protections for Indian graves The statute also protects Indian ownership
located on federal and tribal lands and provides for interests of cultural items found on federal or tribal

lands by allowing their excavation or removal only cal locations, means, and period of acquisition and
with a permit issued under the Archaeological cultural affiliation of the objects, where readily
Resources Protection Act, and only after consultation ascertainable.
with the appropriate tribe. If the cultural items are The purpose of these inventories and sum-
on tribal land, the tribe must grant consent. The tribe maries is to provide information to Indians and
or individual still owns the objects in accordance Indian tribes and permit them to determine whether
with the provisions just discussed. they wish to have the remains and objects returned
If cultural items are inadvertently discovered, to them. The NAGPRA establishes standards and
the discoverer must notify the head of the federal procedures for the repatriation of such remains and
agency responsible for the land, as well as the appro- objects to the individual Indian or tribe to whom
priate Indian tribe, of the discovery. Furthermore, if they rightfully belong. In the case of human remains
the discovery occurred in the course of an activity and associated funerary objects the cultural affilia-
such as construction, mining, logging, or agriculture, tion of which has been established, federal agencies
the activity must cease in the area of the discovery. and museums are required, upon the request of a
The discoverer must make a reasonable effort to pro- known descendant of the Native American or of the
tect the items discovered before resuming the activ- tribe, “to expeditiously return such remains and
ity and must provide notice to the appropriate fed- associated funerary objects” (104 Stat. 3045). Simi-
eral agency and Indian tribe. The activities may larly, with respect to unassociated funerary objects,
resume only after the head of the relevant federal sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, if the
agency or the appropriate Indian tribe has certified cultural affiliation is shown, the museum or agency
that notice has been received. Moreover, cultural must return the objects to the appropriate tribe.
items inadvertently discovered belong either to indi- Even where the cultural affiliations of remains
vidual Indians or to the appropriate Indian tribe, as and objects have not been established or the items
described previously. not included, in the inventories or summaries
The NAGPRA also is concerned with cultural required by the statute, tribes may still have a right
items in the possession of federal agencies and to repatriation. In cases involving human remains
museums. The act was passed largely in response to and funerary objects, a tribe may request repatria-
the fact that thousands of Native American remains tion if it can show cultural affiliation “by a prepon-
were in museum collections, many of them as the derance of the evidence based upon geographical,
result of a systematic effort to collect such remains in kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological,
the nineteenth century. The NAGPRA requires fed- linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, historical, or
eral agencies and museums that receive federal other relevant information or expert opinion” (ibid.)
funding (which is nearly every major museum in the Upon such a showing, the museum or federal
country) and have among their collections Native agency must return the item. Furthermore, sacred
American human remains and associated funerary objects and objects of cultural patrimony must be
objects to compile an inventory of such items. They returned where
are further required, to the extent possible based on
information in their possession, to identify the geo- (A) the requesting party is the direct lineal
graphical and cultural affiliation of the items. After descendant of an individual who owned the
compiling the inventory, if the agency or museum sacred object; (B) the requesting Indian tribe . . .
determines the cultural affiliation of any particular can show that the object was owned or
Native American human remains or associated controlled by the tribe . . . ; or (C) the requesting
funerary objects, the agency or museum must notify Indian tribe . . . can show that the sacred object
the affected tribes within six months of completing was owned or controlled by a member thereof,
the inventory. provided that in the case where a sacred object
Similarly, federal agencies and museums was owned by a member thereof, there are no
receiving federal funding must provide a written identifiable lineal descendants . . . or the lineal
summary of any unassociated funerary objects, descendants, upon notice, have failed to make a
sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony claim for the object. (104 Stat. 3054–55)
that they have in their collections. The summary
must describe the scope of the collection, the kinds Several issues can arise when a museum or
of objects included, and references to the geographi- agency is requested to repatriate items, and Congress

anticipated many of these circumstances. For exam- with known lineal descendants and Indian tribes, in
ple, repatriation can be delayed in the case of items order to assist them in making their claim for repatri-
that are “indispensable for completion of a specific ation. The statute even puts aside any state laws that
scientific study, the outcome of which would be of might prevent a museum from repatriating cultural
major benefit to the United States” (104 Stat. 3055). items by immunizing museums from claims of
The return of such items may be delayed until ninety “breach of fiduciary duty, public trust, or violations
days after the date on which the scientific study is of state law that are inconsistent with the provisions
completed. of this chapter” (104 Stat. 3055).
It is also possible that a museum or agency Finally, the statute imposes penalties. For exam-
believes that it came into possession of an item legiti- ple, a museum that fails to comply with the statute
mately. In the case of requests for repatriation of may be assessed a civil penalty by the secretary of
unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or the interior. Persons who knowingly purchase, sell,
objects of cultural patrimony, the NAGPRA sets out or transport Native American human remains can be
the method for establishing the validity of the fined or even jailed for up to a year; a subsequent
parties’ claim to the item. The party requesting repa- violation increases the possible jail time to five years.
triation must present evidence supporting the Similar punishments can be imposed for selling,
request, and if the evidence, standing alone, would purchasing, or transporting cultural items obtained
support a finding that the agency or museum did in violation of the act.
not have the right of possession, then the agency or The NAGPRA is a remarkable piece of legisla-
museum must return the objects “unless it can over- tion in several respects. First, it created (or perhaps
come such inference and prove that it has a right of restored) Indian property interests in items that had
possession to the objects” (ibid.). An agency or long since passed out of Indian possession. A few
museum has a right of possession when an item was decades ago, there was little reason to believe that
obtained with the voluntary consent of an individual Congress might act with sensitivity to ancient claims
or group that had authority to give the item. Muse- to cultural items, but the modern era of Indian policy
ums and agencies have a right of possession to made such a thing possible. The fact that Congress
human remains and associated funerary objects that overrode the resistance of powerful and influential
were obtained “with full knowledge and consent of scientific institutions such as universities and muse-
the next of kin or the official governing body of the ums, creating affirmative obligations for these insti-
appropriate culturally affiliated Indian tribe” (104 tutions to return precious objects from their collec-
Stat. 3050). tions to the tribes, is no small matter, either. Above
More than one party might request remains or all, Congress’s rejection of the tendency of science to
objects. In such a case, if the agency or museum can- treat human remains as mere objects of study, and
not clearly determine which requestor should Congress’s alignment of itself and the law with the
receive the item, the agency or museum may retain idea of affording these Indian ancestors the dignity
the item until either the requesting parties agree that many tribal traditions demand, suggest that the
upon its disposition or the dispute is resolved by a prevailing approach to law and policy in Indian
court. The NAGPRA also established a review com- affairs has changed dramatically from the bad old
mittee composed of representatives from tribal com- days of allotment and termination.
munities and from museums and scientific groups to
monitor the implementation of the statute and
advise the secretary. One of the committee’s duties is Conclusion
to “facilitate resolution of disputes” among Indian Statutes have defined U.S. policy toward the tribes
tribes, lineal descendants, museums, and agencies from the beginning. The treaties were extensions of
(104 Stat. 3056). This is a voluntary process and, the statutes in that they represented the application
although the committee’s recommendations are not of prevailing policy to particular tribes and particu-
legally binding, they can be introduced as evidence lar situations. Since the end of treaty making in 1871,
in later litigation. though, statutes have come to dominate the defini-
The NAGPRA imposes an affirmative duty on tion of tribal rights and the rights of individual Indi-
agencies and museums to share whatever informa- ans as members of tribes. The Supreme Court has
tion they possess regarding an object in question said that Congress has plenary power over tribes

and Indian property. The federal courts do not con- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490
sider the wisdom or good faith of congressional U.S. Reports 30 (1989).
enactments, so tribal rights exist at the sufferance of Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425
Congress. U.S. Reports 463 (1976).
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. Reports 544
Federal policies have swung wildly over the
(1981).
years from policies designed to assimilate Indians by Nevada et al. v. Floyd Hicks et al., 533 U.S. Reports 353
coercion and dismantle tribal institutions to policies (2001).
intended to empower tribal governments. The con- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. Reports
sequence of inconsistent policies is a body of statu- 191 (1978).
tory law and factual circumstances that has led the Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of
Supreme Court to limit the authority of tribal gov- New Mexico, 458 U.S. Reports 832 (1982).
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. Reports
ernments, particularly over nonmembers. While the
44 (1996).
Court has simultaneously prevented the application Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. Reports 438 (1997).
of state laws to Indians on their reservations, the United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. Reports 734 (1986).
result is a patchwork of jurisdictional authorities, United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. Reports 375 (1886).
with tribes, states, and the United States all having United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. Reports 193 (2004).
extensive authority, depending on the particular cir- United States v. Anthony Robert Wheeler, 435 U.S.
cumstances. Reports 313 (1978).
The current policy of self-determination for Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Sate Tax Commission,
380 U.S. Reports 685 (1965).
tribal governments is also driven by statutes. The
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S.
statutes of the self-determination era differ from Reports 136 (1980).
their predecessors in important respects. Most Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. Reports 217 (1959).
notably, the existence of a Senate Committee on Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. Reports 515 (1832).
Indian Affairs that is responsive to tribal interests Statutes
and the growing tribal activism in federal and state American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.
electoral politics has given the tribes a strong voice Public Law 95-341 August 11, 1978–92 Stat.
in the federal legislative process. The result is that 469. 95th Congress. Joint Resolution [S.J. Res.
102]. 42 USC 1996
modern statutes quite often are passed at the urging
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Public Law
of tribes, and few if any major statutes are passed in 95–608, 92 U.S. Statutes at Large 3269,
the face of strong tribal opposition. November 8, 1978.
Thus, the extraordinary authority of the Con- Indian Civil Rights Act of 1986, Public Law 90–284,
gress over Indian tribes—the plenary power—right 82 U.S. Statutes at Large 77, April 11, 1968.
now is being used in ways that favor tribes and in Indian Education Act, Public Law 92–318, 86 U.S.
ways that the tribes favor. None can say for how Statutes at Large 334, June 23, 1972.
long this will be true. It does appear, however, that Indian Education Assistance Act, Public Law
93–638, 88 U.S. Statutes at Large 2213, January
tribal statutory rights will continue to exist, and
4, 1975.
quite possibly to expand, for the indefinite future. Indian Elementary and Secondary School
Kevin Gover Assistance Act, Public Law 92–318, 86 U.S.
Statutes at Large 334, June 23, 1972.
References and Further Reading Indian Financing Act of 1974, Public Law 93–262,
Court Cases 88 U.S. Statutes at Large 77, April 12, 1974.
Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Public Law
Reports 645 (2001). 100–497, 102 U.S. Statutes at Large 2467,
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. California, 480 October 17, 1988.
U.S. Reports 202 (1987). Indian General Allotment Act (Dawes Act),
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. Reports 1 (1831). Chapter 119, 24 U.S. Statutes at Large 388,
Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. February 8, 1887.
Reports 163 (1989). Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law
Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. Reports 676 (1990). 94–437, 90 U.S. Statutes at Large 1400,
Fisher v. District Court, 425 U.S. Reports 696 (1976). September 30, 1976.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. Reports 553 (1903). Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, Public Law
McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona, 411 97–459, 96 U.S. Statutes at Large 2517, January
U.S. Reports 164 (1973). 12, 1983.

Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, Public Law Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run: The
101–379, 104 U.S. Statutes at Large 473, August Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes, Repr.,
18, 1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973.
Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Public Law Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins: An
97–382, 96 U.S. Statutes at Large 1938, December Indian Manifesto. Repr., Norman: University of
22, 1982. Oklahoma Press, 1988.
Indian Reorganization Act, Chapter 576, 48 U.S. Eadington, William S., and Judy Cornelius, eds.
Statutes at Large 984, June 18, 1934. 1998. Indian Gaming and the Law. Reno:
Indian Self-Determination Act, Public Law 93–638, 88 University of Nevada, Reno Bureau of
U.S. Statutes at Large 2206, January 4, 1975. Business.
Indian Tribal Justice Act, Public Law 103–176, 107 Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation:
U.S. Statutes at Large 2004, December 3, 1993. Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque:
Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, University of New Mexico Press.
Public Law 103–412, 108 U.S. Statutes at Large Frickey, Philip P. 1996. “Domestic Federal Indian
4239, October 25, 1994. Law,” 81 Minnesota Law Review 31.
National Museum of American Indian Act, Public Goldberg, Carole E. 1975. “Public Law 280: The
Law 101–185, 103 U.S. Statutes at Large 1336–47, Limits of State Jurisdiction over Reservation
November 28, 1989. Indians,” 22 University of California-Los Angeles
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Law Review 535.
Act, Public Law 101–601, 104 U.S. Statutes at Kersey, Harry A., Jr. 1996. An Assumption of
Large 3048, November 16, 1990. Sovereignty: Social and Political Transformation
Native American Housing Assistance and Self- among the Florida Seminoles 1953–1979. Lincoln:
Determination Act of 1996, Public Law 104–330, University of Nebraska Press.
110 U.S. Statutes at Large 4016, October 26, 1996. Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathryn R. L. Rand. 2005.
Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project Act, Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino
Public Law 102–184, 67 U.S. Statutes at Large 589, Compromise. Lawrence: University Press of
August 15, 1953. Kansas.
Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, Public Law Mason, W. Dale. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal
103–413, 108 U.S. Statutes at Large 4250, October Sovereignty and American Politics. Norman:
25, 1994. University of Oklahoma Press.
Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Murphy, Mary Lynn. 2001. “Assessing NAGPRA:
Act of 1978, Public Law 95–471, 92 U.S. Statutes An Analysis of Its Success from a Historical
at Large 1325, October 17, 1978. Perspective,” 25 Seton Hall Legislative Journal
Books and Articles 499.
Banner, Stuart. 2005. How the Indians Lost Their Land: Newton, Nell Jessup. 1984. “Federal Power over
Law and Power on the Frontier. Cambridge, MA: Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations,”
Harvard University Press. 132 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 195.
Bernstein, Alison R. 1991. American Indians and World Philp, Kenneth R. 1977. John Collier’s Crusade for
War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Indian Reform 1920–1954. Tucson: University of
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Arizona Press.
Canby, William C. 2004. American Indian Law in a Pommersheim, Frank. 1989. “The Crucible of
Nutshell, 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Sovereignty: Analyzing Issues of Tribal
Clinton, Robert N. 1976. “Criminal Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction,” 31 Arizona Law Review 329.
Indian Lands: A Journey through a Prucha, Francis Paul. 1962. American Indian Policy in
Jurisdictional Maze,” 18 Arizona Law Review 503. the Formative Years: The Trade and Intercourse Acts
Cohen, Felix S. 1941. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1790–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. University Press.
Cohen, Felix S. 2005. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The
Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. United States Government and the American
Culin, Stewart. 1975. Games of the North American Indians. Unabridged ed. Lincoln: University of
Indians. New York: Dover. Nebraska Press, 1995.
Daily, David W. 2004. Battle for the BIA: G.E.E. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:
Lindquist and the Missionary Crusade against John Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968–1969. 1970.
Collier. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Debo, Angie. 1984. A History of the Indians of the Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:
United States, Repr., Norman: University of Richard Nixon, 1970. 1971. Washington, DC:
Oklahoma Press. Government Printing Office.

Riley, Angela R. 2002. “Indian Remains, Human Tsosie, Rebecca. 1997. “Negotiating Economic
Rights: Reconsidering Entitlement under the Survival: The Consent Principle and Tribal-
Native American Graves Protection and State Gaming Compacts under the Indian
Repatriation Act,” 34 Columbia Human Rights Gaming Regulatory Act,” 29 Arizona State Law
Law Review 49. Journal 25.
Riley, Thomas. 1988. “Federal Conservation Statutes Tweedy, Ann. 2005. “Using Plenary Power as a
and the Abrogation of Indian Hunting and Sword: Tribal Civil Regulatory Jurisdiction
Fishing Rights: United States v. Dion,” 58 under the Clean Water Act after United States v.
University of Colorado Law Review 699. Lara,” 35 Environmental Law 471.
Schlosser, Thomas P. 2001. “Tribal Civil Jurisdiction U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2005. “Insurance, Poverty,
over Nonmembers,” 37 Tulsa Law Review 573. and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
Suagee, Dean. 1998. “Tribal Self-Determination and States: 2004,” Current Population Reports, 60–229.
Environmental Federalism: Cultural Values as a Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Force for Sustainability,” 3 Widener Law Washburn, Kevin. 2001. “Recurring Problems in
Symposium Journal 229. Indian Gaming,” 1 Wyoming Law Review 427.
Taylor, Scott A. 1997. “An Introduction and Overview Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1986. The Assault on Indian
of Taxation and Indian Gaming,” 29 Arizona Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act
State Law Journal 251. of 1887). Repr., New York: Krieger.
Tellinghuisen, Roger A. 1989. “The Indian Child Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1995. Red Man’s Land/White
Welfare Act of 1978: A Practical Guide with Man’s Law: The Past and Present Status of the
[Limited] Commentary,” 34 South Dakota Law American Indian, 2nd ed. Norman: University of
Review 660. Oklahoma Press.
Thomas, David Hurst. 2001. Skull Wars: Kennewick, Wilkins, David E. 2006. American Indian Politics and
Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American the American Political System, 2nd ed. Boston:
Identity. New York: Basic Books. Rowman and Littlefield.

Treaty
Responsibility
and Reserved
Rights

Property: Land and Natural Resources
T
reaties were the major mechanism for the Indians pushed onto Indian lands, established settle-
T
massive transfer of land from American Indi- ments and farms, and prospected for gold and other
ans to European Americans that has occurred valuable natural resources.
in North America over the last three centuries. Even Between 1850 and 1870, much of the rest of the
when the United States ceased making formal continental United States passed out of Indian
treaties in 1871, treaty substitutes continued to be hands. Unlike removal, treaties with tribes west of
used to formalize the dispossession of Indian land the Mississippi set aside small pockets of their tradi-
into the twentieth century. Land and the natural and tional lands as reservations. These treaties generally
biological resources associated with it were the included limited payments of goods and services for
Indian assets of the greatest commercial value to the land ceded by the tribes. In the 1870s, the federal
non-Indians; consequently, they have been the government began the process of allotting small
greatest source of conflict. Loss of land increasingly parcels of land to individual Indian heads of house-
made traditional land-based economies impossible, holds, ostensibly to assimilate Indian people into the
undermining tribal social and political structures dominant society through small-scale farming. After
that were consistent with these traditional ways of the small allotments were assigned, the remaining
life and jeopardizing traditional religious practices tribal land was deemed surplus and sold. Over time,
that were deeply tied to tribal homelands. many Indian families were forced to sell their allot-
The first property negotiations between Euro- ments to pay debts and property taxes. More than
peans and Indians on the eastern coast of North two-thirds of the remaining tribal lands were lost to
America were conducted by individual settlers to Indian ownership by the time the allotment process
obtain small parcels of Indian land, generally in was formally ended in 1934 by the Indian Reorgani-
return for trade goods. However, European govern- zation Act.
ments, through their colonial administrations, Although negotiated by the United States from
quickly took control of the land acquisition process an increasing position of power, treaties embodied
by claiming sovereign rights as sole purchasers of the core legal concept that tribes retained inherent
Indian land. A major basis of these preemptive rights to the lands they did not cede—that is, treaties
claims was that tribes were sovereigns, and negotia- did not give Indian tribes land; instead, treaties were
tions between sovereigns were conducted through grants of land by tribes that also reserved lands for
treaties. The U.S. government continued to claim the the practical use of their people. The term reservation
sole right to acquire Indian land parcels, which were comes from these reserved rights that were not
then placed in the public domain, divided into specifically relinquished in treaty provisions.
smaller parcels, and subsequently sold to individual Reserved rights and the federal government’s
non-Indians. responsibility as trustee for those rights have been
The eras of early federal Indian policy are critical to ongoing tribal legal claims to water, tim-
labeled by the key processes through which Indian ber, and minerals, as well as fossil fuels important to
people were dispossessed of their land: removal, energy production. These rights are also key issues
establishment of reservations, and allotment. After in individual Indian claims against the federal gov-
the War of 1812, when tribal alliances were no longer ernment for mismanagement of oil, gas, and mineral
critical to the political balance of power among the royalties from their land. The termination policy of
colonial European nations, the United States forcibly the federal government in the 1950s and early 1960s
removed entire tribes from their eastern homelands was intended to end tribal ownership of land. Part of
to Indian Territory, west of the Mississippi River. the local impetus for termination of reservation trust
Removal was part of the increasingly coercive status was the interest of lumber companies in the
process used by the federal government to force timber on reservation lands.
tribes to relinquish their land. Although removal From the 1940s through the 1970s, the U.S.
was formalized through treaties that guaranteed the Indian Claims Commission attempted to redress the
remaining land rights of tribes, these guarantees illegal and uncompensated takings of Indian land.
were increasingly ignored when new groups of non- Much of the Claims Commission’s work involved
133
134 Treaty Responsibility and Reserved Rights
determination of the fair market value of lands at the did not put pressures on the access to and use of
time they were ceded, mostly through treaties. How- land. However, as more non-Indians took more
ever, from a tribal perspective, the value of land as land, conflicts increased.
the foundation of society and culture and as having U.S. Indian policy increasingly pushed Indian
sacred meaning cannot be fully compensated by people toward the most sedentary lifestyles that
money. required the least amount of land. This policy was
used to justify the continual renegotiation and dictat-
ing of the provisions of treaties and the resulting
Traditional Land-Based reduction of tribal landholdings. The federal govern-
Economies and Land Tenure ment intended to force Indian people to assimilate
American Indian peoples had long-standing knowl- into non-Indian society and to participate in the mar-
edge of the land on which they lived and from which ket economy. This goal was to be accomplished by
they made a living. As with most indigenous peo- reducing Indian landholdings and making it impos-
ples throughout the world, American Indian cultural sible to continue the more land-extensive economies
identity was closely associated with the specific that prevailed in much of Native North America. As
ecosystems and landmarks of tribal homelands. The he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France in
rich and varied ecosystems of the North American 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote that tribes would learn
continent provided the basis for the diverse tradi- to use less land and that settlers would need more
tional economies of the Native peoples. These sys- (Jennings 1975). These policies were often justified
tems for making a living included hunting and gath- by rhetoric about the wastefulness of nonsedentary
ering, harvesting of fish, and agricultural production ways of life. In practical terms, without the experi-
throughout much of the temperate areas of the conti- ence and the resources (money for equipment and
nent. These traditional economies varied in the seeds, arable land, enough water), Indian people
amount of land and population required for subsis- often faced starvation when deprived of the lands,
tence. Most hunting and gathering populations need water, plants, and animals upon which they knew
to move throughout their territories in a seasonal how to subsist.
cycle and have relatively low population densities.
Much of Native North America had a mixed econ-
omy, which included hunting and gathering as well Land as Real Property
as agricultural production. The crops domesticated European and American Indian societies alike held
by American Indians—primarily the triumvirate of ideals about how land, water, and natural resources
corn, beans, and squash, particularly when supple- were to be used and allocated. Communal land use
mented with protein from meat obtained by hunt- was not completely foreign to Europeans, in whose
ing—provided a balanced and nutritional diet. home countries were areas designated as commons,
Indian tribes in the arid Southwest practiced labor- often used by the poor or commoners. General
intensive, irrigated agriculture that depended on an recognition of the tribal system of common land
adequate supply of surface water and required com- tenure is seen in the congressional reaction to the
paratively dense, sedentary populations. initial Wyandot treaty of 1817. The initial treaty pro-
One significant variable affecting Indian land vided for the land not ceded by the Wyandot to be
use and land tenure was the effect of European dis- recorded as fee simple titles to individuals. The Sen-
eases on the American Indian population. European ate Committee on Public Lands expressed concern
populations had been exposed for centuries to Old that this process was unprecedented. They required
World bacterial and viral infections and had devel- that the treaty be renegotiated and that the Wyandot
oped substantial immunity to these diseases. Ameri- land be held “as before,” that is, in common (Prucha
can Indians were assaulted by these new pathogens, 1994).
which led to high mortality rates from disease as However, by the 1600s the European system of
each new tribal population was exposed. As Euro- real property consisted overwhelmingly of individ-
peans settlers increased in numbers through both ual ownership of land with sole legal title. In the
immigration and natural population growth, Native Western legal tradition, valuables used in common
populations experienced declines. As a conse- and to which no individual can claim exclusive
quence, early agreements by tribal populations per- rights, such as the oceans or the air, are not consid-
mitting small settlements of Europeans within their ered property. American Indian cultures generally
traditional territories in exchange for trade goods viewed land as commonly held, with recognition of

Property: Land and Natural Resources 135
use rights to extended families, lineages, and clans held land? Non-Indians often exploited, and exacer-
that worked a particular field, hunted for game, or bated for the purpose of acquiring land, the varying
harvested fish. Many Indian populations also recog- interests of different individuals and groups within
nized family hunting and trapping territories. Chief tribes. Particularly in the early stage of land sales,
Isparhecher of the Muscogee Creek noted to federal the individual Indian who first sold a particular par-
officials in the 1890s that the Creek system of land cel of land to non-Indians may have received cash or
tenure, in which land was held in common, had goods for lands that were considered the territory of
proven successful and satisfactory throughout their a larger group. In the late 1700s, there were com-
tribal existence. He emphasized that the Creek did plaints within eastern tribes that their sachems and
not have homelessness or lawsuits about land titles. other leaders had become corrupt, accepting bribes
Similarly, in opposition to proposals to allot their and payments for personal gain in negotiations that
land in Oklahoma, Chief Wilson Jones of the affected the land of the entire tribal group.
Choctaw explained that the land use system of the The U.S. Constitution requires the consent of
Choctaw avoided disputes because the Choctaw two-thirds of the Senate to ratify treaties, and many
people owned the homes and lands of their grandfa- federal treaties with Indian tribes contained provi-
thers (Banner 2005, 265). In general, the Native sys- sions that required approval by a majority or three-
tems for use of land tended to be flexible to meet the fourths of the adult male members of a tribe. How-
needs of society as some families and lines grew and ever, Indian peoples had a variety of political
others diminished. Some rich ecosystems, such as structures, which varied from informal forms of
woodlands and coasts, had territories used by more leadership within small groups to large-scale politi-
than one family, band, or tribal group. In some loca- cal alliances among numerous tribal groups who
tions, there were buffer zones between Native spoke different languages and had different cultural
groups that may have been involved in hostilities traditions. But a majority or even super-majority
over use of land (Sutton 1975). Clearly, when Ameri- “vote” when members have essentially equal owner-
can Indians first entered into land agreements with ship of land certainly seemed unfair to those Indian
Europeans, they did so from an economic, social, people who opposed particular negotiations and
political, and cultural context different from the one treaties. Some misunderstandings may have
familiar to the non-Indian people with whom they occurred when non-Indians interpreted the political
were interacting. It is likely that Indian people structure of American Indian societies and assumed
intended to provide use rights for, not perpetual sole that some leaders had more authority than they
ownership of, a parcel of land when they were said actually had. There were also cases in which non-
by Europeans to be “selling” land. Indians created authority in individual Indian peo-
These issues of differing contexts of understand- ple that did not practically exist and used it to their
ing were exacerbated by basic challenges of commu- advantage in securing treaties for land.
nication; in many cases, agreements were reached In recognition of the difficulties posed by cross-
between representatives who did not speak the same cultural communication and the standard of respon-
language, and negotiations were conducted through sibility of the federal government as a tribal trustee,
interpreters. Furthermore, tribes used oral tradition the Supreme Court developed rules of treaty inter-
and symbolic goods, such as wampum belts, to pretation in a series of cases in the 1930s. These rules,
memorialize agreements and transactions. Euro- or canons, required that ambiguities in treaties be
peans and, later, the federal government always resolved in favor of Indian tribes, that treaties be
used written documents as the final record. The interpreted as Indian people would have understood
opportunity for abuse, misrepresentation, and gross them at the time of signing, and that treaties be con-
misunderstanding of legalistic terms was substan- strued liberally in favor of tribal interests.
tial. Many Indian people signed treaties based on
what they heard, but non-Indians always held them
to what was written (Banner 2005). Sovereignty and Ownership
When the United States was formed, it claimed sov-
ereignty over huge areas in which it had no on-the-
Who Had the Right ground governance and where there was no real
to Sell Tribal Land? property ownership by non-Indians. Through the
A key question in Indian land deals was, Who had assertion of sovereignty, the development of the
legal authority to negotiate regarding commonly laws under which treaties were negotiated, and the

growing power to enforce them, non-Indians increas- ernment decided that it was much cheaper to buy
ingly controlled the acquisition of Indian land. This Indian land through the process of making treaties
claim of sovereignty by the United States included a than to go to war for it. Although the very earliest
preemptive right to purchase title to Indian land and trades of land for goods may have been voluntary,
was intended to secure these rights to the exclusion the transactions became increasingly and pro-
of all other powers. Through preemption, the federal foundly coercive. By the 1850s, the military and
government acquired Indian land, dividing it into political balance of power had shifted dramatically.
smaller parcels and selling it to white settlers. In Congress refused to ratify many treaties negotiated
1868, the federal government attempted to sell eight in the field with California tribes because the price
million acres of land acquired from the Osage to com- was considered too high, even though the California
mercial railroads rather than placing it in the “public Indians were forced onto mere patches of land and
domain.” Congress would not ratify the treaty, and it were starving. Overwhelmingly, money, goods, and
had to be renegotiated. The profit made by the services paid by non-Indians for land taken from
United States by purchasing Indian land and selling Indian people were worth less than the fair market
it to non-Indians, in total the largest land deal in the value of the land, even at the time of purchase.
history of the world, went into the federal treasury. Because it had the power, the government did not
Indian people, however, could only sell or cede their pay the fair market value; it paid as little as it could.
land to the United States, and ownership of land Some studies of the Indian Claims Commission,
essentially always moved in one direction, from Indi- which adjudicated tribal land claims between 1947
ans to non-Indians. and 1978, estimate that the United States paid about
President Andrew Jackson argued that the ten cents per acre for Indian land in the northern
United States should unilaterally take Indian land plains in the mid-1800s, when the average price paid
through the power of eminent domain and provide by white settlers was closer to two dollars (Prucha
just compensation rather than negotiate treaties. In 1994, 230).
1834, he enforced his view through the power of the The Constitution of the United States requires
U.S. military when he defied Chief Justice John Mar- the government to pay just compensation for the
shall’s rulings in the Supreme Court case Worcester v. land it acquires; just compensation is almost always
Georgia and forced the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears determined through an appraisal based on the mar-
to leave their homelands and move to Indian Terri- ket economy. But if the seller does not agree with the
tory. However, the legal structure of treaties as agree- price offered, the taking is more a confiscation than a
ments between sovereigns has proven to be the key compensation. Can money or goods ever be fair
source of legal land claims by tribes over time. 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
Mother Earth: The Value of Land the decades have eloquently expressed the view that
and Natural Resources monetary value cannot be placed on the land, water,
Land and the natural and biological resources linked plants, animals, and sacred places. The Native
to it were the primary assets Indian people had that worldview consistently valued the land and the liv-
were valuable to non-Indians. When Europeans first ing world not as resources to be exploited or prop-
came to North America, Indian people traded furs, erty to be bought and sold but in familial or kinship
crops, and small parcels of land for the goods they terms, such as “Mother Earth.” Although monetary
wanted. Indian peoples with exposure to non-Indian compensation may have benefited some Indian peo-
society came to understand the unfairness of many ple individually, loss of land was destructive to tribal
land offers and began to ask for more per acre in ways of life that were closely tied to knowledge of
treaty negotiations. However, within a hundred particular ecosystems and territory. These knowl-
years after the Revolutionary War, the United States edge systems were passed on from generation to
had taken two billion acres of Indian land, approxi- generation and were internal to Indian culture and
mately one-half purchased by treaty or agreement societies. Without tribal homelands, the intergenera-
and much of the rest confiscated by the federal gov- tional transmission of language and culture was
ernment without compensation or formal action. made extremely difficult. Indian people and leaders
Shortly after the Revolutionary War, the U.S. often expressed their desire to maintain their tradi-
Treasury was nearly exhausted, and the federal gov- tional lifestyles and their independence from white

society and from the markets their independent War of 1812 and the end of the British threat to the
lifestyles afforded them. Elders of the Fort McDowell United States, alliances with Indian tribes were no
Yavapai Nation spoke metaphorically about the rela- longer critical to the international balance of power
tive value of land and money during their struggle on the North American continent. In a pattern that
to prevent the flooding of their land by the construc- would repeat over the next fifty years, settlers on the
tion of Orme Dam in the 1970s and 1980s: “Land is frontier who were remote from the political seat of
like diamonds, money like ice. The land stays for- power pushed into the lands of the Cherokee,
ever but money melts through your fingers” Muscogee Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Semi-
(Mariella 1990). Similar sentiments have been nole, the so-called Five Civilized Tribes. These set-
expressed by Indian people throughout the last two tlers provoked conflict, forcing the federal govern-
hundred years as they faced the prospect of trying to ment to act. With the passage of the Indian Removal
maintain their identity when they no longer had Act of 1830, the United States military forcibly
their homelands. removed all the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi
to Indian Territory. The southeastern tribes, all farm-
ing people, strongly opposed the removal but lacked
Treaties between Tribes, Colonial the military capacity to challenge the army and the
Powers, and the United States political strength to fight the executive power of the
before the War of 1812 president. In 1814, the Creek were forced to surren-
Colonial governments rapidly took control of the der twenty-three million acres of land to the federal
acquisition of land, preempting the right as a sover- government and to move to Indian Territory. Subse-
eign government to negotiate and conclude treaties quently, the Cherokee were forced to sign the Treaty
with the Native peoples. Early treaty making of New Echota, in which they gave up their land east
between tribes and European nations and, subse- of the Mississippi River in exchange for land in
quently, the United States were mechanisms to Oklahoma Territory. The move, which was con-
secure alliances and peace between sovereigns. ducted under military escort, is known as the Trail of
When the British relinquished their American Tears.
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 Reservations: Payment
States. Even the tribes who fought with the colonists for Ceded Lands
were legally subsumed, although the treaty said The federal government expected that the removal
nothing about Indian lands. of Indian tribes to Oklahoma Territory would isolate
The new nation was too weakened militarily Indians from conflicts with non-Indians. However,
and too poor from fighting the Revolutionary War to when Texas, the Oregon country, and the lands of
forcibly acquire Indian lands. Instead, the federal the Mexican Cession of 1848 became part of the
government set about acquiring title to Indian lands United States, the federal government entered again
through treaties, primarily in exchange for trade into treaty making with the many tribes in these
goods (e.g., the Treaty of Fort Harmar in 1789, the frontier territories. Tribes were forced onto relatively
Treaties of Fort Stanwix in 1768 and 1784, and the small tracts of land, known as reservations. Between
Treaty of Fort McIntosh in 1785). Purchases of Indian 1853 and 1856, fifty-two treaties were negotiated,
land were complicated by the sometimes long more than in any other period, and close to
process of determining boundaries as well as joint 174,000,000 acres of Indian land were taken for non-
ownership. Indian settlers and prospectors. Without any local
control to stop them, white settlers put down stakes
on Indian lands, creating a de facto ownership that
Removal: Land the federal government was subsequently pressured
in Exchange for Land to make permanent. After the Civil War, the Nez
In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase from France of eight Perce were forced to accept the Stevens treaty (Treaty
hundred thousand square miles nearly doubled the with the Nez Perce–June 9, 1863), which was then
size of the United States. The federal government delayed in Congress while changes were debated;
encouraged Indian people to move to the new terri- meanwhile, settlers continued to move into their
tory, which was isolated from non-Indians. After the lands, resulting in further land reductions.

Reservation treaties listed the lands to be ceded The allotment process left a legacy of compli-
to the United States in return for federal promises to cated land tenure on the reservations that under-
provide goods and services and to form the basis for went allotment. Once allotments passed out of trust
the doctrine of reserved rights established by the status, individual Indians then had to pay real prop-
Supreme Court in Winters v. United States (1908). In erty taxes, and much of the land was sold to pay
addition, these treaties generally contained the fed- taxes and other debts. More than two-thirds of the
eral government’s assurance that Indian people remaining tribal lands in the continental United
could live on their remaining lands in perpetuity or States was lost to Indian people during the allotment
“as long as the water flows, the grass grows upon era. Allotments on a number of reservations remain
the earth or the sun rises.” Despite the eloquent in trust status, and the lease and homestead rights
promises of permanence, many treaties were broken are inherited. Over many generations, ownership of
to obtain even more land. By 1860, essentially no allotments has become highly fractionated, some-
tribal lands remained east of the 98th meridian. In times with more than one hundred owners for a
the next decade, following the end of the Civil War, single acre, making it increasingly difficult for indi-
most of the Indian lands in the interior of the conti- vidual allottees and their descendants to make eco-
nent were also taken from tribes. nomic use of the allotment rights. The development
With passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, Con- challenges of fractionated inheritance resulted in the
gress ended the practice of making formal treaties 1982 Indian Land Consolidation Act, in which tribes
with tribes but stated clearly that the provisions of were given first right of refusal to buy fractionated
existing treaties remained intact. However, in 1903 and privately held land within reservation bound-
the Supreme Court affirmed in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock aries. In addition, the historic sale of allotments cre-
that Congress had the authority to unilaterally abro- ated checkerboarded land ownership patterns
gate treaties with Indian tribes as long as land tak- within a number of reservations, in which parcels of
ings were compensated. Later Supreme Court deci- Indian land are separated by land owned by non-
sions established that reservations created by Indians. These checkerboarded patterns of land
executive order and by statute have the same legal ownership on some reservations make it hard for
status as reservations created by treaties. those tribes to conduct regulatory activities and law
enforcement.
Some individual Indian people made consider-
Allotments: Private able income from royalties, leasing their allotted
Ownership of Land lands for economic development; but the transition
The General Allotment Act of 1887 (the Dawes Act) to the market economy was very difficult for the
was intended to assimilate American Indians into many individuals who were left without their land
white society and the market economy through and with no money. Without the experience and
small-scale farming. Indian male heads of household education to manage money, many individual Indi-
were to be allotted land for homesites and farms; ans were not able to create long-term financial secu-
after a transition period, often twenty-five years, the rity from land sales or lease income. Without tribally
land would pass out of reservation trust status and held lands, tribal social and political structures were
would be held as private property. In contrast, reser- no longer as meaningful, and small parcels of land
vation land cannot be sold by tribes or individual were not adequate to develop tribal projects that
Indians; only Congress can authorize the purchase would benefit the tribe as a whole. Uniformly, allot-
or sale of reservation trust land. The process of ment had deleterious effects on tribal cohesion.
dividing tribal reservation lands into small family Partly in recognition of the harm done to Indian
farms also left acres of tribal land unallotted. The assets and tribal life, the Indian Reorganization Act
federal government deemed this land surplus, ended the practice of allotment in 1934.
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 Termination, Restoration, and the
by the allotment process. However, the Department Alaska Native Claims Settlement
of the Interior rarely lived up to its responsibilities as With the return of Indian veterans from World War
a trustee, and tribes generally did not receive ade- II, federal Indian policy shifted to one of termina-
quate compensation for their surplus land. tion, in which treaty rights were ended and trust sta-

tus removed from all the tribal land base. In two key When gold was discovered in the Black Hills in
termination cases, involving the Menominee of Wis- the 1870s, the federal government pressured the
consin and the Klamath of Oregon, pressures to ter- Lakota to accept the removal of the Black Hills from
minate the tribes came from interest in the commer- their already-reduced reservation by refusing to
cially valuable timber on their land. After more than provide provisions as required by earlier treaties
two decades of struggle, tribal status was restored to and which were necessary to avoid starvation. In
both tribes in the 1970s. 1877, Congress enacted a new treaty with only 10
The most recent treaty-like settlement affecting percent of the adult male Lakota signing, in direct
significant amounts of tribal land in the United conflict with the three-fourths requirement of the
States is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of earlier Fort Laramie treaty. Although the Lakota
1971. Alaska Natives did not sign treaties with the had been guaranteed by treaty in 1874 that no addi-
federal government, and it had been unclear what tional land would be taken, the treaty of 1877
aboriginal title meant in Alaska. The Settlement Act removed the sacred Black Hills from their reserva-
gave forty-four million acres to Alaska Natives and tion. Twelve years later, in 1889, Congress again
provided $962 million for relinquishment of the removed half of the reservation acreage and
remainder of their land claims. divided the remaining land into six separate reser-
vations. Any resistance to this action was ended
with the killing by U.S. soldiers of scores of
Mining unarmed Lakota at Wounded Knee in 1890.
In the 1870s, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills Between 1904 and 1910, Congress removed addi-
area of what is now western South Dakota, north- tional lands from the six reservations, including
eastern Wyoming, and southeastern Montana led to three-fourths of the Rosebud Reservation.
a sequence of broken federal treaty promises that In the first year after the Black Hills were taken
stands out even in the lengthy history of treaty abro- from the Lakota Reservation, mining companies and
gation. The impetus behind the relentless pressure to prospectors extracted approximately $3.5 million in
take the land of the Lakota Indians of the northern gold. This figure increased to $4.5 million in 1879
plains was the commercial value of the gold, silver, and to $6 million in 1880. The Black Hills also
and other minerals in the Black Hills. By the late yielded silver, lead, coal, iron, quartz, nickel, and
1850s, the large buffalo herds that had sustained the copper. Major mining operations on what once had
Plains Indians had been hunted by non-Indians been Lakota Reservation lands included the Home-
almost to extinction. The loss of the buffalo and the stake and Gilt Edge Mines, which became some of
resulting blow to the ability of the Plains tribes to the most productive and profitable mines in the
maintain an independent tribal life led to the Treaty United States.
of Fort Laramie of 1851. In the initial treaty, the Never abandoning their cultural and spiritual
Lakota retained a significant portion of their Black relationship to the Black Hills, the Lakota filed a
Hills land in the Great Dakota Reservation. The claim in the federal court of claims in 1920 request-
Black Hills were sacred to the Lakota people and ing the return of the Black Hills. Despite its autho-
were the location of ceremonies, vision quests, and rization to adjudicate claims against the United
burials. However, government negotiators pressured States under treaties, agreements, or federal laws,
a group of Lakota to sign a second treaty in 1868 that the court did not review whether the treaty of 1877
reduced their land base from sixty million acres to provided just compensation to the Lakota. Not until
twenty million. This treaty guaranteed the security the establishment of the Indian Claims Commission
of the remaining land from the white settlers, who by act of Congress in 1946 did a new opportunity
sparked conflicts by constant incursions into the develop; in 1950 the Lakota filed a claim. In 1967,
reservation. The federal government viewed the Fort eight tribes were awarded $12.21 million dollars in
Laramie treaty as a way to force the Plains Indians compensation from the Claims Commission for
out of their traditional hunting way of life into small- twenty-nine million acres taken from them through
scale agriculture. But the climate and soils of the arid treaties. The Claims Commission ruled that the
northern plains presented substantial challenges for United States had used eminent domain to seize
sustained agricultural production and was a pro- their land rather than acting in its role as trustee.
foundly different way of life from the buffalo-based Consequently, the United States owed them compen-
culture the Plains tribes knew. sation for the Black Hills.

As the legal efforts were slowly working their each adult Osage male received about 650 acres of
way through the Claims Commission and the courts, surface rights with fee simple title. The individual
the State of South Dakota established parks in the Osage landowners were able to develop, lease, or
Black Hills, making it increasingly difficult for the sell their land. However, the subsurface mineral
Lakota to practice their sacred ceremonials. The rights were held in common, and each Osage
American Indian Treaty Rights Movement of the received a headright—that is, he or she would receive
1970s grew out of the Lakota struggle to regain the an equal share of all income from oil and gas pro-
Black Hills. Members of the American Indian Move- duction from their tribal lands. In the early 1900s, the
ment established the Yellow Thunder Camp in the Osage tribe declared it illegal to sell a headright,
Black Hills to raise awareness of the sacred value of which by 1917 was worth $2,719; the value increased
the land, and lawsuits were filed under the Ameri- to over $8,000 in 1920. As a consequence, individual
can Indian Religious Freedom Act in 1978, claiming Osage experienced substantial increases in income.
that the seizure of hills was a violation of Lakota reli- Although some tribe members had the experience
gious rights. and skills to control and manage this income, others
In 1980, the Supreme Court affirmed the Claims spent the money or were manipulated into spending
Commission and ruled that the tribes were due cash it in ways that did not result in increased quality of
compensation for the fair market value of the Black life or long-term financial security. The infusion of
Hills at the time land was taken, plus interest—a substantial income from oil headrights also
sum of close to $122.5 million. The fair market value increased conflict and violence within the tribe and
determination did not include the value of minerals attracted a number of non-Indians looking to marry
extracted from the land by mining corporations, into wealth. The intermarriage with non-Osage fur-
which has been estimated to be close to $4 billion. ther affected tribal cohesion and tribal identity (Fix-
National news was made when many tribal mem- ico 1998).
bers refused the compensation, asking instead for Today, more than half the nation’s coalfields are
the return of the Black Hills. Some attempts were located west of the Mississippi River; one-third of
made in Congress in the late 1980s to reach a settle- those western fields are on tribal lands. An estimated
ment, but the issue remains unsettled at the time of 25 to 40 percent of the uranium, one-third of the coal,
this writing. Further attention was focused on the and 5 percent of oil and gas are on reservations in
Black Hills during the 1980s, when non-Indians, con- the western part of the United States, including
cerned about environmental degradation from strip- Black Mesa on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations
mining of coal deposits and leaching of cyanide into (Ambler 1990). The federal government, in its role as
groundwater from decades of gold extraction, joined trustee of tribes, has the responsibility to manage
with Native Americans in developing the Black Hills those resources for the primary benefit of those
Alliance. tribes. The poor oversight, poor record keeping, and
In Oklahoma, the oil boom, which began in the poor advocacy of the Department of the Interior in
1890s, had a major impact on Indian lands, including approving leasing and royalty arrangements for the
the lands of the Osage tribe. The Osage were forced historical extraction of the mineral resources of
from their homelands in present-day Missouri and Indian land is the subject of the current Elouise
Arkansas into Indian Territory through a series of Cobell lawsuit in federal court. With the technical
treaties throughout the 1800s. After ceding close to and legal assistance of national organizations such as
45 million acres, the Osage purchased 1.4 million the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, tribes are
acres in 1870 from the Cherokee for a new reserva- increasingly managing their own resources. The
tion in the northeastern portion of Indian Territory. building of tribal environmental management and
These lands were not sought after by non-Indians regulatory capacity since the 1980s has supported
until oil was discovered underneath them in 1875. the goal of protecting land, water, and air quality
Immediately after the discovery of oil, non-Indians and ecosystems. However, the power of Congress to
sought leases on the Osage Reservation for mining override treaty provisions through statute, which
oil and gas. Many of these initial leaseholders leased was confirmed in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock in 1903, con-
substantial portions of land and subleased them. In tinues to have the potential to affect tribal ability to
some cases, these leaseholders made substantially protect tribal resources. In 2005, Senator Inhofe of
more from the Osage lands than the Osage them- Oklahoma added a rider to a national transportation
selves had. In 1904, the reservation was allotted; bill that removed the ability of Oklahoma tribes to

regulate water quality under federal clean water remove the trust status protecting the remaining
laws without the approval of the State of Oklahoma. Klamath timber, in order to cut lumber at a faster
rate. In 1954, Congress withheld a $2.6 million settle-
ment to pressure for termination of the federal trust
Timber status of the Klamath lands. These interests in
The Klamath and Modoc tribes of what is now exploiting the timber in an unsustainable way were
southeastern Oregon lived, hunted, and fished in the part of the drive that led to the termination policy of
Pacific Northwest coastal region, one of the most the 1950s and 1960s, under which both tribal land
productive ecosystems in the United States. The and allotted land in trust would become individu-
Native peoples of this area were largely sedentary ally held, private land. However, most of the tribe
harvesters of the exceptionally rich and reliable fish members opposed the removal of the trust status,
populations, such as salmon, which spawned annu- and a Bureau of Indian Affairs report of the time
ally in the rivers that flowed through their lands. In stated clearly that, as a group, the Klamath were not
addition, the homelands of the Klamath included prepared to succeed financially if the trust status
commercially valuable forests of ponderosa pine and were removed. Congress passed the Klamath Termi-
mixed conifers. The desire to protect their valuable nation Act, working with the support of a small seg-
timberlands was a major reason the Nez Perce treaty ment of the tribal membership. The reservation land
of 1863 was reopened, even though settlers were was taken by condemnation and the tribal trust sta-
pushing into more of their lands day by day. tus terminated in 1961. Termination released all
The federal government pressured the Klamath tribal property that contained rich timberlands,
into the treaty of 1864, which established their reser- including fifty thousand acres with 3.8 billion board
vation and ceded more than 23 million acres, which feet of commercial lumber. As a result, significant
included valuable timberlands. Having seriously stands of timber were clear-cut, reducing the long-
reduced access to their traditional hunting and fish- term productivity of the timberlands but increasing
ing resources, the Klamath and the Modoc tribes erosion of the soil and pollution of local streams.
took up ranching of cattle and horses and developed Despite the termination of the tribe, in 1974 the
a small sawmill in 1870. By 1896, sales of Klamath Klamath won an initial victory when the federal
timber were close to 250,000 board feet per year. courts ruled that the Klamath retained treaty rights
Following federal Indian policy of the time and to hunt, fish, and gather in their traditional territo-
in response to local pressures for more land, the fed- ries and had to be consulted in land management
eral government divided the Klamath Reservation decisions when those decisions affected their treaty
into allotments in the 1890s. The allotments were 80 rights. Then, in 1986, after years of political and legal
acres of farmland or 160 acres of grazing land per effort, Public Law 99–398 restored federal recogni-
person; the sale of “surplus” reservation land that tion of the Klamath tribe as a governmental entity.
was not allotted resulted in the additional loss of Like the Klamath, the Menominee tribe of Wiscon-
more than 100,000 acres. By the end of the allotment sin, which has substantial timberlands, was also ter-
period in 1934, 10 percent of the land within the minated and then restored to federal tribal status in
reservation was privately owned by individual 1973.
Klamath Indians; some 860,000 acres were still held Although restoration of the tribe did not return
in common. As with so many situations in which the Klamath land base to tribal status, the develop-
allotted lands moved out of trust status and into pri- ment of the Klamath Economic Self-Sufficiency Plan
vate ownership, Klamath landowners ended up sell- resulted in the tribe’s continued pivotal role in the
ing or losing 95 percent of their privately owned local economy. Klamath Tribal Forest Management
land. However, on the tribal lands, it was estimated Plans are designed to protect the natural resources of
there was $80 million worth of ponderosa pine. The the tribe so that they are not degraded for future
Klamath tribe managed its forests for long-term generations. This long-term perspective is a core ele-
yield, but the timberlands that had moved out of ment of a tribal worldview that seeks quality of life
tribal hands were cut at a faster rate, reducing their for the tribe as a whole.
ability to sustain healthy wildlife populations and In the twenty-first century, tribes are buying
continued logging. back land, controlling their own extractive indus-
After World War II, local timber interests and tries, and managing water quality, timber, and other
some members of the Klamath tribe wanted to natural resources in a sustainable way that does not

degrade the resources over time. Tribal control of Lawson, Michael L. 1982. Damned Indians: The Pick-
Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux,
development enables resources to be managed for
1944–1980. Norman: University of Oklahoma
the future of Native nations for generations to come. Press.
Patricia S. Mariella Mariella, Patricia. 1990. “Land Like Diamonds,
Money Like Ice.” Practicing Anthropology, 12(2):
References and Further Reading 8–9.
Ambler, Marjane. 1990. Breaking the Iron Bonds. McNickel, D’Arcy. 1973. Native American Tribalism.
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Banner, Stuart. 2005. How the Indians Lost Their Land. Parker, Watson. 1982. Gold in the Black Hills. Lincoln:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. University of Nebraska Press.
Clinton, Robert N., Kevin Gover, and Rebecca Tsosie. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
2004. “Introduction.” In Colonial and American The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los
Indian Treaties: A Collection. Tempe: Arizona State Angeles, and London: University of California
University American Indian Law Program. Press.
Debo, Angie. 1966. And Still the Waters Run: The Rollings, Willard H. 1995. The Osage: An
Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. New York: Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the Prairie-
Gordian Press. (Orig. pub. 1940). Plains. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country Stern, Theodore. 1965. The Klamath Tribe: A People
in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and and Their Reservation. Seattle: University of
Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot: University Press Washington Press.
of Colorado. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in
Franks, Kenny A. 1989. The Osage Oil Boom. the United States and Canada, 1867–1877.
Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Heritage Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Association. Sutton, Imre. 1975. Indian Land Tenure. New York:
Hughes, J. Donald. 1983. American Indian Ecology. El Clearwater.
Paso: Texas Western Press. Williams, Robert A. 1997. Linking Arms Together:
Jennings, Francis. 1975. The Invasion of America: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace,
Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest. 1600–1800. New York: Oxford University
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Press.
Jorgensen, Joseph G., ed. 1984. Native Americans and Wilson, Terry P. 1985. The Underground Reservation:
Energy Development. Boston: Anthropology Osage Oil. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Resource Center and Seventh Generation Fund. Press.

Indian Water Rights and Treaties
I
I
n the eastern United States, the states have regu- Indian nation. The downside of this system, in terms
lated the use of water by a system of riparian of prior appropriation, is that the “priority date”
rights that came down from English law, in assigned to the Indians was the date of the congres-
which all who own land along a water source have sional act that created the reservation, rather than a
the right to the use of the water of that source. How- date of “time immemorial,” which would seem more
ever, this system has worked well only in places appropriate, given the lengthy tenure of Indians on
with average to heavy rainfall, where the utilization their lands.
of water by upstream users does not have a detri- This system of reserving rights based on reser-
mental effect on downstream users. vation status has created some anomalies within
In the arid lands of the American West, where Indian country. Land ownership has been the key to
most American Indians reside, water rights are gov- New Mexico Pueblo Indians’ water rights. The
erned by state laws founded on the principle of prior Pueblo nations have early priority dates derived
appropriation. Prior appropriation can be best from Spanish land grants and the U.S. Treaty of
summed up by the principle “First in time, first in Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico. Because of this,
right.” In practical terms, this means that the oldest the Pueblos have “aboriginal” water rights. Unlike
water right is satisfied in full before later users can many other nations, the Pueblos reside on lands they
have any access to the water supply. In other words, have never left and from which they have never
the first to make beneficial use of the water has the been forced by the United States. Although the
right to all the water they originally used. Whatever United States recognized those prior holdings in the
remains after the first claimant’s use of the water is Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, thereby giving
the property of the second claimant, and so on down federal protection to the Pueblo rights to land and
the line. This worked well in the nineteenth-century water, these rights do not depend on any federal
West, as the institutions necessary to govern and action for their existence.
determine rights in a riparian system were lacking. During the twentieth century, however, most
In a system of prior appropriation, the users them- Indian nations have had to base their hopes for
selves were able to determine the first in right, at justice in water rights on federal court decisions.
least initially. The Supreme Court, however, has long Congress had not passed any definitive, all-
recognized that both federal and Indian water rights encompassing water rights bills supporting or even
exist outside of the state-regulated water rights sys- defining their rights. The decision that formed the
tems and must be satisfied as well, creating a com- most generous basis for Indian water rights, the
peting system of water allotment. reserved rights doctrine, and thus the most con-
Water policy, for the majority of American Indi- tention with non-Indian water claimants is Winters v.
ans in the West, has been determined by the imple- United States, in which the Supreme Court held that,
mentation of two apparently contradictory methods when Indian reservations were established, the
of water allocation: the prior appropriation system Indian nations and the United States implicitly
and the reserved rights doctrine (also referred to as reserved, along with the land, sufficient water to ful-
the Winters doctrine). Put succinctly, in signing fill the purposes of the reservations, which in most
treaties with the federal government that resulted in cases was farming.
the creation of their reservations, Indians agreed to Therefore, according to the Winters doctrine,
vast land cessions in return for guarantees that their which was derived from the decision, Indian water
reservation lands would be permanently reserved rights are defined and governed by a body of federal
for Indian use and occupation. The Supreme Court law that recognizes that Indian nations have sover-
ruled that, when the Indians did this, they reserved eignty over the water on their reservations. The
to themselves every right not specified in the treaty. Supreme Court held that Indian governments have
Ownership of the land and, implicitly, its resources jurisdiction over their members and over activities
and all sovereignty not expressly relinquished to the on the Indian reservations, and this has affected the
federal government were rights reserved to the ways in which Indians can use the water that flows
143
through or adjacent to their reservations. However, ity on the idea of beneficial use, which, more often
by shortsightedly handing down a decision but fail- than not, has to do with agriculture. Although many
ing to provide any way of reconciling it with the southwestern groups, such as the Pueblos, have an
prior appropriation system already in use, the Court agricultural tradition that predates European con-
did more to provoke further conflicts over water tact, and others, such as the Jicarilla Apache, have a
between Indian and non-Indian populations than it mixed-subsistence tradition, the factors of modern
did to settle them. Winters did nothing at all to deter- reservation life do not always mean that the Indian
mine either the scope of its application or the pa- nations will use the water as the state or federal laws
rameters for determining the amount of water would prefer them to.
Indian nations could claim. Almost from the time the Because Indian nations are theoretically not
decision was handed down in 1908, and especially held to state laws in these matters, conflicts have
during the 1980s and 1990s, many nations have gone continually arisen over which water rights doctrine
to court in an effort to quantify their federal water is applicable to the adjudication of rivers that flow
rights, even though it has often meant a serious over Indian as well as non-Indian lands. The Winters
diminution of the possible extent of those rights. doctrine would seem to support the view that Indi-
Two issues are raised by federal government ans have a right to enough water to irrigate reserva-
involvement in protecting Indian water rights and tion agricultural lands, and yet the doctrine of prior
other Indian-held natural resources. First, the owner- appropriation supports the idea that, if the Indians
ship of land and water rights is antithetical to many did not historically irrigate their lands, then non-
American Indian cultural and religious systems. Sec- Indian water claimants would be substantiated. The
ondly, federal involvement raises the issue of the dif- courts then have to examine what water was
ference between the dependency of Indian nations reserved for use on the Indian reservations, how
on the federal government and self-determination Indian water rights are quantified and used, and
with governmental protection. This has long been a how these water rights are regulated and enforced.
difficult distinction to draw. Speaking in purely eco- Because of the potential extent and great value of the
nomic terms, by failing to promote and protect the water that could be claimed by Indian nations under
right of Indian nations to develop their resources, the Winters doctrine, especially in the American
the government perpetuates dependency and West, where water has become increasingly scarce,
poverty. On the other hand, if it protects Indians’ Indian water rights have constantly been under
interests and Indians’ rights to develop their attack in the federal and state courts and in other
resources, the federal government may be guilty of political arenas as well.
affecting Indian culture, but it can certainly not be As clearly contradictory as the two dominant
said to be perpetuating dependency. Rather, the fed- systems of allocation (Winters and prior appropria-
eral government would be acting to promote the tion) may appear, the actual situation in practice has
health of the Indian economies necessary for true been both less contradictory and more confusing
self-determination. than the various federal decisions would make it
The main reason for the continued difficulty in seem. Historian Daniel McCool pointed out that
securing water rights under the Winters doctrine is these two contradictory theories of water allotment
that it has constantly come up against prior appro- created a conflict of interest within the Justice
priation, the prevailing method of allocating water Department. The Justice Department was to be the
claims in the western United States. When the doc- legal representative for all federal interests, so its
trine of prior appropriation is taken to include official position in favor of prior appropriation in the
Indian use, the courts necessarily enter the picture to West was in conflict with the reserved rights doc-
fix the amounts allocated by right to a given Indian trine (Winters doctrine), which was supposed to
nation as determined by its use of a particular water determine Indian water rights. The Winters doctrine
source. Because Indian reservations were established theoretically makes the prior appropriation doctrine
before most water uses began in the West, Indians irrelevant. In practice, however, federal irrigation
often hold the oldest—and thus the most valuable— and reclamation programs were rarely undertaken
water rights. Many Indian groups have occupied in the interests of Indian peoples, even when they
land since time immemorial and thus also have were constructed adjacent to Indian lands.
strong, ancient priority claims to water for Indian The Bureau of Reclamation, dedicated to the
uses. State water laws in the West often place a prior- doctrine of prior appropriation and the promotion of

Indian Water Rights and Treaties 145
non-Indian irrigated agriculture in the West, exer- money for facilities or projects to put to use the
cised great power and acted decisively in the inter- water they are allocated. Such federal funding has
ests of its constituents when allocating the waters allowed Indians to secure not only water rights but
made useful by its construction projects. Even also delivered water put to beneficial use. At the
though the Winters doctrine might have given the same time, non-Indians gain the assurance that they
Indians a theoretically large claim to the waters of will be able to continue using water without the con-
the West, battles over access to those waters occu- stant threat of an assertion of Winters rights on the
pied Indian nations, the federal and state courts, the part of the Indian nations.
Department of the Interior (both as the promoter of Steven L. Danver
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. References and Further Reading
Even where the rights seem plain, the capri- Burton, Lloyd. 1991. American Indian Water Rights and
ciousness of the courts toward Indian nations has the Limits of Law. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
meant that the nations have had to enter into lengthy
Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton.
and expensive litigation with no guarantee of suc- 2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling
cess. Since the 1980s, the federal government has Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: University of
promoted negotiated settlements as the best way for Arizona Press.
all parties to resolve their water claims. Concluded Danver, Steven L. 2002. “Land, Water, and the Right
and implemented at both state and federal levels, to Remain Indian: The All Indian Pueblo
these settlements have, in many cases, ended the Council and Indian Water Rights.” In Water on
the Great Plains: Issues and Policies, eds. Peter J.
endless decades of litigation and carry with them the
Longo and David W. Yoskowitz, 141–167.
promise of delivering real, “wet” water to the Indian Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press.
nations. Settlement negotiations have usually been Doherty, Robert. 1993. Disputed Waters: Native
started after an Indian nation or the United States Americans and the Great Lakes Fishery. Lexington:
has already become involved in a case involving University Press of Kentucky.
water rights claimed by a state and other non-Indian DuMars, Charles T., Marilyn O’Leary, and Albert E.
water users. The negotiation necessary to achieve a Utton. 1984. Pueblo Indian Water Rights: Struggle
for a Precious Resource. Tucson: University of
water settlement involves the process of alternative
Arizona Press.
dispute resolution, which allows all the interested Hundley, Norris, Jr. 1978. “The Dark and Bloody
parties to participate. This type of resolution is most Ground of Indian Water Rights: Confusion
effective when there are factual disagreements on Elevated to Principle.” Western Historical
technical data between the parties; therefore, they Quarterly, 9: 477.
sometimes rely on court decisions to decide basic Hundley, Norris, Jr. 1982. “The ‘Winters’ Decision
legal questions, such as the priority date of the reser- and Indian Water Rights: A Mystery
vation. Rather than seeking final adjudication in the Reexamined.” Western Historical Quarterly 13: 17.
McCool, Daniel. 1987. Command of the Waters: Iron
courts, the parties use the court-determined data to
Triangles, Federal Water Development, and Indian
achieve a solution that will satisfy some of the Water. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
desires of all sides rather than all of the desires of McCool, Daniel. 2002. Native Waters: Contemporary
one side. Indian water needs are addressed without Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era.
eliminating non-Indian water uses, although usually Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
neither side is able to achieve all its goals. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1992. Crossing the Next Meridian:
Negotiations in a land of limited water like the Land, Water, and the Future of the American West.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
American West mean that the Indian nations usually
Worster, Donald. 1985. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity,
do not receive the full share of water determined by and the Growth of the American West. New York:
the Winters doctrine; but in return they often get Oxford University Press.

Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering
T
T
hroughout most of North America, indige- side one’s own village, as a person could thereby
nous subsistence traditionally depended on acquire access to several locations across a wide area.
seasonal cycles of hunting, fishing, and gath- Hunting and gathering grounds also belonged to
ering. Even among groups that adopted agriculture families with recognized usufructuary privileges,
or pastoralism, wild animals and plants enriched which could be more or less exclusive depending on
diets while also providing security against the fail- the natural abundance of the resource in question.
ure of crops or the loss of livestock. In many areas, As one nineteenth-century American observed of the
traditional subsistence practices continued to furnish Ottawa and Ojibwe in Upper Michigan:
Indian families with food, clothing, shelter, and tools
long after the introduction of European trade goods. The beaver dams . . . all have owners among the
Assimilationist policies and ecological changes grad- Indians, and are handed down from father to
ually undermined these activities as white settle- son. The sugar camps, or “sucreries,” as the
ment spread across the continent, yet they still Canadians call them, have all an owner, and no
occupy an important place in the economic, social, Indian family would think of making sugar at a
and religious lives of indigenous communities from place where it had no right. Even the cranberry
Alaska to Florida. Many tribes expressly reserved patches, or places in the swamp and bush
the right to continue hunting, fishing, and gathering where the berry is plucked, are family property;
on ceded lands through treaties with the U.S. gov- and the same with many other things.
ernment. Since the late nineteenth century, however,
bitter disputes have developed regarding the exact Such kinship-centered systems of allocation dif-
nature and extent of Indian reserved rights. State fered significantly from the centralized tribal owner-
authorities and private citizens have tried to restrict ship outlined in treaties and court decisions, as well
or prevent Native hunting, fishing, and gathering as from the European American conception of land
outside reservation boundaries. Indians have and natural resources as marketable commodities.
responded with civil disobedience, test cases, and Consequently, the post-treaty period witnessed
repeated appeals to the federal government. numerous disagreements within and between tribes
Although the threat of abrogation remains, the fed- in addition to disputes with state governments and
eral courts have generally upheld treaty rights since non-Indian citizens. This essay focuses on the Pacific
the early twentieth century, and tribes have become Northwest and the Great Lakes, which have been the
co-managers of valuable natural resources. primary arenas of treaty litigation in the United
Tribal regulation of reserved rights and re- States, but the patterns evident in those regions hold
sources is an important element of modern sover- for most others as well.
eignty, but it also represents a significant departure
from aboriginal practice. Before the negotiation of
treaties, prime hunting, fishing, and gathering sites Native Interpretations
traditionally belonged to individuals and kin groups of Treaty Rights
rather than to clearly defined and tightly bounded At bottom, the determination of Native Americans
“tribes.” Among the Straits Salish-speaking peoples to defend their treaty rights reflected indigenous
of Puget Sound, a man could fish wherever he and conceptions of treaties, land, and natural resources
his wife had relatives, which generally meant any- that were fundamentally different from those of
where in Straits Salish territory. Specific reef net and European Americans. Indians traditionally viewed
weir locations were owned by individuals who man- animals, fish, and plants as nonhuman persons and
aged and maintained them on behalf of larger kin potential sources of spiritual power as well as suste-
groups. Similarly, in the Columbia River basin, the nance. To channel that power and to ensure abun-
rights to a particular fishing rock, island, or scaffold dant supplies of food, Native people performed cer-
descended through inheritance, and the owner had emonies intended to show respect and gratitude for
to grant permission for others to use it. Fishing the assistance and sacrifices of their nonhuman
rights thus created a major incentive to marry out- “brothers and sisters.” In the Pacific Northwest, for
147
example, many groups held “first-foods” feasts During treaty councils, Indian representatives
before allowing their members to start hunting, fish- often specified the subsistence sites they wished to
ing, and gathering. “At the beginning of each sea- retain for their people. William Yallup, a descendant
son,” recalled Vivian Adams (Yakama) in the early of a Yakama treaty signer, recalled that each of the
1990s, “a special group of people was selected for the chiefs at the Walla Walla council in 1855 “[gave] a
first gathering of the season’s offerings.” Chosen for description of what they had reserved in the way of
their special skills and intimate knowledge of partic- food.” Their statements went unrecorded but likely
ular resources, these ceremonial leaders fasted and echoed those made at the subsequent Wasco council
prayed for their people’s success in the coming har- in central Oregon, where several headmen expressed
vest. “Upon return of the group, a feast was held: for special concern for their food sources. “Our fishing
the first digging, the first catch, the first picking, and place on the Columbia we wish to keep,” declared
the first kill.” Such individual and collective rituals the Tenino chief Alexis. “The country you have
of thanksgiving took place around Native North shown us we are glad to live on it. That is all I have
America, and many are still observed today (albeit in to say. I only came to talk of the fishing ground.”
modified form) by Indians committed to traditional Simtustus, a Tygh spokesman, likewise explained:
subsistence practices. Their ancestors reserved the “The [Deschutes] have sustained us in fish. The Falls
right to continue those practices because they could where we catch the fish, we would like to reserve it.
not imagine living without them. You have seen our country where we get our roots,
U.S. treaty makers found it expedient to placate this is the country I spoke about.” The Indians had
Indian concerns, but translation problems and differ- no intention of surrendering their means of survival,
ing cultural expectations often produced divergent and the treaty commissioners consented to provide
interpretations of the treaties and the rights they pro- the necessary protection.
tected. Whereas policymakers assumed that Indians In many cases, however, the provisions that
would ultimately assimilate into white society, fed- secured Native subsistence rights also sowed the
eral negotiators recognized that tribal leaders would seeds of future controversy. Although the treaties
not sign papers that failed to protect their access to did not give the Indians special privileges, as critics
important subsistence resources and sites. Therefore, later claimed, the language of the documents often
in order to soften the shock of land cessions and ease restructured indigenous rights in subtle yet signifi-
the expected transition to European American life- cant ways. The treaties of 1854–1855 concluded in
ways, many treaties explicitly secured Indian rights the Pacific Northwest offer a case in point. Each of
to hunt, fish, and/or gather on ceded lands. As early the agreements made in the Oregon and Washington
as 1789, the Wyandot treaty stated that “individuals territories contained a virtually identical version of
of the said nation shall be at liberty to hunt within this article:
the territory ceded to the United States, without hin-
drance or molestation, so long as they demean them- The exclusive right of taking fish in all the
selves peaceably, and offer no injury or annoyance to streams, where running through or bordering
any of the subjects or citizens of the said United said reservation, is further secured to said
States.” The treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854 with the confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as
Lake Superior Ojibwe guaranteed “[t]he privilege of also the right of taking fish at all usual and
hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon accustomed places, in common with the citizens
the lands the rivers, and the lakes included in the of the Territory, and of erecting temporary
territory ceded . . . during the pleasure of the United buildings for curing them; together with the
States.” After Congress unilaterally ended formal privileges of hunting, gathering roots and
treaty making in 1871, some executive orders, fed- berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle
eral statutes, and congressional agreements secured upon open and unclaimed land.
Indian hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on
ceded lands. In 1891, for instance, an executive order By vesting subsistence rights in “confederated
reducing the Colville Reservation in northeastern tribes and bands,” this clause purported to trans-
Washington State provided that “the right to hunt form individual and familial entitlements into tribal
and fish in common with all other persons on [the ones. At the same time, it allowed competition from
ceded lands] shall not be taken away or in anywise American citizens and introduced a false distinction
abridged.” between permanent “rights” and temporary “privi-

leges.” The treaty commissioners foresaw the contin- fishing rights at all; that the white men just weren’t
uance of fishing at traditional sites but presumed interested in fishing.”
that the Indians would abandon their other off- The canons of treaty construction established by
reservation activities as assimilation proceeded and the U.S. Supreme Court dictate that treaties must be
whites filled the surrounding country. Indians gener- interpreted as the Indians would have understood
ally had different expectations, however, and they them at the time, that all doubtful or ambiguous
left the councils with very different understandings terms must be resolved in favor of the Indians, and
of the treaties. that treaties in general must be liberally construed to
As members of oral cultures, most tribal leaders the benefit of the Indians. In practice, however, the
remembered the verbal explanations of the treaty courts have considered only express treaty or statu-
terms rather than the words written in the official tory language reserving off-reservation hunting,
documents. They did not recognize the legalistic fishing, and gathering rights. Native oral traditions
difference between rights and privileges, and the concerning treaties and treaty councils are typically
commissioners made no such distinction in their dismissed as hearsay. For Indians steeped in orality
descriptions of the “fishing clause.” At the Point No rather than literacy, the agreements comprised
Point council in 1854, for example, Washington ter- everything said and solemnized at the councils, not
ritorial governor Isaac Stevens simply declared, merely the words written in the official documents.
“This paper secures your fish. Does not a father give Decades later, descendants of treaty signers contin-
food to his children?” The following year, using a ued to relate stories of promises made but not
chain of mixed-blood interpreters and Indian criers, recorded on paper. Most importantly, they insisted
Stevens informed the Indians at the Walla Walla that their treaty rights had been reserved in perpetu-
meeting: ity. As Yakama fishing rights activist David Sohappy,
Sr., explained in 1978, his ancestors understood that
You will be allowed to pasture your animals on the treaty would endure “as long as that mountain
land not claimed or occupied by settlers, white stood there, as long as the sun rose in the east and
men. You will be allowed to go on the roads to long as the grass grows green in the spring and the
take your things to market, your horses and rivers flow. To me, that meant forever, not to be abro-
cattle. You will be allowed to go to the usual gated or changed or done away with any other way.
fishing places and fish in common with the That’s the way the old people talk.”
whites, and to get roots and berries and to kill The central issue in most state-tribal disputes
game on land not occupied by the whites. All has been the extent to which the states can regulate
that outside the reservation. Indian hunting and fishing rights. Faced with declin-
ing stocks of fish and game as well as growing pres-
At the Wasco council, Oregon superintendent of sure from sport and commercial interests, state gov-
Indian affairs Joel Palmer assured Native representa- ernments began implementing conservation
tives that they “would always have the privilege to programs in the late nineteenth century. Many con-
hunt, gather roots and berries, and fish.” These servation laws favored non-Indian commercial and
promises placed all subsistence activities on an equal recreational users over Indians, who found their off-
footing and set no explicit limits on the purpose, reservation subsistence activities increasingly con-
time, or method of taking. Insofar as the Indians strained by a web of regulations governing illegal
understood the phrase “in common with the gear, trespassing, licensing, closed seasons, prohib-
whites,” they probably expected to exercise control ited areas, catch limits, and the sale of game or fish.
over American citizens at the fisheries. They cer- When Indians hunted or fished in violation of these
tainly never anticipated the imposition of federal, laws—knowingly or unknowingly—state authorities
state, and tribal laws on a system regulated by cus- arrested and prosecuted them for poaching. Many
tom and kinship. “The way we understood, the also had their guns or gear confiscated, adding to the
white man wouldn’t have any use for salmon, the economic and cultural hardships posed by the
berries and the roots,” recalled John Skannowa, inability to take traditional resources for subsistence,
whose uncle signed the Treaty of Middle Oregon; ceremony, and sale. This concerted assault on their
“[T]he white man wouldn’t eat that and didn’t know treaty rights confounded traditional Indians and
what that food was . . . Joel Palmer indicated that tribal leaders, who generally regarded their foods as
there would be no interference with the Indians’ sacred gifts from the Creator, not the property of

state governments representing alien intruders. “I River. Native labor remained essential in the forma-
was not brought from a foreign country and did not tive years of the packing industry, in which Indians
come here,” protested Chief Meninock of the worked as both fishers and processors, but its rapid
Yakama Nation in 1915. “I was put here by the Cre- growth and capitalization soon marginalized them.
ator. We had no cattle, no hogs, no grain, only berries Cannery-operated traps and wheels forced Indians
and roots and game and fish. We never thought we away from their accustomed fishing sites and
would be troubled about these things, and I tell my reduced the need for their labor, while the white
people, and I believe it, it is not wrong for us to get commercial fleet expanded dramatically. By the early
this food.” 1900s, many Indians had lost access to traditional
In their defense, Indians argued that federal reef and riverine fisheries. As few could afford the
treaties protected their rights to hunt and fish with- equipment necessary to pursue fish at sea, most fell
out interference from the states. State courts typi- into a state of poverty and dependency that per-
cally dismissed the concept of reserved rights, and sisted into the 1970s. Although tribal leaders
the federal government proved an inconstant ally at appealed to the federal government for help, the BIA
best. In the case Ward v. Race Horse in 1896 (163 U.S. moved slowly and hesitantly because it favored a
504), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Wyoming’s policy of assimilation based on agriculture. Fishing,
game laws superseded Shoshone-Bannock treaty hunting, and gathering represented relics of “sav-
rights because of the Constitution’s “equal footing” agery” that the government wished to stamp out
doctrine. According to this line of argument, Indian and replace with a “civilized” lifestyle. Therefore,
treaties negotiated during the territorial period were despite the promises made in the treaties, federal
implicitly abrogated when a territory joined the officials allowed many of the region’s prime fisheries
Union with the all rights and powers of the existing to pass into non-Indian hands.
states. In the Pacific Northwest, state courts also The first significant victories for Indian treaty
used the phrase “in common with the citizens of the rights came along the Columbia River, where conflict
Territory” to contend that Indians had only the same erupted when American settlers and packing com-
rights as non-Indians and were thus equally subject panies began claiming aboriginal fisheries and
to state laws. Treaty tribes in Washington and Ore- impeding Indian access to the river. In 1884, a white
gon repeatedly challenged this interpretation in the homesteader named Frank Taylor ran a barbed-wire
federal courts, and Northwest fishing rights cases fence across the main path to the Tumwater fishery
reached the Supreme Court seven times during the near The Dalles, Oregon, arguing that the barrier
twentieth century. On each occasion, the Court was necessary to stop Indians from camping and
affirmed the existence of Indian treaty rights but pasturing horses on his land. The Justice Depart-
failed to foreclose fully the states’ power to regulate ment responded with a lawsuit on behalf of the
them. State governments, in turn, continued to cite Yakama Nation, U.S. v. Frank Taylor (3 Washington
Race Horse and to prosecute Indians for hunting and Territory 88), which reached the Supreme Court of
fishing in violation of state regulations. Washington Territory in January 1887. While recog-
nizing the defendant’s title to the land, the court
held that “the Treaty privilege of the Indians to take
Hunting and Fishing Rights fish was an easement upon it at the time the govern-
in the Pacific Northwest ment conveyed the title and that such title did not
Fishing rights have been the greatest source of con- extinguish the easement.” In other words, treaty
tention in the Pacific Northwest because of their sig- Indians had the right to cross private property when
nificance in traditional Indian culture and their passing to and from their traditional fishing sites.
immense commercial value. Native Americans of the This opinion reversed the initial ruling of the district
region faced few challenges to their fishing rights court and remanded the case for a new trial, which
before the 1880s. In most places, Indians supplied upheld the treaty and produced an injunction
the small European American market for salmon against Taylor in October 1887. Other fishwheel
and continued to use their traditional sites without owners ignored the ruling, however, forcing the fed-
interference. Following the advent of improved pro- eral government to bring a second lawsuit in 1897
cessing technology, however, salmon became a against Audubon and Linnaeus Winans.
lucrative commodity, and canneries proliferated U.S. v. Winans (198 U.S. 371) became a major
around Puget Sound and along the lower Columbia landmark in the history of federal Indian law. The

Winans brothers, like Taylor, strung a fence across implemented its first fisheries code forbidding cer-
the trail to the aboriginal Tumwater fishery on the tain traditional techniques such as spearing and
Columbia River. They, too, insisted it was essential to snaring. The following year, the state’s supreme
protect their crops and pasture from Indian ponies, court ruled against two Indians convicted of fishing
yet the brothers lost no time in building a fishwheel with illegal gear and without state licenses. In both
to harvest salmon. Hoping to overturn the Taylor cases, State v. Towessnute (89 Wash. 478) and State v.
precedent, their attorneys raised several new argu- Alexis (89 Wash. 492), the justices held that the defen-
ments to bolster the Winans’s property rights claim. dant’s treaty right to fish “in common” merely gave
In addition to citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent him the same privileges as non-Indian citizens. State
ruling in Ward v. Race Horse, the defense contended v. Wallahee (143 Wash. 117) applied the same logic to
that the Winans brothers’ use of a state-licensed Indian hunting on “open and unclaimed lands” out-
wheel gave them a right superior to that of Native side reservation boundaries. Although the Office of
dipnetters, “since wheel fishing is one of the civi- Indian Affairs urged appeals of Alexis and Towess-
lized man’s methods, as legitimate as the substitu- nute, the federal government declined to challenge
tion of the modern combine harvester for the ancient state authority on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court
sickle and flail.” Even when erected at traditional had recently reaffirmed state regulatory powers in
grounds, the defense team alleged, fishwheels sup- Kennedy v. Becker (241 U.S. 556), a case involving
posedly did not deprive Indians of their common Seneca fishing rights in New York, and the prospects
right, because it “[applied] to no certain and defined for reversal seemed dim. During the 1930s, however,
places.” a general shift toward self-determination in Indian
The federal district court agreed with the affairs created a more favorable climate for tribal
defense and ruled in favor of the Winans brothers, claims and assertions of sovereignty. The Columbia
but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower River treaty tribes pushed for another test case, and
court’s ruling in the spring of 1905. In an eight-to- in 1942 the U.S. Supreme Court handed them a qual-
one opinion delivered by Joseph McKenna, the jus- ified victory in Tulee v. Washington (315 U.S. 681),
tices upheld Yakama rights and established two vital which exempted Indians from state license require-
principles governing treaty interpretation. The first ments. States could still regulate tribal hunting and
stated that treaties must be construed as the Indians fishing for conservation purposes but not by impos-
understood them at the time and “as justice and rea- ing license fees that effectively “[acted] upon the
son demand” because the United States had exerted Indians as a charge for exercising the very right their
superior power over the “unlettered” tribal repre- ancestors intended to reserve.”
sentatives. The second, known as the reserved rights Meanwhile, disagreements within and between
doctrine, held that treaties were “not a grant of the tribes mounted even as they struggled to fend off
rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from the common threat of state regulation. With salmon
them—a reservation of those not granted.” Putting runs sagging and other fisheries disappearing
these principles into action, the Supreme Court beneath dam reservoirs, many mid-Columbia Indi-
declared that members of the Yakama Nation had ans migrated to the remaining sites between The
retained their existing rights to cross the land, to fish Dalles and Celilo Falls. The Celilo Fish Committee
at usual and accustomed places, and to erect tempo- (CFC), created in 1936 to settle the resulting dis-
rary houses for curing their catches. Neither private putes, provided a forum for competing visions of the
property nor superior technology gave the Winans fishery. Local residents and people with ancestral
family an exclusive claim to the fishery, and they fishing stations viewed treaty rights as a legal
could not restrict the Indians in their use of it. Before umbrella beneath which traditional rules still
closing, however, the Court added a bit of dictum applied. By contrast, newcomers and advocates of
that kept open the door to controversy. At the same tribal control embraced the framework established
time that it affirmed the Indians’ right to fish “at all in the treaties and reinforced through litigation. As
usual and accustomed places,” the ruling did not Andrew Barnhart explained in 1942,
“restrain the state unreasonably, if at all, in the regu-
lation of that right.” I was appointed a fish committeeman from my
The battle over regulation intensified during the Umatilla Reservation to protect my tribal rights.
next thirty years as Indians ran afoul of proliferating I can remember the old people that fished here
fish and game laws. In 1915, Washington State at Celilo—Wyam Indians. But the white man

has come here and ruled your location as a pioneered the strategy in 1954, when they violated a
tribal relation . . . this Committee will not ban on set nets after notifying state agencies of their
determine one individual ownership to one intention to do so. By the mid-1960s, fish-ins had
location. But we must rule equal right. spread to Frank’s Landing on the Nisqually River
and Cook’s Landing on the Columbia, which
The completion of The Dalles Dam in 1957 remained focal points of protest for the next ten
ended the fishery at Celilo but not the controversy. years. Activists such as Billy Frank, Jr. (Nisqually),
By 1961, when Whitefoot v. United States (293 F.2d and David Sohappy, Sr., risked arrest numerous
658) expressly defined treaty rights as tribal prop- times and eventually came to personify the struggle
erty, the Warm Springs and Yakama tribes had joined for the non-Indian public. Some tribal members con-
the Quinault and Tulalip of the Washington coast in sidered fish-ins counterproductive and called the
passing their own fishing ordinances. Traditionalists protestors renegades, but they drew increasing sup-
still objected to the presumption of tribal authority, port from sympathetic Indians and non-Indians
but their protests were largely drowned out by the around the country. The National Indian Youth
climactic confrontation between the tribes and the Council sent Hank Adams and Mel Thom to help
states. organize demonstrations, the Native American
The battle over Northwest Indian fishing rights Rights Fund offered legal assistance, and Janet
peaked in the 1960s and 1970s. Salmon runs had McCloud (Tulalip) mobilized the Survival of Ameri-
reached record lows after a century of overfishing, can Indians Association for a major march on the
habitat destruction, industrial pollution, and dam Washington State capitol. Non-Indian allies included
building. White commercial and sports fishermen the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker
generally found it easier to blame each other and the social justice organization; the American Civil Liber-
Indians—who took only 5 percent of the catch in ties Union, which defended Muckleshoot fishermen
1970—and the regional media often echoed popular in court; and celebrities such as comedian Dick
claims that tribal fishing endangered the resource. Gregory and actor Marlon Brando, who joined a
Indian court victories further stoked white resent- fish-in in 1964 on the Puyallup River. Brando’s
ment of the “special rights” bestowed by the treaties. arrest, in particular, made the fish-ins national news
Building on the precedent set in Tulee and Makah v. and encouraged further media coverage.
Schoettler (192 F. 2d 224), the decision in Maison v. As protests became more frequent and received
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (312 F. more attention, state reactions and local anti-Indian
2d 169) in 1963 established more stringent criteria for sentiment grew increasingly violent. Some white
state regulation of Indian fishing. The Ninth Circuit fishermen vented their anger by cutting nets, steal-
Court of Appeals, ruling against the Oregon Game ing fish, setting boats adrift, and even threatening
Commission, held that states must prove both the Indians with physical harm. Several Indian fishers
necessity and the indispensability of any conserva- complained of being shot at, and in 1971 Hank
tion regulations imposed on tribal fishing; in other Adams received a bullet wound from two white
words, Indian treaty rights could be curtailed only if men who allegedly said “You . . . Indians think you
restricting other users had failed to protect the own everything.” State police and game wardens
resource. As that case made its way through the also clashed with tribal fishers during raids on off-
court system, however, Washington State cracked reservation fishing sites. Reporters and television
down on Nisqually and Puyallup fishers at the crews captured dramatic images of Indians being
southern end of Puget Sound. Indian activists clubbed, tear-gassed, and dragged across the
responded with a new tactic, the “fish-in,” which ground. State patrol boats shadowed Indian fishing
triggered violent reactions and moved the fishing canoes and sometimes spilled their occupants into
rights controversy into the national spotlight. the water to stop them from setting nets. Just as
Fish-ins posed a direct challenge to state author- scenes of police brutality in Birmingham, Alabama,
ity. Modeled after the contemporaneous sit-ins of the galvanized public support for the civil rights move-
African American civil rights movement, they ment, media coverage of the fish-ins raised a
entailed deliberately breaking the law in order to national outcry and placed mounting pressure on
provoke a response from state authorities, trigger the federal government. In 1966, the Justice Depart-
test cases, and publicize the issue of treaty rights. ment signaled a shift in policy by declaring that it
Puyallup fishers Robert Satiacum and James Young would accept tribal requests to defend Indians

arrested for fishing off reservation under tribal Indians, and served both “reasonable and neces-
regulations. sary” conservation purposes. If the runs could be
Federal intervention on behalf of the treaty efficiently preserved by other means, including the
tribes began with Puyallup Tribe v. Department of restriction of nontreaty fishing “to the full extent,”
Game, which came to be known as the Puyallup Tril- then the Indian fishery could not be regulated at all.
ogy because it reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Judge Boldt, anticipating resistance to his ruling, fol-
three separate occasions. The case began in 1966, lowed Belloni’s lead in opting to exercise continuing
when Washington sued to prevent Nisqually and jurisdiction over the case and to issue his own
Puyallup tribe members from fishing contrary to interim plan for management of the fisheries.
state laws. Federal attorneys filed an amicus curiae As expected, U.S. v. Washington, the so-called
(“friend of the court”) brief in support of the tribes, Boldt Decision, faced massive opposition from
and the U.S. Supreme Court heard their appeal in Washington State and its large population of com-
1968. Puyallup I (391 U.S. 392) upheld tribal rights to mercial and sports fishermen. Many whites signaled
catch both salmon and steelhead, a migratory trout their disapproval with a wave of political protests
species that the state had classified as a game fish, and illegal fishing in violation of court-ordered clo-
but it also affirmed the state’s power to regulate off- sures. Some individuals made threats of violence
reservation fishing so long as its conservation mea- against Indians and tried to interfere with tribal fish-
sures met “appropriate standards” and did not dis- ing, which led to several tense confrontations on the
criminate against Indians. The following year, U.S. water, while commercial and sports fishing organi-
District Court Judge Robert Belloni applied these cri- zations lobbied for legislation and launched test
teria to the Columbia River in the combined cases of cases to reverse Boldt. Two such lawsuits, Puget
Sohappy v. Smith (302 F. Supp. 899) and U.S. v. Ore- Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos (565 P.2d 1151)
gon. Going a step further, he also decreed that the and Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing
treaty tribes must be allowed a meaningful role in Vessel Association v. Tollefson (571 P.2d 1373), received
the regulatory process and guaranteed “a fair and favorable hearings from the Washington State
equitable share” of the catch. While Oregon reluc- Supreme Court in 1977. Although the defendant in
tantly complied with that ruling, Washington contin- each case was the state director of fisheries, Wash-
ued its vigorous enforcement efforts against the ington actually encouraged non-Indian defiance by
tribes of Puget Sound. In 1970, after a heavily armed working aggressively to obstruct and overturn the
force of state wardens and local police attacked a Boldt Decision. State agencies refused to issue regu-
large Puyallup fish camp, the federal government lations guaranteeing the tribal allocation, the state
initiated U.S. v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312) to clar- attorney general pressed for a high court hearing,
ify the rights of fourteen treaty tribes (later increased state courts dismissed citations against white “out-
to twenty) that chose to participate in the litigation. law” fishers, and the state’s congressional delegation
U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt con- introduced several bills to abrogate all treaty rights.
ducted a thorough review of the evidence and argu- Congress rejected those measures, as it had done
ments with the goal of settling the controversy once with earlier state proposals to buy out tribal fishing
and for all. His decision in the first phase of the trial, rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court did agree to
issued in 1974, shocked state officials and outraged review both the Washington and Puyallup cases,
many non-Indians despite the existence of sound against a backdrop of rising racial animosity.
legal precedents. Taking into account contemporary To the chagrin of Washington State attorney
dictionary definitions and the probable Indian general Slade Gorton, a lifelong opponent of tribal
understanding of the treaties, Boldt interpreted the sovereignty, the Court again upheld Indian treaty
pivotal phrase “in common with the citizens of the rights, with only minor qualifications. In 1973,
Territory” to mean “sharing equally.” Thus, the Puyallup II (414 U.S. 44) had struck down a state ban
tribes had a right to 50 percent of the annual salmon on tribal net fishing for steelhead because it discrimi-
and steelhead harvest (excluding fish caught on the nated against Indians. Four years later, amid the
reservations and for ceremonial or subsistence pur- furor over the Boldt Decision, Puyallup III (433 U.S.
poses) as well as the right to participate in manage- 165) affirmed the allocation of 45 percent of wild
ment of the resource. The state could regulate off- steelhead runs to the tribes. State officials hoped that
reservation fishing only if its measures met the Supreme Court would throw out Judge Boldt’s
appropriate standards, did not discriminate against 50-50 division, but its decision of 1979 in Washington

v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Ves- Judge Boldt’s hope of ending the controversy
sel Association (433 U.S. 658) merely modified his for- dimmed further in the 1980s and 1990s due to inter-
mula. Whereas Boldt had excluded the ceremonial, and intratribal disputes over harvest allocation and
subsistence, and on-reservation catch from the Indi- the ownership of usual and accustomed fishing sites.
ans’ share, the Court held that those fish should be Although they have common adversaries and a
counted against the tribal allocation. Furthermore, mutual commitment to preserve the salmon, the
the majority opinion fixed 50 percent as a maximum tribes also compete for fish and have not shared their
share, intended to secure “so much as, but not more portions equally. By the mid-1980s, the Lummi had
than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a developed a large ocean fleet capable of catching
livelihood—that is to say, a moderate living.” close to half the entire allocation for the twenty-four
Although the Court failed to define “a moderate liv- treaty tribes in western Washington. Tribes located
ing,” it suggested that the tribes’ allocation could be on southern Puget Sound, with less valuable “termi-
reduced due to dwindling membership or economic nal” fisheries and little capital with which to “gear
development that reduced their reliance on fish. For up,” fear that the Lummi and other northern tribes
the time being, however, the state had to comply will intercept and deplete the runs before others
with the district court’s order and apportion fish on have a chance to fish. The Muckleshoot, Nisqually,
an equal basis. To do otherwise would violate the Puyallup, and Squaxin Island tribes have asked the
supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which courts to ensure more equitable shares, while the
describes treaties as “the supreme law of the land” Skokomish and Klallam tribes have challenged
and therefore binding on state governments. Lummi claims to various fishing areas around Puget
As Washington moved slowly to align its poli- Sound. Competition for an already-scarce resource
cies with Boldt’s initial ruling, Phase II of the trial has also led some treaty tribes, such as the Quinault
tackled two outstanding issues: Did the Indian allo- and Tulalip, to oppose the efforts of nontreaty
cation include hatchery fish, and did the treaties groups seeking federal recognition. Within tribes,
imply a right to environmental protection of fish tensions have developed over the practice of “dou-
runs and fish habitat? Judge William Orrick, who ble-dipping” (fishing with state licenses on days
replaced Boldt upon the latter’s retirement in 1979, closed to Indians), challenges to tribal regulation,
answered both questions positively. The tribes and control of specific fishing sites. The tribes have
needed hatchery fish to replace the wild runs worked to develop management strategies more
destroyed or depleted by environmental degrada- appropriate to their cultures and conceptions of the
tion, he argued, and the state would have no incen- resource, but the continued decline of salmon popu-
tive to rehabilitate salmon habitat or to prevent fur- lations has made it difficult to avoid both internal
ther destruction if Indians could catch only wild and external conflicts.
fish. In a concession to non-Indian economic con- Since the 1970s, the federal government has
cerns, however, Orrick ruled that the state had only generally followed its established pattern of alter-
to refrain from degrading the resource to an extent nately helping and hindering Northwest tribes in the
that would deprive Indians of their “moderate liv- exercise of their rights and the protection of endan-
ing needs.” This ambiguous interpretation limited gered resources. In 1982, federal agents arrested
the tribes’ ability to enjoin activities that harm fish activist David Sohappy and eighteen other Yakama
runs and habitat, and it also failed to define what fishers in an anti-poaching sting operation the press
constitutes a moderate living. They immediately later dubbed “Salmonscam.” Sohappy and his son
appealed, arguing for the restoration of salmon pop- ultimately spent five years in prison, despite the fact
ulations to pre-treaty levels or at least for a higher that government allegations proved vastly
standard of “no significant deterioration.” Mean- overblown, and non-Indians received only fines for
while, the states and various industrial interests the same crime. The Bureau of Indian Affairs then
tried equally hard to overturn Orrick’s ruling, tried to evict the Sohappys and other Indian families
which they deemed a threat to hydroelectric power from the in-lieu fishing sites where they lived, argu-
generation and economic growth. The decision ing that the sites were tribal property and not
stood, though it has been reviewed several times to intended for permanent occupancy. Meanwhile, the
clarify its meaning, and “Boldt II” remains one of Army Corps of Engineers dragged its heels in com-
the most controversial and potentially far-reaching pleting additional in-lieu sites promised fifty years
aspects of U.S. v. Washington. earlier when Bonneville Dam inundated traditional

fishing locations in the Columbia River gorge. The seventeenth century, the extension of the European
corps has also joined the Bonneville Power Adminis- fur trade into the Great Lakes region disrupted the
tration in opposing tribal efforts to make the dams aboriginal economy of the Ottawa and Ojibwe
and the river more hospitable for salmon. The tribes, (Chippewa/Anishinaabe), gradually drawing them
in turn, have sued several times to force the Com- into a market system over which they had little con-
merce Department to reduce the ocean seasons set trol. Initially, many Indians adapted to this new eco-
by the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (PFMC). nomic network by integrating wage labor into their
Although the courts have resisted tribal demands, subsistence cycle, but the commodification of natural
they have required the PFMC and other agencies to resources eventually undermined Native autonomy
work with the tribes in creating mutually acceptable and self-sufficiency. By 1900, market hunting and
management plans. logging had decimated the animal populations and
The shift toward cooperative management is pine forests of northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and
one of several important legacies of the long struggle Minnesota. Indians maintained a toehold in the fish-
over Northwest Indian treaty rights. Most of the ing industry as wage laborers and continued their
tribes concerned in U.S. v. Oregon and U.S. v. Wash- seasonal migrations as best they could. As the white
ington currently operate their own fish hatcheries fishing industry developed, however, the same capi-
and employ their own harvest managers, enforce- tal-intensive operations that forced the Indians off
ment officers, biologists, and technicians. They also the lakes systematically depleted one native species
work collectively through the Northwest Indian after another. Industrial pollution and lamprey infes-
Fisheries Commission, founded in 1974 to coordi- tation (caused by the St. Lawrence Seaway) aggra-
nate the regional treaty councils in western Washing- vated the effects of overfishing, leading to the com-
ton, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Com- plete collapse of the Great Lakes commercial fishery
mission. In addition to providing technical in the 1950s. The surrounding states restocked the
assistance to the tribes and information to the non- waters with popular game fish such as trout and
Indian public, these organizations consult and nego- coho salmon, but this lucrative sports fishery soon
tiate with a bewildering array of state, federal, and ran headlong into the rising Native American con-
international bodies. The tribes have thus become sciousness of the postwar decades.
key players in fisheries management and environ- The Indian peoples of the Great Lakes, like
mental politics, fueling a resurgence of tribal sover- those of the Pacific Northwest, had long borne the
eignty to match the economic and cultural revitaliza- brunt of state conservation efforts in spite of their
tion many reservations experienced following the treaty-reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather on
Boldt Decision. ceded lands. Wisconsin first proscribed gillnetting in
The Makah, whose treaty of 1854 also reserved the early 1850s, and in 1868 the state began setting
the right to hunt whales, reported a similar upsurge seasons for deer, game birds, and fur-bearing ani-
in tribal pride when they resumed the practice after mals. Although these regulations were not strictly
an eighty-year hiatus. Makah whalers had voluntar- enforced until the 1880s, they effectively reduced the
ily stopped hunting in the 1920s, when gray whales land area within which Indians could pursue their
became endangered due to commercial exploitation, traditional economy without breaking the law. The
but in 2001 the tribe successfully petitioned the fed- expansion of state hatchery programs and the
eral government and the International Whaling Northwoods tourist industry in the early twentieth
Commission for permission to take five whales per century encouraged fish and game officials to
year. The resulting protests and court challenges tighten their grip on tribal hunting and fishing. Wis-
show that treaty rights and tribal traditions, though consin even sought to impose its regulations on cer-
now on firmer legal footing, remain poorly under- tain reservation lands in the 1930s, by which time
stood by much of the non-Indian public. “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
Hunting and Fishing Rights those in the Northwest. In 1930, in the case People v.
in the Upper Midwest Chosa, for instance, several members of Michigan’s
The controversy over Indian treaty rights in the Keweenaw Bay band of Chippewa stood trial for
Upper Midwest has followed a trajectory similar to fishing contrary to state regulations. The Michigan
the struggle in the Pacific Northwest. Starting in the Supreme Court concluded that they no longer had

any off-reservation treaty rights because “when one harassed tribal fishers and destroyed their gear as
becomes a citizen of the United States [as Indians state wardens and police looked on. State officials
had in 1924], he casts off both the rights and obliga- made political hay of the issue and pushed for con-
tions of his former nationality and takes on those gressional abrogation of treaty rights. Michigan’s
which pertain to citizens of the country.” intransigence prevented a resolution to the dispute
Native hunters and fishers in Michigan moved until 1985, when a new judge appointed Francis
from covert evasion to outright defiance of state laws McGovern to negotiate a settlement out of court. The
during the 1960s. In 1965, stirred by news of the subsequent Sault Ste. Marie Agreement split the fish-
Northwest fish-ins, William Jondreau of the L’Anse ery into state and tribal zones and compensated the
band of Chippewa tested his rights under their 1854 tribes for their diminished rights, but it offered little
treaty by informing state officials of his intention to to the small-boat Indian fishers who found them-
net lake trout out of season. Six years later, State of selves confined to less productive northern waters.
Michigan v. William Jondreau (384 Mich. 539) reached Similar events transpired in Wisconsin, where
the state supreme court, which overruled one of its Fred and Mike Tribble of the Lac Courte Oreilles
own opinions (Chosa) and upheld the treaty. The (LCO) band of Chippewa initiated a test case in 1974.
implications of Jondreau’s victory remained uncer- Following their arrest for spearfishing out of season
tain because few of Michigan’s Indians were party to and off the reservation, the tribe filed a federal suit
the agreement of 1854, but the ruling helped inspire against Lester Voigt, head of the Wisconsin Depart-
further litigation. In the case People v. LeBlanc of 1976 ment of Natural Resources (WDNR). U.S. District
(399 Mich. 31), brought by Bay Mills band member Court Judge James Doyle initially determined that
Albert LeBlanc, the Michigan Supreme Court the Indians could not hunt, fish, and gather off the
affirmed Chippewa and Ottawa fishing rights under reservation free of state regulation. He contended
the treaty of 1836. Citing the precedent set in that, whereas the treaties of 1837 and 1842 had
Puyallup I, the court held that the state’s ban on gill- expressly reserved usufructuary rights, the treaty of
netting could only be applied to Indians if the state 1854 had not done so, thereby implicitly suspending
first showed that it was necessary for conservation them. In 1983, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals
and did not discriminate against them. Skeptical of overturned Doyle’s decision in La Courte Oreilles v.
the outcome in the state courts, the Bay Mills Com- Voigt (700 F. 2d 341) and remanded it to the district
munity and the Sault Ste. Marie tribe of Chippewa court for clarification. Commonly known as LCO I
also took action in federal court. The U.S. Depart- or the Voigt Decision, the appeals court ruling held
ments of Justice and Interior intervened on their that explicit language would have been necessary to
behalf, and their case reached the U.S. District Court suspend treaty-reserved rights, given their legal
in 1979. standing and the Indians’ interpretation of the treaty
U.S. v. Michigan (471 F. Supp. 192) ultimately of 1854. The state could only regulate those rights in
brought mixed results for the Indians. In the opin- the interests of conservation, public health, or safety
ion, Judge Noel Fox affirmed Chippewa and Ottawa and then only if the regulations were reasonable and
treaty rights to fish the Great Lakes with modern necessary to preserve a particular species, were the
technology and without regard to state law. “The least restrictive possible, and did not discriminate
right is not a static right today any more than it was against Indians. Judge Doyle’s adjudication of the
during treaty times,” he wrote, and therefore it was case continued until 1991, producing eight subse-
not limited as to the species and origin of fish or the quent rulings (LCO II-IX) to define the exact scope of
purpose, time, or manner of taking, as long as the Chippewa rights, while the controversy raged out-
Indians obeyed tribal and federal regulations. The side the courtroom.
U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s The furor over the Voigt Decision in northern
appeal. The Michigan Department of Natural Wisconsin rivaled the earlier backlash against the
Resources (MDNR), in turn, continued to enforce its Boldt Decision. White sportsmen bitterly denounced
regulations against Indian fishers and failed to pro- the court’s alleged extension of “unlimited rights” to
tect them against white vigilantes affiliated with the Indians under “old treaties,” echoing the
Stop Gill Netting and other anti-treaty groups that WDNR’s claim that tribal hunting and fishing would
sprang up in the wake of the ruling. Spurred by destroy the resources. State-sponsored studies have
lurid MDNR and press portrayals of Indian fishing shown that Indian spearfishers and gillnetters nor-
as a threat to conservation and tourism, sportsmen mally take less than 3 percent of the annual walleye

and musky harvests on northern lakes, while the consensus on the meaning of the decision. Tribal
tribal deer harvest remains lower than the yearly leaders agreed to define treaty rights as tribal and
roadkill rate. Nevertheless, anti-Indian sentiment not individual property, but they quibbled over
flared under the influence of economic recession and which rights to prioritize and how much to demand
ill-informed media coverage. Blaming Indians for from the state. The Lac Courte Oreilles and Lac du
the decline of the tourist industry, anti-treaty groups Flambeau (LdF) bands took the most aggressive
such as Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources stance. LCO tribal members generally preferred
(PARR) and Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin (STA-W) hunting over fishing, though, whereas the Mole
spouted racist rhetoric and encouraged their mem- Lake band expressed more interest in protecting its
bers to disrupt the spearfishing season. Signs and rights to harvest wild rice. The St. Croix tribal coun-
bumper stickers proliferated, proclaiming, “Save a cil initially wanted nothing more than free state fish-
Walleye, Spear an Indian,” and angry crowds gath- ing licenses, leading LdF spearer Tom Maulson to
ered at boat landings to hurl rocks and racial slurs at deride them as the “Zebco tribe” (Zebco being a
Chippewa fishers. Out on the water, non-Indian popular brand of fishing tackle). Maulson’s Wa-Swa-
boats tried to block lake access, harassed spearfish- Gon Treaty Association organized the fight against
ers with spotlights, and attempted to swamp their the state’s buyout proposal, which some tribal mem-
vessels. Some Indians even reported receiving death bers considered reasonable because only a minority
threats or hearing gunshots, yet local police and of Chippewa still exercised their treaty rights. Wa-
local courts did little to curtail the protests on the Swa-Gon supporters countered this argument by
grounds that they were protected by the First encouraging the revival of cultural traditions and
Amendment. transforming the fishing spear and the torch (histori-
Meanwhile, despite Governor Anthony Earl’s cally used to “shine” walleye at night) into key sym-
call for cooperation between state agencies and tribal bols of Chippewa identity. They also advocated a
governments, many bureaucrats and politicians strategy of nonviolence on the lakes and welcomed
worked hard to obstruct and overturn the Voigt the presence of non-Indian “Witness in Wisconsin”
Decision. Early interim agreements, intended to observers at the landings. Other spearfishers, by con-
allow for the meaningful exercise of Chippewa trast, counseled militant self-defense and regarded
rights while litigation continued, proved so restric- the witnesses as an unnecessary provocation to local
tive that some tribal leaders considered them a bad whites.
joke. The WDNR also imposed excessively low bag Minnesota Chippewa have likewise divided at
limits on non-Indian anglers, sparking increased times over the best approach to resolving the treaty
hostility, which in turn compelled Chippewa fishers rights controversy. In 1988, the Boise Forte, Grand
to voluntarily reduce their catches. Republican con- Portage, and Fond du Lac bands negotiated an
gressman Frank Sensenbrenner introduced an agreement with the state to settle a lawsuit Grand
unsuccessful treaty abrogation bill in 1987, while Portage had brought to affirm its rights under the
Wisconsin’s entire congressional delegation signed a treaties of 1837 and 1854. By signing the agreement,
letter threatening tribal governments with drastic the bands consented to stop or limit the exercise of
budget cuts if they refused to curb off-reservation certain off-reservation rights in return for an annual
hunting and fishing. Two years later, a tribal referen- payment from the state and cooperative enforcement
dum on the Lac du Flambeau reservation rejected a of fish and wildlife codes. Fond du Lac subsequently
$42 million buyout of the band’s rights, proposed by withdrew from the agreement, however, choosing to
the state attorney general. Other reservations proved return to court for an adjudication of its rights. The
more amenable to state leasing proposals, however, Mille Lacs band also sued the state in 1990, seeking a
and in 1991 the Chippewa collectively agreed not to declaratory judgment that they retained usufructu-
appeal their loss in LCO VIII (timber rights) or seek ary rights under the treaty of 1837 and an injunction
back damages if the state would respect the other against state interference with those rights. Nine
rulings. years later, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the treaty
The battle in the courts and on the lakes in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians
exposed significant cultural and strategic differences (526 U.S. 172) by a narrow five-to-four vote. Six
within and among the nine Ojibwe bands in Wiscon- bands of Wisconsin Chippewa intervened in the suit,
sin. Following their victorious appeal of LCO I, they demonstrating the extent to which the tribes share
formed the Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force to reach a common interests despite their various differences.

They cooperate through the Great Lakes Indian Fish subject of litigation and legislation. Wild rice
and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) to coordinate (manoomin), a staple of the Ojibwe diet since the sev-
conservation and enforcement efforts, disseminate enteenth century, offers a prime example of this pat-
information to the public, gather scientific data, and tern. All the Chippewa treaties in the Great Lakes
confront environmental threats such as mercury con- region either explicitly or implicitly reserved the
tamination. Thus, in the Upper Midwest as in the right to gather wild rice on ceded lands. Despite fed-
Pacific Northwest, the struggle for treaty rights has eral efforts to replace rice harvesting with “civilized”
stimulated a revitalization of tribal governance and agriculture, most Chippewa continued to gather
intertribal cooperation as well as renewed interest manoomin well into the twentieth century, typically
and pride in Native traditions. taking enough to supply both their own needs and
Currently, the criteria for state regulation of the small non-Indian market. During the 1960s, how-
Indian hunting and fishing rights depend on the par- ever, the introduction of combine harvesters and
ticular treaty or statute and the various federal, state, paddy ricing enabled whites to gain control of the
and tribal interests involved. Generally speaking, expanding industry. Although many Chippewa had
tribes may regulate on-reservation hunting and fish- readily adopted earlier technological advances, they
ing free from state interference. In some cases, how- could not afford the expensive new machines and
ever, tribal governments lack the authority to pre- protested their destructive impact on natural rice
vent non-Indians from hunting or fishing on beds. Minnesota eventually banned mechanical har-
reservation lands that are not owned by individual vesters and passed conservation laws to protect the
Indians or by the tribe itself. Furthermore some fed- resource, but not before overproduction had ruined
eral conservation laws (e.g., the Eagle Protection Act) many rice lakes and glutted the market. Falling
preempt both on- and off-reservation treaty rights. prices forced more Indians out of the market, while
State governments may regulate off-reservation industrial pollution and resort development contam-
hunting and fishing only when they present a suffi- inated or closed off access to many of the remaining
cient conservation or safety risk. To justify such reg- rice beds. By the 1970s, few Chippewa harvested
ulation, the state must demonstrate that a significant manoomin commercially, though many still gather it
hazard exists, that the state cannot meet its objec- for subsistence and ceremonial purposes today.
tives by regulating non-Indians alone, and that the As with hunting and fishing rights, state regula-
regulation is the least restrictive alternative avail- tion of ricing presented a problem for tribes without
able. Cooperative management has become the new sizable rice lakes on their reservations. Conse-
paradigm in resource conservation, and negotiation quently, several bands have sued to secure their
has gradually replaced litigation as the preferred rights to gather off reservation, starting in 1939 with
means of dispute resolution between states and U.S. v. 4,450.72 Acres of Land (72 F. Supp. 167). That
tribes. Tribal governments, in particular, have grown case, brought by the federal government on behalf of
more cautious about going to court, as states’ rights the Minnesota Chippewa, prompted Congress to
and property rights ideologies have resurged within establish the Wild Rice Lake Reserve for their exclu-
the federal judiciary and the national legislature. sive use. Under state law, however, Indian har-
Still, having fought so hard to protect their hunting vesters had to pay license fees and accept oversight
and fishing rights, Indians must continue to fight to by the Department of Game and Fish (DGF) even
ensure that the resources do not disappear. After all, when ricing on the reserve. Many Chippewa simply
as Judge William Orrick noted in reference to the ignored the license requirement, and DGF harass-
Boldt Decision, “fifty percent of nothing is nothing.” ment became a regular feature of harvest time. The
Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the state’s regula-
tory role in State v. Keezer (292 N.W.2d 714), a deci-
Gathering Rights sion in 1980 stemming from the arrest of two
Treaty-reserved gathering rights have generally Chippewa ricers, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s
caused less conflict than tribal hunting and fishing recent ruling in Mille Lacs forced the state back to the
because many food and medicinal plants harvested table. Wisconsin has also entered into negotiations
by Native Americans possess little appeal or com- since 1987, when LCO III (653 F. Supp. 1420)
mercial value for non-Indians. In cases where com- affirmed Ojibwe rights to harvest wild plants on all
petition does exist, or where ecological changes have public lands within the bands’ ceded territories.
caused scarcity, gathering rights have become the Although the state retains some regulatory power

over wild rice, numerous other species fall under a cans in the United States (excluding Alaska) now
memorandum of understanding (MOU) reached depend on hunting, fishing, and gathering for sub-
between the U.S. Forest Service and ten GLIFWC sistence, those activities have become powerful
tribes. A model of cooperative management, this symbols of Indian identity. To those who still exer-
MOU provides for tribal enforcement of tribally cise them, treaty rights are integral to cultural and
approved codes, including a requirement that har- religious practices that define what it means to be a
vesters obtain annual off-reservation permits. tribe member. Accordingly, many elders lament the
In the Pacific Northwest, treaty tribes reserved fact that younger people often express little interest
“the privileges of hunting, gathering roots and in traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering prac-
berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon tices. “Today it’s hard to be an Indian person, and
open and unclaimed land.” Their subsequent it’s easy to be white,” observed Edward James
defense of these “privileges” revealed that they (Umatilla) during the sesquicentennial commemo-
applied the phrase “usual and accustomed places” ration of his tribe’s treaty of 1855. “If we don’t hunt,
to all subsistence activities—not just fishing—and fish, dig roots and pick berries then what are we?
they logically tried to use rights won in fishing litiga- We’re certainly not being Natitayt [Indian people].”
tion to support their claims to off-reservation gather- To protect the old ways, however, Native Americans
ing sites. At a hearing in 1928 in Washington, D.C., have also developed the legal, political, and scien-
for example, Noah James Saluskin of the Yakama tific expertise necessary to secure a place at the
Nation testified that “my forefathers reserved the negotiating table. Contemporary tribal leaders
right to fish and hunt, gather roots outside the reser- understand that both traditional and modern forms
vation on ceded lands and I think I have a right to of knowledge must be passed on to future genera-
gather roots and berries.” In 1932, when an army of tions and that the battle to uphold their rights has
unemployed non-Indians invaded tribal huckleberry not ended either in the court of law or in the court of
fields in the Cascade mountains, local Forest Service public opinion. “There are citizens who believe that
officials made an effort to accommodate Yakama the treaties are not living documents, that they are
claims by setting aside some three thousand acres out of date, obsolete and no longer useful,”
for exclusive Indian use. This “handshake agree- reminded Roberta Conner, director of the Tamasts-
ment” has survived into the present, but it took a likt Cultural Institute on the Umatilla Reservation.
federal court decision in 1984 (State of Washington v. She warned, “Indeed, treaties were the means
Miller, 689 P.2d 81) to establish that there is “no oper- through which all others obtained legal title to
ative distinction” between treaty-reserved “rights” Indian lands, and it would behoove non-Indians to
and “privileges.” Fifteen tribes party to U.S. v. Wash- protect and uphold the treaties today.”
ington also returned to court in 1989 to clarify their Andrew H. Fisher
rights to harvest shellfish on privately owned tide-
lands. Five years later, U.S. District Court judge References and Further Reading
Edward Rafeedie held that the treaties’ “in com- Bentley, Shannon. 1992. “Indians’ Right to Fish: The
mon” language meant that the tribes had reserved Background, Impact, and Legacy of United
gathering rights to half of all shellfish from their States v. Washington.” American Indian Law
usual and accustomed places, except those specifi- Review 17(1): 1–35.
cally set aside for non-Indian shellfish cultivation Boxberger, Daniel L. 1989. To Fish in Common: The
Ethnohistory of Lummi Indian Salmon Fishing.
purposes. As with hunting and fishing rights, how-
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
ever, securing access to shellfish beds and berry Bruun, Rita. 1982. “The Boldt Decision: Legal Victory,
fields does not guarantee that there will be adequate Political Defeat.” Law and Policy Quarterly 4:
and uncontaminated resources to harvest. Pollution, 271–298.
habitat destruction, and commercial exploitation still Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing
threaten to render treaty rights a set of empty Controversy over Northwest Fishing Rights. Seattle:
promises. University of Washington Press.
Danielsen, Karen C., and Jonathan H. Gilbert. 2002.
The struggle to preserve these hard-won rights
“Ojibwe Off-Reservation Harvest of Wild
will likely continue in the future as ongoing eco- Plants.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the
nomic competition and environmental degradation United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J.
take their toll on indigenous plant, fish, and animal McLain, and James Weigand, 282–292.
populations. Although relatively few Native Ameri- Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen: McLain, and James Weigand, 273–281.
Plains Indian Treaty Councils in Ethnohistorical Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Perspective.” In Ethnicity in the Great Plains, ed. Landau, Jack L. 1980. “Empty Victories: Indian Treaty
Frederick C. Luebke, 38–51. Lincoln: University Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest.”
of Nebraska Press. Environmental Law 10: 413–456.
Doherty, Robert. 1993. Disputed Waters: Native Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle for
Americans and the Great Lakes Fishery. Lexington: Ojibwe Treaty and Spearfishing Rights. Lincoln:
University Press of Kentucky. University of Nebraska Press.
Fisher, Andrew H. 1999. “This I Know from the Old Satz, Ronald N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
People: Yakama Indian Treaty Rights as Oral Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in
Tradition.” Montana, The Magazine of Western Historical Perspective. Eau Claire: Wisconsin
History 49: 2–17. Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters.
Fisher, Andrew H. 2004. “Tangled Nets: Treaty Rights Ulrich, Roberta. 1999. Empty Nets: Indians, Dams, and
and Tribal Identities at Celilo Falls.” Oregon the Columbia River. Corvallis: Oregon State
Historical Quarterly 105 (Summer): 178–211. University Press.
Fixico, Donald L. 1987. “Chippewa Fishing and Vennum, Thomas, Jr. 1998. Wild Rice and the Ojibway
Hunting Rights and the Voigt Decision.” In An People. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society
Anthology of Western Great Lakes Indian History, Press.
ed. Donald L. Fixico, 481–519. Milwaukee: Wilkins, David E. 1996. “Indian Treaty Rights: Sacred
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee American Entitlements or ‘Temporary Privileges?’”
Indian Studies Program. American Indian Culture and Research Journal
Goodman, Edmund Clay. 2002. “Indian Reserved 20(1): 87–129.
Rights.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the Wilkinson, Charles. 2005. Blood Struggle: The Rise of
United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J. Modern Indian Nations. New York: W. W. Norton.

Tribal Government Authority
versus Federal Jurisdiction
O
O
n January 16, 2003, the Omaha World-Herald and lawsuits seem inevitable. Indeed, jurisdiction
carried an obvious truism to those who issues have been a part of life for Native America
know the history of law and Native Ameri- from time immemorial, and they continue to repre-
cans. “Tribes’ Jurisdiction ‘Complicated’” rang the sent flash points.
admonition. A tremendous understatement, compli- Over the last 225-plus years, tribal govern-
cations over indigenous jurisdiction stem from a ments have worked to maintain their jurisdictional
tangle of laws, court decisions, executive actions authority in the face of expanding encroachment by
(deriving from state, federal and tribal govern- the U.S. federal government. Native authority has
ments), and treaties and other agreements that date witnessed a series of jurisdictional attacks and
back more than two centuries. Within the maze that retreats on the part of federal, state, and local gov-
is Indian law, there are countless inconsistencies, ernments. The steady erosion of Native authority
reversals, and contradictions. It should not be sur- during the nineteenth century reached a low water-
prising, then, that confusion persists over the issue mark at the turn of that century, which was reversed
of jurisdiction. However, what represents a new during the 1930s Indian New Deal. A savage attack
development for Native nations—or perhaps a on indigenous jurisdiction was sustained in the
return to older ways, depending on one’s perspec- post–World War II years, only to be turned back in
tive—are greater jurisdictional assertions of sover- the 1970s. That attack has been revitalized since the
eignty by tribal governments. 1980s, this time by the U.S. Supreme Court instead
In the summer of 2002, the Omaha Tribal Coun- of Congress. Despite such obstacles in their paths,
cil authorized its tribal police to conduct a safety Native nations continue to strive for sovereignty.
check of all vehicles in Pender, Nebraska, a predomi- And although they have not regained all of their
nantly non-Indian town located on the reservation. previous jurisdiction, they have made great strides
A week later, Nebraskans woke up to another head- in that direction.
line about jurisdiction, but this time a more incendi-
ary one. “Farmers Oppose Tribal Move” spoke to
another jurisdictional tumult. Two white farmers, Native America
who worked land on the Winnebago Reservation and Original Jurisdiction
(which is contiguous with the Omaha Reservation) When one considers that the current boundaries of
that had been purchased from an Indian family more the United States encompass a land mass compara-
than eighty years ago, were furious. The Winnebago ble in size to Europe’s, it should come as no surprise
and Omaha tribes had both decided to take over the that, historically, there has been a wide range of
enforcement of laws concerning pesticide handling indigenous nations and governments. In fact, the
and application. This had previously been handled plurality and diversity of Native American nations
by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The in precontact times far exceeded the plurality and
farmers created a group called We the People to diversity of Europe. For example, whereas Europe
protest their rights. Said the head of Thurston came to be dominated by one form of government
County’s We the People chapter, “The fear is either (monarchy), Native nations produced a multitude of
they’re going to try to regulate us out of business or governing bodies, including democratic systems.
fine us out of business.” Tribal officials see it rather What all these Native political bodies had in
differently. They argue that, because they are close at common, whether the theocracies of the Southwest,
hand, the tribe should take over. The tribe can the decentralized structures of the Great Plains, the
improve the response time to clean up spills, and, by multinational League of the Haudenosaunee (Iro-
assuming jurisdiction, it can also create some reser- quois), the family-based polities of the Great Basin,
vation jobs. “Basically, our goals are parallel,” said the confederacies of the Southeast, or any other, was
John Blackhawk, chairman of the Winnebago Indian that they were all independent, sovereign nations.
tribe. “It won’t be the tribe trying to pick on anyone Their sovereignty met the same definitions as that of
or move anyone off their land. They just don’t like other nations all around the world: they were inde-
the scenario of being in charge.” Bad local feelings pendent, self-governing political organizations.
161
However, Europeans who began arriving in the contracts with American Indians. Representatives of
Americas at the end of the fifteenth century often the Crown went a step further and conducted
dismissed the legitimacy of indigenous governments nation-to-nation negotiations with Native nations
on the grounds that Indians were neither Christian that resulted in the signing of treaties. On numerous
nor white. But such opinions reflected the biases, occasions, the English government made formal
prejudices, racism, and imperial ambitions then agreements with various indigenous parties that did
prevalent in European thought, not the political real- everything to form alliances, begin and end wars,
ities of the Western Hemisphere. Thus, though Euro- outline commercial transactions (including land pur-
peans might denigrate indigenous governments in chases), and create centralized jurisdictions.
one breath, they were forced to confront the reality Whereas a written document was vital to the
of Native sovereignty in the next. Contrary to the European understanding of negotiations, Native
disinformative stereotypes they promulgated, Euro- nations valued other parameters. For many Indians
peans stumbled upon neither disorganized Indian of the Northeast, wampum was the central artifact.
populations living in anarchy nor the Edenic and Strings of small polished shells or beads were
doomed bliss of a childlike people who had yet to bound together to form a belt. The arrangement of
tackle complex politics. They encountered a great the multicolored beads formed patterns and even
many forms of Native government, and interaction images. Wampum had numerous purposes, but
between Europeans and Indians represented nation- within the context of negotiations it served a func-
to-nation relations. tion similar to the written treaty. At the conclusion
Almost from the beginning of contact, Euro- of a successful negotiation, a Native nation would
peans employed a variety of techniques designed to often create a new wampum belt, its images record-
minimize or even obliterate Native sovereignty— ing the agreements that had been made. At future
brute force. Though European/African/Asiatic dis- meetings between the parties, that wampum would
eases were responsible for most of the destruction of be presented and recited as reminders of previous
Native populations, European aggression also accords.
played a substantial role in the diminution of sover- By negotiating, signing treaties, and accepting
eignty among many Native nations. wampum, the English recognized the sovereignty of
The Spanish used merciless military might to indigenous governments, both by their own stan-
take control of the southwestern Pueblos at the end dards and by those of Native nations. Regardless of
of the sixteenth century. Slaughtering resisters and English motivations for signing treaties, simply
employing terror to subdue the substantially larger engaging in the process was a tacit acknowledgment
Native populations, the Spanish attempted to wipe of Native sovereignty. When the United States chose
out Pueblo governments altogether. In the early to continue that process after achieving its indepen-
1600s, England, France, Holland, and Sweden all dence, it likewise made that same acknowledgment.
jockeyed for influence along the Atlantic coast, none And although federal officials often negotiated in
of them having the wherewithal to immediately bad faith, manipulated proceedings, and subverted
impose their will upon Native nations. As the Euro- Native sovereignty, the results were a double-edged
pean powers competed with each other, they formed blade. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly
alliances with various Native nations in an effort to states that treaties are on a par with the Constitution
bolster their position. Likewise, Indian leaders often itself, ranking as “the supreme law of the land.” To
saw Europeans as potentially potent allies in their the extent, then, that the United States would con-
own world of Native political and diplomatic rival- tinue to use treaties as the legal knife for slicing into
ries. After all, just as Europe was a sharply divided Native lands and sovereignty, that knife would cut
continent plagued by wars up to the present day, so, both ways. Treaties are agreements between nations.
too, was North America a place where indigenous Therefore, no matter how much the United States
nations competed with each other in commerce and would attempt to usurp the jurisdiction of Native
warfare. Thus, if a European nation sought to profit governments in the years to come, it had to recog-
by affiliating with the right Native nation, Native nize the nationhood of every group with which it
nations likewise sought to profit by affiliating with had signed a treaty. As time passed and the power of
the right European nation. Native governments waned in the face of the
The legalistic and literate English colonists first expanding American empire, many indigenous
began the process of signing titles, deeds, and other nations understandably clung to the treaties they

Tribal Government Authority versus Federal Jurisdiction 163
had signed, revering the documents that proclaimed then, that many Native nations chose to side with
their sovereignty. the British during the war. Particularly in the trans-
Although by 1776 a number of indigenous Appalachian region and throughout much of the
nations had already capitulated beneath the weight South, one indigenous nation after another took up
of various European invasions, the vast majority of arms to help the British put down the rebellion.
Indian governments were still fully independent These were not the heathen pawns of the English
sovereignties when the American Revolution broke Crown, as the Declaration of Independence had
out. Indeed, many of those west of the Mississippi erroneously claimed. These were calculated expres-
River and east of modern-day coastal California had sions of Native sovereignty. And despite the colonial
had only limited contact, if any, with Europeans by rhetoric about Indian savages, the Revolution’s lead-
this time. However, the thirteen English colonies that ership knew all too well just how politically sophisti-
sought to establish their own country in that year cated and militarily imposing many Native nations
generally harbored a rather hostile opinion of Native were.
governments and their citizens. Such hostility was Faced with these realities, General George
even reflected in their Declaration of Independence Washington placed a high priority on achieving a
from Great Britain. King George III, the rebellious state of detente with as many Native nations as pos-
colonists asserted, had done no less than incite sible. He knew his cause depended on it. From the
“Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an outset of the conflict, American diplomats toured
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and eastern America, soliciting councils and working
conditions.” On one level, the statement was a piece hard to extract promises of neutrality from suspi-
of contemporary political propaganda designed to cious Native governments. In fact, early in the con-
gain European allies and justify a rebellion that flict, the Continental Congress made a preliminary
many were then interpreting as treason. After all, it invitation to the powerful Lenape (Delaware) Indian
was the English (and other Europeans), not indig- nation: if they would fight with the colonists, the
neous peoples, who had pioneered the mass murder Lenape Nation could enter the United States as its
of civilian populations in North America. On own state after the war. The Lenape did not immedi-
another level, though, the statement reflected a basic ately accept the proposition, and it was never again
flaw in the philosophy of the new American nation: offered. Nonetheless, this episode clearly illustrates
Native governments were not seen as the legitimate the strength, independence, and sovereignty of
expressions of the will of Indian people. Rather, the Native nations. Further, it shows that the imperial
Revolution’s leaders publicly dismissed out of hand conquest of Native nations was by no means a for-
the legitimacy, effectiveness, and even morality of gone conclusion or an inevitable consequence of
Indian governments. This meant they could mis- American independence.
characterize Indian political decisions and actions as During the Revolutionary War, some Native
the “savage” anarchy of people who lived without nations did form open alliances with the American
“rules.” And even though it was obviously and colonists and help them fight the British. In particu-
patently untrue, that assertion would come to serve lar, a number of Algonkian nations of New England,
as a powerful rationalization for many misdeeds and whose own political power had diminished signifi-
acts of bad faith on the part of the United States cantly during the past sesquicentury, joined with the
toward Native nations in the years to come. It would colonists from the outset. Often, their reward for
become the fulcrum on which the battle over sover- years of fighting was to return home from the war to
eignty turned. find their land squatted on by colonists. Some mem-
Although it is unlikely that many indigenous bers of the mighty Haudenosaunee Confederacy
people then knew of the libel contained within the also sided with the colonists. Haudenosaunee terri-
Declaration of Independence, that act of broad char- tory stretched from the Adirondack Mountains in
acter assassination was merely symbolic of what was the East to the Great Lakes in the Midwest. Conse-
already apparent to most Indians. Many English quently, military and economic concerns as well as
colonists had an open disrespect for Native sover- historical factors led to political division within the
eignty and a seemingly endless thirst for Indian confederacy and even within its various member-
lands. If the colonists successfully revolted and ships. Generally, the Oneida and Tuscarora (the lat-
escaped the strictures of royal government, their ter a recent addition to the League) allied with the
aggressions might go unchecked. It is not surprising, colonists, and the Onondaga, Mohawk, Cayuga, and

Seneca fought for the British; the confederacy’s to justify extending federal jurisdiction over Native
members at times faced each other on the battlefield. nations.
Ironically, the United States generally offered better The practical outcome of this policy was the
terms of settlement to Haudenosaunee nations that development of federal trading houses. In 1790,
had fought against it than it did to those that had Congress passed the first in a series of laws known
allied with it. as the Intercourse Acts. These bills created a system
whereby only federally licensed traders could con-
duct commercial transactions with American Indi-
Early Indian-U.S. Jurisdiction ans. Business would take place at federal trading
After the American victory, the new U.S. Congress houses. And one commercial transaction in particu-
quickly attempted to establish its exclusive domain lar was completely abolished: the purchasing of
over economic and diplomatic relations with Indian Indian lands by any U.S. citizen, corporation, or
governments. But given the decentralized nature state. Only the federal government would be
and relative weakness of the first U.S. government allowed to acquire title to Native lands.
under the Articles of Confederation, Indian nations One of the main goals of the various Intercourse
frequently found themselves negotiating with indi- Acts was to eliminate the corruption, theft, and con-
vidual states as well as the national government. flict that had often marked business relations
In 1789, when the United States began the between Indians and European Americans, particu-
process of replacing the Articles of Confederation larly at the far western reaches of the new country.
with the Constitution, it renewed its effort to cer- Unregulated trade had featured a bevy of unsavory
tify the federal government’s primacy over the business practices, most of which disadvantaged
states in relations with Native nations. Individual Native participants. But in addition to cleaning up
states would no longer have the power to conduct the dirtier aspects of international commerce, the
relations with Native nations unless explicitly Intercourse Acts also impinged upon Native jurisdic-
granted permission to do so by the federal govern- tion. The very first of these bills declared that, when
ment. This ideal would usually be upheld by U.S. non-Indians committed crimes against Indians,
courts over the succeeding years. However, there those cases should be heard in American courts;
would be numerous occasions, down to the pres- Native legal systems should have no jurisdiction.
ent, when the federal government would conduct Europeans had always sought to have such matters
the states’ bidding or simply allow states to run settled through their own legal system, and now the
amok. new United States was following that precedent,
The Constitution’s specific mentions of Native proclaiming in federal legislation its right to insulate
nations are sparse but telling. Article I, Section 2, in its citizens from Native jurisdictions.
creating the formula for congressional representation Subsequent Intercourse Acts and related bills
from a state’s population, excludes “Indians not passed through the mid-nineteenth century man-
taxed.” In other words, Native Americans were offi- dated that Indians committing crimes off their reser-
cially excluded from congressional representation; vations be tried in federal courts; that Indians com-
their outsider status was confirmed. Article I, Section mitting crimes against non-Indians should have
8, also known as the commerce clause, gives Con- their cases heard in federal court, even if the crime
gress the authority to regulate commerce “with for- had been committed on Indian land; that non-
eign nations, and among the several States, and with Indians traveling to Indian lands needed passports;
the Indian tribes.” By differentiating between Indian that Native nations were banned from engaging in
nations and foreign nations (and referring to them as diplomacy with nations other than the United States;
“tribes” instead of nations), the Constitution alluded and that individual Indians were prohibited from
to the realpolitik stance that the United States was criticizing the U.S. government. The imperial nature
adopting. The United States would never accord of these edicts is self-evident. As the nineteenth cen-
Native nations the same dignity and respect it did tury opened, the assault on Native jurisdiction was
nonindigenous nations, and by singling out Native well under way.
nations, even those beyond its borders, it was Enforcement of the Intercourse Acts was always
attempting to invalidate Native sovereignty and problematic. Illegal trade continued to flourish
submerge it beneath federal control. Indeed, the U.S. beyond the reaches of federal enforcement, and this
Supreme Court would later cite the commerce clause struck at a basic jurisdictional issue that would

haunt U.S.-Indian relations in the century to come. took matters a step further by going to court. Their
The simple fact was that the U.S. federal government resistance marked an important episode in jurisdic-
was rather weak. It often had great difficulty enforc- tional issues between the United States and Native
ing its own laws on a recalcitrant citizenry. That is, in nations.
making jurisdictional claims over its own populace, In 1823, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case
it frequently took on more than it could realistically of Johnson v. M’Intosh. Congress had begun expand-
enforce. However, it was quite successful in insulat- ing its jurisdiction over Native nations with the 1790
ing its citizens from Native jurisdictions. Local, state, Intercourse Act. Now the federal judiciary took simi-
and federal governments consistently refused to rec- lar steps. In a remarkable display of audacity, Chief
ognize the legitimacy of Native jurisdictions. Ameri- Justice John Marshall ruled that the United States
can citizens were generally quite pleased by this shared title to all Indian lands within the proclaimed
development, as they could usually count on racist boundaries of the United States. Furthermore, he
judges and juries to clear them of charges or impose stated, Native Americans could sell their land only
minimal fines and sentences for crimes committed to the United States. This was a bold power play by
against Indians. For Native nations, however, it was the U.S. government. And there was more to come.
a challenge to their sovereignty. The battle over juris- During the 1820s, the State of Georgia made
diction had begun, and the balance of power was numerous efforts to impose its jurisdiction unilater-
swinging to the United States. ally over the Cherokee Nation. It organized Chero-
kee lands into Georgia counties; it asserted that
Georgia state laws applied in Cherokee country; and
The Nineteenth Century it even arrested, tried, and executed a Cherokee man
During the first one-third of the nineteenth century, for a crime he had committed within the Cherokee
the United States implemented a program of ethnic Nation. President Andrew Jackson, a strong advo-
cleansing. Native Americans by the tens of thou- cate of removal, actively encouraged Georgia, hop-
sands were forcibly removed from their lands east of ing its actions would pressure the Cherokee to leave
the Mississippi River. The phrase ethnic cleansing did the South. The Cherokee appealed to the Supreme
not yet exist, and the official term for the policy was Court, seeking an injunction against further outrages
removal, but these actions were clearly on a par with by Georgia, and in 1831, the high court heard Chero-
more recent episodes of violence and forced migra- kee Nation v. State of Georgia. In his decision, Marshall
tion that we now label ethnic cleansing. ruled that the Court did not have jurisdiction over
Native nations in the Upper Midwest lost a the case because the Cherokee (and by extension, all
series of wars that led to their expulsion. In the Native nations) were not a foreign state. He then fab-
Southeast, however, circumstances differed. Five ricated from thin air a new political designation to
larger nations dominated the regions by the open- which he assigned Native Americans. Their govern-
ing of the nineteenth century: the Cherokee, Musco- ments, he claimed, constituted “domestic, depen-
gee Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole. All dent nations.” That is, they were nations after all, but
five nations were potentially formidable military they were not foreign nations, for they existed
opponents. The difficulty of waging war against within the proclaimed boundaries of the United
them would later crystallize in the First and Second States; and they were not independent nations, for
Seminole Wars. Therefore, the federal government they were dependent upon the United States for
developed a different strategy for dispossessing their continued existence.
and expelling their populations. On one hand, it Marshall’s rationale for his decision was circu-
stood by as individual state governments illegally lar, self-referential, ill informed, and condescending.
usurped Native jurisdictions. Meanwhile, it applied Native nations were not foreign, he asserted,
bad-faith economic, political, and diplomatic pres- because the commerce clause of the Constitution
sure on the five nations, pressuring them to leave refers to them separately. This chicken-and-egg logic
while enticing them with promises of free land and declared that Native nations were not foreign
independent sovereignty in the West. Despite all nations, for no reason other than that the United
the carrots and sticks, the five nations still resisted. States said so. With regard to their state of depen-
They fought removal in a number of ways, includ- dence, the chief justice maintained that Indians were
ing lobbying Congress, negotiating with presidents, in essence pupils, learning to become civilized from
and publishing their views. The Cherokee Nation their American teachers. Their alleged cultural short-

comings, he reasoned, translated to political and In 1866, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the pri-
legal shortcomings as well. macy of federal jurisdiction. When the State of
In this political atmosphere, Georgia’s aggres- Kansas attempted to tax Native Americans within its
sions ran unchecked. The state went so far as to pass boundaries, Shawnee Indians sought redress. In The
a rather incredible law that attempted to overturn Kansas Indians, the Court ruled that Kansas could not
the Cherokee Nation’s own democratic elections. tax Native Americans because Congress held exclu-
Then, Georgia officials marched into Cherokee coun- sive jurisdiction over them. The decision did not
try and arrested Postmaster Samuel Worcester for stop there, however. Chipping away at Native sover-
violating a Georgia law that forbade all whites from eignty, the Court went on to say that states could
living in the Cherokee Nation. In cahoots with Geor- assume jurisdiction if Indians dissolved their nations
gia, President Jackson even went so far as to fire or if Congress made them U.S. citizens. Either of
Worcester to prevent him from claiming exemption these two developments, the Court claimed, would
from arrest on the grounds that he was a federal nullify Indian treaties. The decision made no
employee. A third Supreme Court case was in the allowance for dual citizenship.
making. As if taking a cue from Kansas Indians, Congress
In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Court was attached a rider to the Indian appropriations bill of
more sympathetic to Cherokee sovereignty. Justice 1871 that forbade the signing of any future treaties
Smith Thompson had previously authored a strong between the federal government and the United
dissent in Cherokee Nation, convincingly arguing that States. Furthermore, it banned individual Indians
the Cherokee were indeed a sovereign nation, albeit from signing any contract without the permission of
a weak one. Though his opinion had not carried the the commissioner of Indian affairs, head of the
day in 1831, apparently it influenced the Court after Office of Indian Affairs. President Ulysses Grant
the fact. As he had in Cherokee Nation, the Cherokees’ promptly signed the bill into law. The Resolution of
counsel again argued that Georgia laws could not 1871 was the capstone on nearly three hundred
apply in Cherokee country because they were super- years of warfare between Native Americans and
seded by treaties the Cherokee had signed with the Europeans and their descendants, and the latter
federal government, the commerce and contract were proclaiming their victory. The United States
clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and Cherokee sover- would no longer sign any treaties with Native
eignty. In Worcester, Marshall backtracked, proclaim- nations because it no longer needed their permis-
ing Indian nations to be like “other nations of the sion for anything. Only a few armed conflicts
earth . . . distinct, independent political communi- remained. The United States had established its
ties, retaining their original natural rights.” dominance, and now it was stating, in essence, that
Although logically this decision should have over- might makes right. The one saving grace of the reso-
turned the “domestic, dependent nation” clause in lution was its acknowledgment that the provisions
Cherokee Nation, such was not the case. The long- of all previous treaties would be honored.
term effect of Worcester was to establish the primacy As the end of the century drew near, most
of the federal government over states in relations Native nations had been confined to reservations. A
with Native nations. That is, states had no authority major blow to reservation-bound Native jurisdiction
over Native nations except as granted to them by the sprung from the U.S. Supreme Court case Ex Parte
federal government. Crow Dog (1883). When a Sichangu Lakota (Sioux)
The Cherokee Supreme Court cases are collec- named Crow Dog shot and killed a fellow country-
tively known as the Marshall Trilogy. Despite their man named Spotted Tail, the Lakota rightfully
highly flawed logic and even contradictory asser- assumed jurisdiction and handled the matter
tions, they still form the foundation for the legal through their own legal system, which is based on
standing of American Indians within the United restitution. But Spotted Tail had been on good terms
States. As the United States continued to use brute with the Americans, and many of them were out-
force to conquer and rule Native nations during the raged; by their standards, Crow Dog was literally
nineteenth century, it continued to dress the colonial getting away with murder. Crow Dog was promptly
process in the niceties of legal sanctions. The basis arrested, tried in federal district court, convicted,
for those sanctions was, and continues to be, the and sentenced to death. The Dakota Territorial
Marshall Trilogy. Supreme Court upheld the sentence. His lawyers

appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which found in As the century ended, Native peoples were see-
Crow Dog’s favor. It ruled that, because Native ing their sovereignty erode at an alarming pace in
nations were sovereign, a fact that was supported by the face of U.S. colonialism. Central to this develop-
the existence of treaties, federal courts had no juris- ment were the continued efforts of the United States
diction over crimes committed between Indians on to impose its jurisdiction over indigenous people.
reservations.
On the surface, Ex Parte Crow Dog sounds like a
long overdue and resounding pronouncement in The Office of Indian Affairs
recognition of Native sovereignty. But such was not In 1824, the federal government created an agency to
the case. With a nudge and a wink to the legislative deal exclusively with implementing Native policy:
branch, the Court noted in its opinion that only an the Office of Indian Affairs (OIA). Eventually
act of Congress could change the current situation. renamed the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), it would
Congress took the hint. In 1885, it passed the Major quickly gain a reputation as the least efficient and
Crimes Act. The bill listed seven crimes for which most corrupt office in the entire federal government.
the federal government could assume original juris- But more telling than the OIA’s astounding incom-
diction, even if they were committed on a reserva- petence was its placement within the federal scheme.
tion by one Indian against another: murder, As an executive office, it needed to be placed within
manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, an existing department. The logical assignment
burglary, and larceny. In the years since, the act has would have been to the State Department, the
been amended, and ten more offenses have been department in charge of foreign relations. Instead,
added to the list, bringing to sixteen the total num- the OIA landed in the War Department (later
ber of crimes for which federal courts may assume renamed the Defense Department). It was clear that
jurisdiction. The federal government was now free the federal government’s long-term goal was not to
to extend its criminal jurisdiction over Native establish and conduct normal relations with Native
nations. The Supreme Court upheld the Major nations. Rather, it sought the colonial subjugation of
Crimes Act the following year in United States v. Native nations by any means necessary. Equally
Kagama. telling, in 1849, when the United States was a grow-
Another congressional bill that struck at Native ing empire instead of a teetering, fledgling experi-
jurisdiction was the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, ment, it moved the OIA to the Department of the
also known as the General Allotment Act. In this bill, Interior, which is concerned with domestic assets
the federal government asserted control over Native such as natural resources and wild animals.
national lands. Allotment was the process of divid- The very existence of the OIA set a tone for
ing up reservations into various parcels and then issues of jurisdiction. During the years in which the
assigning fee patent ownership of those parcels to United States conquered one Native nation after
individual Indians. This was an egregious blow to another, the army was the sword, and the OIA was
Native sovereignty in any number of ways. For the hammer in that process. After a nation capitu-
starters, it gave Congress the power to unilaterally lated to the military, the OIA became the instrument
allot reservations, regardless of the tribe’s wishes. of colonial control. The OIA was the federal govern-
Many (though not all) nations held their land in comment’s administrative arm, and its roles were many.
mon; this would now end. The bill also restricted the The local face of the OIA was the reservation
rights of the individual owners it created; Indians agent. In the years before modern civil service, this
receiving allotments could not sell or lease them was typically a bottom-rung patronage position
without federal permission. Finally, after allotments awarded to the minor supporters of presidential vic-
were handed out, most of the remaining land, which tors and their appointees. Frequently knowing next
the federal government termed “surplus,” was auc- to nothing about Indian affairs, disappointed in the
tioned off to outside interests. Congress would pass a paucity of their prestige and salary, and assigned to a
number of additional severalty bills over the course locale they considered unfavorable, agents were
of the next forty years. This devastating policy often corrupt and incompetent, and the OIA was
wrought no tangible benefits to Native nations, plagued by a high turnover rate.
struck at the heart of their sovereignty, and resulted The real job of the OIA agent was the direct
in a massive land grab by Americans. colonial administration of Indian reservations. With

few guidelines other than the prevailing racism and were now also certified as judges. They had the
ethnocentrism of the day, agents’ attitudes and power to arrest someone, convict that person, and
approaches varied widely from case to case. collect a fine, all in one action.
Whether an agent chose to recognize the continued Federal jurisdiction over Indians was so perva-
existence of Indian governments was entirely up to sive that Native people could not sign contracts
that agent. At whim, the agent could tolerate and without permission from the reservation agent and
patronize them or refuse to officially recognize them the commissioner of Indian affairs. This restriction, a
altogether. The agent could even replace them with result of the Indian Appropriations Bill of 1871, was
his or her own contrivances. In short, the reservation so broad in its reach that American Indians could not
agent was an autocrat. even hire a lawyer without said approval. This
The OIA agent’s dictatorial powers were meant that, if an Indian person were accused of com-
directly vested by the federal government. Other mitting a crime against another Indian person on a
than the threat of further military intervention, prac- reservation, not only could the U.S. federal courts
tical power came from his ability to distribute treaty claim jurisdiction, but the accused Indian did not
annuities and offer jobs to economically impover- even have the freedom to choose his or her own
ished and dependent subjects. This power often counsel. And if a Native American wished to sue a
played havoc with Native governing institutions. corrupt OIA reservation agent, he or she could not
Although a reservation population might recognize hire a lawyer without the permission of that agent.
the authority of certain Native leaders, an agent Federal jurisdiction over Native Americans was
could undermine their authority by playing so profound that the government even set out to
favorites. He could designate individual Indians to control the movement of indigenous peoples. A star-
distribute annuities, thereby giving them tremen- tling illustration of this is the fact that, by the late
dous power and influence. By the end of the nine- 1800s, a Native American could not leave his or her
teenth century, federal regulations had ended that reservation without permission. Enforcement varied
practice. Instead, the agent and his staff distributed from reservation to reservation and could be
annuities directly, further concentrating their power. extreme. The Apache people of the Southwest had
Another potent source of power for the reserva- only recently surrendered, and when they left their
tion agent came from his ability to hire and arm reservation without permission, they were routinely
hand-picked Native Americans as official OIA hunted down and killed. Likewise, the massacre of
police. In 1878, Congress began to fund the creation Miniconjou Lakota (Sioux) at Wounded Knee Creek
of reservation police forces staffed by local Indians. in 1890 on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
These men, though members of a Native nation now Dakota stemmed from several factors, the most
were paid by, wore the uniform of, and owed their immediate of which was that they had disobeyed the
allegiance to the United States. Their boss was the agent’s orders to stay put. In fact, the Miniconjou
reservation agent, who hired and fired them at his had not even left the reservation when the U.S. Cav-
discretion. Thus, by engaging in his own form of alry overtook and slaughtered some three hundred
patronage, the agent could reshape the reservation’s of them.
power structure. By 1884, two-thirds of all reserva- The direct colonialism of the Office of Indian
tions had an Indian OIA police force. It was another Affairs and the totalitarian powers of the reservation
blow to Native jurisdiction. agents would persist until well into the twentieth
The jurisdictional control of the reservation century. Under these conditions, federal jurisdiction
agent and his OIA underlings increased further in over Native peoples reached its zenith, while Native
1883, when Congress authorized the creation of sovereignty dropped to its nadir.
courts of Indian offenses. During this era, the United
States was attempting to commit cultural genocide
against Native Americans. It called the policy assimi- The Twentieth Century
lation. Federal legislation outlawed all sorts of If the turn of the twentieth century represented a low
indigenous social and cultural practices, including, point for Native sovereignty, the legal embodiment
but not limited to, religious ceremonies, dancing, of that situation was the 1903 U.S. Supreme Court
singing, traditional medical services, and polygamy, decision in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. Lone Wolf was a
to name a few. Congress created the court of Indian Kiowa in Oklahoma who objected to the impending
offenses to prosecute these “crimes.” OIA police allotment of his reservation. Fortunately for the

Kiowa people, they had previously signed a treaty given Pueblos immunity from such laws because the
that mitigated such actions. The Treaty of Medicine United States had acquired their land after war with
Lodge Creek of 1867 stipulated that none of the Mexico, and no treaties existed between the Pueblos
reservation land, which was held in common by the and the United States. The high court now over-
nation, could be subject to any transactions without turned the lower decision. The crux of its logic in so
the agreement of three-fourths of the adult male doing was nothing short of racism. Since Pueblo
population. However, the Supreme Court was about peoples were Indians, it reasoned, they were inher-
to give official sanction to the naked aggression of ently primitive and inferior. Therefore, they were not
U.S. colonialism. entitled to challenge congressional decisions, much
Federal negotiators were unable to procure any- less seek immunity from them.
where near the number of signatures needed for the The same year that Sandoval sucker punched
allotment of the reservation. This failure occurred Native jurisdiction, Congress gave the secretary of
despite their fraud, which included adding non- the interior the right to approve all wills and testa-
Kiowa names to the petition for allotment and strik- ments of Indian people. In 1914, the secretary gained
ing actual Kiowa people from the official tribal rolls. the power to completely quarantine a reservation
When federal negotiators fell short despite their per- during an outbreak of contagious disease(s). Shortly
fidy, they simply ignored the treaty’s relevant provi- thereafter, the secretary assumed the authority to
sions and drew up plans to allot the reservation distribute to individual Indians those tribal funds
against the will of most of its resident Indians. Con- held in common and to lease to outside interests any
gress eventually accepted the dubious proposal. and all tribally held lands. In either case, the permis-
Lone Wolf then sued the secretary of the interior to sion of Native peoples was not required. Even when
prevent the allotment, and the case eventually the federal government attempted to do something
advanced to the high court. positive for Native Americans in the early twentieth
Peeling the mask of civility from the face of century, its high-handed actions led to dubious
colonialism, the justices rendered the following results. Such was the case with citizenship.
opinion. Congress had the plenary power to unilat- From the inception of the Constitution, Ameri-
erally abrogate any Indian treaty. Why? Because, can Indians had been denied citizenship rights
despite any irregularities in the process, Congress within the United States. The Supreme Court gave
was the ultimate arbiter of Indian policy; because sanction to that stance in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) by rul-
treaty review was beyond the jurisdiction of federal ing that Native Americans could not become citi-
courts; because Indian lands were under the com- zens even if they abandoned their Native nations
plete control of the United States; because the bind- and assumed residence and employment in the
ing requirement of Indian consent could be ignored United States. Indians were officially denied the
in times of emergency; because the act of 1871 ban- right to citizenship through conventional avenues.
ning further treaties could be interpreted to mean But provisions in various allotment acts had foisted
that Congress could also annul previous treaties citizenship on some Native Americans when they
(even though the act of 1871 explicitly denied that); accepted their land. The issue came to a head after
because Congress acted in the best interests of World War I.
Native peoples; and because even if Congress Though immune to the draft, Native Americans
worked against the interests of Indian peoples, Con- had a higher per capita rate of participation in the
gress still had superior authority. U.S. military than any other ethnic group (the same
The decision was a firm rebuke of Native sover- has been true of all twentieth-century wars). When
eignty. It was the official declaration of colonialism. the deep sacrifice and honor of American Indian ser-
It was indeed a low point for American Indians in vicemen came to light, Congress decided to reward
their ongoing effort to assert their jurisdiction over Native people. In 1919, it declared all Native Ameri-
their own nations and people. But the assault by the can veterans to be citizens. Then, in 1924, it passed
high court was far from over. United States v. San- the Citizenship Act. The bill unilaterally bestowed
doval (1913) concerned a man’s effort to sell liquor in American citizenship upon all Native peoples.
a pueblo. This violated federal law, which prohibited Although the law was meant to be a show of grati-
liquor sales on all Indian lands. Joseph Sandoval’s tude, many indigenous people viewed it as another
lawyers were initially victorious in federal court, cit- unwanted consequence of colonialism. A number of
ing a previous Supreme Court decision that had eastern Indians, in particular, were highly critical of

the act. It was, they maintained, an assault on their The official and lasting shift in policy came
sovereignty. After all, they were already citizens of with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act
their own indigenous nations and had not asked to (IRA) in 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard
be members of the ever-encroaching United States. Act. In addition to overturning many of the more
And even at that, the supposed benefits of citizen- odious aspects of the assimilation policy, the bill
ship were often elusive. Just as African Americans outlined a plan for reorganization: the installation of
were largely denied the right to vote in the South new governments on reservations. The vestiges of
during this era, numerous states successfully pre- traditional Native governments would be scrapped
vented their new Native citizens from participating altogether and replaced with a new Collieresque
in American elections. model: a combination of American republicanism
Two jurisdictional bright spots did appear dur- and the corporate boardroom. From their soon-to-
ing this long, dark period. In 1905, the U.S. Supreme be-formed reservation districts, Indians would elect
Court acknowledged in United States v. Winans that representatives to sit on a tribal council. They would
the Yakima nation of Washington State did not lose also elect a tribal chairman (or president) and a vice
fishing rights simply because it had ceded certain chairman in a reservation-wide election. In addition,
lands. The Court reasoned that Indians did not the council would feature an executive committee
receive rights in treaties, they relinquished them. drawn from among its own ranks. According to the
Therefore they retained any previously held rights plan, tribes would then create a new constitution
that they did not specifically relinquish. The Yakima and bylaws, and then they would write a charter
could continue to fish on the Columbia River even and incorporate.
though it was outside their reservation. Then, in Whereas some people have viewed reorganiza-
1908, the Court upheld Native water rights in Win- tion as nothing short of a revolution, another inter-
ters v. United States. Residents of the Fort Belknap pretation is that it merely represents the mixed bless-
Reservation in Montana sued to prevent diversion ings of some modifications to the colonial system,
of the Milk River, their only source of water. Similar not an end to it. Either way, the IRA provided good
to Winans, the Court ruled that the Indians of Fort and bad outcomes. For starters, Collier never sought
Belknap had not lost their rights to the river when Native advice when developing his plan. Conse-
they ceded land adjacent to it. Nonetheless, the quently, and perhaps predictably, he was surprised
assimilation period, which extended from the late when a number of Indian groups came out against it.
1800s until 1934, was largely an assault on Native Some Indians who had profited from allotment and
sovereignty. other assimilation policies considered it unneeded
After taking office in 1933, President Franklin federal interference. Indians who supported their
Roosevelt appointed John Collier the new commis- own forms of government saw the IRA as a poten-
sioner of Indian affairs. Collier’s tenure would prove tially fatal blow to their own jurisdiction, as yet
to be a watershed in the ongoing struggle over juris- another violation of treaties that had promised the
diction. A harsh critic of assimilation policies, Collier United States would not interfere in Native govern-
was more enamored with the experiments in indirect ments. Their combined criticisms led to an amend-
colonialism that Great Britain was conducting in ment to the bill that allowed Native nations to opt
Nigeria and elsewhere. He believed that it would be out of reorganization. Reservation-wide referenda
more efficient and humane if Native Americans were would decide whether or not to reorganize, and if so,
allowed to engage in limited self-government whether to adopt constitutions and incorporate. And
instead of being subjected to the widespread and Oklahoma and Alaska Natives were excluded alto-
overbearing authority of the OIA. Collier’s reforms gether, falling under separate, milder legislation tai-
were eventually watered down by a skeptical Con- lored for them in 1936.
gress, but to be sure, the secretary did not support Collier and his staff lobbied heavily for reorga-
the notion of returning full sovereignty to Native nization, mobilizing their resources and exerting
nations, entities that he naively and condescendingly tremendous pressure on Indians to reorganize.
romanticized. Rather, he believed that, if infused Nonetheless, it was rejected by 78, or nearly one-
with a sufficient amount of American-style democ- quarter of the reservations, including the single most
racy and subject to federal oversight, Native govern- populated, the Navajo Reservation, which covers
ments could manage much of the day-to-day affairs parts of three southwestern states. The measure was
of their reservations. accepted by 174 reservations; of them, only 92

elected to make constitutions, and even fewer wrote attempting to pay a final bill for past wrongs, or at
charters and incorporated. least those wrongs to which it was willing to admit.
For those nations that reorganized, the conse- Judgments against Native plaintiffs meant that they
quences have varied from reservation to reservation. would have no avenue of appeal within the Ameri-
For example, the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Pine Ridge can system.
Reservation in South Dakota has been a vivid exam- The commission was originally chartered for
ple of reorganization gone awry. The original refer- five years. To win their case, plaintiffs had to prove
endum passed by only the thinnest of margins, with aboriginal title to the lands in question. The ICC
a large percentage abstaining, a traditional form of would then review the case and assess the amount, if
disapproval in Lakota culture. Since then, the Oglala any, that was to be paid in compensation. However,
Sioux Tribal (OST) government has been the source so many claims were filed against it that the commis-
of much controversy, including numerous impeach- sion was continually extended so that it could hear
ment hearings and even occasional political vio- its cases. By the end of the 1950s, it had heard 152
lence. The most notable dispute resulted in the sev- cases and rendered $42 million in judgments. By the
enty-one-day-long siege of Wounded Knee in 1973, time the commission was finally dissolved in 1978, it
an event that attracted international attention and had heard 484, deciding 285 of them and authorizing
witnessed the shooting deaths of two Indians and more than $800 million in settlements. There were
the paralysis of one U.S. marshal. As recently as still 133 cases remaining on its docket that it never
2006, the OST president was impeached. heard. Those cases were transferred to the U.S. Court
On the flip side, the Wind River Reservation in of Claims.
Wyoming has served as an example of smooth adap- If the IRA and the ICC had their ups and downs,
tation. There, Arapaho politicians found the mal- the termination and relocation programs of the 1950s
leable aspects of reorganization and worked the sys- and 1960s were mostly down. Termination was noth-
tem to make it conform to many of their traditional ing short of an all-out assault on Native sovereignty.
governmental offices, procedures, and dynamics. Formalized as a policy statement in House Concur-
The Arapaho tribal council has governed with great rent Resolution (HCR) 108 in 1954, termination was,
success. in essence, the return of assimilation policy in dis-
There were definite pros and cons to the system. guise, its last, dangerous gasp. The federal govern-
Among the positives, the IRA ended assimilation’s ment now acknowledged its ongoing shortcomings
relentless persecution of Native culture and began to in living up to its treaty obligations. But instead of
reduce the patronizing and omnipotent elements of offering to fix those problems, termination’s solution
the OIA. But there were also obvious negatives. In a was to simply end all treaty obligations. The Bureau
larger sense, the system is a foreign imposition on of Indian Affairs would be disbanded; one by one,
Native nations foisted upon them by the United the federal government would cease to recognize
States; the Collier administration simply created a Native nations; they would be “terminated.” It was a
template of what it thought Native government blatant attack on the treaty rights of Native nations.
should look like and stamped it on as many reserva- The federal government composed a list of all
tions as possible. More specific flaws include no dis- federally recognized tribes and divided them into
tinct executive branch, which leads to a lack of three categories: those ready for immediate termina-
checks and balances, and no staggering of the tribal tion, those requiring some assistance, and those that
council election cycle, which can lead to dramatic would need continued federal support for the fore-
turnovers in governments every two years. seeable future. However, senatorial politics, more
In 1946, Congress passed the Indian Claims than any rational assessment, often decided on
Commission Act. It provided for an Indian Claims which list a Native nation would find itself. Thus,
Commission (ICC) that would review cases of treaty reservations within states such as Washington, Utah,
violations and other outstanding grievances Native and Nevada, which were represented by pro-
nations had against the United States. However, the termination senators, were particularly at risk of ter-
act stipulated that all judgments (favorable or not) mination. While nations ostensibly had to agree to
would be final, and in return for financial compensa- termination, various methods were used for obtain-
tion as determined by the commission, all claims ing their assent. For example, several tribes were
stemming from the original transgression would be told they would not receive their ICC awards until
canceled. In essence, the federal government was they agreed to accept termination. For most nations,

termination was an utter disaster. The Menominee of still fighting for it. Although termination policy had
Wisconsin are a case in point. been abandoned by the early 1970s, Congress did
Targeted for immediate termination, Menomi- not officially repudiate it until 1988.
nee leaders were misled and strong-armed into Relocation was a population resettlement plan
acquiescing to federal officials. Final approval was that worked hand in hand with termination in
achieved by a “popular” referendum, in which only attacking Native sovereignty. Growing out of a 1948
8 percent of the reservation participated. After six job placement program, relocation quickly evolved
years of rushed preparations, the Menominee Nation into a national plan for moving Indians off reserva-
was terminated on April 30, 1961. One of the better- tions and into large American cities. Using propa-
functioning reservations instantly became the poor- ganda to lure Native Americans into accepting one-
est county in Wisconsin. The county’s tax base was way bus tickets to distant locales, relocation’s
insufficient to pay for services as basic as police, long-term goal was twofold: to liquidate reservation
waste disposal, and firefighting. All tribal assets populations and to make Indians disappear through
were transferred to a corporation, Menominee Enter- assimilation into large, faceless, urban populations.
prises, Inc. (MEI), and county expenditures quickly Aside from the program’s dubious motivations, relo-
gobbled up meager MEI profits, pushing the corpo- cation also was an attack on treaty rights and tribal
ration toward bankruptcy and leading it to sell off jurisdiction. It stipulated that anyone relocating off
property. The reservation hospital, reliant on federal reservation would lose eligibility for numerous
funds, closed. Schools, utilities, and other services Indian-only federal programs, such as access to the
either ended or were dramatically scaled back. Indian Health Service. Because many of these pro-
Menominee assets had been valued at more than $10 grams in essence are extensions of treaty annuities
million in 1954. By 1964, they had dwindled to that were often guaranteed in perpetuity, using relo-
$300,000. cation as an excuse to end them represented a mas-
From 1954 to 1960, Congress terminated fifty- sive violation of treaty rights against individual
four tribes, communities, and individual allotments. Native Americans. Like termination, relocation was
Some of the latter were solicited by individual largely a failure in any number of ways. The pro-
Indian landowners, but the majority were imple- gram was all but defunct by the early 1970s.
mented against the will of the affected peoples. On the heels of termination and relocation was
However, some successfully resisted. The Florida Public Law 280. Passed by Congress in 1953, P. L.
Seminole Nation is an example. A bill to terminate 280 extended state criminal and civil jurisdiction
them was introduced in January 1954. But the Semi- over Indian reservations in Nebraska, Minnesota,
nole people were fortunate to have several members Oregon, Wisconsin, California, and, later, Alaska.
of the Florida congressional delegation support their Additionally, it provided that other states could
cause. Of twenty witnesses called at the bill’s hear- assume such jurisdiction without the permission of
ings, only three supported Seminole termination. affected reservations either by passing a law or by
After the hearings concluded, various Seminole amending its state constitution. The number of
groups continued to lobby Congress, and termina- states eventually grew to a dozen. P. L. 280 repre-
tion was successfully avoided. sents a profound violation of Native sovereignty
By the late 1960s, few observers could deny that and treaty rights and an erosion of Native jurisdic-
termination had been a disaster, and the policy atro- tions. Treaties signed between Native nations and
phied. Approximately twelve thousand Indian peo- the United States firmly established nation-to-nation
ples had been affected by 109 acts of termination. relations between the two sides and the primacy of
Many of them fought to regain federal recognition of the federal government over states in those rela-
their sovereignty and treaty rights. In 1970, a group tions. The United States itself has officially reaf-
called Determination of Rights and Unity for firmed this repeatedly, going back to the Marshall
Menominee Stockholders (DRUMS) mobilized on Trilogy. Therefore, an individual state within the
their erstwhile reservation in opposition to termina- United States can have no jurisdiction over a Native
tion. They were ultimately successful. On December nation, in much the same way that Alaska could not
22, 1973, President Richard Nixon signed a law extend its jurisdiction over France, for example. By
restoring the Menominee tribe. Although most ter- allowing states to do so through P. L. 280, the
minated nations have been restored—most recently United States clearly failed to uphold its treaty
the Northern Ponca of Nebraska in 1990—others are obligations. Like termination and relocation, it was

a colossal failure in its original form. It has since years later, the Court completely reversed itself in
been transformed into something akin to a tense Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States. Now it was the Court’s
partnership between reservations, county govern- stance that Native nations could not receive compen-
ments, and state governments. sation without a treaty. The Supreme Court was
Further attempts by states to extend their crimi- proving to be as frustratingly inconsistent as ever.
nal jurisdictions over Indian reservations stemmed When the Navajo Tribal Council outlawed pey-
from the Assimilative Crimes Act. Originally passed ote on its reservation (the drug derived from certain
in 1825, the bill gives states the right to impose their cacti is a sacrament in the Native American Church),
own “lesser laws” (minor misdemeanors such as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals presided over
traffic violations and the like) upon federal lands Native American Church v. Navajo Council (1959). First
that have no local legal code, such as military bases Amendment protections did not apply on reserva-
and state parks. Although it seems clear that the law tions, it decided. The court went so far as to declare
was never intended to apply to Indian reservations, that Native governments had a higher status than
federal courts have allowed this infringement, based states. Ironically, what was a setback for the Native
on the bill’s rather vague language. Any extension of American Church was a show of support for Native
the Assimilative Crimes Act to reservations seems governments.
bogus, though it has at least been limited. Only The 1960s witnessed a slowing of the attacks
crimes between Indians and non-Indians fall under on Native sovereignty but by no means an end to
its discretion. However, while its application has them. While the Kennedy administration publicly
been restricted with regards to ethnicity, it has been espoused an end to termination, the government
wrongly extended in other areas. Generally per- nonetheless moved to terminate the Northern
ceived as not applying to consensual, or “victim- Ponca nation in 1962. Not until the end of the
less,” crimes, the Seventh Circuit Court nonetheless decade would the federal government finally show
held in United States v. Sosseur (1950) that Wisconsin signs of truly relenting in its post–World War II
could use its laws to prosecute a Native American assault on Indian rights.
who operated slot machines under a tribal license on In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson sug -
a reservation. gested a shift in the federal government’s Indian
Contrary to Sosseur, the Supreme Court asserted policy. He referred to the new approach as “self-
the legal separation between states and reservations determination.” Vague on details and soon to leave
in Williams v. Lee (1958), one of the few legal bright office, Johnson left it to his successors to outline the
spots of the 1950s. In ruling against the non-Indian change. Embracing the notion of self-determination,
owner of a general store on the Navajo Reservation Richard Nixon worked with Indian advisors to pro-
who attempted to use the Arizona state courts to col- pose a policy that urged the final end to termination,
lect on a debt from a Native customer, Williams which he decried as morally and legally unaccept-
stated that “the exercise of state jurisdiction here able. His policy also sought to remove much of the
would undermine the authority of the tribal courts BIA’s authority over reservation governments by
over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe encouraging tribes to contract directly with the fed-
on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” eral government for needed services. However, Con-
The opinion went on to assert that it did not matter gress was recalcitrant, and it was not until after
that the plaintiff was not Indian. Nonetheless, as Nixon’s resignation that it passed the Indian Self-
recently as 1977 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Determination and Education Act and the American
extended state jurisdiction under the Assimilative Indian Policy Review Commission Act in 1975.
Crimes Act when, in Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department The first bill’s legislative mandate acknowl-
of Game, it upheld the conviction of Puyallup Indi- edged the failures of federal paternalism and the
ans, under Washington State law, for selling fire- desire of Native people to assert their sovereignty. In
works on their own reservation. more concrete terms, it gave reservations more con-
During the 1950s, the U.S. Supreme Court twice trol over education, offered hiring preferences to
addressed treaty issues. As before, the Court was not Native people applying for jobs on federal contracts
afraid to directly contradict itself. United States v. relating to Indian affairs, and pledged to maintain
Alcea Band of Tillamooks (1951) found that Native the federal government’s trust responsibility.
nations could seek compensation from the United The commission set up as part of the second bill
States even if they had not signed a treaty. Just four was dominated by Native Americans, save for the

chair and vice chair. The committee made 206 recom- set aside for parks and oil interests). Fortunately,
mendations in its final report of 1977, including a Native peoples in Alaska have benefited from his-
call for expanded recognition of sovereignty that tory’s hindsight. Noting the sometimes disastrous
ranged from issues of civil and criminal jurisdiction effects of the General Allotment Act and Indian
to taxation and hunting and fishing rights. Reorganization Act, they have since moved to
The 1970s featured more gains. The Indian strengthen their hold over their lands. They pushed
Child Welfare Act of 1978 worked to curb what at through a 1988 amendment to ANCSA that prohibits
times amounted to little more than child theft from the sale of individual shares in the regional corpora-
Native parents. Private and public agencies alike tions without corporate approval. However, corpo-
were now required to prove serious emotional or rations are not governments. They can be dissolved
physical endangerment to Indian children before or go bankrupt, and so there is still a very tenuous
removing them from their homes. Previously, chil- quality to the issue of Native Alaskan jurisdiction. A
dren could be taken from their parents with little or real issue confronting the latter of those two possibil-
no justification. Since the bill’s passage, various ities was the restrictive caps ANCSA placed on the
loopholes and enforcement problems have surfaced, profits those corporations can receive from non-
but many of the most egregious cases of kidnapping Native corporations conducting business on their
have been stopped. lands.
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of The self-determination era of the 1970s was
1978 was designed to guarantee basic religious liber- clearly an improvement for Native jurisdictional
ties that were routinely denied to many Native peo- issues over the assaults of the post–World War II
ples, including access to sacred sites, the use and years. However, the 1980s ushered in a period of
possession of sacred objects, and the right to wor- renewed challenges that has featured, in particular, a
ship in traditional ways. The bill vows to protect hostile court system. During the last several decades,
Indian religious rights and gives the president the American courts have wrought havoc on jurisdic-
power to order federal agencies to consult with tional issues, beginning with a series of Supreme
Native religious leaders about removing restrictions Court decisions.
detrimental to religious practices. In the decision of Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley
To the north, Alaskan Natives had never signed Authority in 1980, the high court permitted the con-
any agreements with the United States. Jurisdic- struction of the Tellico Dam, which destroyed an
tional issues received some clarification with the area where Cherokees garnered religious objects
passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and medicine. That same year, the Court decreed in
(ANCSA) in 1971. The federal government recog- Badoni v. Higginson that Navajo religious rights were
nized Native title to forty million of the sixty million subsidiary to tourism and local hydroelectric needs.
acres they had claimed. Although a boon for Native In Montana v. United States (1981), the Court ruled
land claims, it was not as large a victory for Native that states, not Native governments, have the right
jurisdiction. The government did not recognize juris- to regulate riverbeds running through reservations.
diction by Native governments over these lands. It also severely limited reservation jurisdiction over
Instead, it formed thirteen regional Native corpora- non-Indians by claiming that the tribe can only reg-
tions, in which Native Alaskans received ownership ulate the actions of non-Indians on the reservation if
shares, which they could sell to outsiders after a their actions directly threaten the politics, econom-
twenty-year moratorium. Alaska’s Natives also ics, or physical health of the tribe as a whole.
received separate shares in their individual villages, Another blow came with United States v. Dion (1986).
which were likewise incorporated. These shares The Court declared that federal legislation protect-
could not be sold to outsiders. The difference? The ing endangered species superseded Native religious
federal government was willing to allow Native freedoms; Native peoples could not kill animals for
Alaskans to firmly secure their control over the juris- religious practices if such actions were prohibited
diction of small villages scattered throughout the by federal legislation. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Ceme-
Alaskan peninsula while passively encouraging tery Protective Ass’n (1988) overturned a host of
them to disenfranchise themselves in vast and lucra- lower courts and attacked the American Indian Reli-
tive portions of the state that were coveted by min- gious Freedom Act of 1978 when it ruled that the
ing, lumbering, and tourism interests (most of the National Forest Service should pave a road and har-
twenty-million-acre claim they had not received was vest trees in an area of the Hoopa Valley Indian

Reservation sacred to Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa ered Indian gaming in California v. Cabazon (1987),
peoples. Even the Forest Service itself told the Court asserting that, despite Public Law 280, any state that
that it agreed with the Indians, but to no avail. The offered any legalized gambling of its own could not
Court judged that the road should be built and the outlaw Indian gaming.
trees should be taken. Furthermore, it insisted that The following year, however, Congress under-
the free-exercise aspect of religious freedom guaran- cut the Court’s decision and Native sovereignty
teed to all Americans by the Constitution did not when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
apply to Native Americans. Rather, they would (IGRA). It defined three classes of gambling. Class III
have to meet the restrictive standard of proving that represents the most sophisticated type of casino
they were coerced into violating their beliefs or table gaming (card games, craps, etc.), and Class I is
penalized for practicing them. In Cotton Petroleum the simplest form of gambling. The act required
Corporation v. New Mexico (1989), the Supreme Court Indian nations wishing to pursue Class II or Class III
asserted that a state could in fact tax non-Indian cor- gaming to negotiate a compact with the state. In
porations doing business on reservations, thereby other words, although the Constitution and the
threatening the profitability of many reservation- courts have affirmed time and time again that the
based economic development plans. The Court then federal government, not the states, has jurisdiction
engaged in baffling legal doublespeak in Employ- over Native nations, Congress allowed the states to
ment Division, Department of Human Resources of Ore- assume jurisdiction over reservation gambling with
gon et al. v Alfred L. Smith et al. (1990). The Court the passage of the IGRA.
maintained that states can pass laws prohibiting the Several stereotypes have since sprouted up
Native American Church from administering pey- around the issue of Indian gaming: that most reser-
ote as a sacrament, yet at the same time it insisted vations have casinos; that these casinos are all wildly
that the existing laws in all fifty states prohibiting successful; that gambling casinos are anathema to
the distribution of alcohol to minors cannot apply “traditional” Indian culture and therefore “un-
when wine is administered to minors as a sacrament Indian.” All these stereotypes are inaccurate and
in a Christian church. deserve further scrutiny. Because of the requirement
State courts have been equally hostile at times. to gain state permission for Class III gaming, most
In 1988, the Wyoming Supreme Court decreed that Indian casinos around the country do not offer full-
Shoshone and Arapaho members of the Wind River fledged casino gambling. Class I and Class II casinos,
Reservation had no rights to groundwater under which most Americans would not identify as true
their very own reservation. The decision was so out- casinos, are much more common. Beyond that, some
rageous that it led many Native groups to shift their states have been more amenable than others over the
focus from the court system to the federal legislature issue. For example, Washington State was initially
when seeking redress. But if the last two decades opposed to Indian gaming, but a change in adminis-
have been difficult times for advocates of Native trations led to a change in policy. Nebraska has been
sovereignty, perhaps solace can be found in the continually hostile, levying fines of $2,000 per day
major historical trend that defines federal Indian and threatening military intervention against the
policy: inconsistency. The tides may yet turn again in Santee Dakota Reservation. In an effort to protect its
the twenty-first century. own lucrative gambling interests, Nevada has actu-
ally spent money to campaign against compacts in
other states. Internal factors also prohibit many reser-
Contemporary Issues vations from serious gaming enterprises. A lack of
In recent years, three issues in particular have startup capital is one frequent problem for impover-
attracted national attention: repatriation, gaming, ished reservations. Another is relative isolation from
and federal recognition. All these issues strike at the large population centers from which to draw cus-
heart of Native jurisdiction. tomers. Finally, some tribes have not embraced gam-
The debate over gambling took center stage in bling simply because they do not feel it represents
1979 when, in defiance of state law, the Florida Semi- their best interests. Consequently, only a small num-
noles opened a bingo hall that offered prizes of up to ber of reservations offer Class III, casino-style gam-
$10,000. The state attempted to close them down, but bling, and many offer no gambling at all.
the Seminoles successfully stated their case in fed- Indians themselves have split over the specific
eral court. The Supreme Court eventually consid- issue of high-stakes gambling. Some have eagerly

embraced the opportunity to use gambling to gener- shipped off for “research.” In fact, the scientific value
ate income. Various tribes have used gambling prof- of Indian remains, most of which are quite recent, is
its to offer their members schools, community cen- minimal, and the vast majority of Indian remains
ters, and health services, college scholarships, were simply stockpiling in archives or being
housing, care for the elderly, and, of course, jobs. exploited by entrepreneurs.
Other nations have rejected gambling altogether for NAGPRA’s origins stem from the grassroots
a variety of reasons. Some eschew gambling as a activities of groups like American Indians Against
social vice that is contrary to tribal values. Others Desecration (AIAD), which protested against the
feel the money promotes corruption. Many are loath ongoing double standard toward remains. And
to sign a compact with states, believing it under- although NAGPRA is a piece of federal legislation,
mines their sovereignty. The Diné (Navajos), for its jurisdiction is limited. Private institutions are not
example, twice rejected gambling in reservation- required to return their remains. Thus, the profanity
wide referenda in 1994 and 1997 before approving it of Indian skeletons on display for a fee persists at
in 2005. Some nations have divided over the issue. curio shops and the like around the country.
The Florida Seminoles not only pioneered Indian Debates over jurisdiction between the federal
casino gambling, they were also the first to witness government and Native nations depend upon an
the division it can cause. Some members were so important ingredient: federal recognition of Native
opposed to the idea that they eventually left to form nations. There continue to exist a number of Native
a separate nation, the Independent Traditional Semi- nations that the federal government refuses to recog-
nole Nation of Florida. Several Haudenosaunee nize. These nations typically have lived at the mar-
nations have also seen conflict over the issue. Intimi- gins of American society, some (but not all) of them
dation, violence, and arson have marred the debate intermarrying with local populations at a substantial
on several reservations. rate. They have nonetheless kept their ethnic identi-
An equally contentious issue has been the mat- ties, cultures, and national consciousness alive.
ter of protecting Native remains and sacred and cer- However, since the federal government does not rec-
emonial cultural artifacts. In an effort to put an end ognize their existence as Indian nations, they have
to the grave robbing that had supported enterprises no relationship with the federal government. Conse-
ranging from small-town curio shops to the nation’s quently, these nations receive none of the benefits
most elite academic and archival institutions, Con- that flow from federal recognition, including money
gress passed the Native American Graves Protection from BIA programs, lands held in trust, certain tax
and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990. No longer exemptions, federal protection from state actions,
are amateurs and professionals alike allowed to and the right to sue for past grievances. In search of
wantonly exhume Indian remains or steal sacred the same benefits and status that come with federal
objects. However, the number of skeletons already in recognition, a number of them have sought to attain
the possession of non-Indians numbered in the hun- it, with varying success.
dreds of thousands. The University of California at There are three methods by which a Native
Los Angeles alone held the remains of some four nation may obtain recognition. The first involves a
thousand Indians. Therefore, NAGPRA also outlined successful action in federal court against the U.S.
criteria and timetables for identifying and returning government. This method is expensive, very risky,
Native remains and ceremonial objects to their and can be extremely time consuming. Often seen as
respective communities. a last resort, no Native nation has received recogni-
The debate over NAGPRA has at times revolved tion by this means. The second method is congres-
around the false notion that the bill’s mandates limit sional legislation. Clearly, this method is highly
legitimate scientific inquiry. The bill merely asks the politicized. Thus far, only three groups have
scientific community to apply the same respectful achieved recognition through this route, most
constraints and cultural sensitivity that it already recently the Arootsook Micmac Nation in 1991. The
accords other Americans. In the past, it has not. For final and most common method is through the
example, in 1972 when an Iowa road construction Department of the Interior’s application process. The
crew discovered twenty-six white bodies, one Indian Federal Acknowledgment Project of 1978 allowed
woman’s body, and her child’s body, the white skele- the BIA to recognize previously unrecognized
tons were reburied, and the Native remains were nations. Formalized in January 1994, this process is

highly bureaucratic. It demands that a petitioning nations recognized and accepted travel passports
nation meet seven requirements: it must establish issued by the Haudenosaunee League of Nations. In
continuous Indian identity from historical times to 1992, the United Nations declared that it was the
the present; establish distinct Indian location or com- year of indigenous people. A nice-sounding but hol-
munity of a substantial portion of its population; low gesture; a more substantive approach would
establish tribal political influence or authority over have been to admit indigenous nations to its body.
its constituents throughout history to the present; Akim D. Reinhardt and John R. Wunder
show current governing documents, including mem-
bership criteria and governing procedures; show a References and Further Reading
Barsh, Russel Lawrence, and James Youngblood
list of all known members who meet tribal criteria
Henderson. 1980. The Road: Indian Tribes and
that is acceptable to the secretary of the interior; Political Liberty. Berkeley: University of
establish that membership is separate from other California Press.
Indian nations; and establish that the group has not Burke, Joseph C. 1969. “The Cherokee Cases: A Study
earlier lost recognition through congressional legis- in Law, Politics, and Morality.” Stanford Law
lation. Another half-dozen have successfully navi- Review 21 (February): 500–531.
gated this process. Burt, Larry W. 1982. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian
Numerous other nations have been unsuccess- Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
ful in their efforts to achieve federal recognition due
Burton, Lloyd. 1991. American Indian Water Rights and
to a number of obstacles. All three processes are the Limits of Law: Reflections in a Glass Bead.
expensive, time consuming, subject to politics, and Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
degrading, as people are in essence asked to justify Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native
their existence. In addition, some previously recog- American Self-Determination and Federal Indian
nized nations have at times opposed the recognition Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona
of more tribes for fear that it will reduce their share Press.
Cohen, Felix S. 1942. Handbook of Federal Indian Law.
of federal money and benefits.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
If one of the immediate goals for many, if not all, Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1971. Of Utmost Good Faith. San
Native nations is to strengthen their sovereignty by Francisco: Straight Arrow Books.
asserting their jurisdiction and working toward a Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Sandra Cadwalader. 1984. The
more equitable relationship with the U.S. federal Aggressions of Civilization: Federal Indian Policy
government, then the long-term goal may involve Since the 1880s. Philadelphia: Temple University
taking such issues to the international stage. More Press.
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford Lytle. 1984. The Nations
and more indigenous nations (within the current
Within: The Past and Future of American Indian
boundaries of the United States and elsewhere) may Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books.
seek to take their places among the other member Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes,
nations of the world. Efforts to do so are well estab- Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin:
lished and ongoing. University of Texas Press.
In 1921, the Haudenosaunee League of Nations Fairbanks, Robert A. 1977. “A Discussion of the
sent delegates to London, England, to assert their Nation-State Status of Indian Tribes: A Case
sovereignty from Canada (the League is artificially Study of the Cheyenne Nation.” American Indian
Journal 3 (October): 2–24.
divided by the U.S.-Canadian border). Two years
Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation:
later, they went to Geneva, Switzerland, and peti- Federal Indian Policy 1945–1960. Albuquerque:
tioned for entry into the League of Nations. Their University of New Mexico Press.
petition was denied, though three sitting members, Getches, David H., and Charles F. Wilkinson. 1998.
including Ireland, did vote in favor of it. More Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed. St.
recently, Canada has carved a thirteenth province, Paul, MN: West.
named Nunavut, which falls under the jurisdiction Goldberg, Carole E. 1975. “Public Law 280: The
Limits of State Jurisdiction over Reservation
of its resident Native peoples. Denmark has allowed
Indians.” UCLA Law Review 22 (February):
the colony of Greenland, with its large indigenous 535–594.
population, to assert local jurisdiction (while still Green, L. C., and Olive P. Dickason. 1989. The Law of
restricting its foreign affairs). With regard to U.S. Nations and the New World. Edmonton, AB,
Indians, by the early 1990s seventeen different Canada: University of Alberta Press.

Gross, Emma R. 1989. Contemporary Federal Policy Development of a Legal Concept.” American
Toward Indians. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Journal of Legal History 34 (October): 331–364.
Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American Stanek, Edward. 1987. Native People: Their Legal
Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Status, Claims, and Human Rights. Monticello,
Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York: IL: Vance Bibliographies.
Cambridge University Press. Stuart, Paul. 1979. The Indian Office: Growth and
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Treaties Development of an American Institution. Ann
1778–1883, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.
Government Printing Office; repr., New York: Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima.
Interland Press. 2001. Uneven Ground: American Indian
Metcalf, Richard P. 1974. “Who Should Rule at Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman:
Home? Native American Politics and Indian- University of Oklahoma Press.
White Relations.” Journal of American History 61 Wilkinson, Charles N. 1987. American Indians, Time,
(December): 651–665. and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern
Philp, Kenneth R., ed. 1986. Indian Self-Rule: First- Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale
Hand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from University Press.
Roosevelt to Reagan. Salt Lake City, UT: Howe Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together:
Brothers. American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace,
Price, Monroe E. 1973. Law and the American Indian. 1600–1800. New York: Oxford University Press.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Wunder, John R. 1994. “Retained by The People”: A
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The History of American Indians and the Bill of Rights.
United States Government and the American New York: Oxford University Press.
Indians. 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Ziontz, Alvin J. 1975. “In Defense of Tribal
Press. Sovereignty: An Analysis of Judicial Error in
Quinn, William W., Jr. 1990. “Federal Acknowledgment Construction of the Indian Civil Rights Act.”
of American Indian Tribes: The Historical South Dakota Law Review 20 (Winter): 1–58.

Treaties and American Indian Schools
in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930
F
F
or more than two centuries since the birth of ment on the demands of such an education, Francis
the United States, treaties have been central to La Flesche, an Omaha Indian, wrote, “To us, there
the American project of schooling Indian chil- seemed to be no end to the things we were obliged
dren. Although treaty making with the tribes ended to do, and the things we were to refrain from doing”
in 1871, and although not all treaty commitments (La Flesche 1963, xvi).
have been faithfully adhered to by the United From colonial times until well into the twentieth
States, its citizens, or Indians, ratified treaties century, unable to see such apparently unstructured
remain part of U.S. federal law. Many of these activities as education, European Americans have set
treaties provide for educational assistance, thus out to Christianize and “civilize” Indian peoples
committing the federal government to an ongoing through the schooling of their children. In northeast-
role in Indians’ schooling. From the 1780s until the ern parts of the present United States and Canada,
1930s, the goal of U.S. and missionary educators for example, Roman Catholic Jesuit and Récollet
was to Christianize, “civilize,” and Americanize (Franciscan) missionaries, along with Ursuline nuns
tribal boys and girls, turning them into white citi- and other congregations and orders, established far-
zens in everything but skin color. This century-and- flung missions, some employing schools and some
a-half-long “era of assimilation” is the primary sending Indian children to live with white people.
focus of the present essay, but developments since “Always strive by all manner of methods,” declared
the 1930s are also pertinent. Radical reforms of a royal French instruction in 1671, “to excite all the
Indian education began during the New Deal, clergy and nuns . . . to raise among them the greatest
reforms later extended and deepened from the possible number of the said children in order that
1970s until today. In the last three decades espe- through instruction in the matters of our religion
cially, the emphasis of government-assisted Indian and in our ways they might compose with the inhab-
schooling (reserved for Indian children) has itants of Canada a single people and by that means
changed, and federal authorities, along with also fortify the colony” (Jaenen 1976, 176). Character-
involved tribal peoples, cooperate to reinforce tribal istic of future efforts, whether by French, Spanish,
pride and self-determination. The vast majority of English, or U.S. missionaries and officials, schooling
Indian children, however, now attend state public would thus convert children to Christianity but also
schools along with the children of other ethnic assimilate them to the dominant culture and assure
groups. Whether at Indian schools or public schools, their political loyalty. Yet getting the desired results
Native American children were and still are power- was never easy, as an Ursuline mother superior
fully affected by treaties made between their peo- admitted during the same period. Out of a hundred
ples and the federal government in the first eight children that her order schooled, “scarcely have we
decades of the republic. civilized one. We find docility and intelligence in
“You have no education,” declared Captain them,” she noted magnanimously, but
Richard H. Pratt, founder of the famous Indian
Industrial School at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, to Spot- when we are least expecting it they climb over
ted Tail of the Lakota Sioux in 1879. Like generations our enclosure and go to run the woods [sic]
of white Americans before and after him, this dedi- with their relatives, where they find more
cated but ethnocentric educator assumed that, pleasure than in all the amenities of our French
because tribal peoples did not educate their children houses. (Jaenan 1976, 173)
within the four walls of a school building, the chil-
dren remained uneducated. Yet education was As later generations of Indian educators would
highly institutionalized in traditional Indian soci- find, keeping the children at their desks required a
eties. Family members (especially older people such combination of compulsion, persuasion, and, above
as grandfathers and grandmothers), along with spe- all, the convincing of kin and the children them-
cialists in economic activities, warfare, art, and spiri- selves that schooling was useful to the people.
tual matters, systematically educate boys and girls “Come over and help us,” pleaded the Indian
into responsible tribal adulthood. In a typical com- depicted on the seal of the Massachusetts Bay
179
Colony in 1629, and at least for a minority of English come through the children. Like Eliot, generations of
Protestant colonists and for support organizations missionary and U.S. government educators thus
back in Britain, conversion of the “heathen” became struggled to separate children from their supposedly
a major rationale of colonization. The “Apostle of the corrupting tribal environments, sometimes in large,
Indians,” the seventeenth-century Puritan mission- off-reservation boarding schools. Patterns of Indian
ary John Eliot, for example, established fourteen countermanipulation of white educators also per-
“praying towns” across New England. As with sisted for the next two centuries once Indian com-
Catholic efforts, schools were central to his mission. munities came to realize the advantage of schooling
Initially quarantined from their “savage” family to individual and group survival. And just as colo-
backgrounds, young Indians would first be saved nial governments made treaties with Indian peoples,
themselves. They would then return as cultural bro- so would the government of the new republic.
kers—the term used by ethnohistorians for media- In international law, a treaty is a documented
tors between cultures—to carry the Gospel and agreement negotiated between two sovereigns or
English culture back to their peoples. Some colonists more, and it is ratified by the governments of the
sent tribal children to England; some, like the parties involved. As the United States became more
French, took them into their homes. A number of and more dominant on the North American conti-
young Indians actually attended Harvard and other nent, pressure developed to discontinue treaty mak-
colonial universities and colleges. Missionaries such ing with Indian tribes, which Americans no longer
as Eliot, generations of the Mayhew family who recognized as sovereign nations, which led to the
established schools for Indian peoples of Martha’s end of treaty making in 1871. Treaties served their
Vineyard, and Eleazor Wheelock, who founded purpose from an American perspective, for they
Dartmouth College and the famous Moor’s Charity became “the legal instruments by which the federal
School (which was attended by almost ninety Indian government acquired full title to the great public
boys and girls) were undoubtedly sincere in their domain stretching west of the Appalachian Moun-
desire for Indian “uplift” into Christian society. tains.” Yet throughout and beyond the period under
Many fellow colonists, however, regarded such review, many Americans were adamant that the
efforts as an economic way of pacifying Indians and United States should keep its part of the treaty bar-
of removing them from their lands. Indians them- gains. To this day, Indian peoples, too, recognize the
selves quickly learned the game of countermanipu- importance of treaties made over a century ago in
lation, seeing schooling of their children as a tactic holding the government to its commitments. Fur-
for individual and group survival in the rapidly ther, treaties were often more than mere devices for
changing colonial world. land exchange, and they brought about considerable
Although these English colonial ventures cultural change to Indian tribes. Thus, they were
reached very few Indian children, they established “civilizing documents,” often with a heavy educa-
patterns for assimilationist Indian schooling in the tional component: schooling in exchange for suppos-
area of the present United States throughout the edly surplus land (Prucha 1994, 2, 9, 11, 226).
nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. According to the U.S. Constitution, the conduct
Protestant colonial and American missionaries, gov- of Indian affairs was and is the responsibility of the
ernment officials, and, later, “friends of the Indian” federal government rather than the individual states.
fused versions of Christianity and an idealized Also, the making of treaties is a federal responsibil-
American lifestyle into an all-embracing, messianic ity: the executive branch negotiates a treaty, and the
vision. This “Christian civilization” was locked in a legislative branch (through the Senate, the upper
deadly struggle against “heathenism,” “savagery,” house of Congress) approves or rejects it. Within
and all such supposedly deficient cultural states. seven years of its establishment in 1787, the new
Colonial missionaries and, later, educators generally government made its first Indian treaty that men-
combined an egalitarian and nonracist conviction of tioned education. The treaty of 1794 with the
the capacity of Indian peoples with a near-absolute Oneida, Tuscarora, and Stockbridge Indians man-
ethnocentric conviction that Indians must leave all dated the establishment of mills and the instruction
their old ways behind and accept all of the new way. of some young men “in the arts of miller and sawer.”
The school thus became a panacea: many Indians A decade later, in 1803, a treaty with the Kaskaskia
were too old and too set in their ways to change; Indians of Illinois noted that, as most of the people
therefore salvation, both spiritual and secular, would had been baptized into Roman Catholicism, the

Treaties and American Indian Schools in the Age of Assimilation, 1794–1930 181
United States would provide $100 annually over often supported by treaty-mandated funds, would
seven years toward the support of a priest and “to free most of the land of Indians and simultaneously
instruct as many of their children as possible in the free the Indians of their “savagery,” and all would
rudiments of literature” (ARCIA 1885, LXXVIII). benefit from the exchange.
Thus was a pattern established: the use of the treaty Further stimulating such thinking were a num-
to extend government support of secular and reli- ber of trends. The early nineteenth century wit-
gious instruction—in this case, not even Protes- nessed the Second Great Awakening in America, a
tantism. And in 1819, as we shall see, Congress wave of religious revivals that powerfully stimu-
would reinforce its commitment, one that by the lated Protestant missionary activity. American Indi-
early twentieth century had produced an “educa- ans—“our own heathens,” as a Presbyterian tract
tional empire” that included hundreds of day called them (Coleman 1993, 39)—were not neglected
schools as well as on-reservation and off-reservation in this crusade to win the world for Christ. Simulta-
boarding schools for the children of the tribes. neously influential was a growing belief in the trans-
It is currently fashionable to use emotionally forming power of education. This century was to see
loaded terms such as genocide to describe U.S. treat- the rise of the school: the explosive expansion, in
ment of Indian peoples. Yet such treaties and legisla- nation after nation in the Western world and also in
tion indicate that many government officials and Japan, of state-supported mass elementary educa-
concerned “friends of the Indian” sought acceptably tion. For the United States, with its increasingly
humane and Christian methods (by their own stan- diverse white population, to say nothing of its even
dards) by which to free Indian lands of their inhabi- more diverse Indian peoples (African Americans,
tants yet preserve Indian people as future citizens of slave or free, rarely figured in this discourse during
the republic. Even before the war of independence, the early nineteenth century), the school would
the Continental Congress (about to become the gov- become the great unifier. Through its presentation of
ernment of the colonies in revolt) in 1775 appropri- a standardized Christianizing and Americanizing
ated $500 for the education of tribal youth at Dart- curriculum in thousands of nearly identical class-
mouth College (ARCIA 1885, LXXVII). By the early rooms across the land, it truly would create one
nineteenth century, there was growing concern that nation out of many. From the Revolution on, educa-
Indians would soon vanish from the face of the tion proved to be an important cultural tool for
earth if Christian Americans and their government forming a national identity, maintaining communi-
failed to help Indians adjust to the new civilization ties, and establishing republican idealism, especially
that was overwhelming their traditional lifestyles. in a nation so diverse, with so many interests repre-
Few white Americans at the time showed respect for sented from different parts of Europe. Such guided
Indian cultures, whether of the hunting and gather- change was pertinent for forming a new nation
ing type or, in the case of many Indian peoples, agri- (Green 1990, 171). The school became “a formidable
cultural. But through the schooling of their children, structure of persuasion,” inculcating American val-
especially, all Indians could be raised into Christian ues, self-control, and Protestant Christianity into
and civilized society and thus could be saved in young Indians and children of other groups (Finkel-
both this life and the next. As in the colonial period, stein 1989, 24). Thus transformed, these young cul-
these goals effortlessly blended a withering con- tural brokers from many different ethic groups
tempt for Indian lifestyles with an equally powerful would return to their communities to help instill
belief in the capacity of the people themselves to American values into still-deficient adult members,
respond and to rise into the privileges and responsi- be they German, Irish, or Native American.
bilities of American citizenship. Many Americans Beyond inspiring the educational clauses in
sought only the disappearance of the tribes, of treaties, this heady mix of idealism, social anxiety,
course, even if this included actual physical extinc- and relentless pragmatism produced the so-called
tion. But many others in and out of government sin- Indian Civilization Act of 1819. This “Act making
cerely believed that the offer of civilization and provision for the civilization of the Indian tribes
Christianity would amply repay Indian peoples for adjoining the frontier settlements” was sweeping
the loss of mostly “useless” tribal lands; thus and yet explicit in its goals. Characteristically, it was
“uplifted,” they would practice American-style agri- introduced “for the purposes of providing against
culture and be absorbed into the population of the the further decline and final extinction of the Indian
republic like other ethnic groups. The school, then, tribes . . . and for introducing among them the habits

and arts of civilization.” It empowered the president, aided mission schools among many different Indian
where practicable, “and with their [Indians’] own peoples, enrolling more than nine hundred tribal
consent,” to embark on Indian schooling. He was “to children (Coleman 1993, 39). This apparent continu-
employ capable persons of good moral character to ity with rather haphazard colonial missionary prac-
instruct them in the mode of agriculture suited to tices is actually misleading. By congressional fiat, the
their situation, and for teaching their children in federal government had now become inextricably
reading, writing, and arithmetic . . . ” Most signifi- involved in not only the subsidizing but also the
cant then and later, an annual sum of $10,000 was policing of Indian schools—and it would later begin
appropriated for carrying out the provisions of the to build and staff such institutions. Indeed, near the
act. Further, “an account of the expenditure of the end of the period under review, commissioner Robert
money, and proceedings in execution of the forego- G. Valentine could describe the functions of the BIA
ing provisions, shall annually be laid before Con- as “primarily educational” in both the broad and the
gress” (ARCIA1885, LXXVIII–IV). Although the leg- narrow senses of the term. It was, he wrote in 1909,
islature discontinued this specific “civilization fund” “a great outdoor-indoor school, with an emphasis on
in 1873—more than half a century later and two the outdoor. The students in this school are 300,000
years after the end of Indian treaty making—it con- individuals, ranging in age from babies at the breast
tinued to appropriate money for Indian education. to the old men and women of the tribe . . . these
By 1882, the annual sum had risen to $135,000; by 300,000 individuals speak about 250 fairly distinct
the end of that decade, to about $1,348,000. By 1900, dialects” (ARCIA 1909, 3).
the figure was $3 million—about three hundred Furthermore, the government continued to use
times the initial 1819 fund, a massive increase in treaties to achieve educational goals. For example, in
expenditure, even accounting for inflation (ARCIA a treaty of 1857 with the Pawnees, the government
1900: 44). The act of 1819, then, was not a one-time agreed to establish two, possibly four, manual-labor
measure. Legislation and treaties together signified a boarding schools (which provided both vocational
commitment to permanent federal involvement and and literary curricula). The Indians, for their part,
permanent accounting in Indian education. Like agreed to keep each child between the ages of seven
other national governments and American state gov- and eighteen years in the schools for nine months of
ernments in the early nineteenth century, the U.S. every year “or forfeit annuities equal to the value in
government had gotten itself into mass schooling, time of tuition lost”—an acceptance of the principle
but in this case only for a special and supposedly of compulsory education, which was incorporated
“problem” group within the nation. into many treaties. The treaty of 1863 with the Nez
At the time of the legislation in 1819, the War Perce of the Far Northwest obligated the govern-
Department exercised oversight of Indian affairs, and ment to pay $10,000 for the erection of two school
in 1824 Congress established a unit within it called buildings “and to employ two assistant teachers and
the Office of Indian Affairs, later the Bureau of Indian two matrons indefinitely.” The treaty of 1867 with
Affairs (BIA). Headed from 1832 by the commis- the Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche of the South-
sioner of Indian affairs, in 1849 the BIA was trans- west—one of the last Indian treaties—mandated the
ferred to the Department of the Interior, where, erection of a schoolhouse and the provision of a
despite some attempts to return it to the War Depart- teacher for every thirty tribal children of school age
ment, the BIA has remained to this day. In its first few until thirty years from the signing of the treaty
decades of existence, the new Indian Office used the (ARCIA 1885, LXXX–II).
“civilization fund” to subsidize existing missionary Again continuing patterns established in colo-
efforts among the tribes rather than to plunge into nial times, Native peoples, or at least specific indi-
new school-building ventures. Indeed, a later Indian viduals and groups within Indian communities,
commissioner, Francis E. Leupp, admitted in 1905 often exploited schooling for personal and group
that for the first one hundred years of the republic advancement. Leaders of part-white ancestry, espe-
(until the late 1880s, in other words) the education of cially among southeastern tribes such as the “civi-
Indian children “was practically in the hands of the lized” Cherokee and Choctaw, used such treaty
religious associations” (ARCIA 1905, 34–35). This funds to subsidize American missionary education
occurred despite the ideal of church-state separation for their peoples. Actually, in the pre–Civil War
supposedly so central to American republican ideol- decades, direct government aid, important though it
ogy. By 1824, there were thirty-two such government- was, amounted to less than 10 percent of the money

being poured in to “civilize” Indians. The mission Educate him in the rudiments of our language.
societies raised some of the rest, and Indian treaty Teach him to work. Send him to his home and
money provided the bulk of it (Fischbacher 1967, tell him he must practice what he has been
65–67). Thus, the government, the missionary soci- taught or starve. It will in a generation or more
eties, and tribal peoples became tied into complex regenerate the race.
and, indeed, highly symbiotic educational relation-
ships—but increasingly, as we shall see, the BIA Such an education, he concluded bluntly, would
would call the tune, at least on the white side. “exterminate the Indian but develop a man” (ARCIA
Throughout the nineteenth century, therefore, 1903, 3). Although some missionaries persisted in
Protestant and Catholic missionaries benefited from employing tribal languages, at BIA schools the lan-
federal support and from Indian utilization of treaty guage of instruction was English, even to uncompre-
funds to subsidize schooling; less directly, missionar- hending and monoglot children. In 1886, the BIA
ies also benefited, of course, from the prestige and the explicitly forbade the use of Indian languages in its
increasing military power of the United States. For schools. “There is not an Indian pupil whose tuition
example, by the 1820s, the schools of the Protestant and maintenance is paid for by the United States
American Board for Commissioners of Foreign Mis- Government,” declared commissioner J. D. C.
sions (ABCFM) among the Cherokee of the Southeast Atkins, “who is permitted to study any other lan-
had become “an international showpiece” guage than our own vernacular—the language of the
(McLoughlin 1984, 132). At these and other ABCFM greatest, most powerful, and most enterprising
schools, and at those run by other Protestant (and nationalities beneath the sun” (ARCIA 1886, xxiii). In
Catholic) missionary societies, the regimens and cur- reminiscences and autobiographies, many ex-
ricula established earlier in the century became char- students recalled the anguish this policy of linguistic
acteristic of mission education throughout the period chauvinism imposed upon them, especially at the
under review and, indeed, of education in the gov- beginning of schooling. “For me it was very hard,”
ernment-controlled schools established during this recalled Belle Highwalking, a Northern Cheyenne.
era of assimilation. Curricula varied according to the “No one [of us pupils] spoke English and we
size of the school, the availability of teachers, and the couldn’t understand the white people when they
ability or English-language level of the pupils. At spoke to us” (Coleman 1993, 105–106). Yet for her
most mission schools and at government manual and thousands like her, the process of alienation had
labor schools, a “half and half” pattern emerged. Part but begun: the curriculum excluded almost all tribal
of the day was spent on common school academic cultural knowledge (apart from some traditional
subjects, which ranged from the “three r’s” and reli- arts, crafts, and storytelling late in the assimilation
gion at small schools to highly ambitious academic period). Thus, unlike young white American or
curricula at large boarding schools, reflecting belief in English schoolchildren, who were educated into the
Indian intellectual capacity. The rest of the day was values of their own peoples, young Indians simulta-
spent working at vocational skills supposedly appro- neously faced radical deculturation along with
priate to gender: woodworking, blacksmithing, and intensive enculturation into an alien lifestyle (Cole-
farming for boys (although some came from agricul- man 1993, Ch. 6). Finally transformed and imbued
turally proficient tribes); dressmaking, cooking, and with “civilized” and Christian values, the children
other “domestic arts” for girls. In addition, the larger would return to spread the word among their own
boarding schools later sanctioned an impressive peoples. “Soon [Cherokee pupils] will be mingling
range of extracurricular activities, such as football, with their countrymen,” declared the ABCFM in a
basketball, discussion and theater groups, and classic description of the cultural broker in 1821,
student-produced newspapers (vetted by the author- “and imparting their acquired character to others,
ities, of course). and they to others still, in a wider and wider range”
From 1819 until the reform of Indian education (Coleman 1993, 40).
during the 1930s, missionary and government school Missionary efforts in the Southeast, especially
curricula were relentlessly ethnocentric. The goal those of the ABCFM, were badly disrupted by the
was the destruction of tribal culture and the assimi- forced removal of most of the Five Civilized Tribes—
lation of all Indians into American society. “Give the the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and
Indian a white man’s chance,” wrote Indian Com- Seminoles—to the Indian Territory of Oklahoma in
missioner William A. Jones in 1903: the 1830s. Despite protest from many missionaries

and other “friends of the Indians,” and despite an as the societies might undertake.” The fused secular
apparently sympathetic Supreme Court decision of and religious goal, according to Parker, was “to
Chief Justice John Marshall that the tribes were combine with the material progress of the Indian
“domestic dependent Nations” (Prucha 2000, 57–59), race, means for their moral and intellectual
most remaining southeastern Indians were forced improvement.” The whole plan, he believed, was
along the infamous Trail of Tears to the West. But the “obviously a wise and humane one” rather than a
Indians’ adaptive capacity reasserted itself in Okla- desperate last resort. Noting how Indians tended to
homa, as did missionary zeal, and the ABCFM and pick up the vices rather than the virtues of white
other missionary societies continued their school- people—a common nineteenth-century belief, here
building programs in the new land. In an impressive regurgitated by a highly acculturated and “success-
expropriation of white methods to defend tribal ful” Indian—Parker strongly supported the Peace
independence and identity, these five peoples also Policy:
established their own, tribally controlled school sys-
tems partly supported through treaty funds. Each The President wisely determined to evoke the
tribe built a hierarchy of local schools, boarding coöperation [sic] of the entire religious element
schools, and seminaries, and even sent promising of the country, to help, by their labors and
scholars to white schools beyond the nation (DeJong counsels, to bring about and produce the
1993, Ch. 6). The five school systems were taken over greatest amount of good from the expenditure
by the federal government in the early twentieth of the munificent annual appropriations of
century (ARCIA 1907, 349–355). Missionary- money by Congress, for the civilization and
government educational activities elsewhere in the Christianization of the Indian race. (ARCIA
nation and even in distant areas claimed by the 1870, 474–475)
United States continued unhindered during the
decades after the removal crisis. By the eve of the By 1872, for example, Friends (Quakers) had
Civil War, Protestant and Catholic missionaries had been given ten agencies with more than ten thou-
also set up missions and schools among tribes as sand Indians; Presbyterians got nine agencies with a
widely separated as the Omaha of the Midwest and missionary and educational responsibility for thirty-
the Nez Perce and Cayuse of the Far Northwest. eight thousand Indians; Roman Catholics had
Despite its earlier commitment and the educa- received seven agencies with more than seventeen
tional clauses of many treaties, after the Civil War thousand Indians (ARCIA 1872, 460–462). This crass
the federal government attempted to divest itself of parceling out of human beings produced much
its educational responsibilities to the tribes. Perhaps resentment among the denominations themselves,
as a result of the exhaustion brought on by the war and it achieved little obvious “uplift” of the tribes
itself and by attempts to reconstruct the defeated into American civilization. The initially celebrated
South, and also out of a growing conviction about Peace Policy did not even produce real peace, for
corruption in the Indian Service, the government some of the most famous Indian wars took place
attempted to hand over—we might say, hand during the 1870s. By the early 1880s, the ambitious
back—Indian schooling to the missionary bodies. yet constitutionally dubious policy had petered out.
Through its Peace Policy, the administration of Pres- And although the federal government appeared
ident Ulysses S. Grant first invited the Friends temporarily to have escaped the Indian school busi-
(Quakers) to suggest church members as federal ness, in reality this was not fully so. Even during the
agents and teachers to the tribes—a further extraor- heyday of the Peace Policy, it was congressional
dinary blurring of state-church relationships. In money that subsidized missionary educational ven-
1870, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely S. Parker tures, and earlier treaty commitments still held. Ulti-
(himself a Seneca Indian—a highly unusual, early mately, the government exercised final authority
example of the Indianization of the BIA) noted the over all such activities, and the BIA accepted and
goal of achieving “a greater degree of honesty in our validated the activities of each denomination
intercourse with the Indians.” He declared that the involved. And it was the government that belatedly
experiment had been such a success that other decided that the policy had failed for the tribes. The
denominations would similarly be called upon “to whole program, as Commissioner Parker noted, was
lend their personal and official influences to such established to achieve “the purpose and desire of the
educational and missionary or religious enterprises Government” (ARCIA 1870, 474).

Indeed, before the late 1870s, even before the ments. They should hear little or nothing of the
Peace Policy and treaty making had been quietly “wrongs of the Indians,” and of the injustice of
abandoned, the BIA was moving much more force- the white race. If their unhappy history is
fully and directly into Indian schooling and would alluded to, it should be in contrast with the
within a few more decades push the Protestant and better future that is within their grasp.
Catholic missionary societies completely to the mar- (Coleman 1993, 42)
gins. As we have seen, yearly appropriations grew
rapidly from this decade on. The BIA also began to As the century wore on and the BIA increased
build and staff its own schools directly under its its involvement in tribal education, most “friends of
control. In 1877, there were only 150 such schools, the Indian” agreed on broad goals for tribal educa-
mostly day schools, enrolling about 3,500 pupils. tion. But disagreement sometimes arose over meth-
By 1900, the BIA claimed 307 schools of all kinds ods. Which form of school would most effectively
with a total enrollment of about 21,500 pupils, Americanize Indian children, the local day school,
about half the estimated Indian school-age popula- which most then attended, or the distant boarding
tion at the time. This number included day schools, school? Situated on the reservation, the local day
on-reservation boarding schools, and large, off- school was obviously cheaper to maintain, but it
reservation boarding schools sometimes great dis- allowed daily contact with kin and culture and thus
tances from tribal lands (ARCIA 1900, 22–23). Of dissipated the civilizing message of the teachers. The
course, one learns to treat such government statistics boarding school, especially the off-reservation
with skepticism; but historians generally accept that, boarding school, far more securely quarantined chil-
despite the ending of treaty making, there was dren from the “savagery” of their kin and was to
impressive expansion of direct government involve- many educators well worth the extra expense. Actu-
ment in Indian schooling during the decades after ally, both kinds of institution, along with an interme-
the Civil War. diate form, the on-reservation boarding school, per-
Some historians see an intensification of overt sisted from the 1870s until (and beyond) the end of
American patriotism at the expense of explicitly the period under review. Yet in the decades around
Christian proselytization at this time. But, just as ele- the turn of the century, the large, off-reservation
mentary schooling worked in Britain, Germany, boarding school seemed to be the most promising
Japan, and other nations to indoctrinate the masses tool for Americanization.
into order and nationalism, so from the beginning of Although missionaries had earlier built Indian
our period to its end, BIA officials and missionaries boarding schools, the new wave of government
strove not just to Christianize but also to American- boarding schools was a product of the vision and
ize their charges. Certainly these educators and energy of Captain Richard Henry Pratt (later General
“friends of the Indian” admitted to shortcomings in Pratt). In 1879, he founded the Carlisle Indian Indus-
the actions of their nation and were often acutely trial School in Pennsylvania—obviously a vast dis-
aware of how individual white Americans could tance from the western tribal areas. An extraordinary
provide un-Christian examples to Indians. Yet no man, combining powerful cultural intolerance with a
other nation on earth, educators believed, not even deep sensitivity to Indian needs as he perceived
Britain, approached so near to the ideal of the Chris- them, Pratt was convinced that only by immersing
tian civilization. They could express their nationalis- young Indians for long periods in white civilization
tic convictions in stark and strident language. “It is could they thus escape their barbarous ways and
of prime importance,” declared BIA Commissioner assimilate into American life. From 1879 until its clo-
Thomas J. Morgan in 1889, sure as an Indian school in 1918, Carlisle became a
home away from home to thousands of Indian boys
That a fervent patriotism should be awakened and girls from hundreds of different tribal groups.
in their [Indian children’s] minds. . . . They Pratt’s example stimulated the opening of many
should be taught to look upon America as their more BIA off-reservation boarding schools. By 1900,
home and upon the United States Government there were twenty-five such schools with an average
as their friend and benefactor. They should be yearly attendance of about six thousand students at
made familiar with the lives of great and good widely separated locations such as Chilocco (Okla-
men and women in American history, and be homa), Phoenix (Arizona), Santa Fe (New Mexico),
taught to feel a pride in all their great achieve- Flandreau (South Dakota), and Lawrence (Kansas).

Each school developed its own version of the “half pupils) and 154 day schools (with a claimed atten-
and half” curriculum: literary and vocational educa- dance of 3,500 pupils). In addition, there were about
tion (ARCIA 1900, 15–16). As mentioned previously, 30 schools subsidized through government con-
many schools also encouraged varied and often pop- tracts. Commissioner Jones proudly declared in 1900
ular extracurricular activities. And many also fol- that these institutions were “all under complete gov-
lowed Pratt’s idea of “outing” students: sending ernment control.” Furthermore, the BIA still
them to work on local white farms during the sum- assumed “supervisory care” over mission schools
mer months or even to jobs in urban environments. with an enrollment of just under 3,000 pupils
Thus, near-total separation from tribal society was (ARCIA 1900, 13–44).
achieved: first separation from kin and culture; then But it was still a loose kind of control that the
further separation from all Indians, even fellow BIA exercised; there was no centrally imposed hier-
pupils, for at least a few months each year. archy of schools or standardized examinations. In
White educators made no apologies for tearing the late 1880s, BIA Commissioner Morgan had
children from the bosom of the family. Many shared attempted to bring greater order to this collection of
Pratt’s conviction that Indian kin arrangements did schools through establishing a uniform curriculum
not merit the sacred appellation “home.” In 1863, for and standardized textbooks and forms of instruc-
example, Commissioner William P. Dole claimed tion. He also attempted to inaugurate a graded sys-
quite characteristically that Indian children who tem of schools through which students would
only attended day schools retained “the filthy habits progress: from day school (elementary education)
and loose morals of their parents.” In a boarding through on-reservation boarding school to Carlisle
school, however, the children were “under the entire or other off-reservation boarding school (vocational
control of the teacher; they are comfortably clothed; high school). Although he brought greater coherence
fed on wholesome diet . . . in fact, they are raised and to the “system,” almost none of the schools, even the
educated like white children and on leaving school most ambitious boarding schools, could claim in this
are found to have acquired a knowledge and taste period to have provided more than an elementary
for civilized habits” (ARCIA 1863, 172). Pratt himself education. Indeed, as late as 1928 the BIA admitted
could not have expressed the conviction more suc- that few of its schools offered anything more
cinctly. Control was obviously of central importance: advanced: “There is not an Indian school in the
generations of white observers believed that Indian nation that is strictly a high school” (ARCIA 1928,
parents failed miserably to control their “wild” chil- 13). Furthermore, it was obviously difficult to bring
dren. The schools would provide firm but fair disci- order to what was a loose collection of schools cater-
pline—often military-style discipline, along with ing to children of diverse tribal cultures, who often
uniforms, daily inspections, and drilling for both spoke no English upon entering school.
boys and girls. But more than control was sought. To accentuate such problems, nonattendance
BIA educators sincerely hoped that the boarding remained chronic during the whole of the period
schools might become substitute homes for their under review. Runaways—pupils who permanently
charges, with good food, comfortable housing, and or temporarily fled the school—especially plagued
professional but loving teachers. American Indian educators. In 1900, Commissioner
By the opening of the new century, then, as Jones publicly admitted that, out of a possible Indian
obligated by treaties and legislation, the U.S. govern- school-age population of nearly 40,000, only 26,000
ment had plunged deeply into the complicated task Indian children were even enrolled at BIA schools,
of educating Indian children for assimilation into let alone attending regularly (ARCIA, 1900, 22–23).
American life. It was an unusual undertaking by the Absenteeism continued to decline, however, and by
federal government to assist “a non-white minority” the 1920s some schools actually encountered embar-
(Hoxie 2002, 69). Indeed, no white ethnic group rassing problems of overcrowding; but large num-
received such federal attention. But then, no other bers of Indian children still did not attend any
group within the American nation, white or non- school. By then, too, a new phenomenon had begun
white, had made treaties with the federal govern- to manifest itself: more and more tribal children
ment. And the figures are impressive: along with the were attending local state public schools with chil-
25 off-reservation boarding schools referred to previ- dren from non-Indian ethnic groups. At the turn of
ously, by 1900 the BIA supported 81 on-reservation the century, only 246 did so, according to BIA figures
boarding schools (with a claimed attendance of 8,000 (ARCIA 1900, 22–23). By 1930, this number had

exploded to almost 40,000—more than half of all convinced of the racial limitations of the Indians.
Indian children at school (ARCIA 1930, 26–27). The schools were thus to lower their sights: to train
Almost all of this latter development took place at Indians for work more appropriate to their future
the very end of the assimilationist era under review. condition in life, which would mostly be as lowly
But the trend, which escalated throughout the twen- manual laborers on the reservation or, for many
tieth century, merits mention here. The federal gov- women, as domestic workers for white families.
ernment also accepted and continues to accept a Most Indians would thus become “hewers of wood
measure of responsibility—because of treaties, legis- and drawers of water”; citizens, yes, but simultane-
lation, and other agreements—for financial assis- ously wards of the government, forever trapped in
tance to such public-school Indian students. this legal limbo, forever limited by their racial
Problems of absenteeism and runaways pro- “blood” (Hoxie 2002; Riney 1999). Other historians
voked continual calls by educators for legal compul- see far more continuity, at least in practice, whatever
sion. As noted above, individual Indian treaties had might be said about policy (Prucha 1984; Coleman
sometimes included clauses allowing for compul- 1993). The New Course of Studies (the more voca-
sion, and Congress had earlier passed a number of tionally oriented curriculum of 1901) and statements
laws permitting the BIA to compel school attendance by Indian commissioners and other educators can be
on particular reservations. In 1891, the legislature for read in many different ways and can indeed support
the first time authorized the BIA to “make and either argument. Accounts by narrators who
enforce by proper means such rules and regulations attended BIA schools around the turn of the century
as will secure the attendance of Indian children of suggest that, whatever changes occurred in policy,
suitable age and health at the schools established for those at the receiving end noticed few of them.
their benefit” (ARCIA 1891, 67). By 1893, Congress Schools continued to be as culturally intolerant and
had allowed the withholding of rations and annu- teachers as humanly varied as ever, but not more
ities (owed to tribes according to treaties) from par- explicitly racist in their treatment of Indian pupils.
ents and guardians who refused to send their chil- Although the rhetoric did change somewhat, and
dren to school. But the next year, Congress partly expressions of biological racism are more prevalent
backtracked and forbade the sending of children to then, perhaps continuity rather than radical change
off-reservation boarding schools without parental or best characterizes the treatment of Indians during
kin consent. Congress passed other compulsory this whole period. Whether working with missionar-
laws, and authorities on many reservations tried to ies or building its own school system, the major BIA
coerce parents to send children to school, even goals remained unchanged: move them; school
employing agency police to round up and carry chil- them; civilize, Christianize, and assimilate them.
dren off. Many autobiographical narrators tell har- We might expect that ex-pupils of these
rowing tales of such experiences, and their accounts schools, especially those surviving into the ethni-
are sometimes corroborated by official reports (Cole- cally conscious later twentieth century, would have
man 1993, 45, 61–63). Yet even as late as 1900, the unanimously decried a system exhibiting such con-
commissioner could write of the need for amend- tempt for their own cultural heritage, one that
ments in existing laws “which will take away from employed rigid discipline and sometimes harsh
ignorant parents the privilege of continuing their forms of punishment. From surviving evidence—
children in a state of savagery and will bring the contemporaneous correspondence between officials,
children into contact with the highest types of civi- Indian parents, and pupils; and from reminiscences,
lization” (ARCIA 1900, 35). Indeed, the whole ques- autobiographies, and interviews—it emerges that
tion of compulsion remained controversial even Indian children responded in highly diverse ways to
among educators and officials, and a significant pro- this schooling; indeed, the same individual might
portion of Indian children remained unschooled— express strong ambivalence. Large numbers com-
not necessarily uneducated—through the 1920s. pletely avoided attendance (although, as we have
Another turn-of-the-century trend deserves seen, by 1930 the vast majority of tribal children
attention. Some historians claim that by 1900 the cul- were enrolled at some form of BIA or public school).
turally intolerant but racially egalitarian policies of Large numbers began attendance but became either
the government began to change. Officials, accord- temporary or permanent runaways. Large numbers
ing to this argument, became somewhat more toler- sickened, and many hundreds died at the schools.
ant of tribal cultural traits but simultaneously more The majority—and we can never be sure about

the numbers—suffered, adjusted, accommodated, This sense of belonging, along with such sanc-
resisted, and began to use schooling to personal and tioned extracurricular activities as football, helped
group advantage. Some, especially the gifted and Indian children and youth adapt to an alien educa-
those able to make fast progress in learning English, tional experience. So did the unsanctioned student
thrilled to the new learning, which they saw as an subcultures that developed at many of the larger
expansion of their horizons rather than a rejection of schools, each with its own rules, ritual, and slang.
tribal values. Although many Indian adults strongly Such subcultures could exclude as well as include,
opposed schooling, increasing numbers saw its but those fortunate enough to become members
advantage in the new world growing up around could enjoy the thrill of resistance, secrecy, and
them and imbued their offspring with a strong belonging, all of which helped them accommodate
desire to learn white ways. “If you run away from the school regimen. Sensitive and gifted teachers, of
school,” one mother warned her daughter, “you’ll go course, made the school more bearable and even
back faster than you came home” (Horne and positively memorable for some pupils; indifferent,
McBeth 1998, 31). Another ex-pupil recalled how, in harsh, or cruel teachers made it equally memorable
the early 1930s, as the curriculum became more culin the negative sense. Ultimately, it is the resilience
turally tolerant, her mother was not too impressed of thousands of individual Indian boys and girls
when her daughters came home singing Indian across a century and more of assimilationist school-
songs and doing Indian dances. She had enrolled ing that has impressed historians. Forced into a
them “to be educated, and get civilized” (Loma- bewilderingly new kind of education, most of them
waima 1994, 36). In fact, for many Indian people “just got used to it.” They spent years at the
schooling became an intensely family affair, with schools—sometimes with hardly a visit home—and
parents and other kin increasingly taking a strong returned to their peoples or passed into the domi-
interest in their children’s progress, writing letters to nant culture as American citizens of tribal origin.
them and to their teachers, and visiting the children Furthermore, we must concede that, by their
at nearby schools or even distant ones (Child 1998). own criteria, the missionaries and government edu-
Perhaps surprisingly, some boys and girls came cators actually achieved a high degree of success
to enjoy the military side of school life, especially the during the era of assimilation. True, Indian peoples
uniforms. Even more surprisingly, some actually refused to surrender their tribal identities, identities
began to see the schools as homes, just as authorities that remain vibrant today. In addition, some pupils
had hoped. Esther Burnett Horne, of partly began to develop a complementary sense of pan-
Shoshone ancestry, was both a student and a highly Indian identity at the schools. Yet tens of thousands
acclaimed teacher at a number of boarding schools of tribal children, decade after decade, often with kin
during the period under review, and thus she offers encouragement, did learn English, reading, and
the historian invaluable multiple perspectives on the writing, along with so much else of white cultural
system. She was highly critical of how Indian values and knowledge. Even in retrospect, few auto-
schools attempted to destroy tribal pride and iden- biographical narrators expressed resentment of the
tity, yet she also saw another side. Reflecting back as ethnocentric curriculum, which they and their kin-
an old woman, she believed that the Haskell Board- folk regarded from a pragmatic perspective: children
ing School in Lawrence, Kansas, “provided a safe go to school for white learning; at home they will
environment for me. The reason it was such a posi- learn the knowledge of the people. Ironically, in
tive experience was that I had security there,” espe- some ways the children learned too well, and some
cially after her father died, plunging the family into consequences of schooling were less acceptable from
poverty. In a passage with which some, though by a government perspective. Ex-students could exploit
no means all, of her fellow students would have their knowledge in the ways of American civiliza-
agreed, she wrote, “I think also that the sense of tion, employing the English language, media aware-
community at Haskell was very strong. Among ness, American law, and politics in defense of tribal
Indian people this is very important. We had pride rights. Former students of Carlisle, for example,
in our school and in our [football] team, and we had remembered how the renowned and feared Apache
such a strong school spirit.” Even in later life, many leader Geronimo astutely instructed them to turn
ex-students kept in touch and had “become part of white knowledge against its providers. Later, these
our extended families” (Horne and McBeth 1998, and other Apaches used their schooling to hire
52–53). lawyers who presented tribal land claims. Finally, in

1971, the Indian claims court handed down a judg- instead insisting that Indians should be allowed to
ment against the United States of more than $16 mil- adapt at their own rate to American ways. Almost
lion (Ball 1980, 290–291)! General Pratt, the founder every aspect of Indian schooling came in for criti-
of Carlisle, would have enjoyed the irony; according cism, from its ethnocentric and rigid curriculum—
to some Indian accounts, he did not lack a sense of the vocational side of which often degenerated into
humor. the exploitation of pupil labor to help support the
Ironically, despite the cultural intolerance of the schools—to the severe health hazards faced by
crusade, many tribal people began to identify with pupils. Influenced also by the so-called progressive
the schools. They came to regard them as “our education movement, the report advocated more
schools” and often opposed late twentieth-century sensitive and community-centered education, the
closings of, for example, old boarding schools. kind that would encourage creativity and help pro-
Again, Esther Horne well expressed the ambivalence duce adults capable of living full lives in the commu-
toward and suggested the complex nature of the nities of their choice.
schools’ achievements. “Critics dismiss boarding Not only did the Meriam Report make powerful
schools as assimilationist institutions whose intent reading, it was also powerfully influential. Even
was to destroy Native cultures,” she writes. “While before Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in
this may be a true generalization, the students and 1932, Ryan had attempted to put some of these ideas
teachers at Haskell will forever be an integral part of into effect. But Roosevelt’s choice of reformer John
who I am as an American Indian” (Horne and Collier as BIA commissioner in 1933 led to radical
McBeth 1998, 52–53). change in many areas of Indian policy and practice.
By the early twentieth century, however, the Working initially with Ryan and bringing to the job a
rigidly assimilationist approach to Indian education passionate and even mystical appreciation of Indian
began to come under attack. Apart from a few cultures (as he perceived them), Collier wrought
prominent spokesmen or women—Dr. Charles East- changes in many areas of policy and practice, espe-
man, for example, an ex-pupil of Indian schools who cially in education. Here he drew upon his own
graduated from Boston University with an MD— experiences (actually quite limited) among Indian
tribal people themselves had little voice in the peoples, openly utilized the ideas of anthropologists,
national debate about Indian affairs. But by the introduced further progressive ideas, and attempted
1920s, influential groups of (mostly) white reformers above all to foster rather than destroy Indian cultural
had begun to focus their attentions on the whole values. By the end of World War II, Collier had been
question of Indian policy and specifically on Indian forced from office, and in the 1950s the pendulum in
education. Rejecting the ethnocentric and optimistic Indian education would temporarily swing back—
tenor of official reports and reflecting a growing but not completely—toward older assimilationist
anthropological appreciation of non-Western cul- thinking.
tures, groups such as the American Indian Defense Yet the 1930s mark the most radical break in
Association assailed the wisdom of a century in Indian educational policies and practices since the
Native American affairs. The mounting criticism beginning of the republic—indeed, since 1492.
received powerful expression in The Problem of Indian Despite the apparent defeat of Collier’s approach in
Administration (Institute for Government Research, the 1950s—expressed especially in the Termination
1928). This huge study is generally referred to as the Policy, reminiscent of the 1870s Peace Policy, which
Meriam Report, as it was produced by a team— sought to end federal responsibility for Indian peo-
including the Winnebago Indian, Henry Roe ples—the tide would turn yet again. By the 1960s
Cloud—under the directorship of Dr. Lewis Meriam. and 1970s, BIA thinking on Indian education would
The carefully researched and calmly written critique swing back toward acceptance of government com-
devoted more than eight hundred pages to telling mitment, along with increased appreciation of
the secretary of the interior, to whom the BIA was Indian culture and increased faith in tribal sover-
responsible, just what was wrong with Indian eignty and Indian self-determination.
administration. The section on education was writ- The shift from BIA schools to state public
ten by W. Carson Ryan, Jr., from 1930 to 1935 director schools also persisted throughout the twentieth cen-
of Indian education in the BIA. He was especially tury. By the early twenty-first century, only about 10
critical of government policies and practices in edu- percent of tribal children attend Indian schools
cation, rejecting the “civilize or die” maxim and (reserved for tribal children), and these are often run

by their own peoples on BIA grants or contracts. The solemnly accepted in treaties—to Native American
other 90 percent attend state public schools with education.
American children of other ethnic groups. The BIA Michael C. Coleman
still funds seven off-reservation boarding schools
(four of which are BIA operated and three tribally References and Further Reading
operated by contracts). Some older Indians are Adams, David Wallace. 1995. Education for Extinction:
enrolled at such BIA-operated post-secondary insti- American Indians and the Boarding School
tutes as the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Insti- Experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: University
tute (SIPI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, or the Press of Kansas.
ARCIA (Annual Reports of the Commissioner of
Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU), formerly
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Haskell Boarding School. Others attend some of Department of the Interior). 1863–1930.
the twenty-six BIA-funded, tribally controlled com- Ball, Eve, with Nora Henn and Lynda A. Sanchez.
munity colleges. Tens of thousands of young men 1980. Indeh: An Apache Odyssey. Norman:
and women attend a variety of white American col- University of Oklahoma Press.
leges and universities. Bloom, John. 2000. To Show What an Indian Can Do:
Obviously, in the early twenty-first century, Sports at Native American Boarding Schools.
American Indian peoples have far greater control Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Child, Brenda J. 1998. Boarding School Seasons:
than in 1903 over the education of their children at
American Indian Families, 1900–1940. Lincoln:
specific Indian schools. Yet, as during the era of University of Nebraska Press.
assimilation, the treaty is still central to Indian edu- Cogley, Richard W. 1999. John Eliot’s Mission to the
cation of all kinds. “The United States Government,” Indians Before King Philip’s War. Cambridge, MA:
declares the Office of Indian Education Programs (of Harvard University Press.
the BIA) in 2002, “has a unique legal relationship Coleman, Michael C. 1993. American Indian Children at
with American Indian Tribal Governments as set School, 1850–1930. Jackson: University Press of
Mississippi.
forth in the Constitution . . . Federal statutes, treaties
Coleman, Michael C. 2007. Government Education,
and court decisions.” Although major public respon- American Indians, and the Irish: A Comparative
sibility for education “is reserved respectively for the Study. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
States, the education of Indian children is an excep- DeJong, David H. 1993. Promises of the Past: A History
tion” (Hoxie 2002, 2–3). Those 361 treaties ratified of Indian Education in the United States. Golden,
before 1871 remain part of federal law, and many of CO: North American Press.
them commit the federal government to subsidiza- Eastman, Charles A. (Ohiyesa). 1977. From the Deep
Woods to Civilization: Chapters in the
tion of Indian education. “Treaties are on the book,”
Autobiography of an Indian. Lincoln: University of
wrote historian Francis Paul Prucha, “and the courts Nebraska Press.
have supported them” (Prucha 1994, 18). Whereas Ellis, Clyde. 1996. To Change Them Forever: Indian
during the assimilationist period white educators Education at the Rainey Mountain Boarding School,
interpreted this responsibility as mandating total 1893–1920. Norman: University of Oklahoma
control of Indian schooling, including curriculum, Press.
today it is exercised in partnership with Indian peo- Finkelstein, Barbara. 1989. Governing the Young:
ples, often in a government-to-(tribal) government Teacher Behavior in Popular Primary Schools in
Nineteenth-Century United States. New York:
relationship. The BIA and other federal agencies
Falmer Press.
work together with the tribes to encourage the learn- Fischbacher, Theodore. 1967. “A Study of the Federal
ing of traditional as well as dominant cultural val- Government in the Education of the American
ues. Yet considering the imbalance in population and Indian.” Unpublished PhD dissertation. Arizona
political power—about four million people of Native State University.
American ancestry and close to three hundred mil- Green, Andy. 1990. Education and State Formation: The
lion other Americans—it is likely that, in the foresee- Rise of Education Systems in England, France and
the USA. London: Macmillan.
able future, the tribes will continue to face a peculiar
Haig-Brown, Celia. 1988. Resistance and Renewal:
challenge. They must constantly struggle to main- Surviving the Indian Residential School.
tain adequate local control over the education of Vancouver, BC, Canada: Tillacum Library.
their children, while simultaneously holding the Holt, Marilyn Irvin. 2001. Indian Orphanages.
United States to its commitments—many of them Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Horne, Esther B., and Sally McBeth. 1998. Essie’s Pratt, Richard Henry. 1964. Battlefield and Classroom:
Story: The Life and Legacy of a Shoshone Teacher. Four Decades with the American Indians,
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1867–1904. Ed. Robert M. Utley. Lincoln:
Hoxie, Frederick E. 2002. A Final Promise: The University of Nebraska Press.
Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1979. The Churches and Indian
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Schools, 1888–1912. Lincoln: University of
Hyer, Sally. 1990. One House, One Voice, One Heart: Nebraska Press.
Native American Education at the Santa Fe Indian Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The
School. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico United States Government and the American
Press. Indians. Vols. 1 and 2. Lincoln: University of
La Flesche, Francis. 1963. The Middle Five: Indian Nebraska Press.
Schoolboys of the Omaha Tribe. Madison: Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
University of Wisconsin Press. (Orig. pub. The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
1900.) University of California Press.
Institute for Government Research. 1928. The Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 2000. Documents of United
Problem of Indian Administration. [The Meriam States Indian Policy, 3rd ed. Lincoln: University
Report]. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins of Nebraska Press.
University Press. Riney, Scott. 1999. The Rapid City Indian School,
Jaenen, Cornelius. 1976. Friend and Foe: Aspects of 1898–1933. Norman: University of Oklahoma
French-Amerindian Cultural Contact in the Press.
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Ontario, Sekaquaptewa, Helen. 1969. Me and Mine: The Life
Canada: McClellan and Stewart. Story of Helen Sekaquaptewa. As Told to Louis
Lomawaima, K. Tsianina. 1994. They Called It Prairie Udall. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Light: The Story of Chilocco Indian School. Standing Bear, Luther. 1975. My People the Sioux.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ed. E. A. Brininstool. Lincoln: University of
Lomawaima, K. Tsianina. 2002. “American Indian Nebraska Press. (Orig. pub. 1928.)
Education: By Indians Versus For Indians.” In Stearns, Peter N. 1998. Schools and Schooling in
A Companion to American Indian History, eds. Industrial Society: Japan and the West,
Philip J. Deloria and Neal Salisbury, 422–440. 1870–1940. Boston: Bedford.
Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell. Szasz, Margaret Connell. 1988. Indian Education in
McBeth, Sally J. 1983. Ethnic Identity and the Boarding the American Colonies, 1607–1783.
School Experience of West-Central Oklahoma Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
American Indians. Lanham, MD: University Press.
Press of America. Szasz, Margaret Connell. 1999. Education and the
McLoughlin, William G. 1984. Cherokees and American Indians: The Road to Self-
Missionaries, 1789–1839. New Haven, CT: Yale Determination Since 1928. Albuquerque:
University Press. University of New Mexico Press.
Mihesuah, Devon. 1993. Cultivating the Rosebuds: Trennert, Robert A., Jr. 1988. The Phoenix Indian
The Education of Women at the Cherokee Female School: Forced Assimilation in Arizona,
Academy, 1851–1909. Urbana: University of 1891–1935. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Illinois Press. Press.
Miller, J. R. 1996. Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Vincent, David. 2000. The Rise of Mass Literacy:
Native Residential Schools. Toronto, Canada: Reading and Writing in Modern Europe.
University of Toronto Press. Cambridge, England: Polity.

Related
Treaty Issues

Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements
Alaska ruled that Alaska Natives did not possess the same
N
relationship with the federal government as did
N
o Native Alaskan nation ever entered into a Indians in the lower forty-eight states. Thus, the job
treaty with the United States. During the of educating Alaska Natives fell upon the federal
treaty-making era of the United States, Bureau of Education rather than the Office of Indian
which ended in 1871, the lands of the Inuit, the Affairs (later the BIA). Under the guidance of Shel-
Aleut, and the Athabascan in Alaska were mostly don Jackson, a Presbyterian missionary appointed
bypassed by the swarms of settlers that uprooted general agent for education in Alaska, the Bureau of
Indians from the lower forty-eight states. Questions Education established schools in outlying villages
of land ownership, with several exceptions, lay dor- throughout Alaska. These schools, staffed with fed-
mant for most of the nineteenth and twentieth cen- eral teachers, also provided other services, including
turies. It was not until Alaska statehood in 1959 and health care and law enforcement.
the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay a decade later The treatment of Alaska Natives shifted in the
that Alaska Native lands attained enough economic direction of federal Indian policy in 1905, when Jack-
value to prompt serious congressional attention. In son began to promote the creation of executive order
1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Set- reservations for various uses, including subsistence,
tlement Act (ANCSA), a sweeping extinction of reindeer breeding, and schools. Local and federal
aboriginal title in exchange for a land and financial officials also saw a need to protect Alaska Natives
package that federal officials lauded as the richest from the diseases and corruption of settlers, as the
ever awarded to an American Native group. As with soon-to-be-completed Alaska Railroad was expected
most Indian treaties, a group of representative to bring thousands of immigrants to homestead
Native leaders, in this case the Alaska Federation of Alaska lands. But only a few Alaska Natives could
Natives (AFN), ratified the terms of the agreement. be persuaded to move onto the reservations. Because
The Alaska Purchase Treaty of 1867 with Russia the wave of immigrants never came, local and fed-
provided little guidance for determining the status eral officials saw no need to force relocation, an
of Alaska Natives. The comparatively short docu- action that had started numerous Indian wars. The
ment stated, “The uncivilized tribes will be subject to reservations nevertheless proved useful, and the
such laws and regulations as the United States may, executive branch eventually approved more than
from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal 150 reservations varying in size from one acre to sev-
tribes in that country” (15 Stat. 539). Before 1905, the eral hundred thousand.
United States saw little need to reserve for Alaska In 1906, Congress further implied a similarity
Natives an “aboriginal status” similar to that recog- between Alaska Natives and Indians when it passed
nized for Native Americans of the lower forty-eight the Alaska Native Allotment Act, which allowed any
states. Early federal land laws within the territory Alaska Native to claim up to 160 acres as a home-
sought to protect both Native and non-Native inhab- stead held in trust. Many provisions of the act were
itants’ rights to the land they actively used and pos- similar to the Dawes Act, passed for Indians in 1887.
sessed. These laws implied that Alaska Natives were Alienation of land was later allowed with the per-
entitled only to the land they occupied and, unlike mission of the secretary of the interior.
Indians, did not possess an inherent aboriginal title. As competition over natural resources intensi-
Neither did the courts, in several early cases, apply fied, some white settlers questioned the authority of
the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act to Alaska the government to create executive order Native
Natives, for they did not see Alaska as part of Indian reservations. Non-Native encroachment upon these
country. tracts led to several court cases the rulings of which
The Organic Act for the Territory of Alaska of implied a federal relationship similar to the one with
1884 specified that federal schools within Alaska be Indians. In the most important of the cases, Alaska
established “without regard to race.” Acting within Pacific Fisheries v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court con-
what he probably thought was the intent of the legis- firmed the exclusive status of these reservations.
lation, the solicitor for the Department of the Interior Based on this decision, the U.S. solicitor general in
195
196 Related Treaty Issues
1923 reversed Department of the Interior (DOI) lands. Most developers, oil companies, and non-
policy and acknowledged the similarity in the fed- Native Alaskans opposed the land freeze, for it
eral relationship with Alaska Natives and Indians. slowed the Alaskan economy and gave the Alaska
After this time, the State of Alaska and much of Natives negotiating leverage.
the public staunchly opposed the creation of any Contradictory sections of the Alaska Statehood
more reservations. However, a few Alaska Native Act of 1959 were partially responsible for the land
leaders who lived near salmon-rich rivers or coastal rights conflict. Section 6 of the act allowed the State
areas saw potential in Indian Reorganization Act of Alaska to claim 103.35 million acres of federal
(IRA) reservations as protected economic zones. land, whereas Section 4 stated, in effect, that any
Competition from white commercial fishermen lands clouded by aboriginal title would remain
depleted the supply of salmon and thus threatened under federal authority. Because aboriginal title had
their livelihood. They looked with envy at the pros- yet to be extinguished for most of the 375 million
perous cannery at Metlakatla, a reservation estab- acres of federal land in Alaska, Native land claims
lished for the Tsimshian tribe in 1891. Its residents appeared enormous. The size and unique nature of
enjoyed an offshore fishing zone protected by fed- a prospective settlement required congressional
eral law that was confirmed by Alaska Pacific Fisheries action.
v. United States in 1916. For the next three decades, Not long after statehood, Alaska Native leaders
Haida, Tlingit, and other tribes, with help from the and advocates saw the possibility of losing lands
DOI, fought the commercial canneries for the estab- critical for subsistence if the state of Alaska were to
lishment of similar protected reservations. Their successfully claim them. Rural and urban Alaska
efforts fell short due to the post–World War II federal Native groups sprang up to address this issue and
termination policy and the lobby efforts of the State its possible congressional settlement; but the great
of Alaska. Of three IRA reservations approved by the distances within Alaska, the diversity of Alaska
federal government, two were rejected by tribal vote. Natives, and sometimes disputes among Alaska
A third, at Hydaburg, was approved by the Haida Native groups presented a formidable barrier to any
tribe. In 1952, the tribe filed suit to defend its reser- unified action. In the early 1960s, the establishment
vation fishing rights, but the district court in United of Native news media, particularly the Tundra Times,
States v. Libby, McNeill and Libby (107 F. Supp. 697) overcame this barrier by informing villagers of land
invalidated the reservation. issues and the activities of Native organizations.
From 1946 to 1966, Congress reviewed several In October 1966, the first statewide meeting of
bills that offered limited monetary compensation to Alaska Natives was held in Anchorage. Nearly three
Alaska Natives for extinguishment of their aborig- hundred Inupiat, Aleut, and Athabascan Indians
inal title. Guided by the federal termination policy, attended a BIA hearing on land issues and discussed
powerful legislators opposed Alaska Natives getting upcoming legislation. Most important, they created
any land except for a few parcels around their vil- an organization, the Alaska Federation of Natives
lages. (AFN), to present a united front for negotiating a
land deal with Congress and to form a voting bloc to
The Fight over Alaska Native Claims gain leverage in state politics. For the United States,
Shortly after statehood, the State of Alaska and vari- the AFN would add legitimacy to any general settle-
ous oil companies, miners, and homesteaders rushed ment that covered a widely scattered, culturally
to claim Alaska’s best federally owned lands. Native diverse population.
village councils, other Native groups, and the BIA A year later, the DOI wrote a bill that allowed
opposed many of these selections, claiming aborig- each village to claim up to fifty thousand acres (a
inal title. To allow Congress to settle the contested total of approximately ten million acres for two hun-
claims, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) dred villages). The land would be held in trust for
began to withhold approval of the disputed land twenty-five years, and its use would be controlled by
claim applications in 1963. This “land freeze” the DOI. It authorized Alaska Native groups to file
became known informally as the Treaty of Caribou suit in the U.S. Court of Claims for monetary com-
Creek. After three years of congressional stalemate, pensation for land clouded by aboriginal title but not
Interior secretary Stewart Udall expanded the land claimed by Alaska Natives. The bill required the
freeze to include applications for oil leases, land court of claims to use the U.S. purchase price of $7.2
titles, rights-of-way, and all other interests in federal million in 1867 as a proper valuation of aboriginal

title in 1867. With one hundred years of interest, the Two significant issues blocking settlement were
figure would rise to between $50 million and $100 the amount of land (if any) to be awarded and the
million. But the amount of money, the prospect of terms of its ownership. From 1968 to 1971, about a
DOI control of the trust land, and the possibility of a dozen bills and proposals emerged, with acreage
long-drawn-out lawsuit did not appeal to Alaska awards that varied from zero to sixty million and
Native leaders. ownership rights that ranged from trust status to
Eager to obtain a quick settlement, Alaska nonexclusive subsistence use. The AFN faced formi-
governor Walter Hickel led the creation of a state- dable opposition from Senator Wayne Aspinall,
sponsored task force composed of Native state legis- chairman of the House Committee of Interior and
lators and AFN leaders. With input from state-spon- Insular Affairs, and Senator Henry Jackson, chair-
sored advisors, the task force proposed a novel man of the Senate Committee of Interior and Insular
agreement that included a much larger land and Affairs. Both senators espoused the 1940s and 1950s
financial award to be distributed under a corporate termination ideology of assimilation: that tribal exis-
model. Their draft authorized forty million acres. tence, reservations, trust lands, and tribal sover-
The monetary settlement comprised an immediate eignty impeded what was best for Indians. Senators
$20 million payment, 10 percent of the oil lease rev- Jackson and Aspinall favored a smaller, money-only
enue from the continental shelf, and 10 percent of the settlement.
revenue from the development of state of Alaska The AFN lobbied intensely for forty million
lands obtained by selection under the Alaska State- acres and substantial monetary compensation. They
hood Act. Most important, the land and money found support from the Nixon administration and
would be distributed among village and regional the oil companies, both desperate for an agreement
corporations chartered under the state of Alaska. before the Alaska Coalition could muster the votes to
Alaska Natives would receive shares that would be add its conservation amendments, which many
inalienable for 150 years. believed would stall the Alaskan economy with fed-
The bill failed to survive the objections of the eral red tape. The final version of the bill contained
DOI, whose officials believed that forty million acres most of the acreage and money that AFN wanted.
and the continental oil lease money were too gener- The AFN also succeeded in getting the settlement
ous. The DOI countered with another version of its administered by regional corporations directed by
original bill, offering the same acreage as before but Alaska Natives. Earlier bills had called for the settle-
changing the possible money compensation from a ment to be overseen by the DOI or a statewide cor-
court of claims settlement to an up-front payment of poration managed by non-Native Alaskans.
$180 million. AFN leaders rejected the DOI bill as The state of Alaska also won concessions. Con-
insufficient. gressmen allowed it most of the better lands from
By 1971, the clamor for a settlement was espe- which to select, while generally restricting Native
cially loud from the oil companies, who wanted to selections to less valuable lands around the roughly
start immediately on a trans-Alaska pipeline, and two hundred Native villages. The biggest winner of
the state of Alaska, which faced bankruptcy if it did land, however, was the Department of the Interior.
not soon realize oil revenues from the Prudhoe Bay The late efforts of conservationists won them an
discovery. Due to the land freeze, the state of Alaska amendment that required the federal government to
had not received title to any federal land, nor had remove eighty million acres for study. DOI land
the BLM been able to lease any land to oil companies selections took precedence over state or Alaska
for the previous five years. Native selections.
Supporters of a settlement were also threatened Although the AFN voted to accept the final ver-
by the growing power of a newly emerged conserva- sion, the settlement was criticized by some delegates
tion group, the Alaska Coalition, who wanted to who were unhappy that the sixty-million-acre ver-
extend the land freeze (and thus block the Alaska sion had not passed. But the loudest dissension came
pipeline) until an appropriate land use plan could be from the Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA),
implemented for federal lands. The coalition feared who represented the sparsely populated north slope
the environmental destruction that developers, region occupied by the Inupiat (the Inuit of Northern
including the proposed Alaska Native corporations, Alaska). Because vast reservoirs of oil lay under their
would cause through abuses such as clear-cutting land, the Inupiat believed they were entitled to
timberlands, oil spills, or unregulated mining. a larger share of the award than the per capita

distribution that became law. Opponents of ANCSA porations retained both surface and subsurface
did not believe the AFN served their interests, and rights to land development, whereas the village cor-
they especially opposed the inclusion of the popu- porations kept only surface rights.
lous Tlingit Nation, who rejected a recent and rela- The language of ANCSA contained the most
tively small $7.2 million court award in favor of join- thorough extinction of aboriginal title of any U.S.
ing the statewide Native settlement. treaty or legislative action dealing with indigenous
people. The act extinguished all aboriginal title to
The Alaska Native Claims land, submerged lands, inland water, or offshore
Settlement Act (ANCSA) water in Alaska based upon use and occupancy,
ANCSA was the offspring of President Richard including any hunting and fishing rights “that may
Nixon’s developing self-determination policy, the exist.” It also nullified any previous federal, state, or
old federal policy of termination, and an urgent need foreign treaties or statutes that recognized aboriginal
for oil companies and the state of Alaska to remove title. The act abolished all reservations (except the
all aboriginal title. Authors of the settlement wanted Annette Island Reserve) and transferred the land to
a solution without “creating a reservation system or the corporations. It repealed the allotment acts of
lengthy wardship or trusteeship” (43 U.S.C. § 1601b). 1887 and 1910.
But they left open the possibility of continued BIA
programs and the issue of Alaska Native sover- The Aftermath of ANCSA
eignty. Given the experimental nature and lack of precedent
Alaska Natives gave up claims to nearly all of for the ANCSA, it should not be surprising that the
Alaska. In return, they received forty-four million act provided fertile ground for litigation. Some of the
acres, or about one-ninth of the state’s land, and subsequent problems involved (1) federal agency
about $1 billion in payment. An amount of $462.5 interpretation of fuzzy provisions defining how the
million was paid out of the U.S. Treasury, and about land and money were to be divided among the cor-
$500 million came from a 2 percent royalty from porations; (2) the inalienability of stock, which
mineral development on federal and state lands. allowed corporate mismanagement; and (3) the defi-
Benefits were generally restricted to people of one- nitions of Alaska Native and Native village. The contin-
fourth degree or more of Alaska Native blood uing evolution of ANCSA resulted in amendments
and/or who were recognized as Alaska Native by in 1976, 1987, and 1998.
their village. Most of the Native corporations endured a
The act created twelve regional corporations, rough start due to the slow pace of the land selection
each assigned to a regional area whose resources process and to special restrictions, including the
would be exploited for profit. A thirteenth regional inalienability of stock and the need to balance profits
corporation, awarded money but no land, was with traditional culture. On an operating basis, the
reserved for Alaska Natives who had moved out of twelve regional companies collectively lost much of
state. Alaska Natives would administer the boards of their $962.5 million award, but special legislation
directors (and thus run the corporations) and would allowed them to sell some of these losses to other
benefit from stock dividends. Each beneficiary companies as tax write-offs. Inept management was
received one hundred shares of stock, which would also a problem. In 1999, the Alaska legislature
be inalienable until 1991. The corporations could audited Alaska’s Division of Banking, Securities and
vote to issue new shares to allow for population Corporations (BSC) for oversight of the Native cor-
growth and to prevent inheritance problems. porations. The audit revealed a number of deficien-
The act also authorized the creation of around cies. Shareholders were misled by inadequate finan-
two hundred village corporations, which were to be cial disclosure, and their complaints received
operated under the supervision of the twelve insufficient attention. The auditors recommended
regional corporations. Like the regional corpora- BSC review of proxy materials before their transmis-
tions, the village corporations were to be organized sion to shareholders, the creation of an independent
under Alaska state laws. The regional and village watchdog group to protect shareholders, remedies
corporations would select the forty-four million for shareholders denied access to corporation
acres from public lands (not already claimed by the records, and more detailed disclosure of compensa-
state of Alaska, the U.S. Department of the Interior, tion for officers and directors. Despite their short-
municipalities, or private interests). The regional cor- comings, the Native corporations remain vital to

Alaska’s economy, contributing $2.5 billion in rev- Alaska, which would have had to pay the tax,
enue and employing more than ten thousand work- claimed that the village had no jurisdiction. At issue
ers (Adams 2002, 6). Their prospects will vary with was whether the ANCSA extinguished the Venetie
government policies dealing with Alaska Natives community’s status as a dependent Indian commu-
and with prices of natural resources, including oil, nity that encompassed a federal set-aside of land
coal, timber, and minerals. and federal supervision. In other words, was Venetie
Native corporations have had minimal impact part of Indian country? After a Native victory in the
upon the conditions of villages, whose locations U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S.
were determined by the subsistence needs of the Supreme Court ruled against Venetie. The Court
Native inhabitants rather than the business needs of stated that ANCSA revoked all reservations that had
the corporations. Comparatively few corporate been set aside, and because the land had reverted to
employees live in the villages and therefore do not fee simple status with no restrictions on alienation, it
contribute their wages to the village economies. no longer qualified as Indian country. Its interpreta-
Although the influx of federal anti-poverty money in tion of ANCSA emphasized the congressional decla-
the 1960s and 1970s and oil wealth in the 1980s ration of policy statement (section 1601b), which
added material wealth to the villages, social condi- called for a settlement “without establishing any
tions among the inhabitants worsened. The mortal- permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privi-
ity rate is more than three times the national average. leges or obligations, without creating a reservation
Economically, the villages remain dependent on system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship.” The
public-sector spending. Despite some growth in decision impacted all Alaska Natives who fell under
incomes and jobs during the 1980s, villages still have ANCSA, because the act stipulated that the posses-
much smaller incomes and higher unemployment sion of their land was limited to fee simple owner-
rates than the state as a whole. The poverty rate is 21 ship. Because they were not part of Indian country,
percent, compared to 6.8 percent for all Alaskan fam- their power to regulate activities within their bound-
ilies. The depressed economic condition coincides aries was similar to that of a property owner rather
with a mortality rate more than three times the than to that of a sovereign governing body. The deci-
national average and an alcohol-related death rate sion left the Alaska Natives little legal basis for regu-
triple that of non-Native Alaskans. Alaska Natives lating wildlife within their borders, that task falling
constitute 32 percent of the prison population, under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska and/or
although they represent only 16 percent of the state the federal government. The inability to tax non-
population. The murder rate is four times the Native businesses seriously cut the revenue of some
national average (Alaska Natives Commission 1996). village corporations. The ruling implied that the vil-
lages had no civil or criminal jurisdiction over non-
Sovereignty and the Venetie Decision Indians, which left a vacuum of law enforcement, as
ANCSA failed to define a process satisfactory to the nearest authorities were sometimes located at
Alaskan Natives of governing and regulating the distances requiring one or two days’ travel.
lands obtained from the act. The settlement granted
land titles in fee simple, which conveyed only own-
ership rights inherent in private property. Even so, Hawaii
many Alaskan Natives believed that the federal gov- During the nineteenth century, the Kingdom of
ernment would eventually recognize their nations as Hawaii approved more than thirty treaties with for-
possessing the same form of limited sovereignty that eign nations. Its first treaty negotiated with the
allowed Indians of the lower forty-eight states to United States, in 1826, recognized Hawaii’s sover-
regulate their lands. In 1998, the Supreme Court eignty and established trade relations. Although
decision in Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. the island residents generally acknowledged the
Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov’t (522 U.S. 1998, treaty, it was never ratified by the United States. As
520) proved otherwise. At issue was the right of the the Hawaiian Kingdom expanded its government
Native village of Venetie to tax a non-Native busi- and legal system to accommodate western
ness located on its land. In 1987, the village sued to demands, it negotiated treaties with members of the
collect more than $160,000 levied against a construc- international community, including Great Britain,
tion company that had contracted with the State of Japan, France, Samoa, and the United States. By
Alaska to build a school in Venetie. The State of 1850, the settlement of California and Oregon put

Hawaii firmly within the shadow of the United The one-sided treaties resulting from these visits
States. In 1875 and 1887, the Hawaiian Kingdom, made clear the need to establish a government that
strongly influenced by American businessmen, could cater to the demands of European economics
agreed to reciprocity treaties that allowed duty-free and law. Native Hawaiian leaders turned to the
sugar into the United States. The resulting sugar American missionaries to help create such a govern-
boom led to a labor shortage and, shortly thereafter, ment. Their combined efforts produced the Constitu-
an influx of Asian immigrants that doubled the tion of 1840, which incorporated the republican prin-
population of the islands and reduced the Hawai- ciple of popular representation, a significant
ian component to less than 30 percent. In 1893, a departure from the traditional rule of the chiefs.
coalition led by American businessmen and descen- Over the next decade, the new government formed
dants of missionaries ousted the monarchy with the the legal structure for the civil service, the judiciary,
aid of the American consulate. Shortly afterward, and land reform.
the United States annexed Hawaii by a unilateral In addition to promoting Western law, the
joint resolution of Congress rather than by treaty or Protestant missionaries encouraged religious intoler-
agreement with the Native inhabitants. In 1993, ance. Persecution of the struggling Catholic move-
Congress approved a resolution offering an apol- ment by the chiefs and missionaries brought an
ogy for U.S. participation in the overthrow, expected reprisal from France. In July 1839, Captain
acknowledging the lack of compensation for Native C. P. T. Laplace arrived in Honolulu Harbor aboard
Hawaiians, and urging the executive branch to sup- the frigate L’Artemise. A summarized version of his
port reconciliation efforts between the American demands included fair treatment of Catholics resid-
people and Native Hawaiians. ing on the islands, compliance with a treaty written
by French officials and favorable to the French, and a
Early Treaties $20,000 bond to ensure Hawaiian compliance with
In 1826, the United States sent two warships cap- the terms of the treaty. Under the threat of war, the
tained by Thomas ap Catesby Jones to protect the king signed the document.
property and businesses of American traders and to The compact was the first of several lopsided
collect debts owed them by the rulers. Jones treaties that would hamper the fledgling govern-
extracted an agreement to pay the debts and negoti- ment’s economic and political influence for the next
ated what would be Hawaii’s first commerce treaty. two decades. The kingdom’s ability to enforce crimi-
The treaty, which recognized Hawaiian sovereignty, nal laws was now limited. Frenchmen accused of
contained provisions that included the protection of crimes had to be tried by a jury composed of foreign-
law-abiding Americans in Hawaii, the admission of ers who were approved by the French consul. Other
American ships to Hawaiian ports, and reciprocal nations demanded the same right. In the realm of
“most favored nation” status for import tariffs and commerce, the treaty barred Hawaii from forbidding
trade privileges. This treaty, though never ratified by the import of wines and spirituous liquor. This inva-
the United States, was generally recognized by both sion of sovereignty effectively repealed the liquor
foreign and Native residents of the islands until it prohibition instigated by the Protestant missionaries
was replaced by the U.S. treaty of 1849. in their efforts to reduce alcohol abuse. The treaty
During the 1830s and 1840s, whaling ships and forced the Hawaiian government to grant “most
various businesses began to expand the ports of favored nation” status to imported French goods but
Honolulu and Lahaina. When businessmen found a not to grant similar status for Hawaiian products
lack of Western authority to support their financial exported to France. The great powers often imposed
or land claims, they turned to their nation’s diplo- this unequal provision during the imperialistic hey-
matic representatives, who contacted their govern- day of the nineteenth century.
ments for help. This period was marked by visits Shortly after the French seizure of the Marque-
from a series of warships, which empowered their sas Islands and Tahiti in 1842, many foreign resi-
captains and consuls to settle most land claims and dents believed that Britain or France would soon
debts. On different occasions, foreign marines claim Hawaii. Not surprisingly, a British frigate cap-
burned government buildings and heaped countless tained by Lord George Paulet appeared in Honolulu
humiliations upon the Hawaiian government, which Harbor ostensibly to protect property rights and col-
was headed by its monarch and a handful of lect debts owed to British subjects. His demands
devoted non-Native officials. were backed by the threat of attack and included a

cession of land and reparations to the British consul, In 1846, U.S. Secretary of State James Buchanan
Richard Charlton, and the extension of British crimi- instructed a new commissioner, Anthony Ten Eyck,
nal law over British residents. The king reluctantly to negotiate a treaty. He suggested using the existing
agreed to these deep impositions upon his sover- British and French treaties as a guide. Instead, Ten
eignty. When Paulet added new demands, including Eyck submitted a treaty much harsher to Hawaiian
the overturning of recent court decisions and greatly interests. An angry British consul accused the United
increased indemnities, the Hawaiian government States of trying to make the islands a dependency.
feared for its credibility. Believing that Paulet was Among the terms Ten Eyck insisted upon was the
determined to take the islands anyway, the king right of the American consul to nominate juries for
ceded them to Great Britain, hoping that a review by civil cases as well as criminal ones. Hawaiian offi-
higher British officials would restore them to the cials objected vehemently. Later, Ten Eyck offered a
Hawaiian crown. About six months later, Britain, document similar to the British treaty of 1846, but it
respecting a joint accord with France supporting was rejected due to resentment over its invasions of
Hawaiian sovereignty, restored the kingdom but Hawaiian sovereignty and, perhaps, Ten Eyck’s
refused to pay for losses or damages caused by offensive behavior when he clamored for American
Paulet’s activities. interests. Hawaiian animosity rose to the point that
In 1844, Hawaiian officials signed a convention officials refused to recognize him as the American
similar to the French treaty with Great Britain. They consul.
again objected to provisions that limited the govern- Upon learning of Ten Eyck’s failure to obtain a
ment’s ability to deal with rowdy foreigners. They treaty and of alleged French ambitions in the islands,
also objected to a restriction of their sovereign ability the new secretary of state, John M. Clayton, deter-
to bar British imports. mined that the concerns of the monarchy and those
The first French and British treaties, although of the American commercial interests were similar.
disagreeable to the Hawaiian ministers, did recog- In late 1849, Hawaiian and American officials in
nize the independence of the Hawaiian government. Washington signed a treaty that Hawaiians found
American residents, who felt bound by the more more to their liking. Although it contained a few
lenient treaty of 1826, wished to be granted rights concessions for American whaling ships, it elimi-
similar to those granted by the French and British nated most of the offensive economic and criminal
treaties. The king’s written assurances of these justice provisions of the British and French treaties.
rights, however, dissuaded them from pursuing a After their troublesome encounters with Paulet
similar treaty. and Laplace, Hawaiian ministers concluded that
After the British convention in 1844, the Hawai- they must reorganize their government to fit a west-
ian foreign minister, Dr. Gerrit P. Judd, began a ern model, or a foreign power would install its own
quest for more balanced treaties. New British and administration. To conform to foreigners’ demands
French treaties signed in 1846 resembled earlier for a fee simple system of land ownership, the king,
treaties but contained a small concession for alco- the chiefs, and the government reluctantly agreed to
holic beverages that allowed the Hawaiian govern- a land division among themselves in 1848, which
ment import duties but not enough to significantly became known as the Great Mahele. Each group was
restrict their importation. Hawaiian officials wanted given fee simple title to roughly a third of the lands.
to restrict alcohol and shortly afterward submitted The hopes of missionaries and other foreigners to
their own treaties to Great Britain and France, who convert common Hawaiians (makaainana) into inde-
rejected them. pendent family farmers resulted in kuleana grants,
At this time, U.S. officials petitioned the Hawai- authorized by the government in 1849. The
ian government to open negotiations for a new kuleanas, typically small plots of fertile, irrigated
treaty. The recent acquisition of California gave the land, were used by the commoners to grow taro, a
United States a new presence in the Pacific region. staple Hawaiian crop. In 1850, after much debate,
But more urgent was a dispute involving a rape the legislature passed a law allowing foreigners to
accusation against an American citizen, who was not own land. This law, opposed by many Hawaiians,
allowed the benefit of a jury selected by his country’s was forced by fears of a French takeover or an over-
consul. As this was a right enjoyed by British and throw instigated by California “filibusters” and by
French nationals, the resident U.S. consul, George local planters who were eager to export sugar to
Brown, accused Hawaiian officials of discrimination. rapidly growing markets on the West Coast. Within

two decades, foreigners gained what they sought, States emerged as a new and more potent threat to
the most desirable Hawaiian farm lands, with fee Hawaiian sovereignty.
simple titles. Under these conditions, the business and for-
Fears of a French takeover intensified in 1848 eign communities sought annexation with the
following the arrival of French foreign consul, G. P. United States, but their efforts failed to survive the
Dillon, presumably to settle French grievances. His objection of Kamehameha IV. In 1855, the king and
list of demands included the lowering of import business interests sought a reciprocity treaty that
duties on alcoholic beverages and the repeal of laws would allow Hawaii to export sugar and other agri-
that required customs-house documents to be cultural products into the United States duty free.
printed in either English or Hawaiian. Dillon Opponents in Congress, at the behest of sugar
believed the requirement discriminated against the planters in the South and wool interests in Vermont,
French language. Inadequate response from the defeated the treaty. Some feared that cheap sugar
Hawaiian government brought two French warships from the Philippines or China could be smuggled
captained by Admiral Legoarant de Tromelin to into the United States through Hawaii.
Honolulu Harbor. After further negotiations proved In 1866, the arrival of a pro-reciprocity U.S.
unsatisfactory, French soldiers marched ashore and minister, coupled with the continued stagnation of
occupied the government buildings and the fort. Hawaiian agriculture, encouraged high government
They also confiscated the king’s schooner, the Kame- officials to renew their efforts to attain a reciprocity
hameha, to ensure compliance with their demands. treaty. U.S. Secretary of State William Seward sup-
Government ministers and American residents ported the treaty, but he and other advocates faced a
feared the French would seize the islands despite the Congress preoccupied with Reconstruction. Oppo-
U.S. treaty in 1849 that supported Hawaiian sover- nents of reciprocity saw no need to fatten Hawaiian
eignty. Anxious officials sent Dr. Judd to Washing- sugar planters at the expense of the U.S. Treasury.
ton, Paris, and London to seek support for the The argument that economic ties were needed to
Hawaiian government. In the event of armed inva- increase American influence in the islands fell upon
sion by the French, the king resolved to put the deaf ears. According to a leading opponent, Senator
islands under American protection. In Paris, Judd William Fessenden of Maine, U.S. influence was
sought a political compromise, financial compensa- already “sufficient to assure the concessions of
tion for the ship Kamehameha, and damages for gov- whatever naval and commercial privileges are
ernment property. French officials would not budge. needed in the islands . . .” (Kuykendall 1953, 220),
Later, in Washington, Judd received further assur- and American capital was needed at home. Some
ances of American support. The impasse lasted for annexation supporters in the United States also
nearly two years, during which American influence opposed the treaty. They hoped that sugar planters,
grew on the islands and on the U.S. West Coast. In already in desperate condition, would rally Hawai-
1851, France gave up any designs it may have held ian support for annexation should reciprocity fail to
for the islands and agreed to a compromise. pass Congress.
Other annexationists in the United States sup-
Reciprocity with the United States ported reciprocity, believing that American interests
The efforts of Native Hawaiians and some haoles were not yet strong enough to procure the islands
(non-Hawaiians) to preserve Hawaiian sovereignty without the use of force. They preferred to further
met further hardship during the 1850s. European strengthen economic ties, believing that an influx of
diseases continued to shrink the Native Hawaiian American businessmen and capital would eventu-
population. The major revenue source for the ally lead to American control of the government. The
islands, the whaling industry, leveled off and started next economic depression in Hawaii (perhaps
to decline, seriously threatening the economy. caused by nonrenewal of the prospective reciprocity
Planters understood the potential for agriculture, treaty) would lead this enlarged American group to
particularly sugar, but were discouraged by high for- clamor for the security of annexation. A similar sce-
eign tariffs and a labor shortage. In 1855, the recent nario would gradually unfold and then climax with
shift of power in the north Pacific toward Washing- the destruction of the monarchy forty years later.
ton led to the refusal of the United States to endorse Foreigners and haoles feverishly debated annex-
a joint protectorate with Great Britain and France ation in the latter 1860s. To planters, annexation
that guaranteed Hawaii’s independence. The United offered a permanent solution to their export prob-

lems instead of the temporary seven years specified ing from American reciprocity. The most important
by the prospective reciprocity treaty. They also saw opposition came from Native Hawaiians led by
the Hawaii Constitution of 1864 as dictatorial and Queen Emma, who feared the loss of sovereignty, as
did not like the ministers Hawaiian sovereigns chose a sugar boom would surely attract more foreigners.
to help run the government. Native Hawaiians, still Even King Kalakaua feared the growing American
the vast majority on the islands, also suffered a loss influence and sought assurance from the British con-
of rights under the constitution but remained patri- sul that Britain would support the monarchy in the
otic to the king and would not support annexation. event of an insurrection led by resident American
In 1870, the decline of whaling and the lack of annexationists.
markets for agricultural products continued to Treaty proponents in Congress pointed to the
depress the economy and worry Hawaiian officials. location of the islands in the central Pacific as an eco-
Some observers in the United States feared a revolu- nomic gateway to Asia. Expanded commercial ties
tion if a reciprocity treaty could not be obtained or if would bring Hawaii further within America’s sphere
a peaceful succession for the ailing and childless of influence. At this time, many of the proponents
King Kamehameha V did not occur. The British com- sought not eventual annexation but rather an exten-
missioner wrote, “There is a great feeling of insecu- sion of the Monroe Doctrine.
rity lest the King himself in a moment of weakness The reciprocity initiative proved successful; the
should be persuaded to sell his throne” (Kuykendall treaty was ratified by Congress and went into effect
1953, 247). September 9, 1876. The agreement provided for the
When Kamehameha V died in late 1872, two duty-free exchange of agricultural goods (most
American warships remained in Honolulu Harbor to notably sugar), basic materials, and manufactured
keep peace during the election of King Lunalilo. A items between the two countries. It also limited
year later, Lunalilo’s death without a successor Hawaiian sovereignty by restricting the nation from
opened a struggle between dowager Queen Emma, leasing any of its harbors or by agreeing to reciproc-
an opponent of reciprocity and a favorite of tradi- ity with any other foreign power. Its ultimate impact
tional Hawaiians, and David Kalakaua, a strong upon the sugar industry was enormous; acreage
advocate of Hawaiian independence who saw coop- planted in sugar increased tenfold between 1874 and
eration with foreigners as a way to achieve that end. 1898.
The presence of three foreign warships in Honolulu
Harbor served as a stabilizing influence during the Conflict between the Hawaiian Government
election of Kalakaua but did not prevent rioting by and the Business Community
Queen Emma’s supporters afterward. During the 1880s, Honolulu businessmen and the
King Kalakaua’s well-publicized and successful foreign community increasingly railed against gov-
tour of the United States in 1875 reopened treaty ernment corruption. Many believed that King
negotiations. His delegation warned the State Kalakaua’s government paid too little attention to
Department that, if a treaty could not be negotiated, the constitution, employed sycophants in the civil
Hawaii would turn to Great Britain, New Zealand, service, packed the legislature, and was bankrupting
or Australia. Reciprocity with Hawaii continued to the kingdom. The king also balked at ceding Pearl
face staunch opposition from special interest groups Harbor to the United States in return for a renewal of
in the United States. Sugar plantations in the South the reciprocity treaty. Discontented businessmen, led
could not produce sugar as cheaply, East Coast sugar mostly by descendants of Protestant missionaries,
refiners did not wish to compete with West Coast formed the Hawaiian League, which numbered four
refiners fed by cheap Hawaiian sugar, and labor hundred by 1887. They engaged the services of the
advocates condemned the terrible working condi- Honolulu Rifles, an all-white, volunteer militia,
tions of Asian contract labor. Other opponents which, according to historian Gavan Daws, was the
abhorred the idea of enriching Hawaiian planters “only well-organized military company” in Hawaii
and West Coast refiners at the expense of the federal (Daws 1968, 246). Backed by the U.S. minister and
government. the Honolulu Rifles, the league forced King Kala-
Nor was the treaty universally popular in kaua to consent to a new cabinet, composed of
Hawaii. The British faction correctly feared that the league members, and a new constitution in which
government would raise duties on British imported his authority was reduced greatly. The Bayonet Con-
goods to make up for the loss of tax revenue result- stitution, as it was called, removed certain voting

rights of most Native Hawaiians and extended the Although the Hawaiian foreign minister protested
franchise to most foreigners. The constitution never their presence to Stevens, the public remained
achieved ratification by popular vote. unaware of the troops’ motives. Under the protec-
In 1891, U.S. President Benjamin Harrison tion of American guns, members of the Committee
signed into law the McKinley Act, which eliminated for Public Safety read a statement on the steps of the
tariffs from sugar imported into the United States government building. Attracting a small gathering
and subsidized sugar grown domestically. As Ameri- of spectators, the committee declared the overthrow
can purchasers could now buy sugar cheaper in cer- of the monarchy and the establishment of a provi-
tain other countries than in Hawaii, the act effec- sional government. Stevens immediately recognized
tively nullified the reciprocity treaty and led to an the new government, even though it was a paper
economic depression in the islands. entity having no control over the government
The following year, the slowdown began to bureaucracy, including the treasury, archives, or
exact a severe toll upon the government, which police. He also ignored the wishes of Native Hawai-
faced declining tax revenues and demands that it ians, nearly all of whom staunchly opposed a pro-
stimulate the economy. The legislative session in annexation government.
1892, the longest on record, was marked by quarrels Queen Liliuokalani yielded power “to the supe-
among haoles, Native Hawaiians, several political rior force of the United States of America” only after
groups, and Queen Liliuokalani, who still possessed being informed that Stevens supported the provi-
veto power over bills that failed to pass by a two- sional government. To prevent loss of life and to
thirds majority. The queen ultimately won passage avoid diplomatic questions involved in firing on
of two controversial bills, a lottery act and an opium American troops, she surrendered under protest and
licensing act, which she hoped would raise govern- in the belief that higher American authorities would
ment revenues. reinstate her later.
The most visible aspect of the conflict between The committee worked quickly. Several mem-
Liliuokalani and the business community was the bers rushed to Washington, compiled an annexation
legislative struggle for control of the queen’s cabinet. treaty with the help of the outgoing William Henry
The Constitution of 1887 left the sovereign monarch Harrison administration, and submitted it to the
the right to choose a cabinet but allowed the legisla- Senate a month later. The treaty emphatically stated
ture, with sufficient votes, to disband it. In 1892, that the United States had played no part in the
members of the legislature voted on seven no- overthrow of the monarchy. Because this and other
confidence motions, four of which succeeded. On annexationist claims contradicted the queen’s story,
each occasion, the queen simply appointed a new incoming president Grover Cleveland withdrew the
cabinet. treaty and sent Congressman James H. Blount of
Georgia to investigate the revolt.
The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Government Blount’s report detailed a deliberate conspiracy
Most foreigners and haoles greatly feared Queen Lil- between Stevens and annexationist planters and
iuokalani’s support of a new constitution that would businessmen to overthrow the kingdom. Blount
restore power to the monarchy and voting rights to found that the troops were landed not to guard
Native Hawaiians. In early January 1893, when it American life and property but to assist in removing
appeared that the queen was planning to proclaim the existing government. Cleveland withdrew the
such a constitution, a handful of insurrectionists cre- treaty. Stevens was replaced by Albert Willis, who, in
ated the Committee of Public Safety, the purpose of accordance with instructions from Cleveland,
which was to eliminate the monarchy and then to offered to restore the throne on the condition that
create a provisional government that would exist amnesty be given to the conspirators. At first, the
until annexation with the United States could be queen refused, believing they should be subject to
achieved. They appealed to the U.S. minister to Hawaiian law and punished, but a month later she
Hawaii, John L. Stevens, for military protection. relented. By this time, Cleveland had submitted the
Stevens, a rabid expansionist, obliged. On January restoration question to a hostile Congress, a move
16, he arranged for approximately 160 well-armed that undoubtedly strengthened the provisional gov-
troops to march through the streets of Honolulu to a ernment. When Willis asked the provisional govern-
town hall located across the street from the government to step down, its officers refused, claiming the
ment building and in sight of the queen’s palace. president lacked the authority to intervene in

Hawaii’s internal affairs. Cleveland was not inclined signatures protesting Hawaiian annexation provided
to force the matter, given the strength of the annexa- strong evidence to the contrary for Hawaii.
tionists in Congress. In early 1894, the U.S. Senate Congress established a territorial government
Foreign Relations Committee held its own hearings by passage of the Hawaiian Organic Act of 1900.
in Washington and afterward issued the Morgan The new government preserved most of the laws
Report, which cleared Stevens and the marines of enacted under the old kingdom, including the
any moral improprieties. recognition of Hawaiian tradition and custom and
limited land rights. Except for land used for military
Annexation purposes, the 1.8 million acres of Crown and gov-
Expecting that Hawaii would not be annexed during ernment lands obtained by the Newlands Resolu-
Cleveland’s term, in mid-1894 leaders of the provi- tion were placed under control of the territorial gov-
sional government declared a constitutional republic ernment.
with Sanford Dole as its president. A year later, The end of the kingdom was a direct result of
Robert Wilcox, a mixed-blood Hawaiian, led an U.S. policy as reflected in its treaties with Hawaii.
unsuccessful rebellion in which authorities arrested The last two treaties, the reciprocity of 1875 and the
Queen Liliuokalani for her alleged involvement. The extension of reciprocity in 1884, created a tidal wave
new government forced her to sign a statement abdi- of American capital and Asian immigrants. As
cating her throne in exchange for reducing the pun- Native Hawaiian groups had feared, the reciprocity
ishment of Wilcox and other conspirators. period (1876–1900) saw a drastic decline in the
With the ascension of pro-annexation William Native Hawaiian population as a percent of the total.
McKinley to the presidency in 1898, expansionists In 1876, the population of the islands numbered
again brought a Hawaii annexation treaty before 55,000, of which 89.2 percent were Hawaiian. By
Congress. The queen issued a formal protest, stating 1900, immigration for plantation labor had swelled
that the treaty ignored (1) the Blount report; (2) the the number to 154,000, of which Hawaiians consti-
wishes of Native Hawaiians (who at that time num- tuted 26 percent. This shrinking percentage, along
bered about forty thousand, compared to the three with the widespread belief that Native Hawaiians
thousand foreigners who supported the revolt); (3) would become extinct, inevitably undermined the
compensation for lands ceded to the United States; foreign community’s support for what they consid-
(4) all previous treaties between the United States ered an expensive and inefficient monarchy. After
and the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (5) the violation of annexation, the major forum for Native Hawaiians
international law. More than thirty thousand Native to regain their rights, land, and sovereignty would
Hawaiians signed a petition opposing the treaty. be the U.S. legal system.
Some congressmen were undoubtedly moved by
the protest and recent publicity citing the bad treat- The Aftermath of Annexation
ment of American Indians. The treaty failed to attain In 1910, Queen Liliuokalani sued the United States
the two-thirds majority required to pass the Senate. for the return of the Crown lands. The U.S. Court of
But annexationists reintroduced the measure as a Claims ruled that the lands were originally part of
joint resolution (the Newlands Resolution), which the public lands of the kingdom, not the queen’s pri-
required only a simple majority. The resolution vate property. The court relied on a case in 1864, In re
passed and was signed into law. It scrapped all Estate of Kamehameha IV (2 Haw. 1864, 715), which
existing treaties of the Hawaiian republic and held that the king’s land was not his private prop-
placed the new territory under the coverage of U.S. erty but “belonged to the chiefs and people in com-
treaties. It also transferred to the United States lands mon.”
belonging to the Hawaiian Crown and government After annexation, the population and welfare of
and all rights of sovereignty. Native Hawaiians continued to deteriorate. Num-
Use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty to bering an estimated 300,000 at the time of Cook’s
annex Hawaii was considered unconstitutional by visit in 1778, the population of full-blood Hawaiians
some congressmen. But annexationists pointed to had dwindled to 23,723 by 1920. Soon after annexa-
the Republic of Texas, which had been annexed by tion, advocates for Native Hawaiian rights led by
joint resolution, as sufficient precedent. However, Kuhio Kalaniana’ole, Hawaii Territory’s delegate to
the residents of Texas had clearly stated their prefer- Congress, started lobbying Congress to restore some
ence for annexation at the polls. The large number of of the ceded lands (former Crown and government

lands) to Native Hawaiian ownership. They Authorizing such an agency was one thing,
obtained some leverage in 1910, when certain land but funding it was another. Following the initiative
provisions of the Hawaiian Organic Act were of the constitutional convention, two years later
amended to encourage homesteaders at the expense the legislature specified a funding source of 20 per-
of sugar growers. In 1921, a compromise that cent of all funds derived from the ceded lands.
granted sugar interests the best agricultural lands This act proved difficult to enforce and thus
allowed the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Com- formed the foundation for uncertainty and litiga-
mission Act. The act removed from the ceded lands tion that has yet to be resolved. In 1983, the OHA
about 200,000 acres, to be held in trust for Native sued the state of Hawaii for its share of revenue
Hawaiians who wished to homestead. Advocates from sand mining, the Honolulu International Air-
hoped that the relocation of Native Hawaiians to the port, harbors, and other uses of ceded lands. Four
land as independent family farmers would save years later, the Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed
them from extinction as a race. This ideology sup- the case, essentially saying that the 20 percent rev-
ported the distribution of kuleanas seventy years enue provision was too vague for court interpreta-
earlier and, for Native Americans, the General Allot- tion and that such funding needed further legisla-
ment Act of 1887 and the removal of the Five Civi- tive definition.
lized Tribes in the 1830s. In 1990, the legislature responded with Act 304,
The 200,000 acres were poor lands; most of the which again stated that “twenty percent of all rev-
land lacked water for irrigation, and nearly one- enues derived from the public land trust shall be
third was either barren lava or steep mountain slope. expended by [OHA] for the betterment of the condi-
Native Hawaiians saw little satisfaction in the tions of Native Hawaiians.” The act defined “rev-
administration of the land trust, first by the territory enues” to include rents, charges, and fees from the
and later by the state. Lack of federal and state fund- use of the ceded lands. As a result, the state and the
ing to oversee the program, to settle Hawaiians on OHA negotiated a settlement for $130 million for
the land, and to provide water forced administrators claims dated between 1980 and 1991.
to collect revenue by leasing the lands. Some of the In 1994, OHA sued to settle claims for past rev-
original 200,000 acres were transferred to various enue from other sources, including the Waikiki duty-
government agencies, mostly the military. Native free shop, public housing, and the Hilo Hospital. In
Hawaiians were kept on a long waiting list, which spite of public outcries that the potential liabilities
by 1998 totaled 7,503 persons. By this time, about 20 could bankrupt the state, the state district court
percent of the trust lands had been homesteaded. ruled in favor of the OHA. The state appealed to the
In 1959, the State of Hawaii, as a condition of its Hawaii Supreme Court.
admission to the Union, agreed to take control of the Shortly afterward, the U.S. Department of
ceded lands from the federal government and to Transportation threw opponents of Act 304 what
lease them under a public land trust for five specific would soon become a legal life raft. Department offi-
uses, including public education, the betterment of cials determined that state payments to OHA vio-
the conditions of Native Hawaiians, and the lated a federal law, the Airport and Airway Improve-
increase of home and farm ownership. From 1959 ment Act of 1982. This act required all monies
until 1978, the state allocated most of the money to collected by owners from airport sources to be used
public education. for airport development, not to fund other projects.
In 1978, the state held a constitutional conven- One implication of the ruling was that the state
tion in which its trust obligation to Native Hawai- would have to find another source of money to pay
ians was further clarified. The convention estab- OHA for airport use. In further negotiations, the
lished the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), a new state offered $250 million and revenue-producing
state agency to lobby for Native Hawaiians and lands, but OHA trustees rejected the offer.
improve their conditions. The agency would receive In September 2001, the Hawaii Supreme Court
funds, land, and resources held in trust for or ruled in favor of the state, reversing the district
intended for use by Native Hawaiians. Controlled court. The judges decided that the revenue provision
by a board of trustees consisting of at least nine of Act 304 directly conflicted with federal law. As the
Native Hawaiians, it would allocate those assets and legislators had written the act as nonseverable, the
formulate policy for Native Hawaiians. court ruled the act vacated. The court did acknowl-

edge the state’s obligation to Native Hawaiians and can tribes in order to initiate a government-to-
exhorted the legislature to see that they benefited government relationship.
from the ceded lands trust. The largest and best-funded Hawaiian govern-
ing body at that time was the OHA. But the ability of
The Sovereignty Movement the OHA to act as a legitimate government was crip-
Coinciding with Indian and Alaska Native activism pled in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
in the 1960s and 1970s, Native Hawaiians formed Rice v. Cayetano (528 U.S. 2000, 495), which held that
various nationalistic organizations focusing on the state law restricting the election and membership
numerous issues such as Native land rights threat- of OHA trustees to Native Hawaiians was unconsti-
ened by intensive development of the islands, tutional. By expanding the electorate and elected
reform of the Hawaiian Homelands program, Native trustees to include non-Native Hawaiians, the deci-
access to beaches and trails, ceded land disputes, sion negated the credibility of OHA and its effective-
desecration of burial grounds, and the desecration of ness as a Native Hawaiian representative body. The
the volcano goddess Pele by drilling geothermal decision left open the possibility of a congressional
wells in the Kilauea volcano. solution, that of bringing OHA and other Hawaiian
In the mid-1980s, Native Hawaiians stepped up programs under federal supervision. Such an
their efforts to receive federal recognition as a sover- approach has since been proposed in Congress but
eign nation, similar to the recognition received by has yet to pass.
more than five hundred Indian and Alaskan Native Linda S. Parker
groups. Hawaiian activists formed numerous sover-
eignty and self-determination groups; some of the
largest include Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian References and Further Reading
Ancestry (ALOHA), Hui Ala Loa, and Kingdom of Adams, Jacob. 2002. “Native Lands Key Factor in
Hawai’i. State’s Growth.” Resource Review Newsletter
(August): 6.
Enactment of a congressional joint resolution
Alaska Natives Commission. 1994. Final Report. Vol 1:
(107 Stat. 1510) in 1993 apologizing for the over- Healing Harmony Hope. 3 vols. Anchorage:
throw of the monarchy marked a major milestone Alaska Natives Commission.
for the sovereignty movement. The apology Andrade, Ernest. 1996. Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W.
acknowledged that the Kingdom of Hawaii had Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880–1903. Boulder:
been an independent nation, to which the United University Press of Colorado.
States had extended “full and complete diplomatic Berger, Thomas R. 1995. Village Journey: The Report of
recognition” and with which the United States had the Alaska Native Review Commission. Rev. ed.
New York: Hill and Wang.
entered into several treaties. Congress admitted the
Case, David. 1984. Alaska Natives and American Laws.
illegality of the overthrow and the contribution of Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.
the United States to it. The significance of the joint Daws, Gavan. 1968. Shoal of Time: A History of the
resolution lay in its recognition that Native Hawai- Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of
ians had never relinquished sovereignty over their Hawaii Press.
lands, a point that could be vital for future litigation. Dudley, Michael, and Kenoni Agard. 1990. A Call for
Also important, it urged the president to support Hawaiian Sovereignty. Honolulu: Na Kane O Ka
Malo Press.
reconciliation efforts between the United States and
Kuykendall, Ralph. 1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom, vol.
the Native Hawaiian people. 1, 1778–1854, Foundation and Transformation.
As part of the reconciliation process, the U.S. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Departments of Interior and Justice, at the request Kuykendall, Ralph. 1953. The Hawaiian Kingdom, vol.
of Hawaii’s Senator Daniel Akaka, held hearings 2, 1854–1974, Twenty Critical Years. Honolulu:
with Native Hawaiians to determine direction and University Press of Hawaii.
consensus. Their report recommended that Native Kuykendall, Ralph. 1967. The Hawaiian Kingdom, vol.
3, 1874–1893, The Kalakaua Dynasty. Honolulu:
Hawaiians, through congressional action, should
University Press of Hawaii.
possess limited sovereignty within the framework Lililuokalani. 1898. Hawaii’s Story: By Hawaii’s Queen.
of federal law, as do Native American tribes. The Boston: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard.
United States should recognize a Native Hawaiian McClanahan, Alexandra. 2000. Growing Up Native in
governing body similar to those of Native Ameri- Alaska. Anchorage: AK: The Ciri Foundation.

Merry, Sally. 2000. Colonizing Hawaii: The Cultural Parker, Linda. 1989. Native American Estate: The
Power of Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Struggle over Indian and Hawaiian Lands.
University Press. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Mitchell, Donald. 1997. Sold American: The Story of Tate, Merze. 1965. The United States and the
Alaska Natives and Their Land, 1867–1959. Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History. New
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mitchell, Donald. 2001. Take My Land, Take My Life: Tate, Merze. 1968. Hawaii: Reciprocity or
The Story of Congress’s Historic Settlement of Annexation. East Lansing: Michigan State
Alaska Native Claims, 1960–1971. Fairbanks: University Press.
University of Alaska Press. U.S. Department of State. 1895. Papers Relating
Osorio, Jonathan. 2002. Dismembering Lahui: A History to the Foreign Relations of the United States
of the Hawaiian Nation to 1887. Honolulu: for 1894. Appendix 2. Washington, DC:
University of Hawaii Press. Government Printing Office.

Canadian Indian Treaties
II
Introduction ual beneficiaries or as communities adhering to its
terms rather than through separate agreements. Both
n what is now called Canada, treaty making has Inuit and Métis peoples have adopted the treaty
been the primary means of fostering coloniza- model in recent years to develop major land claim
tion since the 1600s. Although it has been the settlements and new governance arrangements
cornerstone of the largely peaceful Indian-settler within Canada.
relationship for the past four centuries, its enduring France was the first significant colonizing pres-
benefits have been overwhelmingly one sided. ence from Europe; it also sought peaceful trading
Treaty making was the approach preferred by the relationships with the Indian nations and negotiated
First Nations as well as the European parties to sort some treaties to encourage such opportunities. The
out the essential terms of how colonists and their displacement of the French regime from the Mar-
governments would relate to the original owners of itimes in 1713 and from Quebec in 1763 by Great
the land throughout most of North America. The Britain meant that the latter’s legal system and
history of negotiating treaties, their political and emphasis on treaties has dominated the experience
legal significance up to the present day, and the throughout North America. As both Canada and the
many disputes that continue to arise regarding United States were established predominantly as
their meaning create a situation that is, however, British colonies, with the same common-law legal
markedly different from that found in the United system and the same initial approach to dealing with
States. Understanding the place of treaties in mod- the Indian nations encountered by European settlers,
ern Canada is possible only through a full apprecia- it is not surprising that both countries today share
tion of the different types of treaties signed over the many common perceptions of treaty relationships.
years, the history of treaty formation, and the American case law, with its far greater volume and
evolving legal importance that treaties have earlier vintage, has had considerable influence on
acquired more recently. One must also recognize the development of Canadian thinking in this
that Indian perspectives on the function of treaties regard. In fact, some of the earliest treaties relating to
and the precise rights they contain have differed Indian nations resident in Canada were actually
dramatically from the views held by Canadian gov- negotiated in the American colonies, particularly in
ernments over the intervening decades, and that Boston. The border between the two countries also
considerable conflict, disappointment, anger, and bisects the traditional territory of various Indian
frustration have been the result. nations from coast to coast to coast.
Recent judicial interpretations, along with the The content of the common law and official
entrenchment of the protection of treaty rights in government policy of Great Britain in the 1600s were
Canada’s constitution in 1982 [Section 35(1) of the both shaped largely by the emerging international
Constitution Act, 1982, states, “The existing aborig- law doctrines first enunciated by Spanish theolo-
inal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of gians and legal thinkers, especially Francisco de
Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”], have Vitoria, and within the Roman Catholic Church in
resurrected the importance of historic Indian treaties the mid-sixteenth century. After extensive debate
as well as the necessity for new treaties to be negoti- and a period of controversy, international law came
ated with Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples. The Inuit to recognize the indigenous peoples of the so-called
(still called Eskimos by many in the United States) New World as human beings with souls who were
did not share the precontact treaty-making tradition, entitled to respect and to protection from physical
nor was their interaction with newcomers regulated violence. The developing theory of international law
in this fashion. The Métis—reflecting the emergence also recognized them as “peoples,” who constituted
of a new people springing from the merger, then sovereign nations with ownership rights over their
reformulation, of both European and Indian cultures territories.
and origins—were often shunted aside during treaty Even though Europeans did not appreciate it at
negotiations. Occasionally, the Métis were included the time of contact, indigenous states practiced
within the scope of Crown-Indian treaties as individ- treaty making extensively before they ever encoun-
209
tered people from the other side of the Atlantic mal treaties or to acquire land directly from Indian
Ocean. A wide variety of treaty relationships existed nations.
among many of the Indian nations in North Amer- The individual Indian nation that occupied par-
ica, in some places extending over immense dis- ticular territory was viewed as the rightful owner of
tances. Trading of natural resources and produced that soil in accordance with the terms of its own
goods could occur over thousands of miles. Military rules or laws. According to those laws, land was
alliances also were forged in opposition to common usually held with collective or communal title and
enemies, and military conflict was frequently could not be individually conveyed or sold. This
resolved through the creation of new peace and meant that the “discovering” European nation could
friendship commitments accompanied by solemn not claim exclusive title to the “new” lands but
treaty promises. merely the sole right, vis-à-vis other European coun-
From the perspective of Indian nations, turning tries, to enter into treaty relations regarding trade
to the institution of treaties as the primary peaceful and military alliances or to acquire land for settle-
method for dealing with newcomers was logical— ment from a willing Indian nation. International law
the only alternatives were war or complete avoid- did, however, recognize a principle of conquest such
ance of contact, both of which were also pursued at that a victor in war obtained the legal right to seize
various locales and times. However, the flood of territory and substitute its sovereignty for that of the
migrants from overseas, coupled with their attrac- defeated nation. Local law would remain in force,
tive trade goods, quickly led the Indian nations however, until the conqueror chose to impose any
along the Atlantic coast to conclude that peaceful changes, including a decision to establish new
relations were the preferred choice. Likewise, from governments.
the European perspective, treaties were a logical
device to regulate future relationships, as that was
how Europeans themselves attempted to organize The Evolution of Treaty
their own internal relationships among competing Making in Canada
states. Canada has experienced four distinct eras in which
Treaty making, therefore, worked well as a com- treaties were negotiated: (1) from the earliest days of
mon vehicle for both sides to pursue the establish- contact to the American Revolution, (2) from 1790 to
ment of new relations based upon clear understand- independence in 1867, (3) from 1867 to 1930, and (4)
ings. Each party was able to pursue its separate the modern era, from 1975 to the present. Each
interests within a shared construct. The pure act of period is considered in turn.
negotiating out of self-interest brought together
leading representatives in a context of equal status Peace and Friendship Treaties
with the common objective of reaching agreement. The primary focal points of treaty relations in the
Treaties became the best way to cement a relation- 1600s and 1700s—and of international or intergov-
ship inspired by desires for peace and friendship, to ernmental relationships in general among Euro-
encourage trading patterns that were economically peans and Indian nations at this time—were on
beneficial to both sides, and to create potentially trade, military alliances, and peaceful interaction so
powerful military alliances against common ene- as to permit colonies to flourish and to generate
mies, be they other European colonial powers or maximum economic wealth for the mother coun-
Indian nations. tries. Early agreements often involved some small
It should be understood that control over treaty land conveyances by the Indian partners for trading
making on the European side rested exclusively with posts, military forts, and modest colonial settlements
the empire. That is, the imperial government pos- while also establishing a pattern of gift giving on the
sessed the sole prerogative to decide when to negoti- part of the Crown. The offering of presents, which
ate new treaties, with whom to seek such relation- was to become a common element in almost all later
ships, and on what terms. Only the Crown could treaties, made sense to Europeans as well as to
appoint representatives with a mandate to bind the indigenous peoples in the Americas, as each was
government. The people on the ground—the accustomed to presenting tokens of esteem and
colonists—could enter into private contracts of recognition on formal occasions. Nevertheless, the
trade, but they had no authority whatsoever as pri- clear majority of the gifts presented came from the
vate individuals or as communities to negotiate for- European emissaries.

The first formal treaty between the British mutual assurances to honor in perpetuity the
Crown and the Iroquois Confederacy, the Treaty of promises made.
Albany of September 24, 1664—also known as the Treaty making was rapidly adopted as the pre-
Two Row Wampum—typifies a number of these ele- ferred strategy of Great Britain, as it expanded Great
ments. The Iroquois, then consisting of five distinct Britain’s colonial and trading empire either through
nations but later increasing to six when the Tus- being welcomed by Indian nations into their terri-
carora Nation joined the Confederacy early in the tory or through acquiring the European claims of its
eighteenth century, were a major military force and predecessors. A number of treaties were negotiated
far more numerous than the British in the region. with the Wabanaki Confederacy (the Mi’kmaq,
They had previously been allies of the Dutch, who Maliseet, Penobscot, and Passamaquoddy Nations),
transferred their interest in New Netherlands in northern New England and the Maritime colonies
(renamed New York) to the British in 1664. The Iro- from 1678 until 1761. These treaties often followed
quois were also long-standing adversaries of the political withdrawals by the Wabanaki’s former ally,
Huron Nation, who had previously forged an France. Their purpose, more generally, was the com-
alliance with the French colony of New France in the mitment of both partners to peaceful and friendly
St. Lawrence River valley that included the provi- relations, to exclusivity in trade, to nonmolestation
sion of rifles. Treaty negotiations between the Iro- of each other’s citizens, to respect for criminal and
quois Confederacy and the British representatives civil jurisdiction, to the release of prisoners, and to
extended over several days, resulting in separate the refusal to aid deserters.
agreements on September 24 and 25 that consisted of The early success of the treaty mechanism (and
the following key elements: the absence of an economically and politically
attractive alternative) caused it to be used over and
1. “[T]hat the Indian Princes above named and over again to meet immediate needs as well as for
their subjects, shall have all such wares and longer-term objectives, including the end of any
commodities from the English for the future, hostilities that may have arisen, so as to restore
as heretofore they had from the Dutch.” peace and foster trade. Treaties were negotiated by
2. Each party pledged to capture and punish Britain all along the Atlantic seaboard, from Georgia
any fugitive committing any injury or to Nova Scotia and as far west as the Appalachian
violence to a person under the other’s Mountain range, from 1664 to the end of the Ameri-
protection so that all due satisfaction would can Revolution.
be given to the victim. The emphasis upon England retaining control
3. The English were mandated to “make peace and the importance of treaty making overall to
for the Indian Princes, with the Nations imperial strategy was later confirmed by the Royal
down the River.” Proclamation issued by King George III on October
4. The English promised not to assist the three 7, 1763, after the Seven Years’ War between France
nations of the Abenaki Confederacy and to and Great Britain ended through the Treaty of Ver-
provide accommodation to the Iroquois if sailles. One major objective was to create new colo-
they should be beaten by those nations. nial governments for the former French colonies (in
(O’Callaghan 1853–61:3, 67–68) what later became the provinces of Quebec and
Prince Edward Island) as well as for the former
The treaty was recorded in English, and an offi- Spanish colony of Florida. The Royal Proclamation
cial version on parchment was given to the Iroquois. also sought to confirm the position of Indian nations
The treaty was also recorded on a wampum belt, by declaring that they were to be left unmolested by
which was delivered to Colonel George Cartwright colonists in their remaining territories inside of the
(on behalf of the Duke of York). The Iroquois British colonies unless they were willing to sell their
method of recording the significance of important lands to properly appointed Crown representatives,
events involved the sewing together of beads made who would negotiate the purchase through public
from seashells on animal skins in pictorial patterns meetings resulting in formal treaty arrangements.
unique to that particular event. Thus, each party fol- Outside the colonial borders, largely to the west of
lowed its traditional practice of acknowledging the the Appalachian Mountains, was expressly con-
importance of this historic and solemn occasion in a firmed by the king as preserved as Indian country
manner that reflected its culture while making for their continued exclusive use.

American Independence and Chickasaw Nations in 1785 and 1786. Similarly,

to Canadian Independence the United States did not wish publicly to be per-
The American Revolution quickly changed every- ceived to be merely following British policies, such
thing both for the United States and for Canada. The that it needed to demonstrate its independence from
land demands of colonists had been one of the driv- its former mother country. Therefore, British decrees
ing forces underlying the American Revolution; had to be modified and given new birth as American
hence the desires of land speculators—including instruments. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was
George Washington, military veterans, and others in transformed by the U.S. Congress into the Non-
search of farmland—were able to flourish without Intercourse Act, passed on July 22, 1790, although
the imperial constraints that previously had required the orientation was largely the same.
the colonies’ adherence to treaty promises and had A direct effect of the Revolution was an unleash-
restricted treaty making to the Crown. Although ing of pent-up demand for Indian land, thereby
some Indian nations joined with those rebelling and weakening the Indian nations that remained within
others remained neutral, many tribes had honored American borders in political terms as well as eco-
their military alliance with the British and were now nomic and military ones. A by-product of the neces-
on the losing side without the continuing protection sity for tribes to make peace with their far more pop-
of the Crown or the existence of prior treaties. ulous neighbor was to look to the U.S. judiciary as a
The birth of the new country meant, of course, potential mechanism for their ongoing protection.
that all residents needed to decide for themselves Because they could no longer realistically appeal to
where their future lay. Many colonists who had the British Crown as an ally, and in the face of their
remained loyal to the Crown, the so-called United declining military and trading importance to the
Empire Loyalists (or UELs), chose to flee the United American government, the only available alternative
States and move to what remained of British North to leaving their traditional territory became the
America, namely, Canada. They suddenly needed American court system.
massive quantities of land on which to resettle, a This choice also presented serious challenges for
factor that immediately changed the pattern of the Indian nations who saw themselves as fully sover-
prior Indian-Crown relationship on the Canadian eign. How could they invoke the protection of a for-
side of the border, where colonial settlement had eign court operating in a totally different legal sys-
been limited. tem and in a foreign language? This was not an
The American victory also encouraged a major attractive option by any means, or one that many
relocation of many tribes from the eastern coast of Indian nations chose, although a few did. What they
the new United States; these Indians moved west- discovered, not surprisingly, was a judicial system
ward and, in some cases, fled northward into that was itself relatively fragile, a new institution pri-
Canada along with the UELs. marily concerned about its own place within the
Although victorious, the United States was an American system of government and the vulnerabil-
extremely vulnerable country, its economy in tatters ity of this new country.
and the solidity of its success in the Revolution Through three key decisions in the 1820s and
uncertain, with no guarantee against future British 1830s, the U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership
invasion. The French Revolution, which occurred of Chief Justice John Marshall, sought to develop a
only a few years later, provided some political com- principled legal foundation for what was essentially
fort but effectively robbed the United States of its a political compromise that justified the imposition
major European ally. Thus, the United States wanted of U.S. might and law on sovereign, independent
to create peaceful relations with outside powers and countries. The stark options essentially available to
to stabilize its domestic situation. To meet these the Court were either the continuation of a fully
objectives, it wisely sought to inherit the benefits of Indian, independent-nation sovereignty theory, or a
the treaty relationships possessed by the British complete absorption of Indian people into the body
within American territory and to form new ones. politic. The former could threaten American stability,
The United States could not merely succeed to exist- as it would mean that Indian nations would retain
ing British treaties, because they stemmed from the the capacity to form treaties with European nations
defeated empire; the young country had to form of their choosing—including the British to the north,
new relationships of its own, which began with the whom they had defeated on two occasions, the
Treaties of Hopewell with the Cherokee, Choctaw, French and Spanish to the south, and potentially

others. That possibility, obviously, was not attractive also drew upon the imagery that Indian nations, by
from an American perspective. virtue of being dependent, were somehow like
On the other hand, to deny all Indian sover- wards in relation to the U.S. government as their
eignty would contradict the treaty history that protector or guardian.
existed in North America, as well as the initial post- The source of Marshall’s thinking was largely
Revolution efforts of the U.S. government to form his assessment of the tides of history, in which he
peaceful, treaty-based relationships with Indian drew heavily upon his own research conducted for
nations. Such a legal position would also undermine the preparation of a mammoth biography of George
the federal government’s own constitutional author- Washington. This was coupled with his desire to
ity, as the Constitution’s division of powers with draft a compromise that advanced federal interests
state governments had not precisely addressed the while simultaneously respecting some recognition
question of who possessed jurisdiction to engage in of the reality of Indian nations as distinct, self-
law-making and other aspects of noncommercial governing peoples who were the rightful original
Indian affairs. Denying Indian sovereignty also owners of the soil. His theory indicates that Indian
could have the consequence of making the Indian sovereignty remains in existence yet is constrained,
people subjects or, potentially, citizens with a right to such that what remains of the formerly complete
vote. Framed in a different fashion, the latter legal sovereignty is the residue that is subject to further
analysis would have meant that the federal govern- intrusions by Congress in the future. This residual
ment did not have the capacity to regulate the sovereignty includes the continuing power to negoti-
important economic domain of Indian trade, to deal ate treaties, but only with the United States, and to
with potential military threats, and to control vital surrender territory for sale.
revenue matters. It must be noted that one of the The landmark litigation before the Supreme
most significant methods of raising revenue before Court in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worces-
the introduction of the income tax system was the ter v. Georgia (1832) did not, in fact, protect the
sale of government land. If the federal government Cherokee Nation; on the orders of President Andrew
controlled the acquisition of land from Indian Jackson, they, among others, were forcibly dispos-
nations through treaties, then it would acquire the sessed of their territory and marched west of the
revenue from the resale of those lands to settlers and Mississippi—the infamous Trail of Tears.
thereby could direct the growth of populations and The Canadian experience during this same time
the creation of new states. period involved less drama; however, its conse-
Therefore, the status of Indian nations and their quences for many Indian nations were no less dra-
treaty relationships held grave importance for the matic. The pressure for land to accommodate the
U.S. Supreme Court, which was intent on flexing its arriving UELs and allied Indian nations required
legal muscles as it strove to confirm its identity as treaty making to switch emphasis from encouraging
the ultimate arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. Chief trade and peace to obtaining land on a massive scale
Justice John Marshall’s response to these opportuni- for settlement and agriculture. Clearing the land in
ties was to develop a hybrid approach—neither full the south for farming meant a drastic reduction in
acceptance nor full denial of the competing legal the wildlife population’s capacity to support the tra-
streams. He decided, instead, to construct a legal ditional economy and reduced the importance of the
doctrine that transformed formerly independent fur trade, causing much of the trapping to relocate
Indian sovereignty into a continuing but internal north and westward. The new wave of land cession
variation through the concept of domestic depen- treaties began in the late 1780s in southern Ontario,
dent nationhood. Indian nations were defined as following the procedures of the Royal Proclamation
“domestic” in the sense that they were declared to of 1763 but focusing on acquiring clear legal title to
have lost international status or the capacity to form land, in a form of property conveyance in return for
relations with foreign countries. Their governments a lump-sum payment that consisted of a combina-
and their traditional territories were simply stated to tion of money and trade goods. Promises were made
be internal to the United States. They were further to reassure the Indian negotiators that they would
deemed to be “dependent” in that their authority continue to receive regular presents, would be able
was rendered subject to some initially undefined to hunt, fish, and trap as before, would be able to
power on the part of Congress and the executive harvest wild or grown foods, and would retain some
branch to infringe upon their autonomy. Marshall of their traditional lands. Little was said, however,

about how the influx of white colonists would dras- 1930) followed the pattern set by the two Robinson
tically reshape the landscape. By 1818, imperial offi- Treaties of 1850. The written form of each treaty (in
cials were complaining that the cost of treaty pay- English only) involved the surrender of vast tracts of
ments was becoming too onerous for the local traditional territory to the federal Crown by Indian
colony to bear; this led to the substitution of a leaders on behalf of their populations. In return, the
scheme for annual payments (annuities). This effec- Indians were promised small parcels of land to be set
tively meant that an installment payment plan was aside as exclusive Indian reserves for particular com-
used, in which Indian nations were compensated for munities, annual payments to each member, guaran-
their land out of a small portion of the money that tees of continued hunting and fishing rights, and
actually came from the resale of Indian land to set- occasional other benefits (such as schools, farming
tlers and speculators, leaving the sizable profits to implements, ammunition, and medical supplies).
defray the cost of colonial government. The indigenous version of the treaty negotia-
The next significant development in the nature tions, the oral promises made during the discus-
of treaties in Canada occurred through the negotia- sions, and the content of the final agreement are con-
tion of the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior sistently asserted to differ dramatically from the
Treaties, which affected the upper Great Lakes “official” text. Many Indian elders have relayed sto-
region. Not only did these two treaties operate on a ries of the negotiations as having focused on sharing
far larger geographic scale (affecting more than the territory with the newcomers rather than surren-
twice the territory of all prior land surrender treaties dering the land absolutely, as Mother Earth could
combined), but they also introduced the concept of not be “sold.” Many others allege that only the sur-
creating Indian reserves for individual communities face of the land “to the depth of a plough” was being
out of small portions of the territory surrendered shared or given but not the subsurface resources,
under treaty. These reserves were then set aside, and that the territory was to be left undamaged.
after the extinguishment of aboriginal title, for the Few of the Indian participants could anticipate
exclusive use of individual Indian communities, and the large-scale settlements that were to occur in
the underlying title was claimed by the Crown. The many of the treaty areas or how the influx of farmers
Robinson Treaties effectively set the stage for all of and foresters would fundamentally alter the land-
the post-confederation treaties until the modern era. scape in a way that would virtually destroy the tra-
ditional economy in the southern portion of the
Treaties from 1867 to 1930 Prairies in only a few years. The thrust of the federal
Canada was formally confirmed as a semi- vision was that treaties would open up the region for
independent country in 1867, with Great Britain immigrants and Canadians moving westward,
retaining ultimate control over all foreign affairs whereas Indian people would disappear or be con-
until the Statute of Westminster was passed by the verted over time into farmers with their own plots of
United Kingdom Parliament in 1931; even then, the land so as to be assimilated into the general agrarian
parliament’s approval was required to amend society. This policy was maintained even in northern
Canada’s constitution until 1982. Canada consider- areas that were completely ill-suited for agriculture
ably expanded its territorial base in 1870 by acquir- with the technology available at the time.
ing western and northern lands held by the Crown The establishment of the residential school sys-
and those lands owned by the private Hudson’s Bay tem in the 1880s and its removal of all school-age
Company under a royal charter issued two hundred children, enforced vigorously through pass (permis-
years earlier. The new national government of sion to leave the reserve) restrictions by police and
Canada immediately launched upon a campaign to government officials, coupled with the drastic reduc-
negotiate treaties with the Indian nations in the tion in wildlife harvesting opportunities and trap-
southern portions of these areas to allow agriculture, ping income, left many Indian communities devas-
forestry, and mining on a large scale while setting tated—economically, socially, politically and
the stage for an expected massive influx of new set- spiritually. The Métis Nation was left in an even
tlers from Europe and the building of a national rail- more destitute situation, as no communal land base
way system. was provided for their survival under treaty or oth-
The so-called numbered treaties (numbered erwise. A federal statutory scheme, started in Mani-
from 1 to 11 as they were negotiated from 1871 to toba in 1871 to offer individual entitlements to
1921, with adhesions to Treaty 9 signed as late as blocks of land or cash (called scrip) to Métis families

in lieu of treaty benefits, generated little tangible ment. Even the leading opinion of Justice Wilfred
gain, as most recipients were quickly defrauded by Judson, which ruled against the Nisga’a continuing
land speculators. to possess aboriginal title, still stated, “[T]the fact
The passage of time led to a significant shift in is, that when the settlers came, the Indians were
federal governmental attitudes, as Indian people there, organized in societies and occupying the
were thought to face either extinction as a race (in land as their forefathers had done for centuries.”
part through the massive death toll from imported The fallout of this landmark decision for the
diseases) or complete absorption into Canadian soci- federal government was immense, for it compelled
ety as an underclass of farm workers and domestic both a complete reversal of its previous views and
laborers. Indian reserves became the means to acceptance of the fact that aboriginal title likely still
“smooth the dying pillow” or to serve as a labora- existed in large parts of Canada where no historic
tory for social re-engineering and assimilation. This treaty had previously been negotiated. The govern-
perception was far removed from the former view of ment of Canada issued a major policy pronounce-
sovereign Indian nations as military allies and valu- ment in August 1973, in which it proposed to negoti-
able trading partners. Over time, treaties came to be ate “comprehensive land claims agreements” based
viewed by nonaboriginal citizens as anachronistic on unextinguished aboriginal title in the form of
documents that had outlived their purpose and were modern treaties. Litigation immediately ensued in
to be neither renewed nor replicated elsewhere. All the Northwest Territories and Quebec to block major
of this was to change, however, with the decision in proposed petroleum pipelines and hydroelectric
1973 of the Supreme Court of Canada in Calder v. projects. An agreement-in-principle was reached on
Attorney General of British Columbia. November 15, 1974, among the Grand Council of the
Cree, the Northern Quebec Inuit Association (now
The Modern Treaty Era called the Makivik Corporation), the federal and
The Calder case was launched by the Nisga’a provincial governments, Hydro-Quebec, and the
Nation of northwestern British Columbia as the lat- James Bay Development Corporation, as the first
est salvo in their century-long struggle to have their major land claims agreement in the modern era. The
land rights recognized by the Crown. They went to parties concluded the final 455-page agreement the
court to assert their rights over their traditional ter- following November; over the next two years, legis-
ritory through the common-law doctrine of aborig- lation was passed by the National Assembly of Que-
inal title and drew heavily upon the Marshall deci- bec and the Parliament of Canada to give the agree-
sions of the U.S. Supreme Court to support their ment added legal force.
argument. They lost at trial, before the provincial Major modern land-claim settlements have been
court of appeal and again before the Supreme negotiated between the government of Canada, the
Court of Canada, ultimately on the procedural relevant provincial or territorial government, and
basis that they did not have the consent (or “fiat”) the aboriginal titleholders over the past thirty years,
of the provincial government they were suing at a as follows:
time when Crown immunity was still absolute.
Nevertheless, six of the seven judges who The James Bay and Northern Quebec
addressed the case on its merits concluded that the Agreement (1975)
doctrine of aboriginal title was still good law in The Northeastern Quebec Agreement (1978)
Canada. Both leading judgments relied primarily The Inuvialuit (or Western Arctic) Final
on American jurisprudence to support their posi- Agreement (1984)
tions. Although these six judges were evenly split The Gwich’in Final Agreement (1991)
on whether or not the aboriginal title of the Nisga’a The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993)
had been effectively extinguished by general public The Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive
lands legislation during the colonial era, they all Land Claim Agreement (1993)
were of the view that the Nisga’a had never surren- The Nisga’a Final Agreement (2000)
dered their title by treaty or lost it through con- Eleven individual Yukon First Nation Final
quest. The judges declared that aboriginal title Agreements based on the Council for Yukon
could only have been extinguished by unilateral Indians-Canada-Yukon Umbrella Final
Crown action, and they differed on the level of Agreement (1993), starting in 1995 and
explicitness required to meet the test for extinguish- ending with the last one ratified in 2005

The Tlicho (Dogrib) Land Claims and Self- century scrip system in the Prairies and also based
Government Agreement (2003) on aboriginal title, has yet to find a sympathetic ear
The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement among nonaboriginal governments in Canada (other
(2003) than the negotiations involving the South Slave
Métis Tribal Council, Canada, and the government
The enabling legislation for the last two agree- of the Northwest Territories). The 2003 decision of
ments on this list was proclaimed law in 2005. These the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Powley may
settlements are all modern treaties that confirm advance the thinking in this regard, although the
exclusive land rights for the Indian, Inuit, and Métis existence of aboriginal title for the Métis has yet to
participants of the relevant agreements that exist in be brought to court.
Quebec, British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Terri- Also vigorously pursued by most First Nations
tories, Nunavut Territory, and Labrador, totaling is another type of land claim. Specific claims relate to
more than 600,000 square kilometers (or more than unfulfilled treaty promises for the creation of
230,000 square miles). Many of them also include reserves and other breaches of lawful obligations
detailed descriptions of self-government jurisdiction. concerning reserve lands and natural resources.
In addition, six large Métis settlements were estab- Whereas comprehensive land claims are based upon
lished by the provincial government of Alberta in unextinguished aboriginal title, specific claims focus
the 1930s for the exclusive use of those communities. upon the loss of specific reserve lands, federal mal-
As a result, almost 7 percent of Canada today is rec- administration of band funds, and failure to fulfill or
ognized as exclusively in aboriginal hands; however, honor treaty promises in a manner that could be con-
these territories are not equitably distributed; many sidered to breach Canadian law or equity. More than
aboriginal communities are still without recognized six hundred specific land claims are currently in
lands. negotiation, are under review by the federal Depart-
The ongoing effort to negotiate new treaties in ments of Indian and Northern Affairs and Justice, or
Canada is a long way from a conclusion for many have been appealed to the Indian Specific Claims
First Nations and Métis peoples, although the Commission. More than two hundred other claims
process is now completed for the Inuit all across have been settled over the past thirty years. A fur-
northern Canada. Aboriginal communities in many ther three hundred claims are still in early stages of
parts of the country are still struggling for recogni- the assessment process, whereas estimates of one
tion that their traditional territory remains in their thousand to two thousand more claims not yet filed
exclusive hands. Unresolved aboriginal title claims have been suggested.
are in negotiation in southern parts of the Northwest A further reality is that federal and provincial
Territories, the Yukon, Labrador, Quebec, the Ottawa governments are slowly recognizing that First
valley region of Ontario, and throughout much of Nations and Métis communities are not only enti-
British Columbia. Ownership or title and jurisdiction tled to govern themselves but should be allowed to
of Canadian portions of the Great Lakes and the off- get on with doing so. Thus, First Nations are con-
shore waters remain outstanding. One can also antic- firming their jurisdictions in various parts of the
ipate that similar land claims will begin at some country, with the concurrence of federal, provincial,
stage in the future in other parts of British Columbia and territorial governments, through negotiating
and in the rest of Atlantic Canada concerning First self-government agreements that can take the form
Nations as well as the Labrador Métis. Negotiations of treaties. Perhaps the best-known, most controver-
have finally begun in Nova Scotia concerning the sial example in this regard has been the Nisga’a
continuing legal and political significance of the treaty in British Columbia, the validity of which has
treaties of peace and friendship of the early eigh- been unsuccessfully challenged in a number of law-
teenth century between the Mi’kmaq Nation and the suits. Eleven self-government agreements are in
British Crown in the aftermath of the Marshall com- place in the Yukon (with three more under negotia-
mercial fishing decisions of 1999. Similar discussions tion), one in the Northwest Territories, and one in
may soon commence in New Brunswick and Prince Labrador. There are also agreements-in-principle or
Edward Island involving the Mi’kmaq and Malecite final agreements on self-government with the
Nations. Meadow Lake Tribal Council in Saskatchewan, the
The issue of Métis land rights, in regard to Sioux Valley First Nation in Manitoba, the United
instances of extensive fraud under the nineteenth Anishnabeg Council in Ontario, and Deline First

Nation in the Northwest Territories as well as a This growing aboriginal population is becoming
number of sectoral agreements with the Mohawks increasingly urbanized, while social problems are
of Kahnawake. still very common, unfortunately, in First Nations
communities. The number of status Indian children
kept in nonparental care increased by 50 percent
The Position during the 1990s. Statistics regarding the state of
of Aborginal Peoples health among aboriginal peoples are also highly dis-
The 2001 census report on the status of aboriginal couraging; however, there are signs of improvement.
peoples indicates that slightly more than 1.3 million Since 1975, the life expectancy for an aboriginal male
people have some aboriginal ancestry, with 976,305 has increased from 59.2 years to 68.9 years in 2000.
individuals defining themselves as being North Similarly, aboriginal women are now expected to
American Indian (608,850), Métis (292,310) or Inuit live to 76.6 years, whereas in 1975 the life expectancy
(45,070) (Canada 2003a). The latest data demonstrate was only 65.9 years (Canada 2002). Although life
that the level of self-identification directly as an expectancy for aboriginal peoples is expected to con-
aboriginal person grew by 22.2 percent from 1996 to tinue to rise and to draw nearer to that of the general
2001. At least half of this growth stems from per- Canadian population, there continues to be a gap
sonal redefinition, that is, individuals choosing to between these two groups of approximately 6.3
redefine themselves as to their aboriginal identity. years (Canada 2002). In comparison to nonaborigi-
This redefinition can be seen, for example, in the nals, the much higher rates of illness, injury, and
Métis population, as it increased by 43 percent dur- death among aboriginal peoples serve as a constant
ing this short period. The official population of reminder of the disparities that exist within Canada.
Indian people recognized as such by federal statute Suicide rates for both male and female registered
(the Indian Act) has also grown at an extremely Indian youth are five and seven times higher, respec-
rapid and varied rate, rising from only 323,782 regis- tively, than the Canadian average; these youth sui-
tered Indians in 1981 to 690,101 twenty years later cide rates represent some of the highest in the world
(Canada 2003b). This growth, however, is inconsis- (Guimond 2002). In 1997, the rate of tuberculosis in
tent, as the Indian population grew at an overall First Nations was approximately eight times that of
annual rate of more than 7 percent from 1986 to 1999 the rest of Canada (Canada 2002). Moreover, regis-
but only 1.9 percent per year from 1991 to 1996 (Gui- tered Indians in Canada continue to suffer from far
mond 1999). higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension,
A number of possible explanations exist for this arthritis, and violent death.
excessive and varied growth. First, it is clear that The rate of incarceration of aboriginal peoples
higher birth rates and longer life spans have natu- in Canada remains extraordinarily high and dispro-
rally increased the aboriginal population. Neverthe- portionate with respect to the remainder of the non-
less, natural population growth alone is incapable of aboriginal Canadian population. Although Canada
explaining levels that far exceed the theoretical max- already possesses one of the highest incarceration
imum of 5.5 percent for natural annual population rates among developed countries at 129 per 100,000
increase (Guimond 1999). A second possible expla- Canadians, adult aboriginal people are imprisoned
nation can be attributed to the changing legal status at more than eight times the national rate. High
and definition of the designation Indian. The 1985 unemployment continues to plague aboriginal com-
amendments to the federal Indian Act have caused munities and ensures that a large segment of the
the percent change in the registered Indian popula- population remains on social assistance. Almost 38
tion growth rate to fluctuate considerably, nearly percent of reserve residents (or 148,236 Indian peo-
quadrupling between 1985 and 1986 before return- ple, on a monthly average) depended upon social
ing to preamendment levels (Canada 2002). As of assistance payments for survival in 2000–2001
December 31, 2001, a total of 112,306 Indians were (Canada 2002). Many more relied largely on
registered based on the legislative amendments of employment insurance, old age pensions, and pay-
1985 and made up 16 percent of the Indian Register ments from the Canada Pension Plan. In this way,
(Canada 2002). A third possible explanation may the largest source of income for a majority of
also be attributed to ethnic mobility, a phenomenon on-reserve residents came directly from individual
whereby the ethnic identity chosen and reported by federal payments. There were, however, post-
individuals changes over time (Guimond 1999). secondary education rates of more than 27,000

status Indians per year; 35 percent were over thirty tionship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples,
years old, and two-thirds of them were women. It which has received constitutional elevation through
should also be noted that $5 billion from the Depart- Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Each of
ment of Indian and Northern Affairs and an addi- these basic tenets is having a profound impact on the
tional $2 billion from other federal departments is way in which both federal and provincial govern-
provided annually; 90 percent of this funding tar- ments must interrelate with Indian, Inuit, and Métis
gets only First Nations and Inuit groups. This communities.
causes a growing number of complaints and litiga-
tion from the Métis and nonstatus Indians, who feel
they deserve equivalent attention. Legal Interpretation Principles
Despite the statistics indicating a growing pop- for Treaties
ulation, severe societal issues, and highly economi- The current chief justice of Canada, Beverly McLach-
cally dependent communities, the national land base lin, summarized the jurisprudence developed by
set aside exclusively as Indian reserves remains at Canadian courts over the prior three decades in the
only three million hectares, or approximately 0.3 leading treaty fishing-rights case of Regina v. Mar-
percent of Canada. This small reserve space provides shall (No 1) in 1999. She listed the following as the
a thoroughly inadequate natural resource base, cre- proper legal guidelines to be used in interpreting
ating substantial pressure on most First Nations, treaty provisions (at paragraph 78 with sources
who find it increasingly difficult to accommodate deleted):
their populations and support their economies.
Métis peoples face an even more restrictive situation, 1. Aboriginal treaties constitute a unique type
as fewer than 5 percent have access to the six Métis of agreement and attract special principles of
settlements in Alberta. This dire situation has interpretation.
increased significantly the importance placed, in 2. Treaties should be liberally construed and
recent years, on the proper fulfillment of treaty com- ambiguities or doubtful expressions should
mitments made in historic treaties by the Crown, on be resolved in favour of the aboriginal
settling outstanding land claims, and on negotiating signatories.
new treaties to reflect current realities and future 3. The goal of treaty interpretation is to choose
aspirations. Those aboriginal communities who have from among the various possible interpreta-
successfully concluded modern treaties in recent tions of common intention the one which
years face a far brighter future than those without best reconciles the interests of both parties at
such agreements. It should be appreciated, however, the time the treaty was signed.
that achieving even a modern treaty is not an end in 4. In searching for the common intention of the
itself. Ongoing struggles also arise for Inuit, Métis, parties, the integrity and honour of the
and First Nations parties in their efforts to seek full Crown is presumed.
implementation of the fundamental commitments 5. In determining the signatories’ respective
made in the new treaties by governments and to understanding and intentions, the court
ensure that, this time, the relevant government sig- must be sensitive to the unique cultural and
natories will honor the terms of these solemn linguistic differences between the parties.
promises. 6. The words of the treaty must be given the
sense which they would naturally have held
for the parties at the time.
The Modern Legal 7. A technical or contractual interpretation of
Status of Treaties treaty wording should be avoided.
Treaty negotiations have been heavily affected in 8. While construing the language generously,
several critical respects by the jurisprudence that has courts cannot alter the terms of the treaty by
evolved over the last twenty years. As discussed fol- exceeding what “is possible on the lan-
lowing, the courts have articulated a clear set of guage” or realistic.
principles that must guide all efforts to interpret the 9. Treaty rights of aboriginal peoples must not
proper meaning to be given to historic as well as be interpreted in a static or rigid way. They
modern treaties. The Supreme Court has also defini- are not frozen at the date of signature. The
tively established the existence of a fiduciary rela- interpreting court must update treaty rights

to provide for their modern exercise. This restrictions on impermissible locations for harvest-
involves determining what modern practices ing fish and wildlife, allowed methods and equip-
are reasonably incidental to the core treaty ment for harvesting, establishment of licensing
right in its modern context. requirements, identification of precluded and per-
mitted harvesting times, and regulation of the sale of
It is important to note, however, that these prin- harvested goods. Asserting treaty rights as a ground
ciples may be subject to modification when inter- of defense has been a common strategy in many
preting a modern treaty, as the circumstances are parts of Canada since the 1970s, and the volume of
drastically different. The aboriginal party has charges laid for allegedly illegal activity by First
received the full benefit of legal counsel and is nego- Nations members has yet to abate noticeably, even
tiating highly detailed documents through a lengthy though treaty rights obtained constitutional protec-
period of time in a language with which they are tion in 1982. It has also become more common of late
comfortable. The federal court of appeal has sug- for Métis and nonrecognized Indian people to be
gested that modern treaties should be viewed quite charged with such violations and for them to seek to
differently and more akin to other contractual agree- assert an aboriginal or treaty right to hunt or fish free
ments among relatively equal parties. The Quebec from such statutory restraints. A major reason for
Court of Appeal has adopted a somewhat hybrid this continuing conflict is that the federal and
approach and has suggested that modern treaties provincial legislation in this sector has rarely been
should be interpreted according to the intentions of designed to accommodate the unique legal situation
all the parties, rather than automatically assuming of aboriginal harvesters and treaty rights. As a result,
that any ambiguities will be resolved in favor of the governments have sought to impose a uniform nat-
indigenous signatory. At the same time, the court ural resource management regime upon aboriginal
also noted the fundamental importance of the sub- peoples, who firmly believe they have an inherent
ject matter in that case—education—to the Cree. right to maintain their traditional activities free from
The court concluded that a liberal, generous inter- external regulation. The latter perspective is often
pretation was warranted for the provisions concern- further supported, in many parts of the country, by
ing the participation of the Cree in discussions solemn Crown commitments, given in express lan-
establishing the annual budget for the Cree school guage in individual treaties, that the Indian parties
board. and their descendants would be free to hunt, fish,
Jurisprudence thus indicates that the Crown and trap forever as they had done for untold number
and its representatives, in dealing with all historic of generations.
treaties, must adhere to the general treaty principles In recent years, similar conflicts have extended
elaborated by the courts over the last forty-two years beyond wildlife to include disputes over aboriginal
since the leading decision of the British Columbia and treaty rights to log trees on Crown land for per-
Court of Appeal in Regina v. White and Bob in 1964. In sonal use, to use in the production of goods, and for
the intervening years, these principles have become sale as raw logs. The Supreme Court of Canada in
somewhat modified—but only slightly—in the effort July 2005 overturned appellate courts in Nova Scotia
to ascertain the true meaning of the language used in and New Brunswick that had previously upheld
modern treaties and other agreements reached treaty rights to commercial logging (Regina v. Mar-
between aboriginal peoples and federal or provincial shall and Regina v. Bernard respectively). The
governments. Supreme Court decided that the specific language in
The primary focal point for conflicts between the treaty in question guaranteed only a right to
First Nations and other governments, resulting in trade goods today that were proven to have been
frequent litigation, is the assertion of treaty- actively traded with the British at the time the treaty
protected harvesting rights running afoul of general was signed in 1760–1761. Because there was some
legislation aimed at regulating natural resources on limited trade in wood products at that time but not
Crown (federal or provincial government-owned) in raw logs themselves, the defendants did not have
lands. These conflicts became commonplace in the the treaty right to harvest trees on Crown land and
1950s with the more vigorous enforcement of hunt- then sell the logs without provincial government
ing and fishing laws in rural and northern areas. The permission in the form of a license. Many other nat-
amount of litigation escalated considerably in the ural resource claims have yet to be pursued on a
1960s with the imposition of more detailed statutory treaty basis.

Rights have also been asserted through reliance within its external borders between the descendants
on particular treaty terms for exemption from income of European settlers (as well as immigrants from the
tax, for guarantees of financial support for university rest of the world) and the original sovereign owners
education, for the provision of free and comprehen- of this land, as succeeded by the First Nations, Inuit,
sive health care, for the availability of adequate hous- and Métis peoples of today. In many parts of
ing, and regarding other important governmental ini- Canada, these relationships have been built upon the
tiatives. Efforts have also been made to resist the foundation of mutually binding commitments in the
application of gun control and other laws to First form of treaties. Canada has been far less successful,
Nations through reliance on treaty commitments. however, in ensuring that a common understanding
These efforts have met with mixed success. of the fundamental purpose of these treaty com-
A further recent development in treaty litigation pacts, along with a mutual acceptance of the precise
in Canada has been the complaints of First Nations meaning of the treaty terms, remained alive
and Inuit peoples, with either modern or historic among—and were honored by—subsequent genera-
treaties, that other governments have not consulted tions. Oral histories of the actual treaty negotiations
with them effectively prior to making decisions that and the words agreed upon are very much a part of
may have a major impact upon their daily lives and the fabric of regular life for many First Nations com-
territories. This concern has arisen in relation to fed- munities. Most nonaboriginal Canadians, however,
eral or provincial proposals to launch new policies have virtually no knowledge whatsoever of the sig-
or programs—or to change existing ones—in allocat- nificance of Crown-Indian treaties in their own lives
ing natural-resource harvesting rights to companies; as a critical source of the rights and benefits that they
in approving planned mines and petroleum devel- enjoy as members of Canadian society and as the
opments; and in considering potential environmen- source of much of the prosperity on which the Cana-
tal impacts of energy projects, the building of new dian economy has been built. The ongoing need to
roads, and the like. Similar protests have been negotiate treaties for the first time in some parts of
launched by First Nations seeking to negotiate new the country, along with the need to revitalize and
treaty agreements who believe that their position renew the historic treaty commitments from genera-
will inevitably be altered for the worse prior to tions ago, will continue to be a noteworthy aspect of
reaching such arrangements if governments autho- domestic development for quite some years to come.
rize large-scale logging, mining, oil drilling, electric- Through devoting greater attention to the import of
ity generating, and other such projects on land that is treaties, whether they result from hands extended in
subject to aboriginal title claims. The same strategy friendship several centuries ago or through the
has been used to challenge aquaculture operations flourish of pens at signing ceremonies yesterday and
(fish farms) and other activities in coastal waters, by tomorrow, hopefully Canadians will develop a
insisting upon full First Nations’ involvement in greater appreciation of their unique opportunity to
decision making so as to protect the environment. create a truly modern nation based on profound
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Haida Nation respect and partnership.
case, has confirmed that the federal and provincial Bradford W. Morse
governments have a legally enforceable duty to
respect the honor of the Crown by consulting mean-
References and Further Reading
ingfully with aboriginal communities when their
Court Cases
unique aboriginal or treaty rights might be nega-
Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia, SCR 313
tively impacted. This duty may also require the gov- (1973).
ernment to seek to accommodate legitimate aborig- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831).
inal concerns by altering its proposals or requiring Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 3
changes from third parties before authorizing the SCR 511 (2004).
planned activities to proceed if these constitutionally Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823).
protected rights might be infringed. Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of
Canadian Heritage), 1 CNLR 78 (2006).
Regina v. Marshall (No. 1), 3 SCR 456 (1999).
Conclusion Regina v. Marshall (No. 2), 3 SCR 533 (1999).
Regina v. Marshall; Regina v. Bernard, 3 CNLR 214
Over the past four centuries, Canada has been rea- (2005).
sonably successful in forging peaceful relationships Regina v. Powley, 4 CNLR 321(SCC) (2003).

Regina v. White and Bob, 50 DLR (2d) 193 (B.C.C.A.) Avoiding New Peoples ‘In Between.’”
(1964). Saskatchewan Law Review 67(1): 257.
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 1997.
Books and Articles “Interpreting Sui Generis Treaties.” Alberta Law
Alfred, Taiaiake. 1999. Peace, Power and Righteousness: Review 36(1)1: 46.
An Indigenous Manifesto. Don Mills, ON: Oxford Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 2000.
University Press. “Constitutional Powers and Treaty Rights.”
Asch, Michael, ed. 1998. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 719.
in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680–1890. 1905.
Columbia Press. Ottawa: S. E. Dawson. Reprint, Saskatoon, SK:
Bell, Catherine, and Karin Buss. 2000. “The Promise Fifth House, 1992.
of Marshall on the Prairies: A Framework for Imai, Shin. 1999. Aboriginal Law Handbook, 2nd ed.
Analyzing Unfulfilled Treaty Promises.” Scarborough, ON: Carswell.
Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 667. Isaac, Thomas. 2001. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the
Bird, John, Lorraine Land, and Murray MacAdam, Maritimes: The Marshall Decision and Beyond.
eds. 2002. Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Saskatoon, SK: Purich.
Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, 2nd ed. Mainville, Robert. 2001. An Overview of Aboriginal and
Toronto: Iwin. Treaty Rights and Compensation for Their Breach.
Borrows, John. 1992. “Negotiating Treaties and Land Saskatoon, SK: Purich.
Claims: The Impact of Diversity within First Morse, Bradford. 2004. “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights
Nations Property Interests.” Windsor Yearbook of in Canada.” In Canadian Charter of Rights and
Access to Justice 12: 179. Freedoms/Charte canadienne des droits et libertés,
Borrows, John. 2005. “Creating an Indigenous Legal 4th ed., eds. Gérald-A. Beaudoin and Errol
Community.” McGill Law Journal 50: 153. Mendes, 1171–1257. Markham, ON: LexisNexis
Brown, George, and Ron Maguire. 1979. Indian Butterworths.
Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa: O’Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, ed. 1853–1861.
Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the
Canada. State of New York. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons.
Canada. 2002, March. Department of Indian Affairs Price, Richard, ed. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta Indian
and Northern Development, Basic Departmental Treaties. Montreal: Institute for Research on
Data 2001. Ottawa: Public Works and Public Policy.
Government Services. Online: <http://www Purich, Donald. 1988. The Métis. Toronto: James
.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/sts/bdd01/bdd01_e.pdf>, Lorimer & Company.
at 2. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995.
Canada. 2003a, January. Census: Aboriginal Peoples of Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence: An
Canada: A Semographic Profile Ottawa: Minister Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada
of Industry. Online: Statistics Canada<http:// Communication Group.
www12statcan.ca/english/census01/Products Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996.
/Analytic/companion/abor/contents.cfm?> Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Canada. 2003b, March. Department of Indian Affairs Peoples. Ottawa: Canada Communication
and Northern Development, Basic Departmental Group.
Data 2002. Ottawa: Public Works and Slattery, Brian. 2000. “Making Sense of Aboriginal
Government Services. Online: http://www and Treaty Rights.” Canadian Bar Review 79: 196.
.ainc-inac.go.ca/prsts/bdd02/bidd02_c Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council with Walter
.pdfat3 Hildebrandt, Sarah Carter, and Dorothy First
Coates, Ken. 2000. The Marshall Decision and Native Rider. 1996. The True Spirit and Original Intent of
Rights. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Treaty 7. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press. Press.
Guimond, Eric. 1999. “Ethnic Mobility and the Upton, Leslie F. S. 1979. Micmacs and Colonists: Indian-
Demographic Growth of Canada’s Aboriginal White Relations in the Maritimes, 1713–1867.
Populations from 1986 to 1996.” In Report on the Vancouver: University of British Columbia
Demographic Situation in Canada, 1998–1999. Press.
Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Wicken, William C. 2002. Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial:
Guimond, Eric. 2002. “Aboriginal Profile 2001.” History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior.
Unpublished. Hull, ON: Indian and Northern Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Affairs Canada. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together:
Groves, Robert K., and Bradford W. Morse. 2004. American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace,
“Constituting Aboriginal Collectivities: 1600–1800. New York: Oxford University Press.

Regional Essays
California, Hawaii, and the Pacific
Northwest 225
Canada 235
Northeast and the Great Lakes 243
Northern Plains 251
Southeast and Florida 259
Southern Plains and the Southwest 267

California, Hawaii,
and the Pacific Northwest
Introduction tiated on behalf of the U.S. government. In June
N
1850, the governor of Oregon Territory, Joseph Lane,
N
ative Americans of the far West entered into
negotiated a peace treaty with the Takelma of the
treaty making with the United States during
Rogue River valley in order to protect settlers in the
the 1850s. By this time, the U.S. government
area. In the spring of 1851, six treaties were signed
had established procedures for acquiring Native
with the Kalapuya and the Molala of the Willamette
land title by treaty. Nevertheless, large portions of
Valley by a commission that included Lane and Dart.
the far West remain nontreaty areas. In this essay, the
When it was discovered that it would be impossible
states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California
to remove the tribes from the Willamette Valley
are discussed in relation to the Indian treaties of the
without resorting to force, the commission aban-
Northwest, Plateau, and California culture areas. In
doned its work. Unbeknownst to the commissioners,
addition, treaties made by the Native peoples of the
the Willamette Valley Treaty Commission had been
Kingdom of Hawaii prior to annexation by the
abolished by Congress prior to the time they had
United States in 1898 are discussed.
begun negotiating treaties. As a result, these six
treaties were never ratified. Another peace treaty
with the Takelma was negotiated by Governor John
The Pacific Northwest Gaines in July 1851. Then, in August, Indian superin-
By the Treaty of Oregon, the United States gained tendent Anson Dart initiated a treaty program with
control over what are now the states of Washington, the groups around the mouth of the Columbia River
Oregon, and Idaho. The Oregon Territory was cre- for the express purpose of “extinguishing Indian
ated two years later, and in 1853 Washington Terri- land title” and moving them to reservations. Dart
tory was separated. Most ratified treaties in the became painfully aware that his task was hopeless.
Pacific Northwest were negotiated in the mid-1850s, He could not persuade the Indians to leave their vil-
but there were earlier attempts that resulted in a lage sites and burial grounds, nor could he persuade
number of nonratified treaties. Prior to the Treaty of them to agree to annuity payments beyond a ten-
Oregon of 1846, which established the boundary year span. Dart came to understand their reasoning,
between British North America and the United “fully aware of the rapidity with which, as a people,
States, the Pacific Northwest was jointly claimed by they are wasting away . . . they could not be per-
the two nations. Considerable numbers of Ameri- suaded to fix a time beyond ten years to receive all of
cans immigrated to the Pacific Northwest from 1843 their money in exchange for their lands” (Boxberger
to 1846, primarily settling in the Willamette Valley of and Taylor 1991, 42).
Oregon. The federal government established a treaty Although signed and forwarded to Washington,
process in 1850 when Anson Dart was appointed D.C., none of the thirteen treaties negotiated by Dart
superintendent of Indian affairs for the Oregon Terri- were ever ratified. The settlers were opposed to
tory. Dart’s task was to remove the Native groups in them because they did not provide for removal.
the vicinity of European American settlement, Governor Joseph Lane, subsequently territorial rep-
preferably to the eastern portion of the territory. He resentative to Congress, possibly lobbied against
quickly realized that such a proposition would be them because they did not provide for removal east
unacceptable to the Native peoples and instead of the Cascade Range, a policy he recommended
sought to create small reservations near their settle- while governor of Oregon Territory. Ultimately, the
ments and fishing locations. Native peoples west of Senate refuse to ratify the treaties, reasoning that
the Cascade Range were particularly adamant about they had been made with “insignificant tribes”
not moving to the drier east side of the territory (Boxberger and Taylor 1991, 42).
(Coan 1921, 57). Another peace treaty, with the Rogue River
Between June 1850 and March 1853, twenty- tribes in September 1853, and further negotiations
three treaties were negotiated with various tribes of with the Willamette Valley tribes completed the
western Oregon Territory. None of these treaties attempts at treaty making that never came to fruition
were ratified. Different federal representatives nego- in Oregon Territory.
225
226 Regional Essays
Joel Palmer replaced Anson Dart as superin- individual tribal members as a means of expediting
tendent of Indian affairs in 1853. At the same time, the “civilizing process.” This policy was written into
Washington Territory was separated from Oregon the nine treaties Manypenny was in the midst of per-
Territory, and Isaac I. Stevens was appointed gov- sonally negotiating with the tribes just west of the
ernor and superintendent of Indian affairs for Mississippi River between March and June 1854. He
Washington Territory, which included the present- strongly urged Stevens to follow this policy when he
day states of Washington and Idaho and parts of suggested that Stevens use two of these treaties, the
Montana and Wyoming. Both Palmer and Stevens Treaty with the Omaha and the Treaty with the Oto
initiated comprehensive treaty negotiations for and Missouri, as models for the treaties in Washing-
their respective territories; where tribal lands ton Territory.
crossed territorial boundaries, they conducted joint Stevens began the treaty process in December
negotiations. 1854 by appointing a commission to review the Oto
Seven treaties with the coastal and Willamette and Missouri and Omaha treaties and adapt them
Valley tribes of western Oregon were negotiated accordingly. It was decided that additional provi-
between September 1854 and December 1855 (see sions would be necessary, especially provisions
Table 2, page 230). The Cow Creek and Rogue River reserving the right to access fishing locations and
treaties (Treaty with the Umpqua-Cow Creek Band, creating numerous small reservations, as opposed to
Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc.) provided for reserva- a single large reservation. The first treaty negotiation
tions in southwest Oregon, but hostilities between was held at Medicine Creek with the Nisqually,
the settlers and the tribes persuaded Palmer to Puyallup, and others in December 1854. Within
remove them to the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reser- twelve months, Stevens had secured a total of ten
vations farther north along the coast. treaties. The Medicine Creek treaty was ratified just
The Palmer treaties were indicative of U.S. three months later, but the outbreak of hostilities
treaty policy in the 1850s. The numerous small tribes delayed the ratification of the subsequent treaties
and bands were “confederated” for convenience, until 1859. Stevens was gone from Washington Terri-
and “chiefs and headmen” were appointed by the tory shortly after the treaty-making years. Elected
government representatives to facilitate the negotia- territorial representative to Congress in 1857,
tion process. Numerous tribes were consolidated on Stevens was himself responsible for seeing that the
the two reservations, often becoming neighbors with treaties were ratified by the Senate.
groups with whom they had hostilities. Although After the negotiations at Medicine Creek,
treaty tribes were placed on the Grande Ronde and Stevens set about securing treaties with the rest of
the Siletz, these were executive order reservations the tribes in western Washington. Things went
and thereby subject to reduction. The removal smoothly; there were negotiations at Point Elliott,
process was traumatic; many groups were forced to Point No Point, and Neah Bay, all in January 1855.
the reservations under military escort. The reserva- These four treaties covered most of western Wash-
tions had no provisions for food, housing, or med- ington, but the final treaty, with the tribes of the
ical assistance. As a result, starvation and disease southwest portion of the territory, did not go well. At
took their toll. the Chehalis River in February 1855, Stevens sought
When Isaac I. Stevens assumed the governor- to negotiate with the Chehalis, Cowlitz, Chinook,
ship of Washington Territory in 1853, his responsibil- Quinalt, and other tribes of southwest Washington,
ities included entering into treaties with the Native some of whom had earlier negotiated treaties with
people. Stevens would eventually negotiate ten Anson Dart when the area was still part of Oregon
treaties between December 1854 and January 1856, Territory. Knowing that Dart’s treaties were turned
all of which were ratified. Stevens’s contact with down because they failed to remove the Indians
Indians prior to his appointment as governor had from the area of densest settler population, Stevens
been limited; as such, his policy was shaped by the was adamant that all the tribes remove to a single
prevailing attitude of the commissioner of Indian reservation on the central Washington coast. The
affairs, George Manypenny. Manypenny believed only tribe willing to sign the treaty was the Quinalt,
that Indians should be assimilated into the dominant primarily because the proposed reservation was in
society, and consequently the policies of his adminis- their territory. The treaty negotiations broke down
tration reflected this viewpoint. Manypenny espe- because Stevens would not give in to the request to
cially advocated the allotment of reservation lands to establish separate reservations in the different tribal

California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Northwest 227
territories. The following January, the Quinalt and In July 1855, Stevens met with the Flathead,
Quileute signed the Treaty of Olympia, which cre- Kutenai, and Pend d’Oreille at Hell Gate in the Bit-
ated reservations on the central Washington coast. terroot Valley. The Hell Gate treaty created the Flat-
Subsequently, executive order reservations were cre- head Indian Reservation in what is now Montana
ated for the Chehalis and the Chinook, but they (Bigart and Woodcock 1996). From Hell Gate,
remain nontreaty tribes. Stevens traveled to Fort Benton to meet with the
In the summer and fall of 1855, treaty councils Blackfeet. This treaty created a Blackfeet Territory
were held with the Indians of eastern Washington over a huge portion of the northwest plains.
and Oregon Territories. The first was at Walla Walla Subsequent attempts at treaty making in eastern
in May and June. This council was attended by Washington Territory were suspended when hostili-
Stevens and Palmer, as some of the tribes in atten- ties broke out among the tribes’ signatory to the
dance claimed traditional lands in both Oregon and Yakima and Medicine Creek treaties. The Indian War
Washington Territories. On June 9, two treaties were of 1855–1856, sometimes referred to as the Yakima
signed: the Yakima treaty with fourteen tribes and War, was the direct result of the dissatisfaction with
bands, now known as the Confederated Tribes and the Stevens treaties. For three years, this war con-
Bands of the Yakama Indian Reservation, and the sisted of skirmishes, raids, and indecisive battles. In
Walla Walla treaty, with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, September 1858, the Native leaders of the war were
and Umatilla, which was jointly negotiated by decisively defeated at the Battle of Four Lakes,
Stevens and Palmer. Two days later, the various which brought hostilities to an end. This war caused
bands of the Nez Perce tribe signed a treaty with the delay of the ratification of the Stevens and
Stevens and Palmer that created a large reservation Palmer treaties until 1859. Another impact of the war
in what is now southeast Washington, northeast Ore- was that Stevens’s plans to negotiate with the tribes
gon, and central Idaho. The Nez Perce Reservation of the northeast portion of Washington State were
was reduced in size by two subsequent treaties. In interrupted, and thus they have never been party to
June 1863, the Treaty of Lapwai reduced the Nez a treaty. The Colville, Spokane, and Kalispel Reser-
Perce Reservation from 7.7 million acres to just over vations were later created by executive order, but
750,000 acres; the Nez Perce refer to this as the “thief these tribes remain nontreaty tribes.
treaty.” In 1868, the third Nez Perce treaty clarified The tribes of south central Oregon met with
the harvest of timber on the reservation. This was J. W. Perit Huntington in October 1864 and con-
the last treaty between the U.S. government and an cluded the Treaty with the Klamath. This treaty
Indian tribe before treaty making was abandoned as included the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Band
Indian policy in 1871. of Northern Paiute. The Treaty with the Klamath cre-
After the Walla Walla treaty council, Stevens ated the Klamath Indian Reservation. The Modoc
left to negotiate further treaties in eastern Washing- and Yahooskin were dissatisfied with the Klamath
ton Territory, and Palmer left to negotiate with other Reservation and soon left. Efforts to force them to
tribes of eastern Oregon. Palmer met with a number return resulted in military action, culminating in the
of tribes from north central Oregon near The Dalles Modoc War of 1872–1873. After an extended standoff
in June 1855, concluding with the Treaty of Middle at Captain Jack’s Stronghold near Tule Lake in Cali-
Oregon. Like the previous treaties, this treaty cre- fornia, the Modoc War was concluded, and the
ated a reservation for several bands. The Warm Modoc were exiled to Indian Territory (present-day
Springs Reservation of north central Oregon was to Oklahoma) until after 1900, when they were permit-
become the home of the western Columbia River ted to return to Oregon. In 1954, when Congress ini-
Sahaptin and the Upper Chinook bands. Similar to tiated legislation to terminate tribes deemed capable
the other Pacific Northwest treaties, this treaty con- of managing their own affairs, the Klamath was one
tained a provision establishing the right to fish at of the first reservations to be terminated.
usual and accustomed places and to hunt and One more treaty deserves mention here, as it
gather on open and unclaimed lands. The subse- included groups whose territory extended into
quent superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon, southern Idaho and for whom an executive order
J. W. Perit Huntington, secured a treaty in Novem- reservation was subsequently established. The Fort
ber 1865 that was designed to limit off-reservation Bridger treaty of July 1868 with the Shoshone and
subsistence activities and encourage on-reservation the Bannock established the Wind River Reservation
agriculture. in Wyoming and provided for a reservation for the

228 Regional Essays
western Shoshone and Bannock “whenever the Ban- done this action, it did nothing to stop it. By 1890,
nacks desire” (Kappler 1904, 1020). By executive only twenty thousand Native people remained in
order, the Fort Hall Reservation in south central the state of California out of a pre-Columbian popu-
Idaho was established in July 1869 as the one con- lation some estimate to have been as high as one mil-
templated in the Fort Bridger treaty. Previous lion. In the midst of these acts of genocide, a com-
attempts at treaty making in southern Idaho had mission of three agents was sent to negotiate treaties.
failed. The Soda Springs treaty of 1863, the Treaty of These treaties were to secure title to the land and to
Fort Boise in 1864, and the Bruneau River Treaty of remove the California Natives from contact with
1864 were never ratified. 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
California treaties set aside a tract of land for a reservation and
On September 30, 1850, the U.S. Senate authorized other concessions, such as agricultural instruction,
the negotiation of treaties with the Native peoples of food rations, and annuities.
California. After the completion of eighteen treaties, Early in the treaty-making process, the commis-
the Senate chose on July 8, 1852, not to ratify any of sioners decided that, if they attempted to work
them. As a result, the Native peoples of California together, they could never meet with the vast num-
have remained nontreaty tribes to this day. During ber of tribal groups. Splitting up, each of the three
the Spanish occupation from 1769 to 1821 and the took a section of the state and set about securing
Mexican rule from 1821 to 1846, treaties were not a acceptance of a model treaty they developed. Redick
matter of policy. Both the Spanish and the Mexicans McKee covered the area north of San Francisco,
considered the Native people subjects of the Crown George Barbour the San Joaquin Valley south, and
and, through the system of missions, attempted to O. M. Wozencraft took the Coast Range from south
incorporate them into the dominant society. This of San Francisco to the Sacramento River. In all, 139
approach had been used throughout Mexico but did tribes were listed in the treaties. Later analyses
not meet with much success in the northern out- found that many of these tribes were listed erro-
posts of the Spanish empire. At least two treaties of neously. Heizer and Kroeber determined that, of the
peace were made by Mexican authorities with the 139 tribes, 67 were identifiable as tribelets, 45 were
Wappo in 1836 and 1837 (Heizer 1978, 701), but village names, 14 were duplicates with different
these do not appear to have been formal treaty rela- spellings, and 13 were either personal names or
tionships. unidentifiable (Heizer 1978, 703).
During the American period, local government In July 1852, the Senate rejected the California
agents signed treaties that were never authorized treaties, and no further treaty negotiations were
and never considered for ratification. General Mari- authorized. Congress established seven reservations
ano Vallejo secured the agreement of eleven groups in California between 1853 and 1855. Beset by cor-
of Pomo and Miwok in 1848. In the same year, J. A. ruption that led to destitution and continued annihi-
Sutter secured an agreement with the Nisenan, who lation of Native peoples, these reservations were
resided in the area where gold was discovered. Both reduced in size or abandoned altogether. Subse-
of these documents were dismissed by government quently, reservations and rancherias were estab-
officials as unofficial governmental actions. lished by executive order, purchase, or other means.
The movement of large numbers of Americans Eventually, 117 reservations and rancherias would
into California was precipitated by the discovery of be established; nearly half of them would be termi-
gold. By the end of 1849, more than one hundred nated in the 1950s and 1960s.
thousand settlers and gold seekers had streamed
into the territory. California became a state in Sep-
tember 1850, and the Senate immediately authorized The Kingdom of Hawaii
the negotiation of treaties. From 1850 to 1880, the At the time Europeans first arrived in the Hawaiian
American citizens of California engaged in a process Islands in 1778, there existed a number of chiefdoms
of genocide against Native peoples. Voluntary mili- under the control of local elite rulers. The hierarchi-
tias and groups of vigilantes systematically hunted cal system included the ali’i (nobility), the Konohiki
down and slaughtered thousands of Native people. (land managers), and the Maka’ainana (commoners).
Although the United States government did not con- Beginning in 1791, the chief of the island of Hawaii,

Kamehameha, began a campaign to unite the islands King’s absolute powers among the monarchy, the
under a single kingdom, which was nearly complete House of Nobles, and the House of Representatives.
by 1795. In 1810, with the joining of Kauai, the King- The constitution also provided for a court system.
dom of Hawaii was established. Kamehameha III sent delegations to the United
Kamehameha ruled Hawaii from 1810 to 1819. States and Europe to secure treaties and established
Over the next eighty years, there would be a total of Hawaii’s sovereignty. In 1842, President John Tyler
eight rulers of the kingdom. Kamehameha II ruled gave his assurance that Hawaii would be recog-
from 1819 to 1824. During his reign, the ancient nized as an independent nation by the United
kapui system—the set of laws regulating societal States. Similarly, Queen Victoria issued a decree that
behavior—underwent revision, especially the kapui the United Kingdom recognized Hawaii as an inde-
on women and men eating together. Coinciding pendent state. As a result of recognition, Hawaii
with the arrival of missionaries in 1820, the break- began entering into treaties with a number of
down of the kapui paved the way for new religious nations. Between 1826 and 1887, Hawaii signed
beliefs to be incorporated into Hawaiian life. Kame- thirty treaties and agreements with the United
hameha III assumed the throne in 1825 and ruled for States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany,
thirty years. In 1840, Kamehameha III introduced Spain, Russia, Japan, and a number of other nations.
Hawaii’s first constitution. The constitution defined Four treaties were entered into with the United
the powers of the monarch and distributed the 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 Willamette Valley Treaty Commission April 1851

Tualatim Kalapuya April 1851
Yamhill Kalapuya May 1851
Lakmiut Kalapuya May 1851
Molala May 1851
Santiam Molala May 1851
Takelma John Gaines July 1851
Lower Band of Chinook Anson Dart August 1851

Wheelapa Band of Chinook August 1851
Quillequeoqua Band of Chinook August 1851
Waukikum Band of Chinook August 1851
Konnack Band of Chinook August 1851
Klatskania Band of Chinook August 1851
Kathlamet Band of Chinook August 1851
Wallooska (Personal Name) Band of Chinook August 1851
Clatsop Band of Chinook August 1851
Tillamook Band of Chinook August 1851
Port Orford Treaties (2) September 1851
Clackamas September 1851
Rogue River Indians Joseph Lane September 1853
Tualatin Kalapuya Joel Palmer March 1854

Coastal Tribes August September 1855
Source: Kappler 1904, Vol. II

230 Regional Essays
Table 2
Ratified Treaties, Pacific Northwest
Tribe U.S. Negotiator Date Ratified

Rogue River Indians Joel Palmer September 1854 April 1854
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua September 1854 April 1854
Takelma November 1854 March 1855
Chasta, Scoton, Takelma November 1854 March 1855
Upper Umpqua, Yoncalla Kalapuya November 1854 March 1855
Confederated Bands of Kalapuya January 1855 March 1855
Molala December 1855 March 1859
Medicine Creek Isaac Stevens December 1854 March 1855

Point Elliott January 1855 March 1859
Point No Point January 1855 March 1859
Makah January 1855 March 1859
Quinalt, Quileute January 1856 March 1859
Confederated Tribes of Yakama June 1855 March 1859
Walla Walla, Umatilla, Cayuse Isaac Stevens and Joel Palmer June 1855 March 1859
Nez Perce June 1855 March 1859
Tribes of Middle Oregon Joel Palmer June 1855 March 1859
Hell Gate Isaac Stevens July 1855 March 1859

Blackfeet October 1855 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 In 1851, the legislature of the Kingdom of Hawaii
stated, “The existing treaties of the Hawaiian passed a resolution calling for a revision of the con-
Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith stitution of 1840. This constitution, adopted in 1852,
cease . . . being replaced by such treaties as may further restricted the role of the monarch and created
exist, or as may be hereafter concluded, between the a constitutional monarchy.
United States and such foreign nations.” With the death of Kamehameha III in 1854,
The Great Mahele of 1848 introduced a new sys- Kamehameha IV ascended the throne. During his
tem of land tenure. Previously, the king had owned short reign from 1854 to 1863, further legal changes
all the land; now he relinquished control, title passed included new naturalization laws, which allowed
to the island chiefs, and each commoner received non-Native Hawaiians to become citizens of the
three acres. Land reform had effectively opened nation. With the death of Kamehameha IV, Kame-
Hawaiian land to developers, who quickly stepped hameha V assumed the throne. His primary legacy
in and obtained large portions of land, which were was to call for a constitutional convention to revise
converted to plantations. As the sugar industry the constitution of 1852. The constitution of 1864
boomed and introduced diseases took their toll on returned some of the powers to the monarch and
the Native Hawaiian population, large numbers of restricted the right to vote. Under the constitution,
immigrants came to Hawaii to work the plantations. the monarch was to name his successor during his

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 ali’i. William Lunalilo was elected in 1873 but died
in 1872, he left no successor and had no heirs. just one year later. Although his reign was short,
Kamehameha was the last monarch directly Lunalilo’s government was instrumental in estab-
descended through the Kamehameha line. Under lishing important relationships with the United
the constitution, when no successor to the throne States. In exchange for duty-free sugar exports to
was named, a general election was to be held to the United States, Hawaii agreed to allow duty-free
choose the constitutional monarch from among the imports of American products.

232 Regional Essays
In 1877, David Kalakaua was elected king. King ships, among other provisions, for a period of ten
Kalakaua brought about a revival of Hawaiian cus- years.
toms and tried to strengthen Native Hawaiian self- The two subsequent treaties were a continuation
rule. He traveled to the United States, where he met of the treaties of commerce. The Treaty of Reciprocity
with President Ulysses S. Grant to negotiate a treaty of 1875 allowed for the duty-free import of U.S.
of reciprocity, which continued the duty-free import goods into Hawaii and the duty-free import of
of sugar and other Hawaiian products in exchange Hawaiian goods, most importantly sugar, into the
for the exclusive use of Pearl Harbor by the United United States for a period of seven years. The treaty
States. of 1875 was extended by the convention in 1884. The
In 1887, a group of Hawaiian citizens, mostly treaty of 1884 allowed seven more years to be added
Americans, organized a takeover of the Hawaiian to the reciprocal trade between Hawaii and the
government. Under threat of harm, King Kalakaua United States, in addition to granting the United
was forced to accept a new constitution that dramat- States exclusive use of Pearl Harbor.
ically decreased the power of the monarchy and When Hawaii was annexed in 1898, no provi-
limited suffrage to property owners. Known as the sions were made for Native Hawaiians separately
Bayonet Constitution, this action initiated a series of from non-Native residents of the kingdom. Certain
events that would eventually result in Hawaii’s rights for Native Hawaiians are written into the state
becoming a territory of the United States. Despite constitution of Hawaii, but a federal relationship like
organized resistance by Native Hawaiians, the new that of Native Americans on the mainland does not
constitution remained in effect. When David exist. The relationship between the U.S. government
Kalakaua died in 1891, he was succeeded by his and Native Hawaiians has always been different
sister, Lydia Kamaka’eha Dominic, who became from its relationship with other Native peoples. Ever
known as Queen Lili’uokalani. since annexation, there has been a strong Native
The reign of Queen Lili’uokalani was constantly political movement to return Native Hawaiian sov-
under siege. In January 1893, U.S. military personnel ereignty. Today, several organizations are working
conspired with American landowners to overthrow toward that goal. On November 23, 1993, President
the government of Hawaii and annex Hawaii to the Clinton signed Public Law 103–150, the Apology
United States. When a treaty of annexation was for- Resolution, which states that Congress “apologizes
warded to President Grover Cleveland, he was to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the
informed that the overthrow was illegal, and he sub- United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of
sequently withdrew the treaty. When William Hawaii . . . and the deprivation of the rights of
McKinley was elected president in 1896, a new treaty Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”
of annexation was forwarded. Protests submitted by Daniel L. Boxberger
Queen Lili’uokalani and Hawaiian Natives delayed
ratification. In 1898, due to the need for a Pacific References and Further Reading
Ocean military base during the Spanish-American Bigart, Robert, and Clarence Woodcock. 1996. In the
War, the United States opted to annex Hawaii by Name of the Salish and Kootenai Indians: The 1855
congressional joint resolution. Hell Gate Treaty and the Origin of the Flathead
The treaties between the Kingdom of Hawaii Indian Reservation. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
and the United States of America were similar to
Boxberger, Daniel L. 1979. Handbook of Western
other international treaties the United States entered Washington Indian Treaties. Lummi Island, WA:
into during the 1800s. The Article of Agreement of Lummi Indian School of Aquaculture and
1826 established peace and friendship between the Fisheries.
two nations and allowed U.S. trade into Hawaii. Boxberger, Daniel L., and Herbert C. Taylor. 1991.
While apparently never ratified as a formal treaty, “Treaty or Non-Treaty Status.” Columbia, 5(3):
the Articles of Agreement did establish government- 40–45.
Buck, Elizabeth. 1993. Paradise Remade: The Politics of
to-government relations and was respectful of
Culture and History in Hawai’i. Philadelphia:
Hawaiian sovereignty. Temple University Press.
The Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands of 1849 Coan, C. F. 1921. “The First Stage of the Federal
was ratified by the Senate and the president of the Indian Policy in the Pacific Northwest,
United States. This treaty of “friendship, commerce 1849–1852.” Oregon Historical Quarterly, 22 (1):
and navigation” allowed duty-free entry of U.S. 46–89.

Heizer, Robert F. 1978. “Treaties.” In Handbook of Records Relating to Treaties. “Records of the
North American Indians, vol. 8, California, ed. Proceedings of the Commission to Hold Treaties
Robert F. Heizer, 701–704. Washington, DC: with the Indian Tribes in Washington Territory
Smithsonian Institution Press. and the Blackfoot Country.” File Microcopies of
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and Record in the National Archives: No. 5, Roll 26.
Treaties, vol. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Records Relating to Treaties. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office. National Archives and Records Service.
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1929. Indian Affairs: Laws and Kirch, Patrick V., and Marshall D. Sahlins. 1992.
Treaties, vol. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the
Government Printing Office. Kingdom of Hawaii. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Canada
T
T
reaties in Canada can be divided into seven settlement nor waged war to conquer Native terri-
categories according to time, purpose, region, tory. The only displacement of peoples was volun-
and negotiating parties. These seven cate- tary, as Iroquoian and Algonkian people, many of
gories are French nonaggression pacts, British them Catholic converts or Abenaki refugees from
treaties of peace and friendship, British treaties of Maine, came to live on the réductions (later reserves)
neutrality, Hudson’s Bay Company land purchases, near Quebec, Trois Rivières, and Montreal. All the
Upper Canada land surrenders, the numbered bands and tribes were recognized as independent
treaties, and contemporary comprehensive and spe- and autonomous, usually allies, and in full posses-
cific claims treaties. The large geographic area that sion of their territories. Only the Five Nations Iro-
eventually became Canada first was under the colo- quois—under Dutch and, later, English influence—
nial rule of France, then of Great Britain. Northern were regarded as enemies until the Great Peace of
and Pacific coastal regions belonged to a royal char- Montreal in 1701. The few treaties signed with
ter company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, from 1670 Native peoples were nonaggression pacts. New
to the mid-nineteenth century. After the 1867 union France passed from French to British rule in 1763.
of four British North American colonies (known as Native possessory rights, as observed under the
confederation), six other provinces joined, culminat- French regime, were guaranteed by the British
ing with the adhesion of Newfoundland in 1949. Crown by the Royal Proclamation of October 1763.
Historically, however, a much vaster area of North Only the Crown could negotiate the acquisition of
America was ruled from Quebec. land belonging to the Native people, officially desig-
The colony of New France (1524–1763) was nated as their “hunting territories.” This prevented
made up of several regions that included a wide settler encroachment on Native land, dispossession,
range of bands and tribes: the Atlantic coastal region and frontier violence.
known as Acadia, governed from Port Royal and The maritime region of French Acadia was
later Louisbourg; the St. Lawrence valley and Great claimed and frequently attacked by the English and
Lakes region known as Canada, with its “upper American colonists. It was therefore not uncommon
country,” governed from Quebec; the Illinois coun- for them to enter into treaties of peace and friend-
try, which included the Ohio and Mississippi val- ship, a practice originating with Powhatan in 1608
leys, attached first to Canada and later to Louisiana; with the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Abenaki bands.
Louisiana, which took in a vast area on both sides of Peninsular Acadia (Nova Scotia) was ceded to Britain
the Mississippi, governed from New Orleans; the in 1713. The last treaty of this type was signed in July
Mer de l’Ouest (Western Sea), which encompassed 1766 with the Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibwa, the
all of the northern Great Plains to the foothills of the former Three Fires Confederacy of the Great Lakes
Rockies, administered from Fort Kaministiquia region, which was allied to the French.
(Thunder Bay). Much of this continental empire, In 1670, a vast northern region inhabited largely
although under an umbrella of French sovereignty by Cree and Ojibwa was granted to the Hudson’s
proclaimed against British and Spanish rivals, was Bay Company by royal charter, for the exploitation
inhabited by independent, self-governing Native of the fur trade. When settlement was planned at
bands and tribes, many of them formal allies of the Red River (Manitoba) in 1812 and later in British
French. Apart from a restricted area of French colo- Columbia, Vancouver Island, and Oregon Territory,
nization in the St. Lawrence valley between Mon- company officials negotiated land purchase treaties.
treal and Quebec and along the Bay of Fundy in Aca- Following the loss of thirteen of its sixteen
dia, French settlements were widely dispersed, North American colonies in 1783, the British were
largely near trading posts, military forts, and mis- forced to negotiate a series of land surrender treaties
sion stations located throughout the hinterland with in Upper Canada (Ontario) to clear the way for
specific permission from Native people on their the settlement of refugees from the United States, the
acknowledged territory. United Empire Loyalists, and immigrants from the
The French in Acadia and Canada neither dis- British Isles. These were remaining lands reserved to
placed Native inhabitants to make way for European the Native population as hunting territories under
235
236 Regional Essays
the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The no displacement of original inhabitants. Cooperation
Upper Canadian land surrender treaties followed persisted between indigenous inhabitants and
the model developed in Maryland in 1634. This, in colonists through the fur trade, fishing, and resis-
fact, relegated Natives to restricted areas known as tance to Iroquois and American incursions. Royal
land reserves. The aboriginal inhabitants in Canada instructions in 1665 stated explicitly that no colonists
were never considered aliens, and therefore their were to “take the lands on which they [Natives] are
common designation is now First Nations people. living under pretext that it would be better and more
In 1860, Great Britain handed over responsibil- suitable if they were [possessed by] French.” Native
ity for Indian affairs to its several British North possessory and territorial rights were acknowledged
American colonies. When Nova Scotia, New in the official correspondence by such phrases as
Brunswick, and the United Canadas (Quebec and “these nations govern themselves” and “they must
Ontario) joined in a federal union in 1867, “Indians, be deemed free everywhere on their lands.” In 1755,
and Lands reserved for Indians” were assigned to a Ministry of War directive reminded serving officers
the federal government in Ottawa. Indian treaties, in the colony, “The natives are jealous of their liberty,
therefore, given this political evolution over several and one could not without committing an injustice
centuries, could be negotiated by the Crown in the take away from them the primitive right of property to
right of France, Great Britain, the distinct colonies, the Lands on which Providence has given them birth
or the Dominion of Canada. The federal govern- and located them.”
ment used the constitutional authority defined in The few treaties the French signed with Native
the British North America Act, 1867, to negotiate peoples were neither land surrenders nor interna-
eleven “numbered” treaties of land surrender tional treaties between sovereign powers belonging
between 1871 and 1921 with Assiniboine Cree, to the “family of nations” as understood in Euro-
Sioux, Blackfoot (including Blood and Piegan), pean diplomatic circles. The nonaggression treaties
Sarcee, Chipewyan, and Athapaskan for most of the of the seventeenth century were all concluded with
western and northern regions that eventually the Iroquois, who, following Champlain’s participa-
entered the federal union. tion in an intertribal expedition against the
A final category includes the contemporary Mohawks in 1609, became hostile toward the
comprehensive and specific claims treaties. Treaty colonists. The treaties negotiated were as follows:
making is a continuing process in Canada, especially
since the federal government launched a compre- 1. The Treaty of Trois Rivières, 1645, between
hensive and specific claims process in 1973. Compre- Governor Montmagny and Mohawk dele-
hensive land claims are negotiated in areas where gates, ending hostilities and pledging peace
aboriginal title has not been addressed clearly by 2. The Montreal Conference of 1653, in which
treaty or other legal means. Since 1995, an inherent the French agreed to remain neutral in the
right policy allows simultaneous negotiation for self- event of an Iroquois attack on the Algon-
government. As most of the lands and resources sub- quians and Montagnais
ject to comprehensive claim negotiations are under 3. The Quebec Agreements of 1665 to 1667 with
provincial jurisdiction, provincial negotiators partici- each of the Five Nations Iroquois, following
pate in the negotiation of agreements with aboriginal a French military expedition, restoring peace
groups. Specific claims deal with grievances of First 4. The Treaty of La Famine, 1684, following a
Nations about the implementation or interpretation disastrous military expedition led by
of existing treaties. Treaty rights now belong to Governor La Barr against the Seneca, in
inhabitants of reserves, or designated territories, but which the French agreed to remain neutral
not to at least half the First Nations people who live in the event of war between the Iroquois
in urban centers where no bands or community and the Illinois
organizations with treaty rights exist. 5. The Great Peace of Montreal, 1701, a series of
agreements between the French, the Five
Nations Iroquois, the tribes of the Three Fires
The French Confederacy, the “domiciled” Natives of the
Nonaggression Treaties Seven Nations of Canada, and the Wabanaki
The French Crown signed no treaties of land surren- Confederacy, including the Mi’kmaq and
der, because limited European settlement required Maliseet

Canada 237
The French were mediators in this general peace than it settled. Only a few bands were party to the
and resumption of trade relations, which recognized agreement, and the legitimacy of the Maliseet and
the Five Nations Iroquois as neutral in international Mi’kmaq delegates to make such general agreements
conflicts, a status later confirmed in the international remained problematical. Moreover, the provision for
Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. This celebration, held with continuation of the relationship they had enjoyed
all the pomp of cross-cultural diplomacy, marked the under French rule did not ensure much submission.
end of Iroquois-French feuding. This was followed The important understanding was that the Mi’kmaq
by orders in 1716 to restrict settlement above Mon- and Maliseet would not attack Annapolis Royal but
treal and to avoid “war against the Natives which would remain neutral in the event of another war
can never have any utility.” It will be noted that the with France.
nonaggression treaties often stipulated French neu- In 1727, several other bands adhered to the
trality in an intertribal conflict. treaty negotiated two years earlier at a special cere-
Nevertheless, the French did not forget their mony at Casco Bay.
Native allies when forced to capitulate to superior In 1728, it was deemed necessary for the St. John
British forces at Montreal in September 1760. The band to adhere to the treaty of 1725 at a convocation
property rights and liberty of these allied nations at Annapolis Royal, thereby confirming their neu-
were specifically protected in Article 40 of the Capit- trality in the event of war between Britain and
ulation of Montreal and reiterated in Article 4 of the France. But the Maliseet and Mi’kmaq joined the
Treaty of Paris in 1763, by which Canada became a French in four attacks on Annapolis Royal and other
British colony. It was a well-established principle of settlements during the War of 1744–1748. Governor
international law that the civil rights of subjects Edward Cornwallis decided to exterminate the
acquired by conquest or cession continued in force. bands, but orders from London advocated a more
In other words, the ancestral rights of Canada’s conciliatory policy.
Native peoples were protected by international Peace overtures were made by some Mi’kmaq at
treaty in 1763. Not surprisingly, the First Nations Halifax in 1749 and 1752. Jean-Baptiste Cope, self-
were accorded special mention in the subsequent styled chief of the Shubenaccadie band, asked for a
Treaty of Paris (1783), Jay Treaty (1794), and Treaty of renewal of treaty terms and payment “for the land
Ghent (1815). 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
The British Treaties take back to his band; the treaty made no mention of
of Peace and Friendship compensation for land taken for settlement. Cope
In Nova Scotia, occupied in 1710, the British negoti- was presented with a golden belt and two lace hats
ated a number of treaties of peace and friendship as his reward. He returned with the agreement of his
with the chiefs of various maritime bands to safe- small band, and peace was confirmed on November
guard incoming settlers and commerce. The first 24, 1752. But within a year, some English attacked
treaties, which included some Maliseet and Mi’kmaq his band. Cope threw his copy of the treaty into the
bands, were negotiated in Massachusetts in Decem- fire, and his warriors killed the crew of a govern-
ber 1725 with unspecified “Eastern Indians,” ending ment supply ship.
Dummer’s War. It provided for “peaceable posses- In 1754, French missionaries influenced the
sion” of their unceded territories and the privilege of Mi’kmaq to present their own peace proposal, which
“fishing, hunting, and fowling as formerly.” This caused the creation of an independent and neutral
could be interpreted as the rights they enjoyed under Mi’kmaq enclave that included most of eastern Nova
French rule prior to the cession of 1713. Native pos- Scotia and would serve as a buffer between the
session excluded lands “conveyed or sold to or pos- British on the Bay of Fundy and the French on Cape
sessed by any of the English subjects.” Breton and Prince Edward Island. The next year, war
Treaty 239 was signed with representatives of broke out between Britain and France. Nova Scotian
the St. John and Cape Sable bands. It acknowledged authorities proceeded to deport the Acadian French
British “jurisdiction and dominion over the territo- population to the southern American colonies,
ries” and made submission to the Crown “in as depriving the Natives of a valued ally. Following the
ample a manner as we have formerly done to the defeat of the French, a Maliseet delegation came to
Most Christian King.” This raised more questions Halifax to sign a treaty acknowledging British rule,

238 Regional Essays
accepting blame for having broken the peace, and On September 5, the Hurons of Lorette signed a
welcoming a truckhouse on the St. John River. separate treaty at Longueuil with Major General
Throughout 1760–1761, various bands of Mi’k- James Murray, by which they were granted safe pas-
maq made their peace with the British. The final sage back to their village, amnesty, the free exercise
treaty was signed in November 1761 at La Have. of their religion and customs, and freedom of trade.
With the elimination of a French presence, British These treaties were reconfirmed and ratified by
authorities concentrated on keeping peace by abid- William Johnson, superintendent of the Indian
ing by treaty terms. In 1762, a government order for- Department, at a special congress at the Kahnawake
bade settlement on or trespass of certain lands reserve during September 15–16, 1760.
claimed by the Native population.
In 1778, the Mi’kmaq renounced their alliance
with the Americans. At Windsor on September 22, The Hudson’s Bay
1779, delegates from the New Brunswick and Gulf of Company Treaties
St. Lawrence regions affirmed their loyalty to Britain The Hudson’s Bay Company, a London royal charter
and promised to win over the Mi’kmaq bands to the company founded in 1670, administered all the
British cause. In return, they were promised freedom lands draining into Hudson Bay, as well as the
to hunt and fish without hindrance and the immedi- coastal lands of British Columbia and Vancouver
ate supply of “ammunition, clothing and other nec- Island, known as the Oregon Territory.
essary stores.” Hunting and fishing rights promised In 1812, the company granted the Earl of Selkirk
in these treaties have continued to be claimed into permission to bring settlers to the Red River Valley.
the twenty-first century. To avoid opposition from the Cree and the Saul-
A Mi’kmaq band in the Miramichi region of the teaux, Selkirk proposed to purchase a bloc of land in
colony of New Brunswick adhered to a treaty of return for “a small annual present, in the nature of a
friendship in 1794, in which King George III quit rent, or acknowledgment of their right.” The
promised, “[H]enceforth I will provide for you and Selkirk treaty was signed on July 18, 1817, granting
for the future generation so long as the sun rises and the local bands two hundred pounds of tobacco
river flows.” By these treaties, most of the maritime annually. When the Canadian government acquired
band chiefs had recognized a British protectorate Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories in 1870,
without at the same time surrendering lands or other the order-in-council stipulated that “any claims of
rights. Indians to compensation for lands required for pur-
poses of settlement shall be disposed of by the Cana-
dian government in communication with the Impe-
The British Treaties of Neutrality rial government; and the company (HBCo) shall be
The Seven Fires or Nations of Canada had been relieved of all responsibility in respect of them. . . .”
important allies of the French in the late seventeenth On Vancouver Island, Governor James Douglas,
and early eighteenth centuries. But, as New France’s acting for the Hudson’s Bay Company as well as the
defenses began to collapse, these allies began to seek crown colony, entered into six land surrender
amicable agreements with the advancing British treaties with the Songhees in April 1850, two treaties
forces. Three treaties were negotiated during the with the Klallam in May 1850, a treaty with the
closing days of the Seven Years’ War (French and Sooke in May 1850, two treaties with the Saanich in
Indian War). February 1852, and one treaty in 1854 with the Saale-
On August 30, 1760, a treaty was concluded at quun tribe. Two further purchases were made, at
Oswegatchie, or Fort La Galette, with General Fort Rupert in 1851 and Nanaimo in 1854. These
Amherst. In effect, the Indians would not assist the fourteen Fort Victoria treaties promised reserve
French and would not permit the invaders to lands for “village sites and enclosed fields,” hunting
advance down the St. Lawrence to Montreal. Also, if rights “over the unoccupied lands,” and fishing
Canada remained in British hands, they would enjoy rights “as formerly.” In return, Douglas paid the
the same privileges as “in the time of the French, but least acceptable amount “in woollen goods which
still more and greater,” the possession of their lands, they prefer to money.”
their hunting grounds, and the free exercise of the On the mainland of British Columbia, Douglas
Catholic religion. asked the various communities to “point out” their

Canada 239
habitation and hunting territories, which were as had been ceded in the southern region for as little
defined as reserves, but they were offered no treaty as possible. The appended schedules of reserves
protection. British Columbia entered confederation stipulated that title remain vested in the Crown. The
with mainland reserves without treaties. annuities were much less than those offered in the
southern part of the province, because the land was
not judged suitable for agriculture.
The Upper Canada Treaties Two further treaties, involving smaller areas—
of Land Surrender the Saugeen peninsula and an eastern portion of
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 reserved the right of Manitoulin Island—were signed in 1854 and 1862,
acquisition of Native lands in Upper Canada respectively, to facilitate exploitation of the Lake
[Ontario] to the Crown. A series of land surrender Huron fisheries.
treaties were negotiated to open large tracts to settle-
ment by refugees and immigrants. To simplify the
complex process, six categories can be discerned. The Numbered Treaties
Three treaties were lost or never properly regis- Acquisition of land west of Quebec to British Colum-
tered: the Collins Purchase along Lake Simcoe, the bia, including the unceded lands of northwestern
Oswegatchie lands on the Upper St. Lawrence, and Ontario and the Great Plains, proceeded by a series
the Crawford Purchase on the north shore of Lake of numbered treaties from 1870 to 1929 negotiated
Ontario east of the Trent River. by representatives of the government of Canada.
Two surrenders by Mississauga chiefs for the Treaty 1, the Stone Fort treaty, negotiated at Fort
Etobicoke River tract and the southern Lake Simcoe Garry in 1871, set the pattern for cession of all rights
tract were effected by signing blank deeds that were and title in return for annuities in perpetuity and
never properly recorded. This was not regularized reserves for the Indians’ own use. It covered the fer-
until 1923 in the Williams treaty. tile lands of the Red River Valley.
Thirty-seven documented treaties were signed Treaty 2, also made in 1871, completed the ces-
between 1781 and 1836, covering much of the south- sion of southern Manitoba and granted special gifts
ern region north of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. for the chiefs and the promise of farm animals and
Twenty-four of these provided a payment of a one- implements when farming was taken up on the
time fixed sum to the Mississauga and the Ojibwa. reserved land.
From the ceded lands, two Indian reserves were cre- Treaty 3, the Northwest Angle treaty, negotiated
ated for Iroquois Loyalists—the Six Nations Reserve in 1873 with the Ojibwa, covered northwestern
on the Grand River for Joseph Brant’s people and the Ontario to Lake Superior. It included the Métis in its
Bay of Quinte Reserve for John Deserontyon’s peo- terms but stipulated that those who received benefits
ple. Some of the treaties lacked precision, such as the as Indians could not also hold scrip lands under the
Gunshot Treaty (1787), which defined the ceded tract provisions of the Manitoba Act. The area ceded was
as running back from designated points on Lake crucial to the right-of-way for a transcontinental rail-
Ontario “as far as a gunshot can be heard on a clear way and was of interest to mining and lumbering
day.” companies. The chiefs inquired about mineral rights
After the war of 1812–1814, with tribes demoral- and were told these were held on the reserves by the
ized by declining numbers and marginalization in Crown for their benefit.
military strategy, seven more land cessions were Treaty 4, negotiated in 1874, provided for the
signed before 1830 to make way for immigrants from cession of most of the agricultural land of southern
the British Isles. The Indians were offered small Saskatchewan at a time when the bands were facing
reserves, fixed annuities, and some farm instructors, starvation and had little choice but to accept the
blacksmiths, and doctors. reserves and annuities offered them. Hunting and
The Robinson Superior and the Robinson fishing rights were subject to government regula-
Huron Treaties in 1850 ceded northern land to gain tions.
access to forest reserves, mineral deposits, and trans- Treaty 5, negotiated in 1875, covered north cen-
portation corridors along the northern shores of tral Manitoba; it included less favorable terms but
Lake Huron and Lake Superior. The objective was to was signed speedily at the urging of the missionar-
acquire from the Ojibwa bands twice as much land ies, who acted as diplomatic agents.

240 Regional Essays
Treaty 6, negotiated in 1876 and covering much The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agree-
of what became central Saskatchewan and Alberta, ments were negotiated in 1975 and 1978. In 1971, the
provided for a “medicine chest,” which the Indian Quebec government announced a plan for a massive
agents were to keep available to deal with epidemics hydroelectric development involving the diversion
or “general famine.” The Plains Cree, in this case, of four rivers and dammed reservoirs on La Grande
faced starvation and were threatened with with- Rivière. Through the courts and the media, the Cree
drawal of government food rations if they did not and Inuit of the eastern James Bay region forced the
make treaty. The medicine chest provision has been federal and Quebec provincial governments to con-
interpreted as full Medicare coverage (1984) both on sider their aboriginal rights. The treaty, negotiated in
and off reserves, including optical and dental care, 1975 and implemented in 1990, provided some
prescription drugs, and transportation to medical exclusive hunting, fishing, and trapping territories
care centers. for each of the Cree and Inuit, $135 million for the
Treaty 7, negotiated in 1877 in what became Cree, $90 million for the Inuit (both amounts have
southern Alberta, saw the intervention of both mis- been paid in full), an income security program for
sionaries and the Northwest Mounted Police in the hunters and trappers, self-government under Que-
negotiation process, inasmuch as they had a direct bec’s Cree-Naskapi Act, and participation in an envi-
interest in avoiding discontent and frontier violence. ronmental and social protection regime. In 1978, the
Provision was made for schools, agricultural sup- Northeastern Quebec Agreement amended the
plies and implements, and farm instructors, and James Bay Agreement to provide the Naskapi with
liquor was prohibited on reserves. The chiefs were comparable benefits.
now aware that “outside promises,” or verbal The Inuvialuit Agreement of Northwest Territo-
promises not specifically written into the treaties, ries was completed in 1984. It was the second com-
had little validity. prehensive agreement with the 2,500 Inuvialuit of
Treaty 8, negotiated in 1899 and covering north- the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea area,
ern Alberta and British Columbia, was the first of the renowned for its oil and gas reserves. The agree-
northern resource development treaties to deal with ment provided for a land base, some of which
an influx of miners into the Yukon and adjacent included mineral rights, wildlife harvesting rights,
areas. and participation in environmental management, in
Treaty 9, negotiated in 1905, came as a response addition to substantial allocation of funds to an eco-
to Native demands for protection of some of their nomic enhancement fund and a social development
lands in view of mining developments and railway fund.
construction in northern Ontario. It was negotiated The Dene and Métis Agreements were com-
jointly by the federal and Ontario provincial govern- pleted in 1992 and 1994. They were separate regional
ments with Native bands because the province con- settlements with the Gwich’in and Sahtu Dene and
trolled natural resources. the Métis of the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest
Treaty 10, completed in 1906 in northern Territories. The agreements provided for land
Saskatchewan, was negotiated solely by the federal reserves with mineral rights, wildlife harvesting
government because the province did not yet have rights, and participation in decision-making bodies
jurisdiction over its natural resources. dealing with renewable resources, land use, environ-
Treaty 11 was made in 1921 following the dis- mental assessment, and regulation of land and water
covery of oil in the Mackenzie Valley. The Dene use.
obtained a guarantee of complete freedom to hunt, The Nunavut Agreement of 1999 resulted from
trap, and fish. The building of the Alaska Highway previous dealings. In 1992, the federal government
undermined that promise. and territorial government of the Northwest Territo-
ries agreed on the eventual creation of the self-
governing Nunavut Territory in the eastern Arctic.
Contemporary Agreements The new territory, with a population of just under
The major recent agreements occurred in the early twenty thousand and its capital at Iqaluit, has a
1970s and continued to be made until the end of the highly decentralized government to respond to the
twentieth century. specific needs of its twenty-eight Inuit communities.

Canada 241
The Nisga’a Treaty was completed in 2000. In Duff, Wilson. 1969. “The Fort Victoria Treaties.” BC
April 1999, the British Columbia legislature ratified Studies 3.
terms of a land settlement with the Nisga’a Tribal Jaenen, Cornelius J. 2001. “Aboriginal Rights and
Council. The federal parliament passed the neces- Treaties in Canada.” In The Native North
American Almanac, ed. Duane Champagne. Los
sary legislation a year later, providing for ownership
Angeles: University of California Press.
and self-government of about two thousand square Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada with the
kilometers of land in the Nass River Valley and a Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories,
cash payment of $190 million. It is the first modern- Repr., Toronto: Coles, 1971.
day treaty in British Columbia. Price, Richard. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta Indian
Cornelius J. Jaenen Treaties. Edmonton: Institute for Research on
Public Policy.
Surtees, Robert J. 1988. “Canadian Indian Treaties.”
In History of Indian White Relations, Wilcomb E.
References and Further Reading Washburn. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Canada. 1971. Indian Treaties and Surrenders, from 1680 Institution.
to 1890. 3 vols. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Tobias, J. L. 1977. “Indian Reserves in Western
Daugherty, W. E. 1981. Maritime Indian Treaties in Canada.” In Approaches to Indian History in
Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and Canada, ed. D. A. Muise. Ottawa: National
Northern Affairs Canada. Museum of Man.

Northeast and the Great Lakes
B
B
ecause they resided in regions that from an During the eighteenth century, as French influ-
early period were accessible to Europeans, the ence increased in Ohio and western Pennsylvania,
tribal people of the Northeast and Great Lakes the Mohawks were hard pressed to keep other mem-
have a long history of treaty negotiations with the bers of the Iroquois Confederacy closely tied to
colonial powers and with both state and federal gov- British officials at Albany, and in 1726 the Senecas
ernments. These treaties encompass a broad spec- readily negotiated with the French, permitting
trum of issues, but most focus upon five major French engineers to build Fort Niagara at the mouth
themes: they delineate the manner in which formal of the Niagara River. But the Iroquois used the
relations between the governments of European Covenant Chain agreement to dominate the
American and Native American communities will be Delawares and Susquehannas living in Pennsylva-
conducted; they establish a formal peace after peri- nia, negotiating with British officials in their behalf
ods of warfare; they provide for the transfer of land and readily surrendering lands that ostensibly
ownership from one community to the other; and belonged to these two tribes in the Delaware and
they establish procedures through which Native Susquehanna River valleys. When the Delawares
American people were removed from their former protested the sale, the Iroquois informed them that
homelands to regions farther west. In addition, sev- they now were “women” and could no longer speak
eral of the treaties contain articles that delineate for themselves in negotiations with the British. The
hunting and fishing rights for tribes in the Great Iroquois forced the Delawares to move to northern
Lakes region. Although tribal hunting and fishing and western Pennsylvania, regions abutting Iroquois
rights were not envisioned as a major issue when territories, while the British claimed and occupied
these treaties were negotiated in the nineteenth cen- the former Delaware lands they had purchased
tury, these rights have emerged as a focal point of through the Iroquois.
controversy for tribal people and non-Indians in the By the 1750s, the Covenant Chain lay in disar-
late twentieth century. Many treaties encompass and ray as political unity within the Iroquois Confeder-
address more than one of these issues. acy crumbled. Meanwhile, many of the Delawares
Unquestionably, the most important series of and associated eastern Algonquian tribes moved to
treaties that delineated and prescribed the relation- southwestern Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, at the
ship between Native American and non-Indian com- very edge of Iroquois (particularly Mohawk) hege-
munities in the Northeast was the Covenant Chain. mony. Although the Mohawks remained tied to New
Originating in the aftermath of Metacom’s War York, many of the other Iroquois league members
(King Philip’s War), the Covenant Chain was forged periodically negotiated with the French, whereas the
at a treaty signed in April 1677 at Albany, New York, Senecas exercised an independent influence (apart
in which delegates from the Mohawks and the Mahi- from the Mohawks) over the tribes near the forks of
cans (both British allies during the late conflict) met the Ohio. In 1753, Theyanoguin (Hendrick), a
with representatives from New York, Massachusetts Mohawk chief, admitted to officials in New York
Bay, and Connecticut. In the treaty, the British that the Covenant Chain had been broken. Five years
colonies in New England agreed that the colony of later, it was partially reforged when delegates from
New York should be the conduit through which all the Delawares and Iroquois met with officials from
British “Indian affairs” in the region would be con- the British colonies at Easton in Pennsylvania,
ducted, whereas the Mahicans and Mohawks (and, and the Delawares agreed to support the British
in turn, the Iroquois Confederacy) would be the against the French, who had occupied Fort
negotiating agents for the tribes in the Northeast. As Duquesne (at modern Pittsburgh) and seemed to
the Mohicans continued to decline in numbers and pose a threat to the Delawares in western Pennsylva-
influence, the Iroquois Confederacy (often led by nia. In exchange for Iroquois support, the Delawares
Mohawk spokespeople) emerged as the dominant reluctantly agreed to allow the Iroquois again to
Native American entity through which British exercise some control over their diplomacy. The
Indian policy was implemented to neighboring French withdrew from Fort Duquesne, but when the
tribes. British occupied the post, the Delawares charged
243
244 Regional Essays
that they again had been betrayed, and the renewed and to live in peace. French officials and tribal lead-
Covenant Chain finally ended. ers affixed their names or clan totems on the treaty
The Covenant Chain, which originally had document on August 5, 1701.
shaped diplomacy between Native Americans and The Great Peace of 1701 marked a turning point
Europeans in the northeastern United States, in the history of the Great Lakes region. In a tacit
emerged from a series of treaties that had ended a acknowledgement that their military and political
period of significant military conflict: Metacom’s power was finite, the Iroquois pulled back from their
War. Other treaties during the colonial and Early expansion into the western Great Lakes. The Senecas
National Period that also terminated periods of war- continued to exercise a limited hegemony over west-
fare had a significant impact upon both Native ern Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, but the peace
American and non-Indian people. also illustrated that western members of the Iroquois
The most important of these colonial peace Confederacy, particularly the Senecas, had adopted a
treaties in the Great Lakes region was the intertribal realpolitik approach to the French and were willing
treaty associated with the Great Peace of 1701. Since to come to terms with French military power if nec-
the middle of the seventeenth century, the Iroquois essary. In contrast, the Mohawks, still staunchly
Confederacy had warred intermittently with both allied through the Covenant Chain to New York,
the French and their Indian allies from the western refused to attend the proceedings. Obviously, the
Great Lakes. Initially, the Iroquois had been success- Iroquois Confederacy was split by this treaty, and
ful, driving many tribes, such as the Miamis, Sauks, although the Mohawks grudgingly accepted it, the
and Potawatomis, from their homelands in Michi- myth of Iroquois unity and loyalty to the British had
gan, Indiana, and Ohio into Wisconsin. Because the been shattered.
warfare disrupted the fur trade, the French had The treaty also provided renewed opportunities
assisted the western tribespeople, providing them for the western tribes. Ostensibly at peace with the
with arms, ammunition, and other military assis- Iroquois, tribes such as the Miamis, Shawnees, and
tance. By the 1690s, however, the tide of warfare had Miamis who had fled to Illinois or Wisconsin now
turned; the Iroquois had overextended themselves, returned to their old homes in Ohio and Michigan.
and the western tribesmen struck back. Joined by At first, the French welcomed their reoccupation of
French troops, they carried the conflict to the Seneca these regions, but their rebuilt villages soon became
homeland, and during the 1690s the Iroquois sent targets for British merchants eager to envelop them
envoys to Montreal to ask for a peace. French offi- in the growing network of a British trade offensive.
cials initially refused, but the western tribes also These tribespeople welcomed cheaper British trade
sought peace, so in 1699–1700 Louis-Hector de Cal- goods, but French officials feared the political ties
lieres met with small delegations from several tribes, that such economic dependency might engender
inviting them to reassemble in the summer of 1701 to among these tribes.
negotiate a “lasting” peace between both sides. Finally, the festivities surrounding the Great
More than 1,300 Indians, both Iroquois and Peace of 1701 were characteristic of major treaty
allies of New France, assembled at Montreal in July negotiations during the eighteenth and early nine-
and August 1701. The treaty proceedings reflected teenth centuries. Tribal people expected treaties to be
both the French desire for intertribal peace and their negotiated amid considerable feasting, ceremony,
knowledge that Native American diplomacy was and presents. Unquestionably, the French were more
surrounded by elaborate ceremony. Delegations lavish in their treaty making than the British.
from both the Iroquois and the western tribes Throughout the eighteenth century, in contrast, the
arrived by canoe and were saluted by salvos of can- British remained relatively parsimonious in their
non fire. They walked up from the river bank on distribution of food and presents at such occasions, a
broad red carpets, met under canopies of evergreen practice that did not bode well for their relationship
boughs, and were wined and dined on brandy and with the Great Lakes Indians. Ironically, after 1783,
boiled oxen. French officials and tribal spokesmen the Americans learned from the French example.
alike dressed in their finest clothing and delivered American leaders were quite willing to disburse
formal speeches before throngs of assembled war- food, drink, and presents, particularly if they were
riors, French citizens, and soldiers. After speeches, trying to purchase land from the Native Americans.
negotiations, and ceremonies lasting more than three The second major treaty that established peace
weeks, both sides agreed to return all their captives between tribal people in the Northeast and the Great

Lakes region and Europeans or Americans was the in the region so outnumbered the tribespeople and
Treaty of Greenville. Signed in 1795, the Treaty of their reluctant British allies that Tecumseh and his
Greenville ended almost half a century of followers had little chance of success. Moreover, sig-
internecine warfare between Indian people, the colo- nificant numbers of Indians (including many
nial powers, and, finally, the new United States. Shawnees) sided with the federal government
Throughout much of the seventeenth and eighteenth against the Shawnee war chief. The treaty and its
centuries, the western Iroquois and Ohio tribes had aftermath marked a significant turning point for
successfully played off the British and French, peri- Indian people in the Great Lakes region.
odically shifting their allegiance from one side to the In many ways, the Treaty of Greenville also
other to prevent either colonial power from achiev- exemplified those treaties that transferred lands
ing sufficient power to dominate the Ohio Valley from Indian people to Europeans or Americans.
and Lake Erie region. Although the British had van- Treaties enabling such transactions started early in
quished the French during the Seven Years’ War the colonial period. Often associated with the termi-
(1756–1763), tribespeople remained a significant mil- nation of warfare, they were characterized by Native
itary and political power in the region and during Americans losing significant areas of lands and
the British attempt to enforce new trade regulations agreeing to occupy small, restricted regions within
in the conflict’s aftermath. Native Americans had their former homelands. The Treaty of Hartford,
risen during Pontiac’s Revolt (1763) and had forced which ended the Pequot War in 1638, transferred
British officials to reconsider their Indian policies. A Pequot lands to the British and assigned those
decade later, when colonial settlers from Virginia Pequots not sold into slavery to two small village
attempted to occupy Kentucky, the Shawnees and sites; the Treaty of Albany, signed in 1677, not only
Mingoes rebelled against colonial authority, and, established the Covenant Chain (discussed previ-
although they had been beaten in Lord Dunsmore’s ously) but also provided for the formal consignment
War (1774), they remained a significant factor in any of former tribal lands to the British.
attempts to control the upper Ohio Valley. When the Other land treaties were conducted during peri-
Crown and the colonists went to war in the Ameri- ods of relative peace but also were fraught with coer-
can Revolution, the Ohio tribes sided with the cion. The most famous of these took place in 1734—
British, renewed their attacks upon Kentucky, and the notorious Walking Purchase, through which the
fought the Americans to a standstill. Yet at the Treaty Delawares surrendered a large tract of land in east-
of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolu- ern Pennsylvania. During the early 1700s, officials in
tion (and which was not signed by Native Ameri- Pennsylvania repeatedly had attempted to purchase
cans), Britain officially acknowledged American con- Delaware lands in the Delaware Valley, but the
trol over the Ohio Valley, and the tribes felt betrayed. Delawares steadfastly had refused to sell. Because
When the Americans attempted to occupy the the Delawares were enmeshed in the Covenant
region, Miamis, Shawnees, and other tribes opposed Chain, the Pennsylvanians then went to the Iroquois,
their entrance, attacking settlers and inflicting deci- who supposedly spoke for the Delawares, and pur-
sive defeats upon two American armies (Harmar’s chased small tracts of Delaware land from the con-
defeat, 1790; St. Clair’s defeat, 1791) before suffering federacy. But as growing numbers of recently
a major setback at the Battle of Fallen Timbers arrived Scotch-Irish settlers moved into Pennsylva-
(August 1794). In the aftermath of Fallen Timbers, nia, the colony’s demands for Indian lands
the tribes were forced to sign the Treaty of increased, and in 1734 colonial officials produced a
Greenville, in which they acknowledged federal con- forged document in which they claimed that in 1700
trol over the region (see next paragraph) and agreed the Delawares had agreed to sell to Pennsylvania all
to remain at peace with the Americans. the land west of the Delaware River that a man
The Treaty of Greenville was the death knell for could walk across in a day and half. Delaware lead-
Native American political autonomy in the Ohio Val- ers protested that they had never signed such an
ley and the Great Lakes region. Although many mid- agreement, but in 1734 Pennsylvania hired two spe-
western tribespeople would support Tecumseh’s cially trained colonists to walk as far and as fast as
and the Shawnee Prophet’s effort to defend Indian possible. The two men walked continually but in
lands and autonomy in the years preceding the War relays, and they covered almost sixty-five miles.
of 1812, the Shawnee brothers’ movement was When the colony’s surveyors finished with their
doomed to failure. By 1812, newly settled Americans measurement, Pennsylvania claimed that the

246 Regional Essays
Delawares had relinquished almost 1,200 square 1788, federal officials again attempted to lure tribal
miles. The Delawares protested, but the Iroquois leaders to renewed negotiations, but the resulting
interceded on the colonists’ behalf, and the lands Treaty of Fort Harmar was a farce. John Hecke-
passed into the hands of Pennsylvania. welder, a Moravian missionary who attended the
The Walking Purchase provides an interesting proceedings, commented that the treaty signatures
case study of another facet of treaties and land pur- did not include “the name of even one Great Chief,”
chases in the northeast: the sale of Native American while George Morgan, an American Indian agent,
lands by tribes having little claim to the region. Sev- admitted,
eral tribes participated in this dubious practice, but
the Iroquois were particularly vulnerable to such “Few of the natives attended and none were
charges. Not only were their claims to eastern Penn- fully represented; here the treaty was negoti-
sylvania certainly questionable, but the confederacy ated . . . in the French language through a
also readily sold land in Ohio and Kentucky. Two Canadian interpreter who had to guess at the
treaties signed at Fort Stanwix provide good case meaning for he can neither speak or write the
studies. In 1768, the Iroquois, claiming to speak for language as to make himself understood in any
the Shawnees and Cherokees as well as the matter of that importance.”
Delawares, signed a treaty at Fort Stanwix in Penn-
sylvania in which they ceded to the British these Native American rejection of these treaties and
tribes’ claims to much of Kentucky. Iroquois claims their determination to retain Ohio led to the border
to the region were spurious, and none of the three warfare that raged through the early 1790s. In 1794
tribes whom the Iroquois supposedly represented at Fallen Timbers, the Americans finally gained the
were notified of the negotiations prior to the treaty upper hand, and the subsequent Treaty of Greenville
signing. Incensed, both the Cherokees and Shawnees (discussed previously) formally marked the cessa-
denounced the agreement, and when British tion of hostilities. The treaty also contained one of
colonists attempted to occupy the region, the the most important Native American land cessions
Shawnees struck back, eventually triggering Lord in American history. At Greenville, the twelve tribes
Dunmore’s War, a precursor to the American Revo- in attendance not only relinquished their claims to
lution in the region. At the second Treaty of Fort all lands in southern and eastern Ohio but also
Stanwix, signed in 1784 at the same location, the Iro- agreed to the construction of American forts at
quois also gave up all their claims to lands west of strategic locations (Fort Wayne, Chicago, Peoria, etc.)
Pennsylvania (Ohio), a region over which their claim within their remaining homelands.
and control in the post-revolutionary period were Anthony Wayne, who led the American negotia-
tenuous, at best. Ironically, by 1784, Iroquois influ- tors, promised that the government would protect
ence in Ohio had so diminished that the western the tribes within their remaining territories, but
tribes scoffed at the agreement, and even federal offi- American settlers violated the new boundary lines
cials who had negotiated the purchase admitted that before they could even be surveyed, and white
they knew they would be forced to also purchase hunters repeatedly crossed over onto Indian lands to
Ohio from other tribes. kill game and run trap lines. As American settlement
They soon attempted to do so, but again they spread into Illinois, Indiana, and northern Ohio, fed-
negotiated with tribes or tribal leaders who had no eral officials admitted that Native Americans were
authority to cede the region. Intent on clearing being subjected to “injustices and wrongs of the
Indian title from Ohio, in 1785 (Treaty of Fort McIn- most provoking character, . . . they are abused,
tosh) and 1786 (Treaty of Fort Finney), federal offi- cheated, robbed, plundered, and murdered at plea-
cials negotiated two treaties with tribes from Detroit sure.”
or with Shawnee and Wyandot tribesmen who had Between 1795 and 1809, federal negotiators con-
no authority to make such agreements. The treaties ducted sixteen additional treaties with tribes in
supposedly surrendered tribal control of lands in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. Led by
eastern Ohio, but they were denounced by most William Henry Harrison, the governor of Indiana
Native Americans in Ohio and only increased their Territory, the government obtained the acreages on a
determination to form a multitribal confederacy in piecemeal basis, buying smaller tracts from coopera-
opposition to further land sales and any American tive leaders among the individual bands or tribes.
attempt to occupy lands north of the Ohio River. In On some occasions, tribal claims overlapped, and

the government was forced to purchase the same found that their Indian owners were aware of the
lands from different tribal communities. The loss of lands’ new market value and demanded an
lands alienated many more traditional tribespeople, increased price. Most of these reserves eventually
and by 1808 they had rallied to Tecumseh and his were sold, but their owners received a handsome
brother, the Shawnee Prophet, who opposed the price. Some of these recipients then left for the West,
land sales and denounced those chiefs who sold the but others, usually people of mixed Native Ameri-
lands as traitors. In 1809, after Harrison had pur- can-European lineage, remained in the Midwest,
chased much of southern Indiana from friendly where they settled among remaining Indian commu-
chiefs at the Treaty of Fort Wayne, he was confronted nities in Wisconsin or Michigan, or joined with other
by Tecumseh, who warned Americans not to occupy Indian people and “hid in plain sight” amid the gen-
the recently ceded territories. eral American population in the region.
Land cession treaties in this region ceased for Not all the land ceded by Native Americans in
almost a decade, as both sides became embroiled in the Northeast after 1783 was ceded to the federal
the War of 1812, but following the conflict white set- government; some land initially was ceded or sold to
tlement poured into the region, and the government private companies or states. Although the Indian
renewed its purchases. During the next thirty years, Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 forbade tribes
federal officials met repeatedly with tribal leaders from selling land to any entity other than the federal
and acquired almost all of the remaining agricul- government, in 1794 the Commonwealth of Massa-
tural lands in the Old Northwest. Vast tracts of Illi- chusetts purchased about twelve million acres from
nois, Indiana, southern and central Michigan and the Pasamaquoddy and Penoboscot tribes. The lands
Wisconsin, and northwestern Ohio passed into gov- were contained within the modern boundaries of the
ernment hands. Yet many of the treaties marking the state of Maine, which remained part of Massachu-
transfer of these lands reflected the growing sophis- setts prior to becoming a separate state. Because the
tication of the tribes who negotiated with the United federal government had never consented to the sale
States. Leaders among the Potawatomis and Miamis of the lands, in the 1970s the two tribes forced the
bargained aggressively with federal agents and federal government to reluctantly sue the state of
secured numerous small plots of land (usually Maine for the return of the land, as the U.S. court of
between one and two square miles in area) for indi- appeals ruled that the federal government main-
vidual Indians or for chiefs of tribal villages set tained a trust relationship for the two tribes and was
aside within the purchased territories. These small responsible for the tribes’ welfare. Litigation of the
reserves often were located at strategic locations case, which extended through the late 1970s, threat-
(crossroads, fords across streams, mill sites, or fertile ened to cloud the legal title to real estate holdings in
bottomlands) which continued to serve as residen- Maine and prevent the state from issuing bonds. The
tial regions for tribespeople who remained within Carter administration intervened, and Congress
their old homelands. For example, in a treaty signed passed the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act,
with federal agents on September 27, 1832, which awarded the tribes $27 million and created a
Potawatomi leaders ceded a large tract of land in $54 million fund to finance additional land pur-
northern Indiana and southern Michigan, but only chases by these Indians.
after federal officials had agreed to establish eighty- In the mid-1820s, the sale of tribal lands by
eight separate individual or village reservations Seneca leaders to the Ogden Land Company, a pri-
totaling more than 101,000 acres. Miami land ces- vate firm in New York, also violated the Indian
sion treaties signed in 1826 and 1835 contain similar Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, but the Senate
provisions. refused to ratify the agreements, and a later legal
Ironically, as the ceded lands filled with Ameri- challenge similar to the claims case in Maine was
can settlers, the real estate value of these small averted.
remaining reserves appreciated. American land After 1830, almost all the treaties negotiated by
speculators clamored for the sale of the remaining the tribes residing in Illinois, Indiana, and southern
lands, while federal officials were dismayed that the Michigan and Wisconsin focused on the tribes’
reserves provided a haven for those tribespeople removal from these areas and their relocation to new
who resisted the government’s efforts to remove the homes, either in northern regions of Wisconsin or
Indians to the West. Yet when federal agents Michigan or to new lands in the West. Indeed, provi-
attempted to purchase the remaining reserves, they sions for Indian removal, usually absent from or

248 Regional Essays
peripheral to land cession treaties prior to the 1820s, bureaucratic bickering the Indians did not depart
became a focal point for negotiations in the follow- until early October. One party traveled to Dayton,
ing decade. The treaties providing for the removal of then was carried by barges and steamboats to St.
the Great Lakes tribes followed a format similar to Louis, where they disembarked, then marched to the
other removal treaties of the era. After ceding the Cuivre River in eastern Missouri, where they spent
final portions of their homeland, the tribes usually the winter. The second party traveled overland but
agreed to assemble within six to twelve months at an proceeded no farther than the Muncie, Indiana,
embarkation camp, where they would join federal region, where, short of food and blankets, they were
removal agents and government contractors abandoned by their removal agent and spent a mis-
employed to provide them with food and other pro- erable winter among the Delawares. In May 1832,
visions for their journey to the West. the Senecas and Cayugas from Indiana joined their
Most removals were scheduled to begin in the kinsmen on the Cuivre River, but as the combined
early fall, when the summer heat had subsided, parties of emigrants journeyed toward Indian Terri-
newly harvested foodstuffs were available, and tory, they were plagued with measles and were
rivers were sufficiently low to make then readily forced to wait for days before ferries could carry
fordable. Wagons usually were provided for at least them across the flooded Missouri and Grand rivers.
a portion of the tribespeople’s belongings and to Their ranks were decimated by exhaustion and dis-
transport the ill, the elderly, or those tribespeople ease, but they finally reached Indian Territory on
who needed assistance. Sometimes horses were fur- July 4, 1832, six months after their projected arrival
nished to some of the Indian emigrants, but often date.
they were expected to make the trek westward on In retrospect, most of the removal treaties com-
foot. The removal party, accompanied by their con- bined a curious mixture of well-intentioned altruism
tractors and agents, camped each night along the with political opportunism. Unquestionably, some
route, sometimes near frontier settlements where American reformers believed that, if tribal people
additional food or supplies were purchased. If removed west of the Mississippi, they could be iso-
things went as planned, the removal party would lated from alcohol and corrupting influences in
reach their new homes in the West (usually western American society, but the removal treaties also were
Iowa, Kansas, or Indian Territory) late in the fall but motivated by frontier politicians who simply wanted
before winter arrived. access to Indian lands. Moreover, regardless of the
The treaty signed by the Senecas (and Cayugas) motivation, most removals were conducted amid so
residing near Sandusky, Ohio, in 1831 provides a much fraud and corruption that the tribespeople
good case study. At the treaty, the Senecas ceded who participated in them suffered considerably.
their remaining lands along the Sandusky River to Tribes from the Great Lakes region probably suffered
the United States. In exchange, the government less than the Cherokees or Choctaws, but hundreds
awarded the tribe lands in Indian Territory, died during the removal process. The Potawatomis,
promised the tribe that they would “be removed in a in particular, still remember their removal from
convenient and suitable manner,” and agreed to sup- northern Indiana to eastern Kansas in the fall of 1838
port the tribe for one year in the West. Federal offi- as “the Trail of Death.”
cials also promised to help them erect houses and Several treaties signed between tribes residing
establish farms, furnish them with livestock and in Michigan and Wisconsin that ceded lands to the
farm utensils, and provide them with a blacksmith, a government also contained clauses that engendered
gristmill, and a sawmill. In addition, tribal leaders considerable controversy in the final decades of the
were furnished with presents, and federal agents twentieth century. For example, in treaties signed
assured them that all future annuities would be paid with federal officials in 1837, 1842, and 1854,
to them at their new home in the West. Obviously, Ojibwe leaders relinquished control of large
from the government’s perspective, the treaty was acreages in these states, but the treaties stated that
designed to lure the Sandusky Senecas from Ohio to “the privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the
the West. wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers, and the lakes
As with many other removal treaties, the actual included in the territory ceded, is guaranteed to the
removal that resulted from the 1831 Sandusky Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the
Seneca treaty did not go as planned. The removal United States.” Initially, this provision engendered
was scheduled for September 1, 1831, but due to little attention, but as tourism and recreational

hunting and fishing grew in importance during the In retrospect, treaties between Native American
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, state people and European, colonial, or federal govern-
governments in both Michigan and Wisconsin ments have markedly affected the course of history
began to restrict the rights of Native Americans to in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions. These
hunt and fish, both on and off their established treaties have shaped the lives of Native American
reservations. In 1879, the Wisconsin Supreme Court people, but they also continue to shape the relation-
ruled that Native Americans were subject to state ship between Native Americans and non-Indians.
laws on their reservations, including laws govern- R. David Edmunds
ing game and fisheries, and in 1899 the state
required Indians to purchase hunting licenses. In References and Further Reading
1908, the Wisconsin Supreme Court (State v. Morrin) American State Papers, Indian Affairs. 1832. 2 vols.
ruled that all “off-reservation rights” of Indians in Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.
the state had been abrogated in 1848 when Wiscon- Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of
sin became a state. the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Jennings, Francis. 1984. Ambiguous Empire: The
Ojibwe hunters and fishermen periodically
Covenant Chain Confederation of Indian Treaties
“violated” the state’s restrictions, and their activities With the English Colonies; Its Beginnings to the
attracted the attention of state game wardens, but Lancaster Treaty of 1744. New York: Norton.
most of their hunting or fishing took place on reser- Kappler, Charles J., comp. and ed. 1972. Indian Affairs:
vation lands until the late 1960s and generally was Laws and Treaties. Mattituck, NY: Amereon
ignored by non-Indians. In contrast, during the House. (Orig. pub in 1903).
1970s many Ojibwes in Michigan and especially Wis- Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle for
Ojibwe Spearfishing and Treaty Rights. Lincoln:
consin began to hunt and fish “out of season” on
University of Nebraska Press.
nonreservation land. They were prosecuted, but in Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
1983 the U.S. court of appeals ruled in LCO v. Voigt The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
that the State of Wisconsin must negotiate with the University of California Press.
tribes to clarify the specific hunting and fishing Richter, Daniel, and James Merrell, eds. 1987. Beyond
rights of the Ojibwes. The state reluctantly agreed, the Covenant Chain: The Iroquois and Their
and the Indians were allowed to spearfish for Neighbors in Indian North America, 1600–1800.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
walleyed pike in off-reservation waters. The result-
Satz, Ronald. 1975. American Indian Policy in the
ing reassertion of Native American hunting and Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
(particularly) fishing rights resulted in the Walleye Press.
War, a series of confrontations between Indians and White, Richard. 1991. The Middle Ground: Indians,
non-Indians in Wisconsin and Michigan that has Empires, and Republics, 1650–1815. New York:
continued into the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.

Northern Plains
T
T
reaty making in the northern Great Plains of white “civilization.” Civilization was, in fact, the
region of the United States has a long, fasci- word used, set off against the stages of “savagery”
nating, and ultimately disturbing history that and “barbarism” that were part of the vocabulary of
begins with the Lewis and Clark expedition of Enlightenment-era conceptions of racial difference.
1804–1806 and ends with the federal government’s Contained within this idea was the notion that
unethical abrogation, or abandonment, of the Treaty Native Americans had the capacity to rise above
of Fort Laramie of 1868 in 1877. Between 1804 and their “savage” or “barbarous” condition and achieve
1871, when Congress rejected formal treaty making, the state of civilization.
Indian peoples of the northern plains restructured In an effort to reduce frontier conflict and thus
their political organizations to negotiate with the the chance of continual war, the federal government
increasingly powerful U.S. government and fought assumed control of negotiating with Indian nations
to retain their national sovereignty—and, ulti- and wrote into its treaties provisions for “civiliza-
mately, their future as individual nations of people, tion” programs. The Treaty of Holston of 1791,
as Sioux or Arapaho or Blackfeet, with distinct cul- signed with the Cherokee of the Southeast, included
tural traditions. In the midst of great demographic, the following passage: “That the Cherokee nation
cultural, and economic change, treaties became the may be led to a greater degree of civilization, and to
principal vehicle for securing and maintaining become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of
peace and friendship between American officials remaining in a state of hunters, the United States will
and Indian leaders to allow for peaceful trade rela- furnish the said nation with useful implements of
tions. Although treaties embedded Native Ameri- farming” (Perdue and Green 1995, 11). The Trade
cans’ political culture in a framework of European and Intercourse Act of 1793 extended this program
American legal and diplomatic principles, scholar to all Indian nations, setting in motion the civiliza-
Maureen Konkle notes that they signified “the tion program, which eventually grew to include
autonomy of Native political formations and the educational and religious instruction; the civilization
equality of those political entities to other political program would remain at the heart of federal Indian
entities and of Native peoples to other peoples” policy into the twentieth century. At the same time,
(Konkle 2004, 5). The tragic story of violence on the federal officials believed that Native Americans
northern plains that unfolded between the 1850s would have to sell much of their territory to meet
and 1870s is in large measure the story of the break- white settlers’ constant demand for land. Helping
down of this spirit of friendship, reciprocity, and Native Americans become “civilized” would enable
equality established in the early 1800s. them to remain on their homelands, shrunken but
Because the treaty-making process is in many intact, with the eventual goal of shedding their
ways based on a foundation of cultural interactions, Indian skin for American citizenship.
it is helpful to begin the story of the northern plains This set of ideas gave rise to the notion of Amer-
in the early years of the United States, especially ican expansion with honor. In short, expansion was
during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, as his inevitable, a notion that eventually grew into the
vision and his policies helped to shape the negotia- idea of Manifest Destiny, which was used to justify
tions that led to a series of treaties between Native the conquest of the American West; it was preor-
Americans and white Americans and redefined the dained that white Christians would expand west
geography of the United States in the mid- across the country and “be fruitful, multiply, and
nineteenth century. replenish the Earth.” Whether it would happen hon-
After the American Revolution ended, Ameri- orably, without tainting the new American nation’s
can politicians came to understand that violence on Christian conscience, would depend on whether or
the western frontier resulted largely from a steadily not the Indians embraced “civilization.”
encroaching stream of American settlers. These fed- As president, Thomas Jefferson expanded the
eral officials also believed that extinction of Native federal civilization program and supported the fac-
Americans was possible under such conditions tory system developed under George Washington,
unless the Indians made an effort to adopt elements a system of government-managed trading posts in
251
252 Regional Essays
which federal agents regulated prices to minimize You are all my children, and I wish you to live
antagonism between white traders and Indian trap- in peace & friendship with one another as
pers. After Jefferson negotiated the purchase of the brethren of the same family ought to do. If you
Louisiana Territory from France, the United States will cease to make war on one another, if you
found itself with an enormous territory, roughly will live in friendship with all mankind, you
one million square miles, which stretched from the can employ all of your time in providing food &
Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and clothing for yourselves and you families. . . .
northward from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. Jef- Your numbers will be increased, instead of
ferson sent his personal secretary, Meriwether diminishing, and you will live in plenty & in
Lewis, to explore this new territory, including the quiet. (ibid.)
northern plains, in order to establish diplomatic
relations with Indian groups living within it and to But he also warned them of Americans’ power,
facilitate the spread of the civilization program to both their strength in numbers and their weapons:
them. “My children, we are strong, we are numerous as the
On May 14, 1804, the expedition, led by Lewis stars in the heavens, & we are all gun-men.”
and his good friend William Clark, left St. Louis. Responding to Jefferson’s speech, leaders of the
After traveling nearly eight thousand miles over two Osage, Missouri, Oto, Pani, Cansa, Ayowai, and
years, Lewis and Clark returned with extensive Sioux Nations accepted U.S. authority, promised
knowledge of the geography and the Indian peoples peace and friendship, but also asserted their right to
of the American West. Their route followed the Mis- defend themselves from violent white settlers if the
souri River north from St. Louis into what became “Great Father” did not use his power wisely and
the states of South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, fairly:
and northern Wyoming, bringing them into contact
with most of the major tribal groups of the northern You say that you are numerous as the stars in
plains, which include the various divisions of the the skies, & as strong as numerous. So much the
Sioux of South and North Dakota, the Blackfeet, Flat- better, fathers, tho’, if you are so . . . you may
head, and Crow of Montana, the Shoshone (Snake) tell to your white Children on our lands, to
and Arapaho of Wyoming, the Mandan and Hidatsa follow your orders, & do not as they please, for
of North Dakota, and the Northern Cheyenne of they do not keep your word. . . . Our hearts are
South Dakota and Wyoming. good, though we are powerfull & strong, & we
Lewis and Clark brought dozens of medals to know how to fight, we do not wish to fight but
award to Native leaders. Their goal was not only to shut the mouth of your Children who speak
establish diplomatic relations but to reshape the very war, stop the arm of those who rise the
political structure of Native American society by cre- tomahawk over our heads and Crush those
ating different ranks of “chiefs,” who, by accepting who strike first, then we will Confess that we
the medals, would accept the supreme authority of have good fathers who wish to make their red
the United States as the “Great Father” of the north- Children happy and peace maintained among
ern plains and of the American West in general. them. For when we are at peace . . . , our wives
Lewis and Clark also arranged for a delegation of and Children Do not stand in want.
Native leaders to visit the president of the United
States, the “Great Father.” In 1806, Jefferson In Jefferson’s speech and in these Native lead-
addressed a visiting delegation of tribes from the ers’ response, we can find the major themes of U.S.-
Missouri River region, explaining that, as France, Native American diplomatic relations in the nine-
England, and Spain had agreed to “retire from all the teenth century. And it is within this general
country which you & we hold between Canada & framework of diplomatic relations that the history of
Mexico,” that the Americans “are now your fathers” treaty making with Native Americans of the north-
(Jefferson’s Speech to a Delegation of Indian Chiefs, ern plains evolves. From the perspective of the U.S.
January 4, 1806). He told them of his plans to expand government, Indians needed to allow settlement and
the factory system to facilitate the expansion of the trade to proceed without Indian resistance. From the
fur trade into the American West. Trade would bene- Native American perspective, peace was impossible
fit all parties, he told them, but only if peaceful rela- unless the federal government used its power to
tions were maintained: compel its “white children” to honor the agreements

Northern Plains 253
of the “Great Father.” It was the “white children” of force designed to demonstrate to Native Ameri-
who raised the tomahawk and struck against Native cans that the United States was the dominant power
Americans, initiating a cycle of violence in which in the region and that resistance would be met with
Native Americans retaliated in defense, which trig- resolve.
gered a more violent response from U.S. troops. The Atkinson and Fallon mission resulted in the
When Lewis and Clark entered the northern signing of a series of treaties that framed Indian-
plains, they encountered a world that was undergo- white diplomatic relations in the northern plains
ing rapid change. The expansion of trade between before the advent of the California gold rush trig-
Native groups and Europeans in the late eighteenth gered a new round of white settlement, Indian-white
century had engendered several major changes. conflict, and treaty making. In August 1825, Atkin-
Trade spread disease, particularly smallpox, which son and O’Fallon negotiated treaties with the Crow,
devastated the Native nations of the northern plains. Mandan, Oto and Missouri, Arikara, Chayenne
The smallpox epidemics of 1779–1781 and 1801–1802 (Cheyenne), Pawnee, and Sioux. Importantly, the
led to extraordinary death rates among the Arikara, American negotiators had written the treaties in
Mandan, Hidatsa, Shoshone, and other groups of the advance. Thus, the treaties themselves were not the
northern plains, making them vulnerable to incur- product of a negotiation between two parties but
sions from more nomadic groups, such as the Sioux, Native Americans’ acceptance of the Americans’
who quickly became the dominant force on the explanation of the treaty terms in combination with
plains. Competition of Native groups with the Sioux a gift of trade goods.
for trade and for survival helped to militarize the As an example of these meetings, the Crow
plains, leading to the increased use of horses and gathered with Atkinson and Fallon in a Hidatsa
guns, remaking Native American societies in the town on the Missouri River on August 3, 1825, eight
process. days after receiving an invitation to meet with them.
American traders in great numbers pushed into A large group of Crow, led by Red Plume, arrived in
the Missouri River basin of the northern plains after the town to negotiate with the Americans. However,
the Lewis and Clark expedition. Although the Sioux, a separate group of Crow refused to acknowledge
in particular, welcomed the trade, other tribes did American sovereignty or accept American gifts;
not and created barriers to the expansion of Ameri- tribal divisions would become common in the nine-
can fur traders based in St. Louis, which led to teenth century, as some Native American factions
clashes between federal troops and nations such as grew to distrust the U.S. government’s intentions, a
the Arikara. At the behest of Missouri senator distrust aggravated by that government’s failures to
Thomas Hart Benson, Congress developed a new honor previous treaties. On August 4, Red Plume
initiative to create stability and promote expansion, and other Crow chiefs in attendance signed the
especially on the northern plains. The Act of May 25, treaty and accepted the Americans’ gift of trade
1824, authorized the president of the United States to goods. But trouble developed when the Americans
make “treaties of trade and friendship with the made additional demands on the Crow delegation
Indian tribes beyond the Mississippi” (Prucha 2000, that were not specified in the treaty, which insulted
38). The diplomatic effort targeted the upper Mis- Red Plume and other Crow, who believed that the
souri River region, where much of the fur trade was negotiations had ended. Violence was narrowly
concentrated. Federal agents were to make treaties averted. The following day, the American delegation
with as many Indian nations as possible and to des- made amends by providing more gifts. The incident
ignate specific sites where federal officials could reg- demonstrated the ways in which Native groups such
ulate trade between white traders and Native trap- as the Crow had to conform to the new political and
pers, in a sense continuing the old factory system economic realities of the northern plains. As the
while abandoning federal control over prices. As a Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho had grown stronger
result, a new pair of Americans, Brigadier General and more capable of expansion by forging extensive
Henry Atkinson and U.S. Indian agent Major Ben- trading links with Americans, nations such as the
jamin O’Fallon, ventured forth, as had Lewis and Crow had to keep pace by remaining within the
Clark twenty years earlier, to redefine federal-Indian orbit of American traders in order to secure guns
relations through the written instrument of the and other tools with which to resist incursion onto
treaty. On this 1825 expedition, however, Atkinson their lands by white settlers as well as other Native
and Fallon were accompanied by 476 troops, a show groups. Thus, as historian Frederick Hoxie relates,

254 Regional Essays
the Red Plume delegation resolved that “their Americans to exercise sovereignty and defend
wounds were covered and they would throw all that themselves. After the gold rush of 1848–1849 trig-
had passed behind them” (Hoxie 1995, 65). The gered massive waves of white settlers, this effort to
insult was forgotten in the interest of preventing vio- reduce violence and maintain justice became prob-
lence and preserving trade relations integral to the lematic. In 1848, when Mexico finally gave up its
Crow Nation’s survival. claim to U.S. land north of its current border, the
The treaties of August 1825 were virtually iden- United States controlled all land westward from the
tical in language and in scope. The treaty that the Rockies to the Pacific Coast, as well as territory that
Crow signed on August 4, for example, contained stretched from the Rio Grande River north to the
the following: 49th parallel. The gold rush in California accelerated
the process of frontier settlement. Between 1850 and
It is admitted by the Crow tribe of Indians, that 1870, nearly five million Americans, as well as many
they reside within the territorial limits of the Europeans, crossed the Mississippi River and
United States, acknowledge their supremacy, headed west. In their search for the mother lode,
and claim their protection.—The said tribe also these white settlers trespassed on Native Ameri-
admit the right of the United States to regulate cans’ Mother Earth, creating a crisis of sovereignty
all trade and intercourse with them. . . . The for Native Americans, who had been promised pro-
United States agrees to receive the Crow tribe of tection from white settlers’ depredations. Although
Indians into their friendship, and under their Hollywood and accounts common to the time
protection, and to extend to them, from time to depicted the Indians as perpetrators of “massacres”
time, such benefits and acts of kindness as may against innocent women and children, the historical
be convenient, and seem just and proper to the record shows that settlers traveling the Bozeman
President of the United States. Trail and the Oregon Trail (the two main trails
across the northern plains) trespassed on Native
The Crow, as well as the Sioux and other Native lands without consulting Native leaders, slaugh-
groups that signed similar treaties in August 1825, tered buffalo on those lands, and left smallpox,
accepted American supremacy, at least on paper, and cholera, measles, and scarlet fever in their wake.
granted to the United States the authority to regulate Between 1840 and 1860, only 362 emigrants crossing
trade. They also agreed to work within a European the plains died as a result of Native American
American framework of justice, which required attacks (Calloway 2004, 267). The cost to Native
Native leaders, in the event of a “crime,” to “deliver Americans was much higher.
up the [Native] person or persons against whom the As a result of this increased emigration and fed-
complaint is made, to the end that he or they may be eral officials’ need to protect American citizens, the
punished, agreeably to the laws of the United States” U.S. government initiated another round of treaty
(ibid.). Thus, the treaties not only circumscribed the making to try to keep the peace. For three weeks in
place where economic relations would be conducted September 1851, federal negotiators, led by the
but undermined Native Americans’ sovereignty, superintendent of Indian affairs (at St. Louis), David
their ability to define justice within their own territo- D. Mitchell, a former fur trader in the region, and the
ries. For the Crow, especially, but also for other Indian agent Thomas Fitzpatrick, met with represen-
Native groups, 1825 marked an end to their isolation tatives of the Crow and ten bands of the Sioux,
and the beginning of increasingly complex relations Cheyenne, Arapaho, Assiniboine, Hidatsa, Mandan,
with the United States: territorial boundaries were and Arikara at Fort Laramie in present-day
established, social behavior was defined, and eco- Wyoming. All told, nearly ten thousand Native
nomic relations were regulated in accordance with Americans assembled for the treaty council, the
the imperatives of powerful white traders. largest such gathering in the history of Indian-white
It remained to be seen, however, whether or not relations. Federal treaty commissioners spent a total
Native Americans would continue to accept the of eight days meeting with these tribal representa-
terms of these new intercultural relations. As the tives, who spent an additional eight days discussing
group of chiefs had told Jefferson in 1806, it was the various treaty provisions among themselves.
incumbent upon the “Great Father” to prevent his Ethnohistorian Raymond DeMallie, who has
many “white children” from raising the tomahawk studied extensively the plains treaty councils, identi-
and instigating violence that prompted Native fied three main stages in the negotiations: ritual,

Northern Plains 255
delineation of demands, and gift giving. The inter- the civilization program whether Native Americans
cultural relations that led to the signing of the Fort wanted it or not.
Laramie treaty on September 17 first featured the The treaty also stipulated that each Indian
employment of specific rituals by each side to set the nation would subscribe to specific new boundaries
stage for the detailed negotiations. To begin and end determined by the United States; this was the most
the daily discussions, treaty commissioners and contentious and controversial part of the treaty. The
Indian leaders performed the ceremony of the smok- Sioux, in particular, had no interest in being told
ing of the pipe; to call the meeting to order, U.S. rep- where they could live and hunt. Rejecting the notion
resentatives fired one of their cannons and raised the of a restricted territory, Black Hawk of the Oglala
American flag, symbolically asserting their power. band of Sioux told U.S. commissioners, “These lands
The second stage involved presenting the specific once belonged to the Kiowa and the Crow, but we
provisions of the treaty, most of which had been whipped those nations out of them, and in this we
written before the commissioners arrived in did what the white men do when they want the
Wyoming. In the third stage, the negotiations were lands of the Indians” (White 1978, 342). As historian
sealed with presents brought by the American com- Richard White contends, the Sioux had the upper
missioners, which were distributed by tribal leaders hand in 1851 and had no intention of accepting U.S.
as a means of solidifying their political authority and domination on the northern plains. The same year
their social standing as providers to the community. as the Fort Laramie treaty of 1851, U.S. officials nego-
In return for smoking the pipe, American commis- tiated with the Dakota (Santee) Sioux of present-day
sioners required Native American leaders to “touch Minnesota, producing the Treaty of Traverse des
the pen,” or sign the treaty document, despite the Sioux (Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton
fact that Native negotiators found that step unneces- Bands–July 23, 1851), in which the Dakota Sioux
sary, given the trust established by the ritual of gave up their claim to much of their territory and
smoking the pipe. The three stages of ritual, negotia- accepted a reservation as their new homeland. A sec-
tion, and gift giving represented continuity with pre- ond treaty, signed in 1858, shrank that homeland
vious councils stretching back to the Lewis and even further. For this land, the U.S. government
Clark expedition and would remain the pattern for agreed to provide blacksmith, farming, and educa-
negotiations beyond 1851. tion assistance, as well as annual payments. The sale
As was the case during the Lewis and Clark of Sioux land to white settlers, many of whom
negotiations, U.S. commissioners forced Native treated the Sioux poorly and thus upset a delicate
Americans to nominate one leader to represent all system of interethnic relations formed during the
the constituencies of a tribe, and in the case of the colonial era fur trade, helped fuel resentment among
Sioux, to unite all the bands into one nation and Sioux. This resentment became explosive in 1862,
have just one Sioux chief, the “head chief,” to repre- when the federal government failed to produce
sent all the diverse bands. For Native Americans annuities on time, which led to widespread starva-
used to consensus building, this was a traumatic tion. The result was the Sioux Uprising, which
restructuring of political culture that reflected their involved brutal violence on both sides and the hang-
declining sovereignty. ing of thirty-eight Sioux, the largest mass execution
The treaty, signed for the purpose of “establish- in U.S. history. It is critical to understand this vio-
ing and confirming peaceful relations” among the lence as a product of the Dakota Sioux’s belief that
assembled Indian nations to protect white settlers, the spirit of the treaties had been violated, which
outlined new rules of engagement on the northern meant that they now viewed the Americans’ entire
plains. Native Americans would permit the con- value system as corrupt, as the treaty itself embod-
struction of forts and roads in their territory; in ied cultural values such as trust and reciprocity. This
return, the United States would “bind themselves to dynamic of resentment and violence would be
protect the aforesaid Indian nations against the com- repeated after the Lakota Sioux and other Northern
mission of all depredations by the people of the said Plains tribes signed the second Treaty of Fort
United States.” Additionally, the United States Laramie in 1868.
promised to provide annual payments worth $50,000 Between 1851 and 1868, the U.S. government
for ten years, in the form of “provisions, merchan- negotiated a series of treaties with Native groups of
dize, domestic animals, and agricultural imple- the northern plains and other regions of the Ameri-
ments.” Thus, the United States intended to sustain can West, including treaties with the Blackfeet and

256 Regional Essays
the Flathead, signed in 1855, that circumscribed their included the Black Hills. In addition, the treaty pro-
territory. After the Civil War ended, the U.S. govern- vided annuities to the Sioux for the purpose of
ment concentrated on ending Indian-white violence expanding the civilization program and remaking
in the southern and the northern plains regions. The the Sioux in the image of the Christian yeoman
United States Indian Peace Commission, comprising farmer. For example, Article 7 read as follows: “In
military officers, ministers, and civilian reformers, order to insure the civilization of the Indians . . . , the
formed in 1867 to end hostilities and accelerate the necessity of education is admitted . . . , and [the
“concentration” and “domestication” of Native Sioux] therefore pledge themselves to compel their
Americans on reservations through a reborn civiliza- children, male and female . . . to attend school.”
tion program. The Peace Commission first negoti- Thus, the treaty laid the foundation of a program of
ated treaties with Native American nations of the coercive assimilation that would cause great social
southern plains before turning its attention to those and cultural trauma for the Sioux, even as it sowed
of the northern plains, in particular the Sioux, who the seeds of future military conflict over the status of
remained intent on defending their territory against the Black Hills, considered sacred ground to the
settlers on the Bozeman Trail and against hordes of Sioux. The treaty, in short, failed to produce peace.
white hunters who slaughtered buffalo herds from And the United States failed to uphold its honor to
railroad cars. In late April 1868, after agreeing to the maintain it.
demands of the great Sioux leader Red Cloud that In 1871, Congress resolved that “hereafter no
the U.S. abandon its forts on the Bozeman Trail, the Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the
Peace Commission gathered with Red Cloud and United States shall be acknowledged or recognized
other Sioux chiefs to negotiate a major treaty at Fort as an independent nation, tribe, or power with
Laramie, Wyoming, in an effort to end the so-called whom the United States may contract by treaty”
Red Cloud War. Similar negotiations with the Crow (Prucha 2000, 135). Believing that all barriers to
Nation and the Cheyenne and Arapaho followed in expansion had been removed, American politicians
May 1868, which produced treaties similar to the no longer felt an obligation to conduct diplomacy
Sioux treaty signed on April 29. In contrast to the with Native groups as sovereign nations. The spirit
negotiations at Fort Laramie in 1851, the United of equality was shattered. However, as during the
States held the upper hand at Fort Laramie in 1868. early national period, Congress expressed the intent
At the council with the Brule Sioux on April 28, Gen- to expand with honor, noting that, although it would
eral John B. Sanborn told the Sioux chiefs, “If you stop making new treaties, it would also continue to
continue to fight the whites you can not expect the honor those treaties already ratified. Such noble sen-
President nor your friends among them to protect timents melted away during the spring thaw in
you in your country from those who are waiting to South Dakota, as white gold miners by the hundreds
go there in large numbers. If you continue at war descended on Sioux lands near the Black Hills,
your country will soon be all overrun by white peo- engendering resistance on the part of Sioux who
ple . . .Your game and yourselves will be destroyed.” believed they had the right by treaty to defend them-
General William S. Harney added, “We do not want selves. Not only did the federal government fail to
to go to war with you because you are a small honor the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868, it sent fed-
nation, a handful compared with us, and we want eral troops led by General George Custer to protect
you to live.” Harney and Sanborn tried to persuade the gold miners. This clear violation of the spirit and
the Sioux that one large army after another would the letter of the law led to the militarization of Sioux,
engage the Sioux until hostilities ended. This treaty Cheyenne, and Arapaho forces, which destroyed
council was, as Sanborn put it, “the last effort of the Custer’s troops in July 1876 at the Battle of Greasy
President to make peace with you and save for you a Grass, as the Sioux called the Battle of Little Bighorn.
country and a home” (Calloway 2004, 301–302). But it was a short-lived victory for the Sioux. In
The treaty signed on April 29 had numerous 1877, they were forced by federal officials’ threats of
provisions, the most important of which confirmed starvation to give up the Black Hills. This immoral
that the United States would abandon its forts in action on the part of federal officials was simply one
Sioux territory, granted to the Sioux the “Great Sioux of a series of occasions on which the U.S. govern-
Reservation” in present-day South Dakota, and ment invalidated existing treaties when it became
guaranteed access to and hunting rights in “unceded economically useful to do so. But the larger problem,
Indian territory” adjacent to the reservation, which as military historian John Gray has pointed out,

Northern Plains 257
stemmed from the duplicitous ways in which federal References and Further Reading
treaty commissioners negotiated the treaty docu- Calloway, Colin G. 2004. First Peoples: A
ments in the first place, embedding a set of contra- Documentary Survey of American Indian
History. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
dictions in the language that Native American nego-
Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1985. Behind the Trail of Broken
tiators could not foresee would produce future Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence.
conflict. As Gray writes of the Fort Laramie Treaty of Austin: University of Texas Press.
1868, Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond DeMallie, eds.
1975. Proceedings of the Great Peace
Here is a solemn treaty that cedes territory Commission of 1867–1868. Washington, DC:
admittedly unceded; that confines the Indian to Institute for the Development of Indian Law.
a reservation while allowing him to roam Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 2000.
Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations.
elsewhere, and that guarantees against trespass,
Austin: University of Texas Press.
unless a trespasser appears! . . . It was the DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen:
Commission that wrote in the contradictions. Plains Indian Treaty Councils in
There can be only one explanation—they Ethnohistorical Perspective.” In Ethnicity on
designed one set of provisions to beguile and the Great Plains, ed. Fredrick C. Luebke,
another to enforce. 38–51. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Hoxie, Frederick E. 1995. Parading through History:
The treaty itself, Gray concluded, was “so exclu-
The Making of the Crow Nation in America,
sively a white man’s device . . . that it served primar- 1805–1935. New York: Cambridge University
ily as an instrument of chicanery and a weapon of Press.
aggression” (Calloway, 2004, 296–297). In short, the Konkle, Maureen. 2004. Writing Indian Nations:
U.S. government engineered a dishonorable expan- Native Intellectuals and the Politics of
sion in the northern plains and across the continent. Historiography, 1827–1863. Chapel Hill:
Ever since 1877, the Sioux have fought to University of North Carolina Press.
Lazarus, Edward. 1991. Black Hills/White Justice:
reclaim the Black Hills. In 1950, the Sioux filed a
The Sioux Nation Versus the United States,
claim with the Indian Claims Commission, estab- 1775 to the Present. New York: HarperCollins.
lished in 1946 to facilitate the adjudication of treaty Perdue, Theda, and Michael Green, eds. 1995. The
violations, which awarded the Sioux $17.5 million Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with
after determining that the taking of the Black Hills in Documents. Boston: Bedford Books.
1877 was unconstitutional. In the 1980 case United Prucha, Francis Paul. 1986. The Great Father: The
States v. Sioux Nation, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld United States Government and the American
the award while granting the Sioux interest on the Indian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
original judgment of $17.5 million, which raised the
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1997. American Indian
total to more than $100 million. In doing so, the Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly.
Supreme Court noted, “A more ripe and rank case of Berkeley: University of California Press.
dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 2000. Documents of
be found in our history. . . .” However, the Sioux United States Indian Policy. Lincoln:
wanted land, not money, and have yet to claim the University of Nebraska Press.
Court’s monetary compensation. The Sioux continue White, Richard. 1978. “The Winning of the West:
The Expansion of the Western Sioux in the
to fight for the return of the Black Hills. Treaties
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.”
signed well over one hundred years ago continue to Journal of American History 65 (September):
animate, define, and shape Indian-white relations for 319–343.
the Sioux and for many other Native American Wilkinson, Charles. 1987. American Indians, Time,
groups. and the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Paul C. Rosier Press.

Southeast and Florida
Diplomacy in the Native Southeast might refer to a militarily stronger people as their
T
“older brother.” This signified that they expected to
T
he Native American peoples in the southeast-
be protected, just as a young boy is defended by his
ern quadrant of North America and Florida
elder sibling.
participated in diplomatic relations long
before the arrival of Europeans. Indian communities
held diplomatic councils to create and maintain
Treaties in the Colonial Era
trade relations, negotiated agreements to acquire
materials and products not indigenous to their terri- The European imperial and colonial governments
tory, and made arrangements to ensure safe passage established the practice of dealing with the Native
for their trade representatives through the territories American nations by means of the diplomatic treaty.
of other tribes. Indian peoples also used diplomatic Over time, European negotiators in America adopted
arrangements to construct intertribal confederacies, many of the same diplomatic procedures and formal-
to set up military alliances, and to establish peace ities that Indian peoples had used in the past, includ-
with enemies after periods of war. ing the exchanging of gifts, the passing of the peace
Southeastern Indians followed diplomatic pro- pipe, and the use of Indian metaphors and allusions.
tocols familiar to most Eastern Woodlands peoples. The British and colonial governments used treaties to
From the beginning of an intertribal council, which make peace with, acquire territory from, and estab-
for some peoples began with an elaborate procession lish trade relations with the Southeastern Indian
to the council grounds, the host people established a nations. For example, in 1715 the Yamasee, Catawba,
hospitable atmosphere by warmly greeting the visit- and other Indian tribes in the region attacked the
ing representatives, offering them food and drink, town of Charleston after becoming frustrated by
and ensuring that they were comfortable. The parties unscrupulous traders who captured indebted tribal
smoked a peace pipe, or calumet, to symbolically members and sold them into slavery. After bitter
open a clear line of communication between the two fighting, in 1717 the Yamasee and Catawba made
peoples and exchanged gifts such as furs, feathers, peace with the English; the parties used a diplomatic
and pipes to prove their sincerity. treaty to bring hostilities to an end.
The negotiations began with orations from each The British also used treaties to acquire land
side. In a peace negotiation, for example, the repre- from the tribes and impose their vision of territorial
sentatives might express their sadness that relations order. For example, in 1765 the British and the
had been broken by war, announce their desire to Choctaw signed a treaty at Mobile establishing the
restore peace, and describe the vision of the future Choctaw border at the Alabama and Cahaba rivers.
that would be created if the parties came to agree- The British also promised to keep English settlers
ment. The parties spoke in a common diplomatic from crossing into Choctaw territory. The European
language that enabled peoples who spoke distinct nations also used treaty negotiations to attack the
languages and dialects to communicate; they interests of their colonial rivals. In the Treaty of
couched their discussions in metaphors, stories, and Grandpré (1750), French agents persuaded the
symbols designed to signify their expectations in a Choctaw to wage war against the Chickasaw, who
clear but polite fashion. Early European records indi- were aligned with Great Britain. In that agreement,
cate that Indians participating in diplomatic negotia- the French threatened to execute any Choctaw who
tions used language that encouraged their counter- killed a French subject or invited an English subject
parts to “think good thoughts of peace,” “bury the into their village.
hatchet,” “link arms together,” and “eat out of the
same bowl.” When Indian communities established
diplomatic arrangements, they often created fictive Treaty Relations during
kinship relations with their negotiating partners and the American Revolution
described their counterparts in familiar kinship During the Revolutionary War, the American
terms. A small, less powerful group, for instance, colonies unsuccessfully competed with Great Britain
259
260 Regional Essays
to conclude treaties that secured the military assis- erners continued to claim the power to treat with
tance or neutrality of the Indian nations in the South- Indian nations.
east. The major tribal nations in the Southeast—the
Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the
Muscogee Creek—feared that an American victory The Hopewell Treaties
would only encourage the intrusion of settlers into In 1783, soon after the signing of the Treaty of Paris,
their lands and remained hostile to the colonies. which concluded the American Revolutionary War,
American military efforts were more successful in the Continental Congress directed treaty commis-
bringing about Indian neutrality. In 1776, militia sioners to make peace with the Indian nations and
forces from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, inform them that the United States had acquired
and Georgia invaded the Cherokee Nation, sovereignty over them with its victory over Great
destroyed Cherokee crops and villages, and cowed Britain. The Indian nations in the Southeast refused
the Cherokee and the rest of the southeastern tribes to accept this argument. The Cherokee, Chickasaw,
into neutrality for the remainder of the war. After the Choctaw, and Muscogee Creek continued to possess
conclusion of the Cherokee War of 1776, the states formidable military forces, and the latter three
involved in the war opened separate negotiations nations preferred to continue playing off the United
with the Cherokee within their borders. On May 20, States against Spain for their own benefit. In 1784 the
1777, the Lower Cherokee signed a treaty with South Creek, Chickasaw, and Choctaw Nations signed
Carolina and Georgia at DeWitt’s Corner, South Car- treaties with the Spanish government. These treaties
olina. The Cherokee agreed to return their American raised serious concerns among American policy-
prisoners and ceded their territory east of the Unicoi makers that the southeastern nations might ally with
Mountains; Georgia and South Carolina promised to Spain and attack the southern and western flank of
keep their citizens from crossing into Cherokee terri- the United States.
tory and agreed to provide the Cherokee people with In 1785, the United States accelerated its efforts
trade goods. In the Treaty of Long Island of Holston, to establish peaceful relations with the southeastern
concluded on June 20, 1777, the Overhill Cherokee tribes. In November of that year, treaty commission-
concluded peace negotiations with similar provisions ers sent by the Congress met with Cherokee leaders
with North Carolina and Virginia. In August 1783, a at Hopewell, a plantation on the Keowee River in
dissident faction of the Creek Nation, rejecting the northwestern South Carolina. After lengthy negotia-
British alliance arranged by Alexander McGillivray, tions, the United States and the Cherokee Nation
ceded a portion of their territory to Georgia in the concluded a treaty that established peace and agreed
Treaty of Augusta. In that same year, the Chickasaw upon formal boundaries.
signed a treaty with Virginia that established peace Some provisions of the agreement suggested
and borders between the two peoples. that the Cherokee had surrendered aspects of
The fact that these treaties were concluded with national sovereignty to the United States. The Chero-
the states rather than the Continental Congress kee, for instance, acknowledged that they would
demonstrates the confusion that existed over which thereafter live “under the protection of the United
government held jurisdiction over Indian relations. States of America, and of no other sovereign, whoso-
The southern states argued that the Articles of Con- ever.” Another article stated that “the United States
federation gave the states complete jurisdiction over in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclu-
Indian affairs, and they continued to conclude sepa- sive right of regulating the trade with the Indians,
rate treaties with the Indians within their borders. and managing all their affairs in such manner as
Those who favored a stronger central government they think proper.” The Hopewell agreement also
argued that Indian relations were a concern of all of prohibited the Cherokee from engaging in diplo-
the states and therefore a matter to be handled by matic or trade relations with other nations. (Despite
the Continental Congress. The Constitutional Con- this provision, the Cherokee signed a treaty with
vention of 1787 clarified the wording of the national Spain in 1792. The Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the
government’s authority somewhat by endowing Muscogee Creek also signed treaties with Spain that
Congress with the power “to regulate commerce year; these agreements seemed to violate the United
with foreign nations, and among the several States, States’ efforts at Hopewell and, later, in the treaty
and with the Indian tribes,” although many south- with the Creek in New York, to prohibit the tribes

from conducting trade or diplomacy with European ated by tribal leaders and federal commissioners
nations). appointed by the president.
Other provisions of the treaty implied that the Knox did not believe that the tribes would
United States recognized the Cherokee people as an remain forever sovereign, and he argued that the
independent, sovereign nation. Along with estab- United States had a duty to prepare Native Ameri-
lishing borders for the Cherokee, the treaty required cans for their eventual assimilation. He proposed a
American settlers to leave Cherokee territory. Those civilization program in which the government
who did not leave, the treaty stated, would fall sub- would teach Indians to read, write, and till the soil
ject to Cherokee law. The treaty also provided the like American yeomen farmers. Knox believed that,
Cherokee with the right to send a “deputy of their once Native Americans abandoned hunting for
choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.” Some European American-styled farming, their “hunting
scholars have argued that this provision was an grounds,” or national territory, could be purchased
admission on the part of the United States that the by the United States and sold to and developed by
Cherokee constituted an independent sovereign Americans. Over time, Knox predicted, acculturated
nation; others have argued that the American treaty Indians would assimilate into the American society
commissioners intended the Cherokee eventually to that slowly engulfed them. Congress appropriated
assimilate into the United States. money to supply Indians with plows, spinning
As the U.S. commissioners were preparing to wheels, and other tools and implements, and began
depart, they received word that treaty delegations posting agents among the tribes to instruct individ-
from the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations were on ual Indians in their use.
their way to Hopewell. On January 3, 1786, the The Muscogee Creek Nation became the first
United States and the Choctaw reached treaty terms. southeastern tribe to conclude a treaty that included
The Chickasaw concluded their agreement with the civilization provisions. On August 7, 1790, the
United States on January 10. The Choctaw and Muscogee Creek and the United States signed the
Chickasaw treaties were almost identical to the U.S.- Treaty of New York, which contained provisions
Cherokee accord, except that the Choctaw and similar to those set forth in the Hopewell treaties and
Chickasaw did not receive permission to send a reaffirmed, to a considerable extent, the Creek bor-
deputy to the U.S. Congress. ders established in treaties made with Georgia at
Augusta (1783), Galphinton (1785), and Shoulder-
bone (1786). The civilization article of the treaty
Treaties and the declared that the United States would assist the
Civilization Program Creek on the path toward “a greater degree of civi-
In 1789, President George Washington appointed lization,” teach them to become “herdsmen and cul-
Henry Knox, his artillery commander during the tivators,” and provide them “useful domestic ani-
Revolutionary War, as his secretary of war. In letters mals and implements of husbandry.” The United
to Washington, Knox argued that the United States States also promised to respect the borders of the
should recognize that the Indian tribes were sover- remaining Creek territory and to provide the Creek
eign peoples possessing a legitimate claim to their with trade goods and an annuity of $1,500. Annu-
land. By recognizing the rights of the Indian ities, an annual cash payment to the tribe, became
nations, Knox continued, the United States could common in U.S.-Indian treaties. In a set of secret pro-
establish peace along its western frontier, institute visions, which also became commonplace in federal-
an orderly process for territorial expansion, and Indian treaties, the United States agreed to pay the
demonstrate that it was a just nation that dealt hon- Creek Chief Alexander McGillivray $1,200 a year,
orably with its indigenous population. Knox per- made him the federal agent for the Creek Nation,
suaded Washington to his view, and together, and appointed him a brigadier general in the U.S.
through executive orders, treaties, and legislation, Army. With this treaty, and with the treaties at Fort
they implemented the secretary’s suggestions. In Harmar with several tribes from north of the Ohio,
1790, Congress enacted the first in a series of George Washington’s administration established the
statutes called the Trade and Intercourse Acts, precedent of sending concluded treaties to the Sen-
which provided, among other things, that land pur- ate for ratification. Proponents of the idea that the
chases from Indians be acquired in treaties negoti- tribes were sovereign nations subsequently used this

262 Regional Essays
development to bolster their argument, for the Con- own pace, retain their autonomy, and live free from
stitution required the Senate to consent to treaties the trespasses of American settlers. Jefferson
the president negotiated with foreign states. attempted to persuade Indian leaders to take their
The United States also persuaded the other people to the West. Although the southeastern tribes
major southeastern tribes to sign treaties implement- generally rejected the president’s overtures, in 1808
ing the civilization program. On July 2, 1791, at the the federal government did conclude a removal and
Holston River near what is now Knoxville, the exchange treaty with a group of disaffected Chero-
Cherokee reaffirmed the peace and protection kee. By 1810, about one thousand members of that
clauses of the Hopewell agreement and ceded a tract dissident group had migrated to the Arkansas River
of territory settled by Americans. This pattern, in valley.
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 Treaties after the War of 1812
tribes over and over again. In return, the United During the War of 1812, American militia forces
States agreed to provide funds and instruction to under Andrew Jackson destroyed the Nativist Red-
lead the Cherokee toward acculturation. stick Creek revolt at Horseshoe Bend (1814). In the
Treaty of Fort Jackson (1814), Jackson forced the
Muscogee Creek Nation to surrender more than
Jefferson and the twenty million acres, even though many of the Creek
Southeast Nations had fought with Jackson against the Redsticks. The
When Thomas Jefferson was elected president of the treaty also required the Muscogee Creek Nation to
United States, he quickly set out to acquire Indian end its relations with Spain and Great Britain and
land in the Southeast. Although the Cherokee at first authorized the United States to build roads, forts,
tried to resist U.S. demands, they eventually surren- and trading posts in Creek territory.
dered cessions in treaties at Wafford’s Settlement After the war, Jackson and John C. Calhoun,
(1804), Tellico (1804–1805), and Washington (1806). the secretary of war under President James Monroe,
The Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations also called for the United States to end the use of treaties
ceded territory to the United States during this era. and what Jackson called the “absurdity” of dealing
These nations had incurred enormous debts to the with the Indian tribes as sovereign nations. In 1817,
British trading firm of Panton, Leslie, and Company. a congressional committee advised Monroe to
The three nations offered up land and rights-of-way embrace Jefferson’s removal idea and relocate the
through their territory to the United States; in southeastern tribes to the West. During Monroe’s
exchange, the federal government paid the Indians’ administration, the Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, and
debts. Between 1801 and 1805, in three treaties at Chickasaw all ceded land to the United States;
Fort Adams, Fort Confederation, and Hoe Buckin- treaties with the Cherokee in 1817 and 1819, the
toopa, the Choctaw ceded to the United States Choctaw in 1820, the Chickasaw in 1816 and 1818,
approximately seven million acres and the right to and the Creek in 1825 all included articles provid-
build a federal road through their territory. In 1805, ing inducements for tribe members to emigrate
the Chickasaw ceded all their lands north of the Ten- west of the Mississippi. In the Treaty of Doak’s
nessee River to the United States; most of the annu- Stand (1820), the Choctaw traded more than five
ities the Indians received were paid directly to their million acres in Alabama and Mississippi for thir-
creditors at Chickasaw Bluffs. That same year, the teen million acres in what is now western Arkansas
Creek surrendered territory east of the Ocmulgee and eastern Oklahoma. When surveyors arrived to
River and authorized the United States to build a mark out the new western territory, however, the
road through their nation to Mobile. Choctaw learned that white settlers had already
In 1803, Jefferson’s administration completed moved into the area. When the Choctaw leadership
the Louisiana Purchase. The acquisition of this vast protested, the United States asked them to send a
territory gave Jefferson the opportunity to imple- delegation to Washington to renegotiate the bound-
ment an idea he had contemplated for many years: aries of their cession. There, the Choctaw chief
the relocation of the Indian nations in the East Moshulatubbee agreed to the Treaty of Washington
beyond the Mississippi River. There, Jefferson sug- City, which required the Choctaw to surrender
gested, Native Americans could acculturate at their approximately two million acres of the land they

had acquired at Doak’s Stand. Although Calhoun Cherokee national territory, divide it up into parcels,
and federal officials urged the Choctaw to move en and offer it in a lottery to white Georgians. Alabama,
masse to the West, only a few small groups chose to Mississippi, and Tennessee followed Georgia’s lead
remove. and passed laws extending state jurisdiction over the
The Chickasaw also surrendered cessions in Indians in their borders. In 1828, Andrew Jackson
1816 and 1818, although they did not agree to provi- was elected president of the United States, and he set
sions for removal at this time. In the treaties of 1805, out to achieve a general removal of the eastern
1816, and 1818, the Chickasaw gave up almost tribes. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal
twenty million acres of their national territory. The Act, which authorized the president to negotiate
Seminole, a nation comprising remnant indigenous removal and cession treaties with the Indian tribes in
groups and Creek Redsticks who had fled into the the East.
region after the Creek Civil War, also ceded territory The Cherokee, however, refused to remove.
to the United States. In 1823, at Moultrie Creek, John Ross, the principal chief of the Cherokee,
Florida, the Seminole ceded their lands in northern argued to the American public that the Cherokee
Florida and along the coasts and agreed to remain in Nation was a sovereign nation, that Georgia’s efforts
the interior of the state. After surrendering thirty to exert its jurisdiction over the Cherokee violated
million acres, the Seminole retained only five million both the U.S. Constitution and international law, and
acres in the central part of the peninsula. that the federal government had a duty under the
In 1825, federal commissioners and Georgia offi- Treaty of Hopewell and subsequent U.S.-Cherokee
cials persuaded a small group of Muscogee Creek, treaties to protect his nation from Georgia’s attacks.
led by a chief named William McIntosh, to sign the Ross understood that the Cherokees’ only hope for
Treaty of Indian Springs (1825), which required the survival in the East was to force the United States to
Creek to abandon their territory in Georgia and a abide by its treaty commitments, and he consistently
large tract in Alabama. The Creek council had earlier reminded federal leaders of their nation’s long-
passed a law imposing the death penalty for anyone standing recognition of the Cherokees’ national sov-
who sold national lands without the consent of the ereignty in those agreements.
government; and on April 30, 1825, a number of With Congress and the president now promot-
Creek warriors representing their government killed ing a removal policy, the Cherokee asked the U.S.
McIntosh. The Creek government also sent represen- Supreme Court to intervene in their behalf and rec-
tatives to the United States capital to protest the ognize the Cherokee Nation as a separate, sovereign
treaty. In 1827, the Creek Nation and the United nation. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Chief Jus-
States signed the Treaty of Washington, which tice John Marshall wrote that the Cherokee consti-
voided the Treaty of Indian Springs. The new treaty tuted a distinct state and that the United States had
and a subsequently signed revision, however, still historically recognized the sovereignty of their
resulted in the surrender of all Creek territory in nation in numerous treaties. However, Marshall
Georgia. said, the Cherokee Nation was not a foreign state; it
was a “domestic dependent nation” under the pro-
tection of the United States. A year later, in Worcester
The Removal Treaties v. Georgia, Marshall offered a stronger pronounce-
These agreements did not satisfy the southern state ment in favor of the sovereignty of the Indian tribes.
governments. In the 1820s, politicians in Georgia Though the Cherokee Nation had placed itself under
called for the expulsion of all Indians from the state. the protection of the United States at Hopewell, Mar-
The demands for removal were a product of the shall held, it remained a distinct and separate nation.
profitability of cotton agriculture in the Southeast, The efforts by Georgia to extend its laws over the
the concomitant demand for arable land, and the Cherokee, Marshall concluded, violated the sover-
emerging racial prejudice on the part of many white eignty of the Cherokee Nation and unconstitution-
southerners. Beginning in 1827, Georgia passed a ally intruded into the special treaty relationship
series of laws designed to coerce the Cherokee to between the Cherokee and the United States.
leave the state. The Georgia legislature extended the Andrew Jackson was determined not to enforce the
state’s jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation, passed decision in Worcester, however, and allowed Georgia
laws purporting to abolish the Cherokee laws and to continue its efforts to force the Cherokee out of the
government, and set in motion a process to seize the state. At the same time, Jackson, now empowered by

264 Regional Essays
the Indian Removal Act, moved to relocate all of the In 1830, the Chickasaw agreed to a cession and
Indian nations from the East. removal treaty at Franklin, Tennessee. When the
The removal of the southeastern Indian nations Chickasaw visited their new territory, they were dis-
was accomplished through the use of the treaty. Iron- satisfied with the land and nullified the Treaty of
ically, even as the U.S. government worked to coerce Franklin. White settlers, however, continued to flood
the Indian nations to surrender their land in the East, into the Chickasaw Nation; and local and state
it continued to use the mechanism that suggested authorities began to arrest and imprison individual
that the tribes were sovereign. The removal treaties Chickasaw on false or minor charges. In addition,
typically provided for an exchange of remaining federal negotiators threatened to withhold annuities
national territory in the East for new lands west of from the Chickasaw if they did not agree to remove.
the Mississippi, reimbursements for the loss of In October 1832, the Chickasaw signed another
buildings and fixtures, the costs of emigration, funds removal treaty at their council house at Pontotoc
to help the removed Indians acclimate to their new Creek. The Treaty of Pontotoc provided that the
environment, and cash or annuities. The United Chickasaw Nation’s land would be surveyed,
States also promised to honor the title of the Indian divided up into tracts, and allotted to individual
nation’s new land in the West, to respect its political Chickasaw adults. The Chickasaw would remove to
autonomy once there, and to protect the tribe from their new lands in the West, and the remaining
future trespasses. Chickasaw land would be sold by the federal gov-
On September 18, 1830, about six thousand ernment and placed in a tribal fund. After the sign-
Choctaw met with federal treaty officials at Dancing ing of the treaty, the Chickasaw immediately began
Rabbit Creek in eastern Mississippi and signed a to protest the manner in which it had been pressed
removal treaty with the United States. In an effort to upon them, and they began sending delegations to
coerce the Choctaw into removing, federal agents Washington to demand its nullification. In 1834, the
plied the Indians with alcohol and warned them federal government agreed to amend the treaty and
they would forfeit their existence as a tribe and fall allow the individual owners of each allotment to
under the authority of Mississippi if they refused to receive the proceeds from the sale of their land. In
sign. Many Choctaw refused to be bullied and left the Treaty of Doaksville (1837), the Chickasaw
the council. On September 27, however, Greenwood accepted an invitation from the Choctaw to move
LeFlore, Mushulatubbee, and 170 other Choctaw onto an area between the Canadian and Red rivers
leaders signed a treaty that called for the wholesale that the latter nation had acquired in their removal
removal of the Choctaw Nation. The treaty also pro- treaty. The treaty also provided that Chickasaws
vided that LeFlore and other Choctaw families could could accept citizenship in the Choctaw Nation.
remain in the East if they accepted individual allot- In May 1832, the Seminole agreed to emigrate
ments of land. The treaty effectively divided the to the West in the Treaty of Payne’s Landing if they
Choctaw Nation in two. In 1831, the first group of had an opportunity to visit and approve of the
Choctaw emigrated to their new homes in the West. land the federal government was offering in
The majority of Choctaw moved on to the Indian exchange. In November, seven Seminole leaders
Territory, yet perhaps as many as six thousand visited the proposed territory, where they signed
remained in Mississippi. Only sixty-nine of those the removal Treaty of Fort Gibson without receiv-
who remained took allotments; most of the Missis- ing the authority of the Seminole council. The
sippi Choctaw were left landless and destitute. seven who signed later claimed that they had been
In 1832, the Creek government agreed to surren- tricked and intimidated into agreeing to the treaty.
der its territory east of the Mississippi. In return, the Almost all the Seminole refused to recognize the
United States provided the Creek Nation with terri- treaty and resolved to oppose removal by force.
tory in what is now east central Oklahoma. In addi- When the time set for their removal passed, on Jan-
tion, Creek individuals received allotments of land; uary 1, 1836, the U.S. Army moved into Seminole
they could either retain the tract and remain where territory. When the Second Seminole War ended in
they were or sell their land and emigrate to the West. 1842, all but a very small population of the Semi-
Most of the individuals who received an allotment nole had been either killed or forcibly removed.
lost them through fraudulent schemes to white The remnant that remained became the core of the
Americans. The Creek, now overrun by American vibrant Seminole nations that reemerged in the
settlers and speculators, removed to the West. twentieth century.

The Cherokee were the last nation to remove to Garrison, Tim Alan. 2002. The Legal Ideology of
the West. After Jackson allowed the Worcester deci- Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the
sion to go unenforced, the Cherokee Nation became Sovereignty of Native American Nations. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.
divided between those who refused to remove and
Gibson, Arrell M. 1981. The Chickasaws. Norman:
those who wanted the Cherokee to get the best deal University of Oklahoma Press.
they could and remove to the West. In 1835, a dissi- Green, Michael D. 1982. The Politics of Indian
dent group of Cherokee led by Major Ridge, John Removal: Creek Government and Society in Crisis.
Ridge, and Elias Boudinot signed the removal Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Treaty of New Echota. The treaty required the Hudson, Charles. 1976. The Southeastern Indians.
Cherokee Nation to surrender its remaining terri- Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
tory in the East for a parcel in the recently estab- McLouglin, William G. 1992. Cherokee Renascence in
the New Republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
lished Indian Territory and to remove within two
University Press.
years from the signing of the agreement. Even O’Brien, Greg. 2002. Choctaws in a Revolutionary
though it was completed without the sanction of the Age, 1750–1830. Lincoln: University of
Cherokee national government, the U.S. Senate rati- Nebraska Press.
fied the treaty. In 1838, the U.S. Army rounded up as Perdue, Theda. 1979. Slavery and the Evolution of
many Cherokee as they could into temporary stock- Cherokee Society, 1540–1866. Knoxville:
ades; and during the winter of 1838–1839, the University of Tennessee Press.
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The
Cherokee traveled the Trail of Tears to the Indian
United States Government and the American
Territory. Scholars estimate that one-quarter of the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Cherokee Nation died on the forced emigration to Press.
the West. Once in the Indian Territory, a group of Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
men who had opposed removal attacked and killed The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
the two Ridges and Boudinot for violating a law University of California Press.
that prohibited the sale of Cherokee land without Reid, John Phillip. 1976. A Better Kind of Hatchet:
Law, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Cherokee
their government’s consent.
Nation during the Early Years of European
With the departure of most of the remaining Contact. State College: Pennsylvania State
Seminole in 1842, the United States had, by treaty, University Press.
forced all of the major southeastern Indian tribes out Satz, Ronald N. 1975. American Indian Policy in the
of the region. In the West, the Indian nations contin- Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of
ued to receive federal funds and instruction toward Nebraska Press.
civilization; and there, for many years, they contin- Swanton, John R. 1946. The Indians of the
ued to exist as separate, sovereign nations. Southeastern United States. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Tim Alan Garrison
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 2001. Jefferson and the
References and Further Reading Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans.
Carson, James T. 1999. Searching for the Bright Path: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1999. Linking Arms Together:
Removal. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace,
Champagne, Duane. 1992. Social Order and Political 1600–1800. New York: Routledge.
Change: Constitutional Governments among the Wright, J. Leitch. 1990. Creeks and Seminoles:
Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the Creek. Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscogulge
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. People. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Southern Plains and the Southwest
I
I
n the Southwest, Indians first dealt with the The United States picked up where the Mexi-
Spanish government in Mexico, then with the cans left off. An agreement in 1846 with Colonel
Republic of Mexico after 1821, and with the Alexander W. Doniphan, which was never submit-
United States after 1846. The approaches of all three ted to Congress and which called for peace, mutual
of these colonial powers were rather consistent, trade, and mutual restoration of prisoners and stolen
seeking to protect colonists from Indian attacks and property, was agreed to by fourteen Navajo chiefs,
to open new lands for trade and settlement, but only including Sandoval, Narbona, and Manuelito. A sec-
the United States was able to provide the consistent ond such agreement was made in 1848 with Colonel
military presence that finally put an end to the resis- E. W. B. Newby, with similar provisions.
tance of the Comanche, Apache, Navajo, and other Seven treaties were negotiated with the Navajo
tribes to this encroachment. between 1846 and 1868. However, there was no cen-
Frequent treaties with the nomadic Comanche, tral Navajo government to enforce treaties signed by
Apache, and Navajo were a sign of recurrent hostili- particular headmen. Only three were ratified by the
ties. Colonial governments usually could not or U.S. Senate, the first one in 1850, but a treaty with
would not stop the continued encroachment on some Navajo leaders could not prevent the raiding
Indian lands that brought on new conflicts. The lack of the Navajos and the counterraiding of New Mexi-
of treaties, as with the less nomadic groups, espe- cans. Renewed raiding between the New Mexico set-
cially the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico in the nine- tlers and the Pueblos and Navajos erupted soon after
teenth and twentieth centuries, indicated that there each treaty was signed. When Kit Carson was
was less armed conflict with the colonial powers. A assigned to round up the Navajos, he learned from
continued problem with treaty making was that the past efforts; taking drastic measures, he used a win-
“tribes” with which the treaties were made tended to ter scorched-earth campaign that included burning
be loosely affiliated kinship groups speaking the cornfields and chopping down peach trees.
same language or dialect and sharing similar cus- The trauma of the five years of captivity away
toms. Making an agreement with one part of the from their homeland that resulted from Carson’s
“tribe” often did not bind other members, leading campaign helped to unite the Navajo and led to the
the colonial governments to accuse the “tribe” of bad signing of a permanent peace treaty in 1868, negoti-
faith. ated by peace commissioners General William T.
The first treaties in the Southwest were made Sherman and Colonel Lewis Tappan, which allowed
with the Spanish government. Spanish treaties with the Navajo to return home. That treaty included arti-
the Navajo were made in 1786, 1805, and 1819. At the cles on mutual friendship, reservation boundaries,
1786 conference, two Comanche were used to exhort agency buildings, starting farming, education, con-
“the Navajo to be careful to be faithful in their struction of roads and railroads, and the purchase of
promises,” and the Navajos were called on to help in sheep, goats, cattle, and corn. The U.S. government
the fight with the Gilas (Deloria and DeMallie 1999, had wanted to move the Navajos to Indian Territory,
133). The treaty of 1805 resulted in an exchange of but the Navajos’ continued objections led to their
captives and called for peace; the 1819 treaty again being allowed to return home. Historian Peter Iver-
called for peace, including peace with the Hopi son writes that “the signing of the Navajo treaty of
Pueblos, and for Navajo hostages to ensure that the June 1, 1868, defined the heart of a homeland rather
treaty was honored. than ripping the heart out of a people” (Iverson
Mexican treaties with Navajo were made in 2002, 37). Repeated executive orders between 1878
1822, 1823, 1839, 1841, and 1844. The large number of and 1934 greatly expanded the size of the Navajo
treaties indicates continued raids. The treaty of 1823 Reservation, as the Navajo population soared after
is typical in its call for peace and its provisions for 1868.
the handing over of captives and stolen property. It The Apache, whose language is closely related
also included a vain request that Navajos become to the Navajo language, were arguably the most
Catholic and settle in pueblos. troublesome Indians for all three of the colonial
267
268 Regional Essays
powers in the Southwest; relations with the Apache parties on the other, shall be mutually forgiven and
led to treaty after treaty. The first treaty recorded by forever forgot.”
Spain with the Apache was concluded in 1790. The In 1837, the Kiowa Apache (under the name
Gila Apache pledged not to attack El Paso and to Kataka) made their first treaty with the U.S. govern-
take part in campaigns against other hostile ment. Their subsequent history is that of the Kiowa.
Apaches. Mexico made treaties with various groups In 1853, they are mentioned as a warlike band rang-
of Apaches in 1835, 1836, 1839, 1842, and 1843. In ing the waters of the Canadian River in the same
these treaties, the cessation of raiding and the return area of the Great Plains occupied by the Comanche,
of captives and stolen property were major issues, as whom they often joined in raiding expeditions.
they also were in Comanche and Navajo treaties. Twelve treaties between Indian nations and the
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 between Republic of Texas were made between 1836 and
the United States and Mexico ceded to the United 1845. These included a treaty of peace and perpetual
States much of the land in which Apaches lived. friendship made in 1838 between the republic and
A treaty made in 1851 in Santa Fe with eastern the Lipan Apache, in which the Apache surrendered
Apache by Governor James S. Calhoun, which was their sovereignty, making them subject to the laws of
not presented to Congress, called for unconditional the Republic of Texas. The same year, Texas made a
submission to the United States and good behavior. “Treaty of Peace and Amity” with the Comanche,
A convention in 1873 with the Jicarilla Apache laid who let the Republic of Texas prosecute whites who
out for them the boundaries of a reservation, infringed on Comanche rights. A second treaty with
pledged them to “induce their children, male and the Comanche in 1843 called for the exchange of
female, between the ages of seven and eighteen, to prisoners and “temporary peace” until a council
attend school,” and provided 160-acre allotments to could be held. In 1844, the Treaty of Tehuacana
any heads of families who desired to commence Creek between Texas and the Comanche, Kitsai,
farming. The U.S. Army was still fighting the Apache Waco, Caddo, Anadarko, Hainai, Delaware,
in the 1880s, and Geronimo did not surrender until Shawnee, Cherokee, Lipan Apache, and Tawakoni
1886. An agreement with the Apache, Mohave, and called for peace, for the establishment of trading
Yuma of San Carlos Reservation in 1896 ceded land. houses by Texas with exclusive rights, for a prohibi-
Living east of the Navajo and the Apache on the tion on the sale of alcohol, for the provision of black-
southern Great Plains, the Comanche, too, fought smiths and schoolmasters, and for the mutual sur-
with the Spanish throughout the eighteenth century rendering of prisoners.
and later with Mexico, Texas, and the United States. In 1845, Texas and the Tawakoni, Waco, Wichita,
A treaty of 1785 between eastern (Texas) Comanche and Kitsai agreed to a treaty of peace, friendship,
and Spaniards called for annual gifts to the and commerce. The previous year, the Comanche
Comanche, the cessation of hostilities, the return of and other tribes had pledged peace and agreed to
captives, exclusive trading rights, and opposition to trade only with Texas. In addition, no alcohol was to
the common enemy, the Lipan Apache. The follow- be sold to Indians, and schoolmasters and farmers
ing year, a treaty was made that included the might be sent to teach them. After Texas became part
Comanche in New Mexico. of the United States, the Butler and Lewis treaty of
The treaty of 1822, formalized in Mexico City 1846 put the Comanche under the protection of the
with the newly independent Mexican government, United States. A treaty concluded in 1850 with the
called for trade, for putting past conflicts with the Comanche, Caddo, Lipan Apache, Quapaw,
Spanish government behind, for the return of pris- Tawakoni, and Waco was never presented to Con-
oners, and for controlled access to each other’s terri- gress. In that agreement, lawbreakers were to be
tory. It also provided for twelve Comanche youth to given up to the officer commanding Fort Martin
go to Mexico City every four years to be educated. Scott, and captive whites and runaway Negro slaves
Another treaty with the Comanche was signed in were to be returned. Additionally, horse stealing was
1826. The United States signed a treaty in Indian Ter- to end, liquor was outlawed, and blacksmiths were
ritory with the Comanche and Witchetaw Indians to be provided to repair guns and farm utensils. The
and their associated bands in 1835. It gave the tribes possibility of sending schoolteachers was also
hunting rights throughout the western possessions broached.
of the United States and declared, “Every injury or The treaty of 1853 with the Comanche, Kiowa,
act of hostility by one or either of the contracting and Apache allowed U.S. citizens to travel through

their lands and promised indemnification for dam- restricted to the plains of eastern Colorado. Unique
ages caused by that transit. It also pledged an annu- to the 1965 treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho
ity of $18,000 per year in goods and supplies for at negotiated on the banks of the Little Arkansas River
least ten years, and the tribes pledged not to raid was an apology, in Article 6, for “the gross and wan-
Mexico or fight each other. The 1863 treaty of perpet- ton outrages perpetrated” by Chivington’s Colorado
ual “peace, friendship, and unity” with the same Volunteers in their massacre at Sand Creek in 1864.
tribes, signed in Washington, D.C., was rejected by The tribes were again assigned marginal land taken
Congress. It was designed to allow unrestricted pas- from other tribes in the Oklahoma panhandle. The
sage on the Overland Mail Route from Kansas City, treaty included hunting rights, defined reservation
Missouri, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and in return boundaries, provided annuities of $20 per person
promised $25,000 per year for five years to be given before removal to a reservation and $40 thereafter
in goods, merchandise, provisions, agricultural for forty years, and contained no education provi-
implements, and so on, with a possible extension by sions. The majority of both tribes rejected this treaty.
the president for another five years. A treaty with the In 1890, an agreement with the Cheyenne and Ara-
Kiowa and Comanche, negotiated in 1865 by John B. paho paid for ceded land and called for allotment.
Sanborn, William S. Harney, Thomas Murphy, Kit Similar agreements were made with the Wichita and
Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse H. Leavenworth, and Kickapoo in 1891 and the Comanche, Kiowa, and
James Steele, provided annuities and sought to build Apache in 1892.
roads through the tribes’ territory that would be safe Sharing the southern Great Plains with the
for passage. During the Civil War, nine treaties also Cheyenne, Comanche, and Arapaho were the Paw-
were made between Indian nations and the Confed- nee and the Kiowa. Treaties with the Pawnee in 1818,
erate States of America, including two with the negotiated with William Clark and Auguste
Comanche. Choteau, acknowledged that the Pawnee were
North of the Comanche, the Southern Cheyenne under the protection of the United States and called
saw their lives change drastically starting in the for perpetual peace. In 1833, at the Grand Pawnee
1840s, as pandemics sharply reduced their numbers village on the Platte River, the United States agreed
at the same time that their major food supply, the “to allow one thousand dollars a year for ten years,
buffalo, followed a similar path to near extinction. for schools to be established for the benefit of said
As the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851 described: four bands at the discretion of the President” and
agreed “to furnish two blacksmiths and two strikers,
The territory of the Cheyennes and Arrapahoes, with shop, tools and iron, for ten years . . . at an
commencing at the Red Bute, or the place where expense not exceeding two thousand dollars in the
the road leaves the north fork of the Platte whole annually.” In the treaty of 1857 with the Paw-
River; thence up the north fork of the Platte nee, negotiated at Table Creek in Nebraska Territory,
River to its source; thence along the main range a large amount of land was ceded to the United
of the Rocky Mountains to the head-waters of States in return for $40,000 per year for five years
the Arkansas River; thence down the Arkansas and then $30,000 per year “as a perpetual annuity, at
River to the crossing of the Santa Fé road; least one-half of which annual payments shall be
thence in a northwesterly direction to the forks made in goods, and such articles as may be deemed
of the Platte River, and thence up the Platte necessary for them.” Two manual labor schools were
River to the place of beginning. also promised. An agreement with the Pawnee in
1892 also called for a perpetual annuity of $30,000
The U.S. government promised supplies and per year. An agreement was made in 1909 to replace
reserved the right to build roads and military posts. that perpetual annuity with a $600,000 lump sum
In the 1861 Treaty of Fort Wise with the Arapaho payment.
and the Cheyenne, the Indian signers were not told Whereas southwestern Indians, especially those
all the terms written into the treaty. They were no located in the present state of New Mexico, have a
longer to hold land in common and were promised long history of colonial imposition dating back to the
annuities, but spending would be controlled by early seventeenth century, the Indians of the south-
Indian Office officials, who supplied inferior goods. ern plains, in contrast, lived relatively unrestricted
They were assigned barren lands that the whites did lives until repeated discoveries of gold in various
not want at the time, and their hunting rights were parts of the West from 1848 on brought a steady flow

270 Regional Essays
of immigrants through Indian lands who demanded settlement. However, a reluctant Congress and cor-
military protection. Then, in the 1860s, the rapid ruption within the Indian Office meant that rations
extension of railroads brought a massive influx of promised in treaties were not always delivered or
settlers. were inferior to what was promised, which created a
Treaties made before the Civil War tended to situation ripe for the renewal of hostilities.
focus on provisions for trading and safe passage of The goal of treaty after treaty for perpetual
immigrants; after the Civil War and the passage of peace and friendship was also undermined by the
the Homestead Act of 1862, they focused on either continued encroachment of settlers on Indian lands,
removing of Indians from arable lands or “civiliz- and the continued warfare did not end until the
ing” them and giving them small homesteads (allot- Indians were confined to relatively small reserva-
ments) of their own in order to open up the remain- tions. The colonial powers were greatly aided in
ing land for speculators and settlers. their work of dispossessing Indians of their lands by
Even before the Indian Civilization Act of 1819, the catastrophic decreases in the Indian population
the United States had sought to transform nomadic caused by recurring pandemics of smallpox,
Indians into Christian, English-speaking farmers measles, and other diseases to which they had little
who would live in peace alongside colonists. School- or no immunity.
ing was an integral part of this plan, first to be Some Indian tribes took advantage of the with-
undertaken by missionaries but, starting in the late drawal of troops from the West to fight in the Civil
nineteenth century, implemented by teachers who War (1861–1865), to renew warfare. At the end of the
were directly employed by the government. How- Civil War, some of the eastern reformers who had
ever, establishing schools among the various tribes worked to abolish slavery turned their attention to
was futile until the tribes gave up their nomadic ending the mistreatment of Indians and stopping
existence. For the Plains Indians, this was largely the Indian wars. In 1865, the Republican-controlled
accomplished by the destruction of the buffalo herds Congress approved a Joint Special Committee on
on which they relied for their survival. the Conduct of the Indian Tribes, known as the
The movement of the U.S. Indian Office from Doolittle Committee after its chairman. The commit-
the War Department to the Department of the Inte- tee divided into three groups and toured the West.
rior in 1849 is symbolic of the increased military Their report of 1867 noted a precipitous decline in
strength of the United States after a shaky beginning Indian population outside of the Indian territories
in which it had lost some major Indian battles. How- and found “that in a large majority of cases Indian
ever, during the Civil War, that military dominance wars are to be traced to the aggressions of lawless
on the Great Plains was threatened, as troops were white men” (Prucha 2000, 102). The committee rec-
pulled east. Drastic measures were taken to protect ommended a “civilization policy” that included
settlers and immigration routes, such as Christopher providing schools and persuading Indians to
(Kit) Carson’s scorched-earth campaign against the become farmers.
Navajo and their imprisonment for five years on the In 1867, the Arapaho and Southern Cheyenne
New Mexico-Texas border. Prolonged military cam- were living between the Platte and Arkansas Rivers,
paigns under harsh winter conditions helped break and the Comanche and Kiowa were living to the
the back of Indian resistance, but the campaigns south of the Arkansas River. The Plains tribes were
were costly. being starved into submission, as professional
For the more warlike tribes, it was cheaper for hunters helped wipe out the vast buffalo herds on
the U.S. government to try to buy land cessions with which the Indians depended for food, and they were
annuities than to fight for them. Critics of the mili- beaten into submission by protracted military cam-
tary approach to Indian pacification complained that paigns that continued through the harsh plains win-
it cost a million dollars to kill one hostile Indian. The ters. Railroads were rapidly being built through the
increasing cost of annuities agreed to by the Senate southern buffalo hunting grounds and, in the north,
in treaties, but which had to be paid for with appro- had already reached Cheyenne, Wyoming. Using the
priation bills initiated in the House of Representa- new Homestead Act of 1862, settlers were coming in
tives, led to the ending of treaty making in 1871. on the new railroads and increasingly were pushing
Annuities were doubly important to tribes displaced into Indian hunting grounds, creating continued fric-
by treaties because the tribes were often assigned tion and warfare. Settlers called on the military to
barren lands that were the least attractive to white protect them.

The need for continued expensive military mated five thousand Indians and negotiated the
expeditions against the various Plains tribes, along Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek. They were accom-
with the same humanitarian impulses that had led to panied by nine newspaper reporters and guarded by
the freeing of slaves, impelled Congress on July 20, two companies of the Seventh Cavalry, supported by
1867, to authorize President Andrew Johnson to a Gatling gun unit. The Seventh Cavalry was tem-
appoint a Peace Commission to treat with Indian porarily without its commander, Lieutenant Colonel
tribes. Its congressional mandate was to develop “a George Armstrong Custer, who had been arrested
system for civilizing the Indians,” and it had for leaving his troops to visit his wife without autho-
rization. The commission met first with the
the power and authority to call together the Comanche and the Kiowa, then with the Apache,
chiefs and headmen of such bands or tribes of and finally with the Arapaho and the Cheyenne. The
Indians as are now waging war against the tribes gave up claims to some 90 million acres in
United States or committing depredations upon return for 2.9 million acres in Indian Territory that
the people thereof, to ascertain the alleged had been taken from the Five Civilized Tribes
reasons for their acts of hostility, and in their because some had sided with the Confederacy dur-
discretion, under the direction of the President, ing the Civil War. The treaty also contained provi-
to make and conclude with said bands or tribes sions for hunting outside the new reservation,
such treaty stipulations, subject to the action of schooling of their children, and annuities. It could
the Senate, as may remove all just cause of not be altered except by a vote of three-fourths of the
complaint on their part, and at the same time adult male population of the tribes.
establish security for person and property along This treaty was no more successful than the sub-
the lines of railroad now being construction to sequent Treaty of Fort Laramie negotiated by the
the Pacific and other thoroughfares of travel to Peace Commission, and sporadic fighting continued
the western Territories, and such as will most till 1875. When the Jerome Commission sought to
likely insure civilization for the Indians and open a portion of the reservation of 1867 to whites,
peace and safety for the whites. (St. Germain the tribes objected, and the new agreement did not
2001, 48) receive the approval of three-fourths of the Kiowa.
However, the tribe failed in its effort to enforce com-
Major General Winfield Scott Hancock ordered pliance with the treaty in the Supreme Court deci-
a halt to offensive warfare in 1867 to give the Great sion Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock in 1903.
Peace Commission a chance to deal with hostile In the spring following the negotiation of the
tribes. The commission was made up of Nathaniel G. Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek, the Peace Commis-
Taylor, Senator John B. Henderson, Samuel F. Tap- sion negotiated an equally ill-fated treaty with the
pan, John Sanborn, and Generals William T. Sher- Sioux at Fort Laramie and then in the summer had
man, William Harney, and Alfred Terry. Appointed much better luck with the previously described
by President Johnson as Commissioner of Indian treaty with the Navajo. In late 1868, the Peace Com-
Affairs, Taylor was a former Methodist minister and mission members agreed among themselves that
a military officer who was in favor of a peace policy. tribes should not be considered independent
He had seen the devastation caused by the military nations, and this helped to end treaty making in
during the Civil War in his home state of Tennessee 1871. In its final report of 1868 to President Andrew
and had some sympathy for the Indians. Sanborn Johnson, the commission declared, “The history of
and Harney had previously negotiated treaties while the Government connections with the Indians is a
serving on the Peace Commission of 1865, and San- shameful record of broken treaties and unfulfilled
born had also co-chaired the commission that inves- promises” and declared their treatment to be “unjust
tigated the Fetterman Massacre. Tappan was an and iniquitous beyond the power of words to
ardent abolitionist who had been actively involved express.” The commission’s report stated, “The his-
in the Underground Railroad, helping escaped tory of the border white man’s connection with the
slaves before the Civil War. He saw U.S. Indian Indians is a sickening record of murder, outrage, rob-
policy as a “national sin” and chaired a commission bery, and wrongs committed by the former as the
that investigated the Sand Creek Massacre. rule, and occasional savage outbreaks and unspeak-
Three months after the commission’s authoriza- able barbarous deeds of retaliation by the latter as
tion, the commissioners brought presents for an esti- the exception” (Annual Report 1869, 7).

272 Regional Essays
When General Ulysses S. Grant, who had declared that the Pueblo Indians “had nothing in
served in the army in the West, became president in common” with the Navajo, Apache, and Comanche,
1869, he continued a peace policy that reflected the were not wards of the government subject to control
reports of the previous Peace Commissions. In his of U.S. Indian agents, and could sell their property
first inaugural address he declared, “The proper as they saw fit. This decision was reversed in 1913 in
treatment of the original occupants of this land—the U.S. v. Sandoval, and in 1924 Congress established
Indians—is one deserving of careful study. I will the Pueblo Lands Board to resolve claims of non-
favor any course toward them which tends to their Indians to Pueblo lands.
civilization and ultimate citizenship” (Richardson A treaty in 1848 with the Zuni, which was not
1910, 3962). He appointed a Seneca Indian as his submitted to Congress, required the Zuni to obey the
commissioner of Indian affairs, his Civil War aide laws of the United States and the Territory of New
Brigadier General Ely S. Parker, who served from Mexico in return for being “protected in the full
1869 to 1871. As a measure to halt Indian Office cor- enjoyment of all its rights of personal property and
ruption and promote peace, Grant also appointed a religion.” Another treaty not submitted to Congress
Board of Indian Commissioners to supervise the was made in 1850 by Indian agent James S. Calhoun
appointment of Indian agents, teachers, and farmers with ten other Pueblos, who agreed to being “gov-
as well as the buying of supplies. This board contin- erned by their own laws and customs, and such
ued to operate until 1933; however, it soon lost most authorities as they may prescribe, subject only to the
of its power. The board divided up Indian agencies controlling power of the Government of the United
among thirteen different religious groups. However, States.”
it was the Civil Service reforms of the 1890s that The United States also made treaties with vari-
finally ended the spoils system, which based the ous bands of Ute in 1855, 1865, and 1866, which the
appointment of Indian agents and other government Senate failed to ratify. Initially given the whole of
positions on political support rather than job qualifi- eastern Colorado for a reservation, the discovery of
cations. gold there in the 1860s brought a quick reduction in
While the Navajo, Apache, and Comanche gen- territory. The treaty with the Ute in 1865 provided
erated the most treaties, other tribes lived in the for the cession of land in exchange for the entire val-
Southwest as well. The Pueblo Indians of New Mex- ley of the Unitah River in Utah, plus $25,000 per year
ico and Arizona, who lived in permanent villages, for ten years, then $20,000 for twenty years, and
did not fit the stereotype of the nomadic Indian. thereafter $15,000 per year, based on an estimated
When the Spanish retook New Mexico after the population of five thousand Ute. The treaty also
Pueblo Revolt of 1680, the Pueblos resigned them- banned liquor and provided for the establishment
selves to the presence of colonists; because of this, and maintenance of a manual labor school for ten
peace treaties were never signed. Although squatters years.
infringed on their traditional lands, these tribes did In 1878, an agreement with the Capote, Muache,
not suffer the massive displacement that more and Weeminuche bands of Ute, consented to by the
nomadic tribes continued to face as settlers. Simi- Yampa, Grand River, Uintah, and Tabequache bands,
larly, the many smaller tribes of Arizona, including also ceded lands. An agreement of 1911 with the
the Pima, Maricopa, Hualapai, Mojave, Havasupai, Wiminuche band of Southern Ute traded land to get
and Hopi, never made treaties with the United them to relinquish claims to land in Mesa Verde
States. National Park in Colorado.
A year after the United States invaded New Besides the treaties with Spain, Mexico, Texas,
Mexico in 1846, the new territorial legislature recog- and the United States, there were also treaties made
nized each Pueblo village as a separate group and between Indian nations. In 1858, a treaty of perma-
basically confirmed the old Spanish land grants, nent peace and friendship was made at the Ute
which were again confirmed in the Treaty of agency in Taos, New Mexico, between the Arapaho,
Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, which ended the war Cheyenne, and Apache, represented by an Arapaho
with Mexico. A Pueblo Indian agency was estab- named Guatanamo, and the Muahuache Ute, Jicar-
lished in 1849. However, in 1876 the U.S. Supreme illa Apache, and Pueblo of Taos. The treaty was
Court ruled that Pueblos of New Mexico were not signed in the presence of Christopher (Kit) Carson,
Indians. In U.S. v. Joseph (94 U.S. 614), the Court the Ute Indian agent. Another treaty, made at Fort

Yuma, California, in 1863 between the Mojave, Pima, Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1999.
Papago, Maricopa, Yuma, Chemehuevi, and Huala- Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties,
pai called for these tribes to be at peace with each Agreements, and Conventions, 1775–1979.
other, to join in war against the Apaches, and to pro-
Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajo.
tect Americans. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
The United States had a consistent policy of Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge:
opening relatively sparsely populated, fertile Indian The Story of the Great Treaty Council as Told by
lands to white settlement. This policy was tempered Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma
by the cost of the Indian wars caused by this contin- Press.
ued encroachment of setters, and, especially after Kavanagh, Thomas W. 1996. The Comanches: A History
the Civil War, by a humanitarian desire to civilize 1706–1875. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
the Indian. Treaty after treaty tried to stop unre-
stricted encroachment by settlers on Indian lands United States Government and the American
and to control the sale of liquor to Indians, but the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
U.S. government had no more success with these Prucha, Francis Paul. ed. 2000. Documents of United
efforts to pacify the frontier than it has today in try- States Indian Policy, 3rd ed. Lincoln: University
ing to stem the influx of illegal immigrants and of Nebraska Press.
drugs. Richardson, James D., ed. 1910. A Compilation of the
Messages and Papers of the Presidents.
Jon Reyhner
Washington, DC: Bureau of National Literature
References and Further Reading and Art.
Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in
1869. Washington, DC: U.S. Government the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln:
Printing Office. University of Nebraska Press.

Resources
Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings
Tribal Name Alternate Tribal Name(s)
Abenaki (western) Alnonba, Abnaki
Absaroke Crow
Adai Nateo
Adamstown Upper Mattaponi
Alabama Alibamu
Aleut Alutiiq, Unangan
Anadarko Nadaco
Anishinabe Chippewa, Ojibwa
Apache N de,Tinneh, Dine, Tinde, Unde, Shis Inde, Aravaipa, Bedonkohe,
Chihene, Chiricahua, Chokonen, Cibecue, Jicarilla, Kiowa, Lipan,
Mescalero, Mimbres, Nednhi, Tonto, Yuma
Apache Mohave Yavapai
Appomattoc Apamatuks
Arapahoe Inunaina, Atsina
Arikara Northern Pawnee, Ricara, Ree
Assiniboine Hohe
Athapaskan Dene
Atsina Haaninin
Aztec Nahua, Nahuatl
Bannock Panaiti
Bear River Indians Niekeni
Bellabella Heiltsuqu, Heiltsuk
Bellacoola Nuxalk
Beothuk Beathunk, Betoukuag, Macquajeet, Red Indians, Skraelling, Ulno
Blackfeet/Blackfoot Niitsitapi, Nitsi-tapi, Piegan, Ahpikuni, Pikuni (northern); Siksika,
Sisaka (southern), Sihasapa, Ahkainah
Blood Kainai, Ahkainah
Boothroyd Chomok
Brule Sioux Si can gu
Caddo Adai, Eyeish, Hasinai, Hainai, Kadohodacho, Kadohadacho
Confederacy, Natchitoches
Cahuilla Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Kawasic, Morongo, Los Coyotes, Painakic,
Wanikik
Calusa Caloosa, Calos, Calosa, Carlos, Muspa
Campo Kumeyaay
Carrier Dakelh, Wet’suwet’en
Catawba Esaw, Iswa, Iyeye, Nieye, Ushery
Cayuga Kweniogwen, Iroquois
Cayuse Wailetpu, Te-taw-ken
Chakchiuma Shaktci Homma
Chehalis Copalis, Humptulips, Qwaya, Satsop, Sts’Ailes, Wynoochee
Chemainus Tsa-mee-nis
R-1
R-2 Resources
Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings (cont.)

Chemehuevi Nuwu, Tantawats
Chetco Tolowa
Cherokee Tsa-la-gi, Ani-yun-wiya, Anikituhwagi, Keetowah
Cheyenne Dzi tsi stas, Sowonia (southern), O mi sis (northern), Tse-tsehese-
staestse
Chilcotin Esdilagh, Tl’esqox, Tl’etinqox, Xeni Gwet’in
Chimakum Aqokdlo
Chippewa Anishinabe, Ojibwa
Chitimacha Chawasha, Pantch-pinunkansh, Washa, Yagenechito
Choctaw Chakchiuma, Chatot, Cha’ta
Chumash Santa Barbara Indians
Clackamas Guithlakimas
Clallam S’klallam, Nusklaim, Tlalem
Cocopah Xawitt Kunyavaei
Coeur d’Alene Skitswish, Schee chu’umsch, Schitsu’umsh
Comanche Detsanayuka, Kotsoteka, Nermernuh, Noconi, Nokoni, Numunuu,
Padouca (Sioux word), Penateka, Pennande, Quahadi, Yamparika
Comox Catloltx
Copane Kopano, Quevenes
Cora Nayarit
Coree Coranine
Coushatta Koasati, Acoste
Cree Kenistenoag, Iyiniwok, Nehiawak or Nay-hee-uh-wuk (Plains Cree),
Sah-cow-ee-noo-wuk (bush Cree)
Creek Muscogee, Abihika, Abeika, Hitchiti, Homashko
Crow Absaroke, Apsaalooke
Cupenos Kuupangaxwichem
Cuthead Pabaksa
Dakelh Carrier
Delaware Lenni Lenape, Lenape, Abnaki, Alnanbai, Wampanoag, Munsee,
Unami, Unalachitgo, Powhatan-Renápe
Dieguenos Comeya, Tipai, Ipai, Kumeyaay
Ditidaht Nitinaht
Eskimo Inuit, Inupiat, Inuvialuit, Yupik, Alutiiq
Equimalt Is-Whoy-Malth
Fox Mesquaki, Meskwaki, Mshkwa’kiitha
Gabrieleno Tongva
Ganawese Conoys, Piscataways
Gitanyow Kitwancool
Gitxsan Tsimshian
Goshute Kusiutta
Gros Ventre Atsina (prairie), Hidatsa (Missouri), A’ani’, Ah-ah-nee-nin, Minnetaree
Gwich’in Loucheux
Hainai Ioni
Havasupai Suppai
Heiltsuk Hailhazakv
Hidatsa Gros Venture
Hohokam Hoo-hoogam
Hopi Hopitu, Hopitu Shinumu, Moqui, Hapeka
Hualapai Hwal’bay, Walapai
Huichol Wirrarika, Wixalika

Resources R-3

Hupa Natinnohhoi
Huron Wendat, Wyandot
Ingalik Athapaskans Deg Het’an
Iowa Pahodja
Iroquois Haudenosaunee, Hodenosaunee, Ongwanosionni, Hotinonshonni
Jemez Tuwa
Jicarilla Apache Tinde
Kalispel Pend d’Oreilles
Kamia Tipai
Kansa Hutanga, Kansas, Kanza, Kaw,
Kato Tlokeang
Keres Pueblo, Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Laguna, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Santo
Domingo, Zia
Kickapoo Kiwigapawa
Kiowa Kwuda, Tepda, Tepkinago, Gaigwu, Kompabianta, Kauigu
Kiowa Apache Nadiisha Dena
Klamath Eukshikni Maklaks, Auksni
Klickitat Qwulhhwaipum
Kootenai Kuronoqa, Kutenai, Kootenay, Yaqan nukiy, Akun’kunik’, Ktunaxa
Koso Panamint
Karok Karuk, Arra-arra
Ktunaxa Kootenay
Kumeyaay Diegueño, Barona, Sycuan, Viejas, Campo, Cuyapaipe, Ewiiaapaayp
Kutchin Gwich’in
Kutenai Asanka
Lancandon Maya, Hach Winik
Lemhi Shoshone Agaidika, Salmon Eaters, Tukudika, Sheep Eater
Loucheux Gwich’in
Lillooet Lil’wat, St’át’imc, T’it’kit
Lipan Naizhan
Lower Sioux Mdewakanton, Wahpekute
Luiseño Ataxum, La Jolla, Pechanga, Soboba, Quechnajuichom
Lumbee Cheraw
Maicopa Xalychidom Piipaash, Pipatsji
Makah Kwenetchechat, Kwi-dai-da’ch
Mandan Metutahanke or Mawatani (after 1837), Numakaki (before 1837)
Manhattan Rechgawawank
Manso Maise, Mansa, Manse, Manxo, Gorreta, Gorrite, Tanpachoa
Maricopa Xalychidom Piipaash, Xalchidom Pii-pash, Pipatsje, Pee-posh
Miami Twightwis, Twa-h-twa-h, Oumameg, Pkiiwileni
Micmac Mi’kmaq
Miniconjou Mnikawozu, Mnikowoju, Minnicoujou
Mi’kmaq Lnu’k, L’nu’k
Missouri Niutachi
Mixtec Ñusabi, Nusabi
Moapa Moapariats
Modoc Moatokni, Okkowish
Mohave Mojave, Tzinamaa, Ahamakav, Hamakhava
Mohawk Kanienkahaka, Kaniengehage, Abenaki, Iroquois, Akwesasne
Mohican Muh-he-con-neok, Mahikan, Mahican
Molala Latiwe

R-4 Resources

Mono Monache
Moratoc Nottoway
Mosopelea Ofom
Munsee Minasinink, Homenethiki
Muscogee Creek, Homashko
Nanticoke Unalachtgo, Onehtikoki
Navajo Diné, Dineh, Tenuai, Navaho
Nez Perce Nee-me-poo, Nimipu, Kamuinu, Tsutpeli, Sahaptin, Chopunnish
Nisga’a Tsimshian
Nootka Nuu-chah-nulth
Northern Ojibwa Saulteaux, Sauteux
Nuu-chah-nulth Nootka
Nuxalk Kimsquit, Kwalhnmc, South Bentick Sutslmc, Taliyumc
Ogallala Okandanda
Ojibwa Chippewa, Anishinabe, Missisauga, Odjbway, Saginaw
Okanagon Isonkuaili
Omaha UmonHon
Oneida Iroquois
Onondaga Iroquois
Oohenupa Two Kettle, Oohenonpa
Osage Wa-Shah-She, Wakon, Wazhazhe
Ottawa Adawe, Otawaki
Otto Chewaerae
Oulaouaes Necariages
Oweekeno Kwakiutl, Oweehena
Pacheenaht Nootka
Paiute Numa, Nuwuvi, Kuyuiticutta
Papagos Tohono O’odham, Ak-chin, Yohono Au’autam
Parianuc White River Utes
Passamaquoddy Peskedemakddi
Patchogue Unkechaug
Pawnee Pariki, Panyi, Chahiksichahiks, Ckirihki Kuruuriki
Pechanga Luiseño
Pecos Pueblos from Jemez
Pend d’Oreilles Kalispel
Penobscot Pannawanbskek, Penaubsket
Petun Khionontateronon, Tionontati
Piegan Blood, Kainai, Pikuni, Pigunni, Ahpikuni
Pima Onk Akimel Au-authm, Akimel O’odham, A-atam, Akimul Au’autam,
Tohono O’odham (incorrectly)
Piro Tortuga
Pit River Achomawi, Atsugewi
Poosepatuck Unkechaug
Popolucas Chochos
Pyramid Lake Paiute Kuyuidokado
Quapaw Quapah, Akansea, Ouaguapas, Ugakhpa
Quechan Yuma
Quileute Quil-leh-ute
Quinault Qui-nai-elts
Sac and Fox Sauk, Asakiwaki, Meshkwakihug, Fox
Sahwnee Shawadasay

Resources R-5

Salish Okinagan, Slathead
Saanich Pauquachin, Tsawout, Tsartlip, Tseycum, Malahat
Sans Arc Itazipco
Santee Sisseton
Saponi Monasukapanough
Sauk Hothaaki, Sac, Sack, Sock, Thakiki
Scioto (Five Nations of the Scioto Plains) Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware,
Munsee, Seneca
Seminole Ikaniuksalgi, Alachua, Mikasuki
Seneca Iroquois
Serrano Cowangachem, Mohineyam, Qawishwallanavetum, Yuhavitam
Shawnee Savannah, Chillicothe, Hathawekela, Mequachake, Piqua
Shoshone Shoshoni, Snake, Nimi, Tukudeka, Agaidika
Sioux Brule, Dakota, Hunkpapa, Isanyati, Itazipco, Lakota, Mnikawozu,
Mnikowoju, Nakota, Ocheti Shakowin, Oglala, Oohenunpa,
Sicangu, Sihasapa, Sisseton, Sisitonwan, Teton, Titunwan
Sissipahaw Haw
Skagit Humaluh
Skoskomish Twana
Squinamish Swinomish
Slotas Red River Metis
Songish Lkungen
Southern Paiute Numa
St. Francis Abenaki
St. Mary’s Indian Band A’qam, Ktunaxa
St. Regis Mohawk Akwesasne, Kaniengehage
Stockbridge Mahican
Snuneymuxw Nanaimo
Susquehanna Susquehannock, Conestoga, Minqua, Andaste
Taidnapam Upper Cowlitz
Tarahumara Raramuri
Taviwac Uncompahgre Ute
Tejas Hasinai, Cenis
Tenino Melilema
Tequistlatecos Chontales of Oaxaca
Teton Brule, Hunkpapa, Itazipco, Mnikowoju, Oglala, Oohenunpa, Sicangu,
Sihasapa, Titunwan
Tewa Pueblo, Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara,
Tesuque
Thompson Nlaka’pamux
Tigua Pueblo, Tiwa, Tortuga
Tillamook Killamuck
Timucua Utina, Acuera
T’it’kit Lillooet
Tiwa Pueblo, Tortuga
Tlaoquiaht Clayoquot
Tlatlasikwala Nuwitti
Tobacco Khionontateronon, Tionontati
Toltec Chiaimeca Mochanecatoca
Tonkawa Titskan Watitch, Titskanwatitch, Tonkaweya
Tubatulabal Bahkanapul, Kern River

R-6 Resources

Tunica Yoron
Tuscarora Skarure, Iroquois, Coree
Tututni Tolowa
Twana Tuadhu
Two Kettle Oohenonpa, Oohenupa
Umpqua Etnemitane
Uncompahgre Ute Taviwac
Upper Chehalis Kwaiailk
Upper Sioux Sisseton, Wahpeton
Ute Noochi, Notch, Nuciu, Yamparka, Parianuc, Taviwac, Wiminuc, Kapota,
Muwac, Cumumba, Tumpanuwac, Uinta-ats, Pahvant, San Pitch,
and Sheberetch
Viejas Quimi
Wampanoag Pokanoket
Wappo Ashochimi
Warm Springs Tilkuni
Wasco Galasquo
Watlala Katlagakya
Wea Eel River, Gros, Kilataks, Mangakekis, Pepicokia, Peticotias,
Piankeshaw, Wawiyatanwa
Whilkut Redwood Indians
Winnebago Winipig
Wichita Kitikiti’sh, Wia Chitch (Choctaw word)
Winik Maya
Wishram Ilaxluit, Tlakluit
Wyandot Huron, Talamatans
Yakama Waptailmin, Pakiutlema, Yakima
Yaqui Yoeme, Surem, Hiakim
Yazoo Chakchiuma
Yoncalla Tchayankeld
Yuchi Chisa
Yuma Quechan, Euqchan
Zapotec Binigulaza
Zuni Ashiwi, Taa Ashiwani
Source: Phil Konstantin

Resources R-7
Tribal Name Meanings

Tribal Name Meaning
A’ani’ white clay people
Abnaki those living at the sunrise (easterners)
Achomawi river, people that live at the river
Acolapissa those who listen and see
Agaidika salmon eaters
Ahousaht facing opposite from the ocean, people living with their backs to the
land and mountains
Ahtena ice people
Aitchelitz bottom
Akun’kunik’ people of the place of the flying head
Akwesasne land where the partridge drums
Alabama I clear the thicket
Apache enemy (Zuni word)
Apalachicola people of the other side
Apalachee people of the other side
A’qam people of the dense forest or brush
Arikara horns or elk people, or corn eaters
Assiniboine ones who cook using stones (Ojibwa word)
Atakapa man eater
Atsina white clay people
Atsugewi hat creek indians
Avoyel people of the rocks
Bayogoula people of the bayou
Bedonkohe (Apache) in front at the end people
Bidai brushwood (Caddo word)
Binigulaza people of the clouds
Brule burned thighs
Caddo true chiefs
Cahuilla leader, master, powerful nation (all questionable)
Calusa fierce people
Canim canoe, broken rock
Catawba river people
Cayuga place where boats were taken out, place locusts were taken out,
people at the mucky land
Cayuse people of the stones or rocks (French-Canadian word)
Chakchiuma red crawfish people
Cheam wild strawberry place, the place to always get strawberries
Chehalis sand, beating heart
Chemehuevi those that play with fish (Mojave word)
Cherokee cave people (Choctaw word), people of different speech (Creek word)
Cheslatta top of a small mountain, small rock mountain at the east side
Chetco close to the mouth of the stream
Cheyenne red talkers (Dakota word), little Cree (Lakota word)
Chickahominy hominy people
Chihene (Apache) red paint people
Chilcotin young man river
Chipewyan pointed skins (Cree word)
Chitimacha men altogether red, they have cooking vessels
Chokonen (Apache) rising sun people
Chontal stranger (Nahuatl word)
Choula fox

R-8 Resources
Tribal Name Meanings (cont.)

Tribal Name Meaning
Chowanoc people at the south
Chumash people who make the shell bead money
Clallam strong people
Clatsop dried salmon
Clayoquot people of other tribes
Cocopah river people
Coeur d’Alene those who are found here or heart of an awl (French words)
Comanche anyone who wants to fight me all the time (Ute word)
Comox place of abundance
Cowichan warm country, land warmed by the sun
Crow crow, sparrowhawk, bird people, people of the large-beaked bird
Dakelh people who travel by water
Dakota allie
Ehdiitat Gwich’in people who live among timber or spruce
Erie long tail or cat people (Iroquois word)
Eskimo eaters of raw meat (Algonquin or Cree word)
Esquimalt the place of gradually shoaling water
Fox red earth people
Gingolx the place of the skulls
Gitanmaax people who fish with burning torches
Gitwangak place of rabbits
Gwich’in people who live at a certain place
Gros Ventre big bellies, one who cooks with a stone, he cooks by roasting (see
Atsina)
Hach winik true people
Hagwilget gentle or quiet people
Han those who live along the river
Haudenosaunee people of the long house, people of the extended lodge
Havasupai people of the blue green water
Heiltsuk to speak or act correctly
Hesquiaht people of the sound made by eating herring eggs off eel grass
Hidatsa willow (speculation)
Hiute bowmen
Hohokam those who have gone
Honniasont wearing something around the neck
Hopi peaceful ones, people who live in a peaceful way
Houma red
Hualapai people of the tall pines
Huchnom mountain people
Huichol healers
Hul’qumi’num those who speak the same language
Hunkpapa campers at the opening of the circle
Hupa trinity river
Huron ruffian (French word)
Hwal’bay (Hualapai) people of the tall pines
Ihanktonwan dwellers at the end
Ihanktonwana little dwellers at the end
Iowa sleepy ones (Dakota word)
Iroquois real adders (Algonquian word) or we of the extended lodge
Jatibonicu people of the great sacred high waters
Jatibonuco great people of the sacred high waters

Resources R-9

Tribal Name Meaning
Jicaque ancient person (Nahuatl word)
Jicarilla little basket weaver (Spanish word)
Kainai many chiefs
Kamloops the meeting of the waters
Kan-hatki white earth
Kanienkahaka people of the place of flint
Kanza people of the south wind
Karok upstream
Kaskaskia he scrapes it off by means of a tool
Kato lake
Kawchottine people of the great hares
Ketsei going in wet sand
Kickapoo he stands about
Kiowa principal people, pulling out, coming out, people of the large tent flaps
Kispiox people of the hiding place
Kitamaat people of the falling snow
Kitkatla people of the salt, village by the sea
Kitselas people of the canyon
Kitsumkalum people of the plateau
Klallam strong people
Klamath people of the lake
Klickitat beyond (Chinook word)
Kluskus place of small whitefish
Kotsoteka buffalo eaters
Kutcha-kutchin those who live on the flats
Kuupangaxwichem people who slept here
Kuyuidokado cui-ui eaters
Kwalhioqua lonely place in the woods (Chinook word)
Kwayhquitlum stinking fish slime
Kwuda people coming out
Lakota friend or ally (same with Dakota and Nakota)
Latgawa those living in the uplands
Lenni Lenape genuine men
Lheidli T’enneh people of the confluence of the two rivers
Lillooet wild onion
Loucheux people with slanted or crossed eyes
Machapunga bad dust
Mahican wolf (incorrect translation per the Mohican Nation, Stockbridge-
Munsee Band)
Makah cape people
Malahat infested with caterpillars, place where one gets bait
Maliseet broken talkers
Maricopa people who live toward the water
Massachuset at the hills
Matsqui easy portage, easy travelling
Mdewankantonwan dwellers of the spirit lake
Menominee wild rice men
Metlakatla a passage connecting two bodies of salt water
Miami people on the peninsula, cry of the crane
Michigamea great water
Mimbres (Apache) willow (Spanish word)

R-10 Resources

Tribal Name Meaning
Miniconjou planters by water
Minnetaree they crossed the water
Minqua stealthy
Missouri great muddy, people with wooden canoes
Moapa mosquito creek people
Moatokni southerners
Modoc southerners
Mohave three mountains, people of the water/river
Mohawk the possessors of the flint, coward or man eater (Abenaki words)
Mohegan wolf
Mohican the people of the waters that are never still
Moneton big water people
Munsee at the place where the stones are gathered together
Musqueam place always to get iris plant root
Nahane people of the west
Nak’azdli when arrows were flying
Narragansett people of the small point
Nanticoke people of the tidewaters
Nanoose to push forward
Natsit-kutchin those who live off the flats
Navajo cultivated field in an arroyo (Tewa word)
Nehalem where the people live
Nicomen level part
Nihtat Gwich’in people living together as a mixture
Nipmuck freshwater fishing place
Nokoni those who turn back
Nooksack mountain men
Nootka along the coast
Nusabi people of the clouds
Oglala scatters their own
Ojibwa to roast till puckered up
Okanagan head, top of head
Okelousa blackwater
Okmulgee where water boils up
Omaha upstream people or people going against the current
Oneida a boulder standing up, people of the standing stone
Onondaga people on top of the hills
Opata hostile people (Pima word)
Ottawa to trade
Otto lechers
Oweekeno those who carry on the back, people talking right
Pahodja dusty nones
Pakiutlema people of the gap
Pamunkey rising upland
Pantch-pinunkansh men altogether red
Papagos desert people, bean people
Pascagoula bread people
Passamaquoddy plenty of pollock
Paugusset where the narrows open out
Pawnee horn people, men of men, look like wolves
Pechanga place where the water drips

Resources R-11

Tribal Name Meaning
Penateka honey eaters
Penelakut something buried
Pennacook down hill
Penobscot it forks on the white rocks or the descending ledge place, at the stone
place
Pensacola hair people
Penticton permanent place, always place
People of the lakes tribes near the great lakes
Peoria carrying a pack on his back
Pequot fox people or destroyers
Piegan scabby robes
Piikani poor robe
Pilthlako big swamp
Pima river people
Pojoaque drinking place
Potawatomi people of the place of the fire, keepers of the fire (fire nation, fire
people)
Powhatan falls in a current of water
Pshwanwapam stony ground
Puyallup shadow
Qawishwallanavetum people that live among the rocks
Quahadi antelope
Qualicum where the dog salmon run
Quapaw downstream people
Quatsino downstream people
Qwulhhwaipum prairie people
Raramuri foot runner
Sac (Sauk) people of the yellow earth or people of the outlet
Salish flatheads
Sans Arc without bows
Schaghticoke at the river forks
Schitsu’umsh the ones that were found here
Sekani dwellers on the rocks
Semiahmoo half moon
Seminole separatist or breakaway, peninsula people
Seneca place of stone, people of the standing rock, great hill people
Shawnee south or southerners
Sicangu burned thighs
Sihasapa Sioux blackfeet
Siksika blackfeet
Sioux snake (French version of other tribe’s name)
Sisitonwan dwellers of the fish ground
Siska uncle, lots of cracks in the rocks
Skidegate red paint stone
Skokomish river people
Skookumchuck strong water
Snuneymuxw people of many names
Spallumcheen flat along edge
Spokane sun people or children of the sun (generally accepted)
Spuzzum little flat
Sts’Ailes the beating heart

R-12 Resources

Tribal Name Meaning
Sumas big flat opening
Tahltan something heavy in the water
Taino we the good people
Takelma those living along the river
Tamarois out tail
Tanima liver eaters
Tangipahoa corn gatherers
Tantawats southern men
Tarahumara foot runner
Tatsanottine people of the copper water
Tawakoni river bend among red hills
Teetl’it Gwich’in people who live at the head of the waters
Tejas friendly
Tenawa down stream
Tennuth-ketchin middle people
Teton dwellers of the prairie
Tewa moccasins
Thlingchadinne dog-flank people
Titonwan dwellers of the plains
Tl’azt’en people by the edge of the bay
Toltec master builders (Nahuatl word)
Tonawanda confluent stream
Tonkawa they all stay together or most human of people
Toquaht people of the narrow place in front, people of the narrow channel
Tsa-mee-nis bitten breast
Tsattine lives among the beavers
Tsawout houses raised up
Tsawwassen beach at the mouth, facing the sea
Tsay Keh Dene people of the mountains
Tsetsaut people of the interior (Niska word)
Tseycum clay people
Tsleil-Waututh people of the inlet
Tubatulabal pinenut eaters (Shoshone word)
Tukudika sheep eater
Tuscarora hemp gatherers, the shirt wearing people
Two Kettle two boilings
Uchuckledaht there inside the bay
Ulkatcho good feeding place where animals get fat
Unalachtgo tidewater people
Viniintaii Gwich’in people who live on or by the caribou trail
Vuntut Gwitch’in dwellers among the lakes
Vvunta-ketchin those who live among the lakes
Wahpekute shooters amoung the leaves
Wahpetonwan dwellers amoung the leaves
Wailaki north language (Wintun word)
Wakokai blue heron breeding place
Walapai pine tree people
Wallawalla little river
Wampanoag eastern people
Wappo brave
Waptailmin people of the narrow river

Resources R-13

Tribal Name Meaning
Wasco cup, those who have the cup
Wea the forest people, light-skinned ones, people who live near the river
eddy
Whel mux people of spirit, people of breath
Wichita big arbor (Choctaw word)
Winnebago filthy water people
Wiwohka roaring water
Wyandot people of the peninsula, islanders
Yakama runaway
Yamparika rooteaters or yapeaters
Yaqan nukiy the people where the rock is standing
Yavapai people of the sun, crooked mouth people
Yoncalla those living at ayankeld
Yuchi situated yonder
Yuhavitam people of the pines
Yuki stranger (Wintun word)
Yurok downstream (Karok word)

R-14 Resources
Treaties by Tribe
Tribe Treaty Name
Aionai 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 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
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

Resources R-15
Treaties by Tribe (cont.)

Tribe Treaty Name
Cayuga Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792
Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784
Treaty with the New York Indians, 1838
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 Western Cherokee, 1828
Treaty with the Cherokee, 1846 [Western Cherokee]
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 Cheyenne Tribe, 1825
Chickasaw Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1786

R-16 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Chickasaw (cont.) Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1832
Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1837
Chippewa Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808

Treaty with the Chippewa, 1819
Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1820
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827
Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, 1847
Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., 1855
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, Mississippi, and Pillager and Lake
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 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

Resources R-17

Tribe Treaty Name
Chippewa (cont.) Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1789
Choctaw Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Choctaw, 1786
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 Kiowa and Comanche, 1867
Creeks Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Creeks, 1790

R-18 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Creeks (cont.) Treaty with the Creeks, 1827
Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole, 1845
Treaty with the Creeks, Etc., 1856
Agreement with the Creeks, 1825 (Unratified)
Crow Treaty with the Crow Tribe, 1825

Treaty with the Crows, 1868
Agreement with the Crows, 1880 (Unratified)
Dakota Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865

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
Agreement with the Delawares and Wyandot, 1843
Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809
Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., 1832
Dwamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Eel River Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803

Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., 1803

Resources R-19

Tribe Treaty Name
Eel River (cont.) Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809
Treaty with the Miami, 1828
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

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 Sauk and Fox, Etc., 1830
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 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 Kaskaskia, 1803
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc., 1854
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc.,
1867
Ka-Ta-Ka Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837
Keechy Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

R-20 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Kickapoo Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803
Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1809
Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816
Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermilion 1820
Kik-Ial-Lus Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Kiowa Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853

Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837
Klamath Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864
Kootenay Treaty with the Blackfeet, 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
Me-Sek-Wi-Guilse Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Menominee Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827

Treaty with the Menominee, 1817

Resources R-21

Tribe Treaty Name
Menominee (cont.) Treaty with the Menominee, 1856
Miami Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803

1867
Middle Oregon Tribes Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865
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

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 Stockbridge and Munsee, 1839
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

R-22 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Nex Percé (cont.) Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1855
Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1863
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
Oneida Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792

Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., 1794
Treaty with the Oneida, 1838
Onondaga Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792

Osage Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Osage, 1808
Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, 1825
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
Ottawa Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808


Resources R-23

Tribe Treaty Name
Ottawa (cont.) Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833
Treaty with the Ottawa, 1831
Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche De Bœuf, 1862
1867
Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc, 1828
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
Peoria Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832

1867
Piankeshaw Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803

Treaty with the Piankeshaw, 1804
Treaty with the Piankashaw, 1805
Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea, 1832
Agreement with the Piankeshaw, 1818 (Unratified)
1867
Piegan Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

R-24 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Ponca Treaty with the Ponca, 1817
Treaty with the Ponca, 1825
Potawatomi Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808

Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1815

Resources R-25

Tribe Treaty Name
Puyallup Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854
Quapaw Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Quapaw,1818
Treaty with the Quapaw, 1824
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

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 Sauk and Fox, 1804
Treaty with the Sauk, 1815
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, 1836
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, 1854
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

R-26 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Seminole Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, 1823
Treaty with the Seminole, 1832
Seneca Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792
Treaty with the Seneca, 1802
Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., 1831
Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee, 1832
Treaty with the Seneca, Tonawanda Band, 1857.
1867
Agreement with the Seneca, 1797
Agreement with the Seneca, 1823 (Unratified)
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
1867
Treaty with the Shawnee, 1786

Resources R-27

Tribe Treaty Name
Shawnee (cont.) Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815
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—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 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)
Santee—and Arapaho,

R-28 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Sioux (cont.) 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
Six Nations Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784

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 Stockbridge Tribe, 1848
Suquamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Resources R-29

Tribe Treaty Name
Swinamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Tah-Wa-Carro Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846
Tamarois Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818
Tenino Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865

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

Umatilla Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855
Umpqua Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854

Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, 1853
Upper Pend D’oreille Treaty with the Blackfeet, 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 Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855
Wasco Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865

Wea Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803


R-30 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Wea (cont.) Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816
1867
Treaty with the Wea, 1809
Winnebago Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827

Treaty with the Winnebago, 1816
Witchetaw Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835

Wyandot Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808

1867
Treaty with the Wyandot, 1818
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

Resources R-31
Common Treaty Names

Common Name Full Treaty Name
Albany, Treaty of Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations–July 31, 1684
Canandaigua Treaty Treaty with the Six Nations–November 11, 1794
Chicago, Treaty of Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833
Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830
Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820
Doaksville, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–January 17, 1837
Fort Bridger, Treaty of Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock–July 3,
1868
Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789
Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789
(Addendum) Treaty with the Cherokee–June 26, 1794
Fort Laramie, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851
Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 21, 1785
Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort
Stanwix–November 5, 1768
Treaty with the Six Nations–October 22, 1784
Greenville, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795
Holston, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791
Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785
Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854
Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho-–October 28, 1867
New Echota, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835
Northwest Angle Treaty Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873
Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825
Qu’Appelle Treaty Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874
St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–November 3, 1804

Selected Bibliography
Abele, Charles A. 1969. “The Grand Indian Council of 1858.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 34 (April):
and Treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825,” Ph.D. 169–181.
dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago. Borrows, John. 1992. “Negotiating Treaties and Land
Anderson, George E., W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Claims: The Impact of Diversity within First
Heizer. 1978. Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection Nations Property Interests.” Windsor Yearbook of
by the Federal Government in California, Access to Justice 12: 179.
1850–1852. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Borrows, John. 2005. “Creating an Indigenous Legal
Anderson, George E., and Robert F. Heizer. 1978. Community.” McGill Law Journal 50: 153.
“Treaty-making by the Federal Government in Boxberger, Daniel L. 1979. Handbook of Western
California 1851–1852.” In Treaty Making and Washington Indian Treaties. Lummi Island, WA:
Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in Lummi Indian School of Aquaculture and
California, 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, Fisheries.
W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 1–36. Boxberger, Daniel L., and Herbert C. Taylor. 1991.
Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. “Treaty or Non-Treaty Status.” Columbia, 5(3):
Anderson, Harry. 1956. “The Controversial Sioux 40–45.
Amendment to the Fort Laramie Treaty of Boyd, Mark F. 1958. “Horatio S. Dexter and Events
1851.” Nebraska History 37 (September): 201–220. Leading to the Treaty of Moultrie Creek with
Asch, Michael, ed. 1998. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights the Seminole Indians.” Florida Anthropologist, 11
in Canada. Vancouver: University of British (September): 65–95.
Columbia Press. Brooks, Drex, and Patricia Nelson Limerick. 1995.
Balman, Gail. 1970. “The Creek Treaty of 1866.” Sweet Medicine: Sites of Indian Massacres,
Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Summer): 184–196. Battlefields, and Treaties. Albuquerque:
Barce, Elmore. 1915. “Governor Harrison and the University of New Mexico Press.
Treaty of Fort Wayne, 1809.” Indiana Magazine of Brown, George, and Ron Maguire. 1979. Indian
History 11 (December): 352–367. Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa:
Barnes, Lela. 1936. “Isaac McCoy and the Treaty of Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs
1821.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 5 (May): Canada.
122–142. Bugge, David, and J. Lee Corell. 1971. The Story of the
Bell, Catherine, and Karin Buss. 2000. “The Promise Navajo Treaties. Window Rock, AZ: Research
of Marshall on the Prairies: A Framework for Section, Navajo Parks and Recreation
Analyzing Unfulfilled Treaty Promises.” Department, Navajo Tribe.
Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 667. Burns, Robert Ignatius, ed. 1952. “A Jesuit at the Hell
Bigart, Robert, and Clarence Woodcock, eds. 1996. In Gate Treaty of 1855.” Mid-American 34 (April):
the Name of the Salish and Kootenai Nation: The 87–114. Report of Adrian Hoechen.
1885 Hell Gate Treaty and the Origin of the Flathead Bushnell, David I., Jr. 1916. “The Virginia Frontier in
Indian Reservation. Pablo, MT: Salish Kootenai History–1778.” Part 5, “The Treaty of Fort Pitt.”
College Press/University of Washington Press. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 24
Bird, John, Lorraine Land, and Murray MacAdam, (April): 168–179.
eds. 2002. Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Campisi, Jack. 1988. “From Stanwix to Canandaigua:
Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, 2nd ed. National Policy, States’ Rights, and Indian
Toronto: Irwin. Land.” In Iroquois Land Claims, eds. Christopher
Bischoff, William N., and Charles M. Gates, eds. Vecsey and William A. Starna, 49–65. Syracuse,
1943. “The Jesuits and the Coeur D’Alene Treaty NY: Syracuse University Press.
B-1
B-2 Selected Bibliography
Campisi, Jack. 1988. “The Oneida Treaty Period, Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1996. “Reserving to Themselves:
1783–1838.” In The Oneida Indian Experience: Two Treaties and the Powers of Indian Tribes.”
Perspectives, eds. Jack Campisi and Laurence M. Arizona Law Review 38(3): 963–980.
Hauptman, 48–64. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes,
University Press. Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin:
Canada. 1905. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from University of Texas Press.
1680–1890. Ottawa: S. E. Dawson. Repr., DeMallie, Raymond J. 1977. “American Indian
Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1992. Treaty Making: Motives and Meanings.”
Canada. 1971. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 American Indian Journal 3 (January): 2–10.
to 1890. 3 vols. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen:
Clark, Blue. 1994. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights Plains Indian Treaty Councils in Ethnohistorical
and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Perspective.” In Ethnicity in the Great Plains, ed.
Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Frederick C. Luebke, 38–51. Lincoln: University
Clifton, James A. 1980. “Chicago, September 14, of Nebraska Press.
1833: The Last Great Indian Treaty in the Old DePuy, H. 1917. A Bibliography of the English Colonial
Northwest.” Chicago History 9 (Summer): 86–97. Treaties with the American Indians: Including a
Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Synopsis of Each Treaty. New York: Lennox Club.
Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. Downes, Randolph C. 1977. Council Fires on the
With contributions by Joan La France and Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the
Vivian L. Bowden. Seattle: University of Upper Ohio Valley until 1795. Pittsburgh, PA:
Washington Press. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Cohen, Felix S. 1942. “Indian Treaties.” In Cohen, Duff, Wilson. 1969. “The Fort Victoria Treaties.” BC
Handbook of Federal-Indian Law, ed. Felix Cohen. Studies 3 (Fall), 3–57.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Dustin, Fred. 1920. “The Treaty of Saginaw, 1819.”
Office. Michigan History Magazine 4 (January): 243–278.
Cohen, Felix S. 2005. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. “‘Nothing Has Been
Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Effected’: The Vincennes Treaty of 1792.” Indiana
Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Magazine of History 74 (March): 23–35.
Britton. 2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Ellison, William H. 1978. “Rejection of California
Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: Indian Treaties: A Study in Local Influence on
University of Arizona Press. National Policy.” In Treaty Making and Treaty
Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1975. Article Six, Rejection by the Federal Government in California,
Treaties between the United States and the Several 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, W. H.
Indian Tribes from 1778 to 1837. Millwood, NY: Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 50–70. Socorro,
Kraus Reprint. NM: Ballena Press.
Costo, Rupert, and Jeannette Henry. 1977. Indian Fay, George Emory. 1971. Treaties Between the
Treaties: Two Centuries of Dishonor. San Francisco: Potawatomi Tribe of Indians and the United States of
Indian Historian Press. America, 1789–1867. Greeley, CO: Museum of
Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1973. “They Would Not Be Anthropology: University of Northern
Moved: The Chippewa Treaty of 1854.” Colorado.
Minnesota History 43 (Spring): 174–185. Fay, George Emory. 1972. Treaties and Land Cessions
Daugherty, W. E. 1981. Maritime Indian Treaties in Between the Bands of the Sioux and the United
Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and States of America, 1805–1906. Greeley, CO:
Northern Affairs Canada. Museum of Anthropology: University of
Decker, Craig A. 1977. “The Construction of Indian Northern Colorado.
Treaties, Agreements, and Statutes.” American Fay, George Emory. 1977. Treaties Between the Tribes of
Indian Law Review 5(2): 299–311. the Great Plains and the United States of America:
Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1974. Behind the Trail of Broken Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1825–1900 Etc. Greeley,
Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of
New York: Delacorte Press. Northern Colorado.

Selected Bibliography B-3
Fay, George Emory. 1982. Treaties Between the Tribes of Franks, Kenny A. 1973. “The Impeachment of the
the Great Plains and the United States of America: Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized
Comanche and Kiowa, Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 51 (Spring):
Mandan, 1835–1891. Greeley, CO: Museum of 21–33.
Anthropology, University of Northern Gates, Charles M., ed. 1955. “The Indian Treaty of
Colorado. Point No Point.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 46
Ferguson, Clyde R. 1979. “Confrontation at (April): 52–58.
Coleraine: Creeks, Georgians and Federalist Gerwing, Anselm J. 1964. “The Chicago Indian
Indian Policy.” South Atlantic Quarterly 78 Treaty of 1838.” Journal of the Illinois State
(Spring): 224–243. Historical Society 57 (Summer): 117–142.
Ferguson, Robert B. 1985. “Treaties between the Getches, David H., and Charles F. Wilkinson. 1998.
United States and the Choctaw Nation.” In The Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed.
Choctaw before Removal, ed. Carolyn Keller St. Paul: West.
Reeves, 214–230. Jackson: University Press of Gibson, Ronald V. 1977. Jefferson Davis and the
Mississippi. Confederacy and Treaties Concluded by the
Fielder, Betty. 1955. “The Black Hawk Treaty.” Annals Confederate States with Indian Tribes. Dobbs Ferry,
of Iowa 32 (January): 535–540. NY: Oceana Publications.
Fisher, Andrew H. 1999. “This I Know from the Old Gold, Susan Dudley. 1997. Indian Treaties. New York:
People: Yakama Indian Treaty Rights as Oral Twenty-First Century Books.
Tradition.” Montana, The Magazine of Western Goodman, Edmund Clay. 2002. “Indian Reserved
History 49 (Spring): 2–17. Rights.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the
Fisher, Andrew H. 2004. “Tangled Nets: Treaty United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J.
Rights and Tribal Identities at Celilo Falls.” McLain, and James Weigand, 273–281.
Oregon Historical Quarterly 105 (Summer): Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
178–211. Hagan, William T. 1956. “The Sauk and Fox Treaty of
Fisher, Robert L. 1933. “The Treaties of Portage des 1804.” Missouri Historical Review 51 (October):
Sioux.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 19 1–7.
(March): 495–508. Haines, Francis. 1964. “The Nez Perce Tribe versus
Fixico, Donald L. 1984. “As Long as the Grass the United States.” Idaho Yesterdays 8 (Spring):
Grows . . . The Cultural Conflicts and 18–25.
Political Strategies of United States-Indian Halbert, Henry S. 1902. “The Story of the Treaty of
Treaties.” In Ethnicity and War, ed. Winston A. Dancing Rabbit Creek.” Publications of the
Van Horne, 128–149. Milwaukee: University Mississippi Historical Society 6: 373–402.
of Wisconsin System, American Ethnic Harmon, George D. 1929. “The North Carolina
Studies Committee/Urban Corridor Cherokees and the New Echota Treaty of 1835.”
Consortium. North Carolina Historical Review 6 (July): 237–253.
Foreman, Carolyn Thomas. 1955. “The Lost Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American
Cherokee Treaty.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 33 Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States
(Summer): 238–245. Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York:
Foreman, Grant, ed. 1936. “The Journal of the Cambridge University Press.
Proceedings of Our First Treaty with the Wild Hawkinson, Ella. 1934. “The Old Crossing
Indians, 1835.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 14 Chippewa Treaty and Its Sequel.” Minnesota
(December): 394–418. History 15 (September): 282–300.
Foreman, Grant. 1948. “The Texas Comanche Treaty Hawley, Donna Lea. 1990. The Annotated 1990 Indian
of 1846.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 51 Act: Including Related Treaties, Statutes, and
(April): 313–332. Regulations. Toronto: Carswell.
Franks, Kenny A. 1972–1973. “An Analysis of the Hayden, Ralston. 1920. The Senate and Treaties,
Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized 1789–1817: The Development of the Treaty-Making
Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 50 (Winter): Functions of the United States Senate during Their
458–473. Formative Period. New York: Macmillan.

Heilbron, Bertha L. 1941. “Frank B. Mayer and the Imai, Shin. 1999. Aboriginal Law Handbook. 2nd ed.
Treaties of 1851.” Minnesota History 22 (June): Scarborough, ON: Carswell.
133–156. Isaac, Thomas. 2001. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights
Heizer, Robert F. 1978. “Treaties.” In Handbook of in the Maritimes: The Marshall Decision and
North American Indians, vol. 8, California, ed. Beyond. Saskatoon: Purich.
Robert F. Heizer, 701–704. Washington, DC: Jaenen, Cornelius J. 2001. “Aboriginal Rights and
Smithsonian Institution. Treaties in Canada.” In The Native North
Henderson, Archibald. 1931. “The Treaty of Long American Almanac, ed. Duane Champagne,
Island of Holston, July, 1777.” North Carolina 1–6. Los Angeles: University of California
Historical Review 8 (January): 55–116. Press.
Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 1997. Jennings, Francis, ed. 1985. The History and
“Interpreting Sui Generis Treaties.” Alberta Law Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An
Review 36(1): 46. Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six
Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 2000. Nations and Their League. Syracuse, NY:
“Constitutional Powers and Treaty Rights.” Syracuse University Press.
Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 719. Jones, Dorothy V. 1982. License for Empire: By
Henslick, Harry. 1970. “The Seminole Treaty of Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University
1866.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Autumn): of Chicago Press.
280–294. Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine
Hill, Burton S. 1966. “The Great Indian Treaty Lodge: The Story of the Great Treaty Council as
Council of 1851.” Nebraska History 47 (March): Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of
85–110. Oklahoma Press.
Holmes, Jack. 1969. “Spanish Treaties with West Jones, Douglas C. 1969. “Medicine Lodge
Florida Indians, 1784–1802.” Florida Historical Revisited.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 35
Society, 48 (140–154). (Summer): 130–142.
Hoover, Herbert T. 1989. “The Sioux Agreement of Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. 1965. “A Most Satisfactory
1889 and Its Aftermath.” South Dakota History 19 Council.” American Heritage 16 (October):
(Spring): 56–94. 26–31, 70–76.
Horsman, Reginald. 1961. “The British Indian Kane, Lucile M. 1951. “The Sioux Treaties and the
Department and the Abortive Treaty of Lower Traders.” Minnesota History 32 (June): 65–80.
Sandusky, 1793.” Ohio Historical Quarterly 70 Keller, Robert H. 1971. “On Teaching Indian
(July): 189–213. History: Legal Jurisdiction in Chippewa
Hosen, Fredrick E. 1985. Rifle, Blanket, and Kettle: Treaties.” Ethnohistory 19 (Summer):
Selected Indian Treaties and Laws. Jefferson, NC: 209–218.
McFarland. Keller, Robert H. 1978. “An Economic History of
Hough, Franklin B., ed. 1861. Proceedings of the Indian Treaties in the Great Lakes Region.”
Commissioners of Indian Affairs, Appointed by Law American Indian Journal 4 (February): 2–20.
for the Extinguishment of Indian Titles in the State Keller, Robert H. 1989. “America’s Native Sweet:
of New York. 2 vols. Albany, NY: Joel Munsell. Chippewa Treaties and the Right to Harvest
Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1964. “The Creek Treaty of Maple Sugar.” American Indian Quarterly 13
Washington, 1826.” Georgia Historical Quarterly (Spring): 117–135.
48 (December): 425–441. Kellogg, Louise Phelps. 1931. “The Menominee
Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1968. “The Creek Treaty of Treaty at the Cedars, 1836.” Transactions of
November 15, 1827.” Georgia Historical Quarterly the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and
52 (March): 1–15. Letters 26: 127–135.
Humphreys, A. Glen. 1971. “The Crow Indian Kelsey, Harry. 1973. “The California Indian
Treaties of 1868: An Example of Power Struggle Treaty Myth.” Southern California Quarterly
and Confusion in United States Indian Policy.” 55 (Fall): 225–238.
Annals of Wyoming 43 (Spring): 73–90. Kessell, John L. 1981. “General Sherman and the
Ibbotson, Joseph D. 1938. “Samuel Kirkland, the Navajo Treaty of 1868: A Basic and
Treaty of 1792, and the Indian Barrier State.” Expedient Misunderstanding.” Western
New York History 19 (October): 374–391. Historical Quarterly 12 (July): 251–272.

Kickingbird, Kirke, Lynn Kickingbird, Alexander Madill, Dennis. 1981. British Columbia Indian
Tallchief Skibine, and Charles Chibitty. 1980. Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa:
Indian Treaties. Washington, DC: Institute for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
the Development of Indian Law. Mahan, Bruce E. 1925. “The Great Council of
Kickingbird, Lynn, and Curtis Berkey. 1975. 1825.” Palimpsest 6 (September): 305–318.
“American Indian Treaties—Their Importance Mahan, Bruce E. 1929. “Making the Treaty of
Today.” American Indian Journal 1 (October): 3–7. 1842.” Palimpsest 10 (May): 174–180.
Kinnaird, Lucia Burk. 1932. “The Rock Landing Mahon, John K. 1962. “The Treaty of Moultrie
Conference of 1789.” North Carolina Historical Creek, 1823.” Florida Historical Quarterly 40
Review 9 (October): 349–365. (April): 350–372.
Kvasnicka, Robert M. 1988. “United States Indian Mahon, John K. 1962. “Two Seminole Treaties:
Treaties and Agreements.” In Handbook of North Payne’s Landing, 1882, and Ft. Gibson, 1833.”
American Indians, vol. 4, History of Indian–White Florida Historical Quarterly 41 (July): 1–21.
Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn, 195–201. Mainville, Robert. 2001. An Overview of Aboriginal
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. and Treaty Rights and Compensation for Their
Lambert, Paul F. 1973. “The Cherokee Breach. Saskatoon: Purich.
Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.” Journal of the Manley, Henry S. 1838. “Buying Buffalo from the
West 12 (July): 471–489. Indians.” New York History 28 (July 1947):
Lanchart, David. 1985. “Regaining Dinetah: The 313–329, Buffalo Creek Treaty.
Navajo and the Indian Peace Commission at Manley, Henry S. 1932. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix,
Fort Sumner.” In Working in the Range: Essays on 1784. Rome, NY: Rome Sentinel.
the History of Western Land Management and the Martin, John Henry. 1975. List of Documents
Environment, ed. John R. Wunder, 25–38. Concerning the Negotiation of Ratified Indian
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Treaties, 1801–1869. Millwood, NY: Kraus
Landau, Jack L. 1980. “Empty Victories: Indian Reprint.
Treaty Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest.” McCool, Daniel. 2002. Native Waters:
Environmental Law 10: 413–456. Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the
Lane, Barbara. 1977. “Background of Treaty Making Second Treaty Era. Tucson: University of
in Western Washington.” American Indian Arizona Press.
Journal 3 (April): 2–11. McCullar, Marion Ray. 1973. “The Choctaw-
Larson, Gustive O. 1974. “Uintah Dream: The Ute Chickasaw Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.”
Treaty—Spanish Fork, 1865.” Brigham Young Journal of the West 12 (July): 462–470.
University Studies 14 (Spring): 361–381. McKenney, Thomas L. 1827. Sketches of a Tour to the
Laurence, Robert. 1991. “The Abrogation of Indian Lakes, of the Character and Customs of the
Treaties by Federal Statutes Protective of the Chippeway Indians, and of Incidents Connected
Environment.” Natural Resources Journal, 31 with the Treaty of Fond du Lac. Baltimore:
(Fall): 859–886. Fielding Lucas, Jr.
Lehman, J. David. 1990. “The End of the Iroquois McNeil, Kinneth. 1964–65. “Confederate Treaties
Mystique: The Oneida Land Cession Treaties of with the Tribes of Indian Territory.” Chronicles
the 1790s.” William and Mary Quarterly, 47(4): of Oklahoma 42 (Winter): 408–420.
523–547. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada with
Leonard, Stephen J. 1990. “John Nicolay in the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West
Colorado: A Summer Sojourn and the 1863 Ute Territories. Repr., Toronto: Coles, 1971.
Treaty.” Essays and Monographs in Colorado Morse, Bradford. 2004. “Aboriginal and Treaty
History 11, 25–54. Rights in Canada.” In Canadian Charter of
Lindquist, G. E. E. 1948–1949. “Indian Treaty Rights and Freedoms/Charte Canadienne des
Making.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 26 (Winter): droits et Libertés, 4th ed., eds. Gérald-A.
416–448. Beaudoin and Errol Mendes, 1171–1257.
Litton, Gaston L., ed. 1939. “The Negotiations Markham, ON: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Leading to the Chickasaw-Choctaw Agreement, Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle
January 17, 1837.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 17 for Ojibwe Treaty and Spearfishing Rights.
(December): 417–427. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Parker, Arthur C. 1924. “The Pickering Treaty.” Study.” Perspectives in American History, s.n., 1:
Rochester Historical Society Publication Fund Series 233–281.
3: 79–91. Roberts, Gary L. 1975. “The Chief of State and the
Partoll, Albert J., ed. 1937. “The Blackfoot Indian Chief.” American Heritage 26 (October): 28–33,
Peace Council.” Frontier and Midland: A 86–89. Creek Treaty of New York, 1790.
Magazine of the West 17 (Spring): 199–207. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995.
Partoll, Albert J. 1938. “The Flathead Indian Treaty Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence: An
Council of 1855.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 29 Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada
(July): 283–314. Communication Group.
Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996.
Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press. Peoples. Ottawa: Canada Communication
Phillips, Charles, and Alan Axelrod. 2000. Group.
Encyclopedia of Historical Treaties and Alliances. Royce, Charles C. 1899. Indian Land Cessions in the
New York: Facts on File. United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Phillips, Edward Hake. 1966. “Timothy Pickering at Government Printing Office.
His Best: Indian Commissioner, 1790–1794.” Rutland, Robert A. 1949–1950. “Political Background
Essex Institute Historical Collections 102 (July): of the Cherokee Treaty of New Echota.”
185–192. Chronicles of Oklahoma 27 (Winter): 389–406.
Pittman, Philip M., and George M. Covington. 1992. Satz, Ronald N. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
Don’t Blame the Treaties: Native American Rights Reserve Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa
and the Michigan Indian Treaties. West Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions
Bloomfield, MI: Altwerger and Mandel. of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and
Powless, Irving, and G. Peter Jemison. 2000. Treaty of Letters, 79(1). Madison: Wisconsin Academy of
Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations Sciences, Arts and Letters.
Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United Schwartzman, Grace M., and Susan K. Barnard.
States. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light. 1991. “A Trail of Broken Promises: Georgians
Price, Monroe E., and Robert N. Clinton. 1983. Law and the Muscogee/Creek Treaties, 1796–1826.”
and the American Indian: Readings, Notes and Georgia Historical Quarterly 75 (Winter): 697–718.
Cases. Charlottesville, VA: Michie. Silliman, Sue I. 1922. “The Chicago Indian Treaty of
Price, Richard, ed. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta 1821.” Michigan History Magazine 6(1): 194–197.
Indian Treaties. Montreal: Institute for Research Slattery, Brian. 2000. “Making Sense of Aboriginal
on Public Policy. Repr., Edmonton: University and Treaty Rights.” Canadian Bar Review 79: 196.
of Alberta Press, 1999. Smith, Dwight L. 1954. “Wayne and the Treaty of
Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 1975. Documents of United Greene Ville.” Ohio State Archaeological and
States Indian Policy. Lincoln and London: Historical Quarterly 63 (January): 1–7.
University of Nebraska Press. Smith, Dwight L. 1978. “The Land Cession Theory:
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: A Valid Instrument of Transfer of Indian Title.”
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los In This Land Is Ours: The Acquisition of the Public
Angeles, and London: University of California Domain, 87–102. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical
Press. Society.
Quaife, Milo M., ed. 1918. “The Chicago Treaty of St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in
1833.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 1 (March): the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln
287–303. and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Quinn, William W., Jr. 1990. “Federal Stanley, Henry M. 1967. “A British Journalist Reports
Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes: the Medicine Lodge Peace Council of 1867.”
The Historical Development of a Legal Kansas Historical Quarterly 33 (Autumn):
Concept,” American Journal of Legal History 34 249–320.
(October): 331–364. Stern, Theodore. 1956. “The Klamath Indians and
Rakove, Jack N. 1984. “Solving a Constitutional the Treaty of 1864.” Oregon Historical Quarterly
Puzzle: The Treatymaking Clause as a Case 57 (September): 229–273.

Sullivan, Julie E. 2004. “Legal Analysis of the Treaty Wells, Samuel J. 1983–1984. “Rum, Skins, and
Violations That Resulted in the Nez Perce War Powder: A Choctaw Interpreter and the Treaty
of 1877,” 40 Idaho Law Review 657. of Mount Dexter.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 61
Surtees, Robert J. 1988. “Canadian Indian Treaties.” (Winter): 422–428.
In History of Indian White Relations, ed. Wilcomb Wells, Samuel J. 1986. “International Causes of the
E. Washburn, 202–210. Washington, DC: Treaty of Mount Dexter, 1805.” Journal of
Smithsonian Institution. Mississippi History 48 (August): 177–185.
Taylor, Alfred A. 1924. “Medicine Lodge Peace Wicken, William C. 2002. Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial:
Council.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 2 (June): History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior.
98–117. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Townsend, Michael. 1989. “Congressional Wilkins, David E. 1996. “Indian Treaty Rights:
Abrogation of Indian Treaties: Reevaluation and Sacred Entitlements or ‘Temporary Privileges?’”
Reform.” Yale Law Journal, 98 (February): American Indian Culture and Research Journal
793–812. 20(1): 87–129.
Trafzer, Clifford E., ed. 1986. Indians, Superintendents, Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima.
and Councils: Northwestern Indian Policy, 2001. Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law.
1850–1855. Lanham, MD: University Press of Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
America. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1991. “To Feel the Summer in
Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council with Walter the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the
Hildebrandt, Sarah Carter, and Dorothy First Wisconsin Chippewa.” Wisconsin Law Review
Rider. 1996. The True Spirit and Original Intent of (May–June): 375– 414.
Treaty 7. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Wilkinson, Charles F. 2000. Messages from Frank’s
Press. Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian
Van Doren, Carl, and Julian P. Boyd. 1938. Indian Way. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. 1975.
Philadelphia: Historical Society of “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation:
Pennsylvania. ‘As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon
Vaugeois, Denis. 2002. The Last French and Indian the Earth’—How Long a Time Is That?”
War: An Inquiry into a Safe-Conduct Issued in 1760 California Law Review 63 (May): 601–661.
That Acquired the Value of a Treaty in 1990. Williams, C. Herb, and Walt Neubrech. 1976. Indian
Montreal: McGill-Queens University Treaties: American Nightmare. Seattle: Outdoor
Press/Septentrion. Empire.
Vaughan, Alden T. 1979. Early American Indian Wright, J. Leitch, Jr. 1967. “Creek-American Treaty of
Documents: Treaties and Laws, 1607– 1789. 1790: Alexander McGillivray and the
Washington, DC: University Publications of Diplomacy of the Old Southwest.” Georgia
America. Historical Quarterly 51 (December): 379–400.
Vipperman, Carl J. 1989. “The Bungled Treaty of Wrone, David R. 1986–1987. “Indian Treaties and the
New Echota: The Failure of Cherokee Removal, Democratic Idea.” Wisconsin Magazine of History
1836–38.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 73 (Fall): 70 (Winter): 83–106.
540–558. Wunder, John R. 1985. “No More Treaties: The
Watts, Charles W. 1959. “Colbert’s Reserve and the Resolution of 1871 and the Alteration of Indian
Chickasaw Treaty of 1818.” Alabama Review 12 Rights to Their Homelands.” In Working the
(October): 272–280. Range: Essays on the History of Western Land
Watts, Tim J. 1991. American Indian Treaty Rights: Management and the Environment, ed. John R.
A Bibliography. Monticello, IL: Vance Wunder, 39–56. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Bibliographies. Press.

Index
Note: Page locators in boldface type indicate the location of a main encyclopedia entry.
A-ka-ke (the Crow), 328 Adams, Moses N., 376 Agreement with the Seneca,
A-Kei-Quodle (Lone Wolf), 677 Adams, Vivian, 148 September 3, 1823, 302
A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi (Lone Chief), Adams-Onís Treaty, 656 Agreement with the Sioux of
349, 356 Addenda treaties, 102–103. See also Various Tribes, October
Aampahaa (Speaker), 294 Treaties 17, 1822, to January 3,
Aanti (Short Stay), 897 Addoetta (Big Tree), 851 1883, 385
ABCFM. See American Board for Administration, tribal Agreement with the Sisseton and
Commissioners of of federation programs, 116–117 Wahpeton Bands of
Foreign Missions Adoetti (Big Tree), 851 Sioux Indians,
Abenaki, 75, 211, 235, 278, 638 Adoption. See Child welfare September 20, 1872, 376
Abert, John J., 333 “Affirmation of the Sovereignty of Agreements, 49. See also individual
Aboriginal homelands, 95. See also the Indigenous People agreements; Treaties
Reservations of the Western Agriculture, 17, 25, 31, 33, 134
Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Hemisphere,” 713 in Hawaii, 202, 203, 206
Ancestry (ALOHA), 207 AFN. See Alaska Federation of Ah-ke-pah-am-sa, 320
Aboriginal peoples, in Canada, 209, Natives Ah-quash-she, 323
217–218 Africa, 49 Ahweyneyonh (Drooping Flower,
Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government, African Americans, 29–30, 35, 88, Blue Flower), 884
and the Constitution, 663 170, 181 AIAD. See American Indians
Aboriginal rights, 95, 143, 396, 401, AFSC. See American Friends Service Against Desecration
406–407, 637–638, Committee AIM. See American Indian
728–729, 920 Age of exploration, 49 Movement
Aboriginal title, 215, 375, 380, 382, Agencies, 27. See also individual Aionai (I-on-i)
386, 389, 395, 398, agencies Treaty with the Comanche,
406–407, 729–730, Agrarian-based economy, 76 Aionai, Anadarko,
919–920 Agreement at Fort Berthold, July 27, Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Abourezk, James, 741, 742 1866, 363–364 1846, 332
Abrogation, 44–46 Agreement-in-principle (AIP), 949 AIP. See Agreement-in-principle
Absenteeism, and education, Amended Agreement with Certain Air quality, 140
186–187 Sioux Indians, March 2, AIRFA. See American Indian
Acculturation, 28 1873, 376–377 Religious Freedom Act
ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Agreement with the Cherokee, Airport and Airway Improvement
Union March 14, 1834, 320 Act, 206
Act for the Government and Agreement with the Cherokee and Akaitcho, 400
Protection of the Indians, Other Tribes in the Akaka, Daniel, 207
660 Indian Territory, Akay-nehka-simi (Many Names),
Act of Capitulation, 637, 638 September 13, 1865, 357 785
Act of May 25, 1824, 253 Agreement with the Columbia and Akwesasne, 638, 720, 721
Act 304, 206 Colville, July 7, 1883, Al-le-ga-wa-ho, 414
Acts, 49. See also individual acts 385 Alabama, 21, 85–86
Adair, George W., 333 Agreement with the Creek, June Alaska, 44, 170, 195–199, 685–686
Adair, John, 850 29, 1825, 303 education in, 195
Adair, William P., 737–738 Agreement with the Crows, May fishing rights in, 195–196
Adams, David, 301 14, 1880, 385 jurisdiction in, 172
Adams, Hank, 152, 700, 707, Agreement with the Rogue River and land compensation, 195,
738–739, 751 Tribes, September 8, 196–198
Adams, John, 69, 757 1853, 338 mineral development in, 198
Adams, John Quincy, 79, 85, 413, Agreement with the Seneca, native land claims in, 196–199
655, 865, 935 September 15, 1797, 289 natural resources in, 195–196
I-1
I-2 Index
Alaska (cont.) Alexander VI, 49, 954 American Indian Treaty Rights
oil in, 195, 196, 197 Alexis, Chief, 148 Movement, 140
poverty in, 199 Alford, Henry, 851 American Indian Tribal
regional and village Algonkian (Algonquian), 75, 163, Governments, 190
corporations in, 198–199 235, 243, 412 American Indian Trust Fund
and relocation, 195 Alibamon, 52, 53 Management Reform
reservations in, 195–196, 198 Ali’i (nobility), 228 Act, 117
and Russia, 195 Allegheny Reservoir, 44 American Indians Against
self-determination in, 198 Allen, Elisha P., 231 table 4 Desecration (AIAD), 176
sovereignty in, 199 Allen, Frank J., 314, 315 American Indian Policy Review
statehood in, 195. See also Alaska Alliances, 40, 52 Commission, 710
Statehood Act Allis, Samuel, 349 American Revolution. See
termination in, 196, 198 Allotments, 5–6, 7–8, 24–25, 32, 34, Revolutionary War (U.S.)
and trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 98, 109–110, 111, 133, 138, Americanization, 179
Alaska Coalition, 197 167, 920–921. See also and education, 185
Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. General Allotment Act; Amherst, Jeffrey, 902
Native Village of Venetie Indian Reorganization Amity, Commerce, and Navigation,
Tribal Gov’t, 199 Act; Land ownership Treaty of, 55
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), ALOHA. See Aboriginal Lands of Amoah, 430
195, 196, 197–198, Hawaiian Ancestry Ana-da-ca. See Anadarko
698–699 Alvord, H. J., 355 Anadarko (Ana-da-ca), 104, 268
Alaska Highway, 240 Ambrister, Robert, 808 Treaty with the Comanche,
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, Amended Agreement with Certain Aionai, Anadarko,
400 Sioux Indians, March 2, Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Alaska Native Allotment Act, 195 1873, 376–377 1846, 332
Alaska Native Claims Settlement American Board of Commissioners Ancient remains, 124, 125, 126,
Act (ANCSA), 139, 174, for Foreign Missions 725–726. See also Sacred
195, 198–199, 698–699 (ABCFM), 183, 655 sites
Alaska Native Reorganization Act, American Civil Liberties Union ANCSA. See Alaska Native Claims
681 (ACLU), 152 Settlement Act
Alaska Natives, 195–199, 198, American Friends Service Anderson, William, 292, 309
685–686 Committee (AFSC), 152, Andrews, T. P., 333
and jurisdiction, 174 717 Ani’-Yun’ wiya, 429
Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United American Fur Trade Company, 422 Anishinaabe (Anishinabe), 155,
States, 195–196 American Indian Defense 305
Alaska Purchase Treaty, 195 Association, 189 Anishnabeg (Anishnaabeg), 216,
Alaska Railroad, 195 American Indian Mission 335, 435, 645, 727
Alaska Statehood Act, 196, 197 Association, 418 Anne, Queen, 822
Alatala Hooma, 291 American Indian Movement (AIM), Annette Island Reserve, 198
Albany 700, 701, 712–713, Annexation, of Hawaii, 200,
Albany Conferences of 1754 and 739–741 202–203, 205–207
1755, 640–641 and Wounded Knee, occupation Annuities, 24, 25, 41, 270, 921–922.
Treaty of Albany with Iroquois of, 703–706 See also Land
Confederacy and British See also Aquash, Anna Mae compensation; Trade and
Crown, September 24, Pictou; Bellecourt, Clyde; Intercourse Act
1664, 211 Banks, Dennis; Means, Anthony, Scott, 772, 773
Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245 Russell Anthony, Susan B., 772
Treaty of Albany with the Five American Indian Policy Review Antiquities, 124–126, 725. See also
Nations, July 31, 1684, Commission, 36, 115, Sacred sites
275–277 741–742 Antiquities Act, 947
Albertson, Isaac, 319 American Indian Policy Review Antoine v. Washington, 45
Alcatraz, occupation of, 689–691, 712. Commission Act, Apache, 25, 52, 53, 57, 61, 100, 104,
See also Oakes, Richard 173–174 110, 267–269, 271, 272,
Alcohol, 35, 273 American Indian Religious Freedom 273, 411, 412, 677–678
Aleiya (Lawyer), 345, 374 Act (AIRFA), 118, 140, and education, 182, 188–189
Aleut, 195, 196 174–175, 947 and Fort Sumner, 425–426
Alexander, John, 885 American Indian Self-Determination and jurisdiction, 168
Alexander (son of Massasoit), and Education Act, and reconstruction treaty, 106,
859–860 709–710 107

Index I-3
Treaty with the Apache, Archaeological Resources Protection Canadian Indian Treaty 4
Cheyenne, and Arapaho, Act, 125 (Qu’Appelle Treaty),
October 17, 1865, 358 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 400 September 15, 1874,
Treaty with the Apache, July 1, Arctic Slope Native Association 378–380
1852, 337 (ASNA), 197 Canadian Indian Treaty 6,
Treaty with the Comanche, Areas indigena, 95. See also August 28, September 9,
Kiowa, and Apache, July Reservations 1876, 381–382
27, 1853, 339, 500–502 Arikara, 24, 101, 106, 253, 254 Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Treaty with the Kiowa, Treaty of Fort Laramie with the (Blackfeet Treaty),
Comanche, and Apache, Sioux, Etc., September September 22, December
October 21, 1867, 366, 17, 1851, 336–337 4, 1877, 382–385
550–552 Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, Treaty of Fort Laramie with the
See also Medicine Lodge Creek, July 18, 1825, 304 Sioux, Etc., September
Treaty of Arizona, 62, 88 17, 1851, 336–337
Apalachicola (Appalachicola) Arizona Enabling Act, 703 See also Nakota
and confederate treaty, 103 Arkansas, 28 Associated funerary objects, 124,
Treaty with the Appalachicola, treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 125, 126, 725–726. See also
October 11, 1832, 313 Arkansas River, 21 Sacred sites
Treaty with the Appalachicola Arkansas Territory, 21 Association of Aroostook Indians,
Band, June 18, 1833, 316 Armstrong, Benjamin, 760 718
Apology Resolution Armstrong, John, 424 Atcheson, Nathaniel, 56
Appropriations acts, 27 Armstrong, Joseph, 309 Athabascan (Athapascan), 195, 196,
Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou, Armstrong, Silas, 343 236
742–744. See also Armstrong, William, 330, 332, 333 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June
American Indian Armstrong Academy, 418 21, 1899, 385–387
Movement Army Corps of Engineers, 154 See also Dene
Aquash, Nogeeshik, 743 Arn, W. F. M., 799 Atiatoharognwan (Col. Lewis
Ar-ber-too-quet, 329 Aronne (Cherokee Boy), 298 Clark), Chief, 289
Arapaho, 24, 30, 101, 103, 106, 251, Aroostook Band of Micmac Atkins, J. D. C., 183
252, 254, 256, 270, 272, Settlement Act, 718 Atkinson, Henry, 253, 303, 304, 306,
733 Arootsook Micmac, 176 439, 754
and jurisdiction, 175 Arthur, Duncan, 297 Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v.
and reconstruction treaty, 107 Articles of Agreement of 1826, 231 Shirley, 113
and reorganization, 171 table 4, 232 Atoka Agreement, 8, 674–675, 676,
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, 677
Sioux, Etc., September September 1760, 637–638 Attacked Toward Home (Axkyahp-
17, 1851, 336–337 Articles of Confederation, 14, 53, 55, say-pi), 785
Treaty with the Apache, 260, 283–284, 285 Atwater, Caleb, 309
Cheyenne, and Arapaho, Article IX, 27 Au-ni-mo-ni (the Sun Fish), 328
October 17, 1865, 358 and jurisdiction, 163 Augur, Christopher Colon, 366, 367,
Treaty with the Arapaho and treaties under, 70–73 369, 370, 373–374
Cheyenne, February 18, Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he (Lone Chief), Auicara (Pah-sal-sa), 304
1861, 351–352 349, 356 Aupaumut, Hendrick, 75, 744–745
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Asia, 203 Australia, 203
Arapaho, October 14, ASNA. See Arctic Slope Native Aweecony, 286
1865, 357–358, 518–522 Association Awl Breaker (Taa’-wonyas), 814
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Aspinall, Wayne, 197 Awuohee, 430
Arapaho, October 28, Assapausa, 862 the Axe (La-ma-noan), 294
1867, 366–367 Assimilation, 13, 31–33, 35–36, 61, Axkyahp-say-pi (Attacked Toward
Treaty with the Northern 96, 134, 138, 168, 170, Home), 785
Cheyenne and Northern 171, 922–924 Ayowai, 252
Arapaho, May 10, 1868, coercive, 110, 111 Azores, 49
369–370 and education, 179–180, 186, 187,
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and 189, 190 Babbitt, Bruce, 725, 789
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, See also General Allotment Act Bad Heart Bull, Wesley, 704, 747
369 Assimilative Crimes Act, 173 Badoni v. Higginson, 174
Arapaho Reservation, 32 Assiniboine (Assinaboine), 24, 101, Bagot, Sir Charles, 745
Arbuckle, Matthew, 320, 330, 419 106, 236, 254, 383, Bagot Commission (Canada),
Arbuthnot, Alexander, 808 678–679 745–746

I-4 Index
Bailey, David, 851 Bell, John A., 333 Black Shawl, 784
Baker Lake, 715–716 Bellecourt, Clyde, 739, 746, 750–752. Black War Club (Champisaba), 294
Balcombe, A. D., 356 See also American Indian Blackbird, Andrew, 428
Bald eagle, 45 Movement Blackfeet, 101, 230 table 2, 236, 251,
Baldwin, Henry, 656–657 Bellecourt, Vernon, 752 252
Balme, Augustin de la, 849 Belloni, Robert, 153, 696, 697, 900 Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Banai, Edward Benton, 750, 751. See Benson, Thomas Hart, 253 (Blackfeet Treaty),
also American Indian Bent, Charles, 770 September 22,
Movement Bent, William, 269, 358, 769–770 December 4, 1877,
Banks, Dennis, 700, 704–706, 712, Benton, Thomas Hart, 17–18 382–385
739, 743, 746–747, 750, Bernard, Joshua, 720 Treaty with the Blackfeet,
751, 857–858. See also Bernard case, 720–721 October 17, 1855,
American Indian Bernstein, Betty, 840 347–348
Movement Beshkike (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux,
Banning, Evelyn I., 829 Between the Logs (Taruntne), 298 October 19, 1865,
Bannock, 106, 227–228 Beuge, John, 297 358–359, 358–360
Treaty with the Eastern Band BIA. See Bureau of Indian Affairs Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Shoshone and Bannock, BIC. See Board of Indian Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
July 3, 1868, 372–374, Commissioners 369
556–559 Bidwell, John, 660 Blackhawk, John, 161
Bannock Reservation, 372, 374 Big Bow (Zebaedal), 897 Blackmun, Harry, 708, 719, 723
BAR. See Branch of Big Foot, Chief, 705 Blackstone, John, 945
Acknowledgment and Big-Mouth, 351, 901 Blanchard’s Fork
Research Big River (Chekommia), 298 Treaty with the Ottawa of
Barbeyric, Jean, 49 Big Snake, 904 Blanchard’s Fork and
Barbon, 748 Big Tree, Treaty of, 76 Roche de Boeuf, June 24,
Barboncito (Hashke Big Tree (Addoetta, Adoetti), 851, 1862, 352
Yich’i’adehyilwod), 370, 892–893, 897 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
371, 412, 748–749 Bighorse, Gus, 662 Seneca and Shawnee,
Barbour, George, 228, 231 table 3, Bilateral agreements, 39 Quapaw, Etc., February
660 Bill C-31, 668 23, 1867, 365
Barbour, John, 308 Bird Bow, 838 BLM. See Bureau of Land
Bark, 297 Black, Edward, 365 Management
Barnard, Lewis, 338 Black, Hugo, 44, 63, 686, 692 Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy,
Barnett, John, 323 Black Buffalo Woman, 784 755–756
Barnhart, Andrew, 151–152 Black Cloud (Manpinsaba), 294 Blood, 101, 236, 383
Barron, Joseph, 444 Black Coat, 315 Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Bart, Augustin. See Shinguakouce Black Eagle. See Kicking Bird (Blackfeet Treaty),
Bartlett, Mary, 791 Black Elk, Wallace, 743 September 22, December
Bascom, George, 777 Black Fox, 292 4, 1877, 382–385
Bassett, Joel B., 365 Black Hawk (Makataimeshekiakiak), Blood Law, 322
Batchewana, 436 255, 752–754, 776, 798, Blount, James H., 204
Bates, Frederick, 438–439, 846 807, 810, 811 Blount, William, 287, 756–758. See
Battelle des Illinois, 421 and Clark, William, 776 also Bureau of Indian
Battles. See under individual battles and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 Affairs
Bawating, 435 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, Blount Report, 205
Bawldridge, John, 297 810, 811 Blue Flower (Ahweyneyonh), 884
Bay Mills Indian Community, 436 Black Hawk War, 84, 90, 317, 413 Blue Jacket, 76, 849, 850, 902
Bay Mills Indian Reservation, 710 Black Hills, 39, 40, 256–257 Blunt, James G., 419
Bayonet Constitution, 203–204, 232 gold in, 139–140, 719 Blunt, John, 313
Beale, Edward F., 661 Black Jim, 768 Board of Indian Commissioners
Bear-skin, 312 Black Kettle, 352, 367, 733, 754–755 (BIC), 30
Bearskin, Leoford, 749–750 and Chivington, 772, 773 Boarding schools, 185–186. See also
Beaver Wars, 278 Black Mesa, 140 Schools
Becancour, 75 Black River Bodin, Jean, 49
Belantse-Etoa Treaty with the Chippewa of Bogy, Lewis V., 364, 365
Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Saginaw, Swan Creek, Boilvin, Nicholas, 776
Minitaree Tribe, July 30, and Black River, October Bois Fort (Bois Forte), 157
1825, 304 18, 1864, 355 Treaty of, 228

Index I-5
Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Brookings Institute, 33, 923 and nonrecognized tribes, 941,
Fort Band, April 7, 1866, Brooks, Jehiel, 320 942
362 Brooks, William, 853 public apology, 2000, 731, 733
Boldt, George, 153–154, 696, 697, Broom, 291 and Public Law 280, 684
706, 707, 739 Brothertown, 305, 315 and reservations, 95–96
Boldt Decision (United States v. Brown, George, 201 and reserved rights, 141, 150
Washington), 153–154, Brown, James, 327 and state-recognized tribes, 950
155, 156, 158, 428, 696, Brown, Jerry, 747 takeover of, 712
706–707 Brown, John, 333 and Trail of Broken Treaties, 700
Boldt II, 154 Brown, John D., 312 and trust land, 956
Bonja, George, 333 Brown, John F., 362 and trust responsibility, 958
Bonneville Dam, 154–155 Brown, Orlando, 842 and water rights, 145
Bonneville Power Administration, Brown, Ray A., 679–680 and Wounded Knee, occupation
155 Browning, Orville H., 369 of, 704, 705
Bonnin, Gertrude, 763 Brule, 106 See also Blount, William; Burke,
Boone, Albert G., 351 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Charles H.; Calhoun,
Bosque Redondo Reservation, 425 Arapaho, April 29, 1868, John C.; Collier, John;
Boston Charley, 768 369 McKenney, Thomas L.;
Boston University, 189 Bruneau River Treaty, 228 Office of Indian Affairs
Boudinot, Elias (Buck Oowatie; Bryan, John A., 323 Bureau of Land Management
Gallegina Watie), 88, 89, Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota, 62 (BLM), 196, 197, 958
265, 321, 322, 333, Buchanan, James, 201, 772 Bureau of Reclamation, 144–145, 958
429–430, 667, 758, 909 Buck, John Kill, 424 Burgess, Mercy, 787
Boudinot, Elias (statesman, poet), Buck Act, 703 Burial objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726.
758 Buckongahclas, 442 See also Sacred sites
Bouquet, Henry, 424 Buffalo, Chief (Kechewaishke, Burke, Charles H., 763–764. See also
Bourgeois, Marie Therese, 774 Beshkike, Le Boeuf), 433, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bowdoin, Sarah, 791 760–761 Burke, Edmund, 333
Bowles, William Augustus, 856 Buffalo Bill, 802, 803, 899 Burke Act, 33, 932
Boyd, Robert, 415 Buffalo Creek, Treaty of, 23 Burnett, William, 437
Boyer, LaNada, 691 Buffalo Head (Ta-ton-ca-pa), 303 Burr, Aaron, 846
Bozeman Trail, 254, 256 Buffalo herds, 24, 107, 139, 270 Bursum, Holm, 764
Braddock, Edward, 782 Buffalo (Kechewaishke), 433 Bursum Bill, 780
Bradford, William, 854 Bull Bear, 367, 818 Bush, George W., 734
Branch of Acknowledgment and Bulls of Donation, 924 Business community, in Hawaii,
Research (BAR), 928 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 29, 203–204
Branching Horn (Haibohaa), 294 30, 34, 35, 43, 54, 62, 111, Butler, Dino, 743
Brando, Marlon, 152, 739 115, 116, 761–762 Butler, Rev. Elizur, 57, 88, 655
Brandt, Joseph, 289 and Alaska, 196 Butler, P. M., 332
Brant, Joseph, 55, 72–73, 76, 641, and American Indian Self- Butler, Richard, 72, 285, 286
759–760, 885, 886 Determination and Butler, Thomas, 289
Brant, Mary, 836 Education Act, 709 Butterworth case, 735
the Brave (Tearekatacaush), 298 corruption in, 167 Buy Indian Act, 33
Bread, Daniel, 329 and domestic dependent nation, Byrd, William, 277
Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and 926
Bands of the Yakima Indian and education, 182, 183, 184–187, Ca-La Na-Po
Nation, et al., 931 189–190 Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po,
Breynat, Bishop, 392 and Federal Acknowledgment etc., August 1851, 231
Bright Eyes (Susette LaFlesche Process, 928 table 3
Tibbles), 905–906 and federally recognized tribes, CAA. See Community Action
British Columbia, 215, 216 175, 176–177, 929 Agency
British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty, and fishing rights, 154 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et
April 8, 1765, 279–280 and Indian Reorganization Act, al. v. California, 121, 124,
British North America Act, 236, 663, 680–681 723
664. See also Constitution and jurisdiction, 173 Cabezón, Pisago, 777
Act (Canada) and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. Caddo, 104, 268
British Rolls of Parliament, 49 United States, 694 Treaty with the Caddo, July 1,
Broadhead, Daniel, 744 and Meriam Report, 679 1835, 320
Bronson, Isaac, 290 and Morton v. Mancari, 708 Cadillac, Antoine, 878

I-6 Index
Caghnawaga, Chief, 289 and Great Britain, 209, 210, 211, Canadian Indian Treaty 4
Cahokia 214 (Qu’Appelle Treaty),
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., and Hudson’s Bay Company September 15, 1874, 239,
October 27, 1832, 315 treaties, 235, 238–239 378–380
Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., land claims agreements in, treaty document, 573–581
September 25, 1818, 299 215–217 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg
Cahwai modern legal status of treaties Treaty), September 24,
Treaty with the Taches, in, 218, 220 1875, 239, 380–381
Cahwai, etc., May 1851, and modern treaties, 215–217 treaty document, 581–595
231 table 3 and numbered treaties, 236, Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August
Calapooia, 342 239–240 28, September 9, 1876,
Calder v. Attorney General of British and peace and friendship 240, 381–382
Columbia (Canada), 215, treaties, 210–212 treaty document, 595–598
398, 406, 701–702, 715, Pre-Confederation Treaties, Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet
728, 920, 940 641–642 Treaty), September 22,
Caldwell, Billy, 319, 413, 764–765, and Revolutionary War (U.S.), December 4, 1877, 240,
807 212–214 382–385
Caldwell, Joe, 430 sovereignty in, 177 treaty document, 598–603
Calhoun, Henry, 22 treaties from 1867-1930, 214–215 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21,
Calhoun, James S., 268, 272, 334 treaty litigation in, 218–220 1899, 240, 385–387
Calhoun, John C., 262–263, 299, 302, treaty making in, 210–217 treaty document, 603–607
439 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James
and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Canada, May 31, 1796, Bay Treaty), November
761 289 6, 1905, October 5, 1906,
and Parker, Ely S., 870 and Upper Canada treaties of 240, 388–389
California, 24, 136, 199–200, 201 land surrender, 235–236, treaty document, 607–612
gold discovery in, 57, 58, 96, 228, 239 Canadian Indian Treaty 10,
253, 254, 659, 660 Canada Department of Indian September 19, 1906,
jurisdiction in, 172 Affairs, 404, 940 August 19, 1907, 240,
treaties in, 100, 228, 231 table 3 Canada Department of Indian and 390–391
California v. Cabazon, 175 Northern Affairs, 216, treaty document, 612–621
Calumet ceremony, 39 218 Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June 27
Camp Stevens Specific Claims Branch, 949 to August 30, 1921, 240,
treaty history of, 409–410 Canada Department of Justice, 216 391–393
Walla Walla Council, 409 Canada Indian Specific Claims treaty document, 622–627
See also Treaty with the Commission, 216 Canadian Parliament, 215
Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., Canada Pension Plan, 217 Canagaraduncka, Brant, 759
December 26, 1854 Canadian Bill of Rights, 668, Canandaigua, Treaty of, 19, 75, 287,
Campbell, 297 687–688 679. See also Treaty with
Campbell, A. J., 350 Canadian Centre for the Resolution the Six Nations,
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse, 733 of First Nations Specific November 11, 1794
Campbell, Duncan G., 302 Claims, 949 Canassatego, 765–766, 823
Campbell, John, 753 Canadian Charter of Rights and Canby, Edward Richard Sprigg, 412,
Campbell, Robert, 422 Freedoms, 688 661, 768, 769, 770
Canada, 41, 51, 55, 56, 80, 97, Canadian Comprehensive Land Canons of treaty construction, 11, 22,
209–220 Claims Policy, 400 41–43, 62–63, 135, 149
aboriginal peoples in, 209, Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Cansa. See Kansa
217–218 Fort Treaty), August 3, Canyon de Chelly
and British treaties, 235, 237–238 1871, 239, 375–376 treaty history of, 410–412
and Canadian Independence, treaty document, 559–564 See also Treaty with the Navajo,
212–214 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba June 1, 1868
and colonial America, 209 Post Treaty), August 21, Cape Sable bands, 237
contemporary agreements in, 1871, 239, 375–376 Cape Verde Islands, 49
236, 240–241 treaty document, 564–566 Capitulation of Montreal, 237,
and education, 179 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 637–638
and Europe, 209 (Northwest Angle Capote, 272
fishing rights in, 218 Treaty), October 3, 1873, Captain Dutch, 333
and France, 209 239, 377 Captain Jack (Kintpuash), 767–768
and French treaties, 235, 236–237 treaty document, 566–572 Captain Jack’s Stronghold, 227

Index I-7
Captain Pollard, 885 Celilo Fish Committee (CFC), 151 Agreement with the Cherokee
Caravel, 49 CENA. See Coalition of Eastern and Other Tribes in the
Carey Mission, Treaty of, 437 Native Americans Indian Territory,
Caribou Creek, Treaty of, 196 Central America, 51 September 13, 1865, 357
Carimine, 305 Cera, Mitchell P. (Wash-kom-moni), Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty,
Carleton, James H., 370, 412, 425, 349 1866, 30
661, 662, 748, 770, 853, CERCLA. See Comprehensive and education, 182, 183
854 Environmental and Fort Gibson, 419
Carlisle Indian School, 59, 179, 185, Response, Compensation and jurisdiction, 165–166, 174
186, 188, 189. See also and Liability Act and New Echota, 429–430
Pratt, Richard Henry; Ceremonies, 6, 13, 14, 19, 39, 668 Reconstruction Treaties with the
Schools and subsistence resources, Cherokee, Choctaw,
Carpenter v. Shaw, 42, 62 147–148 Chickasaw, Creek, and
Carroll, William, 321 Cerre, Mitchell P. (Wash-com-mo- Seminole, 1866, 360–361
Carson, Christopher Houston “Kit,” ni), 349, 356 and removal, 88–89, 263–264, 265
104, 267, 269, 270, 272, CERT. See Council of Energy and Trail of Tears, 136, 137,
358, 368, 412, 425, 661, Resource Tribes 657–658
662, 748, 769–770, 853 Cession, treaties of, by state, 81 table Treaty with the Cherokee,
and Ouray, 868 1, 81 table 2 November 28, 1785,
Carson, Lindsey, 769 Cetanwakanmani, 847, 848 285–286, 451–453
Carson, Rebecca Robinson, 769 CFC. See Celilo Fish Committee Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2,
Carter, Colbert, 362 Cha-sa-wa-ne-che (the One that Has 1791, 287
Carter, Henry R., 327 No Name), 304 Treaty with the Cherokee, June
Carter, Jimmy, 716 Cha-tau-’hne (Yellow Hawk), 359 26, 1794, 287
Carter administration, 247, 818 Chahta Tamaha, 418 Treaty with the Cherokee,
Cartier, Jacques, 938 Chambers, John, 332 October 2, 1798, 289
Cartwright, George, 211 Chambly, 305 Treaty with the Cherokee,
Cass, Lewis, 85, 87, 90, 294, 297, 298, Champisaba (Black War Club), 294 October 24, 1804, 291
299, 300, 301, 305, 307, Champlain, Samuel de, 236 Treaty with the Cherokee,
309, 412–413, 427, 658, Chapin, Israel, 287, 288 October 25, 1805, 292
771–772, 776, 867 Chapitone, 334 Treaty with the Cherokee,
and Michilimackinac, 428–429 Charles I, 767 January 7, 1806, 292
and Prairie du Chien, 430 Charles II, 76, 276, 873 Treaty with the Cherokee, March
and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Charlton, Richard, 201 22, 1816, 296
and Schoolcraft, Henry, 894 Chasta. See Shasta Treaty with the Cherokee,
Casserly, Eugene, 59 Chatters, Jim, 725 September 14, 1816, 297
Castake Chattoogee, 430 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 8,
Treaty with the Castake, Texon, Chayenne. See Cheyenne 1817, 297
etc., June 1851, 231 table Che-chu-chee, 363 Treaty with the Cherokee,
3 Che-kus-kuk, 364 February 27, 1819, 299
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Che-qua-sau-quah, 322 Treaty with the Cherokee,
Programs, 35 Che-quaw-ka-ko, 325 December 29, 1835,
Catawba, 259 Checkered (May-zin), 324 320–322, 483–491
Catholic Church, 49, 209 Chees-quat-a-law-ny (John Rollin Treaty with the Cherokee,
Cattaraugus Reservation, 76 Ridge), 886–887 August 6, 1846, 333
Cattle grazing, 31–32, 33 Chehalis, 226–227 Treaty with the Cherokee, July
Caughnawaga, 75 Chekommia (Big River), 298 19, 1866, 363, 542–550
Caveat case. See Paulette case Chekopeheke Emanthau, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, April
Caw-ga-ke-she-sa, 330 Chemakum, 99 27, 1868, 368–369
Cayetano, Ben, 732 Chemehuevi, 273 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Cayuga, 248, 278. See also Six Chenughiata, Chief, 282 August 4, 1835, 320
Nations Cherokee, 7, 9, 15–18, 20–23, 30, Treaty with the Western
Cayuse, 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 32, 43, 52–53, 56–57, Cherokee, May 6, 1828,
415 70–73, 88, 104, 105, 308
Treaty with the Wallawalla, 107, 211, 213, 246, 248, Treaty with the Western
Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 251, 260–262, 268, 439, Cherokee, February 14,
1855, 344 655–656 1833, 315–316
Cayuse War, 410 Agreement with the Cherokee, See also Five Civilized Tribes
Celilo Falls, 151 March 14, 1834, 320 Cherokee Boy (Aronne), 298

I-8 Index
Cherokee Commission. See Jerome Treaty with the Ottawa, China, 49, 202
Commission Etc., August 29, 1821; Chinook, 97, 226, 227, 229 table 1,
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 22, 40, Treaty with the 414–415, 415
56–57, 61, 112, 165–166, Wyandot, Etc., August 3, Chipewyan, 236
213, 263, 639, 653, 654, 1795 Canadian Indian Treaty 6,
655, 671, 926, 953–954 Chickasaw, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, August 28, September 9,
and government-to-government 32, 52–53, 71–72, 73, 211, 1876, 381–382
relationship, 930, 931 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, Canadian Indian Treaty 10,
and guardianship/wardship, 419, 674–675 September 19, 1906,
931 and addenda treaty, 102 August 19, 1907, 390–391
and Indian removal, 935 and confederate treaty, 103 Chippewa, 23, 29, 41, 43, 45, 51, 55,
and sovereignty, 948 and Doaksville, 417–418 71, 72, 73, 91–92, 100,
and trust doctrine, 955 Reconstruction Treaties with the 104, 436, 710–711,
and trust responsibility, 957 Cherokee, Choctaw, 721–722, 730–731
Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate, Chickasaw, Creek, and and fishing rights, 155–158
429 Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and gathering rights, 158–159
Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty, and reconstruction treaty, 105 and hunting rights, 42
1866, 30 and removal, 87, 264 and Prairie du Chien, 431
Cherokee Tobacco case, 43, 44, 667 Treaty with the Chickasaw, and Sault Ste. Marie, 435
Cherokee War of 1776, 260 January 10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois
Cheucunsene, 296 Treaty with the Chickasaw, Fort Band, April 7, 1866,
Cheyenne-Arapaho Reservation, 32, October 24, 1801, 362
107 289–290 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red
Cheyenne (Chayenne), 24, 30, 101, Treaty with the Chickasaw, July Lake and Pembina
103, 104, 106, 252, 253, 23, 1805, 291 Bands, October 1, 1863,
254, 256, 269, 270, 271, Treaty with the Chickasaw, 354
272, 733 September 20, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red
and education, 183 Treaty with the Chickasaw, Lake and Pembina
and Fort Laramie, 423 October 19, 1818, 299 Bands, April 12, 1864,
and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 355
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the August 31, 1830, 310, Treaty with the Chippewa of
Sioux, Etc., September 464–468 Saginaw, Etc., August 2,
17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1855, 347
Treaty with the Apache, October 20, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chippewa of
Cheyenne, and Arapaho, Treaty with the Chickasaw, Saginaw, Swan Creek,
October 17, 1865, 358 October 22, 1832, 314 and Black River, October
Treaty with the Arapaho and Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 18, 1864, 355
Cheyenne, February 18, 24, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Chippewa of
1861, 351–352 Treaty with the Chickasaw, June Sault Ste. Marie, August
Treaty with the Cheyenne and 22, 1852, 337 2, 1855, 347
Arapaho, October 14, Treaty with the Choctaw and Treaty with the Chippewa of the
1865, 357–358, 518–522 Chickasaw, January 17, Mississippi, March 19,
Treaty with the Cheyenne and 1837, 327 1867, 365
1867, 366–367 Chickasaw, November 4, Mississippi and Lake
Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, 1854, 342 Superior, August 2, 1847,
July 6, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Choctaw and 333
Treaty with the Northern Chickasaw, June 22, Treaty with the Chippewa of the
Cheyenne and Northern 1855, 345–346 Mississippi and the
Arapaho, May 10, 1868, Treaty with the Choctaw and Pillager and Lake
369–370 Chickasaw, April 28, Winnibigoshish Bands,
Cheyenne Reservation, 32 1866, 362, 527–538 March 11, 1863, 353
Chicago See also Five Civilized Tribes Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
treaty document, 480–483 Chickasaw Nation v. U.S., 45 November 25, 1808, 293
treaty history of, 412–413 Chickmaugee, 430 Treaty with the Chippewa,
Treaty of, 317 Chief Man (Rarnleshare), 298 September 24, 1819,
See also Treaty with the Chien Noir (Macatiwaaluna), 292 300
Chippewa, Etc., Child custody. See Child welfare Treaty with the Chippewa, June
September 26, 1833; Child welfare, 8, 36, 114, 118–121 16, 1820, 300

Index I-9
Treaty with the Chippewa, July Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Choctaw and
6, 1820, 300 July 4, 1805, 291 Chickasaw, January 17,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1837, 327
August 5, 1826, 306–307 September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Choctaw and
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Chickasaw, November 4,
August 11, 1827, 307 September 29, 1817, 297 1854, 342
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Williams treaties with the Treaty with the Choctaw and
July 28, 1829, 309 Chippewa and the Chickasaw, June 22,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Mississauga, October to 1855, 345–346
September 26, 1833, November 1923, Treaty with the Choctaw and
317–319 393–394, 627–635 Chickasaw, April 28,
Treaty with the Chippewa, May Chippewa Ottawa Resource 1866, 362, 527–538
9, 1836, 323–324 Authority (CORA), 711 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Chivington, John Milton, 733, August 4, 1835, 320
January 14, 1837, 326–327 754–755, 772–774. See also See also Five Civilized Tribes
Treaty with the Chippewa, July Sand Creek Massacre Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 62
29, 1837, 327–328 Chivington’s Colorado Volunteers, Choctaw Nation v. U.S., 42
Treaty with the Chippewa, 269 Choctaw Telegraph, 418
December 20, 1837, 329 Cho-bah-áh-bish Chouteau, Auguste, 269, 294–295,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Treaty with the Dwamish, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300,
December 23, 1838, 329 Suquamish, Etc., January 327, 438, 439, 774–775, 797
Treaty with the Chippewa, 22, 1855, 343 Chouteau, Pierre, 438–439, 774, 776,
February 7, 1839, 330 Cho-cote-harjo, 362 847
Treaty with the Chippewa, Choctaw, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, Chouteau, Rene Auguste, 774
October 4, 1842, 331 32, 42, 52, 53, 71–72, 211, Christianity, 22, 59, 96, 179, 180–182,
Treaty with the Chippewa, 248, 259, 260, 261, 251, 270
September 30, 1854, 262–263, 419, 674–675 and education, 185, 187, 188
340–341, 502–507 and addenda treaty, 102 Chu-Nuts
Treaty with the Chippewa, and confederate treaty, 103 Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo-
February 22, 1855, 344 and Dancing Rabbit Creek, 416 Woz, etc., June 1851, 231
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., and Doak’s Stand, 416–417 table 3
July 16, 1859, 350 and Doaksville, 417–418 Chup-co, John (Long John), 362
Treaty with the Ottawa and and education, 182 Churchill, Winston, 796
Chippewa, July 6, 1820, and land use, 135 Citizenship, 8, 33, 169–170
300 Reconstruction Treaties with the Citizenship Act, 169–170
Treaty with the Ottawa and Cherokee, Choctaw, Civil rights, 35, 114
Chippewa, July 31, 1855, Chickasaw, Creek, and Civil Rights Act of 1866, 671
346–347 Seminole, 1866, 360–361 Civil Service reform, 272
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., and reconstruction treaty, 105 Civilization, 25, 28, 31, 83, 85, 96, 98,
August 24, 1816, 296 and removal, 86–87, 264 179, 180–182, 251, 273
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Choctaw, and education, 187, 189
August 29, 1821, 301 January 3, 1786, 286 program, 255
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Choctaw, in southeast, 261–262
March 28, 1836, 322–323 December 17, 1801, 290 Civilization Fund, 30
Treaty with the Pillager Band of Treaty with the Choctaw, Clackamas, 229 table 1
Chippewa Indians, October 17, 1802, 290 Clallam, 99
August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Choctaw, August Claremont, Chief, 303
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 31, 1803, 291 Clark, Alex, 312
August 19, 1825, Treaty with the Choctaw, Clark, Ann (Rogers), 775
304–305, 459–463 November 16, 1805, 292 Clark, George Rogers, 70, 72, 286,
Treaty with the Winnebago, Treaty with the Choctaw, 343, 443
Etc., August 25, 1828, October 24, 1816, 297 Clark, John, 775
308–309 Treaty with the Choctaw, Clark, Lewis (Atiatoharognwan), 289
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., October 18, 1820, 301 Clark, W. P., 801
January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Choctaw, Clark, William, 21–22, 89, 252, 269,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 20, 1825, 302 294, 295, 297, 298, 299,
January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Choctaw, 302, 303, 305, 306, 310,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 27, 1830, 314, 315, 415, 775–776,
August 3, 1795, 289 310–311, 468–476 797, 837, 846

I-10 Index
Clark, William (cont.) Colley, Samuel G., 772 Treaty with the Comanche,
and Cass, Lewis, 771, 772 Collier, John, 34, 111, 170–171, 189, Kiowa, and Apache, July
and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 680, 682, 763, 764, 778, 27, 1853, 338, 500–502
and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 779–780, 783, 799 Treaty with the Comanche and
and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 and assimilation, 923 Kiowa, October 18, 1865,
and Prairie du Chien, 430 and Indian Claims Commission, 358
and St. Louis, 438–439 825 Treaty with the Kiowa,
See also Lewis, Meriwether; and Indian New Deal, 934 Comanche, and Apache,
Lewis and Clark and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 October 21, 1867, 366,
Expedition; Louisiana See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; 550–552
Purchase Indian New Deal; Indian Treaty with the Kiowa and
Clatsop, 97 Reorganization Act Comanche, October 21,
Clay, Henry, 16, 85, 870 Colonial America 1867, 365–366
Clayton, John M., 201 and Canada, 209 See also Medicine Lodge Creek,
Clean Air Act, 117, 118 and education, 179–180 Treaty of
Clean Water Act, 117–118 and jurisdiction, 162, 163, Commerce, 49
Clear Sky (Esh-ton-o-quot), 287, 323 169–170 Commerce clause (of the
Clearwater, Frank, 705 treaties in, 11, 40, 51–53, 53–58, Constitution), 14, 28, 40,
Clemson, E. B., 293 69–81, 137, 259 43, 60, 164, 165, 642–643,
Clemson, Eli, 438 treaties of alliance in, 11 655, 666, 671, 691–692,
Cleveland, Grover, 232, 786 treaty negotiation in, 51–53, 943, 954–955
and Eskiminzin, 806 53–58 Commercial mooring rights, 43
and Hawaii, 204–205 Colorado, 57 Commission to the Five Civilized
and Jackson, Helen Hunt, 830 gold in, 272 Tribes. See Dawes
and Sitting Bull, 899 Colton, G. A., 365 Commission
Clinton, Bill, 232 Columbia Commissioners, 14
Executive Order 13007, Indian Agreement with the Columbia Committee of Original Peoples’
Sacred Sites, 947 and Colville, July 7, 1883, Entitlement, 399
Executive Order 13175, 955 385 Committee on Indian Affairs, 115,
and Trust Doctrine, 955 Columbia Reservation, 385 653
and trust responsibility, 958 Columbia River Indians (River Common land tenure, 134–135
Clinton, George, 75–76 People), 150–152, 155, Commons, 134–135
Clinton, James, 641 227, 414–416 Communal land, 134–135
Clum, John P., 806 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Community Action Agency (CAA),
Clymer, George, 289 Commission, 155 35
Co-ha-thlock-co (Cockrane), 313 Columbus, Christopher, 49 Compacts, 5, 6
Coal, 140–141. See also Natural Colus Compensation
resources Treaty with the Colus, Willays, for Black Hills, 139–140
Coalition of Eastern Native etc., September 1851, 231 for mining, 140
Americans (CENA), 950 table 3 See also Annuities; Land
Cobell, Elouise, 140, 727 Colville compensation
Cobell case, 140, 727 Agreement with the Columbia Comprehensive Environmental
Cobell v. Babbitt, 727 and Colville, July 7, 1883, Response, Compensation
Cobell v. Kempthorne, 727 385 and Liability Act
Cobell v. Norton, 727, 955 Colville Reservation, 148, 227, 385 (CERCLA), 117
Cochise, 776–778, 812 Com-o-za, 320 Comprehensive Land Claim
Cockrane (Co-ha-thlock-co), 313 Comanche, 10, 30, 52, 57, 61, 100, Agreements (Canada),
Coe Hadgo, 316, 835 104, 110, 267, 268–269, 215, 216, 235, 236,
Coercive assimilation, 110, 111. See 270, 271, 272, 410, 395–407, 702, 920, 940–941
also Assimilation 677–678 Compulsory education, 187. See also
Coffee, John, 86, 297, 310, 314 and education, 182 Education
Cohen, Felix S., 778. See also Indian and reconstruction treaty, Comstick, 312
Claims Commission; 106–107 Conaquieso, Chief, 282
Indian New Deal Treaty with the Comanche, Concentration policy, 29–31
Colbert, George, 290, 291, 319 Aionai, Anadarko, Confederated Bands of Kalapuya,
Colbert, Holmes, 362 Caddo, Etc., May 15, 230 table 2
Colbert, Pitman, 327 1846, 332 Confederacy, 29, 30
Colbert, Winchester, 362 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Confederate treaties, 11, 58, 103–105.
Cole, Robert, 302 August 4, 1835, 320 See also U.S. Civil War

Index I-11
Confederated Peoria Cornwallis, General Edward, 237, 757 Canadian Indian Treaty 6,
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Corporate development, 34 August 28, September 9,
Seneca and Shawnee, Costo, Jeannette Henry, 783 1876, 381–382
Quapaw, Etc., February Costo, Rupert, 783–784. See also Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June
23, 1867, 365 Indian New Deal 21, 1899, 385–387
Confederated Tribes and Bands of Cottier, Allen, 690 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James
the Yakama Indian Cottier, Belva, 861 Bay Treaty), November
Reservation, 227 Cotton gin, 84 6, 1905, October 5, 1906,
Congressional Joint Resolution No. Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New 388–389
55, 230 Mexico, 114, 175 Canadian Indian Treaty 10,
Connecticut, 41 Council, 13 September 19, 1906,
Connecticut v. U.S. Dept. of the Council Grove August 19, 1907, 390–391
Interior, 43 treaty history of, 413–414 James Bay and Northern Quebec
Conner, James, 351 See also Treaty with the Great Agreement (JBNQA),
Conner, John, 351 and Little Osage, August November 11, 1975,
Conner, Roberta, 159 10, 1825; Treaty with the 395–396
Connolly, John, 663 Kansa, August 16, 1825; Northeastern Quebec
Connolly, William, 662–663 Treaty with the Kansa Agreement (NQA),
Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), Tribe, January 14, 1846; January 31, 1978, 397–398
662–663 Treaty with the Kansa See also Swampy Cree
Connor, John, 352 Tribe, October 5, 1859 Cree-Naskapi Act, 240
Connor, P. Edward, 354 Council of Energy Resource Tribes Cree v. Flores, 43
Cononicus (Cananacus, Conanicus), (CERT), 140, 734 Creek, 7, 15–16, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 30,
766–767 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian 32, 52–53, 54, 56, 72, 73,
Conoy, 70, 282 Nation, 62 104, 260, 262, 263, 268,
Conroy, Commissioner, 392, 393 Court jurisdiction, 36 681–682
Conservation regulations, 45 Court of appeals, Indian, 59 and addenda treaty, 102–103
Constitution Act of 1867 (Canada), Covenant Chain, 243–244, 245 Agreement with the Creek, June
218, 394, 663–664, Covenants, 5, 49 29, 1825, 303
673–674, 941 Cow Creek, 226, 230 table 2 and confederate treaty, 103
Constitution Act of 1982 (Canada), Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow and land use, 135
209, 638, 720–721, 726, Creek Band, September Reconstruction Treaties with
728 19, 1853, 338 the Cherokee,
Constitutional Convention, 260 Cow-e-to-me-co, 363 Choctaw, Chickasaw,
Continental Congress, 13, 27, 53, Cow-nan-ti-co, 342 Creek, and Seminole,
163, 260, 640 Cowlitz, 226 1866, 360–361
compensation under, 72–73 Craig, Thomas, 807 and removal, 87, 264
treaties under, 70–73 Cram, Rev. Jacob, 885 and trade debts, 20
Convention of 1884, 231 table 4 Crane (Tarhe), 294 and Trail of Tears, 137
Conventions, 5 Cravat, Rebecca, 843 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
Coody, William S., 333 Crawford, David, 350 July 16, 1859, 350
Cook, Captain, 205 Crazy Horse, 898, 901 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Cook’s Landing, 152 Crazy Horse (Tasˇunka Witko), 784 August 4, 1835, 320
Cooley, D. N., 357, 362, 363 Crazy Snake Movement, 817–818 Treaty with the Creek, August 7,
Coolidge, Calvin, 33 Cree, 101, 219, 238, 240, 278, 382 1790, 287
Cooper, Douglas H., 342, 780–781 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Treaty with the Creek, June 29,
Cooper, James Fenimore, 906 Fort Treaty), August 3, 1796, 289
Coosewatee, 430 1871, 375–376 Treaty with the Creek, June 16,
Cope, Jean-Baptiste, 237 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 1802, 290
Copper Treaty, 91 (Manitoba Post Treaty), Treaty with the Creek, October
CORA. See Chippewa Ottawa August 21, 1871, 375–376 27, 1805, 292
Resource Authority Canadian Indian Treaty 4 Treaty with the Creek,
Corn Planter. See Cornplanter (Qu’Appelle Treaty), November 14, 1805, 292
Corn Stalk, 294 September 15, 1874, Treaty with the Creek, August 9,
Cornelius, Jacob, 329 378–380 1814, 294
Cornplanter (Corn Planter; Canadian Indian Treaty 5 Treaty with the Creek, January
Kaintwakon), 74, 75, 76, (Winnipeg Treaty), 22, 1818, 298
287, 289, 290, 781–783, September 24, 1875, Treaty with the Creek, January 8,
814, 815, 885 380–381 1821, 301

I-12 Index
Creek (cont.) Cu-Zu Daveiss, Joseph, 647

Treaty with the Creek, February Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, Davidson, John, 745
12, 1825, 302–303 etc., September 1851, 231 Davis, Edmund, 892
Treaty with the Creek, January table 3 Davis, Jefferson, 809, 901
24, 1826, 306 Cultural intolerance, and education, Davis, John W., 314, 315
Treaty with the Creek, 187–190 Davis, Lewis, 365
November 15, 1827, Cultural items, 124–126, 725–726. See Davy (Saa-Hajo), 313
307–308 also Sacred sites Dawes, Henry L., 32, 671, 672, 786,
Treaty with the Creek, March 24, Cultural patrimony, 124, 125, 126 787–788
1832, 312–313, 476–478 Cultural resource protection, 118 Dawes, Mitchell, 787
Treaty with the Creek, February Culture, and land ownership, 144 Dawes Commission (Commission
14, 1833, 316 Culver, F. B., 351 to the Five Civilized
Treaty with the Creek, Culver, Samuel H., 338 Tribes), 676–677,
November 23, 1838, Cumberland Presbyterian Board of 786–787
329–330 Foreign and Domestic Dawes General Allotment
Treaty with the Creek, June 13, Missions, 418 (Severalty) Act. See
1854, 340 Cumming, A., 348 General Allotment Act
Treaty with the Creek, Etc., Cummins, Richard W., 332 Daws, Gavan, 203
August 7, 1856, 348–349 Cunningham, Jack, 712–713 Dawson, S. J., 377
Treaty with the Creek, June 14, Curtis, Charles, 676 de Callieres, Louis-Hector, 244
1866, 362–363, 538–542 Curtis, S. R., 358, 359, 360, 364, 772 de Cavagnial, Marquis Pierre de
Treaty with the Creek and Curtis Act, 32–33, 673, 675, 676–677 Rigaud de Vaudreuil, 637
Seminole, January 4, Custer, George Armstrong, 256, 271, De Céloron de Blainville, Pierre
1845, 332 719, 784, 884, 898, 901 Joseph, 862–863
See also Five Civilized Tribes and Black Kettle, 755 De La Cruz, Joseph Burton, 788–789
Creek War of 1813—1814, 650, 651, and Dull Knife, 801 de Vattel, Emmerich, 50, 945, 946
653 Cuthead de Vitoria, Francisco, 50, 69, 209, 924
Creek War of 1835—1836, 653 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Dearborn, Henry, 20, 292, 438,
Crèvecoeur, Hector St. Jean de, 823 Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 789–791
Criminal jurisdiction, 31, 112, 172– 369 Decker, George, 796
173. See also Jurisdiction Declaration of Independence, 69, 163
Crittenden, Robert, 302 Dade, Francis, 804 DeCoteau v. District County Court for
Croghan, Catherine, 760 Dakota (Sioux), 28 the Tenth Judicial District,
Croghan, George, 862, 863 and Prairie du Chien, 432 62, 63
Cromwell, John, 307–308 and Traverse des Sioux, 441 Deer, Ada E., 791–792. See also
Crook, George, 784, 812, 898, 901, Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Determination of Rights
904, 906 Sioux, Etc., September and Unity for
Cross-deputization agreements, 6 17, 1851, 336–337 Menominee
Crow, 24, 63–64, 101, 106, 107, 252, See also Sioux Stockholders; Menomie
253–254 The Dalles, 415 Termination Act
Agreement with the Crows, May treaty history of, 414–416 Deer, Bob, 792
14, 1880, 385 Treaty of, 98–99 Deer, Constance Stockton (Wood),
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the See also Treaty with the Tribes of 791, 792
Sioux, Etc., September Middle Oregon, June 25, Deer, Joseph, 791
17, 1851, 336–337 1855 Deh Cho Dene, 392, 400
Treaty with the Crow Tribe, Dalles Dam, 152 DeLancey, James, 823
August 4, 1825, 304 Dalles Falls, 151 Delano, Colombus, 414
Treaty with the Crow, May 7, Dancing Rabbit Creek Delaware, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 20, 21,
1868, 369 treaty history of, 416 52, 53, 55, 57, 70, 71, 79,
the Crow (A-ka-ke), 328 Treaty of, 9, 23, 86–87, 310–311, 100, 104, 163, 243–244,
Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670, 901 416, 653, 657, 935 245–246, 248, 268, 282
Crow Dog, Leonard, 743 See also Treaty with the Choctaw, Agreement with the Delaware
Crow Foot, 898 September 27, 1830 and Wyandot, December
Crow Reservation, 113, 375 Dart, Anson, 97, 225–226, 229 table 1 14, 1843, 332
Crowell, John, 810 Dartmouth College, 180, 181 and Fort Pitt, 424
Crowfoot, Chief, 384, 785–786 Das-Pia and St. Louis, 438
Crown-Indian treaties, 209, 211, 220 Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-Ma- Treaty with the Delaware,
Crowther, Bosley, 802 Do, etc., July 1851, 231 September 17, 1778,
Crume, Marks, 314, 315 table 3 283–284, 449–450

Index I-13
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Sahtu Dene and Métis See also Treaty with the Choctaw
June 7, 1803, 290 Comprehensive Land and Chickasaw, January
Treaty with the Delaware, Claim Agreement, 17, 1837; Treaty with the
August 18, 1804, 291 September 6, 1993, Choctaw and Chickasaw,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., 405–406 November 4, 1854
August 21, 1805, 292 See also Athapaskan; Chipewyan; Doctrine of discovery, 652, 924–925,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Sahtu Dene 944, 945, 946
September 30, 1809, 293 Denmark, 177 Documents of American Indian
Treaty with the Delaware, Denny, David, 895 Diplomacy: Treaties,
October 3, 1818, 299 Denny, John (Johnny Sundown), 329 Agreements, and
Treaty with the Delaware, Denonville, Marquis de, 288 Conventions, 1775-1979
August 3, 1829, 309 Densmore, Christopher, 884, 886 (Deloria and DeMallie),
Treaty with the Delaware, Denver, James W., 349 51
September 24, 1829, 309 Departments of Indian Affairs, 640 Dodge, Ben, 799
Treaty with the Delaware, May Dependency, 144 Dodge, Chee, 912
6, 1854, 339 DePuy, H., 51 Dodge, Henry Chee (Hastiin
Treaty with the Delaware, May Dermer, Thomas, 854 Adiits’a’ii; Man Who
30, 1860, 351 Deschutes, 148 Interprets), 91, 324, 325,
Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, Deserontyon, John, 76, 239 326-327, 328, 754,
1861, 352 Deskaheh (Levi General), 796–797 798–799
Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, Determination of Rights and Unity Dodge, Thomas, 799
1866, 363 for Menominee Dog Soldiers, 367
Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., Stockholders (DRUMS), Dogrib, 392
October 26, 1832, 314 172 Dohasan (Little Bluff), 850, 896
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Detroit, 246 Dole, Sanford, 205
January 21, 1785, 285 DGF. See U.S. Department of Game Dole, William, 25, 186, 352, 353, 355,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and Fish 356
January 9, 1789, 286 Dias, Bartholomeu, 49 Domestic colonialism, 96
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Dickinson, Emily, 829, 830, 906 Domestic dependent nation, 22, 40,
July 4, 1805, 291 Diefenbaker, John, 687 57, 64, 81, 88, 112, 165,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Diegunio 166, 184, 213, 263, 639,
July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Diegunio, 653, 654, 925–926, 926
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 1852, 231 table 3 and government-to-government
September 8, 1815, 295 Dieskau, Baron, 823 relationship, 930
and Vincennes, 442 Diet, 134 and guardianship/wardship,
Delaware Reservation, 351 Dillon, G. P., 202 931
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia Diné Bikéyah, 410–412 and Indian removal, 935
(Canada), 716, 729–730 Diné (Navajo), 176, 370–372, 661, and sovereignty, 948
Deline, 216–217 662. See also Navajo and trust doctrine, 955
Delineation of demands, 255 Diseases. See European diseases and trust relationship, 957
Dellums, Ron, 713 Disturnell, John, 809 Dominic, Lydia Kamaka’eha. See
Deloria, Barbara, 795 Division of Banking, Securities and Liliuokalani, Queen
Deloria, Vine, Jr., 51, 52, 53, Corporations, in Alaska, Dominion Lands Act, 664
792–795 198–199 Dominion of Canada, 236, 663
DeMaillot, Keziah. See Malotte Do-He-No-Geh-Weh. See Parker, Donehogä’wa. See Parker, Ely S.
(DeMaillot) Keziah Ely S. Dongan, Thomas, 275–276
DeMallie, Raymond, 51, 52, 53, Doak, Josiah, 417 Doniphan, Alexander W., 267, 411
254–255 Doak, William, 416, 417 Doolittle, James R., 30, 800
Dene, 240, 380, 382, 386, 387, Doak’s Stand Doolittle Commission, 800
390–391, 392–393, 400, treaty history of, 416–417 Doolittle Committee, 30, 270, 426
401 Treaty of, 262–263, 310, 416–417 Dorian, Paul, 349
Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June See also Treaty with the Dorset, 937
21, 1899, 385–387 Choctaw, October 18, Doty, James Duane, 354
Canadian Indian Treaty 10, 1820; Treaty with the Dougherty, John, 325, 329
September 19, 1906, Choctaw, January 20, Doughty, John, 420
August 19, 1907, 390–391 1825 Douglas, Freeland Edward, 818
Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June Doaksville Douglas, James, 238–239, 641, 642,
27 to August 30, 1921, treaty history of, 417–418 701
391–393 Treaty of, 264, 418 Douglas, William O., 694, 695

I-14 Index
Douglass, John T., 327 compulsory, 187 Energy resource management, 734
Douw, Volkert P., 640 funding for, 43, 182, 190 England, 13, 75, 77, 162
Doyle, James, 156 programs, 690 and Indian alliances, 52
Drachard, Christian, 279 success of, 188–189 and treaty negotiation, 51, 53
Drew, John, 333 See also Schools and war with France, 55
Drew, Richard, 333 Edwards, Ninian, 294, 295, 296, 297, English as a second language (ESL)
Driver, Isaac, 312 299, 774, 797 instruction, 710
Driving Clouds (Nay-gee-zhig), Eel River, 20, 79 Enigmanee (Flies as He Walks), 294
323–324 Supplemental Treaty with the Environmental Protection Agency
Drooping Flower (Ahweyneyonh), Miami, Etc., September (EPA), 117, 161
884 30, 1809, 293 Environmental regulation, 117–118
Drummer’s War, 237 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., EPA. See Environmental Protection
DRUMS. See Determination of June 7, 1803, 290 Agency
Rights and Unity for Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Menominee August 21, 1805, 292 (EEOA), 62, 708
Stockholders Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Equal Rights for Everyone, 722
Drybones, Joseph, 688 September 30, 1809, 293 Erasmus, George Henry, 804–805
Duane, James, 71 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., Erie Canal, 84
Dull Knife (Morning Star), 801–802 August 7, 1803, 290 Es-kin-in-zin (Eskiminzin), 805–806
Dumont, Alexis, 803 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Es-Kun
Dumont, Gabriel, 802–803, 939–940 August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, Es-
Dundy, Elmer, 829, 904 and Vincennes, 442 Kun, etc., August 1851,
Dunquod (Half King), 298 and Wabash River, 443 231 table 3
Duro v. Reina, 113, 114 EEOA. See Equal Employment Esa-tai, 871
Dussault, René, 805 Opportunity Act Esh-ton-o-quot (Clear Sky), 287, 323
Dutch, 51, 211 EEOC v. Cherokee Nation, 43 Eskiminzin (Es-kin-in-zin; Skimmy;
and Canada, 235 Efau Emauthlau, 301 Haské Bahnzin), 805–806
Duval, William P., 302 Efiematla, 313 Eskimo, 209, 720
Duwamish (Dwamish, Dwámish), Eisenhower, Dwight Esquimaux, 279
16, 99 and Public Law 280, 684 Ethnic cleansing, 165
Treaty with the Dwamish, and relocation program, 689 Etowah, 430
Suquamish, Etc., January and termination, 953 Europe, 6, 13, 39
22, 1855, 343 and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 and Canada, 209
Dwamish. See Duwamish Eisenhower administration, 686 and international agreements,
Dysart, George, 697 El Barbon, 748 49–64
Elementary and Secondary treaty negotiation in, 50–53
E-sta-mah-za (Joseph La Flesche), Education Act, 709 European aggression
356 Elk, John, 670–671 and sovereignty, 162–163
Eades, Susie Rozetta, 818 the Elk (Pa), 298 European diseases, 17, 134, 253, 254,
Eagle Heart (Tenetendi), 897 Elk v. Wilkins, 169, 670–671 270
the Eagle (Hoo-yah), 324 Ellicott, Joseph, 290 in Hawaii, 202
Eagle Protection Act, 158, 722–723 Ellis, Albert G., 334 European imperialism, 96
Eagle Striking with Talons. See Ellsworth, Henry J., 315 Evans, Daniel J., 789
Kicking Bird Ellsworth, Henry L., 315, 316, 317, Evans, John, 772
Earl, Anthony, 157 319 Evarts, Jeremiah, 22, 653
Eastern Abenaki, 75 Emartta, Charley, 316 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670
Eastman, Charles, 189 Emartta, Holata, 316 Executive branch, 95–96
Eaton, John, 86, 88, 310, 311, 319 Emathla, Charley, 804 Executive Order 13007, Indian
Economic development, 33, 36, 63, Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 829 Sacred Sites, 947
117 Eminent domain, 136 Executive Order 13175, 955
Economic Opportunity Act, 35, 114 Emma, Queen, 203 Executive Order Reservations,
Economy Employment Division, Department of 926–927. See also
agrarian-based, 76 Human Resources of Reservation
land-based, 134 Oregon et al. v. Alfred L. Explanatory Note of 1796, 55, 56
Ecosystems, 140 Smith et al., 175 Express trust, 955. See also Trust
Edmunds, Newton, 357, 358, 359, Endangered Species Act, 722–723 Doctrine
360, 364, 385 Enehau Thlucco, 292 External sovereignty, 947. See also
Education, 59, 179–190, 270, 709–710 Energy Policy Act, 734 Sovereignty
in Alaska, 195 Energy projects, 63 Extinguishment, 400

Index I-15
Extracurricular activities, and definition of, 236 Folsom, David, 302

education, 188 See also individual tribes Folsom, Israel, 346
First Riel Rebellion, 939 Folsom, Sampson, 337, 346
Factories. See Trading posts First Seminole War, 79, 165 Folsom, Sophia, 876
Fair Haired Old Man, 896 Fish Carrier, 287 Fond du Lac, 157, 341
Fall, Albert B., 763–764 Fish-ins, 152 the Fool Dog (Shon-kah-we-to-ko),
Fallen Timbers, Battle of, 19, 75, 245, the Fish (Na-maing-sa), 294 359
246, 443, 645, 648 Fisher v. District Court, 114 Fools Crow, Chief Frank, 705
Falling Hail (Wasoukapaha), 294 Fishing rights, 25, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, Forbes, John, 424
Fallon Paiute-Shoshone, 116 134, 147–150 Forbes, William H., 376, 377
FAP. See Federal Acknowledgment in Alaska, 195–196 Ford, John, 802
Process in Canada, 218 Foreman, Stephen, 333
Farmer’s Brother, 75, 76, 287 in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, Forks of the Wabash, Treaty of, 443
Farnsworth, H. W., 352 150–155 Forney, Daniel M., 301
Federal Acknowledgment Process in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 Forsyth, Robert, 764, 765
(FAP), 927–928, 929, 941, Fiske, Helen Maria. See Jackson, Forsyth, Thomas, 301, 430–431, 764,
942, 950, 951, 953 Helen Hunt 765, 776, 806–808
Branch of Acknowledgment and Fiske, Nathan Welby, 828 Forsyth, William, 806–807
Research, 928 Fitch, Congressman, 666–667 Fort Adams, Treaty of, 416
Federal Acknowledgment Project, Fitzpatrick, Thomas “Broken Hand,” Fort Belknap Reservation, 170, 678
176 254, 336, 338, 769 Fort Berthold
Federal Act, 678 Five Civilized Tribes, 74–75, Agreement at Fort Berthold, July
Federal courts, and canons of treaty 77–79, 95, 206, 271, 27, 1866, 363–364
construction, 11 676–677 Fort Bridger, Treaty of, 227–228. See
Federal Enclaves Act, 669 and confederate treaty, also Treaty with the
Federal Indian Law, 693 103–104 Eastern Band Shoshone
Federal Power Act, 688–689 and education, 183–184 and Bannock, July 3,
Federal Power Commission, 44 and Indian removal, 83 1868
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora and jurisdiction, 165 Fort Crawford, 431
Indian Nation, 63, and reconstruction treaties, Fort Duquesne, 424
688–689 105–107 Fort Finney, Treaty of, 71–72, 246
Federal programs, tribal and removal, 137 Fort Gibson
administration of, and U.S. Civil War, 58 treaty history of, 419
116–117 See also Cherokee; Chickasaw; Treaty of, 264
Federal Security Agency, 35 Choctaw; Creek; Dawes Fort Green Ville, 426–427
Federally recognized tribes, 5, 171, Commission; Seminole Fort Hall Reservation, 228, 372, 374
175, 176–177, 734, 927, Five Nations Fort Hamilton, 73
929, 941, 947, 950. See also Treaty of Albany with the Five Fort Harmar, 19, 53
Nonrecognized tribes; Nations, July 31, 1684, treaty history of, 420
State-recognized tribes 275–277 Treaty of, 15, 72, 73, 137, 420,
Fessenden, William, 202 See also Cayuga; Mohawk; 644, 645
Fetterman, William, 784, 883 Oneida; Onondaga; See also Treaty with the
Fetterman Massacre, 271 Seneca Cherokee, June 26,
Fields, Richard, 333 Flathead, 99, 227, 252 1794; Treaty with the
Fields, Sallocooke, 297 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., Six Nations, January
Fillmore, Millard, 341, 433, 760, 842, July 16, 1855, 346 9, 1789; Treaty with
867 Flathead Indian Reservation, 227 the Wyandot, Etc.,
Final Umbrella Agreement, 726 Fletcher, Alice C., 32 January 21, 1785;
Fire Chief (Pad-a-ga-he), 356 Flies as He Walks (Enigmanee), 294 Treaty with the
First in the War Party (Shernakitare), Flood Control Act, 723 Wyandot, Etc.,
298 Florida, 20, 28, 52, 56, 77 January 9, 1789
First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun gaming in, 175, 176 Fort Harrison, 444, 647
Self-Government and Indian removal, 85 treaty history of, 421
Agreement, 404 treaties in, 259–265 See also Treaty with the Wea and
First Nations, 209, 216–220, 237, 377, Florida tribes, 77–79 Kickapoo, June 4, 1816
391, 403, 404–405, 436, Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Fort Jackson, Treaty of, 21, 84, 262,
641–642, 663, 720, Indians, September 18, 650, 651
726–727, 734, 938, 1823, 302 Fort John, 422
940–941, 948–950 See also individual tribes Fort Knox, 443

I-16 Index
Fort Laramie Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, French and Indian War (Seven Years’
treaty history of, 421–423 August 4, 1824, 302 War), 27, 69, 211, 238,
Treaty of, 24, 29, 64, 101, 106, Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 245, 424, 440, 637, 638
139, 255, 256–257, 269, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 French Revolution, 211
271, 691, 705, 706, 719 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Friends (Quakers), 184
treaty document, 498–500 September 21, 1832, 313 Funding
See also Treaty of Fort Laramie Treaty with the Sauk and Fox for education, 182, 190
with the Sioux, Etc., Tribe, September 27, Fur trade, 17, 84, 136, 155, 421–422,
September 17, 1851 1836, 325 430–431, 938–939. See also
Fort McDowell, 136 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Trade
Fort McIntosh, Treaty of, 15, 19, September 28, 1836, 325 Furnas, Robert W., 356
71–72, 137, 246, 285, 420. Treaty with the Sauk and Fox,
See also Treaty with the October 21, 1837, 328 Ga-he-ga-zhinga (Little Chief), 356
Wyandot, Etc., January Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Gadsden, Christopher, 808
21, 1785 October 11, 1842, 331–332 Gadsden, James, 88, 302, 313, 316,
Fort McPherson, 400, 401 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of 808–809
Fort Miami, 75 Missouri, May 18, 1854, Gadsden Purchase, 57. See also
Fort Pitt 339–340 Gadsden, James
treaty history of, 424–425 Treaty with the Sac and Fox, Gaiant’waka, 815
Treaty of, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 953 October 1, 1859, 350–351 Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 753,
See also Treaty with the Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 810–811, 835–836
Delaware, September 17, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Gaines, John, 225, 229 table 1
1778 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Gaiwí:yo, 814–816
Fort Stanwix, Treaty of, 15, 19, 71–72, February 18, 1867, 364 Galissoniere, Marquis de la, 862
73, 75, 137, 246, 288, 639, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Gallup, Albert, 330
641 August 19, 1825, Gambling. See Gaming
treaty document, 450–451 303–305, 459–463 Gaming, 8–9, 36, 118, 121–124,
See also Treaty Conference with Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., 175–176, 643, 723–725,
the Six Nations at Fort August 25, 1828, 308–309 928, 942. See also Indian
Stanwix, November Fox, George, 873 Gaming Regulatory Act
1768; Treaty with the Six Fox, Joel, 63 Garcia, Micente, 100
Nations, October 22, Fox, Noel, 156 Garden River, 436
1784 FPC v. Tuscarora, 44 Gardiner, James B., 89, 312
Fort Sumner France, 13, 28, 49, 162 Garland, Samuel, 346
treaty history of, 425–426 and Canada, 209, 235, 236–237 Gas, 140. See also Natural resources
See also Treaty with the Navajo, and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202, Gates, Horatio, 757
June 1, 1868 229 Gatewood, Charles, 813
Fort Wayne, Treaty of, 20, 21, 247, and Indian alliances, 52 Gathering rights, 41, 45, 134, 147–150
440, 442, 444, 646 and Louisiana Cession, 55–56 in Great Lakes, 155, 158–159
Fort William, 422 and Louisiana Purchase, 55, 77, in Pacific Northwest, 159
Fort Wise, Treaty of, 269 84, 134, 137, 252, 417 Gauthier, John, 792
Fos-har-jo, 362 and Northeast, 243–244 Gawaso Wanneh (Arthur Parker),
Foster, Lafayette S., 800 and war with England, 55 816
Foster care. See Child welfare See also French and Indian War Gay Head Wampanoag, 116
Four Lakes, Battle of, 227 Francis, Turbot, 640 General, Alexander, 796
Fowler, Emily, 829 Frank, Billy, Jr., 152, 707 General, Levi (Deskaheh), 796–797
Fox, 17, 30, 70, 100, 103, 278 Franklin, Benjamin, 51, 69, 282, 823, General Allotment Act (Dawes Act),
and Prairie du Chien, 431 874 7, 24, 30, 32–33, 33, 36,
and St. Louis, 438–439 and Canassatego, 756, 757 59–60, 109–110, 138, 167,
Treaty with the Fox, September and Hendrick, 822 206, 672–673, 920, 921,
14, 1815, 295 Franklin, Jesse, 297 954
Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., Franklin, Treaty of, 264 and Alaska, 195
September 17, 1836, 324 Franklin, William, 282 and assimilation, 922–923
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Free-passage treaties, 100 and Atoka Agreement, 674, 675
November 3, 1804, 291, Freedmen’s Bureau, 29–30 and Curtis Act, 676
456–459 Freeman, Thomas, 442 and Elk v. Wilkins, 671
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 86 and guardianship/wardship,
September 3, 1822, Frémont, John Charles, 660, 769, 932
301–302 770 and Indian country, 933

Index I-17
and Indian Reorganization Act, Good Thunder, 356 and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202
680 Goodnight, Charles, 871 and Iroquois Confederacy, treaty
and Indian Territory, 937 Goodrich, William, 744 with, September 24,
and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. Goodstream (Ohnaweio), 289 1664, 211
United States, 694 Gordeau Reservation, 302 and Nigeria, 170
and Rice v. Cayetano, 732 Gordon, Harry, 424 and Northeast, 243–244
and sacred site, 947 Gorton, Slade, 153, 789 and Revolutionary War, 11,
and sovereignty, 948 Gostrax, Chief, 282 13–14, 18–19, 163, 259–260
See also Allotment; Assimilation Gousa, 297 and Revolutionary War (U.S.),
General Land Office, 29 Gover, Kevin, 733 212
General trust, 955. See also Trust Government-to-government and treaty negotiation, 51
Doctrine relationship, 732, 733, and War of 1812, 17, 21, 56, 84,
George II, 638, 639, 823 930–931, 958 137
George III, 55, 69, 163, 211, 279, 640, Goyahkla (Geronimo), 188, 268, Great Dakota Reservation, 139
759, 814 812–813 Great Depression, 34
George V, 796 Goyakla (Geronimo), 188, 268, Great Father, 252–253, 254
Georgia, 16, 21, 22–23, 40, 52, 56–57, 812–813 Great Lakes, 155–156, 214, 216
72 Goyathlay (Geronimo), 188, 268, gathering rights in, 158–159
and Indian removal, 85 812–813 treaties in, 243–249
and jurisdiction, 165–166 Gra-ta-mah-zhe (Standing Hawk), Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
removal in, 263–264 356 Commission (GLIFWC),
Germany, 229 Graham, George, 296 158, 159, 433, 721, 813
Geronimo (Goyathlay, Goyakla, Graham, John, 295, 744 Great Mahele, 201, 230
Goyahkla; He Who Graham, Richard, 301 Great Peace. See Montreal, Treaty of
Yawns), 188, 268, Grand Council of the Cree, 215, 395, Great Peace Commission, 106, 107
812–813 397 Great Plains, 30
Ghent, Treaty of, 56, 78, 80, 237, 647, Grand Pawnee, 319 treaties in, 251–257
649, 650–651, 651. See also Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, Great Sioux Agreement, 32
War of 1812 June 18, 1818, 298 Great Sioux Reservation, 31, 256,
GI Bill. See Servicemen’s Treaty with the Pawnee— 385, 719
Readjustment Act Grand, Loups, Great Society programs, 35, 114
Gibbon, John, 898 Republicans, Etc., Great Speaker (Majigabo), 798
Gibbs, John, 860 August 6, 1848, 333 Great-Tree, 74
Gibson, George, 419 Grand Portage, 157, 341 Great Walker (Mah-ne-hah-nah), 302
Gibson, Henry B., 302 Grand River, 272 Greene, Nathaniel, 426
Gift giving, 255 Grand Traverse Band, 43 Greenland, 177
Gila River, 116 Grande Ronde Reservation, 226 Greenville
Gilas, 267 Grandpré, Treaty of, 259 treaty history of, 426–427
Gilbert, Henry, 341, 347 Grant, Ulysses S., 31, 58, 166, 184, Treaty of, 19, 20, 55, 76, 79, 245,
Gildersleeves, 705 231 table 4, 232, 272, 768, 246, 421, 426–427, 443,
Gillet, Ransom H., 329 777, 854, 868 645, 646
Gish-tah-wah-gu (Strong Walker), and Parker, Ely S., 869 See also Treaty with the
349, 356 and Satanta, 892–893 Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
Gitksan, 729–730 Grant administration, 30 1795; Treaty with the
Gladwin, Henry, 879 Grattan, John L., 784 Wyandot, Etc., July 22,
Glass, 316 Grattan, Lawrence, 900–901 1814
GLIFWC. See Great Lakes Indian Grave Creek, 342 Greenwood, Alfred B., 351, 352
Fish and Wildlife Graves, protection of, 124–126, Gregory, Dick, 152
Commission 725–726. See also Sacred Greig, John, 302
Godfrey, Francis, 330 sites Grimm, Frank, 705
Gold, 31 Graves, Thomas, 308 Gros Bled (Wabakinklelia), 292
in Black Hills, 139–140, 719 Gray, Horace, 670 Gros Ventre, 24, 101, 678–679
in California, 57, 58, 96, 228, 253, Gray, William, 289 Grotius, Hugo, 50, 54, 924
254, 659, 660 Gray Head, 755 Ground, Jabez, 349
in Colorado, 272 Greasy Grass, Battle of, 256 GSA. See Gwich’in Settlement Area
See also Natural resources Great American Desert, 936 Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of, 24,
Good Chief (Petaheick), 298 Great Britain, 6, 28, 49, 55, 88, 97 29, 96, 100, 143, 268, 272,
Good Hunter, Captain, 312 and Canada, 209, 210, 211, 214, 434, 659, 660. See also
Good Squad, 705 235, 236, 237–238 Mexican-American War

I-18 Index
Guadalupe (wife of Kicking Bird), Hard Rock International Havasupai, 272

838 Restaurants, 735 Haven, Jens, 279
Guardianship/wardship, 931–932 Hard Walker (Wastch-com-ma-nu), Hawaii, 199–207
Guatanamo, 272 356 agriculture in, 202, 203, 206
Guerin v. The Queen, 949 Harjo, Bill. See Harjo, Chitto annexation of, 200, 202–203,
Guernsey, Orrin, 358, 359, 360, 364 Harjo, Chitto (Bill Harjo), 817–818 205–207
Guess, George, 78, 297, 308 Harjo, Suzan Shown, 818–819 and business community,
Guitan, 851 Harlan, Marshall, 671 203–204
Gulf of Mexico, 56 Harland, James, 368 European diseases in, 202
Gunpowder, 49 Harmar, Josiah, 73, 420, 745, 849, foreign treaties in, 199–202
Gunshot Treaty, 239 902, 903, 913 and France, 199, 200, 201–202,
Guopahko (Mamadayte), 851 Harmar’s defeat, 245 229
Gutenberg, Johannes, 49 Harney, William, 256, 269, 271, 358, government overthrow in,
Gwich’in (Gwitchin; People of the 366, 367, 369, 370, 901 204–205
Caribou), 240, 392 Harper, Kenton, 337 and Great Britain, 199, 200,
Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Harris, Carey A., 328, 329 201–202
Claim Agreement, April Harrison, Benjamin, 204 land claims in, 200–202
1992, 400–401 Harrison, William Henry, 16, 20, 80, and land compensation, 200
Gwich’in Land and Water Board, 246–247, 290, 291, 292, and land ownership, 201–202,
401 293, 294, 295, 421, 436, 205–207
Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board, 819–820 and reciprocity with U.S.,
401 and Black Hawk, 752–753 202–203
Gwich’in Renewable Resource and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 religion in, 200
Board, 401 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 sovereignty in, 203, 207
Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA), and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, sugar industry in, 201–202, 203,
400, 401 811 204, 206
Gwich’ya Gwich’in, 400 and Hawaii, 204 and trade, 203, 204, 232
Gwynne, John, 674 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 treaties in, 228–232, 231 table 4
and Little Turtle, 850 voting in, 203–204
Ha-hah-kus-ka (White Elk), 304 and Ohio tribes, 426–427 whaling industry in, 201, 202,
Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee (Peter Pitchlynn), and St. Louis, 438 203
105, 346, 418, 876–877 and Tecumseh, 905 See also Kingdom of Hawaii
Hagan, William T., 32 and Thames, Battle of the, Hawaii Committee of Public Safety,
Hahshequarhiqua, 291 648–649 204
Haibohaa (Branching Horn), 294 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, Hawaii Constitution of 1840, 200
Haida, 196 646–647 Hawaii Constitution of 1864, 203
Haida Nation case, 220 and Tippecanoe River, 440 Hawaiian Homelands Program, 207
Hainai, 268 and Vincennes, 442–443 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
Haisanwee (Horn), 294 and Wabash River, 444 (HHCA), 206, 732
Haldimand, Frederick, 759 and Wayne, Anthony, 914 Hawaiian Islands
Hale, C. H., 230 table 2, 353 and Wells, William, 914 Treaty with the Hawaiian
Half King (Dunquod), 298 Hartford, Treaty of, 245 Islands, December 1849,
Half-Town, 74 Harvey, Thomas H., 332, 333 231 table 4, 232
Halfbreed Commission, 392 Hashke Yich’i’adehyilwod Hawaiian Natives, 199–207
Halfbreed Scrip, 392 (Barboncito), 370, 371, Hawaiian Organic Act, 205, 206
Hall, Emmett, 702 412, 748–749 Hawaiians, 732–733
Hamilton, Allen, 330 Haské Bahnzin (Eskiminzin), Hawkins, Benjamin, 286, 289, 290,
Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of 805–806 821–822, 856–857
Indian Affairs and Haskell Boarding School, 188, 189, Hawley, Joseph, 640
Northern Development 190. See also Schools Hayes, Rutherford B., 868
(Canada), 715–716 Haskell Indian Nations University HBC. See Hudson’s Bay Company
Hamtramck, John F., 914 (HINU), 190 He Who Yawns (Geronimo), 188,
Handsome Lake (Sganyadí:yoh; Hastiin Adiits’a’ii (Henry Chee 268, 812–813
Skaniadario), 75, 76, 289, Dodge), 798–799 Head, Lafayette, 354
649, 814–816 Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), 13, 163, Headright, 140
Hard Hickory, 312 164. See also Iroquois Heald, Nathan, 442, 807, 915
Hard Labor, Treaty of, 282 Haudenosaunee League of Nations, Heart, Jonathan, 420
Hard Rock Café, Seminole purchase 177 Heavy Clouds (Shu-kah-bi), 349
of, 735 Haunsiaugh (Boyer), 298 Heckewelder, John, 246

Index I-19
Hell Gate, 227, 230 table 2 Hopi, 272, 410 Huntington, Samuel, 744
Helm, Linai T., 807 Hopi Reservation, 140 Hupa Reservation, 671
Henderson, John B., 271, 366, 367, Hopson, Peregrine Thomas, 51 Huron, 51, 75, 211, 238, 638
369 Horn (Haisanwee), 294 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second
Hendrick (Theyanoguin, Tiyanoga), Horne, Esther Burnett, 188, 189 Robinson Treaty),
243, 822–823, 836 Horonu, 330 September 9, 1850, 335
Henley, Thomas J., 661 Horseshoe Bend, Battle of Huron-Petun, 278
Henry the Navigator, 49 (Tohopeka), 84, 649–651 Hurr, William, 352
Hepburn, William, 745 Hosmer, Brian C., 838 Huss, John, 333
Hepner, George, 342 House Committee of Interior and Hutchins, Charles, 230 table 2, 353
Her-Holy-Door, 897, 899 Insular Affairs, 197 Hydaburg, 196
Hernandez, General, 835 House Concurrent Resolution 108, Hydro-Quebec. See Quebec Hydro-
Herrera, 853 35, 111, 171, 680, Electric Commission
Herriman, David, 341 683–684, 694, 932, 948, Hyman, Harold, 27
HHCA. See Hawaiian Homes 952–953. See also
Commission Act Termination I-on-i. See Aionai
Hick, John, 316 House Resolution 4497, 682–683 ICC. See Indian Claims Commission
Hickel, Walter, 197 Howard, Benjamin, 807 ICRA. See Indian Civil Rights Act
Hickory Log, 430 Howard, Francis, 276, 277–278 ICWA. See Indian Child Welfare Act
Hicks, Charles, 888 Howard, Mary, 894 Idaho, 225
Hicks, John, 343 Howard, Oliver Otis, 777–778 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 931
Hidatsa, 106, 252, 253, 254 Howe, S. D., 230 table 2, 353 Identity, 689–690
Higby, William, 800 Howechees Ignace, Georgianna, 792
Hill, John, 279 Treaty with the Howechees, etc., IGR. See Institute for Government
Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt. See Joseph, April 1851, 231 table 3 Research
Chief Howling Wolf, 838 IGRA. See Indian Gaming
HINU. See Haskell Indian Nations Hoxie, Frederick, 253–254 Regulatory Act
University Hualapai, 272, 273 IITC. See International Indian Treaty
His Red Nation (Little Crow), Hubbard, Asahel W., 800 Council
847–848 Hubbard, Niles, 886 Illinois, treaties of cession in, 81
Historic Sites Act, 947 Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), 214, table 1
Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, 677, 824–825 235, 238–239, 335, 664, Illinois Confederacy, 412
Ho-Chunk, 23 665, 715 Implied abrogation, 45
Hog Creek Shawnee, 312 Huebschmann, Francis, 339, 348 In re Estate of Kamehameha IV, 205
Hoh, 99 Hui Ala Loa, 207 Indian Act of Canada, 217, 401, 405,
Hole-in-the-Day (Que-we-zance), Hulbert, John, 323, 330 668, 949
355, 365 Hull, William, 293, 791, 915 Bill C-31, 668
Holland, 162 Human remains, 124, 125, 126, Indian affairs, control of, 41
Holland Land Company, 688 725–726. See also Sacred Indian Affairs Committee, 115
Hollow Horn Bear, 901 sites Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties, Vol. 1
Holston, Treaty of, 19, 22, 251, 286, Hunkapapa (Sioux; Hunkpapa, and 2, 693
287, 656. See also Treaty Onkpahpah) Indian Appropriations Act, 31, 97,
with the Cherokee, July Treaty with the Hunkapapa 666–667, 667
2, 1791 Band of the Sioux Tribe, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, 934
Holy Ground, Battle of, 650 July 16, 1825, 304 Indian Arts and Crafts Board Act,
Homestead Act, 27, 29, 32, 59, 270, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and 681
947 Arapaho, April 29, 1868, Indian Bill of Rights, 674
Honas (Ronesass), 298 369 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),
Honolulu Rifles, 203 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa 36, 118–121, 174, 710
Hoo-yah (the Eagle), 324 Band, October 20, 1865, Indian Citizenship Act, 33
Hooker Jim, 768 359 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), 36,
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, Hunt, Alexander C., 368 692–693
174–175 Hunting rights, 22, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, Indian Civilization Act, 181–182,
Hoover Commission, 34–35 134 270
Hopewell, Treaty of, 19, 22, 57, in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, Indian Civilization Fund Act, 28
71–72, 211, 260–261, 285, 150–155 Indian Claims Commission Act
655–656. See also Treaty in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 (Public Law 726), 34, 171,
with the Cherokee, Huntington, J. W. Perit, 227, 230 682–683. See also Cohen,
November 28, 1785 table 2, 355, 357, 360 Felix S.

I-20 Index
Indian Claims Commission (ICC), 310, 311, 318, 320, 643, Indiana, 19
133–134, 136, 139–140, 652–653, 657, 730, 935, treaties of cession in, 81 table 1
171, 257, 679, 680, 719, 936 Indians of All Tribes, 691
825–826 and Indian Territory, 947, 948 Inherent Right to Self-Government
and Indian New Deal, 934 See also Indian Removal policy, 726
and specific claims, 949, 950 Indian Removal bill, 55 Inhofe, Senator, 140
See also Cohen, Felix S. Indian Reorganization Act (Wheeler- Inshta Theamba (Susette LaFlesche
Indian Code, 321 Howard Act), 34, 35, 36, Tibbles), 905–906
Indian country, 933. See also Indian 111, 133, 170–171, Institute for Government Research
Territory 680–681 (IGR), 33–34, 679
Indian Education: A National and Alaska, 196 Integration, 34–35
Tragedy—A National and allotments, 921 Inter Caetera, 954
Challenge (Kennedy and Federal Acknowledgment Intercourse, and trade, 27–28
Report), 709 Process, 928 Intercourse Acts, 164–165
Indian Education Act, 116, 709 and guardianship/wardship, Internal sovereignty, 947. See also
Indian Education Assistance Act, 932 Sovereignty
116 and Indian Allotment Act, 672 International agreements, Indian
Indian Education Assistance and and Indian New Deal, 934 treaties as, 49–64
Self-Determination Act, and Morton v. Mancari, 708 International Indian Treaty Council
36 and Nixon, Richard, 698 (IITC), 712
Indian Elementary and Secondary See also Allotments; Cohen, Felix International law, 49–50, 54
School Assistance Act, S.; Collier, John International treaties
116. See also Schools Indian rights. See Treaty Rights and legal standards, 55
Indian Financing Act, 117, 929 Indian Rights Association (IRA), and negotiation subjects, 54
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 826–827 Inuit, 195, 209, 216, 217, 218, 220,
(IGRA), 36, 117, 118, Indian Self-Determination Act, 116, 240, 399, 664, 715–716,
121–124, 175, 643, 712 720, 937–938
723–725, 735, 929, 956. Indian Self-Determination and British-Labrador Inuit Peace
See also Gaming Education Act, 173 Treaty, April 8, 1765,
Indian Health Care Improvement Indian Self-Determination and 279–280
Act, 116 Education Assistance James Bay and Northern Quebec
Indian Health Service, 115, 116, 172, Act, 697, 710 Agreement (JBNQA),
941, 950 Indian Service, 27, 34 November 11, 1975,
Indian Intercourse Acts, 28 and education, 184 395–396
Indian Land Consolidation Act, 117 Indian Specific Claims Commission, Northeastern Quebec
Indian Law Enforcement Reform 949 Agreement (NQA),
Act, 116 Indian Springs, Treaty of, 263, 856, January 31, 1978,
Indian Mineral Development Act, 857 397–398
36, 117 Indian Territory, 936–937 Inuit Circumpolar Conference
Indian nations, treaties between, Agreement with the Cherokee (ICC), 938
272–273 and Other Tribes in the Inuit Tapirisat Corporation (ITC),
Indian New Deal, 34, 35, 161, 179, Indian Territory, 398, 401–402, 938
680, 681, 682, 934–935. September 13, 1865, 357 Inuktitut, 279, 396, 403
See also Cohen, Felix S.; treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Inupiat, 196
Collier, John; Costo, See also Indian country; Indian Inuvialuit Agreement of Northwest
Rupert land; Vincennes, Territories, 240
Indian Nonintercourse Act, 919 Indiana Inuvialuit Corporate Group, 399
Indian Oil Leasing Act, 927 Indian title, 920. See also Aboriginal Inuvialuit Final Agreements, June
Indian Peace Commission, 30, 256, title 1984, 398–400, 938
426 Indian Trade Act, 28 Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 399
Indian removal, 23–24, 28–29, 83–92, Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, Inuvik, 400
133, 137, 165, 263–265, 645, 936 Iou-Ol-Umnes
416–417, 430, 935–936 and Alaska, 195 Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes,
end of, 31 Indian Tribal Energy and Self- Wethillas, etc., May 1851,
origins of, 83–86 Determination Act, 734 231 table 3
See also Indian Removal Act; Indian Tribal Government Tax Iowa
Relocation Status Act, 929 repatriation in, 176
Indian Removal Act, 28, 86, 87, 88, Indian Tribal Justice Act, 116 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2
109, 137, 263–264, 305, Indian War of 1855—1856, 227, 428 Iowa Indians, 30, 100, 103

Index I-21
Treaty with the Iowa, September and Ghent, Treaty of, 651 and Indian removal, 83–84, 416,
16, 1815, 295–296 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822 935
Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, and Indian removal, 84, 85–86, and land cessions, 426–427
1824, 302 88, 90, 91, 416, 430, 935 and Lewis, Meriwether, 846
Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., and Indian Removal Act, 652, and Louisiana Purchase, 653
September 17, 1836, 324 653 and Ohio tribes, 426–427
Treaty with the Iowa, November and Indian Territory, 936 Speech to a Delegation of Indian
23, 1837, 328 and Lea, Luke, 842 Chiefs, 252–253
Treaty with the Iowa, October and McIntosh, William, Jr., 857 and St. Clair, Arthur, 902
29, 1838, 329 and New Echota Treaty, 320–321 and St. Louis, 438
Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, and Pushmataha, 882, 883 and Tippecanoe River, 440
1854, 339 and removal, 263–264, 265, 305 treaties under, 262
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, and Ross, John, 891 and Vincennes, 442
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 and Trail of Tears, 657, 658 Jemison, Alice Mae Lee, 832–833
Ioway and trust responsibility, 957 Jennings, Jonathan, 299, 314, 315
and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Worcester v. Georgia, 655, 656 Jerome, David H., 833–834. See also
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Jackson, Helen Hunt (Helen Maria Jerome Commission
August 19, 1825, Fiske), 828–830, 906 Jerome Commission (Cherokee
304–305, 459–463 Jackson, Henry, 197, 683, 952 Commission), 271, 833.
Iqaluit, 240 and Indian Claims Commission, See also Jerome, David H.
Iron Eye (Joseph LaFlesche), 905–906 825 Jesup, Thomas S., 834–836
Iron Whip (Wah-gah-sap-pi), 356 Jackson, Sheldon, 195 Jesus, 815
Iron Wind (Tatarnaza), 294 Jackson, William S., 829 Jicarilla Apache, 25, 144, 268, 272
Iroquois, 13, 19, 23, 51, 53, 75, 211, James, Edward, 159 Jicarilla v. Andrus, 43
235, 236, 237, 243, 244, James Bay and Northern Quebec Jim, Chief, 338
246, 638 Agreement (JBNQA), Jimerson, Ray, 832
and British Crown, treaty with, November 11, 1975, 240, Job Corps, 114
September 24, 1664, 211 395–396, 397, 726, 938 Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA),
and Fort Harmar, 420 James Bay Development 950
See also Haudenosaunee; Six Corporation, 215, 395, Joe, Chief, 338
Nations 397 John Chup-co (Long John), 362
Iroquois Loyalists, 239 James Bay Energy Corporation, 395, John Hat (Tauromee), 365
Isabella, Queen, 49 397 John II, 49
Isabella Indian Reservation, 355 James Bay Treaty. See Canadian Johnson, Andrew, 271
Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha (Puffing Eyes), Indian Treaty 9 Johnson, Guy, 759, 836
358 James I, 76 Johnson, Lyndon, 35, 36, 114, 115,
Isparhecher, Chief, 135, 676 James II, 76 173, 698
Istowun-eh’pata (Packs a Knife), 785 Japan, 199, 229, 687 and Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 912
ITC. See Inuit Tapirisat Corporation Japanese Canadians, 687 Johnson, Richard, 90
Jaramillo, Maria Josefa, 770 Johnson, Sir William, 69, 238, 282,
J-a-pu (the One Who Walks against Jason, Chief, 374 639, 641-642, 759, 823,
the Others), Chief, 303 Jay, John, 75–76 836
Jackson, Andrew, 16, 22, 23, 25, 56, Jay Treaty, 55, 56, 237, 645, 646 Johnson administration, 709
79, 81, 166, 213, 262, 294, JBNQA. See James Bay and Johnson O’Malley Act, 709, 934
297, 299, 301, 650, Northern Quebec Johnson v. M’Intosh, 96, 165, 652, 656,
827–828, 835, 844, 865, Agreement 685–686, 919–920,
909 Jefferson, Thomas, 19–20, 55, 69, 76, 924–925, 953
and Black Hawk, 754 77, 78, 134, 251, 252–253, and government-to-government
and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 436, 648, 831–832 relationship, 930
762 and Boudinot, 758 and right of conquest, 945
and Cass, Lewis, 772 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and right of occupancy/right of
and civilization policy, 83 761 the soil, 946
and Dancing Rabbit Creek and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and sovereignty, 948
Treaty, 310 and Clark, William, 775 Johnston, Jane, 894
and Dodge, Henry, 798 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 Johnston, John, 330, 894, 914
and eminent domain, 136 and Handsome Lake, 815 Johnston, Joseph, 106
and Gadsden, James, 808 and Harrison, William Henry, Joint Special Committee on the
and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 819–820 Conduct of the Indian
810, 811 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822 Tribes, 270

I-22 Index
Joint Special Committee to Inquire Treaty with the Umpqua and Kataka (Ka-ta-ka)
into the Condition of the Kalapuya, November 29, Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May
Indian Tribes, 800. See 1854, 342 26, 1837, 327
also Doolittle Kalispel Reservation, 227 Katewah, 301
Commission Kamaiakan, 409, 410 Kathlamet, 229 table 1
Jolliet, Louis, 430 Kamehameha I, 229 Kativik Regional Government, 396,
Jolly, John, 315 Kamehameha II, 229 397
Jondreau, William, 156 Kamehameha III, 229, 230, 231 table 4 Kaw (Kanza), 414
Jones, Chief Wilson, 135 Kamehameha IV, 202, 205, 230 Kaw’s Widow (Mee-kiss), 325
Jones, Horatio, 290 Kamehameha V, 203, 230–231 Kearny, Stephen, 411, 769, 770
Jones, John T., 352, 365 Kanesatake (Lac-des-Deux- Keatechee, 291
Jones, Thomas ap Catesby, 200, 231 Montagnes), 638 Kechemaqua (Kechemaquaw), 300,
table 4 Kansa (Cansa, Kanza), 104, 252, 414 301
Jones, William, 183, 186, 824 Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, Kechewaishke (Buffalo), 433,
Jones v. Meehan, 42, 62 1825, 303 760–761
Joseph, Chief (Joseph the Younger; Treaty with the Kansa, August Kee-o-kuck (the Watchful Fox), 328
Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt; 16, 1825, 304 Kee-way-gee-zhig (Returning Sky),
Thunder Rolling in the Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, 324
Mountains), 837 January 14, 1846, 332 Keechy
Joseph (Ronioness), 298 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, Treaty with the Comanche,
Joseph the Younger. See Joseph, October 5, 1859, 351 Aionai, Anadarko,
Chief Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Jouett, Charles, 291 1862, 352 1846, 332
Journeycake, Solomon, 309 Kansas, 29, 30 Keeocuck (Keokuk), 302, 364, 753,
Joy, James F., 369 jurisdiction in, 166 754, 776, 807, 811
JTPA. See Job Training Partnership treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Keith, Charles B., 353
Act Kansas Indians Kekionga, 443
Judd, Gerrit P., 201, 202 Treaty with the Kansas, October Keneschoo, 766
Judge, Thomas L., 332 28, 1815, 296 Kennedy, John F., 698, 709, 738
Judson, Wilfred, 215, 701, 702 Kansas Indians case, 166 Kennedy, Robert, 738
Jumper, 316 Kansas-Nebraska Act, 936 Kennedy administration, 173
Jurisdiction Kansas Reservation, 351, 352 Kennedy Report. See Indian
and colonial America, 162, 163 Kanza. See Kansa Education: A National
criminal, 31, 112, 172–173 Kappler, Charles J., 101 Tragedy—A National
issues of, 161–177 Karaho, John, 365 Challenge
See also Sovereignty Karok, 175 Kennedy v. Becker, 151
Kashaya Pomo, 9 Kennewick Man, 725–726
Ka-gway-dosh, 365 Kaska Dena, 403 Kenote, George, 792
Ka-ta-ka. See Kataka Kaskaskia, 79–80, 100 Kentucky, 28
Ka-zhe-cah, 365 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Keokuk (Keeocuck), 302, 364, 753,
Kaahna, 300 June 7, 1803, 290 754, 776, 807, 811
Kagama, 671 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., Keweenaw Bay, 155
Kah milt-pah, 345 August 7, 1803, 290 Kiasutha, 782
Kah-nung-da-tla-geh (Major Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Kickapoo, 72, 73, 79, 100
Ridge), 16, 88, 89, 265, August 13, 1803, 290–291 and Fort Harrison, 421
296, 321, 322, 333, 430, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
888, 909 October 27, 1832, 315 June 7, 1803, 290
Kahnawake, 217 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.,
Kaintwakon. See Cornplanter Peoria, Etc., May 30, August 7, 1803, 290
Kakawipilpathy, 286 1854, 340 Treaty with the Kickapoo,
Kakima, 437 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., December 9, 1809, 293
Kalakaua, David, 203, 231 table 4, September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Kickapoo,
232 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed September 2, 1815, 295
Kalaniana’ole, Kuhio, 205–206 Seneca and Shawnee, Treaty with the Kickapoo, July
Kalapuya, 98, 225, 226, 229 table 1, Quapaw, Etc., February 30, 1819, 299–300
230 table 2 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Kickapoo,
Treaty with the Kalapuya, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 30, 1819, 300
Etc., January 22, 1855, August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July
343 and Vincennes, 442 19,1820, 299–300

Index I-23
Treaty with the Kickapoo of the See also Medicine Lodge Creek, La Flesche, Joseph (E-sta-mah-za),
Vermillion, September 5, Treaty of 356
1820, 301 Kiowa-Comanche-Apache La-ma-noan (the Axe), 294
Treaty with the Kickapoo, Reservation, 107, 110, 677 La-mee-pris-jeau (Sea Wolf), 294
October 24, 1832, 314 Kiowa-Comanche Reservation, 32, La Nanette, 765
Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 107 La Pointe, 341
18, 1854, 340 Kisketuhug, 341 La Trappe (Majigabo), 798
Treaty with the Kickapoo, June Kitchkume, Louise, 792 Labrador, 216
28, 1863, 353 Kitsai, 268 Labrador Inuit Land Claims
Treaty with the Wea and Klallam, 154, 238 Agreement, 938
Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, Klamath, 35, 104, 116, 139, 227, 230 Lac Court Orielles, 341
296 table 2 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and timber, 141 Indians v. Voigt et al., 41,
August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 156, 721–722
and Wabash River, 443 October 14, 1864, 355 Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO), 157
Kickapoo Reservation, 353 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Lac De Flambeau, 341
Kicking Bird (Watohkonk, Black Klamath, etc., October Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes
Eagle; Ténéangopte, 1851, 231 table 3 (Kanesatake), 638
Tene-Angpote, Eagle Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Lac du Flambeau (LdF), 157
Striking with Talons), Shasta, and Scott’s River, Lac-Saint-Jean, 638
838, 850, 899 November 1851, 231 LaDuke, Vincent, 840
Kidd, Meredith H., 786 table 3 LaDuke, Winona, 840–842
Kik-i-állus Klamath Economic Self-Sufficiency LaFlesche, Francis, 906
Treaty with the Dwamish, Plan, 141 LaFlesche, Joseph (Iron Eye),
Suquamish, Etc., January Klamath Indian Reservation, 227 905–906
22, 1855, 343 Klamath Reservation, 141, 227 LaFlesche, Mary Gale, 905–906
Kilkatat, 344–345 Klamath Termination Act, 141, 694 LaFlesche, Susan, 906
King Philip’s War. See Metacom’s Klamath Tribal Forest Management LaFlesche, Suzette “Bright Eyes,”
War Plans, 141 830
Kingdom of Hawaii, 207, 732–733. Klatskania, 229 table 1 Lafountain, F., 330
See also Hawaii Klinquit, 345 Lake of Two Mountains, 75
Kingsbury, Cyrus, 417 Kluane, 727 Lake Winnibigoshish
Kinship relationship, 39 Knox, Henry, 14–15, 19, 53, 73, 74, Treaty with the Chippewa of the
Kintpuash (Captain Jack), 767–768 261, 284, 287, 420, 744, Mississippi and the
Kinzie, John, 807 839–840, 903 Pillager and Lake
Kinzua Dam project, 44 and Indian removal, 83 Winnibigoshish Bands,
Kiowa, 10, 30, 40, 43, 61, 100, 104, Ko-Yate March 11, 1863, 353
110, 268–269, 270, 271, Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A- Treaty with the Chippewa,
677–678 Si, etc., May 1851, 231 Mississippi, Pilager, and
and education, 182 table 3 Lake Winnibigoshish
and jurisdiction, 168–169 Kondiaronk (the Rat), 278 Bands, May 7, 1864, 355
and reconstruction treaty, Konnack, 229 table 1 Lakmiut Kalapuya, 229 table 1
106–107 Konohiki (land managers), 228 Lakota Reservation, 107, 139
Treaty with the Comanche, Koo-tah-waun-nay, 319 Lakota (Sioux), 101, 106, 166–167,
Kiowa, and Apache, Kootenai 179, 705
July 27, 1853, 338, Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., and gold mining, 139–140
500–502 July 16, 1855, 346 and reconstruction treaty, 107
Treaty with the Comanche and Kosciuszko, Tadeusz, 850 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the
Kiowa, October 18, 1865, Kouns, Nathan, 314, 315 Sioux, Etc., September
358 Kow-was-say-ee, 345 17, 1851, 336–337
Treaty with the Kiowa, Kuleana grants, 201 and Wounded Knee, occupation
Comanche, and Apache, Kutenai, 99, 227 of, 704–706
October 21, 1867, 366, Kwalin Dun, 727 See also Sioux
550–552 Lamberth, Royce, 955
Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May La Barr, Governor, 236 Lambros, Nicholas J., 710–711
26, 1837, 327 La-da-ila, 895 Lamer, Antonio, 728
Treaty with the Kiowa and La Famine, Treaty of, 236 Lamont, Lawrence “Buddy,” 705
Comanche, October 21, La Ferine, 300 Lamson, Chauncey, 848
1867, 365–366 La Flesche, Francis, 179 Lamson, Nathan, 848

I-24 Index
Lanape, 424. See also Delaware See also Aboriginal title Leschi, Chief, 428, 896
Land Lane, Barbara, 706 Leupp, Francis, 182, 680, 824,
and eminent domain, 136 Lane, Joseph, 225, 229 table 1 844–845
in exchange for land, 137 Langtree, Samuel D., 55 Levi, Francis Thomas, 742
and natural resources, 136–137 Language barrier, 6, 10–11, 15, 135, Lewis, Andrew, 424
as real property, 134–135 148 Lewis, Dixon W., 346
reservations as payment for, L’Anse, 341 Lewis, M. G., 332
137–138 Laplace, C. P. T., 200, 201 Lewis, Meriwether, 252, 415, 438,
and selling rights, 135 Lapwai, 230 table 2 775, 837, 845–847
value of, 136–137 Treaty of, 227 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831
Land acquisition, 13, 14–18, 19–25, Laramie, Jacques, 422 See also Clark, William; Lewis
76. See also Land cession Larrabee, Nellie, 784 and Clark Expedition;
Land and Water Settlement Acts, 116 Larsen, Lewis, 430 Louisiana Purchase
Land cession, 14, 39 Las Casas, Bartolomé de, 50, 924 Lewis, Reazen, 293
and Indian removal, 83–92 LaSalle, Robert Cavalier de, 437 Lewis, Thomas, 424
and Jefferson, Thomas, 426–427 Laskin, Bora, 702 Lewis, William, 845
See also Land acquisition Last-in-time rule, 43 Lewis and Clark expedition, 251,
Land claims Latopia, 286 252, 253, 255. See also
in Alaska, 196–199 Latrobe, John, 781 Clark, William; Lewis,
in Canada, 215–217 Laurens, Anna, 788 Meriwether
in Hawaii, 200–202 Laurens, Henry, 788 Li-ay-was, 345
Land compensation, 14–15, 16, Law, 27 Liguest, Pierre de LeClede, 439
17–18, 20, 21–22, 24, 42, enforcement, 6, 8–9 Liliuokalani, Queen (Lydia
44, 101–102, 136 See also Federal Indian law; Kamaka’eha Dominic),
in Alaska, 195, 196–198 Treaty law 204, 205, 232
in Canada, 239, 240, 241 The Law of Nations (Vattel), 50, 945, Limited trust, 955. See also Trust
and confederate treaties, 103–104 946 Doctrine
in Hawaii, 200 Lawrence, Kip, 409 Lincoln, Abraham, 927
lack of, 133–134 Lawyer (Aleiya), 345, 374 Lipan Apache, 268
in Northern Plains, 255, 257 Layauvois, 291 Litigation, 39
in the South, 77–78, 79 LCO. See Lac Courte Oreilles Little Beard, 76
in southeast, 261 LCO v. Voigt, 249 Little Beard’s Reservation, 290
in southern plains and LdF. See Lac du Flambeau Little Bighorn, Battle of, 256, 719
southwest, 269, 270, 272 Le Boeuf (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Little Billy, 287
and unratified treaties, 97, 98, 99 Le Petit Carbeau, 292 Little Bluff (Dohasan), 850, 896
and U.S. Constitution, 75, 76, 136 Lea, Luke, 760, 842–843 Little Chief (Ga-he-ga-zhinga), 356
See also Land cession; Land Leach, D. C., 355 Little Crow (Taoyateduta; His Red
ownership; Land League of Nations, 177 Nation), 441, 847–848
payments; under Lean Bear, 352 Little Decoria, 356
individual treaties; under Leavenworth, Jesse, 269, 358, 367, Little Hawk, 784
individual treaty sites 755 Little Hill, 356
Land Grant College Act. See Morrill LeBlanc, Albert, 156, 710–711 Little Moon (We-che-gla-la), 303
Act Leclede, Pierre, 774 Little Mountain, 838
Land in Severalty Act. See General Lee, Arthur, 285 Little Prince, 308
Allotment Act Lee, Robert E., 106, 869 Little Raven, 351, 367
Land Ordinance, 27, 72 LeFleur, Louis, 843 Little Robe, 367
Land ownership, 24, 63, 133, 134 LeFlore, Chief Greenwood, 9, 86, Little Thunder, 900–901
and allotments, 138 264, 843–844 Little Turtle (Michikinikwa), 73, 76,
in Hawaii, 201–202 Left Hand (Namos), 352 290, 292, 293, 442, 443,
and Indian culture, 144 Legion army, 646 646, 849–850, 902, 913,
and religion, 144 Legislation, 27 914
and sovereignty, 135–136 Lemoite, 775 Little White Bear (Mato-che-gal-lah),
See also Allotment; Natural Lenape, 163 304
resources; Removal; Lenni Lenape (the Delaware), 13 Little Wolf, 352, 801, 802
Reservations Lepan Littleman, Peter D., 334
Land tenure, 8, 134, 135 Treaty with the Comanche, Livingston, Robert, 69
Land title, 919 Aionai, Anadarko, Locke, John, 832
and doctrine of discovery, Caddo, Etc., May 15, Logan, James, 332
924–925 1846, 332 Logan, William, 230 table 2

Index I-25
Logging, 155 Lummi, 154 Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly, 40

Lone Chief (A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi, Lumpkin, Wilson, 22, 656 Makah v. Schoettler, 152
Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he), Lunalilo, King, 203, 231 Makataimeshekiakiak (Black Hawk),
349, 356 Lurie, Nancy, 792 255, 752–754, 776, 798,
Lone Wolf, Chief, 43, 61, 107, 110, Lymans, Wyllys, 851 807, 810, 811
168–169, 677, 838, 850–851 Lynch, Joseph M., 333 Makivik Corporation, 215
Lone Wolf (A-Kei-Quodle), 677 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Malecite (Malisee), 70, 216
Lone Wolf the Younger Protective Association, Maliseet (Malisee), 116, 211, 235, 236,
(Mamadayte), 851 174–175, 947 237
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 10, 43, 44, 61, Maloney, Jake, 742–743
63, 107, 109, 110–111, 138, Ma-ha-nin-ga (No Knife), 356 Malotte (DeMaillot), Keziah, 807
140, 168–169, 271, Ma-hos-kah (White Cloud), 302 Malunthy, 286
677–678, 943, 954 Ma-laigne, Chief, 333 Mamadayte (Guopahko; Lone Wolf
and trust doctrine, 955 Macacanaw, 300 the Younger), 851
and trust responsibility, 957 Macatewaket, 300 Mamande (Screaming Above), 897
Long Bull (Tan-tan-ka-has-ka), Macatiwaaluna (Chien Noir), 292 Mamanti, 838, 851
Chief, 360 Mackenzie, Ranald S., 851, 871 Man-ah-to-wah, 364
Long John (John Chup-co), 362 Mackenzie Valley Envikronmental Man Who Interprets (Henry Chee
Long Walk, 370–372, 412, 661–662 Impact Review Board, Dodge), 798–799
Longest Walk, 712–713 401 Mandan, 24, 101, 106, 252, 253, 254
Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 830, Madeira Islands, 49 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the
894, 906 Madison, Dolley, 870 Sioux, Etc., September
Longueuil, 238 Madison, James, 19, 80, 758 17, 1851, 336–337
Longwha and Cass, Lewis, 771 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe,
Treaty with the Comanche, and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 July 30, 1825, 304
Aionai, Anadarko, and Clark, William, 776 Manifest Destiny, 251
Caddo, Etc., May 15, and Dearborn, Henry, 790 Manitoba Act (Canada), 239, 664,
1846, 332 and Wabash River, 444 664–666
Looking Cloud, Fritz Arlo, 744 Mah-hee, 352 Manitoba Post Treaty. See Canadian
Looking Glass, 410 Mah-ne-hah-nah (Great Walker), 302 Indian Treaty 2
Lord Dunsmore’s War, 245, 246 Mah-to-wee-tah (White Bear’s Face), Manitoulin Island Treaty, 642
Lorette, 75 304 Mankiller, Wilma Pearl, 851–853
Lorimer, L., 293 Mahawaha, 671 Mann, Luther, Jr., 354
Loughery, Ardavan S., 334 Mahican (Mohegan, Mohican), 116, Manpinsaba (Black Cloud), 294
Louis XIV, 278 243, 305 Manuelito, 267, 370, 371, 412, 662,
Louisiana, 28 Main Poc, 439–440, 443 853–854
treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Maine, 75–76 Manypenny, George W., 24, 226,
Louisiana Cession, 55–56 Maine Implementing Act (MIA), 718 338, 339, 340, 341, 343,
Louisiana Purchase, 20, 21, 55, 77, Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act 344, 346, 347, 349, 761,
78, 84, 134, 137, 252, 262, (MICSA), 247, 716–718 842
417, 653 Maine Indian Tribal-State Maricopa, 272, 273
and Indian removal, 935, 936 Commission (MITSC), Market Revolution, 84
See also Clark, William; Lewis, 718 Markham, William, 873
Meriwether Maison v. Confederated Tribes of the Marquesas Islands, 200
Louisiana Territory, 427 Umatilla Reservation, 152 Marquette, Jacques, 430
compensation in, 80 Majigabo (Great Speaker, or La Marshall, Benjamin, 313
treaties in, 80 Trappe), 798 Marshall, Donald, 720
Love, Benjamin S., 337 Majoney, Patrick, 715–716 Marshall, John, 11, 22, 40, 56–57, 60,
Love, Robert H., 362 Major Crimes Act, 31, 60, 167, 670, 81, 88, 136, 165–166, 184,
Lower Brulé 671, 714, 933, 948 263, 639, 652, 653, 654,
Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Makaainana (Maka’ainana; 655–656, 671, 692, 832,
Brulé Band, October 14, commoners), 228 920
1865, 357 Makah, 99, 155, 230 table 2 and aboriginal title, 215
Lower Sioux Agency Indian Treaty with the Makah, July 20, and Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Reservation, 441 1815, 294–295 762
Lowry, John, 296 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, and doctrine of discovery,
Loyalty, 13 October 6, 1825, 306 924–925
Lumbee Regional Development Treaty with the Makah, January and domestic dependent nation,
Association, 950 31, 1855, 344 213, 925–926

I-26 Index
Marshall, John (cont.) McCoy, John L., 333 American Indian

and guardianship/wardship, McCullough, John L., 421 Movement
931 McCurtain, Daniel, 302 Meanymsecah, 286
and Indian removal, 935 McDonald, J. L., 302 Medawah-Kanton. See
and right of conquest, 945 McDonald, Peter, 912 Mdewakanton
and right of occupancy/right of McDougall, William, 665 Medawakanton. See Mdewakanton
the soil, 946 McElvain, John, 309, 312 Medicine Creek, 230 table 2
and sovereignty, 212–213, 948 McGillivray, Alexander, 52, 260, 261, treaty history of, 427–428
and treaties, 954 287, 648, 649, 839, Treaty of, 61, 63, 99, 106–107, 110,
and Trust Doctrine, 955 855–856 169, 226, 227, 271,
Marshall, Thurgood, 112, 113, 703, McGilvery, William, 290, 291, 313 427–428, 695, 711
722 McGovern, Francis, 156 See also Treaty with the
Marshall, William, 320 McIntosh, D. N., 363 Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.,
Marshall case. See R. v. Marshall McIntosh, J., 301 December 26, 1854
Marshall decisions, 216 McIntosh, William, Jr., 79, 263, 292, Medicine Lodge, Treaty of, 366–367,
Marshall Trilogy, 166, 172 301, 302–303, 649, 810, 677. See also Treaty with
Martin, Brice, 333 856–857, 865 the Cheyenne and
Martin, Henry W., 364 McKay, James, 377 Arapaho, October 28,
Martin, Joseph, 286 McKean, William K., 342 1867
Martin, Morgan L., 334 McKee, Redick, 228, 231 table 3, 660 Medill, William, 24, 334
Martinez, Mariano, 334 McKenna, Joseph, 151, 678 Mee-kiss (Kaw’s Widow), 325
Martland, Ronald, 701 McKenney, Thomas L., 307–308, 761, Mee-sée-qua-quilch
Marufo, Anne, 861 886. See also Bureau of Treaty with the Dwamish,
Marvis, Thomas, 308 Indian Affairs Suquamish, Etc., January
Mascouten, 278, 443 McKennon, Archibald S., 786 22, 1855, 343
Masham, Sir William, 915 McKenzie, Ann, 807 Meeds, Lloyd, 712, 713
Mashantucket Pequot, 41, 116 McKenzie, Richard, 690 Meeker, Nathan C., 869
Mashpee Wampanoag, 928, 942 McKinley, William, 232, 676, 824 MEI. See Menominee Enterprises,
Massachusetts, 30, 72, 75–76 and Hawaii, 205 Inc.
Massachusetts Bay Colony, 179 McKinley Act, 204 Meigs, Return J., 291, 292
Massacre Cave, 411 McLachlin, Beverly, 218 Memoranda of understanding, 5
Massacres, 96 McLamore, J., 291 Memorandum writers, 35
Massasoit (Ousa Mequin; Yellow McLaughlin, James, 899 Menard, Pierre, 309
Feather), 854–855, 858, McLean, John, 312 Mendawakanton. See Mdewakanton
859 McLish, John, 327 Meninock, Chief, 150
Master of Life, 647 McMinn, Joseph, 297 Menominee, Chief, 440
Matacur, William, 309 McNair, Alexander, 776 Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI),
Mather, Thomas, 304, 413 McNair, Clement V., 333 172
Matlock, G. C., 333 McNiel, John, 309 Menominee (Menominie), 23, 35, 45,
Mato-che-gal-lah (Little White Bear), McQueen, Peter, 866 91–92, 116, 139, 278
304 Mdewakanton (Medawah-Kanton, and Prairie du Chien, 431
Matthew Grey Eyes, 312 Medawakanton, and termination, 172
Mattz v. Arnett, 45 Mendawakanton), 100, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
Mauk-pee-au-cat-paun, 324 325 August 11, 1827, 307
Maulson, Tom, 157 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Menominee,
Maw, George, 308 Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 March 30, 1817, 297
Mawedopenais, Chief, 377 Treaty with the Sioux— Treaty with the Menominee,
May-zin (Checkered), 324 Mdewakanton and February 8, 1831, 311
Mayhew family, 180 Wahpakoota Bands, Treaty with the Menominee,
Mayo, 403–404 August 5, 1851, 336 February 17, 1831, 311
McArthur, Duncan, 295, 298 MDNR. See Michigan Department of Treaty with the Menominee,
McClanahan decision, 42 Natural Resources October 27, 1832, 315
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Me-cos-ta, 323 Treaty with the Menominee,
Commission, 62, 113, 114, Me-mot-way, 325 September 3, 1836, 324
702–703, 952 Me-no-ke-shick, 365 Treaty with the Menominee,
McCloud, Janet, 152 Meacham, Albert B., 31 October 18, 1848,
McCool, Daniel, 144 Meadow Lake Tribal Council, 216 333–334
McCormick, Kelly Jean, 743 Means, Russell, 700, 704–706, 743, Treaty with the Menominee,
McCoy, Rev. Isaac, 22 747, 751, 857–858. See also May 12, 1854, 339

Index I-27
Treaty with the Menominee, Mi-Chop-Da Michilimackinac, Michigan

February 22, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, Es- treaty history of, 428–429
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Kun, etc., August 1851, See also Treaty with the Ottawa
August 19, 1825, 231 table 3 and Chippewa, July 6,
304–305, 459–463 MIA. See Maine Implementing Act 1820; Treaty with the
Menominee Reservation, 112, 684, Miami, 16, 17, 20, 55, 72, 73, 79, Ottawa, Etc., March 28,
695 90–91, 100, 244, 245, 247, 1836; Treaty with the
Menominee Restoration Act, 36 278, 412, 444 Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
Menominee Termination Act, 45 and Fort Harrison, 421 1795
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United and St. Joseph, 436 Micmac. See Mi’kmaq
States, 45, 693–695 and St. Louis, 438 MICSA. See Maine Indian Claims
Mentor-Protégé Program, 33 Supplemental Treaty with the Settlement Act
Meriam, Lewis, 33, 189, 679 Miami, Etc., September Middle Oregon, 230 table 2
Meriam Report, 33–34, 189, 679–680, 30, 1809, 293 Treaty of, 149, 227, 415
682, 923 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Treaty with the Middle Oregon
Meriwether, David, 297, 301 June 7, 1803, 290 Tribes, November 15,
Meriwether, James, 302 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., 1865, 360
Meriwether, Lucy, 845 August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle
Merriam Report, 709. See also Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Oregon, June 25, 1855,
Assimilation September 30, 1809, 346
Mes-quaw, 323 293 Middleton, Frederick, 803
Mes-quaw-buck, 322 Treaty with the Miami, October Migration, westward, 84
Mescalero, 25 6, 1818, 299 Mijaw-ke-ke-shik, 365
Mess-Sett, 322 Treaty with the Miami, October Mikasuki Seminoles, 102–103
Metacom, 858–861, 916 23, 1826, 307 Mi’kmaq (Micmac), 51–52, 176, 211,
Metacom’s War (King Philip’s War), Treaty with the Miami, February 216, 235, 236, 237–238
243, 244 11, 1828, 308 Mikwendaagoziwag (They Will Not
Métis (Metis), 209, 214–215, 216, 217, Treaty with the Miami, October Be Forgotten), 433
218, 219, 220, 239, 240, 23, 1834, 319 Miles, John, 801
399, 401, 664–666, 720, Treaty with the Miami, Miles, Nelson, 812–813, 901
938–940 November 6, 1838, 329 Military
Canadian Indian Treaty 3 Treaty with the Miami, draft, 169
(Northwest Angle November 28, 1840, 330 and education, 188
Treaty), October 3, 1873, Treaty with the Miami, June 5, Mille Lacs, 157
377 1854, 340 Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians
Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed v. Minnesota, 11, 41, 42,
21, 1899, 385–387 Seneca and Shawnee, 46, 62, 157, 158,
Canadian Indian Treaty 10, Quapaw, Etc., February 730–731, 954
September 19, 1906, 23, 1867, 365 Miller, Samuel, 60, 671
August 19, 1907, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Milroy, Samuel, 330
390–391 August 3, 1795, 289 Min-e-do-wob, 365
Sahtu Dene and Métis Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Min-tom-in, 325
Comprehensive Land July 22, 1814, 293–294 Mineral resources, 31, 36
Claim Agreement, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., in Alaska, 198
September 6, 1993, September 8, 1815, 295 See also Natural resources
405–406 and Vincennes, 442 Mingatushka, 286
Metlakatla, 196 and Wabash River, 443 Mingo, 245
Metosenyah, Thomas, 365 Miantonomi (Miantonomo), 766, Mingo Pooscoos, 291
Mexican-American War, 28, 29, 57, 767, 907 Miniconjou, 168
659, 660. See also Micco, Hoboithle, 856 Treaty with the Sioux—
Guadalupe, Treaty of Michigamia Miniconjou Band,
Mexican Cession, 137 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 10, 1865, 357
Mexican independence, 85 October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Mexico, 24, 28, 29, 100, 169, 254 Michigan, 28 Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
and California, 228 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 369
and independence from Spain, Michigan Department of Natural Mining, 139–141. See also Natural
53 Resources (MDNR), 156 resources
and Texas, 57 Michikinikwa (Little Turtle), 443, Mining Law, 947
treaties with, 267, 268 849–850 Minisink, 52, 282

I-28 Index
Minitaree Missouri v. Holland, 45 Monroe, James, 19, 85, 262, 655

Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Missouria, 25 and Clark, William, 776
Minitaree Tribe, July 30, Mitchel, Colin, 656 and Gadsden, James, 809
1825, 304 Mitchel v. United States, 656–657 and Indian removal, 416, 935
Minnesota, 23 Mitchell, Chester, 788 and Indian Territory, 936
jurisdiction in, 172 Mitchell, D. D., 254, 336, 842 and Jackson, Andrew, 828
Minnesota Enabling Act, 730, 731 Mitchell, David Brydie, 298 Monroe Doctrine, 203
Mis-qua-dace, 355 Mitchell, George, 739, 746, 750. See Montagnais, 638
Mishinemackinong, 428 also American Indian Montalban, Ricardo, 802
Missionaries, 85 Movement Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 43
and education, 179, 180, 182–184, Mitchell, John, 365 Montana v. United States, 63–64, 113,
185 Mitchell, Mike, 720–721 174, 714
See also Religion Mitchell, Samuel, 290 Montmagny, Governor, 236
Missionary associations, 30 Mitchell case, 720–721 Montour (Pauquia), 292
Mississauga, 239 MITSC. See Maine Indian Tribal- Montreal, Articles of Capitulation of,
Williams treaties with the State Commission 637–638
Chippewa and the Miwok, 228 Montreal, Treaty of, August 7, 1701,
Mississauga, October to Mix, Charles E., 349, 350 235, 236, 244–245,
November 1923, Mixanno, 860 278–279
393–394, 627–635 Mixed Seneca Montreal Conference, 236
Mississippi Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Moore v. United States, 337
and Indian removal, 86 Seneca and Shawnee, Moor’s Charity School, 180. See also
Treaty with the Chippewa of the Quapaw, Etc., February Schools
Mississippi and the 23, 1867, 365 Moose Dung, Chief, 354
Pillager and Lake M’Kee, John, 297 Mooshulatubbee. See Mushulatubbe
Winnibigoshish Bands, Mo-chu-no-zhi (Standing Bear), Morgan, George, 246
March 11, 1863, 353 829–830, 903–904, 905, Morgan, Colonel Jacob, 796, 799
Treaty with the Chippewa, 906 Morgan, Lewis, 816
Mississippi, Pilager, and Mo-cuck-koosh, 329 Morgan, Michael Oliver, 862
Lake Winnibigoshish Mo-less, 352 Morgan, Thomas J., 185, 186, 826
Bands, May 7, 1864, 353, Mo-sack, Chief, 325 Morgan, Willoughby, 310
355 Mo-ta, Chief, 320 Morgan Report, 205
Treaty with the Chippewa of the Modern treaties/comprehensive Morning Star (Dull Knife), 801–802
Mississippi, March 19, land claim agreements Morrill, Ashley C., 354, 355
1867, 365 (Canada), 215, 216, 235, Morrill Act (Land Grant College
Mississippi River, 77 236, 395–407, 702, 920, Act), 27, 29
Mississippi Territory, 20 940–941 Morris, Alexander, 377
and Indian removal, 84 Modoc, 104, 227, 230 table 2 Morris, Robert, 76, 289
Missouri, 28, 100, 226, 252, 253 and timber, 141 Morris, Thomas, 886
treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Modoc War, 227 Morrow, William, 392
Treaty with the Otoe and Mohawk, 51, 72–73, 75, 217, 236, 243, Morse, Jedidiah, 745
Missouri Tribes, 244, 278 Morton v. Mancari, 62, 708–709
September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Mohawk, March Morton v. Ruiz, 43
Treaty with the Otoe and 29, 1797, 289 Mose-so, 325
Missouri, September 21, See also Six Nations Moses, Chief, 385
1833, 316–317 Mohawk, William, 348 Moshulatubbee. See
Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., Mohegan. See Mahican Mooshulatubbee
October 15, 1835, 325 Mohican. See Mahican “Mother Earth,” 136
Treaty with the Otoe and Mojave, 272, 273 Mount Dexter, Treaty of, 20
Missouri, March 15, Molala (Molel), 225, 229 table 1, 230 Movable type, 49
1854, 338 table 2 Movie industry, 254
Treaty with the Confederated Treaty with the Molala, Muache, 272
Otoe and Missouri, December 21, 1855, 348 Muahuache Ute, 272
December 9, 1854, 342 Mole Lake, 157 Mucathaanamickee, 302
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Molel. See Molala Muck Rose, 319, 322
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Mon-sai-raa (Rusty), 294 Muckleshoot (Muckelshoot), 152,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Mongrain, 438 154
Missouri, May 18, 1854, Monk, Justice, 663 and Medicine Creek, 427–428
339–340 Monopsony, 15 Muckuk Kosh, 330

Index I-29
Mudeator, Matthew, 343 Narcesagata (the Hard Stone), 294 Native Hawaiians, 199–207, 732–733
Munsee, 315 Narragansett, 116 Native village, 198
Treaty with the Stockbridge and Nas-waw-kee, 323 Nativist Redstick Creek revolt,
Munsee, September 3, Nasa Reah, 301 262–263
1839, 330 Naskapi, 240 Natural resources, 133–134, 134–135,
Treaty with the Stockbridge and Northeastern Quebec 136–137, 144
Munsee, February 5, Agreement (NQA), in Alaska, 195–196
1856, 348 January 31, 1978, 397–398 See also Gold; Mineral resources;
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Nascapi Development Corporation, Mining; Timber; Water
July 4, 1805, 291 397 Nau-tay-sah-pah, 324
Murphy, Thomas, 269, 358, 363, 364, Nascapi Health and Social Services Naush-waw-pi-tant, 322
365 Consultative Committee, Navajo, 18, 25, 30, 52, 62, 88, 100,
Murray, James, 238, 638 397 104, 107, 267, 268, 271,
Muscogee Creek, 260, 261, 262, 419 National Advisory Council on 272, 410–412, 691–692,
Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Indian Education, 702–703, 714–715
August 4, 1835, 320 709–710 and Fort Sumner, 425–426
Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May National Assembly of Quebec, 215 and gaming, 176
26, 1837, 327 National Congress of American and jurisdiction, 173, 174
Muscogee Nation v. Hodel, 43 Indians (NCAI), 35, 682, and Long Walk, 661–662
Museums, 125–126 792, 794, 934, 958 Treaty with the Navajo,
Mush, John, 365 National Environmental Protection September, 1849, 334
Mushulatubbe (Mooshulatubbee, Act, 956 Treaty with the Navajo, June 1,
Moshulatubbee), 86, 264, National Forest Service, 174–175 1868, 370–372, 552–556
302 National Historic Preservation Act, Navajo Reservation, 140, 170, 173,
Musquaconocah, 286 947 267, 372, 686, 691–692
Mut-tut-tah, 364 National Indian Board of Education, Navajo Tribal Code, 714
Myer, Dillon S., 911 709 Navajo Tribal Council, 173
National Indian Education Advisory Naw-squi-base, 325
Na-al-ye, 342 Committee, 709 Nawb-bwitt, 325
Na-cho Nyak Dun. See Nacho Nyak National Indian Gaming Nay-gee-zhig (Driving Clouds),
Dun Commission (NIGC), 36, 323–324
Na-hel-ta, 342 121, 122, 723 NCAI. See National Congress of
Na-maing-sa (the Fish), 294 National Indian Youth Council, 152 American Indians
Nacho Nyak Dun (Na-cho Nyak National Industrial Recovery Act, 34 Ne-con-he-con, 351
Dun) National Museum of the American Ne-ha-tho-clo, 316
Nacho Nyak Dun Final Indian Act, 118 Ne-o-mon-ni, 328
Agreement, May 29, National Museum of the American Ne-sour-quoit, 352
1993, 403–404 Indian (NMAI), 733–734 Neah Bay, 99, 226
Nader, Ralph, 738 National Pollution Discharge Nebraska, 29, 30
Nag-ga-rash, 352 Elimination System jurisdiction in, 161, 172
NAGPRA. See Native American permits, 117–118 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2
Graves Protection and National Recovery Administration Nee-so-aw-quet, 320
Repatriation Act (NRA), 34 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 114
Nakota (Sioux) Nationalism, 185 Neolin, 879
Canadian Indian Treaty 4 Native Alaskans, 195–199 Nes-mo-ea (the Wolf), 328
(Qu’Appelle Treaty), Native American Church, 173, 175 Nesmith, James W., 800
September 15, 1874, Native American Church v. Navajo Nesowakee, 302
378–380 Council, 173 Nevada, 175
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Native American Graves Protection Nevada v. Hicks, 113
Sioux, Etc., September and Repatriation Act and government-to-government
17, 1851, 336–337 (NAGPRA), 118, 124–126, relationship, 930–931
See also Assiniboine; Sioux 175, 176, 725–726, 947. See and sovereignty, 948
Namos (Left Hand), 352 also Sacred sites New Brunswick, 216
Nananawtunu, 860 Native American Housing New Course of Studies, 187
Nankanandee, 294 Assistance and Self- New Echota
Nanticoke, 70, 282 Determination Act, 116 treaty history of, 429–430
Napoleon, 77, 427, 831 Native American Programs Act, 929 Treaty of, 16, 23, 88–89, 137, 265,
Narbona, Antonia, 267, 410–411 Native American Rights Fund, 152, 320–322, 430, 653, 657,
Narbona, Chief, 853 942, 950 658

I-30 Index
New Echota (cont.) Nisqually River, 152 Treaty with the Northern
See also Treaty with the Cherokee, Nitakechi, 86 Cheyenne and Northern
December 29, 1835 Nittuckachee, 302 Arapaho, May 10, 1868,
New France, 235 Nixon, Richard, 35, 36, 115, 116, 172, 369–370
New Mexico Territory, 100 173, 689, 691, 709, 747 Northern Great Plains, treaties in,
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, and Alaska, 197, 198 251–257
731 and Costo, Rupert, 783 Northern Ponca, 172, 173
New Netherlands, 211 and Deer, Ada E., 792 Northern Quebec Inuit Association,
New Orleans, 77 Message to Congress, July 8, 215, 395, 397
New Orleans, Battle of, 85 1970, 697–698 Northrop, Sarah Bird, 887
New York, 23, 55, 75–76, 211 Nixon administration, 705, 740 Northwest Angle Treaty. See
treaties of, 16, 52, 54, 89–90 NMAI. See National Museum of the Canadian Indian Treaty
Treaty of, 261 American Indian 3, October 3, 1873
Treaty with the New York No-heart, 352 Northwest Indian Fisheries
Indians, January 15, No Knife (Ma-ha-nin-ga), 356 Commission, 155
1838, 329 No Water, 784 Northwest Mounted Police, 240
New York Power Authority (NYPA), Nocona, Peta, 871 Northwest Ordinance, 27–28, 72, 420
688 Noe-Ma Article III, 645
New Zealand, 203 Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., Northwest Territory, 19, 20, 215, 216,
Newby, E. W. B., 267 August 1851, 231 table 3 665
Newlands Resolution, 205 Noise (Wah-no-ke-ga), 356 compensation in, 80
Newman, Daniel, 301 Noisy Pawnee treaties in, 79–81, 81 table
Nez Perce (Nez Percé), 99, 104, 107, Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, Northwestern Shoshone
137, 227, 230 table 2, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Shoshone—
409–410, 414, 415, Nolo, 302 Northwestern Bands,
696–697 Non-che-ning-ga, 328 July 30, 1863, 354
and education, 182 Non-Intercourse Act, 15, 212 Northwestern Territory Order, 664
Treaty with the Nez Percé, June Nonrecognized tribes, 928, 929, Nova Scotia, 216
11, 1855, 345 941–942. See also NQA. See Northeastern Quebec
Treaty with the Nez Perce, June Federally recognized Agreement
9, 1863, 353, 513–518 tribes; State-recognized N’Quentl-má-mish
Treaty with the Nez Percé, tribes Treaty with the Dwamish,
August 13, 1868, 374 Noo-whá-ha Suquamish, Etc., January
Nez Perce Reservation, 227 Treaty with the Dwamish, 22, 1855, 343
NFA. See Nisga’a Final Agreement Suquamish, Etc., January NRA. See National Recovery
Niagara Treaty of 1764, 639–640 22, 1855, 343 Administration
Nichol, Alfred, 747 Nook-wa-cháh-mish NTI. See Nunavut Tunngavik
Nicholson, James, 355 Treaty with the Dwamish, Incorporated
Nicolas, Chief, 862 Suquamish, Etc., January Numbered treaties, 236, 239–240
NIGC. See National Indian Gaming 22, 1855, 343 Nunavut, 177, 240
Commission Nordwall, Adam, 861 Nunavut Land Claims
Nigeria, 170 Norris, Thomas, 642 Agreement, May 25,
Nihinessicoe, 286 the North, removal treaties in, 89–92 1993, 401–403, 938
Nihipeewa, 286 North America, 51 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
Nihtat Gwich’in, 400 North American Indian, 217 Act, 402
Nippising, 75 North Carolina, 21 Nunavut Territory, 216
Nisenan, 228 North Carolina Commission of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Nisga’a, 215, 216, 241, 701–702 Indian Affairs, 950 (NTI), 403
Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA), the Northeast, treaties in, 243–249 Nunna daul Tsuny, 322
April 27, 1999, 406–407, Northeastern Quebec Agreement Nye, James W., 354
702, 727 (NQA), January 31, 1978, NYPA. See New York Power
Nisqually, 63, 99, 153, 154, 226, 397–398, 726 Authority
695–696 Northern Arapaho
and fishing rights, 152 Treaty with the Northern O-gub-ay-gwan-ay-aush, 365
and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Cheyenne and Northern O-sho-ga, 760
Treaty with the Nisqually, Arapaho, May 10, 1868, Oakes, Richard, 690, 691, 861–862
Puyallup, Etc., December 369–370 Oakes, Yvonne, 862
26, 1854, 342–343, Northern Athapaskan, 400 Obail (Obeal), Henry, 815
507–510 Northern Cheyenne Obwandiyag (Pontiac), 878–879

Index I-31
Oche Haujo, 292 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 Treaty with the Omaha, March 6,
Ochechote, 345 (Manitoba Post Treaty), 1865, 355–356
O’Connor, Sandra Day, 730, 948 August 21, 1871, 375–376 Omaha Reservation, 161
Odanak, 638 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 Omaha Tribal Council, 161
Odawa. See Ottawa (Northwest Angle Omaha World-Herald, 161
Oe-quee-wee-sance, 329 Treaty), October 3, 1873, One Bull, 897
OEO. See Office of Economic 377 the One that Has No Name (Cha-sa-
Opportunity Canadian Indian Treaty 4 wa-ne-che), 304
O’Fallon, Benjamin, 253, 303, 304, 306 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), the One That Is Used as a Shielf
Office of Economic Opportunity September 15, 1874, (Wah-hah-chunk-i-ah-
(OEO), 115, 116 378–380 pee), 358
Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Canadian Indian Treaty 5 the One Who Walks against the
206, 207, 732–733 (Winnipeg Treaty), Others (J-a-pu), 303
Office of Indian Affairs (OIA), 151, September 24, 1875, Oneida, 13, 23, 53, 69, 76, 278, 305
166, 167–168, 171, 426, 380–381 and education, 180
666, 731, 761 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, Treaty with the Oneida, Etc.,
and Alaska, 195 August 28, September 9, December 2, 1794,
authority of, 170 1876, 381–382 288–289
and education, 182 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Treaty with the Oneida,
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bay Treaty), November February 3, 1838, 329
Lea, Luke; Parker, Ely S. 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, See also Six Nations
The Office of Indian Affairs 388–389 Onkpahpah. See Hunkapapa
(Schmeckebier), 33 and fishing rights, 155, 156 Onondaga, 51, 278. See also Six
Office of Indian Education and gathering rights, 158–159 Nations
Programs, 190 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, Ontario, 213, 216
Ogden, Abraham, 289 428–429 Ontonagon, 341
Ogden Land Company, 247 and Prairie du Chien, 431–432 Oohulookee, 297
Ogima Kegido, 329, 330 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Oolitiskee, 297
Oglala Sioux, 106, 171, 255–257, 704, Robinson Treaty), Oowatata, 297
705 September 9, 1850, 335 Oowatie, Buck. See Boudinot, Elias
Treaty with the Sioune and Robinson Superior Treaty (First Opata, 410
Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Robinson Treaty), Opechancanough, 863–864, 880
Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala September 7, 1850, Operation Head Start, 114
Band, October 28, 1865, 334–335, 495–498 Opitchapam, 863
360 and Sandy Lake, 433 Opothleholo, 313, 864–865
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Ok-tars-sars-harjov (Sands), 363 Oral agreements, 6
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, Oklahoma, 28, 102, 140–141, 170, Oral cultures, 149
369 937 Oral promise, 10–11
Oglala Sioux Civil Rights and confederate treaties, 104 Oral tradition, 135
Organization (OSCRO), jurisdiction in, 168–169 “Order for Establishing
705 See also Indian Territory Communication and
Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, 704 Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 681 Trade with the
OHA. See Office of Hawaiian Affairs Olaya, Hugo, 851–852 Esquimaux Savages on
Ohio, 19 Old Briton, 862–863 the Coast of Labrador,”
treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Old Crow, 404 279
Ohio Indians, 426–427 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Oregon, 199–200, 225
Ohio Valley Agreement, May 29, jurisdiction in, 172
treaties in, 89 1993, 404–405 treaty of, 225
Ohnaweio (Goodstream), Chief, 289 Old Northwest, 19, 20, 22, 23, 55, 56 See also Pacific Northwest
OIA. See Office of Indian Affairs Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Oregon Department of Fish and
Oil, 140 63, 113, 713–714, 715 Wildlife v. Klamath Indian
in Alaska, 195, 196, 197 and government-to-government Tribe, 45
See also Natural resources relationship, 930 Oregon Donation Act, 97
Ojibwe (Ojibwa, Ojibway), 29, 148, and sovereignty, 948 Oregon Game Commission, 152
235, 238, 239, 248–249, Olympia, Treaty of, 227 Oregon Question, 28, 29
278, 412, 673–674, 721–722 Omaha, 32, 100, 104, 226 Oregon Territory, 57, 96–97
Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone and jurisdiction, 161 and unratified treaties, 97–99
Fort Treaty), August 3, Treaty with the Omaha, March See also Pacific Northwest
1871, 375–376 16, 1854, 338–339 Oregon Trail, 254

I-32 Index
Organic Act, 195, 685, 686 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.,
Oriskany, Battle of, 641 Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 September 29, 1817, 297
Orme Dam, 136 Ottawa (Odawa), 17, 51, 71, 72, 100, Ourada, Patricia, 867
Orrick, William, 154, 158, 707 104, 235, 278, 412 Ouray, 868–869
Osage, 7, 18, 20, 21–22, 30, 104, 136, and fishing rights, 155, 156 Ousa Mequin (Massasoit), 854–855
252, 413–414 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, Outchequaka, 291
and confederate treaty, 104–105 428–429 Overland Mail Route, 269
and oil, 140 and Prairie du Chien, 431 Oweneco, 907
and St. Louis, 438–439 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Owl, 914
Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
August 4, 1835, 320 November 25, 1808, 293 Pa (the Elk), 298
Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Paca Rinqua, 301
26, 1837, 327 July 28, 1829, 309 Pacakinqua, 300
Treaty with the Osage, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Pacific Marine Fisheries
November 10, 1808, 293 September 26, 1833, Commission, 155
Treaty with the Osage, 317–319 Pacific Northwest, 24, 25
September 12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., fishing rights in, 147–150,
Treaty with the Osage, November 17, 1807, 293 150–155
September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., gathering rights in, 147–150, 159
Treaty with the Osage, August August 24, 1816, 296 hunting rights in, 147–150,
21, 1822, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa and 150–155
Treaty with the Osage, June 2, Chippewa, July 6, 1820, treaties in, 225–228, 229 table 1,
1825, 303 300 230 table 2
Treaty with the Great and Little Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., See also Oregon Territory;
Osage, August 10, 1825, August 29, 1821, 301 Washington Territory
304 Treaty with the Ottawa, Pacific Railroad Act, 29
Treaty with the Osage, January August 30, 1831, 312 Pacific Salmon Treaty Act, 41
11, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Ottawa, Packs a Knife (Istowun-eh’pata), 785
Treaty with the Osage, February 18, 1833, 316 Pacta sunt servanda, 50, 58
September 19, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Pad-a-ga-he (Fire Chief), 356
Osage Reservation, 140 March 28, 1836, Page, John, 362
Osaw Wauban, 330 322–323 Pah-sal-sa (Auicara), 304
Osceola, 804, 811, 866–867 Treaty with the Ottawa and Pah-Siss, 323
and Jesup, Thomas S., 835 Chippewa, July 31, Paiute, 35, 106, 116, 230 table 2
OSCRO. See Oglala Sioux Civil 1855, 346–347 Palliser, Sir Hugh, 279–280
Rights Organization Treaty with the Ottawa of Palmer, Joel, 149, 226, 227, 229 table
Oshaga, 341 Blanchard’s Fork and 1, 230 table 2, 338, 342,
Oshawwawno, Chief, 347 Roche de Boeuf, June 343, 344, 345, 346, 348,
Oshkosh, 867–868 24, 1862, 352 409–410
O’Sullivan, John Louis, 55 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Palmer, Luther R., 365
Oswegatchie, 75 Seneca and Shawnee, Palouse, 344–345, 409–410
Otermín, Antonio, 434 Quapaw, Etc., February Pancoast, Henry, 826
Otoe (Oto), 25, 30, 100, 226, 252, 253 23, 1867, 365 Pani, 252
Treaty with the Oto, June 24, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Panton, Leslie and Company, 17
1817, 297 August 19, 1825, Papago, 273
Treaty with the Otoe and 304–305, 459–463 Papal authority, 49
Missouri Tribes, Treaty with the Winnebago, Papal bulls, 50
September 26, 1825, 306 Etc., August 25, 1828, Paris, Treaty of, 71, 137, 237, 245,
Treaty with the Otoe and 308–309 260, 279, 638, 645, 647,
Missouri, September 21, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 649, 651, 954. See also
1833, 316–317 January 21, 1785, 285 Revolutionary War
Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., (U.S.)
October 15, 1835, 325 January 9, 1789, 286 Parke, Benjamin, 296, 299, 300, 301
Treaty with the Otoe and Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Parker, Arthur C. (Gawaso Wanneh),
Missouri, March 15, August 3, 1795, 289 816, 884, 886
1854, 338 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Parker, Cynthia Ann, 871
Treaty with the Confederated July 4, 1805, 291 Parker, Eli, 31
Otoe and Missouri, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh,
December 9, 1854, 342 September 8, 1815, 295 Donehogä’wa), 59, 184,

Index I-33
272, 349, 362, 363, 666, Pawnee Republican, 319 Peoria, Baptiste, 365
816, 869–870 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Pepper, Abel C., 322, 323, 324, 325,
Parker, Quanah, 838, 870–872 Loups, Republicans, Etc., 329, 437
Parker, William, 870 August 6, 1848, 333 Pepys, Samuel, 873
Parliament of Canada, 215 Payne’s Landing, Treaty of, 264, 653, Pequot War, 245
Parliament of United Kingdom, 214 935 Peralta, Pedro de, 434
PARR. See Protect Americans’ Rights Pe-ta-ok-a-ma, 352 Perry, James, 327
and Resources Peace, 13, 19, 40 Petaheick (Good Chief), 298
Parris, Albion K., 333 Peace, Treaty of, 55, 56 Peters, Richard, 282, 765–766
Parrish, Jasper, 886 Peace and Amity, Treaty of, 268 Peters, Zeba T., 334
Parsons, Samuel H., 286 Peace and friendship treaties, 95, Petroleum leases, 43
Partisan Discoverer (Sheterahiate), 641–642 Peyote, 173, 175
298 in Canada, 210–212 Phagen, Major, 316
Pasamaquoddy (Passamaquoddy), Peace Commission, 25, 58–59, 271 Phelps, Oliver, 290
70, 116, 211, 247 Peace Policy, 30 Philippines, 202
Pashepaho, 291 and education, 184–185, 189 Phillips, Ellis, 333
Passamaquoddy. See Pasamaquoddy Peacock, 323 Phillips, William A., 419
Passamaquoddy v. Morton, 717 Pearl Harbor, 203, 232 Piankashaw (Piankeshaw), 16, 72,
Patent Office, 29 Peigan (Piegan), 101, 236, 383 79
Path Killer, 291 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 Agreement with the
Patterson, J. P., 754 (Blackfeet Treaty), Piankeshaw, January 3,
Patterson, John, 744 September 22, December 1818, 298
Pauktuutit, 938 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
Paulet, Lord George, 200, 201, 203 Pelecheah, 300, 301 June 7, 1803, 290
Paulette case (aka Caveat case), 392 Pem-ach-wung, Chief, 352 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.,
Pauquia (Montour), 292 Pembina Chippewa August 7, 1803, 290
Paw-pee, 320 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Treaty with the Kaskaskia,
Paw-tisse, 319 Lake and Pembina Peoria, Etc., May 30,
Pawnee, 30, 41, 253, 269 Bands, October 1, 1863, 1854, 340
and education, 182 354 Treaty with the Piankeshaw,
Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, Treaty with the Chippewa—Red August 27, 1804, 291
June 18, 1818, 298 Lake and Pembina Treaty with the Piankashaw,
Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, Bands, April 12, 1864, December 30, 1805, 292
June 19, 1818, 298 355 Treaty with the Piankashaw, July
Treaty with the Pawnee Penayseewabee, 330 18, 1815, 294
Republic, June 20, 1818, Pend d’Oreille, 99, 227 Treaty with the Piankashaw,
298 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., October 29, 1832, 315
Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, July 16, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
June 22, 1818, 298 Penn, Margareet, 873 Seneca and Shawnee,
Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, Penn, William, 276, 872–874 Quapaw, Etc., February
September 30, 1825, 306 Penn, William, Sr., 873 23, 1867, 365
Treaty with the Pawnee, October Penobscot, 70, 116, 211, 247 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.,
9, 1833, 319 Pensacola, Treaty of, 52 August 3, 1795, 289
Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Pension Office, 29 and Vincennes, 442
Loups, Republicans, Etc., People of the Caribou. See Gwich’in and Wabash River, 443
August 6, 1848, 333 People v. Chosa, 155–156 Pickens, Andrew, 286, 290
Treaty with the Pawnee, People v. LeBlanc, 156, 710–711 Pickens, Edmund, 337, 346, 362
September 24, 1857, 349 Peoria, 100 Pickering, Timothy, 74, 75, 287, 289
Pawnee Loup, 319 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., Pickering Treaty, 287
Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, October 27, 1832, 315 Picolata, Treaty of, 656
Loups, Republicans, Etc., Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Picotte, Charles F., 349
August 6, 1848, 333 Peoria, Etc., May 30, Pictou, Mary Ellen, 742
Pawnee Marhar, 298 1854, 340 Piegan. See Peigan
Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., Pierce, Franklin, 809, 927
June 22, 1818, 298 September 25, 1818, 299 Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, 702
Pawnee Republic Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Pike, Albert, 103, 418, 737, 781,
Treaty with the Pawnee Seneca and Shawnee, 874–876, 891
Republic, June 20, 1818, Quapaw, Etc., February Pike, Zebulon M., 292
298 23, 1867, 365 Pilcher, Joshua, 325, 328

I-34 Index
Pillager Point No Point Treaty, 149, 226, 230 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.,
Treaty with the Chippewa of the table 2 August 29, 1821, 301
Mississippi and the Pokagon, Leopold. See Pokagun Treaty with the Potawatomi, July
Pillager and Lake Pokagun (Leopold Pokagon; 18, 1815, 294
Winnibigoshish Bands, Sakekwinik), 318, 413, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
March 11, 1863, 353 877–878 October 2, 1818, 299
Treaty with the Chippewa, Police force, Indian, 59 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Mississippi, Pilager, and Political structure, 135 October 16, 1826, 307
Lake Winnibigoshish Polk, James K., 770, 870 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Bands, May 7, 1864, 355 Pomo, 53, 228 September 19, 1827, 307
Treaty with the Pillager Band of Ponca, 104 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Chippewa Indians, Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, September 20, 1828, 309
August 21, 1847, 333 1817, 297 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pima, 272, 273 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, October 20, 1832,
Pina Quahah (Washakie), 373–374, 1825, 303 313–314
907–909 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pine Ridge Reservation, 36, 168, 171, 1858, 349 October 26, 1832,
704 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10, 314–315
Pine Tree Treaty, 91 1865, 356 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Piomingo, 286 Pontiac, 435, 437, 640 December 10, 1834, 319
the Pipe, 424 Pontiac (Obwandiyag), 878–879 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pipe, Captain, 309 Pontiac’s Rebellion, 281–282 December 16, 1834, 320
Pipe, Eli, 309 Pontiac’s Revolt, 245 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pipeline, trans-Alaska, 197 Pontiac’s War of 1763, 639 December 17, 1834, 320
Pishake, 341 Pontotoc, Treaty of, 264 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pisquouse, 344–345 Poor Bear, 367 December 24, 1834, 320
Pitchlynn, John, 876 Pope, John, 25 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pitchlynn, Peter (Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee; Port Madison Reservation, 713 March 26, 1836, 322
Snapping Turtle), 105, Port Orford, 229 table 1 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
346, 418, 876–877 Porter, George B., 315, 316 March 29, 1836, 323
Pito-kanow-apiwin (Poundmaker), Portugal, 49 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
785 Posey, Thomas, 298 April 11, 1836, 323
Plains Apache, 677–678. See also Postage Stamp Province, 665 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Apache Potawatomi, 20, 23, 30, 51, 72, 79, 90, April 22, 1836, 323
Plains Cree, 240, 382. See also Cree 235, 244, 247, 248, 278, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plains Indians 412–413, 444 August 5, 1836, 324
and Fort Laramie, 422, 423 and Fort Harrison, 421 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plains Ojibwa, 382. See also Ojibwa and Prairie du Chien, 431 September 20, 1836,
Plaisted, William, 717 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 324–325
Plan of 1764, 282 and St. Joseph, 436–437 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plan of Union, 954 and St. Louis, 438 September 22, 1836, 325
Plenary power, 28, 36, 43–44, 109, and Tippecanoe River, 439–441 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
114, 118, 120, 126–127, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 23, 1836, 325
169, 671, 677–678, November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
942–943 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., February 11, 1837, 327
and government-to-government July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Potawatomi
relationship, 930, 931 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Nation, June 5 and 17,
and trust responsibility, 957 September 26, 1833, 1846, 332–333
the Plum (Po-ko-mah), 328 317–319 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plymouth Company, 76 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., November 15, 1861, 352
Po-ko-mah (the Plum), 328 June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pocahontas, 863–864, 879 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., March 29, 1866, 362
Pohlik August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., February 27, 1867, 365
Klamath, etc., October September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.,
1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 19, 1825,
Poinsett, Joel R., 328 November 17, 1807, 293 304–305, 459–463
Point Elliott, 226, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc.,
treaty at, 99 August 24, 1816, 296 August 25, 1828, 308–309

Index I-35
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Progressive education movement, Treaty with the Quapaw,
January 9, 1789, 286 189 November 15, 1824, 302
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., the Prophet. See Shawnee Prophet Treaty with the Quapaw, May
August 3, 1795, 289 Prophetstown, 427, 440, 443–444, 13, 1833, 316
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 646–647 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
July 4, 1805, 291 Protect Americans’ Rights and Seneca and Shawnee,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Resources (PARR), 157, Quapaw, Etc., February
September 8, 1815, 295 722 23, 1867, 365
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Provencher, J. A. N., 377 Qu’Appelle Treaty. See Canadian
September 29, 1817, 297 Prucha, Francis Paul, 21, 190 Indian Treaty 4,
and Vincennes, 442 Prudhoe Bay, 195, 197 September 15, 1874
Potlatch, 668 Public Law 83-280, 111–112 Quash Quammee (Quashquame),
Poundmaker (Pito-kanow-apiwin), Public Law 99-398, 141 291, 302
785 Public Law 103-150 Quash-quaw, 323
Poverty, 117 Public Law 280, 35, 120, 172–173, Quashquame. See Quash Quammee
in Alaska, 199 175, 684–685, 686, 948, Quatie, 891
Powell, Ludwell E., 333 952–953. See also Que-we-zance (Hole-in-the-Day),
Powhatan (Wahunsonacock), 235, Termination 355, 365
863–864, 879–880 Public Law 726. See Indian Claims Quebec, 211, 215, 216
Powles, Henry, 329 Commission Act Quebec Agreement, 236
Powley, Roddy, 720 Public schools, 189–190. See also Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission
Powley, Steve, 720, 940 Schools (Hydro-Quebec), 215,
Pownall, Thomas, 823 Pueblo, 24, 29, 41, 116, 162, 272, 410 395, 397
Prairie du Chien and jurisdiction, 169 The Queen v. Drybones, 688
treaty history of, 430–432 and Santa Fe, 433–434 Queets, 99
Treaty of, 430–431 and water rights, 143 Qui-nai-elt (Quinaielt)
See also Treaty with the Puffing Eyes (Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha), Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc.,
Chippewa, August 5, 358 July 1, 1855, 346
1826; Treaty with the Puget Sound, 150, 152, 153, 154, Qui-we-shen-shish, 365
Chippewa, Etc., August 427–428 Quil-leh-ute. See Quileute
11, 1827; Treaty with the Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Quil-si-eton, 342
Sioux, Etc., August 19, Moos, 153 Quileute (Quil-leh-ute), 99, 230 table
1825 Pushee Paho, 301 2
Pratt, John G., 363 Pushmataha, 882–883 Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc.,
Pratt, Richard Henry, 179, 185–186, Putnam, Rufus, 745 July 1, 1855, 346
189, 851, 880–882. See Puyallup, 63, 99, 226 Quillequeoqua, 229 table 1
also Carlisle Indian and fishing rights, 152–154 Quinaielt. See Qui-nai-elt
School and jurisdiction, 173 Quinalt. See Quinault
Pre-Confederation Treaties and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Quinault (Quinalt), 99, 152, 154,
(Canada), 641–642 Treaty with the Nisqually, 226–227, 230 table 2
Pre-Dorset, 937 Puyallup, Etc., December Quinney, Augustin E., 334
Preemption rights, 21, 23 26, 1854, 342–343, Quixiachigiate, 334
Preloznik, Joseph, 792 507–510 Quotequeskee, 291
Price, H., 385 Puyallup River, 152
Prince Edward Island, 211, 216 Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of R. v. Côté, 642
Prior appropriation system, 143, Game of Washington, 1977, R. v. Gladstone, 728, 729
144–145 173, 711–712 R. v. Marshall, 641, 720
Priority date, and water rights, 143 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., 728
Prisoner return, 14 of Washington, 1968, 45, R. v. Sioui, 638, 641
Private ownership. See Land 153, 695–696, 711 R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 728–729
ownership Puyallup Trilogy, 153 Racer (Ronaess), 298
The Problem of Indian Pye, Abram, 334 Racism, 85, 187
Administration, 189, 679. Rafeedie, Edward, 159
See also Meriam Report Quakerism, 184, 872–874 Railroads, 96
“Proclamation to Bring About Quapaw, 104, 268, 417, 439 Ramah Navajo Chapter, 43
Friendly Intercourse Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau
with Esquimaux August 4, 1835, 320 of Revenue of New Mexico,
Indians,” 279 Treaty with the Quapaw, August 114
Proctor, Henry, 649 24, 1818, 298 Ramsey, Alexander, 354, 433, 848

I-36 Index
Rancherias, 24 See also Indian removal Riddle, Frank, 768

Rapids of the Miami, 21 Removal. See Indian removal Ridge, John Rollin (Chees-quat-a-
Rarnleshare (Chief Man), 298 Rencontre, Zephyr, 349 law-ny; Yellow Bird),
the Rat (Kondiaronk), 278 Reorganization, 170–171 886–887
Rattling Blanket Woman, 784 Reorganization Act, 682 Ridge, John (Skah-tle-loh-skee), 88,
Rawlins, John, 870 Repatriation, 175, 176 89, 265, 321, 322, 333,
Rawson, Rawson W., 745 Report of Commissioner of Indian 430, 758, 887, 888, 909
Ray, James Brown, 307 Affairs, 921 Ridge, Major (Kah-nung-da-tla-geh),
RCMP. See Royal Canadian Republican Party, 29 16, 88, 89, 265, 296, 321,
Mounted Police Reservation system, 29, 95–96, 97, 322, 333, 430, 887, 888,
Reagan, Ronald, 723 327, 341, 699, 931–932 909
Reciprocity, Treaty of, 231 table 4, in Alaska, 198, 199 Ridge, Walter, 888
232 See also Reservations Riel, Louis, 665, 785, 803, 889–890,
Reconstruction, 30, 105–107, 202, Reservation(s), 8, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 939–940
937. See also U.S. Civil 31–32, 95–96, 236 Right of conquest, 15, 96, 100, 652,
War in Alaska, 195–197, 198–199 944–945, 946, 957
Reconstruction Treaties with the definition of, 133 Right of occupancy/right of the soil,
Cherokee, Choctaw, and jurisdiction, 172–173 96, 100, 652, 657, 685,
Chickasaw, Creek, and as payment for lands, 137–138 945–946
Seminole, 1866, 360–361 police, 168 Right of the soil, 96, 100, 652, 657,
Red Bear, Chief, 354 See also Executive Order 685, 945–946
Red Bird War of 1827, 653 Reservations; General Riley, James, 362
Red Cloud, Chief, 107, 256, 719, Allotment Act; individual Ritchie, Roland, 701
883–884 reservations; Reservation Rituals, 39, 254–255
Red Fort, 302 system River People (Columbia River
Red Jacket (Sagoyewatha), 75, 76, Reserved rights, 40, 62, 133, 155, 156 Indians), 150–152, 155,
287, 288, 289, 290, 782, regulation of, 147–150 227, 414–416
814, 815, 869–870, See also Fishing rights; Robertson, James, 291, 292
884–886 Gathering rights; Robinson, Alexander, 319, 413
Red Lake Chippewa Hunting rights Robinson, William Benjamin,
Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Reserved Rights Doctrine, 138, 334–335
Lake and Pembina 143–145, 151, 686, 695, Robinson Huron Treaty (Second
Bands, October 1, 1863, 943–944 Robinson Treaty),
354 Reserves, 95. See also Reservations September 9, 1850, 214,
Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Resolution of 1871, 166 239, 335, 435, 642
Lake and Pembina Restoration, 138–139 Robinson Superior Treaty (First
Bands, April 12, 1864, Restoration Acts, 116 Robinson Treaty),
355 Returning Sky (Kee-way-gee-zhig), September 7, 1850, 214,
Red Lake Reservation, 112, 684 324 239, 334–335, 435, 642
Red Plume, Chief, 253–254 Revenue sharing agreements, 6 treaty document, 495–498
Red Power, 691, 953 Revolutionary War (U.S.), 6, 11, Roche de Boeuf
Red Tipi, 892 13–14, 27, 55, 137, 163, Treaty with the Ottawa of
Reed, Henry W., 358, 359, 360, 364 245, 246, 261, 645, 647, Blanchard’s Fork and
Reed Stanley, 685 649 Roche de Boeuf, June 24,
Reeves, Benjamin, 304, 413 and Canada, 212–214 1862, 352
Regina v. Bernard, 219 and Royal Proclamation of 1763, Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
Regina v. Marshall, 218–219 639 Seneca and Shawnee,
Regina v. Powley, 216 treaties during, 18–19, 69–70, Quapaw, Etc., February
Regina v. White and Bob, 219, 642 259–260 23, 1867, 365
Regional corporations, in Alaska, and treaties of alliance, 11 Rock-a-to-wha, 351
198–199 See also Paris, Treaty of Roe Cloud, Henry, 189
Rehnquist, William, 45, 719 Reynolds, John, 313, 798 Roe-nu-nas, 312
Religion, 173, 174–175 Rhea, John, 297 Rogers, John, 308, 316
and education, 179–182 Rice, Harold “Freddy,” 732 Rogue River, 99, 226, 229 table 1, 230
in Hawaii, 200 Rice, Henry M., 333, 353 table 2
and land ownership, 144 Rice v. Cayetano, 207, 732–733 Agreement with the Rogue
See also Missionaries Richardson, John, 885 River Tribes, September
Relocation, 8, 24, 35, 172, 689–690 Richardville, John B., 330 8, 1853, 338
and Alaska, 195 Richardville, Thomas, 365 Treaty of, 97–98

Index I-37
Treaty with the Rogue River Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Sands (Ok-tars-sars-harjov), 363
Tribe, September 10, 117 Sandusky Seneca treaty, 248
1853, 338 Saginaw Sandy Lake
Treaty with the Rogue River Treaty with the Chippewa of treaty history of, 433
Tribe, November 15, Saginaw, Etc., August 2, See also Treaty with the
1854, 342 1855, 347 Chippewa, July 29, 1837;
Roland, Gilbert, 802 Treaty with the Chippewa of Treaty with the
Ronaess (Racer), 298 Saginaw, Swan Creek, Chippewa, December 20,
Ronesass (Honas), 298 and Black River, October 1837; Treaty with the
Ronioness (Joseph), 298 18, 1864, 355 Chippewa, October 4,
Roosevelt, Franklin, 34, 170, 189, 934 Sagoyewatha (Red Jacket), 75, 76, 1842
and Collier, John, 780, 923 287, 288, 289, 290, 782, Sans Arcs
Roosevelt, Theodore, 778, 824, 872 814, 815, 869–870, Treaty with the Sioux—Sans
and Geronimo, 813 884–886 Arcs Band, October 20,
and Harjo, Chitto, 818 Sah-ku-méhu 1865, 359
Rosebud Reservation, 139 Treaty with the Dwamish, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Ross, Alexander, 414 Suquamish, Etc., January Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
Ross, Edmund G., 800 22, 1855, 343 369
Ross, John, Chief, 16, 88–89, 263, 296, Sahaptin (Sahaptian), 227, 414–415 Santa Anna, Antonio López de, 809
299, 320, 321, 322, 333, Sahewamish (Sa-heh-wamish), 99 Santa Fe
363, 654, 758, 870, 887, Treaty with the Nisqually, treaty history of, 433–434
890–891, 910 Puyallup, Etc., December See also Treaty of the Guadalupe
Ross, William W., 352 26, 1854, 342–343, Hidalgo, 1848
Round Valley Reservation, 661 507–510 Santee Dakota Reservation, 175
Rowland, Bill, 802 Sahtu Dene, 240, 392, 400 Santee Sioux, 32
Roy, Francis, 349 Sahtu Dene and Métis and reconstruction treaty, 107
Roy v. United States, 337 Comprehensive Land Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Claim Agreement, Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
(RCMP), 939 September 6, 1993, 369
Royal Charter of 1670, 715 405–406 Santee war, 104
Royal Proclamation of 1763, 69, 211, See also Dene Santiam Kalapuya, 229 table 1
212, 213, 235, 236, 239, Sai-Nell Santiam Molala, 229 table 1
281, 282, 375, 403, 404, Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-Ki- Sapier, Noel, 742
638–640, 642, 674, 702 As, etc., August 1851, 231 Sar-cox-ie, 351
Runaways, and education, 186–187 table 3 Sarcee (Tsuu T’ina), 236, 383
Rupert’s Land, 664, 665, 715 Sakekwinik (Leopold Pokagun), 318, Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Russell, William, 421 413, 877–878 (Blackfeet Treaty),
Russia, 229, 685, 698 Salmonscam, 154 September 22, December
and Alaska, 195 Salt River Pima-Maricopa 4, 1877, 382–385
and treaty negotiation, 53 Saluskin, Noah James, 159 Sargeant, John, 744
Rusty (Mon-sai-raa), 294 Sam, Chief, 338 Sasr-sarp-kin, 385
Ryan, James, 710–711 Sam-áhmish Sassacus, 907
Ryan, W. Carson, Jr., 189 Treaty with the Dwamish, Satank (Sitting Bear), 367, 892,
Suquamish, Etc., January 896–897
Sa-cher-i-ton, 342 22, 1855, 343 Satanta (Set’ainte, Settainti; White
Sa-heh-wamish. See Sahewamish Samoa, 199 Bear), 367, 838, 851,
Sa-ka-pa (son of Quash-qua-mi), 328 San Carlos Apache, 116 892–893, 897
Saa-Hajo (Davy), 313 San Carlos Reservation, 268 Satiacum, Robert, 152, 707
Saalequun, 238 San Luis Rey Sau-tabe-say, 324
Saanich, 238 Treaty with the San Luis Rey, Sauk (Sac), 17, 30, 72, 100, 103, 244,
Sac. See Sauk etc., January 1852, 231 278, 412
Sacred objects, 124, 125, 126, table 3 and Prairie du Chien, 431
725–726. See also Sacred Sanborn, John, 256, 269, 271, 358, and St. Louis, 438–439
sites 366, 367, 369, 370 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc.,
Sacred sites, 174, 946–947. See also Sand Creek Massacre, 104, 106, 271 September 17, 1836, 324
Native American Graves site return, 733 Treaty with the Sauk, September
Protection and See also Chivington, John Milton 13, 1815, 295
Repatriation Act; Sacred Sanderson, Electa Allen, 787, 788 Treaty with the Sauk, May 13,
objects Sandoval, Chief, 267 1816, 296

I-38 Index
Sauk (Sac) (cont.) SCAN. See Student Council of Self-Government Agreements

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, American Natives (Canada), 726–727
November 3, 1804, 291, Scar Face (Washakie), 373–374, Selkirk, 403
456–459 907–909 Selkirk, Earl of, 238
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Scarfaced Charley, 768 Selkirt treaty, 238
September 3, 1822, Schermerhorn, John, 315, 316, 321 Selling rights, 135
301–302 Schmeckebier, Laurence F., 33 Sells, Elijah, 357, 362, 363
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schmitz, Darld, 704 Seminole, 7, 23, 30, 32, 419
August 4, 1824, 302 Schonchin John, Chief, 768 and addenda treaty, 102–103
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 323, 329, and confederate treaty, 103–104
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 429, 771, 893–894 and gaming, 175, 176
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schools, 25, 179–190, 270. See also and purchase of Hard Rock
September 21, 1832, 313 Boarding schools; Café, 735
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Carlisle Indian School; Reconstruction Treaties with the
Tribe, September 27, Education; Public Cherokee, Choctaw,
1836, 325, 325 schools Chickasaw, Creek, and
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schuyler, Philip, 640 Seminole, 1866, 360–361
September 28, 1836, 325 Schweabe, 895 and removal, 87–88, 264
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Scoton, 98, 99, 230 table 2, 342 and termination, 172
October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., Treaty with the Creek and
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 18, 1854, 342 Seminole, January 4,
October 11, 1842, Scott, Duncan Campbell, 796 1845, 332
331–332 Scott, Thomas, 889, 890, 939, 940 Treaty with the Creek, Etc.,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Scott, Winfield, 89, 313, 321–322, 657, August 7, 1856, 348–349
Missouri, May 18, 1854, 798, 891 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9,
339–340 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 1832, 313, 478–480
Treaty with the Sac and Fox, 811 Treaty with the Seminole, March
October 1, 1859, 350–351 and Jesup, Thomas S., 835, 836 28, 1833, 316
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Scott’s River Treaty with the Seminole, March
Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, 21, 1866, 362, 522–527
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Shasta, and Scott’s River, See also Five Civilized Tribes
February 18, 1867, 364 November 1851, 231 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 123
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., table 3 Seminole War of 1817—1818, 653
August 19, 1825, Scoutash, 298 Senate Committee of Interior and
304–305, 459–463 Screaming Above (Mamande), 897 Insular Affairs, 197
Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., SDWA. See Safe Drinking Water Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
August 25, 1828, 308–309 Act 127
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Se-ap-cat, 345 Senate Committee on Public Lands,
January 9, 1789, 286 Se-se-ah-kee, 352 134
Sault Ste. Marie (Michigan and Sea Wolf (La-mee-pris-jeau), 294 Seneca, 21, 23, 44, 72, 76, 100, 104,
Ontario) Seath’tl (Seattle), 63, 894–896 236, 243, 244, 247, 248,
treaty history of, 434–436 Seaton, Fred, 911 278
See also Robinson Huron Treaty Seattle (Seath’tl), 63, 894–896 Agreement with the Seneca,
(Second Robinson Sechelt Indian Band Self- September 15, 1797, 289
Treaty), September 9, Government Act, 726 Agreement with the Seneca,
1850; Robinson Superior Second Great Awakening, 181 September 3, 1823, 302
Treaty (First Robinson Second Riel Rebellion, 939–940 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Treaty), September 7, Second Seminole War, 88, 165, 264, August 4, 1835, 320
1850; Treaty with the 653 Treaty with the Seneca, June 30,
Chippewa, July 29, 1837; Segui, Bernard, 302 1802, 290
Treaty with the Segulliak, 279 Treaty with the Seneca, February
Chippewa, December 20, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 28, 1831, 312
1837; Treaty with the 115 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July
Chippewa, October 4, Self-determination, 8, 35–36, 36, 127, 20, 1831, 312
1842; Treaty with the 173, 174, 691, 697–698, Treaty with the Seneca and
Chippewa of Sault Ste. 709–710, 734, 932 Shawnee, December 29,
Marie, August 2, 1855 in Alaska, 198 1832, 315
Saulteaux, 238 and statutes, 114–116 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20,
Saw-wur-bon, 329 vs. dependency, 144 1842, 330

Index I-39
Treaty with the Seneca— Shasta (Chasta), 98, 99, 230 table 2 She-aw-ke-pee, 323
Tonawand Band, Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., Shebbeare, John, 766
November 5, 1857, 349 November 18, 1854, 342 Sheegunageezhig, 330
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Sheheke, Chief, 847
Seneca and Shawnee, Shasta, and Scott’s River, Shelby, Isaac, 299
Quapaw, Etc., February November 1851, 231 Sheridan, Phil, 898
23, 1867, 365 table 3 Sherman, Roger, 69
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Shave-Head, 351 Sherman, William Tecumseh, 106,
July 22, 1814, 293–294 Shaw-gwok-skuk, 325 267, 271, 369, 370, 373,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Shawano, 335 686, 749
September 8, 1815, 295 Shawnee, 21, 25, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 79, and Satanta, 892, 893
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 100, 104, 244, 245, 246, and Sitting Bear, 897
September 29, 1817, 297 268, 282, 444 Shernakitare (First in the War Party),
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and jurisdiction, 166 298
September 17, 1818, 298 and St. Louis, 438 Sheterahiate (Partisan Discoverer),
See also Six Nations Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 298
Seneca Nation v. U.S., 44 November 25, 1808, 293 Shi-a-wa (John Solomon), 312
Seneca Reservation, 329 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Shinguakouce (pseud. Augustin
Seneca Steel, 312 June 7, 1803, 290 Bart), 335
Sensenbrenner, Frank, 157 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July Shipley, David, 799
Sequasson, 767 20, 1831, 312 Ships, 49
Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Treaty with the Seneca and Sho-e-mow-e-to-chaw-ca-we-wah-
174 Shawnee, December 29, ca-to-we (the Wolf with
Sergeant, John, 654 1832, 315 the High Back), Chief,
Service Monographs of the United Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed 303
States Government, 33–34 Seneca and Shawnee, Shob-osk-kunk, 365
Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Quapaw, Etc., February S’Homamais. See Squaxin
Bill), 27, 34 23, 1867, 365 Shon-kah-we-to-ko (the Fool Dog),
Sesquaressura, Chief, 282 Treaty with the Shawnee, 359
Set’ainte, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 January 31, 1786, 286 Short Stay (Aanti), 897
Setangya (Sitting Bear), 367, 892, Treaty with the Shawnee, Shoshone-Bannock, 107, 150
896–897 November 7, 1825, 306 Shoshone (Shoshnee), 101, 104, 106,
Settainti, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Treaty with the Shawnee, 107, 227–228, 252, 253
Settlement August 8, 1831, 312 and jurisdiction, 175
illegal, 16–17 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., Treaty with the Eastern
Indian, 19, 25 October 26, 1832, 314 Shoshone, July 2, 1863,
non-Indian, 13, 15, 24, 25, 110 Treaty with the Shawnee, May 353–354
Seven Fires of Canada, 238 10, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Shoshone—
Seven Major Crimes Act, 59 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Northwestern Bands,
Seven Nations of Canada, 75–76, August 3, 1795, 289 July 30, 1863, 353–354
236, 238 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Western
Treaty with the Seven Nations of July 4, 1805, 291 Shoshone, October 1,
Canada, May 31, 1796, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1863, 354
289 July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Shoshone—
Seven Years’ War. See French and Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Goship, October 12,
Indian War September 8, 1815, 295 1863, 354
Seventh Cavalry, 271 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Eastern Band
Severalty Act. General Allotment September 29, 1817, 297 Shoshone and Bannock,
Act Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 3, 1868, 372–374,
Seward, William, 202, 870 September 17, 1818, 298 556–559
Sganyadí:yoh (Handsome Lake), 75, and Vincennes, 442 Shoshone v. U.S., 44
76, 289, 649, 814–816 Shawnee Prophet (the Prophet; Show-show-o-nu-bee-see, 329
Sha-da-na-ge (Yellow Smoke), 356 Tenskwatawa, Shu-kah-bi (Heavy Clouds), 349
Sha-ho-mish Tensquatawa), 80, 84, Shubenaccadie, 237
Treaty with the Dwamish, 245, 247, 421, 427, Shyik, 345
Suquamish, Etc., January 439–440, 442, 443–444, Si-Yan-Te
22, 1855, 343 646, 647, 648, 649, 904, Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc.,
Shanks, Isaac, 349 905 March 1851, 231 table 3
Shannon, Peter C., 385 Shawun Epenaysee, 330 Sibley, George C., 304, 413

I-40 Index
Sibley, H. H., 358, 359, 360 Treaty with the Sioux, Sisseton Sioux, 100
Sibley, Henry, 848 September 29, 1837, 328 agreement with, 102
Sibley, Solomon, 301 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, Agreement with the Sisseton
Sichangu Lakota, 166 October 21, 1837, 328 and Wahpeton Bands of
Siksika (Blackfeet), 383 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton Sioux Indians,
Siletz Reservation, 226 and Wahpeton Bands, September 20, 1872, 376
Silver Brooch, 367 July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox,
Silver mining, 31, 139. See also Treaty with the Sioux— Etc., July 15, 1830, 310
Natural resources Mdewakanton and Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton
Simtustus, 148 Wahpakoota Bands, and Wahpeton Bands,
Sioune August 5, 1851, 336 July 23, 1851, 336
Treaty with the Sioune and Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton
Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Sioux, Etc., September and Wahpeton Bands,
Sioux, 24, 25, 39, 51, 64, 91–92, 101, 17, 1851, 336–337 February 19, 1867,
104, 107, 236, 251, 252, Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 364–365
253, 254, 255–257, 271, April 19, 1858, 349 Sitting Bear (Satank, Setangya), 367,
719, 722–723 Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 892, 896–897
and addenda treaty, 103 1858, 350 Sitting Bull, 719, 784, 785, 897–899,
agreement with, 31 Treaty with the Sioux— 901
Agreement with the Sioux of Miniconjou Band, Sitting in the Saddle (Tauankia), 851
Various Tribes, October October 10, 1865, 357 The Six Books of the Commonwealth
17, 1822, to January 3, Treaty with the Sioux-Lower (Bodin), 49
1883, 385 Brulé Band, October 14, Six Nations, 15, 19, 51, 52, 55, 70, 72,
Agreement with the Sisseton 1865, 357 73, 74–75, 644
and Wahpeton Bands of Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, and Revolutionary War, 163–164
Sioux Indians, October 19, 1865, 358–360 Treaty Conference with the Six
September 20, 1872, 376 Treaty with the Sioux—Two- Nations at Fort Stanwix,
Amended Agreement with Kettle Band, October 19, November 1768, 281–283
the Certain Sioux 1865, 358 Treaty with the Six Nations,
Indians, March 2, Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa October 22, 1784, 285
1873, 376–377 Band, October 20, 1865, Treaty with the Six Nations,
and education, 179 359 January 9, 1789, 286
and Fort Laramie, 423 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Treaty with the Six Nations,
and jurisdiction, 168 Arcs Band, October 20, November 11, 1794,
and Prairie du Chien, 431 1865, 359 287–288, 454–456
and reorganization, 171 Treaty with the Sioux— See also Cayuga; Iroquois;
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Yanktonai Band, October Mohawk; Oneida;
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 20, 1865, 359–360 Onondaga; Seneca;
Treaty with the Sioux, Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Tuscarora
September 23, 1805, 292 Band, October 28, 1865, Six Nations Reserve, 239
Treaty with the Sioux of the 360 Sk-táh-le-jum
Lakes, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Treaty with the Dwamish,
Treaty with the Sioux of St. Yanktonai Band, October Suquamish, Etc., January
Peter’s River, July 19, 28, 1865, 360 22, 1855, 343
1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton Sk-táhlmish
Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, and Wahpeton Bands, Treaty with the Dwamish,
July 19, 1815, 294 February 19, 1867, Suquamish, Etc., January
Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 364–365 22, 1855, 343
1816, 296 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Skágit
Treaty with the Hunkapapa Arapaho, April 29, 1868, Treaty with the Dwamish,
Band of the Sioux Tribe, 369 Suquamish, Etc., January
July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., 22, 1855, 343
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Skah-tle-loh-skee (John Ridge), 88,
August 19, 1825, See also Dakota; Lakota; Nakota 89, 265, 321, 322, 333,
304–305, 459–463 Sioux Reservation, 32, 256 430, 758, 887, 888, 909
Treaty with the Sioux, Sioux Valley First Nation, 216 Skai-wha-mish
September 10, 1836, 324 SIPI. See Southwestern Indian Treaty with the Dwamish,
Treaty with the Sioux, Polytechnic Institute Suquamish, Etc., January
November 30, 1836, 325 Sis-see-yaw, 319 22, 1855, 343

Index I-41
Skaniadario (Handsome Lake), 75, Sounsosee, Lewis, 339 Spring Frog, 297
76, 289, 649, 814–816 Sour Much, 291 Squanto (Tisquantum), 854
Skannowa, John, 149 Souter, David, 723 Squatters, 17
Skimmy (Eskiminzin), 805–806 the South Squawskin. See Squaxin
Skin-cheesh, 325 Indian removal in, 86–89 Squaxin Island, 154
Skin-pah, 345 treaties in, 77–79 Squaxin (S’Homamais, Squawskin,
SKINS. See Student Kouncil of South America, 51 Squaxon), 99
Intertribal Nations South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, and Medicine Creek, 427–428
S’Klallam 46, 931 Treaty with the Nisqually,
Treaty with the S’Klallam, South Slave Métis Tribal Council, Puyallup, Etc., December
January 26, 1855, 343 216 26, 1854, 342–343,
Skokomish, 154 Southeast, treaties in, 259–265 507–510
Skope-áhmish Southern plains, treaties in, 267–273 Squaxon. See Squaxin
Treaty with the Dwamish, Southwest, treaties in, 267–273 Squiaitl (Squi-aitl), 99
Suquamish, Etc., January Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Treaty with the Nisqually,
22, 1855, 343 Institute (SIPI), 190 Puyallup, Etc., December
Sky, George, 349 Sovereignty, 212–213, 947–948 26, 1854, 342–343,
Sladen, Joseph, 778 in Alaska, 199 507–510
Slavery, 29–30, 103 in Canada, 177 Squin-áh-mish
Slikatat, 344–345 and European aggression, Treaty with the Dwamish,
Smalh-kamish 162–163 Suquamish, Etc., January
Treaty with the Dwamish, French, 49 22, 1855, 343
Suquamish, Etc., January and government-to-government St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber
22, 1855, 343 relationship, 930 Company v. The Queen
Small Cloud Spicer, 312 in Hawaii, 203, 207 (Canada), 673–674, 702
Smallpox, 253, 270. See also and land ownership, 135–136 St. Clair, Arthur, 73–74, 245, 286, 420,
European diseases and treaties, signing of, 644, 745, 839, 849,
Smith, Daniel, 291, 292 162–163 902–903, 913
Smith, Edmund Kirby, 106 tribal, 5, 8, 39, 40, 112–114 St. Croix, 157
Smith, Edward P., 921 See also Jurisdiction St. Francis, 75
Smith, Frederick, 282 Spain, 6, 13, 28, 49, 56, 212–213 St. John, 237
Smith, Henry, 895, 896 and California, 228 St. Joseph (Michigan)
Smith, James, 363, 376 and Florida, 20, 77, 79, 85 treaty history of, 436–437
Smith, John, 880 and Hawaii, 229 See also Treaty with the
Smith, McKee A., 696 and Mexico, 53 Chippewa, Etc.,
Smoking of the pipe, 255 and Pueblos, 162 September 26, 1833;
Snake, 101, 252, 357 treaties with, 267, 268 Treaty with the
Treaty with the Snake, August and treaty negotiation, 50, 52 Potawatomi,
12, 1865, 356–357 Speaker (Aampahaa), 294 September 19, 1827;
Snapping Turtle (Peter Pitchlynn), Special Message on Indian Affairs Treaty with the
105, 346, 418, 876–877 (Nixon), 115 Potawatome,
Snoquálmoo Specific Claims Branch, 949 September 20, 1828
Treaty with the Dwamish, Specific claims (Canada), 216, 235, St. Louis (Missouri)
Suquamish, Etc., January 236, 948–950 treaty history of, 437–439
22, 1855, 343 Specific Claims Resolution Act Treaty of, 295, 296
Snow, George C., 365 Bill C-6, 949–950 See also Treaty with the Sauk and
Snyder Act, 709 Speech to a Delegation of Indian Fox, November 3, 1804
Soap, Charlie, 852 Chiefs (Jefferson), St. Regis, 75, 638
Soda Springs treaty, 228 252–253 St. Regis Reservation, 75
Sohappy, David, Sr., 149, 152, 154, Spence, Wishart, 702 St-káh-mish
415, 696–697, 899–900 Spencer, Ambrose, 330 Treaty with the Dwamish,
Sohappy, Richard, 696–697 Spencer Academy, 418 Suquamish, Etc., January
Sohappy/Oregon ruling, 696–697 Spicer, George, 365 22, 1855, 343
Sohappy v. Smith, 153, 696–697 Spo-tee, 325 STA-W. See Stop Treaty Abuse-
Sokoki Abenaki, 75 Spoils system, 272 Wisconsin
Solomon, John (Shi-a-wa), 312 Spokane Reservation, 227 Stambaugh, Samuel C., 311
Songhees, 238 Spotted Tail, 166–167, 179, 669, Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi),
Sooke, 238 900–901 829–830, 903–904, 905,
Sos’heowa, 816 Spring, Jesse, 349 906

I-42 Index
Standing Buffalo (Tah-ton-ga-nuz- and education, 180 Supremacy clause (of the
zhe), 349, 356 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., Constitution), 28, 64, 154,
Standing Hawk (Gra-ta-mah-zhe), December 2, 1794, 943, 951–952
356 288–289 Suquamish (Suquámish), 16, 63, 99,
Standing Holy, 899 Treaty with the Stockbridge and 713–714, 715
Stanley, H. M., 367 Munsee, September 3, Treaty with the Dwamish,
Stanwix, General, 424 1839, 330 Suquamish, Etc., January
Stapler, Mary Brian, 891 Treaty with the Stockbridge 22, 1855, 343
State of Michigan v. William Jondreau, Tribe, November 24, Surplus lands, 32, 33, 96–97
156 1848, 334 Survival of American Indians
State of Washington v. Miller, 159 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Association, 152
State-recognized tribes, 950–951. See Munsee, February 5, Susquehannas, 243
also Federally 1856, 348 Sutter, John, 228, 660
recognized tribes; Stoke Commission, 936 Swamp, Adam, 329
Nonrecognized tribes Stokes, Montfort, 315, 316, 320, 327, Swampy Cree, 375–376, 380–381,
State v. Alexis, 151 936 382. See also Cree
State v. Keezer, 158 Sto:lo, 728 Swan Creek
State v. Missionaries, 655 Stoluck-whá-mish Treaty with the Chippewa of
State v. Morrin, 249 Treaty with the Dwamish, Saginaw, Swan Creek,
State v. Towessnute, 151 Suquamish, Etc., January and Black River, October
State v. Wallahee, 151 22, 1855, 343 18, 1864, 355
Statehood, in Alaska, 195, 196 Stone, Ely, 870 Swan (Wa-pan-gia), 294
States, and treaty making, 14 Stone, William Leete, 885, 886 Swayne, Noah, 667
States’ rights, and Indian removal, Stone Fort Treaty. See Canadian Sweden, 162
85–86 Indian Treaty 1 Sweet Medicine, 754
Statute of Westminster, 51, 214 Stoney, 383 Swegatchy, Treaty of, 641–642
Statutes, 27, 49, 109–112, 126–127 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 Swim v. Bergland, 42, 43
ambiguity in, 41–43 (Blackfeet Treaty), Swimmer, Ross O., 852
and self-determination, September 22, December Swin-á-mish
114–116 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty with the Dwamish,
and tribal rights, 112–114 Stop Gill Netting, 156 Suquamish, Etc., January
See also Treaties; individual Stop Treaty Abuse, 157, 722 22, 1855, 343
statutes Storm, 351 Sykes, Thomas B., 351
Steck, M., 354 Story, Joseph, 946 Symbolic goods, 135
Steele, James, 269, 358 Straits Salish, 147
Stehchass, 99 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 113 Ta-su (White Cow), 356
Treaty with the Nisqually, Street, Eliza M., 332 Ta-ton-ca-pa (Buffalo Head), Chief,
Puyallup, Etc., December Strong Walker (Gish-tah-wah-gu), 303
26, 1854, 342–343, 349, 356 Ta-wa-ka-ro (Tah-wa-carro)
507–510 Stuart, John, 69, 282 Treaty with the Comanche,
Steilacoom, 99 Stuart, Robert, 331 Aionai, Anadarko,
and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Student Council of American Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Treaty with the Nisqually, Natives (SCAN), 690 1846, 332
Puyallup, Etc., December Student Kouncil of Intertribal Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May
26, 1854, 342–343, Nations (SKINS), 690 26, 1837, 327
507–510 Suárez, Francisco, 50 Taa’-wonyas (Awl Breaker), 814
Stephenson, Benjamin, 300 Sublette, William, 422 Ta’an Kwach’an Council of the
Stevens, Isaac, 25, 42, 149, 226–227, Subsistence rights, 147–150 Yukon, 727
230 table 2, 343, 344, Sugar industry, in Hawaii, 201–202, Tabequache (Tabaquache,
345, 346, 348, 409–410, 203, 204, 206 Tabeguache), 272
895 Sullivan, General, 288 Treaty with the Utah—
and Medicine Creek, 427, 428 Sullivan, John, 641 Tabegauche Band,
Stevens, Justice John, 711 Sumner, Charles, 788 October 7, 1863, 354
Stevens, John L., 204, 205 Sumner, E. V., 337 Table Rock Reservation, 98
Stevens, John (Passamaquoddy Sun dance, 668 Taches
leader), 717 the Sun Fish (Au-ni-mo-ni), 328 Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai,
Stevens treaty, 137 Supplemental Treaty with the etc., May 1851, 231 table
Stewart, Potter, 714 Miami, Etc., September 3
Stockbridge, 315 30, 1809, 293 Taghee, 372, 374

Index I-43
Tagustiskee, 291 and Cass, Lewis, 772 Treaty with the Teton, Etc.,
Tah-hah-nee-o-tah (the Womb), 304 and Ojibwe, 341 Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303
Tah-ra-kee, 352 Te-shaw-gen, 323 Texas, 57, 268
Tah-ro-hon, 328 Tearekatacaush (the Brave), 298 Texas Indian Commission, 950
Tah-ton-ga-nuz-zhe (Tah-tungah- Technology, 49 Texas Republic, 28
nushi; Standing Buffalo), Tecumcena (Tecumsena), 300, 301 Texon
349, 356 Tecumseh, 19, 56, 80, 84, 245, 247, Treaty with the Castake, Texon,
Tah-tungah-nushi. See Tah-ton-ga- 427, 435, 439–440, 442, etc., June 1851, 231 table
nuz-zhe 443, 444, 645, 649, 650, 3
Tah-wa-carro. See Ta-wa-ka-ro 790, 849, 850, 904–905 Teyanhasire, Chief, 282
Tah-wah-gah-ha (Village Maker), and Aupaumut, 745 TFN. See Tunngavik Federation of
356 and Harrison, William Henry, Nunavut
Tahiti, 200 820 Thadahwahnyeh, 884
Tahquohee, 430 and Pushmataha, 882 Thames, Battle of the, 80, 647–649,
Takelma, 225, 229 table 1, 230 and Thames, Battle of, 647–649 650
table 2 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, Themue, 302
Takings, and treaty law, 44 646–647 They Are Afraid of Her, 784
Talapuche, 52, 53 Tecumsena. See Tecumcena They Will Not Be Forgotten
Taliaferro, Lawrence, 325, 776 Tee-Hit-Ton, 44 (Mikwendaagoziwag),
Talking Warrior, 302 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 433
Tall Bull, 367, 755 44, 173, 657, 685–686, 719 Theyanoguin. See Hendrick
Talton v. Mayes, 715 Teetl’it Gwich’in (Tetlit Gwitchin), Thom, Mel, 152
Tamarois 400, 403, 404 Thomas, Chief Jacob, 816
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., Tegaya, Chief, 282 Thomas, Clarence, 723
October 27, 1832, 315 Teharagwanegen (Thomas Thomas, Rev. Eleazar, 768
Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., Williams), Chief, 289 Thompson, Clark W., 353, 355, 356
September 25, 1818, 299 Teller, H. M., 385 Thompson, Smith, 40, 57
Tamastslikt Cultural Institute, 159 Teller, James H., 385 Thompson, Wiley, 804, 811
Tan-roo-mee, 343 Tellico Dam, 174 Three Fires Confederacy, 235, 236
Tan-tan-ka-has-ka (Long Bull), 360 Ten Bears, 367 Three Fires People, 435
Taoyateduta (Little Crow), 847–848 Ten Eyck, Anthony, 201 Thule, 937
Tapeeksin (T’Peek-sin), 99 Tene-Angpote. See Kicking Bird Thunder Rolling in the Mountains.
Treaty with the Nisqually, Ténéangopte. See Kicking Bird See Joseph, Chief
Puyallup, Etc., December Tenetendi (Eagle Heart), 897 Thur-o-mony, 352
26, 1854, 342–343, Tenino, 148 Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright
507–510 Tenskwatawa. See Shawnee Prophet Eyes; Inshta Theamba),
Tappan, Lewis, 267 Tensquatawa. See Shawnee Prophet 905–906
Tappan, Samuel F., 271, 366, 367, Termination, 8, 24, 34–35, 36, 61, Tibbles, Thomas H., 830, 906
369, 370, 749, 773 111–112, 114–115, 116, Tigua, 41
Tappaye Pawnee, 319 119–120, 133, 138–139, Tilghman, James, 282
Taruntne (Between the Logs), 298 171–172, 173, 189, 196, Tillamook, 97, 229 table 1
Tashtasick, 766 197, 198, 682, 683–684, Timber rights, 43, 45, 141–142, 157.
Tatangamania (Walking Buffalo), 686–687, 689, 694, See also Natural resources
294 952–953 Timothy, Chief, 374
Tatarnaza (Iron Wind), 294 in Alaska, 196, 198 Tippecanoe, Battle of, 444, 646–647,
Tauankia (Sitting in the Saddle), 851 and Nixon, Richard, 697 649
Tauromee (John Hat), 365 See also Deer, Ada E.; House Tippecanoe River (Indiana)
Tawakoni, 104, 268 Concurrent Resolution treaty history of, 439–441
Tax revenues, 6, 88 108; Public Law 280 See also Treaty with the
Taylor, E. E. L., 362 Termination Act, 141, 694 Delaware, Etc.,
Taylor, Edward B., 357, 358, 359, 360 Termination Resolution, 35 September 30, 1809
Taylor, Frank, 150, 151 Terry, Alfred, 106, 271, 366, 367, 369, Tipton, John, 307, 308, 440
Taylor, Nathaniel G., 30, 106, 230 370, 898 Tisquantum (Squanto), 854
table 2, 271, 366, 367, 368, Tesson, Joseph, 352 Title IX Indian Education, 709
369, 373, 374 Tetawiouche (Wearer of Shoes), 298 Tiyanoga. See Hendrick
Taylor, Richard, 296, 333 Tetlit Gwitchin. See Teetl’it Gwich’in Tli Cho, 400
Taylor, Zachary, 23, 91, 231 table 4, Teton Tlicho (Dogrib; Tli Cho), 727
324, 421, 433, 730–731, Treaty with the Teton, July 19, Tlingit, 44, 196, 198, 685–686
760, 842 1815, 294 To-hee, 352

I-44 Index
To-I sa’s Brother (We-we-sah), establishment and conduct of and tribal leaders, 9
324–325 Indian relations through, tribal perspectives on, 9–10
Tohono O’odham, 116 15–18 Treaty negotiation, 6, 8, 10–11, 14
Tohopeka. See Horseshoe Bend, force and effect of, 11 authority, 10, 25
Battle of between Indian nations, 272–273 in colonial America, 53–58
Tolluntuskie, 291 as international agreements, in Europe, 50–53
Tolmie, William Fraser, 894–895 49–64 fraudulent, 40
Tolowa, 175 interpretation of, 149 methods of, 15–16
Tomack Micco, 313 legacy of, 12 stages in, 254–255
Tonaskat, 385 as negotiation process, 10–11. Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245
Tonawanda See also Treaty Treaty of Albany with Iroquois
Treaty with the Seneca— negotiation Confederacy and British
Tonawanda Band, non-Indian opposition to, 25–26 Crown, September 24,
November 5, 1857, 349 objectives of, 13, 18–25 1664, 211
Tonawonda Reservation, 349 permanent language in, 11 Treaty of Albany with the Five
Tonkawa, 57, 104 policy goals of, 76–81 Nations, July 31, 1684,
Toochalar, 297 post-1871, 5–6 275–277
Topinbee, 437, 877 post-Civil War, 7 Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and
Tordesilla, Treaty of, 49 pre-1871, 5 Navigation. See Amity,
T’Peek-sin. See Tapeeksin pre-War of 1812, 136 Commerce, and
Trade, 15, 17, 27–28, 49, 55, 76–77, during Revolutionary War Navigation, Treaty of
251–252, 253 (U.S.), 18–19, 69–70, Treaty of Big Tree. See Big Tree,
and Hawaii, 203, 204, 232 259–260 Treaty of
See also Fur trade and rules of interpretation, 135 Treaty of Bois Fort. See Bois Fort,
Trade and Intercourse Act, 74, 75–76, signing of, 162–163, 255 Treaty of
77, 109, 247, 251, 261, in the twentieth century, 61–64 Treaty of Buffalo Creek. See Buffalo
643, 717, 922. See also under U.S. Constitution, 73-76 Creek, Treaty of
Annuities See also Addenda treaties; Treaty of Canandaigua. See
Trade debts, 20 Confederate treaties; Canandaigua, Treaty of
Trade routes, 6 individual treaties listed by Treaty of Carey Mission. See Carey
Traders, Indian debt to, 20 location or tribe; Mission, Treaty of
Trading posts, 76–77 Reconstruction treaties; Treaty of Caribou Creek. See Caribou
Trail of Broken Treaties, 700–701, Statutes; Unratified Creek, Treaty of
704, 712 treaties Treaty of Chicago. See Chicago,
Trail of Death, 248 Treaty Commission, 58 Treaty of
Trail of Tears, 136, 137, 184, 213, 265, Treaty Conference with the Six Treaty of The Dalles. See The Dalles,
653, 657–658, 661, 936 Nations at Fort Stanwix, Treaty of
Trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 November 1768, Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. See
Transcontinental railway, 25 281–283. See also Fort Dancing Rabbit Creek,
Transfer Act, 35 Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty of
Trapping rights, 41 Treaty documents, 10–11. See also Treaty of Doak’s Stand. See Doak’s
Traverse des Sioux individual documents Stand, Treaty of
treaty history of, 441 Treaty law Treaty of Doaksville. See Doaksville,
Treaty of, 255, 441 abrogation and, 44–46 Treaty of
See also Treaty with the Sioux— and canons of construction, Treaty of Forks of the Wabash. See
Mdewankanton and 41–43 Forks of the Wabash,
Wahpakoota Bands, and plenary power, 43–44. See Treaty of
August 5, 1851; Treaty also Plenary power Treaty of Fort Adams. See Fort
with the Sioux—Sisseton and statute ambiguity, 41–43 Adams, Treaty of
and Wahpeton Bands, and takings, 44 Treaty of Fort Bridger. See Fort
July 23, 1851 and treaty rights, 39–41 Bridger, Treaty of
Treaties, 13, 953–954 Treaty making Treaty of Fort Finney. See Fort
in colonial America, 11, 40, end of, 5, 7, 8, 25–26, 41, 58–61, Finney, Treaty of
51–53, 53–58, 69–81, 137 95, 109 Treaty of Fort Harmar. See Fort
with competing factions, 11 local, 8–9 Harmar, Treaty of
definition of, 5, 49, 133 past and present traditions of, Treaty of Fort Jackson. See Fort
and education, 180–181, 182–183, 6–9 Jackson, Treaty of
190 post-1960, 8 Treaty of Fort Laramie. See Fort
1800—1829, 76-81 state, 8–9, 14 Laramie, Treaty of

Index I-45
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Treaty of Payne’s Landing. See Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, July
Sioux, Etc., September Payne’s Landing, Treaty 18, 1825, 304
17, 1851, 336–337. See of Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or
also Fort Laramie, Treaty Treaty of Peace. See Peace, Treaty of Minitaree Tribe, July 30,
of Treaty of Peace and Amity. See Peace 1825, 304
Treaty of Fort McIntosh. See Fort and Amity, Treaty of Treaty with the Blackfeet, October
McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty of Pensacola. See Pensacola, 17, 1855, 347–348
Treaty of Fort Pitt. See Fort Pitt, Treaty of Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux,
Treaty of Treaty of Picolata. See Picolata, October 19, 1865,
Treaty of Fort Stanwix. See Fort Treaty of 358–359, 358–360
Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty of Pontotoc. See Pontotoc, Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po, etc.,
Treaty of Fort Wayne. See Fort Treaty of August 1851, 231 table 3
Wayne, Treaty of Treaty of Prairie du Chien. See Treaty with the Caddo, July 1, 1835,
Treaty of Fort Wise. See Fort Wise, Prairie du Chien, Treaty 320
Treaty of of Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc.,
Treaty of Franklin. See Franklin, Treaty of Reciprocity. See Reciprocity, June 1851, 231 table 3
Treaty of Treaty of Treaty with the Chasta, Etc.,
Treaty of Ghent. See Ghent, Treaty of Treaty of Rogue River. See Rogue November 18, 1854, 342
Treaty of Grandpré. See Grandpré, River, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee,
Treaty of Treaty of St. Louis. See St. Louis, November 28, 1785,
Treaty of Greenville. See Greenville, Treaty of 285–286
Treaty of Treaty of Tordesilla. See Tordesilla, treaty document, 451–453
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. See Treaty of See also Hopewell, Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of Traverse des Sioux. See Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2,
Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1791, 287. See also
Treaty of Hard Labor. See Hard Treaty of Holston, Treaty of
Labor, Treaty of Treaty of Trois Rivières. See Trois Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26,
Treaty of Hartford. See Hartford, Rivières, Treaty of 1794, 287. See also Fort
Treaty of Treaty of Utrecht. See Utrecht, Treaty Harmar, Treaty of
Treaty of Holston. See Holston, of Treaty with the Cherokee, October 2,
Treaty of Treaty of Versailles. See Versailles, 1798, 289
Treaty of Hopewell. See Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, October
Treaty of Treaty of Washington. See 24, 1804, 291
Treaty of Indian Springs. See Indian Washington, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, October
Springs, Treaty of Treaty of Washington City. See 25, 1805, 292
Treaty of La Famine. See La Famine, Washington City, Treaty Treaty with the Cherokee, March 22,
Treaty of of 1816, 296
Treaty of Lapwai. See Lapwai, Treaty Treaty of Westphalia. See Westphalia, Treaty with the Cherokee,
of Treaty of September 14, 1816, 297
Treaty of Medicine Creek. See Treaty Party, 23, 88–89, 321, 322 Treaty with the Cherokee, February
Medicine Creek, Treaty Treaty ratification, 9, 14, 53–54, 135 27, 1819, 299
of Treaty rights, 39–41 Treaty with the Western Cherokee,
Treaty of Medicine Lodge. See interpretation of, 39, 40–43 May 6, 1828, 308
Medicine Lodge, Treaty Treaty sites, 409–444. See also Treaty with the Western Cherokee,
of individual treaty sites February 14, 1833,
Treaty of Middle Oregon. See Middle Treaty substitutes, 27, 133 315–316
Oregon, Treaty of Treaty Tree, 427 Treaty with the Cherokee, December
Treaty of Montreal, August 7, 1701, Treaty with the Apache, July 1, 1852, 29, 1835, 320–322
278–279. See also 337 treaty document, 483–491
Montreal, Treaty of Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, See also New Echota, Treaty of
Treaty of Mount Dexter. See Mount and Arapaho, October Treaty with the Cherokee, August 6,
Dexter, Treaty of 17, 1865, 358 1846, 333
Treaty of New Echota. See New Treaty with the Appalachicola, Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19,
Echota, Treaty of October 11, 1832, 313 1866, 363
Treaty of New York. See New York, Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, treaty document, 542–550
Treaty of June 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Cherokee, April 27,
Treaty of Olympia. See Olympia, Treaty with the Arapaho and 1868, 368–369
Treaty of Cheyenne, February 18, Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, July
Treaty of Paris. See Paris, Treaty of 1861, 351–352 6, 1825, 303

I-46 Index
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Treaty with the Chippewa of the Treaty with the Choctaw, September
Arapaho, October 14, Mississippi and Lake 27, 1830, 310–311
1865, 357–358 Superior, August 2, 1847, treaty document, 468–476
treaty document, 518–522 333 See also Dancing Rabbit Creek,
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Treaty with the Pillager Band of Treaty of
Arapaho, October 28, Chippewa Indians, Treaty with the Choctaw and
1867, 366–367. See also August 21, 1847, 333 Chickasaw, January 17,
Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837, 327. See also
Treaty of September 30, 1854, Doaksville, Treaty of
Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne 340–341 Treaty with the Choctaw and
and Northern Arapaho, treaty document, 502–507 Chickasaw, November 4,
May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 1854, 342
Treaty with the Chickasaw, January 22, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Choctaw and
10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Chickasaw, June 22,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, October Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855, 345–346
24, 1801, 289–290 1855, 347 Treaty with the Choctaw and
Treaty with the Chickasaw, July 23, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July Chickasaw, April 28,
1805, 291 16, 1859, 350 1866, 362
Treaty with the Chickasaw, Treaty with the Chippewa—Red treaty document, 527–538
September 20, 1816, 297 Lake and Pembina Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo-Woz,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, October Bands, October 1, 1863, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3
19, 1818, 299 354 Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc.,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, August Treaty with the Chippewa of the September 1851, 231
31, 1830, 310 Mississippi and the table 3
treaty document, 464–468 Pillager and Lake Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, October Winnibigoshish Bands, August 4, 1835, 320
20, 1832, 314 March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 24, Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Anadarko, Caddo, Etc.,
1834, 319 Lake and Pembina Bands, May 15, 1846, 332
Treaty with the Chickasaw, June 22, April 12, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa,
1852, 337 Treaty with the Chippewa, and Apache, July 27,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Mississippi, Pilager, and 1853, 338
November 25, 1808, 293 Lake Winnibigoshish treaty document, 500–502
Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Bands, May 7, 1864, 353 Treaty with the Comanche and
treaty document, 491–493 Treaty with the Chippewa of Kiowa, October 18, 1865,
Treaty with the Chippewa, 1842 Saginaw, Swan Creek, 358
treaty document, 493–495 and Black River, October Treaty with the Creek, August 7,
Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 18, 1864, 355 1790, 287
1826, 306–307 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Treaty with the Creek, June 29, 1796,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 289
August 11, 1827, 307 362 Treaty with the Creek, June 16, 1802,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July Treaty with the Chippewa of the 290
28, 1829, 309 Mississippi, March 19, Treaty with the Creek, October 27,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1867, 365 1805, 292
September 26, 1833, Treaty with the Choctaw, January 3, Treaty with the Creek, August 9,
317–319. See also 1786, 286 1814, 294
Chicago, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw, December Treaty with the Creek, January 22,
Treaty with the Chippewa, May 9, 17, 1801, 290 1818, 298
1836, 323–324 Treaty with the Choctaw, August 31, Treaty with the Creek, January 8,
Treaty with the Chippewa, January 1803, 291 1821, 301
14, 1837, 326–327 Treaty with the Choctaw, November Treaty with the Creek, February 12,
Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 16, 1805, 292 1825, 302–303
1837, 327–328 Treaty with the Choctaw, October Treaty with the Creek, January 24,
Treaty with the Chippewa, 24, 1816, 297 1826, 306
December 20, 1837, 329 Treaty with the Choctaw, October Treaty with the Creek, November 15,
Treaty with the Chippewa, February 18, 1820, 301. See also 1827, 307–308
7, 1839, 330 Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty with the Creek, March 24,
Treaty with the Chippewa, October Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1832, 312–313
4, 1842, 331 1825, 302 treaty document, 476–478

Index I-47
Treaty with the Creek, February 14, Treaty with the Fox, September 14, Treaty with the Kickapoo, June 28,
1833, 316 1815, 295 1863, 353
Treaty with the Creek, November 23, Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26,
1838, 329–330 December 1849, 231 table 1837, 327
Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, 4, 232 Treaty with the Kiowa and
January 4, 1845, 332 Treaty with the Howechees, etc., Comanche, October 21,
Treaty with the Creek, June 13, 1854, April 1851, 231 table 3 1867, 365–366
340 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche,
Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August the Sioux Tribe, July 16, and Apache, October 21,
7, 1856, 348–349 1825, 304 1867, 366
Treaty with the Creek, June 14, 1866, Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, treaty document, 550–552
362–363 Wethillas, etc., May 1851, Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower
treaty document, 538–542 231 table 3 Klamath, etc., October
Treaty with the Crow Tribe, August Treaty with the Iowa, September 16, 1851, 231 table 3
4, 1825, 304 1815, 295–296 Treaty with the Upper Klamath,
Treaty with the Crow, May 7, 1868, Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, Shasta, and Scott’s River,
369 1824, 302 November 1851, 231
Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., table 3
September 1851, 231 September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc.,
table 3 Treaty with the Iowa, November 23, October 14, 1864, 355
Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-Ma- 1837, 328 Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A-Si,
Do, etc., July 1851, 231 Treaty with the Iowa, October 29, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3
table 3 1838, 329 Treaty with the Makah, July 20,
Treaty with the Delaware, Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, 1854, 1815, 294–295
September 17, 1778, 339 Treaty with the Makah Tribe,
283–284 Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., October 6, 1825, 306
treaty document, 449–450 January 22, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Makah, January 31,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, 1825, 1855, 344
7, 1803, 290 303 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, July
Treaty with the Delaware, August Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 30, 1825, 304
18, 1804, 291 1825, 304 Treaty with the Menominee, March
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 30, 1817, 297
August 21, 1805, 292 14, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Menominee,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October February 8, 1831, 311
September 30, 1809, 293 5, 1859, 351 Treaty with the Menominee, October
Treaty with the Delaware, October 3, Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, 27, 1832, 315
1818, 299 1862, 352 Treaty with the Menominee,
Treaty with the Delaware, August 3, Treaty with the Kansas, October 28, September 3, 1836, 324
1829, 309 1815, 296 Treaty with the Menominee, October
Treaty with the Delaware, May 6, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, August 18, 1848, 333–334
1854, 339 13, 1803, 290–291 Treaty with the Menominee, May 12,
Treaty with the Delaware, May 30, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1854, 339
1860, 351 October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Menominee,
Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, February 22, 1856, 348
1861, 352 Peoria, Etc., May 30, Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, Es-
Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, 1854, 340 Kun, etc., August 1851,
1866, 363 Treaty with the Kickapoo, December 231 table 3
Treaty with the Diegunio, January 9, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Miami, October 6,
1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1818, 299
Treaty with the Dwamish, September 2, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Miami, October 23,
Suquamish, Etc., January Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 30, 1826, 307
22, 1855, 343 1819, 299–300 Treaty with the Miami, February 11,
Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., Treaty with the Kickapoo of the 1828, 308
August 7, 1803, 290 Vermillion, September 5, Treaty with the Miami, October 23,
Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 1820, 301 1834, 319
16, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Kickapoo, October Treaty with the Miami, November 6,
Treaty with the Florida Tribes of 24, 1832, 314 1838, 329
Indians, September 18, Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 18, Treaty with the Miami, November
1823, 302 1854, 340 28, 1840, 330

I-48 Index
Treaty with the Miami, June 5, 1854, Treaty with the Osage, August 21, Treaty with the Pawnee, October 9,
340 1822, 301 1833, 319
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Treaty with the Osage, June 2, 1825, Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand,
Oregon, June 25, 1855, 303 Loups, Republicans, Etc.,
346 Treaty with the Great and Little August 6, 1848, 333
Treaty with the Middle Oregon Osage, August 10, 1825, Treaty with the Pawnee, September
Tribes, November 15, 304 24, 1857, 349
1865, 360 Treaty with the Osage, January 11, Treaty with the Peoria, Etc.,
Treaty with the Mohawk, March 29, 1839, 330 September 25, 1818, 299
1797, 289 Treaty with the Osage, September Treaty with the Piankashaw,
Treaty with the Molala, December 19, 1865, 357 December 30, 1805, 292
21, 1855, 348 Treaty with the Oto, June 24, 1817, Treaty with the Piankashaw, July 18,
Treaty with the Navajo, September, 297 1815, 294
1849, 334 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Treaty with the Piankashaw, October
Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868, Tribes, September 26, 29, 1832, 315
370–372 1825, 306 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August
treaty document, 552–556 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, 27, 1804, 291
Treaty with the New York Indians, September 21, 1833, Treaty with the Pillager Band of
January 15, 1838, 329 316–317 Chippewa Indians,
Treaty with the Nez Percé, June 11, Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October August 21, 1847, 333
1855, 345 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower
Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 9, Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, Klamath, etc., October
1863, 353 March 15, 1854, 338 1851, 231 table 3
treaty document, 513–518 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, 1817,
Treaty with the Nez Percé, August and Missouri, December 297
13, 1868, 374 9, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, 1825,
Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 303
Etc., December 26, 1854, November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12,
342–343 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 1858, 349
treaty document, 507–510 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10,
See also Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Ottawa and 1865, 356
Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., Chippewa, July 6, 1820, Treaty with the Potawatomi, July 18,
August 1851, 231 table 3 300 1815, 294
Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August Treaty with the Potawatomi,
19, 1818, 298 29, 1821, 301 October 2, 1818, 299
Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne Treaty with the Ottawa, August 30, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
and Northern Arapaho, 1831, 312 October 16, 1826, 307
May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Ottawa, February 18, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Omaha, March 16, 1833, 316 September 19, 1827, 307
1854, 338–339 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Omaha, March 6, 28, 1836, 322–323 September 20, 1828, 309
1865, 355–356 Treaty with the Ottawa and Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., Chippewa, July 31, 1855, October 20, 1832,
December 2, 1794, 346–347 313–314
288–289 Treaty with the Ottawa of Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Oneida, February 3, Blanchard’s Fork and October 26, 1832,
1838, 329 Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 314–315
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle 1862, 352 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Oregon, June 25, 1855, Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June December 10, 1834, 319
346 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Middle Oregon Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June December 16, 1834, 320
Tribes, November 15, 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
1865, 360 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, December 17, 1834, 320
Treaty with the Osage, November June 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March
10, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, 26, 1836, 322
Treaty with the Osage, September June 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March
12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, 29, 1836, 323
Treaty with the Osage, September September 30, 1825, Treaty with the Potawatomi, August
25, 1818, 299 306 5, 1836, 324

Index I-49
Treaty with the Potawatomi, Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October treaty document, 556–559
September 20, 1836, 1, 1859, 350–351 See also Fort Bridger, Treaty of
324–325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc.,
Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 6, 1861, 352 March 1851, 231 table 3
September 22, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala,
Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 18, 1867, 364 July 5, 1825, 303
February 11, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9, Treaty with the Sioux, September 23,
Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1832, 313 1805, 292
June 5 and 17, 1846, treaty document, 478–480 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July
332–333 Treaty with the Seminole, March 28, 19, 1815, 294
Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes,
November 15, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Seminole, March 21, July 19, 1815, 294
Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 1866, 362 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s
29, 1866, 362 treaty document, 522–527 River, July 19, 1815,
Treaty with the Potawatomi, Treaty with the Seneca, June 30, 294
February 27, 1867, 365 1802, 290 Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 1816,
Treaty with the Quapaw, August 24, Treaty with the Seneca, February 28, 296
1818, 298 1831, 312 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of
Treaty with the Quapaw, November Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, the Sioux Tribe, July 16,
15, 1824, 302 1831, 312 1825, 304
Treaty with the Quapaw, May 13, Treaty with the Seneca and Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August
1833, 316 Shawnee, December 29, 19, 1825, 304–305
Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1832, 315 treaty document, 459–463
1, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20, See also Prairie du Chien, Treaty
Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, 1842, 330 of
September 10, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Seneca—Tonawand Treaty with the Sioux, September 10,
Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, Band, November 5, 1857, 1836, 324
November 15, 1854, 342 349 Treaty with the Sioux, November 30,
Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-Ki-As, Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed 1836, 325
etc., August 1851, 231 Seneca and Shawnee, Treaty with the Sioux, September 29,
table 3 Quapaw, Etc., February 1837, 328
Treaty with the San Luis Rey, etc., 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
January 1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Seven Nations of October 21, 1837, 328
Treaty with the Sauk, September 13, Canada, May 31, 1796, Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and
1815, 295 289. See also Canadian Wahpeton Bands, July
Treaty with the Sauk, May 13, 1816, Indian Treaties 1-11 23, 1851, 336
296 Treaty with the Shawnee, January Treaty with the Sioux—
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 31, 1786, 286 Mdewakanton and
November 3, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Shawnee, November Wahpakoota Bands,
treaty document, 456–459 7, 1825, 306 August 5, 1851, 336
See also St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty with the Shawnee, August 8, Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1831, 312 19, 1858, 349
September 3, 1822, Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 1858,
301–302 October 26, 1832, 314 350
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., Treaty with the Shawnee, May 10, Treaty with the Sioux—Miniconjou
July 15, 1830, 310 1854, 339 Band, October 10, 1865,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone, 357
September 21, 1832, 313 July 2, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, Treaty with the Shoshone— Band, October 14, 1865,
September 27, 1836, 325 Northwestern Bands, 357
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, July 30, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Sioux—Two-Kettle
September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Western Shoshone, Band, October 19, 1865,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 1, 1863, 354 358
October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Shoshone— Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Goship, October 12, Band, October 20, 1865,
October 11, 1842, 331–332 1863, 354 359
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Treaty with the Eastern Band Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs
Missouri, May 18, 1854, Shoshone and Bannock, Band, October 20, 1865,
339–340 July 3, 1868, 372–374 359

I-50 Index
Treaty with the Sioux—Yanktonai Treaty with the Ute, March 2, 1868, Treaty with the Wyandot, April 1,
Band, October 20, 1865, 368 1850, 334
359–360 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Treaty with the Wyandot, January
Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 31, 1855, 343
October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Wea, October 26, Treaty with the Yakama, June 9,
Treaty with the Sioux—Upper 1809, 293 1855, 344–345
Yanktonai Band, October Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, treaty document, 510–513
28, 1865, 360 June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July
Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Treaty with the Wea, October 2, 19, 1815, 294
Wahpeton Bands, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
February 19, 1867, Treaty with the Wea, August 11, October 21, 1837, 328
364–365 1820, 301 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Treaty with the Winnebago, June 3, April 19, 1858, 349
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 1816, 296 Trent, William, 424
369 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., Tribal administration
Treaty with the Six Nations, October August 25, 1828, 308–309 of federation programs,
22, 1784, 285. See also Treaty with the Winnebago, August 116–117
Fort Stanwix, Treaty of 1, 1829, 309 Tribal governments, 35, 36
Treaty with the Six Nations, January Treaty with the Winnebago, post-1960, 8
9, 1789, 286. See also Fort September 15, 1832, 313 Tribal leaders
Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Winnebago, and treaty making, 9
Treaty with the Six Nations, November 1, 1837, 328 U.S. appointment of, 10
November 11, 1794, Treaty with the Winnebago, October Tribal rights, 46
287–288 13, 1846, 333 and statutes, 112–114
treaty document, 454–456 Treaty with the Winnebago, Tribal Self-Governance Act, 116
See also Canandaigua, Treaty of February 27, 1855, 344 Tribally Controlled Community
Treaty with the S’Klallam, January Treaty with the Winnebago, April 15, College Assistance Act,
26, 1855, 343 1859, 350 116
Treaty with the Snake, August 12, Treaty with the Winnebago, March Tribble, Fred, 156, 721
1865, 356–357 8, 1865, 356 Tribble, Mike, 156, 721
Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Trist, Nicholas Philip, 659
November 24, 1848, 334 January 21, 1785, 285. See Trois Rivières, Treaty of, 236
Treaty with the Stockbridge and also Fort McIntosh, Tromelin, Legoarant de, 202
Munsee, September 3, Treaty of Trondek Hwech’in, 403, 404
1839, 330 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Truman, Harry S, 682
Treaty with the Stockbridge and January 9, 1789, 286. See Trust Doctrine, 954–955
Munsee, February 5, also Fort Harmar, Treaty Trust land, 113, 138, 197, 956–957.
1856, 348 of See also Land; Land
Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., acquisition; Land
May 1851, 231 table 3 August 3, 1795, 289. See cession; Land
Treaty with the Teton, July 19, 1815, also Greenville, Treaty of compensation
294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July Trust relationship
Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, 4, 1805, 291 and government-to-
June 22, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July government
Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow 22, 1814, 293–294 relationship, 930
Creek Band, September Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Trust responsibility, 103, 173, 671,
19, 1853, 338 September 8, 1815, 295 727, 732, 733, 926, 950,
Treaty with the Umpqua and Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 955, 957–958
Kalapuya, November 29, September 29, 1817, 297 Tse-kauwtl, 344
1854, 342 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Tsiigehtchic, 392, 400
Treaty with the Upper Klamath, September 17, 1818, 298 Tsimshian, 196
Shasta, and Scott’s River, Treaty with the Wyandot, September Tsuu T’ina (Sarcee), 383
November 1851, 231 20, 1818, 298 Tualatim Kalapuya, 229 table 1
table 3 Treaty with the Wyandot, January Tuchebatche Micco, 313
Treaty with the Utah, December 30, 19, 1832, 312 Tuchebatcheehadgo, 313
1849, 334 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 23, Tuckenehau Chapco, 292
Treaty with the Utah—Tabegauche 1836, 323 Tulalip, 152, 154
Band, October 7, 1863, Treaty with the Wyandot, March 17, Tulee v. Washington, 62, 151, 152,
354 1842, 330 695–696

Index I-51
Tulio, 291 United Anishnabeg Council, 216 U.S. Cavalry, 168

Tundra Times, 196 United Empire Loyalists (UELS), U.S. Civil War, 7, 11, 25, 29–30, 41,
Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut 212, 213 58, 270, 271, 412
(TFN), 402 United Kingdom, 229 and Doaksville, 418
Tureen, Thomas N., 717, 942 United Kingdom Parliament, 214 and education, 184
Tuscarora, 44, 53, 69, 688–689 United Nations, 687 and Fort Gibson, 419
and education, 180 United Native Americans, 691 and Indian Territory, 937
Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., United State v. Wheeler, 943 treaties during, 269
December 2, 1794, United States See also Confederate treaties;
288–289 and reciprocity with Hawaii, Reconstruction treaties
See also Six Nations 202–203 U.S. Claims Commission, 18
Tustunnuggee Hopoie, 301 United States v. Alcea Band of U.S. Congress, 8, 27, 28, 29, 95–96
Tutchone, 403 Tillamooks, 173 and jurisdiction, 169
Tutelo, 282 United States v. Bourland, 723 plenary power of, 109, 126–127.
Twana, 99 United States v. Creek Nation, 681–682 See also Plenary power
Twenty Points, 700–701 United States v. Dion, 109, 174, See also Statutes; U.S. House of
Two-Kettle (Two Kettle) 722–723 Representatives; U.S.
Treaty with the Sioux—Two- United States v. Joseph, 434 Senate
Kettle Band, October 19, United States v. Kagama, 167, 671 U.S. Constitution, 14–15, 22, 27, 36,
1865, 358 and government-to-government 44, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 213,
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and relationship, 930 644
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, and sovereignty, 948 commerce clause, 14, 28, 40, 43,
369 and trust doctrine, 955 642–643, 666
Two Row Wampum, 211 and trust responsibility, 957 and education, 190
Two Strike, 901 United States v. Lara, 114 and government-to-government
Tygh, 148 United States v. Libby, McNeill and relationship, 930
Tyler, John, 229 Libby, 196 and Indian removal, 83
United States v. Michigan, 63, 429 and jurisdiction, 163, 169
Uc-quaw-ho-ko, 364 United States v. Mitchell and land compensation, 136
Udall, Stewart, 35, 196 and trust doctrine, 955 and religious freedom, 175
UELs. See United Empire Loyalists United States v. Navajo Nation supremacy clause, 28, 64, 154
Uintah, 272 and trust doctrine, 955 and treaties, 73–76, 953
Uintah Indian Reservation, 933 United States v. Oregon, 696–697 and treaty ratification, 135
Umatilla, 99, 227, 230 table 2, United States v. Sandoval, 169, 434 and treaty rights, 39–40
409–410, 414, 415, United States v. Sioux Nation, 257, See also Commerce clause;
696–697 719 Supremacy clause
Treaty with the Wallawalla, United States v. Sosseur, 173 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29
Cayuse, Etc., June 9, United States v. State of Michigan, 711 U.S. Department of Commerce, 942,
1855, 344 United States v. Washington. See Boldt 950
Umatilla Reservation, 151–152, 159, Decision U.S. Department of Defense, 33, 167
697 United States v. Wheeler, 62, 63, 114, U.S. Department of Education, 942,
Umbrella Final Agreement, 403, 404, 714–715 950
405 United States v. White Mountain U.S. Department of Game and Fish
Umpqua, 98, 99, 230 table 2 Apache Tribe, 955 (DGF), 158
Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., United States v. Winans, 170, 695, 944, U.S. Department of Health,
November 18, 1854, 954 Education, and Welfare,
342 Universal Declaration of Human 35
Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Rights, 687 U.S. Department of Health and
Creek Band, September Unratified treaties, 97–101. See also Human Services, 942,
19, 1853, 338 Treaties 950
Treaty with the Umpqua and Unrecognized tribes. See U.S. Department of Housing and
Kalapuya, November 29, Nonrecognized tribes Urban Development, 116
1854, 342 Upper Canada, 235–236, 239 U.S. Department of Justice, 59, 144,
Umpqua-Cow Creek, 226 Upper Midwest 150, 151, 152–153, 942,
Unassociated funerary objects, 124, fishing rights in, 155–158 950
125, 126. See also Sacred hunting rights in, 155–158 and Hawaii, 207
sites Uranium, 140. See also Natural U.S. Department of Labor, 942, 950
Uncas, 767, 906–907 resources U.S. Department of State, 55, 95, 167,
Underground Railroad, 271 U.S. Bill of Rights, 36 203

I-52 Index
U.S. Department of the Interior, 29, U.S. v. Sandoval, 272 Delaware, Etc., August
30, 34, 54, 95, 120–121, U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 45 21, 1805; Treaty with the
138, 140, 145, 270, 684, U.S. V. Shoshone Tribe, 62 Delaware, Etc.,
717, 722, 926 U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 44 September 30, 1809;
and Alaska, 195, 196–197, 198 U.S. v. Washington, 41, 45, 153, 154, Treaty with the
and federal recognition, 176 155, 159 Piankeshaw, August 27,
and Hawaii, 207 U.S. v. Winans, 40, 42, 44, 150–151 1804; Treaty with the
and trust land, 956 Usufructuary rights, 41 Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
and trust responsibility, 958 Utah 1795
and Wounded Knee, occupation Treaty with the Utah, December Vincennes Tract, 442
of, 705 30, 1849, 334 VISTA. See Volunteers in Service to
See also Cohen, Felix S. Treaty with the Utah— America
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Tabegauche Band, Voigt, Lester, 156
136, 198, 323 October 7, 1863, 354 Voigt Decision, 156
U.S. Department of Transportation, Ute, 104, 107, 272, 410, 411 Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force, 157
206 Treaty with the Ute, March 2, Volunteers in Service to America
U.S. Department of War, 30, 54, 73, 1868, 368 (VISTA), 114
88, 270, 709, 719 Ute Commission, 31 Voting, in Hawaii, 203–204
and Committee on Indian Ute Reservation, 31 Vuntut Gwitchin, 403
Affairs, 653 Utrecht, Treaty of, 237 Vuntut Gwitchin Final
and education, 182 Agreement, May 29,
and reservations, 95 Valentine, Robert G., 182 1993, 404–405
U.S. Forest Service, 159 Vallejo, Mariano, 228 Vuntut Gwitchin Self-Government
U.S. government Vallier, S. G., 365 Agreement, 405
and internal tribal matters, Van Buren, Martin, 90, 91, 321–322,
involvement in, 8 772, 835 Wa-gah-sah-pi (Whip), 349
U.S. House of Representatives, 5, 18, and Trail of Tears, 657 Wa-pan-gia (Swan), 294
26, 31, 59 Van der Peet, Dorothy, 728, 729 Wa-pel-lo, Chief, 331–332
U.S. Indian Office, 270 Vancouver, George, 895 Wa-Swa-Gon Treaty Association,
U.S. Indian Peace Commission. See Vancouver Island treaties, 641, 642 157
Great Peace Commission Vanderslice, Daniel, 352 Wabakinklelia (Gros Bled), 292
U.S. Public Health Service, 35 Vann, Clement N., 738 Wabanaki, 211, 236, 716–718
U.S. Senate, 5, 59, 73 Vann, David, 333 Wabash River (Indiana)
and treaty ratification, 9, 14, Vann, James, 291, 888 treaty history of, 443–444
53–54, 135, 231 table 4 Vann Tavern, 429, 430 See also Treaty with the
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Vashon, George, 309 Delaware, Etc.,
Committee, 205 Venetie Decision. See Alaska ex rel. September 30, 1809;
U.S. Supreme Court, 22, 34, 60, 96, Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Treaty with the
213 Native Village of Venetie Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
and congressional power, 109, Tribal Gov’t 1795
126–127 Verelst, John, 823 Wabekieshiek, 753
and jurisdiction, 34 Vermont, 28, 75–76 Wabinema (White Sturgeon), 765
and rules of treaty Verplank, Isaac A., 333 Waco (Wacoe), 104, 268
interpretation, 135 Versailles, Treaty of, 211 Treaty with the Comanche,
and treaty rights, 40 Veterans, Indian, 138–139 Aionai, Anadarko,
and tribal sovereignty, 112–114 Victoria, Queen, 229, 785 Caddo, Etc., May 15,
and water rights, 143 Vieux De Sert, 341 1846, 332
See also individual court cases Village corporations, in Alaska, Wade, Alfred, 362
U.S. v. Cherokee Tobacco. See Cherokee 198–199 Wagohaw, 301
Tobacco case Village Maker (Tah-wah-gah-ha), Wah-gah-sap-pi (Iron Whip), 356
U.S. v. Dion, 45 356 Wah-hah-chunk-i-ah-pee (the One
U.S. v. 4,450,72 Acres of Land, Vincennes, Le Sieur de, 442 That Is Used as a Shield),
158–159 Vincennes (Indiana) 358
U.S. v. Frank Taylor, 150 treaty history of, 441–443 Wah-mun-dee-o-pee-doo-tah (the
U.S. v. Joseph, 272 See also Treaty with the War Eagle with the Red
U.S. v. Kagama, 39, 44, 60–61, 61 Delaware, August 18, Tail), 359
U.S. v. McBratney, 43 1804; Treaty with the Wah-mun-dee-wak-kon-o (the War
U.S. v. Michigan, 156 Delaware, Etc., June 7, Eagle in the Air), 359
U.S. v. Oregon, 153, 155 1803; Treaty with the Wah-no-ke-ga (Noise), 356

Index I-53
Wahpakoota (Wahpaakootah, War of 1812, 17, 21, 28, 56, 78, 247, Washington Territory, 96–97, 101
Wahpacoota, 427, 645, 647, 649, 650, treaties in, 99
Wahpahoota, 651 See also Pacific Northwest
Wahpekute), 100, 325 and Indian removal, 84, 85 Washington v. Washington State
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, and Prairie du Chien, 430–431 Commercial Passenger
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 and Tippecanoe River, 440 Fishing Vessel Association,
Treaty with the Sioux— treaties after, 262–263 42, 62, 153–154
Mdewakanton and See also Ghent, Treaty of Wasoukapaha (Falling Hail), 294
Wahpakoota Bands, War on Poverty, 35, 114 Wastch-com-ma-nu (Hard Walker),
August 5, 1851, 336 Ward, William, 87 356
Wahpeton Sioux, 100 Ward v. Race Horse, 43, 150, 151 Wat-che-mon-ne, 328
agreement with, 102 Warm Springs, 152, 414, 415 the Watchfull Fox (Kee-o-kuck), 328
Agreement with the Sisseton Warm Springs Power Enterprises Water, 134–135
and Wahpeton Bands of Warm Springs Reservation, 112, 227, Water quality, 141
Sioux Indians, 684, 697 Water rights, 42–43, 143–145, 175
September 20, 1872, 376 Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Water Settlement Acts, 116
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Commission, 43, 62, 114, Watie, David, 888
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 691–692 Watie, Gallegina. See Boudinot, Elias
Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton Wasco, 98–99, 149 Watie, Stand, 88, 89, 105, 321, 322,
and Wahpeton Bands, Wascopam, 415 333, 418, 667, 738, 888,
July 23, 1851, 336 Wash-com-mo-ni (Mitchell P. Cerre), 909–910
Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton 349, 356 Watkins, Arthur V., 684, 910–911, 952
and Wahpeton Bands, Washakie (Pina Quahah; Scar Face), and Indian Claims Commission,
February 19, 1867, 373–374, 907–909 825
364–365 Washington, D.C., 7 Watohkonk. See Kicking Bird
Wahunsonacock (Powhatan), 235, Washington, George, 14, 53–54, 71, Watson, William H., 363, 364, 365
863–864, 879–880 73, 74, 163, 212, 213, Wau-bon-a-quot, 365
Wakinyantanka, 847 251–252, 424 Wau-kaun-hendee-oatah, 324
Walker, Catherine, 330 Address to the Senate, Wau-ke-wau, 323
Walker, Joel, 343 September 17, 1789, Wau-pish-shaw, 319
Walker, John, 70, 296 643–644 Waubredoaince, 330
Walker, Robert, 411 and Blount, William, 757 Waukikum, 229 table 1
Walker, T. H., 333 and civilization policy, 96 Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 799, 912
Walker, Thomas, 282 and Clark, William, 775 Waupaucowela, 286
Walker, William, 323 and Cornplanter, 782 Waw-baw-que-ke-aw, 322
Walking Buffalo (Tatangamania), and Dearborn, Henry, 790 Waw-was-mo-queh, 323
294 and Fallen Timbers, Battle of, Wax, Murray L., 794
Walking Purchase, 245–246 645 Way Aga Enogee, 292
Walla Walla (Wallawalla), 98–99, and Hawkins, Benjamin, 821 Way-namee, 365
227, 230 table 2, and Hopewell Treaty, 285–286 Wayne, Anthony, 73–74, 74–75, 76,
409–410 and Indian removal, 83 289, 412, 426, 646, 775,
Treaty with the Wallawalla, and Knox, Henry, 839 839, 846, 850, 902,
Cayuse, Etc., June 9, and Little Turtle, 850 913–914
1855, 344 and Red Jacket, 869–870, 885 WDNR. See Wisconsin Department
Walleye War, 249 scorched-earth policy of, 641 of Natural Resources
Wallis, Michael, 852–853 and Six Nations Treaty, 287–288 We-che-gla-la (Little Moon), Chief,
Wallooska, 229 table 1 and St. Clair, Arthur, 903 303
Walton, George, 289 treaties under, 261–262 We the People, 161
Wampanoag, 116, 928, 942 Washington, John M., 334, 411 We-we-sah (To-I sa’s Brother),
Wampum, 162 Washington, Treaty of, 263, 429 324–325
Wampum belts, 135 Washington administration, 77 Wea, 72, 79
Wapaghkonnetta, 312 Washington City, Treaty of, 417 and Fort Harrison, 421
Wapulla, 302 Washington State, 225 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
the War Eagle in the Air (Wah-mun- jurisdiction in, 173 June 7, 1803, 290
dee-wak-kon-o), 359 See also Pacific Northwest Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
the War Eagle with the Red Tail Washington State Commercial August 21, 1805, 292
(Wah-mun-dee-o-pee- Passenger Fishing Vessel Treaty with the Kaskaskia,
doo-tah), 359 Association v. Tollefson, Peoria, Etc., May 30,
War of 1744-1748, 237 153 1854, 340

I-54 Index
Wea (cont.) Whirling Thunder, 356 Williams treaties with the Chippewa
Treaty with the Piankashaw, White, Ashton S. H., 369 and the Mississauga,
October 29, 1832, 315 White, Edward Douglass, 44, 825 October to November
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed White, Hugh Lawson, 842 1923, 393–394
Seneca and Shawnee, White, James, 792 treaty document, 627–635
Quapaw, Etc., February White, John, 365 Williams v. Lee, 62, 113, 114, 173,
23, 1867, 365 White Antelope, Chief, 352, 733 686–687, 702, 703, 926
Treaty with the Wea, October 26, White Bear (Satanta), 367, 838, 851, Willis, Albert, 204
1809, 293 892–893, 897 Wilson, Dick, 743
Treaty with the Wea and White Bear’s Face (Mah-to-wee-tah), Wilson, Elizabeth, 887
Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 304 Wilson, Joshua, 348
296 White Breast, 356 Wilson, Richard, 704–706, 747
Treaty with the Wea, October 2, White Cloud (Ma-hos-kah), 302 Wilson, Woodrow, 33
1818, 299 White Cow (Ta-su), 356 Wiminuche. See Weeminuche
Treaty with the Wea, August 11, White Elks (Ha-hah-kus-ka), 304 Winan brothers, 150–151
1820, 301 White Eyes, 424 Wind, James, 352
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., White Hair, Chief, 303 Wind River Reservation, 171, 175,
August 3, 1795, 289 White Horse, 352, 838 227–228, 372, 374
and Vincennes, 442 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Windom, William, 800
and Wabash River, 443 Bracker, 114 Winema, 768
Wearer of Shoes (Tetawiouche), White River, 21 Winnebago, 70, 91–92, 100, 104, 278
298 White Shield, 838 and jurisdiction, 161
Weatherford, William, 865 White Thunder, 901 and Prairie du Chien, 431
Webster, Daniel, 870 Whitefoot v. United States, 152 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
Weeminuche (Wiminuche), 272 Whiteley, Simeon, 354 August 11, 1827, 307
Weller, Walter, 315 Whiteman, William H., 904 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.,
Wells, William, 442, 807, 850, Whitetree, John, 365 August 19, 1825,
914–915 Whitney, Eli, 84 304–305, 459–463
Welsh, Herbert, 826 Wichita (Witchetaw), 30, 57, 104, Treaty with the Winnebago, June
Wem-se-ko, 323 268 3, 1816, 296
Wenatshapam, 344–345 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Treaty with the Winnebago,
Wessells, Captain, 802 August 4, 1835, 320 Etc., August 25, 1828,
Wessonsuoum, 766 Treaty with the Comanche, 308–309
West, Rick, 734 Aionai, Anadarko, Treaty with the Winnebago,
West Indies, 55 Caddo, Etc., May 15, August 1, 1829, 309
Western Cherokee 1846, 332 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Treaty with the Western Wickett, Susanna, 888 September 15, 1832, 313
Cherokee, May 6, 1828, Wilcox, Robert, 205 Treaty with the Winnebago,
308 Wild game, 17 November 1, 1837, 328
Treaty with the Western Wild Rice Lake Reserve, 158 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Cherokee, February 14, Wilkie, Madeline, 802 October 13, 1846, 333
1833, 315–316 Wilkinson, Charles, 795 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Westphalia, Treaty of, 50, 947 Wilkinson, James, 290, 291, 790 February 27, 1855, 344
Wethillas Willamette Valley, 97 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Willamette Valley Treaty April 15, 1859, 350
Wethillas, etc., May 1851, Commission, 225, 229 Treaty with the Winnebago,
231 table 3 table 1 March 8, 1865, 356
Wet’suwet’en, 729–730 Willays Winnebago Reservation, 161, 350
Whaling industry, in Hawaii, 201, Treaty with the Colus, Willays, Winnipeg Treaty. See Canadian
202, 203 etc., September 1851, 231 Indian Treaty 5
Wheelapa, 229 table 1 table 3 Winslow, Edward, 854–855
Wheeler-Howard Ac t. See William the Conqueror, 944 Winter’s doctrine, 143, 144–145
Indian Williams, George, 309 Winters v. United States, 42, 138, 143,
Reorganization Act Williams, Mennen G., 710–711 170, 678–679, 944
Wheelock, Eleazor, 180 Williams, Roger, 766, 767, 859, 860, Wirt, William, 56, 57, 654, 655
Whig Party, 653 872, 915–917 Wisconsin, 23
Whip (Wa-gah-sah-pi), 349 Williams, Thomas jurisdiction in, 172, 173
Whipple, Henry, 18, 26 (Teharagwanegen), 289 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1

Index I-55
Wisconsin Death March, 91 Wyam, 151 Ya-Ma-Do

Wisconsin Department of Natural Wyandot, 15, 20, 21, 55, 71, 72, 73, Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-
Resources (WDNR), 79, 100, 134, 148, 246, Ma-Do, etc., July 1851,
156 278 231 table 3
Wisconsin Supreme Court, 249 Agreement with the Delaware Yahooskin, 227
Wish-ham, 345 and Wyandot, Yakama Indian Reservation, 227
Wo-A-Si December 14, 1843, Yakama War of 1855-1856, 410
Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A- 332 Yakama (Yakima), 99, 227, 230
Si, etc., May 1851, 231 and Fort Harmar, 420 table 2, 409–410, 414,
table 3 Treaty with the Chippewa, 415, 696–697
Wo-Woz Etc., November 25, and fishing rights, 42, 148,
Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo- 1808, 293 150–151, 152
Woz, etc., June 1851, 231 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., and gathering rights, 159
table 3 August 7, 1803, 290 and jurisdiction, 170
Wolcott, Alexander, 765 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Yakama, June
Wolcott, Oliver, 285, 640 November 17, 1807, 9, 1855, 344–345,
Wolf, Captain, 309 293 510–513
the Wolf (Nes-mo-ea), 328 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Yakima. See Yakama
the Wolf with the High Back (Sho-e- Seneca and Shawnee, Yallup, William, 148
mow-e-to-chaw-ca-we- Quapaw, Etc., Yamasee, 259
wah-ca-to-we), 303 February 23, 1867, 365 Yamhill Kalapuya, 229 table 1
Wolfe, James, 902 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Yampa, 272
Woll-pah-pe, 357 January 21, 1785, 285 Yankton Sioux, 722–723
the Womb (Tah-hah-nee-o-tah), 304 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Teton, Etc.,
Woolrich, Julia, 662–663 January 9, 1789, 286 Sioux, June 22, 1825,
Worcester, Samuel Austin, 758 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 303
Worcester, Rev. Samuel Austin, 57, August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
88, 429, 655 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 19, 1815, 294
Worcester v. Georgia, 22, 23, 40, 57, 60, July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
88, 113, 136, 166, 213, 263, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., October 21, 1837, 328
265, 639, 653, 655–656, July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
658, 671, 686, 692, 703, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., April 19, 1858, 349
926, 954 September 8, 1815, 295 Yanktonai
and government-to-government Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and reconstruction treaty, 107
relationship, 930 September 29, 1817, Treaty with the Sioux—
and guardianship/wardship, 297 Yanktonai Band,
931 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., October 20, 1865,
and Indian removal, 935 September 17, 1818, 359–360
and right of conquest, 945 298 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper
and right of occupancy/right of Treaty with the Wyandot, Yanktonai Band,
the soil, 946 September 20, 1818, October 28, 1865, 360
and sovereignty, 948 298 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.,
and trust responsibility, 957 Treaty with the Wyandot, and Arapaho, April 29,
Work, Hubert, 763 January 19, 1832, 312 1868, 369
Workman, David, 769 Treaty with the Wyandot, Treaty with the Teton, Etc.,
World War I, 30 April 23, 1836, 323 Sioux, June 22, 1825,
World War II, 34, 687 Treaty with the Wyandot, 303
and Indian veterans, 138–139 March 17, 1842, 330 Yas-Si
Wososey, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si,
Wounded Knee April 1, 1850, 334 etc., September 1851,
occupation of, 171, 701, 703–706, Treaty with the Wyandot, 231 table 3
712 January 31, 1855, 343 Yavapai, 136
Wounded Knee massacre, 139, 168 Wyandot Reservation, 298 Yavapai-Prescott, 116
Wowinape, 848 Wynkoop, Edward, 773 Yellow Bear, 367
Wozencraft, Oliver, 228, 231 table 3, Wyoming Yellow Bird (John Rollin Ridge),
660 jurisdiction in, 175 886–887
Wright, Allen, 362 Yellow Feather (Massasoit),
Written document, 6, 135, 149, 162 Ya-ha-hadge, 316 854–855

I-56 Index
Yellow Hawk (Cha-tau-’hne), 359 Young, John, 365 Yuma, 268, 273
Yellow Smoke (Sha-da-na-ge), 356 Young King, 289, 290, 885 Yurok, 175
Yellow Thunder, Raymond, 704 Young Prophet, 356
Yellow Thunder Camp, 140 Young Wolf, 297 Zah, Peterson, 912
Yoncalla Kalapuya, 230 table 2 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 41 Zebaedal (Big Bow), 897
York, Duke of, 275, 276 Yu-Ki-As Zebco tribe, 157
Young, Brigham, 908 Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu- Zimmerman, William, 911
Young, Ewing, 769 Ki-As, etc., August Zuni, 272
Young, James, 152 1851, 231 table 3


An Encyclopedia of
VOLUME II
Donald L. Fixico
EDITOR


p. cm.
KF8203.6.R74 2008
342.7308’72—dc22
2007027797
12 11 10 09 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ABC-CLIO, Inc

now prosper again:
To the Shawnee,
To the Sac and Fox,
—Donald L. Fixico

Contents
VOLUME I
Thematic Essays
Regional Essays
VOLUME II

VOLUME III
Biographies

Volume II
Introduction, xix

Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations– Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 24, 1801 289
July 31, 1684 275 Treaty with the Choctaw–December 17, 1801 290
Treaty of Montreal–August 7, 1701 278 Treaty with the Creeks–June 16, 1802 290
British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty– Treaty with the Seneca–June 30, 1802 290
April 8, 1765 279
Treaty with the Seneca–June 30, 1802 290
Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at
Treaty with the Choctaw–October 17, 1802 290
Fort Stanwix–November 1768 281
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–June 7, 1803 290
Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778 283
Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.–August 7, 1803 290
Treaty with the Six Nations–October 22, 1784 285
Treaty with the Kaskasia–August 13, 1803 290
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–
January 21, 1785 285 Treaty with the Choctaw–August 31, 1803 291
Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785 285 Treaty with the Delaware–August 18, 1804 291
Treaty with the Choctaw–January 3, 1786 286 Treaty with the Piankeshaw–August 27, 1804 291
Treaty with the Chickasaw–January 10, 1786 286 Treaty with the Cherokee–October 24, 1804 291
Treaty with the Shawnee–January 31, 1786 286 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–
November 3, 1804 291
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–
January 9, 1789 286 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–July 4, 1805 291
Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789 286 Treaty with the Chickasaw–July 23, 1805 291
Treaty with the Creeks–August 7, 1790 287 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.–
August 21, 1805 292
Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791 287
Treaty with the Sioux–September 23, 1805 292
Treaty with the Cherokee–June 26, 1794 287
Treaty with the Cherokee–October 25, 1805 292
Treaty with the Six Nations–
November 11, 1794 287 Treaty with the Cherokee–October 27, 1805 292
Treaty with the Oneida, Etc.– Treaty with the Creeks–November 14, 1805 292
December 2, 1794 288 Treaty with the Choctaw–November 16, 1805 292
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795 289 Treaty with the Piankashaw–
Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada– December 30, 1805 292
May 31, 1796 289 Treaty with the Cherokee–January 7, 1806 292
Treaty with the Creeks–June 29, 1796 289 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–
Treaty with the Mohawk–March 29, 1797 289 November 17, 1807 293
Agreement with the Seneca– Treaty with the Osage–November 10, 1808 293
September 15, 1797 289 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–
Treaty with the Cherokee–October 2, 1798 289 November 25, 1808 293

x Volume II Contents
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.– Agreement with the Piankeshaw–

September 30, 1809 293 January 3, 1818 298
Supplemental Treaty with the Miami, Treaty with the Creeks–January 22, 1818 298
Etc.–September 30, 1809 293 Treaty with the Grand Pawnee–June 18, 1818 298
Treaty with the Wea–October 26, 1809 293 Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee–June 19, 1818 298
Treaty with the Kickapoo–December 9, 1809 293 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic–June 20, 1818 298
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–July 22, 1814 293 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar–June 22, 1818 298
Treaty with the Creeks–August 9, 1814 294 Treaty with the Quapaw–August 24, 1818 298
Treaty with the Potawatomi–July 18, 1815 294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–
Treaty with the Piankashaw–July 18, 1815 294 September 17, 1818 298
Treaty with the Teton–July 19, 1815 294 Treaty with the Wyandot–September 20, 1818 298
Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes– Treaty with the Peoria, Etc.–
July 19, 1815 294 September 25, 1818 299
Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s Treaty with the Osage–September 25, 1818 299
River–July 19, 1815 294 Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 2, 1818 299
Treaty with the Yankton Sioux–July 19, 1815 294 Treaty with the Wea–October 2, 1818 299
Treaty with the Makah–July 20, 1815 294 Treaty with the Delaware–October 3, 1818 299
Treaty with the Kickapoo–September 2, 1815 295 Treaty with the Miami–October 6, 1818 299
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.– Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 19, 1818 299
September 8, 1815 295
Treaty with the Cherokee–February 27, 1819 299
Treaty with the Osage–September 12, 1815 295
Treaty with the Kickapoo–July 30, 1819 299
Treaty with the Sauk–September 13, 1815 295
Treaty with the Kickapoo–August 30, 1819 300
Treaty with the Fox–September 14, 1815 295
Treaty with the Chippewa–September 24, 1819 300
Treaty with the Iowa–September 16, 1815 295
Treaty with the Chippewa–June 16, 1820 300
Treaty with the Kansa–October 28, 1815 296
Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa–
Treaty with the Cherokee–March 22, 1816 296 July 6, 1820 300
Treaty with the Cherokee–March 22, 1816 296 Treaty with the Kickapoo–July 19, 1820 300
Treaty with the Sauk–May 13, 1816 296 Treaty with the Wea–August 11, 1820 301
Treaty with the Sioux–June 1, 1816 296 Treaty with the Kickapoo of the
Treaty with the Winnebago–June 3, 1816 296 Vermilion–September 5, 1820 301
Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo– Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820 301
June 4, 1816 296 Treaty with the Creeks–January 8, 1821 301
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–August 24, 1816 296 Treaty with the Creeks–January 8, 1821 301
Treaty with the Cherokee–September 14, 1816 297 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–August 29, 1821 301
Treaty with the Chickasaw– Treaty with the Osage–August 21, 1822 301
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–
Treaty with the Choctaw–October 24, 1816 297 September 3, 1822 301
Treaty with the Menominee–March 30, 1817 297 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians–
Treaty with the Oto–June 24, 1817 297 September 18, 1823 302
Treaty with the Ponca–June 25, 1817 297 Agreement with the Seneca–September 3, 1823 302
Treaty with the Cherokee–July 8, 1817 297 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–August 4, 1824 302
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.– Treaty with the Iowa–August 4, 1824 302
September 29, 1817 297 Treaty with the Quapaw–November 15, 1824 302
Treaty with the Choctaw–January 20, 1825 302

Volume II Contents xi
Treaty with the Creeks–February 12, 1825 302 Treaty with the Delaware–August 3, 1829 309
Treaty with the Osage–June 2, 1825 303 Treaty with the Delaware–
Treaty with the Kansa–June 3, 1825 303 September 24, 1829 309
Treaty with the Ponca–June 9, 1825 303 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc.–
July 15, 1830 310
Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux–
June 22, 1825 303 Treaty with the Chickasaw–August 31, 1830 310
Agreement with the Creeks–June 29, 1825 303 Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830 310
Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala Tribes– Treaty with the Menominee–February 8, 1831 311
July 5, 1825 303 Treaty with the Menominee–
Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe–July 6, 1825 303 February 17, 1831 311
Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Treaty with the Seneca–February 28, 1831 312
Sioux Tribe–July 16, 1825 304 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc.–July 20, 1831 312
Treaty with the Arikara Tribe–July 18, 1825 304 Treaty with the Shawnee–August 8, 1831 312
Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Treaty with the Ottawa–August 30, 1831 312
Tribe–July 30, 1825 304 Treaty with the Wyandot–January 19, 1832 312
Treaty with the Mandan Tribe–July 30, 1825 304 Treaty with the Creeks–March 24, 1832 312
Treaty with the Crow Tribe–August 4, 1825 304 Treaty with the Seminole–May 9, 1832 313
Treaty with the Great and Little Osage– Treaty with the Winnebago–
August 10, 1825 304 September 15, 1832 313
Treaty with the Kansa–August 16, 1825 304 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825 304 September 21, 1832 313
Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Treaty with the Appalachicola Band–
Tribes–September 26, 1825 306 October 11, 1832 313
Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe– Treaty with the Potawatomi–October
September 30, 1825 306 20, 1832 313
Treaty with the Makah Tribe–October 6, 1825 306 Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 20, 1832 314
Treaty with the Shawnee–November 7, 1825 306 Treaty with the Chickasaw–October 22, 1832 314
Treaty with the Creeks–January 24, 1826 306 Treaty with the Kickapoo–October 24, 1832 314
Treaty with the Chippewa–August 5, 1826 306 Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 26, 1832 314
Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 16, 1826 307 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc.–
Treaty with the Miami–October 23, 1826 307 October 26, 1832 314
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.– Treaty with the Potawatomi–October 26, 1832 314
August 11, 1827 307 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc.–
Treaty with the Potawatomi– October 27, 1832 315
September 19, 1827 307 Treaty with the Menominee–October 27, 1832 315
Treaty with the Creeks–November 15, 1827 307 Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea–
Treaty with the Miami–February 11, 1828 308 October 29, 1832 315
Treaty with the Western Cherokee– Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee–
May 6, 1828 308 December 29, 1832 315
Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc.– Treaty with the Western Cherokee–
August 25, 1828 308 February 14, 1833 315
Treaty with the Potawatomi– Treaty with the Creeks–February 14, 1833 316
September 20, 1828 309 Treaty with the Ottawa–February 18, 1833 316
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–July 29, 1829 309 Treaty with the Seminole–March 28, 1833 316
Treaty with the Winnebago–August 1, 1829 309 Treaty with the Quapaw–May 13, 1833 316

xii Volume II Contents
Treaty with the Appalachicola Band– Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe–
June 18, 1833 316 September 27, 1836 325
Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri– Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–
September 21, 1833 316 September 28, 1836 325
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.– Treaty with the Otoe, Etc.–October 15, 1836 325
September 26, 1833 317 Treaty with the Sioux–November 30, 1836 325
Treaty with the Pawnee–October 9, 1833 319 Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837 326
Treaty with the Chickasaw–May 24, 1834 319 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–
Treaty with the Miami–October 23, 1834 319 January 17, 1837 327
Treaty with the Potawatomi– Treaty with the Potawatomi–
December 10, 1834 319 February 11, 1837 327
Treaty with the Potawatomi– Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc.–May 26, 1837 327
December 16, 1834 320 Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837 327
Treaty with the Potawatomi– Treaty with the Sioux–September 29, 1837 328
December 17, 1834 320
Treaty with the Potawatomi– October 21, 1837 328
December 24, 1834 320
Treaty with the Yankton Sioux–
Agreement with the Cherokee– October 21, 1837 328
March 14, 1835 320
Treaty with the Caddo–July 1, 1835 320 October 21, 1837 328
Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.– Treaty with the Winnebago–
August 4, 1835 320 November 1, 1837 328
Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835 320 Treaty with the Iowa–November 23, 1837 328
Treaty with the Potawatomi–March 26, 1836 322 Treaty with the Chippewa–
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–March 28, 1836 322 December 20, 1837 329
Treaty with the Potawatomi– Treaty with the New York Indians–
March 29, 1836 323 January 15, 1838 329
Treaty with the Potawatomi–April 11, 1836 323 Treaty with the Chippewa–January 23, 1838 329
Treaty with the Potawatomi–April 22, 1836 323 Treaty with the Oneida–February 3, 1838 329
Treaty with the Potawatomi–April 22, 1836 323 Treaty with the Iowa–October 19, 1838 329
Treaty with the Wyandot–April 23, 1836 323 Treaty with the Miami–November 6, 1838 329
Treaty with the Chippewa–May 9, 1836 323 Treaty with the Creeks–November 23, 1838 329
Treaty with the Potawatomi– Treaty with the Osage–January 11, 1839 330
August 5, 1836 324 Treaty with the Chippewa–February 7, 1839 330
Treaty with the Menominee– Treaty with the Stockbridge and
September 3, 1836 324 Munsee–September 3, 1839 330
Treaty with the Sioux–September 10, 1836 324 Treaty with the Miami–November 28, 1840 330
Treaty with the Iowa, Etc.– Treaty with the Wyandot–March 17, 1842 330
Treaty with the Seneca–May 20, 1842 330
Treaty with the Potawatomi–
Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842 331
October 11, 1842 331
Agreement with the Delaware and
Wyandot–December 14, 1843 332

Volume II Contents xiii
Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole– Treaty with the Delaware–May 6, 1854 339
January 4, 1845 332 Treaty with the Shawnee–May 10, 1854 339
Treaty with the Kansa Tribe– Treaty with the Menominee–May 12, 1854 339
January 14, 1846 332
Treaty with the Iowa–May 17, 1854 339
Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri–
Anadarko, Caddo, Etc.–May 15, 1846 332
May 18, 1854 339
Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation–
Treaty with the Kickapoo–May 18, 1854 340
June 5 and 17, 1846 332
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Etc.–
Treaty with the Cherokee–August 6, 1846 333
May 30, 1854 340
Treaty with the Winnebago–October 13, 1846 333
Treaty with the Miami–June 5, 1854 340
Treaty with the Chippewa of the
Treaty with the Creeks–June 13, 1854 340
Mississippi and Lake Superior–
August 2, 1847 333 Treaty with the Chippewa–
Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa
Indians–August 21, 1847 333 Treaty with the Choctaw and
Chickasaw–November 4, 1854 342
Treaty with the Pawnee–Grand, Loups,
Republicans, Etc.–August 6, 1848 333 Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe–
November 15, 1854 342
Treaty with the Menominee–October 18, 1848 333
Treaty with the Chasta, Etc.–
Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe–
November 18, 1854 342
November 24, 1848 334
Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya–
Treaty with the Navajo–September 9, 1849 334
November 29, 1854 342
Treaty with the Utah–December 30, 1849 334
Treaty with the Confederated Otoe and
Treaty with the Wyandot–April 1, 1850 334 Missouri–December 9, 1854 342
Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–
Treaty)–September 7, 1850 334 December 26, 1854 342
Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc.–
Treaty)–September 9, 1850 335 January 22, 1855 343
Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc.–
Bands–July 23, 1851 336 January 22, 1855 343
Treaty with the Sioux–Mdewakanton and Treaty with the S’Klallam–January 26, 1955 343
Wahpakoota Bands–August 5, 1851 336
Treaty with the Wyandot–January 31, 1855 343
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–
Treaty with the Makah–January 31, 1855 344
Treaty with the Chippewa–February 22, 1855 344
Treaty with the Chickasaw–June 22, 1852 337
Treaty with the Winnebago–February 27, 1855 344
Treaty with the Apache–July 1, 1852 337
Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc.–
Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and
June 9, 1855 344
Apache–July 27, 1853 338
Treaty with the Yakama–June 9, 1855 344
Agreement with the Rogue River Tribes–
September 8, 1853 338 Treaty with the Nez Percé–June 11, 1855 345
Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe– Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–
September 10, 1853 338 June 22, 1855 345
Treaty with the Umpqua–Cow Creek Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon–
Band–September 19, 1853 338 June 25, 1855 346
Treaty with the Oto and Missouri– Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc.–July 1, 1855 346
March 15, 1854 338 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc.–July 16, 1855 346
Treaty with the Omaha–March 16, 1854 338

xiv Volume II Contents
Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa– Treaty with the Chippewa–Red Lake and
July 31, 1855 346 Pembina Bands–October 1, 1863 354
Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Treaty with Utah–Tabeguache Band–
Marie–August 2, 1855 347 October 7, 1863 354
Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc.– Treaty with the Shoshone-Goship–
August 2, 1855 347 October 12, 1863 354
Treaty with the Blackfeet–October 17, 1855 347 Treaty with the Chippewa – Red Lake and
Treaty with the Molala–December 21, 1855 348 Pembina Bands–April 12, 1864 355
Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee– Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi,
February 5, 1856 348 Pillager, and Lake Winnibigoshish
Bands–May 7, 1864 355
Treaty with the Menominee–
February 11, 1856 348 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc.–
October 14, 1864 355
Treaty with the Creeks, Etc.–August 7, 1856 348
Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw,
Treaty with the Pawnee–September 24, 1857 349
Swan Creek, and Black River–
Treaty with the Seneca–Tonawanda October 18, 1864 355
Band–November 5, 1857 349
Treaty with the Omaha–March 6, 1865 355
Treaty with the Ponca–March 12, 1858 349
Treaty with the Winnebago–March 8, 1865 356
Treaty with the Yankton Sioux–April 19, 1858 349
Treaty with the Ponca–March 10, 1865 356
Treaty with the Sioux–June 19, 1858 350
Treaty with the Snake–August 12, 1865 356
Treaty with the Sioux–June 19, 1858 350
Agreement with the Cherokee and Other
Treaty with the Winnebago–April 15, 1859 350 Tribes in the Indian Territory–
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–July 16, 1859 350 September 13, 1865 357
Treaty with the Sac and Fox–October 1, 1859 350 Treaty with the Osage–September 29, 1865 357
Treaty with the Kansa Tribe–October 5, 1859 351 Treaty with the Sioux–Miniconjou Band–
Treaty with the Delaware–May 30, 1860 351 October 10, 1865 357
Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne– Treaty with the Sioux–Lower Brulé Band–
February 18, 1861 351 October 14, 1865 357
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc.– Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–
March 6, 1861 352 October 14, 1865 357
Treaty with the Delaware–July 2, 1861 352 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and
Arapaho–October 17, 1865 358
November 15, 1861 352 Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa–
October 18, 1865 358
Treaty with the Kansa–March 13, 1862 352
Treaty with the Sioux–Two-Kettle Band–
Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s
October 19, 1865 358
Fork and Roche de Bœuf–June 24, 1862 352
Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux–
Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi
October 19, 1865 358
and the Pillager and Lake
Winnibigoshish Bands–March 11, 1863 353 Treaty with the Sioux–Sans Arcs Band–
October 20, 1865 359
Treaty with the Nez Percé–June 9, 1863 353
Treaty with the Sioux–Hunkpapa Band–
Treaty with the Kickapoo–June 28, 1863 353
October 20, 1865 359
Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone–
Treaty with the Sioux–Yanktonai Band–
July 2, 1863 353
October 20, 1865 359
Treaty with the Shoshone–Northwestern
Treaty with the Sioux–Upper Yanktonai
Bands–July 30, 1863 354
Band–October 28, 1865 360
Treaty with the Western Shoshone–
October 1, 1863 354

Volume II Contents xv
Treaty with the Sioux–Oglala Band– Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2–

October 28, 1865 360 August 1871 375
Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes– Agreement with the Sisseton and
November 15, 1865 360 Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians–
Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, September 20, 1872 376
Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creeks, and Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux
Seminole–April 28–July19, 1866 360 Indians–March 2, 1873 376
Treaty with the Seminole–March 21, 1866 362 Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873 377
Treaty with the Potawatomi– Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874 378
March 29, 1866 362 Canadian Indian Treaty 5–September 24, 1875 380
Treaty with the Chippewa–Bois Fort Band– Canadian Indian Treaty 6–August 28,
April 7, 1866 362 September 9, 1876 381
Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw– Canadian Indian Treaty 7–September 22,
April 28, 1866 362 December 4, 1877 382
Treaty with the Creeks–June 14, 1866 362 Agreement with the Crow–May 14, 1880 385
Treaty with the Delaware–July 4, 1866 363 Agreement with the Sioux of Various
Treaty with the Cherokee–July 19, 1866 363 Tribes–October 17, 1882, to
Agreement at Fort Berthold–July 27, 1866 363 January 3, 1883 385
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox– Agreement with the Columbia and Colville–
February 18, 1867 364 July 7, 1883 385
Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Canadian Indian Treaty 8–June 21, 1899 385
Bands–February 19, 1867 364 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Treaty)–November 6, 1905,
Shawnee, Quapaw, Etc.– October 5, 1906 388
February 23, 1867 365 Canadian Indian Treaty 10–
Treaty with the Potawatomi– September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907 390
February 27, 1867 365 Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to
Treaty with the Chippewa of the August 30, 1921 391
Mississippi–March 19, 1867 365 Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the
Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche– Mississauga–October to November 1923 393
October 21, 1867 365 James Bay and Northern Quebec
Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Agreement–November 11, 1975 395
Apache–October 21, 1867 366 Northeastern Quebec Agreement–
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho– January 31, 1978 397
October 28, 1867 366 Inuvialuit Final Agreements–June 1984 398
Treaty with the Ute–March 2, 1868 368 Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim
Treaty with the Cherokee–April 27, 1868 368 Agreement–April 1992 400
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho– Nunavut Land Claims Agreement–
April 29, 1868 369 May 25, 1993 401
Treaty with the Crow–May 7, 1868 369 Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement–
May 29, 1993 403
Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and
Northern Arapaho–May 10, 1868 369 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement–
May 29, 1993 404
Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868 370
Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive
Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and
Land Claim Agreement–
Bannock–July 3, 1868 372
Treaty with the Nez Percé–August 13, 1868 374
Nisga’a Final Agreement–April 27, 1999 406

xvi Volume II Contents
Camp Stevens (Walla Walla), Washington 409 Greenville, Ohio 426

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona 410 Medicine Creek, Washington 427
Chicago, Illinois 412 Michilimackinac, Michigan 428
Council Grove, Kansas 413 New Echota, Georgia 429
Dalles, The, Oregon 414 Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin 430
Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi 416 Sandy Lake, Minnesota 433
Doak’s Stand, Mississippi 416 Santa Fe, New Mexico 433
Doaksville, Oklahoma 417 Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario 434
Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 419 St. Joseph, Michigan 436
Fort Harmar, Ohio 420 St. Louis, Missouri 437
Fort Harrison, Indiana 421 Tippecanoe River, Indiana 439
Fort Laramie, Wyoming 421 Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota 441
Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania 424 Vincennes, Indiana 441
Fort Sumner, New Mexico 425 Wabash River, Indiana 443
Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 449 Treaty with the Cheyenne and
Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784 450 Arapaho, 1865 518
Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785 451 Treaty with the Seminole, 1866 522
Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 454 Treaty with the Choctaw and
Chickasaw, 1866 527
Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804 456
Treaty with the Creeks, 1866 538
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 459
Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866 542
Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830 464
Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and
Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830 468
Apache, 1867 550
Treaty with the Navajo, 1868 552
Treaty with the Seminole, 1832 478
Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and
Treaty of Chicago, 1834 480 Bannock, 1868–Juy 3, 1968 556
Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835 483 Treaties 1 and 2, 1871 559
Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837 491 Treaty 3, 1871 566
Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1842 493 Treaty 4, 1874 573
Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850 495 Treaty 5, 1875 581
Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 498 Treaty 6, 1876 595
Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, Treaty 7, 1877 598
and Apache, 1853 500
Treaty 8, 1899 603
Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854 502
Treaty 9, 1905 607
Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup,
Treaty 10, 1906 612
Etc., 1854 507
Treaty 11, 1922 622
Treaty with the Yakima, 1855 510
Williams Treaties, 1923 627
Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863 513

Volume II Contents xvii
Resources, R-1
Index, I-1

Introduction

xx Introduction

Introduction xxi

xxii Introduction

Introduction xxiii


Treaty of Albany with
the Five Nations
July 31, 1684
To stop Iroquois incursions along the western fron-
tier 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)

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 English.” They then proceeded to lay claim to lands
against French aggression. Governor Dongan along the Susquehanna River, which they had won
responded favorably to this request and asked the “by the Sword” and which they had recently refused
Five Nations to “make no Covenant and Agreement to sell to William Penn, the proprietor of Pennsylva-
with the French or any other Nation without my nia. As a token of this agreement, they offered “Two
knowledge and Approbation. And that they say the white Buckskins” to be sent to Charles II, so “that He
same to the Sennekas” (Wraxall 1915, 10). The may write and put a great Red Seal thereto, that we
Mohawks thereafter offered a tract of land along the put under the Protection of the Great Duke of York,
Mohawk River to Dongan and his descendants, and the Susquahanna River above the Wasaghta or Falls
another tract of land for Christian use. together with the rest of our Lands and no one else”
On August 2, the colonial officials and leaders of (Wraxall 1915, 11–12).
the Five Nations met again at the courthouse. The On August 5, the Seneca arrived and addressed
Onondaga and Cayuga addressed Governor Don- Governor Howard about the peace: “We are
gan, telling him that they had treated the English informed, that the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas,
well when they (the English) had first arrived in the and Cayugas, have buried the axe already; now we
colonies. They said, “[now] that you are grown that live remotest off, are come to do the same.” Dis-
Numerous and we decreased, you must Protect us avowing their complicity in the Indian raids along
from the French, which if you dont we shall loose the colonial borders and confirming the conditions of
our Hunting and Bevers: The French want all the the present treaty, they pledged to remain outside
Bevers and are Angry that we bring any to the Maryland and Virginia: “We understand, that

Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations – July 31, 1684 277
because of the Mischief that been done to the People expeditions. The Mohawk and Seneca also blamed
and Castles of Virginia and Maryland, we must not the Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida for the incur-
come near the Heads of your Rivers, nor near sions. For much of the colonial period, the issue of
your Plantations, but keep at the Foot of the Moun- Iroquois incursions continued to trouble the British
tains. . . . We . . . shall wholly stay away from as well as the French in Canada, the effect of an
Virginia” (Colden 1904, 49–50). active foreign policy on the part of the Iroquois by
With the conclusion of the treaty, the Iroquois which they sought to bring tributary tribes into
became a buffer between French and English inter- their Covenant Chain while at the same time play-
ests in North America. Although the Iroquois suc- ing off the French and English against each other.
cessfully maintained a neutral position for much of Michael A. Sletcher
the colonial period, they continued to send small
expeditions southward, attacking Indian interests
along the Virginia and Maryland borders as well as See also Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Land; Trust
French interests to the west and north. In response Responsibility.
to these incursions, Virginia sent a delegation to References and Further Reading
Albany in September 1685; among the members Colden, Cadwallader. 1904. The History of the Five
Indian Nations of Canada Which are Dependent on
was Colonel William Byrd, who accused the Iro-
the Province of New York, and are a Barrier Between
quois of breaking their promises under the Albany the English and the French in that Part of the World.
treaty of 1684. In response, the Iroquois said that New York: A. S. Barnes.
the parties that had been out when the peace was Snow, Dean R. 1994. The Iroquois. Cambridge, MA:
concluded in 1684 were responsible for the raiding 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)

278 Treaty of Montreal – August 7, 1701
Wraxall, Peter. 1915. An Abridgement of the Indian policy in America would be predicated on contain-
Affairs, Contained in Four Folio Volumes, ment of the English along the Atlantic seaboard.
Transacted in the Colony of New York, from the Year Depriving New York of Iroquois support in future
1678 to the Year 1751. Vol. 21, Harvard Historical
conflicts gave the central French colony a buffer
Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
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
Treaty of Montreal of the allies of the French are less clear. It appears
August 7, 1701 that many wanted access to the Albany market, to
Also known as the Great Peace or the Great Peace of recover people captured by the Iroquois (the Iro-
Montreal of 1701, the Treaty of Montreal ended the quois also wanted prisoners returned), and to live
Beaver Wars. This ended a century of conflict and hunt in safety. The Iroquois’ failure to bring
between New France and its Native allies on one captives to the conference nearly scuttled the treaty.
side and the Five Nations Iroquois on the other. Wyandot and French diplomacy garnered a
From July 23 to August 7, more than thirteen hun- promise from the Iroquois to release captives,
dred Native delegates representing forty nations thereby preventing renewed warfare.
from Acadia to the Mississippi, from James Bay to As the conference got under way, an epidemic
the Missouri, met in Montreal to discuss the planting struck the delegates. Many people fell sick before
of a tree of peace. Under the terms of the treaty, all they even reached the conference, and some turned
sides promised to stop killing one another, the Five back. The epidemic almost proved the undoing of
Nations promised to remain neutral in all future con- the conference. First, Natives knew that Europeans
flicts between France and Britain, the various Great were connected to these new epidemics; they often
Lakes nations allowed Iroquois hunters into the accused the newcomers of using witchcraft to
region, France promised to mediate between all destroy their nations. Second, a Huron chief and key
nations to prevent future conflicts, and the Iroquois proponent of peace, Kondiaronk (the Rat), died of
agreed to allow France’s Native allies access to the sickness. The French held a funeral and gave
Albany. gifts to wipe the tears away from his people
The treaty involved representatives from the metaphorically and to show that no one was to
Odawa (Ottawa), Wyandot (Huron-Petun), Sauk, blame for the death. The Seneca dignitaries used the
Fox, Menominee, Winnebago, Potawatomi, Ojibwa, opportunity to present themselves as most saddened
Miami, Cree, Abenaki, Mascouten, Onondaga, by Kondiaronk’s death by singing his triumphs and
Oneida, Cayuga, and Seneca Nations. Although the their condolences. It is likely that Kondiaronk, even
Mohawk did not sign the treaty, they agreed to abide in death, helped bring the delegates together for
by its terms. Although the French suggested the peace.
inclusion of the Dakota, the Great Lakes nations The treaty of 1701 had an important impact on
refused. The Huron of the Lorette, located near Que- French-Indian relations. It struck at the core of the
bec City, and the Montagnais, both key allies of the French alliance system, strengthening and weaken-
French, did not send representatives to sign the ing it at the same time. Although the French became
treaty. Although intermittent violence continued, the mediators in all disputes and the nominal heads
usually sporadic killings of Iroquois hunters in the of the alliance, New France’s dependence on Natives
Great Lakes, the peace held. Yet, the Great Peace was reinforced. The general tranquility in the East
failed to end all warfare in the interior. The conflict allowed the movement of people back into the par-
with the Dakota continued, and in 1712 the entire tially abandoned Great Lakes-Ohio Valley area. This
region was engulfed in the Fox Wars. movement placed many French allies within reach of
All sides wanted peace, for a variety of rea- the thirteen colonies. The Iroquois also encouraged
sons. The French sought to reinforce their position French allies to trade at Albany, which allowed the
and restore the lucrative fur trade in North America development of contacts with the English. Moreover,
by bringing peace to the pays d’en haut. Addition- many French allies were drawn to Albany by
ally, in 1701 Louis XIV announced that French cheaper, more plentiful, and better-quality trade

British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty – April 8, 1765 279
items. Refugees from the East, such as the Delaware, newcomers. Tensions plagued their contacts; Native
brought information about the English. As the looting of shore stations sparked a cycle of retalia-
French alliance system had been founded largely on tion and a climate of fear that resisted remedy for
trade and protection from the Iroquois, these events generations. On appointing Sir Hugh Palliser
gave the British potential access to the French allies military governor of Newfoundland in 1764, the
and vice versa, and thereby posed a threat to the Crown instructed him to end the bloodletting lest it
French alliance system. The treaty also recognized threaten metropolitan investment in the hard-won
Native nationhood. Labrador fisheries. Preferring diplomacy to a costlier
Karl S. Hele military solution, Palliser laid the groundwork of
lasting peace by making the Inuit a solemn promise
of the King’s friendship and protection and promis-
Brandão, J. A., and William A. Starna. 1996. “The
Treaties of 1701: A Triumph of Iroquois ing them liberty to trade safely with British mer-
Diplomacy.” Ethnohistory 43(2): 209 244. chants. Two documents, his “Proclamation to Bring
Havard, Gilles. 2001a. The Great Peace of Montreal of About Friendly Intercourse with Esquimaux Indi-
1701. Translated by Phyllis Aronoff and Howard ans” (July 1, 1764) and “Order for Establishing Com-
Scott. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University munication and Trade with the Esquimaux Savages
Press. on the Coast of Labrador” (April 8, 1765), embody
Havard, Gilles. 2001b. Montreal, 1701: Planting the Tree
key elements of the accord (Great Britain 1927, 930
of Peace. Montreal: Recherches amérindiennes au
Québec and McCord Museum of Canadian
931, 1297–1298).
History. Palliser enlisted Inuktitut-speaking Moravian
Matusky, Julia G. 2001. “The Great Peace of Montreal, missionaries, veterans of the church’s Greenland
1701.” Beaver 81(3): 8 12. mission, as go-betweens in peacemaking. Jens
Richter, Daniel K. 1992. The Ordeal of the Longhouse: Haven initiated the process in 1764 among a small,
The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of late-summer gathering of Inuit on Quirpon Island,
European Colonization. Chapel Hill: University of declaring the King’s goodwill, distributing gifts, and
North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early
encouraging the Inuit to accept the British as part-
American History and Culture.
ners (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
British-Labrador Inuit outlet, Palliser advised his superiors, such a post
Peace Treaty would “keep the rest of the Coast open & free for our
April 8, 1765 Adventurers” (Great Britain 1927, 935). So resolved,
Arguably the only historic treaty with Canadian the governor visited Labrador in summer 1765 to
Inuit, this 1765 peace and friendship accord marked conclude his accord.
a turning point in the troubled relationship of Inuit With missionaries Christian Drachard and
and Europeans in Labrador. A cornerstone of British John Hill as intermediaries, Palliser met with more
colonial policy, the pact brought the Natives under than three hundred Inuit at Pitts Harbour,
the King’s protection. It also fostered an alliance Chateau Bay, on August 21. The governor looked
with Moravian missionaries, who helped secure on as the Moravians distributed gifts and pledged
British interests by settling among the Inuit, con- the King’s lasting friendship in return for an end
verting them to Christianity, and courting their to hostilities and acceptance of missionaries in
trade. their midst. The proceedings ended when Palliser
Labrador passed from French to British hands asked the people if they were prepared to live in
by the 1763 Treaty of Paris and was soon annexed to peace with the British. Speaking for his compatri-
the colony of Newfoundland. With its new posses- ots, the shaman Segulliak “gave him his hand,
sion came a history of Inuit-white conflict. Hostilities called him Capt[ain] Chateau, Struck him on the
were largely confined to southern Labrador, where Breast & kissed him saying we will remain your
Basque and French whalers and fishers had fre- good friends” (Lysaght 1971, 200–201). In a home-
quented the Strait of Belle Isle for centuries. Inuit ward dispatch, Palliser assured the lords of the
voyaged here from their customary territory in the admiralty that peace was at hand. Moreover,
north to harvest its resources and trade with the judging by the quantities of baleen and furs the

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 uation materially improved the mission’s trade
at Chateau Bay, so, too, was a lucrative trade part- arm and the spread of independent merchants
nership (Great Britain 1927, 946). well north of the strait, gradually stemming the
Four years passed before the Moravians came southward flow of traffic and, with it, the blood-
to terms with the Crown on land grants for their shed that marked the contact period. By the mid-
mission, and it was another two years before they 1780s, the full effect of Palliser ’s diplomacy had
founded Nain, their first station, in 1771. Intereth- been realized.
nic violence continued to flare in the interim, Barnett Richling
much of it due to the illegal presence on shore of
whalers from the American colonies. Palliser sta- See also Aboriginal Title; Canada; Inuit; Sovereignty;
tioned a small garrison at Pitts Harbour in 1766 to Treaty.
shore up his still-fragile pact, a step that did more References and Further Reading
to suppress Inuit reprisals than the “Crimes and Great Britain. Privy Council. 1927. In The Matter of
Enormities” of the “Lawless Crews from the Plan- the Boundary Between the Dominion of Canada
tations” that fanned the flames of revenge (Great and the Colony of Newfoundland in the Labrador
Peninsula . . . 12 vols. London: W. Clowes and
Britain 1927, 1006). Despite these troubles, British
Sons.
officials considered Palliser’s accord unbroken, as Lysaght, A. M., ed. 1971. Joseph Banks in Newfoundland
did the Inuit who met the governor on his last offi- and Labrador, 1766: His Diary, Manuscripts and
cial visit to Labrador the next year (Whiteley 1969, Collections. Berkeley: University of California
158). Once Nain was established, however, the sit- Press.

Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix – November 1768 281
Whiteley, William. 1964. “The Establishment of the frontier peace. Negotiated by William Johnson—the
Moravian Mission in Labrador and British royal government’s superintendent of Indian affairs
Policy, 1763–1783.” The Canadian Historical for the Northern Department (the region above the
Review 45(1): 29–50. Ohio River)—the treaty was to formalize the north-
Whiteley, William. 1969. “Governor Hugh Palliser
ern boundary between Native American territories
and the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery,
1764–1768.” The Canadian Historical Review 50(2): and the British colonies’ western fringe.
141–163. 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
Treaty Conference with the was strictly geographic, a hurried response to the
Six Nations at Fort Stanwix crisis of Pontiac’s Rebellion, and followed the
November 1768 Appalachian Mountains from New York to Georgia.
The treaty conference with the Six Nations—the Frontier settlers, land speculators, and government
Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and agents protested the proclamation’s boundary and
Tuscarora tribes—held at Fort Stanwix, New York, restrictive provisions. Settlers viewed the boundary
from October to November 1768 opened a large area as an affront to westward expansion: in western
of the trans-Appalachian West to white settlement, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina the line
from southwestern New York to Kentucky. The straddled the frontier, restricting settlement
Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 was the British gov- growth. The line also failed to incorporate some
ernment’s attempt to quell illegal encroachment of existing white settlements, now proclaimed illegal.
Native American lands closed to white settlement by Land speculators were displeased by the provision
the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and to slow burgeon- forbidding private land purchases from Native
ing colonial land speculation fueled by a period of 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)

282 Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix – November 1768
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; Freder-
ick 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 north-
ern 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
Pontiac’s men release captives taken during Pontiac’s War of (Onondaga), Gostrax (Seneca), and Sesquaressura
1763, an outgrowth of the French and Indian War. (Library of (Tuscarora) signed for the Six Nations. The boundary
Congress) line minted by the treaty (different from that sought
by the British government) began near Fort Stanwix
that the provision opening trade to all who and ran southwest into Pennsylvania to include the
obtained licenses would result in the same forks of the Susquehanna River, then along the
unscrupulous practices that had angered Native Allegheny and Ohio rivers to the mouth of the Ten-
Americans and helped precipitate Pontiac’s Rebel- nessee River. This vast tract of land was ceded for
lion. The Plan of 1764—proposed by government £10,460 British sterling.
agents to avert another uprising by confining Not all lands ceded by the Six Nations in the
licensed trade to established posts—failed, as Treaty of Fort Stanwix were in their control, particu-
Native Americans refused to trade at distant locales larly the Tennessee River region of Kentucky—the
and as free-ranging, unlicensed traders and French historic hunting ground of the Cherokee and
voyageurs undermined licensed traders restricted Shawnee. The Six Nations may have ceded these
to posts. lands as proof of their shadowy ownership or as a
Factions dissatisfied with the Proclamation of gesture of goodwill toward the British. Johnson
1763 and the Plan of 1764, especially influential land accepted this cession, which violated orders to stop
companies, pressured the royal government to revise the line at the Great Kanawha River, thus throwing
its western policy. In 1767, the British government in turmoil the southern boundary line established by
directed Johnson and John Stuart, superintendent of Stuart in the 1768 Treaty of Hard Labor with the
Indian affairs for the Southern Department (the Cherokee. The northern boundary line, instead of
region below the Ohio River), to negotiate with joining with the southern line, ended more than
Native American tribes to shift the boundary line of three hundred miles to the west. The British Board of
1763 farther west. Johnson, who was assigned the Trade, preoccupied with homeland issues, let the

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
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
William Franklin, governor of New Jersey, 1763–1766, and
Benjamin Franklin’s son, was a delegate to the Treaty offenses to be mutually forgiven and require the con-
Conference with the Six Nations in 1768. (Courtesy of tracting parties to assist each other if engaged in a
Rutgers University Libraries, Special Collections and Archives). “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,
northern line stand, bolstering land speculators and requested that the Delaware provide their most
settlers while infuriating the Cherokee and Shawnee. expert warriors to join the American army against a
Charles E. Williams “common enemy.”
The first article states that offenses are mutu-
ally forgiven. Reference to a “common enemy” in
See also Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775; Royal Article 2 is interesting because the Delaware were
Proclamation of 1763; Treaty; Treaty of Albany conquered and made a political dependent of the
with the Five Nations–July 31, 1684. Iroquois, who claimed they could order the
References and Further Reading Delaware to go to war and to give up land at their
Billington, Ray A. 1944. “The Fort Stanwix Treaty of
discretion. The United States, realizing that the
1768.” New York History, 25: 182–194.
Billington, Ray A. 1974. Westward Expansion: A
strength of the Iroquois and the Delaware, when
History of the American Frontier, 4th ed. New combined with British forces, could create disad-
York: Macmillan. vantageous conditions, reasoned that a successful
Hamilton, M. W. 1957. The Papers of Sir William alliance with the Delaware could enhance its posi-
Johnson. Albany: State University of New York. tion in its war for independence. Throughout nego-
Marshall, Peter. 1967. “Sir William Johnson and the tiations, the Delaware were treated by agents of the
Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768.” Journal of American government as a people capable of mak-
American Studies, 1: 149–179.
ing the politically independent and sound decisions
Merk, Frederick. 1978. History of the Westward
Movement. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. required of such a treaty. The fact that the Delaware
Merrell, James H. 1999. Into the American Woods: had been made a political dependent of the Six
Negotiators on the Pennsylvania Frontier. New Nations, who were still loosely allied with the
York: W. W. Norton. British, raises the possibility that the common

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)
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 sover-
eign, unless they shall be guaranteed . . .” (Ameri-
Period drawing of Delaware Indians. Delaware was the name can State Papers 1962).
given by the British to members of the Algonquian Indian By including an offer to form an “Indian state”
confederation who lived in the Delaware River Valley. The
replete with congressional representation, the tenor
Delaware signed the first ratified treaty with the newly formed
United States of America. (North Wind Picture Archives) 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
enemy referred to in the treaty was most likely pre- treaty acknowledges the sovereign status of the
sented to the Delaware as the Iroquois, not the Delaware and a confidence in the ability of other
British. Thus, the treaty can be viewed from the Indian nations to function as sovereign entities.
perspective of a contract between two distinct cul- S. Neyooxet Greymorning
tures allied for the purpose of breaking free from
the subjugation of another’s rule. See also Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust
In Articles 4 and 6, it is apparent that the lan- Land.
guage has been carefully worded to negate any References and Further Reading
impression that America was exerting dominion Abel, Annie H. 1908. “Proposals for an Indian State,
over the Delaware. Rather, the treaty favors an 1778–1878,” American Historical Association,
image of two distinct nations entering into an activ- Annual Report for the Year 1907: 87–104.
American State Papers. 1962. Papers, Indian Affairs,
ity that acknowledges each other’s political compe-
Documents, Legislation and Executive of the
tence and character as sovereign entities. For exam- Congress of the United States, vol. 4. Washington,
ple, Article 4 expresses that the execution of justice DC: Gales and Seaton.
over infractions by “citizens” of either party should Barsh, Russel, and James Henderson. 1980. The Road,
be adjudicated in accordance with the laws and cus- Indian Tribes and Political Liberty. Berkeley:
toms of both contracting parties: University of California Press.
Israel, Fred L., ed. 1967. Major Peace Treaties of Modern
History: 1648–1967, 4 vols., New York: Chelsea
Whereas the enemies of the United States have
House/McGraw-Hill.
endeavored, by every artifice in their power . . . Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and
that it is the design of the States . . . to extirpate Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC:
the Indians and take possession of their country: Government Printing Office.

Treaty with the Cherokee – November 28, 1785 285
Treaty with the Six Nations side, supremacy of the federal government (over the
states) to regulate trade with the Cherokees and spe-
October 22, 1784 cial regulation of that trade, notice to the United
This treaty was completed at Fort Stanwix to facili- States by the Cherokees of designs against it which
tate an exchange of prisoners, to determine bound- they may discover, allowance of an Indian deputy to
aries, and to organize the delivery of goods to the Six Congress, and perpetual peace and friendship.
Nations. Oliver Wolcott, Richard Butler, and Arthur In legal theory, the inherent sovereignty of the
Lee signed on behalf of the United States. Twelve Cherokee to manage internal Indian relations
leaders, representing the Mohawk, Onondaga, among themselves was preserved and protected
Seneca, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora, signed on from outside interference—either by the federal
behalf of the Six Nations. 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 rela-
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. tion to trade.
January 21, 1785 The Hopewell treaty, like all treaties concluded
Also known as the Treaty of Fort McIntosh, this by Congress as that body existed in its unicameral
treaty was entered into by thirteen representatives of form under the Articles of Confederation prior to
the Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa adoption of the Constitution, reflected the broad fed-
Nations with the United States. The purpose was to eral policy of separation that was based upon
smooth relations fractured by the war, to identify ter- George Washington’s suggestion of 1783:
ritorial boundaries, and to dictate that certain Indian
crimes against Americans be tried in the American As the Country is large enough to contain us all;
justice system. 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
Treaty with the Cherokee endeavor to restrain our People from Hunting
November 28, 1785 or Settling, and within which they shall not
Better known as the Treaty of Hopewell, this treaty come, but for the purposes of Trading, Treating,
was concluded between the Cherokee peoples and or other business unexceptionable in its nature.
the United States. It reflected a generally accepted (Washington 1783)
pattern of treaty making between America and
American Indian tribes that was commonly prac- However, within five years white settlement
ticed throughout the late 1780s. After the American had increased dramatically on the lands set aside for
Revolution, the newly constituted federal govern- the Cherokee in the treaty, despite a proclamation
ment decided to use a peaceful treaty process to by Congress on September 1, 1788, forbidding such
order its relations with Native Americans rather than activity and directing those citizens who had settled
subduing them outright through conquest. The thir- with their families on Cherokee hunting grounds to
teen articles that constitute the treaty were entered depart immediately.
into by four American commissioners and thirty- By 1790, under the new American constitutional
seven Cherokee “head-men and warriors” on the system of government, President Washington was
banks of the Keowee River on November 28, 1785. obliged to ask Congress its pleasure regarding the
Specifically, the Treaty of Hopewell provided issue:
for post-hostility prisoner exchange, collective
placement of the Cherokees under the protection of Notwithstanding the [Hopewell] treaty and
the United States, determination of boundaries, pro- proclamation upward of 500 families have
hibition of settlement by American citizens on settled on the Cherokee lands exclusively of
Indian lands, extradition of non-Indian criminals to those settled between the fork of French Broad
the United States and their punishment by the and Holstein rivers, mentioned in the said
United States, prohibition of retaliation by either treaty. [Thus] I shall conceive myself bound to

286 Treaty with the Choctaw – January 3, 1786
exert the powers entrusted to me by the States. Concluded at Hopewell, this treaty was
Constitution in order to carry into faithful signed by Joseph Martin, Benjamin Hawkins, and
execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless it shall Andrew Pickens, commissioners of the United
be thought proper to attempt to arrange a new States. Piomingo, Mingatushka, and Latopia signed
boundary with the Cherokees, embracing the as respected leaders of the Chickasaw Nation.
settlements, and compensating the Cherokees
for the cessions they shall make on the occasion.
(Washington 1790)
Congress directed the president to renegotiate Treaty with the Shawnee

with the Cherokee, resulting in the July 2, 1791, January 31, 1786
Treaty of Holston, which reiterated the general terms This treaty allots land to the Shawnee people and
of the Treaty of Hopewell but reduced the breadth of prohibits Americans from settling on that land. The
Indian lands. This was followed by a succession of primary purpose of this treaty was to end hostilities
treaties gradually reducing both Cherokee lands and and promote peaceful relations between the
sovereignty until their final removal from the Geor- Shawnee Nation and the United States. The commis-
gia, Tennessee, and Arkansas area to west of the Mis- sioners plenipotentiary signing for the United States
sissippi River along the Trail of Tears in 1838. were G. Clark, Richard Butler, and Samuel H. Par-
Michael J. Kelly sons. Aweecony, Kakawipilpathy, Malunthy, Mus-
quaconocah, Meanymsecah, Waupaucowela, Nihi-
See also Indian Removal; Trail of Tears; Treaty with peewa, and Nihinessicoe, warriors and chiefs,
the Cherokee July 2, 1791; Worcester v. Georgia, signed on behalf of the Shawnee Nation. The treaty
1832. was concluded on the Ohio River at the mouth of the
References and Further Reading Miami River.
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
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.
(Sept. 7, 1783).” In Documents of United States January 9, 1789
Indian Policy, ed. Francis Paul Prucha, 2nd ed., Signed at Fort Harmar by the governor of the terri-
1– 2. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. tory, Arthur St. Clair, this treaty redefines certain
territorial boundaries (reservations) and seeks fur-
ther regulation of trade. It is also an attempt to
maintain a relative balance of friendship between
Treaty with the Choctaw the respective nations. The treaty was signed by
January 3, 1786 twenty-eight leaders and warriors of the Sauk,
Designed to restore peace between the Choctaw and Ottawa, Delaware, Chippewa, Potawatomi, and
the United States, this treaty was signed at Wyandot.
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 Treaty with the Six Nations
Choctaw leaders signed the treaty as well. January 9, 1789
This treaty was signed at Fort Harmar by Governor
Arthur St. Clair for the purpose of settling bound-
aries, regulating trade, and promoting good relations
Treaty with the Chickasaw between the tribes and the United States. The
January 10, 1786 Mohawks were not involved in the settlement of this
This treaty was intended to restore peaceful relations treaty. However, twenty-four leaders and warriors of
between the Chickasaw Nation and the United the five other confederated nations signed.

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 superinten-
dent 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 Timothy Pickering, while U.S. secretary of war (1795–1800),
June 26, 1794 negotiated the Canandaigua treaty with the Haudenosaunee,
This treaty serves as an addendum to the Treaty of represented mainly by the Seneca, in 1794. (Library of
Holston. It dictates that the treaty of July 1791 is Congress)
binding, stipulates a better marking and enforce-
ment of boundaries, and alters the annuity agree- (Onondaga), Red Jacket (Seneca), Farmer’s Brother
ment between the Cherokee and the United States. It (Seneca), Little Billy (Seneca), and Cornplanter
was signed in Philadelphia by Secretary of War (Seneca). The United States was represented by
Henry Knox and thirteen members of the Cherokee Colonel Timothy Pickering and General Israel
Nation. 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
Treaty with the Six Nations the Six Nations. The Six Nations had initially taken
November 11, 1794 a position of neutrality in the American Revolution,
On November 11, 1794, the United States entered but smaller factions of Iroquois were persuaded to
into the Canandaigua, or Pickering, Treaty with the fight with the British against the colonists. The
Six Nations of the Iroquois, or Haudenosaunee; result was enmity toward the Haudenosaunee after
these nations include the Seneca, the Cayuga, the the war ended, particularly embodied in George
Onondaga, the Oneida, the Mohawk, and the Tus- Washington’s campaign to burn more than fifty Iro-
carora. This document is esteemed highly by the quois villages, for which he earned the name Town
Haudenosaunee because it promises peace and Destroyer. At the same time, there was tension
friendship in perpetuity between the United States between nations farther west and the American set-
and the Iroquois Confederacy as well as clearly tlers, and the relationship between settlers and
acknowledging the sovereignty of the Six Nations. Natives in the Finger Lakes region was growing
The principal negotiators of the Canandaigua strained. If the Six Nations joined the Northwestern
Treaty were Fish Carrier (Cayuga), Clear Sky Confederacy of Indians, the stability of the new

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 Penn-
sylvania and New York, this treaty has never been bro-
ken; 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 sover-
eignty 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.
Jemison, G. Peter, and Anna Schein, eds. 2000. The
Portrait of Red Jacket (c. 1758–1830), late-eighteenth- and Canandaigua Treaty, 1794: 200 Years of Treaty
early-nineteenth-century Seneca leader. (Library of Congress) Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the
United States. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.
McConnell, Michael. 1992. A Country Between: The
American nation would be gravely threatened; Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774.
thus, Washington was especially anxious to affirm Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Haudenosaunee friendship. Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native
General Israel Chapin called for a treaty meeting American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman:
to be held in September 1794 in Canandaigua (“The University of Oklahoma Press.
Chosen Spot”) in the heart of Seneca territory, where Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North
America. New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford
Sullivan and Denonville had burned numerous vil-
University Press.
lages in recent memory. An estimated sixteen hun- Tebbel, John, and Keith Jennison. 2003. The
dred Haudenosaunee were in attendance. Red Jacket American Indian Wars. Edison, NJ: Castle
opened negotiations with the following statement: Books. Originally published 1960 by Harper
“Brothers, we, the Sachems of the Six Nations will and Brothers, New York.
now tell our minds. The business of this treaty is to Utley, Robert M., and Wilcomb E. Washburn. 1977.
brighten the Chain of Friendship between us and the Indian Wars. Houghton Mifflin.
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 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc.
between Fort Schlosser and Buffalo Creek and December 2, 1794
between Cayuga Creek and Buffalo Creek. The two This treaty was intended to apply to the Oneida and
sides were able to reach a settlement in which the first to the Tuscorora and Stockbridge Indians living on
road was built but not the second. The tribes were Oneida land. The purpose of the treaty was to fulfill

Treaty with the Chickasaw – October 24, 1801 289
previous material obligations to these peoples based Benjamin Hawkins, George Clymer, and Andrew Pick-
on their assistance during the war with England. ens on behalf of the United States and by 122 Creeks.
Timothy Pickering signed for the United States, and
eleven chiefs signed the treaty.
Treaty with the Mohawk

March 29, 1797
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. This treaty, concluded in Albany, is a land cession by
August 3, 1795 the Mohawks to the State of New York for $1,000. The
This treaty was established to facilitate peace treaty was signed by Commissioner Isaac Smith on
between the Wyandot, Shawnee, Ottawa, Chippewa, behalf of the United States. The document was
Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, signed by five others, including Joseph Brandt.
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 Agreement with the Seneca
included land cessions by the tribes and by the September 15, 1797
United States. It stipulated that annuities be pro- This is a contract between the Seneca Nation and one
vided by the United States to the tribes, opened Robert Morris for the sale of land. As part of this
trade, and negated previous treaties between these contract, certain lands were reserved for the use of
tribes and the United States. It was signed by Gen- the Seneca people. This agreement was sanctioned
eral Anthony Wayne on behalf of the United States by the U.S. government. The document was signed
and by ten Wyandot, seventeen Delaware, nine by Robert Morris and fifty-two Seneca leaders and
Shawnee, seven Ottawa, eleven Chippewa, twenty- warriors, including Handsome Lake, Young King,
four Potawatomi, five Miami and Eel River, three Red Jacket, and Corn Planter.
Wea, and three Kickapoo and Kaskaskia.

Treaty with the Seven October 2, 1798
Nations of Canada Initially organized on Holston River in July 1791 and
May 31, 1796 in Philadelphia in 1794, this treaty was intended to
Concluded in New York City, Commissioner Abra- renew previous peace contracted between the
ham Ogden held the meeting for the cession of lands United States and the Cherokee Nation. It arranged
to New York State. Chiefs Ohnaweio (Goodstream) for the cession of some Cherokee lands and required
and Teharagwanegen (Thomas Williams) of the that the Kentucky Road remain open, and Cherokee
Caghnawaga, Atiatoharognwan (Col. Lewis Cook) people retained the right to hunt on the lands ceded.
of the St. Regis Indians, and William Gray repre- George Walton and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas But-
sented the Seven Nations. This treaty also created a ler were appointed commissioners for the treaty
reservation for the village of St. Regis. process. The treaty was concluded near Tellico,
within Cherokee boundaries, and signed by thirty-
nine members of the Cherokee Nation.

June 29, 1796
Concluded at Colerain in New York, this treaty was Treaty with the Chickasaw
intended to establish a lasting peace between the Creek October 24, 1801
Nation and the United States. It provided for the Signed at Chickasaw Bluffs, this is a treaty between
establishment of military posts and the release of the United States and the Chickasaw Nation. In the
prisoners and established a fixed boundary with the treaty, the Chickasaw allowed the building of a road,
Choctaw and Chickasaw. The treaty was signed by and the United States pledged protection to the

290 Treaty with the Choctaw – December 17, 1801
Chickasaw people. Brigadier General James Wilkin- Reservation in full. This treaty assembly convened at
son, Benjamin Hawkins, and Andrew Pickens signed Buffalo Creek, New York.
as commissioners on behalf of the United States. The
document was signed by twenty-one others, includ-
ing William McGillivray, George Colbert, and Samuel
Mitchell, the Chickasaw agent. Treaty with the Choctaw
October 17, 1802
Signed on the Tombigbee River at Fort Confedera-
tion, this treaty marks a land cession by the Choctaw
Treaty with the Choctaw to the United States. General James Wilkinson
December 17, 1801 signed for the United States. Ten Choctaw leaders
This was a contract for peace and friendship and warriors signed for the Choctaw Nation.
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, Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.
and Andrew Pickens on behalf of the United States. June 7, 1803
It was also signed by sixteen members of the Iro- This treaty was entered into the by the Delaware,
quois Confederacy and the Choctaw Nation. Shawnee, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kick-
apoo, 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
Treaty with the Creeks United States and by Little Turtle of the Miami
June 16, 1802 Nation and fourteen other representatives of the con-
Signed near Fort Wilkinson, this treaty was a Creeks cerned tribes. Both the tribes and the United States
land cession. It also allowed for the construction of relinquished tracts of land, which included the post
garrisons on Creeks land. The document was signed at St. Vincennes and the salt springs on the Saline
by General James Wilkinson, Agent Benjamin Creek. The tribes ceded the salt springs upon an
Hawkins, and Andrew Pickens for the United States agreement that the United States would deliver salt
and by forty-five leaders and warriors of the Creek to them each year. The treaty provided for the United
Nations. States to build houses of entertainment along two
main roads for the purpose of entertaining travelers.
Treaty with the Seneca

June 30, 1802 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.
In this agreement, the Seneca ceded lands and rede- August 7, 1803
fined boundaries. The treaty meeting took place at This treaty was between the United States and the
Buffalo Creek, Ontario County, New York. The treaty Eel River, Wyandot, Piankashaw, Kaskaskia, and
was signed by Corn Planter, Young King, Red Jacket, Kickapoo tribes. It was signed at Fort Wayne by
and sixteen other Seneca leaders and warriors. It was William Henry Harrison and ten tribal representa-
also signed by nine members of the City of Amster- tives. The treaty ceded to the United States three
dam and by Agent Joseph Ellicott. 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 Treaty with the Kaskasia
Jones on one part and by Corn Planter, Young King, August 13, 1803
Red Jacket, and nine other Seneca men on the other, This treaty was signed by William Henry Harrison
this treaty documents the cession of Little Beard’s and six Kaskaskia leaders and warriors at Vincennes

Treaty with the Chickasaw – July 23, 1805 291
in Indiana Territory. Treaty settlements included the Killer, Tagustiskee, Tulio, Sour Much, Keatechee, and
cession of Kaskaskia lands, increased annuities, James Vann signed for the Cherokee.
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. Treaty with the
Sauk and Fox
November 3, 1804
A treaty between the United States and the Sauk
Treaty with the Choctaw and Fox, this document was concluded at St. Louis
August 31, 1803 in the Louisiana District. It concerned land cessions,
This treaty determined territorial boundaries after a new boundaries, trade regulations, Sauk and Fox
cession by the Choctaw Nation. The treaty was con- hunting rights on ceded lands, the foundation of a
cluded at Hoe-Buckin-too-pa and signed by General military post, and a trading house. Another aim of
James Wilkinson, Mingo Pooscoos, and Alatala the treaty was to secure peaceful terms between the
Hooma. United States and the Sauk and Fox. William Henry
Harrison signed on behalf of the United States.
Layauvois, Pashepaho, Hahshequarhiqua, Quash-
quame, and Outchequaka signed as leaders of the
Treaty with the Delaware Sauk and Fox.
August 18, 1804
This treaty provides for an increased annuity, clari-
fies Delaware rights to certain lands, requires the
return of stolen horses, and holds the United States Treaty with the
responsible for persuading the Piankashaw to recog- Wyandot, Etc.
nize Delaware title. This document was signed at July 4, 1805
Vincennes by William Henry Harrison and five This treaty was between the Wyandot, Chippewa,
Delaware leaders. Munsee and Delaware, Shawnee, Ottawa, and Pota-
watomi 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
Treaty with the Piankeshaw ceded lands for the procurement of game. Charles
August 27, 1804 Jouett signed as a commissioner of the United States.
This treaty, signed at Vincennes, related to Pianke- The document was signed by two Potawatomi,
shaw land cession. The Piankeshaw agreed to cede seven Wyandot, four Shawnee, nine Ottawa, four
certain lands and retained the right to sell further Munsee and Delaware, and six Chippewa leaders
portions of their land. A ten-year annuity to the tribe and warriors.
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 Chickasaw
July 23, 1805
Concluded on Chickasaw land, this treaty provided
Treaty with the Cherokee for the cession of Chickasaw lands. It arranged for
October 24, 1804 the appointment of a commissioner to determine
This treaty was made between the United States and boundaries and forbade American settlement on
the Cherokee Nation regarding a land cession and remaining Chickasaw lands. It was signed by Silas
annuity arrangements. It was concluded on Chero- Dinsmoor and James Robertson on behalf of the
kee land in the garrison at Tellico. Daniel Smith and United States and by George Colbert, William
Return J. Meigs signed for the United States; Tollun- McGillivray, and eight other Chickasaw leaders and
tuskie, Broom, J. McLamore, Quotequeskee, Path warriors.

292 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc. – August 21, 1805
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc. other Cherokee men. The treaty included a land ces-
sion 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 November 14, 1805
Nation. Concluded at Washington, this was a treaty between
Concluded at Grouseland, Indiana Territory, the Creek Nations and the United States. It involved
this treaty was signed for the United States by Gov- a land cession, the establishment of new boundaries
ernor William Henry Harrison. Nineteen men of the and a military post, the opening of a road to the
tribes involved signed, including Little Turtle and United States, and organization of annuity payments
William Anderson. to the Creek Nations. It was signed by Henry Dear-
born, 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 Treaty with the Choctaw
documented a meeting between the United States and November 16, 1805
the Sioux Nation. It established a land cession of nine This treaty marked a land cession and the establish-
square miles at the mouth of the St. Croix River and ment of a reservation, stipulating new boundaries. It
also a tract along the Mississippi between St. Peters was concluded at Mount Dexter, Pooshapukanuk,
River and the falls at St. Anthony. This land cession on Choctaw land. It was signed by James Robertson
was valued at $2,000. The Sioux retained hunting and Silas Dinsmoor for the United States and by
rights and so forth on the ceded land. The document twenty-three Choctaw men.
was signed by Zebulon M. Pike for the United States
and Le Petit Carbeau and Way Aga Enogee.
Treaty with the Piankashaw

December 30, 1805
Treaty with the Cherokee This treaty is a land cession made in return for annu-
October 25, 1805 ities as compensation. The Piankashaw maintain
Concluded at Tellico, this treaty was between the hunting and similar rights on the ceded land. Con-
United States and the Cherokee Nation. With this cluded at Vincennes, Indiana Territory, the treaty
treaty, the Cherokee ceded lands in return for pay- was signed by Governor William Henry Harrison
ment from the United States. New boundaries were and Wabakinklelia (Gros Bled), Pauquia (Montour)
therefore determined, and specific roads were and Macatiwaaluna (Chien Noir) of the Piankashaw.
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. Treaty with the Cherokee
January 7, 1806
Concluded at Washington, this treaty was another
Cherokee land cession in return for payment. As part
Treaty with the Cherokee of the treaty negotiations, the United States was to
October 27, 1805 inform and insist upon recognition of the new
This treaty was signed at Tellico by Return J. Meigs boundaries by the Chickasaw Nation. The treaty was
and Daniel Smith, representatives of the United signed by Henry Dearborn on behalf of the United
States. It was also signed by Black Fox and fourteen States and by seventeen Cherokee men.

Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. – July 22, 1814 293
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc. ment for annuities. It required the approval of the
Wea Indians and was designed to implement mea-
November 17, 1807
sures against trespassing. The treaty also required the
This treaty included land cessions, new boundaries, agreement of the Kickapoo Indians, who had close
and annuity arrangements, and it preserved the relations with these tribes. Concluded at Fort Wayne,
tribes’ rights to hunt and carry on other activities on the treaty was signed by Governor William Henry
the ceded lands. It also created reservations. Con- Harrison on behalf of the United States. It was also
cluded in Detroit, the treaty was signed by Governor signed by five Delaware, ten Potawatomi, five Miami
William Hull, seventeen Chippewa leaders, five (including Little Turtle), and three Eel River leaders.
Ottawa leaders, five Potawatomi leaders, and three
Wyandot leaders.
Supplemental Treaty
with the Miami, Etc.
Treaty with the Osage September 30, 1809
November 10, 1808 Concluded separately from the treaty with the
This treaty allowed for the building of a fort, speci- Delaware, etc., this treaty was also concluded at Fort
fied goods to be furnished, established new bound- Wayne. It provided for additional compensation for
aries and protection of hunting grounds, and the Miami and Eel River Indians, as they relinquished
required the Osage to refrain from supplying arms to a majority of the lands ceded in the treaty with the
tribes in conflict with the United States. Concluded at Delaware, etc. This supplemental treaty was signed
Fort Clark in Louisiana Territory, this treaty was by Governor William Henry Harrison and by Little
signed by Peter Chouteau, agent to the Osage, Cap- Turtle and eight other Eel River and Miami leaders.
tain 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 follow-
Treaty with the Wea
ing August, it was signed in St. Louis by fifteen more
Osage leaders. 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
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. with the treaty signed at Fort Wayne with the
November 25, 1808 Delaware, Miami, Eel River, and Potawatomi Nations.
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 Treaty with the Kickapoo
obtained for the purpose of building a road. The December 9, 1809
tribes retained hunting and fishing rights on the This treaty was between the United States and the
ceded land. The treaty was signed by Governor Kickapoo Nation. As a part of the treaty, the Kickapoo
William Hull on behalf of the United States and by ceded lands to the United States in return for annuity
four Chippewa, two Ottawa, three Potawatomi, four payments and agreed to a portion of the September 30,
Wyandot, and two Shawnee. 1809, treaty at Fort Wayne. It was signed by Governor
William Henry Harrison and five Kickapoo leaders.
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.

September 30, 1809 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.
This treaty was made between the United States and July 22, 1814
the Delaware, Potawatomi, Miami, and Eel River This was a treaty of peace between the United States
Miami Indians. It was a land cession and arrange- and the Wyandot, Delaware, Shawnee, Seneca, and

294 Treaty with the Creek – August 9, 1814
Miami Nations. It stipulated boundaries and pledged Treaty with the Teton
alliance against Great Britain in the War of 1812. Con- July 19, 1815
cluded at Greenville, Ohio, it was signed by William This treaty reestablished peace between the Teton
Henry Harrison and Lewis Cass for the United States and the United States. It was concluded at Portage
and by Crane (Tarhe) and twelve other Wyandot, six- des Sioux. William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and
teen Delaware, Corn Stalk and thirteen other Auguste Chouteau signed for the United States.
Shawnee, five Ottawa, and thirteen Seneca. Nine Teton leaders also signed the treaty.
Treaty with the Creeks Treaty with the

August 9, 1814 Sioux of the Lakes
Concluded at Fort Jackson, Alabama, this treaty July 19, 1815
was designed to reestablish friendly relations with Signed by William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and
the Creek Nations. It was designed to chastise the Auguste Chouteau, this is another treaty to reestab-
Creeks, who had opposed the United States and lish peace. Concluded at Portage des Sioux, this
aided the British during the war. It established mil- treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes was signed by
itary posts, effected a land cession, and required a Tatangamania (Walking Buffalo), Haisanwee (Horn),
break in relations between the Creek Nations and Aampahaa (Speaker), Narcesagata (the Hard Stone),
the Spanish and British. It also called for the and Haibohaa (Branching Horn).
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 Treaty with the Sioux
representatives. of St. Peter’s River
July 19, 1815
This was one of a series of treaties concluded at
Portage des Sioux at this time. Signed by William
Treaty with the Potawatomi Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau, it
July 18, 1815 was designed to reestablish peace. Enigmanee (Flies
This treaty was designed to reestablish friendship as He Walks), Wasoukapaha (Falling Hail), Champ-
and peace. It was concluded at Portage des Sioux isaba (Black War Club), Manpinsaba (Black Cloud),
between the United States and the Potawatomi Tatarnaza (Iron Wind), and Nankanandee signed on
Nation. William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and behalf of the Sioux.
Auguste Chouteau signed for the United States. Six
Potawatomi leaders signed as well.
Treaty with the Yankton Sioux

July 19, 1815
Treaty with the Piankashaw One of a series concluded at Portage des Sioux by
July 18, 1815 William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste
Concluded at Portage des Sioux, this treaty is Chouteau, this treaty was designed to reestablish peace
between the United States and the Piankashaw and friendship between the Yankton and the United
Nation. It was designed to reestablish peace and States. Eleven Yankton leaders signed the treaty.
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), Treaty with the Makah
Mon-sai-raa (Rusty), Wa-pan-gia (Swan), and Na- July 20, 1815
maing-sa (the Fish) signed on behalf of the One of a series of treaties signed at Portage des Sioux
Piankashaw. under William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste

Treaty with the Iowa – September 16, 1815 295
Chouteau, this treaty was intended to reestablish granted by the Treaty of St. Louis of 1804. It also pro-
peace and friendship with the Makah. The treaty was vided for annuities. It required that the Sauk on the
signed by seven Makah leaders. 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
Treaty with the Kickapoo 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 Treaty with the Fox
and to reaffirm former treaties. It was concluded at
September 14, 1815
Portage des Sioux and signed by ten Kickapoo repre-
sentatives and by William Clark and two other U. S. This was a treaty reestablishing peace between the
representatives. 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 con-
cluded at Portage des Sioux and signed by William
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc. Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau.
Twenty-two leaders of the Fox Nation signed the
September 8, 1815 treaty.
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 Treaty with the Iowa
intended to reestablish peaceful relations. It pardoned September 16, 1815
these tribes for their alliance with Great Britain during Concluded at Portage des Sioux, this treaty was
the war. William Henry Harrison, Duncan McArthur, intended to reestablish peace and friendship
and John Graham signed as representatives of the between the Iowa and the United States. The U.S.
United States. Seven Wyandot, eight Shawnee, eleven representatives signing the treaty were William
Ottawa, one Winnebago, ten Chippewa, seven
Delaware, four Seneca, twenty-five Potawatomi, and
eighteen Miami leaders signed the treaty.
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
White Cloud, also known as Ma-hos-kah, an Iowa chief. This
on the Missouri River and the United States and was
lithograph is based upon a portrait by Charles Bird King that
concluded at Portage des Sioux. During the war, this was commissioned by Thomas McKenney, the superintendent
group of Sauk had left the rest of the Sauk Nation to of Indian affairs. The painting is c. 1820, some years after the
avoid fighting the United States. The treaty guaran- treaty with the Iowa was forged September 16, 1815. (Library
teed this portion of the Sauk Nation the privileges of Congress)

296 Treaty with the Kansa – October 28, 1815
Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau. Six- Treaty with the Sioux
teen Iowa representatives signed the treaty. June 1, 1816
This was a treaty to reestablish peace and friendship
between the United States and eight bands of Sioux.
Treaty with the Kansa It was concluded at St. Louis and signed on behalf of
the United States by William Clark, Ninian Edwards,
October 28, 1815
and Auguste Chouteau. It was also signed by forty
This treaty was intended to reestablish peace
Sioux representatives.
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 Winnebago
June 3, 1816
Concluded at St. Louis, this treaty was intended to
reestablish peaceful relations between the United
Treaty with the Cherokee States and the Winnebago of Ouisconsin River. It
March 22, 1816 required the tribe to return prisoners taken during
This treaty marked a land cession by the Cherokee hostilities and reaffirmed former treaties made with
to South Carolina and stipulated that South Car- the United States. It also called for the continued sep-
olina pay $5,000 for the cession. The treaty was con- aration of the Winnebago on Ouisconsin River from
cluded in Washington; George Graham represented the rest of their nation. This treaty was signed on
the United States. The treaty was also signed by behalf of the United States by William Clark, Ninian
Colonel John Lowry, Major John Walker, Major Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau. Eleven leaders of
Ridge, Richard Taylor, John Ross, and Cheucunsene. the Ouisconsin River Winnebago signed the treaty.
Treaty with the Cherokee Treaty with the Wea

March 22, 1816 and Kickapoo
This treaty determined the boundaries of the land
June 4, 1816
cession and granted the United States the right to
Concluded at Fort Harrison, Indiana Territory, this
build in the Cherokee Nation. It also stipulates that
treaty of peace also reaffirmed the land cession of
the Cherokee were to be granted indemnity in rela-
December 1809. Benjamin Parke signed for the
tion to U.S. operations on Cherokee land. Con-
United States, nine men signed for the Wea tribe
cluded at Washington, this treaty was signed by
(including two Miami men), and eleven leaders
George Graham, Colonel John Lowry, Major John
signed for the Kickapoo Nation.
Walker, Major Ridge, Richard Taylor, John Ross, and
Cheucunsene.
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.

Treaty with the Sauk August 24, 1816
May 13, 1816 This treaty was between the United States and the
Concluded at St. Louis, this treaty was intended to Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi tribes along the
reestablish peace between the United States and the Milwaukee Rivers and the southwestern parts of
Rock River Sauk, who fought the United States dur- Lake Michigan. It addressed concerns regarding a
ing the war with Great Britain. It also reaffirmed the dispute over the land cession of the Sauk and Fox in
1804 Treaty of St. Louis. The treaty was signed by 1804. It was signed at St. Louis by William Clark,
William Clark, Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Ninian Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau for the
Chouteau on behalf of the United States. Twenty- United States and by twenty-seven representatives
two Rock River Sauk also signed the treaty. of the tribes.

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 This treaty was designed to reestablish peaceful rela-
land cession by the Cherokee. It set up boundaries tions after the war with England. The treaty was
and arranged for a meeting between the Cherokee, signed by William Clark and Auguste Chouteau on
Generals Andrew Jackson and David Meriwether, behalf of the United States and by twelve Oto and
and Jesse Franklin at a council at Turkey’s Town on five Missouri.
the Coosa River later the same month. The treaty
was signed for the United States by Andrew Jack-
son, David Meriwether, and Jesse Franklin.
Toochalar, Oohulookee, Wososey, Gousa, Spring
Treaty with the Ponca
Frog, Oowatata, John Beuge, John Bawldridge, Sal-
locooke Fields, George Guess, Bark, Campbell, June 25, 1817
Spirit, Young Wolf, and Oolitiskee signed on behalf The purpose of this treaty was to reestablish friendly
of the Cherokee. 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 July 8, 1817
of merchants to the Chickasaw Nation. Andrew This treaty arranged for the cession of certain lands
Jackson, David Meriwether, and Jesse Franklin in exchange for others and also for an additional ces-
signed for the United States, and twenty-three repre- sion of land. Under the treaty arrangements, a census
sentatives signed on behalf of the Chickasaw Nation would be taken of the Cherokee Nation, and lands
at the Chickasaw council house. would be set aside for the heads of Cherokee fami-
lies. 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.
Treaty with the Choctaw
October 24, 1816
This treaty was a land cession by the Choctaw to the
United States. It was concluded at the Choctaw trad-
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.
ing house and signed by thirteen representatives of
the Choctaw Nation and by John Coffee, John Rhea, September 29, 1817
and John M’Kee representing the United States. This treaty entailed the cession of lands by the Wyan-
dot, 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
Treaty with the Menominee of lands and dealt with issues of hunting, building,
March 30, 1817 taxes, and education. The treaty was concluded at the
Concluded at St. Louis, this was a treaty to renew Rapids of the Miami of Lake Erie. It was signed by
peace and friendship. William Clark, Ninian Lewis Cass and Duncan Arthur on behalf of the
Edwards, and Auguste Chouteau signed for the United States and by numerous representatives of the
United States. Ten leaders of the Menominee also Wyandot, Seneca, Shawnee, Delaware, Potawatomi,
signed. Ottawa, and Chippewa Nations.

298 Agreement with the Piankeshaw – January 3, 1818
Agreement with iouche (Wearer of Shoes), representatives of the

Pawnee Republic.
the Piankeshaw
January 3, 1818
This was an agreement between Governor Thomas
Posey, superintendent of Indian affairs, and Chekom- Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar
mia (Big River), principal chief of the Piankeshaw
tribe. The treaty was concluded at Vincennes. 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
Treaty with the Creeks behalf of the United States. It was also signed by
twelve Pawnee representatives.
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
Treaty with the Quapaw
for the United States. Eighteen representatives of the August 24, 1818
Creek Nations signed the treaty. This treaty arranged for the cession of Quapaw lands
and the organization of a reservation. It also stipu-
lated the distribution of annuities to the tribe.
William Clark and Auguste Chouteau signed for the
Treaty with the United States, and thirteen leaders signed for the
Grand Pawnee 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 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.
representatives of the Grand Pawnee signed as well. September 17, 1818
This treaty set forth stipulations for the Wyandot
Reservation and provided for an additional reserva-
Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee tion for the Shawnee, Seneca, and Wyandot. Con-
cluded at the rapids of the Miami of Lake Erie, the
June 19, 1818
treaty was signed by Lewis Cass and Duncan
This was a treaty of peace concluded at St. Louis. It
McArthur on behalf of the United States and by
was signed by William Clark and Auguste Chouteau,
numerous representatives of the Ottawa, Shawnee,
representatives of the United States, and by nine rep-
Wyandot, and Seneca tribes.
resentatives of the Pawnee.
Treaty with the Treaty with the Wyandot

Pawnee Republic September 20, 1818
June 20, 1818 Concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio, this treaty arranged
This treaty officially established peace and friend- for a land cession by the Wyandot Nation. It also set
ship between the Pawnee Republic and the United forth restrictions on the use of the reservation lands
States. It was signed at St. Louis by William Clark of the Wyandot south of the Huron River. The treaty
and Auguste Chouteau on behalf of the United was signed by Lewis Cass on behalf of the United
States. It was also signed by Petaheick (Good Chief), States and by Ronesass (Honas), Haunsiaugh
Rarnleshare (Chief Man), Shernakitare (First in the (Boyer), Ronaess (Racer), Ronioness (Joseph),
War Party), Sheterahiate (Partisan Discoverer), Scoutash, Dunquod (Half King), Aronne (Cherokee
Tearekatacaush (the Brave), Pa (the Elk), and Tetaw- Boy), and Taruntne (Between the Logs).

Treaty with the Kickapoo – July 30, 1819 299
Treaty with the Peoria, Etc. treaty also arranged for annuities and individual
land grants for the Delaware. Jonathan Jennings,
September 25, 1818
Lewis Cass, and Benjamin Parke signed on behalf of
Concluded at Edwardsville, Illinois, this treaty was a
the United States. Nineteen representatives of the
cession of land to the United States by the Peoria,
Delaware Nation also signed.
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 Treaty with the Miami
on behalf of the United States and by representatives
of each tribe. 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
Treaty with the Osage recognize the Kickapoo cession. It also arranged for
various grants. It was signed by Jonathan Jennings,
September 25, 1818 Lewis Cass, and Benjamin Parke on behalf of the
This treaty was an Osage lands cession. Concluded United States and by sixteen Miami representatives.
at St. Louis, it was signed by Governor William
Clark for the United States and by forty-five Osage
representatives.
October 19, 1818
This treaty was intended to end disputes over
Treaty with the Potawatomi boundaries and to establish peaceful relations. It
October 2, 1818 included a Chickasaw land cession and arrange-
Concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio, this treaty was a ces- ments for reservations and individual grants. It was
sion of land to the United States by the Potawatomi; signed at the treaty ground east of Old Town by
it also arranged for annuities and grants. As a part of twenty-one representatives of the Chickasaw Nation
this treaty, the United States bought the Kickapoo and by Isaac Shelby and Andrew Jackson on behalf
claim. Jonathan Jennings, Lewis Cass, and Benjamin of the United States.
Parke signed on behalf of the United States, and
thirty-five representatives signed for the Potawatomi.

February 27, 1819
Treaty with the Wea This treaty arranged for the further cession of lands
October 2, 1818 by the Cherokee. It arranged for land grants, reser-
This treaty was a land cession by the Wea to the United vations, new boundaries, and annuities and prohib-
States and gained their approval of the 1809 Kickapoo ited intrusion onto remaining Cherokee lands. The
cession. Concluded at St. Mary’s, Ohio, the treaty was treaty was signed at Washington by John C. Cal-
signed by Jonathan Jennings, Lewis Cass, and Ben- houn, secretary of war, and by twelve Cherokee rep-
jamin Parke on behalf of the United States and by resentatives, including John Ross.
seven Wea representatives and two Kickapoo leaders.
Treaty with the Kickapoo

Treaty with the Delaware July 30, 1819
October 3, 1818 This treaty arranged for the cession of Kickapoo
With this treaty, the Delaware ceded all their lands in lands to the United States, new boundaries, and
Indiana in exchange for lands set aside for them by annuities. The Kickapoo were to relinquish former
the United States west of the Mississippi River. The lands in return for $3,000 in merchandise and a

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. Con-
cluded 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.

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 relin-
quish a third of the payment by the United States
agreed upon in the treaty the previous month. Con-
cluded 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 Pacak-
inqua of the Kickapoo.
Okee-makee-quid, a Chippewa chief, as depicted in 1826 by

Treaty with the Chippewa Charles Bird King. (Getty Images)
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 reten- Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa
tion of hunting and other rights on ceded lands.
Concluded at Saginaw, Michigan Territory, the July 6, 1820
treaty was signed by Lewis Cass on behalf of the This treaty marked the cession of St. Martin Island
United States and by more than one hundred by the tribes and arranged for a payment in goods.
Chippewa representatives. 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 Treaty with the Kickapoo
Chippewa lands but granted the retention of fish- July 19, 1820
ing rights at the falls of St. Mary’s. Concluded at This treaty was designed to alter the 1819 Kickapoo
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Territory, the treaty was treaty at Edwardsville, Illinois. It was concluded at
signed by Lewis Cass on behalf of the United States St. Louis and signed by Auguste Chouteau and Ben-
and by fifteen representatives of the Chippewa jamin Stephenson on behalf of the United States and
Nation. by twenty-eight Kickapoo representatives.

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 This treaty was designed to help settle the Creeks
for with $5,000 in goods and money. The treaty debt claimed by the state of Georgia. Concluded at
also arranged for an annuity to be paid to the the Indian Springs, Creek Nation, the treaty was
Kaskaskia Nation. Benjamin Parke signed on signed by J. McIntosh, David Adams, Daniel New-
behalf of the United States, along with sixteen man, and William McIntosh for the United States
tribal representatives. The treaty was concluded at and by Tustunnuggee Hopoie and Efau Emauthlau
St. Mary’s, Ohio. for the Creeks.
Treaty with the Kickapoo Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.

of the Vermilion August 29, 1821
September 5, 1820 This treaty arranged for a further cession of lands
This treaty arranged for annuity payments to the from the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi tribes.
Kickapoo tribe. Concluded at Vincennes, the treaty It also stipulated grants and reservations, allowed
was signed by Benjamin Parke on behalf of the the United States to build a road, and maintained the
United States and by Wagohaw, Tecumsena, rights of the tribes to hunt on the ceded lands. Con-
Pelecheah, Kechemaqua, Nasa Reah, Katewah, and cluded in Chicago, Illinois, the treaty was signed by
Paca Rinqua on behalf of the Kickapoo. Lewis Cass and Solomon Sibley for the United States
and by numerous representatives of the Ottawa,
Chippewa, and Potawatomi tribes.

October 18, 1820
This treaty arranged a land cession by the Choctaw,
Treaty with the Osage
who were being removed to lands set aside for them August 21, 1822
by the United States west of the Mississippi River. It Concluded at the U.S. Factory on the M. De Cigue
stipulated payments, new boundaries, and the Augt. (Fort Clark on the Missouri), this document
boundaries east of the Mississippi. releases the United States from payments promised
It was also designed as a treaty of peace. Con- in the November 1808 treaty with the Osage in
cluded at the treaty grounds of the Choctaw Nation, return for $2,329 in merchandise from the factory.
near Doak’s Stand on the Natchez Road, the treaty was The treaty was signed by Richard Graham on
signed by Major General Andrew Jackson and General behalf of the United States and by twenty-two
Thomas Hinds on behalf of the United States and by Osage representatives.
numerous representatives of the Choctaw Nation.
Treaty with the

Treaty with the Creeks Sauk and Fox
January 8, 1821 September 3, 1822
This treaty arranged for a Creeks land cession and This treaty abrogated the ninth article of the treaty of
for the reservation of certain lands. It stipulated a November 1804. It released the United States from its
payment plan and also required the United States to agreement to open a factory for the tribes and to keep
pay the debts Georgia claimed against the Creeks. out traders who took advantage of the tribes. The
Concluded at the Indian Spring, Creek Nation, this treaty also required the United States to pay the Sauk
treaty was signed by David Meriwether and Daniel and Fox $1,000 in merchandise from the factory. The
M. Forney for the United States and by more than agreement was signed at Fort Armstrong by Thomas
twenty Creeks representatives. Forsyth for the United States and by Pushee Paho,

302 Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians – September 18, 1823
Quash Quammee, Nesowakee, Keeocuck, Wapulla, ities. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was
Themue, Mucathaanamickee, and Nolo. 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 November 15, 1824
the Florida Territory, except for a district to be set This treaty arranged for the cession of Quapaw lands
aside for their residence and use. Under this treaty, in the Arkansas Territory and restricted the Quapaw
the tribes were not allowed to aid fugitive slaves. to living within the bounds of the Caddo tribe. The
They were to be allotted certain foods by the United treaty required the United States to pay the head
States for one year and were placed under the chiefs $2,000 and the tribe $4,000 in goods. Under
supervision of an Indian agent. Concluded along this treaty, the Quapaw retained the right to hunt on
Moultrie Creek, Florida Territory, the treaty was ceded lands. Concluded at Harrington’s, Arkansas
signed by William P. Duval, James Gadsden, and Territory, the document was signed by Robert Crit-
Bernard Segui on behalf of the United States and by tenden for the United States and by fifteen represen-
thirty-two representatives of the Florida tribes. tatives 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 This treaty arranged the cession of Choctaw lands,
Reservation in Livingston and Genesee Counties. the payment of annuities, payment for the Pen-
Concluded at Moscow, Livingston County, New sacola campaign, and provisions for those
York, this treaty was signed by John Greig and Choctaw choosing not to leave. Concluded at
Henry B. Gibson for the United States and by nine- Washington, the treaty was signed by John C. Cal-
teen representatives of the Seneca Nation. houn, 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
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Choctaw Nation.
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 Treaty with the Creeks
use of mixed-blood Sauk and Fox. Concluded at February 12, 1825
Washington, the treaty was signed by William Clark Under the terms of this treaty, the Creeks ceded all
for the United States and by six Sauk and four Fox land within the state of Georgia, land north and
representatives. west of the Chatauhoochie River, and the reserva-
tions located at Indian Springs on the Ocmulgee
River. In return, the Creeks were to receive land
between the Arkansas and Canadian rivers equal to
Treaty with the Iowa the number of acres ceded. The treaty was con-
August 4, 1824 cluded at Indian Springs, Georgia. The signatories
This treaty arranged for the cession of lands within were Duncan G. Campbell, James Meriwether (both
Missouri State borders and for the payment of annu- U. S. commissioners), William McIntosh (head chief

Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe – July 6, 1825 303
of the Cowetau), and more than fifty other chiefs bade the distribution of guns to tribes hostile to the
and headmen. 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
Treaty with the Osage 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 Agreement with the Creeks
for a fifty-mile-wide tract of land in southern June 29, 1825
Kansas running from Fort Scott to Dodge. Con-
This was an agreement made with the Creek Nations
cluded in St. Louis, the treaty was signed by
at the council house in Broken Arrow. The agree-
William Clark, superintendent of Indian affairs, for
ment, signed in council by eleven Muscogee, dealt
the United States and by Chief Claremont, Chief
with issues of debt payment and the opposition to
White Hair, and fifty-eight other representatives of
Creek laws by U.S. citizens. The agreement was not
the Osage.
ratified.
Treaty with the Kansa

June 3, 1825 Treaty with the Sioune
Under the terms of this treaty, the Kansa ceded all and Oglala Tribes
remaining lands in Missouri, Kansas, and present- July 5, 1825
day Nebraska. In return, the Kansa would retain a This treaty set forth stipulations for the regulation of
tract of land thirty miles wide running from Topeka trade by the United States and forbade the Sioune
to Goodland. Concluded in St. Louis, the treaty was and Oglala to furnish guns to tribes hostile to the
signed by William Clark for the United States and by United States. The treaty was concluded at the
twelve representatives of the Kansa. 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
Treaty with the Ponca people.
June 9, 1825
This treaty explained the U.S. government’s author-
ity, protection, and power to regulate the trade of the
Ponca and forbade the distribution of guns to tribes Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe
hostile to the United States. The treaty was concluded
July 6, 1825
in Poncar Village at the mouth of White Paint Creek.
This treaty set forth stipulations for the regulation
The signatories were Henry Atkinson and Benjamin
of trade by the United States and forbade the
O’Fallon for the United States and nineteen chiefs
Cheyenne to furnish guns to tribes hostile to the
and headmen of the Ponca Nation.
United States. Concluded at the mouth of the
Teton River, the treaty was signed by Henry Atkin-
son and Benjamin O’Fallon on behalf of the United
States. It was also signed by Chiefs Sho-e-mow-e-
Treaty with the Teton, Etc., to-chaw-ca-we-wah-ca-to-we (the Wolf with the
Sioux High Back), We-che-gla-la (Little Moon), Ta-ton-
June 22, 1825 ca-pa (Buffalo Head), and J-a-pu (the One Who
This treaty explained the U.S. government’s author- Walks against the Others), and nine Cheyenne
ity, protection, and power to regulate trade and for- warriors.

304 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of the Sioux Tribe – July 16, 1825
Treaty with the Hunkapapa O’Fallon for the United States and by seven Mandan
Band of the Sioux Tribe chiefs, six warriors of the First Village, and six war-
riors 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
Treaty with the Crow Tribe
Benjamin O’Fallon and Henry Atkinson for the August 4, 1825
United States. It was also signed by Mato-che-gal-lah This treaty arranged for the regulation of trade by
(Little White Bear), Cha-sa-wa-ne-che (the One that the United States and forbade the Crow tribe to fur-
Has No Name), Tah-hah-nee-o-tah (the Womb), nish guns and other items to tribes hostile to the
Mah-to-wee-tah (White Bear’s Face), Pah-sal-sa United States. Concluded at the Mandan village, the
(Auricara), and Ha-hah-kus-ka (White Elk) on behalf treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson and Benjamin
of the Hunkapapa Sioux. O’Fallon for the United States and by sixteen chiefs
of the Crow Nation.
Treaty with the Arikara Tribe

Treaty with the Great
July 18, 1825
and Little Osage
the United States and forbade the Arikara to fur- August 10, 1825
nish guns to tribes hostile to the United States. This treaty was designed to promote peaceful rela-
Concluded at the Arikara village, this treaty was tions between the Osage, who resided along the
signed by Brigadier General Henry Atkinson and intended course of a trade route to the Mexican
Benjamin O’Fallon, U.S. agent of Indian affairs. It Republic, and those who would travel the road, in
was also signed by six Arikara chiefs and fourteen return for payment of $500. Concluded at Council
warriors. 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 Belantse-Etoa

or Minitaree Tribe
Treaty with the Kansa
July 30, 1825
August 16, 1825
Concluded at the Lower Mandan village, this treaty
This treaty was designed to promote peaceful rela-
arranged for the regulation of trade by the United
tions between the Kansa, who resided near the
States and forbade the Minitaree tribe to furnish
intended course of a trade route to the Mexican
guns and other items to tribes hostile to the United
Republic, and those who would travel the road, in
States. The treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson
return for payment of $500. Concluded along the
and Benjamin O’Fallon for the United States and by
Sora Kansas Creek 238 miles southwest of Fort
nine Minitaree chiefs and sixteen warriors.
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
the United States and forbade the Mandan tribe to Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.
furnish guns and other items to tribes hostile to the August 19, 1825
United States. Concluded at the Mandan village, the The actual title of this agreement is the Treaty with
treaty was signed by Henry Atkinson and Benjamin the Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie,

Treaty with the Sioux, Etc. – August 19, 1825 305
Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a portion of the than ruled by authority. The decentralized nature of
Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawattomie Tribes (1825), also the tribes represented at the treaty negotiations was
known as the Great Council at Prairie du Chien. evident in the number of signatures on the docu-
In 1825, federal negotiators invited representa- ment. A total of forty-one Ojibwe, twenty-six Sioux,
tives of nearly a dozen different Indian nations of and twenty-nine Sac and Fox chiefs and headmen
the Great Lakes to Prairie du Chien in present-day signed the treaty.
southwestern Wisconsin for what was described as Although at the time tribal leaders did not
a peace and friendship treaty. More than a thou- understand the implications of declaring bound-
sand Native Americans attended the sixteen-day aries, within a few years they began to realize what
gathering. U.S. officials were anxious to end inter- it meant. The U.S. government began to approach
tribal conflict, especially between the Ojibwe and Indian nations individually and negotiate land
the Dakota, which was seen as an impediment to cessions.
white settlement and trade. Indian agents insisted In 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the
that chiefs and headmen establish boundaries Indian Removal Act, by which government officials
between each tribe. The demarcation of borders began moving tribes located in the eastern portion
paved the way for future land cession treaties. of the United States to lands west of the Mississippi
The fur trade and other activities had created River. Officials first removed the Sac and Fox, then
considerable enmity between the tribes in the Great the Ho-Chunk, then the Potawatomi. Removal
Lakes. Along the Mississippi River, diplomacy orders against the Ojibwe and Menominee were
between the Dakota and the Ojibwe had given way signed but never carried out. The “peace and friend-
to continual attacks and reprisals. In the Fever River ship treaty” at Prairie du Chien had laid the
valley in present-day southeastern Wisconsin, the groundwork for the disenfranchisement of thou-
Ho-Chunk, Sac, and Fox Indians were at odds with sands of indigenous people from their lands in the
more than ten thousand miners who had illegally Great Lakes region.
invaded their territory. The Menominee were ner- Patricia A. Loew
vous 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. Represen-
tatives of the Great Lakes tribes viewed the council
at Prairie du Chien as an opportunity to settle some See also Plenary Power; Sovereignty; Treaty;
of these disputes. Treaty with the Chippewa–December
20, 1837; Treaty with the
At the council, General William Clark and
Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Trust
Governor Lewis Cass insisted that the tribes Doctrine; Trust Lands.
declare their boundaries, an exercise that confused References and Further Reading
some of the Native leaders. Carimine, the Ho- Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1960. “Minutes of
Chunk chief, expressed the sentiments of many the 1825 Treaty at Prairie du Chien,
tribal leaders at the gathering. Members of the August, 1825.” Documents Relating to
Anishinabe Confederacy—Ojibwe, Potawatomi, the Negotiation of Ratified and Unratified
Treaties with Various Tribes of Indians,
and Odawa—were also reluctant to declare their
1801–1869, in Record Group 75,
borders. Chambly, an Odawa chief, told the gather- Records of the Bureau of Indian
ing, “I never yet heard from my ancestors that any Affairs, microfilm P97–2750, reel 1.
one had an exclusive right to the soil.” Eventually, Washington, DC: National Archives.
with the exception of the Menominee, who were Loew, Patty. 2001. Indian Nations of
underrepresented at the conference, most of the Wisconsin: Histories of Endurance and
tribes declared their territories and negotiated Renewal. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Historical Society Press.
boundaries.
Proclamation, “Treaty with the Sioux and
Federal negotiators complained about the “dis- Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie,
persed condition” of tribes like the Ojibwe and the Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a
lack of principal chiefs with whom they could bar- portion of the Ottawa, Chippewa,
gain. Each Ojibwe band had several clan leaders Potawattomie, Tribes (1825),” 7 Stat.
and headmen who “governed” by consent rather 272 (Feb. 6, 1826).

306 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Tribes – September 26, 1825
Treaty with the Otoe Treaty with the Shawnee

and Missouri Tribes November 7, 1825
September 26, 1825 This treaty was designed as a renewal of friendship
and a Shawnee land cession. Concluded at St. Louis,
Concluded at Fort Atkinson, Council Bluffs, this
the treaty recorded the cession of lands near Cape
treaty was designed to regulate trade and perpetuate
Girardeau, Missouri, taken over by citizens of the
friendship between the Otoe and Missouri and the
United States, in exchange for lands west of the Mis-
United States. It also put into place a negotiated jus-
sissippi River purchased from the Osage for the Mis-
tice system as it related to stolen property and per-
souri and Ohio Shawnee. The United States agreed
sonal conflicts. Under the trade regulations, the Otoe
to pay the tribe $14,000 for the losses related to
and Missouri were forbidden to trade weapons to
removal, $5,000 of which was to be paid in provi-
tribes hostile to the United States. The treaty was
sions upon arrival at the new lands. The treaty was
signed by Major Benjamin O’Fallon, Indian agent,
signed by William Clark for the United States and by
and Brigadier General Henry Atkinson on behalf of
twelve Shawnee delegates.
the United States. It was also signed by eighteen
Otoe and Missouri representatives.

Treaty with the January 24, 1826
This treaty nullified the Treaty of Indian Springs of
Pawnee Tribe February 12, 1825, which the majority of Creeks
September 30, 1825 declared had been signed by individuals lacking
Concluded at Fort Atkinson, Council Bluffs, this authority to enter into treaty negotiations. Con-
treaty was designed to regulate trade and perpetuate cluded at Washington, this new treaty arranged for
friendship between the Pawnee and the United the cession of Creek lands in Georgia along the
States. It also put into place a negotiated justice sys- Chatahoochie River and a tract along the boundary
tem as it related to stolen property and personal con- between Creek and Cherokee lands in Georgia, for
flicts. Under the trade regulations, the Pawnee were $30,000. The Creek Nations agreed to send five rep-
forbidden to trade weapons to tribes hostile to the resentatives to inspect lands west of the Mississippi
United States. The treaty was signed by Major Ben- to find desirable lands to which to remove that were
jamin O’Fallon, Indian agent, and Brigadier General not possessed by the Choctaw or Cherokee or within
Henry Atkinson on behalf of the United States. It the states or territories. The Creeks would then have
was also signed by twenty-five Pawnee chiefs, head- two years to relocate, and the United States agreed to
men, and warriors. be responsible for expenses incurred and to provide
one year’s subsistence. Secretary of War James Bar-
bour represented the United States; thirteen repre-
sentatives of the Creek Nations signed the treaty
Treaty with the proper and the supplementary article.
Makah Tribe
October 6, 1825
Concluded at Fort Atkinson, Council Bluffs, this
treaty was designed to regulate trade and perpetuate
Treaty with
friendship between the Makah and the United the Chippewa
States. Under the trade regulations, the Makah were August 5, 1826
forbidden to trade weapons to tribes hostile to the The parties to this treaty agreed to the treaty of
United States. The treaty also put into place a negoti- August 1825 at Prairie du Chien between the Sioux
ated justice system as it related to stolen property and Chippewa. The treaty arranged for a meeting at
and other conflicts. The treaty was signed by Major Green Bay the following year and allocated land
Benjamin O’Fallon, Indian agent, and Brigadier Gen- specifically for the use of individuals of mixed
eral Henry Atkinson on behalf of the United States. Chippewa and white descent, called for a $2,000
Fourteen Makah delegates also signed the treaty. yearly annuity to the Chippewa, and appropriated

Treaty with the Creeks – November 15, 1827 307
$1,000 to build a school and support an education Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.
program for the youth. The treaty was concluded at August 11, 1827
Fond du Lac of Lake Superior, Michigan Territory; it Concluded on the Fox River at the Butte des Morts,
was signed by Lewis Cass and Thomas L. McKen- Michigan Territory, this treaty settled the southern
ney for the United States and by four St. Marys, boundary of the Chippewa, which the treaty at
eleven River St. Croix, five La Pointe, six Lac De Prairie du Chien in August 1825 had not deter-
Flambeau, twelve Ontonagon, nine Vermilion Lake, mined. It also referred the territorial disputes
four Snake River, six Sandy Lake, ten Fond du Lac, between the Menominee, the Winnebago, and other
seventeen River de Corbeau, one Rainy Lake, and New York tribes to the discretion of the president.
one Ottawa. Under the treaty, the tribes recognized the boundary
established between U.S., French, and British juris-
dictions. The treaty also arranged for the distribution
of goods and an educational appropriation for the
Treaty with tribes. It also asserted that the United States main-
the Potawatomi tained the right to punish certain Winnebago for pre-
October 16, 1826 vious offenses and to act to prevent further offenses.
This treaty involved the cession of Potawatomi The treaty was signed by Lewis Cass and Thomas L.
lands, arranged a twenty-two-year annuity agree- McKenney for the United States, by sixteen
ment of $2,000 to be paid in silver, with an additional Chippewa representatives, and by more than twenty
$2,000 to be paid annually toward education for an Menominee representatives.
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 Treaty with the Potawatomi
provisions relating to grants and hunting rights.
September 19, 1827
Concluded in Indiana near the mouth of the Mis-
sissinewa on the Wabash River, this treaty was This treaty organized a further cession of land by the
signed by more than sixty Potawatomi leaders and Potawatomi tribe to consolidate the various bands in
by Lewis Cass, John Tipton, and James Brown Ray Michigan Territory in an area removed from the
on behalf of the United States. 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 Treaty with the Creeks
the cession of Miami lands in the state of Indiana November 15, 1827
north and west of the Miami and Wabash rivers, as This treaty arranged for the cession of all Creek
well as the land ceded in the October 6, 1818, treaty lands not previously ceded within the state of Geor-
with the Miami. Reservations were made of certain gia. Under this agreement, the United States was
portions of the ceded lands. The treaty also arranged obligated to pay the Creek Nations $27,491. It also
for the construction of a canal or road through these arranged for a $15,000 payment, with $5,000 to be
lands, payment in goods, and annuities; it preserved reserved for the education and support of the chil-
hunting rights on the ceded lands and provided dren at the Choctaw Academy in Kentucky; $1,000 to
$2,000 annually for an undetermined period of time be appropriated for the support of the Withington
to be used for education and the support of the station; $1,000 toward Asbury station; $2,000 for the
unwell and the unfortunate. The treaty was signed construction of four horse mills; $1,000 for the pur-
by thirty-seven Miami chiefs and warriors and by chase of carts and wheels; and $5,000 in blankets and
Lewis Cass, James Brown Ray, and John Tipton for other goods. Concluded at the Creek agency, the
the United States. treaty was signed by Thomas L. McKenney and John

308 Treaty with the Miami – February 11, 1828
Cromwell for the United States and by Little Prince the Cherokee to cede all lands within the bound-
and five other Creeks representatives. aries of Arkansas. The United States, in turn,
promised seven million acres to the Cherokee west
of the determined line and also promised to pre-
vent the trespass of whites on that land. Under this
Treaty with the Miami treaty, the Cherokee were to be compensated for
February 11, 1828 the value of improvements left behind on their
This treaty was a cession of land at a village on Sug- land and for the cost of removal, which was to
artree Creek in Indiana previously reserved in treaty occur within fourteen months of the conclusion of
to the tribe. In exchange for relinquishing these the treaty. Thomas Graves, George Maw, George
lands without destroying any improvements already Guess, Thomas Marvis, and John Rogers signed
on the lands, the United States was obligated to pro- the ratified treaty as chiefs of the Cherokee west of
vide $2,000 in goods, with the promise of $8,000 in the Mississippi. The initial treaty was signed by
goods the succeeding summer. The United States John Barbour for the United States and by eight
also promised further provisions, including a provi- Cherokee leaders.
sion 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 Treaty with the
Thorntown and by John Tipton, commissioner for
the United States.
Winnebago, Etc.
August 25, 1828
This treaty was between the United States and the
Sac, Fox, Winnebago, Potawatomi, Ottawa, and
Treaty with the Western Cherokee Chippewa Nations. It established a provisional
May 6, 1828 boundary between the United States and tribal
Concluded at Washington, this treaty determined lands. It also established a system for the United
the western boundary of Arkansas and required 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)

Treaty with the Delaware – September 24, 1829 309
ticular, on the Indian side of the provisional bound- Treaty with

ary and required the United States to compensate the Winnebago
the tribes for white intrusions. Under the treaty, the
August 1, 1829
United States was allowed to build two ferries over
the Rock River and promised to distribute $20,000 This treaty arranged a Winnebago land cession
in goods among the tribes at a future treaty meet- and the compensation to be provided for that ces-
ing. Concluded at Greenbay, Michigan Territory, sion by the United States. It also provided for the
this treaty was signed by more than thirty Win- establishment of three blacksmith shops, for the
nebago on behalf of the tribes and by Lewis Cass United States to pay claims against the tribe, and
and Pierre Menard for the United States. for individual land grants. It was signed by forty-
four Winnebago leaders and by John McNiel,
Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwater for the United
States.
Treaty with
the Potawatomi
September 20, 1828 Treaty with
This treaty involved the cession of Potawatomi the Delaware
lands and arranged for individual land grants. It August 3, 1829
also arranged for a permanent annuity of $2,000; a Concluded at Little Sandusky, Ohio, this treaty
twenty-year annuity of $1,000; $30,000 in goods; organized a Delaware land cession. Payment of
and $5,000 in currency to be paid to the tribe in $3,000 was to be made to the Delaware for the ces-
1829. An additional $7,500 was to be allocated for sion, $2,000 of which would be paid immediately
building, for the support of laborers, and for the and $1,000 in the form of provisions for the
purchase of animals and farming equipment. The Delaware’s removal west of the Mississippi. The
treaty was concluded at the missionary establish- treaty was signed by Captain Pipe, William Mat-
ments on the St. Joseph River in the Michigan Terri- acur, Captain Wolf, Eli Pipe, Solomon Journeycake,
tory. It was signed by sixty-nine Potawatomi repre- Joseph Armstrong, and George Williams for the
sentatives and by Lewis Cass and Pierre Menard Delaware and by John McElvain for the United
for the United States. States.
Treaty with the Treaty with

Chippewa, Etc. the Delaware
July 29, 1829 September 24, 1829
This treaty was concluded at Prairie du Chien, This treaty was supplemental to the Ohio treaty of
Michigan Territory. It was an agreement between the October 1818. This treaty stipulated that the United
United States and the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and States was responsible for providing lands west of
Ottawa Nations for land cessions to the United the Mississippi for the Delaware Nation’s perma-
States. In return, the United States agreed to deliver nent residence, as well as for furnishing provisions
$12,000 worth of goods in October of the same year to aid in removal. It required of the United States an
and permanently to pay the tribes $16,000 annually additional permanent $1,000 annuity for lands
in currency along with fifty barrels of salt. Certain ceded in Missouri and stipulated that certain por-
portions of the cessions were to be reserved for par- tions of the ceded land would be sold and the pro-
ticular bands. The treaty arranged for individual ceeds applied to the education of Delaware chil-
land grants, reserved hunting rights for the tribes, dren. The treaty was signed by George Vashon,
and assumed responsibility for payment of claims Indian agent, and by principal chief William Ander-
against the tribes. The treaty was signed by U.S. del- son and eleven other Delaware representatives at
egates John McNiel, Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwa- Council Camp on the James Fork of the White River
ter. Thirty-five tribal representatives also signed. in Missouri.

310 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc. – July 15, 1830
Treaty with the the Indian Removal Act of 1830. By the terms of the
Sauk and Fox, Etc. treaty, the Choctaw Nation signed away all its land
holdings east of the Mississippi River for land in
July 15, 1830 Indian Territory. In exchange for their land, the
This treaty outlined the cession of lands by the Choctaw received a twenty-year annuity of $20,000
Omaha; the confederated Sauk and Fox; the Mis- as well as other monetary allowances to build
souri, Otoe, and Iowa tribes; and the Medawah- schools, churches, and a tribal council house in
Kanton, Wahpeton, Wahpacoota, and Sisseton Indian Territory.
bands of Sioux. It outlined the purposes for which The federal government had begun pressuring
lands would be used, arranged for annuities and the Choctaw to relocate in 1820, when General
other payment, organized reservation lands, and Andrew Jackson was commissioned to meet with
determined new boundary lines. It was signed by three Choctaw district chiefs and other lesser
fourteen Sauk, more than forty Fox, nine Wahpa- Choctaw officials at Doak’s Stand to discuss
coota, two Sisseton, thirteen Omaha, ten Iowa, removal. All three chiefs opposed removal, but Jack-
fourteen Otoe, five Missouri, and six Missouri son presented to them a bill, proposed by a Missis-
Sauk at Prairie du Chien, Michigan Territory. The sippi representative to Congress, that would prevent
Yankton and Santee bands of Sioux officially the Choctaw from using or settling on land west of
agreed to the treaty on October 13, 1830, at St. the Mississippi. Although this sounds contrary to
Louis by the signing of twenty-three representa- government policy, the federal officials thought that,
tives. William Clark, superintendent of Indian as long as the Choctaw had free access to their west-
affairs, and Colonel Willoughby Morgan signed on ern hunting grounds, they would never cede their
behalf of the United States. 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 west-
Treaty with the Chickasaw ern hunting grounds. The treaty did not require any
August 31, 1830 Choctaw to leave their homes; those wishing to stay
Under this treaty, the Chickasaw ceded all lands east on the ceded land would receive a one-square-mile
of the Mississippi and agreed to remove to lands tract of land, to include their improvements.
west of the Mississippi—approximately half one The Choctaw’s new territory had not yet been
year and the other half the following year. In return, surveyed when the Treaty of Doak’s Stand was rati-
the United States agreed to pay a twenty-year annu- fied. When the land was surveyed, it was discov-
ity of $15,000 to the tribe, to compensate for the ered that white settlements already existed on the
expense of removal, and to aid in subsistence for the land. The federal government believed it would be
first year. The treaty also allotted a ten-year stipend almost impossible to remove the white settlers, so
of $2,000 for the hire of Christian teachers and stipu- government officials requested that a Choctaw dele-
lated that the Chickasaw Nation would send twenty gation come to Washington in the fall of 1824 to
“Chickasaw boys of promise, from time to time” negotiate a new boundary line for the Choctaw’s
over twenty years, to be educated in the United western land.
States under the direction of the secretary of war. After the treaty of 1825 was negotiated, the
Concluded at Franklin, Tennessee, this treaty was United States expected the Choctaw to leave for their
signed by General John Coffee and Secretary of War new land in Indian Territory. However, the majority
John H. Eaton for the United States and by twenty of the Choctaw did not move. Consequently, the fed-
Chickasaw representatives. eral 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 Missis-
Treaty with the Choctaw sippi state laws over the Indians. In January 1830,
September 27, 1830 the Choctaw became citizens of Mississippi; their
Also known as the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, tribal government was abolished, and any Indian
this treaty, signed on September 27, 1830, was the exercising the office of chief or headman became
first removal treaty negotiated after the passage of subject to fines and imprisonment. The federal gov-

Treaty with the Menominee – February 17, 1831 311
ernment passed the Indian Removal Act and See also Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi; Doak’s
informed the Choctaw Nation that they would not Stand, Mississippi; Doaksville, Oklahoma;
be protected from hostile Mississippi State laws. LeFlore, Greenwood; Treaty with the
Choctaw–October 18, 1820.
After Mississippi extended its laws over the
Choctaw, the Indians were constantly harassed by Baird, W. David. 1973. The Choctaw People. Phoenix,
white settlers. To obtain relief, the Choctaw leader- AZ: Indian Tribal Series.
ship requested a meeting with federal officials at Debo, Angie. 1967. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw
the Dancing Rabbit Creek campgrounds. The nego- Republic. Norman: University of Oklahoma
tiations dragged on for about two weeks. When the Press.
negotiations began to fail, the government pur- Kidwell, Clara Sue. 1995. Choctaws and Missionaries in
chased the signatures of the leaders with valuable Mississippi, 1818–1918. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
land grants, lifelong salaries, and other presents. In
McKee, Jesse O., and Jon A. Schlenker. 1980. The
the end, the government secured the leadership’s Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American
cooperation by playing to the Choctaw leadership’s Tribe. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
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, Treaty with the Menominee
and anarchy prevailed in the Choctaw Nation. February 8, 1831
However, little could be done. A few Choctaw left This treaty settled the boundaries of Menominee
immediately for Indian Territory in order to claim lands, as they were disputed by other New York
the best land, but most waited to be moved by the tribes, in part by requiring the Menominee to cede
U.S. government in one of three planned moves in certain portions of these lands. The United States
1831, 1832, or 1833. Removal proved to be an agreed to compensate them with $20,000 to be paid
extremely difficult experience for the Choctaw. Out over four years, $1,500 annually for education the
of 14,000 tribal members and 512 slaves who left first year, and $2,000 for the following ten years. Cer-
Mississippi during these years, at least 2,500 died tain privileges, including hunting and fishing rights,
during the travel west. More died after reaching were reserved to the tribe, and arrangements were
Indian Territory due to inadequate food supplies made for reservation lands and structural improve-
and severe weather. ments, including a gristmill and a sawmill. Con-
Around 6,000 Choctaw decided to take advan- cluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was
tage of Article 14 of the treaty, which provided an signed by John H. Eaton, secretary of war, and
opportunity for the Choctaw to remain in Missis- Samuel C. Stambaugh, the Indian agent at Green
sippi; any head of household could apply for and Bay, for the United States and by twelve Menominee
receive U.S. citizenship, along with 640 acres of land. leaders.
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 offi- Treaty with the Menominee
cially registered. The vast majority of the Choctaw February 17, 1831
remaining in Mississippi became squatters living in This treaty was supplemental to the treaty of Febru-
isolated areas on poor farmland. They lost all access ary 8, 1831. It amended the first and sixth articles of
to schools and public services and survived as best the previous treaties, which related to the settlement
they could by gathering nuts and wild berries and or removal of New York Indians on Menominee
by growing corn, pumpkins, and potatoes. Some lands. The changes gave increased discretionary
worked for white farmers picking cotton, hoeing the power over the issue to the president of the United
fields, and doing other menial tasks. Many of these States. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was
people eventually went to Indian Territory during signed by John H. Eaton and Samuel C. Stambaugh
the 1840s. for the United States and by twelve chiefs and war-
Joyce Ann Kievit riors of the Menominee.

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 This treaty arranged the cession of Ottawa lands in
the removal of the Seneca to lands west of the Mis- Ohio, negating the reservation of lands promised the
sissippi. It also obligated the United States to imple- tribe in the treaty of November 17, 1807, and the
ment certain compensatory measures, including a treaty of September 29, 1817, in exchange for lands
$6,000 advancement, annuities, land grants, sup- west of the Mississippi. This treaty specifically
plies, and defrayment of costs incurred through affected the bands residing on the Little Auglaize
removal. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was River at Oquanoxie’s Village and along Blanchard’s
signed by Comstick, Small Cloud Spicer, Seneca Fork of the Great Auglaize River. Under this treaty,
Steel, Hard Hickory, and Captain Good Hunter of the United States was obligated to defray the cost of
the Seneca and by Commissioner James B. Gardener removal, to supply one year’s provisions upon
for the United States. 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 tem-
Treaty with the Seneca, Etc.
porarily reserved for certain individuals and orga-
July 20, 1831 nized individual land grants. Concluded at Miami
Concluded at Pleasant Plains near Lewiston, Logan Bay Lake Erie, the document was signed by James B.
County, Ohio, this treaty arranged for Seneca and Gardiner for the United States and by more than
Shawnee land cessions and for the removal of twenty Ottawa headmen and warriors.
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 Treaty with the Wyandot
goods and provisions to sustain the tribes for the January 19, 1832
first year after removal. The treaty was signed by
Concluded at McCutcheonsville, Crawford County,
James B. Gardner and Indian agent John McElvain
Ohio, this treaty arranged the cession of sixteen
on behalf of the United States and by thirteen
thousand acres of Wyandot land in Ohio. Under this
chiefs and warriors of the mixed band of Shawnee
treaty, the Wyandot of Big Spring were expected to
and Seneca.
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
Treaty with the Shawnee United States to pay for improvements. The treaty
August 8, 1831 was signed by Roe-nu-nas, Bear-skin, Shi-a-wa (John
This treaty arranged for the cession of Shawnee Solomon), John McLean, Matthew Grey Eyes, Isaac
lands in Ohio and for removal of the Wapaghkon- Driver, John D. Brown, and Alex Clark for the Wyan-
netta and Hog Creek Shawnee west of the Missis- dot and by John B. Gardiner for the United States.
sippi. 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 Treaty with the Creeks
on the new land; to pay compensation of $13,000 for March 24, 1832
land sales; and to continue to pay annuities This treaty arranged for the cession of all remain-
promised in former treaties. The treaty was signed at ing Creek lands east of the Mississippi in exchange
Wapaghkonnetta, Allen County, Ohio, by twenty- for five years of $12,000 annuities followed by fif-
one Shawnee chiefs, headmen, and warriors and by teen years of $10,000 annuities, $100,000 with
James B. Gardiner and John McElvain for the United which to pay debt claims against the tribe, and
States. $16,000 for the expenses of the delegation to Wash-

Treaty with the Potawatomi – October 20, 1832 313
ington and for claims brought against them. The Treaty with the Sauk and Fox
United States was also to pay for the cost of September 21, 1832
removal to the new lands. Concluded at Washing-
Concluded at Fort Armstrong, Rock Island, Illinois,
ton, the treaty was signed by Lewis Cass for the
this treaty organized the cession of Sauk and Fox
United States and by Opothleholo, Tuchebatchee-
lands and arranged for removal of the confederated
hadgo, Efiematla, Tuchebatche Micco, Tomack
tribes to reservation lands near the Mississippi
Micco, William McGilvery, and Benjamin Marshall
River and spanning the Iowa River. The United
for the Creek Nations.
States was obligated to pay a thirty-year annuity of
$20,000, to provide a blacksmith shop and a gun-
smith shop for thirty years, to provide a yearly
allowance of tobacco and salt for thirty years, to pay
Treaty with the Seminole $40,000 of debt owed two traders by the Sauk and
May 9, 1832 Fox, and to release Sauk and Fox prisoners, with the
Concluded at Payne’s Landing on the Ocklewaha exception of certain leaders who would be kept as
River, this treaty arranged for the cession of Semi- hostages to ensure the compliance of recently hos-
nole lands in Florida and for removal to Creek tile bands. The treaty also required the hostile bands
lands west of the Mississippi, which might be to be absorbed by the neutral bands. General Win-
extended proportionate to their number. The field Scott and John Reynolds signed on behalf of
United States agreed to pay the Seminole tribe the United States; nine Sauk and twenty-four Fox
$15,400 in compensation, $400 of which would be also signed.
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 Treaty with the
years, to defray the costs of the move, and to sup- Appalachicola Band
ply subsistence for up to one year after arrival. October 11, 1832
The treaty was signed by James Gadsden for the This treaty called for the relinquishment of the reser-
United States and by fifteen Seminole chiefs and vation set aside for the Appalachicola in the Fort
headmen. Moultrie treaty in Florida in September 1823, in
exchange for land west of the Mississippi. It obli-
gated the United States to cover the expense of
removal, to pay $3,000 in currency and $10,000 when
Treaty with the Winnebago complete removal was under way, and to distribute
September 15, 1832 the $5,000 annuities promised in the former treaty.
Concluded at Fort Armstrong, Rock Island, Illinois, The treaty was signed at Tallahassee, Florida Terri-
this treaty organized the cession of Winnebago lands tory, by John Blunt, O Saa-Hajo (Davy), and Co-ha-
in exchange for lands west of the Mississippi. The thlock-co (Cockrane) for the Appalachicola band and
United States agreed to pay $10,000 in currency by James Gadsden for the United States.
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 Treaty with the Potawatomi
band, to provide funding for two physicians, to relo- October 20, 1832
cate the blacksmith shop, and to provide limited Concluded at Camp Tippecanoe, Indiana, this treaty
rations. The treaty required the bands to deliver up arranged for the cession of Potawatomi lands
offenders to U.S. authorities for punishment and to and allowed for individual reservations. In return,
relinquish all hunting, planting, fishing, and other the United States agreed to pay the Potawatomi
privileges on the ceded lands. The treaty was signed $15,000 annually for twenty years, with additional
by Winfield Scott and John Reynolds for the United lifetime annuities going to certain individuals; to pay
States and by more than thirty Winnebago chiefs, claims against the tribe; to pay $45,000 in merchan-
warriors, and headmen. dise immediately upon signing the treaty and an

314 Treaty with the Chickasaw – October 20, 1832
additional $30,000 the following year; and to pay for teen years, to begin the second year after ratifica-
horses taken from the tribe during the recent war. tion, with additional sums to be paid for other
The treaty guaranteed the Potawatomi the right to services and establishments. Concluded at Castor
hunt and fish on the ceded lands. It was signed by Hill, St. Louis County, Missouri, the treaty was
Jonathan Jennings, John W. Davis, and Marks Crume signed by William Clark, Frank J. Allen, and
as commissioners for the United States and by more Nathan Kouns for the United States and by nine-
than sixty Potawatomi. teen Kickapoo representatives.
Treaty with the Chickasaw Treaty with the Potawatomi

October 20, 1832 October 26, 1832
This treaty arranged for the cession of Chickasaw The treaty was a cession of Potawatomi lands in the
lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for land state of Indiana, with limited reservations for certain
west of the Mississippi. Under this treaty, the United bands, in exchange for annuities and payments in
States was obligated to pay arranged annuities and goods. The United States agreed to pay for debts
other compensation and to settle boundary lines against the tribe and to construct a sawmill on the
with the Choctaw. The treaty also forbade the occu- reserved lands. Concluded on the Tippecanoe River
pation of Chickasaw lands before their sale. Con- in Indiana, this treaty was signed by Marks Crume,
cluded at the Council House on Pontitock Creek in Jonathan Jennings, and John W. Davis for the United
the Chickasaw Nation, the treaty was signed by John States and by more than forty Potawatomi chiefs,
Coffee for the United States and by sixty-five repre- headmen, and warriors.
sentatives of the Chickasaw Nation.
Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc.

Treaty with the Chickasaw October 26, 1832
October 22, 1832 Concluded at Castor Hill, St. Louis County, Mis-
This agreement was supplementary to the treaty of souri, this treaty organized the cession of Shawnee
October 20, 1832, and specified that lands reserved and Delaware lands in Missouri. In return, the
to Chickasaw families were not to be sold or leased United States agreed to pay the Delaware for
by them to anyone. Instead, sale agreements would improvements to the land, maintenance of a mill,
be determined by chiefs and the president. The support for education, purchase of cattle and other
treaty also arranged for a mail route to cross Chicka- stock, to pay Delaware debts, and to help compen-
saw lands. Concluded at Pontitock Creek, the treaty sate for costs incurred during removal. The treaty
was signed by John Coffee for the United States and required the Shawnee to remove all bands in the
by more than seventy Chickasaw representatives. 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,
Treaty with the Kickapoo and Nathan Kouns for the United States and by ten
October 24, 1832 representatives of the Shawnee and Delaware.
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 Mis-
souri, in exchange for land southwest of the Missis- Treaty with the Potawatomi
sippi River. The United States also agreed to pay October 26, 1832
$18,000, $12,000 of which would be given to the This treaty made limited reservations for certain
superintendent of Indian affairs to be applied to the bands from the cession. The United States was obli-
tribe’s debts, and any balance remaining would be gated to pay the tribe a twenty-year annuity of
returned to the tribe. The United States was also to $20,000; to deliver $100,000 in goods upon the con-
pay a $5,000 annuity in currency or goods for nine- clusion of the treaty; to pay an additional $30,000 in

Treaty with the Western Cherokee – February 14, 1833 315
goods the following year, to be delivered by the tural assistance and $200 in merchandise upon con-
Indian agent; and to pay the debts of the clusion of the treaty. The Wea received a $500 value
Potawatomi. Concluded on the Tippecanoe River in in livestock and other goods, and $200 in cash and
Indiana, the treaty was signed by Marks Crume, merchandise upon signing. The Wea of Indiana
Jonathan Jennings, and John W. Davis for the United would be assisted in joining this group. Concluded
States and by more than forty Potawatomi chiefs, at Castor Hill, St. Louis County, Missouri, the treaty
headmen, and warriors. 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, Treaty with the
this treaty was arranged between the Peoria and Seneca and Shawnee
Kaskaskia tribes and the Michigamia, Cahokia, and
December 29, 1832
Tamarois bands, formerly of the Illinois Nation. The
Concluded at the Seneca agency on the Cowskin
treaty arranged for the uniting of the Kaskaskia and
River, this treaty organized the cession of Seneca and
Peoria through the cession of lands occupied by the
Shawnee land granted in the July 1831 treaty, in
Kaskaskia under the August 13, 1803, treaty at Vin-
exchange for different lands west of the Mississippi
cennes in Illinois and Missouri, for their removal from
that would better accommodate the recent union of
those lands to those possessed by the Peoria west of
the two tribes. The United States agreed to build
Missouri, and for some addition to these lands. The
immediately a gristmill, a sawmill, and a blacksmith
Kaskaskia were required to give up former annuity
shop and to pay $1,000, to be divided between the
agreements. The treaty was signed by William Clark,
Seneca of Sandusky and the Seneca and Shawnee
Frank J. Allen, and Nathan Kouns for the United States
from Lewiston. The treaty was signed by Henry J.
and by five Peoria and four Kaskaskia.
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 Mun-
Treaty with the
see, Brothertown, and Stockbridge Indians of New Western Cherokee
York. It determined the new boundaries and reserva- February 14, 1833
tions. The treaty was signed at the agency house at This treaty took place after councils held between
Green Bay by George B. Porter for the United States the Cherokee and the Creek Nations regarding over-
and by eighteen Menominee representatives. lapping lands outlined in treaties; it stipulated the
new boundary agreed on between the two nations. It
also obligated the United States to correct the situa-
tion by recognizing this new boundary and by
Treaty with the reserving additional lands to the tribes to equal the
Piankashaw and Wea intended space documented in previous treaties. The
October 29, 1832 United States also agreed to provide materials to
This treaty organized the cession of remaining build and support four blacksmith shops, one
Piankashaw and Wea lands in Missouri and Illinois wagon-maker’s shop, and one wheelwright shop,
in exchange for a tract of land near the Peoria west of and to erect eight patent railway corn mills. Con-
Missouri. The United States agreed to pay the cluded at Fort Gibson on the Arkansas River, the
Piankashaw in livestock and merchandise annually treaty was signed by Montfort Stokes, Henry L.
for five years for losses incurred during removal, up Ellsworth, and John F. Schermerhorn for the United
to a $500 value; it also agreed to pay $750 for agricul- States and by John Jolly, Black Coat, Walter Weller,

316 Treaty with the Creek – February 14, 1833
and principal chiefs John Rogers and Glass for the Treaty with the Quapaw
Western Cherokee. 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 Novem-
Treaty with the Creeks ber 15, 1824, treaty. With this treaty, the Quapaw
February 14, 1833 ceded the lands on the Bayou Treache of the Red
This treaty supports the same objects as the treaty River (Caddo land) in exchange for different land
made the same day with the Western Cherokee. This west of Missouri. The United States agreed to pay
treaty also covered the Seminole, who wished to for relocation and debts; to supply the Quapaw with
rejoin the Creeks, noting that the Seminole would a year of provisions, livestock, and other merchan-
live on land reserved for the Creek Nations but dise, including farming and agricultural tools; and to
located in a separated area. This treaty also obli- pay $1,000 dollars annually for educational purposes
gated the United States to build and support certain and a twenty-year annuity of $2,000. The treaty was
shops and mills and to fund education. The treaty signed by John F. Schermerhorn for the United States
was concluded at Fort Gibson; it was signed by and by eleven Quapaw.
Montfort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth, and John F.
Schermerhorn for the United States and by nine
Creek chiefs.
Treaty with the
Appalachicola Band
June 18, 1833
Treaty with the Ottawa This treaty called for the cession of lands set aside
February 18, 1833 for the band in the September 1823 treaty at Camp
Under this treaty, the Ottawa ceded two reserva- Moultrie, in exchange for small individual or group
tions and any other land located in the vicinity of reservations. It also stipulated that, once the Semi-
the Miami River or Miami Bay of Lake Erie. The nole were removed, the protection of the United
treaty outlined reservations to be made for individ- States would cease, and the Appalachicola would be
uals or small groups and obligated the United subject to the laws of Florida Territory if they chose
States to pay $29,440 to the tribe for payment of to remain. The United States was still obligated to
claims against them. Concluded at Maumee, Ohio, pay to those remaining in Florida Territory the
the treaty was signed by George B. Porter for the $5,000 annuity promised under the Camp Moultrie
United States and by twenty-one Ottawa chiefs and treaty. Concluded at Pope’s, Fayette County, Florida
headmen. Territory, this treaty was signed by James Gadsden
for the United States and by nine Appalachicola.
Treaty with the Seminole

March 28, 1833 Treaty with the
This treaty related to the treaty with the Creek in Otoe and Missouri
February 1833 and the 1832 treaty at Payne’s Land- September 21, 1833
ing. Under this treaty, the Seminole were allotted Concluded at the Otoe village on the Platte River,
their portion of the lands then occupied by the Creek this treaty organized a land cession and outlined
Nation, and the appointment of Major Phagen was the conditions of the cession. The United States
requested to organize and aid in Seminole relocation was obligated to continue the $2,500 annuity
west of the Mississippi. Concluded at Fort Gibson, promised in the Treaty of Prairie du Chien, to con-
the treaty was signed by Montfort Stokes, Henry L. tinue the $500 annuity for agricultural supplies, to
Ellsworth, and John F. Schermerhorn for the United pay a five-year annuity of $500 for education, to
States and by John Hick, Holata Emartta, Jumper, construct a corn-grinding mill, to provide five
Coe Hadgo, Charley Emartta, Ya-ha-hadge, and Ne- years of agricultural assistance, to provide $1,000
ha-tho-clo for the Seminole. in livestock, and to pay $400 in goods and mer-

Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. – September 26, 1833 317
chandise at the conclusion of the treaty signing. southern Michigan. It also provided for the
The treaty was signed by Henry L. Ellsworth for removal of the United Band of Ottawa, Chippewa,
the United States and by twenty-six Otoe and Mis- and Potawatomi Indians from the region. As a
souri representatives. 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, representa-
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc. tives of the United Band and other Potawatomi
September 26, 1833 groups agreed to meet with U.S. commissioners. At
Also called the Treaty of Chicago, this treaty was the end of the negotiations, the Indians had ceded
negotiated in September 1833 in Chicago, Illinois, approximately five million acres, and most had
and it arranged for the cession of lands in north- agreed to relocate to new homes west of the Missis-
eastern Illinois, southeastern Wisconsin, and sippi 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)

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 Ameri- ceded claims to all of its lands in northeastern
can settlement and the opening of the Erie Canal had Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin, which con-
tremendously increased the scale of American sisted of approximately five million acres. In
migration into the western Great Lakes region. The return, the United States granted an equal amount
non-Indian population of Illinois alone had tripled of land located just north of the state of Missouri,
in the period from statehood in 1818 to 1830. to which the Indians were required to remove
Although initial settlement had focused on the within three years from the date of ratification of
lead-mining region in the northwestern part of the the treaty. Additional articles provided money for
state, the scope had begun to change. This encroach- education, agriculture, debt payments, and ex -
ment, combined with the passage of the Indian penses related to the future removal. The second
Removal Act in 1830, increased the pressure on part of the treaty encompassed several supplemen-
resident Indian groups to move to lands west of the tary agreements and addressed separate negotia-
Mississippi. In the fall of 1833, three government- tions with the Potawatomi residents of southern
designated treaty commissioners met in Chicago Michigan. These bands and their main spokesman,
with the representatives of some of the largest Native Pokagun, represented the strongest opposition to
landholders remaining in the region. More than eight removal among the participating Indian groups.
thousand Indians and Americans gathered by the As a result of this resistance to relocation, the
shores of Lake Michigan to participate in the negotia- treaty commissioners negotiated a separate accord
tions, which lasted for more than two weeks. with these Indians. Although the primary supple-
The treaty can be separated into two parts. The ment did arrange for the cession of all their lands
first and largest portion of the treaty addressed the in southern Michigan, an addendum allowed for
negotiations made with the representatives of the some of these Michigan Potawatomis to move onto
United Band of Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pota - lands in northern Michigan, as opposed to lands
watomi Indians. In this section, the United Band west of the Mississippi.

Treaty with the Potawatomi – December 10, 1834 319
Assessment of this treaty’s impact must take blacksmith shop and four corn-grinding mills. The
into account a number of issues. In the first place, the four bands would also receive $1,000 in goods and
treaty arranged the removal of a significant popula- merchandise upon signing the treaty. Concluded at
tion of Indians from the western Great Lakes region the Grand Pawnee village on the Platte River, this
and opened up five million acres to American set- treaty was signed by Henry L. Ellsworth for the
tlers. But the treaty’s influence went beyond this ces- United States and by four Grand Pawnee, four
sion of Native-owned lands. Significantly, the treaty Pawnee Republican, four Tappaye Pawnee, and
and its addenda illustrated some of the ways in four Pawnee Loup representatives.
which populations of Indian peoples avoided
removal. In particular, Pokagun’s stance against the
land cession led to the treaty addendum that pro-
vided an exemption for his band in southern Michi- Treaty with the Chickasaw
gan. This community of Potawatomi maintained a May 24, 1834
presence in the region long after the United Band This treaty was designed to maintain peaceful rela-
had moved to the Council Bluffs area in Iowa Terri- tions, to aid the Chickasaw in removal, to protect
tory. Finally, the negotiations in 1833 illustrated the Chickasaw lands, to distribute grants and reserva-
growing influence of individuals of mixed descent tions, to determine boundaries, and to regulate land
within the United Band in particular. Two of the men sales. It also included supplementary articles regard-
designated as chiefs who signed the treaty, Billy ing individuals, ceded reservation land, stolen
Caldwell and Alexander Robinson, were not men money, and educational provisions. Concluded at
born into the United Band. Caldwell, or Saukenuk, Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner
came from a Mohawk-Irish lineage; Robinson, or John H. Eaton for the United States and by George
Cheecheebinquay, from an Ottawa-British one. Both Colbert and Isaac Albertson for the Chickasaw.
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 Treaty with the Miami
October 23, 1834
See also Caldwell, Billy; Indian Removal; Indian This treaty arranged the cession of lands reserved to
Removal Act, 1830; Pokagun.
the Miami in Indiana for previous cessions. In
return, the United States agreed to pay the Miami
Clifton, James A. 1977. The Prairie People: Continuity
$200,000, to issue individual patents and land grants,
and Change in Potawatomi Indian Culture
1665–1965. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas. to substitute a miller for the blacksmith promised in
Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of a previous treaty, and to compensate the tribe for
the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. horses stolen by whites. Concluded at the forks of
Tanner, Helen Hornbeck. 1987. Ed. Atlas of Great Lakes the Wabash River in Indiana, the treaty was signed
Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma by William Marshall for the United States and by
Press. thirty-one Miami chiefs and warriors.
Treaty with the Potawatomi

Treaty with the Pawnee December 10, 1834
October 9, 1833 The tribe ceded six sections of land temporarily
This treaty arranged for the cession by confeder- reserved to them in the October 1832 treaty at
ated bands of Pawnee of all land south of the Platte Tippecanoe. The United States agreed to pay $400
River, with the retention of hunting rights upon in goods and a two-year annuity of $1,000. Con-
said land. The United States was obligated to pay cluded on the Tippecanoe River in Indiana, the
the Pawnee a twelve-year annuity of $4,600 in treaty was signed by William Marshall for the
goods, an additional five-year annuity of $500 for United States and by Muck Rose, Paw-tisse, Sis-see-
agricultural supplies, and a ten-year annuity of yaw, Wau-pish-shaw, and Koo-tah-waun-nay for the
$1,000 for education, and to supply and support a Potawatomi.

320 Treaty with the Potawatomi – December 16, 1834

Treaty with the Caddo
December 16, 1834
July 1, 1835
Because the cessions made in the previous treaty
included mills, the United States agreed to compen- This treaty arranged a land cession and required
sate for the losses by paying $700 in currency and removal at the expense of the Caddo Nation. The
putting $900 toward the tribe’s debts. Concluded at United States agreed to pay the Caddo $30,000 in
the Potawatomi mills in Indiana, this treaty was goods and horses at the conclusion of the treaty and
signed by twenty-five Potawatomi chiefs, headmen, a five-year annuity of $10,000 in currency. Con-
and warriors and by U.S. Commissioner William cluded at the agency house in the Caddo Nation,
Marshall. Louisiana, this treaty was signed by Jehiel Brooks for
the United States and twenty-five Caddo chiefs,
headmen, and warriors.

December 17, 1834
Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.
This treaty arranged for the removal of the tribe west August 4, 1835
of the Mississippi at the cost of the United States. This treaty was between the Comanche, Wichita, and
The United States agreed to pay $680 in goods to the tribes or bands associated with them, and the Chero-
chief and headmen at the signing of the treaty, as kee, Muscogee (Creek), Choctaw, Osage, Seneca, and
well as $600 in currency for the 1835 annuity. Con- Quapaw. The treaty was designed to establish peace
cluded at the Indian agency, Logansport, Indiana, between these contending tribes and to arrange safe
this treaty was signed by Commissioner William passage of U.S. citizens through their lands while
Marshall for the United States and by Chief Mo-ta traveling to or from Mexico. It also arranged for a
and seventeen Potawatomi headmen. 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,
Treaty with the Potawatomi 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 December 29, 1835
goods at the conclusion of the treaty. The treaty was Also called the Treaty of New Echota, this was a
signed by William Marshall for the United States removal agreement between the federal govern-
and by Com-o-za, Ah-ke-pah-am-sa, Nee-so-aw- ment and a minority faction of the Cherokee Nation
quet, and Paw-pee for the Potawatomi. 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.
Agreement with the Cherokee In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal
March 14, 1835 Act, which provided funds for the president to con-
Concluded at Washington, this treaty is a provisional duct land-exchange treaties with Indians living east
set of arrangements to be presented to and poten- of the Mississippi. Initially, federal negotiators tried
tially approved by the Cherokee east of the Missis- to coerce principal chief John Ross and members of
sippi, including a proposal for the United States the Cherokee National Council to remove to the
to pay $4,500,000 for the cession of all Cherokee West. When federal negotiators were unable to con-
lands east of the Mississippi. This agreement was vince the elected Cherokee leadership to sign a
not ratified. removal treaty, President Andrew Jackson sent

Treaty with the Cherokee – December 29, 1835 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 Set-
tler” 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 Chero-
kees 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. Regard-
John Ridge (1827–1867), one of the Cherokees who supported less of the protests, the Senate ratified the treaty by
removal in the negotiation of the Treaty of New Echota. one vote in May 1836. Undaunted, the Cherokee
(Library of Congress) Nation continued to lobby against the treaty and to
postpone the removal process. In April 1838, approxi-
General William Carroll and Reverend John mately 15,600 of the 16,000 members of the Cherokee
Schermerhorn to draw up a treaty with a few Nation signed and presented a petition to Congress
prominent Cherokees who favored removal. Mem- requesting that the treaty be voided. Congress
bers of this faction, later called the Treaty Party, ignored the petition.
included Major Ridge, John Ridge, Stand Watie, In May 1838, federal officials became frustrated
and Elias Boudinot. with the Cherokee resistance. President Martin Van
Major Ridge was a former acting chief of the Buren ordered General Winfield Scott and seven
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 dis-
turbed 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 Geor-
gia. 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 fed-
eral 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. Major Ridge (1771–1839) was a former acting chief of the
He thought that further resistance to federal Cherokee Nation and a wealthy, slave-owning planter. (Library
removal demands would be futile, that the Chero- of Congress)

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 divi-
sions 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.
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-Watie-
Boudinot Family. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Foreman, Grant. 1953. Indian Removal: The Emigration
Stand Watie (1806–1871), a member of the Treaty Party faction of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Norman:
during the development of the Treaty of New Echota. (National University of Oklahoma Press.
Archives and Records Administration) Moulton, Gary E., ed. 1985. The Papers of Chief John
Ross. 2 vols. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
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 March 26, 1836
began during the summer of 1838 and continued This treaty arranged the cession of four sections of
through the harsh winter of 1839. Of 16,543 Chero- land reserved to the Potawatomi by the October 1832
kees and 1,592 slaves removed, one quarter of the treaty at Tippecanoe. The United States agreed to
people died. The Cherokee call their trek west Nunna pay an additional $2,560 in currency with the next
daul Tsuny—“the trail where they cried.” annuity payment. Concluded at a camp in Turkey
Once the majority of the Cherokee arrived in the Creek Prairie, Indiana, the treaty was signed by Abel
West, the three distinct groups of Cherokee people— C. Pepper for the United States and by Mes-quaw-
the Old Settlers, the Treaty Party, and the Ross buck, Mess-Sett, Muck Rose, Waw-baw-que-ke-aw,
Party—were expected to merge into one single Naush-waw-pi-tant, and Che-qua-sau-quah for the
nation. Unfortunately, the transition was not easy. Potawatomi.
Many of the new arrivals were furious with the mem-
bers 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 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.
execution of the Treaty Party members. March 28, 1836
On the night of June 21, 150 to 200 people gath- This treaty arranged for the cession of lands by the
ered at Takatoka Camp Ground to discuss recent Chippewa and Ottawa, reserving for common use
events. Angry about removal and holding the Treaty by the two tribes certain tracts for five years and
Party responsible for their losses, they decided that lands reserved specifically for the Chippewa north
now was the right time to enforce the Blood Law on of the straits of the Michilimackinac for five years.
the signers of the Treaty of New Echota. They drew The treaty also obligated the United States to pay the

Treaty with the Chippewa – May 9, 1836 323
Ottawa and Chippewa a twenty-year annuity of cle of the treaty at Tippecanoe made October 26,
$30,000 in specie, with other sums to be paid to five 1832. The United States agreed to pay the tribe
individual groups and $1,000 to be invested in stock $6,400 at the first annuity payment after the treaty
by the Treasury Department. Additional sums to be was ratified. The treaty required the Potawatomi on
paid by the United States were to be applied to mis- said lands to relocate west of the Mississippi within
sions, debts, education, agricultural endeavors, two years. Concluded at the Indian agency in Indi-
tools, medicines, and payment of chiefs. The United ana, this treaty was signed by Abel C. Pepper for the
States also agreed to help compensate for the move United States and by thirteen Potawatomi chiefs and
to other reservations and to provide monies for addi- headmen.
tional 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 Treaty with the Potawatomi
John Hulbert for the United States and by thirty-nine April 22, 1836
Ottawa and Chippewa chiefs and delegates. 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 Mis-
Treaty with the Potawatomi sissippi within two years. The United States agreed
March 29, 1836 to pay $1,920 at the first annuity payment after the
This treaty organized the cession of the four tracts of ratification of the treaty. The treaty was signed by
Potawatomi lands reserved to them in a prior treaty Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by Quash-
and required the Potawatomi to remove west of the quaw, Me-cos-ta, Nas-waw-kee, Wem-se-ko, and Ah-
Mississippi within two years. The United States was quash-she for the Potawatomi.
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, Te- Treaty with the Wyandot
shaw-gen, Mes-quaw, Pah-Siss, and She-aw-ke-pee April 23, 1836
for the Potawatomi. 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
Treaty with the Potawatomi financial compensation. It allowed the owners of cer-
April 11, 1836 tain reservations to receive payment for the sale of
The treaty arranged for the cession of the thirty-six their lands. The treaty was signed by John A. Bryan
sections of land reserved to the Potawatomi by for the United States and by William Walker, John
the October 26, 1832, treaty at Tippecanoe and Barnett, and Peacock, leaders of the Wyandot in
removal of the Potawatomi west of the Mississippi Ohio.
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 Treaty with the Chippewa
for the United States and by sixteen Potawatomi May 9, 1836
representatives. 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
Treaty with the Potawatomi in monies and in land west of the Mississippi. Con-
April 22, 1836 cluded at Washington, D.C., this treaty was signed by
This treaty arranged the cession of ten sections of Henry R. Schoolcraft for the United States and by
land reserved for the Potawatomi by the second arti- Esh-ton-o-quot (Clear Sky), Nay-gee-zhig (Driving

324 Treaty with the Potawatomi – August 5, 1836
Clouds), May-zin (Checkered), and Kee-way-gee- Treaty with the Iowa, Etc.
zhig (Returning Sky) for the Chippewa.
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 cooper-
Treaty with the Potawatomi ation. The Missouri band of Sauk and Fox was
August 5, 1836 granted a small tract of land south of the Missouri
This treaty arranged the cession of two sections of River, to be split with the Iowa tribe. The United
land reserved for the Potawatomi by the second arti- States agreed to help construct housing, aid the
cle of the treaty at Tippecanoe made October 26, tribes in establishing farms, and so forth. Concluded
1832, in exchange for payment of $14,080 after treaty at Fort Leavenworth, the treaty was signed by
ratification. The tribe also agreed to relocate to land William Clark for the United States and by twelve
west of the Mississippi within two years. Concluded Iowa and fifteen Sauk and Fox chiefs, counselors,
at a camp near Yellow River, Indiana, this treaty was and warriors.
signed by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and
by thirteen Potawatomi headmen and thirteen chiefs
of the Wabash Potawatomi. Treaty with the Potawatomi
September 20, 1836
Under this treaty, the Potawatomi ceded ten sections
of land reserved for them by the second article of the
Treaty with the Menominee treaty at Tippecanoe, October 27, 1832. The United
September 3, 1836 States agreed to pay them $8,000 for this cession and
This treaty arranged the cession of Menominee land required the relocation of the tribe west of the Mis-
and required the United States to pay a twenty-year sissippi. Concluded at Chippewanaung, Indiana,
annuity of $20,000 and to supply various amounts this treaty was signed by U.S. Commissioner Abel C.
of specified goods annually for twenty years. The Pepper and by We-we-sah (To-I sa’s Brother), Me-
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.

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 pro-
vided $400 worth of goods at the conclusion of the
treaty. The treaty was signed by Colonel Zachary
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, c. 1867. The fort was the scene of
Taylor, acting Indian agent for the United States, and various treaty agreements, including a key treaty with the Iowa
by Sau-tabe-say, Wau-kaun-hendee-oatah, Nau-tay- in 1836. Named after Colonel Henry Leavenworth, Fort
sah-pah, Mauk-pee-au-cat-paun, and Hoo-yah (the Leavenworth is the oldest U.S. fort west of the Mississippi
Eagle) for the Sioux of Wa-ha-shaw. River. (Library of Congress)

Treaty with the Sioux – November 30, 1836 325
mot-way, Che-quaw-ka-ko, Min-tom-in, Shaw- Treaty with the

gwok-skuk, and Mee-kiss (Kaw’s Widow). Sauk and Fox
September 28, 1836
Under this treaty, the Sauk and Fox ceded all four
hundred sections of land reserved to them in the
Treaty with the Potawatomi second article of the September 21, 1832, treaty.
September 22, 1836 The United States agreed to pay $30,000 in specie
for ten years and $48,458 toward Sauk and Fox
Under this treaty, the Potawatomi ceded four
debts. The United States also agreed to deliver
sections of land reserved for them by the second
two hundred horses in June 1837. Provisions were
article of the treaty at Tippecanoe, October 27,
also made for the mixed-blood Sauk and Fox.
1832. The United States agreed to pay $3,200 for
Concluded at the treaty ground on the bank of the
the cession and required the relocation of this
Mississippi in Debuque County, Wisconsin Terri-
band west of the Mississippi within two years.
tory, opposite Rock Island, this treaty was signed
The treaty arranged for the appointment of a com-
by Commissioner Henry Dodge and twenty
missioner to pay the debts of this Potawatomi
chiefs, warriors, and headmen of the confederated
band. Concluded at Chippewanaung, Indiana, the
tribes.
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.
Treaty with the Otoe, Etc.
October 15, 1836
Under this treaty, tribes ceded to the United States
Treaty with the Potawatomi the lands lying between the state of Missouri and
September 23, 1836 the Missouri River and south of a line running due
west from the northwest corner of the state to the
This treaty required the cession of all remaining
Missouri River. The United States presented the
Potawatomi lands in Indiana, reserving sections for
representatives with $4,520 in merchandise and
the use of particular bands. The United States agreed
agreed to furnish the Otoe and Missouri tribes with
to pay $1.25 per acre, or $33,600 in specie in 1837,
five hundred bushels of corn and to break up one
and required the Potawatomi to relocate west
hundred acres of Omaha land and fence it. Con-
of the Mississippi within two years. The treaty
cluded at Bellevue, Upper Missouri, this treaty was
arranged for the appointment of a commissioner to
signed by John Dougherty, Indian agent, and
pay the debts of this Potawatomi band. Concluded
Joshua Pilcher for the United States and by thirteen
at Chippewanaung, Indiana, this treaty was signed
Otoe, seven Missouri, fifteen Omaha, and twelve
by Abel C. Pepper for the United States and by nine-
Yankton and Santee.
teen chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the Wabash
Potawatomi.

November 30, 1836
Treaty with the Sauk The treaty organized the cession of the lands lying
and Fox Tribe between the state of Missouri and the Missouri
September 27, 1836 River. The United States presented the signatories
This treaty organized the cession of Sauk and Fox with $550 in goods. Concluded at St. Peters, the
lands between the state of Missouri and the Mis- treaty was signed by Lawrence Taliaferro, Indian
souri River. The treaty was signed by Henry Dodge, agent, for the United States and by four Sisseton,
superintendent for Indian affairs, and by twenty- four Wahpaakootah, and nine Upper Medawakan-
three Sauk and Fox representatives. ton leaders.

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 north-
ern 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. Com-
missioner 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)

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 Amer-
icans 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, Wa-em-Boesh-Kaa, a Chippewa chief. (Library of Congress)

Treaty with the Chippewa – July 29, 1837 327
to these groups that the United States desired the Treaty with the Choctaw
land in northern Wisconsin specifically for its tim- and Chickasaw
ber resources. As the forests were a renewable
resource, the Ojibwe agreed to cede the land under January 17, 1837
the important stipulation that they could continue This treaty organized the Chickasaw district of the
to hunt, fish, and gather on it, provided they did so Choctaw Nation and required the Chickasaw to pay
peacefully and did not interfere with logging oper- the Choctaw for the rights and privileges discussed
ations. In exchange for the land, Dodge was autho- in the treaty. Concluded on Choctaw lands near Fort
rized to pay $9,500 in currency, $19,000 in goods, Towson at Doaksville, this treaty was signed by
$3,000 to support three blacksmiths, $1,000 for William Armstrong, acting superintendent for the
agricultural pursuits, $2,000 in provisions, $500 for Western Territory, and Henry R. Carter, conductor of
tobacco, and money to settle debts between the the Chickasaw Delegation, for the United States; by
Ojibwe and their traders. John McLish, Pitman Colbert, James Brown, and
The land the United States acquired from the James Perry for the Chickasaw; and by twelve com-
treaty of 1837 was for logging operations and not missioners and seven captains of the Choctaw.
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 February 11, 1837
radically altered; even then, they retained the right Under this treaty, the signatory chiefs and headmen
to hunt and fish on the land they ceded. The treaty agreed to the Indiana land cessions organized by
of 1837 set in motion the tradition of a nonremoval the August 5, September 23, October 26, and
policy by the United States that appeared again in October 23, 1832, treaties. This treaty also dealt
the 1842 and 1854 treaties with the Ojibwe. The with the payment issues relating to the cessions.
Ojibwe have not forgotten this important aspect of The tribe was expected to relocate to a tract of land
the treaties, and in the late 1900s many groups on the Osage River southwest of the Missouri
asserted in court the right to hunt and fish on River. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was
ceded land, for the growing inclination of the signed by Commissioner John T. Douglass for the
United States in the late nineteenth and twentieth United States and by various Potawatomi leaders.
centuries was to restrict those rights. The lasting
impact of these cases has yet to be determined.
Troy Henderson
Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc.
May 26, 1837
This treaty was designed as a treaty of peace and
friendship. It includes stipulations regarding hunt-
See also Sovereignty; Treaty with the ing, payment for stolen property, payment for
Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Treaty with injuries to U.S. traders, hunting boundaries, and
the Chippewa–September 30, 1854; Trust arrangements for a limited negotiated justice system.
Doctrine; Trust Lands. It also required peaceful relations with Mexico. It was
signed by Commissioners Montfort Stokes and A. P.
Danziger, Edmund Jefferson, Jr. 1978. The
Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: Chouteau for the United States and by ten Kiowa,
University of Oklahoma Press. three Ka-ta-ka, four Ta-wa-ka-ro, ten Muscogee, and
McClurken, James M., ed. 2000. Fish in the Lakes, twenty Osage chiefs, headmen, and representatives.
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 Chippewa
Satz, Ronald. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
Reserve Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians July 29, 1837
in Historical Perspective. Madison: Wisconsin This treaty arranged the cession of Chippewa
Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. lands, set new boundaries, required the United

328 Treaty with the Sioux – September 29, 1837
States to make payments for twenty years and to Treaty with the
pay the claims against the tribe, stipulated a sepa- Sauk and Fox
rate payment for the mixed-blood Chippewa, and
October 21, 1837
reserved hunting rights for the Chippewa. Con-
cluded at St. Peters, Wisconsin Territory, the treaty This treaty organized the cession of lands between
was signed by Governor Henry Dodge and by the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and the rights
numerous chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the to hunt, and other purposes, granted the Sauk and
Chippewa. 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 with the Sioux treaty also stipulated the manner in which the
United States should make payments to the Sauk
September 29, 1837 and Fox. Concluded at Washington, the treaty was
This treaty required the Medawakanton Sioux to signed by Carey A. Harris for the United States and
cede all lands east of the Mississippi, including the by Po-ko-mah (the Plum), Nes-mo-ea (the Wolf),
islands in the Mississippi River. The United States Au-ni-mo-ni (the Sun Fish) of the Sauk, and Sa-ka-
agreed to pay various amounts through investments pa (son of Quash-qua-mi) and A-ka-ke (the Crow)
and annuities, to pay for the debts of these Sioux, of the Fox, chiefs and delegates of the Sauk and Fox
and to provide supplies necessary for agricultural of Missouri.
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 Winnebago
Treaty with the November 1, 1837
Sauk and Fox The treaty organized the cession of all lands east of
the Mississippi and required the Winnebago to relin-
October 21, 1837 quish the right to occupy and hunt on certain lands
This treaty organized a land cession to the United set aside for their use west of the Mississippi. The
States, called for aid in the form of buildings, goods, tribe was to relocate within eight months. The
horses and gifts, investments, and payment of tribal United States agreed to pay $200,000 toward
debts, and required the Sauk and Fox to relocate debtors’ claims, goods, provisions, individual pay-
from all lands except those in Kee-o-kuck’s Village, ments, construction, and agriculture. Concluded at
who would relocate in two years. Concluded at Washington, this treaty was signed by Carey A. Har-
Washington, the treaty was signed by Carey A. ris for the United States and by twenty Winnebago
Harris for the United States and by Kee-o-kuck (the chiefs and delegates.
Watchful Fox) and twenty-two other Sauk and Fox
representatives.
Treaty with the Iowa

Treaty with the November 23, 1837
Yankton Sioux This treaty arranged the cession of lands discussed
October 21, 1837 in the July 15, 1830, treaty. It required the United
Under this treaty, the Yankton ceded lands described States to pay $2,500 in horses, goods, and presents
in the second article of the treaty of July 15, 1830. The upon conclusion of the treaty. Concluded at St.
United States agreed to pay $4,000 for this cession. Louis, this treaty was signed by Joshua Pilcher,
Concluded at Washington, this treaty was signed by Indian agent, for the United States and by Ne-o-
Carey A. Harris for the United States and by nine mon-ni, Non-che-ning-ga, Wat-che-mon-ne, and
Yankton chiefs and delegates. Tah-ro-hon for the Iowa tribe.

Treaty with the Creek – November 23, 1838 329
Treaty with the Chippewa was signed by Carey A. Harris for the United States
and by Henry Powles, John Denny (John Sundown),
December 20, 1837
Adam Swamp, Daniel Bread, and Jacob Cornelius
This treaty organized the payment for lands ceded in
for the Oneida.
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 Treaty with the Iowa
west of Lake Superior. The treaty also set forth
October 19, 1838
guidelines for payments to the tribe to be made by
This treaty outlined the cession to the United States
the United States. Concluded at Flint River in Michi-
of all lands between the Mississippi and Missouri
gan, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Henry
rivers and between the Sauk and Fox and the Sioux,
R. Schoolcraft for the United States and by ten chiefs
reserving for the Iowa two hundred acres. It also
and headmen of the Chippewa.
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
Treaty with the chosen by the tribe. Concluded at the Great
New York Indians Nemowhaw subagency, this treaty was signed by
January 15, 1838 John Doughtery, agent of Indian affairs, and by
This treaty called for land cessions, removal, and the thirteen chiefs and headmen of the Iowa Nation.
reservation of other lands for the signatory tribes
and stipulated methods of payment to them. Con-
cluded at Buffalo Creek, New York, this treaty was
signed by Commissioner Ransom H. Gillet for the
Treaty with the Miami
United States and by numerous chiefs, headmen, November 6, 1838
and warriors of the Seneca, Tuscarora, St. Regis, This treaty called for the cession of certain reserva-
Onondaga, Cayuga, and Oneida of New York, Green tion lands, with some portions of the land to be kept
Bay, and the Seneca Reservation. 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
Treaty with the Chippewa the forks of the Wabash River, the treaty was signed
January 23, 1838 by Commissioner Abel C. Pepper for the United
This treaty dealt with the sale of the lands ceded by States and twenty-three Miami representatives.
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, Treaty with the Creeks
Mo-cuck-koosh, Oe-quee-wee-sance, Saw-wur-bon, November 23, 1838
Show-show-o-nu-bee-see, and Ar-ber-too-quet for This treaty arranged for the dropping of Creeks
the Chippewa. “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
Treaty with the Oneida by the United States on behalf of the Creeks for
February 3, 1838 twenty-five years, after which the investment would
Under this treaty, the First Christian and Orchard be appropriated to the tribe. Further financial provi-
Oneidas ceded lands reserved to them by the Febru- sions were made for the McIntosh party of Creek emi-
ary 1831 treaty with the Menominee. Certain por- grants, for the relocation, and in “consideration of the
tions of the lands were reserved to the Oneida. The suffering condition of about 2,500 of Creek nations
treaty also outlined the methods of payment for who were removed to this country as hostiles.”
these cessions. Concluded at Washington, the treaty Concluded at Fort Gibson, the treaty was signed by

330 Treaty with the Osage – January 11, 1839
Captain William Armstrong and Brevet Brigadier Treaty with the Miami
General M. Arbuckle for the United States and by November 28, 1840
twenty-seven Creeks delegates.
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 pay-
ments were to be made to the family of Francis God-
Treaty with the Osage froy in lieu of labor, that the United States was to
January 11, 1839 convey certain land to Me-shing-go-me-zia, and that
Under this treaty, the Osage ceded all claims to lands the Miami people were to move to the land stipu-
lying within the boundaries of other tribes or lated in the treaty. It further stipulated what was to
reserved to them under the treaties of November 10, be done if the payment of debts was too great, and
1808, and June 2, 1825 (except that described in the gave sections of land to John B. Richardville and
sixth article). The treaty outlines the means of com- Francis Lafountain. The treaty was signed by
pensation to be paid to the Osage by the United Samuel Milroy and Allen Hamilton for the United
States. Concluded at Fort Gibson, the treaty was States and by twenty leaders of the Miami.
signed by Brigadier General M. Arbuckle for the
United States and by more than seventy Osage
chiefs, headmen, and warriors.
Treaty with the Wyandot

March 17, 1842
Treaty with This treaty called for a cession of lands to the United
the Chippewa States, gave a grant from the United States to the
February 7, 1839 Wyandot, and provided for an annuity. It also stipu-
lated that a school was to be built, that the value of
This treaty arranged the sale of lands ceded in
improvements was to be paid to the Wyandot, and
Michigan in the January 14, 1837, treaty. Con-
that debts would be paid in full. It further provided
cluded at Lower Saganaw, Michigan, this treaty
for a blacksmith, a subagent, and an interpreter and
was signed by John Hulbert, acting superintendent
required the mission and buildings to remain. It set
of Indian affairs, for the United States and by
forth who could share the annuity, what was done
Ogima Kegido, Waubredoaince, Muckuk Kosh,
with land formerly owned by Horonu, and required
Osaw Wauban, Sheegunageezhig, Penayseewabee,
the Wyandot to move to their new reservation; and
Caw-ga-ke-she-sa, and Shawun Epenaysee of the
it allowed for a grant and payment to certain per-
Chippewa.
sons, 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 Treaty with the Seneca
of the lands reserved to the Stockbridge and Mun- May 20, 1842
see by the October 7, 1832, treaty with the Menomi- This treaty set forth indentures between Ogden and
nee. It also outlined the compensation to be paid by Fellows and the Seneca Indians. Under its terms, the
the United States. Concluded at Stockbridge, Wis- United States agreed to the said indentures and that
consin Territory, this treaty was signed by Commis- Seneca who moved from the state of New York were
sioner Albert Gallup for the United States and by entitled to the benefits thereof. The treaty was signed
thirty-five representatives of the Stockbridge and by Ambrose Spencer and thirty-two leaders of the
Munsee. Seneca.

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox – October 11, 1842 331
ters, $2,000 to support schools, $2,000 for tobacco,

Treaty with the Chippewa and money to settle debts with traders to whom the
October 4, 1842 Ojibwe were in debt.
The treaty of 1842 with the Ojibwe (or Chippewa) By supporting schools, carpenters, farmers, and
took place at La Pointe, Wisconsin, between the blacksmiths, the United States was clearly attempt-
United States and twenty-three distinct bands of the ing to inject elements of white society into the
Ojibwe, which represented two major groups called Ojibwe culture. Like the missionaries who had estab-
the Ojibwe of Lake Superior and the Ojibwe of the lished themselves among the Ojibwe, the United
Mississippi. Like the 1837 treaty with the Ojibwe, the States embarked on “civilizing” the Ojibwe by
1842 treaty involved the cession of lands to the encouraging the Native Americans to adopt a
United States in exchange for annuity payments, lifestyle similar to that of white society. Paradoxi-
provisions, an agricultural fund, and, most impor- cally, the policy of the United States was also to
tant for the Ojibwe, the right to hunt, fish, and gather threaten the removal of the Ojibwe, which did noth-
on the land they ceded. The land ceded in the treaty ing to help incorporate them into “civilized” society.
of 1842 included the western portion of the Upper After the treaty of 1842 was signed, confusion over
Peninsula of Michigan and the last of the Ojibwe which Ojibwe would receive the annuity payments,
lands in northern Wisconsin. Although the U.S. gov- as well as a growing threat by the United States to
ernment had a growing inclination to displace the remove the Ojibwe, led to another treaty negotiation
Ojibwe from their homelands in the 1840s and early in 1854.
1850s, the 1842 treaty continued the unique tradition Troy Henderson
of nonremoval established by the United States and
See also Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837;
the Ojibwe in the treaty of 1837.
Treaty with the Chippewa–September 30, 1854.
Pressured by the profitability of the mineral References and Further Reading
deposits on the southern shore of Lake Superior, the Cleland, Charles E. 1992. Rites of Conquest: The History
United States commissioned Robert Stuart, former and Culture of Michigan’s Native Americans. Ann
chief factor of the American Fur Company, to acquire Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
the land that contained the valuable resources. Stu- Danziger, Edmund Jefferson, Jr. 1978. The Chippewas
art was given instructions by the commissioner of of Lake Superior. Norman: University of
Indian affairs to attempt to include a stipulation in Oklahoma Press.
McClurken, James M., ed. 2000. Fish in the Lakes, Wild
the treaty that would remove the Lake Superior
Rice, and Game in Abundance: Testimony on Behalf
Ojibwe westward to lands held by the Ojibwe of the of Mille Lacs Ojibwe Hunting and Fishing Rights.
Mississippi, to form a common territory for both East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
groups. This act of combining Native American
groups into political entities that did not exist natu-
rally 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 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox
together as well as at the notion of removal. October 11, 1842
Recognizing the Ojibwes’ concern over the This treaty arranged for lands to be ceded to the
removal clause, Stuart did not force the issue, and United States and stipulated that the United States
the content of the treaty of 1842 was very similar to would pay for these ceded lands. It further required
the treaty of 1837. The Ojibwe retained the right to land to be assigned for permanent residence, black-
hunt, fish, and gather on the land they ceded to the smith and gunsmith shops to be maintained, and the
United States, but Stuart made it clear that future boundary to be run and marked. Further, the treaty
removal was a possibility. The discretion to remove called for the tribes to move and gave provisions for
the Ojibwe at a future date was given to the presi- these moves. It stated that each principal chief was
dent of the United States. In exchange for the land in to receive $500 annually and that $30,000 was to be
the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a por- retained at each annual payment. It explained how
tion of northern Wisconsin, the Ojibwe were given each payment was to be expended, set forth the
annual payments of $12,500 in currency, $10,500 in application of any portion of annuities, and set aside
goods, $2,000 to support two blacksmiths, $1,000 to certain funds for agricultural purposes. The treaty
support two farmers, $1,200 to support two carpen- also stipulated that the area where Chief Wa-pel-lo

332 Agreement with the Delaware and Wyandot – December 14, 1843
was buried, which amounted to 640 acres, was to be to the Methodist Episcopal Church, set provisions
given to Mrs. Eliza M. Street. The treaty was signed and boundaries, and established May 1, 1847, as the
by John Chambers for the United States and by date by which the Kansa were to be moved from the
forty-five leaders of the Sauk and Fox tribes. ceded lands. It granted to the president of the United
States the power to decide whether or not a suffi-
ciency of timber remained on Kansas lands, asked
for additional cession by the Kansas, stipulated that
Agreement with the a subagent would reside among them, and provided
Delaware and Wyandot for a smith and support for same. The treaty was
December 14, 1843 signed by Thomas H. Harvey and Richard W. Cum-
This agreement stated that the Wyandot Nation mins for the United States and by nineteen leaders of
should take no better right or interest in and to the Kansa tribe.
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
Treaty with the Comanche,
for Indian affairs. Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc.
May 15, 1846
This treaty involved trade regulations, the release
of black and white prisoners in Texas, and a limited
Treaty with the Creeks negotiated justice system. It also stipulated that
and Seminole anyone bringing liquor to the tribe would be pun-
January 4, 1845 ished by law. Blacksmiths, schoolteachers, and
This treaty permitted the Seminole tribe to settle in preachers of the gospel were to be sent among the
any part of Creek country, rendered the Seminole tribes to reside among them. The treaty was signed
subject to the Creek council, and stipulated no dis- at Council Springs in Robinson County, Texas, near
tinction between them except in pecuniary affairs; the Brazos River by Commissioners P. M. Butler
and it required Seminole tribe members who had and M. G. Lewis for the United States and by sixty-
not moved to Creek country to do so immediately. one chiefs, counselors, and warriors of the
The treaty further required certain contested cases Comanche, I-on-i, Ana-da-ca, Caddo, Lepan, Long-
concerning the right of property to be subject to the wha, Keechy, Tah-wa-carro, Wichita, and Wacoe
decision of the president. It allowed for a twenty- tribes.
year annuity of $3,000 for education for the Creeks,
set forth the uses of the education fund and annu-
ities, and stipulated the rations to be issued to the
Seminole tribe members who moved to Creek
Treaty with the
country. It also set forth sums from previous Potawatomi Nation
treaties and allowed $1,000 for agricultural imple- June 5 and 17, 1846
ments. The treaty was signed by William Arm- The Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi, the Potawa-
strong, P. M. Butler, James Logan, and Thomas L. tomi of the Prairie, the Potawatomi of the Wabash,
Judge for the United States and by forty-one lead- and the Potawatomi of Indiana, subsequent to the
ers of the Creeks and twenty-two leaders of the year 1828, entered into separate and distinct treaties
Seminole. 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,
Treaty with the Kansa Tribe title to former grants and reservations, and payments
January 14, 1846 and provisions for their annual improvement fund
This treaty arranged for lands to be ceded to the and school fund. The treaty also stipulated the means
United States and for the United States to pay for by which the United States would compensate the
these ceded lands. The treaty provided funds for tribe. The treaty was signed at the agency on the
education and agriculture and for a sum to be paid Missouri River near Council Bluffs and at Potawatomi

Treaty with the Menominee – October 18, 1848 333
Creek near the Osage River, south and west of the Treaty with the Chippewa of the
state of Missouri, by T. P. Andrews, Thomas H. Har- Mississippi and Lake Superior
vey, and G. C. Matlock, commissioners for the United
August 2, 1847
States, and by numerous chiefs and delegates of the
Potawatomi bands. This treaty was designed to promote peaceful rela-
tions 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
Treaty with the Cherokee M. Rice for the United States and by forty Chippewa
August 6, 1846 chiefs, headmen, and warriors.
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. Pro- Treaty with the Pillager Band
visions were also made for the heirs of Major Ridge, of Chippewa Indians
John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot. It was also guaran- August 21, 1847
teed that no rights or claims under the treaty of 1835 This treaty was designed to promote peaceful rela-
or its supplement would be taken away from the tions and to arrange the cession of Chippewa lands
Cherokee who were residing in the states east of the to the United States. Under its terms, the ceded lands
Mississippi River. The treaty was signed in Wash- were to be held as Indian lands until the president
ington, D.C., by three commissioners—Edmund chose to allocate them otherwise. The treaty also
Burke, William Armstrong, and Albion K. Parris— stipulated the means by which the United States
for the United States and by John Ross, principal would compensate the tribe. Concluded at Leech
chief of the Cherokee Nation. David Vann, William Lake, the treaty was signed by Isaac A. Verplank,
S. Coody, Richard Taylor, T. H. Walker, Clement V. Henry M. Rice, and interpreter George Bonja for the
McNair, Stephen Foreman, John Drew, and Richard United States and by nine chiefs, headmen, and war-
Fields signed as delegates of the Cherokee Nation; riors of the Chippewa.
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 rec-
ognized as the Treaty Party. John Brown, Captain Treaty with the Pawnee–Grand,
Dutch, John L. McCoy, Richard Drew, and Ellis Loups, Republicans, Etc.
Phillips represented the Western Cherokees, or Old August 6, 1848
Settlers.
This treaty arranged a Pawnee land cession, outlined
the means by which the United States would com-
pensate 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
Treaty with the Winnebago Wood River. Concluded at Fort Childs on the south
October 13, 1846 side of the Nebraska or Great Platte River, the treaty
This treaty was designed to promote peace and to was signed by Lieutenant Colonel Ludwell E. Powell
arrange the cession of lands to the United States. It for the United States and by principal chief Chef Ma-
also outlined the means by which the United States laigne and twelve other Pawnee representatives.
agreed to compensate the tribe, and it gave the
Winnebago one year to relocate to lands assigned
them west of the Mississippi. Concluded at Wash-
ington, the treaty was signed by Commissioners Treaty with the Menominee
Albion K. Parris, John J. Abert, and T. P. Andrews of October 18, 1848
the United States and by twenty-four chiefs, head- Concluded at Lake Pow-aw-hay-kon-nay, Wiscon-
men, and delegates of the Winnebago. sin, this treaty outlined the cession of Menominee

334 Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe – November 24, 1848
lands and arranged for removal to “tract of land Treaty with the Utah
ceded to the said United States by the Chippewa
December 30, 1849
Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, in the
This treaty was intended to bring about peaceful
treaty of August 2, 1847, and the Pillager band of
relations. It forbade the Utah to associate with other
Chippewa Indians, in the treaty of August 21,
tribes hostile to the United States and required them
1847.” It allowed the Menominee two years to relo-
to return captives and stolen goods. It also required
cate. The treaty also outlined U.S. responsibilities to
the Utah to accept boundaries stipulated by the
the tribe and the means by which the tribe would
United States, to allow the establishment of military
be compensated. W. Medill, commissioner, signed
posts and agencies, and to take up agricultural
on the part of the United States, and thirty-seven
lifestyles. It also outlined the means of compensation
Indians signed representing the Menominee tribe of
to be employed by the United States. Concluded at
Wisconsin.
Abiquiu, New Mexico, the treaty was signed by
Indian Agent and Commissioner James S. Calhoun
for the United States and by principal chief Quixi-
achigiate and more than twenty-five other Utah rep-
resentatives.
Treaty with the
Stockbridge Tribe
November 24, 1848
This treaty outlined the cession of rights guaran- Treaty with the Wyandot
teed the tribe under certain previous treaties and April 1, 1850
the means by which the United States would com- Under this treaty, the United States agreed to pay the
pensate the tribe. Under this treaty, the Stock- Wyandot, for relinquishing claim to certain lands,
bridge were allowed one year to relocate to lands $100,000 to be invested in government stocks for 5
set apart for them or to lands west of the Missis- percent per annum and $85,000 to be paid to the
sippi. Concluded at Stockbridge, Wisconsin, the Wyandot or on their drafts. The expenses of negoti-
treaty was signed by Morgan L. Martin and Albert ating this treaty were to be paid by the United States.
G. Ellis for the United States and by Augustin E. The treaty was signed in Washington by Ardavan S.
Quinney (a sachem), Zeba T. Peters, Peter D. Lit- Loughery, commissioner for the United States, and
tleman, Abram Pye, and twenty-three counselors by the head chief and deputies of the Wyandot tribe.
for the Stockbridge.
Robinson Superior Treaty

(First Robinson Treaty)
Treaty with the Navajo September 7, 1850
September 9, 1849 The Robinson treaties of 1850, negotiated between
This treaty was designed to bring about peaceful the Ojibwe of the Upper Great Lakes and the Crown,
relations; it called for Navajo recognition of U.S. were essentially land cession treaties whereby the
authority and for the Navajo to release captives Ojibwe people of northern Ontario granted the
and return stolen property, and it allowed the Canadian government the right to grant mining
establishment of military posts. It required the companies and others access to certain areas from
tribe to give up individuals suspected in a murder the shorelines of Lake Huron and Lake Superior “to
and to allow free passage of U.S. citizens through the height of land.” The Native people reserved
their lands, and it required the United States to some areas for their exclusive use and also retained
provide gifts. Concluded at Cheille Valley, the the right hunt in fish in the ceded territories.
treaty was signed by Indian Agent James S. Cal- Because two treaties were negotiated on behalf
houn and Brevet Lieutenant Colonel John M. of the Crown by the same person, William Benjamin
Washington for the United States and by Mariano Robinson, and in the same place, Sault Ste. Marie,
Martinez, head chief, Chapitone, second chief, and the fact that there are two separate treaties is often
five others for the Navajo. overlooked. The first treaty to be signed is usually

Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty) – September 9, 1850 335
designated the Robinson Superior Treaty, signed on surprise, as both sets of treaties were negotiated on
September 7, 1850. This treaty covered lands along behalf of the same peoples, who, although perhaps
the north shore of Lake Superior from Batchewa- living on one side of the border or the other (or on
nenng [sic] Bay in the east (northeast of the Sault) to both sides over time), nonetheless considered them-
the outlet of the Pigeon River at the far western end selves Anishnaabeg first and Americans or Canadi-
of the lake, forming the U.S.-Canada border near ans second, if at all. Most notable among these
what is now Grand Portage, Minnesota. The land cross-border connections is that of Shawano, the
cession included all lands and waters “to the height Sault area chief who signed both the U.S. treaty of
of land,” in reference to the land which was still 1836 and the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.
under the control of the Hudson’s Bay Company Another notable chief who signed the Robinson
(that is, all lands that drained into either James Bay Huron Treaty was Shinguakouce, who also signed
or Hudson Bay). the treaty of 1820 with Michigan, which was the first
The second of the two treaties is referred to as land cession treaty of the Upper Great Lakes area
the Robinson Huron Treaty, and it was signed on (he signed the 1820 treaty with his French pseudo-
September 9, 1850. Of course, the Crown negotiators nym, Augustin Bart). The treaty of 1820 also recog-
were the same, but the assembled “chiefs and prin- nizes a “perpetual right of fishing at the falls of St.
cipal men” decided that the two groups would be Mary’s” as well as access to the fisheries, as long as
better served by negotiating separate treaties, such access does not interfere with military or civil-
although the language of the two treaties is virtually ian settlements.
identical—both groups agreed to relinquish control Phil Bellfy
over much of the land in exchange for an immediate
See also Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario.
sum of £2,000 British, a “perpetual annuity” of £500
for the Superior Ojibwes, and £600 for the Huron Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake
tribes. Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma
The Superior tribes sent nine chiefs to the nego- Press.
tiation and retained control of three areas set aside as Morrison, James. 1996. The Robinson Treaties of 1850: A
reserves. The Huron tribes had thirty-eight men sign Case Study. Ottawa: Royal Commission on
the treaty, creating seventeen reserves for their Aboriginal Peoples.
Quimby, George Irving. 1960. Indian Life in the Upper
bands. As the language of the two treaties is virtu-
Great Lakes: 11,000 B.C. to A.D. 1800. Chicago and
ally identical, it seems obvious that the two groups London: University of Chicago Press.
conducted extensive discussions between them-
selves 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
Robinson Huron Treaty
Tribes the full and free privilege to hunt over the Ter- (Second Robinson Treaty)
ritory now ceded by them, and to fish in the waters September 9, 1850
thereof, as they have heretofore been in the habit of Nearly identical to the Robinson Superior Treaty,
doing; saving and excepting such portions of the this treaty ceded the lands along the north shore of
said Territory as may from time to time be sold or Lake Superior from Batchewanenng [sic] Bay in the
leased to individuals or companies of individuals, east (northeast of the Sault), to the outlet of the
and occupied by them with the consent of the Pigeon River at the far western end of the lake. In
Provincial Government.” This language is quite sim- return for the ceded lands, the Huron Ojibwes were
ilar to the language of the Treaty of Washington of given an immediate payment of £2,000 British and a
1836 signed by the Ottawa and Chippewa of north- “perpetual annuity” payment of £600. The tribe also
ern Michigan, which says, “The Indians stipulate for received reserved areas for their use only in the
the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the ceded territory and was allowed to continue to hunt
other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is and fish in the territory. This agreement was negoti-
required for settlement.” ated by William Benjamin Robinson and the Huron
That the U.S. and Canadian treaties from this Ojibwe and signed by thirty-eight Huron tribe
general area are quite similar should come as no members.

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 superin-
tendent 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 Mandan of the upper Missouri River were among those tribes
pay the sum of $1,410,000. Concluded at Mendota in represented during negotiations leading to the Treaty of Fort
the Territory of Minnesota, the treaty was signed by Laramie in 1851. (Library of Congress)
Commissioner Luke Lea and Governor Alexander
Ramsey and by eight chiefs and fifty-seven other American Indian leaders represented nations resid-
Sioux. ing south of the Missouri River, east of the Rocky
Mountains, and north of Texas, namely the Sioux
(referring to Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota), Chey-
enne, Arapahoe, Crow, Assiniboine, Mandan, and
Treaty of Fort Laramie Arikara.
with the Sioux, Etc. The treaty contains eight articles, which bound
September 17, 1851 the Indian nations to make peace with one another,
The first Treaty of Fort Laramie, signed at Fort to recognize the right of the United States to estab-
Laramie in southeastern Wyoming on September 17, lish roads and posts within their respective territo-
1851, established formal relations between the U.S. ries, and to make restitution for any wrongs com-
government and the Northern Plains American mitted by their people against the citizens of the
Indian nations. The purpose of the treaty was to United States. The Indian nations were further
ensure the safety of the increasing number of over- supposed to acknowledge the prescribed bound-
land travelers crossing the plains. The encroaching aries of their respective territories and to select
European American population was competing with head chiefs, through whom all national business
American Indians for available resources, and the would be conducted. The United States bound itself
number of reprisals conducted by both sides was to protect the Indians against U.S. citizens and to
mounting at that time. deliver certain annuities. If any Indian nation vio-
The treaty was signed on behalf of the United lated a single provision of the treaty, the annuities
States by D. D. Mitchell, superintendent of Indian could be withheld.
affairs, and Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian agent. Both The Senate ratified the first Treaty of Fort
commissioners were appointed and authorized for Laramie on May 24, 1852; however, an amendment
this special occasion by the president. The present changing the annuities from fifty to ten years, with

Treaty with the Apache – July 1, 1852 337
an additional five years at the discretion of the presi- within their territories led to many accusations,
dent, was subject to acceptance by the Indian although not always correct ones. A treaty origi-
nations. Assent of all the nations was procured; the nally written to assure peace and to serve as a cost-
last were the Crow, who assented on September 18, effective alternative to war fueled disputes, leading
1854. The treaty was never published as ratified in ultimately to the Indian Wars and the subsequent
the U.S. Statutes at Large; consequently, there has decimation of Indian populations.
been some discussion concerning its validity. The Antonie Dvorakova
Department of the Interior inadvertently failed to
See also Fort Laramie, Wyoming.
certify the ratification of the treaty by the Indian
nations to the State Department; therefore, the treaty Berthrong, Donald J. 1963. The Southern Cheyennes.
was not promulgated by the president of the United Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
States. However, in subsequent agreements and by Kappler, Charles Joseph, ed. 1972. Indian Treaties,
decisions of the court of claims (Moore v. the United 1778–1883. New York: Interland.
States and Roy v. the United States), the treaty was rec- Stands In Timber, John, and Margot Liberty. 1998.
ognized as in force. Cheyenne Memories. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT,
Due to the lack of good interpreters, the terms and London: Yale University Press.
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 June 22, 1852
there, and that celebrations, dancing, hand games, This treaty established that an Indian agent would
and various kinds of races were continuing for sev- reside among the Chickasaw, who were to be settled
eral days. in Tennessee, and provided burial ground forever.
The Lakota, dominating the treaty negotiations Payment for the reservation was not to exceed $1.25
on the Indian side, had significant influence on the per acre and was to be decided by the secretary of
demarcation of the territorial boundaries. Although the interior. The Chickasaw requested that the whole
most of the Indian nations retained their usual ter- sum of their national funds remain in trust. For
ritory, the Northern Cheyenne were not given title negotiating this treaty, $1,500 was to be paid directly
to their land, which adjoined the Lakota land. to the Chickasaw Nation. Concluded at Washington,
Instead, they were assigned a territory, together the treaty was signed by Commissioner Kenton
with the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho, between Harper for the United States; Commissioners
the North Fork of the Platte River and the Arkansas Colonel Edmund Pickens, Benjamin S. Love, and
River in the south. This treaty gave the Lakota Sampson Folsom were chosen by the Chickasaw
rights to the Black Hills and other land that was tribe of Indians to sign for them.
inhabited by the Northern Cheyenne, thus provok-
ing the dispute over the Black Hills between these
nations.
Drawing the boundaries of territories assigned
to the Indian nations made it possible for the Treaty with the Apache
United States to negotiate with specific nations to July 1, 1852
secure land cessions from them. In the long run, the This treaty set forth a negotiated justice system, stip-
treaty contributed to the ultimate loss of almost all ulated that attacks in the territory of Mexico were to
Indian land involved, which was eventually cease, forbade the taking of captives, and required
opened up for settlement by European Americans. the surrender of all captives previously taken. Mili-
Temporary peace, secured by the Treaty of Fort tary posts, agencies, trading houses, and territorial
Laramie of 1851, enabled many settlers to cross the boundaries were established. Concluded at Santa Fe,
plains and populate what are today the states of New Mexico, the treaty was signed by Colonel E. V.
Oregon and California. The fact that, in an effort to Sumner, U.S. commander in the Ninth Department,
secure better control over the Indian nations, they and John Greiner, Indian agent, for the United States
were made responsible for any crimes committed and by seven Apache chiefs.

338 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache – July 27, 1853
Treaty with the Comanche, treaty, the United States had the right to establish
farms as payment of the annuities at the president’s
Kiowa, and Apache
discretion. Concluded at Table Rock near the Rogue
July 27, 1853 River in the Territory of Oregon, the treaty was
This treaty acknowledged peace among the signed by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian
Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes inhabiting the affairs, and Samuel H. Culver, Indian agent, for the
territory south of the Arkansas River and between United States and by three chiefs and other headmen
the United States and the tribes, allowed the United of the bands of the Rogue River tribe of Indians.
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, Treaty with the Umpqua–Cow
and required the surrender of all captives previously Creek Band
taken. The United States agreed to pay the tribes
$18,000 per year. Annuities would be withheld for September 19, 1853
noncompliance with the treaty or paid in goods, at This treaty required the Cow Creek tribe to give up
the discretion of the president. Concluded at Fort all claim to their lands but allowed temporary occu-
Atkinson in the Indian Territory, the treaty was pation of part of the land until permanent homes
signed by Indian agent Thomas Fitzpatrick for the could be selected. Annuities were to be paid in
United States and by nine chiefs and seven headmen monies and in goods. Houses were to be erected,
of the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes. travelers protected, and a negotiated justice system
put in place. Concluded at Cow Creek, Umpqua Val-
ley, in the Territory of Oregon, the treaty was signed
by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, and
Agreement with the by three Cow Creek chiefs.
Rogue River Tribes
September 8, 1853
This was a treaty of peace, which called for a cession Treaty with the Otoe
of hostilities and the return of all the property taken
from the whites, in battle or otherwise, to either Gen-
and Missouri
eral Joseph Lane or the Indian agent. It established a March 15, 1854
negotiated justice system and, in return for payment This treaty concerned land cession and new bound-
in goods, required the surrender of firearms belong- aries. Annuities were to be paid in monies and
ing to the tribe. Under the treaty, tribal land sales goods. The United States was to establish a gristmill
would defray the cost of property destroyed by the and a sawmill, to provide a blacksmith, and to
tribe during the war, not to exceed $15,000. An agent employ an experienced farmer to instruct the tribe in
would reside near the tribe and enforce the terms of agriculture. The tribe agreed to peace and requested
the agreement. The treaty was signed by Joseph that no liquor be brought into their territory. Roads,
Lane, commander of the forces of Oregon Territory, highways, and railways were to be built through the
for the United States; and by Joe, principal chief of reservation, with just compensation. The United
the Rogue River tribe; Sam, subordinate chief; and States paid Lewis Barnard the sum of $300 for ser-
Jim, subordinate chief, on the part of the tribes under vice to the tribes. Concluded in the city of Washing-
their jurisdiction. ton, 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 occu- Treaty with the Omaha
pancy of the land until a permanent home could be March 16, 1854
provided, buildings to be erected, protection of trav- This treaty concerns cession of lands to the United
elers, and restitution of stolen property. Under the States, removal of the Omaha to lands reserved for

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri – May 18, 1854 339
them, protection from hostile tribes, establishment of 1848. The United States agreed to cede the tract of
a gristmill and a sawmill, provision of a blacksmith, country lying upon the Wolf River in Wisconsin. The
construction of roads and railways, a grant to the treaty also explained payment arrangements. Con-
Presbyterian Church, and relinquishment of former cluded at the Falls of Wolf River, Wisconsin, the
claims. Annuities were to be paid to the tribe in treaty was signed by Francis Huebschmann, super-
monies and goods. Lewis Sounsosee was paid $1,000 intendent of Indian affairs, for the United States and
for services to the tribe. Concluded at the city of by twenty-one chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the
Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner Menominee tribe.
George W. Manypenny for the United States and by
seven chiefs of the Omaha tribe.
Treaty with the Iowa

Treaty with the Delaware May 17, 1854
This treaty concerns land cession, with the exception
May 6, 1854
of a “small strip of land on the south side of the Mis-
This treaty concerns the cession of land, establish- souri River . . .” described in the second article of a
ment of a reservation, construction of roads, provi- treaty concluded with the Iowa and the Missouri
sions made for Christian tribal members, and a band of Sac and Fox on September 17, 1836. The
negotiated justice system. The introduction of liquor Iowa immediately were to pursue agriculture, to
was to be suppressed. Annuities were to be paid in allow the building of roads and railways, to sup-
monies or invested, and the value of the school on press liquor, to release all claims from former
the reservation was to remain at the previous rate of treaties, and to give Congress authority to create
interest. Concluded at the city of Washington, the new laws to promote the interests, peace, and happi-
treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. ness of the Iowa people. Additionally, the treaty dis-
Manypenny for the United States and by nine dele- cussed proceeds from the sale of lands, disposition
gates of the Delaware tribe. 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
Treaty with the Shawnee aside by the treaty of October 19, 1838, to be spent
and the remainder to be held in trust. Concluded in
May 10, 1854
the city of Washington, the treaty was signed by
This treaty concerns land cession, new boundaries
Commissioner George W. Manypenny for the
and payments for the cession of land, land grants,
United States and by four delegates of the Iowa
and the building of roads and railways. A negotiated
tribe.
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
Treaty with the Sauk
United States and by eight delegates representing and Fox of Missouri
the Shawnee. 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
Treaty with the Menominee the treaty concluded on September 17, 1836. The
May 12, 1854 treaty detailed payment for the cession of lands and
Under the terms of this treaty, the United States the disposition of the reservation. Provisions were
transferred to the Menominee all the tract of land made respecting the funds invested under treaty of
ceded by the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi October 21, 1837. Other concerns of the treaty were
and Lake Superior. The Menominee agreed to cede, the retention of the present farm and mill, a grant to
sell, and relinquish to the United States all the lands the Board of Foreign Missions, the building of roads
assigned to them under the treaty of October 18, and railways, the suppression of liquor, and the

340 Treaty with the Kickapoo – May 18, 1854
authority given to Congress to create new laws. The Treaty with the Miami
tribe released the United States from all claims or June 5, 1854
demands from previous treaties and stipulated that
This treaty concerned cession of lands, reservation
private debts were not to be charged on the general
for homes and schools, building of roads, repair of
fund. Concluded at the city of Washington, the treaty
the mill and schoolhouse, disposition of ceded lands,
was signed by Commissioner George W. Many-
sale of reservation, and payment for cession. The
penny for the United States and by five delegates of
remaining annuity installments, under the treaty of
the Sauk and Fox of Missouri.
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
Treaty with the Kickapoo debts were not to be paid from the general fund.
May 18, 1854 Further, the conduct of the tribe was discussed, and
Congress was authorized to create new laws to man-
The main concerns of this treaty were the cession of
age the treaty. Concluded at the city of Washington,
land, the reservation of land for a permanent home,
the treaty was signed by Commissioner George W.
payment for cession and improvements, a land grant
Manypenny for the United States and by five dele-
for Peter Cadue (interpreter), and the building of
gates representing the Miami tribe and five Miami
roads. The treaty recognized the Kickapoos’ desire
tribe members who were residents of the state of
that liquor not be brought into the territory and their
Indiana.
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 June 13, 1854
United States and by five delegates of the Kickapoo This is a supplementary article to the treaty with the
tribe. 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
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, tribes.
Peoria, Etc.
May 30, 1854
The main concerns of the treaty were unification of
the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Piankeshaw, and Wea tribes; Treaty with the Chippewa
cession and reservation; tribe conduct; and building September 30, 1854
of roads. The treaty stipulated that ceded lands were Negotiations for the treaty of 1854 with the Ojibwe
to be surveyed, and it provided for the selection of (or Chippewa) took place at La Pointe, Wisconsin,
lots, the sale of land, the proceeds from land sale, between the United States and two groups of the
and a land grant to the American Indian Mission Ojibwe: the Ojibwe Lake Superior and the Ojibwe of
Association. It further provided for persons omitted the Mississippi. In the 1854 treaty, the Ojibwe ceded
in the schedule, and settlements by others were not their lands in northeastern Minnesota to the United
permitted until after tribe selections. The tribes were States in exchange for annuity payments over
to relinquish all annuities and claims under former twenty years and the creation of a patchwork of
treaties, and payment was determined for those reservations within the land ceded by the Ojibwe in
releases. Concluded at the city of Washington, the the treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854. In something of a
treaty was signed by Commissioner George W. compromise between the U.S. government, which
Manypenny for the United States and by five dele- had unsuccessfully attempted to remove the Ojibwe
gates representing the united tribes of Kaskaskia and from their lands in the late 1840s and early 1850s,
Peoria, Piankeshaw, and Wea. and the Ojibwe, who had strongly asserted their

Treaty with the Chippewa – September 30, 1854 341
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, Presi-
dent 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 Millard Fillmore was vice president when he succeeded to
creation of reservations to removal, agreed to meet at the presidency upon the death of Zachary Taylor in July
La Pointe for treaty negotiations. 1850. Taylor had ordered removal of the Chippewa (Ojibwe)
to unceded lands prior to his death. Chippewa leaders then
More than four thousand Ojibwe meet at La
petitioned Fillmore to rescind that order, setting the stage
Pointe in 1854 to take part in or witness the treaty for an 1854 treaty. (Library of Congress)
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 L’Anse and Vieux De Sert, La Pointe, Lac De Flam-
treaty negotiators had done, Henry Gilbert recog- beau, Lac Court Orielles, Fond du Lac, Grand
nized the resentment between the two groups and Portage, and Ontonagon.
separated them during the negotiations. Treaty The Ojibwe retained their rights to hunt and fish
negotiations concluded with the Ojibwe of Lake on the lands they ceded under the treaties of 1837,
Superior receiving two-thirds of the annuity benefits 1842, and 1854, yet the growing presence of white
and the Ojibwe of the Mississippi receiving the settlers throughout the late 1800s and 1900s led to
remaining one-third. The Ojibwe ceded the land in the depletion of resources and the impracticability of
northeastern Minnesota for twenty-year annuities in maintaining a traditional lifestyle. Thus, the treaty of
the form of money, cattle, cooking utensils, building 1854 and the creation of the reservation system was a
materials, funds for education, money for the settle- watershed in Ojibwe history that significantly
ment of debts with traders, and various other funds altered the Ojibwe lifestyle.
and supplies designed to assist assimilation into Troy Henderson
white society. Of more importance, the 1854 treaty
See also Treaty with the Chippewa–January 14, 1837;
also set up a group of small reservations for the
Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842.
Ojibwe dispersed across the lands they ceded in References and Further Reading
northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and Cleland, Charles E. 1992. Rites of Conquest: The History
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Reservations were and Culture of Michigan’s Native Americans. Ann
established for the following Ojibwe bands in 1854: Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

342 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw – November 4, 1854
Danziger, Edmund Jefferson, Jr. 1978. The Chippewas the Quil-si-eton and Na-hel-ta bands of the Chasta
of Lake Superior. Norman: University of tribe, the Cow-nan-ti-co, Sa-cher-i-ton, and Na-al-ye
Oklahoma Press. bands of Scotons, and the Grave Creek band of
McClurken, James M., ed. 2000. Fish in the Lakes, Wild Umpqua.
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 Umpqua

and Kalapuya
Treaty with the Choctaw November 29, 1854
and Chickasaw The main concerns of this treaty were cession, resi-
November 4, 1854 dence on the reservation, removal from said reserve
This was an agreement by the Choctaw and Chicka- if expedient, removal from ceded lands, payments
saw tribes concerning the second article of a treaty for cession and expense of removal, survey and
on January 17, 1837, settling district boundary dis- allotment of reserve, blacksmith shop, power of
putes between the Chickasaw and Choctaw. It was future states over restrictions limited, conduct of the
signed by five Choctaw and five Chickasaw in the tribes, building of roads, annuities not to be taken for
presence of William K. McKean and Douglas H. debt, and some annuity payments made in goods.
Cooper, U.S. Indian agent. 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
Treaty with the Rogue confederated bands of the Umpqua tribe and of the
Calapooia residing in Umpqua Valley.
River Tribe
November 15, 1854
This was an agreement between Joel Palmer, super-
intendent of Indian affairs, and twelve chiefs and Treaty with the Confederated
headmen of the Rogue River tribe. The treaty
Otoe and Missouri
allowed other tribes to settle on the Table Rock
Reserve and provided for the payment of annuities, December 9, 1854
for the building of roads, and for possible removal This treaty was to be taken and considered as a sup-
from the reserve. It also specified arrangements in plement to the treaty made on March 15, 1854, to
the event the treaty was not ratified or no tribes were clarify reservation boundaries. It was signed at
removed to the reserve. 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
Treaty with the Nisqually,
removal from the reserve, stipulations for all tribes Puyallup, Etc.
on the reserve, survey and allotment of said reserve, December 26, 1854
annuities not to be taken for debt, and the conduct of This treaty’s main concerns were cession, reservation
the tribes. Concluded at the council ground opposite for the signatory tribes and removal thereto, build-
the mouth of Applegate Creek on the Rogue River in ing of roads, rights to fish, payments for cession and
the Territory of Oregon, the treaty was signed for the expenses of removal, conduct of tribes, intemper-
United States by Joel Palmer, superintendent of ance, schools and shops, and slaves to be freed. No
Indian affairs, and by seven chiefs and headmen of foreign trade was allowed, and no foreign tribal

Treaty with the Wyandot – January 31, 1855 343
members were allowed to reside on the reservation $15,000 was appropriated for expenses of removal, set-
without consent of the agent. Concluded on the She- tlement and lots could be assigned to individuals, and
nah-nam, or Medicine Creek, in the Territory of whites were not allowed to reside on the reservation
Washington, the treaty was signed by Isaac I. without permission. Tribes were to preserve friendly
Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian relations, to pay for depredations, to be peaceful, to
affairs of the said territory, and sixty-two chiefs, free all slaves, and to surrender tribal offenders. Fur-
headmen, and delegates of the Nisqually, Puyallup, ther, the tribes were not allowed foreign trade. The
Steilacoom, Squawskin, S’Homamish, Stehchass, T’ United States was to establish a school, to provide
Peek-sin, Squi-aitl, and Sa-heh-wamish tribes and instructors, and to furnish mechanics, shops, and
bands occupying the lands lying around the head of physicians. Concluded at Múcklte-óh, or Point Elliott,
Puget Sound and the adjacent inlets. 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 Treaty with the S’Klallam
reservation, protection from other hostile tribes,
removal to a home, payments, provision if any
January 26, 1855
refused to sign the treaty, provision if any claim to This treaty’s concerns were cession, boundaries, reser-
territory north of the Columbia River was estab- vation, whites not to reside on said reserve, privileges
lished; provision of a physician, a schoolteacher, a of the tribes, payments for cession and removal, tribes
blacksmith, and a superintendent of farming opera- to be removed to other reservations, and survey and
tions; survey and allotment of reservation, conduct allotment of land. Concluded at Hahdskus, or Point
of tribes, intemperance, and building of roads. Con- No Point, Suquamish Head, in the Territory of Wash-
cluded at Dayton, Oregon Territory, the treaty was ington, the treaty was signed for the United States by
signed for the United States by Joel Palmer, superin- Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of
tendent of Indian affairs, and seventeen chiefs of the Indian affairs, and by fifty-six chiefs and delegates of
confederated bands of Indians residing in the the different villages of the S’Klallams occupying cer-
Willamette Valley. tain lands on the Straits of Fuca and Hood’s Canal in
the Territory of Washington.
Treaty with the Dwamish, Treaty with the Wyandot

Suquamish, Etc. January 31, 1855
January 22, 1855 Under the terms of this treaty, the Wyandot became
This treaty was between the United States and the U.S. citizens, with some exceptions. Other treaty
Dwámish, Suquámish, Sk-táhlmish, Sam-áhmish, concerns were cession, partition of said lands among
Smalh-kamish, Skope-áhmish, St-káh-mish, Snoquál- the Wyandot, patents, payments, and appraisal of
moo, Skai-wha-mish, N’ Quentl-má-mish, Sk-táh-le- the improvements. The Wyandot released claims
jum, Stoluck-whá-mish, Sha-ho-mish, Skágit, Kik-i- under previous treaties and received payments in
állus, Swin-á-mish, Squin-áh-mish, Sah-ku-méhu, lieu thereof. Grantees under former treaty of March
Noo-whá-ha, Nook-wa-cháh-mish, Mee-sée-qua- 17, 1842, were permitted to locate elsewhere. Con-
quilch, Cho-bah-áh-bish, and other allied and subordi- cluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was
nate tribes and bands. The treaty concerns were ces- signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny for
sion, boundaries, reservation, schools, tribes to be the United States and by the following chiefs and
settled on the reservation within one year, rights and delegates of the Wyandot tribe of Indians: Tan-roo-
privileges, and payment of annuities. Under the treaty, mee, Matthew Mudeator, John Hicks, Silas Arm-
tribe members could be removed to reservation, strong, George J. Clark, and Joel Walker.

344 Treaty with the Makah – January 31, 1855
Treaty with the Makah of lands; payment for cession and sale of lands; pro-
vision for a permanent home; survey and allotment
January 31, 1855
of a permanent home; and payments under former
The main concerns of the treaty were the surrender of
treaties. Annuities were to be withheld from the ill-
lands, boundaries, reservations, building of roads,
behaved. This treaty was in lieu of the agreement of
rights and privileges, provisions, payments, and
August 6, 1853, which was never ratified. The
appropriation for removal and for clearing and fenc-
United States was to pay the cost of the trip to Wash-
ing land. The tribes were to be settled on the reserva-
ington. Concluded at the city of Washington, this
tion within a year; whites were not to reside on said
treaty was signed by Commissioner George W.
reserve; other friendly tribes were allowed to reside
Manypenny for the United States and by ten chiefs
on the reservation; tribes could be removed from the
and delegates from the Winnebago tribe.
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
Treaty with the Wallawalla,
not allowed, and foreign tribes were not to reside on Cayuse, Etc.
the reserve. The United States was to establish a June 9, 1855
school, to provide instructors, and to furnish mechan- This treaty was between the United States and the
ics, shops, and a physician. Concluded at Neah Bay in Wallawalla, Cayuse, and Umatilla tribes and bands
the Territory of Washington, the treaty was signed for occupying lands partly in Washington Territory and
the United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and partly in Oregon Territory. The main concerns of the
superintendent of Indian affairs, and by Tse-kauwtl, treaty were cession of lands, boundaries, reservation,
head chief of the Makah tribe, and forty-one delegates rights and privileges, provisions, allowance for
of several villages of the Makah tribe occupying the improvements, payments, land allotments, and
country around Cape Classett or Cape Flattery. 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
Treaty with the Chippewa employ mechanics and teachers. The United States
February 22, 1855 also agreed to build dwelling houses and other
This treaty’s main concerns were cession, reserva- things for head chiefs. Ten thousand dollars was
tions for permanent homes, boundaries, survey and expended to open a wagon road from Powder River,
allotment of reservations, payments in monies and and a right-of-way was reserved for roads through
goods, preemption rights, land grants to mixed- the reservation. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for
blood persons, establishment of a judicial system, depredations, and to submit to regulations. Annu-
building of roads, and conduct of the tribe. Con- ities were to be withheld from those who drank
cluded at the city of Washington, this treaty was liquor. Concluded at Camp Stevens in the Walla
signed by Commissioner George W. Manypenny Walla valley, the treaty was signed for the United
for the United States, by three chiefs and delegates States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superinten-
representing the Mississippi bands of Chippewa, dent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washing-
and by thirteen chiefs and delegates representing ton, and Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs
the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish bands of for the Oregon Territory; thirty-six chiefs, headmen,
Chippewa. 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 This treaty was between the United States and the
granted pursuant to a treaty of October 13, 1846; sale Yakama, Palouse, Pisquouse, Wenatshapam, Klikatat,

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw – June 22, 1855 345
Klinquit, Kow-was-say-ee, Li-ay-was, Skin-pah, Wish- Lawyer, head chief of the Nez Percé, and fifty-six
ham, Shyik, Ochechote, Kah milt-pah, and Se-ap-cat, other delegates.
confederated tribes and bands. The main concerns of
the treaty were the cession of lands, boundaries, reser-
vation, privileges, improvements, payments, building
of roads, survey and allotment. Whites were not to Treaty with the Choctaw
reside (with exception) on the reserve. The United and Chickasaw
States was to establish schools and to build a sawmill, June 22, 1855
a flour mill, mechanics’ shops, and a hospital. The The main concerns of this treaty were the boundaries
United States also agreed to pay the head chief, of the Choctaw and Chickasaw country, lands guar-
Kamaiakun, a salary. Tribes were to be peaceful, to anteed to them, provision of sales and reversion of
pay for depredations, to refrain from making war said lands, cession of land by the Choctaw, lease by
except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders. the Choctaw and Chickasaw for the use of other
Annuities were to be withheld from those who drank tribes, and payments. Districts were established for
liquor. The Wenatshapam fishery was reserved for the each tribe, although either tribe could settle within the
benefit of the tribe. Concluded at Camp Stevens in the limits of the other. Extradition of criminals between
Walla Walla valley, the treaty was signed for the the districts was required, as well as extradition of
United States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and super- criminals to the United States or particular states. The
intendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Wash- current laws and government were to remain in force
ington, and for the tribes and bands by fourteen until altered. The tribes could be self-governed as
chiefs, headmen, and delegates. 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
Nez Percé, occupying lands lying partly in Oregon
and partly in Washington Territories between the
Cascade and Bitterroot Mountains. The main con-
cerns of the treaty were cession of lands, bound-
aries, reservation, improvements, building of
roads, privileges, payments, survey, and allotment;
whites were not to reside on the reservation with-
out 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 peace-
ful, 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 val-
ley and signed for the United States by Isaac I.
Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian Peter Pitchlynn (1806–1881) was a Choctaw leader and
affairs for the Territory of Washington, and Joel diplomat who helped negotiate the removal of the Choctaw to
Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs for Ore- Oklahoma, and served as the Choctaw tribal delegate in
gon Territory, and for the Nez Percé by Aleiya, or Washington, D.C. (Library of Congress)

346 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon – June 25, 1855
subject to their jurisdiction and laws. Military posts, to reside on the reservation without permission; fur-
post roads, agencies, and a right-of-way for railroads ther, tribal members could be removed from the
and telegraphs were to be established. Some ques- reservation. Additional points were the building of
tions concerning previous treaties and payments were roads, rights and privileges, and annuities. The
to be submitted to the Senate for decision. This treaty United States was to establish an agricultural and
was to supersede all former treaties with the Choctaw industrial school and to employ a blacksmith, a car-
and all inconsistent treaties with the Chickasaw or penter, a farmer, and a physician. Tribes were to be
between said tribes. The United States was to pay the peaceful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from
commissioners. The treaty was concluded in Wash- making war except in self-defense, to free all slaves,
ington and signed for the United States by Commis- and to surrender offenders. No foreign trade was
sioner George W. Manypenny; by Peter P. Pitchlynn, allowed, and no foreign tribes were to reside on the
Israel Folsom, Samuel Garland, and Dixon W. Lewis, reservation. This treaty was signed for the United
on the part of the Choctaw; and by Edmund Pickens States by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superinten-
and Sampson Folsom on the part of the Chickasaw. dent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washing-
ton, and for the Qui-nai-elt and Quil-leh-ute by
thirty-one chiefs, headmen, and delegates.
Treaty with the Tribes
of Middle Oregon
June 25, 1855 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc.
The main concerns of this treaty were cession, July 16, 1855
boundaries, reservation, rights and privileges, pro- This treaty was between the United States and the
vision in case any band did not accede to the treaty, confederated tribes of the Flathead, Kootenai, and
allowance for improvements, payments, stipula- Upper Pend d’Oreilles. The main treaty concerns
tions on annuities, patents, and building of roads; were cession of land, boundaries, reservation, survey
whites were not to reside on the reservation with- and allotment, guarantee against certain claims of the
out permission. Fifty thousand dollars additional Hudson Bay Company, allowances for improve-
was to be expending for buildings. The United ments, building of roads, rights and privileges, and
States was to erect sawmills, a schoolhouse, and payments; whites were not to reside on the reserva-
other buildings and to furnish farmers, mechanics, tion without permission. The United States was to
and a physician. Dwelling houses and a salary were establish schools, mechanics’ shops, and a hospital.
to be given to head chiefs, but any successor to a The head chiefs of the tribes were to receive a salary.
head chief would take same. Tribes were to be Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depredations, to
peaceful, to pay for depredations, and to refrain refrain from making war except in self-defense, and
from making war except in self-defense. This treaty to surrender offenders. Annuities were to be with-
was concluded at Wasco, near The Dalles on the held from those who drank liquor in excess. Con-
Columbia River in Oregon Territory, and was cluded at Hell Gate in the Bitterroot Valley, the treaty
signed by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian was signed for the United States by Isaac I. Stevens,
affairs, for the United States and by fourteen chiefs governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the
and numerous headmen of the confederated tribes Territory of Washington, and for the tribes by eigh-
and bands of Indians residing in Middle Oregon. teen chiefs, headmen, and delegates.
Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc. Treaty with the Ottawa

July 1, 1855 and Chippewa
This treaty was between the United States and the July 31, 1855
different tribes and bands of the Qui-nai-elt and The main concern of this treaty was the withdrawal
Quil-leh-ute. Its main concerns were the surrender of unsold lands, specified use for bands, individual
of lands, boundaries, reservation within the Terri- land grants to tribal members, and a promise that a
tory of Washington, and appropriations for removal list of entitlement would be prepared by the Indian
and for clearing and fencing lands. Whites were not agent by class. Possession was to be taken at once;

Treaty with the Blackfeet – October 17, 1855 347
sale within ten years was forbidden, but there were Treaty with the Chippewa
restrictions on the sale of said lands. A provision of Saginaw, Etc.
was made in case of death. Grants were possible for
churches and schools. Additional concerns were August 2, 1855
payments, appropriations for blacksmith shops, The main concerns of this treaty were the lands to be
release of liabilities under former treaties, continued withdrawn from sale, land grants to individual tribal
employment for interpreters, dissolution of tribal members, and payments in full of previous claims.
organization in most respects, and the detailing of Other concerns were cession, release of liability, surren-
how future treaties would be negotiated. Concluded der of annuities, and land entries. An interpreter was to
at the city of Detroit, Michigan, the treaty was be provided, and the tribal organization was to be dis-
signed by Commissioners George W. Manypenny solved. The treaty was signed in Detroit, Michigan, by
and Henry C. Gilbert for the United States and by Commissioners George W. Manypenny and Henry C.
the Ottawa and Chippewa delegates of Michigan, Gilbert for the United States and by the Chippewa of
parties to the treaty of March 28, 1836. 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.
of Sault Ste. Marie
August 2, 1855
This treaty dealt with three main concerns: the sur- Treaty with the Blackfeet
render of fishing rights, payments to the tribe, and a October 17, 1855
land grant to Chief Oshawwawno. Concluded at This treaty was between the United States and the
Detroit, Michigan, the treaty was signed by Commis- Blackfoot, the Flathead, the Kootenai, and the Nez
sioners George W. Manypenny and Henry C. Gilbert Percé tribes, who occupied, for the purposes of hunt-
for the United States and by twelve chiefs and heading, the territory on the Upper Missouri and Yellow-
men of the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie. stone 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)

348 Treaty with the Molala – December 21, 1855
provisions of peace, protection against depredations, grounds for a cemetery, construction of roads, alco-
and recognition of the Blackfoot territory as common hol, and inconsistent treaties. The treaty was signed
hunting ground. Settlement by the tribes was not per- at Stockbridge, Wisconsin, by Commissioner Francis
mitted on the hunting ground; however, citizens Huebschmann for the United States and by William
could pass through and live in the Indian Territory. Mohawk and Joshua Wilson, delegates of the Stock-
Rules for entering and leaving the hunting ground bridge and Munsee tribes, and such of the Munsee
were established. All tribes were to remain in their who were included in the treaty of September 3,
respective territories except when hunting. The Black- 1839, and were yet residing in the state of New York.
foot 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 Treaty with the Menominee
be withheld in case of violation of the treaty and February 11, 1856
would not be taken for individual debt. The tribes This treaty was an amendment to the treaty entered
requested that liquor be excluded from their country. into at Stockbridge, Wisconsin, on February 5, 1856.
The treaty was signed at the council ground on the The main concerns of the treaty were cession, pay-
Upper Missouri, near the mouth of the Judith River, ment for said cession, authorization of Congress to
in the Territory of Nebraska by Commissioners A. create new laws, suppression of use of liquor, annu-
Cumming and Isaac I. Stevens for the United States ities, and rights-of-way for roads. This treaty was
and by numerous chiefs, headmen, and delegates of signed at Keshena, Wisconsin, by Commissioner
the Blackfoot, Flathead, Kootenai, and Nez Percé. Francis Huebschmann for the United States and by
twenty-seven Menominee.
Treaty with the Molala

Treaty with the Creeks, Etc.
December 21, 1855
August 7, 1856
The main concerns of this treaty were cession,
The main concerns of this treaty were the cession by
boundaries, removal to reservation, and payments.
the Creeks to the Seminole, boundaries, and a guar-
Rights and privileges of former treaties were to be
antee of countries to the Seminole and the Creeks.
secured, and provision made for the establishment of
No state or territory was to pass laws for the tribes,
a flourmill and a sawmill, a blacksmith and tin shop,
and said countries were not to be included in any
and a manual-labor school; a carpenter, a joiner, and
state or territory without the tribes’ consent. The
an additional farmer were to be employed. Expense
Creeks released all title to other lands and all claims
of removal was to be borne by the United States, and
against the United States, with some exceptions. The
rations were to be furnished to the tribe. An appro-
Seminole also released claims. Payments to the
priation was made to extinguish title, and so on, of
Creeks and the Seminole were decided. The United
white settlers to lands in Grand Round Valley. It was
States was to remove the Seminole, who would
not stated where the treaty was signed. This treaty
emigrate, and to give the Seminole certain supplies.
was signed by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian
The western Seminole were to send a delegation to
affairs, for the United States and by four chiefs and
Florida. A tract of land was set apart for the Florida
headmen of the Molala or Molel tribe.
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
Treaty with the Stockbridge states, and the establishment of a justice system.
and Munsee Additional concerns were building of railroads,
February 5, 1856 telegraphs, posts, and agencies, and the regulations
This was an amendment to the treaty with the respecting same. Traders were to pay for the use of
Menominee of February 28, 1831. It made many pro- land and timber. Protection of the tribes was secured,
visions and stipulations regarding payments, claims, and amnesty was declared. This treaty superseded
cessions, placement of dislocated tribes, education, former treaties. Concluded at the city of Washington,

Treaty with the Yankton Sioux – April 19, 1858 349
the treaty was signed by George W. Manypenny for Treaty with the Ponca
the United States and by six commissioners on the March 12, 1858
part of the Creeks and four commissioners on the
The concerns of the treaty were cession of lands;
part of the Seminole.
reservation; boundaries; release of claims; U.S. stip-
ulations; protection of the Ponca; provisions; pay-
ments and annuities; and appropriations for build-
ing homes, a sawmill, a gristmill, and a mechanic’s
Treaty with the Pawnee shop and for furnishing apprentices. Children were
September 24, 1857 to be kept in a school maintained by the United
States. Scrip of 160 acres each was given to those
The main concerns of the treaty were lands ceded;
who chose to leave the tribe and reside among the
reservation; payments; establishment of manual
whites and to Francis Roy, interpreter. The United
labor schools; supply of tools, farming utensils, and
States was to maintain military posts, roads, and
stock; establishment of a mill; and dwellings for
the like. The Ponca were to maintain peace, to pay
interpreter; protection of the Pawnee in their new
for depredations, to refrain from making war
homes; and the requirement to keep children in
except in self-defense, and to surrender offenders.
school. Additionally, the United States was to fur-
Annuities were not to be taken for individual debts
nish six laborers; $2,000 was to be paid to Samuel
and were to be withheld from those who drank
Allis, and payment in monies or goods was to be
liquor. Concluded in the city of Washington, the
made to guides for services rendered to the United
treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Mix
States. Tribes were to be peaceful, to pay for depre-
for the United States and, on the part of the Ponca
dations, to refrain from making war except in self-
tribe, by Wa-gah-sah-pi, or Whip; Gish-tah-wah-gu,
defense, and to surrender offenders. Concluded at
or Strong Walker; Mitchell P. Cera, or Wash-kom-
Table Creek, Nebraska Territory, the treaty was
moni; A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi, or Lone Chief; Shu-
signed by Commissioner James W. Denver for the
kah-bi, or Heavy Clouds; Tah-tungah-nushi, or
United States and by sixteen chiefs and headmen of
Standing Buffalo.
the four confederate bands of the Pawnee.
Treaty with the Treaty with the Yankton Sioux

Seneca–Tonawanda Band April 19, 1858
November 5, 1857 The main concerns of the treaty were relinquishment
This treaty concerns former treaties with the Six of lands; boundaries of ceded land; islands in the
Nations of New York on January 15, 1838, and with Missouri River; the building of roads; settlement of
the Seneca Nation on May 20, 1842. Certain claims the tribe in one year; protection; the payment of
under former treaties were relinquished, and unim- annuities; the purchase of stock; the building of
proved lands were surrendered. Payment was deter- schools, mills, mechanic shops, and houses; and the
mined, and the Tonawanda were told they could maintenance of military posts and the like. A portion
purchase reservation land, that the deed was to be of the annuities were allowed to be paid for debts.
held in trust by the secretary of the interior, and that Land grants were given to Charles F. Picotte, Zephyr
they were allowed to appoint attorneys. Part of the Rencontre, Paul Dorian, and others. No trade was
purchase money was to be invested in stocks. allowed unless licensed. The Yankton were to pre-
Improvement money was to be apportioned. Con- serve peace and to surrender offenders. Annuities
cluded on the Tonawanda Reservation in the county were not subject to individual debt and were to be
of Genesee, New York, the treaty was signed by withheld for intemperance. The Yankton were to be
Commissioner Charles E. Mix for the United States given an Indian agent. Concluded in the city of
and by Jabez Ground, Jesse Spring, Isaac Shanks, Washington, the treaty was signed by Commissioner
George Sky, and Ely S. Parker, delegates to the Charles E. Mix for the United States and by sixteen
Tonawanda band of Seneca, and by forty-five chiefs chiefs and delegates of the Yankton tribe of Sioux or
and headmen of the said tribes. Dakota.

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 Under the terms of this treaty, the eastern portion of
Mendawakanton and Wahpahoota bands of the the reservation, to be known as the Winnebago
Dakota or Sioux tribe. Its main point was that eighty Reservation, was to be set apart and assigned in sev-
acres of reservation land were to be allotted to each eralty to members of the tribe. Whites were not to
head of a family, and the residue was to be held in reside on the reserve. The division of lands was to be
common. Further survey and allotments were made. under the direction of the secretary of the interior,
Some lands were made exempt from taxes. Addi- with certificates issued to the commissioner of
tional concerns were provisions and amendments of Indian affairs. Certain lands could be sold as dic-
the treaty of August 5, 1851. Bands were to be peace- tated, and the debts of the tribe were to be paid out
ful, to pay for depredations, to refrain from engaging of the proceeds of the sale. Provisions were made in
in hostilities except in self-defense, and to surrender case the proceeds were insufficient to pay debts. All
offenders. Annuities were to be withheld from those members of the tribe were to be notified of this
who drank liquor. The secretary of the interior was agreement, and the expenses were to be paid from
to have discretion over the manner and object of tribal funds. Concluded in the city of Washington,
annual expenditures, and the Senate was to decide the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E.
whether $10,000 was to be paid to A. J. Campbell, Mix for the United States and by twelve chiefs and
son of then-deceased Scott Campbell. Concluded in delegates representing the Winnebago tribe.
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 Men-
dawakanton and Wahpahoota bands. Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.
July 16, 1859
Swan Creek and Black River Chippewa and the
Treaty with the Sioux Munsee or Christian tribe. Its intent was to manifest
June 19, 1858 tribal liberality, to encourage agricultural pursuits,
This treaty was between the United States and the and to remove all erroneous impressions respecting
Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota or Sioux the nonfulfillment of stipulations of former treaties.
tribe. Its main point was that eighty acres of reserva- Provisions were made for the sale of the reservation
tion land were to be allotted to each head of a family, held by the Christian tribe and for a suitable and
and the residue was to be held in common. Further permanent home as directed by Congress on June 8,
survey and allotments were made. Some lands were 1858. Whites were not permitted to settle on the
made exempt from taxes. Additional concerns were reserve. Appropriations were made for stock, agri-
provisions and amendments of the treaty of July 23, cultural implements, a schoolhouse, a church build-
1851. The United States was to maintain military posts, ing, a blacksmith shop, and the like. The tribes relin-
roads, and the like. Bands were to be peaceful, to quished all claims and granted rights-of-way for
pay for depredations, to refrain from engaging in roads and highways. Concluded at the Sac and Fox
hostilities except in self-defense, and to surrender agency, the treaty was signed by Commissioner
offenders. Annuities were to be withheld from those David Crawford for the United States and by eight
who drank liquor. Members of the bands were delegates representing the tribes.
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 Treaty with the Sac and Fox
in good faith on reservation land would have the right October 1, 1859
of preemption. Concluded at the city of Washington, This treaty was between the United States and the
the treaty was signed by Commissioner Charles E. Sac and Fox of the Mississippi. Under its terms, part
Mix for the United States and by eight chiefs and of the present reservation was to be set apart and
headmen of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands. boundaries defined; the new reserve would be

Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne – February 18, 1861 351
known as the reservation of the Sac and Fox of the Sarcoxieville on the Delaware Reservation, the treaty
Mississippi. Eighty acres were set apart for each was signed by Commissioner Thomas B. Sykes for
member of the tribe, along with a tract of land to the United States and by John Conner, Sar-cox-ie,
support a school. Whites were not to reside on the Ne-con-he-con, Rock-a-to-wha, and James Conner,
land without permission. All members of the tribe chiefs of the Delaware tribe.
were to share in the benefits. Certificates were to be
issued to the commissioner of Indian affairs for divi-
sion of lands. Rights-of-way for roads, highways,
and railroads were allowed. Certain lands could be Treaty with the Arapaho
sold as dictated, and the debts of the tribe were to be and Cheyenne
paid out of the proceeds of the sale. Provisions were February 18, 1861
made in case the proceeds were insufficient to pay This treaty covered the cession to the United States
debts. Provisions of former treaties could be changed of lands not owned by the Arapaho and Cheyenne
by Congress. Provisions were made for Thomas and set boundaries, locations, and stipulations. The
Connelly. Concluded at the Sac and Fox agency in treaty also stipulated the disposition of lands, the
the Territory of Kansas, the treaty was signed by name of the reservation, and the protection of per-
Commissioner Alfred B. Greenwood for the United sons and property. Concluded at Fort Wise, the
States and by nine chiefs and delegates representing treaty was signed by Commissioners Albert G.
the tribes. Boone and F. B. Culver for the United States and by
the following chiefs and delegates representing the
confederated tribes of Arapahoe and Cheyenne Indi-
ans of the Upper Arkansas River: Little Raven,
Treaty with the Kansa Tribe Storm, Shave-Head, and Big-Mouth (on the part of
October 5, 1859
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 Pap-
pan 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. Pro-
visions 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 Com-
missioner Alfred B. Greenwood for the United States
and by twenty-seven chiefs and headmen represent-
ing the Kansa tribe.
Cheyennes and Kiowas—Southern Plains Delegation in the

Treaty with the Delaware White House Conservatory on March 27, 1863. The white
May 30, 1860 woman standing at the far right, top row, is often identified as
This treaty dealt with the distribution and allocation Mary Todd Lincoln. The Indians in the front row are, left to
right: War Bonnet, Standing in the Water, Lean Bear of the
of land and allowed eighty acres per tribe member.
Cheyennes, and Yellow Wolf of the Kiowas. Lean Bear was a
The treaty stipulated what was to be done in the case key representative in the 1861 treaty with the Arapaho and
of abandonment of land and also set the price per Cheyenne. Yellow Wolf is wearing the Thomas Jefferson peace
acre at $1.25; it also specified what the United States medal. The identities of the Indians in the second row are
was to pay for certain depredations. Concluded at unknown. (Library of Congress)

352 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc. – March 6, 1861
the Arapaho), and Black Kettle, White Antelope, ments to be made. The treaty authorized the presi-
Lean Bear, Little Wolf, and Left Hand, or Namos. dent to cause lands to be granted in fee to certain
male adults, allowed for the Leavenworth, Paw-
nee, and Western Railroad to purchase certain
land, and set the price and terms of purchase. It
Treaty with the Sauk also allowed for a reservation of land for the Bap-
and Fox, Etc. tist Mission, for annual interest of the improve-
March 6, 1861 ment 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
Sac and Fox of Missouri and the Iowa. The treaty
chiefs, braves, and headmen of the Potawatomi
called for the cession of the reservation in Missouri to
Nation.
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 Treaty with the Kansa
land. It also arranged a grant for education, stipu- March 13, 1862
lated that no persons could abide on the reservation This treaty is an amendment to a treaty made in
without a permit, and stated that a toll bridge was to 1859. It authorized the secretary of the interior to
be built over the Great Nemaha River. The treaty was ascertain the value of the improvements made by
signed by Daniel Vanderslice, Indian agent, for the persons who settled on the diminished reserve of
United States; by Pe-ta-ok-a-ma, Ne-sour-quoit, Mo- the Kansa, and it granted a half-section of land to
less, and Se-se-ah-kee, delegates of the Sac and Fox of Thomas S. Huffaker. Concluded in the state of
Missouri; and by No-heart, Nag-ga-rash, Mah-hee, Kansas at the Kansas Indian agency, the treaty
To-hee, Tah-ra-kee, Thur-o-mony, and White Horse, was signed by Commissioners Alfred B. Green-
delegates of the Iowa tribe. wood 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
Treaty with the Ottawa
list of lands, set forth the authority of the agent of of Blanchard’s Fork
the road to make conveyance, and stipulated the and Roche de Boeuf
form of bond. It also stated that the company was June 24, 1862
entitled to patent and to execute bonds and mort- This treaty allowed certain Ottawa Indians to
gage. Concluded at Leavenworth City, Kansas, the become citizens of the United States within five
treaty was signed by Commissioner William P. Dole years of the treaty date. It also sectioned land to
for the United States and by head chief John Con- compensate chiefs, stated that heads of families
ner and four other representatives of the Delaware would receive either 160 or 80 acres of land, set
tribe. 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.
Treaty with the Potawatomi The treaty was signed by Commissioner William P.
November 15, 1861 Dole for the United States; by Pem-ach-wung, chief;
This treaty dealt with the disposition of the and by John T. Jones, William Hurr, and James
Kansas Reservation and arranged for a census of Wind, chief and councilmen of the Ottawa Indians
the tribe; it also set forth assignments of land, cer- of the united bands of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche
tificates to issue, exemption from levy, and pay- de Boeuf.

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 reser-
vations 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 Chief Joseph (c. 1840–1904) was a courageous leader of
considerable diplomatic skill who came to be regarded as the
loyal whites, allowed for certificates of sale, and
spokesman for the united bands of Nez Percé. His legend was
specified that the lots were to be exempt from levy, sealed by his famous declaration upon surrendering in 1877
taxes, and the like. The treaty also asked the tribe to that “from where the sun now stands, I will fight no more
elect subordinate chiefs, gave the tribe money for forever.” (Library of Congress)
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 to hold their lands in common, and stipulated that
Indian affairs, and Charles Hutchins and S. D. the Atchison and Pike’s Peak Railroad could pur-
Howe, U.S. Indian agents for the Territory of Wash- chase certain lands. Concluded at the Indian agency
ington; and for the Indians by fifty chiefs of the Nez on the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas, the treaty
Percé Nation. was signed by Commissioner Charles B. Keith for
the United States and by eight chiefs of the Kickapoo
Nation.

June 28, 1863
Treaty with the Eastern
This treaty dealt with the division of land, arranged
for an accurate census of the reservation to be taken, Shoshone
and set for the conditions of land sale. It allowed July 2, 1863
heads of families to be allottees and to become citi- This treaty reestablished friendly relations and per-
zens of the United States, stated when contracts were petual peace between the United States and the East-
to be null, provided for those members who wished ern Shoshone. Further, the treat set forth routes of

354 Treaty with the Shoshone–Northwestern Bands – July 30, 1863
travel, settlements and posts, and telegraph and tions. This treaty also stipulated how claims were to
stage lines, permitted the railway to come through be audited, allowed for a road to be built from
the land, set the boundaries of the Shoshone land, Leach Lake to Red Lake, and prohibited spirituous
and provided an annuity for loss of game. Con- liquors. It also granted 160 acres to certain members
cluded at Fort Bridger, Utah Territory, the treaty was of the Red Lake and Pembina bands as well as a
signed by James Duane Doty and Luther Mann, Jr., reservation of 640 acres each for Chiefs Moose Dung
for the United States and by eleven chiefs of the and Red Bear. The treaty was signed by Alexander
Shoshone Nation. 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 Treaty with Utah–
This was a treaty of peace and friendship, stating Tabeguache Band
that the Shoshone Nation understood and agreed
with the Treaty of Fort Bridger (Treaty with the East- October 7, 1863
ern Shoshone–July 2, 1863); it also increased annu- This treaty set forth the boundaries of land, admit-
ities and set the boundaries of the Shoshone country. ted the authority of the United States, asked for the
Concluded at Box Elder, Utah Territory, the treaty cession of lands, and permitted military posts to be
was signed by Brigadier General P. Edward Connor, established on unceded lands. It permitted the
commanding the military district of Utah, and James mining of lands and their settlement by the
Duane Doty for the United States, and by nine chiefs Mohuache band of Utah with no molestation, and
of the Shoshone Nation. arranged protection for certain persons, redress of
injuries, and delivery of offenders. The treaty also
stipulated that stolen property would go to a gov-
ernment agent, that no munitions of war were to
Treaty with the be given to bands not in amity with the United
Western Shoshone States, and that the band would receive five Ameri-
can stallions to improve their breeding of horses.
October 1, 1863 Concluded at the Tabeguache agency at Conejos,
This treaty established peace and asked the Western Colorado Territory, the treaty was signed by J.
bands of Shoshone to cease depredations. It also set Evans, M. Steck, Simeon Whiteley, and Lafayette
forth routes of travel, settlements and posts, and Head for the United States and by ten leaders of
telegraph and stage lines, permitted the railway to the Tabeguache band.
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 the
Shoshone-Goship
October 12, 1863
This treaty established peace and requested the
Treaty with the Chippewa–Red Shoshone-Goship band to cease depredations. It
Lake and Pembina Bands established routes of travel, settlements and posts,
October 1, 1863 and telegraph and stage lines, granted right-of-way
This treaty established perpetual peace between the for the railway, set the boundaries of the Shoshone-
United States and the Red Lake and Pembina bands Goship land, and allowed for explorations, mines,
and requested the cession of land to the United and use of timber. Concluded at Tuilla Valley, Utah
States. It also set boundaries, set payments for lands Territory, the treaty was signed by P. Edw. Connor
ceded, granted amnesty for past offenses, and and James Duane Doty for the United States and by
appropriated compensation for former depreda- four leaders of the Shoshone-Goship band.

Treaty with the Omaha – March 6, 1865 355
Treaty with the Chippewa–Red for the building of mills, shops, a schoolhouse, and a
Lake and Pembina Bands hospital; and arranged the provision of tools, books,
stationery, farmers, mechanics, and teachers. This
April 12, 1864 treaty stated that the reservation could be surveyed,
This treaty stated the bands’ assent to the amend- was not to be alienated or subject to levy, and that
ment of the treaty of October 2, 1863, and that the restrictions could be removed. It also established
U.S. government would pay each band a sum in lieu peace and friendship, stipulated that tribe members
of annuity by the former treaty. The treaty also set who drank liquor would not benefit from the treaty,
forth the annual expenditures of the U.S. govern- and permitted other tribes to be located on the reser-
ment for blankets, provisions, and the like, and stip- vation. The treaty was signed by J. W. Perit Hunting-
ulated that the United States would furnish one ton, superintendent of Indian affairs in Oregon, and
blacksmith, one physician, one miller, and one William Logan for the United States and by twenty-
farmer, as well as iron, steel, and a sawmill. Con- six leaders of the Klamath.
cluded 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 Treaty with the Chippewa
Pembina bands.
of Saginaw, Swan Creek,
and Black River
October 18, 1864
Treaty with the Chippewa, This treaty requested certain lands to be released to
Mississippi, Pillager, and Lake the United States and specified the amount of land
Winnibigoshish Bands each type of person (chiefs, headmen, etc.) was to
May 7, 1864 receive. The treaty permitted William Smith and oth-
This treaty called for the cession of various lakes and ers to select lands and receive patents therefore; it
other reservations to the United States; it also set further required the agent to make a list of lands
boundaries, specified reservations, set payments, selected and by whom, and to separate that list into
and allowed for houses for the chiefs. The treaty also “competents” and “those not so competent.” The
stated that the United States would furnish oxen, treaty provided for a manual labor school, a farm,
plows, agricultural implements, carpenters, black- buildings, an annual appropriation, and control of
smiths, laborers, and physicians, and that a sawmill, the school and farm, stipulating also that, if the
roads, and bridges were to be erected for common school and farm were abandoned, the rights under
use by the bands. Chiefs with bands of fewer than the treaty would be lost; that the land and buildings
fifty were not to be recognized; gratuities were could be sold; and that the missionary society
stated and salaries set for female teachers. Con- was to use the schoolhouse already present. It also
cluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was signed by said that the mill and land at Isabella City could
William P. Dole, commissioner of Indian affairs, and be sold, that James Nicholson could select eighty
Clark W. Thompson for the United States, and by the acres, and that the eighth article of the former treaty
Chippewa chief Hole-in-the-Day and Mis-qua-dace. 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.
Treaty with the Klamath, Etc.
October 14, 1864
This treaty required the Klamath to move to and live
on the reservation, called for cession of lands to the Treaty with the Omaha
United States, set boundaries, and stated that white March 6, 1865
persons were not to remain on the reservation. The The main concerns of this treaty were cession,
treaty also called for a right-of-way for railroads; set boundaries, provisions, payments, and division of
payments to be made by the United States, along land among tribe members, with certificates to be
with additional payments and their use; provided issued for tracts assigned. Articles of a treaty of

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), Wah-
no-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, reser-
vation, 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, engi-
neer, carpenter, and blacksmith, and a house for each
White Eagle, chief of the Ponca tribe, c. 1860. (Getty Images)
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 Win- Wah-gah-sap-pi (Iron Whip), Gist-tah-wah-gu
nebago chiefs Little Hill, Little Decoria, Whirling (Strong Walker), Wash-com-mo-ni (Mitchell P.
Thunder, Young Prophet, Good Thunder, and White Cerre), Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he (Lone Chief), and Tah-
Breast. ton-ga-nuz-zhe (Standing Buffalo), delegates of the
Ponca tribe.
Treaty with the Ponca

March 10, 1865 Treaty with the Snake
This was a supplementary article to the treaty of August 12, 1865
March 12, 1858, and its main concerns were cession, The main concerns of the treaty were peace, the
boundaries, and land ceded back to the Ponca by the release of slaves, prohibition of the sale of firearms,
United States. The tribe was to satisfy or pay the establishment of a justice system, land cession,
claims, if any, of any settlers for improvements on boundaries, and reservation. The United States
the lands ceded by the United States; further, the agreed to pay for fencing, breakup, and cultivation
United States was to indemnify the tribe for spolia- of land and to supply seed, tools, and stock. Further,
tion committed against them. Concluded in the city the tribe was given a physician, mechanics, farmers,
of Washington, the treaty was signed by Commis- teachers, and an interpreter and had the use of the
sioner William P. Dole for the United States and by mills and schoolhouses. The tribe wanted to prevent

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho – October 14, 1865 357
the use of liquor among themselves by the withhold- Treaty with the
ing of annuities in the case of disobedience. Con- Sioux–Miniconjou Band
cluded at Sprague River Valley, the treaty was signed
October 10, 1865
by J. W. Perit Huntington, superintendent of Indian
The main concerns of this treaty were submission to
affairs in Oregon, for the United States and by eleven
the laws of the United States, peace, settlement of
chiefs and headmen of the Woll-pah-pe band of the
differences between tribes by arbitration, tribal
Snake tribe.
withdrawal from overland routes, payments, and
protection of the tribal members. Subsequent
amendment to the treaty was to be binding. Con-
cluded at Fort Sully in the Territory of Dakota, the
Agreement with the Cherokee
treaty was signed for the United States by Newton
and Other Tribes in the Indian Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of
Territory Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B.
September 13, 1865 Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the
This agreement was never ratified. Its main con- Northern Superintendency; and four commission-
cerns were to place the tribes under the protection ers; and for the Indians by fourteen chiefs and head-
and jurisdiction of the United States. In return, the men of the Miniconjou band of the Dakota or Sioux.
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 agree-
Treaty with the Sioux–Lower
ment was signed most probably at Fort Smith by Brulé Band
five commissioners for the United States and by October 14, 1865
numerous chiefs and delegates of the Creek, The main concerns of this treaty were peace, arbitra-
Cowskin Seneca, Seneca and Shawnee, Cherokee, tion, withdrawal of the tribes from overland routes,
and Seminole tribes. payments, building of roads, and establishment of
schools. The United States was to engage a black-
smith and a farmer for the tribe’s benefit, but all
stock, agricultural equipment, and other implements
Treaty with the Osage were to remain U.S. property. The reservation bound-
September 29, 1865 aries were laid out, and the reserve was to be known
The main concerns of this treaty were land sales, as the Lower Brulé. Whites were not to enter or reside
surveys, boundaries, payments in monies and on the reserve, and individual tribesmen locating on
goods, cession, funds in trust, individual land lands were to be protected. Two Kettle bands could
grants, annual salary for chiefs, land grant for pur- be located adjoining the Brulé. Concluded at Fort
poses of education, and patents. Further, tribes Sully, Dakota, the treaty was signed by Newton
were to be peaceful, to commit no depredations, Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent of Indian
and to refrain from making war. A right-of-way for affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B. Taylor,
highways and railroads was granted. The Osage superintendent of Indian affairs for the Northern
were allowed to unite with other tribes and to Superintendency; and four commissioners, for the
receive a portion of annuities. If tribes removed United States; and by fifteen chiefs and headmen of
from Kansas, their diminished reservation was to the Lower Brulé band of Dakota or Sioux.
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
Treaty with the Cheyenne
by Commissioner D. N. Cooley and Elijah Sells, and Arapaho
superintendent of Indian affairs, for the United October 14, 1865
States and by eight chiefs of the Great and Little The main concerns of the treaty were peace, arbitra-
Osage tribes. tion, surrender of tribal members committing

358 Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho – October 17, 1865
depredations, reservation, boundaries, payments relinquished, and other portions of the tribes were
and annuities, patents, land grants, and building of urged to join in this treaty. The treaty was signed by
roads and military posts. Whites were not allowed to Commissioners John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney,
settle on the reserve, except for officers, agents, and Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse
employees of the government, and the tribes were H. Leavenworth, and James Steele for the United
not required to settle thereon until the United States States, and by twenty-two chiefs and headmen of
extinguished all claims of title from other tribes. several bands of the Comanche and Kiowa 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 Treaty with the Sioux–
tribe not then present to join in this treaty. Two-Kettle Band
Concluded at the camp on the Little Arkansas River
October 19, 1865
in Kansas, the treaty was signed by Commissioners
The main concerns of this treaty were the authority
John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney, Thomas
and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitra-
Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse H. Leav-
tion, withdrawal from overland routes, protection,
enworth, and James Steele for the United States and
and payments for agricultural developments and
by six Cheyenne and seven Arapaho chiefs and
implements. The United States was to engage a
headmen.
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
Treaty with the Apache, chief of the Two-Kettle band of Dakota or Sioux. All
amendments to the treaty were deemed binding.
Cheyenne, and Arapaho Concluded at Fort Sully in Dakota, the treaty was
October 17, 1865 signed for the United States by Commissioners
This treaty unites the Apache tribe, heretofore con- Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent
federated with the Kiowa and Comanche tribes, with of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B.
the Cheyenne and Arapaho bound under the provi- Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the
sions of the treaty of October 14, 1865, at the council Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Cur-
grounds on the Little Arkansas River, Kansas. It was tis; Brigadier General H. H. Sibley, Henry W. Reed,
signed by Commissioners John B. Sanborn, William and Orrin Guernsey; and for the Natives by twenty-
S. Harney, Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. two chiefs and headmen of the Two-Kettles band of
Bent, Jesse H. Leavenworth, and James Steele for the Dakota or Sioux.
United States and by six Apache, six Cheyenne, and
seven Arapaho chiefs and headmen.
Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux

October 19, 1865
Treaty with the Comanche The main concerns of this treaty were the authority
and Kiowa and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitra-
October 18, 1865 tion, withdrawal from overland routes, and pay-
The main concerns of this treaty were peace, arbitra- ments. All amendments to the treaty were deemed
tion, refrainment from depredations, surrender of binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, Dakota, the treaty
tribal members committing crimes, reservation, was signed for the United States by Commissioners
boundaries, rights-of-way for roads and military Newton Edmunds, governor and ex-superintendent
posts, and payment of annuities. No whites were to of Indian affairs for the Dakota Territory; Edward B.
settle on the reserve without permission. The tribe Taylor, superintendent of Indian affairs for the
was to remove thereto and not leave without written Northern Superintendency; Major General S. R. Cur-
permission; when absent from the reservation, tribe tis, Brigadier General H. H. Sibley, Henry W. Reed,
members were not to encamp within ten miles of and Orrin Guernsey, and by two chiefs, Wah-hah-
any road or military post. Claims to other lands were chunk-i-ah-pee (The One That Is Used as a Shield)

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
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-pee-
doo-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.
Treaty with the (National Archives)
Sioux–Hunkpapa Band
October 20, 1865
Treaty with the
tion, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, Sioux–Yanktonai Band
and payments for agricultural development and October 20, 1865
implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers The main concerns of this treaty were the authority
were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitra-
were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, tion, withdrawal from overland routes, protection,
Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States and payments for agricultural development and
by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers
ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty
Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully,
Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States
Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and
Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey; and for ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota
the Indians by six chiefs and four chief soldiers of Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of
the Onkpahpah band of Dakota or Sioux. Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency;

360 Treaty with the Sioux–Upper Yanktonai Band – October 28, 1865
Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. Treaty with the Middle

Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey; and for Oregon Tribes
the Indians by eight chiefs and seven chief soldiers
November 15, 1865
of the Yanktonai band of Dakota or Sioux.
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 reser-
vation unless given a written permit to go outside
Treaty with the Sioux– the boundaries; and an allotment of land was to be
Upper Yanktonai Band given to each head of the family. The United States
October 28, 1865 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, Ore-
and payments for agricultural development and
gon, the treaty was signed by J. W. Perit Huntington,
implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers
superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon, for the
were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty
United States and by twenty-one chiefs and head-
were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully,
men of the confederated tribes and bands of Middle
Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States
Oregon.
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; Reconstruction Treaties with the
Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H.
Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey; and
Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw,
for the Indians by three chiefs and eleven chief sol- Creeks, and Seminole
diers of the Upper Yanktonai band of Dakota or April 28–July 19, 1866
Sioux Indians. 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 Con-
federacy in 1861; as a result, the federal government
Treaty with the Sioux– declared that the tribes had lost all rights to annu-
Oglala Band ities and land promised in former treaties.
October 28, 1865 The negotiations with the five nations began
The main concerns of this treaty were the authority in September 1865 with a twelve-day meeting at
and jurisdiction of the United States, peace, arbitra- Fort Smith, Arkansas. During the conference, the
tion, withdrawal from overland routes, protection, federal government stated the seven basic stipula-
and payments for agricultural development and tions required in each treaty. First, each nation had
implements. A farmer, a blacksmith, and teachers to enter into a treaty of peace and friendship with
were to be employed. All amendments to the treaty the United States, with other Indian nations, and
were deemed binding. Concluded at Fort Sully, between tribal factions. Second, they were to assist
Dakota, the treaty was signed for the United States the federal government in pacifying the western
by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, governor and Indians. Third, slavery had to be abolished, all
ex-superintendent of Indian affairs for the Dakota slaves were to be unconditionally emancipated,
Territory; Edward B. Taylor, superintendent of and the freed slaves had to be incorporated into
Indian affairs for the Northern Superintendency; the tribes or other suitable provisions made for for-
Major General S. R. Curtis; Brigadier General H. H. mer slaves. Fourth, involuntary servitude could be
Sibley; Henry W. Reed; and Orrin Guernsey, and for tolerated only as punishment for a crime. Fifth,
the Indians by Chief Long Bull (Tan-tan-ka-has-ka) each nation holding land in Indian Territory had to
and three headmen of the Oglala band of Dakota or set aside land for the settlement of Kansas Indians.
Sioux. Sixth, all tribes of Indian Territory were expected

Reconstruction Treaties with the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creeks, and Seminole – 1866 361
to prepare for the eventual consolidation of all sions for the eventual consolidation of all Indians
Indians under one government. Finally, no white under one government.
persons, except those connected with the military The most contentious negations were with the
or assigned as Indian agents and employees of the Cherokee, who sent both Southern and Union repre-
government and of internal improvement agencies, sentatives; federal officials played the two factions
were to be permitted to reside in Indian Territory against each other. After months of bitter debate,
unless they had been formally incorporated into federal negotiators dismissed the Loyal Cherokee
the tribe. The Indians would have some ability to delegation and concluded a treaty with the minority
negotiate how much land each nation forfeited, the Southern representatives. This treaty was never
size of rights-of-way for railroads, and the status of recognized, and a few weeks later, the Loyal delega-
former slaves. tion was invited back. In the end, the Cherokee
The Seminole delegation was the first to arrive agreed to most of the Fort Smith provisions. Former
in Washington. The inexperienced and impover- slaves were granted citizenship and were to have
ished representatives were war weary and just equal rights with other Cherokee citizens. The nation
wanted to go home; consequently, they put up lit- was also forced to sell the Neutral Lands, but they
tle resistance to the demands of federal negotia- refused to sell the Cherokee Strip. Fortunately, on the
tors. They agreed to all the demands of the Fort issue of land cession, the Loyal faction negotiated
Smith meeting, ceding their entire homeland for better terms than the other four nations did. The
fifteen cents an acre, and they agreed to purchase land was to be appraised by two disinterested
two hundred thousand acres from the Creek parties and then to be sold to the highest bidder, and
Nation at fifty cents an acre. Their treaty estab- he Cherokee Nation was guaranteed at least $1.25
lished rights-of-way for railroads, abolished slav- per acre.
ery, and stated that all Seminoles, freedmen, and The unique sovereign status of the five nations
adopted white people would have equal rights allowed Indian commissioners to make demands of
within the nation. the slave-owning Indians that were not made of for-
The harsh treaty with the Seminole was fol- mer Confederate states. No former Confederate state
lowed a few weeks later by a far more benevolent was required to give up territory as war reparations,
treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. yet all five nations were required to cede or lease
The two nations hired an attorney and worked land so the federal government could concentrate all
closely together. Overall, the Choctaw, the Chicka- unwanted indigenous people in Indian Territory.
saw, and their attorneys proved to be very able nego- Furthermore, although Southern slaveowners sim-
tiators, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw did not ply had to free their slaves, the Indians were
incur any liability or forfeiture of land as a result of required to give their freedmen land and, in some
their alignment with the Confederacy. They were not cases, tribal membership and a share of tribal funds.
forced to grant citizenship to their former slaves. If In effect, three nations lost the right to determine
the two nations did not pass legislation providing their own tribal membership. In the end, once the
for the civil rights of their former slaves, the United negotiations were over, the Indians knew that they
States would use $300,000 of Choctaw and Chicka- were the real losers of the Civil War.
saw money to relocate the people of African descent Joyce Ann Kievit
elsewhere. Rights-of-way were established for rail-
roads, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw made provi-
sions to purchase stock in the company that built Abel, Annie Heloise. 1925. The American Indian under
through their nation. The Indians were to pay for the Reconstruction. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark.
stock by selling to the railroad sections of land six Reprint, St. Clair Shores, MI: Scholarly Press,
miles wide on each side of the track. 1972.
The Creek Nation’s negotiations in many ways Foreman, Grant. 1934. The Five Civilized Tribes:
mirrored the Seminole negotiations. The delegates Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole.
Norman. University of Oklahoma Press.
did not resist federal demands, and they accepted all
Foreman, Grant. 1932. Indian Removal: The Emigration
the Fort Smith demands. They ceded the west half of of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Norman.
the Creek domain, estimated to contain 3,250,560 University of Oklahoma Press.
acres; they adopted their freedmen, established Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1971. Indian Affairs: Laws and
rights-of-way for the railroads, and accepted provi- Treaties, vol. 2. New York: AMS Press.

362 Treaty with the Seminole – March 21, 1866
Treaty with the Seminole Cooley and Special Commissioner E. E. L. Taylor for
the United States and by nine chiefs, headmen, and
March 21, 1866
warriors of the Bois Fort band of Chippewa.
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 con-
struction of agency buildings. A council was orga- and Chickasaw
nized and pay determined. No session of the council April 28, 1866
was allowed to exceed thirty days in any one year, The main concerns of this treaty were peace, cessa-
and a special session could be called by the superin- tion of slavery and involuntary servitude, cession,
tendent or the secretary of the interior. This treaty rights of blacks and freedmen, amnesty for past
constituted full settlement of all claims; obligations offenses, rights-of-way for railroads, laws governing
from the treaty of August 1, 1861, were reaffirmed, companies, patents, payments, investments, land
and it was determined that any treaty provisions grants, mode of land selection, rights of citizens by
inconsistent with the articles of the current treaty adoption or intermarriage, and the survey and divi-
would be annulled. Concluded at Washington, D.C., sion of lands with maps to exhibit actual occupan-
the treaty was signed by Commissioner D. N. Coo- cies. A justice system was organized, and the build-
ley, Superintendent of Indian Affairs Elijah Sells, and ing of military posts and Indian agencies was
Ely S. Parker for the United States and by the Semi- allowed. Post offices and a postal service were to be
nole chiefs John Chup-co (Long John), Cho-cote- established. A council was organized and pay deter-
harjo, Fos-har-jo, and John F. Brown. mined. No session of the council was allowed to
exceed thirty days in any one year, and a special ses-
sion could be called by the superintendent or the
secretary of the interior. Missionaries were not to be
Treaty with the Potawatomi interfered with and were given certain rights. No
March 29, 1866 more that ten thousand Kansas tribe members
Amendments were desired by the Potawatomi Indi- would be received into these districts, and no white
ans to their treaty concluded at the Potawatomi persons were to enter the territory without special
agency on November 15, 1861. Provisions of the permission. Former rights and immunities of tribe
third article of the former treaty were extended to all members were to remain in force. Concluded at the
adult persons of the tribe. This treaty was signed by city of Washington, the treaty was signed by Special
Commissioner Dennis N. Cooley and a business Commissioners Dennis N. Cooley, Elijah Sells, and E.
committee acting on behalf of said tribe. S. Parker for the United States; by Alfred Wade,
Allen Wright, James Riley, and John Page, commis-
sioners, on the part of the Choctaw; and by Winches-
ter Colbert, Edmund Pickens, Holmes Colbert, Col-
Treaty with the Chippewa– bert Carter, and Robert H. Love, commissioners, on
Bois Fort Band 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 black- Treaty with the Creeks
smith shop, a schoolhouse, houses for the chiefs, and June 14, 1866
other buildings. Obligations from the treaty of Sep- This was a treaty of cession and indemnity, estab-
tember 30, 1854, were reaffirmed, and it was deter- lishing military occupation and protection by the
mined that any treaty provisions inconsistent with United States and amnesty. Slavery was prohibited,
the articles of the current treaty would be abrogated. and the rights of people of African descent were
Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was outlined. Payment was to be made for the cession of
signed by Commissioner of Indian Affairs D. N. lands and for losses of loyal refugee members and

Agreement at Fort Berthold – July 27, 1866 363
freedmen who had enlisted in the Federal army. States, and by three chiefs and four councilors of the
Right-of-way was granted for a railroad. Land Delaware tribe.
grants were made for missionary and educational
purposes. The Seminole were allowed to sell or con-
vey land to the United States, and the boundary
dividing the Creek country was to be surveyed. Treaty with the Cherokee
Agency buildings were to be erected. A council was July 19, 1866
organized and powers and pay determined. No ses- Under the terms of this treaty, the treaty of October
sion of the council was allowed to exceed thirty 7, 1861, was declared void, amnesty was given, con-
days in any one year, and a special session could be fiscation laws were repealed, and rights were
called by the superintendent or the secretary of the restored to former owners. Slavery was prohibited,
interior. This treaty constituted full settlement of all although emancipated slaves were not to be paid.
claims and reaffirmed obligations from the treaty of Cherokee, freed slaves, and free blacks could elect to
July 10, 1861; further, any treaty provisions inconsis- reside in the Canadian district southwest of the
tent with the articles of the current treaty would be Arkansas River, and a justice system was outlined.
annulled. Concluded at the city of Washington, the The United States guaranteed protection and was
treaty was signed for the United States by Dennis N. allowed to build military posts and to settle other
Cooley, commissioner of Indian affairs; Elija Sells, civilized tribes in the Cherokee country. However,
superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern those wishing to preserve the tribal organization
Superintendency; and Colonel Ely S. Parker, special were allowed to have land set aside for them. The
commissioner; and by the Creek Nations of Indians, tribe was given the right of representation in the
represented by Ok-tars-sars-harjov (Sands), Cow-e- national council. No trade licenses were to be issued
to-me-co, and Che-chu-chee, delegates at large, and without the express permission of the Cherokee.
D. N. McIntosh and James Smith, special delegates The Cherokee were allowed to sell farm products. A
of the Southern Creek. council was organized and powers and pay deter-
mined. No session of the council was allowed to
exceed thirty days in any one year, and a special ses-
sion could be called by the superintendent or the
secretary of the interior. Land grants were allowed
Treaty with the Delaware for missionary and educational purposes. This
July 4, 1866 treaty reaffirmed all previous treaties, and any
The main concerns of this treaty were payment for treaty provisions inconsistent with the current
reservation land previously sold, and authorization treaty would be annulled. Concluded at the city of
to sell the remaining part as well as to reserve for Washington, this treaty was signed by Dennis N.
sale the lands of those members who elected to Cooley, commissioner of Indian affairs, and Elijah
become citizens. Improvements were to be Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for the South-
appraised and each member paid accordingly. Pro- ern Superintendency for the United States, and by
visions were made to set apart land for allotment to six delegates of the Cherokee Nation. Principal chief
children born after the treaty. The United States was John Ross of the Cherokee was too unwell to join in
to sell certain lands to the Delaware and to survey these negotiations.
and define boundaries. Proceeds from the sales
were to be paid to tribe members. Peaceable posses-
sion was guaranteed. Procedures for citizenship
were defined, a registry was to be made of those Agreement at Fort Berthold
electing to become citizens, and a patent was to be July 27, 1866
granted to those who became citizens. A settlement The main concern of this treaty was peace with the
of all claims for depredations was made. The white people and among the Arikara, Gros Ventres,
Delaware were not to move until new homes were and Mandan. A supplement to the treaty states that
provided. The treaty was signed by Superintendent the Gros Ventre and Mandan tribes became parties
Thomas Murphy, Indian Agent John G. Pratt, and to the treaty. Concluded at Fort Berthold in the Ter-
Special Commissioner W. H. Watson for the United ritory of Dakota, the treaty was signed for the

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 dent of Indian affairs for Kansas; and Henry W. Mar-
ex-superintendent of Indian affairs, Major General tin, U.S. Indian agent; and by Keokuk, Che-kus-kuk,
S. R. Curtis, Orrin Guernsey, and Henry W. Reed; Uc-quaw-ho-ko, Mut-tut-tah, and Man-ah-to-wah,
and by twenty-four chiefs and headmen of the chiefs of the tribes of Sac and Fox of the Mississippi.
Arikara tribe.
Treaty with the Sioux–Sisseton

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox and Wahpeton Bands
February 18, 1867 February 19, 1867
This treaty dealt mainly with cession, reservation, The main concerns of the treaty were peace; cession
survey, construction of buildings, land grants, of rights to construct wagon roads, railroads, mail
patents, and payments. The United States was to stations, and telegraph lines; boundaries; reserva-
establish a manual labor school, to build schools, tion; patents; and appropriations to enable the tribes
and to supply a physician, medicine, tobacco, and to return to an agricultural life. Payments were to be
salt. Claims against the tribe and claims against the made in monies, except for the erection of houses
United States were to be paid. Absent members of and articles to facilitate agriculture. No one was
the tribe were to be notified of the treaty. The treaty authorized to trade for furs or pelts within the
was signed for the United States by Lewis V. Bogy, reserve. Members of the bands were the only ones
commissioner of Indian affairs; William H. Watson, allowed to reside on the reserve without special per-
special commissioner; Thomas Murphy, superinten- mission. Chiefs and headmen were allowed to set up

Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche – October 21, 1867 365
a judicial system under the direction of the agent. The third article of the treaty of November 15, 1861,
Concluded at Washington, D.C., the treaty was was reaffirmed, and amounts due the Potawatomi
signed by Lewis V. Bogy, commissioner of Indian were to be ascertained. Land was set aside for schools.
affairs, and Commissioner William H. Watson for the Certain persons were allowed to purchase unallotted
United States and by numerous chiefs and headmen lands. The treaty was signed at Washington, D.C.
of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota or Lewis V. Bogy, commissioner of Indian affairs; W. H.
Sioux. 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
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed the Potawatomi tribe.
Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw,
Etc.
February 23, 1867 Treaty with the Chippewa
The main concerns of the treaty were cession by all
the signatory tribes, payments, education and
of the Mississippi
schools, aid in agriculture, investigation of claims, March 19, 1867
citizenship, and removal to permanent homes. The The main concerns of this treaty were cession, reser-
United States agreed to pay for a blacksmith and all vation, boundaries, survey, Hole-in-the-Day and his
necessary iron, steel, and tools in exchange for the heirs, land for farming, payments for lands ceded,
tribes’ relinquishment of all claims of damage and schools, mills, houses, stock, agriculture, land
loss during the late war. Concluded at Washington, grants, and provisions. A physician was also to be
D.C., the treaty was signed for the United States by supplied. Further, all tribe members having ten
Lewis V. Bogy, commissioner of Indian affairs; as acres under cultivation were entitled to receive a
W. H. Watson, special commissioner; Thomas Mur- certificate for forty acres. The land was made
phy, superintendent of Indian affairs; and George C. exempt from taxation and was not to be alienated. A
Snow and G. A. Colton, U.S. Indian agents. The justice system was established. The treaty was
treaty was signed for the Seneca by George Spicer signed at Washington, D.C., by Special Commis-
and John Mush; for the Mixed Seneca and Shawnee sioner Lewis V. Bogy, William H. Watson, and U.S.
by John Whitetree, John Young, and Lewis Davis; for Agent Joel B. Bassett for the United States; and by
the Quapaw by S. G. Vallier and Ka-zhe-cah; for the the Chippewa of the Mississippi, represented by
Confederated Peoria, Kaskaskia, Wea, and Pianke- Que-we-zance (Hole-in-the-Day), Qui-we-shen-
shaw by Baptiste Peoria, John Mitchell, and Edward shish, Wau-bon-a-quot, Min-e-do-wob, Mijaw-ke-
Black; for the Miami by Thomas Metosenyah and ke-shik, Shob-osk-kunk, Ka-gway-dosh, Me-no-ke-
Thomas Richardville; for the Ottawa of Blanchard’s shick, Way-namee, and O-gub-ay-gwan-ay-aush.
Fork and Roche de Boeuf by John White and J. T.
Jones; and for certain Wyandot by Tauromee (John
Hat) and John Karaho.
Treaty with the Kiowa
and Comanche
October 21, 1867
Treaty with the Potawatomi The main concerns of this treaty were to stop the war,
February 27, 1867 to ensure that no captives were taken, and to keep the
The parties to this treaty agreed that a commission peace. Offenders against the Indians were to be
would select a reservation that would not be included arrested, and wrongdoers against the whites were to
in any state. The Prairie band had no interest in the be punished. Further concerns were permanent reser-
reservation but would receive a share in the proceeds. vation, survey, boundaries, and restriction of resi-
A registry was to be made listing the tribe members dence to certain persons. Children were to attend
who desired to remove and those who decided to school; the United States agreed to provide school-
remain. Money from the sale would be retained until houses and teachers, seeds and agricultural imple-
the party was ready to remove to a new reservation. ments, instructions in farming, and a blacksmith.

366 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache – October 21, 1867
After ten years, the United States could withdraw the participate in the same advantages and annuities of
physician, farmer, blacksmiths, carpenter, engineer, the former treaty. The treaty was signed at the Coun-
and miller by paying an additional $10,000 per year cil Camp on Medicine Lodge Creek, seventy miles
to the tribe. The right to occupy territory outside south of Fort Larned, Kansas, by Nathaniel G. Tay-
the reservation was surrendered, but the right to lor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur, Alfred Terry,
hunt was reserved. The United States was allowed to John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tappan, and J. B. Hen-
build railroads, wagon roads, and military posts. No derson for the United States and by numerous chiefs
treaty for cession of reservation, which is held in and headmen of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache
common, was to be considered valid unless permit- tribe.
ted by three-fourths of the male tribe members occu-
pying the reserve. This treaty was signed at the
Council Camp on Medicine Lodge Creek, seventy
miles south of Fort Larned, Kansas, by Nathaniel G. Treaty with the Cheyenne
Taylor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur, Alfred Terry, and Arapaho
John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tappan, and J. B. Hender- October 28, 1867
son for the United States, and by the confederated The Treaty of Medicine Lodge was negotiated with
tribes of the Kiowa and Comanche, represented by the largest American Indian nations of the southern
their chiefs and headmen. 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
Treaty with the Kiowa, way. Extensive European American intrusion into
Comanche, and Apache the central and southern plains had culminated dur-
October 21, 1867 ing the Colorado gold rush of 1859; the resulting in
Under this treaty, the Apache agreed to keep peace uneasiness was expressed in reprisals on both sides
and to incorporate with the Kiowa and Comanche. during the 1860s. After the massacre of a whole
The Apache were to observe the stipulations and to 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)

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho – October 28, 1867 367
The negotiations were conducted in three ses-

sions; the result of each was a treaty between the
Peace Commission and the Indian nations repre-
sented at each session. The Kiowa and Comanche
signed on October 21, the Kiowa-Apache on the
same day, and the Cheyenne and Arapaho on Octo-
ber 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
The Great Treaty Council on Medicine Lodge Creek in southern of the railroads and their construction, and cession
Kansas lasted several days, and involved the Cheyenne, of the American Indian land. The Comanche,
Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache. (National Archives) Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache were assigned a reser-
vation in southwestern Indian Territory between
burning of another one at Pawnee Fork in 1867, the Red River and the Washita River. The Cheyenne
Cheyenne war parties retaliated with raids. The and Arapaho were granted a reservation in north-
treaty aimed not only at securing peace but also at eastern Indian Territory between the Arkansas
confining the American Indians to reservations, River and the Cimarron River. All these nations
where they would be assimilated. The treaty thus were expected to adopt the European American
marked the beginning of the reservation period. pattern of civilization on their reservations. The
Indian agent Colonel Jesse Leavenworth met Medicine Lodge treaty provided for the compul-
with the pertinent Indian chiefs to negotiate a place sory education of children between ages six and
for the signing of the treaty. The site of Medicine sixteen, a resident Indian agent, a physician, a
Lodge Creek in Southern Kansas, seventy miles farmer, and other permanent agency personnel.
west-southwest of Wichita, was chosen as a compro- Any head of a family could select 320 acres of land
mise, allowing easy transportation of gifts from Fort within the reservation for private farming, whereas
Larned. The Indian nations were hesitant to go far- single adults would receive eight acres. Compen-
ther north, where they risked attack or exposure to sating for previous treaty agreements, the U.S. gov-
the outbreak of cholera along the Arkansas River. ernment bound itself to deliver clothing and to pro-
The members of the U.S. Peace Commission vide funds for the benefit of the Indian nations for a
were Generals Alfred Terry, William Harney, John period of thirty years.
Sanborn, and Christopher Augur; Senator John B. The treaty was successful in setting an example
Henderson; Commissioner N. G. Taylor; and for a new period in the plains conflict, but it did not
Colonel Samuel Tappan. A number of newspaper stop the frontier wars. Detainment of promised pro-
correspondents were present. One of them, H. M. visions, the activities of liquor peddlers, continuing
Stanley, reported that there were 150 lodges of the intertribal warfare, and the impending breakdown
Kiowa, with their representatives Sitting Bear of the buffalo economy—related to European Amer-
(Satank) and White Bear (Satanta); 100 lodges of the ican encroachment—created a dismal situation that
Comanche, with Ten Bears and Silver Brooch; 171 led to more killing on both sides. Eventually, nearly
lodges of the Arapaho, with Little Raven and Yellow two years after concluding the treaty, all the Indian
Bear; 85 lodges of the Kiowa-Apache, with Poor nations settled down on their reservations. The
Bear; and 250 lodges of the peaceful fraction of the treaty was a clear declaration of the further inten-
Cheyenne, with Black Kettle and Little Robe. The tions of the United States. Up to this time, the Indian
chiefs of the militant Cheyenne band Dog Soldiers, nations had been just pushed aside from the settle-
such as Tall Bull and Bull Bear, did not agree with ment areas of the European Americans and allowed
the treaty at first. The Cheyenne came and signed to live in their own ways. Now they would be
only after they finished their ceremonies of Sacred forced to assimilate.
Arrows Renewal, when Black Kettle persuaded them
to do so. Antonie Dvorakova

368 Treaty with the Ute – March 2, 1868
Treaty with the Ute

March 2, 1868
This treaty reaffirmed all provisions of the October
17, 1863, treaty that were not inconsistent with this
treaty. Its main concerns were reservation bound-
aries, release of claims to all other lands, appropria-
tions, buildings, and education. The United States
agreed to supply schools, teachers, seeds, agricul-
tural implements, a farmer for instruction, a black-
smith, goods, and stock. A right-of-way was
granted for railways and highways. Only autho-
rized 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 ben-
efits 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
Black Kettle (1803/07–1868), chief of the southern Cheyenne in signed for the United States by Nathaniel G. Taylor,
Colorado, sought peace with the white men who encroached on commissioner of Indian affairs; Alexander C. Hunt,
Cheyenne land on the Great Plains in the mid-nineteenth
governor of Colorado Territory and former superin-
century. Although he signed numerous treaties, more than half
his people died in the Sand Creek Massacre in November 1864. tendent of Indian affairs; and Kit Carson, Ten repre-
Four years later, Black Kettle and hundreds of Native sentatives of the Tabaguache, Muache, Capote,
Americans died in an attack led by General George Custer on Weeminuche, Yampa, Grand River, and Uintah
their village along the Washita River in western Oklahoma. bands signed for the Utes.
(Oklahoma Historical Society)
See also Assimilation; Black Kettle; Satanta; Sitting

Bear (Setangya or Satank); Treaty. Treaty with the Cherokee
Berthrong, Donald, J. 1963. The Southern Cheyennes. April 27, 1868
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. This was a supplemental article to a treaty con-
Grinnell, George Bird. 1956. The Fighting Cheyennes. cluded at the city of Washington on July 19, 1866.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. This was a contract signed by James Harlan, secre-
Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine Lodge:
tary of the interior, with the American Emigrant
The Story of the Great Council as Told by
Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Company for the sale of “Cherokee neutral lands” in
Press. the Kansas, and a contract with James F. Joy of
Kappler, Charles Joseph, ed. 1972. Indian Treaties, Detroit, Michigan, for the sale of aforesaid lands. A
1778–1883. New York: Interland. previous contract dated October 9, 1867, between

Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho – May 10, 1868 369
Orville H. Browning for the United States and James Treaty with the Crow
F. Joy, Detroit, was cancelled. The modifications of May 7, 1868
the contract were listed and assigned to Joy. 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
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., outlined), persons not allowed to reside thereon,
and Arapaho land selection, surveys, certificates issued and
recorded in the Crow Land-Book. Children aged six to
April 29, 1868
sixteen were required to attend school. Further, the
Under the terms of this treaty, war was to cease,
United States was to supply schoolhouses, teachers,
peace was to be kept, and offenders against the
seeds, agricultural implements, farming instruction,
tribe or against whites were to be arrested and pun-
and a physician. Each family was to receive a cow
ished. Damages were to be decided by the commis-
and a pair of oxen. Delivery of goods in lieu of
sioner of Indian affairs. Other concerns of the treaty
money or other annuities was allowed. An annual
were reservation boundaries, persons allowed to
census was to be taken. An army officer was to attest
enter or reside thereon, land selection, additional
to all delivery of goods. The reservation was to be a
land for farming, surveys, patents and citizenship,
permanent home of the tribes, and no treaty for ces-
and certificates issued and recorded in the Sioux
sion of reservation land would be valid unless a
Land-Book. Additionally, right-of-way was granted
majority of all adult males of the tribe agreed. This
for the building of roads, railroads, and military
treaty was concluded at Fort Laramie, Dakota Terri-
posts. The United States was to supply an agent’s
tory, and signed for the United States by Commis-
residence and office, a schoolhouse, teachers, seeds,
sioners W. T. Sherman, William S. Harney, Alfred H.
agricultural implements, farming instruction, a sec-
Terry, C. C. Augur, John B. Sanborn., S. F. Tappan,
ond blacksmith, a physician, and a farmer. Delivery
and Ashton S. H. White, and by eleven chiefs and
of goods in lieu of money or other annuities was
headmen representing the Crow.
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 Treaty with the Northern
home of the tribes, and no treaty for cession of
reservation land would be valid unless three-
Cheyenne and Northern
fourths of all adult males of the tribe agreed. The Arapaho
United States agreed that the country north of the May 10, 1868
North Platte River and east of the summits of the Under the terms of this treaty, peace was to be kept,
Bighorn Mountains would be unceded Indian terri- offenders among the whites were to be arrested and
tory and agreed that no white person or persons punished, and tribal wrongdoers were to be given
would be allowed to settle upon or occupy any por- up to U.S. authorities. Damages were to be decided
tion of that land without permission of the tribes. by the commissioner of Indian affairs. The main con-
This treaty released the United States from obli- cerns of the treaty were reservation, surrender of ter-
gations made in previous treaties to furnish money, ritory outside the reservation area, retention of hunt-
goods, or land. The treaty was signed by Commis- ing rights, and selection of a reservation. The heads
sioners William T. Sherman, William S. Harney, of families and persons over the age of eighteen who
Alfred H. Terry, C. C. Augur, J. B. Henderson, desired to commence farming were allowed to select
Nathaniel G. Taylor, John B. Sanborn, and Samuel F. lands. Certificates of selection were to be recorded in
Tappan for the United States; by twenty-five chiefs the Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho Land-Book. Chil-
and headmen of the Brule, Oglala, Miniconjou, dren aged six to sixteen were required to attend
Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two- school. Additionally, the United States was to supply
Kettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee bands of the Sioux schoolhouses, teachers, seeds, agricultural imple-
Nation; and by twenty-six representatives of the ments, farming instruction, and a physician. Each
Arapaho Nation. family was to receive a cow and a pair of oxen. An

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 Bar-
boncito 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 intern-
ment camp at Fort Sumner, New Mexico. Navajos
In 1863, legendary Kit Carson and his men traveled through
commemorated the signing of the 1868 treaty in 1968 Navajo country destroying cornfields, slaughtering livestock,
and 1999. burning hogans, and cutting down peach orchards. (Library of
The colonial Southwest was a place where Congress)
indigenous peoples successively encountered three
different foreign cultures: the Spaniards, the Mexi- defeated. In 1864, more than ten thousand Navajos
cans, and finally the Americans, each of which were sent to an internment camp near Fort Sumner,
sought to impose their ways of life on the indige- New Mexico.
nous peoples. Pueblo peoples like the Santo Following the U.S. federal policy of forcing
Domingo, the Acoma, and the San Juan, among oth- indigenous peoples to relocate to reservations and
ers, appeared to accept imposed values and policies exterminating them if they resisted, General James
of the colonizers; however, they practiced their own Carleton conceived an assimilation plan for Navajos.
way of life, including their religion, in secret. The Navajos would be removed to an internment camp
Diné, who were different from their Pueblo neigh- at Bosque Redondo, near Fort Sumner in northeast-
bors in lifeways, openly thwarted colonial expan- ern New Mexico. There, they would become farm-
sion, including that of the Americans, beginning in ers, would live in villages, and would be instructed
1846. in Christianity and other American practices. To
One of the most enduring legacies that shaped force the Navajos’ surrender, Carleton enlisted the
southwestern cultures was the slave trade, which Indian fighter Kit Carson, who literally scorched
intensified with the Spanish and then peaked in the Dinétah. In 1863, Carson and his men traveled
1860s under American rule. Slave traders targeted through Navajo country destroying cornfields,
Navajo women and children; as a result, cycles of slaughtering livestock, burning hogans, and cutting
peace and conflict characterized Navajo relation- down peach orchards. By 1864, Navajos were ren-
ships with colonizers. By the 1860s, Navajos could dered destitute, and they turned themselves in at the
no longer resist American westward expansion and American forts. Thousands of Navajos made the
were subjected to an all-out war, in which they were journey, the Long Walk, to Carleton’s prison.

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.” Even-
tually, 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 allot-
ments 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 possibil-
ity that the Navajos could be sent to Indian Territory, Manuelito was one of the most accomplished Navajo war
where many other indigenous peoples had been leaders and was recognized as head chief of the Navajo from
sent. Barboncito, a respected peace chief, spoke on 1870 to 1884. (National Archives)

372 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock – July 3, 1868

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
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.” Con-
cluded on July 3, 1868, at Fort Bridger, Wyoming
(then Utah Territory), and proclaimed on February
24, 1869, this treaty remains the basis for the sover-
eign relations between the United States and both
the Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reser-
vation (Wyoming) and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
of the Fort Hall Reservation (Idaho). The treaty
A Navajo silversmith with examples of his work and tools, declared continued peaceful relations between the
c. 1880. The Navajo are a Southern Athapascan tribe of the
parties, established the Wind River Reservation, pro-
American southwest and came to be feared as raiders. Many
Navajo were imprisoned at the Bosque Redondo following the vided for a Bannock Reservation in Idaho, provided
Navajo War of 1863–1864, but were allowed to return to their for extensive off-reservation resource rights, allowed
homeland following a treaty in 1868. (National Archives) individual Indians to take up tracts of land in sever-
alty, and included assistance for agricultural devel-
opment and education.
size of the Navajo Reservation up to the early twen-
The various bands of Shoshones and Bannocks
tieth century.
had maintained generally peaceful relations with the
On June 18, the People formed a column that
United States during the overland migration and
stretched at least ten miles long. They were going
had been parties to previous treaties both ratified
home. The old people wept in relief. Back home in
and unratified. Washakie, the principal headman of
Dinétah, Navajo families returned to their former
the Eastern Shoshones, was renowned for his friend-
homes and reestablished their lives. Their prayers to
ship with the United States as well as his influence
the Holy People had been answered. The Diné pros-
among his own people. He was a signatory of the
pered. Their livestock increased. They continued to fol-
ratified Fort Bridger treaty of 1863. The most influen-
low the teachings of their ancestors. They have not for-
tial Bannock leader, Taghee, had approved the Soda
gotten the Long Walk and the prison camp at Bosque
Springs treaty of October 1863 (part of the same
Redondo. They also remember the courage and brav-
series of treaties negotiated by James Duane Doty),
ery of their leaders during those dark times. Today, the
but a legal technicality prevented its ratification. The
Navajo Nation government continues to remind the
treaties in 1863 included no land cessions, nor did
U.S. government of the treaty of 1868 and its agreement
they designate reservations.
to recognize and uphold Navajo sovereignty.
The Fort Bridger treaty of 1868 was the final
Jennifer Nez Denetdale
treaty negotiated by the Great Peace Commission of
See also Barboncito; Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Long 1867–1868. Conceived of as an all-encompassing
Walk; Manuelito. solution to the “Indian problem” in the American

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 generals, including General William T. Sherman and
the tribes of the northern and southern plains and Commissioner of Indian Affairs Nathaniel G. Taylor.
the Navajos as well as the Shoshones and Bannocks. General Christopher C. Augur was the sole member
The commission consisted of four civilians and four of the commission present at Fort Bridger. Washakie

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 “rea-
sonable portions of the ‘Port neuf’ [Fort Hall] and
‘Kansas [sic] Prairie’ countries.” The clerk’s obvious
misspelling of Kamas gave later interlopers a spe-
cious 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
Augur, C. C. 1868. C. C. Augur to President of the
Indian Peace Commission, Omaha, Nebraska, 4
Washakie, Shoshone chief, c. 1798–1900. (National Archives October 1868. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Irregular
and Records Administration) Sized Papers. Washington, DC: Record Group 75,
U.S. National Archives.
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. 1975.
spoke for the Eastern Shoshones, while Taghee rep- “Introduction,” in Proceedings of the Great Peace
resented the Bannocks (in fact, his followers were a Commission of 1867–1869. Washington, DC: The
mixed band of Shoshones and Bannocks). Institute for the Development of Indian Law.
Article II of the treaty established the bound-
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
aries of the Wind River Reservation and provided University of California Press.
for the creation of a “Bannack Reservation.” St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty Making Policy in
Washakie claimed “all the country lying between the the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln:
meridian of Salt Lake City and the line of the North University of Nebraska Press.
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 Treaty with the Nez Percé
River Reservation were reduced by agreements in August 13, 1868
1872 and 1898. This is an amendment to the treaty concluded at the
General Augur sought to consolidate all the council ground in the valley of the Lapwai, in the
bands on a single reservation, but Taghee refused Territory of Washington, on June 9, 1863. The main
and demanded a separate reservation that would concerns of the treaty were reservation, allotments,
include the Fort Hall area and the Great Camas and timber to be protected. Further, it was agreed
Prairie of south central Idaho. Augur relented, but as that misappropriated funds would be ascertained
he was “not sufficiently acquainted” with Idaho’s and reimbursed to the tribe. The treaty was signed
geography, he did not specify the reservation’s exact by Commissioner Nathaniel G. Taylor for the United
boundaries. Augur was also apparently unaware States and by Lawyer, Timothy, and Jason, chiefs of
that the Fort Hall Reservation had already been cre- the Nez Percé tribe.

Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2 – August 1871 375
the colonial government’s obligations under the

Canadian Indian Treaties Royal Proclamation (1763) to exercise oversight of
1 and 2 “Indians and lands reserved for Indians.” Practically,
August 1871 the government also negotiated treaties in order to
Treaties 1 and 2 are also known as, respectively, the extinguish aboriginal title and set aside reserves to
Stone Fort Treaty and the Manitoba Post Treaty. meet the needs of both assimilation and expanding
Treaty 1 was signed on August 3, 1871, at Lower Fort European settlement. Hard on the heels of confeder-
Garry, a Hudson’s Bay Company post (constructed ation (and, in fact, earlier), when the new federal
of stone), and Treaty 2 was concluded on August 21, government in Ottawa, Ontario, looked to expand
1871, at the Manitoba House post. Treaty negotia- Canadian sovereignty into the northwest, its inten-
tions were conducted with the Saulteaux (Ojibwa), tions and worldview remained the basis for the
the Swampy Cree, and others; upon conclusion, the removal of “any obstruction” to settlement and
treaty encompassed parts of present-day central and development. Treaties 1 and 2 represented both con-
southern Manitoba. The earliest of the so-called tinuity with the past and a transition into a new
numbered or western treaties, these agreements pro- period.
vided the foundation for a treaty relationship Neither colonial nor federal governments,
between the Canadian government and various Cree however, acted unilaterally in the treaty process.
and Ojibwa nations in western Canada, and played a Canada had neither the resources nor the inclina-
vital role in the process of securing Canadian sover- tion to simply impose its will on aboriginal peo-
eignty in the region northwest of the 49th parallel. ples. Nor was it the only party to initiate the treaty
By confederation in 1867, more than 120 treaties process. Indians also played an important role,
and land surrenders had been concluded with pre- and post-confederation, in calling for treaty
indigenous peoples in British North America, part of negotiations as a way of securing protection of
Upper Fort Garry, Manitoba, in the early 1870s. (Library and Archives Canada)

376 Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians – September 20, 1872
lands and livelihood in the face of expanding Canada. Yet a number of promises were not granted,
white settlement. This was no less true in the case and government practices in fulfilling treaty obli-
of the earliest numbered treaties. In Manitoba, gations, especially in the context of expanding settle-
aboriginal anticipation of the need for a treaty to ment and development, became a source of tension
address collective concerns about settler encroach- and conflict.
ment, trespass, and cultural dissolution found Jason M. Yaremko
expression in the convening of grand councils,
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Robinson Huron
petitions to the government, and the denial of
Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty)–September 9,
access to resources for settlers and surveyors until 1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson
a treaty was negotiated. Treaty)–September 7, 1850.
Armed with their respective objectives, in the References and Further Reading
summer of 1871 government and indigenous dele- Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal
gates met at Lower Fort Garry and launched into Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto:
negotiations. Treaty 1 talks stretched from July 27 to Methuen.
Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
August 3. Ojibwa and Cree spokesmen began nego-
A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
tiations by claiming reserve lands amounting to Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
some 60 percent of Manitoba; the government- Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada.
appointed treaty commissioners offered 160 acres Toronto: Belfords, Clarke.
per family of five, an annuity, and threats of Ray, Arthur J., Jim Miller, and Frank Tough. 2000.
inevitable settler stampede (a formula adopted for Bounty and Benevolence: A History of Saskatchewan
all the western treaties). After considerable debate, Treaties. London: McGill-Queen’s University
several deadlocks, and threats from both govern- Press.
ment and indigenous negotiators to end talks, nego-
tiations nevertheless ended with the signing of
Treaty 1 on Thursday, August 3, 1871. Based on the
apparent success of Treaty 1, Treaty 2 negotiations Agreement with the Sisseton
(for which there is comparatively little documenta- and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux
tion) took only one day and ended on August 21. Indians
The terms of Treaties 1 and 2 were identical and September 20, 1872
included a gift of $3, an annuity of $15 (prorated) for
This treaty amended the treaty of February 19, 1867,
each family of five, schools, and 160 acres of land for
which was made at Washington, D.C., with the Sis-
each family of five, this last item reluctantly accepted
seton and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota or Sioux.
by aboriginal delegates. However, as the Indians
Sections 3 through 9 were stricken out of the previ-
pointed out, the treaties were incomplete.
ously mentioned treaty by amended agreement. The
Conspicuous by their absence were treaty provi-
treaty was signed by Commissioners Moses N.
sions for hunting and fishing rights, as well as for
Adams, William H. Forbes, and James Smith, Jr., for
agricultural implements, livestock, and clothing,
the United States and by fifty-eight chiefs and sol-
provisions verbally promised by government nego-
diers of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of the
tiators but omitted from the written treaty. Dubbed
Dakota or Sioux.
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 fish-
ing and aid in the transition to a farm economy.
Amended Agreement
Although initially unmoved, in 1875 the federal gov- with Certain Sioux Indians
ernment eventually responded to indigenous March 2, 1873
protests and the evidence of its own treaty commis- This is an amendment to a previous treaty of Sep-
sioners and revised Treaties 1 and 2 to include the tember 20, 1872, with the Sisseton and Wahpeton
other provisions. Government officials considered Bands of Dakota or Sioux. Sections 3 through 9 were
the matter resolved. stricken out of the previously mentioned treaty by
Treaties 1 and 2 established the precedent and amended agreement. This treaty was signed by
experience for all subsequent treaties in western Commissioners Moses N. Adams, James Smith, Jr.,

Canadian Indian Treaty 3 – October 3, 1873 377
and William H. Forbes for the United States and by seed, and ammunition and fishing supplies. Natives
thirty-one chiefs and headmen of the said bands. 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
Canadian Indian Treaty 3 that schools would be provided for their children.
October 3, 1873 On their part, the Saulteaux transferred more than
Treaty 3, or the Northwest Angle Treaty, was signed 55,000 square miles (142,450 square kilometers), situ-
on October 3, 1873, after several years of protracted ated mostly in the northwestern portion of Ontario
and difficult negotiations between the Dominion of and encompassing the watershed of Lake Superior
Canada and the Lake of the Woods Saulteaux. For to the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, and
Canada, this treaty secured the completion of the from the American border north to the height of land
Dawson Route, begun in 1868 and designed to link where the waters flow to Hudson Bay.
the settlement at Lake of the Woods to Fort Garry. Following the negotiations, the conference
Gaining access to Saulteaux territory would also broke off for an hour to allow the final terms to be
facilitate a transcontinental railway—a crucial step written into the treaty document, and resumed once
in maintaining British Columbia’s membership in the document was completed. It was read out in
confederation (1871). Canada was a new country, Ojibwa by James McKay, then signed by the com-
and its success, especially in the face of American missioners and twenty-four chiefs and headmen.
expansionism, also depended on colonization, which The following day, the Indians were paid by repre-
in turn required friendly relations with area First sentatives from the Department of Public Works,
Nations. These factors made it necessary to enter and the gathering dispersed. Subsequent adhesions
into diplomatic discussions and, to a great degree, to the treaty were signed at Shebadowan on October
gave these First Nations enhanced negotiating 13, 1873, at Lac Seul on June 9, 1874, and by the
power in dealing with dominion representatives. Métis of Rainy River and Rainy Lake on September
The Saulteaux succeeded both in appreciating 12, 1875.
the value of the lands at stake and in using the Treaty 3 became the format for future treaties,
rhetoric of the moment. Negotiations began in July setting up conditions and promises that—at least in
1871 but broke off several times, primarily because theory—created a living agreement between
the First Nations preferred to treat only for a right- Canada’s First Nations and the Crown. Some schol-
of-way through their territory rather than for an all- ars attribute to the keen negotiating skills of the
out surrender. Talks finally resumed on September Saulteaux and their fortuitous location along the
24, 1873, at the North West Angle, Lake of the coveted Dawson Route the responsibility for raising
Woods. Alexander Morris, the lieutenant governor of the treaty terms and setting a more salubrious prece-
Manitoba and the Northwest Territories; J. A. N. dent for those First Nations signing subsequent
Provencher, Indian affairs commissioner; and S. J. numbered treaties in the western provinces of
Dawson, member of parliament for Algoma, repre- Canada. Treaty 3 was also the first treaty to recog-
sented the dominion. These commissioners met a nize Métis rights and to provide ongoing funding for
group of eight hundred Saulteaux, whose chiefs the support of education, agriculture, and hunting
spoke on behalf of an estimated population of four- and fishing.
teen thousand. Laurie Leclair
After much discussion, the Saulteaux, led by
Chief Mawedopenais from Fort Frances, accepted See also Canadian Indian Treaties 1 and 2–August
the following terms: a gratuity of $12, plus an annu- 1871; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Métis;
ity of $5 for each member, and a land base of one Sovereignty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Land.
square mile (640 acres/259 hectares) per family of References and Further Reading
five or in that proportion. Chiefs would receive an Daugherty, W. E. 1986. Treaty Research Report: Treaty
Three (1873). Ottawa: Treaties and Historical
annuity of $25 with an annual payment of $15 for
Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs
each of their head men, plus a new set of clothes Canada.
every three years, a commemorative medal, and a Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
flag. The commissioners agreed to offer an annual A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
stipend of $1,500 for agricultural implements and Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

378 Canadian Indian Treaty 4 – September 15, 1874
Morris, Alexander. 1991. The Treaties of Canada with the 1867, to secure territory ranging from northwestern
Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories Ontario to the Pacific Ocean for settlement, develop-
including The Negotiations on which they were ment, and the assertion of national sovereignty, a
based (First Printing 1880), reprint by Fifth
process that began with the 1870 transfer of those
House Publishers, Saskatoon, SK. See Chapter 5,
“Treaty Number Three or the Northwest Angle lands from the Hudson’s Bay Company and the first
Treaty,” pp. 44–76, pp. 320–329. numbered treaties. Treaty 4 represented another step
in that direction. Aboriginal peoples of the North-
west were also deeply interested in negotiating a
treaty in order to ensure economic and cultural secu-
Canadian Indian Treaty 4 rity in the face of an uncertain future, and they had
September 15, 1874 conveyed such concerns to the lieutenant governor
Treaty 4, or the Qu’Appelle Treaty, represented the of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories several
fourth of the so-called numbered or western treaties years earlier. Negotiations in Manitoba and Ontario
negotiated in western Canada. Treaty 4 was negoti- in 1871 and 1873 set the precedents for the remaining
ated in September 1874 by the government of western treaties.
Canada and the Cree, Saulteaux (Ojibwa), and These precedents came into play at the negotia-
Nakota or Assiniboine Indians toward the extin- tions for Treaty 4. Held near the Qu’Appelle lakes in
guishment of aboriginal title and establishment of southern Saskatchewan, the negotiations are notable
reserve lands in the southern and central regions of for their relative brevity because, though govern-
the present-day province of Saskatchewan. After a ment treaty commissioners and Native negotiators
tense and difficult negotiation process that began met for nearly a week, the actual time dedicated to
near the Qu’Appelle lakes on September 8 and negotiating treaty terms amounted to barely one day.
ended on September 15, the federal government suc- The first five days were spent amid tense disagree-
ceeded in gaining a surrender of some seventy-five ment between the Cree and Saulteaux, and then
thousand square miles of territory. between the Saulteaux and the treaty commission,
The Qu’Appelle Treaty was the product of the over the status of the Hudson’s Bay Company and
Canadian government’s need, after confederation in the land in question. Saulteaux negotiators argued
An Assiniboine camp in Lac de Marons, Manitoba, 1874. (Library and Archives Canada)

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 schools, equipment and livestock upon taking up
land that belonged to the Cree and Saulteaux. They farming, and promises of continued access to hunt-
argued, further, that the company should be ing and fishing. Over the following year, a number
restricted in its trading activities, while spokesmen of other Cree, Ojibwa, and Assiniboine groups not in
for the Cree added that Indians’ debts should be for- attendance joined Treaty 4 under the same terms.
given as a fair exchange for the profits gained when Notably, in the latter stages of treaty talks,
the company transferred the land to Canada. The aboriginal negotiators twice asked that the Métis,
overriding concern, however, was entitlement to the their mixed-blood kin, also be given due considera-
land covered by the treaty. tion. Shortly after negotiations, these Métis peti-
By September 15, the sixth day of talks, through tioned the treaty commissioners, formally requesting
a combination of counterarguments and broad recognition of their land holdings as well as hunting
promises the commission was finally able to address and fishing rights. In both instances, the government
treaty terms. There remained, however, very little gave only vague reassurances.
discussion or debate: aboriginal negotiators were According to the text of Treaty 4, Indian nations
prepared to accept terms similar to those agreed to had consented to absolute surrender of their lands in
by the Ojibwa at the Lake of the Woods under the exchange for reserves and other provisions. Based
Northwest Angle Treaty, or Treaty 3 (1873). The on the records of the negotiations for Treaty 4, how-
terms were explained by the treaty commission, and ever, and not unlike the other numbered treaties,
in return for the relinquishment of their title to the there was a notable contrast between the govern-
land ceded, the Indians were to receive reserves ment’s and the Indians’ presentations of the land
based on one square mile for each family of five question. Aside from vague reassurances, govern-
(prorated) and located by them, annuity payments, ment negotiators said very little about the land and

380 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 – September 24, 1875
showed little patience for the specific concerns and earlier numbered treaties negotiated earlier in
questions of the Indians. Not surprisingly, the inter- western Canada, therefore, Treaty 5 did not entail
pretations of the government and the First Nation large tracts of fertile lands coveted for settlement
elders continue to show a marked contrast in their and therefore was not central to federal plans for
understanding of Treaty 4. agricultural development.
Jason M. Yaremko By 1875, the government’s earlier reluctance to
negotiate a new treaty gave way to reconsideration
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Northern Plains.
of the long-term potential of the region for (limited)
Carter, Sarah. 1991. Lost Harvests: Prairie Indian settlement (particularly around the southern shores
Reserve Farmers and Government Policy. Montreal of Lake Winnipeg), transportation, and resource
and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. exploitation. In September of that year, a treaty com-
Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada. mission set off for Lake Winnipeg and points north
Toronto: Belfords, Clarke. Ray, Arthur J., Jim to negotiate with the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree.
Miller, and Frank Tough. 2000. Bounty and The commissioners had their orders: negotiations
Benevolence: A History of Saskatchewan Treaties.
were to be kept short, and the Indians in this region
London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
were to be dealt with less generously than the peo-
ples of the plains. Negotiations at Berens River and
Norway House were in fact fairly brief (one day
each), and any difficult questions posed by aborig-
Canadian Indian Treaty 5 inal negotiators were quickly surmounted with a
September 24, 1875 combination of counterarguments and vague reas-
Another one of the so-called numbered or western surances. By September 24, Treaty 5 had been
treaties, Treaty 5, or the Winnipeg Treaty, encom- signed, and adhesions (documents that bind the sig-
passed lands in the present-day province of Mani- natories to existing treaties) were obtained from out-
toba, north of Treaty 2 territory, surrounding Lake standing groups over the next year.
Winnipeg and eventually extending north to the six- The government, having argued in effect that it
tieth parallel. Negotiations for Treaty 5 took place was doing the Indians a favor in negotiating for
between the Canadian government and nations of lands that were deemed not as valuable as the fer-
the Saulteaux (Ojibwa) and Swampy Cree in the tile belt to the south, granted terms that were less
autumn of 1875; the treaty was concluded September favorable than those under Treaties 3 and 4. The
24, 1875. Although signed in 1875, adhesions to provisions of Treaty 5 characteristically included
Treaty 5 incorporating more northerly aboriginal annuity payments, reserves of 160 acres per family
groups were conducted in 1876, 1908, 1909, and of five, schools, farming equipment and livestock,
1910. In 1910, some 133,400 square miles of land had hunting and fishing equipment (twine), and
been ceded. promises of the continued right to pursue hunting
Like the earlier treaties, aboriginal peoples in and fishing, subject to the needs of certain lands for
central and northern Manitoba petitioned the gov- government or private use (a qualifier that affected
ernment for a treaty to ensure the protection of reserves also).
their traditional economy and culture, and to facili- After several decades, as Manitoba’s bound-
tate their adaptation to economic development aries extended north to the 60th parallel and gov-
spreading from eastern Canada. More immediate ernment interests in resource exploitation height-
aboriginal concerns included the increasing intru- ened in pace with a growing economy, it became
sions of commercial trapping, the expanding pres- necessary to extinguish aboriginal title to lands in
ence of commercial interests such as lumber com- that region. Treaty 5 was therefore extended north
panies, and the problem of employment as of Lake Winnipeg. From 1908 to 1910, adhesions
boatmen and couriers lost to steamboats and faster were secured, incorporating the remaining Cree
water transport. Initially, from the perspective of a and Chipewyan or Dene peoples into Treaty 5
government preoccupied with the agricultural under the same terms.
development of the southern regions of western Treaty 5 stands out rather uniquely as one in the
Canada, the Lake Winnipeg region held limited anticipation and initiation of which aboriginal
agricultural potential; the need for a new treaty groups played a most substantial role. At the same
appeared premature and unnecessary. Unlike the time, the brevity of negotiations is characteristic of a

Canadian Indian Treaty 6 – August 28, September 9, 1876 381
process in which considerably less attention was Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada.
paid to the needs of indigenous signatories than to Toronto: Belfords, Clarke. Tough, Frank. 1996.
ensuring control of the land for future economic “As Their Natural Resources Fail”: Native Peoples
and the Economic History of Northern Manitoba.
development. As a result, a number of problems
Vancouver: University of British Columbia
emerged that were based in fundamentally different Press.
understandings of the treaty terms as explained dur-
ing negotiations. Although aboriginal peoples
expected some measure of aid in times of disloca-
tion, when those sources of dislocation arrived—rail- Canadian Indian Treaty 6
way surveys and construction, lumber companies,
August 28, September 9, 1876
mining—they were struck by government inaction,
in stark contrast to the generosity conveyed at treaty Of the eleven numbered or western treaties, Treaty 6,
negotiations. negotiated and signed in the summer of 1876 at Forts
Jason M. Yaremko Carlton and Pitt in the present-day provinces of
Saskatchewan and Alberta, was one of a group of
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Indian Treaty agreements negotiated between the government of
Making: A Native View. Canada and aboriginal peoples of the northwestern
References and Further Reading plains. Treaty 6 was also one more in a series of
Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal
treaties brought about largely through indigenous
Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto:
Methuen. initiative, in this case predominantly by the majority
Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: inhabitants of the Saskatchewan River country, the
A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Cree. Negotiations for Treaty 6 passed through sev-
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. eral 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)

382 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 – September 22, December 4, 1877
23, then from August 24 to 28, and at Fort Pitt from rejected the government’s parceling out of land. In
September 7 to 9. By the end of the process, the gov- council, however, the positions of the chiefs eventu-
ernment of Canada had succeeded in extinguishing ally prevailed. When the treaty was signed on
aboriginal title to some 120,000 square miles of land August 23, 1876, treaty terms included government
in central Alberta and Saskatchewan. promises of aid in times of famine.
By the early 1870s, the Canadian government The successful completion of negotiations at
had planned to extend its sovereignty across the Carlton facilitated the signing of Treaty 6 by other
prairie region to the western coast through a very Cree and Ojibwa groups in the talks that followed.
gradual treaty process, but only as its need for more On August 28, several Cree chiefs, late arrivals to
territory (for settlement, resources, and so on) arose. Fort Carlton, accepted the terms of the treaty. In Sep-
Yet Cree perceptions of their own conditions and tember, at Fort Pitt, the second, more westerly site
needs also informed and influenced government for Treaty 6 negotiations, the same terms were also
decisions about treaty making in western Canada. accepted by the Cree and other groups of Indians.
After the signing of the first two numbered treaties As with the earlier treaties, the conclusion of
in 1871, a variety of observers, from Hudson’s Bay Treaty 6 raised more questions than it resolved. One
Company officials to government surveyors, con- overriding issue was (and remains) interpretation.
veyed the dissatisfaction of the Plains Cree and other Problems appeared at several levels: competent
indigenous groups with the slow pace of treaty mak- interpreters for treaty negotiations; verbal assur-
ing. Cree leaders based their calls for a treaty on the ances versus treaty text; and the aboriginal interpre-
need to protect their lands and culture, both threat- tation of such European concepts as land surrender.
ened by worsening conditions that included dimin- It is not even clear that land surrender was discussed
ishing buffalo numbers and game generally, and at Treaty 6 negotiations. Although pursued by some
increasing intrusions by settlers, hunters, whiskey Cree leaders, the government proved more generous
traders, and surveyors. As well, the decision had with assurances than with details. In the years after
been made to adapt to change by taking up farming, 1876, as settlement advanced along with disease,
for which aid was needed. Though still hesitant, the and famine and hardships for plains peoples intensi-
government, moved by concerns of Indian unrest, fied, discrepancies between government promises
finally agreed to negotiate a treaty after receiving and aboriginal understanding became stark.
reports in the summer of 1875 of Cree interference Jason M. Yaremko
with the Geological Survey. A treaty commission
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Northern Plains.
was struck, and negotiations began the following
summer at Fort Carlton. Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal
The main gathering took place at Fort Carlton. Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto:
Although dominated by the Plains Cree, talks here Methuen.
also included members of the Swampy Cree, Plains Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s
Ojibwa, Saulteaux (Ojibwa), and some Assiniboine Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig.
and Chipewyan (Dene). The opening ceremonies Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
and speeches conveyed the traditional expressions of
mutual trust and friendship. Treaty terms resembled Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada.
those of the first five treaties: cash gratuity and Toronto: Belfords, Clarke.
annuity payments, lands to be set aside as reserves Taylor, John Leonard. 1999. “Two Views on the
(in this case, 640 acres per family of five), agricul- Meaning of Treaties Six and Seven.” In The Spirit
tural implements and instruction, schools, and hunt- of Alberta Indian Treaties, ed. Richard Price.
ing guarantees, as well as additional livestock and Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.
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 Canadian Indian Treaty 7
and Ojibwa negotiators, who in turn struggled with September 22, December 4, 1877
government negotiators—and interpreters—and dis- Treaty 7 was the last of the numbered treaties negoti-
sent among members of their own followings. Some ated by the Canadian government in the 1870s. Also
influential dissenters among the Cree and Ojibwa known as the Blackfoot Treaty because the Blackfoot

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 coast, a major condition for the entry of British
fifty thousand square miles of land near the Rocky Columbia into confederation. A rail line would also
Mountains in the southern region of the present encourage large-scale immigration into the west. The
province of Alberta, territory inhabited by the Black- Blackfoot, meanwhile, favored a treaty precisely
foot Nation—Siksika (Blackfoot), Blood, Peigan—as because of the rising numbers of settlers and traders
well as the Sarcee (Tsuu T’ina), Assiniboine, and penetrating the region they inhabited. By the early
Stoney. Treaty negotiations were conducted at Black- 1870s, circumstances for the Blackfoot and their
foot Crossing along the Bow River in 1877 and ran neighbors had changed considerably. The Blackfoot
from September 19 to September 22. Negotiations were already weakened and reduced in number by a
ended that day, and Treaty 7 was signed by the gov- deadly combination of smallpox and whiskey (a
ernment and aboriginal leaders. prominent item in the buffalo robe trade); conditions
The government’s motivation for negotiating had worsened by 1876, when famine threatened as
Treaty 7 rested largely on the need to complete the some five thousand Sioux, refugees from the United
extension of its sovereignty westward. Specifically, States, arrived on the southern edge of their territory.
this meant the acquisition of land that would enable In 1874, the North West Mounted Police were sent in
Ottawa to run a transcontinental railway to the west to restore some semblance of order in the region.

384 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 – September 22, December 4, 1877
Although the Blackfoot resented the intruding set- additional supplies for chiefs and councils. Although
tlers and traders who followed in the wake of the relatively short, the negotiations were not without
Mounted Police, they also saw the Mounties as allies incident. Problems occurred with interpreters, one of
who had cleared out the whiskey traders, restored whom had a weak grasp of English, whereas others
peace, and treated the Blackfoot fairly. Aboriginal proved inadequate to the task of fully explaining
relations with the police were also, therefore, a factor such treaty terms as reserves and land surrenders. Ini-
influencing the Blackfoot and other nations toward a tial indigenous responses to the government’s terms
treaty in 1877. In the spring of that year, the Black- ranged from ambivalence and opposition to weak
foot delegated two missionaries to convey a memo- approval. An agreement was reached two days later
rial to the government on behalf of the Blackfoot and and has been attributed to a combination of govern-
their neighbors. The following July, a treaty commis- ment misinformation, misunderstanding, and the
sion was formed and instructed to proceed to Black- overriding influence of the Blackfoot chief, Crow-
foot Crossing to negotiate a treaty with the Indians foot. Crowfoot, trusted by the other chiefs as one
there. One of the treaty commissioners was also a loyal to his people while also enjoying the confi-
commissioner of the Mounted Police. dence of the government, was in turn influenced by
After some delay, treaty negotiations began on his good relations with the Mounted Police. When
September 19. Talks proceeded along lines similar to he decided to accept the treaty, the assent of the
those of earlier treaties, with introductory speeches other chiefs followed. On Saturday, September 22,
and government explanations of treaty terms, the Treaty 7 was signed, supplies and payments distrib-
latter of which included gratuity and annuity pay- uted, and reserves then located by the various chiefs.
ments, reserves of land of 640 acres per family of Another signing took place on December 4 to accom-
five, farming implements and livestock, ammunition modate Blackfeet officials who were not present at
for hunting, schools, laws to protect buffalo, and the September signing.
Indians on horseback at Blackfoot Reserve, Alberta, Canada. (Library and Archives Canada)

Canadian Indian Treaty 8 – June 21, 1899 385
Although initially satisfied with the immediate Shannon, and James H. Teller and by twenty chiefs
results of the treaty, the Blackfoot and other tribes and headmen of the various bands of the Sioux. The
soon encountered problems attributed to the terms main concerns of the treaty were cession of the Great
and administration of Treaty 7. By 1880, as settler Sioux Reservation, allotments, cattle and oxen to be
populations increased, buffalo numbers rapidly furnished, education, and land grants for schools.
declined, and starvation threatened. The following Separate reservations were to be created for those at
decade found the Blackfoot and other Treaty 7 the Pine Ridge agency, the Rosebud agency, the Rock
tribes wondering about the government’s sincerity agency Indians, the Cheyenne River agency, and the
in fulfilling its obligations, especially as railway Lower Brulés. Further, the United States was to fur-
construction intruded upon some reserves, and dis- nish to each reservation a physician, a carpenter, a
putes arose over the inadequate size of others. The miller, an engineer, a farmer, and a blacksmith for a
land question remains a fundamental source of con- period of ten years.
flict, one based in problems of interpretation and
conflicting cultural conceptions.
Jason M. Yaremko
Agreement with the
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Northern Plains. Columbia and Colville
Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal July 7, 1883
Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: Under the terms of this agreement, the Colville Indi-
Methuen. ans were to forfeit rights to the Columbia Reserva-
Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s tion and to remove to the Colville Reservation. The
Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. agreement was signed by H. M. Teller, secretary of
Dempsey, Hugh. 1989. Crowfoot: Chief of the Blackfeet.
the interior, and H. Price, commissioner of Indian
Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: affairs, for the United States; by Chief Moses and
A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. Sasr-sarp-kin of the Columbia Reservation; and by
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Tonaskat of the Colville Reservation.
Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council, et al. 1997. The
True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.
Canadian Indian Treaty 8
June 21, 1899
One of the last of the eleven numbered or western
Agreement with the Crow treaties, Treaty 8 was a product of the mutual con-
May 14, 1880
This treaty was signed in Washington but never rati-
fied. However, six chiefs of the Crow tribe promised
to try to obtain the consent of the adult male mem-
bers of the tribe to cede all that part of the Crow
Reservation in the Territory of Montana on condi-
tion. Further, the United States reaffirmed all exist-
ing 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
Klondike gold rush (1899–1900) burro pack train at Dyea
October 17, 1882, to January 3, 1883 Point. Treaty 8 was a product of the mutual concern of
This agreement was made pursuant to an item in the indigenous peoples and the Canadian government over the
sundry civil act of Congress, approved August 7, advance of prospectors and settlers into northwestern Canada
1882, by Commissioners Newton Edmunds, Peter C. in the 1890s. (Library of Congress)

386 Canadian Indian Treaty 8 – June 21, 1899
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 commis-
sion’s acquiescence to Cree demands enabled
treaty proceedings at Lesser Slave Lake to be con-
cluded 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 para-
mount 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 negotia-
tions nor how much was understood by the Cree—
Athapascan mother and children. (Library of Congress)
with the possible exception of the promises con-
cerning hunting and fishing freedom. The
cern of indigenous peoples and the Canadian gov- commission, however, considered the first treaty
ernment over the advance of prospectors and settlers signing a good precedent.
into northwestern Canada in the 1890s. This penetra- The Cree and Chipewyan who assembled for
tion culminated in the Klondike gold rush in treaty negotiations at Fort Chipewyan represented
1897–1898; the government moved to extend the the largest gathering of the summer of 1899. Like
treaty process to the Lake Athabasca, Great Slave the Cree of Lesser Slave Lake, the Chipewyan and
Lake, and Peace River regions (present-day northern Cree at Fort Chipewyan also insisted on guaran-
Saskatchewan, Alberta, southern Northwest Territo- tees to unencumbered hunting, trapping, and fish-
ries, and northeastern British Columbia). Treaty ing before they would sign. The swiftness of the
negotiations were conducted at several sites in the proceedings at Fort Chipewyan suggests that these
summer of 1899 (adhesions were secured the follow- were granted, as does the report of the commis-
ing year) and included more than 2,700 people from sioners: at Fort Chipewyan and every point there-
two major cultural groups: Athapaskan, or Dene, after, fears of the curtailment of hunting and fish-
and Cree peoples, along with some 1,700 Métis or ing rights received assurances that the treaty
mixed-blood kin. would not result in any such interference. The
The main objectives of the treaty commission- treaty was signed on July 13.
ers were essentially to obtain the relinquishment of Not all Treaty 8 talks went so smoothly. Nego-
aboriginal title to the government of Canada and tiations at Fond du Lac (along the boundary
to gain the acquiescence of the northern Métis in between present-day Saskatchewan and the North-
the surrender. With regard to the primary goal of west Territories), where the government’s principle
surrender of title, the commission was instructed concern was the development of mining projects in
to offer reserve lands in common (bands) or in sev- the region between Fond du Lac and the Great

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 tional economies remained a bone of contention
intervention of a local missionary did the Fond du long after the negotiation of Treaty 8.
Lac Dene sign the treaty on July 27. By the end of Jason M. Yaremko
the summer, Treaty 8 negotiations were concluded;
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Métis.
adhesions were completed in the summer of 1900.
The haste with which Treaty 8 negotiations Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal
were conducted, and the nature and interpretation Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto:
of Treaty 8 provisions, most of which were taken Methuen.
directly from earlier prairie treaties and demon- Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
strated little appreciation of subarctic aboriginal A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
cultures, generated more conflict in later years. By Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Fumoleau, Rene. 1973. As Long as This Land Shall Last:
the early twentieth century, as the numbers of com-
A History of Treaty 8 and 11. Toronto: McClelland
mercial trappers, game laws, and developers pene- and Stewart.
trated the northern territories, Treaty 8 appeared to Price, Richard T., ed. 1999. The Spirit of the Alberta
provide little protection for signatory nations. The Indian Treaties, 3rd ed. Edmonton: University of
aboriginal concern with the protection of tradi- Alberta Press.

388 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Bay Treaty) – November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906
later incorporated into Treaty 9 by adhesions taken

Canadian Indian Treaty 9 in 1929 and 1930.
(James Bay Treaty) Treaty 9 negotiations are notable for a couple of
November 6, 1905, October 5, 1906 reasons. Because the treaty included lands within a
Treaty 9, or the James Bay Treaty, was another in the constituted province of Canada and therefore
series of agreements known as the numbered treaties involved two jurisdictions, negotiations had to take
that were made with the indigenous peoples of place at two levels: first, between the federal and
Canada. Not unlike several of the western treaties, provincial governments, and then between the treaty
Treaty 9 was made with northern aboriginal cul- commission (consisting of federal and provincial
tures, in this case, Ojibwa and Cree nations in pres- representatives) and the Cree and Ojibwa Nations.
ent-day northern Ontario. It was, in fact, the first Based on the historical evidence, some scholars
treaty negotiated with the Amerindians of the Hud- argue that negotiations between the two levels of
son-James Bay drainage area. In common with the governments were more substantive than those
other northern treaties, Treaty 9 came about in part between the treaty commission and indigenous peo-
because of indigenous concerns about looming ples. This is borne out in part by the extensive nature
white invasions and the concomitant petitions for a of federal-provincial negotiations, which stretched
treaty (both of which began in the early 1880s), but over a number of years amid considerable struggle
also because the Canadian government eventually over jurisdictions and treaty negotiations with the
responded to increasing aboriginal calls for a treaty Ojibwa and Cree Nations that arguably involved lit-
only when motivated to do so by the needs of min- tle or no significant negotiations. Throughout the
ing development and railway construction in the summers of 1905 and 1906, treaty commissioners
early twentieth century. Signed in 1905 and 1906, met with northern nations at a number of sites.
Treaty 9 encompassed all unceded lands from the Among these were Osnaburgh, Forts Hope and
height of land to the Albany River. All remaining ter- Albany, Moose Factory, Fort Abitibi, Mat-
ritory north of the Albany River and along the south- tawagamingue, New Brunswick House, and Long
ern coast of Hudson’s Bay and east of James Bay was 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)

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 con- Although, early on, the indigenous peoples of
cerns about restrictions against hunting and fishing northern Ontario conveyed their gratitude to the gov-
were answered by government officials with reas- ernment for including them in the treaty and providing
surances to the contrary (ironically, at about the them with schools, problems arose on several fronts. A
same time that provincial police and game wardens number of concerns were increasingly voiced about the
were confiscating furs obtained out of season from declining value of treaty annuities, problems with
Native hunters in other parts of the province). reserves, the nonrecognition or exclusion of particular
By the end of August 1906, Treaty 9 negotiations aboriginal communities from the treaty, and the impact
had ended, and the treaty was signed; notably, a of provincial game laws. In the case of reserves, confu-
number of chiefs signed in syllabic characters. Adhe- sion spread regarding their purpose, locations, and
sions were completed years later. Perhaps more entitlement. In some cases, the reserve problem would
clearly in the negotiations than in the text of the persist until the 1970s, and problems that involved
treaty, Treaty 9 nonetheless promised the continued indigenous hunting and fishing rights would endure
(though not unfettered) right to pursue hunting, trap- even longer. Some of the evidence suggests that these
ping, and fishing; reserves of one square mile for problems lingered in part because, not unlike other
each family of five; cash payments; and education, in treaties, the provincial and federal Canadian govern-
return for the extinguishment of the signatory ments had determined the terms of Treaty 9 well before
nations’ aboriginal title, their good conduct, and negotiations with the indigenous nations, and these
observance of the King’s law. The absence of agricul- terms were not offered but effectively dictated. Other
tural provisions in the treaty was due to lack of evidence suggests that promises communicated orally
arable land and to government anticipation that during negotiations were inadequately explained
indigenous northern peoples would remain hunters and/or simply never implemented by the government.
and trappers in the future. Jason M. Yaremko

390 Canadian Indian Treaty 10 – September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Canadian Indian sites were Ile á la Crosse in 1906 and Lac du Brochet
Treaty 3–October 3, 1873; Robinson Huron in 1907.
Treaty (Second Robinson Treaty)–September 9, Like earlier treaties, the treaty parties were
1850; Robinson Superior Treaty (First Robinson aided in their efforts by missionaries. Some treaty
Treaty)–September 7, 1850.
commission members involved in Treaty 8 negotia-
Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal tions were instructed to use this document as a tem-
Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: plate for the negotiation and final agreement for
Methuen. Treaty 10. Negotiations began in the summer of 1906.
Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s The treaty commission’s essential tasks included the
Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. extinguishment of aboriginal title and acquiescence
Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: of the northern Métis in the cession. This involved
the settlement of outstanding Métis claims through
Morrison, James. 1986. Treaty Research Report: Treaty the offer of inclusion in the treaty (as Indians) or pro-
No. 9. Ottawa: Treaties and Historical Research vision of a one-time grant, called scrip. As noted,
Centre. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. treaty terms resembled those of earlier western
Rogers, Edward, and Donald B. Smith, eds. 1994. treaties, with the exception of farming provisions,
Aboriginal Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Historical which remained vague. This was due in large part to
Studies Series. 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
Canadian Indian Treaty 10 indigenous concerns in Treaties 8 and 9 and all pre-
September 19, 1906, August 19, 1907 vious treaty negotiations: the security of traditional
Treaty 10 both resembled and differed from the ear- livelihoods, the land question, education, and health
lier numbered treaties made in western Canada. It care. Of these, land loomed largest. Although Indian
resembled the treaties signed with the indigenous bands made some requests specific to their regional
peoples of the Canadian plains, which exhorted the and local needs (concerning, for example, annuities,
Indians to surrender aboriginal title to lands they farming, and medical aid), northern Cree and Dene
occupied, in exchange for promises of education, peoples all shared the same concerns about the con-
agricultural aid, the provision of reserves (one tinued freedom to fish, hunt, and trap, and indige-
square mile per family of five) or individual plots nous negotiators voiced their demands for contin-
(160 acres), cash payments, and continued access to ued access to traditional resources and ways of life.
hunting, trapping, and fishing. Like Treaty 8, how- The same fears about maintaining livelihoods with-
ever, this treaty was distinct in its attention to north- out access to resources that were raised in earlier
ern territories occupied by the Cree and Chipewyan northern treaty negotiations surfaced repeatedly.
or Dene nations, and those parts of the subarctic Cree and Dene negotiators at Ile á la Crosse and Lac
prairies not ceded (though this was originally du Brochet pressed the government for assurances
intended) under Treaty 8, including northern that their hunting and fishing rights would be pro-
Saskatchewan and part of east-central Alberta. Like tected. In turn, treaty commissioners reassured
Treaty 8, Indian and Métis calls for protection indigenous leaders that their ways of life would be
against the eventual onslaught of white intrusion maintained and not infringed upon, while minimiz-
involving development and settlement were ignored ing the impact of game laws and white encroach-
by the federal government in Ottawa until the for- ment. Of the latter issue one commissioner appears
mation of the province of Saskatchewan in 1905, to have made no mention at all.
when potential Indian interference with future The directness of indigenous negotiators’ ques-
resource access, exploitation, transportation, and tioning and concerns, a product, in part, of the famil-
economic development became a palpable concern. iarity with the terms of earlier treaties, contrasted
The following year, a commission was struck to with the vague guarantees of the treaty commis-
negotiate a new treaty in the north. Unable to com- sions. One chief even enquired as to whether the
plete the task in time, this commission was followed treaty could be amended at a later date. This, like
by another one in 1907. The principal negotiation other points raised, was rejected by the government.

Canadian Indian Treaty 11 – June 27 to August 30, 1921 391
Negotiations, though intense, were relatively brief, Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s
ranging from one to three days, suggesting that the Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig.
vague but repeated guarantees of the government Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
(along with occasional reminders of the inevitability
of white penetration and settlement) overcame the Ray, Arthur, Jim Miller, and Frank J. Tough. 2000.
initial fears and resistance of northern Indian Bounty and Benevolence: A History of Saskatchewan
nations. Negotiations ended with the signing of Treaties. London: McGill-Queen’s University
Treaty 10 at Ile á la Crosse on September 19, 1906, Press.
and at Lac du Brochet on August 22, 1907.
The paucity of documentation for Treaty 10
negotiations leaves a number of questions unan-
swered, especially with respect to the extent to Canadian Indian Treaty 11
which government negotiators elaborated on treaty June 27 to August 30, 1921
terms and how well they were understood by the In Canada, numerous treaties have been made
Cree and Dene peoples who became bound by them. between the Crown and indigenous peoples. Gen-
In the clash between the needs and interests of the erally, these are pacts in which First Nations peo-
federal (and provincial) government and those of the ples exchange specific interests and title to land for
northern nations, the legacy of industrial develop- recognized rights and benefits from the Crown.
ment and indigenous underdevelopment suggests Although the Crown generally interprets the agree-
the triumph of government expediency. ments as contractual ones, First Nations peoples
Jason M. Yaremko understand treaties as solemn agreements forming
the basis for evolving relationships between them-
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Canadian Indian
selves and recently established, nonindigenous
Treaty 8–June 21, 1899; Métis.
References and Further Reading governments. Treating with indigenous peoples
Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal became an established diplomatic practice of Euro-
Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: pean governments seeking to consolidate their
Methuen. 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)

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 nities of Fort Providence, Fort Simpson, Fort Wrigley,
in 1867 and the dominion government’s assump- Fort Norman (Tulita), Fort Good Hope, Fort McPher-
tion of responsibilities for relations with indigenous son, Fort Rae, and Arctic Red River (Tsiigehtchic)
peoples, the primary purpose of treaty making with a further adhesion by Deh Cho Dene at Fort
became to secure the surrender of indigenous peo- Liard the following year. In 1973, plans for develop-
ples’ rights and interests to lands and resources in ment on Dene lands without Dene consent
order to clear the way for settlement and resource prompted Dene chiefs collectively to register a
extraction. The numbered treaties were those caveat on their lands as a way to ensure participa-
treaties negotiated by the new dominion govern- tion in decisions around development, which even-
ment between 1870 and 1922. Treaty 11 was the last tually went to court. In the Caveat case, also known
such treaty, signed in 1921 and 1922 by Dene along as the Paulette case, Justice William Morrow of the
the Mackenzie valley, including the Dogrib, Sahtu, Northwest Territories Court heard testimony from
Gwich’in, and Deh Cho Dene peoples. The treaty many Dene elders regarding the issue of whether
was motivated by the discovery of significant oil Dene had agreed to extinguish their rights and sur-
reserves at Norman Wells, near the community of render their lands during treaty negotiations. The
present day Tulita in the Sahtu region of the North- memories and oral traditions of the elders revealed
west Territories. the Dene understanding of the treaty as one of peace
Canada sent Commissioner Conroy along with and friendship, which did not include surrender of
Anglican Bishop Breynat to treat with the Dene; in rights or lands. Although Justice Morrow’s 1973 rul-
addition, Conroy was head of the associated Half- ing in favor of the Dene was later overturned, he had
breed Commission, charged with taking applications heard evidence sufficient to prompt the Canadian
for Halfbreed Scrip. The treaty was signed between government to negotiate land and resource rights
June 27 and August 30, 1921, by Dene in the commu- with Dene signatories of Treaty 11.

Williams Treaties with the Chippewa and the Mississauga – October to November 1923 393
The treaty was drawn up in Ottawa, and strict Morris, Alexander. 1991. The Treaties of Canada with the
instructions were given to Commissioner Conroy Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories
that he was not to deviate from the written text of including The Negotiations on which they were
the treaty, perhaps in the wake of reports that oral based (First Printing 1880), reprint by Fifth
House Publishers, Saskatoon, SK. See Chapter 5,
promises beyond the bounds of the text of Treaty 8
“Treaty Number Three or the Northwest Angle
had been made with the Dene’s Chipewayan and Treaty,” pp. 44–76, pp. 320–329.
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
Williams Treaties with the
Government of the Dominion of Canada . . . forever, Chippewa and the Mississauga
all their rights, titles, and privileges to the lands October to November 1923
included within the following limits. . . .” It then The Mississauga and Chippewa treaties of 1923 are
described the bounds of the more than 370,000 commonly referred as the Williams Treaties. The
square miles of Dene territory constituting the Williams Treaties are unique, for they involve two
Mackenzie valley area of the Northwest Territories. treaties covering the same area. Signatories to the
By signing, they also agreed to abide by Canada’s Williams Treaties are the Mississauga of Scugog
laws and to keep relations of peace and goodwill Lake, Mississauga of Alderville, Mississauga of
with Canada. In return, the Dene could continue to Hiawatha, and Mississauga of Curve Lake; and the
hunt, fish, and trap in the territory surrendered, and Chippewa of Georgina Island, Chippewa of Chris-
reserves were to be set aside for their exclusive use. tian Island, and Chippewa of Rama.
A cash annuity of five dollars would also be pro- Of historical significance, the Mississauga and
vided to each treaty Indian in perpetuity. Notably, Chippewa had surrendered most of their lands by
there was no provision that this amount might be 1818, 1819, and 1822. These former eighteenth-
adjusted in accordance with inflation through time. century treaties represent most of the Mississauga
Onetime gifts of tools, money, and clothing were and Chippewa territory below the 45th parallel.
made at the time of signing, and specific equipment, The largest portion of Mississauga and Chippewa
such as net twine and ammunition for hunters and hunting territory was north of the 45th parallel
trappers, was to be provided annually. In addition, and had remained not covered by a treaty until
the treaty promised assistance for those Dene wish- 1923.
ing to pursue agriculture—a highly dubious benefit, The Williams Treaties are made up of two docu-
given that the Arctic climate is highly unsuitable for ments, a treaty and an attached memorandum of
agricultural pursuits. The most significant provision agreement. The memorandum of agreement was
is perhaps the promise of the salaries of teachers to negotiated between the Province of Ontario and the
be paid by Canada, which, as a result of legal princi- Dominion of Canada in April 1923. The memoran-
ples established since the 1970s requiring treaties to dum of agreement outlined the federal and provin-
be interpreted liberally, is currently understood as cial shared understanding that the Mississauga and
significant educational benefits for treaty Indians. Chippewa lay claim to 10,719 square miles or
Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox 6,400,000 acres north of the 45th parallel.
The memorandum of agreement had seven
See also Aboriginal Title; Canadian Indian Treaties; clauses that contained the appointment, financing,
Reserved Rights Doctrine; Right of Conquest. and powers of the treaty commission. Clauses one to
References and Further Reading three dealt with the appointment, selection, and
Daugherty, W. E. 1986. Treaty Research Report: Treaty commission question of validity. Clauses four and
Three. Ottawa: Treaties and Historical Research five outlined the commission’s expenses, to be cov-
Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. ered by the federal government, and treaty payment
by province. Clause six dealt with the issue of
reserve lands; the province agreed to provide lands
Fumoleau, Rene. 1973. As Long as This Land Shall Last: for reserves. Lastly, clause seven is the extinction
A History of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, 1870–1939. clause: all lands and monies were to be held and
Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. administered for the Mississauga and Chippewa

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 includes land below the 45th parallel, describing
monies will be returned to their rightful owner— 2,500 square miles. A third clause, commonly
according to the memorandum of agreement, the referred to as the “basket clause,” surrenders “all
province of Ontario. other lands . . . to which they ever had, now have,
It is significant that Section 91.24 of the Consti- or now claim to have as theirs. . . .” A further clause
tution Act of 1867 had given the federal government explains that the treaty is subject to the attached
legislative control over Indian lands; further, Section memorandum of agreement.
109 stated that “all lands,” once surrendered, The final version of the Williams Treaties
belonged to the province in which they were located. described lands north and south of the 45th parallel.
The federal government had the responsibility to The treaty terms extinguished rights to hunting and
enter into treaties with Indians but could not estab- fishing to 20,100 square miles. However, the Missis-
lish a reserve once a treaty had been signed. In effect, sauga and Chippewa had hired lawyers to protect
then, the province must loan some of its land to the their hunting and fishing rights, and the memoran-
federal government to create a reserve in the event a dum of agreement authorized only a treaty for
treaty is negotiated. 10,719 square miles. The terms described in the
Unlike former Mississauga and Chippewa Williams Treaties were confirmed by the Supreme
treaties, the Williams Treaties extinguished not only Court of Canada in May 1994, despite obvious con-
land rights but also the Native rights to hunt and tradictions.
fish on ceded lands. The treaty has three lands Daniel Edward Shaule
clauses: Clause one describes 17,600 square miles,
mostly above the 45th parallel. The second clause See also Canadian Indian Treaties.

James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – November 11, 1975 395
References and Further Reading Cree (Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Associa-
Daniels, Richard. 1980. A History of Native Claims tion, the James Bay Energy Corporation, the James
Processes in Canada 1867–1979. Prepared for the Bay Development Corporation, the Quebec Hydro-
Research Branch, Department of Indian and
Electric Commission (Hydro-Quebec), and the gov-
Northern Affairs, February.
Johnson, Ian. 1985. 1923 Historical Narrative of the
ernment of Canada. It came into effect in 1977. It is
Williams Treaties. Ottawa: Department of Indian often referred to as the first “modern treaty” in
Affairs Historical Centre. Also available from Canada under the federal government’s 1973 extin-
any Williams Treaties of 1923 First Nations. guishment policy, whereby existing aboriginal title
Johnson, Leo. 1973. History of the County of Ontario to ancestral lands is extinguished in return for speci-
1615–1875. Whitby, ON: Corporation of the fied rights and interests in treaties between aborig-
County of Ontario, Chapter 2. inal peoples and the provincial and federal govern-
Surtees, Robert. 1986. The Williams Treaties. Treaty and
ments of Canada. The territory covered by the
Historical Research Report. Ottawa: Department
of Indian Affairs. agreement represents 69 percent of the province of
Quebec, extending from the 48th parallel to the 62nd
parallel north. The 55th parallel demarcates the terri-
tory between the Cree in the south and the Inuit in
the north.
James Bay and Northern The JBNQA is the first comprehensive land
Quebec Agreement claims settlement negotiated while development of
November 11, 1975 the hydroelectric project, La Grande, was taking
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement place on Cree lands. The Cree had initially sought
(JBNQA) was signed on November 11, 1975, by the and won an injunction from the Quebec Superior
government of Quebec, the Grand Council of the 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)

396 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – November 11, 1975
Court of Appeal overturned the decision. It held between aboriginal and nonaboriginal peoples that
that, although the La Grande project would affect forms the basis of aboriginal rights today. From the
Cree interests and rights in land, these could be provincial and federal governments’ point of view,
remedied or compensated. Faced with continuation surrender and extinguishment clauses guarantee
of the project, the Cree decided to negotiate a settle- legal certainty of rights and duties for aboriginal
ment to secure certain rights and limit future plans communities as well as the state and, overall, agree-
for hydroelectric projects. ments with these clauses represent an enlightened
Under the JBNQA, both the provincial and fed- policy of negotiation rather than litigation of
eral governments have obligations toward the Cree; aboriginal rights.
the province has jurisdiction over land-related Cree In early 2002, the government of Quebec
rights, and the federal government has a general reached a new agreement, La Paix des Braves
fiduciary duty to protect aboriginal rights and inter- (Peace of the Braves), with the Cree Indians. This
ests. The JBNQA does not recognize the right of self- agreement represents a new phase in Cree-Quebec
government for the Cree or Inuit, but it does allow relations by emphasizing economic development,
them greater control over their lives and affairs. governmental access to lands for development pur-
They have rights to land use and access and to the poses, and Cree participation and benefit from
establishment of political organs with powers over development activities. The JBNQA continues to
education, social services, health, business, and land bind both parties subject to the amendments agreed
management. Rights to land are divided into three in La Paix des Braves. This means that the govern-
land categories: Category I lands are for the exclu- ment of Quebec continues to fund Cree health, edu-
sive use and benefit of Cree and Inuit; Category II cation, income, and security programs, public secu-
lands allow Cree and Inuit the exclusive right to rity, the work of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
hunt, fish, and trap; and Category III lands are for Coordinating Committee, and environmental com-
general public access, but Cree and Inuit retain har- mittees. La Paix des Braves establishes what a
vesting rights. “nation-to-nation relationship” between the Cree
Among the political organs established to and the Province of Quebec, allowing greater nego-
administer the territory are the Cree Regional tiating power for the Cree to discuss directly with
Authority and the Kativik Regional Government. A governmental departments matters that affect their
number of other institutions were established giv- communities. Principles of consent and consulta-
ing Cree and Inuit decision-making powers over tion are means by which this improved political sta-
education, social services, health, justice, and pub- tus is realized.
lic security. In relation to preserving aboriginal lan- Özlem Ülgen
guages, the JBNQA strengthens formal instruction
in Cree and Inuktitut through the establishment of
the Cree and Kativik school boards. The provincial See also Aboriginal Title; Inuit; Modern
and federal governments have obligations to Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim
finance building the territory’s infrastructure and Agreements (Canada).
political organs. References and Further Reading
One key feature of the JBNQA is the surrender Diamond, Billy. 1990. “Villages of the Damned: The
and extinguishment clause (Article 2.1), under James Bay Agreement Leaves a Trail of Broken
Promises.” Artic Circle (Nov/Dec): 24–34.
which all Cree and Inuit claims, rights, titles, and
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and
interests in land are surrendered and extinguished Complementary Agreements. 1991. Quebec: Les
in exchange for specified rights, privileges, and Publications du Quebec.
benefits in the JBNQA (Article 2.2). Surrender and La Paix des Braves. 2002.
extinguishment clauses have since been used in Moss, Wendy. 1985. “The Implementation of the
other comprehensive land claims settlements, with James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.”
some criticism from aboriginal communities, who In Aboriginal Peoples and the Law, edited by B.
Morse, 684–696. Ottawa: Carleton University
point to the historical nature of their claims and
Press.
rights to land. They argue that, by requiring rights Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995.
to be defined in agreements, the historical connec- Treaty-Making in the Spirit of Co-existence: An
tion between aboriginal peoples and the land is Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada
diminished, as well as the historical relations Communication Group.

Northeastern Quebec Agreement – January 31, 1978 397
NQA the Naskapi Development Corporation was

Northeastern Quebec established to administer compensation funds paid
Agreement by Canada, Quebec, and Hydro-Quebec. Under
January 31, 1978 Article 16.1.1, both the federal and provincial gov-
The Northeastern Quebec Act (NQA) was signed ernments paid $6 million in monetary compensa-
on January 31, 1978, by the government of Quebec, tion for the surrender and extinguishment of
the Naskapi Indians (Quebec), the Grand Council Naskapi existing claims, rights, titles, and interests
of the Cree (Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit in Quebec.
Association, the James Bay Energy Corporation, the On lands designated for the exclusive use and
James Bay Development Corporation, the Quebec occupation by Naskapi, the laws of general applica-
Hydro-Electric Commission (Hydro-Quebec), and tion relating to health and social services apply
the government of Canada. The Naskapi Indians, (Article 10.2). A Naskapi Health and Social Services
who inhabit the northeastern part of Quebec, were Consultative Committee (“Consultative Commit-
one of four aboriginal groups who chose not to sign tee”) is established to represent Naskapi interests at
the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement the Schefferville Hospital Centre, the Community
(JBNQA) in 1975 and so were excluded from its Health Department, and the Social Services Centre
provisions. After negotiations between the provin- (Article 10.3). The Province of Quebec undertakes
cial and federal governments, the Naskapi finally to consult the Consultative Committee before mod-
ratified the NQA, which amends the JBNQA to the ifying any program relating to health and social
extent that it incorporates provisions relating to the services offered to the Naskapi, and to submit a
Naskapi Indians. yearly report about the health and social conditions
The NQA is a comprehensive land claims set- of the Naskapi community (Article 10.5). The Con-
tlement based on the JBNQA provisions on land sultative Committee has the opportunity to make
rights and on the establishment of political organs suggestions and recommendations concerning the
with powers over education, social services, health, hiring of health and social services personnel in the
business, and land management. Under Article 2.1 Naskapi communities (Article 10.19). Quebec also
of the NQA, all Naskapi claims, rights, titles, and undertakes to progressively encourage the training
interests in land are surrendered and extinguished of Naskapi health and social services personnel
in exchange for specified rights, privileges, and (Article 10.20).
benefits specified under the NQA. Specified rights In relation to education, a Naskapi school is
in land fall into two categories. Category 1A-N established on Category 1A-N lands (lands for exclu-
lands are set aside for the exclusive use and benefit sive use and occupation), and the Naskapi language
of the Naskapi under the administration, manage- is taught; one objective is to use French as a teaching
ment, and control of the federal government (Arti- language so that pupils graduating from the school
cle 5.1.2). The Province of Quebec retains full own- will be capable of continuing further studies in
ership of these lands, including the mineral and French in school, college, or university (Article
subsurface resources. Category 1B-N lands are 11.19). The Naskapi school’s primary objective is
owned exclusively by a Naskapi private landhold- kindergarten and elementary education. Where nec-
ing corporation established under Quebec laws essary, provision will be made for special courses to
(Article 5.1.3). These lands can be sold or ceded Naskapi adults, along with special remedial pro-
only to Quebec. grams for Naskapi children who have not completed
The lands owned by Naskapi constitute a their secondary education (Article 11.14).
municipality, following the governmental and In relation to policing, special Naskapi consta-
administrative structure throughout the province of bles are appointed, with duties and functions in Cat-
Quebec. Under Article 8.2, the municipality is repre- egory 1A-N lands (Article 13.1.1.). All future devel-
sented in the Kativik Regional Government, estab- opments (including mining operations, energy
lished pursuant to the JBNQA. Lands not owned by production, forestry and agriculture, community
Naskapi but set aside for their exclusive use and and municipal services—such as major sewage and
benefit are governed by a band council (Article water works—and transportation) on land occupied
7.1.2). by the Naskapi are subject to an environmental and
The federal and provincial governments social impact assessment (Article 14.1.2.2). The
funded development of the area, and under the Naskapi do not have the power to stop or prevent

398 Inuvialuit Final Agreements – June 1984
development activities, but Quebec and Canada are they gained a previously unknown level of influence
required to consult them prior to authorization of within government channels.
any project (Article 14.1.2.6). The Hunting, Fishing The Inuvialuit originally signed on as member
and Trapping Regime under JBNQA applies to the communities to the Inuit land claim brought forward
Naskapi too. in the mid-1970s. Reacting to the steady infiltration
Özlem Ülgen of non-Native people from the south and the imposi-
tion of Canadian social programs, the Inuit and Inu-
See also Aboriginal Title; Inuit; James Bay and
vialuit formed the Inuit Tapirisat Corporation (ITC).
Northern Quebec Agreement–November 11,
1975; Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land
The ITC was created to fight for aboriginal rights, to
Claim Agreements (Canada). work with government officials to limit large-scale
References and Further Reading development such as oil exploration and small-scale
Diamond, Billy. 1990. “Villages of the Damned: The and local development such as northern tourism.
James Bay Agreement Leaves a Trail of Broken The ITC was also concerned with developing the
Promises.” Artic Circle (Nov/Dec): 24–34. mechanisms needed to permit Inuit participation in
The Northeastern Quebec Agreement. 1984. Ottawa: policy formulation, and with the creation of pro-
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
grams and research for dealing with rights to terri-
Canada.
Peters, E. 1989. “Federal and Provincial tory and resources, all the while seeking protection
Responsibilities for the Cree, Naskapi and Inuit and maintenance of traditional land use and harvest-
Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec, and ing practices.
Northeastern Quebec Agreements.” In As research was conducted, interest in the
Aboriginal Peoples and Government claim heightened following the Supreme Court of
Responsibility–Exploring Federal and Provincial Canada Calder decision of 1973, which recognized
Roles, ed. D. Hawkes. Ottawa: Carleton
preexisting aboriginal rights and confirmed the
University Press.
Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples. existence of a separate system of aboriginal rights.
1995. Treaty-Making in the Spirit of Co-existence: In this instance, aboriginal title arises from the
An Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: long-term use and continuous occupancy of the
Canada Communication Group. 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
Inuvialuit Final Agreements rights. In 1974, the federal government imple-
June 1984 mented a new comprehensive land claims policy
In the early 1970s, the Inuvialuit were faced with oil that permitted the claimant group to receive
and gas development in the MacKenzie Delta and defined rights, compensation, and other benefits in
Beaufort Sea areas. They decided to pursue a land exchange for relinquishing rights related to the title
claim settlement with the Canadian government to claimed over all or part of the land in question. The
acquire control over resource development. Begin- federal government provided funding to, among
ning in 1976, the Inuvialuit aggressively lobbied fed- others, the ITC to determine the land areas over
eral officials for negotiations, and eight years later which they wanted ownership rights.
the Inuvialuit Agreements were signed in June 1984. The ITC land claim proposed the creation of a
The overall settlement provided the Inuvialuit with new territory and representative government—
surface ownership rights to nearly 91,000 square unprecedented requests at the time. The ITC’s goal
kilometers of land as well as limited subsurface was to resolve the land claim, which called for the
rights to an additional 13,000 square kilometers. A Beaufort Sea and Yukon North Slope areas used by
financial component of $152 million was included, as the Inuvialuit to be included in the proposed
were onetime payments of $10 million to an eco- Nunavut Territory, while simultaneously promot-
nomic enhancement fund and $7.5 million to a social ing Inuit political development. The proposal was
development fund. The remaining $45 million in later withdrawn because of its complexity. Inuit fac-
financial compensation was paid to the Inuvialuit in tionalism also resulted, and the Inuvialuit split
annual installments until 1997. The Inuvialuit con- from the ITC in 1976 to negotiate a separate land
sidered the final settlement a success, and with it claim agreement.

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’ Entitle- compensation obtained by the Inuvialuit. The corpo-
ment, which represented 4,500 Inuvialuit in six com- ration was assigned the responsibility for managing
munities living along or near the mouth of the the settlement, the objectives according to the 1997
Mackenzie River, submitted its comprehensive claim annual report of the Inuvialuit Corporate Group
with the Canadian government. During the next being to “[p]reserve the Inuvialuit culture, identity
seven years, negotiations occurred between the and values within a changing northern society.
Inuit, the Métis, the Inuvialuit, and Canadian offi- Enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful partic-
cials while the Nunavut claim was still under negoti- ipants in the northern and national economy and
ations. The Inuvialuit Final Agreements were signed society. Protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife,
in 1984. Whether or not the split was a positive environment and biological productivity.”
move, intense pressure from impending economic To date, the Inuvialuit have secured a sizable
development initiatives led the Inuvialuit to settle land base, which they control, and they share in the
the first comprehensive land claim settlement in the management of resources on Crown lands through-
Northwest Territories with the government of out the entire region covered by the agreement. Fur-
Canada. ther, the Inuvialuit have experienced the positive
That same year, the Inuvialuit Regional Corpo- impacts that come with the protection of adequate
ration was formed to receive the lands and financial lands, resources, and political power. The settlement

400 Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement – April 1992
has enabled the Inuvialuit to build their own com-

munities 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.
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

Gwich’in Comprehensive Land found in North America, Russia, and Scandinavia. In Europe
they are called reindeer, but in North America only the
Claim Agreement domestic form of caribou are called reindeer. (Corel)
April 1992
In Canada, indigenous peoples’ rights to their tradi- There are approximately twenty-three hundred
tional lands and resources are clarified through Gwich’in beneficiaries, descendants of the original
negotiated agreements with Canada. Generally, Northern Athapaskan inhabitants. Distinct bands
indigenous peoples are required to negotiate rights include the Teetl’it Gwich’in of Fort McPherson, the
in accordance with the Canadian Comprehensive Gwich’ya Gwich’in of Tsiigehtchic, and the Nihtat
Land Claims Policy (1986). The policy’s most signifi- Gwich’in located in Inuvik, the region’s regional cen-
cant feature is that indigenous peoples must surren- tre. The agreement applies to Gwich’in people who
der undefined aboriginal rights and title in exchange have traditionally occupied an area within what is
for defined rights and ownership of lands and now the northwestern corner of Canada’s Northwest
resources. Known as extinguishment, wherein indige- Territories. The Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA)
nous peoples are required to agree to “extinguish” covers fifty-seven thousand square kilometers in the
all their aboriginal rights, in recent years this policy Northwest Territory and a primary use area in the
has been replaced by a more politically palatable Yukon. The Gwich’in is part of the Gwich’in Nation,
term, certainty. Essentially, it is the same concept which spans Canada’s Northwest and Yukon Terri-
repackaged in less hostile terminology. tories in Canada and Alaska in the United States.
The Gwich’in, or People of the Caribou, were The lands of the Gwich’in are rich in flora and fauna
signatories of Treaty 11 in 1921. Beginning in the and in oil and gas resources. They have been sus-
1970s and continuing through the 1980s and 1990s, tained for millennia by the Porcupine caribou herd
they attempted to negotiate land and resource rights (named for the Porcupine River, this herd is one of
with Canada as a member of the Dene Nation, along two in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), which
with the Tli Cho, Deh Cho, Akaitcho, and Sahtu peo- migrates each year through Gwich’in lands to calve
ples. Faced with massive resource development in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, which the
pressures in their traditional territories compounded Gwich’in have mounted an international lobby to
by a lands and resources agreement reached with the protect from development.
Inuvialuit neighbors, the Gwich’in chose to pursue The agreement provided the Gwich’in with
their own agreement following watershed political rights to lands and resources and guaranteed partic-
events within the Dene Nation in 1990. In 1992, the ipation of lands, resources, and water in their tradi-
Gwich’in formalized the Comprehensive Land tional territories. They received 22,422 square kilo-
Claim Agreement with Canada. meters throughout their traditional territories. Of

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement – May 25, 1993 401
this, Gwich’in own 6,158 square kilometers of the agreement states that nothing in it removes the
subsurface, possess mineral rights on 4,299 square Gwich’in identity as aboriginal peoples or affects
kilometers, and own the surface of 1,554 square any existing or future constitutional rights for
kilometers of their traditional territories in the them as aboriginal people.
Yukon. The land in the Yukon is known as Teetlit The agreement recognizes the Gwich’in Tribal
Gwich’in land, a traditional use area of Gwich’in Council and community-based Gwich’in organiza-
now based largely in the community of Fort tions as the institutions responsible for implement-
McPherson. ing the land claim provisions. These political bodies
The Gwich’in also received cash compensation make decisions and administer responsibilities of the
in return for surrendering their claim to much of agreement within the communities. At the same
their traditional territory and ceding it to Canada. time, band councils recognized under the Indian Act
The Gwich’in received $75 million (1990 Canadian continue to exercise decision-making authority on
dollars) over a fifteen-year period. As part of the set- local governmental matters specific to the lives of
tlement, Gwich’in is provided a small portion of their members. The agreement obligates the federal
total resource royalties flowing from development government to negotiate self-government with the
activity in the Mackenzie valley. Within their settle- Gwich’in, under which band councils will be
ment region, Gwich’in have extensive wildlife har- replaced by governments recognized through the
vesting rights, as well as guaranteed participation in self-government agreement rather than the Indian
decision-making bodies established for the manage- Act. Currently, the Gwich’in are negotiating a joint
ment of wildlife and regulatory bodies for land, self-government agreement with their Inuvialuit
water, and the environment. These bodies include neighbors.
the Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board, the Stephanie Irlbacher Fox
Gwich’in Land and Water Board, and the Gwich’in
See also Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to
Land Use Planning Board. Each of these is a public
August 30, 1921; Modern Treaties/
decision-making institution with authority in the set- Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements
tlement area. Gwich’in are represented on the North- (Canada); Treaty.
west Territory’s Mackenzie Valley Environmental References and Further Reading
Impact Review Board, which has authority to review Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal
the environmental impacts of development in the Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto:
territory and to make recommendations on how Methuen.
Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s
projects may proceed. Gwich’in also have the rights
Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig.
of first refusal for some commercial wildlife activi- Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
ties in their settlement area. A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
Compensation from the land claim has allowed Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
the Gwich’in to invest for the future. A Gwich’in
Social and Cultural Institute has been established,
which conducts archaeological, oral history, and tra-
ditional knowledge research in the GSA. Educational
and cultural programs, such as postsecondary schol-
Nunavut Land Claims
arships, training programs, and language and cul- Agreement
ture camps for youth, have also been established. May 25, 1993
Although the Gwich’in were required to extin- Events leading to the Nunavut Land Claims Agree-
guish their aboriginal rights as part of the agreement began in the 1970s, when the Inuit started to
ment, treaty rights not specifically given up, such establish political organizations, such as the Inuit
as education and treaty payments, continue to Tapirisat of Canada (ITC), in an attempt to regain
exist. Rights given up include treaty rights to hunt, the autonomy over their day-to-day lives that had
fish, and trap in the settlement area and other parts been lost to the federal government. In 1973, the
of the Northwest Territory, the Yukon, and ITC initiated a study of Inuit land use and occu-
Nunavut covered by Treaty 11. Hunting, fishing, pancy in order to demonstrate the extent of Inuit
and trapping treaty rights in the Mackenzie valley aboriginal title in the Arctic. In 1976, the ITC asked
will continue until other resident Dene/Métis the Canadian government to map out a boundary
groups negotiate agreements. Despite this, the between the eastern and western regions of the

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 cre- [To] provide for certainty and clarity of rights to
ation of Nunavut out of the eastern region of the ownership and use of lands and resources, and
Northwest Territories because of Inuit land claims of rights for Inuit to participate in decision
in that area. making concerning the use, management, and
Throughout the 1980s, the Inuit, as repre- conservation of land, water, and resources,
sented by the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut including the offshore; provide Inuit with
(TFN), engaged in land claims negotiations with wildlife harvesting rights and rights to partici-
the government of Canada. The interests of the pate in decision making concerning wildlife
government of the Northwest Territories were rep- harvesting; provide Inuit with financial
resented at the negotiating table by the govern- compensation and means of participating in
ment of Canada. In 1990, the parties reached a set- economic opportunities; and encourage self-
tlement, which eventually resulted in the Nunavut reliance and the cultural and social well-being
Land Claims Agreement. In 1992, the Inuit of Inuit. (Preamble, Nunavut Land Claims
approved the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Agreement Act, 1993).
and in 1993 the government of Canada passed the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, which con- The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement gives the
firmed that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Inuit ownership of more than 350,000 square kilome-
is a treaty within the meaning of Section 35 of the ters (136,000 square miles) of land in the eastern Arc-
Canadian Constitution. tic, of which 36,000 square kilometers (14,000 square
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement repre- miles) includes subsurface mineral rights. It also
sents the largest indigenous land claim settlement in calls for the creation of several national parks in the
Canadian history. The objectives of the Nunavut settlement area. In return, the Inuit agree to cede,
Land Claims Agreement are as follows: release, and surrender all their aboriginal claims,

Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement – May 29, 1993 403
rights, title, and interests, to lands and waters any- Borrows, J. 1997. “Frozen Rights in Canada:
where within Canada and adjacent offshore areas Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster,”
within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Canada, and 22 American Indian Law Review 37.
agree not to assert any further legal claims based on Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s
these interests. Disputes about any matter concern-
ing the interpretation, application, or implementa- A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
tion of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are to Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
be resolved by an arbitration board, by whose deci- Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. 2004. A Plain
sion the parties agree to be bound. A decision of the Language Guide to Nunavut Land Claims
arbitration board is subject to review by a court. Agreement. Nunavut, Canada: Nunavut
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement provides Tunngavik Incorporated.
the Inuit with more than $1.148 billion (Canadian
dollars) in financial compensation over fourteen
years. It guarantees Inuit participation in decision
Nacho Nyak Dun Final
making with respect to lands and resources in the
settlement area by mandating Inuit representation Agreement
on wildlife management, resource management, and May 29, 1993
environmental boards. It requires the government of This is one of four final agreements signed on May
Canada to share with the Inuit royalties from 29, 1993, as part of the Yukon land claims settlement
resources produced on lands in the settlement area process. These agreements were made in accordance
to which the Crown holds legal title. with the Umbrella Final Agreement (also signed that
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement also day), which allowed each Yukon First Nation to pur-
commits the parties to work together to increase sue treaty settlements with the governments of
Inuit participation in government employment to a Canada and the Yukon Territory. The Nacho Nyak
representative level. A Training Trust Fund of $13 Dun Final Agreement was the first step toward self-
million (Canadian dollars) is established to ensure government taken by the First Nation of the Nacho
that the Inuit have the skills necessary to imple- Nyak Dun. The agreement was signed by the Nacho
ment the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In Nyak Dun, the government of Canada, and the gov-
1993, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) was ernment of Yukon, to take effect in 1995.
set up as a private corporation to promote Inuit The Nacho Nyak Dun are the northernmost rep-
economic, social, and cultural well-being through resentatives of the Northern Tutchone language and
the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims culture. The traditional territory of the Nacho Nyak
Agreement. Dun (also spelled Na-cho Nyak Dun) is located in
Most important, the Nunavut Land Claims northeastern Yukon Territory on the border shared
Agreement stipulates that the parties work together with the Northwest Territories. The territory over-
to found a new territory called Nunavut, with its laps with that of several other Yukon First Nations:
own public government separate from the govern- the Tetlit Gwitchin and the Vuntut Gwitchin to the
ment of the Northwest Territories. In this regard, a north, the Trondek Hwech’in to the west, and the
political accord was reached in October 1992. In Selkirk and the Kaska Dena to the south. Similarly to
April 1999, the Northwest Territories was divided in other First Nations in the Yukon, this territory of the
two, creating Nunavut. Nunavut means “our land” Nacho Nyak Dun was included within Canadian
in Inuktitut, the Inuit language. borders in 1870, when Rupert’s Land and the North-
Ritu Gambhir west Territory were purchased from the Hudson’s
Bay Company.
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Constitution Act Despite the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which
(Canada), 1867; Inuit; Modern directed the negotiation of treaties with aboriginals,
Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claims no treaties were ever signed between the Nacho
Agreements (Canada); Sovereignty; Treaty;
Nyak Dun and the governments of Great Britain or
Trust Doctrine; Trust Responsibility.
Canada. Nor were any attempts made to protect the
Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal rights of the Nacho Nyak Dun when gold was dis-
Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: covered on the Stewart River in 1883. The town of
Methuen. Mayo was established in 1903, and the settlement of

404 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement – May 29, 1993
Lansing soon followed. The Department of Indian Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
Affairs began providing assistance to the Nacho A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
Nyak Dun in the 1920s, but it was not until the 1950s Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
that the Mayo Indian band was organized. In the “First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement
between the Government of Canada, the First
1980s, the Mayo Indians renamed themselves the
Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun and the
Nacho Nyak Dun, and the band returned to its tradi- Government of the Yukon.” May 29, 1993.
tional forms of government. With the resolution of Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,
the Yukon land claims process, the Nacho Nyak Dun 1993.
were able to pursue self-government. “The First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Self-
The final agreement follows the template set by Government Agreement among the First Nation
the Umbrella Final Agreement and affirms the of Nacho Nyak Dun and the Government of
Canada and the Government of the Yukon,”
rights and benefits of the Nacho Nyak Dun within
May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern
their own territory. Approximately 1,830 square Affairs Canada, 1993.
miles were allocated to the First Nation, with the “Umbrella Final Agreement Between The
town of Mayo designated as the administrative cen- Government Of Canada, The Council For Yukon
ter. The agreement also set parameters for a number Indians And The Government Of The Yukon,”
of issues, including resource use, management of May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern
heritage resources, and protection of burial sites. Affairs Canada, 1993.
The Yukon and Canadian governments cannot act
arbitrarily within Nacho Nyak Dun boundaries.
Before any action is taken, the First Nation must be
Vuntut Gwitchin Final
consulted.
Generally, the agreement focuses on coopera- Agreement
tion between the Nacho Nyak Dun and the two gov- May 29, 1993
ernments. All parties recognized that some This is one of four final agreements signed on May 29,
resources, such as water systems and wildlife, could 1993, as part of the Yukon land claims settlement
not belong solely to one party. The agreement there- process. These agreements were made in accordance
fore allowed the establishment of Special Manage- with the Umbrella Final Agreement (also signed that
ment Areas, such as the McArthur Wildlife Sanctu- day), which allowed each Yukon First Nation to pur-
ary and the Peel Watershed, as areas of mutual sue treaty settlements with the government of Canada
interest and cooperation. The agreement also and the government of Yukon Territory. The Vuntut
addressed the issue of financial compensation, Gwitchin Final Agreement was the first step taken by
granting the First Nation $14,544,654 in payments the Vuntut Gwitchin toward self-government. The
over fifteen years. agreement was signed between the Vuntut Gwitchin
The Nacho Nyak Dun Final Agreement facili- people, the government of Canada, and the govern-
tated the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun Self- ment of the Yukon, to take effect in 1995.
Government Agreement (also signed May 29, 1993), The Vuntut Gwitchin, also known as Old Crow,
which, once ratified, transformed the Nacho Nyak inhabit the northernmost part of Yukon Territory.
Dun from a band under the administration of the Their traditional lands overlap with the Tetlit
Indian Act (1985) to a self-governing First Nation. Gwitchin and the Nacho Nyak Dun to the southeast
The population of the First Nation was 434 people in and the Trondek Hwech’in to the south. The main
1997. settlement, Old Crow, is located at the Crow and
Elizabeth Sneyd 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 hunt-
See also Royal Proclamation of 1763; Sovereignty; ing caribou and muskrat.
Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust Responsibility. Despite the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which
directed the negotiation of treaties with aboriginals,
there were never any treaties signed between the
Methuen. Vuntut Gwitchin and the governments of Great
Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Britain or Canada. Unlike other First Nations, such
Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig. as the Nacho Nyak Dun, the isolation of the Vuntut

Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement – September 6, 1993 405
Gwitchin meant that they were relatively untouched See also Constitution Act (Canada), 1867;
by the influx of European Canadians during the gold Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Indian Act of
rush and afterward, with the exception of a smallpox Canada, 1876; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust
epidemic in 1911. Like other Yukon First Nations, Doctrine; Trust Land.
however, the Vuntut Gwitchin were actively
involved in the Yukon land claims process from its Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto:
start in 1973. Methuen.
The final agreement used the framework laid Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s
out in the Umbrella Final Agreement to affirm the Indians. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig.
rights and benefits of the Vuntut Gwitchin. The Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
agreement allotted approximately 2,990 square miles A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
of territory to the Vuntut Gwitchin. The agreement
“Umbrella Final Agreement Between The
also granted the First Nation $19,161,859 in pay- Government Of Canada, The Council For Yukon
ments over fifteen years. Indians And The Government Of The Yukon.”
Like other final agreements, the Vuntut May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and Northern
Gwitchin Final Agreement addressed a number of Affairs Canada, 1993.
important issues, from membership in the First “Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agreement
Nation to land use to resource management. The between the Government of Canada, the Vuntut
Gwitchin First Nation and the Government of
final agreement affirmed that the territorial and
the Yukon.” May 29, 1993. Ottawa: Indian and
Canadian governments had to consult with the Northern Affairs Canada, 1993.
First Nation’s council prior to any action taken “Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Self-Government
within Vuntut Gwitchin boundaries. There was Agreement among the Vuntut Gwitchin First
also, however, an emphasis on cooperation Nation and the Government of Canada and the
between the different governments, particularly Government of the Yukon.” May 29, 1993.
when dealing with nonstatic resources such as Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,
wildlife or waterways. 1993.
One aspect of the Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agree-
ment sets it apart from the other final agreements:
the confirmation of the establishment of Vuntut
National Park in the northwest sector of the Vuntut Sahtu Dene and Métis
Gwitchin territory. Although identified in the agree-
ment as a Special Management Area along with the
Comprehensive Land
Old Crow Flats Area, the proposed park had to be Claim Agreement
dealt with in a different manner, since national parks September 6, 1993
are administered by the Canadian government The Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land
under the National Parks Act. The signatory parties Claim Agreement was signed on September 6, 1993,
agreed that the park would remain under Canadian and represents one of the “modern treaties” negoti-
control but that any changes to park boundaries ated under the Canadian government’s Comprehen-
would be subject to consultation with the First sive Land Claim Policy. It is constitutionally pro-
Nation. Further, a large part of the park’s mandate tected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
focused on the recognition of the history, culture, (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 3.1.1).
and heritage of the Vuntut Gwitchin. As a result of This agreement concerns five Dene and Métis
these negotiations, Vuntut National Park was offi- communities in the Northwest Territories, Canada:
cially created in 1995. Colville Lake, Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman,
The Vuntut Gwitchin Final Agreement also Deline (Fort Franklin) and Norman Wells (Agree-
facilitated the Vuntut Gwitchin Self-Government ment, Vol. 1, § 2.1.1). The benefits and terms of the
Agreement (also signed May 29, 1993), which, once agreement affect a settlement area of approximately
ratified, transformed the Vuntut Gwitchin from a 108,200 square miles (280,238 square kilometers)
band under the administration of the Indian Act (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Two cate-
(1985) to a self-governing First Nation. The popula- gories of lands were created by the agreement:
tion of the First Nation was 756 in 2004. settlement lands and Sahtu municipal lands (Agree-
Elizabeth Sneyd ment, Vol. 1, § 2.1.1).

406 Nisga’a Final Agreement – April 27, 1999
The settlement lands constitute approximately Although federal, provincial, and territorial
16,000 square miles (41,437 square kilometers) laws continue to apply on Sahtu Dene and Métis
within the settlement area to which the Sahtu Dene lands, the terms of the agreement will be given pri-
and Métis acquired title (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 19.1.2). ority where a conflict of laws arises. Whereas this
This includes title to the subsurface resources over a agreement concerns land, resources, and compensa-
700-square-mile area (1,813 square kilometers) tion, the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive
(Highlights, at p. 1; Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 22). Title Land Claim Agreement does provide for the future
to the lands is transferred to the Sahtu Dene and negotiation of a self-government agreement between
Métis collectively, however; the lands are not the Sahtu Dene and Métis and the federal and
“reserves” as defined under the Indian Act (R.S.C. provincial governments (Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 5).
1985, c. I-5; see also Agreement, Vol. 1, § 3.1.8). Hunt- Lysane Cree
ing and fishing rights as well as exclusive trapping
See also Canadian Indian Treaty 11–June 27 to
rights for the Sahtu Dene and Métis are preserved
August 30, 1921; Constitution Act (Canada),
over the entire settlement area (and not solely on the 1867; Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Modern
lands to which title is held by the Sahtu Dene and Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claims
Métis (Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 13). Agreements (Canada); August 30, 1921.
The settlement lands are protected so that they References and Further Reading
may never be lost to the Sahtu Dene and Métis. Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal
These lands cannot be sold, mortgaged, or seized Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto:
under court order (Agreement, Vol.1, § 19.1.7 and § Methuen.
19.1.8). Unimproved settlement lands are not subject
to real property taxes (Agreement, Vol.1, § 11.5). The Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations:
settlement lands are generally protected from expro- A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
priation. However, in the event that any of the lands Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
are ever expropriated, the Canadian government Morse, Bradford, ed. 1985. Aboriginal Peoples and the
guarantees that it will replace the lands so that the Law: Indian, Métis and Inuit Rights in Canada.
initial size of the settlement lands is never reduced Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
(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 Nisga’a Final Agreement
(Agreement, Vol. 1, Ch. 23). The municipal lands are April 27, 1999
like any other privately owned municipal lands and The Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA) has three par-
may be sold or mortgaged and cease to be Sahtu ties: the Nisga’a First Nation, the Province of British
lands (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 23.2.1). Sahtu municipal Columbia, and the government of Canada. The Nis-
lands that are developed will be subject to real estate ga’a First Nation and the Province of British Colum-
taxation (Agreement, Vol. 1, § 23.4.2). bia signed the NFA on April 27, 1999, and the gov-
The agreement also provides that the Sahtu ernment of Canada signed on May 4, 1999. For the
Dene and Métis will receive a settlement payment of terms of the NFA to take effect, it must be ratified by
$75 million over a period of fifteen years (Agree- Canada; as of this writing, ratification has yet to take
ment, Vol. 1, § 8.1.1 and Schedule I to Ch. 8), as well place. The NFA is the culmination of Nisga’a land
as receiving a portion of the resource royalties claims, which began in 1887, when the first request
received by the Canadian government and stem- for settlement of claims was made to the provincial
ming from the Mackenzie valley area (Agreement, government and litigated before the Supreme Court
Vol. 1, Ch. 10). The participation of the Sahtu Dene of Canada (Calder v. Attorney-General of British Colum-
and Métis in the management, development, and bia [1973] 1 S.C.R. 313). It is the first “modern treaty”
regulation of the settlement area is guaranteed by between British Columbia and a First Nation and the
the terms of the agreement in such fields as renew- first comprehensive land claims settlement in
able resources (Agreement, Vol. 1, Chs. 13–15), envi- Canada to incorporate the constitutionally protected
ronmental impact assessment (Agreement, Vol. 1, aboriginal right of self-government. It is full and
Ch. 17), and the regulation of land and water use final settlement of all aboriginal rights and aborig-
(Agreement, Vol. 1, Chs. 20 and 25). inal title of the Nisga’a Nation.

Nisga’a Final Agreement – April 27, 1999 407
The NFA contains twenty-two chapters dealing The government has primary law-making
with such matters as lands, forest resources, access authority in the following areas: the administration
to lands, roads and rights-of-way, fisheries, wildlife of government, management of lands and assets,
and migratory birds, environmental assessment and Nisga’a citizenship, and Nisga’a language and
protection, the Nisga’a government and constitu- culture. The government has contingent law-making
tion, administration of justice, the Indian Act, capi- authority, whereby any Nisga’a law must conform to
tal transfer and negotiation, loan repayment, fiscal federal and provincial standards in order to be valid,
relations, taxation, cultural artifacts and heritage, in the following areas: education, child and family
local and regional government relations, and dis- services, adoption, Nisga’a fisheries and wildlife
pute resolution. harvesting, and forestry (NFA, Chapter 11). Individ-
The NFA designates and recognizes Nisga’a uals who reside on Nisga’a lands but are not Nisga’a
aboriginal title to 2,000 square kilometers of land citizens are consulted about decisions that directly
in British Columbia, as well as control and owner- and significantly affect them (NFA, Chapter 11,
ship of all mineral resources on or under Nisga’a Article 19).
land. The Nisga’a own the land in fee simple, The NFA recognizes that the jurisdiction and
which is the largest form of proprietary right in authority of the Nisga’a government will evolve
land without restrictions or conditions. It allows over time (NFA, Chapter 11, Article 4), including the
for immediate use and enjoyment of the land and eventual establishment of a Nisga’a court that may
the right to sell or dispose of it according to Nis- apply “traditional Nisga’a methods and values, such
ga’a needs and interests. There are no restrictions as using Nisga’a elders to assist in adjudicating and
on the Nisga’a choosing to sell the land to a third sentencing, and emphasizing restitution” (NFA,
party or to allow development activities, subject to Chapter 12, Article 41[d]).
Nisga’a governmental approval (Chapter 3, Arti- There is a three-stage dispute resolution mecha-
cles 3, 4, and 19). nism under NFA. The first stage involves collabora-
The NFA recognizes Nisga’a right of self- tive negotiations between parties. The next stage
government and provides for establishment of a Nis- applies to specific disputes and involves mediation, a
ga’a government, which is to be democratically technical advisory panel, impartial legal advice, and
elected and accountable to Nisga’a citizens, with a an elders’ advisory panel. The final stage involves
constitution (Chapter 11, Articles 1 and 9). The Nis- settlement of the dispute under binding arbitration
ga’a have the right to practice their culture and use or judicial proceedings (NFA, Chapter 19).
their own language (Chapter 2, Article 7), and the Özlem Ülgen
Constitution of the Nisga’a Nation (2000) stipulates
that the official languages of the Nisga’a government See also Aboriginal Title; Calder v. Attorney-General of
are Nisga’a and English. The government must British Columbia (Canada), 1973; Modern
Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim
respect and encourage the use of the Nisga’a lan-
Agreements (Canada).
guage and the practice of Nisga’a culture, including References and Further Reading
honoring the tradition of ancestors, traditional laws, Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia. 1973. 1
and the wisdom of elders (Constitution, Chapter 1, S.C.R. 313.
Articles 2 and 4). The Canadian Charter of Rights Constitution of the Nisga’a Nation. 2000. (May).
and Freedoms applies to the Nisga’a government in McNeil, K. 1998. “Defining Aboriginal Title in the
respect of all matters within its authority “bearing in 90’s: Has the Supreme Court Finally Got It
Right?” Twelfth Annual Roberts Lecture, March
mind the free and democratic nature of the Nisga’a
25, York University, Toronto, ON.
Government” (Constitution, Chapter 1 Article 6[2]). McNeil, K. 2001–2002. “Extinguishment of Aboriginal
The Constitution is the supreme law of the Nisga’a Title in Canada: Treaties, Legislation and
Nation, subject to the Canadian Constitution and the Judicial Discretion,” 33 Ottawa Law Review 301.
NFA. Nisga’a Final Agreement. 1999. (April).

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 gover-
nor 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

410 Canyon de Chelly, Arizona
as they began to understand what the terms of the Canyon de Chelly, Arizona
treaty meant for them. On June 11, Governor
Stevens explained the treaty to Looking Glass, the Tucked away in the northeast corner of Arizona,
Nez Perce war chief, who had arrived late. There Canyon de Chelly serves literally and figuratively as
would be three reservations: The Nez Perce would the heart of Diné Bikéyah—Navajo country. This
have their own reservation; the Cayuse, Walla twenty-seven-mile-long canyon and its tributaries
Walla, and Umatilla would share a reservation; (the largest is Canyon del Muerto) are formed by
and the Yakima would also share a reservation meandering streams that originate in the Chuska
with the small Columbia River bands. All the Mountains and cut their way westward through the
tribes signed the treaties, although some were Defiance Plateau, ultimately emptying into Chinle
reluctant. Wash. At points along the route, vertical red walls of
The Nez Perce had ceded about 11,000,000 sandstone painted with deposits of manganese and
acres and were granted a reservation of approxi- iron oxide tower a thousand feet over the canyon
mately 7,694,270 acres. The government took much floor. Within this sanctuary, the ancestors of the
of this acreage during the gold rush; the Nez Perce Pueblo, Hopi, and possibly Navajo Indians built
fought this in court and obtained compensation for multistoried villages on ledges and in alcoves
their lost lands (Ruby and Brown 1986, 146). above steep talus slopes. There they remained until
Shortly after the treaty was signed, the Cayuse the thirteenth century, when, for reasons not
said that they were unhappy with the reservation entirely clear, the canyon was almost completely
because it was too small to be shared with the abandoned.
other tribes. If they were to afford land for farming Although occupied intermittently by migrating
and grazing their stock, they would need a bigger Indians of various tribes, Canyon de Chelly
reservation. This unhappiness was ultimately the remained virtually uninhabited for the next four
cause of the Cayuse War (Ruby and Brown 1986, hundred years. By the eighteenth century, however,
210). continued tensions with neighboring Comanche and
The Yakima ceded about 10,000,000 acres and Ute tribes, as well as with Spanish settlements along
were granted less than 1,250,000 acres. Kamaiakan, the Rio Grande, prompted Navajo expansion west-
head chief of the Yakima, instigated the Yakima ward. Canyon de Chelly promised safety within its
War of 1855–1856, in which they were defeated. steep and winding walls and fertile bottomlands for
Their treaty was ratified on March 8, 1859 (Ruby the cultivation of crops.
and Brown 1986, 274). By the late eighteenth century, Spanish land
Rene Casebeer grants in Diné Bikéyah brought migrating Hispanic
settlers into the area and triggered the renewal of
conflict between the two peoples. Navajo raids
See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington),
1974; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Medicine against the unwanted newcomers and Spanish
Creek, Washington; Treaty with the Nisqually, reprisals escalated until the Spanish determined to
Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854. establish their authority over the region once and for
References and Further Reading all. In late 1804, more than three hundred troops
Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. 1965. The Nez Perce Indians and commanded by Lieutenant Antonia Narbona left
the Opening of the Northwest. Boston and New Sonora and headed north with instructions to elimi-
York: Houghton Mifflin.
nate Navajo resistance. Bitterly cold weather hin-
Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown. 1972. The Cayuse
Indians: Imperial Tribesman of Old Oregon. dered the operation, but by January 1805, Narbona’s
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. men (augmented by Opata Indians and the New
Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown. 1986. A Guide to Mexico militia) were poised to enter Canyon de
the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Norman: Chelly. The confrontation between the two turned
University of Oklahoma Press. especially tragic as Narbona’s men discovered a
Relander, Click, D. E. LeCrone, Frederick A. group of Navajo women, children, and elders hiding
Davidson, and Richard Delaney. 1955. Treaty
in a cave six hundred feet above the floor of Canyon
Centennial 1855–1955 The Yakimas. Yakima, WA:
Republic Press.
del Muerto. Unable to scale quickly the talus slope
Stevens, Hazard. 1900. The Life of Isaac Ingalls Stevens and bare rock below the alcove, the soldiers instead
by His Son Hazard Stevens. Vol II. Cambridge, fired their weapons into the cave; their ricocheting
MA: Houghton Mifflin/Riverside Press. bullets killed more than a hundred of the refugees.

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona 411
The assault on “Massacre Cave” lasted for two days, success but nevertheless concluded the first of
until Narbona’s men penetrated the hideout and seven peace treaties negotiated between the
captured thirty-three Navajo survivors. Navajo and the United States between 1846 and
Narbona’s expedition failed to bring an end to 1868.
hostilities in Diné Bikéyah. As Spanish troops left the For many Navajo, however, Doniphan’s treaty
outer reaches of New Mexico to confront the grow- had no validity. In an effort to bring broader compli-
ing Mexican independence movement further south, ance to U.S. demands, the army launched military
Navajo raiding parties resumed their activities expeditions into Diné Bikéyah, specifically targeting
against Hispanic migrants and their livestock with the stronghold of Canyon de Chelly. In September
little fear of Spanish military reprisal. Counter-raids 1847, a battalion under the command of Major
by local Mexican militia and their Ute and Apache Robert Walker invaded the upper reaches of the
allies only exacerbated the situation. Little changed canyon but encountered few people with whom to
for the next forty years, until the United States treat. Two years later, Colonel John Macrae Wash-
moved to claim the Southwest. ington made a similar foray—this time with some
At the outset of the war with Mexico in 1846, success. The Washington expedition resulted in a
U.S. troops under the command of Colonel treaty, signed on September 9, 1849, and ratified by
Stephen Watts Kearny occupied Santa Fe, New the Senate a year later, that gave the government the
Mexico, on their way to California. In October that power to establish military posts, agencies, and
year, Kearny sent Colonel Alexander William trading posts in Navajo country. However, the
Doniphan into Diné Bikéyah to inform the Navajo unfortunate death of seven Navajo men, including a
that they now fell under the authority of the respected elder, at the hands of Washington’s men
United States and must release all captives and led to continued resistance to the designs of the
restore stolen property. Doniphan met with mixed United States.
Located in the northeast corner of Arizona, Canyon de Chelly is the literal and figurative center of the Navajo culture. (Corel)

412 Chicago, Illinois
Between 1850 and 1860, animosity between the See also Long Walk; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1,
Diné and the United States intensified. The U.S. Sen- 1868.
ate, unwilling to pay Indians or to set aside land for References and Further Reading
Grant, Campbell. 1978. Canyon de Chelly: Its People and
their use, was loath to ratify further treaties with the
Rock Art. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Navajo. In 1860, an attack by a thousand Navajo Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos.
warriors against U.S. troops at Fort Defiance in the Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
southern part of Diné Bikéyah nearly succeeded. Simonelli, Jeanne M. 1997. Crossing between Worlds:
Accordingly, the commander of the Department of The Navajos of Canyon de Chelly. Santa Fe, NM:
New Mexico, Colonel Edward Richard Sprigg SAR Press, School of American Research.
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 Chicago, Illinois
treaty of 1861, which was signed by forty-nine During the historic period, the wet prairie that
Navajo leaders, including Manuelito and Barboncito, stretched beyond the banks of the Chicago River was
who had led the attack on Fort Defiance the previous home to a succession of Algonquian-speaking Indi-
year. Like many of its predecessors, the treaty never ans. At the time of the first French explorers, mem-
passed the Senate. bers of the Illinois Confederacy inhabited the area.
As the American Civil War engulfed the country, Later, the Miami, Sac, Ottawa, Ojibwe, and
Canby’s focus necessarily shifted away from Indian Potawatomi had villages near the place where the
problems and toward the Confederate presence in Chicago River entered Lake Michigan.
New Mexico. Following his victory over Confederate The treaty history of Chicago began at
forces at Glorieta Pass, Canby was promoted to Greenville in 1795. As part of a careful selection of
brigadier general and transferred to Washington, strategic sites in the Old Northwest, General
D.C. Command of the Department of New Mexico Anthony Wayne forced the cession of “one piece of
fell to Brigadier General James Henry Carleton. With land six miles square at the mouth of the Chikago
the Confederate threat to New Mexico relieved, Car- river” (Kappler 1904, 40). On this land, the United
leton returned to the execution of the removal policy States established Fort Dearborn in 1803. In 1812, the
articulated by his predecessor. Carleton sought to Potawatomi, who were the dominant Indian group
remove the Navajo (as well as the Mescalero Apache) in the Chicago area, took advantage of the outbreak
from Diné Bikéyah and isolated the Indians at of war between the United States and Great Britain
Bosque Redondo along the Pecos River. to attack and massacre the soldiers at Fort Dearborn.
Realizing that the Navajo would not leave of Not until 1816 was the U.S. Army able to reestablish
their own accord, Carlton sent soldiers under the its foothold in Chicago. That same year, in St. Louis,
command of Christopher Houston “Kit” Carson into the government negotiated a land cession by the
Diné Bikéyah to force its inhabitants to depart. Car- Ottawa, the Ojibwe, and the Potawatomi, who lived
son recognized that control of Canyon de Chelly was along the southwestern margins of Lake Michigan.
the key to the operation. A brief but devastating In return for twelve years of annuity payments, the
campaign in the snow-blanketed canyon in January bands surrendered their claim to a vital wedge of
1864 proved successful; thousands of Navajos were land ten miles on either side of the Chicago River.
forced out of their homes, rounded up, and sent first The cession included much of the same territory
to Fort Wingate, near present-day Gallup, New Mex- ceded at Greenville and almost all the land that
ico, and then on the “Long Walk” to Fort Sumner at would become the city of Chicago and many of its
the Bosque Redondo. There, after several years of suburbs.
virtual incarceration, the Navajo signed a treaty on Two treaty councils were held in Chicago, in
June 1, 1868, allowing them to return to a portion of 1821 and in 1833. In 1821, the agents of the United
Diné Bikéyah—3,328,302 acres, including most of States turned their attention to the Potawatomi and
Canyon de Chelly. Although it would take years and Ottawa who lived along the eastern shore of Lake
numerous executive-order additions to expand the Michigan. The treaty council was held in Chicago,
Diné land base, Canyon de Chelly, the heart of Diné even though all the lands being ceded were in Michi-
Bikéyah, was back in Navajo hands to stay. gan. Lewis Cass, governor of the Michigan Territory,
Alan C. Downs obtained the rich croplands between the St. Joseph

Council Grove, Kansas 413
and Grand rivers from the Potawatomi in return for in the Michigan Territory. The article made special
annuities ($5,000 for twenty years), blacksmith ser- provision for the Catholic Potawatomi, who eventu-
vices, and educational assistance (Kappler 1904, ally were allowed to remain in Cass County, Michi-
200). In 1829, when Potawatomi lands in northern gan, on the private reservation of their chief,
Illinois were under pressure from the United States, Leopold Pokagon. Perhaps as many as a third of the
the negotiation was held not in Chicago but in dis- Potawatomi rejected the U.S. removal policy and
tant Prairie du Chien in the Wisconsin Territory. A immigrated to Upper Canada, where they settled,
very large section of northwestern Illinois was ceded among other places, on Manitoulin and Walpole
at this council in return for an annuity of $16,000 and Islands (Clifton 1977, 300–306).
fifty barrels of salt, both to be paid “annually, for- Theodore J. Karamanski
ever” in Chicago (Kappler 1904, 298). At Tippecanoe,
Indiana, in 1832, lands that today include Chicago’s
See also Cass, Lewis; Greenville, Ohio; Pokagun;
far southern suburbs, as well as a large tract of land
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26,
along the Indiana-Illinois border, were ceded for a 1833; Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.–August 29,
mere $15,000 annuity to be paid for twenty years 1821; Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3,
(Kappler 1904, 354). 1795; Wayne, Anthony.
The 1833 treaty negotiation came on the heels of References and Further Reading
the Black Hawk War, and although the Potawatomi Clifton, James A. 1977. The Prairie People: Continuity
in Illinois had either remained neutral or rendered and Change in Potawatomi Indian Culture
1665–1965. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas.
positive assistance to the United States during the
Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of
conflict, sentiment was strong within the state to the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
have all Indians removed west of the Mississippi Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Treaties,
River. In September 1833, more than six thousand 1778–1883. Washington, DC: Government
Potawatomi came to Chicago. They were resigned to Printing Office.
ceding their last large tract in the Old Northwest, a
strip of land along Lake Michigan between Milwau-
kee and Chicago. A horde of whiskey dealers and
horse thieves, “rogues of every description,”
descended upon them (Edmunds 1978, 248). More Council Grove, Kansas
than $20,000 in goods intended for the Potawatomi Council Grove, Kansas, is one of the state’s oldest
was stolen by the “rogues” as well as by the good historic communities, having played a part in an
citizens of Chicago (Edmunds 1978, 249). The lead important chapter in American Indian treaty his-
negotiators for the Potawatomi were Billy Caldwell, tory. The community is located in Morris County in
an Anglo-Irish Mohawk, and Alexander Robinson, a east central Kansas, on the Neosho River (Neosho is
Scot-Ottawa, both of whom were recognized as an Indian word meaning “wet bottoms”). Because
Potawatomi chiefs. The seedy negotiations came to of its location on the Santa Fe Trail, Council Grove
an end with the Potawatomi ceding their land lands became an important gathering place for tribes and
in Illinois and Wisconsin in return for five million traders. It was the intention of the U.S. government
acres of new lands along the Missouri River. Large to foster a safe route along the trail vis-à-vis treaty
sums were also set aside to fund educational and with Native Americans in the area. The first of
technical services to the Potawatomi. Caldwell and these treaties was concluded on August 10, 1825,
Robinson were paid off handsomely with large with the Big and Little Bands of Osage Indians, so
grants of land and personal annuities. The Senate that the U.S. government could obtain the right-of-
nearly choked on the hefty $175,000 settlement way for a public highway, thus establishing the
awarded to traders for unpaid debts and the Santa Fe Trail.
$100,000 to “sundry individuals, in behalf of whom The treaty was signed under an oak tree in a
reservations were asked” (Kappler 1904, 402). The large grove of timber on the eastern side of the
most important result of the treaty was the removal Neosho River. George C. Sibley, one of three com-
of the Potawatomi from Illinois, which began in Sep- missioners sent by President John Quincy Adams,
tember 1835. named the area Council Grove for the convocation
A supplementary article to the 1833 Chicago of treaty signers. The other two commissioners
treaty ended the remaining Potawatomi reservations were Benjamin Reeves and Thomas Mathers. For

414 Dalles, The, Oregon
the right-of-way through their territory, the Osage See also Treaty with the Great and Little
were paid $800. The commission headed west and Osage–August 10, 1825; Treaty with the
six days later met with the Kaw or Kanza Indians to Kansa–August 16, 1825; Treaty with the Kansa
Tribe–January 14, 1846; Treaty with the Kansa
negotiate a treaty.
Tribe–October 5, 1859.
The treaty was signed on August 16, 1825, References and Further Reading
although not in Council Grove but in McPherson Brigham, Lalla Maloy. 1921. The Story of Council Grove
County, Kansas. The treaty was an exact duplicate on the Santa Fe Trail. Topeka: Kansas State
of the treaty with the Osage. In this treaty, the Kaw Historical Society.
Indians gave up their tribal lands of some twenty “Collision–Lethal Contact.” 2003. Kaw Mission State
million acres in northeast Kansas and relocated to a Historic Site. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from
twenty-square-mile reservation near present-day http://ww.kshs.org/places/kawmision/
lethalkanzareservations.htm.
Topeka, Kansas. For the cession of this vast land
Rollings, Willard H. 1995. The Osage: An
base, the Kaw were awarded an annuity of $3,500 Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the Prairie-
for twenty years; a quantity of cattle, hogs, and Plains. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
domestic fowl; a blacksmith; and an agricultural U.S. Department of War. 1825. Indian Treaties, and
instructor. Another treaty with the Kaw in 1846 Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs: To
relocated the tribal members to a twenty-square- Which is Added an Appendix Containing the
mile reservation and encompassed what is now Proceedings of the Old Congress, and Other
Important State Papers, in Relation to Indian
present-day Council Grove. Provisions of this
Affairs. Washington City: Way and Gideon.
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 Dalles, The, Oregon
to open up more lands for expansion led to yet The Dalles, a place name, refers to two geographic
another treaty with the Kaw. A treaty signed in 1859 features: a narrow channel of the middle Columbia
pushed the reservation slightly south of Council River near the Cascade Mountain divide, and the
Grove from Kaw lands and gave the tribe only adjacent land on the south bank in Oregon. The
80,000 of the poorest acres in the area, to be divided Dalles was part of a series of rapids and falls where
into forty-acre plots for each family. The remaining the elevation of the Columbia drops toward the
176,000 of the 256,000 acres were held in trust by Pacific, creating ideal conditions for netting migrat-
the U.S. government, to be sold to the highest bid- ing fish. Dividing the western forests from the east-
der. Finally, on May 27, 1872, the starving Kaw (for ern high desert, this was a spiritual, fishing, and
whom the state of Kansas is named) were relocated trading center for thousands of years. Several Upper
to Oklahoma. The Kaw were relocated and their Chinookan and River Sahaptian peoples lived in the
lands diminished so often in such a short time that area, and others visited seasonally. In 1811, fur trader
Kaw Chief Al-le-ga-wa-ho pleaded to Secretary of Alexander Ross described it as “the great emporium
the Interior Colombus Delano, “Great Father, you or mart of the Columbia.” Trade goods arrived from
Whites treat us Kan-zey like a flock of turkeys, you British Columbia, the Pacific Coast, California, and
chase us to one stream, then you chase us to the Great Plains. In the 1830s, The Dalles was a
another stream, soon you will chase us over the Christian mission, a colonial settlement, and an
mountains and into the ocean” (“Collision” 2003, army fort. It became a regional treaty site in 1855.
para. 20). Native peoples from Yakama, Warm Springs,
By the Neosho River, a stump portion of the Umatilla, and Nez Perce continued to use the area
Council Oak still remains, protected by a shelter. after white settlement. Some people avoided
Before it was blown over by a storm in 1958, the removal to the reservations and formed a multieth-
tree was seventy feet tall, and its trunk was sixteen nic identity as Columbia River Indians, or the River
feet around. In the area are fifteen more state and People. Hydroelectric dams flooded many of the
federal historic properties, including the Council fisheries and sacred places, including The Dalles and
Grove Historic District and the Kaw Methodist neighboring Celilo Falls. Legal battles erupted over
Mission. salmon procurement. However, the Columbia River
Kurt T. Mantonya Indians who live on the river and on the reservations

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 newcomers to accommodate their traditional use of
and its resources. the area. Tense moments occurred during Lewis and
The relationship between The Dalles and the Clark’s return voyage in 1806, and altercations occa-
Columbia River Indians is ancient. Material evidence sionally occurred from 1812 to 1814 and in 1855.
of Native occupation of the area dates back over More commonly, however, Native peoples assisted
eleven thousand years, and oral traditions describe colonials in portaging and navigating the dangerous
geological events from the distant past. Culturally, rapids and incorporated the new people and prod-
the people of The Dalles region, or Wascopam, ucts into the existing trade network. The Treaty of
included Upper Chinookan peoples, with relatives Middle Oregon of 1855 established the legal identi-
downriver to the Pacific Ocean, and Sahaptians, with ties of the Yakama Nation on the north side of the
relatives upriver to Priest’s Rapids and on the Columbia (Washington) and the Confederated
Columbia Plateau. Nez Perce and Cayuse from the Tribes of Warm Springs and the Umatilla on the
plateau were often present at The Dalles for south side (Oregon), with three corresponding
extended periods. Robert Boyd hypothesizes that reservations. The Nez Perce retained some lands in
these winter, multiethnic cohabitations grew with western Idaho.
European contact as horses increased and plateau Branded “renegades” and “vagabonds” by
Indians accessed the Great Plains after the 1730s. European Americans, many Indians refused to re-
They then brought Great Plains products to trade. locate to the new reservations and continued to live
Through the mid-nineteenth century, disease killed near The Dalles, Celilo Falls, and neighboring fishing
many people around The Dalles without decreasing sites. In the late 1800s, they earned legal rights to the
resources, allowing diverse Indians to make homes lands that they had refused to abandon. The River
in the area. People, notably David Sohappy, have been at the
At The Dalles, relations between Native peo- heart of Native efforts to retain fishing rights on the
ples and colonials were rarely violent, although middle Columbia River since the 1960s. Although the
Columbia River Indians consistently pressed the namesake geological formation is now drowned by

416 Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi
The Dalles Dam, River Indians continue to occupy References and Further Reading
“in-lieu” fishing sites that the federal government Baird, W. David. 1973. The Choctaw People. Phoenix,
established, small off-reservation communities such AZ: Indian Tribal Series.
Cushman, H. B. 1999. History of the Choctaw,
as Celilo Village, and the reservations.
Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians. Norman:
Gray H. Whaley University of Oklahoma Press.
See also Clark, William; Lewis, Meriwether; Sacred Debo, Angie. 1967. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw
Sites; Sohappy, David, Sr.; Sohappy v. Smith and Republic. Norman: University of Oklahoma
United States v. Oregon (1969); Treaty with the Press.
Tribes of Middle Oregon–June 25, 1855; Trust Kidwell, Clara Sue. 1995. Choctaws and Missionaries in
Land. Mississippi, 1818–1918. Norman: University of
References and Further Readings Oklahoma Press.
Boyd, Robert. 1996. People of The Dalles, the Indians of McKee, Jesse O., and Jon A. Schlenker. 1980. The
Wascopam Mission: A Historical Ethnography Based Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American
on the Papers of the Methodist Missionaries. Tribe. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
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.
Doak’s Stand, Mississippi
Ross, Alexander. 1986. Adventures of the First Settlers Doak’s Stand is a tavern and trading post named
on the Oregon or Columbia River, 1810–1813. for its builder, merchant William Doak, an 1810
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 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
Dancing Rabbit Creek, accommodation” between the United States and
Mississippi the Choctaw Nation. It was the fifth major Choctaw
cession treaty; the first was the Treaty of Fort
Dancing Rabbit Creek in Mississippi was the site of an Adams in 1801. Leading the negotiations for the
important council ground. At this site, the Treaty of United States at Doak’s Stand was Andrew Jackson
Dancing Rabbit Creek was signed on September 27, of Tennessee, considered by many to be the archi-
1830. This agreement involved the United States and a tect of Indian removal. Thomas Jefferson, early in
faction of the Choctaw Nation in Mississippi. It is the nineteenth century, was the first to articulate
commonly referred to as the Choctaw removal treaty. Indian removal. In 1817, President James Monroe
After the signing of this treaty, the Choctaw declared that U.S. security depended on rapid set-
people were forced to move from their ancient tlement of the Southwest and that, accordingly, it
homelands in Mississippi to the unexplored area of was in the best interests of Indians to relocate west
the American West called the Great American of new U.S. settlement. In 1825, Monroe set before
Desert. Most of this area became the state of Okla- Congress the first actual proposal to resettle all
homa in 1906. The council ground at Dancing Rabbit eastern tribes on tracts in the West, on which the
Creek lies between two branches of Dancing Rabbit federal government would prohibit white citizens
Creek within Noxubee County in what is now the from living. Jackson had become a forceful propo-
state of Mississippi. A granite monument was placed nent of removal by the time of his election to the
there in 1928 by the Bernard Romans Chapter of the presidency in 1828. The success of the Doak’s Stand
Daughters of the American Revolution of Columbus, treaty set an important precedent for this shift in
Mississippi. federal Indian policy, which was fully realized in
The Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians the 1830s.
resides on a reservation of thirty thousand acres near Negotiations began at Doak’s Stand in 1819.
this site. The Choctaw were asked to exchange a “small
Donna L. Akers part” of their national territory for “a country
See also Indian Removal Act, 1830; Indian Territory; beyond the Mississippi River” in order to relocate
LeFlore, Greenwood; Treaty with the all those Choctaw who “live by hunting and will
Choctaw–September 27, 1830. not work.” This “small part” of the Choctaw Nation

Doaksville, Oklahoma 417
actually amounted to nearly five and a half million Choctaws quickly found themselves surrounded
acres, comprising a significant portion of central and well outnumbered. By then, the Choctaw were
and western Mississippi. ready to accept further cessions, and the bulk of the
Initially, the Choctaw would not concede to the nation finally agreed to remove across the Missis-
proposed terms of the treaty. Tribal leaders con- sippi. A century after Doak’s Stand, in Mississippi
sulted with Christian missionaries in their nation. barely a thousand Choctaw remained, a largely
Cyrus Kingsbury, a prominent Presbyterian mis- landless and marginalized enclave. At the same
sionary, gave the Choctaw his personal approval of time, thousands of other Choctaw struggled to
the U.S. plan. Under the direction of Pushmataha, maintain their culture in the relatively new state of
the Choctaws signed the Treaty of Doak’s Stand in Oklahoma. The burgeoning power of the United
October 1820, ceding about a third of all Choctaw States and the dwindling influence of the Choctaw
territory. The treaty gave the United States western readily compromised the terms of the Doak’s Stand
Mississippi in exchange for lands west of the Mis- treaty.
sissippi River, from the Cherokee boundary on the C. S. Everett
Arkansas River, up the same to its fork with the
See also Indian Removal; Jackson, Andrew;
Canadian River in Oklahoma, then south to the Red
Pushmataha; Treaty with the Choctaw–October
River and down the same back up to the Arkansas. 18, 1820; Treaty with the Choctaw–January 20,
In all, this area comprised more than thirteen mil- 1825.
lion acres, or most of western Arkansas and south- References and Further Reading
eastern Oklahoma. Further, the United States De Rosier, Arthur H., Jr. 1970. The Removal of the
agreed to provision each adult male Choctaw emi- Choctaw Indians. Knoxville: University of
grant with a blanket, a kettle, a rifle, bullet molds, Tennessee Press.
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and
and enough ammunition for hunting and defense
Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington:
for one year; and each warrior ’s family received Government Printing Office.
enough corn to support them for one year. Reeves, Carolyn Keller, ed. 1985. The Choctaw Before
The United States had purchased the cession Removal. Jackson: University Press of
land first from France in the Louisiana Purchase of Mississippi.
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. commission- Doaksville, Oklahoma
ers met with Choctaw leaders at the Treaty of One of the largest and most important towns in the
Washington City, January 20, 1825. In this, the Choctaw Nation and in Indian Territory during the
United States asked the Choctaw to cede back the 1800s, Doaksville flourished between the 1830s until
eastern portion of the land given in the Treaty of shortly after the Civil War. Located just north of the
Doak’s Stand. The Choctaw, in need of money and Red River in southeast Indian Territory, Doaksville
provisions, were easily persuaded to sign the new was an economic, social, educational, and political
treaty. The Treaty of Washington fixed the eastern center.
limit of the Choctaw cession at a line running due Doaksville’s beginnings preceded Choctaw
south from Fort Smith to Red River, thus forming removal. Originally a trading outpost established by
what became and remains the present Arkansas- Josiah and William Doak in 1821, the settlement
Oklahoma boundary. began growing after nearby Fort Towson’s establish-
Doak’s Stand was the first large-scale effort at ment in 1824 to protect settlers from Plains and Texas
removal. The treaty opened former Choctaw lands tribes and to place federal power on the interna-
to settlement by U.S. citizens. Choctaw who tional boundary with Mexico. During the 1830s,
remained in their former country could merge into Doaksville became a main destination for removed
a new “Mississippi” society by claiming private Choctaw and Chickasaw. For the Chickasaw,
tracts of land, receiving “American” education, and Doaksville became a refugee camp between 1837
adopting “civilized” habits. Between 1820 and and 1842 until their lands further west could be
1830, nearly thirty thousand settlers moved into the made safe from marauding Kiowa and Comanche
lands opened up by the cession. The remaining and cleared of intruders; there, they also suffered

418 Doaksville, Oklahoma
disease and malnutrition. For the Choctaw, war within the tribe often occurred near Doaksville.
Doaksville became a major center of activity and the Eventually, a compromise was struck at the Choctaw
largest town in Indian Territory. Its economy grew Convention of 1860 at Doaksville, where the
during the 1830s and 1840s as a trading and agricul- Doaksville Constitution was crafted and under
tural hub. Traders to the Plains tribes often supplied which the nation operated thereafter.
themselves at Doaksville, returning with tallow, Doaksville is also where the Civil War began
hides, and pelts for export; Indian farmers and and ended for the Choctaw Nation. In 1861, tribal
Indian plantation owners also relied on Doaksville pro-secessionists gathered at Doaksville and
for its cotton gins and gristmills. Imports and moved the Choctaw from neutrality to Confederate
exports via the Red River connected the region to the support. The Choctaw National Council declared
South. Choctaw independence, appointed a committee to
Other facets of Choctaw and Chickasaw life enter a treaty of alliance with the Confederacy and
were centered at Doaksville. It became a significant to negotiate that agreement with Confederate
annuity distribution spot; on annuity days the com- agent Albert Pike, and authorized the creation of
munity was a flurry of social, political, and economic Choctaw military forces to hold Indian Territory.
activity. Indian education was also at Doaksville. Like much of Indian Territory, the Doaksville
The Choctaw-run Spencer Academy, founded in region suffered devastation from the war. At the
1844, made Doaksville the first town in the region to war’s end, Doaksville again emerged as important
have a boarding school. However, education and for the Choctaw and for Indian Territory. On June
missionary activities were more often connected at 9, 1865, the Civil War officially ended for the
places like Armstrong Academy, established by the Choctaw when Chief Peter Pitchlynn surrendered
American Indian Mission Association and later his Indian troops to federal officials there. The
directed by the Cumberland Presbyterian Board of Civil War in Indian Territory actually ended in
Foreign and Domestic Missions as a missionary day Doaksville two weeks later, when Brigadier Gen-
school; the campus served later as the Choctaw capi- eral Stand Watie (Cherokee) came into town and
tal and as a home for orphan boys. Doaksville was laid down his arms; he was the last Confederate
also the first town in the Choctaw Nation with a general to do so.
newspaper; established in 1848, the Choctaw Tele- The Civil War ushered in Doaksville’s down-
graph was a bilingual paper printed in Choctaw and turn. In 1863, the Choctaw capital was moved to
English. Chahta Tamaha, and thereafter Doaksville began to
Doaksville’s greatest legacy was as a political decline rapidly. After the turn of the century, new
center in intertribal as well as intratribal matters. railroad lines and new towns supplanted
Two important treaties were signed there. In 1837, Doaksville’s once-great prominence. Today, little
the Choctaw and Chickasaw leaders met at remains of this ghost town to reflect its former
Doaksville and forged agreements with each other importance.
and the United States for the Chickasaw to acquire S. Matthew DeSpain
land in the Choctaw territory. This Treaty of
Doaksville (arranged before Chickasaw removal) See also Indian Territory; Pitchlynn, Peter; Treaty
allowed the Chickasaw, for the consideration of with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–January 17,
1837; Treaty with the Choctaw and
$530,000, to settle in the central and western portions
Chickasaw–November 4, 1854; Watie, Stand.
of the Choctaw lands, to form the Chickasaw District References and Further Reading
of the Choctaw Nation, and to hold equal rights Baird, W. David. 1973. The Choctaw People. Phoenix,
throughout the Choctaw Nation. A later treaty AZ: Indian Tribal Series.
between the two tribes was signed at Doaksville in Debo, Angie. 1967. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw
1854, settling any boundary disputes from the treaty Republic. Norman: University of Oklahoma
of 1837. Press.
De Rosier, Arthur H., Jr. 1970. The Removal of the
Doaksville served as the Choctaw national capi-
Choctaw Indians. Knoxville: University of
tal from 1850 until 1863, a time of tumultuous intra- Tennessee Press.
tribal politics. Disaffected traditionalists gathered at Kidwell, Clara Sue. 1995. Choctaws and Missionaries in
Doaksville in 1858, created a new constitution, and Mississippi, 1818–1918. Norman: University of
elected rival officials. Friction and the threat of civil Oklahoma Press.

Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 419
McKee, Jesse O., and Jon A. Schlenker. 1980. The no longer “uncivilized” and did not need military
Choctaws: Cultural Evolution of a Native American supervision. Additionally, they charged that the
Tribe. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. presence of soldiers increased the availability of
alcohol to their citizens, and they wanted the broth-
els surrounding the fort closed. The Cherokees were
eager to assume control of the boat landing and the
Fort Gibson, Oklahoma rivers. Apparently the Cherokees argued effectively,
Fort Gibson is located at the confluence of the Verdi- for the fort reverted to Cherokee ownership in June
gris, Arkansas, and Neosho rivers in the easternmost 1857.
area of the Cherokee Nation. Colonel Matthew The fort did not stay under Cherokee control
Arbuckle and the Seventh Infantry began construc- for long. In 1861, the American Civil War began, and
tion on the fort in 1824. It replaced Fort Smith, Confederate forces quickly took control of the fort.
Arkansas, as the westernmost outpost in the terri- It was of strategic importance to the Confederacy
tory obtained by the Louisiana Purchase. Arbuckle and also served as the headquarters for their Indian
named the fort after Commissary General George Department. The fort stayed under Confederate
Gibson. control until 1863, when Union forces under the
In the 1820s and 1830s, the fort served as the command of William A. Phillips forced the Confed-
major link between the U.S. government and the erates from the stronghold. Phillips temporarily
Plains Indians and as one of a series of forts charged changed the name of the fortification to Fort Blunt
with maintaining order on the frontier. During the in honor of General James G. Blunt, the commander
1820s and 1830s, the fort became the staging area for of the District of Kansas, and the Cherokee Nation
the resettlement of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Chero- moved its headquarters into the fort. Confederate
kee, Seminole, and Muscogee (Creek) Indians forced forces harassed the fort throughout the remainder of
from their homes in the southeastern United States. the war, but the Union forces managed to retain
Emigrating Indians stopped by the fort to obtain control.
provisions such as clothing, blankets, food, guns, When the Civil War ended, the fort served as
knives, farming implements, seeds, and other items the major center of aid for refugee Indians and freed-
necessary to establish new homes in Indian Territory. men returning home. By 1871, most of the troops
The major responsibilities of the soldiers sta- were removed from the area, and the post became a
tioned at the fort were to maintain peace between commissary supply post. However, military forces
the Osage and Cherokee Indians, to provide military returned about a year later. As railroads were built
protection for survey teams, to remove white settlers through Indian Territory, squatters, outlaws,
from Indian Territory, and to construct roads. whiskey traders, and other undesirable people
Colonel Arbuckle frequently complained that he had began to enter the area.
too few soldiers under his command to carry out the From 1872 until its final closure, the fort’s pri-
assigned duties. As a result, the condition of the mary responsibility was to prevent white intrusions
facility suffered. onto Indian lands. The fort had a reputation as a
Although the fort was the principal fortification dangerous outpost infested with criminals, fortune
in the West, it developed an unhealthy reputation. seekers, and other riffraff. When allotments came for
According to some of the people who helped build the Indians and on military paydays, gamblers and
the fort, many of the structures rotted before they whiskey traders swarmed the area in an effort to
were finished. During its first eleven years of occu- separate Indians and soldiers from their money.
pation, 561 privates and nine officers died of disease. In the summer of 1890, all troops were with-
In 1845, the fort was relocated onto higher ground a drawn from the area. The fort was reoccupied for
quarter mile from its original site, and the new short periods of time during the 1890s, but the build-
buildings were constructed of stone. Unfortunately, ings were uninhabitable by 1897, and the troops
the new location was no more healthful than the pre- camped on the parade grounds. In the late 1890s, the
vious setting, and the soldiers still were plagued by fort was permanently closed. Today, Fort Gibson is a
disease. historic site managed by the Oklahoma Historical
By the 1850s, the people of the Cherokee Nation Society.
wanted the fort closed; they argued that they were Joyce Ann Kievit

420 Fort Harmar, Ohio
See also Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Ross, between twelve and fourteen feet. All in all, the fort
John. presented a formidable appearance.
References and Further Reading The enlisted men’s barracks were within the
Agnew, Brad. 1980. Fort Gibson, Terminal on the Trail of walls and were divided into thirty-foot rooms and
Tears. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
furnished with fireplaces. The fireplaces were among
Bearss, Edwin C., and Arrell M. Gibson. 1969. Fort
Smith: Little Gibraltar on the Arkansas. Norman: the only stone furnishings in the fort. The officers’
University of Oklahoma Press. quarters were built into the bastions.
Foreman, Grant. 1936. Fort Gibson: A Brief History. Once it was decided to open up the Northwest
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 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
Fort Harmar, Ohio the vicinity could be surveyed and divided up into
Fort Harmar was established in 1785 near the conflu- lots for sale. Likewise, as settlers began to move into
ence of the Muskingum and Ohio rivers in what is the area in greater numbers, more friction with the
now the state of Ohio. The base occupied territory Indians developed. The fort then became more like a
opposite the original site of Marietta, Ohio, and has frontier military post, from which detachments were
since been assimilated into the city. The fort was sent out to guard surveyors as they marked the area
built under orders of General Josiah Harmar, the and to guard various movements of men and sup-
commander of the U.S. force in the area, and was the plies through the territory. The tensions with the
site of some important treaty negotiations with Indi- Indians and violence perpetrated by men on both
ans of the region. sides eventually led the governor of the territory,
Congress dispatched Harmar to the region in Arthur St. Clair, to call the aggrieved tribes to a
1784 with orders to prevent the contacts between treaty council.
white settlers and Indians from escalating into a Later, the fort served as a meeting site for the
full-scale border war. As the War of Independence negotiations with the Indians in the area that led to
came to an end, settlers began pouring into the the Treaty of Fort Harmar. This treaty, negotiated in
western territories in large numbers. All those con- late 1788 and agreed to in 1789, reaffirmed the
cerned in the delicate maneuverings of frontier boundary line set by the previous Treaty of Fort
Indian policy, from Secretary of War Henry Knox McIntosh. Likewise, it guaranteed the Indians in the
down, knew that the country could ill afford a war vicinity the right to hunt on lands in the ceded areas.
with the Native Americans. It was in partial fulfill- The negotiator for the United States at Fort Harmar
ment of this mission that Josiah Harmar ordered the was Arthur St. Clair. Treaties were negotiated with
fort constructed. Thus, Fort Harmar has the distinc- the Iroquois and the Wyandot.
tion of being the only base created to stop unlawful The fort remained a frontier garrison until
settlement. In reality, the post ended up encourag- 1790. At that point, the men were ordered to move
ing illegal settlement in that the people living on the on to Fort Washington in Cincinnati. The troops
frontier came to it when they were threatened by that were removed from the fort were later used in
Indians. St. Clair ’s expedition against the northwestern
The actual construction of the post was over- tribes.
seen by Captains John Doughty and Jonathan Heart James McIntyre
and performed by the men under their command.
Initially, the structure consisted of a small, pentago- See also Knox, Henry; St. Clair, Arthur; Treaty with
nal, star-shaped stockade fort. The primary material the Wyandot, Etc.–January 21, 1785; Treaty with
used in construction was logs. At each of the five the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789.
corners, instead of the more commonly used block- References and Further Reading
house, were pentagonal bastions that mounted sev- Gaff, Alan D. 2004. Bayonets in the Wilderness: Anthony
Wayne’s Legion in the Old Northwest. Norman:
eral cannons each. The artillery was sited so as to
University of Oklahoma Press.
sweep the land approaches to the fort. Havinghurst, Walter. 1976. Ohio: A History. New York:
In all, the fort covered about three-fourths of an W. W. Norton.
acre. The walls were 120 feet long and constructed of Knepper, George W. 1989. Ohio and Its People. Kent,
large timbers laid horizontally, reaching a height of OH: Kent State University Press.

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.
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 Fort Harrison in 1812. (Library of Congress)
and closer to the eventual battle of Tippecanoe,
another blockhouse was constructed. McCullough, and the headmen representing the Wea
After the battle, the fort continued to be occu- and Kickapoo. The treaty included a pledge of peace
pied by troops. Captain Zachary Taylor of the Sev- and acknowledgement of the Treaty of Greenville in
enth Infantry Regiment took command of the post 1795.
in 1812. Following the Indian success at Fort Dear- Sally Colford Bennett
born to the north (in present-day Chicago) and
while laying siege to Fort Wayne (in present-day See also Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811; Harrison,
Indiana), the Potawatomi and Kickapoo made a William Henry; Treaty with the Wea and
raid on Fort Harrison. Early on the third day of Kickapoo–June 4, 1816.
September 1812, Miami and Wea Indians visited the
Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of
fort and told the commanding officer that followers the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
of the Prophet would be making war and that he Esarey, Logan. 1922. Messages and Letters of William
and his army should leave at once. Later in the day, Henry Harrison, vol. 1. Indianapolis: Indiana
two civilians haying beyond the stockade walls Historical Commission.
were shot and killed. With half his fifty-five-man Fort Harrison Centennial Association. 1912. Fort
garrison sick with fever, Taylor had good reason to Harrison on the Banks of the Wabash, 1812–1912.
Terre Haute, IN: Fort Harrison Centennial
be concerned. During the night, one of the block-
Association.
houses was set afire despite sentinels on duty. Tay- Kappler, Charles A., ed. 1904. “Treaty with the Wea
lor issued orders for all posts to be manned. and Kickapoo, 1816.” Indian Affairs: Laws and
Throughout the ensuing days, Taylor waited for an Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC:
opportunity to send someone to Vincennes for help. Government Printing Office.
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 Fort Laramie, Wyoming
men arrived under the command of Colonel Fort Laramie, located in eastern Wyoming, served
William Russell. first as a major trading post and after 1849 as a U.S.
Following the end of the War of 1812, a treaty Army post. The post played a significant role in the
was concluded at Fort Harrison in 1816 between the region by protecting overland travelers and as a
United States, represented by Commissioner John L. major juncture, first for the fur trade and later for

422 Fort Laramie, Wyoming
the Plains Indian campaigns. In 1851 and in 1868, which had acquired it in 1836. The site was ideal for
important treaties were signed at the fort with a military post. It was located on the Platte River line
northern Plains tribes. The fort was abandoned by of overland march and was widely influential in the
the military in 1890 and serves today as a National fur trade of the region. In addition, the fort was out-
Historic Site. side the buffalo ranges of the Plains tribes and there-
Aspiring to take advantage of the lucrative fur fore did not interfere with their major commissary.
trade in the region, William Sublette and Robert As overland travel increased rapidly, the army rec-
Campbell, two experienced traders, established Fort ognized the growing importance of the region. The
Laramie in 1834. The fort is located on the left bank need to protect travelers from Indians was a major
of the Laramie River about a mile above its junction concern for the military. Following the purchase, the
with the North Platte River. At the time of its estab- army embarked on a major transformation of the
lishment, Fort Laramie was the first permanent set- post. At first, old buildings were occupied by the
tlement of white men in the heart of the buffalo military units, but gradually they were torn down;
country. The name of the fort has changed over time. by 1862 they had been replaced completely with new
In 1834, it was named Fort William; and in 1841, structures.
when the second fort was built, its name was The army used the fort mainly to aid over-
changed to Fort John. All along, Fort Laramie was land travelers and to control Indian tribes. For
the most popular name for the place. After the mili- travelers, the fort provided supplies, medical
tary took over in 1849, this popular name was care, communication facilities, and other services.
retained and made official. The name comes from The army also improved the trails. Fort Laramie
the nearby river, which was named after French was in many ways an isolated community in the
trapper Jacques Laramie. middle of the plains, but for many travelers it
On June 26, 1849, the U.S. Army purchased the functioned as an important landmark of civiliza-
post for $4,000 from the American Fur Company, tion 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)

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 were made for its abandonment and one year after
wars. Many small skirmishes were fought in the the decision was reached, the troops marched away
vicinity, but Fort Laramie’s main function was as a from Fort Laramie for the last time. For nearly fifty
supply station for the soldiers during the northern years, the fort was allowed to decay. In 1937,
Plains Indian campaigns. In 1851 and 1868, two Wyoming appropriated funds for the purchase of
major treaties with the northern Plains tribes were the former military site and its donation to the fed-
signed at the fort. With these treaties, the Indians eral government. In 1938, the Fort Laramie Historic
surrendered most of their claims to the region. The Site became a unit in the National Park System. The
Sioux and Cheyenne campaigns of 1876 and 1877 fort has been restored to its 1876 appearance.
saw the last major military confrontations with Janne Lahti
Native Americans in the region.
With the coming of the railroads and increas- See also: Annuities; Treaty; Treaty of Fort Laramie
ing settlement, the role of the fort changed. The with Sioux, Etc.– September 17, 1851.
Union Pacific railway ran seventy miles to the References and Further Reading
south, and the Chicago Northwestern ran fifty Hafen, Le Roy R., and Francis Marion Young. 1984.
miles to the north; no longer on the main routes of Fort Laramie and the Pageant of the West,
1834–1890. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
travel, the fort began to decline in importance. In
Press.
the late 1870s, ranchers and homesteaders moved Hedren, Paul L. 1998. Fort Laramie and the Great Sioux
into the region. At first, the fort served as a supply War. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
center and offered protection for many of these set- Nadeau, Remi. 1997. Fort Laramie and the Sioux. Santa
tlers; but in 1890, four years after recommendations Barbara, CA: Crest.

424 Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania
. . . a great five-sided ditch, with the earth of

Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania the ditch thrown up to form a rampart over
The Fort Pitt stronghold played an important role twenty feet high and sixty feet wide. On the
in early American history. Its location at the inter- landward side, the ramparts supported by
section of three major rivers (the Allegheny, the strong brick retaining walls, with the tips of
Monongahela, and the Ohio) was strategically the bastions further reinforced by cut stone.
important for anyone wanting to secure the area. On the less vulnerable river sides, the walls
During the mid-eighteenth century, England and and bastions were sodded. They were covered
France jockeyed for position and claims to land in with squares of turf laid perpendicularly to
the New World. During the 1750s, the French tried the slope of the wall, and secured with long
to gain an edge on the English by denying them wooden pins. On top of the ramparts, a
access to Ohio country. To accomplish this task, sodded parapet 18 feet thick was erected for
the French captured many English settlements in protection of artillery and soldiers firing small
the area now known as western Pennsylvania. arms. Behind this parapet ran a level space 20
One such captured outpost was that founded by feet wide, providing a platform for cannon
the Englishman William Trent in the late 1740s at and the necessary room for recoil after firing.
the intersection of those most important three . . . A sentry walking his post on the high,
rivers. windy ramparts of Fort Pitt, looked down on a
The French captured this key outpost in 1754 kind of walled city inside the great pentagon
and immediately began to construct Fort of earth and masonry. Around the central
Duquesne. The escalating tension between the parade could be housed from 700 to 1,000
French, the English, and the Native Americans men. Two storied barracks, one of brick 190
peaked in 1756 at the start of the French and feet long quartered the wooden ones of
Indian War. In the winter of 1758, the English weatherboard and shingles, were provided
army, led by General John Forbes, was accompa- with chimneys that served four rooms and
nied by George Washington, John Armstrong, and furnished cooking facilities. In the brick
the Swiss officer Colonel Henry Bouquet. Wash- barracks there was a closet in each room,
ington commanded 1,900 troops from Virginia, building with cut-stone steps. All these long,
and John Armstrong commanded 2,700 men from narrow buildings could be seen grouped
Pennsylvania. The troops marched across the Juni- symmetrically around the parade, parallel to
ata River and over the Allegheny foothills on a the curtain walls. But hidden away in the
course to Fort Duquesne. Washington, sent for- immensely thick ramparts were large store-
ward to the fort with 2,500 men, was quite sur- houses, magazines, and casements. Most
prised to find only 500 French troops at Fort provision and all the ammunition was stored
Duquesne. The French, seeing Washington’s underground. Underground was also the
forces, burned the fort and ran for cover. On guardhouse and dungeons, where prisoners
November 25, 1758, the English secured Fort awaited trial in the darkness. (O’Meara 1965)
Duquesne and renamed it Fort Pitt in honor of the
English statesman William Pitt. Fort Pitt was not only an important geographic
Once the English controlled the strategic area of location for the French and Indian War, it was the
Fort Pitt, they began construction on a new and first place where a treaty was signed between the
improved fort. Construction on the fort officially United States and the Delaware (Lanape) Indians.
began on the arrival of General Stanwix’s chief engi- The treaty with the Delaware was signed on Sep-
neer, Captain Harry Gordon. The crew arrived in tember 17, 1778, and was composed of six articles.
August, and work began on September 3, 1759. The The first article stated that “all offences or acts of
crew felled trees and dug coal and limestone from hostilities by one, or either of the contracting parties
the surrounding hills in the area that is now Mount against the other, be mutually forgiven, and buried
Washington. A sawmill was built upstream from the in the depth of oblivion, never more to be had in
fort, and lumber was sent downriver to the fort. Due remembrance.” This historic document was signed
to a lack of necessary lumber resources in the area, by Andrew Lewis, Thomas Lewis, White Eyes, the
General Stanwix ordered the fort to be a dirt one. It Pipe, and John Kill Buck at Fort Pitt.
has been described as Arthur Holst

Fort Sumner, New Mexico 425
See also Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775; Knox, created in 1861 as part of a new policy for the reloca-
Henry; Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, tion of Navajos and Apaches. The captive Indians
1778. were relocated to the reservation in a forced march
References and Further Reading called the Long Walk. The treaty of 1868 recognized
O’Meara, Walter. 1965. Guns at the Forks. Pittsburgh:
the failure of the reservation experiment for Navajo
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: and Apache peoples and ordered the abandonment
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: of the remote camp.
University of California Press. Beginning in the 1840s, the United States con-
Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North cluded a series of treaties with the Navajo, annexing
America. New York and London: Oxford their land and regulating trade. By 1851, a network
University Press. of garrisons had been built to defend sheep and cat-
Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1990. The American Indian in
tle ranches from Indian raids. Using the Indian Trade
Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest.
New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 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 Christo-
Fort Sumner, New Mexico pher “Kit” Carson were the architects of this reserva-
Fort Sumner, New Mexico, on a parcel of land that tion plan. The Fort Sumner area was selected in 1863
covered more than twenty-five square miles, was the in the belief that it would create a buffer between
site of the largest internment of Native Americans in Native American raiding groups. Almost nine thou-
U.S. history. The Bosque Redondo Reservation was sand 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)

426 Greenville, Ohio
remote reservation, where an attempt would be west of the city of Piqua. Greenville lends its name to
made to “reeducate” them to adopt “white ways” two treaties: the first Treaty of Greenville in 1795, fol-
and to develop a “model” agricultural station. The lowing the Frontier Wars of the Old Northwest, and
first group, of more than five thousand, was held the second in 1814, during the War of 1812.
under prisonlike conditions; food and supply distri- Founded in 1794 by General Anthony Wayne,
bution problems caused death from starvation and the original place name of Fort Green Ville, used as a
disease. Insect infestations, hailstorms, and flooding supply depot, was bestowed by Wayne in honor of
destroyed crops for three straight years. By 1865, the his late friend General Nathaniel Greene, a Revolu-
raiding parties regained control, and Indians vio- tionary War comrade. Following the American vic-
lated laws by leaving the reservation in droves. tory in 1795, Wayne ordered all tribes to attend a
Though the federal government spent over council and agree to the treaty to put an end to the
$1 million annually to maintain the camp, the plan war and settle “controversies.” The U.S. government
was an utter failure. After a year of political debate wished to “restore harmony and friendly inter-
involving the Doolittle Committee, the Office of course.”
Indian Affairs, and an Indian Peace Commission, the On August 3, 1795, an agreement was con-
remaining Navajos were allowed to leave Fort Sum- cluded that established a boundary line between the
ner in June 1868. land belonging to the Indians and the land belong-
A subsequent agreement signed at Fort Sumner ing to the United States. The Indians agreed not to
created a permanent reservation of almost 3.5 mil- make war on the United States or any of the people
lion square miles along the present New Mexico- on the American or eastern side of the boundary.
Arizona border. Unfortunately, key economic cen- Though most of this land was in the Territory of
ters and the richest farm and grazing lands were Ohio and later would become the state of Ohio,
wrested from Navajo control by the agreement. some of it extended into what became the territory of
Indian groups were given unwritten permission to Indiana, leaving that area to come into some dispute
use off-reservation land in the Fort Sumner area in the very first decade of the nineteenth century.
provided it was not occupied by whites. Many The Indians were to allow whites to freely travel
Navajos took this opportunity to return to their through their country along a chain of posts estab-
original homesites. The Bosque Redondo experience lished in another article of the treaty.
was so traumatic for the Navajo nation that their The Indians agreed to give up or cede land
history marks its timeline from the time of the incar- covering some sixteen different areas, including
ceration forward. Fort Wayne, Detroit, Michilimackinac, and Chicago.
Pamela Lee Gray These sites had become or were about to become
U.S. military garrisons for the purpose of policing
See also Carson, Kit; Doolittle Committee; Long
and preventing whites from settling on land
Walk; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868.
References and Further Reading nearby. Other exceptions of land included the sites
Bailey, Garrick Alan, and Roberta Glenn Bailey. 1998. of Fort Knox, near Vincennes on the Wabash River;
A History of the Navajo: The Reservation Years. Fort Massac, on the Ohio; and Clarksville, also on
Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research the Ohio. During the years following the Treaty of
Press. Greenville, the U.S. Army came to be known as the
Iverson, Peter. 2002. Diné: A History of the Navajos. Peace Establishment Army because it was to main-
tain peace on the frontier and in Indian country and
Iverson, Peter. 1981. The Navajo Nation. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
to prevent the intrusion of whites onto land belong-
Johnson, Broderick H., ed. 1970. Navajo Stories of the ing exclusively to the Indians. By the Indians’
Long Walk Period. Tsaile, AZ: Navajo agreement, the U.S. government would relinquish
Community College Press. 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.
Greenville, Ohio In February 1803, President Jefferson commis-
Greenville, Ohio, is located along Greenville Creek sioned Indiana Territory’s governor, William
and Mud Creek in western Ohio, about twenty miles Henry Harrison, to treat for the U.S. government.

Medicine Creek, Washington 427
Harrison was given the power to work out land See also Cass, Lewis; Harrison, William Henry;
cession treaties with all tribes in the Old Northwest Tecumseh; Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Treaty
territory, beginning in April 1803 at Fort Wayne. with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Treaty
Jefferson revealed his intentions and interests in a with the Wyandot, Etc.–July 22, 1814; Wabash
River, Indiana; Wayne, Anthony.
secretive letter that spelled out how the United
States was to encourage the leaders of tribes to run Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet.
up debts to the U.S. government and then use the Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
land cessions as a way to pay off such debt. In Esarey, Logan, ed. 1922. Governors’ Messages and
addition, the plan was to eventually move all Indi- Letters. Messages and Letters of William Henry
ans to land west of the Mississippi. At the time, Jef- Harrison. 2 vols. Indiana Historical Collections
ferson was working under the threat of Napoleon’s VII and IX. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical
Commission.
possible reestablishment of the French in the
Hornbeck, Helen Tanner, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes
Louisiana Territory. The treaties that followed in Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma
1803, 1805, and particularly in 1809, contributed to Press.
increasing tension along the Greenville treaty line Sugden, John. 1997. Tecumseh, a Life. New York:
and beyond. Henry Holt.
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 Medicine Creek, Washington
Prophet—decided to establish a village alongside The Medicine Creek treaty was the first of ten
Greenville that is often referred to as the first treaties made with the Indians of Puget Sound, the
Prophetstown. As the brothers spread their political Pacific Coast, and the lower Columbia River. This
and spiritual gospel, Indians as well as whites felt first treaty got its name from the location at which it
hostilities brewing. As the brothers’ influence was signed, the right bank of Medicine Creek. This
increased, so did their village; followers flocked to creek parallels the Nisqually River and then runs
make Greenville their home. Voicing their concerns west, emptying into Puget Sound (Hazard 1952, 123;
about the treaties of Harrison’s manufacture and see- White 1972, 60). The actual signing of the treaty hap-
ing the influx of settlers, the brothers felt exposed to pen on a wooded knoll, where the “Treaty Tree” (a
their enemies by living so close to the whites. So in Douglas fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii), now just a snag,
1808, they moved to Indiana Territory, along the stands in remembrance (Wilkinson 2000, 11). Today,
Tippecanoe and Wabash rivers, to establish the sec- this historic spot can be found by traveling on south-
ond Prophetstown. bound Interstate 5 north of Olympia and taking Exit
As the War of 1812 extended into 1814, the 114, half a mile after the Nisqually River Bridge. A
government directed Harrison, now a general, and marker in the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Lewis Cass, governor of Michigan Territory, to commemorates the signing of the treaty (Hazard
treat once again—this time with the tribes that had 1952, 126).
followed the Shawnee brothers but now were At this historic site, on December 24–26, 1854,
interested in settling in favor of peace. Meeting at Isaac Stevens, the first territorial governor of Wash-
Greenville on July 22, 1814, the United States ington State (Hazard 1952, 125), sat in council with
offered peace and asked the tribes to help the six hundred to seven hundred Nisqually, Squaxon,
United States end the war with Great Britain and Puyallup, Steilacoom, Muckelshoot, and other bands
the tribes that remained hostile to the United of the upper Puget Sound Indians (White 1972, 60). It
States. In return for the Indians’ cooperation and was here that sixty-two chiefs, delegates, and head-
aid, the United States agreed to keep land bound- men of the tribes of King, Pierce, Thurston, and
aries as they had been prior to the outbreak of the Mason counties signed the crucial treaty (Hazard
war. But this treaty was not the end of land bound- 1952, 126; Stevens 1900, 460). In doing so, they relin-
ary protection. With the war ending the following quished title to 2.5 million acres (Wilkinson 2000, 12),
January, this Treaty of Greenville heralded a more thus reducing their tribal holdings to a mere 4,700
pressing and demanding era of land cession acres (Carpenter 1994, 391).
treaties. In exchange, they were granted reservations
Sally Colford Bennett and the right to graze their horses, hunt, and fish

428 Michilimackinac, Michigan
(Stevens 1900, 459; White 1972, 61; Wilkinson 2000, Weatherford, Jack. 1994. Savages and Civilization. New
12). The Puget Sound tribes were also to be paid York: Crown.
$32,000 for their land in allotments over a twenty- White, Richard. 1972. “The Treaty at Medicine Creek:
Indian-White Relations on Upper Puget Sound,
year period (White 1972, 62); in addition, $3,250 was
1830–1880.” Master’s thesis, University of
to be spent to equip the reservations with schools, Washington.
medical facilities, and farm equipment. They were Wilkinson, Charles. 2000. Messages from Frank’s
also promised carpenters, teachers, a blacksmith, Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian
and a physician (Stevens 1900, 459). Way. Seattle, WA: University of Washington
Soon after the treaty was signed, the tribes Press.
began to realize that the heavily wooded reserva-
tions 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
Michilimackinac, Michigan
immediately forwarded the treaty to the U.S. Senate, Originally, the name Michilimackinac was applied
who ratified it on March 3, 1855, only two months only to the 2,100-acre island that stands at the junc-
after the signing (Hazard, 1952, 126; Stevens 1900, tion of Lakes Huron and Michigan. In time, the
462). Leschi, the influential Nisqually chief, refused name was applied to the entire region of the Straits
to move his people onto the reservation and began of Mackinac, the waterway separating Michigan’s
to fight for a more suitable land base (Wilkinson northern peninsula from the Lower Peninsula.
2000, 15). In October 1855, after the United States Michilimackinac is usually said to take its name
failed to reach a compromise with Leschi, the Indian from the Ojibwe for “Big Turtle.” The Ottawa histo-
War of 1855–1857 erupted. The conflict lasted for rian Andrew Blackbird, in his traditional history,
more than eight months (Wilkinson 2000, 15). Gover- claimed that the proper name was Mishinemackinong
nor Stevens eventually exchanged those reservations and that it memorialized an earlier Indian people
for fertile bottom soil suitable for farming (Hazard who made the island their home before being
1952, 127). destroyed by the Iroquois.
Conflict over hunting and fishing rights also Following the construction of a French fort on
occurred as a result of the treaty. In the court case the southern shore of the straits in 1715, Michili-
United States v. Washington State, the Puget Sound mackinac became an annual gathering point for the
tribes argued that, according to the Medicine Creek Ojibwe, Ottawa, and French fur traders. In 1761, the
treaty, they were allowed to fish “at all usual and English took possession of the fort but failed to form
accustomed grounds and stations . . . in common amicable economic and political relations with the
with all citizens of the Territory.” In 1974, in what is Ottawa and Ojibwe. This led to a successful Ottawa
referred to as the Boldt Decision, the court ruled in and Ojibwe attack on the fort in 1763. With greater
favor of the Nisqually, giving them 50 percent of all tact, the English reestablished their garrison, only to
the harvestable fish (Carpenter 1994, 392; Weather- relocate it from the mainland to Mackinac Island in
ford 1994, 202). 1779. From that time onward, Mackinac Island
Rene Casebeer became the leading fur trading center in the Great
Lakes region.
See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), In 1795, the Ojibwe and Ottawa ceded Michili-
1974; Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering;
mackinac to the United States in the Treaty of
Reserved Rights Doctrine; Treaty with the
Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854. Greenville. Although the treaty stated that the ces-
References and Further Reading sion included “[t]he post of Michilimackinac, and all
Carpenter, Cecelia Svinth. 1994. Native America in the the land on the island,” an Ottawa tradition held
Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Mary B. that the Ojibwe reserved the entire shore of the
Davis. New York and London: Garland. island as far inland as a stone could be thrown, to
Hazard, Joseph T. 1952. Companion of Adventure: A provide a camping place when they came to the
Biography of Isaac Ingalls Stevens: First Governor
island for council or trade. Ojibwe aid was critical to
of Washington Territory. Portland, OR: Binfords,
Mort.
the success of the British in capturing and holding
Stevens, Hazard. 1900. The Life of Isaac Ingalls Stevens, Mackinac Island during the War of 1812.
vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin/ Another small land cession was wrested from
Riverside Press. the Ojibwe and Ottawa in 1820. Lewis Cass, gover-

New Echota, Georgia 429
nor of the Michigan Territory, held negotiations at In 1979, in the federal district court case United
Michilimackinac and at the Ottawa villages along States v. Michigan, the meaning of the 1836 treaty
Little Traverse Bay to win the cession of the Saint became once more a matter of controversy. In that
Martin Islands. These Lake Huron islands were case, the Ottawa and Ojibwe successfully asserted
thought by the U.S. government to be a valuable that nothing in the 1836 treaty abridged their right to
source of plaster of paris. In return for this cession, fish when and where they wanted on the Great
the Ottawa and Ojibwe received “a quantity of Lakes, including on the waters of Michilimackinac.
goods.” Theodore J. Karamanski
The most important treaty for the Ottawa and
See also Cass, Lewis; Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe;
Ojibwe people of the Michilimackinac region was
Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Ottawa and
the 1836 Treaty of Washington. Negotiated by Henry Chippewa–July 6, 1820; Treaty with the Ottawa,
Rowe Schoolcraft, the treaty led to the cession of a Etc.–March 28, 1836; Treaty with the Wyandot,
large arc of northwestern Michigan lands, from Etc.–August 3, 1795; Trust Doctrine.
the Grand River on the south to the headwaters References and Further Reading
of the Escanaba River in the Upper Peninsula. The Danziger, Edmund, Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake
negotiation took place under the shadow of U.S. Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
removal policy. The decline of the fur trade economy
Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis: Keepers of
and cultural changes triggered by the growth of the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Christian missions among the Ottawa and Ojibwe Prucha, Francis Paul. 1967. Lewis Cass and American
also played an important role in shaping the deal Indian Policy. Detroit, MI: Wayne State
negotiated in Washington. For the Ottawa and University Press.
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 New Echota, Georgia
Ottawa’s and Ojibwe’s concerns for the future by Today, New Echota is a historic park located in Cal-
protecting them from removal and empowering houn, Georgia. Several timber buildings located at
cultural and economic change. the junction of the Coosawatee and Conasauga
Between July 12 and 16, 1836, a general council rivers are the only remaining relics of the capital
of leaders of the Ottawa and Ojibwe bands was held established by the Cherokee Nation in 1825. The
on Mackinac Island. The purpose of the council was story of New Echota begins with change and the
to obtain their consent for the treaty as revised by the hopes of the Cherokee (Ani’-Yun’ wiya, “The Peo-
U.S. Senate. The Senate had made a major revision in ple”) and ends tragically with the death of a group
the treaty. The large reservations that, according to of important leaders and the forced removal of the
the draft treaty, were to be held for an unspecified majority of the nation’s citizens to present-day
time were altered to be held for a mere five years. In Oklahoma.
the draft treaty, removal was voluntary, with the The name New Echota was derived from Chota,
region of the Upper Mississippi suggested as the an important historic Cherokee city located in pres-
site. The Senate removed all mention of the Upper ent-day Tennessee. Chota describes the center and
Mississippi region and instead specified the region heart of the Ani’-Yun’ wiya.
“South West of the Missouri River.” Instead of pro- The Cherokee capital included the print shop of
tecting the bands from removal, the revised treaty the Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate, a bilingual
seemed to make that possibility imminent. School- newspaper written and edited by Elias Boudinot
craft, who conducted the council, reported that some (Buck Oowaite) using the Cherokee alphabet
of the chiefs “strenuously opposed” giving up the invented by Sequoyah in 1821. The printing house
reservations after only five years. In the end, the eco- was constructed late in 1827. The Vann Tavern, home
nomic advantages of signing the treaty, together of missionary Samuel Worcester, one of the major
with the right of the Ottawa and Ojibwe to reside supporters of the Cherokee in Georgia, was also
upon the ceded lands “until the land is required for located in the capital. Cherokee surveyors planned
settlement,” convinced the leaders to agree to the the town with a central square and wide main
revised treaty. streets. More than fifty people made their homes in

430 Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin
the new capital, and many more came to shop, to do structures were torn down for wood or simply lifted
business at the government offices, and to attend from their foundations and relocated to other areas.
meetings at the Council House. Today, visitors to New Echota can see re-creations
The Council House in New Echota, along with of buildings that made up the Cherokee Nation in
the Supreme Court building, was the heart of the 1830. In the mid-1950s, Lewis Larsen, Joe Caldwell,
new government. New Echota was the capital of the and a group of archaeologists began research and
eight districts of the Cherokee Nation, which restoration work. The Supreme Court and print shop
included Hickory Log, Chickmaugee, Chattoogee, have been reconstructed, and the Vann Tavern has
Amoah, Etowah, Tahquohee, Awuohee, and Coose- been restored. New Echota is listed on the United
watee. Each district sent four delegates to the States National Register of Historic Places and began
National Council, the lower house; in turn, these operation as a state park in 1962. The buildings are
members elected twelve individuals to the National open to the public and host educational events to
Committee, an upper house. The National Commit- celebrate Cherokee history and heritage throughout
tee was responsible for electing the main chief, the the year.
assistant chief, and the Cherokee Nation’s treasurer. Pamela Lee Gray
This governmental design changed the traditional
See also Boudinot, Elias; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,
Cherokee clan organization and instead used the
1831; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Johnson v.
model of the United States government: an upper M’Intosh, 1823; Ridge, John Rollin; Ridge, Major;
and lower legislature, a high court, and an executive Trail of Tears; Treaty with the Cherokee–
branch. The Council House and the Supreme Court December 29, 1835; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832.
building in New Echota were visible symbols of the References and Further Reading
new Cherokee Nation. Bays, Brad A. 1998. Townsite Settlement and
Political treaties changing the course of the Dispossession in the Cherokee Nation, 1866–1907.
nation were debated and signed at the new capital. New York and London: Garland.
Conley, Robert J. 2005. The Cherokee Nation: A History.
The Treaty of New Echota of 1835 was instrumen-
tal in the downfall and eventual assassination of Finger, John R. 1984. The Eastern Band of Cherokees:
three important Cherokee leaders. Elias Boudinot, 1819–1900. Knoxville: University of Tennessee
John Ridge, and Major Ridge signed a treaty to sell Press.
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 Terri-
tory or to stay and fight what seemed to be an
unstoppable government from taking Cherokee Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin
lands in Georgia was a controversial and detailed Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, is the site of three
decision. Not all Cherokees thought that leaving treaties among Native nations and the United States,
was the only option. Many of the tribe had left for the most significant of which was signed in 1825. In
new lands before the treaty in 1835. The Cherokee that year, disputes among Native tribes and the
Nation presented a challenge, asking the U.S. high resulting impact on white settlement led the United
court to block the removal of the Cherokee from States to convene a peace conference. A thousand
their lands in Georgia as required by the Cherokee representatives from Native tribes met at Prairie du
Removal Act of 1830. The Supreme Court of the Chien with William Clark, Lewis Cass, Indian agent
United States sided with the Cherokee Nation, but Thomas Forsyth, and other U.S. negotiators to set
U.S. President Andrew Jackson would not recog- boundaries for Native nations.
nize the court decision and ordered removal. The Situated at the confluence of the Wisconsin
group was forcibly taken from the capital in 1838. and Mississippi rivers, the site where the city of
This forced removal was known as the Trail of Prairie du Chien now stands had served as neutral
Tears. ground for meetings among tribes for hundreds of
After the Cherokees were removed or moved years. French fur traders were established on St.
away from the capital, the buildings fell into disre- Feriole Island at the confluence soon after the
pair. The newspaper offices had been burned to the arrival there of Marquette and Jolliet in the late
ground in a raid by the Georgia Guard in 1834. The 1600s, and diverse tribes traded there. During the
once-proud capital was a ghost town by 1838. Town War of 1812, the British secured fleeting control

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 Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a por-
French traders who were commercially tied to tion of the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawattomie,
Canadian ports. With the conclusion of that war, Tribes.”
the United States regained control over Prairie du The tenth article of the treaty asserted the “con-
Chien and built Fort Crawford, site of the treaty trolling power” of the United States over the terri-
signing in 1825. tory in question. Other articles of the treaty stated
By 1825, conflicts among Native groups had the boundaries within which each group would live
become common. Eastern tribes were relocating to but acknowledged that further negotiation would be
new territories; alliances among tribes, the British necessary to finalize several of the boundaries. Some
and U.S. governments, and French fur traders groups with an interest in lands covered by the
shifted frequently; white settlement increasingly treaty—particularly tribes in New York—were not
encroached on Native land; and competition for represented or were underrepresented in the negoti-
resources was growing. The treaty of 1825 ations at Prairie du Chien, and separate negotiations
addressed conflicts among tribes that lived in a were required to secure their consent to provisions
vast area stretching from New York State to what is of the treaty. Ojibwe bands were spread throughout
now South Dakota. Direct parties to the treaty the area covered by the treaty, and a full year is allo-
included “Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, cated in the treaty for informing Ojibwe bands of its

432 Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin
provisions. The work begun at Prairie du Chien was The territory of the Dakota people, for instance, as
furthered in treaties at Fond du Lac in 1826 and defined in the treaty of 1825, covered part of what
Butte des Morts in 1827. are now five states; by 1851, all Dakota people were
While the Prairie du Chien treaty of 1825 was expected by the federal government to live on a strip
not a land concession treaty, it did serve as a critical of land in Minnesota five miles wide and seventy
step in the acquisition of Indian lands by white set- miles long. Among the many land concession
tlers and the federal government. Although the treaties that followed the “peace” treaty of 1825
fourth article of the 1825 treaty at Prairie du Chien are two that were signed in Prairie du Chien, by the
states that “the sole object of this agreement [is] to Ojibwe people in 1829 and by members of a variety
perpetuate a peace” among Native tribes, historians of tribes (including Ojibwe and Dakota bands)
have debated how central land acquisition was to in 1830.
the intentions of the United States in brokering the Martin Case
treaty. Competing land claims by various tribes
made land acquisition problematic, and the concept
of strict divisions of territory was not necessarily See also Cass, Lewis; Clark, William; Forsyth,
compatible with traditional relationships to the land Thomas; Treaty with the Chippewa–August
among many of the tribes. Regardless of whether the 5, 1826; Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–
August 11, 1827; Treaty with the Sioux,
intent of the United States was to “clear the title” to
Etc.–August 19, 1825.
millions of acres through the treaty of 1825, this was References and Further Reading
decidedly the outcome, and Indian landholdings Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake
rapidly diminished after 1825 through purchase by Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma
individuals and concessions in subsequent treaties. 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)

Santa Fe, New Mexico 433
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: for firewood and sold their annuities to traders for
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley and rancid meat and spoiled supplies. In early Decem-
Los Angeles: University of California Press. ber, tribal members received only partial annuities in
Satz, Ronald. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
the form of goods but no cash. Many set out immedi-
Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa
Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions,
ately for home, walking because the rivers had
Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters frozen over and canoes were useless. Others stayed
79(1), 1–251. at Sandy Lake to tend to ill family members. Accord-
ing 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
Sandy Lake, Minnesota the ground thawed in the spring, they buried many
Sandy Lake in northeastern Minnesota was the of them at Sandy Lake. Some grieving parents car-
intended relocation destination of the Lake Superior ried the bodies of their children back to their villages
Ojibwe and the site of an 1850 Ojibwe tragedy. In for burials. In 1851, when government officials again
violation of terms agreed upon in the 1837 and 1842 announced that they would distribute annuity goods
Ojibwe land cession treaties, Indian agents moved at Sandy Lake, most Ojibwe refused to travel there to
the 1850 annuity payment location from La Pointe in claim them. The following year, Buffalo traveled to
Wisconsin Territory to Sandy Lake in Minnesota Ter- Washington, D.C., and persuaded President Millard
ritory, a distance of nearly three hundred canoe Fillmore to rescind the removal order and establish
miles away. The change was intended to force the four permanent Ojibwe reservations in Wisconsin.
Ojibwe to overwinter in Minnesota, where govern- In 2000, tribal officials and representatives of the
ment officials hoped to permanently relocate them. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
An estimated four thousand Ojibwe from nineteen erected a memorial at Sandy Lake to commemorate
bands made the trip. However, agents had not made the tragedy. It consists of four hundred stones, one
adequate plans to feed or house them. Winter for each of the approximately four hundred Ojibwe
arrived early, and the payments and supplies were who died making the ill-fated journey. The memorial
late. Approximately 170 Ojibwe died from dysentery is called Mikwendaagoziwag, or “They Will Not Be
and measles at Sandy Lake. Another 230 died trying Forgotten.”
to make their way back home. The tragedy increased Patricia A. Loew
Ojibwe resistance to relocation and intensified efforts
to establish permanent reservations in Wisconsin. See also Buffalo; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the
Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty with the
During the treaty negotiations of 1842, federal
Chippewa–December 20, 1837; Treaty with the
officials promised the Ojibwe they would not be Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Trust Responsibility.
removed from Wisconsin unless they “misbehaved.” References and Further Reading
Within six years, however, rumors of an impending Armstrong, Benjamin. 1892. Early Life Among the
relocation had reached tribal leaders. Principal Chief Indians. Ashland, WI: Press of A. W. Bowron.
Buffalo sent out runners to the Ojibwe villages to see Chippewa. 1988. “1865 Statement Made by the
if any of the bands had, in fact, transgressed and bro- Indians: A Bilingual Petition.” In Studies in the
Interpretation of Canadian Native American
ken the terms of the treaty. No such misbehavior was
Languages and Cultures, ed. John D. Nichols.
reported. However, on February 6, 1850, at the urg- London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
ing of Minnesota territorial governor Alexander Loew, Patty. 2001. Indian Nations of Wisconsin:
Ramsey, President Zachary Taylor signed the Histories of Endurance and Renewal. Madison, WI:
removal order. Territorial officials wanted the Wisconsin Historical Society Press.
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 annu- Santa Fe, New Mexico
ities to arrive at Sandy Lake. Flooding damaged the Situated in the western foothills of the Sangre de
foodstuffs that the traders—ever-present at annuity Cristo Mountains, Santa Fe has been New Mexico’s
gatherings—brought with them. While waiting for political hub and capital for nearly four centuries.
their treaty goods, many Ojibwe burned their canoes The city is in close proximity to the nineteen Pueblo

434 Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario
villages of the Rio Grande valley and has thus Spanish government gave legal protection to the
played a key role in relations with the neighboring Pueblos by parceling out and “granting” tracts of
Indians. The Spanish, Mexican, and American gov- land. When Mexico declared its independence from
ernments may have varied in their respective Indian Spain in 1821, the new regime recognized and
policies, but they all recognized the utility of Santa respected these land grants. Less than thirty years
Fe’s central location. later, when the Americans signed the Treaty of
The Spanish first established La Villa Real de Guadalupe Hidalgo and took control of New Mex-
Santa Fe in 1610 on the north bank of the Rio Santa ico, they, too, honored the Pueblos’ lands as defined
Fe. However, archaeological evidence suggests that by the Spanish the previous century.
the ancestral Pueblo people lived on the site at least Yet relations between the Pueblos and the gov-
a thousand years before the Spanish arrival. The ernment in Santa Fe were far from ideal. During the
original Pueblo inhabitants moved to other loca- Mexican-American War, Indians from Taos Pueblo
tions, probably because of drought and/or assassinated the newly installed American governor.
increased raiding by local marauding tribes. The Moreover, through much of the nineteenth century,
Spanish, nevertheless, saw the site as ideal. Once whites ignored the Pueblos’ property titles and set-
established, the first Spanish governor of La Provin- tled on their land. The situation was aggravated in
cia de Nuevo Mexico, Pedro de Peralta, immedi- 1876 when the Supreme Court ruled in United States
ately set about instituting his Indian policy. Accord- v. Joseph that federal Indian law did not apply to the
ingly, the encomienda system granted large tracts of Pueblos because the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
land to Spanish settlers, who required the local granted them citizenship rights. The decision gave
Pueblos to pay tribute by giving the settlers a por- the territorial government the power to treat each
tion of their crops. At the same time, Franciscan mis- Pueblo village like any other municipality, leading to
sionaries sought to convert the Indians, planting further white encroachment. However, in the 1913
churches in each Pueblo village. Tension between case United States v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court
the civil and religious arms of Spanish colonialism effectively nullified the earlier verdict, ruling that the
mounted through the 1600s as each sought to shape Pueblos were indeed wards of the federal govern-
the nature and function of the colony. The Pueblos ment. The decision shifted power from Santa Fe to
were caught in the middle of this wrangling, with Washington, D.C.—a decision that has held up to the
no voice in the policies that affected them and their present.
homeland. Bradley Shreve
All this changed in 1680. In a carefully planned
See also Southern Plains and the Southwest; Treaty of
revolt, eighteen of the nineteen Pueblos rose up and
Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848.
threw off the shackles of Spanish control. It began in References and Further Reading
Taos Pueblo north of Santa Fe, but soon the entire Noble, David Grant. 1989. Santa Fe: History of an
province was in rebellion. Within days, the capital Ancient City. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
city was under siege. Governor Antonio Otermín Research Press.
barricaded himself and the city’s populace behind Sando, Joe S. 1992. Pueblo Nations: Eight Centuries of
Santa Fe’s walls. What was once a fortress quickly Pueblo Indian History. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.
Tobias, Henry J., and Charles E. Woodhouse. Santa
turned into a prison as the Pueblos cut off the city’s
Fe: A Modern History, 1880–1990. Albuquerque:
food and water supply. Otermín realized that they University of New Mexico Press.
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.
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
As they headed south, Santa Fe fell to the rebels, sig- and Ontario
naling defeat for the Spaniards and their colonial The twin cities of Sault Ste. Marie (pronounced
policy. soo-saint-marie) are situated at the rapids formed at
Twelve years later, in 1692, the Spanish returned the outflow of Lake Superior, which fall approxi-
to New Mexico and once again set up their capital in mately eighteen feet to the level of Lakes Huron and
Santa Fe. This time, however, they recognized Indian Michigan. The rapids once constituted North Amer-
land and water rights. Throughout the 1700s, the ica’s greatest inland fishery, a resource that drew

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario 435
indigenous people to this region more than 2,500 The Sault’s remote location also kept the area
years ago as the drainage patterns of the Great Lakes away from the American and British struggle for
took on their present configuration. control of wide swaths of North American territory
The oral tradition of the Anishnaabeg tells of until 1820, when Michigan territorial governor
their original home as being on the eastern coastal Lewis Cass accompanied a group of U.S. officials
region of what is now the United States and and soldiers to the Sault to extract a land cession
Canada, but disease and suffering compelled them from the Anishnaabeg so that the U.S. government
to move from this homeland. A spirit being led them could establish a military post at the rapids. Before
west to the area now know as Sault Ste. Marie this time, the Native people of the area had thought
(French for “the rapids of the St. Mary’s River”). not in terms of “American” or “British” but simply
When they arrived at this place, many decided to “Indian.” But, despite some serious early difficulties,
settle, but others chose to continue their migration. representatives of the Native inhabitants on both
Using modern geographic designations, those sides of the putative border did make a cession of
Anishnaabeg we now call the Chippewa (or the land, allowing the United States to establish, for the
Ojibway), while staying in the Sault area, also first time, a presence in the area. (It should be noted
moved into the areas surrounding Lake Superior in that the border through the upper St. Mary’s River,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Manitoba, and with its numerous islands, was not finally estab-
Ontario; from the Sault, the Ottawa (or Odawa) lished until 1848.)
moved into the northern Lake Huron area of The first shipping lock was built by the state of
Ontario, as well as into areas in northern Michigan, Michigan in the Sault in 1853, two years before the
especially along the eastern Lake Michigan coast; Ojibway ceded the land where the locks then
the third component of the Three Fires People, the stood. This Treaty of Washington of 1855 purport-
Potawatomi, moved farther south into the area of edly also ceded to the U.S. government the
southwestern Michigan, northern Indiana, north- Natives’ “perpetual” fishing station on the St.
eastern Illinois, and southwestern Wisconsin. All of Mary’s River, retained by them in the treaty of 1820
these people consider the Sault their spiritual home; mentioned previously. To this day, Native people
its Anishnaabeg name is Bawating, which some of the area still dispute the cession of this most
translate as “the gathering place of the People.” important tract of land.
The area was first visited by Europeans in the Sault Ste. Marie was also the site of other impor-
early 1600s, and by 1671 the place had gained such tant treaties and councils, notably the British/Cana-
stature that the French, planning a formal ceremony dian Robinson Treaties of 1850. It should be noted
to lay claim to all of North America, staged the that in these Sault area treaties and in many other
Pageant of St. Lusson at the Sault, calling more than cases, Native leaders from both sides of the border
a dozen tribes to the area to witness this formal terri- were involved in negotiating and signing these
torial claim. The French also hoped to form alliances treaties with both the U.S. and British authorities,
with the area’s indigenous peoples. Earlier, in 1668, and this “cross-border” treaty signing was acknowl-
the French had set up a missionary post there, the edged and accepted by all parties.
date of which is used by some to claim that Sault Ste. By the mid-nineteenth century, Native military
Marie is the third-oldest European settlement in the power and influence began its inexorable decline,
United States. and by the late 1800s Sault Ste. Marie was seldom
Although the French had established a mission- referred to as a place of Native significance but more
ary post in the Sault and had laid formal claim to the often as a place of burgeoning industrial develop-
area, Sault Ste. Marie essentially remained an indige- ment. With the completion of a massive hydroelec-
nous center for the next two centuries, only secon- tric power station on the American side, much of the
darily becoming an important trading post for furs. energy (and water) of the rapids was harnessed. This
The area was too remote to have any direct involve- led to the building of a steel mill and a paper plant
ment in the various North American European on the Canadian side. The construction of new locks
proxy wars, the American Revolution, or the War of on both the U.S. and Canadian sides of the rapids
1812, but warriors from the Sault area were often and the building of two more hydroelectric genera-
called upon (by Pontiac, Tecumseh, and others) to tion plants (one for the locks and one on the Cana-
defend their Great Lakes homelands, which they did dian side) reduced the flow of the rapids to a mere
with valor. trickle and destroyed the tremendous fishery as well.

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 popu- Quimby, George Irving. 1960. Indian Life in the Upper
lation of 16,500 (2000 census), and Sault, Ontario, Great Lakes: 11,000 B.C. to A.D. 1800. Chicago and
boasts a population of 74,500 (2001 data). Four tribes London: University of Chicago Press.
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 St. Joseph, Michigan
the Canadian side of the border. Located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in the
Phil Bellfy 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
See also Cass, Lewis; Robinson Huron Treaty (Second missionaries. The St. Joseph River winds south into
Robinson Treaty)–September 9, 1850; Robinson
Indiana and then back north into Michigan. It is not
Superior Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)–
September 7, 1850; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty to be confused with the St. Joseph River, also in
with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty with southeastern Michigan, that flows south into Indi-
the Chippewa–December 20, 1837; Treaty with ana, joining the St. Mary’s River to form the
the Chippewa–October 4, 1842; Trust Maumee. These two rivers form closely in southern
Responsibility. Michigan. At this site, two significant treaties were
References and Further Reading negotiated in the late 1820s that forced the removal
Arbic, Bernard. 2003. City of the Rapids: Sault Ste.
of hundreds of Potawatomis.
Marie’s Heritage. Allegan Forest, MI: Priscilla
Press.
Although the first decade of the nineteenth cen-
Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake tury witnessed a flood of treaties with some land
Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma cessions led by William Henry Harrison at the direc-
Press. tion of President Thomas Jefferson, the years follow-

St. Louis, Missouri 437
ing the end of the War of 1812 revealed a rush to The French first arrived on the St. Joseph River
force the removal of the remaining bands of about 1679 under the direction of Robert Cavalier
Potawatomi from Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. LaSalle. They constructed a fort inland along the
The first of the treaties negotiated at St. Joseph was river to assist in developing trade, first with the
concluded in September 1827. It sought to consoli- Miami, who had settled the area, and, after they
date the diverse bands of Potawatomi, to remove moved on, with the Potawatomi. The St. Joseph
them far from white settlement, and to distance Potawatomi aligned themselves with Pontiac during
them from the Detroit Road to Chicago, which his rebellion. They attacked the British and took pris-
swung south along the shores of Lake Michigan, by oners. When the British took prisoners from the tribe,
relocating them to land reserved for them by the U.S. the Potawatomi attempted negotiations to get them
government. Ninety-nine sections of surveyed land returned. After long months, the British eventually
formed the reserve south of the St. Joseph River. relented, but not before the St. Joseph Potawatomi
Nineteen chiefs signed this treaty, which was ratified distanced themselves from Pontiac. After the end of
on February 23, 1829. the French and Indian War, the British built their own
The following September, a second treaty was fort at the mouth of the river and named it Fort St.
negotiated, known as the Treaty of Carey Mission Joseph. From here, the British maintained fur trade
after a mission at St. Joseph set up by the Baptists. It, rights over the St. Joseph band of Potawatomi.
too, asked for land cessions. In return, annuities Near the end of the American War of Indepen-
were assigned and trade goods promised. In addi- dence, William Burnett of New Jersey came into the
tion, implements for agriculture and livestock were St. Joseph River valley to operate a fur trade estab-
promised, along with laborers to work for the tribe lishment. He married Kakima, the sister of Topinbee,
to get their farming under way. More important, sep- a Potawatomi chief, creating a lasting alliance. The
arate land grants were given to people of Indian Burnett family remained a strong presence in the
descent. Many of these grants were assigned to region well into the nineteenth century.
Indian wives of white men or to the half-white, half- Sally Colford Bennett
Indian children of mixed-race marriages. Some of
See also Chicago, Illinois; Pokagun; Pontiac;
the grants went to individual chiefs. The location of
Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Treaty with the
the mission, which educated the Indian children, Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833; Treaty with
became uncertain. The U.S. government made no the Potawatomi–September 19, 1827; Treaty
concrete promises to rebuild or relocate the estab- with the Potawatomi–September 20, 1828.
lishment on the new reserve. References and Further Reading
Other treaties negotiated at other locations, par- Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of
ticularly at Chicago in 1833, differed from former the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and
treaties, which had kept the Potawatomi on reserves,
Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC:
to aim for all-out removal from the Lower Peninsula Government Printing Office.
of Michigan. The Chicago treaty pushed for the Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes
destruction of even small reserves. Furthermore, the Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma
treaties negotiated in Indiana at places like Tippeca- Press.
noe 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 St. Louis, Missouri
only from Illinois and Indiana but also from Michi- Located on the west bank of the Mississippi River
gan—in particular, the St. Joseph Potawatomi. Poka- just south of the confluence of the Missouri and Illi-
gun and others of the St. Joseph Potawatomi worked nois rivers, St. Louis was the clashing crossroads of
to remain on the small reserves that had been Native American and American culture from the
assigned to individual members of the tribe. The mid-eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth. As
government could not move them to the west the trading capital of the “westward country,” St.
because of the manner in which these lands had Louis saw the negotiation of many treaties, which
been deeded. To this day, descendants of Pokagun sometimes led to greater conflicts. Beginning in
and these Potawatomi reside on this land. 1804, treaties between the United States and Native

438 St. Louis, Missouri
American tribes of the westward country (now the Louisiana Territory, Meriwether Lewis, sent William
Midwest) were negotiated in St. Louis. Clark, the territorial superintendent of Indian affairs
The first of these treaties was initiated on of all tribes but the Osage, along with an army
November 3, 1804, by Indiana territorial governor detachment from Cantonment Bellefontaine led by
William Henry Harrison with the Sac (Sauk) and Fox Captain Eli Clemson of the 1st U.S. Infantry, a
tribes, who resided in present-day northwestern Illi- detachment of mounted militia, and the St. Charles
nois. Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, Pres- Dragoons to establish a fort and trading factory on
ident Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of War Henry the Missouri River near present-day Kansas City.
Dearborn sought by treating to end to the warring The northern band of the Osage, who lived by
between the Sac and Fox and the Osage over hunt- the junction of the Little Osage, Marais des Cygne,
ing land. Harrison did not directly summon the Sac and the Marmaton rivers (not to be confused with
and Fox tribal leaders to St. Louis to discuss a treaty the southern band, who lived on the Arkansas
as he had in Indiana Territory with the Miami, River), was summoned to meet with Clark, and
Shawnee, Delaware, and Potawatomi. Actually, Clark negotiated a treaty with them. The site of this
members of the Sac and Fox had come to the city to trading venture had been sighted by the Corps of
turn over one warrior of more than three who were Discovery members on their trip to the westward
responsible for the murder of American settlers. country in 1804. Clark and Lewis favored it over a
Showing that he was willing to bargain with them, site at the mouth of the Osage River. This site on the
Harrison arrested the single warrior and let the oth- Missouri upset the Osage, who now had to perma-
ers go without punitive action. nently move closer to the trading house and garrison
In light of the more favorable situation, Harri- rather than have it come to them.
son then began to negotiate a treaty with those Sac Clark returned to St. Louis with the treaty, but
and Fox present. The agreement stipulated that the the treaty displeased Governor Lewis. First, Clark
Sac and Fox would cease to make war on the Osage; had drawn a “buffer zone” boundary line between
would give up their land on the eastern side of the the United States and the Osage that was literally
Mississippi south of the Wisconsin River, east to the within sight of the Osage villages, meaning they
Fox River of Illinois, and west and south to the Mis- couldn’t venture beyond the outer reaches of their
souri River; would receive the protection of the villages. Next, the land cession included all their
United States; and would receive annuities. lands in Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. Other
Although they were allowed to hunt and reside on Osage, including the southern or Arkansas band
the land, and the United States assured them that who had not been present during the treaty negotia-
they would be given the full protection of the gov- tion at Fort Osage (as the site came to be called,
ernment against white citizens who sought to although it was sometimes referred to as Fort Clark),
“intrude” upon them, the treaty further stipulated met with Clark and Lewis in St. Louis and voiced
that no one could trade in the area with them unless their objection to the treaty. Furthermore, they
they were licensed by the U.S. government. The pointed out, the treaty violated Osage political deci-
government promised to establish a trading factory sion making because a majority agreement to it had
in the near future, which they did in 1808 with the not been obtained; they therefore declared they had
erection of Fort Madison on the western bank of the not ceded any territory. Lewis rewrote the treaty to
Mississippi River, north of the Des Moines River. clarify the desires of the United States. He appointed
Five members of the Sac and Fox tribes put their Pierre Chouteau, brother of Auguste, the Indian
mark to the treaty. It was ratified by Congress on agent to the southern or Arkansas band of the Osage,
January 25, 1805. When the members of the Sac and and sent him to get the Osage to sign. Upon
Fox returned home and informed their countrymen, Chouteau’s return with the signed treaty, Lewis dis-
the news upset and disturbed the other tribe mem- covered that Chouteau and Mongrain, Chouteau’s
bers. The treaty enraged the warrior Black Hawk, interpreter, had written in two land grants to benefit
and it continued to infuriate him into the 1830s, as themselves. Lewis struck these out of the treaty, find-
he continued to proclaim that this treaty had stolen ing it despicable that white men should profit in
their lands. land from treaty negotiations; he thereafter held a
Other treaties followed with the Osage nation, grave opinion of the Chouteaus. Following Lewis’s
who had been punished by being banned from trad- untimely death, the new governor, Frederick Bates,
ing with St. Louis traders. The new governor of the negotiated additions to open up trade once more

Tippecanoe River, Indiana 439
with the southern Osage. This treaty with the Osages See also Black Hawk; Chouteau, Auguste; Clark,
was finally ratified in 1810. William; Dearborn, Henry; Dodge, Henry;
The treaties never sat well with the Osage Forsyth, Thomas; Harrison, William Henry;
Lewis, Meriwether; Treaty with the Sauk and
because the trading house/factory was too far from
Fox–November 3, 1804.
their homes. Although some of them moved to Fort References and Further Reading
Osage, by the winter of 1809 they had eventually Carter, Clarence E. 1934–1962. The Territorial Papers of
left and returned to their original villages. It the United States, vol. 14, The Territory of
divided them into two parties. Those who stayed Louisiana-Missouri 1806–1814. Washington, DC:
thought they were making Clark happy. Those who Government Printing Office.
returned were pleasing Chouteau, who had estab- Esarey, Logan. 1922. Messages and Letters of William
lished his own trading house in their villages. The Henry Harrison, vol. 1. Indianapolis: Indiana
Historical Commission.
last time a sizable number of the Osage visited at
Foley, William. 1989. The Genesis of Missouri.
Fort Osage was in April 1812. This distance from Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
their home villages often left them vulnerable to Gregg, Kate L., ed. 1937. Westward with the Dragoons:
attack from their enemies—the Iowa, Sac and Fox, The Journal of William Clark on His Expedition to
and Winnebago. Establish Fort Osage, August 25 to September 22,
In 1813, William Clark was appointed governor 1808. Fulton, MO: Ovid Bell Press.
of the newly named Territory of Missouri. In the Hagan, William T. 1958. The Sac and Fox Indians.
midst of the War of 1812, his attention was still
Jackson, Donald, ed. 1990. Black Hawk, an
intensely focused on Indian affairs. Following the Autobiography. Urbana and Chicago: University
end of the war, Clark negotiated more agreements of Illinois Press.
and treaties with diverse tribes in and around St. Jones, Landon Y. 2004. William Clark and the Shaping of
Louis. In 1818, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun the West. New York: Hill and Wang.
directed Clark to negotiate a treaty to stop the fight- Nichols, Roger L. 1992. Black Hawk and the Warrior’s
ing between the Cherokee, Quapaw, and Osage Path. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.
Rollings, Willard H. 1992. The Osage: An
tribes and to acquire millions of acres of land for a
Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the Prairie-
pittance of money and goods so that the U.S. govern- Plains. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
ment 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 Tippecanoe River, Indiana
white settlement, much of it on land granted for ser- Meandering through 225 miles of northern Indiana,
vice in the war of 1812. the Tippecanoe River, which empties into the
Although there were other French villages in Wabash River northeast of the city of Lafayette,
the area, St. Louis was founded in late December lends its name to a critical battle in 1811 and a series
1764 by Pierre de LeClede Liguest, who had traveled of treaties of the 1830s between the U.S. govern-
from New Orleans to establish his own trading site ment and the Potawatomi of Illinois, Indiana, and
and a village. His fourteen-year-old stepson and Michigan.
employee, Auguste Chouteau, accompanied him. This area was once the homeland of the Miami,
Later, Auguste’s brother Pierre joined them. who gave the river its name, which means “buffalo
Together they not only built the village and eventu- fish”; but by the mid-eighteenth century, the
ally the city of St. Louis but also established a strong Potowatomi had moved into the region, making
foothold in the Indian trade of the Missouri valley. small villages along the river and its streams. In the
The U.S. government had established a cantonment first decade of the nineteenth century, the
called Bellefontaine near St. Louis on the Missouri Potawatomi, under the leadership of Main Poc,
River in 1805. This garrison closed down in 1826 and became followers of the Shawnee Prophet, whose
moved to a new garrison in St. Louis known as Jef- village was located in Ohio. The Prophet and his
ferson Barracks, from which military expeditions up brother, Tecumseh, were anxious to leave the state
the Missouri departed for the West, including some and find a site more in tune with their ideal of
led by General Henry Atkinson. returning to a simpler life that did not depend upon
Sally Colford Bennett the lifestyle and material possessions of the

440 Tippecanoe River, Indiana
Americans. In 1808, Main Poc offered them a section The following summer, the War of 1812 broke out.
of land along the Wabash River where the Tippeca- The tribes aligned themselves with the British
noe entered it. This village, known as Prophetstown, against the Americans.
became an object of controversy. The Americans saw At the end of the war, the tribes found them-
it as a threat to their safety and security as more and selves in a weak position to negotiate peace with the
more diverse tribes flocked to the Prophet to hear United States. Hence, the United States came back
his messages. The various tribes found it a place of with treaty after treaty, whittling away at the land
strength as the Prophet’s brother, Tecumseh, sought long held by the tribes. In the twenty years following
to forge all tribes into an alliance against the rising the end of the War of 1812, white settlement
incursion of white settlements, particularly in advanced northward from the Ohio, pushing the
southern Indiana. tribes into smaller reserves and eventually out of the
With the direction of President Thomas Jeffer- state entirely.
son, William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indi- The tribes along the Tippecanoe were no excep-
ana Territory, negotiated treaties at Fort Wayne in tion to the removal. The treaties of Tippecanoe were
1803, at Vincennes in 1805, and again at Fort Wayne fraught with controversy. The first agreement
in 1809. With each document, the chiefs signed occurred in 1832, the others in 1834 and 1836. First,
away land, eventually cutting off the tribes from full-blood tribe members were given reservations,
the Ohio River and placing more and more territory although in some cases chiefs or headmen obtained
under the control of the U.S. government. The land of their own. Mixed-blood individuals were
Americans already considered the land theirs; it allotted actual land grants, giving them private own-
had been signed over to the French in the eigh- ership. Offers came to entice, seduce, and encourage
teenth century by the tribes. From there, the land the tribe as a whole to emigrate west of the Missis-
ownership transferred to Great Britain through the sippi River. Such enticements included offers of
defeat of the French in the Seven Years’ War. By the goods for the journey and farm implements to assist
success of the American colonies in the Revolution, them upon arrival in the “new” land. Last, the
the Americans took possession; and the treaty treaties became an avenue to instant riches for men
negotiations by Harrison were considered mere for- involved in the negotiations. The government cre-
malities to “keep” the peace and make it appear ated a provision wherein the Potawatomi could pay
that the land was sold legitimately by the tribes to their debts out of annuities. Suddenly, men who in
the Americans. reality owed absolutely nothing presented vouchers
The tribes, not only those along the Tippeca- before the actual creditors were able to. Because of
noe River, sided with Tecumseh and the Prophet in this practice, there was not enough money left to pay
declaring that no one chief had the right to sell any all the debts.
land. The brothers and their followers were partic- The U.S. government soon insisted that the
ularly upset with the Treaty of Fort Wayne of 1809. Potawatomi move west. Chief Menominee refused.
This particular treaty contributed more to the He had written a letter stating that he had not signed
alienation from and disdain for the United States away the land or agreed to removal. Nonetheless, in
on the part of the tribes. Although Tecumseh tried the late summer of 1838, nearly 860 Potawatomi left
to provoke Harrison to reverse the treaty and their villages to assemble near Twin Lakes, Indiana,
promise no more land concessions, his efforts were for the journey west. They were escorted by one
not successful. Tension within the territory hundred soldiers led by General John Tipton; the
increased. Harrison sought aid from the federal tribal leaders, including Menominee, rode impris-
government, which in turn sent the 4th U.S. Regi- oned on a wagon for all to see. The journey began
ment of Infantry to Vincennes to shore up the 1st with rudeness and coercion on the part of the Ameri-
U.S. Regiment at Fort Knox (Vincennes). Militia cans. In some cases, wagons were not forthcoming,
from Kentucky also came to Harrison’s aid. In the and some members of the tribe had to leave some of
fall of 1811, his force advanced up the Wabash their belongings behind. Soldiers aggressively drove
toward the Tippecanoe and Prophetstown. The the Potawatomi, many of whom were on foot, along
battle began early on the morning of November 7 the road. The journey lasted about two months as
and resulted in the defeat of the Prophet. The the tribe went from Indiana, passing by the Tippeca-
Americans destroyed his village and much of the noe battlefield one last time en route to Illinois,
grain storage. This was not the end of the matter. crossing over to Missouri at Quincy and moving on

Vincennes, Indiana 441
to Kansas, ending at Potawatomi Creek. Thirty-nine Traverse des Sioux set aside a strip of land seventy
died, many of them children and elderly. miles long and ten miles wide on each side of the
Sally Colford Bennett Minnesota River for a reservation.
Before all Dakota people had moved to the
See also Battle of Tippecanoe; Harrison, William
reservation, however, Article 3 had been stricken out
Henry; Indian Removal; Tecumseh; Treaty with
the Delaware, Etc.–September 30, 1809; by the U.S. Senate and replaced with a provision for
Vincennes, Indiana. government purchase of the reservation land at ten
References and Further Reading cents per acre. After skirmishes with white settlers in
Dowd, Gregory Evans. 1992. A Spirited Resistance: 1857, the Dakota people were confined to the ten-
The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, mile strip of land on the south side of the Minnesota
1745–1815. Baltimore and London: Johns River. The loss of land upon which traditional cul-
Hopkins University Press.
tural practices depended, the diversion of monetary
Edmunds, R. David. 1978. The Potawatomis, Keepers of
the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
payments by unscrupulous traders, and the failure
Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet. of crops in the late 1850s had the effect of making the
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Dakota people entirely dependent upon food ship-
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and ments from the federal government.
Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: With the onset of the Civil War, annuity pay-
Government Printing Office. ments 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
Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota taken from Dakota people, and thirty-eight members
Traverse des Sioux, Minnesota, is the site of a treaty of the Mdewakanton band were hung at Mankato,
concluded in 1851 in which Dakota bands ceded mil- about twenty miles from Traverse de Sioux, in the
lions of acres of land to the U.S. government. In largest mass execution in U.S. history.
exchange for this land concession, the Dakota people Today, the Lower Sioux Agency Indian Reserva-
were promised annuity payments in perpetuity and tion (one of four Dakota reservations in Minnesota)
a homeland along the Minnesota River. Delivery of is located fifty miles from St. Peter, and an interpre-
annuity payments, however, became increasingly tive center at the Traverse des Sioux treaty site is
irregular, leading to widespread misery among the maintained by Nicollet County.
Dakota people and, ultimately, to the Dakota Con- Martin Case
flict of 1862.
See also Annuities; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with
Traverse des Sioux is a crossing point on the
the Sioux–Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota
Minnesota River near present-day St. Peter, Min- Bands–August 5, 1851; Treaty with the
nesota, long used by the Dakota and by French fur Sioux–Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands–July 23,
traders in their trade routes and as a meeting place. 1851; Trust; Trust Land.
At this site, on July 23, 1851, leaders of the Sisseton References and Further Reading
and Wahpeton bands of the Dakota ceded twenty- Anderson, Gary Clayton. 1984. Kinsmen of Another
four million acres in what is now Minnesota, Iowa, Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper
and South Dakota. A companion treaty was signed Mississippi Valley, 1650–1862. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
at Mendota, Minnesota, a few days later by leaders
Hurt, Wesley R. 1974. Dakota Sioux Indians. New York:
of the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute bands. Garland.
In 1837, Dakota people had ceded all their land Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
east of the Mississippi River to the U.S. government. The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley and
White settlement had been immediate and intense. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
By 1851, Little Crow and other Dakota leaders con-
ceded 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. Vincennes, Indiana
The trust funds were to be used for yearly annuities Before the outbreak of the War of 1812, Vincennes,
payable in gold, food, training, agricultural imple- which is located along the east bank of the Wabash
ments, and other resources. Article 3 of the Treaty of River in western Indiana, was the Indiana Territory’s

442 Vincennes, Indiana
capital as well as the site of important council and the purpose of obtaining more land, particularly the
treaty negotiations with the regional tribes. From vast acres below the Vincennes Tract running south-
this location, territorial governor William Henry east along the Ohio River towards Clarksville.
Harrison carried out his duties to negotiate treaties Upset, the Miami insisted that Harrison should have
with tribes in order to obtain land cessions. In 1802, included them; as they had allowed the Delaware to
Harrison called a council at Vincennes to determine reside in lands belonging to them, therefore they
the ownership of land that became known as the ought to be involved. In addition to the Miami com-
Vincennes Tract. This portion of land was approxi- plaint, that winter the Delaware reversed their sup-
mately thirty-six miles on both sides and about port of the land transaction because, according to
twenty-five miles north and south of Vincennes. them, Harrison had seduced them by offering
Although no treaty agreement was drawn up Harri- instruction in farming and domestic arts as well as
son nevertheless concluded that the participants had supplies to make them more self-sustaining and
reached a consensus, and he proceeded to inform increased their annuities to induce their agreement.
President Thomas Jefferson. So, in August 1805, Harrison met again with the
Following the secret directive of February 1803, Delaware as well as the Miami, the Eel River Miami,
in which President Jefferson told Harrison that “the the Potawatomi, and the Wea at Vincennes in partic-
Indians . . . in their interests and their tranquility it is ular, on the lands of his estate just north of the vil-
best they should see only the present page of their lage. There, they all came to agreement over ceding
history,” Harrison called a treaty council to be held and relinquishing forever the land south of the Vin-
at Fort Wayne, an American military garrison cennes Tract, which was the subject of the treaty of
located in the northeastern section of the Indiana 1804. For this act came increases in annuities. One
Territory. Harrison brought along surveyor Thomas outcome of this agreement was the establishment in
Freeman, who had been surveying the tract since writing that the Miami, Eel River, and Wea all con-
1802, a detachment of U.S. regulars under the com- sidered themselves members who had lands in com-
mand of Lieutenant Nathan Heald to reinforce the mon, not separate entities able to negotiate away the
garrison in the event of possible unrest during the lands of the other. The treaty further stated that they
course of treating, and other territorial dignitaries. as a whole were the rightful owners of lands above
Harrison used this council to negotiate and draft a the Vincennes Tract and on the Wabash not ceded to
treaty giving the United States ownership of the Vin- the United States. For this, these tribes, plus the
cennes Tract. Citing the 1795 Greenville treaty as the Potawatomi, agreed that the Delaware had the right
only land cession treaty they intended to follow, to sell the land south of the Vincennes Tract. More
chiefs—including Buckongahelas of the Delaware, treaties followed; by 1809, the tribes were essentially
who walked out in a fury—disagreed over giving landlocked from the Ohio River. White settlers
any more land to the United States. Other chiefs moved onto the newly acquired lands.
showed their distrust by not showing up at all. In the meantime, these treaties did not sit well
Eventually, Harrison got his treaty on June 7, 1803, with many tribes. While they fought over who
through the efforts and influence of Fort Wayne owned lands, Tecumseh, the Shawnee leader, urged
Indian agent William Wells and Wells’s father-in-law, them to see land ownership as collective—that all
Little Turtle of the Miami. Later, in August of that tribes owned all the land, and no one chief had the
year, Harrison met with leaders of the Kaskaskia right to sell it off to the United States. Tecumseh and
Nation to receive ownership of their lands in Illinois his brother, the Prophet, were especially incensed
in exchange for increasing their annuities and taking over the Treaty of Fort Wayne in 1809, so much so
them under the protection of the U.S. government. that Tecumseh paid a call on Harrison at Vincennes
On the same day, Harrison also set an agreement in 1810. Tecumseh tried to provoke Harrison, but to
with the Eel River Miami for narrow sections of one no avail. Harrison stood firm against reversing any
acre on a proposed route for overland travel, as well treaties, and more would come in the future. In the
as for the establishment of “houses of entertain- autumn of 1811, it was from Vincennes that Harrison
ment” (inns and taverns) and ferries as needed— launched and returned from his campaign up the
between Vincennes and the village of Kaskaskia and Wabash against the Prophet’s town near Tippecanoe.
from Vincennes to Clarksville along the Ohio River. Vincennes was founded in 1732 by Le Sieur de
In the autumn of 1804, at Vincennes, Harrison Vincennes, commander of the garrison he estab-
treated with the Delaware and the Piankashaw for lished. French settlement continued into the British

Wabash River, Indiana 443
era following the French and Indian Wars. French Wabash in 1840, the Miami ceded the last of the
residents not infrequently intermarried with the tracts of their land south of the Wabash and were
Native Americans in the region, building not only encouraged to migrate to the Kansas Territory.
family bonds but commercial ventures of the fur As a water highway for centuries, the Wabash
trade. During the American period, following the witnessed the intrusion first of French, then of
takeover of the city by George Rogers Clark, the British, and later of American traders. The Wabash
Americans established Fort Knox. Later, with the provided a portage between its forks and the Miami
encouragement of Harrison, Fort Knox was moved village known as Kekionga, modern Fort Wayne,
upriver about two miles from town to enable better Indiana, where the St. Joseph and St. Mary rivers
oversight of river traffic and to relieve the town of join to form the Maumee, which empties into Lake
the difficulties of soldiers on leave. When the war Erie. This portage allowed for nearly continuous
seemed likely, Harrison urged the garrison to return travel from Canadian cities in the north to the Gulf
to the village. of Mexico in the south. After the American Revolu-
Sally Colford Bennett tion, in 1787 the United States laid claim to the
region and established Fort Knox at Vincennes along
See also Battle of Tippecanoe; Harrison, William
the banks of the Wabash. During these years, the
Henry; Jefferson, Thomas; Tecumseh; Treaty
with the Delaware–August 18, 1804; Treaty with Wabash Confederacy played an important role as
the Delaware, Etc.–June 7, 1803; Treaty with the white settlers came to the region. The Confederacy
Delaware, Etc.–August 21, 1805; Treaty with the consisted of the Wea and the Piankashaw and also
Delaware, Etc.–September 30, 1809; Treaty with the Kickapoo, Mascouten, and Eel River tribes.
the Piankeshaw–August 27, 1804; Treaty with The Miami figured prominently in the Wabash
the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795; Wabash region, where they had established villages on the
River, Indiana; Wells, William.
Eel, Mississinewa, Tippecanoe, and Vermilion rivers.
Esarey, Logan, ed. 1922. Governor’s Messages and
A powerful band of warriors, the Miami feared
Letters: Messages and Letters of William Henry incursions of Americans on their land and raided
Harrison, vol. I. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical American settlements in Kentucky, Ohio, and south-
Collections. ern Indiana in the 1780s and early 1790s. Influential
Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes leaders brought prominence to the tribe in the late
Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma eighteenth century and the early decades of the nine-
Press. teenth century, most notably Chief Little Turtle, who
Woehrmann, Paul. 1971. At the Headwaters of the
saw that the coming influx of U.S. settlers could not
Maumee, a History of the Forts of Fort Wayne.
Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society. 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
Wabash River, Indiana persuade them to keep peace with the Americans.
Running west-southwest nearly five hundred miles He died as the War of 1812 broke out; he did not live
from the middle of the state of Indiana to the south, to see its devastating effects on his people and their
where it empties into the Ohio River, the Wabash lands.
River gave title to treaties in 1826, 1828, 1834, 1838, Much of the activity that contributed to the War
and 1840 that eventually forced the removal of the of 1812 in the West occurred along the Wabash River.
Miami nation from Indiana. The Miami, who settled The land around the juncture of the Wabash and the
along the tributaries in the late seventeenth century Tippecanoe rivers was claimed by the Potawatomi
and gave the Wabash its name, ceded land to the under the leadership of Main Poc. It was he who
United States, which by 1830 had caused the Miami offered to have the Shawnee Prophet (who was
to retreat to a smaller reserve near Logansport. In Tecumseh’s brother and was also known as Ten-
return, the Miami received money and goods. Some skwatawa) and his followers settled there instead of
Miami and mixed-blood Miami received individual remaining at their ever more crowded village near
land grants, giving them private ownership of Greenville, Ohio. In 1808, the Shawnee Prophet
smaller sections. With the Treaty of the Forks of the established his village, known as Prophetstown, on

444 Wabash River, Indiana
the Wabash near the Tippecanoe River. He saw the of U.S. Infantry to shore up the defenses. In the
village as a place where his followers could remain course of Governor William Henry Harrison’s
apart from the encroaching Americans, for many autumn campaign against the Shawnee Prophet,
tribal nations—including the Potawatomi, the the United States established another garrison,
Shawnee, and some Miami—objected to the land known as Fort Harrison, farther up the Wabash
acquisition treaties pushed upon them by William River at present-day Terre Haute, Indiana. The line
Henry Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, dur- of march to Prophetstown was along the Wabash.
ing the first decade of the nineteenth century. Partic- Combining U.S. regulars and militia forces from
ularly aggravating to Tecumseh was the 1809 treaty Kentucky and Indiana, the Battle of Tippecanoe
at Fort Wayne. This treaty allowed large sections of took place in the early morning of November 7,
land along the Wabash and north of Vincennes to 1811, not far from the Wabash. Though it began
come into the hands of the United States. The succes- with a surprise attack by the combined native
sion of treaties from 1803 through 1809 had essen- forces, the U.S. forces won the battle, going on to
tially landlocked the tribes, cutting off access to the destroy the nearby village.
Ohio River and the state of Kentucky, creating a When the War of 1812 began, many tribes along
buffer between the tribes and the growing white set- the Wabash supported the British. Following the
tlement. Although many Miami sided with their war, this disaffection with the United States con-
own leaders, some found the message of the tributed to the push for land cessions, then for an in-
Shawnee brothers more promising. state reservation, and finally for total removal to
Governor Harrison was concerned about the Kansas Territory.
increasing concentration of warriors at Prophets- Sally Colford Bennett
town, and his spies returned with false reports that
the Prophet’s influence was waning. In the summer See also Battle of Fallen Timbersm 1794; Battle
of 1810, Harrison sent his own interpreter, Joseph of Tippecanoe; Harrison, William Henry;
Barron, to warn the Prophet of the strength of the Tecumseh; Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Treaty
U.S. Army and the militia. Neither deterred nor with the Delaware, Etc.–September 30, 1809;
intimidated, Tecumseh came down the Wabash and Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795;
arrived at Vincennes in August, accompanied by Vincennes, Indiana; Wells, William.
armed warriors. At first, he tried to reason with the References and Further Readings
Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet.
governor by outlining his intention to form a confed-
eration of tribes; he explained that it was essential to Edmunds, R. David. 1984. Tecumseh and the Quest
hold secure individual tribal lands and to have no for Indian Leadership. The Library of American
more land cessions, that he objected to and would Biography, ed. Oscar Handlin. Boston: Little,
continue to reject the recent treaty at Fort Wayne Brown.
until Harrison rescinded the treaty. During his week- Rafert, Stewart. 1996. The Miami Indians of Indiana: A
long council with Harrison, Tecumseh tried to make Persistent People 1654–1994. Indianapolis:
Indiana Historical Society.
his point, but to no avail. Though Harrison offered to
Sugden, John. 1997. Tecumseh, A Life. New York:
relay Tecumseh’s concerns to President Madison, lit- Henry Holt.
tle more would be done. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck, ed. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes
As tensions increased in the Indiana Territory Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma
in 1811, the U.S. government sent the 4th Regiment Press.

Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 449
Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784 450
Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 454
Treaty of Chicago, 1834 480
Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837 491
Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850 495
Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 498
Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa,
Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup,
Etc., 1854 507
Treaty with the Cheyenne and
Arapaho, 1865 518
Treaty with the Choctaw and
Chickasaw, 1866 527
Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche,
Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni
and Bannock, 1868 556
Treaties 1 and 2, 1871 559
Treaty 3, 1871 566
Treaty 4, 1874 573
Treaty 5, 1875 581
Treaty 6, 1876 595
Treaty 7, 1877 598
Treaty 8, 1899 603
Treaty 9, 1905 607
Treaty 10, 1906 612
Treaty 11, 1922 622

Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 449
Treaty with the Delawares, 1778 them with. And the said deputies, on the behalf of
their nation, engage to join the troops of the United
Sept. 17, 1778. | 7 Stat., 13.
States aforesaid, with such a number of their best and
Articles of agreement and confederation, made and
most expert warriors as they can spare, consistent
entered into by Andrew and Thomas Lewis,
with their own safety, and act in concert with them;
Esquires, Commissioners for, and in Behalf of the
and for the better security of the old men, women
United States of North-America of the one Part, and
and children of the aforesaid nation, whilst their war-
Capt. White Eyes, Capt. John Kill Buck, Junior, and
riors are engaged against the common enemy, it is
Capt. Pipe, Deputies and Chief Men of the Delaware
agreed on the part of the United States, that a fort of
Nation of the other Part.
sufficient strength and capacity be built at the
expense of the said States, with such assistance as it
ARTICLE 1. may be in the power of the said Delaware Nation to
That all offences or acts of hostilities by one, or either give, in the most convenient place, and advantageous
of the contracting parties against the other, be mutu- situation, as shall be agreed on by the commanding
ally forgiven, and buried in the depth of oblivion, officer of the troops aforesaid, with the advice and
never more to be had in remembrance. concurrence of the deputies of the aforesaid
Delaware Nation, which fort shall be garrisoned by
ARTICLE 2. such a number of the troops of the United States, as
That a perpetual peace and friendship shall from the commanding officer can spare for the present,
henceforth take place, and subsist between the con- and hereafter by such numbers, as the wise men of
tracting parties aforesaid, through all succeeding the United States in council, shall think most con-
generations: and if either of the parties are engaged ducive to the common good.
in a just and necessary war with any other nation or
nations, that then each shall assist the other in due ARTICLE 4.
proportion to their abilities, till their enemies are For the better security of the peace and friendship
brought to reasonable terms of accommodation: and now entered into by the contracting parties, against
that if either of them shall discover any hostile all infractions of the same by the citizens of either
designs forming against the other, they shall give the party, to the prejudice of the other, neither party
earliest notice thereof, that timeous measures may be shall proceed to the infliction of punishments on the
taken to prevent their ill effect. citizens of the other, otherwise than by securing the
offender or offenders by imprisonment, or any other
ARTICLE 3. competent means, till a fair and impartial trial can be
And whereas the United States are engaged in a just had by judges or juries of both parties, as near as can
and necessary war, in defence and support of life, lib- be to the laws, customs and usages of the contracting
erty and independence, against the King of England parties and natural justice: The mode of such trials to
and his adherents, and as said King is yet possessed be hereafter fixed by the wise men of the United
of several posts and forts on the lakes and other States in Congress assembled, with the assistance of
places, the reduction of which is of great importance such deputies of the Delaware nation, as may be
to the peace and security of the contracting parties, appointed to act in concert with them in adjusting
and as the most practicable way for the troops of the this matter to their mutual liking. And it is further
United States to some of the posts and forts is by agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither
passing through the country of the Delaware nation, shall entertain or give countenance to the enemies of
the aforesaid deputies, on behalf of themselves and the other, or protect in their respective states, crimi-
their nation, do hereby stipulate and agree to give a nal fugitives, servants or slaves, but the same to
free passage through their country to the troops apprehend, and secure and deliver to the State or
aforesaid, and the same to conduct by the nearest and States, to which such enemies, criminals, servants or
best ways to the posts, forts or towns of the enemies slaves respectively belong.
of the United States, affording to said troops such
supplies of corn, meat, horses, or whatever may be in ARTICLE 5.
their power for the accommodation of such troops, Whereas the confederation entered into by the
on the commanding officer’s, &c. paying, or engage- Delaware nation and the United States, renders
ing to pay, the full value of whatever they can supply the first dependent on the latter for all the articles

450 Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784
of clothing, utensils and implements of war, and it September seventeenth, anno Domini one thousand
is judged not only reasonable, but indispensably seven hundred and seventy-eight.
necessary, that the aforesaid Nation be supplied
with such articles from time to time, as far as the Andrew Lewis, [L. S.],
United States may have it in their power, by a Thomas Lewis, [L. S.],
well-regulated trade, under the conduct of an White Eyes, his x mark, [L. S.],
intelligent, candid agent, with an adequate salary, The Pipe, his x mark, [L. S.],
one more influenced by the love of his country, John Kill Buck, his x mark, [L. S.].
and a constant attention to the duties of his
department by promoting the common interest, In presence of—
than the sinister purposes of converting and bind- Lach’n McIntosh, brigadier-general,
ing all the duties of his office to his private emolu- commander the Western Department,
ment: Convinced of the necessity of such mea- Daniel Brodhead, colonel Eighth Pennsylvania
sures, the Commissioners of the United States, at Regiment,
the earnest solicitation of the deputies aforesaid, W. Crawford, colonel,
have engaged in behalf of the United States, that John Campbell,
such a trade shall be afforded said nation, con- John Stephenson,
ducted on such principles of mutual interest as the John Gibson, colonel Thirteenth Virginia
wisdom of the United States in Congress assem- Regiment,
bled shall think most conducive to adopt for their A. Graham, brigade major,
mutual convenience. Lach. McIntosh, Jr., major brigade,
Benjamin Mills,
ARTICLE 6. Joseph L. Finley, captain Eighth Pennsylvania
Whereas the enemies of the United States have Regiment,
endeavored, by every artifice in their power, to pos- John Finley, captain Eighth Pennsylvania
sess the Indians in general with an opinion, that it is Regiment.
the design of the States aforesaid, to extirpate the
Indians and take possession of their country: to obvi-
ate such false suggestion, the United States do
engage to guarantee to the aforesaid nation of
Delawares, and their heirs, all their territorial rights Fort Stanwix Treaty, 1784
in the fullest and most ample manner, as it hath been ARTICLE 1
bounded by former treaties, as long as they the said Six hostages shall be immediately delivered to the
Delaware nation shall abide by, and hold fast the commissioners by the said nations, to remain in pos-
chain of friendship now entered into. And it is fur- session of the United States, till all prisoners, white
ther agreed on between the contracting parties and black, which were taken by the said Senecas,
should it for the future be found conducive for the Mohawks, Onondagas and Cayugas, or by any of
mutual interest of both parties to invite any other them, in the late war, from among the people of the
tribes who have been friends to the interest of the United States, shall be delivered up.
United States, to join the present confederation, and
to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be ARTICLE 2
the head, and have a representation in Congress: Pro- The Oneida and Tuscarora nations shall be secured
vided, nothing contained in this article to be consid- in the possession of the lands on which there are
ered as conclusive until it meets with the approbation settled.
of Congress. And it is also the intent and meaning of
this article, that no protection or countenance shall be ARTICLE 3
afforded to any who are at present our enemies, by A line shall be drawn, beginning at the mouth of a
which they might escape the punishment they creek about four miles east of Niagara, called
deserve. Oyonwayea, or Johnston’s Landing-Place, upon the
lake named by the Indians Oswego, and by us
In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto inter- Ontario; from thence southerly in a direction always
changeably set their hands and seals, at Fort Pitt, four miles east of the carrying-path, between Lake

Erie and Ontario, to the mouth of Tehoseroron or Witness:

Buffaloe Creek on Lake Erie; then south to the north Sam. Jo. Atlee
boundary of the state of Pennsylvania; thence west James Dean
to the end of the said north boundary; then south Wm. Maclay
along the west boundary of the said state, to the river Saml. Montgomery
Ohio; the said land from the mouth of the Oyon- Fras. Johnston
wayea to the Ohio, shall be the western boundary of Derick Lane, captain
the lands of the Six Nations, so that the Six Nations Pennsylvaina Commissioners
shall and do yield to the United States, all claims to John Mercer, lieutenant
the country west of the said boundary, and then they Aaron Hill
shall be secured in the peaceful possession of the William Pennington, lieutenant
lands they inhabit east and north of the same, reserv- Alexander Campbell
ing only six miles square round the fort of Oswego, Mahlon Hord, ensign
to the United States, for the support of the same. Saml. Kirkland, missionary
Haugh Peeles
ARTICLE 4
The Commissioners of the United States, in consider-
ation 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 arti- Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785
cles, will order goods to be delivered to the said Six Nov. 28, 1785. | 7 Stat., 18.
Nations for their use and comfort. Articles concluded at Hopewell, on the Keowee,
between Benjamin Hawkins, Andrew Pickens,
Oliver Wolcott Joseph Martin, and Lachlan M’Intosh, Commission-
Richard Butler ers Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,
Arthur Lee of the one Part, and the Head-Men and Warriors of
all the Cherokees of the other.
Mohawks:
Onogwendahonji, his x mark The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United
Touighnatogon, his x mark States, in Congress assembled, give peace to all the
Cherokees, and receive them into the favor and
Onondagas: protection of the United States of America, on the
Oheadarighton, his x mark following conditions:
Kendarindgon, his x mark
ARTICLE 1.
Senekas: The Head-Men and Warriors of all the Cherokees
Tayagonendagighti, his x mark shall restore all the prisoners, citizens of the United
Tehonwaeaghrigagi, his x mark States, or subjects of their allies, to their entire lib-
erty: They shall also restore all the Negroes, and all
Oneidas: other property taken during the late war from the
Otyadonenghti, his x mark citizens, to such person, and at such time and place,
Dagaheari, his x mark as the Commissioners shall appoint.
Cayuga: ARTICLE 2.
Oraghgoanendagen, his x mark The Commissioners of the United States in Congress
assembled, shall restore all the prisoners taken from the
Tuscaroras: Indians, during the late war, to the Head-Men and War-
Ononghsawenghti, his x mark, riors of the Cherokees, as early as is practicable.
Tharondawagon, his x mark
ARTICLE 3.
Seneka Abeal: The said Indians for themselves and their respective
Kayenthoghke, his x mark tribes and towns do acknowledge all the Cherokees

452 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1785
to be under the protection of the United States of their protection, the nation, or the tribe to which
America, and of no other sovereign whosoever. such offender or offenders may belong, shall be
bound to deliver him or them up to be punished
ARTICLE 4. according to the ordinances of the United States;
The boundary allotted to the Cherokees for their Provided, that the punishment shall not be greater
hunting grounds, between the said Indians and the than if the robbery or murder, or other capital crime
citizens of the United States, within the limits of had been committed by a citizen on a citizen.
the United States of America, is, and shall be the
following, viz. Beginning at the mouth of Duck ARTICLE 7.
river, on the Tennessee; thence running north-east If any citizen of the United States, or person under
to the ridge dividing the waters running into Cum- their protection, shall commit a robbery or murder,
berland from those running into the Tennessee; or other capital crime, on any Indian, such offender
thence eastwardly along the said ridge to a north- or offenders shall be punished in the same manner
east line to be run, which shall strike the river as if the murder or robbery, or other capital crime,
Cumberland forty miles above Nashville; thence had been committed on a citizen of the United
along the said line to the river; thence up the said States; and the punishment shall be in presence of
river to the ford where the Kentucky road crosses some of the Cherokees, if any shall attend at the time
the river; thence to Campbell’s line, near Cumber- and place, and that they may have an opportunity so
land gap; thence to the mouth of Claud’s creek on to do, due notice of the time of such intended pun-
Holstein; thence to the Chimney-top mountain; ishment shall be sent to some one of the tribes.
thence to Camp-creek, near the mouth of Big Lime-
stone, on Nolichuckey; thence a southerly course ARTICLE 8.
six miles to a mountain; thence south to the North- It is understood that the punishment of the innocent
Carolina line; thence to the South-Carolina Indian under the idea of retaliation, is unjust, and shall not
boundary, and along the same south-west over the be practiced on either side, except where there is a
top of the Oconee mountain till it shall strike Tuga- manifest violation of this treaty; and then it shall be
loo river; thence a direct line to the top of the Cur- preceded first by a demand of justice, and if refused,
rohee mountain; thence to the head of the south then by a declaration of hostilities.
fork of Oconee river.
ARTICLE 9.
ARTICLE 5. For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for
If any citizen of the United States, or other person the prevention of injuries or oppressions on the part
not being an Indian, shall attempt to settle on any of of the citizens or Indians, the United States in Con-
the lands westward or southward of the said bound- gress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive
ary which are hereby allotted to the Indians for their right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and
hunting grounds, or having already settled and will managing all their affairs in such manner as they
not remove from the same within six months after think proper.
the ratification of this treaty, such person shall forfeit
the protection of the United States, and the Indians ARTICLE 10.
may punish him or not as they please: Provided nev- Until the pleasure of Congress be known, respecting
ertheless, That this article shall not extend to the the ninth article, all traders, citizens of the United
people settled between the fork of French Broad and States, shall have liberty to go to any of the tribes or
Holstein rivers, whose particular situation shall be towns of the Cherokees to trade with them, and they
transmitted to the United States in Congress assem- shall be protected in their persons and property, and
bled for their decision thereon, which the Indians kindly treated.
agree to abide by.
ARTICLE 11.
ARTICLE 6. The said Indians shall give notice to the citizens of
If any Indian or Indians, or person residing among the United States, of any designs which they may
them, or who shall take refuge in their nation, shall know or suspect to be formed in any neighboring
commit a robbery, or murder, or other capital crime, tribe, or by any person whosoever, against the peace,
on any citizen of the United States, or person under trade or interest of the United States.

ARTICLE 12. Chescoonwho, Bird in Close of Tomotlug,

That the Indians may have full confidence in the jus- his x mark, [L. S.],
tice of the United States, respecting their interests, Tuckasee, or Terrapin of Hightowa, his x
they shall have the right to send a deputy of their mark, [L. S.],
choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress. Chesetoa, or the Rabbit of Tlacoa, his x
mark, [L. S.],
ARTICLE 13. Chesecotetona, or Yellow Bird of the Pine
The hatchet shall be forever buried, and the peace Log, his x mark, [L. S.],
given by the United States, and friendship re- Sketaloska, Second Man of Tillico, his x
established between the said states on the one part, mark, [L. S.],
and all the Cherokees on the other, shall be univer- Chokasatahe, Chickasaw Killer Tasonta, his
sal; and the contracting parties shall use their x mark, [L. S.],
utmost endeavors to maintain the peace given as Onanoota, of Koosoate, his x mark, [L. S.],
aforesaid, and friendship re-established. Ookoseta, or Sower Mush of Kooloque, his
x mark, [L. S.],
In witness of all and every thing herein determined, Umatooetha, the Water Hunter
between the United States of America and all the Choikamawga, his x mark, [L. S.],
Cherokees, we, their underwritten Commissioners, Wyuka, of Lookout Mountain, his x mark,
by virtue of our full powers, have signed this defini- [L. S.],
tive treaty, and have caused our seals to be hereunto Tulco, or Tom of Chatuga, his x mark,
affixed. Done at Hopewell, on the Keowee, this [L. S.],
twenty-eighth of November, in the year of our Lord Will, of Akoha, his x mark, [L. S.],
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five. Necatee, of Sawta, his x mark, [L. S.],
Amokontakona, Kutcloa, his x mark,
Benjamin Hawkins, [L. S.], [L. S.],
And’w Pickens, [L. S.], Kowetatahee, in Frog Town, his x mark,
Jos. Martin, [L. S.], [L. S.],
Lach’n McIntosh Koatohee, or Corn Tassel Keukuck, Talcoa, his x mark, [L. S.],
of Toquo, his x mark, [L. S.], Tulatiska, of Chaway, his x mark, [L. S.],
Scholauetta, or Hanging Man of Chota, his Wooaluka, the Waylayer, Chota, his x mark,
x mark, [L. S.], [L. S.],
Tuskegatahu, or Long Fellow of Chistohoe, Tatliusta, or Porpoise of Tilassi, his x mark,
his x mark, [L. S.], [L. S.],
Ooskwha, or Abraham of Chilkowa, his x John, of Little Tallico, his x mark, [L. S.],
mark, [L. S.], Skeleak, his x mark, [L. S.],
Kolakusta, or Prince of Noth, his x mark, Akonoluchta, the Cabin, his x mark,
[L. S.], [L. S.],
Newota, or the Gritzs of Chicamaga, his x Cheanoka, of Kawetakac, his x mark,
mark, [L. S.], [L. S.],
Konatota, or the Rising Fawn of Yellow Bird, his x mark, [L. S.].
Highwassay, his x mark, [L. S.],
Tuckasee, or Young Terrapin of Allajoy, his Witness:
x mark, [L. S.], Wm. Blount,
Toostaka, or the Waker of Oostanawa, his x Sam’l Taylor, Major,
mark, [L. S.], John Owen,
Untoola, or Gun Rod of Seteco, his x mark, Jess. Walton,
[L. S.], Jno. Cowan, capt. comm’d’t,
Unsuokanail, Buffalo White Calf New Thos. Gregg,
Cussee, his x mark, [L. S.], W. Hazzard,
Kostayeak, or Sharp Fellow Wataga, his x James Madison,
mark, [L. S.], Arthur Cooley,
Chonosta, of Cowe, his x mark, [L. S.], Sworn interpreters.

454 Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794
Treaty with the from that fork, continuing the same straight course,
Six Nations, 1794 to that river; (this line, from the mouth of O-yong-
wong-yeh Creek to the river Niagara, above fort
Nov. 11, 1794. | 7 Stat., 44. | Proclamation, Schlosser, being the eastern boundary of a strip of
Jan. 21, 1795.
land, extending from the same line to Niagara river,
A Treaty between the United States of America, and
which the Seneka nation ceded to the King of Great-
the Tribes of Indians called the Six Nations.
Britain, at a treaty held about thirty years ago, with
Sir William Johnson;) then the line runs along the
The President of the United States having deter-
river Niagara to Lake Erie; then along Lake Erie to
mined to hold a conference with the Six Nations of
the north-east corner of a triangular piece of land
Indians, for the purpose of removing from their
which the United States conveyed to the state of
minds all causes of complaint, and establishing a
Pennsylvania, as by the President’s patent, dated
firm and permanent friendship with them; and Tim-
the third day of March, 1792; then due south to the
othy Pickering being appointed sole agent for that
northern boundary of that state; then due east to
purpose; and the agent having met and conferred
the south-west corner of the land sold by the Seneka
with the Sachems, Chiefs and Warriors of the Six
nation to Oliver Phelps; and then north and
Nations, in a general council: Now, in order to
northerly, along Phelps’s line, to the place of begin-
accomplish the good design of this conference, the
ning on Lake Ontario. Now, the United States
parties have agreed on the following articles; which,
acknowledge all the land within the aforementioned
when ratified by the President, with the advice and
boundaries, to be the property of the Seneka nation;
consent of the Senate of the United States, shall be
and the United States will never claim the same, nor
binding on them and the Six Nations.
disturb the Seneka nation, nor any of the Six
Nations, or of their Indian friends residing thereon
ARTICLE 1. and united with them, in the free use and enjoyment
Peace and friendship are hereby firmly established, thereof: but it shall remain theirs, until they choose
and shall be perpetual, between the United States to sell the same to the people of the United States,
and the Six Nations. who have the right to purchase.
ARTICLE 2. ARTICLE 4.
The United States acknowledge the lands reserved to The United States having thus described and
the Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga Nations, in their acknowledged what lands belong to the Oneidas,
respective treaties with the state of New-York, and Onondagas, Cayugas and Senekas, and engaged
called their reservations, to be their property; and never to claim the same, nor to disturb them, or any
the United States will never claim the same, nor dis- of the Six Nations, or their Indian friends residing
turb them or either of the Six Nations, nor their thereon and united with them, in the free use and
Indian friends residing thereon and united with enjoyment thereof: Now, the Six Nations, and each of
them, in the free use and enjoyment thereof: but the them, hereby engage that they will never claim any
said reservations shall remain theirs, until they other lands within the boundaries of the United
choose to sell the same to the people of the United States; nor ever disturb the people of the United
States, who have the right to purchase. States in the free use and enjoyment thereof.
The land of the Seneka nation is bounded as follows: The Seneka nation, all others of the Six Nations con-
Beginning on Lake Ontario, at the north-west corner curring, cede to the United States the right of making
of the land they sold to Oliver Phelps, the line runs a wagon road from Fort Schlosser to Lake Erie, as far
westerly along the lake, as far as O-yong-wong-yeh south as Buffaloe Creek; and the people of the
Creek, at Johnson’s Landing-place, about four miles United States shall have the free and undisturbed
eastward from the fort of Niagara; then southerly up use of this road, for the purposes of travelling and
that creek to its main fork, then straight to the main transportation. And the Six Nations, and each of
fork of Stedman’s creek, which empties into the river them, will forever allow to the people of the United
Niagara, above fort Schlosser, and then onward, States, a free passage through their lands, and the

Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 455
free use of the harbors and rivers adjoining and United States shall make other equitable provision
within their respective tracts of land, for the passing for the purpose.
and securing of vessels and boats, and liberty to land
their cargoes where necessary for their safety. NOTE. It is clearly understood by the parties to this
treaty, that the annuity stipulated in the sixth article,
ARTICLE 6. is to be applied to the benefit of such of the Six
In consideration of the peace and friendship hereby Nations and of their Indian friends united with them
established, and of the engagements entered into by as aforesaid, as do or shall reside within the bound-
the Six Nations; and because the United States aries of the United States: For the United States do
desire, with humanity and kindness, to contribute to not interfere with nations, tribes or families, of Indi-
their comfortable support; and to render the peace ans elsewhere resident.
and friendship hereby established, strong and per-
petual; the United States now deliver to the Six In witness whereof, the said Timothy Pickering,
Nations, and the Indians of the other nations resid- and the sachems and war chiefs of the said Six
ing among and united with them, a quantity of Nations, have hereto set their hands and seals.
goods of the value of ten thousand dollars. And for Done at Konondaigua, in the State of New York,
the same considerations, and with a view to promote the eleventh day of November, in the year one thou-
the future welfare of the Six Nations, and of their sand seven hundred and ninety-four.
Indian friends aforesaid, the United States will add
the sum of three thousand dollars to the one thou- Timothy Pickering, [L. S.],
sand five hundred dollars, heretofore allowed them Onoyeahnee, his x mark, [L. S.],
by an article ratified by the President, on the twenty- Konneatorteeooh, his x mark, or Handsome
third day of April, 1792; a making in the whole, four Lake, [L. S.],
thousand five hundred dollars; which shall be Tokenhyouhau, his x mark, alias Captain
expended yearly forever, in purchasing clothing, Key, [L. S.],
domestic animals, implements of husbandry, and Oneshauee, his x mark, [L. S.],
other utensils suited to their circumstances, and in Hendrick Aupaumut, [L. S.],
compensating useful artificers, who shall reside with David Neesoonhuk, his x mark, [L. S.],
or near them, and be employed for their benefit. The Kanatsoyh, alias Nicholas Kusik, [L. S.],
immediate application of the whole annual Sohhonteoquent, his x mark, [L. S.],
allowance now stipulated, to be made by the super- Ooduhtsait, his x mark, [L. S.],
intendent appointed by the President for the affairs Konoohqung, his x mark, [L. S.],
of the Six Nations, and their Indian friends aforesaid. Tossonggaulolus, his x mark, [L. S.],
John Skenendoa, his x mark, [L. S.],
ARTICLE 7. Oneatorleeooh, his x mark, [L. S.],
Lest the firm peace and friendship now estab- Kussauwatau, his x mark, [L. S.],
lished should be interrupted by the misconduct of Eyootenyootauook, his x mark, [L. S.],
individuals, the United States and Six Nations Kohnyeaugong, his x mark, alias Jake Stroud,
agree, that for injuries done by individuals on [L. S.],
either side, no private revenge or retaliation shall Shaguiesa, his x mark, [L. S.],
take place; but, instead thereof, complaint shall be Teeroos, his x mark, alias Captain Prantup,
made by the party injured, to the other: By the Six [L. S.],
Nations or any of them, to the President of the Sooshaoowau, his x mark, [L. S.],
United States, or the Superintendent by him Henry Young Brant, his x mark, [L. S.],
appointed: and by the Superintendent, or other Sonhyoowauna, his x mark, or Big Sky, [L. S.],
person appointed by the President, to the princi- Onaahhah, his x mark, [L. S.],
pal chiefs of the Six Nations, or of the nation to Hotoshahenh, his x mark, [L. S.],
which the offender belongs: and such prudent Kaukondanaiya, his x mark, [L. S.],
measures shall then be pursued as shall be neces- Nondiyauka, his x mark, [L. S.],
sary to preserve our peace and friendship unbro- Kossishtowau, his x mark, [L. S.],
ken; until the legislature (or great council) of the Oojaugenta, his x mark, or Fish Carrier, [L. S.],

456 Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804
Toheonggo, his x mark, [L. S.], Israel Chapin, jr.,

Ootaguasso, his x mark, [L. S.], Horatio Jones,
Joonondauwaonch, his x mark, [L. S.], Joseph Smith,
Kiyauhaonh, his x mark, [L. S.], Jasper Parish.
Ootaujeaugenh, his x mark, or Broken Axe, Interpreters.
[L. S.], Henry Abeele.
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.], Treaty with the Sauk
Kenjauaugus, his x mark, or Stinking Fish, and Foxes, 1804
[L. S.], Nov. 3, 1804. | 7 Stat., 84. | Ratified Jan. 25,
Soonohquaukau, his x mark, [L. S.], 1805. | Proclaimed Feb. 21, 1805.
Twenniyana, his x mark, [L. S.], A treaty between the United States of America and
Jishkaaga, his x mark, or Green Grasshopper, the United tribes of Sac and Fox Indians.
alias Little Billy, [L. S.],
Tuggehshotta, his x mark, [L. S.], ARTICLES of a treaty made at St. Louis in the dis-
Tehongyagauna, his x mark, [L. S.], trict of Louisiana between William Henry Harri-
Tehongyoowush, his x mark, [L. S.], son, governor of the Indiana territory and of the
Konneyoowesot, his x mark, [L. S.], district of Louisiana, superintendent of Indian
Tioohquottakauna, his x mark, or Woods on affairs for the said territory and district, and com-
Fire, [L. S.], missioner plenipotentiary of the United States for
Taoundaudeesh, his x mark, [L. S.], concluding any treaty or treaties which may be
Honayawus, his x mark, alias Farmer’s found necessary with any of the north western
Brother, [L. S.], tribes of Indians of the one part, and the chiefs and
Soggooyawauthau, his x mark, alias Red head men of the united Sac and Fox tribes of the
Jacket, [L. S.], other part.
Konyootiayoo, his x mark, [L. S.],
Sauhtakaongyees, his x mark, or Two Skies of ARTICLE 1.
a length, [L. S.], The United States receive the united Sac and Fox
Ounnashattakau, his x mark, [L. S.], tribes into their friendship and protection, and the
Kaungyanehquee, his x mark, [L. S.], said tribes agree to consider themselves under the
Sooayoowau, his x mark, [L. S.], protection of the United States, and of no other
Kaujeagaonh, his x mark, or Heap of Dogs, power whatsoever.
[L. S.],
Soonoohshoowau, his x mark, [L. S.], ARTICLE 2.
Thaoowaunias, his x mark, [L. S.], The general boundary line between the lands of the
Soonongjoowau, his x mark, [L. S.], United States and of the said Indian tribes shall be
Kiantwhauka, his x mark, alias Cornplanter, as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the Mis-
[L. S.] souri river opposite to the mouth of the Gasconade
Kaunehshonggoo, his x mark, [L. S.]. river; thence in a direct course so as to strike the
river Jeffreon at the distance of thirty miles from its
Witnesses: mouth, and down the said Jeffreon to the Missis-
Israel Chapin, sippi, thence up the Mississippi to the mouth of the
William Shepard, jr., Ouisconsing river and up the same to a point which
James Smedley, shall be thirty-six miles in a direct line from the
John Wickham, mouth of the said river, thence by a direct line to the
Augustus Porter, point where the Fox river (a branch of the Illinois)
James K. Garnsey, leaves the small lake called Sakaegan, thence down
William Ewing, the Fox river to the Illinois river, and down the same

to the Mississippi. And the said tribes, for and in other—by the said tribes or either of them to the
consideration of the friendship and protection of the superintendent of Indian affairs or one of his
United States which is now extended to them, of the deputies, and by the superintendent or other per-
goods (to the value of two thousand two hundred son appointed by the President, to the chiefs of the
and thirty-four dollars and fifty cents) which are said tribes. And it shall be the duty of the said
now delivered, and of the annuity hereinafter stipu- chiefs upon complaint being made as aforesaid to
lated to be paid, do hereby cede and relinquish for- deliver up the person or persons against whom
ever to the United States, all the lands included the complaint is made, to the end that he or they
within the above-described boundary. may be punished agreeably to the laws of the state
or territory where the offence may have been com-
ARTICLE 3. mitted; and in like manner if any robbery, violence
In consideration of the cession and relinquishment or murder shall be committed on any Indian or
of land made in the preceding article, the United Indians belonging to the said tribes or either of
States will deliver to the said tribes at the town of St. them, the person or persons so offending shall be
Louis or some other convenient place on the Missis- tried, and if found guilty, punished in the like
sippi yearly and every year goods suited to the manner as if the injury had been done to a white
circumstances of the Indians of the value of one man. And it is further agreed, that the chiefs of the
thousand dollars (six hundred of which are intended said tribes shall, to the utmost of their power exert
for the Sacs and four hundred for the Foxes) reckon- themselves to recover horses or other property
ing that value at the first cost of the goods in the city which may be stolen from any citizen or citizens of
or place in the United States where they shall be the United States by any individual or individuals
procured. And if the said tribes shall hereafter at an of their tribes, and the property so recovered shall
annual delivery of the goods aforesaid, desire that a be forthwith delivered to the superintendent or
part of their annuity should be furnished in domes- other person authorized to receive it, that it may
tic animals, implements of husbandry and other be restored to the proper owner; and in cases
utensils convenient for them, or in compensation where the exertions of the chiefs shall be ineffec-
to useful artificers who may reside with or near tual in recovering the property stolen as aforesaid,
them, and be employed for their benefit, the same if sufficient proof can be obtained that such prop-
shall at the subsequent annual delivery be furnished erty was actually stolen by any Indian or Indians
accordingly. belonging to the said tribes or either of them, the
United States may deduct from the annuity of the
ARTICLE 4. said tribes a sum equal to the value of the prop-
The United States will never interrupt the said tribes erty which has been stolen. And the United States
in the possession of the lands which they rightfully hereby guarantee to any Indian or Indians of the
claim, but will on the contrary protect them in the said tribes a full indemnification for any horses or
quiet enjoyment of the same against their own citi- other property which may be stolen from them by
zens and against all other white persons who may any of their citizens; provided that the property so
intrude upon them. And the said tribes do hereby stolen cannot be recovered and that sufficient
engage that they will never sell their lands or any proof is produced that it was actually stolen by a
part thereof to any sovereign power, but the United citizen of the United States.
States, nor to the citizens or subjects of any other
sovereign power, nor to the citizens of the United ARTICLE 6.
States. If any citizen of the United States or other white per-
son should form a settlement upon lands which are
ARTICLE 5. the property of the Sac and Fox tribes, upon com-
Lest the friendship which is now established plaint being made thereof to the superintendent or
between the United States and the said Indian other person having charge of the affairs of the Indi-
tribes should be interrupted by the misconduct of ans, such intruder shall forthwith be removed.
individuals, it is hereby agreed that for injuries
done by individuals no private revenge or retalia- ARTICLE 7.
tion shall take place, but, instead thereof, com- As long as the lands which are now ceded to the
plaints shall be made by the party injured to the United States remain their property, the Indians

458 Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, 1804
belonging to the said tribes, shall enjoy the privilege sing or on the right bank of the Mississippi, as the
of living and hunting upon them. one or the other may be found most convenient; and
a tract of land not exceeding two miles square shall
ARTICLE 8. be given for that purpose. And the said tribes do fur-
As the laws of the United States regulating trade and ther agree, that they will at all times allow to traders
intercourse with the Indian tribes, are already and other persons travelling through their country
extended to the country inhabited by the Saukes and under the authority of the United States a free and
Foxes, and as it is provided by those laws that no safe passage for themselves and their property of
person shall reside as a trader in the Indian country every description. And that for such passage they
without a license under the hand [and] seal of the shall at no time and on no account whatever be sub-
superintendent of Indian affairs, or other person ject to any toll or exaction.
appointed for the purpose by the President, the said
tribes do promise and agree that they will not suffer ARTICLE 12.
any trader to reside amongst them without such This treaty shall take effect and be obligatory on the
license; and that they will from time to time give contracting parties as soon as the same shall have
notice to the superintendent or to the agent for their been ratified by the President by and with the advice
tribes of all the traders that may be in their country. and consent of the Senate of the United States.
ARTICLE 9. In testimony whereof, the said William Henry Harri-

In order to put a stop to the abuses and impositions son, and the chiefs and head men of the said Sac and
which are practiced upon the said tribes by the pri- Fox tribes, have hereunto set their hands and affixed
vate traders, the United States will at a convenient their seals.
time establish a trading house or factory where the
individuals of the said tribes can be supplied with Done at Saint Louis, in the district of Louisiana, on
goods at a more reasonable rate than they have been the third day of November, one thousand eight hun-
accustomed to procure them. dred and four, and of the independence of the
United States the twenty-ninth.
ARTICLE 10.
In order to evince the sincerity of their friendship and William Henry Harrison, [L. S.],
affection for the United States and a respectful defer- Layauvois, or Lalyurva, his x mark, [L. S.],
ence for their advice by an act which will not only be Pashepaho, or the giger, his x mark, [L. S.],
acceptable to them but to the common Father of all Quashquame, or jumping fish, his x mark, [L. S.],
the nations of the earth; the said tribes do hereby Outchequaka, or sun fish, his x mark, [L. S.],
solemnly promise and agree that they will put an end Hahshequarhiqua, or the bear, his x mark, [L. S.].
to the bloody war which has heretofore raged
between their tribes and those of the Great and Little In presence of (the words “a branch of the Illinois,”
Osages. And for the purpose of burying the toma- in the third line of the second article, and the word
hawk and renewing the friendly intercourse between “forever,” in the fifth line of the same article, being
themselves and the Osages, a meeting of their respec- first interlined)—
tive chiefs shall take place, at which under the direc-
tion of the above-named commissioner or the agent Wm. Prince, secretary to the commissioner,
of Indian affairs residing at St. Louis, an adjustment John Griffin, one of the judges of the Indiana
of all their differences shall be made and peace estab- Territory,
lished upon a firm and lasting basis. J. Bruff, major artillery, United States,
Amos Stoddard, captain, Corps Artillerists,
ARTICLE 11. P. Chouteau,
As it is probable that the government of the United Vigo,
States will establish a military post at or near the S. Warrel, lieutenant, United States Artillery,
mouth of the Ouisconsing river; and as the land on D. Delamay,
the lower side of the river may not be suitable for Joseph Barron,
that purpose, the said tribes hereby agree that a fort Hypolite Bolen, his x mark.
may be built either on the upper side of the Ouiscon- Sworn interpreters.

ADDITIONAL ARTICLE. ARTICLE 2.

It is agreed that nothing in this treaty contained, It is agreed between the confederated Tribes of the
shall affect the claim of any individual or individuals Sacs and Foxes, and the Sioux, that the Line between
who may have obtained grants of land from the their respective countries shall be as follows: Com-
Spanish government, and which are not included mencing at the mouth of the Upper Ioway River, on
within the general boundary line laid down in this the west bank of the Mississippi, and ascending the
treaty, provided that such grant have at any time said Ioway river, to its left fork; thence up that fork
been made known to the said tribes and recognized to its source; thence crossing the fork of Red Cedar
by them. 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
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825 Yancton band of the Sioux tribe, being principally
Aug. 19, 1825. | 7 Stat., 272. | Proclamation. interested in the establishment of the line from
Feb. 6, 1826. the Forks of the Desmoines to the Missouri, and
Treaty with the Sioux and Chippewa, Sacs and Fox, not being sufficiently represented to render the
Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Winnebago, and a por- definitive establishment of that line proper, it is
tion of the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawattomie, expressly declared that the line from the forks of the
Tribes. Desmoines to the forks of the Calumet river, and
down that river to the Missouri, is not to be consid-
THE United States of America have seen with much ered as settled until the assent of the Yancton band
regret, that wars have for many years been carried shall be given thereto. And if the said band should
on between the Sioux and the Chippewas, and more refuse their assent, the arrangement of that portion
recently between the confederated tribes of Sacs and of the boundary line shall be void, and the rights
Foxes, and the Sioux; and also between the Ioways of the parties to the country bounded thereby, shall
and Sioux; which, if not terminated, may extend to be the same as if no provision had been made for
the other tribes, and involve the Indians upon the the extension of the line west of the forks of the
Missouri, the Mississippi, and the Lakes, in general Desmoines. And the Sacs and Foxes relinquish to
hostilities. In order, therefore, to promote peace the tribes interested therein, all their claim to land on
among these tribes, and to establish boundaries the east side of the Mississippi river.
among them and the other tribes who live in their
vicinity, and thereby to remove all causes of future ARTICLE 3.
difficulty, the United States have invited the The Ioways accede to the arrangement between the
Chippewa, Sac, and Fox, Menominie, Ioway, Sioux, Sacs and Foxes, and the Sioux; but it is agreed
Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottowa, Chippewa between the Ioways and the confederated tribes of
and Potawatomie Tribes of Indians living upon the the Sacs and Foxes, that the Ioways have a just claim
Illinois, to assemble together, and in a spirit of to a portion of the country between the boundary
mutual conciliation to accomplish these objects; and line described in the next preceding article, and the
to aid therein, have appointed William Clark and Missouri and Mississippi; and that the said Ioways,
Lewis Cass, Commissioners on their part, who have and Sacs and Foxes, shall peaceably occupy the
met the Chiefs, Warriors, and Representatives of the same, until some satisfactory arrangement can be
said tribes, and portion of tribes, at Prairie des made between them for a division of their respective
Chiens, in the Territory of Michigan, and after full claims to country.
deliberation, the said tribes, and portions of tribes,
have agreed with the United States, and with one ARTICLE 4.
another, upon the following articles. The Ottoes not being represented at this Council,
and the Commissioners for the United States being
ARTICLE 1. anxious that justice should be done to all parties, and
There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between having reason to believe that the Ottoes have a just
the Sioux and Chippewas; between the Sioux and claim to a portion of the country upon the Missouri,
the confederated tribes of Sacs and Foxes; and east and south of the boundary line dividing the
between the Ioways and the Sioux. Sacs and Foxes and the Ioways, from the Sioux, it is

460 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825
agreed between the parties interested therein, and ject into the meadows, and thence to the Plover
the United States, that the claim of the Ottoes shall Portage of the Ouisconsin.
not be affected by any thing herein contained; but
the same shall remain as valid as if this treaty had ARTICLE 7.
not been formed. It is agreed between the Winnebagoes and the Sioux,
Sacs and Foxes, Chippewas and Ottawas, Chippe-
ARTICLE 5. was and Potawatomies of the Illinois, that the Win-
It is agreed between the Sioux and the Chippewas, nebago country shall be bounded as follows: south
that the line dividing their respective countries shall easterly by Rock River, from its source near the Win-
commence at the Chippewa River, half a day’s nebago lake, to the Winnebago village, about forty
march below the falls; and from thence it shall run to miles above its mouth; westerly by the east line of
Red Cedar River, immediately below the falls; from the tract, lying upon the Mississippi, herein secured
thence to the St. Croix River, which it strikes at a to the Ottawa, Chippewa and Potawatomie Indians,
place called the standing cedar, about a day’s paddle of the Illinois; and also by the high bluff, described
in a canoe, above the Lake at the mouth of that river; in the Sioux boundary, and running north to Black
thence passing between two lakes called by the river: from this point the Winnebagoes claim up
Chippewas “Green Lakes,” and by the Sioux “the Black river, to a point due west from the source of
lakes they bury the Eagles in,” and from thence to the left fork of the Ouisconsin; thence to the source
the standing cedar that “the Sioux Split”; thence to of the said fork, and down the same to the Ouiscon-
Rum River, crossing it at the mouth of a small creek sin; thence down the Ouisconsin to the portage, and
called Choaking creek, a long day’s march from the across the portage to Fox river; thence down Fox
Mississippi; thence to a point of woods that projects river to the Winnebago lake, and to the grand Kan
into the prairie, half a day’s march from the Missis- Kanlin, including in their claim the whole of Win-
sippi; thence in a straight line to the mouth of the nebago lake; but, for the causes stated in the next
first river which enters the Mississippi on its west article, this line from Black river must for the present
side above the mouth of Sac river; thence ascending be left indeterminate.
the said river (above the mouth of Sac river) to a
small lake at its source; thence in a direct line to a ARTICLE 8.
lake at the head of Prairie river, which is supposed to The representatives of the Menominies not being
enter the Crow Wing river on its South side; thence sufficiently acquainted with their proper boundaries,
to Otter-tail lake Portage; thence to said Ottertail to settle the same definitively, and some uncertainty
lake, and down through the middle thereof, to its existing in consequence of the cession made by that
outlet; thence in a direct line, so as to strike Buffalo tribe upon Fox River and Green Bay, to the New
river, half way from its source to its mouth, and York Indians, it is agreed between the said Meno-
down the said river to Red River; thence descending minie tribe, and the Sioux, Chippewas, Winneba-
Red river to the mouth of Outard or Goose creek: goes, Ottawa, Chippewa and Potawatomie Indians
The eastern boundary of the Sioux commences of the Illinois, that the claim of the Menominies to
opposite the mouth of Ioway river, on the Missis- any portion of the land within the boundaries allot-
sippi, runs back two or three miles to the bluffs, fol- ted to either of the said tribes, shall not be barred by
lows the bluffs, crossing Bad axe river, to the mouth any stipulation herein; but the same shall remain as
of Black river, and from Black river to half a day’s valid as if this treaty had not been concluded. It is,
march below the Falls of the Chippewa River. however, understood that the general claim of the
Menominies is bounded on the north by the
ARTICLE 6. Chippewa country, on the east by Green Bay and
It is agreed between the Chippewas and Winneba- lake Michigan extending as far south as Millawau-
goes, so far as they are mutually interested therein, kee river, and on the West they claim to Black River.
that the southern boundary line of the Chippewa
country shall commence on the Chippewa river ARTICLE 9.
aforesaid, half a day’s march below the falls on that The country secured to the Ottawa, Chippewa, and
river, and run thence to the source of Clear Water Potawatomie tribes of the Illinois, is bounded as fol-
river, a branch of the Chippewa; thence south to lows: Beginning at the Winnebago village, on Rock
Black river; thence to a point where the woods pro- river, forty miles from its mouth and running thence

down the Rock river to a line which runs from Lake ARTICLE 12.
Michigan to the Mississippi, and with that line to the The Chippewa tribe being dispersed over a great
Mississippi, opposite to Rock Island; thence up that extent of country, and the Chiefs of that tribe having
river to the United States reservation, at the mouth requested, that such portion of them as may be
of the Ouisconsin; thence with the south and east thought proper, by the Government of the United
lines of the said reservation to the Ouisconsin; States, may be assembled in 1826, upon some part of
thence, southerly, passing the heads of the small Lake Superior, that the objects and advantages of
streams emptying into the Mississippi, to the Rock this treaty may be fully explained to them, so that
river at the Winnebago village. The Illinois Indians the stipulations thereof may be observed by the war-
have also a just claim to a portion of the country riors. The Commissioners of the United States assent
bounded south by the Indian boundary line afore- thereto, and it is therefore agreed that a council shall
said, running from the southern extreme of lake accordingly be held for these purposes.
Michigan, east by lake Michigan, north by the Meno-
minie country, and north-west by Rock river. This ARTICLE 13.
claim is recognized in the treaty concluded with the It is understood by all the tribes, parties hereto, that
said Illinois tribes at St. Louis, August 24, 1816, but no tribe shall hunt within the acknowledged limits
as the Millewakee and Manetoowalk bands are not of any other without their assent, but it being the
represented at this Council, it cannot be now defini- sole object of this arrangement to perpetuate a peace
tively adjusted. among them, and amicable relations being now
restored, the Chiefs of all the tribes have expressed a
ARTICLE 10. determination, cheerfully to allow a reciprocal right
All the tribes aforesaid acknowledge the general of hunting on the lands of one another, permission
controlling power of the United States, and dis- being first asked and obtained, as before provided
claim all dependence upon, and connection with, for.
any other power. And the United States agree to,
and recognize, the preceding boundaries, subject to ARTICLE 14.
the limitations and restrictions before provided. It Should any causes of difficulty hereafter unhappily
being, however, well understood that the reserva- arise between any of the tribes, parties hereunto, it is
tions at Fever River, at the Ouisconsin, and St. agreed that the other tribes shall interpose their good
Peters, and the ancient settlements at Prairie des offices to remove such difficulties; and also that the
Chiens and Green Bay, and the land property government of the United States may take such mea-
thereto belonging, and the reservations made upon sures as they may deem proper, to effect the same
the Mississippi, for the use of the half breeds, in object.
the treaty concluded with the Sacs and Foxes,
August 24, 1824, are not claimed by either of the ARTICLE 15.
said tribes. This treaty shall be obligatory on the tribes, parties
hereto, from and after the date hereof, and on the
ARTICLE 11. United States, from and after its ratification by the
The United States agree, whenever the President government thereof.
may think it necessary and proper, to convene such
of the tribes, either separately or together, as are Done, and signed, and sealed, at Prairie des Chiens,
interested in the lines left unsettled herein, and to in the territory of Michigan, this nineteenth day of
recommend to them an amicable and final adjust- August, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-
ment of their respective claims, so that the work, five, and of the independence of the United States
now happily begun, may be consummated. It is the fiftieth.
agreed, however, that a Council shall be held with
the Yancton band of the Sioux, during the year 1826, William Clark, [L. S.],
to explain to them the stipulations of this treaty, and Lewis Cass, [L. S.].
to procure their assent thereto, should they be dis-
posed to give it, and also with the Ottoes, to settle Sioux:
and adjust their title to any of the country claimed Wa-ba-sha, x or the leaf, [L. S.],
by the Sacs, Foxes, and Ioways. Pe-tet-te x Corbeau, little crow, [L. S.],

462 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 1825
The Little x of the Wappitong tribe, [L. S.], En-im-e-tas, x the barking wolf, [L. S.],
Tartunka-nasiah x Sussitong, [L. S.], Pape-at, x the one just arrived, [L. S.],
Sleepy Eyes, x Sossitong, [L. S.], O-que-men-ce, x the little chief, [L. S.].
Two faces x do [L. S.],
French Crow x Wappacoota, [L. S.], Chippewas:
Kee-jee x do [L. S.], Shinguaba x W’Ossin, 1st chief of the Chippewa
Tar-se-ga x do [L. S.], nation, Saulte St. Marie, [L. S.],
Wa-ma-de-tun-ka x black dog, [L. S.], Gitspee x Jiauba, 2d chief, [L. S.],
Wan-na-ta x Yancton, or he that charges on his Gitspee x Waskee, or le boeuf of la pointe lake
enemies, [L. S.], Superior, [L. S.],
Red Wing x [L. S.], Nain-a-boozhu, x of la pointe lake Superior,
Ko-ko-ma-ko x [L. S.], [L. S.],
Sha-co-pe x the Sixth, [L. S.], Monga, x Zid or loon’s foot of Fond du Lac,
Pe-ni-si-on x [L. S.], [L. S.],
Eta-see-pa x Wabasha’s band, [L. S.], Weescoup, x or sucre of Fond du Lac, [L. S.],
Wa-ka-u-hee, x Sioux band, rising thunder, Mush-Koas, x or the elk of Fond du Lac, [L. S.],
[L. S.], Nau-bun x Aqeezhik, of Fond du Lac, [L. S.],
The Little Crow, x Sussetong, [L. S.], Kau-ta-waubeta, x or broken tooth of Sandy
Po-e-ha-pa x Me-da-we-con-tong, or eagle head, lake, [L. S.],
[L. S.], Pugisaingegen, x or broken arm of Sandy lake,
Ta-ke-wa-pa x Wappitong, or medicine blanket, [L. S.],
[L. S.], Kwee-weezaishish, x or gross guelle of Sandy
Tench-ze-part, x his bow, [L. S.], lake, [L. S.],
Masc-pu-lo-chas-tosh, x the white man, [L. S.], Ba-ba-see-kundade, x or curling hair of Sandy
Te-te-kar-munch, x the buffaloman, [L. S.], lake, [L. S.],
Wa-sa-o-ta x Sussetong, or a great of hail, [L. S.], Paashineep, x or man shooting at the mark of
Oeyah-ko-ca, x the crackling tract, [L. S.], Sandy lake, [L. S.],
Mak-to-wah-ke-ark, x the bear, [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.],
Winnebagoes: Nau-din, x or the wind, St. Croix band, [L. S.],
Les quatres jambes, x [L. S.], Nau-quan-a-bee, x of Mille lac, [L. S.],
Carimine, x the turtle that walks, [L. S.], Tu-kau-bis-hoo, x or crouching lynx of Lac
De-ca-ri, x [L. S.], Courte Oreille, [L. S.],
Wan-ca-ha-ga, x or snake’s skin, [L. S.], The Red Devil, x of Lac Courte Oreille, [L. S.],
Sa-sa-ma-ni, x [L. S.], The Track, x of Lac Courte Oreille, [L. S.],
Wa-non-che-qua, x the merchant, [L. S.], Ne-bo-na-bee, x the mermaid Lac Courte
Chon-que-pa, x or dog’s head, [L. S.], Oreille, [L. S.],
Cha-rat-chon, x the smoker, [L. S.], Pi-a-gick, x the single man St. Croix, [L. S.],
Ca-ri-ca-si-ca, x he that kills the crow, [L. S.], Pu-in-a-ne-gi, x, or the hole in the day, Sandy
Watch-kat-o-que, x the grand canoe, [L. S.], lake, [L. S.],
Ho-wa-mick-a, x the little elk, [L. S.]. Moose-o-mon-e, x plenty of elk, St. Croix band,
[L. S.],
Menominees: Nees-o-pe-na, x or two birds of Upper Red
Ma-can-me-ta, x medicine bear, [L. S.], Cedar lake, [L. S.],
Chau-wee-nou-mi-tai, x medicine south wind, Shaata, x the pelican of Leech lake, [L. S.],
[L. S.], Che-on-o-quet, x the great cloud of Leech lake,
Char-o-nee, x [L. S.], [L. S.],
Ma-wesh-a, x the little wolf, [L. S.], I-au-ben-see, x the little buck of Red lake,
A-ya-pas-mis-ai, x the thunder that turns, [L. S.],
[L. S.], Kia-wa-tas, x the tarrier of Leech lake, [L. S.],
Cha-ne-pau, x the riband, [L. S.], Mau-ge-ga-bo, x the leader of Leech lake,
La-me-quon, x the spoon, [L. S.], [L. S.],

Nan-go-tuck, x the flame of Leech lake, Mis-o-win, x moose deer horn, [L. S.],
[L. S.], No-ko-wot, x the down of the fur, [L. S.],
Nee-si-day-sish, x the sky of Red lake, Nau-sa-wa-quot, x the bear that sleeps on the
[L. S.], forks, [L. S.],
Pee-chan-a-nim, x striped feather of Sandy lake, Shin-quin-is, x the ratler, [L. S.],
[L. S.], O-lo-pee-aau, x or Mache-paho-ta, the bear,
White Devil, x of Leech lake, [L. S.], [L. S.],
Ka-ha-ka, x the sparrow, Lac, Keesis, x the sun, [L. S.],
Courte Oreille, [L. S.] No-wank, x he that gives too little, [L. S.],
I-au-be-ence, x little buck, of Rice lake, Ca-ba- Kan-ka-mote, x [L. S.],
ma-bee, x the assembly of St. Croix, [L. S.], Neek-waa, x [L. S.],
Nau-gau-nosh, x the forward man lake Ka-tuck-e-kan-ka, x the fox with a spotted
Flambeau, [L. S.], breast, [L. S.],
Caw-win-dow, x he that gathers berries of Mock-to-back-sa-gum, x black tobacco, [L. S.],
Sandy Lake, [L. S.], Wes-kesa, x the bear family, [L. S.].
On-que-ess, the mink, lake Superior, [L. S.],
Ke-we-ta-ke-pe, x all round the sky, [L. S.],
Ioways:
The-sees, x [L. S.].
Ma-hos-ka, x the white cloud, [L. S.],
Pumpkin, x [L. S.],
Ottawas:
Wa-ca-nee, x the painted medicine, [L. S.],
Chaboner, x or Chambly, [L. S.],
Tar-no-mun, x a great many deer, [L. S.],
Shaw-fau-wick, x the mink, [L. S.].
Wa-hoo-ga, x the owl, [L. S.],
Ta-ca-mo-nee, x the lightning, [L. S.],
Potawatomies:
Wa-push-a, x the man killer, [L. S.],
Ignace, x [L. S.],
To-nup-he-non-e, x the flea, [L. S.],
Ke-o-kuk, x [L. S.],
Mon-da-tonga, x [L. S.],
Che-chan-quose, x the little crane, [L. S.],
Cho-wa-row-a, x [L. S.].
Taw-wa-na-nee, x the trader, [L. S.].
Sacs: Witnesses:
Na-o-tuk, x the stabbing chief, [L. S.], Thomas Biddle, secretary,
Pish-ken-au-nee, x all fish, [L. S.], R. A. McCabe, Captain Fifth Infantry,
Po-ko-nau-qua, x or broken arm, [L. S.], R. A. Forsyth,
Wau-kau-che, x eagle nose, [L. S.], N. Boilvin, United States Indian agent,
Quash-kaume, x jumping fish, [L. S.], C. C. Trowbridge, sub Indian agent,
Ochaach, x the fisher, [L. S.], Henry R. Schoolcraft, United States Indian
Ke-o-kuck, x the watchful fox, [L. S.], agent,
Skin-gwin-ee-see, the x ratler, [L. S.], B. F. Harney, Surgeon U. S. Army,
Was-ar-wis-ke-no, x the yellow bird, [L. S.], W. B. Alexander, sub Indian agent,
Pau-ko-tuk, x the open sky, [L. S.], Thomas Forsyth, agent Indian affairs,
Au-kaak-wan-e-suk, x he that vaults on the Marvien Blondau,
earth, [L. S.], David Bailey,
Mu-ku-taak-wan-wet, x [L. S.], James M’Ilvaine, lieutenant U. S. Army,
Mis-ke-bee, x the standing hair, [L. S.]. Law. Taliaferro, Indian agent for Upper
Mississippi,
Foxes: John Holiday,
Wan-ba-law, x the playing fox, [L. S.], William Dickson,
Ti-a-mah, x the bear that makes the rocks shake, S. Campbell, United States interpreter,
[L. S.], J. A. Lewis,
Pee-ar-maski, x the jumping sturgeon, [L. S.], William Holiday,
Shagwa-na-tekwishu, x the thunder that is Dunable Denejlevy,
heard all over the world, [L. S.], Bela Chapman.

464 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830
Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830 ered null and void. But, if a country shall be found
and approved, the President of the United States
Aug. 31, 1830. | Unratified. | Indian Office,
box 1, Treaties, 1802–1853. | See note, ante, shall cause a grant in fee simple to be made out, to
p. 360. be signed by him as other grants are usually
Articles of a treaty, entered into at Franklin, Ten- signed, conveying the country to the Chickasaw
nessee, this 31st day of August, 1830, by John H. people, and to their children, so long as they shall
Eaton, Secretary of War, and General John Coffee, continue to exist as a nation, and shall reside upon
commissioners appointed by the President, on the the same.
part of the United States, and the chiefs and head
men of the Chickasaw Nation of Indians, duly ARTICLE 3.
authorized, by the whole nation, to conclude a treaty. 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
ARTICLE 1. every description, but it is, at the same time, agreed,
The Chickasaw Nation hereby cede to the United that they shall act peaceably, and never make war,
States all the lands owned and possessed by them, nor resort to arms, except with the consent and
on the East side of the Mississippi River, where they approval of the President, unless in cases where they
at present reside, and which lie north of the follow- may be invaded by some hostile power or tribe.
ing boundary, viz: beginning at the mouth of the
Oacktibbyhaw (or Tibbee) creek; thence, up the ARTICLE 4.
same, to a point, being a marked tree, on the old As further consideration, the United States agree,
Natchez road, about one mile Southwardly from that each warrior and widow having a family, and
Wall’s old place; thence, with the Choctaw boundary, each white man, having an Indian family, shall be
and along it, Westwardly, through the Tunicha old entitled to a half section of land, and if they have no
fields, to a point on the Mississippi river, about family, to half that quantity. The delegation present,
twenty-eight miles, by water, below where the St. having full knowledge of the population of their
Francis river enters said stream, on the West side. All country, stipulate, that the first class of cases (those
the lands North, and North-East of said boundary, to with families), shall not exceed five hundred, and
latitude thirty-five North the South boundary of the that the other class shall not exceed one hundred
State of Tennessee, being owned by the Chickasaws, persons. The reservations secured under this arti-
are hereby ceded to the United States. cle, shall be granted in fee simple, to those who
choose to remain, and become subject to the laws of
ARTICLE 2. the whites; and who, having recorded such inten-
In consideration of said cession, the United States tion with the agent, before the time of the first
agree to furnish to the Chickasaw Nation of Indi- removal, shall continue to reside upon, and culti-
ans, a country, West of the territory of Arkansaw, vate the same, for five years; at the expiration of
to lie South of latitude thirty-six degrees and a which time, a grant shall be issued. But should they
half, and of equal extent with the one ceded; and prefer to remove, and actually remove, then the
in all respects as to timber, water and soil, it shall United States, in lieu of such reservations will pay
be suited to the wants and condition of said for the same, at the rate of one dollar and a half per
Chickasaw people. It is agreed further, that the acre; the same to be paid in ten equal, annual
United States will send one or more commission- installments, to commence after the period of the
ers to examine and select a country of the descrip- ratification of this treaty, if, at that time, they shall
tion stated, who shall be accompanied by an inter- have removed.
preter and not more than twelve persons of the
Chickasaws, to be chosen by the nation, to exam- ARTICLE 5.
ine said country; and who, for their expenses and It is agreed, that the United States, as further consid-
services, shall be allowed two dollars a day each, eration, will pay to said Nation of Indians, fifteen
while so engaged. If, after proper examination, a thousand dollars annually, for twenty years; the first
country suitable to their wants and condition can payment to be made after their removal shall take
not be found; then, it is stipulated and agreed, that place, and they be settled at their new homes, West
this treaty, and all its provisions, shall be consid- of the Mississippi.

ARTICLE 6. under the provisions of the fourth article of this

Whereas Levi Colbert, George Clobber, Tessemingo, treaty.
William McGilvery and Saml. Seeley Senr, have been
long known, as faithful and steady friends of the ARTICLE 9.
United States, and regardless of the interest of their At the request of the delegation, it is agreed that Levi
own people; to afford them an earnest of our good Colbert shall have an additional section of land, to
feeling, now that they are about to seek a new home; that granted him in the 6th article, to be located
the commissioners, of their own accord, and without where he may prefer, and subject to the conditions
any thing of solicitation or request, on the part of contained in said sixth article.
said persons, have proposed, and do agree, that they
have reservations of four sections each, to include ARTICLE 10.
their present improvements, as nearly as may be; or, All the reservations made by this treaty, shall be in
if they have improvements at any other place than sections, half sections, or quarter sections, agreeably
one, then, equally to divide said reservations, so that to the legal surveys made, and shall include the pres-
two sections may be laid off at one place of improve- ent houses and improvements of the reserves, as
ment, and two at another; or, the whole at one place, nearly as may be.
as the party entitled may choose. They shall be enti-
tled to the same in fee simple, to be resided upon; or, ARTICLE 11.
if they prefer it, they may, with the consent of the It is agreed that the Chickasaw people, in removing
President, sell and convey the same, in fee. And it is to their new homes, shall go there at the expense of
further agreed, that upon the same terms and condi- the United States; and that when they shall have
tions, a reservation of two sections, to be surveyed arrived at their new homes, the United States will
together, and to include the improvements of the furnish to each one, for the space of one year, meat
party entitled, shall and the same is hereby declared and corn rations, for himself and his family; that
to be, secured to Capt. James Brown, James Colbert, thereby, time may be afforded to clear the ground,
John McLish & Isaac Alberson. and prepare a crop. And the better to effect this
object, it is agreed that one-half the nation shall
ARTICLE 7. remove in the fall of 1831, and the other half the fol-
The delegation having selected the following per- lowing fall. The supplies to be furnished by the
sons, as worthy their regard and confidence, to wit;— United States, are to be delivered at one or two
Ish to yo to pe, To pul ka, Ish te ke yo ka tubbe, Ish te places in the nation, which shall be as convenient to
ke cha, E le paum be, Pis te la tubbe, Ish tim mo lat the body of the people as may be practicable; having
ka, Pis ta tubbe, Im mo hoal te tubbe, Ba ka tubbe, Ish regard to the position or places, where the supplies
to ye tubbe, Ah to ko wa, Pak la na ya ubbe. In hie yo may be had or deposited, with the greatest conve-
che tubbe, Thomas Seally, Tum ma sheck ah, Im mo nience, and least expense to the United States.
la subbe, Am le mi ya tubbe; Benjamin Love and Mal-
comb McGee;—it is consented that each of said per- ARTICLE 12.
sons shall be entitled to a reservation of one section of The United States, at the time of the removal of each
land to be located in a body, to include their present portion of the nation, at the valuation of some
improvement, and upon which, intending to become respectable person, to be appointed by the President,
resident citizens of the country, they may continue, agree to purchase all the stock they may desire to part
and at the end of five years, shall receive a grant for with, (except horses), and to pay them therefor, at their
the same; or, should they prefer to remove, they shall new homes, as early as practicable after the ratification
be entitled, in lieu thereof, to receive from the United of this treaty. Also, to receive their agricultural and
States, one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for farming utensils, and to furnish them, at the West,
the same, to be paid in two equal, annual install- with axes, hoes and ploughs, suited to their wants
ments, to commence after the ratification of this respectively. Also, to furnish each family with a spin-
treaty, and after the nation shall have removed. ning wheel and cards, and a loom to every six families.

No person receiving a special reservation, shall A council house, and two houses of public worship,
be entitled to claim any further reservation, which may be used for the purposes of schools,

466 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1830
shall be built by the United States; and the sum of It is agreed, that the President of the United States
four thousand dollars shall be appropriated for that will use his good offices, and kind mediation, and
purpose. Also, one blacksmith, and no more, shall make a request of the governor and legislature of
be employed at the expense of the government, for the State of Mississippi, not to extend their laws
twenty years, for the use of the Indians; and a mill- over the Chickasaws; or to suspend their operation,
wright for five years, to aid them in erecting their until they shall have time to remove, as limited in
saw and grist-mills. this treaty.
ARTICLE 14. In witness of all and every thing herein determined,

The sum of two thousand dollars a year, shall be between the United States, and the delegation repre-
paid for ten years, for the purpose of employing senting the whole Chickasaw nation, the parties heave
suitable teachers of the Christian religion, and hereunto set their hands and seals, at Franklin, Ten-
superintending common schools in the nation. And nessee, within the United States, this thirty-first day of
it is further consented, that twenty Chickasaw boys August, one thousand eight hundred and thirty.
of promise, from time to time, for the period of
twenty years, shall be selected from the nation by Jn H Eaton, Secr. of War.
the chiefs, to be educated within the States at the Jno. Coffee.
expense of the United States, under the direction of Levi Colbert, his x mark.
the Secretary of War. George Colbert, his x mark.
James Colbert, his x mark.
ARTICLE 15. Wm. McGilvery, his x mark.
A desire having been expressed by Levi Colbert, that James Brown, his x mark.
two of his younger sons, Abijah Jackson Colbert, and Isaac Alberson, his x mark.
Andrew Morgan Colbert, aged seven and five years, To pul ka, his x mark.
might be educated under the direction and care of Ish te ke yo ka tubbe, his x mark.
the President of the United States;—and George Col- Ish te ke cha, his x mark.
bert having also expressed—a wish that his grand- Im me houl te tubbe, his x mark.
son, Andrew J. Frazier, aged about twelve years, In ha yo chet tubbe, his x mark.
might have a similar attention: It is consented, that at Ish te ya tubbe, his x mark.
a proper age, as far as they may be found to have Ah to ko wa, his x mark.
capacity, they shall receive a liberal education, at the Ook la na ya ubbe, his x mark.
expense of the United States, under the direction and Im mo la subbe, his x mark.
control of the President. Hush ta ta be, his x mark.
In no wa ke che, his x mark.
ARTICLE 16. Oh he cubbe, his x mark.
The United States shall have authority, after the rati- Kin hi che, his x mark.
fication of this treaty by the Senate, to survey and J. W. Lish.
prepare the country for sale; but no sale shall take
place before the fall of 1832, or until they shall Signed in presence of us,
remove. And that every clause and article herein Preston Hay, Secretary.
contained may be strictfully fulfilled;—it is stipu- Benj. Reynolds, U. S. agent.
lated and agreed, that the lands herein ceded shall Benjamin Love, interpreter.
be, and the same are hereby pledged, for the pay- R. M. Gavock.
ment of the several sums which are secured and R. P. Currin.
directed to be paid, under the several provisions of Lemuel Smith.
this treaty. Leml. Donelson.
Jos. H. Fry.
ARTICLE 17. James H. Wilson.
The United States, and the Chickasaw nation of Indi- J. R. Davis.
ans herein stipulate, that perpetual peace, and unal-
tered and lasting friendship, shall be maintained Articles, supplementary to a treaty this day entered
between them. into, between John H. Eaton and John Coffee, on the

part of the United States, and the Chiefs of the accordingly consent thereto; and it is stipulated that
Chickasaw nation. Col. Reynolds shall have a reservation of five quarter
sections of land, to be bounded by sectional lines, or
ARTICLE 1. quarter sectional lines, and to lie together, in a body;
It is agreed that the United States will furnish the and in further consideration, it is stipulated, with the
Chickasaw nation, to be distributed by the agent, consent of said Reynolds, that his pension of two
under the direction of the chiefs, at or before the time hundred and forty dollars a year, granted to him by
of their removal West of the Mississippi river, three the United States, shall thereafter cease and deter-
hundred rifles, with moulds and wipers; also, three mine. The application in favor of the sub-agent, Maj.
hundred pounds of good powder, and twelve hun- Allen, is also recognized, and a reservation of a quar-
dred pounds of lead. They will also furnish as afore- ter section is admitted to his wife, to whom and for
said, three hundred copper or brass kettles, and six whose benefit a grant shall issue. But said reserva-
hundred blankets. Likewise three thousand weight tions shall not be located, so as to interfere with
of leaf tobacco. other claims to reservations, secured under this
treaty, nor shall this treaty be affected if this article is
ARTICLE 2. not ratified.
Colbert’s Island, in the Tennessee river, just below
the mouth of Caney Creek, supposed to contain five ARTICLE 5.
hundred acres, has always been in the use and occu- The 4th article of the treaty of 19th October 1818,
pancy of George Colbert, and has been admitted by which reserves a salt lick, and authorizes Levi Col-
the nation, to be his individual property. It is agreed bert and James Brown to lease the same for a reason-
now, that he shall be recognized, as having a title to able quantity of salt, is hereby changed;—And with
the same, and that he shall receive from the United the consent of the commissioners present, the fol-
States, in consideration of it, one thousand dollars, to lowing agreement, made by Robert P. Currin, for
be paid in one year after the Chickasaws shall himself and William B. Lewis, is entered as part of
remove to their new homes. this treaty, to wit;
ARTICLE 3. Whereas a lease of land, of four miles square, was

James Colbert has represented, that he has a claim of secured under the fourth article of a treaty, con-
thirteen hundred dollars, of money due from a citi- cluded on the 19th day of October 1818, between the
zen of the United States, —that he has become insol- United States and the Chickasaw nation of Indians;
vent, and is unable to pay it. It is further represented, and Levi Colbert and James Brown, under the same
that by the rule of the Chickasaw people, where an treaty, were appointed agents and trustees by the
Indian cannot pay a debt due to a white man, the Chickasaw nation to make said lease. And whereas
nation assumes it. Also, Levi Colbert shews, that William B. Lewis, a citizen of the United States after-
some time since, he purchased of a white citizen, a wards procured from said trustees, Colbert and
horse which was stolen, and proven and taken out of Brown, a lease for the same, on condition of his pay-
his possession, as stolen property, for which he has ing annually, a certain amount of salt to said nation,
not, and cannot, obtain remuneration. Being now provided he should succeed in finding salt water.
about to leave their ancient homes, for a new one, And whereas the said William B. Lewis and Robert
too distant to attend to their business here;—it is P. Currin, who subsequently became interested with
agreed that a section of land may be located and him, have, as is shown, expended about the sum of
reserved, to be bound by sectional lines; which land, three thousand dollars, in endeavoring to find salt
with the consent of the President, they may sell. water, but without success. And the Indians, who
are about to leave their ancient country, being
ARTICLE 4. desirous to have this land and lease placed in such a
The Chickasaw delegation request, that a reservation condition, as that some benefit may result to their
of land may be made in favor of their excellent nation, They do hereby agree with said Robert P.
agent, Col. Benjamin Reynolds, who, since he has Currin, a citizen of the United States, for himself,
been among them, has acted uprightly and faithfully, and as the agent and attorney in fact of the said
and of their sub-agent, Major John L. Allen, who William B. Lewis (John H. Eaton and John Coffee,
also, has been of much service:—The commissioners the United States commissioners, to treat with said

468 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830
Chickasaw nation being present and assenting Kin hu che, his x mark.
thereto); that the lease heretofore made, be so J. W. Lish.
changed, that the rent therein agreed to be paid is
entirely released and discharged, from the date of Signed in presence of us,
said lease, together with all claim arising on account Preston Hay, secretary.
of the same. Benj. Reynolds, U. S. agent.
Benjamin Love, as interpreter.
And it is now agreed, that said lease shall remain, as R. M. Gavock.
heretofore made, with this alteration: that two thou- Leml. Donelson.
sand dollars shall be paid to said Colbert and Brown, Leml. Smith.
trustees as aforesaid, for the Chickasaw nation: to R. P. Currin.
wit: five hundred dollars now in hand; five hundred Jos. H. Fry.
dollars on the first day of October one thousand James H. Wilson.
eight hundred and thirty-one; and one thousand dol- J. R. Davis.
lars 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 con-
tract 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 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830
full authority to act in the premises, will annually Sept. 27, 1830. | 7 Stat., 333. | Proclamation,
pay to said trustees, four bushels of salt, or the value Feb. 24, 1831.
thereof, as they and the nation may agree to and A treaty of perpetual, friendship, cession and limits,
direct. entered into by John H. Eaton and John Coffee, for
and in behalf of the Government of the United
In testimony whereof, and in the presence of the States, and the Mingoes, Chiefs, Captains and War-
commissioners, appointed to treat with the Chicka- riors of the Choctaw Nation, begun and held at
saw nation of people, on the part of the United Dancing Rabbit Creek, on the fifteenth of September,
States, the parties respectively have hereto set their in the year eighteen hundred and thirty.
hands and affixed their seals, this first day of Sep-
tember, one thousand eight hundred and thirty. WHEREAS the General Assembly of the State of
Mississippi has extended the laws of said State to
Jn. H. Eaton, Secty. of War. persons and property within the chartered limits of
Jno. Coffee. the same, and the President of the United States has
Levi Colbert, his x mark. said that he cannot protect the Choctaw people from
George Colbert, his x mark. the operation of these laws; Now therefore that the
James Colbert, his x mark. Choctaw may live under their own laws in peace
Wm. McGilvery, his x mark. with the United States and the State of Mississippi
Isaac Alberson, his x mark. they have determined to sell their lands east of the
James Bown, his x mark. Mississippi and have accordingly agreed to the fol-
To pul ka, his x mark. lowing articles of treaty: a Perpetual peace and
Ish te ki yo ka tubbe, his x mark. friendship is pledged and agreed upon by and
Ish te he cha, his x mark. between the United States and the Mingoes, Chiefs,
Im me houl te tubbe, his x mark. and Warriors of the Choctaw Nation of Red People;
In hei yo chit tubbe, his x mark. and that this may be considered the Treaty existing
Ish te ya tubbe, his x mark. between the parties all other Treaties heretofore
Ah to ko wa, his x mark. existing and inconsistent with the provisions of this
Ook la na ya ubbe, his x mark. are hereby declared null and void.
Im mo la tubbe, his x mark.
Hush ta ta be, his x mark. ARTICLE 2.
In no wa ke che, his x mark. The United States under a grant specially to be made
On he cubbe, his x mark. by the President of the U.S. shall cause to be con-

veyed to the Choctaw Nation a tract of country west wish that Congress may grant to the Choctaws the
of the Mississippi River, in fee simple to them and right of punishing by their own laws any white
their descendants, to inure to them while they shall man who shall come into their nation and infringe
exist as a nation and live on it, beginning near Fort any of their national regulations.
Smith where the Arkansas boundary crosses the
Arkansas River, running thence to the source of the ARTICLE 5.
Canadian fork; if in the limits of the United States, or The United States are obliged to protect the
to those limits; thence due south to Red River, and Choctaws from domestic strife and from foreign ene-
down Red River to the west boundary of the Terri- mies on the same principles that the citizens of the
tory of Arkansas; thence north along that line to the United States are protected, so that whatever would
beginning. The boundary of the same to be agree- be a legal demand upon the U.S. for defense or for
ably to the Treaty made and concluded at Washing- wrongs committed by an enemy, on a citizen of the
ton City in the year 1825. The grant to be executed so U.S. shall be equally binding in favor of the
soon as the present Treaty shall be ratified. Choctaws, and in all cases where the Choctaws shall
be called upon by a legally authorized officer of the
ARTICLE 3. U.S. to fight an enemy, such Choctaw shall receive
In consideration of the provisions contained in the the pay and other emoluments, [this paragraph was
several articles of this Treaty, the Choctaw nation of not ratified] which citizens of the U.S. receive in such
Indians consent and hereby cede to the United cases, provided, no war shall be undertaken or pros-
States, the entire country they own and possess, east ecuted by said Choctaw Nation but by declaration
of the Mississippi River; and they agree to move made in full Council, and to be approved by the U.S.
beyond the Mississippi River, early as practicable, unless it be in self defense against an open rebellion
and will so arrange their removal, that as many as or against an enemy marching into their country, in
possible of their people not exceeding one half of the which cases they shall defend, until the U.S. are
whole number, shall depart during the falls of 1831 advised thereof.
and 1832; the residue to follow during the succeed-
ing fall of 1833, a better opportunity in this manner ARTICLE 6.
will be afforded the Government, to extend to them Should a Choctaw or any party of Choctaws commit
the facilities and comforts which it is desirable acts of violence upon the person or property of a cit-
should be extended in conveying them to their new izen of the U.S. or join any war party against any
homes. neighbouring tribe of Indians, without the authority
in the preceding article; and except to oppose an
ARTICLE 4. actual or threatened invasion or rebellion, such per-
The Government and people of the United States son so offending shall be delivered up to an officer
are hereby obliged to secure to the said Choctaw of the U.S. if in the power of the Choctaw Nation,
Nation of Red People the jurisdiction and govern- that such offender may be punished as may be pro-
ment of all the persons and property that may be vided in such cases, by the laws of the U.S.; but if
within their limits west, so that no Territory or state such offender is not within the control of the
shall ever have a right to pass laws for the govern- Choctaw Nation, then said Choctaw Nation shall
ment of the Choctaw Nation of Red People and not be held responsible for the injury done by said
their descendants; and that no part of the land offender.
granted them shall ever be embraced in any Terri-
tory or State; but the F. S. shall forever secure said ARTICLE 7.
Choctaw Nation from, and against, all laws except All acts of violence committed upon persons and
such as from time to time may be enacted in their property of the people of the Choctaw Nation
own National Councils, not inconsistent with the either by citizens of the U.S. or neighbouring
Constitution, Treaties, and Laws of the United Tribes of Red People, shall be referred to some
States; and except such as may, and which have authorized Agent by him to be referred to the
been enacted by Congress, to the extent that Con- President of the U.S. who shall examine into such
gress under the Constitution are required to exer- cases and see that every possible degree of justice
cise a legislation over Indian affairs. But the is done to said Indian party of the Choctaw
Choctaws, should this treaty be ratified, express a Nation.

ARTICLE 8. when a Choctaw shall be given up to be tried for any

Offenders against the laws of the U.S. or any indi- offense against the laws of the U.S. if unable to
vidual State shall be apprehended and delivered to employ counsel to defend him, the U.S. will do it,
any duly authorized person where such offender that his trial may be fair and impartial.
may be found in the Choctaw country, having fled
from any part of U.S. but in all such cases applica- ARTICLE 13.
tion must be made to the Agent or Chiefs and the It is consented that a qualified Agent shall be
expense of his apprehension and delivery provided appointed for the Choctaws every four years, unless
for and paid by the U. States. sooner removed by the President; and he shall be
removed on petition of the constituted authorities of
ARTICLE 9. the Nation, the President being satisfied there is suffi-
Any citizen of the U.S. who may be ordered from the cient cause shown. The Agent shall fix his residence
Nation by the Agent and constituted authorities of convenient to the great body of the people; and in the
the Nation and refusing to obey or return into the selection of an Agent immediately after the ratifica-
Nation without the consent of the aforesaid persons, tion of this Treaty, the wishes of the Choctaw Nation
shall be subject to such pains and penalties as may on the subject shall be entitled to great respect.
be provided by the laws of the U.S. in such cases.
Citizens of the U.S. traveling peaceably under the ARTICLE 14.
authority of the laws of the U.S. shall be under the Each Choctaw head of a family being desirous to
care and protection of the nation. remain and become a citizen of the States, shall be
permitted to do so, by signifying his intention to the
ARTICLE 10. Agent within six months from the ratification of this
No person shall expose goods or other article for sale Treaty, and he or she shall thereupon be entitled to a
as a trader, without a written permit from the consti- reservation of one section of six hundred and forty
tuted authorities of the Nation, or authority of the acres of land, to be bounded by sectional lines of sur-
laws of the Congress of the U.S. under penalty of for- vey; in like manner shall be entitled to one half that
feiting the Articles, and the constituted authorities of quantity for each unmarried child which is living
the Nation shall grant no license except to such per- with him over ten years of age; and a quarter section
sons as reside in the Nation and are answerable to to such child as may be under 10 years of age, to
the laws of the Nation. The U.S. shall be particularly adjoin the location of the parent. If they reside upon
obliged to assist to prevent ardent spirits from being said lands intending to become citizens of the States
introduced into the Nation. for five years after the ratification of this Treaty, in
that case a grant in fee simple shall issue; said reser-
ARTICLE 11. vation shall include the present improvement of the
Navigable streams shall be free to the Choctaws who head of the family, or a portion of it. Persons who
shall pay no higher toll or duty than citizens of the claim under this article shall not lose the privilege of
U.S. It is agreed further that the U.S. shall establish a Choctaw citizen, but if they ever remove are not to
one or more Post Offices in said Nation, and may be entitled to any portion of the Choctaw annuity.
establish such military post roads, and posts, as they
may consider necessary. ARTICLE 15.
To each of the Chiefs in the Choctaw Nation (to wit)
ARTICLE 12. Greenwood Laflore, Nutackachie, and Mushu-
All intruders shall be removed from the Choctaw latubbe there is granted a reservation of four sec-
Nation and kept without it. Private property to be tions of land, two of which shall include and adjoin
always respected and on no occasion taken for pub- their present improvement, and the other two
lic purposes without just compensation being made located where they please but on unoccupied unim-
therefor to the rightful owner. If an Indian unlaw- proved lands, such sections shall be bounded by
fully take or steal any property from a white man a sectional lines, and with the consent of the President
citizen of the U.S. the offender shall be punished. they may sell the same. Also to the three principal
And if a white man unlawfully take or steal any Chiefs and to their successors in office there shall be
thing from an Indian, the property shall be restored paid two hundred and fifty dollars annually while
and the offender punished. It is further agreed that they shall continue in their respective offices, except

to Mushulatubbe, who as he has an annuity of one And it is further agreed that the U.S. in addition will
hundred and fifty dollars for life under a former pay the sum of twenty thousand dollars for twenty
treaty, shall receive only the additional sum of one years, commencing after their removal to the west,
hundred dollars, while he shall continue in office as of which, in the first year after their removal, ten
Chief; and if in addition to this the Nation shall thousand dollars shall be divided and arranged to
think proper to elect an additional principal Chief of such as may not receive reservations under this
the whole to superintend and govern upon republi- Treaty.
can principles he shall receive annually for his ser-
vices five hundred dollars, which allowance to the ARTICLE 18.
Chiefs and their successors in office, shall continue The U.S. shall cause the lands hereby ceded to be
for twenty years. At any time when in military ser- surveyed; and surveyors may enter the Choctaw
vice, and while in service by authority of the U.S. Country for that purpose, conducting themselves
the district Chiefs under and by selection of the properly and disturbing or interrupting none of the
President shall be entitled to the pay of Majors; the Choctaw people. But no person is to be permitted to
other Chief under the same circumstances shall settle within the nation, or the lands to be sold before
have the pay of a Lieutenant Colonel. The Speakers the Choctaws shall remove. And for the payment of
of the three districts, shall receive twenty-five dol- the several amounts secured in this Treaty, the lands
lars a year for four years each; and the three secre- hereby ceded are to remain a fund pledged to that
taries one to each of the Chiefs, fifty dollars each for purpose, until the debt shall be provided for and
four years. Each Captain of the Nation, the number arranged. And further it is agreed, that in the con-
not to exceed ninety-nine, thirty-three from each struction of this Treaty wherever well founded doubt
district, shall be furnished upon removing to the shall arise, it shall be construed most favorably
West, with each a good suit of clothes and a broad towards the Choctaws.
sword as an outfit, and for four years commencing
with the first of their removal shall each receive fifty ARTICLE 19.
dollars a year, for the trouble of keeping their peo- The following reservations of land are hereby admit-
ple at order in settling; and whenever they shall be ted. To Colonel David Fulsom four sections of which
in military service by authority of the U.S. shall two shall include his present improvement, and two
receive the pay of a captain. may be located elsewhere, on unoccupied, unim-
proved land.
ARTICLE 16.
In wagons; and with steam boats as may be found To I. Garland, Colonel Robert Cole, Tuppanahomer,
necessary—the U.S. agree to remove the Indians to John Pytchlynn, Charles Juzan, Johokebetubbe, Eay-
their new homes at their expense and under the care chahobia, Ofehoma, two sections, each to include
of discreet and careful persons, who will be kind and their improvements, and to be bounded by sectional
brotherly to them. They agree to furnish them with lines, and the same may be disposed of and sold
ample corn and beef, or pork for themselves and with the consent of the President. And that others
families for twelve months after reaching their new not provided for, may be provided for, there shall be
homes. It is agreed further that the U.S. will take all reserved as follows:
their cattle, at the valuation of some discreet person
to be appointed by the President, and the same shall First. One section to each head of a family not
be paid for in money after their arrival at their new exceeding Forty in number, who during the present
homes; or other cattle such as may be desired shall year, may have had in actual cultivation, with a
be furnished them, notice being given through their dwelling house thereon fifty acres or more. Secondly,
Agent of their wishes upon this subject before their three quarter sections after the manner aforesaid to
removal that time to supply the demand may be each head of a family not exceeding four hundred
afforded. and sixty, as shall have cultivated thirty acres and
less than fifty, to be bounded by quarter section lines
ARTICLE 17. of survey, and to be contiguous and adjoining. Third;
The several annuities and sums secured under for- One half section as aforesaid to those who shall have
mer Treaties to the Choctaw nation and people shall cultivated from twenty to thirty acres the number not
continue as though this Treaty had never been made. to exceed four hundred. Fourth; a quarter section as

aforesaid to such as shall have cultivated from twelve also a Church for each of the three Districts, to be
to twenty acres, the number not to exceed three hun- used also as school houses, until the Nation may
dred and fifty, and one half that quantity to such as conclude to build others; and for these purposes ten
shall have cultivated from two to twelve acres, the thousand dollars shall be appropriated; also fifty
number also not to exceed three hundred and fifty thousand dollars (viz.) twenty-five hundred dollars
persons. Each of said class of cases shall be subject to annually shall be given for the support of three
the limitations contained in the first class, and shall teachers of schools for twenty years. Likewise there
be so located as to include that part of the improve- shall be furnished to the Nation, three Blacksmiths
ment which contains the dwelling house. If a greater one for each district for sixteen years, and a qualified
number shall be found to be entitled to reservations Mill Wright for five years; Also there shall be fur-
under the several classes of this article, than is stipu- nished the following articles, twenty-one hundred
lated for under the limitation prescribed, then and in blankets, to each warrior who emigrates a rifle,
that case the Chiefs separately or together shall deter- moulds, wipers and ammunition. One thousand
mine the persons who shall be excluded in the axes, ploughs, hoes, wheels and cards each; and four
respective districts. hundred looms. There shall also be furnished, one
ton of iron and two hundred weight of steel annu-
Fifth; Any Captain the number not exceeding ninety ally to each District for sixteen years.
persons, who under the provisions of this article
shall receive less than a section, he shall be entitled, ARTICLE 21.
to an additional quantity of half a section adjoining A few Choctaw Warriors yet survive who marched
to his other reservation. The several reservations and fought in the army with General Wayne, the
secured under this article, may be sold with the con- whole number stated not to exceed twenty. These it
sent of the President of the U.S. but should any pre- is agreed shall hereafter while they live, receive
fer it or omit to take a reservation for the quantity he twenty-five dollars a year; a list of them to be early
may be entitled to, the U.S. will on his removing pay as practicable, and within six months, made out, and
fifty cents an acre, after reaching their new homes, presented to the Agent, to be forwarded to the War
provided that before the first of January next they Department.
shall adduce to the Agent, or some other authorized
person to be appointed, proof of his claim and the ARTICLE 22.
quantity of it. Sixth; likewise children of the The Chiefs of the Choctaws who have suggested that
Choctaw Nation residing in the Nation, who have their people are in a state of rapid advancement in
neither father nor mother a list of which, with satis- education and refinement, and have expressed a
factory proof of Parentage and orphanage being filed solicitude that they might have the privilege of a
with Agent in six months to be forwarded to the War Delegate on the floor of the House of Representa-
Department, shall be entitled to a quarter section of tives extended to them. The Commissioners do not
Land, to be located under the direction of the Presi- feel that they can under a treaty stipulation accede to
dent, and with his consent the same may be sold and the request, but at their desire, present it in the
the proceeds applied to some beneficial purpose for Treaty, that Congress may consider of, and decide
the benefit of said orphans. the application.
ARTICLE 20. Done, and signed, and executed by the commission-

The U.S. agree and stipulate as follows, that for the ers of the United States, and the chiefs, captains, and
benefit and advantage of the Choctaw people, and to head men of the Choctaw nation, at Dancing Rabbit
improve their condition, there shall be educated creek, this 27th day of September, eighteen and
under the direction of the President and at the thirty.
expense of the U.S. forty Choctaw youths for twenty
years. This number shall be kept at school, and as Jno. H. Eaton, [L. S.],
they finish their education others, to supply their Jno. Coffee, [L. S.],
places shall be received for the period stated. The Greenwood Leflore, [L. S.],
U.S. agree also to erect a Council House for the Musholatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
nation at some convenient central point, after their Nittucachee, his x mark, [L. S.],
people shall be settled; and a House for each Chief, Holarterhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.],

Hopiaunchabubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Hoktoontubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Zishomingo, his x mark, [L. S.], Nuknacrahookmarhee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Captainthalke, his x mark, [L. S.], Mingo hoomah, his x mark, [L. S.],
James Shield, his x mark, [L. S.], James Karnes, his x mark, [L. S.],
Pistiyubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishohakubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Yobalarunehabubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Narlanalar, his x mark, [L. S.],
Holubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Pennasha, his x mark, [L. S.],
Robert Cole, his x mark, [L. S.], Inharyarker, his x mark, [L. S.],
Mokelareharhopin, his x mark, [L. S.], Mottubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Lewis Perry, his x mark, [L. S.], Narharyubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Artonamarstubbe, his x mark, [L. S.], Ishmaryubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Hopeatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], James McKing, [L. S.],
Hoshahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Lewis Wilson, his x mark, [L. S.],
Chuallahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Istonarkerharcho, his x mark, [L. S.],
Joseph Kincaide, his x mark, [L. S.], Hohinshamartarher, his x mark , [L. S.],
Eyarhocuttubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Kinsulachubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Iyacherhopia, his x mark, [L. S.], Emarhinstubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Offahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Gysalndalra, bm, his x mark, [L. S.],
Archalater, his x mark, [L. S.], Thomas Wall, [L. S.],
Onnahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Sam. S. Worcester, [L. S.],
Pisinhocuttubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Arlartar, his x mark, [L. S.],
Tullarhacher, his x mark, [L. S.], Nittahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Little leader, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishonouan, his x mark, [L. S.],
Maanhutter, his x mark, [L. S.], Warsharchahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.],
Cowehoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Isaac James, his x mark, [L. S.],
Tillamoer, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopiaintushker, his x mark, [L. S.],
Imnullacha, his x mark, [L. S.], Aryoshkermer, his x mark, [L. S.],
Artopilachubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Shemotar, his x mark, [L. S.],
Shupherunchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Hopiaisketina, his x mark, [L. S.],
Nitterhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Thomas Leflore, his x mark, [L. S.],
Oaklaryubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Arnokechatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Pukumna, his x mark, [L. S.], Shokoperlukna, his x mark, [L. S.],
Arpalar, his x mark, [L. S.], Posherhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.],
Holber, his x mark, [L. S.], Robert Folsom, his x mark, [L. S.],
Hoparmingo, his x mark, [L. S.], Arharyotubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Isparhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Kushonolarter, his x mark, [L. S.],
Tieberhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], James Vaughan, his x mark, [L. S.],
Tishoholarter, his x mark, [L. S.], Phiplip, his x mark, [L. S.],
Mahayarchubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Meshameye, his x mark, [L. S.],
Artooklubbetushpar, his x mark, [L. S.], Ishteheka, his x mark, [L. S.],
Metubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Heshohomme, his x mark, [L. S.],
Arsarkatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], John McKolbery, his x mark, [L. S.],
Issaterhoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], Benjm. James, his x mark, [L. S.],
Chohtahmatahah, his x mark, [L. S.], Tikbachahambe, his x mark, [L. S.],
Tunnuppashubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Aholiktube, his x mark, [L. S.],
Okocharyer, his x mark, [L. S.], Walking Wolf, his x mark, [L. S.],
Hoshhopia, his x mark, [L. S.], John Waide, his x mark, [L. S.],
Warsharshahopia, his x mark, [L. S.], Big Axe, his x mark, [L. S.],
Maarshunchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Bob, his x mark, [L. S.],
Misharyubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], Tushkochaubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Daniel McCurtain, his x mark, [L. S.], Ittabe, his x mark, [L. S.],
Tushkerharcho, his x mark, [L. S.], Tishowakayo, his x mark, [L. S.],

Folehommo, his x mark, [L. S.], Nultlahtubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
John Garland, his x mark, [L. S.], Tuska Hollattuh, his x mark, [L. S.],
Koshona, his x mark, [L. S.], Kothoantchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Ishleyohamobe, his x mark, [L. S.], Eyarpulubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
Jacob Folsom, [L. S.], Okentahubbe, his x mark, [L. S.],
William Foster, [L. S.], Living War Club, his x mark, [L. S.],
Ontioerharcho, his x mark, [L. S.], John Jones, his x mark, [L. S.],
Hugh A. Foster, [L. S.], Charles Jones, his x mark, [L. S.],
Pierre Juzan, [L. S.], Isaac Jones, his x mark, [L. S.],
Jno. Pitchlynn, jr., [L. S.], Hocklucha, his x mark, [L. S.],
David Folsom, [L. S.], Muscogee, his x mark., [L. S.],
Sholohommastube, his x mark, [L. S.], Eden Nelson, his x mark, [L. S.].
Tesho, his x mark, [L. S.],
Lauwechubee, his x mark, [L. S.], In presence of—
Hoshehammo, his x mark, [L. S.], E. Breathitt secretary to the Commission,
Ofenowo, his x mark, [L. S.], William Ward, agent for Choctaws,
Ahekoche, his x mark, [L. S.], John Pitchlyn, United States interpreter,
Kaloshoube, his x mark, [L. S.], M. Mackey, United States interpreter,
Atoko, his x mark, [L. S.], Geo. S. Gaines, of Alabama,
Ishtemeleche, his x mark, [L. S.], R. P. Currin,
Emthtohabe, his x mark, [L. S.], Luke Howard,
Silas D. Fisher, his x mark, [L. S.], Sam. S. Worcester,
Isaac Folsom, his x mark, [L. S.], Jno. N. Byrn,
Hekatube, his x mark, [L. S.], John Bell,
Hakseche, his x mark, [L. S.], Jno. Bond.
Jerry Carney, his x mark, [L. S.],
John Washington, his x mark, [L. S.], SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES TO THE
Panshastubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], PRECEDING TREATY.
P. P. Pitchlynn, his x mark, [L. S.], Sept. 28, 1830. | 7 Stat., 340.
Joel H. Nail, his x mark, [L. S.], Various Choctaw persons have been presented by
Hopia Stonakey, his x mark, [L. S.], the Chiefs of the nation, with a desire that they
Kocohomma, his x mark, [L. S.], might be provided for. Being particularly deserv-
William Wade, his x mark, [L. S.], ing, an earnestness has been manifested that provi-
Panshstickubbee, his x mark, [L. S.], sion might be made for them. It is therefore by the
Holittankchahubbee, his x mark, undersigned commissioners here assented to, with
[L. S.], the understanding that they are to have no interest
Oklanowa, his x mark, [L. S.], in the reservations which are directed and pro-
Neto, his x mark, [L. S.], vided for under the general Treaty to which this is
James Fletcher, his x mark, [L. S.], a supplement.
Silas D. Pitchlynn, [L. S.],
William Trahorn, his x mark, [L. S.], As evidence of the liberal and kind feelings of the
Toshkahemmitto, his x mark, [L. S.], President and Government of the United States the
Tethetayo, his x mark, [L. S.], Commissioners agree to the request as follows, (to
Emokloshahopie, his x mark, [L. S.], wit) Pierre Juzan, Peter Pitchlynn, G. W. Harkins,
Tishoimita, his x mark, [L. S.], Jack Pitchlynn, Israel Fulsom, Louis Laflore, Ben-
Thomas W. Foster, his x mark, [L. S.], jamin James, Joel H. Nail, Hopoynjahubbee,
Zadoc Brashears, his x mark, [L. S.], Onorkubbee, Benjamin Laflore, Michael Laflore and
Levi Perkins, his x mark, [L. S.], Allen Yates and wife shall be entitled to a reservation
Isaac Perry, his x mark, [L. S.], of two sections of land each to include their
Ishlonocka Hoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], improvement where they at present reside, with the
Hiram King, his x mark, [L. S.], exception of the three first named persons and Ben-
Ogla Enlah, his x mark, [L. S.], jamin Laflore, who are authorized to locate one of

their sections on any other unimproved and unoccu- And there is given a quarter section of land each to
pied land, within their respective districts. Delila and her five fatherless children, she being a
Choctaw woman residing out of the nation; also the
ARTICLE 2. same quantity to Peggy Trihan, another Indian
And to each of the following persons there is allowed woman residing out of the nation and her two
a reservation of a section and a half of land, (to wit) fatherless children; and to the widows of Pushmi-
James L. McDonald, Robert Jones, Noah Wall, James laha, and Pucktshenubbee, who were formerly dis-
Campbell, G. Nelson, Vaughn Brashears, R. Harris, tinguished Chiefs of the nation and for their children
Little Leader, S. Foster, J. Vaughn, L. Durans, Samuel four quarter sections of land, each in trust for them-
Long, T. Magagha, Thos. Everge, Giles Thompson, selves and their children.
Tomas Garland, John Bond, William Laflore, and
Turner Brashears, the two first named persons, may All of said last mentioned reservations are to be
locate one section each, and one section jointly on located under and by direction of the President of
any unimproved and unoccupied land, these not the U. States.
residing in the Nation; The others are to include their
present residence and improvement. ARTICLE 3.
The Choctaw people now that they have ceded their
Also one section is allowed to the following persons lands are solicitous to get to their new homes early
(to wit) Middleton Mackey, Wesley Train, Chocle- as possible and accordingly they wish that a party
homo, Moses Foster, D. W. Wall, Charles Scott, Molly may be permitted to proceed this fall to ascertain
Nail, Susan Colbert, who was formerly Susan James, whereabouts will be most advantageous for their
Samuel Garland, Silas Fisher, D. McCurtain, Oakla- people to be located.
homa, and Polly Fillecuthey, to be located in entire
sections to include their present residence and It is therefore agreed that three or four persons (from
improvement, with the exception of Molly Nail and each of the three districts) under the guidance of
Susan Colbert, who are authorized to locate theirs, some discreet and well qualified person or persons
on any unimproved unoccupied land. may proceed during this fall to the West upon an
examination of the country.
John Pitchlynn has long and faithfully served the
nation in character of U. States Interpreter, he has For their time and expenses the U. States agree to
acted as such for forty years, in consideration it is allow the said twelve persons two dollars a day
agreed, in addition to what has been done for him each, not to exceed one hundred days, which is
there shall be granted to two of his children, (to wit) deemed to be ample time to make an examination.
Silas Pitchlynn, and Thomas Pitchlynn one section of
land each, to adjoin the location of their father; like- If necessary, pilots acquainted with the country will
wise to James Madison and Peter sons of Mushu- be furnished when they arrive in the West.
latubbee one section of land each to include the old
house and improvement where their father formerly ARTICLE 4.
lived on the old military road adjoining a large John Donly of Alabama who has several Choctaw
Prairie. grand children and who for twenty years has carried
the mail through the Choctaw Nation, a desire by
And to Henry Groves son of the Chief Natticache the Chiefs is expressed that he may have a section of
there is one section of land given to adjoin his land, it is accordingly granted, to be located in one
father’s land. entire section, on any unimproved and unoccupied
land.
And to each of the following persons half a section
of land is granted on any unoccupied and unim- Allen Glover and George S. Gaines licensed Traders
proved lands in the Districts where they respectively in the Choctaw Nation, have accounts amounting to
live (to wit) Willis Harkins, James D. Hamilton, upwards of nine thousand dollars against the Indi-
William Juzan, Tobias Laflore, Jo Doke, Jacob Ful- ans who are unable to pay their said debts without
som, P. Hays, Samuel Worcester, George Hunter, distressing their families; a desire is expressed by the
William Train, Robert Nail and Alexander McKee. chiefs that two sections of land be set apart to be sold

476 Treaty with the Creeks, 1832
and the proceeds thereof to be applied toward the Treaty with the Creeks, 1832
payment of the aforesaid debts. It is agreed that two Mar., 24, 1832. | 7 Stat., 366. | Proclamation,
sections of any unimproved and unoccupied land be Apr. 4, 1832.
granted to George S. Gaines who will sell the same Articles of a treaty made at the City of Washington
for the best price he can obtain and apply the pro- between Lewis Cass, thereto specially authorized by
ceeds thereof to the credit of the Indians on their the President of the United States, and the Creek
accounts due to the before mentioned Glover and tribe of Indians.
Gaines; and shall make the application to the poorest
Indian first. ARTICLE 1.
The Creek tribe of Indians cede to the United States
At the earnest and particular request of the Chief all their land, East of the Mississippi river.
Greenwood Laflore there is granted to David Haley
one half section of land to be located in a half section
ARTICLE 2.
on any unoccupied and unimproved land as a com-
The United States engage to survey the said land as
pensation, for a journey to Washington City with
soon as the same can be conveniently done, after the
dispatches to the Government and returning others
ratification of this treaty, and when the same is sur-
to the Choctaw Nation.
veyed to allow ninety principal Chiefs of the Creek
tribe to select one section each, and every other head
The foregoing is entered into, as supplemental to the
of a Creek family to select one half section each, which
treaty concluded yesterday.
tracts shall be reserved from sale for their use for the
term of five years, unless sooner disposed of by them.
Done at Dancing Rabbit creek the 28th day of Sep-
A census of these persons shall be taken under the
tember, 1830.
direction of the President and the selections shall be
made so as to include the improvements of each per-
Jno. H. Eaton, [L. S.],
son within his selection, if the same can be so made,
Jno. Coffee, [L. S.],
and if not, then all the persons belonging to the same
Greenwood Leflore, [L. S.],
town, entitled to selections, and who cannot make the
Nittucachee, his x mark, [L. S.],
same, so as to include their improvements, shall take
Mushulatubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
them in one body in a proper form. And twenty sec-
Offahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.],
tions shall be selected, under the direction of the Pres-
Eyarhoeuttubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
ident for the orphan children of the Creeks, and
Iyaeherhopia, his x mark, [L. S.],
divided and retained or sold for their benefit as the
Holubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
President may direct. Provided however that no selec-
Onarhubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
tions or locations under this treaty shall be so made as
Robert Cole, his x mark, [L. S.],
to include the agency reserve.
Hopiaunchahubbee, his x mark, [L. S.],
David Folsom, [L. S.],
John Garland, his x mark, [L. S.], ARTICLE 3.
Hopiahoomah, his x mark, [L. S.], These tracts may be conveyed by the persons select-
Captain Thalko, his x mark, [L. S.], ing the same, to any other persons for a fair consid-
Pierre Juzan, [L. S.], eration, in such manner as the President may direct.
Immarstarher, his x mark, [L. S.], The contract shall be certified by some person
Hoshimhamartar, his x mark, [L. S.]. appointed for that purpose by the President but shall
not be valid ’till the President approves the same. A
In presence of— title shall be given by the United States on the com-
E. Breathitt, Secretary to Commissioners, pletion of the payment.
W. Ward, Agent for Choctaws,
M. Mackey, United States Interpreter, ARTICLE 4.
John Pitchlynn, United States Interpreter, At the end of five years, all the Creeks entitled to
R. P. Currin, these selections, and desirous of remaining, shall
Jno. W. Byrn, receive patents therefor in fee simple, from the
Geo. S. Gaines. United States.

ARTICLE 5. dollars, shall be paid to the Creek tribe as soon as

All intruders upon the country hereby ceded shall may be after the ratification hereof, to be applied to
be removed therefrom in the same manner as the payment of their just debts, and then to their
intruders may be removed by law from other public own relief, and to be distributed as they may direct,
land until the country is surveyed, and the selec- and which shall be in full consideration of all
tions made; excepting however from this provision improvements.
those white persons who have made their own
improvements, and not expelled the Creeks from ARTICLE 10.
theirs. Such persons may remain ’till their crops are The sum of sixteen thousand dollars shall be
gathered. After the country is surveyed and the allowed as a compensation to the delegation sent to
selections made, this article shall not operate upon this place, and for the payment of their expenses,
that part of it not included in such selections. But and of the claims against them.
intruders shall, in the manner before described, be
removed from these selections for the term of five ARTICLE 11.
years from the ratification of this treaty or until the The following claims shall be paid by the United
same are conveyed to white persons. States.
ARTICLE 6. For ferries, bridges and causeways, three

Twenty-nine sections in addition to the foregoing thousand dollars, provided that the same
may be located, and patents for the same shall then shall become the property of the United
issue to those persons, being Creeks, to whom the States.
same may be assigned by the Creek tribe. But when-
ever the grantees of these tracts possess improve- For the payment of certain judgments
ments, such tracts shall be so located as to include obtained against the chiefs eight thousand
the improvements, and as near as may be in the cen- five hundred and seventy dollars.
tre. And there shall also be granted by patent to
Benjamin Marshall, one section of land, to include For losses for which they suppose the
his improvements on the Chatahoochee river, to be United States responsible, seven thousand
bounded for one mile in a direct line along the said seven hundred and ten dollars.
river, and to run back for quantity. There shall also
be granted to Joseph Bruner a colored man, one half For the payment of improvements under the
section of land, for his services as an interpreter. treaty of 1826 one thousand dollars.
ARTICLE 7. The three following annuities shall be paid

All the locations authorized by this treaty, with the for life.
exception of that of Benjamin Marshall shall be made
in conformity with the lines of the surveys; and the To Tuske-hew-haw-Cusetaw two hundred
Creeks relinquish all claim for improvements. dollars.
ARTICLE 8. To the Blind Uchu King one hundred

An additional annuity of twelve thousand dollars dollars.
shall be paid to the Creeks for the term of five
years, and thereafter the said annuity shall be To Neah Mico one hundred dollars.
reduced to ten thousand dollars, and shall be paid
for the term of fifteen years. All the annuities due to There shall be paid the sum of fifteen dollars,
the Creeks shall be paid in such manner as the tribe for each person who has emigrated without expense
may direct. to the United States, but the whole sum allowed
under this provision shall not exceed fourteen hun-
ARTICLE 9. dred dollars.
For the purpose of paying certain debts due by the
Creeks, and to relieve them in their present dis- There shall be divided among the persons,
tressed condition, the sum of one hundred thousand who suffered in consequence of being

478 Treaty with the Seminole, 1832
prevented from emigrating, three thousand ARTICLE 15.

dollars. This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting
parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the
The land hereby ceded shall remain as a fund United States.
from which all the foregoing payments
except those in the ninth and tenth articles In testimony whereof, the said Lewis Cass, and the
shall be paid. undersigned chiefs of the said tribe, have hereunto
set their hands at the city of Washington, this 24th
ARTICLE 12. day of March, A. D. 1832.
The United States are desirous that the Creeks
should remove to the country west of the Missis- Lewis Cass,
sippi, and join their countrymen there; and for this Opothleholo, his x mark,
purpose it is agreed, that as fast as the Creeks are Tuchebatcheehadgo, his x mark,
prepared to emigrate, they shall be removed at the Efiematla, his x mark,
expense of the United States, and shall receive sub- Tuchebatche Micco, his x mark,
sistence while upon the journey, and for one year Tomack Micco, his x mark,
after their arrival at their new homes—Provided William McGilvery, his x mark,
however, that this article shall not be construed so Benjamin Marshall.
as to compel any Creek Indian to emigrate, but they
shall be free to go or stay, as they please. In the presence of—
Samuel Bell,
ARTICLE 13. William R. King,
There shall also be given to each emigrating warrior John Tipton,
a rifle, moulds, wiper and ammunition and to each William Wilkins,
family one blanket. Three thousand dollars, to be C. C. Clay,
expended as the President may direct, shall be J. Speight,
allowed for the term of twenty years for teaching Samuel W. Mardis,
their children. As soon as half their people emigrate, J. C. Isacks,
one blacksmith shall be allowed them, and another John Crowell, I. A.,
when two-thirds emigrate, together with one ton of Benjamin Marshall,
iron and two hundred weight of steel annually for Thomas Carr,
each blacksmith.—These blacksmiths shall be sup- John H. Brodnax,
ported for twenty years. Interpreters.
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 Treaty with the Seminole, 1832
be allowed to govern themselves, so far as may be May 9, 1832. | 7 Stat., 368. | Proclamation,
compatible with the general jurisdiction which Con- April 12, 1834.
gress may think proper to exercise over them. And The Seminole Indians, regarding with just respect,
the United States will also defend them from the the solicitude manifested by the President of the
unjust hostilities of other Indians, and will also as United States or the improvement of their condi-
soon as the boundaries of the Creek country West of tion, by recommending a removal to a country
the Mississippi are ascertained, cause a patent or more suitable to their habits and wants than the
grant to be executed to the Creek tribe; agreeably to one they at present occupy in the Territory of
the 3d section of the act of Congress of May 2d, [28,] Florida, are willing that their confidential chiefs,
1830, entitled “An act to provide for an exchange of Jumper, Fuch-a-lus-ti-had-jo, Charley Emartla, Coi-
lands with the Indians residing in any of the States, had-jo, Holati Emartla Ya-hadjo; Sam Jones, accom-
or Territories, and for their removal West of the panied by their agent Major Phagan, and their
Mississippi.” faithful interpreter Abraham, should be sent at the

expense of the United States as early as convenient ARTICLE 4.

to examine the country assigned to the Creeks west The United States agree to extend the annuity for the
of the Mississippi river, and should they be satis- support of a blacksmith, provided for in the sixth
fied with the character of that country, and of the article of the treaty at Camp Moultrie for ten (10)
favorable disposition of the Creeks to reunite with years beyond the period therein stipulated, and in
the Seminoles as one people; the articles of the addition to the other annuities secured under that
compact and agreement, herein stipulated at treaty: the United States agree to pay the sum of
Payne’s landing on one Ocklewaha river, this ninth three thousand (3,000) dollars a year for fifteen (15)
day of May, one thousand eight hundred and years, commencing after the removal of the whole
thirty-two, between James Gadsden, for and in tribe; these sums to be added to the Creek annuities,
behalf of the Government of the United States, and and the whole amount to be so divided, that the
the undersigned chiefs and head-men for and in chiefs and warriors of the Seminole Indians may
behalf of the Seminole Indians, shall be binding on receive their equitable proportion of the same as
the respective parties. members of the Creek confederation—
The Seminole Indians relinquish to the United The United States will take the cattle belonging to
States, all claim to the lands they at present the Seminoles at the valuation of some discreet per-
occupy in the Territory of Florida, and agree to son to be appointed by the President, and the same
emigrate to the country assigned to the Creeks, shall be paid for in money to the respective owners,
west of the Mississippi river; it being understood after their arrival at their new homes; or other cattle
that an additional extent of territory, proportioned such as may be desired will be furnished them,
to their numbers, will be added to the Creek coun- notice being given through their agent of their
try, and that the Seminoles will be received as a wishes upon this subject, before their removal, that
constituent part of the Creek nation and be re- time may be afforded to supply the demand.
admitted to all the privileges as members of the
same. ARTICLE 6.
The Seminoles being anxious to be relieved from
ARTICLE 2. repeated vexatious demands for slaves and other
For and in consideration of the relinquishment of property, alleged to have been stolen and destroyed
claim in the first article of this agreement, and in by them, so that they may remove unembarrassed to
full compensation for all the improvements, which their new homes; the United States stipulate to have
may have been made on the lands thereby ceded; the same property investigated, and to liquidate
the United States stipulate to pay to the Seminole such as may be satisfactorily established, provided
Indians, fifteen thousand, four hundred (15,400) the amount does not exceed seven thousand (7,000)
dollars, to be divided among the chiefs and war- dollars.—
riors of the several towns, in a ratio proportioned
to their population, the respective proportions of ARTICLE 7.
each to be paid on their arrival in the country they The Seminole Indians will remove within three (3)
consent to remove to; it being understood that years after the ratification of this agreement, and the
their faithful interpreters Abraham and Cudjo shall expenses of their removal shall be defrayed by the
receive two hundred dollars each of the above United States, and such subsistence shall also be fur-
sum, in full remuneration for the improvements to nished them for a term not exceeding twelve (12)
be abandoned on the lands now cultivated by months, after their arrival at their new residence; as
them. in the opinion of the President, their numbers and
circumstances may require, the emigration to com-
ARTICLE 3. mence as early as practicable in the year eighteen
The United States agree to distribute as they arrive at hundred and thirty-three (1833), and with those
their new homes in the Creek Territory, west of the Indians at present occupying the Big Swamp, and
Mississippi river, a blanket and a homespun frock, to other parts of the country beyond the limits as
each of the warriors, women and children of the defined in the second article of the treaty concluded
Seminole tribe of Indians. at Camp Moultrie creek, so that the whole of that

480 Treaty of Chicago, 1834
proportion of the Seminoles may be removed within thirty-three, between George B. Porter, Thomas J. V.
the year aforesaid, and the remainder of the tribe, in Owen and William Weatherford, Commissioners on
about equal proportions, during the subsequent the part of the United States of the one part, and the
years of eighteen hundred and thirty-four and five, United Nation of Chippewa, Ottowa and
(1834 and 1835.)— Potawatamie Indians of the other part, being fully
represented by the Chiefs and Head-men whose
In testimony whereof, the commissioner, James names are hereunto subscribed—which Treaty is in
Gadsden, and the undersigned chiefs and head men the following words, to wit:
of the Seminole Indians, have hereunto subscribed
their names and affixed their seals. Done at camp at ARTICLE 1.
Payne’s landing, on the Ocklawaha river in the terri- The said United Nation of Chippewa, Ottowa, and
tory of Florida, on this ninth day of May, one thou- Potawatamie Indians, cede to the United States all
sand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the inde- their land, along the western shore of Lake Michi-
pendence of the United States of America the gan, and between this Lake and the land ceded to
fifty-sixth. the United States by the Winnebago nation, at the
treaty of Fort Armstrong made on the 15th Septem-
ber 1832—bounded on the north by the country
James Gadsden, [L. S.], lately ceded by the Menominees, and on the south
Holati Emartla, his x mark, [L. S.], by the country ceded at the treaty of Prairie du
Jumper, his x mark, [L. S.], Chien made on the 29th July 1829—supposed to con-
Fuch-ta-lus-ta-Hadjo, his x mark, [L. S.], tain about five millions of acres.
Charley Emartla, his x mark, [L. S.],
Coa Hadjo, his x mark, [L. S.], ARTICLE 2.
Ar-pi-uck-i, or Sam Jones, his x mark, [L. S.], In part consideration of the above cession it is
Ya-ha Hadjo, his x mark, [L. S.], hereby agreed, that the United States shall grant to
Mico-Noha, his x mark, [L. S.], the said United Nation of Indians to be held as
Tokose-Emartla, or Jno. Hicks. his x mark, other Indian lands are held which have lately been
[L. S.], assigned to emigrating Indians, a tract of country
Cat-sha-Tusta-nuck-i, his x mark, [L. S.], west of the Mississippi river, to be assigned to
Hola-at-a-Mico, his x mark, [L. S.], them by the President of the United States—to be
Hitch-it-i-Mico, his x mark, [L. S.], not less in quantity than five millions of acres, and
E-ne-hah, his x mark, [L. S.], to be located as follows: beginning at the mouth of
Ya- ha- emartla Chup- ko, his mark, [L. S.], Boyer’s river on the east side of the Missouri river,
Moke-his-she-lar-ni, his x mark, [L. S.]. thence down the said river to the mouth of Nau-
doway river, thence due east to the west line of the
Witnesses: State of Missouri, thence along the said State line
Douglas Vass, Secretary to Commissioner, to the northwest corner of the State, thence east
John Phagan, Agent, along the said State line to the point where it is
Stephen Richards, Interpreter, intersected by the western boundary line of the
Abraham, Interpreter, his x mark, Sacs and Foxes— thence north along the said line
Cudjo, Interpreter, his x mark, of the Sacs and Foxes, so far as that when a straight
Erastus Rogers, line shall be run therefrom to the mouth of Boyer’s
B. Joscan. river (the place of beginning) it shall include five
millions of acres. And as it is the wish of the Gov-
ernment 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
Treaty of Chicago, 1834 done; and it is deemed advisable on the part of
Articles of a treaty made at Chicago, in the State of their Chiefs and Headmen that a deputation
Illinois, on the twenty-sixth day of September, in the should visit the said country west of the Missis-
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sippi and thus be assured that full justice has been

Treaty of Chicago, 1834 481
done, it is hereby stipulated that the United States Two hundred and eighty thousand dollars to
will defray the expenses of such deputation, to be paid in annuities of fourteen thousand
consist of not more than fifty persons, to be accom- dollars a year, for twenty years.
panied by not more than five individuals to be
nominated by themselves, and the whole to be One hundred and fifty thousand dollars to be
under the general direction of such officer of the applied to the erection of mills, farm houses,
United States Government as has been or shall be Indian houses and blacksmith shops, to
designated for the purpose.—And it is further agricultural improvements, to the purchase
agreed that as fast as the said Indians shall be pre- of agricultural implements and stock, and for
pared to emigrate, they shall be removed at the the support of such physicians, millers,
expense of the United States, and shall receive sub- farmers, blacksmiths and other mechanics, as
sistence while upon the journey, and for one year the President of the United States shall think
after their arrival at their new homes.—It being proper to appoint.
understood, that the said Indians are to remove
from all that part of the land now ceded, which is Seventy thousand dollars for purposes of
within the State of Illinois, immediately on the rati- education and the encouragement of the
fication of this treaty, but to be permitted to retain domestic arts, to be applied in such manner,
possession of the country north of the boundary as the President of the United States may
line of the said State, for the term of three years, direct.—[The wish of the Indians being
without molestation or interruption and under the expressed to the Commissioners as follows:
protection of the laws of the United States. The united nation of Chippewa, Ottowa and
Potawatamie Indians being desirous to create
ARTICLE 3. a perpetual fund for the purposes of educa-
And in further consideration of the above cession, it tion and the encouragement of the domestic
is agreed, that there shall be paid by the United States arts, wish to invest the sum of seventy
the sums of money hereinafter mentioned: to wit. thousand dollars in some safe stock, the
interest of which only is to be applied as may
One hundred thousand dollars to satisfy be necessary for the above purposes. They
sundry individuals, in behalf of whom therefore request the President of the United
reservations were asked, which the States, to make such investment for the nation
Commissioners refused to grant: and also as he may think best. If however, at any time
to indemnify the Chippewa tribe who are hereafter, the said nation shall have made
parties to this treaty for certain lands along such advancement in civilization and have
the shore of Lake Michigan, to which they become so enlightened as in the opinion of
make claim, which have been ceded to the the President and Senate of the United States
United States by the Menominee Indians— they shall be capable of managing so large a
the manner in which the same is to be paid fund with safety they may withdraw the
is set forth in Schedule “A” hereunto whole or any part of it.]
annexed.
Four hundred dollars a year to be paid to
One hundred and fifty thousand dollars Billy Caldwell, and three hundred
to satisfy the claims made against the said dollars a year, to be paid to Alexander
United Nation which they have here Robinson, for life, in addition to the
admitted to be justly due, and directed to annuities already granted them—Two
be paid, according to Schedule “B” hereunto hundred dollars a year to be paid to
annexed. Joseph Lafromboise and two hundred
dollars a year to be paid to Shabehnay,
One hundred thousand dollars to be paid in for life.
goods and provisions, a part to be delivered
on the signing of this treaty and the residue Two thousand dollars to be paid to Wau-
during the ensuing year. pon-eh-see and his band, and fifteen

482 Treaty of Chicago, 1834
hundred dollars to Awn-kote and his Shaw-waw-nas-see, his x mark,

band, as the consideration for nine Shab-eh-nay, his x mark,
sections of land, granted to them by the Mac-a-ta-o-shic, his x mark,
3d Article of the Treaty of Prairie du Squah-ke-zic, his x mark,
Chien of the 29th of July 1829 which are Mah-che-o-tah-way, his x mark,
hereby assigned and surrendered to the Cha-ke-te-ah, his x mark,
United States. Me-am-ese, his x mark,
Shay-tee, his x mark,
ARTICLE 4. Kee-new, his x mark,
A just proportion of the annuity money, secured as Ne-bay-noc-scum, his x mark,
well by former treaties as the present, shall be paid Naw-bay-caw, his x mark,
west of the Mississippi to such portion of the nation O’Kee-mase, his x mark,
as shall have removed thither during the ensuing Saw-o-tup, his x mark,
three years.—After which time, the whole amount of Me-tai-way, his x mark,
the annuities shall be paid at their location west of Na-ma-ta-way-shuc, his x mark,
the Mississippi. Shaw-waw-nuk-wuk, his x mark,
Nah-che-wah, his x mark,
ARTICLE 5. Sho-bon-nier, his x mark,
[Stricken out.] Me-nuk-quet, his x mark,
Chis-in-ke-bah, his x mark,
This treaty after the same shall have been ratified by Mix-e-maung, his x mark,
the President and Senate of the United States, shall Nah-bwait, his x mark,
be binding on the contracting parties. Sen-e-bau-um, his x mark,
Puk-won, his x mark,
In testimony whereof, the said George B. Porter, Wa-be-no-say, his x mark,
Thomas J. V. Owen, and William Weatherford, and Mon-tou-ish, his x mark,
the undersigned chiefs and head men of the said No-nee, his x mark,
nation of Indians, have hereunto set their hands at Mas-quat, his x mark,
Chicago, the said day and year. Sho-min, his x mark,
Ah-take, his x mark,
G. B. Porter, He-me-nah-wah, his x mark,
Th. J. V. Owen, Che-pec-co-quah, his x mark,
William Weatherford, Mis-quab-o-no-quah, his x mark,
To-pen-e-bee, his x mark, Wah-be-Kai, his x mark,
Sau-ko-noek, Ma-ca-ta-ke-shic, his x mark,
Che-che-bin-quay, his x mark, Sho-min, (2d.) his x mark,
Joseph, his x mark, She-mah-gah, his x mark,
Wah-mix-i-co, his x mark, O’ke-mah-wah-ba-see, his x mark,
Ob-wa-qua-unk, his x mark, Na-mash, his x mark,
N-saw-way-quet, his x mark, Shab-y-a-tuk, his x mark,
Puk-quech-a-min-nee, his x mark, Ah-cah-o-mah, his x mark,
Nah-che-wine, his x mark, Quah-quah, tah, his x mark,
Ke-wase, his x mark, Ah-sag-a-mish-cum, his x mark,
Wah-bou-seh, his x mark, Pa-mob-a-mee, his x mark,
Mang-e-sett, his x mark, Nay-o-say, his x mark,
Caw-we-saut, his x mark, Ce-tah-quah, his x mark,
Ah-be-te-ke-zhic, his x mark, Ce-ku-tay, his x mark,
Pat-e-go-shuc, his x mark, Sauk-ee, his x mark,
E-to-wow-cote, his x mark, Ah-quee-wee, his x mark,
Shim-e-nah, his x mark, Ta-cau-ko, his x mark,
O-chee-pwaise, his x mark, Me-shim-e-nah, his x mark,
Ce-nah-ge-win, his x mark, Wah-sus-kuk, his x mark,

Pe-nay-o-cat, his x mark, Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835

Pay-maw-suc, his x mark,
Dec. 29, 1835. | 7 Stat., 478. | Proclamation,
Pe-she-ka, his x mark, May 23, 1836.
Shaw-we-mon-e-tay, his x mark, Articles of a treaty, concluded at New Echota in the
Ah-be-nab, his x mark, State of Georgia on the 29th day of Decr. 1835 by
Sau-sau-quas-see, his x mark. 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
In presence of— tribe of Indians.
Wm. Lee D. Ewing, secretary to commission,
E. A. Brush,
WHEREAS the Cherokees are anxious to make some
Luther Rice, interpreter,
arrangements with the Government of the United
James Conner, interpreter,
States whereby the difficulties they have experi-
John T. Schermerhorn, commissioner, etc. west,
enced by a residence within the settled parts of the
A. C. Pepper, S. A. R. P.
United States under the jurisdiction and laws of the
Gho. Kercheval, sub-agent,
State Governments may be terminated and adjusted;
Geo. Bender, major, Fifth Regiment Infantry,
and with a view to reuniting their people in one
D. Wilcox, captain, Fifth Regiment,
body and securing a permanent home for them-
J. M. Baxley, captain, Fifth Infantry,
selves and their posterity in the country selected by
R. A. Forsyth, U. S. Army,
their forefathers without the territorial limits of the
L. T. Jamison, lieutenant, U. S. Army,
State sovereignties, and where they can establish and
E. K. Smith, lieutenant, Fifth Infantry,
enjoy a government of their choice and perpetuate
P. Maxwell, assistant surgeon,
such a state of society as may be most consonant
J. Allen, lieutenant, Fifth Infantry,
with their views, habits and condition; and as may
I. P. Simonton, lieutenant, U. S. Army,
tend to their individual comfort and their advance-
George F. Turner, assistant surgeon, U. S. Army,
ment in civilization.
Richd. J. Hamilton,
Robert Stuart,
Jona. McCarty, And whereas a delegation of the Cherokee nation
Daniel Jackson, of New York, composed of Messrs. John Ross Richard Taylor Danl.
Jno. H. Kinzie, McCoy Samuel Gunter and William Rogers with full
Robt. A. Kinzie, power and authority to conclude a treaty with the
G. S. Hubbard, United States did on the 28th day of February 1835
J. C. Schwarz, adjutant general M. M. stipulate and agree with the Government of the
Jn. B. Beaubrier, United States to submit to the Senate to fix the
James Kinzie, amount which should be allowed the Cherokees for
Jacob Beeson, their claims and for a cession of their lands east of
Saml. Humes Porter, the Mississippi river, and did agree to abide by the
Andw. Porter, award of the Senate of the United States themselves
Gabriel Godfroy, and to recommend the same to their people for their
A. H. Arndt, final determination.
Laurie Marsh,
Joseph Chaunier, And whereas on such submission the Senate advised
John Watkins, “that a sum not exceeding five millions of dollars be
B. B. Kercheval, paid to the Cherokee Indians for all their lands and
Jas. W. Berry, possessions east of the Mississippi river.”
Wm. French,
Thomas Forsyth, And whereas this delegation after said award of the
Pierre Menard, Fils, Senate had been made, were called upon to submit
Edmd. Roberts, propositions as to its disposition to be arranged in a
Geo. Hunt, treaty which they refused to do, but insisted that the
Isaac Nash. same “should be referred to their nation and there in

general council to deliberate and determine on the east and were directed by the President to convene
subject in order to ensure harmony and good feeling the people of the nation in general council at New
among themselves.” Echota and to submit said propositions to them with
power and authority to vary the same so as to meet
And whereas a certain other delegation composed of the views of the Cherokees in reference to its details.
John Ridge Elias Boudinot Archilla Smith S. W. Bell
John West Wm. A. Davis and Ezekiel West, who rep- And whereas the said commissioners did appoint
resented that portion of the nation in favor of emi- and notify a general council of the nation to convene
gration to the Cherokee country west of the Missis- at New Echota on the 21st day of December 1835;
sippi entered into propositions for a treaty with John and informed them that the commissioners would
F. Schermerhorn commissioner on the part of the be prepared to make a treaty with the Cherokee peo-
United States which were to be submitted to their ple who should assemble there and those who did
nation for their final action and determination. not come they should conclude gave their assent and
sanction to whatever should be transacted at this
And whereas the Cherokee people at their last Octo- council and the people having met in council accord-
ber council at Red Clay, fully authorized and ing to said notice.
empowered a delegation or committee of twenty
persons of their nation to enter into and conclude a Therefore the following articles of a treaty are agreed
treaty with the United States commissioner then upon and concluded between William Carroll and
present, at that place or elsewhere and as the people John F. Schermerhorn commissioners on the part of
had good reason to believe that a treaty would then the United States and the chiefs and head men and
and there be made or at a subsequent council at people of the Cherokee nation in general council
New Echota which the commissioners it was well assembled this 29th day of Decr 1835.
known and understood, were authorized and
instructed to convene for said purpose; and since ARTICLE 1.
the said delegation have gone on to Washington The Cherokee nation hereby cede relinquish and
city, with a view to close negotiations there, as convey to the United States all the lands owned
stated by them notwithstanding they were officially claimed or possessed by them east of the Mississippi
informed by the United States commissioner that river, and hereby release all their claims upon the
they would not be received by the President of the United States for spoliations of every kind for and in
United States; and that the Government would consideration of the sum of five millions of dollars to
transact no business of this nature with them, and be expended paid and invested in the manner stipu-
that if a treaty was made it must be done here in the lated and agreed upon in the following articles. But
nation, where the delegation at Washington last as a question has arisen between the commissioners
winter urged that it should be done for the purpose and the Cherokees whether the Senate in their
of promoting peace and harmony among the peo- resolution by which they advised “that a sum not
ple; and since these facts have also been corrobo- exceeding five millions of dollars be paid to the
rated to us by a communication recently received by Cherokee Indians for all their lands and possessions
the commissioner from the Government of the east of the Mississippi river” have included and
United States and read and explained to the people made any allowance or consideration for claims for
in open council and therefore believing said delega- spoliations it is therefore agreed on the part of the
tion can effect nothing and since our difficulties are United States that this question shall be again sub-
daily increasing and our situation is rendered more mitted to the Senate for their consideration and deci-
and more precarious uncertain and insecure in con- sion and if no allowance was made for spoliations
sequence of the legislation of the States; and seeing that then an additional sum of three hundred thou-
no effectual way of relief, but in accepting the liberal sand dollars be allowed for the same.
overtures of the United States.
ARTICLE 2.
And whereas Genl William Carroll and John F. Whereas by the treaty of May 6th 1828 and the sup-
Schermerhorn were appointed commissioners on the plementary treaty thereto of Feb. 14th 1833 with the
part of the United States, with full power and Cherokees west of the Mississippi the United States
authority to conclude a treaty with the Cherokees guarantied and secured to be conveyed by patent, to

the Cherokee nation of Indians the following tract of sippi the United States in consideration of the sum of
country “Beginning at a point on the old western ter- five hundred thousand dollars therefore hereby
ritorial line of Arkansas Territory being twenty-five covenant and agree to convey to the said Indians,
miles north from the point where the territorial line and their descendants by patent, in fee simple the
crosses Arkansas river, thence running from said following additional tract of land situated between
north point south on the said territorial line where the west line of the State of Missouri and the Osage
the said territorial line crosses Verdigris river; thence reservation beginning at the southeast corner of the
down said Verdigris river to the Arkansas river; same and runs north along the east line of the Osage
thence down said Arkansas to a point where a stone lands fifty miles to the northeast corner thereof; and
is placed opposite the east or lower bank of Grand thence east to the west line of the State of Missouri;
river at its junction with the Arkansas; thence run- thence with said line south fifty miles; thence west to
ning south forty-four degrees west one mile; thence the place of beginning; estimated to contain eight
in a straight line to a point four miles northerly, from hundred thousand acres of land; but it is expressly
the mouth of the north fork of the Canadian; thence understood that if any of the lands assigned the
along the said four mile line to the Canadian; thence Quapaws shall fall within the aforesaid bounds the
down the Canadian to the Arkansas; thence down same shall be reserved and excepted out of the lands
the Arkansas to that point on the Arkansas where above granted and a pro rata reduction shall be
the eastern Choctaw boundary strikes said river and made in the price to be allowed to the United States
running thence with the western line of Arkansas for the same by the Cherokees.
Territory as now defined, to the southwest corner of
Missouri; thence along the western Missouri line to ARTICLE 3.
the land assigned the Senecas; thence on the south The United States also agree that the lands above
line of the Senecas to Grand river; thence up said ceded by the treaty of Feb. 14 1833, including the
Grand river as far as the south line of the Osage outlet, and those ceded by this treaty shall all be
reservation, extended if necessary; thence up and included in one patent executed to the Cherokee
between said south Osage line extended west if nec- nation of Indians by the President of the United
essary, and a line drawn due west from the point of States according to the provisions of the act of May
beginning to a certain distance west, at which a line 28 1830. It is, however, agreed that the military reser-
running north and south from said Osage line to vation at Fort Gibson shall be held by the United
said due west line will make seven millions of acres States. But should the United States abandon said
within the whole described boundaries. In addition post and have no further use for the same it shall
to the seven millions of acres of land thus provided revert to the Cherokee nation. The United States
for and bounded, the United States further guaranty shall always have the right to make and establish
to the Cherokee nation a perpetual outlet west, and a such post and military roads and forts in any part of
free and unmolested use of all the country west of the Cherokee country, as they may deem proper for
the western boundary of said seven millions of acres, the interest and protection of the same and the free
as far west as the sovereignty of the United States use of as much land, timber, fuel and materials of all
and their right of soil extend: kinds for the construction and support of the same
as may be necessary; provided that if the private
Provided however That if the saline or salt plain on rights of individuals are interfered with, a just com-
the western prairie shall fall within said limits pre- pensation therefor shall be made.
scribed for said outlet, the right is reserved to the
United States to permit other tribes of red men to get ARTICLE 4.
salt on said plain in common with the Cherokees; The United States also stipulate and agree to extin-
And letters patent shall be issued by the United guish for the benefit of the Cherokees the titles to the
States as soon as practicable for the land hereby reservations within their country made in the Osage
guarantied.” treaty of 1825 to certain half-breeds and for this pur-
pose they hereby agree to pay to the persons to
And whereas it is apprehended by the Cherokees whom the same belong or have been assigned or to
that in the above cession there is not contained a suf- their agents or guardians whenever they shall exe-
ficient quantity of land for the accommodation of the cute after the ratification of this treaty a satisfactory
whole nation on their removal west of the Missis- conveyance for the same, to the United States, the

sum of fifteen thousand dollars according to a sched- and against intestine wars between the several tribes.
ule accompanying this treaty of the relative value of The Cherokees shall endeavor to preserve and main-
the several reservations. tain the peace of the country and not make war upon
their neighbors; they shall also be protected against
And whereas by the several treaties between the interruption and intrusion from citizens of the United
United States and the Osage Indians the Union and States, who may attempt to settle in the country with-
Harmony Missionary reservations which were out their consent; and all such persons shall be
established for their benefit are now situated removed from the same by order of the President of
within the country ceded by them to the United the United States. But this is not intended to pre-
States; the former being situated in the Cherokee vent the residence among them of useful farmers,
country and the latter in the State of Missouri. It is mechanics and teachers for the instruction of Indians
therefore agreed that the United States shall pay according to treaty stipulations.
the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions for the improvements on the same what ARTICLE 7.
they shall be appraised at by Capt. Geo. Vashon The Cherokee nation having already made great
Cherokee sub-agent Abraham Redfield and A. P. progress in civilization and deeming it important
Chouteau or such persons as the President of the that every proper and laudable inducement should
United States shall appoint and the money allowed be offered to their people to improve their condi-
for the same shall be expended in schools among tion as well as to guard and secure in the most
the Osages and improving their condition. It is effectual manner the rights guarantied to them in
understood that the United States are to pay the this treaty, and with a view to illustrate the liberal
amount allowed for the reservations in this article and enlarged policy of the Government of the
and not the Cherokees. United States towards the Indians in their removal
beyond the territorial limits of the States, it is stipu-
ARTICLE 5. lated that they shall be entitled to a delegate in the
The United States hereby covenant and agree that House of Representatives of the United States
the lands ceded to the Cherokee nation in the forgo- whenever Congress shall make provision for the
ing article shall, in no future time without their con- same.
sent, be included within the territorial limits or
jurisdiction of any State or Territory. But they shall ARTICLE 8.
secure to the Cherokee nation the right by their The United States also agree and stipulate to
national councils to make and carry into effect all remove the Cherokees to their new homes and to
such laws as they may deem necessary for the gov- subsist them one year after their arrival there and
ernment and protection of the persons and prop- that a sufficient number of steamboats and bag-
erty within their own country belonging to their gage-wagons shall be furnished to remove them
people or such persons as have connected them- comfortably, and so as not to endanger their health,
selves with them: provided always that they shall and that a physician well supplied with medicines
not be inconsistent with the constitution of the shall accompany each detachment of emigrants
United States and such acts of Congress as have removed by the Government. Such persons and
been or may be passed regulating trade and inter- families as in the opinion of the emigrating agent
course with the Indians; and also, that they stall not are capable of subsisting and removing themselves
be considered as extending to such citizens and shall be permitted to do so; and they shall be
army of the United States as may travel or reside in allowed in full for all claims for the same twenty
the Indian country by permission according to the dollars for each member of their family; and in lieu
laws and regulations established by the Govern- of their one year ’s rations they shall be paid the
ment of the same. sum of thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents if
they prefer it.
ARTICLE 6.
Perpetual peace and friendship shall exist between Such Cherokees also as reside at present out of the
the citizens of the United States and the Cherokee nation and shall remove with them in two years
Indians. The United States agree to protect the Chero- west of the Mississippi shall be entitled to allowance
kee nation from domestic strife and foreign enemies for removal and subsistence as above provided.

ARTICLE 9. expended towards the support and education of

The United States agree to appoint suitable agents such orphan children as are destitute of the means of
who shall make a just and fair valuation of all such subsistence. The sum of one hundred and fifty thou-
improvements now in the possession of the Chero- sand dollars in addition to the present school fund of
kees as add any value to the lands; and also of the the nation shall constitute a permanent school fund,
ferries owned by them, according to their net the interest of which shall be applied annually by the
income; and such improvements and ferries from council of the nation for the support of common
which they have been dispossessed in a lawless schools and such a literary institution of a higher
manner or under any existing laws of the State order as may be established in the Indian country.
where the same may be situated. And in order to secure as far as possible the true and
beneficial application of the orphans’ and school
The just debts of the Indians shall be paid out of any fund the council of the Cherokee nation when
monies due them for their improvements and required by the President of the United States shall
claims; and they shall also be furnished at the discre- make a report of the application of those funds and
tion of the President of the United States with a suffi- he shall at all times have the right if the funds have
cient sum to enable them to obtain the necessary been misapplied to correct any abuses of them and
means to remove themselves to their new homes, direct the manner of their application for the pur-
and the balance of their dues shall be paid them at poses for which they were intended. The council of
the Cherokee agency west of the Mississippi. The the nation may by giving two years’ notice of their
missionary establishments shall also be valued and intention withdraw their funds by and with the con-
appraised in a like manner and the amount of them sent of the President and Senate of the United States,
paid over by the United States to the treasurers of and invest them in such manner as they may deem
the respective missionary societies by whom they most proper for their interest. The United States also
have been established and improved in order to agree and stipulate to pay the just debts and claims
enable them to erect such buildings and make such against the Cherokee nation held by the citizens of
improvements among the Cherokees west of the the same and also the just claims of citizens of the
Mississippi as they may deem necessary for their United States for services rendered to the nation and
benefit. Such teachers at present among the Chero- the sum of sixty thousand dollars is appropriated for
kees as this council shall select and designate shall this purpose but no claims against individual per-
be removed west of the Mississippi with the Chero- sons of the nation shall be allowed and paid by the
kee nation and on the same terms allowed to them. nation. The sum of three hundred thousand dollars
is hereby set apart to pay and liquidate the just
ARTICLE 10. claims of the Cherokees upon the United States for
The President of the United States shall invest in spoliations of every kind, that have not been already
some safe and most productive public stocks of the satisfied under former treaties.
country for the benefit of the whole Cherokee nation
who have removed or shall remove to the lands ARTICLE 11.
assigned by this treaty to the Cherokee nation west The Cherokee nation of Indians believing it will be
of the Mississippi the following sums as a perma- for the interest of their people to have all their funds
nent fund for the purposes hereinafter specified and and annuities under their own direction and future
pay over the net income of the same annually to disposition hereby agree to commute their perma-
such person or persons as shall be authorized or nent annuity of ten thousand dollars for the sum of
appointed by the Cherokee nation to receive the two hundred and fourteen thousand dollars, the
same and their receipt shall be a full discharge for same to be invested by the President of the United
the amount paid to them viz: the sum of two hun- States as a part of the general fund of the nation; and
dred thousand dollars in addition to the present their present school fund amounting to about fifty
annuities of the nation to constitute a general fund thousand dollars shall constitute a part of the perma-
the interest of which shall be applied annually by the nent school fund of the nation.
council of the nation to such purposes as they may
deem best for the general interest of their people. ARTICLE 12.
The sum of fifty thousand dollars to constitute an Those individuals and families of the Cherokee
orphans’ fund the annual income of which shall be nation that are averse to a removal to the Cherokee

country west of the Mississippi and are desirous to mittee deem best for the benefit of the poorer class
become citizens of the States where they reside and of Cherokees as shall remove west or have
such as are qualified to take care of themselves and removed west and are entitled to the benefits of
their property shall be entitled to receive their due this treaty. The same to be delivered at the Chero-
portion of all the personal benefits accruing under kee agency west as soon after the removal of the
this treaty for their claims, improvements and per nation as possible.
capita; as soon as an appropriation is made for this
treaty. ARTICLE 13.
In order to make a final settlement of all the claims of
Such heads of Cherokee families as are desirous to the Cherokees for reservations granted under former
reside within the States of No. Carolina, Tennessee, treaties to any individuals belonging to the nation by
and Alabama subject to the laws of the same; and the United States it is therefore hereby stipulated
who are qualified or calculated to become useful citi- and agreed and expressly understood by the parties
zens shall be entitled, on the certificate of the com- to this treaty—that all the Cherokees and their heirs
missioners to a preemption right to one hundred and and descendants to whom any reservations have
sixty acres of land or one quarter section at the mini- been made under any former treaties with the
mum Congress price; so as to include the present United States, and who have not sold or conveyed
buildings or improvements of those who now reside the same by deed or otherwise and who in the opin-
there and such as do not live there at present shall be ion of the commissioners have complied with the
permitted to locate within two years any lands not terms on which the reservations were granted as far
already occupied by persons entitled to pre-emption as practicable in the several cases; and which reser-
privilege under this treaty and if two or more fami- vations have since been sold by the United States
lies live on the same quarter section and they desire shall constitute a just claim against the United States
to continue their residence in these States and are and the original reservee or their heirs or descen-
qualified as above specified they shall, on receiving dants shall be entitled to receive the present value
their pre-emption certificate be entitled to the right thereof from the United States as unimproved lands.
of pre-emption to such lands as they may select not And all such reservations as have not been sold by
already taken by any person entitled to them under the United States and where the terms on which the
this treaty. reservations were made in the opinion of the com-
missioners have been complied with as far as practi-
It is stipulated and agreed between the United States cable, they or their heirs or descendants shall be enti-
and the Cherokee people that John Ross, James Starr, tled to the same. They are hereby granted and
George Hicks, John Gunter, George Chambers, John confirmed to them—and also all persons who were
Ridge, Elias Boudinot, George Sanders, John Martin , entitled to reservations under the treaty of 1817 and
William Rogers, Roman Nose Situwake, and John who as far as practicable in the opinion of the com-
Timpson shall be a committee on the part of the missioners, have complied with the stipulations of
Cherokees to recommend such persons for the privi- said treaty, although by the treaty of 1819 such
lege of pre-emption rights as may be deemed enti- reservations were included in the unceded lands
tled to the same under the above articles and to belonging to the Cherokee nation are hereby con-
select the missionaries who shall be removed with firmed to them and they shall be entitled to receive a
the nation; and that they be hereby fully empowered grant for the same. And all such reservees as were
and authorized to transact all business on the part of obliged by the laws of the States in which their reser-
the Indians which may arise in carrying into effect vations were situated, to abandon the same or pur-
the provisions of this treaty and settling the same chase them from the States shall be deemed to have a
with the United States. If any of the persons above just claim against the United States for the amount
mentioned should decline acting or be removed by by them paid to the States with interest thereon for
death; the vacancies shall be filled by the committee such reservations and if obliged to abandon the
themselves. same, to the present value of such reservations as
unimproved lands but in all cases where the
It is also understood and agreed that the sum of reservees have sold their reservations or any part
one hundred thousand dollars shall be expended thereof and conveyed the same by deed or otherwise
by the commissioners in such manner as the com- and have been paid for the same, they their heirs or

descendants or their assigns shall not be considered sons as have been dispossessed of their improve-
as having any claims upon the United States under ments and houses; and for which no grant has actu-
this article of the treaty nor be entitled to receive any ally issued previously to the enactment of the law of
compensation for the lands thus disposed of. It is the State of Georgia, of December 1835 to regulate
expressly understood by the parties to this treaty Indian occupancy shall be again put in possession
that the amount to be allowed for reservations under and placed in the same situation and condition, in
this article shall not be deducted out of the consider- reference to the laws of the State of Georgia, as the
ation money allowed to the Cherokees for their Indians that have not been dispossessed; and if this
claims for spoilations and the cession of their lands; is not done, and the people are left unprotected, then
but the same is to be paid for independently by the the United States shall pay the several Cherokees for
United States as it is only a just fulfillment of former their losses and damages sustained by them in con-
treaty stipulations. sequence thereof. And it is also stipulated and
agreed that the public buildings and improvements
ARTICLE 14. on which they are situated at New Echota for which
It is also agreed on the part of the United States that no grant has been actually made previous to the pas-
such warriors of the Cherokee nation as were sage of the above recited act if not occupied by the
engaged on the side of the United States in the late Cherokee people shall be reserved for the public and
war with Great Britain and the southern tribes of free use of the United States and the Cherokee Indi-
Indians, and who were wounded in such service ans for the purpose of settling and closing all the
shall be entitled to such pensions as shall be allowed Indian business arising under this treaty between the
them by the Congress of the United States to com- commissioners of claims and the Indians.
mence from the period of their disability.
The United States, and the several States interested
ARTICLE 15. in the Cherokee lands, shall immediately proceed to
It is expressly understood and agreed between the survey the lands ceded by this treaty; but it is
parties to this treaty that after deducting the amount expressly agreed and understood between the par-
which shall be actually expended for the payment ties that the agency buildings and that tract of land
for improvements, ferries, claims, for spoliations, surveyed and laid off for the use of Colonel R. J.
removal subsistence and debts and claims upon the Meigs Indian agent or heretofore enjoyed and occu-
Cherokee nation and for the additional quantity of pied by his successors in office shall continue subject
lands and goods for the poorer class of Cherokees to the use and occupancy of the United States, or
and the several sums to be invested for the general such agent as may be engaged specially superin-
national funds; provided for in the several articles of tending the removal of the tribe.
this treaty the balance whatever the same may be
shall be equally divided between all the people ARTICLE 17.
belonging to the Cherokee nation east according to All the claims arising under or provided for in the
the census just completed; and such Cherokees as several articles of this treaty, shall be examined and
have removed west since June 1833 who are entitled adjudicated by such commissioners as shall be
by the terms of their enrollment and removal to all appointed by the President of the United States by
the benefits resulting from the final treaty between and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the
the United States and the Cherokees east they shall United States for that purpose and their decision
also be paid for their improvements according to shall be final and on their certificate of the amount
their approved value before their removal where due the several claimants they shall be paid by the
fraud has not already been shown in their valuation. United States. All stipulations in former treaties
which have not been superseded or annulled by this
ARTICLE 16. shall continue in full force and virtue.
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the Cherokees
that they shall remove to their new homes within ARTICLE 18.
two years from the ratification of this treaty and that Whereas in consequence of the unsettled affairs of
during such time the United States shall protect and the Cherokee people and the early frosts, their crops
defend them in their possessions and property and are insufficient to support their families and great
free use and occupation of the same and such per- distress is likely to ensue and whereas the nation

will not, until after their removal be able advanta- George W. Adair, [L. S.],
geously to expend the income of the permanent Elias Boudinot, [L. S.],
funds of the nation it is therefore agreed that the James Starr, his x mark, [L. S.],
annuities of the nation which may accrue under this Jesse Half-breed, his x mark, [L. S.].
treaty for two years, the time fixed for their removal
shall be expended in provision and clothing for the Signed and sealed in presence of—
benefit of the poorer class of the nation and the Western B. Thomas, secretary,
United States hereby agree to advance the same for Ben. F. Currey, special agent,
that purpose as soon after the ratification of this M. Wolfe Batman, first lieutenant, sixth U. S.
treaty as an appropriation for the same shall be infantry, disbursing agent,
made. It is however not intended in this article to Jon. L. Hooper, lieutenant, fourth Infantry,
interfere with that part of the annuities due the C. M Hitchcock, M. D., assistant surgeon,
Cherokees west by the treaty of 1819. U.S.A,
G. W. Currey,
ARTICLE 19. Wm. H. Underwood,
This treaty after the same shall be ratified by the Cornelius D. Terhune,
President and Senate of the United States shall be John W. H. Underwood.
obligatory on the contracting parties.
In compliance with instructions of the council at
ARTICLE 20. New Echota, we sign this treaty.
[Supplemental article. Stricken out by Senate.]
Stand Watie,
In testimony whereof, the commissioners and the John Ridge.
chiefs, head men, and people whose names are here-
unto annexed, being duly authorized by the people March 1, 1836.
in general council assembled, have affixed their Witnesses:
hands and seals for themselves, and in behalf of the Elbert Herring,
Cherokee nation. Alexander H. Everett,
John Robb,
I have examined the foregoing treaty, and although D. Kurtz,
not present when it was made, I approve its provi- Wm.Y. Hansell,
sions generally, and therefore sign it. Samuel J. Potts,
Jno. Litle,
Wm. Carroll, S. Rockwell.
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.], Dec. 31, 1835 | 7 Stat., 487.
Charles Moore, his x mark, [L. S.], Whereas the western Cherokees have appointed a
George Chambers, his x mark, [L. S.], delegation to visit the eastern Cherokees to assure
Tah-yeske, his x mark, [L. S.], them of the friendly disposition of their people and
Archilla Smith, his x mark, [L. S.], their desire that the nation should again be united as
Andrew Ross, [L. S.], one people and to urge upon them the expediency of
William Lassley, [L. S.], accepting the overtures of the Government; and that,
Cae-te-hee, his x mark , [L. S.], on their removal they may be assured of a hearty
Te-gah-e-ske, his x mark, [L. S.], welcome and an equal participation with them in all
Robert Rogers, [L. S.], the benefits and privileges of the Cherokee country
John Gunter, [L. S.], west and the undersigned two of said delegation
John A. Bell, [L. S.], being the only delegates in the eastern nation from
Charles F. Foreman, [L. S.], the west at the signing and sealing of the treaty
William Rogers, [L. S.], lately concluded at New Echota between their east-

ern brethren and the United States; and having fully thence southerly, on a course parallel with that of
understood the provisions of the same they agree to the Wisconsin river, to the line dividing the territo-
it in behalf of the western Cherokees. But it is ries of the Chippewas and Menomonies; thence to
expressly understood that nothing in this treaty shall the Plover Portage; thence along the southern
affect any claims of the western Cherokees on the boundary of the Chippewa country, to the com-
United States. In testimony whereof, we have, this mencement of the boundary line dividing it from
31st day of December, 1835, hereunto set our hands that of the Sioux, half a days march below the falls
and seals. on the Chippewa river; thence with said boundary
line to the mouth of Wah-tap river, at its junction
James Rogers, with the Mississippi; and thence up the Mississippi
John Smith, to the place of beginning.
Delegates from the western Cherokees.
ARTICLE 2.
Test: In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United
Ben. F. Currey, special agent, States agree to make to the Chippewa nation, annu-
M. W. Batman, first lieutenant, Sixth Infantry, ally, for the term of twenty years, from the date of
Jno. L. Hooper, lieutenant, Fourth Infantry, the ratification of this treaty, the following pay-
Elias Boudinot. ments.
1. Nine thousand five hundred dollars, to be

paid in money.
2. Nineteen thousand dollars, to be delivered in
goods.
Treaty with the Chippewa 3. Three thousand dollars for establishing three
(Ojibwe), 1837 blacksmiths shops, supporting the black-
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at St. Peters smiths, and furnishing them with iron and
(the confluence of the St. Peters and Mississippi steel.
rivers) in the Territory of Wisconsin, between the 4. One thousand dollars for farmers, and for
United States of America, by their commissioner, supplying them and the Indians, with
Henry Dodge, Governor of said Territory, and the implements of labor, with grain or seed; and
Chippewa nation of Indians, by their chiefs and whatever else may be necessary to enable
headmen. them to carry on their agricultural pursuits.
5. Two thousand dollars in provisions.
ARTICLE 1. 6. Five hundred dollars in tobacco.
The said Chippewa nation cede to the United States
all that tract of country included within the follow- The provisions and tobacco to be delivered at the
ing boundaries: same time with the goods, and the money to be paid;
which time or times, as well as the place or places
Beginning at the junction of the Crow Wing and where they are to be delivered, shall be fixed upon
Mississippi rivers, between twenty and thirty miles under the direction of the President of the United
above where the Mississippi is crossed by the forty- States.
sixth parallel of north latitude, and running thence
to the north point of Lake St. Croix, one of the The blacksmiths shops to be placed at such points
sources of the St. Croix river; thence to and along in the Chippewa country as shall be designated by
the dividing ridge between the waters of Lake Supe- the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, or under his
rior and those of the Mississippi, to the sources of direction.
the Ocha-sua-sepe a tributary of the Chippewa If at the expiration of one or more years the
river; thence to a point on the Chippewa river, Indians should prefer to receive goods, instead of
twenty miles below the outlet of Lake De Flambeau; the nine thousand dollars agreed to be paid to them
thence to the junction of the Wisconsin and Pelican in money, they shall be at liberty to do so. Or,
rivers; thence on an east course twenty-five miles; should they conclude to appropriate a portion of

492 Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1837
that annuity to the establishment and support of a Che-a-na-quod, or the Big Cloud,
school or schools among them, this shall be granted Warriors.
them.
From Gull lake and Swan river:
ARTICLE 3. Pa-goo-na-kee-zhig, or the Hole in the Day,
The sum of one hundred thousand dollars shall be Songa-ko-mig, or the Strong Ground,
paid by the United States, to the half-breeds of the Chiefs.
Chippewa nation, under the direction of the Presi- Wa-boo-jig, or the White Fisher,
dent. It is the wish of the Indians that their two sub- Ma-cou-da, or the Bear’s Heart,
agents Daniel P. Bushnell, and Miles M. Vineyard, Warriors.
superintend the distribution of this money among
their half-breed relations. From St. Croix river:
Pe-zhe-ke, or the Buffalo,
ARTICLE 4. Ka-be-ma-be, or the Wet Month,
The sum of seventy thousand dollars shall be Chiefs.
applied to the payment, by the United States, of cer- Pa-ga-we-we-wetung, Coming Home
tain claims against the Indians; of which amount Hollowing,
twenty-eight thousand dollars shall, at their request, Ya-banse, or the Young Buck,
be paid to William A. Aitkin, twenty-five thousand Kis-ke-ta-wak, or the Cut Ear,
to Lyman M. Warren, and the balance applied to the Warriors.
liquidation of other just demands against them—
From Lake Courteoville:
which they acknowledge to be the case with regard
Pa-qua-a-mo, or the Wood Pecker.
to that presented by Hercules L. Dousman, for the
Chief.
sum of five thousand dollars; and they request that it
be paid. From Lac De Flambeau:
Pish-ka-ga-ghe, or the White Crow,
ARTICLE 5. Na-wa-ge-wa, or the Knee,
The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the O-ge-ma-ga, or the Dandy,
wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes Pa-se-quam-jis, or the Commissioner,
included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Wa-be-ne-me, or the White Thunder,
Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the Chiefs.
United States.
From La Pointe, (on Lake Superior):
ARTICLE 6. Pe-zhe-ke, or the Buffalo,
This treaty shall be obligatory from and after its Ta-qua-ga-na, or Two Lodges Meeting,
ratification by the President and Senate of the United Cha-che-que-o,
States. Chiefs.
Done at St. Peters in the Territory of Wisconsin the From Mille Lac:
twenty-ninth day of July eighteen hundred and Wa-shask-ko-kone, or Rats Liver,
thirty-seven. Wen-ghe-ge-she-guk, or the First Day,
Chiefs.
Henry Dodge, Commissioner. Ada-we-ge-shik, or Both Ends of the Sky,
Ka-ka-quap, or the Sparrow,
From Leech lake: Warriors.
Aish-ke-bo-ge-koshe, or Flat Mouth,
R-che-o-sau-ya, or the Elder Brother, From Sandy Lake:
Chiefs. Ka-nan-da-wa-win-zo, or Le Brocheux,
Pe-zhe-kins, the Young Buffalo, We-we-shan-shis, the Bad Boy, or Big
Ma-ghe-ga-bo, or La Trappe, Mouth,
O-be-gwa-dans, the Chief of the Earth, Ke-che-wa-me-te-go, or the Big Frenchman,
Wa-bose, or the Rabbit, Chiefs.

Na-ta-me-ga-bo, the Man that stands First, Treaty with the Chippewa
Sa-ga-ta-gun, or Spunk, (Ojibwe), 1842
Warriors.
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointe
From Snake river: of Lake Superior, in the Territory of Wisconsin,
Naudin, or the Wind, between Robert Stuart commissioner on the part of
Sha-go-bai, or the Little Six, the United States, and the Chippewa Indians of the
Pay-ajik, or the Lone Man, Mississippi, and Lake Superior, by their chiefs and
Na-qua-na-bie, or the Feather, headmen.
Chiefs.
Ha-tau-wa,
Wa-me-te-go-zhins, the Little Frenchman, ARTICLE 1.
Sho-ne-a, or Silver, The Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake
Warriors. Superior, cede to the United States all the country
within the following bounderies; viz: beginning at
From Fond du Lac, (on Lake Superior): the mouth of Chocolate river of Lake Superior;
Mang-go-sit, or the Loons Foot, thence northwardly across said lake to intersect the
Shing-go-be, or the Spruce, boundery line between the United States and the
Chiefs. Province of Canada; thence up said Lake Superior,
to the mouth of the St. Louis, or Fond du Lac river
From Red Cedar lake: (including all the islands in said lake); thence up
Mont-so-mo, or the Murdering Yell. said river to the American Fur Company’s trading
post, at the southwardly bend thereof, about 22
From Red lake: miles from its mouth; thence south to intersect the
Francois Goumean (a half breed). line of the treaty of 29th July 1837, with the Chippe-
was of the Mississippi; thence along said line to its
From Leech lake: southeastwardly extremity, near the Plover portage
Sha-wa-ghe-zhig, or the Sounding Sky, on the Wisconsin river; thence northeastwardly,
Wa-zau-ko-ni-a, or Yellow Robe. along the boundery line, between the Chippewas
Warriors. and Menomonees, to its eastern termination, (estab-
lished by the treaty held with the Chippewas,
Signed in presence of— Menomonees, and Winnebagoes, at Butte des Morts,
Verplanck Van Antwerp, Secretary to the August 11th 1827) on the Skonawby river of Green
Commissioner. Bay; thence northwardly to the source of Chocolate
M. M. Vineyard, U. S. Sub-Indian Agent. river; thence down said river to its mouth, the place
Daniel P. Bushnell. of beginning; it being the intention of the parties to
Law. Taliaferro, Indian Agent at St. Peters. this treaty, to include in this cession, all the
Martin Scott, Captain, Fifth Regiment Infantry. Chippewa lands eastwardly of the aforesaid line
J. Emerson, Assistant Surgeon, U. S. Army. running from the American Fur Company’s trading
H. H. Sibley. post on the Fond du Lac river to the intersection of
H. L. Dousman. the line of the treaty made with the Chippewas of
S. C. Stambaugh. the Mississippi July 29th 1837.
E. Lockwood.
Lyman M. Warren. J.
N. Nicollet. ARTICLE 2.
Harmen Van Antwerp. The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the
Wm. H. Forbes. ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of
Jean Baptiste Dubay, Interpreter. occupancy, until required to remove by the President
Peter Quinn, Interpreter. of the United States, and that the laws of the United
S. Campbell, U. S. Interpreter. States shall be continued in force, in respect to their
Stephen Bonga, Interpreter. trade and inter course with the whites, until other-
Wm. W Coriell. wise ordered by Congress.

494 Treaty with the Chippewa (Ojibwe), 1842
ARTICLE 3. ousy and discontent, it is agreed that all the annuity

It is agreed by the parties to this treaty, that when- due by the said treaty, as also the annuity due by the
ever the Indians shall be required to remove from present treaty, shall henceforth be equally divided
the ceded district, all the unceded lands belonging to among the Chippewas of the Mississippi and Lake
the Indians of Fond du Lac, Sandy Lake, and Missis- Superior, party to this treaty, so that every person
sippi bands, shall be the common property and shall receive an equal share.
home of all the Indians, party to this treaty.
ARTICLE 6.
ARTICLE 4. The Indians residing on the Mineral district, shall be
In consideration of the foregoing cession, the United subject to removal therefrom at the pleasure of the
States, engage to pay to the Chippewa Indians of the President of the United States.
Mississippi, and Lake Superior, annually, for twenty-
five years, twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) ARTICLE 7.
dollars, in specie, ten thousand five hundred (10,500) This treaty shall be obligatory upon the contracting
dollars in goods, two thousand (2,000) dollars in pro- parties when ratified by the President and Senate of
visions and tobacco, two thousand (2,000) dollars for the United States.
the support of two blacksmiths shops, (including
pay of smiths and assistants, and iron steel &c.) one In testimony whereof the said Robert Stuart commis-
thousand (1,000) dollars for pay of two farmers, sioner, on the part of the United States, and the
twelve hundred (1,200) for pay of two carpenters, chiefs and headmen of the Chippewa Indians of the
and two thousand (2,000) dollars for the support of Mississippi and Lake Superior, have hereunto set
schools for the Indians party to this treaty; and fur- their hands, at La Pointe of Lake Superior, Wisconsin
ther the United States engage to pay the sum of five Territory this fourth day of October in the year of our
thousand (5,000) dollars as an agricultural fund, to Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two.
be expended under the direction of the Secretary of
War. And also the sum of seventy-five thousand Robert Stuart, Commissioner.
(75,000) dollars, shall be allowed for the full satisfac- Jno. Hulbert, Secretary.
tion of their debts within the ceded district, which
shall be examined by the commissioner to this treaty, Po go ne gi shik,
and the amount to be allowed decided upon by him, Son go com ick,
which shall appear in a schedule hereunto annexed. Ka non do ur uin zo,
The United States shall pay the amount so allowed Na tum e gaw bon,
within three years. Ua bo jig,
Pay pe si gon de bay,
Whereas the Indians have expressed a strong desire Kui ui sen shis,
to have some provision made for their half breed rel- Ott taw wance,
atives, therefore it is agreed, that fifteen thousand Bai ie jig,
(15,000) dollars shall be paid to said Indians, next Show ne aw,
year, as a present, to be disposed of, as they, together Ki uen zi,
with their agent, shall determine in council. Wi aw bis ke kut te way,
A pish ka go gi,
ARTICLE 5. May tock cus e quay,
Whereas the whole country between Lake Superior She maw gon e,
and the Mississippi, has always been understood as Ki ji ua be she shi,
belonging in common to the Chippewas, party to Ke kon o tum,
this treaty; and whereas the bands bordering on Shin goob,
Lake Superior, have not been allowed to participate Na gan nab,
in the annuity payments of the treaty made with the Mong o zet,
Chippewas of the Mississippi, at St. Peters July 29th Gitchi waisky,
1837, and whereas all the unceded lands belonging Mi zi,
to the aforesaid Indians, are hereafter to be held in Ta qua gone e,
common, therefore, to remove all occasion for jeal- O kon di kan,

Kis ke taw wac, WAGABOU, MICHEL SHELAGESHICK, MANIT-

Pe na shi, SHAINSE, and CHIGINANS, principal men of the
Guck we san sish, OJIBEWA Indians inhabiting the Northern Shore of
Ka she osh e, Lake Superior, in the said Province of Canada,
Medge waw gwaw wot, from Batchewana Bay to Pigeon River, at the west-
Ne qua ne be, ern extremity of said Lake, and inland throughout
Ua shash ko kum, that extent to the height of land which separates
No din, the territory covered by the charter of the Honor-
Be zhi ki, able the Hudson’s Bay Company from the said
Ka bi na be, tract, and also the Islands in the said Lake within
Ai aw bens, the boundaries of the British possessions therein,
Sha go bi, of the other part, witnesseth:
Ua be she shi,
Que way zhan sis, THAT for and in consideration of the sum of two
Ne na nang eb, thousand pounds of good and lawful money of
Be bo kon uen, Upper Canada, to them in hand paid, and for the
Ki uen zi. further perpetual annuity of five hundred pounds,
the same to be paid and delivered to the said Chiefs
In presence of— and their Tribes at a convenient season of each
Henry Blanchford, interpreter. summer, not later than the first day of August at the
Samuel Ashmun, interpreter. Honorable the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Posts of
Justin Rice. Michipicoton and Fort William, they the said chiefs
Charles H. Oakes. and principal men do freely, fully and voluntarily
William A. Aitkin. surrender, cede, grant and convey unto Her
William Brewster. Majesty, Her heirs and successors forever, all their
Charles M. Borup. right, title and interest in the whole of the territory
Z. Platt. above described, save and except the reservations
C. H. Beaulieau. set forth in the schedule hereunto annexed, which
L. T. Jamison. reservations shall be held and occupied by the said
James P. Scott. Chiefs and their Tribes in common, for the purpose
Cyrus Mendenhall. of residence and cultivation, and should the said
L. M. Warren. Chiefs and their respective Tribes at any time desire
to dispose of any mineral or other valuable produc-
tions 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.
Copy of the Robinson
Treaty, 1850 And the said William Benjamin Robinson of the first
Made in the Year 1850 With the Ojibewa part, on behalf of Her Majesty and the Government
Indians of Lake Superior conveying Certain of this Province, hereby promises and agrees to
Lands to the Crown make the payments as before mentioned; and fur-
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the ther to allow the said chiefs and their tribes the full
seventh day of September, in the year of Our Lord and free privilege to hunt over the territory now
one thousand eight hundred and fifty, at Sault Ste. ceded by them, and to fish in the waters thereof as
Marie, in the Province of Canada, between the they have heretofore been in the habit of doing, sav-
Honorable WILLIAM BENJAMIN ROBINSON, of ing and excepting only such portions of the said ter-
the one part, on behalf of HER MAJESTY THE ritory as may from time to time be sold or leased to
QUEEN, and JOSEPH PEANDECHAT, JOHN individuals, or companies of individuals, and occu-
IUINWAY, MISHE-MUCKQUA, TOTOMENCIE, pied by them with the consent of the Provincial
Chiefs, and JACOB WARPELA, AHMUTCHI- Government. The parties of the second part further

496 Copy of the Robinson Treaty, 1850
promise and agree that they will not sell, lease, or SECOND—Four miles square at Gros Cap, being a
otherwise dispose of any portion of their reserva- valley near the Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company’s
tions without the consent of the Superintendent post of Michipicoton, for Totominai and Tribe.
General of Indian Affairs being first had and
obtained; nor will they at any time hinder or pre- THIRD—Four miles square on Gull River, near Lake
vent persons from exploring or searching for min- Nipigon, on both sides of said river, for the Chief
eral or other valuable productions in any part of the Mishimuckqua and Tribe.
territory hereby ceded to Her Majesty as before
mentioned. The parties of the second part also agree And should the said Chiefs and their respective
that in case the Government of this Province should Tribes at any time desire to dispose of any part of
before the date of this agreement have sold, or bar- such reservations, or of any mineral or other valu-
gained to sell, any mining locations or other prop- able productions thereon, the same will be sold or
erty on the portions of the territory hereby reserved leased at their request by the Superintendent-
for their use and benefit, then and in that case such General of Indian Affairs for the time being, or other
sale, or promise of sale, shall be forfeited, if the par- officer having authority so to do, for their sole bene-
ties interested desire it, by the Government, and the fit, and to the best advantage.
amount accruing therefrom shall be paid to the tribe
to whom the reservation belongs. The said William And the said William Benjamin Robinson of the first
Benjamin Robinson on behalf of Her Majesty, who part, on behalf of Her Majesty and the Government
desires to deal liberally and justly with all Her sub- of this Province, hereby promises and agrees to
jects, further promises and agrees that in case the make, or cause to be made, the payments as before
territory hereby ceded by the parties of the second mentioned; and further to allow the said Chiefs and
part shall at any future period produce an amount their Tribes the full and free privilege to hunt over
which will enable the Government of this Province the Territory now ceded by them, and to fish in the
without incurring loss to increase the annuity waters thereof, as they have heretofore been in the
hereby secured to them, then, and in that case, the habit of doing; saving and excepting such portions
same shall be augmented from time to time, proof the said Territory as may from time to time be sold
vided that the amount paid to each individual shall or leased to individuals or companies of individuals,
not exceed the sum of one pound provincial cur- and occupied by them with the consent of the
rency in any one year, or such further sum as Her Provincial Government.
Majesty may be graciously pleased to order; and
provided further that the number of Indians entitled The parties of the second part further promise and
to the benefit of this Treaty shall amount to two agree that they will not sell, lease, or otherwise dis-
thirds of their present numbers (which is twelve pose of any portion of their Reservations without the
hundred and forty) to entitle them to claim the full consent of the Superintendent-General of Indian
benefit thereof, and should their numbers at any Affairs, or other officer of like authority, being first
future period not amount to two thirds of twelve had and obtained. Nor will they at any time hinder
hundred and forty, the annuity shall be diminished or prevent persons from exploring or searching for
in proportion to their actual numbers. minerals, or other valuable productions, in any part
of the Territory hereby ceded to Her Majesty, as
Schedule of Reservations made by the above named before mentioned. The parties of the second part also
subscribing Chiefs and principal men. agree, that in case the Government of this Province
should before the date of this agreement have sold, or
FIRST—Joseph Pean-de-chat and his Tribe, the bargained to sell, any mining locations, or other
reserve to commence about two miles from Fort property, on the portions of the Territory hereby
William (inland), on the right bank of the River reserved for their use; then and in that case such sale,
Kiminitiquia thence westerly six miles, parallel to or promise of sale, shall be perfected by the Govern-
the shores of the lake; thence northerly five miles; ment, if the parties claiming it shall have fulfilled all
thence easterly to the right bank of the said river, so the conditions upon which such locations were
as not to interfere with any acquired rights of the made, and the amount accruing therefrom shall be
Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company. paid to the Tribe to whom the Reservation belongs.

The said William Benjamin Robinson, on behalf of FIFTH—Namassin and Naoquagabo and their
Her Majesty, who desires to deal liberally and justly Bands, a tract of land commencing near Qacloche, at
with all her subjects, further promises and agrees, the Hudson Bay Company’s boundary; thence west-
that should the Territory hereby ceded by the par- erly to the mouth of Spanish River; then four miles
ties of the second part at any future period produce up the south bank of said river, and across to the
such an amount as will enable the Government of place of beginning.
this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the
annuity hereby secured to them, then and in that SIXTH—Shawenakishick and his Band, a tract of
case the same shall be augmented from time to time, land now occupied by them, and contained between
provided that the amount paid to each individual two rivers, called Whitefish River, and Wan-
shall not exceed the sum of one pound Provincial abitaseke, seven miles inland.
Currency in any one year, or such further sum as
Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order; SEVENTH—Windawtegawinini and his Band, the
and provided further that the number of Indians Peninsula east of Serpent River, and formed by it,
entitled to the benefit of this treaty shall amount to now occupied by them.
two-thirds of their present number, which is four-
teen hundred and twenty-two, to entitle them to EIGHTH—Ponekeosh and his Band, the land con-
claim the full benefit thereof. And should they not at tained between the River Mississaga and the River
any future period amount to two-thirds of fourteen Penebewabecong, up to the first rapids.
hundred and twenty-two, then the said annuity
shall be diminished in proportion to their actual
NINTH—Dokis and his Band, three miles square at
numbers.
Wanabeyakokaun, near Lake Nipissing and the
island near the Fall of Okickandawt.
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 TENTH—Shabokishick and his Band, from their
the Indians inhabiting French River and Lake present planting grounds on Lake Nipissing to the
Nipissing having become parties to this treaty, the Hudson Bay Company’s post, six miles in depth.
further sum of one hundred and sixty pounds
Provincial Currency shall be paid in addition to the ELEVENTH—Tagawinini and his Band, two miles
two thousand pounds above mentioned. square at Wanabitibing, a place about forty miles
Schedule of Reservations made by the above- inland, near Lake Nipissing.
named subscribing Chiefs and Principal Men.
TWELFTH—Keokouse and his Band, four miles
FIRST—Pamequonaishcung and his Band, a tract of front from Thessalon River eastward, by four miles
land to commence seven miles, from the mouth of inland.
the River Maganetawang, and extending six miles
east and west by three miles north. THIRTEENTH—Mishequanga and his Band, two
miles on the lake shore east and west of Ogawami-
SECOND—Wagemake and his Band, a tract of land nang, by one mile inland.
to commence at a place called Nekickshegeshing, six
miles from east to west, by three miles in depth. FOURTEENTH—For Shinguacouse and his Band, a
tract of land extending from Maskinongé Bay, inclu-
THIRD—Kitcheposkissegan (by Papasainse), from sive, to Partridge Point, above Garden River on the
Point Grondine westward, six miles inland, by two front, and inland ten miles, throughout the whole
miles in front, so as to include the small Lake Nessi- distance; and also Squirrel Island.
nassung a tract for themselves and their Bands.
FIFTEENTH—For Nebenaigoching and his Band, a
FOURTH—Wabakekik, three miles front, near She- tract of land extending from Wanabekineyunnung
bawenaning, by five miles inland, for himself and west of Gros Cap to the boundary of the lands
Band. ceded by the Chiefs of Lake Superior, and inland

498 Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851
ten miles throughout the whole distance, including ARTICLE 3.

Batche wanaung Bay; and also the small island at In consideration of the rights and privileges
Sault Ste. Marie used by them as a fishing station. acknowledged in the preceding article, the United
States bind themselves to protect the aforesaid
SIXTEENTH—For Chief Mekis and his Band, resid- Indian nations against the commission of all depre-
ing at Wasaquesing (Sandy Island), a tract of land at dations by the people of the said United States, after
a place on the main shore opposite the Island; being the ratification of this treaty.
the place now occupied by them for residence and
cultivation, four miles square. ARTICLE 4.
The aforesaid Indian nations do hereby agree and
SEVENTEENTH—For Chief Muckatamishaquet and bind themselves to make restitution or satisfaction
his Band, a tract of land on the east side of the River for any wrongs committed, after the ratification of
Naishconteong, near Pointe aux Barils, three miles this treaty, by any band or individual of their people,
square; and also a small tract in Washauwenega Bay on the people of the United States, whilst lawfully
— now occupied by a part of the Band — three miles residing in or passing through their respective terri-
square. tories.
ARTICLE 5.
The aforesaid Indian nations do hereby recognize
and acknowledge the following tracts of country,
Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 included within the metes and boundaries here-
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Fort inafter designated, as their respective territories, viz:
Laramie, in the Indian Territory, between D. D.
Mitchell, superintendent of Indian affairs, and The territory of the Sioux or Dahcotah Nation, com-
Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian agent, commissioners mencing the mouth of the White Earth River, on the
specially appointed and authorized by the President Missouri River: thence in a southwesterly direction
of the United States, of the first part, and the chiefs, to the forks of the Platte River: thence up the north
headmen, and braves of the following Indian fork of the Platte River to a point known as the Red
nations, residing south of the Missouri River, east of Bute, or where the road leaves the river; thence
the Rocky Mountains, and north of the lines of Texas along the range of mountains known as the Black
and New Mexico, viz, the Sioux or Dahcotahs, Hills, to the head-waters of Heart River; thence
Cheyennes, Arrapahoes, Crows. Assinaboines, Gros- down Heart River to its mouth; and thence down the
Ventre Mandans, and Arrickaras, parties of the sec- Missouri River to the place of beginning.
ond part, on the seventeenth day of September, A. D.
one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one. The territory of the Gros Ventre, Mandans, and
Arrickaras Nations, commencing at the mouth of
ARTICLE 1. Heart River; thence up the Missouri River to the
The aforesaid nations, parties to this treaty, having mouth of the Yellowstone River; thence up the Yel-
assembled for the purpose of establishing and con- lowstone River to the mouth of Powder River in a
firming peaceful relations amongst themselves, do southeasterly direction, to the head-waters of the Lit-
hereby covenant and agree to abstain in future from tle Missouri River; thence along the Black Hills to the
all hostilities whatever against each other, to main- head of Heart River, and thence down Heart River to
tain good faith and friendship in all their mutual the place of beginning.
intercourse, and to make an effective and lasting
peace. The territory of the Assinaboin Nation, commencing
at the mouth of Yellowstone River; thence up the
ARTICLE 2. Missouri River to the mouth of the Muscle-shell
The aforesaid nations do hereby recognize the right River; thence from the mouth of the Muscle-shell
of the United States Government to establish roads, River in a southeasterly direction until it strikes the
military and other posts, within their respective head-waters of Big Dry Creek; thence down that
territories. creek to where it empties into the Yellowstone River,

Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 499
nearly opposite the mouth of Powder River, and hunting, fishing, or passing over any of the tracts of
thence down the Yellowstone River to the place of country heretofore described.
beginning.
ARTICLE 6.
This treaty as signed was ratified by the Senate The parties to the second part of this treaty having
with an amendment changing the annuity in Arti- selected principals or head-chiefs for their respective
cle 7 from fifty to ten years, subject to acceptance nations, through whom all national business will
by the tribes. Assent of all tribes except the Crows hereafter be conducted, do hereby bind themselves
was procured (see Upper Platte C., 570, 1853, to sustain said chiefs and their successors during
Indian Office) and in subsequent agreements this good behavior.
treaty has been recognized as in force (see post
p. 776). ARTICLE 7.
In consideration of the treaty stipulations, and for
The territory of the Blackfoot Nation, commencing at the damages which have or may occur by reason
the mouth of Muscle-shell River; thence up the Mis- thereof to the Indian nations, parties hereto, and for
souri River to its source; thence along the main range their maintenance and the improvement of their
of the Rocky Mountains, in a southerly direction, to moral and social customs, the United States bind
the head-waters of the northern source of the Yel- themselves to deliver to the said Indian nations the
lowstone River; thence down the Yellowstone River sum of fifty thousand dollars per annum for the term
to the mouth of Twenty-five Yard Creek; thence of ten years, with the right to continue the same at
across to the head-waters of the Muscle-shell River, the discretion of the President of the United States
and thence down the Muscle-shell River to the place for a period not exceeding five years thereafter, in
of beginning. provisions, merchandise, domestic animals, and
agricultural implements, in such proportions as may
The territory of the Crow Nation, commencing at the be deemed best adapted to their condition by the
mouth of Powder River on the Yellowstone; thence President of the United States, to be distributed in
up Powder River to its source; thence along the main proportion to the population of the aforesaid Indian
range of the Black Hills and Wind River Mountains nations.
to the head-waters of the Yellowstone River; thence
down the Yellowstone River to the mouth of Twenty- ARTICLE 8.
five Yard Creek; thence to the head waters of the It is understood and agreed that should any of the
Muscle-shell River; thence down the Muscle-shell Indian nations, parties to this treaty, violate any of
River to its mouth; thence to the head-waters of Big the provisions thereof, the United States may with-
Dry Creek, and thence to its mouth. hold the whole or a portion of the annuities men-
tioned in the preceding article from the nation so
The territory of the Cheyennes and Arrapahoes, offending, until, in the opinion of the President of
commencing at the Red Bute, or the place where the the United States, proper satisfaction shall have been
road leaves the north fork of the Platte River; thence made.
up the north fork of the Platte River to its source;
thence along the main range of the Rocky Mountains In testimony whereof the said D. D. Mitchell and
to the head-waters of the Arkansas River; thence Thomas Fitzpatrick commissioners as aforesaid, and
down the Arkansas River to the crossing of the Santa the chiefs, headmen, and braves, parties hereto, have
Fé road; thence in a northwesterly direction to the set their hands and affixed their marks, on the day
forks of the Platte River, and thence up the Platte and at the place first above written.
River to the place of beginning.
D. D. Mitchell
It is, however, understood that, in making this recog- Thomas Fitzpatrick.
nition and acknowledgement, the aforesaid Indian Commissioners.
nations do not hereby abandon or prejudice any
rights or claims they may have to other lands; and Sioux:
further, that they do not surrender the privilege of Mah-toe-wha-you-whey, his x mark.

500 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853
Mah-kah-toe-zah-zah, his x mark. Treaty with the Comanche,

Bel-o-ton-kah-tan-ga, his x mark. Kiowa, and Apache, 1853
Nah-ka-pah-gi-gi, his x mark.
Mak-toe-sah-bi-chis, his x mark.
July 27, 1853. | 10 Stats., 1013. | Ratified Apr.
12, 1854. | Proclaimed Feb. 12, 1855 [4].
Meh-wha-tah-ni-hans-kah, his x mark.
Articles of a treaty, made and concluded at Fort
Atkinson, in the Indian Territory, of the United
Cheyennes: States of America, on the 27th day of July, anno
Wah-ha-nis-satta, his x mark. Domini eighteen hundred and fifty-three, between
Voist-ti-toe-vetz, his x mark. the United States of America, by Thomas Fitz-
Nahk-ko-me-ien, his x mark. patrick, Indian agent, and sole commissioner, duly
Koh-kah-y-wh-cum-est, his x mark. appointed for that purpose, and the Camanche, and
Kiowa, and Apache tribes or nations of Indians,
Arrapahoes: inhabiting the said territory south of the Arkansas
Bè-ah-té-a-qui-sah, his x mark. River.
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
Crows: between the United States and the Camanche and
Arra-tu-ri-sash, his x mark. Kiowa, and Apache tribes of Indians, parties to this
Doh-chepit-seh-chi-es, his x mark. treaty, and the same shall be perpetual.
Assinaboines: ARTICLE 2.
Mah-toe-wit-ko, his x mark. The Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes of Indians
Toe-tah-ki-eh-nan, his x mark. do hereby jointly and severally covenant that peace-
ful relations shall likewise be maintained amongst
Mandans and Gros Ventres: themselves in future; and that they will abstain from
Nochk-pit-shi-toe-pish, his x mark. all hostilities whatsoever against each other, and cul-
She-oh-mant-ho, his x mark. tivate mutual good-will and friendship.
Arickarees: ARTICLE 3.
Koun-hei-ti-shan, his x mark. The aforesaid Indian tribes do also hereby fully rec-
Bi-atch-tah-wetch, his x mark. ognize and acknowledge the right of the United
States to lay off and mark out roads or highways—to
In the presence of— make reservations of land necessary thereto—to
A. B. Chambers, secretary. locate depots—and to establish military and other
S. Cooper, colonel, U. S. Army. posts within the territories inhabited by the said
R. H. Chilton, captain, First Drags. tribes; and also to prescribe and enforce, in such
Thomas Duncan, captain, Mounted Riflemen. manner as the President or the Congress of the
Thos. G. Rhett, brevet captain R. M. R. United States shall from time to time direct, rules
W. L. Elliott, first lieutenant R. M. R. and regulations to protect the rights of persons and
C. Campbell, interpreter for Sioux. property among the said Indian tribes.
John S. Smith, interpreter for Cheyennes.
Robert Meldrum, interpreter for the Crows. ARTICLE 4.
H. Culbertson, interpreter for Assiniboines and The Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes, parties as
Gros Ventres. before recited, do further agree and bind themselves
Francois L’Etalie, interpreter for Arick arees. to make restitution or satisfaction for any injuries
John Pizelle, interpreter for the Arrapahoes. done by any band or any individuals of their respec-
B. Gratz Brown. tive tribes to the people of the United States who
Robert Campbell. may be lawfully residing in or passing through their
Edmond F. Chouteau. said territories; and to abstain hereafter from levying

Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853 501
contributions from, or molesting them in any man- during the term for which this treaty shall be in
ner; and, so far as may be in their power, to render force, and to compensate them for any injuries that
assistance to such as need relief, and to facilitate may result therefrom.
their safe passage.
ARTICLE 8.
ARTICLE 5. It is also stipulated and provided, by and between
The Camanche, and Kiowa, and Apache tribes of the parties to this treaty, that should any of the
Indians, parties to this treaty, do hereby solemnly Indian tribes aforesaid violate any of the conditions,
covenant and agree to refrain in future from warlike provisions, or agreements herein contained, or fail to
incursions into the Mexican provinces, and from all perform any of the obligations entered into on their
depredations upon the inhabitants thereof; and they part, then the United States may withhold the whole
do likewise bind themselves to restore all captives or a part of the annuities mentioned in the sixth arti-
that may hereafter be taken by any of the bands, cle of this treaty, from the tribe so offending, until, in
war-parties, or individuals of the said several tribes, the opinion of the President or the Congress of the
from the Mexican provinces aforesaid, and to make United States, proper satisfaction shall have been
proper and just compensation for any wrongs that made, or until persons amongst the said Indians
may be inflicted upon the people thereof by them, offending against the laws of the United States shall
either to the United States or to the Republic of Mex- have been delivered up to justice.
ico, as the President of the United States may direct
and require. ARTICLE 9.
It is also consented to and determined between the
ARTICLE 6. parties hereto, that the annuities to be given on the
In consideration of the foregoing agreements on the part of the United States, as provided in the sixth
part of the Camanche, and Kiowa, and Apache article of this treaty, shall be delivered to the said
tribes, parties to this treaty—of the losses which they Indian tribes collectively, at or in the vicinity of
may sustain by reason of the travel of the people of Beaver Creek, yearly, during the month of July in
the United States through their territories—and for each year, until some other time and place shall
the better support, and the improvement of the have been designated by the President of the
social condition of the said tribes—the United States United States, in which event the said Indian tribes
do bind themseles, and by these presents stipulate to shall have due notice thereof, and the place of dis-
deliver to the Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes tribution which may be selected shall always be
aforesaid, the sum of eighteen thousand dollars per some point within the territories occupied by the
annum, for and during the term of ten years next said tribes.
ensuing from this date, and for the additional term
of five years, if, in the opinion of the President of the ARTICLE 10.
United States, such extension shall be advisable;— It is agreed between the United States and the
the same to be given to them in goods, merchandise, Camanche, Kiowa, and Apache tribes of Indians,
provisions, or agricultural implements, or in such that, should it at any time hereafter be considered by
shape as may be best adapted to their wants, and as the United States as a proper policy to establish
the President of the United States may designate, farms among and for the benefit of said Indians, it
and to be distributed amongst the said several tribes shall be discretionary with the President, by and
in proportion to the respective numbers of each with the advice and consent of the Senate, to change
tribe. the annuities herein provided for, or any part
thereof, into a fund for that purpose.
ARTICLE 7.
The United States do moreover bind themselves, in In witness whereof, the said Thomas Fitzpatrick,
consideration of the covenants contained in the pre- Indian Agent, and sole commissioner on the part of
ceding articles of this treaty, to protect and defend the United States, and the undersigned chiefs and
the Indian tribes, parties hereto, against the commit- headmen of the Camanche and Kiowa, and Apache
tal of any depredations upon them, and in their terri- tribes or nations, have hereunto set their hands, at
tories, by the people of the United States, for and Fort Atkinson, in the Indian Territory of the United

502 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854
States, this twenty-seventh day of July, A. D. eigh- Hai-nick-seu, (Crow,) his x mark.
teen hundred and fifty-three. Ty-har-re-ty, (One who runs after women,) his x
mark.
Thomas Fitzpatrick, Indian Agent, and Para-sar-a-man-no, (Ten Bears,) his x mark.
Commissioner on behalf of the United States.
B. Gratz Brown, Secretary. Kiowas:
R. H. Chilton. To-han-seu, (Little Mountain,) his x mark.
B. T. Moylero. Ti-sank-ki, (Sitting Bear,) his x mark.
Wulea-boo, his x mark (Shaved Head) chief Ko-a-ty-ka, (Wolf outside,) his x mark.
Camanche
Wa-ya-ba-tos-a, his x mark (White Eagle) Executed in presence of—
chief of band Aquilla T. Ridgely, assistant surgeon, U. S.
Hai-nick-seu, his x mark (The Crow) chief Army.
of band A. H. Plummer, brevet second lieutenant, Sixth
Paro-sa-wa-no, his x mark (Ten Sticks) chief Infantry.
of band Paul Carrey.
Wa-ra-kon-alta, his x mark (Poor Cayote Wolf) John Kinney, United States interpreter.
chief of band H. E. Nixon, clerk.
Ka-na-re-tah, his x mark (One that Rides the
Clouds) chief of the southern Camanches I certify that the foregoing amendments to the treaty
To-hau-sen, his x mark (Little Mountain) chief of 27th day of July, 1853, was read and explained to
Kiowas the chiefs, and that they consented to, and signed the
Si-tank-ki, his x mark (Sitting Bear) war chief same on the 21st day of July, 1854.
Tah-ka-eh-bool, his x mark (The Bad Smelling
Saddle) headman J. W. Whitfield, Indian Agent.
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 Treaty with the Chippewa, 1854
Oh-ah-te-kah, his x mark (Poor Bear) headman Sept. 30, 1854. | 10 Stats., 1109. | Ratified Jan.
Ah-zaah, his x mark (Prairie Wolf) headman 10, 1855. | Proclaimed Jan. 29, 1855.
Kootz-zah, his x mark (The Cigar) headman Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointe,
in the State of Wisconsin, between Henry C. Gilbert
Witness: and David B. Herriman, commissioners on the part
B. B. Dayton, of the United States, and the Chippewa Indians of
Geo. M. Alexander, Lake Superior and the Mississippi, by their chiefs
T. Polk, and head-men.
Geo. Collier, jr.
ARTICLE 1.
We do hereby accept and consent to the Senate The Chippewas of Lake Superior hereby cede to the
amendments to the treaty aforesaid, and agree that United States all the lands heretofore owned by
the same may be considered as a part thereof. them in common with the Chippewas of the Missis-
sippi, lying east of the following boundary-line, to
In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our wit: Beginning at a point, where the east branch of
hands and affixed our seals, this 21st day of July, A. Snake River crosses the southern boundary-line of
D. 1854. the Chippewa country, running thence up the said
branch to its source, thence nearly north, in a straight
Camanches: line, to the mouth of East Savannah River, thence up
To-che-ra-nah-boo, (Shaved Head,) his x mark. the St. Louis River to the mouth of East Swan River,
Wa-ya-ba-to-sa, (White Eagle,) his x mark. thence up the East Swan River to its source, thence in

a straight line to the most westerly bend of Vermil- after agreed upon or fixed under the direction of the
lion River, and thence down the Vermillion River to President.
its mouth.
The Chippewas of the Mississippi hereby assent 4th. For the Fond Du Lac bands, a tract of land
and agree to the foregoing cession, and consent that bounded as follows: Beginning at an island in the St.
the whole amount of the consideration money for Louis River, above Knife Portage, called by the Indi-
the country ceded above, shall be paid to the ans Paw-paw-sco-me-me-tig, running thence west to
Chippewas of Lake Superior, and in consideration the boundary-line heretofore described, thence north
thereof the Chippewas of Lake Superior hereby along said boundary-line to the mouth of Savannah
relinquish to the Chippewas of the Mississippi, all River, thence down the St. Louis River to the place of
their interest in and claim to the lands heretofore beginning. And if said tract shall contain less than
owned by them in common, lying west of the above one hundred thousand acres, a strip of land shall be
boundry-line. added on the south side thereof, large enough to
equal such deficiency.
ARTICLE 2.
The United States agree to set apart and withhold 5th. For the Grand Portage band, a tract of land
from sale, for the use of the Chippewas of Lake bounded as follows: Beginning at a rock a little east
Superior, the following-described tracts of land, viz: of the eastern extremity of Grand Portage Bay, run-
ning thence along the lake shore to the mouth of a
1st. For the L’Anse and Vieux De Sert bands, all the small stream called by the Indians Maw-ske-gwaw-
unsold lands in the following townships in the State caw-maw-se-be, or Cranberry Marsh River, thence
of Michigan: Township fifty-one north range thirty- up said stream, across the point to Pigeon River,
three west; township fifty-one north range thirty- thence down Pigeon River to a point opposite the
two west; the east half of township fifty north range starting-point, and thence across to the place of
thirty-three west; the west half of township fifty beginning.
north range thirty-two west, and all of township
fifty-one north range thirty-one west, lying west of 6th. The Ontonagon band and that subdivision of
Huron Bay. the La Pointe band of which Buffalo is chief, may
each select, on or near the lake shore, four sections of
2d. For the La Pointe band, and such other Indians land, under the direction of the President, the
as may see fit to settle with them, a tract of land boundaries of which shall be defined hereafter. And
bounded as follows: Beginning on the south shore of being desirous to provide for some of his connec-
Lake Superior, a few miles west of Montreal River, at tions who have rendered his people important ser-
the mouth of a creek called by the Indians Ke-che-se- vices, it is agreed that the chief Buffalo may select
be-we-she, running thence south to a line drawn east one section of land, at such place in the ceded terri-
and west through the centre of township forty-seven tory as he may see fit, which shall be reserved for
north, thence west to the west line of said township, that purpose, and conveyed by the United States to
thence south to the southeast corner of township such person or persons as he may direct.
forty-six north, range thirty-two west, thence west
the width of two townships, thence north the width 7th. Each head of a family, or single person over
of two townships, thence west one mile, thence twenty-one years of age at the present time of the
north to the lake shore, and thence along the lake mixed bloods, belonging to the Chippewas of Lake
shore, crossing Shag-waw-me-quon Point, to the Superior, shall be entitled to eighty acres of land, to
place of beginning. Also two hundred acres on the be selected by them under the direction of the Presi-
northern extremity of Madeline Island, for a fishing dent, and which shall be secured to them by patent
ground. in the usual form.
3d. For the other Wisconsin bands, a tract of land ARTICLE 3.

lying about Lac De Flambeau, and another tract on The United States will define the boundaries of the
Lac Court Orielles, each equal in extent to three reserved tracts, whenever it may be necessary, by
townships, the boundaries of which shall be here- actual survey, and the President may, from time to

time, at his discretion, cause the whole to be sur- ARTICLE 5.

veyed, and may assign to each head of a family or The United States will also furnish a blacksmith
single person over twenty-one years of age, eighty and assistant, with the usual amount of stock, dur-
acres of land for his or their separate use; and he ing the continuance of the annuity payments, and
may, at his discretion, as fast as the occupants as much longer as the President may think proper,
become capable of transacting their own affairs, at each of the points herein set apart for the
issue patents therefor to such occupants, with such residence of the Indians, the same to be in lieu of
restrictions of the power of alienation as he may see all the employees to which the Chippewas of Lake
fit to impose. And he may also, at his discretion, Superior may be entitled under previous existing
make rules and regulations, respecting the disposi- treaties.
tion of the lands in case of the death of the head of a
family, or single person occupying the same, or in ARTICLE 6.
case of its abandonment by them. And he may also The annuities of the Indians shall not be taken to pay
assign other lands in exchange for mineral lands, if the debts of individuals, but satisfaction for depreda-
any such are found in the tracts herein set apart. tions committed by them shall be made by them in
And he may also make such changes in the bound- such manner as the President may direct.
aries of such reserved tracts or otherwise, as shall be
necessary to prevent interference with any vested ARTICLE 7.
rights. All necessary roads, highways, and railroads, No spirituous liquors shall be made, sold, or used on
the lines of which may run through any of the any of the lands herein set apart for the residence of
reserved tracts, shall have the right of way through the Indians, and the sale of the same shall be prohib-
the same, compensation being made therefor as in ited in the Territory hereby ceded, until otherwise
other cases. ordered by the President.
In consideration of and payment for the country It is agreed, between the Chippewas of Lake Supe-
hereby ceded, the United States agree to pay to the rior and the Chippewas of the Mississippi, that the
Chippewas of Lake Superior, annually, for the term former shall be entitled to two-thirds, and the latter
of twenty years, the following sums, to wit: five to one-third, of all benefits to be derived from former
thousand dollars in coin; eight thousand dollars in treaties existing prior to the year 1847.
goods, household furniture and cooking utensils;
three thousand dollars in agricultural implements ARTICLE 9.
and cattle, carpenter’s and other tools and building The United States agree that an examination shall be
materials, and three thousand dollars for moral and made, and all sums that may be found equitably due
educational purposes, of which last sum, three hun- to the Indians, for arrearages of annuity or other
dred dollars per annum shall be paid to the Grand thing, under the provisions of former treaties, shall
Portage band, to enable them to maintain a school be paid as the chiefs may direct.
at their village. The United States will also pay the
further sum of ninety thousand dollars, as the ARTICLE 10.
chiefs in open council may direct, to enable them to All missionaries, and teachers, and other persons of
meet their present just engagements. Also the fur- full age, residing in the territory hereby ceded, or
ther sum of six thousand dollars, in agricultural upon any of the reservations hereby made by
implements, household furniture, and cooking authority of law, shall be allowed to enter the land
utensils, to be distributed at the next annuity pay- occupied by them at the minimum price whenever
ment, among the mixed bloods of said nation. The the surveys shall be completed to the amount of one
United States will also furnish two hundred guns, quarter-section each.
one hundred rifles, five hundred beaver-traps, three
hundred dollars’ worth of ammunition, and one ARTICLE 11.
thousand dollars’ worth of ready-made clothing, to All annuity payments to the Chippewas of Lake
be distributed among the young men of the nation, Superior, shall hereafter be made at L’Anse, La
at the next annuity payment. Pointe, Grand Portage, and on the St. Louis River;

and the Indians shall not be required to remove from aforesaid, this thirtieth day of September, one thou-
the homes hereby set apart for them. And such of sand eight hundred and fifty-four.
them as reside in the territory hereby ceded, shall
have the right to hunt and fish therein, until other- Henry C. Gilbert,
wise ordered by the President. David B. Herriman, Commissioners.
Richard M. Smith, Secretary.
ARTICLE 12.
In consideration of the poverty of the Bois Forte La Pointe Band:
Indians who are parties to this treaty, they having Ke-che-waish-ke, or the Buffalo, 1st chief, his x
never received any annuity payments, and of the mark. [L. S.],
great extent of that part of the ceded country owned Chay-che-que-oh, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
exclusively by them, the following additional stipu- A-daw-we-ge-zhick, or Each Side of the Sky, 2d
lations are made for their benefit. The United States chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
will pay the sum of ten thousand dollars, as their O-ske-naw-way, or the Youth, 2d chief, his x
chiefs in open council may direct, to enable them to mark. [L. S.],
meet their present just engagements. Also the further Maw-caw-day-pe-nay-se, or the Black Bird, 2d
sum of ten thousand dollars, in five equal annual chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
payments, in blankets, cloth, nets, guns, ammuni- Naw-waw-naw-quot, headman, his x mark.
tions, and such other articles of necessity as they [L. S.],
may require. Ke-wain-zeence, headman, his x mark. [L. S.],
Waw-baw-ne-me-ke, or the White Thunder, 2d
They shall have the right to select their reservation chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
at any time hereafter, under the direction of the Pay-baw-me-say, or the Soarer, 2d chief, his x
President; and the same may be equal in extent, in mark. [L. S.],
proportion to their numbers, to those allowed the Naw-waw-ge-waw-nose, or the Little Current,
other bands, and be subject to the same provisions. 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
Maw-caw-day-waw-quot, or the Black Cloud,
They shall be allowed a blacksmith, and the usual 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
smithshop supplies, and also two persons to instruct Me-she-naw-way, or the Disciple, 2d chief, his x
them in farming, whenever in the opinion of the mark. [L. S.],
President it shall be proper, and for such length of Key-me-waw-naw-um, headman, his x mark.
time as he shall direct. [L. S.],
She-gog headman, his x mark. [L. S.].
It is understood that all Indians who are parties to
this treaty, except the Chippewas of the Mississippi, Ontonagon Band:
shall hereafter be known as the Chippewas of Lake O-cun-de-cun, or the Buoy 1st chief, his x mark.
Superior. Provided, That the stipulation by which the [L. S.],
Chippewas of Lake Superior relinquishing their right Waw-say-ge-zhick, or the Clear Sky, 2d chief,
to land west of the boundary-line shall not apply to his x mark. [L. S.],
the Bois Forte band who are parties to this treaty. Keesh-ke-taw-wug, headman, his x mark. [L. S.].
ARTICLE 13. L’Anse Band:

This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting David King, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the John Southwind, headman, his x mark. [L. S.],
President and Senate of the United States. Peter Marksman, headman, his x mark. [L. S.],
Naw-taw-me-ge-zhick, or the First Sky, 2d chief,
In testimony whereof, the said Henry C. Gilbert, and his x mark. [L. S.],
the said David B. Herriman, commissioners as afore- Aw-se-neece, headman, his x mark. [L. S.].
said, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen of the
Chippewas of Lake Superior and the Mississippi, Vieux De Sert Band:
have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place May-dway-aw-she, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.],

Posh-quay-gin, or the Leather, 2d chief, his x O-zhaw-waw-sco-ge-zhick, or the Blue Sky, 2d

mark. [L. S.]. chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
I-yaw-banse, or the Little Buck, 2d chief, his x
Grand Portage Band: mark. [L. S.],
Shaw-gaw-naw-sheence, or the Little Ke-che-e-nin-ne, headman, his x mark. [L. S.],
Englishman, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Haw-daw-gaw-me, headman, his x mark. [L. S.],
May-mosh-caw-wosh, headman, his x mark. Way-me-te-go-she, headman, his x mark. [L. S.],
[L. S.], Pay-me-ge-wung, headman, his x mark. [L. S.].
Aw-de-konse, or the Little Reindeer, 2d chief,
his x mark. [L. S.], Lac Du Flambeau Band:
Way-we-ge-wam, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. Aw-mo-se, or the Wasp, 1st chief, his x mark.
[L. S.],
Fond Du Lac Band: Ke-nish-te-no, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
Shing-goope, or the Balsom, 1st chief, his x Me-gee-see, or the Eagle, 2d chief, his x mark.
mark. [L. S.], [L. S.],
Mawn-go-sit, or the Loon’s Foot, 2d chief, his x Kay-kay-co-gwaw-nay-aw-she, headman, his x
mark. [L. S.], mark. [L. S.],
May-quaw-me-we-ge-zhick, headman, his x O-che-chog, headman, his x mark. [L. S.],
mark. [L. S.], Nay-she-kay-gwaw-nay-be, headman, his x
Keesh-kawk, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], mark. [L. S.],
Caw-taw-waw-be-day, headman, his x mark. O-scaw-bay-wis, or the Waiter, 1st chief, his x
[L. S.], mark. [L. S.],
O-saw-gee, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Que-we-zance, or the White Fish, 2d chief, his x
Ke-che-aw-ke-wain-ze, headman, his x mark. mark. [L. S.],
[L. S.], Ne-gig, or the Otter, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
Naw-gaw-nub, or the Foremost Sitter, 2d chief, Nay-waw-che-ge-ghick-may-be, headman, his x
his x mark. [L. S.], mark. [L. S.],
Ain-ne-maw-sung, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], Quay-quay-ke-cah, headman, 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.], Bois Forte Band:
Aw-ke-wain-zeence, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], Kay-baish-caw-daw-way, or Clear Round the
Shay-way-be-nay-se, headman, his x mark. Prairie, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
[L. S.], Way-zaw-we-ge-zhick-way-sking, headman, his
Paw-pe-oh, headman, his x mark. [L. S.]. x mark. [L. S.],
O-saw-we-pe-nay-she, headman, his x mark.
Lac Court Oreille Band: [L. S.].
Aw-ke-wain-ze, or the Old Man, 1st chief, his x
mark. [L. S.], The Mississippi Bands:
Key-no-zhance, or the Little Jack Fish, 1st chief, Que-we-san-se, or Hole in the Day, head chief,
his x mark. [L. S.], his x mark. [L. S.],
Key-che-pe-nay-se, or the Big Bird, 2d chief, his Caw-nawn-daw-waw-win-zo, or the Berry
x mark. [L. S.], Hunter, 1st chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
Ke-che-waw-be-shay-she, or the Big Martin, 2d Waw-bow-jieg, or the White Fisher, 2d chief, his
chief, his x mark. [L. S.], x mark. [L. S.],
Waw-be-shay-sheence, headman, his x mark. Ot-taw-waw, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],
[L. S.], Que-we-zhan-cis, or the Bad Boy, 2d chief, his x
Quay-quay-cub, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], mark. [L. S.],
Shaw-waw-no-me-tay, headman, his x mark. Bye-a-jick, or the Lone Man, 2d chief, his x
[L. S.], mark. [L. S.],
Nay-naw-ong-gay-be, or the Dressing Bird, 1st I-yaw-shaw-way-ge-zhick, or the Crossing Sky,
chief, his x mark. [L. S.], 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.],

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854 507
Maw-caw-day, or the Bear’s Heart, 2d chief, his Stehchass, T’ Peek-sin, Squi-aitl, and Sa-heh-wamish
x mark. [L. S.], tribes and bands of Indians, occupying the lands
Ke-way-de-no-go-nay-be, or the Northern lying round the head of Puget’s Sound and the adja-
Feather, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.], cent inlets, who, for the purpose of this treaty, are to
Me-squaw-dace, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], be regarded as one nation, on behalf of said tribes
Naw-gaw-ne-gaw-bo, headman, his x mark. and bands, and duly authorized by them.
[L. S.],
Wawm-be-de-yea, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], ARTICLE 1.
Waish-key, headman, his x mark. [L. S.], The said tribes and bands of Indians hereby cede,
Caw-way-caw-me-ge-skung, headman, his x relinquish, and convey to the United States, all their
mark. [L. S.], right, title, and interest in and to the lands and coun-
My-yaw-ge-way-we-dunk, or the One who try occupied by them, bounded and described as fol-
carries the Voice, 2d chief, his x mark. [L. S.]. lows, to wit: Commencing at the point on the eastern
side of Admiralty Inlet, known as Point Pully, about
John F. Godfroy, Interpreters. midway between Commencement and Elliott Bays;
Geo. Johnston, Interpreters. thence running in a southeasterly direction, follow-
S. A. Marvin, Interpreters. ing the divide between the waters of the Puyallup
Louis Codot, Interpreters. and Dwamish, or White Rivers, to the summit of the
Paul H. Beaulieu, Interpreters. Cascade Mountains; thence southerly, along the
Henry Blatchford, Interpreters. summit of said range, to a point opposite the main
Peter Floy, Interpreters. source of the Skookum Chuck Creek; thence to and
down said creek, to the coal mine; thence northwest-
Executed in the presence of— erly, to the summit of the Black Hills; thence
Henry M. Rice, northerly, to the upper forks of the Satsop River;
J. W. Lynde, thence northeasterly, through the portage known as
G. D. Williams, Wilkes’s Portage, to Point Southworth, on the west-
B. H. Connor, ern side of Admiralty Inlet; thence around the foot of
E. W. Muldough, Vashon’s Island, easterly and southeasterly, to the
Richard Godfroy, place of beginning.
D. S. Cash,
H. H. McCullough, ARTICLE 2.
E. Smith Lee, There is, however, reserved for the present use and
Wm. E. Vantassel, occupation of the said tribes and bands, the follow-
L. H. Wheeler. ing tracts of land, viz: The small island called Klah-
che-min, situated opposite the mouths of Hammers-
ley’s and Totten’s Inlets, and separated from
Hartstene Island by Peale’s Passage, containing
about two sections of land by estimation; a square
Treaty with the Nisqualli, tract containing two sections, or twelve hundred and
Puyallup, Etc., 1854 eighty acres, on Puget’s Sound, near the mouth of
Dec. 26, 1854. | 10 Stat., 1132. | Ratified Mar. 3, the She-nah-nam Creek, one mile west of the merid-
1855. | Proclaimed Apr. 10, 1855. ian line of the United States land survey, and a
Articles of agreement and convention made and con- square tract containing two sections, or twelve hun-
cluded on the She-nah-nam, or Medicine Creek, in dred and eighty acres, lying on the south side of
the Territory of Washington, this twenty-sixth day of Commencement Bay; all which tracts shall be set
December, in the year one thousand eight hundred apart, and, so far as necessary, surveyed and marked
and fifty-four, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and out for their exclusive use; nor shall any white man
superintendent of Indian affairs of the said Territory, be permitted to reside upon the same without per-
on the part of the United States, and the undersigned mission of the tribe and the superintendent or agent.
chiefs, head-men, and delegates of the Nisqually, And the said tribes and bands agree to remove to
Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squawskin, S’Homamish, and settle upon the same within one year after the

508 Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854
ratification of this treaty, or sooner if the means are be laid out and expended under the direction of the
furnished them. In the mean time, it shall be lawful President, and in such manner as he shall approve.
for them to reside upon any ground not in the actual
claim and occupation of citizens of the United States, ARTICLE 6.
and upon any ground claimed or occupied, if with The President may hereafter, when in his opinion the
the permission of the owner or claimant. If necessary interests of the Territory may require, and the wel-
for the public convenience, roads may be run fare of the said Indians be promoted, remove them
through their reserves, and, on the other hand, the from either or all of said reservations to such other
right of way with free access from the same to the suitable place or places within said Territory as he
nearest public highway is secured to them. may deem fit, on remunerating them for their
improvements and the expenses of their removal, or
ARTICLE 3. may consolidate them with other friendly tribes or
The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed bands. And he may further, at his discretion, cause
grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indi- the whole or any portion of the lands hereby
ans in common with all citizens of the Territory, and reserved, or of such other land as may be selected in
of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of cur- lieu thereof, to be surveyed into lots, and assign the
ing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering same to such individuals or families as are willing to
roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open avail themselves of the privilege, and will locate on
and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they the same as a permanent home, on the same terms
shall not take shellfish from any beds staked or culti- and subject to the same regulations as are provided
vated by citizens, and that they shall alter all stal- in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so
lions not intended for breeding-horses, and shall far as the same may be applicable. Any substantial
keep up and confine the latter. improvements heretofore made by any Indian, and
which he shall be compelled to abandon in conse-
ARTICLE 4. quence of this treaty, shall be valued under the direc-
In consideration of the above session, the United tion of the President, and payment be made accord-
States agree to pay to the said tribes and bands the ingly therefor.
sum of thirty-two thousand five hundred dollars, in
the following manner, that is to say: For the first ARTICLE 7.
year after the ratification hereof, three thousand The annuities of the aforesaid tribes and bands shall
two hundred and fifty dollars; for the next two not be taken to pay the debts of individuals.
years, three thousand dollars each year; for the next
three years, two thousand dollars each year; for the ARTICLE 8.
next four years fifteen hundred dollars each year; The aforesaid tribes and bands acknowledge their
for the next five years twelve hundred dollars each dependence on the Government of the United
year; and for the next five years one thousand dol- States, and promise to be friendly with all citizens
lars each year; all which said sums of money shall thereof, and pledge themselves to commit no depre-
be applied to the use and benefit of the said Indi- dations on the property of such citizens. And should
ans, under the direction of the President of the any one or more of them violate this pledge, and the
United States, who may from time to time deter- fact be satisfactorily proved before the agent, the
mine, at his discretion, upon what beneficial objects property taken shall be returned, or in default
to expend the same. And the superintendent of thereof, or if injured or destroyed, compensation
Indian affairs, or other proper officer, shall each may be made by the Government out of their annu-
year inform the President of the wishes of said Indi- ities. Nor will they make war on any other tribe
ans in respect thereto. except in self-defence, but will submit all matters of
difference between them and other Indians to the
ARTICLE 5. Government of the United States, or its agent, for
To enable the said Indians to remove to and settle decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said
upon their aforesaid reservations, and to clear, fence, Indians commit any depredations on any other Indi-
and break up a sufficient quantity of land for cultiva- ans within the Territory, the same rule shall prevail
tion, the United States further agree to pay the sum as that prescribed in this article, in cases of depreda-
of three thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, to tions against citizens. And the said tribes agree not

Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854 509
to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws of In testimony whereof, the said Isaac I. Stevens,
the United States, but to deliver them up to the governor and superintendent of Indian Affairs, and
authorities for trial. the undersigned chiefs, headmen, and delegates of
the aforesaid tribes and bands, have hereunto set
ARTICLE 9. their hands and seals at the place and on the day and
The above tribes and bands are desirous to exclude year hereinbefore written.
from their reservations the use of ardent spirits, and
to prevent their people from drinking the same; Isaac I. Stevens, [L. S.], Governor and
and therefore it is provided, that any Indian Superintendent Territory of Washington.
belonging to said tribes, who is guilty of bringing Qui-ee-metl, his x mark. [L. S.],
liquor into said reservations, or who drinks liquor, Sno-ho-dumset, his x mark. [L. S.],
may have his or her proportion of the annuities Lesh-high, his x mark. [L. S.],
withheld from him or her for such time as the Presi- Slip-o-elm, his x mark. [L. S.],
dent may determine. Kwi-ats, his x mark. [L. S.],
Stee-high, his x mark. [L. S.],
ARTICLE 10. Di-a-keh, his x mark. [L. S.],
The United States further agree to establish at the Hi-ten, his x mark. [L. S.],
general agency for the district of Puget’s Sound, Squa-ta-hun, his x mark. [L. S.],
within one year from the ratification hereof, and to Kahk-tse-min, his x mark. [L. S.],
support, for a period of twenty years, an agricultural Sonan-o-yutl, his x mark. [L. S.],
and industrial school, to be free to children of the Kl-tehp, his x mark. [L. S.],
said tribes and bands, in common with those of the Sahl-ko-min, his x mark. [L. S.],
other tribes of said district, and to provide the said T’bet-ste-heh-bit, his x mark. [L. S.],
school with a suitable instructor or instructors, and Tcha-hoos-tan, his x mark. [L. S.],
also to provide a smithy and carpenter’s shop, and Ke-cha-hat, his x mark. [L. S.],
furnish them with the necessary tools, and employ a Spee-peh, his x mark. [L. S.],
blacksmith, carpenter, and farmer, for the term of Swe-yah-tum, his x mark. [L. S.],
twenty years, to instruct the Indians in their respec- Cha-achsh, his x mark. [L. S.],
tive occupations. And the United States further agree Pich-kehd, his x mark. [L. S.],
to employ a physician to reside at the said central S’Klah-o-sum, his x mark. [L. S.],
agency, who shall furnish medicine and advice to Sah-le-tatl, his x mark. [L. S.],
their sick, and shall vaccinate them; the expenses of See-lup, his x mark. [L. S.],
the said school, shops, employées, and medical E-la-kah-ka, his x mark. [L. S.],
attendance, to be defrayed by the United States, and Slug-yeh, his x mark. [L. S.],
not deducted from the annuities. Hi-nuk, his x mark. [L. S.],
Ma-mo-nish, his x mark. [L. S.],
ARTICLE 11. Cheels, his x mark. [L. S.],
The said tribes and bands agree to free all slaves now Knutcanu, his x mark. [L. S.],
held by them, and not to purchase or acquire others Bats-ta-kobe, his x mark. [L. S.],
hereafter. Win-ne-ya, his x mark. [L. S.],
Klo-out, his x mark. [L. S.],
ARTICLE 12. Se-uch-ka-nam, his x mark. [L. S.],
The said tribes and bands finally agree not to trade Ske-mah-han, his x mark. [L. S.],
at Vancouver’s Island, or elsewhere out of the Wuts-un-a-pum, his x mark. [L. S.],
dominions of the United States; nor shall foreign Quuts-a-tadm, his x mark. [L. S.],
Indians be permitted to reside in their reservations Quut-a-heh-mtsn, his x mark. [L. S.],
without consent of the superintendent or agent. Yah-leh-chn, his x mark. [L. S.],
To-lahl-kut, his x mark. [L. S.],
ARTICLE 13. Yul-lout, his x mark. [L. S.],
This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting See-ahts-oot-soot, his x mark. [L. S.],
parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the Ye-takho, his x mark. [L. S.],
President and Senate of the United States. We-po-it-ee, his x mark. [L. S.],

510 Treaty with the Yakima, 1855
Kah-sld, his x mark. [L. S.], dent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washing-
La’h-hom-kan, his x mark. [L. S.], ton, on the part of the United States, and the under-
Pah-how-at-ish, his x mark. [L. S.], signed head chiefs, chiefs, head-men, and delegates
Swe-yehm, his x mark. [L. S.], of the Yakama, Palouse, Pisquouse, Wenatshapam,
Sah-hwill, his x mark. [L. S.], Klikatat, Klinquit, Kow-was-say-ee, Li-ay-was, Skin-
Se-kwaht, his x mark. [L. S.], pah, Wish-ham. Shyiks, Ochechotes, Kah milt-pah,
Kah-hum-klt, his x mark. [L. S.], and Se-ap-cat, confederated tribes and bands of Indi-
Yah-kwo-bah, his x mark. [L. S.], ans, occupying lands hereinafter bounded and
Wut-sah-le-wun, his x mark. [L. S.], described and lying in Washington Territory, who
Sah-ba-hat, his x mark. [L. S.], for the purposes of this treaty are to be considered as
Tel-e-kish, his x mark. [L. S.], one nation, under the name of “Yakama,” with
Swe-keh-nam, his x mark. [L. S.], Kamaiakun as its head chief, on behalf of and acting
Sit-oo-ah, his x mark. [L. S.], for said tribes and bands, and being duly authorized
Ko-quel-a-cut, his x mark. [L. S.] thereto by them.
Jack, his x mark. [L. S.],
Keh-kise-bel-lo, his x mark. [L. S.], ARTICLE 1.
Go-yeh-hn, his x mark. [L. S.], The aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indi-
Sah-putsh, his x mark. [L. S.], ans hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the
William, his x mark. [L. S.]. United States all their right, title, and interest in and
to the lands and country occupied and claimed by
Executed in the presence of us— them, and bounded and described as follows, to wit:
M. T. Simmons, Indian agent, Commencing at Mount Ranier, thence northerly
James Doty, secretary of the commission, along the main ridge of the Cascade Mountains to the
C. H. Mason, secretary Washington Territory, point where the northern tributaries of Lake Che-lan
W. A. Slaughter, first lieutenant, Fourth Infantry, and the southern tributaries of the Methow River
James McAlister, have their rise; thence southeasterly on the divide
E. Giddings, jr., between the waters of Lake Che-lan and the Methow
George Shazer, River to the Columbia River; thence, crossing the
Henry D. Cock, Columbia on a true east course, to a point whose lon-
S. S. Ford, jr., gitude is one hundred and nineteen degrees and ten
John W. McAlister, minutes, (119° 10’) which two latter lines separate the
Clovington Cushman, above confederated tribes and bands from the Oaki-
Peter Anderson, nakane tribe of Indians; thence in a true south course
Samuel Klady, to the forty-seventh (47°) parallel of latitude: thence
W. H. Pullen, east on said parallel to the main Palouse River, which
P. O. Hough, two latter lines of boundary separate the above con-
E. R. Tyerall, federated tribes and bands from the Spokanes; thence
George Gibbs, down the Palouse River to its junction with the Moh-
Benj. F. Shaw, interpreter, hah-ne-she, or southern tributary of the same; thence
Hazard Stevens. 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 Indi-
ans; thence down the Snake River to its junction with
the Columbia River; thence up the Columbia River to
Treaty with the Yakima, 1855 the “White Banks” below the Priest’s Rapids; thence
June 9, 1855. | 12 Stat., 951. | Ratified Mar. 8, westerly to a lake called “La Lac”; thence southerly to
1859. | Proclaimed Apr. 18, 1859. a point on the Yakama River called Toh-mah-luke;
Articles of agreement and convention made and con- thence, in a southwesterly direction, to the Columbia
cluded at the treaty-ground, Camp Stevens, Walla- River, at the western extremity of the “Big Island,”
Walla Valley, this ninth day of June, in the year one between the mouths of the Umatilla River and Butler
thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, by and Creek; all which latter boundaries separate the above
between Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superinten- confederated tribes and bands from the Walla-Walla,

Cayuse, and Umatilla tribes and bands of Indians; enclosed and cultivated, and houses erected upon
thence down the Columbia River to midway between the lands hereby ceded, and which he may be com-
the mouths of White Salmon and Wind Rivers; pelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, shall
thence along the divide between said rivers to the be valued, under the direction of the President of the
main ridge of the Cascade Mountains; and thence United States, and payment made therefor in money;
along said ridge to the place of beginning. or improvements of an equal value made for said
Indian upon the reservation. And no Indian will be
ARTICLE 2. required to abandon the improvements aforesaid,
There is, however, reserved, from the lands above now occupied by him, until their value in money, or
ceded for the use and occupation of the aforesaid improvements of an equal value shall be furnished
confederated tribes and bands of Indians, the tract him as aforesaid.
of land included within the following boundaries, to
wit: Commencing on the Yakama River, at the ARTICLE 3.
mouth of the Attah-nam River; thence westerly And provided, That, if necessary for the public con-
along said Attah-nam River to the forks; thence venience, roads may be run through the said reser-
along the southern tributary to the Cascade Moun- vation; and on the other hand, the right of way, with
tains; thence southerly along the main ridge of said free access from the same to the nearest public high-
mountains, passing south and east of Mount way, is secured to them; as also the right, in common
Adams, to the spur whence flows the waters of the with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all
Klickatat and Pisco Rivers; thence down said spur public highways.
to the divide between the waters of said rivers; The exclusive right of taking fish in all the
thence along said divide to the divide separating the streams, where running through or bordering said
waters of the Satass River from those flowing into reservation, is further secured to said confederated
the Columbia River; thence along said divide to the tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of tak-
main Yakama, eight miles below the mouth of the ing fish at all usual and accustomed places, in com-
Satass River; and thence up the Yakama River to the mon with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting
place of beginning. temporary buildings for curing them; together with
the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries,
All which tract shall be set apart and, so far as neces- and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and
sary, surveyed and marked out, for the exclusive use unclaimed land.
and benefit of said confederated tribes and bands of
Indians, as an Indian reservation; nor shall any white ARTICLE 4.
man, excepting those in the employment of the In consideration of the above cession, the United
Indian Department, be permitted to reside upon the States agree to pay to the said confederated tribes
said reservation without permission of the tribe and and bands of Indians, in addition to the goods and
the superintendent and agent. And the said confed- provisions distributed to them at the time of signing
erated tribes and bands agree to remove to, and set- this treaty, the sum of two hundred thousand dol-
tle upon, the same, within one year after the ratifica- lars, in the following manner, that is to say: Sixty
tion of this treaty. In the mean time it shall be lawful thousand dollars, to be expended under the direc-
for them to reside upon any ground not in the actual tion of the President of the United States, the first
claim and occupation of citizens of the United States; year after the ratification of this treaty, in providing
and upon any ground claimed or occupied, if with for their removal to the reservation, breaking up and
the permission of the owner or claimant. fencing farms, building houses for them, supplying
them with provisions and a suitable outfit, and for
Guaranteeing, however, the right to all citizens of the such other objects as he may deem necessary, and
United States to enter upon and occupy as settlers the remainder in annuities, as follows: For the first
any lands not actually occupied and cultivated by five years after the ratification of the treaty, ten thou-
said Indians at this time, and not included in the sand dollars each year, commencing September first,
reservation above named. 1856; for the next five years, eight thousand dollars
each year; for the next five years, six thousand dol-
And provided, That any substantial improvements lars per year; and for the next five years, four thou-
heretofore made by any Indian, such as fields sand dollars per year.

512 Treaty with the Yakima, 1855
All which sums of money shall be applied to the able house, and properly furnish the same, and to
use and benefit of said Indians, under the direction plough and fence ten acres of land. The said salary to
of the President of the United States, who may from be paid to, and the said house to be occupied by,
time to time determine, at his discretion, upon what such head chief so long as he may continue to hold
beneficial objects to expend the same for them. And that office.
the superintendent of Indian affairs, or other proper
officer, shall each year inform the President of the And it is distinctly understood and agreed that at
wishes of the Indians in relation thereto. the time of the conclusion of this treaty Kamaiakun
is the duly elected and authorized head chief of the
ARTICLE 5. confederated tribes and bands aforesaid, styled the
The United States further agree to establish at suit- Yakama Nation, and is recognized as such by them
able points within said reservation, within one year and by the commissioners on the part of the United
after the ratification hereof, two schools, erecting the States holding this treaty; and all the expenditures
necessary buildings, keeping them in repair, and pro- and expenses contemplated in this article of this
viding them with furniture, books, and stationery, treaty shall be defrayed by the United States, and
one of which shall be an agricultural and industrial shall not be deducted from the annuities agreed to
school, to be located at the agency, and to be free to be paid to said confederated tribes and band of Indi-
the children of the said confederated tribes and ans. Nor shall the cost of transporting the goods for
bands of Indians, and to employ one superintendent the annuity payments be a charge upon the annu-
of teaching and two teachers; to build two black- ities, but shall be defrayed by the United States.
smiths’ shops, to one of which shall be attached a tin-
shop, and to the other a gunsmith’s shop; one carpen- ARTICLE 6.
ter’s shop, one wagon and plough maker’s shop, and The President may, from time to time, at his discre-
to keep the same in repair and furnished with the tion, cause the whole or such portions of such reser-
necessary tools; to employ one superintendent of vation as he may think proper, to be surveyed into
farming and two farmers, two blacksmiths, one tin- lots, and assign the same to such individuals or fami-
ner, one gunsmith, one carpenter, one wagon and lies of the said confederated tribes and bands of Indi-
plough maker, for the instruction of the Indians in ans as are willing to avail themselves of the privilege,
trades and to assist them in the same; to erect one and will locate on the same as a permanent home, on
saw-mill and one flouring-mill, keeping the same in the same terms and subject to the same regulations as
repair and furnished with the necessary tools and fix- are provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the
tures; to erect a hospital, keeping the same in repair Omahas, so far as the same may be applicable.
and provided with the necessary medicines and fur-
niture, and to employ a physician; and to erect, keep ARTICLE 7.
in repair, and provided with the necessary furniture, The annuities of the aforesaid confederated tribes
the building required for the accommodation of the and bands of Indians shall not be taken to pay the
said employees. The said buildings and establish- debts of individuals.
ments to be maintained and kept in repair as afore-
said, and the employees to be kept in service for the ARTICLE 8.
period of twenty years. The aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indi-
ans acknowledge their dependence upon the Gov-
And in view of the fact that the head chief of the said ernment of the United States, and promise to be
confederated tribes and bands of Indians is friendly with all citizens thereof, and pledge them-
expected, and will be called upon to perform many selves to commit no depredations upon the property
services of a public character, occupying much of his of such citizens.
time, the United States further agree to pay to the
said confederated tribes and bands of Indians five And should any one or more of them violate this
hundred dollars per year, for the term of twenty pledge, and the fact be satisfactorily proved before
years after the ratification hereof, as a salary for such the agent, the property taken shall be returned, or in
person as the said confederated tribes and bands of default thereof, or if injured or destroyed, compensa-
Indians may select to be their head chief, to build for tion may be made by the Government out of the
him at a suitable point on the reservation a comfort- annuities.

Nor will they make war upon any other tribe, Kamaiakun, his x mark. [L. S.],
except in self-defence, but will submit all matters of Skloom, his x mark. [L. S.],
difference between them and other Indians to the Owhi, his x mark. [L. S.],
Government of the United States or its agent for Te-cole-kun, his x mark. [L. S.],
decision, and abide thereby. And if any of the said La-hoom, his x mark. [L. S.],
Indians commit depredations on any other Indians Me-ni-nock, his x mark. [L. S.],
within the Territory of Washington or Oregon, the Elit Palmer, his x mark. [L. S.],
same rule shall prevail as that provided in this arti- Wish-och-kmpits, his x mark. [L. S.],
cle in case of depredations against citizens. And the Koo-lat-toose, his x mark. [L. S.],
said confederated tribes and bands of Indians agree Shee-ah-cotte, his x mark. [L. S.],
not to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws Tuck-quille, his x mark. [L. S.],
of the United States, but to deliver them up to the Ka-loo-as, his x mark. [L. S.],
authorities for trial. Scha-noo-a, his x mark. [L. S.],
Sla-kish, his x mark. [L. S.].
ARTICLE 9.
The said confederated tribes and bands of Indians Signed and sealed in the presence of—
desire to exclude from their reservation the use of James Doty, secretary of treaties,
ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from Mie. Cles. Pandosy, O. M. T.,
drinking the same, and, therefore, it is provided that Wm. C. McKay,
any Indian belonging to said confederated tribes and W. H. Tappan, sub Indian agent, W. T.,
bands of Indians, who is guilty of bringing liquor C. Chirouse, O. M. T.,
into said reservation, or who drinks liquor, may Patrick McKenzie, interpreter,
have his or her annuities withheld from him or her A. D. Pamburn, interpreter,
for such time as the President may determine. Joel Palmer, superintendent Indian affairs, O. T.,
W. D. Biglow,
ARTICLE 10. A. D. Pamburn, interpreter.
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 Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863
the Pisquouse or Wenatshapam River, and known as June 9, 1863. | 14 Stats., 647. | Ratified Apr. 17,
the “Wenatshapam Fishery,” which said reservation 1867. | Proclaimed Apr. 20, 1867.
shall be surveyed and marked out whenever the Articles of agreement made and concluded at the
President may direct, and be subject to the same pro- council-ground, in the valley of the Lapwai, W. T., on
visions and restrictions as other Indian reservations. the ninth day of June, one thousand eight hundred
and sixty-three, between the United States of Amer-
ARTICLE 11. ica, by C. H. Hale, superintendent of Indian affairs,
This treaty shall be obligatory upon the contracting and Charles Hutchins and S. D. Howe, U. S. Indian
parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the agents for the Territory of Washington, acting on the
President and Senate of the United States. part and in behalf of the United States, and the Nez
Percé Indians, by the chiefs, head-men, and delegates
In testimony whereof, the said Isaac I. Stevens, gov- of said tribe, such articles being supplementary and
ernor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the amendatory to the treaty made between the United
Territory of Washington, and the undersigned head States and said tribe on the 11th day of June, 1855.
chief, chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the afore-
said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, have ARTICLE 1.
hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place and The said Nez Percé tribe agree to relinquish, and do
on the day and year hereinbefore written. hereby relinquish, to the United States the lands
heretofore reserved for the use and occupation of the
Isaac I. Stevens, said tribe, saving and excepting so much thereof as
Governor and Superintendent. [L. S.], is described in Article II for a new reservation.

514 Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863
ARTICLE 2. him, until said payment or improvement shall have

The United States agree to reserve for a home, and been made. And it is further provided, that if any
for the sole use and occupation of said tribe, the tract Indian living on any of the land hereby relinquished
of land included within the following boundaries, to should prefer to sell his improvements to any white
wit: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lake man, being a loyal citizen of the United States, prior
Wa-ha, and running thence, northerly, to a point on to the same being valued as aforesaid, he shall be
the north bank of the Clearwater River, three miles allowed so to do, but the sale or transfer of said
below the mouth of the Lapwai, thence down the improvements shall be made in the presence of, and
north bank of the Clearwater to the mouth of the with the consent and approval of, the agent or super-
Hatwai Creek; thence, due north, to a point seven intendent, by whom a certificate of sale shall be
miles distant; thence, eastwardly, to a point on the issued to the party purchasing, which shall set forth
north fork of the Clearwater, seven miles distant the amount of the consideration in kind. Before the
from its mouth; thence to a point on Oro Fino Creek, issue of said certificate, the agent or superintendent
five miles above its mouth; thence to a point on the shall be satisfied that a valuable consideration is
north fork of the south fork of the Clearwater, five paid, and that the party purchasing is of undoubted
miles above its mouth; thence to a point on the south loyalty to the United States Government. No settle-
fork of the Clearwater, one mile above the bridge, on ment or claim made upon the improved lands by any
the road leading to Elk City, (so as to include all the Indian will be permitted, except as herein provided,
Indian farms now within the forks); thence in a prior to the time specified for their removal. Any sale
straight line, westwardly, to the place of beginning. or transfer thus made shall be in the stead of pay-
ment for improvements from the United States.
All of which tract shall be set apart, and the above-
described boundaries shall be surveyed and marked ARTICLE 3.
out for the exclusive use and benefit of said tribe as The President shall, immediately after the ratification
an Indian reservation, nor shall any white man, of this treaty, cause the boundary-lines to be sur-
excepting those in the employment of the Indian veyed, and properly marked and established; after
Department, be permitted to reside upon the said which, so much of the lands hereby reserved as may
reservation without permission of the tribe and the be suitable for cultivation shall be surveyed into lots
superintendent and agent; and the said tribe agrees of twenty acres each, and every male person of the
that so soon after the United States shall make the tribe who shall have attained the age of twenty-one
necessary provision for fulfilling the stipulations of years, or is the head of a family, shall have the privi-
this instrument as they can conveniently arrange lege of locating upon one lot as a permanent home
their affairs, and not to exceed one year from its ratifi- for such person, and the lands so surveyed shall be
cation, they will vacate the country hereby relin- allotted under such rules and regulations as the Pres-
quished, and remove to and settle upon the lands ident shall prescribe, having such reference to their
herein reserved for them (except as may be here- settlement as may secure adjoining each other the
inafter provided.) In the meantime it shall be lawful location of the different families pertaining to each
for them to reside upon any ground now occupied or band, so far as the same may be practicable. Such
under cultivation by said Indians at this time, and rules and regulations shall be prescribed by the Presi-
not included in the reservation above named. And it dent, or under his direction, as will insure to the
is provided, that any substantial improvement family, in case of the death of the head thereof, the
heretofore made by any Indian, such as fields possession and enjoyment of such permanent home,
enclosed and cultivated, or houses erected upon the and the improvements thereon. When the assign-
lands hereby relinquished, and which he may be ments as above shall have been completed, certifi-
compelled to abandon in consequence of this treaty, cates shall be issued by the Commissioner of Indian
shall be valued under the direction of the President of Affairs, or under his direction, for the tracts assigned
the United States, and payment therefor shall be in severalty, specifying the names of the individuals
made in stock or in improvements of an equal value to whom they have been assigned respectively, and
for said Indian upon the lot which may be assigned that said tracts are set apart for the perpetual and
to him within the bounds of the reservation, as he exclusive use and benefit of such assignees and their
may choose, and no Indian will be required to aban- heirs. Until otherwise provided by law, such tracts
don the improvements aforesaid, now occupied by shall be exempt from levy, taxation, or sale, and shall

be alienable in fee, or leased, or otherwise disposed thousand dollars; for the third year, twenty-five
of, only to the United States, or to persons then being thousand dollars; for the fourth year, fifteen thou-
members of the Nez Percé tribe, and of Indian blood, sand dollars.
with the permission of the President, and under such
regulations as the Secretary of the Interior or the Second. Fifty thousand dollars to be paid the first
Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall prescribe; and if year after the ratification of this treaty in agricultural
any such person or family shall at any time neglect or implements, to include wagons or carts, harness,
refuse to occupy and till a portion of the land so and cattle, sheep, or other stock, as may be deemed
assigned, and on which they have located, or shall most beneficial by the superintendent of Indian
rove from place to place, the President may cancel the affairs, or agent, after ascertaining the wishes of the
assignment, and may also withhold from such per- Indians in relation thereto.
son or family their proportion of the annuities or
other payments due them until they shall have Third. Ten thousand dollars for the erection of a saw
returned to such permanent home, and resumed the and flouring mill, to be located at Kamia, the same to
pursuits of industry; and in default of their return, be erected within one year after the ratification
the tract may be declared abandoned, and thereafter hereof.
assigned to some other person or family of such tribe.
The residue of the land hereby reserved shall be held Fourth. Fifty thousand dollars for the boarding and
in common for pasturage for the sole use and benefit clothing of the children who shall attend the schools,
of the Indians: Provided, however, That from time to in accordance with such rules or regulations as the
time, as members of the tribe may come upon the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may prescribe, pro-
reservation, or may become of proper age, after the viding the schools and boarding-houses with neces-
expiration of the time of one year after the ratification sary furniture, the purchase of necessary wagons,
of this treaty, as aforesaid, and claim the privileges teams, agricultural implements, tools, &c., for their
granted under this article, lots may be assigned from use, and for the fencing of such lands as may be
the lands thus held in common, wherever the same needed for gardening and farming purposes, for the
may be suitable for cultivation. No State or territorial use and benefit of the schools, to be expended as fol-
legislature shall remove the restriction herein pro- lows: The first year after the ratification of this treaty,
vided for, without the consent of Congress, and no six thousand dollars; for the next fourteen years,
State or territorial law to that end shall be deemed three thousand dollars each year; and for the suc-
valid until the same has been specially submitted to ceeding year, being the sixteenth and last instalment,
Congress for its approval. two thousand dollars.
ARTICLE 4. Fifth. A further sum of two thousand five hundred

In consideration of the relinquishment herein made dollars shall be paid within one year after the rati-
the United States agree to pay to the said tribe, in fication hereof, to enable the Indians to build two
addition to the annuities provided by the treaty of churches, one of which is to be located at some
June 11, 1855, and the goods and provisions distrib- suitable point on the Kamia, and the other on the
uted to them at the time of signing this treaty, the Lapwai.
sum of two hundred and sixty-two thousand and
five hundred dollars, in manner following, to wit: ARTICLE 5.
The United States further agree, that in addition to a
First. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to head chief the tribe shall elect two subordinate
enable the Indians to remove and locate upon the chiefs, who shall assist him in the performance of his
reservation, to be expended in the ploughing of land, public services, and each subordinate chief shall
and the fencing of the several lots, which may be have the same amount of land ploughed and fenced,
assigned to those individual members of the tribe with comfortable house and necessary furniture, and
who will accept the same in accordance with the pro- to whom the same salary shall be paid as is already
visions of the preceding article, which said sum shall provided for the head chief in article 5 of the treaty
be divided into four annual instalments, as follows: of June 11, 1855, the salary to be paid and the houses
For the first year after the ratification of this treaty, and land to be occupied during the same period and
seventy thousand dollars; for the second year, forty under like restrictions as therein mentioned.

516 Treaty with the Nez Percés, 1863
art. 5th of the treaty of June 11, 1855, two matrons to

And for the purpose of enabling the agent to erect take charge of the boarding-schools, two assistant
said buildings, and to plough and fence the land, as teachers, one farmer, one carpenter, and two millers.
well as to procure the necessary furniture, and to
complete and furnish the house, &c., of the head All the expenditures and expenses contemplated in
chief, as heretofore provided, there shall be appro- this treaty, and not otherwise provided for, shall be
priated, to be expended within the first year after the defrayed by the United States.
ratification hereof, the sum of two thousand five
hundred dollars. ARTICLE 6.
In consideration of the past services and faithfulness
And inasmuch as several of the provisions of said of the Indian chief, Timothy, it is agreed that the
art. 5th of the treaty of June 11, 1855, pertaining to United States shall appropriate the sum of six hun-
the erection of school-houses, hospital, shops, neces- dred dollars, to aid him in the erection of a house
sary buildings for employe[e]s and for the agency, as upon the lot of land which may be assigned to him,
well as providing the same with necessary furniture, in accordance with the provisions of the third article
tools, &c., have not yet been complied with, it is of this treaty.
hereby stipulated that there shall be appropriated, to
be expended for the purposes herein specified dur- ARTICLE 7.
ing the first year after the ratification hereof, the fol- The United States further agree that the claims of
lowing sums, to wit: certain members of the Nez Percé tribe against the
Government for services rendered and for horses
First. Ten thousand dollars for the erection of the two furnished by them to the Oregon mounted volun-
schools, including boarding-houses and the neces- teers, as appears by certificate issued by W. H.
sary out-buildings; said schools to be conducted on Fauntleroy, A. R. Qr. M. and Com. Oregon volun-
the manual-labor system as far as practicable. teers, on the 6th of March, 1856, at Camp Cornelius,
and amounting to the sum of four thousand six hun-
Second. Twelve hundred dollars for the erection of dred and sixty-five dollars, shall be paid to them in
the hospital, and providing the necessary furniture full, in gold coin.
for the same.
ARTICLE 8.
Third. Two thousand dollars for the erection of a It is also understood that the aforesaid tribe do
blacksmith’s shop, to be located at Kamia, to aid in hereby renew their acknowledgments of depen-
the completion of the smith’s shop at the agency, and dence upon the Government of the United States,
to purchase the necessary tools, iron, steel, &c.; and their promises of friendship, and other pledges, as
to keep the same in repair and properly stocked with set forth in the eighth article of the treaty of June 11,
necessary tools and materials, there shall be appro- 1855; and further, that all the provisions of said
priated thereafter, for the fifteen years next succeed- treaty which are not abrogated or specifically
ing, the sum of five hundred dollars each year. changed by any article herein contained, shall
remain the same to all intents and purposes as for-
Fourth. Three thousand dollars for erection of merly,—the same obligations resting upon the
houses for employe[e]s, repairs of mills, shops, &c., United States, the same privileges continued to the
and providing necessary furniture, tools, and materi- Indians outside of the reservation, and the same
als. For the same purpose, and to procure from year rights secured to citizens of the U. S. as to right of
to year the necessary articles—that is to say, saw- way upon the streams and over the roads which
logs, nails, glass, hardware, &c.—there shall be may run through said reservation, as are therein set
appropriated thereafter, for the twelve years next forth.
succeeding, the sum of two thousand dollars each But it is further provided, that the United States
year; and for the next three years, one thousand dol- is the only competent authority to declare and estab-
lars each year. lish such necessary roads and highways, and that no
other right is intended to be hereby granted to
And it is further agreed that the United States shall citizens of the United States than the right of way
employ, in addition to those already mentioned in upon or over such roads as may thus be legally

established: Provided, however, That the roads now enclosed; and, further, to preserve a perpetual right
usually travelled shall, in the mean time, be taken of way to and from the same, as watering places, for
and deemed as within the meaning of this article, the use in common of both whites and Indians.
until otherwise enacted by act of Congress or by the
authority of the Indian Department. ARTICLE 9.
Inasmuch as the Indians in council have expressed
And the said tribe hereby consent, that upon the their desire that Robert Newell should have con-
public roads which may run across the reservation firmed to him a piece of land lying between Snake
there may be established, at such points as shall be and Clearwater Rivers, the same having been given
necessary for public convenience, hotels, or stage- to him on the 9th day of June, 1861, and described in
stands, of the number and necessity of which the an instrument of writing bearing that date, and
agent or superintendent shall be the sole judge, who signed by several chiefs of the tribe, it is hereby
shall be competent to license the same, with the priv- agreed that the said Robert Newell shall receive from
ilege of using such amount of land for pasturage and the United States a patent for the said tract of land.
other purposes connected with such establishment
as the agent or superintendent shall deem necessary, ARTICLE 10.
it being understood that such lands for pasturage are This treaty shall be obligatory upon the contracting
to be enclosed, and the boundaries thereof described parties as soon as the same shall be ratified by the
in the license. President and Senate of the United States.
And it is further understood and agreed that all fer- In testimony whereof the said C. H. Hale, superin-
ries and bridges within the reservation shall be held tendent of Indian affairs, and Charles Hutchins
and managed for the benefit of said tribe. and S. D. Howe, United States Indian agents in the
Such rules and regulations shall be made by Territory of Washington, and the chiefs, headmen,
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, with the and delegates of the aforesaid Nez Perce tribe of
approval of the Secretary of the Interior, as shall Indians, have hereunto set their hands and seals at
regulate the travel on the highways, the manage- the place and on the day and year hereinbefore
ment of the ferries and bridges, the licensing of written.
public houses, and the leasing of lands, as herein
provided, so that the rents, profits, and issues Calvin H. Hale, Superintendent Indian Affairs,
thereof shall inure to the benefit of said tribe, and Wash. T. [SEAL.]
so that the persons thus licensed, or necessarily Chas. Hutchins, United States Indian agent,
employed in any of the above relations, shall be Wash. T. [SEAL.]
subject to the control of the Indian Department, and S. D. Howe, United States Indian agent, Wash.
to the provisions of the act of Congress “to regulate T. [SEAL.]
trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to Fa-Ind-7-1803 Lawyer, Head Chief Nez Perces
preserve peace on the frontiers.” Nation. [SEAL.]
Ute-sin-male-e-cum, x [SEAL.]
All timber within the bounds of the reservation is Ha-harch-tuesta, x [SEAL.]
exclusively the property of the tribe, excepting that Tip-ulania-timecca, x [SEAL.]
the U. S. Government shall be permitted to use Es-coatum, x [SEAL.]
thereof for any purpose connected with its affairs, Timothy, x [SEAL.]
either in carrying out any of the provisions of this Levi, x [SEAL.]
treaty, or in the maintaining of its necessary forts or Jason, x [SEAL.]
garrisons. Ip-she-ne-wish-kin, (Capt. John,) x [SEAL.]
Weptas-jump-ki, x [SEAL.]
The United States also agree to reserve all springs or We-as-cus, x [SEAL.]
fountains not adjacent to, or directly connected with, Pep-hoom-kan, (Noah,) x [SEAL.]
the streams or rivers within the lands hereby relin- Shin-ma-sha-ho-soot, x [SEAL.]
quished, and to keep back from settlement or entry Nie-ki-lil-meh-hoom, (Jacob,) x [SEAL.]
so much of the surrounding land as may be neces- Stoop-toop-nin, x [SEAL.]
sary to prevent the said springs or fountains being Su-we-cus, x [SEAL.]

518 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865
Wal-la-ta-mana, x [SEAL.] Treaty with the Cheyenne

He-kaikt-il-pilp, x [SEAL.]
and Arapaho, 1865
Whis-tas-ket, x [SEAL.]
Neus-ne-keun, x [SEAL.] Oct, 14, 1865. | 14 Stats., 703. | Ratified May
Kul-lou-o-haikt, x [SEAL.] 22, 1866. | Proclaimed Feb. 2, 1867.
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the camp
Wow-en-am-ash-il-pilp, x [SEAL.]
on the Little Arkansas River, in the State of Kansas,
Kan-pow-e-een, x [SEAL.]
on the fourteenth day of October, in the year of our
Watai-watai-wa-haikt, x [SEAL.]
Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, by
Kup-kup-pellia, x [SEAL.]
and between John B. Sanborn, William S. Harney,
Wap-tas-ta-mana, x [SEAL.]
Thomas Murphy, Kit Carson, William W. Bent, Jesse
Peo-peo-ip-se-wat, x [SEAL.]
H. Leavenworth, and James Steele, commissioners on
Louis-in-ha-cush-nim, x [SEAL.]
the part of the United States, and the undersigned,
Lam-lim-si-lilp-nim, x [SEAL.]
chiefs and head-men of and representing the confed-
Tu-ki-lai-kish, x [SEAL.]
erate tribes of Arrapahoe and Cheyenne Indians of
Sah-kan-tai, (Eagle,) x [SEAL.]
the Upper Arkansas River, they being duly autho-
We-ah-se-nat, x [SEAL.]
rized by their respective tribes to act in the premises.
Hin-mia-tun-pin, x [SEAL.]
Ma-hi-a-kim, x [SEAL.]
Shock-lo-turn-wa-haikt, (Jonah,) x [SEAL.] ARTICLE 1.
Kunness-tak-mal, x [SEAL.] It is agreed by the parties to this treaty that hereafter
Tu-lat-sy-wat-kin, x [SEAL.] perpetual peace shall be maintained between the
Tuck-e-tu-et-as, x [SEAL.] people and Government of the United States and the
Nic-a-las-in, x [SEAL.] Indians parties hereto, and that the Indians parties
Was-atis-il-pilp, x [SEAL.] hereto, shall forever remain at peace with each other,
Wow-es-en-at-im, x [SEAL.] and with all other Indians who sustain friendly rela-
Hiram, x [SEAL.] tions with the Government of the United States. For
Howlish-wampum, x [SEAL.] the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this article
Wat-ska-leeks, x [SEAL.] it is agreed that in case hostile acts or depredations
Wa-lai-tus, x [SEAL.] are committed by the people of the United States, or
Ky-e-wee-pus, x [SEAL.] by Indians on friendly terms with the United States,
Ko-ko-il-pilp, x [SEAL.] against the tribe or tribes, or the individual members
Reuben, Tip-ia-la-na-uy-kalatsekin, x [SEAL.] of the tribe or tribes, who are parties to this treaty,
Wish-la-na-ka-nin, x [SEAL.] such hostile acts or depredations shall not be
Me-tat-ueptas, (Three Feathers,) x [SEAL.] redressed by a resort to arms, but the party or parties
Ray-kay-mass, x [SEAL.] aggrieved shall submit their complaints through
their agent to the President of the United States, and
Signed and sealed in presence of— thereupon an impartial arbitration shall be had,
George F. Whitworth, Secretary. under his direction, and the award thus made shall
Justus Steinberger, Colonel U. S. Volunteers. be binding on all parties interested, and the Govern-
R. F. Malloy, Colonel Cavalry, O. V. ment of the United States will in good faith enforce
J. S. Rinearson, Major First Cavalry Oregon the same. And the Indians, parties hereto, on their
Volunteers. part, agree, in case crimes or other violations of law
William Kapus, First Lieutenant and Adjutant shall be committed by any person or persons, mem-
First W. T. Infantry U. S. Volunteers. bers of their tribe, such person or persons shall, upon
Harrison Olmstead. complaint being made, in writing, to their agent,
Jno. Owen, (Bitter Root.). superintendent of Indian affairs, or to other proper
James O’Neill. authority, by the party injured, and verified by affi-
J. B. Buker, M. D. davit, be delivered to the person duly authorized to
George W. Elber. take such person or persons into custody, to the end
A. A. Spalding, assistant interpreter. that such person or persons may be punished accor-
Perrin B. Whitman, interpreter for the council. ing to the laws of the United States.

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 519
ARTICLE 2. damage in person or property by any and all per-

The United States hereby agree that the district of sons whomsoever.
country embraced within the following limits, or
such portion of the same as may hereafter be desig- It is further agreed by the Indians parties hereto
nated by the President of the United States for that that when absent from their reservation they will
purpose, viz: commencing at the mouth of the Red refrain from the commission of any depredations or
Creek or Red Fork of the Arkansas River; thence up injuries to the person or property of all persons sus-
said creek or fork to its source; thence westwardly to taining friendly relations with the Government of
a point on the Cimarone River, opposite the mouth the United States; that they will not, while so absent,
of Buffalo Creek; thence due north to the Arkansas encamp by day or night within ten miles of any of
River; thence down the same to the beginning, shall the main traveled routes or roads through the coun-
be, and is hereby, set apart for the absolute and try to which they go, or of the military posts, towns,
undisturbed use and occupation of the tribes who or villages therein, without the consent of the com-
are parties to this treaty, and of such other friendly manders of such military posts, or of the civil
tribes as they may from time to time agree to admit authorities of such towns or villages; and that hence-
among them, and that no white person, except offi- forth they will, and do hereby, relinquish all claims
cers, agents, and employees of the Government, or rights in and to any portion of the United States or
shall go upon or settle within the country embraced Territories, except such as is embraced within the
within said limits, unless formerly admitted and limits aforesaid, and more especially their claims
incorporated into some one of the tribes lawfully and rights in and to the country bounded as follows,
residing there, according to its laws and usages: Pro- viz: beginning at the junction of the north and south
vided, however, That said Indians shall not be forks of the Platte River; thence up the north fork to
required to settle upon said reservation until such the top of the principal range of the Rocky Moun-
time as the United States shall have extinguished all tains, or to the Red Buttes; thence southwardly along
claims of title thereto on the part of other Indians, so the summit of the Rocky Mountains to the headwa-
that the Indians parties hereto may live thereon at ters of the Arkansas River; thence down the
peace with all other tribes: Provided, however, That Arkansas River to the Cimarone crossing of the
as soon as practicable, with the assent of said tribe, same; thence to the place of beginning; which coun-
the President of the United States shall designate for try they claim to have originally owned, and never
said tribes a reservation, no part of which shall be to have relinquished the title thereto.
within the State of Kansas, and cause them as soon
as practicable to remove to and settle thereon, but ARTICLE 3.
no such reservation shall be designated upon any It is further agreed that until the Indians parties
reserve belonging to any other Indian tribe or tribes hereto have removed to the reservation provided for
without their consent. by the preceding article in pursuance of the stipula-
tions thereof, said Indians shall be, and they are
The Indians parties hereto, on their part, expressly hereby, expressly permitted to reside upon and
agree to remove to and accept as their permanent range at pleasure throughout the unsettled portions
home the country embraced within said limits of that part of the country they claim as originally
whenever directed so to do by the President of the theirs, which lies between the Arkansas and Platte
United States, in accordance with the provisions of Rivers; and that they shall and will not go elsewhere,
this treaty, and that they will not go from said coun- except upon the terms and conditions prescribed by
try for hunting or other purposes without the con- the preceding article in relation to leaving the reser-
sent in writing of their agent or other authorized vation thereby provided for: Provided, That the pro-
person, such written consent in all cases specifying visions of the preceding article in regard to encamp-
the purpose for which such leave is granted, and ing within ten miles of main travelled routes,
shall be borne with them upon their excursions as military posts, towns, and villages shall be in full
evidence that they are rightfully away from their force as to occupancy of the country named and per-
reservation, and shall be respected by all officers, mitted by the terms of this article: Provided, further,
employees, and citizens of the United States as their That they, the said Indians, shall and will at all times
sufficient safeguard and protection against injury or during such occupancy, without delay, report to the

520 Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865
commander of the nearest military post the presence preter, William Gilpin Smith, and daughter Armama;
in or approach to said country of any hostile bands to Jenny Lind Crocker, daughter of Ne-sou-hoe, or
of Indians whatsoever. Are-you-there, wife of Lieutenant Crocker; to—Win-
sor, daughter of Tow-e-nah, wife of A. T. Winsor, sut-
ARTICLE 4. ler, formerly at Fort Lyon. Said lands to be selected
It is further agreed by the parties hereto that the under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior,
United States may lay off and build through the from the reservation established by the 1st article of
reservation, provided for by Article 2 of this treaty, their treaty of February 18, A. D. 1861: Provided, That
such roads or highways as may be deemed neces- said locations shall not be made upon any lands
sary; and may also establish such military posts heretofore granted by the United States to any per-
within the same as may be found necessary in order son, State, or corporation, for any purpose.
to preserve peace among the Indians, and in order to
enforce such laws, rules, and regulations as are now, ARTICLE 6.
or may from time to time be, prescribed by the Presi- The United States being desirous to express its con-
dent and Congress of the United States for the pro- demnation of, and, as far as may be, repudiate the
tection of the rights of persons and property among gross and wanton out-rages perpetrated against cer-
the Indians residing upon said reservation; and fur- tain bands of Cheyenne and Arrapahoe Indians, on
ther, that in time of war such other military posts as the twenty-ninth day of November, A. D. 1864, at
may be considered essential to the general interests Sand Creek, in Colorado Territory, while the said
of the United States may be established: Provided, Indians were at peace with the United States, and
however, That upon the building of such roads, or under its flag, whose protection they had by lawful
establishment of such military posts, the amount of authority been promised and induced to seek, and
injury sustained by reason thereof by the Indians the Government being desirous to make some suit-
inhabiting said reservation shall be ascertained able reparation for the injuries then done, will grant
under direction of the President of the United States, three hundred and twenty acres of land by patent to
and thereupon such compensation shall be made to each of the following-named chiefs of said bands,
said Indians as in the judgment of the Congress of viz: Moke-ta-ve-to, or Black Kettle; Oh-tah-ha-ne-so-
the United States may be deemed just and proper. weel, or Seven Bulls; Alik-ke-home-ma, or Little
Robe; Moke-tah-vo-ve-hoe, or Black White Man; and
ARTICLE 5. will in like manner grant to each other person of said
At the special request of the Cheyenne and Arrapa- bands made a widow, or who lost a parent upon that
hoe Indians, parties to this treaty, the United States occasion, one hundred and sixty acres of land, the
agree to grant, by patent in fee-simple, to the follow- names of such persons to be ascertained under the
ing-named persons, all of whom are related to the direction of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided,
Cheyennes or Arrapahoes by blood, to each an That said grants shall be conditioned that all devises,
amount of land equal to one section of six hundred grants, alienations, leases, and contracts relative to
and forty acres, viz: To Mrs. Margaret Wilmarth and said lands, made or entered into during the period of
her children, Virginia Fitzpatrick, and Andrew Jack- fifty years from the date of such patents, shall be
son Fitzpatrick; to Mrs. Mary Keith and her children, unlawful and void. Said lands shall be selected
William Keith, Mary J. Keith, and Francis Keith; to under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior
Mrs. Matilda Pepperdin and her child, Miss Margaret within the limits of country hereby set apart as a
Pepperdin; to Robert Poisal and John Poisal; to reservation for the Indians parties to this treaty, and
Edmund Guerrier, Rosa Guerrier, and Julia Guerrier; shall be free from assessment and taxation so long as
to William W. Bent’s daughter, Mary Bent Moore, and they remain inalienable. The United States will also
her three children, Adia Moore, William Bent Moore, pay in United States securities, animals, goods, pro-
and George Moore; to William W. Bent’s children, visions, or such other useful articles as may, in the
George Bent, Charles Bent, and Julia Bent; to A-ma- discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, be deemed
che, the wife of John Prowers, and her children, Mary best adapted to the respective wants and conditions
Prowers and Susan Prowers; to the children of Ote- of the persons named in the schedule hereto
se-ot-see, wife of John Y. Sickles, viz: Margaret, Min- annexed, they being present and members of the
nie, and John; to the children of John S. Smith, inter- bands who suffered at Sand Creek, upon the occa-

Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1865 521
sion aforesaid, the sums set opposite their names, ARTICLE 9.

respectively, as a compensation for property belong- Upon the ratification of this treaty all former treaties
ing to them, and then and there destroyed or taken are hereby abrogated.
from them by the United States troops aforesaid.
In testimony whereof, the said Commissioners as
ARTICLE 7. aforesaid, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen
The United States agree that they will expend annu- of the confederated tribes of the Arrapahoes and
ally during the period of forty years, from and after Cheyennes of the Upper Arkansas, have hereunto
the ratification of this treaty, for the benefit of the set their hands and seals, at the place ard on the
Indians who are parties hereto, and of such others day and year first hereinbefore written.
as may unite with them in pursuance of the terms
hereof, in such manner and for such purposes as, in John B. Sanborn, [SEAL.]
the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, for the Wm. S. Harney, [SEAL.]
time being, will best subserve their wants and inter- Thos. Murphy, [SEAL.]
ests as a people, the following amounts, that is to Kit Carson, [SEAL.]
say, until such time as said Indians shall be removed Wm. W. Bent, [SEAL.]
to their reservation, as provided for by Article 2 of J. H. Leavenworth, [SEAL.]
this treaty, an amount which shall be equal to James Steele, [SEAL.]
twenty dollars per capita for each person entitled to
participate in the beneficial provisions of this treaty, Commissioners on the part of the
and from and after the time when such removal United States.
shall have been accomplished, an amount which
shall be equal to forty dollars per capita for each
Moke-ta-ve-to, or Black Kettle, head chief, his x
person entitled as aforesaid. Such proportion of the
mark. [SEAL.]
expenditure provided for by this article as may be
Oh-to-ah-ne-so-to-wheo, or Seven Bulls, chief,
considered expedient to distribute in the form of
his x mark. [SEAL.]
annuities shall be delivered to said Indians as fol-
Hark-kah-o-me, or Little Robe, chief, his x
lows, viz: one-third thereof during the spring, and
mark. [SEAL.]
two-thirds thereof during the autumn of each year.
Moke-tah-vo-ve-ho, or Black White Man, chief,
his x mark. [SEAL.]
For the purpose of determining from time to time
Mun-a-men-ek, or Eagle’s Head, headman, his x
the aggregate amount to be expended under the pro-
mark. [SEAL.]
visions of this article, it is agreed that the number
O-to-ah-nis-to, or Bull that Hears, headman, his
entitled to its beneficial provisions the coming year
x mark. [SEAL.]
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 On the part of the Cheyennes.
year by their agent or other person designated for Oh-has-tee, or Little Raven, head chief, his x
that purpose by the Secretary of the Interior, which mark. [SEAL.]
census shall be the basis on which the amount to be Oh-hah-mah-hah, or Storm, chief, his x mark.
expended the next ensuing year shall be determined. [SEAL.]
Pah-uf-pah-top, or Big Mouth, chief, his x mark.
ARTICLE 8. [SEAL.]
The Indians parties to this treaty expressly covenant Ah-cra-kah-tau-nah, or Spotted Wolf, chief, his
and agree that they will use their utmost endeavor to x mark. [SEAL.]
induce that portion of the respective tribes not now Ah-nah-wat-tan, or Black Man, headman, his x
present to unite with them and acceed to the provi- mark. [SEAL.]
sions of this treaty, which union and accession shall Nah-a-nah-cha, or Chief in Everything,
be evidenced and made binding on all parties when- headman, his x mark. [SEAL.]
ever such absentees shall have participated in the Chi-e-nuk, or Haversack, headman, his x mark.
beneficial provisions of this treaty. [SEAL.]

On the part of the Arrapahoes. treaty with the so-called Confederate States; and
Signed and sealed in the presence of— whereas the United States, in view of said treaty of
John S. Smith, United States interpreter. the Seminole Nation with the enemies of the Gov-
W. R. Irwin, secretaries. ernment of the United States, and the consequent lia-
O. T. Atwood, secretaries. bilities of said Seminole Nation, and in view of its
S. A. Kingman, secretaries. urgent necessities for more lands in the Indian Terri-
D. C. McNeil. tory, requires a cession by said Seminole Nation of
E. W. Wynkoop. part of its present reservation, and is willing to pay
Bon. H. Van Havre. therefor a reasonable price, while at the same time
J. E. Badger. providing new and adequate land for them:
W. W. Rich. Now, therefore, the United States, by its com-
missioners aforesaid, and the above-named dele-
N. B.—The Apache tribe was brought into the provisions gates of the Seminole Nation, the day and year
of the above treaty by the second article of the treaty with above written, mutually stipulate and agree, on
the Apaches, Cheyennes and Arrapahoes, proclaimed May behalf of the respective parties, as follows, to wit;
26, 1866.
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
Treaty with the Seminole, 1866 States, and always faithfully aid the Government
Mar. 21, 1866. | 14 Stats., 755. | Ratified, July thereof to suppress insurrection and put down its
19, 1866. | Proclamed, Aug. 16, 1866. enemies.
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Washing- The Seminoles also agree to remain at peace
ton, D.C., March 21, A.D., 1866, between the United with all other Indian tribes and with themselves. In
States Government, by its commissioners, D.N. Coo- return for these pledges of peace and friendship, the
ley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Elijah Sells, United States guarantee them quiet possession of
superintendent of Indian affairs, and Ely S. Parker, their country, and protection against hostilities on
and the Seminole Indians, by their chiefs, John the part of other tribes; and, in the event of such hos-
Chup-co, or Long John, Cho-cote-harjo, Fos-ha[r]-jo, tilities, that the tribe commencing and prosecuting
John F. Brown. the same shall make just reparation therefor. There-
fore the Seminoles agree to a military occupation of
Whereas existing, treaties between the United States their country at the option and expense of the United
and the Seminole Nation are insufficient to meet States.
their mutual necessities; and A general amnesty of all past offences against
the laws of the United States, committed by any
Whereas the Seminole Nation made a treaty with the member of the Seminole Nation, is hereby declared;
so-called Confederate States, August 1st, 1861, and the Seminoles, anxious for the restoration of
whereby they threw off their allegiance to the United kind and friendly feelings among themselves, do
States, and unsettled their treaty relations with the hereby declare an amnesty for all past offenses
United States, and thereby incurred the liability of against their government, and no Indian or Indians
forfeiture of all lands and other property held by shall be proscribed or any act of forfeiture or confis-
grant or gift of the United States; and whereas a cation passed against those who have remained
treaty of peace and amity was entered into between friendly to or taken up arms against the United
the United States and the Seminole and other tribes States, but they shall enjoy equal privileges with
at Fort Smith, September 13 [10,] 1865, whereby the other members of said tribe, and all laws heretofore
Seminoles revoked, canceled, and repudiated the passed inconsistent herewith are hereby declared
said treaty with the so-called Confederate States; and inoperative.
whereas the United States, through its commission- A copy of this agreement, which has never been
ers, in said treaty of peace promised to enter into ratified, is found in an Appendix to the Report of the
treaty with the Seminole Nation to arrange and settle Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1865, with the
all questions relating to and growing out of said report of the negotiating commissioners, which copy

has been reproduced in the appendix to this compi- dian River; thence down said Canadian River to the
lation, post, p. 1050. place of beginning. In consideration of said cession
of two hundred thousand acres of land described
ARTICLE 2. above, the Seminole Nation agrees to pay therefor
The Seminole Nation covenant that henceforth in the price of fifty cents per acre, amounting to the
said nation slavery shall not exist, nor involuntary sum of one hundred thousand dollars, which
servitude, except for and in punishment of crime, amount shall be deducted from the sum paid by the
whereof the offending party shall first have been United States for Seminole lands under the stipula-
duly convicted in accordance with law, applicable to tions above written. The balance due the Seminole
all the members of said nation. And inasmuch as Nation after making said deduction, amounting to
there are among the Seminoles many persons of one hundred thousand dollars, the United States
African descent and blood, who have no interest or agree to pay in the following manner, to wit: Thirty
property in the soil, and no recognized civil rights it thousand dollars shall be paid to enable the Semi-
is stipulated that hereafter these persons and their noles to occupy, restore, and improve their farms,
descendants, and such other of the same race as shall and to make their nation independent and self-
be permitted by said nation to settle there, shall have sustaining, and shall be distributed for that purpose
and enjoy all the rights of native citizens, and the under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior;
laws of said nation shall be equally binding upon all twenty thousand dollars shall be paid in like manner
persons of whatever race or color, who may be for the purpose of purchasing agricultural imple-
adopted as citizens or members of said tribe. ments, seeds, cows, and other stock; fifteen thousand
dollars shall be paid for the erection of a mill suitable
ARTICLE 3. to accommodate said nation of Indians; seventy
In compliance with the desire of the United States to thousand dollars to remain in the United States Trea-
locate other Indians and freedmen thereon, the Semi- sury, upon which the United States shall pay an
noles cede and convey to the United States their annual interest of five per cent.; fifty thousand of
entire domain, being the tract of land ceded to the said sum of seventy thousand dollars shall be a per-
Seminole Indians by the Creek Nation under the manent school-fund, the interest of which shall be
provisions of article first, (1st,) treaty of the United paid annually and appropriated to the support of
States with the Creeks and Seminoles, made and schools; the remainder of the seventy thousand dol-
concluded at Washington, D. C., August 7, 1856. In lars, being twenty thousand dollars, shall remain a
consideration of said grant and cession of their permanent fund. This refers to the Creek treaty of
lands, estimated at two million one hundred and June 14, 1866, post, p. 931. See Annual Report of
sixty-nine thousand and eighty (2,169,080) acres, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1866, p. 10, interest
United States agree to pay said Seminole Nation the of which shall be paid annually for the support of
sum of three hundred and twenty-five thousand the Seminole government; forty thousand three hun-
three hundred and sixty-two ($325,362) dollars, said dred and sixty-two dollars shall be appropriated and
purchase being at the rate of fifteen cents per acre. expended for subsisting said Indians, discriminating
The United States having obtained by grant of the in favor of the destitute; all of which amounts,
Creek Nation the westerly half of their lands, hereby excepting the seventy thousand dollars to remain in
grant to the Seminole Nation the portion thereof the Treasury as a permanent fund, shall be paid
hereafter described, which shall constitute the upon the ratification of said treaty, and disbursed in
national domain of the Seminole Indians. Said lands such manner as the Secretary of the Interior may
so granted by the United States to the Seminole direct. The balance, fifty thousand dollars, or so
Nation are bounded and described as follows, to wit: much thereof as may be necessary to pay the losses
Beginning on the Canadian River where the line ascertained and awarded as hereinafter provided,
dividing the Creek lands according to the terms of shall be paid when said awards shall have been duly
their sale to the United States by their treaty of Feb- made and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
ruary 6, 1866, following said line due north to where And in case said fifty thousand dollars shall be
said line crosses the north fork of the Canadian insufficient to pay all said awards, it shall be distrib-
River; thence up said north fork of the Canadian uted pro rata to those whose claims are so allowed;
River a distance sufficient to make two hundred and until said awards shall be thus paid, the United
thousand acres by running due south to the Cana- States agree to pay to said Indians, in such manner

and for such purposes as the Secretary of the Interior ern boundary; but said railroad company, together
may direct, interest at the rate of five per cent. per with all its agents and employés, shall be subject to
annum from the date of the ratification of this treaty. the laws of the United States relating to the inter-
course with Indian tribes, and also to such rules
ARTICLE 4. and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secre-
To reimburse such members of the Seminole Nation tary of the Interior for that purpose. And the Semi-
as shall be duly adjudged to have remained loyal noles agree to sell to the United States, or any com-
and faithful to their treaty relations to the United pany duly authorized as aforesaid, such lands, not
States, during the recent rebellion of the so-called legally owned or occupied by a member or mem-
Confederate States for the losses actually sustained bers of the Seminole Nation lying along the line of
by them thereby, after the ratification of this treaty, or said contemplated railroad, not exceeding on each
so soon thereafter as the Secretary of the Interior side thereof a belt or strip of land three miles in
shall direct, he shall appoint a board of commission- width, at such price per acre as may be eventually
ers, not to exceed three in number, who shall pro- agreed upon between said Seminole Nation and the
ceed to the Seminole country and investigate and party or parties building said road—subject to the
determine said losses. Previous to said investigation approval of the President of the United States: Pro-
the agent of the Seminole Nation shall prepare a cen- vided, however, That said land thus sold shall not
sus or enumeration of said tribe, and make a roll of be reconveyed, leased, or rented to, or be occupied
all Seminoles who did in no manner aid or abet the by, any one not a citizen of the Seminole Nation,
enemies of the Government, but remained loyal dur- according to its laws and recognized usages: Pro-
ing said rebellion; and no award shall be made by vided also, That officers, servants, and employés of
said commissioners for such losses unless the name said railroad necessary to its construction and man-
of the claimant appear on said roll, and no compen- agement shall not be excluded from such necessary
sation shall be allowed any person for such losses occupancy, they being subject to the provisions of
whose name does not appear on said roll, unless the Indian-intercourse laws, and such rules and
said claimant, within six months from the date of the regulations as may be established by the Secretary
completion of said roll, furnishes proof satisfactory of the Interior; nor shall any conveyance of said
to said board, or to the Commissioner of Indian lands be made to the party building and managing
Affairs, that he has at all times remained loyal to the said road, until its completion as a first-class rail-
United States, according to his treaty obligations. All road and its acceptance as such by the Secretary of
evidence touching said claims shall be taken by said the Interior.
commissioners, or any of them, under oath, and
their awards made, together with the evidence, shall ARTICLE 6.
be transmitted to the Commissioner of Indian Inasmuch as there are no agency buildings upon the
Affairs, for his approval, and that of the Secretary of new Seminole reservation, it is therefore further
the Interior. Said commissioners shall be paid by the agreed that the United States shall cause to be con-
United States such compensation as the Secretary of structed, at an expense not exceeding ten thousand
the Interior may direct. The provisions of this article (10,000) dollars, suitable agency buildings, the site
shall extend to and embrace the claims for losses whereof shall be selected by the agent of said tribe,
sustained by loyal members of said tribe, irrespec- under the direction of the superintendent of Indian
tive of race or color, whether at the time of said affairs; in consideration whereof, the Seminole
losses the claimants shall have been in servitude or Nation hereby relinquish and cede forever to the
not; provided said claimants are made members of United States one section of their lands upon which
said tribe by the stipulations of this treaty. said agency buildings shall be directed, [erected,]
which land shall revert to said nation when no
ARTICLE 5. longer used by the United States, upon said nation
The Seminole Nation hereby grant a right of way paying a fair value for said buildings at the time
through their lands to any company which shall be vacated.
duly authorized by Congress, and shall, with the
express consent and approbation of the Secretary of ARTICLE 7.
the Interior, undertake to construct a railroad from The Seminole Nation agrees to such legislation as
any point on their eastern to their western or south- Congress and the President may deem necessary for

the better administration of the rights of person and ing to the intercourse and relations of the Indian
property within the Indian Territory: Provided, how- tribes and nations resident in said Territory; the
ever, [That] said legislation shall not in any manner arrest and extradition of criminals and offenders
interfere with or annul their present tribal organiza- escaping from one tribe to another; the administra-
tion, rights, laws, privileges, and customs. tion of justice between members of the several
The Seminole Nation also agree that a general coun- tribes of said Territory, and persons other than
cil, consisting of delegates elected by each nation, a Indians and members of said tribes or nations; the
tribe lawfully resident within the Indian Territory, construction of works of internal improvement and
may be annually convened in said Territory which the common defence and safety of the nation of
council shall be organized in such manner and pos- said Territory. All laws enacted by said council
sess such powers as are hereinafter described: shall take effect at such time as may therein be pro-
vided, unless suspended by direction of the Secre-
1st. After the ratification of this treaty, and as soon as tary of the Interior or the President of the United
may be deemed practicable by the Secretary of the States. No law shall be enacted inconsistent with
Interior, and prior to the first session of said council, the Constitution of the United States, or the laws of
a census or enumeration of each tribe lawfully resi- Congress, or existing treaty stipulations with the
dent in said Territory shall be taken, under the direc- United States; nor shall said council legislate upon
tion of the superintendent of Indian affairs, who, for matters pertaining to the organization, laws, or
that purpose, is hereby authorized to designate and customs of the several tribes except as herein pro-
appoint competent persons, whose compensation vided for.
shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior and
paid by the United States. 4th. Said council shall be presided over by the
superintendent of Indian affairs, or, in case of his
2d. The first general council shall consist of one mem- absence for any cause, the duties of said superinten-
ber from each tribe, and an additional member for dent enumerated in this article shall be performed
each one thousand Indians, or each fraction of a thou- by such person as the Secretary of the Interior may
sand greater than five hundred, being members of direct.
any tribe lawfully resident in said Territory, and shall
be elected by said tribes, respectively, who may 5th. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint a sec-
assent to the establishment of said general council; retary of said council, whose duty it shall be to keep
and if none should be thus formally selected by any an accurate record of all the proceedings of said
nation or tribe, the said nation or tribe shall be repre- council, and who shall transmit a true copy of all
sented in said general council by the chiefs and head- such proceedings, duly certified by the superinten-
men of said tribes, to be taken in the order of their dent of Indian affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior
rank, in the same number and proportion as above immediately after the session of said council. He
indicated. After the said census shall have been taken shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United States
and completed, the superintendent of Indian affairs an annual salary of five hundred dollars.
shall publish and declare to each tribe the number of
members of said council to which they shall be enti- 6th. The members of said council shall be paid by the
tled under the provisions of this article; and the per- United States the sum of four dollars per diem dur-
sons so entitled to represent said tribe shall meet at ing the time actually in attendance upon the sessions
such time and place as he shall appoint; but thereof said council, and at the rate of four dollars for
after the time and place of the sessions of said council every twenty miles necessarily traveled by them in
shall be determined by its action: Provided, That no going to said council and returning to their homes,
session in any one year shall exceed the term of thirty respectively, to be certified by the secretary of the
days, And provided That special sessions of said said council and the sup[erintenden]t of Indian
council may be called by said superintendent when- affairs.
ever, in his judgment, or that of the Secretary of the
Interior, the interest of said tribes shall require. 7th. The Seminoles also agree that a court or courts
may be established in said Territory, with such juris-
3d. Said general council shall have power to legis- diction and organized in such manner as Congress
late upon all rightful subjects and matters pertain- may by law provide.

ARTICLE 8. such other persons as may be, or may hereafter

The stipulations of this treaty are to be a full settle- become, members of the tribe according to its laws,
ment of all claims of said Seminole Nation for customs, and usages.
damages and losses of every kind growing out of
the late rebellion, and all expenditures by the ARTICLE 11.
United States of annuities in clothing and feeding It is further agreed that all treaties heretofore
refugee and destitute Indians since the diversion of entered into between the United States and the
annuities for that purpose, consequent upon the Seminole Nation which are inconsistent with any of
late war with the so-called Confederate States. And the articles or provisions of this treaty shall be, and
the Seminoles hereby ratify and confirm all such are hereby, rescinded and annulled.
diversions of annuities heretofore made from the
funds of the Seminole Nation by the United States. In testimony whereof, the said Dennis N. Cooley,
And the United States agree that no annuities shall Commissioner of Indian affairs, Elijah Sells, super-
be diverted from the object for which they were intendent of Indian affairs, and Col. Ely S. Parker, as
originally devoted by treaty stipulations, with the aforesaid, and the undersigned, persons represent-
Seminoles, to the use of refugee and destitute Indi- ing the Seminole nation, have hereunto set their
ans, other than the Seminoles or members of the hands and seals the day and year first above
Seminole Nation, after the close of the present fis- written.
cal year, June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and
sixty-six. Dennis N. Cooley, [SEAL.]
Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
ARTICLE 9.
The United States re-affirms and reassumes all Elijah Sells, [SEAL.]
obligations of treaty stipulations entered into before Superintendent Indian Affairs.
the treaty of said Seminole Nation with the so-called
Confederate States, August first, eighteen hundred Col. Ely S. Parker, [SEAL.]
and sixty-one, not inconsistent herewith; and fur- Special commissioner.
ther agree to renew all payments of annuities accru-
ing by force of said treaty stipulations, from and John Chup-co, his x mark, [SEAL.]
after the close of the present fiscal year, June thirti- King or head chief.
eth, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun-
dred and sixty-six, except as is provided in article Cho-cote-harjo, his x mark, [SEAL.]
eight, (viii.). Counselor.
ARTICLE 10. Fos-harjo, his x mark, chief. [SEAL.]

A quantity of land not exceeding six hundred and John F. Brown, [SEAL.]
forty acres, to be selected according to legal subdivi- Special delegate for Southern Seminoles.
sions, in one body, and which shall include their
improvements, is hereby granted to every religious In presence of—
society or denomination which has erected, or Robert Johnson, his x mark.
which, with the consent of the Indians, may here- United States interpreter for Seminole
after erect, buildings within the Seminole country Indians.
for missionary or educational purposes; but no land Geo. A. Reynolds, United States Indian agent
thus granted, nor the buildings which have been or for Seminoles.
may be erected thereon, shall ever be sold or other- Ok-tus-sus-har-jo, his x mark, or Sands.
wise disposed of except with the consent and Cow-e-to-me-ko, his x mark.
approval of the Secretary of the Interior. And when- Che-chu-chee, his x mark.
ever any such land or buildings shall be so sold or Harry Island, his x mark.
disposed of, the proceeds thereof shall be applied, United States interpreter for Creek Indians.
under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, J. W. Dunn, United States Indian agent for the
to the support and maintenance of other similar Creek Nation.
establishments for the benefit of the Seminoles and Perry Fuller.

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866 527
Signed by John F. Brown, special delegate for cede to the United States the territory west of the
the Southern Seminoles, in presence of, this June 98° west longitude, known as the leased district,
thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six— provided that the said sum shall be invested and
held by the United States, at an interest not less
W.R. Irwin. than five per cent., in trust for the said nations,
J. M. Tebbetts. until the legislatures of the Choctaw and Chicka-
Geo. A. Reynolds, United States Indian agent. saw Nations respectively shall have made such
Robert Johnson, his x mark, United States laws, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to
interpreter. 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 citi-
zens of said nations, except in the annuities, mon-
Treaty with the Choctaw and eys, and public domain claimed by, or belonging to,
Chickasaw, 1866 said nations respectively; and also to give to such
Apr. 28, 1866. | 14 Stats., 769. | Ratified June persons who were residents as aforesaid, and their
28, 1866. | Proclaimed July 10, 1866. descendants, forty acres each of the land of said
Articles of agreement and convention between the nations on the same terms as the Choctaws and
United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Chickasaws, to be selected on the survey of said
Nations of Indians, made and concluded at the City land, after the Choc taws and Chickasaws and
of Washington the twenty-eighth day of April, in the Kansas Indians have made their selections as herein
year eighteen hundred and sixty-six, by Dennis N. provided; and immediately on the enactment of
Cooley, Elijah Sells, and E. S. Parker, special commis- such laws, rules, and regulations, the said sum of
sioners on the part of the United States, and Alfred three hundred thousand dollars shall be paid to the
Wade, Allen Wright, James Riley, and John Page, said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in the pro-
commissioners on the part of the Choctaws, and portion of three-fourths to the former and one-
Winchester Colbert, Edmund Pickens, Holmes Col- fourth to the latter, less such sum, at the rate of one
bert, Colbert Carter, and Robert H. Love, commis- hundred dollars per capita, as shall be sufficient to
sioners on the part of the Chickasaws. pay such persons of African descent before referred
to as within ninety days after the passage of such
ARTICLE 1. laws, rules, and regulations shall elect to remove
Permanent peace and friendship are hereby estab- and actually remove from the said nations respec-
lished between the United States and said nations; tively. And should the said laws, rules, and regula-
and the Choctaws and Chickasaws do hereby bind tions not be made by the legislatures of the said
themselves respectively to use their influence and to nations respectively, within two years from the rati-
make every exertion to induce Indians of the plains fication of this treaty, then the said sum of three
to maintain peaceful relations with each other, with hundred thousand dollars shall cease to be held in
other Indians, and with the United States. trust for the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations,
and be held for the use and benefit of such of said
ARTICLE 2. persons of African descent as the United States
The Choctaws and Chickasaws hereby covenant and shall remove from the said Territory in such man-
agree that henceforth neither slavery nor involun- ner as the United States shall deem proper,—the
tary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of United States agreeing, within ninety days from the
crime whereof the parties shall have been duly con- expiration of the said two years, to remove from
victed, in accordance with laws applicable to all said nations all such persons of African descent as
members of the particular nation, shall ever exist in may be willing to remove; those remaining or
said nations. returning after having been removed from said
nations to have no benefit of said sum of three hun-
ARTICLE 3. dred thousand dollars, or any part thereof, but shall
The Choctaws and Chickasaws, in consideration of be upon the same footing as other citizens of the
the sum of three hundred thousand dollars, hereby United States in the said nations.

528 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866
ARTICLE 4. particularly ordnance, ordnance-stores, and arms of

The said nations further agree that all negroes, not all kinds.
otherwise disqualified or disabled, shall be compe-
tent witnesses in all civil and criminal suits and pro- ARTICLE 6.
ceedings in the Choctaw and Chickasaw courts, any The Choctaws and Chickasaws hereby grant a right
law to the contrary notwithstanding; and they fully of way through their lands to any company or com-
recognize the right of the freedmen to a fair remu- panies which shall be duly authorized by Congress,
neration on reasonable and equitable contracts for or by the legislatures of said nations, respectively,
their labor, which the law should aid them to and which shall, with the express consent and
enforce. And they agree, on the part of their respec- approbation of the Secretary of the Interior, under-
tive nations, that all laws shall be equal in their oper- take to construct a railroad through the Choctaw and
ation upon Choctaws, Chickasaws, and negroes, and Chickasaw Nations from the north to the south
that no distinction affecting the latter shall at any thereof, and from the east to the west side thereof, in
time be made, and that they shall be treated with accordance with the provisions of the 18th article of
kindness and be protected against injury; and they the treaty of June twenty-second, one thousand eight
further agree, that while the said freedmen, now in hundred and fifty-five, which provides that for any
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, remain in said property taken or destroyed in the construction
nations, respectively, they shall be entitled to as thereof full compensation shall be made to the party
much land as they may cultivate for the support of or parties injured, to be ascertained and determined
themselves and families, in cases where they do not in such manner as the President of the United States
support themselves and families by hiring, not inter- shall direct. But such railroad company or compa-
fering with existing improvements without the con- nies, with all its or their agents and employés shall
sent of the occupant, it being understood that in the be subject to the laws of the United States relating to
event of the making of the laws, rules, and regula- intercourse with Indian tribes, and also to such rules
tions aforesaid, the forty acres aforesaid shall stand and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secre-
in place of the land cultivated as last aforesaid. tary of the Interior for that purpose. And it is also
stipulated and agreed that the nation through which
ARTICLE 5. the road or roads aforesaid shall pass may subscribe
A general amnesty of all past offences against the to the stock of the particular company or companies
laws of the United States, committed before the sign- such amount or amounts as they may be able to pay
ing of this treaty by any member of the Choctaw or for in alternate sections of unoccupied lands for a
Chickasaw Nations, is hereby declared; and the space of six miles on each side of said road or roads,
United States will especially request the States of at a price per acre to be agreed upon between said
Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas to grant the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations and the said com-
like amnesty as to all offences committed by any pany or companies, subject to the approval of the
member of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation. And President of the United States: Provided, however,
the Choctaws and Chickasaws, anxious for the That said land, thus subscribed, shall not be sold, or
restoration of kind and friendly feelings among demised, or occupied by any one not a citizen of the
themselves, do hereby declare an amnesty for all Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations, according to their
past offences against their respective governments, laws and recognized usages: Provided, That the offi-
and no Indian or Indians shall be proscribed, or any cers, servants, and employés of such companies nec-
act of forfeiture or confiscation passed against those essary to the construction and management of said
who may have remained friendly to the United road or roads shall not be excluded from such occu-
States, but they shall enjoy equal privileges with pancy as their respective functions may require, they
other members of said tribes, and all laws heretofore being subject to the provisions of the Indian inter-
passed inconsistent herewith are hereby declared course law and such rules and regulations as may be
inoperative. The people of the Choctaw and Chicka- established by the Secretary of the Interior: And pro-
saw Nations stipulate and agree to deliver up to any vided also, That the stock thus subscribed by either
duly authorized agent of the United States all public of said nations shall have the force and effect of a
property in their possession which belong to the late first-mortgage bond on all that part of said road,
“so-called Confederate States of America,” or the appurtenances, and equipments situated and used
United States, without any reservation whatever; within said nations respectively, and shall be a per-

petual lien on the same, and the said nations shall session of said assembly, a census of each
have the right, from year to year, to elect to receive tribe, lawfully resident in said Territory, shall
their equitable proportion of declared dividends of be taken, under the direction of the
profits on their said stock, or interest on the par Superintendent of Indian Affairs, by compe-
value at the rate of six per cent. per annum. tent persons, to be appointed by him, whose
compensation shall be fixed by the Secretary
2. And it is further declared, in this connection, of the Interior and paid by the United States.
that as fast as sections of twenty miles in 2. The council shall consist of one member from
length are completed, with the rails laid each tribe or nation whose population shall
ready for use, with all water and other exceed five hundred, and an additional
stations necessary to the use thereof, as a member for each one thousand Indians,
first-class road, the said company or compa- native or adopted, or each fraction of a
nies shall become entitled to patents for the thousand greater than five hundred being
alternate sections aforesaid, and may pro- members of any tribe lawfully resident in
ceed to dispose thereof in the manner herein said Territory, and shall be selected by the
provided for, subject to the approval of the tribes or nations respectively who may assent
Secretary of the Interior. to the establishment of said general assembly;
3. And it is further declared, also, in case of one and if none should be thus formally selected
or more of said alternate sections being by any nation or tribe, it shall be represented
occupied by any member or members of said in said general assembly by the chief or chiefs
nations respectively, so that the same cannot and head-men of said tribes, to be taken in
be transferred to the said company or the order of their rank as recognized in tribal
companies, that the said nation or nations, usage in the number and proportions above
respectively, may select any unoccupied indicated.
section or sections, as near as circumstances 3. After the said census shall have been taken
will permit, to the said width of six miles on and completed, the superintendent of Indian
each side of said road or roads, and convey affairs shall publish and declare to each tribe
the same as an equivalent for the section or the number of members of said council to
sections so occupied as aforesaid. which they shall be entitled under the
provisions of this article; and the persons so
ARTICLE 7. to represent the said tribes shall meet at such
The Choctaws and Chickasaws agree to such legisla- time and place as he shall designate, but
tion as Congress and the President of the United thereafter the time and place of the sessions
States may deem necessary for the better administra- of the general assembly shall be determined
tion of justice and the protection of the rights of per- by itself: Provided, That no session in any one
son and property within the Indian Territory: Pro- year shall exceed the term of thirty days, and
vided, however, Such legislation shall not in anywise provided that the special sessions may be
interfere with or annul their present tribal organiza- called whenever, in the judgment of the
tion, or their respective legislatures or judiciaries, or Secretary of the Interior, the interests of said
the rights, laws, privileges, or customs of the tribes shall require it.
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations respectively. 4. The general assembly shall have power to
legislate upon all subjects and matters
ARTICLE 8. pertaining to the intercourse and relations of
The Choctaws and Chickasaws also agree that a the Indian tribes and nations resident in the
council, consisting of delegates elected by each said Territory, the arrest and extradition of
nation or tribe lawfully resident within the Indian criminals escaping from one tribe to
Territory, may be annually convened in said Terri- another, the administration of justice
tory, to be organized as follows: between members of the several tribes of
the said Territory, and persons other than
1. After the ratification of this treaty, and as Indians and members of said tribes or
soon as may be deemed practicable by the nations, the construction of works of
Secretary of the Interior, and prior to the first internal improvement, and the common

defence and safety of the nations of the said of the Territory of Oklahoma,” and that there
Territory. All laws enacted by said council shall be a secretary of the said Territory, to be
shall take effect at the times therein appointed by the said superintendent; that
provided, unless suspended by the the duty of the said governor, in addition to
Secretary of the Interior or the President of those already imposed on the superintendent
the United States. No law shall be enacted of Indian affairs, shall be such as properly
inconsistent with the Constitution of the belong to an executive officer charged with
United States or the laws of Congress, or the execution of the laws, which the said
existing treaty stipulations with the United council is authorized to enact under the
States; nor shall said council legislate upon provisions of this treaty; and that for this
matters pertaining to the legislative, judicial, purpose he shall have authority to appoint a
or other organization, laws, or customs of marshal of said Territory and an interpreter;
the several tribes or nations, except as the said marshal to appoint such deputies, to
herein provided for. be paid by fees, as may be required to aid him
5. Said council shall be presided over by the in the execution of his proper functions, and
superintendent of Indian affairs, or, in case of be the marshal of the principal court of said
his absence from any cause, the duties of the Territory that may be established under the
superintendent enumerated in this article provisions of this treaty.
shall be performed by such person as the 11. And the said marshal and the said secretary
Secretary of the Interior shall indicate. shall each be entitled to a salary of five
6. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint a hundred dollars per annum, to be paid by the
secretary of said council, whose duty it shall United States, and such fees in addition
be to keep an accurate record of all the thereto as shall be established by said
proceedings of said council, and to transmit a governor, with the approbation of the
true copy thereof, duly certified by the Secretary of the Interior, it being understood
superintendent of Indian affairs, to the that the said fee-lists may at any time be
Secretary of the Interior immediately after the corrected and altered by the Secretary of the
sessions of said council shall terminate. He Interior, as the experience of the system
shall be paid five hundred dollars, as an proposed herein to be established shall show
annual salary, by the United States. to be necessary, and shall in no case exceed
7. The members of the said council shall be paid the fees paid to marshals of the United States
by the United States four dollars per diem for similar services.
while in actual attendance thereon, and four The salary of the interpreter shall be five
dollars mileage for every twenty miles going hundred dollars, to be paid in like manner by
and returning therefrom by the most direct the United States.
route, to be certified by the secretary of said 12. And the United States agree that in the
council and the presiding officer. appointment of marshals and deputies,
8. The Choctaws and Chickasaws also agree preference, qualifications being equal, shall
that a court or courts may be established in be given to competent members of the said
said Territory with such jurisdiction and nations, the object being to create a laudable
organization as Congress may prescribe: ambition to acquire the experience necessary
Provided, That the same shall not interfere for political offices of importance in the
with the local judiciary of either of said respective nations.
nations. 13. And whereas it is desired by the said
9. Whenever Congress shall authorize the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations that the
appointment of a Delegate from said said council should consist of an upper and
Territory, it shall be the province of said lower house, it is hereby agreed that
council to elect one from among the nations whenever a majority of the tribes or nations
represented in said council. represented in said council shall desire the
10. And it is further agreed that the superinten- same, or the Congress of the United States
dent of Indian affairs shall be the executive of shall so prescribe, there shall be, in addition
the said Territory, with the title of “governor to the council now provided for, and which

shall then constitute the lower house, an said nations, and tend to advance their permanent
upper house, consisting of one member from welfare and the best interests of their individual
each tribe entitled to representation in the members, it is hereby agreed that, should the
council now provided for—the relations of Choctaw and the Chickasaw people, through their
the two houses to each other being such as respective legislative councils, agree to the survey
prevail in the States of the United States; each and dividing their land on the system of the United
house being authorized to choose its States, the land aforesaid east of the ninety-eighth
presiding officer and clerk to perform the degree of west longitude shall be, in view of the
duties appropriate to such offices; and it arrangements herein-after mentioned, surveyed
being the duty, in addition, of the clerks of and laid off in ranges, townships, sections, and
each house to make out and transmit to the parts of sections; and that for the purpose of facili-
territorial secretary fair copies of the proceed- tating such surveys and for the settlement and dis-
ings of the respective houses immediately tribution of said land as hereinafter provided, there
after their respective sessions, which copies shall be established at Boggy Depot, in the Choctaw
shall be dealt with by said secretary as is now Territory, a land-office; and that, in making the said
provided in the case of copies of the proceed- surveys and conducting the business of the said
ings of the council mentioned in this act, and office, including the appointment of all necessary
the said clerks shall each be entitled to the agents and surveyors, the same system shall be
same per diem as members of the respective pursued which has heretofore governed in respect
houses, and the presiding officers to doube to the public lands of the United States, it being
that sum. understood that the said surveys shall be made at
the cost of the United States and by their agents
ARTICLE 9. and surveyors, as in the case of their own public
Such sums of money as have, by virtue of treaties lands, and that the officers and employés shall
existing in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-one, receive the same compensation as is paid to officers
been invested for the purposes of education, shall and employés in the land-offices of the United
remain so invested, and the interest thereof shall be States in Kansas.
applied for the same purposes, in such manner as
shall be designated by the legislative authorities of ARTICLE 12.
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, respectively. The maps of said surveys shall exhibit, as far as prac-
ticable, the outlines of the actual occupancy of mem-
ARTICLE 10. bers of the said nations, respectively; and when they
The United States re-affirms all obligations arising are completed, shall be returned to the said land-
out of treaty stipulations or acts of legislation with office at Boggy Depot for inspection by all parties
regard to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, interested, when notice for ninety days shall be
entered into prior to the late rebellion, and in force at given of such return, in such manner as the legisla-
that time, not inconsistent herewith; and further tive authorities of the said nations, respectively, shall
agrees to renew the payment of all annuities and prescribe, or, in the event of said authorities failing
others moneys accruing under such treaty stipula- to give such notice in a reasonable time, in such
tions and acts of legislation, from and after the close manner as the register of said land-office shall pre-
of the fiscal year ending on the thirtieth of June, in scribe, calling upon all parties interested to examine
the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six. said maps to the end that errors, if any, in the loca-
tion of such occupancies, may be corrected.
ARTICLE 11.
Whereas the land occupied by the Choctaw and ARTICLE 13.
Chickasaw Nations, and described in the treaty The notice required in the above article shall be
between the United States and said nations, of June given, not only in the Choctaw and Chicksaw
twenty-second, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, is Nations, but by publication in newspapers printed
now held by the members of said nations in com- in the States of Mississippi and Tennessee,
mon, under the provisions of the said treaty; and Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Alabama, to the
whereas it is believed that the holding of said land end that such Choctaws and Chickasaws as yet
in severalty will promote the general civilization of remain outside of the Choctaw and Chickasaw

Nations, may be informed and have opportunity to then as the probate judge of the county, acting for the
exercise the rights hereby given to resident best interest of such infant, shall select.
Choctaws and Chickasaws: Provided, That before
any such absent Choctaw or Chickasaw shall be ARTICLE 16.
permitted to select for him or herself, or others, as Should an actual occupant of land desire, at any time
hereinafter provided, he or she shall satisfy the reg- prior to the commencement of the surveys aforesaid,
ister of the land-office of his or her intention, or the to abandon his improvement, and select and
intention of the party for whom the selection is to improve other land, so as to obtain the prior right of
be made, to become bona-fide resident in the said selection thereof, he or she shall be at liberty to do
nation within five years from the time of selection; so; in which event the improvement so abandoned
and should the said absentee fail to remove into shall be open to selection by other parties: Provided,
said nation, and occupy and commence an That nothing herein contained shall authorize the
improvement on the land selected within the time multiplication of improvements so as to increase the
aforesaid, the said selection shall be cancelled, and quantity of land beyond what a party would be enti-
the land shall thereafter be discharged from all tled to at the date of this treaty.
claim on account thereof.
ARTICLE 17.
ARTICLE 14. No selection to be made under this treaty shall be
At the expiration of the ninety days aforesaid the permitted to deprive or interfere with the continued
legislative authorities of the said nations, respec- occupation, by the missionaries established in the
tively, shall have the right to select one quarter- respective nations, of their several missionary estab-
section of land in each of the counties of said lishments; it being the wish of the parties hereto to
nations respectively, in trust for the establishment promote and foster an influence so largely con-
of seats of justice therein, and also as many ducive to civilization and refinement. Should any
quarter-sections as the said legislative councils missionary who has been engaged in missionary
may deem proper for the permanent endowment labor for five consecutive years before the date of
of schools, seminaries, and colleges in said nation, this treaty in the said nations, or either of them, or
provided such selection shall not embrace or inter- three consecutive years prior to the late rebellion,
fere with any improvement in the actual occupa- and who, if absent from the said nations, may desire
tion of any member of the particular nation with- to return, wish to select a quarter-section of land
out his consent; and provided the proceeds of sale with a view to a permanent home for himself and
of the quarter-sections selected for seats of justice family, he shall have the privilege of doing so, pro-
shall be appropriated for the erection or improve- vided no selection shall include any public build-
ment of public buildings in the county in which it ings, schools or seminary; and a quantity of land not
is located. exceeding six hundred and forty acres, to be
selected according to legal subdivisions in one body,
ARTICLE 15. and to include their improvements, is hereby
At the expiration of the ninety days’ notice aforesaid, granted to every religious society or denomination
the selection which is to change the tenure of the which has erected, or which, with the consent of the
land in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations from a Indians, may hereafter erect buildings within the
holding in common to a holding in severalty shall Choctaw and Chickasaw country for missionary or
take place, when every Choctaw and Chickasaw educational purposes; but no land thus granted, nor
shall have the right to one quarter-section of land, the buildings which have been or may be erected
whether male or female, adult or minor, and if in thereon, shall ever be sold or otherwise disposed of,
actual possession or occupancy of land improved or except with the consent of the legislatures of said
cultivated by him or her, shall have a prior right to nations respectively and approval of the Secretary
the quarter-section in which his or her improvement of the Interior; and whenever such lands or build-
lies; and every infant shall have selected for him or ings shall be sold or disposed of, the proceeds
her a quarter-section of land in such location as the thereof shall be applied, under the direction of the
father of such infant, if there be a father living, and if Secretary of the Interior, to the support and mainte-
no father living, then the mother or guardian, and nance of other similar establishments for the benefit
should there be neither father, mother, nor guardian, of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and such other

persons as may hereafter become members of their ARTICLE 23.

nations, according to their laws, customs, and The register of the land-office shall inscribe in a suit-
usages. able book or books, in alphabetical order, the name
of every individual for whom a selection shall be
ARTICLE 18. made, his or her age, and a description of the land
In making a selection for children the parent shall selected.
have a prior right to select land adjacent to his own
improvements or selection, provided such selection ARTICLE 24.
shall be made within thirty days from the time at Whereas it may be difficult to give to each occupant
which selections under this treaty commence. of an improvement a quarter-section of land, or even
a smaller subdivision, which shall include such
ARTICLE 19. improvement, in consequence of such improvements
The manner of selecting as aforesaid shall be by an lying in towns, villages, or hamlets, the legislative
entry with the register of the land-office, and all authorities of the respective nations shall have
selections shall be made to conform to the legal sub- power, where, in their discretion, they think it expe-
divisions of the said lands as shown by the surveys dient, to lay off into town lots any section or part of a
aforesaid on the maps aforesaid; it being understood section so occupied, to which lots the actual occu-
that nothing herein contained is to be construed to pants, being citizens of the respective nations, shall
confine a party selecting to one section, but he may have pre-emptive right, and, upon paying into the
take contiguous parts of sections by legal subdivi- treasury of the particular nation the price of the land,
sions in different sections, not exceeding together a as fixed by the respective legislatures, exclusive of
quarter-section. the value of said improvement, shall receive a con-
veyance thereof. Such occupant shall not be preju-
ARTICLE 20. diced thereby in his right to his selection elsewhere.
Prior to any entries being made under the foregoing The town lots which may be unoccupied shall be
provisions, proof of improvements, or actual cultiva- disposed of for the benefit of the particular nation, as
tion, as well as the number of persons for whom a the legislative authorities may direct from time to
parent or guardian, or probate judge of the county time. When the number of occupants of the same
proposes to select, and of their right to select, and of quarter-section shall not be such as to authorize the
his or her authority to select, for them, shall be made legislative authorities to lay out the same, or any
to the register and receiver of the land-office, under part thereof, into town lots, they may make such reg-
regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the ulations for the disposition thereof as they may
Interior. deem proper, either by subdivision of the same, so as
to accommodate the actual occupants, or by giving
ARTICLE 21. the right of prior choice to the first occupant in point
In every township the sections of land numbered of time, upon paying the others for their improve-
sixteen and thirty-six shall be reserved for the sup- ments, to be valued in such way as the legislative
port of schools in said township: Provided, That if authorities shall prescribe, or otherwise. All occu-
the same has been already occupied by a party or pants retaining their lots under this section, and
parties having the right to select it, or it shall be so desiring, in addition, to make a selection, must pay
sterile as to be unavailable, the legislative authorities for the lots so retained, as in the case of town lots.
of the particular nations shall have the right to select And any Choctaw or Chickasaw who may desire to
such other unoccupied sections as they may think select a sectional division other than that on which
proper. his homestead is, without abandoning the latter,
shall have the right to purchase the homestead sec-
ARTICLE 22. tional division at such price as the respective legisla-
The right of selection hereby given shall not autho- tures may prescribe.
rize the selection of any land required by the
United States as a military post, or Indian agency, ARTICLE 25.
not exceeding one mile square, which, when aban- During ninety days from the expiration of the ninety
doned, shall revert to the nation in which the land days’ notice aforesaid, the Choctaws and Chicka-
lies. saws shall have the exclusive right to make selec-

tions, as aforesaid, and at the end of that time the eighth degree of west longitude, in the proportion
several parties shall be entitled to patents for their of one-fourth in the Chickasaw and three-fourths in
respective selections, to be issued by the President of the Choctaw Nation, civilized Indians from the
the United States, and countersigned by the chief tribes known by the general name of the Kansas
executive officer of the nation in which the land lies, Indians, being Indians to the north of the Indian
and recorded in the records of the executive office of Territory, not exceeding ten thousand in number,
the particular nation; and copies of the said patents, who shall have in the Choctaw and Chickasaw
under seal, shall be evidence in any court of law or Nations, respectively, the same rights as the
equity. Choctaws and Chickasaws, of whom they shall be
the fellow-citizens, governed by the same laws, and
ARTICLE 26. enjoying the same privileges, with the exception of
The right here given to the Choctaws and Chicka- the right to participate in the Choctaw and Chicka-
saws, respectively, shall extend to all persons who saw annuities and other moneys, and in the public
have become citizens by adoption or intermarriage domain, should the same, or the proceeds thereof,
of either of said nations, or who may here-after be divided per capita among the Choctaws and
become such. Chickasaws, and among others the right to select
land as herein provided for Choctaws and Chicka-
ARTICLE 27. saws, after the expiration of the ninety days during
In the event of disputes arising in regard to the which the selections of land are to be made, as
rights of parties to select particular quarter-sections aforesaid, by said Choctaws and Chickasaws; and
or other divisions of said land, or in regard to the the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations pledge them-
adjustment of boundaries, so as to make them con- selves to treat the said Kansas Indians in all
form to legal divisions and subdivisions such dis- respects with kindness and forbearance, aiding
putes shall be settled by the register of the land- them in good faith to establish themselves in their
office and the chief executive officer of the nation in new homes, and to respect all their customs and
which the land lies, in a summary way, after hearing usages not inconsistent with the constitution and
the parties; and if said register and chief officer can- laws of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations
not agree, the two to call in a third party, who shall respectively. In making selections after the advent
constitute a third referee, the decision of any two of of the Indians and the actual occupancy of land in
whom shall be final, without appeal. said nation, such occupancy shall have the same
effect in their behalf as the occupancies of Choc-
ARTICLE 28. taws and Chickasaws; and after the said Choctaws
Nothing contained in any law of either of the said and Chickasaws have made their selections as
nations shall prevent parties entitled to make selec- aforesaid, the said persons of African descent men-
tions contiguous to each other; and the Choctaw and tioned in the third article of the treaty, shall make
Chickasaw Nations hereby agree to repeal all laws their selections as therein provided, in the event of
inconsistent with this provision. the making of the laws, rules, and regulations
aforesaid, after the expiration of ninety days from
ARTICLE 29. the date at which the Kansas Indians are to make
Selections made under this treaty shall, to the extent their selections as therein provided, and the actual
of one quarter-section, including the homestead or occupancy of such persons of African descent shall
dwelling, be inalienable for the period of twenty-one have the same effect in their behalf as the occupan-
years from the date of such selection, and upon the cies of the Choctaws and Chickasaws.
death of the party in possession shall descend
according to the laws of the nation where the land ARTICLE 31.
lies; and in the event of his or her death without And whereas some time must necessarily elapse
heirs, the said quarter-section shall escheat to and before the surveys, maps, and selections herein
become the property of the nation. provided for can be completed so as to permit the
said Kansas Indians to make their selections in
ARTICLE 30. their order, during which time the United States
The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations will receive may desire to remove the said Indians from their
into their respective districts east of the ninety- present abiding places, it is hereby agreed that the

said Indians may at once come into the Choctaw ARTICLE 36.
and Chickasaw Nations, settling themselves tem- Should any land that has been selected under the
porarily as citizens of the said nations, respectively, provisions of this treaty be abandoned and left
upon such land as suits them and is not already uncultivated for the space of seven years by the
occupied. party selecting the same, or his heirs, except in the
case of infants under the age of twenty-one years, or
ARTICLE 32. married women, or persons non compos mentis, the
At the expiration of two years, or sooner, if the Presi- legislative authorities of the nation where such land
dent of the United States shall so direct, from the lies may either rent the same for the benefit of those
completion of the surveys and maps aforesaid, the interested, or dispose of the same otherwise for their
officers of the land-offices aforesaid shall deliver to benefit, and may pass all laws necessary to give
the executive departments of the Choctaw and effect to this provision.
Chickasaw Nations, respectively, all such documents
as may be necessary to elucidate the land-title as set- ARTICLE 37.
tled according to this treaty, and forward copies In consideration of the right of selection hereinbefore
thereof, with the field-notes, records, and other accorded to certain Indians other than the Choctaws
papers pertaining to said titles, to the Commissioner and Chickasaws, the United States agree to pay to
of the General Land Office; and thereafter grants of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, out of the
land and patents therefor shall be issued in such funds of Indians removing into said nations respec-
manner as the legislative authorities of said nations tively, under the provisions of this treaty, such sum
may provide for all the unselected portions of the as may be fixed by the legislatures of said nations,
Choctaw and Chickasaw districts as defined by the not exceeding one dollar per acre, to be divided
treaty of June twenty-second, eighteen hundred and between the said nations in the proportion of one-
fifty-five. fourth to the Chickasaw Nation and three-fourths to
the Choctaw Nation, with the understanding that at
ARTICLE 33. the expiration of twelve months the actual number
All lands selected as herein provided shall thereafter of said immigrating Indians shall be ascertained, and
be held in severalty by the respective parties, and the the amount paid that may be actually due at the rate
unselected land shall be the common property of the aforesaid; and should still further immigrations take
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, in their corporate place from among said Kansas Indians, still further
capacities, subject to the joint control of their legisla- payments shall be made accordingly from time to
tive authorities. time.

Should any Choctaw or Chickasaw be prevented Every white person who, having married a Choctaw
from selecting for him or herself during the ninety or Chickasaw, resides in the said Choctaw or Chicka-
days aforesaid, the failure to do so shall not autho- saw Nation, or who has been adopted by the legisla-
rize another to select the quarter-section contain- tive authorities, is to be deemed a member of said
ing his improvement, but he may at any time nation, and shall be subject to the laws of the
make his selection thereof, subject to having his Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations according to his
boundaries made to conform to legal divisions as domicile, and to prosecution and trial before their
aforesaid. tribunals, and to punishment according to their laws
in all respects as though he was a native Choctaw or
ARTICLE 35. Chickasaw.
Should the selections aforesaid not be made before
the transfer of the land records to the executive ARTICLE 39.
authorities of said nations, respectively, they shall No person shall expose goods or other articles for
be made according to such regulations as the leg- sale as a trader without a permit of the legislative
islative authorities of the two nations, respectively, authorities of the nation he may propose to trade in;
may prescribe, to the end that full justice and but no license shall be required to authorize any
equity may be done to the citizens of the respective member of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations to
territories. trade in the Choctaw or Chickasaw country who is

authorized by the proper authority of the nation, nor ARTICLE 44.

to authorize Choctaws or Chickasaws to sell flour, Post-offices shall be established and maintained by
meal, meat, fruit, and other provisions, stock, wag- the United States at convenient places in the
ons, agricultural implements, or tools brought from Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, to and from which
the United States into the said country. the mails shall be carried at reasonable intervals, at
the rates of postage prevailing in the United States.
ARTICLE 40.
All restrictions contained in any treaty heretofore ARTICLE 45.
made, or in any regulation of the United States upon All the rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore
the sale or other disposition of personal chattel prop- possessed by said nations or individuals thereof, or
erty by Choctaws or Chickasaws are hereby to which they were entitled under the treaties and
removed. legislation heretofore made and had in connection
with them, shall be, and are hereby declared to be, in
ARTICLE 41. full force, so far as they are consistent with the provi-
All persons who are members of the Choctaw or sions of this treaty.
Chickasaw Nations, and are not otherwise disquali-
fied or disabled, shall hereafter be competent wit- ARTICLE 46.
nesses in all civil and criminal suits and proceedings Of the moneys stipulated to be paid to the Choctaws
in any courts of the United States, any law to the and Chickasaws under this treaty for the cession of
contrary notwithstanding. the leased district, and the admission of the Kansas
Indians among them, the sum of one hundred and
ARTICLE 42. fifty thousand dollars shall be advanced and paid to
The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations shall deliver the Choctaws, and fifty thousand dollars to the
up persons accused of crimes against the United Chickasaws, through their respective treasurers, as
States who may be found within their respective lim- soon as practicable after the ratification of this treaty,
its on the requisition of the governor of any State for to be repaid out of said moneys or any other moneys
a crime committed against the laws of said State, and of said nations in the hands of the United States; the
upon the requisition of the judge of the district court residue, not affected by any provisions of this treaty,
of the United States for the district within which the to remain in the Treasury of the United States at an
crime was committed. annual interest of five per cent., no part of which
shall be paid out as annuity, but shall be annually
ARTICLE 43. paid to the treasurer of said nations, respectively, to
The United States promise and agree that no white be regularly and judiciously applied, under the
person, except officers, agents, and employés of the direction of their respective legislative councils, to
Government, and of any internal improvement com- the support of their government, the purposes of
pany, or persons travelling through, or temporarily education, and such other objects as may be best cal-
sojourning in, the said nations, or either of them, culated to promote and advance the welfare and
shall be permitted to go into said Territory, unless happiness of said nations and their people respec-
formally incorporated and naturalized by the joint tively. As soon as practicable after the lands shall
action of the authorities of both nations into one of have been surveyed and assigned to the Choctaws
the said nations of Choctaws and Chickasaws, and Chickasaws in severalty as herein provided,
according to their laws, customs, or usages; but this upon application of their respective legislative coun-
article is not to be construed to affect parties hereto- cils, and with the assent of the President of the
fore adopted, or to prevent the employment tem- United States, all the annuities and funds invested
porarily of white persons who are teachers, mechan- and held in trust by the United States for the benefit
ics, or skilled in agriculture, or to prevent the of said nations respectively shall be capitalized or
legislative authorities of the respective nations from converted into money, as the case may be; and the
authorizing such works of internal improvement as aggregate amounts thereof belonging to each nation
they may deem essential to the welfare and prosper- shall be equally divided and paid per capita to the
ity of the community, or be taken to interfere with or individuals thereof respectively, to aid and assist
invalidate any action which has heretofore been had them in improving their homesteads and increasing
in this connection by either of the said nations. or acquiring flocks and herds, and thus encourage

them to make proper efforts to maintain successfully nation, and that large sums of money are due them
the new relations which the holding of their lands in for goods and property taken, or sold to the mem-
severalty will involve: Provided, nevertheless, That bers of said nation, and money advanced to said
there shall be retained by the United States such sum nation; and whereas other loyal citizens of the
as the President shall deem sufficient of the said United States may have just claims of the same char-
moneys to be invested, that the interest thereon may acter: It is hereby agreed and stipulated that the
be sufficient to defray the expenses of the govern- commission provided for in the preceding article
ment of said nations respectively, together with a shall investigate said claims, and fully examine the
judicious system of education, until these objects can same; and such sum or sums of money as shall by
be provided for by a proper system of taxation; and the report of said commission, approved by the Sec-
whenever this shall be done to the satisfaction of the retary of the Interior, be found due to such persons,
President of the United States, the moneys so not exceeding ninety thousand dollars, shall be paid
retained shall be divided in the manner and for the by the United States to the persons entitled thereto,
purpose above mentioned. out of any money belonging to said nation in the
possession of the United States: Provided, That no
ARTICLE 48. claim for goods or property of any kind shall be
Immediately after the ratification of this treaty there allowed or paid, in whole or part, which shall have
shall be paid, out of the funds of the Choctaws and been used by said nation or any member thereof in
Chickasaws in the hands of the United States, aid of the rebellion, with the consent of said
twenty-five thousand dollars to the Choctaw and claimants: Provided also, That if the aggregate of
twenty-five thousand dollars to the Chickasaw com- said claims thus allowed and approved shall exceed
missioners, to enable them to discharge obligations said sum of ninety thousand dollars, then that sum
incurred by them for various incidental and other shall be applied pro rata in payment of the claims so
expenses to which they have been subjected, and for allowed.
which they are now indebted.
ARTICLE 51.
ARTICLE 49. It is further agreed that all treaties and parts of
And it is further agreed that a commission, to con- treaties inconsistent herewith be, and the same are
sist of a person or persons to be appointed by the hereby, declared null and void.
President of the United States, not exceeding
three, shall be appointed immediately on the rati- In testimony whereof, the said Dennis N. Cooley, Eli-
fication of this treaty, who shall take into consider- jah Sells, and E. S. Parker, commissioners in behalf of
ation and determine the claim of such Choctaws the United States, and the said commissioners on
and Chickasaws as allege that they have been behalf of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, have
driven during the late rebellion from their homes hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year
in the Choctaw [and Chickasaw] Nations on first above written.
account of their adhesion to the United States, for
damages, with power to make such award as may D. N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
be consistent with equity and good conscience, [SEAL.]
taking into view all circumstances, whose report, Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs,
when ratified by the Secretary of the Interior, shall [SEAL.]
be final, and authorize the payment of the amount E. S. Parker, special commissioner, [SEAL.]
from any moneys of said nations in the hands of
the United States as the said commission may Commissioners for United States.
award. Alfred Wade, [SEAL.]
Allen Wright, [SEAL.]
ARTICLE 50. James Riley, [SEAL.]
Whereas Joseph G. Heald and Reuben Wright, of John Page, [SEAL.]
Massachusetts, were licensed traders in the Choctaw
country at the commencement of the rebellion, and Choctaw commissioners.
claim to have sustained large losses on account of Winchester Colbert, [SEAL.]
said rebellion, by the use of their property by said Edmund (his x mark) Pickens, [SEAL.]

Holmes Colbert, [SEAL.] United States require of the Creeks a portion of their
Colbert Carter, [SEAL.] land whereon to settle other Indians; and whereas a
Robert H. Love, [SEAL.] treaty of peace and amity was entered into between
the United States and the Creeks and other tribes at
Chickasaw commissioners. Fort Smith, September thirteenth [tenth,] eighteen
Campbell Leflore, Secretary of Choctaw delega- hundred and sixty-five, whereby the Creeks
tion. revoked, cancelled, and repudiated the aforesaid
E. S. Mitchell, Secretary of Chickasaw delegation. treaty made with the so-called Confederate States;
and whereas the United States, through its commis-
In presence of— sioners, in said treaty of peace and amity, promised
Jno. H. B. Latrobe, to enter into treaty with the Creeks to arrange and
P. P. Pitchlynn, Principal chief Choctaws. settle all questions relating to and growing out of
said treaty with the so-called Confederate States:
Douglas H. Cooper. Now, therefore, the United States, by its commis-
J. Harlan. sioners, and the above-named delegates of the
Charles E. Mix. 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
Treaty with the Creeks, 1866 between the parties to this treaty, and the Creeks
June 14, 1866. | 14 Stats., 785. | Ratified July bind themselves to remain firm allies and friends of
19, 1866. | Proclaimed Aug. 11, 1866. the United States, and never to take up arms against
Treaty of cession and indemnity concluded at the the United States, but always faithfully to aid in
city of Washington on the fourteenth day of June, in putting down its enemies. They also agree to remain
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred at peace with all other Indian tribes; and, in return,
and sixty-six, by and between the United States, rep- the United States guarantees them quiet possession
resented by Dennis N. Cooley, Commissioner of of their country, and protection against hostilities on
Indian Affairs, Elija Sells, superintendent of Indian the part of other tribes. In the event of hostilites, the
affairs for the southern superintendency, and Col. United States agree that the tribe commencing and
Ely S. Parker, special commissioner, and the Creek prosecuting the same shall, as far as may be practi-
Nation of Indians, represented by Ok-tars-sars-harjo, cable, make just reparation therefor. To insure this
or Sands; Cow-e-to-me-co and Che-chu-chee, dele- protection, the Creeks agree to a military occupation
gates at large, and D. N. McIntosh and James Smith, of their country, at any time, by the United States,
special delegates of the Southern Creeks. and the United States agree to station and continue
in said country from time to time, at its own
PREAMBLE. expense, such force as may be necessary for that
Whereas existing treaties between the United States purpose. A general amnesty of all past offenses
and the Creek Nation have become insufficient to against the laws of the United States, committed
meet their mutual necessities; and whereas the by any member of the Creek Nation, is hereby
Creeks made a treaty with the so-called Confederate declared. And the Creeks, anxious for the restora-
States, on the tenth of July, one thousand eight hun- tion of kind and friendly feelings among them-
dred and sixty-one, whereby they ignored their alle- selves, do hereby declare an amnesty for all past
giance to the United States, and unsettled the treaty offenses against their government, and no Indian or
relations existing between the Creeks and the Indians shall be proscribed, or any act of forfeiture
United States, and did so render themselves liable to or confiscation passed against those who have
forfeit to the United States all benefits and advan- remained friendly to, or taken up arms against, the
tages enjoyed by them in lands, annuities, protec- United States, but they shall enjoy equal privileges
tion, and immunities, including their lands and with other members of said tribe, and all laws
other property held by grant or gift from the United heretofore passed inconsistent herewith are hereby
States; and whereas in view of said liabilities the declared inoperative.

ARTICLE 2. occupy, restore, and improve their farms, and to

The Creeks hereby covenant and agree that hence- make their nation independent and self-sustaining,
forth neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, oth- and to pay the damages sustained by the mission
erwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof schools on the North Fork and the Arkansas Rivers,
the parties shall have been duly convicted in accor- not to exceed two thousand dollars, and to pay the
dance with laws applicable to all members of said delegates such per diem as the agent and Creek
tribe, shall ever exist in said nation; and inasmuch council may agree upon, as a just and fair compen-
as there are among the Creeks many persons of sation, all of which shall be distributed for that pur-
African descent, who have no interest in the soil, it pose by the agent, with the advice of the Creek
is stipulated that hereafter these persons lawfully council, under the direction of the Secretary of the
residing in said Creek country under their laws and Interior. One hundred thousand dollars shall be
usages, or who have been thus residing in said paid in money and divided to soldiers that enlisted
country, and may return within one year from the in the Federal Army and the loyal refugee Indians
ratification of this treaty, and their descendants and and freedmen who were driven from their homes by
such others of the same race as may be permitted the rebel forces, to reimburse them in proportion to
by the laws of the said nation to settle within the their respective losses; four hundred thousand dol-
limits of the jurisdiction of the Creek Nation as lars be paid in money and divided per capita to said
citizens [thereof,] shall have and enjoy all the rights Creek Nation, unless otherwise directed by the Pres-
and privileges of native citizens, including an equal ident of the United States, under the direction of the
interest in the soil and national funds, and the laws Secretary of the Interior, as the same may accrue
of the said nation shall be equally binding upon from the sale of land to other Indians. The United
and give equal protection to all such persons, States agree to pay to said Indians, in such manner
and all others. This agreement, a copy of which and for such purposes as the Secretary of the Inte-
has been obtained from the report of the negotiating rior may direct, interest at the rate of five per cent.
commissioners, found accompanying the Report per annum from the date of the ratification of this
of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1865, is treaty, on the amount hereinbefore agreed upon for
set forth in the Appendix to this Compilation, post, said ceded lands, after deducting the said two hun-
p. 1050. soever race or color, who may be adopted as dred thousand dollars; the residue, two hundred
citizens or members of said tribe. and seventy-five thousand one hundred and sixty-
eight dollars, shall remain in the Treasury of the
ARTICLE 3. United States, and the interest thereon, at the rate of
In compliance with the desire of the United States to five per centum per annum, be annually paid to said
locate other Indians and freedmen thereon, the Creeks as above stipulated.
Creeks hereby cede and convey to the United States,
to be sold to and used as homes for such other civi- ARTICLE 4.
lized Indians as the United States may choose to set- Immediately after the ratification of this treaty the
tle thereon, the west half of their entire domain, to United States agree to ascertain the amount due the
be divided by a line running north and south; the respective soldiers who enlisted in the Federal Army,
eastern half of said Creek lands, being retained by loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, in proportion to
them, shall, except as herein otherwise stipulated, their several losses, and to pay the amount awarded
be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation; each, in the following manner, to wit: A census of the
and in consideration of said cession of the west half Creeks shall be taken by the agent of the United
of their lands, estimated to contain three millions States for said nation, under the direction of the Sec-
two hundred and fifty thousand five hundred and retary of the Interior, and a roll of the names of all
sixty acres, the United States agree to pay the sum of soldiers that enlisted in the Federal Army, loyal
thirty (30) cents per acre, amounting to nine hun- refugee Indians, and freedmen, be made by him. The
dred and seventy-five thousand one hundred and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern
sixty-eight dollars, in the manner hereinafter pro- superintendency and the agent of the United States
vided, to wit: two hundred thousand dollars shall for the Creek Nation shall proceed to investigate and
be paid per capita in money, unless otherwise determine from said roll the amounts due the
directed by the President of the United States, upon respective refugee Indians, and shall transmit to the
the ratification of this treaty, to enable the Creeks to Commissioner of Indian affairs for his approval, and

that of the Secretary of the Interior, their awards, ARTICLE 7.

together with the reasons therefor. In case the The Creeks hereby agree that the Seminole tribe of
awards so made shall be duly approved, said Indians may sell and convey to the United States all
awards shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of or any portion of the Seminole lands, upon such
said lands within one year from the ratification of terms as may be mutually agreed upon by and
this treaty, or so soon as said amount of one hundred between the Seminoles and the United States.
thousand ($100,000) dollars can be raised from the
sale of said land to other Indians. ARTICLE 8.
It is agreed that the Secretary of the Interior forth-
ARTICLE 5. with cause the line dividing the Creek country, as
The Creek Nation hereby grant a right of way provided for by the terms of the sale of Creek lands
through their lands, to the Choctaw and Chickasaw to the United States in article third of this treaty, to
country, to any company which shall be duly autho- be accurately surveyed under the direction of the
rized by Congress, and shall, with the express con- Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the expenses of
sent and approbation of the Secretary of the Interior, which survey shall be paid by the United States.
undertake to construct a railroad from any point
north of to any point in or south of the Creek country, ARTICLE 9.
and likewise from any point on their eastern to their Inasmuch as the agency buildings of the Creek tribe
western or southern boundary, but said railroad com- have been destroyed during the late war, it is further
pany, together with all its agents and employés, shall agreed that the United States shall at their own
be subject to the laws of the United States relating to expense, not exceeding ten thousand dollars, cause
intercourse with Indian tribes, and also to such rules to be erected suitable agency buildings, the sites
and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secre- whereof shall be selected by the agent of said tribe,
tary of the Interior for that purpose, and the Creeks in the reduced Creek reservation, under the direction
agree to sell to the United States, or any company of the superintendent of Indian affairs.
duly authorized as aforesaid, such lands not legally In consideration whereof, the Creeks hereby
owned or occupied by a member or members of the cede and relinquish to the United States one section
Creek Nation, lying along the line of said contem- of their lands, to be designated and selected by their
plated railroad, not exceeding on each side thereof a agent, under the direction of the superintendent of
belt or strip of land three miles in width, at such price Indian affairs, upon which said agency buildings
per acre as may be eventually agreed upon between shall be erected, which section of land shall revert to
said Creek Nation and the party or parties building the Creek nation when said agency buildings are no
said road, subject to the approval of the President of longer used by the United States, upon said nation
the United States: Provided, however, That said land paying a fair and reasonable value for said buildings
thus sold shall not be reconveyed, leased, or rented at the time vacated.
to, or be occupied by any one not a citizen of the
Creek Nation, according to its laws and recognized ARTICLE 10.
usages: Provided, also, That officers, servants, and The Creeks agree to such legislation as Congress and
employés of said railroad necessary to its construc- the President of the United States may deem neces-
tion and management, shall not be excluded from sary for the better administration of justice and the
such necessary occupancy, they being subject to the protection of the rights of person and property
provisions of the Indian intercourse law and such within the Indian territory: Provided, however,
rules and regulations as may be established by the [That] said legislation shall not in any manner inter-
Secretary of the Interior, nor shall any conveyance of fere with or annul their present tribal organization,
any of said lands be made to the party building and rights, laws, privileges, and customs. The Creeks
managing said road until its completion as a first- also agree that a general council, consisting of dele-
class railroad, and its acceptance as such by the Secre- gates elected by each nation or tribe lawfully resi-
tary of the Interior. dent within the Indian territory, may be annually
convened in said territory, which council shall be
ARTICLE 6. organized in such manner and possess such powers
[Stricken out.] as are hereinafter described.

First. After the ratification of this treaty, and as soon effect at such time as may therein be provided,
as may be deemed practicable by the Secretary of unless suspended by direction of the Secretary of
the Interior, and prior to the first session of said the Interior or the President of the United States. No
council, a census, or enumeration of each tribe law shall be enacted inconsistent with the Constitu-
lawfully resident in said territory, shall be taken tion of the United States, or the laws of Congress, or
under the direction of the superintendent of Indian existing treaty stipulations with the United States,
affairs, who for that purpose is hereby authorized to nor shall said council legislate upon matters per-
designate and appoint competent persons, whose taining to the organization, laws, or customs of the
compensation shall be fixed by the Secretary of the several tribes, except as herein provided for.
Interior, and paid by the United States.
Fourth. Said council shall be presided over by the
Second. The first general council shall consist of superintendent of Indian affairs, or, in case of his
one member from each tribe, and an additional absence from any cause, the duties of said superin-
member from each one thousand Indians, or each tendent enumerated in this article shall be per-
fraction of a thousand greater than five hundred, formed by such person as the Secretary of the Inte-
being members of any tribe lawfully resident in rior may direct.
said territory, and shall be selected by said tribes
respectively, who may assent to the establishment Fifth. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint a sec-
of said general council, and if none should be thus retary of said council, whose duty it shall be to keep
formerly selected by any nation or tribe, the said an accurate record of all the proceedings of said
nation or tribe shall be represented in said general council, and who shall transmit a true copy of all
council by the chief or chiefs and head men of said such proceedings, duly certified by the superinten-
tribe, to be taken in the order of their rank as recog- dent of Indian affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior
nized in tribal usage, in the same number and pro- immediately after the sessions of said council shall
portion as above indicated. After the said census terminate. He shall be paid out of the Treasury of
shall have been taken and completed, the superin- the United States an annual salary of five hundred
tendent of Indian affairs shall publish and declare dollars.
to each tribe the number of members of said council
to which they shall be entitled under the provisions Sixth. The members of said council shall be paid by
of this article, and the persons entitled to so repre- the United States the sum of four dollars per diem
sent said tribes shall meet at such time and place as during the time actually in attendance on the ses-
he shall appoint, but thereafter the time and place sions of said council, and at the rate of four dollars
of the sessions of said council shall be determined for every twenty miles necessary[il]ly traveled by
by its action: Provided, That no session in any one them in going to and returning to their homes
year shall exceed the term of thirty days, and pro- respectively, from said council, to be certified by the
vided that special sessions of said council may be secretary of said council and the superintendent of
called whenever, in the judgment of the Secretary of Indian affairs.
the Interior, the interest of said tribe shall require. Seventh. The Creeks also agree that a court or
courts may be established in said territory, with such
Third. Said general council shall have power to leg- jurisdiction and organized in such manner as Con-
islate upon all rightful subjects and matters pertain- gress may by law provide.
ing to the intercourse and relations of the Indian
tribes and nations resident in said territory, the ARTICLE 11.
arrest and extradition of criminals and offenders The stipulations of this treaty are to be a full settle-
escaping from one tribe to another, the administra- ment of all claims of said Creek Nation for damages
tion of justice between members of the several tribes and losses of every kind growing out of the late
of said territory, and persons other than Indians and rebellion and all expenditures by the United States of
members of said tribes or nations, the construction annuities in clothing and feeding refugee and desti-
of works of internal improvement, and the common tute Indians since the diversion of annuities for that
defence and safety of the nations of said territory. purpose consequent upon the late war with the so-
All laws enacted by said general council shall take called Confederate States; and the Creeks hereby rat-

ify and confirm all such diversions of annuities provisions of this treaty shall be, and are hereby,
heretofore made from the funds of the Creek Nation rescinded and annulled; and it is further agreed that
by the United States, and the United States agree ten thousand dollars shall be paid by the United
that no annuities shall be diverted from the objects States, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to
for which they were originally devoted by treaty pay the expenses incurred in negotiating the forego-
stipulations with the Creeks, to the use of refugee ing treaty.
and destitute Indians other than the Creeks or mem-
bers of the Creek Nation after the close of the present In testimony whereof, we, the commissioners repre-
fiscal year, June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and senting the United States and the delegates repre-
sixty-six. senting the Creek nation, have hereunto set our
hands and seals at the place and on the day and year
ARTICLE 12. above written.
The United States re-affirms and re-assumes all
obligations of treaty stipulations with the Creek D. N. Cooley, Commissioner Indian Affairs.
Nation entered into before the treaty of said Creek [SEAL.]
Nation with the so-called Confederate States, July Elijah Sells, Superintendent Indian Affairs.
tenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, not incon- [SEAL.]
sistent herewith; and further agrees to renew all Ok-ta-has Harjo, his x mark. [SEAL.]
payments accruing by force of said treaty stipula- Cow Mikko, his x mark. [SEAL.]
tions from and after the close of the present fiscal Cotch-cho-chee, his x mark. [SEAL.]
year, June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, D. N. McIntosh. [SEAL.]
except as is provided in article eleventh. James M. C. Smith. [SEAL.]
ARTICLE 13. In the presence of—

A quantity of one hundred and sixty acres, to be J. W. Dunn, United States Indian agent.
selected according to legal subdivision, in one body, J. Harlan, United States Indian agent.
and to include their improvements, is hereby Charles E. Mix.
granted to every religious society or denomination, J. M. Tebbetts.
which has erected, or which, with the consent of the Geo. A. Reynolds, United States Indian agent.
Indians, may hereafter erect, buildings within the John B. Sanborn.
Creek country for missionary or educational pur- John F. Brown, Seminole delegate.
poses; but no land thus granted, nor the buildings John Chupco, his x mark.
which have been or may be erected thereon, shall Fos-har-jo, his x mark.
ever be sold or otherwise disposed of, except with Cho-cote-huga, his x mark.
the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Inte- R. Fields, Cherokee delegate.
rior; and whenever any such lands or buildings shall Douglas H. Cooper.
be so sold or disposed of, the proceeds thereof shall Wm. Penn Adair.
be applied, under the direction of the Secretary of Harry Island, his x mark, United States inter-
the Interior, to the support and maintenance of other preter, Creek Nation.
similar establishments for the benefit of the Creeks Suludin Watie.
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 Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866
herein granted for missionary and educational pur- July 19, 1866. | 14 Stats., 799. | Ratified July
poses shall revert to the said Creek Nation. 27, 1866. | Proclaimed Aug. 11, 1866.
Articles of agreement and convention at the city of
ARTICLE 14. Washington on the nineteenth day of July, in the year
It is further agreed that all treaties heretofore entered of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-
into between the United States and the Creek Nation six, between the United States, represented by Den-
which are inconsistent with any of the articles or nis N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, [and]

Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for the the treasurer of the Cherokee Nation from the
southern superintendency, and the Cherokee Nation national funds, the money paid for said property
of Indians, represented by its delegates, James and the cost of permanent improvements on such
McDaniel, Smith Christie, White Catcher, S. H. real estate, made thereon since the confiscation sale;
Benge, J. B. Jones, and Daniel H. Ross—John Ross, the cost of such improvements to be fixed by a com-
principal chief of the Cherokees, being too unwell to mission, to be composed of one person designated
join in these negotiations. by the Secretary of the Interior and one by the princi-
pal chief of the nation, which two may appoint a
PREAMBLE. third in cases of disagreement, which cost so fixed
Whereas existing treaties between the United States shall be refunded to the national treasurer by the
and the Cherokee Nation are deemed to be insuffi- returning Cherokees within three years from the rati-
cient, the said contracting parties agree as follows, viz: fication hereof.
The pretended treaty made with the so-called Con- All the Cherokees and freed persons who were for-
federate States by the Cherokee Nation on the sev- merly slaves to any Cherokee, and all free negroes
enth day of October, eighteen hundred and sixty- not having been such slaves, who resided in the
one, and repudiated by the national council of the Cherokee Nation prior to June first, eighteen hun-
Cherokee Nation on the eighteenth day of February, dred and sixty-one, who may within two years elect
eighteen hundred and sixty-three, is hereby declared not to reside northeast of the Arkansas River and
to be void. southeast of Grand River, shall have the right to set-
tle in and occupy the Canadian district southwest of
ARTICLE 2. the Arkansas River, and also all that tract of country
Amnesty is hereby declared by the United States and lying northwest of Grand River, and bounded on the
the Cherokee Nation for all crimes and misde- southeast by Grand River and west by the Creek
meanors committed by one Cherokee on the person reservation to the northeast corner thereof; from
or property of another Cherokee, or of a citizen of thence west on the north line of the Creek reserva-
the United States, prior to the fourth day of July, tion to the ninety-sixth degree of west longitude; and
eighteen hundred and sixty-six; and no right of thence north on said line of longitude so far that a
action arising out of wrongs committed in aid or in line due east to Grand River will include a quantity
the suppression of the rebellion shall be prosecuted of land equal to one hundred and sixty acres for each
or maintained in the courts of the United States or in person who may so elect to reside in the territory
the courts of the Cherokee Nation. above-described in this article: Provided, That that
part of said district north of the Arkansas River shall
But the Cherokee Nation stipulate and agree to not be set apart until it shall be found that the Cana-
deliver up to the United States, or their duly autho- dian district is not sufficiently large to allow one
rized agent, any or all public property, particularly hundred and sixty acres to each person desiring to
ordnance, ordnance stores, arms of all kinds, and obtain settlement under the provisions of this article.
quartermaster’s stores, in their possession or control,
which belonged to the United States or the so-called ARTICLE 5.
Confederate States, without any reservation. The inhabitants electing to reside in the district
described in the preceding article shall have the right
ARTICLE 3. to elect all their local officers and judges, and the
The confiscation laws of the Cherokee Nation shall number of delegates to which by their numbers they
be repealed, and the same, and all sales of farms, and may be entitled in any general council to be estab-
improvements on real estate, made or pretended to lished in the Indian Territory under the provisions of
be made in pursuance thereof, are hereby agreed this treaty, as stated in Article XII, and to control all
and declared to be null and void, and the former their local affairs, and to establish all necessary
owners of such property so sold, their heirs or police regulations and rules for the administration of
assigns, shall have the right peaceably to re-occupy justice in said district, not inconsistent with the con-
their homes, and the purchaser under the confisca- stitution of the Cherokee Nation or the laws of the
tion laws, or his heirs or assigns, shall be repaid by United States; Provided, The Cherokees residing in

said district shall enjoy all the rights and privileges be delivered over to the United States marshal, or
of other Cherokees who may elect to settle in said consent to be tried by the Cherokee court: Provided,
district as hereinbefore provided, and shall hold the That any or all the provisions of this treaty, which
same rights and privileges and be subject to the make any distinction in rights and remedies between
same liabilities as those who elect to settle in said the citizens of any district and the citizens of the rest
district under the provisions of this treaty; Provided of the nation, shall be abrogated whenever the Presi-
also, That if any such police regulations or rules be dent shall have ascertained, by an election duly
adopted which, in the opinion of the President, bear ordered by him, that a majority of the voters of such
oppressively on any citizen of the nation, he may district desire them to be abrogated, and he shall
suspend the same. And all rules or regulations in have declared such abrogation: And provided fur-
said district, or in any other district of the nation, ther, That no law or regulation, to be hereafter
discriminating against the citizens of other districts, enacted within said Cherokee Nation or any district
are prohibited, and shall be void. thereof, prescribing a penalty for its violation, shall
take effect or be enforced until after ninety days from
ARTICLE 6. the date of its promulgation, either by publication in
The inhabitants of the said district hereinbefore one or more newspapers of general circulation in
described shall be entitled to representation accord- said Cherokee Nation, or by posting up copies
ing to numbers in the national council, and all laws thereof in the Cherokee and English languages in
of the Cherokee Nation shall be uniform throughout each district where the same is to take effect, at the
said nation. And should any such law, either in its usual place of holding district courts.
provisions or in the manner of its enforcement, in the
opinion of the President of the United States, operate ARTICLE 8.
unjustly or injuriously in said district, he is hereby No license to trade in goods, wares, or merchandise
authorized and empowered to correct such evil, and merchandise shall be granted by the United States
to adopt the means necessary to secure the impartial to trade in the Cherokee Nation, unless approved
administration of justice, as well as a fair and equi- by the Cherokee national council, except in the
table application and expenditure of the national Canadian district, and such other district north of
funds as between the people of this and of every Arkansas River and west of Grand River occupied
other district in said nation. by the so-called southern Cherokees, as provided in
Article 4 of this treaty.
ARTICLE 7.
The United States court to be created in the Indian ARTICLE 9.
Territory; and until such court is created therein, the The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in Febru-
United States district court, the nearest to the Chero- ary, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of
kee Nation, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction the national council, forever abolished slavery,
of all causes, civil and criminal, wherein an inhabi- hereby covenant and agree that never hereafter shall
tant of the district hereinbefore described shall be a either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their
party, and where an inhabitant outside of said dis- nation otherwise than in the punishment of crime,
trict, in the Cherokee Nation, shall be the other party, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, in
as plaintiff or defendant in a civil cause, or shall be accordance with laws applicable to all the members
defendant or prosecutor in a criminal case, and all of said tribe alike. They further agree that all freed-
process issued in said district by any officer of the men who have been liberated by voluntary act of
Cherokee Nation, to be executed on an inhabitant their former owners or by law, as well as all free col-
residing outside of said district, and all process ored persons who were in the country at the com-
issued by any officer of the Cherokee Nation outside mencement of the rebellion, and are now residents
of said district, to be executed on an inhabitant resid- therein, or who may return within six months, and
ing in said district, shall be to all intents and pur- their descendants, shall have all the rights of native
poses null and void, unless indorsed by the district Cherokees: Provided, That owners of slaves so
judge for the district where such process is to be emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never
served, and said person, so arrested, shall be held in receive any compensation or pay for the slaves so
custody by the officer so arresting him, until he shall emancipated.

ARTICLE 10. Second. The first general council shall consist of one
Every Cherokee and freed person resident in the member from each tribe, and an additional member
Cherokee Nation shall have the right to sell any for each one thousand Indians, or each fraction of a
products of his farm, including his or her live stock, thousand greater than five hundred, being members
or any merchandise or manufactured products, and of any tribe lawfully resident in said Territory, and
to ship and drive the same to market without shall be selected by said tribes respectively, who may
restraint, paying any tax thereon which is now or assent to the establishment of said general council;
may be levied by the United States on the quantity and if none should be thus formally selected by any
sold outside of the Indian Territory. nation or tribe so assenting, the said nation or tribe
shall be represented in said general council by the
ARTICLE 11. chief or chiefs and headmen of said tribes, to be
The Cherokee Nation hereby grant a right of way not taken in the order of their rank as recognized in
exceeding two hundred feet wide, except at stations, tribal usage, in the same number and proportion as
switches, waterstations, or crossing of rivers, where above indicated. After the said census shall have
more may be indispensable to the full enjoyment of been taken and completed, the superintendent of
the franchise herein granted, and then only two hun- Indian affairs shall publish and declare to each tribe
dred additional feet shall be taken, and only for such assenting to the establishment of such council the
length as may be absolutely necessary, through all number of members of such council to which they
their lands, to any company or corporation which shall be entitled under the provisions of this article,
shall be duly authorized by Congress to construct a and the persons entitled to represent said tribes shall
railroad from any point north to any point south, and meet at such time and place as he shall approve; but
from any point east to any point west of, and which thereafter the time and place of the sessions of said
may pass through, the Cherokee Nation. Said com- council shall be determined by its action: Provided,
pany or corporation, and their employés and labor- That no session in any one year shall exceed the term
ers, while constructing and repairing the same, and of thirty days: And provided, That special sessions
in operating said road or roads, including all neces- of said council may be called by the Secretary of the
sary agents on the line, at stations, switches, water Interior whenever in his judgment the interest of
tanks, and all others necessary to the successful oper- said tribes shall require such special session.
ation of a railroad, shall be protected in the discharge
of their duties, and at all times subject to the Indian Third. Said general council shall have power to
intercourse laws, now or which may hereafter be legislate upon matters pertaining to the inter-
enacted and be in force in the Cherokee Nation. course and relations of the Indian tribes and
nations and colonies of freedmen resident in said
ARTICLE 12. Territory; the arrest and extradition of criminals
The Cherokees agree that a general council, consist- and offenders escaping from one tribe to another,
ing of delegates elected by each nation or tribe law- or into any community of freedmen; the adminis-
fully residing within the Indian Territory, may be tration of justice between members of different
annually convened in said Territory, which council tribes of said Territory and persons other than
shall be organized in such manner and possess such Indians and members of said tribes or nations; and
powers as hereinafter prescribed. the common defence and safety of the nations of
said Territory.
First. After the ratification of this treaty, and as soon
as may be deemed practicable by the Secretary of the All laws enacted by such council shall take effect at
Interior, and prior to the first session of said council, such time as may therein be provided, unless sus-
a census or enumeration of each tribe lawfully resi- pended by direction of the President of the United
dent in said Territory shall be taken under the direc- States. No law shall be enacted inconsistent with the
tion of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who for Constitution of the United States, or laws of Con-
that purpose is hereby authorized to designate and gress, or existing treaty stipulations with the United
appoint competent persons, whose compensation States. Nor shall said council legislate upon matters
shall be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, and other than those above indicated: Provided, how-
paid by the United States. ever, That the legislative power of such general

council may be enlarged by the consent of the erect, buildings within the Cherokee country for
national council of each nation or tribe assenting to missionary or educational purposes. But no land
its establishment, with the approval of the President thus granted, nor buildings which have been or may
of the United States. be erected thereon, shall ever be sold or [o]therwise
disposed of except with the consent and approval of
Fourth. Said council shall be presided over by such the Cherokee national council and the Secretary of
person as may be designated by the Secretary of the the Interior. And whenever any such lands or build-
Interior. ings shall be sold or disposed of, the proceeds
thereof shall be applied by said society or societies
Fifth. The council shall elect a secretary, whose duty for like purposes within said nation, subject to the
it shall be to keep an accurate record of all the pro- approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
ceedings of said council, and who shall transmit a
true copy of all such proceedings, duly certified ARTICLE 15.
by the presiding officer of such council, to the Secre- The United States may settle any civilized Indians,
tary of the Interior, and to each tribe or nation friendly with the Cherokees and adjacent tribes,
represented in said council, immediately after the within the Cherokee country, on unoccupied lands
sessions of said council shall terminate. He shall be east of 96°, on such terms as may be agreed upon by
paid out of the Treasury of the United States an any such tribe and the Cherokees, subject to the
annual salary of five hundred dollars. approval of the President of the United States, which
shall be consistent with the following provisions,
Sixth. The members of said council shall be paid by viz: Should any such tribe or band of Indians settling
the United States the sum of four dollars per diem in said country abandon their tribal organization,
during the term actually in attendance on the ses- there being first paid into the Cherokee national
sions of said council, and at the rate of four dollars fund a sum of money which shall sustain the same
for every twenty miles necessarily traveled by them proportion to the then existing national fund that the
in going from and returning to their homes, respec- number of Indians sustain to the whole number of
tively, from said council, to be certified by the secre- Cherokees then residing in the Cherokee country,
tary and president of the said council. they shall be incorporated into and ever after remain
a part of the Cherokee Nation, on equal terms in
ARTICLE 13. every respect with native citizens. And should any
The Cherokees also agree that a court or courts may such tribe, thus settling in said country, decide to
be established by the United States in said Territory, preserve their tribal organizations, and to maintain
with such jurisdiction and organized in such manner their tribal laws, customs, and usages, not inconsis-
as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That the tent with the constitution and laws of the Cherokee
judicial tribunals of the nation shall be allowed to Nation, they shall have a district of country set off
retain exclusive jurisdiction in all civil and criminal for their use by metes and bounds equal to one hun-
cases arising within their country in which members dred and sixty acres, if they should so decide, for
of the nation, by nativity or adoption, shall be the each man, woman, and child of said tribe, and shall
only parties, or where the cause of action shall arise pay for the same into the national fund such price as
in the Cherokee Nation, except as otherwise pro- may be agreed on by them and the Cherokee Nation,
vided in this treaty. subject to the approval of the President of the United
States, and in cases of disagreement the price to be
ARTICLE 14. fixed by the President.
The right to the use and occupancy of a quantity of
land not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, to And the said tribe thus settled shall also pay into
be selected according to legal subdivisions in one the national fund a sum of money, to be agreed on
body, and to include their improvements, and not by the respective parties, not greater in proportion
including the improvements of any member of the to the whole existing national fund and the probable
Cherokee Nation, is hereby granted to every society proceeds of the lands herein ceded or authorized to
or denomination which has erected, or which with be ceded or sold than their numbers bear to the
the consent of the national council may hereafter whole number of Cherokees then residing in said

country, and thence afterwards they shall enjoy all included in the limits and jurisdiction of the said
the rights of native Cherokees. But no Indians who State.
have no tribal organizations, or who shall determine
to abandon their tribal organizations, shall be per- The lands herein ceded shall be surveyed as the pub-
mitted to settle east of the 96° of longitude without lic lands of the United States are surveyed, under the
the consent of the Cherokee national council, or of a direction of the Commissioner of the General Land-
delegation duly appointed by it, being first ob- Office, and shall be appraised by two disinterested
tained. And no Indians who have and determine to persons, one to be designated by the Cherokee
preserve the tribal organizations shall be permitted national council and one by the Secretary of the Inte-
to settle, as herein provided, east of the 96° of longi- rior, and, in case of disagreement, by a third person,
tude without such consent being first obtained, to be mutually selected by the aforesaid appraisers.
unless the President of the United States, after a full The appraisement to be not less than an average of
hearing of the objections offered by said council or one dollar and a quarter per acre, exclusive of
delegation to such settlement, shall determine that improvements.
the objections are insufficient, in which case he may
authorize the settlement of such tribe east of the 96° And the Secretary of the Interior shall, from time
of longitude. to time, as such surveys and appraisements are
approved by him, after due advertisements for
ARTICLE 16. sealed bids, sell such lands to the highest bidders
The United States may settle friendly Indians in any for cash, in parcels not exceeding one hundred
part of the Cherokee country west of 96°, to be taken and sixty acres, and at not less than the appraised
in a compact form in quantity not exceeding one value: Provided, That whenever there are im -
hundred and sixty acres for each member of each of provements of the value of fifty dollars made on
said tribes thus to be settled; the boundaries of each the lands not being mineral, and owned and per-
of said districts to be distinctly marked, and the land sonally occupied by any person for agricultural
conveyed in fee-simple to each of said tribes to be purposes at the date of the signing hereof, such
held in common or by their members in severalty as person so owning, and in person residing on such
the United States may decide. improvements, shall, after due proof, made under
such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior
Said lands thus disposed of to be paid for to the may prescribe, be entitled to buy, at the appraised
Cherokee Nation at such price as may be agreed on value, the smallest quantity of land in legal subdi-
between the said parties in interest, subject to the visions which will include his improvements, not
approval of the President; and if they should not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and sixty
agree, then the price to be fixed by the President. acres; the expenses of survey and appraisement to
be paid by the Secretary out of the proceeds of sale
The Cherokee Nation to retain the right of posses- of said land: Provided, That nothing in this article
sion of and jurisdiction over all of said country west shall prevent the Secretary of the Interior from
of 96° of longitude until thus sold and occupied, selling the whole of said lands not occupied by
after which their jurisdiction and right of possession actual settlers at the date of the ratification of this
to terminate forever as to each of said districts thus treaty, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres
sold and occupied. to each person entitled to pre-emption under the
pre-emption laws of the United States, in a body,
ARTICLE 17. to any responsible party, for cash, for a sum not
The Cherokee Nation hereby cedes, in trust to the less than one dollar per acre.
United States, the tract of land in the State of Kansas
which was sold to the Cherokees by the United ARTICLE 18.
States, under the provisions of the second article of That any lands owned by the Cherokees in the State
the treaty of 1835; and also that strip of the land of Arkansas and in States east of the Mississippi may
ceded to the nation by the fourth article of said be sold by the Cherokee Nation in such manner as
treaty which is included in the State of Kansas, and their national council may prescribe, all such sales
the Cherokees consent that said lands may be being first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

ARTICLE 19. tunity to examine the same in the presence of the

All Cherokees being heads of families residing at the officer having such books and papers in charge.
date of the ratification of this treaty on any of the
lands herein ceded, or authorized to be sold, and ARTICLE 23.
desiring to remove to the reserved country, shall be All funds now due the nation, or that may hereafter
paid by the purchasers of said lands the value of accrue from the sale of their lands by the United
such improvements, to be ascertained and appraised States, as hereinbefore provided for, shall be
by the commissioners who appraise the lands, sub- invested in the United States registered stocks at
ject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; their current value, and the interest on all said
and if he shall elect to remain on the land now occu- funds shall be paid semi-annually on the order of
pied by him, shall be entitled to receive a patent the Cherokee Nation, and shall be applied to the
from the United States in fee-simple for three hun- following purposes, to wit: Thirty-five per cent.
dred and twenty acres of land to include his shall be applied for the support of the common-
improvements, and thereupon he and his family schools of the nation and educational purposes; fif-
shall cease to be members of the nation. teen per cent. for the orphan fund, and fifty per
cent. for general purposes, including reasonable
And the Secretary of the Interior shall also be autho- salaries of district officers; and the Secretary of the
rized to pay the reasonable costs and expenses of the Interior, with the approval of the President of the
delegates of the southern Cherokees. United States, may pay out of the funds due the
nation, on the order of the national council or a del-
The moneys to be paid under this article shall be egation duly authorized by it, such amount as he
paid out of the proceeds of the sales of the national may deem necessary to meet outstanding obliga-
lands in Kansas. tions of the Cherokee Nation, caused by the sus-
pension of the payment of their annuities, not to
ARTICLE 20. exceed the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand
Whenever the Cherokee national council shall dollars.
request it, the Secretary of the Interior shall cause the
country reserved for the Cherokees to be surveyed ARTICLE 24.
and allotted among them, at the expense of the As a slight testimony for the useful and arduous
United States. services of the Rev. Evan Jones, for forty years a
ARTICLE 21. missionary in the Cherokee Nation, now a cripple,
It being difficult to learn the precise boundary line old and poor, it is agreed that the sum of three
between the Cherokee country and the States of thousand dollars be paid to him, under the direc-
Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas, it is agreed that the tion of the Secretary of the Interior, out of any
United States shall, at its own expense, cause the Cherokee fund in or to come into his hands not
same to be run as far west as the Arkansas, and otherwise appropriated.
marked by permanent and conspicuous monuments,
by two commissioners, one of whom shall be desig- ARTICLE 25.
nated by the Cherokee national council. A large number of the Cherokees who served in the
Army of the United States having died, leaving no
ARTICLE 22. heirs entitled to receive bounties and arrears of pay
The Cherokee national council, or any duly on account of such service, it is agreed that all boun-
appointed delegation thereof, shall have the privi- ties and arrears for service in the regiments of Indian
lege to appoint an agent to examine the accounts of United States volunteers which shall remain
the nation with the Government of the United States unclaimed by any person legally entitled to receive
at such time as they may see proper, and to continue the same for two years from the ratification of this
or discharge such agent, and to appoint another, as treaty, shall be paid as the national council may
may be thought best by such council or delegation; direct, to be applied to the foundation and support
and such agent shall have free access to all accounts of an asylum for the education of orphan children,
and books in the executive departments relating to which asylum shall be under the control of the
the business of said Cherokee Nation, and an oppor- national council, or of such benevolent society as

said council may designate, subject to the approval by the Government to visit Washington for the pur-
of the Secretary of the Interior. poses of making this treaty, shall be paid by the
United States on the ratification of this treaty.
ARTICLE 26.
The United States guarantee to the people of the ARTICLE 30.
Cherokee Nation the quiet and peaceable possession The United States agree to pay to the proper
of their country and protection against domestic claimants all losses of property by missionaries or
feuds and insurrections, and against hostilities of missionary societies, resulting from their being
other tribes. They shall also be protected against ordered or driven from the country by United States
inter[r]uptions or intrusion from all unauthorized agents, and from their property being taken and
citizens of the United States who may attempt to set- occupied or destroyed by by United States troops,
tle on their lands or reside in their territory. In case of not exceeding in the aggregate twenty thousand dol-
hostilities among the Indian tribes, the United States lars, to be ascertained by the Secretary of the Interior.
agree that the party or parties commencing the same
shall, so far as practicable, make reparation for the ARTICLE 31.
damages done. All provisions of treaties heretofore ratified and in
force, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this
ARTICLE 27. treaty, are hereby re-affirmed and declared to be in
The United States shall have the right to establish full force; and nothin herein shall be construed as an
one or more military posts or stations in the Chero- acknowledgment by the United States, or as a relin-
kee Nation, as may be deemed necessary for the quishment by the Cherokee Nation of any claims or
proper protection of the citizens of the United States demands under the guarantees of former treaties,
lawfully residing therein and the Cherokee and except as herein expressly provided.
other citizens of the Indian country. But no sutler or
other person connected therewith, either in or out of In testimony whereof, the said commissioners on the
the military organization, shall be permitted to intro- part of the United States, and the said delegation on
duce any spirit[u]ous, vinous, or malt liquors into the part of the Cherokee Nation, have hereunto set
the Cherokee Nation, except the medical department their hands and seals at the city of Washington, this
proper, and by them only for strictly medical pur- ninth [nineteenth] day of July, A. D. one thousand
poses. And all persons not in the military service of eight hundred and sixty-six.
the United States, not citizens of the Cherokee
Nation, are to be prohibited from coming into the D. N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
Cherokee Nation, or remaining in the same, except Elijah Sells, Superintendent of Indian Affairs.
as herein otherwise provided; and it is the duty of Smith Christie,
the United States Indian agent for the Cherokees to White Catcher,
have such persons, not lawfully residing or sojourn- James McDaniel,
ing therein, removed from the nation, as they now S. H. Benge,
are, or hereafter may be, required by the Indian Danl. H. Ross,
intercourse laws of the United States. J. B. Jones.
ARTICLE 28. Delegates of the Cherokee Nation, appointed by

The United States hereby agree to pay for provisions Resolution of the National Council.
and clothing furnished the army under Appothole- In presence of—
hala in the winter of 1861 and 1862, not to exceed the W. H. Watson,
sum of ten thousand dollars, the accounts to be ascer- J. W. Wright.
tained and settled by the Secretary of the Interior.
Signatures witnessed by the following-named per-
ARTICLE 29. sons, the following interlineations being made
The sum of ten thousand dollars or so much thereof before signing: On page 1st the word “the” inter-
as may be necessary to pay the expenses of the dele- lined, on page 11 the word “the” struck out, and to
gates and representatives of the Cherokees invited said page 11 sheet attached requiring publication of

550 Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867
laws; and on page 34th the word “ceded” struck out the same day, with the chiefs and headmen of the
and the words “neutral lands” inserted. Page 471/2 said Kiowa and Comanche Tribes, they consent to the
added relating to expenses of treaty. confederation of the said Apache tribe, as desired by
it, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth
Thomas Ewing, jr. in this supplementary treaty: Now, therefore, it is
Wm. A. Phillips, hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the
J. W. Wright. 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:
Treaty with the Kiowa, ARTICLE 1.

Comanche, and Apache, 1867 The said Apache tribe of Indians agree to confeder-
ate and become incorporated with the said Kiowa
Oct. 21, 1867. | 15 Stats., 589. | Ratified, July and Comanche Indians, and to accept as their per-
25, 1868. | Proclaimed Aug. 25, 1868.
manent home the reservation described in the afore-
Articles of a treaty concluded at the Council Camp on
said treaty with said Kiowa and Comanche tribes,
Medicine Lodge Creek, seventy miles south of Fort
concluded as aforesaid at this place, and they pledge
Larned, in the State of Kansas, on the twenty-first day
themselves to make no permanent settlement at any
of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, by and
place, nor on any lands, outside of said reservation.
between the United States of America, represented by
its commissioners duly appointed thereto to-wit:
ARTICLE 2.
Nathaniel G. Taylor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur,
The Kiowa and Comanche tribes, on their part, agree
Alfred S. [H.] Terry, John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tap-
that all the benefits and advantages arising from the
pan, and J. B. Henderson, of the one part, and the
employment of physicians, teachers, carpenters,
Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indians, represented
millers, engineers, farmers, and blacksmiths, agreed
by their chiefs and headmen duly authorized and
to be furnished under the provisions of their said
empowered to act for the body of the people of said
treaty, together with all the advantages to be derived
tribes (the names of said chiefs and headmen being
from the construction of agency buildings, ware-
hereto subscribed) of the other part, witness:
houses, mills, and other structures, and also from the
establishment of schools upon their said reservation,
Whereas, on the twenty-first day of October, eighteen shall be jointly and equally shared and enjoyed by
hundred and sixty-seven, a treaty of peace was made the said Apache Indians, as though they had been
and entered into at the Council Camp, on Medicine originally a part of said tribes; and they further agree
Lodge Creek, seventy miles south of Fort Larned, in that all other benefits arising from said treaty shall
the State of Kansas, by and between the United States be jointly and equally shared as aforesaid.
of America, by its commissioners Nathaniel G. Tay-
lor, William S. Harney, C. C. Augur, Alfred H. Terry, ARTICLE 3.
John B. Sanborn, Samuel F. Tappan, and J. B. Hender- The United States, on its part, agrees that clothing
son, of the one part, and the Kiowa and Comanche and other articles named in Article X. of said original
tribes of Indians, of the Upper Arkansas, by and treaty, together with all money or other annuities
through their chiefs and headmen whose names are agreed to be furnished under any of the provisions of
subscribed thereto, of the other part, reference being said treaty, to the Kiowa and Comanches, shall be
had to said treaty; and whereas, since the making shared equally by the Apaches. In all cases where
and signing of said treaty, at a council held at said specific articles of clothing are agreed to be furnished
camp on this day, the chiefs and headmen of the to the Kiowas and Comanches, similar articles shall
Apache nation or tribe of Indians express to the com- be furnished to the Apaches, and a separate census of
missioners on the part of the United States, as afore- the Apaches shall be annually taken and returned by
said, a wish to be confederated with the said Kiowa the agent, as provided for the other tribes. And the
and Comanche tribes, and to be placed, in every United States further agrees, in consideration of
respect, upon an equal footing with said tribes; and the incorporation of said Apaches, to increase the
whereas, at a council held at the same place and on annual appropriation of money, as provided for in

Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, 1867 551
Article X. of said treaty, from twenty-five thousand to J. B. Henderson, [SEAL.]

thirty thousand dollars; and the latter amount shall On the part of the Kiowas:
be annually appropriated, for the period therein Satanka, or Sitting bear, his x mark, [SEAL.]
named, for the use and benefit of said three tribes, Sa-tan-ta, or White Bear, his x mark, [SEAL.]
confederated as herein declared; and the clothing and Wah-toh-konk, or Black Eagle, his x mark,
other annuities, which may from time to time be fur- [SEAL.]
nished to the Apaches, shall be based upon the cen- Ton-a-en-ko, or Kicking Eagle, his x mark,
sus of the three tribes, annually to be taken by the [SEAL.]
agent, and shall be separately marked, forwarded, Fish-e-more, or Stinking Saddle, his x mark,
and delivered to them at the agency house, to be built [SEAL.]
under the provisions of said original treaty. Ma-ye-tin, or Woman’s Heart, his x mark,
[SEAL.]
ARTICLE 4. Sa-tim-gear, or Stumbling Bear, his x mark,
In consideration of the advantages conferred by this [SEAL.]
supplementary treaty upon the the Apache tribe of Sa-pa-ga, or One Bear, his x mark, [SEAL.]
Indians, they agree to observe and faithfully comply Cor-beau, or The Crow, his x mark, [SEAL.]
with all the stipulations and agreements entered into Sa-ta-more, or Bear Lying Down, his x mark,
by the Kiowas and Comanches in said original [SEAL.]
treaty. They agree, in the same manner, to keep the
peace toward the whites and all other persons under On the part of the Comanches:
the jurisdiction of the United States, and to do and Parry-wah-say-men, or Ten Bears, his x mark,
perform all other things enjoined upon said tribes by [SEAL.]
the provisions of said treaty; and they hereby give Tep-pe-navon, or Painted Lips, his x mark,
up and forever relinquish to the United States all [SEAL.]
rights, privileges, and grants now vested in them, or To-she-wi, or Silver Brooch, his x mark, [SEAL.]
intended to be transferred to them, by the treaty Cear-chi-neka, or Standing Feather, his x mark,
between the United States and the Cheyenne and [SEAL.]
Arapahoe tribes of Indians, concluded at the camp Ho-we-ar, or Gap in the Woods, his x mark,
on the Little Arkansas River, in the State of Kansas, [SEAL.]
on the fourteenth day of October, one thousand eight Tir-ha-yah-gua-hip, or Horse’s Back, his x mark,
hundred and sixty-five, and also by the supplemen- [SEAL.]
tary treaty, concluded at the same place on the sev- Es-a-man-a-ca, or Wolf’s Name, his x mark,
enteenth day of the same month, between the United [SEAL.]
States, of the one part, and the Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Ah-te-es-ta, or Little Horn, his x mark, [SEAL.]
and Apache tribes, of the other part. In testimony of Pooh-yah-to-yeh-be, or Iron Mountain, his x
all which, the said parties have hereunto set their mark, [SEAL.]
hands and seals at the place and on the day herein- Sad-dy-yo, or Dog Fat, his x mark, [SEAL.]
before stated.
On the part of the Apaches:
N. G. Taylor, [SEAL.] Mah-vip-pah, Wolf’s Sleeve, his x mark,
President of Indian Commission. [SEAL.]
Kon-zhon-ta-co, Poor Bear, his x mark, [SEAL.]
Wm. S. Harney, [SEAL.] Cho-se-ta, or Bad Back, his x mark, [SEAL.]
Brevet Major-General, Commissioner, &c. Nah-tan, or Brave Man, his x mark, [SEAL.]
Ba-zhe-ech, Iron Shirt, his x mark, [SEAL.]
C. C. Augur, [SEAL.] Til-la-ka, or White Horn, his x mark, [SEAL.]
Brevet Major-General.
Attest:
Alfred H. Terry, [SEAL.] Ashton S. H. White, secretary.
Brevet Major-General and Brigadier-General. Geo. B. Willis, reporter.
John B. Sanborn, [SEAL.] Philip McCusker, interpreter.
Samuel F. Tappan, [SEAL.] John D. Howland, clerk Indian Commission.

552 Treaty with the Navajo, 1868
Sam’l S. Smoot, United States surveyor. reimbursed for his loss from the annuities or other
A. A. Taylor. moneys due or to become due to them under this
J. H. Leavenworth, United States Indian agent. treaty, or any others that may be made with the
Thos. Murphy, superintendent Indian affairs. United States. And the President may prescribe such
Joel H. Elliott, major, Seventh U.S. Cavalry. 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 vio-
Treaty with the Navajo, 1868 lating, or because of his violating, the provisions of
June 1, 1868. | 15 Stats., p. 667. | Ratified July this treaty or the laws of the United States, shall be
25, 1868. | Proclaimed Aug. 12, 1868. reimbursed therefor.
Articles of a treaty and agreement made and
entered into at Fort Sumner, New Mexico, on the ARTICLE 2.
first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and The United States agrees that the following district
sixty-eight, by and between the United States, repre- of country, to wit: bounded on the north by the 37th
sented by its commissioners, Lieutenant-General W. degree of north latitude, south by an east and west
T. Sherman and Colonel Samuel F. Tappan, of the line passing through the site of old Fort Defiance, in
one part, and the Navajo Nation or tribe of Indians, Cañon Bonito, east by the parallel of longitude
represented by their chiefs and head-men, duly which, if prolonged south, would pass through old
authorized and empowered to act for the whole Fort Lyon, or the Ojo-de-oso, Bear Spring, and west
people of said nation or tribe, (the names of said by a parallel of longitude about 109° 30° west of
chiefs and head-men being hereto subscribed,) of Greenwich, provided it embraces the outlet of the
the other part, witness: Cañon-de-Chilly, which cañon is to be all included in
this reservation, shall be, and the same is hereby, set
ARTICLE 1. apart for the use and occupation of the Navajo tribe
From this day forward all war between the parties to of Indians, and for such other friendly tribes or indi-
this agreement shall forever cease. The Government vidual Indians as from time to time they may be
of the United States desires peace, and its honor is willing, with the consent of the United States, to
hereby pledged to keep it. The Indians desire peace, admit among them; and the United States agrees
and they now pledge their honor to keep it. that no persons except those herein so authorized to
do, and except such officers, soldiers, agents, and
If bad men among the whites, or among other employées of the Government, or of the Indians, as
people subject to the authority of the United States, may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations
shall commit any wrong upon the person or prop- in discharge of duties imposed by law, or the orders
erty of the Indians, the United States will, upon of the President, shall ever be permitted to pass over,
proof made to the agent and forwarded to the Com- settle upon, or reside in, the territory described in
missioner of Indian Affairs at Washington City, pro- this article.
ceed at once to cause the offender to be arrested and
punished according to the laws of the United States, ARTICLE 3.
and also to reimburse the injured persons for the The United States agrees to cause to be built, at
loss sustained. some point within said reservation, where timber
and water may be convenient, the following build-
If the bad men among the Indians shall commit a ings: a warehouse, to cost not exceeding twenty-five
wrong or depredation upon the person or property hundred dollars; an agency building for the resi-
of any one, white, black, or Indian, subject to the dence of the agent, not to cost exceeding three thou-
authority of the United States and at peace there- sand dollars; a carpenter-shop and blacksmith-shop,
with, the Navajo tribe agree that they will, on proof not to cost exceeding one thousand dollars each;
made to their agent, and on notice by him, deliver and a schoolhouse and chapel, so soon as a suffi-
up the wrongdoer to the United States, to be tried cient number of children can be induced to attend
and punished according to its laws; and in case they school, which shall not cost to exceed five thousand
wilfully refuse so to do, the person injured shall be dollars.

ARTICLE 4. The United States may pass such laws on the

The United States agrees that the agent for the Nava- subject of alienation and descent of property
jos shall make his home at the agency building; that between the Indians and their descendants as may
he shall reside among them, and shall keep an office be thought proper.
open at all times for the purpose of prompt and dili-
gent inquiry into such matters of complaint by or ARTICLE 6.
against the Indians as may be presented for investi- In order to insure the civilization of the Indians
gation, as also for the faithful discharge of other entering into this treaty, the necessity of education is
duties enjoined by law. In all cases of depredation on admitted, especially of such of them as may be set-
person or property he shall cause the evidence to be tled on said agricultural parts of this reservation,
taken in writing and forwarded, together with his and they therefore pledge themselves to compel
finding, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, their children, male and female, between the ages of
whose decision shall be binding on the parties to this six and sixteen years, to attend school; and it is
treaty. hereby made the duty of the agent for said Indians
to see that this stipulation is strictly complied with;
ARTICLE 5. and the United States agrees that, for every thirty
If any individual belonging to said tribe, or legally children between said ages who can be induced or
incorporated with it, being the head of a family, compelled to attend school, a house shall be pro-
shall desire to commence farming, he shall have the vided, and a teacher competent to teach the elemen-
privilege to select, in the presence and with the tary branches of an English education shall be fur-
assistance of the agent then in charge, a tract of land nished, who will reside among said Indians, and
within said reservation, not exceeding one hundred faithfully discharge his or her duties as a teacher.
and sixty acres in extent, which tract, when so
selected, certified, and recorded in the “land-book” The provisions of this article to continue for not less
as herein described, shall cease to be held in com- than ten years.
mon, but the same may be occupied and held in the
exclusive possession of the person selecting it, and ARTICLE 7.
of his family, so long as he or they may continue to When the head of a family shall have selected lands
cultivate it. and received his certificate as above directed, and
the agent shall be satisfied that he intends in good
Any person over eighteen years of age, not being the faith to commence cultivating the soil for a living, he
head of a family, may in like manner select, and shall be entitled to receive seeds and agricultural
cause to be certified to him or her for purposes of implements for the first year, not exceeding in value
cultivation, a quantity of land, not exceeding eighty one hundred dollars, and for each succeeding year
acres in extent, and thereupon be entitled to the he shall continue to farm, for a period of two years,
exclusive possession of the same as above directed. 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 con-
taining a description thereof, and the name of the ARTICLE 8.
person selecting it, with a certificate endorsed In lieu of all sums of money or other annuities pro-
thereon, that the same has been recorded, shall be vided to be paid to the Indians herein named under
delivered to the party entitled to it by the agent, after any treaty or treaties heretofore made, the United
the same shall have been recorded by him in a book States agrees to deliver at the agency-house on the
to be kept in his office, subject to inspection, which reservation herein named, on the first day of Sep-
said book shall be known as the “Navajo land- tember of each year for ten years, the following arti-
book.” cles, to wit:
The President may at any time order a survey of the Such articles of clothing, goods, or raw materials in
reservation, and when so surveyed, Congress shall lieu thereof, as the agent may make his estimate for,
provide for protecting the rights of said settlers in not exceeding in value five dollars per Indian—each
their improvements, and may fix the character of the Indian being encouraged to manufacture their own
title held by each. clothing, blankets, &c.; to be furnished with no article

554 Treaty with the Navajo, 1868
which they can manufacture themselves. And, in trains, coaches, mules, or cattle belonging to the
order that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may people of the United States, or to persons friendly
be able to estimate properly for the articles herein therewith.
named, it shall be the duty of the agent each year to
forward to him a full and exact census of the Indians, 4th. That they will never capture or carry off from
on which the estimate from year to year can be based. the settlements women or children.
And in addition to the articles herein named, the 5th. They will never kill or scalp white men, nor
sum of ten dollars for each person entitled to the attempt to do them harm.
beneficial effects of this treaty shall be annually
appropriated for a period of ten years, for each 6th. They will not in future oppose the construction of
person who engages in farming or mechanical pur- railroads, wagon-roads, mail stations, or other works
suits, to be used by the Commissioner of Indian of utility or necessity which may be ordered or per-
Affairs in the purchase of such articles as from time mitted by the laws of the United States; but should
to time the condition and necessities of the Indians such roads or other works be constructed on the lands
may indicate to be proper; and if within the ten of their reservation, the Government will pay the tribe
years at any time it shall appear that the amount of whatever amount of damage may be assessed by
money needed for clothing, under the article, can three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by
be appropriated to better uses for the Indians the President for that purpose, one of said commis-
named herein, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs sioners to be a chief or head-men of the tribe.
may change the appropriation to other purposes,
but in no event shall the amount of this appropria- 7th. They will make no opposition to the military
tion be withdrawn or discontinued for the period posts or roads now established, or that may be estab-
named, provided they remain at peace. And the lished, not in violation of treaties heretofore made or
President shall annually detail an officer of the hereafter to be made with any of the Indian tribes.
Army to be present and attest the delivery of all
the goods herein named to the Indians, and he ARTICLE 10.
shall inspect and report on the quantity and qual- No future treaty for the cession of any portion or
ity of the goods and the manner of their delivery. part of the reservation herein described, which may
be held in common, shall be of any validity or force
ARTICLE 9. against said Indians unless agreed to and executed
In consideration of the advantages and benefits con- by at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians
ferred by this treaty, and the many pledges of friend- occupying or interested in the same; and no cession
ship by the United States, the tribes who are parties by the tribe shall be understood or construed in such
to this agreement hereby stipulate that they will manner as to deprive, without his consent, any indi-
relinquish all right to occupy any territory outside vidual member of the tribe of his rights to any tract
their reservation, as herein defined, but retain the of land selected by him as provided in article [5] of
right to hunt on any unoccupied lands contiguous to this treaty.
their reservation, so long as the large game may
range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase; ARTICLE 11.
and they, the said Indians, further expressly agree: The Navajos also hereby agree that at any time after
the signing of these presents they will proceed in
1st. That they will make no opposition to the con- such manner as may be required of them by the
struction of railroads now being built or hereafter to agent, or by the officer charged with their removal,
be built across the continent. to the reservation herein provided for, the United
States paying for their subsistence en route, and pro-
2d. That they will not interfere with the peaceful viding a reasonable amount of transportation for the
construction of any railroad not passing over their sick and feeble.
reservation as herein defined.
ARTICLE 12.
3d. That they will not attack any persons at home It is further agreed by and between the parties
or travelling, nor molest or disturb any wagon- to this agreement that the sum of one hundred and

fifty thousand dollars appropriated or to be appro- apart for the exclusive use and occupation of the
priated shall be disbursed as follows, subject to any Indians.
condition provided in the law, to wit: In testimony of all which the said parties have
hereunto, on this the first day of June, one thousand
1st. The actual cost of the removal of the tribe from eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Fort Sumner, in the
the Bosque Redondo reservation to the reservation, Territory of New Mexico, set their hands and seals.
say fifty thousand dollars.
W. T. Sherman, Lieutenant-General, Indian
2d. The purchase of fifteen thousand sheep and Peace Commissioner.
goats, at a cost not to exceed thirty thousand S. F. Tappan, Indian Peace Commissioner.
dollars.
Barboncito, chief, his x mark,
3d. The purchase of five hundred beef cattle and a Armijo, his x mark,
million pounds of corn, to be collected and held at Delgado, his mark,
the military post nearest the reservation, subject to Manuelito, his x mark,
the orders of the agent, for the relief of the needy Largo, his x mark,
during the coming winter. Herrero, his x mark,
Chiqueto, his x mark,
4th. The balance, if any, of the appropriation to be Muerto de Hombre, his x mark,
invested for the maintenance of the Indians pending Hombro, his x mark,
their removal, in such manner as the agent who is Narbono, his x mark,
with them may determine. Narbono Segundo, his x mark,
Gañado Mucho, his x mark
5th. The removal of this tribe to be made under the
supreme control and direction of the military com- Council:
mander of the Territory of New Mexico, and when Riquo, his x mark,
completed, the management of the tribe to revert to Juan Martin, his x mark,
the proper agent. Serginto, his x mark,
Grande, his x mark,
ARTICLE 13. Inoetenito, his x mark,
The tribe herein named, by their representatives, Muchachos Mucho, his x mark,
parties to this treaty, agree to make the reservation Chiqueto Segundo, his x mark,
herein described their permanent home, and they Cabello Amarillo, his x mark,
will not as a tribe make any permanent settlement Francisco, his x mark,
elsewhere, reserving the right to hunt on the lands Torivio, his x mark,
adjoining the said reservation formerly called Desdendado, his x mark,
theirs, subject to the modifications named in this Juan, his x mark,
treaty and the orders of the commander of the Guero, his x mark,
department in which said reservation may be for Gugadore, his x mark,
the time being; and it is further agreed and under- Cabason, his x mark,
stood by the parties to this treaty, that if any Barbon Segundo, his x mark,
Navajo Indian or Indians shall leave the reserva- Cabares Colorados, his x mark
tion herein described to settle elsewhere, he or they
shall forfeit all the rights, privileges, and annuities Attest:
conferred by the terms of this treaty; and it is fur- Geo. W. G. Getty, colonel Thirty-seventh
ther agreed by the parties to this treaty, that they Infantry, brevet major-general U. S. Army,
will do all they can to induce Indians now away B. S. Roberts, brevet brigadier-general U. S.
from reservations set apart for the exclusive use Army, lieutenant-colonel Third Cavalry,
and occupation of the Indians, leading a nomadic J. Cooper McKee, brevet lieutenant-colonel,
life, or engaged in war against the people of the surgeon U. S. Army,
United States, to abandon such a life and settle per- Theo. H. Dodd, United States Indian agent for
manently in one of the territorial reservations set Navajos,

556 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868
Chas. McClure, brevet major and commissary of shall be re-imbursed for his loss from the annuities
subsistence, U. S. Army, or other moneys due or to become due to them
James F. Weeds, brevet major and assistant under this or other treaties made with the United
surgeon, U. S. Army, States. And the President, on advising with the
J. C. Sutherland, interpreter, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, shall prescribe such
William Vaux, chaplain U. S. Army rules and regulations for ascertaining damages
under the provisions of this article as in his judg-
ment 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
Treaty with the Eastern Band because of his violating the provisions of this treaty
Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868 or the laws of the United States, shall be reimbursed
therefor.
July 3, 1968
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Fort
ARTICLE 2.
Bridger, Utah Territory, on the third day of July, in
It is agreed that whenever the Bannacks desire a
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
reservation to be set apart for their use, or whenever
and sixty-eight, by and between the undersigned
the President of the United States shall deem it
commissioners on the part of the United States, and
advisable for them to be put upon a reservation, he
the undersigned chiefs and head-men of and repre-
shall cause a suitable one to be selected for them in
senting the Shoshonee (eastern band)and Bannack
their present country, which shall embrace reason-
tribes of Indians, they being duly authorized to act in
able portions of the “PortNeuf” and “Kansas
the premises:
Prairie” countries, and that, when this reservation is
declared, the United States will secure to the Ban-
ARTICLE 1. nacks the same rights and privileges therein, and
From this day forward peace between the parties to make the same and like expenditures therein for
this treaty shall forever continue. The Government their benefit, except the agency-house and residence
of the United States desires peace, and its honor is of agent, in proportion to their numbers, as herein
hereby pledged to keep it. The Indians desire peace, provided for the Shoshonee reservation. The United
and they hereby pledge their honor to maintain it. States further agrees that the following district of
country, to wit: Commencing at the mouth of Owl
If bad men among the whites, or among other peo- Creek and running due south to the crest of the
ple subject to the authority of the United States, shall divide between the Sweet-water and Papo Agie
commit any wrong upon the person or property of Rivers; thence along the crest of said divide and the
the Indians, the United States will, upon proof made summit of Wind River Mountains to the longitude
to the agent and forwarded to the Commissioner of of North Fork of Wind River; thence due north to
Indian Affairs, at Washington City, proceed at once mouth of said North Fork and up its channel to a
to cause the offender to be arrested and punished point twenty miles above its mouth; thence in a
according to the laws of the United States, and also straight line to head-waters of Owl Creek and along
re-imburse the injured person for the loss sustained. middle of channel of Owl Creek to place of begin-
ning, shall be and the same is set apart for the
If bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the
or depredation upon the person or property of any Shoshonee Indians herein named, and for such
one, white, black, or Indian, subject to the authority other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from
of the United States, and at peace therewith, the time to time they may be willing, with the consent
Indians herein named solemnly agree that they will, of the United States, to admit amongst them; and
on proof made to their agent and notice by him, the United States now solemnly agrees that no per-
deliver up the wrong-doer to the United States, to sons except those herein designated and authorized
be tried and punished according to the laws; and in so to do, and except such officers, agents, and
case they wilfully refuse so to do, the person injured employés of the Government as may be authorized

Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868 557
to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of matters of complaint by and against the Indians as
duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to may be presented for investigation under the provi-
pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory sions of their treaty stipulations, as also for the faith-
described in this article for the use of said Indians, ful discharge of other duties enjoined by law. In all
and henceforth they will and do hereby relinquish cases of depredation on person or property he shall
all title, claims, or rights in and to any portion of the cause the evidence to be taken in writing and for-
territory of the United States, except such as is warded, together with his finding, to the Commis-
embraced within the limits aforesaid. sioner of Indian Affairs, whose decision shall be
binding on the parties to this treaty.
ARTICLE 3.
The United States agrees, at its own proper expense, ARTICLE 6.
to construct at a suitable point of the Shoshonee If any individual belonging to said tribes of Indians,
reservation a warehouse or store-room for the use of or legally incorported with them, being the head of a
the agent in storing goods belonging to the Indians, family, shall desire to commence farming, he shall
to cost not exceeding two thousand dollars; an have the privilege to select, in the presence and with
agency building for the residence of the agent, to the assistance of the agent then in charge, a tract of
cost not exceeding three thousand; a residence for land within the reservation of his tribe, not exceed-
the physician, to cost not more than two thousand ing three hundred and twenty acres in extent, which
dollars; and five other buildings, for a carpenter, tract so selected, certified, and recorded in the “land-
farmer, blacksmith, miller, and engineer, each to cost book,” as herein directed, shall cease to be held in
not exceeding two thousand dollars; also a school- common, but the same may be occupied and held in
house or mission building so soon as a sufficient the exclusive possession of the person selecting it,
number of children can be induced by the agent to and of his family, so long as he or they may continue
attend school, which shall not cost exceeding to cultivate it.
twenty-five hundred dollars.
Any person over eighteen years of age, not being the
The United States agrees further to cause to be head of a family, may in like manner select and cause
erected on said Shoshonee reservation, near the other to be certified to him or her, for purposes of cultiva-
buildings herein authorized, a good steam circular- tion, a quantity of land not exceeding eighty acres in
saw mill, with a grist-mill and shingle-machine extent, and thereupon be entitled to the exclusive
attached, the same to cost not more than eight thou- possession of the same as above described. For each
sand dollars. tract of land so selected a certificate, containing a
description thereof, and the name of the person
ARTICLE 4. selecting it, with a certificate indorsed thereon that
The Indians herein named agree, when the agency the same has been recorded, shall be delivered to the
house and other buildings shall be constructed on party entitled to it by the agent, after the same shall
their reservations named, they will make said reser- have been recorded by him in a book to be kept in
vations their permanent home, and they will make his office subject to inspection, which said book shall
no permanent settlement elsewhere; but they shall be known as the “Shoshone (eastern band) and Ban-
have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the nack land-book.”
United States so long as game may be found thereon,
and so long as peace subsists among the whites and The President may at any time order a survey of
Indians on the borders of the hunting districts. these reservations, and when so surveyed Congress
shall provide for protecting the rights of the Indian
ARTICLE 5. settlers in these improvements, and may fix the char-
The United States agrees that the agent for said Indi- acter of the title held by each. The United States may
ans shall in the future make his home at the agency pass such laws on the subject of alienation and
building on the Shoshonee reservation, but shall descent of property as between Indians, and on all
direct and supervise affairs on the Bannack reserva- subjects connected with the government of the Indi-
tion; and shall keep an office open at all times for the ans on said reservations, and the internal police
purpose of prompt and diligent inquiry into such thereof, as may be thought proper.

558 Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868
ARTICLE 7. of woollen socks; for each female over twelve years

In order to insure the civilization of the tribes enter- of age, a flannel skirt, or the goods necessary to
ing into this treaty, the necessity of education is make it, a pair of woollen hose, twelve yards of cal-
admitted, especially of such of them as are or may ico; and twelve yards of cotton domestics.
be settled on said agricultural reservations, and they For the boys and girls under the ages named,
therefore pledge themselves to compel their chil- such flannel and cotton goods as may be needed to
dren, male and female, between the ages of six and make each a suit as aforesaid, together with a pair of
sixteen years, to attend school; and it is hereby woollen hose for each.
made the duty of the agent for said Indians to see
that this stipulation is strictly complied with; and And in order that the Commissioner of Indian
the United States agrees that for every thirty chil- Affairs may be able to estimate properly for the
dren between said ages who can be induced or com- articles herein named, it shall be the duty of the
pelled to attend school, a house shall be provided agent each year to forward to him a full and exact
and a teacher competent to teach the elementary census of the Indians, on which the estimate from
branches of an English education shall be furnished, year to year can be based; and in addition to the
who will reside among said Indians and faithfully clothing herein named, the sum of ten dollars shall
discharge his or her duties as a teacher. The provi- be annually appropriated for each Indian roaming
sions as this article to continue for twenty years. and twenty dollars for each Indian engaged in agri-
culture, for a period of ten years, to be used by the
ARTICLE 8. Secretary of the Interior in the purchase of such
When the head of a family or lodge shall have articles as from time to time the condition and
selected lands and received his certificate as above necessities of the Indians may indicate to be proper.
directed, and the agent shall be satisfied that he And if at any time within the ten years it shall
intends in good faith to commence cultivating the appear that the amount of money needed for cloth-
soil for a living, he shall be entitled to receive seeds ing under this article can be appropriated to better
and agricultural implements for the first year, in uses for the tribes herein named, Congress may by
value one hundred dollars, and for each succeeding law change the appropriation to other purposes;
year he shall continue to farm, for a period of three but in no event shall the amount of this appropria-
years more, he shall be entitled to receive seeds and tion be withdrawn or discontinued for the period
implements as aforesaid in value twenty-five dollars named. And the President shall annually detail an
per annum. officer of the Army to be present and attest the
delivery of all the goods herein named to the Indi-
And it is further stipulated that such persons as ans, and he shall inspect and report on the quantity
commence farming shall receive instructions from and quality of the goods and the manner of their
the farmers herein provided for, and whenever more delivery.
than one hundred persons on either reservation shall
enter upon the cultivation of the soil, a second black- ARTICLE 10.
smith shall be provided, with such iron, steel, and The United States hereby agrees to furnish annually
other material as may be required. to the Indians the physician, teachers, carpenter,
miller, engineer, farmer, and blacksmith, as herein
ARTICLE 9. contemplated, and that such appropriations shall be
In lieu of all sums of money or other annuities pro- made from time to time, on the estimates of the Sec-
vided to be paid to the Indians herein named, under retary of the Interior, as will be sufficient to employ
any and all treaties heretofore made with them, the such persons.
United States agrees to deliver at the agency-house
on the reservation here in provided for, on the first ARTICLE 11.
day of September of each year, for thirty years, the No treaty for the cession of any portion of the reser-
following articles, to wit: vations herein described which may be held in com-
For each male person over fourteen years of age, mon shall be of any force or validity as against the
a suit of good substantial woollen clothing, consist- said Indians, unless executed and signed by at least a
ing of coat, hat, pantaloons, flannel shirt, and a pair majority of all the adult male Indians occupying or

interested in the same; and no cession by the tribe Pan-sook-a-motse, his x mark.
shall be understood or construed in such manner as A-wite-etse, his x mark.
to deprive without his consent, any individual mem-
ber of the tribe of his right to any tract of land Witnesses:
selected by him, as provided in Article 6 of this treaty. Henry A. Morrow,
Lieutenant-Colonel Thirty-sixth Infantry and,
ARTICLE 12. Brevet Colonel U. S. Army. Commanding Fort
It is agreed that the sum of five hundred dollars Bridger,
annually, for three years from the date when they Luther Manpa, United States Indian agent,
commence to cultivate a farm, shall be expended in W. A. Carter,
presents to the ten persons of said tribe who, in the J. Van Allen Carter, interpreter.
judgment of the agent, may grow the most valuable
crops for the respective year.
ARTICLE 13. Treaties 1 and 2, 1871

It is further agreed that until such time as the Treaty No. 1, Aug 3, 1871
agency-buildings are established on the Shoshonee Treaty No. 2. Aug. 21, 1871
reservation, their agent shall reside at Fort Bridger, Between Her Majesty the Queen and the
U. T., and their annuities shall be delivered to them Chippewa and Cree Indians of Manitoba
at the same place in June of each year. and Country Adjacent with Adhesions
Treaty No. 1
N. G. Taylor, [SEAL.], ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this
W. T. Sherman, [SEAL.] Lieutenant- third day of August in the year of Our Lord one thou-
General.Wm. S. Harney, [SEAL.], sand eight hundred and seventy-one, between Her
John B. Sanborn, [SEAL.], Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain
S. F. Tappan, [SEAL.], and Ireland by Her Commissioner, Wemyss M. Simp-
C. C. Augur, [SEAL.], son, Esquire, of the one part, and the Chippewa and
Brevet Major-General, U. S. Army, Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the
Commissioners., country within the limits hereinafter defined and
Alfred H. Terry, [SEAL.], described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as here-
Brigadier-General and Brevet Major-General, inafter mentioned, of the other part.
U. S. Army
Whereas all the Indians inhabiting the said country
Attest: have pursuant to an appointment made by the said
A. S. H. White, Secretary Commissioner, been convened at a meeting at the
Stone Fort, otherwise called Lower Fort Garry, to
Shoshones: deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her
Wash-a-kie, his x mark, Most Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and to the
Wau-ny-pitz, his x mark, said Indians of the other, and whereas the said Indi-
Toop-se-po-wot, his x mark, ans have been notified and informed by Her
Nar-kok, his x mark, Majesty’s said Commissioner that it is the desire of
Taboonshe-ya, his x mark, Her Majesty to open up to settlement and immigra-
Bazeel, his x mark, tion a tract of country bounded and described as
Pan-to-she-ga, his x mark, hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent
Ninny-Bitse, his x mark. thereto of her Indian subjects inhabiting the said
tract, and to make a treaty and arrangements with
Bannacks: them so that there may be peace and good will
Taggee, his x mark. between them and Her Majesty, and that they may
Tay-to-ba, his x mark. know and be assured of what allowance they are to
We-rat-ze-won-a-gen, his x mark. count upon and receive year by year from Her
Coo-sha-gan, his x mark. ajesty’s bounty and benevolence.

560 Treaties 1 and 2, 1871
And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly con- way between Oak Point and the mouth of Swan
vened in council as aforesaid, and being requested Creek; thence across Lake Manitoba in a line due
by Her Majesty’s said Commissioner to name certain west to its western shore; thence in a straight line to
Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized on the crossing of the rapids on the Assiniboine; thence
their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign due south to the international boundary line; and
any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become thence eastwardly by the said line to the place of
responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful perfor- beginning. To have and to hold the same to Her said
mance by their respective bands of such obligations Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever; and
as should be assumed by them, the said Indians Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and under-
have thereupon named the following persons for takes to lay aside and reserve for the sole and exclu-
that purpose, that is to say: sive use of the Indians the following tracts of land,
that is to say: For the use of the Indians belonging to
Mis-koo-kenew or Red Eagle (Henry Prince), Ka-ke- the band of which Henry Prince, otherwise called
ka-penais, or Bird for ever, Na-sha-ke-penais, or Fly- Mis-koo-ke-new is the Chief, so much of land on both
ing down bird, Na-na-wa-nanaw, or Centre of Bird’s sides of the Red River, beginning at the south line of
Tail, Ke-we-tayash, or Flying round, Wa-ko-wush, or St. Peter’s Parish, as will furnish one hundred and
Whip-poor-will, Oo-za-we-kwun, or Yellow Quill,— sixty acres for each family of five, or in that propor-
and thereupon in open council the different bands tion for larger or smaller families; and for the use of
have presented their respective Chiefs to His Excel- the Indians of whom Na-sha-ke-penais, Na-na-wa-
lency the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of nanaw, Ke-we-tayash and Wa-ko-wush are the
Manitoba and of the North-West Territory being Chiefs, so much land on the Roseau River as will fur-
present at such council, and to the said Commis- nish one hundred and sixty acres for each family of
sioner, as the Chiefs and Headman for the purposes five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller fami-
aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabit- lies, beginning from the mouth of the river; and for
ing the said district hereinafter described; and the use of the Indians of which Ka-ke-ka-penais is the
whereas the said Lieutenant Governor and the said Chief, so much land on the Winnipeg River above
Commissioner then and there received and acknowl- Fort Alexander as will furnish one hundred and sixty
edged the persons so presented as Chiefs and Head- acres for each family of five, or in that proportion for
men for the purpose aforesaid; and whereas the said larger or smaller families, beginning at a distance of a
Commissioner has proceeded to negotiate a treaty mile or thereabout above the Fort; and for the use of
with the said Indians, and the same has finally been the Indians of whom Oo-za-we-kwun is Chief, so
agreed upon and concluded as follows, that is to say: much land on the south and east side of the Assini-
boine, about twenty miles above the Portage, as will
The Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians furnish one hundred and sixty acres for each family
and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereof five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller fam-
inafter described and defined do hereby cede, ilies, reserving also a further tract enclosing said
release, surrender and yield up to Her Majesty the reserve to comprise an equivalent to twenty-five
Queen and successors forever all the lands included square miles of equal breadth, to be laid out round
within the following limits, that is to say: Beginning the reserve, it being understood, however, that if, at
at the international boundary line near its junction the date of the execution of this treaty, there are any
with the Lake of the Woods, at a point due north settlers within the bounds of any lands reserved by
from the centre of Roseau Lake; thence to run due any band, Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with
north to the centre of Roseau Lake; thence northward such settlers as She shall deem just, so as not to
to the centre of White Mouth Lake, otherwise called diminish the extent of land allotted to the Indians.
White Mud Lake; thence by the middle of the lake
and the middle of the river issuing therefrom to the And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her
mouth thereof in Winnipeg River; thence by the Win- Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of
nipeg River to its mouth; thence westwardly, includ- Her Indians parties to this treaty, She hereby,
ing all the islands near the south end of the lake, through Her Commissioner, makes them a present of
across the lake to the mouth of Drunken River; three dollars for each Indian man, woman and child
thence westwardly to a point on Lake Manitoba half belonging to the bands here represented.

And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a THOMAS HOWARD, P.S.,

school on each reserve hereby made whenever the HENRY COCHRANE,
Indians of the reserve should desire it. JAMES McARRISTER,
HUGH McARRISTER,
Within the boundary of Indian reserves, until other- E. ALICE ARCHIBALD,
wise enacted by the proper legislative authority, no HENRI BOUTHILLIER,
intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced WEMYSS M. SIMPSON. [L.S.], Indian
or sold, and all laws now in force or hereafter to be Commissioner,
enacted to preserve Her Majesty’s Indian subjects MIS-KOO-KEE-NEW, or RED EAGLE,
inhabiting the reserves or living elsewhere from the (HENRY PRINCE), his x mark,
evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors shall KA-KE-KA-PENAIS (or BIRD FOR EVER),
be strictly enforced. WILLIAM PENNEFATHER, his x mark,
NA-SHA-KE-PENNAIS, or FLYING DOWN
Her Majesty’s Commissioner shall, as soon as pos- BIRD, his x mark,
sible after the execution of this treaty, cause to be NA-HA-WA-NANAN, or CENTRE OF BIRD’S
taken an accurate census of all the Indians inhabit- TAIL, his x mark,
ing the district above described, distributing them KE-WE-TAY-ASH, or FLYINGROUND, his x
in families, and shall in every year ensuing the date mark,
hereof, at some period during the month of July in WA-KO-WUSH, or WHIP-POOR-WILL, his x
each year, to be duly notified to the Indians and at mark,
or near their respective reserves, pay to each Indian OO-ZA-WE-KWUN, or YELLOW QUILL, his x
family of five persons the sum of fifteen dollars mark
Canadian currency, or in like proportion for a larger
or smaller family, such payment to be made in such Memorandum of things outside of the Treaty which were
articles as the Indians shall require of blankets, promised at the Treaty at the Lower Fort, signed the third
clothing, prints (assorted colours), twine or traps, at day of August, A.D. 1871.
the current cost price in Montreal, or otherwise, if
Her Majesty shall deem the same desirable in the • For each Chief who signed the treaty, a dress
interests of Her Indian people, in cash. distinguishing him as Chief.
• For braves and for councillors of each Chief a
And the undersigned Chiefs do hereby bind and dress; it being supposed that the braves and
pledge themselves and their people strictly to councillors will be two for each Chief.
observe this treaty and to maintain perpetual peace • For each Chief, except Yellow Quill, a buggy.
between themselves and Her Majesty’s white sub- • For the braves and councillors of each Chief,
jects, and not to interfere with the property or in any except Yellow Quill, a buggy.
way molest the persons of Her Majesty’s white or • In lieu of a yoke of oxen for each reserve, a
other subjects. bull for each, and a cow for each Chief; a
boar for each reserve and a sow for each
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Com- Chief, and a male and female of each kind of
missioner and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto animal raised by farmers, these when the
subscribed and set their hand and seal at Lower Fort Indians are prepared to receive them.
Garry, this day and year herein first above named. • A plough and a harrow for each settler
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of, cultivating the ground.
the same having been first read and explained: • These animals and their issue to be Govern-
ment property, but to be allowed for the use
ADAMS G. ARCHIBALD, of the Indians, under the superintendence
Lieut.-Gov. of Man. and N.W. Territories. and control of the Indian Commissioner.
JAMES McKAY, P.L.C. • The buggies to be the property of the Indians
A. G. IRVINE, Major, to whom they are given.
ABRAHAM COWLEY, • The above contains an inventory of the terms
DONALD GUNN, M.L.C., concluded with the Indians.

WEMYSS M. SIMPSON, The Committee submit the foregoing recommenda-

MOLYNEUX St. JOHN, tion for Your Excellency’s approval:
A. G. ARCHIBALD,
JAS. McKAY. W. A. HIMSWORTH,
Clerk Privy Council.
COPY of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable
the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Certified,
Governor General in Council on the 30th April, 1875. W. A. HIMSWORTH,
Clerk Privy Council.
On a memorandum dated 27th April, 1875, from the
Honourable the Minister of the Interior, bringing
under consideration the very unsatisfactory state of We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen of
affairs arising out of the so-called “outside Indian bands, representing bands of Indians who
promises” in connection with the Indian Treaties were parties to the Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, men-
Nos. 1 and 2, Manitoba and North-west Territories, tioned in the report of the Committee of the
concluded, the former on the 3rd August, 1871, and Queen’s Privy Council of Canada, above printed,
the latter on 21st of the same month, and recom- having had communication thereof, and fully
mending for the reasons stated: understanding the same assent thereto and accept
the increase of annuities therein mentioned, on the
1st. That the written memorandum attached to condition therein stated, and with the assent and
Treaty No. 1 be considered as part of that Treaty and approval of their several bands, it being agreed,
of Treaty No. 2, and that the Indian Commissioner be however, with the Queen’s Commissioners, that
instructed to carry out the promises therein con- the number of braves and councillors for each
tained, in so far as they have not yet been carried Chief shall be four, as at present, instead of two, as
out, and that the Commissioner be advised to inform printed 1875.
the Indians that he has been authorized so to do.
2nd. That the Indian Commissioner be instructed to In the presence of the following:
inform the Indians, parties to Treaties Nos. 1 and 2,
that, while the Government cannot admit their claim ALEX. MORRIS, L.G. [S.L.].
to any thing which is not set forth in the treaty, and JAMES McKAY.
in the memorandum attached thereto, which treaty ISAAC COWIE.
is binding alike upon the Government and upon the FRANCIS FIELD.
Indians, yet, as there seems to have been some mis- JOHN A. DAVIDSON.
understanding between the Indian Commissioner CHARLES WOOD.
and the Indians in the matter of Treaties Nos. 1 and
2, the Government, out of good feeling to the Indians Representing East-Manitoba or Elm Point:
and as a matter of benevolence, is willing to raise the SON-SONSE, chief, his x mark,
annual payment to each Indian under Treaties Nos. 1 NA-KA-NA-WA-TANG, his x mark,
and 2, from $3 to $5 per annum, and make payment PA-PA-WE-GUN-WA-TAK, his x mark,
over and above such sum of $5, of $20 each and
every year to each Chief, and a suit of clothing every Councillors.
three years to each Chief and each Headman, allow- Representing Fairford Prairie:
ing two Headmen to each band, on the express MA-SAH-KEE-YASH, chief, his x mark,
understanding, however, that each Chief or other DAVID MARSDEN, Councillor, his x mark,
Indian who shall receive such increased annuity or JOSEPH SUMNER, Councillor, his x mark,
annual payment shall be held to abandon all claim
whatever against the Government in connection Representing Fairford Prairie:
with the so-called “outside promises,” other than RICHARD WOODHOUSE, chief,
those contained in the memorandum attached to the JOHN ANDERSON, Councillor,
treaty. JOHN THOMPSON, Councillor, his x mark

Formerly Crane River and now Ebb and Flow WM. LOUNT,
Lake: H. L. REYNOLDS.
PENAISE, chief, his x mark (son of deceased KAKEKEPENAIS, or (WILLIAM PENNEFA-
Broken Finger.), THER), his x mark,
BAPTISTE, Councillor, his x mark, JOSEPH KENT, his x mark,
KAH-NEE-QUA-NASH, Councillor, his x mark, PETANAQUAGE, or (HENRY VANE), his x
mark,
Representing Water Hen Band: PETER HENDERSON, his x mark,
KA-TAH-KAK-WA-NA-YAAS, chief, his x mark, KAY-PAYAHSINISK, his x mark.
WA-WAH-KOW-WEK-AH-POW, Councillor,
his x mark, Signed at Broken Head River, the twenty-eighth
day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand
Représentants de la rivière de la Tortue et de la eight hundred and seventy-five.
rivière de la Vallée ainsi que de Riding Mountain:
KEE-SICK-KOO-WE-NIN, chief, his x mark (in Witnesses:
place of Mekis, dead.), J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Indian Commissioner.
KEE-SAY-KEE-SICK, Councillor, his x mark, J. DUBUC,
NOS-QUASH, brave, his x mark, H. L. REYNOLDS,
BAPTISTE, brave, his x mark, DANIEL DEVLIN,
HENRY COOK.
Representing the St. Peter’s Band: NASHAKEPENAIS, his x mark
MIS-KOO-KE-NEW, (or Red Eagle), his x mark, AHKEESEEKWASKEMG, his x mark
MA-TWA-KA-KEE-TOOT, his x mark, NAYWAHEHEEKEEGIK, his x mark
I-AND-WAY-WAY, his x mark, MAYJAHKEEGEEQUAN, his x mark
MA-KO-ME-WE-KUN, his x mark, PAYSAUGA, his x mark
AS-SHO-AH-MEY, his x mark.
124
No. 124 We the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen of Indian
We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen of Indian bands representing bands of Indians who were par-
bands representing bands of Indians who were parties to the Treaties Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in the
ties to the Treaties Nos. 1 and 2, mentioned in the report of a Committee of the Queen’s Privy Council
report of a Committee of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada, as printed on the other side of this sheet,
of Canada, “as printed on the other side of this parch- having had communication thereof and full under-
ment,” having had communication thereof and fully standing of the same, assent thereto and accept the
understanding the same, assent thereto and accept increase of annuities therein mentioned, on the con-
the increase of annuities therein mentioned on the dition therein stated, and with the assent and
condition therein stated, and with the assent and approval of their several bands, it being agreed,
approval of their several bands, it being agreed, how- however, with the Queen’s Commissioners, that the
ever, with the Queen’s Commissioners, that the num- number of braves and councillors for each Chief
ber of braves and councillors for each Chief shall be shall be four, as at present, instead of two, as printed.
four, as at present, instead of two, as printed 1875.
Signed on the reserve at Rosseau River, 8th day of
Signed near Fort Alexander, on the Indian Reserve, September, 1875.
the twenty-third day of August in the year of Our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. J. A. N. PROVENCHER,
Indian Commissioner.
Witnesses:
J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Indian Commissioner. Witness:
J. DUBUC, JAS. F. GRAHAM.
A. DUBUC, MA-NA-WA-NANAN, (or CENTRE OF BIRD’S
JOSEPH MONKMAN, Interpreter. TAIL) Chief, his x mark,

KE-WE-SAY-ASH, (or FLYING ROUND), Chief, And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly con-
his x mark, vened in council as aforesaid, and being requested
WA-KOO-WUSH, (or WHIPPOORWILL) Chief, by Her Majesty’s said Commissioner to name certain
his x mark, Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized on
OSAH-WEE-KA-KAY, Councillor, his x mark, their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign
OSAYS-KOO-KOON, Councillor, his x mark, any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become
SHAY-WAY-ASH, Councillor, his x mark, responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful perfor-
SHE-SHE-PENSE, Councillor, his x mark, mance by their respective bands of such obligations
MA-MAH-TAK-CUM-E-CUP, Councillor, his x as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians have
mark, thereupon named the following persons for that pur-
PAH-TE-CU-WEE-NINN, Councillor, his x pose, that is to say:
mark,
PAH-TE-CU-WEE-NINN, Councillor, his x For the Swan Creek and Lake Manitoba Indians,
mark, Sou-sonse or Little Long Ears; for the Indians of
AK-KA-QUIN-IASH, Brave, his x mark, Fairford and the neighboring localities, Ma-sah-
ANA-WAY-WEE-TIN, Brave, his x mark, kee-yash or “He who flies to the bottom,” and
TIBIS-QUO-GE-SICK, Brave, his x mark, Richard Woodhouse, whose Indian name is Ke-
NE-SHO-TA, Brave, his x mark, wee-tah-quun-na-yash or “He who flies round the
NAT-TEE-KEE-GET, Brave, his x mark feathers”; for the Indians of Waterhen River and
Crane River and the neighboring localities, Fran-
cois, or Broken Fingers; and for the Indians of Rid-
Treaty No. 2 ing Mountains and Dauphin Lake and the remain-
ARTICLES OF TREATY made and concluded this der of the territory hereby ceded, Mekis (the Eagle),
twenty-first day of August, in the year of Our Lord or Giroux.
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one,
between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of And, thereupon, in open council the different bands
Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioner have presented their respective Chiefs to His Excel-
Wemyss M. Simpson, Esquire, of the one part, and lency the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba and of
the Chippewa Tribe of Indians, inhabitants of the the North-west Territory being present at such coun-
country within the limits hereinafter defined and cil and to the said Commissioner, as the Chiefs and
described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as Headmen, for the purposes aforesaid, of the respec-
hereinafter mentioned, of the other part. tive bands of Indians inhabiting the said district
hereinafter described; and whereas the said Lieu-
Whereas, all the Indians inhabiting the said coun- tenant Governor and the said Commissioner then
try have, pursuant to an appointment made by and there received and acknowledged the persons so
the said Commissioner, been convened at a meet- presented as Chiefs and Headmen for the purposes
ing at Manitoba Post to deliberate upon certain aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabit-
matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, ing the said district hereinafter described; and
of the one part, and to the said Indians of the whereas the said Commissioner has proceeded to
other; and whereas the said Indians have been negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, and the
notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said same has finally been agreed upon and concluded,
Commissioner that it is the desire of Her Majesty as follows, that is to say:
to open up to settlement and immigration a tract
of country bounded and described as hereinafter The Chippewa Tribe of Indians and all other the
mentioned and to obtain the consent thereto of Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described
her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and and defined do hereby cede, release, surrender and
to make a treaty and arrangement with them, so yield up to Her Majesty the Queen, and Her succes-
that there may be peace and good will between sors forever, all the lands included within the follow-
them and Her Majesty and that they may know ing limits, that is to say:
and be assured of what allowance they are to
count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s All that tract of country lying partly to the north
bounty and benevolence. and partly to the west of a tract of land ceded to Her

Majesty the Queen by the Indians inhabiting the And for the use of the Indians belonging to the band
Province of Manitoba, and certain adjacent locali- of which François, or Broken Fingers, is Chief, so
ties, under the terms of a treaty made at Lower Fort much land on Crane River, running into Lake Mani-
Garry on the third day of August last past, the land toba, as will make one hundred and sixty acres for
now intended to be ceded and surrendered being each family of five persons, or in the same propor-
particularly described as follows, that is to say: tion for a greater or smaller number of persons. And
Beginning at the mouth of Winnipeg River, on the for the use of the band of Indians belonging to the
north line of the lands ceded by said treaty; thence bands of which Ma-sah-kee-yash and Richard
running along the eastern shore of Lake Winnipeg Woodhouse are Chiefs, so much land on the river
northwardly as far as the mouth of Beren’s River; between Lake Manitoba and St. Martin’s Lake,
thence across said lake to its western shore, at the known as “Fairford River,” and including the pres-
north bank of the mouth of the Little Saskatchewan ent Indian mission grounds, as will make one hun-
or Dauphin River; thence up said stream and along dred and sixty acres for each family of five persons,
the northern and western shores thereof, and of St. or in the same proportion for a greater or smaller
Martin’s Lake, and along the north bank of the number of persons.
stream flowing into St. Martin’s Lake from Lake
Manitoba by the general course of such stream to And for the use of the Indians of whom Sou-sonce is
such last-mentioned lake; thence by the eastern and Chief, so much land on the east side of Lake Mani-
northern shores of Lake Manitoba to the mouth of toba, to be laid off north of the creek near which a
the Waterhen River; thence by the eastern and fallen elm tree now lies, and about half way between
northern shores of said river up stream to the north- Oak Point and Manitoba Post, so much land as will
ernmost extremity of a small lake known as Water- make one hundred and sixty acres for each family of
hen Lake; thence in a line due west to and across five persons, or in the same proportion for a greater
lake Winnepegosis; thence in a straight line to the or smaller number of persons. Saving, nevertheless,
most northerly waters forming the source of the the rights of any white or other settler now in occu-
Shell River; thence to a point west of the same two pation of any lands within the lines of any such
miles distant from the river, measuring at right reserve.
angles thereto; thence by a line parallel with the
Shell River to its mouth, and thence crossing the And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her
Assiniboine River and running parallel thereto and Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of
two miles distant therefrom, and to the westward Her Indians, parties to this treaty, She hereby,
thereof, to a point opposite Fort Ellice; thence in a through Her Commissioner, makes them a present of
south-westwardly course to the north-western point three dollars for each Indian man, woman and child
of the Moose Mountains; thence by a line due south belonging to the band here represented.
to the United States frontier; thence by the frontier
eastwardly to the westward line of said tract ceded And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school
by treaty as aforesaid; thence bounded thereby by in each reserve hereby made, whenever the Indians
the west, northwest and north lines of said tract, to of the reserve shall desire it.
the place of beginning, at the mouth of Winnipeg
River. To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that
the Queen and Her successors forever; and Her within the boundary of Indian reserves, until other-
Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to wise enacted by the proper legislative authority, no
lay aside and reserve for the sole and exclusive use intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced
of the Indians inhabiting the said tract the following or sold, and all laws now in force or hereafter to be
lots of land, that is to say: enacted to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting
the reserves or living elsewhere within Her North-
For the use of the Indians belonging to the band of West Territories, from the evil influence of the use of
which Mekis is Chief, so much land between Turtle intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced.
River and Valley River, on the south side of Lake
Dauphin, as will make one hundred and sixty acres And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioner shall,
for each family of five persons, or in the same pro- as soon as possible after the execution of this treaty,
portion for a greater or smaller number of persons. cause to be taken an accurate census of all the

566 Treaty 3, 1871
Indians inhabiting the tract above described, distrib- E. A. ARCHIBALD,

uting them in families, and shall in every year ensu- LILY ARCHIBALD,
ing the date hereof, at some period during the month HENRI BOUTHILLIER,
of August in each year to be duly notified to the Indi- PAUL DE LARONDE,
ans, and at or near their respective reserves, pay to DONALD McDONALD,
each Indian family of five persons the sum of fifteen ELIZA McDONALD,
dollars, Canadian currency, or in like proportion for ALEXANDER MUIR, Sr.,
a larger or smaller family, such payment to be made WEMYSS M. SIMPSON, [L.S.] Indian
in such articles as the Indians shall require of blan- Commissioner,
kets, clothing, prints (assorted colours), twine or MEKIS, his x mark,
traps, at the current cash price in Montreal, or other- SOU-SONCE, his x mark,
wise, if Her Majesty shall deem the same desirable in MA-SAH-KEE-YASH, his x mark,
the interest of Her Indian people, in cash. FRANÇOIS, his x mark,
RICHARD WOODHOUSE.
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 con-
duct and behave themselves as good and loyal sub- Treaty 3, 1871
jects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and Oct. 3, 1873
engage that they will in all respects obey and abide Between Her Majesty the Queen and the
by the law; that they will maintain peace and good Saulteaux Tribe of the Ojibbeway Indians at
order between each other, and also between them- the Northwest Angle on the Lake of the
selves and other tribes of Indians, and between Woods with Adhesions
themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, ORDER IN COUNCIL SETTING UP COMMISSION
whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or here- FOR TREATY 3
after to inhabit any part of the said ceded tract, and The Committee have had under consideration the
that they will not molest the person or property of memorandum dated 19th April, 1871, from the Hon.
any inhabitants of such ceded tract, or the property the Secretary of State for the provinces submitting
of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trou- with reference to his report of the 17th of the same
ble any person passing or travelling through the said month that the Indians mentioned in the last para-
tract, or any part thereof, and that they will aid and graph of that report and with whom it will be neces-
assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to jus- sary first to deal occupy the country from the water
tice and punishment any Indian offending against shed of Lake Superior to the north west angle of the
the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws Lake of the Woods and from the American border to
in force in the country so ceded. the height of land from which the streams flow
towards Hudson’s Bay.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Com-
missioner and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto That they are composed of Saulteaux and Lac Seul
subscribed and set their hands at Manitoba Post this Indians of the Ojibbeway Nation, and number about
day and year herein first above named. twenty-five hundred men, women and children,
and, retaining what they desire in reserves at certain
Signed by the Chiefs within named, in presence of localities where they fish for sturgeon, would, it is
the following witnesses, the same having been first thought be willing to surrender for a certain annual
read and explained: payment their lands to the Crown. That the Ameri-
can Indians to the south of them surrendered their
ADAMS G. ARCHIBALD, lands to the Government of the United States for an
Lieut. Gov. of Manitoba and the N.-W. annual payment which has been stated to him (but
Territories, not on authority) to amount to ten dollars per head
for each man, woman and child of which six dollars
JAMES McKAY, P.L.C., is paid in goods and four in money. That to treat
MOLYNEUX St. JOHN, with these Indians with advantage he recommends

Treaty 3, 1871 567
that Mr. Simon J. Dawson of the Department of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and
Public Works and Mr. Robert Pither of the Hudson’s described, by their Chiefs chosen and named as
Bay Company’s service be associated with Mr. hereinafter mentioned, of the other part.
Wemyss M. Simpson—and further that the presents
which were promised the Indians last year and a Whereas the Indians inhabiting the said country
similar quantity for the present year should be col- have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said
lected at Fort Francis not later than the middle of Commissioners, been convened at a meeting at the
June also that four additional suits of Chiefs’ clothes north-west angle of the Lake of the Woods to delib-
and flags should be added to those now in store at erate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most
Fort Francis—and further that a small house and Gracious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indi-
store for provisions should be constructed at Rainy ans of the other.
River at the site and of the dimensions which Mr.
Simpson may deem best—that the assistance of the And whereas the said Indians have been notified
Department of Public Works will be necessary and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners
should his report be adopted in carrying into effect that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for set-
the recommendations therein made as to provisions, tlement, immigration and such other purpose as to
clothes and construction of buildings. Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country
bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned,
He likewise submits that it will be necessary that the and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian sub-
sum of Six Thousand dollars in silver should be at jects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty
Fort Francis subject to the Order of the above named and arrange with them so that there may be peace
Commissioners on the fifteenth day of June next— and good will between them and Her Majesty and
And further recommends that in the instructions to that they may know and be assured of what
be given to them they should be directed to make the allowance they are to count upon and receive from
best arrangements in their power but authorized if Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.
need be to give as much as twelve dollars a family for
each family not exceeding five—with such small Sum And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly con-
in addition where the family exceeds five as the vened in council as aforesaid, and being requested
Commissioners may find necessary—Such Subsidy by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name cer-
to be made partly in goods and provisions and partly tain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be autho-
in money or wholly in goods and provisions should rized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations
the Commissioners so decide for the surrender of the and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to
lands described in the earlier part of this report. become responsible to Her Majesty for their faithful
performance by their respective bands of such obli-
The Committee concur in the foregoing recom- gations as shall be assumed by them, the said Indi-
mendations and submit the same for Your Excel- ans have thereupon named the following persons for
lency’s approval. that purpose, that is to say:—
Signed: Charles Tupper KEK-TA-PAY-PI-NAIS (Rainy River.),

25 April/71 KITCHI-GAY-KAKE (Rainy River.),
NOTE-NA-QUA-HUNG (North-West Angle.),
TREATY No. 3 NAWE-DO-PE-NESS (Rainy River.),
ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this POW-WA-SANG (North-West Angle.),
third day of October, in the year of Our Lord one CANDA-COM-IGO-WE-NINIE (North-West
thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, between Angle.),
Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great PAPA-SKO-GIN (Rainy River.),
Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the MAY-NO-WAH-TAW-WAYS-KIONG (North-
Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor West Angle.),
of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Ter- KITCHI-NE-KA-LE-HAN (Rainy River.),
ritories; Joseph Alfred Norbert Provencher and SAH-KATCH-EWAY (Lake Seul.),
Simon James Dawson, of the one part, and the Saul- MUPA-DAY-WAH-SIN (Kettle Falls.),
teaux Tribe of the Ojibway Indians, inhabitants of ME-PIE-SIES (Rainy Lake, Fort Frances.),

568 Treaty 3, 1871
OOS-CON-NA-GEITH (Rainy Lake.), separating the waters of the Nepigon and the Win-
WAH-SHIS-KOUCE (Eagle Lake. ), nipeg to the height of land dividing the waters of
KAH-KEE-Y-ASH (Flower Lake.), the Albany and the Winnipeg; thence westerly and
GO-BAY (Rainy Lake.), north-westerly along the height of land dividing the
KA-MO-TI-ASH (White Fish Lake.), waters flowing to Hudson’s Bay by the Albany or
NEE-SHO-TAL (Rainy River.), other rivers from those running to English River
KEE-JE-GO-KAY (Rainy River.), and the Winnipeg to a point on the said height of
SHA-SHA-GANCE (Shoal Lake.), land bearing north forty-five degrees east from Fort
SHAH-WIN-NA-BI-NAIS (Shoal Lake. ), Alexander, at the mouth of the Winnipeg; thence
AY-ASH-A-WATH (Buffalo Point.), south forty-five degrees west to Fort Alexander, at
PAY-AH-BEE-WASH (White Fish Bay.), the mouth of the Winnipeg; thence southerly along
KAH-TAY-TAY-PA-E-CUTCH (Lake of the the eastern bank of the Winnipeg to the mouth of
Woods.) White Mouth River; thence southerly by the line
described as in that part forming the eastern bound-
And thereupon, in open council, the different bands ary of the tract surrendered by the Chippewa and
having presented their Chiefs to the said Commis- Swampy Cree tribes of Indians to Her Majesty on
sioners as the Chiefs and Headmen for the purposes the third of August, one thousand eight hundred
aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabit- and seventy-one, namely, by White Mouth River to
ing the said district hereinafter described: White Mouth Lake, and thence on a line having the
general bearing of White Mouth River to the forty-
And whereas the said Commissioners then and there ninth parallel of north latitude; thence by the forty-
received and acknowledged the persons so pre- ninth parallel of north latitude to the Lake of the
sented as Chiefs and Headmen for the purpose Woods, and from thence by the international bound-
aforesaid of the respective bands of Indians inhabit- ary line to the place beginning.
ing the said district hereinafter described;
The tract comprised within the lines above de-
And whereas the said Commissioners have proscribed, embracing an area of fifty-five thousand
ceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, square miles, be the same more or less. To have and
and the same has been finally agreed upon and con- to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen, and Her
cluded, as follows, that is to say:— successors forever.
The Saulteaux Tribe of the Ojibbeway Indians and all And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and
other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter undertakes to lay aside reserves for farming lands,
described and defined, do hereby cede, release, sur- due respect being had to lands at present cultivated
render and yield up to the Government of the by the said Indians, and also to lay aside and
Dominion of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and reserve for the benefit of the said Indians, to be
Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and administered and dealt with for them by Her
privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada,
the following limits, that is to say:— in such a manner as shall seem best, other reserves
of land in the said territory hereby ceded, which
Commencing at a point on the Pigeon River route said reserves shall be selected and set aside where it
where the international boundary line between the shall be deemed most convenient and advanta-
Territories of Great Britain and the United States geous for each band or bands of Indians, by the
intersects the height of land separating the waters officers of the said Government appointed for that
running to Lake Superior from those flowing to purpose, and such selection shall be so made after
Lake Winnipeg; thence northerly, westerly and east- conference with the Indians; provided, however,
erly along the height of land aforesaid, following its that such reserves, whether for farming or other
sinuosities, whatever their course may be, to the purposes, shall in no wise exceed in all one square
point at which the said height of land meets the mile for each family of five, or in that proportion
summit of the watershed from which the streams for larger or smaller families; and such selections
flow to Lake Nepigon; thence northerly and west- shall be made if possible during the course of next
erly, or whatever may be its course, along the ridge summer, or as soon thereafter as may be found

Treaty 3, 1871 569
practicable, it being understood, however, that if at It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her
the time of any such selection of any reserve, as said Indians that such sections of the reserves above
aforesaid, there are any settlers within the bounds indicated as may at any time be required for Public
of the lands reserved by any band, Her Majesty Works or buildings of what nature soever may be
reserves the right to deal with such settlers as She appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Gov-
shall deem just so as not to diminish the extent of ernment of the Dominion of Canada, due compensa-
land allotted to Indians; and provided also that the tion being made for the value of any improvements
aforesaid reserves of lands, or any interest or right thereon.
therein or appurtenant thereto, may be sold, leased
or otherwise disposed of by the said Government And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioners
for the use and benefit of the said Indians, with the shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this
consent of the Indians entitled thereto first had and treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all the
obtained. Indians inhabiting the tract above described, distrib-
uting them in families, and shall in every year ensu-
And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her ing the date hereof, at some period in each year to be
Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of duly notified to the Indians, and at a place or places
Her Indians She hereby, through Her Commission- to be appointed for that purpose within the territory
ers, makes them a present of twelve dollars for each ceded, pay to each Indian person the sum of five dol-
man, woman and child belonging to the bands here lars per head yearly.
represented, in extinguishment of all claims hereto-
fore preferred. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the
said Indians that the sum of fifteen hundred dollars
And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools per annum shall be yearly and every year expended
for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to by Her Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and
Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada may twine for nets for the use of the said Indians.
seem advisable whenever the Indians of the reserve
shall desire it. It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the
said Indians that the following articles shall be
Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians supplied to any band of the said Indians who
that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until are now actually cultivating the soil or who shall
otherwise determined by Her Government of the hereafter commence to cultivate the land, that is
Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be to say: two hoes for every family actually cultivat-
allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now ing, also one spade per family as aforesaid, one
in force or hereafter to be enacted to preserve Her plough for every ten families as aforesaid, five
Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves or living else- harrows for every twenty families as aforesaid, one
where within Her North-west Territories, from the scythe for every family as aforesaid, and also one axe
evil influences of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall and one cross-cut saw, one hand-saw, one pit-saw,
be strictly enforced. the necessary files, one grind-stone, one auger for
each band, and also for each Chief for the use of his
Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians band one chest of ordinary carpenter’s tools; also for
that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pur- each band enough of wheat, barley, potatoes and
sue their avocations of hunting and fishing oats to plant the land actually broken up for cultiva-
throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore tion by such band; also for each band one yoke of
described, subject to such regulations as may oxen, one bull and four cows; all the aforesaid arti-
from time to time be made by Her Government of cles to be given once for all for the encouragement of
Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and except- the practice of agriculture among the Indians.
ing such tracts as may, from time to time, be
required or taken up for settlement, mining, lum- It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the
bering or other purposes by Her said Government said Indians that each Chief duly recognized as such
of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the sub- shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five dollars
jects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said per annum, and each subordinate officer, not exceed-
Government. ing three for each band, shall receive fifteen dollars

570 Treaty 3, 1871
per annum; and each such Chief and subordinate FRANK G. BECHER,
officer as aforesaid shall also receive once in every ALFRED CODD, M.D.,
three years a suitable suit of clothing; and each Chief G. S. CORBAULT,
shall receive, in recognition of the closing of the PIERRE LEVIELLER,
treaty, a suitable flag and medal. NICHOLAS CHATELAINE,
ALEX. MORRIS L.G.,
And the undersigned Chiefs, on their own behalf J. A. N. PROVENCHER, Ind. Comr.,
and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract S. J. DAWSON,
within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and KEE-TA-KAY-PI-NAIS, his x mark,
engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to con- KITCHI-GAY-KAKE, his x mark,
duct and behave themselves as good and loyal sub- NO-TE-NA-QUA-HUNG, his x mark,
jects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and MAWE-DO-PE-NAIS, his x mark,
engage that they will in all respects obey and abide POW-WA-SANG, his x mark,
by the law, that they will maintain peace and good CANDA-COM-IGO-WI-NINE, his x mark,
order between each other, and also between them- MAY-NO-WAH-TAW-WAYS-KUNG, his x
selves and other tribes of Indians, and between mark,
themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, KITCHI-NE-KA-BE-HAN, his x mark,
whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or here- SAH-KATCH-EWAY, his x mark,
after to inhabit any part of the said ceded tract, and MUKA-DAY-WAH-SIN, his x mark,
that they will not molest the person or property of ME-KIE-SIES, his x mark,
any inhabitants of such ceded tract, or the property OOS-CON-NA-GEISH, his x mark,
of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trou- WAH-SHIS-KOUCE, his x mark,
ble any person passing or travelling through the said KAH-KEE-Y-ASH, his x mark,
tract, or any part thereof; and that they will aid and GO-BAY, his x mark,
assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to jus- KA-ME-TI-ASH, his x mark,
tice and punishment any Indian offending against NEE-SHO-TAL, his x mark,
the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws KEE-JEE-GO-KAY, his x mark,
in force in the country so ceded. SHA-SHA-GAUCE, his x mark,
SHAW-WIN-NA-BI-NAIS, his x mark,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Com- AY-ASH-A-WASH, his x mark,
missioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto PAY-AH-BEE-WASH, his x mark,
subscribed and set their hands at the North-West KAH-TAY-TAY-PA-O-CUTCH, his x mark
Angle of the Lake of the Woods this day and year
herein first above named. We, having had communication of the treaty, a certi-
Signed by the Chiefs within named, in presence fied copy whereof is hereto annexed, but not having
of the following witnesses, the same having been been present at the councils held at the North-West
first read and explained by the Honorable James Angle of the Lake of the Woods between Her
McKay: Majesty’s Commissioners, and the several Indian
Chiefs and others therein named, at which the arti-
JAMES McKAY, cles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for
MOLYNEUX St. JOHN, ourselves and the several bands of Indians which
ROBERT PITHER, we represent, in consideration of the provisions of
CHRISTINE V. K. MORRIS, the said treaty being extended to us and the said
CHARLES NOLIN, bands which we represent, transfer, surrender and
A. McDONALD, Capt., Comg. Escort to Lieut. relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and
Governor, successors, to and for the use of Her Government of
JAS. F. GRAHAM, Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and
JOSEPH NOLIN, privilege whatsoever, which we, the said Chiefs and
A. McLEOD, the said bands which we represent have, hold or
GEORGE McPHERSON, Sr., enjoy, of, in and to the territory described and fully
SEDLEY BLANCHARD, set out in the said articles of treaty, and every part
W. FRED. BUCHANAN, thereof. To have and to hold the same unto and to

Treaty 3, 1871 571
the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs To S. J. Dawson, Esquire, Indian Commissioner, &c.,
and successors forever. &c., &c.
And we hereby agree to accept the several provi- SIR, —We hereby authorize you to treat with the
sions, payments and reserves of the said treaty, as various bands belonging to the Salteaux Tribe of
therein stated, and solemnly promise and engage to the Ojibbeway Indians inhabiting the North-West
abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, Territories of the Dominion of Canada not
obligations and conditions therein contained, on the included in the foregoing certified copy of articles
part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein named, to of treaty, upon the same conditions and stipula-
be observed and performed; and in all things to con- tions as are therein agreed upon, and to sign and
form to the articles of the said treaty as if we our- execute for us and in our name and on our behalf
selves and the bands which we represent had been the foregoing agreement annexed to the foregoing
originally contracting parties thereto, and had been treaty.
present and attached our signatures to the said
treaty. NORTH-WEST ANGLE, LAKE OF THE WOODS,
October 4th, A.D. 1873.
missioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto ALEX. MORRIS,
subscribed and set their hands, this thirteenth day of Lieutenant-Governor.
October, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight J. A. N. PROVENCHER,
hundred and seventy-three. Indian Commissioner.
Signed by S. J. Dawson, Esquire, one of Her ADHESION BY HALFBREEDS OF RAINY RIVER

Majesty’s said Commissioners, for and on behalf AND LAKE (A.)
and with the authority and consent of the Honor- This Memorandum of Agreement made and entered
able Alexander Morris, Lieutenant Governor of into this twelfth day of September one thousand
Manitoba and the North-West Territories, and J. A. eight hundred and seventy-five, between Nicholas
N. Provencher, Esq., the remaining two Commis- Chatelaine, Indian interpreter at Fort Francis and the
sioners, and himself and by the Chiefs within Rainy River and acting herein solely in the latter
named, on behalf of themselves and the several capacity for and as representing the said Half-
bands which they represent, the same and the breeds, on the one part, and John Stoughton Dennis,
annexed certified copy of articles of treaty having Surveyor General of Dominion Lands, as represent-
been first read and explained in presence of the fol- ing Her Majesty the Queen through the Government
lowing witnesses: of the Dominion, of the other part, Witnesseth as
follows:—
THOS. A. P. TOWERS,
JOHN AITKEN, Whereas the Half-breeds above described, by virtue
A. J. McDONALD, of their Indian blood, claim a certain interest or title
UNZZAKI, in the lands or territories in the vicinity of Rainy
JAS. LOGANOSH, his x mark, Lake and the Rainy River, for the commutation or
PINLLSISE surrender of which claims they ask compensation
from the Government.
For and on behalf of the Commissioners, the
Honorable Alexander Morris, Lieut. Governor of And whereas, having fully and deliberately dis-
Manitoba and the NorthWest Territories, Joseph cussed and considered the matter, the said Half-
Albert Norbert Provencher, Esquire, and the under- breeds have elected to join in the treaty made
signed between the Indians and Her Majesty, at the North-
West Angle of the Lake of the Woods, on the third
S. J. DAWSON, Commissioner, day of October, 1873, and have expressed a desire
PAY-BA-MA-CHAS, his x mark, thereto, and to become subject to the terms and con-
RE-BA-QUIN, his x mark, ditions thereof in all respects saving as hereinafter
ME-TAS-SO-QUE-NE-SKANK, his x mark set forth.

572 Treaty 3, 1871
It is now hereby agreed upon by and between the treaty, the same is hereby agreed to on the part of the
said parties hereto (this agreement, however, to be Government.
subject in all respects to approval and confirmation
by the Government, without which the same shall be Should this agreement be approved by the Govern-
considered as void and of no effect), as follows, that ment, the reserves as above to be surveyed in due
is to say: The Half-breeds, through Nicholas Chate- course.
laine, their Chief above named, as representing them
herein, agree as follows, that is to say:- Signed at Fort Francis, the day and date above men-
tioned, in presence of us as witnesses:
That they hereby fully and voluntarily surrender to
Her Majesty the Queen to be held by Her Majesty A. R. TILLIE,
and Her successors for ever, any and all claim, right, CHAS. S. CROWE,
title or interest which they, by virtue of their Indian W. B. RICHARDSON,
blood, have or possess in the lands or territories L. KITTSON,
above described, and solemnly promise to observe J. S. DENNIS, [L.S.],
all the terms and conditions of the said treaty (a copy NICHOLAS CHATELAINE. [L.S.], his x mark
whereof, duly certified by the Honourable the Secre-
tary of State of the Dominion has been this day ADHESION OF LAC SEUL INDIANS TO TREATY
placed in the hands of the said Nicholas Chatelaine). No. 3
LAC SEUL, 9th June, 1874.
In consideration of which Her Majesty agrees as fol- We, the Chiefs and Councillors of Lac Seul, Seul,
lows, that is to say: Trout and Sturgeon Lakes, subscribe and set our
marks, that we and our followers will abide by the
That the said Half-breeds, keeping and observing articles of the Treaty made and concluded with the
on their part the terms and conditions of the said Indians at the North-West Angle of the Lake of the
treaty shall receive compensation in the way of Woods, on the third day of October, in the year of
reserves of land, payments, annuities and presents, Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-
in manner similar to that set forth in the several three, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the
respects for the Indians in the said treaty; it being Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commis-
understood, however, that any sum expended sioners, Hon. Alexander Morris, Lieutenant Gover-
annually by Her Majesty in the purchase of ammu- nor of Manitoba and the North-West Territories,
nition and twine for nets for the use of the said Joseph Albert N. Provencher, and Simon J. Dawson,
Half-breeds shall not be taken out of the fifteen of the one part, and the Saulteaux tribes of Ojibewas
hundred dollars set apart by the treaty for the pur- Indians, inhabitants of the country as defined by the
chase annually of those articles for the Indians, but Treaty aforesaid.
shall be in addition thereto, and shall be a pro rata
amount in the proportion of the number of Half- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Indian
breeds parties hereto to the number of Indians Agent and the Chiefs and Councillors have hereto
embraced in the treaty; and it being further under- set their hands at Lac Seul, on the 9th day of June,
stood that the said Half-breeds shall be entitled to 1874.
all the benefits of the said treaty as from the date
thereof, as regards payments and annuities, in the (Signed) ACKEMENCE, Councillors. his x mark
same manner as if they had been present and had MAINEETAINEQUIRE, his x mark
become parties to the same at the time of the mak- NAH-KEE-JECKWAHE, his x mark
ing thereof.
The whole Treaty explained by R. J. N. PITHER.
And whereas the said Half-breeds desire the land set Witnesses:
forth as tracts marked (A) and (B) on the rough dia- (Signed) JAMES McKENZIE,
gram attached hereto, and marked with the initials OUIS KITTSON,
of the parties aforementioned to this agreement, as NICHOLAS CHATELAINE, his x mark,
their reserves (in all eighteen square miles), to which R. J. N. PITHER, Indian Agent,
they would be entitled under the provisions of the JOHN CROMARTY, Chief. his x mark

Treaty 4, 1874 573
Treaty 4, 1874 West Territories on the subject of the Treaties, and

that, in the event of permanent annuities being
Sept. 15, 1874
Between Her Majesty the Queen and the granted to the Tribes with whom Treaties may be
Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians at the made, such annuities should not be fixed at a higher
Qu’Appelle and Fort Ellice rate than those sanctioned by the Treaties already
ORDER IN COUNCIL SETTING UP COMMISSION concluded with the Indians of the North West.
FOR TREATY No. 4
On a Memorandum, dated 20th July 1874, from the The Committee submit the above recommendation
Honorable the Minister of the Interior, stating that he for Your Excellency’s approval.
has had before him a Minute of the Council of the
North West of the 14th March last, recommending (sgd.) L. S. HUNTINGDON.
that Treaties should this year be concluded with the Approved
Tribes of Indians inhabiting the Territory therein 23 July, 1874
indicated, lying West of the Boundary of Treaty No. Dufferin
2, and between the International Boundary Line and
the Saskatchewan. APPROVAL OF TREATY No. 4
On a Memorandum dated 29th October, 1874 from
the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie submitting for the consider-
That he has also had before him several Despatches
ation of Your Excellency in Council Copies of a
from the Lieutenant Governor of later date urging
Treaty and supplementary Treaty with the Cree,
the necessity of these Treaties.
Saulteaux and other Indians inhabiting the Territory
affected by such Treaty, the former concluded on the
That looking to these representations and to the fact 15th September last, and the latter on the 21st
that the Mounted Police Force is now moving into September last, by His Honor the Lieutenant Gover-
the Territory in question with a view of taking up nor of the North West Territories, the Hon. the Min-
their winter quarters at Fort Pelly, and considering ister of the Interior, and W. J. Christie, Esquire, of
the operations of the Boundary Commission which Brockville, Ont., the Commissioners specially
are continually moving westward into the Indian appointed for that purpose, under Orders in Council
Country, and also the steps which are being taken in dated 23rd July and 26th August respectively.
connection with the proposed Telegraph Line from
Fort Garry westward, all which proceedings are cal- Mr. Mackenzie states that the Territory covered by
culated to further unsettle and excite the Indian the Treaties may be approximately described as
mind, already in a disturbed condition; he recom- lying between the Western boundary of Treaty No.2
mends that three Commissioners be appointed by and the 1101/2 degree of West Longitude, and
His Excellency the Governor General for the pur- bounded on the South by the International Bound-
pose of making Treaties during the current year ary, and on the North by the Red Deer River, and its
with such of the Indians Bands as they may find it Lakes, Red Deer and Etoimami, to the source of its
expedient to deal with, inhabiting the portion of the Western Branch thence in a straight line to the source
North-West Territories which may be approximately of the Northern Branch of the Qu’Appelle, thence
described as lying between the Westerly Boundary along and including said stream to the Forks near
of Treaty No. 2 and the 110th degree of West Longi- Long Lake; thence along and including the Valley of
tude, and bounded on the South by the Interna- the West Branch of the Qu’Appelle to the South
tional Boundary Line, and on the North by Lake Saskatchewan, thence along and including said
Winnipeg, and by the Saskatchewan River, includ- River to the mouth of Maple Creek, thence along
ing a strip of country ten miles north of that River to said Creek, to a point opposite the Cypress Hills,
the Forks and thence following the South branch of thence due South to the Boundary Line, and that the
the said River until it meets the 110th degree of West Area of the Territory above described comprises
Longitude. about 50,000 Square Miles.
The Minister further recommends that the Commis- That the terms of the Treaties are nearly identical
sioners to be appointed for this purpose be instructed with those of the Treaty concluded last year at the
to confer with the Lieutenant Governor of the North North-West Angle of the Lake of the Woods.

574 Treaty 4, 1874
That the principal conditions of the Treaties may be ernor of the Province of Manitoba and the North-
briefly stated as follows: West Territories; the Honourable David Laird, Minis-
• 1st A Money present to each Chief of $25; to ter of the Interior, and William Joseph Christie,
each Headman not exceeding four in each Esquire, of Brockville, Ontario, of the one part; and
Band $15 and to every other Indian, man, the Cree, Saulteaux and other Indians, inhabitants of
woman and Child in the Band $12. the territory within the limits hereinafter defined
• 2nd An Annual payment in perpetuity, of the and described by their Chiefs and Headmen, chosen
same sums to the Chiefs and Headmen (not and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other
exceeding four in each Band) and $5 to every part.
other man, woman and Child in the Band.
• 3rd Certain trifling presents of clothing every Whereas the Indians inhabiting the said territory
third year, to the Chiefs and Headmen. have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said
• 4th A supply of Ammunition and twine Commissioners, been convened at a meeting at the
every year to the value of $750. Qu’Appelle Lakes, to deliberate upon certain mat-
• 5th Presents of Agricultural implements, ters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of the
Cattle, grain, Carpenter’s tools, etc., propor- one part, and the said Indians of the other.
tioned to the number of families in the Band
actually engaged in farming. And whereas the said Indians have been notified
• 6th Reserves to be selected of the same extent and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners
in proportion to the numbers of the Bands, that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for set-
and on the same conditions as in the previ- tlement, immigration, trade and such other purposes
ous Treaty. as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country
• 7th Schools to be established on each Reserve bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned,
as soon as the Indians settle thereon. and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian sub-
• 8th Intoxicating liquors to be excluded from jects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty
the Reserve. and arrange with them, so that there may be peace
• Mr. Mackenzie states that the Treaties appear and good will between them and Her Majesty and
to him to be satisfactory and he therefore between them and Her Majesty’s other subjects, and
recommends that they be approved by Your that Her Indian people may know and be assured of
Excellency in Council. what allowance they are to count upon and receive
He further submits that he is of opinion that from Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.
the satisfactory conclusion of the Treaties is mainly
due to patience, firmness, tact and ability dis- And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly con-
played by the Commissioners in the conduct of the vened in Council as aforesaid, and being requested
negotiations. by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name cer-
tain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be autho-
The Committee concur in the foregoing Report and rized on their behalf to conduct such negotiations
recommend and advise that the Treaties be approved and sign any treaty to be founded thereon, and to
and accepted and be enrolled in the usual manner. become responsible to Her Majesty for their faithful
performance by their respective bands of such obli-
signed by: A. Mackenzie. gations as shall be assumed by them the said Indi-
Approved ans, have thereupon named the following persons
4th November 1876 for that purpose, that is to say: Ka-ki-shi-way, or
Dufferin. “Loud Voice,” (Qu’Appelle River); Pis-qua, or “The
Plain” (Leech Lake); Ka-wey-ance, or “The Little
TREATY No. 4 Boy” (Leech Lake); Ka-kee-na-wup, or “One that sits
ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded this like an Eagle” (Upper Qu’Appelle Lakes); Kus-kee-
fifteenth day of September, in the year of Our Lord tew-mus-coo-mus-qua, or “Little Black Bear”
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, (Cypress Hills); Ka-ne-on-us-ka-tew, or “One that
between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of walks on four claws” (Little Touchwood Hills); Cau-
Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, ah-ha-cha-pew, or “Making ready the Bow” (South
the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant Gov- side of the South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Kii-

Treaty 4, 1874 575
si-caw-ah-chuck, or “Day-Star” (South side of the the Qu’Appelle to the South Saskatchewan; thence
South Branch of the Saskatchewan); Ka-na-ca-toose, along and including said river to the mouth of
“The Poor Man” (Touchwood Hills and Qu’Appelle Maple Creek; thence southwardly along said creek
Lakes); Ka-kii-wis-ta-haw, or “Him that flies to a point opposite the western extremity of the
around” (towards the Cypress Hills); Cha-ca-chas Cypress Hills; thence due south to the international
(Qu’Appelle River); Wah-pii-moose-too-siis, or “The boundary; thence east along the said boundary to
White Calf” (or Pus-coos) (Qu’Appelle River); the place of commencement. Also all their rights,
Gabriel Cote, or Mee-may, or “The Pigeon” (Fort titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands
Pelly). wheresoever situated within Her Majesty’s North-
West Territories, or any of them. To have and to hold
And thereupon in open council the different bands, the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her succes-
having presented the men of their choice to the said sors for ever.
Commissioners as the Chiefs and Headmen, for the
purpose aforesaid, of the respective bands of Indians And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees, through
inhabiting the said district hereinafter described. the said Commissioners, to assign reserves for said
Indians, such reserves to be selected by officers of
And whereas the said Commissioners have pro- Her Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of
ceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians, Canada appointed for that purpose, after conference
and the same has been finally agreed upon and con- with each band of the Indians, and to be of sufficient
cluded as follows, that is to say:— area to allow one square mile for each family of five,
or in that proportion for larger or smaller families;
The Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians, and all provided, however, that it be understood that, if at
other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter the time of the selection of any reserves, as afore-
described and defined, do hereby cede, release, sur- said, there are any settlers within the bounds of the
render and yield up to the Government of the lands reserved for any band, Her Majesty retains the
Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen, right to deal with such settlers as She shall deem
and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and just, so as not to diminish the extent of land allotted
privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within to the Indians; and provided, further, that the afore-
the following limits, that is to say:— said reserves of land, or any part thereof, or any
interest or right therein, or appurtenant thereto,
Commencing at a point on the United States frontier may be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of by the
due south of the northwestern point of the Moose said Government for the use and benefit of the said
Mountains; thence due north to said point of said Indians, with the consent of the Indians entitled
mountains: thence in a north-easterly course to a thereto first had and obtained, but in no wise shall
point two miles due west of Fort Ellice; thence in a the said Indians, or any of them, be entitled to sell or
line parallel with and two miles westward from the otherwise alienate any of the lands allotted to them
Assiniboine River to the mouth of the Shell River; as reserves.
thence parallel to the said river and two miles dis-
tant therefrom to its source; thence in a straight line In view of the satisfaction with which the Queen
to a point on the western shore of Lake Winnipego- views the ready response which Her Majesty’s
sis, due west from the most northern extremity of Indian subjects have accorded to the invitation of
Waterhen Lake; thence east to the centre of Lake Her said Commissioners to meet them on this occa-
Winnipegosis; thence northwardly, through the sion, and also in token of their general good conduct
middle of the said lake (including Birch Island), to and behaviour, She hereby, through Her Commis-
the mouth of Red Deer River; thence westwardly sioners, makes the Indians of the bands here repre-
and southwestwardly along and including the said sented a present, for each Chief of twenty-five dol-
Red Deer River and its lakes, Red Deer and lars in cash, a coat and a Queen’s silver medal; for
Etoimaini, to the source of its western branch; each Headman, not exceeding four in each band, fif-
thence in a straight line to the source of the northern teen dollars in cash and a coat; and for every other
branch of the Qu’Appelle; thence along and includ- man, woman and child twelve dollars in cash; and
ing said stream to the forks near Long Lake; thence for those here assembled some powder, shot, blan-
along and including the valley of the west branch of kets, calicoes, strouds and other articles.

576 Treaty 4, 1874
As soon as possible after the execution of this treaty Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be
Her Majesty shall cause a census to be taken of all introduced or sold, and all laws now in force, or
the Indians inhabiting the tract hereinbefore hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her Indian sub-
described, and shall, next year, and annually after- jects, inhabiting the reserves, or living elsewhere
wards for ever, cause to be paid in cash at some suit- within the North-West Territories, from the evil
able season to be duly notified to the Indians, and at effects of intoxicating liquor, shall be strictly
a place or places to be appointed for that purpose, enforced.
within the territory ceded, each Chief twenty-five
dollars; each Headman not exceeding four to a band, And further, Her Majesty agrees that Her said Indi-
fifteen dollars; and to every other Indian man, ans shall have right to pursue their avocations of
woman and child, five dollars per head; such pay- hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract
ment to be made to the heads of families for those surrendered, subject to such regulations as may from
belonging thereto, unless for some special reason it time to time be made by the Government of the
be found objectionable. country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty,
and saving and excepting such tracts as may be
Her Majesty also agrees that each Chief and each required or taken up from time to time for settle-
Headman, not to exceed four in each band, once in ment, mining or other purposes, under grant or
every three years during the term of their offices other right given by Her Majesty’s said Government.
shall receive a suitable suit of clothing, and that
yearly and every year She will cause to be distrib- It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her
uted among the different bands included in the lim- said Indian subjects that such sections of the
its of this treaty powder, shot, ball and twine, in all reserves above indicated as may at any time be
to the value of seven hundred and fifty dollars; and required for public works or building of whatsoever
each Chief shall receive hereafter, in recognition of nature may be appropriated for that purpose by Her
the closing of the treaty, a suitable flag. Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada,
due compensation being made to the Indians for the
It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the value of any improvements thereon, and an equiva-
said Indians that the following articles shall be sup- lent in land or money for the area of the reserve so
plied to any band thereof who are now actually cul- appropriated.
tivating the soil, or who shall hereafter settle on
their reserves and commence to break up the land, And the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on their
that is to say: two hoes, one spade, one scythe and own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhab-
one axe for every family so actually cultivating, and iting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly
enough seed wheat, barley, oats and potatoes to promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty,
plant such land as they have broken up; also one and also to conduct and behave themselves as good
plough and two harrows for every ten families so and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They
cultivating as aforesaid, and also to each Chief for promise and engage that they will, in all respects,
the use of his band as aforesaid, one yoke of oxen, obey and abide by the law, that they will maintain
one bull, four cows, a chest of ordinary carpenter’s peace and good order between each other, and
tools, five hand saws, five augers, one cross-cut saw, between themselves and other tribes of Indians and
one pit-saw, the necessary files and one grindstone, between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s
all the aforesaid articles to be given, once for all, for subjects, whether Indians, Half-breeds, or whites,
the encouragement of the practice of agriculture now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the
among the Indians. said ceded tract; and that they will not molest the
person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded
Further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school in tract, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or
the reserve allotted to each band as soon as they set- interfere with or trouble any person passing or trav-
tle on said reserve and are prepared for a teacher. elling through the said tract, or any part thereof, and
that they will assist the officers of Her Majesty in
Further, Her Majesty agrees that within the bound- bringing to justice and punishment any Indian
ary of the Indian reserves, until otherwise deter- offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or
mined by the Government of the Dominion of infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded.

Treaty 4, 1874 577
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Her Majesty’s said Com- CHA-CA-CHAS, his x mark,

missioners, and the said Indian Chiefs and Head- WA-PII-MOOSE-TOO-SUS, his x mark,
men, have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, GABRIEL COTÉ OR MEE-MAY, his x mark
at Qu’Appelle, this day and year herein first above
written. We, members of the Saulteaux Tribe of Indians, hav-
ing had communication of the treaty hereto annexed,
Signed by the Chiefs and Headmen within named in made on the 15th day of September instant, between
presence of the following witnesses, the same having Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux
been first read and explained by Charles Pratt: Indians, and other Indians at Qu’Appelle lakes, but
not having been present at the councils held at
W. OSBORNE SMITH, C.M.G., Qu’Appelle lakes between Her Majesty’s Commis-
Lt.-Col. D.A.G. Commg, sioners and the several Indian Chiefs, and other
Dominion Forces in North-West., therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty
PASCAL BRELAND, were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves and the
EDWARD MCKAY, band which we represent, in consideration of the
CHARLES PRATT, provisions of the said treaty being extended to us
PIERRE POITRAS, and the said band which we represent, transfer, sur-
BAPTIST DAVIS, his x mark, render and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her
PIERRE DENOMME, his x mark, heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Gov-
JOSEPH McKAY, ernment of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right,
DONALD McDONALD, title and privileges whatsoever which we and the
A. McDONALD, said band which we represent, have held or enjoy, of,
Capt. Provl. Battn. Infantry, in and to the territory described and fully set out in
GEO. W. STREET, the said articles of treaty and every part thereof also
Ens. Provl. Battn. Infantry, all our right, title and privilege whatsoever, to all
ALFRED CODD, M.D., other lands, wherever situated, whether within the
Surgeon Provl. Battn. Infantry, limits of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be
W. M. HERCHMER, Captain, made with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of
C. DE COUYES, Ensign, Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Terri-
JOS. POITRON, x, tories, or any of them. To have and to hold the same
M. G. DICKIESON, unto and to use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her
Private Secy. Min. of Interior, heirs and successors forever.
PETER LAPIERRE,
HELEN M. McLEAN, And we hereby agree to accept the several provi-
FLORA GARRIOGH, sions, payments and reserves of the said treaty,
JOHN COTTON, Lt. Canadian Artillery, signed at the Qu’Appelle lakes, as therein stated,
JOHN ALLAN, Lt. Provl. Battn. Infantry, and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry
ALEXANDER MORRIS, Lt.-Gov. North-West out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and
Territories, conditions therein contained on the part of said
DAVID LAIRD, Indian Commissioner, Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed
WILLIAM J. CHRISTIE, his x mark, and performed, and in all things to conform to the
KA-KII-SHI-WAY, his x mark, articles of the said treaty, as if we ourselves, and the
PIS-QUA, his x mark, band which we represent, had been originally con-
KA-WEZAUCE, his x mark, tracting parties thereto and had been present and
KA-KEE-NA-WUP, his x mark, attached our signatures to the said treaty.
KUS-KEE-TEW-MUS-COO-MUS-QUA, his x
mark, IN WITNESS WHEREOF Her Majesty’s said
KA-NE-ON-US-KA-TEW, his x mark, Commissioners and the said Indian Chief and Head-
CAN-AH-HA-CHA-PEU, his x mark, man have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at
KII-SI-CAW-AH-CHUCK, his x mark, Fort Ellice, this twenty-first day of September, in the
KA-WA-CA-TOOSE, his x mark, year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
KA-KU-WIS-TA-HAW, his x mark, seventy-four.

578 Treaty 4, 1874
Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the And we hereby agree to accept the several provi-
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first sions, payments and reserves of the said treaty,
explained to the Indians by Joseph Robillard: 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
ARCH. McDONALD, conditions therein contained on the part of said
GEORGE FLETT, Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed
A. MAXWELL, and performed, and in all things to conform to the
DAVID ARMIT, articles of the said treaty as if we, ourselves, and the
HENRY McKAY, bands which we represent, had been originally con-
ELLEN McDONALD, tracting parties thereto, and had been present and
MARY ARMIT, attached our signatures to the said treaty.
ALEXANDER MORRIS, Lt.-Gov. North-West
Territories, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Commis-
DAVID LAIRD, Indian Commissioner, sioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto
W. J. CHRISTIE, Indian Commissioner, subscribed and set their hands at Qu’Appelle Lakes
WAY-WA-SE-CA-POW, or the MAN PROUD this eighth day of September, in the year or Our Lord
OF STANDING UPRIGHT, his x mark, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five.
OTA-MA-KOO-EWIN, or SHA-POUS-E-
TUNG’S-FIRST SON, THE MAN WHO Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the
STANDS ON THE EARTH, his x mark undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
explained to the Indians by William the second
McKay.
We, members of the Cree, Saulteaux and Stonie
Tribes of Indians, having had communication of the WILLIAM S. McKAY,
treaty hereto annexed, made on the 15th day of Sep- ARCH. McDONALD,
tember last between Her Majesty the Queen and the PASCAL BRELAND,
Cree and Saulteaux Indians, and other Indians at WILLIAM WAGNER,
Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not having been present at W. J. CHRISTIE, Indian Commissioner,
the councils held at the Qu’Appelle Lakes between M. G. DICKIESON, Acting Ind’n Com’r.,
Her Majesty’s Commissioners and several Indian W. F. WRIGHT,
Chiefs and others therein contained, at which the CHEE x CUK, his x mark
articles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby,
for ourselves and the bands which we represent, in We, members of the Cree, Saulteaux and Stonie
consideration of the provisions of the said treaty Tribes of Indians, having had communication of the
having extended to us and the said bands which we treaty hereto annexed, made on the 15th day of Sep-
represent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her tember last between Her Majesty the Queen and the
Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and Cree and Saulteaux Indians and other Indians at the
for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not having been present at
Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever the councils held at the Qu’Appelle Lakes, between
which we and the said bands which we represent Her Majesty’s Commissioners and the several Indian
have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory Chiefs and others therein named, at which the arti-
described and fully set out in the said articles of cles of the said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for
treaty and every part thereof; also, all our right, title ourselves and the bands which we represent, in con-
and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wher- sideration of the provisions of the said treaty having
ever situated, whether within the limit of any treaty extended to us, and the said bands which we repre-
formerly made or hereafter to be made with the sent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her
Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabit- Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and
ing Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of for the use of Her Government of Her Dominion of
them. To have and to hold the same unto and to the Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever
use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and which we and the said bands which we represent
successors forever. have held or enjoy, of, in and to the territory

Treaty 4, 1874 579
described and fully set out in the said articles of Indians and other Indians at Qu’Appelle Lakes, but
treaty, and every part thereof; also, all our right, title, not having been present at the councils held at
and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wher- Qu’Appelle Lakes between Her Majesty’s Commis-
ever situated, whether within the limit of any treaty sioners and the several Indian Chiefs and others
formerly made, of hereafter to be made with the therein named, at which the articles of the said treaty
Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians inhabit- were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves and the
ing Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or any of band which we represent, in consideration of the
them. To have and to hold the same unto and to the provisions of the said treaty having extended to us
use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and and the said band which we represent, transfer, sur-
successors forever. render and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her
heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her Gov-
And we hereby agree to accept the several provi- ernment of Her Dominion of Canada, all our right,
sions, payments and reserves of the said treaty title and privileges whatsoever which we and the
signed at the Qu’Appelle Lakes, as therein stated, said band which we represent have held or enjoy, of,
and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry in and to the territory described and fully set out in
out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and the said articles of treaty and every part thereof; also
conditions therein contained on the part of said our right, title and privileges whatsoever to all other
Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed lands wherever situated, whether within the limits
and performed, and in all things to conform to the of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be made
articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves and the with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe of Indians
bands which we represent had been originally con- inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories, or
tracting parties thereto and had been present and any of them. To have and to hold the same unto and
attached our signatures to the said treaty. to the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her heirs
and successors for ever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Commis-
sioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto And we hereby agree to accept the several provi-
subscribed and set their hands at Qu’Appelle Lakes sions, payment and reserves of the said treaty signed
this ninth day of September, in the year of Our Lord at the Qu’Appelle Lakes as therein stated, and
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry out
and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and condi-
Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the tions therein contained, on the part of said Chiefs
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first and Indians therein named to be observed and per-
explained to the Indians by Charles Pratt. formed, and in all things to conform to the articles of
the said treaty as if we ourselves and the band which
Witness CHARLES PRATT, we represent had been originally contracting parties
Witness ARCH. McDONALD, thereto, and had been present and attached our sig-
Witness JOSEPH READER, natures to the said treaty.
PASCAL BRELAND,
W. J. CHRISTIE, Ind. Comr., IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Commis-
M. G. DICKIESON, Ind. Comr., sioners and the Indian Chiefs have hereunto sub-
W. F. WRIGHT, scribed and set their hands at Swan Lake, this
WAH-PEE-MAKWA, his x mark, twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of Our
THE WHITE BEAR, his x mark, Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five.
OKANES, his x mark,
PAYEPOT, his x mark, Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the
LE CROUP DE PHEASANT, his x mark, undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
KITCHI-KAH-ME-WIN, his x mark explained to the Indians by George Brass.
We, members of the Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of ARCH. McDONALD, Witness,
Indians, having had communication of the treaty DONALD McDONALD, Witness,
made on the 15th day of September, 1874, between GEORGE BRASS, Witness, his x mark,
Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and Saulteaux W. J. CHRISTIE, Indian Comr.,

580 Treaty 4, 1874
M. G. DICKIESON, Acting Indian Comr., Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the
OW-TAH-PEE-KA-KAW, his x mark, undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
KII-SHI-KOUSE,his x mark read and explained by A. McKAY:
We, members of the Saulteaux Tribe of Indians, hav- AND. McDONALD,

ing had communication of the treaty hereto annexed, ALEX. LORD RUSSELL,
made on the 15th day of September, A.D. 1874, GEORGE FLETT,
between Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree and HUGH McBEATH,
Saulteaux Indians and other Indians at Qu’Appelle A. McKAY,
Lakes, but not having been present at the councils W. H. NAGLE,
held at the Qu’Appelle Lakes between Her Majesty’s OO-ZA-WASK-OO-QUIN-APE, (or YELLOW
Commissioners and the several Indian Chiefs and QUILL), his x mark,
others therein named, at which the articles of the KENISTIN (or CREE), his x mark,
said treaty were agreed upon, hereby for ourselves NE-PIN-AWA (or SUMMER FUR), his x mark
and the band which we represent, in consideration
of the provisions of the said treaty having extended We, members of the Assiniboine Tribe of Indians,
to us and the said band which we represent, transfer, having had communication of the treaty hereto
surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, annexed, made on the 15th day of September, one
Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of Her thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, between
Government of Her Dominion of Canada, all our Her Majesty the Queen and the Cree Saulteaux Indi-
right, title and privileges whatsoever which we and ans, and other Indians at Qu’Appelle Lakes, but not
the said band which we represent have held or enjoy, having been present at the councils held at Qu’Ap-
of, in and to the territory described and fully set out pelle Lakes between Her Majesty’s Commissioners
in the said articles of treaty and every part thereof; and the several Indian Chiefs and others therein
also, all our right, title and privileges whatsoever to named, at which the articles of the said treaty were
all other lands wherever situated, whether within agreed upon, hereby for ourselves, and the band
the limit of any treaty formerly made or hereafter to which we represent, in consideration of the provi-
be made with the Saulteaux Tribe or any other tribe sions of the treaty being extended to us and the said
of Indians inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Ter- band which we represent, transfer, surrender and
ritories, or any of them. To have and to hold the relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and
same unto and to use of Her said Majesty the Queen, successors, to and for the use of Her Government of
Her heirs and successors forever. Her Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and
privileges whatsoever which we and the bands
And we hereby agree to accept the several provi- which we represent have held or enjoy, of, in and to
sions, payments and reserves of the said treaty the territory described and fully set out in the said
signed at the Qu’Appelle Lakes as therein stated, articles of treaty and every part thereof; also our
and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry right, title and privileges whatsoever to all other
out and fulfill all the stipulations, obligations and lands wherever situated, whether within the limit of
conditions therein contained on the part of the said any treaty formerly made or hereafter to be made
Chiefs and Indians therein named to be observed with the Assiniboine Tribe or any other tribe of Indi-
and performed, and in all things to conform to the ans inhabiting Her Majesty’s North-West Territories,
articles of the said treaty as if we ourselves and the or any of them. To have and to hold the same unto
band which we represent had been originally con- and to the use of Her said Majesty the Queen, Her
tracting parties thereto, and had been present and Heirs and successors forever.
attached our signatures to the said treaty.
And we hereby agree to accept the several provi-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s Com- sions and the payment in the following manner, viz.:
missioners and the said Indian Chief and Headmen That those who have not already received payment
have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Fort receive this year the sums of twelve dollars for the
Pelly, this twenty-fourth day of August, in the year year 1876, which shall be considered their first year
of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and of payment, and five dollars for the year 1877, mak-
seventy-six. ing together the sum of seventeen dollars apiece to

Treaty 5, 1875 581
those who have never been paid, and five dollars per tenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba and
annum for every subsequent year, and also the the North-west Territories, and the Honourable
reserves of the said treaty signed at Qu’Appelle James McKay, of the one part, and the Saulteaux and
Lakes, as therein stated, and solemnly promise and Swampy Cree tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the
agree to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipula- country within the limits hereinafter defined and
tions, obligations and conditions therein contained described, by their Chiefs, chosen and named as
on the part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein hereinafter mentioned, of the other part.
named to be observed and performed, and in all
things to conform to the articles of the said treaty as WHEREAS, the Indians inhabiting the said country
if we ourselves and the band which we represent have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said
had been originally contracting parties thereto and Commissioners, been convened at meetings at Beren’s
had been present and attached our signatures to the River and Norway House to deliberate upon certain
said treaty. matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of
the one part, and the said Indians of the other.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Major James M. Walsh,
Inspector of North-West Mounted Police, in com- AND WHEREAS the said Indians have been notified
mand at Forth Walsh, and the said Indian Chiefs and and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners
Headmen, have hereunto set their hands at Fort that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for set-
Walsh, this twenty-fifth day of September, in the tlement, immigration and such other purposes as to
year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country
seventy-seven. bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned,
and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian sub-
Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the jects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first and arrange with them, so that there may be peace
explained by Constant Provost to the Indians. and good will between them and Her Majesty, and
that they may know and be assured of what
J. H. McILLREE, Sub-Inspector, allowance they are to count upon and receive from
PERCY REGINALD NEALE, Sub-Inspector, Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.
N.W.M.P,
J. M. WALSH, AND WHEREAS the Indians of said tract, duly con-
LONG LODGE TEPEE HOSKA, his x mark, vened in council as aforesaid, and being requested
THE ONE THAT FETCHED THE COAT, his x by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name cer-
mark, tain Chiefs and Headmen who should be authorized
WICH-A-WOS-TAKA, his x mark, on their behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign
THE POOR MAN, his x mark any treaty to be founded thereon, and to become
responsible to Her Majesty for the faithful perfor-
mance by their respective bands of such obligations
as shall be assumed by them the said Indians, have
thereupon named the following persons for that pur-
Treaty 5, 1875 pose, that is to say:
Sept. 24, 1875
Between Her Majesty the Queen and the For the Indians within the Beren’s River region and
Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians their several bands: Nah-wee-kee-sick-quah-yash,
at Beren’s River and Norway House with Chief; Kah-nah-wah-kee-wee-nin and Nah-kee-
Adhesions quan-nay-yash, Councillors, and Pee-wah-roo-wee-
ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded at nin, of Poplar River; Councillors for the Indians
Beren’s River the 20th day of September, and at Nor- within the Norway House region and their several
way House the 24th day of September, in the year of bands: David Rundle, Chief, James Cochrane,
Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- Harry Constatag and Charles Pisequinip, Council-
five, between “Her Most Gracious Majesty the lors; and Ta-pas-ta-num, or Donald William Sinclair
Queen” of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Com- Ross, Chief, James Garrioch and Proud McKay,
missioners the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieu- Councillors.

582 Treaty 5, 1875
AND THEREUPON, in open council, the different form the treaty limits, ten miles from the shore of the
bands having presented their Chiefs to the said lake should be included in the treaty.
Commissioners as the Chiefs and Headmen for the
purposes aforesaid of the respective Bands of Indi- And also all their rights, titles and privileges whatso-
ans inhabiting the said district hereinafter described. ever to all other lands wherever situated in the
AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners then and North-west Territories or in any other Province or
there received and acknowledged the persons so portion of Her Majesty’s dominions situated and
presented as Chiefs and Headmen, for the purposes being within the Dominion of Canada;
aforesaid, of the respective Bands of Indians inhabit-
ing the said district hereinafter described. The tract comprised within the lines above
described, embracing an area of one hundred thou-
AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners have pro- sand square miles, be the same more or less;
ceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians,
and the same has been finally agreed upon and con- To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the
cluded as follows, that is to say: Queen, and Her successors forever;
The Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and
and all other the Indians inhabiting the district undertakes to lay aside reserves for farming lands,
hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, due respect being had to lands at present cultivated
release, surrender and yield up to the Government by the said Indians, and other reserves for the benefit
of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty of the said Indians, to be administered and dealt
the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their with for them by Her Majesty’s Government of the
rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the Dominion of Canada, provided all such reserves
lands included within the following limits, that is shall not exceed in all one hundred and sixty acres
to say: for each family of five, or in that proportion for
larger or smaller families-in manner following, that
Commencing at the north corner or junction of is to say: For the Band of “Saulteaux, in the Beren’s
Treaties Nos. 1 and 3; then easterly along the bound- River” region, now settled or who may within two
ary of Treaty No. 3 to the “Height of Land,” at the years settle therein, a reserve commencing at the out-
northeast corner of the said treaty limits, a point let of Beren’s River into Lake Winnipeg, and extend-
dividing the waters of the Albany and Winnipeg ing along the shores of said lake, and up said river
Rivers; thence due north along the said “Height of and into the interior behind said lake and river, so as
Land “ to a point intersected by the 53° of north lati- to comprehend one hundred and sixty acres for each
tude; and thence north-westerly to “Favourable family of five, a reasonable addition being, however,
Lake”; thence following the east shore of said lake to to be made by Her Majesty to the extent of the said
its northern limit; thence north-westerly to the north reserve for the inclusion in the tract so reserved of
end of Lake Winnipegoosis; then westerly to the swamp, but reserving the free navigation of the said
“Height of Land” called “Robinson’s Portage”; lake and river, and free access to the shores and
thence north-westerly to the east end of “Cross waters thereof, for Her Majesty and all Her subjects,
Lake”; thence north-westerly crossing “Foxes Lake”; and expecting thereout such land as may have been
thence north-westerly to the north end of “Split granted to or stipulated to be held by the “Hudson
Lake”; thence south-westerly to “Pipestone Lake,” Bay Company,” and also such land as Her Majesty or
on “Burntwood River “; thence south-westerly to the Her successors, may in Her good pleasure, see fit to
western point of “John Scott’s Lake”; thence south- grant to the Mission established at or near Beren’s
westerly to the north shore of “Beaver Lake”; thence River by the Methodist Church of Canada, for a
south-westerly to the west end of “Cumberland church, school-house, parsonage, burial ground and
Lake”; thence due south to the “Saskatchewan farm, or other mission purposes; and to the Indians
River”; thence due south to the north-west corner of residing at Poplar River, falling into Lake Winnipeg
the northern limits of Treaty No. 4, including all ter- north of Beren’s River, a reserve not exceeding one
ritory within the said limits, and all islands on all hundred and sixty acres to each family of five,
lakes within the said limits, as above described; and respecting, as much as possible, their present
it being also understood that in all cases where lakes improvements:

Treaty 5, 1875 583
And inasmuch as a number of the Indians now Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians,
residing in and about Norway House of the band of that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until
whom David Rundle is Chief are desirous of remov- otherwise determined by Her Government of the
ing to a locality where they can cultivate the soil, Her Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be
Majesty the Queen hereby agrees to lay aside a allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now
reserve on the west side of Lake Winnipeg, in the in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her
vicinity of Fisher River, so as to give one hundred Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves, or living
acres to each family of five, or in that proportion for elsewhere within Her North-west Territories, from
larger or smaller families, who shall remove to the the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors,
said locality within “three years,” it being estimated shall be strictly enforced.
that ninety families or thereabout will remove within
the said period, and that a reserve will be laid aside Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians,
sufficient for that or the actual number; and it is fur- that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue
ther agreed that those of the band who remain in the their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout
vicinity of “Norway House” shall retain for their the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, sub-
own use their present gardens, buildings and ject to such regulations as may from time to time be
improvements, until the same be departed with by made by Her Government of Her Dominion of
the Queen’s Government, with their consent first Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as
had and obtained, for their individual benefit, if any may from time to time be required or taken up for
value can be realized therefore: settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes, by
Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or
And with regard to the Band of Wood Indians, of by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized there-
whom Ta-pas-ta-num, or Donald William Sinclair for by the said Government.
Ross, is Chief, a reserve at Otter Island, on the west
side of Cross Lake, of one hundred and sixty acres It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her
for each family of five or in that proportion for said Indians that such sections of the reserves above
smaller families-reserving, however, to Her Majesty, indicated as may at any time be required for public
Her successors and Her subjects the free navigation works or buildings, of what nature soever, may be
of all lakes and rivers and free access to the shores appropriated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Gov-
thereof; Provided, however, that Her Majesty ernment of the Dominion of Canada, due compensa-
reserves the right to deal with any settlers within tion being made for the value of any improvements
the bounds of any lands reserved for any band as thereon.
She shall deem fit, and also that the aforesaid
reserves of land or any interest therein may be sold And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioners
or otherwise disposed of by Her Majesty’s Govern- shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this
ment for the use and benefit of the said Indians enti- treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all the
tled thereto, with their consent first had and Indians inhabiting the tract above described, distrib-
obtained. uting them in families, and shall in every year ensu-
ing the date hereof, at some period in each year to be
And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her duly notified to the Indians, and at a place or places
Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of to be appointed for that purpose within the territory
Her Indians, She hereby, through Her Commission- ceded, pay to each Indian person the sum of five dol-
ers, makes them a present of five dollars for each lars per head yearly.
man, woman and child belonging to the bands here
represented, in extinguishment of all claims hereto- It is further agreed between Her Majesty and
fore preferred. the said Indians that the sum of five hundred dollars
per annum shall be yearly and every year expended
And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools by Her Majesty in the purchase of ammunition, and
for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to twine for nets, for the use of the said Indians, in
Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may manner following, that is to say: in the reasonable
seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve discretion as regards the distribution thereof among
shall desire it. the Indians inhabiting the several reserves or

584 Treaty 5, 1875
otherwise included therein of Her Majesty’s Indian tracts, or any part thereof; and that they will aid and
Agent have the supervision of this treaty. assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to jus-
tice and punishment any Indian offending against
It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws
said Indians that the following articles shall be sup- in force in the country so ceded.
plied to any band of the said Indians who are now
cultivating the soil, or who shall hereafter commence IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Com-
to cultivate the land, that is to say: Two hoes for missioners and the said Indian Chiefs have hereunto
every family actually cultivating; also one spade per subscribed and set their hands at “Beren’s River”
family as aforesaid; one plough for every ten fami- this twentieth day of September, A.D. 1875, and at
lies as aforesaid; five harrows for every twenty fami- Norway House on the twenty-fourth day of the
lies as aforesaid; one scythe for every family as afore- month and year herein first above named.
said, and also one axe; and also one cross-cut saw,
one hand-saw, one pit-saw, the necessary files, one Signed by the Chiefs within named in presence
grindstone, and one auger for each band; and also of the following witnesses, the same having been
for each Chief, for the use of his band, one chest of first read and explained by the Honourable James
ordinary carpenter’s tools; also for each band McKay:
enough of wheat, barley, potatoes and oats to plant
the land actually broken up for cultivation by such THOS. HOWARD,
band; also for each band one yoke of oxen, one bull A. G. JACKES, M.D.,
and four cows all the aforesaid articles to be given CHRISTINE MORRIS,
once for all for the encouragement of the practice of E. C. MORRIS,
agriculture among the Indians. ELIZABETH YOUNG,
WILLIAM McKAY,
It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the JOHN Mc KAY,
said Indians that each Chief duly recognized as such EGERTON RYERSON YOUNG,
shall receive an annual salary of twenty-five dollars ALEX. MORRIS, L.G. [L.S.],
per annum, and each subordinate officer, not exceed- JAMES McKAY, [L.S.],
ing three for each band, shall receive fifteen dollars NAH-WEE-KEE-SICK-QUAH-YASH, other-
per annum; and each such Chief and subordinate wise, JACOB BERENS, Chief, his x mark,
officer as aforesaid shall also receive, once every KAH-NAH-WAH-KEE-WEE-NIN, otherwise,
three years, a suitable suit of clothing; and each ANTOINE GOUIN, his x mark,
Chief shall receive, in recognition of the closing of NAH-KEE-QUAN-NAY-YASH, his x mark,
the treaty, a suitable flag and medal. PEE-WAH-ROO-WEE-NIN, his x mark,
Councillors.
And the undersigned Chiefs, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract Signed at Norway House by the Chiefs and Council-
within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and lors hereunto his subscribing in the presence of the
engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to con- undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
duct and behave themselves as good and loyal sub- read and explained by the Honourable James
jects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and McKay:
engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide
by the law, and they will maintain peace and good RODK. ROSS,
order between each other, and also between them- JOHN H. RUTTAN, Methodist Minister,
selves and other Tribes of Indians, and between O. GRINDER, Methodist Min.,
themselves and others of Her Majesty’s subjects, D. C. McTAVISH,
whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or here- ALEX. SINCLAIR,
after to inhabit any part of the said ceded tracts, and L. C. McTAVISH,
that they will not molest the person or property of CHRISTINE V. K. MORRIS,
any inhabitant of such ceded tracts, or the property E. C. MORRIS,
of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trou- A. G. JACKES, M.D.,
ble any person passing or travelling through the said THOS. HOWARD.,

Treaty 5, 1875 585
ALEX. MORRIS, L.G., [L.S.], obligations and conditions therein contained, on the
JAMES McKAY, [L.S.], part of the said Chiefs and Indians therein named, to
DAVID RUNDLE, Chief. his x mark, be observed and performed, and in all things to con-
JAMES COCHRANE, his x mark, form to the articles of the said treaty as if we our-
HARRY CONSTATAG, his x mark, selves had been originally contracting parties
CHARLES PISEQUINIP, Councillors, his x thereto.
mark,
TA-PAS-TA-NUM, or, DONALD WILLIAM, his IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Her Majesty’s said Com-
x mark, missioners and the said Indian Chief and Council-
SINCLAIR ROSS, Chief, his x mark, lors have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, at
GEORGE GARRIOCK, his x mark, the Grand Rapids, this twenty-seventh day of Sep-
PROUD McKAY,Councillors. his x mark. tember, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and seventy-five.
We, the Band of the Saulteaux Tribe of Indians resid-
ing at the mouth of the Saskatchewan River, on both Signed by the parties in the presence of the under-
sides thereof, having had communication of the signed witnesses, the same having been first
foregoing treaty, hereby, and in consideration of the explained to the Indians by the Honourable James
provisions of the said treaty being extended to us, McKay.
transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her Majesty
the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and for the THOS. HOWARD,
use of the Government of Canada, all our right, title RODK. ROSS,
and privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy E. C. MORRIS,
in the territory described in the said treaty, and A. G. JACKES, M.D.,
every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of ALEX. MATHESON,
Her Majesty the Queen and Her heirs and succes- JOSEPH HOUSTON,
sors for ever. And Her Majesty agrees, through the CHRISTINE V. K. MORRIS,
said Commissioners, to assign a reserve of sufficient ALEX. MORRIS, L.G. [L.S.],
area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each JAMES McKAY, [L.S.],
family of five, or in that proportion for larger or PETER BEARDY, Chief, his x mark,
smaller families-such reserve to be laid off and sur- JOSEPH ATKINSON, his x mark,
veyed next year on the south side of the River ROBERT S. ANDERSON, Councillors. his x
Saskatchewan. mark.
And having regard to the importance of the land ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA
where the said Indians are now settled in respect of INDIANS
the purposes of the navigation of the said river and MEMORANDUM.
transport in connection therewith, and otherwise, The Queen’s Indian Commissioners having met
and in view of the fact that many of the said Indians Thick-foot and a portion of the Island Band of Indi-
have now houses and gardens on the other side of ans at Wa-pang or Dog-head Island on the 28th day
the river and elsewhere which they will abandon, of September, A.D. 1875, request him to notify the
Her Majesty agrees, through Her said Commission- Island Indians and those of Jack-head Point to meet
ers, to grant a sum of five hundred dollars to the said at Wa-pang an Indian Agent next summer to
Band to be paid in equitable proportions to such of receive payments under the treaty which they have
them as have houses, to assist them in removing made with the Indians of Norway House, Beren’s
their houses to the said reserve or building others. River, Grand Rapids and Lake Winnipeg, and in
which they are included, at a time of which they
And the said Indians, represented herein by their will be notified, and to be prepared then to desig-
Chiefs and Councillors, presented as such by the nate their Chief and two Councillors. The Commis-
Band, do hereby agree to accept the several provi- sioners have agreed to give some of the “Norway
sions, payments and other benefits as stated in the House” Indians a reserve at Fisher Creek, and they
said treaty, and solemnly promise and engage to will give land to the Island Indians at the same
abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, place.

586 Treaty 5, 1875
Given at Wa-pang this 28th day of September, A.D. their Chief and Councillors, have hereunto subscript
1875, under our hands. and set their hands at Winnipeg, the seventh day of
September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand
ALEX. MORRIS, L.G., eight hundred seventy-six.
JAMES McKAY
Witness:
I accept payments under the treaty for myself J. A. N. PROVENCHER,
and those who may adhere to me, and accept the JAS. F. GRAHAM,
same and all its provisions as a Principal Indian, and H. MARTINEAU,
agree to notify the Indians as above written. J. P. WRIGHT,
JAMES BIRD, his x mark,
JOSEPH SAYER, his x mark,
THICK-FOOT, his x mark JOHN SAYER. his x mark
ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA AND

CREE INDIANS
WA-PANG, September 28th, 1875. ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT AND ADHESION TO
Witness: A TREATY made and concluded at Beren’s River on
THOS. HOWARD, the 20th day of September and at Norway House the
RODK. ROSS 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
ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the
INDIANS Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor
We, the Band of Saulteaux Tribe of Indians residing of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Ter-
at the mouth of Black River, on the east shore of ritories, and the Honourable James McKay, of the
Lake Winnipeg, having had communication of the one part, and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes
treaty made and concluded at Beren’s River the 20th of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the lim-
day of September, 1875, between Her Most Gracious its hereinafter defined and described, by their
Majesty the Queen, by Her Commissioners the Hon- Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned,
ourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of of the other part:
the Province of Manitoba and the Northwest Terri-
tories, and the Honourable James McKay, and the We, the Band of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indi-
different tribes of Indians and inhabitants of the ans, residing at the “Pas,” on the Saskatchewan
country within the limits mentioned in the said River, Birch River, the Pas Mountain and File Lake,
treaty, hereby, and in consideration of the provisions and known as “The Pas Band”; and at Cumberland
of the said treaty being extended to us, transfer, sur- Island, Sturgeon River, Angling River, Pine Bluff,
render and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen, Beaver Lake and the Ratty Country, and known as
Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of the “The Cumberland Band”; and at Moose Lake and
Government of Canada, all our rights, titles and Cedar Lake, and known as “The Moose Lake
privileges whatsoever which we may have or enjoy Band,” having had communication of the aforesaid
in the territory descript in the said treaty, and every treaty, of which a true copy is hereunto annexed,
part thereof-and to hold to the use of Her Majesty hereby, and in consideration of the provisions of
the Queen, and heirs and successors forever. And the said treaty being extended to us, transfer, sur-
Her Majesty agrees through the Acting Indian render and relinquish to Her Majesty the Queen,
Superintendent, to assign the reserve of sufficient Her heirs and successors, to and for the use of the
area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each Government of Canada, all our rights, title and
family of five, or in that proportion for smaller or privileges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in
larger families, on the banks of the said Black River. the territory described in the said treaty and every
part thereof, to have and to hold to the use of Her
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Acting Indian Majesty the Queen and Her heirs and successors
Superintendent and the said Indians, represented by forever.

Treaty 5, 1875 587
And Her Majesty agrees, through Her represen- authority of the Honourable Alexander Morris,
tative as hereinafter named, to assign a reserve of suf- Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba and of the North-
ficient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to west Territories, and Chief Superintendent of Indian
each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or Affairs for the Manitoba Superintendency, and the
smaller families, such reserves to be subject to the said Chiefs and Councillors, have hereunto sub-
approval of Her Majesty’s Government of the scribed and set their hands at the “Pas,” on the
Dominion of Canada, and to be laid off and surveyed Saskatchewan River, this seventh day of September,
as soon as may be found practicable, in manner fol- in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred
lowing, that is to say: For the “Pas” Band, a reserve and seventy-six.
on both sides of the Saskatchewan River at the “Pas”;
but as the area of land fit for cultivation in that vicin- Signed by the Chiefs and Councillors within named,
ity is very limited, and insufficient to allow of a in the presence of the following witnesses, the treaty
reserve being laid off to meet the requirements of the and this adhesion, having been first read and
Band, that the balance of such reserve shall be at explained by the Rev. Henry Cochrane:
“Birch River” and the “Pas Mountain”; for the “Cum-
berland Band” a reserve at “Cumberland Island,” H. BELLANGER,
and as the land fit for cultivation there is also limited HENRY COCHRANE, Missionary,
and insufficient to meet their requirements, that the CHARLES D. RICKARDS,
balance of that reserve shall be at a point between the CHARLES ADAMS, C. Clk., H.B. Co.,
“Pine Bluff” and “Lime Stone Rock,” on “Cumber- WALTER R. NURSEY,
land Lake”; and for the “Moose Lake Band” a reserve JOHN CLEMONS,
at the north end of “Moose Lake,” called Little Nar- THOMAS NIXON, Jr.,
rows-reserving, however, to Her Majesty, Her heirs, ROBERT BALLENDINE,
successors, and Her subjects, the free navigation of all A. M. MUCKLE, J.P.,
lakes and rivers, and free access to the shores thereof, THOS. HOWARD, [L.S.],
and excepting thereout such land as may have been
granted to or stipulated to be held by the Hudson’s “Pas” Band
Bay Company at the Pas and Cumberland Island, JOHN CONSTANT, Chief, his x mark,
and also such land as Her Majesty or Her successors JAMES COOK, Sr., his x mark,
may in their good pleasure see fit to grant to the mis- JOHN BELL, Jr., his x mark,
sions established at the “Pas” and Cumberland PETER BELL, his x mark,
Island by the Church Missionary Society, and the DONALD COOK, Sr., his x mark,
mission established at Cumberland Island by the Councillors
Roman Catholic Church; and provided Her Majesty,
Her heirs and successors, reserve the right to deal “Cumberland” Band
with any settlers within the bounds of any lands JOHN COCHRANE, Chief, his x mark,
reserved for any Band as She shall deem fit. PETER CHAPMAN, his x mark,
ALBERT FLETT, his x mark,
And the said Indians, represented herein by their Councillors
Chiefs and Councillors, presented as such by the
Bands, do hereby agree to accept the several provi- “Moose Lake” Band
sions, payments, and other benefits, as stated in the O-TIN-IK-IM-AW, Chief, his x mark,
said treaty, and solemnly promise and engage to MA-IK-WUH-E-HA-POW, his x mark,
abide by, carry out and fulfil all stipulations, obliga- WA-ME-KWUW-UH-OP, his x mark,
tions and conditions therein contained, on the part of KA-CHA-CHUCK-OOS, his x mark,
the said Chiefs and Indians therein named, to be Councillors
observed and performed, and in all things to con-
form to the articles of the said treaty, as if we our- ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX OR CHIPPEWA
selves had been originally contracting parties thereto. INDIANS
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT AND ADHESION TO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Honourable Thomas A TREATY made and concluded at Beren’s River the
Howard, acting herein for Her Majesty under special 20th day of September, and at Norway House the

588 Treaty 5, 1875
24th day of September, in the year of Our Lord one herein for Her Majesty, under special authority of
thousand eight hundred and seventy-five between the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Gov-
Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great ernor of Manitoba and the North-west Territories,
Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the and Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the
Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor Manitoba Superintendency, and the said Chief and
of the Province of Manitoba and the North-west Ter- Councillor, have hereunto subscribed and set their
ritories, and the Honourable James McKay, of the hands at the Beren’s River, this fourth day of
one part, and the Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Tribes August, A.D. 1876.
of Indians, inhabitants of the country within the lim- Signed by the Chief and Councillor within
its hereinafter defined and described, by their named in the presence of the following witnesses,
Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, the treaty and this adhesion having been first read
of the other part. and explained by the Rev. H. Cochrane
We, the Band of Saulteaux Indians residing in the HENRY COCHRANE, Missionary,
vicinity of the Grand Rapids of the Beren’s River, JAMES FLETT,
having had communication of the aforesaid treaty, of OWEN HUGHES,
which a true copy is hereunto annexed, hereby and ALEXANDER BEGG,
in consideration of the provisions of the said treaty A. M. MUCKLE, J.P.,
being extended to us, transfer, surrender and relin- GEO. COLDEE,
quish to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and suc- THOMAS PRATT,
cessors, to and for the use of the Government of WILLIAM McKAY,
Canada, all our rights, titles and privileges whatso- THOMAS NIXON, Jr.,
ever, which we have or enjoy in the territory THOS. HOWARD, [L.S.],
described in the said treaty, and every part thereof, J. LESTOCK REID, [L.S.],
to have and to hold to the use of Her Majesty the NAH-WEE-KEE-SICK-QUAH-YASH,
Queen, and Her heirs and successors forever. (Or JACOB BERENS, of Beren’s River), his x
mark,
And Her Majesty agrees, through Her representa- Chief, NUN-AK-OW-AH-NUK-WAPE, his x
tives as hereinafter named to assign a reserve of suffi- mark,
cient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to Councillor
each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or
smaller families, such reserve to be laid off and sur- ADHESION BY SAULTEAUX AND CHIPPEWA
veyed as soon as may be found practicable, at or near INDIANS
the Sandy Narrows of the Beren’s River, on both ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT AND ADHESION TO
sides of the said river, reserving the free navigation of A TREATY made and concluded at Beren’s River the
the said river, and free access to the shores thereof, to 20th day of September, and at Norway House
all Her Majesty’s subjects. the 24th day of September, in the year of Our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and seventy five,
And the said Indians, represented herein by their between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of
Chief and Councillor, presented as such by the Band, Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners,
do hereby agree to accept the several provisions, pay- the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-
ments and other benefits, as stated in the said treaty, Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the
and solemnly promise and engage to abide by, carry North-west Territories, and the Honourable James
out and fulfil all the stipulations, obligations and con- McKay, of the one part, and the Saulteaux and
ditions therein contained, on the part of the said Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the
Chief and Indians therein named, to be observed and country within the limits hereinafter defined and
performed, and in all things to conform to the articles described, by their Chiefs, chosen and named as
of the said treaty, as if we ourselves had been origi- hereinafter mentioned, of the other part:
nally contracting parties thereto.
We, the Band of Saulteaux Indians residing at or near
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Honourable Thomas the Big Island and the other islands in Lake Win-
Howard, and John Lestock Reid, Esquire, acting nipeg, and also on the shores thereof, having had

Treaty 5, 1875 589
communication of the aforesaid treaty, of which a ALEXANDER BEGG,

true copy is hereunto annexed, hereby, and in con- WILLIAM LEACK,
sideration of the provisions of the said treaty being THOMAS NIXON, Jr.,
extended to us, transfer, surrender, and relinquish to A. M. MUCKLE, J.P.,
Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to THOS. HOWARD, [L.S.],
and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our J. LESTOCK REID, [L.S.],
right, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have SA-KA-CHE-WAYAS, Chief, (Blood Vein
or enjoy in the territory described in the said treaty, River.), his x mark,
and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use KA-TUK-E-PIN-AIS or HARDISTY, (Big
of Her Majesty the Queen, and Her heirs and succes- Island.), his x mark,
sors forever. THICKFOOT, (Dog Head.), his x mark,
SANG-GWA-WA- KA-POW, or JAMES
And Her Majesty agrees, through Her representa- SINCLAIR, (Jack Head), his x mark,
tives as hereinafter named, to assign reserves of suf- Councillors
ficient area to allow one hundred and sixty acres to
each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or I, the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-
smaller families, such reserves to be selected for said Governor of Manitoba and the North-west Territo-
Indians by a Dominion Land Surveyor, or other offi- ries, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true
cer named for that purpose, with the approval of the copy of the treaty of which it purports to be a copy.
said Indians, as soon as practicable. Given under my hand and seal at Fort Garry,
this nineteenth day of July, A.D. 1876.
And the said Indians, represented herein by their
Chief and Councillors, presented as such by the ALEXANDER MORRIS, L.G. [L.S.]
Band, do hereby agree to accept the several provi-
sions, payments and other benefits as stated in the ADHESION TO TREATY 5 BY SPLIT LAKE AND
said treaty, and solemnly promise and engage to NELSON HOUSE.
abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipulations, We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on behalf
obligations and conditions therein contained, on of ourselves and the other members of the Split Lake
the part of the said Chief and Indians therein and Nelson House Bands of Indians, having had
named, to be observed and performed, and in all communication of the Treaty with certain Bands of
things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, known as
as if we ourselves had been originally contracting Treaty No. 5, hereby in consideration of the provi-
parties thereto. sions of the said Treaty being extended to us, it being
understood and agreed that the said provisions shall
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Honourable Thomas not be retroactive, transfer, surrender, and relinquish
Howard, and John Lestock Reid, Esquire, acting to His Majesty the King, his heirs and successors, to
herein for Her Majesty, under special authority of the and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our
Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor right, title and privileges whatsoever, which we have
of Manitoba and of the North-west Territories, and or enjoy in the territory described in the said Treaty,
Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Mani- and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use
toba Superintendency, and the said Chief and Coun- of His Majesty the King, and his heirs and successors
cillors, have hereunto subscribed and set their forever.
hands, at Wapang, or Dog Head, Lake Winnipeg,
this twenty-six day of July, A.D. 1876. And we also hereby transfer, surrender and relin-
quish to His Majesty the King, His heirs and succes-
Signed by the Chief and Councillors within named sors, to and for the use of the Government of the
in the presence of the following witnesses, treaty and Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and interest
this adhesion having been first read and explained whatsoever which we and the said Bands which we
by the Rev. Henry Cochrane: represent hold and enjoy, or have held and enjoyed,
of, in and to the territory within the following lim-
W. W. KIRBY, Archdeacon of York, its: All that portion of the North West Territories of
HENRY COCHRANE, Missionary, Canada comprised within the following limits, that

590 Treaty 5, 1875
is to say; commencing where the sixtieth parallel of And his Majesty further hereby agrees to provide a
latitude intersects the water’s edge of the West grant proportionate to that mentioned in the original
shore of Hudson Bay, thence West along the said treaty to be yearly and every year expended by His
parallel to the North East corner of the Province of Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine
Saskatchewan, thence south along the East bound- for nets for the use of the said Indians; and to further
ary of the said Province, to the Northerly limit of the increase this annual grant in lieu of other supplies
Indian treaty number Five, thence North Easterly, provided by the said treaty when this action is
then South Easterly, then South Westerly and again shown to be in the interests of the Indians.
South Easterly following the northerly limit of the
said Treaty number Five to the intersection of a line And his Majesty further agrees to pay to each Indian
drawn from the North East corner of the Province of a gratuity of Five Dollars in cash, once for all, in
Manitoba, North Fifty-five degrees East; thence on addition to the Five Dollars annuity promised by the
the said line produced fifty miles; thence North Treaty in order to show the satisfaction of His
twenty-five degrees East one hundred and eighty Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of his
miles more or less to a point situated due South of Indians and in extinguishment of all their past
Cape Tatnam, thence due North ninety-eight miles claims.
more or less to the said Cape Tatnam; thence South
Westerly and then Northerly following the water’s IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special
edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay to the point Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the
of commencement, together with all the foreshores, Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty
and Islands adjacent to the said described tract of have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Split
land, and containing approximately an area of one Lake this Twenty-sixth day of June in the year of our
hundred and thirty-three thousand four hundred Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight.
(133,400) square miles.
Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the
And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
to all other lands wherever situated, whether explained to the Indians by JOHN SEMMENS,
within the limits of any other treaty heretofore Commissioner.
made, or hereafter to be made with the Indians, and
whether the said lands are situated in the North W. J. GRANT, M.D., Medical Officer,
West Territories or elsewhere in His Majesty’s R. J. SPENCER, Clerk,
Dominions, to have and to hold the same unto and H. McKAY, Commissioner,
for the use of His Majesty, the King, His heirs and G. J. WARDNER, Constable,
successors forever. H. C. McLEOD, H. B. COY,
J. M. THOMAS, C.F,
And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits, [Name in Cree characters],
payments and reserves promised to and accepted by WM. KECHE-KESIK, his x mark,
the Indians adhering to the said Treaty No. 5. And [Name in Cree characters],
we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil CHARLES MORRIS, his x mark,
all the stipulations, obligations and conditions [Name in Cree characters],
therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indi- ALBERT SPENCE, his x mark
ans therein named to be observed and performed,
and we agree in all things to conform to the articles IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special
of the said treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the
which we represent had been originally contracting Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty
parties thereto and had attached our signatures to have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at Nel-
the said treaty. son House this thirtieth day of July in the year of our
Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight.
And his Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves
of land of a like proportionate area to those men- Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the
tioned in the original Treaty No. 5. undersigned witnesses, the same having been first

Treaty 5, 1875 591
explained to the Indians by JOHN SEMMENS, His Majesty the King, His heirs and successors
Commissioner. forever.
W. J. GRANT, M.D., Medical Officer, And His Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves
R. J. SPENCER, Clerk, of land of a like proportionate area to those men-
H. McKAY, Commissioner, tioned in the original Treaty No. 5, or if thought
G. J. WARDNER, Constable, advisable, to add to Reserves already set aside pro-
FRED. A. SEMMENS, portionate areas for the Indians now by this Instru-
G. D. BUTLER, S/Sergt. R.N.W.M. Police, ment giving their adhesion to the said Treaty.
CHARLES GEORGE FOX, Missionary-
Anglican, And His Majesty further hereby agrees to provide a
GEO THOS. VINCENT, grant proportionate to that mentioned in the original
ALEXANDER FLETT, Treaty to be yearly and every year expended by His
WILLIAM ISBESTER, Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine
F. A. SEMMENS, for nets for the use of the said Indians.
[Name in Cree characters],
PETER MOOSE, Chief, his x mark, AND we hereby agree to accept the several benefits,
[Name in Cree characters), payments and reserves promised to the Indians
MURDOCH HART, Councillor, his x mark, adhering to the said Treaty No. 5, it being under-
[Name in Cree characters], stood and agreed by us that the said benefits and
JAMES SPENCE, Councillor, his x mark payments shall not be retroactive. And we solemnly
engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all the stipu-
ADHESION TO TREATY No. 5 lations, obligations and conditions therein contained
1908 —NORWAY HOUSE, CROSS LAKE, and on the part of the Chiefs and Indians therein named
FISHER RIVER. to be observed and performed, and we agree in all
Dated respectively: 8th July 1908; 15th July 1908; 24th things to conform to the articles of the said treaty, as
August 1908. if we ourselves and the Bands which we represent
WE, the undersigned principal men of the non-treaty had been originally contracting parties thereto and
Indians resident at the places hereinafter mentioned had attached our signatures to the said treaty.
at which this adhesion has been signed having had
communication of the Treaty with certain Bands of IN WITNESS WHEREOF His Majesty’s Special
Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, known as Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the
Treaty No. 5, hereby, in consideration of the provi- Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty
sions of the said Treaty being extended to us, it being have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at
understood and agreed that the said provisions shall Norway House this eighth day of July and at Cross
not be retroactive, transfer, surrender and relinquish Lake this fifteenth day of July and at Fisher River
to His Majesty the King, his heirs and successors, to this twenty-fourth day of August in the year of our
and for the use of the Government of Canada, all our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight.
right, title, and privileges whatsoever, which we have
or enjoy in the territory described in the said treaty, Signed by the parties hereto in the resence of the
and every part thereof, to have and to hold to the use undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
of His Majesty the King, and his heirs and successors mark explained to the Indians by
forever.
JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner,
And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever SANDY SANDERS, his x mark,
to all other lands wherever situated, whether within PETER x MAHAM, his x mark,
the limits of any other treaty heretofore made, or THOMAS x GRIEVE, his x mark,
hereafter to be made with the Indians, and whether and 224 others at Norway House.
the said lands are situated in the North West Territo- DANIEL MESWAKUN, his x mark,
ries or elsewhere in His Majesty’s Dominions, to DAVID MONEAS, his x mark,
have and to hold the same unto and for the use of SIMON MONEAS, his x mark,

592 Treaty 5, 1875
and 70 others at Cross Lake. on the said line produced fifty miles; thence North
PETER MURDO, his x mark, twenty-five degrees East one hundred and eighty
JAMES KIRKNESS, his x mark, miles more or less to a point situated due South of
and 17 others at Fisher River. Cape Tatnam, thence due North ninety-eight miles
more or less to the said Cape Tatnam; thence South
Witnessed by Westerly and then Northerly following the water’s
R. J. SPENCER, edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay to the point
Clerk. of commencement, together with all the foreshores,
and Islands adjacent to the said described tract of
ADHESION TO TREATY No. 5 land, and containing approximately an area of one
OXFORD HOUSE, GOD’S LAKE, and ISLAND hundred and thirty-three thousand four hundred
LAKE BANDS. (133,400) square miles.
Dated 29th day of July 1909
We, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on behalf And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever
of ourselves and the other members of the Oxford to all other lands wherever situated, whether within
House, God’s Lake and Island Lake Band of Indians, the limits of any other treaty heretofore made, of
having had communication of the Treaty with cer- hereafter to be made with the Indians, and whether
tain Bands of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree Indians, the said lands are situated in the North West
known as Treaty No. 5, hereby in consideration of Territories or elsewhere in His Majesty’s Dominions,
the provisions of the said Treaty being extended to to have and to hold the same unto and for the use of
us, it being understood and agreed that the said pro- His Majesty, the King, His heirs and successors
visions shall not be retroactive, transfer, surrender forever.
and relinquish to His Majesty the King, his heirs and
successors, to and for the use of the Government of And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits,
Canada, all our right, title and privileges whatso- payments and reserves promised to and accepted by
ever, which we have or enjoy in the territory the Indians adhering to the said Treaty No. 5. And
described in the said Treaty, and every part thereof, we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil
to have and to hold to the use of His Majesty the all the stipulations, obligations and conditions
King, and his heirs and successors forever. therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indi-
ans therein named to be observed and performed,
And we also hereby transfer, surrender and relin- and we agree in all things to conform to the articles
quish to His Majesty the King, His heirs and suc- of the said treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands
cessors, to and for the use of the Government of which we represent had been originally contracting
the Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and parties thereto and had attached our signatures to
interest whatsoever which we and the said Bands the said treaty.
which we represent hold and enjoy, or have held
and enjoyed, of, in and to the territory within the And His Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves
following limits:—All that portion of the North of land of a like proportionate area to those men-
West Territories of Canada comprised within the tioned in the original Treaty No. 5.
following limits, that is to say; commencing where
the sixtieth parallel of latitude intersects the And His Majesty further hereby agrees to provide
water ’s edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay, a grant proportionate to that mentioned in the
thence West along the said parallel to the North original Treaty to be yearly and every year
East corner of the Province of Sas katch ewan, expended by His Majesty in the purchase of
thence south along the East boundary of the said ammunition and twine for nets for the use of the
Province to the Northerly limit of the Indian treaty said Indians; and to further increase this annual
number Five, thence North Easterly, then South grant in lieu of other supplies provided by the said
Easterly, then South Westerly and again South treaty when this action is shown to be in the inter-
Easterly following the northerly limit of the said ests of the Indians.
Treaty number Five to the intersection of a line
drawn from the North East corner of the Province And His Majesty further agrees to pay to each Indian
of Manitoba, North Fifty-five degrees East; thence a gratuity of Five Dollars in cash, once for all, in addi-

Treaty 5, 1875 593
tion to the Five Dollars annuity promised by the And at Island Lake this 13th day of August in the
Treaty in order to show the satisfaction of His Majesty year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
with the behaviour and good conduct of his Indians nine.
and in extinguishment of all their past claims. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of
the undersigned witnesses, the same having been
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special first explained to the Indians by
Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the
Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said treaty H. S. STEAD, Secretary,
have hereunto subscribed and set their hands at BERTHA STEAD,
Oxford House this Twenty Ninth day of July in the BARBARA ROSS,
year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and CHARLES B. ISBESTER,
nine. C. CUNNUNGHAM,
WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary,
Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the WALTER ROSS, M.D.C.M.,
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first ALEX H. CUNNINGHAM,
explained to the Indians by JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner,
GEORGE NOTT, Chief, H.S.S., his x mark
JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner, JOSEPH LINKLATER, Councillor H.S.S., his x
H. S. STEAD, Secretary, mark
WALTER ROSS, M.D.C.M., JOHN MASON Councillor, H.S.S., his x mark
CHRISTY THOMPSON,
H. A. McIVER, WE, the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on
A. E. KEMP, behalf of ourselves and the other members of the
BERTHA STEAD, Deer Lake, Fort York and Fort Churchill Bands of
BARBARA ROSS, Indians, having had communication of the Treaty
JEREMIAS CHUBB Chief, his x mark, with certain Bands of Saulteaux and Swampy Cree
ROBERT CHUBB, H.S.S., Councillor., his x mark, Indians, known as Treaty No. 5, hereby in considera-
JAMES NATAWAYO, Councillor, H.S.S., his x tion of the provisions of the said Treaty being
mark, extended to us, it being understood and agreed that
the said provisions shall not be retroactive, transfer,
And at God’s Lake this 6th day of August in the year surrender and relinquish to His Majesty the King,
of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine. his heirs and successors, to and for the use of the
Government of Canada, all our right, title and privi-
Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the leges whatsoever, which we have or enjoy in the ter-
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first ritory described in the said Treaty, and every part
explained to the Indians by thereof, to have and to hold to the use of His Majesty
the King, and his heirs and successors forever.
H.S. STEAD, Secretary,
A. B. MASSIL, And we also hereby transfer, surrender and relin-
E. T. BEVINGTON, quish to His Majesty the King, His heirs and succes-
A. SWAIN, sors, to and for the use of the Government of the
C. THOMPSON, Dominion of Canada, all our right, title and interest
WALTER ROSS, M.D.C.M., whatsoever which we and the said Bands which we
WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary, represent hold and enjoy, or have held and enjoyed,
BARBARA ROSS, of, in and to the territory within the following limits;
BERTHA STEAD, All that portion of the North West Territories of
JOHN SEMMENS, Commissioner, Canada comprised within the following limits, that
[Name in Cree characters], is to say; commencing where the sixtieth parallel of
(PETER WATT), Chief, his x mark, latitude intersects the water’s edge of the West shore
[Name in Cree characters], of Hudson Bay, thence West along the said parallel to
(BIG SIMON), Councillor., his x mark, the North East corner of the Province of Saskatch-
PETER CHUBB, Councillor H.S.S., his x mark ewan, thence south along the East boundary of the

594 Treaty 5, 1875
said Province to the Northerly limit of the Indian provided by the said Treaty when this action is
treaty number Five, thence North Easterly, then shown to be in the interests of the Indians.
South Easterly, then South Westerly and again south
Easterly following the northerly limit of the said And His Majesty further agrees to pay to each Indian
Treaty Number Five to the intersection of a line a gratuity of Five Dollars in cash, once for all, in
drawn from the North East corner of the Province of addition to the Five Dollars annuity promised by the
Manitoba, North Fifty-five degrees East; thence on Treaty in order to show the satisfaction of His
the said line produced fifty miles; thence North Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of his
twenty-five degrees East one hundred and eighty Indians and in extinguishment of all their past
miles more or less to a point situated due South of claims.
Cape Tatnam, thence due North ninety-eight miles
more or less to the said Cape Tatnam; thence South IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s Special
Westerly and then Northerly following the water’s Commissioner and the Chiefs and Councillors of the
edge of the West shore of Hudson Bay to the point of Bands hereby giving their adhesion to the said
commencement, together with all the foreshores, Treaty have hereunto subscribed and set their hands
and Islands adjacent to the said described tract of at Deer’s Lake East this ninth day of June in the year
land, and containing approximately an area of one of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ten.
hundred and thirty-three thousand four hundred
(133,400) square miles. Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
And also, all our right, title and interest whatsoever explained to the Indians by
to all other lands wherever situated, whether within
the limits of any other treaty heretofore made, or [L.S.] ROBERT FIDDLER, Chief of Deer’s Lake East.,
hereafter to be made with the Indians, and whether his x mark
the said lands are situated in the North West Territo- A. VERNON THOMAS, secretary to
ries or elsewhere in His Majesty’s Dominions, to have Commissioner,
and to hold the same unto and for the use of His HARVEY J. HASSARD, Physician,
Majesty the King, His heirs and successors forever. WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary
And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits, Signed at Fort Churchill, August 1st, 1910, by
payments and reserves promised to and accepted by
the Indians adhering to the said Treaty No. 5. And JOHN SEMMENS, [L.S.], Commissioner,
we solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil FRENCH JOHN, Chief. [L.S.], his x mark,
all the stipulations, obligations and conditions SAM CHINASHAGUN, Councillor [L.S.], his x
therein contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indi- mark,
ans therein named to be observed and performed, THOMAS CRAZY, Councillor [L.S.], his x mark
and we agree in all things to conform to the articles
of the said Treaty, as if we ourselves and the Bands Witnessed by:
which we represent had been originally contracting
parties thereto and had attached our signatures to C. N. C. HAYTER, Sgt. R.N.W.M.P.,
the said Treaty. ASHTON ASHTON
F. C. SEVIER, Missionary in Charge,
And His Majesty hereby agrees to set apart Reserves A. VERNON THOMAS, Clerk,
of land of a like proportionate area to those men- HARVEY. J. HASSARD, Physician,
tioned in the original Treaty No. 5. JAMES MELVILLE, MACOUN,
THOMAS N. MARCELLUS,
And His Majesty further hereby agrees to provide a WM. M. McEWEN, Commissary,
grant proportionate to that mentioned in the original JOHN SEMMENS [L.S.], Commissioner
Treaty to be yearly and every year expended by His
Majesty in the purchase of ammunition and twine Signed at York Factory, August 10th, 1910.
for nets for the use of the said Indians; and to further
increase this annual grant in lieu of other supplies [Name in Indian characters] [L.S.],

Treaty 6, 1876 595
CHARLES WASTASEKOOT, Chief., his x mark, that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for set-
[Name in Indian characters] [L.S.], tlement, immigration and such other purposes as to
ROBERT BEARDY, Councillor, his x mark Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country
[Name in Indian characters] [L.S.], bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned,
SANDY BEARDY, his x mark and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian sub-
jects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty
Witnessed by: and arrange with them, so that there may be peace
HARVEY J. HANSARD, Physician, and good will between them and Her Majesty, and
LESLIE LAING, that they may know and be assured of what
THOS. TURNBULL, allowance they are to count upon and receive from
RICHARD FARIES, clk. in H.O, Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.
R. L. BAYLIS,
A. VERNON THOMAS, Clerk, And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly con-
JOHN SEMMENS [L.S.], Commissioner vened in council, as aforesaid, and being requested
by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners to name cer-
tain Chiefs and Headmen, who should be autho-
rized 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
Treaty 6, 1876 performance by their respective Bands of such
Aug. 28, Sept. 9, 1876 obligations as shall be assumed by them, the said
Between Her Majesty the Queen and the Plain Indians have thereupon named for that purpose,
and Wood Cree Indians and Other Tribes of that is to say, representing the Indians who make
Indians at Fort Carlton, Fort Pitt and Battle the treaty at Carlton, the several Chiefs and Council-
River with Adhesions lors who have subscribed hereto, and representing
ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded near the Indians who make the treaty at Fort Pitt, the sev-
Carlton on the 23rd day of August and on the 28th eral Chiefs and Councillors who have subscribed
day of said month, respectively, and near Fort Pitt on hereto.
the 9th day of September, in the year of Our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, And thereupon, in open council, the different Bands
between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of having presented their Chiefs to the said Commis-
Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, sioners as the Chiefs and Headmen, for the purposes
the Honourable Alexander Morris, Lieutenant- aforesaid, of the respective Bands of Indians inhabit-
Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the ing the said district hereinafter described.
North-west Territories, and the Honourable James
McKay, and the Honourable William Joseph Christie, And whereas, the said Commissioners then and
of the one part, and the Plain and Wood Cree and the there received and acknowledged the persons so
other Tribes of Indians, inhabitants of the country presented as Chiefs and Headmen, for the purposes
within the limits hereinafter defined and described aforesaid, of the respective Bands of Indians inhabit-
by their Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter ing the said district hereinafter described.
mentioned, of the other part.
And whereas, the said Commissioners have pro-
Whereas the Indians inhabiting the said country ceeded to negotiate a treaty with the said Indians,
have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said and the same has been finally agreed upon and con-
Commissioners, been convened at meetings at Fort cluded, as follows, that is to say:
Carlton, Fort Pitt and Battle River, to deliberate
upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gra- The Plain and Wood Cree Tribes of Indians, and all
cious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter
of the other. described and defined, do hereby cede, release, sur-
render and yield up to the Government of the
And whereas the said Indians have been notified Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen
and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioners and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and

596 Treaty 6, 1876
privileges, whatsoever, to the lands included within ment of the Dominion of Canada; provided, all
the following limits, that is to say: such reserves shall not exceed in all one square
mile for each family of five, or in that proportion
Commencing at the mouth of the river emptying for larger or smaller families, in manner following,
into the north-west angle of Cumberland Lake; that is to say: that the Chief Superintendent of
thence westerly up the said river to its source; thence Indian Affairs shall depute and send a suitable per-
on a straight line in a westerly direction to the head son to determine and set apart the reserves for
of Green Lake; thence northerly to the elbow in the each band, after consulting with the Indians
Beaver River; thence down the said river northerly thereof as to the locality which may be found to be
to a point twenty miles from the said elbow; thence most suitable for them.
in a westerly direction, keeping on a line generally
parallel with the said Beaver River (above the Provided, however, that Her Majesty reserves the
elbow), and about twenty miles distant therefrom, to right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of
the source of the said river; thence northerly to the any lands reserved for any Band as She shall deem
north-easterly point of the south shore of Red Deer fit, and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or
Lake, continuing westerly along the said shore to the any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise dis-
western limit thereof; and thence due west to the posed of by Her Majesty’s Government for the use
Athabasca River; thence up the said river, against the and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with
stream, to the Jaspar House, in the Rocky Moun- their consent first had and obtained; and with a
tains; thence on a course south-easterly, following view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with
the easterly range of the mountains, to the source of the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians, She
the main branch of the Red Deer River; thence down hereby, through Her Commissioners, makes them a
the said river, with the stream, to the junction there- present of twelve dollars for each man, woman and
with of the outlet of the river, being the outlet of the child belonging to the Bands here represented, in
Buffalo Lake; thence due east twenty miles; thence extinguishment of all claims heretofore preferred.
on a straight line south-eastwardly to the mouth of
the said Red Deer River on the south branch of the And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools
Saskatchewan River; thence eastwardly and north- for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to
wardly, following on the boundaries of the tracts Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may
conceded by the several treaties numbered four and seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve
five to the place of beginning. shall desire it.
And also, all their rights, titles and privileges what- Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians
soever to all other lands wherever situated in the that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until
North-west Territories, or in any other Province or otherwise determined by Her Government of the
portion of Her Majesty’s Dominions, situated and Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be
being within the Dominion of Canada. allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now
in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her
The tract comprised within the lines above described Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves or living else-
embracing an area of 121,000 square miles, be the where within Her North-west Territories from the
same more or less. evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall
be strictly enforced.
To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the
Queen and Her successors forever. Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians
that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue
And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout
undertakes to lay aside reserves for farming lands, the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, sub-
due respect being had to lands at present culti- ject to such regulations as may from time to time be
vated by the said Indians, and other reserves for made by Her Government of Her Dominion of
the benefit of the said Indians, to be administered Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as
and dealt with for them by Her Majesty’s Govern- may from time to time be required or taken up for

Treaty 6, 1876 597
settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by penter ’s tools; also, for each Band, enough of
Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or wheat, barley, potatoes and oats to plant the land
by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized actually broken up for cultivation by such Band;
therefor by the said Government. also for each Band four oxen, one bull and six
cows; also, one boar and two sows, and one hand-
It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her mill when any Band shall raise sufficient grain
said Indians, that such sections of the reserves therefor. All the aforesaid articles to be given once
above indicated as may at any time be required for and for all for the encouragement of the practice of
public works or buildings, of what nature soever, agriculture among the Indians.
may be appropriated for that purpose by Her It is further agreed between Her Majesty and
Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of Canada, the said Indians, that each Chief, duly recognized
due compensation being made for the value of any as such, shall receive an annual salary of twenty-
improvements thereon. five dollars per annum; and each subordinate offi-
cer, not exceeding four for each Band, shall receive
And further, that Her Majesty’s Commissioners fifteen dollars per annum; and each such Chief and
shall, as soon as possible after the execution of this subordinate officer, as aforesaid, shall also receive
treaty, cause to be taken an accurate census of all once every year, a suitable suit of clothing, and each
the Indians inhabiting the tract above described, Chief shall receive, in recognition of the closing of
distributing them in families, and shall, in every the treaty, a suitable flag and medal, and also as
year ensuing the date hereof, at some period in soon as convenient, one horse, harness and wagon.
each year, to be duly notified to the Indians, and at
a place or places to be appointed for that purpose That in the event hereafter of the Indians com-
within the territory ceded, pay to each Indian per- prised within this treaty being overtaken by any
son the sum of $5 per head yearly. pestilence, or by a general famine, the Queen, on
being satisfied and certified thereof by Her Indian
It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the Agent or Agents, will grant to the Indians assis-
said Indians, that the sum of $1,500.00 per annum tance of such character and to such extent as Her
shall be yearly and every year expended by Her Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs shall deem
Majesty in the purchase of ammunition, and twine necessary and sufficient to relieve the Indians from
for nets, for the use of the said Indians, in manner the calamity that shall have befallen them.
following, that is to say: In the reasonable discre-
tion, as regards the distribution thereof among the That during the next three years, after two or more
Indians inhabiting the several reserves, or other- of the reserves hereby agreed to be set apart to the
wise, included herein, of Her Majesty’s Indian Indians shall have been agreed upon and sur-
Agent having the supervision of this treaty. veyed, there shall be granted to the Indians
included under the Chiefs adhering to the treaty at
It is further agreed between Her Majesty and the Carlton, each spring, the sum of one thousand dol-
said Indians, that the following articles shall be lars, to be expended for them by Her Majesty’s
supplied to any Band of the said Indians who are Indian Agents, in the purchase of provisions for
now cultivating the soil, or who shall hereafter the use of such of the Band as are actually settled
commence to cultivate the land, that is to say: Four on the reserves and are engaged in cultivating the
hoes for every family actually cultivating; also, two soil, to assist them in such cultivation.
spades per family as aforesaid: one plough for
every three families, as aforesaid; one harrow for That a medicine chest shall be kept at the house of
every three families, as aforesaid; two scythes and each Indian Agent for the use and benefit of the
one whetstone, and two hay forks and two reaping Indians at the direction of such agent.
hooks, for every family as aforesaid, and also two
axes; and also one cross-cut saw, one hand-saw, That with regard to the Indians included under
one pit-saw, the necessary files, one grindstone and the Chiefs adhering to the treaty at Fort Pitt, and
one auger for each Band; and also for each Chief to those under Chiefs within the treaty limits
for the use of his Band, one chest of ordinary car- who may hereafter give their adhesion thereto

598 Treaty 7, 1877
(exclusively, however, of the Indians of the Carlton Treaty 7, 1877

region), there shall, during three years, after two or Sept. 22, Dec. 4, 1877
more reserves shall have been agreed upon and Treaty and Supplementary Treaty No. 7 made
surveyed be distributed each spring among the 22nd Sept., and 4th Dec., 1877, between her
Bands cultivating the soil on such reserves, by Her Majesty the Queen and the Blackfeet and
Majesty’s Chief Indian Agent for this treaty, in his other Indian Tribes, at the Blackfoot Crossing
discretion, a sum not exceeding one thousand of Bow River and Fort MacLeod.
dollars, in the purchase of provisions for the use ORDER IN COUNCIL SETTING UP COMMISSION
of such members of the Band as are actually FOR TREATY No. 7
settled on the reserves and engaged in the cultiva- On a Report dated 28th June 1877 from the Hon-
tion of the soil, to assist and encourage them in ourable the Minister of the Interior stating that it hav-
such cultivation. ing been decided that a Treaty should be made this
year with the Blackfeet and other Indians occupying
That in lieu of waggons, if they desire it and the unceded territory North of the Boundary Line,
declare their option to that effect, there shall be East of the Rocky Mountains, and West and South of
given to each of the Chiefs adhering hereto at Fort Treaties Nos. 4 and 6, His Honor Lieut. Governor
Pitt or elsewhere hereafter (exclusively of those in Laird was in the early part of the year instructed to
the Carlton district), in recognition of this treaty, as notify the Indians that Commissioners would be sent
soon as the same can be conveniently transported, in the Fall to negotiate a Treaty with them at such
two carts with iron bushings and tires. time and place as His Honor might appoint for that
purpose.
And the undersigned Chiefs on their own behalf That His Honor has advised the Department
and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the that he has accordingly notified the Indians to
tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise assemble at Fort MacLeod on the 13th September
and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also next to meet the Commissioners to be appointed to
to conduct and behave themselves as good and negotiate a Treaty with them. That the necessary
loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. funds to meet the expense of the Treaty have been
duly provided in the Estimates for the coming year.
They promise and engage that they will in all That the Territory to be included in the pro-
respects obey and abide by the law, and they will posed Treaty is occupied by the Blackfeet, Crees,
maintain peace and good order between each Sarcees and Peigans and may be estimated approxi-
other, and also between themselves and other mately at about 35,000 Square Miles in area.
tribes of Indians, and between themselves and oth-
ers of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians or The Minister recommends that His Honor the Lieu-
whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any tenant Governor of the North West Territories and
part of the said ceded tracts, and that they will not Lieut. Colonel James F. Macleod, C.M.G., Commis-
molest the person or property of any inhabitant of sioner of the Mounted Police, be appointed Commis-
such ceded tracts, or the property of Her Majesty sioners for the purpose of negotiating the proposed
the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person Treaty.
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 The Committee submit the foregoing recommenda-
punishment any Indian offending against the tions for approval.
stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in
force in the country so ceded. Signed: A. Mackenzie

Approved
missioners and the said Indian Chiefs have here-
unto subscribed and set their hands at or near Fort 12 July 1877
Carlton, on the days and year aforesaid, and near Signed: Mr. B. Richards
Fort Pitt on the day above aforesaid. Deputy Governor

Treaty 7, 1877 599
ARTICLES OF A TREATY Indians, the Chiefs and Councillors who have sub-
Made and concluded this twenty-second day of scribed hereto, that thereupon in open Council the
September, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand said Commissioners received and acknowledged the
eight hundred and seventy-seven, between Her Head and Minor Chiefs and the Chiefs and Council-
Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain lors presented for the purpose aforesaid;
and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honorable And whereas the said Commissioners have pro-
David Laird, Lieutenant-Governor and Indian ceeded to negotiate a Treaty with the said Indians;
Superintendent of the North-West Territories, and and the same has been finally agreed upon and con-
James Farquharson MacLeod, C.M.G., Commis- cluded as follows, that is to say: the Blackfeet, Blood,
sioner of the North-West Mounted Police, of the Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians inhabiting
one part, and the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, the district hereinafter more fully described and
Stony and other Indians, inhabitants of the Terri- defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield
tory north of the United States Boundary Line, east up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty
of the central range of the Rocky Mountains, and the Queen and her successors for ever, all their
south and west of Treaties numbers six and four, by rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands
their Head Chiefs and Minor Chiefs or Councillors, included within the following limits, that is to say:
chosen as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part.
Commencing at a point on the International Bound-
WHEREAS the Indians inhabiting the said Territory, ary due south of the western extremity of the
have, pursuant to an appointment made by the said Cypress Hills, thence west along the said boundary
Commissioners, been convened at a meeting at the to the central range of the Rocky Mountains, or to
“Blackfoot Crossing” of the Bow River, to deliberate the boundary of the Province of British Columbia,
upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gra- thence north-westerly along the said boundary to a
cious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of point due west of the source of the main branch of
the other; the Red Deer River, thence south-westerly and
And whereas the said Indians have been in- southerly following on the boundaries of the Tracts
formed by Her Majesty’s Commissioners that it is the ceded by the Treaties numbered six and four to the
desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, and place of commencement;
such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem
meet, a tract of country, bounded and described as And also all their rights, titles and privileges whatso-
hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent ever, to all other lands wherever situated in the
thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said North-West Territories, or in any other portion of the
tract, and to make a Treaty, and arrange with them, so Dominion of Canada:
that there may be peace and good will between them
and Her Majesty, and between them and Her To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the
Majesty’s other subjects; and that Her Indian people Queen and her successors for ever:
may know and feel assured of what allowance they
are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty’s And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees with
bounty and benevolence; her said Indians, that they shall have right to pursue
And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly their vocations of hunting throughout the Tract
convened in Council, and being requested by Her surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such
Majesty’s Commissioners to present their Head regulations as may, from time to time, be made by
Chiefs and Minor Chiefs, or Councillors, who shall the Government of the country, acting under the
be authorized, on their behalf, to conduct such nego- authority of Her Majesty and saving and excepting
tiations and sign any Treaty to be founded thereon, such Tracts as may be required or taken up from
and to become responsible to Her Majesty for the time to time for settlement, mining, trading or other
faithful performance, by their respective Bands of purposes by Her Government of Canada; or by any
such obligations as should be assumed by them, the of Her Majesty’s subjects duly authorized therefor
said Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan and Sarcee Indians by the said Government.
have therefore acknowledged for that purpose, the It is also agreed between Her Majesty and Her
several Head and Minor Chiefs, and the said Stony said Indians that Reserves shall be assigned them of

600 Treaty 7, 1877
sufficient area to allow one square mile for each foot of the Porcupine Hills, at a place called “Crow’s
family of five persons, or in that proportion for Creek.”
larger and smaller families, and that said Reserves
shall be located as follows, that is to say: And, Thirdly —The Reserve of the Stony Band of
Indians shall be in the vicinity of Morleyville.
First. —The Reserves of the Blackfeet, Blood and
Sarcee Bands of Indians, shall consist of a belt of land In view of the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the
on the north side of the Bow and South Sas- recent general good conduct of her said Indians,
katchewan Rivers, of an average width of four miles and in extinguishment of all their past claims, she
along said rivers, down stream, commencing at a hereby, through her Commissioners, agrees to make
point on the Bow River twenty miles north-westerly them a present payment of twelve dollars each in
of the Blackfoot Crossing thereof, and extending to cash to each man, woman, and child of the families
the Red Deer River at its junction with the South here represented.
Saskatchewan; also for the term of ten years, and no
longer, from the date of the concluding of this Treaty, Her Majesty also agrees that next year, and annu-
when it shall cease to be a portion of said Indian ally afterwards forever, she will cause to be paid to
Reserves, as fully to all intents and purposes as if it the said Indians, in cash, at suitable places and
had not at any time been included therein, and with- dates, of which the said Indians shall be duly noti-
out any compensation to individual Indians for fied, to each Chief, twenty-five dollars, each minor
improvements, of a similar belt of land on the south Chief or Councillor (not exceeding fifteen minor
side of the Bow and Saskatchewan Rivers of an aver- Chiefs to the Blackfeet and Blood Indians, and four
age width of one mile along said rivers, down to the Piegan and Sarcee Bands, and five Council-
stream; commencing at the aforesaid point on the lors to the Stony Indian Bands), fifteen dollars, and
Bow River, and extending to a point one mile west of to every other Indian of whatever age, five dollars;
the coal seam on said river, about five miles below the same, unless there be some exceptional reason,
the said Blackfoot Crossing; beginning again one to be paid to the heads of families for those belong-
mile east of the said coal seam and extending to the ing thereto.
mouth of Maple Creek at its junction with the South
Saskatchewan; and beginning again at the junction Further, Her Majesty agrees that the sum of two
of the Bow River with the latter river, and extending thousand dollars shall hereafter every year be
on both sides of the South Saskatchewan in an aver- expended in the purchase of ammunition for distri-
age width on each side thereof of one mile, along bution among the said Indians; Provided that if at
said river against the stream, to the junction of the any future time ammunition become comparatively
Little Bow River with the latter river, reserving to unnecessary for said Indians, Her Government, with
Her Majesty, as may now or hereafter be required by the consent of said Indians, or any of the Bands
Her for the use of Her Indian and other subjects, thereof, may expend the proportion due to such
from all the Reserves hereinbefore described, the Band otherwise for their benefit.
right to navigate the above mentioned rivers, to land
and receive fuel cargoes on the shores and banks Further, Her Majesty agrees that each Head Chief
thereof, to build bridges and establish ferries and Minor Chief, and each Chief and Councillor
thereon, to use the fords thereof and all the trails duly recognized as such, shall, once in every three
leading thereto, and to open such other roads years, during the term of their office, receive a suit-
through the said Reserves as may appear to Her able suit of clothing, and each Head Chief and Stony
Majesty’s Government of Canada, necessary for the Chief, in recognition of the closing of the Treaty, a
ordinary travel of her Indian and other subjects, due suitable medal and flag, and next year, or as soon as
compensation being paid to individual Indians for convenient, each Head Chief, and Minor Chief, and
improvements, when the same may be in any man- Stony Chief shall receive a Winchester rifle.
ner encroached upon by such roads.
Further, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salary of such
Secondly —That the Reserve of the Piegan Band of teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to
Indians shall be on the Old Man’s River, near the Her Government of Canada may seem advisable,

Treaty 7, 1877 601
when said Indians are settled on their Reserves and tions of this Treaty, or infringing the laws in force in
shall desire teachers. the country so ceded.
Further, Her Majesty agrees to supply each Head
and Minor Chief, and each Stony Chief, for the use of IN WITNESS WHEREOF HER MAJESTY’S said
their Bands, ten axes, five handsaws, five augers, one Commissioners, and the said Indian Head and
grindstone, and the necessary files and whetstones. Minor Chiefs, and Stony Chiefs and Councillors,
have hereunto subscribed and set their hands, at the
And further, Her Majesty agrees that the said Indians “Blackfoot Crossing” of the Bow River, the day and
shall be supplied as soon as convenient, after any year herein first above written.
Band shall make due application therefor, with the
following cattle for raising stock, that is to say: for Signed by the Chiefs and Councillors within named
every family of five persons, and under, two cows; for in presence of the following witnesses, the same hav-
every family of more than five persons, and less than ing been first explained by James Bird, Interpreter.
ten persons, three cows, for every family of over ten
persons, four cows; and every Head and Minor Chief, DAVID LAIRD, Lieutenant-Governor of North-
and every Stony Chief, for the use of their Bands, one West Territories, and Special Indian
bull; but if any Band desire to cultivate the soil as well Commissioner,
as raise stock, each family of such Band shall receive A. G. IRVINE, Ass’t. Com., N.W.M.P.,
one cow less than the above mentioned number, and J. McDOUGALL, Missionary,
in lieu thereof, when settled on their Reserves and JEAN L’HEUREUX,
prepared to break up the soil, two hoes, one spade, W. WINDER, Inspector,
one scythe, and two hay forks, and for every three T. N. F. CROZIER, Inspector,
families, one plough and one harrow, and for each E. DALRYMPLE CLARK, Lieut & Adjutant
Band, enough potatoes, barley, oats, and wheat (if N.W.M.P.,
such seeds be suited for the locality of their Reserves) A. SHURTLIFF, Sub Inspector,
to plant the land actually broken up. All the aforesaid C. E. DENING, Sub Inspector,
articles to be given, once for all, for the encourage- W. D. AUTROBUS, Sub Inspector,
ment of the practice of agriculture among the Indians. FRANK NORMAN, Staff Constable,
MARY J. MACLEOD,
And the undersigned Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan and JULIA WINDER,
Sarcee Head Chiefs and Minor Chiefs, and Stony JULIA SHURTLIFF,
Chiefs and Councillors on their own behalf and on E. HARDISTY,
behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the Tract within A. McDOUGALL,
ceded do hereby solemnly promise and engage to E. A. BARRETT,
strictly observe this Treaty, and also to conduct and JAMES F. MACLEOD, Lieut.-Colonel,
behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Com. N.W.M.P., and Special Indian
Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that Commissioner,
they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the Law, CHAPO-MEXICO, or Crowfoot, Head Chief of
that they will maintain peace and good order the South Blackfeet,
between each other and between themselves and MATOSE-APIW, or Old Sun, Head Chief of the
other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and North Blackfeet,
others of Her Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, STAMISCOTOCAR, or Bull Head, Head Chief
Half Breeds or Whites, now inhabiting, or hereafter of the Sarcees,
to inhabit, any part of the said ceded tract; and that MEKASTO, or Red Crow, Head Chief of the
they will not molest the person or property of any South Bloods
inhabitant of such ceded tract, or the property of Her CONSTANTINE SCOLLEN, Priest, witness to
Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any signatures of Stonixosak and those following.
person, passing or travelling through the said tract
or any part thereof, and that they will assist the offi- CHARLES E. CONRAD,
cers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and pun- THOS J. BOGG,
ishment any Indian offending against the stipula- NATOSE-ONISTORS, or Medicine Calf,

602 Treaty 7, 1877
POKAPIW-OTOIAN, or Bad Head, We the members of the Blackfoot tribe of Indians

SOTENAH, or Rainy Chief, Head Chief of the having had explained to us the terms of the Treaty
North Bloods, made and concluded at the Blackfoot Crossing of the
TAKOYE-STAMIX, or Fiend Bull, Bow River, on the twenty-second day of September,
AKKA-KITCIPIMIW-OTAS, or Many Spotted in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
Horse, and seventy-seven;
ATTISTAH-MACAN, or Running Rabbit,
PITAH-PEKIS, or Eagle Rib, Between Her Majesty the Queen, by Her Commis-
SAKOYE-AOTAN, or Heavy Shield, Head sioners duly appointed to negotiate the said Treaty
Chief of the Middle Blackfeet, and the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and
ZOATZE-TAPITAPIW, or Setting on an Eagle other Indian inhabitants of the country within the
Tail, Head Chief of the North Piegans, limits defined in the said Treaty, but not having been
AKKA-MAKKOYE, or Many Swans, present at the Councils at which the articles of the
APENAKO-SAPOP, or Morning Plume, his x said Treaty were agreed upon, do now hereby, for
mark, ourselves and the Bands which we represent, in
MAS-GWA-AH-SID, or Bear’s Paw, consideration of the provisions of the said Treaty
CHE-NE-KA, or John, being extended to us and the Bands which we repre-
KI-CHI-PWOT, or Jacob, sent, transfer, surrender and relinquish to Her
STAMIX-OSOK, or Bull Backfat, Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, to and
EMITAH-APISKINNE,or White Striped Dog, for the use of Her Government of the Dominion of
MATAPI-KOMOTZIW, or the Captive or Stolen Canada, all our right, title, and interest whatsoever
Person, which we and the said Bands which we represent
APAWAWAKOSOW, or White Antelope, have held or enjoyed of in and to the territory
MAKOYE-KIN, or Wolf Collar, described and fully set out in the said Treaty; also,
AYE-STIPIS-SIMAT, or Heavily Whipped, all our right, title, and interest whatsoever to all
KISSOUM, or Day Light, other lands wherever situated, whether within the
PITAH-OTOCAN, or Eagle Head, limits of any other Treaty heretofore made or here-
APAW-STAMIX, or Weasel Bull, after to be made with Indians, or elsewhere in Her
ONISTAH -POKAH, or White Calf, Majesty’s territories, to have and to hold the same
NETAH-KITEI-PI-MEW or Only Spot, unto and for the use of Her Majesty the Queen, Her
AKAK-OTOS, or Many Horses, heirs and successors forever;
STOKIMATIS, or The Drum,
PITAH-ANNES, or Eagle Robe, And we hereby agree to accept the several benefits,
PITAH-OTISKIN, or Eagle Shoe, payments, and Reserves promised to the Indians
STAMIXO-TA-KA-PIW, or Bull Turn Round, under the Chiefs adhering to the said Treaty at the
MASTE-PITAH, or Crow Eagle, Blackfoot Crossing of the Bow River, and we
JAMES DIXON, solemnly engage to abide by, carry out and fulfil all
ABRAHAM KECHEPWOT, the stipulations, obligations and conditions therein
PATRICK KECHEPWOT, contained on the part of the Chiefs and Indians
GEORGE MOY-ANY-MEN, therein named, to be observed and performed and in
GEORGE CRAWLOR, all things to conform to the articles of the said Treaty,
EKAS-KINE, or Low Horn, as if we ourselves and the Bands which we represent
KAYO-OKOSIS, or Bear Shield, had been originally contracting parties thereto and
PONOKAH-STAMIX, or Bull Elk, had been present at the Councils held at the Black-
OMAKSI SAPOP, or Big Plume, foot Crossing of the Bow River, and had there
ONISTAH, or Calf Robe, attached our signatures to the said Treaty.
PITAH-SIKSINUM, or White Eagle,
APAW-ONISTAW, or Weasel Calf, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, James Farquharson
ATTISTA-HAES, or Rabbit Carrier, MacLeod, C.M.G., one of Her Majesty’s Commis-
PITAH, or Eagle, sioners appointed to negotiate the said Treaty, and
PITAH-ONISTAH, or Eagle White Calf, the Chief of the Band, hereby giving their adhesion
KAYE-TAPO, or Going to Bear to the said Treaty, have hereunto subscribed and set

Treaty 8, 1899 603
their hands at Fort MacLeod, this fourth day of AND WHEREAS, the said Indians have been noti-
December, in the year of our Lord one thousand and fied and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commis-
eight hundred and seventy-seven. sion that it is Her desire to open for settlement,
immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering and
Signed by the parties hereto in the presence of the such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem
undersigned witnesses, the same having been meet, a tract of country bounded and described as
explained to the Indians by the said James Farquhar- hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent
son MacLeod, one of the Commissioners appointed thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said
to negotiate the said Treaty, through theinterpreter, tract, and to make a treaty, and arrange with them,
Jerry Potts, in thepresence of so that there may be peace and good will between
them and Her Majesty’s other subjects, and that Her
A. G. IRVINE, Indian people may know and be assured of what
Assistant Commissioner. allowances they are to count upon and receive from
E. DALRMYMLE CLARK, Her Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.
Lieutenant and Adjutant N.W.M.P.
CHARLES E. CONRAD, AND WHEREAS, the Indians of the said tract, duly
W. WINDER, convened in council at the respective points named
Inspector. hereunder, and being requested by Her Majesty’s
Commissioners to name certain Chiefs and Head-
men 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 respec-
Treaty 8, 1899 tive bands of such obligations as shall be assumed
June 21, 1899 by them, the said Indians have therefore acknowl-
Treaty No. 8 MADE JUNE 21, 1899 AND edged for that purpose the several Chiefs and Head-
ADHESIONS, REPORTS, ETC. men who have subscribed hereto.
ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded at
the several dates mentioned therein, in the year of AND WHEREAS, the said Commissioners have pro-
Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety- ceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Cree, Beaver,
nine, between Her most Gracious Majesty the Queen Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabiting the district
of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners hereinafter defined and described, and the same has
the Honourable David Laird, of Winnipeg, Mani- been agreed upon and concluded by the respective
toba, Indian Commissioner for the said Province and bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said
the Northwest Territories; James Andrew Joseph Indians DO HEREBY CEDE, RELEASE, SURREN-
McKenna, of Ottawa, Ontario, Esquire, and the Hon- DER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the
ourable James Hamilton Ross, of Regina, in the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen
Northwest Territories, of the one part; and the Cree, and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and
Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabitants of privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within
the territory within the limits hereinafter defined the following limits, that is to say:
and described, by their Chiefs and Headmen, here-
unto subscribed, of the other part: Commencing at the source of the main branch of the
Red Deer River in Alberta, thence due west to the
WHEREAS, the Indians inhabiting the territory here- central range of the Rocky Mountains, thence north-
inafter defined have, pursuant to notice given by the westerly along the said range to the point where it
Honourable Superintendent General of Indian Affairs intersects the 60th parallel of north latitude, thence
in the year 1898, been convened to meet a Commis- east along said parallel to the point where it inter-
sion representing Her Majesty’s Government of the sects Hay River, thence northeasterly down said
Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said terri- river to the south shore of Great Slave Lake, thence
tory in this present year 1899, to deliberate upon cer- along the said shore northeasterly (and including
tain matters of interest of Her Most Gracious Majesty, such rights to the islands in said lakes as the Indians
of the one part, and the said Indians of the other. mentioned in the treaty may possess), and thence

604 Treaty 8, 1899
easterly and northeasterly along the south shores of Provided, however, that Her Majesty reserves the
Christie’s Bay and McLeod’s Bay to old Fort Reliance right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of
near the mouth of Lockhart’s River, thence south- any lands reserved for any band as She may see fit;
easterly in a straight line to and including Black and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any
Lake, thence southwesterly up the stream from Cree interest therein, may be sold or otherwise disposed
Lake, thence including said lake southwesterly along of by Her Majesty’s Government for the use and
the height of land between the Athabasca and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their
Churchill Rivers to where it intersects the northern consent first had and obtained.
boundary of Treaty Six, and along the said boundary
easterly, northerly and southwesterly, to the place of It is further agreed between Her Majesty and Her
commencement . said Indian subjects that such portions of the
reserves and lands above indicated as may at any
AND ALSO the said Indian rights, titles and privi- time be required for public works, buildings, rail-
leges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situ- ways, or roads of whatsoever nature may be appro-
ated in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, priated for that purpose by Her Majesty’s Govern-
or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada. ment of the Dominion of Canada, due compensation
being made to the Indians for the value of any
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to Her Majesty improvements thereon, and an equivalent in land,
the Queen and Her successors for ever. money or other consideration for the area of the
reserve so appropriated.
And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES
with the said Indians that they shall have right to And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her
pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of
and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as Her Indians, and in extinguishment of all their past
heretofore described, subject to such regulations as claims, She hereby, through Her Commissioners,
may from time to time be made by the Government agrees to make each Chief a present of thirty-two
of the country, acting under the authority of Her dollars in cash, to each Headman twenty-two dol-
Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as lars, and to every other Indian of whatever age, of
may be required or taken up from time to time for the families represented at the time and place of pay-
settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other ment, twelve dollars.
purposes.
Her Majesty also agrees that next year, and annually
And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and afterwards for ever, She will cause to be paid to the
undertakes to lay aside reserves for such bands as said Indians in cash, at suitable places and dates, of
desire reserves, the same not to exceed in all one which the said Indians shall be duly notified, to each
square mile for each family of five for such number Chief twenty-five dollars, each Headman, not to
of families as may elect to reside on reserves, or in exceed four to a large Band and two to a small Band,
that proportion for larger or smaller families; and fifteen dollars, and to every other Indian, of what-
for such families or individual Indians as may pre- ever age, five dollars, the same, unless there be some
fer to live apart from band reserves, Her Majesty exceptional reason, to be paid only to heads of fami-
undertakes to provide land in severalty to the lies for those belonging thereto.
extent of 160 acres to each Indian, the land to be
conveyed with a proviso as to non-alienation with- FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees that each Chief, after
out the consent of the Governor General in Council signing the treaty, shall receive a silver medal and a
of Canada, the selection of such reserves, and lands suitable flag, and next year, and every third year
in severalty, to be made in the manner following, thereafter, each Chief and Headman shall receive a
namely, the Superintendent General of Indian suitable suit of clothing.
Affairs shall depute and send a suitable person to
determine and set apart such reserves and lands, FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salaries of
after consulting with the Indians concerned as to such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians
the locality which may be found suitable and open as to Her Majesty’s Government of Canada may
for selection. seem advisable.

Treaty 8, 1899 605
FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees to supply each Chief of such ceded tract, or of any other district or coun-
of a Band that selects a reserve, for the use of that try, or interfere with or trouble any person passing
Band, ten axes, five hand-saws, five augers, one or travelling through the said tract or any part
grindstone, and the necessary files and whetstones. thereof, and that they will assist the officers of Her
Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any
FURTHER, Her Majesty agrees that each Band that Indian offending against the stipulations of this
elects to take a reserve and cultivate the soil, shall, Treaty or infringing the law in force in the country
as soon as convenient after such reserve is set aside so ceded.
and settled upon, and the Band has signified its
choice and is prepared to break up the soil, receive IN WITNESS WHEREOF Her Majesty’s said Com-
two hoes, one spade, one scythe and two hay forks missioners and the Cree Chief and Headmen of
for every family so settled, and for every three fam- Lesser Slave Lake and the adjacent territory, HAVE
ilies one plough and one harrow, and to the Chief, HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS at Lesser Slave
for the use of his Band, two horses or a yoke of Lake on the twenty-first day of June, in the year
oxen, and for each Band potatoes, barley, oats and herein first above written.
wheat (if such seed be suited to the locality of the
reserve), to plant the land actually broken up, and Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the
provisions for one month in the spring for several undersigned witnesses, the same having been first
years while planting such seeds; and to every fam- explained to the Indians by Albert Tate and Samuel
ily one cow, and every Chief one bull, and one Cunningham, Interpreters.
mowing-machine and one reaper for the use of his
Band when it is ready for them; for such families as Father A. LACOMBE,
prefer to raise stock instead of cultivating the soil, GEO. HOLMES,
every family of five persons, two cows, and every E. GROUARD, O.M.I.,
Chief two bulls and two mowing-machines when W. G. WHITE,
ready for their use, and a like proportion for JAMES WALKER,
smaller or larger families. The aforesaid articles, J. ARTHUR COTÉ,
machines and cattle to be given one for all for the A. E. SNYDER, Insp. N.W.M.P.,
encouragement of agriculture and stock raising; H. B. ROUND,
and for such Bands as prefer to continue hunting HARRISON S. YOUNG,
and fishing, as much ammunition and twine for J. F. PRUD’HOMME,
making nets annually as will amount in value to J. W. MARTIN,
one dollar per head of the families so engaged in C. MAIR,
hunting and fishing. H. A. CONROY,
PIERRE DESCHAMBEAULT,
And the undersigned Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and J. H. PICARD,
other Indian Chiefs and Headmen, on their own RICHARD SECORD,
behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they M. MCCAULEY,
represent, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY PROMISE and DAVID LAIRD, Treaty Commissioner,
engage to strictly observe this Treaty, and also to J.A.J. McKENNA, Treaty Commissioner,
conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal J. H. ROSS, Treaty Commissioner,
subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. KEE NOO SHAY OO Chief,
MOOSTOOS Headman,
THEY PROMISE AND ENGAGE that they will, in FELIX GIROUX Headman,
all respects, obey and abide by the law; that they WEE CHEE WAY SIS Headman,
will maintain peace between each other, and CHARLES NEE SUE TA SIS Headman,
between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and CAPTAIN Headman, from Sturgeon Lake
between themselves and others of Her Majesty’s
subjects, whether Indians, half-breeds or whites, In witness whereof the Chairman of Her Majesty’s
this year inhabiting and hereafter to inhabit any Commissioners and the Headman of the Indians
part of the said ceded territory; and that they will of Peace River Landing and the adjacent territory,
not molest the person or property of any inhabitant in behalf of himself and the Indians whom he

606 Treaty 8, 1899
represents, have hereunto set their hands at the said AMBROSE TETE NOIRE, Chief Beaver Indians,
Peace River Landing on the first day of July in the PIERROT FOURNIER, Headman Beaver Indians
year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
ninety-nine. In witness whereof the Chairman of Her Majesty’s
Treaty Commissioners and the Chief and Headman
Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the of the Chipewyan Indians of Fond du Lac (Lake
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first Athabasca) and the adjacent territory, in behalf of
explained to the Indians by Father A. Lacombe and themselves and the Indians whom they represent,
John Boucher, Interpreters. have hereunto set their hands at the said Fond du
Lac on the twenty-fifth and twenty-seventh days of
Father A. LACOMBE, July, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight
E. GROUARD, O.M.I., Ev. d’Ibora, hundred and ninety-nine.
GEO. HOLMES,
HENRY MCCORRISTER, The Beaver Indians of Dunvegan having met on this
K. F. ANDERSON, SGT., N.W.M.P., sixth day of July, in this present year 1899, Her
PIERRE DESCHAMBEAULT, Majesty’s Commissioners, the Honourable James
H. A. CONROY, Hamilton Ross and James Andrew Joseph McKenna,
T.A. BRICK, Esquire, and having had explained to then the terms
HARRISON S. YOUNG, of the Treaty unto which the Chief and Headmen of
J. W. MARTIN, the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent coun-
DAVID CURRY, try set their hands on the twenty-first day of June, in
DAVID LAIRD, Chairman of Indian Treaty the year herein first above written, do join in the ces-
Commissioners, sion made by the said Treaty, and agree to adhere to
DUNCAN TASTAOOSTS, Headman of Crees the terms thereof in consideration of the undertak-
ings made therein.
In witness whereof the Chairman of Her Majesty’s
Commissioners and the Chief and Headmen of the In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commission-
Beaver and Headman of the Crees and other Indians ers and the Headman of the said Beaver Indians have
of Vermilion and the adjacent territory, in behalf of hereunto set their hands at Dunvegan on this sixth
themselves and the Indians whom they represent, day of July, in the year herein first above written.
have hereunto set their hands at Vermilion on the
eighth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thou- The Chipewyan Indians of Athabasca River, Birch
sand eight hundred and ninety-nine. River, Peace River, Slave River and Gull River, and
the Cree Indians of Gull River and Deep Lake, hav-
Signed by the parties hereto, in the presence of the ing met at Fort Chipewyan on this thirteenth day of
undersigned witnesses, the same having been first July, in this present year 1899, Her Majesty’s Com-
explained to the Indians by Father A. Lacombe and missioners, the Honourable James Hamilton Ross
John Boucher, Interpreters. and James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, and
having had explained to them the terms of the Treaty
Father A. LACOMBE, unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians of
E. GROUARD, O.M.I., Ev. d’Ibora, Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country set their
MALCOLM SCOTT, hands on the twenty-first day of June, in the year
F.D. WILSON, H.B. Co., herein first above written, do join in the cession
H. A. CONROY, made by the said Treaty, and agree to adhere to the
PIERRE DESCHAMBEAULT, terms thereof in consideration of the undertakings
HARRISON S. YOUNG, made therein.
J. W. MARTIN,
K. F. ANDERSON, SGT., N.W.M.P., In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commission-
A.P. CLARKE, ers and the Chiefs and Headmen of the said
CHAS. H. STUART WADE, Chipewyan and Cree Indians have hereunto set their
K. F. ANDERSON, SGT., N.W.M.P., hands at Fort Chipewyan on this thirteenth day of
DAVID LAIRD, Chairman of Indian Treaty Coms., July, in the year herein first above written.

Treaty 9, 1905 607
The Chipewyan Indians of Slave River and the coun- In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commis-
try thereabouts having met at Smith’s Landing on sioner and the Chief and Headmen of the Indians
this seventeenth day of July, in this present year have hereunto set their hands at Wapiscow Lake, on
1899, Her Majesty’s Commissioners, the Honourable this fourteenth day of August, in the year herein first
James Hamilton Ross and James Andrew Joseph above written.
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 writ-
ten, do join in the cession made by the said Treaty, Treaty 9, 1905
and agree to adhere to the terms thereof in consider- Nov. 6, 1905; Oct. 5, 1906
ation of the undertakings made therein. THE JAMES BAY TREATY (TREATY No. 9)
(MADE IN 1905 AND 1906) AND ADHE-
In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commission- SIONS MADE IN 1929 AND 1930
ers and the Chief and Headmen of the said ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded at
Chipewyan Indians have hereunto set their hands at the several dates mentioned therein, in the year of
Smith’s Landing, on this seventeenth day of July, in Our Lord one thousand and nine hundred and five,
the year herein first above written. between His Most Gracious Majesty the King of
Great Britain and Ireland, by His Commissioners,
The Chipewyan and Cree Indians of Fort McMurray Duncan Campbell Scott, of Ottawa, Ontario,
and the country thereabouts, having met at Fort Esquire, and Samuel Stewart, of Ottawa, Ontario,
McMurray, on this fourth day of August, in this Esquire; and Daniel George MacMartin, of Perth,
present year 1899, Her Majesty’s Commissioner, Ontario, Esquire, representing the province of
James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, and hav- Ontario, of the one part; and the Ojibeway, Cree and
ing had explained to them the terms of the Treaty other Indians, inhabitants of the territory within the
unto which the Chief and Headmen of the Indians limits hereinafter defined and described, by their
of Lesser Slave Lake and adjacent country set their chiefs, and headmen hereunto subscribed, of the
hands on the twenty-first day of June, in the year other part: —
herein first above written, do join in the cession
made by the said Treaty and agree to adhere to the Whereas, the Indians inhabiting the territory here-
terms thereof in consideration of the undertakings inafter defined have been convened to meet a commis-
made therein. sion representing His Majesty’s government of the
Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said terri-
In witness whereof Her Majesty’s said Commis- tory in this present year of 1905, to deliberate upon cer-
sioner and the Headmen of the said Chipewyan and tain matters of interest to His Most Gracious Majesty, of
Cree Indians have hereunto set their hands at Fort the one part, and the said Indians of the other.
McMurray, on this fourth day of August, in the year
herein first above written. And, whereas, the said Indians have been notified
and informed by His Majesty’s said commission
The Indians of Wapiscow and the country there- that it is His desire to open for settlement, immigra-
abouts having met at Wapiscow Lake on this four- tion, trade, travel, mining, lumbering, and such
teenth day of August, in this present year 1899, Her other purposes as to His Majesty may seem meet, a
Majesty’s Commissioner, the Honourable James tract of country, bounded and described as here-
Hamilton Ross, and having had explained to them inafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto
the terms of the Treaty unto which the Chief and of His Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and
Headmen of the Indians of Lesser Slave Lake and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that
adjacent country set their hands on the twenty-first there may be peace and good-will between them
day of June in the year herein first above written, do and His Majesty’s other subjects, and that His
join in the cession made by the said Treaty and agree Indian people may know and be assured of what
to adhere to the terms thereof in consideration of the allowances they are to count upon and receive from
undertakings made therein. His Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.

608 Treaty 9, 1905
And whereas, the Indians of the said tract, duly con- and saving and excepting such tracts as may be
vened in council at the respective points named required or taken up from time to time for settle-
hereunder, and being requested by His Majesty’s ment, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.
commissioners to name certain chiefs and headmen
who should be authorized on their behalf to conduct And His Majesty the King hereby agrees and under-
such negotiations and sign any treaty to be found takes to lay aside reserves for each band, the same
thereon, and to become responsible to His Majesty not to exceed in all one square mile for each family
for the faithful performance by their respective of five, or in that proportion for larger and smaller
bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by families; and the location of the said reserves having
them, the said Indians have therefore acknowledged been arranged between His Majesty’s commission-
for that purpose the several chiefs and headmen ers and the chiefs and headmen, as described in the
who have subscribed hereto. schedule of reserves hereto attached, the boundaries
thereof to be hereafter surveyed and defined, the
And whereas, the said commissioners have pro- said reserves when confirmed shall be held and
ceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Ojibeway, Cree administered by His Majesty for the benefit of the
and other Indians, inhabiting the district hereinafter Indians free of all claims, liens, or trusts by Ontario.
defined and described, and the same has been
agreed upon, and concluded by the respective bands Provided, however, that His Majesty reserves the
at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of
do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to any lands reserved for any band as He may see fit;
the government of the Dominion of Canada, for His and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or any
Majesty the King and His successors for ever, all interest therein, may be sold or otherwise disposed
their rights titles and privileges whatsoever, to the of by His Majesty’s government for the use and ben-
lands included within the following limits, that is to efit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with their
say: That portion or tract of land lying and being consent first had and obtained; but in no wise shall
in the province of Ontario, bounded on the south by the said Indians, or any of them, be entitled to sell or
the height of land and the northern boundaries otherwise alienate any of the lands allotted to them
of the territory ceded by the Robinson-Superior as reserves.
Treaty of 1850, and the Robinson-Huron Treaty of
1850, and bounded on the east and north by the It is further agreed between His said Majesty and His
boundaries of the said province of Ontario as Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and
defined by law, and on the west by a part of the east- lands above indicated as may at any time be required
ern boundary of the territory ceded by the North- for public works, buildings, railways, or roads of
west Angle Treaty No. 3; the said land containing an whatsoever nature may be appropriated for that pur-
area of ninety thousand square miles, more or less. pose by His Majesty’s government of the Dominion
of Canada, due compensation being made to the
And also, the said Indian rights, titles and privileges Indians for the value of improvements thereon, and
whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in an equivalent in land, money or other consideration
Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, the District of Keewatin, for the area of the reserve so appropriated.
or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada.
And with a view to show the satisfaction of His
To have and to hold the same to His Majesty the Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of His
King and His successors for ever. Indians, and in extinguishment of all their past claims,
He hereby, through His commissioners, agrees to
And His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the make each Indian a present of eight dollars in cash.
said Indians that they shall have the right to pursue
their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fish- His Majesty also agrees that next year, and annually
ing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore afterwards for ever, He will cause to be paid to the
described, subject to such regulations as may from said Indians in cash, at suitable places and dates, of
time to time be made by the government of the which the said Indians shall be duly notified, four
country, acting under the authority of His Majesty, dollars, the same, unless there be some exceptional

Treaty 9, 1905 609
reason, to be paid only to the heads of families for headmen in the presence of the undersigned wit-
those belonging thereto. nesses, after having been first interpreted and
explained.
Further, His Majesty agrees that each chief, after
signing the treaty, shall receive a suitable flag and a Witnesses:
copy of this treaty to be for the use of his band.
THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T., Hudsons
Further, His Majesty agrees to pay such salaries of Bay Co.,
teachers to instruct the children of said Indians, and ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D.,
also to provide such school buildings and educa- JABEZ WILLIAMS, Commis, H. B. Co.,
tional equipment as may seem advisable to His DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT,
Majesty’s government of Canada. SAMUEL STEWART,
DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN,
And the undersigned Ojibeway, Cree and other MISSABAY, his x mark,
chiefs and headmen, on their own behalf and on THOMAS MISSABAY, his x mark,
behalf of all the Indians whom they represent, do GEORGE WAHWAASHKUNG, his x mark,
hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly KWIASH, his x mark,
observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave NAHOKEESIC, his x mark,
themselves as good and loyal subjects of His Majesty OOMBASH, his x mark,
the King. DAVID SKUNK, his x mark,
JOHN SKUNK, his x mark,
They promise and engage that they will, in all THOMAS PANACHEESE his x mark
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 Signed at Fort Hope on the nineteenth day of July,
themselves and others of His Majesty’s subjects, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs
whether Indians, half-breeds or whites, this year and headmen in the presence of the undersigned
inhabiting and hereafter to inhabit any part of the witnesses, after having been first interpreted and
said ceded territory; and that they will not molest explained.
the person or property of any inhabitant of such
ceded tract, or of any other district or country, or Witnesses:
interfere with or trouble any person passing or trav-
elling through the said tract, or any part thereof, F.X. FARARD, O.M.I.,
and that they will assist the officers of His Majesty THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE,
in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL. M.D.,
offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or CHAS. H.M. GORDON,H. B. Co.,
infringing the law in force in the country so ceded. YESNO, his x mark,
DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN,
And it is further understood that this treaty is made SAMUEL STEWART,
and entered into subject to an agreement dated the DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT,
third day of July, nineteen hundred and five, GEORGE his x mark NAMAY,
between the Dominion of Canada and Province of WENANGASIE his x mark DRAKE,
Ontario, which is hereto attached. GEORGE his x mark QUISEES,
KATCHANG, his x mark,
In witness whereof, His Majesty’s said commission- MOONIAS, his x mark,
ers and the said chiefs and headmen have hereunto JOE GOODWIN, his x mark,
set their hands at the places and times set forth in the ABRAHAM ATLOOKAN, his x mark,
year herein first above written. HARRY OOSKINEEGISH, his x mark,
NOAH rk NESHINAPAIS, his x mark,
Signed at Osnaburg on the twelfth day of July, 1905, JOHN A. ASHPANAQUESHKUN, his x mark,
by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and JACOB RABBIT, his x mark

610 Treaty 9, 1905
Signed at Marten Falls on the twenty-fifth day of witnesses, after having been first interpreted and
July, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the explained.
chief and headmen in the presence of the under-
signed witnesses, after having been first interpreted Witnesses:
and explained. GEORGE MOOSONEE,
THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T.,
Witnesses: JOHN GEORGE MOWAT, H. B. Co.,
THOMAS BIRD HOLLAND, B.A.,
THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T., H. B. Co., JAMES PARKINSON,
ALEX GEORGE MEINDL, M.D., DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT,
SAMUEL ISERHOFF, SAMUEL STEWART,
DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN,
SAMUEL STEWART, SIMON his x mark SMALLBOY,
DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, GEORGE his x mark TAPPAISE,
WILLIAM WHITEHEAD, his x mark, HENRY SAILOR, Signed in Cree syllabic,
WILLIAM COASTER, his x mark, JOHN NAKOGEE, Signed in Cree syllabic,
DAVID KNAPAYSWET, his x mark, JOHN DICK, Signed in Cree syllabic,
OSTAMAS LONG TOM, his x mark, SIMON QUATCHEWAN, Signed in Cree
WILLIAM WEENJACK, his x mark syllabic,
JOHN JEFFRIES, Signed in Cree syllabic,
Signed at Fort Albany on the third day of August, FRED MARK, Signed in Cree syllabic,
1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs HENRY UTAPPE, his x mark,
and headmen in the presence of the undersigned SIMON CHEENA, his x mark
witnesses, after having been first interpreted and
explained. Signed at New Post on the twenty-first day of
August, 1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and
Witnesses: the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the under-
signed witnesses, after having been first interpreted
THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T. H. B. Co., and explained.
G.W. COCKRAM,
A.W. PATTERSON, Witnesses:
ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D.,
JOSEPH PATTERSON, THOMAS CLOUSTON RAE, C.T., H. B. Co.,
MINNIE COCKRAM, SYDNEY BLENKARNE BARRETT, H. B. Co.,
DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, JOSEPH LOUIS VANASSE,
SAMUEL STEWART, DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT,
DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, SAMUEL STEWART,
CHARLIE STEPHEN, his x mark, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN.ANGUS
PATRICK STEPHEN, his x mark, WEENUSK, his x mark,
DAVID GEO. WYNNE, his x mark, JOHN LUKE his x mark,
ANDREW WESLEY, his x mark, WILLIAM GULL, his x mark.
JACOB TAHTAIL, his x mark,
JOHN WESLEY, his x mark, Signed at Abitibi on the seventh day of June, 1906, by
XAVIER BIRD, his x mark, His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs and head-
PETER SACKANEY, his x mark, men in the presence of the undersigned witnesses,
WM. GOODWIN, his x mark, after having been first interpreted and explained.
SAML. SCOTT, his x mark
Witnesses:
Signed at Moose Factory on the ninth day of August,
1905, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs GEORGE DREVER,
and headmen in the presence of the undersigned ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D.,

Treaty 9, 1905 611
PELHAM EDGAR, Signed at Flying Post on the sixteenth day of July,

DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs
SAMUEL STEWART, and headmen in the presence of the undersigned
LOUIS MCDOUGALL, his x mark witnesses, after having been first interpreted and
ANDREW MCDOUGALL, his x mark explained.
OLD CHEESE, his x mark
MICHEL PENATOUCHE, his x mark Witnesses:
LOUI MACDOUGALL,
ANTOINE PENATOUCHE. A.J. MCLEOD,
PELHAM EDGAR,
Signed at Matachewan on the twentieth day of June, ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D,
1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs JOSEPH LOUIS VANASSE,
and headmen in the presence of the undersigned DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT,
witnesses, after having been first interpreted and SAMUEL STEWART,
explained. DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN,
ALBERT BLACK ICE, Signed in syllabic
Witnesses: character,
JOHN ISSAC, Signed in syllabic characters,
PELHAM EDGAR, WILLIAM FROG, Signed in syllabic characters,
GEORGE NOMTEITH, THOMAS FROG, Signed in syllabic characters
ALEX. GEORGE MEINDL, M.D.,
DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, Signed at New Brunswick House on the twenty-fifth
SAMUEL STEWART, day of July, 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners
DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, and the chiefs and headmen in the presence of the
MICHEL BATISE, his x mark, undersigned witnesses, after having been first inter-
ROUND EYES, his x mark, preted and explained.
THOMAS FOX, his x mark,
JIMMY PIERCE, his x mark. Witnesses:
Signed at Mattagami on the seventh day of July, GEORGE MONSONEE,

1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs JAMES G. CHRISTIE,
and headmen in the presence of the undersigned GRACE MCTAVISH,
witnesses, after having been first interpreted and CLAUDE D. OWENS,
explained. PELHAM EDGAR,
EDMUND MORRIS,
Witnesses: DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT,
SAMUEL STEWART,
JOS. MILLER, DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN,
PELHAM EDGAR, ALEX. PEEKETAY Signed in syllabic characters.
A.M.C. BANTING, POOTOOSH, his x mark,
KENNETH ROSS, PETER MITIGONABIE, his x mark,
DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, TOM NESHWABUN, Signed in syllabic
SAMUEL STEWART, characters,
DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, JACOB WINDABAIE, Signed in syllabic
ANDREW his x markLUKE, characters
JOSEPH SHEMEKET, Signed in syllabic
characters, Signed at Long Lake on the ninth day of August,
THOMAS CHICKEN, Signed in syllabic 1906, by His Majesty’s commissioners and the chiefs
characters, and headmen in the presence of the undersigned
JAMES NEVUE, Signed in syllabic witnesses, after having been first interpreted and
characters explained.

612 Treaty 10, 1906
Witnesses: north of Treaties 5 and 6, and the addition to Treaty 6,

which territory contains, approximately, an area of
H.A. TREMAYNE, 85,000 square miles; and that the Treaty provide:
ISABELLA TREMAYNE,
P. GODCHERE, for the setting aside of reserves of an area not to
PELHAM EDGAR, exceed one square mile for each family of five for
DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, such number of families as may elect to reside on
SAMUEL STEWART, reserves, or in that proportion for larger or smaller
DANIEL GEORGE MACMARTIN, families, and for such Indian families or individual
KWAKIGIGICKWEANG, Signed in syllabic Indians as prefer to live apart from band reserves,
characters, the setting aside of lands in severalty to the extent of
KENESWABE, Signed in syllabic characters, 160 acres for each Indian with a proviso as to non-
MATAWAGAN, Signed insyllabic characters, alienation without the consent of the Governor in
ODAGAMEA, Signed in syllabic characters 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
Treaty 10, 1906 of $25.00 to each Chief, $15.00 to each headman and
Sept. 19, 1906; Aug. 19, 1907 $5.00 to every other Indian of whatever age;
Treaty No. 10 and reports of Commissioners for the making of such provision as may from
On a Report dated 12th July 1906, from the Superin- time to time be deemed advisable for the education
tendent General of Indian Affairs, stating that the of the Indian children; and
aboriginal title has not been extinguished in the for the affording of such assistance as may be
greater portion of that part of the Province of found necessary or desirable to advance the Indians
Saskatchewan which lies north of the 54th parallel of in farming or stock-raising or other work.
latitude and in a small adjoining area in Alberta; that That the Half-breeds of the territory aforesaid be
the Indians and Half-breeds of that territory are sim- granted scrip redeemable to the amount of $240.00 in
ilarly situated to those whose country lies immedi- payment for Dominion Land or locatable for 240
ately to the south and west, whose claims have acres of Dominion Land in the form and according
already been extinguished by, in the case of those to the rules followed in the issue of scrip to the Half-
who are Indians, a payment of a gratuity and annu- breeds in the territory covered by Treaty 8, which are
ity and the setting aside of lands as reserves, and in as follows:
the case of those who are Half-breeds, by the issue of
scrip; and they have from time to time pressed their Every Half-breed resident in the territory to be cov-
claims for settlement on similar lines; that it is in the ered by the proposed Treaty at the time of the mak-
public interest that the whole of the territory ing thereof whose claim has not been extinguished
included within the boundaries of the Provinces of either by the issue of scrip to himself or his parents
Saskatchewan and Alberta should be relieved of the or otherwise to be granted scrip as aforesaid for land
claims of the aborigines; and that $12,000.00 has or money as he, or his parent or guardian, if he be
been included in the estimates for expenses in the under eighteen years of age, may elect;
making of a treaty with Indians and in settling the
claims of the Half-breeds and for paying the usual The extinguishment of the claim of one parent shall
gratuities to the Indians. not be held to debar from scrip any Half-breed who
is a resident of the said territory at the time of the
The Minister recommends as follows: making of the Treaty;
That a Treaty be made with the Indians of the afore- In case of Half-breeds whose claims were previ-
said territory, which is situated partly in the Province ously extinguished and who may be residents of the
of Saskatchewan and partly in the Province of said territory those of their children born in the ter-
Alberta, and lying to the east of Treaty 8, and to the ritory or in any ceded portion of the North West

Treaty 10, 1906 613
outside the old boundaries of Manitoba between the and the copy thereof to be Kept of record in the
15th of July, 1870, and the end of the year 1885 are, if Privy Council Office.
they have not previously received scrip, to be recog-
nized as entitled to scrip, as they would have been The Committee submit the same for approval
recognized had their claims been presented to the accordingly.
Commission appointed to dispose of such claims;
WILFRID LAURIER
The certificates for scrip issued in favour of Half- REPORT OF FIRST COMMISSIONER FOR
breeds under eighteen years of age shall be delivered TREATY No. 10.
to the father, if he be alive, and if not to the mother OTTAWA, January 18, 1907.
or guardian. The Hon. Frank Oliver,
Superintendent General of Indian Affairs,
The Minister further recommends that James Ottawa.
Andrew Joseph McKenna, of the City of Winnipeg,
in the Province of Manitoba, be appointed Commis- SIR, —I have the honour to transmit herewith
sioner, to make the proposed Treaty with the Indians the treaty which, under the commission issued to
of the territory described herein, and to hear and me July 20, 1906, I made with the Chipewyan
determine the claims of the Half-breeds therein and Indians of English River and Clear Lake and the
issue scrip as aforesaid to those of them whom he Crees of Canoe Lake, in the northern part of
may find to be entitled; Mr. McKenna to be allowed Saskatchewan.
in addition to his regular salary extra remuneration
at the rate of $5.00 per diem. The arrangements which I made for meeting the
Indians, of which they were advised, provided that
The Committee submit the same for approval. the first meeting was to be at Portage la Loche on
September 3, but unfavourable weather and the
WILFRID LAURIER action of the Indians themselves made it impossible
to carry out my programme.
RATIFICATION OF TREATY No. 10 P.C. No. 2490
On a Memorandum dated 7th November, 1907, the On reaching Isle à la Crosse on August 26, en route
Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, submit- to Portage la Loche, I found that all the Chipewyans
ting herewith for Your Excellency’s consideration from English River and some ten families from Clear
Treaty No. 10 made in 1906 by the Commissioner, Lake were gathered there, waiting for the commis-
James Andrew Joseph McKenna, Esquire, who was sion, which was announced to be at that point on
appointed to negotiate the same with the September 13. These Indians urged strongly that
Chipewyan, Cree and other Indian inhabitants of they be treated with at once, on the ground that they
the territory situated partly in the Province of had been gathered there for several days, that their
Saskatchewan and partly in the Province of Alberta supplies were getting low, that it was necessary that
and lying to the east of Treaty No. 8 and to the north they should return to their hunting grounds without
of Treaties Nos. 5 and 6 and the addition to Treaty further delay, that they had come long distances, and
No. 6 described in the said Treaty. that they would have to travel far before reaching
their winter quarters.
The Minister also submits adhesions to the said
Treaty, taken by Thomas Alexander Borthwick, I decided to accede to their request, and met them on
Esquire, who was appointed a Commissioner to take August 28, 1906.
the same during the summer of 1907 from such of
the Indians of the Tribes above referred to as were It appeared for a time as if there would be some con-
not met with by Commissioner McKenna. siderable difficulty in effecting a settlement on the
lines of the treaty, for it was evident from the trend
The Minister recommends that the said Treaty, and of the talk of the leaders among the Indians that
the adhesions thereto, be approved by Your Excel- there had been at work an influence which tended to
lency in Council; the original Treaty and adhesions make them regard the treaty as a means of enslaving
to be returned to the Department of Indian Affairs them. I was able to disabuse their minds of this

614 Treaty 10, 1906
absurd notion and to make it clear that the govern- After completing the work at Buffalo Narrows, I
ment’s object was simply to do for them what had pushed on to Isle à la Crosse, a distance of fifty-five
been done for neighbouring Indians when the miles, arriving there the same night. I met the Cree
progress of trade or settlement began to interfere Indians of Canoe Lake the next day and explained to
with the untrammelled exercise of their aboriginal them all the stipulations contained in the treaty. I
privileges as hunters. secured their adhesion on September l9.
By the end of the day, the treaty was signed and the The number of this band is eighty-two, consisting of
annuity and gratuity moneys paid. one chief, two headmen and seventy-nine other Indi-
ans; the amount paid was $1,024.
The number of Indians paid at this point was:
The next point of destination was Stanley, where I
The chief of the Clear Lake band, who was empow- was scheduled to meet the Indians on October 8;
ered to speak for his people, requested that the but between my leaving and returning to Isle à la
remainder of the band be paid at Buffalo Narrows, Crosse a report came to the Hudson’s Bay Com-
where they would gather to meet me on the return pany to the effect that the streams were very shal-
journey from Portage la Loche. low and that travel would, therefore, be so very dif-
ficult and slow that in all probability our party
After treating with these Indians, I left Isle à la would be frozen in and would have to remain at
Crosse on August 30 for Portage la Loche, at which Stanley until dog trains could be procured. This
point I was due on September 3; but for the reasons report was quite confirmed by the information
given above, I did not reach there until the 5th. which Messrs. Revillon Freres had from that part of
the country, and of which their manager, Monsieur
The people at this point were all half-breeds and Benard, very kindly apprised me. From the report it
were dealt with as such. also appeared that, even if we made the trip, it
would be impossible for the Indians from the
On the 8th of the same month, I left for la Loche mis- northeastern portion of the country to be gathered
sion, across la Loche lake, a distance of nine miles, there, and that there were at Stanley and in its
where more half-breeds had to be met and dealt immediate vicinity only a few half-breed families
with. There were at this point three aged Chipewyan who had had their claims settled before they
women who desired to be attached to the Clear Lake migrated to that region. I therefore decided to can-
band, and I entered them as members and paid them cel the appointment, and sent notice to that effect to
treaty. the people, assuring them at the same time that
they would be visited at a future date, of which
Having completed my work at la Loche mission on they would be duly notified.
the 11th, I started on my return journey to Isle à la
Crosse, reaching Buffalo Narrows on the evening of As the discussions which took place with the bands
the 16th. The chief of the Clear Lake band and those treated with were much on the same lines, I shall
of his people who had not yet been paid treaty were confine myself to a general statement of their import.
gathered here. I met them the following day; found
them satisfied with the action of their chief in becom- There was a marked absence of the old Indian style
ing a party to the treaty, and paid the gratuity and of oratory, the Indians confining themselves to ask-
annuity. ing questions and making brief arguments. They all
demanded even more liberal terms than were
The number of Indians paid at this point, including granted to Indians treated with in past years, the
three members of the band at Bull’s House, was: — chief of the English River band going so far as to
110 Indians at $12, $1,320. claim payment of ‘arrears’ from the year when the
first treaty was made; some expected to be entirely
At the request of the chief, the appointment of fed by the government, after the making of the
headmen was deferred until next treaty payments, treaty; all asked for assistance in seasons of distress;
as the Indians were not then prepared to make their and it was strongly urged that the old and indigent
selections. who were no longer able to hunt and trap and were

Treaty 10, 1906 615
consequently often in destitute circumstances, earning a livelihood would continue after the treaty
should be cared for by the government. was made as existed before it; and that Indians
would be expected to make as good use of them in
There was a general expression of fear that the mak- the future as in the past. I stated that the government
ing of the treaty would be followed by the curtail- was always ready to assist Indians in actual destitu-
ment of their hunting and fishing privileges, and the tion; that in times of distress they would, without
necessity of not allowing the lakes and the rivers to any special stipulation in the treaty, receive such
be monopolized or depleted by commercial fishing assistance as it was usual to give in order to prevent
was emphasized. starvation among them, and that the attention of the
government would be called to the necessity of some
There was evidenced a marked desire to secure edu- special provision being made for assisting the old
cational privileges for their children. In this connec- and indigent who were unable to work and depen-
tion and speaking for the Indians generally, the chief dent on charity for subsistence.
of the English River band insisted that in the carry-
ing out of the government’s Indian educational I guaranteed that the treaty would not lead to any
policy among them there should be no interference forced interference with their mode of life. I
with the system of religious schools now conducted explained to them that, whether treaty was made or
by the mission, but that public aid should be given not, they were subject to the law, bound to obey it
for improvement and extension along the lines and liable to punishment for any infringement
already followed. thereof; that it was designed for the protection of all
and must be respected by all the inhabitants of the
The chief of the Canoe Lake band stated that there country, irrespective of colour or origin; and that, in
were about twenty-five children of school age in his requiring them to abide by it, they were only being
band, and asked that a day school be established at required to do the duty imposed upon all the people
Canoe Lake for their benefit and that it be put under throughout the Dominion of Canada. I dwelt upon
the management of a woman teacher. the importance, in their own interest, of the obser-
vance of the laws respecting the protection of fish
There was also a demand made for a few head of and game.
cattle to be given to those of the Indians who wished
to go into the industry of stock-raising. As to education, the Indians were assured that there
was no need for special stipulation over and above
The Indians all agreed to have one place of payment the general provision in the treaty, as it was the
in the future; but made it a condition that the pay- policy of the government to provide in every part of
ments should be held about the middle of June of the country as far as circumstances would permit,
each year, as that is the only time at which the gath- for the education of the Indian children, and that the
ering for annuity payments would not interfere with law provided for schools for Indians maintained and
their avocations to an extent that the payment would assisted by the government being conducted as to
be no adequate compensation for. They selected Isle religious auspices in accordance with the wishes of
à la Crosse as the place of payment. the Indians.
They further requested that medicines be furnished, It was explained that the assistance in farming and
and made an earnest appeal for the appointment of a ranching mentioned in the treaty, is only to be given
resident medical man. when the Indians are actually prepared to go into
those industries. It is not likely that for many years
In my reply I convinced them that such a claim as to come, there will be a call for any but a small
they put forward for what they called ‘arrears’ had expenditure under these heads. It is not probable
never before been heard of, and that I could not for a that the Indians will, while present conditions con-
moment recognize any obligation on the govern- tinue, engage in farming further than the raising of
ment’s part except such as would be put upon it in roots in a small way. As to cattle, I stated that the
virtue of the execution of the treaty. I pointed out to agent who will be sent to make the next treaty pay-
them that the government could not undertake to ments, would be asked to discuss the matter with
maintain Indians in idleness; that the same means of them, but that those only who are considered able

616 Treaty 10, 1906
and willing to take good care of cattle would receive lands along the rivers and wooded heights about the
assistance in that form. lakes. The waters abound in fish, which form the
chief article of food.
I promised that medicines would be placed at differ-
ent points in the charge of persons to be selected by The Isle à la Crosse mission was founded about
the government, and would be distributed to those sixty-two years ago by Father Lafleche, who after-
of the Indians who might require them. I showed wards was a prominent figure in the Quebec hierar-
them that it would be practically impossible for the chy, and Brother Taché, who afterwards filled the See
government to arrange for a resident doctor owing of St. Boniface. The church built by them was
to the Indians being so widely scattered over such an destroyed by fire and has been replaced by another.
extensive territory; but I assured them that the gov- The building next in importance is the school con-
ernment would always be ready to avail itself of any ducted by the sisters. It shows marked evidence of
opportunity of affording medical service just as it age externally, but is cosy within, and the children
provided that the physician attached to the commis- whom I had the pleasure of meeting there, evi-
sion should give free attendance to all Indians whom denced the kindly care and careful training of the
he might find in need of treatment. devoted women who have gone out from the com-
forts of civilization to work for the betterment of the
In the main, the demand will be for ammunition and natives of the north. The priest’s house is a small
twine, as the great majority of the Indians will con- one. Its only door opens into a large room which
tinue to hunt and fish for a livelihood. It does not occupies the greater part of the building and which
appear likely that the conditions of that part of is the common gathering place of the Indians and
Saskatchewan covered by the treaty will be for many half-breeds, who sit and smoke with an ease that
years so changed as to affect hunting and trapping, seemed born of long habit of free intercourse with
and it is expected, therefore, that the great majority those who have undertaken the cure of their souls.
of the Indians will continue in these pursuits as a
means of subsistence. The mission is about opposite the company’s post. It
is close to the shore. The site is rather flat and for
The Indians were given the option of taking reserves miles on three sides stretches a bald prairie, though
or land in severalty, when they felt the need of hav- we were told that the mission when founded was on
ing land set apart for them. I made it clear that the the fringe of the forest. Whatever it may have been,
government had no desire to interfere with their it is no longer a desirable situation for a boarding
mode of life or to restrict them to reserves and that it school, and a new one has been erected at Rivière la
undertook to have land in the proportions stated in Plonge, some thirty miles south of the mission. The
the treaty set apart for them, when conditions inter- building is one hundred feet by sixty-two feet, and
fered with their mode of living and it became neces- is two and a half storeys high. It was finished when
sary to secure them possession of land. I visited it. The site is a delightful one on a rising
ground from the river, which here breaks into a
The Indians dealt with are in character, habit, man- cataract that the Oblate brothers have harnessed for
ner of dress and mode of living similar to the power purposes. They cut the logs, and, with the
Chipewyans and Crees of the Athabaska country. It harnessed river, sawed them into lumber, with
is difficult to draw a line of demarcation between which they built the school, a splendid monument
those who classed themselves as Indians and those to their mechanical skill, industry and devotion.
who elected to be treated with as half-breeds. Both When I was leaving Isle à la Crosse, the moving of
dress alike and follow the same mode of life. It the children from the old to the new institution had
struck me that the one group was, on the whole, as begun.
well able to provide for self-support as the other.
Our trip was rather a difficult one. Our transport
After leaving Green Lake, our route was by rivers had to be organized on short notice. The water in the
and lakes and afforded not much opportunity for rivers was pretty low, and we encountered storms on
forming an opinion of the country ceded and of its the lakes; but there was no ground for the report of
resources. From our point of view, the country shipwreck and loss which unfortunately obtained
appeared flat. There were extensive stretches of hay- currency.

Treaty 10, 1906 617
I had the pleasure of the company, on most of the and described by their chiefs and headmen hereunto
inward trip, of His Lordship Bishop Pascal; and I subscribed of the other part.
desire to repeat here the acknowledgment I made
and the gratitude I expressed to his lordship person- Whereas the Indians inhabiting the territory here-
ally for the assistance of his influence on my first inafter defined have, pursuant to notice given by His
meeting the natives of the country, which is filled Majesty’s said commissioner in the year 1906, been
with reverence for his name because of his devoted convened to meet His Majesty’s said commissioner
labours. representing His Majesty’s government of the
Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said ter-
I desire to express, also, my appreciation of the help ritory in this present year 1906 to deliberate upon
ever readily rendered by Major Begin, of the Royal certain matters of interest to His Most Gracious
Northwest Mounted Police, who was in command of Majesty on the one part and the said Indians of the
the escort; by Dr. J. J. A. Lebrecque, the medical offi- other.
cer; by Mr. Charles Fisher, of Duck Lake, and Mr.
Charles Mair, of Ottawa, secretaries to the commis- And whereas the said Indians have been notified
sion, by the Hudson’s Bay Company’s chief factor, and informed by His Majesty’s said commissioner
and by Mr. Angus McKay, the officer of the company that it is His Majesty’s desire to open for settlement,
who was especially charged with the carrying out of immigration, trade, travel, mining, lumbering and
the transportation contract. To the men of the coun- such other purposes as to His Majesty may seem
try on whose labour we had so much to depend I meet, a tract of country bounded and described as
acknowledge my obligation. They worked long hereinafter mentioned and to obtain the consent
hours at paddling and rowing and poling, and thereto of his Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract
endured great hardships in tracking and walking and to make a treaty and arrange with them so
our canoes and flat boats over the rapids and shoals, that there may be peace and good will between them
so that I might keep my appointments. Camp was and His Majesty’s other subjects, and that His
made late and broken early. Yet there was never a Indian people may know and be assured of what
complaint, but always a zestful interest and cheerful- allowances they are to count upon and receive from
ness as pleasant as the campfires that brightened the His Majesty’s bounty and benevolence.
night.
And whereas the Indians of the said tract, duly con-
A detailed statement of the Indians treated with and vened in council at the respective points named
of the money paid is appended. hereunder and being requested by His Majesty’s
said commissioner to name certain chiefs and head-
I have the honour to be, sir men who should be authorized on their behalf to
Your obedient servant, conduct such negotiations and sign any treaty to be
J.A.J. McKenna, founded thereon and to become responsible to His
Commissioner. Majesty for the faithful performance by their respec-
tive bands of such obligations as shall be assumed
Certified correct, by them, the said Indians have therefore acknowl-
J.A.J. MCKENNA, edged for that purpose the several chiefs and head-
Commissioner, Treaty No. 10 men who have subscribed hereto.
TREATY No. 10 And whereas the said commissioner has proceeded

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the sev- to negotiate a treaty with the Chipewyan, Cree and
eral dates mentioned therein, in the year of our Lord other Indians inhabiting the said territory here-
one thousand nine hundred and six between His inafter defined and described and the same has been
Most Gracious Majesty the King of Great Britain and agreed upon and concluded by the respective bands
Ireland by His commissioner, James Andrew Joseph at the dates mentioned hereunder;
McKenna, of the city of Winnipeg, in the province of
Manitoba, Esquire, of the one part, and the Now therefore the said Indians do hereby cede,
Chipewyan, Cree and Other Indian inhabitants of release, surrender and yield up to the government of
the territory within the limits hereinafter defined the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King

618 Treaty 10, 1906
and His successors for ever all their rights, titles and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required
privileges whatsoever to the lands included within or as may be taken up from time to time for settle-
the following limits, that is to say: ment, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.
All that territory situated partly in the province of And His Majesty the King hereby agrees and under-
Saskatchewan and partly in the province of Alberta, takes to set aside reserves of land for such bands as
and lying to the east of Treaty Eight and to the north desire the same, such reserves not to exceed in all
of Treaties Five, Six and the addition to Treaty Six, one square mile for each family of five for such num-
containing approximately an area of eighty-five ber of families as may elect to reside upon reserves
thousand eight hundred (85,800) square miles and or in that proportion for larger or smaller families;
which may be described as follows: and for such Indian families or individual Indians as
prefer to live apart from band reserves His Majesty
Commencing at the point where the northern undertakes to provide land in severalty to the extent
boundary of Treaty Five intersects the eastern of one hundred and sixty (160) acres for each Indian,
boundary of the province of Saskatchewan; thence the land not to be alienable by the Indian for whom
northerly along the said eastern boundary four hun- it is set aside in severalty without the consent of the
dred and ten miles, more or less, to the sixtieth paral- Governor General in Council of Canada, the selec-
lel of latitude and northern boundary of the said tion of such reserves and land in severalty to be
province of Saskatchewan; thence west along the made in the manner following, namely, the Superin-
said parallel one hundred and thirty miles, more or tendent General of Indian Affairs shall depute and
less, to the eastern boundary of Treaty Eight; thence send a suitable person to determine and set apart
southerly and westerly following the said eastern such reserves and lands, after consulting with the
boundary of Treaty Eight to its intersection with the Indians concerned as to the locality which may be
northern boundary of Treaty Six; thence easterly found suitable and open for selection.
along the said northern boundary of Treaty Six to its
intersection with the western boundary of the addi- Provided, however, that His Majesty reserves the
tion to Treaty Six; thence northerly along the said right to deal with any settlers within the bounds of
western boundary to the northern boundary of the any lands reserved for any band or bands as He may
said addition; thence easterly along the said north- see fit; and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or
ern boundary to the eastern boundary of the said any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise dis-
addition; thence southerly along the said eastern posed of by His Majesty’s government of Canada for
boundary to its intersection with the northern the use and benefit of the Indians entitled thereto,
boundary of Treaty Six; thence easterly along the with their consent first had and obtained.
said northern boundary and the northern boundary
of Treaty Five to the point of commencement. It is further agreed between His Majesty and His
said Indian subjects that such portions of the
And also all their rights, titles and privileges whatso- reserves and lands above mentioned as may at any
ever as Indians to all and any other lands wherever time be required for public works, buildings, rail-
situated in the provinces of Saskatchewan and ways or roads of whatsoever nature may be appro-
Alberta and the Northwest Territories or any other priated for such purposes by His Majesty’s govern-
portion of the Dominion of Canada. ment of Canada due compensation being made to
the Indians for the value of any improvements
To have and to hold the same to His Majesty the thereon, and an equivalent in land, money or other
King and His successors for ever. consideration for the area so appropriated.
And His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the And with a view to showing the satisfaction of His
said Indians that they shall have the right to pursue Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of
their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing His Indians and in extinguishment of all their past
throughout the territory surrendered as heretofore claims, He hereby through His commissioner agrees
described, subject to such regulations as may from to make each chief a present of thirty-two (32)
time to time be made by the government of the coun- dollars in cash, to each headman twenty-two (22)
try acting under the authority of His Majesty and dollars and to every other Indian of whatever age of

Treaty 10, 1906 619
the families represented at the time and place of pay- His Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment
ment twelve (12) dollars. any Indian offending against the stipulations of this
treaty or infringing the law in force in the country so
His Majesty also agrees that next year and annually ceded.
thereafter for ever He will cause to be paid to the
Indians in cash, at suitable places and dates of which In witness whereof His Majesty’s said commissioner
the said Indians shall be duly notified, to each chief and the chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their
twenty-five (25) dollars, each headman fifteen (15) hands at Isle à la Crosse this twenty-eighth day of
dollars and to every other Indian of whatever age August in the year herein first above written.
five (5) dollars.
Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the sev-
Further His Majesty agrees that each chief, after eral dates mentioned therein, in the year of our Lord
signing the treaty, shall receive a silver medal and a one thousand nine hundred and seven, between His
suitable flag, and next year and every third year Most Gracious Majesty the King of Great Britain and
thereafter each chief shall receive a suitable suit of Ireland by His Commissioner Thomas Alexander
clothing, and that after signing the treaty each head- Borthwick, of Mistawasis, in the province of
man shall receive a bronze medal and next year and Saskatchewan, Esquire, of the one part, and the
every third year thereafter a suitable suit of clothing. Chipewyan, Cree and other Indian inhabitants of the
territory within the limits hereinafter defined and
Further His Majesty agrees to make such provision described by their chiefs and headmen hereunto
as may from time to time be deemed advisable for subscribed of the other part.
the education of the Indian children.
In witness whereof His Majesty’s said commissioner
Further His Majesty agrees to furnish such assistance and the chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their
as may be found necessary or advisable to aid and hands at Lac du Brochet this 19th day of August, in
assist the Indians in agriculture or stock-raising or the year first above written.
other work and to make such a distribution of twine
and ammunition to them annually as is usually In witness whereof His Majesty’s said commissioner
made to Indians similarly situated. and the chiefs and headmen have hereunto set their
hands at Lac du Brochet this 22nd day of August in
And the undersigned Chipewyan, Cree and other the year first above written.
Indian chiefs and headmen on their own behalf and
on behalf of all the Indians whom they represent do REPORT OF SECOND COMMISSION FOR
hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly TREATY NO. 10
observe this treaty in all and every respect and to Mistawasis, Carlton Agency, October 14, 1907.
behave and conduct themselves as good and loyal Frank Pedley, Esq.
subjects of His Majesty the King. Deputy Supt. General of Indian Affairs,
Ottawa.
They promise and engage that they will in all
respects obey and abide by the law; that they will SIR, —have the honour to submit my report upon
maintain peace between each other and between the payments of their annuities to those of the Indi-
their tribes and other tribes of Indians and between ans of Treaty No. 10 who were treated with last year,
themselves and other of His Majesty’s subjects and also transmit herewith the treaty, which, under
whether whites, Indians, half-breeds or others now the authority that devolved upon me by the commis-
inhabiting or who may hereafter inhabit any part of sion issued to me on the 6th day of April, 1907, I con-
the territory hereby ceded and herein described, and cluded with the Chipewyan Indians living in the
that they will not molest the person or trespass upon region of Lac du Brochet and Lac la Hache, and in
the property or interfere with the rights of any the part of the district of Keewatin adjoining the
inhabitant of such ceded tract or of any other district northeast corner of the province of Saskatchewan.
or country or interfere with or trouble any person
passing or travelling through the said tract or any With the view of keeping appointments for the pay-
part thereof and that they will assist the officers of ments of their annuities to the Indians who were

620 Treaty 10, 1906
treated with last year at Isle à la Crosse, I proceeded there and the same number of days returning to their
from here on June 11, and after travelling over some homes. Before leaving the mission, they handed me
very bad road, I arrived at Green Lake on the after- a petition praying that they be paid next year at Buf-
noon of the 15th, and got to Isle à la Crosse at noon falo River on Buffalo Lake, to which point they can
of Saturday, June 22, one day behind the date that come in less than two days from Whitefish Lake.
was fixed for my arrival there. Very unfavourable
weather was the cause of delay. Only the Canoe Lake On Monday morning, July 15, I left the mission on
band of Indians had so far assembled there to meet the return trip to Isle à la Crosse, and after an unusu-
me; and I at once had an interview with the chief ally favourable trip I arrived there on the 17th. Here
and headmen of that band, and it being Saturday, I was detained for five days to procure tripmen to go
they asked that the paying of their annuities be post- on to Stanley, for which place I started on the morn-
poned until Monday, the 24th. To that request I con- ing of July 23 and arrived there on the evening of
ceded, and accordingly they were paid on that and August 1. Here I met some fifty heads of families of
the following day. The Indians of English River and the Lac la Ronge Indians, headed by their chief,
Clear Lake bands not having then arrived, I began Amos Charles, and two of their headmen, who
taking evidence in connection with claims for scrip asked that they be paid their annuities there, as
preferred by a number of half-breeds from Souris many of them spent the summer and autumn on the
River who did not have a chance of meeting the Churchill river, and in compliance with their request
commissioner of last year at Isle à la Crosse. The evi- they were paid on the 2nd and 3rd; the 5th and 6th
dence adduced by these applicants for scrip was were occupied taking evidence of applicants for
continued up to the 29th, when the English River scrip and procuring tripmen for the Lac du Brochet
and Clear Lake bands having fully arrived, were trip. On the morning of August 7 I left Stanley for
paid their annuities. The 1st of July, being Dominion the Hudson’s Bay Company’s post on the north end
Day, was, at the request of the half-breeds and Indi- of Lac du Brochet, and after a successful trip reached
ans, observed as a holiday, and they celebrated it that place on the 17th idem.
with great enthusiasm; the members of the commis-
sion and other gentlemen present heartily joining Owing to the amount of work which devolved upon
them and making their sports pecuniarily interesting the commission that was not anticipated, it was
for them. made impossible for me to reach this place, which
was the stated point of rendezvous with the Indians,
Further dealings with the Indians and half-breeds on the date that they were notified I was to be there
occupied the time of the commission up to July 3, to meet them; and consequently they were detained
when, upon being informed that a considerable for ten days awaiting my arrival, and which led to
number of half-breeds and Indians were assembled their running out of provisions, they being all assem-
at the Roman Catholic mission near Portage la Loche bled with their families, and finding that they were
and expecting me there, I proceeded to that place, reduced to such a state, I felt that it was proper for
and after a very trying trip with rains and stormy me to relieve their immediate necessities, and
weather, I reached there late on the evening of July 9, accordingly I supplied them with a limited quantity
and owing to the number of half-breeds who had to of provisions, for which they appeared to feel very
be dealt with here, and the very inclement weather thankful. I consider it proper that I should mention
prevailing, it took up to the 14th to get through with here that considerable help was afforded these Indi-
the work. In addition to the half-breeds assembled ans whilst waiting my arrival by Mr. A. McDermot,
here, I found a number of families of Indians from the Hudson’s Bay Company’s agent at this place, by
Whitefish Lake, who asked very earnestly that I giving them some light work to do and paying them
should pay them their annuities. I explained to them for it in provisions, and likewise by the agent of the
that I could not do that, as it was inconsistent with Revillon Bros.
the rules of the department to pay Indians of a cer-
tain treaty by the agent of another treaty. They On the morning of August 19 I held council with the
pointed out that it was a great hardship for them to combined Indians of the Barren Land and the Indi-
be compelled to travel over a hundred miles through ans of Lac la Hache, the Rev. Father Turquetil acting
a difficult section of the country going to Fort as interpreter, which he did on all subsequent occa-
McMurray, which took them five or six days to get sions during my transactions with the Indians here,

Treaty 10, 1906 621
the Chipewyan language being spoken. I explained On the 18th I held meetings with the chief and head-
to them why I was sent to meet them, and after vari- men of the James Roberts’ band, who accompanied
ous thoughtful questions put by the Indians bearing me to this place, and with that of the Wm. Charles’
upon the treaty and answered by me to their satis- band combined, bearing upon the surrender of their
faction, they asked for a short recess to discuss the reserve, No. 106A, when after due deliberation, they
terms of the treaty more fully among themselves; unanimously agreed to relinquish the reserve to the
which was granted them. At 2 p.m. they reassem- government upon the terms set forth in an agree-
bled and the Barren Land band announced that they ment signed by them on the 18th day of September,
had elected their chief and two headmen, and were 1907; which agreement was transmitted to the
prepared to accept the terms of the treaty. The Lac la Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs on the 8th instant.
Hache band intimated that some of their people
were away, but would be back in a day or so, and On the afternoon of the 18th of September, the com-
that they would like to have their concurrence in the mission party left Montreal lake with canoes for the
matter of selecting their chief and councillors; I con- landing on Red Deer lake, where they arrived on the
sented to their waiting a day or so, if necessary, in 21st, after being detained one day en route with
order to obtain the full consent of their band to their stress of weather. At the landing teams were taken to
transactions. The chief and headmen of the Barren this place (Mistawasis) where we arrived on the
Land band then formally signed the treaty, and evening of September 24, ultimo; this completing an
without further undue delay the payments of their arduous trip of over 2,000 miles by water, in canoes,
gratuities and annuities were begun to them, and and 300 miles by land, which I have pleasure to say
were got through with at noon on the 21st. The was performed successfully and without accident.
number of Indians treated with in this band was
232, including: Concerning my staff, I am pleased to state that I was
excellently equipped, and that, in general, a fine
The Lac la Hache band assembled on the 22nd, spirit existed amongst its members; of some of them
and after the terms of the treaty were read over to I cannot speak too highly. Dr. H. A. Stewart proved
them for the second time and thoroughly explained himself ideally fitted for his post. Full of the kindest
in their own language, they presented their elected sympathy for the sick, he was untiring in his
chief and two headmen, who then in due form labours on their behalf; a skilful physician, he was
signed the treaty, and the members of the band most successful in his efforts to relieve their suffer-
were paid in accordance with the terms of the ing, and won golden opinions from all who
treaty. The number of Indians paid in this band was required his services. W. J. McLean, the senior secre-
97, including: tary, displayed special ability in the performance of
the onerous duties of his position, his previous
This practically finished the Indian work at this experience in treaty payments standing him in good
point, and after a number of half-breeds’ applica- stead; while his knowledge of the French language,
tions for scrip were received, I left this place on his long residence as a chief factor of the Hudson’s
August 24 for Lac la Ronge, via Stanley, and on Sep- Bay Company, in the part of the country traversed,
tember 3, after a very unusually expeditious trip, I and his personal acquaintance with many of the
arrived at the paying ground at Lac la Ronge; and on applicants, materially contributed to the success of
the 4th and 5th paid the rest of the James Roberts my commission.
band some 60 odd heads of families who were not
paid at Stanley. Of the rest it would be invidious to make personal
mention, suffice to say that each performed his
After taking the evidence of a number of half- duties with energy and intelligence, sacrificing rest
breed applicants for scrip at this place, and holding and comfort, and facing danger in the effort to cover
council meetings with the Indians in connection distances with the least possible loss of time.
with the surrender of their reserve, No. 106A, &c., I
left on the 11th for Montreal Lake, and arrived I have the honour to be, sir
there on the 16th, and the following day paid their Your obedient servant,
annuities to the Indians of this place, the William THOS. A. BORTHWICK,
Charles’ band. Commissioner, Treaty No. 10

622 Treaty 11, 1922
Treaty 11, 1922 in all the other posts where the treaty was signed, the
questions asked and the difficulties encountered
June 27 to Aug. 30, 1921
Treaty No. 11 (June 27, 1921) and Adhesion were much the same. The Indians seemed afraid, for
(July 17, 1922) with Reports, Etc. one thing, that their liberty to hunt, trap and fish
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR TREATY would be taken away or curtailed, but were assured
No. 11 by me that this would not be the case, and the Gov-
OTTAWA, October 12, 1921. ernment will expect them to support themselves in
D. C. Scott, Esq., their own way, and, in fact, that more twine for nets
Deputy Superintendent General, and more ammunition were given under the terms of
Department of Indian Affairs, this treaty than under any of the preceding ones; this
Ottawa. went a long way to calm their fears. I also pointed
out that any game laws made were to their advan-
tage, and, whether they took treaty or not, they were
SIR, —I have the honour to submit herewith the
subject to the laws of the Dominion. They also
report on treaty made by me on authority granted by
seemed afraid that they would be liable for military
Order in Council, dated March 14, last, as Commis-
service if the treaty was signed, that they would be
sioner to negotiate a treaty with the Indians occupy-
confined on the reserves, but, when told that they
ing the territory north of the 60th parallel and along
were exempt from military service, and that the
the Mackenzie river and the Arctic ocean.
reserves mentioned in the treaty would be of their
own choosing, for their own use, and not for the
I left Edmonton on June 8, 1921, accompanied by
white people, and that they would be free to come
Inspector W. B. Bruce, Constable Wood and Consta-
and go as they pleased, they were satisfied.
ble Campbell, of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. Constable Campbell acted as my clerk for the
Practically all the bands dealt with wanted more
summer.
provision for medical attendance at each post,
schools for their children, and supplies for their old
Arriving at Fort McMurray on June 11, we left there and destitute.
on the 14th in a houseboat, the property of the Hud-
son’s Bay Company, which company had made all I pointed out that they were still able to make their
arrangements for the transportation of the treaty own living, and that Dr. A. L. McDonald, of the
party during the summer in the North. Indian Department, was then with me, and that they
could see him, and that he would attend them free if
We arrived at Fort Fitzgerald on June 18, crossed the they wished, but that it was impossible for the Gov-
portage to Fort Smith, and boarded the ss. Mackenzie ernment to furnish regular medical attention, when
River on June 20 for Fort Providence, at which place they were occupying such a vast tract of territory.
the first adhesion to Treaty 11 was to be taken. July 5 Schools were already established, and their children
was the date set for the meeting of the Indians and receiving free education, and supplies were left at
myself to take place at Fort Providence, and, in order each point for the sick and destitute.
to arrive in good time, I thought it better for me and
my party to proceed there by the ss. Mackenzie River, The treaty was signed at Fort Providence on June 27,
and let the houseboat take us up again at this point. and the following were paid:—
The transportation of the houseboat across the
portage at Fort Smith took several days. 1 Chief,
2 Headmen, and
On our arrival at Fort Providence, on June 20, I found 255 others.
the Indians were not at the post, as we were there
before the date set for the meeting, so word was sent Our houseboat arrived on July 5, and we left Provi-
of my arrival, and the majority of the Providence dence for Fort Simpson on the 7th, securing adhe-
Indians living at Willow Lake arrived on June 25, sion to the treaty there on July 11.
those at Trout Lake not till July 2. I had several meet-
ings with them, and explained the terms of treaty. 1 Chief,
They were very apt in asking questions, and here, as 2 Headmen, and

Treaty 11, 1922 623
344 other Indians were paid. stormbound at Hay River for five days prior to
crossing. These Indians hunt in every direction from
Adhesions to the treaty were obtained at Fort the fort, some as far as 200 miles, and only come to
Wrigley on July 13. the post in spring to trade their furs, so that, in
future, I would suggest that this be the first post vis-
1 Headman, and ited when making payments.
77 others were paid.
We crossed the lake from Hay River to Rae in the
At Fort Norman on July 15,— Hudson Bay schooner Fort Rae, leaving our house-
boat to take us up at Resolution, from which place we
1 Chief, went on August 25, arriving at Fort Smith on August
2 Headmen, and 30, Fort McMurray and Edmonton in September.
205 others were paid.
I much regret that I was unable, owing to the lack of
At Good Hope, July 21,— time, to visit Fort Liard, and secure adhesion to the
treaty by the Indians at that point, although they had
1 Chief, sent word to Fort Simpson of their willingness to
1 Headman, and accept the same. I considered it advisable to proceed
208 others were paid. to Great Slave Lake, and cross to Fort Rae at the first
opportunity, as the season was getting late.
At Arctic Red River on July 26,—
Dr. A. L. McDonald joined the party at Fort Provi-
1 Chief, dence, and accompanied it to Good Hope, at that
1 Headman, and place having to return to Fort Resolution on account
l69 others were paid. of smallpox having been reported, which report, for-
tunately, proved untrue. He joined the party again at
At Fort McPherson on July 28,— Hay River, and remained with it until arrival at his
headquarters at Fort Smith.
1 Chief,
1 Headman, and I was very glad to be accompanied by His Lordship
217 others were paid. Bishop Breynat, O.M.I., who has considerable influ-
ence with the Indians in the North, and would like
At Fort Rae on August 22,— here to express my appreciation of the help and hos-
pitality accorded to me and my party in his missions,
1 Chief and I desire also to express my appreciation of the
2 Headmen, and services rendered by Inspector Bruce, of the Royal
440 others were paid. Canadian Mounted Police, and by his party. Consta-
bles Woods and Campbell performed their duties in
Practically all the Indians were dealt with at Fort the most creditable manner.
Providence, Simpson, Wrigley, Arctic Red River and
McPherson, and about 65 per cent at Fort Norman, H. A. CONROY,
Fort Good Hope and Rae, the remainder of these Commissioner, Treaty No. 11.
Indians having been at these posts in the spring and
left word that they were willing to take treaty, but TREATY NUMBER ELEVEN
had to return to their hunting grounds for their ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded on
summer’s work. the several dates mentioned therein in the year of
Our Lord One thousand Nine hundred and Twenty-
At Fort Rae is the largest band of Indians, about 800, One, between His Most Gracious Majesty George V,
and this is the most inaccessible, being on the arm of King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British
Great Slave Lake, difficulty in crossing this lake Dominions beyond the Seas, by His Commissioner,
being experienced, more especially in the late sum- Henry Anthony Conroy, Esquire, of the City of
mer and fall on account of storms, our party being Ottawa, of the One Part, and the Slave, Dogrib,

624 Treaty 11, 1922
Loucheux, Hare and other Indians, inhabitants of the the lands included within the following limits, that is
territory within the limits hereinafter defined and to say:
described, by their Chiefs and Headmen, hereunto
subscribed, of the other part:— Commencing at the northwesterly corner of the ter-
ritory ceded under the provisions of Treaty Number
WHEREAS, the Indians inhabiting the territory here- Eight; thence northeasterly along the height-of-land
inafter defined have been convened to meet a com- to the point where it intersects the boundary
missioner representing His Majesty’s Government of between the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Ter-
the Dominion of Canada at certain places in the said ritories; thence northwesterly along the said bound-
territory in this present year of 1921, to deliberate ary to the shore of the Arctic ocean; thence easterly
upon certain matters of interest to His Most Gra- along the said shore to the mouth of the Copper-
cious Majesty, of the one part, and the said Indians of mine river; thence southerly and southeasterly
the other. along the left bank of said river to Lake Gras by way
of Point lake; thence along the southern shore of
AND WHEREAS, the said Indians have been notified Lake Gras to a point situated northwest of the most
and informed by His Majesty’s said commissioner western extremity of Aylmer lake; thence along the
that it is His desire to open for settlement, immigra- southern shore of Aylmer lake and following the
tion, trade, travel, mining, lumbering and such other right bank of the Lockhart river to Artillery lake;
purposes as to His Majesty may seem meet, a tract of thence along the western shore of Artillery lake and
country bounded and described as hereinafter set following the right bank of the Lockhart river to the
forth, and to obtain the consent thereto of His Indian site of Old Fort Reliance where the said river enters
subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a Great Slave lake, this being the northeastern corner
treaty, so that there may be peace and good-will of the territory ceded under the provisions of Treaty
between them and His Majesty’s other subjects, and Number Eight; thence westerly along the northern
that His Indian people may know and be assured of boundary of the said territory so ceded to the point
what allowances they are to expect and receive from of commencement; comprising an area of approxi-
His Majesty’s bounty and benevolence. mately three hundred and seventy-two thousand
square miles.
AND WHEREAS, the Indians of the said tract,
duly convened in council at the respective points AND ALSO, the said Indian rights, titles and privi-
named hereunder, and being requested by His leges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situ-
Majesty’s Commissioner, to name certain Chiefs ated in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territo-
and Headmen, who should be authorized on their ries or in any other portion of the Dominion of
behalf to conduct such negotiations and sign any Canada.
treaty to be founded thereon, and to become
responsible to His Majesty for the faithful perfor- To have and to hold the same to His Majesty the
mance by their respective bands of such obliga- King and His Successors forever.
tions as shall be assumed by them, the said Indians
have therefore acknowledged for that purpose the AND His Majesty the King hereby agrees with the
several chiefs and Headmen who have subscribed said Indians that they shall have the right to pursue
thereto. their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fish-
ing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore
AND WHEREAS the said Commissioner has pro- described, subject to such regulations as may from
ceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Slave, Dogrib, time to time be made by the Government of the
Loucheux, Hare and other Indians inhabiting the Country acting under the authority of His Majesty,
district hereinafter defined and described, which has and saving and excepting such tracts as may be
been agreed upon and concluded by the respective required or taken up from time to time for settle-
bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said ment, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.
Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield
up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, AND His Majesty the King hereby agrees and
for His Majesty the King and His Successors forever, undertakes to lay aside reserves for each band, the
all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to same not to exceed in all one square mile for each

Treaty 11, 1922 625
family of five, or in that proportion for larger or and a copy of this Treaty for the use of his band; and
smaller families; during the coming year, and every third year there-
after, each Chief and Headman shall receive a suit-
PROVIDED, however, that His Majesty reserves the able suit of clothing.
right to deal with any settlers within the boundaries
of any lands reserved for any band as He may see FURTHER, His Majesty agrees to pay the salaries of
fit; and also that the aforesaid reserves of land, or teachers to instruct the children of said Indians in
any interest therein, may be sold or otherwise dis- such manner as His Majesty’s Government may
posed of by His Majesty’s Government for the use deem advisable.
and benefit of the said Indians entitled thereto, with
their consent first had and obtained; but in no wise FURTHER, His Majesty agrees to supply once and
shall the said Indians, or any of them, be entitled to for all to each Chief of a band that selects a reserve,
sell or otherwise alienate any of the lands allotted to ten axes, five hand-saws, five augers, one grind-
them as reserves. stone, and the necessary files and whetstones for the
use of the band.
It is further agreed between His Majesty and His
Indian subjects that such portions of the reserves and FURTHER, His Majesty agrees that, each band shall
lands above indicated as may at any time be required receive once and for all equipment for hunting, fish-
for public works, buildings, railways, or roads of ing and trapping to the value of fifty dollars for each
whatsoever nature may be appropriated for that pur- family of such band, and that there shall be distrib-
pose by His Majesty’s Government of the Dominion uted annually among the Indians equipment, such
of Canada, due compensation being made to the as twine for nets, ammunition and trapping to the
Indians for the value of any improvements thereon, value of three dollars per head for each Indian who
and an equivalent in land, money or other considera- continues to follow the vocation of hunting, fishing
tion for the area of the reserve so appropriated. and trapping.
And in order to show the satisfaction of His Majesty FURTHER, His Majesty agrees that, in the event of
with the behaviour and good conduct of His Indian any of the Indians aforesaid being desirous of fol-
subjects, and in extinguishment of all their past lowing agricultural pursuits, such Indians shall
claims hereinabove mentioned, He hereby, through receive such assistance as is deemed necessary for
his Commissioner, agrees to give to each Chief a that purpose.
present of thirty-two dollars in cash, to each Head-
man, twenty-two dollars, and to every other Indian AND the undersigned Slave, Dogrib, Loucheux,
of whatever age of the families represented, at the Hare and other Chiefs and Headmen, on their own
time and place of payment, twelve dollars. behalf and on behalf of all the Indians whom they
represent, do hereby solemnly promise and engage
HIS MAJESTY, also agrees that during the coming to strictly observe this Treaty, and also to conduct
year, and annually thereafter, He will cause to be and behave themselves as good loyal subjects of His
paid to the said Indians in cash, at suitable places Majesty the King.
and dates, of which the said Indians shall be duly
notified, to each Chief twenty-five dollars, to each THEY promise and engage that they will, in all
Headman fifteen dollars, and to every other Indian respects, obey and abide by the law; that they will
of whatever age five dollars, to be paid only to heads maintain peace between themselves and others of
of families for the members thereof, it being pro- His Majesty’s subjects, whether Indians, half-breeds
vided for the purposes of this Treaty that each band or whites, now inhabiting and hereafter to inhabit
having at least thirty members may have a Chief, any part of the said ceded territory; that they will not
and that in addition to a Chief, each band may have molest the person or property of any inhabitant of
Councillors or Headmen in the proportion of two to such ceded tract, or of any other district or country,
each two hundred members of the band. or interfere with, or trouble any person passing or
travelling through the said tract or any part thereof,
FURTHER, His Majesty agrees that each Chief shall and that they will assist the officers of His Majesty in
receive once and for all a silver medal, a suitable flag bringing to justice and punishment any Indian

626 Treaty 11, 1922
offending against the stipulations of this Treaty, or men in the presence of the undersigned witnesses,
infringing the law in force in the country so ceded. after having been first interpreted and explained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s said Com- Witnesses:

missioner and the said Chiefs and Headmen have SIGNED at Rae on the twenty-second day of
hereunto set their hands at the places and times set August, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and
forth in the year herein first above written. the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of under-
signed witnesses, after having been first interpreted
SIGNED AT PROVIDENCE on the twenty-seventh and explained.
day of June, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner
and the Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the ORDER IN COUNCIL RATIFYING TREATY No. 11
undersigned witnesses, after having been first inter- P.C. 3985
preted and explained. PRIVY COUNCIL CANADA
AT THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE AT
SIGNED at Simpson on the eleventh day of July, OTTAWA,
1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs SATURDAY,
and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned the 22nd day of October, 1921.
witnesses, after having been first interpreted and PRESENT:
explained. HIS EXCELLENCY
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL
SIGNED at Wrigley on the thirteenth day of July,
1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs WHEREAS the Superintendent General of Indian
and Headmen in presence of the undersigned wit- Affairs submits herewith Treaty Number Eleven
nesses, after having been first interpreted and made, in accordance with the terms of Order in
explained. Council of 14th March, 1921 (P.C. 686), by Henry
Anthony Conroy, Esquire, who was appointed a
SIGNED at Norman on the fifteenth day of July, Commissioner by the said Order in Council, to nego-
1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs tiate with the Slave, Dogrib, Loucheux, Hare and
and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned other Indians for the cession by the said Indians to
witnesses, after having been first interpreted and the Crown of all their rights, titles and privileges
explained. whatsoever in the territory north of the sixtieth par-
allel and along the Mackenzie river and the Arctic
SIGNED at Good Hope on the twenty-first day of ocean in the Dominion of Canada.
July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the
Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the under- THEREFORE His Excellency the Governor General
signed witnesses, after having been first interpreted in Council, on the recommendation of the Superin-
and explained. tendent General of Indian Affairs, is pleased to ratify
the said Treaty Number Eleven, made and negoti-
SIGNED at Arctic Red River on the twenty-sixth day ated as hereinbefore recited, and the same is hereby
of July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the ratified and confirmed accordingly.
Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the under-
signed witnesses, after having been first interpreted RODOLPHE BOUDREAU,
and explained. Clerk of the Privy Council.
The Honourable
SIGNED at McPherson on the twenty-eighth day of The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
July, 1921, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the
Chiefs and Headmen in the presence of the under- Owing to the death of Commissioner Conroy on
signed witnesses, after having been first interpreted April 27, 1922, and to the fact that he had not had an
and explained. opportunity during the summer of 1921 of obtaining
the adhesion to the Treaty by the Slave Indians of the
SIGNED at Liard on the day of, 1921, by His Liard district, it was necessary to make other
Majesty’s Commissioners and the Chiefs and Head- arrangements. Accordingly the authority of His

Excellency the Governor General in Council was SIGNED at Liard on the seventeenth day of July,
obtained for the appointment of T. W. Harris, Indian 1922, by His Majesty’s Commissioner and the Chiefs
agent at Fort Simpson, N.W.T., as Commissioner to and Headmen in the presence of the undersigned
secure this adhesion. witnesses, after having been first interpreted and
explained.
Following is a copy of the Order in Council:—
P.C. 993 ORDER IN COUNCIL RATIFYING ADHESION TO
TREATY No. 11
CERTIFIED COPY of a Report of the Committee of the March 29, 1923.
Privy Council approved by His Excellency the Governor The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recom-
General on the 9th May, 1922 mendation of the Superintendent General of Indian
Affairs, submit herewith for ratification and confir-
The Committee of the Privy Council have had mation by Your Excellency in Council, an instru-
before them a Report, dated 2nd May, 1922, from ment, in duplicate, containing the adhesion to
the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, sub- Treaty No. 11 of the Indians of Fort Liard taken the
mitting, with reference to Order in Council of the seventeenth day of July, 1922, by Mr. T. W. Harris,
14th March, 1921, under which Mr. H. A. Conroy, who was appointed by an Order of Your Excellency
Inspector for Treaty No. 8, was authorized to act as in Council of 9th May, 1922 (P.C. No. 993), as His
Commissioner to negotiate a Treaty (known as Majesty’s Commissioner to take the said adhesion;
Treaty No. 11) with the Indians occupying the terri- one copy of the instrument to be returned to the
tory north of the 60th parallel and along the Department of Indian Affairs and the other to be
Mackenzie river to the Arctic coast, that owing to kept on record in the Privy Council Office.
lack of time Mr. Conroy was unable to visit the Fort
Liard Indians last year with a view to securing their (Sgd.) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU,
adhesion to the treaty. Clerk of the Privy Council.
The Honourable
The Minister states that owing to Mr. Conroy’s The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
death, which occurred on the 27th April, 1922, it is
essential that someone should be deputed to com-
plete the treaty negotiations.
The Minister, therefore, recommends that Mr. T. W. Williams Treaties, 1923

Harris, Indian agent at Fort Simpson, N.W.T., be Oct. 31, 1923
authorized to complete the work entrusted to the INDIAN TREATY
late Mr. Conroy in connection with the treaty above ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded on
mentioned. the thirty-first day of October, in the year of Our
Lord One thousand nine hundred and twenty-three,
The Committe concur in the foregoing recommenda- between His Most Gracious Majesty, George the
tion and submit the same for approval. Fifth, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of
RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, India, by His Commissioners: Angus Seymour
Clerk of the Privy Council. Williams, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of
The Honourable Ontario, Esquire, Barrister-at-law, and Departmental
The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. Solicitor of the Department of Indian Affairs; Robert
Victor Sinclair, of the said City of Ottawa, Esquire,
Accordingly Commissioner Harris, accompanied by One of His Majesty’s Counsel, learned in the law,
His Lordship Bishop Breynat and Reverend Father and Uriah McFadden, of the City of Sault Sainte
Moisan, visited Fort Liard on July 17th. The terms of Marie, in the said Province, Esquire, one of His
the treaty having been explained by the Commis- Majesty’s Counsel learned in the law; the said Angus
sioner, the Chief and Headmen, who had previously Seymour Williams, Chairman of the said Commis-
been elected, signed the treaty on behalf of the Indi- sion, representing the Dominion of Canada, and the
ans as indicated in the following Indenture:— said Robert Victor Sinclair and Uriah McFadden,

628 Williams Treaties, 1923
representing the Province of Ontario, of the One reserves, by their chiefs and headmen, duly autho-
Part; and the Members of the Chippewa Tribe, rized thereunto, as aforesaid, do hereby cede,
inhabiting, as members of Bands thereof, reserves at release, surrender and yield up to the government of
Christian Island, Georgina Island and Rama, all in the Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King
the Province of Ontario, by their Chiefs and Head- and His Successors forever, all their right, title, inter-
men, of the Other Part. est, claim, demand and privileges whatsoever, in, to,
upon, or in respect of the lands and premises
WHEREAS, the Chippewa Tribe above described, described as follows, that is to say:
having claimed to be entitled to certain interests in
the lands in the Province of Ontario, hereinafter FIRSTLY: All that parcel of land situate in the
described, such interests being the Indian title of the Province of Ontario and described as commencing
said tribe to fishing, hunting and trapping rights over on the northeasterly shore of Georgian Bay at that
the said lands, of which said rights His Majesty mouth of the French River which forms the bound-
through His said Commissioners, is desirous of ary between the District of Parry Sound and the
obtaining a surrender, and for such purpose has District of Sudbury; thence southerly and easterly
appointed the said Commissioners, with power on along the shores of Georgian Bay to that point on
behalf of His said Majesty, to enquire into the validity Matchedash Bay where the land included in the
of the claims of the said tribe, and, in the event of the surrender of the eighteenth day of November, 1815,
said Commissioners determining in favour of the of record in Book of Surrenders, Volume I, is
validity thereof, to negotiate a treaty with the said reached, and including all the islands in the Geor-
tribe for the surrender of the said rights upon the gian Bay waters in which the Indians making this
payment of such compensation therefor as may seem treaty have any interest; thence along the easterly
to the said Commissioners to be just and proper: limit of the said lands purchased in 1815 to the Nar-
rows between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe;
AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, having thence due east across the said Narrows; thence
duly made the said enquiry, have determined in southerly and easterly following the east side of the
favour of the validity of the said rights. Narrows and the north shore of Lake Simcoe to the
foot of McPhee Bay off the northerly part of Lake
AND WHEREAS the Indians belonging to the said Simcoe; thence by a straight line easterly to a point
tribe, having been duly convened in council, at the thirty-three miles north of the northwest corner of
respective places named hereunder, and having been the Township of Rawdon measured along the divi-
requested by the said Commissioners to name cer- sion line between the Counties of Hastings and
tain chiefs and headmen to be authorized on their Peterborough, which point is the most western
behalf to conduct negotiations with the said Com- northwest corner of the parcel surrendered on the
missioners for a surrender of the said rights and to twenty-eight day of November, 1822 (noted in Vol-
sign a treaty in respect thereof and to become ume I of the Book of Surrenders as number twenty-
responsible to His Majesty for the faithful perfor- seven and one-quarter, 271/4); thence following the
mance by the said tribe and by the respective bands north and west boundaries of the last mentioned
thereof inhabiting the said reserves, of such obliga- parcel to the Ottawa River; thence westerly along
tions as shall be assumed by them under such treaty, the interprovincial boundary to the mouth of the
the said Indians have therefore appointed for the Mattawa River; thence westerly by the waters of
purpose aforesaid the several chiefs and headmen Mattawa River, Talon Chute and Talon Lake, Turtle
who have subscribed to this treaty: Lake, and Trout Lake to the westerly point of Trout
Lake; thence to the shore of Lake Nipissing at
AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, acting North Bay; thence by the north shore of Lake
under the powers in them reposed as aforesaid, have Nipissing to the French River; thence by those
negotiated the present treaty with the said tribe: waters along the division line between the Districts
of Parry Sound and Sudbury to the place of com-
NOW THEREFORE THIS TREATY WITNESSETH mencement: Excepting thereout and therefrom
that the said tribe and the Indians composing the those lands which have already been set aside as
same, occupying as members of bands the said Indian Reserves. The parcel hereby surrendered

contains seventeen thousand, six hundred square Majesty, through His said Commissioners, hereby
miles, more or less. agrees, upon the execution of a treaty similar to this
treaty by the Mississauga tribe inhabiting as mem-
SECONDLY: All that parcel of land situate in the bers of bands, reserves at Rice Lake, Mud Lake, Scu-
Province of Ontario and described as parts of the gog Lake and Alderville, in the Province of Ontario,
Counties of Northumberland, Durham, Ontario to pay to each member of the said Chippewa tribe,
and York, commencing at the point where the east- being also a member of one of the said bands, the
erly limit of that portion of the lands said to have sum of twenty-five dollars, to be paid through the
been ceded in 1787, which was confirmed on the Indian agents for the respective bands, within a rea-
first day of August, 1805, of record as number thir- sonable time after the execution of the said treaties,
teen in Volume I of the Book of Surrenders, inter- and a further sum of —233,375.00 dollars — to be
sects the northerly shore of Lake Ontario; thence administered for the said tribe by His Majesty’s
northerly along the said easterly and northerly lim- Department of Indian Affairs under and pursuant to
its of the confirmed tract to the Holland River; the provisions of the Indian Act, Revised Statutes of
thence northerly along the Holland River and along Canada, 1906, Chapter 43 and its amendments: Mak-
the westerly shore of Lake Simcoe and Kempenfelt ing together the sum of two hundred and fifty thou-
Bay to the Narrows between Lake Couchiching and sand dollars.
Lake Simcoe; thence southeasterly along the shores
of Lake Simcoe to the Talbot River; thence easterly AND THE UNDERSIGNED chiefs and headmen, on
along the Talbot River to the boundary between the their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians
Townships of Victoria and Ontario; thence whom they represent, do hereby solemnly covenant,
southerly along that boundary to the northwest promise and agree to strictly observe this treaty in all
angle of the Township of Darlington; thence along respects and that they will not, nor will any of them,
the northerly boundary line of the Townships of nor will any of the Indians whom they represent,
Darlington, Clarke, Hope and Hamilton to Rice molest or interfere with the person or property of
Lake; thence along the southern shore of said lake anyone who now inhabits or shall hereafter inhabit
to River Trent along the River Trent to the Bay of any portion of the lands covered by this treaty, or
Quinte; thence westerly and southerly along the interfere with, trouble, or molest any person passing
shore of the Bay of Quinte to the road leading to or travelling through the said lands or any part
Carrying Place and Wellers Bay; thence westerly thereof, and that they will assist the officers of His
along the northern shore of Lake Ontario to the Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any
place of beginning; excepting thereout and there- Indian, party to this treaty, who may hereafter offend
from those lands which have already been set aside against the stipulations hereof or infringe the laws in
as Indian reserves. The land hereby conveyed con- force in the lands covered hereby:
tains two thousand, five hundred square miles
more or less. AND IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD that this
treaty is subject to an agreement dated the day of
AND ALSO all the right, title, interest, claim, April, A.D. 1923, made between the Dominion of
demand and privileges whatsoever of the said Indi- Canada and the Province of Ontario, a copy of which
ans, in, to, upon or in respect of all other lands, situ- is hereto attached.
ate in the Province of Ontario to which they ever
had, now have, or now claim to have any right, title, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s said Com-
interest, claim, demand or privileges, except such missioners and the said chiefs and headmen have
reserves as have heretofore been set apart for them hereunto set their hands and seals at the places and
by His Majesty the King. times hereinafter set forth, in the year herein first
above written.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to His Majesty
the King and His Successors forever: SIGNED AND SEALED at Georgina Island on the
thirty-first day of October, A.D. 1923, by His
AND THIS TREATY FURTHER WITNESSETH that Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned
in consideration of the aforesaid surrender, His chiefs and headmen in the presence of the under-

signed witnesses, after first having been interpreted AND WHEREAS a departmental enquiry made by
and explained. the Department of Indian Affairs indicates that the
said claim has such probable validity as to justify
[signatures] and require further investigation, and if found valid
to be satisfied on such just and fair terms as may be
SIGNED AND SEALED at Christian Island on the settled by a treaty of surrender.
third day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s
Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT made in
headmen in the presence of the undersigned wit- pursuance of certian statutes of Canada and of the
nesses, after first having been interpreted and Province of Ontario, both intituled “an Act for the
explained. settlement of certain questions between the Govern-
ments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian
[signatures] Lands,” the Statute of Canada having been passed
in the 54th and 55th years of the reign of Her
SIGNED AND SEALED at Rama on the seventh day Majesty Queen Victoria and chaptered 5, and the
of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s Commis- statute of Ontario in the 54th year of Her Majesty’s
sioners and the undersigned chiefs and headmen in said reign and chaptered 3.
the presence of the undersigned witnesses, after first
having been interpreted and explained. WITNESSETH THAT the Governments of Canada
and of the Province of Ontario have agreed as
[signatures] follows:
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this — of 1. The Government of Canada will,

April, 1923, pursuant to Part I of the Enquiries Act,
BETWEEN: R.S.C., 1906, c. 104, and amendments,
The Government of the Dominion of Canada, appoint three persons as commissioners to
acting herein by the Honourable Charles Stewart, enquire into the validity of the claim of
Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the Chippewa and Mississauga Indians
of the first part, aforesaid, and will empower the said
AND commissioners, in the event of their
The Government of the Province of Ontario, act- determining in favour of the validity of
ing herein by the Honourable Beniah Bowman, Min- the said claim, to negotiate a treaty with
ister of Lands and Forests for the said Province, the said Indians for the surrender of the
of the other part said lands upon payment of such compen-
sation as may be fixed by such treaty.
WHEREAS certain Indians of the Chippewa and 2. Of the three commissioners so named, one
Mississauga tribes claim that the said tribes were shall be selected by the Government of
and are entitled to a certain interest in lands in the Canada, who shall be Chairman of the
Province of Ontario to which the Indian title has Commission, and the remaining two shall
never been extinguished by surrender or otherwise, be selected by the Minister of Lands and
the said lands being described as parts of the coun- Forests for the Province of Ontario and
ties of Renfrew, Hastings, Haliburton, Muskoka, notified to the Superintendent General of
Parry Sound and Nipissing, and being bounded on Indian Affairs.
the south and east by the lands included in the sur- 3. The question of the validity of said claim
renders of the Indian title made on the 18th of may be determined by any two of the said
November, 1815, the 5th of November, 1818, and Commissioners and it shall be necessary
November, 1822; on the north by the Ottawa and that at least two of them of whom the
Mattawa Rivers and Lake Nipissing, and on the west chairman shall be one shall concur in any
by the lands included in the surrender of the Indian treaty which may be negotiated.
title made in 1850, known as the Robinson-Huron 4. The expenses of the said commission,
surrender, and by the Georgian Bay, the area in ques- including the remuneration and expenses
tion including about 10,719 square miles. of the commissioners and any expenses

incurred for securing the attendance of so far as the same is not still required to be
witnesses or otherwise, shall be payable applied for the benefit of the said band or
by the Government of Canada, but the bands
rates of remuneration of each of the of Indians, be paid to the Province of
commissioners selected by the Minister of Ontario, together with accrued unex-
Lands and Forests for the Province of pended simple interest thereon.
Ontario shall be agreed upon between
him and the Superintendent General of IN WITNESS WHEREOF these presents have
Indian Affairs before the Constitution of been signed by the parties thereto.
the Commission. Copy Of The Treaty Made November 15, 1923
5. In the event of the commissioners negoti- Between
ating a treaty with the Indians the His Majesty The King
compensation to be paid to such Indians And
shall be payable to the Dominion of The Mississauga Indians
Canada by the Province of Ontario from Of Rice Lake, Mud Lake, Scugog Lake And
time to time in accordance with the terms Alderville
of the treaty of surrender, and shall be
applied by the Dominion of Canada in INDIAN TREATY
accordance with the said terms. Nov. 15, 1923
6. In the event of provision being made by ARTICLES OF A TREATY made and concluded on
such treaty of surrender for the setting the fifteenth day of November in the year of Our
apart of reserves for the Indians, the Lord One thousand nine hundred and twenty-three,
Dominion of Canada will bear the between His Most Gracious Majesty, George the
expense to be incurred in the location and Fifth, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
survey thereof, and the Province of Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of
Ontario will concur in the setting apart of India, by His Commissioners, Angus Seymour
such reserves. Williams, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of
7. All such reserves shall be administered by Ontario, Esquire, Barrister-at-law, and Departmental
the Dominion of Canada for the benefit of Solicitor of the Department of Indian Affairs: Robert
the band or bands of Indians to which Victor Sinclair, of the said City of Ottawa, Esquire,
each may be allotted; portions thereof one of His Majesty’s Counsel, learned in the law, and
may, upon their surrender for the purpose Uriah McFadden, of the City of Sault Sainte Marie,
by the said band or bands, be sold, leased in the said Province, Esquire, one of His Majesty’s
or otherwise disposed of by letters patent Counsel learned in the law, the said Angus Seymour
under the Great Seal of Canada, and the Williams, Chairman of the said Commission, repre-
proceeds of such sale, lease or other senting the Dominion of Canada, and the said
disposition applied for the benefit of such Robert Victor Sinclair and Uriah McFadden, repre-
band or bands, provided, however, that in senting the Province of Ontario, of the One Part, and
the event of the band or bands to which the members of the Mississauga Tribe, inhabiting, as
any such reserve has been allotted members of bands thereof, reserves at Rice Lake,
becoming extinct, or if for any other Mud Lake, Scugog Lake and Alderville, all in the
reason such reserve or such portion Province of Ontario, by their chiefs and headmen, of
thereof as remains undisposed of is the Other Part.
declared by the Superintendent General of
Indian Affairs to be no longer required for WHEREAS, the Mississauga Tribe above described,
the benefit of the said band or bands, the having claimed to be entitled to certain interests in
same shall thereafter be administered by the lands in the Province of Ontario, hereinafter
and for the benefit of the Province of described, such interests being the Indian title of
Ontario, and any balance of the proceeds the said tribe to fishing, hunting and trapping
of the sale or other disposition of any rights over the said lands, of which said rights,
portion thereof then remaining under the His Majesty, through His said Commissioners, is
control of the Dominion of Canada shall, desirous of obtaining a surrender, and for such

purpose has appointed the said Commissioners, along the shores of Georgian Bay to that point on
with power on behalf of His said Majesty, to enquire Matchedash Bay where the land included in the
into the validity of the claims of the said tribe, and, surrender of the eighteenth day of November, 1815,
in the event of the said Commissioners determining of record in Book of Surrenders, Volume One, is
in favour of the validity thereof, to negotiate a treaty reached, and including all the islands in the Geor-
with the said tribe for the surrender of the said rights gian Bay waters in which the Indians making this
upon the payment of such compensation therefor as treaty have any interest; thence along the easterly
may seem to the said Commissioners to be just and limit of the said lands purchased in 1815 to the Nar-
proper: rows between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe;
thence due east across the said Narrows; thence
AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, having southerly and easterly following the east side of the
duly made the said enquiry, have determined in Narrows and the north shore of Simcoe to the foot
favour of the validity of the said rights. of McPhee Bay off the northerly part of Lake Sim-
coe; thence by a straight line easterly to a point
AND WHEREAS the Indians belonging to the said thirty-three miles north of the northwest corner of
tribe, having been duly convened in Council, at the the Township of Rawdon measured along the divi-
respective places named hereunder, and having sion line between the Counties of Hastings and
been requested by the said Commissioners to name Peterborough, which point is the most western
certain chiefs and headmen to be authorized on northwest corner of the parcel surrendered on the
their behalf to conduct negotiations with the said twenty-eighth day of November, 1822 (noted in
Commissioners for a surrender of the said rights Volume One of the Book of Surrenders as number
and to sign a treaty in respect thereof and to twenty-seven and one-quarter, 271/4); thence fol-
become responsible to His Majesty for the faithful lowing the north and west boundaries of the last
performance by the said tribe and by the respective mentioned parcel to the Ottawa River; thence west-
bands thereof inhabiting the said reserves, of such erly along the interprovincial boundary to the
obligations as shall be assumed by them under mouth of the Mattawa River; thence westerly along
such treaty, the said Indians have therefore the interprovincial boundary to the mouth of the
appointed for the purposes aforesaid the several Mattawa River, Talon Chute and Talon Lake, Turtle
chiefs and headmen who have subscribed to this Lake, and Trout Lake to the westerly point of Trout
treaty: Lake; thence to the shore of Lake Nipissing at
North Bay; thence by the north shore of Lake
AND WHEREAS the said Commissioners, acting Nipissing to the French River; thence by those
under the powers in them reposed as aforesaid, have waters along the division line between the Districts
negotiated the present treaty with the said tribe: of Parry Sound and Sudbury to the place of com-
mencement: Excepting thereout and therefrom
NOW THEREFORE THIS TREATY WITNESSETH those lands which have already been set aside as
that the said tribe and the Indians composing the Indian reserves. The parcel hereby surrendered
same, occupying as members of bands the said contains seventeen thousand, six hundred square
reserves, by their chiefs and headmen, duly autho- miles, more or less.
rized thereunto as aforesaid, do hereby cede, release,
surrender and yield up to the Government of the SECONDLY: All that parcel of land situate in the
Dominion of Canada for His Majesty the King and Province of Ontario and described as parts of the
His Successors forever, all their right, title, interest, Counties of Northumberland, Durham, Ontario
claim, demand and privileges whatsoever, in, to, and York, commencing at the point where the
upon, or in respect of the lands and premises easterly limit of that portion of the lands said to
described as follows, that is to say: have been ceded in 1787, which was confirmed on
FIRSTLY: All that parcel of land situate in the the first of August, 1805, of record as number thir-
Province of Ontario and described as commencing teen in Volume One, of the Book of Surrenders,
on the northeasterly shore of Georgian Bay at that intersects the northerly shore of Lake Ontario;
mouth of the French River which forms the bound- thence northerly along the said easterly and
ary between the District of Parry Sound and the northerly limits of the confirmed tract to the Hol-
District of Sudbury; thence southerly and easterly land River; thence northerly along the Holland

River and along the westerly shore of Lake Sim- three and its amendments; making together the
coe and Kempenfelt Bay to the Narrows between sum of 250,000.00 dollars.
Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe; thence south-
easterly along the shores of Lake Simcoe to the AND THE UNDERSIGNED chiefs and headmen, on
Talbot River; thence easterly along the Talbot their own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians
River to the boundary between the Counties of whom they represent, do hereby solemnly covenant,
Victoria and Ontario; thence southerly along that promise and agree to strictly observe this treaty in all
boundary to the northwest angle of the Township respects and that they will not, nor will any of them,
of Darlington; thence along the northerly bound- nor will any of the Indians whom they represent,
ary line of the Townships of Darlington, Clarke, molest or interfere with the person or property of
Hope and Hamilton to Rice Lake; thence along anyone who now inhabits or shall hereafter inhabit
the southern shore of said lake to River Trent any portion of the lands covered by this treaty, or
along the River Trent to the Bay of Quinte; thence interfere with, trouble, or molest any person passing
westerly and southerly along the shore of the Bay or travelling through the said lands or any part
of Quinte to the road leading to Carrying Place thereof, and that they will assist the officers of His
and Weller ’s Bay; thence westerly along the Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any
northern shore of Lake Ontario to the place of Indian, party to this treaty, who may hereafter offend
beginning: Excepting thereout and therefrom against the stipulations hereof or infringe the laws in
those lands which have already been set aside as force in the lands covered hereby:
Indian Reserves. The land hereby conveyed con-
tains two thousand, five hundred square miles AND IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD that this
more or less. treaty is subject to an agreement dated the day of
April, A.D. 1923, made between the Dominion of
AND ALSO all the right, title, interest, claim, Canada and the Province of Ontario, a copy of which
demand and privileges whatsoever of the said Indi- is hereto attached.
ans, in, to, upon or in respect of all other lands situ-
ate in the Province of Ontario to which they ever IN WITNESS WHEREOF, His Majesty’s said Com-
had, now have, or now claim to have any right, title, missioners and the said chiefs and headmen have
interest, claim, demand or privileges, except such hereunto set their hands and seals at the places and
reserves as have heretofore been set apart for them times hereinafter set forth, in the year herein first
by His Majesty the King. above written.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to His Majesty SIGNED AND SEALED at Alderville on the nine-
the King and His Successors forever: teenth day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s
Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and
AND THIS TREATY FURTHER WITNESSETH that headmen in the presence of the undersigned wit-
in consideration of the aforesaid surrender, His nesses, after first having been interpreted and
Majesty, through His said Commissioners, hereby explained.
agrees, upon the execution of a treaty similar to
this treaty by the Chippewa Tribe inhabiting as [signatures]
members of bands, reserves at Christian Island,
Georgina Island and Rama, in the Province of SIGNED AND SEALED at Mud Lake on the fif-
Ontario, to pay to each member of the said Missis- teenth day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s
sauga Tribe, being also a member of one of the said Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and
bands, the sum of twenty-five dollars, to be paid headmen in the presence of the undersigned wit-
through the Indian agents for the respective bands, nesses, after first having been interpreted and
with a reasonable time after the execution of the explained.
said treaties, and a further sum of —233,425.00
dollars— to be administered for the said tribe by [signatures]
His Majesty’s Department of Indian Affairs under
and pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Act, SIGNED AND SEALED at Rice Lake on the six-
Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Chapter Forty- teenth day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Majesty’s

Commissioners and the undersigned chiefs and NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT made in
headmen in the presence of the undersigned wit- pursuance of certian statutes of Canada and of the
nesses, after first having been interpreted and Province of Ontario, both intituled “an Act for the
explained. settlement of certain questions between the Govern-
ments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian
[signatures] Lands,” the Statute of Canada having been passed in
SIGNED AND SEALED at Scugog Lake on the the 54th and 55th years of the reign of Her Majesty
twenty-first day of November, A.D. 1923, by His Queen Victoria and chaptered 5, and the statute of
Majesty’s Commissioners and the undersigned Ontario in the 54th year of Her Majesty’s said reign
chiefs and headmen in the presence of the under- and chaptered 3.
signed witnesses, after first having been interpreted
and explained. WITNESSETH THAT the Governments of Canada
and of the Province of Ontario have agreed as
[signatures] follows: —
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this of 1. The Government of Canada will, pursuant to

April, 1923, Part I of the Enquiries Act, R.S.C., 1906, c.
BETWEEN: 104, and amendments, appoint three persons
The Government of the Dominion of Canada, as commissioners to enquire into the validity
acting herein by the Honourable Charles Stewart, of the claim of the Chippewa and Missis-
Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, of the first sauga Indians aforesaid, and will empower
part, the said commissioners, in the event of their
AND determining in favour of the validity of the
The Government of the Province of Ontario, said claim, to negotiate a treaty with the said
acting herein by the Honourable Beniah Bowman, Indians for the surrender of the said lands
Minister of Lands and Forests for the said Province, upon payment of such compensation as may
of the other part be fixed by such treaty.
2. Of the three commissioners so named, one
WHEREAS certain Indians of the Chippewa and shall be selected by the Government of
Mississauga tribes claim that the said tribes were Canada, who shall be Chairman of the
and are entitled to a certain interest in lands in the Commission, and the remaining two shall be
Province of Ontario to which the Indian title has selected by the Minister of Lands and Forests
never been extinguished by surrender or otherwise, for the Province of Ontario and notified to the
the said lands being described as parts of the coun- Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
ties of Renfrew, Hastings, Haliburton, Muskoka, 3. The question of the validity of said claim may
Parry Sound and Nipissing, and being bounded on be determined by any two of the said
the south and east by the lands included in the sur- Commissioners and it shall be necessary that
renders of the Indian title made on the 18th of at least two of them of whom the chairman
November, 1815, the 5th of November, 1818, and shall be one shall concur in any treaty which
November, 1822; on the north by the Ottawa and may be negotiated.
Mattawa Rivers and Lake Nipissing, and on the west 4. The expenses of the said commission,
by the lands included in the surrender of the Indian including the remuneration and expenses of
title made in 1850, known as the Robinson-Huron the commissioners and any expenses
surrender, and by the Georgian Bay, the area in ques- incurred for securing the attendance of
tion including about 10,719 square miles. witnesses or otherwise, shall be payable by
the Government of Canada, but the rates of
AND WHEREAS a departmental enquiry made by remuneration of each of the commissioners
the Department of Indian Affairs indicates that the selected by the Minister of Lands and Forests
said claim has such probable validity as to justify for the Province of Ontario shall be agreed
and require further investigation, and if found valid upon between him and the Superintendent
to be satisfied on such just and fair terms as may be General of Indian Affairs before the
settled by a treaty of surrender. Constitution of the Commission.

5. In the event of the commissioners negotiating posed of is declared by the Superintendent

a treaty with the Indians the compensation to General of Indian Affairs to be no longer
be paid to such Indians shall be payable to required for the benefit of the said band
the Dominion of Canada by the Province of or bands, the same shall thereafter be ad-
Ontario from time to time in accordance with ministered by and for the benefit of the
the terms of the treaty of surrender, and shall Province of Ontario, and any balance of
be applied by the Dominion of Canada in the proceeds of the sale or other disposition
accordance with the said terms. of any portion thereof then remaining
6. In the event of provision being made by such under the control of the Dominion of
treaty of surrender for the setting apart of Canada shall, so far as the same is not
reserves for the Indians, the Dominion of still required to be applied for the benefit
Canada will bear the expense to be incurred of the said band or bands of Indians, be
in the location and survey thereof, and the paid to the Province of Ontario, together
Province of Ontario will concur in the setting with accrued unexpended simple interest
apart of such reserves. thereon.
7. All such reserves shall be administered by the
Dominion of Canada for the benefit of the IN WITNESS WHEREOF these presents have been
band or bands of Indians to which each may signed by the parties thereto.
be allotted; portions thereof may, upon their
Sources:
surrender for the purpose by the said band or All United States treaty texts from Indian Affairs: Laws
bands, be sold, leased or otherwise disposed and Treaties, Volume. II (Treaties), compiled and
of by letters patent under the Great Seal of edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington, DC:
Canada, and the proceeds of such sale, lease Government Printing Office, 1904.
or other disposition applied for the benefit of
Text used with the permission of the Oklahoma State
such band or bands, provided, however, that
University Library Electronic Publishing Center.
in the event of the band or bands to which http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler
any such reserve has been allotted becoming /index.htm
extinct, or if for any other reason such reserve All Canadian treaty texts from Indian and Northern
or such portion thereof as remains undis- Affairs Canada. http://www.ainc-inac .gc.ca

Resources
Alternate Tribal Names and Spellings
Abenaki (western) Alnonba, Abnaki
Absaroke Crow
Adai Nateo
Adamstown Upper Mattaponi
Alabama Alibamu
Aleut Alutiiq, Unangan
Anadarko Nadaco
Anishinabe Chippewa, Ojibwa
Apache N de,Tinneh, Dine, Tinde, Unde, Shis Inde, Aravaipa, Bedonkohe,
Chihene, Chiricahua, Chokonen, Cibecue, Jicarilla, Kiowa, Lipan,
Mescalero, Mimbres, Nednhi, Tonto, Yuma
Apache Mohave Yavapai
Appomattoc Apamatuks
Arapahoe Inunaina, Atsina
Arikara Northern Pawnee, Ricara, Ree
Assiniboine Hohe
Athapaskan Dene
Atsina Haaninin
Aztec Nahua, Nahuatl
Bannock Panaiti
Bear River Indians Niekeni
Bellabella Heiltsuqu, Heiltsuk
Bellacoola Nuxalk
Beothuk Beathunk, Betoukuag, Macquajeet, Red Indians, Skraelling, Ulno
Blackfeet/Blackfoot Niitsitapi, Nitsi-tapi, Piegan, Ahpikuni, Pikuni (northern); Siksika,
Sisaka (southern), Sihasapa, Ahkainah
Blood Kainai, Ahkainah
Boothroyd Chomok
Brule Sioux Si can gu
Caddo Adai, Eyeish, Hasinai, Hainai, Kadohodacho, Kadohadacho
Confederacy, Natchitoches
Cahuilla Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Kawasic, Morongo, Los Coyotes, Painakic,
Wanikik
Calusa Caloosa, Calos, Calosa, Carlos, Muspa
Campo Kumeyaay
Carrier Dakelh, Wet’suwet’en
Catawba Esaw, Iswa, Iyeye, Nieye, Ushery
Cayuga Kweniogwen, Iroquois
Cayuse Wailetpu, Te-taw-ken
Chakchiuma Shaktci Homma
Chehalis Copalis, Humptulips, Qwaya, Satsop, Sts’Ailes, Wynoochee
Chemainus Tsa-mee-nis
R-1
R-2 Resources

Chemehuevi Nuwu, Tantawats
Chetco Tolowa
Cherokee Tsa-la-gi, Ani-yun-wiya, Anikituhwagi, Keetowah
Cheyenne Dzi tsi stas, Sowonia (southern), O mi sis (northern), Tse-tsehese-
staestse
Chilcotin Esdilagh, Tl’esqox, Tl’etinqox, Xeni Gwet’in
Chimakum Aqokdlo
Chippewa Anishinabe, Ojibwa
Chitimacha Chawasha, Pantch-pinunkansh, Washa, Yagenechito
Choctaw Chakchiuma, Chatot, Cha’ta
Chumash Santa Barbara Indians
Clackamas Guithlakimas
Clallam S’klallam, Nusklaim, Tlalem
Cocopah Xawitt Kunyavaei
Coeur d’Alene Skitswish, Schee chu’umsch, Schitsu’umsh
Comanche Detsanayuka, Kotsoteka, Nermernuh, Noconi, Nokoni, Numunuu,
Padouca (Sioux word), Penateka, Pennande, Quahadi, Yamparika
Comox Catloltx
Copane Kopano, Quevenes
Cora Nayarit
Coree Coranine
Coushatta Koasati, Acoste
Cree Kenistenoag, Iyiniwok, Nehiawak or Nay-hee-uh-wuk (Plains Cree),
Sah-cow-ee-noo-wuk (bush Cree)
Creek Muscogee, Abihika, Abeika, Hitchiti, Homashko
Crow Absaroke, Apsaalooke
Cupenos Kuupangaxwichem
Cuthead Pabaksa
Dakelh Carrier
Delaware Lenni Lenape, Lenape, Abnaki, Alnanbai, Wampanoag, Munsee,
Unami, Unalachitgo, Powhatan-Renápe
Dieguenos Comeya, Tipai, Ipai, Kumeyaay
Ditidaht Nitinaht
Eskimo Inuit, Inupiat, Inuvialuit, Yupik, Alutiiq
Equimalt Is-Whoy-Malth
Fox Mesquaki, Meskwaki, Mshkwa’kiitha
Gabrieleno Tongva
Ganawese Conoys, Piscataways
Gitanyow Kitwancool
Gitxsan Tsimshian
Goshute Kusiutta
Gros Ventre Atsina (prairie), Hidatsa (Missouri), A’ani’, Ah-ah-nee-nin, Minnetaree
Gwich’in Loucheux
Hainai Ioni
Havasupai Suppai
Heiltsuk Hailhazakv
Hidatsa Gros Venture
Hohokam Hoo-hoogam
Hopi Hopitu, Hopitu Shinumu, Moqui, Hapeka
Hualapai Hwal’bay, Walapai
Huichol Wirrarika, Wixalika

Resources R-3

Hupa Natinnohhoi
Huron Wendat, Wyandot
Ingalik Athapaskans Deg Het’an
Iowa Pahodja
Iroquois Haudenosaunee, Hodenosaunee, Ongwanosionni, Hotinonshonni
Jemez Tuwa
Jicarilla Apache Tinde
Kalispel Pend d’Oreilles
Kamia Tipai
Kansa Hutanga, Kansas, Kanza, Kaw,
Kato Tlokeang
Keres Pueblo, Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Laguna, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Santo
Domingo, Zia
Kickapoo Kiwigapawa
Kiowa Kwuda, Tepda, Tepkinago, Gaigwu, Kompabianta, Kauigu
Kiowa Apache Nadiisha Dena
Klamath Eukshikni Maklaks, Auksni
Klickitat Qwulhhwaipum
Kootenai Kuronoqa, Kutenai, Kootenay, Yaqan nukiy, Akun’kunik’, Ktunaxa
Koso Panamint
Karok Karuk, Arra-arra
Ktunaxa Kootenay
Kumeyaay Diegueño, Barona, Sycuan, Viejas, Campo, Cuyapaipe, Ewiiaapaayp
Kutchin Gwich’in
Kutenai Asanka
Lancandon Maya, Hach Winik
Lemhi Shoshone Agaidika, Salmon Eaters, Tukudika, Sheep Eater
Loucheux Gwich’in
Lillooet Lil’wat, St’át’imc, T’it’kit
Lipan Naizhan
Lower Sioux Mdewakanton, Wahpekute
Luiseño Ataxum, La Jolla, Pechanga, Soboba, Quechnajuichom
Lumbee Cheraw
Maicopa Xalychidom Piipaash, Pipatsji
Makah Kwenetchechat, Kwi-dai-da’ch
Mandan Metutahanke or Mawatani (after 1837), Numakaki (before 1837)
Manhattan Rechgawawank
Manso Maise, Mansa, Manse, Manxo, Gorreta, Gorrite, Tanpachoa
Maricopa Xalychidom Piipaash, Xalchidom Pii-pash, Pipatsje, Pee-posh
Miami Twightwis, Twa-h-twa-h, Oumameg, Pkiiwileni
Micmac Mi’kmaq
Miniconjou Mnikawozu, Mnikowoju, Minnicoujou
Mi’kmaq Lnu’k, L’nu’k
Missouri Niutachi
Mixtec Ñusabi, Nusabi
Moapa Moapariats
Modoc Moatokni, Okkowish
Mohave Mojave, Tzinamaa, Ahamakav, Hamakhava
Mohawk Kanienkahaka, Kaniengehage, Abenaki, Iroquois, Akwesasne
Mohican Muh-he-con-neok, Mahikan, Mahican
Molala Latiwe

R-4 Resources

Mono Monache
Moratoc Nottoway
Mosopelea Ofom
Munsee Minasinink, Homenethiki
Muscogee Creek, Homashko
Nanticoke Unalachtgo, Onehtikoki
Navajo Diné, Dineh, Tenuai, Navaho
Nez Perce Nee-me-poo, Nimipu, Kamuinu, Tsutpeli, Sahaptin, Chopunnish
Nisga’a Tsimshian
Nootka Nuu-chah-nulth
Northern Ojibwa Saulteaux, Sauteux
Nuu-chah-nulth Nootka
Nuxalk Kimsquit, Kwalhnmc, South Bentick Sutslmc, Taliyumc
Ogallala Okandanda
Ojibwa Chippewa, Anishinabe, Missisauga, Odjbway, Saginaw
Okanagon Isonkuaili
Omaha UmonHon
Oneida Iroquois
Onondaga Iroquois
Oohenupa Two Kettle, Oohenonpa
Osage Wa-Shah-She, Wakon, Wazhazhe
Ottawa Adawe, Otawaki
Otto Chewaerae
Oulaouaes Necariages
Oweekeno Kwakiutl, Oweehena
Pacheenaht Nootka
Paiute Numa, Nuwuvi, Kuyuiticutta
Papagos Tohono O’odham, Ak-chin, Yohono Au’autam
Parianuc White River Utes
Passamaquoddy Peskedemakddi
Patchogue Unkechaug
Pawnee Pariki, Panyi, Chahiksichahiks, Ckirihki Kuruuriki
Pechanga Luiseño
Pecos Pueblos from Jemez
Pend d’Oreilles Kalispel
Penobscot Pannawanbskek, Penaubsket
Petun Khionontateronon, Tionontati
Piegan Blood, Kainai, Pikuni, Pigunni, Ahpikuni
Pima Onk Akimel Au-authm, Akimel O’odham, A-atam, Akimul Au’autam,
Tohono O’odham (incorrectly)
Piro Tortuga
Pit River Achomawi, Atsugewi
Poosepatuck Unkechaug
Popolucas Chochos
Pyramid Lake Paiute Kuyuidokado
Quapaw Quapah, Akansea, Ouaguapas, Ugakhpa
Quechan Yuma
Quileute Quil-leh-ute
Quinault Qui-nai-elts
Sac and Fox Sauk, Asakiwaki, Meshkwakihug, Fox
Sahwnee Shawadasay

Resources R-5

Salish Okinagan, Slathead
Saanich Pauquachin, Tsawout, Tsartlip, Tseycum, Malahat
Sans Arc Itazipco
Santee Sisseton
Saponi Monasukapanough
Sauk Hothaaki, Sac, Sack, Sock, Thakiki
Scioto (Five Nations of the Scioto Plains) Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware,
Munsee, Seneca
Seminole Ikaniuksalgi, Alachua, Mikasuki
Seneca Iroquois
Serrano Cowangachem, Mohineyam, Qawishwallanavetum, Yuhavitam
Shawnee Savannah, Chillicothe, Hathawekela, Mequachake, Piqua
Shoshone Shoshoni, Snake, Nimi, Tukudeka, Agaidika
Sioux Brule, Dakota, Hunkpapa, Isanyati, Itazipco, Lakota, Mnikawozu,
Mnikowoju, Nakota, Ocheti Shakowin, Oglala, Oohenunpa,
Sicangu, Sihasapa, Sisseton, Sisitonwan, Teton, Titunwan
Sissipahaw Haw
Skagit Humaluh
Skoskomish Twana
Squinamish Swinomish
Slotas Red River Metis
Songish Lkungen
Southern Paiute Numa
St. Francis Abenaki
St. Mary’s Indian Band A’qam, Ktunaxa
St. Regis Mohawk Akwesasne, Kaniengehage
Stockbridge Mahican
Snuneymuxw Nanaimo
Susquehanna Susquehannock, Conestoga, Minqua, Andaste
Taidnapam Upper Cowlitz
Tarahumara Raramuri
Taviwac Uncompahgre Ute
Tejas Hasinai, Cenis
Tenino Melilema
Tequistlatecos Chontales of Oaxaca
Teton Brule, Hunkpapa, Itazipco, Mnikowoju, Oglala, Oohenunpa, Sicangu,
Sihasapa, Titunwan
Tewa Pueblo, Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara,
Tesuque
Thompson Nlaka’pamux
Tigua Pueblo, Tiwa, Tortuga
Tillamook Killamuck
Timucua Utina, Acuera
T’it’kit Lillooet
Tiwa Pueblo, Tortuga
Tlaoquiaht Clayoquot
Tlatlasikwala Nuwitti
Tobacco Khionontateronon, Tionontati
Toltec Chiaimeca Mochanecatoca
Tonkawa Titskan Watitch, Titskanwatitch, Tonkaweya
Tubatulabal Bahkanapul, Kern River

R-6 Resources

Tunica Yoron
Tuscarora Skarure, Iroquois, Coree
Tututni Tolowa
Twana Tuadhu
Two Kettle Oohenonpa, Oohenupa
Umpqua Etnemitane
Uncompahgre Ute Taviwac
Upper Chehalis Kwaiailk
Upper Sioux Sisseton, Wahpeton
Ute Noochi, Notch, Nuciu, Yamparka, Parianuc, Taviwac, Wiminuc, Kapota,
Muwac, Cumumba, Tumpanuwac, Uinta-ats, Pahvant, San Pitch,
and Sheberetch
Viejas Quimi
Wampanoag Pokanoket
Wappo Ashochimi
Warm Springs Tilkuni
Wasco Galasquo
Watlala Katlagakya
Wea Eel River, Gros, Kilataks, Mangakekis, Pepicokia, Peticotias,
Piankeshaw, Wawiyatanwa
Whilkut Redwood Indians
Winnebago Winipig
Wichita Kitikiti’sh, Wia Chitch (Choctaw word)
Winik Maya
Wishram Ilaxluit, Tlakluit
Wyandot Huron, Talamatans
Yakama Waptailmin, Pakiutlema, Yakima
Yaqui Yoeme, Surem, Hiakim
Yazoo Chakchiuma
Yoncalla Tchayankeld
Yuchi Chisa
Yuma Quechan, Euqchan
Zapotec Binigulaza
Zuni Ashiwi, Taa Ashiwani

Resources R-7
Tribal Name Meanings

Tribal Name Meaning
A’ani’ white clay people
Abnaki those living at the sunrise (easterners)
Achomawi river, people that live at the river
Acolapissa those who listen and see
Agaidika salmon eaters
Ahousaht facing opposite from the ocean, people living with their backs to the
land and mountains
Ahtena ice people
Aitchelitz bottom
Akun’kunik’ people of the place of the flying head
Akwesasne land where the partridge drums
Alabama I clear the thicket
Apache enemy (Zuni word)
Apalachicola people of the other side
Apalachee people of the other side
A’qam people of the dense forest or brush
Arikara horns or elk people, or corn eaters
Assiniboine ones who cook using stones (Ojibwa word)
Atakapa man eater
Atsina white clay people
Atsugewi hat creek indians
Avoyel people of the rocks
Bayogoula people of the bayou
Bedonkohe (Apache) in front at the end people
Bidai brushwood (Caddo word)
Binigulaza people of the clouds
Brule burned thighs
Caddo true chiefs
Cahuilla leader, master, powerful nation (all questionable)
Calusa fierce people
Canim canoe, broken rock
Catawba river people
Cayuga place where boats were taken out, place locusts were taken out,
people at the mucky land
Cayuse people of the stones or rocks (French-Canadian word)
Chakchiuma red crawfish people
Cheam wild strawberry place, the place to always get strawberries
Chehalis sand, beating heart
Chemehuevi those that play with fish (Mojave word)
Cherokee cave people (Choctaw word), people of different speech (Creek word)
Cheslatta top of a small mountain, small rock mountain at the east side
Chetco close to the mouth of the stream
Cheyenne red talkers (Dakota word), little Cree (Lakota word)
Chickahominy hominy people
Chihene (Apache) red paint people
Chilcotin young man river
Chipewyan pointed skins (Cree word)
Chitimacha men altogether red, they have cooking vessels
Chokonen (Apache) rising sun people
Chontal stranger (Nahuatl word)
Choula fox

R-8 Resources

Tribal Name Meaning
Chowanoc people at the south
Chumash people who make the shell bead money
Clallam strong people
Clatsop dried salmon
Clayoquot people of other tribes
Cocopah river people
Coeur d’Alene those who are found here or heart of an awl (French words)
Comanche anyone who wants to fight me all the time (Ute word)
Comox place of abundance
Cowichan warm country, land warmed by the sun
Crow crow, sparrowhawk, bird people, people of the large-beaked bird
Dakelh people who travel by water
Dakota allie
Ehdiitat Gwich’in people who live among timber or spruce
Erie long tail or cat people (Iroquois word)
Eskimo eaters of raw meat (Algonquin or Cree word)
Esquimalt the place of gradually shoaling water
Fox red earth people
Gingolx the place of the skulls
Gitanmaax people who fish with burning torches
Gitwangak place of rabbits
Gwich’in people who live at a certain place
Gros Ventre big bellies, one who cooks with a stone, he cooks by roasting (see
Atsina)
Hach winik true people
Hagwilget gentle or quiet people
Han those who live along the river
Haudenosaunee people of the long house, people of the extended lodge
Havasupai people of the blue green water
Heiltsuk to speak or act correctly
Hesquiaht people of the sound made by eating herring eggs off eel grass
Hidatsa willow (speculation)
Hiute bowmen
Hohokam those who have gone
Honniasont wearing something around the neck
Hopi peaceful ones, people who live in a peaceful way
Houma red
Hualapai people of the tall pines
Huchnom mountain people
Huichol healers
Hul’qumi’num those who speak the same language
Hunkpapa campers at the opening of the circle
Hupa trinity river
Huron ruffian (French word)
Hwal’bay (Hualapai) people of the tall pines
Ihanktonwan dwellers at the end
Ihanktonwana little dwellers at the end
Iowa sleepy ones (Dakota word)
Iroquois real adders (Algonquian word) or we of the extended lodge
Jatibonicu people of the great sacred high waters
Jatibonuco great people of the sacred high waters

Resources R-9

Tribal Name Meaning
Jicaque ancient person (Nahuatl word)
Jicarilla little basket weaver (Spanish word)
Kainai many chiefs
Kamloops the meeting of the waters
Kan-hatki white earth
Kanienkahaka people of the place of flint
Kanza people of the south wind
Karok upstream
Kaskaskia he scrapes it off by means of a tool
Kato lake
Kawchottine people of the great hares
Ketsei going in wet sand
Kickapoo he stands about
Kiowa principal people, pulling out, coming out, people of the large tent flaps
Kispiox people of the hiding place
Kitamaat people of the falling snow
Kitkatla people of the salt, village by the sea
Kitselas people of the canyon
Kitsumkalum people of the plateau
Klallam strong people
Klamath people of the lake
Klickitat beyond (Chinook word)
Kluskus place of small whitefish
Kotsoteka buffalo eaters
Kutcha-kutchin those who live on the flats
Kuupangaxwichem people who slept here
Kuyuidokado cui-ui eaters
Kwalhioqua lonely place in the woods (Chinook word)
Kwayhquitlum stinking fish slime
Kwuda people coming out
Lakota friend or ally (same with Dakota and Nakota)
Latgawa those living in the uplands
Lenni Lenape genuine men
Lheidli T’enneh people of the confluence of the two rivers
Lillooet wild onion
Loucheux people with slanted or crossed eyes
Machapunga bad dust
Mahican wolf (incorrect translation per the Mohican Nation, Stockbridge-
Munsee Band)
Makah cape people
Malahat infested with caterpillars, place where one gets bait
Maliseet broken talkers
Maricopa people who live toward the water
Massachuset at the hills
Matsqui easy portage, easy travelling
Mdewankantonwan dwellers of the spirit lake
Menominee wild rice men
Metlakatla a passage connecting two bodies of salt water
Miami people on the peninsula, cry of the crane
Michigamea great water
Mimbres (Apache) willow (Spanish word)

R-10 Resources

Tribal Name Meaning
Miniconjou planters by water
Minnetaree they crossed the water
Minqua stealthy
Missouri great muddy, people with wooden canoes
Moapa mosquito creek people
Moatokni southerners
Modoc southerners
Mohave three mountains, people of the water/river
Mohawk the possessors of the flint, coward or man eater (Abenaki words)
Mohegan wolf
Mohican the people of the waters that are never still
Moneton big water people
Munsee at the place where the stones are gathered together
Musqueam place always to get iris plant root
Nahane people of the west
Nak’azdli when arrows were flying
Narragansett people of the small point
Nanticoke people of the tidewaters
Nanoose to push forward
Natsit-kutchin those who live off the flats
Navajo cultivated field in an arroyo (Tewa word)
Nehalem where the people live
Nicomen level part
Nihtat Gwich’in people living together as a mixture
Nipmuck freshwater fishing place
Nokoni those who turn back
Nooksack mountain men
Nootka along the coast
Nusabi people of the clouds
Oglala scatters their own
Ojibwa to roast till puckered up
Okanagan head, top of head
Okelousa blackwater
Okmulgee where water boils up
Omaha upstream people or people going against the current
Oneida a boulder standing up, people of the standing stone
Onondaga people on top of the hills
Opata hostile people (Pima word)
Ottawa to trade
Otto lechers
Oweekeno those who carry on the back, people talking right
Pahodja dusty nones
Pakiutlema people of the gap
Pamunkey rising upland
Pantch-pinunkansh men altogether red
Papagos desert people, bean people
Pascagoula bread people
Passamaquoddy plenty of pollock
Paugusset where the narrows open out
Pawnee horn people, men of men, look like wolves
Pechanga place where the water drips

Resources R-11

Tribal Name Meaning
Penateka honey eaters
Penelakut something buried
Pennacook down hill
Penobscot it forks on the white rocks or the descending ledge place, at the stone
place
Pensacola hair people
Penticton permanent place, always place
People of the lakes tribes near the great lakes
Peoria carrying a pack on his back
Pequot fox people or destroyers
Piegan scabby robes
Piikani poor robe
Pilthlako big swamp
Pima river people
Pojoaque drinking place
Potawatomi people of the place of the fire, keepers of the fire (fire nation, fire
people)
Powhatan falls in a current of water
Pshwanwapam stony ground
Puyallup shadow
Qawishwallanavetum people that live among the rocks
Quahadi antelope
Qualicum where the dog salmon run
Quapaw downstream people
Quatsino downstream people
Qwulhhwaipum prairie people
Raramuri foot runner
Sac (Sauk) people of the yellow earth or people of the outlet
Salish flatheads
Sans Arc without bows
Schaghticoke at the river forks
Schitsu’umsh the ones that were found here
Sekani dwellers on the rocks
Semiahmoo half moon
Seminole separatist or breakaway, peninsula people
Seneca place of stone, people of the standing rock, great hill people
Shawnee south or southerners
Sicangu burned thighs
Sihasapa Sioux blackfeet
Siksika blackfeet
Sioux snake (French version of other tribe’s name)
Sisitonwan dwellers of the fish ground
Siska uncle, lots of cracks in the rocks
Skidegate red paint stone
Skokomish river people
Skookumchuck strong water
Snuneymuxw people of many names
Spallumcheen flat along edge
Spokane sun people or children of the sun (generally accepted)
Spuzzum little flat
Sts’Ailes the beating heart

R-12 Resources

Tribal Name Meaning
Sumas big flat opening
Tahltan something heavy in the water
Taino we the good people
Takelma those living along the river
Tamarois out tail
Tanima liver eaters
Tangipahoa corn gatherers
Tantawats southern men
Tarahumara foot runner
Tatsanottine people of the copper water
Tawakoni river bend among red hills
Teetl’it Gwich’in people who live at the head of the waters
Tejas friendly
Tenawa down stream
Tennuth-ketchin middle people
Teton dwellers of the prairie
Tewa moccasins
Thlingchadinne dog-flank people
Titonwan dwellers of the plains
Tl’azt’en people by the edge of the bay
Toltec master builders (Nahuatl word)
Tonawanda confluent stream
Tonkawa they all stay together or most human of people
Toquaht people of the narrow place in front, people of the narrow channel
Tsa-mee-nis bitten breast
Tsattine lives among the beavers
Tsawout houses raised up
Tsawwassen beach at the mouth, facing the sea
Tsay Keh Dene people of the mountains
Tsetsaut people of the interior (Niska word)
Tseycum clay people
Tsleil-Waututh people of the inlet
Tubatulabal pinenut eaters (Shoshone word)
Tukudika sheep eater
Tuscarora hemp gatherers, the shirt wearing people
Two Kettle two boilings
Uchuckledaht there inside the bay
Ulkatcho good feeding place where animals get fat
Unalachtgo tidewater people
Viniintaii Gwich’in people who live on or by the caribou trail
Vuntut Gwitch’in dwellers among the lakes
Vvunta-ketchin those who live among the lakes
Wahpekute shooters amoung the leaves
Wahpetonwan dwellers amoung the leaves
Wailaki north language (Wintun word)
Wakokai blue heron breeding place
Walapai pine tree people
Wallawalla little river
Wampanoag eastern people
Wappo brave
Waptailmin people of the narrow river

Resources R-13

Tribal Name Meaning
Wasco cup, those who have the cup
Wea the forest people, light-skinned ones, people who live near the river
eddy
Whel mux people of spirit, people of breath
Wichita big arbor (Choctaw word)
Winnebago filthy water people
Wiwohka roaring water
Wyandot people of the peninsula, islanders
Yakama runaway
Yamparika rooteaters or yapeaters
Yaqan nukiy the people where the rock is standing
Yavapai people of the sun, crooked mouth people
Yoncalla those living at ayankeld
Yuchi situated yonder
Yuhavitam people of the pines
Yuki stranger (Wintun word)
Yurok downstream (Karok word)

R-14 Resources
Treaties by Tribe
Tribe Treaty Name
Aionai 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
Appalachicola Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, 1832

Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, 1833
Arapaho Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865

Santee—and Arapaho
Arikara Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, 1825

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

Cahokia Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818

Resources R-15

Tribe Treaty Name
Cayuga Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792
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, 1846 [Western Cherokee]
Agreement with the Cherokee, 1835 (Unratified)
Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Cheyenne Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho, 1865

Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, 1825
Chickasaw Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865

R-16 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Chickasaw (cont.) Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1832
Chippewa Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808

Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, 1847
Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Etc., 1855
Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake
Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, and Pillager and Lake
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 Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians, 1847
Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie, 1855
Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., 1828

Resources R-17

Tribe Treaty Name
Chippewa (cont.) Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1785
Choctaw Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
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

Creeks Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865

R-18 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Creeks (cont.) Treaty with the Creeks, 1827
Agreement with the Creeks, 1825 (Unratified)
Crow Treaty with the Crow Tribe, 1825

Treaty with the Crows, 1868
Agreement with the Crows, 1880 (Unratified)
Dakota Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, 1865

De Chutes Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865

Delaware Treaty with the Delawares, 1778

Dwamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Eel River Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803


Resources R-19

Tribe Treaty Name
Eel River (cont.) Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, Etc., 1809
Five Nations Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792
Flathead Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

Fox Treaty with the Foxes, 1815
Gros Ventres Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

Illinois Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832

Iowa Treaty with the Iowa, 1815

Treaty with the Iowa, 1824.
Kalapuya Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., 1855

Kansa Treaty with the Kansa, 1815

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 Kaskaskia, 1803
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832
1867
Ka-Ta-Ka Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., 1837
Keechy Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846

R-20 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Kickapoo Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803
Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816
Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermilion 1820
Kik-Ial-Lus Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Kiowa Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache, 1853

Klamath Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 1864
Kootenay Treaty with the Blackfeet, 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
Me-Sek-Wi-Guilse Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Menominee Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827


Resources R-21

Tribe Treaty Name
Menominee (cont.) Treaty with the Menominee, 1856
Miami Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803

1867
Middle Oregon Tribes Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865
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

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

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

R-22 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Nex Percé (cont.) Treaty with the Nez Percé, 1855
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
Oneida Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792

Treaty with the Oneida, 1838
Onondaga Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792

Osage Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Great and Little Osage, 1825
Oto Treaty with the Oto, 1817
Oto & Missouri Treaty with the Confederated Oto and Missouri, 1854
Treaty with the Oto and Missouri Tribe, 1825
Ottawa Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808


Resources R-23

Tribe Treaty Name
Ottawa (cont.) Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1833
Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche De Bœuf, 1862
1867
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—Grand, Loups, Republicans, Etc., 1848
Peoria Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1832

1867
Piankeshaw Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803

Treaty with the Piankeshaw, 1804
Agreement with the Piankeshaw, 1818 (Unratified)
1867
Piegan Treaty with the Blackfeet, 1855

R-24 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Ponca Treaty with the Ponca, 1817
Potawatomi Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808


Resources R-25

Tribe Treaty Name
Puyallup Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, Etc., 1854
Quapaw Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Quapaw,1818
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

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 Sauk and Fox Tribe, 1836
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Missouri, 1854
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

R-26 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Seminole Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians, 1823
Seneca Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory,
1865
Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians, 1792
Treaty with the Seneca, Tonawanda Band, 1857.
1867
Agreement with the Seneca, 1797
Agreement with the Seneca, 1823 (Unratified)
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
1867

Resources R-27

Tribe Treaty Name
Shawnee (cont.) Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1815
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 Teton, Etc., Sioux, 1825 — Teton, Yancton and
Yanctonies Bands
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 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)
Santee—and Arapaho,

R-28 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Sioux (cont.) 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
Six Nations Treaty with the Six Nations, 1784

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 Stockbridge Tribe, 1848
Suquamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855

Resources R-29

Tribe Treaty Name
Swinamish Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc., 1855
Tah-Wa-Carro Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, Etc., 1846
Tamarois Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., 1818
Tenino Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865

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

Umatilla Treaty with the Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855
Umpqua Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854

Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Creek Band, 1853
Upper Pend D’oreille Treaty with the Blackfeet, 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 Walla-Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855
Wasco Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes, 1865

Wea Treaty with the Delawares, Etc., 1803


R-30 Resources

Tribe Treaty Name
Wea (cont.) Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, 1816
1867
Winnebago Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1827

Witchetaw Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., 1835

Wyandot Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1808

1867
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

Resources R-31
Common Treaty Names

Common Name Full Treaty Name
Albany, Treaty of Treaty of Albany with the Five Nations–July 31, 1684
Canandaigua Treaty Treaty with the Six Nations–November 11, 1794
Chicago, Treaty of Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26, 1833
Dancing Rabbit Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw–September 27, 1830
Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw–October 18, 1820
Doaksville, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw–January 17, 1837
Fort Bridger, Treaty of Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshone and Bannock–July 3,
1868
Fort Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789
Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789
(Addendum) Treaty with the Cherokee–June 26, 1794
Fort Laramie, Treaty of Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851
Fort McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 21, 1785
Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort
Stanwix–November 5, 1768
Treaty with the Six Nations–October 22, 1784
Greenville, Treaty of Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.–August 3, 1795
Holston, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791
Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee–November 28, 1785
Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854
Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho-–October 28, 1867
New Echota, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee–December 29, 1835
Northwest Angle Treaty Canadian Indian Treaty 3–October 3, 1873
Prairie du Chien, Treaty of Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.–August 19, 1825
Qu’Appelle Treaty Canadian Indian Treaty 4–September 15, 1874
St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty with the Sauk and Fox–November 3, 1804

Selected Bibliography
Abele, Charles A. 1969. “The Grand Indian Council of 1858.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 34 (April):
and Treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825,” Ph.D. 169–181.
dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago. Borrows, John. 1992. “Negotiating Treaties and Land
Anderson, George E., W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Claims: The Impact of Diversity within First
Heizer. 1978. Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection Nations Property Interests.” Windsor Yearbook of
by the Federal Government in California, Access to Justice 12: 179.
1850–1852. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. Borrows, John. 2005. “Creating an Indigenous Legal
Anderson, George E., and Robert F. Heizer. 1978. Community.” McGill Law Journal 50: 153.
“Treaty-making by the Federal Government in Boxberger, Daniel L. 1979. Handbook of Western
California 1851–1852.” In Treaty Making and Washington Indian Treaties. Lummi Island, WA:
Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in Lummi Indian School of Aquaculture and
California, 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, Fisheries.
W. H. Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 1–36. Boxberger, Daniel L., and Herbert C. Taylor. 1991.
Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. “Treaty or Non-Treaty Status.” Columbia, 5(3):
Anderson, Harry. 1956. “The Controversial Sioux 40–45.
Amendment to the Fort Laramie Treaty of Boyd, Mark F. 1958. “Horatio S. Dexter and Events
1851.” Nebraska History 37 (September): 201–220. Leading to the Treaty of Moultrie Creek with
Asch, Michael, ed. 1998. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights the Seminole Indians.” Florida Anthropologist, 11
in Canada. Vancouver: University of British (September): 65–95.
Columbia Press. Brooks, Drex, and Patricia Nelson Limerick. 1995.
Balman, Gail. 1970. “The Creek Treaty of 1866.” Sweet Medicine: Sites of Indian Massacres,
Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Summer): 184–196. Battlefields, and Treaties. Albuquerque:
Barce, Elmore. 1915. “Governor Harrison and the University of New Mexico Press.
Treaty of Fort Wayne, 1809.” Indiana Magazine of Brown, George, and Ron Maguire. 1979. Indian
History 11 (December): 352–367. Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa:
Barnes, Lela. 1936. “Isaac McCoy and the Treaty of Research Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs
1821.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 5 (May): Canada.
122–142. Bugge, David, and J. Lee Corell. 1971. The Story of the
Bell, Catherine, and Karin Buss. 2000. “The Promise Navajo Treaties. Window Rock, AZ: Research
of Marshall on the Prairies: A Framework for Section, Navajo Parks and Recreation
Analyzing Unfulfilled Treaty Promises.” Department, Navajo Tribe.
Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 667. Burns, Robert Ignatius, ed. 1952. “A Jesuit at the Hell
Bigart, Robert, and Clarence Woodcock, eds. 1996. In Gate Treaty of 1855.” Mid-American 34 (April):
the Name of the Salish and Kootenai Nation: The 87–114. Report of Adrian Hoechen.
1885 Hell Gate Treaty and the Origin of the Flathead Bushnell, David I., Jr. 1916. “The Virginia Frontier in
Indian Reservation. Pablo, MT: Salish Kootenai History–1778.” Part 5, “The Treaty of Fort Pitt.”
College Press/University of Washington Press. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 24
Bird, John, Lorraine Land, and Murray MacAdam, (April): 168–179.
eds. 2002. Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Campisi, Jack. 1988. “From Stanwix to Canandaigua:
Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, 2nd ed. National Policy, States’ Rights, and Indian
Toronto: Irwin. Land.” In Iroquois Land Claims, eds. Christopher
Bischoff, William N., and Charles M. Gates, eds. Vecsey and William A. Starna, 49–65. Syracuse,
1943. “The Jesuits and the Coeur D’Alene Treaty NY: Syracuse University Press.
B-1
Campisi, Jack. 1988. “The Oneida Treaty Period, Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1996. “Reserving to Themselves:
1783–1838.” In The Oneida Indian Experience: Two Treaties and the Powers of Indian Tribes.”
Perspectives, eds. Jack Campisi and Laurence M. Arizona Law Review 38(3): 963–980.
Hauptman, 48–64. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Deloria, Vine, Jr., and David E. Wilkins. 1999. Tribes,
University Press. Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin:
Canada. 1905. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from University of Texas Press.
1680–1890. Ottawa: S. E. Dawson. Repr., DeMallie, Raymond J. 1977. “American Indian
Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1992. Treaty Making: Motives and Meanings.”
Canada. 1971. Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 American Indian Journal 3 (January): 2–10.
to 1890. 3 vols. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1980. “Touching the Pen:
Clark, Blue. 1994. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights Plains Indian Treaty Councils in Ethnohistorical
and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Perspective.” In Ethnicity in the Great Plains, ed.
Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Frederick C. Luebke, 38–51. Lincoln: University
Clifton, James A. 1980. “Chicago, September 14, of Nebraska Press.
1833: The Last Great Indian Treaty in the Old DePuy, H. 1917. A Bibliography of the English Colonial
Northwest.” Chicago History 9 (Summer): 86–97. Treaties with the American Indians: Including a
Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Synopsis of Each Treaty. New York: Lennox Club.
Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. Downes, Randolph C. 1977. Council Fires on the
With contributions by Joan La France and Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the
Vivian L. Bowden. Seattle: University of Upper Ohio Valley until 1795. Pittsburgh, PA:
Washington Press. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Cohen, Felix S. 1942. “Indian Treaties.” In Cohen, Duff, Wilson. 1969. “The Fort Victoria Treaties.” BC
Handbook of Federal-Indian Law, ed. Felix Cohen. Studies 3 (Fall), 3–57.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Dustin, Fred. 1920. “The Treaty of Saginaw, 1819.”
Office. Michigan History Magazine 4 (January): 243–278.
Cohen, Felix S. 2005. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Edmunds, R. David. 1978. “‘Nothing Has Been
Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Effected’: The Vincennes Treaty of 1792.” Indiana
Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Magazine of History 74 (March): 23–35.
Britton. 2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Ellison, William H. 1978. “Rejection of California
Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: Indian Treaties: A Study in Local Influence on
University of Arizona Press. National Policy.” In Treaty Making and Treaty
Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1975. Article Six, Rejection by the Federal Government in California,
Treaties between the United States and the Several 1850–1852, eds. George E. Anderson, W. H.
Indian Tribes from 1778 to 1837. Millwood, NY: Ellison, and Robert F. Heizer, 50–70. Socorro,
Kraus Reprint. NM: Ballena Press.
Costo, Rupert, and Jeannette Henry. 1977. Indian Fay, George Emory. 1971. Treaties Between the
Treaties: Two Centuries of Dishonor. San Francisco: Potawatomi Tribe of Indians and the United States of
Indian Historian Press. America, 1789–1867. Greeley, CO: Museum of
Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1973. “They Would Not Be Anthropology: University of Northern
Moved: The Chippewa Treaty of 1854.” Colorado.
Minnesota History 43 (Spring): 174–185. Fay, George Emory. 1972. Treaties and Land Cessions
Daugherty, W. E. 1981. Maritime Indian Treaties in Between the Bands of the Sioux and the United
Historical Perspective. Ottawa: Indian and States of America, 1805–1906. Greeley, CO:
Northern Affairs Canada. Museum of Anthropology: University of
Decker, Craig A. 1977. “The Construction of Indian Northern Colorado.
Treaties, Agreements, and Statutes.” American Fay, George Emory. 1977. Treaties Between the Tribes of
Indian Law Review 5(2): 299–311. the Great Plains and the United States of America:
Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1974. Behind the Trail of Broken Cheyenne and Arapaho, 1825–1900 Etc. Greeley,
Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence. CO: Museum of Anthropology: University of
New York: Delacorte Press. Northern Colorado.

Fay, George Emory. 1982. Treaties Between the Tribes of Franks, Kenny A. 1973. “The Impeachment of the
the Great Plains and the United States of America: Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized
Comanche and Kiowa, Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 51 (Spring):
Mandan, 1835–1891. Greeley, CO: Museum of 21–33.
Anthropology, University of Northern Gates, Charles M., ed. 1955. “The Indian Treaty of
Colorado. Point No Point.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 46
Ferguson, Clyde R. 1979. “Confrontation at (April): 52–58.
Coleraine: Creeks, Georgians and Federalist Gerwing, Anselm J. 1964. “The Chicago Indian
Indian Policy.” South Atlantic Quarterly 78 Treaty of 1838.” Journal of the Illinois State
(Spring): 224–243. Historical Society 57 (Summer): 117–142.
Ferguson, Robert B. 1985. “Treaties between the Getches, David H., and Charles F. Wilkinson. 1998.
United States and the Choctaw Nation.” In The Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed.
Choctaw before Removal, ed. Carolyn Keller St. Paul: West.
Reeves, 214–230. Jackson: University Press of Gibson, Ronald V. 1977. Jefferson Davis and the
Mississippi. Confederacy and Treaties Concluded by the
Fielder, Betty. 1955. “The Black Hawk Treaty.” Annals Confederate States with Indian Tribes. Dobbs Ferry,
of Iowa 32 (January): 535–540. NY: Oceana Publications.
Fisher, Andrew H. 1999. “This I Know from the Old Gold, Susan Dudley. 1997. Indian Treaties. New York:
People: Yakama Indian Treaty Rights as Oral Twenty-First Century Books.
Tradition.” Montana, The Magazine of Western Goodman, Edmund Clay. 2002. “Indian Reserved
History 49 (Spring): 2–17. Rights.” In Nontimber Forest Products in the
Fisher, Andrew H. 2004. “Tangled Nets: Treaty United States, eds. Eric T. Jones, Rebecca J.
Rights and Tribal Identities at Celilo Falls.” McLain, and James Weigand, 273–281.
Oregon Historical Quarterly 105 (Summer): Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
178–211. Hagan, William T. 1956. “The Sauk and Fox Treaty of
Fisher, Robert L. 1933. “The Treaties of Portage des 1804.” Missouri Historical Review 51 (October):
Sioux.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 19 1–7.
(March): 495–508. Haines, Francis. 1964. “The Nez Perce Tribe versus
Fixico, Donald L. 1984. “As Long as the Grass the United States.” Idaho Yesterdays 8 (Spring):
Grows . . . The Cultural Conflicts and 18–25.
Political Strategies of United States-Indian Halbert, Henry S. 1902. “The Story of the Treaty of
Treaties.” In Ethnicity and War, ed. Winston A. Dancing Rabbit Creek.” Publications of the
Van Horne, 128–149. Milwaukee: University Mississippi Historical Society 6: 373–402.
of Wisconsin System, American Ethnic Harmon, George D. 1929. “The North Carolina
Studies Committee/Urban Corridor Cherokees and the New Echota Treaty of 1835.”
Consortium. North Carolina Historical Review 6 (July): 237–253.
Foreman, Carolyn Thomas. 1955. “The Lost Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American
Cherokee Treaty.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 33 Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States
(Summer): 238–245. Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York:
Foreman, Grant, ed. 1936. “The Journal of the Cambridge University Press.
Proceedings of Our First Treaty with the Wild Hawkinson, Ella. 1934. “The Old Crossing
Indians, 1835.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 14 Chippewa Treaty and Its Sequel.” Minnesota
(December): 394–418. History 15 (September): 282–300.
Foreman, Grant. 1948. “The Texas Comanche Treaty Hawley, Donna Lea. 1990. The Annotated 1990 Indian
of 1846.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 51 Act: Including Related Treaties, Statutes, and
(April): 313–332. Regulations. Toronto: Carswell.
Franks, Kenny A. 1972–1973. “An Analysis of the Hayden, Ralston. 1920. The Senate and Treaties,
Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized 1789–1817: The Development of the Treaty-Making
Tribes.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 50 (Winter): Functions of the United States Senate during Their
458–473. Formative Period. New York: Macmillan.

Heilbron, Bertha L. 1941. “Frank B. Mayer and the Imai, Shin. 1999. Aboriginal Law Handbook. 2nd ed.
Treaties of 1851.” Minnesota History 22 (June): Scarborough, ON: Carswell.
133–156. Isaac, Thomas. 2001. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights
Heizer, Robert F. 1978. “Treaties.” In Handbook of in the Maritimes: The Marshall Decision and
North American Indians, vol. 8, California, ed. Beyond. Saskatoon: Purich.
Robert F. Heizer, 701–704. Washington, DC: Jaenen, Cornelius J. 2001. “Aboriginal Rights and
Smithsonian Institution. Treaties in Canada.” In The Native North
Henderson, Archibald. 1931. “The Treaty of Long American Almanac, ed. Duane Champagne,
Island of Holston, July, 1777.” North Carolina 1–6. Los Angeles: University of California
Historical Review 8 (January): 55–116. Press.
Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 1997. Jennings, Francis, ed. 1985. The History and
“Interpreting Sui Generis Treaties.” Alberta Law Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An
Review 36(1): 46. Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six
Henderson, James [Sakej] Youngblood. 2000. Nations and Their League. Syracuse, NY:
“Constitutional Powers and Treaty Rights.” Syracuse University Press.
Saskatchewan Law Review 63(2): 719. Jones, Dorothy V. 1982. License for Empire: By
Henslick, Harry. 1970. “The Seminole Treaty of Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University
1866.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 48 (Autumn): of Chicago Press.
280–294. Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine
Hill, Burton S. 1966. “The Great Indian Treaty Lodge: The Story of the Great Treaty Council as
Council of 1851.” Nebraska History 47 (March): Told by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of
85–110. Oklahoma Press.
Holmes, Jack. 1969. “Spanish Treaties with West Jones, Douglas C. 1969. “Medicine Lodge
Florida Indians, 1784–1802.” Florida Historical Revisited.” Kansas Historical Quarterly 35
Society, 48 (140–154). (Summer): 130–142.
Hoover, Herbert T. 1989. “The Sioux Agreement of Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. 1965. “A Most Satisfactory
1889 and Its Aftermath.” South Dakota History 19 Council.” American Heritage 16 (October):
(Spring): 56–94. 26–31, 70–76.
Horsman, Reginald. 1961. “The British Indian Kane, Lucile M. 1951. “The Sioux Treaties and the
Department and the Abortive Treaty of Lower Traders.” Minnesota History 32 (June): 65–80.
Sandusky, 1793.” Ohio Historical Quarterly 70 Keller, Robert H. 1971. “On Teaching Indian
(July): 189–213. History: Legal Jurisdiction in Chippewa
Hosen, Fredrick E. 1985. Rifle, Blanket, and Kettle: Treaties.” Ethnohistory 19 (Summer):
Selected Indian Treaties and Laws. Jefferson, NC: 209–218.
McFarland. Keller, Robert H. 1978. “An Economic History of
Hough, Franklin B., ed. 1861. Proceedings of the Indian Treaties in the Great Lakes Region.”
Commissioners of Indian Affairs, Appointed by Law American Indian Journal 4 (February): 2–20.
for the Extinguishment of Indian Titles in the State Keller, Robert H. 1989. “America’s Native Sweet:
of New York. 2 vols. Albany, NY: Joel Munsell. Chippewa Treaties and the Right to Harvest
Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1964. “The Creek Treaty of Maple Sugar.” American Indian Quarterly 13
Washington, 1826.” Georgia Historical Quarterly (Spring): 117–135.
48 (December): 425–441. Kellogg, Louise Phelps. 1931. “The Menominee
Hryniewicki, Richard J. 1968. “The Creek Treaty of Treaty at the Cedars, 1836.” Transactions of
November 15, 1827.” Georgia Historical Quarterly the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and
52 (March): 1–15. Letters 26: 127–135.
Humphreys, A. Glen. 1971. “The Crow Indian Kelsey, Harry. 1973. “The California Indian
Treaties of 1868: An Example of Power Struggle Treaty Myth.” Southern California Quarterly
and Confusion in United States Indian Policy.” 55 (Fall): 225–238.
Annals of Wyoming 43 (Spring): 73–90. Kessell, John L. 1981. “General Sherman and the
Ibbotson, Joseph D. 1938. “Samuel Kirkland, the Navajo Treaty of 1868: A Basic and
Treaty of 1792, and the Indian Barrier State.” Expedient Misunderstanding.” Western
New York History 19 (October): 374–391. Historical Quarterly 12 (July): 251–272.

Kickingbird, Kirke, Lynn Kickingbird, Alexander Madill, Dennis. 1981. British Columbia Indian
Tallchief Skibine, and Charles Chibitty. 1980. Treaties in Historical Perspective. Ottawa:
Indian Treaties. Washington, DC: Institute for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
the Development of Indian Law. Mahan, Bruce E. 1925. “The Great Council of
Kickingbird, Lynn, and Curtis Berkey. 1975. 1825.” Palimpsest 6 (September): 305–318.
“American Indian Treaties—Their Importance Mahan, Bruce E. 1929. “Making the Treaty of
Today.” American Indian Journal 1 (October): 3–7. 1842.” Palimpsest 10 (May): 174–180.
Kinnaird, Lucia Burk. 1932. “The Rock Landing Mahon, John K. 1962. “The Treaty of Moultrie
Conference of 1789.” North Carolina Historical Creek, 1823.” Florida Historical Quarterly 40
Review 9 (October): 349–365. (April): 350–372.
Kvasnicka, Robert M. 1988. “United States Indian Mahon, John K. 1962. “Two Seminole Treaties:
Treaties and Agreements.” In Handbook of North Payne’s Landing, 1882, and Ft. Gibson, 1833.”
American Indians, vol. 4, History of Indian–White Florida Historical Quarterly 41 (July): 1–21.
Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn, 195–201. Mainville, Robert. 2001. An Overview of Aboriginal
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. and Treaty Rights and Compensation for Their
Lambert, Paul F. 1973. “The Cherokee Breach. Saskatoon: Purich.
Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.” Journal of the Manley, Henry S. 1838. “Buying Buffalo from the
West 12 (July): 471–489. Indians.” New York History 28 (July 1947):
Lanchart, David. 1985. “Regaining Dinetah: The 313–329, Buffalo Creek Treaty.
Navajo and the Indian Peace Commission at Manley, Henry S. 1932. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix,
Fort Sumner.” In Working in the Range: Essays on 1784. Rome, NY: Rome Sentinel.
the History of Western Land Management and the Martin, John Henry. 1975. List of Documents
Environment, ed. John R. Wunder, 25–38. Concerning the Negotiation of Ratified Indian
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Treaties, 1801–1869. Millwood, NY: Kraus
Landau, Jack L. 1980. “Empty Victories: Indian Reprint.
Treaty Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest.” McCool, Daniel. 2002. Native Waters:
Environmental Law 10: 413–456. Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the
Lane, Barbara. 1977. “Background of Treaty Making Second Treaty Era. Tucson: University of
in Western Washington.” American Indian Arizona Press.
Journal 3 (April): 2–11. McCullar, Marion Ray. 1973. “The Choctaw-
Larson, Gustive O. 1974. “Uintah Dream: The Ute Chickasaw Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.”
Treaty—Spanish Fork, 1865.” Brigham Young Journal of the West 12 (July): 462–470.
University Studies 14 (Spring): 361–381. McKenney, Thomas L. 1827. Sketches of a Tour to the
Laurence, Robert. 1991. “The Abrogation of Indian Lakes, of the Character and Customs of the
Treaties by Federal Statutes Protective of the Chippeway Indians, and of Incidents Connected
Environment.” Natural Resources Journal, 31 with the Treaty of Fond du Lac. Baltimore:
(Fall): 859–886. Fielding Lucas, Jr.
Lehman, J. David. 1990. “The End of the Iroquois McNeil, Kinneth. 1964–65. “Confederate Treaties
Mystique: The Oneida Land Cession Treaties of with the Tribes of Indian Territory.” Chronicles
the 1790s.” William and Mary Quarterly, 47(4): of Oklahoma 42 (Winter): 408–420.
523–547. Morris, Alexander. 1880. The Treaties of Canada with
Leonard, Stephen J. 1990. “John Nicolay in the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West
Colorado: A Summer Sojourn and the 1863 Ute Territories. Repr., Toronto: Coles, 1971.
Treaty.” Essays and Monographs in Colorado Morse, Bradford. 2004. “Aboriginal and Treaty
History 11, 25–54. Rights in Canada.” In Canadian Charter of
Lindquist, G. E. E. 1948–1949. “Indian Treaty Rights and Freedoms/Charte Canadienne des
Making.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 26 (Winter): droits et Libertés, 4th ed., eds. Gérald-A.
416–448. Beaudoin and Errol Mendes, 1171–1257.
Litton, Gaston L., ed. 1939. “The Negotiations Markham, ON: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Leading to the Chickasaw-Choctaw Agreement, Nesper, Larry. 2002. The Walleye War: The Struggle
January 17, 1837.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 17 for Ojibwe Treaty and Spearfishing Rights.
(December): 417–427. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Parker, Arthur C. 1924. “The Pickering Treaty.” Study.” Perspectives in American History, s.n., 1:
Rochester Historical Society Publication Fund Series 233–281.
3: 79–91. Roberts, Gary L. 1975. “The Chief of State and the
Partoll, Albert J., ed. 1937. “The Blackfoot Indian Chief.” American Heritage 26 (October): 28–33,
Peace Council.” Frontier and Midland: A 86–89. Creek Treaty of New York, 1790.
Magazine of the West 17 (Spring): 199–207. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1995.
Partoll, Albert J. 1938. “The Flathead Indian Treaty Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence: An
Council of 1855.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 29 Alternative to Extinguishment. Ottawa: Canada
(July): 283–314. Communication Group.
Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996.
Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press. Peoples. Ottawa: Canada Communication
Phillips, Charles, and Alan Axelrod. 2000. Group.
Encyclopedia of Historical Treaties and Alliances. Royce, Charles C. 1899. Indian Land Cessions in the
New York: Facts on File. United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Phillips, Edward Hake. 1966. “Timothy Pickering at Government Printing Office.
His Best: Indian Commissioner, 1790–1794.” Rutland, Robert A. 1949–1950. “Political Background
Essex Institute Historical Collections 102 (July): of the Cherokee Treaty of New Echota.”
185–192. Chronicles of Oklahoma 27 (Winter): 389–406.
Pittman, Philip M., and George M. Covington. 1992. Satz, Ronald N. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
Don’t Blame the Treaties: Native American Rights Reserve Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa
and the Michigan Indian Treaties. West Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions
Bloomfield, MI: Altwerger and Mandel. of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and
Powless, Irving, and G. Peter Jemison. 2000. Treaty of Letters, 79(1). Madison: Wisconsin Academy of
Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations Sciences, Arts and Letters.
Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United Schwartzman, Grace M., and Susan K. Barnard.
States. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light. 1991. “A Trail of Broken Promises: Georgians
Price, Monroe E., and Robert N. Clinton. 1983. Law and the Muscogee/Creek Treaties, 1796–1826.”
and the American Indian: Readings, Notes and Georgia Historical Quarterly 75 (Winter): 697–718.
Cases. Charlottesville, VA: Michie. Silliman, Sue I. 1922. “The Chicago Indian Treaty of
Price, Richard, ed. 1979. The Spirit of the Alberta 1821.” Michigan History Magazine 6(1): 194–197.
Indian Treaties. Montreal: Institute for Research Slattery, Brian. 2000. “Making Sense of Aboriginal
on Public Policy. Repr., Edmonton: University and Treaty Rights.” Canadian Bar Review 79: 196.
of Alberta Press, 1999. Smith, Dwight L. 1954. “Wayne and the Treaty of
Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. 1975. Documents of United Greene Ville.” Ohio State Archaeological and
States Indian Policy. Lincoln and London: Historical Quarterly 63 (January): 1–7.
University of Nebraska Press. Smith, Dwight L. 1978. “The Land Cession Theory:
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: A Valid Instrument of Transfer of Indian Title.”
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los In This Land Is Ours: The Acquisition of the Public
Angeles, and London: University of California Domain, 87–102. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical
Press. Society.
Quaife, Milo M., ed. 1918. “The Chicago Treaty of St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in
1833.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 1 (March): the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln
287–303. and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Quinn, William W., Jr. 1990. “Federal Stanley, Henry M. 1967. “A British Journalist Reports
Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes: the Medicine Lodge Peace Council of 1867.”
The Historical Development of a Legal Kansas Historical Quarterly 33 (Autumn):
Concept,” American Journal of Legal History 34 249–320.
(October): 331–364. Stern, Theodore. 1956. “The Klamath Indians and
Rakove, Jack N. 1984. “Solving a Constitutional the Treaty of 1864.” Oregon Historical Quarterly
Puzzle: The Treatymaking Clause as a Case 57 (September): 229–273.

Sullivan, Julie E. 2004. “Legal Analysis of the Treaty Wells, Samuel J. 1983–1984. “Rum, Skins, and
Violations That Resulted in the Nez Perce War Powder: A Choctaw Interpreter and the Treaty
of 1877,” 40 Idaho Law Review 657. of Mount Dexter.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 61
Surtees, Robert J. 1988. “Canadian Indian Treaties.” (Winter): 422–428.
In History of Indian White Relations, ed. Wilcomb Wells, Samuel J. 1986. “International Causes of the
E. Washburn, 202–210. Washington, DC: Treaty of Mount Dexter, 1805.” Journal of
Smithsonian Institution. Mississippi History 48 (August): 177–185.
Taylor, Alfred A. 1924. “Medicine Lodge Peace Wicken, William C. 2002. Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial:
Council.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 2 (June): History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior.
98–117. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Townsend, Michael. 1989. “Congressional Wilkins, David E. 1996. “Indian Treaty Rights:
Abrogation of Indian Treaties: Reevaluation and Sacred Entitlements or ‘Temporary Privileges?’”
Reform.” Yale Law Journal, 98 (February): American Indian Culture and Research Journal
793–812. 20(1): 87–129.
Trafzer, Clifford E., ed. 1986. Indians, Superintendents, Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima.
and Councils: Northwestern Indian Policy, 2001. Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law.
1850–1855. Lanham, MD: University Press of Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
America. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1991. “To Feel the Summer in
Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council with Walter the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the
Hildebrandt, Sarah Carter, and Dorothy First Wisconsin Chippewa.” Wisconsin Law Review
Rider. 1996. The True Spirit and Original Intent of (May–June): 375– 414.
Treaty 7. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Wilkinson, Charles F. 2000. Messages from Frank’s
Press. Landing: A Story of Salmon, Treaties, and the Indian
Van Doren, Carl, and Julian P. Boyd. 1938. Indian Way. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. 1975.
Philadelphia: Historical Society of “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation:
Pennsylvania. ‘As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon
Vaugeois, Denis. 2002. The Last French and Indian the Earth’—How Long a Time Is That?”
War: An Inquiry into a Safe-Conduct Issued in 1760 California Law Review 63 (May): 601–661.
That Acquired the Value of a Treaty in 1990. Williams, C. Herb, and Walt Neubrech. 1976. Indian
Montreal: McGill-Queens University Treaties: American Nightmare. Seattle: Outdoor
Press/Septentrion. Empire.
Vaughan, Alden T. 1979. Early American Indian Wright, J. Leitch, Jr. 1967. “Creek-American Treaty of
Documents: Treaties and Laws, 1607– 1789. 1790: Alexander McGillivray and the
Washington, DC: University Publications of Diplomacy of the Old Southwest.” Georgia
America. Historical Quarterly 51 (December): 379–400.
Vipperman, Carl J. 1989. “The Bungled Treaty of Wrone, David R. 1986–1987. “Indian Treaties and the
New Echota: The Failure of Cherokee Removal, Democratic Idea.” Wisconsin Magazine of History
1836–38.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 73 (Fall): 70 (Winter): 83–106.
540–558. Wunder, John R. 1985. “No More Treaties: The
Watts, Charles W. 1959. “Colbert’s Reserve and the Resolution of 1871 and the Alteration of Indian
Chickasaw Treaty of 1818.” Alabama Review 12 Rights to Their Homelands.” In Working the
(October): 272–280. Range: Essays on the History of Western Land
Watts, Tim J. 1991. American Indian Treaty Rights: Management and the Environment, ed. John R.
A Bibliography. Monticello, IL: Vance Wunder, 39–56. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Bibliographies. Press.

Index
Note: Page locators in boldface type indicate the location of a main encyclopedia entry.
A-ka-ke (the Crow), 328 Adams, Moses N., 376 Agreement with the Seneca,
A-Kei-Quodle (Lone Wolf), 677 Adams, Vivian, 148 September 3, 1823, 302
A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi (Lone Chief), Adams-Onís Treaty, 656 Agreement with the Sioux of
349, 356 Addenda treaties, 102–103. See also Various Tribes, October
Aampahaa (Speaker), 294 Treaties 17, 1822, to January 3,
Aanti (Short Stay), 897 Addoetta (Big Tree), 851 1883, 385
ABCFM. See American Board for Administration, tribal Agreement with the Sisseton and
Commissioners of of federation programs, 116–117 Wahpeton Bands of
Foreign Missions Adoetti (Big Tree), 851 Sioux Indians,
Abenaki, 75, 211, 235, 278, 638 Adoption. See Child welfare September 20, 1872, 376
Abert, John J., 333 “Affirmation of the Sovereignty of Agreements, 49. See also individual
Aboriginal homelands, 95. See also the Indigenous People agreements; Treaties
Reservations of the Western Agriculture, 17, 25, 31, 33, 134
Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Hemisphere,” 713 in Hawaii, 202, 203, 206
Ancestry (ALOHA), 207 AFN. See Alaska Federation of Ah-ke-pah-am-sa, 320
Aboriginal peoples, in Canada, 209, Natives Ah-quash-she, 323
217–218 Africa, 49 Ahweyneyonh (Drooping Flower,
Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government, African Americans, 29–30, 35, 88, Blue Flower), 884
and the Constitution, 663 170, 181 AIAD. See American Indians
Aboriginal rights, 95, 143, 396, 401, AFSC. See American Friends Service Against Desecration
406–407, 637–638, Committee AIM. See American Indian
728–729, 920 Age of exploration, 49 Movement
Aboriginal title, 215, 375, 380, 382, Agencies, 27. See also individual Aionai (I-on-i)
386, 389, 395, 398, agencies Treaty with the Comanche,
406–407, 729–730, Agrarian-based economy, 76 Aionai, Anadarko,
919–920 Agreement at Fort Berthold, July 27, Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Abourezk, James, 741, 742 1866, 363–364 1846, 332
Abrogation, 44–46 Agreement-in-principle (AIP), 949 AIP. See Agreement-in-principle
Absenteeism, and education, Amended Agreement with Certain Air quality, 140
186–187 Sioux Indians, March 2, AIRFA. See American Indian
Acculturation, 28 1873, 376–377 Religious Freedom Act
ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Agreement with the Cherokee, Airport and Airway Improvement
Union March 14, 1834, 320 Act, 206
Act for the Government and Agreement with the Cherokee and Akaitcho, 400
Protection of the Indians, Other Tribes in the Akaka, Daniel, 207
660 Indian Territory, Akay-nehka-simi (Many Names),
Act of Capitulation, 637, 638 September 13, 1865, 357 785
Act of May 25, 1824, 253 Agreement with the Columbia and Akwesasne, 638, 720, 721
Act 304, 206 Colville, July 7, 1883, Al-le-ga-wa-ho, 414
Acts, 49. See also individual acts 385 Alabama, 21, 85–86
Adair, George W., 333 Agreement with the Creek, June Alaska, 44, 170, 195–199, 685–686
Adair, John, 850 29, 1825, 303 education in, 195
Adair, William P., 737–738 Agreement with the Crows, May fishing rights in, 195–196
Adams, David, 301 14, 1880, 385 jurisdiction in, 172
Adams, Hank, 152, 700, 707, Agreement with the Rogue River and land compensation, 195,
738–739, 751 Tribes, September 8, 196–198
Adams, John, 69, 757 1853, 338 mineral development in, 198
Adams, John Quincy, 79, 85, 413, Agreement with the Seneca, native land claims in, 196–199
655, 865, 935 September 15, 1797, 289 natural resources in, 195–196
I-1
I-2 Index
Alaska (cont.) Alexander VI, 49, 954 American Indian Treaty Rights
oil in, 195, 196, 197 Alexis, Chief, 148 Movement, 140
poverty in, 199 Alford, Henry, 851 American Indian Tribal
regional and village Algonkian (Algonquian), 75, 163, Governments, 190
corporations in, 198–199 235, 243, 412 American Indian Trust Fund
and relocation, 195 Alibamon, 52, 53 Management Reform
reservations in, 195–196, 198 Ali’i (nobility), 228 Act, 117
and Russia, 195 Allegheny Reservoir, 44 American Indians Against
self-determination in, 198 Allen, Elisha P., 231 table 4 Desecration (AIAD), 176
sovereignty in, 199 Allen, Frank J., 314, 315 American Indian Policy Review
statehood in, 195. See also Alaska Alliances, 40, 52 Commission, 710
Statehood Act Allis, Samuel, 349 American Revolution. See
termination in, 196, 198 Allotments, 5–6, 7–8, 24–25, 32, 34, Revolutionary War (U.S.)
and trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 98, 109–110, 111, 133, 138, Americanization, 179
Alaska Coalition, 197 167, 920–921. See also and education, 185
Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. General Allotment Act; Amherst, Jeffrey, 902
Native Village of Venetie Indian Reorganization Amity, Commerce, and Navigation,
Tribal Gov’t, 199 Act; Land ownership Treaty of, 55
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), ALOHA. See Aboriginal Lands of Amoah, 430
195, 196, 197–198, Hawaiian Ancestry Ana-da-ca. See Anadarko
698–699 Alvord, H. J., 355 Anadarko (Ana-da-ca), 104, 268
Alaska Highway, 240 Ambrister, Robert, 808 Treaty with the Comanche,
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, Amended Agreement with Certain Aionai, Anadarko,
400 Sioux Indians, March 2, Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Alaska Native Allotment Act, 195 1873, 376–377 1846, 332
Alaska Native Claims Settlement American Board of Commissioners Ancient remains, 124, 125, 126,
Act (ANCSA), 139, 174, for Foreign Missions 725–726. See also Sacred
195, 198–199, 698–699 (ABCFM), 183, 655 sites
Alaska Native Reorganization Act, American Civil Liberties Union ANCSA. See Alaska Native Claims
681 (ACLU), 152 Settlement Act
Alaska Natives, 195–199, 198, American Friends Service Anderson, William, 292, 309
685–686 Committee (AFSC), 152, Andrews, T. P., 333
and jurisdiction, 174 717 Ani’-Yun’ wiya, 429
Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United American Fur Trade Company, 422 Anishinaabe (Anishinabe), 155,
States, 195–196 American Indian Defense 305
Alaska Purchase Treaty, 195 Association, 189 Anishnabeg (Anishnaabeg), 216,
Alaska Railroad, 195 American Indian Mission 335, 435, 645, 727
Alaska Statehood Act, 196, 197 Association, 418 Anne, Queen, 822
Alatala Hooma, 291 American Indian Movement (AIM), Annette Island Reserve, 198
Albany 700, 701, 712–713, Annexation, of Hawaii, 200,
Albany Conferences of 1754 and 739–741 202–203, 205–207
1755, 640–641 and Wounded Knee, occupation Annuities, 24, 25, 41, 270, 921–922.
Treaty of Albany with Iroquois of, 703–706 See also Land
Confederacy and British See also Aquash, Anna Mae compensation; Trade and
Crown, September 24, Pictou; Bellecourt, Clyde; Intercourse Act
1664, 211 Banks, Dennis; Means, Anthony, Scott, 772, 773
Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245 Russell Anthony, Susan B., 772
Treaty of Albany with the Five American Indian Policy Review Antiquities, 124–126, 725. See also
Nations, July 31, 1684, Commission, 36, 115, Sacred sites
275–277 741–742 Antiquities Act, 947
Albertson, Isaac, 319 American Indian Policy Review Antoine v. Washington, 45
Alcatraz, occupation of, 689–691, 712. Commission Act, Apache, 25, 52, 53, 57, 61, 100, 104,
See also Oakes, Richard 173–174 110, 267–269, 271, 272,
Alcohol, 35, 273 American Indian Religious Freedom 273, 411, 412, 677–678
Aleiya (Lawyer), 345, 374 Act (AIRFA), 118, 140, and education, 182, 188–189
Aleut, 195, 196 174–175, 947 and Fort Sumner, 425–426
Alexander, John, 885 American Indian Self-Determination and jurisdiction, 168
Alexander (son of Massasoit), and Education Act, and reconstruction treaty, 106,
859–860 709–710 107

Index I-3
Treaty with the Apache, Archaeological Resources Protection Canadian Indian Treaty 4
Cheyenne, and Arapaho, Act, 125 (Qu’Appelle Treaty),
October 17, 1865, 358 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 400 September 15, 1874,
Treaty with the Apache, July 1, Arctic Slope Native Association 378–380
1852, 337 (ASNA), 197 Canadian Indian Treaty 6,
Treaty with the Comanche, Areas indigena, 95. See also August 28, September 9,
Kiowa, and Apache, July Reservations 1876, 381–382
27, 1853, 339, 500–502 Arikara, 24, 101, 106, 253, 254 Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Treaty with the Kiowa, Treaty of Fort Laramie with the (Blackfeet Treaty),
Comanche, and Apache, Sioux, Etc., September September 22, December
October 21, 1867, 366, 17, 1851, 336–337 4, 1877, 382–385
550–552 Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, Treaty of Fort Laramie with the
See also Medicine Lodge Creek, July 18, 1825, 304 Sioux, Etc., September
Treaty of Arizona, 62, 88 17, 1851, 336–337
Apalachicola (Appalachicola) Arizona Enabling Act, 703 See also Nakota
and confederate treaty, 103 Arkansas, 28 Associated funerary objects, 124,
Treaty with the Appalachicola, treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 125, 126, 725–726. See also
October 11, 1832, 313 Arkansas River, 21 Sacred sites
Treaty with the Appalachicola Arkansas Territory, 21 Association of Aroostook Indians,
Band, June 18, 1833, 316 Armstrong, Benjamin, 760 718
Apology Resolution Armstrong, John, 424 Atcheson, Nathaniel, 56
Appropriations acts, 27 Armstrong, Joseph, 309 Athabascan (Athapascan), 195, 196,
Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou, Armstrong, Silas, 343 236
742–744. See also Armstrong, William, 330, 332, 333 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June
American Indian Armstrong Academy, 418 21, 1899, 385–387
Movement Army Corps of Engineers, 154 See also Dene
Aquash, Nogeeshik, 743 Arn, W. F. M., 799 Atiatoharognwan (Col. Lewis
Ar-ber-too-quet, 329 Aronne (Cherokee Boy), 298 Clark), Chief, 289
Arapaho, 24, 30, 101, 103, 106, 251, Aroostook Band of Micmac Atkins, J. D. C., 183
252, 254, 256, 270, 272, Settlement Act, 718 Atkinson, Henry, 253, 303, 304, 306,
733 Arootsook Micmac, 176 439, 754
and jurisdiction, 175 Arthur, Duncan, 297 Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v.
and reconstruction treaty, 107 Articles of Agreement of 1826, 231 Shirley, 113
and reorganization, 171 table 4, 232 Atoka Agreement, 8, 674–675, 676,
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, 677
Sioux, Etc., September September 1760, 637–638 Attacked Toward Home (Axkyahp-
17, 1851, 336–337 Articles of Confederation, 14, 53, 55, say-pi), 785
Treaty with the Apache, 260, 283–284, 285 Atwater, Caleb, 309
Cheyenne, and Arapaho, Article IX, 27 Au-ni-mo-ni (the Sun Fish), 328
October 17, 1865, 358 and jurisdiction, 163 Augur, Christopher Colon, 366, 367,
Treaty with the Arapaho and treaties under, 70–73 369, 370, 373–374
Cheyenne, February 18, Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he (Lone Chief), Auicara (Pah-sal-sa), 304
1861, 351–352 349, 356 Aupaumut, Hendrick, 75, 744–745
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Asia, 203 Australia, 203
Arapaho, October 14, ASNA. See Arctic Slope Native Aweecony, 286
1865, 357–358, 518–522 Association Awl Breaker (Taa’-wonyas), 814
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Aspinall, Wayne, 197 Awuohee, 430
Arapaho, October 28, Assapausa, 862 the Axe (La-ma-noan), 294
1867, 366–367 Assimilation, 13, 31–33, 35–36, 61, Axkyahp-say-pi (Attacked Toward
Treaty with the Northern 96, 134, 138, 168, 170, Home), 785
Cheyenne and Northern 171, 922–924 Ayowai, 252
Arapaho, May 10, 1868, coercive, 110, 111 Azores, 49
369–370 and education, 179–180, 186, 187,
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and 189, 190 Babbitt, Bruce, 725, 789
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, See also General Allotment Act Bad Heart Bull, Wesley, 704, 747
369 Assimilative Crimes Act, 173 Badoni v. Higginson, 174
Arapaho Reservation, 32 Assiniboine (Assinaboine), 24, 101, Bagot, Sir Charles, 745
Arbuckle, Matthew, 320, 330, 419 106, 236, 254, 383, Bagot Commission (Canada),
Arbuthnot, Alexander, 808 678–679 745–746

I-4 Index
Bailey, David, 851 Bell, John A., 333 Black Shawl, 784
Baker Lake, 715–716 Bellecourt, Clyde, 739, 746, 750–752. Black War Club (Champisaba), 294
Balcombe, A. D., 356 See also American Indian Blackbird, Andrew, 428
Bald eagle, 45 Movement Blackfeet, 101, 230 table 2, 236, 251,
Baldwin, Henry, 656–657 Bellecourt, Vernon, 752 252
Balme, Augustin de la, 849 Belloni, Robert, 153, 696, 697, 900 Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Banai, Edward Benton, 750, 751. See Benson, Thomas Hart, 253 (Blackfeet Treaty),
also American Indian Bent, Charles, 770 September 22,
Movement Bent, William, 269, 358, 769–770 December 4, 1877,
Banks, Dennis, 700, 704–706, 712, Benton, Thomas Hart, 17–18 382–385
739, 743, 746–747, 750, Bernard, Joshua, 720 Treaty with the Blackfeet,
751, 857–858. See also Bernard case, 720–721 October 17, 1855,
American Indian Bernstein, Betty, 840 347–348
Movement Beshkike (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux,
Banning, Evelyn I., 829 Between the Logs (Taruntne), 298 October 19, 1865,
Bannock, 106, 227–228 Beuge, John, 297 358–359, 358–360
Treaty with the Eastern Band BIA. See Bureau of Indian Affairs Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Shoshone and Bannock, BIC. See Board of Indian Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
July 3, 1868, 372–374, Commissioners 369
556–559 Bidwell, John, 660 Blackhawk, John, 161
Bannock Reservation, 372, 374 Big Bow (Zebaedal), 897 Blackmun, Harry, 708, 719, 723
BAR. See Branch of Big Foot, Chief, 705 Blackstone, John, 945
Acknowledgment and Big-Mouth, 351, 901 Blanchard’s Fork
Research Big River (Chekommia), 298 Treaty with the Ottawa of
Barbeyric, Jean, 49 Big Snake, 904 Blanchard’s Fork and
Barbon, 748 Big Tree, Treaty of, 76 Roche de Boeuf, June 24,
Barboncito (Hashke Big Tree (Addoetta, Adoetti), 851, 1862, 352
Yich’i’adehyilwod), 370, 892–893, 897 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
371, 412, 748–749 Bighorse, Gus, 662 Seneca and Shawnee,
Barbour, George, 228, 231 table 3, Bilateral agreements, 39 Quapaw, Etc., February
660 Bill C-31, 668 23, 1867, 365
Barbour, John, 308 Bird Bow, 838 BLM. See Bureau of Land
Bark, 297 Black, Edward, 365 Management
Barnard, Lewis, 338 Black, Hugo, 44, 63, 686, 692 Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy,
Barnett, John, 323 Black Buffalo Woman, 784 755–756
Barnhart, Andrew, 151–152 Black Cloud (Manpinsaba), 294 Blood, 101, 236, 383
Barron, Joseph, 444 Black Coat, 315 Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Bart, Augustin. See Shinguakouce Black Eagle. See Kicking Bird (Blackfeet Treaty),
Bartlett, Mary, 791 Black Elk, Wallace, 743 September 22, December
Bascom, George, 777 Black Fox, 292 4, 1877, 382–385
Bassett, Joel B., 365 Black Hawk (Makataimeshekiakiak), Blood Law, 322
Batchewana, 436 255, 752–754, 776, 798, Blount, James H., 204
Bates, Frederick, 438–439, 846 807, 810, 811 Blount, William, 287, 756–758. See
Battelle des Illinois, 421 and Clark, William, 776 also Bureau of Indian
Battles. See under individual battles and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 Affairs
Bawating, 435 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, Blount Report, 205
Bawldridge, John, 297 810, 811 Blue Flower (Ahweyneyonh), 884
Bay Mills Indian Community, 436 Black Hawk War, 84, 90, 317, 413 Blue Jacket, 76, 849, 850, 902
Bay Mills Indian Reservation, 710 Black Hills, 39, 40, 256–257 Blunt, James G., 419
Bayonet Constitution, 203–204, 232 gold in, 139–140, 719 Blunt, John, 313
Beale, Edward F., 661 Black Jim, 768 Board of Indian Commissioners
Bear-skin, 312 Black Kettle, 352, 367, 733, 754–755 (BIC), 30
Bearskin, Leoford, 749–750 and Chivington, 772, 773 Boarding schools, 185–186. See also
Beaver Wars, 278 Black Mesa, 140 Schools
Becancour, 75 Black River Bodin, Jean, 49
Belantse-Etoa Treaty with the Chippewa of Bogy, Lewis V., 364, 365
Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Saginaw, Swan Creek, Boilvin, Nicholas, 776
Minitaree Tribe, July 30, and Black River, October Bois Fort (Bois Forte), 157
1825, 304 18, 1864, 355 Treaty of, 228

Index I-5
Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Brookings Institute, 33, 923 and nonrecognized tribes, 941,
Fort Band, April 7, 1866, Brooks, Jehiel, 320 942
362 Brooks, William, 853 public apology, 2000, 731, 733
Boldt, George, 153–154, 696, 697, Broom, 291 and Public Law 280, 684
706, 707, 739 Brothertown, 305, 315 and reservations, 95–96
Boldt Decision (United States v. Brown, George, 201 and reserved rights, 141, 150
Washington), 153–154, Brown, James, 327 and state-recognized tribes, 950
155, 156, 158, 428, 696, Brown, Jerry, 747 takeover of, 712
706–707 Brown, John, 333 and Trail of Broken Treaties, 700
Boldt II, 154 Brown, John D., 312 and trust land, 956
Bonja, George, 333 Brown, John F., 362 and trust responsibility, 958
Bonneville Dam, 154–155 Brown, Orlando, 842 and water rights, 145
Bonneville Power Administration, Brown, Ray A., 679–680 and Wounded Knee, occupation
155 Browning, Orville H., 369 of, 704, 705
Bonnin, Gertrude, 763 Brule, 106 See also Blount, William; Burke,
Boone, Albert G., 351 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Charles H.; Calhoun,
Bosque Redondo Reservation, 425 Arapaho, April 29, 1868, John C.; Collier, John;
Boston Charley, 768 369 McKenney, Thomas L.;
Boston University, 189 Bruneau River Treaty, 228 Office of Indian Affairs
Boudinot, Elias (Buck Oowatie; Bryan, John A., 323 Bureau of Land Management
Gallegina Watie), 88, 89, Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota, 62 (BLM), 196, 197, 958
265, 321, 322, 333, Buchanan, James, 201, 772 Bureau of Reclamation, 144–145, 958
429–430, 667, 758, 909 Buck, John Kill, 424 Burgess, Mercy, 787
Boudinot, Elias (statesman, poet), Buck Act, 703 Burial objects, 124, 125, 126, 725–726.
758 Buckongahclas, 442 See also Sacred sites
Bouquet, Henry, 424 Buffalo, Chief (Kechewaishke, Burke, Charles H., 763–764. See also
Bourgeois, Marie Therese, 774 Beshkike, Le Boeuf), 433, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bowdoin, Sarah, 791 760–761 Burke, Edmund, 333
Bowles, William Augustus, 856 Buffalo Bill, 802, 803, 899 Burke Act, 33, 932
Boyd, Robert, 415 Buffalo Creek, Treaty of, 23 Burnett, William, 437
Boyer, LaNada, 691 Buffalo Head (Ta-ton-ca-pa), 303 Burr, Aaron, 846
Bozeman Trail, 254, 256 Buffalo herds, 24, 107, 139, 270 Bursum, Holm, 764
Braddock, Edward, 782 Buffalo (Kechewaishke), 433 Bursum Bill, 780
Bradford, William, 854 Bull Bear, 367, 818 Bush, George W., 734
Branch of Acknowledgment and Bulls of Donation, 924 Business community, in Hawaii,
Research (BAR), 928 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 29, 203–204
Branching Horn (Haibohaa), 294 30, 34, 35, 43, 54, 62, 111, Butler, Dino, 743
Brando, Marlon, 152, 739 115, 116, 761–762 Butler, Rev. Elizur, 57, 88, 655
Brandt, Joseph, 289 and Alaska, 196 Butler, P. M., 332
Brant, Joseph, 55, 72–73, 76, 641, and American Indian Self- Butler, Richard, 72, 285, 286
759–760, 885, 886 Determination and Butler, Thomas, 289
Brant, Mary, 836 Education Act, 709 Butterworth case, 735
the Brave (Tearekatacaush), 298 corruption in, 167 Buy Indian Act, 33
Bread, Daniel, 329 and domestic dependent nation, Byrd, William, 277
Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and 926
Bands of the Yakima Indian and education, 182, 183, 184–187, Ca-La Na-Po
Nation, et al., 931 189–190 Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po,
Breynat, Bishop, 392 and Federal Acknowledgment etc., August 1851, 231
Bright Eyes (Susette LaFlesche Process, 928 table 3
Tibbles), 905–906 and federally recognized tribes, CAA. See Community Action
British Columbia, 215, 216 175, 176–177, 929 Agency
British-Labrador Inuit Peace Treaty, and fishing rights, 154 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et
April 8, 1765, 279–280 and Indian Reorganization Act, al. v. California, 121, 124,
British North America Act, 236, 663, 680–681 723
664. See also Constitution and jurisdiction, 173 Cabezón, Pisago, 777
Act (Canada) and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. Caddo, 104, 268
British Rolls of Parliament, 49 United States, 694 Treaty with the Caddo, July 1,
Broadhead, Daniel, 744 and Meriam Report, 679 1835, 320
Bronson, Isaac, 290 and Morton v. Mancari, 708 Cadillac, Antoine, 878

I-6 Index
Caghnawaga, Chief, 289 and Great Britain, 209, 210, 211, Canadian Indian Treaty 4
Cahokia 214 (Qu’Appelle Treaty),
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., and Hudson’s Bay Company September 15, 1874, 239,
October 27, 1832, 315 treaties, 235, 238–239 378–380
Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., land claims agreements in, treaty document, 573–581
September 25, 1818, 299 215–217 Canadian Indian Treaty 5 (Winnipeg
Cahwai modern legal status of treaties Treaty), September 24,
Treaty with the Taches, in, 218, 220 1875, 239, 380–381
Cahwai, etc., May 1851, and modern treaties, 215–217 treaty document, 581–595
231 table 3 and numbered treaties, 236, Canadian Indian Treaty 6, August
Calapooia, 342 239–240 28, September 9, 1876,
Calder v. Attorney General of British and peace and friendship 240, 381–382
Columbia (Canada), 215, treaties, 210–212 treaty document, 595–598
398, 406, 701–702, 715, Pre-Confederation Treaties, Canadian Indian Treaty 7 (Blackfeet
728, 920, 940 641–642 Treaty), September 22,
Caldwell, Billy, 319, 413, 764–765, and Revolutionary War (U.S.), December 4, 1877, 240,
807 212–214 382–385
Caldwell, Joe, 430 sovereignty in, 177 treaty document, 598–603
Calhoun, Henry, 22 treaties from 1867-1930, 214–215 Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June 21,
Calhoun, James S., 268, 272, 334 treaty litigation in, 218–220 1899, 240, 385–387
Calhoun, John C., 262–263, 299, 302, treaty making in, 210–217 treaty document, 603–607
439 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James
and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Canada, May 31, 1796, Bay Treaty), November
761 289 6, 1905, October 5, 1906,
and Parker, Ely S., 870 and Upper Canada treaties of 240, 388–389
California, 24, 136, 199–200, 201 land surrender, 235–236, treaty document, 607–612
gold discovery in, 57, 58, 96, 228, 239 Canadian Indian Treaty 10,
253, 254, 659, 660 Canada Department of Indian September 19, 1906,
jurisdiction in, 172 Affairs, 404, 940 August 19, 1907, 240,
treaties in, 100, 228, 231 table 3 Canada Department of Indian and 390–391
California v. Cabazon, 175 Northern Affairs, 216, treaty document, 612–621
Calumet ceremony, 39 218 Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June 27
Camp Stevens Specific Claims Branch, 949 to August 30, 1921, 240,
treaty history of, 409–410 Canada Department of Justice, 216 391–393
Walla Walla Council, 409 Canada Indian Specific Claims treaty document, 622–627
See also Treaty with the Commission, 216 Canadian Parliament, 215
Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc., Canada Pension Plan, 217 Canagaraduncka, Brant, 759
December 26, 1854 Canadian Bill of Rights, 668, Canandaigua, Treaty of, 19, 75, 287,
Campbell, 297 687–688 679. See also Treaty with
Campbell, A. J., 350 Canadian Centre for the Resolution the Six Nations,
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse, 733 of First Nations Specific November 11, 1794
Campbell, Duncan G., 302 Claims, 949 Canassatego, 765–766, 823
Campbell, John, 753 Canadian Charter of Rights and Canby, Edward Richard Sprigg, 412,
Campbell, Robert, 422 Freedoms, 688 661, 768, 769, 770
Canada, 41, 51, 55, 56, 80, 97, Canadian Comprehensive Land Canons of treaty construction, 11, 22,
209–220 Claims Policy, 400 41–43, 62–63, 135, 149
aboriginal peoples in, 209, Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Cansa. See Kansa
217–218 Fort Treaty), August 3, Canyon de Chelly
and British treaties, 235, 237–238 1871, 239, 375–376 treaty history of, 410–412
and Canadian Independence, treaty document, 559–564 See also Treaty with the Navajo,
212–214 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 (Manitoba June 1, 1868
and colonial America, 209 Post Treaty), August 21, Cape Sable bands, 237
contemporary agreements in, 1871, 239, 375–376 Cape Verde Islands, 49
236, 240–241 treaty document, 564–566 Capitulation of Montreal, 237,
and education, 179 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 637–638
and Europe, 209 (Northwest Angle Capote, 272
fishing rights in, 218 Treaty), October 3, 1873, Captain Dutch, 333
and France, 209 239, 377 Captain Jack (Kintpuash), 767–768
and French treaties, 235, 236–237 treaty document, 566–572 Captain Jack’s Stronghold, 227

Index I-7
Captain Pollard, 885 Celilo Fish Committee (CFC), 151 Agreement with the Cherokee
Caravel, 49 CENA. See Coalition of Eastern and Other Tribes in the
Carey Mission, Treaty of, 437 Native Americans Indian Territory,
Caribou Creek, Treaty of, 196 Central America, 51 September 13, 1865, 357
Carimine, 305 Cera, Mitchell P. (Wash-kom-moni), Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty,
Carleton, James H., 370, 412, 425, 349 1866, 30
661, 662, 748, 770, 853, CERCLA. See Comprehensive and education, 182, 183
854 Environmental and Fort Gibson, 419
Carlisle Indian School, 59, 179, 185, Response, Compensation and jurisdiction, 165–166, 174
186, 188, 189. See also and Liability Act and New Echota, 429–430
Pratt, Richard Henry; Ceremonies, 6, 13, 14, 19, 39, 668 Reconstruction Treaties with the
Schools and subsistence resources, Cherokee, Choctaw,
Carpenter v. Shaw, 42, 62 147–148 Chickasaw, Creek, and
Carroll, William, 321 Cerre, Mitchell P. (Wash-com-mo- Seminole, 1866, 360–361
Carson, Christopher Houston “Kit,” ni), 349, 356 and removal, 88–89, 263–264, 265
104, 267, 269, 270, 272, CERT. See Council of Energy and Trail of Tears, 136, 137,
358, 368, 412, 425, 661, Resource Tribes 657–658
662, 748, 769–770, 853 Cession, treaties of, by state, 81 table Treaty with the Cherokee,
and Ouray, 868 1, 81 table 2 November 28, 1785,
Carson, Lindsey, 769 Cetanwakanmani, 847, 848 285–286, 451–453
Carson, Rebecca Robinson, 769 CFC. See Celilo Fish Committee Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2,
Carter, Colbert, 362 Cha-sa-wa-ne-che (the One that Has 1791, 287
Carter, Henry R., 327 No Name), 304 Treaty with the Cherokee, June
Carter, Jimmy, 716 Cha-tau-’hne (Yellow Hawk), 359 26, 1794, 287
Carter administration, 247, 818 Chahta Tamaha, 418 Treaty with the Cherokee,
Cartier, Jacques, 938 Chambers, John, 332 October 2, 1798, 289
Cartwright, George, 211 Chambly, 305 Treaty with the Cherokee,
Cass, Lewis, 85, 87, 90, 294, 297, 298, Champisaba (Black War Club), 294 October 24, 1804, 291
299, 300, 301, 305, 307, Champlain, Samuel de, 236 Treaty with the Cherokee,
309, 412–413, 427, 658, Chapin, Israel, 287, 288 October 25, 1805, 292
771–772, 776, 867 Chapitone, 334 Treaty with the Cherokee,
and Michilimackinac, 428–429 Charles I, 767 January 7, 1806, 292
and Prairie du Chien, 430 Charles II, 76, 276, 873 Treaty with the Cherokee, March
and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Charlton, Richard, 201 22, 1816, 296
and Schoolcraft, Henry, 894 Chasta. See Shasta Treaty with the Cherokee,
Casserly, Eugene, 59 Chatters, Jim, 725 September 14, 1816, 297
Castake Chattoogee, 430 Treaty with the Cherokee, July 8,
Treaty with the Castake, Texon, Chayenne. See Cheyenne 1817, 297
etc., June 1851, 231 table Che-chu-chee, 363 Treaty with the Cherokee,
3 Che-kus-kuk, 364 February 27, 1819, 299
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Che-qua-sau-quah, 322 Treaty with the Cherokee,
Programs, 35 Che-quaw-ka-ko, 325 December 29, 1835,
Catawba, 259 Checkered (May-zin), 324 320–322, 483–491
Catholic Church, 49, 209 Chees-quat-a-law-ny (John Rollin Treaty with the Cherokee,
Cattaraugus Reservation, 76 Ridge), 886–887 August 6, 1846, 333
Cattle grazing, 31–32, 33 Chehalis, 226–227 Treaty with the Cherokee, July
Caughnawaga, 75 Chekommia (Big River), 298 19, 1866, 363, 542–550
Caveat case. See Paulette case Chekopeheke Emanthau, 292 Treaty with the Cherokee, April
Caw-ga-ke-she-sa, 330 Chemakum, 99 27, 1868, 368–369
Cayetano, Ben, 732 Chemehuevi, 273 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Cayuga, 248, 278. See also Six Chenughiata, Chief, 282 August 4, 1835, 320
Nations Cherokee, 7, 9, 15–18, 20–23, 30, Treaty with the Western
Cayuse, 99, 227, 230 table 2, 409–410, 32, 43, 52–53, 56–57, Cherokee, May 6, 1828,
415 70–73, 88, 104, 105, 308
Treaty with the Wallawalla, 107, 211, 213, 246, 248, Treaty with the Western
Cayuse, Etc., June 9, 251, 260–262, 268, 439, Cherokee, February 14,
1855, 344 655–656 1833, 315–316
Cayuse War, 410 Agreement with the Cherokee, See also Five Civilized Tribes
Celilo Falls, 151 March 14, 1834, 320 Cherokee Boy (Aronne), 298

I-8 Index
Cherokee Commission. See Jerome Treaty with the Ottawa, China, 49, 202
Commission Etc., August 29, 1821; Chinook, 97, 226, 227, 229 table 1,
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 22, 40, Treaty with the 414–415, 415
56–57, 61, 112, 165–166, Wyandot, Etc., August 3, Chipewyan, 236
213, 263, 639, 653, 654, 1795 Canadian Indian Treaty 6,
655, 671, 926, 953–954 Chickasaw, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, August 28, September 9,
and government-to-government 32, 52–53, 71–72, 73, 211, 1876, 381–382
relationship, 930, 931 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, Canadian Indian Treaty 10,
and guardianship/wardship, 419, 674–675 September 19, 1906,
931 and addenda treaty, 102 August 19, 1907, 390–391
and Indian removal, 935 and confederate treaty, 103 Chippewa, 23, 29, 41, 43, 45, 51, 55,
and sovereignty, 948 and Doaksville, 417–418 71, 72, 73, 91–92, 100,
and trust doctrine, 955 Reconstruction Treaties with the 104, 436, 710–711,
and trust responsibility, 957 Cherokee, Choctaw, 721–722, 730–731
Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate, Chickasaw, Creek, and and fishing rights, 155–158
429 Seminole, 1866, 360–361 and gathering rights, 158–159
Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty, and reconstruction treaty, 105 and hunting rights, 42
1866, 30 and removal, 87, 264 and Prairie du Chien, 431
Cherokee Tobacco case, 43, 44, 667 Treaty with the Chickasaw, and Sault Ste. Marie, 435
Cherokee War of 1776, 260 January 10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois
Cheucunsene, 296 Treaty with the Chickasaw, Fort Band, April 7, 1866,
Cheyenne-Arapaho Reservation, 32, October 24, 1801, 362
107 289–290 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red
Cheyenne (Chayenne), 24, 30, 101, Treaty with the Chickasaw, July Lake and Pembina
103, 104, 106, 252, 253, 23, 1805, 291 Bands, October 1, 1863,
254, 256, 269, 270, 271, Treaty with the Chickasaw, 354
272, 733 September 20, 1816, 297 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red
and education, 183 Treaty with the Chickasaw, Lake and Pembina
and Fort Laramie, 423 October 19, 1818, 299 Bands, April 12, 1864,
and reconstruction treaty, 107 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 355
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the August 31, 1830, 310, Treaty with the Chippewa of
Sioux, Etc., September 464–468 Saginaw, Etc., August 2,
17, 1851, 336–337 Treaty with the Chickasaw, 1855, 347
Treaty with the Apache, October 20, 1832, 314 Treaty with the Chippewa of
Cheyenne, and Arapaho, Treaty with the Chickasaw, Saginaw, Swan Creek,
October 17, 1865, 358 October 22, 1832, 314 and Black River, October
Treaty with the Arapaho and Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 18, 1864, 355
Cheyenne, February 18, 24, 1834, 319 Treaty with the Chippewa of
1861, 351–352 Treaty with the Chickasaw, June Sault Ste. Marie, August
Treaty with the Cheyenne and 22, 1852, 337 2, 1855, 347
1865, 357–358, 518–522 Chickasaw, January 17, Mississippi, March 19,
Treaty with the Cheyenne and 1837, 327 1867, 365
1867, 366–367 Chickasaw, November 4, Mississippi and Lake
Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, 1854, 342 Superior, August 2, 1847,
July 6, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Choctaw and 333
Treaty with the Northern Chickasaw, June 22, Treaty with the Chippewa of the
Cheyenne and Northern 1855, 345–346 Mississippi and the
Arapaho, May 10, 1868, Treaty with the Choctaw and Pillager and Lake
369–370 Chickasaw, April 28, Winnibigoshish Bands,
Cheyenne Reservation, 32 1866, 362, 527–538 March 11, 1863, 353
Chicago See also Five Civilized Tribes Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
treaty document, 480–483 Chickasaw Nation v. U.S., 45 November 25, 1808, 293
treaty history of, 412–413 Chickmaugee, 430 Treaty with the Chippewa,
Treaty of, 317 Chief Man (Rarnleshare), 298 September 24, 1819,
See also Treaty with the Chien Noir (Macatiwaaluna), 292 300
Chippewa, Etc., Child custody. See Child welfare Treaty with the Chippewa, June
September 26, 1833; Child welfare, 8, 36, 114, 118–121 16, 1820, 300

Index I-9
Treaty with the Chippewa, July Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Choctaw and
6, 1820, 300 July 4, 1805, 291 Chickasaw, January 17,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1837, 327
August 5, 1826, 306–307 September 8, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Choctaw and
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Chickasaw, November 4,
August 11, 1827, 307 September 29, 1817, 297 1854, 342
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Williams treaties with the Treaty with the Choctaw and
July 28, 1829, 309 Chippewa and the Chickasaw, June 22,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Mississauga, October to 1855, 345–346
September 26, 1833, November 1923, Treaty with the Choctaw and
317–319 393–394, 627–635 Chickasaw, April 28,
Treaty with the Chippewa, May Chippewa Ottawa Resource 1866, 362, 527–538
9, 1836, 323–324 Authority (CORA), 711 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Chivington, John Milton, 733, August 4, 1835, 320
January 14, 1837, 326–327 754–755, 772–774. See also See also Five Civilized Tribes
Treaty with the Chippewa, July Sand Creek Massacre Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 62
29, 1837, 327–328 Chivington’s Colorado Volunteers, Choctaw Nation v. U.S., 42
Treaty with the Chippewa, 269 Choctaw Telegraph, 418
December 20, 1837, 329 Cho-bah-áh-bish Chouteau, Auguste, 269, 294–295,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Treaty with the Dwamish, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300,
December 23, 1838, 329 Suquamish, Etc., January 327, 438, 439, 774–775, 797
Treaty with the Chippewa, 22, 1855, 343 Chouteau, Pierre, 438–439, 774, 776,
February 7, 1839, 330 Cho-cote-harjo, 362 847
Treaty with the Chippewa, Choctaw, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 30, Chouteau, Rene Auguste, 774
October 4, 1842, 331 32, 42, 52, 53, 71–72, 211, Christianity, 22, 59, 96, 179, 180–182,
Treaty with the Chippewa, 248, 259, 260, 261, 251, 270
September 30, 1854, 262–263, 419, 674–675 and education, 185, 187, 188
340–341, 502–507 and addenda treaty, 102 Chu-Nuts
Treaty with the Chippewa, and confederate treaty, 103 Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo-
February 22, 1855, 344 and Dancing Rabbit Creek, 416 Woz, etc., June 1851, 231
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., and Doak’s Stand, 416–417 table 3
July 16, 1859, 350 and Doaksville, 417–418 Chup-co, John (Long John), 362
Treaty with the Ottawa and and education, 182 Churchill, Winston, 796
Chippewa, July 6, 1820, and land use, 135 Citizenship, 8, 33, 169–170
300 Reconstruction Treaties with the Citizenship Act, 169–170
Treaty with the Ottawa and Cherokee, Choctaw, Civil rights, 35, 114
Chippewa, July 31, 1855, Chickasaw, Creek, and Civil Rights Act of 1866, 671
346–347 Seminole, 1866, 360–361 Civil Service reform, 272
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., and reconstruction treaty, 105 Civilization, 25, 28, 31, 83, 85, 96, 98,
August 24, 1816, 296 and removal, 86–87, 264 179, 180–182, 251, 273
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Choctaw, and education, 187, 189
August 29, 1821, 301 January 3, 1786, 286 program, 255
Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Choctaw, in southeast, 261–262
March 28, 1836, 322–323 December 17, 1801, 290 Civilization Fund, 30
Treaty with the Pillager Band of Treaty with the Choctaw, Clackamas, 229 table 1
Chippewa Indians, October 17, 1802, 290 Clallam, 99
August 21, 1847, 333 Treaty with the Choctaw, August Claremont, Chief, 303
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., 31, 1803, 291 Clark, Alex, 312
August 19, 1825, Treaty with the Choctaw, Clark, Ann (Rogers), 775
304–305, 459–463 November 16, 1805, 292 Clark, George Rogers, 70, 72, 286,
Treaty with the Winnebago, Treaty with the Choctaw, 343, 443
Etc., August 25, 1828, October 24, 1816, 297 Clark, John, 775
308–309 Treaty with the Choctaw, Clark, Lewis (Atiatoharognwan), 289
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., October 18, 1820, 301 Clark, W. P., 801
January 21, 1785, 285 Treaty with the Choctaw, Clark, William, 21–22, 89, 252, 269,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 20, 1825, 302 294, 295, 297, 298, 299,
January 9, 1789, 286 Treaty with the Choctaw, 302, 303, 305, 306, 310,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., September 27, 1830, 314, 315, 415, 775–776,
August 3, 1795, 289 310–311, 468–476 797, 837, 846

I-10 Index
Clark, William (cont.) Colley, Samuel G., 772 Treaty with the Comanche,
and Cass, Lewis, 771, 772 Collier, John, 34, 111, 170–171, 189, Kiowa, and Apache, July
and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 680, 682, 763, 764, 778, 27, 1853, 338, 500–502
and Forsyth, Thomas, 807 779–780, 783, 799 Treaty with the Comanche and
and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 and assimilation, 923 Kiowa, October 18, 1865,
and Prairie du Chien, 430 and Indian Claims Commission, 358
and St. Louis, 438–439 825 Treaty with the Kiowa,
See also Lewis, Meriwether; and Indian New Deal, 934 Comanche, and Apache,
Lewis and Clark and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 October 21, 1867, 366,
Expedition; Louisiana See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; 550–552
Purchase Indian New Deal; Indian Treaty with the Kiowa and
Clatsop, 97 Reorganization Act Comanche, October 21,
Clay, Henry, 16, 85, 870 Colonial America 1867, 365–366
Clayton, John M., 201 and Canada, 209 See also Medicine Lodge Creek,
Clean Air Act, 117, 118 and education, 179–180 Treaty of
Clean Water Act, 117–118 and jurisdiction, 162, 163, Commerce, 49
Clear Sky (Esh-ton-o-quot), 287, 323 169–170 Commerce clause (of the
Clearwater, Frank, 705 treaties in, 11, 40, 51–53, 53–58, Constitution), 14, 28, 40,
Clemson, E. B., 293 69–81, 137, 259 43, 60, 164, 165, 642–643,
Clemson, Eli, 438 treaties of alliance in, 11 655, 666, 671, 691–692,
Cleveland, Grover, 232, 786 treaty negotiation in, 51–53, 943, 954–955
and Eskiminzin, 806 53–58 Commercial mooring rights, 43
and Hawaii, 204–205 Colorado, 57 Commission to the Five Civilized
and Jackson, Helen Hunt, 830 gold in, 272 Tribes. See Dawes
and Sitting Bull, 899 Colton, G. A., 365 Commission
Clinton, Bill, 232 Columbia Commissioners, 14
Executive Order 13007, Indian Agreement with the Columbia Committee of Original Peoples’
Sacred Sites, 947 and Colville, July 7, 1883, Entitlement, 399
Executive Order 13175, 955 385 Committee on Indian Affairs, 115,
and Trust Doctrine, 955 Columbia Reservation, 385 653
and trust responsibility, 958 Columbia River Indians (River Common land tenure, 134–135
Clinton, George, 75–76 People), 150–152, 155, Commons, 134–135
Clinton, James, 641 227, 414–416 Communal land, 134–135
Clum, John P., 806 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Community Action Agency (CAA),
Clymer, George, 289 Commission, 155 35
Co-ha-thlock-co (Cockrane), 313 Columbus, Christopher, 49 Compacts, 5, 6
Coal, 140–141. See also Natural Colus Compensation
resources Treaty with the Colus, Willays, for Black Hills, 139–140
Coalition of Eastern Native etc., September 1851, 231 for mining, 140
Americans (CENA), 950 table 3 See also Annuities; Land
Cobell, Elouise, 140, 727 Colville compensation
Cobell case, 140, 727 Agreement with the Columbia Comprehensive Environmental
Cobell v. Babbitt, 727 and Colville, July 7, 1883, Response, Compensation
Cobell v. Kempthorne, 727 385 and Liability Act
Cobell v. Norton, 727, 955 Colville Reservation, 148, 227, 385 (CERCLA), 117
Cochise, 776–778, 812 Com-o-za, 320 Comprehensive Land Claim
Cockrane (Co-ha-thlock-co), 313 Comanche, 10, 30, 52, 57, 61, 100, Agreements (Canada),
Coe Hadgo, 316, 835 104, 110, 267, 268–269, 215, 216, 235, 236,
Coercive assimilation, 110, 111. See 270, 271, 272, 410, 395–407, 702, 920, 940–941
also Assimilation 677–678 Compulsory education, 187. See also
Coffee, John, 86, 297, 310, 314 and education, 182 Education
Cohen, Felix S., 778. See also Indian and reconstruction treaty, Comstick, 312
Claims Commission; 106–107 Conaquieso, Chief, 282
Indian New Deal Treaty with the Comanche, Concentration policy, 29–31
Colbert, George, 290, 291, 319 Aionai, Anadarko, Confederated Bands of Kalapuya,
Colbert, Holmes, 362 Caddo, Etc., May 15, 230 table 2
Colbert, Pitman, 327 1846, 332 Confederacy, 29, 30
Colbert, Winchester, 362 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Confederate treaties, 11, 58, 103–105.
Cole, Robert, 302 August 4, 1835, 320 See also U.S. Civil War

Index I-11
Confederated Peoria Cornwallis, General Edward, 237, 757 Canadian Indian Treaty 6,
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Corporate development, 34 August 28, September 9,
Seneca and Shawnee, Costo, Jeannette Henry, 783 1876, 381–382
Quapaw, Etc., February Costo, Rupert, 783–784. See also Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June
23, 1867, 365 Indian New Deal 21, 1899, 385–387
Confederated Tribes and Bands of Cottier, Allen, 690 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James
the Yakama Indian Cottier, Belva, 861 Bay Treaty), November
Reservation, 227 Cotton gin, 84 6, 1905, October 5, 1906,
Congressional Joint Resolution No. Cotton Petroleum Corporation v. New 388–389
55, 230 Mexico, 114, 175 Canadian Indian Treaty 10,
Connecticut, 41 Council, 13 September 19, 1906,
Connecticut v. U.S. Dept. of the Council Grove August 19, 1907, 390–391
Interior, 43 treaty history of, 413–414 James Bay and Northern Quebec
Conner, James, 351 See also Treaty with the Great Agreement (JBNQA),
Conner, John, 351 and Little Osage, August November 11, 1975,
Conner, Roberta, 159 10, 1825; Treaty with the 395–396
Connolly, John, 663 Kansa, August 16, 1825; Northeastern Quebec
Connolly, William, 662–663 Treaty with the Kansa Agreement (NQA),
Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), Tribe, January 14, 1846; January 31, 1978, 397–398
662–663 Treaty with the Kansa See also Swampy Cree
Connor, John, 352 Tribe, October 5, 1859 Cree-Naskapi Act, 240
Connor, P. Edward, 354 Council of Energy Resource Tribes Cree v. Flores, 43
Cononicus (Cananacus, Conanicus), (CERT), 140, 734 Creek, 7, 15–16, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 30,
766–767 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian 32, 52–53, 54, 56, 72, 73,
Conoy, 70, 282 Nation, 62 104, 260, 262, 263, 268,
Conroy, Commissioner, 392, 393 Court jurisdiction, 36 681–682
Conservation regulations, 45 Court of appeals, Indian, 59 and addenda treaty, 102–103
Constitution Act of 1867 (Canada), Covenant Chain, 243–244, 245 Agreement with the Creek, June
218, 394, 663–664, Covenants, 5, 49 29, 1825, 303
673–674, 941 Cow Creek, 226, 230 table 2 and confederate treaty, 103
Constitution Act of 1982 (Canada), Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow and land use, 135
209, 638, 720–721, 726, Creek Band, September Reconstruction Treaties with
728 19, 1853, 338 the Cherokee,
Constitutional Convention, 260 Cow-e-to-me-co, 363 Choctaw, Chickasaw,
Continental Congress, 13, 27, 53, Cow-nan-ti-co, 342 Creek, and Seminole,
163, 260, 640 Cowlitz, 226 1866, 360–361
compensation under, 72–73 Craig, Thomas, 807 and removal, 87, 264
treaties under, 70–73 Cram, Rev. Jacob, 885 and trade debts, 20
Convention of 1884, 231 table 4 Crane (Tarhe), 294 and Trail of Tears, 137
Conventions, 5 Cravat, Rebecca, 843 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
Coody, William S., 333 Crawford, David, 350 July 16, 1859, 350
Cook, Captain, 205 Crazy Horse, 898, 901 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Cook’s Landing, 152 Crazy Horse (Tasˇunka Witko), 784 August 4, 1835, 320
Cooley, D. N., 357, 362, 363 Crazy Snake Movement, 817–818 Treaty with the Creek, August 7,
Coolidge, Calvin, 33 Cree, 101, 219, 238, 240, 278, 382 1790, 287
Cooper, Douglas H., 342, 780–781 Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone Treaty with the Creek, June 29,
Cooper, James Fenimore, 906 Fort Treaty), August 3, 1796, 289
Coosewatee, 430 1871, 375–376 Treaty with the Creek, June 16,
Cope, Jean-Baptiste, 237 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 1802, 290
Copper Treaty, 91 (Manitoba Post Treaty), Treaty with the Creek, October
CORA. See Chippewa Ottawa August 21, 1871, 375–376 27, 1805, 292
Resource Authority Canadian Indian Treaty 4 Treaty with the Creek,
Corn Planter. See Cornplanter (Qu’Appelle Treaty), November 14, 1805, 292
Corn Stalk, 294 September 15, 1874, Treaty with the Creek, August 9,
Cornelius, Jacob, 329 378–380 1814, 294
Cornplanter (Corn Planter; Canadian Indian Treaty 5 Treaty with the Creek, January
Kaintwakon), 74, 75, 76, (Winnipeg Treaty), 22, 1818, 298
287, 289, 290, 781–783, September 24, 1875, Treaty with the Creek, January 8,
814, 815, 885 380–381 1821, 301

I-12 Index
Creek (cont.) Cu-Zu Daveiss, Joseph, 647

Treaty with the Creek, February Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, Davidson, John, 745
12, 1825, 302–303 etc., September 1851, 231 Davis, Edmund, 892
Treaty with the Creek, January table 3 Davis, Jefferson, 809, 901
24, 1826, 306 Cultural intolerance, and education, Davis, John W., 314, 315
Treaty with the Creek, 187–190 Davis, Lewis, 365
November 15, 1827, Cultural items, 124–126, 725–726. See Davy (Saa-Hajo), 313
307–308 also Sacred sites Dawes, Henry L., 32, 671, 672, 786,
Treaty with the Creek, March 24, Cultural patrimony, 124, 125, 126 787–788
1832, 312–313, 476–478 Cultural resource protection, 118 Dawes, Mitchell, 787
Treaty with the Creek, February Culture, and land ownership, 144 Dawes Commission (Commission
14, 1833, 316 Culver, F. B., 351 to the Five Civilized
Treaty with the Creek, Culver, Samuel H., 338 Tribes), 676–677,
November 23, 1838, Cumberland Presbyterian Board of 786–787
329–330 Foreign and Domestic Dawes General Allotment
Treaty with the Creek, June 13, Missions, 418 (Severalty) Act. See
1854, 340 Cumming, A., 348 General Allotment Act
Treaty with the Creek, Etc., Cummins, Richard W., 332 Daws, Gavan, 203
August 7, 1856, 348–349 Cunningham, Jack, 712–713 Dawson, S. J., 377
Treaty with the Creek, June 14, Curtis, Charles, 676 de Callieres, Louis-Hector, 244
1866, 362–363, 538–542 Curtis, S. R., 358, 359, 360, 364, 772 de Cavagnial, Marquis Pierre de
Treaty with the Creek and Curtis Act, 32–33, 673, 675, 676–677 Rigaud de Vaudreuil, 637
Seminole, January 4, Custer, George Armstrong, 256, 271, De Céloron de Blainville, Pierre
1845, 332 719, 784, 884, 898, 901 Joseph, 862–863
See also Five Civilized Tribes and Black Kettle, 755 De La Cruz, Joseph Burton, 788–789
Creek War of 1813—1814, 650, 651, and Dull Knife, 801 de Vattel, Emmerich, 50, 945, 946
653 Cuthead de Vitoria, Francisco, 50, 69, 209, 924
Creek War of 1835—1836, 653 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Dearborn, Henry, 20, 292, 438,
Crèvecoeur, Hector St. Jean de, 823 Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 789–791
Criminal jurisdiction, 31, 112, 172– 369 Decker, George, 796
173. See also Jurisdiction Declaration of Independence, 69, 163
Crittenden, Robert, 302 Dade, Francis, 804 DeCoteau v. District County Court for
Croghan, Catherine, 760 Dakota (Sioux), 28 the Tenth Judicial District,
Croghan, George, 862, 863 and Prairie du Chien, 432 62, 63
Cromwell, John, 307–308 and Traverse des Sioux, 441 Deer, Ada E., 791–792. See also
Crook, George, 784, 812, 898, 901, Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Determination of Rights
904, 906 Sioux, Etc., September and Unity for
Cross-deputization agreements, 6 17, 1851, 336–337 Menominee
Crow, 24, 63–64, 101, 106, 107, 252, See also Sioux Stockholders; Menomie
253–254 The Dalles, 415 Termination Act
Agreement with the Crows, May treaty history of, 414–416 Deer, Bob, 792
14, 1880, 385 Treaty of, 98–99 Deer, Constance Stockton (Wood),
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the See also Treaty with the Tribes of 791, 792
Sioux, Etc., September Middle Oregon, June 25, Deer, Joseph, 791
17, 1851, 336–337 1855 Deh Cho Dene, 392, 400
Treaty with the Crow Tribe, Dalles Dam, 152 DeLancey, James, 823
August 4, 1825, 304 Dalles Falls, 151 Delano, Colombus, 414
Treaty with the Crow, May 7, Dancing Rabbit Creek Delaware, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 20, 21,
1868, 369 treaty history of, 416 52, 53, 55, 57, 70, 71, 79,
the Crow (A-ka-ke), 328 Treaty of, 9, 23, 86–87, 310–311, 100, 104, 163, 243–244,
Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670, 901 416, 653, 657, 935 245–246, 248, 268, 282
Crow Dog, Leonard, 743 See also Treaty with the Choctaw, Agreement with the Delaware
Crow Foot, 898 September 27, 1830 and Wyandot, December
Crow Reservation, 113, 375 Dart, Anson, 97, 225–226, 229 table 1 14, 1843, 332
Crowell, John, 810 Dartmouth College, 180, 181 and Fort Pitt, 424
Crowfoot, Chief, 384, 785–786 Das-Pia and St. Louis, 438
Crown-Indian treaties, 209, 211, 220 Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-Ma- Treaty with the Delaware,
Crowther, Bosley, 802 Do, etc., July 1851, 231 September 17, 1778,
Crume, Marks, 314, 315 table 3 283–284, 449–450

Index I-13
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Sahtu Dene and Métis See also Treaty with the Choctaw
June 7, 1803, 290 Comprehensive Land and Chickasaw, January
Treaty with the Delaware, Claim Agreement, 17, 1837; Treaty with the
August 18, 1804, 291 September 6, 1993, Choctaw and Chickasaw,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., 405–406 November 4, 1854
August 21, 1805, 292 See also Athapaskan; Chipewyan; Doctrine of discovery, 652, 924–925,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Sahtu Dene 944, 945, 946
September 30, 1809, 293 Denmark, 177 Documents of American Indian
Treaty with the Delaware, Denny, David, 895 Diplomacy: Treaties,
October 3, 1818, 299 Denny, John (Johnny Sundown), 329 Agreements, and
Treaty with the Delaware, Denonville, Marquis de, 288 Conventions, 1775-1979
August 3, 1829, 309 Densmore, Christopher, 884, 886 (Deloria and DeMallie),
Treaty with the Delaware, Denver, James W., 349 51
September 24, 1829, 309 Departments of Indian Affairs, 640 Dodge, Ben, 799
Treaty with the Delaware, May Dependency, 144 Dodge, Chee, 912
6, 1854, 339 DePuy, H., 51 Dodge, Henry Chee (Hastiin
Treaty with the Delaware, May Dermer, Thomas, 854 Adiits’a’ii; Man Who
30, 1860, 351 Deschutes, 148 Interprets), 91, 324, 325,
Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, Deserontyon, John, 76, 239 326-327, 328, 754,
1861, 352 Deskaheh (Levi General), 796–797 798–799
Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, Determination of Rights and Unity Dodge, Thomas, 799
1866, 363 for Menominee Dog Soldiers, 367
Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., Stockholders (DRUMS), Dogrib, 392
October 26, 1832, 314 172 Dohasan (Little Bluff), 850, 896
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Detroit, 246 Dole, Sanford, 205
January 21, 1785, 285 DGF. See U.S. Department of Game Dole, William, 25, 186, 352, 353, 355,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and Fish 356
January 9, 1789, 286 Dias, Bartholomeu, 49 Domestic colonialism, 96
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Dickinson, Emily, 829, 830, 906 Domestic dependent nation, 22, 40,
July 4, 1805, 291 Diefenbaker, John, 687 57, 64, 81, 88, 112, 165,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Diegunio 166, 184, 213, 263, 639,
July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Diegunio, 653, 654, 925–926, 926
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., January 1852, 231 table 3 and government-to-government
September 8, 1815, 295 Dieskau, Baron, 823 relationship, 930
and Vincennes, 442 Diet, 134 and guardianship/wardship,
Delaware Reservation, 351 Dillon, G. P., 202 931
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia Diné Bikéyah, 410–412 and Indian removal, 935
(Canada), 716, 729–730 Diné (Navajo), 176, 370–372, 661, and sovereignty, 948
Deline, 216–217 662. See also Navajo and trust doctrine, 955
Delineation of demands, 255 Diseases. See European diseases and trust relationship, 957
Dellums, Ron, 713 Disturnell, John, 809 Dominic, Lydia Kamaka’eha. See
Deloria, Barbara, 795 Division of Banking, Securities and Liliuokalani, Queen
Deloria, Vine, Jr., 51, 52, 53, Corporations, in Alaska, Dominion Lands Act, 664
792–795 198–199 Dominion of Canada, 236, 663
DeMaillot, Keziah. See Malotte Do-He-No-Geh-Weh. See Parker, Donehogä’wa. See Parker, Ely S.
(DeMaillot) Keziah Ely S. Dongan, Thomas, 275–276
DeMallie, Raymond, 51, 52, 53, Doak, Josiah, 417 Doniphan, Alexander W., 267, 411
254–255 Doak, William, 416, 417 Doolittle, James R., 30, 800
Dene, 240, 380, 382, 386, 387, Doak’s Stand Doolittle Commission, 800
390–391, 392–393, 400, treaty history of, 416–417 Doolittle Committee, 30, 270, 426
401 Treaty of, 262–263, 310, 416–417 Dorian, Paul, 349
Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June See also Treaty with the Dorset, 937
21, 1899, 385–387 Choctaw, October 18, Doty, James Duane, 354
Canadian Indian Treaty 10, 1820; Treaty with the Dougherty, John, 325, 329
September 19, 1906, Choctaw, January 20, Doughty, John, 420
August 19, 1907, 390–391 1825 Douglas, Freeland Edward, 818
Canadian Indian Treaty 11, June Doaksville Douglas, James, 238–239, 641, 642,
27 to August 30, 1921, treaty history of, 417–418 701
391–393 Treaty of, 264, 418 Douglas, William O., 694, 695

I-14 Index
Douglass, John T., 327 compulsory, 187 Energy resource management, 734
Douw, Volkert P., 640 funding for, 43, 182, 190 England, 13, 75, 77, 162
Doyle, James, 156 programs, 690 and Indian alliances, 52
Drachard, Christian, 279 success of, 188–189 and treaty negotiation, 51, 53
Drew, John, 333 See also Schools and war with France, 55
Drew, Richard, 333 Edwards, Ninian, 294, 295, 296, 297, English as a second language (ESL)
Driver, Isaac, 312 299, 774, 797 instruction, 710
Driving Clouds (Nay-gee-zhig), Eel River, 20, 79 Enigmanee (Flies as He Walks), 294
323–324 Supplemental Treaty with the Environmental Protection Agency
Drooping Flower (Ahweyneyonh), Miami, Etc., September (EPA), 117, 161
884 30, 1809, 293 Environmental regulation, 117–118
Drummer’s War, 237 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., EPA. See Environmental Protection
DRUMS. See Determination of June 7, 1803, 290 Agency
Rights and Unity for Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Menominee August 21, 1805, 292 (EEOA), 62, 708
Stockholders Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Equal Rights for Everyone, 722
Drybones, Joseph, 688 September 30, 1809, 293 Erasmus, George Henry, 804–805
Duane, James, 71 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., Erie Canal, 84
Dull Knife (Morning Star), 801–802 August 7, 1803, 290 Es-kin-in-zin (Eskiminzin), 805–806
Dumont, Alexis, 803 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Es-Kun
Dumont, Gabriel, 802–803, 939–940 August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, Es-
Dundy, Elmer, 829, 904 and Vincennes, 442 Kun, etc., August 1851,
Dunquod (Half King), 298 and Wabash River, 443 231 table 3
Duro v. Reina, 113, 114 EEOA. See Equal Employment Esa-tai, 871
Dussault, René, 805 Opportunity Act Esh-ton-o-quot (Clear Sky), 287, 323
Dutch, 51, 211 EEOC v. Cherokee Nation, 43 Eskiminzin (Es-kin-in-zin; Skimmy;
and Canada, 235 Efau Emauthlau, 301 Haské Bahnzin), 805–806
Duval, William P., 302 Efiematla, 313 Eskimo, 209, 720
Duwamish (Dwamish, Dwámish), Eisenhower, Dwight Esquimaux, 279
16, 99 and Public Law 280, 684 Ethnic cleansing, 165
Treaty with the Dwamish, and relocation program, 689 Etowah, 430
Suquamish, Etc., January and termination, 953 Europe, 6, 13, 39
22, 1855, 343 and Watkins, Arthur V., 911 and Canada, 209
Dwamish. See Duwamish Eisenhower administration, 686 and international agreements,
Dysart, George, 697 El Barbon, 748 49–64
Elementary and Secondary treaty negotiation in, 50–53
E-sta-mah-za (Joseph La Flesche), Education Act, 709 European aggression
356 Elk, John, 670–671 and sovereignty, 162–163
Eades, Susie Rozetta, 818 the Elk (Pa), 298 European diseases, 17, 134, 253, 254,
Eagle Heart (Tenetendi), 897 Elk v. Wilkins, 169, 670–671 270
the Eagle (Hoo-yah), 324 Ellicott, Joseph, 290 in Hawaii, 202
Eagle Protection Act, 158, 722–723 Ellis, Albert G., 334 European imperialism, 96
Eagle Striking with Talons. See Ellsworth, Henry J., 315 Evans, Daniel J., 789
Kicking Bird Ellsworth, Henry L., 315, 316, 317, Evans, John, 772
Earl, Anthony, 157 319 Evarts, Jeremiah, 22, 653
Eastern Abenaki, 75 Emartta, Charley, 316 Ex Parte Crow Dog, 166–167, 669–670
Eastman, Charles, 189 Emartta, Holata, 316 Executive branch, 95–96
Eaton, John, 86, 88, 310, 311, 319 Emathla, Charley, 804 Executive Order 13007, Indian
Economic development, 33, 36, 63, Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 829 Sacred Sites, 947
117 Eminent domain, 136 Executive Order 13175, 955
Economic Opportunity Act, 35, 114 Emma, Queen, 203 Executive Order Reservations,
Economy Employment Division, Department of 926–927. See also
agrarian-based, 76 Human Resources of Reservation
land-based, 134 Oregon et al. v. Alfred L. Explanatory Note of 1796, 55, 56
Ecosystems, 140 Smith et al., 175 Express trust, 955. See also Trust
Edmunds, Newton, 357, 358, 359, Endangered Species Act, 722–723 Doctrine
360, 364, 385 Enehau Thlucco, 292 External sovereignty, 947. See also
Education, 59, 179–190, 270, 709–710 Energy Policy Act, 734 Sovereignty
in Alaska, 195 Energy projects, 63 Extinguishment, 400

Index I-15
Extracurricular activities, and definition of, 236 Folsom, David, 302

education, 188 See also individual tribes Folsom, Israel, 346
First Riel Rebellion, 939 Folsom, Sampson, 337, 346
Factories. See Trading posts First Seminole War, 79, 165 Folsom, Sophia, 876
Fair Haired Old Man, 896 Fish Carrier, 287 Fond du Lac, 157, 341
Fall, Albert B., 763–764 Fish-ins, 152 the Fool Dog (Shon-kah-we-to-ko),
Fallen Timbers, Battle of, 19, 75, 245, the Fish (Na-maing-sa), 294 359
246, 443, 645, 648 Fisher v. District Court, 114 Fools Crow, Chief Frank, 705
Falling Hail (Wasoukapaha), 294 Fishing rights, 25, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, Forbes, John, 424
Fallon Paiute-Shoshone, 116 134, 147–150 Forbes, William H., 376, 377
FAP. See Federal Acknowledgment in Alaska, 195–196 Ford, John, 802
Process in Canada, 218 Foreman, Stephen, 333
Farmer’s Brother, 75, 76, 287 in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, Forks of the Wabash, Treaty of, 443
Farnsworth, H. W., 352 150–155 Forney, Daniel M., 301
Federal Acknowledgment Process in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 Forsyth, Robert, 764, 765
(FAP), 927–928, 929, 941, Fiske, Helen Maria. See Jackson, Forsyth, Thomas, 301, 430–431, 764,
942, 950, 951, 953 Helen Hunt 765, 776, 806–808
Branch of Acknowledgment and Fiske, Nathan Welby, 828 Forsyth, William, 806–807
Research, 928 Fitch, Congressman, 666–667 Fort Adams, Treaty of, 416
Federal Acknowledgment Project, Fitzpatrick, Thomas “Broken Hand,” Fort Belknap Reservation, 170, 678
176 254, 336, 338, 769 Fort Berthold
Federal Act, 678 Five Civilized Tribes, 74–75, Agreement at Fort Berthold, July
Federal courts, and canons of treaty 77–79, 95, 206, 271, 27, 1866, 363–364
construction, 11 676–677 Fort Bridger, Treaty of, 227–228. See
Federal Enclaves Act, 669 and confederate treaty, also Treaty with the
Federal Indian Law, 693 103–104 Eastern Band Shoshone
Federal Power Act, 688–689 and education, 183–184 and Bannock, July 3,
Federal Power Commission, 44 and Indian removal, 83 1868
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora and jurisdiction, 165 Fort Crawford, 431
Indian Nation, 63, and reconstruction treaties, Fort Duquesne, 424
688–689 105–107 Fort Finney, Treaty of, 71–72, 246
Federal programs, tribal and removal, 137 Fort Gibson
administration of, and U.S. Civil War, 58 treaty history of, 419
116–117 See also Cherokee; Chickasaw; Treaty of, 264
Federal Security Agency, 35 Choctaw; Creek; Dawes Fort Green Ville, 426–427
Federally recognized tribes, 5, 171, Commission; Seminole Fort Hall Reservation, 228, 372, 374
175, 176–177, 734, 927, Five Nations Fort Hamilton, 73
929, 941, 947, 950. See also Treaty of Albany with the Five Fort Harmar, 19, 53
Nonrecognized tribes; Nations, July 31, 1684, treaty history of, 420
State-recognized tribes 275–277 Treaty of, 15, 72, 73, 137, 420,
Fessenden, William, 202 See also Cayuga; Mohawk; 644, 645
Fetterman, William, 784, 883 Oneida; Onondaga; See also Treaty with the
Fetterman Massacre, 271 Seneca Cherokee, June 26,
Fields, Richard, 333 Flathead, 99, 227, 252 1794; Treaty with the
Fields, Sallocooke, 297 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., Six Nations, January
Fillmore, Millard, 341, 433, 760, 842, July 16, 1855, 346 9, 1789; Treaty with
867 Flathead Indian Reservation, 227 the Wyandot, Etc.,
Final Umbrella Agreement, 726 Fletcher, Alice C., 32 January 21, 1785;
Fire Chief (Pad-a-ga-he), 356 Flies as He Walks (Enigmanee), 294 Treaty with the
First in the War Party (Shernakitare), Flood Control Act, 723 Wyandot, Etc.,
298 Florida, 20, 28, 52, 56, 77 January 9, 1789
First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun gaming in, 175, 176 Fort Harrison, 444, 647
Self-Government and Indian removal, 85 treaty history of, 421
Agreement, 404 treaties in, 259–265 See also Treaty with the Wea and
First Nations, 209, 216–220, 237, 377, Florida tribes, 77–79 Kickapoo, June 4, 1816
391, 403, 404–405, 436, Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Fort Jackson, Treaty of, 21, 84, 262,
641–642, 663, 720, Indians, September 18, 650, 651
726–727, 734, 938, 1823, 302 Fort John, 422
940–941, 948–950 See also individual tribes Fort Knox, 443

I-16 Index
Fort Laramie Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, French and Indian War (Seven Years’
treaty history of, 421–423 August 4, 1824, 302 War), 27, 69, 211, 238,
Treaty of, 24, 29, 64, 101, 106, Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 245, 424, 440, 637, 638
139, 255, 256–257, 269, Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 French Revolution, 211
271, 691, 705, 706, 719 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Friends (Quakers), 184
treaty document, 498–500 September 21, 1832, 313 Funding
See also Treaty of Fort Laramie Treaty with the Sauk and Fox for education, 182, 190
with the Sioux, Etc., Tribe, September 27, Fur trade, 17, 84, 136, 155, 421–422,
September 17, 1851 1836, 325 430–431, 938–939. See also
Fort McDowell, 136 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Trade
Fort McIntosh, Treaty of, 15, 19, September 28, 1836, 325 Furnas, Robert W., 356
71–72, 137, 246, 285, 420. Treaty with the Sauk and Fox,
See also Treaty with the October 21, 1837, 328 Ga-he-ga-zhinga (Little Chief), 356
Wyandot, Etc., January Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Gadsden, Christopher, 808
21, 1785 October 11, 1842, 331–332 Gadsden, James, 88, 302, 313, 316,
Fort McPherson, 400, 401 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of 808–809
Fort Miami, 75 Missouri, May 18, 1854, Gadsden Purchase, 57. See also
Fort Pitt 339–340 Gadsden, James
treaty history of, 424–425 Treaty with the Sac and Fox, Gaiant’waka, 815
Treaty of, 6–7, 13–14, 18–19, 953 October 1, 1859, 350–351 Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 753,
See also Treaty with the Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 810–811, 835–836
Delaware, September 17, Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Gaines, John, 225, 229 table 1
1778 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Gaiwí:yo, 814–816
Fort Stanwix, Treaty of, 15, 19, 71–72, February 18, 1867, 364 Galissoniere, Marquis de la, 862
73, 75, 137, 246, 288, 639, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Gallup, Albert, 330
641 August 19, 1825, Gambling. See Gaming
treaty document, 450–451 303–305, 459–463 Gaming, 8–9, 36, 118, 121–124,
See also Treaty Conference with Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., 175–176, 643, 723–725,
the Six Nations at Fort August 25, 1828, 308–309 928, 942. See also Indian
Stanwix, November Fox, George, 873 Gaming Regulatory Act
1768; Treaty with the Six Fox, Joel, 63 Garcia, Micente, 100
Nations, October 22, Fox, Noel, 156 Garden River, 436
1784 FPC v. Tuscarora, 44 Gardiner, James B., 89, 312
Fort Sumner France, 13, 28, 49, 162 Garland, Samuel, 346
treaty history of, 425–426 and Canada, 209, 235, 236–237 Gas, 140. See also Natural resources
See also Treaty with the Navajo, and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202, Gates, Horatio, 757
June 1, 1868 229 Gatewood, Charles, 813
Fort Wayne, Treaty of, 20, 21, 247, and Indian alliances, 52 Gathering rights, 41, 45, 134, 147–150
440, 442, 444, 646 and Louisiana Cession, 55–56 in Great Lakes, 155, 158–159
Fort William, 422 and Louisiana Purchase, 55, 77, in Pacific Northwest, 159
Fort Wise, Treaty of, 269 84, 134, 137, 252, 417 Gauthier, John, 792
Fos-har-jo, 362 and Northeast, 243–244 Gawaso Wanneh (Arthur Parker),
Foster, Lafayette S., 800 and war with England, 55 816
Foster care. See Child welfare See also French and Indian War Gay Head Wampanoag, 116
Four Lakes, Battle of, 227 Francis, Turbot, 640 General, Alexander, 796
Fowler, Emily, 829 Frank, Billy, Jr., 152, 707 General, Levi (Deskaheh), 796–797
Fox, 17, 30, 70, 100, 103, 278 Franklin, Benjamin, 51, 69, 282, 823, General Allotment Act (Dawes Act),
and Prairie du Chien, 431 874 7, 24, 30, 32–33, 33, 36,
and St. Louis, 438–439 and Canassatego, 756, 757 59–60, 109–110, 138, 167,
Treaty with the Fox, September and Hendrick, 822 206, 672–673, 920, 921,
14, 1815, 295 Franklin, Jesse, 297 954
Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., Franklin, Treaty of, 264 and Alaska, 195
September 17, 1836, 324 Franklin, William, 282 and assimilation, 922–923
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Free-passage treaties, 100 and Atoka Agreement, 674, 675
November 3, 1804, 291, Freedmen’s Bureau, 29–30 and Curtis Act, 676
456–459 Freeman, Thomas, 442 and Elk v. Wilkins, 671
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 86 and guardianship/wardship,
September 3, 1822, Frémont, John Charles, 660, 769, 932
301–302 770 and Indian country, 933

Index I-17
and Indian Reorganization Act, Good Thunder, 356 and Hawaii, 199, 200, 201–202
680 Goodnight, Charles, 871 and Iroquois Confederacy, treaty
and Indian Territory, 937 Goodrich, William, 744 with, September 24,
and Menominee Tribe of Indians v. Goodstream (Ohnaweio), 289 1664, 211
United States, 694 Gordeau Reservation, 302 and Nigeria, 170
and Rice v. Cayetano, 732 Gordon, Harry, 424 and Northeast, 243–244
and sacred site, 947 Gorton, Slade, 153, 789 and Revolutionary War, 11,
and sovereignty, 948 Gostrax, Chief, 282 13–14, 18–19, 163, 259–260
See also Allotment; Assimilation Gousa, 297 and Revolutionary War (U.S.),
General Land Office, 29 Gover, Kevin, 733 212
General trust, 955. See also Trust Government-to-government and treaty negotiation, 51
Doctrine relationship, 732, 733, and War of 1812, 17, 21, 56, 84,
George II, 638, 639, 823 930–931, 958 137
George III, 55, 69, 163, 211, 279, 640, Goyahkla (Geronimo), 188, 268, Great Dakota Reservation, 139
759, 814 812–813 Great Depression, 34
George V, 796 Goyakla (Geronimo), 188, 268, Great Father, 252–253, 254
Georgia, 16, 21, 22–23, 40, 52, 56–57, 812–813 Great Lakes, 155–156, 214, 216
72 Goyathlay (Geronimo), 188, 268, gathering rights in, 158–159
and Indian removal, 85 812–813 treaties in, 243–249
and jurisdiction, 165–166 Gra-ta-mah-zhe (Standing Hawk), Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
removal in, 263–264 356 Commission (GLIFWC),
Germany, 229 Graham, George, 296 158, 159, 433, 721, 813
Geronimo (Goyathlay, Goyakla, Graham, John, 295, 744 Great Mahele, 201, 230
Goyahkla; He Who Graham, Richard, 301 Great Peace. See Montreal, Treaty of
Yawns), 188, 268, Grand Council of the Cree, 215, 395, Great Peace Commission, 106, 107
812–813 397 Great Plains, 30
Ghent, Treaty of, 56, 78, 80, 237, 647, Grand Pawnee, 319 treaties in, 251–257
649, 650–651, 651. See also Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, Great Sioux Agreement, 32
War of 1812 June 18, 1818, 298 Great Sioux Reservation, 31, 256,
GI Bill. See Servicemen’s Treaty with the Pawnee— 385, 719
Readjustment Act Grand, Loups, Great Society programs, 35, 114
Gibbon, John, 898 Republicans, Etc., Great Speaker (Majigabo), 798
Gibbs, John, 860 August 6, 1848, 333 Great-Tree, 74
Gibson, George, 419 Grand Portage, 157, 341 Great Walker (Mah-ne-hah-nah), 302
Gibson, Henry B., 302 Grand River, 272 Greene, Nathaniel, 426
Gift giving, 255 Grand Traverse Band, 43 Greenland, 177
Gila River, 116 Grande Ronde Reservation, 226 Greenville
Gilas, 267 Grandpré, Treaty of, 259 treaty history of, 426–427
Gilbert, Henry, 341, 347 Grant, Ulysses S., 31, 58, 166, 184, Treaty of, 19, 20, 55, 76, 79, 245,
Gildersleeves, 705 231 table 4, 232, 272, 768, 246, 421, 426–427, 443,
Gillet, Ransom H., 329 777, 854, 868 645, 646
Gish-tah-wah-gu (Strong Walker), and Parker, Ely S., 869 See also Treaty with the
349, 356 and Satanta, 892–893 Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
Gitksan, 729–730 Grant administration, 30 1795; Treaty with the
Gladwin, Henry, 879 Grattan, John L., 784 Wyandot, Etc., July 22,
Glass, 316 Grattan, Lawrence, 900–901 1814
GLIFWC. See Great Lakes Indian Grave Creek, 342 Greenwood, Alfred B., 351, 352
Fish and Wildlife Graves, protection of, 124–126, Gregory, Dick, 152
Commission 725–726. See also Sacred Greig, John, 302
Godfrey, Francis, 330 sites Grimm, Frank, 705
Gold, 31 Graves, Thomas, 308 Gros Bled (Wabakinklelia), 292
in Black Hills, 139–140, 719 Gray, Horace, 670 Gros Ventre, 24, 101, 678–679
in California, 57, 58, 96, 228, 253, Gray, William, 289 Grotius, Hugo, 50, 54, 924
254, 659, 660 Gray Head, 755 Ground, Jabez, 349
in Colorado, 272 Greasy Grass, Battle of, 256 GSA. See Gwich’in Settlement Area
See also Natural resources Great American Desert, 936 Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of, 24,
Good Chief (Petaheick), 298 Great Britain, 6, 28, 49, 55, 88, 97 29, 96, 100, 143, 268, 272,
Good Hunter, Captain, 312 and Canada, 209, 210, 211, 214, 434, 659, 660. See also
Good Squad, 705 235, 236, 237–238 Mexican-American War

I-18 Index
Guadalupe (wife of Kicking Bird), Hard Rock International Havasupai, 272

838 Restaurants, 735 Haven, Jens, 279
Guardianship/wardship, 931–932 Hard Walker (Wastch-com-ma-nu), Hawaii, 199–207
Guatanamo, 272 356 agriculture in, 202, 203, 206
Guerin v. The Queen, 949 Harjo, Bill. See Harjo, Chitto annexation of, 200, 202–203,
Guernsey, Orrin, 358, 359, 360, 364 Harjo, Chitto (Bill Harjo), 817–818 205–207
Guess, George, 78, 297, 308 Harjo, Suzan Shown, 818–819 and business community,
Guitan, 851 Harlan, Marshall, 671 203–204
Gulf of Mexico, 56 Harland, James, 368 European diseases in, 202
Gunpowder, 49 Harmar, Josiah, 73, 420, 745, 849, foreign treaties in, 199–202
Gunshot Treaty, 239 902, 903, 913 and France, 199, 200, 201–202,
Guopahko (Mamadayte), 851 Harmar’s defeat, 245 229
Gutenberg, Johannes, 49 Harney, William, 256, 269, 271, 358, government overthrow in,
Gwich’in (Gwitchin; People of the 366, 367, 369, 370, 901 204–205
Caribou), 240, 392 Harper, Kenton, 337 and Great Britain, 199, 200,
Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Harris, Carey A., 328, 329 201–202
Claim Agreement, April Harrison, Benjamin, 204 land claims in, 200–202
1992, 400–401 Harrison, William Henry, 16, 20, 80, and land compensation, 200
Gwich’in Land and Water Board, 246–247, 290, 291, 292, and land ownership, 201–202,
401 293, 294, 295, 421, 436, 205–207
Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board, 819–820 and reciprocity with U.S.,
401 and Black Hawk, 752–753 202–203
Gwich’in Renewable Resource and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 religion in, 200
Board, 401 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 sovereignty in, 203, 207
Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA), and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, sugar industry in, 201–202, 203,
400, 401 811 204, 206
Gwich’ya Gwich’in, 400 and Hawaii, 204 and trade, 203, 204, 232
Gwynne, John, 674 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831 treaties in, 228–232, 231 table 4
and Little Turtle, 850 voting in, 203–204
Ha-hah-kus-ka (White Elk), 304 and Ohio tribes, 426–427 whaling industry in, 201, 202,
Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee (Peter Pitchlynn), and St. Louis, 438 203
105, 346, 418, 876–877 and Tecumseh, 905 See also Kingdom of Hawaii
Hagan, William T., 32 and Thames, Battle of the, Hawaii Committee of Public Safety,
Hahshequarhiqua, 291 648–649 204
Haibohaa (Branching Horn), 294 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, Hawaii Constitution of 1840, 200
Haida, 196 646–647 Hawaii Constitution of 1864, 203
Haida Nation case, 220 and Tippecanoe River, 440 Hawaiian Homelands Program, 207
Hainai, 268 and Vincennes, 442–443 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
Haisanwee (Horn), 294 and Wabash River, 444 (HHCA), 206, 732
Haldimand, Frederick, 759 and Wayne, Anthony, 914 Hawaiian Islands
Hale, C. H., 230 table 2, 353 and Wells, William, 914 Treaty with the Hawaiian
Half King (Dunquod), 298 Hartford, Treaty of, 245 Islands, December 1849,
Half-Town, 74 Harvey, Thomas H., 332, 333 231 table 4, 232
Halfbreed Commission, 392 Hashke Yich’i’adehyilwod Hawaiian Natives, 199–207
Halfbreed Scrip, 392 (Barboncito), 370, 371, Hawaiian Organic Act, 205, 206
Hall, Emmett, 702 412, 748–749 Hawaiians, 732–733
Hamilton, Allen, 330 Haské Bahnzin (Eskiminzin), Hawkins, Benjamin, 286, 289, 290,
Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of 805–806 821–822, 856–857
Indian Affairs and Haskell Boarding School, 188, 189, Hawley, Joseph, 640
Northern Development 190. See also Schools Hayes, Rutherford B., 868
(Canada), 715–716 Haskell Indian Nations University HBC. See Hudson’s Bay Company
Hamtramck, John F., 914 (HINU), 190 He Who Yawns (Geronimo), 188,
Handsome Lake (Sganyadí:yoh; Hastiin Adiits’a’ii (Henry Chee 268, 812–813
Skaniadario), 75, 76, 289, Dodge), 798–799 Head, Lafayette, 354
649, 814–816 Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), 13, 163, Headright, 140
Hard Hickory, 312 164. See also Iroquois Heald, Nathan, 442, 807, 915
Hard Labor, Treaty of, 282 Haudenosaunee League of Nations, Heart, Jonathan, 420
Hard Rock Café, Seminole purchase 177 Heavy Clouds (Shu-kah-bi), 349
of, 735 Haunsiaugh (Boyer), 298 Heckewelder, John, 246

Index I-19
Hell Gate, 227, 230 table 2 Hopi, 272, 410 Huntington, Samuel, 744
Helm, Linai T., 807 Hopi Reservation, 140 Hupa Reservation, 671
Henderson, John B., 271, 366, 367, Hopson, Peregrine Thomas, 51 Huron, 51, 75, 211, 238, 638
369 Horn (Haisanwee), 294 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second
Hendrick (Theyanoguin, Tiyanoga), Horne, Esther Burnett, 188, 189 Robinson Treaty),
243, 822–823, 836 Horonu, 330 September 9, 1850, 335
Henley, Thomas J., 661 Horseshoe Bend, Battle of Huron-Petun, 278
Henry the Navigator, 49 (Tohopeka), 84, 649–651 Hurr, William, 352
Hepburn, William, 745 Hosmer, Brian C., 838 Huss, John, 333
Hepner, George, 342 House Committee of Interior and Hutchins, Charles, 230 table 2, 353
Her-Holy-Door, 897, 899 Insular Affairs, 197 Hydaburg, 196
Hernandez, General, 835 House Concurrent Resolution 108, Hydro-Quebec. See Quebec Hydro-
Herrera, 853 35, 111, 171, 680, Electric Commission
Herriman, David, 341 683–684, 694, 932, 948, Hyman, Harold, 27
HHCA. See Hawaiian Homes 952–953. See also
Commission Act Termination I-on-i. See Aionai
Hick, John, 316 House Resolution 4497, 682–683 ICC. See Indian Claims Commission
Hickel, Walter, 197 Howard, Benjamin, 807 ICRA. See Indian Civil Rights Act
Hickory Log, 430 Howard, Francis, 276, 277–278 ICWA. See Indian Child Welfare Act
Hicks, Charles, 888 Howard, Mary, 894 Idaho, 225
Hicks, John, 343 Howard, Oliver Otis, 777–778 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 931
Hidatsa, 106, 252, 253, 254 Howe, S. D., 230 table 2, 353 Identity, 689–690
Higby, William, 800 Howechees Ignace, Georgianna, 792
Hill, John, 279 Treaty with the Howechees, etc., IGR. See Institute for Government
Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt. See Joseph, April 1851, 231 table 3 Research
Chief Howling Wolf, 838 IGRA. See Indian Gaming
HINU. See Haskell Indian Nations Hoxie, Frederick, 253–254 Regulatory Act
University Hualapai, 272, 273 IITC. See International Indian Treaty
His Red Nation (Little Crow), Hubbard, Asahel W., 800 Council
847–848 Hubbard, Niles, 886 Illinois, treaties of cession in, 81
Historic Sites Act, 947 Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), 214, table 1
Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, 677, 824–825 235, 238–239, 335, 664, Illinois Confederacy, 412
Ho-Chunk, 23 665, 715 Implied abrogation, 45
Hog Creek Shawnee, 312 Huebschmann, Francis, 339, 348 In re Estate of Kamehameha IV, 205
Hoh, 99 Hui Ala Loa, 207 Indian Act of Canada, 217, 401, 405,
Hole-in-the-Day (Que-we-zance), Hulbert, John, 323, 330 668, 949
355, 365 Hull, William, 293, 791, 915 Bill C-31, 668
Holland, 162 Human remains, 124, 125, 126, Indian affairs, control of, 41
Holland Land Company, 688 725–726. See also Sacred Indian Affairs Committee, 115
Hollow Horn Bear, 901 sites Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties, Vol. 1
Holston, Treaty of, 19, 22, 251, 286, Hunkapapa (Sioux; Hunkpapa, and 2, 693
287, 656. See also Treaty Onkpahpah) Indian Appropriations Act, 31, 97,
with the Cherokee, July Treaty with the Hunkapapa 666–667, 667
2, 1791 Band of the Sioux Tribe, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, 934
Holy Ground, Battle of, 650 July 16, 1825, 304 Indian Arts and Crafts Board Act,
Homestead Act, 27, 29, 32, 59, 270, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and 681
947 Arapaho, April 29, 1868, Indian Bill of Rights, 674
Honas (Ronesass), 298 369 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),
Honolulu Rifles, 203 Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa 36, 118–121, 174, 710
Hoo-yah (the Eagle), 324 Band, October 20, 1865, Indian Citizenship Act, 33
Hooker Jim, 768 359 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), 36,
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, Hunt, Alexander C., 368 692–693
174–175 Hunting rights, 22, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, Indian Civilization Act, 181–182,
Hoover Commission, 34–35 134 270
Hopewell, Treaty of, 19, 22, 57, in Pacific Northwest, 147–150, Indian Civilization Fund Act, 28
71–72, 211, 260–261, 285, 150–155 Indian Claims Commission Act
655–656. See also Treaty in the Upper Midwest, 155–158 (Public Law 726), 34, 171,
with the Cherokee, Huntington, J. W. Perit, 227, 230 682–683. See also Cohen,
November 28, 1785 table 2, 355, 357, 360 Felix S.

I-20 Index
Indian Claims Commission (ICC), 310, 311, 318, 320, 643, Indiana, 19
133–134, 136, 139–140, 652–653, 657, 730, 935, treaties of cession in, 81 table 1
171, 257, 679, 680, 719, 936 Indians of All Tribes, 691
825–826 and Indian Territory, 947, 948 Inherent Right to Self-Government
and Indian New Deal, 934 See also Indian Removal policy, 726
and specific claims, 949, 950 Indian Removal bill, 55 Inhofe, Senator, 140
See also Cohen, Felix S. Indian Reorganization Act (Wheeler- Inshta Theamba (Susette LaFlesche
Indian Code, 321 Howard Act), 34, 35, 36, Tibbles), 905–906
Indian country, 933. See also Indian 111, 133, 170–171, Institute for Government Research
Territory 680–681 (IGR), 33–34, 679
Indian Education: A National and Alaska, 196 Integration, 34–35
Tragedy—A National and allotments, 921 Inter Caetera, 954
Challenge (Kennedy and Federal Acknowledgment Intercourse, and trade, 27–28
Report), 709 Process, 928 Intercourse Acts, 164–165
Indian Education Act, 116, 709 and guardianship/wardship, Internal sovereignty, 947. See also
Indian Education Assistance Act, 932 Sovereignty
116 and Indian Allotment Act, 672 International agreements, Indian
Indian Education Assistance and and Indian New Deal, 934 treaties as, 49–64
Self-Determination Act, and Morton v. Mancari, 708 International Indian Treaty Council
36 and Nixon, Richard, 698 (IITC), 712
Indian Elementary and Secondary See also Allotments; Cohen, Felix International law, 49–50, 54
School Assistance Act, S.; Collier, John International treaties
116. See also Schools Indian rights. See Treaty Rights and legal standards, 55
Indian Financing Act, 117, 929 Indian Rights Association (IRA), and negotiation subjects, 54
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 826–827 Inuit, 195, 209, 216, 217, 218, 220,
(IGRA), 36, 117, 118, Indian Self-Determination Act, 116, 240, 399, 664, 715–716,
121–124, 175, 643, 712 720, 937–938
723–725, 735, 929, 956. Indian Self-Determination and British-Labrador Inuit Peace
See also Gaming Education Act, 173 Treaty, April 8, 1765,
Indian Health Care Improvement Indian Self-Determination and 279–280
Act, 116 Education Assistance James Bay and Northern Quebec
Indian Health Service, 115, 116, 172, Act, 697, 710 Agreement (JBNQA),
941, 950 Indian Service, 27, 34 November 11, 1975,
Indian Intercourse Acts, 28 and education, 184 395–396
Indian Land Consolidation Act, 117 Indian Specific Claims Commission, Northeastern Quebec
Indian Law Enforcement Reform 949 Agreement (NQA),
Act, 116 Indian Springs, Treaty of, 263, 856, January 31, 1978,
Indian Mineral Development Act, 857 397–398
36, 117 Indian Territory, 936–937 Inuit Circumpolar Conference
Indian nations, treaties between, Agreement with the Cherokee (ICC), 938
272–273 and Other Tribes in the Inuit Tapirisat Corporation (ITC),
Indian New Deal, 34, 35, 161, 179, Indian Territory, 398, 401–402, 938
680, 681, 682, 934–935. September 13, 1865, 357 Inuktitut, 279, 396, 403
See also Cohen, Felix S.; treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Inupiat, 196
Collier, John; Costo, See also Indian country; Indian Inuvialuit Agreement of Northwest
Rupert land; Vincennes, Territories, 240
Indian Nonintercourse Act, 919 Indiana Inuvialuit Corporate Group, 399
Indian Oil Leasing Act, 927 Indian title, 920. See also Aboriginal Inuvialuit Final Agreements, June
Indian Peace Commission, 30, 256, title 1984, 398–400, 938
426 Indian Trade Act, 28 Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 399
Indian removal, 23–24, 28–29, 83–92, Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, Inuvik, 400
133, 137, 165, 263–265, 645, 936 Iou-Ol-Umnes
416–417, 430, 935–936 and Alaska, 195 Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes,
end of, 31 Indian Tribal Energy and Self- Wethillas, etc., May 1851,
origins of, 83–86 Determination Act, 734 231 table 3
See also Indian Removal Act; Indian Tribal Government Tax Iowa
Relocation Status Act, 929 repatriation in, 176
Indian Removal Act, 28, 86, 87, 88, Indian Tribal Justice Act, 116 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2
109, 137, 263–264, 305, Indian War of 1855—1856, 227, 428 Iowa Indians, 30, 100, 103

Index I-21
Treaty with the Iowa, September and Ghent, Treaty of, 651 and Indian removal, 83–84, 416,
16, 1815, 295–296 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822 935
Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, and Indian removal, 84, 85–86, and land cessions, 426–427
1824, 302 88, 90, 91, 416, 430, 935 and Lewis, Meriwether, 846
Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., and Indian Removal Act, 652, and Louisiana Purchase, 653
September 17, 1836, 324 653 and Ohio tribes, 426–427
Treaty with the Iowa, November and Indian Territory, 936 Speech to a Delegation of Indian
23, 1837, 328 and Lea, Luke, 842 Chiefs, 252–253
Treaty with the Iowa, October and McIntosh, William, Jr., 857 and St. Clair, Arthur, 902
29, 1838, 329 and New Echota Treaty, 320–321 and St. Louis, 438
Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, and Pushmataha, 882, 883 and Tippecanoe River, 440
1854, 339 and removal, 263–264, 265, 305 treaties under, 262
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, and Ross, John, 891 and Vincennes, 442
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 and Trail of Tears, 657, 658 Jemison, Alice Mae Lee, 832–833
Ioway and trust responsibility, 957 Jennings, Jonathan, 299, 314, 315
and Prairie du Chien, 431 and Worcester v. Georgia, 655, 656 Jerome, David H., 833–834. See also
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Jackson, Helen Hunt (Helen Maria Jerome Commission
August 19, 1825, Fiske), 828–830, 906 Jerome Commission (Cherokee
304–305, 459–463 Jackson, Henry, 197, 683, 952 Commission), 271, 833.
Iqaluit, 240 and Indian Claims Commission, See also Jerome, David H.
Iron Eye (Joseph LaFlesche), 905–906 825 Jesup, Thomas S., 834–836
Iron Whip (Wah-gah-sap-pi), 356 Jackson, Sheldon, 195 Jesus, 815
Iron Wind (Tatarnaza), 294 Jackson, William S., 829 Jicarilla Apache, 25, 144, 268, 272
Iroquois, 13, 19, 23, 51, 53, 75, 211, James, Edward, 159 Jicarilla v. Andrus, 43
235, 236, 237, 243, 244, James Bay and Northern Quebec Jim, Chief, 338
246, 638 Agreement (JBNQA), Jimerson, Ray, 832
and British Crown, treaty with, November 11, 1975, 240, Job Corps, 114
September 24, 1664, 211 395–396, 397, 726, 938 Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA),
and Fort Harmar, 420 James Bay Development 950
See also Haudenosaunee; Six Corporation, 215, 395, Joe, Chief, 338
Nations 397 John Chup-co (Long John), 362
Iroquois Loyalists, 239 James Bay Energy Corporation, 395, John Hat (Tauromee), 365
Isabella, Queen, 49 397 John II, 49
Isabella Indian Reservation, 355 James Bay Treaty. See Canadian Johnson, Andrew, 271
Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha (Puffing Eyes), Indian Treaty 9 Johnson, Guy, 759, 836
358 James I, 76 Johnson, Lyndon, 35, 36, 114, 115,
Isparhecher, Chief, 135, 676 James II, 76 173, 698
Istowun-eh’pata (Packs a Knife), 785 Japan, 199, 229, 687 and Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 912
ITC. See Inuit Tapirisat Corporation Japanese Canadians, 687 Johnson, Richard, 90
Jaramillo, Maria Josefa, 770 Johnson, Sir William, 69, 238, 282,
J-a-pu (the One Who Walks against Jason, Chief, 374 639, 641-642, 759, 823,
the Others), Chief, 303 Jay, John, 75–76 836
Jackson, Andrew, 16, 22, 23, 25, 56, Jay Treaty, 55, 56, 237, 645, 646 Johnson administration, 709
79, 81, 166, 213, 262, 294, JBNQA. See James Bay and Johnson O’Malley Act, 709, 934
297, 299, 301, 650, Northern Quebec Johnson v. M’Intosh, 96, 165, 652, 656,
827–828, 835, 844, 865, Agreement 685–686, 919–920,
909 Jefferson, Thomas, 19–20, 55, 69, 76, 924–925, 953
and Black Hawk, 754 77, 78, 134, 251, 252–253, and government-to-government
and Bureau of Indian Affairs, 436, 648, 831–832 relationship, 930
762 and Boudinot, 758 and right of conquest, 945
and Cass, Lewis, 772 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and right of occupancy/right of
and civilization policy, 83 761 the soil, 946
and Dancing Rabbit Creek and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 and sovereignty, 948
Treaty, 310 and Clark, William, 775 Johnston, Jane, 894
and Dodge, Henry, 798 and Dearborn, Henry, 790 Johnston, John, 330, 894, 914
and eminent domain, 136 and Handsome Lake, 815 Johnston, Joseph, 106
and Gadsden, James, 808 and Harrison, William Henry, Joint Special Committee on the
and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 819–820 Conduct of the Indian
810, 811 and Hawkins, Benjamin, 822 Tribes, 270

I-22 Index
Joint Special Committee to Inquire Treaty with the Umpqua and Kataka (Ka-ta-ka)
into the Condition of the Kalapuya, November 29, Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May
Indian Tribes, 800. See 1854, 342 26, 1837, 327
also Doolittle Kalispel Reservation, 227 Katewah, 301
Commission Kamaiakan, 409, 410 Kathlamet, 229 table 1
Jolliet, Louis, 430 Kamehameha I, 229 Kativik Regional Government, 396,
Jolly, John, 315 Kamehameha II, 229 397
Jondreau, William, 156 Kamehameha III, 229, 230, 231 table 4 Kaw (Kanza), 414
Jones, Chief Wilson, 135 Kamehameha IV, 202, 205, 230 Kaw’s Widow (Mee-kiss), 325
Jones, Horatio, 290 Kamehameha V, 203, 230–231 Kearny, Stephen, 411, 769, 770
Jones, John T., 352, 365 Kanesatake (Lac-des-Deux- Keatechee, 291
Jones, Thomas ap Catesby, 200, 231 Montagnes), 638 Kechemaqua (Kechemaquaw), 300,
table 4 Kansa (Cansa, Kanza), 104, 252, 414 301
Jones, William, 183, 186, 824 Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, Kechewaishke (Buffalo), 433,
Jones v. Meehan, 42, 62 1825, 303 760–761
Joseph, Chief (Joseph the Younger; Treaty with the Kansa, August Kee-o-kuck (the Watchful Fox), 328
Hin-mah-too-lat-kekt; 16, 1825, 304 Kee-way-gee-zhig (Returning Sky),
Thunder Rolling in the Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, 324
Mountains), 837 January 14, 1846, 332 Keechy
Joseph (Ronioness), 298 Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, Treaty with the Comanche,
Joseph the Younger. See Joseph, October 5, 1859, 351 Aionai, Anadarko,
Chief Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Jouett, Charles, 291 1862, 352 1846, 332
Journeycake, Solomon, 309 Kansas, 29, 30 Keeocuck (Keokuk), 302, 364, 753,
Joy, James F., 369 jurisdiction in, 166 754, 776, 807, 811
JTPA. See Job Training Partnership treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Keith, Charles B., 353
Act Kansas Indians Kekionga, 443
Judd, Gerrit P., 201, 202 Treaty with the Kansas, October Keneschoo, 766
Judge, Thomas L., 332 28, 1815, 296 Kennedy, John F., 698, 709, 738
Judson, Wilfred, 215, 701, 702 Kansas Indians case, 166 Kennedy, Robert, 738
Jumper, 316 Kansas-Nebraska Act, 936 Kennedy administration, 173
Jurisdiction Kansas Reservation, 351, 352 Kennedy Report. See Indian
and colonial America, 162, 163 Kanza. See Kansa Education: A National
criminal, 31, 112, 172–173 Kappler, Charles J., 101 Tragedy—A National
issues of, 161–177 Karaho, John, 365 Challenge
See also Sovereignty Karok, 175 Kennedy v. Becker, 151
Kashaya Pomo, 9 Kennewick Man, 725–726
Ka-gway-dosh, 365 Kaska Dena, 403 Kenote, George, 792
Ka-ta-ka. See Kataka Kaskaskia, 79–80, 100 Kentucky, 28
Ka-zhe-cah, 365 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Keokuk (Keeocuck), 302, 364, 753,
Kaahna, 300 June 7, 1803, 290 754, 776, 807, 811
Kagama, 671 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., Keweenaw Bay, 155
Kah milt-pah, 345 August 7, 1803, 290 Kiasutha, 782
Kah-nung-da-tla-geh (Major Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Kickapoo, 72, 73, 79, 100
Ridge), 16, 88, 89, 265, August 13, 1803, 290–291 and Fort Harrison, 421
296, 321, 322, 333, 430, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
888, 909 October 27, 1832, 315 June 7, 1803, 290
Kahnawake, 217 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.,
Kaintwakon. See Cornplanter Peoria, Etc., May 30, August 7, 1803, 290
Kakawipilpathy, 286 1854, 340 Treaty with the Kickapoo,
Kakima, 437 Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., December 9, 1809, 293
Kalakaua, David, 203, 231 table 4, September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Kickapoo,
232 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed September 2, 1815, 295
Kalaniana’ole, Kuhio, 205–206 Seneca and Shawnee, Treaty with the Kickapoo, July
Kalapuya, 98, 225, 226, 229 table 1, Quapaw, Etc., February 30, 1819, 299–300
230 table 2 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Kickapoo,
Treaty with the Kalapuya, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., August 30, 1819, 300
Etc., January 22, 1855, August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Kickapoo, July
343 and Vincennes, 442 19,1820, 299–300

Index I-23
Treaty with the Kickapoo of the See also Medicine Lodge Creek, La Flesche, Joseph (E-sta-mah-za),
Vermillion, September 5, Treaty of 356
1820, 301 Kiowa-Comanche-Apache La-ma-noan (the Axe), 294
Treaty with the Kickapoo, Reservation, 107, 110, 677 La-mee-pris-jeau (Sea Wolf), 294
October 24, 1832, 314 Kiowa-Comanche Reservation, 32, La Nanette, 765
Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 107 La Pointe, 341
18, 1854, 340 Kisketuhug, 341 La Trappe (Majigabo), 798
Treaty with the Kickapoo, June Kitchkume, Louise, 792 Labrador, 216
28, 1863, 353 Kitsai, 268 Labrador Inuit Land Claims
Treaty with the Wea and Klallam, 154, 238 Agreement, 938
Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, Klamath, 35, 104, 116, 139, 227, 230 Lac Court Orielles, 341
296 table 2 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and timber, 141 Indians v. Voigt et al., 41,
August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc., 156, 721–722
and Wabash River, 443 October 14, 1864, 355 Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO), 157
Kickapoo Reservation, 353 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Lac De Flambeau, 341
Kicking Bird (Watohkonk, Black Klamath, etc., October Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes
Eagle; Ténéangopte, 1851, 231 table 3 (Kanesatake), 638
Tene-Angpote, Eagle Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Lac du Flambeau (LdF), 157
Striking with Talons), Shasta, and Scott’s River, Lac-Saint-Jean, 638
838, 850, 899 November 1851, 231 LaDuke, Vincent, 840
Kidd, Meredith H., 786 table 3 LaDuke, Winona, 840–842
Kik-i-állus Klamath Economic Self-Sufficiency LaFlesche, Francis, 906
Treaty with the Dwamish, Plan, 141 LaFlesche, Joseph (Iron Eye),
Suquamish, Etc., January Klamath Indian Reservation, 227 905–906
22, 1855, 343 Klamath Reservation, 141, 227 LaFlesche, Mary Gale, 905–906
Kilkatat, 344–345 Klamath Termination Act, 141, 694 LaFlesche, Susan, 906
King Philip’s War. See Metacom’s Klamath Tribal Forest Management LaFlesche, Suzette “Bright Eyes,”
War Plans, 141 830
Kingdom of Hawaii, 207, 732–733. Klatskania, 229 table 1 Lafountain, F., 330
See also Hawaii Klinquit, 345 Lake of Two Mountains, 75
Kingsbury, Cyrus, 417 Kluane, 727 Lake Winnibigoshish
Kinship relationship, 39 Knox, Henry, 14–15, 19, 53, 73, 74, Treaty with the Chippewa of the
Kintpuash (Captain Jack), 767–768 261, 284, 287, 420, 744, Mississippi and the
Kinzie, John, 807 839–840, 903 Pillager and Lake
Kinzua Dam project, 44 and Indian removal, 83 Winnibigoshish Bands,
Kiowa, 10, 30, 40, 43, 61, 100, 104, Ko-Yate March 11, 1863, 353
110, 268–269, 270, 271, Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A- Treaty with the Chippewa,
677–678 Si, etc., May 1851, 231 Mississippi, Pilager, and
and education, 182 table 3 Lake Winnibigoshish
and jurisdiction, 168–169 Kondiaronk (the Rat), 278 Bands, May 7, 1864, 355
and reconstruction treaty, Konnack, 229 table 1 Lakmiut Kalapuya, 229 table 1
106–107 Konohiki (land managers), 228 Lakota Reservation, 107, 139
Treaty with the Comanche, Koo-tah-waun-nay, 319 Lakota (Sioux), 101, 106, 166–167,
Kiowa, and Apache, Kootenai 179, 705
July 27, 1853, 338, Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., and gold mining, 139–140
500–502 July 16, 1855, 346 and reconstruction treaty, 107
Treaty with the Comanche and Kosciuszko, Tadeusz, 850 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the
Kiowa, October 18, 1865, Kouns, Nathan, 314, 315 Sioux, Etc., September
358 Kow-was-say-ee, 345 17, 1851, 336–337
Treaty with the Kiowa, Kuleana grants, 201 and Wounded Knee, occupation
Comanche, and Apache, Kutenai, 99, 227 of, 704–706
October 21, 1867, 366, Kwalin Dun, 727 See also Sioux
550–552 Lamberth, Royce, 955
Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May La Barr, Governor, 236 Lambros, Nicholas J., 710–711
26, 1837, 327 La-da-ila, 895 Lamer, Antonio, 728
Treaty with the Kiowa and La Famine, Treaty of, 236 Lamont, Lawrence “Buddy,” 705
Comanche, October 21, La Ferine, 300 Lamson, Chauncey, 848
1867, 365–366 La Flesche, Francis, 179 Lamson, Nathan, 848

I-24 Index
Lanape, 424. See also Delaware See also Aboriginal title Leschi, Chief, 428, 896
Land Lane, Barbara, 706 Leupp, Francis, 182, 680, 824,
and eminent domain, 136 Lane, Joseph, 225, 229 table 1 844–845
in exchange for land, 137 Langtree, Samuel D., 55 Levi, Francis Thomas, 742
and natural resources, 136–137 Language barrier, 6, 10–11, 15, 135, Lewis, Andrew, 424
as real property, 134–135 148 Lewis, Dixon W., 346
reservations as payment for, L’Anse, 341 Lewis, M. G., 332
137–138 Laplace, C. P. T., 200, 201 Lewis, Meriwether, 252, 415, 438,
and selling rights, 135 Lapwai, 230 table 2 775, 837, 845–847
value of, 136–137 Treaty of, 227 and Jefferson, Thomas, 831
Land acquisition, 13, 14–18, 19–25, Laramie, Jacques, 422 See also Clark, William; Lewis
76. See also Land cession Larrabee, Nellie, 784 and Clark Expedition;
Land and Water Settlement Acts, 116 Larsen, Lewis, 430 Louisiana Purchase
Land cession, 14, 39 Las Casas, Bartolomé de, 50, 924 Lewis, Reazen, 293
and Indian removal, 83–92 LaSalle, Robert Cavalier de, 437 Lewis, Thomas, 424
and Jefferson, Thomas, 426–427 Laskin, Bora, 702 Lewis, William, 845
See also Land acquisition Last-in-time rule, 43 Lewis and Clark expedition, 251,
Land claims Latopia, 286 252, 253, 255. See also
in Alaska, 196–199 Latrobe, John, 781 Clark, William; Lewis,
in Canada, 215–217 Laurens, Anna, 788 Meriwether
in Hawaii, 200–202 Laurens, Henry, 788 Li-ay-was, 345
Land compensation, 14–15, 16, Law, 27 Liguest, Pierre de LeClede, 439
17–18, 20, 21–22, 24, 42, enforcement, 6, 8–9 Liliuokalani, Queen (Lydia
44, 101–102, 136 See also Federal Indian law; Kamaka’eha Dominic),
in Alaska, 195, 196–198 Treaty law 204, 205, 232
in Canada, 239, 240, 241 The Law of Nations (Vattel), 50, 945, Limited trust, 955. See also Trust
and confederate treaties, 103–104 946 Doctrine
in Hawaii, 200 Lawrence, Kip, 409 Lincoln, Abraham, 927
lack of, 133–134 Lawyer (Aleiya), 345, 374 Lipan Apache, 268
in Northern Plains, 255, 257 Layauvois, 291 Litigation, 39
in the South, 77–78, 79 LCO. See Lac Courte Oreilles Little Beard, 76
in southeast, 261 LCO v. Voigt, 249 Little Beard’s Reservation, 290
in southern plains and LdF. See Lac du Flambeau Little Bighorn, Battle of, 256, 719
southwest, 269, 270, 272 Le Boeuf (Buffalo), 433, 760–761 Little Billy, 287
and unratified treaties, 97, 98, 99 Le Petit Carbeau, 292 Little Bluff (Dohasan), 850, 896
and U.S. Constitution, 75, 76, 136 Lea, Luke, 760, 842–843 Little Chief (Ga-he-ga-zhinga), 356
See also Land cession; Land Leach, D. C., 355 Little Crow (Taoyateduta; His Red
ownership; Land League of Nations, 177 Nation), 441, 847–848
payments; under Lean Bear, 352 Little Decoria, 356
individual treaties; under Leavenworth, Jesse, 269, 358, 367, Little Hawk, 784
individual treaty sites 755 Little Hill, 356
Land Grant College Act. See Morrill LeBlanc, Albert, 156, 710–711 Little Moon (We-che-gla-la), 303
Act Leclede, Pierre, 774 Little Mountain, 838
Land in Severalty Act. See General Lee, Arthur, 285 Little Prince, 308
Allotment Act Lee, Robert E., 106, 869 Little Raven, 351, 367
Land Ordinance, 27, 72 LeFleur, Louis, 843 Little Robe, 367
Land ownership, 24, 63, 133, 134 LeFlore, Chief Greenwood, 9, 86, Little Thunder, 900–901
and allotments, 138 264, 843–844 Little Turtle (Michikinikwa), 73, 76,
in Hawaii, 201–202 Left Hand (Namos), 352 290, 292, 293, 442, 443,
and Indian culture, 144 Legion army, 646 646, 849–850, 902, 913,
and religion, 144 Legislation, 27 914
and sovereignty, 135–136 Lemoite, 775 Little White Bear (Mato-che-gal-lah),
See also Allotment; Natural Lenape, 163 304
resources; Removal; Lenni Lenape (the Delaware), 13 Little Wolf, 352, 801, 802
Reservations Lepan Littleman, Peter D., 334
Land tenure, 8, 134, 135 Treaty with the Comanche, Livingston, Robert, 69
Land title, 919 Aionai, Anadarko, Locke, John, 832
and doctrine of discovery, Caddo, Etc., May 15, Logan, James, 332
924–925 1846, 332 Logan, William, 230 table 2

Index I-25
Logging, 155 Lummi, 154 Makah Indian Tribe v. McCauly, 40

Lone Chief (A-shno-ni-kah-gah-hi, Lumpkin, Wilson, 22, 656 Makah v. Schoettler, 152
Ash-nan-e-kah-gah-he), Lunalilo, King, 203, 231 Makataimeshekiakiak (Black Hawk),
349, 356 Lurie, Nancy, 792 255, 752–754, 776, 798,
Lone Wolf, Chief, 43, 61, 107, 110, Lymans, Wyllys, 851 807, 810, 811
168–169, 677, 838, 850–851 Lynch, Joseph M., 333 Makivik Corporation, 215
Lone Wolf (A-Kei-Quodle), 677 Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Malecite (Malisee), 70, 216
Lone Wolf the Younger Protective Association, Maliseet (Malisee), 116, 211, 235, 236,
(Mamadayte), 851 174–175, 947 237
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 10, 43, 44, 61, Maloney, Jake, 742–743
63, 107, 109, 110–111, 138, Ma-ha-nin-ga (No Knife), 356 Malotte (DeMaillot), Keziah, 807
140, 168–169, 271, Ma-hos-kah (White Cloud), 302 Malunthy, 286
677–678, 943, 954 Ma-laigne, Chief, 333 Mamadayte (Guopahko; Lone Wolf
and trust doctrine, 955 Macacanaw, 300 the Younger), 851
and trust responsibility, 957 Macatewaket, 300 Mamande (Screaming Above), 897
Long Bull (Tan-tan-ka-has-ka), Macatiwaaluna (Chien Noir), 292 Mamanti, 838, 851
Chief, 360 Mackenzie, Ranald S., 851, 871 Man-ah-to-wah, 364
Long John (John Chup-co), 362 Mackenzie Valley Envikronmental Man Who Interprets (Henry Chee
Long Walk, 370–372, 412, 661–662 Impact Review Board, Dodge), 798–799
Longest Walk, 712–713 401 Mandan, 24, 101, 106, 252, 253, 254
Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 830, Madeira Islands, 49 Treaty of Fort Laramie with the
894, 906 Madison, Dolley, 870 Sioux, Etc., September
Longueuil, 238 Madison, James, 19, 80, 758 17, 1851, 336–337
Longwha and Cass, Lewis, 771 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe,
Treaty with the Comanche, and Chouteau, Auguste, 774 July 30, 1825, 304
Aionai, Anadarko, and Clark, William, 776 Manifest Destiny, 251
Caddo, Etc., May 15, and Dearborn, Henry, 790 Manitoba Act (Canada), 239, 664,
1846, 332 and Wabash River, 444 664–666
Looking Cloud, Fritz Arlo, 744 Mah-hee, 352 Manitoba Post Treaty. See Canadian
Looking Glass, 410 Mah-ne-hah-nah (Great Walker), 302 Indian Treaty 2
Lord Dunsmore’s War, 245, 246 Mah-to-wee-tah (White Bear’s Face), Manitoulin Island Treaty, 642
Lorette, 75 304 Mankiller, Wilma Pearl, 851–853
Lorimer, L., 293 Mahawaha, 671 Mann, Luther, Jr., 354
Loughery, Ardavan S., 334 Mahican (Mohegan, Mohican), 116, Manpinsaba (Black Cloud), 294
Louis XIV, 278 243, 305 Manuelito, 267, 370, 371, 412, 662,
Louisiana, 28 Main Poc, 439–440, 443 853–854
treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Maine, 75–76 Manypenny, George W., 24, 226,
Louisiana Cession, 55–56 Maine Implementing Act (MIA), 718 338, 339, 340, 341, 343,
Louisiana Purchase, 20, 21, 55, 77, Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act 344, 346, 347, 349, 761,
78, 84, 134, 137, 252, 262, (MICSA), 247, 716–718 842
417, 653 Maine Indian Tribal-State Maricopa, 272, 273
and Indian removal, 935, 936 Commission (MITSC), Market Revolution, 84
See also Clark, William; Lewis, 718 Markham, William, 873
Meriwether Maison v. Confederated Tribes of the Marquesas Islands, 200
Louisiana Territory, 427 Umatilla Reservation, 152 Marquette, Jacques, 430
compensation in, 80 Majigabo (Great Speaker, or La Marshall, Benjamin, 313
treaties in, 80 Trappe), 798 Marshall, Donald, 720
Love, Benjamin S., 337 Majoney, Patrick, 715–716 Marshall, John, 11, 22, 40, 56–57, 60,
Love, Robert H., 362 Major Crimes Act, 31, 60, 167, 670, 81, 88, 136, 165–166, 184,
Lower Brulé 671, 714, 933, 948 263, 639, 652, 653, 654,
Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Makaainana (Maka’ainana; 655–656, 671, 692, 832,
Brulé Band, October 14, commoners), 228 920
1865, 357 Makah, 99, 155, 230 table 2 and aboriginal title, 215
Lower Sioux Agency Indian Treaty with the Makah, July 20, and Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Reservation, 441 1815, 294–295 762
Lowry, John, 296 Treaty with the Makah Tribe, and doctrine of discovery,
Loyalty, 13 October 6, 1825, 306 924–925
Lumbee Regional Development Treaty with the Makah, January and domestic dependent nation,
Association, 950 31, 1855, 344 213, 925–926

I-26 Index
Marshall, John (cont.) McCoy, John L., 333 American Indian

and guardianship/wardship, McCullough, John L., 421 Movement
931 McCurtain, Daniel, 302 Meanymsecah, 286
and Indian removal, 935 McDonald, J. L., 302 Medawah-Kanton. See
and right of conquest, 945 McDonald, Peter, 912 Mdewakanton
and right of occupancy/right of McDougall, William, 665 Medawakanton. See Mdewakanton
the soil, 946 McElvain, John, 309, 312 Medicine Creek, 230 table 2
and sovereignty, 212–213, 948 McGillivray, Alexander, 52, 260, 261, treaty history of, 427–428
and treaties, 954 287, 648, 649, 839, Treaty of, 61, 63, 99, 106–107, 110,
and Trust Doctrine, 955 855–856 169, 226, 227, 271,
Marshall, Thurgood, 112, 113, 703, McGilvery, William, 290, 291, 313 427–428, 695, 711
722 McGovern, Francis, 156 See also Treaty with the
Marshall, William, 320 McIntosh, D. N., 363 Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.,
Marshall case. See R. v. Marshall McIntosh, J., 301 December 26, 1854
Marshall decisions, 216 McIntosh, William, Jr., 79, 263, 292, Medicine Lodge, Treaty of, 366–367,
Marshall Trilogy, 166, 172 301, 302–303, 649, 810, 677. See also Treaty with
Martin, Brice, 333 856–857, 865 the Cheyenne and
Martin, Henry W., 364 McKay, James, 377 Arapaho, October 28,
Martin, Joseph, 286 McKean, William K., 342 1867
Martin, Morgan L., 334 McKee, Redick, 228, 231 table 3, 660 Medill, William, 24, 334
Martinez, Mariano, 334 McKenna, Joseph, 151, 678 Mee-kiss (Kaw’s Widow), 325
Martland, Ronald, 701 McKenney, Thomas L., 307–308, 761, Mee-sée-qua-quilch
Marufo, Anne, 861 886. See also Bureau of Treaty with the Dwamish,
Marvis, Thomas, 308 Indian Affairs Suquamish, Etc., January
Mascouten, 278, 443 McKennon, Archibald S., 786 22, 1855, 343
Masham, Sir William, 915 McKenzie, Ann, 807 Meeds, Lloyd, 712, 713
Mashantucket Pequot, 41, 116 McKenzie, Richard, 690 Meeker, Nathan C., 869
Mashpee Wampanoag, 928, 942 McKinley, William, 232, 676, 824 MEI. See Menominee Enterprises,
Massachusetts, 30, 72, 75–76 and Hawaii, 205 Inc.
Massachusetts Bay Colony, 179 McKinley Act, 204 Meigs, Return J., 291, 292
Massacre Cave, 411 McLachlin, Beverly, 218 Memoranda of understanding, 5
Massacres, 96 McLamore, J., 291 Memorandum writers, 35
Massasoit (Ousa Mequin; Yellow McLaughlin, James, 899 Menard, Pierre, 309
Feather), 854–855, 858, McLean, John, 312 Mendawakanton. See Mdewakanton
859 McLish, John, 327 Meninock, Chief, 150
Master of Life, 647 McMinn, Joseph, 297 Menominee, Chief, 440
Matacur, William, 309 McNair, Alexander, 776 Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI),
Mather, Thomas, 304, 413 McNair, Clement V., 333 172
Matlock, G. C., 333 McNiel, John, 309 Menominee (Menominie), 23, 35, 45,
Mato-che-gal-lah (Little White Bear), McQueen, Peter, 866 91–92, 116, 139, 278
304 Mdewakanton (Medawah-Kanton, and Prairie du Chien, 431
Matthew Grey Eyes, 312 Medawakanton, and termination, 172
Mattz v. Arnett, 45 Mendawakanton), 100, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
Mauk-pee-au-cat-paun, 324 325 August 11, 1827, 307
Maulson, Tom, 157 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Menominee,
Maw, George, 308 Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 March 30, 1817, 297
Mawedopenais, Chief, 377 Treaty with the Sioux— Treaty with the Menominee,
May-zin (Checkered), 324 Mdewakanton and February 8, 1831, 311
Mayhew family, 180 Wahpakoota Bands, Treaty with the Menominee,
Mayo, 403–404 August 5, 1851, 336 February 17, 1831, 311
McArthur, Duncan, 295, 298 MDNR. See Michigan Department of Treaty with the Menominee,
McClanahan decision, 42 Natural Resources October 27, 1832, 315
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Me-cos-ta, 323 Treaty with the Menominee,
Commission, 62, 113, 114, Me-mot-way, 325 September 3, 1836, 324
702–703, 952 Me-no-ke-shick, 365 Treaty with the Menominee,
McCloud, Janet, 152 Meacham, Albert B., 31 October 18, 1848,
McCool, Daniel, 144 Meadow Lake Tribal Council, 216 333–334
McCormick, Kelly Jean, 743 Means, Russell, 700, 704–706, 743, Treaty with the Menominee,
McCoy, Rev. Isaac, 22 747, 751, 857–858. See also May 12, 1854, 339

Index I-27
Treaty with the Menominee, Mi-Chop-Da Michilimackinac, Michigan

February 22, 1856, 348 Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, Es- treaty history of, 428–429
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Kun, etc., August 1851, See also Treaty with the Ottawa
August 19, 1825, 231 table 3 and Chippewa, July 6,
304–305, 459–463 MIA. See Maine Implementing Act 1820; Treaty with the
Menominee Reservation, 112, 684, Miami, 16, 17, 20, 55, 72, 73, 79, Ottawa, Etc., March 28,
695 90–91, 100, 244, 245, 247, 1836; Treaty with the
Menominee Restoration Act, 36 278, 412, 444 Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
Menominee Termination Act, 45 and Fort Harrison, 421 1795
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United and St. Joseph, 436 Micmac. See Mi’kmaq
States, 45, 693–695 and St. Louis, 438 MICSA. See Maine Indian Claims
Mentor-Protégé Program, 33 Supplemental Treaty with the Settlement Act
Meriam, Lewis, 33, 189, 679 Miami, Etc., September Middle Oregon, 230 table 2
Meriam Report, 33–34, 189, 679–680, 30, 1809, 293 Treaty of, 149, 227, 415
682, 923 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Treaty with the Middle Oregon
Meriwether, David, 297, 301 June 7, 1803, 290 Tribes, November 15,
Meriwether, James, 302 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., 1865, 360
Meriwether, Lucy, 845 August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Tribes of Middle
Merriam Report, 709. See also Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Oregon, June 25, 1855,
Assimilation September 30, 1809, 346
Mes-quaw, 323 293 Middleton, Frederick, 803
Mes-quaw-buck, 322 Treaty with the Miami, October Migration, westward, 84
Mescalero, 25 6, 1818, 299 Mijaw-ke-ke-shik, 365
Mess-Sett, 322 Treaty with the Miami, October Mikasuki Seminoles, 102–103
Metacom, 858–861, 916 23, 1826, 307 Mi’kmaq (Micmac), 51–52, 176, 211,
Metacom’s War (King Philip’s War), Treaty with the Miami, February 216, 235, 236, 237–238
243, 244 11, 1828, 308 Mikwendaagoziwag (They Will Not
Métis (Metis), 209, 214–215, 216, 217, Treaty with the Miami, October Be Forgotten), 433
218, 219, 220, 239, 240, 23, 1834, 319 Miles, John, 801
399, 401, 664–666, 720, Treaty with the Miami, Miles, Nelson, 812–813, 901
938–940 November 6, 1838, 329 Military
Canadian Indian Treaty 3 Treaty with the Miami, draft, 169
(Northwest Angle November 28, 1840, 330 and education, 188
Treaty), October 3, 1873, Treaty with the Miami, June 5, Mille Lacs, 157
377 1854, 340 Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians
Canadian Indian Treaty 8, June Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed v. Minnesota, 11, 41, 42,
21, 1899, 385–387 Seneca and Shawnee, 46, 62, 157, 158,
Canadian Indian Treaty 10, Quapaw, Etc., February 730–731, 954
September 19, 1906, 23, 1867, 365 Miller, Samuel, 60, 671
August 19, 1907, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Milroy, Samuel, 330
390–391 August 3, 1795, 289 Min-e-do-wob, 365
Sahtu Dene and Métis Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Min-tom-in, 325
Comprehensive Land July 22, 1814, 293–294 Mineral resources, 31, 36
Claim Agreement, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., in Alaska, 198
September 6, 1993, September 8, 1815, 295 See also Natural resources
405–406 and Vincennes, 442 Mingatushka, 286
Metlakatla, 196 and Wabash River, 443 Mingo, 245
Metosenyah, Thomas, 365 Miantonomi (Miantonomo), 766, Mingo Pooscoos, 291
Mexican-American War, 28, 29, 57, 767, 907 Miniconjou, 168
659, 660. See also Micco, Hoboithle, 856 Treaty with the Sioux—
Guadalupe, Treaty of Michigamia Miniconjou Band,
Mexican Cession, 137 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., October 10, 1865, 357
Mexican independence, 85 October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Mexico, 24, 28, 29, 100, 169, 254 Michigan, 28 Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
and California, 228 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 369
and independence from Spain, Michigan Department of Natural Mining, 139–141. See also Natural
53 Resources (MDNR), 156 resources
and Texas, 57 Michikinikwa (Little Turtle), 443, Mining Law, 947
treaties with, 267, 268 849–850 Minisink, 52, 282

I-28 Index
Minitaree Missouri v. Holland, 45 Monroe, James, 19, 85, 262, 655

Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Missouria, 25 and Clark, William, 776
Minitaree Tribe, July 30, Mitchel, Colin, 656 and Gadsden, James, 809
1825, 304 Mitchel v. United States, 656–657 and Indian removal, 416, 935
Minnesota, 23 Mitchell, Chester, 788 and Indian Territory, 936
jurisdiction in, 172 Mitchell, D. D., 254, 336, 842 and Jackson, Andrew, 828
Minnesota Enabling Act, 730, 731 Mitchell, David Brydie, 298 Monroe Doctrine, 203
Mis-qua-dace, 355 Mitchell, George, 739, 746, 750. See Montagnais, 638
Mishinemackinong, 428 also American Indian Montalban, Ricardo, 802
Missionaries, 85 Movement Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 43
and education, 179, 180, 182–184, Mitchell, John, 365 Montana v. United States, 63–64, 113,
185 Mitchell, Mike, 720–721 174, 714
See also Religion Mitchell, Samuel, 290 Montmagny, Governor, 236
Missionary associations, 30 Mitchell case, 720–721 Montour (Pauquia), 292
Mississauga, 239 MITSC. See Maine Indian Tribal- Montreal, Articles of Capitulation of,
Williams treaties with the State Commission 637–638
Chippewa and the Miwok, 228 Montreal, Treaty of, August 7, 1701,
Mississauga, October to Mix, Charles E., 349, 350 235, 236, 244–245,
November 1923, Mixanno, 860 278–279
393–394, 627–635 Mixed Seneca Montreal Conference, 236
Mississippi Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Moore v. United States, 337
and Indian removal, 86 Seneca and Shawnee, Moor’s Charity School, 180. See also
Treaty with the Chippewa of the Quapaw, Etc., February Schools
Mississippi and the 23, 1867, 365 Moose Dung, Chief, 354
Pillager and Lake M’Kee, John, 297 Mooshulatubbee. See Mushulatubbe
Winnibigoshish Bands, Mo-chu-no-zhi (Standing Bear), Morgan, George, 246
March 11, 1863, 353 829–830, 903–904, 905, Morgan, Colonel Jacob, 796, 799
Treaty with the Chippewa, 906 Morgan, Lewis, 816
Mississippi, Pilager, and Mo-cuck-koosh, 329 Morgan, Michael Oliver, 862
Lake Winnibigoshish Mo-less, 352 Morgan, Thomas J., 185, 186, 826
Bands, May 7, 1864, 353, Mo-sack, Chief, 325 Morgan, Willoughby, 310
355 Mo-ta, Chief, 320 Morgan Report, 205
Treaty with the Chippewa of the Modern treaties/comprehensive Morning Star (Dull Knife), 801–802
Mississippi, March 19, land claim agreements Morrill, Ashley C., 354, 355
1867, 365 (Canada), 215, 216, 235, Morrill Act (Land Grant College
Mississippi River, 77 236, 395–407, 702, 920, Act), 27, 29
Mississippi Territory, 20 940–941 Morris, Alexander, 377
and Indian removal, 84 Modoc, 104, 227, 230 table 2 Morris, Robert, 76, 289
Missouri, 28, 100, 226, 252, 253 and timber, 141 Morris, Thomas, 886
treaties of cession in, 81 table 2 Modoc War, 227 Morrow, William, 392
Treaty with the Otoe and Mohawk, 51, 72–73, 75, 217, 236, 243, Morse, Jedidiah, 745
Missouri Tribes, 244, 278 Morton v. Mancari, 62, 708–709
September 26, 1825, 306 Treaty with the Mohawk, March Morton v. Ruiz, 43
Treaty with the Otoe and 29, 1797, 289 Mose-so, 325
Missouri, September 21, See also Six Nations Moses, Chief, 385
1833, 316–317 Mohawk, William, 348 Moshulatubbee. See
Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., Mohegan. See Mahican Mooshulatubbee
October 15, 1835, 325 Mohican. See Mahican “Mother Earth,” 136
Treaty with the Otoe and Mojave, 272, 273 Mount Dexter, Treaty of, 20
Missouri, March 15, Molala (Molel), 225, 229 table 1, 230 Movable type, 49
1854, 338 table 2 Movie industry, 254
Treaty with the Confederated Treaty with the Molala, Muache, 272
Otoe and Missouri, December 21, 1855, 348 Muahuache Ute, 272
December 9, 1854, 342 Mole Lake, 157 Mucathaanamickee, 302
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Molel. See Molala Muck Rose, 319, 322
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 Mon-sai-raa (Rusty), 294 Muckleshoot (Muckelshoot), 152,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Mongrain, 438 154
Missouri, May 18, 1854, Monk, Justice, 663 and Medicine Creek, 427–428
339–340 Monopsony, 15 Muckuk Kosh, 330

Index I-29
Mudeator, Matthew, 343 Narcesagata (the Hard Stone), 294 Native Hawaiians, 199–207, 732–733
Munsee, 315 Narragansett, 116 Native village, 198
Treaty with the Stockbridge and Nas-waw-kee, 323 Nativist Redstick Creek revolt,
Munsee, September 3, Nasa Reah, 301 262–263
1839, 330 Naskapi, 240 Natural resources, 133–134, 134–135,
Treaty with the Stockbridge and Northeastern Quebec 136–137, 144
Munsee, February 5, Agreement (NQA), in Alaska, 195–196
1856, 348 January 31, 1978, 397–398 See also Gold; Mineral resources;
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Nascapi Development Corporation, Mining; Timber; Water
July 4, 1805, 291 397 Nau-tay-sah-pah, 324
Murphy, Thomas, 269, 358, 363, 364, Nascapi Health and Social Services Naush-waw-pi-tant, 322
365 Consultative Committee, Navajo, 18, 25, 30, 52, 62, 88, 100,
Murray, James, 238, 638 397 104, 107, 267, 268, 271,
Muscogee Creek, 260, 261, 262, 419 National Advisory Council on 272, 410–412, 691–692,
Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Indian Education, 702–703, 714–715
August 4, 1835, 320 709–710 and Fort Sumner, 425–426
Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May National Assembly of Quebec, 215 and gaming, 176
26, 1837, 327 National Congress of American and jurisdiction, 173, 174
Muscogee Nation v. Hodel, 43 Indians (NCAI), 35, 682, and Long Walk, 661–662
Museums, 125–126 792, 794, 934, 958 Treaty with the Navajo,
Mush, John, 365 National Environmental Protection September, 1849, 334
Mushulatubbe (Mooshulatubbee, Act, 956 Treaty with the Navajo, June 1,
Moshulatubbee), 86, 264, National Forest Service, 174–175 1868, 370–372, 552–556
302 National Historic Preservation Act, Navajo Reservation, 140, 170, 173,
Musquaconocah, 286 947 267, 372, 686, 691–692
Mut-tut-tah, 364 National Indian Board of Education, Navajo Tribal Code, 714
Myer, Dillon S., 911 709 Navajo Tribal Council, 173
National Indian Education Advisory Naw-squi-base, 325
Na-al-ye, 342 Committee, 709 Nawb-bwitt, 325
Na-cho Nyak Dun. See Nacho Nyak National Indian Gaming Nay-gee-zhig (Driving Clouds),
Dun Commission (NIGC), 36, 323–324
Na-hel-ta, 342 121, 122, 723 NCAI. See National Congress of
Na-maing-sa (the Fish), 294 National Indian Youth Council, 152 American Indians
Nacho Nyak Dun (Na-cho Nyak National Industrial Recovery Act, 34 Ne-con-he-con, 351
Dun) National Museum of the American Ne-ha-tho-clo, 316
Nacho Nyak Dun Final Indian Act, 118 Ne-o-mon-ni, 328
Agreement, May 29, National Museum of the American Ne-sour-quoit, 352
1993, 403–404 Indian (NMAI), 733–734 Neah Bay, 99, 226
Nader, Ralph, 738 National Pollution Discharge Nebraska, 29, 30
Nag-ga-rash, 352 Elimination System jurisdiction in, 161, 172
NAGPRA. See Native American permits, 117–118 treaties of cession in, 81 table 2
Graves Protection and National Recovery Administration Nee-so-aw-quet, 320
Repatriation Act (NRA), 34 Neighborhood Youth Corps, 114
Nakota (Sioux) Nationalism, 185 Neolin, 879
Canadian Indian Treaty 4 Native Alaskans, 195–199 Nes-mo-ea (the Wolf), 328
(Qu’Appelle Treaty), Native American Church, 173, 175 Nesmith, James W., 800
September 15, 1874, Native American Church v. Navajo Nesowakee, 302
378–380 Council, 173 Nevada, 175
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Native American Graves Protection Nevada v. Hicks, 113
Sioux, Etc., September and Repatriation Act and government-to-government
17, 1851, 336–337 (NAGPRA), 118, 124–126, relationship, 930–931
See also Assiniboine; Sioux 175, 176, 725–726, 947. See and sovereignty, 948
Namos (Left Hand), 352 also Sacred sites New Brunswick, 216
Nananawtunu, 860 Native American Housing New Course of Studies, 187
Nankanandee, 294 Assistance and Self- New Echota
Nanticoke, 70, 282 Determination Act, 116 treaty history of, 429–430
Napoleon, 77, 427, 831 Native American Programs Act, 929 Treaty of, 16, 23, 88–89, 137, 265,
Narbona, Antonia, 267, 410–411 Native American Rights Fund, 152, 320–322, 430, 653, 657,
Narbona, Chief, 853 942, 950 658

I-30 Index
New Echota (cont.) Nisqually River, 152 Treaty with the Northern
See also Treaty with the Cherokee, Nitakechi, 86 Cheyenne and Northern
December 29, 1835 Nittuckachee, 302 Arapaho, May 10, 1868,
New France, 235 Nixon, Richard, 35, 36, 115, 116, 172, 369–370
New Mexico Territory, 100 173, 689, 691, 709, 747 Northern Great Plains, treaties in,
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, and Alaska, 197, 198 251–257
731 and Costo, Rupert, 783 Northern Ponca, 172, 173
New Netherlands, 211 and Deer, Ada E., 792 Northern Quebec Inuit Association,
New Orleans, 77 Message to Congress, July 8, 215, 395, 397
New Orleans, Battle of, 85 1970, 697–698 Northrop, Sarah Bird, 887
New York, 23, 55, 75–76, 211 Nixon administration, 705, 740 Northwest Angle Treaty. See
treaties of, 16, 52, 54, 89–90 NMAI. See National Museum of the Canadian Indian Treaty
Treaty of, 261 American Indian 3, October 3, 1873
Treaty with the New York No-heart, 352 Northwest Indian Fisheries
Indians, January 15, No Knife (Ma-ha-nin-ga), 356 Commission, 155
1838, 329 No Water, 784 Northwest Mounted Police, 240
New York Power Authority (NYPA), Nocona, Peta, 871 Northwest Ordinance, 27–28, 72, 420
688 Noe-Ma Article III, 645
New Zealand, 203 Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., Northwest Territory, 19, 20, 215, 216,
Newby, E. W. B., 267 August 1851, 231 table 3 665
Newlands Resolution, 205 Noise (Wah-no-ke-ga), 356 compensation in, 80
Newman, Daniel, 301 Noisy Pawnee treaties in, 79–81, 81 table
Nez Perce (Nez Percé), 99, 104, 107, Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, Northwestern Shoshone
137, 227, 230 table 2, June 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Shoshone—
409–410, 414, 415, Nolo, 302 Northwestern Bands,
696–697 Non-che-ning-ga, 328 July 30, 1863, 354
and education, 182 Non-Intercourse Act, 15, 212 Northwestern Territory Order, 664
Treaty with the Nez Percé, June Nonrecognized tribes, 928, 929, Nova Scotia, 216
11, 1855, 345 941–942. See also NQA. See Northeastern Quebec
Treaty with the Nez Perce, June Federally recognized Agreement
9, 1863, 353, 513–518 tribes; State-recognized N’Quentl-má-mish
Treaty with the Nez Percé, tribes Treaty with the Dwamish,
August 13, 1868, 374 Noo-whá-ha Suquamish, Etc., January
Nez Perce Reservation, 227 Treaty with the Dwamish, 22, 1855, 343
NFA. See Nisga’a Final Agreement Suquamish, Etc., January NRA. See National Recovery
Niagara Treaty of 1764, 639–640 22, 1855, 343 Administration
Nichol, Alfred, 747 Nook-wa-cháh-mish NTI. See Nunavut Tunngavik
Nicholson, James, 355 Treaty with the Dwamish, Incorporated
Nicolas, Chief, 862 Suquamish, Etc., January Numbered treaties, 236, 239–240
NIGC. See National Indian Gaming 22, 1855, 343 Nunavut, 177, 240
Commission Nordwall, Adam, 861 Nunavut Land Claims
Nigeria, 170 Norris, Thomas, 642 Agreement, May 25,
Nihinessicoe, 286 the North, removal treaties in, 89–92 1993, 401–403, 938
Nihipeewa, 286 North America, 51 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
Nihtat Gwich’in, 400 North American Indian, 217 Act, 402
Nippising, 75 North Carolina, 21 Nunavut Territory, 216
Nisenan, 228 North Carolina Commission of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Nisga’a, 215, 216, 241, 701–702 Indian Affairs, 950 (NTI), 403
Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA), the Northeast, treaties in, 243–249 Nunna daul Tsuny, 322
April 27, 1999, 406–407, Northeastern Quebec Agreement Nye, James W., 354
702, 727 (NQA), January 31, 1978, NYPA. See New York Power
Nisqually, 63, 99, 153, 154, 226, 397–398, 726 Authority
695–696 Northern Arapaho
and fishing rights, 152 Treaty with the Northern O-gub-ay-gwan-ay-aush, 365
and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Cheyenne and Northern O-sho-ga, 760
Treaty with the Nisqually, Arapaho, May 10, 1868, Oakes, Richard, 690, 691, 861–862
Puyallup, Etc., December 369–370 Oakes, Yvonne, 862
26, 1854, 342–343, Northern Athapaskan, 400 Obail (Obeal), Henry, 815
507–510 Northern Cheyenne Obwandiyag (Pontiac), 878–879

Index I-31
Oche Haujo, 292 Canadian Indian Treaty 2 Treaty with the Omaha, March 6,
Ochechote, 345 (Manitoba Post Treaty), 1865, 355–356
O’Connor, Sandra Day, 730, 948 August 21, 1871, 375–376 Omaha Reservation, 161
Odanak, 638 Canadian Indian Treaty 3 Omaha Tribal Council, 161
Odawa. See Ottawa (Northwest Angle Omaha World-Herald, 161
Oe-quee-wee-sance, 329 Treaty), October 3, 1873, One Bull, 897
OEO. See Office of Economic 377 the One that Has No Name (Cha-sa-
Opportunity Canadian Indian Treaty 4 wa-ne-che), 304
O’Fallon, Benjamin, 253, 303, 304, 306 (Qu’Appelle Treaty), the One That Is Used as a Shielf
Office of Economic Opportunity September 15, 1874, (Wah-hah-chunk-i-ah-
(OEO), 115, 116 378–380 pee), 358
Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Canadian Indian Treaty 5 the One Who Walks against the
206, 207, 732–733 (Winnipeg Treaty), Others (J-a-pu), 303
Office of Indian Affairs (OIA), 151, September 24, 1875, Oneida, 13, 23, 53, 69, 76, 278, 305
166, 167–168, 171, 426, 380–381 and education, 180
666, 731, 761 Canadian Indian Treaty 6, Treaty with the Oneida, Etc.,
and Alaska, 195 August 28, September 9, December 2, 1794,
authority of, 170 1876, 381–382 288–289
and education, 182 Canadian Indian Treaty 9 (James Treaty with the Oneida,
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bay Treaty), November February 3, 1838, 329
Lea, Luke; Parker, Ely S. 6, 1905, October 5, 1906, See also Six Nations
The Office of Indian Affairs 388–389 Onkpahpah. See Hunkapapa
(Schmeckebier), 33 and fishing rights, 155, 156 Onondaga, 51, 278. See also Six
Office of Indian Education and gathering rights, 158–159 Nations
Programs, 190 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, Ontario, 213, 216
Ogden, Abraham, 289 428–429 Ontonagon, 341
Ogden Land Company, 247 and Prairie du Chien, 431–432 Oohulookee, 297
Ogima Kegido, 329, 330 Robinson Huron Treaty (Second Oolitiskee, 297
Oglala Sioux, 106, 171, 255–257, 704, Robinson Treaty), Oowatata, 297
705 September 9, 1850, 335 Oowatie, Buck. See Boudinot, Elias
Treaty with the Sioune and Robinson Superior Treaty (First Opata, 410
Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Robinson Treaty), Opechancanough, 863–864, 880
Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala September 7, 1850, Operation Head Start, 114
Band, October 28, 1865, 334–335, 495–498 Opitchapam, 863
360 and Sandy Lake, 433 Opothleholo, 313, 864–865
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Ok-tars-sars-harjov (Sands), 363 Oral agreements, 6
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, Oklahoma, 28, 102, 140–141, 170, Oral cultures, 149
369 937 Oral promise, 10–11
Oglala Sioux Civil Rights and confederate treaties, 104 Oral tradition, 135
Organization (OSCRO), jurisdiction in, 168–169 “Order for Establishing
705 See also Indian Territory Communication and
Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, 704 Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 681 Trade with the
OHA. See Office of Hawaiian Affairs Olaya, Hugo, 851–852 Esquimaux Savages on
Ohio, 19 Old Briton, 862–863 the Coast of Labrador,”
treaties of cession in, 81 table 1 Old Crow, 404 279
Ohio Indians, 426–427 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Oregon, 199–200, 225
Ohio Valley Agreement, May 29, jurisdiction in, 172
treaties in, 89 1993, 404–405 treaty of, 225
Ohnaweio (Goodstream), Chief, 289 Old Northwest, 19, 20, 22, 23, 55, 56 See also Pacific Northwest
OIA. See Office of Indian Affairs Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Oregon Department of Fish and
Oil, 140 63, 113, 713–714, 715 Wildlife v. Klamath Indian
in Alaska, 195, 196, 197 and government-to-government Tribe, 45
See also Natural resources relationship, 930 Oregon Donation Act, 97
Ojibwe (Ojibwa, Ojibway), 29, 148, and sovereignty, 948 Oregon Game Commission, 152
235, 238, 239, 248–249, Olympia, Treaty of, 227 Oregon Question, 28, 29
278, 412, 673–674, 721–722 Omaha, 32, 100, 104, 226 Oregon Territory, 57, 96–97
Canadian Indian Treaty 1 (Stone and jurisdiction, 161 and unratified treaties, 97–99
Fort Treaty), August 3, Treaty with the Omaha, March See also Pacific Northwest
1871, 375–376 16, 1854, 338–339 Oregon Trail, 254

I-32 Index
Organic Act, 195, 685, 686 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.,
Oriskany, Battle of, 641 Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 September 29, 1817, 297
Orme Dam, 136 Ottawa (Odawa), 17, 51, 71, 72, 100, Ourada, Patricia, 867
Orrick, William, 154, 158, 707 104, 235, 278, 412 Ouray, 868–869
Osage, 7, 18, 20, 21–22, 30, 104, 136, and fishing rights, 155, 156 Ousa Mequin (Massasoit), 854–855
252, 413–414 and Michilimackinac, Michigan, Outchequaka, 291
and confederate treaty, 104–105 428–429 Overland Mail Route, 269
and oil, 140 and Prairie du Chien, 431 Oweneco, 907
and St. Louis, 438–439 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 Owl, 914
Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
August 4, 1835, 320 November 25, 1808, 293 Pa (the Elk), 298
Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Paca Rinqua, 301
26, 1837, 327 July 28, 1829, 309 Pacakinqua, 300
Treaty with the Osage, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Pacific Marine Fisheries
November 10, 1808, 293 September 26, 1833, Commission, 155
Treaty with the Osage, 317–319 Pacific Northwest, 24, 25
September 12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., fishing rights in, 147–150,
Treaty with the Osage, November 17, 1807, 293 150–155
September 25, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., gathering rights in, 147–150, 159
Treaty with the Osage, August August 24, 1816, 296 hunting rights in, 147–150,
21, 1822, 301 Treaty with the Ottawa and 150–155
Treaty with the Osage, June 2, Chippewa, July 6, 1820, treaties in, 225–228, 229 table 1,
1825, 303 300 230 table 2
Treaty with the Great and Little Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., See also Oregon Territory;
Osage, August 10, 1825, August 29, 1821, 301 Washington Territory
304 Treaty with the Ottawa, Pacific Railroad Act, 29
Treaty with the Osage, January August 30, 1831, 312 Pacific Salmon Treaty Act, 41
11, 1839, 330 Treaty with the Ottawa, Packs a Knife (Istowun-eh’pata), 785
Treaty with the Osage, February 18, 1833, 316 Pacta sunt servanda, 50, 58
September 19, 1865, 357 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Pad-a-ga-he (Fire Chief), 356
Osage Reservation, 140 March 28, 1836, Page, John, 362
Osaw Wauban, 330 322–323 Pah-sal-sa (Auicara), 304
Osceola, 804, 811, 866–867 Treaty with the Ottawa and Pah-Siss, 323
and Jesup, Thomas S., 835 Chippewa, July 31, Paiute, 35, 106, 116, 230 table 2
OSCRO. See Oglala Sioux Civil 1855, 346–347 Palliser, Sir Hugh, 279–280
Rights Organization Treaty with the Ottawa of Palmer, Joel, 149, 226, 227, 229 table
Oshaga, 341 Blanchard’s Fork and 1, 230 table 2, 338, 342,
Oshawwawno, Chief, 347 Roche de Boeuf, June 343, 344, 345, 346, 348,
Oshkosh, 867–868 24, 1862, 352 409–410
O’Sullivan, John Louis, 55 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Palmer, Luther R., 365
Oswegatchie, 75 Seneca and Shawnee, Palouse, 344–345, 409–410
Otermín, Antonio, 434 Quapaw, Etc., February Pancoast, Henry, 826
Otoe (Oto), 25, 30, 100, 226, 252, 253 23, 1867, 365 Pani, 252
Treaty with the Oto, June 24, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Panton, Leslie and Company, 17
1817, 297 August 19, 1825, Papago, 273
Treaty with the Otoe and 304–305, 459–463 Papal authority, 49
Missouri Tribes, Treaty with the Winnebago, Papal bulls, 50
September 26, 1825, 306 Etc., August 25, 1828, Paris, Treaty of, 71, 137, 237, 245,
Treaty with the Otoe and 308–309 260, 279, 638, 645, 647,
Missouri, September 21, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 649, 651, 954. See also
1833, 316–317 January 21, 1785, 285 Revolutionary War
Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., (U.S.)
October 15, 1835, 325 January 9, 1789, 286 Parke, Benjamin, 296, 299, 300, 301
Treaty with the Otoe and Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Parker, Arthur C. (Gawaso Wanneh),
Missouri, March 15, August 3, 1795, 289 816, 884, 886
1854, 338 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Parker, Cynthia Ann, 871
Treaty with the Confederated July 4, 1805, 291 Parker, Eli, 31
Otoe and Missouri, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh,
December 9, 1854, 342 September 8, 1815, 295 Donehogä’wa), 59, 184,

Index I-33
272, 349, 362, 363, 666, Pawnee Republican, 319 Peoria, Baptiste, 365
816, 869–870 Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Pepper, Abel C., 322, 323, 324, 325,
Parker, Quanah, 838, 870–872 Loups, Republicans, Etc., 329, 437
Parker, William, 870 August 6, 1848, 333 Pepys, Samuel, 873
Parliament of Canada, 215 Payne’s Landing, Treaty of, 264, 653, Pequot War, 245
Parliament of United Kingdom, 214 935 Peralta, Pedro de, 434
PARR. See Protect Americans’ Rights Pe-ta-ok-a-ma, 352 Perry, James, 327
and Resources Peace, 13, 19, 40 Petaheick (Good Chief), 298
Parris, Albion K., 333 Peace, Treaty of, 55, 56 Peters, Richard, 282, 765–766
Parrish, Jasper, 886 Peace and Amity, Treaty of, 268 Peters, Zeba T., 334
Parsons, Samuel H., 286 Peace and friendship treaties, 95, Petroleum leases, 43
Partisan Discoverer (Sheterahiate), 641–642 Peyote, 173, 175
298 in Canada, 210–212 Phagen, Major, 316
Pasamaquoddy (Passamaquoddy), Peace Commission, 25, 58–59, 271 Phelps, Oliver, 290
70, 116, 211, 247 Peace Policy, 30 Philippines, 202
Pashepaho, 291 and education, 184–185, 189 Phillips, Ellis, 333
Passamaquoddy. See Pasamaquoddy Peacock, 323 Phillips, William A., 419
Passamaquoddy v. Morton, 717 Pearl Harbor, 203, 232 Piankashaw (Piankeshaw), 16, 72,
Patent Office, 29 Peigan (Piegan), 101, 236, 383 79
Path Killer, 291 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 Agreement with the
Patterson, J. P., 754 (Blackfeet Treaty), Piankeshaw, January 3,
Patterson, John, 744 September 22, December 1818, 298
Pauktuutit, 938 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
Paulet, Lord George, 200, 201, 203 Pelecheah, 300, 301 June 7, 1803, 290
Paulette case (aka Caveat case), 392 Pem-ach-wung, Chief, 352 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc.,
Pauquia (Montour), 292 Pembina Chippewa August 7, 1803, 290
Paw-pee, 320 Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Treaty with the Kaskaskia,
Paw-tisse, 319 Lake and Pembina Peoria, Etc., May 30,
Pawnee, 30, 41, 253, 269 Bands, October 1, 1863, 1854, 340
and education, 182 354 Treaty with the Piankeshaw,
Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, Treaty with the Chippewa—Red August 27, 1804, 291
June 18, 1818, 298 Lake and Pembina Treaty with the Piankashaw,
Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, Bands, April 12, 1864, December 30, 1805, 292
June 19, 1818, 298 355 Treaty with the Piankashaw, July
Treaty with the Pawnee Penayseewabee, 330 18, 1815, 294
Republic, June 20, 1818, Pend d’Oreille, 99, 227 Treaty with the Piankashaw,
298 Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., October 29, 1832, 315
Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, July 16, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
June 22, 1818, 298 Penn, Margareet, 873 Seneca and Shawnee,
Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, Penn, William, 276, 872–874 Quapaw, Etc., February
September 30, 1825, 306 Penn, William, Sr., 873 23, 1867, 365
Treaty with the Pawnee, October Penobscot, 70, 116, 211, 247 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc.,
9, 1833, 319 Pensacola, Treaty of, 52 August 3, 1795, 289
Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, Pension Office, 29 and Vincennes, 442
Loups, Republicans, Etc., People of the Caribou. See Gwich’in and Wabash River, 443
August 6, 1848, 333 People v. Chosa, 155–156 Pickens, Andrew, 286, 290
Treaty with the Pawnee, People v. LeBlanc, 156, 710–711 Pickens, Edmund, 337, 346, 362
September 24, 1857, 349 Peoria, 100 Pickering, Timothy, 74, 75, 287, 289
Pawnee Loup, 319 Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., Pickering Treaty, 287
Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand, October 27, 1832, 315 Picolata, Treaty of, 656
Loups, Republicans, Etc., Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Picotte, Charles F., 349
August 6, 1848, 333 Peoria, Etc., May 30, Pictou, Mary Ellen, 742
Pawnee Marhar, 298 1854, 340 Piegan. See Peigan
Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., Pierce, Franklin, 809, 927
June 22, 1818, 298 September 25, 1818, 299 Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, 702
Pawnee Republic Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Pike, Albert, 103, 418, 737, 781,
Treaty with the Pawnee Seneca and Shawnee, 874–876, 891
Republic, June 20, 1818, Quapaw, Etc., February Pike, Zebulon M., 292
298 23, 1867, 365 Pilcher, Joshua, 325, 328

I-34 Index
Pillager Point No Point Treaty, 149, 226, 230 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc.,
Treaty with the Chippewa of the table 2 August 29, 1821, 301
Mississippi and the Pokagon, Leopold. See Pokagun Treaty with the Potawatomi, July
Pillager and Lake Pokagun (Leopold Pokagon; 18, 1815, 294
Winnibigoshish Bands, Sakekwinik), 318, 413, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
March 11, 1863, 353 877–878 October 2, 1818, 299
Treaty with the Chippewa, Police force, Indian, 59 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Mississippi, Pilager, and Political structure, 135 October 16, 1826, 307
Lake Winnibigoshish Polk, James K., 770, 870 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Bands, May 7, 1864, 355 Pomo, 53, 228 September 19, 1827, 307
Treaty with the Pillager Band of Ponca, 104 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Chippewa Indians, Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, September 20, 1828, 309
August 21, 1847, 333 1817, 297 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pima, 272, 273 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, October 20, 1832,
Pina Quahah (Washakie), 373–374, 1825, 303 313–314
907–909 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pine Ridge Reservation, 36, 168, 171, 1858, 349 October 26, 1832,
704 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10, 314–315
Pine Tree Treaty, 91 1865, 356 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Piomingo, 286 Pontiac, 435, 437, 640 December 10, 1834, 319
the Pipe, 424 Pontiac (Obwandiyag), 878–879 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pipe, Captain, 309 Pontiac’s Rebellion, 281–282 December 16, 1834, 320
Pipe, Eli, 309 Pontiac’s Revolt, 245 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pipeline, trans-Alaska, 197 Pontiac’s War of 1763, 639 December 17, 1834, 320
Pishake, 341 Pontotoc, Treaty of, 264 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pisquouse, 344–345 Poor Bear, 367 December 24, 1834, 320
Pitchlynn, John, 876 Pope, John, 25 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pitchlynn, Peter (Ha-tchoc-tuck-nee; Port Madison Reservation, 713 March 26, 1836, 322
Snapping Turtle), 105, Port Orford, 229 table 1 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
346, 418, 876–877 Porter, George B., 315, 316 March 29, 1836, 323
Pito-kanow-apiwin (Poundmaker), Portugal, 49 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
785 Posey, Thomas, 298 April 11, 1836, 323
Plains Apache, 677–678. See also Postage Stamp Province, 665 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Apache Potawatomi, 20, 23, 30, 51, 72, 79, 90, April 22, 1836, 323
Plains Cree, 240, 382. See also Cree 235, 244, 247, 248, 278, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plains Indians 412–413, 444 August 5, 1836, 324
and Fort Laramie, 422, 423 and Fort Harrison, 421 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plains Ojibwa, 382. See also Ojibwa and Prairie du Chien, 431 September 20, 1836,
Plaisted, William, 717 and Sault Ste. Marie, 435 324–325
Plan of 1764, 282 and St. Joseph, 436–437 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plan of Union, 954 and St. Louis, 438 September 22, 1836, 325
Plenary power, 28, 36, 43–44, 109, and Tippecanoe River, 439–441 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
114, 118, 120, 126–127, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., September 23, 1836, 325
169, 671, 677–678, November 25, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
942–943 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., February 11, 1837, 327
and government-to-government July 28, 1829, 309 Treaty with the Potawatomi
relationship, 930, 931 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Nation, June 5 and 17,
and trust responsibility, 957 September 26, 1833, 1846, 332–333
the Plum (Po-ko-mah), 328 317–319 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Plymouth Company, 76 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., November 15, 1861, 352
Po-ko-mah (the Plum), 328 June 7, 1803, 290 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Pocahontas, 863–864, 879 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., March 29, 1866, 362
Pohlik August 21, 1805, 292 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., February 27, 1867, 365
Klamath, etc., October September 30, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.,
1851, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 19, 1825,
Poinsett, Joel R., 328 November 17, 1807, 293 304–305, 459–463
Point Elliott, 226, 230 table 2 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc.,
treaty at, 99 August 24, 1816, 296 August 25, 1828, 308–309

Index I-35
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Progressive education movement, Treaty with the Quapaw,
January 9, 1789, 286 189 November 15, 1824, 302
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., the Prophet. See Shawnee Prophet Treaty with the Quapaw, May
August 3, 1795, 289 Prophetstown, 427, 440, 443–444, 13, 1833, 316
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 646–647 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
July 4, 1805, 291 Protect Americans’ Rights and Seneca and Shawnee,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Resources (PARR), 157, Quapaw, Etc., February
September 8, 1815, 295 722 23, 1867, 365
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Provencher, J. A. N., 377 Qu’Appelle Treaty. See Canadian
September 29, 1817, 297 Prucha, Francis Paul, 21, 190 Indian Treaty 4,
and Vincennes, 442 Prudhoe Bay, 195, 197 September 15, 1874
Potlatch, 668 Public Law 83-280, 111–112 Quash Quammee (Quashquame),
Poundmaker (Pito-kanow-apiwin), Public Law 99-398, 141 291, 302
785 Public Law 103-150 Quash-quaw, 323
Poverty, 117 Public Law 280, 35, 120, 172–173, Quashquame. See Quash Quammee
in Alaska, 199 175, 684–685, 686, 948, Quatie, 891
Powell, Ludwell E., 333 952–953. See also Que-we-zance (Hole-in-the-Day),
Powhatan (Wahunsonacock), 235, Termination 355, 365
863–864, 879–880 Public Law 726. See Indian Claims Quebec, 211, 215, 216
Powles, Henry, 329 Commission Act Quebec Agreement, 236
Powley, Roddy, 720 Public schools, 189–190. See also Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission
Powley, Steve, 720, 940 Schools (Hydro-Quebec), 215,
Pownall, Thomas, 823 Pueblo, 24, 29, 41, 116, 162, 272, 410 395, 397
Prairie du Chien and jurisdiction, 169 The Queen v. Drybones, 688
treaty history of, 430–432 and Santa Fe, 433–434 Queets, 99
Treaty of, 430–431 and water rights, 143 Qui-nai-elt (Quinaielt)
See also Treaty with the Puffing Eyes (Ish-tah-chah-ne-aha), Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc.,
Chippewa, August 5, 358 July 1, 1855, 346
1826; Treaty with the Puget Sound, 150, 152, 153, 154, Qui-we-shen-shish, 365
Chippewa, Etc., August 427–428 Quil-leh-ute. See Quileute
11, 1827; Treaty with the Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Quil-si-eton, 342
Sioux, Etc., August 19, Moos, 153 Quileute (Quil-leh-ute), 99, 230 table
1825 Pushee Paho, 301 2
Pratt, John G., 363 Pushmataha, 882–883 Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc.,
Pratt, Richard Henry, 179, 185–186, Putnam, Rufus, 745 July 1, 1855, 346
189, 851, 880–882. See Puyallup, 63, 99, 226 Quillequeoqua, 229 table 1
also Carlisle Indian and fishing rights, 152–154 Quinaielt. See Qui-nai-elt
School and jurisdiction, 173 Quinalt. See Quinault
Pre-Confederation Treaties and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Quinault (Quinalt), 99, 152, 154,
(Canada), 641–642 Treaty with the Nisqually, 226–227, 230 table 2
Pre-Dorset, 937 Puyallup, Etc., December Quinney, Augustin E., 334
Preemption rights, 21, 23 26, 1854, 342–343, Quixiachigiate, 334
Preloznik, Joseph, 792 507–510 Quotequeskee, 291
Price, H., 385 Puyallup River, 152
Prince Edward Island, 211, 216 Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of R. v. Côté, 642
Prior appropriation system, 143, Game of Washington, 1977, R. v. Gladstone, 728, 729
144–145 173, 711–712 R. v. Marshall, 641, 720
Priority date, and water rights, 143 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., 728
Prisoner return, 14 of Washington, 1968, 45, R. v. Sioui, 638, 641
Private ownership. See Land 153, 695–696, 711 R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 728–729
ownership Puyallup Trilogy, 153 Racer (Ronaess), 298
The Problem of Indian Pye, Abram, 334 Racism, 85, 187
Administration, 189, 679. Rafeedie, Edward, 159
See also Meriam Report Quakerism, 184, 872–874 Railroads, 96
“Proclamation to Bring About Quapaw, 104, 268, 417, 439 Ramah Navajo Chapter, 43
Friendly Intercourse Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau
with Esquimaux August 4, 1835, 320 of Revenue of New Mexico,
Indians,” 279 Treaty with the Quapaw, August 114
Proctor, Henry, 649 24, 1818, 298 Ramsey, Alexander, 354, 433, 848

I-36 Index
Rancherias, 24 See also Indian removal Riddle, Frank, 768

Rapids of the Miami, 21 Removal. See Indian removal Ridge, John Rollin (Chees-quat-a-
Rarnleshare (Chief Man), 298 Rencontre, Zephyr, 349 law-ny; Yellow Bird),
the Rat (Kondiaronk), 278 Reorganization, 170–171 886–887
Rattling Blanket Woman, 784 Reorganization Act, 682 Ridge, John (Skah-tle-loh-skee), 88,
Rawlins, John, 870 Repatriation, 175, 176 89, 265, 321, 322, 333,
Rawson, Rawson W., 745 Report of Commissioner of Indian 430, 758, 887, 888, 909
Ray, James Brown, 307 Affairs, 921 Ridge, Major (Kah-nung-da-tla-geh),
RCMP. See Royal Canadian Republican Party, 29 16, 88, 89, 265, 296, 321,
Mounted Police Reservation system, 29, 95–96, 97, 322, 333, 430, 887, 888,
Reagan, Ronald, 723 327, 341, 699, 931–932 909
Reciprocity, Treaty of, 231 table 4, in Alaska, 198, 199 Ridge, Walter, 888
232 See also Reservations Riel, Louis, 665, 785, 803, 889–890,
Reconstruction, 30, 105–107, 202, Reservation(s), 8, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 939–940
937. See also U.S. Civil 31–32, 95–96, 236 Right of conquest, 15, 96, 100, 652,
War in Alaska, 195–197, 198–199 944–945, 946, 957
Reconstruction Treaties with the definition of, 133 Right of occupancy/right of the soil,
Cherokee, Choctaw, and jurisdiction, 172–173 96, 100, 652, 657, 685,
Chickasaw, Creek, and as payment for lands, 137–138 945–946
Seminole, 1866, 360–361 police, 168 Right of the soil, 96, 100, 652, 657,
Red Bear, Chief, 354 See also Executive Order 685, 945–946
Red Bird War of 1827, 653 Reservations; General Riley, James, 362
Red Cloud, Chief, 107, 256, 719, Allotment Act; individual Ritchie, Roland, 701
883–884 reservations; Reservation Rituals, 39, 254–255
Red Fort, 302 system River People (Columbia River
Red Jacket (Sagoyewatha), 75, 76, Reserved rights, 40, 62, 133, 155, 156 Indians), 150–152, 155,
287, 288, 289, 290, 782, regulation of, 147–150 227, 414–416
814, 815, 869–870, See also Fishing rights; Robertson, James, 291, 292
884–886 Gathering rights; Robinson, Alexander, 319, 413
Red Lake Chippewa Hunting rights Robinson, William Benjamin,
Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Reserved Rights Doctrine, 138, 334–335
Lake and Pembina 143–145, 151, 686, 695, Robinson Huron Treaty (Second
Bands, October 1, 1863, 943–944 Robinson Treaty),
354 Reserves, 95. See also Reservations September 9, 1850, 214,
Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Resolution of 1871, 166 239, 335, 435, 642
Lake and Pembina Restoration, 138–139 Robinson Superior Treaty (First
Bands, April 12, 1864, Restoration Acts, 116 Robinson Treaty),
355 Returning Sky (Kee-way-gee-zhig), September 7, 1850, 214,
Red Lake Reservation, 112, 684 324 239, 334–335, 435, 642
Red Plume, Chief, 253–254 Revenue sharing agreements, 6 treaty document, 495–498
Red Power, 691, 953 Revolutionary War (U.S.), 6, 11, Roche de Boeuf
Red Tipi, 892 13–14, 27, 55, 137, 163, Treaty with the Ottawa of
Reed, Henry W., 358, 359, 360, 364 245, 246, 261, 645, 647, Blanchard’s Fork and
Reed Stanley, 685 649 Roche de Boeuf, June 24,
Reeves, Benjamin, 304, 413 and Canada, 212–214 1862, 352
Regina v. Bernard, 219 and Royal Proclamation of 1763, Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed
Regina v. Marshall, 218–219 639 Seneca and Shawnee,
Regina v. Powley, 216 treaties during, 18–19, 69–70, Quapaw, Etc., February
Regina v. White and Bob, 219, 642 259–260 23, 1867, 365
Regional corporations, in Alaska, and treaties of alliance, 11 Rock-a-to-wha, 351
198–199 See also Paris, Treaty of Roe Cloud, Henry, 189
Rehnquist, William, 45, 719 Reynolds, John, 313, 798 Roe-nu-nas, 312
Religion, 173, 174–175 Rhea, John, 297 Rogers, John, 308, 316
and education, 179–182 Rice, Harold “Freddy,” 732 Rogue River, 99, 226, 229 table 1, 230
in Hawaii, 200 Rice, Henry M., 333, 353 table 2
and land ownership, 144 Rice v. Cayetano, 207, 732–733 Agreement with the Rogue
See also Missionaries Richardson, John, 885 River Tribes, September
Relocation, 8, 24, 35, 172, 689–690 Richardville, John B., 330 8, 1853, 338
and Alaska, 195 Richardville, Thomas, 365 Treaty of, 97–98

Index I-37
Treaty with the Rogue River Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Sands (Ok-tars-sars-harjov), 363
Tribe, September 10, 117 Sandusky Seneca treaty, 248
1853, 338 Saginaw Sandy Lake
Treaty with the Rogue River Treaty with the Chippewa of treaty history of, 433
Tribe, November 15, Saginaw, Etc., August 2, See also Treaty with the
1854, 342 1855, 347 Chippewa, July 29, 1837;
Roland, Gilbert, 802 Treaty with the Chippewa of Treaty with the
Ronaess (Racer), 298 Saginaw, Swan Creek, Chippewa, December 20,
Ronesass (Honas), 298 and Black River, October 1837; Treaty with the
Ronioness (Joseph), 298 18, 1864, 355 Chippewa, October 4,
Roosevelt, Franklin, 34, 170, 189, 934 Sagoyewatha (Red Jacket), 75, 76, 1842
and Collier, John, 780, 923 287, 288, 289, 290, 782, Sans Arcs
Roosevelt, Theodore, 778, 824, 872 814, 815, 869–870, Treaty with the Sioux—Sans
and Geronimo, 813 884–886 Arcs Band, October 20,
and Harjo, Chitto, 818 Sah-ku-méhu 1865, 359
Rosebud Reservation, 139 Treaty with the Dwamish, Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Ross, Alexander, 414 Suquamish, Etc., January Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
Ross, Edmund G., 800 22, 1855, 343 369
Ross, John, Chief, 16, 88–89, 263, 296, Sahaptin (Sahaptian), 227, 414–415 Santa Anna, Antonio López de, 809
299, 320, 321, 322, 333, Sahewamish (Sa-heh-wamish), 99 Santa Fe
363, 654, 758, 870, 887, Treaty with the Nisqually, treaty history of, 433–434
890–891, 910 Puyallup, Etc., December See also Treaty of the Guadalupe
Ross, William W., 352 26, 1854, 342–343, Hidalgo, 1848
Round Valley Reservation, 661 507–510 Santee Dakota Reservation, 175
Rowland, Bill, 802 Sahtu Dene, 240, 392, 400 Santee Sioux, 32
Roy, Francis, 349 Sahtu Dene and Métis and reconstruction treaty, 107
Roy v. United States, 337 Comprehensive Land Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Claim Agreement, Arapaho, April 29, 1868,
(RCMP), 939 September 6, 1993, 369
Royal Charter of 1670, 715 405–406 Santee war, 104
Royal Proclamation of 1763, 69, 211, See also Dene Santiam Kalapuya, 229 table 1
212, 213, 235, 236, 239, Sai-Nell Santiam Molala, 229 table 1
281, 282, 375, 403, 404, Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-Ki- Sapier, Noel, 742
638–640, 642, 674, 702 As, etc., August 1851, 231 Sar-cox-ie, 351
Runaways, and education, 186–187 table 3 Sarcee (Tsuu T’ina), 236, 383
Rupert’s Land, 664, 665, 715 Sakekwinik (Leopold Pokagun), 318, Canadian Indian Treaty 7
Russell, William, 421 413, 877–878 (Blackfeet Treaty),
Russia, 229, 685, 698 Salmonscam, 154 September 22, December
and Alaska, 195 Salt River Pima-Maricopa 4, 1877, 382–385
and treaty negotiation, 53 Saluskin, Noah James, 159 Sargeant, John, 744
Rusty (Mon-sai-raa), 294 Sam, Chief, 338 Sasr-sarp-kin, 385
Ryan, James, 710–711 Sam-áhmish Sassacus, 907
Ryan, W. Carson, Jr., 189 Treaty with the Dwamish, Satank (Sitting Bear), 367, 892,
Suquamish, Etc., January 896–897
Sa-cher-i-ton, 342 22, 1855, 343 Satanta (Set’ainte, Settainti; White
Sa-heh-wamish. See Sahewamish Samoa, 199 Bear), 367, 838, 851,
Sa-ka-pa (son of Quash-qua-mi), 328 San Carlos Apache, 116 892–893, 897
Saa-Hajo (Davy), 313 San Carlos Reservation, 268 Satiacum, Robert, 152, 707
Saalequun, 238 San Luis Rey Sau-tabe-say, 324
Saanich, 238 Treaty with the San Luis Rey, Sauk (Sac), 17, 30, 72, 100, 103, 244,
Sac. See Sauk etc., January 1852, 231 278, 412
Sacred objects, 124, 125, 126, table 3 and Prairie du Chien, 431
725–726. See also Sacred Sanborn, John, 256, 269, 271, 358, and St. Louis, 438–439
sites 366, 367, 369, 370 Treaty with the Iowa, Etc.,
Sacred sites, 174, 946–947. See also Sand Creek Massacre, 104, 106, 271 September 17, 1836, 324
Native American Graves site return, 733 Treaty with the Sauk, September
Protection and See also Chivington, John Milton 13, 1815, 295
Repatriation Act; Sacred Sanderson, Electa Allen, 787, 788 Treaty with the Sauk, May 13,
objects Sandoval, Chief, 267 1816, 296

I-38 Index
Sauk (Sac) (cont.) SCAN. See Student Council of Self-Government Agreements

Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, American Natives (Canada), 726–727
November 3, 1804, 291, Scar Face (Washakie), 373–374, Selkirk, 403
456–459 907–909 Selkirk, Earl of, 238
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Scarfaced Charley, 768 Selkirt treaty, 238
September 3, 1822, Schermerhorn, John, 315, 316, 321 Selling rights, 135
301–302 Schmeckebier, Laurence F., 33 Sells, Elijah, 357, 362, 363
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schmitz, Darld, 704 Seminole, 7, 23, 30, 32, 419
August 4, 1824, 302 Schonchin John, Chief, 768 and addenda treaty, 102–103
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 323, 329, and confederate treaty, 103–104
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 429, 771, 893–894 and gaming, 175, 176
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schools, 25, 179–190, 270. See also and purchase of Hard Rock
September 21, 1832, 313 Boarding schools; Café, 735
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Carlisle Indian School; Reconstruction Treaties with the
Tribe, September 27, Education; Public Cherokee, Choctaw,
1836, 325, 325 schools Chickasaw, Creek, and
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Schuyler, Philip, 640 Seminole, 1866, 360–361
September 28, 1836, 325 Schweabe, 895 and removal, 87–88, 264
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Scoton, 98, 99, 230 table 2, 342 and termination, 172
October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., Treaty with the Creek and
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, November 18, 1854, 342 Seminole, January 4,
October 11, 1842, Scott, Duncan Campbell, 796 1845, 332
331–332 Scott, Thomas, 889, 890, 939, 940 Treaty with the Creek, Etc.,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Scott, Winfield, 89, 313, 321–322, 657, August 7, 1856, 348–349
Missouri, May 18, 1854, 798, 891 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9,
339–340 and Gaines, Edmund Pendleton, 1832, 313, 478–480
Treaty with the Sac and Fox, 811 Treaty with the Seminole, March
October 1, 1859, 350–351 and Jesup, Thomas S., 835, 836 28, 1833, 316
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Scott’s River Treaty with the Seminole, March
Etc., March 6, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Upper Klamath, 21, 1866, 362, 522–527
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Shasta, and Scott’s River, See also Five Civilized Tribes
February 18, 1867, 364 November 1851, 231 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 123
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., table 3 Seminole War of 1817—1818, 653
August 19, 1825, Scoutash, 298 Senate Committee of Interior and
304–305, 459–463 Screaming Above (Mamande), 897 Insular Affairs, 197
Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., SDWA. See Safe Drinking Water Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
August 25, 1828, 308–309 Act 127
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Se-ap-cat, 345 Senate Committee on Public Lands,
January 9, 1789, 286 Se-se-ah-kee, 352 134
Sault Ste. Marie (Michigan and Sea Wolf (La-mee-pris-jeau), 294 Seneca, 21, 23, 44, 72, 76, 100, 104,
Ontario) Seath’tl (Seattle), 63, 894–896 236, 243, 244, 247, 248,
treaty history of, 434–436 Seaton, Fred, 911 278
See also Robinson Huron Treaty Seattle (Seath’tl), 63, 894–896 Agreement with the Seneca,
(Second Robinson Sechelt Indian Band Self- September 15, 1797, 289
Treaty), September 9, Government Act, 726 Agreement with the Seneca,
1850; Robinson Superior Second Great Awakening, 181 September 3, 1823, 302
Treaty (First Robinson Second Riel Rebellion, 939–940 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Treaty), September 7, Second Seminole War, 88, 165, 264, August 4, 1835, 320
1850; Treaty with the 653 Treaty with the Seneca, June 30,
Chippewa, July 29, 1837; Segui, Bernard, 302 1802, 290
Treaty with the Segulliak, 279 Treaty with the Seneca, February
Chippewa, December 20, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 28, 1831, 312
1837; Treaty with the 115 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July
Chippewa, October 4, Self-determination, 8, 35–36, 36, 127, 20, 1831, 312
1842; Treaty with the 173, 174, 691, 697–698, Treaty with the Seneca and
Chippewa of Sault Ste. 709–710, 734, 932 Shawnee, December 29,
Marie, August 2, 1855 in Alaska, 198 1832, 315
Saulteaux, 238 and statutes, 114–116 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20,
Saw-wur-bon, 329 vs. dependency, 144 1842, 330

Index I-39
Treaty with the Seneca— Shasta (Chasta), 98, 99, 230 table 2 She-aw-ke-pee, 323
Tonawand Band, Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., Shebbeare, John, 766
November 5, 1857, 349 November 18, 1854, 342 Sheegunageezhig, 330
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Treaty with the Upper Klamath, Sheheke, Chief, 847
Seneca and Shawnee, Shasta, and Scott’s River, Shelby, Isaac, 299
Quapaw, Etc., February November 1851, 231 Sheridan, Phil, 898
23, 1867, 365 table 3 Sherman, Roger, 69
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Shave-Head, 351 Sherman, William Tecumseh, 106,
July 22, 1814, 293–294 Shaw-gwok-skuk, 325 267, 271, 369, 370, 373,
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Shawano, 335 686, 749
September 8, 1815, 295 Shawnee, 21, 25, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 79, and Satanta, 892, 893
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 100, 104, 244, 245, 246, and Sitting Bear, 897
September 29, 1817, 297 268, 282, 444 Shernakitare (First in the War Party),
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and jurisdiction, 166 298
September 17, 1818, 298 and St. Louis, 438 Sheterahiate (Partisan Discoverer),
See also Six Nations Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 298
Seneca Nation v. U.S., 44 November 25, 1808, 293 Shi-a-wa (John Solomon), 312
Seneca Reservation, 329 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Shinguakouce (pseud. Augustin
Seneca Steel, 312 June 7, 1803, 290 Bart), 335
Sensenbrenner, Frank, 157 Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July Shipley, David, 799
Sequasson, 767 20, 1831, 312 Ships, 49
Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Treaty with the Seneca and Sho-e-mow-e-to-chaw-ca-we-wah-
174 Shawnee, December 29, ca-to-we (the Wolf with
Sergeant, John, 654 1832, 315 the High Back), Chief,
Service Monographs of the United Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed 303
States Government, 33–34 Seneca and Shawnee, Shob-osk-kunk, 365
Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Quapaw, Etc., February S’Homamais. See Squaxin
Bill), 27, 34 23, 1867, 365 Shon-kah-we-to-ko (the Fool Dog),
Sesquaressura, Chief, 282 Treaty with the Shawnee, 359
Set’ainte, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 January 31, 1786, 286 Short Stay (Aanti), 897
Setangya (Sitting Bear), 367, 892, Treaty with the Shawnee, Shoshone-Bannock, 107, 150
896–897 November 7, 1825, 306 Shoshone (Shoshnee), 101, 104, 106,
Settainti, 367, 838, 851, 892–893, 897 Treaty with the Shawnee, 107, 227–228, 252, 253
Settlement August 8, 1831, 312 and jurisdiction, 175
illegal, 16–17 Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., Treaty with the Eastern
Indian, 19, 25 October 26, 1832, 314 Shoshone, July 2, 1863,
non-Indian, 13, 15, 24, 25, 110 Treaty with the Shawnee, May 353–354
Seven Fires of Canada, 238 10, 1854, 339 Treaty with the Shoshone—
Seven Major Crimes Act, 59 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Northwestern Bands,
Seven Nations of Canada, 75–76, August 3, 1795, 289 July 30, 1863, 353–354
236, 238 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Western
Treaty with the Seven Nations of July 4, 1805, 291 Shoshone, October 1,
Canada, May 31, 1796, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 1863, 354
289 July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Shoshone—
Seven Years’ War. See French and Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Goship, October 12,
Indian War September 8, 1815, 295 1863, 354
Seventh Cavalry, 271 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Eastern Band
Severalty Act. General Allotment September 29, 1817, 297 Shoshone and Bannock,
Act Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 3, 1868, 372–374,
Seward, William, 202, 870 September 17, 1818, 298 556–559
Sganyadí:yoh (Handsome Lake), 75, and Vincennes, 442 Shoshone v. U.S., 44
76, 289, 649, 814–816 Shawnee Prophet (the Prophet; Show-show-o-nu-bee-see, 329
Sha-da-na-ge (Yellow Smoke), 356 Tenskwatawa, Shu-kah-bi (Heavy Clouds), 349
Sha-ho-mish Tensquatawa), 80, 84, Shubenaccadie, 237
Treaty with the Dwamish, 245, 247, 421, 427, Shyik, 345
Suquamish, Etc., January 439–440, 442, 443–444, Si-Yan-Te
22, 1855, 343 646, 647, 648, 649, 904, Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc.,
Shanks, Isaac, 349 905 March 1851, 231 table 3
Shannon, Peter C., 385 Shawun Epenaysee, 330 Sibley, George C., 304, 413

I-40 Index
Sibley, H. H., 358, 359, 360 Treaty with the Sioux, Sisseton Sioux, 100
Sibley, Henry, 848 September 29, 1837, 328 agreement with, 102
Sibley, Solomon, 301 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, Agreement with the Sisseton
Sichangu Lakota, 166 October 21, 1837, 328 and Wahpeton Bands of
Siksika (Blackfeet), 383 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton Sioux Indians,
Siletz Reservation, 226 and Wahpeton Bands, September 20, 1872, 376
Silver Brooch, 367 July 23, 1851, 336 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox,
Silver mining, 31, 139. See also Treaty with the Sioux— Etc., July 15, 1830, 310
Natural resources Mdewakanton and Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton
Simtustus, 148 Wahpakoota Bands, and Wahpeton Bands,
Sioune August 5, 1851, 336 July 23, 1851, 336
Treaty with the Sioune and Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton
Oglala, July 5, 1825, 303 Sioux, Etc., September and Wahpeton Bands,
Sioux, 24, 25, 39, 51, 64, 91–92, 101, 17, 1851, 336–337 February 19, 1867,
104, 107, 236, 251, 252, Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, 364–365
253, 254, 255–257, 271, April 19, 1858, 349 Sitting Bear (Satank, Setangya), 367,
719, 722–723 Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 892, 896–897
and addenda treaty, 103 1858, 350 Sitting Bull, 719, 784, 785, 897–899,
agreement with, 31 Treaty with the Sioux— 901
Agreement with the Sioux of Miniconjou Band, Sitting in the Saddle (Tauankia), 851
Various Tribes, October October 10, 1865, 357 The Six Books of the Commonwealth
17, 1822, to January 3, Treaty with the Sioux-Lower (Bodin), 49
1883, 385 Brulé Band, October 14, Six Nations, 15, 19, 51, 52, 55, 70, 72,
Agreement with the Sisseton 1865, 357 73, 74–75, 644
and Wahpeton Bands of Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux, and Revolutionary War, 163–164
Sioux Indians, October 19, 1865, 358–360 Treaty Conference with the Six
September 20, 1872, 376 Treaty with the Sioux—Two- Nations at Fort Stanwix,
Amended Agreement with Kettle Band, October 19, November 1768, 281–283
the Certain Sioux 1865, 358 Treaty with the Six Nations,
Indians, March 2, Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa October 22, 1784, 285
1873, 376–377 Band, October 20, 1865, Treaty with the Six Nations,
and education, 179 359 January 9, 1789, 286
and Fort Laramie, 423 Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Treaty with the Six Nations,
and jurisdiction, 168 Arcs Band, October 20, November 11, 1794,
and Prairie du Chien, 431 1865, 359 287–288, 454–456
and reorganization, 171 Treaty with the Sioux— See also Cayuga; Iroquois;
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Yanktonai Band, October Mohawk; Oneida;
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 20, 1865, 359–360 Onondaga; Seneca;
Treaty with the Sioux, Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Tuscarora
September 23, 1805, 292 Band, October 28, 1865, Six Nations Reserve, 239
Treaty with the Sioux of the 360 Sk-táh-le-jum
Lakes, July 19, 1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper Treaty with the Dwamish,
Treaty with the Sioux of St. Yanktonai Band, October Suquamish, Etc., January
Peter’s River, July 19, 28, 1865, 360 22, 1855, 343
1815, 294 Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton Sk-táhlmish
Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, and Wahpeton Bands, Treaty with the Dwamish,
July 19, 1815, 294 February 19, 1867, Suquamish, Etc., January
Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 364–365 22, 1855, 343
1816, 296 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Skágit
Treaty with the Hunkapapa Arapaho, April 29, 1868, Treaty with the Dwamish,
Band of the Sioux Tribe, 369 Suquamish, Etc., January
July 16, 1825, 304 Treaty with the Teton, Etc., 22, 1855, 343
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303 Skah-tle-loh-skee (John Ridge), 88,
August 19, 1825, See also Dakota; Lakota; Nakota 89, 265, 321, 322, 333,
304–305, 459–463 Sioux Reservation, 32, 256 430, 758, 887, 888, 909
Treaty with the Sioux, Sioux Valley First Nation, 216 Skai-wha-mish
September 10, 1836, 324 SIPI. See Southwestern Indian Treaty with the Dwamish,
Treaty with the Sioux, Polytechnic Institute Suquamish, Etc., January
November 30, 1836, 325 Sis-see-yaw, 319 22, 1855, 343

Index I-41
Skaniadario (Handsome Lake), 75, Sounsosee, Lewis, 339 Spring Frog, 297
76, 289, 649, 814–816 Sour Much, 291 Squanto (Tisquantum), 854
Skannowa, John, 149 Souter, David, 723 Squatters, 17
Skimmy (Eskiminzin), 805–806 the South Squawskin. See Squaxin
Skin-cheesh, 325 Indian removal in, 86–89 Squaxin Island, 154
Skin-pah, 345 treaties in, 77–79 Squaxin (S’Homamais, Squawskin,
SKINS. See Student Kouncil of South America, 51 Squaxon), 99
Intertribal Nations South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, and Medicine Creek, 427–428
S’Klallam 46, 931 Treaty with the Nisqually,
Treaty with the S’Klallam, South Slave Métis Tribal Council, Puyallup, Etc., December
January 26, 1855, 343 216 26, 1854, 342–343,
Skokomish, 154 Southeast, treaties in, 259–265 507–510
Skope-áhmish Southern plains, treaties in, 267–273 Squaxon. See Squaxin
Treaty with the Dwamish, Southwest, treaties in, 267–273 Squiaitl (Squi-aitl), 99
Suquamish, Etc., January Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Treaty with the Nisqually,
22, 1855, 343 Institute (SIPI), 190 Puyallup, Etc., December
Sky, George, 349 Sovereignty, 212–213, 947–948 26, 1854, 342–343,
Sladen, Joseph, 778 in Alaska, 199 507–510
Slavery, 29–30, 103 in Canada, 177 Squin-áh-mish
Slikatat, 344–345 and European aggression, Treaty with the Dwamish,
Smalh-kamish 162–163 Suquamish, Etc., January
Treaty with the Dwamish, French, 49 22, 1855, 343
Suquamish, Etc., January and government-to-government St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber
22, 1855, 343 relationship, 930 Company v. The Queen
Small Cloud Spicer, 312 in Hawaii, 203, 207 (Canada), 673–674, 702
Smallpox, 253, 270. See also and land ownership, 135–136 St. Clair, Arthur, 73–74, 245, 286, 420,
European diseases and treaties, signing of, 644, 745, 839, 849,
Smith, Daniel, 291, 292 162–163 902–903, 913
Smith, Edmund Kirby, 106 tribal, 5, 8, 39, 40, 112–114 St. Croix, 157
Smith, Edward P., 921 See also Jurisdiction St. Francis, 75
Smith, Frederick, 282 Spain, 6, 13, 28, 49, 56, 212–213 St. John, 237
Smith, Henry, 895, 896 and California, 228 St. Joseph (Michigan)
Smith, James, 363, 376 and Florida, 20, 77, 79, 85 treaty history of, 436–437
Smith, John, 880 and Hawaii, 229 See also Treaty with the
Smith, McKee A., 696 and Mexico, 53 Chippewa, Etc.,
Smoking of the pipe, 255 and Pueblos, 162 September 26, 1833;
Snake, 101, 252, 357 treaties with, 267, 268 Treaty with the
Treaty with the Snake, August and treaty negotiation, 50, 52 Potawatomi,
12, 1865, 356–357 Speaker (Aampahaa), 294 September 19, 1827;
Snapping Turtle (Peter Pitchlynn), Special Message on Indian Affairs Treaty with the
105, 346, 418, 876–877 (Nixon), 115 Potawatome,
Snoquálmoo Specific Claims Branch, 949 September 20, 1828
Treaty with the Dwamish, Specific claims (Canada), 216, 235, St. Louis (Missouri)
Suquamish, Etc., January 236, 948–950 treaty history of, 437–439
22, 1855, 343 Specific Claims Resolution Act Treaty of, 295, 296
Snow, George C., 365 Bill C-6, 949–950 See also Treaty with the Sauk and
Snyder Act, 709 Speech to a Delegation of Indian Fox, November 3, 1804
Soap, Charlie, 852 Chiefs (Jefferson), St. Regis, 75, 638
Soda Springs treaty, 228 252–253 St. Regis Reservation, 75
Sohappy, David, Sr., 149, 152, 154, Spence, Wishart, 702 St-káh-mish
415, 696–697, 899–900 Spencer, Ambrose, 330 Treaty with the Dwamish,
Sohappy, Richard, 696–697 Spencer Academy, 418 Suquamish, Etc., January
Sohappy/Oregon ruling, 696–697 Spicer, George, 365 22, 1855, 343
Sohappy v. Smith, 153, 696–697 Spo-tee, 325 STA-W. See Stop Treaty Abuse-
Sokoki Abenaki, 75 Spoils system, 272 Wisconsin
Solomon, John (Shi-a-wa), 312 Spokane Reservation, 227 Stambaugh, Samuel C., 311
Songhees, 238 Spotted Tail, 166–167, 179, 669, Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi),
Sooke, 238 900–901 829–830, 903–904, 905,
Sos’heowa, 816 Spring, Jesse, 349 906

I-42 Index
Standing Buffalo (Tah-ton-ga-nuz- and education, 180 Supremacy clause (of the
zhe), 349, 356 Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., Constitution), 28, 64, 154,
Standing Hawk (Gra-ta-mah-zhe), December 2, 1794, 943, 951–952
356 288–289 Suquamish (Suquámish), 16, 63, 99,
Standing Holy, 899 Treaty with the Stockbridge and 713–714, 715
Stanley, H. M., 367 Munsee, September 3, Treaty with the Dwamish,
Stanwix, General, 424 1839, 330 Suquamish, Etc., January
Stapler, Mary Brian, 891 Treaty with the Stockbridge 22, 1855, 343
State of Michigan v. William Jondreau, Tribe, November 24, Surplus lands, 32, 33, 96–97
156 1848, 334 Survival of American Indians
State of Washington v. Miller, 159 Treaty with the Stockbridge and Association, 152
State-recognized tribes, 950–951. See Munsee, February 5, Susquehannas, 243
also Federally 1856, 348 Sutter, John, 228, 660
recognized tribes; Stoke Commission, 936 Swamp, Adam, 329
Nonrecognized tribes Stokes, Montfort, 315, 316, 320, 327, Swampy Cree, 375–376, 380–381,
State v. Alexis, 151 936 382. See also Cree
State v. Keezer, 158 Sto:lo, 728 Swan Creek
State v. Missionaries, 655 Stoluck-whá-mish Treaty with the Chippewa of
State v. Morrin, 249 Treaty with the Dwamish, Saginaw, Swan Creek,
State v. Towessnute, 151 Suquamish, Etc., January and Black River, October
State v. Wallahee, 151 22, 1855, 343 18, 1864, 355
Statehood, in Alaska, 195, 196 Stone, Ely, 870 Swan (Wa-pan-gia), 294
States, and treaty making, 14 Stone, William Leete, 885, 886 Swayne, Noah, 667
States’ rights, and Indian removal, Stone Fort Treaty. See Canadian Sweden, 162
85–86 Indian Treaty 1 Sweet Medicine, 754
Statute of Westminster, 51, 214 Stoney, 383 Swegatchy, Treaty of, 641–642
Statutes, 27, 49, 109–112, 126–127 Canadian Indian Treaty 7 Swim v. Bergland, 42, 43
ambiguity in, 41–43 (Blackfeet Treaty), Swimmer, Ross O., 852
and self-determination, September 22, December Swin-á-mish
114–116 4, 1877, 382–385 Treaty with the Dwamish,
and tribal rights, 112–114 Stop Gill Netting, 156 Suquamish, Etc., January
See also Treaties; individual Stop Treaty Abuse, 157, 722 22, 1855, 343
statutes Storm, 351 Sykes, Thomas B., 351
Steck, M., 354 Story, Joseph, 946 Symbolic goods, 135
Steele, James, 269, 358 Straits Salish, 147
Stehchass, 99 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 113 Ta-su (White Cow), 356
Treaty with the Nisqually, Street, Eliza M., 332 Ta-ton-ca-pa (Buffalo Head), Chief,
Puyallup, Etc., December Strong Walker (Gish-tah-wah-gu), 303
26, 1854, 342–343, 349, 356 Ta-wa-ka-ro (Tah-wa-carro)
507–510 Stuart, John, 69, 282 Treaty with the Comanche,
Steilacoom, 99 Stuart, Robert, 331 Aionai, Anadarko,
and Medicine Creek, 427–428 Student Council of American Caddo, Etc., May 15,
Treaty with the Nisqually, Natives (SCAN), 690 1846, 332
Puyallup, Etc., December Student Kouncil of Intertribal Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May
26, 1854, 342–343, Nations (SKINS), 690 26, 1837, 327
507–510 Suárez, Francisco, 50 Taa’-wonyas (Awl Breaker), 814
Stephenson, Benjamin, 300 Sublette, William, 422 Ta’an Kwach’an Council of the
Stevens, Isaac, 25, 42, 149, 226–227, Subsistence rights, 147–150 Yukon, 727
230 table 2, 343, 344, Sugar industry, in Hawaii, 201–202, Tabequache (Tabaquache,
345, 346, 348, 409–410, 203, 204, 206 Tabeguache), 272
895 Sullivan, General, 288 Treaty with the Utah—
and Medicine Creek, 427, 428 Sullivan, John, 641 Tabegauche Band,
Stevens, Justice John, 711 Sumner, Charles, 788 October 7, 1863, 354
Stevens, John L., 204, 205 Sumner, E. V., 337 Table Rock Reservation, 98
Stevens, John (Passamaquoddy Sun dance, 668 Taches
leader), 717 the Sun Fish (Au-ni-mo-ni), 328 Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai,
Stevens treaty, 137 Supplemental Treaty with the etc., May 1851, 231 table
Stewart, Potter, 714 Miami, Etc., September 3
Stockbridge, 315 30, 1809, 293 Taghee, 372, 374

Index I-43
Tagustiskee, 291 and Cass, Lewis, 772 Treaty with the Teton, Etc.,
Tah-hah-nee-o-tah (the Womb), 304 and Ojibwe, 341 Sioux, June 22, 1825, 303
Tah-ra-kee, 352 Te-shaw-gen, 323 Texas, 57, 268
Tah-ro-hon, 328 Tearekatacaush (the Brave), 298 Texas Indian Commission, 950
Tah-ton-ga-nuz-zhe (Tah-tungah- Technology, 49 Texas Republic, 28
nushi; Standing Buffalo), Tecumcena (Tecumsena), 300, 301 Texon
349, 356 Tecumseh, 19, 56, 80, 84, 245, 247, Treaty with the Castake, Texon,
Tah-tungah-nushi. See Tah-ton-ga- 427, 435, 439–440, 442, etc., June 1851, 231 table
nuz-zhe 443, 444, 645, 649, 650, 3
Tah-wa-carro. See Ta-wa-ka-ro 790, 849, 850, 904–905 Teyanhasire, Chief, 282
Tah-wah-gah-ha (Village Maker), and Aupaumut, 745 TFN. See Tunngavik Federation of
356 and Harrison, William Henry, Nunavut
Tahiti, 200 820 Thadahwahnyeh, 884
Tahquohee, 430 and Pushmataha, 882 Thames, Battle of the, 80, 647–649,
Takelma, 225, 229 table 1, 230 and Thames, Battle of, 647–649 650
table 2 and Tippecanoe, Battle of, Themue, 302
Takings, and treaty law, 44 646–647 They Are Afraid of Her, 784
Talapuche, 52, 53 Tecumsena. See Tecumcena They Will Not Be Forgotten
Taliaferro, Lawrence, 325, 776 Tee-Hit-Ton, 44 (Mikwendaagoziwag),
Talking Warrior, 302 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 433
Tall Bull, 367, 755 44, 173, 657, 685–686, 719 Theyanoguin. See Hendrick
Talton v. Mayes, 715 Teetl’it Gwich’in (Tetlit Gwitchin), Thom, Mel, 152
Tamarois 400, 403, 404 Thomas, Chief Jacob, 816
Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., Tegaya, Chief, 282 Thomas, Clarence, 723
October 27, 1832, 315 Teharagwanegen (Thomas Thomas, Rev. Eleazar, 768
Treaty with the Peoria, Etc., Williams), Chief, 289 Thompson, Clark W., 353, 355, 356
September 25, 1818, 299 Teller, H. M., 385 Thompson, Smith, 40, 57
Tamastslikt Cultural Institute, 159 Teller, James H., 385 Thompson, Wiley, 804, 811
Tan-roo-mee, 343 Tellico Dam, 174 Three Fires Confederacy, 235, 236
Tan-tan-ka-has-ka (Long Bull), 360 Ten Bears, 367 Three Fires People, 435
Taoyateduta (Little Crow), 847–848 Ten Eyck, Anthony, 201 Thule, 937
Tapeeksin (T’Peek-sin), 99 Tene-Angpote. See Kicking Bird Thunder Rolling in the Mountains.
Treaty with the Nisqually, Ténéangopte. See Kicking Bird See Joseph, Chief
Puyallup, Etc., December Tenetendi (Eagle Heart), 897 Thur-o-mony, 352
26, 1854, 342–343, Tenino, 148 Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright
507–510 Tenskwatawa. See Shawnee Prophet Eyes; Inshta Theamba),
Tappan, Lewis, 267 Tensquatawa. See Shawnee Prophet 905–906
Tappan, Samuel F., 271, 366, 367, Termination, 8, 24, 34–35, 36, 61, Tibbles, Thomas H., 830, 906
369, 370, 749, 773 111–112, 114–115, 116, Tigua, 41
Tappaye Pawnee, 319 119–120, 133, 138–139, Tilghman, James, 282
Taruntne (Between the Logs), 298 171–172, 173, 189, 196, Tillamook, 97, 229 table 1
Tashtasick, 766 197, 198, 682, 683–684, Timber rights, 43, 45, 141–142, 157.
Tatangamania (Walking Buffalo), 686–687, 689, 694, See also Natural resources
294 952–953 Timothy, Chief, 374
Tatarnaza (Iron Wind), 294 in Alaska, 196, 198 Tippecanoe, Battle of, 444, 646–647,
Tauankia (Sitting in the Saddle), 851 and Nixon, Richard, 697 649
Tauromee (John Hat), 365 See also Deer, Ada E.; House Tippecanoe River (Indiana)
Tawakoni, 104, 268 Concurrent Resolution treaty history of, 439–441
Tax revenues, 6, 88 108; Public Law 280 See also Treaty with the
Taylor, E. E. L., 362 Termination Act, 141, 694 Delaware, Etc.,
Taylor, Edward B., 357, 358, 359, 360 Termination Resolution, 35 September 30, 1809
Taylor, Frank, 150, 151 Terry, Alfred, 106, 271, 366, 367, 369, Tipton, John, 307, 308, 440
Taylor, Nathaniel G., 30, 106, 230 370, 898 Tisquantum (Squanto), 854
table 2, 271, 366, 367, 368, Tesson, Joseph, 352 Title IX Indian Education, 709
369, 373, 374 Tetawiouche (Wearer of Shoes), 298 Tiyanoga. See Hendrick
Taylor, Richard, 296, 333 Tetlit Gwitchin. See Teetl’it Gwich’in Tli Cho, 400
Taylor, Zachary, 23, 91, 231 table 4, Teton Tlicho (Dogrib; Tli Cho), 727
324, 421, 433, 730–731, Treaty with the Teton, July 19, Tlingit, 44, 196, 198, 685–686
760, 842 1815, 294 To-hee, 352

I-44 Index
To-I sa’s Brother (We-we-sah), establishment and conduct of and tribal leaders, 9
324–325 Indian relations through, tribal perspectives on, 9–10
Tohono O’odham, 116 15–18 Treaty negotiation, 6, 8, 10–11, 14
Tohopeka. See Horseshoe Bend, force and effect of, 11 authority, 10, 25
Battle of between Indian nations, 272–273 in colonial America, 53–58
Tolluntuskie, 291 as international agreements, in Europe, 50–53
Tolmie, William Fraser, 894–895 49–64 fraudulent, 40
Tolowa, 175 interpretation of, 149 methods of, 15–16
Tomack Micco, 313 legacy of, 12 stages in, 254–255
Tonaskat, 385 as negotiation process, 10–11. Treaty of Albany, 1677, 245
Tonawanda See also Treaty Treaty of Albany with Iroquois
Treaty with the Seneca— negotiation Confederacy and British
Tonawanda Band, non-Indian opposition to, 25–26 Crown, September 24,
November 5, 1857, 349 objectives of, 13, 18–25 1664, 211
Tonawonda Reservation, 349 permanent language in, 11 Treaty of Albany with the Five
Tonkawa, 57, 104 policy goals of, 76–81 Nations, July 31, 1684,
Toochalar, 297 post-1871, 5–6 275–277
Topinbee, 437, 877 post-Civil War, 7 Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and
Tordesilla, Treaty of, 49 pre-1871, 5 Navigation. See Amity,
T’Peek-sin. See Tapeeksin pre-War of 1812, 136 Commerce, and
Trade, 15, 17, 27–28, 49, 55, 76–77, during Revolutionary War Navigation, Treaty of
251–252, 253 (U.S.), 18–19, 69–70, Treaty of Big Tree. See Big Tree,
and Hawaii, 203, 204, 232 259–260 Treaty of
See also Fur trade and rules of interpretation, 135 Treaty of Bois Fort. See Bois Fort,
Trade and Intercourse Act, 74, 75–76, signing of, 162–163, 255 Treaty of
77, 109, 247, 251, 261, in the twentieth century, 61–64 Treaty of Buffalo Creek. See Buffalo
643, 717, 922. See also under U.S. Constitution, 73-76 Creek, Treaty of
Annuities See also Addenda treaties; Treaty of Canandaigua. See
Trade debts, 20 Confederate treaties; Canandaigua, Treaty of
Trade routes, 6 individual treaties listed by Treaty of Carey Mission. See Carey
Traders, Indian debt to, 20 location or tribe; Mission, Treaty of
Trading posts, 76–77 Reconstruction treaties; Treaty of Caribou Creek. See Caribou
Trail of Broken Treaties, 700–701, Statutes; Unratified Creek, Treaty of
704, 712 treaties Treaty of Chicago. See Chicago,
Trail of Death, 248 Treaty Commission, 58 Treaty of
Trail of Tears, 136, 137, 184, 213, 265, Treaty Conference with the Six Treaty of The Dalles. See The Dalles,
653, 657–658, 661, 936 Nations at Fort Stanwix, Treaty of
Trans-Alaska pipeline, 197 November 1768, Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. See
Transcontinental railway, 25 281–283. See also Fort Dancing Rabbit Creek,
Transfer Act, 35 Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty of
Trapping rights, 41 Treaty documents, 10–11. See also Treaty of Doak’s Stand. See Doak’s
Traverse des Sioux individual documents Stand, Treaty of
treaty history of, 441 Treaty law Treaty of Doaksville. See Doaksville,
Treaty of, 255, 441 abrogation and, 44–46 Treaty of
See also Treaty with the Sioux— and canons of construction, Treaty of Forks of the Wabash. See
Mdewankanton and 41–43 Forks of the Wabash,
Wahpakoota Bands, and plenary power, 43–44. See Treaty of
August 5, 1851; Treaty also Plenary power Treaty of Fort Adams. See Fort
with the Sioux—Sisseton and statute ambiguity, 41–43 Adams, Treaty of
and Wahpeton Bands, and takings, 44 Treaty of Fort Bridger. See Fort
July 23, 1851 and treaty rights, 39–41 Bridger, Treaty of
Treaties, 13, 953–954 Treaty making Treaty of Fort Finney. See Fort
in colonial America, 11, 40, end of, 5, 7, 8, 25–26, 41, 58–61, Finney, Treaty of
51–53, 53–58, 69–81, 137 95, 109 Treaty of Fort Harmar. See Fort
with competing factions, 11 local, 8–9 Harmar, Treaty of
definition of, 5, 49, 133 past and present traditions of, Treaty of Fort Jackson. See Fort
and education, 180–181, 182–183, 6–9 Jackson, Treaty of
190 post-1960, 8 Treaty of Fort Laramie. See Fort
1800—1829, 76-81 state, 8–9, 14 Laramie, Treaty of

Index I-45
Treaty of Fort Laramie with the Treaty of Payne’s Landing. See Treaty with the Arikara Tribe, July
Sioux, Etc., September Payne’s Landing, Treaty 18, 1825, 304
17, 1851, 336–337. See of Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or
also Fort Laramie, Treaty Treaty of Peace. See Peace, Treaty of Minitaree Tribe, July 30,
of Treaty of Peace and Amity. See Peace 1825, 304
Treaty of Fort McIntosh. See Fort and Amity, Treaty of Treaty with the Blackfeet, October
McIntosh, Treaty of Treaty of Pensacola. See Pensacola, 17, 1855, 347–348
Treaty of Fort Pitt. See Fort Pitt, Treaty of Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux,
Treaty of Treaty of Picolata. See Picolata, October 19, 1865,
Treaty of Fort Stanwix. See Fort Treaty of 358–359, 358–360
Stanwix, Treaty of Treaty of Pontotoc. See Pontotoc, Treaty with the Ca-La Na-Po, etc.,
Treaty of Fort Wayne. See Fort Treaty of August 1851, 231 table 3
Wayne, Treaty of Treaty of Prairie du Chien. See Treaty with the Caddo, July 1, 1835,
Treaty of Fort Wise. See Fort Wise, Prairie du Chien, Treaty 320
Treaty of of Treaty with the Castake, Texon, etc.,
Treaty of Franklin. See Franklin, Treaty of Reciprocity. See Reciprocity, June 1851, 231 table 3
Treaty of Treaty of Treaty with the Chasta, Etc.,
Treaty of Ghent. See Ghent, Treaty of Treaty of Rogue River. See Rogue November 18, 1854, 342
Treaty of Grandpré. See Grandpré, River, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee,
Treaty of Treaty of St. Louis. See St. Louis, November 28, 1785,
Treaty of Greenville. See Greenville, Treaty of 285–286
Treaty of Treaty of Tordesilla. See Tordesilla, treaty document, 451–453
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. See Treaty of See also Hopewell, Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of Traverse des Sioux. See Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2,
Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, 1791, 287. See also
Treaty of Hard Labor. See Hard Treaty of Holston, Treaty of
Labor, Treaty of Treaty of Trois Rivières. See Trois Treaty with the Cherokee, June 26,
Treaty of Hartford. See Hartford, Rivières, Treaty of 1794, 287. See also Fort
Treaty of Treaty of Utrecht. See Utrecht, Treaty Harmar, Treaty of
Treaty of Holston. See Holston, of Treaty with the Cherokee, October 2,
Treaty of Treaty of Versailles. See Versailles, 1798, 289
Treaty of Hopewell. See Hopewell, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, October
Treaty of Treaty of Washington. See 24, 1804, 291
Treaty of Indian Springs. See Indian Washington, Treaty of Treaty with the Cherokee, October
Springs, Treaty of Treaty of Washington City. See 25, 1805, 292
Treaty of La Famine. See La Famine, Washington City, Treaty Treaty with the Cherokee, March 22,
Treaty of of 1816, 296
Treaty of Lapwai. See Lapwai, Treaty Treaty of Westphalia. See Westphalia, Treaty with the Cherokee,
of Treaty of September 14, 1816, 297
Treaty of Medicine Creek. See Treaty Party, 23, 88–89, 321, 322 Treaty with the Cherokee, February
Medicine Creek, Treaty Treaty ratification, 9, 14, 53–54, 135 27, 1819, 299
of Treaty rights, 39–41 Treaty with the Western Cherokee,
Treaty of Medicine Lodge. See interpretation of, 39, 40–43 May 6, 1828, 308
Medicine Lodge, Treaty Treaty sites, 409–444. See also Treaty with the Western Cherokee,
of individual treaty sites February 14, 1833,
Treaty of Middle Oregon. See Middle Treaty substitutes, 27, 133 315–316
Oregon, Treaty of Treaty Tree, 427 Treaty with the Cherokee, December
Treaty of Montreal, August 7, 1701, Treaty with the Apache, July 1, 1852, 29, 1835, 320–322
278–279. See also 337 treaty document, 483–491
Montreal, Treaty of Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, See also New Echota, Treaty of
Treaty of Mount Dexter. See Mount and Arapaho, October Treaty with the Cherokee, August 6,
Dexter, Treaty of 17, 1865, 358 1846, 333
Treaty of New Echota. See New Treaty with the Appalachicola, Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19,
Echota, Treaty of October 11, 1832, 313 1866, 363
Treaty of New York. See New York, Treaty with the Appalachicola Band, treaty document, 542–550
Treaty of June 18, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Cherokee, April 27,
Treaty of Olympia. See Olympia, Treaty with the Arapaho and 1868, 368–369
Treaty of Cheyenne, February 18, Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe, July
Treaty of Paris. See Paris, Treaty of 1861, 351–352 6, 1825, 303

I-46 Index
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Treaty with the Chippewa of the Treaty with the Choctaw, September
Arapaho, October 14, Mississippi and Lake 27, 1830, 310–311
1865, 357–358 Superior, August 2, 1847, treaty document, 468–476
treaty document, 518–522 333 See also Dancing Rabbit Creek,
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Treaty with the Pillager Band of Treaty of
Arapaho, October 28, Chippewa Indians, Treaty with the Choctaw and
1867, 366–367. See also August 21, 1847, 333 Chickasaw, January 17,
Medicine Lodge Creek, Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837, 327. See also
Treaty of September 30, 1854, Doaksville, Treaty of
Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne 340–341 Treaty with the Choctaw and
and Northern Arapaho, treaty document, 502–507 Chickasaw, November 4,
May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Chippewa, February 1854, 342
Treaty with the Chickasaw, January 22, 1855, 344 Treaty with the Choctaw and
10, 1786, 286 Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Chickasaw, June 22,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, October Ste. Marie, August 2, 1855, 345–346
24, 1801, 289–290 1855, 347 Treaty with the Choctaw and
Treaty with the Chickasaw, July 23, Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July Chickasaw, April 28,
1805, 291 16, 1859, 350 1866, 362
Treaty with the Chickasaw, Treaty with the Chippewa—Red treaty document, 527–538
September 20, 1816, 297 Lake and Pembina Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo-Woz,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, October Bands, October 1, 1863, etc., June 1851, 231 table 3
19, 1818, 299 354 Treaty with the Colus, Willays, etc.,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, August Treaty with the Chippewa of the September 1851, 231
31, 1830, 310 Mississippi and the table 3
treaty document, 464–468 Pillager and Lake Treaty with the Comanche, Etc.,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, October Winnibigoshish Bands, August 4, 1835, 320
20, 1832, 314 March 11, 1863, 353 Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai,
Treaty with the Chickasaw, May 24, Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Anadarko, Caddo, Etc.,
1834, 319 Lake and Pembina Bands, May 15, 1846, 332
Treaty with the Chickasaw, June 22, April 12, 1864, 355 Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa,
1852, 337 Treaty with the Chippewa, and Apache, July 27,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Mississippi, Pilager, and 1853, 338
November 25, 1808, 293 Lake Winnibigoshish treaty document, 500–502
Treaty with the Chippewa, 1837 Bands, May 7, 1864, 353 Treaty with the Comanche and
treaty document, 491–493 Treaty with the Chippewa of Kiowa, October 18, 1865,
Treaty with the Chippewa, 1842 Saginaw, Swan Creek, 358
treaty document, 493–495 and Black River, October Treaty with the Creek, August 7,
Treaty with the Chippewa, August 5, 18, 1864, 355 1790, 287
1826, 306–307 Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Treaty with the Creek, June 29, 1796,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., Fort Band, April 7, 1866, 289
August 11, 1827, 307 362 Treaty with the Creek, June 16, 1802,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., July Treaty with the Chippewa of the 290
28, 1829, 309 Mississippi, March 19, Treaty with the Creek, October 27,
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc., 1867, 365 1805, 292
September 26, 1833, Treaty with the Choctaw, January 3, Treaty with the Creek, August 9,
317–319. See also 1786, 286 1814, 294
Chicago, Treaty of Treaty with the Choctaw, December Treaty with the Creek, January 22,
Treaty with the Chippewa, May 9, 17, 1801, 290 1818, 298
1836, 323–324 Treaty with the Choctaw, August 31, Treaty with the Creek, January 8,
Treaty with the Chippewa, January 1803, 291 1821, 301
14, 1837, 326–327 Treaty with the Choctaw, November Treaty with the Creek, February 12,
Treaty with the Chippewa, July 29, 16, 1805, 292 1825, 302–303
1837, 327–328 Treaty with the Choctaw, October Treaty with the Creek, January 24,
Treaty with the Chippewa, 24, 1816, 297 1826, 306
December 20, 1837, 329 Treaty with the Choctaw, October Treaty with the Creek, November 15,
Treaty with the Chippewa, February 18, 1820, 301. See also 1827, 307–308
7, 1839, 330 Doak’s Stand, Treaty of Treaty with the Creek, March 24,
Treaty with the Chippewa, October Treaty with the Choctaw, January 20, 1832, 312–313
4, 1842, 331 1825, 302 treaty document, 476–478

Index I-47
Treaty with the Creek, February 14, Treaty with the Fox, September 14, Treaty with the Kickapoo, June 28,
1833, 316 1815, 295 1863, 353
Treaty with the Creek, November 23, Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, Treaty with the Kiowa, Etc., May 26,
1838, 329–330 December 1849, 231 table 1837, 327
Treaty with the Creek and Seminole, 4, 232 Treaty with the Kiowa and
January 4, 1845, 332 Treaty with the Howechees, etc., Comanche, October 21,
Treaty with the Creek, June 13, 1854, April 1851, 231 table 3 1867, 365–366
340 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche,
Treaty with the Creek, Etc., August the Sioux Tribe, July 16, and Apache, October 21,
7, 1856, 348–349 1825, 304 1867, 366
Treaty with the Creek, June 14, 1866, Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, treaty document, 550–552
362–363 Wethillas, etc., May 1851, Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower
treaty document, 538–542 231 table 3 Klamath, etc., October
Treaty with the Crow Tribe, August Treaty with the Iowa, September 16, 1851, 231 table 3
4, 1825, 304 1815, 295–296 Treaty with the Upper Klamath,
Treaty with the Crow, May 7, 1868, Treaty with the Iowa, August 4, Shasta, and Scott’s River,
369 1824, 302 November 1851, 231
Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si, etc., Treaty with the Iowa, Etc., table 3
September 1851, 231 September 17, 1836, 324 Treaty with the Klamath, Etc.,
table 3 Treaty with the Iowa, November 23, October 14, 1864, 355
Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-Ma- 1837, 328 Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A-Si,
Do, etc., July 1851, 231 Treaty with the Iowa, October 29, etc., May 1851, 231 table 3
table 3 1838, 329 Treaty with the Makah, July 20,
Treaty with the Delaware, Treaty with the Iowa, May 17, 1854, 1815, 294–295
September 17, 1778, 339 Treaty with the Makah Tribe,
283–284 Treaty with the Kalapuya, Etc., October 6, 1825, 306
treaty document, 449–450 January 22, 1855, 343 Treaty with the Makah, January 31,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., June Treaty with the Kansa, June 3, 1825, 1855, 344
7, 1803, 290 303 Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, July
Treaty with the Delaware, August Treaty with the Kansa, August 16, 30, 1825, 304
18, 1804, 291 1825, 304 Treaty with the Menominee, March
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, January 30, 1817, 297
August 21, 1805, 292 14, 1846, 332 Treaty with the Menominee,
Treaty with the Delaware, Etc., Treaty with the Kansa Tribe, October February 8, 1831, 311
September 30, 1809, 293 5, 1859, 351 Treaty with the Menominee, October
Treaty with the Delaware, October 3, Treaty with the Kansa, March 13, 27, 1832, 315
1818, 299 1862, 352 Treaty with the Menominee,
Treaty with the Delaware, August 3, Treaty with the Kansas, October 28, September 3, 1836, 324
1829, 309 1815, 296 Treaty with the Menominee, October
Treaty with the Delaware, May 6, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, August 18, 1848, 333–334
1854, 339 13, 1803, 290–291 Treaty with the Menominee, May 12,
Treaty with the Delaware, May 30, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Etc., 1854, 339
1860, 351 October 27, 1832, 315 Treaty with the Menominee,
Treaty with the Delaware, July 2, Treaty with the Kaskaskia, February 22, 1856, 348
1861, 352 Peoria, Etc., May 30, Treaty with the Mi-Chop-Da, Es-
Treaty with the Delaware, July 4, 1854, 340 Kun, etc., August 1851,
1866, 363 Treaty with the Kickapoo, December 231 table 3
Treaty with the Diegunio, January 9, 1809, 293 Treaty with the Miami, October 6,
1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Kickapoo, 1818, 299
Treaty with the Dwamish, September 2, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Miami, October 23,
Suquamish, Etc., January Treaty with the Kickapoo, July 30, 1826, 307
22, 1855, 343 1819, 299–300 Treaty with the Miami, February 11,
Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., Treaty with the Kickapoo of the 1828, 308
August 7, 1803, 290 Vermillion, September 5, Treaty with the Miami, October 23,
Treaty with the Flatheads, Etc., July 1820, 301 1834, 319
16, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Kickapoo, October Treaty with the Miami, November 6,
Treaty with the Florida Tribes of 24, 1832, 314 1838, 329
Indians, September 18, Treaty with the Kickapoo, May 18, Treaty with the Miami, November
1823, 302 1854, 340 28, 1840, 330

I-48 Index
Treaty with the Miami, June 5, 1854, Treaty with the Osage, August 21, Treaty with the Pawnee, October 9,
340 1822, 301 1833, 319
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Treaty with the Osage, June 2, 1825, Treaty with the Pawnee—Grand,
Oregon, June 25, 1855, 303 Loups, Republicans, Etc.,
346 Treaty with the Great and Little August 6, 1848, 333
Treaty with the Middle Oregon Osage, August 10, 1825, Treaty with the Pawnee, September
Tribes, November 15, 304 24, 1857, 349
1865, 360 Treaty with the Osage, January 11, Treaty with the Peoria, Etc.,
Treaty with the Mohawk, March 29, 1839, 330 September 25, 1818, 299
1797, 289 Treaty with the Osage, September Treaty with the Piankashaw,
Treaty with the Molala, December 19, 1865, 357 December 30, 1805, 292
21, 1855, 348 Treaty with the Oto, June 24, 1817, Treaty with the Piankashaw, July 18,
Treaty with the Navajo, September, 297 1815, 294
1849, 334 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri Treaty with the Piankashaw, October
Treaty with the Navajo, June 1, 1868, Tribes, September 26, 29, 1832, 315
370–372 1825, 306 Treaty with the Piankeshaw, August
treaty document, 552–556 Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, 27, 1804, 291
Treaty with the New York Indians, September 21, 1833, Treaty with the Pillager Band of
January 15, 1838, 329 316–317 Chippewa Indians,
Treaty with the Nez Percé, June 11, Treaty with the Otoe, Etc., October August 21, 1847, 333
1855, 345 15, 1835, 325 Treaty with the Pohlik or Lower
Treaty with the Nez Perce, June 9, Treaty with the Otoe and Missouri, Klamath, etc., October
1863, 353 March 15, 1854, 338 1851, 231 table 3
treaty document, 513–518 Treaty with the Confederated Otoe Treaty with the Ponca, June 25, 1817,
Treaty with the Nez Percé, August and Missouri, December 297
13, 1868, 374 9, 1854, 342 Treaty with the Ponca, June 9, 1825,
Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 303
Etc., December 26, 1854, November 17, 1807, 293 Treaty with the Ponca, March 12,
342–343 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August 1858, 349
treaty document, 507–510 24, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Ponca, March 10,
See also Medicine Creek, Treaty of Treaty with the Ottawa and 1865, 356
Treaty with the Noe-Ma, etc., Chippewa, July 6, 1820, Treaty with the Potawatomi, July 18,
August 1851, 231 table 3 300 1815, 294
Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., August Treaty with the Potawatomi,
19, 1818, 298 29, 1821, 301 October 2, 1818, 299
Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne Treaty with the Ottawa, August 30, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
and Northern Arapaho, 1831, 312 October 16, 1826, 307
May 10, 1868, 369–370 Treaty with the Ottawa, February 18, Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Omaha, March 16, 1833, 316 September 19, 1827, 307
1854, 338–339 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Omaha, March 6, 28, 1836, 322–323 September 20, 1828, 309
1865, 355–356 Treaty with the Ottawa and Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., Chippewa, July 31, 1855, October 20, 1832,
December 2, 1794, 346–347 313–314
288–289 Treaty with the Ottawa of Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Oneida, February 3, Blanchard’s Fork and October 26, 1832,
1838, 329 Roche de Boeuf, June 24, 314–315
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle 1862, 352 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Oregon, June 25, 1855, Treaty with the Grand Pawnee, June December 10, 1834, 319
346 18, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
Treaty with the Middle Oregon Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee, June December 16, 1834, 320
Tribes, November 15, 19, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi,
1865, 360 Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar, December 17, 1834, 320
Treaty with the Osage, November June 22, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March
10, 1808, 293 Treaty with the Pawnee Republic, 26, 1836, 322
Treaty with the Osage, September June 20, 1818, 298 Treaty with the Potawatomi, March
12, 1815, 295 Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, 29, 1836, 323
Treaty with the Osage, September September 30, 1825, Treaty with the Potawatomi, August
25, 1818, 299 306 5, 1836, 324

Index I-49
Treaty with the Potawatomi, Treaty with the Sac and Fox, October treaty document, 556–559
September 20, 1836, 1, 1859, 350–351 See also Fort Bridger, Treaty of
324–325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., Treaty with the Si-Yan-Te, etc.,
Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 6, 1861, 352 March 1851, 231 table 3
September 22, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala,
Treaty with the Potawatomi, February 18, 1867, 364 July 5, 1825, 303
February 11, 1837, 327 Treaty with the Seminole, May 9, Treaty with the Sioux, September 23,
Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation, 1832, 313 1805, 292
June 5 and 17, 1846, treaty document, 478–480 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July
332–333 Treaty with the Seminole, March 28, 19, 1815, 294
Treaty with the Potawatomi, 1833, 316 Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes,
November 15, 1861, 352 Treaty with the Seminole, March 21, July 19, 1815, 294
Treaty with the Potawatomi, March 1866, 362 Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter’s
29, 1866, 362 treaty document, 522–527 River, July 19, 1815,
Treaty with the Potawatomi, Treaty with the Seneca, June 30, 294
February 27, 1867, 365 1802, 290 Treaty with the Sioux, June 1, 1816,
Treaty with the Quapaw, August 24, Treaty with the Seneca, February 28, 296
1818, 298 1831, 312 Treaty with the Hunkapapa Band of
Treaty with the Quapaw, November Treaty with the Seneca, Etc., July 20, the Sioux Tribe, July 16,
15, 1824, 302 1831, 312 1825, 304
Treaty with the Quapaw, May 13, Treaty with the Seneca and Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., August
1833, 316 Shawnee, December 29, 19, 1825, 304–305
Treaty with the Quinaielt, Etc., July 1832, 315 treaty document, 459–463
1, 1855, 346 Treaty with the Seneca, May 20, See also Prairie du Chien, Treaty
Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, 1842, 330 of
September 10, 1853, 338 Treaty with the Seneca—Tonawand Treaty with the Sioux, September 10,
Treaty with the Rogue River Tribe, Band, November 5, 1857, 1836, 324
November 15, 1854, 342 349 Treaty with the Sioux, November 30,
Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu-Ki-As, Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed 1836, 325
etc., August 1851, 231 Seneca and Shawnee, Treaty with the Sioux, September 29,
table 3 Quapaw, Etc., February 1837, 328
Treaty with the San Luis Rey, etc., 23, 1867, 365 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
January 1852, 231 table 3 Treaty with the Seven Nations of October 21, 1837, 328
Treaty with the Sauk, September 13, Canada, May 31, 1796, Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and
1815, 295 289. See also Canadian Wahpeton Bands, July
Treaty with the Sauk, May 13, 1816, Indian Treaties 1-11 23, 1851, 336
296 Treaty with the Shawnee, January Treaty with the Sioux—
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 31, 1786, 286 Mdewakanton and
November 3, 1804, 291 Treaty with the Shawnee, November Wahpakoota Bands,
treaty document, 456–459 7, 1825, 306 August 5, 1851, 336
See also St. Louis, Treaty of Treaty with the Shawnee, August 8, Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, 1831, 312 19, 1858, 349
September 3, 1822, Treaty with the Shawnee, Etc., Treaty with the Sioux, June 19, 1858,
301–302 October 26, 1832, 314 350
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Etc., Treaty with the Shawnee, May 10, Treaty with the Sioux—Miniconjou
July 15, 1830, 310 1854, 339 Band, October 10, 1865,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Treaty with the Eastern Shoshone, 357
September 21, 1832, 313 July 2, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Sioux-Lower Brulé
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe, Treaty with the Shoshone— Band, October 14, 1865,
September 27, 1836, 325 Northwestern Bands, 357
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, July 30, 1863, 353–354 Treaty with the Sioux—Two-Kettle
September 28, 1836, 325 Treaty with the Western Shoshone, Band, October 19, 1865,
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, October 1, 1863, 354 358
October 21, 1837, 328 Treaty with the Shoshone— Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Goship, October 12, Band, October 20, 1865,
October 11, 1842, 331–332 1863, 354 359
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox of Treaty with the Eastern Band Treaty with the Sioux—Sans Arcs
Missouri, May 18, 1854, Shoshone and Bannock, Band, October 20, 1865,
339–340 July 3, 1868, 372–374 359

I-50 Index
Treaty with the Sioux—Yanktonai Treaty with the Ute, March 2, 1868, Treaty with the Wyandot, April 1,
Band, October 20, 1865, 368 1850, 334
359–360 Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, Treaty with the Wyandot, January
Treaty with the Sioux—Oglala Band, Etc., June 9, 1855, 344 31, 1855, 343
October 28, 1865, 360 Treaty with the Wea, October 26, Treaty with the Yakama, June 9,
Treaty with the Sioux—Upper 1809, 293 1855, 344–345
Yanktonai Band, October Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo, treaty document, 510–513
28, 1865, 360 June 4, 1816, 296 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, July
Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Treaty with the Wea, October 2, 19, 1815, 294
Wahpeton Bands, 1818, 299 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
February 19, 1867, Treaty with the Wea, August 11, October 21, 1837, 328
364–365 1820, 301 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and Treaty with the Winnebago, June 3, April 19, 1858, 349
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, 1816, 296 Trent, William, 424
369 Treaty with the Winnebago, Etc., Tribal administration
Treaty with the Six Nations, October August 25, 1828, 308–309 of federation programs,
22, 1784, 285. See also Treaty with the Winnebago, August 116–117
Fort Stanwix, Treaty of 1, 1829, 309 Tribal governments, 35, 36
Treaty with the Six Nations, January Treaty with the Winnebago, post-1960, 8
9, 1789, 286. See also Fort September 15, 1832, 313 Tribal leaders
Harmar, Treaty of Treaty with the Winnebago, and treaty making, 9
Treaty with the Six Nations, November 1, 1837, 328 U.S. appointment of, 10
November 11, 1794, Treaty with the Winnebago, October Tribal rights, 46
287–288 13, 1846, 333 and statutes, 112–114
treaty document, 454–456 Treaty with the Winnebago, Tribal Self-Governance Act, 116
See also Canandaigua, Treaty of February 27, 1855, 344 Tribally Controlled Community
Treaty with the S’Klallam, January Treaty with the Winnebago, April 15, College Assistance Act,
26, 1855, 343 1859, 350 116
Treaty with the Snake, August 12, Treaty with the Winnebago, March Tribble, Fred, 156, 721
1865, 356–357 8, 1865, 356 Tribble, Mike, 156, 721
Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Trist, Nicholas Philip, 659
November 24, 1848, 334 January 21, 1785, 285. See Trois Rivières, Treaty of, 236
Treaty with the Stockbridge and also Fort McIntosh, Tromelin, Legoarant de, 202
Munsee, September 3, Treaty of Trondek Hwech’in, 403, 404
1839, 330 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Truman, Harry S, 682
Treaty with the Stockbridge and January 9, 1789, 286. See Trust Doctrine, 954–955
Munsee, February 5, also Fort Harmar, Treaty Trust land, 113, 138, 197, 956–957.
1856, 348 of See also Land; Land
Treaty with the Taches, Cahwai, etc., Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., acquisition; Land
May 1851, 231 table 3 August 3, 1795, 289. See cession; Land
Treaty with the Teton, July 19, 1815, also Greenville, Treaty of compensation
294 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July Trust relationship
Treaty with the Teton, Etc., Sioux, 4, 1805, 291 and government-to-
June 22, 1825, 303 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July government
Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow 22, 1814, 293–294 relationship, 930
Creek Band, September Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Trust responsibility, 103, 173, 671,
19, 1853, 338 September 8, 1815, 295 727, 732, 733, 926, 950,
Treaty with the Umpqua and Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 955, 957–958
Kalapuya, November 29, September 29, 1817, 297 Tse-kauwtl, 344
1854, 342 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Tsiigehtchic, 392, 400
Treaty with the Upper Klamath, September 17, 1818, 298 Tsimshian, 196
Shasta, and Scott’s River, Treaty with the Wyandot, September Tsuu T’ina (Sarcee), 383
November 1851, 231 20, 1818, 298 Tualatim Kalapuya, 229 table 1
table 3 Treaty with the Wyandot, January Tuchebatche Micco, 313
Treaty with the Utah, December 30, 19, 1832, 312 Tuchebatcheehadgo, 313
1849, 334 Treaty with the Wyandot, April 23, Tuckenehau Chapco, 292
Treaty with the Utah—Tabegauche 1836, 323 Tulalip, 152, 154
Band, October 7, 1863, Treaty with the Wyandot, March 17, Tulee v. Washington, 62, 151, 152,
354 1842, 330 695–696

Index I-51
Tulio, 291 United Anishnabeg Council, 216 U.S. Cavalry, 168

Tundra Times, 196 United Empire Loyalists (UELS), U.S. Civil War, 7, 11, 25, 29–30, 41,
Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut 212, 213 58, 270, 271, 412
(TFN), 402 United Kingdom, 229 and Doaksville, 418
Tureen, Thomas N., 717, 942 United Kingdom Parliament, 214 and education, 184
Tuscarora, 44, 53, 69, 688–689 United Nations, 687 and Fort Gibson, 419
and education, 180 United Native Americans, 691 and Indian Territory, 937
Treaty with the Oneida, Etc., United State v. Wheeler, 943 treaties during, 269
December 2, 1794, United States See also Confederate treaties;
288–289 and reciprocity with Hawaii, Reconstruction treaties
See also Six Nations 202–203 U.S. Claims Commission, 18
Tustunnuggee Hopoie, 301 United States v. Alcea Band of U.S. Congress, 8, 27, 28, 29, 95–96
Tutchone, 403 Tillamooks, 173 and jurisdiction, 169
Tutelo, 282 United States v. Bourland, 723 plenary power of, 109, 126–127.
Twana, 99 United States v. Creek Nation, 681–682 See also Plenary power
Twenty Points, 700–701 United States v. Dion, 109, 174, See also Statutes; U.S. House of
Two-Kettle (Two Kettle) 722–723 Representatives; U.S.
Treaty with the Sioux—Two- United States v. Joseph, 434 Senate
Kettle Band, October 19, United States v. Kagama, 167, 671 U.S. Constitution, 14–15, 22, 27, 36,
1865, 358 and government-to-government 44, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 213,
Treaty with the Sioux, Etc., and relationship, 930 644
Arapaho, April 29, 1868, and sovereignty, 948 commerce clause, 14, 28, 40, 43,
369 and trust doctrine, 955 642–643, 666
Two Row Wampum, 211 and trust responsibility, 957 and education, 190
Two Strike, 901 United States v. Lara, 114 and government-to-government
Tygh, 148 United States v. Libby, McNeill and relationship, 930
Tyler, John, 229 Libby, 196 and Indian removal, 83
United States v. Michigan, 63, 429 and jurisdiction, 163, 169
Uc-quaw-ho-ko, 364 United States v. Mitchell and land compensation, 136
Udall, Stewart, 35, 196 and trust doctrine, 955 and religious freedom, 175
UELs. See United Empire Loyalists United States v. Navajo Nation supremacy clause, 28, 64, 154
Uintah, 272 and trust doctrine, 955 and treaties, 73–76, 953
Uintah Indian Reservation, 933 United States v. Oregon, 696–697 and treaty ratification, 135
Umatilla, 99, 227, 230 table 2, United States v. Sandoval, 169, 434 and treaty rights, 39–40
409–410, 414, 415, United States v. Sioux Nation, 257, See also Commerce clause;
696–697 719 Supremacy clause
Treaty with the Wallawalla, United States v. Sosseur, 173 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29
Cayuse, Etc., June 9, United States v. State of Michigan, 711 U.S. Department of Commerce, 942,
1855, 344 United States v. Washington. See Boldt 950
Umatilla Reservation, 151–152, 159, Decision U.S. Department of Defense, 33, 167
697 United States v. Wheeler, 62, 63, 114, U.S. Department of Education, 942,
Umbrella Final Agreement, 403, 404, 714–715 950
405 United States v. White Mountain U.S. Department of Game and Fish
Umpqua, 98, 99, 230 table 2 Apache Tribe, 955 (DGF), 158
Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., United States v. Winans, 170, 695, 944, U.S. Department of Health,
November 18, 1854, 954 Education, and Welfare,
342 Universal Declaration of Human 35
Treaty with the Umpqua—Cow Rights, 687 U.S. Department of Health and
Creek Band, September Unratified treaties, 97–101. See also Human Services, 942,
19, 1853, 338 Treaties 950
Treaty with the Umpqua and Unrecognized tribes. See U.S. Department of Housing and
Kalapuya, November 29, Nonrecognized tribes Urban Development, 116
1854, 342 Upper Canada, 235–236, 239 U.S. Department of Justice, 59, 144,
Umpqua-Cow Creek, 226 Upper Midwest 150, 151, 152–153, 942,
Unassociated funerary objects, 124, fishing rights in, 155–158 950
125, 126. See also Sacred hunting rights in, 155–158 and Hawaii, 207
sites Uranium, 140. See also Natural U.S. Department of Labor, 942, 950
Uncas, 767, 906–907 resources U.S. Department of State, 55, 95, 167,
Underground Railroad, 271 U.S. Bill of Rights, 36 203

I-52 Index
U.S. Department of the Interior, 29, U.S. v. Sandoval, 272 Delaware, Etc., August
30, 34, 54, 95, 120–121, U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 45 21, 1805; Treaty with the
138, 140, 145, 270, 684, U.S. V. Shoshone Tribe, 62 Delaware, Etc.,
717, 722, 926 U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 44 September 30, 1809;
and Alaska, 195, 196–197, 198 U.S. v. Washington, 41, 45, 153, 154, Treaty with the
and federal recognition, 176 155, 159 Piankeshaw, August 27,
and Hawaii, 207 U.S. v. Winans, 40, 42, 44, 150–151 1804; Treaty with the
and trust land, 956 Usufructuary rights, 41 Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
and trust responsibility, 958 Utah 1795
and Wounded Knee, occupation Treaty with the Utah, December Vincennes Tract, 442
of, 705 30, 1849, 334 VISTA. See Volunteers in Service to
See also Cohen, Felix S. Treaty with the Utah— America
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Tabegauche Band, Voigt, Lester, 156
136, 198, 323 October 7, 1863, 354 Voigt Decision, 156
U.S. Department of Transportation, Ute, 104, 107, 272, 410, 411 Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force, 157
206 Treaty with the Ute, March 2, Volunteers in Service to America
U.S. Department of War, 30, 54, 73, 1868, 368 (VISTA), 114
88, 270, 709, 719 Ute Commission, 31 Voting, in Hawaii, 203–204
and Committee on Indian Ute Reservation, 31 Vuntut Gwitchin, 403
Affairs, 653 Utrecht, Treaty of, 237 Vuntut Gwitchin Final
and education, 182 Agreement, May 29,
and reservations, 95 Valentine, Robert G., 182 1993, 404–405
U.S. Forest Service, 159 Vallejo, Mariano, 228 Vuntut Gwitchin Self-Government
U.S. government Vallier, S. G., 365 Agreement, 405
and internal tribal matters, Van Buren, Martin, 90, 91, 321–322,
involvement in, 8 772, 835 Wa-gah-sah-pi (Whip), 349
U.S. House of Representatives, 5, 18, and Trail of Tears, 657 Wa-pan-gia (Swan), 294
26, 31, 59 Van der Peet, Dorothy, 728, 729 Wa-pel-lo, Chief, 331–332
U.S. Indian Office, 270 Vancouver, George, 895 Wa-Swa-Gon Treaty Association,
U.S. Indian Peace Commission. See Vancouver Island treaties, 641, 642 157
Great Peace Commission Vanderslice, Daniel, 352 Wabakinklelia (Gros Bled), 292
U.S. Public Health Service, 35 Vann, Clement N., 738 Wabanaki, 211, 236, 716–718
U.S. Senate, 5, 59, 73 Vann, David, 333 Wabash River (Indiana)
and treaty ratification, 9, 14, Vann, James, 291, 888 treaty history of, 443–444
53–54, 135, 231 table 4 Vann Tavern, 429, 430 See also Treaty with the
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Vashon, George, 309 Delaware, Etc.,
Committee, 205 Venetie Decision. See Alaska ex rel. September 30, 1809;
U.S. Supreme Court, 22, 34, 60, 96, Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Treaty with the
213 Native Village of Venetie Wyandot, Etc., August 3,
and congressional power, 109, Tribal Gov’t 1795
126–127 Verelst, John, 823 Wabekieshiek, 753
and jurisdiction, 34 Vermont, 28, 75–76 Wabinema (White Sturgeon), 765
and rules of treaty Verplank, Isaac A., 333 Waco (Wacoe), 104, 268
interpretation, 135 Versailles, Treaty of, 211 Treaty with the Comanche,
and treaty rights, 40 Veterans, Indian, 138–139 Aionai, Anadarko,
and tribal sovereignty, 112–114 Victoria, Queen, 229, 785 Caddo, Etc., May 15,
and water rights, 143 Vieux De Sert, 341 1846, 332
See also individual court cases Village corporations, in Alaska, Wade, Alfred, 362
U.S. v. Cherokee Tobacco. See Cherokee 198–199 Wagohaw, 301
Tobacco case Village Maker (Tah-wah-gah-ha), Wah-gah-sap-pi (Iron Whip), 356
U.S. v. Dion, 45 356 Wah-hah-chunk-i-ah-pee (the One
U.S. v. 4,450,72 Acres of Land, Vincennes, Le Sieur de, 442 That Is Used as a Shield),
158–159 Vincennes (Indiana) 358
U.S. v. Frank Taylor, 150 treaty history of, 441–443 Wah-mun-dee-o-pee-doo-tah (the
U.S. v. Joseph, 272 See also Treaty with the War Eagle with the Red
U.S. v. Kagama, 39, 44, 60–61, 61 Delaware, August 18, Tail), 359
U.S. v. McBratney, 43 1804; Treaty with the Wah-mun-dee-wak-kon-o (the War
U.S. v. Michigan, 156 Delaware, Etc., June 7, Eagle in the Air), 359
U.S. v. Oregon, 153, 155 1803; Treaty with the Wah-no-ke-ga (Noise), 356

Index I-53
Wahpakoota (Wahpaakootah, War of 1812, 17, 21, 28, 56, 78, 247, Washington Territory, 96–97, 101
Wahpacoota, 427, 645, 647, 649, 650, treaties in, 99
Wahpahoota, 651 See also Pacific Northwest
Wahpekute), 100, 325 and Indian removal, 84, 85 Washington v. Washington State
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, and Prairie du Chien, 430–431 Commercial Passenger
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 and Tippecanoe River, 440 Fishing Vessel Association,
Treaty with the Sioux— treaties after, 262–263 42, 62, 153–154
Mdewakanton and See also Ghent, Treaty of Wasoukapaha (Falling Hail), 294
Wahpakoota Bands, War on Poverty, 35, 114 Wastch-com-ma-nu (Hard Walker),
August 5, 1851, 336 Ward, William, 87 356
Wahpeton Sioux, 100 Ward v. Race Horse, 43, 150, 151 Wat-che-mon-ne, 328
agreement with, 102 Warm Springs, 152, 414, 415 the Watchfull Fox (Kee-o-kuck), 328
Agreement with the Sisseton Warm Springs Power Enterprises Water, 134–135
and Wahpeton Bands of Warm Springs Reservation, 112, 227, Water quality, 141
Sioux Indians, 684, 697 Water rights, 42–43, 143–145, 175
September 20, 1872, 376 Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Water Settlement Acts, 116
Treaty with the Sauk and Fox, Commission, 43, 62, 114, Watie, David, 888
Etc., July 15, 1830, 310 691–692 Watie, Gallegina. See Boudinot, Elias
Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton Wasco, 98–99, 149 Watie, Stand, 88, 89, 105, 321, 322,
and Wahpeton Bands, Wascopam, 415 333, 418, 667, 738, 888,
July 23, 1851, 336 Wash-com-mo-ni (Mitchell P. Cerre), 909–910
Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton 349, 356 Watkins, Arthur V., 684, 910–911, 952
and Wahpeton Bands, Washakie (Pina Quahah; Scar Face), and Indian Claims Commission,
February 19, 1867, 373–374, 907–909 825
364–365 Washington, D.C., 7 Watohkonk. See Kicking Bird
Wahunsonacock (Powhatan), 235, Washington, George, 14, 53–54, 71, Watson, William H., 363, 364, 365
863–864, 879–880 73, 74, 163, 212, 213, Wau-bon-a-quot, 365
Wakinyantanka, 847 251–252, 424 Wau-kaun-hendee-oatah, 324
Walker, Catherine, 330 Address to the Senate, Wau-ke-wau, 323
Walker, Joel, 343 September 17, 1789, Wau-pish-shaw, 319
Walker, John, 70, 296 643–644 Waubredoaince, 330
Walker, Robert, 411 and Blount, William, 757 Waukikum, 229 table 1
Walker, T. H., 333 and civilization policy, 96 Wauneka, Annie Dodge, 799, 912
Walker, Thomas, 282 and Clark, William, 775 Waupaucowela, 286
Walker, William, 323 and Cornplanter, 782 Waw-baw-que-ke-aw, 322
Walking Buffalo (Tatangamania), and Dearborn, Henry, 790 Waw-was-mo-queh, 323
294 and Fallen Timbers, Battle of, Wax, Murray L., 794
Walking Purchase, 245–246 645 Way Aga Enogee, 292
Walla Walla (Wallawalla), 98–99, and Hawkins, Benjamin, 821 Way-namee, 365
227, 230 table 2, and Hopewell Treaty, 285–286 Wayne, Anthony, 73–74, 74–75, 76,
409–410 and Indian removal, 83 289, 412, 426, 646, 775,
Treaty with the Wallawalla, and Knox, Henry, 839 839, 846, 850, 902,
Cayuse, Etc., June 9, and Little Turtle, 850 913–914
1855, 344 and Red Jacket, 869–870, 885 WDNR. See Wisconsin Department
Walleye War, 249 scorched-earth policy of, 641 of Natural Resources
Wallis, Michael, 852–853 and Six Nations Treaty, 287–288 We-che-gla-la (Little Moon), Chief,
Wallooska, 229 table 1 and St. Clair, Arthur, 903 303
Walton, George, 289 treaties under, 261–262 We the People, 161
Wampanoag, 116, 928, 942 Washington, John M., 334, 411 We-we-sah (To-I sa’s Brother),
Wampum, 162 Washington, Treaty of, 263, 429 324–325
Wampum belts, 135 Washington administration, 77 Wea, 72, 79
Wapaghkonnetta, 312 Washington City, Treaty of, 417 and Fort Harrison, 421
Wapulla, 302 Washington State, 225 Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
the War Eagle in the Air (Wah-mun- jurisdiction in, 173 June 7, 1803, 290
dee-wak-kon-o), 359 See also Pacific Northwest Treaty with the Delaware, Etc.,
the War Eagle with the Red Tail Washington State Commercial August 21, 1805, 292
(Wah-mun-dee-o-pee- Passenger Fishing Vessel Treaty with the Kaskaskia,
doo-tah), 359 Association v. Tollefson, Peoria, Etc., May 30,
War of 1744-1748, 237 153 1854, 340

I-54 Index
Wea (cont.) Whirling Thunder, 356 Williams treaties with the Chippewa
Treaty with the Piankashaw, White, Ashton S. H., 369 and the Mississauga,
October 29, 1832, 315 White, Edward Douglass, 44, 825 October to November
Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed White, Hugh Lawson, 842 1923, 393–394
Seneca and Shawnee, White, James, 792 treaty document, 627–635
Quapaw, Etc., February White, John, 365 Williams v. Lee, 62, 113, 114, 173,
23, 1867, 365 White Antelope, Chief, 352, 733 686–687, 702, 703, 926
Treaty with the Wea, October 26, White Bear (Satanta), 367, 838, 851, Willis, Albert, 204
1809, 293 892–893, 897 Wilson, Dick, 743
Treaty with the Wea and White Bear’s Face (Mah-to-wee-tah), Wilson, Elizabeth, 887
Kickapoo, June 4, 1816, 304 Wilson, Joshua, 348
296 White Breast, 356 Wilson, Richard, 704–706, 747
Treaty with the Wea, October 2, White Cloud (Ma-hos-kah), 302 Wilson, Woodrow, 33
1818, 299 White Cow (Ta-su), 356 Wiminuche. See Weeminuche
Treaty with the Wea, August 11, White Elks (Ha-hah-kus-ka), 304 Winan brothers, 150–151
1820, 301 White Eyes, 424 Wind, James, 352
Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., White Hair, Chief, 303 Wind River Reservation, 171, 175,
August 3, 1795, 289 White Horse, 352, 838 227–228, 372, 374
and Vincennes, 442 White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Windom, William, 800
and Wabash River, 443 Bracker, 114 Winema, 768
Wearer of Shoes (Tetawiouche), White River, 21 Winnebago, 70, 91–92, 100, 104, 278
298 White Shield, 838 and jurisdiction, 161
Weatherford, William, 865 White Thunder, 901 and Prairie du Chien, 431
Webster, Daniel, 870 Whitefoot v. United States, 152 Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.,
Weeminuche (Wiminuche), 272 Whiteley, Simeon, 354 August 11, 1827, 307
Weller, Walter, 315 Whiteman, William H., 904 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.,
Wells, William, 442, 807, 850, Whitetree, John, 365 August 19, 1825,
914–915 Whitney, Eli, 84 304–305, 459–463
Welsh, Herbert, 826 Wichita (Witchetaw), 30, 57, 104, Treaty with the Winnebago, June
Wem-se-ko, 323 268 3, 1816, 296
Wenatshapam, 344–345 Treaty with the Comanche, Etc., Treaty with the Winnebago,
Wessells, Captain, 802 August 4, 1835, 320 Etc., August 25, 1828,
Wessonsuoum, 766 Treaty with the Comanche, 308–309
West, Rick, 734 Aionai, Anadarko, Treaty with the Winnebago,
West Indies, 55 Caddo, Etc., May 15, August 1, 1829, 309
Western Cherokee 1846, 332 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Treaty with the Western Wickett, Susanna, 888 September 15, 1832, 313
Cherokee, May 6, 1828, Wilcox, Robert, 205 Treaty with the Winnebago,
308 Wild game, 17 November 1, 1837, 328
Treaty with the Western Wild Rice Lake Reserve, 158 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Cherokee, February 14, Wilkie, Madeline, 802 October 13, 1846, 333
1833, 315–316 Wilkinson, Charles, 795 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Westphalia, Treaty of, 50, 947 Wilkinson, James, 290, 291, 790 February 27, 1855, 344
Wethillas Willamette Valley, 97 Treaty with the Winnebago,
Treaty with the Iou-Ol-umnes, Willamette Valley Treaty April 15, 1859, 350
Wethillas, etc., May 1851, Commission, 225, 229 Treaty with the Winnebago,
231 table 3 table 1 March 8, 1865, 356
Wet’suwet’en, 729–730 Willays Winnebago Reservation, 161, 350
Whaling industry, in Hawaii, 201, Treaty with the Colus, Willays, Winnipeg Treaty. See Canadian
202, 203 etc., September 1851, 231 Indian Treaty 5
Wheelapa, 229 table 1 table 3 Winslow, Edward, 854–855
Wheeler-Howard Ac t. See William the Conqueror, 944 Winter’s doctrine, 143, 144–145
Indian Williams, George, 309 Winters v. United States, 42, 138, 143,
Reorganization Act Williams, Mennen G., 710–711 170, 678–679, 944
Wheelock, Eleazor, 180 Williams, Roger, 766, 767, 859, 860, Wirt, William, 56, 57, 654, 655
Whig Party, 653 872, 915–917 Wisconsin, 23
Whip (Wa-gah-sah-pi), 349 Williams, Thomas jurisdiction in, 172, 173
Whipple, Henry, 18, 26 (Teharagwanegen), 289 treaties of cession in, 81 table 1

Index I-55
Wisconsin Death March, 91 Wyam, 151 Ya-Ma-Do

Wisconsin Department of Natural Wyandot, 15, 20, 21, 55, 71, 72, 73, Treaty with the Das-Pia, Ya-
Resources (WDNR), 79, 100, 134, 148, 246, Ma-Do, etc., July 1851,
156 278 231 table 3
Wisconsin Supreme Court, 249 Agreement with the Delaware Yahooskin, 227
Wish-ham, 345 and Wyandot, Yakama Indian Reservation, 227
Wo-A-Si December 14, 1843, Yakama War of 1855-1856, 410
Treaty with the Ko-Yate, Wo-A- 332 Yakama (Yakima), 99, 227, 230
Si, etc., May 1851, 231 and Fort Harmar, 420 table 2, 409–410, 414,
table 3 Treaty with the Chippewa, 415, 696–697
Wo-Woz Etc., November 25, and fishing rights, 42, 148,
Treaty with the Chu-Nuts, Wo- 1808, 293 150–151, 152
Woz, etc., June 1851, 231 Treaty with the Eel River, Etc., and gathering rights, 159
table 3 August 7, 1803, 290 and jurisdiction, 170
Wolcott, Alexander, 765 Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., Treaty with the Yakama, June
Wolcott, Oliver, 285, 640 November 17, 1807, 9, 1855, 344–345,
Wolf, Captain, 309 293 510–513
the Wolf (Nes-mo-ea), 328 Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Yakima. See Yakama
the Wolf with the High Back (Sho-e- Seneca and Shawnee, Yallup, William, 148
mow-e-to-chaw-ca-we- Quapaw, Etc., Yamasee, 259
wah-ca-to-we), 303 February 23, 1867, 365 Yamhill Kalapuya, 229 table 1
Wolfe, James, 902 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Yampa, 272
Woll-pah-pe, 357 January 21, 1785, 285 Yankton Sioux, 722–723
the Womb (Tah-hah-nee-o-tah), 304 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., Treaty with the Teton, Etc.,
Woolrich, Julia, 662–663 January 9, 1789, 286 Sioux, June 22, 1825,
Worcester, Samuel Austin, 758 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., 303
Worcester, Rev. Samuel Austin, 57, August 3, 1795, 289 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
88, 429, 655 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., July 19, 1815, 294
Worcester v. Georgia, 22, 23, 40, 57, 60, July 4, 1805, 291 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
88, 113, 136, 166, 213, 263, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., October 21, 1837, 328
265, 639, 653, 655–656, July 22, 1814, 293–294 Treaty with the Yankton Sioux,
658, 671, 686, 692, 703, Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., April 19, 1858, 349
926, 954 September 8, 1815, 295 Yanktonai
and government-to-government Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., and reconstruction treaty, 107
relationship, 930 September 29, 1817, Treaty with the Sioux—
and guardianship/wardship, 297 Yanktonai Band,
931 Treaty with the Wyandot, Etc., October 20, 1865,
and Indian removal, 935 September 17, 1818, 359–360
and right of conquest, 945 298 Treaty with the Sioux—Upper
and right of occupancy/right of Treaty with the Wyandot, Yanktonai Band,
the soil, 946 September 20, 1818, October 28, 1865, 360
and sovereignty, 948 298 Treaty with the Sioux, Etc.,
and trust responsibility, 957 Treaty with the Wyandot, and Arapaho, April 29,
Work, Hubert, 763 January 19, 1832, 312 1868, 369
Workman, David, 769 Treaty with the Wyandot, Treaty with the Teton, Etc.,
World War I, 30 April 23, 1836, 323 Sioux, June 22, 1825,
World War II, 34, 687 Treaty with the Wyandot, 303
and Indian veterans, 138–139 March 17, 1842, 330 Yas-Si
Wososey, 297 Treaty with the Wyandot, Treaty with the Cu-Zu, Yas-Si,
Wounded Knee April 1, 1850, 334 etc., September 1851,
occupation of, 171, 701, 703–706, Treaty with the Wyandot, 231 table 3
712 January 31, 1855, 343 Yavapai, 136
Wounded Knee massacre, 139, 168 Wyandot Reservation, 298 Yavapai-Prescott, 116
Wowinape, 848 Wynkoop, Edward, 773 Yellow Bear, 367
Wozencraft, Oliver, 228, 231 table 3, Wyoming Yellow Bird (John Rollin Ridge),
660 jurisdiction in, 175 886–887
Wright, Allen, 362 Yellow Feather (Massasoit),
Written document, 6, 135, 149, 162 Ya-ha-hadge, 316 854–855

I-56 Index
Yellow Hawk (Cha-tau-’hne), 359 Young, John, 365 Yuma, 268, 273
Yellow Smoke (Sha-da-na-ge), 356 Young King, 289, 290, 885 Yurok, 175
Yellow Thunder, Raymond, 704 Young Prophet, 356
Yellow Thunder Camp, 140 Young Wolf, 297 Zah, Peterson, 912
Yoncalla Kalapuya, 230 table 2 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 41 Zebaedal (Big Bow), 897
York, Duke of, 275, 276 Yu-Ki-As Zebco tribe, 157
Young, Brigham, 908 Treaty with the Sai-Nell, Yu- Zimmerman, William, 911
Young, Ewing, 769 Ki-As, etc., August Zuni, 272
Young, James, 152 1851, 231 table 3


An Encyclopedia of
VOLUME III
Donald L. Fixico
EDITOR


p. cm.
KF8203.6.R74 2008
342.7308’72—dc22
2007027797
12 11 10 09 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ABC-CLIO, Inc

now prosper again:
To the Shawnee,
To the Sac and Fox,
—Donald L. Fixico

Contents
VOLUME I
Thematic Essays
Regional Essays
VOLUME II

VOLUME III
Biographies

Volume III
Introduction, xiii
Articles of Capitulation of Montreal, United States v. Kagama, 1886 671
September 1760 637 General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887 672
Royal Proclamation of 1763 638 St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber Company
Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775 640 v. The Queen (Canada), 1887 673
Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada) 641 Atoka Agreement, 1897 674
Commerce Clause and Native Americans 642 Curtis Act, 1898 676
Washington’s Address to the Senate, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903 677
September 17, 1789 643 Winters v. United States, 1908 678
Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794 645 Meriam Report, 1928 679
Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811 646 Indian Reorganization Act, 1934 680
Battle of the Thames, 1813 647 United States v. Creek Nation, 1935 681
Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814 649 Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946 682
Treaty of Ghent, 1814 651 House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953 683
Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823 652 Public Law 280, 1953 684
Indian Removal Act, 1830 652 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955 685
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 654 Williams v. Lee, 1959 686
Worcester v. Georgia, 1832 655 Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 687
Mitchel v. United States, 1835 656 Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora
Trail of Tears 657 Indian Nation, 1960 688
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 659 Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969 689
California, Eighteen Unratified Treaties, Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax
1851–1852 660 Commission, 1965 691
Long Walk, 1864 661 Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968 692
Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United
662 States, 1968 693
Constitution Act (Canada), 1867 663 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of
Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870 664 Washington, 1968 695
Indian Appropriations Act, 1871 666 Sohappy v. Smith and United States v.
Oregon, 1969 696
Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 667
Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970 697
Indian Act of Canada, 1876 668
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971 698
Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883 669
Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972 700
Elk v. Wilkins, 1884 670

x Volume III Contents
Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia Constitution Act (Canada), 1982 720

(Canada), 1973 701 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Indians v. Voigt et al., 1983 721
Commission, 1973 702 United States v. Dion, 1986 722
Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973 703 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988 723
Boldt Decision (United States v. Native American Graves and Repatriation
Washington), 1974 706 Act, 1990 725
Morton v. Mancari, 1974 708 Self-Government Agreements (Canada) 726
American Indian Self-Determination Cobell Case, 1996 727
and Education Act of 1975 709
R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996 728
People v. LeBlanc, 1976 710
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997 729
Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of
Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999 730
Washington, 1977 711
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public
Longest Walk, 1978 712
Apology, 2000 731
Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978 713
Rice v. Cayetano, 2000 732
United States v. Wheeler, 1978 714
Sand Creek Massacre Site Return, 2002 733
Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian
National Museum of the American
Affairs and Northern Development
Indian, 2004 733
(Canada), 1980 715
Indian Tribal Energy and
Maine Indian Claims Settlement
Self-Determination Act, 2005 734
Act of 1980 716
Seminole Tribe of Florida Purchase of
United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980 719
Hard Rock Café, 2007 735
Biographies
Adair, William P. 737 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 761

Adams, Hank 738 Burke, Charles H. 763
American Indian Movement (AIM) 739 Caldwell, Billy 764
American Indian Policy Review Commission 741 Canassatego 765
Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou 742 Canonicus 766
Aupaumut, Hendrick 744 Captain Jack 767
Bagot Commission (Canada) 745 Carson, Kit 769
Banks, Dennis 746 Cass, Lewis 771
Barboncito 748 Chivington, John Milton 772
Bearskin, Leaford 749 Chouteau, Auguste 774
Bellecourt, Clyde 750 Clark, William 775
Black Hawk 752 Cochise 776
Black Kettle 754 Cohen, Felix S. 778
Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy 755 Collier, John 779
Blount, William 756 Cooper, Douglas H. 780
Boudinot, Elias 758 Cornplanter 781
Brant, Joseph 759 Costo, Rupert 783
Buffalo 760 Crazy Horse (Tašunka Witko) 784

Volume III Contents xi
Crowfoot 785 LeFlore, Greenwood 843

Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Leupp, Francis Ellington 844
Civilized Tribes) 786 Lewis, Meriwether 845
Dawes, Henry Laurens 787 Little Crow 847
De La Cruz, Joseph Burton 788 Little Turtle 849
Dearborn, Henry 789 Lone Wolf (Guipähgo) 850
Deer, Ada E. 791 Mankiller, Wilma Pearl 851
Deloria, Vine, Jr. 792 Manuelito 853
Deskaheh 796 Massasoit 854
Dodge, Henry 797 McGillivray, Alexander 855
Dodge, Henry Chee 798 McIntosh, William, Jr. 856
Doolittle Committee 800 Means, Russell 857
Dull Knife 801 Metacom 858
Dumont, Gabriel 802 Oakes, Richard 861
Emathla, Charley 804 Old Briton 862
Erasmus, George Henry 804 Opechancanough 863
Eskiminzin 805 Opothleyahola 864
Forsyth, Thomas 806 Osceola 866
Gadsden, James 808 Oshkosh 867
Gaines, Edmund Pendleton 810 Ouray 868
Geronimo (Goyathlay) 812 Parker, Ely S. (Do-He-No-Geh-Weh) 869
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Parker, Quanah 870
Commission 813
Penn, William 872
Handsome Lake 814
Pike, Albert 874
Harjo, Chitto 817
Pitchlynn, Peter 876
Harjo, Suzan Shown 818
Pokagun 877
Harrison, William Henry 819
Pontiac 878
Hawkins, Benjamin 821
Powhatan 879
Hendrick 822
Pratt, Richard Henry 880
Hitchcock, Ethan Allen 824
Pushmataha 882
Indian Claims Commission (ICC) 825
Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta) 883
Indian Rights Association (IRA) 826
Red Jacket 884
Jackson, Andrew 827
Ridge, John Rollin 886
Jackson, Helen Hunt 828
Ridge, Major 888
Jefferson, Thomas 831
Riel, Louis 889
Jemison, Alice Mae Lee 832
Ross, John 890
Jerome, David H. 833
Satanta 892
Jesup, Thomas S. 834
Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe 893
Johnson, William 836
Seattle (Seath’tl) 894
Joseph 837
Sitting Bear (Setangya or Satank) 896
Kicking Bird 838
Sitting Bull 897
Knox, Henry 839
Sohappy, David, Sr. 899
LaDuke, Winona 840
Spotted Tail 900
Lea, Luke 842
St. Clair, Arthur 902

xii Volume III Contents
Standing Bear (Mo-chu-no-zhi) 903 Watie, Stand 909

Tecumseh 904 Watkins, Arthur V. 910
Tibbles, Susette LaFlesche (Bright Eyes, Wauneka, Annie Dodge 912
Inshta Theamba) 905 Wayne, Anthony 913
Uncas 906 Wells, William 914
Washakie (Pina Quahah, Scar Face) 907 Williams, Roger 915
Aboriginal Title 919 Modern Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claim

Allotments 920 Agreements (Canada) 940
Annuities 921 Non-recognized Tribes 941
Assimilation 922 Plenary Power 942
Doctrine of Discovery 924 Reserved Rights Doctrine 943
Domestic Dependent Nation 925 Right of Conquest 944
Executive Order Reservations 926 Right of Occupancy/Right of the Soil 945
Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) 927 Sacred Sites 946
Federally Recognized Tribes 929 Sovereignty 947
Government-to-Government Relationship 930 Specific Claims (Canada) 948
Guardianship/Wardship 931 State-Recognized Tribes 950
Indian Country 933 Supremacy Clause 951
Indian New Deal 934 Termination 952
Indian Removal 935 Treaty 953
Indian Territory 936 Trust Doctrine 954
Inuit 937 Trust Land 956
Métis 938 Trust Responsibility 957
Resources, R-1
Index, I-1

Introduction

xiv Introduction

Introduction xv

xvi Introduction

Introduction xvii


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 hav-
ing played a part during the hostilities. More impor-
tant, 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 reinforce-
ments 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 main-
tained. 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. Arti-
cle 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 Chris-
tian Majesty,” adding that they would also be free to
retain their Catholic religion and missionaries.

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.
Delâge, Denis, and Jean-Pierre Sawaya. 2001. Les
traités des Sept-Feux avec les Britanniques: droits et
Jeffrey Amherst fought in the French and Indian War and
pièges d’un héritage colonial au Québec. Sillery, QC:
against Pontiac in 1763. (Library of Congress)
Septentrion.
Doughty, Arthur G., and Adam Shortt, eds. 1918.
Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of
During the final stretch of the Seven Years’ War Canada, 1759–1791. 2nd ed. Ottawa: King’s
in North America, British officials had made compa- Printer.
rable assurances directly to aboriginal representa- Vaugeois, Denis. 2002. The Last French and Indian War:
tives. At Oswegatchie (February 13–14, 1760), Fort An Inquiry into a Safe-Conduct Issued in 1760 That
Lévis (August 18), and Longueuil (September 5), Acquired the Value of a Treaty in 1990. Trans.
treaties of neutrality were concluded; at Kahnawake Kathe Roth. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s
(September 15–16) a further round of negotiations University Press.
transformed the relationship between France’s for-
mer allies in the St. Lawrence valley and the British
from one of amicable neutrality to a formal alliance. Royal Proclamation of 1763
The Act of Capitulation, it must be stressed, was in
contrast an agreement between two European pow- King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of
ers. Its outcome was confirmed by the Treaty of Paris 1763 in response to the British conquest of North
(February 10, 1763), although the subsequent Royal America. Most importantly, the proclamation
Proclamation (October 7, 1763) largely superseded reserved the interior of North America for Natives
Article 40 by elaborating in clearer terms the basis of and banned all white settlement therein. It also
future indigenous policy in British North America. defined the boundaries of Britain’s newest
Even so, the Act of Capitulation was brought to colonies—Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and
the attention of the Canadian government on several Grenada—and outlined their governance. In
occasions throughout the nineteenth century to bol- Canada, the proclamation is viewed as the Magna
ster the land claims of the Iroquois of St. Regis Carta of Native rights, and its importance is cited in
(Akwesasne) and of the Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982. In the United
(Kanesatake), as well as those of the Abenakis of States, in 1831 and 1832, the proclamation influenced

Royal Proclamation of 1763 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 surren-
dered to the British unless all the Natives concerned
in those areas had been consulted in a public assem-
bly 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 sev-
William Johnson (1715–1774), British superintendent of
Indian affairs in the American colonies, 1755–1774. Johnson eral adjustments to occur before 1775. Fourth, new
concluded the Treaty of Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois, settlement west of the proclamation line was
persuading them to relinquish claims to territory along the banned, and all settlers currently living beyond the
frontiers of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, clearing the pale were “forthwith to remove themselves.” Fifth,
way for European-American immigration in these areas. Native nations governed their lands according to
(National Archives of Canada/C-083497) 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
American Supreme Court Justice John Marshall’s British colonists. Licenses were to be provided
decisions in the Cherokee v. Georgia and Worcester v. “without fee or reward” to all applicants, provided
Georgia cases that Indians were “domestic dependent they agreed to follow “[r]egulations as We shall
nations.” These decisions continue to define the U.S.- think proper to prescribe.”
Indian relationship. Finally, by denying colonists the The colonists, particularly Virginians, resented
interior, the proclamation is one of the causes of the British attempts to limit westward expansion. In
American Revolution. practice, settlers ignored the boundary line, or the
The Royal Proclamation was intended to be a proclamation line, and began establishing settle-
temporary measure to provide an orderly establishments in the interior. Similarly, it was impossible to
ment of British authority while imperial policies regulate traders once they crossed the frontier.
were established. Pontiac’s War of 1763 confirmed To explain imperial policies in late 1763, Sir
that the Indians would not permit the usurpation of William Johnston, with proclamation in hand, called
their land by the land-hungry thirteen colonies. The for a gathering of Native nations at Niagara. In the
proclamation was not a direct response to Pontiac’s summer of 1764, more than two thousand people
War; it had been developed and issued before news representing more than forty nations arrived to dis-
of Indian victories reached England. Through the cuss the Royal Proclamation and peace. This meeting
proclamation, Britain hoped to curb American west- was recorded in wampum and in the Niagara Treaty

640 Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1755
of 1764. Essentially, the treaty affirmed the Royal Albany Conferences

Proclamation of 1763 as well as recognized the
nation-to-nation relationship between the Indians
of 1754 and 1775
and the British. Pontiac, one of the key leaders of At the Albany Conference of 1754, the commission-
anti-British sentiment, however, was not present; he ers of the British colonies in North America sought
signed a separate peace in 1765 warning that the an alliance with the Six Nations to fight against the
British were not to be trusted despite their promises French. With the growing hostility between the
(Borrows 1997, 155–172). colonists and Great Britain in 1775, the American
Although it is generally accepted that the patriots foresaw the importance of securing the sup-
proclamation acknowledged Native claims to the port, or at least the neutrality, of the Indian tribes
land, broader interpretations in Canada maintain along the colonial frontiers. And so, on July 12, 1775,
that the document recognized aboriginal sovereignty the Continental Congress created three Departments
and rights. Nonetheless, by denying Indians the sta- of Indian Affairs—the Northern, the Middle, and the
tus as “subject,” the proclamation effectively denied Southern—and appointed commissioners “with the
Indians rights and sovereignty (Dowd 2002, 177). power to treat with the Indians in their respective
Regardless of the interpretation applied to the docu- departments, to preserve peace and friendship, and
ment, the proclamation continues to form the basis to prevent their taking any part in the present com-
for Indian title and land claims in Canada. motions” (Journal 1836, 75). On July 13, Congress
Karl S. Hele appointed Volkert P. Douw, Major-General Philip
Schuyler, Colonel Turbot Francis, Colonel Oliver
See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Wolcott, and Major Joseph Hawley to the Northern
Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Pontiac; Department, the jurisdiction of which included the
Treaty Conference with the Six Nations at Fort Six Nations and the tribes to the north of them.
Stanwix– November 1768; Worcester v. Georgia, The following month, the northern commission-
1832. ers, except for Major Hawley (who could not serve
because of ill health), went to Albany, New York,
Borrows, John. 1997. “Wampum at Niagara: The
Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal History,
where they met with the sachems and warriors of
and Self-Government.” In Aboriginal Treaty the Six Nations. There they explained the colonists’
Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equity, and grievances, which they attributed to King George
Respect for Difference, ed. Michael Asch, III’s “evil” and “wicked” ministers, and asked the
155–172. Vancouver: University of British Six Nations to remain neutral in the war between
Columbia Press. Great Britain and the Twelve United Colonies: “We
Del Papa, Eugene M. 1975. “The Royal Proclamation are now necessitated to rise, and forced to fight,”
of 1763: Its Effect upon Virginia Land
they told the Indian league. This “is a family quar-
Companies.” Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 83(4): 406–411. rel,” and “You Indians are not concerned in it.” And
Dickason, Olive Patricia. 2002. Canada’s First Nations: so, “We desire you to remain at home, and not join
A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. either side, but keep the hatchet buried deep.” The
Toronto: Oxford University Press. commissioners also warned against English interfer-
Dowd, Gregory Evans. 2002. War Under Heaven: ence and, after smoking the peace pipe, told the Six
Pontiac, the Indian Nations, and the British Nations to acquaint their allies to the north, “the
Empire. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Seven Tribes on the river St. Lawrence,” with what
Press.
Great Britain. Parliament. 1824. “By the King: A had taken place at Albany (Journal 1836, 89–90, 91).
Proclamation.” In A Collection of the Acts Passed On August 31, the Six Nations replied to the
in the Parliament of Great Britain and of Other colonists, announcing that they would not “take any
Public Acts Relative to Canada, 26–35. Quebec: part, but as it is a family affair,” they would “sit still
P. E. Desbarats. and see you fight it out . . . for we bear as much
Nichols, Roger L. 1998. Indians in the United States affection for the King of England’s subjects on the
and Canada: A Comparative History. Lincoln:
other side of the water, as we do for you, born upon
Parmenter, Jon William. 1997. “Pontiac’s War:
this island.” They also said they would inform the
Forging New Links in the Anglo-Iroquois neighboring tribes of what had been transacted at
Covenant Chain, 1758–1766.” Ethnohistory Albany and warned the Americans to keep the war
44(4): 617–654. outside Indian territory, to which the Americans

Pre-Confederation Treaties (Canada) 641
agreed, saying that “whatever may happen between and friendship treaties.” Next is a group of treaties
us and our enemies, we never will injure or disturb concluded between 1764 and 1836 in Upper Canada,
the peace of the Six Nations, but preserve invariable which today forms part of the province of Ontario.
the friendship that is now established, even unto The third group of treaties was also concluded with
death” (Journal 1836, 94, 99). First Nations in Ontario, after the creation of the
After the treaty, the British and the Americans province of Canada in 1850. Finally, the Vancouver
alike refrained from involving the Six Nations in their Island treaties were concluded during 1850–1854
family quarrel. Hostilities increased in the summer of between the First Nations on the west coast of
1776, forcing both sides to actively pursue an alliance Canada and Governor James Douglas on behalf of
with the Iroquois. Divisions within the Six Nations the Crown.
were clearly visible, as the Mohawk chief, Joseph Many of the peace and friendship treaties were
Brant, convinced four Iroquois nations to take up concluded by the British Crown with First Nations
arms against the Americans. At the council meeting whose territory lay on or close to the east coast of
at Irondequoit in July 1777, the Iroquois, except the Canada, such as the Mi’kmaq, the Maliseet, and the
Oneida and the Tuscarora, joined the British side and Abenaki. Others were concluded by the British with
officially entered the war at the Battle of Oriskany the First Nations in the province of Quebec, such as the
following month. The Oneida and Tuscarora sided Huron, the Mohawk, and the Algonquin. The focus
with the Americans and were spared when Generals of these treaties was peace, cessation of military hos-
John Sullivan and James Clinton marched into Iro- tilities, and alliances. Treaties often included guaran-
quois territory in 1779 and attacked the Mohawk, tees on the part of the Crown to protect the rights of
Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. Internal divisions their First Nations allies, including rights to land and
and General Washington’s scorched-earth policy religion.
regarding villages and cornfields eventually took In its recent decision in R. v. Marshall ([1999] 3
their toll on the Iroquois Confederacy. At the Treaty S.C.R. 456), the Supreme Court of Canada found that
of Fort Stanwix in 1784, where the Iroquois ceded a series of peace and friendship treaties between the
western Pennsylvania, New York, and Kentucky to Crown and the Mi’kmaq in 1760 included a treaty
the United States, their numbers were half of what guarantee of a right to exchange for goods the prod-
they had been before the war. ucts of hunting, fishing, and harvesting. The court
Michael A. Sletcher translated the formulation of rights in 1760 as a
modern-day treaty right to earn a “moderate living”
See also Brant, Joseph; Indian Country; Indian from harvesting activities, including hunting and
Territory; Treaty with the Six Nations–October
22, 1784.
fishing.
References and Further Reading Some peace and friendship treaties have
Graymont, Barbara. 1972. The Iroquois in the American received government recognition only in recent
Revolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University years. For instance, a document signed in 1760 by a
Press. representative of the British Crown guaranteed the
“Journal of the Treaty Held at Albany, in August, Huron the right to their customs and religion,
1775, with the Six Nations by the including the rights to hunt and to conduct activities
Commissioners of the Twelve United Colonies,
incidental to hunting in a provincial park. The gov-
Met in General Congress at Philadelphia.” 1836.
Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, ernment took the position that, because the docu-
3rd Series, 5: 75–100. ment was a unilateral, written act, it could not con-
Snow, Dean R. 1994. The Iroquois. Cambridge, MA: stitute a treaty. In its 1990 decision in R. v. Sioui
Basil Blackwell. ([1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025), the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled that the document represented solemn, bilat-
eral undertakings between the Crown and the
Huron and included a treaty right to hunt and carry
on activities incidental to hunting on Crown lands.
Pre-Confederation Treaties Another peace and friendship treaty that has
(Canada) received government recognition only recently is the
In Canada, the term pre-confederation treaties refers to Treaty of Swegatchy, concluded in 1760 between
four groupings of treaties. The earliest group con- William Johnson on behalf of the British Crown and
sists of the treaties commonly referred to as “peace communities of the Mohawk, Abenaki, Huron, and

642 Commerce Clause and Native Americans
Algonquin Nations. No written copy of the Treaty of Governor Douglas on behalf of the Crown, and cer-
Swegatchy exists. However, in R. v. Côté, the Quebec tain First Nations on Vancouver Island, lacked the
Court of Appeal relied on later references to it by requisite formalities to constitute treaties. In 1964,
First Nations representatives, as well as numerous the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed an
references to it in William Johnson’s journal, to find earlier trial judgment in which the agreements were
that it constituted a valid, existing treaty that is a found to constitute valid and subsisting treaties that
continued source of rights ([1993] R.J.Q. 1350). protected the rights to hunt and fish. The judgment
The second group of pre-confederation treaties of Justice Thomas Norris of the B.C.C.A. on this
was negotiated in southern Ontario following the issue has been repeated time and again. He con-
enactment of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, by cluded that “ . . . treaty is not a word of art and in my
which the King of Britain proclaimed that Indian respectful opinion, it embraces all such engagements
lands could only be purchased by the Crown in its made by persons in authority as may be brought
name through a public process. There are more than within the term ‘word of the white man’ the sanctity
twenty-five of these treaties. Most were concluded of which was, at the time of British exploration and
with the Chippewa, the Mississauga, and the Ottawa settlement, the most important means of obtaining
Nations, although other First Nations were also the goodwill and co-operation of the Native tribes
involved. and ensuring that the colonists would be protected
The purpose of these treaties for the Crown was from death and destruction” (R. v. White and Bob
to secure land for incoming settlers through a treaty [1964], 50 D.L.R. [2d] 613 at p. 649).
process, in conformity with the Royal Proclamation. The judgment of the British Columbia Court of
As with many treaties concluded between the Appeal was approved by the Supreme Court of
Crown and First Nations during this period, it can Canada in 1965 (52 D.L.R. [2d] 481). Since that time,
be difficult to know the intentions of the First the conclusions of Justice Norris have been cited
Nations in entering into treaty, for the written instru- numerous times by Canada’s highest court on the
ments are in English and, although interpreters were issue of what constitutes a treaty between the Crown
often used, at issue is the quality of the interpreta- and aboriginal peoples.
tion as well as the ability of the interpreters to trans- Anjali Choksi
late concepts culturally alien to the First Nations par-
See also Articles of Capitulation of Montreal,
ties. Moreover, the British records of some of the
September 1760; Colonial and Early Treaties,
earlier treaties were inaccurate, incomplete, and 1775–1829; Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867;
sometimes even nonexistent. Thus, new treaties Constitution Act (Canada), 1867; Robinson
were required, to cover areas regarding which Huron Treaty (Second Robinson
treaties supposedly had already been concluded. Treaty)–September 9, 1850; Robinson Superior
The third group of pre-confederation treaties Treaty (First Robinson Treaty)–September 7,
includes the Robinson Huron and Robinson Supe- 1850.
rior Treaties of 1850 as well as the Manitoulin Island
R. v. Côté [1993] R.J.Q. 1350; affirmed on other
Treaty of 1862. The Robinson Huron and Robinson grounds [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139.
Superior Treaties are particularly noteworthy R. v. Marshall ([1999] 3 S.C.R. 456).
because they became the models for treaties that R. v. Sioui ([1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025).
were concluded after confederation in 1867. These R. v. White and Bob, (1964) 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613 at p. 649.
treaties were concluded with the Ojibway, the St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in
Chippewa, and the Ottawa Nations. As with the ear- the United States and Canada, 1867–1877. Lincoln
lier treaties in Ontario, the aim of the Crown in and London: University of Nebraska Press.
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.
Commerce Clause
The Vancouver Island treaties were recognized and Native Americans
as valid by Canada only about a hundred years after The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution
they were concluded. Until 1965, Canada held the empowers Congress to regulate commerce with for-
position that the agreements concluded between eign nations and Native American tribes. It is one of

Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789 643
the few pieces of jurisprudence giving the federal Gaming takes place at the discretion of the tribe
government authority over Native Americans. and under its supervision. The federal government
Laws imposed by Congress to control the simply allows it under the Indian Gaming and Regu-
Native population have a long history. Many early latory Act but has no say in the regulation of Native
treaties and laws were controversial because of the American casino operations. However, the state gov-
limitations they placed on Native American rights. ernment has some power to control Class III gaming,
The first laws regarding Indian policy were the which includes slot machines, blackjack, craps, and
Trade and Intercourse Acts. These acts segregated chance machines, all of which may be restricted by
Indians and used federally licensed agents within the state in which the tribe is located. Compacts can
that population to monitor and regulate trade. Next, be made, but the state exercises a certain level of
the Indian Removal Act of 1830 pushed the Native authority in regard to the gaming activities that take
Americans farther west beyond the Mississippi. place within the compounds of the reservation. This
Over the years, these laws, along with the commerce is relevant to the commerce clause in that the federal
clause of the Constitution, have plagued the Native government may still levy taxes and regulate trade in
American population. and out of the reservation. Yet, the federal govern-
The commerce clause is the foundation of legis- ment faces many limitations in dealing with the
lation passed by the U.S. government regarding the Native American population. Any drastic action
Native American population. Congress is invested undertaken by the federal government could cause
with the power to collect taxes and duties in a uni- controversy over civil rights issues to flare.
form way throughout the United States. Within the The commerce clause allows casinos with all
Native American territories, which are scattered forms of gambling on Native American reservations.
among various states, the power of the federal gov- Whereas the state determines the types of operations
ernment is limited; however, beyond the boundaries allowable, the federal government may regulate the
of the reservation, Native Americans are subject to capital and revenue generated by the Native Ameri-
the same laws and punishments as everyone else. can tribes. Native American society is included with
Regardless, the law states that all actions must be the rest of the United States because it must pay
undertaken in good faith, that a violation of this taxes and duties very much like all American citi-
principle authorizes a tribe to file a lawsuit against zens and businesses.
the state in a federal court. Many Native people Arthur Holst
believe that the commerce clause constitutes a viola-
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Indian
tion of their civil rights, that they should not be sub-
Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988; Indian Removal
ject to these laws, and that they should be exempt Act, 1830; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine.
from them because of the boundaries of their reser- References and Further Reading
vations. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The
Laws regarding gaming on Native American United States Government and the American Indian.
reservations are beyond the control of the federal Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska
government. Gambling with cards or slot machines Press.
in casinos is very common on reservations relative
to the rest of the United States. It is difficult to run a University of California Press.
legal casino in the United States outside Las Vegas Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001.
or Atlantic City; but on the reservations, casinos Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and
have flourished because federal gaming laws had Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma
no jurisdiction prior to the passage of the Indian Press.
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
Washington’s Address to the
allowed by tribal councils is the generation of rev- Senate, September 17, 1789
enue. Gaming allows reservations, with their own On September 17, 1789, George Washington
forms of government, to be more economically self- addressed the U.S. Senate on the status of earlier
sufficient. treaties between the United States and the Wyandot,

644 Washington’s Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789
“the President of the United States be advised to exe-

cute and enjoin an observance of the Treaty con-
cluded 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 approba-
tion 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
George Washington (1732–1799) played a crucial role in the not included in their response on September 8. And
founding of the United States. He commanded American forces so he addressed the Senate on both questions, to
in the American Revolution against England, helped to ratify which he received the following instructions on Sep-
the U.S. Constitution, and was elected the new nation’s first
tember 22: “that the Senate do advise and consent
president in 1789. (Library of Congress)
that the President of the United States ratify the
Treaty concluded at Fort Harmar on the 9th day of
Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Potawatomi, Sac January 1789, between Arthur St. Clair, Governor of
Nations, and the Six Nations (without the the Western Territory on the part of the United
Mohawks), which had been concluded by Arthur St. States, and the Sachems and Warriors of the Wyan-
Clair at Fort Harmar on January 9, 1789. With respect dot, Delaware, Ottawa, Chippawa, Pattawatima
to the second clause of Article II, Section 2, of the [Potawatomi] and Sac Nations.” Regarding the
newly framed Constitution of the United States, the treaty with the Six Nations (except the Mohawks),
president had been granted the “Power, by and with the Senate decided that it “may be construed to prej-
the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make udice the claims of the States of Massachusetts and
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present New York and of the Grantees under the said States
concur.” The authority of the executive office to respectively” and was therefore “postponed until
make such treaties, as Washington then understood the next session of the Senate” (De Pauw, 1974, 43).
it, included the right to negotiate treaties not only Washington proceeded to ratify the treaties and
with foreign powers but also with North American established a strong, independent role in foreign
Indians, or as he put it in the first sentence of the relations for the presidency; or, as one historian
address, “It doubtless is important that all treaties summed up Washington’s future foreign policy:
and compacts formed by the United States with “Thenceforth, Washington initiated foreign policy on
other nations, whether civilized or not, should be his own, seeking no counsel from the Senate at all.
made with caution, and executed with fidelity” Furthermore, ever after, only ‘weak’ presidents,
(Twohig 1989, 51). those who entrusted foreign relations to the secre-
But Washington was still uncertain about the tary of state, worked through the Senate as a matter
Senate’s role in the ratification process of these ear- of course; every ‘strong’ president like Washington
lier treaties. On May 25, 1789, he had handed several has as little to do with the Senate as possible”
treaties to the Senate regarding their ratification. The (McDonald, 1974, 28).
Senate responded on September 8, resolving that Michael A. Sletcher

Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794 645
See also Fort Harmar, Ohio; St. Clair, Arthur; Treaty Kickapoo, and Mascoutin joined the effort. The
with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789; Treaty larger confederacy agreed to seek British alliance
with the Wyandot, Etc.–January 9, 1789. from Canada. In July 1787, the U.S. Congress
References and Further Reading responded with the Northwest Ordinance, which
De Pauw, Linda Grant, ed. 1974. Documentary History
reaffirmed American ownership of the region. Arti-
of the First Federal Congress of the United States of
America, March 4, 1789–March 3, 1791, vol. 2, cle III of the ordinance claimed that Indians would
Senate Executive Journal and Related Documents. not be deprived of their lands or rights without con-
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. sent unless by “just or lawful wars authorized by
McDonald, Forrest. 1974. The Presidency of George Congress.” Such claims proved hollow when Con-
Washington. Lawrence: University Press of gress sold Native lands, and U.S. settlers found them
Kansas. occupied! The treaty at Fort Harmar in January 1789
Twohig, Dorothy, ed. 1989. The Papers of George
and the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790
Washington, vol. 3, Presidential Series.
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. also failed to resolve matters before conflict began.
President George Washington sent a one-
thousand-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-
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 expan-
sion 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 Ameri-
can Revolutionary War and ceded the Northwest
Territory to the fledgling United States. This expan-
sion 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, General Anthony Wayne’s American troops defeat the a force of
Mingo, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Wyandot, warriors from several tribes at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in
and the Wabash Confederacy of Wea, Piankashaw, August 1794. (Library of Congress)

646 Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811
thousand-man force of Indian confederation warriors Originally published 1960 by Harper and
under Little Turtle deployed with surprise in classic Brothers, New York.
crescent moon formation and inflicted more than Utley, Robert M., and Wilcomb E. Washburn. 1977.
Indian Wars. Houghton Mifflin.
nine hundred casualties with only twenty-one Indi-
ans 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 Battle of Tippecanoe, 1811
treaty on September 27, 1792, that the land was The Battle of Tippecanoe took place between U.S.
Indian and the U.S. would protect Indian interests. and Native American forces near Prophetstown in
However, the treaty went unratified by Congress Indiana Territory on November 7, 1811. Increasing
and Wabash warriors. Further treaty attempts tensions between the United States and the Shawnee
proved futile, and the border war was renewed with leaders Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa over the Ameri-
vigor. can policy of expansion led Indiana governor
The United States then formed the Legion army William Henry Harrison to march on Prophetstown
(5,190 men in 4 groups), trained in frontier warfare (near the confluence of the Tippecanoe and Wabash
by Major General Anthony Wayne. The force rivers). The inhabitants of that village were followers
departed from Fort Washington (Cincinnati) in the of Tenskwatawa (Tecumseh’s brother, also known as
spring of 1794, marching north to push back the the Shawnee Prophet) and other young warriors
Indian confederation to British outposts. On August who supported Tecumseh’s quest to unite the Native
20, 1794, the superior legion engaged the 400-man American tribes. Tenskwatawa had promised to
Indian force in a grove of fallen timber and drove it defer military engagement during the absence of
toward the British Fort Miami. However, the British Tecumseh, who had traveled south in an effort to
refused to open the gates for their Indian allies; 9 mobilize the southern tribes. However, the presence
Indian leaders were killed and their force scattered. of a substantial military force near the village pro-
The loss exposed British reluctance for war with the voked an attack before dawn on November 7. Wyan-
United States and broke united Indian resistance for dot, Kickapoo, Potawatomi, Winnebago, Ojibwa,
a time. The former allies then signed two separate Sac, Miami, and Shawnee warriors confronted a
treaties (the Jay and Greenville treaties) allowing well-organized force of regulars and militia com-
U.S. presence in the Northwest Territory at the cost manded by Governor Harrison personally. More
of Native land. By 1800, there were 45,000 American than two hours later, the Native Americans retreated
settlers in Ohio, outnumbering Native Americans and dispersed, allowing Harrison to claim a decisive
three to one. victory, raze Prophetstown, and shatter the image of
Chris Howell the Prophet’s invincibility.
Tenskwatawa had established Prophetstown in
See also Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1808 following an invitation from Main Poc of the
1814; Battle of the Thames, 1813; Fort Potawatomi. The influence of the Prophet and his
Harmar, Ohio; Right of Occupancy/Right of more martial brother increased as they voiced criti-
the Soil; St. Clair, Arthur; Vincennes, Indiana; cism of the 1809 Treaty of Fort Wayne and made the
Wabash River, Indiana; Washington’s growing village into a center for anti-American
Address to the Senate, September 17, 1789;
activities. During the Fort Wayne meeting, Harrison
Wayne, Anthony.
References and Further Reading had gained substantial land concessions from gov-
McConnell, Michael. 1992. A Country Between: The ernment-friendly chiefs of the Delaware, Miami,
Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774. Potawatomi, and other tribes. The Shawnee leaders
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. denounced the government chiefs and denied the
Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native validity of the treaty, using it to rally the northwest-
American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman: ern tribes against American settlement. Tecumseh
wanted to unite the tribes in a confederacy strong
Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North
America. New York and Oxford: Oxford
enough to withstand American expansion, and Ten-
University Press. skwatawa’s prophetic religion was to function as a
Tebbel, John, and Keith Jennison. 2003. The American mobilizing force conferring religious sanction upon
Indian Wars. Edison, NJ: Castle Books. the budding resistance movement.

Battle of the Thames, 1813 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 dark-
ness, 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 recog-
nized the shortcomings of the Prophet’s magic and
the futility of the attack. When they retreated, the
William Henry Harrison attacked while the Shawnee leader, battle had already claimed several hundred casual-
Tecumseh, was away recruiting more warriors. The American ties, including approximately fifty dead on either
commander reported the battle as a victory while losing many side. The next morning, U.S. troops destroyed the
men and forcing Indians from the area. (Library of Congress) abandoned Prophetstown.
The dispersed warriors continued to raid fron-
tier settlements, but they no longer believed in the
In an 1810 meeting at Vincennes, Tecumseh magic of Tenskwatawa. The Battle of Tippecanoe
demanded the return of lands, openly admitted to and the destruction of Prophetstown did not end
his plan to unite the tribes against the Americans, Tecumseh’s quest to unite the tribes, but it under-
and threatened to kill government-friendly chiefs mined its spiritual foundation and discredited the
responsible for land cessions. By the summer of 1811, once powerful Prophet.
preparations were made for a major confrontation, Knut Oyangen
and Tecumseh arrived in Vincennes with hundreds
of warriors on his way to mobilize the southern See also Harrison, William Henry; Tecumseh.
tribes. Governor Harrison was greatly alarmed and References and Further Reading
decided to strike against Prophetstown in the Edmunds, R. David. 1983. The Shawnee Prophet.
absence of the Shawnee war chief.
Reid, Richard J. 1983. The Battle of Tippecanoe.
Harrison’s mixed force of regular army troops Published by author.
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 Battle of the Thames, 1813
its northward march, and by November 5 Harrison’s The Battle of the Thames on October 15, 1813, in
army stood about ten miles from Prophetstown. The British Canada ended British-Indian alliances in
next day, the governor met with representatives of North America. Tecumseh, the great Shawnee leader
the Prophet, who suggested a council the next morn- of the pan-Indian confederacy east of the Mississippi
ing and promised peace in the interim. River, died in the battle. The American victory led to
Notwithstanding these gestures of reconcilia- the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 and massive deportation
tion, Harrison’s men entered bivouac with their of Indians to west of the Mississippi River.
weapons loaded and ready to enter battle formations From the American Revolution, which ended in
on a moment’s notice. Meanwhile, Tenskwatawa the Treaty of Paris in 1783, to the War of 1812, which
sought the advice of the Master of Life and offered ended with the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, American

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 ers, and the brothers represented a serious threat to
fast-growing United States. The Iroquois League in U.S. expansion.
New York, the Northwest Territory confederacy of President Thomas Jefferson (served 1801–1809)
1795, Tecumseh’s Indian confederacy, and the Chero- had purchased the vague, huge area of Louisiana
kee Nation in the Southeast lost their lands. from the French in 1803 and indicated U.S. policy
Native people turned to spiritual prophets toward Native people east of the Mississippi River in
such as the Iroquois Handsome Lake and the a letter to William Henry Harrison, Indiana Territory
Shawnee Tenskwatawa in modern Indiana. Ten- governor and future president. Jefferson suggested
skwatawa prophesied a new pan-Indian religion that the ceding of Native lands should be promoted
and drew adherents to Tippecanoe village after cor- by encouraging Indian leaders to incur debt to trade
rectly predicting a June 16, 1806, eclipse. His houses and then accepting land as payment. Indians
brother Tecumseh, veteran of the Battle of Fallen would be forced to settle on smaller plots and would
Timbers in 1794, now capitalized on his brother either become like U.S. farmers or would be
Tenskwatawa’s success to rekindle dreams of a removed beyond the Mississippi River.
pan-Indian confederation. Thus, in 1811 General Harrison led a U.S. pre-
Tecumseh argued that no tribe had the right to emptive attack on Tippecanoe while Tecumseh was
sell land, because the lands belonged to all Indians. rallying support from such southern tribal leaders as
After whiskey-influenced tribal chiefs ceded three Alexander McGillivray of the Creek. The prophet
million acres at the Fort Wayne, Indiana, “whiskey Tenskwatawa lost prestige after he predicted victory
treaty” in 1809, Tecumseh, too, drew many follow- but was turned back and his village burned. Tecum-

Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814 649
seh was then unable to convince the southern Indian Steele, Ian K. 1994. Warpaths: Invasions of North
tribes to join the united front and had to look again America. New York and Oxford: Oxford
to British alliance in the War of 1812. University Press.
Tecumseh and British General Isaac Brock cap- Tebbel, John, and Keith Jennison. 2003. The American
Indian Wars. Edison, NJ: Castle Books.
tured the frontier posts Detroit, Dearborn (Chicago),
Originally published 1960 by Harper and
and Michilimackinac, but British distractions with Brothers, New York.
Napoleon kept British troops occupied elsewhere. Utley, Robert M., and Wilcomb E. Washburn. 1977.
British General Henry Proctor, Native commander Indian Wars. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
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
Battle of Horseshoe Bend
tribes controlled the lands between. The tide turned (Tohopeka), 1814
with an American naval victory on Lake Erie on Sep- The Battle of Horseshoe Bend on March 27, 1814,
tember 9, 1813; Proctor abandoned western British was a crushing military defeat for the Southeast
posts for Canada, fearing he could not be supplied Indian alliance during the War of 1812. These Mus-
by British ships on the Great Lakes. Tecumseh and cogee Creek Red Stick warriors represented the last
his Indian allies were appalled but had no choice but bastion of Native power east of the Mississippi
to accompany Proctor into Canada, as Harrison River, but their fate had been sealed long before bat-
approached with more than three thousand troops. tle with the inability to form alliance with Tecumseh,
The retreat and pursuit turned into a pitched battle the great Shawnee leader of Northwest Territory
on October 5, 1813, on the Thames River near Mora- Indians.
viantown north of Lake Erie. Harrison outnumbered From the American Revolution (Treaty of Paris
Tecumseh and Proctor three to one and broke the in 1783) to the War of 1812 (Treaty of Ghent in 1814),
alliance center with a mounted charge by Kentucky American Indians east of the Mississippi River lost
Riflemen. Tecumseh, fighting on the flank with five power to the exploding United States. The Iroquois
hundred Indians, was surrounded and killed. League in New York, the Northwest Territory con-
Tecumseh died trying to put up a north-south federacy of 1795, Tecumseh’s Indian confederacy,
continental line of European and Indian power and the Cherokee Nation in the southeast lost their
against the American advance west. His effort was lands.
the last real attempt that had any chance of success. However, while some Native people turned to
The Treaty of Ghent in 1814 that ended the war rep- spiritual prophets like the Iroquois Handsome Lake
resented the complete loss of power by Native peo- and the Shawnee Tenskwatawa, others leaders like
ple east of the Mississippi River. Forced removal of the Creeks Alexander McGillivray and William
the Cherokee and the Plains Indian Wars would McIntosh negotiated with local states, settlers and
follow. the U.S. federal government. Armed resistance was
Chris Howell also turned to as in the case of Tenskwatawa’s
brother, Tecumseh, who attempted to capitalize on
See also Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794; Battle of his brother’s power and the southeast Indian quar-
Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814; Fort
rels by campaigning for a pan-Indian alliance from
Wayne, Indiana; Harrison, William Henry;
Indian Removal; Jefferson, Thomas; the Great Lakes to New Orleans. However, the loss
McGillivray, Alexander; Michilimackinac, of prestige by his brother at the Battle of Tippecanoe
Michigan; Right of Occupancy/Right of Soil; in 1811 and splits within the southeast Indian tribes
Tippecanoe River, Indiana; Wabash River, meant Tecumseh started the War of 1812 with the
Indiana. British and not the Muscogee Creek militants or Red
References and Further Reading Sticks as his allies.
Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Cherokees in par-
Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774.
ticular would not commit to Tecumseh’s alliance
Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native even though the treaty of 1790 between Creek lead-
American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman: ers and the U.S. government proved useless in
University of Oklahoma Press. guaranteeing Creek lands. The Shawnee and Creek

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. attacked. The Indian allies swam across the river and
settlers. stole the escape canoes of the militant Red Stick
The militant Creek would have to fight the War Creek before attacking them from the rear. In the end
of 1812 alone and suffered devastating losses as a over 800 Creek were killed out of 1,000 in the forti-
result. In what is called the Creek War of 1813–1814, fied village. Muscogee Creek power was broken in
U.S. forces under General and future President the southeast, and the death of Tecumseh and retreat
Andrew Jackson decimated the Creek confederacy. of the British in the north at the Battle of the Thames
At the Battle of Holy Ground on December 23, 1813, in 1813 completed the collapse of Indian and British
about 750 Red Stick warriors were killed as Ameri- military resistance in North America east of the Mis-
can forces adopted Indian ways of frontier warfare sissippi River.
with increasing success in the southeast. Tens of thousands of Native people had been
Muscogee Creek warriors retreated to a heavily killed and forcibly uprooted from their homelands
fortified peninsula on the Tallapoosa River to await in the Creek War and the War of 1812. The Treaty of
the final onslaught of Jackson’s forces. On March 27, Fort Jackson on August 9, 1814, followed with Creek
1814, Jackson’s American troops, some 2,500 in num- loss of land to the U.S. Finally, the Treaty of Ghent
ber, along with 500 Cherokee and Creek allies on December 24, 1814, between the British and the

Treaty of Ghent, 1814 651
Americans ended all hopes of Native power in the possessions, privileges, and rights enjoyed by the
east. Removal of Indian tribe remnants west of the tribes or nations before the outbreak of hostilities in
Mississippi River presented the only solution 1811.
acceptable to a land hungry U.S. population now The Treaty of Ghent was openly contested by
approaching ten million people. the United States. The treaty was not received well
Chris Howell by General Andrew Jackson because of Article 9’s
explicit direction to return lands and other posses-
See also Battle of Fallen Timbers; Battle of Horseshoe
sions to the Indians. At issue, for Jackson, was a
Bend; Harrison, William Henry; Indian
Removal; Jackson, Andrew; McGillivray, huge cession of land comprising large portions of
Alexander; Tippecanoe River Alabama and Georgia that had been gained during
References and Further Reading the Creek Indian War of 1813–1814.
LaFeber, Walter. 1994. The American Age: U.S. Foreign In 1814, the United States, along with several
Policy at Home and Abroad, 1750 to the Present. Indian allies, defeated the Red Stick Creeks at Horse-
New York: W.W. Norton and Co. shoe Bend in Alabama, ending the Creek Indian War.
The defeat resulted in the Treaty of Fort Jackson in
Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724–1774.
Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.
1814. The treaty called for peace, for several conces-
Starkey, Armstrong. 1998. European and Native sions by the Creeks, and for the cession of more than
American Warfare, 1675–1815. Norman: 23 million acres of Creek land in payment for the
University of Oklahoma Press. 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,
Treaty of Ghent, 1814 neither the United States nor Great Britain insisted
The signing of the Treaty of Ghent in Belgium on on compliance. Thus, due to inaction on both gov-
December 24, 1814, signified the diplomatic termina- ernments, the land cession of the Treaty of Fort Jack-
tion of hostilities between the United States and the son stood.
British Crown and ended the War of 1812. However, The Treaty of Ghent greatly reduced Britain’s
unlike the peace treaty signed in 1783 between the influence with the Indian nations. Subsequently,
United States and Great Britain, the Treaty of Ghent from 1815 to 1817, twenty-one treaties between the
did contain a specific article addressing tribal United States and numerous midwestern Indian
nations that were involved in the war. nations expressly mentioned the provisions of peace
The body of the treaty addressed issues that and the end of hostilities as provided by Article 9 of
arose before and during the War of 1812. The treaty the Treaty of Ghent. These tribal nations were the
called for the ending of hostilities on both sides and Potawatomi, Piankashaw, Teton, Sioux of the Lakes,
for the return of prisoners or property taken during Sioux of St. Peter’s River, Yankton Sioux, Omaha,
the war; it affirmed the two countries’ mutual desire Kickapoo, Wyandot (Delaware, Seneca, Shawnee,
to promote the abolition of slavery, and it redefined, Miami, Chippewa, and Ottawa), Osage, Sauk, Fox,
reconfirmed, and established territorial boundaries Iowa, Kansa, Winnebago, Menominee, Otoe, and
between the two governmental powers in accor- Ponca.
dance with either the Treaty of Paris of 1783 or the Michael A. Stewart
new claims in the 1814 treaty. However, as with the See also Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka), 1814;
Treaty of Paris of 1783, no Indian nations were sig- Harrison, William Henry; Jackson, Andrew;
natories. Tecumseh.
Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghent applied directly References and Further Reading
to Indian tribes or nations that had been involved in Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1972. Indian Treaties
the war. The article required both the United States 1778–1883. Matituck, NY: Ameron House.
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties
and the British Crown to cease hostilities against the
The History of a Political Anomaly. Los Angeles:
tribes or nations after the ratification of the treaty; it University of California Press.
also required the tribes or nations to cease hostilities St. German, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in
against the United States and Great Britain. The the United States and Canada 1867–1877. Lincoln:
treaty called for both governments to restore all the University of Nebraska Press.

652 Indian Removal Act, 1830
claim, Marshall does “find some excuse, if not justifi-

Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823 cation, in the character and habits of the people
Johnson v. M’Intosh stands as one of the U.S. Supreme whose rights have been wrested from them.”
Court’s most significant Indian law opinions. It justi- The rationalization for the doctrine of discovery
fied a lesser status for Indian title to land through the and the right of conquest contained in Johnson v.
related doctrine of discovery and the right of con- M’Intosh is found in racial imagery and a sense of the
quest. Chief Justice John Marshall argued for the inevitable. Marshall writes, “[The] Indians inhabit-
Court that “[i]t has never been doubted, that either ing this country were fierce savages, whose occupa-
the United States, or the several States, had a clear tion was war, and whose subsistence was drawn
title to all the lands . . . subject only to the Indian chiefly from the forest . . .they were as brave and as
right of occupancy.” high spirited as they were fierce. . . . Frequent and
Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants in the bloody wars, in which the whites were not always
Johnson v. M’Intosh dispute were Indians or tribes; the aggressors, unavoidably ensued. European
rather, they were whites competing for the same policy, numbers, and skill, prevailed.”
land. The plaintiffs argued that, as holders of a deed The outcome of the case is based in part on a
from the Piankeshaw Indians, they were entitled to sense that “[u]nalterable facts [of conquest] gave rise
the land. Marshall’s opinion, however, sided with to mandate” (Robertson 1997). Thus, Johnson v. M’In-
the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right tosh would become the legal precedent that permit-
to the land before the U.S. judiciary. The case was ted differing treatment of Indian land rights and
recognized as significant at the time it was heard, for clothed in judicial robes the maxim “Might makes
it helped resolve the status of land purchased from right.”
Indians. The case’s importance has not declined: Ezra Rosser
“Johnson v. M’Intosh is at the root of title for most real
See also Aboriginal Title; Doctrine of Discovery;
property in the United States” (Bobroff 2001).
Right of Conquest; Right of Occupancy/Right of
The European nations and the United States, the Soil.
stepping into Europe’s shoes through independence, References and Further Reading
had independent rights to land that other European Bobroff, Kenneth H. 2001. “Symposium: Indian Law
nations needed to respect through the doctrine of in Property: Johnson v. M’Intosh and Beyond,” 37
discovery. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “This Tulsa Law Review 521.
principle was, that discovery gave title to the gov- Frickey, Philip P. 1993. “Marshalling the Past and
Present: Colonialism, Constitutionalism, and
ernment by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it
Interpretation in Federal Indian Law,” 107
was made, against all other European governments, Harvard Law Review 381.
which title might be consummated by possession.” Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 8 Wheat 543 (1823).
Furthermore, Marshall wrote, the Indians, though Kades, Eric. 2001. “History and Interpretation of the
“the rightful occupants,” possessed “impaired” Great Case of Johnson v. M’Intosh,” 19 Law and
rights to the land “and their power to dispose of the History Review 67.
soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, Robertson, Lindsay G. 1997. “John Marshall as
was denied by the original fundamental principle, Colonial Historian: Reconsidering the Origins of
the Discovery Doctrine,” 13 Journal of Law and
that discovery gave exclusive title to those who
Politics 759, 761.
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 cou-
pled with the right of conquest, ensured that the Indian Removal Act, 1830
United States, not the Indians, held the final rights to The Indian Removal Act was promoted by President
land. Marshall explained, “Conquest gives a title Andrew Jackson (served 1829–1837) and passed on
which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, May 28, 1830. The act aimed “to provide for an
whatever the private and speculative opinions of exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of
individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the states or territories, and for their removal west of
the claim which has been successfully asserted.” the river Mississippi” (U.S. Statutes at Large, 1830).
Though his writing at times appears to be apolo- The amount of $500,000 was allocated to support the
getic, concerned with the original justice of the land negotiations. Its main purpose was to acquire

Indian Removal Act, 1830 653
more land for white settlements in states east of the acknowledgment that Georgia had no jurisdiction
Mississippi River while guaranteeing Indian rights over Cherokee territory and no claim to their lands,
to western land. To this end, Congress set the Indian Chief Justice John Marshall declared that Indian
Territory (encompassing land west of Arkansas, Mis- tribes were “domestic dependent nations” rather
souri, and east of Mexican territory) under the than sovereign nations (Prucha 1994). This decision
Indian Intercourse Act (1834). paved the way for the enforcement of the removal
Following the Louisiana Purchase of 1804 by policy and eventually for subsequent litigation
President Jefferson, opportunities for settlements affecting Indians. A minority of Cherokees signed
west of the Mississippi swelled. Arkansas Territory the Treaty of New Echota (1835), ceding all their land
was established in 1819, Missouri in 1821. Mean- for $5 million. They were given two years to move
while, the Committee on Indian Affairs was created voluntarily to Indian Territory. Some Seminoles,
(1824) within the War Department. The constant refusing to sign the removal Treaty of Payne’s Land-
flow of settlers into Indian land led to numerous ing (1832), fought in the Second Seminole War
battles (the Creek War of 1813 in Alabama, the Semi- (1835–1842). Certain Creeks, as well, rejected the
nole War of 1817–1818 in northern Florida, the Red removal treaty of 1832, resulting in the Creek War
Bird War of 1827 in Wisconsin). Eventually, each (1835–1836). Finally, the Cherokees who defied
conflict resulted in defeat for the Indians, who removal were coerced by the U.S. military to march
ceded more land to the U.S. government through to Indian Territory. During the fall and winter of
treaties. 1838–1839, about four thousand Cherokees died in
By the 1820s, it had become clear that pioneers the appalling conditions on the infamous “Trail of
were not willing to tolerate cohabitation with Indi- Tears.” Indian Territory had a quasi-autonomous
ans. Moreover, land speculators perceived the Indi- government until the creation of Oklahoma in 1907.
ans as an impediment to territorial expansion. Ulti- Whereas the proponents for removal believed
mately, Georgia challenged the Cherokees to leave this was a humanitarian act preventing Indians from
the state. However, the Cherokee—one of the Five disappearing, opponents—including the Whig Party
Civilized Tribes, along with the Choctaw, Creek, and Jeremiah Evarts, a Christian missionary—
Chickasaw, and Seminole—adopted a formal consti- sharply criticized the government’s greed for cheap
tution (1827) asserting the tribe’s sovereignty and its land, as well as the corruption and fraud that
protection solely under the U.S. government. The swayed the negotiations and the application of
Georgia legislature argued, in turn, that the Chero- removal treaties. In a message to Congress in 1829,
kees were merely renting the land, as the United President Andrew Jackson declared that “our con-
States had been established after Great Britain’s sov- duct toward these people” reflected on “our national
ereign possessions. These ongoing tensions led Pres- character” (Cave 2003).
ident Jackson to view the removal of all Indians from Céline Swicegood
pioneers’ land as the only viable solution. The
Removal Act passed in the House of Representatives See also Aboriginal Title; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,
by a small majority, 102 to 97 (Cave 2003). 1831; General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887;
Northern tribes, including the Potawatomi, Indian Removal; Johnson v. M’Intosh, 1823;
were resettled in western lands after signing eighty- Mitchel v. United States, 1835; Trail of Tears;
six removal treaties between 1829 and 1851 (Prucha Worcester v. Georgia, 1832.
1994). Although the act seemingly precluded “viola-
Cave, Alfred. 2003. “Abuse of Power: Andrew
tion of any existing treaty between the United States Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830.”
and any of the Indian tribes” (U.S. Statutes at Large, Historians 65(6): 1330–1353.
1830), it nonetheless was a direct abuse of Indian Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties:
sovereignty. In the South, after the Choctaws agreed The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley:
to their removal in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit University of California Press.
Creek of 1830, some tribes who were most rooted to Remini, Robert. 2001. Andrew Jackson and His Indian
Wars. Viking.
the land through farms and trade practices fought
Rogin, Michael. 1975. Fathers and Children: Andrew
the removals in violent uprisings. The Cherokees Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian.
refused to sign a removal treaty and challenged it New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
before the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. Geor- United States Statutes at Large. 1830. 21st Congress, 1st
gia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Despite his Session, 28 May.

654 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831
According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution,

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831
the Supreme Court is assigned to hear disputes aris-
In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Supreme ing between a state and a foreign power. The Chero-
Court denied that the Cherokee constituted a sover- kee Nation, as a foreign power, petitioned the Court
eign nation and effectively made the tribe into wards in 1831 to invoke its jurisdiction and grant an injunc-
of the United States. The case evolved out of tion barring enforcement of Georgia’s jurisdiction
attempts by the state of Georgia to assert jurisdiction laws within Cherokee territory. Two highly distin-
over Native American lands that were protected by a guished white attorneys, John Sergeant and William
federal treaty; ultimately, it involved the question of Wirt, represented the Cherokee when oral argu-
the power of the federal judiciary to review state leg- ments before the Court began on March 11, 1831.
islative decisions. The decision, a landmark in fed- Georgia officials, bearing in mind that Article VI of
eral Indian law, defined the status of all Native the Constitution forbids any state law that super-
American tribes within the United States. sedes federal treaties, denied that the Cherokee had
By the 1830s, the Cherokee Nation had lost a any right to stand before the Court. The Georgians
tremendous amount of power. Warfare, treaties, fed- refused to acknowledge the papers served on them
eral trade policies, and assimilation had served to by John Ross and did not speak in oral arguments
weaken Cherokee society significantly. The tribe had before the Court. They did attempt to weaken the
fallen back into the mountains of northern Georgia power of the federal judiciary by seeking congres-
and western North Carolina, onto land guaranteed sional support for a bill limiting the Supreme Court’s
to them in 1791 by a treaty with the United States. To power to review state legislative decisions.
the state of Georgia, however, the Cherokee The Supreme Court sought to craft a compro-
remained a problem. When Georgia ceded its west- mise that preserved the rule of law while maintain-
ern lands in 1802, it obtained a promise from the fed- ing the right of Americans to conquer lands. In
eral government that all Indian territorial rights Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Mar-
within the state would be terminated. State legisla- shall stated that the Supreme Court had no jurisdic-
tors committed themselves to the removal of the tion to hear a Cherokee request to enjoin Georgia’s
Cherokee through an official policy of harassment. efforts. Writing for the majority, he defined the
In 1828, Georgia passed a law stipulating that, after Cherokee as a “domestic, dependent nation” rather
June 1, 1830, the authority of state law would extend than a sovereign nation for purposes of Article III of
over the Cherokee living within its boundaries. In the U.S. Constitution. The deeply divided Court
1829, the discovery of gold in Cherokee territory never addressed the Cherokee argument that Geor-
gave additional impetus to the drive to extinguish gia had violated treaty agreements and the Constitu-
Indian title to Georgia land. tion.
Georgia attempted to extend state jurisdiction Despite the dozens of international treaties
over the Cherokee through laws that specifically tar- signed over the course of many years by the United
geted the Indians with the aim of destroying the States and various Indian nations, the Supreme
political, economic, and social structure of their Court decided that Native Americans could not form
nation. This legislation, which easily passed, set out a foreign nation. The decision resulted in the cre-
to nullify all Cherokee law, to prohibit meetings of ation of a continent-wide real estate law that favored
the tribal council, and, perhaps most importantly, to the federal government while diminishing the rights
claim and redistribute the lands of the Cherokee to of Native Americans.
Georgians. Georgia also established a police force, Caryn E. Neumann
the Georgia Guard, to patrol Cherokee lands. The
police devoted their energies to attacking the Chero-
kees, arresting Principal Chief John Ross, and See also Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust Doctrine;
destroying a Cherokee printing press. The Cherokee Worcester v. Georgia, 1832.
protested that Georgia had violated treaties between
Aaseng, Nathan. 2000. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. San
the Native Americans and the U.S. government that Diego: Lucent Books.
acknowledged tribal sovereignty. To maintain con- Norgren, Jill. 1996. The Cherokee Cases: The
trol of their republic, the Cherokee resolved to battle Confrontation of Law and Politics. New York:
Georgia through the legal system. McGraw-Hill.

Worcester v. Georgia, 1832 655
Wilkins, Thurman. Cherokee Tragedy: The Ridge Family

and the Decimation of a People. 2nd ed. Norman:
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 harass-
ment 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 Samuel A. Worcester (1798–1859) was born at Peacham,
the rights of the Native Americans. The Cherokee Vermont. He served as a missionary to the Cherokee Nation and
Nation, recognized in federal treaties as a sovereign refused to follow Georgia law, resulting in the court case,
nation, had its own system for regulating commerce Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. (Library of Congress)
and visitations with non-Indians residing in Georgia.
Accordingly, the Cherokees strongly objected to the they agreed to abide by Georgia’s laws, but Worces-
attempt of Georgia to ignore Cherokee sovereignty ter and Butler refused to submit to the state. Both
and impose its own regulations. clergymen were tried in Gwinnett County Superior
Three Protestant missionaries from the large Court on September 15, 1831, in State v. Missionaries
and prominent American Board of Commissioners and were found guilty. Sentenced to four years at
for Foreign Missions who had been active in record- hard labor in the state penitentiary at Milledgeville,
ing and preserving Cherokee culture refused to sub- they began serving their sentences while the Chero-
mit to the new law. Friendly to the Cherokees, these kees hired attorney William Wirt to appeal their
men announced their opposition to Cherokee cases. Wirt, who had served as U.S. attorney general
removal, and the Georgia militia promptly entered under Presidents James Monroe and John Quincy
Cherokee territory to arrest them. The men, who Adams, petitioned the Supreme Court for redress.
included group spokesperson Reverend Samuel As it had in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the state
Austin Worcester and Reverend Elizur Butler, were insisted that the Cherokees had no standing in fed-
released when they claimed protection as federal eral court and refused to participate in oral argu-
employees. The administration of President Andrew ments before the Supreme Court. On March 3, 1832,
Jackson indicated its support for Georgia’s position the Court ruled against Georgia by deciding that
by terminating the mens’ jobs, including Worcester’s Worcester and Butler had been arrested and impris-
position as postmaster. The militia returned and oned under an unconstitutional law. Chief Justice
arrested ten missionaries on July 15, 1831, on charges John Marshall, in a majority opinion that declared all
of “residing in the Cherokee Nation without of Georgia’s anti-Cherokee legislation illegal, con-
licenses.” They were beaten, chained, and forced to cluded that Georgia had violated the authority of the
march thirty-five miles a day to the Gwinnett United States and the political rights of the Chero-
County jail. Eight ministers gained pardons when kees. The Court declared that the 1785 Treaty of

656 Mitchel v. United States, 1835
Hopewell and 1791 Treaty of Holston explicitly Like Johnson v. M’Intosh (21 U.S. 543; 5 L. Ed.
acknowledged the right of the Cherokees to self- 681, 1823), which is cited as precedent in Mitchel, the
government. It issued a mandate to the Georgia underlying issue involves a dispute between the
Superior Court ordering it to reverse its decision and United States and a private party over lands pur-
free the missionaries. The decision affirmed Ameri- chased from tribes in territory that had been under
can recognition of Native American sovereignty as foreign colonial rule.
well as the right of Indian nations to occupy their In this case, the petitioners (Colin Mitchel and
territory and control the transfer of their lands, but it others) had purchased 1.2 million acres of land from
was a Pyrrhic victory. an English company that had originally been
Georgia would not tolerate a sovereign Chero- granted the land from the Creek and Seminole tribes
kee nation within its boundaries and ignored the in 1804 and 1806 in sales confirmed by the Spanish
Supreme Court’s ruling. Governor Wilson Lumpkin governor of the Florida Territory. These sales were
declared that he would rather hang the missionaries valid under Spanish law and were intended to dis-
than release them. (He eventually discharged them.) charge the debts owed to the company for losses the
Georgia court officials insisted that the federal court company incurred while doing trade with the tribes.
had overreached its authority and refused to reverse The U.S. government objected to the legality of
their decision. President Jackson, no friend of Native the petitioners’ claims on various grounds, among
Americans, weighed in on the dispute by purport- them that the tribes had no title, under Spanish law,
edly saying privately that Marshall had made his that they could have transferred to the company. The
decision and he (Marshall) could now enforce it. government argued that any right of occupation that
Jackson refused to take any action to help the Chero- the tribes may have had was extinguished by the
kees. Under the circumstances, the Indians had few Treaty of Picolata in 1765, into which the tribes
other options except to sign a removal treaty, which entered with Great Britain when it took possession
they did in 1835. By 1838, the majority of Cherokees of the Florida Territory, and that this extinguishment
had departed on the “Trail of Tears” to Oklahoma. carried forward when Spain acquired Florida via its
Caryn E. Neumann treaty of 1783 with Britain. Moreover, the United
States claimed, even if the tribes did retain title in
See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Indian occupancy, the original sales of 1804 and 1806 were
Removal; Sovereignty.
invalid because the governor of the Florida Territory
Norgren, Jill. 1996. The Cherokee Cases: The did not possess the authority under Spanish law to
Confrontation of Law and Politics. New York: confirm that sale. Thus, the United States argues
McGraw-Hill. that, when it acquired the Florida Territory in the
Reid, John Philip. 1970. A Law of Blood: The Primitive Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819 with Spain, it took clear
Law of the Cherokee Nation. New York: New York title to all the lands claimed by Mitchel and his fel-
University Press. low petitioners.
Woodward, Grace Steele. 1963. The Cherokees.
Pursuant to a congressional act in 1828 to settle
Florida private land claims, Mitchel and others peti-
tioned 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 dis-
Mitchel v. United States, 1835 missed their petitions. The petitioners appealed this
In Mitchel v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which entered
affirmed that aboriginal title has force in U.S. law the appeal in January 1831.
and that claims succeeding from the transfer of that The Supreme Court reversed the Florida court’s
title, when licensed by the proper governing official, decision. In its opinion, Justice Henry Baldwin
will be deemed legally valid. Specifically, Mitchel points to the long recognition, under English law, of
stands for the proposition that U.S. rights of owner- an aboriginal right of occupation held by Indian
ship to Indian lands are subject to the right of occu- tribes to lands they possessed under British colonial
pation of those tribes to lands in their continuous rule, and the continuation of that right under Span-
possession and use, and that this right can only be ish law. The opinion reads, “[O]ne uniform rule
extinguished when the tribe, with federal approval, seems to have prevailed . . . that friendly Indians
voluntarily alienates that land. were protected in the possession of the lands they

Trail of Tears 657
occupied . . . that their right of occupancy is consid- organized Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma)
ered as sacred as the fee simple to the whites” (34 in 1838. It is generally accepted that approximately
U.S. 711, 746–747). Moreover, because the possessory four thousand Cherokees perished in the long jour-
rights of the tribes were recognized as valid by the ney, although some scholars have suggested that the
Spanish officers who publicly confirmed their sale to number could well have been twice that (Anderson
the English company, they were deemed sufficiently 1991, 75–95). Ordered by President Martin Van
notorious to have put the United States on notice of Buren, the removal effort that came to be known as
their existence when it entered into the treaty of 1819 the Trail of Tears was a direct result of Andrew Jack-
with Spain. As such, the federal government’s claims son’s policy of removal and the Indian Removal Act
could not supersede the claims of the petitioners, passed by Congress in 1830. This general act
whose title to the lands was purchased in 1811 from required individual treaties to be signed with each
the English company. tribe, and in the case of the Cherokee, it was the bla-
It may be argued that this case speaks less to the tantly fraudulent Treaty of New Echota in 1835 that
status of aboriginal title under U.S. law and rather led to their eventual removal. Despite facing stiff
more to the requirement that government officials resistance in Congress, the treaty was eventually
must authorize any effort by Indian tribes to alienate passed by a slim margin; upon its ratification, the
that title. At the same time, the case explicitly recog- United States assumed title to the entire Cherokee
nizes the extent to which a tribe’s aboriginal right to Nation. Ostensibly, removal was to be voluntary, but
occupation “could not be taken without their con- by 1838 only two thousand of the estimated eighteen
sent . . . until they abandoned them, made a cession thousand to twenty thousand members of the
to the government, or an authorized sale to individ- Cherokee Nation had left of their own volition. Pres-
uals” (34 U.S. 711, 746). Whatever force this opinion ident Van Buren’s patience soon ran out, leading him
may still have, it is nonetheless true that unless “rec- to order a forced removal effort under the direction
ognized” in a federal treaty or statute, federal extin- of General Winfield Scott. All Cherokees who
guishment of aboriginal title without the consent of remained in their eastern homes were rounded up,
the tribe will not give rise to a right of compensation corralled in military stockades, and then forced
under the Fifth Amendment (Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. westward in a march that began in October 1838. To
U.S., 348 U.S. 272; 99 L. Ed. 314, 1955). make matters worse, the limited funds promised to
Justin B. Richland provide food and supplies for the Cherokee were
often never delivered or were subject to graft on the
See also Aboriginal Title; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, part of officials and suppliers charged with those
1831; Indian Removal Act; Johnson v. M’Intosh, responsibilities. In the end, disease, hunger, exhaus-
1823; Sovereignty.
tion, and freezing temperatures took their toll,
Missal, John, and Mary Lou Missal. 2004. The resulting in the deaths of thousands in the camps
Seminole Wars: America’s Longest Indian Conflict. and during the migration.
Gainesville, Tallahassee, Tampa, Boca Raton, The tragedy suffered by the Cherokee was rep-
Pensacola, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville and resentative of the fate that befell a number of other
Fort Myers: University Press of Florida. Southeastern tribes during the 1830s and 1840s—
Mitchel v. United States, 34 U.S. 711; 9 L. Ed. 283 many of which endured their own versions of the
(1835).
Trail of Tears. The term itself actually originated with
Norgreen, Jill. The Cherokee Cases: Two Landmark
Federal Decisions in the Fight for Sovereignty. 2003. the removal of the Choctaw from their homes in
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mississippi following the passage of the dubiously
Smith, Jean Edward. 1996. John Marshall: Definer of a executed Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830. In
Nation. New York: Henry Holt. 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
Trail of Tears along the way due to repeated epidemics of dysen-
Also known as “the trail where they cried,” the Trail tery and cholera, meager supplies and funding, and
of Tears refers to the removal of the Cherokee Indi- freezing temperatures (Green 1978, 8–9). In 1837, the
ans from their homes in Tennessee, Georgia, and Chickasaws were removed from their territory in
North Carolina along a forced march to the newly Alabama; the Creeks and Seminoles would also

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 strug- beneficence preached by Cass and others saturated
gles with the federal government. As grievous as much of Andrew Jackson’s speeches on removal,
each of these events was, however, it was the Chero- but it would be naïve to believe that altruism alone
kee removal that burned the name “Trail of Tears” was at the heart of removal efforts. Ultimately, the
into the psyches of Americans, and it is the Cherokee discovery of gold in northern Georgia fueled the
experience that is so often associated with the infa- already insatiable hunger for Indian lands, while
mous expression. issues of states’ rights vis-à-vis Indian sovereignty
The tragic scale of the Trail of Tears has made it polarized the debates over removal even further.
one of the most widely studied events in the history For the Cherokee in particular, these issues com-
of American Indian policy and its effects on Native bined to create a climate that ultimately rendered
peoples. Interpretations of the policies, treaties, and moot a petition signed by approximately sixteen
ideologies that led to the Trail of Tears have ranged thousand Cherokees declaring that the Treaty of
from charges of outright genocide to relatively New Echota was not representative of their desires,
apologetic characterizations of the motivations driv- the considerable public support that arose out of the
ing Andrew Jackson and other removal proponents debates, and a favorable Supreme Court decision
as lamentably misguided benevolence. To be sure, (Worcester v. Georgia), which ruled Georgia’s
avowed removal proponents such as Michigan’s removal laws illegal. All of these efforts went for
governor Lewis Cass echoed social theorists of the naught, and the Trail of Tears thus became the defin-
time with protestations that the only way to save ing event of a notorious chapter in the history of
Indians from extinction was to move them beyond white-Indian relations.
the reach of unscrupulous whites. This paternalistic Bradley J. Gills

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848 659
See also Cass, Lewis; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, ico with their property or to remain in the United
1831; Dancing Rabbit Creek, Mississippi; States as U.S. citizens.
Domestic Dependent Nation; Indian Removal; Many Anglos in the United States felt that the
Indian Removal Act, 1830; Indian Territory;
citizenship provisions in the treaty were too liberal,
Jackson, Andrew; New Echota, Georgia;
Opothleyahola; Osceola; Ridge, John Rollin;
as they provided U.S. citizenship to a rather large
Ridge, Major; Ross, John; Treaty with the percentage of people living in the territories during
Cherokee–December 29, 1835; Treaty with the a period when U.S. law limited naturalization to
Choctaw–September 27, 1830; Watie, Stand; free “white” immigrants. Some argued that those
Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. remaining in the newly acquired territories
References and Further Reading required further action by Congress to become citi-
Anderson, William L., ed. 1991. Cherokee Removal: zens. This ambiguous citizenship status became
Before and After. Athens: University of Georgia
especially glaring after the discovery of gold in Cal-
Press.
Green, Len. 1978. “Choctaw Removal Was Really a ifornia. Suddenly, thousands of people rushed to
‘Trail of Tears.’” Bishinik: The Official Publication the area, directly competing against the Native-
of the Choctaw Nation, November, 1978: 8–9. born miners for the best mining locations. Lynch-
McLoughlin, William G. 1993. After the Trail of Tears: ing, harassment, and other abuses of those not con-
The Cherokees Struggle for Sovereignty, sidered citizens forced several countries, including
1839–1880. Chapel Hill: University of North the Republic of Mexico, to lodge formal diplomatic
Carolina Press.
protests against the U.S. government. Mexico often
Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995.
The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with referred to Article IX in those protests, citing the
Documents. New York: St. Martins Press. formal citizenship granted to its former citizens.
Wallace, Anthony F.C. 1993. The Long, Bitter Trail: Most people in the United States did not view Mex-
Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill icans living in the California territory as citizens; as
& Wang. 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.
Treaty of Guadalupe Since 1812, Mexico had offered citizenship to “civi-
Hidalgo, 1848 lized” Indians, and the Mexican Constitution of 1824
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, negotiated for the extended full citizenship to them. While Article IX
United States by diplomat Nicholas Philip Trist plainly granted U.S. citizenship to all Mexican citi-
(1800–1874), ended the Mexican-American War and zens living in the transferred territories, it was not
was signed at the village of Guadalupe Hidalgo near long before states began to enact constitutions that
Mexico City on February 2, 1848. Article IX of the excluded blacks and Indians while recognizing some
treaty outlined the protection of civil rights extended Mexicans. During these years, American states
to Mexican citizens living in the newly conceded determined their own requirements for citizenship
area, thus making them a part of the United States. and often exercised this power to exclude minorities
The treaty granted the United States more than from citizenship. Those without the right to actively
five hundred thousand square miles of territory, or participate in the political arena seldom enjoyed the
nearly half of the Republic of Mexico. Along with the benefit of civil rights, and under U.S. laws Indians
Gadsden Purchase (1853), the ceded area eventually and “half-breeds” were not considered citizens. Indi-
became the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, ans were given neither citizenship nor the protec-
New Mexico, Utah, and parts of Colorado, tions listed in Articles VIII or IX of the treaty.
Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and granted Although the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
the U.S. demand that Mexico recognize the Río ended the war between the United States and the
Grande as the southern border of Texas. Republic of Mexico, it failed to ensure the status and
Mexican officials negotiated furiously with Trist rights of Mexicans and Indians living in the territory
to win concessions to protect the rights of Mexicans conceded to the United States. Indeed, it can be
living in the region. Article IX attempted to extend argued that these populations have yet to gain full
further the civil rights of Mexican citizens living in citizenship.
the area by giving them the option to return to Mex- Robert O. Marlin IV

660 California, Eighteen Unratified Treaties, 1851–1853
See also Gadsden, James; Plenary Power; Oliver Wozencraft, George Barbour, and Redick
Sovereignty; Treaty. McKee—had conflicting orders. The Senate appro-
References and Further Reading priations bill that authorized their expedition did not
Griswold del Castillo, Richard. 1990. The Treaty of
specifically permit them to make treaties; later, the
Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict. Norman:
secretary of the interior authorized them to do so.
Mahin, Dean B. 1997. Olive Branch and Sword: The The trio traveled throughout the state and consum-
United States and Mexico, 1845–1848. Jefferson, mated eighteen treaties with California Indians.
NC: McFarland. Wozencraft stayed in southern California, Barbour
United States. “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits worked in central California, and McKee made the
and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico.” arduous journey to northern California. The treaties
February 2, 1848. U.S.-Mex., United States resembled those of the 1850s: They provided a land
Statutes at Large 9, pt. 922.
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,
California, Eighteen Unratified etc.), and the Natives recognized the United States as
Treaties, 1851–1852 their protector. In the end, these eighteen treaties
Many scholars and Indian activists have used the reserved 7.5 million acres for California Indians.
eighteen unratified treaties made in California to Once California Indians signed the treaties, many
demonstrate how shoddily the state treated its moved to what they thought were their new homes.
indigenous population after the American gold rush. Almost immediately, non-Indian Californians
Negotiated in good faith, the treaties faced tremen- protested the treaties. They objected to the amount
dous opposition from mining and agricultural inter- of land set aside for Indians and warned that it
ests in the state and died in a “secret session” of might take too much potential agricultural and min-
Congress. Even though the end result may have ing land out of the hands of productive, white citi-
been more procedural than deliberately malicious, zens. Also, they argued that California’s unique his-
the eighteen unratified California treaties stand as an tory—in which Indians and non-Indians lived and
example of a turbulent period in the state’s history worked together—made removing Indians to a
and tell us much about how non-Indians viewed the reservation unnecessary, if not destructive of the
state’s Native population. state’s agricultural economy. Finally, opponents cited
The year 1848 brought innumerable changes to shady dealings between the agents and those who
California. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended were supposed to provide food and supplies to the
the Mexican-American War and added the American reservations. For instance, McKee signed a contract
Southwest to the United States. This included Cali- with his son to provide cattle for Indians, and Bar-
fornia, with its history of missions and ranchos, bour made a dubious cattle contract with John C.
where California Indians lived with and worked for Frémont. The U.S. Senate acceded to these com-
Spanish and Mexican settlers. That same year, the plaints. In 1852, the Senate retired to executive ses-
discovery of gold on the American River touched off sion, debated the treaties without public input, and
an international and domestic migration to the state. tabled the documents, effectively killing them.
At first, Indians found opportunities to mine for Without treaties, California Indians were in a
themselves in the gold rush; more frequently, they precarious position, at the whim of state citizens
worked in gangs mining for wealthy landowners who cared little about them and a state government
such as John Sutter and John Bidwell. This violation that ensured their virtual enslavement. In 1850, Cali-
of free labor sensibilities, along with the fear of Indi- fornia passed the nefarious Act for the Government
ans on the part of many miners (generated on the and Protection of the Indians. Amended later, the act
Overland Trail) and Indian attacks in Oregon, allowed for the forced indenture of Indian children.
prompted miners and state militias to begin a cam- After the Senate killed the treaties, the federal gov-
paign to eradicate California Indians from the mines. ernment created a number of temporary military
Surely something had to be done to protect the reservations. These lands were temporary (if whites
state’s Indian population. wanted them in the future, they could evict the Indi-
In 1850, the U.S. Senate dispatched three agents ans); they were voluntary for Indians, and they were
to California. From the outset, these three men— to be self-sustaining through Indian labor. Between

Long Walk, 1864 661
1853 and 1858, federal Indian commissioners were moved to a remote reservation on the Pecos
Edward F. Beale and Thomas J. Henley created seven River in eastern New Mexico known as the Bosque
temporary Indian reservations throughout the state. Redondo. Carson’s campaign against the Navajos
These suffered from a lack of funding, corruption on culminated in the Long Walk—a forced march con-
the part of Beale and Henley, and the heinous actions sisting of several episodes of compulsory removal
of non-Indians living on the reservation’s borders. that began as early as 1863 and ended in 1866.
Although some of these reservations were indeed Soon after his appointment as commander of
temporary, others, such as the Round Valley Reser- the Department of New Mexico, Carleton, who was
vation, were recognized by executive order and determined to bring an end to Native resistance in
received full standing with reservations established the area, unleashed an aggressive crusade against
by treaty. the Mescalero Apaches and Navajos in an effort to
The unratified treaties in California left a lasting isolate, remove, and incarcerate the two tribes—tra-
impact on the state’s Indian population. Although ditional enemies—together on a reservation.
not necessarily unique in that the Senate rejected the The Diné, in retaliation for perceived wrongs
treaties (many treaties signed with Indians in Ore- enacted against them, raided other tribes—primarily
gon, Washington, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico the Pueblos—and non-Indian settlers, including
were similarly rejected), they created a situation in Mexicans and newly arrived European Americans,
which most California Indians lived off reservations. for decades before Carleton demanded their rid-
Until the early twentieth century, the state and fed- dance. In addition to the seeming Navajo menace,
eral government wrestled with this population. Carleton wished to eliminate any obstacle that could
Moreover, the treaties stand as a reminder that the potentially threaten mining aspirations in the South-
state and federal governments virtually ignored and west.
exploited the state’s Indian population. Although Kit Carson did not lead the three-
William Bauer hundred-mile trek to the Bosque Redondo, he suc-
cessfully breached the Navajo stronghold at Canyon
See also California, Hawaii, and the Pacific
de Chelly in January 1864 (after effectively subjugat-
Northwest; Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848;
United States v. Kagama, 1886. ing a number of Mescaleros) and launched a
References and Further Reading scorched-earth campaign that resulted in little loss of
Hurtado, Albert L. 1988. Indian Survival on the life but nevertheless wreaked havoc on the Navajos,
California Frontier. New Haven, CT: Yale compelling them to surrender. Prior to the Canyon
University Press. de Chelly expedition, Carson reported little success
Kelsey, Harry. 1973. “The California Indian Treaty in his quest to round up the Navajos. Instead, mem-
Myth.” Southern California Quarterly 55(Fall):
bers of the tribe typically evaded capture and
225–238.
Phillips, George Harwood. 1997. Indians and Indian
escaped to distant areas of Diné Bikéyah, such as the
Agents: The Origins of the Reservation System in canyon gorge behind Navajo Mountain that is
California, 1848–1852. Norman: University of known today as Glen Canyon. Although Carson’s
Oklahoma Press. 1863 campaign sent some Navajos to Hwéeldi—also
Rawls, James. 1984. Indians of California: The Changing referred to as the Bosque Redondo—his accomplish-
Image. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ments in 1864 at Canyon de Chelly turned the tide in
favor of the United States and resulted in the
removal of several thousand Diné.
Long Walk, 1864 The Long Walk consisted of a series of removals
In the summer of 1863, Brigadier General James that lasted for three years and became a pivotal
Henry Carleton—General Edward Richard Sprigg event in the history and culture of the Navajo, like
Canby’s successor as head of Union forces in New the Cherokee’s Trail of Tears, which occurred thirty-
Mexico—caused great change in the Native South- four years earlier. The trip to Hwéeldi followed dif-
west. He ordered Christopher Houston Carson, com- ferent routes but typically began at Fort Wingate,
monly known as “Kit,” an experienced trapper, near present-day Gallup, New Mexico, moved west
trader, army scout, and Indian agent in the Rocky toward Albuquerque and then southeast to the flat,
Mountain West to amass and remove the Diné (the barren, treeless plains of the Pecos River valley near
Navajos) from their Native homeland in northwest- the army outpost of Fort Sumner. Navajo oral
ern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona. They accounts and soldiers’ reports detail the hardships

662 Connolly v. Woolrich (Canada), 1867
endured by the Diné during the three-hundred-mile, See also Barboncito; Canyon de Chelly, Arizona;
journey on foot to the Bosque Redondo. Many sto- Carson, Kit; Fort Sumner, New Mexico;
ries recount the harsh environmental conditions, Manuelito; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868.
including cold weather, heavy snow, and little or no
Bailey, Lynn R. 1964. The Long Walk: A History of the
water. Participants in the Long Walk also suffered Navajo Wars, 1846–1868. Los Angeles:
from starvation and disease brought about by con- Westernlore Press.
taminated food. Furthermore, government testi- Bighorse, Tianna, and Noel Bennett., eds. 1990.
monies and Navajo histories tell of problems with Bighorse the Warrior. Tucson: University of
Mexican citizens whose hatred for the Navajos Arizona Press.
turned into violence as the Diné marched across Dunlay, Tom. 2000. Kit Carson and the Indians. Lincoln:
New Mexico. In addition to exposure, lack of food, University of Nebraska Press.
sickness, and hostilities from neighboring peoples,
the Navajos suffered injustices at the hands of the Roessel, Ruth, and Broderick H. Johnson, eds. 1973.
soldiers. Gus Bighorse, a Navajo warrior who fought Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period. Tsaile, AZ:
against Kit Carson’s troops but was removed to Navajo Community College Press.
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 heart-
broken because their families die on the way” (Big-
Connolly v. Woolrich
horse 1990, 28–35). If they survived the trek across (Canada), 1867
New Mexico, life at the Bosque Redondo proved to Connolly v. Woolrich (1 Canadian Native Law Cases
be just as dismal. Upon the Navajos’ arrival at their 70–243) is one of the earliest judgments in Canada
new home, the Diné fought with their traditional that examines the validity and effect of aboriginal
Apache enemies, who were already there, and suf- custom and law—in this case the customs of the
fered tremendously from hunger and disease. Cree Nation on the institution of marriage.
Carleton’s idea of settling the Navajos (and The judgment of the Quebec Superior Court
Mescaleros) on a faraway reservation proved to be was rendered in July of 1867 and that of the appel-
consistent with mid-nineteenth-century paternalistic late court in 1869. The case was appealed to the Judi-
theories of the best way to deal with hostile tribes. cial Committee of the Privy Council in England but
During the early 1860s, many Americans, including was settled out of court before it was heard by that
government officials and humanitarians, believed judicial body. The most interesting judgment is that
that reservations would segregate and assimilate of the Quebec Superior Court, which in essence was
Indian peoples, helping them to achieve the ultimate approved by the appellate court.
goal of “civilization”—a sedentary lifestyle firmly The facts giving rise to this landmark case arose
rooted in education, Christianity, and agriculture. in the early part of the nineteenth century. In 1803,
Ironically, reservations sometimes developed into William Connolly, a trader born in the area of Mon-
cultural enclaves that enabled Native peoples to treal, traveled west to the Northwest Territories, an
maintain their languages and cultivate strong tribal area which today forms part of northern Manitoba.
identities. The Long Walk and life at the Bosque He was seventeen years old. William Connolly mar-
Redondo encouraged the Navajos, traditionally ried a Cree girl named Suzanne according to the cus-
divided into clans, to develop a common identity toms and laws of the Cree Nation and lived with her
based upon their haunting experiences as a tribe. in an exclusive relationship. They had six children.
Recognizing its failed attempt to turn the Nava- Together, in 1831, they moved back to the Montreal
jos into Christian farmers, the U.S. government area with some of their children.
allowed the tribe to return to its homeland in 1868. In 1832, William Connolly left his Cree wife
The several thousand Navajos who had evaded cap- Suzanne and married Julia Woolrich in a ceremony
ture and remained on the western and northwestern performed according to the laws in force in Lower
fringes of Diné Bikéyah strengthened the tribes’ Canada. He died in 1849, and in his will he
claims to the area and permitted the Navajos to bequeathed all of his property to Julia Woolrich and
extend their land base in the Treaty of 1868. their two children; he left nothing to Suzanne or the
Sonia Dickey children he had had with her. Suzanne, who had

Constitution Act (Canada), 1867 663
never accepted his marriage to Julia, had moved the force, validity, and legitimacy of aboriginal cus-
back to the area of her birth, and had taken refuge in toms, institutions, and laws.
a convent, died in 1862. For many years, this judgment received little
The case was instituted by John Connolly, attention from Canadian courts and lawyers. More
William’s son by his wife Suzanne. John argued that recently, it was referred to in detail by the Royal
William Connolly’s marriage to his (John’s) mother Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in its report,
was valid and that it had created a community of Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government, and the Constitu-
property between them that entitled Suzanne to half tion. At page 7 of this report, the commission con-
of William’s estate, as she had been alive at the time cluded that one of the lessons to be drawn from the
of his death. As one of her six children, he claimed judgments in Connolly v. Woolrich is that sources of
his share of her half of the estate. law and authority in Canada “include the common
The key question before the court was whether laws and political systems of Aboriginal nations.”
the marriage, which had been solemnized according Anjali Choksi
to Cree custom, was valid and enforceable. The
lawyers for Woolrich argued that it was English law
Connolly v. Woolrich, 1 Canadian Native Law Cases 70
that was and had been in force in the Northwest Ter- (Quebec Superior Court).
ritories for more than a century and that, because the Johnstone et al. v. Connolly, 1 Canadian Native Law
marriage had not been solemnized according to Cases 151, also reported at (1869), 17 R.J.R.Q.
English law, it was not valid. Woolrich relied on the 266, (Quebec Queen’s Bench).
granting of the Hudson’s Bay Company Charter by Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1993.
the King of England in 1670 as evidence of the pri- Partners in Confederation: Aboriginal Peoples, Self-
Government, and the Constitution. Ottawa:
macy of English law in the Northwest Territories,
Canada Communication Group.
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 Constitution Act (Canada), 1867
and that the “customs of the Cree Indians relative to The Constitution Act of 1867 was formerly referred
marriage were in force there at that time” (1 to as the British North America Act. This is the
C.N.L.C. at p. 81). He noted that, before being con- British legislation that created the Dominion of
quered in Canada by the British, the French had Canada, effective July 1, 1867. Of greatest relevance
conducted a long-term trading relationship with the to the treaties with Canada’s various Native peo-
Cree and other First Nations inhabiting the North- ples are Articles 91 and 92, which distribute powers
west Territories, and that during two hundred years between the federal and provincial governments.
of trading the French had never tried to “subvert or The distribution of powers in these articles has also
modify the laws and usages of the aboriginal tribes, been a significant source of legislative difficulty in
except where they had established colonies and per- terms of determining which level of government is
manent settlements, and then only by persuasion” responsible for and has control over various aspects
(1 C.N.L.C. at p. 77). of Native life that are regulated by previous
William Connolly’s marriage to Suzanne was treaties.
valid because the territorial rights, political organiza- According to Article 91.24, the Crown provides
tion, laws, and usages of the Indian tribes were not exclusive legislative authority to the federal govern-
modified by the arrival and establishment of Euro- ment in Canada in the area of “Indians, and Lands
pean traders (1 C.N.L.C. at p. 79). Therefore, reserved for the Indians.” In Article 92.5, the Crown
William’s subsequent marriage to Julia Woolrich was provides exclusive legislative authority to provincial
ruled a nullity. governments in Canada in the area of “(the) Man-
This conclusion was upheld by the majority agement and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to
judges of the appellate court, and the matter was set- the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.”
tled between the parties before it was heard by the This exclusive legislative division between the fed-
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. eral and provincial governments thus did not pro-
Although the judgment is dated in its use of lan- vide for a governing role for First Nations in
guage. it remains relevant today for its recognition of Canada. As all Native populations in Canada were

664 Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal gov- relate to the governance of Natives and Native legal
ernment, they did not have the same guaranteed issues is evident in a number of areas. These areas
rights as other peoples in Canada. Furthermore, include employment law and marriage law, wherein
whatever rights they did have were potentially sub- the bulk of legislative control is with the provincial
ject to extinguishment by acts of legislation, adminis- governments. Due to the division of powers, social
tration, or treaty. Thus, the Constitution Act of 1982 services has been a contentious area, with numerous
was not able to recreate Native rights that had been disputes over responsibility occurring between the
eliminated between 1867 and 1982, only to protect levels and involving complex issues of finances, cul-
and guarantee those rights that still existed. ture, history, and constitutionalism. Generally, the
According to later legal decisions on the termi- provinces have refrained from financial responsibil-
nology of the Constitution Act, Canada’s Inuit are to ity for these services on reserve land but have legal
be included in the meaning of the term Indians. The rights to regulate and deliver these services on
same cannot necessarily be said of Canada’s Métis reserves. It is also an issue in the use of nonreserve
population. Recognition of Métis has generally been lands, Crown land, which the government holds in
accomplished not through the Constitution Act but guarantee for Natives. The issue of jurisdiction has
rather through the Manitoba Act of 1870 and the arisen as a result of the provincial government,
Dominion Lands Act of 1879. Furthermore, some which has jurisdiction over the sale and use of public
Métis who lived with non-Métis Indians became lands (as these guaranteed lands are), coming into
“treaty Indians” under the Indian Act of 1886, partic- conflict with the concept of Native title to these
ularly if the mother was Native and the father was lands, as it is the government that has guaranteed to
not Native. protect these lands on behalf of the Natives, who
An underexamined and highly complex facet of had no guaranteed legislative jurisdiction over
the Constitution Act is the delineation of “Lands themselves. In important legal decisions in the late
reserved for Indians.” This is of particular impor- nineteenth century, this issue tended to be settled in
tance in determining the complete extent of Rupert’s favor of the provinces.
Land, the territory given to the Hudson’s Bay Com- Donald R. Bennie
pany (HBC) by the English Crown in 1670. This land
See also Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Métis;
was subsequently transferred to the Canadian gov-
Sovereignty; Trust.
ernment in 1870 under the Rupert’s Land and North- References and Further Reading
western Territory Order, according to terms laid out Harring, Sidney L. 1998. White Man’s Law: Native
in Section 146 of the Constitution Act. Through the People in Nineteenth Century Canadian
provisions of the HBC’s surrender of territory to the Jurisprudence. Toronto: Osgoode Society.
Canadian government, with the land transfer was McNeil, Kent. 1982. Native Claims in Rupert’s Land
responsibility for the protections and compensation, and the North-western Territory: Canada’s
where necessary, of the Natives in those territories as Constitutional Obligations. Saskatoon:
University of Saskatchewan Native Law
well as the responsibility to settle the claims of these
Centre.
Natives. The problems arise from the fact that the Reiter, Robert. 1994. The Law of Canadian Indian
HBC was surrendering to the Canadian government Treaties. Edmonton: Juris Analytica.
only the lands over which it had jurisdiction—
Rupert’s Land, not the Northwestern Territories,
which fell outside its jurisdiction. Thus, the obliga-
tions to protect the Native populations outside
Rupert’s Land and in the Northwestern Territories Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870
could be interpreted as bearing only a moral, not a The Manitoba Act of 1870 created the province of
legal, obligation for the Canadian government. As Manitoba, reserved 1.4 million acres of land for the
such, the Canadian government needed only to set- Métis, guaranteed the equality of the French and
tle claims of compensation for lands required for set- English languages, and established separate schools
tlement, in conformity with equitable principles that for Protestants and Roman Catholics. The Manitoba
have been the practice of the British Crown in previ- Act was subsequently confirmed by the British Par-
ous dealings with Native populations. liament with the passage of the British North Amer-
The interplay between the jurisdictional rights ica Act of 1871. The creation of Manitoba signified
of the federal and provincial governments as they the federal government’s desire to control western

Manitoba Act (Canada), 1870 665
Métis, led by Louis Riel, assumed control of Fort

Garry, the HBC post, and declared a provisional gov-
ernment in October 1869. Negotiators were dis-
patched to Ottawa with a list of Métis grievances,
concerns, and demands. Politicians in Ottawa, buf-
feted 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 governmen-
tal 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 govern-
ment. 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 con-
cerned Métis lands. Section 31 reserved 1.4 million
acres of ungranted lands for the Métis and their chil-
dren. It also gave the government the right to deter-
Louis Riel (1844–1885) was a Métis leader and led the mine the location of the grant and the eligibility of
Northwest Rebellion. He was hanged for treason on November individuals to receive land. Section 32 recognized
16, 1885 at Regina, Saskatchewan. (Corbis) individuals’ titles to the land they already occupied.
Finally, both sections referred to the need to extin-
guish Indian claims to the land (Canada, 1870).
development and expansion and is the first attempt Under the terms of Section 31 the government
by Canada to deal with Métis rights. of Canada established a system of awarding land to
After confederation in 1867, Canadians looked the Métis. Essentially, eligible Métis would receive
to the west as a natural extension of Canada; they scrip, a certificate redeemable for a quarter section of
wanted a nation that stretched from sea unto sea. land, that could be used to preempt land anywhere
With this in mind, the Canadian politicians negoti- in Manitoba or the Northwest Territories, provided it
ated with the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) to pur- had been surrendered by the Indians and surveyed.
chase Rupert’s Land. In 1868, the HBC agreed to sell The administration of Section 31 through the scrip
Rupert’s Land to Canada for £300,000. The HBC kept process, and the recognition of existing titles through
one twentieth of its lands, which included land for Section 32, created problems. The general historical
agricultural purposes and the land surrounding consensus is that the government managed the
trading posts. The actual transfer was planned to entire process badly through fraud and negligence.
take place in December 1869 but was delayed until According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
July 1870. Once the sale was completed, the entire People, “[I]t took from 1877 until 1900 to complete
area became known as the Northwest Territories. the process and more than 90 per cent of the land
Angered by British denials of their requests for was diverted . . . to persons other than Métis chil-
crown colony status and the lack of consultation dren.” There is evidence that some Métis received
concerning the sale, and fearful that their way of life scrip for land that they already occupied, which was
would be destroyed by ethnocentric English new- contrary to the provisions of Section 32. Thomas
comers, the Métis decided to resist Canadian imperi- Flanagan, political scientist and former policy advi-
alism. After preventing incoming lieutenant gover- sor to the Reform Party of Canada, maintains that,
nor William McDougall from entering Red River, the despite both documented and oral evidence, the

666 Indian Appropriations Act, 1871
government followed the spirit and intent of Sec- process originated in the U.S. Constitution, in Arti-
tions 31 and 32 (Flanagan 1991). Moreover, he con- cle I, Section 8 of which Indian tribes were explic-
cludes that protests concerning the injustice and itly identified along with foreign nations as entities
rampant corruption since 1874 had little to do with with whom Congress would regulate commerce.
the Métis and more to do with the interests of specu- The commerce clause, which encapsulated the eco-
lators (Flanagan 1991, 179). nomic ambitions of the new American nation, was
In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal the basis on which the federal government estab-
People reported that, although the courts can deter- lished its relationships with Indian tribes. Indians
mine legal liability, the government of Canada is controlled furs and food as the basis for trade, and
“morally obliged to enter negotiations with Métis they possessed the land that the American govern-
representatives to correct this injustice.” The Mani- ment needed for its expansion. Through the long
toba Métis failed to receive what was promised in and complicated process of treaty making, Indian
1870, and Canada “fell inexcusably short of its moral tribes gave up most of their land and accepted the
obligation to treat Manitoba Métis equitably” ostensible protection of the U.S. government. In the
(Canada 1991, Ch. 5, App. 5C). The Métis are still treaty-making process, the executive branch of the
seeking justice. government appointed commissioners to treat with
Karl S. Hele tribes. Commissioners made promises to tribal
leaders, which the U.S. Senate had to ratify and
See also Canada; Métis; Riel, Louis.
which the House of Representatives had to fund in
Canada. 1870. Manitoba Act. Constitution of the annual appropriations bill for the Office of
Canada. Indian Affairs. The annual appropriation act
Canada. 1991. Report on the Royal Commission on became the main vehicle for implementing federal
Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 4, Perspectives and Indian policy. Congress was preoccupied with how
Realities. Ottawa: Canada Communication much Indians were costing the government rather
Group. than how the government was carrying out its
responsibility to Indians under treaties.
Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Ely Parker, commissioner of Indian affairs and
Flanagan, Thomas. 1991. Métis Lands in Manitoba. himself a Seneca Indian, in his annual report in 1870
Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press. made clear the government’s position with regard to
Friesen, Gerald. 1987. The Canadian Prairies: A Indian tribes and treaties. Arrangements between
History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. tribes and the government “should not be of a treaty
Sprague, D. N. 1980a. “Government Lawlessness in nature. . . . A treaty involves the idea of a compact
the Administration of Manitoba Land Claims, between two or more sovereign powers, each pos-
1870–1887.” 10 Manitoba Law Journal 415–441.
sessing sufficient authority and force to compel a
Sprague, D. N. 1980b. “The Manitoba Land
Question, 1870–1882.” Journal of Canadian compliance with the obligations incurred. . . . The
Studies 15: 74–84. Indian tribes of the United States are not sovereign
Stanley, George F. G. 1960. The Birth of Western nations, capable of making treaties, as none of them
Canada: A History of the Riel Rebellions. Repr., have an organized government of such inherent
1992. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. strength as would secure a faithful obedience of its
people in the observance of compacts of this charac-
ter.” Parker reiterated the notion that tribes were
“wards of the government” and that their claims to
Indian Appropriations Act, 1871 lands were “a mere possessory one.” The treaty
The Indian Appropriations Act passed by the U.S. process had given them a false impression of
Congress on March 3, 1871, contained a simple “national independence.” He called for an end to
clause that repudiated the process of making “the cruel farce of thus dealing with its helpless and
treaties with American Indian tribes: “ . . . That ignorant wards” (Parker 1869, 6).
hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the terri- Debate over the appropriations bill for 1871
tory of the United States shall be acknowledged or revealed this sentiment. Congressman Fitch of
recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or Nevada declared that “all the money that is
power with whom the United States may contract expended in the State of Nevada for . . . paying
by treaty . . .” (16 Stat. 566). The treaty-making salaries of Indian agents and purchasing blankets for

Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 667
Indians is uselessly expended” (Congressional Globe dise without having to pay “any tax thereon which is
1871, 1821). Indian tribes were considered totally now or may be levied by the U.S.” In 1888, Congress
dependent on the federal government and totally enacted a general revenue law that imposed taxes on
subject to congressional control. The general tenor of liquor and tobacco products “produced anywhere
the debate in Congress was to slash payments to within the exterior boundaries of the United States.”
carry out provisions of Indian treaties. A rumor was Justice Noah Swayne, speaking for the Court, said
also circulating in Congress that a new federal policy that the case was simple because it came down to
was in the offing that would give responsibility for which of the two laws—treaty or general domestic—
Indian agencies to various religious denominations was superior. He developed the term the “last-in-
(Priest 1969, 96–102). Congress would thus be able to time” rule, which in effect said that whichever docu-
pass its responsibilities on to these organizations. ment is latest in time stands, whether treaty or
Congress also adopted the policy that its statutes statute (Kappler 1904).
took precedence over treaties as the supreme law of This was a significant precedent for Native
the land. There were no Indian voices to contest the Americans, specifically the Cherokee. The treaty ter-
act. Congress simply dismissed the idea of tribes as mination law, attached as a rider to the Indian
sovereign nations capable of dealing with the federal Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871, had closed the
government. door on Indian treaties, although some preexisting
Clara Sue Kidwell ratified treaties were still honored by the United
States. This law effectively froze tribes in political
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Parker, Ely
limbo. They were no longer recognized as nations
S. (Donehogawa); Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust.
References and Further Reading capable of treating with the federal government, but
Congressional Globe, 41st Congress, 3rd Session, they remained separate sovereignties outside the
January 25, 1871, p. 730; March 1, 1871, p. 1821. pale of the U.S. Constitution.
Parker, E. S., to Hon. J. D. Cox, Washington City, As a result of this decision, Native American
DC, December 23, 1869, Report of the tribes were virtually deprived of legal and political
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Made to the protection. Hereafter, the federal government explic-
Secretary of the Interior, for the year 1869.
itly or implicitly could abrogate treaty provisions,
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
1870.
and Native American tribes had little recourse but to
Priest, Loring Benson. 1969. Uncle Sam’s return to the Congress that had enacted the annulled
Stepchildren: The Reformation of United States legislation. The Supreme Court generally deferred to
Indian Policy, 1865–1887. Lincoln: University of the political branches on Native American matters,
Nebraska Press. 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
Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 autonomous political entity not subject to general
In 1870, the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee domestic laws unless they had given their express
Nation was not exempt from taxation on tobacco consent. The opinion denied the fact that Congress
manufacture, despite the existence of an 1866 treaty (itself) had not explicitly stated in the law of 1868
specifically guaranteeing them exemption. In a vio- that the revenue act applied to Indian Territory. In
lation of the U.S. Constitution’s treaty clause, the fact, it disavowed the general principle that specific
Court based its ruling on the grounds that a law of laws, such as treaties, which create special rights, are
Congress supersedes the provisions of a treaty. not to be held “repealed by implication by any sub-
In the Cherokee Tobacco suit, two Cherokee sequent law couched in general terms” (U.S. v.
nationals, Elias Boudinot and Stand Watie, chal- Cherokee, 1870).
lenged the imposition of an 1868 federal tax law on Even with earlier U.S. guarantees of the sanctity
their tobacco factory, which had been established in of treaty rights, Cherokee Tobacco announced that
the Cherokee Nation under provisions of the Chero- those hard-won rights, often secured at the cost of
kee Treaty of 1866. great amounts of tribal land and the loss of other
Article 10 of the 1866 treaty stated that Cherokee rights, could be destroyed by mere implication.
citizens had the right to sell any product or merchan- Fred Lindsay

668 Indian Act of Canada, 1876
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Sovereignty; opening up lands for settlement and resource extrac-
Treaty; Trust; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. tion. In the minds of the non-aboriginal people, Indi-
References and Further Reading ans needed to be civilized. The Indian Act was
Filler, Louis, and Alan Guttmann. 1962. The Removal
enacted to provide the political and legal force neces-
of the Cherokee Nation: Manifest Destiny or
National Dishonor? Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
sary to bring about the cultural and social changes
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and that would lead to the inevitable assimilation of
Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: aboriginal peoples into European Canadian society.
Government Printing Office. The Indian Act set out the rules by which a sta-
United States v. Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616 (1870) tus Indian lost status and became enfranchised. A
(Wall.). status Indian woman who married a non-status
Wardell, Morris L. 1938. A Political History of the man, Indian or non-Indian, lost her Indian status
Cherokee Nation 1838–1907. Norman: University
and was no longer considered an Indian under the
of Oklahoma Press.
Wilkins, David. 1997. American Indian Sovereignty and act. The children from this marriage were not consid-
the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice. ered Indian under the act. Status Indians who
Austin: University of Texas Press. earned university degrees or entered professions
would also lose their status.
The potlatch, the central institution of the peo-
ples of the West Coast, became illegal in 1884 when
Indian Act of Canada, 1876 an amendment was added to the Indian Act. This
The Indian Act of Canada is a legislated act of the was followed in 1895 by another amendment that
Canadian government that has had a profound outlawed the sun dance among the Plains peoples. A
impact on the lives of aboriginal peoples since its further amendment in 1927 prohibited Native orga-
enactment in 1876. The Indian Act regulates most nizations from raising money or retaining lawyers to
aspects of the lives of aboriginal peoples who reside pursue any claims they had to their traditional
on Indian reserves. At the individual level, it sets lands. The last major revision of the Indian Act
forth a legal definition of who is eligible to be con- occurred in 1951. The laws prohibiting the potlatch,
sidered a status Indian under the act and defines the sun dance, and other ceremonies, as well as the
their rights. At the collective level, it defines the right to pursue a land claim, were repealed. It was
structure, rights, and responsibilities of band coun- not until 1960, under the Canadian Bill of Rights,
cils in relation to reserve lands and resources. The that status Indians gained their full rights as citizens
band council is an elected system of local govern- and were allowed to vote in federal elections.
ment that replaced traditional forms of governance In 1985, the Indian Act was revised by Bill C-31.
when the Indian Act was imposed. Under the Indian The rules changed regarding the loss of status that
Act, final decision-making power for all matters con- occurred when status Indian women married non-
cerning Indian people and reserve lands rested with status men. Women who had lost their status, and
the federal government. Indian peoples did not own their children, could apply for reinstatement under
reserve lands. All reserve lands were held in trust by the Indian Act. Under the new regulations, status
the Canadian government. Although the Indian Act Indian women and men maintain their status when
has undergone several revisions since it was first marrying nonstatus individuals, as do their children.
passed in 1876, it has fundamentally remained However, in this situation, Indian status is not con-
unchanged. It continues to reflect the Canadian gov- tinued into the next generation. Based on existing
ernment’s paternalistic attitude toward aboriginal marriage patterns, this will result in a steady decline
peoples. in the number of status Indians registered under the
The origin and content of the 1876 Indian Act Indian Act.
arose out of the historic realities of the late nine- The overall objective of the Indian Act, the
teenth century and the ideologies of the Canadians assimilation of aboriginal peoples, was never
of European descent. Aboriginal peoples were no accomplished. Though aboriginal people’s lives
longer needed as military allies, and their vital roles have been drastically affected by the Indian Act,
in the fur trade economy were lessening with the they have maintained their distinct cultures and
decline of that industry. The Canadian government identities and continue to fight for the right to prac-
had also begun the process of signing treaties with tice self-governance.
aboriginal nations in central Canada as a means of Ross Hoffman

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).
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 Crow Dog (c. 1835–1910), a Lakota leader, killed a rival,
provided the basis for later judicial interpretations Spotted Tail, in 1881. This led to a landmark Supreme Court
granting Congress full legal authority over Ameri- opinion in 1883 that affirmed tribal jurisdiction while opening
can Indians. the door to increased Congressional authority over native
On August 5, 1881, Spotted Tail, a principal chief peoples. (Library of Congress)
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 and their immediate families. But this was a high-
Tail’s cousin. Historians disagree on Crow Dog’s pre- profile event that threatened tribal unity. Eager to
cise motive, but the killing was most likely the result avoid a protracted feud among existing tribal fac-
of political rivalry—both aggravated and shaped by tions, the assembled council took measures to facili-
the influence of U.S. officials on traditional power tate the resolution process and dispatched envoys to
relations in Sicangu society. both families. In keeping with Lakota custom, Crow
Though U.S. Indian agents were free to interfere Dog was obliged to pay blood money to compensate
in tribal politics, they were prohibited from enforc- Spotted Tail’s family. After payment of $600, eight
ing American laws on the reservation. As a national horses, and a blanket, the tribe considered the matter
policy, the United States left the prosecution of inter- resolved.
nal crime—offenses committed by Indians upon Average Americans who followed these events
other Indians—to the individual tribes to adjudicate were reportedly appalled by the monetary settle-
in accordance with local custom. Consequently, ment. The agency clerk at Rosebud, ostensibly in
when news of Spotted Tail’s killing reached the response to a public demand for justice, ordered
nearby Rosebud agency, officials there summoned a Crow Dog’s arrest on the basis that the federal
tribal council. In traditional Lakota society, the statutes applied to Indian country under the Federal
killing of another person was classified as a personal Enclaves Act of 1817 and through provisions of an
conflict—a matter to be settled by the participants 1868 U.S. treaty with the Sioux. Crow Dog was

670 Elk v. Wilkins, 1884
transported to Deadwood, Dakota Territory, where See also Plenary Power; Sovereignty; Spotted Tail;
he was tried in federal court, convicted, and sen- United States v. Kagama, 1886.
tenced to death. References and Further Reading
Clow, Richmond L. 1998. “The Anatomy of a Lakota
The case might well have ended there had a fed-
Shooting: Crow Dog and Spotted Tail,
eral marshal not inexplicably released Crow Dog to 1879–1881.” South Dakota History 28(4): 209–227.
settle affairs at home. No one expected Crow Dog to Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog’s Case: American
return voluntarily to custody for his execution. Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States
When he did, newspapers praised his return as Law in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge:
heroic and honorable, and public sentiment shifted Cambridge University Press.
in his favor. Amid this publicity, several attorneys Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001.
volunteered to appeal the conviction, and a petition Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma
to review the constitutionality of the government’s
Press.
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 juris- Elk v. Wilkins, 1884
diction to Indian nations over all crimes committed In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the United States
by and against American Indians in Indian country. Supreme Court held that Indians were not protected
The Court, however, additionally determined that by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
federal jurisdiction over Indians was dependent The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship
upon the expression of intent by Congress to exer- through one of two methods: birth or naturalization.
cise such jurisdiction. Because Congress had never In the Elk v. Wilkins case, the Court emphatically
expressed such intent, the Court overturned the con- denied Elk’s claim on both issues. Therefore, neither
viction and released Crow Dog. those Indians still living on reservations or those
Though favorable, the opinion proved a disas- who had severed all ties to their tribes and had
trous precedent for American Indian sovereignty: assimilated themselves into the dominant culture
Congress was now constitutionally free to limit held the right to become citizens or to vote.
tribal authority by demonstrating its intent through In 1881, John Elk, an English-speaking farmer
legislation. The unpopular decision additionally gal- living in Omaha, Nebraska, attempted to register to
vanized many other Americans who felt that Crow vote but was denied by city council officials on
Dog had escaped punishment. This case, they grounds that he was an Indian. Elk argued that he
believed, demonstrated that Indians were incapable was a citizen of the United States, that he had lived
of governing themselves. Under a prevailing social in Omaha for several years, had assimilated himself
climate that favored assimilation, the public pres- into the dominant culture, and had broken all ties to
sured the government to extend its jurisdiction to his original tribe. However, the majority opinion of
encompass Indian reservations. the Supreme Court ruled against him. Justice
In 1885, advocates of this reform were Horace Gray addressed the issue of whether the
rewarded with the Major Crimes Act, a brief piece Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution applied
of legislation that granted the federal government to Indians born in U.S. territory who had voluntar-
criminal jurisdiction on reservation lands over Indi- ily separated themselves from their tribes and who
ans accused of any of the seven serious crimes of lived, worked, and paid taxes among the white citi-
murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to zens of the country.
kill, arson, burglary, or larceny. The push for reform After denying Indians protection under the
also led to the establishment, in 1883, of governmen- Fourteenth Amendment, based on the argument
tally appointed and approved “courts of Indian that their place of birth did not grant them that pro-
offenses” to deal with lesser crimes. These changes tection, the Court addressed the issue of naturaliza-
signaled a reversal in federal Indian policy that tion. The Court also denied Indians the right to
eroded tribal sovereignty and significantly altered become naturalized citizens of the United States.
the legal and constitutional status of Indian nations The Court further argued that the plaintiff’s having
and peoples. surrendered himself to the United States did not
Caoimhín Ó Fearghail mean that “the United States accepted his surrender,

United States v. Kagama, 1886 671
or that he has ever been naturalized . . . or in any tional. The Supreme Court ruled that the commerce
way recognized or treated as a citizen” (Elk v. clause of the Constitution did not authorize Con-
Wilkins, 1884). gress to regulate the internal affairs of Indian nations
Although the majority decision of the Court and their members. However, the Court held that,
went against Elk, Associate Justice Marshall Harlan because the states had no legal authority over Indi-
dissented, arguing that provisions of the Civil ans living on reservations, the role of sovereign must
Rights Act of 1866 did apply to a portion of the be played by the United States. Native American
Indian population. Justice Harlan maintained that, conceptions of sovereignty were omitted from this
because the 1866 act specifically excluded “Indians legal formulation.
not taxed,” it therefore included Indians who had The facts of the case concerned two Indians,
left their tribes and assimilated themselves into the Kagama and Mahawaha, who killed another Indian
dominant culture. on the Hupa Reservation in California. They were
In response to the Elk v. Wilkins decision, Sena- arrested, tried, and convicted in federal court on
tor Henry Dawes of Massachusetts argued that the grounds that the commerce clause of the Constitu-
Indians needed to become more independent and tion gave the government jurisdiction on the Hupa
less reliant upon tribal relations. To accomplish this Reservation. The U.S. Supreme Court, following
goal of greater independence, Dawes authored the John Marshall’s opinions in Cherokee Nation v. Geor-
General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the gia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), held that
Dawes Act. Indian lands did not constitute foreign nations.
Robert O. Marlin IV “These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation,”
ruled the Court. “They are communities dependent
See also Allotments; Assimilation;
on the United States . . . From their very weak-
Guardianship/Wardship; General Allotment
Act (Dawes Act), 1887. nesses and helplessness, so largely due to the
References and Further Reading course of dealing of the federal government with
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). them and the treaties in which it has been
Martin, Jill E. 1990. “Neither Fish, Flesh, Fowl, Nor promised, there arises the duty of protection and
Good Red Herring: The Citizenship Status of with it the power.” The Court also held that “[t]he
American Indians, 1830–1924,” Journal of the Indians owe no allegiance to a state within which
West, 29(3): 75–87.
their reservation may be established, and the state
Pommersheim, Frank. 1995. Braid of Feathers:
American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life.
gives them no protection.”
Berkeley: University of California Press. Justice Samuel Miller, writing for the Court
Zelden, Charles L. 2002. Voting Rights on Trial: A majority, said that the government had always
Handbook with Cases, Laws and Documents. Santa regarded Native nations as semi-sovereign entities,
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. “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.”
United States v. Kagama, 1886 Bruce E. Johansen
In United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), the
Supreme Court enunciated a “superior position” of See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Sovereignty;
Treaty; Trust.
the federal government vis-à-vis Native nations (a
doctrine that came to be known as plenary power) as Kickingbird, Kirke. 1983. Indian Jurisdiction.
it upheld the Major Crimes Act of 1885. The Court Washington, DC: Institute for the Development
was upholding the federal trust responsibility of Indian Law.
against erosion by the states. The Court said that United States v. Kagama 118 U.S. 375 (1886).
“the people of the states . . . are often [the Indians’] Wilkins, David E., and K.Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001.
deadliest enemies.” This case was the first Supreme Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and
Court decision to directly address the legality of fed-
Press.
eral jurisdiction over both Indians and non-Indians Williams, Robert A., Jr. 1997. Linking Arms Together:
in Indian country. American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace,
A year after the Major Crimes Act was passed, 1600–1800. New York and Oxford: Oxford
attorneys for Kagama argued that it was unconstitu- University Press.

672 General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887
General Allotment Act ing Indians to become “civilized,” independent,

landholding farmers, while simultaneously protect-
(Dawes Act), 1887
ing Indian land from illegal encroachment by white
Enacted on February 8, 1887, the General Allotment settlers. Paradoxically, however, the legislation also
Act (also known as the Dawes Act after its sponsor, provided a mechanism for the legal divestment of
Henry L. Dawes) provided for the allotment of tribal “surplus” Indian land to white settlers and was thus
lands in severalty and for the cession of surplus land also supported by western land grabbers. Between
for white settlement. Reservation lands were divided 1887 and 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act
into parcels deeded to individual tribal members, formally ended the policy of allotment, approxi-
with proceeds from the sale of surplus land going to mately 90 million acres of land, two-thirds of the
fund Indian education and agricultural develop- original Indian landholding of 138 million acres, had
ment. Two contradictory impulses motivated sup- passed out of Indian ownership (Downes 1945, 332).
porters of allotment. Philanthropic “friends” of the The principal provisions of allotment were as
Indian intended to hasten “assimilation” into white follows: (1) Each family head was allocated a land
society by weakening tribal structures and encourag- 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)

St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber Company v. The Queen (Canada), 1887 673
age of eighteen and each orphan under the age of called Five Civilized Tribes, eventually nullified
eighteen receiving 80 acres and each single person most of these exemptions.
under the age of eighteen receiving 40 acres. Mar- Annie Kirby
ried women were excluded from allotment benefits.
See also Allotments; Assimilation; Collier, John;
(2) Following implementation of allotment, a
Curtis Act, 1898; Dawes, Henry Laurens;
period of four years commenced during which Dawes Commission; Indian Reorganization
allottees could select their own land. If allottees Act, 1934; Meriam Report, 1928.
failed to select land by the end of this period, the References and Further Reading
secretary of the interior could instruct the Indian Carter, Kent. 1999. The Dawes Commission and the
agent to undertake selection on their behalf. (3) Allotment of the Five Civilized Tribes,
Subject to the approval of the secretary of the inte- 1893–1914. Orem, UT: Ancestry.com
rior, each allottee would be issued with a patent in Incorporated.
Downes, Randolph C. 1945. “A Crusade for Indian
fee holding their lands in trust for twenty-five years
Reform, 1922–1934.” The Mississippi Valley
for the sole use and benefit of the allottee and his or Historical Review 32(3): 331–354.
her heirs, during which period the land could not Otis, D. S. 1973. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of
be alienated or encumbered. (4) On expiry of the Indian Lands. ed. Francis Paul Prucha.
trust period (which the president had the discretion Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
to extend) the allottee would receive the land in fee Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1986. The Assault on Indian
simple and become a U.S. citizen, subject to the Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes
Act) of 1887. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.
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 St. Catherine’s Milling & Lumber
farmers and citizens and diminishing the bonds of
tribal culture. It was thought that individual prop-
Company v. The Queen
erty ownership would act as an incentive to Indians (Canada), 1887
for self-improvement and that the distribution of This case involved the Ojibway of Treaty 3 (1873),
white settlers onto unallotted land across reserva- the province of Ontario, and the federal government
tions would provide Indians with examples of the of Canada. It was heard before the Judicial Commit-
key “American” values of industriousness and indi- tee of the Privy Council, a committee of law lords
vidualism to which to aspire. By dispersing tribal based in the United Kingdom, which at the time was
members across the reservation onto individual the highest court of appeal for Canada. It concerned
family farms, it was also hoped that the practice of the logging interest of a private company and the
“heathen” customs, rituals, and religions would be status of Crown lands reserved for Indians by the
inhibited. Dominion of Canada, and whether this was consis-
In practice, allottees were frequently poverty- tent with the rights of the province of Ontario to
stricken through poor land choice or limited agricul- these lands. It is a leading Canadian decision on
tural skills, and millions of acres of allotted land aboriginal land rights and the division of federal-
were eventually lost to white settlers through fraud provincial legislative powers over aboriginal lands.
or sold to pay taxes, leading to a checkerboard pat- It is the first Canadian case in which the existence of
tern of ownership of tribal lands. The divestment of aboriginal land rights is recognized.
land was hastened by an 1891 amendment to the act The province of Ontario challenged the logging
allowing for the leasing of “unalienable” lands company’s federal permit to a timber berth on Lake
under certain circumstances, for example, where an Wabigoon, and the challenge succeeded in all the
allottee was unable to occupy and improve land due lower courts. The federal government of Canada
to age or infirmity. appealed to the Privy Council. It argued that, under
A number of tribes were exempt from allotment, Treaty 3 and its legislative authority under Section
including the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867, which grants
Seminole, Osage, Sac and Fox, Miami, Peoria, a por- the federal government authority to make laws in
tion of Sioux land in Nebraska, and the Seneca relation to “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indi-
Nation of New York State, although later legislation, ans,” it was entitled to administer all treaty lands.
such as the Curtis Act of 1898 dealing with the so- The province counter-argued that section 91(24) only

674 Atoka Agreement, 1897
extended to lands that were “Indian reserves,” Although St Catherine’s represents a historic
which in the pre-confederation legislation referred to decision in terms of providing the impetus for con-
small tracts of land allotted to various tribes, and not tinuing recognition of aboriginal peoples and their
treaty lands. land rights, the decision restricted the nature of any
In its decision, the Privy Council referred to the land rights by suggesting that they are contingent on
Royal Proclamation of 1763, which provides for the Crown grant or recognition. This meant that, upon
protection of aboriginal land rights, and ruled that acquisition of sovereignty by conquest or cession,
Parliament had authority to legislate in respect of private property rights or preexisting customary
“all lands reserved, under any terms and conditions, land rights ceased to exist and could only be
for Indian occupation,” including those covered by enforced if subsequently recognized by legislation or
the proclamation. The area in dispute was within the executive action.
proclamation’s reservation of hunting grounds, and Özlem Ülgen
the Indians had, prior to treaty, an aboriginal or
Indian title to those lands. For the purposes of Sec- See also Aboriginal Title; Canadian Indian Treaty
3–October 3, 1873; Constitution Act (Canada),
tion 109 of the Constitution Act of 1867, Indian title
1867; Royal Proclamation of 1763.
was defined as “an interest other than that of the References and Further Reading
Province.” Once that interest was ceded under Harring, Sidney L. 1998. White Man’s Law: Native
Treaty 3, however, the Province had full and unen- People in Nineteenth-Century Canadian
cumbered beneficial interest of the Crown, subject to Jurisprudence. Chapter 6. Toronto: University of
the administration and control of the provincial leg- Toronto Press.
islature. This meant that the federal government of McNeil, Kent. 1997. “The Meaning of Aboriginal
Title.” In Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada:
Canada had no property right in the disputed area.
Essays on Law, Equality and Respect for Difference,
Also, Treaty 3 did not indicate that the Indians were ed. Michael Asch. Vancouver: University of
intended to have beneficial interest in timber rev- British Columbia Press.
enues. For these reasons, the federal government’s Slattery, Brian. 1987. “Understanding Aboriginal
appeal failed. Rights,” 66 Canadian Bar Review 727.
Although the Privy Council did not rule on the St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, 13
precise nature of Indian interest, it made several S.C.R. 577 (1887).
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 liv- Atoka Agreement, 1897
ing under the sovereignty and protection of the The noted Atoka Agreement occurred between the
British Crown.” It also held that, under the Royal Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations and the U.S. gov-
Proclamation of 1763, “the tenure of the Indians was ernment. This agreement involved the creation of
a personal and usufructuary right, dependent upon tribal rolls pursuant to the Dawes Act and allotment
the good will of the Sovereign.” of the two tribes’ lands into residential, municipal,
Judge John Gwynne described the Royal Procla- commercial, and trust property. The agreement also
mation of 1763 as the “Indian Bill of Rights,” which detailed the process for selling the “excessive hold-
specifically guaranteed Indian rights: “ . . . Nations ings” that remained after the allotments had taken
or Tribes of Indians . . . should not be molested or place, outlined some mineral rights of the nations,
disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our and provided lands and rights for the freedmen of
Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded African descent who had been slaves of the Chicka-
to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them . . . as saw and Choctaw from the late 1700s in Mississippi,
their Hunting Grounds . . . We do . . . strictly enjoin through removal to Indian Territory in 1837, and
and require, that no private Person do presume to until 1866 when the Civil War ceased (Kappler 1904,
make any purchase from the said Indians of any vol. 1, 646–656).
Lands reserved to the said Indians . . . ; but that, if at After hostilities between the North and South
any Time any of the said Indians should be inclined ended, both the Choctaw and Chickasaw, who had
to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Pur- allied with the South, signed the treaty of 1866 at
chased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Fort Smith, Arkansas. Although the United States
Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians . . .” had broken treaties by not providing protection to

Atoka Agreement, 1897 675
any of the five tribes whose territory had been “freed” slaves of African descent actually had no
encroached upon by the Confederates, the govern- legal civil rights, property rights, or federal govern-
ment held the Choctaw and Chickasaw, as well as ment support in the Chickasaw Nation from after
the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole, the Civil War through Oklahoma’s statehood in 1907
totally responsible for the tribe members who had (Littlefield 1980, 220–227).
sided with the South. In addition to providing Even though Chickasaw voters refused to pass
amnesty for the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes the Atoka Agreement when it was first submitted to
who had broken their peace agreements with the them in the spring of 1898, the passage of the Curtis
U. S. government by signing total alliances with the Act by the U.S. Congress that summer, and the
Confederates, the treaty of 1866 organized the two refusal of Congress to accept the negative vote of the
tribal governments and began the mapping process Chickasaw people, effectively convinced the Chicka-
of the nations for roads, incorporation of towns, saws that they should pass the agreement. They did
and, ultimately, allotment to tribal citizens. The this with some minor adjustments in August 1898.
treaty of 1866 also directed the two tribes to give all When the Chickasaw rolls were finally completed,
persons of African descent or their descendants res- according to the requirements of the General Allot-
idency in the nations, forty acres, $100.00, and full ment Act, on January 1, 1906, the names of 6,319 citi-
voting rights (Kappler 1904, vol. 2, 918–931). The zens were listed: 1,538 full bloods, 4,146 mixed
Choctaw eventually fulfilled these requirements by bloods, 635 intermarried whites, and 4,670
1886, whereas the Chickasaw opposed the docu- “Negroes” or freedmen (Gibson 1971, 306–307).
ment with regard to the freedmen and refused to Although all enrolled Chickasaw freedmen did
allot the freedmen any land in the Chickasaw receive an average forty-acre allotment in the Chick-
Nation. asaw Nation, the freedman found an even more hos-
The federal government proved no better at tile society in the new state of Oklahoma. All-black
resolving the situation. The responsibility of the towns thrived in the forthcoming new state of Okla-
United States under the treaty of 1866 included homa, and it offered African Americans opportuni-
moving the freedmen to land previously ceded by ties unmatched anywhere in the South. Ironically,
the Chickasaw and Choctaw known as the leased Oklahoma enacted segregationist Jim Crow laws in
district, just west of the Chickasaw Nation (Morris, 1907 as its first legislative action upon obtaining
Goins, and McReynolds 1986, Map 26). However, statehood.
the U.S. government never enforced the movement Along with the General Allotment Act and the
of the freedmen to the lands on which the Wichita, Curtis Act, the Atoka Agreement sealed the U.S.
Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains-Apache (known government’s plan to dissolve the Chickasaw and
contemporarily as the Apache tribe of Oklahoma) Choctaw Nations. By 1906, the tribe had lost control
were already living when the United States of its collectively held lands through the allotment
awarded the land to the Chickasaw and Choctaw process and witnessed its laws and government
in the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. Still abolished. The federal government appointed
not pleased about that land cession being accom- chiefs for the tribes until 1970, when Congress
plished without their consent, the Plains tribes of passed legislation to allow the Choctaw, Chicka-
southwestern Oklahoma presented potentially saw, Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole to
inhospitable hosts for the freedmen—or anyone elect their own officers (Chickasaw Commission
else, for that matter. 1975).
Compounding the problem between the Chick- Hugh W. Foley, Jr.
asaw and the freedmen was the large number of
freed slaves who came into the nation from other See also Curtis Act, 1898; General Allotment Act
places, such as Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian Removal Act, 1830;
Chickasaw’s firm ideological stance remained that Indian Territory; Reconstruction Treaties with
every freedman did not have a claim to part of the the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and
Seminole–1866; Treaty with the
Chickasaw Nation solely by virtue of location or
Choctaw–September 27, 1830.
Indian blood (Gibson 1971, 291). As a result, the References and Further Reading
Chickasaw delayed adhering to the demands of the Akers, Donna L. 2004. Living in the Land of Death: The
treaty of 1866 by lengthy legal maneuverings and Choctaw Nation, 1830–1860. East Lansing:
typically slow, tribal bureaucratic malaise. Therefore, Michigan State University Press.

676 Curtis Act, 1898
Chickasaw Commission. 1975. Laws of the Chickasaw of the Indian Territory, and for other purposes,” and
Nation, I.T., Relating to Intermarried and Adopted President William McKinley signed the bill into law
Citizens and the Rights of Freedmen. Wilmington, on June 28, 1898. Despite its benevolent-sounding
DE: Scholarly Resources. title, the only people protected by this legislation
Gibson, Arrell. 1971. The Chickasaws. Norman:
were non-Indians. In effect, what the Dawes Com-
University of Oklahoma.
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and mission had been unable to achieve through negotia-
Treaties, 2 vols. Washington, DC: Government tion, the Curtis Act now attempted through legisla-
Printing Office. tive fiat.
Littlefield, Daniel F., 1980. The Chickasaw Freedmen. The portions of the act that immediately
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. affected the tribes dealt with enrollment. Tribal resis-
Morris, John W., Charles R. Goins, and Edwin C. tance had stymied the Dawes Commission’s
McReynolds. 1986. Historical Atlas of Oklahoma.
attempts to collect rolls of citizens, and allotment
3rd ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
could not proceed until satisfactory rolls were gener-
ated. 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
Curtis Act, 1898 shall have jurisdiction to compel the officers of the
The Curtis Act of 1898 (30 Stat. 495, ch. 517) was a tribal governments and custodians of such rolls and
piece of allotment-era legislation that attempted to records to deliver same to said commission, and on
destroy tribal governments and communities in the their refusal or failure to do so to punish them as for
Indian Territory, particularly among the Five Civi- contempt” (Section 21).
lized Tribes. The act overturned numerous treaty Once a citizenship roll was completed and tribal
rights by allotting tribal lands, invalidating tribal lands were surveyed, Section 11 authorized the com-
laws, abolishing tribal courts, and giving the secre- mission to proceed with allotment. Mineral rights on
tary of the interior control over tribal revenues as allotted land, however, were not distributed. Section
well as mineral leases on Indian lands. 13 gave the secretary of the interior exclusive control
In the late 1890s, the “pulverizing engine” of the over those rights.
General Allotment Act had stalled relative to several As if allotment itself were not sufficient to
of the tribes in the Indian Territory, and many of destroy the tribal collective, the Curtis Act also
them refused to negotiate new agreements that attempted to starve tribal governments financially.
would essentially abrogate solemn promises made Section 19 specified that “no payment of any moneys
to them earlier. Chief Isparhecher, a full-blood on any account whatever shall hereafter be made by
Muscogee Creek, noted the “alarming disregard for the United States to any of the tribal governments or
the terms of treaties already in existence. . . . What to any officer thereof for disbursement.” Instead, the
good is there to come of future treaties with the secretary of the interior was now in charge of tribal
United States when she has no respect for those funds, which subsequently would be distributed
already existing between us?” (Carter 1999, 30). Ulti- only to individual tribal members.
mately, the inevitability of allotment became appar- In addition to the monetary restrictions, the
ent, and some of the tribes attempted to negotiate Curtis Act attacked the legal infrastructure of the
the best terms they could with the Dawes Commis- tribes. Section 26 specified that “the laws of the vari-
sion. When some of those agreements were pre- ous tribes or nations of Indians shall not be enforced
sented to the tribal membership, however, they were at law or in equity by the courts of the United States
often voted down. One such agreement with both in the Indian Territory.” Section 28 went even fur-
the Choctaws and Chickasaws, the Atoka Agree- ther, decreeing that “all tribal courts in Indian Terri-
ment, was rejected by the Choctaws in December tory shall be abolished, and no officer of said courts
1897. shall thereafter have any authority whatever to do or
In Washington, D.C., members of Congress perform any act theretofore authorized by any law
were growing increasingly impatient with the in connection with said courts, or to receive any pay
progress of allotment in the Indian Territory under for same.”
the Dawes Commission. On February 24, 1898, Rep- The Curtis Act also incorporated two of the
resentative Charles Curtis, himself one-eighth Kaw, agreements that had been negotiated by the Dawes
introduced “An Act for the Protection of the People Commission. Section 29 repeated the terms of the

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903 677
Atoka Agreement of April 23, 1897. Section 30 States and the Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains Apache
repeated the terms of the agreement reached with in 1867 at Medicine Lodge Creek (15 Stat. 581, 589)
the Creek Special Commission on September 27, The tribes agreed to relinquish 90 million acres in
1897. These two sections imposed a December 1, exchange for a 2.9 million-acre reserve. The treaty
1898, deadline on all three tribes to ratify the agree- promised the Indians “absolute and undisturbed use
ments. If they did so, the terms of the Curtis Act and occupation” of their reserve. Article 12 of the
would apply to those tribes only in instances in treaty required consensus of three-fourths of the
which the terms of the act did not conflict with the male adult members for further cession of their
provisions of the prior negotiated agreements. lands. In 1892, the Jerome Commission was sent by
Gavin Clarkson the federal government to obtain Native consent to
change the treaty of 1867, in anticipation of obtain-
See also Atoka Agreement, 1897; General Allotment ing a portion of the reserve for settlement.
Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian Territory. The agreement reached with the tribes came
References and Further Reading under dispute, which centered on the necessary
Burton, Jeffrey. 1997. Indian Territory and the United
three-fourths consent of male tribal members. The
States: 1866–1906, Courts, Government and the
Movement for Oklahoma Statehood. Norman:
validity of the signatures obtained was controversial
University of Oklahoma Press. and did not amount to the obligatory number; nev-
Carter, Kent. 1999. The Dawes Commission and the ertheless, the agreement was submitted to Congress.
Allotment of the Five Civilized Tribes, 1893–1914. After several critical changes to the document, Con-
Orem, UT: Ancestry.com. gress approved the revised arrangement. The Act of
Debo, Angie. 1961. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw June 6, 1900, took possession of 2,991,933 acres of the
Republic. 2nd ed. Norman: University of Kiowa, Comanche, and Plains Apache Reservation.
Oklahoma Press.
The federal government paid tribal members only 93
Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run: The
Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. Princeton, NJ: cents per acre—a considerably lower price than that
Princeton University Press. Repr., University of paid for adjacent Native land.
Oklahoma Press. In 1901, A-Kei-Quodle, a Kiowa band chief
Hoxie, Frederick E. 1984. A Final Promise: The known as Lone Wolf, requested an injunction
Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. against secretary of the interior Ethan Allen Hitch-
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. cock to terminate the sale of ceded reservation
McDonnell, Janet A. The Dispossession of the American
lands. The Supreme Court would address the issue
Indian, 1887–1934. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. of treaty-based property rights and the powers
Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1975. The Assault on Indian Congress retained in relationship to the tribes. It
Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act) took one year before the Supreme Court would
of 1887). Philadelphia: Lippincott. 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
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903 1867. The Supreme Court’s final opinion declared,
The Treaty of Medicine Lodge in 1867 was signed “Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the
between the United States and the Kiowa, Indians has been exercised by Congress from the
Comanche, and Plains Apache. This treaty desig- beginning . . . not subject to be controlled by the
nated reservation lands but was reversed in 1892 by judicial department of the government . . .” (187
a congressional commission. Lone Wolf brought suit U.S. 553 [1903] at 565). It was not a judiciary deci-
in the Supreme Court to halt the sale of reservation sion to invalidate this form of congressional legisla-
lands. The Supreme Court denied his claim, deter- tion. The issue of plenary power, the absolute
mining that Congress had the power to change power that Congress holds unrestrained by the
promises formed through treaties. Constitution, was recognized as legal over the other
During the mid-nineteenth century, the Kiowa controversial issues of this case. The Supreme
Indians inhabited the southern plains of the United Court redefined plenary power to grant the federal
States. By 1853, the Kiowa allowed military forts and government the unrestricted ability to modify or
roads into their region and began to accept federal extinguish existing Native rights. The Supreme
annuities. A treaty was signed between the United Court ignored the issue of fraudulent signatures

678 Winters v. United States, 1908
and presumed that Congress had acted in good on April 15, 1874, and ratified by a subsequent act of
faith in their dealings with the Indians. The Native Congress on May 1, 1888, but it was silent on tribal
Americans remained dependent wards of the fed- water rights. The Supreme Court had to consider
eral government who could not be safeguarded by whether the tribe had ceded its water rights with
their previous treaty rights. the cessation of the land. Justice Joseph McKenna
The implications of the Supreme Court’s deci- delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court held
sion in Lone Wolf demonstrated that treaty-based that the Federal Act of 1888 establishing the reserva-
property rights were no longer protected if con- tion reserved tribal water rights. Three issues were
gressional legislation chose not to recognize them. important in the decree (opinion). First, treaty and
The Supreme Court ruling implied that congres- agreement ambiguities were interpreted in favor of
sional powers had always existed, even retroac- the tribes, as they could not have known all terms
tively, when affirmed by legislation; consent that would have rendered the agreement void. Sec-
between the federal government and the tribes was ond, the tribal grant ceding lands to the United
no longer a legal requirement. Supporters of allot- States in exchange for arid reservation lands was
ment in severalty applauded the Supreme Court’s not predicated on the premise of losing constant use
decision as an affirmative judgment to further con- of the river. The tribe depended on the river to irri-
tinue the division of tribal lands. Federal power gate arid lands that were used for agriculture, farm-
over tribal lands and Native rights became more ing, and cultivation. Third, upon Montana’s entry
abstruse after Lone Wolf; subsequent cases cite Lone into the Union under the “equal footing doctrine,”
Wolf as the basis of congressional plenary power. the federal government reserved and did not extin-
Recent court rulings have curtailed some aspects of guish tribal water rights.
congressional plenary power, demanding no future The history that led to the case was examined
revocation of treaty rights without “just compensa- by the Court. In 1889, houses were built on the river,
tion.” Lone Wolf remains one of the most influential and the occupants (settlers) relied on the water for
Supreme Court decisions in the last one hundred agricultural purposes. In 1900, the settlers built large
years, and it continues to influence Native Ameri- dams and reservoirs above the point at which the
can law. federal government and the tribes diverted their
Susan Sánchez-Barnett water. This resulted in the deprivation of water for
both the tribes and the United States. The settlers
See also Aboriginal Title; Curtis Act, 1898; Elk v.
had no notice of claim by the United States or the
Wilkins, 1884; Ex Parte Crow Dog, 1883; Plenary
Power; Supremacy Clause; United States v. tribes over the river and were oblivious to the reser-
Kagama, 1886. vations’ reliance on the river. Moreover, they
References and Further Reading believed that, under U.S. law, the river water could
Clark, C. Blue. 1999. Lone Wolf v Hitchcock: Treaty be used contemporaneously with the land. There-
Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth after, many thousands of people and communities
Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. were reliant on the river for irrigation and cultiva-
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 287 U.S. 553, 1903.
tion; without the water, the land would become use-
Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001.
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and less, and communities would dissipate.
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of
Press. jurisdiction. A decree was entered against all acts
perpetuated by the settlers, and the motion to dis-
miss the claim was denied. The case turned on the
agreement of May 1888 pursuant to the establish-
ment of the reservation. The reservation was a small
Winters v. United States, 1908 part of land with a dependency on the river which
The premise of this case concerned whether settlers was exchanged for copious amounts of land.
(appellants) could construct and maintain dams and The question remained whether the tribe
reservoirs on the Milk River in Montana that would retained the use of waters or whether cession dimin-
affect the flow of water to the Fort Belknap Reserva- ished tribal water rights. The Court ruled that the
tion. The reservation for the Gros Ventre and Assini- tribes had not ceded their water rights with land ces-
boine tribes was established by an act of Congress sation, and thus they continued to enjoy the land

Meriam Report, 1928 679
and the waters. This conclusion was based on the Meriam Report, 1928
canon that treaty and agreement ambiguities are
interpreted and resolved in favor of the tribes. The The Meriam Report details the conditions of Indians
Court decreed that it was unthinkable that, at the in the 1920s and includes some discussion of treaty
time of the agreement, the tribes were attentive to all rights and claims. The report, officially published as
terms and words that could defeat the purpose of an The Problem of Indian Administration, is the compila-
agreement or treaty. Moreover, Congress would not tion of material gathered at the request of the Bureau
have rendered the agreement void a year after the of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Institute for Govern-
establishment of the reservation, as it was federal ment Research (IGR). The Meriam Report provided
policy to induce the “civilization and improvement” the blueprint for the administration of Indian affairs
of the tribes. for decades to come, including the establishment of
The appellants put forward five defenses, all of the Indian Claims Commission.
which were nullified by the Supreme Court: first, Since the intent of the Meriam Commission was
that land cessation contemporaneously ceded tribal to investigate the social and economic status of Indi-
water rights to the river; second, that large numbers ans and to evaluate how the BIA’s services to Indians
of springs were situated on the reservation and compared to services provided to non-Indians,
could sustain the tribe; third, that it was not the treaty issues were not a major consideration of the
intention of the government to reserve any tribal report. Lewis Meriam (an IGR employee) and his
water rights; fourth, that the appellants’ claim was group of investigators spent seven months visiting
antecedent to that of the United States and the tribes; ninety-five schools, hospitals, agencies, and other
and fifth, that the reservation was repealed by the BIA facilities. Ray A. Brown, a University of Wiscon-
admission of Montana into the Union on February sin law professor, was in charge of investigating
22, 1859, under the equal footing doctrine. legal issues. His observations are provided in Chap-
The Supreme Court held that the power of gov- ter 13, “Legal Aspects of the Indian Problem.” This
ernment could reserve waters and exempt them chapter considers issues such as state versus national
from appropriation under state law; therefore, the jurisdiction, citizenship, and court access.
waters were reserved and were to continue for the Chapter 13 of the report also considers treaty
tribes. Moreover, the Congressional Act of 1888, rights. Brown and the others recognized the validity
which established the reservation, implied and con- of the treaties and of the federal government’s role as
temporaneously reserved tribal rights to an undi- trustee, but they also believed that the treaties were
minished quality and volume of water. If the water outdated and that they unnecessarily complicated
rights were not reserved, the federal government Indian law. The document explains that, up until
would have reneged on its policy of advocating the 1871, the process of treating with Native American
reform of tribal tradition with the issuance of essen- tribes was the same process used in negotiations
tial resources for the tribe’s existence. The state and with foreign countries. The result was a different
its people did not thus gain rights over Milk River to legal foundation for each of the tribes, which the fed-
dispose of it and the land at will under U.S. law. eral government was still forced to deal with. Brown
Dewi I. Ball and the others suggested that the BIA consider
whether or not allowing this complicated system to
continue was wise. The report further postulated
See also Government-to-Government Relationship;
Plenary Power; Reserved Rights Doctrine; that a commission could be appointed to “termi-
Sovereignty. nate” treaty rights and to create a Native American
References and Further Reading law code that did away with the “archaic provi-
Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a sions” that applied to certain tribes (Meriam 1928,
Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Group. 750). As an example, the document reprinted part of
Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton. the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua with the Iroquois to
2005. Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling
show how some annuity payment systems were still
Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
in force.
Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and Brown and the rest of the commission were very
Tribes. 3rd. ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois much aware, however, of the long-standing claims
University Press. based on treaty rights that many tribes had against

680 Indian Reorganization Act, 1934
the federal government. The report warns that no

Indian Reorganization Act, 1934
law code could be created until these claims were
extinguished. Until tribes felt that claims have been The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, also
settled, the document stated, they would not cooper- known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, was the corner-
ate with the creation of a new law code and would stone of Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Col-
expect a large cash settlement. Without congres- lier’s package of reforms, known collectively as the
sional approval, however, tribes could not sue the Indian New Deal. The legislation, although wide
United States in the court of claims. The haphazard ranging, consisted of two principle features: it pro-
process of getting an act through Congress and then hibited the future allotment of communally held
actually marshalling forces for the suit were, Brown Indian lands to individual tribal members in sever-
and the others felt, extremely cumbersome and inef- alty, and it provided for the establishment of limited
fectual. To streamline the process, the report sug- forms of tribal government and property manage-
gests that the secretary of the interior gather a staff ment.
specifically to look into the outstanding tribal claims The IRA formally terminated the process of
and to draft legislation where warranted to obtain allotment begun under the General Allotment Act of
congressional approval. 1887, which had resulted in some two-thirds of trib-
While the compiled Indian law code never ally owned land passing into white ownership.
materialized, the long-term impact of the report’s Existing periods of trust on already-allotted land
recommendations on legal aspects may be the Indian were extended indefinitely, and the act prohibited
Claims Commission (ICC). Although not the first to the further allotment of reservation land to individu-
explain such a court (Commissioner of Indian Affairs als. Surplus land that had been opened for sale was
Francis Leupp proposed a similar solution in 1910), withdrawn and returned to tribal control, and up to
the report was the most influential document to $2 million dollars per annum was made available for
make such a suggestion. The report’s recommenda- the acquisition of land, water, and surface rights
tion to extinguish tribal claims met with approval, (Deloria and Lytle 1984, 269).
and Congress debated the issue through the 1930s. The second major objective of the act was to
In 1946, Congress created the ICC, which acted as a remodel tribal governments as self-governing
court and awarded more than $800 million to tribes municipal authorities. Collier’s original plan was for
across the country (Rosenthal 1990, 266–267). tribes to adopt written constitutions and bylaws
Although the Meriam Report did not equate termi- reflecting traditional tribal decision-making and
nation of the treaty obligations with termination of leader selection methods. A team of consultant
the trustee relationship, many in Congress who anthropologists was employed to facilitate this
voted for the ICC did and subsequently supported process, but Congress refused funding and the unit
the termination bill H.R. 108. In this matter, then, as was disbanded. As a result, tribal constitutions were
in all others, the long-term effect of the Meriam largely drawn up in Washington, based on European
Report is mixed. American political conventions, and presented to
Angela Firkus Indian leaders unfamiliar with European American
legal jargon. Tribes, rather than subtribal groups
such as clans, bands, and families, were made the
See also House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953; basis of the new political structures. The resulting
Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946; Indian
constitutions, many of which were virtually identical
Claims Commission (ICC); Termination.
References and Further Reading regardless of the specifics of tribal traditions, made
Meriam, Lewis, et al. 1928. The Problem of Indian little provision for consensus-based decision making
Administration: report of a survey made at the or for the role of spiritual leaders. The new constitu-
request of Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, tions were required to be ratified by a majority of
and submitted to him, February 21, 1928. adult members of a tribe through secret ballot.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. About 77 out of 258 tribes voted against accepting
Philp, Kenneth R. 1977. John Collier’s Crusade for
the act, perhaps reflecting a deep-seated distrust of
Indian Reform 1920–1954. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press.
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (McNickle 1993,
Rosenthal, Harvey D. 1990. Their Day in Court: A 94).
History of the Indian Claims Commission. New In addition to the cessation of allotment and the
York: Garland. adoption of tribal constitutions, the IRA also estab-

United States v. Creek Nation, 1935 681
lished a $10 million revolving credit fund to provide Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1984. “A Fifty-Year
loans to Indian chartered corporations for promoting Perspective on the Indian Reorganization Act.”
the economic development of tribes. A further sum American Anthropologist, 86(2): 279–289.
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 allo-
cated to high school and college students (Deloria
United States v.
and Lytle 1984, 144–145). The act also provided for Creek Nation, 1935
the preferential hiring of suitably qualified Indians This case was a lawsuit by the Muscogee Creek
within the BIA. Nation/tribe of Indians against the United States to
The IRA was part of a wider body of policies recover compensation for certain lands of that tribe
that constituted the Indian New Deal, including the charged to have been appropriated by the United
Indian Arts and Crafts Board Act of 1936, which States.
expanded the market for Indian-made arts and crafts From 1826 to 1840, the Muscogee Creek Indians,
and protected them with a government trademark. some voluntarily and some forcibly, left their homes
The constitutional right to freedom of religion for in the East and relocated in Indian Territory in what
Indians was reaffirmed, and the revival of traditional is now the state of Oklahoma. Pursuant to a treaty
dances and ceremonies was also encouraged. The dated February 14, 1833, the Creek Nation acquired
Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act and the Alaska Native a patent awarding the nation fee simple title to a part
Reorganization Act, both of 1936, extended provi- of the Indian Territory. Over time, the white popula-
sions similar to those contained in the IRA to the tion in Indian Territory outnumbered the Native
Oklahoma tribes (with the exception of the Osage) American population.
and Alaska Natives. By a treaty of 1866, the Muscogee Creeks ceded
Some scholars have argued that the rejection to the United States the westerly half of that tract but
by Congress of certain key elements initially con- expressly retained the easterly half. The United
tained within Collier ’s proposals, such as a tribal States stipulated that it would cause a north and
court system and the adequate provision for the south line separating the ceded from the unceded
transfer of responsibilities from the BIA to tribal lands to be surveyed under the direction of the com-
communities, resulted in the effective retention of missioner of Indian affairs and guaranteed the
colonial rule, with power concentrated in the hands Creeks quiet possession of their unceded lands.
of the secretary of the interior and federal bodies. In 1871, the commissioner of Indian affairs had
Despite its limitations, the IRA represented a major the divisional line surveyed. A controversy arose as
divergence from the assimilationist impulse that to whether the line was surveyed too far to the east
had previously dominated federal policy regarding and thereby encroached on unceded lands of the
Native Americans. Creeks; but that controversy, if not terminated
Annie Kirby before, was put to rest and the line effectively recog-
nized by an agreement made between the Muscogee
See also Allotments; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Creek tribe and the United States in 1889. Combined
Collier, John; General Allotment Act (Dawes with other surveys, including one made for another
Act), 1887; Indian New Deal; Meriam Report, Native American tribe, the United States erroneously
1928.
treated the strip of unceded Creek land by allottment
Collier, John. 1948. Indians of the Americas: The Long to the other tribe. The error amounted to more than
Hope. New York: Mentor Books. five thousand acres of land.
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford Lytle. 1984. The Nations The case finally came before the Supreme Court
Within: The Past and Future of American Indian in 1926. It was agreed that the Creek tribe was enti-
Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books. tled to compensation, but the parties were not
McNickle, D’Arcy. 1973. Native American Tribalism: agreed respecting the time as of which the value
Indian Survivals and Renewals. Repr., New York
should be ascertained. The tribe contended for the
and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Taylor, Graham D. 1980. The New Deal and American
value in 1926, when the suit was brought. The gov-
Indian Tribalism, The Administration of the Indian ernment argued for the value at time of appropria-
Reorganization Act, 1934–45. Lincoln: University tion, which it insisted was in 1873, when the survey
of Nebraska Press. was approved by the commissioner of Indian affairs

682 Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946
or its alternative, at the time the lands were disposed claims and to establish offsets reducing claim pay-
of under the act of 1891. ments based on goods and services already provided
When the Muscogee Creek demanded compen- by the government. The commission’s process for
sation for this lost land a century after the mistake appeals involved both the court of claims and the
was made, government lawyers argued that the Supreme Court.
Creek should have corrected the survey or com- The act marked a shift in federal Indian policy
plained earlier. from the Indian New Deal of the 1930s to the termi-
In the majority opinion of United States v. Creek nation policy of the 1950s. Many supporters of the
Nation, the Supreme Court disagreed, giving the Indian Claims Commission argued that the com-
Creek Fifth Amendment compensation from the mission offered compensation to Indian communi-
government. According to the Court, “The tribe was ties unfairly treated by the government; even the
a dependent Indian community under the guardian- National Congress of American Indians, founded
ship of the United States . . . at the time, and as such by American Indian leaders in 1944, endorsed the
it was entitled” to rely on the United States, its idea. However, other supporters of the commission
guardian, for needed protection of its interests. viewed it as a first step to terminating the trust rela-
Although the United States had broad powers tionship between the federal government and
and wide discretion in managing Indian tribes’ Indian communities. These individuals believed
affairs, it remained “subject to limitations inhering in that, until the government settled all Indian claims,
such a guardianship,” including an obligation of federal involvement with Indian affairs could
care in handling Indian property, the Court said, and not end.
the case was dismissed. Before the Indian Claims Commission heard
Fred Lindsay Indian complaints against the government, the
United States Court of Claims handled them. Con-
See also Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Treaty;
gress established the court of claims in 1855 to hear
Treaty with the Creek–June 14, 1866.
References and Further Reading suits against the federal government, but eight years
Debo, Angie. 1941. The Road to Disappearance: A later, in 1863, it prohibited the court from hearing
History of the Creek Indians. Norman. University claims based on treaties with Indian nations. In 1881,
of Oklahoma Press. Congress granted the Choctaws the right to present
Green, Donald E. 1973. The Creek People. Phoenix, AZ: their claims to the court, reopening an avenue for
Indian Tribal Series. Indian complaints against the government but only
Green, Michael D. 1982. The Politics of Indian Removal:
through the difficult process of gaining permission
Creek Government and Society in Crisis. Lincoln
and London: University of Nebraska Press.
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.
Indian Claims Commission Criticism of the system for Indian claims began
Act, 1946 as early as the 1890s. By the twentieth century, Com-
Signed into law by President Harry S Truman on missioner of Indian Affairs Francis Leupp recom-
August 13, 1946, the Indian Claims Commission Act mended the creation of a new court to hear only
established a commission empowered to hear the Indian claims, and in 1928, the Meriam Report sug-
claims of American Indian communities against the gested the creation of an Indian Claims Commission.
federal government. The new commission consisted The government continued to study various plans to
of a chief commissioner and two associate commis- settle Indian claims until passage of the Indian
sioners who heard claims from Indian communities Claims Commission Act in 1946. Commissioner of
based on issues of law and equity. Claimants could Indian Affairs John Collier tried to include an Indian
base their cases on the U.S. Constitution, laws, and claims court in his Indian Reorganization Act of
executive orders, but most cases involved land trans- 1934, and legislative efforts to create an Indian
fers agreed upon through treaties. Although the law claims commission began in 1935. After 1935, Con-
claimed to create a commission, the new agency gress focused on the commission structure to handle
functioned like a court. The law allowed the govern- claims, considering a number of bills before propos-
ment to use all possible defenses against Indian ing H.R. 4497 in October of 1945. This bill, intro-

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.
Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation:
Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque:
Iverson, Peter. 1998. “We Are Still Here”: American
Indians in the Twentieth Century. The American
History Series. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson.
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
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 108 repre-
sented the beginning of official U.S. termination
policy regarding Native Americans. Termination is
Photographed after the signing of the Indian Claims Com- an important aspect of twentieth-century federal
mission Act are President Harry S Truman, seated, and from Indian policy. It both drove and reflected the actions
left to right, Senator Joseph C. O’Mahoney of Wyoming;
of federal officials throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
Reginald Curry of the Ute Tribe; Julius Murray of the Uin-
tah Ute Tribe; and Oscar Chapman, acting Secretary of the HCR 108 indicated that all Indians within the United
Interior. The Indian Claims Commission operated for 32 States were to assume all the rights and responsibili-
years, adjudicating the long-standing land and accounting ties of being American citizens. This included being
claims of Native Americans against the federal government. subject to the same U.S. laws that applied to other
(Bettmann/Corbis) Americans (House Report no. 841). The driving force
behind HCR 108 was the idea of assimilation. The
government concluded that Indians must be assimi-
duced by Representative Henry M. Jackson of Wash- lated into the dominant culture in order to become
ington, ultimately became the Indian Claims Com- real Americans.
mission Act, or Public Law 726 under the Seventy- Federal officials formulated HCR 108 to end
Ninth Congress. federal responsibility to Indian tribes and also to ter-
The new law created a temporary agency minate the unique trustee relationship between
empowered to hear claims for only ten years, but tribes and the federal government. Senator Arthur
Congress maintained the court for thirty-two years, Watkins of Utah, who also chaired the Senate Sub-
granting extension acts in 1956, 1961, 1967, 1972, committee on Indian Affairs, and Senator Henry M.
and 1976. Despite the extended time frame, the com- Jackson of Washington State both adamantly
mission did not settle all outstanding claims, forcing believed that termination was the course to equality
the court of claims to handle the remaining work. for Native Americans. Jackson introduced HCR 108
Overall, the commission decided 549 claims and during the 83rd Congress, and on August 1, 1953,
awarded approximately $800 million during its exis- Congress adopted it. Congressional recognition did
tence, leaving the court of claims sixty-eight unre- not make it law, but recognition did mean that Con-
solved dockets after its dissolution on September 30, gress agreed with the fundamentals of the bill and
1978. that it supported a termination policy for Indian
Jay Precht tribes (Fixico 1986, 97).

684 Public Law 280, 1953
The government had determined that many control. Congress approved PL 280 to work in con-
tribes were already nearly assimilated, and these cert with a larger movement by the government to
groups were the first targets of termination. HCR 108 terminate Indian tribes. Termination, as described in
specified that federal supervision be removed from House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 108, meant the
tribes in California, Florida, New York, and Texas. It end of federal supervision of Indian tribes and the
additionally named the Flathead tribe in Montana, end of Indians’ trustee status. PL 280 was an aggres-
the Klamath tribe in Oregon, the Menominee tribe in sive move by the government to discontinue tribal
Minnesota, the Potawatami tribes in Kansas and control over offenses committed on Indian lands.
Nebraska, and the Turtle Mountain Chippewa tribe The law applied to Indian lands in California, Min-
in North Dakota as tribes who could survive well nesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. PL 280
without federal supervision. The secretary of the did allow some tribes within these states to retain
interior expected a report on these tribes, and legisla- jurisdictional control, however. The Red Lake Reser-
tion relating to terminating them, by January 1, 1954, vation in Minnesota, the Warm Springs Reservation
a mere four months after HCR 108 was approved in Oregon, and the Menominee Reservation in Wis-
(House Report no. 841). consin were all excluded from PL 280 (Prucha 1995,
Although HCR 108 did not actually terminate 1044). PL 280 was amended later by Congress to
tribes, it served as the legislative foundation for the include Alaska.
government to carry out termination. The 84th Con- PL 280 emerged as a policy from the federal
gress witnessed a flood of termination bills, and new government, not as a request from Indian tribes. In
termination legislation would continue until Presi- fact, PL 280 did not require consultation or consent
dent Richard Nixon formally repealed the termina- from the Indian tribes facing the new policy. Presi-
tion laws within HCR 108 in 1970. HCR 108 also dent Dwight Eisenhower supported the foundations
paved the way for Public Law 280, a law that of PL 280, but when he signed off on the legislation,
allowed several states to take jurisdictional control he asked Congress to amend the resolution when it
over some reservation services. reconvened. Eisenhower wanted to include require-
Laurie Arnold ments for consultation with tribes. Congress did
write an amendment calling for consent from Indi-
See also Assimilation; Menominee Tribe of Indians v. ans, but the Interior Department opposed it, and
United States, 1968; Public Law 280, 1953;
Termination; Watkins, Arthur V.
terminationist senator Arthur Watkins wrote a vehe-
References and Further Reading ment minority report against the consent amend-
Burt, Larry W. 1982. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian ment. Ultimately, the amendment failed (Prucha
Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of 1995, 1046).
New Mexico Press. Decentralization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation: (BIA) comprised another aspect of PL 280. The law
Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: assumed that states would be able to handle effi-
ciently their new responsibilities and jurisdiction,
House Concurrent Resolution 108. 1953. 67 U.S.
Statutes at Large B132; House Report no. 841, 83- thus the BIA could close offices in the states of trans-
I, serial II666. fer. Determining which offices to close meant defin-
Philp, Kenneth R. 1999. Termination Revisited: ing who was Indian, in order to count how many
American Indians on the Trail to Self-Determination, people would need services. This activity was also
1933–1953. Lincoln and London: University of undertaken without consulting Indians (Fixico 1986,
Nebraska Press. 112–113). The reason consultation proved to be such
a contentious issue for the government, especially
Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. for the Department of the Interior, was simply that
the government remained intent on terminating
Indian tribes. The government did not wish to nego-
tiate with groups who would, for the government’s
intents and purposes, no longer exist after termina-
Public Law 280, 1953 tion legislation obtained congressional approval.
Passed by Congress in 1953, Public Law (PL) 280 PL 280 remains emblematic of governmental
provided for the jurisdictional transfer of criminal assimilation policies in the postwar era. It was a fun-
and civil matters from Indian tribal control to state damental building block of later termination legisla-

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955 685
tion, and it illustrated the government’s concerted any lands actually in their use or occupation or now
efforts to integrate Indians into the broader U.S. pop- claimed by them, but the terms under which such
ulation. persons may acquire title to such lands are reserved
Laurie Arnold for future legislation by Congress” (Organic Act,
1984)
See also Assimilation; House Concurrent Resolution
In 1947, Congress instructed the secretary of the
108, 1953; Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United
States; Termination; Watkins, Arthur V. interior to sell timber from the Tongass National For-
References and Further Reading est “notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights”
Burt, Larry W. 1982. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian (61 Stat. 920). The resolution defined that the receipts
Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of from the timber sale be placed in a special U.S. Trea-
New Mexico Press. sury account until the timber and Native land rights
Fixico, Donald L. 1986. Termination and Relocation: had been defined. A private company was con-
Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque:
tracted to harvest all saleable timber from a section
House Concurrent Resolution 108. 1953. 67 U.S.
of the Tongass National Forest. The Tee-Hit-Ton, a
Statutes at Large 588–590; House Report no. 848, band of the Tlingits, claimed aboriginal title of this
83-I, serial II666. land and proprietary interest in any timber sold.
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1995. The Great Father: The The Tee-Hit-Ton filed suit in the court of claims
United States Government and the American requesting recompense from the United States for
Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. the timber sale. The basis of their claim was the
Philp, Kenneth R. 1999. Termination Revisited: question of aboriginal land ownership and equitable
American Indians on the Trail to Self-Determination,
rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court of
1933–1953. Lincoln and London: University of
Nebraska Press. claims ruled that the Tee-Hit-Ton did possess origi-
nal 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).
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. The Tee-Hit-Ton appealed to the Supreme
United States, 1955 Court, which had previously heard cases concerning
The United States purchased Alaska from Russia Native land issues, and Justice Stanley Reed submit-
through the Treaty of 1867, but Native land rights ted the final opinion that denied the claim. The
were not mentioned in this treaty. The Tee-Hit-Ton Supreme Court declared two important points in
band of the Tlingit Indians inhabited lands in Alaska their denial of the Tee-Hit-Ton claim. The first was
that would later be established as the Tongass that Congress did not acknowledge Native title to
National Forest. In 1951, Congress sold timber from this land, illustrated by the sale of the timber from
the Tongass National Forest to a private lumber com- the Tongass National Forest. If Congress had never
pany, and the Tee-Hit-Ton sued the United States for acknowledged the Tee-Hit-Ton’s right to occupy the
compensation under the Fifth Amendment. In 1955, forest, then the Native Peoples could not have held
in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (348 U.S. 272), title and therefore did not have proprietary interest
the Supreme Court decided against the Tee-Hit-Ton, in the timber. The second point was the Court’s cor-
affirming that, since Congress had never acknowl- roboration of the legal concept of the conqueror’s
edged the Tee-Hit-Ton and their land rights, then sovereignty over and ownership of Native lands.
none existed. Justice Reed wrote that “every American schoolboy
The United States acquired Alaska in 1867 from knows that the savage tribes of this continent were
Russia, attaining 365,000 acres of land inhabited by deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that,
thirty-one thousand Native Peoples and nine hun- even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by
dred white settlers. No treaties between the federal treaty . . . it was not a sale but the conqueror’s will
government and Native groups were concluded that deprived them of their land” (348 U.S. 272
either before or after the Alaskan purchase. Federal [1955] at 289–290). The Supreme Court determined
policy regarding Alaskan Natives’ rights to land was that Congress could extinguish Indian occupancy at
mentioned in the Organic Act of 1884, which pro- its own judgment without recompense, quoting
vided that “Indians or other persons in said district from Johnson v. M’Intosh (8 Wheat. 543, p. 587), “that
[Alaska] shall not be disturbed in the possession of discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the

686 Williams v. Lee, 1959
Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by on the reservation, because Congress had not
conquest.” expressly forbidden state courts from exercising
Although Alaska was purchased by the United such jurisdiction.
States in 1867, no treaty or agreement with any The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with this
Alaskan Native group was ever accomplished. With- presumptive interpretation. Indeed, arriving at the
out this recognition of their ancestral lands by the opposite conclusion, Justice Hugo Black, writing for
federal government, the Alaskan Natives were at a the majority, noted that, ever since the Court’s deci-
disadvantage for recognition of their sovereignty sion in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) to deny effect to
and rights. Under the reserved rights doctrine, tribal laws from the state of Georgia into Cherokee land,
nations have tried to keep all powers, rights, and “when Congress has wished the States to exercise
resources not expressly surrendered to the federal this power it has expressly granted them the juris-
government. As the Alaskan Natives had never diction which Worcester v. Georgia had denied”
relinquished their rights under the Organic Act of (Williams 1959). Consequently, states should be pre-
1884, it was reserved by Congress to grant them title. cluded from reading into congressional silence any
Susan Sánchez-Barnett implied power to regulate Indian affairs on Indian
land.
See also Reserved Rights Doctrine; Sovereignty;
Justice Black also interpreted an 1868 treaty
Supremacy Clause.
References and Further Reading signed by General William T. Sherman and several
Newton, Nell Jessup. 1980. “At the Whim of the Navajo chiefs and headmen as containing terms that
Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered,” 31 implicitly led to the understanding that exclusive
Hastings Law Journal 1215–1285. jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the Indians
Organic Act. 1884. 23 U.S. Statutes at Large 24, Sec. 8. existed in whatever tribal government manifested
Sutton, Imre. 1985. Irredeemable America: The Indians’ itself. Moreover, against the weight of implied con-
Estate and Claims. Albuquerque: University of
gressional intent, which Justice Black found in other
New Mexico Press.
sources, and the treaty, Arizona could not point to a
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and federal grant of jurisdiction because it had not
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma accepted such responsibility available to it under
Press. 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 exer-
cise of state jurisdiction here would undermine the
Williams v. Lee, 1959 authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs
Williams v. Lee is a seminal case in federal Indian law and hence would infringe on the right of Indians to
because the Supreme Court uses it to articulate what govern themselves. It is immaterial that respondent
later became known as the infringement test—which is not an Indian. He was on the Reservation and the
works to protect the right of Indians to govern them- transaction with an Indian took place there. The
selves. In other words, Williams was an important cases in this Court have consistently guarded the
victory for tribal sovereignty against state power authority of Indian governments over their reserva-
and remains so today. tions. Congress recognized this authority in the
The plaintiff in Williams was a non-Indian who Navajos in the Treaty of 1868, and has done so ever
operated a general store within the Arizona portion since. If this power is to be taken away from them, it
of the Navajo Reservation. The defendants were is for Congress to do it” (Williams 1959).
Indians who had not paid for goods sold to them Interestingly, the Williams decision was deliv-
on credit. The store owner sued in state court to col- ered during the height of the government’s termina-
lect, which resulted in a judgment in his favor—dis- tion-era policies. This occurred when the Eisen-
missing the defendant Indians’ motion to transfer hower administration and the attendant Congress
the case to tribal court as the proper jurisdiction. were busily dismantling tribes and reservations in a
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that misguided effort to assimilate Indians into the domi-
Arizona state courts had proper jurisdiction over nant white society. Although it is speculative to find
civil suits brought by non-Indians against Indians, a connection between Indian termination policies
even though the underlying transaction occurred and other minority-related federal initiatives (such

Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 687
as public school integration) during this time, the Canadians, thus protecting them from rash govern-
government’s vision of solving the problems of the mental decisions based on political expediency, race,
country’s diverse groups by blending them into the or even common approval. He and his supporters
mainstream group is nonetheless evident. were not alone in their call for universal human
Michael J. Kelly rights and equality. The newly formed United
Nations adopted the now famous Universal Decla-
See also Assimilation; Public Law 280, 1953;
ration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. As a
Termination; Treaty with the Navajo–June 1,
1868; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. member nation, Canada endorsed the declaration,
References and Further Reading but there were increased calls for similar domestic
Anderson, Terry L. 1995. Sovereign Nations or legislation within Canada. It would be twelve years
Reservations? An Economic History of American in coming.
Indians. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute In 1957, Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative
for Public Policy. Party won a landslide victory in the federal election.
Thorington, Nancy. 2000. “Civil and Criminal
As leader of the party, Diefenbaker became Canada’s
Jurisdiction over Matters Arising in Indian
Country: A Roadmap for Improving Interaction
next Prime Minister. He was free to pursue his goal
among Tribal, State and Federal Governments,” of creating a uniquely Canadian version of the Uni-
31 McGeorge Law Review 973–1042. versal Declaration of Human Rights. It took a num-
Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. ber of years to determine the structure and function
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and of the legislation. There were many disagreements
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma among various levels of government.
Press. The ultimate step to ensure equality rights for
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).
Canadian citizens would be to entrench such rights
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
within the constitution itself. Unfortunately, Diefen-
baker’s federal government could not agree with the
provincial governments on a suitable way to amend
the constitution to include a declaration of rights.
Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 Ultimately, the federal government unilaterally
The Canadian Bill of Rights is a piece of federal leg- adopted the legislation on August 10, 1960. It was
islation adopted by Prime Minister John Diefen- entitled the Canadian Bill of Rights. Its provisions
baker’s government on August 10, 1960. Its provi- did not apply to provincial laws because it was a
sions acknowledge an individual’s right to liberty, piece of federal legislation and not a part of the con-
life, assembly, association, and other key human stitution. Nevertheless, Diefenbaker believed that
rights. A landmark legal decision in 1970 decided the bill’s moral authority would encourage the
under the bill resulted in the elimination of a provinces to follow suit and that provincial dis-
discriminatory section of the Indian Act. It thus sention would be politically, if not legally, difficult.
paved the way for equal treatment of Indians before The Canadian Bill of Rights acknowledges an
the law. individual’s right to life, liberty, personal security,
John Diefenbaker began to push for increased and equality before the law. It also protects an indi-
governmental protection of human rights shortly vidual’s freedom of religion, speech, association, and
after he became a member of Parliament in 1945. assembly. Furthermore, the bill protects the freedom
The human suffering experienced by many during of the press. Laws must be crafted in accordance
World War II appalled Diefenbaker. He was particu- with these rights, and any infringement is permitted
larly critical of the federal government’s wartime only by due process of law. The bill, therefore,
decision to intern Japanese Canadians and seize sought to replace the excesses of rash decisions with
their property. This was done under the assumption sober thought and sound judgment. However, since
that Japanese individuals could pose a threat to the bill did not apply to provincial laws and did not
national security given that Canada was at war with override other legislation, it was difficult to tell how
Japan. The harshness of the decision angered many effective the Canadian Bill of Rights would be.
Canadians; they believed that the equality of Cana- Courts were hesitant to base their rulings on the
dian citizens was being trampled upon. Diefenbaker bill because it was not enshrined in the constitution
was among those who believed that the government and thus was difficult to use to expand rights or
should guarantee certain rights and freedoms to all strike down legislation. Many courts used the bill as

688 Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 1960
a simple interpretive aid. Nevertheless, the Cana- the Holland Land Company near the town of
dian Bill of Rights would be cited in a landmark Lewiston, New York. Previously, the Tuscarora
legal decision. This was the case of The Queen v. Dry- Nation had been removed in 1775 from their lands
bones. in North Carolina and sent to reside with the Onei-
In 1967, a status Indian named Joseph Drybones das in central New York. In the twentieth century,
was arrested for intoxication at the Old Slope Hotel the town of Lewiston, situated just below the Niag-
in Yellowknife, capital city of the Northwest Territo- ara Falls, came to be viewed as a prime location for
ries. He was charged under Section 94 of the Indian the development of a hydroelectric project because
Act, a piece of federal legislation that defines the of the high volume of water flowing down the Nia-
rights and obligations between the Canadian gov- gara River and over the falls. In 1958, the New York
ernment and Indians. Section 94 of the act made it Power Authority (NYPA) applied for a license from
illegal for an Indian to be intoxicated while off a the Federal Power Commission to begin develop-
reservation. Drybones argued that his punishment ment of a hydroelectric project in the Lewiston area.
was discriminatory because it was not illegal for This application also included a request to expro-
non-Indians to be intoxicated in a public place. Such priate 1,383 acres of Tuscarora lands for the con-
discriminatory laws were inconsistent with the struction of a storage reservoir associated with the
Canadian Bill of Rights, which guaranteed equality project.
before the law. In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled six The Tuscarora challenged the license application
to three that Section 94 of the Indian Act was indeed of the NYPA on the basis that the NYPA did not have
discriminatory and rendered it inoperative. It was the authority to take the Tuscarora lands. Despite
later removed from the Indian Act. The Queen v. Dry- these objections, the commission granted the license
bones became the landmark case decided under the on January 30, 1958. The Tuscarora applied for a
Canadian Bill of Rights and was an important step in rehearing on the basis that the lands in question
ensuring the equal treatment of Indians before Cana- were part of their reservation lands and could not be
dian law. taken away in the absence of a finding by the com-
Although the bill is still in effect, most of its pro- mission that the license would not interfere or be
visions today are included in the Canadian Charter inconsistent with the purpose for which such said
of Rights and Freedoms. This charter was reservation was created or acquired.
entrenched in the Canadian constitution in 1982 and The commission, however, denied the applica-
applies to both federal and provincial levels of gov- tion for a rehearing and held that the lands were not
ernments. part of the reservation and were the best location for
Gordon Stienburg the reservoir. The Tuscarora then filed a petition for
review with the court of appeals. The court of
See also Indian Act of Canada, 1876.
appeals held that the Tuscarora lands in question
Diefenbaker, John. 1976. One Canada: Memoirs of the were in fact part of the reservation within the mean-
Right Honorable John G. Diefenbaker: The Years of ing of Sections 3(2) and 4(e) of the Federal Power Act
Achievement, 1956 to 1962. Toronto: Macmillan of and remanded the case to the commission. The case
Canada. once again worked its way up to the court of
Isaac, Thomas. 2004. Aboriginal Law: Commentary, appeals, where the court approved the license but
Cases, and Material. 3rd ed. Saskatoon: Purich. instructed the commission specifically to exclude the
McMillan, Alan. 2004. First Peoples in Canada.
power of the NYPA to condemn the lands of the Tus-
Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre.
Smith, Denis. 1995. Rogue Tory: The Life and Legend of
carora for reservoir purposes.
John G. Diefenbaker. Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and
and Ross. 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 Tus-
carora were to be considered part of the reservation
as defined under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C., s.
Federal Power Commission v. 791[a] et seq.) and (2) whether such lands could be
Tuscarora Indian Nation, 1960 expropriated by the NYPA under the eminent
In 1809, the Tuscarora Indian Nation acquired title domain powers conferred by Section 21 of the Fed-
in fee simple to 4,329 acres of land purchased from eral Power Act.

Alcatraz Occupation, 1964 and 1969 689
A majority of the Supreme Court held that the Witt, Shirley Hill. 1972. The Tuscaroras. New York:
Tuscarora lands held in fee simple were not part of Crowell-Collier Press.
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
Alcatraz Occupation,
land laws, and lands and interest in lands acquired 1964 and 1969
and held for any public purpose.” The Court thus Although commonly known as a rocky island in the
distinguished the Tuscarora lands held in fee simple San Francisco Bay that once served as a prison and
(land in which the United States did not have an is now a tourist attraction, to Native peoples Alca-
interest) from the reservation lands as defined under traz represents political empowerment. In an
the act (land in which the United States did have an attempt to seize control of their futures through
interest). social activism, Natives occupied and took control
On the second issue, the Supreme Court held of the island three different times during the 1960s:
that general acts of Congress apply to all persons, on March 9, 1964; on November 9, 1969; and on
including Indians and their lands. The Court stated November 20, 1969. For Native Americans, the
that the Federal Power Act, a law of general and occupations resulted in positive changes and
broad application, was intended to apply to lands advancements in the face of overwhelming govern-
owned by any person, including Indians, and that ment resistance.
the act even specifically included and defined reser- Although seventy-two other federal facilities
vations. Therefore, the Court held that, because the were occupied by Indian people, Alcatraz is consid-
act did apply to Indians and lands owned by Indi- ered the most important. It was a success in that the
ans, a licensee (such as NYPA) could take, by the U.S. government policy of termination (HR 108,
exercise of the right of eminent domain, the lands it 1953) ended and a policy of Indian self-determina-
required if it paid just compensation to the owner tion became official several years later, in 1975. In the
(the Tuscarora). early 1970s, President Nixon returned forty-eight
In dissent, three justices of the Supreme Court thousand acres of land to the Taos Indians, and occu-
held that the Tuscarora lands at issue were within pied lands near Davis, California, became a Native
the definition of reservations under the Federal American university.
Power Act. As such, the act did not authorize the According to local tribal oral history, “The
taking of such a large tract of land, as the taking Rock” was home to the Costanoan and Ohlone peo-
would interfere with the purpose for which the ples, who lived in the coastal area between Point Sur
reservation was created: a permanent home for the and the San Francisco Bay ten thousand to twenty-
Tuscarora. one thousand years before the arrival of Spanish and
Lysane Cree Portuguese explorers. Alcatraz was originally used
by Natives as a camping and food-gathering loca-
See also Commerce Clause and Native Americans; tion, as a penal colony for those who violated social
Federal Policy and Treaty Making: A Federal taboos, and also as a hideout for Indians fleeing from
View; Indian Removal Act, 1830; Indian the California mission system.
Removal and Land Cessions, 1830–1849;
Due to government termination policy during
Indian Treaty Making: A Native View.
References and Further Reading the last half of the twentieth century, tribes found
Burton, Lloyd. 1991. American Indian Water Rights themselves dissolved, no longer existing as legal
and the Limits of Law. Lawrence: University entities. In an attempt to smooth over the resulting
Press of Kansas. upset and displacement, President Dwight Eisen-
Federal Power Act. 1920. 16 U.S.C., s. 791(a) et seq. hower promoted the government’s post–World War
(last amended 1995). II relocation program by offering financial assistance
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
to Natives to move to cities targeted by the program.
(1960) 362 U.S. 584, 80 S. Ct. 858 (U.S.S.C.).
Hauptman, Laurence M. 1988. Formulating
Thousands of Indians moved from reservations into
American Indian Policy in New York State, the San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose areas look-
1970–1986. Albany: State University Press of ing for employment and a better life. Indian identity
New York. was challenged when Indians were forced to adjust

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 On March 9, 1964, the federal government dis-
the new situation scattered them in poor neighbor- continued the use of Alcatraz as a federal peniten-
hoods throughout the Bay Area. After eighteen years tiary. Allen Cottier, president of the American Indian
of relocation, sixty-seven thousand Indians, many Council, organized a plan for five Sioux Indians to
from tribes in other states, resided in the Bay Area take possession of the island. Led by Richard
(De La Torre, 2001, 12). McKenzie, the group attempted to buy title to Alca-
The new urban Natives found solidarity while traz by offering the federal government 47 cents per
battling the experiences of racism, discrimination, acre, demanding the island be used for a cultural
and disillusionment, incurred when relocation pro- center and an Indian university. Four hours later,
paganda did not live up to its promises. As multi- they were removed from the island—but the seed
tribal identity formed, churches, student groups, was planted that American Indians could and would
Indian centers, and other associations began to grow collectively regain control of their own destinies.
during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Encouraged, American Indian students at SFSU
Newly enacted educational opportunity programs formed the Student Council of American Natives
found Natives enrolling at the University of Califor- (SCAN), which offered support and dialogue about
nia, Berkeley; University of Minnesota; and San their concerns. SCAN evolved into the Student
Francisco State University. These schools developed Kouncil of Intertribal Nations (SKINS), led by
the first Native American studies programs in the Richard Oakes, who became instrumental in subse-
country. quent occupations of Alcatraz. Students at UCB also

Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 1965 691
formed an organization, the United Native Ameri- been involved from the beginning of the occupation,
cans, to promote self-determination. The two including hippies and members of the drug culture.
groups, coordinated by LaNada Boyer, asserted a Oakes left the island after his thirteen-year-old
plan to develop student activism. Red Power was daughter fell three floors down a stairwell and died;
born, supported, and nourished by the political thereafter, each group tried to assert itself as leader,
unrest percolating and pouring forth in the Bay Area which not only ignited confusion and disarray but
during the 1960s. ruptured the unity of the protest and deflated com-
On November 9, 1969, Alcatraz was seized and mitment to the cause.
occupied by fourteen Native American college stu- Even though it was determined that the colli-
dents, who for nineteen hours laid symbolic claim to sion of two tankers had not been caused by lack of a
the island. Led by Richard Oakes, the group called light or foghorn on Alcatraz, on June 10, 1971, Presi-
themselves Indians of All Tribes. Although the Fort dent Richard Nixon issued the order that federal
Laramie treaty of 1868 referred to government land marshals, FBI agents, and Special Forces swarm the
in the northern plains, not California, those in the island and remove the five women, four children,
group who were from tribes that were party to the and six unarmed Indian men who remained there.
treaty used it as justification to file for a homestead The occupation was over.
on the island. They left Alcatraz fueled by the Denise Lajetta
momentum and support they received from the Bay
See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Oakes,
Area intertribal community that had witnessed and
Richard; Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the
had been victims of the federal seizure of Native Sioux, Etc., and Arapaho–April 29, 1868.
lands. References and Further Reading
Realizing that a prolonged occupation was not De La Torre, Joely. 2001. “From Activism to
only possible but necessary to stop the attempted Academics: The Evolution of American Indian
dissolution of Native Americans into the urban melt- Studies at San Francisco State 1968–2001.”
ing pot, Richard Oakes again led an occupation of Indigenous Nations Studies Journal, 2(1): 11–20.
Johnson, Troy R. 1996. Occupation of Alcatraz Island:
Alcatraz, this one lasting from November 20, 1969,
Self-Determination and the Rise of Indian Activism.
until June 10, 1971. Oakes was joined by approxi- Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
mately one hundred Indians, who immediately Johnson, Troy R., and Joane Nagel, eds. 1994.
began organizing. They put a council into place and “Alcatraz Revisited: The 25th Anniversary of
assigned jobs to everyone on the island, such as the Occupation, 1969–1971.” Special Edition.
security, sanitation, and schooling. All decisions American Indian Culture and Research Journal,
were made by unanimous consent of the people. 18(4).
After insisting that the island be vacated, the
federal government attempted to barricade it, with-
out success. Eventually, the government agreed to
negotiate with the Indian council but insisted that
Warren Trading Post Co. v.
the Indians could not establish a university, a cul- Arizona Tax Commission, 1965
tural center, or a museum, let alone ownership of the This case concerned whether the State of Arizona
island. At one point, occupiers were offered a por- could levy a tax on the “gross proceeds of sales, or
tion of Fort Miley in San Francisco but chose to hold gross income” of 2 percent on a retail trading busi-
out for full title to Alcatraz. Electrical power to the ness with a trading license from the Commissioner
island was shut off, and the freshwater barge was of Indian Affairs operating on the Navajo Reserva-
shut down. Three days later, several historic build- tion. The 1868 Navajo treaty enjoined tribal jurisdic-
ings were destroyed when fire broke out. Further tional exclusivity over the land and the use of the
damage to buildings occurred when copper wiring land and precluded state jurisdiction and authority
and tubing were stripped and sold to gain money for therein. Warren Trading Post Company presented
food. two defenses. First, state tax levied on income taken
By early 1970, Indian organization on Alcatraz from a reservation was invalid as a consequence of
became fragmented. Two groups rose in opposition the commerce clause—Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of
to Richard Oakes and as students returned to school; the U.S. Constitution, which vested in Congress the
they were replaced by urban people who had not unilateral power to regulate commerce with the

692 Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968
tribes. Second, state tax contravened the congres- by a license from the commissioner, on reservation
sional meaning of the commerce clause, which lands.
enabled Congress to regulate traders and trade with The Court held that, from the evaluation of
the tribes and allowed the tribes to govern them- statutes and the historical assessment of the treaty of
selves within their reservations. The state supreme 1868, the right of the State of Arizona to enforce its
court upheld the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled taxing authority on federal traders on the Navajo
that, through statutes and regulations, Congress had Reservation (which was set aside by treaty) was
assumed the authority to levy taxes on traders oper- invalid and without authority. Congressional pur-
ating within reservations. Consequently, the State of pose provided that no burden would be imposed
Arizona could not levy taxes on traders within a upon traders wishing to trade on Native American
reservation or enforce extra burdens on the traders reservations except as enacted by Congress.
or the tribes. Justice Hugo Black delivered the opin- The Supreme Court held that to allow state tax-
ion of the Court. ation on reservations would impose financial bur-
The U.S. Supreme Court stated that the treaty dens on both the tribe and the traders. Furthermore,
with the Navajo in 1868 had created a reservation it would fracture the congressional statutory plan to
that was a permanent home set apart for the tribe. protect Native Americans against unfair prices. Fed-
From the establishment of the reservation, Congress eral legislation did not provide the states with any
did not interfere with Navajo internal affairs, and control within the Navajo Reservation and thus did
thus the tribe controlled their own affairs free of not sanction the use of state taxes therein. Taxing the
state control. Before the 1868 Navajo treaty, the tribe sales of a federally licensed trader on reservation
had governed themselves free of state restriction, lands could not apply, and thus the judgment of the
and this was a continuation of that policy. The Court supreme court of Arizona was reversed. Federal
cited Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Geor- statutes barred the imposition of taxes in this case,
gia (1832) and stated that Native Americans were but the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on whether
treated as distinct nations, under the protection of the tax was barred under the argument that the com-
treaties and completely separated from the jurisdic- merce clause gave Congress power to regulate com-
tion of the states. Moreover, the federal government merce with the tribes.
had enacted statutes and treaties that provided a Dewi I. Ball
plethora of controls over people wishing to trade
See also Commerce Clause; Government-to-
with Native Americans.
Government Relationship; Indian Territory;
The Supreme Court proceeded to examine the Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the
history of federal control and authority over tribal Delaware–September 17, 1778; Treaty with the
commerce. The Court stated that Congress had Navajo–June 1, 1868; Worcester v. Georgia, 1832.
enacted statutes from 1790, whereby traders were References and Further Reading
obliged to obtain a trading license from federal offi- Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and
cials, to 1901, whereby the commissioner of Indian Tribes. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
affairs prescribed trade regulations with Native
American tribes. Under the statutes, the commis- Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and
sioner of Indian affairs had the sole right to issue Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma
licenses to traders wishing to trade with the tribes; Press.
the commissioner could also establish regulations Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987. American Indians, Time,
upon them. and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern
The Supreme Court’s examination of the histori- Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale
cal development of congressional regulation and University Press.
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 Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968
the authority and jurisdiction to impose taxes upon The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA, 25 U.S.C. §§
the trader within the Navajo Reservation. The 1301–1333) was enacted on April 11, 1968, and is like
statutes relied upon by the Court were ruled to bar the Bill of Rights in that it guarantees to Native peo-
states from taxing traders on their sales, as granted ples personal freedoms against actions of the federal

Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968 693
government. The act was born out of necessity. Pub- larly describing the place to be searched and the
lic Law 280, passed in 1954, transferred civil and person or thing to be seized; (3) subject any
criminal jurisdiction of reservation Indians to six person for the same offense to be twice put in
states (Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, jeopardy; (4) compel any person in any criminal
Oregon, and Wisconsin). Public Law 280 created a case to be a witness against himself; (5) take any
certain amount of lawlessness and reduced federal private property for a public use without just
programs to Indian citizens, for example, welfare, compensations; (6) deny to any person in a
health, education, and law enforcement programs in criminal proceeding the right to a speedy and
California. Other examples include allegations of public trial, to be informed of the nature and
maltreatment or lack of protection by law enforce- cause of the accusation, to be confronted with
ment officers because reservations have no tax base, the witnesses against him, to have compulsory
or because in many instances the response time (sev- process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and
eral miles) makes law enforcement almost nonexis- at his own expense to have the assistance of
tent. Because Indian tribes were not subject to the counsel for his defense; (7) require excessive
Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections, bail, impose excessive fines, inflict cruel and
the Indian Civil Rights Act was passed in response unusual punishments, and in no event impose
to lawlessness before as well as after the passage of for conviction of any one offense any penalty or
PL 280 and in response to other issues pertaining to punishment greater then imprisonment for a
crime in Indian country. The ICRA is divided into term of one year or a fine of $5,000, or both; (8)
seven titles: Title I is the act itself. Title II encom- deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
passes the definition of an Indian tribe, self- equal protection of its laws or deprive any
government, tribal courts, and Indian rights. Title III person of liberty or property without due
establishes the model code governing courts of process of law; (9) pass any bill of attainder or
Indian offenses. Title IV covers jurisdiction over crim- ex post facto law; or (10) deny to any person
inal and civil actions (PL 280). Title V is an amend- accused of an offense punishable by imprison-
ment to the United States Code, Section 1153 of Title ment the right, upon request, to a trial by jury of
18. Title VI deals with the employment of legal coun- not less than six persons. (Getches, Wilkinson,
sel by Indian tribes. Title VII deals with materials and Williams 1998, 506)
relating to the constitutional rights of Indians and
authorizes the secretary of the interior to make avail- Kurt T. Mantonya
able certain documents, manuscripts, and opinions
relating to Indian law and to republish these docu- See also Indian Country; Public Law 280, 1953.
ments. The documents include Indian Affairs Laws References and Further Reading
and Treaties, Volumes 1 and 2, and Federal Indian Law. Clarkin, Thomas. 2001. Federal Indian Policy: In the
The most important title, Title II, defines an Kennedy and Johnson Administrations 1961–1969.
Indian tribe, self-government, and the tribal court, as Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
well as the constitutional rights provided by the act Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford M. Lytle. 1983.
and habeas corpus (release from unlawful restraint). American Indians, American Justice. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
The constitutional rights provided in Title II of the
Getches, David H., Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert
ICRA are as follows: A. Williams, Jr. 1998. Cases and Materials on
Federal Indian Law. St. Paul, MN: West.
No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self- Johnson, Troy R., ed. 1999. Contemporary Native
government shall (1) make or enforce any law American Political Issues. Walnut Creek, CA:
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or Altamira Press.
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
Menominee Tribe of Indians
their persons, houses, papers, and effects v. United States, 1968
against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor The 1968 Supreme Court decision on hunting and
issue warrants, but upon probable cause, fishing rights for the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin
supported by oath or affirmation, and particu- had its roots in the policy of termination that

694 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 1968
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 six-
teen-year battle with the federal government over
the mismanagement of Menominee forest resources,
resulting in an $8.5 million award, which Utah sena-
tor 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 reserva-
tion land was to become Menominee County. All
this was finally accomplished by 1961, but the
poverty that has constantly plagued Indian peo-
ples only intensified with the withdrawal of fed-
eral 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 Wiscon-
A protestor wrapped in a U.S. flag dances before a police sin took the position that termination had ended the
roadblock during the takeover of the Alexian Brothers Novitiate provisions of the Treaty of Wolf River, which had
by the Menominee Warrior Society on January 1, 1975. The
guaranteed the tribe hunting and fishing rights on
Warrior Society had objected to the slow reorganization of the
Menominee Tribe after federal services were restored. the reservation. Even before termination, Public Law
(Corbis/Bettmann-UPI) 280 (1953) had given state and local authorities juris-
diction over Indian land. The state prosecuted three
Menominees for violating state gaming regulations.
dominated federal Indian legislation during the The tribe brought suit in the court of claims to
1950s and 1960s. The goal of termination was the recover damages from the loss of hunting and fish-
ending of the trust relationship that existed between ing rights, and their claims were upheld. The case
the tribes and the federal government. This was to was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in its deci-
be accomplished by the federal government’s sion, Justice William O. Douglas argued, “[I]t is
divestiture of all of the assets it held for the tribes therefore argued with force that the Termination Act
either to individual Indians or to tribal corporations, of 1954, which became fully effective in 1961, sub-
thus making Indian assets taxable and ending fed- mitted the hunting and fishing rights of the Indians
eral treaty responsibilities. This would facilitate to state regulation and control. We reach, however,
what had been the main goals of many bureaucrats the opposite conclusion.” Further, he stated, “We
since the Dawes Act: the end of Indian tribal sover- find it difficult to believe that Congress, without
eignty and the complete assimilation of American explicit statement, would subject the United States to
Indians into mainstream American society. a claim for compensation by destroying property
After the passage of House Concurrent Resolu- rights conferred by treaty, particularly when Con-
tion 108 in 1953, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) offi- gress was purporting by the Termination Act to set-
cials set to work to determine which tribes were tle the Government’s financial obligations toward
most economically ready for the discontinuation of the Indians.”

Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 1968 695
In essence, the Court declared that the doctrine thermore, the state supreme court held that treaty
of reserved rights, the idea that tribes retain rights to fishing rights could be regulated by Washington
their land’s resources until such rights are specifi- State. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of
cally ceded—rights that previously applied mainly the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held, first, that
to land, water, and mineral rights—applied to hunt- the state could regulate tribal off-reservation fishing,
ing and fishing rights as well. Even though the in accordance with “all citizens of the territory”; sec-
Menominee Reservation was terminated, their right ond, that the use of set nets at various locations was
to practice their treaty-protected lifeways related to remanded to the trial court to determine whether it
that land was not. was a “reasonable and necessary” measure.
Steven L. Danver Washington State had prescribed regulations
pertaining to fishing within its territorial waters, and
See also Deer, Ada E.; House Concurrent Resolution these included the time, the areas, the tools, and the
108, 1953; Public Law 280, 1953; Reserved Rights
Doctrine; Sovereignty; Watkins, Arthur V.
means by which fish could be caught. The Court had
References and Further Reading to decide whether, under the aegis of the treaty of
Hosmer, Brian. 1997. “Reflections on Indian Cultural 1854, the Puyallup and Nisqually could use set nets
‘Brokers’: Reginald Oshkosh, Mitchell on the rivers in question. The tribes fished both com-
Oshkenaniew, and the Politics of Menominee mercially and for subsistence; these facts, in turn,
Lumbering.” Ethnohistory 44:(3). had to be examined against the legality or illegality
Hosmer, Brian. 2002. “Blackjack and Lumberjack: of the use of set nets, if Washington State laws were
Economic Development and Cultural
upheld.
Continuity among Twentieth Century
Menominees.” In Peoples of Persistence, ed. The U.S. Supreme Court cited United States v.
R. David Edmunds. Bloomington: Indiana Winans (1905), in which the Yakima tribe relied on
University Press. treaty rights to protect the taking of fish in areas
Ourada, Patricia K. 1979. The Menominee Indians: A used with other citizens. In that case, private indi-
History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. viduals had bought land, obtained state fishing
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1995. The Great Father: The rights, and sought to exclude Native Americans
from the land. The Court ruled that a change in own-
ership 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.
Puyallup Tribe v. Department Douglas stated that the treaties were to be inter-
of Game of Washington, 1968 preted liberally in favor of the tribes. The court pro-
The premise of the case concerned whether the ceeded to address, first, whether set nets were
Puyallup and Nisqually tribes could assert rights to allowed under the auspices of the treaty. It was
take fish under Article 3 of the Treaty of Medicine assumed at the time of the treaty that the use of the
Creek of 1854, “. . . at all usual and accustomed nets and commercial fishing were customary, but the
grounds . . . in common with all citizens of the terri- treaty did not stipulate the purpose, mode, or man-
tory. . . .” Also involved were the conservation mea- ner of fishing. Second, the Court addressed whether
sures adopted by the state of Washington with the terms of the treaty to fish “at all usual and accus-
regard to its territorial waters. The conservation tomed places” was applicable to the tribes. The right
measures concerned the use of tribal set nets to catch to fish at the respective places was not exclusive but
salmon and steelhead, anadromous fish that were one “in common with all citizens of the Territory.”
covered by treaty rights. The case addressed two State citizens were thus regulated, and it followed
central issues. First, the construction of the Treaty of that the tribe could also be regulated in the interest
Medicine Creek of 1854 was interpreted liberally in of conservation, provided that regulations met the
favor of the tribes but did not give tribal members appropriate standards and did not discriminate
the exclusive right to fish off reservation. Second, the against the tribes.
constitutional implication of conservation measures Similar treaty language was cited by the U.S.
adopted by Washington State was deemed a valid Supreme Court in Tulee v. Washington (1942), which
basis for extinguishment of treaty rights, and state held that the tribe retained the treaty right to fish off
regulation could be imposed upon the tribes. Fur- reservation on “. . . all usual and accustomed

696 Sohappy v. Smith and Unites States v. Oregon, 1969
grounds. . . .” and that this right could not be ing. As even Judge George Boldt acknowledged,
impinged upon by the state. The issue was “the time however, the Sohappy opinion paved the way for his
and manner of fishing,” and this was not defined by own by firmly establishing the right of four Colum-
the treaty. Thus, nondiscriminatory measures of con- bia River treaty tribes to take “a fair and equitable
servation were imposed on the tribe. A similar opin- share” of the salmon passing through their “usual
ion was decreed in this case. and accustomed places.” Although Belloni’s ruling
The tribe retained treaty rights to fish off reser- permitted state regulation of Indian fishing, it also
vation but were dependent on state regulation and limited state regulatory powers and offered the
measures of conservation. Thus, certain practices tribes a meaningful role in the rule-making process.
were prohibited to citizens and Native Americans Thus, despite some unresolved questions and angry
alike, and this included the use of set nets in fresh- objections from both sides, the Sohappy decision rep-
water. Conversely, state regulation permitted citi- resented a landmark victory for tribal sovereignty
zens and thus Native Americans the use of purse and an important step toward co-management of the
seines and other nets in salt water for commercial resource.
fishing. The former was justified for reasons of con- The case revolved around conflicting interpre-
servation because fishing by hook sustained the tations of the treaty of 1855 between the United
numbers of fish, in contrast to set nets, which greatly States and the confederated tribes and bands of the
reduced the numbers of fish. The U.S. Supreme Yakama Indian Nation. In Article 3 of the agree-
Court remanded to trial court the question of ment, the Indians had reserved “the right of taking
whether the prohibition of set nets used in freshwa- fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common
ter was a “reasonable and necessary” conservation with the citizens of the Territory. . . .” The precise
measure; the findings had to address equal protec- meaning of that phrase became increasingly contro-
tion for both tribes and citizens with relevance to the versial as salmon runs declined due to overfishing,
phrase “in common with.” dam building, and the destruction of spawning
Dewi I. Ball habitat by logging, grazing, and irrigation projects.
In the early twentieth century, the states of Oregon
See also Medicine Creek, Washington; Mille Lacs Band
and Washington began to pass conservation laws
v. Minnesota, 1999; Puyallup Tribe Inc. v.
Department of Game of Washington, 1977; Treaty; that often discriminated against Indian methods or
Treaty with the Nisqually, Puyallup, fell most heavily on the terminal fisheries (rivers
Etc.–December 26, 1854. and tributary streams) where Indians traditionally
References and Further Reading caught salmon. State authorities insisted that Indi-
Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a ans fishing off the reservation possessed only the
Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West. “in common” right of ordinary citizens and there-
Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and
fore had to obey state laws. To the treaty tribes,
Tribes. 3rd. ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
however, state regulation represented a violation of
Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. their sovereignty as well as a threat to the cultural,
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and spiritual, and economic well-being of Indian fishing
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma families.
Press. 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
Sohappy v. Smith and United violating state laws. In 1968, David and Richard
States v. Oregon, 1969 Sohappy, enrolled members of the Yakama Nation,
Federal district court judge Robert Belloni’s com- spent four days in jail for illegal fishing. After receiv-
bined ruling in Sohappy v. Smith and United States v. ing suspended thirty-day sentences and $250 fines,
Oregon generally receives less recognition than the they joined twelve other Yakama in a lawsuit against
famous Boldt Decision of 1974 (United States v. Wash- Oregon Fish Commission chairman McKee A. Smith
ington), which was the culmination of nearly a cen- and a slate of Oregon fish and game officials. The
tury of litigation over Northwest Indian treaty fish- plaintiffs asked the court to define their treaty fish-

Nixon’s Message to Congress, July 8, 1970 697
ing rights and the extent to which the state could References and Further Reading
regulate them. Because sovereign immunity pre- Berg, Laura. 1995. “Let Them Do As They Have
vented them from suing the state directly, U.S. assis- Promised: A History of U.S. v. Oregon and Four
tant regional interior solicitor George Dysart pushed Tribes’ Fight for Columbia River Salmon.”
Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental
for a separate federal action that could bind the state
Law and Policy 3(1): 7–18.
government. Although the Yakama tribal council Parman, Donald L. 1984. “Inconstant Advocacy: The
had some doubts about the case, it chose to inter- Erosion of Indian Fishing Rights In the Pacific
vene in United States v. Oregon along with the Nez Northwest, 1933–1956.” Pacific Historical Review
Perce tribe, the confederated tribes of the Umatilla 53 (May): 163–189.
Reservation, and the confederated tribes of the Ulrich, Roberta. 1999. Empty Nets: Indians, Dams, and
Warm Springs Reservation. the Columbia River. Corvallis: Oregon State
University Press.
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
Nixon’s Message to Congress,
fishery, its powers were limited by certain conditions July 8, 1970
and standards, which Belloni spelled out in his writ- President Richard Nixon repudiated the termination
ten opinion and decree. Specifically, he ruled that era and officially transitioned U.S. Indian policy
state regulations must be proven “reasonable and toward tribal self-determination on July 8, 1970, with
necessary for conservation,” must be the least the delivery of his Special Message to Congress on
restrictive possible, and must not discriminate Indian Affairs. The message reaffirmed the U.S.
against Indians, who could potentially fish at times responsibility to Indians but did so in a way that
and with gear prohibited to non-Indians. The tribes called for giving Indians a greater role in controlling
must be given the opportunity for meaningful par- the programs that affected them. The message
ticipation in the regulatory process, and they had a formed the basis for the subsequently enacted Indian
right to “a fair and equitable share” of the catch. Bel- Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
loni did not define “fair share” or consider the issue and helped establish Nixon as “arguably the most
of tribal self-regulation, leaving them for Boldt to ardent supporter of Indian sovereignty” (Clarkson
address five years later. 2002).
The Sohappy/Oregon ruling received mixed Nixon’s special message forms the line used by
reviews from Indians and non-Indians alike. Some most scholars to separate the termination era from
tribal leaders felt that it conceded too much to the the present self-determination period. Nixon called
states, whereas Native fishers like the Sohappys con- for a rejection of termination as an unfair and inef-
tinued to insist that neither the tribes nor the states fective policy. He stated, “Both as a matter of justice
could regulate them. Non-Indian commercial and and as a matter of enlightened social policy . . . [t]he
sport fishermen also considered the ruling unfair time has come to break decisively with the past and
and detrimental to their interests, and Washington to create the conditions for a new era in which the
officials refused to implement it until 1979. By con- Indian future is determined by Indian acts and
tinuing his jurisdiction in the case, however, Belloni Indian decisions.” Nixon saw termination as retard-
ensured that the plaintiffs could “seek timely and ing Indian initiative because all experimentation was
effective judicial review.” Moreover, his “meaningful potentially very costly, as it had to be set against “the
participation” standard would help shape fishery threat of eventual termination.” Nixon rejected the
management practices as the tribes and the states “burgeoning Federal bureaucracy” in favor of the
gradually moved from litigation to cooperation. new goal, “to strengthen the Indian’s sense of auton-
Andrew H. Fisher omy without threatening (through termination) his
sense of community.”
Through nine related policy suggestions for
1974; Sohappy, David, Sr.; Treaty with the Congress, Nixon was attempting not simply to trans-
Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854; fer control over to Indian hands but also to provide
Treaty with the Yakama–June 9, 1855. more resources for Indians. The message’s first two

698 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971
goals, rejecting termination and the [tribal] right to Clarkson, Gavin. 2002. “Not Because They Are
control and operate federal programs, were in keep- Brown, But Because of EA: Why the Good Guys
ing with the general focus on shifting control. Nixon Lost in Rice v. Cayetano, and Why They Didn’t
Have to Lose,” 7 Michigan Journal of Race and
argued that the right to assume control over federal
Law 317, 332.
programs, as well as the right of retrocession, Johnson, Tadd M., and James Hamilton. 1995.
belonged with the tribes and was not dependent on “Symposium Rules of the Game: Sovereignty
the will of the U.S. government. However, the mes- and the Native American Nation: Self-
sage significantly included the notion that the Governance for Indian Tribes: From Paternalism
United States must respond “to just grievances to Empowerment,” 27 Connecticut Law Review
which are especially important to the Indian peo- 1251, 1262.
ple,” which Nixon used to further the particular case Message from the President of the United States
Transmitting Recommendations for Indian
for the restoration of certain sacred lands. Additional
Policy [Special Message to Congress on Indian
funding was the focus of three of the nine goals: eco- Affairs], H.R. Doc. No. 91–363, 91st Cong., 2d
nomic development legislation, more money for Sess. (July 8, 1970).
Indian health, and helping urban Indians. The eco- U.S. Congress. Senate. Resolution, “Commemorating
nomic development legislation goal, for example, the 30th Anniversary of the Policy of Indian
called for a tripling of the lending for Indian devel- Self-Determination.” S Res. 277 IS 106th Cong.,
opment projects. Finally, two goals—establishment 2d sess. (March 23, 2000).
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.
Alaska Native Claims
Aspects of the 1970 message’s idea of self- Settlement Act, 1971
determination can be found in the presidencies and Indigenous peoples of Alaska are commonly known
Indian policies of both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon as Alaska Natives. These include Aleut, Inuit, Tlin-
B. Johnson (Bielski 2000). However, as attested to by git, Haida, and Athapascan. Much reduced in num-
a 2000 U.S. congressional resolution, Nixon’s special ber by disease and social pathologies common to the
message generally is credited with “[setting] forth social suffering wrought by colonialism, after the
the foundation for a new, more enlightened Federal Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971
Indian policy grounded in economic self-reliance (ANCSA) came into effect, approximately eighty
and political self-determination” (U.S. Congress thousand Alaska Natives were enrolled as share-
2000). Most studies of the shifts in federal policy holders in thirteen regional corporations.
between assimilation and isolation rightly highlight “They said go out and save who we are.” This
Nixon’s special message and express the opinion was the basic instruction of Alaska indigenous elders
that “Indian tribes, members of Congress, and the to young leaders of the Alaska Federation of Natives
Administration started again down the road which negotiating the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
had initially been paved by the Indian Reorganiza- Act. When Russia sold Alaska to the United States in
tion Act. The legislation that occurred as a result of 1867, indigenous peoples’ rights and land ownership
Nixon’s message of 1970 became the foundation for remained unresolved. When Alaska was granted
federal Indian policy for the remainder of the cen- statehood in 1959, the state began to impose laws
tury” (Johnson and Hamilton 1995). and regulations on Alaska Natives; it also began to
Ezra Rosser select the 104 million acres it had been granted by
the U.S. government as a condition of statehood.
See also Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971; Pressures quickly mounted associated with lack of
American Indian Self-Determination and consultation regarding activities that promised to
Education Act of 1975; Government-to- massively encroach on indigenous people’s lands
Government Relationship; Sovereignty; and resources. These included an experimental
Termination.
nuclear explosion to create a deep-sea port at Point
Bielski, John R. 2000. “Judicial Denial of Sovereignty
Hope, a migratory birds protection treaty with
for Alaskan Natives: An End to the Self- Canada and Mexico, and a proposed oil pipeline
Determination Era,” 73 Temple Law Review 1279, across indigenous lands. During the 1960s, the
1282. diverse indigenous peoples of the state drew

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971 699
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 Prud-
hoe 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 ben-
efits, and oil companies sought to profit from their
discoveries. Faced with massive resource develop-
ment in an environment of long-unresolved aborig-
inal rights and title, conditions for reaching an agree-
ment 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 trans-
The Trans-Alaska pipeline snakes across a vast expanse of land.
formed the relationship between Alaska Natives and
The pipeline has the capacity to move 2 million barrels of oil
their homelands. Ownership did not rest with tribal each day. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act allows
governments; instead, land title was held by the Alaska natives to receive a portion of the profits from the oil
twelve regional corporations and approximately 220 sales as a part of the agreement of $962.5 million and 44
local village corporations. Indigenous or tribal gov- million acres of land. (Corel)
ernments were bypassed, for ANCSA contained no
specific provisions for internal self-government or
tribal government development. Membership was through adverse possession, creditors, bankruptcy,
open to people recognized as one-fourth degree or or dissolution. Major concerns arose over the fact
more Native ancestry, born on or before December that stock in the corporations was made available
18, 1971. for sale after a set time period, potentially fulfilling
The model chosen by negotiators departed goals of termination by allowing nonindigenous
from the reservation system south of the 48th paral- buyers and by increasing nonindigenous participa-
lel. The ANCSA model placed land and monetary tion not only in land ownership but also in corpo-
compensation largely with village and regional cor- rate decision making serving both economic and
porations. At the time, the model was viewed as a cultural goals. Additional amendments therefore
structure securing land ownership and as a sound stipulated that stock restrictions could remain in
base for economic participation through for-profit force unless shareholders voted to remove them.
corporations. Implementing the ANCSA as it was Basic elements of ANCSA’s corporate structure were
originally written proved problematic; as a result, almost immediately at odds with indigenous peo-
ANCSA provisions causing social and political ten- ples’ view of the agreement as a way to strengthen
sion were amended. For example, restricting mem- communities, culture, and identity, and as a basis
bership to Alaska Natives born before a certain date for their continued existence as indigenous peoples.
effectively excluded those born after that date Fortunately, legislative remedies for difficulties in
(“afterborns”) from participation. Legislative implementation have been made available.
amendments allowed Natives born after December Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox
1971 to participate, although at the discretion of
shareholders of individual corporations. Loss of
See also Indian Claims Commission (ICC).
land assets as a result of bankruptcy and the forced References and Further Reading
exploitation of resources by corporations were Berger, Thomas R. 1985. Village Journey: The Report of
addressed by further amendments in 1991, under the Alaska Native Review Commission. New York:
which undeveloped land cannot be taxed or taken Hill and Wang.

700 Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972
Case, David S. 2002. Alaska Natives and American attention to the issues affecting Native Americans; it
Laws. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: University of Alaska made treaty rights a major focus of their rhetoric and
Press. demands.
Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native
The caravan left the West Coast in October 1972
American Self-Determination and Federal Indian
Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona
and was joined along the way by more protestors.
Press. 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 cam-
paign, where many of the protestors occupied the
Trail of Broken Treaties, 1972 Bureau of Indian Affairs building for six days. They
The Trail of Broken Treaties was a protest organized asked the government to recognize the Twenty
by Native American activists in 1972. Leaders of the Points as the basis of any negotiation. The building
protest included Dennis Banks and Russell Means of was ransacked and government files stolen; the pro-
the American Indian Movement (AIM) and Hank testors claimed that government infiltrators were
Adams, an organizer of the fish-in protests in the responsible for much of the damage. The situation
Pacific Northwest. The protest, which consisted of a was resolved peaceably by the government’s assur-
caravan of protestors crossing the country from the ance that the protestors’ demands would be consid-
West Coast to Washington, D.C., was intended to call ered, 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)

Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Canada), 1973 701
from prosecution. However, the government subse- never addressed by the U.S. government, they con-
quently rejected the demands, and this led to further tinue to be an issue for debate. In this, the Trail of
violent protest (most notably the occupation of Broken Treaties was an important and influential
Wounded Knee in 1973). protest in the history of Native American treaties.
The Twenty Points proposed a new framework Amanda Laugesen
for considering the status of Native American tribes
See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks,
and the relationship between these tribes and the
Dennis; Means, Russell; Sovereignty.
federal government (Deloria 1974, 48). The key References and Further Reading
demands were repeal of the 1871 law that had ended Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1974. Behind the Trail of Broken
treaty making with Native American tribes, the Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence.
establishment of a treaty commission to sign new New York: Delacorte Press.
treaties, Senate ratification of past unratified treaties, Nagel, Joane. 1996. American Indian Ethnic Renewal:
and passage of a law giving Indians the right to issue Red Power and the Resurgence of Identity and
a declaration on treaty rights and other rights that Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
would be binding on courts (Prucha 1994, 412–413).
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley and
Other demands included restoration of a land base Los Angeles: University of California Press.
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
Calder v. Attorney-General of
reconsidered and that complete sovereignty for British Columbia (Canada), 1973
Native Americans was impossible. This case involved the Nisga’a of British Columbia
The Trail of Broken Treaties was part of a radical and the Province of British Columbia and was
social protest movement and politics that character- heard before the Supreme Court of Canada. The
ized the 1960s and 1970s, although many of its court assessed historical and anthropological evi-
demands had a profound historical basis. It was dence regarding the Nisga’a claim to aboriginal
based on a common “pan-Indian” politics, and its title. The Nisga’a community on the coast of British
rhetoric about treaties was based on the universal Columbia requested a declaration that they pos-
rather than particular. In making the demands gen- sessed unextinguished aboriginal title and control
eral, the intent was also to “define one status for all of the Nass River Valley in northern British Colum-
Indian people” (Deloria 1974, 50). Treaties were seen bia. The Nisga’a claim had been rejected in the
as symbolic of the relationship between the U.S. gov- lower courts, so they appealed to the Supreme
ernment and Native American people, a relationship Court. The Court recognized that aboriginal title
that had been betrayed over two centuries. Sover- exists in Canadian law, regardless of any recogni-
eignty and the restoration of the treaty relationship tion by government. However, the court split
were held up by some Native American protestors evenly on the derivation of aboriginal title and
as the essential step toward Native American self- whether the Nisga’a aboriginal title had been extin-
determination and political power. As the preamble guished by colonial legislation prior to British
to the Twenty Points expressed it, such recognition Columbia’s entry into the confederation.
would allow “a reconstruction of an Indian future in Justices Ronald Martland, Wilfred Judson, and
America.” Self-determination continued to be Roland Ritchie held that the Royal Proclamation of
important to Native American political demands 1763, which the Nisga’a claimed applied to the dis-
and was to some extent granted by the U.S. govern- puted territory and entitled them to protection, was
ment, but not through any acknowledgment of not applicable to aboriginal title in British Columbia.
treaty rights. They found that, when the Colony of British Colum-
The radical demands of organizations such as bia was established in 1858, the Nisga’a territory
the American Indian Movement (AIM) and protests became part of it. Also, a series of proclamations
such as the Trail of Broken Treaties played an delivered by Governor James Douglas between 1858
important role in calling public attention to the and 1863 and subsequent ordinances revealed the
issue of treaty rights and the condition of Native intention to exercise absolute sovereignty over all
American peoples. Although treaty rights were the lands of British Columbia. Such sovereignty

702 McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 1973
would be inconsistent with any conflicting interest, refusing to enter into treaties with aboriginal groups.
including aboriginal title. Thus, aboriginal title, if it It was willing to assume responsibility for protection
did exist, had been effectively extinguished by sub- of aboriginal land interests as stated in the Royal
sequent legislation. Proclamation of 1763 and to commence negotiations
However, Justice Judson later recognized the to reconcile their interest with the Crown’s underly-
source of aboriginal title as historical occupation of ing title to all lands in Canada. The government
land: “[T]he fact is that when the [European] settlers introduced the comprehensive land claims process,
came, the Indians were there, organised in societies whereby negotiation of aboriginal title claims would
and occupying the land as their forefathers had eventually lead to a treaty settlement.
done for centuries.” This represents a significant The Nisga’a claim was eventually settled under
change in judicial interpretation of the source and a treaty negotiation process leading to the Nisga’a
nature of aboriginal title in recognizing that title Final Agreement (1999), between the Nisga’a First
derives from the factual and physical occupation of Nation, the Province of British, and the Government
lands by aboriginal peoples, prior to the arrival of of Canada.
Europeans, rather than from Crown grant or legisla- Özlem Ülgen
tive recognition.
See also Aboriginal Title; Nisga’a Final
Justices Emmett Hall, Wishart Spence, and Bora
Agreement–April 27, 1999; Royal Proclamation
Laskin rejected the idea that, after conquest or dis- of 1763; St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber
covery, aboriginal peoples have no rights except Company v. The Queen (Canada), 1887.
those granted or recognized by the conqueror or dis- References and Further Reading
coverer. They pointed to existing Canadian common Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia. 1973. 1
law, which affirms aboriginal rights to possession S.C.R. 313.
and enjoyment of lands. Aboriginal title is not McConnell, W. H. 1974. “The Calder Case in
dependent on recognition by the Crown, whether by Historical Perspective,” 38 Saskatchewan Law
Review 88.
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
McClanahan v. Arizona State
has always been considered to be the law through- Tax Commission, 1973
out the Empire.” The premise of the case concerned whether the State
Ultimately, the Nisga’a appeal failed on a tech- of Arizona had jurisdiction to impose a personal
nical legal point. The actual decision of the seventh income tax on individual members of the Navajo
justice, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, did not address the tribe while said individuals resided in, and whose
merits of either position of the split court but ruled income was exclusively derived from, the reserva-
simply that the Nisga’a action failed due to lack of tion. The U.S. Supreme Court relied on the test
consent of the Crown to permit an action against it. derived from Williams v. Lee (1959): whether the
The question of the existence of Nisga’a aboriginal imposition of a state tax infringed on the tribe “to
title was left unresolved until 1999. make their own laws and be ruled by them.” The
This is a landmark case because it recognized Court relied on tribal treaty rights and on the historic
for the first time that aboriginal title exists under presumption that tribes have always governed
Canadian common law and does not derive from themselves on reservations. Three factors influenced
Crown grant or recognition, as previously held in St. the opinion of the Court. First, federal preemption
Catherine’s Milling Co. v. The Queen (1887). Before this had primacy over Native American inherent sover-
case, there had been limited recognition of aboriginal eignty; the latter was described as providing a
rights to land either under treaty or under Canadian “backdrop” to the reading of the treaties and
common law. statutes. Second, the Court invoked the canon of
The case was also an impetus for change in fed- interpretation, according to which treaty ambiguities
eral government policy toward aboriginal title are resolved in favor of the tribes, and thus the
claims. After the Supreme Court’s confirmation that Navajo treaty of 1868 was validated to preclude state
aboriginal title exists in Canadian law, the federal taxation. Third, the Court affirmed the Navajo posi-
government announced it would reverse its policy of tion following an examination of the relevant

Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973 703
statutes, which included the Buck Act (Title 25 U.S.C. whether or not reservation members were to be
1322 [a]) and the Arizona Enabling Act. Justice Thur- taxed. Third, Title 25 U.S.C. 1322 (a) was negated, as
good Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion. tribal consent was not obtained by the state. The
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Arizona did not treaty of 1868 and the sovereign history of the tribe
have the jurisdiction to impose a personal income were read in a manner where Congress would not
tax on income earned exclusively by a tribal member have circumscribed Navajo jurisdiction within the
on a reservation. reservation and on the contrary, granted the tribe
The case concerned an enrolled member of the tax-exempt status.
Navajo tribe who lived within the Navajo reserva- Arizona’s defense relied on Williams v. Lee (1959)
tion. In 1967, the tribal member paid $16.20 in taxes, and intimated that taxing individuals does not
which was withheld by his employer, and $11.84 of impinge on tribal self-government. Marshall stated
this was termed “tax liability.” At the end of the tax that the Williams test did not apply to these circum-
year, the tribal member filed a protest against the stances, in which a Navajo member was earning
collection of the state tax and sought a refund. The income on a reservation protected by treaty and fed-
Arizona Superior Court dismissed the action, and eral statutes. Under the Williams test, if tribal govern-
the Arizona court of appeals affirmed. ment had not been infringed upon, and a tribe
The question decided by the U.S. Supreme accepted state law concurrent within the reservation,
Court was a narrow one and concerned whether a state tax would still not bind the tribe or its mem-
state may tax a reservation tribal member for income bers. Moreover, tax could not be imposed upon the
earned exclusively on the reservation. Marshall cited income, the lands, or the individual members of the
Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and stated that the general reservation, as federal statutes gave individual rights
tenet extended to disallowing state taxation and to tribes, which are entities composed of individuals.
jurisdiction within the reservation. Despite the evo- The Court held that Arizona had interfered with
lution of Native American sovereignty, the tribe tra- matters arising from Native American and federal
ditionally has retained jurisdiction over the reserva- government provenance.
tion, primarily governing themselves free from state Dewi I. Ball
interference except at the issuance of an express act
See also Government-to-Government Relationship;
of Congress. Moreover, the Court held, Native
Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the
American inherent sovereignty had been supplanted Navajo–June 1, 1868; United States v. Kagama,
by federal preemption as a bar to state jurisdiction, 1886; Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax
and modern-day cases rely on treaties and statutes to Commission, 1965; Williams v. Lee, 1959; Worcester
circumscribe state authority. v. Georgia, 1832.
Marshall proceeded to examine the Navajo References and Further Reading
treaty of 1868 and the applicable statutes. The treaty Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a
Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West.
of 1868 established an exclusive reservation for the
Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and
Navajo Nation. Marshall stated that, although the Tribes. 3rd. ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
treaty failed explicitly to mention whether the University Press.
Navajo were free from state law or exempt from Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001.
state tax, it was not a simple contract between two Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and
parties of equal bargaining power. Thus, the canon— Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma
according to which ambiguous expressions are con- Press.
strued 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 pre-
Wounded Knee
empted state law. Occupation, 1973
Marshall proceeded to address the relevant Undoubtedly, the most renowned episode in the his-
statutes. First, the Arizona Enabling Act was not tory of Indian activism in the latter half of the twen-
silent on tax immunity, but its equivocal language tieth century was the American Indian Movement’s
was interpreted in favor of the tribes. Second, the takeover of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on Febru-
Buck Act and its legislative history also justified this ary 27, 1973. This incident and the government’s
position, as it and the enabling act prevaricated as to subsequent seventy-one-day siege of the community

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 swift efforts to seek justice for the Yellow Thunder
of Indian sovereignty and treaty rights. Organized family stood in stark contrast to the inactivity of the
by American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders Rus- tribal council. As participants of the Trail of Broken
sell Means and Dennis Banks (and sanctioned by tra- Treaties caravan filtered back to South Dakota in late
ditional elders and local activists on the Pine Ridge November that year, Wilson stood poised to stifle
Reservation), the occupation of the historic site was outside agitators, whom he deemed fanatical and
the result of mounting opposition to the reserva- lawless.
tion’s partisan tribal government. The event that triggered the occupation of
Led by Chairman Richard “Dick” Wilson, the Wounded Knee occurred in the early morning hours
Oglala Sioux Tribal Council developed a reputation of January 22, 1973. Darld Schmitz, a white man,
for corruption and repression in the early 1970s. Wil- stabbed to death Wesley Bad Heart Bull, a Lakota
son’s favoritism toward his family, Bureau of Indian from the Pine Ridge Reservation, outside a bar in
Affairs (BIA) employees, and mixed-blood support- Buffalo Gap—a reservation border town approxi-
ers around the town of Pine Ridge rankled the rural, mately fifty miles south of Rapid City. Charged only
traditional, full-blooded members of the tribe, who with second-degree manslaughter, Schmitz was
were more concerned with the maintenance of released on $5,000 bail. For many Indians, the case
Lakota culture than with economic gain. Likewise, exemplified the discrimination they regularly faced
his outspoken animosity toward AIM was at odds from the state and local governments in South
with the organization’s growing influence on Pine Dakota. In response to a request from the victim’s
Ridge—especially in the aftermath of the February mother, AIM leaders Russell Means and Dennis
1972 death of Raymond Yellow Thunder at the Banks led protestors to the Custer County Court-
hands of white racists in Gordon, Nebraska. AIM’s house on February 6, determined to reverse the

Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973 705
injustice. The demonstration turned into a riot, eight hours, more than two hundred law enforce-
resulting in the arrest of nineteen Indians, including ment officials were on hand equipped with armored
Means and Banks. Subsequent efforts by officials in personnel carriers, automatic weapons, and .50-cal-
nearby Rapid City to redress Indian grievances col- iber machine guns. Helicopters and F-4 Phantom jets
lapsed as a result of further violence. flew overhead, in part for reconnaissance but also for
For Dick Wilson, AIM was the common denom- purposes of intimidation. It was soon clear, however,
inator of the centers of violence and disruption. that unlike the circumstances almost eighty-three
Determined to keep AIM and other outside agitators years earlier, there would be no attack on the inhabi-
off his reservation, the tribal chairman, with the aid tants of Wounded Knee. Both sides settled down for
of a $62,000 grant from the BIA, organized an auxil- a siege.
iary police force dubbed the Goon Squad by his ene- Proclaiming an independent Oglala Nation on
mies (which his supporters turned into an acronym March 11, the occupiers of Wounded Knee busied
for Guardians of the Oglala Nation), and secured a themselves with the construction of bunkers for pro-
tribal court order preventing AIM leaders from pros- tection from sniper fire. Food and medical supplies
elytizing at public events on the reservation. The slipped through the government’s permeable
Goon Squad quickly became Wilson’s private militia perimeter via supporters who, responding to the
and served to enforce the dicta of the chairman. By extensive media coverage of the standoff, journeyed
mid-February, Wilson’s efforts to guarantee order on to the reservation from around the nation. Civil
Pine Ridge were reinforced by seventy-five federal rights groups, Vietnam veterans against the war,
marshals from the government’s Special Operations quixotic college students, and various church organi-
Group. zations strove to provide aid to the besieged
Wilson’s traditionalist opponents formed the activists. Efforts to negotiate a settlement failed
Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization (OSCRO) repeatedly. In addition to reforming the tribal gov-
and tried unsuccessfully to impeach the chairman. ernment, AIM’s demands expanded to include con-
Unwilling to accept the continuance of Wilson’s gressional investigations into the BIA and the
authoritarianism on the reservation, OSCRO leaders Department of the Interior as well as governmental
met with Means and Banks in the Calico Hall Com- acknowledgment of treaty violations. During the
munity Center on February 27, 1973, to request their first few weeks of the siege, both of South Dakota’s
assistance. Chief Frank Fools Crow suggested that senators as well as negotiators from the attorney
AIM draw attention to their plight by making a general’s office met with AIM leaders but were
stand at Wounded Knee—a small village inhabited unsuccessful in gaining dispossession of the village.
by fewer than a hundred people and the site of the On April 5, a breakthrough in the stalemated talks
massacre of Chief Big Foot’s band of Minneconjou appeared imminent, but a last-minute impasse again
Lakota by the U.S. Seventh Cavalry in 1890. To this nullified all hope of an immediate resolution.
the activists readily assented and proceeded to lead Throughout the seventy-one-day siege, AIM
two hundred supporters in a convoy of fifty-four activists and government forces continued to
cars to the village that night. Arriving at 7:30 in the harass each other with sporadic sniping. On March
evening, members of AIM and their followers seized 26, during a particularly heavy exchange of gunfire,
the Wounded Knee trading post, where they took its U.S. Marshal Frank Grimm was wounded in the
owners, the Gildersleeves, hostage and, after confis- chest and subsequently paralyzed from the waist
cating weapons and supplies, established a com- down. Almost a month later, on April 25, a ricochet-
mand post at nearby Sacred Heart Catholic Church, ing .50 caliber bullet hit Frank Clearwater, a Chero-
the cemetery of which contained the mass grave of kee, in the head while he slept on a cot inside a
the victims of the massacre of 1890. The occupiers church. The next day, Lawrence “Buddy” Lamont, a
then issued a statement declaring that they were Lakota Vietnam veteran, died after being shot
operating under the provisions of the Fort Laramie through the heart. Both fatalities, combined with
Treaty of 1868 and were only demanding what was other injuries and growing deprivations among the
rightfully theirs—sovereignty. Wounded Knee occupants, led Chief Fools Crow to
As news of the takeover at Wounded Knee press AIM to intensify their efforts to bring about
spread over Pine Ridge, the BIA police, federal mar- an end to the standoff. On May 6, Lakota elders
shals, FBI agents, and Wilson’s Goon Squad sealed accepted the Nixon administration’s promise to
off the roads leading into the village. Within forty- investigate Wilson’s regime on Pine Ridge, to meet

706 Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974
with traditionalists on the reservation to discuss the Boldt Decision (United States
violations of the treaty of 1868, and to ensure fair
v. Washington), 1974
handling of the Wounded Knee activists. In turn,
the occupiers agreed to disarm and dispossess the Better known as the Boldt Decision, United States.
village. v. Washington marked the legal turning point in the
The ten-week siege of Wounded Knee ended Northwest Indian fishing rights controversy. In
May 8. Few of AIM’s leaders remained in the vicinity Phase I (1974), U.S. District Judge George Boldt
to see its conclusion. Russell Means left on April 5 decreed that the treaty tribes’ reserved right to fish
for an ultimately unproductive meeting with White “in common” entitled them to 50 percent of the har-
House officials in Washington, D.C. He spent the vestable salmon entering their “usual and accus-
remainder of the month traveling the country, lobby- tomed places.” He also held that the tribes could reg-
ing for support. Dennis Banks, fearing imminent ulate their share of the fishery, but non-Indian
arrest, left Wounded Knee on May 7 and became a protests and state resistance obstructed his ruling
fugitive. On the day of the stand-down, 147 men and until the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed it in 1979. In
women were on hand to surrender to their besiegers. Phase II (1980), Boldt’s successor ruled that the tribes
In the end, despite the national media attention and had rights to hatchery fish and to protection of the
public sympathy generated by the standoff, little salmon from environmental degradation. Although
changed in its aftermath. Dick Wilson continued his many problems remain unresolved, the Boldt Deci-
reign as tribal chairman and spent the next two years sion set an enduring standard for allocation and
solidifying his control of the reservation. White helped revive the moribund tribal fishing economy
House officials did travel to Pine Ridge on May 17 in the Pacific Northwest.
but offered little in the way of political or economic The case was the culmination of more than a
concessions. For AIM, the siege represented the century of conflict and litigation over off-reservation
high-water mark of the organization. During the fishing rights. In 1854–1855, the Indians of Puget
years that followed, long and costly legal battles Sound had signed five treaties that ceded most of
depleted its resources while its membership suc- their aboriginal territory but explicitly reserved “the
cumbed to bitter factionalism. right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed
Alan C. Downs places, in common with the citizens of the Territory.”
Although federal officials assumed that Indians
would eventually abandon their subsistence prac-
tices and assimilate into American society, tribal rep-
See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks, resentatives believed that their fishing rights had
Dennis; Means, Russell. been guaranteed in perpetuity. They would not have
signed the treaties without such promises, and they
Banks, Dennis, and Richard Erdoes. 2004. Ojibwa
Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the did not anticipate future restrictions on their rights.
American Indian Movement. Norman: As anthropologist Barbara Lane later testified at
University of Oklahoma Press. trial, “the most likely Indian interpretation of the ‘in
Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: common’ language would be that non-Indians were
American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: to be allowed to fish without interfering with contin-
Oxford University Press. ued pursuit of traditional Indian fishing” (Lane
Josephy, Alvin, Jr., ed. 1971. Red Power: The American
1977, 4).
Indian’s Fight for Freedom. New York. McGraw-
Hill. By the early twentieth century, however, non-
Josephy, Alvin, Jr., Joane Nagel, and Troy Johnson, Indian commercial fishing and habitat destruction
eds. 1999. Red Power: The American Indian’s had decimated salmon populations, leading Wash-
Fight for Freedom. Lincoln and London: ington State to impose regulations on tribal fishing
University of Nebraska Press. in ceded territory. State officials argued that Indians
Means, Russell, and Marvin J. Wolf. 1995. Where should obey the same restrictions as non-Indians,
White Men Fear to Tread: The Autobiography of
even though those rules often discriminated against
Russell Means. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996.
Indians, violated their treaty rights, and undermined
Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from both their economic self-sufficiency and cultural tra-
Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New ditions. Six fishing rights cases reached the U.S.
Press. Supreme Court prior to 1974. The Court upheld the

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 Although his decision built on existing precedents, it
state regulation of tribal fishing rights. Conse- shocked many non-Indians and triggered waves of
quently, Washington State continued to harass protest, including extensive outlaw fishing and
Indian fishers despite the fact that, by the late 1960s, numerous countersuits. Washington State also
their share of the salmon harvest had fallen to less appealed and refused to enforce the ruling until the
than 5 percent. Tribal activists such as Hank Adams, Supreme Court affirmed it in 1979.
Robert Satiacum, and Billy Frank, Jr., responded The controversy did not end there. In 1980,
with “fish-ins” to challenge state law and provoke a shortly after Boldt’s retirement, Judge William
test case. Following a series of violent police raids Orrick heard Phase II of the case. He ruled that the
that attracted national media attention, the federal tribal share included hatchery fish and that the
government finally agreed to pursue legal action on treaties implied the right to have salmon habitat pro-
behalf of fourteen treaty tribes. tected from environmental threats. Two years later,
Judge Boldt hoped that United States v. Washing- however, a circuit court review overturned his opin-
ton would settle the matter once and for all. Consid- ion on the latter issue. The tribes continue to press
ering both contemporary dictionary definitions and for environmental protection, but they face strong
the Indian understanding of the treaties, he con- opposition from regional politicians and business
strued the words “in common” to mean that the interests as well as lingering intertribal differences
treaty tribes had a right to half of the allowable har- over allocation. Even so, the Boldt Decision helped
vest. In addition, he held that the treaty tribes could to revitalize their fishing economies and gave them a
regulate off-reservation fishing by their members, meaningful role in the management of Northwest
whereas the state could only regulate them for “rea- salmon fisheries.
sonable and necessary” conservation purposes. Andrew H. Fisher

708 Morton v. Mancari, 1974
See also Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of ment on the basis of race. Having made such a deter-
Washington, 1968; Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. mination, the district court did not rule on whether
Department of Game of Washington, 1977; the hiring preference violated the due process clause
Reserved Rights Doctrine; Sohappy v. Smith and
of the Fifth Amendment. The district court also
United States v. Oregon, 1969.
enjoined federal officials “from implementing any
Bentley, Shannon. 1992. “Indians’ Right to Fish: The policy in the Bureau of Indian Affairs which would
Background, Importance, and Legacy of United hire, promote, or reassign any person in preference
States v. Washington.” American Indian Law to another solely for the reason that such person is
Review 17: 1–35. an Indian” (ibid., 540).
Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s
Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. ruling, holding that the Indian hiring preference was
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
not repealed by the EEOA. Writing for a unanimous
Lane, Barbara. 1977. “Background of Treaty Making
in Western Washington.” American Indian Journal majority, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the
3 (April): 2–1. 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 self-
Morton v. Mancari, 1974 government and to make the BIA more responsive to
In deciding Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), the needs of its constituent groups.
the U.S. Supreme Court held that that tribal Indians Furthermore, the Constitution itself explicitly
were “members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities” and implicitly grants Congress the authority to deal
and that Indian status was thus “political rather than with the special problems of Indians. Article I, Sec-
racial in nature” (Canby 1998, 553–554). Given that tion 8, clause 3 gives Congress the power to “regu-
unique classification, Indian preferences in hiring late Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes,” and thus
and promotion at the BIA were upheld. “singles Indians out as a proper subject for separate
The case arose wherein non-Indian employees legislation” (ibid., 552).
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) brought a Justice Blackmun also noted that the federal
class action lawsuit to invalidate Indian hiring and government had had an Indian hiring preference as
promotion preferences at the BIA that were part of far back as 1834 and that, since then, Congress has
the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). The IRA repeatedly enacted additional Indian hiring prefer-
directed the secretary of the interior to develop ences. According to the legislative history cited by
standards for hiring Indians to fill positions main- Justice Blackmun, the purpose of these preferences
tained by the Indian Office, which administered “has been to give Indians a greater participation in
tribal affairs. The IRA gave such qualified Indians their own self-government; to further the Govern-
preference when vacancies in the BIA were to be ment’s trust obligation toward the Indian tribes; and
filled. In 1972, the policy was expanded to incorpo- to reduce the negative effect of having non-Indians
rate an Indian preference at the initial hiring stage administer matters that affect Indian tribal life”
as well as for promotions. In the subsequent law- (ibid., 542–543).
suit, the non-Indian BIA employees claimed that Separately, Justice Blackmun pointed out that
the preference was a violation of the Equal literally “every piece of legislation dealing with
Employment Opportunity Act (EEOA) of 1972 and Indian tribes and reservations, and certainly all legis-
also constituted invidious racial discrimination in lation dealing with the BIA, single out for special
violation of the due process clause of the Fifth treatment a constituency of tribal Indians living on
Amendment. or near reservations” (ibid., 552). “If Indian prefer-
Because the complaint sought to enjoin the ence laws, which were derived from historical rela-
enforcement of a federal statute as unconstitutional, tionships and explicitly designed to help only Indi-
a special three-judge federal district court was con- ans, were deemed invidious racial discrimination, an
vened to decide the matter. After a brief trial, the dis- entire Title of the United States Code (25 U. S. C.)
trict court concluded that the hiring preference for would be effectively erased and the solemn commit-
Indians was implicitly repealed by EEOA, which ment of the Government toward the Indians would
proscribed discrimination in most federal employ- be jeopardized” (ibid.).

American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 709
Although Morton v. Mancari involved the BIA’s In 1921, Congress passed the Snyder Act, which
hiring preference for Indians, the Court extended its established government services for Indian peoples
holding to other areas of Indian policy as “long as through the BIA. In 1928, the Merriam Report recog-
the special treatment can be tied rationally to the ful- nized that the quality of education in reservation
fillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the schools was not equivalent to the quality of educa-
Indians” and as long as the policy “is reasonable and tion in the public school systems.
rationally designed to further Indian self-govern- The Roosevelt administration passed the
ment” (ibid., 555). Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, which granted
Gavin Clarkson more tribal autonomy and self-reliance with less
dependency on the federal government. The John-
See also Commerce Clause and Native Americans;
son O’Malley Act, also passed by Congress in 1934,
Indian Reorganization Act, 1934; Rice v.
Cayetano, 2000. provided incentives for the state’s public school
References and Further Reading systems to become involved in Indian education.
Anderson, Terry L. 1995. Sovereign Nations or This law authorized the secretary of the interior to
Reservations? An Economic History of American contract for Indian educational services with state-
Indians. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute supported schools, colleges, and universities
for Public Policy. through available grants rather than building sepa-
Canby, William C., Jr. 1998. American Indian Law in a
rate schools.
Nutshell. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West.
In 1960, President John F. Kennedy hastened the
American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life. effort to provide schools for all Indian children
Berkeley: University of California Press. through the operation of Indian schools on reserva-
Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001. tions. Congress passed the Elementary and Sec-
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and ondary Education Act in 1965, which serviced all the
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma disadvantaged youth in the United States, along
Press. with an amendment to Title I that stressed the inclu-
sion of the BIA. In addition, Titles III and IV of this
act made it possible to provide more programs for
Indian students.
American Indian The National Indian Education Advisory Com-
mittee, established by the BIA in 1967 during the
Self-Determination Johnson administration, facilitated the 1969 publica-
and Education Act of 1975 tion of Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A
The American Indian Self-Determination and Edu- National Challenge (also referred to as the Kennedy
cation Act of 1975 (P.L. 93–638) was the culmination Report). This report recommended increased Indian
of efforts by the U.S. government to end the pater- control of education, a good federal school system,
nalistic relationship between Indian tribes and the and the establishment of the National Indian Board
federal government by directing federal funding of Education. Formed in 1970, the National Indian
from governmental agencies to tribal governments. Board of Education was a combination of Indian
Several factors contributed to the evolution of teachers, educators, and scholars. That same year,
this act. President Richard Nixon announced a new era of
As early as 1824, the U.S. government began the Indian self-determination, that is, control over all
process of forced assimilation with the education of decisions affecting Indians, including education.
the American Indian in government-operated Tribally controlled community colleges began to
schools and the seizure of Indian land. When the form in 1971. The U.S. government strengthened its
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was created as a part commitment to Indian self-determination with the
of the War Department in 1842, it included the oper- passage of the Indian Education Act of 1972. This
ation of thirty-seven Indian schools. By 1870, act enabled the U.S. Department of Education to
$100,000 was authorized to fund and operate federal provide direct funds for the special needs of all
schools for Indians. In 1918, the “quantum degree of Indian students in public school systems that have
Indian blood” criteria was established to determine ten or more Indian students (now known as Title IX
who could attend the government-regulated Indian Indian Education). The National Advisory Council
schools. on Indian Education was established to monitor the

710 People v. LeBlanc, 1976
provisions of the law, prioritize programs, and eval- Those rights reserved under the treaty of 1836 were
uate Indian education throughout the federal sys- intended to be temporary. The treaty of 1855 thus
tem and to begin active work with the Indian com- provided for payments in lieu of claims for land.
munity colleges. The intentions were that the Chippewas would not
Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination continue their traditional way of life and would
and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93–638, in 1975. assimilate into white society (7 Stat. 491 [1836], 11
This act recognized Indian tribes as sovereign Stat. 621 [1856]).
nations with control over their educational pro- Albert B. LeBlanc, a Chippewa Indian, was con-
grams. Educational improvements followed the victed in the 91st District Court of fishing without a
implementation of this act, with additional money commercial license and fishing with a gill net. The
for Native schools, cultural programs in white public Chippewa circuit court affirmed. The defendant
schools, incorporation of tribal cultures and Native admitted the acts as charged but asserted that to con-
languages into the curricula, English as a second lan- vict him would conflict with a federal treaty guaran-
guage (ESL) instruction, and Indian parent support teeing to all Chippewa Indians living on the Bay
and involvement for students. Early childhood edu- Mills Indian Reservation the right to fish in the
cation initiatives were an important part of this law. Whitefish Bay area of Lake Superior, including
Amendments to the public law have included Pendills Bay, where he was fishing when he was
the establishment of the American Indian Policy arrested. The court of appeals reversed the convic-
Review Commission, the Indian Child Welfare Act tion of fishing without a license and remanded the
for Indian child custody cases, and the elevation cause to the district court for a determination as to
of tribal governments to the same level as state whether the statutory ban on gill nets was necessary
governments. to prevent a substantial depletion of the fish supply,
Helen M. Krische in which case the second conviction would be
affirmed. Both parties appealed.
See also American Indian Policy Review Commis- Both LeBlanc and Judge Nicholas J. Lambros of
sion; American Indian Self-Determination and
Education Act of 1975; Bureau of Indian Affairs
the district court ruled that the Chippewas held
(BIA); Indian Reorganization Act, 1934. reserve fishing rights in Pendills Bay according to
References and Further Reading the treaty of 1836. These rights were not surrendered
Cahape, Patricia, and Craig B. Howley, eds. 1992. in the treaty of 1855, although Pendills Bay was not a
Indian Nations At Risk: Listening to the People. part of the Bay Mills Reservation. Furthermore, the
Summaries of Papers Commissioned by the defendant was not fishing on a reservation but had
Indian Nations At Risk Task Force of the U.S. off-reservation rights based on the treaty of 1836,
Department of Education. Charleston, WV:
and therefore the conviction of fishing without a
ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Small Schools Appalachia Education commercial license was not legal. According to the
Laboratory. court, any ambiguity in interpretation was to be
Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native decided in favor of the Chippewa.
American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Because fishing was a lifeway of the Chippewa
Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona in the 1830s, the Chippewa had the right to fish off
Press. reservation. The Supreme Court of Michigan agreed:
Wilkinson, Charles. 2005. Blood Struggle: The Rise of
“Justice [James] Ryan voted to affirm the convictions
Modern Indian Nations. New York and London:
W.W. Norton. 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
People v. LeBlanc, 1976 Justice Mennen G. Williams the decisions of the U.S.
People v. Leblanc was a landmark case involving the Supreme Court regarding the construction of Indian
fishing rights affected by the treaty of 1836. treaties required the conclusion on this record that
According to the treaty, the Chippewa Indians the Treaty of 1855 did not extinguish any of the fish-
reserved the rights to fish in all waters adjoining ing rights granted the Chippewa’s in the Treaty of
the lands that were ceded by the treaty. However, 1836” [55 Mich App 684; 223 NW2d 305 (1974)
these rights were relinquished in the treaty of 1855. affirmed].

Puyallup Tribe Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 1977 711
In October 1974, the court of appeals ruled in head was an unnecessary conservation measure. Jus-
favor of the defendant based on rights dealt with in tice John Stevens delivered the opinion of the U.S.
the treaty of 1836. Both sides applied for leave to Supreme Court. The Court based its opinion on four
appeal to the Supreme Court, and this was granted. issues. First, tribal sovereign immunity could be
On May 7, 1979, in United States v. State of Michigan, invoked to protect the rights of the tribe, but from
the fishing rights of the Chippewa were recognized the decree (opinion) of Puyallup I in 1968, the state
by the Court; proper steps were to be taken by the court held jurisdiction over individual members of
secretary of the interior to protect Chippewa fishing the tribe. Second, allotment had diminished tribal
rights, thereby preempting the state’s authority to exclusivity over reservation lands granted within the
regulate fishing by tribal members (United States v. Treaty of Medicine Creek of 1854. Consequently, the
State of Michigan, 1981). tribe could not exclusively take steelhead passing
In 1985, a consent agreement for managing con- through the reservation, and the state assumed regu-
servation was worked out between the Bay Mills latory capacity over on- and off-reservation activity,
Indian Community, the Sault Ste. Marie tribe of subject to conservation measures. Third, the trial
Chippewa Indians, the Grand Traverse band of court held that, pursuant to a remand from the U.S.
Ottawa/Chippewa Indians, and the State of Michi- Supreme Court in Puyallup II (1973), the limitation
gan. In July 2000, a Chippewa Ottawa Resource placed on the tribe regarding steelhead numbers was
Authority (CORA) charter was established for con- a reasonable conservation measure. And fourth, the
servation management and supervision of the treaty tribe was advised to provide voluntarily a list of
fishing rights established in 1836. On August 31, members who could fish under treaty rights and
2000, CORA established fishing regulations for the provide statistics to ensure against erroneous state
Chippewa in Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan. regulatory enforcement.
Jean Bedell-Bailey The Department of Game of Washington State
filed a complaint in trial court against tribal mem-
See also Boldt Decision (United States v. Washington), bers who claimed immunity from state conservation
1974; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians
v. Voigt et al., 1983; Treaty with the
laws when fishing with set and drift nets for steel-
Chippewa–May 9, 1836; Treaty with the head in the Puyallup River. The tribe stated that it
Chippewa–July 29, 1837; Treaty with the had an exclusive right to fish in the river as a prop-
Chippewa–February 22, 1855; Treaty with the erty right under the treaty of 1854 and that tribal
Nisqually, Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854. sovereign immunity precluded state jurisdiction.
References and Further Reading The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, pursuant to
Bressett, Walter, and Rick Whaley. 1994. Walleye Puyallup I of 1968, individual members of the tribe
Warriors: An Effective Alliance Against Racism and
who fished off reservation were held to be under
for the Earth. Philadelphia: New Society.
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians et al., v. state jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity did not
Lester P. Voigt et al. 1983. 700 F. 2d 365. apply. Moreover, the tribe contended, the state could
Satz, Ronald. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The not regulate tribal fishing, notwithstanding state
Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa civil and criminal jurisdiction within the reservation
Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions, for most purposes. The Court ruled that, under Arti-
Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, cle 3 of the treaty of 1854, tribal members could fish
79(1).
“at all usual and accustomed places,” but only con-
comitant with “in common with all citizens of the
Territory.” Treaty exclusivity was negated, and
Puyallup Tribe Inc. under state conservation measures, the tribal man-
ner of fishing could be regulated as long as it did not
v. Department of Game discriminate against tribal members.
of Washington, 1977 Tribal sovereign immunity was applied follow-
The case concerned whether the Puyallup tribe ing Puyallup II (1973) when the state court had to
could invoke tribal sovereign immunity against state determine, first, the number of steelhead the tribe
regulatory jurisdiction over tribal fishing activity— could catch while net fishing in the river running
which included limiting the number of steelhead through the reservation; second, the identity of
fish caught by the tribe—on and off the reservation. members permitted to fish under the treaty; and
The tribe intimated that limiting the number of steel- third, the weekly reporting of steelhead numbers

712 Longet Walk, 1978
caught by the tribe. Washington State could not Longest Walk, 1978
impose jurisdiction over a tribe without tribal or
congressional consent but could limit the number of The Longest Walk was a march organized in 1978 by
steelhead caught by an individual tribal member. American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Dennis
The tribe asserted, relying on the treaty of 1854 Banks to protest congressional legislation that threat-
and federal preemption, that it and not the state had ened to abrogate Indian treaty rights. The marchers
jurisdiction over on-reservation fishing, as previous left Alcatraz, California, in February and arrived in
Puyallup decisions had decided only off-reservation Washington, D.C., in mid-July with a contingent of
issues. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tribal more than twenty-five hundred people. In addition
exclusivity had been extinguished pursuant to the to protesting anti-Indian legislation, the walk was
alienation of reservation land and all land adjoining intended to commemorate the forced removal of
the river. Moreover, nonmembers who fished within American Indians from their homelands and to raise
the reservation were under state warden supervi- awareness of past and present injustices suffered by
sion. Indian people.
The issue of imposing limitations on tribal For American Indian activists, the Longest Walk
catches was introduced in Puyallup II (1973). This was the last in a series of protests that began with the
case directed the state court to devise limits for occupation of Alcatraz Island in 1969–1971 and
catching steelhead between tribal member net fish- included the 1972 Trail of Broken Treaties, the
ing and nonmember sport fishing. Limits had to be takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) head-
“fairly apportioned.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled quarters in Washington, D.C., and the 1973 occupa-
that fair apportionment could not exist if the tribe tion of Wounded Knee. In 1977, AIM broadened its
had authority to take unlimited numbers of fish outreach and, with its “international arm,” the Inter-
within the reservation and the treaty did not allow national Indian Treaty Council (IITC), helped bring
the tribe to take every last fish. together representatives of ninety-eight indigenous
The limitation, which was necessary to deter- nations from across the Americas for a hearing on
mine steelhead numbers for subsequent years and to the rights of American Indians held before the
enforce laws if quotas were exceeded, was based on United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
the numbers of steelhead caught every season and Geneva, Switzerland. This event galvanized Indian
was applied to all members of the tribe. The activists to take action when lawmakers in Congress
Supreme Court stated that the tribe did not have to moved to enact legislation that threatened Indian
provide information to the state court regarding the treaty rights.
tribal members enjoined to fish under treaty rights Washington representative Lloyd Meeds, a
and the size of the catch. It was suggested that the member of the American Indian Policy Review Com-
tribe provide the necessary information voluntarily mission, was the leader of the movement to termi-
to prevent the risk of an erroneous state enforcement nate Indian treaty rights and sovereignty. Meeds
act. opposed the 1975 Indian Self-Determination Act and
Dewi I. Ball held that Indian people should no longer be
regarded as sovereign people. In 1977 and 1978,
See also Allotments; Medicine Creek, Washington; Meeds and his fellow congressman from Washing-
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of ton, Jack Cunningham, introduced a series of bills
Washington, 1968; Reserved Rights Doctrine;
that directed the president to abrogate all treaties
Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the Nisqually,
Puyallup, Etc.–December 26, 1854; Williams v. with Indians within a year, subjected Indians to state
Lee, 1959. jurisdiction, abolished tribal tax immunities, and
References and Further Reading extinguished Indian hunting and fishing rights pro-
Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a tected by past treaties—a matter of particular impor-
Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West. tance to commercial fishing interests in the Pacific
Pevar, Stephen L. 2002. The Rights of Indians and Northwest.
Tribes. 3rd ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
In response to this proposed legislation, Dennis
University Press.
Banks (Chippewa) organized the Longest Walk.
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Unlike previous AIM protests, the Longest Walk was
Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma a peaceful event. On July 25, the organizers held a
Press. mass rally at the Washington Monument, during

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978 713
which they delivered a manifesto entitled “Affirma- tribes do not maintain criminal authority over non-
tion of the Sovereignty of the Indigenous People of Indians because it is “in conflict with the interests of
the Western Hemisphere.” The manifesto, which the overriding sovereignty” and is inconsistent with
was read into the Congressional Record by California a tribe’s “dependent status.” The Court’s decision in
representative Ron Dellums, called for the recogni- Oliphant effectively turned on its head the funda-
tion of all indigenous peoples as nations and mental inherent sovereignty principle of federal-
demanded that the United States respect the treaties Indian law. The result of this decision, and of the
it had made with Indian peoples and the sovereignty many to follow, was the piecemeal destruction of
of American Indian tribes. Indian sovereignty.
The Longest Walk, and the attention it drew to In Oliphant, two non-Indian residents of the Port
Indian issues, helped prevent passage of the legisla- Madison Reservation were arrested by tribal police
tion of Meeds and Cunningham. The movement also after they crashed into a police vehicle, assaulted a
succeeded in raising the consciousness of Indian tribal officer, and evaded arrest. The defendants
people and in winning public recognition of Indian were released and arraigned by the tribal court. Fol-
peoples’ rights to self-determination. However, after lowing arraignment, defendants sought a writ of
the Walk the influence of AIM declined, as legal habeas corpus asserting that the tribal court lacked
actions and FBI persecution drove many of the criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. This petition
movement’s leaders into hiding. was denied by the federal district court and the U.S.
Anne Keary court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the
Ninth Circuit court’s decision and held that tribal
See also American Indian Movement (AIM).
courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-
Banks, Dennis, and Richard Erdoes. 2004. Ojibwa Indians who commit crimes on Indian reservations.
Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American The Court determined that federal [and state] sover-
Indian Movement. Norman: University of eignty interests outweigh Indian sovereignty inter-
Oklahoma Press. ests, and that tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-
Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native Indians was inconsistent with their “dependent
American Self-Determination and Federal Indian status.”
Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona
The Oliphant Court advanced its holding by
Press.
Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native:
concluding that criminal jurisdiction over non-
American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Indians posed a fundamental conflict with individ-
Oxford University Press. ual rights guaranteed by national citizenship. In
Robbins, Rebecca L. 1988. “American Indian Self- reaching this decision, the Court employed its own
Determination: Comparative Analysis and “implicit divestiture” stating, “While Congress
Rhetorical Criticism,” Issues in Radical never expressly forbade Indian tribes to impose
Therapy/New Studies on the Left, 13: 48–58. criminal penalties on non-Indians, we now make
express our implicit conclusion of nearly a century
Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from
Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press. 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 disre-
Oliphant v. Suquamish garded well-established precedent and was curi-
Indian Tribe, 1978 ously selective about the cases it chose, some of
This Supreme Court case deviated from long- which had no bearing at all. Another recurring criti-
standing federal-Indian jurisprudence and opened cism is that the Court made sweeping, unsupported
the door for subsequent decisions to further abro- generalizations regarding congressional intent in the
gate tribal sovereignty. Well over a century and half area of tribal jurisdiction over non-members and
of federal-Indian legal precedent established that cited dubious sources for support.
tribes possess inherent, territory-based powers that Oliphant marked a stark departure from the one-
are subject to divestment only by specific, unam- hundred-fifty-year presumption that Indian nations
biguous acts of Congress. In Oliphant, the Supreme possess inherent power over their territories, subject
Court strayed from this doctrine by declaring that to divestment only by a specific act of Congress.

714 United States v. Wheeler, 1978
Unlike previous Supreme Court cases, Oliphant (Dawes Act), 1887; Public Law 280, 1953;
paved the way for future courts to imply that tribal Sovereignty; United States v. Wheeler, 1978.
power exists only where Congress has expressly References and Further Reading
Getches, David H. 1979. Cases and Materials on Federal
granted it. This is quite problematic for Indian
Indian Law. St. Paul, MN: West.
nations, as it poses a direct threat to tribal govern- Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: United
mental power. Because tribal powers had presump- States Government and the American Indians.
tively been inherent for so long, Congress had little Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
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
United States v. Wheeler, 1978
the Court. The premise of the case was whether the Navajo
Montana v. United States provides a striking tribal court was an extension of the United States
example of how Oliphant has influenced future federal court and justice system. The question exam-
Courts. In Montana, the Supreme Court extended its ined and discussed in this case was whether, under
Oliphant reasoning and held that, absent a congres- the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment,
sional statute creating a particular tribal sovereign a tribal member could be brought before a federal
right, Indian nations lacked regulatory authority court under the Major Crimes Act of 1885 following
over the conduct of nonmembers on the reservation the imposition of a tribal court sentence. Three issues
unless one of two narrow exceptions was satisfied. defined this case: first, the primary role of tribal
Over the past twenty-five years, the Court has con- inherent sovereignty over the imposition of federal
sistently utilized the Oliphant-Montana rule to limit authority in dictating tribal affairs; second, whether
significantly other forms of tribal authority over a treaty enabled the tribal court to assume jurisdic-
non-Indians as well. tion and to impose a sentence that was less punitive
Oliphant has had profound practical effects on than under United States law; and third, whether, if
Indian nations, too. For one, it added to the complex- the tribal court was an extension of federal law, the
ity surrounding criminal jurisdiction over crimes Fifth Amendment would bar a retrial under the dou-
committed on Indian reservations. Following ble jeopardy rule. Justice Potter Stewart delivered
Oliphant, states maintain criminal jurisdiction over the opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court. The
certain crimes occurring on some reservations, the Court ruled that tribal inherent authority had prece-
federal government has jurisdiction over others, and dence over a federal delegation of authority. The
tribes retain authority to prosecute a limited number Navajo tribal court had jurisdiction to punish the
of crimes committed by Indians. Moreover, by not tribal member, as the tribal court was held to be an
having criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, tribes independent forum, not one originating from the
have lost their ability to effectively enforce their Constitution or from the U.S. justice system. More-
laws, and the perception that tribal law enforcement over, the tribe had never abandoned its authority to
is powerless has become all too common. punish tribal members, and the double jeopardy
Through Oliphant and its progeny, the Court has clause did not apply, for the Navajo Nation was a
systematically dismantled tribal sovereignty. Thus, separate sovereign entity.
what used to be a presumptive authority, that of a A member of the Navajo Nation was arrested on
sovereign over its respective nation, has now been October 16, 1974, by tribal police at the Bureau of
significantly undermined, if not destroyed. Accord- Indian Affairs High School in Many Farms, Arizona,
ingly, the ability of Indian nations to be recognized on the Navajo Reservation. The tribal member was
as viable and legitimate entities capable of self-rule charged with disorderly conduct in violation of Title
remains in a state of flux. 17, 351 of the Navajo Tribal Code 1969 and with con-
Ryan L. Church tributing to the delinquency of a minor in violation
of Title 17, 321 of the Navajo Tribal Code 1969. The
See also Allotments; American Indian Self-
tribal court sentenced the tribal member to fifteen
Determination and Education Act of 1975; days in jail or a fine of $30 on the first charge and to
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Domestic sixty days in jail or a fine of $120 on the second; the
Dependent Nation; General Allotment Act jail terms were to be served concurrently. Thereafter,

Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada), 1980 715
on November 19, 1975, the district court for Arizona References and Further Reading
charged the tribal member with statutory rape. The Canby, William C. 1998. American Indian Law in a
tribal member filed to remove the charge, stating Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West.
that the matter had been dealt with in tribal court, Wilkins, David E., and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. 2001.
Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and
that the court was within the remit of federal author-
ity, and that this barred a retrial under the Fifth Press.
Amendment. The district court dismissed the indict- Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987. American Indians, Time,
ment, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern
affirmed. Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale
The U.S. Supreme Court stated that a tribe’s University Press.
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 recon- Hamlet of Baker Lake
cilable with their dependent status. This affirmation v. Minister of Indian Affairs
came sixteen days after the ruling in Oliphant v.
Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), which categorically
and Northern Development
revoked the notion of tribal inherent sovereignty. (Canada), 1980
The Supreme Court ruled that the authority of the This is the first case after Calder v. Attorney-General of
Navajo to punish its own members in tribal court British Columbia (1973) that confirms the common-
was founded in treaties and in its inherent sover- law basis of aboriginal title in Canada. In this case,
eignty. the aboriginal group sought to establish substantive
The Court declared that a Navajo decree in land rights, including aboriginal title, through the
tribal court was an act of a separate and independent courts by identification and confirmation of princi-
sovereign and not an extension of the federal justice ples. The case was heard before the Federal Court of
system. Thus, the Court explicitly stated that a tribal Canada Trial Division and involved the Inuit of the
court is wholly separate from the federal system, Baker Lake area of the Northwest Territories, the
and opinions by separate sovereigns fail to bar fed- federal government of Canada, and several mining
eral prosecution under the double jeopardy clause of companies carrying out mining exploration activities
the Fifth Amendment. in the area.
The ultimate source of authority to try members The Inuit asserted an existing aboriginal title
in tribal court is based on inherent sovereignty and over an undefined area of the Northwest Territories
not on federal power. Thus, inherent authority was of Canada, including approximately seventy-eight
not created by, and does not arise from, the Constitu- thousand square kilometers around the community
tion of the United States; the tribes’ power is extra- of Baker Lake. Although the government conceded
and pre-constitutional. Treaties prescribed that tribes that the Inuit had occupied and used the area since
retained the right to punish tribal members, and time immemorial, the mining companies disputed
thus tribes have the right to self-government and to the existence of aboriginal title in the contemporary
law enforcement through criminal procedures. Inuit community or in their ancestors. Both Canada
Moreover, United States v. Wheeler was the first case and the mining companies argued that, even if
since Talton v. Mayes (1896) to be based unequivo- aboriginal title did exist, it had been extinguished
cally on Native American inherent sovereignty. The either by the Royal Charter of 1670, which granted
Supreme Court further declared that Native Ameri- Rupert’s Land to the Hudson’s Bay Company, or by
can tribes were distinguishable from cities, states, subsequent legislation incorporating Rupert’s Land
federal territories, and nations. into Canada. The Inuit argued that the mining activi-
Dewi I. Ball ties were “unlawful invasions” of their rights under
Inuit aboriginal title and, in particular, that their
right to hunt caribou had been gravely impaired.
See also Canyon de Chelly, Arizona; Oliphant v.
Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978; Plenary Power;
Justice Patrick Mahoney held that the Inuit had
Sovereignty; Treaty; Treaty with the an occupancy-based aboriginal title to the Baker
Navajo–June 1, 1868; United States v. Kagama, Lake area and that it was recognized by the common
1886. law, subject to legitimate legislative infringements.

716 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980
He outlined certain elements necessary for the estab- so strict. More than one aboriginal group may
lishment of aboriginal title before the courts: (1) occupy the same territory, in which case they may
organized society: aboriginal claimants and their be able to establish shared exclusive occupancy,
ancestors must show that they were members of an allowing joint title to the land to the exclusion of all
organized society; (2) specific territory: the orga- other groups.
nized society must have occupied the specific terri- Although compensation was not sought by the
tory over which aboriginal title is claimed; (3) exclu- Inuit in this case, Justice Mahoney did indicate that
sivity: the occupation of the specific territory must aboriginal peoples may be entitled to compensation
have been to the exclusion of other organized soci- where mining laws, used to grant private companies
eties; and (4) factual occupation: the occupation of permits to undertake exploration activities on
the specific territory must have been an established aboriginal lands, diminish aboriginal rights. This
fact at the time the British Crown asserted sover- was also an indication of how aboriginal title and
eignty over Canada. aboriginal rights may coexist with settlement or
The Baker Lake community met all these development by nonaboriginal peoples.
requirements, and the court confirmed the existence Özlem Ülgen
of their aboriginal title. Justice Mahoney concluded,
See also Aboriginal Title; Canada; Canadian Indian
“The fact is that the aboriginal Inuit had an orga-
Treaties; Calder v. Attorney-General of British
nized society. It was not a society with very elaborate Columbia (Canada), 1973; Delgamuukw v. British
institutions but it was a society organized to exploit Columbia (Canada), 1997; Inuit.
the resources available on the barrens [lands west of References and Further Reading
Hudson Bay] and essential to sustain human life Asch, Mark, ed. 1997. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in
there. That was about all they could do: hunt and Canada: Essays on Law, Equality and Respect for
fish as their ancestors did.” He continued, “[A]t the Difference. Vancouver: University of British
time England asserted sovereignty over the barren Columbia Press.
Borrows, J. 1997. “Frozen Rights in Canada:
lands west of Hudson Bay, the Inuit were the exclu-
Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster,”
sive occupants of the portion of barren lands extend- 22 American Indian Law Review 37.
ing from the vicinity of Baker Lake north and east Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Minister of Indian Affairs and
toward the Artic and Hudson Bay to the boundaries Northern Development. 1980. 1 F.C. 518.
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
Maine Indian Claims
aboriginal title had been extinguished, either by the Settlement Act of 1980
transfer of the lands to the Hudson’s Bay Company The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980
or by the subsequent admission of Rupert’s Land (MICSA), signed into law by President Jimmy Carter
into Canada. Justice Mahoney held that neither had on October 10, 1980, was the largest Indian claim
had the effect of extinguishing the Inuit’s aboriginal and the first to include provisions for land reacquisi-
title, because the Crown had not shown clear and tion. Proclaimed by many at the time as a success
plain intention to extinguish aboriginal rights. He story for the Wabanaki peoples of Maine, this contro-
explained that, “the extinguishment of their aborig- versial settlement has ignited debates about tribal
inal title was plainly not in Parliament’s mind in sovereignty versus state jurisdiction in land use,
1950. The barren lands were not, for obvious rea- tribal courts, environmental protection and enforce-
sons, being opened for settlement and so there was ment, and educational funding. Wabanaki is an all-
no reason to extinguish the aboriginal title . . . Extin- inclusive term that refers to the easternmost confed-
guishment of the Inuit’s aboriginal title is not a nec- eration of tribes, which consists of the Penobscot,
essary result of legislation enacted since 1870. The Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Mi’kmaq. Although
aboriginal title in issue has not been extinguished.” MICSA recognized aboriginal claim to 60 percent of
The decision was not appealed. Maine, or 12.5 million acres with 350,000 people, it
Some of the Baker Lake requirements were mod- extinguished aboriginal title to that land and com-
ified after Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997). pensated the Passamaquoddy tribe, the Penobscot
For example, the exclusivity principle is no longer Nation, and the Houlton band of Maliseet with $81.5

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 the Penobscot Nation had title to federal services
[AFSC] 1989, D-98–D-102). provided to other Indian tribes and that Maine pos-
Although tribal land claims in Maine surfaced sessed no authority to interfere with tribal govern-
in the 1940s, the settlement originated in 1957, when ment (Brodeur 1985, 69–141; Ghere 1984, 249).
Passamaquoddy leader John Stevens discovered a Attorney Thomas N. Tureen argued that the
copy of the tribe’s 1794 treaty with Massachusetts Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, which stipulated
that clearly defined reservation lands, including the that Congress must approve the purchase of Indian
twenty-three-thousand-acre Indian Township, the land, applied to Maine and that, therefore, several
largest reservation in New England. In 1964, when treaties between Wabanaki people and Massachu-
William Plaisted, a non-Indian Princeton resident, setts and Maine were invalid (Brodeur 1985, 82;
added to his previously acquired reservation land O’Toole & Tureen 1971, 1–39; for treaties, see Deloria
from a poker game and began to build summer cab- & DeMallie 1999, 1094–1095). During the settlement
ins, tribal members from Indian Township staged a negotiation, Wabanaki peoples experienced a harsh
peaceful sit-in to halt construction efforts. This inci- backlash from Maine citizens. After years of negoti-
dent raised awareness of more than six thousand ation, the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of
acres of Indian land that were alienated from tribal 1980, which was settled outside of court, acknowl-
ownership. In 1968, the tribe filed a lawsuit against edged that the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790
Massachusetts asking $150 million in damages. After applied to Maine and that almost two-thirds of the
several delays, the Passamaquoddy tribe filed suit in state was Indian land. From the $81.5 million com-
federal district court against the U.S. Department of pensated to the tribes, $54.5 million, of which the
the Interior. In Passamaquoddy v. Morton (1975), the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy each received $26.8
court recognized that the Passamaquoddy tribe and million, permitted each of the two tribes to purchase

718 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980
one hundred fifty-thousand acres of unorganized state officials, tribal leaders, and appointed mem-
territory in Maine, to be held in trust with the fed- bers, MITSC strives to cultivate a tribal-state rela-
eral government. A trust fund of the remaining $27 tionship “based on open communications and
million was divided between the Penobscot and mutual respect” (MITSC 1997, 13–15). Tribal govern-
Passamaquoddy, and each tribe would invest $1 ments do not interpret MICSA as a limitation of sov-
million for their elders. After MICSA’s passage, the ereign rights. Although some tribal people have
two tribes chose different ways to utilize the settle- expressed concern over the commission, MITSC con-
ment funds. Whereas the Passamaquoddy turned tinues the legacy of the Wabanaki peoples’ unique
their attention to economic development, the relationship with Maine.
Penobscot focused on land acquisition (AFSC 1989, Micah Pawling and John Bear Mitchell
B-142–B-160, D-101–D-102; U.S. Congress 1980).
The Association of Aroostook Indians achieved See also Aboriginal Title; Government-to-
the inclusion of the Houlton band of Maliseet in Government Relationship; Nonrecognized
MICSA. During the claims negotiation in 1979, the Tribes; Sovereignty; Trust Land.
Maliseet, whose homeland encompasses the valley References and Further Reading
of the Saint John River and its tributaries, protested American Friends Service Committee. 1989. The
that the Penobscot claims overlapped with their fam- Wabanakis of Maine and the Maritimes: A Resource
Book about Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet,
ily hunting territory near Houlton, Maine. MICSA
Micmacs, and Abenaki Indians. Bath, ME: Maine
provided $900,000 to finance the purchase of a five- Indian Program.
thousand-acre reservation but did not include trust Brodeur, Paul. 1985. Restitution: The Land Claims of the
money for the Maliseet (U.S. Congress 1980; Wherry Mashpee, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot Indians of
1981, 10–11). MICSA excluded the Mi’kmaq of New England. With afterword by Thomas N.
Maine, who later received federal recognition by the Tureen. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
1991 Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act. It Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie, ed. 1999.
“Treaty Between the Penobscot and
established the same compensation for the Maliseet
Massachusetts, August 8, 1796.” Documents of
in MICSA and provided a $50,000 property fund American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements,
(Prins 1996, 7–17, 213–214). and Conventions, 1775–1979, vol. 2, 1094–1095.
Although the tribes as a whole maintain mixed Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
feelings about what MICSA has brought to them, Ghere, David L. 1984. “Assimilation, Termination, or
individual family members tend to make decisions Tribal Rejuvenation: Maine Indian Affairs in the
based first and foremost on the needs of their fami- 1950s.” Maine Historical Society Quarterly, 24(2):
lies. Per capita payments distributed to tribal mem- 239–264.
Maine Indian Claims Settlement. 1979. Title 30,
bers were thought to be a forced acceptance of the
Chapter 601. Accessed July 11, 2007, at
agreement. Therefore, some tribal opponents of the http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/30/title
settlement refused to accept the payments. Critics of 30ch601.pdf.
the settlement felt that it did not respect Wabanaki Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission. January 17,
tribes as sovereign people and reduced reservations’ 1997. “At Loggerheads: The State of Maine and
status to that of municipalities. MICSA’s language is the Wabanaki.” Maine Indian Tribal-State
subject to interpretation, and the act’s ambiguity on Commission. Accessed July 11, 2007, at
http://www.mitsc.org.
several key points seems to have obscured the settle-
O’Toole, Francis J., and Thomas N. Tureen. 1971.
ment’s meaning for some tribal voters. Other tribal “State Power and the Passamaquoddy Tribe: A
people viewed the act as a step toward self- Gross National Hypocrisy?” Maine Law Review
determination and believe that the settlement’s out- 23(1): 1–39.
come was unforeseeable. Prins, Harald E. L. 1996. The Mi’kmaq: Resistance,
MICSA created the Maine Implementing Act Accommodation, and Cultural Survival. Fort
(MIA), enacted by the Maine legislature, to define Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
U.S. Congress. 1980. “Maine Indian Claims
the tribal-state relationship by establishing specific
Settlement and Land Acquisition Funds in the
laws concerning Wabanaki peoples and Indian land. U.S. Treasury.” US Code, Title 25, Chapter 19,
The MIA formed the Maine Indian Tribal-State Com- Subchapter II, 1724. Accessed July 11, 2007, at
mission (MITSC) to serve as a mediator between http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/
Wabanaki communities and Maine. Composed of uscode25/usc_sec_25_00001724——000-.html.

United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980 719
United States v. Congress’s taking of the Black Hills. In 1920, a spe-

cial jurisdictional act allowed the Sioux to take their
Sioux Nation, 1980 case to the court of claims; however, that case was
Although for Indians it was a legal victory that dismissed in 1942 as representing merely an uncom-
upheld compensable property interests, the Sioux pensable moral, rather than legal, claim. Four years
Nation case may be considered a Pyrrhic victory at later, upon establishment of the Indian Claims Com-
best. At issue in the case was the Native American mission, the Sioux brought their case again, and the
claim to the Black Hills of South Dakota and the commission found that the 1877 act had constituted
uncompensated confiscation of the Black Hills by the a taking of property that required compensation
U.S. government. The legal basis for the claim rested under the Fifth Amendment. The commission ruled
in a 112-year-old treaty. that the Indians were entitled to $17.5 million for the
The Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868 was con- land and gold taken. But the court of claims over-
cluded at the culmination of the Powder River Wars, turned this ruling on appeal, holding that the case
a series of military engagements between the U.S. had been decided in 1942 and could not be brought
Army and various Sioux tribes led by Red Cloud. again.
Article 2 of the treaty established the Great Sioux In 1978, Congress enacted a law removing the
Reservation, including the Black Hills, for exclusive res judicata bar—allowing the Sioux’s case to move
occupation and use by the Indians. And Article 12 forward. Subsequently, the court of claims agreed
mandated that no subsequent treaty could cede any with the commission’s finding and determined that
of the land reserved unless it was approved by three- the tribe was entitled to the principle sum with 5
fourths of all the adult Sioux males occupying the percent annual interest, to be calculated from 1877.
land. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority of
However, gold was discovered in the Black the Supreme Court, agreed in its 1980 review of the
Hills six years later, and pressure became intense to case, holding the government’s good-faith defense
open the areas reserved for the Sioux to exploration when dealing with the Indians insufficient to bar an
and mining. Frustrated by the refusal of the Sioux to inquiry into the factual circumstances surrounding
accept the government’s offer of $6 million or an the taking of Indian lands.
annual rental of $400,000 for the Black Hills, the sec- In a vigorous dissent, Justice William Rehnquist
retary of the interior classified those who had tem- emphasized the culpability of the Sioux, which he
porarily left the reservation to hunt as “hostile” and said received scant attention in the majority’s factual
turned management of the Sioux over to the War inquiry and which had been equal to that of the gov-
Department. The army’s campaign against the Indi- ernment in the 1870s. Quoting white settlers’
ans culminated in the slaughter of General Custer’s accounts of Indian savagery against them in the
7th Cavalry detachment at Little Big Horn by Sitting Black Hills, Rehnquist also warned against judging
Bull’s warriors, which in turn led to inevitable vic- past events by the light of current revisionist histori-
tory by the army and return to the reservation by the ans.
Sioux. Although the Supreme Court’s Sioux Nation
In August 1876, Congress attempted to force the decision found a compensable taking for land confis-
issue by enacting an appropriations measure with- cated subject to recognized Indian title, the ruling in
holding subsistence funds to the Sioux, who were by the Tee-Hit-Ton case, which found no compensable
that time dependent on the government, unless they taking for land confiscated subject to unrecognized
ceded the Black Hills. A federal commissioner was aboriginal title, still stands. Although the Sioux
dispatched to secure this trade, and another treaty Nation case accords the tribe a legal right to compen-
was presented to the Sioux and signed by 10 percent sation for the Black Hills, the Sioux have consistently
of the adult males—far short of the three-fourths refused to accept their money—holding out their
required by Article 12 of the Fort Laramie treaty. wish to get the land back instead. Thus, the Black
Nevertheless, Congress passed the 1877 act imple- Hills claim remains unresolved.
menting the new agreement, thereby legitimizing Michael J. Kelly
settlement of the Black Hills by non-Indians.
Before the 1980 Supreme Court case, the Sioux See also Fort Laramie, Wyoming; Lone Wolf v.
Nation sought twice to secure compensation for Hitchcock, 1903; Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta);

720 Constitution Act (Canada), 1982
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 1955; There was some debate in Canada over the
Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and characterization of the Métis as aboriginal people,
Northern Arapaho–May 10, 1868. which was most often used to describe the people
indigenous to the continent before European contact.
LaVelle, John P. 2001. “Rescuing Paha Sapa:
Achieving Environmental Justice by
The Canadian Supreme Court answered this ques-
Restoring the Great Grasslands and tion in 2003 when it ruled in favor of two Métis men
Returning the Sacred Black Hills to the Great from Sault Ste. Marie, Steve and Roddy Powley
Sioux Nation.” Great Plains Natural Resources (father and son) who were arrested for killing a
Journal 5: 40–101. moose “out of season.” The Powleys claimed an
New Holy, Alexandra. 1998. “The Heart of aboriginal right under the constitution to hunt for
Everything That Is: Paha Sapa, Treaties, and subsistence; the Court upheld that right but ruled
Lakota Identity.” Oklahoma City University
that it applied only to the Métis in the Sault Ste.
Law Review 23: 317–352.
Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Marie area. Other Métis groups would have to seek
Country in the Twentieth Century: American to define their own set of “aboriginal rights” in the
Capitalism and Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, courts.
CO: University Press of Colorado. Others have been doing exactly that. In a very
Lazarus, Edward. 1991. Black Hills/White Justice: important case for aboriginal peoples in the Mar-
The Sioux Nation Versus the United States, 1775 itimes, the Canadian Supreme Court recognized an
to the Present. HarperCollins.
aboriginal right to access the area’s natural resources
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371
(1980). to “secure a moderate living.” The case centered
around Donald Marshall, a Mi’kmaq, who was
arrested for catching eels “out of season” and with-
out a license. Marshall claimed that a 1760 treaty
with the British granted him such a right and that
Constitution Act (Canada), 1982 the constitution guaranteed that right. In a 1999 deci-
Canada ceased to be a colony of Britain in 1931, but sion, the Canadian Supreme Court agreed. The Mar-
it was not a truly independent country before 1982, shall case, as it has come to be known, set the stage
when Canada “repatriated” its constitution from for another constitutional challenge when Joshua
Great Britain. Before 1982, the Canadian constitution Bernard, another Mi’kmaq man, was arrested for
was a British statute and subservient to the British harvesting logs from Crown land in New
Parliament. The Constitution of 1982 contained, for Brunswick. Although his rights have been upheld in
the first time, a Charter of Rights (similar to the U.S. New Brunswick’s highest court, the province
Bill of Rights) and a recognition of the rights of appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, which
aboriginal people. ruled in July 2005, that commercial logging could
Section 35, paragraph 1 of the Constitution not be seen as an extension of the trading in which
states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal people engaged before European contact,
the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recog- a right that was upheld in the Marshall case.
nized and affirmed.” The second paragraph defines The Bernard case, while standing somewhat in
aboriginal as including “Indian, Inuit, and Métis peo- contradiction to Marshall (as they both claimed rights
ples of Canada.” under the same treaty of 1760), reflects an earlier
In Canada, Indian people are usually referred to (2001) case in which the Canadian Supreme Court
as First Nations people. Also, the term Eskimo is no also failed to recognize aboriginal rights that were
longer an acceptable characterization of the indige- upheld in the lower courts. In this earlier “pre-
nous peoples of the Far North, who prefer to be contact trade case,” the Court denied Chief Mike
referred to as the Inuit. The Métis are the third group Mitchell and other Mohawks of the Akwesasne
of aboriginal people recognized by the Canadian Reserve—which straddles the U.S.-Canada border
constitution; loosely translated, métis means simply where New York, Ontario, and Quebec meet—a
“mixed-blood” and is used to designate the descen- claimed aboriginal right to bring personal goods into
dants of intermarried indigenous and European peo- Canada without paying a duty for those goods.
ples, but only if those peoples can demonstrate that In the Mitchell case, the claim of an aboriginal
theirs is a culture that is distinct from that of main- right to “import” (for trade and personal use) goods
stream Canada. duty-free was upheld by the lower courts, but the

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al., 1983 721
Canadian Supreme Court, while agreeing that the Natural Resources for illegally fishing outside the
Mohawks had this specific aboriginal right, deter- borders of their northern Wisconsin reservation. The
mined that the granting of duty-free importation of two brothers, Fred and Mike Tribble, deliberately
goods to the Mohawks of Akwesasne would abro- challenged the state’s authority to regulate their off-
gate the sovereign right of the Canadian government reservation hunting and fishing. In 1978, a federal
to impose duties on imported goods. This was some- district court found that the tribe had relinquished
thing the Court could not do, regardless of the valid- its off-reservation treaty rights when it accepted a
ity of the “recognized and affirmed” rights of the reservation in the treaty of 1854 with the United
Mohawks. States. The appellate court reversed this decision,
According to some analysts, the Mitchell and finding that, when the Ojibwe negotiated treaties
Bernard cases “recognize and affirm” only those with the United States in 1837 and 1842, they under-
aboriginal rights that can be shown to be subservient stood that their off-reservation usufructuary rights
to the rights that the Canadian government has would be relinquished only if they harassed non-
derogated unto itself, making a mockery of those Indian settlers. The court found no evidence that the
rights that the indigenous people freely exercised Ojibwe had not lived up to their side of the treaty
before the arrival of Europeans, rights seemingly bargain. The judges determined that the tribe’s
guaranteed to them in Section 35 (1) of the Canadian treaty rights had not been extinguished by the treaty
constitution. of 1854 between the Ojibwe and the United States or
Phil Bellfy by a presidential removal order of 1850. The court
ruled that the removal order, which required the
See also Métis; Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ojibwe to vacate their Wisconsin homelands, was
Ontario; Sovereignty; Treaty; Trust.
illegal and that there had been no explicit language
Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal in the treaty of 1854 terminating the tribe’s treaty
Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: rights. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Wisconsin’s
Methuen. appeal of this decision.
Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear
Indians. Edmonton: Hurtig. the state’s appeal, the appellate court ordered the
Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: district court to define the nature of the treaty right
and the ability of the state to regulate the exercise of
Morse, Bradford, ed. 1985. Aboriginal Peoples and the the treaty right. From 1984 to 1991, the district court
Law: Indian, Métis and Inuit Rights in Canada. issued a series of decisions on the nature of the
Ottawa: Carleton University Press; Don Mills, treaty right. Based on an examination of the histori-
ON: distributed by Oxford University Press. cal 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 meth-
ods and technologies available at the time of the
Lac Courte Oreilles treaties or developed since that time. The treaty har-
vest could be used for subsistence, or the harvest
Band of Chippewa Indians could be traded and sold to non-Indians. The court
v. Voigt et al., 1983 ruled that, if the Ojibwe enacted their own hunting,
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et fishing, and gathering rules in accordance with
al. is a landmark 1983 federal appeals court decision court decisions, then the state could not regulate
that affirmed the treaty rights of six bands of Wis- Ojibwe hunters and fishers off reservation. In accor-
consin Chippewa (hereafter Wisconsin Ojibwe) to dance with this ruling, the Ojibwe established a nat-
hunt, fish, and gather on off-reservation public lands ural resource organization called the Great Lakes
in the territories they ceded to the United States in Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Other district
the treaties of 1837 and 1842. Often referred to as the court decisions determined the harvest levels of fish
Voigt Decision, this legal controversy between the and white-tailed deer on lakes and public lands of
state of Wisconsin, the Lac Courte Oreilles, and five the ceded territory. The court ruled that the treaty
other Wisconsin Ojibwe bands began in 1974, when right did not involve a right to harvest commercial
two brothers from the Lac Courte Oreille Ojibwe timber and that sovereign immunity protected the
band were arrested by the Wisconsin Department of state from Ojibwe claims for millions of dollars

722 United States v. Dion, 1986
compensation for the loss of their treaty rights from The defendant in this case, a member of the
the 1880s until 1983. Yankton Sioux tribe, was convicted for shooting four
In reaction to the Voigt Decision and the bald eagles on the reservation, in violation of the
Ojibwe exercise of their off-reservation treaty Endangered Species Act and the Eagle Protection
rights, anti-Indian treaty rights groups emerged in Act. The defendant relied on a treaty in 1858
northern Wisconsin during the 1980s. Groups such between the Yankton Sioux and the United States
as Equal Rights for Everyone, Protect American’s which ceded all but four hundred thousand acres of
Right and Resources, and Stop Treaty Abuse orga- land to the United States and removed the Yankton
nized large, sometimes violent protests at the off- to a reservation in exchange for the federal govern-
reservation boat landings where Ojibwe spearfish- ment’s guarantee of the Indians’ continued quiet and
ers launched their boats during their spring undisturbed possession of their reserved land and
spearfishing season. The organized protests ended an annual stipend. No restriction was placed on
in the early 1990s, and today the Ojibwe exercise hunting rights of the Yankton Indians, and all parties
their treaty rights in a relatively quiet and routine to the litigation agreed that the treaty vested an
manner. In the spring of 2003, the Wisconsin exclusive right in them to hunt and fish on their
Ojibwe spear-fished 27,522 walleye from 175 ceded land.
territory lakes. They also speared 220 muskellunge. However, Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing
In 2002, they harvested 1,019 white-tailed deer. In for the majority, did not accept the view that prior
addition to their harvest of game fish and deer, the treaty rights were impervious to later statutory abro-
Ojibwe harvest bear, fur-bearing animals, water- gation. After noting that statutes and treaties are
fowl, turkey, various wild plants, maple syrup, fire- coequal articulations of federal law under Article VI
wood, and balsam. of the Constitution and that, in general, the later in
Steven E. Silvern time controls, Justice Marshall explained that, in spe-
cial regard to Indian treaties (as opposed to foreign
See also Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
treaties), a higher standard of subsequent statutory
Commission; Reserved Rights Doctrine.
References and Further Reading abrogation is required. Specifically, Congress’s intent
Bressett, Walter, and Rick Whaley. 1994. Walleye to abrogate Indian treaty rights must be clear and
Warriors: An Effective Alliance Against Racism and plain, although it need not be expressly stated in the
for the Earth. Philadephia: New Society. statutory language itself. “What is essential is clear
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians et al. v. evidence that Congress actually considered the con-
Lester P. Voigt et al. 1983. 700 F. 2d 365. flict between its intended action on the one hand and
Satz, Ronald. 1991. “Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to
Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa
Indians in Historical Perspective.” Transactions,
resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty” (U.S. v.
Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, Dion 1986).
79(1). The Eagle Protection Act of 1962 establishes a
Silvern, Steven. 1999. “Scales of Justice: Law, blanket prohibition on killing bald eagles, making
American Indian Treaty Rights, and the Political such action a federal crime. However, the act also
Construction of Scale.” Political Geography 18(6): contains an elaborate permitting scheme, whereby
639–668. American Indians can apply to the Department of
the Interior for a permit to take bald eagles for reli-
gious purposes. The secretary of the interior may
issue such permits on a discretionary basis. Absent
United States v. Dion, 1986 such a permit, the taking of a protected eagle by an
The 1986 Supreme Court decision in United States v. American Indian, even for an ostensibly religious
Dion stands for the proposition that American Indi- purpose, remains illegal.
ans may continue to rely on rights secured to them The Court found that the existence of this per-
in treaties with the United States, even if those rights mitting scheme in the act was itself clear evidence
were secured two hundred years ago, unless there is that Congress believed that it was abrogating Indian
clear evidence that Congress actually considered the treaty rights to take eagles and that the scheme was
right implicated in the treaty and affirmatively chose designed to solve the problem of the act’s applica-
to abrogate that portion of the treaty with a later tion to Indians. The Court also decided that, because
statute. the Endangered Species Act of 1972 was silent

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988 723
regarding Indian hunting rights but prohibited (IGRA). Although many observers believe that IGRA
exactly the same conduct for the same reasons, it did granted Native nations new rights and unfair advan-
not need to be analyzed but in fact worked together tages, in fact the act constrained their sovereignty as
with the Eagle Protection Act to abrogate the earlier it introduced novel regulatory schemes. The legisla-
Indian treaty rights to take bald eagles. tion responded to the Cabazon decision, which
Thus, the Court concluded, “Dion here asserts a allowed tribes to operate card games, and it became
treaty right to engage in precisely the conduct that the foundation of IGRA.
Congress, overriding Indian treaty rights, made Gambling has ancient roots in Native America,
criminal in the Eagle Protection Act. Dion’s treaty serving important economic, social, and recre-
shield for that conduct, we hold, was removed by ational functions in many communities. During the
that statute, and Congress’ failure to discuss that more than five hundred years in which Native
shield in the context of the Endangered Species Act Americans have interacted first with Europeans
did not revive that treaty right” (U.S. v. Dion 1986). and later with European Americans, non-Native
Seven years later, in United States v. Bourland, religious and political leaders have looked down
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, upon indigenous games of chance. Gradually, in
used the standard in Dion to conclude that Congress response to dwindling federal funding during the
had abrogated the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe’s second half of the twentieth century, some Ameri-
original treaty rights to regulate hunting and fishing can Indian tribes began to conceive of gambling as
by non-Indians on Indian land when those lands a means of economic development and social sur-
were essentially taken for a federal water project vival. They turned first to such games as bingo and
under the Flood Control Act—which provided for later experimented with cards, lotteries, and pari-
general recreational use of the water bodies by the mutuel. Although these developments were small-
public. Justice Thomas’s reasoning was that hunting scale and varied among tribes, they often conflicted
and fishing were recreational uses and, therefore, with state laws and put Native American opera-
Congress intended non-Indians to avail themselves tions into competition with an increasingly lucra-
of that use equally with Indians. tive gaming industry. Consequently, attorneys gen-
Justices Harry Blackmun and David Souter vig- eral and legislators worked to curtail Indian
orously dissented, accusing the majority of misap- operations, despite the fact that such efforts ran
plying the Dion standard and pointing to a clear lack contrary to established roles and relationships
of evidence that Congress had considered the con- between states and tribes. Court decisions in the
flicting treaty rights and decided to abrogate them. late 1970s and early 1980s did little to ease the ris-
Consequently, although the correct interpretation of ing tensions, affirming the capacity of tribes to
the Dion standard remains in doubt (narrow or establish gaming while prompting states to seek
broad), judges continue to find the basic premise of more favorable federal intervention.
its test useful. In the early 1980s, Congress began to formulate
Michael J. Kelly a legislative compromise, emphasizing initially the
control of tribal operations. After years of debate and
See also Plenary Power; Treaty. lobbying, IGRA was passed, which displeased states,
tribes, and the gaming industry precisely because it
Diekemper, Tracy A. 1995. “Abrogating Treaty Rights
Under the Dion Test: Upholding Traditional
sought to balance competing interests.
Notions that Indian Treaties Are the Supreme IGRA envisioned gambling as a promising
Law of the Land.” University of Oregon Journal of opportunity that would at once encourage “eco-
Environmental Law & Litigation 10: 473–497. nomic development, self-sufficiency, and strong
South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). tribal government.” The act endeavored to make
United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986). tribal communities the primary beneficiaries of gam-
bling enterprises. It instructed that revenues be spent
on public services, charitable endeavors, or per
capita distributions. The act also contained provi-
Indian Gaming Regulatory sions to protect tribal gaming from organized crime.
Act, 1988 It created the National Indian Gaming Commission
In October 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed (NIGC) to oversee the implementation of its intricate
into a law the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act rules and ambitious objectives.

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 advanced by individual states. Furthermore, it
required distinct forms of regulation. Class I games, affirmed a long paternalist tradition that renders
or traditional games played in association with tribes dependents and wards of the state rather than
social and ceremonial occasions for prizes of limited independent, equal, and empowered nations.
value, fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of tribal In the wake of IGRA, gambling has become an
governments. Class II games included bingo, lotto, increasingly powerful force in Indian country and
and related games of chance and were controlled by American culture. It has fostered the establishment
the tribes and the NIGC. Class III gaming, or casino of numerous gaming operations, encouraging eco-
gaming, included slot machines and table games and nomic development and cultural preservation. It has
were subject to joint tribal and state regulation, pro- also exacerbated social problems while contributing
vided that a tribal government could negotiate a to anti-Indian sentiments. Moreover, IGRA has
compact with a state government granting them per- diminished tribal sovereignty. On the one hand, the
mission for such operations. If states balked, tribes act has furthered popular resentment toward and
could sue them in federal court, compelling them to misunderstandings of sovereignty, in which the act
participate in negotiations in good faith or submit to is seen as an entitlement that gives Native Ameri-
mediation. cans unfair advantages and inappropriate rights not
The compromises central to IGRA, particularly available to all Americans. On the other hand, judi-
its efforts to balance states’ rights and sovereignty, cial decisions have undermined the tribal rights even
diminished the capacity of tribal government to more. In 1996, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four
exercise self-rule. In fact, in many ways IGRA asserts decision, ruled that tribes could not sue states in
that indigenous claims to dominion and self- court, limiting the capacity of tribes to compel states
determination were less significant than the claims to open compact negotiations to appeals to the secre-

Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, 1990 725
tary of the interior, while granting states the ability Penalties for noncompliance are severe. Those
to override tribal decisions and desires. In a very real who knowingly traffic (sell, purchase, use for profit,
sense, IGRA typifies recent policy shifts that both or transport for sale or profit) in Indian human
affirm the reality of sovereignty but work to limit it. remains or cultural items can be fined and impris-
C. Richard King oned for up to a year. Subsequent violations carry
prison terms up to five years. The penal provisions
See also Sovereignty; Statutes as Sources of Modern
of NAGPRA have been upheld against individual
Indian Rights: Child Welfare, Gaming, and
Repatriation; Treaty; Trust Doctrine; Trust traders by federal courts.
Responsibility. Until 1996, NAGPRA encountered very little
References and Further Reading resistance from the scientific community in either its
Eadington, William R., ed. Indian Gaming and the Law. terms or application. Most human remains and bur-
Reno, NV: Institute for the Study of Gambling ial items were only a couple of centuries old, were
and Commercial Gaming. easily traceable to living lineal descendants as
Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathryn R. L. Rand. 2005.
grandparents or great grandparents or their personal
Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino
Compromise. Lawrence: University Press of
items, and could be returned and reburied in a
Kansas. respectful manner. However, a discovery in that year
Mason, W. Dale. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal on the banks of the Columbia River in Kennewick,
Sovereignty and American Politics. Norman: Washington, changed this dynamic.
University of Oklahoma Press. A skeleton recovered there by local anthropolo-
gist Jim Chatters was first analyzed under direction
of the county medical examiner according to the
assumption that it was a one-hundred-and-fifty-year-
old white pioneer—due to the skull’s distinctive Cau-
Native American Graves casoid, rather than Native American, physical traits.
and Repatriation Act, 1990 Then, Chatters found a stone spear point embedded
Thousands of American Indian human remains and in the pelvis. This raised the issue of age. Carbon dat-
funerary objects passed into the collections of non- ing determined that Kennewick Man, as he came to
Indian museums and federal agencies during the be known, was actually 9,300 years old. Conse-
course of America’s westward expansion. Much of quently, the new question became, What was a per-
that assemblage occurred pursuant to looting and son with Caucasoid physical traits doing in that part
grave desecration. Native Americans, in general, of North America almost ten thousand years ago?
accord great spiritual significance to the bones of The scientific community very much wanted
their ancestors; consequently, efforts were made dur- this question answered. However, the Native
ing the height of the Indian rights movement in the American community did not, and they had NAG-
1980s to reclaim this lost heritage. The Native Ameri- PRA on their side. Because Kennewick Man was
can Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) discovered on aboriginally occupied land (areas
was the culmination of the Phoenix Dialogue, a historically occupied by Indians), a coalition of
series of discussions among Native Americans, local tribes led by the Umatilla Indians were able to
museum officials, anthropologists, antiquities deal- lay claim to the bones under NAGPRA. The federal
ers, and government agencies that sought to restore government, which had custody of the skeleton
American Indian skeletons and burial objects to their because it was found in a navigable waterway,
respective tribes for reinternment. complied and agreed to turn over the remains for
NAGPRA, therefore, mandates return of these reburial.
items to culturally affiliated tribes, whether the items Acting quickly to forestall this loss to science, a
exist in federally funded museums or government group of eight anthropologists filed suit in Oregon’s
agencies or are newly discovered on federal or tribal federal district court to enjoin the government’s
land. Museums and agencies are tasked with cata- handover. After six years of legal wrangling, the
loging, identifying, and then repatriating the human judge overturned an administrative decision by Inte-
remains and funeral objects in their holdings. More- rior Secretary Bruce Babbitt affirming the earlier
over, remains and objects newly uncovered—for agency decision to repatriate the bones based on the
instance, due to new construction or inadvertent dis- oral history of the local tribes—that they had occu-
covery—must be identified and repatriated as well. pied that land forever, and therefore this must be one

726 Self-Government Agreements (Canada)
of their ancestors, regardless of his physical charac- For thousands of years prior to European settle-
teristics. ment, Canada’s aboriginal peoples practiced their
The judge’s decision allowing the scientists to own forms of government. However, with the
study the remains before repatriation, however, was arrival of European settlers to the continent, every-
stayed pending appeal of the case to the Ninth Cir- thing changed. Assimilationist colonial policy, aimed
cuit Court of Appeals. That case is unresolved as of at integrating Canada’s First Nations into Canadian
this writing, and the status of Kennewick Man colonial society, contributed to the erosion of aborig-
remains in limbo. For American Indians, the spiri- inal governments and placed aboriginals under the
tual importance of returning their ancestors to the rule of colonial governments. Historic agreements
ground, no matter how far removed, cannot be over- such as the Numbered Treaties and the Indian Act
stated. Neither can one casually undermine science’s (1867) denied sovereignty and self-government to
ability to use such remains to unlock ancient myster- Canada’s aboriginal peoples.
ies of the peopling of North America. Though there has always been opposition from
NAGPRA fails to resolve this inherent conflict in both aboriginal and nonaboriginal peoples to the
its application to ancient remains, and it offers little state’s denial of aboriginal sovereignty, the
concrete guidance to federal judges whose task it is post–World War II period in Canada was marked by
to arrive at a just solution. Nevertheless, NAGPRA intense struggle for aboriginal self-government. The
continues to be regarded as successful when applied postwar period saw renewed emphasis on techno-
to relatively recent human remains and funeral logical, ecological, and infrastructural development
objects. in Canada. In many instances, these attempts to
Michael J. Kelly develop the nation placed the government in direct
conflict with groups of aboriginal peoples who
See also American Indian Movement (AIM); demanded recognition of their rights to land and
Federally Recognized Tribes; Indian Country;
Supremacy Clause.
title as well as sovereignty and self-government.
References and Further Reading Although the right to self-government was regularly
Bonnichsen v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (Dist. denied to aboriginal peoples across the country, a
Ct. Or. 2002). few self-government agreements were approved.
Kelly, Michael J. 1999. “A Skeleton in the Legal These include those for the Cree, Nakaspi, and Inuit
Closet: The Discovery of ‘Kennewick Man’ of Northern Quebec under the James Bay and North-
Crystalizes the Debate over Federal Law ern Quebec Agreement (1975) and the Northeastern
Governing Disposal of Ancient Human
Quebec Agreement (1978); the Sechelt Indian Band
Remains.” University of Hawaii Law Review 21:
41–67. of British Columbia under the Sechelt Indian Band
Ragsdale, John W. 2001. “Some Philosophical, Self-Government Act (1986); and the seven Yukon
Political and Legal Implications of American First Nations under the Final Umbrella Agreement
Archeological and Anthropological Theory.” of 1993.
UMKC Law Review 70: 1–53. Importantly, none of these self-government
United States v. Corrow, 941 F. Supp. 1553 (Dist. Ct. treaties was explicitly covered by Section 35 of the
N.M. 1996).
Constitutional Act, 1982, the section pertaining to
United States v. Kramer, 168 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 1999).
the rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. In 1995,
on the basis of promises made during the 1993 elec-
tion campaign, the governing Liberal party estab-
lished the Inherent Right to Self-Government policy,
Self-Government Agreements which affirmed that the right to sovereignty and
(Canada) self-government was, indeed, an existing right
Beginning in 1993, the government of Canada nego- within Section 35 of the Constitution Act. The policy
tiated and established for the first time constitution- determined that Canada’s aboriginal peoples were
ally protected self-government treaties with several to be given authority and/or jurisdiction in all mat-
of Canada’s First Nations, treaties that affirmed the ters considered internal and integral to aboriginal
right of these aboriginal groups to govern them- groups, and any matters deemed essential to main-
selves and restored to them the power to pass laws taining these aboriginal governing bodies. Aborig-
and make decisions on issues that were internal and inal governments, however, would not be granted
integral to these culturally distinct communities. sovereignty in the sense of sovereign independent

Cobell Case, 1996 727
states; they would work in conjunction with the Russell, Dan. 2000. A People’s Dream: Aboriginal Self-
government of Canada, which would continue to Government in Canada. Vancouver: University of
assume jurisdiction over matters pertaining to British Columbia Press.
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 provin-
Cobell Case, 1996
cial governments and aboriginal peoples, and each On June 10, 1996, Elouise Cobell, a member of the
of them would contribute financially to the negoti- Blackfeet tribe, led a group to file a class action law-
ated aboriginal governments. This policy was suit against the U.S. government. Originally known
important because it clearly defined self-govern- as Cobell v. Norton, subsequently as Cobell v. Babbitt,
ment as a constitutionally protected right of aborig- and finally as Cobell v. Kempthorne, the plaintiffs
inal peoples, and constitutional protection provided alleged that the federal government had made a
a considerable roadblock to those who might chal- series of enormous mistakes, failing in its responsi-
lenge this right. Indeed, only the government of bility to keep accurate records of American Indian
Canada can amend Section 35 and thus deny abo- accounts held in trust by the United States.
riginals the right of self-government. This is the largest law suit brought by Native
The first direct implementation of this consti- peoples against the United States to date. The plain-
tutionally protected right of aboriginal self- tiff claimed that Indian trust accounts affect an esti-
government occurred in 1998 with the Nisga’a Final mated 250,000 American Indians. Cobell has also
Agreement, which covered the Nisga’a of British claimed that the amount of money affected is esti-
Columbia and was ratified by all parties in 2000. mated at anywhere from $50 billion to perhaps as
Framework agreements (agreements pertaining to high as $176 billion. Although the amount has yet to
issues to be discussed during negotiations) and be determined, the case is important because it is
agreements-in-principle (nonratified agreements) premised on the federal government’s broad-scale
have been established with many aboriginal groups, negligence in its handling of the monies of Native
and final agreements (those which are ratified and Americans.
ready to be made effective through federal and Based on the 374 treaties signed between Ameri-
provincial legislation) have been established with can Indian tribes and the U.S. government, a trust
the Ta’an Kwach’an Council of the Yukon (2002), the responsibility of the highest degree is to be main-
Tlicho of the Northwest Territories (2002), the Klu- tained by both sides of a treaty. Hence, the federal
ane First Nations of the Yukon (2003), the Anish- government holds accounts for Indian tribes and
naabe (2004), and the Kwalin Dun First Nation of the individual Indian people based on treaties that were
Yukon (2005). The first stand-alone self-government signed years ago.
agreement was concluded in 2003 by the Westbank In 1778, the U.S. government negotiated its
First Nation of British Columbia. first treaty with an Indian tribe, the Delaware.
Robyn Bourgeois Nearly four hundred treaties and agreements were
made before an appropriations act passed in 1871
See also Canadian Indian Treaties; Modern stopped the treaty-making process, although
Treaties/Comprehensive Land Claims
agreements were made thereafter. The treaties and
Agreements (Canada); Nacho Nyak Dun Final
Agreement–May 29, 1993; Nisga’a Final agreements were official only after ratification by
Agreement–April 27, 1999; Northeastern Congress.
Quebec Agreement–January 31, 1978; Since its filing in 1996, the Cobell case has
Sovereignty; Tribal Government Authority encountered name changes, changes of judges, and
versus Federal Jurisdiction; Vuntut Gwitchin political criticism in the media. As of 2007, the case is
Final Agreement–May 29, 1993. still in the federal court with no decision in the near
future. It is certain to be a landmark decision in fed-
eral-Indian relations, and measures will need to be
Methuen. put in place for the safekeeping of American Indian
Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s trust accounts.
Indians. Edmonton, AL: Hurtig. Donald L. Fixico

728 R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996
See also Indian Appropriations Act, 1871; Treaty; cient independent significance to establish an aborig-
Treaty with the Delaware–September 17, 1778; inal right to exchange fish for money or other goods.
Trust. Therefore, it was not an aboriginal right protected
References and Further Reading under Section 35(1).
Although the claim to an aboriginal right to
American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University commercial fishing failed in this particular case, the
of California Press. possibility of its existence in other aboriginal com-
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1994. American Indian Treaties: munities was not ruled out. The court developed the
The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, Los “integral to distinctive culture” test, which requires
Angeles, and London: University of California an aboriginal group to prove that a particular prac-
Press. tice, custom, or tradition is integral to their culture in
St. Germain, Jill. 2001. Indian Treaty-Making Policy in
order for it to be recognized as an aboriginal right
the United States and Canada 1867–1877. Lincoln
and London: University of Nebraska Press. 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
R. v. Van der Peet (Canada), 1996 land and resources under the “integral to distinctive
This case was part of a trilogy of cases (the other two culture” test. One of the factors that courts must take
were R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd. [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 into account in applying the test is the perspective of
and R. v. Gladstone [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723) relating to aboriginal peoples, including their oral history.
aboriginal commercial fishing rights in British The court also outlined some important princi-
Columbia that were decided before the Supreme ples in the general adjudication of aboriginal rights
Court of Canada. cases. The intent and and purpose of Section 35(1) of
In this case, Dorothy Marie Van der Peet, from the Constitution Act of 1982 is recognition and rec-
the Sto:lo community, was charged with selling ten onciliation. It recognizes the prior occupation of
salmon caught under the authority of an Indian food North America by aboriginal peoples and seeks to
fish license, contrary to British Columbian provincial reconcile the preexistence of aboriginal societies with
legislation prohibiting the sale or barter of fish the Crown’s sovereignty. The court clearly identified
caught under such a license. The lower courts found aboriginal title and rights as arising from the exis-
against her, and she then appealed to the Canadian tence of distinctive aboriginal communities occupy-
Supreme Court. She claimed an aboriginal right to ing “the land as their forefathers had done for cen-
sell fish and that the provincial legislation infringed turies,” a finding reached earlier in Calder v.
this right, which was constitutionally protected Attorney-General of British Columbia. The Chief Justice
under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, explained that aboriginal rights are “distinctive”
which states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty because of aboriginal prior occupation of lands,
rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby “and this fact, above all others, separates aboriginal
recognised and affirmed.” peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian
Delivering the decision for the majority of jus- society and which mandates their special legal and
tices on August 22, 1996, Chief Justice Antonio constitutional status.” Also, the Crown has a fidu-
Lamer dismissed Van der Peet’s claim to an aborig- ciary obligation toward aboriginal peoples and must
inal right to sell. The evidence was insufficient to act honorably and in good faith. This obligation
establish a network of Sto:lo trade in fish prior to extends to all aboriginal peoples whether or not on
contact with Europeans. The court accepted that reserves or aboriginal title lands.
fishing for food and ceremonial purposes was a sig- The case has been criticized for taking a “frozen
nificant and defining feature of the Sto:lo culture, to rights” approach to aboriginal rights in requiring
which Van der Peet belonged. However, this was not precontact evidence of a practice, custom, or tradi-
sufficient to demonstrate that the exchange of tion integral to the group’s culture. But the court did
salmon was an integral part of Sto:lo culture. Van not rule out the possibility of aboriginal rights con-
der Peet had to prove that the exchange itself was taining a commercial aspect to them, and this
integral to Sto:lo culture. The exchange of salmon as depends on the evidence presented at court in each
part of interaction of kin and family was not of suffi- case. Thus, aboriginal fishing rights, including

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Canada), 1997 729
aboriginal commercial fishing rights, if they exist on occupation—the claimant group must show physical
the facts of the case, have not been extinguished in occupation of the land through factors such as
British Columbia, as was held in R. v. Gladstone. dwellings, cultivation or enclosure of fields, regular
Özlem Ülgen use of definite tracts of land for hunting, fishing, or
exploitation of resources; (3) continuity—where it is
See also Aboriginal Title.
difficult to show pre-sovereignty occupation of the
Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land: Aboriginal land, the claimant group may rely on present occu-
Rights and the Canadian Constitution. Toronto: pation so long as they can show substantial connec-
Methuen. tion between the people and the land; and (4) exclu-
Barsh, Russel Lawrence, and James Youngblood sivity—the claimant group must show intention and
Henderson. 1997. “The Supreme Court’s Van der capacity to retain exclusive occupation and control
Peet Trilogy: Naïve Imperialism and Ropes and over the land.
Sand,” 42 McGill Law Journal 994.
For the first time in legal history, the court out-
Borrows, John. 1997. “Frozen Rights in Canada:
Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster,”
lined the source and content of aboriginal title.
22 American Indian Law Review 37. Aboriginal title is defined as the right to exclusive
Cardinal, Harold. 1977. The Rebirth of Canada’s use and occupation of land for a variety of pur-
Indians. Edmonton, AL: Hurtig. poses, which need not be aspects of those aboriginal
Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First Nations: practices, customs, and traditions that are integral to
A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times. distinctive aboriginal cultures. This allows for dif-
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ferent forms of development activity, including min-
R. v. Van der Peet (1996) 2 S.C.R. 507.
eral rights, nontraditional uses of land, and com-
mercial exploitation. The court confirmed that the
source of aboriginal title is prior occupation of lands
by aboriginal peoples, and preexisting systems of
Delgamuukw v. British aboriginal law: “The first is the physical fact of occu-
Columbia (Canada), 1997 pation, which derives from the common law princi-
On December 11, 1997, the Supreme Court of ple that occupation is proof of possession in law . . .
Canada issued its landmark decision in Delgamuukw [because possession was before the assertion of
v. British Columbia. The critical issue was whether the British sovereignty] . . . this suggests a second
Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en people had aboriginal source for aboriginal title—the relationship between
title to the vast tracts of land comprising their terri- the common law and pre-existing systems of aborig-
tory in British Columbia. It is the leading Canadian inal law.”
case on aboriginal title, marking the beginning of The court also outlined an “inherent limitation”
Canada’s definitive judicial recognition of aboriginal to aboriginal title: lands cannot be used “in a manner
title, its source and content. that is irreconcilable with the nature of the attach-
The actual court hearing took 356 days, ment to the land which forms the basis of the
included oral testimony from aboriginal peoples, group’s claim to aboriginal title.” For example, land
and was the culmination of several years of litigation used mainly as hunting grounds cannot be used for
in the lower courts. The court did not actually decide strip-mining, as this would destroy the land’s value.
the nature and content of the Gitksan and Wet’- This recognizes the continuing importance of land to
suwet’en aboriginal title because there were eviden- aboriginal groups and their value systems. As
tiary problems in establishing its existence in any trustees of the land, they preserve its use and
part of their territory. However, the court gave a resources for future generations. The court clearly
strong indication that it favored resolution of the stated that this limitation is not intended as a “legal
matter through negotiations undertaken in good straitjacket on aboriginal peoples who have a legiti-
faith by all parties. mate legal claim to the land.”
Importantly for future aboriginal claimants, the Another restriction on aboriginal title is its
court identified several requirements for the proof of inalienability, that is, it cannot be sold, transferred,
aboriginal title, including its content and nature: (1) or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown:
historical occupation—the aboriginal claimant group “[A]lienation would bring to an end the entitlement
must show that it occupied the land at the time the of the aboriginal people to occupy the land and
Crown asserted sovereignty over it; (2) physical would terminate their relationship with it . . . the

730 Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, 1999
inalienability of aboriginal lands is, at least in part, a treaty purporting to abrogate the usufructuary rights
function of the common law principle that settlers in of the treaty of 1837. The third was Minnesota’s
colonies must derive their title from Crown grant admission to the Union in 1858 under the Minnesota
and, therefore, cannot acquire title through purchase Enabling Act, which claimed to extinguish the
from aboriginal inhabitants. It is also, again only in usufructuary rights of the Chippewa established in
part, a function of a general policy ‘to ensure that the treaty of 1837. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
Indians are not dispossessed of their entitlements’.” Article V of the 1837 treaty, which guaranteed
In balancing the needs of aboriginal and non- usufructuary rights of the Chippewa, were not abro-
aboriginal peoples, the court also discussed the pos- gated on the land ceded to the United States. The
sibility of legitimate Crown infringement on aborig- Court was divided five to four in favor of the
inal title lands where there is a valid legislative Chippewa, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor deliv-
objective with a compelling and substantial purpose: ered the opinion of the Court.
“[T]he development of agriculture, forestry, mining On July 29, 1837, a treaty was signed by several
and hydroelectric power, the general economic Chippewa bands, including the Mille Lacs band,
development of the interior of British Columbia, pro- ceding land in present-day Minnesota and Wiscon-
tection of the environment or endangered species, sin. The treaty conveyed land to the United States in
the building of infrastructure and the settlement of return for twenty annual payments of money and
foreign populations to support those aims, are kinds goods. The integral part of the treaty for this partic-
of objectives that are consistent with this purpose ular case was Article 5, which guaranteed the
[reconciliation] and, in principle, can justify the Chippewa the right to hunt, fish, and gather on
infringement of aboriginal title.” ceded lands at the pleasure of the president of the
Özlem Ülgen United States. Thereafter, pressure mounted for the
removal of the Chippewa from the ceded lands, and
See also Aboriginal Title; Nisga’a Final
on February 6, 1850, President Zachary Taylor
Agreement–April 27, 1999.
References and Further Reading issued an executive order commanding the
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. 1997. 3 S.C.R. 1010. Chippewa to move from the ceded lands and
Elliott, D.W. 1998. “Delgamuukw: Back to the revoked their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights
Court?” 26(1) Manitoba Law Journal 97. guaranteed under the treaty of 1837. Land acquisi-
McNeil, Kent. 1998. “Defining Aboriginal Title in the tion was fundamental to the United States, and in
90’s: Has the Supreme Court Finally Got It the treaty of 1855 it acquired land from the
Right? Twelfth Annual Roberts Lecture, March
Chippewa and set aside a reservation for the tribe.
25, York University, Toronto, Ontario.
Ülgen, Özlem. 2000. “Aboriginal Title in Canada:
In 1858, Minnesota joined the Union, and it was
Recognition and Reconciliation,” 47 Netherlands believed that, under the “equal footing doctrine”
International Law Review 146. and the Minnesota Enabling Act, its entry extin-
guished all Native American rights guaranteed by
treaty.
In 1990, the Mille Lacs band and several mem-
bers sued Minnesota, its officials, and the Depart-
Mille Lacs Band v. Minnesota, ment of Natural Resources. In the mid-1990s, other
1999 Wisconsin bands of Chippewa joined the suit. The
The premise of this case was whether an 1837 treaty district court held that the Chippewa retained their
that guaranteed hunting, fishing, and gathering usufructuary rights under the treaty of 1837 and
rights for the Mille Lacs Band (Chippewa) was extin- resolved several resource allocation and regulation
guished through three separate but interlinked deci- issues. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
sions. The first decision was an executive order affirmed.
issued by President Zachary Taylor in 1850 abrogat- The Supreme Court held that the president did
ing the usufructuary rights—a special property right not have the authority to issue the removal order,
according to which one party (Mille Lacs Band) has because it did not arise from the Indian Removal Act
the right to utilize and enjoy the profits and advan- of 1830, he failed to obtain Chippewa consent, and
tages of something belonging to another (United the executive order did not evolve from the Consti-
States), so long as the property is not damaged or tution or an act of Congress. Furthermore, the
altered in any way. The second decision was an 1855 removal order of 1850 issued by the president was

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Apology, 2000 731
inseverable from the section of the order purporting Satz, Ronald N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The
to abrogate Chippewa usufructuary rights, and thus Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa
it was invalidated. The court stated that the treaty of Indians in Historical Perspective. Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and
1837 did not authorize the removal order, it did not
Letters.
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. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
The Supreme Court held that the treaty of 1855 Public Apology, 2000
did not extinguish the usufructuary rights guaran-
On September 8, 2000, Kevin Gover, assistant secre-
teed under the treaty of 1837. The Court’s reasons
tary of the interior for Indian affairs, made history. In
were that the treaty of 1855 did not mention the
his capacity as the highest federal official directly in
treaty of 1837 or usufructuary rights, and its purpose
charge of federal-Indian affairs, Gover made a public
was only to cede land to the United States and not to
apology to American Indians in a ceremony recog-
extinguish the usufructuary rights guaranteed in
nizing the 175th anniversary of the establishment of
1837.
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which was
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the
founded as the Office of Indian Affairs. The Bureau
Chippewa did not relinquish their usufructuary
of Indian Affairs received its current name in 1947.
rights on Minnesota’s entry into the Union in 1858.
At present, Kevin Gover, a Pawnee, is a lawyer
The Court’s reasons were that Congress had not
and a professor of law at Arizona State University.
clearly expressed the abrogation of usufructuary
Under the Clinton administration, Gover was
rights and that Minnesota’s Enabling Act had failed
appointed to serve as assistant secretary from 1997 to
to mention the rights. The Supreme Court ruled that
January 2001.
a tribe’s treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather on
In his statement, Gover made it clear that he
state land can coexist with state natural resources
did not speak for the U.S. government but only for
management and are not implicitly terminated at
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for which he was
statehood, and the Senate did not intend to termi-
empowered to speak. He pointed out that the
nate the rights guaranteed under the treaty of 1837
Indian Office was started during a time when
when Minnesota was admitted to the Union.
the United States was at war with Indians, and that
The Supreme Court issued a decision that pro-
the agency had set out to destroy Native peoples;
tected the fishing, hunting, and gathering rights of
Sand Creek, for example, illustrated the deliberate
the Chippewa guaranteed to them in the treaty of
actions taken to harm Indians. Gover advised that
1837. Moreover, this is the first Supreme Court deci-
the beginning of the twenty-first century repre-
sion to protect Native American treaty rights since
sented a prime time for reconciliation and for
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983), and the
showing greater respect for Indian tribes and their
Chippewa were vindicated in pursuing a judgment
people. Such past atrocities would never happen
in favor of their treaty rights, originally guaranteed
again, according to Gover.
to them more than 162 years ago.
In retrospect, Assistant Secretary Gover’s apol-
Dewi I. Ball
ogy was the first of its kind and an extraordinary
ending to 175 difficult years of BIA paternalism
See also Dodge, Henry; Indian Removal Act, 1830; toward American Indians. American Indians had
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of endured war, suffering, and poor health conditions
Washington, 1968; Sandy Lake, Minnesota;
while the U.S. government often worked against
Sovereignty; Treaty.
References and Further Reading Indian communities. In the end, Indian people and
Danziger, Edmund, Jr. 1979. The Chippewas of Lake their tribal governments did more than just survive;
Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma they now prosper in a period known as the era of
Press. Indian self-determination.
Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country Donald L. Fixico
in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and
Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, CO: University See also Black Kettle; Indian Self-Determination;
of Colorado Press. Trust; Trust Responsibility.

732 Rice v. Cayetano, 2000
References and Further Reading promote such self-determination as a function of

Dippie, Brian. 1982. The Vanishing American: White race under the auspices of the state.
Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy. Lawrence: Until 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaii was a sepa-
University Press of Kansas. rate sovereign nation and entered into a number of
Iverson, Peter. 1998. “We Are Still Here”: American
treaties with the United States, first in 1826 and sub-
Indians in the Twentieth Century. Wheeling, IL:
Harlan Davidson.
sequently in 1849, 1875, and 1887 (Clarkson 2002). It
Tyler, S. Lyman. 1973. A History of Indian Policy. is important to note that all of the treaties between
Washington, DC: United States Department of the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. treated Native Hawaiians as a collective political
Wilkinson, Charles. 2005. Blood Struggle: The Rise of entity, not as an ethnic group.
Modern Indian Nations. New York: W.W. With tacit assistance from the United States, the
Norton. monarchy was illegally overthrown by nonindige-
nous 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
Rice v. Cayetano, 2000 lands were ceded to the United States. As with the
In Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), the Supreme Indians on the mainland, the United States also
Court invalidated the State of Hawaii’s definition of assumed a trustee relationship over the Native pop-
“Native Hawaiian” for purposes of voting in an ulation, with similarly disastrous results. By 1920, it
election of the board of trustees of the Office of was clear that Hawaii’s Native population was not
Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). OHA administers pro- faring well.
grams benefiting two subclasses of Hawaiian citi- Rather than restoring the land base to a Native
zenry: Hawaiians and Native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian political entity, however, Congress
Hawaiian state constitution limited the right to vote enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
for the nine OHA trustees and the right to run in the (HHCA), whereby two hundred thousand acres of
statewide election for the position of OHA trustee to former Crown lands were set aside for the purpose
those two subclasses. The court held that, because of leasing homesteads to individual Native Hawai-
the definitions of these subclasses were racial rather ians for a nominal fee. Similar in purpose and effect
than political in nature, the voting restrictions vio- to the General Allotment Act, the well-intentioned
lated the Fifteenth Amendment. HHCA was overwhelmed by the ambitions of others
At first glance, it appears that the rights of yet who coveted the lands. As with allotment, much of
another group of indigenous inhabitants of this the land given to the Native Hawaiians was of poor
nation were trampled upon. A closer inspection of quality.
the case reveals, however, that the Native Hawai- Hawaii became a state in 1959, and Congress
ians were, instead, victims of a constitutionally ceded its trust responsibility to the state, along with
faulty remedial infrastructure that was based on 1.2 million acres intended for, among other things,
their race rather than their inherent sovereignty as the betterment of the conditions of the Native
indigenous people. The crux of the majority opinion Hawaiians. In 1978, Hawaii established the OHA to
was that the voting restrictions were both racially implement its trust obligation. Unfortunately, the
defined and imposed by the state and thus were OHA was not the result of a government-to-
constitutionally impermissible. Although the major- government relationship with a Native Hawaiian
ity opinion did not elucidate acceptable alternatives, political entity but was instead based on racial defin-
it implies that, had the voting restrictions been itions of “Native Hawaiian” or “Hawaiian.” These
based on membership in a Native Hawaiian politi- particular race-based classifications would be the
cal entity, and had that entity, rather than the State linchpin in the case against the racially exclusive sys-
of Hawaii, been the administrator of the resources tem of election of the OHA board of trustees.
controlled by OHA, it is likely that the outcome Harold “Freddy” Rice descended from pre-
would have been favorable to the Native Hawai- annexation residents of the islands, but because he
ians. The constitutional defect identified by the was neither “Native Hawaiian nor “Hawaiian,” his
majority was not an attempt to provide a measure of application to vote in the OHA election was denied.
self-determination for Native Hawaiians; rather, the Rice sued Governor Ben Cayetano, arguing that the
defect was a faulty infrastructure that attempted to voting restriction violated the Fifteenth Amendment.

National Museum of the American Indian, 2004 733
The state argued that Native Hawaiians were ton, the territorial governor, raised a local militia and
just as “Native” as Indians on the mainland and had planned the attack on the Indians.
a similar trust beneficiary relationship, and thus the The result was a devastating assault on the
Court’s prior rulings, specifically Morton v. Mancari, Cheyenne and Arapahoe, who were led by Peace
would allow for special programs for Native Hawai- Chief Black Kettle of the Cheyenne and Chief White
ians, such as OHA. The district court agreed, as did Antelope of the Arapahoe. The two tribes were
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Voting directed to camp near Fort Lyon in southeast Col-
seven to two, however, the Supreme Court reversed orado, where they were regarded as peaceful Indi-
the Ninth Circuit, holding that the OHA voting ans. On that winter morning, the Indian encamp-
restriction violated the Fifteenth Amendment. ment under a white flag of truce was attacked by
The aftermath of Rice v. Cayetano was twofold. Chivington and his men. They killed and then muti-
The non-Native interests in Hawaii initiated litiga- lated the bodies of almost the entire camp, slaughter-
tion to further erode the trust responsibility and ing women and children as well.
infrastructure of the State of Hawaii, while certain The Cheyenne and Arapahoe responded in
Native Hawaiian groups sought a legislative remedy revenge, leading to more bloodshed between Indi-
that would finally establish a government-to-gov- ans and whites. Initially, Chivington was exalted
ernment relationship with the United States. locally as a hero, but realists viewed the attack as a
Gavin Clarkson massacre of peaceful Indians. This infamous event
became a main point in the correction of wrongs
See also General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887;
against Native people, as noted by historians and
Morton v. Mancari, 1974.
References and Further Reading also acknowledged in Assistant Secretary Kevin
Clarkson, Gavin. 2002. “Not Because They Are Gover’s apology to American Indians on behalf of
Brown, but Because of It: Why the Good Guys the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2000.
Lost in Rice v. Cayetano, and Why They Didn’t Donald L. Fixico
Have to Lose.” Michigan Journal of Race and Law
2: 318–362. See also Black Kettle; Chivington, John Milton; Treaty
Cohen, Felix S., and Rennard Strickland, eds. 1982. with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–October 28,
Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1867.
Charlottesville, VA: Michie. References and Further Reading
Kapilialoha MacKenzie, Melody. 1991. Native Berthrong, Donald J. 1976. The Cheyenne and Arapaho
Hawaiian Rights Handbook. Honolulu: University Ordeal: Reservation and Agency Life in the Indian
of Hawaii Press. Territory, 1875–1907. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Berthrong, Donald J. 1963. The Southern Cheyenne.
Hatch, Thom. 2004. Black Kettle: The Cheyenne Chief
Sand Creek Massacre Site Who Sought Peace but Found War. John Wiley.
Vestal, Stanley, ed. 1934. Early Days among the
Return, 2002 Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians. Norman:
On May 6, 2002, by federal legislation, the U.S. gov- University of Oklahoma Press.
ernment 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
National Museum of the
in Congress in 2002. American Indian, 2004
This infamous incident happened during the The result of a massive effort, the National Museum
early morning on November 29, 1864. It was not an of the American Indian (NMAI) opened in Wash-
act of misunderstanding but a deliberate decision to ington, D.C., on September 21, 2004. NMAI is a part
inflict suffering and death on Indians in the same of the Smithsonian Mall and displays Native Amer-
area where Colorado settlers harbored ill feelings ican history and cultures representing the entire
toward Native peoples. Cheyenne and Arapahoe Western Hemisphere. The collections at NMAI
warriors defended their homeland against white set- comprise an estimated eighty thousand artifacts of
tlers who desired their land. Colonel John Chiving- Native peoples.

734 Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act, 2005
Rick West, a Cheyenne attorney, was the found- increases the importance of all energy resources on
ing director of NMAI. West was successful in raising the continent.
funding for the new museum, and he promoted In addition to its tribal focus, the Council of
NMAI in the media very well. His leadership proved Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) will play an impor-
to be invaluable in getting NMAI off the ground and tant role in the development of tribal resources.
in building positive relationships with tribal muse- Founded in Denver in 1975 by twenty-five tribes
ums and other museums throughout the country. As holding such energy resources as coal, oil, uranium,
of this date, West is retiring from the directorship, timber, and water, CERT presently has a member-
and NMAI is off to a strong start. ship of fifty-three tribes, including a few Canadian
The National Museum of the American Indian First Nations groups.
enjoys a national and international reputation as an Indian tribes hold more than one-third of the
increasing number of people in the United States coal in the West on reservation lands, as well as large
and the world become interested in Native peoples. amounts of oil, especially in Wyoming and Okla-
In the early years of the twenty-first century, scholars homa. Timber-rich areas are in Wisconsin, Oregon,
in Finland, England, New Zealand, Australia, Ger- and Washington. As the largest coal-producing tribe,
many, and Japan have exhibited impressive schol- the Navajos are particularly affected by this legisla-
arly knowledge of American Indians and have sent tion, followed by the Crow, the second-largest coal-
visitors and college students to NMAI to learn about producing tribe. The Blackfeet of Montana develop
Indian people and their diverse cultures. fifty million barrels of oil per year. In 2004, holdings
Donald L. Fixico of the Ute and Southern Ute in northeast Utah
accounted for nearly 36 percent of oil sold from
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Native
Indian leases, and Shoshone and Arapaho holdings
American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act, 1990; Sacred Sites; Sovereignty; Treaty. in Wyoming accounted for 21.54 percent. The Osage
References and Further Readings in Oklahoma continue to hold impressive amounts
Jacobson, Lisa, ed. 2006. “Review Roundtable: The of oil under their lands. The Colville Confederated
National Museum of the American Indian.” The Tribes maximize timber resources and are one of the
Public Historian: A Journal of Public History, 28(2): top tribal groups harvesting timber. The Warm
47–90. Springs of Oregon own and operate Warm Springs
Messenger, Phyliss Mauch, ed. The Ethics of Collecting
Power Enterprises, the largest hydropower company
Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose
Property? Albuquerque: University of New
in Oregon, and the Flathead tribes of Montana (Con-
Mexico Press. federated Salish and Kootenai Tribes) have timber
Nagel, Joane. 1996. American Indian Ethnic Renewal: industry sales.
Red Power and the Resurgence of Identity and The Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determina-
Culture. New York and Oxford: Oxford tion Act will have major impact on all 562 federally
University Press. recognized tribes, and nearly sixty tribes possess
energy resources that the nation needs. An impor-
tant part of the self-determination development
includes water, especially in the West and South-
Indian Tribal Energy west. Finally, the act will profoundly affect the devel-
and Self-Determination Act, 2005 opment of Indian sovereignty and tribal governance.
In August 2005, President George W. Bush signed Donald L. Fixico
into law the Energy Policy Act. Title V of this law is
known as the Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determi- See also Indian Water Rights and Treaties; Property:
nation Act. After several delays, Congress enacted Land and Natural Resources; Treaty.
this timely legislation. References and Further Readings
The Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determina- Ambler, Marjane. 1990. Breaking the Iron Bonds: Indian
Control of Energy. Lawrence: University Press of
tion Act focuses on improving relations between
Kansas.
tribes and the federal government, giving tribal gov- Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country
ernments more control over the development of in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and
tribal lands. Energy resource management is essen- Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, CO: University
tial to the tribes as accelerating climate change Press of Colorado.

Seminole Tribe of Florida Purchase of Hard Rock Café, 2007 735
Wilkinson, Charles. 2004. Blood Struggle: The Rise of tecting the tribes from organized crime; and the
Modern Indian Nations. New York and London: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) became law
W.W. Norton. 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
Seminole Tribe of Florida the small tribe with much internal programmatic
Purchase of Hard Rock Café, development. It is indeed a time of Indian self-
2007 determination for the Seminoles, who, ironically,
On April 7, 2007, the Seminole tribe of Florida numbered as few as 350 after the Third Seminole
bought Hard Rock International Restaurants for War (1855–1858). Although the majority of the tribes-
$965 million. In doing this, the Seminoles became the people were removed to Indian Territory to become
owners of the chain of Hard Rock Cafés, which are the Oklahoma Seminoles, those who fought to
spread throughout the United States. This business remain in Florida have prospered impressively.
transaction made the Seminoles a tribe with nation- Donald L. Fixico
wide investments.
See also American Indian Self-Determination and
By purchasing this restaurant chain, the Florida
Education Act of 1975; Indian Country; Indian
Seminoles became a national mega-casino tribe oper- Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988; Sovereignty;
ating in more than one state. By 2005, the total profit Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights:
made by tribes involved in Indian gaming was more Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation;
than $20 billion. Of the more than two hundred Treaty.
tribes involved in gaming, only 20 percent are con- References and Further Readings
sidered mega-casino tribes—tribes that earn about Ambrose I. Lane, Sr. 1995. Return of the Buffalo: The
80 percent of the total revenue generated by gaming. Story Behind America’s Indian Gaming Explosion.
Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
The Florida Seminole are now among them.
Eadington, William R. 1990. Indian Gaming and the
The Seminoles of Florida started the Indian Law. Reno, NV: Institute for the Study of
gaming industry, which began in the late 1970s with Gambling and Commercial Gaming.
a bingo operation in the southern tip of the state. In Eisler, Kim Isaac. 2001. Revenge of the Pequots: How a
the Butterworth court case, the State of Florida unsuc- Small Native American Tribe Created the World’s
cessfully sued the Seminole for operating illegally. Most Profitable Casino. New York: Simon &
The court decided in favor of the Seminole, finding Schuster.
Kersey, Harry A., Jr. 1996. An Assumption of
that the tribe’s operation of a bingo game on their
Sovereignty: Social and Political Transformation
treaty reservation was immune from state regula- among the Florida Seminoles, 1953–1979. Lincoln:
tions and laws. Unregulated bingo as an industry University of Nebraska Press.
then spread to other tribes, such as the Pequot of Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathryn R. L. Rand. 2005.
Connecticut, who visited the Florida Seminoles for Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino
advice. Compromise. Lawrence: University Press of
Unregulated Indian gaming led to the introduc- Kansas.
Mason, W. Dale. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal
tion of legislation during the same time that the
Sovereignty and American Politics. Norman:
Cabazon tribe of southern California became University of Oklahoma Press.
involved in a lawsuit, which they won. Again, Northrup, Jim. 1997. The Rez Road Follies: Canoes,
Indian sovereignty was protected by a court ruling, Casinos, Computers and Birch Bark Baskets. New
which compelled Congress to pass legislation pro- York: Kodansha America.

Biographies
Adair, William P.
(1829–1880)
William P. Adair was an assistant chief of the Chero-
kee 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 impor-
tant, 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 rela-
tions 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 invest-
ments 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 Confeder-
acy. 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 orga-
nized by General Albert Pike. He gained a measure

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 mat-
ters 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. Marlon Brando (left) gives 40 acres of land to Hank Adams
References and Further Reading (1943–), an Assiboine-Sioux and head of the Survival of Ameri-
Conley, Robert J. 2005. The Cherokee Nation: A can Indians Association in 1974. Adams, a participant in the
History. Albuquerque: University of New fish-ins of the 1960s and the Trail of Broken Treaties in 1972, has
Mexico Press. helped to protect Native American rights in legislatures and the
Everett, Dianna. 1990. The Texas Cherokees: A People courts. (Bettmann/Corbis)
Between Two Fires, 1819–1840. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press. U.S. senators, whom he acquainted with Native
King, Duane K. 1979. The Cherokee Indian Nation:
American issues.
A Troubled History. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press. 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
Adams, Hank protesting Washington State’s policies regarding
(1943–) them.
Hank Adams is an Assiniboine-Sioux political Adams was born on the Fort Peck Indian Reser-
activist, leader, and organizer who was important in vation in Montana at a place known as Wolf Point,
the struggle over Indian fishing and treaty rights in which was commonly referred to as Poverty Flats.
the Northwest section of the United States during He was very active in Moclips High School in Mon-
the 1960s and 1970s. tana, where he was student body president, editor of
Although the activism of Adams dates to his the school newspaper, and a member of both the
high school days, he began to be noticed when he football and the basketball teams. His interest in pol-
became involved with the Democratic Party in the itics was emphasized after his graduation from high
early 1960s. A supporter of John F. Kennedy and a school and his move to California, but his activist
campaign worker for Robert Kennedy’s presidential career began in April 1964, when he refused induc-
bid in 1968, it was Adams’s work with citizens’ tion into the U.S. Army until Indian treaty rights
rights advocate Ralph Nader that gave him access to were recognized. His attempt failed, and he ulti-

American Indian Movement (AIM) 739
mately served in the army, but this helped authenti- Brand, Johanna. 1993. The Life and Death of Anna Mae
cate his political commitment. After serving in the Aquash. Toronto: James Lorimer.
army, Adams joined the fight for Indian fishing Cahn, Edgar S. 1975. Our Brothers’ Keeper: The Indian
rights in the Northwest. As chairman of the National in White America. New York: New American
Library.
Indian Youth Council’s Washington State Project,
Caldwell, E. K. 1999. Dreaming the Dawn:
Adams organized fish-ins and demonstrations Conversations with Native Artists and Activists.
protesting the state’s policies on Native American Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
fishing rights. In the early 1960s, Adams and other Chaat, Paul, and Robert Warrior. 1996. Like a
Native Americans claimed that the treaties signed in Hurricane: The Indian Movement From Alcatraz to
the 1850s guaranteed them the right to fish at tradi- Wounded Knee. New York. New Press.
tional sites. State officials, sport fishermen, and com- Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. 1988. Agents of
Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars against the Black
mercial fishermen disagreed, and this led to serious
Panther Party and the American Indian Movement.
confrontations over fishing rights. Boston: South End Press.
In 1964, Adams helped organize a march on the Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing
Washington State capitol in Olympia. The march Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights.
included a thousand Native Americans and the actor Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Marlon Brando. This demonstration captured the Cornell, Stephen. 1988. Return of the Native: American
public’s attention and was followed by other Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford
University Press.
marches and fish-ins. In 1968, Adams became the
Fortunate Eagle, Adam. 1992. Alcatraz! Alcatraz! The
director of the Survival of American Indians Associa- Indian Occupation of 1969–1971. Berkeley, CA:
tion, a local western Washington organization con- Heyday Books.
cerned primarily with Native American fishing Johnson, Troy R., ed. 1994. Alcatraz, Indian Land
rights. Forever. Los Angeles: University of California
The struggle for the recognition of Indian treaty American Indian Studies Center.
fishing rights was strengthened with a decisive vic- Johnson, Troy. 1996. The Occupation of Alcatraz Island:
tory when federal judge George Boldt ruled in favor Indian Self-Determination and the Rise of Indian
Activism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
of the Native Americans in a landmark Supreme
Johnson, Troy, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne,
Court case, United States v. Washington, in 1974. The eds. 1997. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to
judge ruled that treaty Indians were entitled to 50 the Longest Walk. Urbana: University of Illinois
percent of the commercially harvested catch in Press.
Washington State. The Boldt Decision, as it is called, Josephy, Alvin, Jr., Joane Nagel, and Troy Johnson,
forced the state of Washington to recognize Native eds. 1999. Red Power: The American Indian’s Fight
American treaty fishing rights. for Freedom. Lincoln and London: University of
Nebraska Press.
Although he was not always in the limelight,
Kahn, Edgar S. 1969. Our Brother’s Keeper: The Indian
Adams was given credit for developing the Twenty in White America. New York: New Community
Points that were presented to the White House at the Press.
tragic Trail of Broken Treaties in 1972; he also served Steiner, Stan. 1968. The New Indians. New York: Delta
as a negotiator between the White House and the Books.
Freedom Fighters of Wounded Knee. Stern, Kenneth. 1994. Loud Hawk: The United States
Adams has had numerous articles published in versus The American Indian Movement. Norman:
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 pri-
mary elections as a congressional candidate.
American Indian Movement
Fred Lindsay (AIM)
The American Indian Movement (AIM) was formed
in 1968 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to protest police
1974; Trail of Broken Treaties; Wounded Knee
Occupation, 1973.
brutality. Founders of AIM included Clyde Belle-
References and Further Reading court, Dennis Banks, and George Mitchell. The
Blue Cloud, Peter, ed. 1972. Alcatraz Is Not an Island. movement became one of the most important and
Berkeley, CA: Wingbow Press. prominent Native American protest organizations,

740 American Indian Movement (AIM)
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, orga-
nized largely by AIM, specifically sought to call
public attention to the history of broken treaties
between the U.S. government and Native Ameri-
can 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 honor-
ing of any particular treaty, AIM called for a return
to the treatment of Native American tribes and
Members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) beat a nations as sovereign people. This reflected the pan-
drum in support of their cause during the 1973 occupation of Indian nature of AIM as it evolved. The social
Wounded Knee, South Dakota. AIM’s flag is displayed behind protest movement of the younger generation of
the group. (Corbis/Bettmann-UPI) Native Americans who were represented in AIM
tried to construct an “American Indian” identity
based on a history shared across tribes of poor
campaigning on many issues affecting Native Amer- treatment and the continual breaching of treaty
icans. The honoring of treaty rights was foremost rights. AIM also fostered cultural pride and cele-
among their demands. brated Native American culture and heritage.
AIM began as an urban organization in re- In calling for treaty rights, AIM envisioned com-
sponse to urban issues. It was part of the social plete sovereignty for Native Americans and the
protest movements of the 1960s insofar as its tactics return of confiscated lands. Their radicalism made
and some of its rhetoric and concerns were inspired the U.S. government decidedly uncomfortable and
by other civil rights movements. Most significantly, even hostile. Nor was AIM’s view shared by all
it was inspired by the African American protest Native Americans. In response to the Trail of Broken
organization the Black Panthers, which called for Treaties, the Nixon administration declared that
“Black Power.” “Red Power” became an important treaty making between the U.S. government and
part of the rhetoric and ideology of AIM. Native Americans had been forbidden by Congress
AIM was most prominent and influential in in 1871. The Native American demand for self-
Native American affairs in the early 1970s. Some of determination—the right of Native Americans to run
the important and high-profile campaigns organized the programs that affected their lives and to par-
by or participated in by AIM included the occupa- ticipate in shaping government policies—was
tion of Alcatraz Island in 1969, the Trail of Broken addressed by the federal government in the Ameri-
Treaties in 1972, and the occupation of Wounded can Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of
Knee in 1973. After the controversial and violent 1975. Rather than sovereignty, self-determination has

American Indian Policy Review Commission 741
continued to be the more persistent and more promi- The commission consisted of eleven officers:
nent demand of Native Americans. three senators, three congressmen, and five Ameri-
Since the 1970s, AIM has continued to function can Indian representatives—three from federally rec-
as an important Native American political organiza- ognized tribes, one from a non-federally recognized
tion, although perhaps more locally than nationally. tribe, and one representing “urban Indians.” The
AIM has campaigned for civil rights and other issues commission established eleven different task forces.
affecting local Native American communities, for Each task force conducted extensive review of partic-
example, education, stereotypes of Native Ameri- ular federal policy areas, such as the federal-tribal
cans in the media, job training, and fishing rights. relationship, tribal governments, Indian education,
Yet AIM’s concern to bring treaty rights and the sov- Indian health, and reservation and resource develop-
ereignty issue to public attention has been and con- ment and protection, then reported its findings to the
tinues to be an important part of the history of Policy Review Commission. As the commission’s
Native American political activism. work progressed, the need became clear for a full
Amanda Laugesen Senate committee with oversight and legislative
authority to receive the commission’s report and act
See also American Indian Self-Determination and on its recommendations. In fact, one of the commis-
Education Act of 1975; Sovereignty; Trail of
Broken Treaties; Wounded Knee Occupation,
sion’s final recommendations was the creation of a
1973. special Indian affairs committee in the Senate.
References and Further Reading Accordingly, the Committee System Reorganization
American Indian Cultural Support. AIM and Amendments of 1977 included a provision to estab-
Wounded Knee II Documents, 1973–1983. lish a temporary Select Committee on Indian Affairs
Accessed February 8, 2005, at http://www having jurisdiction over all proposed legislation and
.aics.org/WK/index.html (c.1999). other matters relating to Indian affairs.
Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native
The Indian Policy Review Commission submit-
American Self-Determination and Federal Indian
Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona ted its major recommendations to Congress in May
Press. 1977. The commission proposed replacement of the
Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with an independent
American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Indian agency, and that the new agency contract
Oxford University Press. directly with tribes for the same services then pro-
Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996. vided by the BIA. Although experts and policy-
Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from
makers continue to debate the commission’s legacy,
Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.
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
American Indian Policy the concept of sovereignty—that is, tribal self-
Review Commission governance—than anything since the Nixon admin-
In 1973, Senator James Abourezk (South Dakota) istration’s development of a plan to strengthen tribal
introduced Senate Joint Resolution 133, a bill provid- autonomy and economic development in 1970.
ing for the establishment of a federal commission to Nixon’s plan led eventually to the passage of the
review all aspects of U.S. policy, law, and administra- American Indian Self-Determination and Education
tion relating to the affairs of American Indian tribes. Act on January 4, 1975. The Policy Review Commis-
Congress passed the resolution on January 2, 1975, sion also felt that procedures should be “established
creating the American Indian Policy Review Com- so that all tribes will be guaranteed their unique rela-
mission. Congress charged the commission with tionship with the United States.” The report then rec-
reviewing federal policy toward Indians and report- ommended specific criteria for the formal recogni-
ing their findings. Specifically, Congress directed the tion of tribes not then recognized by the federal
commission to analyze “the historical and legal government.
developments underlying the Indians’ relationship Two critical developments arose immediately
with the Federal Government and . . . the nature and from the commission’s recommendations. First, in
scope of necessary revisions in the formulation of 1977, the Senate established the Committee on Indian
policy and programs for the benefit of Indians.” Affairs, making it a temporary select committee

742 Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou
set to disband at the close of the 95th Congress. Brown, Anthony D. 1979. New Directions in Federal
However, following several term extensions, on June Indian Policy: A Review of the American Indian
6, 1984, the Senate voted to make the committee per- Policy Review Commission. Los Angeles:
University of California American Indian
manent. This committee has full authority to study
Studies Center.
the unique issues facing American Indian, Native Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To Show Heart: Native
Hawaiian, and Alaska Native peoples and to propose American Self-Determination and Federal Indian
legislation to deal with these issues. Essentially Policy, 1960–1975. Tucson: University of Arizona
following the Policy Review Commission’s task Press.
forces, these issues include, but are not limited to,
Indian education, economic development, land man-
agement, trust responsibilities, health care, and
claims against the United States. Second, in 1978
Congress outlined and adopted a set of specific crite- Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou
ria for federal recognition and created a subagency (1945–c. 1975)
within the BIA to accept and address formal petitions Anna Mae Pictou Aquash was one of the leading
for recognition. women of the American Indian Movement (AIM) in
However, aside from laying the foundations for the early 1970s. Anna Mae Aquash was a staunch
the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and advocate for American Indian rights. Despite her
the current federal recognition process in 1978, Con- many endeavors as an activist, however, she is
gress did not enact the commission’s recommenda- often remembered for her untimely and mysterious
tions. This failure was in some measure due to the murder on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
departure of key legislative sponsors, such as Sena- Dakota.
tor James Abourezk, as well as to a backlash from Born to Mi’kmaq parents on March 27, 1945,
several western legislators who feared that their con- near Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, Anna Mae, along
stituencies would feel threatened by greater tribal with her two older sisters and younger brother,
sovereignty. Nevertheless, certain commission rec- spent much of her youth in poverty. Her father,
ommendations gradually influenced policymakers. Francis Thomas Levi, left the family before Anna
For instance, by the late 1980s Congress had autho- Mae’s birth. Her mother, Mary Ellen Pictou, married
rized the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Noel Sapier four years later, and the family moved to
Project, which transferred significant administrative Pictou Landing, a Mi’kmaq reserve in Nova Scotia.
functions (as well as funding) from the BIA to Sapier practiced traditional craftwork and instilled
selected federally recognized tribes. In essence, the into his stepdaughter a sense of her heritage and
self-governance project implemented some of the culture. While at Pictou Landing, Anna Mae con-
commission’s original views. Thus, despite lacking tracted ocular tuberculosis, which ultimately spread
many immediate results in 1977, the American to her lungs and, although treated, left her temporar-
Indian Policy Review Commission set forth a new ily weakened and in ill health. Sapier died in 1956,
vision of the federal-Indian relationship, a vision and Mary Ellen Pictou abandoned her children to
that continues to attract increased political support. marry another man. Anna Mae’s insecure family life,
C. S. Everett combined with the racial taunts from her non-Indian
schoolmates, had a detrimental effect on her sec-
ondary school grades. She attended Milford High
See also American Indian Self-Determination and
Education Act of 1975; Bureau of Indian Affairs School but dropped out at the end of the ninth
(BIA); Federally Recognized Tribes; Nixon’s grade.
Message to Congress, July 8, 1970; Sovereignty. In 1962, Anna Mae journeyed to Maine to work
References and Further Reading the potato and berry harvest and then moved to
American Indian Policy Review Commission. 1977. Boston with Jake Maloney, another Mi’kmac Indian.
Final Report Submitted to Congress, May 17, 1977. She secured a job at the Elvin Selow sewing factory,
[Microfilm]. Washington, DC: Government
while Jake opened a karate school. In June 1964, the
Printing Office.
American Indian Policy Review Commission.
couple had their first child, Denise, followed by Deb-
1977–1978. Meetings of the American Indian Policy orah seventeen months later. Desiring to raise their
Review Commission. [Microfilm.] Washington, daughters in a more traditional setting, Anna Mae
DC: Government Printing Office. and Jake moved to New Brunswick, Canada, where

Aquash, Anna Mae Pictou 743
they formally married at Richibucto and settled on est in traditional Mi’kmaq ribbon shirts, and Anna
the Mi’kmac reserve. Mae foresaw the sale of these colorful shirts as a
In 1969, the couple’s marriage ended, and Anna fund-raising enterprise for AIM.
Mae returned to her job at the sewing factory. She With the conclusion of her exhibit in May 1974,
also did volunteer work at the Boston Indian Coun- Anna Mae, now separated from her husband,
cil, an organization she helped to create. Among moved to the Twin Cities of Minnesota, where she
other things, the council strove to help the city’s made ribbon shirts and worked for the Red School
Indian population avoid alcohol abuse, a problem House, the AIM survival school in St. Paul, and for
with which Anna Mae, too, struggled in the after- AIM’s central office in Minneapolis. There, Anna
math of her marital difficulties. In 1970, Anna Mae Mae became closely associated with Dennis Banks
heard about the American Indian Movement’s and soon became a national AIM leader. In the fall,
planned national day of Indian mourning at the she traveled to Los Angeles to help establish an AIM
350th anniversary celebration of the arrival of the office on the West Coast. In January 1975, along with
Pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Choosing to two fellow workers from the Los Angeles office,
participate in the protest that November, her inter- Dino Butler and his future wife, Nilak (Kelly Jean
est in Indian activism was piqued as she listened McCormick), Anna Mae journeyed to Gresham, Wis-
enthusiastically to Russell Means’s oratory. Anna consin, to aid the Menominee Warrior Society in
quit her job at Elvin Selow and moved to Bar Har- their short-lived takeover of an unused abbey (the
bor, Maine, where she taught in the Teaching and society hoped to convert the building into an Indian
Research in Bicultural Education School Project health center). After leaving Gresham, she organized
(TRIBES) until its funding expired. In 1971, she a benefit concert in St. Paul for AIM survival schools
returned with her daughters to Boston and entered before moving briefly to Rosebud, South Dakota,
the New Careers program at Wheelock College. and then to Oglala on the Pine Ridge Reservation
Anna Mae began teaching at the experimental Rug- near Tent City, the AIM encampment on the prop-
gles Street Day Care in the district of Roxbury, a pre- erty of the Jumping Bull family. AIM members were
dominantly black community in the city. Offered a there in reaction to growing tensions on the reserva-
scholarship to Brandeis University, she chose tion between tribal chairman Dick Wilson and
instead to continue her work with urban Indians Lakota traditionalists. Anna Mae became involved in
and helped initiate the Boston Indian Council’s job community work with local women and began to
placement program with the General Motors plant develop plans for a comprehensive cultural history
in Framingham, Massachusetts. of the Indian peoples of North America.
During this period in Boston, Anna Mae met In early June 1975, Anna Mae accompanied her
and established a relationship with Nogeeshik compatriots at Tent City to the annual AIM conven-
Aquash, an Ojibwa artist from Walpole Island in tion in Farmington, New Mexico. Upon their return
Ontario, Canada. The two traveled to Washington, to Pine Ridge, on June 26 the activists were involved
D.C., with members of the Boston Indian Council to in a shoot-out on the Jumping Bull property with
participate in the final stage of the Trail of Broken two FBI agents. Both agents died, along with one
Treaties. In March 1973, she and Nogeeshik left for member of AIM. The reservation immediately
the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to help became the focus of a massive manhunt as the FBI
the besieged Indian activists at Wounded Knee. attempted to apprehend the individuals responsible
There, Anna Mae smuggled supplies past the gov- for the death of their agents. As far as the govern-
ernment roadblocks at night and aided in the con- ment was concerned, Anna Mae’s presence impli-
struction of protective bunkers for the beleaguered cated her as either a suspect or a witness. Finally
Indians. On April 12, Wallace Black Elk married located on the Rosebud Reservation at the home of
Anna Mae and Nogeeshik in a traditional Lakota AIM’s spiritual leader, Leonard Crow Dog, on Sep-
ceremony. Thirteen days later, the Aquashes were tember 5 she was charged with unlawful possession
detained and released by the FBI as they attempted of explosives and firearms and taken to Pierre, South
to leave Wounded Knee. Returning first to Boston in Dakota. Released on bond, Anna Mae chose to flee
an unsuccessful attempt to start an AIM survival rather than stay and face trial. Recaptured by the FBI
school in the city, the couple then moved to Ontario on November 14 on the Port Madison Reservation in
to set up a display of Indian art and culture at the Washington, she returned to South Dakota to stand
National Arts Centre. The exhibit spawned an inter- trial on the Rosebud charges. Released again prior to

744 Aupaumut, Hendrick
the day of her trial, Anna Mae left her Pierre motel Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native:
room on the evening of November 24 and went into American Indian Political Resurgence. New York:
hiding in Colorado. Oxford University Press.
On February 24, 1976, a rancher discovered Matthiessen, Peter. 1991. In the Spirit of Crazy Horse.
New York: Penguin Books.
Anna Mae’s decomposed and frozen body in a
ravine near Wanblee, South Dakota. Unable to iden- Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from
tify the body, the pathologist removed her hands for Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.
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 Aupaumut, Hendrick
belonging to Anna Mae Aquash. Her family asked (c. 1757–1830)
for a second autopsy and had the body exhumed on Hendrick Aupaumut was a Mahican chief who
March 10. An independent pathologist discovered became a significant cultural broker between the
that she had been murdered—shot in the back of the United States and Indians of the Ohio Valley and
head at close range with a .32-caliber weapon. Four Great Lakes region. A resident of the blended Indian
days later, her body was reburied at the Wallace Lit- village of Stockbridge in Western Massachusetts,
tle Ranch in Oglala, where it remained for twenty- Hendrick Aupaumut was educated under the tute-
eight years. On June 21, 2004, Anna Mae’s family lage of John Sargeant, a Congregational minister
returned her remains to the Mi’kmaq reserve in appointed by the Society for the Propagation of the
Nova Scotia. Gospel in Foreign Parts. With other Stockbridge
What happened to Anna Mae following her Indians, he joined the colonists at war with England.
November 24 flight from Pierre until her death in In June 1775, he volunteered for William Goodrich’s
December 1975 (or possibly early January 1976) is company and was assigned to the regiment of
conjecture. There is compelling evidence that she Colonel John Patterson. Thus, he was likely present
fled to Denver and was there kidnapped and taken when Patterson’s men fortified the redoubt on
to South Dakota by some members of AIM who Prospect Hill, protecting Cambridge Road from
falsely suspected her of being an FBI informant. She British incursion during the battle of Bunker Hill.
was subsequently killed, according to this theory, to Aupaumut later enlisted with approximately
rid the organization of a government spy. Although thirty Stockbridge Indians in the service of Captain
approached several times in the past by the FBI in Abraham Nimham’s company of Indians and fought
hopes of employing her services, Anna Mae openly at the battle of White Plains. George Washington
denied any allegations that she was on the FBI’s pay- rewarded Apaumat’s service to the fledgling nation
roll. The FBI also stated that there was no truth to the with a commission of captain. His most significant
assertions. Other members of AIM believed she was contribution to U.S.-Indian relations was his role as
killed by a faction of the organization who thought informal ambassador to western tribes for the
that she could identify those responsible for the June United States. Designs of the nascent government to
26 deaths of the two FBI agents on the Jumping Bull use him in such a capacity were broached as early as
property. Although efforts continue to bring Anna 1781, when Colonel Daniel Broadhead, the com-
Mae’s killers to justice, the case remains unresolved. manding office at Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh),
On March 20, 2003, Fritz Arlo Looking Cloud and asked Samuel Huntington, president of the Conti-
John Graham were indicted for the murder of Anna nental Congress, to encourage the Native peoples
Mae Pictou Aquash. Their cases continue at this still on the American side to come to Fort Pitt and
date. speak to the tribes there. Aupaumut’s first journey
Alan C. Downs west was at the behest of secretary of war General
Henry Knox in 1792 following St. Clair’s defeat the
previous fall.
See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks,
Dennis; Bellecourt, Clyde.
Aupaumut viewed his mediation in tribal rela-
References and Further Reading tions in keeping with his people’s traditional role and
Brand, Joanna. 1993. The Life and Death of Anna Mae their kinship ties to many western tribes. His journey,
Aquash. Toronto: James Lorimer. however, was fraught with difficulties. The Miami

Bagot Commission (Canada) 745
and Delaware leaders with whom he met were deter- See also Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania; St. Clair, Arthur;
mined by their military victories over Generals Josiah Treaty with the Delaware–September 17,
Harmar and Arthur St. Clair to resist further en- 1778; Wayne, Anthony.
croachments by American settlers on their land. They
Aupaumut, Hendrick. 1827. “A Short Narration of
accused Aupaumut of being a spy for the United My Last Journey to the Western Country,”
States. Aupaumut also fell ill during the trip and was Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society,
unable to rendezvous at the appointed hour with vol. 2 (23 October 1827): 61–131.
General Rufus Putnam at Fort Jefferson. Putnam Rhonda, Jeanne, and James P. Ronda. 1979.
assumed the worst and reported that Aupaumut’s “‘As They Were Faithful’: Chief Hendrick
negotiations had failed and that the Stockbridge Aupaumut and the Struggle for Stockbridge
sachem was probably dead. Though very much alive, Survival, 1757–1830.” American Indian Culture
and Research Journal 33: 43–55.
Aupaumut’s reputation as a mediator was at stake.
Taylor, Alan. 1996. “Captain Hendrick Aupaumut:
Upon hearing continued rumors that the U.S. govern- The Dilemmas of an Intercultural Broker.”
ment was displeased with his efforts, Aupaumut pre- Ethnohistory 43: 431–457.
pared 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 Bagot Commission (Canada)
Delaware. When the talks failed over boundary issues The Bagot Commission, launched in 1842 by British
between Indian and American territory (the western North American governor general Sir Charles Bagot,
Indians insisted on the Ohio River), and Anthony was a comprehensive investigation of Indian affairs
Wayne was ordered to engage the Indians, Aupaumut in Canada East and Canada West. As such it estab-
served as his negotiator and interpreter. lished the fundamental elements of colonial policy
That same year, Aupaumut helped negotiate that guided Indian affairs for more than a century
three separate treaties between the United States and (Leslie 1982, 31; Miller 2000, 132). Canada West’s
the Seneca Nation, the Oneida, Tuscorora, and Stock- civil secretary, Rawson W. Rawson, former Crown
bridge Nations, and the collective Six Nations. lands commissioner John Davidson, and registrar of
Before the War of 1812, Aupaumut met again with the court of chancery William Hepburn served as
the western tribes, hoping to persuade them to turn commissioners. Released in 1844, the final report
away from Tecumseh and his dream of a pan-Indian contained one hundred appendices listing Indian
alliance against the United States. Aupaumut had his populations, expenditures, department accounts,
own plans for a pan-Indian community, but he failed testimony, and proceedings of Indian councils. The
in his efforts to secure land along the White River in report concluded that the Indians in both Canadas
Indiana for the Stockbridge and other Christian Indi- faced similar problems: squatters, land loss, intem-
ans. Aupaumut’s reputation as negotiator remained perance, lack of progress in education and agricul-
strong, however. Jedidiah Morse, who served as ture, and poor accounting of band funds. Indians’
government agent for the Indian Office, sought out right of occupancy, their right to compensation for
the Stockbridge leader to accompany him on yet surrendered lands, protection of reserve boundaries,
another round of Indian removal negotiations. But and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 were recognized
Aupaumut stayed in New Stockbridge in western as important policy planks. Reforms were proposed
New York to help his own tribe find a better home. that would improve education and lead to the elimi-
He eventually represented his Stockbridge band of nation of Native land use patterns as well as estab-
Mahican Indians in successful negotiations for lish the government’s financial, political, legal, and
Menominee Indian land in the Wisconsin Territory, moral obligations while promoting assimilation
where he died in 1830. Hendrick Aupaumut’s exten- through civilization (Leslie 1982, 31, 38–39).
sive writings provide a rare window on the complex As Indian acceptance or cooperation was not
intertribal relationships in the early decades of the required to reform the Indian Department, it was the
American republic and highlight the difficulties of first to be reorganized. Offices were moved from
Native Americans who sought the middle ground Kingston to Montreal, a chief clerk was placed in
between peoples of diverse cultures and agendas. charge of all records, the chief superintendent
John Savagian became an advisory position to the governor

746 Banks, Dennis
general, resident superintendents now corresponded Protection of the Lands and Property of the Indians
directly with the civil secretary, and three positions of Lower Canada [East], 1851”—drew on recommen-
known as Indian Visitors were created—two in dations of the Bagot Commission. In Canada East, a
Canada West and one in Canada East (Leslie 1982, commissioner was placed in charge of Indian lands
48–49). Accounting practices would also be reformed who held the power to lease or sell while protecting
to give Indian leaders a proper accounting of their Indian interests. The act of 1851 also created the first
funds and to protect the government from accusa- legal definition of the term Indian, which largely
tions of fraud or mismanagement. reflected the Bagot Commission’s recommendations.
Recommendations were also made concerning Although the act of 1850 did not include a definition
Indian land, its surrender, and its administration. of Indian, it enacted strict laws relating to trespass
The report acknowledged the Indians’ right of occu- and resource use. It also appointed Indian superin-
pancy and right to compensation for land surrenders tendents and Crown lands officials as justices of the
as outlined in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Once peace to enforce the new law (Dickason 2002,
the land had been surrendered and reserves sur- 228–229; Leslie 1982, 51). Additionally, these laws
veyed, the government encouraged individual own- made it illegal for Indians to pawn goods for liquor
ership of land rather than collective ownership. and exempted Indians from property taxes on
Despite Native resistance, this idea influenced Cana- reserves, as well as from the seizure of property in
dian Indian policy for generations. lieu of debts unless an Indian owned £25 or more in
As a result of the commission, a census of the fee-simple land. Thus, five years after the Bagot
Indian population of Canada West and Canada East Commission’s report, the essential elements of
would be undertaken. Presents or gifts, which previ- Indian legislation were in place that eventually
ously had been distributed to all Indians, would be formed the first federal Indian Act in 1871 (Leslie
distributed only to those listed on the census. Also, 1982, 51; Miller 2000, 132–133; and Dickason 2002,
individuals deemed sufficiently educated would be 228–231).
refused presents. Natives, who viewed the annual Karl S. Hele
distributions as an important symbol of their contin-
See also Royal Proclamation of 1763.
uing relationship with the British Crown, strenu-
ously resisted the stoppage of presents. Nonetheless, Canada. “Report on the Affairs of the Indians of
by the end of the 1850s present distribution had Canada.” 1844–1845. App. EEE. Journals of the
ceased. Legislative Assembly of Canada. [Appendix is not
The commissioners also recognized that educa- paginated].
tion was vital for Native survival and civilization. Canada. “Report on the Affairs of the Indians of
The report claimed that day schools plagued with Canada.” 1847. App. T. Journals of the Legislative
Assembly of Canada. [Appendix is not paginated].
poor attendance and parental influence hindered
children’s education. It proposed that £3000 be set A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times.
aside to establish four Indian boarding schools with Toronto: Oxford University Press.
attached farms. The schools would instruct children Leslie, John. 1982. “The Bagot Commission
in farming, animal husbandry, mechanical trades, Developing a Corporate Memory for the Indian
and domestic economy. All crops and animals raised Department.” Historical Papers/Communications
on the farm would be used to reduce the operating historiques, 31–52.
expenses of the schools. Finally, the commission Miller, J. R. 2000. Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A
History of Indian-White Relations in Canada. 3rd
endorsed the idea that all religious denominations
ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
should receive support and cooperation from the
Indian Department in implementing all educational
policy. Initially, Indians cooperated with and sup-
ported the boarding schools; however, they never
accepted the assimilationist intent behind the policy Banks, Dennis
(Leslie 1982, 40–41; Miller 2000, 133–135). (1937–)
Two land acts—“An Act for the Better Protec- Dennis Banks, an Anishinabe born on Leach Lake
tion of the Indians of Upper Canada [West] from Reservation in northern Minnesota, cofounded the
Imposition, and the Property Enjoyed by them from American Indian Movement (AIM) with Clyde Bel-
Trespass and Injury, 1850” and “An Act for the Better lecourt and George Mitchell in 1968. AIM’s goals

Banks, Dennis 747
that contained information about questionable man-

agement 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 elevat-
ing Indian priorities. When he and other demonstra-
tors 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 esca-
lated 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
Dennis Banks (1937–) an Anishinabe from Leeck Lake
Reservation in northern Minnesota, was a co-founder of the the night of May 7 and went to the Northwest Terri-
American Indian Movement (AIM) in 1968 in Minneapolis. tories in Canada to avoid arrest. He and Means faced
(Bettmann/Corbis) trial in 1974 for their activities at Wounded Knee.
Judge Alfred Nichol eventually dismissed all
were to initiate lawsuits to protect Native rights charges. Shortly thereafter, Banks was again a defen-
guaranteed in treaties, sovereignties, laws, and the dant, this time for charges based on the Custer court-
U.S. Constitution. In 1970, the organization created a house incident. Avoiding prison under California
court advocacy program, persuaded the National Governor Jerry Brown’s protection until 1983, Banks
Convention of Churches to provide more funding continued to organize protests and rallies such as the
for their Indian programs, established an Indian Great Jim Thorpe Longest Walk, a spiritual run from
school system, and eliminated some racist textbooks. New York to Los Angeles. He also served as the first
To elevate national awareness of AIM’s goals, Banks American Indian chancellor at an Indian-controlled
and his constituents also interrupted a Plymouth, institution, Deganawida Quetzecoatl (DQ) Univer-
Massachusetts, Thanksgiving celebration and a sity. In 1985, he surrendered to South Dakota author-
Jesuit pageant honoring Christianity in Sault Ste. ities and served eighteen months in prison. He cur-
Marie, Michigan. rently directs the Sacred Run Foundation, which
With AIM chapters in forty-three states, Banks sponsors international running and cultural events.
orchestrated protests to bring Indian priorities to the His recent autobiography, Ojibwa Warrior, was pub-
attention of the media. In 1972, he led the takeover of lished in 2004. Banks has actively reshaped his
the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) building in image from one of militancy to gentle concern and
Washington, D.C. The protest, known as the Trail of continues to bring public awareness to Native Amer-
Broken Treaties, began in San Francisco as a caravan ican issues.
traveling to the nation’s capital to meet with con- Clara Keyt
gressional leaders. When government representa-
tives refused to meet with the group, the protestors
See also American Indian Movement (AIM);
occupied the BIA building for eight days. Following Bellecourt, Clyde; Bureau of Indian Affairs
his plan to bring Indian issues to national conscious- (BIA); Means, Russell; Trail of Broken Treaties,
ness, Banks supplied the media with BIA records 1972; Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973.

748 Barboncito
References and Further Reading Navajos and the U.S. military as Navajos pressed
Banks, Dennis, and Richard Erdoes. 2004. Ojibwa their claims to the land. In 1860, after a series of
Warrior: Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American clashes with the soldiers, Navajo warriors led by
Indian Movement. Norman: University of
Manuelito and Barboncito attacked the fort at dawn.
Oklahoma Press.
Cheatham, Kae. 1997. Dennis Banks: Native American
Although one thousand warriors attacked the fort,
Activist. Springfield, NJ: Enslow. they were unable to take it, largely because of supe-
rior 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
Barboncito assumed command of the Department of New Mex-
(1820–1871) ico. Carleton, following established U.S. policy for
Barboncito was born in 1820 in lower Canyon de dealing with Native peoples, conceived a plan to
Chelly in present-day Arizona to a woman of the remove Indians that were considered a threat to
Ma’iidesgizhnii (Coyote Pass or Jemez clan) and an white interests, which included mining and settle-
unknown father. His warrior name was Hashke ment. Mescalero Apaches and Navajos were to be
Yich’i’adehyilwod, “He Ran Down Toward the removed and relocated from their homelands to
Enemy in Anger.” Like other Diné or Navajo head- Bosque Redondo, a reservation near Fort Sumner,
men, he was versed in ceremonies such as the Bless- New Mexico. There, they would be subjected to
ingway and the Enemyway. He is perhaps best assimilation policies.
known by the name given to him by the Mexicans, In 1863, under Carleton’s orders, Kit Carson
Barboncito. Extant references to other Navajo leaders waged a war against the entire Navajo Nation. The
with similar names, including Barbon and El Bar- People retreated before Carson’s men, who burned
bon, make the identity of some leaders uncertain. their hogans, destroyed cornfields and peach trees,
However, Barboncito had become known as a and slaughtered livestock. Leaders such as Bar-
prominent headman by the 1850s. Today, Navajos boncito protected their people as best as they could
remember their leader as a man who used his during this suffering. Eventually, as the burn-and-
knowledge and skill as a warrior on behalf of his scorch campaign continued, destitute and starving
people, for his oratorical power was a significant fac- Diné began to surrender at the American forts. By
tor in the Americans’ decision to allow the Navajo the end of 1864, thousands of Navajos were forced to
people to return to their homeland in 1868. After the walk from their beloved homeland to Bosque
Navajos’ return to their homeland, Barboncito Redondo, near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, a journey
remained a leader who served until his death in of more than three hundred miles, where they were
1871. to begin new lives.
During Barboncito’s lifetime, the Diné (the Peo- A peace leader, Barboncito was one of the first to
ple, or Navajo) faced American expansion, which surrender and take his people to the prison camp.
began in 1846. Although white settlers coming West He found the living conditions deplorable and
and seeking land became a problem eventually faced escaped twice, but if conditions at the prison camp
by the Diné, the major reason for cycles of conflict were impossible, Navajos in their homeland faced
and peace between Navajos and New Mexican set- constant harassment and deprivation in their home-
tlers was slave raiding, the targets of which were land. The Diné endured nightmarish conditions at
Navajo women and children. Reports of valuable the prison camp. Attempts to farm failed as drought
natural resources in Navajo country also began to conditions prevailed and cutworms destroyed corn-
circulate. Barboncito participated in the resistance fields. They lived in holes dug into the ground.
when the American military laid claim to Navajo Forced to walk as far as twenty miles in search of
land and then with Navajo defeat in 1863, and jour- firewood, Navajo women and children were easy
neyed with his people to the Bosque Redondo prison prey for raiders who waited for them. They were
in southeastern New Mexico, where he encouraged constantly hungry and cold.
his people to keep their courage and faith. After four years, from 1864 to 1868, Carleton’s
In 1851, the American military established a fort “experiment” was acknowledged a failure. Because
in the heart of Navajo country. This post was a site the U.S. government was no longer willing to pay
first of contention and then of war between the for the upkeep of Navajos at Bosque Redondo, mili-

Bearskin, Leaford 749
tary officials considered another plan for assimilat- Navajo land; in the ensuing disputes, both Navajos
ing the Navajos. In the spring of 1868, Navajo lead- and whites were killed. Barboncito worked to quell
ers met with U.S. officials to discuss conditions at the the disturbances and to keep the peace between
reservation and to consider alternatives. For the Navajos and whites. Today, Barboncito is remem-
Navajos, the opportunity to return home seemed a bered as an important peace leader of the Navajos
strong possibility, even though military leaders were who proved courageous and faithful when war was
considering sending them to Indian Territory. Talk- inevitable. His ability to speak eloquently and pow-
ing among themselves, the Diné selected Barboncito erfully served the purpose of bringing the People
to present their case to the Americans. Barboncito, back to their sacred homeland.
already known as an eloquent and persuasive Jennifer Nez Denetdale
speaker, would once again prove effective as he pre-
See also Fort Sumner, New Mexico; Manuelito;
sented the Navajo case for return to their homeland.
Treaty with the Navajo–June 1, 1868.
Meeting with Samuel F. Tappan, who had References and Further Reading
served with the Colorado Volunteers, and William Bailey, Lynn R. 1964. The Long Walk: A History of the
Tecumseh Sherman, a general who had waged a suc- Navajo Wars, 1846–1868. Los Angeles:
cessful campaign against the Confederates during Westernlore Press.
the Civil War, the Navajos, led by Barboncito, negoti- Dunlay, Tom. 2000. Kit Carson and the Indians. Lincoln:
ated for two days. Sherman asked why the Navajos University of Nebraska Press.
had not prospered at the reservation. Barboncito
explained that life had been harsh at Bosque Roessel, Ruth, and Broderick H. Johnson, eds. 1973.
Redondo. He declared that Navajos already had a Navajo Stories of the Long Walk Period. Tsaile, AZ:
home, that they should not live outside of the four Navajo Community College Press.
sacred mountains.
With many issues discussed during these nego-
tiations—including land, Navajo slavery, and assimi-
lation of Navajos into the American mainstream—
the leaders eventually came to an agreement. For the Bearskin, Leaford
Diné, the negotiations were successful because they (1921–)
were to return to their homeland, albeit a decidedly In 1983, Leaford Bearskin was elected chief of the
smaller land base than what they had previously Wyandotte Nation, known since the 1500s in Ameri-
claimed. Finally, the U.S. officials capitulated to can history as part of the Hurons as well as the
Navajo pleas. Keepers of the Council Fire for the Old Northwest
On June 1, 1868, the Navajo leaders and U.S. (Delaware) Confederacy. In this capacity, he led the
representatives signed the treaty. Although the Wyandotte into the twenty-first century after a long
agreement later would be ratified by Congress and career as a military officer and civilian employee of
then signed by the president of the United States, the the U.S. Air Force. Among his accomplishments as
Navajos began their journey home on June 18. Com- chief, Bearskin helped the tribe achieve economic
ing generations of Navajos would remember their self-sufficiency with several business ventures that
ancestors’ ordeal and the roles that leaders such as have benefited both the tribe and local communities.
Barboncito played to ensure the survival of the Peo- Through his leadership, the Wyandotte have
ple. Through stories passed down through the gen- enhanced health care, education, nutrition services,
erations, the Navajo people are reminded of the employment opportunities, and emergency services
power of the human spirit to overcome incredible for tribal members. Magnified by his history as a
obstacles. bomber pilot in World War II, an airlift squadron
After the Navajo return to Dinétah, Barboncito commander during the Berlin Blockade of 1948, and
remained an important leader recognized by both an air base group commander, Bearskin also initi-
Navajos and U.S. officials. Because the Navajo pop- ated several Veterans’ Day events in northeastern
ulation was always too large for the diminished Oklahoma and established a Wyandotte Color
land base, it soon spilled into regions designated as Guard to represent the tribe at nationwide events.
public domain. The Navajos’ use of the lands for Bearskin was born in a log cabin on a hundred
grazing was contested by white settlers, including and forty acres of allotment land along Sycamore
Mormons, on the northwestern boundaries of Creek in the hills northeast of Wyandotte, Okla-

750 Bellecourt, Clyde
homa, where he attended public school. The family skin oversaw the creation of a cemetery for anyone
lost the land after his older brother was stricken with in the area, Indian or non-Indian, who needed a
polio. Bearskin’s parents borrowed money from the place to be buried. Under his watch, the Wyandotte
local bank to get medication. Subsequently, a land Nation also significantly enhanced local public ser-
speculator came through town and bought several vices. The tribe helped the City of Wyandotte create
mortgages from the bank, including the Bearskins’, twenty-four-hour law enforcement, which helped
and then foreclosed on them. reduce crime in the area. The tribe also supports the
After graduating from high school, Bearskin city’s fire department, emergency medical services,
wanted to attend college, but he lacked the finan- and flood management control, and it supervises
cial means to do so. Because he also harbored a and funds several regional transportation projects,
secret desire to fly an airplane, Bearskin joined the building or improving roads and bridges to benefit
Army Air Corps in 1941. Assigned to an air base in the whole of Ottawa County. Chief Bearskin also
Alaska when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, ensured that the tribe’s wellness center is available
Bearskin applied for flight school when the corps to the entire community. Nationally, Bearskin over-
revised the minimum requirements for pilot train- saw the tribe’s purchase of six technical schools
ing to a high school diploma. Thus began a highly across the United States that teach highly employ-
distinguished career in which Bearskin was able vocational subjects such as court reporting,
awarded such military honors as the Distinguished medical records maintenance, and other skills.
Flying Cross, the Asiatic Campaign Medal (with Chief Bearskin instigated the establishment of
four major battle stars), the National Defense the Wyandotte Cultural Center, and he directed a
Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, and the cultural committee to revive an annual powwow
Air Force Longevity Service Award (with three that had not taken place since the early 1960s. Since
bronze oak-leaf clusters). After numerous outstand- its rebeginning in 1991, the annual intertribal event
ing efficiency ratings and many commendations, draws as many as four thousand people to the
Bearskin retired from the Air Force in 1960. Follow- Wyandotte Nation in early September and has a dra-
ing his retirement, Bearskin spent another twenty matic impact on the service-oriented businesses of
years working for the air force as a civil servant in the area. Chief Bearskin also instituted a Wyandotte
the areas of missile weapons systems, logistics, and language program that is ongoing; throughout his
headquarters operations. career, he has traveled extensively, speaking about
Beginning with his election as chief in 1983, the Wyandottes, their lifeways and concerns. In
Bearskin has made voluminous contributions to the 2005, Bearskin led the Wyandotte Nation in estab-
Wyandotte Nation and the surrounding communi- lishing a gaming complex in Wyandotte County,
ties of northeastern Oklahoma. Bearskin rewrote the Kansas.
tribal constitution, obtained a grant for the tribe’s Hugh W. Foley, Jr.
first economic development project (the Wyandotte
See also Allotment; Indian Claims Commission Act,
convenience store complex), and returned the Wyan-
1946; Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988.
dotte Nation offices to tribal land. He also led a $5.7- References and Further Reading
million settlement of Wyandotte land claims in Ohio Bearskin, Leaford. 1998. Interview by author,
with the U.S. government. Additional tribal pro- October 18.
grams Bearskin instituted include a senior citizens’ Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma. “Chief Leaford
nutrition program, a food delivery program to local Bearskin.” Accessed May 24, 2005, at
shut-ins, the construction of a tribal social activities http://www.wyandotte-nation.org.
center, the creation of a tribal library, and the estab-
lishment of a health clinic also available to non-
Indian members of the community on a space-avail-
able basis. Educationally, the Wyandotte Turtle Tots Bellecourt, Clyde
preschool was recognized as the best preschool in (1936–)
the United States in 1995 and 1996 by the U.S. Along with Dennis Banks, George Mitchell, and
Department of Education. Edward Benton Banai, Clyde Bellecourt was one of
Also impacting communities nearby, such as the founding members of the American Indian
Wyandotte, Fairland, and Miami, Oklahoma, Bear- Movement (AIM). He rose to fame for his leadership

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 Benton Banai, who encouraged Bellecourt to
Broken Treaties, which culminated in the takeover of embrace Ojibway culture and spirituality. The two
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) building in Wash- teamed up with fellow convict Dennis Banks and
ington, D.C. Bellecourt was one of the most outspo- began to discuss how they could advocate Indian
ken and adamant proponents of Indian sovereignty rights. Their ultimate solution was the formation of
and rights in the late twentieth century. the Indian Patrol in 1968. Freshly released from
The son of a World War I veteran, Bellecourt prison, they took a page from the Black Panthers and
was born on May 8, 1936, on the White Earth Ojib- began monitoring police brutality of Native peoples
way Indian Reservation in Minnesota. He and his in the Twin Cities.
eleven siblings grew up in a cramped, government- Eventually, the Indian Patrol evolved into the
built home and subsisted on their father’s meager American Indian Movement as the organization
disability checks. Young Clyde was educated at a began to expand its activities. As AIM’s first chair-
local Benedictine missionary school but often found man, Bellecourt targeted negative stereotypes of
himself in trouble with his teachers. Eventually, he Indians in the media and in schools, advocated sov-
was shipped off to a reform school in the city of Red ereignty, and called for a return to Native values,
Wing. When he was sixteen, Clyde and his family customs, and spiritual beliefs. After the occupation
moved to Minneapolis as part of the BIA’s new relo- of Alcatraz in 1969–1971, AIM adopted the takeover
cation program. tactic as the best way to get its message across.
The move to the big city led only to further Accordingly, Bellecourt, along with Banks, Russell
problems with the law. Through the 1960s, Belle- Means, Hank Adams, and several others, decided to
court was in and out of jail for burglary and robbery. occupy the BIA building after the Trail of Broken
In 1966, while serving a two-to-fifteen-year sentence Treaties. Renaming the building the Native Ameri-
in the state penitentiary at Stillwater, he met Edward can Embassy, AIM insisted that the federal govern-

752 Black Hawk
ment recognize Indian sovereignty, respect its Johnson, Troy, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne,
treaties, protect Indian religious freedom, restore ter- eds. 1997. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to
minated tribes, and replace the BIA with an “Office the Longest Walk. Urbana: University of Illinois
of Federal Indian Relations.” Though Bellecourt and Press.
Josephy, Alvin, Jr., Joane Nagel, and Troy Johnson,
his organization did not succeed in obtaining their
eds. 1999. Red Power: The American Indian’s Fight
main demands, they did get widespread media for Freedom. Lincoln and London: University of
attention. The takeover of the BIA was followed by Nebraska Press.
several other occupations in the 1970s, most notably Warrior, Robert Allen, and Paul Chaat Smith. 1996.
Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge reservation in Like A Hurricane: The Indian Movement from
South Dakota. Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.
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 Black Hawk
organization’s attention was focused on the civil war (1767–1838)
in Nicaragua, where the Marxist Sandinistas battled Black Hawk, also known as Makataimeshekiakiak,
the right-wing Contras. The conflict, however, was born a few years after the Sauk and Fox tribes
caused a fracture in AIM’s leadership. Bellecourt moved down from the Wisconsin River to Illinois
favored the Sandinistas, whereas Russell Means sup- country to establish Saukenuk on the Rock River
ported the Native Miskito people, who were allied where it led into the Mississippi (present-day Rock
with the Contras. By 1993, AIM had split into two Island, Illinois). Black Hawk grew to manhood fol-
organizations—Bellecourt’s National American lowing the valor of his great grandfather and father
Indian Movement and Means’s International and often demonstrated his courageous drive to
Autonomous Confederation of the American Indian keep his nation on tribal land. Descended from the
Movement. Nevertheless, in 1999, the two leaders first chief, Nanamakee or Thunder, Black Hawk led
were able to put their differences aside and join and returned from battles and wars with proofs of
together to protest the murder of two Indians in his courage as a war leader.
White Clay, Nebraska. When his father, a medicine man of the Sauk,
Bellecourt has continued to work for Indian died after a battle with the Cherokees, Black Hawk
rights in the twenty-first century. He and his brother took the great medicine bag of the tribe, carrying the
Vernon are active in the National Coalition on sacred continuity of the nation. He sought to ensure
Racism in Sports and the Media as well as numerous the continuation of the ways of his people despite
other causes. In 2005, Heart of the Earth, Inc., estab- the increasing encroachments of the United States
lished in Clyde’s name a $60,000 scholarship for through treaties.
Indian youth. Upon completing their degrees, recipi- Though the Sauk (Sac) and Fox wished to be
ents of the scholarship are to return to their reserva- recognized by the United States as a nation through
tions to teach Indian languages, culture, and history. a treaty, the combined tribes believed they would be
The scholarship provides an excellent opportunity dealt with as they always had been by the British—
for young high school graduates while also putting that is, that they would be offered gifts but would
into practice what Bellecourt has advocated since not be required to cede land. The first of the Ameri-
those long, dark days in Stillwater prison. can treaties, known as the Treaty of St. Louis with
Bradley Shreve the Sauk [Sac] and Fox, which raised Black Hawk’s
rancor, came about in November 1804 through a
See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Banks, misunderstanding following the arrest and delivery
Dennis; Wounded Knee Occupation, 1973. of a young warrior for the murder of settlers in the
References and Further Reading Louisiana Territory. William Henry Harrison, gover-
Caldwell, E. K. 1999. Dreaming the Dawn: nor of Indiana Territory, was in St. Louis to reorga-
Conversations with Native Artists and Activists.
nize the government of the territory following the
Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. 1988. Agents of
Louisiana Purchase when he decided it would be an
Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars against the Black opportune time to treat with those few members of
Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. the Sac who were in St. Louis to deliver the young
Boston: South End Press. warrior. The Sacs asked for redress after offering to

Black Hawk 753
the Osage. In 1808, the Americans came up the Mis-

sissippi 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 build-
ings 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 Lieu-
tenant 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
Black Hawk (1767–1838) a Sauk, also known as
Makataimeshekiakiak, was the war leader of the Black Hawk was usurped by a young, untried member of the
War of 1832 against U.S. expansion that consumed the tribal tribe named Keokuk, who was made a war chief
homeland of Saukenuk on the Rock River, near present-day over Black Hawk. Keokuk, known for his oratorical
Rock Island, Illinois. He died October 3, 1837, in Iowaville on skill, understood that the Americans were not going
the Des Moines River, Southeast Iowa. (Library of Congress) 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
turn over one of their own for the murders of the set- over time and again in the treaties of 1819, 1824,
tlers. Willing to deal, Harrison tied land cession into 1825, and 1830, he grew angry and concerned about
the bargain of allowing the prisoner to go free pend- the future. Unable to bear the treaties’ requirement
ing a pardon from President Jefferson. Later, those to relocate across the Mississippi from his beloved
who signed the treaty claimed they were misled Saukenuk, Black Hawk undertook a most dangerous
and/or made to drink, to confirm what they had course.
done: signed away their entire geographic bound- In late spring of 1832, with the support of a civil
aries from the Wisconsin River in the north to the chief, Neapope, and the guidance of the Winnebago
Fox River (Illinois) on the east, down to the Illinois; prophet Wabekieshiek, Black Hawk took his people
from the west at the Gasconade on the Missouri to back over to the east side. General Edmund P.
the Mississippi. For this cession of land, the Sac and Gaines arrived with regulars to demand that Black
Fox received $2,234.50 in goods and a $1,000 annuity, Hawk return. He warned the Native leader that
also in goods, to be divided between the Sac and refusal bore grave consequences. During the night,
Fox. When news of this agreement arrived at Black Hawk and his tribe left, but they did not return
Saukenuk, Black Hawk refused to acknowledge the to the west side of the river. Rather, they began a
treaty, and over the next twenty-eight years, his dis- trek, which brought about the battle that forever
avowal sowed the seeds of his downfall. ended his career as a war leader. With reassurances
In the years leading up to the War of 1812, Black from the prophet that the British would come to his
Hawk and his tribe continued to acknowledge the aid and that other tribes would support him, Black
British as their white father and made raids against Hawk moved into Wisconsin Territory seeking the

754 Black Kettle
support he thought was a given. Trailing along with Kappler, Clarence J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws and
his half a thousand warriors and women, children, Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC:
and the elderly, Black Hawk failed to find assistance; Government Printing Office.
at the same time, he refused to turn back and cross Nichols, Roger L. 1992. Black Hawk and the Warrior’s
Path. American Biographical History Series.
over the Mississippi. Growing hungry, the warriors
Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.
assaulted American settlers to the south, raiding Temple, Wayne C. 1987. Indian Villages of the Illinois
stores, while the remaining band hid out. Along the Country. Vol. 2, part 2 of Illinois State Museum
Mississippi, north of where the Wisconsin River Scientific Papers. Springfield: Illinois State
empties into it, the Sac were decimated as they pur- Museum.
sued 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. Black Kettle
Another treaty evolved in the later part of the (1803/07–1868)
summer of 1832; it strictly prohibited Black Hawk, The southern Cheyenne leader Black Kettle was the
his two sons, and other warriors of his band from most noted peacemaker of the Cheyenne, well
taking leadership roles in the future. The rest of the known for his effort to guide his people through the
surviving band was to be redistributed among the years of frontier conflict in the 1860s and to ensure a
other bands of Sac and Fox to prevent them from future of honor for them. Black Kettle embodied the
ever rising up again. code of conduct given to peace chiefs by Sweet Med-
While yet a prisoner, Black Hawk was taken icine, the Cheyenne cultural hero. Peace chiefs are to
east with others of his band to be handed over to avoid any violence, even if they or their families are
the War Department and to have a meeting with in imminent danger, but must always stand firm
President Andrew Jackson, during which he had the against opponents of their people.
opportunity to recount his side of the affair. After a In Cheyenne, Black Kettle’s name was spelled in
tour of the capital, Black Hawk and his party were various documents as Moke-tav-a-to, Mo-ta-vato,
imprisoned for a short time at Fort Monroe, Vir- Moke-ta-ve-to, Moke-to-ve-to, Moka-ta-va-tah, and
ginia. Soon allowed to return home, the group Mo-ko-va-ot-o. He belonged to the Suthaio band.
stopped over in Philadelphia, where they became Although as a young man Black Kettle was a
objects of entertainment for the citizens. Upon his renowned war leader who fought the Kiowa, Kiowa-
return to the West, Black Hawk was turned over to Apache, Comanche, Ute, Delaware, and Pawnee, he
Keokuk. Reunited with his wife and children, he never approved of war against European Americans.
lived a quiet life, although he made one more trip to He became a principal Cheyenne chief in the 1850s.
Washington, in 1837. A newspaperman, J. P. Patter- At that time, Cheyenne bands migrated over
son, expressed interest in recording Black Hawk’s present-day Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming,
account of his life. It was later published as the Life Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas.
of Makataimeshekiakiak or Black Hawk. Blackhawk In 1861, Black Kettle was the first to sign the
died on October 3, 1838, following an illness. Treaty of Fort Wise (Kansas) for his people. This
Sally Colford Bennett treaty assigned them a small reservation in south-
eastern Colorado, encompassing Sand Creek. Black
See also Chouteau, Auguste; Clark, William; Kettle made every attempt to make peace with the
Dodge, Henry; Forsyth, Thomas; Gaines, United States, including journeys to Washington and
Edmund Pendleton; Harrison, William Denver. He kept preventing his warriors from fight-
Henry; Jackson, Andrew; Prairie du Chien, ing the army even when the army began shooting
Wisconsin; St. Louis, Missouri; Treaty with them. In addition, Black Kettle secured the release of
the Sauk and Fox–November 3, 1804. many European American captives by purchasing
References and Further Readings
them at his own expense.
Hagan, William T. 1958. The Sac and Fox Indians.
In 1864, Black Kettle’s people were promised
Jackson, Donald, ed. 1955. Black Hawk, an protection at Fort Lyon in Colorado, but after they
Autobiography. Urbana: University of had established their village at Sand Creek, they
Illinois Press. were massacred by troops under Colonel John Chiv-

Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy 755
ington on November 29. Black Kettle survived the Seventh Cavalry under Colonel George Custer
massacre, and even though he fell into disgrace attacked Black Kettle’s village, encamped at the
among his own people because he had led them into Washita River. Together with many of his people
such a betrayal, he continued to counsel peace when (estimated at as many as twenty men and forty
the Cheyenne wanted to strike back. In 1865, Black women and children), Black Kettle and his wife were
Kettle attended the council on the Little Arkansas in killed at dawn on November 27, 1868. When the New
Kansas that discussed compensation for the Sand York Times reported this massacre, it described Black
Creek massacre. The treaty signed there assigned the Kettle, the greatest Cheyenne peace chief, as one of
Cheyenne, together with the Arapahoe, to an alter- the most warlike characters of the plains.
native reservation in the northern part of Indian Ter- Antonie Dvorakova
ritory (present-day Oklahoma).
See also Assimilation; Chivington, John Milton;
In 1867, Black Kettle was invited by Colonel
Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho–
Jesse Leavenworth to represent the Cheyenne at October 28, 1867.
another peace council, this time along with the Ara- References and Further Reading
pahoe, Comanche, Kiowa, and Plains Apache, that Berthrong, Donald, J. 1963. The Southern Cheyennes.
was to be held at Medicine Lodge Creek in southern Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Kansas. Because of the extensive European Ameri- Hoig, Stan. 1980. The Peace Chiefs of the Cheyennes.
can intrusion into the Plains Nations’ land, which Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Jones, Douglas C. 1966. The Treaty of Medicine
culminated during the Colorado gold rush of 1859,
Lodge: The Story of the Great Council as Told
the uneasiness between American Indians and Euro- by Eyewitnesses. Norman: University of
pean Americans was mounting and being expressed Oklahoma Press.
through reprisals on each side. The proposed Medi-
cine 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 Blondin-Andrew, Ethel Dorothy
the beginning of the reservation period for the Plains (1951–)
Indian nations. They were removed from their land, Throughout her political career with the government
thus also from the pathways of commerce and settle- of Canada, Ethel Blondin-Andrew has served as a
ment, and confined to reservations, where they strong and representative voice for the views of
would be assimilated. aboriginal people living in northern Canada, bring-
The Dog Soldiers, the militant Cheyenne band, ing their concerns to national prominence. Blondin-
did not want peace and unsuccessfully tried to pre- Andrew is an advocate for aboriginal people, youth,
vent Black Kettle from attending the treaty councils. persons with disabilities, and the environment.
After Black Kettle arrived at the site, leaders of the Born on March 25, 1951 in Fort Norman (Tulita),
Dog Soldiers named Tall Bull and Gray Head Northwest Territories, Canada, Ethel Blondin-
demanded that Black Kettle explain the importance Andrew is a Treaty Dene of the Dene Nation, and
of signing the treaty during the upcoming cere- she is fluent in English and Dene-Slavey.
monies of Sacred Arrows Renewal. The Treaty of Blondin-Andrew earned a bachelor’s degree in
Medicine Lodge stipulated that the Cheyenne give education from the University of Alberta before
up all their land for a reservation in Indian Territory returning to teach at the elementary school level in
between the Arkansas and Cimarron rivers, where several communities in the Northwest Territories,
they were supposed to adopt the European Ameri- including Tuktoyaktuk, Deline, and Fort Providence.
can pattern of civilization. After Black Kettle signed, She was one of the first accredited aboriginal teach-
the Dog Soldiers chiefs joined in signing the Treaty ers in northern Canada. She went on to work as an
of Medicine Lodge on October 28, 1867. aboriginal language and curriculum specialist as
The U.S. government was slow to meet the stip- well as a college instructor. Furthermore, she became
ulations of the treaty that promised provisions to the acting director of the Public Service Commission of
Cheyenne living on their reservation, however. Canada, national manager of Indigenous Develop-
Young warriors thus grew increasingly restless and ment Programs, and assistant deputy minister of cul-
uncontrollable, joining the fighting parties on their ture and communications for the government of the
raids. Following a trail left by one such party, the Northwest Territories.

756 Blount, William
On November 12, 1988, Blondin-Andrew be- As a single mother of three children, a Dene
came the first aboriginal woman to be elected to the woman from northern Canada, and a member of
House of Commons of the government of Canada parliament with the government of Canada, Ethel
as a member of Parliament for the Western Arctic. Blondin-Andrew has had a unique opportunity to
She is affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada. travel across the country and raise awareness about
Blondin-Andrew has since been reelected four times issues specific to northern Canada as well as First
as member of Parliament, most recently on June 28, Nations issues in general. She has opened doors for
2004. other First Nations people who may want to have a
As a member of Parliament, Blondin-Andrew career in politics with the government of Canada,
encouraged the House of Commons to pass a bill for and she brings a new perspective to the House of
the establishment of an aboriginal languages foun- Commons.
dation, an organization that would facilitate the Lysane Cree
acquisition, preservation, enhancement, mainte-
See also Canada; Constitution Act (Canada), 1867;
nance, retention, and use of First Nations languages
Constitution Act (Canada), 1982; Sahtu Dene
across Canada. Although this was a laudable objec- and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim
tive and was much needed by First Nations, the bill Agreement–September 6, 1993.
was defeated by a vote in the House of Commons. References and Further Reading
On November 4, 1993, Blondin-Andrew was Asch, Michael. 1984. Home and Native Land:
named secretary of state (training and youth) and Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian
was, again, the first aboriginal woman to become a Constitution. Toronto: Methuen.
member of the Privy Council and the Cabinet.
Indians. Edmonton: Hurtig.
In 1997 she was named secretary of state (chil- Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada’s First
dren and youth). In this position, Blondin-Andrew Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from
tackled some tough issues, including fetal alcohol Earliest Times. Norman: University of
syndrome, a problem that affects many First Nations Oklahoma Press.
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 Blount, William
years for the development of the five existing cen- (1749–1800)
ters, which bring together professors, scientists, and William Blount was one of the first United States
government officials to address issues affecting chil- superintendents of Indian affairs. Born into a distin-
dren across Canada (for example, early childhood guished family of merchant-planters in Bertie
development, child welfare, and children with spe- County, North Carolina, Blount grew up disparaging
cial needs). the rough-hewn, backcountry colonial settlers. Not
Blondin-Andrew received an honorary doctor- surprisingly, Blount was an opponent of the Regula-
ate from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, in tors, a loose organization of western populists seek-
June 2001 as an acknowledgement of her ongoing ing greater economic, political, and social parity
work and efforts for Canada’s aboriginal communi- with the eastern planters through election, tax, and
ties. In 2002, Blondin-Andrew received the Aborig- judicial reforms. By May 1771, Regulator demands
inal Women in Leadership Distinction Award for grew into physical confrontation, and Blount served
her work in political leadership and children’s in the loyalist militia that confronted and crushed a
issues. force of two thousand Regulators. These opposing
Ethel Blondin-Andrew was named minister of groups eventually allied, though, when Britain reaf-
state (northern development) for the government of firmed protection of Indian lands, closing off west-
Canada on July 20, 2004. As minister, Blondin- ern settlement, and the eastern seaboard planter elite
Andrew has been supportive of the recent Canada- resisted Britain’s attempts to reassert control over
Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable, which marked the local affairs, handled by the colonial assembly for
beginning of a renewed dialogue between First nearly a century. There was some reform after the
Nations leaders from across the country and the Regulator movement, both groups having represen-
Canadian government. tation in the assembly. The increasing tension

Blount, William 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 negoti-
ated the 1791 Treaty of Holston—also called the
Blount Treaty—with the Cherokee Nation. More
than twelve hundred Cherokee attended the negoti-
ations, 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 signifi-
cant land to American settlement.
Blount also oversaw the organization of the ter-
ritorial militia but cautioned against its deployment
except in a purely defensive capacity to deal with
nontreaty Indians. In 1795, Blount called a constitu-
tional 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
William Blount (1749–1800) of Windsor, North Carolina was a
senator from Tennessee and served as one of the first U.S. Super- for Britain—not the United States—the Spanish
intendents of Indian Affairs. He died in 1800, in Knoxville, provinces of Florida and Louisiana, using the com-
Tennessee. (Buckner, Melton F., The First Impeachment: The bined warriors of the Cherokee and Creek Nations,
Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William frontier militias, and British naval forces. President
Blount, 1998.) Adams intercepted a letter Blount wrote alluding to
the plan—thereafter called Blount’s Conspiracy—
between that body and the royal governor led the and turned it over to the Senate on July 3, 1797.
colony to support the movement for independence Blount’s Conspiracy involved the corruption of two
from Britain. William Blount emerged as a powerful U.S. officials and would have breached Article V of
but moderate Revolutionary War leader. the Treaty of San Lorenzo el Real (signed October 27,
For three years, William Blount was involved in 1795) between the United States and Spain, by which
recruiting and provisioning forces to support George each power agreed not to incite Indian nations to
Washington’s army in the north and local military attack the other.
operations in the southern states, and in command- The House of Representatives impeached
ing a unit serving under General Horatio Gates, Blount on July 7, 1797, and the Senate expelled him
which engaged, and was defeated by, General Corn- the following day for guilt of a “high misdemeanor”
wallis at Camden, South Carolina. Blount was also a inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a sena-
paymaster for North Carolina and issued vouchers tor. The House of Representatives adopted articles of
to Tuscarora Indians in the revolutionary cause. impeachment on January 17, 1798, but the Senate
After the war, Blount moved west to Rocky Mount, a later decided that it had no jurisdiction, as Blount
cabin near present-day Johnson City, Tennessee. was no longer a member of the Senate and had never
Blount served in North Carolina’s state assem- been a civil officer of the United States within the
bly from 1780–1784 and 1788–1790, and was a North meaning of the Constitution. The case is significant
Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress from because it was the first impeachment brought before
1783–1784 and 1786–1787. William Blount also repre- the Senate. Britain disavowed the conspiracy,
sented North Carolina in its dealings with the although evidence suggests its tacit approval. How-
Cherokee. ever, the rough-hewn, backcountry settlers wel-

758 Boudinot, Elias
comed Blount back to Tennessee a hero, and he which he solicited donations for a daily Cherokee-
became the presiding officer of the state Senate. language newspaper as well as an academy and
William Blount played an integral role in push- library. The bilingual Cherokee Phoenix was estab-
ing the United States past the southern Appalachian lished in 1827 in New Echota, Georgia, with
range and propelling the nation ever westward Boudinot as editor. The first edition was delivered
through constant negotiation and renegotiation of on February 21, 1828. Missionary Samuel Wor-
treaties with Native nations. Blount died at cester worked with Boudinot publishing Cherokee-
Knoxville on March 21, 1800. language religious texts and hymns. Cherokee chief
C. S. Everett John Ross disagreed with the editorial position of the
newspaper on the question of Indian removal, main-
See also Treaty with the Cherokee–July 2, 1791.
taining that relocation was not a viable solution to the
Kappler, Charles J., ed. 1904. Indian Affairs: Laws land dispute between the Cherokee and the federal
and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties. Washington, DC: government. Despite Boudinot’s insistence on the
Government Printing Office. freedom to print his viewpoint, he was forced to
Masterson, William. 1954. American National resign his editorship.
Biography; Dictionary of American Biography: Boudinot’s house was the meeting place for the
William Blount. Repr., New York: Greenwood signing of the Treaty of New Echota in December
Press, 1969.
1835. Nearly one hundred of the Cherokee signers
Melton, Buckner F., Jr. 1998. The First Impeachment:
The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator
felt that the U.S. federal government could not be
William Blount. Macon, GA: Mercer University stopped in its takeover of Cherokee-owned land. By
Press. agreeing to this treaty, they believed that they were
guaranteeing a selection of quality land and repay-
ment of moving expenses to present-day Oklahoma.
Ironically, in 1829 both Boudinot and fellow
Treaty Party leader John Ridge supported a law that
Boudinot, Elias called for the death penalty for releasing Cherokee
(1800–1839) land to white settlers. Rival party members used this
Coward and traitor, or realist and pragmatist? Elias law to justify the execution of Ridge and Boudinot,
Boudinot continues to be a controversial figure in who were killed in 1839 by unidentified assailants in
Cherokee history. Born Gallegina (Buck) Watie in the new Cherokee Nation.
1800, he was educated at the Moravian missionary Pamela Lee Gray
school near his home in present-day Georgia, where
he learned the new written Cherokee language that See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831; Indian
Removal Act, 1830; Ridge, John Rollin; Ridge,
he would use to publish the tribe’s first bilingual
Major; Ross, John; New Echota, Georgia; Watie,
newspaper. Boudinot was to become a respected Stand; Trail of Tears; Treaty with the
Cherokee leader who supported his people’s reloca- Cherokee–December 29, 1835; Worcester v.
tion to present-day Oklahoma. Taking a position Georgia, 1831.
against Chief John Ross and the rest of the Cherokee References and Further Reading
tribe, he violated the tribal law forbidding anyone to Gabriel, Ralph Henry. 1941. Elias Boudinot, Cherokee,
sign treaties to cede Cherokee lands. and His America. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
While traveling to study at the American Board
Hoig, Stanley W. 1998. The Cherokees and Their Chiefs
School in Connecticut, the young Buck Watie visited in the Wake of Empire. Fayetteville: University of
with two former presidents at their homes: Thomas Arkansas Press.
Jefferson in Monticello and James Madison in Mont- McLoughlin, William G. 1993. After the Trail of Tears:
pelier, Virginia. Watie’s most significant visit was to The Cherokees Struggle for Sovereignty, 1839–1880.
Burlington, New Jersey, where he met Dr. Elias Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Boudinot, a statesman, poet, and writer who would Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. 1995. The
Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents.
become his benefactor. Watie would adopt
New York: St. Martins Press.
Boudinot’s name in appreciation of his financial Sturm, Circe. 2002. Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and
support. Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.
The American Board sponsored an eastern states Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University
speaking tour by Boudinot (formerly Watie), during of California Press.

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 offi-
cials. 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 in-
fluential 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. Mohawk sachem Joseph Brant (1742–1807), also known as
He left school after a year to work as a translator Thayendanega, was a significant native leader during the
for the Anglican Missionary, and in 1765 he married American Revolution. Brant allied himself with the British
against the American colonists. He died in 1807 at his estate
Christine, the daughter of an Oneida chief, and had
near Brantford, Ontario. (National Archives)
two children. He also worked as an interpreter for
Johnson following Christine’s death from tuberculo-
sis in 1771. In 1773, he married his wife’s sister Cognizant of the Mohawk role in the war, in
Susannah, who also died of tuberculosis a few 1784 General Frederick Haldimand rewarded the
months later. In 1774, Brant was appointed secretary Mohawks with a tract of land six miles on either side
to Johnson’s successor, Guy Johnson.Brant quickly of the Grand River in Ontario, which amounted to
became the most reliable interpreter in the region, 675,000 acres, in return for territory lost to the Amer-
and he played an important role in Mohawk-British icans in New York State. The Mohawks and Brant
relations. A fierce British ally, in 1775 he was moved to the Grand River basin, where they made
received by King George III, became a Freemason, their settlement at present-day Brantford, Ontario.
and was appointed to the rank of captain. Many Brant also received a pension and a parcel of land at
Native leaders were cautious about his allegiance to the Head of the Lake (Burlington). Brant and the Six
the Crown. Even so, he led four of the Six Nations Nations chiefs signed a formal deed in 1787 that
for the British side during the Revolutionary War. extended several thousand acres of land to European
When the war ended, however, the Mohawk terri- settlers for farming, milling, and other trades to
tory was formally yielded to the United States, forc- avoid the land’s usurpation by squatters. This was
ing the removal of Brant and his followers to the an important decision that is still a source of commu-
Grand River valley in Ontario, Canada. nity debate.

760 Buffalo
Clearly, Brant viewed becoming Europeanized falo was chief architect of the 1854 treaty, which cre-
as the primary means of long-term survival of the ated four of the six Ojibwe reservations in Wiscon-
Mohawk, and he encouraged his followers to adopt sin. He died a year later at his home in La Pointe on
European technologies and lifestyles. He was among Madeline Island in Wisconsin.
the first generation of Mohawks to own land indi- Buffalo was born at La Pointe and distin-
vidually rather than maintaining communal ties, guished himself in his early years as a powerful war
and he adopted European ways; for example, he chief. In 1842, he orchestrated a brilliant victory
owned two black slaves and developed a fondness against the Sioux at the Brule River. Far outnum-
for roast beef and organ music.In the end, it was in bered, on the night before the battle he ordered fires
part his allegiance to Britain that led to the loss of built along the river to trick the Sioux into thinking
territories in the United States. In addition, Brant’s his numbers were greater than they were. Later, he
failure to obtain firm title to the Haldimand lands became a powerful orator and a skillful negotiator.
and the Grand River reserve lands has led a number In 1854, he insisted that U.S. negotiators state explic-
of contemporary historians to conclude that Brant’s itly in the treaty that the Ojibwe retained their hunt-
presence was divisive and led to the ruination of the ing, fishing, and gathering rights to the land they
Six Nations. were giving up.
Joseph Brant lived his remaining days with his Buffalo is best known for his highly successful
third wife, Catherine Croghan, spending the major- 1852 journey to Washington, D.C., and meeting with
ity of his time trying to establish the Mohawks’ legal the president, in which the removal order relocating
title to the land. In addition to raising his seven the Ojibwe to Sandy Lake, Minnesota, was reversed.
children, he also worked on translating the Bible into Along with O-sho-ga and interpreter Benjamin Arm-
Mohawk. On November 24, 1807, Brant died at age strong (his nephew by marriage and adopted son),
65 in the home he built at Grand River, Ontario. Buffalo walked and traveled by canoe, steamboat,
He was buried at the Episcopal church that he also and train to Washington, where his efforts to meet
constructed. with Luke Lea, the commissioner of Indian affairs,
Yale D. Belanger were rebuffed. Lea told Armstrong to take the Ojib-
wes with him on the next train and that he did not
See also Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794. want to hear from him again.
Jakes, John. 1969. Mohawk: The Life of Joseph Brant.
Buffalo’s delegation attracted a lot of attention
New York: Crowell-Collier Press. in Washington. The members were invited to the
Kelsay, Isabel. 1984. Joseph Brant, 1743–1807: Man of homes of prominent individuals and besieged by
Two Worlds. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University dozens of people who gathered outside their hotel,
Press. forcing them to occasionally slip away through a
Robinson, Helen. 1986. Joseph Brant: A Man for His back door. While in the dining room one day, the
People. Toronto: Dundurn Press. delegation was approached by several Whig Party
Thomas, Howard. 1973. Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea).
officials. The Whigs arranged an audience with
New York: Prospect Books.
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
Buffalo the Ojibwe into permanently relocating to Min-
(1759–1855) nesota. About four hundred Ojibwe had died from
Chief Buffalo, also known as Kechewaishke, Besh- disease, starvation, or cold while trying to collect
kike, and Le Boeuf, was principal chief of the Lake their treaty payments. Buffalo told the president
Superior Ojibwe and signer of the 1837, 1842, and that the Ojibwe were more resolved than ever not
1854 treaties. In 1850, President Zachary Taylor to relocate. He said there was universal disappoint-
signed an executive order removing the Ojibwe to ment over the failure of the U.S. government to live
Minnesota. Two years later, at the age of 93, Buffalo up to promises made in the 1837 and 1842 treaties.
led a delegation to Washington, where he met with Buffalo told the president that he was particularly
Taylor’s successor, Millard Fillmore. Buffalo per- concerned that he might not be able to control the
suaded Fillmore to rescind the removal order and young warriors of his tribe. Two days later, Fill-
establish permanent homelands for the Ojibwe. Buf- more rescinded the removal order and ordered that

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 761
the annuity payments be distributed from La Pointe most politicians in the late 1700s and early 1800s was
as before. that the Indian and American culture were incom-
The historic meeting also set up the 1854 treaty, patible; however, they believed that Natives had the
the third and final land cession treaty, in which basic skills required to evolve culturally. To this end,
Ojibwe reservations in Michigan, Minnesota, and Congress passed four Trade and Intercourse Acts,
Wisconsin were established. Buffalo insisted that the which dealt exclusively with Indian affairs. These
Ojibwe bands not give up the last of their lands acts established a factory system in which trade
without receiving an assignment of land as a new goods were provided at a fair price so that Indians
home. The chief added that he wanted annuities to would remain close to trading posts and maintain
be paid to his people at LaPointe instead of at Sandy trade relations.
Lake. The old LaPointe chief demanded that the President Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809), along
government’s interpreter be replaced with one of his with those in Indian affairs, believed that the factory
own people, because he did want any trickery as in system was not a permanent solution, because the
the past. Indians would continue to be a hunter-gatherer state
Buffalo’s health began to fail. He was too sick to and thus would never be truly civilized. In 1822, the
attend the council meetings that took place during factory system was terminated. Two years later, John
the 1855 annuity distribution. On September 7, 1855, C. Calhoun, the secretary of war, established the
two days after being baptized a Catholic, Buffalo Bureau of Indian Affairs. By this action, the War
died. He was buried in the Catholic cemetery at Department was relieved of all responsibility con-
LaPointe on Madeline Island. However, according to cerning Indian affairs but retained its authority in
some oral accounts, his remains were moved to an them. Calhoun appointed Thomas McKenney, a for-
undisclosed location on the mainland. mer superintendent of Indian affairs, as the head of
Patricia A. Loew this new office. McKenney and two assistants inher-
ited the job of approving vouchers for expenditures,
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Lac Courte
allocating funds for civilizing Indians, settling dis-
Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt et al.,
1983; Treaty with the Chippewa–July 29, 1837; agreements between Natives and white settlers over
Treaty of 1855 with the Chippewa–February 22, land, and handling all correspondence normally
1855; Bureau of Indian Affairs. directed to the War Department concerning Indian
References and Further Reading affairs.
Armstrong, Benjamin. 1892. Early Life among the McKenney quickly realized that, in order to
Indians. Ashland, WI: Press of A. W. Bowron. carry out his new responsibilities, he must have the
Loew, Patty. 2001. Indian Nations of Wisconsin:
authority to enforce the actions of the department.
Histories of Endurance and Renewal. Madison:
Wisconsin Historical Society Press.
On March 31, 1826, he presented to Congress a bill
Satz, Ronald N. 1991. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The that would establish an office of Indian affairs inde-
Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in pendent of the secretary of war (the names Bureau of
Historical Perspective. Madison: Wisconsin Indian Affairs and Office of Indian Affairs were inter-
Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. changeable). Because Calhoun had established this
division of the War Department with out congres-
sional authorization, he retained all authority. This
bill would make the Office of Indian Affairs an offi-
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cial body, which, although still serving under the sec-
Before the American Revolution, Native Americans retary of war, would have the authority to act and to
enjoyed some protection from treaties made with the enforce the actions. Congress failed to approve the
English; however, with war looming, the first Conti- bill twice, and it was not until 1931 that the Bureau of
nental Congress created the Department of Indian Indian Affairs was officially recognized and formed.
Affairs. The function of this organization was to The formation of an official Bureau of Indian
obtain treaties and ensure tribal neutrality during Affairs (BIA), it was hoped, would bring to a close
the upcoming war. Created in 1775, the department an era of confusion in the handling of Indian policy.
was divided into northern, central, and southern The opinion that Indians could be assimilated into
divisions. After the war, the United States War white culture was abandoned, and the new consen-
Department was officially formed, and one of its sus was to force the tribes off land desired by the
responsibilities was Indian relations. The view of U.S. government. This removal policy was formally

762 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
adopted in 1825 and, in the hands of the BIA, was abused physically, emotionally, and spiritually in
fully implemented by the 1830s. With a concerted an attempt to make them ashamed of who they
effort on the part of the BIA and the U.S. govern- were. The treatment of Indians and the shaming
ment, huge numbers of Indians were forced off their they endured caused suicide, alcoholism, and
lands and pushed west. The results were particularly depression to become normal characteristics of
devastating in the Southeast, where the Cherokee, Indian societies.
Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole were moved hun- For its entire duration as a government institu-
dreds of miles to their new homes. The most infa- tion, the BIA invoked the will of the people in
mous incident involving these removals involved destroying the Native Americans’ lifeways. It was
the Cherokee. not until the early twentieth century, when federal
Traditionally located in present-day Virginia, policy began to stop trying to destroy Indian culture
western Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, western and instead began to protect it, that the BIA devel-
North Carolina, South Carolina, northern Georgia, oped into an institution dedicated to helping the
and northeastern Alabama, the Cherokee were a Indian cause. In 1928, the Meriam Report was pub-
large tribe thriving in a hunter-gatherer state. The lished, which detailed the shortcomings of the ser-
Cherokee had by any standards assimilated white vices provided for the reservations. This report
civilization. They had developed a written lan- sparked an era in which the BIA and the government
guage, had their own newspapers, had adopted the worked hard to improve Indian life socially, econom-
Christian religion, and had even adopted their own ically, and psychologically. By 1960, the BIA’s ser-
constitution. In an attempt to solve their dilemma vices were expanded to include forestry, agricultural
legally, the Cherokee brought their case to the extension service, range management, and land
Supreme Court, where they unexpectedly won a acquisition in an effort to improve the Indians’
decision favoring their ownership of their ancestral plight. This was the peak of the BIA’s range of
land. The decision reached by Chief Justice John responsibilities; shortly thereafter, the government
Marshall said, “The Cherokee nation, . . . is a dis- allocated the education of Indian children to the
tinct community, occupying its own territory, . . . in state and health care to the Department of Health,
which the laws of Georgia can have no force . . .” Education, and Welfare.
(Worcester v. Georgia, 1832, 6 Peters, 534–536, In the 1970s, Congress proceeded to pass a
558–563). Unfortunately, the rest of the United States series of laws that helped better the situation of
did not share the sentiments held by the Supreme Native Americans. Some of these include the Ameri-
Court. President Andrew Jackson, not an Indian can Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of
sympathizer, refused to enforce the rulings. The 1975, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of
Cherokee were forced to move, many times at gun- 1976, and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The
point, and thousands died. The harsh conditions BIA of today is attempting to change its position
and cruel treatment of the BIA and the U.S. govern- from one of management of tribes to one of
ment during the removal caused eight thousand assistance. One of the most important aspects of
Indian deaths. This one-thousand-mile march west the modern BIA is that, of its more than ten thou-
became known as the Trail of Tears because the sand employees, 95 percent are Native American.
Indian way of life was all but erased. Although Indians’ position toward the BIA is tenta-
In 1849, Congress moved the Bureau of Indian tive, both sides hope that the BIA can truly move to a
Affairs to the Department of the Interior, which by position of assistance instead of a dictator of policies.
1867 had allowed the BIA to become more involved In September 2003, when the head of the BIA pub-
with the affairs of the Indians. By this time, the BIA licly apologized for the agency’s “legacy of racism
had in effect become the governmental body pre- and inhumanity,” it was seen by all as admission of
siding over the Indian territories, and it took full past misdeeds and a commitment to a better future.
liberty in brutalizing their way of life. The agency The closing words of this apology express the
forbade any language but English to be spoken, desires and hopes of the BIA and Native Americans
outlawed all Indian religious ceremonies, and for- in years to come: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs was
bade Indians any form of traditional government. born in 1824 in a time of war on Indian people. May
The biggest injustices presided over by the BIA it live in the year 2000 and beyond as an instrument
were felt by Indian children. Put into boarding of their prosperity.”
school to “civilize” them, these young Indians were Arthur Holst

Burke, Charles H. 763
See also American Indian Self-Determination and peoples. The decade during which Burke oversaw
Education Act of 1975; Sovereignty; the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) witnessed the
Termination; Treaty; Trust Doctrine. beginnings of a battle waged between the so-called
obscurantists, such as Burke and interior secretaries
Kvasnicka, Robert M., and Herman J. Viola, eds.
1979. The Commissioners of Indian Affairs, Albert B. Fall and Hubert Work, and the “Red Pro-
1824–1977. Lincoln: University of Nebraska gressives,” led by John Collier and Gertrude Bonnin.
Press. Before he became the head of the BIA, Burke’s
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The tenure as a Republican congressman from South
United States Government and the American Indian. Dakota had earned him a long-established record as
Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska an assimilationist. In 1906, he had authored the
Press.
Burke Act, which sought to change the terms of the
Dawes Act of 1887, which had begun the process of
University of California Press. alienating treaty-guaranteed land from the tribes.
Burke’s act allowed a shortening of the twenty-five-
year period before reservation land allotted to
individual Indians lost its federal trust protection.
All Indians judged by the government to be compe-
Burke, Charles H. tent to handle their property independently could
(1861–1944) have the trust restrictions waived, opening the way
Charles H. Burke was commissioner of Indian affairs for the sale of the land. This resulted in yet more
during 1921–1929 and one of the last overt support- land passing from Indian to non-Indian hands.
ers of the forced assimilation of American Indian 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)

764 Caldwell, Billy
the Department of the Interior, pursued a policy of ernment by the BIA and the continuing depletion of
opening reservation lands to non-Indian settlement tribal lands (most of which were guaranteed by
and reservation petroleum and mineral resources to treaty), the specific agenda that Burke pushed dur-
business. ing his tenure, were the causes of most of the prob-
Probably the most overt example of land grab- lems Indians faced.
bing against all law during Burke’s tenure as com- Steven L. Danver
missioner occurred in 1922, when he and Secretary
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Southern
Fall were able to persuade New Mexico senator
Plains and the Southwest; Treaty of Guadalupe
Holm Bursum to propose a bill to legitimize the land Hidalgo, 1848.
claims of squatters who had illegally settled on land References and Further Reading
held by the New Mexico Pueblos. By September, the Fixico, Donald L. 1998. The Invasion of Indian Country
Bursum Bill had caught the attention of numerous in the Twentieth Century: American Capitalism and
other national and local groups working for reform Tribal Natural Resources. Niwot, CO: University
in Indian affairs. John Collier’s articles against the Press of Colorado.
Kelly, Lawrence C. 1979. “Charles Henry Burke
bill were published in Sunset magazine, bringing the
(1921–29).” In The Commissioners of Indian Affairs,
obscurantist-progressive debate into many middle- 1824–1977, eds. Robert M. Kvasnicka and
class homes. Herman J. Viola, 251–261. Lincoln: University of
Organized by Collier and numerous Pueblo Nebraska Press.
leaders in response to the threat posed by the Bur- Philp, Kenneth R. 1981. John Collier’s Crusade for
sum Bill to Pueblo Indian lands, water, and, by Indian Reform, 1920–1954. Tucson: University of
extension, their entire way of life, a meeting took Arizona Press.
place on November 5, 1922, at Santo Domingo Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father: The
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 govern-
ment was not without precedent, as the Spaniards Caldwell, Billy
would have known since the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. (1780–1841)
Owing to the efforts of the Indian peoples of the Billy Caldwell was a man of Mohawk-Irish descent
Southwest and much of the informed public, the bill who rose to a position of influence within the United
was defeated. Band of Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi Indi-
Burke continued the government’s long- ans over the course of the early nineteenth century.
established policy of suppressing Indian culture, After working for much of the early 1800s in the
relying on off-reservation schools to accomplish his Indian Department of the British government, Cald-
assimilationist agenda. Immediately upon taking well used trade and kinship connections to rise to a
office, Burke set about suppressing Indian religion position of power within the United Band commu-
by increasing enforcement of the Religious Crimes nity. In the late 1830s, he moved west with this band
Codes, even personally ordering several religious and served as an important intermediary and leader
leaders from Taos Pueblo jailed. In the case of the for them until his death in 1841.
Sun Dance, he argued that, because the ceremony Billy Caldwell was the son of an officer in the
would require Indians to travel from a wide area for British army and a Mohawk woman. Raised among
an extended period, to the neglect of their crops, it the Mohawk people until the age of eight, he spent
was not acceptable and could be punished under the his remaining childhood years with his father’s sec-
Indian Offense Laws (Prucha 1984). ond family near Detroit. Caldwell went to a Jesuit
Most of Burke’s term as commissioner was con- school, where he learned both French and English. In
sumed by continuing criticism and activism by the his late teens, he began to work for local fur traders,
Red Progressives, culminating in the release of the Robert and Thomas Forsyth, and by 1803 had
Meriam Report in 1928, which took the BIA to task assumed the position of clerk at their Chicago trad-
for the poor living and working conditions and edu- ing post. Over the course of the next decade, he ven-
cational opportunities for Indians. The report con- tured into trading operations of his own, although
cluded that the imposition of white culture and gov- he never left the umbrella of the Forsyth firm. Dur-

Canassatego 765
ing this period, Caldwell also created a personal con- Billy Caldwell died on September 27, 1841, one
nection with the Potawatomi communities that of the many victims of a cholera epidemic that hit
resided on the St. Joseph River in southern Michigan the region. Only a few years later, the comments of
by marrying La Nanette, the daughter of Wabinema, Potawatomi leaders during treaty negotiations testi-
or White Sturgeon. Following her death, he married fied to Caldwell’s legacy. The first of many demands
the mixed-descent daughter of Robert Forsyth and was that the United States officially acknowledge the
an Ojibwa woman. Through both his work and his community of Indians formerly known as the United
marriages, by 1812 Caldwell had established himself Band as “The Prairie Indians of Caldwell’s Band of
as a valued middleman and broker among the Potawatomies.”
British, American, and Indian communities in the John P. Bowes
region. At the outbreak of the War of 1812, Caldwell
See also Forsyth, Thomas; Indian Removal Act, 1830;
sided with the British, and in 1813 he obtained the
Treaty with the Chippewa, Etc.–September 26,
rank of captain in the Western Division of the British 1833.
Indian Department. During his service, he interacted References and Further Reading
primarily with Potawatomi warriors, who had also Clifton, James A. 1978. “Personal and Ethnic Identity
allied with the British. After the American victory, on the Great Lakes Frontier: The Case of Billy
Caldwell’s fortunes declined within the British ser- Caldwell, Anglo-Canadian.” Ethnohistory, 25(1):
vice, and he received his discharge in the fall of 1816. 69–94.
Failing to establish a career in the years following Clifton, James A. 1977. The Prairie People: Continuity
and Change in Potawatomi Indian Culture
his discharge, Caldwell returned to Chicago in
1665–1965. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas.
1820 at the age of forty and reconnected with his for- Edmunds, R. David. 1979. The Potawatomis: Keepers of
mer employers, the Forsyths. During this time in the Fire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Chicago, Caldwell returned to his intermediary posi-
tion 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 Canassatego
nomination for the office of justice of the peace in (c. 1690–1750)
1826. Canassatego was tadadaho (speaker) of the Iroquois
As a result of his affiliation with the Forsyths, Confederacy in the middle of the eighteenth century
his work for the American government, and his con- and a major figure in diplomacy with the French and
nections to the Potawatomi Indians in the region, English colonists. His advice that the colonies should
Caldwell became a prominent figure in U.S.- form a union on the Iroquois model may have influ-
Potawatomi relations. Based primarily on the initia- enced Benjamin Franklin’s plans for colonial union
tive of Indian agent Alexander Wolcott, Caldwell, as as early as 1754 at the Albany Congress. Some schol-
a named Potawatomi chief, negotiated and signed ars disagree with the idea of a congress coming from
the 1829 treaty that ceded lands claimed by the the Iroquois model.
United Band in and around the Rock River in north- In 1744, Pennsylvania officials met with Iro-
ern Illinois. He also signed the treaty of 1833 in quois sachems in a treaty council at Lancaster, Penn-
Chicago, which ceded approximately five million sylvania. This meeting was one of a number of sig-
acres of land in northern Illinois and southern Wis- nificant diplomatic parlays between British
consin and paved the way for the removal of the colonists, the Iroquois, and their allies that preceded
United Band to lands west of the Mississippi River. and helped shape the outcome of the French and
Yet in the years between this last treaty and his Indian War. At the meeting, Canassatego and other
death, Caldwell worked solely on behalf of the Iroquois complained that the colonies, having no
United Band. He moved west with them and set up central authority, had been unable to restrain inva-
his home near Council Bluffs in Iowa Territory. Dur- sion of Iroquois lands. In that context, Canassatego
ing his brief tenure in the West, Caldwell helped to advised the colonists to form a union like that of the
represent the Indians’ interests in all negotiations Iroquois.
and interactions with American officials and gained Richard Peters, delegate from Pennsylvania,
the trust and allegiance of such leaders as Abtek- described Canassatego at Lancaster as “a tall, well-
izhek, or Half Day. made man” with “a very full chest and brawny

766 Canonicus
limbs, a manly countenance, with a good-natired both are based on a democratic representation of
[sic] smile. He was about 60 years of age, very active, their peoples.
strong, and had a surprising liveliness in his speech” Bruce E. Johansen
(Grinde and Johansen 1991, 94).
See also Albany Conferences of 1754 and 1775.
At the time of the Lancaster Treaty Council,
Franklin, then a Philadelphia printer, was publishing Boyd, Julian. 1981. “Dr. Franklin, Friend of the
the transcripts of Indian treaty councils as small Indian.” In Meet Dr. Franklin, ed. Ray Lokken, Jr.
booklets that enjoyed a lively sale in the colonies and Philadelphia: Franklin Institute.
in England. The Lancaster Treaty was one of several Grinde, Donald A., Jr., and Bruce E. Johansen. 1991.
dozen treaty accounts published by Franklin Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the
between 1736 and 1762. Franklin read Canassatego’s Evolution of Democracy. Los Angeles: University
words as they issued from his press and as he of California.
Van Doren, Carl, and Julian P. Boyd, eds. 1938. Indian
became an advocate of colonial union by the early
Treaties. Printed by Benjamin Franklin
1750s, when he began his diplomatic career as a 1736–1762. Philadelphia: Historical Society of
Pennsylvania delegate to the Iroquois and their Pennsylvania.
allies. Franklin urged the British colonies to unite in Wallace, Paul A. W. 1961. Indians in Pennsylvania.
emulation of the Iroquois Confederacy in a letter to Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and
his printing partner James Parker in 1751 and as he Museum Commission.
drew up his Albany Plan of Union in 1754.
After he advised colonial leaders to form a fed-
eral union at the Lancaster Treaty Council of 1744,
Canassatego also became a British literary figure, the Canonicus
hero of John Shebbeare’s Lydia, or, Filial Piety, pub- (c. 1562–1647)
lished in 1755. The real Canassatego died in 1750. The name Canonicus (also Cananacus, Conanicus,
With the flowery eloquence prized by romantic nov- and various other variations) might be a Latin
elists of his time, Shebbeare portrayed Canassatego derivation of Qunnoune (Drake 1880, 118). He was
as something more than human—something more, the sachem of the Narragansetts, a native North
even, than the “noble savage” that was so popular in American nation established in what is today Rhode
Enlightenment Europe. Having saved the life of a Island. Although “he never fully trusted the
helpless English maiden from the designs of a preda- English” (Hodge 1912, I, 202), mostly because of
tory English ship captain en route, once in England their aggressive ways, Canonicus always remained
Canassatego became judge and jury for all that was friendly to them. He gave Roger Williams the tract of
contradictory and corrupt in mid-eighteenth-century land where Providence, Rhode Island, now stands.
England. Long after his death, Canonicus was still remem-
Disembarking, Shebbeare’s Canassatego meets bered as a great sachem, as evidenced by the U.S.
with a rude sight: a ragged collection of dwellings, Navy naming four ships after him. He should not be
and men rising from the bowels of the earth dirty, confused with Canonchet, a later Narragansett
broken, and degraded. Asking his hosts for an expla- sachem.
nation, Canassatego is told that the men have been The earliest Narragansett sachem that the
digging coal. The Iroquois sachem inquires whether English had heard about was Tashtasick, who is
everyone in England digs coal for a living and sometimes referred to as Canonicus’s father. But the
reflects that he is beginning to understand why so tradition also reports that Wessonsuoum and
many English have fled to America. Keneschoo, his son and daughter, were the parents
In 1775, Canassatego’s thirty-one-year-old ad- of Canonicus (Drake 1880, 118). He spent his life in a
vice was recalled at a treaty between colonial repre- village called Narragansett, north of what is now
sentatives and Iroquois leaders near Albany. The Kingston, Rhode Island. Following the two-sachem
treaty commissioners told the sachems that they rule, the Narragansetts had Canonicus as their home
were heeding the advice Iroquois forefathers had sachem, while Miantonomi, his nephew, dealt with
given to the colonial Americans at Lancaster, Penn- other matters, such as war parties.
sylvania, in 1744. Although some may be skeptical of Unlike other nearby nations, the Narragansetts
the Iroquois influence on the founding of the U.S. largely avoided the diseases that carried off New
government, there are interesting parallels in that England’s native population in 1617–1619. This situ-

Captain Jack 767
ation strengthened Canonicus’s power and author- Simmons, William S. 1978. “Narragansett.” In
ity, in part because numerous refugees from other Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15,
nations joined his people. Although he fought the Northeast, ed. Bruce G. Trigger, 190–197.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
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 Captain Jack
that he was greeted by Canonicus with the words,
(c. 1837–1873)
“What cheer, nétop [my friend]” (Simmons 1978,
Kintpuash, a Modoc, later called Captain Jack by
194). They soon established a good relationship, and
European American colonists of California, played
Canonicus later gave some land to Williams, who
a major role as a leader in the Modoc War of
was involved in the diplomatic efforts to stop the
1872–1873. Born at the Wa’chamshwash village on
Narragansett war against the Wampanoags.
the Lower Lost River near the California-Oregon
It was also under Williams’s influence that
border, Kintpuash’s father was ambushed and slain
Canonicus decided, in 1637, to help the Puritans
by whites during the Ben Wright Massacre of 1846.
and their Mohegan allies in their war against the
Little is known of his life before age twenty-five. We
Pequots.
do know that his Modoc name, Kintpuash, meant
After the Pequot Nation’s dispersal following
“He Has Water Brash [Psoriasis].”
that devastating war, Mohegans and Narragansetts
The Modocs had little contact with the immi-
agreed to a treaty that would erase old enmities. The
grants until the advent of the 1849 California gold
treaty was broken in 1643 when Sequasson, an allied
rush. Around this time, Kintpuash acquired the
sachem, was attacked by Uncas, sachem of the
nickname Captain Jack because he wore a uniform
Mohegans. Miantonomi asked the English if he
could retaliate, and they answered that they would
not intervene. Unfortunately, Miantonomi was cap-
tured 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 Narra-
gansetts sought revenge for the disrespect of the ran-
som custom. On April 19, 1644, after having been
under Puritan pressure for a long time, the Narra-
gansetts surrendered themselves and their lands vol-
untarily 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 eighty-
five (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.
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. Captain Jack, also known as Kintpuash, was a key leader in the
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Modoc War. (Library of Congress)

768 Captain Jack
coat with brass buttons, which had been given to Reluctantly, Captain Jack agreed to their terms
him by a U.S. Army officer. Although the Modocs only if the Modocs were refused amnesty and a
opposed European American expansion into their return to their California homeland. At a meeting on
lands, Captain Jack counseled peace and encour- April 11, Captain Jack shot Canby. The Reverend
aged trade with the settlers living near Eureka, Cali- Eleazar Thomas was also killed, and Albert
fornia, during the 1840s. He had taken two wives by Meachum, the Indian superintendent, was severely
this time. wounded. Winema and her husband managed to
The gold rush intensified tensions and hostili- escape with the remaining members of the peace
ties in the 1850s until Schonchin John, a Modoc chief, party. Quickly, the government fielded more troops
signed a treaty removing his band to a reservation in and heavier weapons.
Oregon in 1864. The area was also the traditional The rugged lava rock terrain worked to the
homeland of the Klamaths, however, who resented Modocs’ advantage at first, but dissension among the
the Modoc intrusion. Realizing that the land in Ore- Modoc leaders and harsh conditions weakened their
gon was insufficient, Captain Jack and his followers position. Captain Jack surrendered in late May. After
returned to California and requested a reservation a military trial, in which Hooker Jim testified for the
there. The federal and state authorities denied their prosecution, Captain Jack, Boston Charley, Black Jim,
request. and Schonchin John were hanged on October 3, 1873.
Settlers soon began to insist on the forced Since the administration of President Ulysses S.
removal of Modocs. On November 28, 1872, forces Grant had instituted its Peace Policy toward Indians,
invaded Captain Jack’s camp and coerced him into the American people were stunned by the uprising
consenting to removal. As tensions mounted at the and the consequent inhumanity and insensitivity of
meeting, violence broke out. Scarfaced Charley, a the pursuit and hanging of the Modocs.
Modoc leader angered by the army’s behavior, In the final analysis, white prejudice, Indian
refused to give up his gun, and shots were fired betrayal, greed, and an opportunistic press made a
during the ensuing struggle. When the fighting deplorable situation far worse. Employing more
stopped, eight soldiers and fifteen Modocs were than a thousand soldiers to fight a Modoc force that
dead. never numbered more than fifty-three, the army
Fearing reprisals, the Modocs under Captain incurred losses of seven officers, thirty-nine soldiers,
Jack fled to the Lava Beds nearby, believing that they two scouts, and sixteen civilians. The Modoc dead
would be safe there. However, this was not the case. numbered eleven women and seven men. An enor-
Hooker Jim and his Modocs, encamped on the other mous human and financial cost was endured to cap-
side of the Lost River, were attacked by settlers; ture and remove 155 Modocs to Indian Territory.
while retreating to the Lava Beds, they killed twelve A melodrama entitled Captain Jack was staged
whites in revenge. Within this hostile environment, for a brief time in 1873, but it failed to fully capitalize
the Modoc leaders—Captain Jack, Schonchin John, on the tragic bloodletting. A second group of grisly
and Hooker Jim—prepared for an attack in the vast, entrepreneurs were more successful. On the day
largely inaccessible volcanic area. But Captain Jack after Captain Jack’s execution, robbers excavated his
still counseled peace and negotiation, arguing that grave, embalmed his body, and put it on display in a
the government would ultimately win. However, carnival sideshow that toured profitably across
more militant factions under Hooker Jim and many eastern cities.
Schonchin John outvoted him. In 1909, fifty-one of the Oklahoma Modocs were
On January 13, 1873, troops moved into the permitted to return to their reservation in Oregon.
Lava Beds to quell the Modoc uprising. On February Bruce E. Johansen
28, Captain Jack’s cousin Winema (married to a
white man named Frank Riddle) and a peace delega- See also California, Hawaii, and the Pacific
tion began talks with the rebellious Modocs. Hooker Northwest; Indian Territory.
Jim and Schonchin John thought Captain Jack a cow- References and Further Reading
Hagen, Olaf T. No date. “Modoc War
ard for consenting to the talks, so they insisted that
Correspondence and Documents, 1865–1878.”
Captain Jack kill General Edward S. Canby, the head May 1942. Typescript, Office of Archeology and
of the delegation. The Modoc militants also believed Historic Preservation, National Park Service.
that U.S. resolve would be damaged by the death of [Approximately 1,780 pages of documents
Canby. selected from records in the National Archives,

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 Scout Christopher “Kit” Carson (1809–1868) was renowned as
a frontiersman, but also has a controversial legacy for his
1846 and General Edward Richard Sprigg Canby in
treatment of native people. (Library of Congress)
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 Carson first accompanied Young on a trapping
in eastern New Mexico—a series of events that cul- expedition to California’s central valley in August
minated in the Long Walk. 1829, returning as Young’s most dependable lieu-
Born on December 24, 1809, in Boonesborough, tenant in April 1831. While serving in this capacity,
Kentucky, but raised near Franklin, Missouri, Carson Carson fought, negotiated, and traded with the
was the sixth child of Rebecca Robinson Carson and Zuni, Mojave, and Apache. Carson’s association
her husband Lindsey. Kit quit school upon his with Young launched his extended career as a fur
father’s death in 1818 and spent the majority of his trapper and brought him into contact with Thomas
youth working odd jobs that did not require the ado- “Broken Hand” Fitzpatrick and the Rocky Mountain
lescent to read and write. In 1824, Carson’s mother Fur Company. His exploits under the leadership of
placed her fifteen-year-old son in a formal appren- Fitzpatrick, beginning in the fall of 1831, led Carson
ticeship with David Workman, a saddle and harness down the Platte, Green, Columbia, and Salmon
maker. Two years later, Kit broke his contractual rivers—some of the most spectacular and beaver-
agreement with Workman and eventually made his rich areas in the Rocky Mountains. Carson spent the
way via the Santa Fe Trail to Taos, New Mexico, an next decade trapping beaver in the American West,
important supply base and convenient marketplace where he became intimately familiar with the cul-
for trappers and traders located seventy miles north tures, languages, and traditions of several Indian
of Santa Fe. Here, an illiterate Carson learned to tribes—experiences that later served him well as a
speak Spanish fluently and found work as a cook for federal Indian agent to the Ute in northern New
Ewing Young, a master trapper from Tennessee who Mexico.
earlier had participated in the overland trade with As the beaver trade waned during the late
Santa Fe. 1830s and early 1840s, William Bent employed

770 Carson, Kit
Carson as a post hunter at Bent’s Fort on the assignment at Fort Craig in southern New Mexico
Arkansas River. While visiting family in Missouri in cost Carson the opportunity to participate in the
1842, Carson met John C. Frémont, a western sur- Union victory at Glorieta Pass.
veyor, explorer, and cartographer who later became Owing to Carson’s familiarity with southwest-
a California senator and Republican Party presiden- ern tribes, General James Henry Carleton, Canby’s
tial candidate, on a riverboat headed up the Mis- successor as head of Union forces in New Mexico,
souri River from St. Louis. Frémont recruited Car- next selected Carson to lead a military campaign
son as a guide for his first expedition across the against the Apaches in an effort to relocate the tribe
Great Plains on the Oregon Trail and into the Rocky to the Bosque Redondo. In June 1863, after success-
Mountains, where they penetrated the Wind River fully subjugating the Apaches, Carson left Fort Sum-
Range in Wyoming and ascended a summit later ner, marched westward with seven hundred men,
christened Fremont Peak. Over the next several and launched three arduous scouting expeditions
years, Carson escorted Frémont to Oregon, Califor- into the heart of Navajoland—a forty-five-thousand-
nia, the central Rocky Mountains, and the Great square-mile swath of land in northwestern New
Basin. Frémont’s popular reports, actually written Mexico and northeastern Arizona—to round up the
by his wife Jessie, sensationalized Carson’s tenure Diné in preparation for their trek to the Bosque
as an expedition guide, transforming the temperate Redondo. Unable to locate more than a handful of
Missourian into a hero of gun duels, bear hunts, and Navajos at any given time, Carson grew frustrated
wilderness adventures. but continued his pursuit of the tribe. Breaching the
Carson’s notoriety as an effectual mountain Navajos’ stronghold at Canyon de Chelly that win-
man and scout coincided with the adoption of ter, Carson practiced a scorched-earth policy that
Manifest Destiny by the United States as an axiom resulted in little loss of life but compelled the Nava-
for western expansion. His third and final expedition jos to surrender.
occurred when Frémont asked him in August In March 1865, Carson was promoted to
1845 to serve as a guide to California. This scientific brigadier general and accepted an appointment as
foray collided with international politics. President commander of Fort Garland, Colorado. The follow-
James Knox Polk’s aspiration to acquire Mexican- ing October, Carson participated in a treaty council
controlled California and the New Mexico territory with the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa,
led to war with Mexico from 1846 to 1848. The Mexi- and Kiowa-Apache in south-central Kansas at the
can government ultimately ceded much of the confluence of the Little Arkansas and Arkansas
Southwest to the United States. Rivers. These negotiations resulted in the establish-
During the Mexican-American War, Carson ment of a reservation as outlined in the Treaty of the
served as a dispatch rider for the U.S. Army under Little Arkansas River signed between the United
the leadership of General Stephen Kearny. Stationed States and the Cheyenne and Arapaho on October
in California, Carson twice carried urgent messages 14, 1865. His health failing, Carson left military
to Washington, D.C., including news of the discov- service in 1867 and assumed the position of superin-
ery of gold. These duties kept Carson away from his tendent of Indian affairs for Colorado. While serv-
Taos home and his wife, Maria Josefa Jaramillo. Car- ing in this capacity, Carson accompanied a Ute
son also missed the 1847 Taos Rebellion, in which delegation to Washington, D.C., to negotiate the
Charles Bent, governor of New Mexico, lost his life establishment of a permanent reservation for the
while protecting members of Kit’s family from a Colorado and Utah Utes. On May 25, 1868, almost
mob. Concern for his family’s safety convinced Car- immediately following his return to his beloved
son to quit his itinerant life. West and one month after the death of his wife, Car-
In 1853, Carson accepted an appointment in son passed away at Fort Lyon, Colorado. Buried in
Taos as federal agent for the Ute Indians. Carson the old Taos cemetery, resting peacefully beside his
remained an Indian agent until the outbreak of the wife, Carson irrevocably abandoned his roving way
Civil War, at which time he accepted a position as of life.
lieutenant colonel of the First New Mexico Volun- Sonia Dickey
teers. Promoted to colonel in September 1861, Car-
son actively participated in General Edward Canby’s See also Canyon de Chelly, Arizona; Fort Sumner,
unsuccessful attempt to repel Confederate forces at New Mexico; Long Walk; Treaty with the
the Battle of Valverde on February 21, 1862. A brief Cheyenne and Arapaho–October 14, 1865.

Cass, Lewis 771

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:
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:
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 Terri-
tory. 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. sena-
tor, secretary of state, secretary of war, and a presi-
dential candidate, Cass was a fervent supporter of
Lewis Cass (1782–1866), who served as President James
territorial expansion. Buchanan’s secretary of state, secured millions of acres of
Born in New Hampshire and educated at Exeter Indian land while negotiating treaties. (Library of Congress)
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 Among the notable treaties negotiated by Cass
was appointed governor of Michigan Territory by are the Treaty of St. Mary’s (1818), the Saginaw
President James Madison. He would hold this posi- Treaty (1819), and the Treaty of Sault St. Marie
tion until 1831, which made him the longest-serving (1820). One of his greatest accomplishments as a
territorial governor in the history of the United negotiator, however, was not a land cession treaty
States. but a “peace” treaty negotiated among Native
Cass considered Indian affairs to be his major nations. With the express purpose of ending conflict
responsibility as a territorial governor, and he pur- among Native peoples, Cass and William Clark
sued this endeavor with enthusiasm. Beginning in assembled representatives of the “Sioux and Chip-
1820, he embarked on an expedition around the pewa, Sacs and Fox, Menominie, Ioway, Sioux,
Great Lakes to secure land concessions from Native Winnebago, and a portion of the Ottawa, Chippewa,
nations; in more than twenty treaties negotiated by [and] Potawattomie” tribes at Prairie du Chien in
Cass, tens of millions of acres of land were secured 1825. There, the Native nations agreed for the first
for the United States. Land and federal payments time to live within certain set boundaries, in effect
were also secured for Cass’s negotiating partners, “clearing the title” to real estate in Wisconsin,
which included Cass’s private secretary, his personal Minnesota, Iowa, and other present-day states.
assistant, and his physician. On his negotiating team, Within twenty years, virtually all of this land had
Cass also included Henry Schoolcraft, whose vivid been purchased (or taken) from individual tribes.
descriptions of the land ceded by Native nations Because of his reputation as an Indian expert,
contributed to westward settlement by U.S. citizens. Cass was called upon for testimony before the

772 Chivington, John Milton
Supreme Court when the Cherokee Nation claimed turned military commander, Colonel John Milton
sovereign jurisdiction over their territory in the late Chivington won fame for his contributions to the
1820s. Cass supported the position of the State of Union victory at Glorieta Pass, a battle that is cred-
Georgia in that case, arguing that, for their own ited with saving the West for the Union. The luster of
good, the Cherokee people should be removed west his historic service subsequently was tarnished by
of the Mississippi. The Cherokee people won the often-inaccurate accounts of his role as commander
case, but Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the out- of the Third Colorado Volunteer Cavalry at the Battle
come of the litigation. of Sand Creek, labeled by eastern newspapers and
In 1831, President Andrew Jackson appointed philanthropists “the Sand Creek Massacre.”
Cass secretary of war. As “Indian affairs” became Standing six foot four inches, possessing a bar-
more a matter of war than of diplomacy, Cass rel torso, a thick neck, a full beard, and piercing eyes,
remained a leader in land acquisition for the United the 260-pound Chivington was a formidable figure
States. In 1832, for instance, at the request of superin- both in the pulpit and in uniform, but his insistence
tendent of Indian affairs William Clark, Cass signed on strict discipline and obedience to his orders made
the order of extermination in the Black Hawk War. his parishioners view him as being excessively rigid
From 1836 to 1842, Cass served as the American and his soldiers to unfavorably characterize him as a
ambassador to France. He was elected to the U.S. martinet.
Senate from Michigan in 1845 and in 1848 was nomi- Throughout 1864, Cheyenne warriors under
nated for the presidency by the Democratic Party. In Chief Black Kettle had been terrorizing cities and set-
that election, Martin Van Buren split the party by tlements in the Colorado Territory, disrupting lines
running as a third-party candidate, garnering barely of communications, and slaying residents. By late
enough votes to secure the election for Cass’s Whig summer, Denver had been virtually sealed off, lead-
opponent, Zachary Taylor. Cass continued to hold ing territorial governor John Evans to request mili-
his Senate seat until 1857, when he was appointed tary assistance. General Samuel R. Curtis, comman-
secretary of state by James Buchanan. He resigned der of the Department of Kansas, ordered Colonel
in 1860 to protest the lack of reinforcements at Chivington and the Third Colorado Volunteer Cav-
Charleston forts prior to the beginning of the Civil alry, who were nearing the conclusion of an unevent-
War. Cass died peacefully at his home in Michigan ful one-hundred-day enlistment, to quell the Indian
in 1866. threat in the Denver region. Following a fresh,
Martin Case bloody trail, the troops arrived at Fort Lyon, where-
upon Chivington was informed by both the post
See also Black Hawk; Clark, William; Jackson, commandant, Major Scott Anthony (brother of suf-
Andrew; Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin; fragist Susan B. Anthony), and Indian agent Samuel
Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe; Treaty with the
G. Colley, that Black Kettle’s warriors were
Sioux, Etc.–September 17, 1851.
References and Further Reading encamped at Sand Creek. The two urged him to
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1967. Lewis Cass and American launch an immediate offensive.
Indian Policy. Detroit, MI: Wayne State Assured of the hostile nature of the encamp-
University Press. ment, at dawn on November 29, 1864, Chivington
Prucha, Francis Paul. 1962. American Indian Policy in began to attack the camp, and in the ensuing engage-
the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and ment approximately two hundred warriors and fifty
Intercourse Acts 1790–1834. Lincoln: University
women and children, some active participants in the
of Nebraska Press.
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1999. Jefferson and the Indians: fighting, were slain.
The Tragic Fate of the First Americans. Cambridge, Despite his acclaim throughout Colorado as a
MA, and London: Belknap Press of Harvard hero and savior, Chivington was decried as a mass
University Press. 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 vil-
Chivington, John Milton lage at the time of the attack had even flown an
(1821–1894) American flag as a sign of peace.
John Chivington was a minister, Civil War hero, Three investigative hearings were held into
Indian fighter, and politician. A Methodist preacher Chivington’s conduct during the battle at Sand

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 Chiv- had lost valuable pelts stored in the camp during the
ington. One was chaired by Lieutenant Colonel battle and by Edward Wynkoop, an ambitious offi-
Samuel F. Tappan, a personal enemy of Chivington, cer and pacifist who sought to replace Anthony as
who refused to admit many of Chivington’s objec- commander of Fort Lyon and who, without any offi-
tions to testimony; another was chaired by the Com- cial authorization, had led Black Kettle to believe
mittee on the Conduct of the War, infamous for its that Sand Creek would be considered a safe haven.
questionable ethical practices and legal abuses while Even after these biased hearings, evidence against
assailing the record of officers it wanted removed. In him was so weak that Chivington was mustered out
each hearing, witnesses supporting Chivington’s of the army without receiving any punishment for
claim that no American flag was visible in the vil- the alleged crimes at Sand Creek.
lage, that fresh scalps were found in the lodges, that His reputation slandered, an embittered Chiv-
Major Anthony had given him written orders to ington moved to Denver, steadfastly maintaining the
attack what had been described as a hostile encamp- propriety of his actions at Sand Creek. Chivington
ment, and that he had done his best to maintain dis- spent the remainder of his life holding local political
cipline and prevent mutilation of Indian corpses offices and serving on various editorial boards,
were summarily dismissed. Instead, credence was including that of The Christian Advocate. His death in
given to self-serving testimony by fur traders who October 1894 was marked by the largest funeral in

774 Chouteau, Auguste
Colorado’s history; thousands of mourners paid to make a treaty with the Sac and Fox. Chouteau
homage to the man they considered one of their offered his expertise. In the course of that negotia-
state’s greatest heroes. tion, Chouteau, who owned extensive lands, kept
Bruce A. Rubenstein Harrison from invalidating the Spanish land grants
in place prior to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 by
See also Black Kettle. inserting an article into the treaty for that purpose,
Craig, Reginald. 1959. The Fighting Parson. Los
thereby protecting Chouteau’s own lands.
Angeles: Westernlore Press. As early as 1813, while the War of 1812 raged,
Hoig, Stan. 1961. The Sand Creek Massacre. Norman: the Missouri Gazette called upon President James
University of Oklahoma Press. Madison to consider appointing August Chouteau
Mendoza, Patrick M. 1993. Song of Sorrow. Denver: and William Clark as treaty commissioners to over-
Willow Wind. see a treaty involving the Indians. In 1815, following
U. S. Congress. Senate. “Report of the Joint the end the War of 1812, Chouteau was indeed
Committee on the Conduct of the War,” 38th
appointed treaty commissioner to assist in negotia-
Cong., 2nd sess. Senate Document 142, Vol. 3.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, tions with former warring Indians, particularly those
1865. who were situated near the Mississippi and Missouri
U. S. Congress. Senate. “Report of the Secretary of rivers. Missouri territorial governor William Clark
War,” 39th Cong., 2nd sess. Senate Executive and Illinois territorial governor Ninian Edwards
Document 26. Washington, DC: Government were the other two commissioners for the treaty that
Printing Office, 1867. 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.
Chouteau, Auguste Part of Chouteau’s duties involved directing
(1749–1829) reliable men to travel to various Indian settlements
From fur trader and clerk to explorer and treaty to invite and influence them to attended the treaty.
negotiator, Auguste Chouteau’s influence over the At least nineteen tribes arrived during the summer
Upper Louisiana Territory and the West has been the of 1815, including the Big and Little Osage, Iowa, Sac
inspiration of legends and novels. Though born in (Sauk) and Fox, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Delaware,
New Orleans to Marie Therese Bourgeois and Rene Piankashaw, Kaskaskia, Kickapoo, Maha, Ponca, and
Auguste Chouteau, Chouteau was raised by his Sioux. The commissioners made extensive prepara-
mother’s common-law husband, Pierre Leclede, tions, including the construction of a council house
who also mentored him in the fur trade. By age four- and a large arbor for shade. The government sup-
teen, Chouteau assisted Leclede in the founding of plied three companies of American infantry from
St. Louis, Missouri. There, he and his family built a nearby Fort Bellefountain, and on the river sailed
fur trade empire by establishing trading posts up the gunboats. All were intended to show that the United
Missouri River and its tributaries. His younger States was intent on peace. An excessive array of
brother Pierre, sometimes referred to as Peter, was presents, which had cost thousands of dollars, were
also involved in Indian and trading affairs. spread out to be offered to the headmen of each
Besides operating his fur trading business, tribal nation, everything from blankets and cloth to
Chouteau also served as a judge and as a lieutenant rifles and tobacco. The intention was to prove the
colonel in the local militia. Chouteau is said to have wealth and superiority of the Americans by giving
owned thousands of acres of land, as well as the such trade goods in order to induce an offer to live at
most impressive library west of the Mississippi, con- peace. There was no talk of land cession in this
taining more than six hundred volumes of books. treaty, which had been a concern of many of the
His prosperity and confident knowledge of both Indians. Of all the commissioners present, Chouteau
Indian affairs and the fur trade made him a valuable is reported to have made quite a stir in a scarlet coat
asset to Americans taking over the territory. with gold lace and buttons.
Chouteau came to the attention of Thomas Jefferson Meeting with individual tribes, the commission-
following the Louisiana Purchase. ers smoothed out problems among the tribes.
In 1804, William Henry Harrison arrived at St. Almost all seemed willing to lay aside their war talk
Louis to be the guest of Chouteau. His purpose was and treat for peace, all but the Sac and Fox, who

Clark, William 775
challenged the validity of the treaty of 1804. Accord-

ing 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 mem-
bers 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 Decem-
ber 26, 1815.
Chouteau spent the remaining years of his life at
St. Louis overseeing his extensive holdings and serv-
ing 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.
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. A capable and energetic soldier, William Clark (1770–1838)
Gregg, Kate L. 1939. “The War of 1812 in the Missouri became one of the United States’ most able Indian agents after
Frontier, Part II.” Missouri Historical Review his exploration of the Louisiana Purchase with Meriwether
33(2): 184–202. Lewis. (Library of Congress)
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, shortly after the Treaty of Greenville to return home
1808. Fulton, MO: Ovid Bell Press. and care for his parents and the family estate.
Hagan, William T. 1958. The Sac and Fox Indians.
In 1803, Clark agreed to co-command an expedi-
tion 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,
Clark, William solicited Indian delegations to travel to Washington,
(1770–1838) and conducted negotiations for peace, friendship,
Born the ninth of ten children to John and Ann and trade. They announced U.S. sovereignty and left
(Rogers) Clark on August 1, 1770, on a plantation in calling cards of empire (medals, flags, certificates).
Caroline County, Virginia, William Clark led a full Clark gained an appreciation for the tremendous
life as a soldier, explorer, Indian agent, Missouri ter- diversity of Indian cultures and was the more skillful
ritorial governor, and superintendent of Indian diplomat of the two.
affairs at St. Louis. While Clark was a teenager, his Following the expedition’s return, President
family relocated to a new plantation called Mulberry Thomas Jefferson appointed Clark Indian agent.
Hill near present-day Louisville, Kentucky. Clark From 1807 to 1838, Clark served as the federal gov-
joined the Kentucky militia, and then, in 1792, Presi- ernment’s representative to the Indian nations in the
dent George Washington commissioned Clark a lieu- West, personally signing thirty-seven treaties (one-
tenant of infantry. During General Anthony Wayne’s tenth of all ratified treaties). Clark’s first treaty was
Ohio River Indian campaigns, Clark fought at the concluded at Fort Osage during the summer of 1808.
Battle of Fallen Timbers. He resigned his commission The Osages present agreed to a land cession in

776 Cochise
exchange for a trading post and military protection worth, Prairie du Chien, St. Louis, and Washington.
from their enemies. Other Osages who were not Most of these treaties involved land cessions by
present demanded that the treaty be modified, and tribes including the Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kick-
then they, too, accepted it. apoo, Osage, Piankashaw, Sac and Fox, and
During the War of 1812, President James Madi- Shawnee. When not involved in treaties, Clark
son commissioned Clark as Missouri’s first territorial issued trading licenses and aided eastern tribes
governor, a position Clark occupied from 1813 to undergoing removal. He presided at the peace treaty
1820. Clark also acted as an ex officio superintendent at Prairie du Chien in 1825 and negotiated with
of Indian affairs. To keep Missouri’s frontier settle- Black Hawk and Keokuk during and after the Black
ments safe, he authorized a string of frontier block- Hawk War.
houses and mounted ranger patrols to keep the Perhaps it was in the realm of policymaking
peace. He also took the offensive against British that Clark made his greatest contributions. Clark
forces and their allies at Prairie du Chien. The Treaty was the most experienced and knowledgeable gov-
of Ghent established peace with Britain but not with ernment official in the trans-Mississippi West. From
their Indian allies. Clark presided at the Portage des the government’s perspective, Clark served as an
Sioux peace council in 1815 and within a year had able administrator of federal policy who offered
negotiated peace and friendship treaties with the helpful suggestions in fine-tuning policy to match
Iowa, Kansa, Kickapoo, Omaha, Osage, Piankashaw, frontier realities. In a time of expanding bureaucratic
Potawatomi, Sac and Fox, Sioux, and Winnebago control, he helped modify the Indian Civilization Act
tribes. of 1819. Clark and Michigan territorial governor
Governor Clark conducted treaties of trade and Lewis Cass filed a report in 1829 that changed the
friendship for tribes farthest from settlement, and laws and regulations governing Indian affairs, con-
treaties calling for land cessions and removal for tributed to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, revised
those located within the Missouri and Arkansas ter- the Trade and Intercourse Laws, and culminated in
ritorial boundaries. Whether conducted at his coun- the reorganization of the entire Indian Bureau in
cil house in St. Louis—with the Kansa, Kickapoo, 1834. That year, Clark retained his influential posi-
Osage, Otoe, Ponca, Pawnee, Quapaw—or at Wash- tion in St. Louis despite being in his sixties.
ington—with the Iowa, Sac and Fox—Clark acquit- Jay H. Buckley
ted himself as a competent diplomat at councils. He
See also Battle of Fallen Timbers, 1794; Black Hawk;
also supervised Indian agents, including Pierre
Cass, Lewis; Chouteau, Auguste; Forsyth,
Chouteau, Nicholas Boilvin, Lawrence Taliaferro, Thomas; Greenville, Ohio; Indian Removal Act,
and Thomas Forsyth. 1830; Jefferson, Thomas; Lewis, Meriwether;
After Alexander McNair defeated Clark in Mis- Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin; St. Louis, Missouri;
souri’s inaugural gubernatorial election, President Treaty of Ghent, 1814; Treaty with the Sioux,
James Monroe appointed Clark superintendent of Etc.–August 19, 1825; Treaty with the Wyandot,
Indian affairs headquartered at St. Louis in 1822. Etc.–August 3, 1795; Wayne, Anthony.
Most treaties made before 1820 had sought peace
Bakeless, John. 1947. Lewis and Clark: Partners in
and friendship to undermine European rivals, or Discovery. New York: William Morrow.
trading relationships to promote the fur trade and Ronda, James P. 1984. Lewis and Clark among the
provide manufactured goods. Those made after 1820 Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
generally involved land cessions and removal. Clark Steffen, Jerome O. 1977. William Clark: Jeffersonian
exercised jurisdiction over western tribes and east- Man on the Frontier. Norman: University of
ern nations being removed west of the Mississippi Oklahoma Press.
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 ethno- Cochise
centrism caused him to dismiss the notion that Indi- (c. 1810–1874)
ans could maintain their identity and culture within One of the greatest Indian leaders of the nineteenth
the advancing U.S. frontier. century, Cochise led the Chiricahua Apache in a pro-
As superintendent, Clark conducted twelve tracted war of survival against both the encroaching
treaties at places like Fort Atkinson, Fort Leaven- Mexicans and Americans. Cochise successfully

Cochise 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. In-
evitably, this new white settlement led to conflict.
Matters were aggravated when the son of a white
settler was kidnapped. Territorial officials immedi-
ately—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
A master of hit-and-run tactics, Chochise (c. 1810–1874) charged with abduction of the young boy.
became a feared Native American warrior in the Southwest. Under heavy guard, Cochise managed to cut his
Cochise was the predecessor to Geronimo, leading the Chiri- way out through the back of the tent where he was
cahua Apache during the 1860s and early 1870s. He died June held prisoner and escape into the nearby hills.
8, 1874, on the reservation near Apache Pass, Arizona. Unfortunately, five others, including his two
(Bettmann/Corbis) 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
evaded capture and staved off American forces Mexicans and kidnapping four Americans. He held
throughout the 1860s. His strategic genius, fearless- the men hostage, offering to free them only if his
ness, and sheer stamina enabled the Chiricahua chief brother and nephews were released. Bascom
to eventually broker a treaty that met his demands refused. In response, Cochise executed his four pris-
rather than those of the United States. oners. Bascom, in turn, hanged all five of the Chiric-
No one knows exactly when Cochise was born, ahuas, leaving the corpses dangling from an oak tree
but most historians believe it was around 1810. He for weeks. The hatred Cochise reserved for Mexicans
was the son of Pisago Cabezón, a great leader in his was now extended to the Americans, leading to a
own right of the Chokonen band of the Chiricahua state of all-out war that would last more than a
Apache. Cochise was the eldest of three brothers, all decade.
of whom were steeped in traditional Chokonen As the fighting between the Chiricahua and the
ways. At the age of fifteen, he began training to United States roared on, President Ulysses S. Grant
become a warrior, at which he quickly excelled; he appointed General Oliver Otis Howard as chief peace
was fast, disciplined, and an excellent marksman commissioner in the Southwest. Though Howard
with the bow and arrow. Soon he was accompanying was a respected military man, he was also a Christian
the older warriors on horse raids. Cochise distin- humanitarian who believed that negotiation, rather

778 Cohen, Felix S.
than brute force, was a better means of ending con- ence and his ability to craft innovative legislation and
flict. He took extraordinary steps to court Cochise arguments aiding Indians were partly due to the
and bring the bloody war with the Apache to an end. combination of his educational background and his
In October 1872, Howard and his first lieutenant, respected non-Indian scholarship.
Joseph Sladen, headed into the Dragoon Mountains Cohen’s first task with the Department of the
of eastern Arizona to broker a treaty with the Chiric- Interior was to draft the Wheeler-Howard Act,
ahua. Howard acquiesced to nearly all Cochise’s which has since become known as the Indian Reor-
demands, carving out a reservation in southeastern ganization Act. Cohen’s IRA aimed to facilitate the
Arizona along the Mexican border. For his part, development of western-style tribal governments. It
Cochise kept the peace and halted all fighting in the allowed tribes to establish governments that would
United States, though he continued to raid in Mexico. be recognized as such by the U.S. government.
The peace, however, ended with the death of the Cohen is criticized for his establishment of a corpo-
great Apache leader in 1874. rate structure of tribal governance rather than a
Bradley Shreve more flexible framework that would allow greater
adherence to traditional ways of governing. Addi-
See also Southern Plains and the Southwest; Treaty
tionally, the inability to include in the final version of
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848.
the IRA the consolidation of allotted lands in tribal
Aleshire, Peter. 2001. Cochise: The Life and Times of the government hands, due to opposition from allottees,
Great Apache Chief. New York: John Wiley. was seen by Cohen as a weakness of the IRA. “Still,
Sweeney, Edwin R. 1991. Cochise: Chiricahua Apache from Cohen’s perspective . . . the IRA was an act of
Chief. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. liberation,” freeing tribes to begin the work of devel-
Sweeney, Edwin R., ed. 1997. Making Peace With oping their own strong governments (Dalia 2001).
Cochise: The 1872 Journal of Captain Joseph Alton Felix Cohen’s organization of diverse judicial
Sladen. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
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 under-
Cohen, Felix S. standing of the historical and social background
(1907–1953) underlying Indian policies. The handbook’s signifi-
Felix Solomon Cohen played an instrumental role cance, however, extends well beyond this single pas-
in bringing an end to the allotment era and in creat- sage; “in recognition of Cohen’s genius, vision, and
ing the legal structure for meaningful tribal self- hard work,” it was retitled Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook
governance that continues to be worked out to this of Federal Indian Law when it was revised in 1982
day. Cohen is best known as the author of the 1941 (Martin 1998–1999, 165–166).
Handbook of Federal Indian Law, a pioneering work Prior to resigning from the Department of the
that insists that Indian tribes possess all aspects of Interior in December 1947, Cohen helped write the
sovereignty except those which Congress has taken Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946. Although
away. Additionally, Cohen helped craft two of the the ICCA failed to allow tribes to get their land back,
most significant pieces of Indian legislation of the and the total dollar amounts available under the
twentieth century: the Indian Reorganization Act of ICCA were well below the true damage amounts,
1934 (IRA) and the Indian Claims Commission Act the law enabled tribal suits to recover damages for
of 1946 (ICCA). their lost land. Cohen’s last years before his untimely
Felix Cohen was hired as assistant solicitor for death were spent teaching at Yale Law School and
the Department of the Interior in 1933. He joined the City College of New York and in private practice,
John Collier, commissioner of Indian affairs, in work- largely working on behalf of Native Americans.
ing to bring an end to the allotment policies and ush- Ezra Rosser
ering in Theodore Roosevelt’s New Deal to Indian
communities. Originally without experience relating
See also Collier, John; Government-to-Government
to Native Americans, Cohen began his government Relationship; Indian Claims Commission (ICC);
service with a strong educational background: a Indian Claims Commission Act, 1946; Indian
Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard (1929) and a law New Deal; Indian Reorganization Act, 1934;
degree from Columbia (L.L.B. 1931). Cohen’s influ- Sovereignty.

Collier, John 779
References and Further Reading istic approach that encouraged ethnic pride and
Cohen, Felix S. 1941. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. acknowledged the value of Indian cultures to white
Repr., Albuquerque: University of New Mexico society. Collier’s most significant legislative achieve-
Press, 1971. ment was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934,
Cohen, Lucy Kramer, ed. 1960. The Legal Conscience:
which abandoned the policy of allotment and pro-
Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press. vided for the establishment of limited forms of tribal
Martin, Jill E. 1998–1999. “The Miner’s Canary: Felix government and property management.
S. Cohen’s Philosophy of Indian Rights,”23 Collier’s rejection of assimilation was grounded
American Indian Law Review 165, 166. in his experiences as a social worker in New York in
Tsuk, Dalia. 2001. “The New Deal Origins of the early twentieth century. Collier believed that the
American Legal Pluralism,” 29 Florida State industrial age manifested a breakdown of commu-
University Law Review 189, 239.
nity values and, concluding that the preservation
and nurture of ethnic values was essential to revers-
ing this trend, focused on the development of social
and ethnic communities, encouraging ethnic pride,
Collier, John unity, and self-responsibility among local immigrant
(1884–1968) groups. Collier left New York in 1919, frustrated by
John Collier, commissioner of Indian affairs the post–World War I drive to “Americanize” immi-
(1933–1945), is best known as the architect of the grants; following a short period as head of Califor-
Indian New Deal. Collier sought to end the policy of nia’s adult education program, he relocated to Taos,
assimilation, instead proposing a culturally plural- 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)

780 Cooper, Douglas H.
Indian pueblo at Taos and realized that, in Pueblo president until 1946. Wishing to focus on the devel-
culture, he had discovered the embodiment of his opment of his international ethnic policies, Collier’s
utopian vision of a socially integrated, community- resignation as commissioner of Indian affairs was
centered ethnic group that provided a template for accepted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Jan-
the redemption of a selfish, materialistic, and frag- uary 22, 1945.
mented American society. Annie Kirby
Taking up residence in the colony of writers and
See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); General
artists in Taos, Collier became a prominent member
Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887; Indian New
of the crusade to protect and restore Indian culture. Deal; Indian Reorganization Act, 1934; Meriam
Collier was an active opponent of the proposed Bur- Report, 1928.
sum Bill, which sought to legislate rights for white References and Further Reading
squatters on Pueblo lands. The defeat of the Bursum Collier, John. 1948. Indians of the Americas: The Long
Bill led to the formation in 1923 of the American Hope. New York: Mentor Books.
Indian Defense Association, of which Collier was Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford Lytle. 1984. The Nations
Within: The Past and Future of American Indian
executive secretary. The association provided legal
Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books.
aid services, opposed allotment, and called for an Holm, Tom. 2005. The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs:
investigation into and reorganization of the Indian Native Americans and Whites in the Progressive
bureau. Many of the association’s proposals were to Era. Austin: University of Texas Press.
form the basis for legislation eventually enacted by Philp, Kenneth R. 1972. “John Collier and the
Collier during his tenure as commissioner of Indian American Indian, 1920–1945.” In Essays on
affairs. Collier’s vision of a “New Deal” for Ameri- Radicalism in Contemporary America, ed. Leon
can Indians, born out of his utopianism and romanti- Borden Blair, 63–80. Austin and London:
University of Texas Press.
cized view of Pueblo Indians, was intended to
preserve Indian cultures by encouraging religious
and social freedom, promoting tribal arts and self-
government, and restructuring education so that it Commission to the Five
encouraged rather than suppressed tribal loyalties.
Collier was appointed commissioner of Indian
Civilized Tribes.
affairs on April 21, 1933, and immediately embarked See Dawes Commission.
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 Cooper, Douglas H.
cultural anthropology. The influence of Christian (1771–1879)
missionaries in Indian day schools and boarding Douglas H. Cooper served as U.S. agent to the
schools was curtailed, and the constitutional right to Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations and played an
freedom of religion for American Indians was reaf- important role in the negotiation of treaties between
firmed. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 those nations and the U.S. government. He was born
repealed the policy of allotment and provided for in Virginia in 1771, a scion of a well-established
the restoration of tribal political structures and the family with Baptist affiliations. His first foray into
incorporation and operation of property by tribes. public life was when he was licensed to preach in
Other reforms implemented by Collier included the 1793; he went on to establish churches in South Car-
preferential hiring of Indian employees in the olina, Georgia, and Mississippi. Upon his father’s
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the creation of a revolving death, he became a property owner in Mississippi
credit fund to provide loans for agricultural and and studied law. His family home, Mon Clava, was
educational purposes, and the establishment of the situated on Choctaw land ceded by the Treaty of
Indian Arts and Craft Board Act. Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830. He served in the
In 1940, Collier attended the Inter-American Mexican-American War, distinguishing himself in
Conference on Indian Life in Patzcuro, Mexico, a the battles of Buena Vista and Monterey. He played
gathering that internationalized the policies of the an active role in Mississippi politics and was
Indian New Deal and led to the creation of the Inter- rewarded with an appointment as U.S. agent to the
American Indian Institute, of which Collier served as Choctaw in 1853.

Cornplanter 781
In 1855, the Choctaw and Chickasaw negotiated delegates to his brother-in-law, John Latrobe, with
a treaty that was intended to consolidate their out- whom they contracted to serve as their agent in the
standing claims against the U.S. government for the treaty negotiations. The Choctaw general council
fulfillment of treaty provisions and to put their rela- approved an advance of $100,000 to Latrobe, and he
tionship with the federal government on a new foot- rebated 5 percent to the Choctaw delegation and to
ing. To this end, they enlisted the services of Albert Cooper. Despite his Confederate service, Cooper
Pike, a Washington lawyer, to assist in formulating witnessed the signing of the treaty of 1866 in his
the treaty language. Pike took the case on a contin- capacity as U.S. agent.
gency basis for 25 percent of the payment for the Douglas Cooper was an active player in treaty
lands east of the Mississippi ceded in the Treaty of negotiations between the Choctaw Nation and the
Dancing Rabbit Creek. Cooper accompanied the United States in 1855. He profited from rebates of
Choctaw delegation to Washington and took part in lawyers’ fees to facilitate that treaty. He was a key
the treaty negotiations. He received a share in the figure in the Confederate government’s relations
portion of Pike’s fee that he, Cooper, rebated to the with the tribes in Indian Territory during the Civil
Choctaw delegation for the opportunity to represent War, and he profited again from the negotiations sur-
the tribe. rounding the treaty of 1866. As an agent of the U.S.
In his role as U.S. agent, Cooper provided a government, he worked as much for his own self-
summary of the amount due to the Choctaw Nation interest he did for the Choctaw whose interests he
under the provisions of the new treaty. He also was charged to protect. He died at Old Fort Washita
advised the delegation that they could profit by leas- on April 30, 1879.
ing their western lands for the settlement of the Clara Sue Kidwell
Wichita tribe, which Congress was anxious to move
out of the way of territorial expansion. The treaty See also Indian Territory; Opothleyahola; Pike,
provided for that lease of Choctaw lands west of the Albert; Reconstruction Treaties with the
98th meridian. Cherokee, Choctaw, Chicasaw, Creek, and
In March 1856, Cooper was appointed U.S. Seminole–1866.
agent for the Chickasaw as well as the Choctaw and References and Further Reading
was stationed at Fort Washita to serve both tribes. Abel, Annie Heloise. 1992. The American Indian in
the Civil War, 1862–1865. Lincoln: University
He also oversaw the final payment to Choctaws in
of Nebraska Press.
Mississippi, who had tried to take land claims in that Cottrell, Steve, and Andy Thomas. 1995. Civil
state under the fourteenth article of the Treaty of War in Indian Territory. New York: Pelican.
Dancing Rabbit Creek. When the Choctaws received Fischer, LeRoy. 1974. The Civil War Era in Indian
a favorable judgment from Congress in 1859 on their Territory. Los Angeles: Lorin L. Morrison.
claims under that treaty, Cooper was charged with Spencer, John. 2006. The American Civil War in
overseeing the purchase of corn for Choctaws, who Indian Territory. Oxford: Osprey.
Taylor, Ethel Crisp. 2005. Dust in the Wind: The
were suffering the effects of a major drought in the
Civil War in Indian Territory. Westminster,
Choctaw Nation. MD: Heritage Books.
Cooper’s southern sympathies coincided with Wright, Muriel H. 1954. “General Douglas H.
those of Choctaw leaders as the United States moved Cooper, C.S.A.” The Chronicles of Oklahoma,
inexorably toward civil war. The Choctaw leader- 32(9): 142–184.
ship 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 Con- Cornplanter
federate army, ultimately serving as commander in (c. 1730–1836)
charge for the Indian Territory. Known as Kaintwakon by his people, Cornplanter
With the Confederate defeat, the Choctaws had was born to his Seneca mother and Dutch trader
to negotiate yet another treaty to reestablish their father sometime between the mid-1730s and the
relationship with the federal government. Cooper early 1750s. Although he was raised by his mother’s
accompanied the Choctaw delegation to Washing- people as a Seneca and apparently never learned to
ton, D.C., to negotiate that treaty. He introduced the speak English, Cornplanter would become an

782 Cornplanter
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 con-
sidered the foolish resistance of other Iroquois such
as Red Jacket.
In 1784, Cornplanter agreed to large land ces-
sions 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 Corn-
planter’s support of both treaties made him unpopu-
lar 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, Presi-
dent George Washington sent Cornplanter to negoti-
ate peace between the Indians of Michigan and Ohio
Seneca sachem Cornplanter (c. 1730–1836) took part in
and the United States.
negotiating the treaties signed at Fort Stanwix in 1784 and Although unsuccessful, Cornplanter did man-
Fort Harmar in 1789. However, he did not actually sign age to keep the Iroquois out of the conflicts. He
either document. He died at Cornplantertown, Pennsylvania, began to travel to various cities in the Northeast to
in 1836, perhaps more than 100 years old. (Getty Images) talk about his people and their needs. In 1797, Corn-
planter signed another treaty, ceding more land to a
important diplomat and maker of peace between the private land company. In exchange for his coopera-
Iroquois and the English. tion, the State of Pennsylvania granted him private
Information on Cornplanter’s youth is sketchy, ownership of about fifteen hundred acres. Although
but evidence suggests he fought as a skilled and he eventually lost two-thirds of the land, he did
respected young warrior against the British in the maintain ownership of 750 acres.
French and Indian War. Some scholars place him Red Jacket and others who refused to sign the
specifically at the defeat of British general Edward cession considered Cornplanter a traitor to his
Braddock in 1755. By the beginning of the Revolution- people. Cornplanter believed, however, that the
ary War, Cornplanter had assumed an important posi- Seneca needed to adapt to American ways in order
tion among the Seneca. At first, both the British and to survive. During some of his travels as an emissary
American rebels urged the Iroquois Confederacy to of peace, Cornplanter met with and was very im-
remain neutral in the conflict, but secretly both sides pressed with the Quakers in Pennsylvania. He
hoped to obtain Indian assistance for their cause. admired their teachings of peace and sent his oldest
Eventually, the British gave promises of goods son to a Quaker school. Eventually, in 1798, Corn-
and rum to the confederacy in exchange for an planter invited the Quakers to come and teach his
alliance. As was the practice, representatives of the people, to build schools and missions.
Six Nations met to discuss this possibility at However, Cornplanter eventually became very
Oswego, New York, in July 1777. Cornplanter and disillusioned with the United States and felt ashamed
his uncle Kiasutha were the representatives for their of his accommodationist policies. Sometime after the
group, the Chenussio Senecas. Although both men War of 1812, according to some accounts, he publicly
resisted the alliance at first, they eventually agreed burned his military uniform, destroyed his medals,
and led an attack on the Americans at Fort Stanwix. and ordered all the missionaries out of his land. In his
By the time the Revolution was over, Corn- later years, he advocated a return to Seneca traditions
planter was a principle war chief of the Seneca and a and rejection of white ways. This change of heart
respected warrior and field commander. When the helped him regain the respect of those Seneca who
British lost the war, however, Cornplanter immedi- felt he had betrayed them in the past. He died in 1836

Costo, Rupert 783
at his home. His descendants continued to live on nize Native Americans because, in his view, genocide,
what was known as the Cornplanter Tract until the treaty making and treaty breaking, substandard edu-
completion of the Kinzua Dam in 1964, which placed cation, disruption of Indian culture and religion, and
the entire tract under water. the General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) had failed.
Today, Cornplanter is remembered as an impor- Costo knew that partial assimilation already had
tant peacemaker and leader of the Seneca people. taken place in Native societies through the use of
Even though his cooperation with the United States “certain technologies and techniques,” but he knew
and land cessions led to significant losses for his that total assimilation, which meant fading into the
people, the Iroquois and Seneca now remember and general society with a complete loss of culture and
respect his role as mediator and celebrate the spirit identity, was another thing altogether. Costo called
of peace with which he lived his life. the IRA “the Indian Raw Deal” (Mails 1990, 146).
April R. Summitt For most of his working life, Costo was employed
by the state of California as an engineer in the High-
See also Treaty with the Six Nations–January 9, 1789;
way Department. Upon his retirement, Costo and his
Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort
Stanwix–November 5, 1768. wife, Jeannette Henry Costo (eastern Cherokee),
References and Further Reading founded the San Francisco-based American Indian
Abler, Thomas S. 1989. Chainbreaker: The Revolutionary Historical Society in 1964. The organization was often
War Memoirs of Governor Blacksnake. Lincoln: in the forefront of American Indian issues, such as the
University of Nebraska Press. protection of American Indian cemeteries and Ameri-
Deardorff, Merle H., and Harold L. Myers. 1994. Chief can Indian human remains, as well as the correction of
Cornplanter. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical
American Indian textbooks. The Costos sought to
and Museum Commission.
Francello, Joseph A. 1998. Chief Cornplanter of the
develop publications that accurately reflected the his-
Senecas. Allentown, PA: Glasco. torical role of Indians in American society.
Swatzler, David, and Henry Simmons. 2000. A Friend Initially, the American Indian Historical Society
among the Senecas: The Quaker Mission to published three journals: Wassaja, a national Indian
Cornplanter’s People. Mechanicsburg, PA: newspaper; The Indian Historian, a respected aca-
Stackpole Books. demic journal; and the Weewish Tree, a national
Symes, Martha. 1995. “Cornplanter.” In Notable magazine for young Indian people. Rupert Costo
Native Americans, ed. Sharon Malinowski. New
coedited all three publications with his wife. In
York: Gale Research.
1970, the society founded another publication arm,
the Indian Historian Press, an American Indian-
controlled publishing house that published fifty-two
titles. Some of the well-known titles were Textbooks
Costo, Rupert and the American Indian (1970; Rupert Costo, ed.) and
(1906–1989) The Iroquois and the Founding of the American Nation
From the 1930s to the 1950s, Rupert Costo, a (1977; Donald A. Grinde, Jr. [Yamasee]).
Cahuilla, was active in national and tribal politics, Through his editorial column in Wassaja, Costo
serving both as a vocal critic of the Indian New Deal advocated increased sovereignty for Native rights.
in the 1930s and as tribal chairman of the Cahuillas He also worked tirelessly for the protection of Amer-
in the 1950s; later, Costo became an important figure ican Indian civil, social, and religious rights.
in Native American publishing. At the end of his life, Costo endowed the Rupert
As a football player in the 1920s at Haskell Insti- Costo Chair in American Indian History at the
tute and Whittier College (where he played with University of California, Riverside. Costo and his
future president Richard M. Nixon), Rupert Costo wife also established the Costo Library of the
early in life demonstrated his athletic and intellec- American Indian at the University of California,
tual aptitudes to the Indian and non-Indian world. Riverside, one of the most comprehensive collections
During the 1930s, California was a major center of American Indian books in the United States. In
of opposition to Collier’s Indian New Deal, and Costo 1994, the University of California, Riverside, re-
was one of the principal leaders of the opposition. named its Student Services Building Costo Hall in
Costo believed that the Indian New Deal was a device honor of the outstanding contributions of both
to assimilate the American Indian; he believed that Costos to the university.
the Indian Reorganization Act was being used to colo- Bruce E. Johansen

784 Crazy Horse (Ta∫unka Witko)
See also Alcatraz Occupation 1973; Sovereignty; married Black Shawl, mother of his only child, a
Statutes as Sources of Modern Indian Rights: daughter called They Are Afraid of Her, who died
Child Welfare, Gaming, and Repatriation. around 1874, possibly a cholera victim.
References and Further Reading When the government set a deadline of Janu-
Johansen, Bruce E. 2005. Native North America: A
ary 31, 1876, for Lakotas to report to reservations,
History. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Champagne, Duane and Jay Stauss, eds. Native Crazy Horse joined Sitting Bull in defying the
American Studies in Higher Education: Models for order. When the army launched an offensive
Collaboration between Universities and Indigenous against “hostiles,” Crazy Horse provided leader-
Nations. Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, and ship in two epic Montana battles: he helped defeat
Oxford: Atlamira Press. 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
Crazy Horse (Ta∫unka Witko) through the winter of 1876–1877. On May 8, 1877,
(c. 1840–1877) Crazy Horse and his followers surrendered at Fort
Crazy Horse was an Oglala Lakota leader of armed Robinson, Nebraska. Crazy Horse never mastered
resistance to U.S. encroachment upon tribal lands, the subtleties of Lakota politics, but he appeared to
and he is a symbol of independence among contem- accept the inevitable and during his brief stint as a
porary American Indians. He was born around 1840 reservation dweller married Nellie Larrabee (or
in South Dakota to an Oglala Lakota father, who was Laravie), the daughter of a French trader and a
also named Crazy Horse, and a Miniconjou Lakota Cheyenne or Lakota woman.
mother called Rattling Blanket Woman. The family On September 5, 1877, unaware that a decision
included a sister, whose name is unknown, and a had been made to place him under arrest, Crazy
half brother, Little Hawk. Horse appeared at Fort Robinson to dispel rumors
Crazy Horse may have witnessed the Grattan about whether he intended to remain a government
Massacre of 1854, in which Lieutenant John L. Grat- opponent. Indians and soldiers escorted him to the
tan and his thirty-man command were killed during guardhouse where, suddenly realizing he faced
an unprovoked attack on a Lakota village near Fort imprisonment, Crazy Horse pulled back from the
Laramie, Wyoming. This event is often cited as piv- doorway. A fracas broke out, and a soldier stabbed
otal in the formation of his negative perception of Crazy Horse in the back with his bayonet. That
non-Indians and their intentions. night, Crazy Horse died.
Crazy Horse’s bravery in war with the United During his life, many of Crazy Horse’s contem-
States and other tribes (principally the Crow and poraries viewed him as an inspiring, albeit enig-
Shoshone) earned him high status, and in 1865 he matic, leader of their resistance to foreign domina-
was declared a “shirt wearer” (leader) among his tion. After his death, Crazy Horse was transformed
people. During the Red Cloud War (1866–1868), he into the leading figure in a tragedy in which the
fought along the Bozeman Trail, which cut across visionary hero is doomed to suffer martyrdom, a vic-
Lakota territory from Wyoming to Montana’s gold tim of the malevolent machinations of oppressors
fields. He served as one of the decoy riders who led from outside his culture and collaborationist traitors
Captain William Fetterman’s eighty-man command from within. Given the time that has elapsed and the
out of Fort Phil Kearny into a devastating ambush fact that he came from a culture that maintained
known as the Fetterman Massacre (December 21, records through drawings and oral history, separat-
1866) and participated in the Hayfield and Wagon- ing the Crazy Horse of historic reality from the
Box fights the following year. Crazy Horse of hagiography seems an impossible
In 1870, Crazy Horse eloped with Black Buffalo task.
Woman, wife of a Lakota named No Water. During a Ron McCoy
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 scan- See also Red Cloud (Makhpiya-Luta); Treaty of
dal; around the same time, whites killed his half- Fort Laramie with the Sioux, Etc.–September
brother Little Hawk. Within a year, Crazy Horse 17, 1851.

Crowfoot 785
References and Further Reading regularly interacted with white settlers until the time
Hardorff, Richard G., ed. 1998. The Death of Crazy of his death. By the early 1870s, however, encroach-
Horse: A Tragic Episode in Lakota History. ment of westward-moving settlers had reached lev-
Spokane, WA: Arthur H. Clark.
els significant enough to disturb Blackfoot social and
Riley, Paul D., ed. 1976. “Oglala Sources on the Life of
Crazy Horse: Interviews Given to Eleanor H.
economic patterns. The introduction of whiskey,
Hinman.” Nebraska History, 57 (Spring): 1–51; smuggled across the international border by Ameri-
also in The Nebraska Indian Wars Reader can traders, also had a disastrous effect upon the
1865–1877, ed. Eli S. Paul. Lincoln: University of Blackfoot, leading to alcohol-induced internal feuds.
Nebraska Press, 1998, 180–216. Responding to western concerns, politicians in
Sandoz, Mari. 1942. Crazy Horse: The Strange Man of Ottawa dispatched the Northwest Mounted Police in
the Oglalas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 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 fol-
Crowfoot lowed by an influx of settlers, which in turn forced
(c. 1830–1890) the initiation of treaty negotiations. Acting as the
Crowfoot is considered by many to be the greatest Blackfoot’s main chief, Crowfoot was one of a coali-
warrior and peacemaker in the story of the settle- tion of chiefs to negotiate and sign Treaty 7 in
ment of western Canada, and he is perhaps best September 1877, which formalized the Blackfoot-
known for his belief that he and his people could Canadian government relationship. The Crowfoot-
live peaceably alongside white men. Yet Crowfoot’s led Blackfoot Confederacy ceded fifty thousand
reign as chief occurred during a tumultuous period acres of traditional territory in return for tracts of
highlighted by the Blackfoot’s removal from tradi- reserve land considered impervious to settler en-
tional territories, forcing the complete transforma- croachment and a variety of provisions including
tion of their lifestyle. but not limited to a yearly stipend, rations, police
Born in 1830 to Blood Indians Istowun-eh’pata protection from American bootleggers, ammunition,
(Packs a Knife) and Axkyahp-say-pi (Attacked and rations. Crowfoot was also commended by
Toward Home), Crowfoot’s father died during a Queen Victoria of England for his refusal to ally with
horse raid against the Crow when Crowfoot was still Sioux leader Sitting Bull during the wars between
a boy. Upon returning to Packs a Knife’s camp, the Plains Indians and the U.S. Cavalry.
Crowfoot’s mother fell in love with a Blackfoot Despite government promises to aid in protect-
warrior, Akay-nehka-simi (Many Names); following ing the Blackfoot traditional lifestyle, soon after sign-
their marriage, she and her two sons were adopted ing Treaty 7 Crowfoot and his people faced starva-
by the Blackfoot. Crowfoot managed to survive tion and for several winters chose to reside in
epidemics of diphtheria (1836) and smallpox (1837) Montana in search of buffalo. Upon their return to
and, as a young man, earned a reputation as a war- Canada and their allotted reserves, Crowfoot and his
rior and leader following a series of daring raids. people did their best to survive on government
Wounded six times in nineteen battles, he also rations and hunting. In spite of such hardships,
gained the admiration of his own and neighboring Crowfoot resisted joining forces with Métis leader
communities for single-handedly killing a grizzly Louis Riel, who attempted to form a provisional
bear and for his skills as an orator. government in 1885, although the Blackfoot leader
Crowfoot took ten wives during his life, secur- did instruct his people to assist Cree or Métis rebels
ing his position in Blackfoot society, although only passing through their territory. Crowfoot’s choice
four of his children reached maturity. When his son appeared apt in hindsight, considering the rebel-
was killed by a Cree war party, he adopted Pito- lion’s demise.
kanow-apiwin (“Poundmaker”), a Cree who shared In his later years, Crowfoot watched helplessly
his father’s belief in working for peace with non- from the confines of his reserve as the Blackfoot were
Native settlers, a peace accomplished mainly reduced from great buffalo hunters of the northwest
through the establishment of commercial relation- plains to dependency upon the Canadian govern-
ships with Hudson’s Bay Company employees. ment for their survival. Crowfoot became an in-
Trading guns, iron kettles, beads, and woollens for termediary, working with the federal government in
buffalo hides, horses, and dried meats, Crowfoot an attempt to improve the condition of his people,

786 Dawes Commission (Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes)
traveling to Montreal and Ottawa to meet with gov- break pledges it had made with the Five Civilized
ernment officials and the prime minister, only to Tribes.
return home to and die in his tipi on April 5, 1890. In 1869, the newly formed Board of Indian
Yale D. Belanger Commissioners recommended that communal land
tenure be replaced by individual ownership. Cul-
See also Black Kettle; Canadian Indian Treaty
tural assimilation was the goal. Even reformers who
7–September 22, December 4, 1877; Métis; Riel,
Louis; Sovereignty; Trust. had recently advocated that all treaties be honored
References and Further Reading followed suit in calling for allotment and assimila-
Champagne, Duane. 1994. Native America: Portrait of tion, including the most influential campaigner for
the Peoples. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. this bill, Senator Henry Dawes.
Dempsey, Hugh. 1989. Crowfoot: Chief of the Blackfeet. The Dawes Severalty Act was passed in 1887. It
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. provided for individual allotments to Native Ameri-
Waldman, Carl. 1990. Who Was Who in Native
cans out of reservation lands; so-called surplus land
American History. New York: Facts on File.
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
Dawes Commission Commission was established in 1893 (27 Stat. 645) to
carry out the policy among them. President Grover
(Commission to the Five Cleveland appointed Henry Dawes, Meredith H.
Civilized Tribes) Kidd, and Archibald S. McKennon as its original
The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, popu- commissioners.
larly known as the Dawes Commission, worked in The work of the Dawes Commission was slow
Indian Territory between 1893 and 1906 to further for the first few years. The tribes resisted by organiz-
the U.S. policy of allotment and assimilation. ing international councils to establish policy, appoint-
All removal treaties made in the 1830s with ing tribal commissions, and otherwise struggling
the nations that became known as the Five Civi- to safeguard their cultures. In 1894, the Cherokee
lized Tribes—Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, Chick- National Council wrote a response to the Dawes
asaw, and Seminole—guaranteed that the new land Commission annual report and traveled to Washing-
titles in Indian Territory would be perpetual and ton, D.C., to present their arguments before Congress.
that no government would ever be forced upon In 1895, a reconstituted Dawes Commission
them. After the Civil War, the Five Civilized Tribes asked Congress to impose a territorial form of gov-
ceded half their territory. The ceded portion was ernment on Indian Territory. Congress declined, but
partially used for repatriating western tribes, and in 1895 the commission was given the authority to
the rest was opened to white settlers in 1889. In survey tribal lands and determine citizenship status.
large part due to the “openings,” a steady stream After three years of publishing annual reports,
of white and black settlers moved into the territory appearing before congressional committees, and giv-
and established towns over which tribal governing public speeches inside and outside of Indian Ter-
ments had no authority. By 1890, there were ap - ritory, the commission brought the Choctaws to the
proximately 70,000 tribal citizens and between bargaining table, and an agreement was signed in
140,000 and 250,000 nontribal residents (estimates 1896. Due to these factors as well as to pressure
vary). exerted by the railroad companies, resistance to the
The territory remaining to the Five Civilized Dawes Commission further softened in 1897. The
Tribes included valuable agricultural and timber Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations had signed
lands, extensive coalfields, and gold deposits, which by 1898. A big blow to tribal autonomy came in 1898,
citizens developed. Each tribe had its own constitu- when the Curtis Act effectively ended tribal gover-
tion and infrastructure, including a school system, a nance by abolishing tribal courts and enforcing allot-
general council, and a system of courts. Some be- ment. It also stipulated the creation of an authorita-
came wealthy, whereas others lost control over their tive citizenship roll that became known as the
land due to intermarriage or leasing to noncitizens. Dawes Roll.
All tribes, however, practiced communal land tenure After the tribal officials were deprived of
and limited the size of holdings and leasing prac- authority by the Curtis Act, the Cherokee Nation
tices. Until 1890, the federal government hesitated to was forced to enter negotiations with the Dawes

Dawes, Henry Laurens 787
Commission. In 1902, an agreement was ratified, and

the rolls closed with approximately forty-five thou-
sand names listed. Each enrollee was entitled to
forty acres of average land, inalienable and nontax-
able 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 defini-
tively 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.
Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run. Senator Henry L. Dawes (1816–1903) of Massachusetts served
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. as chairman of the Dawes Commission and he supported the
Gibson, Arrell M. 1978. “Indian Land Transfers.” In General Allotment Act of 1887. (Library of Congress)
Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 4, ed.
William C. Sturtevant, 211–229. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Henry L. Dawes was born in Cummington,
Hagan, William T. 1978. “United States Indian
Policies, 1860–1900.” In Handbook of North Massachusetts, on October 30, 1816, the son of a
American Indians, vol. 4, ed. William C. farmer, Mitchell Dawes, and Mercy Burgess. He
Sturtevant, 51–65. Washington: Smithsonian graduated from Yale in 1839. His first position after
Institution. graduation was in teaching. In 1841, he taught at the
Wardell, Morris L. 1938. A Political History of the Sanderson Academy, an girls’ school in Ashfield,
Cherokee Nation: 1838–1907. Norman: University Massachusetts. It was here that he met his future
of Oklahoma Press.
wife, Electa Allen Sanderson, a student at the acad-
emy 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,
Dawes, Henry Laurens he also studied law in the firm of Wells and Davis.
(1816–1903) He was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1842.
Henry Laurens Dawes lived during a time of great Henry and Electa were married in Ashfield on April
change and development in the early period of the 12, 1844, and settled in North Adams. They lived in
United States. The nineteenth century was also a North Adams for twenty years before moving to
time of confusing changes for the Indians in this Pittsfield, their final home.
country. The non-Indian population was growing Dawes went into private law practice for a few
rapidly and pushing westward. The desire for more years and in 1848 was elected to the Massachusetts
farmland, the discovery and exploitation of rich State House of Representatives. He was reelected in
natural resources, the discovery of silver and gold 1849 and 1852. He served in the State Senate in 1850
in the West, and the building of the transcontinen- and was a member of the state constitutional con-
tal railroad were all factors pressuring the young vention of 1853. He was district attorney for the
government to open up to everyone the hundreds western district of Massachusetts from 1853 to 1857
of millions of acres on the Indian reservations. and served as a Republican member of the House of

788 De La Cruz, Joseph Burton
Representatives from 1857 to 1875 and Senator from ing a biography of Senator Charles Sumner in 1892.
1875 to 1893. While in the House, he served on sev- She died in 1938. It was Anna who donated her
eral committees: Ways and Means, Appropriations, father’s papers to the Library of Congress in Wash-
and Elections. While in the Senate, he served on ington, D.C.
numerous committees, including the Committee on Gayle Yiotis
Buildings and Grounds, as a member of which he
See also Assimilation; Dawes Commission; General
was instrumental in the completion of the Washing-
Allotment Act (Dawes Act), 1887.
ton Monument, and the Committee on Indian References and Further Reading
Affairs. Dawes, Henry Laurens. Papers. Washington, DC:
During most of the nineteenth century, many Library of Congress.
members in Congress and people throughout the Debo, Angie. 1940. And Still the Waters Run: The
country felt that it would be in the Indians’ best Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. Princeton, NJ:
interests to be brought into mainstream society. Princeton University Press. Repr., New York:
Gordian Press, 1966.
This, they felt, could only be done by breaking up
Howes, Frederick G. 1910. History of the Town of
the tribal affiliations and the reservations. Dawes Ashfield, Franklin County, Massachusetts from its
was a great proponent of this strategy because he Settlement in 1742 to 1910. Ashfield, MA: Town
thought it was the most humanitarian solution for of Ashfield.
the Indians, who would then become self-sufficient Hoxie, Frederick E. 1984. A Final Promise: The
farmers on their allotted lands and assimilate into Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920.
the “civilized” society, and, in time, the reservation Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
system would disappear altogether. The surplus McDonnell, Janet A. The Dispossession of the American
Indian, 1887–1934. Bloomington: Indiana
land could then be sold for agrarian use and other
University Press.
development. Moore, William F. 1898. Representative Men of
Several attempts at this had failed, when in 1879 Massachusetts, 1890–1900. Everett:
Senator Richard Coke of Texas introduced yet Massachusetts Publishing.
another allotment bill to Congress. Although not U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1930. Fifteenth Census of the
successful at first, the bill was finally passed in 1887 United States. Washington, DC: Department of
as the General Allotment Act, or the Dawes Sever- Commerce.
Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1975. The Assault on Indian
alty Act after Henry L. Dawes, who sponsored it at
Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act)
the time of passage. The fact that Coke introduced of 1887). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
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 chair-
man of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, De La Cruz, Joseph Burton
which became known as the Dawes Commission. (1937–2000)
The Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Born in 1937, Joseph De La Cruz became one of the
Creek, Choctaw, and Seminole) were initially exempt leading American Indian activists in the United
from the General Allotment Act of 1887 because of States. He was particularly concerned with the white
their unyielding opposition to it, but now the gov- exploitation of native-owned resources within the
ernment insisted on breaking up their tribal govern- boundaries of reservation lands. On his own tribal
ments and lands too. Dawes was chairman of the lands, De La Cruz became well known for pulling
commission for ten years, until the time of his death. his truck onto a bridge to prevent logging trucks
His wife, Electa, died on April 15, 1901; Henry from crossing over onto reservation lands. He did
died on February 5, 1903, at the age of 86. The this to protest the misuse of tribal lands by the
Daweses had five children, only three of whom sur- Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the profit of log-
vived to adulthood: Anna Laurens, born in 1851; ging companies and to protect tribal rights to the
Chester Mitchell, born in 1855; and Henry Laurens, lumber, shellfish, and other fishing industries, an act
born in 1863. Both of Dawes’s sons became lawyers; that later led to compensation paid to the Quinault
Chester settled in Chicago, Illinois, and Henry tribe for their lumber.
remained in Pittsfield. Anna also lived out her days De La Cruz served as president of the Quinault
in Pittsfield, where she wrote several books, includ- Nation from 1970–1994 on the 211,000 acres of Wash-

Dearborn, Henry 789
ington State’s rainforest region. He was also presi- Gayle, Tina, and Lisa; and two sons, Joe and Steve.
dent of the National Congress of American Indians At the time of his passing, he had seven grandchil-
from 1980 until 1985, president of the National Tribal dren and two great-grandchildren. Not only the
Chairman’s Association, and president of the Affili- family mourned his loss but the entire state of
ated Tribes of Northwest Indians; he also served in Washington, as well as all Native Americans the
many other native rights and health organizations. world over. The Seattle Times reported his funeral as
He was the recipient of the Chief George Manuel attended by “ . . . a pageant of Pacific Northwest
Leadership Award and was the first person to hold tribal and political leaders.” About fifteen hundred
the distinguished Joe Tallakson Chair for Public people attended the funeral services, which were
Policy at the Center for World Indigenous Studies, held in the soon-to-be-opened Ocean Shores Casino.
which he held from 1998 to 2000. With Bruce Babbitt, De La Cruz had been instrumental in putting
former attorney general of Arizona and secretary of together the package deal for the Quinault Nation.
the interior, De La Cruz was co-chair of the National He was buried at Inchelium, the Colville Indian
Council on Tribal State Relations; with former gover- reservation where his wife Dorothy was born (Eske-
nor Daniel J. Evans, he served as co-chair of the nazi 2000).
Northwest Renewable Resource Center; and he was Dorothy De La Cruz, Joseph’s wife, continues to
the North American representative to the World marshal support for Native American causes. In
Council of Indigenous Peoples. September 2002, she led the first mile in the cross-
De La Cruz’s major concerns were environmen- country relay race Sovereignty Run, which began in
tal, health, and sovereignty issues among all Ameri- Taholah, Washington, and ended at the steps of the
can Indian nations. He was a staunch supporter of U.S. Supreme Court to bring to light the unjust
the effort to educate the American public about Court decisions against Native tribes.
treaties between American Indian tribes and the U.S. Priscilla MacDonald
government, and he called for reform in the Bureau
See also American Indian Movement (AIM); Boldt
of Indian Affairs (which is the oldest federal agency
Decision (United States v. Washington), 1974;
in the United States). He also supported the educa- Government-to-Government Relationship;
tion of natives and non-natives alike about the cul- Sovereignty.
tural aspects of Native Americans. De La Cruz was References and Further Reading
one of three Indian leaders in the formation of the Eskenazi, Stuart. “Northwest Tribes, Leaders Honor a
First Americans Education Project. During a 1989 Warrior of Wisdom.” Seattle Times, April 23,
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on Sen- 2000.
Johnson, Troy, Joane Nagel, and Duane Champagne,
ate Concurrent Resolution 76, De La Cruz addressed
eds. 1997. American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to
such major concerns as the public’s need for educa- the Longest Walk. Urbana and Chicago:
tion on American Indian treaties, governments, and University of Illinois Press.
cultures; a government-to-government policy that Olson, Ronald. 1936. The Quinault Indians. Seattle:
promoted tribal self-government and tribal self- University of Washington Press.
sufficiency; and the need for American Indian tribal Parman, Donald L. 1984. “Inconsistency Advocacy:
governments, the U.S. government, and Congress to The Erosion of Indian Fishing Rights in the
work together to restructure the federal administra- Pacific Northwest, 1933–1956.” Pacific Historical
Review, 53 (May): 163–189.
tion 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 Appro- Dearborn, Henry
priations Subcommittee, on Indian spending. (1751–1829)
Joseph Burton De La Cruz was an activist until Henry Dearborn was a physician, a Revolutionary
the end. On April 6, 2000, he was waiting at the War veteran, a U.S. marshal for the District of Maine,
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for a flight to a U.S. congressman, a secretary of war, a War of 1812
Oklahoma to speak at a Native Health Conference, veteran, and a minister to Portugal.
when he suddenly had a massive heart attack. He Henry Dearborn is a relatively obscure figure in
died of this heart attack at the age of sixty-two. He American history. Although his career as an officer
left behind his wife, Dorothy; their three daughters, in the American Revolution was fairly distinguished,

790 Dearborn, Henry
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 accommo-
dation 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 Missis-
sippi.
Dearborn appeared to share a belief in this phi-
losophy and attempted to do what was required.
During his tenure, thirty-one formal treaties were
negotiated, in at least two of which Dearborn was
Henry Dearborn (1751–1829) was a distinguished veteran of
the American Revolution who later served capably as the the principal negotiator. However, those upon
nation’s secretary of war during the Thomas Jefferson and whom he depended, some of whom were working
James Madison administrations (1801–1809), which oversaw diligently to promulgate war with Europe, diverted
Indian affairs during that time. (Library of Congress) Dearborn’s attention. For example, James J. Wilkin-
son, commanding general of the western frontier
and governor of Upper Louisiana, was involved
his tenure as secretary of war under President with the expensive and ill-fated 1806 Red River
Thomas Jefferson and his subsequent service in the expedition, which caused embarrassment to Jeffer-
War of 1812 cast a pall on his reputation. son and nearly drew Americans into war with Spain.
With a New Hampshire ancestry dating back to Next was William Henry Harrison, governor of Indi-
1639, Dearborn was born in North Hampton, on Feb- ana Territory, whose military and political ambitions
ruary 23, 1751. He was educated as a physician and, helped to escalate the animosity between Americans
at twenty-four years of age, had an established prac- and the confederation of tribes enlisted by Tecumseh
tice by the outset of the Revolutionary War. Elected (Shawnee), still in alliance with the British. Occupy-
captain of the sixty-man militia unit he had orga- ing Dearborn’s attention further was the continuing
nized in 1772, he fought at the rail fence at Bunker political divisiveness over ties with the French. In
Hill (Breed’s Hill). March 1809, Dearborn resigned, as the newly elected
His experience in the war included a steady rise president, James Madison, took office.
through the officers’ ranks. He was involved in most In January 1812, Madison appointed Dearborn
of the major operations of the war, including action senior major general in command of the Army’s
against the Iroquois Confederation (Six Nations) and northeast sector, from the Niagara River east to the
the Battle of Yorktown. He was taken prisoner at New England coast. Unfortunately, the years he had
Q

Treaties With American Indians

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Treaties With American Indians

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Treaties with American Indians

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

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

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Senior Production Editor: Vicki Moran

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

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Robert D. Bohanan Phillippe Charland

Robyn Bourgeois Anjali Choksi

Charles W. Buckner Richmond Clow

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Steven L. Danver C. S. Everett

David H. DeJong Donald L. Fixico

Antonie Dvorakova Ritu Gambhir

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Tim Alan Garrison Treaty with the Chippewa–October 4, 1842

Pamela Lee Gray Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox

S. Neyooxet Greymorning Cornelius J. Jaenen

Kimberly Hausbeck Bruce E. Johansen

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Theodore J. Karamanski Phil Konstantin

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Cherokee Tobacco Case, 1870 James McIntyre

Kurt T. Mantonya Greg O’Brien

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Micah Pawling Bruce A. Rubenstein

Jay Precht Susan Sánchez-Barnett

Edward D. Ragan John Savagian

Akim D. Reinhardt Daniel Edward Shaule

Martin Reinhardt Bradley Shreve

Barnett Richling Michael A. Sletcher

Paul C. Rosier Eric R. Smith

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Elizabeth Sneyd James Bay and Northern Quebec

April R. Summitt Waziyatawin Angela Wilson

Andrew J. Torget Jason M. Yaremko

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

U.S. and Canadian Indian Treaties

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com 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

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

Conclusion Foreman, Grant. 1934. The Five Civilized Tribes.

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868

www.abc-clio.com ABC-CLIO 1-800-368-6868