Private Diplomacy to Private Property: States, Tribes, and Nations in the Early National Period

Diplomatic History

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 85-99

  Gitlin, Jay ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040099559     PISSN: 01452096     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0145-2096.00103     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. This calculation is based on Charles J. Kappler, comp., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties (1904; reprint, Mattituck, NY, 1972); and Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly (Berkeley, 1994), appendices A and B.
2. This calculation is based on Charles J. Kappler, comp., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties (1904; reprint, Mattituck, NY, 1972); and Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly (Berkeley, 1994), appendices A and B.
3. Arthur N. Gilbert, "The American Indian and United States Diplomatic History," The History Temper 8 (February 1975): 229-41.
4. Prucha, Treaties, 430-35.
5. Ibid., 15.
6. For Indian-white relations in colonial New England and the origins of the reservation system see Yasuhide Kawashima, Puritan Justice and the Indian: White Man's Law in Massachusetts, 1630-1763 (Middletown, CT, 1986) ; and James Axtell, The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (New York, 1985), chap. 7.
7. For Indian-white relations in colonial New England and the origins of the reservation system see Yasuhide Kawashima, Puritan Justice and the Indian: White Man's Law in Massachusetts, 1630-1763 (Middletown, CT, 1986) ; and James Axtell, The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (New York, 1985), chap. 7.
8. Prucha, Treaties, 153-55.
9. Robert A. Williams, Jr., The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (New York, 1990), 316. I am following the argument Williams makes in his cogent analysis of John Marshall's decision in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823). Although I agree that Marshall's opinion represented a "conqueror's legal discourse," I am obviously suggesting that the historical consequences included an ironic twist that would ultimately provide a small measure of relief for native peoples seeking to regain lost rights. For a clear discussion of the problem of creating and transferring property in land see William Cronon, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (New York, 1983), chap. 4.
10. Robert A. Williams, Jr., The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (New York, 1990), 316. I am following the argument Williams makes in his cogent analysis of John Marshall's decision in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823). Although I agree that Marshall's opinion represented a "conqueror's legal discourse," I am obviously suggesting that the historical consequences included an ironic twist that would ultimately provide a small measure of relief for native peoples seeking to regain lost rights. For a clear discussion of the problem of creating and transferring property in land see William Cronon, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (New York, 1983), chap. 4.
11. The most obvious example - and one that historians have examined with some thoroughness - is that of the Cherokee political transformation in this period. See William G. McLoughlin, Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic (Princeton, 1987).
12. Emily S. Rosenberg, "Walking the Borders," in Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, ed. Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson (New York, 1991), 24-35.
13. Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge, 1991), 523 . For Jennings see The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire (New York, 1984) and Empire of Fortune (New York, 1988)
14. Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge, 1991), 523 . For Jennings see The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire (New York, 1984) and Empire of Fortune (New York, 1988)
15. Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge, 1991), 523 . For Jennings see The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire (New York, 1984) and Empire of Fortune (New York, 1988)
16. . 11. Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, 2 vols. (Lincoln, 1984), 1:44-47.
17. R. David Edmunds, "'Nothing Has Been Effected': The Vincennes Treaty of 1792," Indiana Magazine of History 74 (March 1978): 23, 25.
18. For Harrison's treaty-making activities see Prucha, Treaties, 116-23; on Cass and Clark see ibid., chaps, 5-9; Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years (Cambridge, MA, 1962); Jack Ericson Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires: Governors and Territorial Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh, 1968), chap. 8 . An especially useful discussion of Cass can be found in Tanis Chapman Thorne, "People of the River: Mixed-Blood Families on the Lower Missouri" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987), chap. 4.
19. For Harrison's treaty-making activities see Prucha, Treaties, 116-23; on Cass and Clark see ibid., chaps, 5-9; Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years (Cambridge, MA, 1962); Jack Ericson Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires: Governors and Territorial Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh, 1968), chap. 8 . An especially useful discussion of Cass can be found in Tanis Chapman Thorne, "People of the River: Mixed-Blood Families on the Lower Missouri" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987), chap. 4.
20. For Harrison's treaty-making activities see Prucha, Treaties, 116-23; on Cass and Clark see ibid., chaps, 5-9; Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years (Cambridge, MA, 1962); Jack Ericson Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires: Governors and Territorial Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh, 1968), chap. 8 . An especially useful discussion of Cass can be found in Tanis Chapman Thorne, "People of the River: Mixed-Blood Families on the Lower Missouri" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987), chap. 4.
21. For Harrison's treaty-making activities see Prucha, Treaties, 116-23; on Cass and Clark see ibid., chaps, 5-9; Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years (Cambridge, MA, 1962); Jack Ericson Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires: Governors and Territorial Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh, 1968), chap. 8 . An especially useful discussion of Cass can be found in Tanis Chapman Thorne, "People of the River: Mixed-Blood Families on the Lower Missouri" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987), chap. 4.
22. For Harrison's treaty-making activities see Prucha, Treaties, 116-23; on Cass and Clark see ibid., chaps, 5-9; Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years (Cambridge, MA, 1962); Jack Ericson Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires: Governors and Territorial Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh, 1968), chap. 8 . An especially useful discussion of Cass can be found in Tanis Chapman Thorne, "People of the River: Mixed-Blood Families on the Lower Missouri" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987), chap. 4.
23. Thorne, "People of the River," 177-78.
24. In addition to the works by Prucha mentioned previously, the standard monographs remain Bernard W. Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian (Chapel Hill, 1973), and Ronald N. Satz, American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (Lincoln, 1975).
25. In addition to the works by Prucha mentioned previously, the standard monographs remain Bernard W. Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian (Chapel Hill, 1973), and Ronald N. Satz, American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (Lincoln, 1975).
26. The important role of fur traders in the formulation and execution of American Indian policy has been recognized for some time. Robert A. Trennert, Jr., has done the most to date to expand our understanding of this subject. See Trennert, Indian Traders on the Middle Border: The House of Ewing, 1827-54 (Lincoln, 1981), and "The Fur Trader as Indian Administrator: Conflict of Interest or Wise Policy?" South Dakota History 5 (Winter 1974): 1-19. Trennert presents a rather balanced view of the trader as middleman between Indian leaders and federal officials. For an analysis that shares the opinion of Paul Wallace Gates's early work on the subject - that is, that the trader was little more than a cynical and heartless manipulator - see Ronald N. Satz, "Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era: The Old Northwest as a Test Case," Michigan History 60 (Spring 1976): 71-93. It would be impossible not to conclude that the "Indian business" - as the collection of accumulated debts at treaty time came to be known - was a growth industry in the 1830s and 1840s. On this point, Satz and Trennert agree. Trennert, however, suggests that the trader played a necessary role in a critical time of transition for many Indian people, a role made all the more necessary by the ill-conceived notions and unrealistic expectations of federal policymakers. Moreover, Trennert suggests - and I certainly agree - that all Indian people were not necessarily passive onlookers in the games being played. On the growing importance of annuities and credit arrangements see James L. Clayton, "The Impact of Traders' Claims on the American Fur Trade," in The Frontier in American Development: Essays in Honor of Paul Wallace Gates, ed. David M. Ellis (Ithaca, 1969), 299-322; and for the impact on a changing native world Royce Kurtz, "Looking at the Ledgers: Sauk and Mesquakie Trade Debts, 1820-1840," in The Fur Trade Revisited: Selected Papers of the Sixth North American Fur Trade Conference, Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1991, ed. Jennifer S. H. Brown, W. J. Eccles, and Donald P. Heldman (East Lansing, MI, 1994), 143-59.
27. The important role of fur traders in the formulation and execution of American Indian policy has been recognized for some time. Robert A. Trennert, Jr., has done the most to date to expand our understanding of this subject. See Trennert, Indian Traders on the Middle Border: The House of Ewing, 1827-54 (Lincoln, 1981), and "The Fur Trader as Indian Administrator: Conflict of Interest or Wise Policy?" South Dakota History 5 (Winter 1974): 1-19. Trennert presents a rather balanced view of the trader as middleman between Indian leaders and federal officials. For an analysis that shares the opinion of Paul Wallace Gates's early work on the subject - that is, that the trader was little more than a cynical and heartless manipulator - see Ronald N. Satz, "Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era: The Old Northwest as a Test Case," Michigan History 60 (Spring 1976): 71-93. It would be impossible not to conclude that the "Indian business" - as the collection of accumulated debts at treaty time came to be known - was a growth industry in the 1830s and 1840s. On this point, Satz and Trennert agree. Trennert, however, suggests that the trader played a necessary role in a critical time of transition for many Indian people, a role made all the more necessary by the ill-conceived notions and unrealistic expectations of federal policymakers. Moreover, Trennert suggests - and I certainly agree - that all Indian people were not necessarily passive onlookers in the games being played. On the growing importance of annuities and credit arrangements see James L. Clayton, "The Impact of Traders' Claims on the American Fur Trade," in The Frontier in American Development: Essays in Honor of Paul Wallace Gates, ed. David M. Ellis (Ithaca, 1969), 299-322; and for the impact on a changing native world Royce Kurtz, "Looking at the Ledgers: Sauk and Mesquakie Trade Debts, 1820-1840," in The Fur Trade Revisited: Selected Papers of the Sixth North American Fur Trade Conference, Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1991, ed. Jennifer S. H. Brown, W. J. Eccles, and Donald P. Heldman (East Lansing, MI, 1994), 143-59.
28. The important role of fur traders in the formulation and execution of American Indian policy has been recognized for some time. Robert A. Trennert, Jr., has done the most to date to expand our understanding of this subject. See Trennert, Indian Traders on the Middle Border: The House of Ewing, 1827-54 (Lincoln, 1981), and "The Fur Trader as Indian Administrator: Conflict of Interest or Wise Policy?" South Dakota History 5 (Winter 1974): 1-19. Trennert presents a rather balanced view of the trader as middleman between Indian leaders and federal officials. For an analysis that shares the opinion of Paul Wallace Gates's early work on the subject - that is, that the trader was little more than a cynical and heartless manipulator - see Ronald N. Satz, "Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era: The Old Northwest as a Test Case," Michigan History 60 (Spring 1976): 71-93. It would be impossible not to conclude that the "Indian business" - as the collection of accumulated debts at treaty time came to be known - was a growth industry in the 1830s and 1840s. On this point, Satz and Trennert agree. Trennert, however, suggests that the trader played a necessary role in a critical time of transition for many Indian people, a role made all the more necessary by the ill-conceived notions and unrealistic expectations of federal policymakers. Moreover, Trennert suggests - and I certainly agree - that all Indian people were not necessarily passive onlookers in the games being played. On the growing importance of annuities and credit arrangements see James L. Clayton, "The Impact of Traders' Claims on the American Fur Trade," in The Frontier in American Development: Essays in Honor of Paul Wallace Gates, ed. David M. Ellis (Ithaca, 1969), 299-322; and for the impact on a changing native world Royce Kurtz, "Looking at the Ledgers: Sauk and Mesquakie Trade Debts, 1820-1840," in The Fur Trade Revisited: Selected Papers of the Sixth North American Fur Trade Conference, Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1991, ed. Jennifer S. H. Brown, W. J. Eccles, and Donald P. Heldman (East Lansing, MI, 1994), 143-59.
29. The important role of fur traders in the formulation and execution of American Indian policy has been recognized for some time. Robert A. Trennert, Jr., has done the most to date to expand our understanding of this subject. See Trennert, Indian Traders on the Middle Border: The House of Ewing, 1827-54 (Lincoln, 1981), and "The Fur Trader as Indian Administrator: Conflict of Interest or Wise Policy?" South Dakota History 5 (Winter 1974): 1-19. Trennert presents a rather balanced view of the trader as middleman between Indian leaders and federal officials. For an analysis that shares the opinion of Paul Wallace Gates's early work on the subject - that is, that the trader was little more than a cynical and heartless manipulator - see Ronald N. Satz, "Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era: The Old Northwest as a Test Case," Michigan History 60 (Spring 1976): 71-93. It would be impossible not to conclude that the "Indian business" - as the collection of accumulated debts at treaty time came to be known - was a growth industry in the 1830s and 1840s. On this point, Satz and Trennert agree. Trennert, however, suggests that the trader played a necessary role in a critical time of transition for many Indian people, a role made all the more necessary by the ill-conceived notions and unrealistic expectations of federal policymakers. Moreover, Trennert suggests - and I certainly agree - that all Indian people were not necessarily passive onlookers in the games being played. On the growing importance of annuities and credit arrangements see James L. Clayton, "The Impact of Traders' Claims on the American Fur Trade," in The Frontier in American Development: Essays in Honor of Paul Wallace Gates, ed. David M. Ellis (Ithaca, 1969), 299-322; and for the impact on a changing native world Royce Kurtz, "Looking at the Ledgers: Sauk and Mesquakie Trade Debts, 1820-1840," in The Fur Trade Revisited: Selected Papers of the Sixth North American Fur Trade Conference, Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1991, ed. Jennifer S. H. Brown, W. J. Eccles, and Donald P. Heldman (East Lansing, MI, 1994), 143-59.
30. The important role of fur traders in the formulation and execution of American Indian policy has been recognized for some time. Robert A. Trennert, Jr., has done the most to date to expand our understanding of this subject. See Trennert, Indian Traders on the Middle Border: The House of Ewing, 1827-54 (Lincoln, 1981), and "The Fur Trader as Indian Administrator: Conflict of Interest or Wise Policy?" South Dakota History 5 (Winter 1974): 1-19. Trennert presents a rather balanced view of the trader as middleman between Indian leaders and federal officials. For an analysis that shares the opinion of Paul Wallace Gates's early work on the subject - that is, that the trader was little more than a cynical and heartless manipulator - see Ronald N. Satz, "Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era: The Old Northwest as a Test Case," Michigan History 60 (Spring 1976): 71-93. It would be impossible not to conclude that the "Indian business" - as the collection of accumulated debts at treaty time came to be known - was a growth industry in the 1830s and 1840s. On this point, Satz and Trennert agree. Trennert, however, suggests that the trader played a necessary role in a critical time of transition for many Indian people, a role made all the more necessary by the ill-conceived notions and unrealistic expectations of federal policymakers. Moreover, Trennert suggests - and I certainly agree - that all Indian people were not necessarily passive onlookers in the games being played. On the growing importance of annuities and credit arrangements see James L. Clayton, "The Impact of Traders' Claims on the American Fur Trade," in The Frontier in American Development: Essays in Honor of Paul Wallace Gates, ed. David M. Ellis (Ithaca, 1969), 299-322; and for the impact on a changing native world Royce Kurtz, "Looking at the Ledgers: Sauk and Mesquakie Trade Debts, 1820-1840," in The Fur Trade Revisited: Selected Papers of the Sixth North American Fur Trade Conference, Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1991, ed. Jennifer S. H. Brown, W. J. Eccles, and Donald P. Heldman (East Lansing, MI, 1994), 143-59.
31. See William E. Foley and C. David Rice, The First Chouteaus: River Barons of Early St. Louis (Urbana, 1983), esp. chaps. 3, 6, 7.
32. For more on this point see Jay Gitlin, "Old Wine in New Bottles: French Merchants and the Emergence of the American Midwest, 1795-1835, " in Proceedings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Meetings of the French Colonial Historical Society, ed. Philip P. Boucher (Lanham, MD, 1990), 35-57. Lewis Cass certainly understood the necessity of maintaining the good will and influence of the Francophone population still living in the old pays d'en haut. See Thorne, "People of the River," 179-82.
33. For more on this point see Jay Gitlin, "Old Wine in New Bottles: French Merchants and the Emergence of the American Midwest, 1795-1835, " in Proceedings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Meetings of the French Colonial Historical Society, ed. Philip P. Boucher (Lanham, MD, 1990), 35-57. Lewis Cass certainly understood the necessity of maintaining the good will and influence of the Francophone population still living in the old pays d'en haut. See Thorne, "People of the River," 179-82.
34. For more on this point see Jay Gitlin, "Old Wine in New Bottles: French Merchants and the Emergence of the American Midwest, 1795-1835, " in Proceedings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Meetings of the French Colonial Historical Society, ed. Philip P. Boucher (Lanham, MD, 1990), 35-57. Lewis Cass certainly understood the necessity of maintaining the good will and influence of the Francophone population still living in the old pays d'en haut. See Thorne, "People of the River," 179-82.
35. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
36. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
37. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
38. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
39. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
40. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
41. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
42. Compare, for example, the Treaty of Doak's Stand (1820) between the United States and the Choctaw and the treaty signed with the "Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians" in 1821. The former speaks of promoting civilization, of "grand and humane objects," of "preserving that harmony and friendship which so happily subsists between them and the United States." The latter - typical of most northern treaties - gets right down to business: Here are the lands being ceded; here are the individual and village tracts being reserved; here is the payment schedule. Kappler, Indian Afairs 2:191-95, 198-201. For examples of treaties with elaborate supplementary schedules see the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Miami treaties signed with the United States in 1826, ibid., 268-81. As early as 1801 and 1802, treaties signed with the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks were linked - indirectly - to debts owed to the trading firm of Panton, Leslie and Company. The practice of including treaty provisions for the payment of private debts out of tribal funds seems to have originated with the Osage Treaty of 1825. Not surprisingly, the largest beneficiary was A. P. Chouteau, son of Pierre, Sr. A variety of Chouteau partisans were responsible for the treaty, including William Clark, Osage chief White Hair, and a whole host of Creole and métis kinsmen and friends (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:217-21) . See also Prucha, Treaties, 105-11, 219-23; and Clayton, "Traders' Claims." The practice grew by leaps and bounds between 1825 and 1842. Again, the practice was largely confined to treaties with northern tribes within the orbit of what I call the "Creole Crescent." Though not the only merchants involved, the Chouteaus were undoubtedly the most important creditors and beneficiaries. The Senate resolved on 3 March 1843 - after most of the land in the Old Northwest-Great Lakes area had been ceded and the money for it been paid - that in future treaties "no reservations of land should be made in favor of any person, nor the payment of any debts provided for." Nevertheless, the payment of traders' claims from annuity funds continued until 1854. The story of allotments and severalty provisions being written into treaties is even more complicated. Eblen (United States Empires, 266) suggests that the practice began in 1798; Gates suggests that the Choctaw treaty of 1805 established the precedent. Paul W. Gates, "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans-Mississippi West, ed. John G. Clark (Lawrence, 1971), 141-70, remains the fullest treatment of this topic. See also Thorne, "People of the River," chap. 4. Among the complex issues Gates discusses are the sale of some Indian cessions as trust lands, not as public domain, and the use of "floating reserves," lands granted usually to métis tribesmen that were "free to be located within broad areas." Such allotments and other reserves knowingly located on future townsites were much sought after by traders and tribesmen.
43. John F. McDermott, ed., The Western Journals of Washington Irving (Norman, 1944), 103. Irving recorded this story in his journal in October 1832 in Indian Territory (Oklahoma).
44. The beaver market - the traditional bulwark of the fur trade - declined precipitously in the 1820s, then rose in one last flurry from 1828 to 1833. John Jacob Astor sold his interest in the American Fur Company to Pierre Chouteau and Ramsay Crooks in 1834. Crooks did not survive the competition and hard times of the late 1830s and sold out to Chouteau in 1842. Buffalo robes from the trans-Mississippi West and raccoon pelts took the place of the beaver during this period. See James L. Clayton, "The Growth and Economic Significance of the American Fur Trade, 1790-1890," in Aspects of the Fur Trade: Selected Papers of the 1965 North American Fur Trade Conference, ed. Rhoda R. Gilman (St. Paul, 1967), 62-72.
45. Nellie Armstrong Robertson and Dorothy Riker, eds., The John Tipton Papers, 3 vols. (Indianapolis, 1942), 2:377.
46. J. F. Eddy to Col. J. Smith, 5 December 1849, Chouteau Collection, Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, Missouri.
47. Juanita Hunter, "The Indians and the Michigan Road," Indiana Magazine of History 83 (September 1987): 244-66, has sorted out the correspondence in the John Tipton Papers relating to this incident. See Tipton Papers 1:371, 2:275-76
48. Juanita Hunter, "The Indians and the Michigan Road," Indiana Magazine of History 83 (September 1987): 244-66, has sorted out the correspondence in the John Tipton Papers relating to this incident. See Tipton Papers 1:371, 2:275-76
49. Juanita Hunter, "The Indians and the Michigan Road," Indiana Magazine of History 83 (September 1987): 244-66, has sorted out the correspondence in the John Tipton Papers relating to this incident. See Tipton Papers 1:371, 2:275-76
50. The quote comes from Tipton Papers 2:405.
51. For the treaty see Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:199.
52. On the Le Gros affair see Tipton Papers 1:611-12. Gates comments on this affair in "Indian Allotments," 150. In a newly published history of the Miamis, Stewart Rafert suggests that the native community still remembers the incident with some bitterness. Internal rivalries within the tribe and political shifts after removal in 1846 may have shaped the oral traditions surrounding this earlier period. See Rafert, The Miami Indians of Indiana: A Persistent People, 1654-1994 (Indianapolis, 1996), 94.
53. On the Le Gros affair see Tipton Papers 1:611-12. Gates comments on this affair in "Indian Allotments," 150. In a newly published history of the Miamis, Stewart Rafert suggests that the native community still remembers the incident with some bitterness. Internal rivalries within the tribe and political shifts after removal in 1846 may have shaped the oral traditions surrounding this earlier period. See Rafert, The Miami Indians of Indiana: A Persistent People, 1654-1994 (Indianapolis, 1996), 94.
54. Thorne, "People of the River," 206.
55. Bert Anson, The Miami Indians (Norman, OK, 1970), 193. The artist George Winter described Godfroy's home in 1839. This quotation comes from an essay by R. David Edmunds, "George Winter: Mirror of Acculturation," in Indians and a Changing Frontier: The Art of George Winter, comp. Sarah E. Cooke and Rachel B. Ramadhyani (Indianapolis, 1993), 29. The essay by Edmunds provides the single best overview of Miami and Potawatomi society in this period. See also Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, chap. 4; and Anson, Miami Indians, chap. 6.
56. Bert Anson, The Miami Indians (Norman, OK, 1970), 193. The artist George Winter described Godfroy's home in 1839. This quotation comes from an essay by R. David Edmunds, "George Winter: Mirror of Acculturation," in Indians and a Changing Frontier: The Art of George Winter, comp. Sarah E. Cooke and Rachel B. Ramadhyani (Indianapolis, 1993), 29. The essay by Edmunds provides the single best overview of Miami and Potawatomi society in this period. See also Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, chap. 4; and Anson, Miami Indians, chap. 6.
57. Bert Anson, The Miami Indians (Norman, OK, 1970), 193. The artist George Winter described Godfroy's home in 1839. This quotation comes from an essay by R. David Edmunds, "George Winter: Mirror of Acculturation," in Indians and a Changing Frontier: The Art of George Winter, comp. Sarah E. Cooke and Rachel B. Ramadhyani (Indianapolis, 1993), 29. The essay by Edmunds provides the single best overview of Miami and Potawatomi society in this period. See also Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, chap. 4; and Anson, Miami Indians, chap. 6.
58. The text of the treaty negotiations can be found in the Tipton Papers 1:577-92.
59. Ninety-two sections (each section=640 acres) were reserved for various villages - in short, this land was held communally. An additional 20.75 sections were granted to twenty individuals -mostly chiefs and their children - amounting to an additional 13,280 acres. My figures, calculated from the treaty document (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:278-81) agree with Anson, Miami Indians, 191-93. Gates, "Indian Allotments," comes up with an unexplained larger figure.
60. Ninety-two sections (each section=640 acres) were reserved for various villages - in short, this land was held communally. An additional 20.75 sections were granted to twenty individuals - mostly chiefs and their children - amounting to an additional 13,280 acres. My figures, calculated from the treaty document (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:278-81) agree with Anson, Miami Indians, 191-93. Gates, "Indian Allotments," comes up with an unexplained larger figure.
61. Ninety-two sections (each section=640 acres) were reserved for various villages - in short, this land was held communally. An additional 20.75 sections were granted to twenty individuals - mostly chiefs and their children - amounting to an additional 13,280 acres. My figures, calculated from the treaty document (Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:278-81) agree with Anson, Miami Indians, 191-93. Gates, "Indian Allotments," comes up with an unexplained larger figure.
62. $3.83 per acre (6,720 acres for $25,780). See Gates, "Indian Allotments," 150 and Tipton Papers 1:605. On the houses constructed for the various chiefs see Tipton Papers 1:738-44, 810 for plans, bids, descriptions, and contracts. The houses had four glass windows, two doors, two chimneys, and brick foundations. So many contractors made bids that some of the houses were built for less than $500. When word of this got out, the chiefs forced Tipton to spend the extra money on such additions as cupboards and additional doors. These - I submit - are not the actions of passive men.
63. $3.83 per acre (6,720 acres for $25,780). See Gates, "Indian Allotments," 150 and Tipton Papers 1:605. On the houses constructed for the various chiefs see Tipton Papers 1:738-44, 810 for plans, bids, descriptions, and contracts. The houses had four glass windows, two doors, two chimneys, and brick foundations. So many contractors made bids that some of the houses were built for less than $500. When word of this got out, the chiefs forced Tipton to spend the extra money on such additions as cupboards and additional doors. These - I submit - are not the actions of passive men.
64. $3.83 per acre (6,720 acres for $25,780). See Gates, "Indian Allotments," 150 and Tipton Papers 1:605. On the houses constructed for the various chiefs see Tipton Papers 1:738-44, 810 for plans, bids, descriptions, and contracts. The houses had four glass windows, two doors, two chimneys, and brick foundations. So many contractors made bids that some of the houses were built for less than $500. When word of this got out, the chiefs forced Tipton to spend the extra money on such additions as cupboards and additional doors. These - I submit - are not the actions of passive men.
65. This quote comes from Tipton's letter to Secretary of War John H. Eaton, 5 April 1831 (Tipton Papers 2:399-400). For the 1826 treaty see the rather apologetic letter of the three commissioners - Lewis Cass, Indiana Governor James B. Ray, and John Tipton, to Secretary of Warjames Barbour (23 October 1826) in the Tipton Papers 1:598-606.
66. This quote comes from Tipton's letter to Secretary of War John H. Eaton, 5 April 1831 (Tipton Papers 2:399-400). For the 1826 treaty see the rather apologetic letter of the three commissioners - Lewis Cass, Indiana Governor James B. Ray, and John Tipton, to Secretary of Warjames Barbour (23 October 1826) in the Tipton Papers 1:598-606.
67. On the Schermerhorn affair see especially Trennert, Indian Traders, 45-47 ; also, Anson, Miami Indians, 197-200. On Richardville's Catholicism see the letter of John Forsyth to Tipton, 26 January 1829 (Tipton Papers 2:134).
68. On the Schermerhorn affair see especially Trennert, Indian Traders, 45-47 ; also, Anson, Miami Indians, 197-200. On Richardville's Catholicism see the letter of John Forsyth to Tipton, 26 January 1829 (Tipton Papers 2:134).
69. On the Schermerhorn affair see especially Trennert, Indian Traders, 45-47 ; also, Anson, Miami Indians, 197-200. On Richardville's Catholicism see the letter of John Forsyth to Tipton, 26 January 1829 (Tipton Papers 2:134).
70. See Gates's introduction to the Tipton Papers 1:33-35. See also Hunter, "Indians and the Michigan Road," 253.
71. See Gates's introduction to the Tipton Papers 1:33-35. See also Hunter, "Indians and the Michigan Road," 253.
72. Tipton Papers 1:22-32.
73. Jean B. Richardville to Tipton, 13 January 1832, Tipton Papers 2:500.
74. Anson suggests that Richardville and Godfroy operated their own trading posts, in part, to contol the credit purchases of individual Miamis and provide a sympathetic commercial intermediary between tribespeople and white entrepreneurs (Anson, Miami Indians, 190).
75. See ibid., 222.
76. Ibid., 206.
77. Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, 100-101.
78. For the various interpretations see ibid., chap. 4; Anson, Miami Indians, chaps. 6 and 7; and Bert Anson, "John Roche - Pioneer Irish Businessman," Indiana Magazine of History 55 (March 1959): 47-58. See also Donald Chaput, "The Family of Drouet de Richerville: Merchants, Soldiers, and Chiefs of Indiana," Indiana Magazine of History 74 (June 1978): 103-16.
79. For the various interpretations see ibid., chap. 4; Anson, Miami Indians, chaps. 6 and 7; and Bert Anson, "John Roche - Pioneer Irish Businessman," Indiana Magazine of History 55 (March 1959): 47-58. See also Donald Chaput, "The Family of Drouet de Richerville: Merchants, Soldiers, and Chiefs of Indiana," Indiana Magazine of History 74 (June 1978): 103-16.
80. For the various interpretations see ibid., chap. 4; Anson, Miami Indians, chaps. 6 and 7; and Bert Anson, "John Roche - Pioneer Irish Businessman," Indiana Magazine of History 55 (March 1959): 47-58. See also Donald Chaput, "The Family of Drouet de Richerville: Merchants, Soldiers, and Chiefs of Indiana," Indiana Magazine of History 74 (June 1978): 103-16.
81. For the various interpretations see ibid., chap. 4; Anson, Miami Indians, chaps. 6 and 7; and Bert Anson, "John Roche - Pioneer Irish Businessman," Indiana Magazine of History 55 (March 1959): 47-58. See also Donald Chaput, "The Family of Drouet de Richerville: Merchants, Soldiers, and Chiefs of Indiana," Indiana Magazine of History 74 (June 1978): 103-16.
82. The last century and a half of Miami history is covered with great sympathy and skill by Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana. The Miamis who stayed in Indiana continue to press for federal recognition.
83. See the Tipton Papers 2:251-53; and Hunter, "Indians and the Michigan Road," 258.
84. See the Tipton Papers 2:251-53; and Hunter, "Indians and the Michigan Road," 258.
85. Anson, Miami Indians, 201; Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:520-21 (Article 6). On Indian negotiators and tribal authority see Prucha, Indian Treaties, 210-13; and Tipton Papers 2:250-51. Rafert suggests that the village chiefs reasserted their independent authority in a later period (Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, 121-22).
86. Anson, Miami Indians, 201; Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:520-21 (Article 6). On Indian negotiators and tribal authority see Prucha, Indian Treaties, 210-13; and Tipton Papers 2:250-51. Rafert suggests that the village chiefs reasserted their independent authority in a later period (Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, 121-22).
87. Anson, Miami Indians, 201; Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:520-21 (Article 6). On Indian negotiators and tribal authority see Prucha, Indian Treaties, 210-13; and Tipton Papers 2:250-51. Rafert suggests that the village chiefs reasserted their independent authority in a later period (Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, 121-22).
88. Anson, Miami Indians, 201; Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:520-21 (Article 6). On Indian negotiators and tribal authority see Prucha, Indian Treaties, 210-13; and Tipton Papers 2:250-51. Rafert suggests that the village chiefs reasserted their independent authority in a later period (Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, 121-22).
89. Anson, Miami Indians, 201; Kappler, Indian Affairs 2:520-21 (Article 6). On Indian negotiators and tribal authority see Prucha, Indian Treaties, 210-13; and Tipton Papers 2:250-51. Rafert suggests that the village chiefs reasserted their independent authority in a later period (Rafert, Miami Indians of Indiana, 121-22).