These I Do Not Sell

Harry Miller

Description

By Harry MillerHE Wisconsin Historical Society holds in its Archives manyresources relating to the native tribes of Wisconsin: the reports offederal Indian agents, the records of Indian schools, and the stateT attorney general’s records relating to treaty rights, as well as the let-ters, diaries, and recollections of early settlers. The vast majority of these doc-uments share a common viewpoint—a flawed viewpoint, some wouldsay—since they exclusively represent the perspective of the dominant white26 SUMMER 2001WISCONSIN MAGAZINE OF HISTORYsociety and culture. Such sources inevitably contain inherent transported by a delegation of chiefs to Washington duringcultural biases. At best, they present a one-sided view of trib- the closing months of the Civil War, where it was read to fed-al history and culture. Because the native tribes possess a eral officials. It was then left in the possession of George P.peculiar legal status as sovereign nations, and because they Warren, a Wisconsin soldier then convalescing at a Washing-historically relied upon oral tradition rather than written ton military hospital. Seventeen years later, Warren donatedrecords, documentary sources it to the State Historical Society.reflecting the Indian perspective The document is titled simply,are rare. “Statement Made by the Indians.”In his annual report for 1882, It is sixteen pages long, handwrit-Corresponding Secretary Lyman ten in ink on paper that has turnedC. Draper noted one ...

Informations

• Publié par: Vewyig
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

26

T

HE Wisconsin Historical Society holds in its Archives many

resources relating to the native tribes of Wisconsin: the reports of

federal Indian agents, the records of Indian schools, and the state

attorney general’s records relating to treaty rights, as well as the let-

ters, diaries, and recollections of early settlers. The vast majority of these doc-

uments share a common viewpoint—a flawed viewpoint, some would

say—since they exclusively represent the perspective of the dominant white

By Harry Miller

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

27

W

I S C O N S I N

M

A G A Z I N E O F

H

I S T O R Y

society and culture. Such sources inevitably contain inherent

cultural biases. At best, they present a one-sided view of trib-

al history and culture. Because the native tribes possess a

peculiar legal status as sovereign nations, and because they

historically relied upon oral tradition rather than written

records, documentary sources

reflecting the Indian perspective

are rare.

In his annual report for 1882,

Corresponding Secretary Lyman

C. Draper noted one document

that represented the Indian per-

spective. Cited among a long list of

recent acquisitions, Draper termed

it “a MS. statement of the treaties

between the Chippewas and the

United States, from 1825 to 1864,

from the Chippewa standpoint, as

presented to the Commissioner of

Indian Affairs.” (“Chippewa” is

the anglicized version of the

French pronunciation of “Ojib-

we”). These plain words describe

one of the rarest and most prized

treasures among the millions of

documents preserved in the Wis-

consin State Archives.

Draper was of course an old

hand at collecting and evaluating historical documents. He

had spent much of the preceding forty years assembling the

massive trove of letters, diaries, clippings, notes, and inter-

views of the heroes and villains of the American Revolution,

the various border wars, and the westward movement, all of

which would eventually become famous as “the Draper Col-

lection.” A voracious collector, Draper was also a scholar and

historian who knew wheat from chaff. He understood the

importance and uniqueness of this document, which con-

tributes significantly to our understanding of relations

between Wisconsin’s Indians and the state and federal gov-

ernments and which is valuable both for its content and for its

presentation. It was prepared in Wisconsin by a council of

Ojibwe chiefs and headmen, translated into English, and

transported by a delegation of chiefs to Washington during

the closing months of the Civil War, where it was read to fed-

eral officials. It was then left in the possession of George P.

Warren, a Wisconsin soldier then convalescing at a Washing-

ton military hospital. Seventeen years later, Warren donated

it to the State Historical Society.

The document is titled simply,

“Statement Made by the Indians.”

It is sixteen pages long, handwrit-

ten in ink on paper that has turned

pale blue with age, each page

measuring approximately 11 by 17

inches. It is presented in a two-col-

umn format, with the Ojibwe and

English texts for each passage

appearing side by side. It is a sum-

mary and interpretation from the

Ojibwe tribal perspective of a

series of treaties between the tribe

and the United States. But it is

more than this. It is also a petition

of grievances relating to broken

promises, missed payments, and

the failure of the United States to

carry out the intent of those

treaties as they were understood by

the Ojibwe. The treaties covered

in the Statement include those

signed at Prairie du Chien in 1825; at Fond du Lac (near the

western end of Lake Superior, not the current city of Fond du

Lac) in 1826 and 1847; at St. Peters (Fort Snelling in present

Minnesota) in 1837; and at La Pointe (on Madeline Island) in

1842 and 1854. The treaties of 1825 and 1826 were intended

to promote peace among various Indian tribes and to estab-

lish boundaries between Indian nations. Those of 1837, 1842,

and 1847 conveyed vast amounts of land in Wisconsin,

Michigan, and Minnesota from the Ojibwe to the United

States. The 1854 agreement returned some of the land ceded

in 1842 in order to create tribal reservations in Wisconsin.

A long history of conflict and mistrust exists between the

Indian nations of Wisconsin and both the federal and state

governments, manifested most recently in court cases and

political agitation over the tribes’ rights to off-reservation

hunting and fishing. At the height of public agitation over

Indian rights in the early 1990s, there occurred almost night-

ly confrontations between tribal spear-fishermen and white

protesters at boat landings on numerous lakes in northern

Copyright © 2001 by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Henry Rowe Schoolcraft,

Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the

History

. . .

of the Indian Tribes

. . . , Vol. 1, 1851.

Lyman Copeland Draper served as Director (then called

Corresponding Secretary) of the Wisconsin Historical

Society from 1854 to 1886.

WHS lot # 1942.28

The “Symbolic Petition of Chippewa Chiefs (opposite) presented at

Washington . . . 1849” reflected a traditional form of communica-

tion for the Ojibwe. By 1864 the tribe saw the need to use the

written word to communicate with government officials.

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

28

Wisconsin. Generally, the root of these conflicts

is disagreement over the meaning of treaties

concluded between the United States and the

tribes. The “Statement Made by the Indians” is

an early product of this same conflict and mis-

trust. Writing to Lyman Draper in November

1882, at least a year after donating the docu-

ment, George P. Warren described the origin of

the Statement:

During the winter of 1864, the principal

Inds. Of the Bad River Reservation State

of Wisconsin often & repeatedly met in

council at their homes, these councils were

held as preparatory to a contemplated

visit to Washington D.C. . . . They

reached at the details of their “Statement”

upon the strength of memory mostly,

though, however helped by some of their

young men who wrote down their state-

ment word for word.

Joseph Gurnoe, described by Warren as “a

Chippewa mixed blood,” acted as interpreter

and transcribed into a two-column format the

results of these councils. In February 1865, a

delegation of Ojibwe from Lac Court Oreilles

and Lake Superior, together with Gurnoe,

arrived in Washington with the Statement.

Apparently there was then some kind of falling

out with Gurnoe, for he seems to have left the

group. But somehow, by fortunate chance, the

Indian delegation encountered George P. War-

ren, whom Draper described in his 1882 report

as “an educated half-breed Chippewa.” While

we know little about Warren, he obviously was

known and trusted by the Indian delegation,

which invited him to act as their interpreter. He

was born in La Pointe in 1825, and in February

1864, when he enlisted in Company K of the

Thirty-sixth Wisconsin Infantry, he resided in

Chippewa Falls. One military source identifies

his occupation as “lumberman”; another, as “gentle-

man.” According to his service record, Warren was “a very

good soldier.” He was promoted to sergeant in April 1864,

before the regiment shipped out for northern Virginia, where

it was immediately thrown into combat. In February 1865

Warren was convalescing at the Emory Hospital in Washing-

ton, the result of a wound he sustained on June 3 at the dis-

astrous Battle of Cold Harbor. There he was at the time of his

chance encounter with the Indian delegation.

The delegation now met with Commissioner of Indian

Affairs William P. Dole, who had the Statement “booked”

but did not retain it. The Ojibwe next called upon U.S. Sen-

ator James R. Doolittle of Racine, who “wrote some lines” to

Commissioner Dole. After their visit with Senator Doolittle,

the delegation of chiefs left the Statement with George War-

W

I S C O N S I N

M

A G A Z I N E O F

H

I S T O R Y

This portion of the “Statement Made by the Indians” deals with the

call to meet at Fond du Lac and registers Ojibwe surprise at the

need for such a meeting.

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

29

ren, perhaps hoping that he could somehow pursue the mat-

ter, and returned to Wisconsin. There is no way of knowing

the Indians’ thoughts on what they may have achieved by

making a long, arduous journey to the nation’s capital in the

midst of the war. But clearly the delegation’s efforts did not

resolve the major issues of conflict. The fact that the Com-

missioner of Indian Affairs did not even retain a copy of the

Statement suggests the level of importance he ascribed to the

complaints of the Wisconsin Indians. Still, the

delegation did meet with some success. One of

its specific grievances related to payments to

the Indians. During the Civil War years these

payments had been made in inflated paper cur-

rency, instead of hard money as mandated by

the treaties. On this issue the Ojibwe apparent-

ly prevailed, since the next round of payments

was made in gold.

W

HATEVER the impact of the

Statement on the federal govern-

ment in 1865, its historical value is

indisputable. The unique two-column presen-

tation of the Statement makes it of great value

to linguists studying this aboriginal language.

While there exists a

significant number

of nineteenth-centu-

ry published exam-

ples of the Ojibwe

language, most are

phonetic transcrip-

tions done by non-

native

speakers.

Similarly,

while

petitions of griev-

ances by Indians are

numerous, few if

any others were pre-

pared by native

speakers and pre-

sented in both Eng-

lish and the Indian

language. Thus the

comparisons made

possible

by

the

bilingual Statement

can aid in understanding those nuances of lin-

guistic difference that contribute to conflict

over treaty interpretation.

More important, perhaps, the Statement allows the mid-

nineteenth-century Ojibwe to speak

in their own words

about

their relations with whites and their view of the land and its

resources. It addresses the history of the Ojibwe peoples’ con-

tact with whites by comparing their treatment at the hands of

the United States government with their earlier relations with

the British, who controlled the Upper Midwest until the close

W

I S C O N S I N

M

A G A Z I N E O F

H

I S T O R Y

Chippewa Treaty Statement and Related Papers, Wisconsin Historical Society Archives

Joseph Gurnoe,

described by

Warren as

“a Chippewa

mixed blood,”

acted as

interpreter and

transcribed into

a two-column

format the

results of these

councils.

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

30

W

I S C O N S I N

M

A G A Z I N E O F

H

I S T O R Y

of the War of 1812. Thus, as the Statement puts it,

There was an old woman who spoke to the Agent, in

this wise, My Father, truly I am poor, your Children

the Chippewas are poor. At the time when the Eng-

lish People were supporting me I had

plenty to wear; but when you

made your appearance[,] you

who are called ‘Big Knives’ and

come among us, you told me that

you would support me, that I

would not be poor, that I would

be better off than I had been

with the English. I am now

a good deal poorer than I

was then. You have made

me a great many promises

which you have not ful-

filled.

This old woman spoke the

truth. There is no per-

ceptible change in our

situation even when promises are made to us,

although they are often made to us, to effect a pur-

pose, but we never know them to be fulfilled.

The Statement also addresses specific grievances, such as the

payments and paper money issue mentioned above. For exam-

ple: “When I sold my Property you promised me the Coin the

hard Money, but it was not Paper that you promised me.” (This

last produced the one positive outcome of the Ojibwes’ journey

to Washington.) Finally, it addresses issues important in 1864

that still lie at the heart of the litigation and public conflict

between Indians and segments of the non-Indian population.

The court rulings of the early 1990s that paved the way for

expanded tribal off-reservation hunting and fishing rights

hinged on the conclusion that the Ojibwe had “reserved” those

rights in treaties that ceded land the United States. Writing in

1864, the Ojibwe chiefs and headmen presented this concept

very clearly in their account of the Treaty of St. Peters (1837):

So then Father, Our Great Father requests me to sell

him my Pine Timber, our Great Father is mighty,

therefore whatever he says would not be in vain, and

whatever he promises to do he will fulfill.

Very well, I will sell him the Pine Timber as he

requests me to, From [the] usual height of cutting a

At Fond du Lac in 1826, the United States sent a clear message to the

Ojibwe with a demonstration of military might.

Thomas L. McKinney,

Sketches of a Tour to the Lakes

. . . , 1827.

Thomas L. McKinney,

Sketches of a Tour

to the Lakes

. . . , 1827.

Draper’s handwritten analysis, which he wrote shortly after receiving

the statement from George P. Warren in the fall of 1881. Though

Draper here attributed authorship to Warren, a later letter from War-

ren to Draper on November 9, 1882, identified Joseph Gurnoe as the

individual who prepared the statement.

Chippewa Treaty Statement and Related Papers, Wisconsin Historical Society Archives

31

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

W

I S C O N S I N

M

A G A Z I N E O F

H

I S T O R Y

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

32

W

I S C O N S I N

M

A G A Z I N E O F

H

I S T O R Y

tree down and upwards to top is what I sell you, I

reserve the root of the tree. Again this I hold in my

hand the Maple Timber, also the Oak Timber, also

this Straw which I hold in my hand. Wild Rice is

what we call this. These I do not sell.

That you may not destroy the Rice in working

the timber. Also the Rapids and Falls in the Streams

I will lend you to saw your timber. . . .

I do not make you a present of this, I merely lend

it to you. This is my answer, My Great Father is

great, and out of respect for him I will not refuse

him, but as an exchange of civility I must see and

feel the benefits of this loan, and the promises ful-

filled.

With respect to the Treaty of La Pointe (1842), the Ojibwe

similarly emphasized that it was not their intention to transfer

title to the land to the United States:

Then the Commissioners spoke to us and said,

your Great Father requests you to sell him the

Mineral that is to be found on your lands, Copper

and Lead. He does not want to buy your lands, he

wants the Mineral.

I comply with the request of our Great Father

in what he expect from us. It was all he said. The

Chiefs along the Lake Shore did not say a word,

not being willing to sell or make any agreement.

Then it was that the Chief White Crow spoke,

he spoke in regard to everything, and all the busi-

ness being transacted at the time.

And said to him, My Father I understand you

and to say that you want the Mineral, well then I

will comply with the wish of our Great Father in

asking me to sell him the Mineral which he wants.

I do not give you the land, it is the Mineral only

that I sell if there is any to be found on my land.

I do not cede the Land, as he cried with a loud

voice turning to his fellow Indians in which they all

responded with Eh! Eh!

In his evaluation of the “Statement Made by the Indians,”

Lyman Draper was careful not to take sides. He shared many of

the common attitudes of his day, and it is worth remembering

that the Indian Wars were not quite over in 1882: The Battle of

the Little Big Horn had occurred in 1876, and Wounded Knee

lay a few years in the future. But Draper was by no means

unsympathetic toward the Native American point of view, and

throughout his career he collected materials relating to the lives

Veterans of the 36th Wisconsin pose on the steps of the Wisconsin State

Capitol in the late 1870s. As a member of this regiment, George P.

Warren was recovering from a wound in Washington, D.C., when he

came into possession of the “Statement,” which he later donated to the

Historical Society.

Wisconsin 36th Infantry Album 16:53a. Photo by J. M. Fowler.

S

U

M

M

E

R

2 0 0 1

33

of Tecumseh, Joseph Brant, Gover-

nor Blacksnake, Nancy Ward, and

many other noteworthy figures. “We

have not the means of determining,”

he wrote in his annual report, if due

to the “ignorance of the Indians, they

may have misunderstood and mis-

comprehended some of their deal-

ings . . . with the General

Government; yet it is to be feared,

that unconscionable agents, with

[their] rascally ways, have often com-

bined to trick the poor Indian out of

his honest dues.” Instead Draper

stated an indisputable principle that

still guides the Wisconsin Historical

Society in collecting and preserving

controversial documents and the

issues to which they pertain: “The

complaints of the Chippewas,

according to their understanding of

the matter, deserves a record, as a

sample of their modes of thought and

expression, and to preserve it may be

a fragment of our Indian history.”

Lyman Draper’s evaluation of the

Statement Made by the Indians con-

veys a good part of his greatness, and

of his legacy to the Society. He

believed that good history demands

broad study and deep understanding,

encompassing not only the majority,

but also the minorities; not only the

mainstream, but also the controver-

sial. His ability to recognize impor-

tant historical trends before they

became obvious, coupled with his open-minded willingness to

seek out and preserve the records of all peoples, all parties, all

points of view, became the institutional credo and the driving

force behind the Society’s collecting for a century and a half. It’s

what has made the Society’s research collections great, rather

than merely good.

HARRY MILLER

is Senior

Reference Archivist at the

Wisconsin Historical Society,

a staff member since 1973,

and a Madison native. Of the

many treasurers in the

Archives collections, Miller

describes the treaty state-

ment, which is the subject of

this article, as his favorite.

The Author

Resources and Further Reading

The principle sources used in this article are the treaty statement itself, correspondence

between donor George P. Warren and Society Superintendent Lyman Draper, and Draper’s

notes on the statement. All are in a single Archives collection titled “Chippewa Treaty State-

ment and Related Papers.” The linguistic significance is assessed in John D. Nichols (ed.),

“

Statement Made by the Indians”: A Bilingual Petition . . .

, University of Western Ontario,

Canada, 1988. An excellent analysis of the history of treaty related conflict is Ronald N. Satz,

“Chippewa Treaty Rights, The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Histori-

cal Perspective,”

Transactions

, Vol. 79, No. 1, 1991.

W

I S C O N S I N

M

A G A Z I N E O F

H

I S T O R Y

Thomas L. McKinney,

Sketches of a Tour to the Lakes

. . . , 1827.