University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Quarterly Great Plains Studies, Center for 2005 "We Will Talk of Nothing Else": Dakota Interpretations of the Treaty of 1837 Linda M. Clemmons Illinois State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons Clemmons, Linda M., ""We Will Talk of Nothing Else": Dakota Interpretations of the Treaty of 1837" (2005). Great Plains Quarterly. 186. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly/186 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Quarterly by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. "WE WILL TALK OF NOTHING ELSE" DAKOTA INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TREATY OF 1837 LINDA M. CLEMMONS During treaty negotiations with federal Indian the other Dakota did not view the Treaty of agents in 1851, Taoyateduta (Little Crow), a 1837 in the same way. Instead, Taoyateduta's Dakota representative, warned that the coun- words illustrate the continued Dakota disillu- cil members would "talk of nothing else" until sionment and anger with the document, close conflicts related to the previous Treaty of 1837 to fifteen years after the Treaty of 1837 went had been resolved. His statement is surprising, into effect. given that government officials at the time, as Nearly thirty years ago, anthropologist Ray- well as subsequent historians, have interpreted mond D. Fogelson called for ethnohistorians the Treaty of 1837 as an uncontroversial, even to study Native interpretations of historic.al positive, event for both the Dakota and the events.' As Taoyateduta's reaction to the Treaty federal government. However, Taoyateduta and of 1837 illustrates, this admonition applies equally to the present day. Although in recent years ethnohistorians have integrated Native viewpoints into their work, many authors still Kev Words: Antebellum Indian Policv., , Eastern take the assumptions of white government offi- Dakota, Indian Historiography, missionaries, Treaty cials as their starting point.2 The Treaty of 1837, of 1837 negotiated between the Mdewakanton band of Dakota (one of the four eastern bands of the Linda Clemmons is assistant professor of history at lllinois State University. Her current research focuses Minnesota Dakota) and the federal govern- on the interaction of the Dakota and American Board of ment, serves as an excellent case study in how Commissioners for Foreign Missions missionaries during Native recollections of events and the histori- the antebellum period. This article would not have been cal record clash.3 Indian agents at the time, as completed without funding from the Newberry Library well as subsequent historians, have ignored Spencer Foundation and a research grant from Illinois State University. the significance of the Treaty of 1837. The Dakota, however, attributed great importance to the document, and consequences from the [GPQ 25 (Summer 2005): 173-851 events of 1837 influenced their relations with 174 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2005 removal, whlch began In the early 1830s, the federal government hoped to relocate all tribes living east of the Misslsslppi Rlver to areas west of the river. These newly vacated lands would then be opened for extracting resources (such as gold or timber), settlement, and cultivat~on.~ The Mdewakanton Dakota, as the only Dakota band with villages on the eastern side of the Mississlppl River, fell under the guidelines of this aggressive policy of removal. Indeed, as historian Gary Clayton Anderson argues, relo- catlng the Mdewakanton Dakota across the Mlssissippl River would allow Andrew Jackson to nearly realize his ultimate goal of clearing the eastern lands for settlement and resource de~elopment.~ Wlth regard to the removal of the Mdewakan- ton Dakota and other tribes, however, Andrew Jackson and federal Indian officials not only justified the land cesslons In terms of the ben- FIG. 1. Drawtng of "Little Crow" (Taoyateduta) efits that would accrue to settlers, land agents, by Frank B. Mayer. (Ayer Art Mayer Sketchbooks) and other investors, but they also insisted that Courtesy Edward E. Ayer Collection, The Newberry the new federal Indian policy would help the Llhrary, Chlcago. Indians. According to thls reasoning, Indians needed to become civilized, which involved, government officials and Protestant missionar- among other things, settling on permanent, ies for decades to come. Indeed, the Treaty of single-family farms, learning to speak, read, 1837 served as the turning point in govern- and wrlte English, following certaln gender ment-Dakota relations, instead of the Treaty roles, and converting to Chrlstlanlty. These of 1851, which usually is assigned this role things could not happen, the argument ran, by historians. The example of the Treaty of because unscrupulous whltes Influenced the 1837 illustrates that Native perspectives must Indlans m negatlve ways. be incorporated into the historical narrative For example, fur traders encouraged Indlans before a more nuanced and complete story of to roam over large areas of land searching for Indian-white relations in the antebellum era animals, at the expense of learnlng about the can emerge. benefits of cultivating small farms and living In permanent log cablns. Government offi- clals also worried about the amount of alcohol sold to the Indians by whlte traders. Agents At first glance, there seems to be little con- argued that ~f the Indians were removed and troversy over the Treaty of 1837. In fact, the placed on smaller tracts of land, they would be sequence of events leading up to the nego- separated from amoral fur and liquor traders tiation and signing of the document is fairly who did not have the Indlans' best interests at straightforward, especially when compared with heart. Government officials could then watch other antebellum treaties. The Mdewakanton over the Indlans untll they became sophisti- Dakota, like the Cherokee or Choctaw, signed cated enough to separate themselves from the treaties as part of Andrew Jackson's policy unscrupulous elements of whlte soclety. On of Indian removal. According to this plan of the reservations the Indlans could also attend DAKOTA INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TREATY OF 1837 175 school, receive intensive training in farming, and learn about Christianity. To summarize, the reservations were seen as arenas for social change where Indians could learn to become civilized Christians. Federal Indian officials used all aspects of this preexisting rhetoric to justify opening nego- tiations with the Mdewakanton Dakota in 1837. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs at the time, Carey A. Harris, stated that it would be "better for both the Indians and the citizens of this Territory" if the Mdewakanton gave up their claims to their lands located east of the Mississippi River. First, the Commissioner argued that the land was of no use to the Dakota because it "was barren of game, and unfit for FIG. 2. Drawing of Dr. Thomas Williamson by cultivation." Thus, the Dakota would be much ~~~~k B. M~~~~.(A~~~M~~~~ sketchbooks) better off accepting Payments and goods for the Courtesy Edward E. Ayer Collection, The Newberry land, which would keep them from starvation. Library, Chicago. Second, the Commissioner stated that a treaty would save them from unscrupulous lumber companies. According to Harris, lumber com- 1837. Perhaps the most influential lobbyist was panies gave the Mdewakanton "very inade- the lumber industry. Loggers clamored for unre- quate considerations" for their timber. This stricted access to the pine forests of not only occurred because the Indians did not have the Dakota but also of the Ojibwe to the north. "the intervention or supervision of any agent Moreover, traders supported a treaty because of the Government." The solution to the prob- they wanted funds from the land sale to be used lem seemed obvious to Harris: the government to pay the Dakotas' debts for trade goods. needed "to ~urchasethe whole pine country at In theory, Protestant missionaries affiliated once, and to give them a liberal compensation, with the American Board of Commissioners to be applied for their benefit, under the direc- for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) also supported tion of the Pre~ident."~ a treaty. In 1835 the ABCFM, one of the larg- Finally, as an added benefit, Commissioner est and most influential missionary organiza- Harris argued that a treaty would aid the Indians tions of the antebellum era, opened mission by paying their "debts and claims" to traders, stations in Minnes~ta.~The organization sent and by providing funds for "the education of the Jedediah Stevens, Thomas Williamson, and young, the supply of agricultural implements their families to minister to the "savage" and and assistance, [and] the employment of inter- "untamed" Dakota. Once they arrived in Min- preters, farmers, mechanics, and laborers" who nesota, Stevens and Williamson, aided by two would teach them civilized ways7 Clearly, the independent missionary brothers, Gideon and treaty would serve a civilizing purpose, whereby Samuel Pond, immediately established stations the government would promote agriculture and near Fort Snelling (located in present-day St. education among the Dakota. Paul) and at Lac qui Parle (approximately a Despite the fact that the Commissioner of hundred miles to the west). These stations, how- Indian Affairs couched the treaty in terms of ever, were expensive to construct and maintain, its numerous benefits to the Mdewakanton, especially during times of financial uncertainty various interest groups also influenced the gov- brought about by the Panic of 1837. Thus, ernment's decision to press for a land cession in the ABCFM missionaries hoped that treaty 176 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2005 money would be given to their organization to delegates, expressed his dismay over this change help defray the cost of constructing and run- in focus. He told the negotiators that "we never ning their mission stations.