sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dakota people, Lake Pepin, Lawrence Taliaferro, Mdewakanton

University of - 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 (), 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 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 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 . 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 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 ' 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 (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. Moreover, the mis- dreamed of selling our lands until your agent. . . sionaries believed that a land cession would invited us to come and visit our Great Father."12 concentrate the Mdewakanton in one place, Despite the misunderstanding, Poinsett and which would provide them with greater access Harris pressed ahead and lost no time in making to potential converts. an offer for the lands. They demanded that the Finally, in addition to the Protestant mis- Mdewakanton cede all their lands lying east of sionaries, some mCtis Dakota pressed for a the Mississippi River for $1 million. treaty. In the previous Treaty of 1830, negoti- The Dakota delegates did not accept the ated between the Dakota, several other tribes, government's initial offer, and countered with and the federal government, the mCtis had the sum of $1.6 million for the same land ces- been given a tract of land lying by sion. Secretary Poinsett, however, refused to for their use. Drawing on their previous experi- even consider their counteroffer, and remained ence, some metis saw a new treaty as an oppor- firmly committed to his initial sum. The reluc- tunity to once again benefit materially, either tance of the government to negotiate prompted through a further land cession or through direct Good Road, another delegate, to comment that cash payment^.^ the whites must "love m~ney."'~Despite their In the summer of 1837 pressure from these dissatisfaction with the proposal, once the del- diverse groups combined to convince govern- egates realized that the terms of the treaty were ment officials to open treaty negotiations with non-negotiable, they accepted the Secretary the Mdewakanton. At this time, Commissioner of War's initial offer. On September 29, 1837, of Indian Affairs Harris instructed the Dakota they signed the document agreeing to the sale agent, Lawrence Taliaferro, to choose a group of approximately 5 million acres, encompassing of Mdewakanton representatives to travel to "all their land, east of the Mississippi river, and Washington, DC, to meet with Indian offi- all their islands in the said river."14 cials.'' Taliaferro carried out his orders and In return, the Mdewakanton received $1 left the agency on August 18 with a group million. Like all treaties of the era, however, of twenty-six Dakota. According to historian the Dakota would not get this payment in one Roy W. Meyer, however, this delegation was lump sum or in yearly cash payments equal not informed in advance that they would be to the total amount. Instead, the payments discussing a land cession once they arrived in would be divided in various ways. The first Washington. Instead, the group believed that clause of the treaty (which would later turn the purpose of the trip was to negotiate a peace out to be the most confusing and controversial settlement with the Sac and Fox, with whom part of the document) stated that the gov- conflicts had arisen over the past few months." ernment would invest $300,000 and pay the Once they arrived in Washington, the Dakota Mdewakanton "annually, forever, an income delegation met with Commissioner Harris and of not less than five percent . . . a portion of Secretary of War Joel R. Poinsett. Lawrence said interest, not exceeding one third, to be Taliaferro also sat in on the negotiations. During applied in such manner as the President may the first meeting, which took place on September direct." The treaty also promised to pay the metis 21, the group learned the true purpose of the ("not having less than one quarter of negotiations; they had not been summoned pri- blood") $110,000 and the traders $90,000 to marily to settle differences with the Sac and cover Mdewakanton debts. The Mdewakanton Fox, but to sell part of their lands to the fed- themselves would receive a yearly payment of eral government. Indeed, representatives of the goods for twenty years worth approximately Sac and Fox peoples had not even arrived in $15,500.'~Thus, although the Mdewakanton Washington yet. Standing Cloud, one of the obtained some money and goods from their DAKOTA INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TREATY OF 1837 177 land cession, the interests that had originally to a lesser extent, the ABCFM missionaries). pushed for the treaty, including the mktis and In order to fully assess the Treaty of 1837, all traders, benefited from the final document. interpretations must be considered. The Treaty of 1837 also included clauses Immediately after the treaty's ratification, designed to promote the government's civiliza- antebellum government officials, including the tion agenda among the Mdewakanton Dakota. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, touted the doc- Part of the land cession money would be ument as a positive achievement for the United used to purchase agricultural tools and to hire States. After its ratification, Commissioner farmers, blacksmiths, and eventually, teach- of Indian Affairs Harris, in his December 1, ers. Specifically, $8,250 would be expended 1837, report, called the Treaty of 1837 a suc- annually to purchase "medicines, agricultural cess because it secured "permanent boundar- implements and stock, and for the support of a ies" and a "more regular form" for the union.17 physician, farmers, and blacksmiths." Moreover, Although the ceded Mdewakanton lands were the Mdewakanton would receive a one-time a very small fraction of the Dakota's total payment of $10,000 in agricultural tools and holdings in Minnesota, and the document was other implements to enable them to imme- signed by only one out of the four bands of diately begin "break[ing] up and improv[ing] Eastern Dakota, the Treaty firmly established their lands."16 Although a majority in the a precedent for opening the area to settle- U.S. Senate supported the Treaty of 1837 and ment. Indeed, prior to the treaty, as historian the government's civilization agenda, the doc- William Watts Folwell points out, no lands in ument's ratification stalled in Congress due to the Minnesota area had been open to settle- the nation's precarious financial situation at ment; all was Indian err it or^." The Treaty of the time. Finally, however, the Senate approved 1837 changed this forever. Thus, even though the treaty on June 15, 1838, approximately the Treaty of 1837 did not receive as much nine months after its initial acceptance. press as other Indian removal treaties of the era, such as the Treaty of New Echota with INTERPRETING THE TREATY OF 1837 the Cherokees, government officials believed that the Treaty of 1837 with the Mdewakanton Ever since the Treaty of 1837's ratifica- would help to bring Andrew Jackson's policy of tion, government officials and other interest Indian removal one step closer to completion. groups at the time, subsequent historians, and Government officials also lauded the Treaty of Dakota affected by the treaty have offered 1837 for its focus on civilizing the Mdewakanton. radically different interpretations of the docu- The money from the land sale bound the United ment. These divergent responses ranged from States "to supply the Sioux, as soon as practica- those who stressed the unqualified success of ble," with medicines, agricultural implements, the treaty (government officials and some his- and stock, and to hire physicians, farmers, and torians), to those who denounced the treaty blacksmith^.'^ The government farmers, along as a crime against all Dakota (originally the with the agricultural implements, would be Mdewakanton, and later the three other Eas- utilized to convert the Mdewakanton men from tern Dakota bands who joined in these vocal hunters into settled farmers. According to the protests). The ABCFM missionaries of the parlance of the day, teaching the Dakota men time occupied a middle position between these to farm would lead them to self-sufficiency and two extremes, supporting the document in away from lives of starvation and privation theory but finding fault with the way the gov- which supposedly corresponded with a hunt- ernment carried out some of its provisions. ing exi~tence.~'The treaty would also provide From 1837 on, sources existed to document all teachers to instruct the next generation of these interpretations, but the historical record Dakota in reading and writing in English and has largely ignored that of the Dakota (and American civilization in general. Eventually, 178 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2005 government officials claimed, these teach- ABCFM missionaries at first supported the ers would turn the children into productive treaty. Like the federal agents, the missionaries American citizens. shared the desire to civilize and Christianize Agent Lawrence Taliaferro, who was charged the Dakota and wanted to obtain government with carrying out the Treaty of 1837 on the funds to achieve these goals. Just as they had local level, did nothing to dispel the fed- hoped, the missionaries initially benefited from eral government's positive interpretation of the Treaty of 1837. For example, ABCFM mis- the document. In his annual reports to the sionary Gideon Pond was appointed to serve Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Taliaferro as the government farmer-a position that continually stressed the ease with which the had been created by the Treaty of 1837.~~The Mdewakanton accepted the terms of the treaty. government's payment of Pond's salary freed Taliaferro confirmed that the clause of the up funds for investment in other missionary treaty requiring the Mdewakanton to vacate activities. Moreover, in 1838 the missionaries ceded lands and relocate on the west side of the were pleased when Agent Taliaferro asked Mississippi River had been executed without Washington to designate $5,000 of the treaty incident or complaint. "After disposing of all funds for the ABCFM schools.24 Again in their lands east of the Mississippi by the treaty 1839 the agent requested that the federal gov- of 1837, these people [the Mdewakanton] have ernment give $500 to the ABCFM school at been prevailed upon (such as had been residing Lake ~arriet.~~ east) to remove west," he wrote. This had been Despite the fact that the missionaries hap- "arranged permanently," he continued, "with- pily accepted salaries and school subsidies from out expense or trouble [emphasis mine], and the treaty, they did not support all aspects of they now rest upon their remaining soil west" the document. At the same time Samuel Pond of the Mississippi ~iver.~l supported his brother's appointment as govern- Taliaferro also informed officials in Washing- ment farmer, he also criticized the Treaty of 1837 ton that the Mdewakanton did not have any for providing annuities to the Mdewakanton. complaints about the distribution of monies Pond wanted to teach the Mdewakanton to and goods promised in the treaty. "The pay- become self-sufficient small farmers, and he ment of the annuity to the Sioux Indians was strongly believed that any handout of goods made to the heads of families, and as far as I from the government would delay this process. have been informed, was entirely satisfactory to Pond's comments about the subsequent Treaty the nation," he stated. "All of the bands of this of 1841 (which was negotiated and signed but tribe have, under the liberal provisions incor- never ratified) equally describes his reservations porated in their treaty, been supplied amply about the earlier treaty. Because the Dakota with agricultural implements; well-qualified would not have to work for the annuities, Pond farmers have been assigned to each town, and believed that these handouts would "render two blacksmith shops put in blast at points them indolent and dissipated." Annuities would suited to the views and wishes of the ~ndians."~~ allow them to "live without care, and waste Thus, federal officials in Washington, bolstered their time in idleness and dissipation."26 by Taliaferro's reports, called the Treaty of 1837 In addition to criticizing a central aspect of a complete success. the Treaty of 1837, the missionaries disagreed Although Lawrence Taliaferro and govern- with Taliaferro's appraisal of the Mdewakan- ment officials in Washington penned glowing ton satisfaction with the document and its reports of the Treaty of 1837 and its imple- implementation. Taliaferro reported that the mentation, ABCFM missionaries who lived Mdewakanton were happy with the treaty closest to the Mdewakanton Dakota became and that its terms had been carried out to the increasingly conflicted over the relative merits satisfaction of all. The missionaries, however, of the document. As already mentioned, the informed their home board in Boston that this ITA INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TREATY OF 1837 179 was far from the truth. First, the Dakota had the treaty of 1837 was a trifling fraction of the been very upset over the delay in the treaty's immense domain embraced within the bound- ratification. Stephen Riggs, who had arrived in aries of Minnesota by her organic act."30 Minnesota in 1837 to minister to the Dakota, Second, the Treaty of 1837 was eclipsed by reported that "[o]wing to the delay in the ratifi- the subsequent Treaty of 1851, whereby the cation of the treaty last fall the Sioux here are, four bands of Dakota signed away all their at present, in a very disturbed state. They can't lands in Minnesota in return for a reservation. conceive why the terms of the treaty should Historian Bruce David Forbes argued that the not be fulfilled."27 Worse yet, once the treaty turning point in Dakota-government relations had been ratified, the promised payments and "was 1851, when the Dakota signed two treaties goods did not arrive on time, despite Taliaferro's that ceded almost all of southern and assurances to the contrary in his reports. All Minnesota to the United state^."^^ Although these delays and broken promises caused Riggs historian Roy Meyer mentions that the Treaty to worry that the Dakota would lose all "confi- of 1837 caused some hard feelings among the dence in our go~ernment."~' Dakota, especially when the government failed If the Dakota lost faith in the government, to deliver the promised annuities and payments the missionaries realized that they would be on time, he ultimately agreed with Forbes that the first to suffer the consequences. In the "the small cession made in . . . 1837 involv[ed] 1830s the Dakota (with reason) treated the lands no longer extensively used by them," missionaries as an extension of the federal gov- and was ultimately eclipsed by the subsequent ernment. Thus, if problems arose over govern- Treaty of 1851.32 ment policy, the missionaries, as the closest While most historians have downplayed the government representatives, received the brunt significance of the Treaty of 1837, especially in of Dakota anger. Jedediah Stevens, who worked relation to subsequent treaties, historian Gary at the ABCFM mission, described this prob- Clayton Anderson, in his book Kinsmen of lem. "The Indians about us for several months Another Kind and article "The Removal of the past have manifested much dissatisfaction Mdewakanton Dakota in 1837," extensively and restlessness, occasioned principally by a analyzed the document. In both of these works delay in carrying into effect the Treaty made Anderson provided a well-researched history of with them last fall," he informed the ABCFM the events of 1837; indeed, he provides needed Secretary in Boston. As a result, the Dakota context and explanation that other historians killed four of Stevens's mission cattle, which he fail to mention in their brief summaries. In his estimated to be worth $100.~~ interpretation of the circumstances leading up When analyzing the Treaty of 1837, most to the treaty, as well as the document itself, historians have downplayed or ignored mis- however, the author echoed the rhetoric of sionary reports like Stevens's. Instead, they the government officials at the time. In both have treated the events of 1837 as relatively works Anderson stressed the benign nature of unimportant to the larger history of Dakota- the treaty, as well as its numerous benefits to government interaction. Two main reasons jus- the Mdewakanton Dakota. Indeed, Anderson tify this lack of interest in the Treaty of 1837. interprets the Treaty of 1837 as an example First, historians point out that the treaty was of the positive results that could arise from signed by only one of the four bands of Eastern Jackson's policy of Indian removal.33 Dakota. Moreover, the final land cession was a Anderson argued that Jacksonian Indian relatively small amount of land when compared policy, at least with regard to the Dakota, with the total holdings of the Dakota at the should be viewed as a positive event because time. As Minnesota historian William Folwell it saved the Mdewakanton. Prior to the treaty, stated, the "little delta of territory between the Anderson stated that Dakota who resided and Mississippi River and the St. Croix acquired by hunted on lands east of the Mississippi were 180 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2005

starving. "Unfortunately," Anderson wrote, "the Once the treaty had been ratified, this ini- once bountiful herds of deer and buffalo had tial dissatisfaction only increased. Despite disappeared from the vicinity by 1837, caus- Taliaferro's assurances to the contrary, the ing severe food shortage^."^^ Because of declin- promised annuities and payments did not arrive ing buffalo, "some kind of governmental action on time, and the Mdewakanton strongly criti- was necessary to save the Mde~akanton."'~The cized the government's inability to carry out Treaty of 1837 provided annuities, which "did their side of the bargain. Jedediah Stevens, the much to subsidize the meager economy of the ABCFM missionary near Fort Snelling, com- hldewakanton, and they made up for the scar- mented that the Mdewakanton were extremely city of guns and blankets."j6 Anderson called upset that parts of the Treaty of 1837 had not the annuity system an "overall success," once been carried into effect. "They manifest con- implemented, because it "obviously saved the siderable dissatisfaction toward the Govt. Agent Mdewakanton from utter de~truction."~'In the [emphasis his], Traders and whites generally," he end, the Mdewakanton were better off a decade explained, "and at present seem to occupy rather after the treaty went into force; it kept the tribe a threatening position."39 from starvation, provided educational opportu- Although delayed, the majority of the prom- nities, and ultimately "brought a certain degree ised annuities and payments eventually arrived of stability to the upper Mississippi Valley."38 and were distributed to Mdewakanton fami- Dakota at the time, especially the Mdewa- lies. The government, however, failed to follow kanton, would have challenged this interpreta- through with one clause of the Treaty of 1837 tion of the Treaty of 1837. First, the Treaty of for the next fifteen years. While seemingly 1837 was a seminal event for them, and took minor, this provision took on extraordinary on more significance as time went on. Far from significance and led to a significant break in bringing stability to the Mississippi Valley, relations between the federal government, the document fomented protest, discord, and ABCFM missionaries living near their villages, anger, among not only the Mdewakanton and and all four bands of Dakota. These problems the federal government, but among the three continued from the early 1840s into the 1850s. other bands of Dakota (the Sisseton, Wahpeton, The disputed treaty clause stated that the and Wakpekute) who had not originally been government would invest $300,000 and pay the involved in the treaty negotiations. Indeed, the Mdewakanton "annually, forever, an income of Mdewakanton succeeded in establishing a loose not less than five percent . . . a portion of said alliance of Dakota villages across Minnesota interest, not exceeding one third, to be applied united against the Treaty of 1837. Because of in such manner as the President may direct.'" the significance that all four bands of Eastern In one sense, all involved parties agreed on the Dakota came to attribute to the document, the meaning of the treaty clause-the government Treaty of 1837 can be seen as one of the turning was required to spend $5,000 per year for the points in Dakota-white relations. benefit of the Mdewakanton people. The agree- From the very beginning, many aspects of ment ended there, however. Government offi- the Treaty of 1837 angered the Mdewakanton. cials argued that during the treaty signing they Some Dakota questioned the underhanded had made it clear that the president would use method by which the Indian agents had con- the entire sum to pay for educational programs; ducted the negotiations; they pointed out that they certainly never intended for the presi- the delegates had been brought to Washington dent to give the money to the Mdewakanton under false pretenses. Several Mdewakanton to spend as they pleased. The Mdewakanton, also were upset about the concessions that however, had a different understanding of the had been given to the traders and mCtis, while article's meaning. They told the Commissioner others believed the selling price for the land of Indian Affairs "that at the time of the treaty was much too low. they were assured that the money would be DAKOTA INTERPRETATlONS OF THE TREATY OF 1837 181 used for something other than education.'*' As eral cases even ostracized, by village members. both sides dug in and refused to compromise, As a result, attendance dropped precipitously. tensions increased as the government failed to Jedediah Stevens reported that his school at distribute the funds for several years in a row, Lake Harriet only had between five and eight until by 1850 the payments had accumulated to students because of the growing anger over the an excess of $50,000.~~ Treaty of 1837. He expected things to get worse, Although the majority of the funds remained predicting that "portentious [sic] clouds [hung] unspent, the ABCFM missionaries received over the future" of the ABCFM mission.45 several initial payments of the disputed money Stevens's prediction proved to be pre- to help run their schools. This angered the scient, as anti-treaty Mdewakanton not only Mdewakanton, who charged that the govern- continued to harass mission schools located ment paid the Protestants "for teaching the near their own villages throughout the early children here out of money due them . . . for 1840s, but also worked to spread their discon- their lands sold to the .lq3 Despite tent to the three other bands of Dakota. At the fact that the missionaries promised that first the Mdewakanton focused their efforts they no longer used any of the disputed funds on the Wahpeton, as the band located clos- by the early 1840s, Mdewakanton continued est to them geographically. In 1842 several to believe that the ABCFM schools were "a Mdewakanton traveled to the Wahpeton vil- scheme of the missionaries for making money lage of Lac qui Parle to inform them about the out of them."44 conflict with the government and missionaries Because of these controversial school funds, over education funds from the Treaty of 1837. the Mdewakanton focused much of their They urged the Wahpeton to join their protest anger over the Treaty of 1837 on the ABCFM even though the treaty officially applied only to missionaries. Several other reasons also led the Mdewakanton. In the end, the majority of the Dakota to direct their aggression at the Lac qui Parle Wahpeton chose to support the Protestant missionaries instead of the federal Mdewakanton in their dispute with the govern- government. First, the ABCFM missionaries ment and missionaries. Stephen Riggs reported were simply a better day-to-day target than that after meeting with the Mdewakanton, the the federal agents, as they lived closest to the Wahpeton immediately "ordered the mission- Dakota villages and interacted daily with men, aries to leave." Much to Riggs's chagrin, this women, and children as they worked to spread opposition "continued to embarrass our opera- their message. Second, the missionaries did not tions till the treaty of Mendota in 1851.'q6 have military support of their own to coun- The success of the anti-treaty Mdewakanton ter any Dakota challenges to their authority. in convincing the Lac qui Parle Wahpetons Finally, the Mdewakanton could express their to join their cause inspired them to spread anger over the Treaty of 1837 in a tangible way their message to other Wahpeton, Sisseton, by targeting mission schools and churches. and Wahpekute villages located near mis- Because of their ease as a target, as well as sion stations. They also worked to keep the their initial receipt of money from the Treaty of Mdewakanton united. To create and maintain 1837, attendance at the ABCFM schools located this loose anti-treaty alliance, Mdewakanton near Mdewakanton villages sharply declined emissaries traveled to communities near mis- beginning in 1839. Anti-treaty Mdewakanton sion stations. At each of these villages, the used many different methods to keep students emissaries attended a council meeting, pre- from attending classes. For example, angry sented their case against the ABCFM, and Mdewakanton lined the path to the schools urged the members to unite with them in oppos- and attempted to intimidate the students into ing the missionaries, and by extension, the returning home. In other cases, parents who Treaty of 1837. For example, in 1843 Thomas sent students to school were mocked, and in sev- Williamson reported that "Tatepose has sent 182 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2005

word1' about the missionaries' role in the con- For these reasons, the Mdewakanton emis- troversy over the Treaty of 1837 "as far as he saries succeeded in convincing villages located could and that was his principal business when near mission stations to join with them in he was up [here] and they held those consulta- opposing the ABCFM missionaries. Letters tions last spring.'*7 Likewise, Daniel Gavin, a and reports written by the missionaries note Swiss missionary associated with the Societk the existence of such a loose alliance. In 1844 des Missions ~van~eli~uesde Lausanne, warned Stephen Riggs reported that the Mdewakanton Samuel Pond that "Wakouta has just come "have been making efforts to form a league down the St. Peter again" to talk to other among themselves against missions and schools. Mdewakanton near his mission at Red Wing. The Warpekute, Warpetonwan and Sisitonwan According to Gavin, Wakouta seemed deter- bands . . . have been imbibing too much of the mined "to exert all his efforts to obtain the same feeling; and some . . . have become open funds set aside" by the treaty for educational opposers. This is peculiarly true at Lac qui Parle."5' purposes. Missionaries like Williamson and Riggs also noted that in the 1840s, a "strong orga- Ciavin wished that Wakouta and other emis- nized opposition grew up" among the Dakota "on saries would "have been content with doing the Mississippi and lower Minnesota.'"' mischief in his own band" instead of spreading Ten years later, the government still had discontent to other villages.4' not released the disputed funds. As a result, When the emissaries spoke at councils, they the united opposition to the missionaries con- used many different arguments to convince the tinued throughout Dakota country. In 1850 village members to join their cause. Most impor- Thomas Williamson summarized the chilling tantly, they appealed to the cultural and kinship effect that problems arising from the Treaty of bonds between villages. In 1846 Williamson 1837 had on missionary work, not only among noted that a visiting Mdewakanton asked the the Mdewakanton but also at stations located villagers living near his station to "please their near Sisseton and Wahpeton villages. As "the relatives" by joining in their protest.4' The emis- sum [from the education fund] increased," he saries also told the council members that the wrote, "so have the difficulties from this source treaty crisis affected all because increa~ed."~~These continuing problems over the ABCFM stole money from the Treaty of 1837 the Treaty of 1837 caused all Dakota villages, to fund all their mission schools, not only those regardless of their involvement in the origi- located near the Mdewakanton. According to nal treaty negotiations, to distrust the federal Thomas Williamson, "[s]ome ill disposed per- government, and their proxies, the ABCFM sons" told the Wahpeton that "we were paid missionaries. for teaching the Warpetonwan here out of the money due the Mde~akantonwan."~'Finally, the emissaries warned council members that the Treaty of 1837 created a dangerous precedent. Thus, when Dakota representative Taoyate- If council members chose not to join the pro- duta refused to "talk of nothing else" but the tests, the government could sign similar treaties controversy over the Treaty of 1837 during that would use Dakota funds to support mission the 1851 negotiations for Dakota lands, he projects. Because the Mdewakanton emissaries was referring to an almost fifteen-year history backed up their criticism with personal experi- of sustained conflict in the upper Mississippi ence, they made an impact on the councils. The region. Taoyateduta's reference to the united federal government had indeed given some of and long-running opposition of the Dakota to the education funds to the ABCFM schools, had the Treaty of 1837 illustrates that government subsequently failed to distribute any funds, and officials at the time, as well as subsequent his- had ignored the Mdewakanton interpretation of torians, have underestimated the significance the education clause. of the document. The Dakota did not see the DAKOTA INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TREATY OF 1837 183

Treaty of 1837 as an insignificant or positive importance of paying attention to indigenous ver- event, nor did they forget the document as sions of history in reaching a much more thorough understanding of the past and present experience of they headed into new treaty negotiations with Native North Americans." Sergei Kan, "Shamanism the government. Indeed, it can be argued that and Christianity: Modern-Day Tlingit Elders Look at the Treaty of 1837 served as the turning point the Past," Ethnohistory 38, no. 4 (Fall 1991): 381. in government-Dakota relations, instead of the 3. The Eastern Dakota belong to the OCeti Treaty of 1851, which usually is assigned this ~akowin,which include the Mdewakanton, Wah- pekute, Wahpeton, Sisseton, Yankton, Yanktonais, role. By 1851 the Dakota had already learned to and Teton (also known as the Lakota). For informa- mistrust the government and to question their tion on the divisions of the Dakota, see Gary Clayton ability to follow through with promises made Anderson, Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White during treaty negotiations. Relations in the Valley, 1650- As such, a study that includes Dakota reac- 1862 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 2; Raymond J. DeMaillie and Douglas R. Parks, tions to the Treaty of 1837 not only adds another eds., Sioux Indian Religion: Tradition and Innovation dimension to the story of Dakota-white rela- (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), 7; tions in the antebellum period, it significantly Royal B. Hassrick, The Sioux: Life and Customs of a alters the historical narrative. Without an Warrior Society (Norman: University of Oklahoma understanding of the Dakota response to the Press, 1964), 3-6; Stephen Riggs, Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography (Washington: Government Treaty of 1837, Taoyateduta's words during the Printing Office, 1893; reprint, : Ross and 1851 negotiations remain elusive. However, his Haines, Inc., 1973);and Riggs, Tah-Koo Wah-Kan; or, statement comes sharply into focus once the The Gospel among the Dakotas (Boston Congregational Dakota history of strong and sustained protest Sabbath-Schopl Publishing Society, 1869), 3-4. All to the Treaty of 1837 is brought to light. At of the OCeti Sakowin originally lived in Minnesota near Mille Lacs. Over time, however, the Teton, the same time, however, the positive inter- Yankton, and Yanktonais left the Minnesota region pretations by government agents at the time for areas farther west, leaving the four divisions of the and by subsequent historians should not be Eastern Dakota, or Santee Sioux, in Minnesota. For entirely dismissed. Rather, both stories should information on the original location of the Dakota be integrated to form a further illustration of and their subsequent migration, see Gary Clayton Anderson, "Early Dakota Migration and Intertribal the miscommunications, misinformation, and War: A Revision," Western Historical Quarterly 11, conflicting agendas that frequently character- no. 1 (January 1980): 17-36; Anderson, Kinsmen of ized Indian-government relations both during, Another Kind, 2-3, 19-28; and J. V. Bower and D. L. before, and after the antebellum period. Only Bushnell Jr., Memoirs of Explorations in the Basin of the in this way can the volatile and conflicting Mississippi, vol. 3 (St. Paul: H. L. Collins Company, 1900). For detailed studies of the location of the relations between Indians and whites begin to Dakota at various times assembled for the Indian become comprehensible. Claims Commission, see Harold Hickerson, Sioux Indians I: Mdewakanton Band of Sioux Indians (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1974); and Wesley R. Hurt, Sioux Indians 11: Dakota Sioux Indians (New 1. Raymond D. Fogelson, "On the Varieties York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1974). of Indian History: Sequoyah and Travelling Bird," 4. The report of the commissioner of Indian Journal of Ethnic Studies 2, no. I (Spring 1974): 106. Affairs, issued in December 1837, clearly defines Fogelson repeated this same call fifteen years later, Jacksonian Indian policy. In general, the Indian stating that ethnohistorians "need to recognize what Removal Act of 1830 allowed for "negotiations with Indians consider to be eventful." Fogelson, "The the tribes east of the Mississippi for the extinguish- Ethnohistory of Events and Nonevents," Ethnohistory ment of their titles; with those of the Western , 36, no. 2 (Spring 1989): 142. for the establishment of friendly relations between 2. Ethnohistorian Sergei Kan self-consciously set them and the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, for out to respond to Fogelson's call for Native-centered the adjustment of difficulties and the preservation history. For example, in his article on shamanism of peace. They include the removal of the Indians and Christianity among the Tlingit, he states that in New York, , Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and the "aim of this article had been to demonstrate the to the north, the west, and the north- 184 GREAT PLAINS QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2005

west; and in Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, 16. Ibid. Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, in the south and 17. William Watts Folwell, A , southwest, to new homes southwest of the Missouri vol. 1, (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1921), river." See U.S. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual 160. Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the 18. Ibid., 213, 266. Secretary for the Year 1837 (Washington: Government 19. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the Printing Office, 1838), 525. Commissioner (1838), 445. 5. Gary Clayton Anderson, "The Removal of the 20. The desire to turn the Dakota into farmers ig- Mdewakanton Dakota in 1837: A Case for Jacksonian nored the fact that Dakota women already cultivated Paternalism," History 10:4 (Fall 1980), acres of corn and other crops. Official reports only 310. counted male Dakota as farmers. Thus, antebellum 6. U.S. House, Exchange of Lands with Indians, ideas about gender influenced perceptions of Dakota 24th Cong., 2nd sess., 1837, H. Doc. 82, 4. subsistence patterns. 7. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the 21. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the Commissioner (1837), 525. Commissioner (1838), 494. 8. For general information on the ABCFM, see 22. Ibid. Clifton Phillips, Protestant America and the Pagan 23. Samuel Pond to David Greene, November 15, Vl'orld: The First Half Century of the American Board 1838, 141:88, ABCFM Papers, Minnesota Historical of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 1810-1860 Society, St. Paul. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969). Studies 24. In his annual report to the commissioner of on ABCFM missionaries stationed in other loca- Indian Affairs, Taliaferro wrote: "It becomes my duty tions include Robert F. Berkhofer Jr., Salvation and to ask that the sum of $5000 set apart in the Sioux the Savage: An Analysis of Protestant Missions and treaty of September 29, 1837, may be divided, in just American Indian Response, 1787-1862 (New York: proportions, and paid to the gentlemen having charge Atheneum, 1972); Patricia Grimshaw, Paths of Duty: of the several missions." See Office of Indian Affairs, American Missionary Wives in Nineteenth-Century Annual Report of the Commissioner (1838), 523. Hawaii (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989); 25. David Greene to Samuel Pond, August 14,1839, Julie Roy Jeffrey, Converting the West: A Biography of Pond Papers, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Narcissa Whitman (Norman: University of Oklahoma 26. Samuel Pond to David Greene, May 10, 1842, Press, 1991); Genevieve McCoy, "Sanctifying 141:97, ABCFM Papers. the Self and Saving the Savage: The Failure of 27. Stephen Riggs to David Greene, June 22, 1837, the ABCFM Oregon Mission and the Conflicted 141:46, ABCFM Papers. Language of Calvinism" (PhD diss., University of 28. Ibid. Washington, 1991); Genevieve McCoy, "The Women 29. Jedediah Stevens to Henry Hill, September 12, of the ACBFM Mission and the Conflicted Nature 1838, 192:23, ABCFM Papers. of Calvinism," Church History 64, no. 1 (March 30. Folwell, History of Minnesota, 266. 1995): 62-82; and Mary Zwiep, Pilgrim Path: The First 31. Bruce David Forbes, "Evangelization and Company of Women Missionaries to Hawaii (Madison: Acculturation among the Santee Dakota Indians, University of Wisconsin Press, 1991). 1834-1864" (PhD diss., Princeton University, 1977), 9. Anderson, Kinsmen of Another Kind, 150. For 238. another summary of the Treaty of 1830, see Roy W. 32. Meyer, History of the Santee Sioux, 73. Meyer, History of the Santee Sioux: United States lndian 33. Anderson qualifies this argument with regard Policy on Trial (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, to other tribes. For example, he stated that "it was 1993), 50-51. an injustice to remove southern Indians." At the 10.Lawrence Taliaferro served as the Dakota' same time, however, he clearly states that although Indian agent from 1819 to 1840. For information on there were certainly injustices, "removal policy itself Taliaferro, see Edward Neill, ed., "Autobiography should not be viewed solely from the standpoint of of Major Lawrence Taliaferro: Written in 1864," its abuses in the South." Anderson, "Removal of the Minnesota Historical Society Collections, no. 6 (St. Mdewakanton Dakota," 333. Paul, MN: Pioneer Press Company, 1894), 189-255. 34. Ibid., 311. 11. Meyer, History of the Santee Sioux, 56. 35. Ibid., 315. 12.Mark Diedrich, Dakota Oratory: Great Mo- 36. Anderson, Kinsmen of Another Kind, 158. ments in the Recorded Speech of the Eastern Sioux, 1695- 37. Ibid., 161. 1874 (Rochester, MN: Books, 1989), 30. 38.Anderson, "Removal of the Mdewakanton 13. Ibid. Dakota," 312,332. 14. Meyer, History of the Santee Sioux, 409. 39. Jedediah Stevens to David Greene, June 26, 15. Ibid., 409.10. 1838, 141:35, ABCFM Papers. DAKOTA INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TREATY OF 1837 185

40. Meyer, History of the Santee Sioux, 409. 47. Thomas Williamson to Samuel Pond, Novem- 41. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the ber 16, 1843, Pond Papers. Commissioner (1849), 1016. 48. Daniel Gavin to Samuel Pond and Lucy Gavin 42.Annual Report of the ABCFM Boston: The to Cordelia Pond, February 14, 1844, Pond Papers. Board (1850), 191. 49. Thomas Williamson to David Greene, "Eleventh 43. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the Annual Report of the Lac qui Parle Mission School Commissioner (1846), 313. Samuel Pond also noted, for the Year Ending June 20 1846," 244:371, ABCFM "Reports have been circulated . . . that the object Papers. of the missionaries in teaching their children is to 50. Thomas Williamson to David Greene, "Eleventh obtain their money." Samuel Pond to David Greene, Annual Report of the Lac qui Parle Mission School February 7, 1844, 141:100, ABCFM Papers. for the Year Ending June 20 1846," 244:371, ABCFM 44. Stephen Riggs to Selah Treat, March 24, 1849, Papers. 244:245, ABCFM Papers. 51. Stephen Riggs to David Greene, May 1, 1844, 45. Jedediah Stevens to David Greene, March 23 141233, ABCFM Papers. 1839, 141:39, ABCFM Papers. 52. Riggs, Tah-Koo Wah-Kan, 245. 46.Stephen Riggs to the ABCFM, "A Sketch of 53. Thomas Williamson to Selah Treat, June 1850, the Missionary Labors among the Dakotas," January 244:13, ABCFM Papers. 2, 1862, 309:173, ABCFM Papers.