The Indians and the Michigan Road Juanita Hunter* The United States Confederation Congress adopted on May 20, 1785, an ordinance that established the method by which the fed- eral government would transfer its vast, newly acquired national domain to private ownership. According to the Land Ordinance of 1785 the first step in this transferral process was purchase by the government of all Indian claims. In the state of Indiana by 1821 a series of treaties had cleared Indian title from most land south of the Wabash River. Territory north of the river remained in the hands of the Miami and Potawatomi tribes, who retained posses- sion of at least portions of the area until their removals from the state during the late 1830s and early 1840s.’ After a brief hiatus following 1821, attempts to secure addi- tional cessions of land from the Indians in Indiana resumed in 1826. In the fall of that year three commissioners of the United States government-General John Tipton, Indian agent at Fort Wayne; Lewis Cass, governor of Michigan Territory; and James Brown Ray, governor of Indiana-met with leading chiefs and warriors of the Potawatomi and Miami tribes authorized in part “to propose an exchange of land. acre for acre West, of the Mississippi . .’’z The final treaty, signed October 26, 1826, contained no provision for complete Indian removal from the state. The Potawatomis agreed, however, to three important land cessions and received cer- tain benefits that included payment of debts and claims held against * Juanita Hunter is a graduate of Indiana State Teachers College, Terre Haute, and was a social studies teacher at Logansport High School, Logansport, Indiana, at the time of her retirement. She is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Cass County Historical Society, Logansport. John D. Barnhart and Donald F. Carmony, Indiana: From Frontier to Indus- trial Commonwealth (4 vols., New York, 1954), I, 203-205, 210-19. Nellie Armstrong Robertson and Dorothy Riker, eds., The John Tipton Papers, 1809-1839 (3 vols., Indiana Historical Collections, Vols. XXIV, XXV, XXVI; Indi- anapolis, 1942), I, 537. INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY, LXXXIII (September, 1987).t’1987, Trustees of Indiana University The Indians and the Michigan Road 245 them. In addition, the treaty provided for eighty-six individual re- serve~.~ Especially significant was the land ceded in Article I1 of the treaty. With the northward push of settlers in Indiana during the early 1820s considerable interest had developed in constructing a road from Lake Michigan to the Ohio River via the new state cap- ital in Indianapolis. Such a road would provide access to new areas as well as a means for getting excess produce to market. By cross- ing the National Road at Indianapolis, the north-south road would also open sections of northern Indiana to points east. Governor Ray was almost single-handedly responsible for the inclusion of the road proposal in the treaty negotiation^.^ Couched in the white negoti- ators’ language and questionably attributing white views to the Indians, Article I1 of the final treaty read in part: As an evidence of the attachment which the Potawatamie tribe feel towards the American people, and particularly to the soil of Indiana, and with a view to dem- onstrate their liberality, and benefit themselves by creating facilities for travelling and increasing the value of their remaining country, the said tribe do hereby cede to the United States, a strip of land, commencing at Lake Michigan, and running thence to the Wabash river, one hundred feet wide, for a road, and also, one section of good land contiguous to the said road, for each mile of the same, and also for each mile of a road from the termination thereof, through Indianapolis to the Ohio river, for the purpose of making a road aforesaid from Lake Michigan, by the way of Indianapolis, to some convenient point on the Ohio river.5 Despite the treaty’s implications the commissioners had diffi- culty persuading the Indians to cede land for the proposed road, and implementation of the final agreement proved extremely trou- blesome. In these respects the treaty of 1826 was no different from preceding negotiations between the Indians and the national gov- ernment. A statement written in 1908 in History of Michigan City, Indiana, expressed in a bias typical of its time one opinion of the Indians and treaty-making in general: The untutored savage was very wily in the matter of these treaties, being very ready to enter into them and equally ready to crawl out. The Indians would claim that their alleged chiefs acted without authority; that the treaties were not plain to them; that their young men were made drunk and were then overreached; that the agreements were abrogated by the encroachments of settlers, or that other tribes had assumed to cede the lands of the objectors without right. .6 Charles J. Kappler, ed., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (7 vols., Washing- ton, D.C., 1904-19791, 11, 273-77. The Miamis proved more determined than the Potawatomis to retain their lands. The commissioners were forced to negotiate a separate treaty with them, signed one week later on October 23, 1826, at the same treaty grounds at Mississinewa. Ibid., 278-81; Robertson and Riker, Tipton Papers, I, 590-92. Barnhart and Carmony, Indiana, I, 290-91; Geneal Prather, “The Struggle for the Michigan Road,” Indiana Magmine of History, XXXIX (March, 19431, 1-8; Rob- ertson and Riker, Tipton Papers, I, 587. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 11, 274. 6Rollo B. Oglesbee and Albert Hale, History of Michigan City, Indiana ([La Porte, Ind.], 1908), 42. 246 Indiana Magazine of History The authors of this work did add, however, that “too often there was some basis in fact in the [Indians’] averment^."^ Research in- dicates that the Potawatomis, as well as other tribes, were justified in their complaints. Of the Potawatomis in particular the book con- tinued: “The Pottawattomies were indefatigable treaty makers and traveled long distances to be present at treaty councils. They liked the festivities with which the negotiations were accompanied, and they liked to share the liberal payments the government gave for the land.”E Difficulties regarding treaties were aggravated by the mobile, loose structure of the Indian groups. Chiefs frequently moved their bands; individuals changed villages. Intertribal marriages, over- lapping territories, and changing alliances were hard for whites to understand. They negotiated business deals, etc., with a “chief,” often not realizing that the Indians had village chiefs, ceremonial chiefs, or war chiefs, who might have only temporary or limited authority. Moreover, the Indians were not cognizant of state boundaries. During the early 1800s they roamed throughout the Old Northwest Territory and even across the Mississippi. Regional groups functioned independently and signed different treaties. In- dividual chiefs had varying attitudes, and young warriors were more likely than their elders to support Indian confederation and oppose cooperation with American~.~ Loyalty to the French, British, or Americans constantly changed, usually according to which group exhibited the most power at the time. French influence was strongest during earlier periods when fur trading was the main source of subsistence for the Indi- ans. Intermarriage accounted for Potawatomis or Miamis with French names who were eligible for government annuities and re- serves. Many of those with mixed blood had some schooling and attained leadership position; usually they supported the white man’s cause and so influenced other tribal members. American farmers were intruders and often squatters on Indian lands; therefore, most of the tribesmen were happy to get guns, ammunition, whiskey, and other trade goods from the British and were England’s allies during the War of 1812. During this period the Potawatomis earned the reputation of being the United States’s “most cruel and invet- erate enemies.”l0 Many isolated and organized aggressive acts oc- curred between the Potawatomis and the Americans. Both sides were guilty of indiscriminate barbarism. Some instances were con- ’ Zbid. 8 Zbid. For general discussion of Indian culture and of Indian-white relations, partic- ularly concerning the Potawatomis, see, for example, R. David Edmunds, The Po- tawatomis: Keepers ofthe Fires (Norman, Okla., 1978), 15-16,21-23,216-19, passim. lo Zbid., 56-58, 99, 222, 227-28, passim. Quotation is located on p. 198. LEWISCASS GOVERNOROF MICHIGANTERRITORY (1813-1831); SECRETARY OF WAR (1831-1836); COMMISSIONER, TREATYOF MISSISSINEWA(1826) Reproduced from Edwin Wood, Historic Mackinnc The His- torical, Picturesque and Legendary Features of the Muckinac Country (2 vols , New York, 1918),11, 526 JOHNTIPTON INDIANAGENT (1823-1831); COMMISSIONER, TREATYOF MISSISSI- NEWA (1826); UNITEDSTATES SENATOR (1831-1839) Courtesy Cass County Historical Society, Logansport, Indi- ana; painting by George Winter located in Tipton Masonic Lodge #33, Logansport; photograph by Stephen Burch. JAMESBROWN RAY GOVERNOROF INDIANA (1825-1831); COMMISSIONER, TREATYOF MISSISSINEWA(1826) Courtesy Indiana historical Bureau, Indianapolis; repro- duced from Dorothy Riker and Gayle Thornbrough, eds., Messages and Papers relating to the Administmtwn of James Brown Ray, Governor of Indiana, 1825-1831 (Indiana His- toricol Collectrons, Vol. XXXIV; Indianapolis, 19541, frontis- piece 250 Indiana Magazine of History sidered revenge, some unauthorized behavior of rebels. The British invited the Indians to Canada, while Americans continually tried to move treaty and annunity sites far from British influence. After the Treaty of Ghent was ratified in 1815, the Potawatomis reluc- tantly recognized that Americans controlled the area. By this time the fur trade would no longer support the Indians; thus, they be- came more and more dependent on government annuities from the United States." Congress passed laws trying to bring about the civilization and assimilation of the Indians. Some money was appropriated, and hoes, plows, and livestock were sent to the Indian agents.