Cessions of land by Indian tribes to the United States: Illustrated by those in the State of Indiana

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUKEAU OF ETHNOLOGY.

J. W.

POWELL,

DIRECTOR.

CESSIONS OF LAND BY INDIAN TRIBES

TO THE

UNITED STATES:

ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE IN THE STATE OF INDIANA.

BY

C. C. ROYCE.

247

SMITHSONIAN ^{INST1TUTION-B U}REAU OF ETHNOLOGY

J.W.POWELL^,DIRECTOR.

STATE ^of INDIANA

Exhibiting the

Lands

ceded.T>ythe

Indian Tribes

IOTHE

UNITED STATES.

B"5T

C.C-ROYCE

Scale 10 Miles to ^I inch.

JULIUS BIEN, LITK, NY.

I

CESSIONS OF LAND BY INDIAN TRIBES TO THE UNITED STATES

:

ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE IN THE STATE OF INDIANA.

By

C. C. Royce.

CHARACTER ^OF THE INDIAN TITUS.

The

social

and

political relationsthat

have

existed

and

^still continue between the

Government

oftheUnited States

and

theseveralIndian tribes occupying territory within its geographical limits are, iu

many

respects, peculiar.

The

unprecedentedlyrapidincrease

and

expansion of the white pop- ulationof the country,bringingintoaction correspondingnecessities for theacquisition

and

subjection of additionalterrritory,

have

maintained a constant strugglebetween civilization

and

barbarism. Involvedas a factor in thissocial conflict,

was

the legaltitleto the land occupied

by

Indians.

The

questions raisedwere whether inlaw or equity the In- dianswerevestedwith

any

stronger title thanthat of

mere

tenantsat will, subject to bedispossessed at the pleasure or convenience of their

more

civilized white neighbors, and, ifso,

what was

the nature

and

^ex- tentofsuchstrongertitle?

Thesequestions have been discussed

and

adjudicated from timeto time

by

the executive

and

^judicial authorities ofcivilized nations ever since thediscovery of America.

The

discovery of this continent, withits supposed marvelouswealth of precious metals

and

commercial woods, gave fresh impetusto the ambition

and

cupidity of

European

monarchs.

Spain,France, Holland,

and England

each soughtto rival the other in the magnitude

and

value of their discoveries.

As

the primary object of each of these

European

potentates

was

the same,

and

it

was

likely to lead to

much

conflict ofjurisdiction, the necessity of

some

generalrule

became

apparent,

whereby

their respectiveclaimsmight be acknowledged

and

adjudicated without resort to the arbitrament of arms.

Out

^{of this necessity}

grew

the rulewhich

became

a part of the recognizedlawofnations,

and

which gavethe preference of titletothe

monarch whose

vessels shouldbethefirstto discover,ratherthantothe one

who

^{should firstenter}

^upon

the possession of

new

lands.

The

ex- clusion underthis ruleof all other claimants gaveto the discovering nation thesolerightof acquiring the soilfromthe natives

and

ofplant- ing settlementsthereon. This

was

aright asserted

by

^allthecommer-

cialnations of Europe,

and

fullyrecognized in theirdealingswith each 249

250

CESSIONS

OF LAND BY INDIAN

TRIBES.

other;

and

the assertion of such a right necessarily carried with ita modifieddenialof theIndiantitletothelauddiscovered. Itrecognized in

them

nothingbut a possessory title, involving aright of occupancy

and

enjoyment until such time as the

European

sovereign should purchase it from them.

The

ultimate fee

was

held to reside in such sovereign,

whereby

the natives wereinhibitedfrom alienating in

any manner

their right of possession toany but that sovereign or his sub- jects.

The

recognition oftheseprinciplesseemsto

have

beencomplete,asis

evidenced

by

the history of

America

from itsdiscoverytothe present day. Prance, England,Portugal,

andHolland

recognized

them

unquaU-

fiedly,

and

evenCatholic Spain did not predicate her titlesolely

upon

the grant of the

Holy

See.

No

oneof these countries

was more

zealousinhermaintenanceofthese doctrinesthan England. In1496

King Henry VII

commissioned

John and

Sebastian Cabottoproceed

upon

a voyageof discovery

and

totake possession of such countries as they might ^find which were then un-

known

toChristian people, inthe

name

of the

King

ofEngland.

The

resultsof theirvoyages inthenext

and

succeeding yearslaid thefoun- dationforthe claim of

England

totheterritoryof that portion ofNorth

America

which subsequently formedthe nucleus of our presentposses- sions.

The

policy of theUnitedStatessincetheadoption of the FederalCon- stitutionhas in this particularfollowed theprecedent established

by

the

mother

country. In the treaty ofpeacebetween GreatBritain

and

the United States following theEevolntionarywar, theformer not only re-

linquished the right ofgovernment, but renounced

and

yielded tothe United Statesallpretensions

and

claimswhatsoeverto all thecountry south

and

west of the great northern rivers

and

lakes as far asthe Mississippi.

Inthe periodbetweenthe conclusion ofthistreaty

and

the year1789

it

was

undoubtedlythe opinion ofCongress that the relinquishment of territorythus

made by

GreatBritain,without so

much

asa saving clause guaranteeingthe Indian right of occupancy, carriedwithit

an

absolute

aud

unqualified_{fee-simpletitle} unembarrassed

by any

intermediatees- tateor tenancy. Inthetreaties held with the Indians duringthis pe-

riod—notablythose ofFort Stanwix, withthe Six Nations, in 1784,

and

FortFinney,with theShawnees,in1786

—

^they

^had

^{beenrequired toac-}

knowledge

the United States as the sole

and

absolute sovereign of

alltheterritoryceded

by

Great^Britain.

Thisclaim, though unintelligible to the savages in itslegal aspects,

was

practicallyunderstood

by them

to be fatal to theirindependence

and

territorial rights.

Although

in acertain degree the bordertribes

had

been defeated _{in theirconflicts}with the United ^States, they still

retained sufficient strength

and

resources to render

them

formidable antagonists, especially

when

the

numbers and

disposition of their

noYCE.]

TREATIES OF FORT HARMAR. 251

adjoining and

more

remote allieswere taken into consideration.

The

breadth

and

boldness of the territorial claims thus asserted

by

the United Stateswerenot longin producingtheir naturaleffect.

The

ac- tive

and

sagaciousBrant succeededinrevivinghisfavorite projectofan alliance betweentheSixNations

and

thenorthwesterntribes.

He

^ex-

perienced butlittletroublein conveninga formidableassemblageofIn- dians at

Huron

Village, opposite Detroit,

where

they held councilto.

getherfrom

November

28to

December

18, 1786.

Thesecouncilsresultedin the presentation ofan address toCongress, wherein theyexpressedan earnestdesirefor peace,butfirmly insisted thatalltreatiescarriedonwith theUnitedStates shouldbe withthe gen- eralvoice of the wholeconfederacyin the

most

open manner; ^thatthe United States should prevent surveyors

and

others from crossing the Ohio River^;

and

they proposedageneral treatyearly in the spring of 1787. This address purported torepresent theFive Nations, Hurons, Ottawas, Twichtwees, Shawanese, Chippewas, Cherokees, Delawares, Pottawatomies,

and

the

Wabash

Confederates,

and was

signedwiththe totemof each tribe.

Such

a remonstrance, considering the weaknessof the government undertheold Articlesof Confederation,

and

theexhaustedcondition im- mediately following the Revolution,produced a profound sensation in Congress.

That body

passed

an

act providingforthe negotiation of a treaty ortreaties,

and making

an appropriationforthe purchase

and

ex- tinguishmentof theIndian claimto certain lands. Thesepreparations

and

appropriations resultediu

two

treaties

made

atFort

Harmar,

Jan- uary9, 1789,one with the Six Nations,

and

the other with the

Wian-

dot, Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Pottawatima,

and

Sac ^Nations, wherein theIndiantitle of occupancyis clearlyacknowledged.

That

the

government

sounderstood

and

recognizedthis principle as entering intothe text of thosetreatiesisevidenced

by

acommunication ^bearing- date

June

15, 1789,from General

Knox,

then Secretary of

War,

^{to Presi-} dent Washington,

and

which

was communicated by

the latter on the

same day

toCongress,ⁱⁿwhich itisdeclared that

—

TheIndians,beingtheprioroccupants, possess the right of^{soil. It}cannotbetaken fromthemunlessbytheir freeconsent,orbyright of conquestincase ofajustwar. To

dispossessthemonanyother principlewouldbea gross violation of thefundamental lawsof nature,andofthat distributivejusticewhichisthe glory of a nation.

The

principle thus outlined

and

approved

by

the administration of President Washington, although

more

than once questioned

by

inter- ested parties, hasalmost, ifnot quite,invariably been sustained

by

the legaltribunals ofthe country, at least

by

the courts offinalresort^;

and

the decisionsof the

Supreme

^{Court of} theUnited States bear consist- ent testimonytoits legal soundness. Severaltimes has thisquestion in different forms appearedbefore thelatter tribunal for adjudication,

and

ineachcasehas the Indianright been recognized

and

protected.

In 1823, 1831, and 1832, Chief Justice Marshall successively delivered

252

CESSIONS

OF LAND BY INDIAN

TRIBES.

the opinion of the courtinimportantcasesinvolving the Indianstatus

and

rights. Inthe secondofthese cases (TheCherokee Nationvs.

The

State of Georgia) it

was

maintained that the Cherokees were a state

and had

uniformly been treated as such since the settlement of the country; that the

numerous

treaties

made

with

them by

the United States recognizedtheui as a people capable ofmaintainingtherelations ofpeace

and war

^; ofbeingresponsibleintheirpolitical character for

any

violationof their engagements,orfor

any

aggressioncommitted on thecitizensof the UnitedStates

by

anyindividual oftheir community;

thattheconditionoftheIndiansintheirrelations totheUnitedStatesis

perhapsunlikethat ofanyother

two

peoplesonthe globe; that, ingen- eral,nationsnot

owing

a

common

allegiance are foreignto each other, butthat therelation of the IndianstotheUnited Statesis

marked by

peculiar

aud

cardinal distinctions which ^exist

nowhere

else; that the Indianswere acknowledgedto

have

anunquestionablerighttothelands they occupied until that right should be extinguished

by

avoluntary cession toourgovernment; thatitmight wellbedoubted whetherthose tribeswhich residewithin theacknowledgedboundaries of the United States could with strict accuracybe denominated foreign nations, but thattheymight

more

correctlyperhaps be denominateddomesticdepend- ent nations; thatthey occupied aterritory to which

we

asserteda title

independent of theirwill,but which onlytookeffectinpoint of posses- sion

when

theirrightof possession ceased.

The Government

ofthe United Stateshavingthusbeencommittedin allofitsdepartmentstothe recognition of the principleof theIndian rightofpossession, itbecomes not onlya subject of interest tothestu- dentofhistory, butofpracticalvaluetotheofficial records of the gov- ernment, thatacarefullycompiled

work

should exhibit theboundaries ofthe severaltracts ofcountrywhich

have

been acquired fromtime to time, within the presentbmitsoftheUnitedStates,

by

cession orrelin-

quishment from the variousIndian tribes, either through the

medium

offriendlynegotiations

and

justcompensation, or as the resultof mili- tary conquest.

Such

a work, if accurate,

would

form the basis of

any

complete history of the Indiantribes in their relationsto,

and

influence

upon

the growth

and

diffusion ofour population

and

civilization.

Such

acontributiontothe historical collectionsof thecountry should com- prise:

1st.

A

^seriesof

maps

oftheseveral States

and

Territories, on ascale rangingfrom ten tosixteen milestoaninch,grouped^{in atlasform,}

upon

which shouldbe delineatedin colors the boundarylines of the various tracts ofcountry cededtothe UnitedStates from time to time

by

the differentIndiantribes.

2d.

An

accompanyinghistoricaltext, not onlyreciting thesubstance ofthe material provisions of the several treaties,butgivinga history of the causes leadingtothem, as exhibitedincontemporaneous^officialcor- respondence

and

othertrustworthy data.

boyce.]

HISTORICAL ATLAS

INDIAN

BOUNDARIES. 253

3d.

A

chrouologic list oftreatieswith the various Indian tribes, ex- hibiting the

names

^oftribes,the date,place where,

and

person

by whom

negotiated.

4th.

An

alphabetic list of all rivers, lakes, mountains,villages,

and

otherobjectsor placesmentioned in such treaties, together with their location

and

the

names

by which theyare atpresentknown.

5th.

An

^{alphabeticlistof the principalrivers, lakes,} mountains,

and

other topographicfeatures in theUnited States, showingnot onlytheir present

names

butalsothe various

names by

whichtheyhave fromtime to timebeen

known

since thediscovery ofAmerica, giviugineach case the date

and

the authoritytherefor.

INDIAN BOUNDARIES.

The

mostdifficult

and

laborious featureofthe

work

isthatinvolved un- der thefirstof thesefivesubdivisions.

The

ordinary readerinfollowing the treaty provisions, in whichthe boundaries of the various cessions areso specifically

and

miuutelylaid down,

would

anticipate but little difficulty in tracing those boundaries

upon

the

modern

map. Inthishe wouldfind himself sadlyatfault. Innearlyallofthetreatiesconcluded halfa century or

more

ago,wherein cessions of landwere made, occur the

names

of

boundary

points which arenottobe found on

any modern map,

and which have never been

known

topeople of the present genera- tionliving in thevicinity.

In

many

of the oldertreaties thisisthe casewithalargeproportion of the

boundary

points mentioned.

The

identification

and

exactloca- tion of these points thus becomes at once a sourceof

much

laborious research.

Not

unfrequently

weeks

and even

months

oftimehave been consumed, thousands of old

maps and many

volumes ^of books exam- ined,

and

avoluminous correspondenceconducted with localhistorical societiesoroldsettlers,intheefforttoascertainthelocationof asingle

boundary

point.

To

illustratethis difficulty,the case of

"Hawkins'

line"

may

becited, a

boundary

linementionedin thecession

by

the Cherokees

by

treatyof October2, 1798.

An

examinationof

more

thanfourthousand old

and modern maps and

the scanning of

more

than fiftyvolumes failed to

show

itslocation ortogive even the slightestclue to it.

A ^somewhat

extendedcorrespondence with

numerous

personsin Tennessee,includ- ing the veteran^annalist,

Ramsey,

alsofailedtosecure the desiredinfor- mation. It

was

not until

months

oftime

had

been

consumed and

prob- ablesources of information

had

beenalmost completelyexhausted that, through the persevering inquiries of

Hon. John

M. Lea, of Nashville, Teun.,in conjunction with the present writer's

own

investigations, the

Une was

satisfactorily identified as being theboundarylinementionedin

254

CESSIONS

OF LAND BY

INDIAN TRIBES.

theCherokeetreaty ofJuly2,1791,

and

deseribed asextending fromthe North Carolina boundary "north to a point from whichalineis tobe extended to the river Clinch that shall pass the Holston atthe ridge which divides the watersrunning into LittleElver from thoserunning into the Tennessee."

Itgained the titleof

"Hawkins'

line"fromthefact thata

man named Hawkins

surveyedit.

That

thisisnot anisolated case,

and

as anillustrationof the

number and

frequencyof changes in local geographical

names

iu thiscountry,

it

may

be

remarked

that in twenty treaties concluded

by

theFederal

Government

withthe various Indiautribes prior tothe year1800, inan aggregateofone

hundred and

twentyobjectsand placesthereinrecited, seventy-threeof

them

are whollyignorediuthelatestedition of Colton's Atlas;

and

this proportionwill hold with butlittle diminution in the treatiesnegotiatedduringthetwentyyearsimmediatelysucceeding that date.

Another and most

perplexing question hasbeen the adjustment of theconflictingclaims ofdifferenttribesof Indianstothe

same

territory.

Iu theearlierdaysoftheFederalperiod,

wheu

theentirecountrywestof the Alleghanies

was

occupied or controlled

by numerous

contiguous tribes, whose methodsof subsistence involved

more

or less of

nomadic

habit,

and who

possessed large tracts of country then ofno greater valuethan merely tosupply theimmediatephysicalwantsof thehunter

and

flsherman, it

was

not essential to such tribesthatacareful lineof demarkationshoulddefinethelimitsoftheirrespectiveterritorialclaims

and

jurisdiction.

When,

however,

by

reason of treaty negotiations with theUnited^States, with a view- tothe sale tothelatterofaspecific area of territory within clearly-defined boundaries, it

became

essential for the tribewith

whom

the treaty

was

being negotiatedto

make

^asser-

tion

and

exhibit satisfactoryproof of its possessorytitletothecountry

itproposed to ^sell,

much

controversy often arose with other adjoining tribes,

who

claimedall ora portion of the proposed cession. Thesecon- flictingclaimswere sometimes based

upon

ancient

and

immemorialoccu- pancy, sometimes

upon

early or

more

recent conquest,

and

sometimes

upon

a sort of wholesale squatter-sovereignty title

whereby

a whole

tribe, in the course of a sudden

and

perhaps forced migration, would

settle

dowu upon

an unoccupied portion of the teriitoryof

some

less

numerous

tribe,

and by

sheer intimidatiou maintain such occupancy.

In its various purchases from the Indians, the

Government

of the United States, iu seekingto quiet these conflicting territorial claims, have not unfrequently been compelled to accept from two,

and

even three, differenttribesseparate relinquishments oftheir respective rights, titles,

and

claimsto the

same

section of country.

Under

such circum- stancesit canreadily be seen

what

difficulties wouldattend a^{clear ex-} hibition

upon

a single

map

^ofthese various coincidentand overlapping stripsofterritory.

The

State ofIllinoisaffordsanexcellent Ulustration.

rotce.]

CONFLICTING BOUNDARY CLAIMS OF

INDIAN TRIEES.

255 The

conflictingcessionsinthat State

may

be brieflyenumeratedas fol-

lows^:

1.

The

cession atthe

mouth

ofChicagoRiver,

by

treaty of

August

3, 1795,

was

^also included within thelimits ofa subsequentcession

made by

treaty of

August

24, 1816,with the Ottawas, Chippewas,

and

Pot- tawatomies.

2.

The

cession at the

mouth

of the IllinoisRiver,

by

treaty of 1795,

was

overlapped

by

the Kaskaskiacessionof1803,agaiu

by

theSac

and Fox

cession of 1801,

and

athird time

by

the Kickapoo cession of 1819.

3.

The

cession at "

Old

Peoria Fort,orvillage,"bytreatyof1795,

was

alsooverlappedin like

manner

with the lastprecedingone.

4.

The

cessionsof 1795 atFort

Massac and

atGreat Salt Springare within thesubsequent cession

by

the Kaskaskias of1803.

5.

The

cessionof

August

13, 1803,

by

the Kaskaskias, asratified

and

enlarged by the Kaskaskias

and

Peorias September 25, 1818, overlaps theseveral sessions

by

previous treaty of 1795at the

mouth

of theIlli-

noisRiver, at Great Salt Spring, at Fort Massac,

and

at Old Peoria Fort,

and

is inturn overlapped

by

subsequentcessionsof July30,

and August

30, 1819,

by

theKickapoos

and by

the Pottawatomiecession of October20, 1832.

G.

The

Sac

and Fox

cession of

November

3,1804 (partly in Missouri and Wisconsin) overlaps thecessions of1795atthe

mouth

oftheIllinois River

and

at

Old

Peoria Fort. It is overlapped

by two

Chippewa, Ottawa,

and

Pottawatomie cessions of July 29, 1829, the

Winnebago

cessionsof

August

1, 1829,

and

September 15, 1832,

and by

the Chip- pewa, Ottawa,

and

Pottawatomie cessionofSeptember 26, 1833.

7.

The Piankeshaw

cessionof

December

30, 1S05, is overlapped

by

theKickapoocession of1819.

8.

The

Ottawa, Chippewa,

and

Pottawatomie cessionof

August

24, 1816, overlaps thecessionof1795 aroundChicago.

9.

The

cessionof October 2, 1818,

by

the Pottawatomies (partly in Indiana),isoverlapped

by

thesubsequent cession of 1819,

by

the Kick- apoos.

10.

The

combined cessions of July30,

and August

30, 1819,

by

the Kickapoos (partly inIndiana),overlap the cessionsof1795 atthe

mouth

ofthe Illinois River

and

at Old Fort Peoria^; alsothe Kaskaskia

and

Peoriacessionsof 1803

and

1818, the

Piankeshaw

cession of 1805,

and

the Pottawatomie cessionof October 2, 1818,

and

are overlapped

by

the subsequent Pottawatomiecession ofOctober20, 1832.

11.

Two

cessions were

made

by the Chippewas, Ottawas

and

Potta- watomies

by

treatyofJuly29, 1829 (partly located inWisconsin), one of which is entirely

and

the other largely within the limits of the country previouslycededbythe Sacs

and

Foxes,

November

3, 1804.

12.

The Winnebago

cession of

August

1, 1S29 (which is partly iu Wisconsin), is also wholly within the limitsof the aforesaid Sac

and

Fox

cession of1804.

256

CESSIONS

OF LAND BY INDIAN

TRIBES.

13. Cession

by

tlie

Winnebagoes

September15,1832,winchismostlyin the State ofWisconsin

and

which

was

^alsowithin thelimitsof the Sac

and Fox

cessionof1804.

14. Pottawatomie cession of October 20, 1S32, which overlaps the Kaskaskia

and

Peoriacessionof

August

13, 1803, as confirmed

and

en- larged September25, 1818,

and

alsotheKickapoo cession

by

treatiesof July30

and August

30, 1819.

From

this it will be seen that almost the entirecountry comprising thepresent State ofIllinois

was

the subject of controversyinthematter of originalownership,

and

that theUnited States, inorder fullytoex- tinguish the Indian claim thereto,actuallybought ^it twice,

and some

portions ofitthreetimes. Itisproper,however,to

add

in this connec- tionthatwherethe

government

at thedate of apurchasefrom one tribe

was

awareof

an

existing claim to the

same

region

by

another tribe,it

had

the effect ofdiminishing theprice paid.

ORIGINAL AND SECONDARY CESSIONS.

Another

difficultythathas arisen,

and

one which, in orderto avoid

('(infusion,willnecessitatethe duplication intheatlasof the

maps

ofsev- eral States,is the attemptto

show

notonly original,but alsosecondary cessions of land.

The

policy followed

by

the United Statesfor

many

years in negotiating treaties with the tribes east of the Mississippi River included the purchase of their former possessions

and

their removal westofthatriver toreservations setapartfor

them

within the limits of countrypurchased for thatpurpose fromitsoriginal owners,

and

which were in turn retroceded to the United States

by

its

secondary owners. Thishasbeen largelythe casein Missouri, Arkan-

sas, Kansas, Nebraska,

and

Indian Territory.

The

present State of Kansas, forinstance,

was

forthe

most

part the inheritanceof the

Kan-

sas

and Osage

tribes. It

was

purchased from

them by

the provisions of the treatiesof

June

2,1825, with theOsage,

and June

3, 1825, with the

Kansas

tribe,they, however,reserving in each caseatract suffi- ciently large for their

own

use

and

occupancy. These

and

subsequent cessions of these two tribes

must

be

shown upon

a

map

of "original cessions."

After securing these large concessions fromthe

Kansas and

Osages, the government,inpursuance of thepolicy abovealludedto, soughtto secure theremovalof the

remnant

ofOhio, Indiana,

and

Illinois tribes to thisregion

by

granting them,inpart consideration fortheireastern possessions, reservations therein of size

and

location suitabletotheir wishes

and

necessities. In this

way homes

were provided forthe

Wy-

andots, Delawares, Shawnees, Pottawatomies, Sacs and Foxes of the Mississippi,Kickapoos, theConfederated Kaskaskias, Peorias,Piauke-

boicb.] CESSIONS IN

THE STATE OF

INDIANA.

257

shaws, and Weas,^theOttawasof Iilanchard's

Fork

and

Roche

de Bceuf, andthe

Chippewas

and Mnnsees.

A

fewyears of occupation againfound the advancing white settlements encroachingupon their domain, with the usual accompanying

demand

for

more

land. Cessions, firstof a portion

and

finallyoftheremnant,ofthesereservations followed, coupled with the removal of the Indians to Indian Territory. These several reservations

and

cessions

must

boindicated

upon

a

map

of "secondary cessions."

Objectillustrationis

much more

striking

and

effectivethanmereverbal description. In order, therefore, to secure to the reader the clearest possible understandingofthesubject,there isherewith presented asan

illustration a

map

ofthe State of Indiana,

upon

which isdelineated the boundaries of thedifferent tracts ofland within that Stateceded to the United States from time to time by treaty with the various Indian tribes.

Thesecessions are as follows:

No. 1.

A

tract lyingeast of a line running fromopposite the

mouth

of

Kentucky

River, ina northerly direction, to Fort Recovery, in Ohio,

and

which forms a small portion of the westernend ofthe cession

made

by ^{the first} paragraph of article3, treaty of

August

3, 1795, with the

Wyandots,

Delawares, Miamis,

and

nine other tribes. Its boundaries are indicated

by

scarletlines.

The

bulk ofthecession isinOhio.

No. 2. Six miles square at confluence of Saint Mary's

and

Saint Joseph's Rivers, includingFort

Wayne

^; alsoceded bytreaty of

August

3, 171)5,

and bounded

on the

map by

scarlet lines.

No.3.

Two

miles square on the

Wabash,

atthe endofthePortage of the

Miami

of the

Lake

^; also ceded by treaty of

August

3, 1795, and

bounded

onthe

map

by scarletlines.

No.4. Six milessquareatOuatenou,orOld

Wea

Towns, onthe

Wabash;

also ceded

by

treaty of

August

3, 1795,

and bounded

on the

map by

scarlet lines. This tract

was

subsequently retroceded to the Indians by article S, treaty of September 30, 1809,

and

finally included within thePottawatomie cessionof October ^'2, 1818, and the

Miami

cession of October^G, 1818.

No. 5. Clarke's grantontheOhioRiver^; stipulated indeed fromVir- ginia tothe United States in 1784 to be granted to General George Rogers Clarke and ^hissoldiers. Thistract

was

speciallyexcepted from the limits of the Indian country

by

treaty of

August

3, 1795,

and

is

bounded

onthe

map by

scarletlines.

No.0.

"Post

ofVinceuues andadjacent country,to which theIndian

titlehasbeenextinguished." Thistract

was

speciallyexcludedfromthe limitsoftheIndiancountry

by

treatyof

August

3,1795.

Doubt

having arisenasto its proper boundaries,theywerespecitiallydefined bytreaty of

June

7, 1803. it is

known

as the

"Vincennes

tract"; is partly in Illinois,

and

is

bounded

onthe

map by

scarletlines.

No. 7. Tractcededbythe treaties of

August

18, 1804, with the Dela- 17

A E

258

CESSIONS

OF LAND BY

INDIAN TRIBES.

wares,

and August

27, 1S04, with the Piankeshaws. Iu the southern partof the State, and

bounded

outhe

map

by greenlines.

No.8. Cession by the treaty of

August

21,1805,with the Miamis, Eel Rivers,and

Weas,

inthesoutheastern part ofthe State, and designated

by

blue Hues.

No. 9. Cession

by

treaty of September30, 1800, with the Miami, Eel River, Delaware,aud Pottawatomie tribes, adjoining"Vineennestraet"

(No. 9) on^{the north,}

and

designated

by

yellow lines. Thiscession

was

concurredin by the

Weas

inthe treaty ofOctober20, 1809.

No. 10. Cession

by

the

same

treaty of September 30, 1809^; in the southeastern portion of the State;

bounded

on the

map

byyellowlines.

No. ^11. Cessionalso

by

thetreaty ofSeptember30, 1809^;

marked

by crimson lines,

and

partlyin Illinois. Thiscession

was

conditional

upon

the consent of the Kickapoos, which

was

obtained by the treatywith

them

of

December

9, 1809.

No. ^12. Cession by the Kickapoos,

December

9, 1809, which

was

sub- sequently reaffirmed by

them June

1, 1810. It

was

also asseuted to

by

the

Weas

October 2, 1818,

aud by

the Miamis October 0, 1818. Itis partly in Illinois,

and

^is

bounded

on the

map by

green lines.

The

Kickapoos ^also assented to the cession No. 11 by the Miamisetal., of September 30, 1809. ^'

No.13. Cession

by

the

Wyaudots, September

29,1817. Thisismostly in Ohio, and ^is

bounded

onthe

map by

yellow lines.

No. 11. Cession

by

the Pottawatomies, October 2, 1818; partly in Illinois,

and

isdenoted

by brown

^lines.

A

^{subsequenttreatyof}

^August

30, 1819, with the Kickapoos, cedes a tract of country (No. 10) which overlapsthis cession, the overlapbeing indicatedby a dotted blueline.

By

the treaty ofOctober2, 1818,the

Weas

ceded allthe landclaimed

by them

in Ohio, Indiana, and ^Illinois, except a small reserve on the

Wabash

River. Their claim

was

of a general

and

indefinitecharacter,

and

isfully covered

by more

definitecessions

by

othertribes.

By

thetreaty of October3, 1818, the Delaware'scededall theirclaim to land inIndiana. This claim, whichthey held injointtenancy with the Miamis,

was

located onthe waters of

White

River,and ^itisincluded within the tract

marked

15, ceded

by

the

Miamis

October0, 1818.

No. 15. Cession

by

theMiamis, October0, 1818^;

bounded

onthe

map by

purple lines. Its general boundaries cover all of Central Indiana and a small portion of

Western

Ohio,but within its limits were in-

cluded the

Wea

Reservation of 1818 (No. 17), and sixtracts ofdifferent dimensions werereserved ^forthe futureuse of the Miamis [Nos. 21, 29 (30 and 50), (31, 18, 53,

and

51),49,

and

_51J.

The

Miamis alsoassented to the Kickapoocession of

December

^9, 1809 (No. 12).

The

Kickapoos in turn,

by

treaty of July 30, 1819, relinquished all claim to country southeast ofthe

Wabash,

which

was

an ^{indefinite tract,} and iscovered

by

the foregoing

Miami

cession of 1818.

No. 10. Cession

by

the Kickapoos,

August

30, 1819. This cession is

koyce.] CESSIONS IN

THE STATE OF

INDIANA.

259

bounded on the

map

bybluelines,

and

islargelyin Illinois. Itoverlaps thePottawatomiecession ofOctober 2,1818 (No. 14), the overlap being indicated by a dotted blue ^line. It isinturn overlappedby the Potta- watomiecession (No. 23) ofOctober2G, 1832.

No. ^17. Cession by the

Weas, August

^{11, 1820, of the tract} reserved by

them

October 2, 1818. It is on the

Wabash

River, in the western part ofthe State,and^isindicatedbyblue lines. Itiswithinthe general limits of the

Miami

cession (No. 15) ofOctober G, 1818.

No. 18. Cession of

August

29, 1821,by theOttowas, Ghippewas,

and

Pottawatomies, indicated

by

greenlines,

and

mostlyin Michigan.

No. 19. Cession

by

the Pottawatomies,

by

firstclause offirst article of thetreaty of October 16, 182G. Itlies north of

Wabash

River,

and

is

bounded

onthe

map

byblue^lines. Thisand an indefiniteextent of ad- joining country

was

also claimed

by

the Miamis,

who

ceded theirclaim thereto October 23, 182G, with the exception of sundry small reserva- tions,four of which [Nos. 2G, 27, 32,

and

52] were partiallyor entirely within the generallimits ofthe Pottawatomie.

No. 20. Cession

by

the last clause of the first article of the Potta- watomietreatyofOctober16, 182G; inthenorthwestcorner of theState,

and bounded

onthe

map by

scarlet lines.

As

abovestated, the Miamis,

by

treaty ofOctober23, 182G,ceded all theirclaim tolandin Indiana lying north

and

westof the

Wabash

and

Miami (Maumee)

Rivers, except sixsmall tribal,

and

a

number

of ^indi- vidual reserves

and

grants. Thesesixtribal,reserveswere

numbers

2J,

27, 32, 52, 25,

and

28,the first fourof which, as above remarked, were either partially orentirelywithin the Pottawatomiecession

by

the first clause of the firstarticleofthetreatyofOctober 16,1826,

and

the other two within the PottawatomiecessionofOctober27, 1832.

No. 21. Cession

by

theEel River Miamis, February 11,1828,

bounded

onthe

map by

greenlines. Thistractiswithin the generallimitsof the

Miami

cession (No. 15) of 1818, and

was

reserved therefrom.

No.22. Cession

by

the secondclause of thefirst articleofthe Potta- watomie treaty of September20, 182S, designatedby

brown

lines.

No.23. Cessionbythe Pottawatomies,October26,1832,isinthe north- west portion of the State,

and

is indicated

by

yellowlines.

Near

the southwest corneritoverlapstheKickapoocession (No.16)ofAugust ^:'•(>, 1819. Within the general limits of this cession seven tracts were ^re- served ^fordifferentbands of the tribe, which willbe found on the

map numbered

as follows: 33, 34, 39, 40 (two reserves^, 41, and 42.

No. 24. Cession

by

the Pottawatomiesof Indiana

aud

Michigan, Octo- ber27,1832,which ⁱⁿterms ^isa relinquishment oftheirclaimtoany re-

maining landsinthe StatesofIndiaua

and

Illinois,and in the Territory ofMichigansouth of

Grand

^River.

The

cessionthus

made

inIndiana is

bounded

on the

map by

scarletlines. Within the general limitsof this cession,however, they reservedforthe use of variousbandsofthe tribe eleventracts of different areas,and which are

numbered

asfollows: 35, 3G,37,38, 43(tworeserves),44 (two reserves), 45, 46, aud ^17.

260

CESSIONS

OF LAND BY

INDIAN TRIBES.

Nos. 25 to 32, inclusive. CessionofOctober23, 1834, by theMiamis, ofeight smalltractspreviouslyreservedtothein,all

bounded

onthe

map by

greenlines. Thesearelocated asfollows

:

No.25. Tract ofthirty-sixsectionsat FlatBelly'svillage,reserved

by

treatyof 1820^; intownships33

and

34north,ranges7

and

8east.

No.26. Tract of five miles in length on the.

Wabash,

extending backtoEel River,reserved by treaty of 1S2G; in townships 27

and

28 north, ranges 4

and

5east.

No. 27. Tract of tensections atRaccoon'sVillage,reservedbythe treatyof1826; in townships 20

and

30 north,ranges 10

and

11east.

No.28. Tract often sectionson

Mud

Creek, reserved

by

thetreaty of1826^; in township28 north,range4east.

The

treatyofOctober

27, 1832, with the Pottawatomies, establisheda reserve of sixteen sections for the bands of

Ash-kum and Wee

^{si-o-nas (No.} 46),

and

one of live sections forthe

baud

of

Wee-sau

(No. 47), whichover lapped

and

included nearly all the territorycomprised in the

Mud

Creek reserve.

No. 29. Tract of two miles square on Salanianie River, at the

mouth

ofAt-che-pong-quawe Creek, reserved

by

thetreaty of1S18;

in township 23 north, ranges 13

and

14east.

No. 30.

A

^{portion of the tract} opposite the

mouth

^of Aboutte River,reservedby thetreatyof 1818; iutownships29and30north, ranges 10, 11, and 12east.

No.31.

A

^{portion of thetract}

^known

^{as the uBig} Reserve,"es- tablishedby ^thetreaty of 181S^; iu townships 21 to _27, inclusive, ranges 1

and

2 east.

No. 32. Tract of tensections attheForksofthe

Wabash,

reserved

by

thetreatyof1826. This cessionprovides forthe relinquishment ofthe Indian ^title and the issuance of a patentto

John

B.Richard- villetherefor. In township 28 north, ranges8 and9 east.

No. 33. Cession of

December

4, 1834,

by

Com-o-za's

band

ofPottawato- mies, of a tract of two sections reserved for

them

on^the Tippecanoe River

by

thetreatyofOctober26, 1832.

No.34. Cession of

December

10, 1834,by Mau-ke-kose's (Muck-rose)

band

ofPottawatomies, ofsixsections reservedto

them

by the treaty of October 26, 1832^{; in} township 32 north, range2 east, and

bounded

on the mail by crimson lines.

No. 35. Cession of

December

16, 1834,by thePottawatomies, of two sectionsreserved

by

thetreatyofOctober27,1832, toincludetheir mills onthe Tippecanoe River.

No. 36. Cession of

December

17, 1834, by Mota's

band

of Pottawato- mies,of foursectionsreservedfor

them by

the treaty ofOctober27,1832

;

intowuships³²

and

33 north, range5 east, indicatedby bluelines.

No. 37. Cessionof

March

26,1836,

by

Mes-quaw-buck's

band

ofPotta- watomies, offour sectionsreserved to

them

bythetreatyofOctober27, 1832; iu township 33north, range 6 east, indicated

by

crimson lines.

rotcb.] CESSIONS IN

THE STATE OF

INDIANA.

261

No.38. Cession of

March

29, 1S3G,

by

Che-case's

band

of Pottawato- mies, of four sections reserved for

them by

the treaty of October 27, 1832^; in townships 32

and

33 north,ranges 5 and ^Geast,

bounded

on the

map by

yellowlines.

No.39. Cession of April11,183G,byAub-ba-naub-bee's

band

ofPotta- watomies, oftbirty-six sectionsreservedfor

them by

thetreaty ofOcto- ber2G,1832. Intownships31and32north,ranges1

and

2east,

bounded

on the

map by

bluelines.

No.40. Cession of April22, 183G,

by

thebands ofO-kaw-mause, Kee- waw-nee, Nee-boash,

and

Ma-che-saw (Mat-chis-jaw),of ten sectionsre-

servedto

them by

the Pottawatomie treatyofOctober 26,1832.

No.41. Cession of April22,1836,

by

the bandsofNas-waw-kee (Nees- waugh-gee)

and

Quash-quaw, of three sections reservedfor

them by

the treatyofOctober26,1832^{; in}township 32 north, range 1 east,

bounded

on ^the

map

by scarletlines.

No.42. Cession of

August

5, 183G,

by

the bands of Pee-pin-ah-waw, Mack-kahtah-mo-may,

and

No-taw-kah(Pottawatomies), of twenty-two sections reserved for

them and

the

band

^of Menom-i-nee (the latter of

which does not

seem

to be mentionedin the treatyofcession),

by

treaty ofOctober26, 1832; intownship 33 north,ranges1

and

2east,

bounded

onthe

map by

green lines.

No. 43. Cession of September20,1836,

by

the

bauds

ofTo-i-sasbrother Me-mot-way, and Che-quaw-ka-ko, of ten sectionsreserved for

them by

the Pottawatomietreaty ofOctober27, 1832,

and

cessionofSeptember

22, 183G, by Ma-sac's

band

of Pottawatomies, of four sections reserved for

them

bythe treatyofOctober27, 1832^{; in} township 31north,range 3east,

bouuded

onthe

map by

crimson lines.

Nos. 44 to 47,inclusive. Cessions of September 23, 1S3G,

by

various bauds of Pottawatomies, of lands reserved for

them by

^the treaty of 1832 (being allof theirremaininglandsin Indiana), as follows:

No. 44.

Four

sections each for the baudsof Kin-kash

and Meu-

o-quet; in township33 north, ranges5

and

6 east,

bounded

onthe

map by

crimsonlines.

No.45.

Ten

sections forthe

baud

ofChe-chaw-kose; intownship 32 north,rauge 4east, designated

by

scarletlines.

No.46. Sixteen sections for the bands of

Ash-kum and

Wee-si- o-uas; intownships 28

and

29 north, range4 east,

bounded

onthe

map

by a dotted black line, and overlappingNo. 28.

No.47. Five sections for the

band

of Wee-sau; in township 28 north, rauge 4 east, adjoining No. 46,

bounded

on the

map by

a dotted blackline,

and

overlappingNos. 19

and

28.

A

cession forthe second time^isalso

made by

this treatyof thefour sections reservedforthe

band

of

Mota

(No.35),bythetreaty ofOctober

27,1832.

Nos. 48to 52,inclusive. Cessions of

November

6, 183S,

by

theMiamis, as follows

:

No.48.-

A

portion of the "BigReserve," in townsliips25,26,and

262

CESSIONS

OF LAND BY

INDIAN TRIBES.

27 north, ranges 2, 3,4, 5, 6, and 7 east,

bounded

on the

map by

crimson lines, within the limitsof which'isreserved atractfor the

band

of Meto-sin-ia,

numbered

54.

No.^49.

The

reservation

by

thetreatyof1818,onthe

Wabash

Eiver, below the forks thereof; intownships 27

and

28north,ranges 8 and 9 east,

bounded

on the

map by

scarlet lines.

No.50.

The

remainderofthetractreserved

by

thetreatyof1818, opposite the

mouth

of Abouette Eiver; in townships 28

and

29 north, ranges 10, 11,

and

12 east, denoted

by

crimson lines.

No. 51.

The

reserve

by

the treaty of 1818 at the

mouth

of Flat

Bock

Creek; in township 27north, ranges 10

and

11 east,

bounded

on the

map by

crimson lines.

No.52.

The

reserve at Seek's Village

by

the treatyof 1S2G; in townships31

aud

32north,ranges 9

and

10east,

marked

byyellow lines.

No.53. Cession of

November

28, 1840, ofthe residue of the

"Big

Ee- serve" (except the grantto Me-to-siu-ia's

baud

No.54); in townships21 to26 north, ranges 2to 7 east, designated

by

yellow lines.

No. 54.

By

the

Miami

treaty of

November

0, 1838, a reserve of ten milessquare

was made

(outof the general cession) forthe

baud

of Me-

to-sin-ia.

By

thetreatyof

November

28,1840,theUnitedStatesagreed toconvey this tract to Me-shing-go-me-sia, sou of Me-to-siu-ia, in trust for theband.

By

^{act of Congress} approved

June

10, 1872, this reserve

was

par- titioned

among

the

members

of the band, 03 in number,

and

patents issuedto each of

them

for his orher share. Itis in townships 25

aud

26north,ranges

and

7 east,

and

is

bounded

onthe

map by

green lines.

This ended all Indiantribal titleto lands within the State of Indiana.

The

results to accrue fromthe researchescontemplated underthe 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th subdivisions of the

work

suggested havealreadybeen outlined with sufficient clearness,

and

need not be furtherelaborated here.

A

^{source of}

^much

^{delay iuthe collectionoffacts essentialtothecom-}

pletionofthe

work

is theapparentindifference oflibrarians and others inrespondingto letters ofinquiry. Some, however, haveentered most zealouslyand intelligentlyintothe

work

ofsearching

musty

records

aud

interviewing the traditional "oldest inhabitant"forlighton thesedark spots.

Thanks

areespecially due ^{in this} regardtoHon.

Johu

M. Lea, Nashville, Tenn.^; William Hardeu, librarian State Historical Society, Savannah, Ga.^; K. A. Liuderfelt, librarian Public Library, Milwaukee, Wis.; Dr.

John

A. Eice,Merton,Wis.; Hon.

John Wentworth,

Chicago,

111.; A. Cheesebrough and Hon. J. N. Campbell, of Detroit, Mich.; D.

S. Dnrrie,librarian StateHistorical Society,Madison, Wis.^; H. M. Eob- inson, Milwaukee, Wis.;

Andrew

Jackson, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.; A.

W.

Bush, Palmyra, Mo.; H. C.Campbell,Centreville, Mich., andothers.