Chapter V: Correspondence and Conferences.v-1 (3)

5. The third article of the treaty is intelligible, though it is not clear what "exceptions" were "specified" in Article 1, as recited in Article 3. The purport seems to be that the Sioux should retain right of way in the land, and such other use of it as should not be abridged or nullified by our occupation. At the same time it is not clear that, since the United States were to have "full sovereignty and power," by the terms of Article 1, they were not authorized to withdraw all the privileges of Article 3 if they saw fit to do so.

6. The question of the validity of many legal documents is affected by the presence or absence of witnesses to the same. In the present case no signatures of witnesses appear on the face of the instrument, and there is nothing whatever to show that it is anything more than a part of a speech which Pike made to certain Indians, and which two of them subscribed besides himself. None of the published versions of the "treaty" which I have seen includes this important feature. But one of the manuscript copies before me has the names of four persons as witnesses, all whites. Reference to the second paragraph of Pike's speech will show him to have spoken of "a form of agreement which we will both sign in the presence of the traders now present." Four names which appear on the face of the manuscript copy just mentioned, in the usual place of witnesses' signatures, and under a word which I make out to be "Tests," (_i. e._, _teste_ or _testibus_, in the ablative sing. or pl.) are: Wm. Meyer, M[urdoch] Cameron, James Frazer, Duncan Graham. It is remarkable that, if these names appear on the original document, they were not transcribed on all the copies, and also printed with the published versions, as an integral part of the same.

7. The names of the two chiefs who are supposed to have "touched the quill" to this transaction, _i. e._, signed with their respective marks, occur in variant forms in the several copies; but this is the rule in such cases, and has no significance except of clerical incompetency. In the officially published version above mentioned the two names stand "Le Petit Carbeau" and "Way Aga Enagee," each of which only differs by one letter from the correct form (in the case of the French) or from a usual form (in the case of the Sioux). Each of these chiefs has been already identified: see note 2, p. 85 and p. 86.

The subsequent history of this mock instrument or valid document is not less singular than the conditions and circumstances under which it originated. Diligent search for it among the treaties duly published in the U. S. Statutes at Large fails to show that it was ever included in that collection of official papers. But certain facts were furnished, with the text of the treaty itself, to the Indian Bureau by Mr. C. C. Royce of the Bureau of Ethnology at Washington, and printed by the former Bureau in an editorial note explanatory of that text, on p. 316 of its official publication entitled "Laws of the United States relating to Indian Affairs," etc., Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884. It appears in this place that the treaty (in some form) was submitted by the President to the Senate, March 29th, 1808, thus more than two years after the execution of the instrument in writing; that the Senate reported favorably upon it April 13th, 1808, with the following amendment to fill the blank in Article 2: "After the word 'States' in the second article insert the following words: 'shall, prior to taking possession thereof, pay to the Sioux two thousand dollars, or deliver the value thereof in such goods and merchandise as they shall choose.'" With this amendment the Senate unanimously advised and consented to its ratification, April 16th, 1808. Examination of the records of the State Department fails to disclose that any subsequent action was taken by the President; and the ratification of the treaty does not appear to have ever been proclaimed. This is a very unusual circumstance; for such treaties ordinarily have three official dates of as many stages in their progress from inception to full effect, viz.: date of agreement between the contracting parties; date of ratification by the proper authority; and date of proclamation by the President. In the present case the principal evidence that the alleged cession of lands was ever a legally accomplished fact is said by Mr. Royce to consist in certain correspondence of the War Department more than twenty-five years after the date of ratification of the amended treaty by the Senate. But that the cession was effected, legally or otherwise, is certain. In 1819 Major Thomas Forsyth, Indian Agent at St. Louis, had received instructions from the War Department to deliver "a certain quantity of goods, say $2,000 worth," "in payment of lands ceded by the Sioux Indians to the late Gen. Pike for the United States": see Forsyth's Narrative, as orig. pub. in Wis. Hist. Coll., 1872, with notes by Lyman C. Draper, and repub. in Minn. Hist. Coll., III. 1874, pp. 139-67. Yet we find General H. H. Sibley saying, _ibid._, p. 174: "In the year 1821, Col. Leavenworth called together the chiefs and head men of the Sioux bands, and procured from them a grant of land nine miles square at the junction of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers." What can one make of such conflicting statements? Here it is said that Colonel Leavenworth procured in 1821 a grant of land which Major Forsyth is said to have paid for in 1819, and which Pike is said to have secured in 1805. In the same place General Sibley says that there was an article in the Leavenworth-Sioux treaty of 1821 by which the Indians "donated" Pike's isl. to Mr. J. B. Faribault.

[V-7] "The within articles" are those of the Sioux Treaty of same date, inclosed in this letter to General Wilkinson, which reached St. Louis on or about Nov. 26th, 1805, and was immediately communicated in full to the Secretary of War. A manuscript copy of the original is on file in the Record Division of the War Department, together with two copies of General Wilkinson's own letter to General Dearborn on the same subject and other topics. I might reproduce the manuscript of Pike's letter textually, but as the copy before me is in a clerk's hand, its peculiarities being thus not Pike's own, it is not worth while to replace the above fair imprint of the original with another version which would show no difference except in its clerical errors. See preceding article for a criticism of the treaty itself which formed the inclosure of the present letter. One passage from General Wilkinson's unpublished letter to the Secretary of War may be here cited: "He [Pike] tells me he has no doubt of being able to make Lake Sable in pretty good Season, but observes that the source of the River is in 'Lake Sang Sue,' about sixty Leagues further North & that He must 'see that also'--in which case he will have stretched his orders & we shall not hear of Him before the Spring--He reports that our flag is every where received with pleasure, & that he had patched up a Peace between the Scioux & Chepaways, who are generally at War----"

[V-8] This is the "Original Leve" of p. 85--the chief whose name would be in English Standing Elk or Standing Moose: see note 2, p. 87. Élan is French for such an animal; it is the same word as the Dutch eland, which we have borrowed for a South African species.

[V-9] "Mareir" and "Tremer" are both wrong, no doubt, but I do not know what the right names are. A clerk's copy of the original letter before me has "Mercier" and "Fener"--latter perhaps François Fennai: _cf._ W. H. S. C., XII. p. 160.

[V-10] Article 7 was misplaced in the orig. ed. as No. 16, being brought in at the end of all the rest of the correspondence. I transfer it to its present proper place in chronological sequence of these documents. It requires no comment, being simply the written orders which the commanding officer gave his sergeant for the guidance of the latter during the former's absence, and which Kennerman proceeded to disobey in general and in particular.

[V-11] The first visit of white men to the Mandans was made in 1738, under the leadership of Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, otherwise Le Sieur Verendrye. A relation of this journey, by Rev. Dr. Edward D. Neill, occupies pp. 113-119 of the Macalester College Contributions, Department of History, Literature, and Political Science, Second Series, No. 5, which I extract in substance, as follows:

On Sept. 24th, 1738, Verendrye was at the confluence of the Red River of the North with the Assiniboine r. Two days afterward he began his journey up the latter, and on the 30th, having found a suitable place, he established Fort La Reine. Within a week, Mgr. de La Marque (otherwise Charles Nolan, Noland, or Nolant, son of J. B. Nolan and Marie Anne La Marque, b. 1694), and his brother, Sieur Nolan, with eight men, arrived in two canoes from Mackinac. On Oct. 16th Verendrye selected 10 of his own men and 10 of La Marque's party for the Mandan expedition, and their march began on the 18th. The party consisted of Verendrye, with two of his sons; La Marque and his brother Nolan; together with some voyageurs and Indians--in all 52 persons. On the 21st, at the distance of 26 leagues from Fort La Reine, they reached the first (no doubt Turtle) mountain. After slow marches southwestwardly, the first Mandans were met on the morning of the 28th. A chief came and stood near Verendrye, and one of his band presented corn on the cob and some tobacco. These Indians were only covered with a buffalo-robe, wearing no breech-clout. The Mandan chief requested the French to visit his village, and left on the 30th, accompanied by about 600 Indians. On the evening of the third day's march an Assiniboine, one of a number of this tribe who had already joined the expedition, stole a bag containing Verendrye's papers and other valuables; two men were hired to pursue the thief, and they captured him. On the morning of the fourth day's march camp was broken early in order to reach the Mandan settlement. A short distance from the village they were met on an elevation by a delegation of Mandans, who presented the calumet. Verendrye directed his son, the chevalier, to draw up the French in line, place the flag of France four paces before them, and fire three volleys. At 4 p. m., Dec. 3d, Verendrye and his associates entered the village and were conducted to the lodge of the principal chief, where a bag containing presents, and also 300 livres, was stolen. The Assiniboines were much afraid of the Sioux, from whom they had separated years before, and the Mandans, not wishing to entertain Verendrye's escort, purposely raised a rumor that the Sioux were coming, whereupon the Assiniboines decamped. Verendrye was embarrassed for want of a good interpreter, but learned that on the banks of the Missouri, lower down, were the Pananas, and then the Pananis, at war with each other. Six days after the Assiniboines decamped, Chevalier Verendrye, Sieur Nolan, six Frenchmen, and several Mandans visited a settlement on the bank of the river, and then Sieur Verendrye and Mgr. de La Marque inspected the village. There were 130 cabins. A fort was built on an elevation in the open prairie, surrounded by a ditch about 15 feet deep and from 15 to 18 feet wide. (Compare A. J. Hill's plot of Mandan fortification, in T. H. Lewis' Minor Antiq. Art. No. iv, p. 5, 1884.) The cabins were spacious, separated into several apartments by thick planks, and goods were hung on posts in large bags. The men were naked, covered only with a buffalo robe; the women also, excepting a loose apron about a foot long. On the evening of Dec. 4th Verendrye's son and Nolan came back and reported that the village they had visited was twice as large as that where they were. On Dec. 8th the latitude was taken and found to be 48° 12' N. It was now decided to leave two men to winter with the Mandans to acquire their language, and return with the rest to Fort La Reine. Before they departed the head chief was presented with a flag, and a leaden plate upon which the arms of France were cut. When ready to leave, Verendrye fell sick and could not travel for two or three days. On Dec. 24th, still weak, he reached the Assiniboine village, and was agreeably surprised when the box of papers which had been stolen was returned in good order. On Jan. 9th, 1739, the first height of land between the Missouri and Assiniboine rivers was reached; here Verendrye remained, while La Marque hurried on to Fort La Reine. There he arrived Feb. 1st, and sent back assistance to Verendrye, who reached the post, greatly fatigued, on the 10th of this month. The two voyageurs who had been left with the Mandans returned to the fort Sept. 27th, 1739, with reports representing more fiction than fact.

In 1740 Verendrye visited Canada, and on Oct. 13th, 1741, he returned to Fort La Reine. He afterward established a fifth post called Fort Dauphin at Lac des Prairies, and a sixth, Fort Bourbon, at the mouth of the Poskoyac r. (_i. e._, the Saskatchewan). In April, 1742, the Chevalier Verendrye and his brother left Fort La Reine, and by way of the Mandan village, on a southwestward course, are supposed to have reached the Rocky Mountains in January, 1743. The Sieur Verendrye died Dec. 6th, 1749.

[V-12] "_As they were wont to be_" is a particularly fine rhetorical climax to what our young friend so innocently prides himself on having accomplished. It must have made the most stolid savage of them all smile in his sleeve,--or whatever article of nether apparel he wore,--as there never had been a time in his memory, or in the memories of any of his ancestors as far back as his tribal traditions went in the dim past, when the Sioux and Chippewas were not hereditary foes, who killed and scalped each other with alacrious and comprehensive reciprocity. It is true that in rare sporadic cases, when both sets of red brethren were exhausted in war, or when each found it necessary to let up a little on the other for a chance to hunt in peace for the necessaries of life, temporary truces had been agreed upon. But such spasms were supposed by neither party to last longer than suited the convenience of either; nay, the very councils in which such a peace was patched up sometimes ended in fresh bloodshed on the sacred spot; and the annals of all the Indians of North America might be sifted through and through to discover a more notable case of inveterate, perpetual, and ferocious warfare than is afforded by the hereditary hostility of these two powerful nations. Pike was no doubt sincere and veracious in his representations of the happy results of his peace-making; but his ignorance of the facts in the case must have been complete, or he would have known that such a truce as he effected was sure to be broken as soon as his back was turned--if not sooner. Furthermore, the expediency of interfering with such affairs may reasonably be doubted; for, paradoxical as it may appear, a patched-up peace between tribes whose hostilities are hereditary costs more lives than it saves, and makes more trouble than it prevents. The vigilance of both parties is relaxed, private enterprise replaces public policy, and individual murders multiply rapidly till the normal equilibrium of forces is readjusted by open declaration of the always existent intertribal hostility. War is the necessary and natural state of affairs among savages; it is the main business of their lives, and the principal if not the only means of attaining all that is dearest to their hearts; and it is better for all parties to proceed on that understanding in a straightforward, businesslike way than to bushwhack for surreptitious scalps. Such trophies of prowess must be had in any event and at all hazards; and secret assassinations to secure them represent in the aggregate a higher death-rate than that resulting from pitched battles. Meddling with unmanageable things is never good policy, and interference with intertribal relations of savages is generally inhumane as well as impolitic.

[V-13] The three whose answers to Pike's address are given in this article have already been sufficiently identified: see back, note 7, p. 156, note 10, p. 169, note 13, p. 172. It is amusing to observe the unanimity with which they declined the polite invitation to visit General Wilkinson at St. Louis. Old Sweet's regrets strike me as the most ingenuous. What was the use of his going in person if he sent his pipe? If we send our card to a functionary in acknowledgment of an invitation, is not the etiquette of the occasion accomplished by that civil ceremony? Sucre's suggestion regarding the Sioux of the upper Minnesota r., whose intentions were doubtful, was eminently practical--if they wanted peace, let them so signify in the usual manner. Chef de la Terre seems to have been less resourceful in polite excuses than the other two. He could not go unless Sucre did; but some other day, perhaps, etc. Flat Mouth's remarks were the most astute. His excuse, whether feigned or not, was good; but as to his intention of burying the hatchet so far out of sight that he would let the Sioux strike him even once without digging it up, we may indulge a doubt.

[V-14] This is true in a certain sense. When Pike was on Cass l., at the mouth of Turtle r., Feb. 12th-14th., 1806, he was on a Mississippian water-way of communication with Red r. and so with Hudsonian waters. But this must not be taken to indicate that he ever reached the divide between these waters, still less that he passed to Red r. or Red l. The fact that it has been so taken gives occasion for this note. For the situation at the dates said, see note 8, p. 157.

[V-15] Orig. No. 12, though only entitled, "A speech delivered to the Puants, at the Prairie des Cheins the 20th day of April, 1806," included, besides the speech covered by this heading, various other matters which came up April 21st, in another council with the same Winnebagoes, and furthermore gave a report of a conference with the Sioux, etc. Accordingly, I separate Orig. No. 12 into two articles, making Pike's speech Art. 15, and supplying a new head for Art. 16, to cover the rest of the proceedings at Prairie du Chien.

[V-16] The above paragraph formed no part of the letter to which it is appended, being an explanatory note which Pike added when he was about to print the letter in his book. One reason why the Indians did not get the medals they had been led to expect is evident in the following extract of a letter before me from General Wilkinson to the Secretary of War, dated St. Louis, Dec. 3d, 1805: "The Indians in all directions Clamour for Medals, & it is found policy to present them, but we have not one in the Country, or among the factory Goods--If you send any out let them be addressed to the Superintendant & not the Agent, for many & obvious reasons--the last aims at too much importance & the former may need some."

[V-17] This is the last letter we have from Pike on the subject of the Mississippi voyage. It is, in fact, a letter of transmittal of his official report to the commanding general, and thus a sort of preface or introduction to the whole subject. In two weeks from the date of this communication Pike had started up the Missouri on his second expedition, and of course did nothing further with his Mississippi matters until he had returned from Mexico, the following year. Article 19 therefore completes the batch of miscellaneous documents, chiefly letters, which I have grouped in this chapter of "Correspondence and Conferences." But we have still to deal with four formal articles relating to the Mississippian voyage; these I make the subjects of the following chapters.

[V-18] The reference is here to Captain Meriwether Lewis' Statistical View of the Indian Nations, etc., which formed the second one of five papers accompanying President Jefferson's message to Congress, Feb. 16th, 1806: see L. and C., ed. 1893, p. cviii.

[V-19] Mr. George Anderson, the same who furnished Pike with most of the data he obtained concerning the fur-trade. See next chapter, on the commerce of the Mississippi.