The American Indian Policy in the Upper Old Northwest Following the War of1812

W. Sheridan Warrick

Ethnohistory, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Spring, 1956), pp. 109-125.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1801%28195621%293%3A2%3C109%3ATAIPIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Ethnohistory is currently published by Duke University Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/duke.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.orgSat Dec 8 11:30:01 2007

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1801%28195621%293%3A2%3C109%3ATAIPIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Hhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/duke.html

----

THE Ah4ERICAN INDIAN POLICY IN THE UPPER OLD NORTHWEST

FOLLOWING THE WAR OF 1812

W. Sheridan Warr ick

University of California at Davis

The year 1815 marked a turning point in American Indian af-

f a i r s i n the Upper Old Northwest. P r i o r to the War of 1812, despite

the occupation of Michilimackinac, the United States government

evinced only minor in teres t in the g r e a t Indian t r ibes of the Upper

Grea t Lakes and the Upper Mississippi. Br i t i sh influence among

the natives remained virtually unchallenged.' After the War the

situation changed radically. The t r ibes assumed added importance

in the minds of public officials, and a s a consequence a n impress ive

campaign was begun to bring the Indians f i rmly under nationql control.

The principal cause of the change was the W a r itself. Through-

out the period of hostilities Canadian t r a d e r s and Bri t i sh troops s ta-

foned a t the Upper Lake border posts, anxious to thrus t back the

boundaries of the United States and gain a fur monopoly, had waged

a war of conquest. That they succeeded was only too evident a t the

War 's conclusion. By late 1814, a s a resu l t of the cooperation of north-

e r n war r io r s , much of the Upper Northwest was under Bri t i sh rule.

Both Michilimackinac and P r a i r i e du Chien were occupied by Bri t i sh

t roops , and Canadian fur companies controlled the Indian trade.'

C lea r ly the Bri t i sh influence among the natives had paid r i ch dividends.

The foundation of the new policy was laid at Ghent. There by

signing a treaty which provided for the res tora t ion of peace upon the

bas i s of the status quo ante bellum, the American commissioners won

a significant victory. Br i t i sh demands for the creation of an Indian

buffer zone and the dras t ic revision of the international boundary

west of Lake Superior were repulsed, and Bri t i sh recognition of

109

110 Ethnohistory

American jurisdiction over the conquered region was secured.

Moreover, because the t r ea ty was si lent on Art ic le I11 of Jay 's

Treaty , a measure which the Downing S t ree t envoys had been anx-

ious to revive, the way was paved for eliminating the gains of the

Canadian fur i n t e r e ~ t s . ~

Seeking not to repeat the e r r o r s of the prewar yea r s , the

United States War Department dispatched troops into the Indian

country during 1815 and 1816 to re-occupy posts evacuated by the

Br i t i sh , and to e rec t a chain of fo r t s f r o m Lake Michigan to the

Upper Missis sippi. Indian agencies were established, and in some

locali t ies there were placed government trading houses. The du-

t ies of the various persons associated with the outposts differed,

but in the main each was concerned with the problem of Brit ish in-

fluence. Soldiers were to s e r v e a s symbols of national power and

to provide for the defense of the f ront ier . F a c t o r s were to t r ade

goods to the Indians at cost, and thereby provide a more a t t rac t ive

pr.ice for the natives' fu r s than could be offered by Brit ish traders.*

Indian agents were to inform t r ibesmen that the pas t was forgotten,

to provide assurances that the nation's intentions were peaceful,

and to distr ibute presents in o r d e r to win the Indians' friendship.5

Congress, thoroughly imbued with the postwar spi r i t of

nationalism, gave i t s support to the offensive. In April of 1816 an

Act was passed without opposition which stated that *l icenses to

t r ade with the Indians within the t e r r i t o r i a l l imi ts of the United

Sta tes shall not be granted to any but ci t izens of the United States,

unless by the express direction of the P r e s i d e n t . . ." The Act de- c l a r e d forfeited al l merchandise in the hands of foreigners, and

forbade fore igners to be in the Indian country without passpor ts ob-

tained f rom authorized persons.6 The purpose of the Act was obvious.

Indians residing upon American soil were to be separated f rom the

Br i t i sh t r a d e r s responsible for persuading them to espouse the

Br i t i sh cause during the War.

Having launched i t s p rogram the United States immediately

encountered thorny problems. Most troublesome was the pract ice

pursued by members of the Canadian Indian Department stationed a t

Upper Old Northwest 111

Drummond Island and F o r t Malden. Reluctant to sever t ies with

tr ibes over which they had long exer ted a powerful influence, the

Canadians renewed the ancient Brit ish policy of distributing

presents to Indians that visi ted their posts f r o m the United states. '

The strategy was effective. Jus t a s they had done before and dur -

ing the War American Indians i n large numbers flocked each surn-

mer to the Canadian agencies f rom al l pa r t s of the Northwest in

order to join Canadian wards in receiving such gifts a s blankets,

calico cloth, s t rouds , ribbons, thread, needles, sc i s sors , twine,

fish, fishing line, kett les, knives, flints, gun powder, and tobacco.

The resumption of the Bri t i sh pract ice great ly annoyed

frontier officials. Governor Lewis Cass , ex officio Michigan Super-

intendent of Indian Affairs, instructed Indian agents to observe the

movements of the Indians carefully, ' and when i t became apparent

that the number of Amer ican vis i tors a t the Brit ish posts was in-

creasing annually he indignantly informed the War Department

that strong m e a s u r e s would have to be undertaken to have the v i s i t s

terminated. "An influence, " declared Cass i n 1819,

i s acquired and p r e s e r v e d over the minds of the Indians, to

be exerted a s future c i rcumstances may require.

I s i t compatible with the honour of the in teres t of the

United States, that a foreign power should thus subsidize a

body of people living within our jurisdiction? That by a t imely

and provident distr ibution of necessa ry a r t i c les to these

savages, they should p r e p a r e and keep them prepared for

such fearful consequences a s accompany Indian hosti l i t ies ?

It i s perfectly fa rc ica l to ass ign any philanthropick motive

for this conduct . . . . . . . . The Indians a r e kept in a state of fever ish ex-

citement. Their minds a r e embittered and poisoned towards

us. They a r e taught by precept and by habit to look to the

agents of a foreign Government for counsel and protection.

The sound and humane policy of the United States towards

them, and the efforts which we a r e making to meliorate

their condition and to bring them within the pale of civil iza-

tion a r e rendered f ru i t l e ss . l o

As a resu l t of the Cass le t ter a fo rmal note was dispatched

to London in late 1819 by the United States State Department request -

ing that Brit ish authorit ies in Canada be o rdered to "supercede for

the future ' their re la t ions with the Northwe s t natives. Enclosed

112 Ethnohistory

with the note were the Cass charges and various supporting affi-

davits." The request , however, had very little impact upon the

existing situation. The Bri t i sh Colonial office turned the matter

over to Canadian officials for investigation, and they, in turn, con-

cluded that the C a s s complaints were unfounded and the c i rcum-

s tances great ly exaggerated. The Canadians agreed to follow the

Colonial Office's instructions to reduce expenditures upon presents ,

but could see no h a r m in exchanging what were t e rmed friendly

civil i t ies with old friends."

The federal adminis t ra tors a lso encountered difficulties

in the i r efforts to Americanize the fur trade. L e s s than two weeks

after the passage of the Act aimed a t excluding Bri t i sh t raders ,

Secretary William H. Crawford of the War Department informed

Governor C a s s and the Upper Lake Indian agents that i t would be

necessa ry for the t ime being to continue to pe rmi t foreigners to

conduct their business upon American soil. Such a decision was

deemed expedient, explained Crawford, for one bas ic reason. With-

out the t r ade of the Bri t i sh the Indians would be cut off f rom '. . . the regular supply of those ar t ic les , which thei r wants and habits

.. . rendered indispensable, " and, unfortunately, few enterprising cit izens were yet available in the Northwest to replace the foreign-

e r s . Nor did the Secre ta ry consider the Indian factors adequate

to mee t the task. T h e fund hitherto employed by the government

for this object ," he declared, "is wholly incompetent . . ." There-fore, in o rder to protect the Indians' welfare, and also tokeep them

tranquil, Crawford temporar i ly softened the government's offensive

by empowering the Indian agents to l icense a l l foreign applicants

whose c h a r a c t e r s were deemed 'above suspicion" and who could

be re l ied upon to observe the national trading regulations.13

Immediately thereaf ter the War Department became active

in encouraging in teres ted Americans to take charge of the trade.

This was sufficiently demonstrated in e a r l y June of 1816 when George

Graham, the chief c lerk , addressed a joint le t ter to the commanding

officer and the Indian agent a t Michilimackinac relating that "Mr.

John Jacob As tor of New-York, has engaged extensively in the Indian

Upper Old Northwest 113

trade, and has appointed his agent. I a m directed by the Secre ta ry

of War," declared Graham,'to request , that you will give to these

gentlemen every possible facility and aid in the prosecution of thei r

business, that may be compatible with your public duties.""

The War Department's o r d e r s were greeted with conster-

=ation upon the frontier . Astor a t the t ime was s t i l l a par tner in

the South West F u r Company of Montreal, and i t did not appear

that there was much to be gained f rom promoting his in teres ts .

William H. Puthuff, Michilimackinac agent, r a i s e d the question as

to what procedure should be followed if an American cit izen a l so

applied for a l icense to trade within the Upper Lake country. Should

the Bri t i sh t r a d e r s employed by the South West F u r Company then

be permitted to obtain l icenses for the s a m e distr ict? ' The prob-

l em was r e f e r r e d by Puthuff to C a s s through Ramsay Crooks,

Astor ' s chief assistant . Cass, although opposed to the entry of any

fore igners into the Indian country,16 promptly repl ied that i t was

not the duty of the frontier adminis t ra tors to question whether o r

not the government policy was "wise o r politick. . ."In the execution of the t r u s t resposed in us, we have nothing to. do, but to asce r ta in

a s nearly a s possible the views and objects of the Government, and

c a r r y them into effect." He instructed Puth-uff to consider appli-

cazts for l icenses only on the bas i s of their personal character and

conduct."

During 1817 the government's o r d e r s with r e g a r d to the

Bri t i sh t r a d e r s remained in effect with only the qualification that

Licenses be i s sued for periods not exceeding twelve months.18 Astor ,

in the meantime, taking advantage of the 1816 act, bought out his

Canadian par tne rs in the South West F u r Company and reorganized

his in te res t s i n the American F u r ~ o m ~ a n ~ . ' ~ Thereupon the War

Department re i t e ra ted i t s support of Astor in a l e t t e r to Cass , who,

in turn, instructed Puthuff that Ramsay Crooks, Astor 's Michili-

mackinac ass is tant , ". . . should have the selection of such p e r s o n s to enter the Indian country and conduct the business a s he may r e -

quire." = Such instructions to Puthuff were deemed necessa ry for the Indian agent, utilizing his d iscre t ionary power to re jec t Canadian

114 Ethnohistory

applicants not *above suspicion, " had discriminated against As tor

employees.2'

In 1818 the p rac t i ce of licensing Bri t i sh t r aders finally

came to an end. The War Department proclaimed the Pres iden t ' s

intention of enforcing the 1816 exclusion law and instructed Indian

agents to i s sue trading p e r m i t s only to American citizens. The

decision undoubtedly ref lec ted the Department 's favorable reaction

to As to r ' s negotiation concerning the South West Fur Company.

With a reorganized Amer ican F u r Company ready to supply the

wants of the Indians t h e r e no longer prevailed the need to r e l y upon

the t r ade of fore igners . Not long af ter , however, John C. Calhoun,

the new S e c r e t a r y of War, fel t obliged to make a slight modification

in the o rde r . Recognizing the important ro le played in the fur t r ade

by such pe r sons a s the French-Canadian voyageurs, Calhoun directed

that American t r a d e r s could employ foreign boatmen and in te rp re t -

e r s 'as a s s i s t a n t s n i f they were proper ly bonded. A rigid s e t of

requirements was p r e s c r i b e d to prevent abuses of the privilege, and

the ru le was laid down that "for each foreign in terpre ter , an Arneri-

can ci t izen mus t be employed in o rde r to be trained in the duties of

an in te rp re te r ."22

The directive of 1818 remained in force for many yea rs . One

of i t s important r e s u l t s was the naturalization of British-born t r a d e r s

who had res ided in the Upper Northwest since the t ime of Jay's

Trea ty (1794). A t e s t case , a r i s ing f rom the rejection of a Green

Bay t r a d e r ' s application to en te r the Indian country in behalf of the

American F u r Company, occur red i n 1819, and in a judgment r en-

dered by the United Sta tes Attorney General the individual was de-

c l a red not to be a c i t izen by vi r tue of his fai lure to take an oath of

allegiance to the nation in a c c o r d with the opportunities presented by

Art ic le I1 of Jay 's T r e a t y and subsequent ac t s of Soon

thereaf ter numerous f ront ier res idents of Brit ish origin applied for

and obtained ci t izenship papers which enabled them to continue en-

gaging i n the Amer ican fur business.=

The enforcement of the 1816 exclusion law was effective

but i t did not al lay Northwestern fears . During the summer of 1826

Upper Old Northwest 115

while conducting the f i r s t postwar expedition through the Upper

Lakes wilderness, Governor C a s s reported that

the farther I penetrate into the Country, the more apparent

a r e the effects produced upon the feelings of the Indians by

prodigal i s sues of presents to them at the Bri t i sh posts of

Malden and Drummonds Island . . .There will be neither

permanent peace nor reasonable security u on this frontier ,

until this in tercourse i s wholly prevented. 22'

Intensifying the governor 's apprehensions was an incident that oc-

curred during his expedition's visi t to the Chippewa community a t

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. There, amidst treaty negotiations fo r

a small t r ac t of mili tary land overlooking the Canadian shore of

the St. Marys River, a sullen war r io r , dressed in the r e d coat of

a British officer, suddenly endeavored to precipitate a clash be-

tween the negotiating par t ies by savagely thrusting a war lance into

the council gro-d, kicking away proffered presents , and defiantly

displaying ttie Brit ish flag. Only the peaceable intervention of a n

influential t r ader ' s wife, the daughter of a Xs to r ic Chippewa chief,

prevented b l ~ o d s h e d . ' ~

To combat the problem of presents Cass formulated a

comprehensive plan which was approved by the Pres ident and

placed in operation throughout the Michigan Superintendency in

1822. It called upon the Indian agents to make a concerted effort

to interdict the visi ts of the Upper Lake Indians to the Bri t i sh

posts by means of a peaceful policy of persuasion and admonition.

'The Government is anxious," asse r ted the governor, "to obtain

the object by mild, not forcible means." No dras t ic measures were

to be employed which would either produce excitement among the

various northern t r ibes o r s e r v e to s t ra in American diplomatic

relations with Canada." Accordingly, each agent was instructed

to deliver ta lks a t regular in tervals and opporbne moments t o his

wards conveying the Pres ident ' s dispieasure toward the activit ies

beyond the border and explaining why Indian relations with the

British served neither tr ibal in te res t s nor those of the nation. The

practice was to be adopted of refusing presents and tHe se rv ices of

the blacksmith shops a t the American agencies to natives who fa i led

116 Ethnohistory

to heed the Pres ident ' s advice, and a l l r eca lc i t r an t s were to be in-

formed that they could not be considered fr iends of the United s t a t e ~ . ~ @

Enclosed with the instructions was a speech writ ten by Cass but

carefully edited by John C. Calhoun which the agents were directed

to t r ansmi t to the various villages within thei r jurisdiction. The

speech embodied the basic government view regarding the visits,

and was couched in language meaningful to the Indian:

. . . When you leave your own Country and p a s s into a T e r r i -

tory, not governed by our laws, s t o r i e s a r e told you, which

a r e calculated to make an unfavorable impress ion upon your

minds, towards your American b re th ren . . . When you leave

the United States, persons a r e ready to whisper into your

e a r s . Like bad bi rds they a r e flitting about you, telling false

s t c r i e s of us , p ~ i s ~ f i n g yoGr minds, and giving advice injuri-

ous to you and us. . . . It i s certain, that the design of the Br i t i sh agents in

furnishing you with goods i s not f r o m any fr iendly feeling to-

wards you, o r for your benefit, but to acquire over you for

political purposes an influence, which m a y be wielded here-

a f ter a s c i rcumstances o r policy may dictate.29

Cass hoped to achieve success with his p r o g r a m within th ree

or four years , but f rom the moment of inception i t was doomed to

failure. Few Indians were willing to abandon the opportunity to ob-

tain supplies which had become a lmost indispensable to thei r com-

fortable existence when the Indian agents threatened only with word^.^ Moreover, any chance that the government might inc rease i t s own

i s sues of p resen t s i n o rde r to provide the natives with an equivalent

for what they might relinquish a t the Br i t i sh posts was los t when

Congress launched a policy of financial retrenchment. Annual ap-

propriat ions fo r Indian affa i rs throughout the nation were slashed by

fifty p e r cent in 1821, and Upper Northwest agencies had their funds

cut proportionately.31 Henry Schoolcraft, noted Chippewa agent, r e -

quested $ 3,000 for p resen t s on the bas i s of the Cass plan in 1823

but received only $700. During the decade that followed the situation

did not improve. The annual allowance fo r gifts a t Schoolcraft 's

office averaged between $500 and $700, and i n 1829, a year of se r ious

retrenchment, the f igure fell to $ 2 0 0 . ~ ~ In a determined effort to

bolster the C a s s campaign Schoolcraft induced the War Department

Upper Old Northwest 117

to authorize the agents to resume the historic policy of endeavoring

to fos te r Indian loyalties by awarding medals and flags to influential

chieftains, a pract ice long pursued by the Bri t i sh and which had been

previously employed e lsewhere with qualified success , but such

activity was of l i t t le avail.33 Throughout the eighteen-twenties Upper

Lake t r ibesmen continued to flock to the Canadian garr isons for

gifts. " The Indians' pers is tence affected administrat ive thinking

with regard to the Northwest liquor traffic. In 1823 when the Ameri-

can F u r Company extended i t s operations from the western shores

of Lake Super ior to the Lake of the Woods and i n so doing encoun-

t e r e d stiff border competition f rom the Hudson's Bay Company,

Governor Cass , although a confirmed temperance advocate, per-

suaded his s u p e r i o r s i n Washington to use their discretionary power

under the t e r m s of the 1822 Indian affairs act to allow Astor t r a d e r s

to b a r t e r l imi ted quantities of whiskey among the northern Minnesota

C a s s was prompted t o take such a s tep by Robert

Stuar t , Ame r i can F u r Company manager a t Mackinac, who contended

that the Company could not otherwise succeed in the border country,

s ince the Hudson's Bay people dispensed liquor lavishly, and that

Company abandonment of the region would resu l t in a definite streng-

thening of Canadian influence among the Indians, both commercially

and p ~ l i t i c a l l y . ~ ~ Anxious to expand the American sphere of control,

the government allowed the Company to retain the liquor privilege

until 1827. La te r , during 1831 and 1832, following additional com-

plaints agains t Hudson's Bay Company encroachments, i t was tem-

pora r i ly renewed.37

With the passage of time, the problem of Brit ish influence

i n the Northwest declined in importance. The f i r s t event which

se rved to e a s e tension occur red in 1828 when the Canadians, acting

in conformity with the International Boundary Commission's decision

awarding Drummond Island to the United States, withdrew from the

Michilim'ackinacSt. Marys River d is t r ic t and reestablished their

Upper Lake Indian post a t Penetanguishene, near ly two hundred

mi les to the e a s t of Michigan Ter r i to ry in Georgian Bay. Since the

11 8 Ethnohistory

post might easily have been t rans fe r red to another s i te along the

international border the move was viewed by American adminis t ra-

t o r s a s a peaceful gesture.38 A second determining factor developed

two years la ter when the administrat ion of Canadian Indian Affairs

was withdrawn f r o m the hands of the Canadian a r m y and placed un-

d e r civilian control.39 This s tep weakened the belief that the Indians'

friendship was being cultivated for Canadian mili tary advantage in

future wars, and a s a resu l t fewer and fewer repor ts were dispatched

to Washington describing Indian pilgrimages to Upper Canada, al-

though Canadian records reveal that near ly a s many Michigan Indians

visited Penetanguishene i n the ea r ly eighteen-thirties a s had visited

Drummond Island during the t ~ e n t i e s . ~ ' It i s significant to note, how-

ever , that the United States government did not abandon in te res t in

rhe probiem. In the Reorganization Act of 1834, w-hch led to dras t ic reductions in federal Indian expenditures, Congress specifically pro-

vided for the continuation of annual distributions of goods to *fr:end-

l y Indiansw residing about Lake Superior and the headwaters of the

iss i s s i ~ ~ ~ i . ~ '

One final outburst of agitation concerning the Indian ques-

tion occur red during the period of the Pa t r io t War in Upper Canada.

Aroused by rumours of unusually large conclaves of American wards

a t Br i t i sh s i t e s in nor thern Lake ~ u r o n , ~ ' the United States House of

Representatives requested on March 19, 1838, and obtained f rom the

Secre ta ry of War on January 22, 1839, a comprehensive statement

of information respecting the Bri t i sh pract ice of giving presents .

The repor t was based upon investigations conducted by Michigan

Indian agents, and revealed that the Upper Canadian distribution

centers had been t rans fe r red f r o m Penetanguishene and Malden to

a newly established Indian colonization project on the Great Mani-

toulin Island. It a l so disclosed the fact that due to Par l i amenta ry

demands for reductions in colonial Indian expenses the Canadian

authorit ies had decided to terminate the distribution of gifts to visi t-

ing American Indians in the summer of 1839, and that all United

States visi tors had been forewarned of such a change i n policy since

1837. Lastly, it was re la ted that Michigan officials general ly a t t r i -

Upper Old Northwest 119

buted the practice of giving presents , not to the d i rec t o r d e r s of the

Brit ish government, but to overzealous subordinates on the Upper

Lake f r ~ n t i e r . ' ~

Encouraged by the Secre ta ry of War 's findings the Wash-

ington legislators made no effort in the spring of 1839 to adopt a

new course of action toward the pilgrimages. Shortly thereaf ter ,

however, additional repor ts were received in the capital to the ef-

fect that Canadian officials and Brit ish humanitarians had taken i t

upon themselves to invite Michigan Indians to join the Manitoulin

colony permanently, and that a few hundred Chippewas, Ottawas,

Potawatomies, and Menorninees had responded to the invitation.

'Something like a panic was created among the bands along lake

[s ic] Huron and Michigan," declared Henry Schoolcraft, the Acting

Michigan Superintendent,

by a report , which is to be t raced a c r o s s the lines, that the United States intended, this season, to send steamboats, and take them off, by force , to the west of the ~ i s s i s s i ~ ~ i . ~

This turn of events caused the House of Representa t ives to

request and obtain a second explanatory repor t f r o m the War De-

partment in the spring of 1840." Four months l a te r when i t became

known that the Canadians had again awarded gifts to Amer ican vis-

i t o r s at their annual summer convocation the national Indian Corn-

missioner, T. Hartley Crawford, recommended that the State De-

partment direct an appeal for remedying the problem to Br i t i sh of-

f icials in r on don.^^ On the Northwest frontier , in the meantime, Henry Schoolcraft announced that a l l Indians taking up res idence i n

the Manitoulins would have to forfeit their s h a r e s of the annuit ies

provided for in the Chippewa and Ottawa t rea t i es of 1836 and 1837,

and advised Major General Winfield Scott to s t rengthen the Upper

Lake defense for the mora l effect that i t would create." F e d e r a l

authorities had concluded that the Canadian activit ies not only en-

dangered national secur i ty but a l so posed a se r ious threat to the

intended removal p rogram for the lower Michigan peninsula.48

The summer of 1840, however, represented the peak in

the cr is is . During the following winter the Secre ta ry of State, John

120 Ethnohistory

Forsyth, re jected the Indian Commissioner ' s r eques t for a diplo-

mat ic appeal to the Bri t i sh government.49 Not long thereaf ter i t was

learned that many of the emigrant Indians had re turned to their

f o r m e r homes in Michigan, having found the Manitoulin environ-

ment unattractive.'' Two y e a r s la ter the Upper Canadian Indian

Department renewed i t s pledge not to i s sue p resen t s to visi tors

f r o m the United States. A few s t ragg le r s continued to make t reks

a c r o s s the border in ensuing seasons, but whatever satisfaction

they may have derived f rom such journies ended i n 1852 when the

Canadian government abandoned the pract ice of distributing presents

to i t s own wards.'' The problem of foreign intermeddling was a t

l a s t permanently dead.

The postwar struggle against Br i t i sh influence in the Upper

Old Northwest constitutes a significant chapter i n the history of

American Indian affairs . In bringing that s to ry to a conclusion

cer ta in points need to be s t ressed . F i r s t ly , federal adminis t ra tors

considered the nature of the foreign problem to be much more

ser ious than i s generally believed. This was par t icular ly true dur-

ing the y e a r s f rom 1815 to 1 8 2 8 . ~ ~ Secondly, the governmental view-

point helps to explain why various, seemingly unusual concessions

were made to John Jacob Astor ' s American F u r Company. There

can be no doubt that such men a s William H. Crawford and Lewis

C a s s viewed the Company a s an important nationalizing force. Third-

ly, credi t i s due the War Department for endorsing a policy to in ter-

dict the vis i t s of the Indians to the Canadian posts which was reason-

able and based upon humanitarian motives. No a t tempt was made to

re ly upon the mil i tary power of the United Sta tes a r m y . Finally, to

Congress mus t be at tr ibuted the fai lure of that policy to p rogress

satisfactori ly. By not appropriating funds sufficient to ca re for the

needs of the nor thern Indians the legis la tors g rea t ly hampered the

effectiveness of the Indian agents.

Upper Old Northwest

Notes

1. Reuben Gold Thwaites (ed.), The Fur -Trade in Wiscon- s in 1812-1825 (Wisconsin State Historical Society Collections, vol. 20, 1911) pp. xi-xiii.

2. Julius W. P r a t t , F u r Trade Stra tegy and the American Lef t Flank i n the War of 1812 (American His tor ica l Review, vol. 40, January, 1935, pp. 236-271).

3. Char les M. Gates, The West i n Amer ican Diplomacy, 1812-1815 (Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 26, March, 1940) pp. 499-510.

4. Edgar Bruce Wesley, Guarding the Fron t i e r : A Study of Front ier Defense f r o m 1815 to 1825 (Univers i ty of Minnesota P r e s s , 1935), pp. 4, 31-46, 118-122; Henry Putney Beers , The Western Mili- t a r y Front ier (Philadelphia, 1935) pp. 24-36.

5. Lewis Cass to William H. Puthuff, August 19, 1815, The Ter r i to r i a l P a p e r s of the United States; vol. 10, The T e r r i t o r y of Michigan, 1805-1820, ed. by Clarence E. C a r t e r (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1942) pp. 588-589. The C a r t e r volumes

will hereaf ter be cited a s Ter r i to r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan.

6. U. S. Statutes a t Large , vol. 3, pp. 332-333.

7. David E. Moore, Canada and the United States, 1815-1825

(Chicago: P r e s s of Jennings and Graham, 1910), pp. 14-15, 50-52.

8. Joseph Greuse l (ed.), Copies of P a p e r s on File in the Dominion Archives of Ottawa, Canada, Per ta in ing to the Relations of'the Br i t i sh Government with the United States during and Sub- sequent to the Per iod of the War of 1812 (Michigan Pioneer and His tor ica l Society Collections, vol. 16, 1890), pp. 528, 600, 653-656.

9. Cass to Puthuff, August 19, 1815, C a s s to the Secre ta ry of War, October 27, 1815, and Puthuff to C a s s , June 27, 1816, T e r - r i to r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan, vol. 10, pp. 588-589, 606-608, 654-655; Puthuff to Cass , May 14, 1816, June 20, 1816, August 4, 1816, and August 20, 1817, The Fur-Trade in Wisconsin 1815-1817, ed. by Reuben Gold Thwaites (Wisconsin State Historical Society Collections, vol. 19, 1910) pp. 408-412, 421, 430431, 472-473.

10. C a s s to the Secre ta ry of War, August 3, 1819 (Ter r i to r i a l Papers : Michigan, vol. 10) pp. 854-855.

11. J a m e s M. Callahan, American Fore ign Policy in Canadian Relations (New York: The MacMillan Go., 1937) p. 89; C a s s to the

- -

12 2 Ethnohis tory

S e c r e t a r y of War, October 8, 1819 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan, vol. 10) pp. 867-870.

12. Moore, op. cit., pp. 54- 55.

13. Wil l iam H. Crawford to C a s s , e t al., May 10, 1816 (Wisconsin State H i s t o r i c a l Socie ty Collect ions, vol. 19) pp. 405-

407. 14. George G r a h a m to Puthuff and the Commanding Officer

a t Michil imackinac, June 5, 1816, g.,vol. 19, p. 414. 15. Puthuff t o C a s s , Ju ly 12, 1816, G.,vol. 19, pp. 425-

42 8.

16. C a s s to the S e c r e t a r y of War, November 29, 1816 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan, vol. 10) p. 672.

17. C a s s to Puthuff, Ju ly 20, 1816 (Wisconsin Sta te His tor ica l Socie ty Collect ions, vol. 19) pp. 427-428.

18. G r a h a m to C a s s , October 29, 1816 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan, vol. 10) pp. 667-668.

19. Kenneth W. P o r t e r , John Jacob As to r : Bus ines s Man, (Cambridge: H a r v a r d Un ive r s i ty P r e s s , 1931) vol. 2, pp. 699-701.

20. G r a h a m to C a s s , May 4, 1817, and C a s s to Puthuff, June 8, 1817 (Wiscons in State H i s t o r i c a l Socie ty Collect ions, vol. 19) pp. 457-458, 460461.

2 1. Thomas L. McKenney to Graham, Sep tember 30, 1817,

-ibid., vol. 19, pp. 481-482; R a m s a y Crooks and R o b e r t S t u a r t to As to r , J anua ry 24, 1818, G.,vol. 20, pp. 17-26; Crooks to Cass , May 29, 1818 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s ; Michigan, vol. 10) pp. 760-762.

22. John C. Calhoun to C a s s , March 25, 1818, s.,vol. 10, pp. 738-739; C a s s to t he agen t s a t Michil imackinac, G r e e n Bay, and Chicago, Apri l 23, 1818 (Wiscons in Sta te H i s t o r i c a l Socie ty Collec- t ions, vol. 20) pp. 4 2 4 7 .

23. Willialr. Wi r t to Calhoun, Sep tember 3, 1819, Calhoun to C a s s , September 6, 1819, and R o b e r t S tuar t to C a s s , November 13, 1819, ibid., - vol. 20, pp. 121-123, 135-136.

24. Natura l iza t ion P a p e r s , 1820, w.,pp. 177-179. See a l s o n37, p. 177; Wil l iam Wat ts Folwell , A His tory of Minnesota, (St. P a u l : Minnesota H i s t o r i c a l Society, 19211, vol. 1, p. 133.

25. C a s s t o Calhoun, June 17, 1820 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan, vol. 111 p. 37.

Upper Old Nor thwest 12 3

26. Henry R. Schoolcraft , Na r ra t ive Jou rna l of T rave l s , ed. b y Mentor L. Wil l iams ( E a s t Lansing: Michigan Sta te College P r e s s , 1953) pp. 97-100, 468-469, 506-508.

27. John Quincy Adams, the S e c r e t a r y of State , favored s o m e s o r t of diplomatic dec lara t ion of intention to the Br i t i sh gov- e r n m e n t but such a c o u r s e was not pursued. C h a r l e s F r a n c i s Adams (ed.), M e m o i r s of John Quincy Aaams, (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1875) vol. 5, pp. 411412.

28. C a s s to Calhoun, October 21, 1821, National Archives , Michigan Superintendency of Indian Affairs, L e t t e r s Sent, vol. 3, pp. 323-334; Calhoun to C a s s , F e b r u a r y 11, 1822 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan, vol. 11) pp. 224-225; C a s s to George Boyd, Apr i l 7, 1822 (Wisconsin Sta te H i s t o r i c a l Society Collect ions) vol. 20, pp. 249-25 3; C a s s to Schoolcraft , National Archives, Sault Ste. Mar i e Agency, A p r i l 7, 1822, L e t t e r s Received,vol . 1, pp. 1-3. I ~ d i a nr e c o r d s i n The National Arch ives will he rea f t e r be r e f e r r e d to by m e a n s of the following abbrevia t ions : BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) ; MSIA (Michigan Superintendency of Indian Affa i rs ) ; MA (Mackinac Agency); SSMA (Sault Ste. M a r i e Agency); LR (Le t t e r s Received); LS ( L e t t e r s Sent).

29. C a s s to Schoolcraft , Apr i l 7, 1822, SSMA, LR, vol. 1, pp. 5-6.

30. C a s s to Calhoun, October 24, 1821, MSIA, LS, vol. 3, p. 330.

31. Calhoun to C a s s , Apri l 2, 1821, MSIA, LR, vol. 3, p. 112; C a s s to Calhoun, May 4, 1821, MSIA, LS, vol. 3, pp. 292-296.

32. C a s s to Schoolcraft , Apri l 29, 1823, Ju ly 2, 1824, July 22, 1824, June 8, 1825, and Apr i l 10, 1826, SSMA, LR, vol. 1, pp. 69-71, 189, 205, 417-419; C a s s to Schoolcraft, Apr i l 9, 1827, SSMA, LR, vol. 2, pp. 69-70; C a s s to Schoolcraft , Apri l 23, 1829, .Apri l 15, 1830, and June 2, 1831, SSMA, LR, vol. 3, pp. 61-64, 149-150, 258-259; P o r t e r to Schoolcraft , Sep tember 22, 1831, SSMA, LR, vol. 3, pp. 306.

3 3 . The W a r Depar tment had not d is t r ibuted m e d a l s i n the Northwest s ince 1814. C a s s to McKenney, F e b r u a r y 14, 1825, BIA, LR (1824-1825), Michigan; Grace Lee Nute, Indian Medals and Cer t i f i ca t e s (Minnesota History, vol. 25, September , 1944), pp. 265- 270; Schoolcraf t to Calhoun, J anua ry 18, 1825, SSMA, LS, p. 82; McKenney to Schoolcraft , J anua ry 24, 1825, SSMA, LR, vol. 1, p. 275.

34. Michigan P i o n e e r and Hi s to r i ca l Society Collect ions, vol. 23, 1895, p. 151; Det ro i t Gazet te , August 2, 1825, and Ju ly 25, 1826;

124 Ethnohis tory

Duncan C. Scott , Indian Affa i rs , 1763-1841, Canada and I t s P rov inces , ed. by Adam S h o r t t and Ar thu r G. Doughty (Toronto: Glasgow, Brook and Co., 1914) vol. 4, pp. 695, 722-724.

35. C a s s to Schoolcraft , June 16, 1823, SSMA, LR, vol. 1, pp.

87-89; Calhoun to C a s s , Ju ly 14, 1823, MSIA, LR, vol. 8, pp. 9-11.

36. R o b e r t S tua r t t o David Stone, M a y 19, 182 3, A m e r i c a n F u r Company P a p e r s , Chicago Hi s to r i ca l Society photos ta ts .

37. McKenney to C a s s , F e b r u a r y 20, 1827 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s . Michigan, vol. 11) p. 1055; C a s s to McKenney, M a r c h 25, 1827, BIA, LR (1827), Chippewa; S tua r t to C a s s , June (n.d.), 1827, MSIA, LR, vol. 15, pp. 689-692; John H. Ea ton to Cass , June 15, 1831 ( T e r r i t o r i a l P a p e r s : Michigan, vol. 12) p. 294; Cass to Schoolcraft , June 27, 1831, and George B. P o r t e r to Schoolcraft , Ju ly 16, 1832, SSMA, LR, vol. 3, pp. 270, 274-275, 450451.

38. A. C. Osborn, The 'Migration of Voyageurs f r o m Drummor. I s land to Penetanguishene i n 1828 (Ontario Hi s to r i ca l Society P a p e r s and Records , 1901) pp. 123-124; Samuel F. Cook, Drummond Island (Lansing: R o b e r t Smi th Pr in t ing Co., 1896) pp. 75-76.

39. Scott , 2.cit., pp. 695, 723, -40. Moore , op. cit., pp. 57-59. -41. U. S. Statutes a t La rge , vol. 4, p. 738; E l b e r t Her r ing to

Stevens T. Mason, Ju ly 12, 1834, MA, LR, vol. 2, pp. 425-428.

42. Schoolcraf t to C. A. H a r r i s , August 29, 1837, BX-4, LR (1838), Michigan, 5-510.

43. T. H a r t l e y Crawford, Lntermeddling with the Indians (House Execut ive Document 107 ( s e r i a l 346), 25 Congres s , 3 Session. See a l s o Schoolcraf t to H a r r i s , October 4, 1838, MSIAMA, LS, vol.1, pp. 567-573.

44. Schoolcraf t to Crawford , June 26, 1839, MSIAMA, LS, vol. 1, pp. 718-719. See a l s o Schoolcraf t to Crawford , F e b r u a r y 26, 1839 (2 l e t t e r s ) , BIA, L R (1839), Saginaw, S-1355 and S-1356.

45. Crawford , Indians on the Northwest F r o n t i e r , House Executive Document 178 ( s e r i a l 366), 26 Congress , 1 Session.

46. C r a w f o r d to J o e l R. Poinse t t , August 25, 1840, BIA, Re- p o r t Book 2, pp. 217-219.

47. Schoolcraf t t o %'infield Scott, Ju ly 2, 1839, MSIAMA, LS, vol. 2, pp. 6-7; Crawford to Schoolcraft , Ju ly 26, 1839, LR, vol. 7,

U p p e r Old Northwest 125

pp. 103-104; Schoolcraft , Annual Repor t , Sep tember 30, 1839, MSIAMA, LS, vol. 2, pp. 133-134.

48. Crawford , Annual R e p o r t of the C o m m i s s i o n e r of Indian Affa i rs , November 38, 1840, Senate Document 1 ( s e r i a l 375), 26 Con- g r e s s , 2 Sess ion , pp. 232-233.

49. S e c r e t a r y of State John F o r s y t h to the P res iden t , Feb- r u a r y 24, 1841, BIA, LR (1841), Misce l laneous , S-1954.

50. Robe r t S tuar t , Annual R e p o r t of the Acting Superintendent of Indian M f a i r s for Michigan, October 18, 1841, House Executive Document 2, ( s e r i a l 401), 27 Congres s , 2 Sess ion , p. 323.

5 1. Crawford, Annual R e p o r t of the Commiss ione r of Indian Affa i rs , November 25, 1843, Senate Document 1 ( s e r i a l 431), 28 Con- g r e s s , 1 Sess ion p. 273, and November 25, 1844, Senate Document 1 ( s e r i a l 499), 28 Congres s , 2 Sess ion , p. 316; Duncan C. Scott, Indian Affa i rs , 1840-1867 ( in Canada and I t s P rov inces , ed. by Adam Short t and A r t h u r G. Doughty, Toronto: Glasgow Brook and Co., 1914) vol. 5, p. 343.

52. Ray A. Billington h a s sugges t ed tha t Br i t i sh influence i n the Nor thwest could be cons ide red dead by 1822. Cf. Westward Ex- pans ion (New York: The MacMillan Go., 1949) p. 291.