Report Prepared for Organization of Mendota Dakota

[mdenney]

Eligibility under the 1888, 1889, and 1890 Federal
Appropriations for the Mdewakanton Sioux of
Minnesota

A Report Prepared for the Organization of Mendota Dakota
April 2006

Bruce M. White, PhD
Turnstone Historical Research
St. Paul,



Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide guidance in determining eligibility under the
1888, 1889, and 1890 Appropriation Acts for the benefit of the Mdewakanton Sioux
(now usually Dakota) of Minnesota. Although I began work on the specific questions
described in this report in November 2004, when I discussed with individuals of
Mdewakanton Sioux ancestry the October 27, 2004, Court of Claims opinion and order, I
have spent the last 25 years studying American Indian history in Minnesota, as described
in my attached vita. In 1979, while an editor and researcher with the Minnesota Historical
Society, I was sent to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., to select and have
microfilmed a number of Sioux censuses and annuity rolls. I discuss some of those
censuses and rolls, including the McLeod 1886 roll and James McLaughlin’s 1899
census, in this report. In addition, for the past four years, I have been studying the family
histories of a number of Mdewakanton Sioux whose families have been in Minnesota for
hundreds of years and whose direct ancestors were in Minnesota on May 20, 1886. The
opinions I have formed based on my research and review of relevant documents are set
forth in detail below.
The 1888, 1889, and 1890 Appropriation Acts
On June 29, 1888, the U.S. Congress passed an appropriation “for the support of the fullblood
Indians in Minnesota, belonging to the Medawakanton band of Sioux Indians, who
have resided in said State, since the twentieth day of May, A.D. eighteen hundred and
eighty-six, and severed their tribal relations” (U.S. Stat. 25: 228). The next year, on
March 2, 1889, another appropriation was passed to benefit and to buy lands for the same
group of Indians “or family thereof,” with language adding that those who were “engaged
in removing to said State, and have since resided therein” would also be included (U.S.
Stat. 25: 992). On August 19, 1890, Congress passed a further appropriation for the
support of the same group, including “full and mixed blood Indians” (U.S. Stat., 26: 349).
An undefined portion of the money appropriated under these acts was intended to
purchase land. Although the lands purchased with the 1888, 1889, and 1890
congressional appropriations are commonly referred to as the “1886 lands,” they were not
purchased in 1886 (U.S. Federal Court of Claims, Opinion and Order, October 27, 2004,
p. 7). The United States did not start purchasing the 1886 lands until January 1889. As of
1980, the 1886 lands consisted of: (1) approximately 260 acres in Scott County
(Shakopee lands); (2) approximately 575 acres in Redwood county (Lower Sioux lands);
and (3) approximately 120 acres in Goodhue County (Prairie Island lands).
Eligibility for Benefits under the 1888, 1889, and 1890 Appropriation
Acts
As documented in a variety of sources, the purpose of the 1888, 1889, and 1890
appropriations was to provide for those Mdewakanton Sioux in Minnesota who had been
loyal to the United State during the 1862-63 Dakota Conflict and who could not take part
in tribal relations with other Mdewakanton Sioux (Sept. 15, 2004, “Appendix of Exhibits


Page 1

--------------


for Memorandum of Law of the Plaintiffs,” Exhibit 37; Henton to Commissioner, Dec.
31, 1888, NA, RG 75, Letters Received, 1881-1907, Box 496). Instead of requiring
documentation of loyalty in that earlier time, the Appropriation Acts used other criteria as
a means for selecting those Mdewakanton Sioux to be benefited. The three Appropriation
Acts created a set of criteria for determining eligibility for benefits. To be eligible under
the Appropriation Acts, an individual must be or must be descended from someone who:
(1) was a full blood or mixed blood Mdewakanton Sioux, (2) had resided in Minnesota
since May 20, 1886, or was then engaged in removing to Minnesota, and, (3) had severed
their tribal relations.
The meaning of these criteria is shown in the way in which they were carried out by
government officials. Prior to, during, and after the passage of the appropriations, the
government created a number of census and annuity rolls for the purpose of determining
eligibility under the 1888, 1889, and 1889 Appropriation Acts. Those censuses and rolls
are discussed in detail below in the context of these three criteria.
Criterion 1: Full Blood and Mixed Blood Mdewakanton Sioux
The question of the blood status of Mdewakanton Sioux requires some explanation. The
1888 Act refers to “full-blood” Mdewakanton Sioux, the 1889 Act refers to “full-blood”
Mdewakanton Sioux and their families, and the 1890 Act refers to both “full and mixed
blood.” But the purpose of the Appropriation Acts was uniform—that is, to reward the
Loyal Mdewakanton Sioux for their loyalty and assistance during the 1862 Dakota
Conflict, without reference to bloodlines. Even if Congress had intended to distinguish
between categories of beneficiaries based on bloodlines, there was simply no way for the
government to insure that this was done. Instead, at the time, categorization by blood was
a highly subjective, uncertain, and ethnocentric process, which was unsuccessful in
applying a strict blood categorization. This is demonstrated in the way government
officials carried out the Appropriation Acts.
The provision of the 1888 appropriation designing the benefits for so-called full bloods
was a means for directing initial government benefits to those Mdewakantons in
Minnesota who were in most need. As used at the time, however, this term was not a
scientific evaluation of a Sioux person’s ancestry, but a variable definition based on the
cultural prejudices of the observer. Historian Roy Meyer (1993: 277) notes that by the
1880s, “the great majority of the Sioux in Minnesota were of mixed blood, and there was
no reliable way to discriminate among people with varying degrees of Indian ancestry.”
Similarly, ethnohistorian and anthropologist Carolyn Anderson (1997: 240) states,
“operationally ‘full blood’ meant more than half Dakota ancestry and living in one of the
all-Dakota communities.” These Sioux would more likely have exhibited cultural traits of
their ancestors, such as living in tepees or carrying out traditional seasonal activities,
while those who lived in white communities were more likely to live and dress like
whites.
Thus, those targeted under the earliest appropriation act of 1888 for Minnesota
Mdewakantons were people of Sioux ancestry living in Sioux communities, rather than


page 2

--------------

[mdenney]

Sioux people living in white communities. But as it turned out the term could not be
applied with any scientific accuracy to Mdewakantons. Thus in providing clarification of
the criteria for eligibility in the 1889 and 1890 Acts, Congress signified that it intended to
provide benefits to all Mdewakanton Sioux in Minnesota who fit all the other criteria,
including not only Sioux living in all-Sioux communities, but those who lived in white
cities and towns. There is no evidence that federal agents ever required a scrupulous
attempt to ascertain whether or not particular Mdewakanton Sioux were full blood or
mixed blood through genealogical proof or any other kind of investigation. Evidence that
the government did not apply a strict, scientific, and consistent standard for determining
blood quantum can be seen in the various censuses done by federal officials between
1886 and 1899.
The McLeod Census
In September 1886, nearly two years before the 1888 act was passed, Agent Walter
McLeod completed a census of the Loyal Mdewakantons. McLeod described his census
as entitled “a complete enrollment of the full blood Medewakanton band of Sioux Indians
of Minnesota” (MHS M405, Sept. 2, 1886, McLeod to Atkins).1 The census included 208
people in 73 families. In addition to name, age, and sex, McLeod included property held,
such as number of acres owned and cultivated, house type, and ownership of horse and
wagon. McLeod recommended that these Indians be “located” or concentrated at three
locations, Redwood Falls, Shakopee, and Prairie Island, “where suitable lands can be
bought.” He wrote: “Most of the Indians need more land than any thing else at present.”
In many cases on his roll he recorded whether individuals needed more land.
There is no information to show that McLeod made or attempted to make an investigation
into the actual blood status of individual Mdewakanton Sioux. There were no existing
scientific methods for doing so. Even if it might have been possible for McLeod, using
genealogical information going back multiple generations to the arrival of white people in
the Minnesota region, to do an blood status investigation, neither McLeod nor any other
government official did so.
Assignment of the terms full blood and mixed blood was highly subjective. For example,
the first person on McLeod’s roll, Alfred Rock (or Rocque) was later listed on James
McLaughlin’s 1899 Mdewakanton Sioux census as a mixed blood (McLaughlin Census,
p. 2). Similarly, George Crooks, though on McLeod’s roll is also shown on the 1900
census of Redwood County as being one-half white (U.S. Census, 1900, Redwood
County, Paxton Township, sheet 10).
The Henton Census
In January 1889—after the passage of the 1888 act, but before the 1889 act—Special
Agent Robert B. Henton produced a new census of the Mdewakanton Sioux “living in
Minnesota since May 20, 1886.” Henton based his census in large part on McLeod’s
1886 roll. The 1889 Henton census included 264 people in 80 family groups (Anderson
1 McLeod’s letter and his “enrollment” are included in the set of Dakota rolls microfilmed by the
Minnesota Historical Society, M405. On this microfilm, McLeod’s census and the letter are mixed in with
an Annuity Pay Roll for a payment McLeod made to the Mdewakantons in April 1885.

page 3

-----------

1997: 251). Unlike the McLeod roll, Henton’s was organized by the locations of the
Mdwekanton settlements and camps, including Prairie Island, Hastings, Redwood, Prior
Lake, and Wabashaw Settlements, and Bloomington, Mendota, and Grey Cloud Island
Camps.
The 1889 Henton census makes clear Henton’s intention and that of the government to
benefit all Loyal Mdewakantons, regardless of documented bloodlines. Henton revised
the McLeod census, specifically including some so-called mixed bloods. Henton did so
before the passage of the 1889 act which referred to “the families thereof” and the 1890
act which referred to “mixed blood” Mdewakantons for the first time.
Henton’s roll includes a number of people identified with the symbol “1/2,” an apparent
indication that Henton believed them to be of half Sioux ancestry. These included Harry
Bluestone and his wife Ellen, who lived in the Prior Lake community. In addition,
Henton continued to list individuals listed by McLeod that other sources have described
as mixed bloods, such as George Crooks, who was now included with his wife and
children at Redwood and Alfred Rocque, with his wife and daughters at Wabasha.
Initially Agent Henton may have assigned lands in a manner favoring the Mdewakanton
Sioux he perceived to be full bloods (U.S. House of Representatives 1892). Early in his
tenure, Henton stated that he opposed giving benefits to so-called mixed bloods (Meyer
1993: 286-87). Since he explicitly included some so-called mixed bloods and some of
those included in on his 1889 roll were later defined as mixed bloods, however, these
statements must be understood as referring to the ethnocentric category that defined full
bloods as being those Mdewakanton Sioux living in Sioux communities whom he
believed to be in most need.
Among those to whom Henton assigned land in the 1890s was Emma LaFramboise, 38,
later listed in 1899 as a mixed blood, to whom Henton assigned 17 7/9 acres of land at
Shakopee (Downs to Commissioner, Oct. 8, 2004, in “Plaintiffs’ Response Memorandum
and Cross-Motion,” Exhibit 37). LaFramboise lived there with her children in 1899
(McLaughlin Census, p. 4). Another assignee was the same Alfred Rocque of the 1886
and 1889 censuses who, in 1899, listed as a mixed blood, lived with his wife Harriet at
Morton on 23 acres of land assigned by Henton (McLaughlin Census, p. 2). George
Crooks also received a land assignment at Morton from Henton despite later being listed
in the United States Census as a mixed blood (McLaughlin Census, p. 2; U.S. Census,
Minnesota, 1900, Redwood County, Paxton Township, sheet 10).
Supplemental Henton Censuses
As part of his duties to purchase and assign the 1886 lands, Henton updated his initial
census several times to identify accurately the Loyal Mdewakantons who were entitled to
receive the benefits of the lands. Henton’s first census taken after the 1889 roll was done
in November 1891 (1891 Census in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2). A few so-called
mixed bloods were included in the list of 185 people living in 66 families. Henton wrote
that there had been a “great many changes since the first census was taken [in 1889].
Some have married, some are dead and more have forfeited their right to enrollment.”


page 4

----------------

[mdenney]

Henton appears to have relied on the Mdewakanton Sioux themselves to apply for
benefits before enrolling them. In June 1892, Henton submitted to Washington a
supplemental list of mixed bloods, apparently intended to accompany his census of the
year before (1892, June, Census in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2). Included in the list
were 10 families of 28 people. “These are some that have made application since March
last,” Henton stated and he noted that Walter McLeod, who was himself a mixed blood,
was on the list, even though he was “reported to be worth $100,000 at least.”2
Henton’s specific reference to McLeod symbolized his initial reluctance to include all of
the so-called mixed blood Mdewakanton Sioux who had been in Minnesota on or before
May 20, 1886, based on a belief that these so-called mixed bloods were too well off to
deserve the benefits accorded them under federal law. Even so, throughout the 1890s,
Henton steadily added Mdewakanton Sioux to the rolls, sending additional lists to
supplement earlier ones. He sent another list of mixed bloods to Washington in January
1893, including 45 families of 122 people, compiled in December 1892 (1892,
December, Census [labeled 1893] in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2). With this list, he
said, there would now be “304 souls which will be entitled to participate in the
distribution of this fund.”
Finally, in July 1895 and January 1896, Henton did an entirely new census of the fulland
mixed-blood Mdewakantons of Minnesota (“Mdewakanton Full and Mixed Blood
Sioux of Minnesota,” microfilm copy in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2). The 201 full
bloods on the list were categorized by location, in the Redwood, Shakopee, and Prairie
Island communities. The mixed bloods, totaling 512 people, were not listed by location.
In his next census done on June 30, 1896, including 761 individuals, Henton divided the
list into two sections, the first, including 201 people, labeled Mdewakanton Sioux, the
second, part including 461, labeled “Mix blood” Mdewakanton Sioux (1896, June 30,
Census in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2). In a cover letter, Henton stated: “This Roll
shows a good many names of individuals that have never participated in any of the
distributions I have made.”
A year later, in June 1897, Henton compiled a new census, accounting for births, deaths,
and new enrollments (1897 Census in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2). In doing the list,
Henton did not title the pages for so-called full bloods and mixed bloods differently,
though at the end of the first nine pages he included a note stating that: “The above
names on this Roll from page No. 1 to 9 inclucive [sic] are of full Bloods and their
familys. The last sec. of this roll are all Mix bloods.” The statement made clear the
difficulty of actually segregating Mdewakanton Sioux by blood status at this point in
their history. In all the census enumerated 920 people, including Indian and English
names, sex, relationship and age, but not place of residence.
Henton used his new compilation of names to apportion federal benefits. In November
1897, Henton made a payment to 898 Mdewakantons, amounting to $5.10 to each person
2 If a census was taken in March 1892, it has not been found.

page 5

---------------

regardless of apparent full blood or mixed blood status (1897 [labelled 1898] Annuity
Pay Roll, in MHS M405, Roll 1). The annuity roll that records this payment generally
follows the order of names in the June 1897 census, with full bloods listed first, followed
by mixed bloods.
In doing his final census on June 30, 1898, in a list of 945 people, Henton included no
information about the blood status of the individuals on the list, either on the census itself
or in the cover letter sent to Washington (1898 Census in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll
2). Otherwise the census records the same kinds of information as the earlier censuses.3
At no time during the period of the 1890s, while Henton included more and more of the
individuals eligible for benefits as Mdewakanton Sioux in Minnesota, did he assert that
his roll from 1889 or McLeod’s from 1886 had precedence over the later censuses, in
apportioning land or other benefits.
The McLaughlin 1899 Census
Henton’s 1897 annuity roll provided the basis for the most complete early enrollment of
the full-blood and mixed-blood Mdewakanton Sioux, a census compiled, after Robert
Henton’s death, in March 1899 by James McLaughlin, a special inspector with the
Department of Interior. McLaughlin’s census was the culmination of the prior McLeod
and Henton censuses. McLaughlin did his work shortly after Agent Henton’s death.
Federal officials were anxious to have a full accounting of the lands Henton purchased
for the Mdewakanton Sioux and a new and complete census of the Mdewakanton Sioux
people in Minnesota. Acting Commissioner Tonner wrote to McLaughlin on February 20,
1889, (Tonner to McLaughlin, Feb. 20, 1899, McLaughlin Papers, MHS M230, Roll 2),
stating that the census was made to insure that “the names of all Indians if any, heretofore
improperly enrolled as members of such band, might be eliminated from said rolls, and
thereby prevented from receiving any further payments.” As for the land, Tonner urged
McLaughlin to get any information he could from Henton’s family and noted, “the title to
all the land purchased by late Agent Henton for said Indians, is still vested in the United
States—being held in trust for them.”
McLaughlin spent more than two weeks in doing the census, traveling to St. Paul,
Wabasha, Eggleston, Hastings, Shakopee, and Morton along with a clerk employed to
help him (Voucher for Traveling Expenses, March 31, 1899, McLaughlin Papers, MHS
M230, Roll 14; Report of Irregular Employees, March 31, 1899, NA, RG 75, Letters
Received, 1881-1907, Box 1641, File no. 14940-1899). McLaughlin completed his roll
on March 17, 1899. The document, a “Census of the Medwakanton Sioux of Minnesota,”
includes 903 individuals, including both full and mixed bloods (McLaughlin Census in
MHS M405; see also McLaughlin to Commissioner, March 17, 1899, McLaughlin
Papers, MHS M230, Roll 23). McLaughlin completed his roll by March 17, 1899.
McLaughlin mentioned Henton’s last annuity roll and used the work Henton did
throughout the 1890s as a basis for his own, though he made numerous changes. The roll
3 Interestingly, Henton notes in the cover letter to the census that he kept a “Census Book” from which he
transferred names to the roll sent to Washington. The current location of this census book is not known.

page 6

-------------

[mdenney]

records the number of each entry on the 1897 roll and assigns each entry a new number.
A copy of Henton’s 1897 roll in the National Archives is covered with corrections in a
different handwriting, which appears to be McLaughlin’s (1897 [labeled 1898] Annuity
Pay Roll, microfilm copy in MHS M405, Roll 1). These same corrections are reflected in
McLaughlin’s census. Writing on March 17, 1899, McLaughlin stated that he dropped
from the rolls a total of 141 individuals who appeared on Henton’s 1897 roll: “I have
dropped 30 who have died since the last payment, 20 who were not of Medawakanton
Sioux blood, 52 who were non-residents of Minnesota, being now out of the state, and 39
that were duplications” (McLaughlin to Secretary of Interior, March 17, 1899,
McLaughlin Papers, MHS M230, Roll 23).
In preparing the 1899 census, Inspector McLaughlin worked carefully to follow the
Department of Interior’s mandate to create an accurate enrollment by listing only those
Loyal Mdewakanton Sioux and their families who were eligible to receive benefits and
removing those who were erroneously included on the prior censuses. The census was
organized by community and included individuals living in settlements that were mainly
Sioux but also those living in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and smaller towns. McLaughlin
stated that he made special efforts to enroll mixed bloods who were recognized as
belonging to the Mdewakanton and Wahpekute “which two bands are practically one,
having merged into each other many years ago.” He noted that those he enrolled had been
beneficiaries or were descendants of beneficiaries under the Treaty of 1851. McLaughlin
also pointed out the degree to which the mixed bloods were truly Loyal Mdewakantons
during the U.S.-Dakota Conflict of the 1860s, in some ways more so than the full bloods.
He pointed out that the mixed bloods suffered through the actions of some of their full
blood relatives (McLaughlin to Commissioner, March 17, 1899, McLaughlin Papers,
MHS M230, Roll 23):
Notwithstanding that nearly every mixed blood remained loyal to the government
and aided the whites in suppressing that outbreak, they (the mixed bloods) were
suspected and distrusted by the whites, and at the same time subject to insults and
despised by the Indians, whom they refused to join or aid in any way, in
consequence of which I regard it but just that they be included in the census
which I was intrusted to take, and especially when I found that they were
recognized by Mr. R. B. Henton in the annuity payments made by him.
McLaughlin suggested that many of the full bloods had participated in the conflict in
1862 and some of those who were particularly active in the fighting
are now the most outspoken and active in objecting to the enrollment of the mixed
bloods, whose ancestors, or themselves proved their loyalty to the government
and white settlers during that crucial period, and from which it would seem that
the protest of the Indians against enrollment of the loyal mixed bloods should
receive but little consideration from the Department, while the full blood Indians,
who were hostile at that time, receive a gratuity from the government.

page 7

-------------------


Among the families that McLaughlin singled out in describing his census were the
Mdewakanton mixed bloods from the Mendota community at the mouth of the Minnesota
River, opposite Fort Snelling. Mendota had a mixed Sioux-white community since the
early 19th century. Some of the Sioux mixed bloods there worked for fur trader and later
governor and general Henry H. Sibley. They aided Sibley when he prosecuted the war
against the Sioux in 1862 and after. These mixed blood Sioux did not leave Minnesota in
1863 but remained throughout the late 19th century, providing a haven to which other
Sioux would later return from the West (Meyer 1993: 270, 286). The Mendota
Mdewakantons clearly fit the definition of those “loyal” to the United States, who were
intended to be benefited by the Appropriation Acts.
McLaughlin mentioned the LeClaire, Auger, and Wigley families of Mendota origin, who
were all listed on the later Henton rolls and who derived their Indian ancestry from
Angelique Renville, a woman of three-quarters Mdewakanton blood. Angelique
Renville—who married the French bookkeeper of Henry H. Sibley, Hypolite Dupuis—
derived her Sioux ancestry in the Kaposia community near St. Paul led by Chief Little
Crow. Her family, he wrote, was “born among Medawakantons and always lived among
them, sharing in all the Medawakanton annuities, while such annuities were provided and
issued without questioning their right.” McLaughlin said he was “well acquainted” with
Angelique Dupuis before she died.
McLaughlin noted that despite this ancestry, some of the Mdewakanton Sioux,
particularly those at Redwood, questioned the legitimacy of such families, but
McLaughlin commented that these Redwood full bloods were “particularly anxious to
have their own mixed blood relatives included in the census.”
McLaughlin was well acquainted with the Mdewakanton Sioux because his wife, Marie
Buisson, later well known as an author of a collection of Sioux stories, was from the
Sioux community at Wabasha.4 Perhaps to counter any suggestions of partiality,
however, McLaughlin made a point of noting that “the three Buisson families and David
Cratte of Wabasha, Minnesota, the [Walter] McLeod family of Bloomington, Minnesota,
the Baasen family, of New Ulm, Minnesota” were among the mixed-blood families “who
are quite able to provide for themselves,” and did not desire any of the annuity payment.
Although some mixed-bloods were well off, McLaughlin said he had found “many mixed
bloods, particularly those residing in or near St. Paul, Minnesota, to be very poor, and as
badly in need of assistance as any of the full blood, Indians, and some of them even more
destitute than majority of the full bloods.”
As shown here, it was not until 1899 that a full and complete list of full and mixed blood
Mdewakanton Sioux existed. The list was the result of the efforts of joint Henton and
McLaughlin. With the information it provided, the federal government was finally in a
position to carry out fully the criteria in the Appropriation Acts, which made benefits and
land available to full and mixed Mdewakanton Sioux who had lived or whose ancestors
had lived in Minnesota prior to, on, and after May 20, 1886.
4 Marie L. McLaughlin, Myths and Legends of the Sioux (1916, Reprint ed. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1990).

page 8

[mdenney]

---------------

Indian Land Certificates
Some of the most significant records that might be used to verify the eligibility of a
Mdewakanton Sioux descendant under the Appropriation Acts are the documents through
which federal officials in the 20th century assigned 1886 land to individual members.
Though a full accounting of land assignments by the federal government for the 1886
land has not been done, individuals whose eligibility under the Appropriation Acts was
first documented in the later Henton rolls and the 1899 McLaughlin roll were assigned
1886 lands at Shakopee.
The form of “Indian Land Certificate” used in assigning 1886 lands throughout the 20th
century appears to have been in place by 1905 (see Indian Land Certificate of Harry
Bluestone, June 1, 1905, in “Appendix of Exhibits for Memorandum of Law of the
Plaintiffs in Opposition to the Motions and Memoranda of Shakopee, Prairie Island and
Lower Sioux Communities for Leave to Participate as Amici Curiae,” Exhibit 29). The
form states that the individual receiving the assignment was certified to be a member of
the Mdewakanton band of Sioux Indians residing in Minnesota. A condition of the
assignment was that if the land was abandoned by the allottee “then said land shall be
subject to assignment by the Secretary of Interior to some other Indian who was a
resident of Minnesota May 20, 1886, or a legal descendant of such resident Indian.”
As indicated such forms “certified” that those receiving the assignment fit the criteria
required to use the land. To receive such land certificates, individuals were required to
submit applications and other forms to attest to the fact that they fit the criteria for using
1886 land. Examples of these forms can be found in the land files for some of the same
mixed blood Mdewakanton Sioux McLaughlin identified in his 1899 census—people
who do not appear on the McLeod or initial Henton censuses.
When Abraham Robinette—a Mdewakanton Sioux who had been in Minnesota since
birth—applied for a land assignment Scott County in May 1921, he filled out an
“Application for Assignment of Mdewakanton Sioux Lands in Minnesota.” This form
noted that the land in question “was provided for the use and benefit of the Mdewakanton
Sioux Indians of Minnesota by acts of Congress of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. 992) and
August 19, 1890 (25 Stat. 314)” and required applicants to answer questions as to
whether they or their parents or grandparents resided in Minnesota on May 20, 1886 (see
BIA, Minneapolis Office, Land Assignment Records for Abraham and Alfred Robinette,
received by family members as a result of a FOIA request).
Although Robinette fit all the criteria, the scarcity of land meant that he did not receive
an assignment of land at Shakopee until 1927. At that time C.F. Hauke, Chief Clerk of
the Office of Indian Affairs in Washington, wrote a letter to Pipestone agent J. W.
Balmer, authorizing Robinette’s assignment. Hauke stated that the 1890 provision
governed this assignment:
This is in reply to your letter of May 31 reporting as to Abraham Robinette, who
desires to have certain land purchased for the Mdewakanton Sioux Indians

page 9

--------------------


assigned to him. The act of August 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 349) provided that the
Indians to be benefitted [sic] were the full and mixed-bloods in Minnesota
theretofore belonging to the Mdewakanton Band of Sioux who had remained in
said state since May 20, 1886, and have since resided there, and their descendants.
After Abraham Robinette’s death his son Alfred farmed the land and in 1939 received the
assignment under his own name.
Albert LeClaire was another Mdewakanton Sioux of mixed ancestry, a descendant of
Angelique Renville, who received a land assignment for 1886 lands, despite the fact that
neither he nor an ancestor were listed on the 1886 McLeod or 1889 Henton censuses. In
fact he appears to have received more than one assignment for land at Prior Lake. The
latest one was for land earlier assigned to George Crooks, Jr., and Meredith Crooks, who
had both abandoned their assignments and were living in California (Balmer to
Commissioner, Sept. 21, 1937, in NA, RG 75, Central Classified Files, File no. 60092-
1937). LeClaire, who was 52 years old at the time and had been born in Mendota, filled
out the application for 35 5/9 acres, and received his assignment in 1937, attested by a
land certificate certifying that he was eligible under the criteria (NA, RG 75, Central
Classified Files, File no. 60092-1937).
There is no evidence that the government applied a racial blood test for determining
eligibility for 1886 lands. As shown here, during the 20th century, federal officials made
no distinction in assigning these lands based on full blood or mixed blood status.
Criterion 2: Residence in Minnesota on May 20, 1886
The intention to discourage migration of Mdewakanton Sioux back to Minnesota is
reflected in the May 20, 1886, cutoff date, chosen to distinguish those who were more
likely to have been Loyal Mdewakantons from those who were less likely to have been
so.5 It appears that the idea of having a provision limiting benefits to those who had lived
in Minnesota since May 20, 1886, was intended to specify a date later than the May 15,
1886, appropriation, which had purchased the first lands for the Mdewakanton.6 At that
time, Sioux who had been part of the group that had gone into exile in 1863 were now
returning to live in Minnesota, joining their relatives who had never left. Appropriations
passed in 1884 and 1886 had drawn Sioux people to return to Minnesota to share in the
benefits (Meyer 1993: 276, 278)7 Since the government did not wish to encourage this
5 The precise date of May 20 appears to have been intended to insure that one particular Sioux, Jerome Big
Eagle, and his family were benefited (See “Defendant’s Supplemental Filing; in Support of Defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration,” Aug. 8, 2005, 7-8, 14, Exhibits 45 and 46). However, ironically, as Robert
Henton would later point out, Big Eagle was actually not one of the Loyal Mdewakantons, even though he
may have met the criteria in the Appropriation Acts. He fought against the United States in the 1862-63
Conflict (Henton to Commissioner, Feb. 26, 1889, NA, RG 75, Letters Received, 1881-1907; Anderson and
Woolworth 1988: 21).
6 Although purchased in 1886 these lands were treated separately from the lands purchased under the later
appropriations. The term “1886 lands” does not refer to these earlier lands.
7 To avoid this problem, government officials made the 1884 law applicable only to those Mdewakanton
who had been in Minnesota by October 1, 1883 (Meyer 1993: 276).


page 10

-------------------

[mdenney]

influx but did want to provide support for those who had not gone into exile, using May
20, 1886, as a cutoff date would prevent those who returned to Minnesota after the 1886
appropriation act from receiving a benefit intended for those who had truly severed tribal
relations before that date.
The censuses described earlier provide information about which Mdewakanton Sioux in
Minnesota met the May 20, 1886, criterion.
The 1886 McLeod Census
As noted above, McLeod’s census was completed in September 1886, nearly two years
before the 1888 act was passed (MHS M405, Sept. 2, 1886, McLeod to Atkins). Given
this fact, the census did not refer to the May 20, 1886, residence criterion contained in the
Appropriation Acts. Nevertheless, individuals on the McLeod roll have been found to be
entitled to benefits under the acts.
The 1889 Henton Census
As discussed earlier, Henton’s 1889 census was clearly intended to record Mdewakantons
who lived in Minnesota before, on, or after the cutoff date of May 20, 1886. Henton
noted that both his and McLeod’s censuses were on file in Washington, and that if any
names showed up in documents recording his disbursement of government resources that
“do not belong there, it will be apparent.” Henton never claimed that either his or
McLeod’s census of the Mdewakanton Sioux of Minnesota would be definitive on this
point.
Supplemental Henton Censuses
Henton did not specifically refer to the May 20, 1886, cutoff date in compiling his
supplemental censuses, though it is clear that Henton compiled these censuses for the
purpose of providing a list of those eligible for benefits intended for the Loyal
Mdewakantons.
The 1899 McLaughlin Census
McLaughlin stated that he “enrolled only those of the tribe now residing in Minnesota, all
of whom were born here and have continued to reside in this state since their birth”
(McLaughlin to Secretary of Interior, March 17, 1899, McLaughlin Papers, MHS M230,
Roll 23). By definition this would have insured that those listed were Mdewakanton
Sioux residing in Minnesota on May 20, 1886, or their descendants. As such the 1899
McLaughlin census is an accurate identification of the Loyal Mdewakantons who had
lived or whose direct ancestors had lived in Minnesota on and after May 20, 1886.
Indian Land Certificates
As discussed earlier, Indian land certificates issued by the federal government in the 20th
century specifically referred to the May 20, 1886, cutoff date, stating that those assigned
land met the criterion.

page 11

---------------


Criterion 3: Severing Tribal Relations
The criterion referring to severing “tribal relations” was related to the May 20, 1886,
requirement. It was intended to identify those Mdewakanton Sioux who did not go into
exile with their people in 1863 or those who were unable to remain with their people and
subsequently returned to Minnesota. In the latter case, it does not appear that the federal
government intended that those already enrolled on other reservations such as Santee, in
Nebraska, would be eligible for benefits in Minnesota unless they gave up these other
enrollments. The government did not want to encourage migration back to Minnesota.
It is not clear what efforts were made by government officials to determine if those listed
on the censuses of the Mdewakanton Sioux were enrolled elsewhere. In the cover letter to
his last census 1898, Robert Henton mentioned two families, including six people in all,
formerly identified as full bloods on earlier rolls, who, he had “been informed” after “this
Roll was nearly completed,” were enrolled at reservations outside Minnesota, one family
at Santee, the other at Flandreau (1898 Census in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2). The
next year, Special Inspector James McLaughlin dropped from enrollment individuals he
could prove were already enrolled at Santee.8
8



8 See for example McLaughlin’s discussion of the family of Jennie Frazier at Eggleston, in McLaughlin to
Commissioner, Sept. 26, 1899, NA, RG 75, Letters Received 1881-1907, Box 1705. For another case see
McLaughlin to Stephens, March 17, 1899, MHS M230, Roll 23; Stevens to McLaughlin, March 23, 1899,
MHS M230, Roll 2.

page 12

-------------------

[mdenney]

Conclusions
Conclusion 1: The Appropriation Acts do not require any procedure for
assessing blood status in determining eligibility. In carrying out the Acts
the government’s actions do not demonstrate a distinction based on
actual blood quantum.

As shown in this report, the intention of Congress was to benefit all Loyal
Mdewakantons, regardless of actual blood status. Even if Congress had intended to
distinguish between categories of beneficiaries based on bloodlines, there was simply no
way to insure that this was done. Instead, at the time, categorization by blood was a
highly subjective, uncertain, and ethnocentric process, which was unsuccessful in
applying a strict blood categorization. This fact has been demonstrated in the way
government officials carried out the Appropriation Acts. Throughout the late 1880s, into
the 1890s, government officials included more and more Mdewakanton Sioux of
whatever perceived blood category, who fit the other criteria of the Appropriation Acts,
culminating in McLaughlin’s 1899 census.

Conclusion 2: The 1899 McLaughlin Census is the Most Accurate and
Complete List of Mdewakanton Sioux Entitled to the Benefits of the
Appropriation Acts.

The 1899 McLaughlin Census was the culmination of the prior McLeod and Henton
censuses. It was not until the 1899 McLaughlin census was done that a complete and
corrected list of all Mdewakanton Sioux in Minnesota existed, allowing the government
to determine those people who were eligible to receive benefits under the earlier
Appropriation Acts. Evidence for its accuracy is found in the procedures used by
McLaughlin to compile the census and in the fact that subsequent land assignments made
by the government can only have been carried out on the basis of this census rather than
the earlier 1886 McLeod and 1889 Henton censuses. Further, there is no evidence to
suggest that the individuals listed in the 1899 McLaughlin census did not, or were not,
entitled to receive benefits of the trust created in the Appropriation Acts.

page 13

-------------------

Sources

Published Sources
Anderson, Carolyn.
1997. Dakota Identity in Minnesota, 1820-1995. PhD thesis, Indiana University.

Anderson, Gary Clayton, and Woolworth, Alan R.
1988. Through Dakota Eyes: Narrative Accounts of the Minnesota Indian War of 1862.
St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press

McLaughlin, Marie L.
1990. Myths and Legends of the Sioux. Reprint ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1990.

Meyer, Roy W.
1993. History of the Santee Sioux: United States Indian Policy on Trial. Revised Edition,
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

U.S. Secretary of Interior.
1891-92. Report. House Executive Documents.

Legal Documents
U. S. Court of Federal Claims. Wolfchild, et al. v. United States. Case No. 03-2684L.
“Appendix of Exhibits for Memorandum of Law of the Plaintiffs in Opposition to
the Motions and Memoranda of Shakopee, Prairie Island and Lower Sioux
Communities for Leave to Participate as Amici Curiae,” September 15, 2004.
“Plaintiffs’ Response Memorandum and Cross-Motion,” April 26, 2004.
Opinion and Order, October 27, 2004.

Manuscript Sources
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Minneapolis Office.
Land Assignment Records for Abraham and Alfred Robinette, received by family
members as a result of a FOIA request.

Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul
MHS M230. McLaughlin, James. Papers, on microfilm, made from originals in
Assumption Abbey, Richardton, North Dakota.

(NA) National Archives, Washington, D.C. Record Group 75. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Central Classified Files, 1907-57.
File 60092-1937
File 81692-1940, Albert and Lillian LeClaire
Letters Received, 1881-1907.

Censuses and Annuity Rolls
MHS=Minnesota Historical Society

page 14.

---------

[mdenney]

NAM=National Archives Microfilm

1886 Census. “Enrollment of the Medewakanton band of Sioux Indians of Minnesota,”
also described as “a complete enrollment of the full blood Medewakanton band of
Sioux Indians of Minnesota.” Walter S. McLeod. Microfilm copy in MHS M405,
Roll 1.
1889 Census. “Revised census of the Mdewakanton Sioux living in Minnesota since May
20, 1886.” Robert B. Henton, Special Agent. Digital facsimile copies available at:

arcweb.archives.gov/arc/arch_results_detail.jsp?&pg=1&si=0&st=b&rp=su
mmary&nh=1
www.accessgenealogy.com/native/sioux/

1891 Census. “Census of the Medawakanton Band Indians of Birch Cooley Agency,
Minnesota.” Robert B. Henton, Special Agent. Microfilm copy in NAM M595,
MHS M559, Roll 2, Birch Cooley Agency.
1892, June, Census. “Census of the Medawakanton Mix Blood Sioux Indians of the Birch
Cooley Agency,” also described as “supplement list of Medawakanton mix blood
Sioux of Minn.” Robert B. Henton, Special Agent. Microfilm copy in NAM
M595, MHS M559, Roll 2, Birch Cooley Agency.
1892, December, [Labeled 1893], Census. “Census of the Mixed Bloods belonging to the
Medawakantonwan band of Sioux Indians of Birch Cooley Agency.” Robert B.
Henton, Special Agent. Microfilm copy in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2,
Birch Cooley Agency.
1895-96 Census. “Sencus [sic] of the full and mix blood Medawakanton Sioux of
Minnesota.” Robert B. Henton, United States Indian Agent, Birch Cooley
Agency. Microfilm copy in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2, Birch Cooley
Agency.
1896, June 30, Census. “New cencis [sic] of all the full & mix blood Medawakanton
Sioux Indians of Minnesota.” Robert B. Henton, Special Agent. Microfilm copy
in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2, Birch Cooley Agency.
1897 Census. “Census of the Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of the Birch Cooley Agency,
Minnesota.” Robert B. Henton, Special Agent. Microfilm copy in NAM M595,
MHS M559, Roll 2, Birch Cooley Agency.
1897 [labeled 1898] Annuity Pay Roll. “Medawakanton tribe of Indians.” Robert B.
Henton, U. S. Indian Agent. Microfilm copy in MHS M405, Roll 1.
1898 Census. “Census of the Medawakanton Sioux Indians of the Birch Cooley Agency.”
Microfilm copy in NAM M595, MHS M559, Roll 2, Birch Cooley Agency.
[McLaughlin Census] 1899, March. “Census of Medawakanton Sioux of Minnesota.”
James McLaughlin, U.S. Indian Inspector. Microfilm copy in MHS M405, Roll 1.
1900. U.S. Census, Minnesota. Paxton Township. Microfilm copy in MHS.

page 15

---------------


Bruce McCann White

Turnstone Historical Research
275 E. 4th St., Suite 790
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
651-310-0601
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]


Education

1994: PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Anthropology. Dissertation: "Familiar
Faces: The Photographic Record of the Minnesota Anishinaabeg."

1985: MA, McGill University, Montreal, History. Thesis: "'Give Us a Little Milk':
Economics and Ceremony in the Ojibway Fur Trade."

1978: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Bachelor of Elected Studies degree, with
concentrations in History and French literature.

Employment

Current: Free-lance consultant, anthropologist, and historian.

1992-2003: Historian, researcher, and expert witness for several legal cases involving
treaty hunting and fishing rights; consultant on history and ethnography. Clients included
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Menominee Indian
Tribe of Wisconsin, Grand Traverse Ottawa and Chippewa, Little Traverse Bay Bands of
Odawa, Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community, National Park Service, Minnesota
Historical Society, Minnesota Department of Transportation.

1986-92: Instructor, research assistant, teaching assistant, University of Minnesota,
Anthropology Dept.

1982-91: Free-lance writer and teacher, primarily employed by Minnesota Historical
Society to write issues of Roots magazine for young people and teach workshops for
secondary school teachers. Also authored historical articles for popular magazines.
Researcher for Minnesota Folklife Society Fishing Project.

1976-82: Minnesota Historical Society, editor, researcher, writer; assist. editor,
Minnesota History.

Work Published

2005: Grand Portage as a Trading Post: Patterns of Trade at “the Great Carrying
Place.” Grand Marais: Grand Portage National Monument, National Park Service.

2004-2006: “The Death of a Mound: Politics and Human Remains in Minnesota.” An
ongoing series of articles published online at www.minnesotahistory.net

page 16

------------------

[mdenney]

2004: with Alan Woolworth. “Oheyawahi/ Pilot Knob: A Hill of State and National
Significance in Dakota County [Minnesota], Over the Years, magazine of the Dakota
County Historical Society, June issue.

2003: “Gift Giving in the Lake Superior Fur Trade” and “The Power of Whiteness or, the
Life and Times of Joseph Rolette, Jr.,” both reprinted in The North Star State: A
Minnesota History Reader, ed. by Anne J. Aby. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society
Press.

2003: Review of Ojibwe Singers: Hymns, Grief and a Native Culture in Motion, by
Michael D. McNally, in Minnesota History.

2000: “The Regional Context of the Removal Order of 1850,” in Fish in the Lakes,
Wild Rice, and Game in Abundance Testimony on Behalf of Mille Lacs Ojibwe Hunting
and Fishing Rights. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. A collection of expert
reports for the legal case Mille Lacs v. Minnesota.

2000: "The Woman Who Married a Beaver: Trade Patterns and Gender Roles in the
Ojibwa Fur Trade," reprinted in Expression in Canadian Native Studies, ed. by Ron. F.
Laliberte, et al. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan Extensions Press.

1998: “The Power of Whiteness or, The Life and Times of Joseph Rolette, Jr.,”
Minnesota History, 56 (Winter): 178-97. Winner of Solon J. Buck Award for the best
article published in the magazine in 1998.

1998: "The Woman Who Married a Beaver: Trade Patterns and Gender Roles in the
Ojibwa Fur Trade," Ethnohistory, 46 (Winter): 109-47.

1998: "Balancing the Books: Trader Profits in the Lake Superior Fur Trade," New Faces
of the Fur Trade: Selected Papers of the Seventh North American Fur Trade Conference,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1995. Edited by Jo-Anne Fiske, Susan Sleeper Smith, and William
Wicken. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

1998: "The Trade Assortment: An Anthropological Approach to Fur Trade
Merchandise," Vingt ans après: Habitants et marchands Twenty Years Later. Edited by
Sylvie Depatie et al. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.

1995: "Minnesota Past and Present," Exhibit Review Essay, American Anthropologist, 97
(December): 776

1995: Review of The Ojibwa of Western Canada by Laura Peers, in American Indian
Culture and Research Journal

1994: "Encounters with Spirits: Dakota and Ojibwa Theories about the French and Their
Merchandise," Ethnohistory, 41 (Summer): 369-405

1994: "The Fear of Pillaging: Economic Folktales in the Great Lakes Fur Trade," The Fur
Trade Revisited: Selected Papers of the Sixth North American Fur Trade Conference,
Mackinac Island, Michigan, 1991. Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

1992: "Indian Visits: Stereotypical Anecdotes about Minnesota's Native People,"
Minnesota History, 53 (Fall): 99-111. Winner of the Solon J. Buck Award for the best
article published in the magazine in 1992.

page 17.

----------------------


1992: Review of Peter S. Schmalz, The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Revue d'histoire de
l'Amerique française, 46 (Autumn): 350-52.


1987: "A Skilled Game of Exchange: Ojibway Fur Trade Protocol," Minnesota History,
50 (Summer): 229-40.

1987: "Montreal Canoes and Their Cargoes," Le Castor Fait Tout: Selected Papers of the
Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference, ed. by Bruce G. Trigger, et al.

1987: Entry on Joseph Cadotte. Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 6: 99-101. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.

1982: "Parisian Women's Dogs: A Bibliographical Essay on Cross-Cultural
Communication and Trade." Where Two Worlds Meet: The Great Lakes Fur Trade.
Edited by Carolyn Gilman. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society.

1982: "'Give Us a Little Milk': The Social and Cultural Meanings of Gift Giving in the
Lake Superior Fur Trade," Minnesota History, 48 (Summer): 60-71. Also printed in
Rendezvous: Selected Papers of the Fourth North American Fur Trade Conference, 1981.
Edited by Thomas C. Buckley. St. Paul: 1984.

Reports, Papers, and Speeches

2006: “Dakota Landscapes in the Twin Cities,” American Society for Environmental
History, Annual Meeting, St. Paul.

2005: “Was Your Aunt There in 1700? How the Ojibwe Came to Minnesota and How
People Talk About It,” American Society for Ethnohistory, Annual Meeting, Santa Fe.

2004: “The Historical Meaning and Context of the Trade and Intercourse Provision of
Article II of the 1842 Treaty with the Ojibwe at La Pointe,” prepared for the for the
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Keweenaw Bay, Michigan.

2003: “The Trade at Grand Portage: Trade Patterns at the Great Carrying Place.” Report
prepared for the Grand Portage National Monument, National Park Service.

2003: “Ojibwe-White Conflicts over Land and Resources on the Mille Lacs Reservation,
1855-1923.” Prepared for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.

2003: with Alan W. Woolworth, “Oheyawahe or Pilot Knob: Preliminary Summary of
the Evidence.” Report on a traditional cultural property in Mendota Heights, Minnesota.

2003: with Alan W. Woolworth, Nomination of Oheyawahi/ Pilot Knob to the National
Register of Historic Places. Approved by the Minnesota State Review Board on the
National Register, Oct. 28, 2003. Property determined eligible by the Keeper of the
National Register, January 2004.


2003: “Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for The Bluffs
Development, Oheyawahi/Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.”

2001: “’Accustomed to Opposition in Trade’: An Ethnographic History of the Fur Trade
at Grand Portage.” Draft report prepared for the National Park Service, Grand Portage
National Monument.

page 18

--------

[mdenney]

2000: “Settlement in Context: Article 13 of the Ottawa and Chippewa Treaty of 1836.”
Draft report prepared for the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa and the
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.


1998: with Helen M. White, “Fort Snelling in 1838: An Ethnographic and Historical
Study,” a report prepared for the Minnesota Historical Society, Historic Sites Dept.

1998: “Ojibwe Settlement and Resource Use in South Harbor Township, Mille Lacs
County: A Preliminary Report,” prepared for the Lake Onamia/ Trunk Highway 169 Data
Recovery Project, Loucks & Associates, Inc., for the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.

1996: "Settlement in Northeastern Wisconsin, 1820-90," a research report prepared for
the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.

1995: "Early Game and Fish Regulation and Enforcement in Minnesota, 1858-1920," a
research report prepared for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.

1995: "Balancing the Books: Trader Profits in the Lake Superior Fur Trade," Seventh
North American Fur Trade Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

1994: "Gender and Trade in the Lake Superior Region," Crucibles of Cultures: North
American Frontiers, 1750-1820, Conference sponsored at the Institute of Early American
History and Culture, New Orleans.

1994: "The Trade Assortment: An Anthropological Approach to Fur Trade
Merchandise," Habitants et Marchands de Montréal: La Recherche sur les XVIIe. et
XVIIIe. Siécle Canadiens," Conference in Montreal.

1994: "The Regional Context of the Removal Order of 1850," a research report prepared
for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.

1992: "Encounters with Spirits: Native Impressions of the French in the Western Great
Lakes," Native Peoples and New France: Re-Examining the Relationships, 1663-1763,
Conference at McGill University, Montreal.

1991: "The Fear of Pillaging: Economic Folktales of the Great Lakes Fur Trade," Sixth
North American Fur Trade Conference, Mackinac Island.

1990: "Interviewing Ojibwe People about Photographs," Oral History Association of
Minnesota, Annual Conference, South St. Paul.

1988: "Picturing the Ojibwe: An Archaeology of Images," Northern Great Plains History
Conference, Eveleth, Minnesota.

1986: "Indian Visits: Conflicting Etiquette on the Minnesota Frontier," Minnesota
Historical Society, Annual History Conference.

1985: "Montreal Canoes and Their Cargoes," Fifth North American Fur Trade
Conference, Montreal.

1984: "Ojibway Fur Trade Etiquette," Algonquian Conference, Duluth.

1981: "'Give Us a Little Milk': The Social and Cultural Meanings of Gift Giving in the
Lake Superior Fur Trade," Fourth North American Fur Trade Conference, Thunder Bay,
Ontario.

page 19

----------

Awards and Grants

1999: Solon J. Buck Award for best article published in Minnesota History in 1998 (“The
Power of Whiteness”).

1993: Solon J. Buck Award for best article published in Minnesota History in 1992
(“Indian Visits”).

1989: Awarded Wenner-Gren Foundation Ph.D. Dissertation Grant, for research on
photographs of the Minnesota Ojibwe.

1988: Awarded Phillips Fund Grant from the American Philosophical Society,
Philadelphia, for research on photographs of the Minnesota Ojibwe.

1985: Received grant from Minnesota Historical Society Publications and Research
Division to do archival research on Ojibwe Indian photographs.

1983: Awarded Phillips Fund Grant from the American Philosophical Society,
Philadelphia, for research on the Lake Superior fur trade.



page 20. end


All this is copied from this link below

wigley.us/wp-content/uploads/WhiteReport040306.pdf