part 3
If we now turn to that contested Treaty of 1837, Where the ceded lands included Mille Lacs Lake, we find the disputed passage in Article 5 to read as follows:
Article 5: The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers, and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guaranteed to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States.
Well?
If there is "no time limit placed on how long the treaties should last" - - as so ignorantly claimed by the presumably Ojibwe author H. James St. Arnold of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, in his booklet Chippewa Treaties - - Understanding and Impact published in 1992 by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and representing Indians of thirteen Reservations - - then President Bill Clinton still has that "pleasure" today! However, this allegedly authoritative spokesman for the Ojibwe requires a much closer look, which we shall give him shortly.
In 1842, the Treaty of LaPointe contained a similar stipulation:
Article 2: the Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until required to move by the President of the United States.
As for the Treaty of 1847 signed at Fond du Lac - - where Kwiwisens or Chief Hole-in-the-Day II made his debut into history, and the whole southwest quarter of our Lake Region was ceded - - this contains no mention at all of any rights to hunt or fish! The reason was that immediate usage was planned for the land as a Reservation for the Winnebago Indians shortly being removed from Wisconsin.
Seven years later, the Treaty of 30 September 1854 signed at LaPointe, which began clearing title to our entire Lake Region in preparation for the Reservation System, carried this in its Article XI:
Such of them as reside in the territory hereby ceded should have the right to hunt and fish therein, until otherwise ordered by the president.
However, this referred solely to the Lake Superior Bands, not at all to Ojibwe in Minnesota, though they were also parties to the Treaty. People who discuss these Treaties should read them. St. Arnold’s book, which is on display at Mille Lacs Lake and is highly regarded by those Indians as an official statement of the Ojibwe position, leaves one with the impression that this was just another of those all-inclusive bequests to the "Chippewa Nation". Read this summarizing statement of his:
The rights to hunt, fish and harvest were rights the Chippewa had all along. They kept these rights for themselves when they sold the land.
There are only two sentences here, the second a positive misstatement as just explained, the first a purely fanciful remark having no background whatever. "All along" since when? Since 1736? What happened to the Sioux’s "all along"? And so on.
In brief, the agreement between the United States and the Indian signatories in all of these Treaties where delays in fulfillment were permitted became fulfilled "whenever the President should so choose".
At this point, historians need enter the picture. For not only did the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War fully occupy the minds of all U.S. citizens and Government officials, but among the Indians of Minnesota the Great Uprising was rather naturally followed by a Great Quiet. After the lapse of about a quarter-century, with a new generation taking over among Whites and Indians alike, the one recognized in the other a needy minority; whereupon steps were taken to work the Indians into the Great American Dream. Two important factors had meantime entered the picture: First, there remained a couple instances in which the "President had not yet chosen" to finalize Treaty agreements; second, all Indians in general had gone a long way toward peaceful coexistence with "dominant society" - - as they love to call that great melting-pot which constitutes the United States of America, and whose Government prohibits favoritism by using a single set of laws equally applicable to each and every Citizen.
The opening statement of the 11 August 1886 Agreement with the White Earth, Pillager and Lake Winnabagoshish Chippewa Bands neatly summarizes the story:
Article 1: Whereas the Government of the United States, recognizing the long and continued friendship of the Chippewa Indians in said State, is desirous of providing for said Indians a permanent home where they may live after the manner of white men, and be protected in their rights of property, person and life; and whereas it is the policy of the Government to remove to and consolidate on the said White Earth Reservation the various tribes and bands of Chipewa Indians now occupying separate reservations in different parts of said State, as follows, to wit: Winnebagoshish, Leech Lake, Cass Lake, Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac, Bois Fort, and Grand Portage, as well as the White Oak Point, Sandy Lake, Snake River, and other scattered Indians belonging to said tribe not residing on any reservation, therefore to carry out such policy it is now agreed that the said tribes and scattered Indians shall be removed and settled on the lands of said White Earth Reservation as hereinafter provided.
The emphasis, of course, is mine.
Note that (1) the "policy of the Government" is here clearly stated as confining all Minnesota Ojibwe - - hence any who had or might later claim prior Reservation privileges - - within the single area termed White Earth Reservation, and that (2) the "until the President so chooses" was right then in 1886 - - clearing the board of any and all previous situations in which a President may or may not have yet "so chosen". Those on the Red Lake Reservation were treated separately 12 days later under an Agreement with the Red Lake Band of Chippewas.
If there can possibly be any reason for believing that all Reservation except White Earth and a fractional Red Earth Reservation ceased to exist as of that date - - again ! - - here is the ninth Article in this Treaty, which introduced the idea of personal land ownership through "allotment" procedures. Note that the Indians not only traded off all claims of prior land ownership in this agreement, but all their rights and interest as well. Again the emphasis is mine:
Article IX: The Chippewa Indians, parties hereto, do hereby relinquish and cede to the United States all their right, title, and interest, in and to the lands described in the first clause of the first article (ending with the words "to the place of beginning") of the treaty with the Chippewas of the Mississippi, proclaimed April 18, 1867, and to all lands elsewhere outside the limits of the White Earth Reservation.
Compare this with St. Arnold’s statement concerning the Treaties of 1836, 1837, 1842 and 1854: "These rights were never given up or lost in later treaties".
In fact, in closing this section on Treaties, let us glance yet again at St. Arnold, since the approach of this writer is not only ignorant and irresponsible, as already pointed out, but so prejudicial as to be dangerously inflammatory. And this we all should regret. Concerning Article XIII in the 28 March 1836 Treaty, St. Arnold includes the stipulation "until the land is required for settlement"; but regarding the far more critical 1837 Treaty, he only says "the Chippewa kept their right to hunt, fish, and gather on the ceded lands" - - with omission of the CIOR stipulation!
In discussing the 1842 Treaty, he does the some thing with its Article II, saying only that "the Chipewa leaders also kept the right to hunt, fish, and harvest on the ceded territory" - - without one word on the immediately following "until required to move by the President of the United States!" Such publishing of incomplete quotations, taken out of context is unconscionable and inexcusable. I have already referred to the latter part of the following quote; but I now give it in full because it appears as a high-emphasis block on the inside back cover of his booklet under a heading Questions and Answers:
Why did the courts give the Chippewas hunting and fishing rights? Hunting and fishing rights were not given to the Chippewas by the courts, the Department of Natural Resources or the State. The rights to hunt, fish, and harvest were rights the Chippewas had all long. They kept these rights for themselves when they sold the land.
In short, this important spokesman for the modern Ojibwe position has taken the things favorable to his argument and published them out of context, giving a totally uninformed and faulty impression, then consummated it with his totally erroneous conclusion. As I said before, hopefully those who read his booklet will go back and read the actual Treaties. The tragedy in my view is that the booklet is aimed at children and generally uninformed adults, using an attractive high-impact format, brief statements, and easily readable type.
In discussing the 1842 Treaty, that writer’s interpretation is particularly warped. When in 1850 the President did "so choose" to follow through on stipulations of the 1842 Treaty and bring about the removal, as short as the time lapse was, the Indian memory proved even shorter; and there resulted such a tremendous pandemonium as to taint reputations all the way up to Governor Alexander Ramsey, having had much to do with his failure to secure a second term as Territorial Governor. That Treaty had come about because geologists determined that there was what they call a "mineral district" within the area; and since mining was one thing, and settlement was another not necessarily related to mining, no less than three different Articles among a total of seven concerned removal! Article II spelled out the conditions of total removal if and when the use of the property for settlement might arise:
Article II: The Indians stipulated for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until required to remove by the President of the United States…
Article III, having to do with the removal of the Lake Superior Bands, opened with this reminder:
… that whenever the Indians shall be required to move from the ceded district …
Article VI then separately spelled out the stipulation for local removal in case mining should proceed without settlement yet in view:
Article VI: The Indians residing on the Mineral district shall be subject to removal therefrom at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
Regarding the removal uproar of 1850, St. Arnold has this to say about it, with no further remarks, and leaving the fanciful impression that this baseless argument of the Treaty-breakers - - and note my considered use of the term - - was the only valid position to take:
The tribes insisted they had never intended to leave, and had signed the 1842 Treaty only to allow the U.S. to mine copper. (!)
Read the Treaty!