The Project Gutenberg eBook, Cessions of Land by Indian Tribes to the
United States: Illustrated by Those in the State of Indiana, by C. C. Royce
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
Title: Cessions of Land by Indian Tribes to the United States: Illustrated by Those in the State of Indiana
First Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1879-80, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1881, pages 247-262
Author: C. C. Royce
Release Date: November 24, 2005 [eBook #17148]
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CESSIONS OF LAND BY INDIAN TRIBES TO THE UNITED STATES: ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE IN THE STATE OF INDIANA***
E-text prepared by Janet Blenkinship
and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
from page images generously made available by the
Bibliothèque nationale de France
Images of the original pages are available through the
Bibliothèque nationale de France
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION—BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.
J. W. POWELL, DIRECTOR.
CESSIONS OF LAND BY INDIAN TRIBES
ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE IN THE STATE OF INDIANA.
C. C. ROYCE.
First Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology
to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1879-80,
Government Printing Office, Washington, 1881, pages 247-262
CHARACTER OF THE INDIAN TITLE.
The social and political relations that have existed and still continue
between the Government of the United States and the several Indian
tribes occupying territory within its geographical limits are, in many
The unprecedentedly rapid increase and expansion of the white population
of the country, bringing into action corresponding necessities for the
acquisition and subjection of additional territory, have maintained a
constant straggle between civilization and barbarism. Involved as a
factor in this social conflict, was the legal title to the land occupied
by Indians. The questions raised were whether in law or equity the
Indians were vested with any stronger title than that of mere tenants at
will, subject to be dispossessed at the pleasure or convenience of their
more civilized white neighbors, and, if so, what was the nature and
extent of such stronger title?
These questions have been discussed and adjudicated from time to time by
the executive and judicial authorities of civilized nations ever since
the discovery of America.
The discovery of this continent, with its supposed marvelous wealth of
precious metals and commercial woods, gave fresh impetus to the ambition
and cupidity of European monarchs.
Spain, France, Holland, and England each sought to rival the other in
the magnitude and value of their discoveries. As the primary object of
each of these European potentates was the same, and it was likely to
lead to much conflict of jurisdiction, the necessity of some general
rule became apparent, whereby their respective claims might be
acknowledged and adjudicated without resort to the arbitrament of arms.
Out of this necessity grew the rule which became a part of the
recognized law of nations, and which gave the preference of title to the
monarch whose vessels should be the first to discover, rather than to
the one who should first enter upon the possession of new lands. The
exclusion under this rule of all other claimants gave to the discovering
nation the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives and of
planting settlements thereon. This was a right asserted by all the
commercial nations of Europe, and fully recognized in their dealings
with each [Pg 250]other; and the assertion, of such a right necessarily carried
with it a modified denial of the Indian title to the land discovered. It
recognized in them nothing but a possessory title, involving a right of
occupancy and enjoyment until such time as the European sovereign should
purchase it from them. The ultimate fee was held to reside in such
sovereign, whereby the natives were inhibited from alienating in any
manner their right of possession to any but that sovereign or his
The recognition of these principles seems to have been complete, as is
evidenced by the history of America from its discovery to the present
day. France, England, Portugal, and Holland recognized them
unqualifiedly, and even Catholic Spain did not predicate her title
solely upon the grant of the Holy See.
No one of these countries was more zealous in her maintenance of these
doctrines than England. In 1496 King Henry VII commissioned John and
Sebastian Cabot to proceed upon a voyage of discovery and to take
possession of such countries as they might find which were then unknown
to Christian people, in the name of the King of England. The results of
their voyages in the next and succeeding years laid the foundation for
the claim of England to the territory of that portion of North America
which subsequently formed the nucleus of our present possessions.
The policy of the United States since the adoption of the Federal
Constitution has in this particular followed the precedent established
by the mother country. In the treaty of peace between Great Britain and
the United States following the Revolutionary war, the former not only
relinquished the right of government, but renounced and yielded to the
United States all pretensions and claims whatsoever to all the country
south and west of the great northern rivers and lakes as far as the
In the period between the conclusion of this treaty and the year 1789 it
was undoubtedly the opinion of Congress that the relinquishment of
territory thus made by Great Britain, without so much as a saving clause
guaranteeing the Indian right of occupancy, carried with it an absolute
and unqualified fee-simple title unembarrassed by any intermediate
estate or tenancy. In the treaties held with the Indians during this
period—notably those of Fort Stanwix, with the Six Nations, in 1784,
and Fort Finney, with the Shawnees, in 1786—they had been required to
acknowledge the United States as the sole and absolute sovereign of all
the territory ceded by Great Britain.
This claim, though unintelligible to the savages in its legal aspects,
was practically understood by them to be fatal to their independence and
territorial rights. Although in a certain degree the border tribes had
been defeated in their conflicts with the United States, they still
retained sufficient strength and resources to render them formidable
antagonists, especially when the numbers and disposition of their
[Pg 251]adjoining and more remote allies were taken into consideration. The
breadth, and boldness of the territorial claims thus asserted by the
United States were not long in producing their natural effect. The
active and sagacious Brant succeeded in reviving his favorite project of
an alliance between the Six Nations and the northwestern tribes. He
experienced but little trouble in convening a formidable assemblage of
Indians at Huron Village, opposite Detroit, where they held council
together from November 28 to December 18, 1786.
These councils resulted in the presentation of an address to Congress,
wherein they expressed an earnest desire for peace, but firmly insisted
that all treaties carried on with the United States should be with the
general voice of the whole confederacy in the most open manner; that the
United States should prevent surveyors and others from crossing the Ohio
River; and they proposed a general treaty early in the spring of 1787.
This address purported to represent the Five Nations, Hurons, Ottawas,
Twichtwees, Shawanese, Chippewas, Cherokees, Delawares, Pottawatomies,
and the Wabash Confederates, and was signed with the totem of each
Such a remonstrance, considering the weakness of the government under
the old Articles of Confederation, and the exhausted condition
immediately following the Revolution, produced a profound sensation in
Congress. That body passed an act providing for the negotiation of a
treaty or treaties, and making an appropriation for the purchase and
extinguishment of the Indian claim to certain lands. These preparations
and appropriations resulted in two treaties made at Fort Harmar, January
9, 1789, one with the Six Nations, and the other with the Wiandot,
Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Pottawatima, and Sac Nations, wherein the
Indian title of occupancy is clearly acknowledged. That the government
so understood and recognized this principle as entering into the text of
those treaties is evidenced by a communication bearing date June 15,
1789, from General Knox, then Secretary of War, to President Washington,
and which was communicated by the latter on the same day to Congress, in
which it is declared that—
The Indians, being the prior occupants, possess the right of soil.
It cannot be taken from them, unless by their free consent, or by
right of conquest in case of a just war. To dispossess them on any
other principle would be a gross violation of the fundamental laws
of nature, and of that distributive justice which is the glory of a
The principle thus outlined and approved by the administration of
President Washington, although more than once questioned by interested
parties, has almost, if not quite, invariably been sustained by the
legal tribunals of the country, at least by the courts of final resort;
and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States bear
consistent testimony to its legal soundness. Several times has this
question in different forms appeared before the latter tribunal for
adjudication, and in each case has the Indian right been recognized and
protected. In 1823, 1831, and 1832, Chief Justice Marshall successively
delivered [Pg 252]the opinion of the court in important cases involving the
Indian status and rights. In the second of these cases (The Cherokee
Nation vs. The State of Georgia) it was maintained that the Cherokees
were a state and had uniformly been treated as such since the settlement
of the country; that the numerous treaties made with them by the United
States recognized them as a people capable of maintaining the relations
of peace and war; of being responsible in their political character for
any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on
the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community;
that the condition of the Indians in their relations to the United
States is perhaps unlike that of any other two peoples on the globe;
that, in general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to
each other, but that the relation of the Indians to the United States is
marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere else;
that the Indians were acknowledged to have an unquestionable right to
the lands they occupied until that right should be extinguished by a
voluntary cession to our government; that it might well be doubted
whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of
the United States could with strict accuracy be denominated foreign
nations, but that they might more correctly perhaps be denominated
domestic dependent nations; that they occupied a territory to which we
asserted a title independent of their will, but which only took effect
in point of possession when their right of possession ceased.
The Government of the United States having thus been committed in all of
its departments to the recognition of the principle of the Indian right
of possession, it becomes not only a subject of interest to the student
of history, but of practical value to the official records of the
government, that a carefully compiled work should exhibit the boundaries
of the several tracts of country which have been acquired from time to
time, within the present limits of the United States, by cession or
relinquishment from the various Indian tribes, either through the medium
of friendly negotiations and just compensation, or as the result of
military conquest. Such a work, if accurate, would form the basis of any
complete history of the Indian tribes in their relations to, and
influence upon the growth and diffusion of our population and
civilization. Such a contribution to the historical collections of the
country should comprise:
1st. A series of maps of the several States and Territories, on a scale
ranging from ten to sixteen miles to an inch, grouped in atlas form,
upon which should be delineated in colors the boundary lines of the
various tracts of country ceded to the United States from time to time
by the different Indian tribes.
2d. An accompanying historical text, not only reciting the substance of
the material provisions of the several treaties, but giving a history of
the causes leading to them,, as exhibited in contemporaneous official
correspondence and other trustworthy data.
4th. An alphabetic list of all rivers, lakes, mountains, villages, and
other objects or places mentioned in such treaties, together with their
location and the names by which they are at present known.
5th. An alphabetic list of the principal rivers, lakes, mountains, and
other topographic features in the United States, showing not only their
present names but also the various names by which they have from time to
time been known since the discovery of America, giving in each case the
date and the authority therefor.
The most difficult and laborious feature of the work is that involved
under the first of these five subdivisions. The ordinary reader in
following the treaty provisions, in which the boundaries of the various
cessions are so specifically and minutely laid down, would anticipate
but little difficulty in tracing those boundaries upon the modern map.
In this he would find himself sadly at fault. In nearly all of the
treaties concluded half a century or more ago, wherein cessions of land
were made, occur the names of boundary points which are not to be found
on any modern map, and which have never been known to people of the
present generation living in the vicinity.
In many of the older treaties this is the case with a large proportion
of the boundary points mentioned. The identification and exact location
of these points thus becomes at once a source of much laborious
research. Not unfrequently weeks and even months of time have been
consumed, thousands of old maps and many volumes of books examined, and
a voluminous correspondence conducted with local historical societies or
old settlers, in the effort to ascertain the location of a single
To illustrate this difficulty, the case of “Hawkins’ line” may be cited,
a boundary line mentioned in the cession by the Cherokees by treaty of
October 2, 1798. An examination of more than four thousand old and
modern maps and the scanning of more than fifty volumes failed to show
its location or to give even the slightest clue to it. A somewhat
extended correspondence with numerous persons in Tennessee, including
the veteran annalist, Ramsey, also failed to secure the desired
information. It was not until months of time had been consumed and
probable sources of information had been almost completely exhausted
that, through the persevering inquiries of Hon. John M. Lea, of
Nashville, Tenn., in conjunction with the present writer’s own
investigations, the line was satisfactorily identified as being the
boundary line mentioned in [Pg 254]the Cherokee treaty of July 2, 1791, and
described as extending from the North Carolina boundary “north to a
point from which a line is to be extended to the river Clinch that shall
pass the Holston at the ridge which divides the waters running into
Little River from those running into the Tennessee.”
It gained the title of “Hawkins’ line” from the fact that a man named
Hawkins surveyed it.
That this is not an isolated case, and as an illustration of the number
and frequency of changes in local geographical names in this country, it
may be remarked that in twenty treaties concluded by the Federal
Government with the various Indian tribes prior to the year 1800, in an
aggregate of one hundred and twenty objects and places therein recited,
seventy-three of them are wholly ignored in the latest edition of
Colton’s Atlas; and this proportion will hold with but little diminution
in the treaties negotiated during the twenty years immediately
succeeding that date.
Another and most perplexing question has been the adjustment of the
conflicting claims of different tribes of Indians to the same territory.
In the earlier days of the Federal period, when the entire country west
of the Alleghanies was occupied or controlled by numerous contiguous
tribes, whose methods of subsistence involved more or less of nomadic
habit, and who possessed large tracts of country then of no greater
value than merely to supply the immediate physical wants of the hunter
and fisherman, it was not essential to such tribes that a careful line
of demarkation should define the limits of their respective territorial
claims and jurisdiction. When, however, by reason of treaty negotiations
with the United States, with a view to the sale to the latter of a
specific area of territory within clearly-defined boundaries, it became
essential for the tribe with whom the treaty was being negotiated to
make assertion and exhibit satisfactory proof of its possessory title to
the country it proposed to sell, much controversy often arose with other
adjoining tribes, who claimed all or a portion of the proposed cession.
These conflicting claims were sometimes based upon ancient and
immemorial occupancy, sometimes upon early or more recent conquest, and
sometimes upon a sort of wholesale squatter-sovereignty title whereby a
whole tribe, in the course of a sudden and perhaps forced migration,
would settle down upon an unoccupied portion of the territory of some
less numerous tribe, and by sheer intimidation maintain such occupancy.
In its various purchases from the Indians, the Government of the United
States, in seeking to quiet these conflicting territorial claims, have
not unfrequently been compelled to accept from two, and even three,
different tribes separate relinquishments of their respective rights,
titles, and claims to the same section of country. Under such
circumstances it can readily be seen, what difficulties would attend a
clear exhibition upon a single map of these various coincident and
overlapping strips of territory. The State of Illinois affords an
excellent illustration.[Pg 255] The conflicting cessions in that State may be
briefly enumerated as follows:
1. The cession at the mouth of Chicago River, by treaty of August 3,
1795, was also included within the limits of a subsequent cession made
by treaty of August 24, 1816, with the Ottawas, Chippewas, and
2. The cession at the mouth of the Illinois River, by treaty of 1795,
was overlapped by the Kaskaskia cession of 1803, again by the Sac and
Fox cession of 1804, and a third time by the Kickapoo cession of 1819.
3. The cession at “Old Peoria Fort, or village,” by treaty of 1795, was
also overlapped in like manner with the last preceding one.
4. The cessions of 1795 at Fort Massac and at Great Salt Spring are
within the subsequent cession by the Kaskaskias of 1803.
5. The cession of August 13, 1803, by the Kaskaskias, as ratified and
enlarged by the Kaskaskias and Peorias September 25, 1818, overlaps the
several sessions by previous treaty of 1795 at the mouth of the Illinois
River, at Great Salt Spring, at Fort Massac, and at Old Peoria Fort, and
is in turn overlapped by subsequent cessions of July 30, and August 30,
1819, by the Kickapoos and by the Pottawatomie cession of October 20,
6. The Sac and Fox cession of November 3, 1804 (partly in Missouri and
Wisconsin) overlaps the cessions of 1795 at the mouth of the Illinois
River and at Old Peoria Fort. It is overlapped by two Chippewa, Ottawa,
and Pottawatomie cessions of July 29, 1829, the Winnebago cessions of
August 1, 1829, and September 1, 1832, and by the Chippewa, Ottawa, and
Pottawatomie cession of September 26, 1833.
7. The Piankeshaw cession of December 30, 1805, is overlapped by the
Kickapoo cession of 1819.
8. The Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatomie cession of August 24, 1816,
overlaps the cession of 1795 around Chicago.
9. The cession of October 2, 1818, by the Pottawatomies (partly in
Indiana), is overlapped by the subsequent cession of 1819, by the
10. The combined cessions of July 30, and August 30, 1819, by the
Kickapoos (partly in Indiana), overlap the cessions of 1795 at the mouth
of the Illinois River and at Old Fort Peoria; also the Kaskaskia and
Peoria cessions of 1803 and 1818, the Piankeshaw cession of 1805, and
the Pottawatomie cession of October 2, 1818, and are overlapped by the
subsequent Pottawatomie cession of October 20, 1832.
11. Two cessions were made by the Chippewas, Ottawas and Pottawatomies
by treaty of July 29, 1829 (partly located in Wisconsin), one of which
is entirely and the other largely within the limits of the country
previously ceded by the Sacs and Foxes, November 3, 1804.
12. The Winnebago cession of August 1, 1829 (which is partly in
Wisconsin), is also wholly within the limits of the aforesaid Sac and
Fox cession of 1804.
14. Pottawatomie cession of October 20, 1832, which overlaps the
Kaskaskia and Peoria cession of August 13, 1803, as confirmed and
enlarged September 25, 1818, and also the Kickapoo cession by treaties
of July 30 and August 30, 1819.
From this it will be seen that almost the entire country comprising the
present State of Illinois was the subject of controversy in the matter
of original ownership, and that the United States, in order fully to
extinguish the Indian claim thereto, actually bought it twice, and some
portions of it three times. It is proper, however, to add in this
connection that where the government at the date of a purchase from one
tribe was aware of an existing claim to the same region by another
tribe, it had the effect of diminishing the price paid.
ORIGINAL AND SECONDARY CESSIONS.
Another difficulty that has arisen, and one which, in order to avoid
confusion, will necessitate the duplication in the atlas of the maps of
several States, is the attempt to show not only original, but also
secondary cessions of land. The policy followed by the United States for
many years in negotiating treaties with the tribes east of the
Mississippi River included the purchase of their former possessions and
their removal west of that river to reservations set apart for them
within the limits of country purchased for that purpose from its
original owners, and which were in turn retroceded to the United States
by its secondary owners. This has been largely the case in Missouri,
Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Indian Territory. The present State of
Kansas, for instance, was for the most part the inheritance of the
Kansas and Osage tribes. It was purchased from them by the provisions of
the treaties of June 2, 1825, with the Osage, and June 3, 1825, with the
Kansas tribe, they, however, reserving in each case a tract sufficiently
large for their own use and occupancy. These and subsequent cessions of
these two tribes must be shown upon a map of “original cessions.”
After securing these large concessions from the Kansas and Osages, the
government, in pursuance of the policy above alluded to, sought to
secure the removal of the remnant of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois tribes
to this region by granting them, in part consideration for their eastern
possessions, reservations therein of size and location suitable to their
wishes and necessities. In this way homes were provided for the
Wyandots, Delawares, Shawnees, Pottawatomies, Sacs and Foxes of the
Mississippi, Kickapoos, the Confederated Kaskaskias, Peorias,
Pianke[Pg 257]shaws, and Weas, the Ottawas of Blanchard’s Fork and Roche de
Bœuf, and the Chippewas and Munsees. A few years of occupation again
found the advancing white settlements encroaching upon their domain,
with the usual accompanying demand for more land. Cessions, first; of a
portion and finally of the remnant, of these reservations followed,
coupled with the removal of the Indians to Indian Territory. These
several reservations and cessions must be indicated upon a map of
Object illustration is much, more striking and effective than mere
verbal description. In order, therefore, to secure to the reader the
clearest possible understanding of the subject, there is herewith
presented as an illustration a map of the State of Indiana, upon which
is delineated the boundaries of the different tracts of land within that
State ceded to the United States from time to time by treaty with the
various Indian tribes.
The cessions are as follows:
No. 1. A tract lying east of a line running from opposite the mouth of
Kentucky River, in a northerly direction, to Fort Recovery, in Ohio, and
which forms a small portion of the western end of the cession made by
the first paragraph of article 3, treaty of August 3, 1795, with the
Wyandots, Delawares, Miamis, and nine other tribes. Its boundaries are
indicated by scarlet lines. The bulk of the cession is in Ohio.
No. 2. Six miles square at confluence of Saint Mary’s and Saint Joseph’s
Rivers, including Fort Wayne; also ceded by treaty of August 3, 1795,
and bounded on the map by scarlet lines.
No. 3. Two miles square on the Wabash, at the end of the Portage of the
Miami of the Lake; also ceded by treaty of August 3, 1795, and bounded
on the map by scarlet lines.
No. 4. Six miles square at Outatenon, or Old Wea Towns, on the Wabash;
also ceded by treaty of August 3, 1795, and bounded on the map by
scarlet lines. This tract was subsequently retroceded to the Indians by
article 8, treaty of September 30, 1809, and finally included within the
Pottawatomie session of October 2, 1818, and the Miami cession of
October 6, 1818.
No. 5. Clarke’s grant on the Ohio River; stipulated in deed from
Virginia to the United States in 1784 to be granted to General George
Rogers Clarke and his soldiers. This tract was specially excepted from
the limits of the Indian country by treaty of August 3, 1795, and is
bounded on the map by scarlet lines.
No. 6. “Post of Vincennes and adjacent country, to which the Indian
title has been extinguished.” This tract was specially excluded from the
limits of the Indian country by treaty of August 3, 1795. Doubt having
arisen as to its proper boundaries, they were specifically defined by
treaty of June 7, 1803. It is known as the “Vincennes tract”; is partly
in Illinois, and is bounded on the map by scarlet lines.
No. 8. Cession by the treaty of August 21, 1805, with the Miamis, Eel
Rivers, and Weas, in the southeastern part of the State, and designated
by blue lines.
No. 9. Cession by treaty of September 30, 1809, with the Miami, Eel
River, Delaware, and Pottawatomie tribes, adjoining “Vincennes tract”
(No. 9) on the north, and designated by yellow lines. This cession was
concurred in by the Weas in the treaty of October 26, 1809.
No. 10. Cession by the same treaty of September 30, 1809; in the
southeastern portion of the State; bounded on the map by yellow lines.
No. 11. Cession also by the treaty of September 30, 1809; marked by
crimson lines, and partly in Illinois. This cession was conditional upon
the consent of the Kickapoos, which was obtained by the treaty with them
of December 9, 1809.
No. 12. Cession by the Kickapoos, December 9, 1809, which was
subsequently reaffirmed by them June 4, 1816. It was also assented to by
the Weas October 2, 1818, and by the Miamis October 6, 1818. It is
partly in Illinois, and is bounded on the map by green lines. The
Kickapoos also assented to the cession No. 11 by the Miamis et al., of
September 30, 1809.
No. 13. Cession by the Wyandots, September 29, 1817. This is mostly in
Ohio, and is bounded on the map by yellow lines.
No. 14. Cession by the Pottawatomies, October 2, 1818; partly in
Illinois, and is denoted by brown lines. A subsequent treaty of August
30, 1819, with the Kickapoos, cedes a tract of country (No. 16) which
overlaps this cession, the overlap being indicated by a dotted blue
By the treaty of October 2, 1818, the Weas ceded all the land claimed by
them in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, except a small reserve on the
Wabash River. Their claim was of a general and indefinite character, and
is fully covered by more definite cessions by other tribes.
By the treaty of October 3, 1818, the Delawares ceded all their claim to
land in Indiana. This claim, which they held in joint tenancy with the
Miamis, was located on the waters of White River, and it is included
within the tract marked 15, ceded by the Miamis October 6, 1818.
No. 15. Cession by the Miamis, October 6, 1818; bounded on the map by
purple lines. Its general boundaries cover all of Central Indiana and a
small portion of Western Ohio, but within its limits were included the
Wea Reservation of 1818 (No. 17), and six tracts of different dimensions
were reserved for the future use of the Miamis [Nos. 21, 29 (30 and 50),
(31, 48, 53, and 54), 49, and 51]. The Miamis also assented to the
Kickapoo cession of December 9, 1809 (No. 12). The Kickapoos in turn, by
treaty of July 30, 1819, relinquished all claim to country southeast of
the Wabash, which was an indefinite tract, and is covered by the
foregoing Miami cession of 1818.
No. 16. Cession by the Kickapoos, August 30, 1819. This cession is
[Pg 259]bounded on the map by blue lines, and is largely in Illinois. It
overlaps the Pottawatomie cession of October 2, 1818 (No. 14), the
overlap being indicated by a dotted blue line. It is inborn overlapped
by the Pottawatomie cession (No. 23) of October 26, 1832.
No. 17. Cession by the Weas, August 11, 1820, of the tract reserved by
them October 2, 1818. It is on the Wabash River, in the western part of
the State, and is indicated by blue lines. It is within the general
limits of the Miami cession (No. 15) of October 6, 1818.
No. 18. Cession of August 29, 1821, by the Ottowas, Chippewas, and
Pottawatomies, indicated by green lines, and mostly in Michigan.
No. 19. Cession by the Pottawatomies, by first clause of first article
of the treaty of October 16, 1826. It lies north of Wabash River, and is
bounded on the map by blue lines. This and an indefinite extent of
adjoining country was also claimed by the Miamis, who ceded their claim
thereto October 23, 1826, with the exception of sundry small
reservations, four of which [Nos. 26, 27, 32, and 52] were partially or
entirely within the general limits of the Pottawatomie.
No. 20. Cession by the last clause of the first article of the
Pottawatomie treaty of October 16, 1826; in the northwest corner of the
State, and bounded on the map by scarlet lines.
As above stated, the Miamis, by treaty of October 23, 1826, ceded all
their claim to land in Indiana lying north and west of the Wabash and
Miami (Maumee) Rivers, except six small tribal, and a number of
individual reserves and grants. These six tribal, reserves were numbers
23, 27, 32, 52, 25, and 28, the first four of which, as above remarked,
were either partially or entirely within the Pottawatomie cession by the
first clause of the first article of the treaty of October 16, 1826, and
the other two within the Pottawatomie cession of October 27, 1832.
No. 21. Cession by the Eel River Miamis, February 11, 1828, bounded on
the map by green lines. This tract is within the general limits of the
Miami cession (No. 15) of 1818, and was reserved therefrom.
No. 22. Cession by the second clause of the first article of the
Pottawatomie treaty of September 20, 1828, designated by brown lines.
No. 23. Cession by the Pottawatomies, October 26, 1832, is in the
northwest portion of the State, and is indicated by yellow lines. Near
the southwest corner it overlaps the Kickapoo cession (No. 16) of August
30, 1819. Within the general limits of this cession seven tracts were
reserved for different bands of the tribe, which will be found on the
map numbered as follows: 33, 34, 39, 40 (two reserves), 41, and 42.
No. 24. Cession by the Pottawatomies of Indiana and Michigan, October
27, 1832, which in terms is a relinquishment of their claim to any
remaining lands in the States of Indiana and Illinois, and in the
Territory of Michigan south of Grand River. The cession thus made in
Indiana is bounded on the map by scarlet lines. Within the general
limits of this cession, however, they reserved for the use of various
bands of the tribe eleven tracts of different areas, and which are
numbered as follows: 35, 36, 37, 38, 43 (two reserves), 44 (two
reserves), 45, 46, and 47.
Nos. 25 to 32, inclusive. Cession of October 23, 1834, by the Miamis, of
eight small tracts previously reserved to them, all bounded on the map
by green lines. These are located as follows:
No. 25. Tract of thirty-six sections at Flat Belly’s village,
reserved by treaty of 1826; in townships 33 and 34 north, ranges 7
and 8 east.
No. 26. Tract of five miles in length on the Wabash, extending
back to Eel River, reserved by treaty of 1826; in townships 27 and
28 north, ranges 4 and 5 east.
No. 27. Tract of ten sections at Raccoon’s Village, reserved by
the treaty of 1826; in townships 29 and 30 north, ranges 10 and 11
No. 28. Tract of ten sections on Mud Creek, reserved by the treaty
of 1826; in township 28 north, range 4 east. The treaty of October
27, 1832, with the Pottawatomies, established a reserve of sixteen
sections for the bands of Ash-kum and Wee-si-o-nas (No. 46), and
one of five sections for the band of Wee-sau (No. 47), which
overlapped and included nearly all the territory comprised in the
Mud Creek reserve.
No. 29. Tract of two miles square on Salamanie River, at the mouth
of At-che-pong-quawe Creek, reserved by the treaty of 1818; in
township 23 north, ranges 13 and 14 east.
No. 30. A portion of the tract opposite the mouth of Aboutte
River, reserved by the treaty of 1818; in townships 29 and 30
north, ranges 10, 11, and 12 east.
No. 31. A portion of the tract known as the “Big Reserve,”
established by the treaty of 1818; in townships 21 to 27,
inclusive, ranges 1 and 2 east.
No. 32. Tract of ten sections at the Forks of the Wabash, reserved
by the treaty of 1826. This cession provides for the relinquishment
of the Indian title and the issuance of a patent to John B.
Richardville therefor. In township 28 north, ranges 8 and 9 east.
No. 33. Cession of December 4, 1834, by Com-o-za’s band of
Pottawatomies, of a tract of two sections reserved for them on the
Tippecanoe River by the treaty of October 26, 1832.
No. 34. Cession of December 10, 1834, by Mau-ke-kose’s (Muck-rose) band
of Pottawatomies, of six sections reserved to them by the treaty of
October 26, 1832; in township 32 north, range 2 east, and bounded on the
map by crimson lines.
No. 35. Cession of December 16, 1834, by the Pottawatomies, of two
sections reserved by the treaty of October 27, 1832, to include their
mills on the Tippecanoe River.
No. 36. Cession of December 17, 1834, by Mota’s band of Pottawatomies,
of four sections reserved for them by the treaty of October 27, 1832; in
townships 32 and 33 north, range 5 east, indicated by blue lines.
No. 37. Cession of March 26, 1836, by Mes-quaw-buck’s band of
Pottawatomies, of four sections reserved to them by the treaty of
October 27, 1832; in township 33 north, range 6 east, indicated by
[Pg 261]No. 38. Cession of March 29, 1836, by Che-case’s band of Pottawatomies,
of four sections reserved for them by the treaty of October 27, 1832; in
townships 32 and 33 north, ranges 5 and 6 east, bounded on the map by
No. 39. Cession of April 11, 1836, by Aub-ba-naub-bee’s band of
Pottawatomies, of thirty-six sections reserved for them, by the treaty
of October 26, 1832. In townships 31 and 32 north, ranges 1 and 2 east,
bounded on the map by blue lines.
No. 40. Cession of April 22, 1836, by the bands of O-kaw-mause,
Kee-waw-nee, Nee-boash, and Ma-che-saw (Mat-chis-jaw), of ten sections
reserved to them by the Pottawatomie treaty of October 26, 1832.
No. 41. Cession of April 22, 1836, by the bands of Nas-waw-kee
(Nees-waugh-gee) and Quash-quaw, of three sections reserved for them by
the treaty of October 26, 1832; in township 32 north, range 1 east,
bounded on the map by scarlet lines.
No. 42. Cession of August 5, 1836, by the bands of Pee-pin-ah-waw,
Mack-kah-tah-mo-may, and No-taw-kah (Pottawatomies), of twenty-two
sections reserved for them and the band of Menom-i-nee (the latter of
which does not seem to be mentioned in the treaty of cession), by treaty
of October 26, 1832; in township 33 north, ranges 1 and 2 east, bounded
on the map by green lines.
No. 43. Cession of September 20, 1836, by the bands of To-i-sas brother
Me-mot-way, and Che-quaw-ka-ko, of ten sections reserved for them by the
Pottawatomie treaty of October 27, 1832, and cession of September 22,
1836, by Ma-sac’s band of Pottawatomies, of four sections reserved for
them by the treaty of October 27, 1832; in township 31 north, range 3
east, bounded on the map by crimson lines.
Nos. 44 to 47, inclusive. Cessions of September 23, 1836, by various
bands of Pottawatomies, of lands reserved for them by the treaty of 1832
(being all of their remaining lands in Indiana), as follows:
No. 44. Four sections each for the bands of Kin-kash and
Men-o-quet; in township 33 north, ranges 5 and 6 east, bounded on
the map by crimson lines.
No. 45. Ten sections for the band of Che-chaw-kose; in township 32
north, range 4 east, designated by scarlet lines.
No. 46. Sixteen sections for the bands of Ash-kum and Wee-si-o-nas;
in townships 28 and 29 north, range 4 east, bounded on the map by a
dotted black line, and overlapping No. 28.
No. 47. Five sections for the band of Wee-sau; in township 28
north, range 4 east, adjoining No. 46, bounded on the map by a
dotted black line, and overlapping Nos. 19 and 28.
A cession for the second time is also made by this treaty of the four
sections reserved for the band of Mota (No. 35), by the treaty of
October 27, 1832.
Nos. 48 to 52, inclusive. Cessions of November 6, 1838, by the Miamis,
No. 48. A portion of the “Big Reserve,” in townships 25, 26, and
[Pg 262]27 north, ranges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 east, bounded on the map by
crimson lines, within the limits of which is reserved a tract for
the band of Me-to-sin-ia, numbered 54.
No. 49. The reservation by the treaty of 1818, on the Wabash River,
below the forks thereof; in townships 27 and 28 north, ranges 8 and
9 east, bounded on the map by scarlet lines.
No. 50. The remainder of the tract reserved by the treaty of 1818,
opposite the mouth of Abouette River; in townships 28 and 29 north,
ranges 10, 11, and 12 east, denoted by crimson lines.
No. 51. The reserve by the treaty of 1818 at the mouth of Flat Rock
Creek; in township 27 north, ranges 10 and 11 east, bounded on the
map by crimson lines.
No. 52. The reserve at Seek’s Village by the treaty of 1826; in
townships 31 and 32 north, ranges 9 and 10 east, marked by yellow
No. 53. Cession of November 28, 1840, of the residue of the “Big
Reserve” (except the grant to Me-to-sin-ia’s band No. 54); in townships
21 to 26 north, ranges 2 to 7 east, designated by yellow lines.
No. 54. By the Miami treaty of November 6, 1838, a reserve of ten miles
square was made (out of the general cession) for the band of
Me-to-sin-ia. By the treaty of November 28, 1840, the United States
agreed to convey this tract to Me-shing-go-me-sia, son of Me-to-sin-ia,
in trust for the band.
By act of Congress approved June 10, 1872, this reserve was partitioned
among the members of the band, 63 in number, and patents issued to each
of them for his or her share. It is in townships 25 and 26 north, ranges
6 and 7 east, and is bounded on the map by green lines.
This ended all Indian tribal title to lands within the State of Indiana.
The results to accrue from the researches contemplated under the 2d, 3d,
4th, and 5th subdivisions of the work suggested have already been
outlined with sufficient clearness, and need not be farther elaborated
A source of much delay in the collection of facts essential to the
completion of the work is the apparent indifference of librarians and
others in responding to letters of inquiry. Some, however, have entered
most zealously and intelligently into the work of searching musty
records and interviewing the traditional “oldest inhabitant” for light
on these dark spots. Thanks are especially due in this regard to Hon.
John M. Lea, Nashville, Tenn.; William Harden, librarian State
Historical Society, Savannah, Ga.; K.A. Linderfelt, librarian Public
Library, Milwaukee, Wis.; Dr. John A. Rice, Merton, Wis.; Hon. John
Wentworth, Chicago, Ill.; A. Cheesebrough and Hon. J.N. Campbell, of
Detroit, Mich.; D.S. Durrie, librarian State Historical Society,
Madison, Wis.; H.M. Robinson, Milwaukee, Wis.; Andrew Jackson, Sault
Ste. Marie, Mich.; A.W. Rush, Palmyra, Mo.; H.C. Campbell, Centreville,
Mich., and others.
|Atlas showing cessions of land||249|
|Cessions of land, xxvii||249|
|by the Indians, in Indiana||257|
|original and secondary||256|
|Council, Indian, at Huron village||251|
|Hawkins Line (boundary)||253|
|Illinois, Purchase of land for Indians in||254|
|Indian title, Character of||249|
|Indiana, Cession of land by the Indians||257|
|Lea, John M||253|
|Original and secondary cessions||256|
|Possession, Right of||252|
|Purchases of land from Indians in Illinois||254|
|Title, Indian, Character of||249|
|inheres in discoverer||249|
|Treaties at Fort Harmar||251|
***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CESSIONS OF LAND BY INDIAN TRIBES TO THE UNITED STATES: ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE IN THE STATE OF INDIANA***
******* This file should be named 17148-h.txt or 17148-h.zip *******
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
Updated editions will replace the previous one–the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away–you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial