n .‘v o a. .. -, _A . _ . 4" ”ha“ A " " u- v... _ r a . a: :......-',, ' gm“ " w "' t r- 4-w- -'.L‘ ”I.“ . ' my “tar..." .. I I - I: r 2—. "FM”, ' I ~ “" .; ._,. ”3;. . “mi . f-‘At— '-'>P‘ln~ .. . ' l' ”f - _" “. “7 -¢.-.. “5 7—54 . W . zummccu, z: x -- w w. ’ . 1‘1... ”2,... W :7?“ #2:;n~< "94% .- ..,_, ”Ali-3.”- x -qu,” <.. ' I ....:;',-, 13"” ‘ x. I I p ‘L..;.-'..‘ T H. M‘ ' -. - v "2.24“"..* . ‘C. "' f uvm ran 7. ‘ 3"" w ':< -:-n“' w m-”_,_'.__':;L,m. “W" «w- --~'v- ~ 4””!‘3a‘ffn 1» WM M- .«vr‘up'? . V . . . ,1; 14‘ "L Wig—‘32 wag-"1am M, ‘7‘. MM 7,}, 4.3.... ’ 43:32 “fig—— “2.23%: ¢ .1133“ w u .,. .5, E: ”73% w,” ...._:;':;..m . 1,, r ”J a u "a v .. v . . r)" M. ~55". tongue-.fflb‘yrpii ' a”. . ~ * V Md “‘9. ‘V‘Mt ‘ ‘ ”I '3 . ‘ a v . $725 w. w- M - ~;‘~, ARY DH DU 9". . .ity ~_,-.U t'!!\"r(' UU‘ U' ( "5 HIGH 1 put; IN RETURN 30!. to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. 11m claw-41669.14 7 "7/ A... LIBRARY Michigan State 1 University ,.__ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Giraud have/use Bandy” Land Base: "*- "K: CW Harm/Lea Study 06 Land Twfifé‘dffg." Mohegan prese m Janice Gabi) . ”‘0’," v'v m— .u-u— - 0 has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements .for PM degree in _Geo_glc_anh___y_ - @aggwme . . Mprofessor / Date F “a [5- & L MS U is an Afl'mca'n Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 THE GRAND TRAVERSE BANDS' LAND BASE: A CULTURAL HISTORICAL STUDY OF LAND TRANSFER IN MICHIGAN BY William James Gribb A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1981 ABSTRACT THE GRAND TRAVERSE BANDS' LANE BASE: A CULTURAL HISTORICAL STUDY OF LAND TRANSFER IN HICHIGAN BY Killian James Gribb The land holdings of the Native American have dwindled substantially since their contacts with Europeans. This study is an investigation of the Grand Traverse Bands' land holdings as prescribed in the Treaty of Detroit, July 31, 1855. The treaty provided for the allotment of eighty acre parcels to; the heads of households, windows, and single adults over the age of twenty-one. Five major questions were addressed in relation to the transfer of the Grand Traverse Bands' holdings: 1.) What were the methods by which the Grand Traverse Bands' transfered their allotments? 2.) Has there a difference between the methods of transfer experienced by the Euro-Americans and those experienced by the Native Americans? 3.) If the land was sold, did the native American receive a fair market price for the parcel? u.) How long did the Native American keep the fee simple title? And, was there any difference between the length of time the Native American kept the title and the Euro-American in the same area? And, 5.) was there a correlation between the length of time the Native American kept the allotment and the land value or potential land value? Archival research revealed that the Grand Traverse Bands' members received 20,0uo.73 acres in allotments. Four methods of transfer were experienced, 77.u% transfered by warranty sale, 3.2% by tax sale, 18.8% by quit claim sale, and over .6% by administrative sale. Using a random sample, there was a statistically significant difference between the selling price received by the Native American ($3.31) and that received by Euro-Americans ($6.95). Furthermore, the Native American kept their land only 6.u years compared to over eleven years for the Euro-American. Finally, there was no statistical relationship between the value of the land and the length of time the Native American held the land. Also, there was no significant statistical relationship between price or the length of time the land was held and distance to market. It was further revealed that forty percent of the allotments were obtained by sixteen local entrepenuers, and they tended to acquire land juxtaposed to their other holdings. Capyright by William James Gribb 1982 AC KNOWLEDG HENTS At this time I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have assisted me in the completion of this research. The assistance I have received has come in many forms, and all of these people have contributed in their own way. The group of people that have offered endless hours of advice, encouragement and direction are my dissertation committee members. I would like to thank Drs. Cleland and Hatley for their assistance in the conceptualization of land base and ethnicity. Statistical and computer work could not have been completed without the sound advice of Dr. Sittick, thank you for your help and friendship. Dr. Jacobson, committee chairman, has contributed not only endless hours but the intellectual freedom to conduct this study. He has offered nothing but encouragement throughout my graduate work at Michigan State, and this has allowed me the Opportunity to do this research. Two people that have contributed immeasurably have been John Burbank and Barry Levine. Besides his friendship, John assisted with the records of the Leelanau Historical Society. Barry Levine, through the Michigan Indian Legal Services, provided legal assistance, financial support and his friendship to complete this project. Finally, I wish to thank three people who have had to live with and without me throughout this research. My two sons, Nikolaus and Jesse, who always let the child in me come out. And finally, Anne, without when nothing would have any meaning. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ........................................ iv List of Figures ............................ . .......... vii Chapter One........ ................................... 1 Definition of Problem ......................... . ..... 2 Study Area.... ........... ......... ................. . 6 Research Design........... ................. ... ...... 10 Organization of the Chapters ............. . .......... 18 Chapter Two.......... ........ ......... ................ 20 The Major Facets of the Land Base Concept. ....... ... 21 Economic Component.. ................... ....... ...... 24 Socio-Political Component ........................... 26 Ideology....... ....... ..... .................. . ...... 31 Interrelatedness of the Components .................. 33 Ottawa and Ojibwa Example ....... . ................... 35 Physical Setting...... ............. . ................ 37 Subsistence Cycle.... ............................... 39 Socio-Political Relations ................... ........ 43 Ideology ............................................ 46 Summary..... ..................................... ... 51 Chapter Three... ...... ... ............................. 53 First Euro-American Contacts ........................ 61 iv Era of Frustration 1840 - 1855...... .......... ...... 71 Summary.. ..... ... ..... . ............... ...... ....... . 84 Chapter FourOO.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00... 87 Definition of Allotments.......... ..... ............. 88 Use in Treaties ................................... .. 89 Use as Policy......... ......... . .................... 93 Use as Law... ................................ . ...... 96 Effects of Allotments...............................lOl Chapter Five.................................... ..... .105 Methods of Transfer.. ..... .............. ........... .109. Differences in Method of Transfer ........ . ...... ....112 Length of Ownership..... ........................... .117 Land Value............. ..... ........................122 Price Per AcreOOOO..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0000000000131 Summary............. ..................... ...........138 Chapter Six..... ...... . ............................... 141 Temporal Patterns ..... . ...... . ...................... 142 Buyer Specific Patterns ...................... . ..... .151 Summary......................... ...... ..............162 Chapter Seven.............. ........................... 163 Future Research Directions..... ..................... 166 Appendix A Treaty of Washington (1855) .............. 168 Appendix B The Calculation of Potential Land Value..172 List of References....................................l75 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Population change, 1850 - 1900. ........... 6 Table 3.1 Annuity receipients in the Grand Traverse region. .............................. ..... 69 Table 5.1 aethods of transfer for patented lands.... 112 Table 5.2 Methods of transfer for saupled lands..... 114 Table 6.1 Correlation of distance and time. ......... 145 Table 6.2 Nearest neighbor analysis by year ......... 149 Table 6.3 Nearest neighbor analysis by families..... 153 vi Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 2.2 2.3 3.2 3.3 5.1 5.2 LIST OF FIGURES hovement of explores and missionaires..... 5 Boundaries of the 1840 reserve and Treaty of Detroit..... ..... . ..................... 9 Random sample of parcels. ................. 17 Diagram of cultural components. ........... 25 An individual's circles of identity. ...... 28 The interrelationships of the land base componentS.. ................ ..... ......... 34 The biotic provinces in the Great Lakes region-.... ooooooooooooooooooo 000000000000 38 Yearly cycle of subsistence activities.... 40 Homeland of some Native American groups, ca1soofioooooooooooooo ..... coco oooooo on... 55 Hutchison's map of reserves from Treaty of Nashington. ............................... 66 Rev. Dougherty's map of villages, 1840.... 79 Acreage exempt from Treaty of Detroit.....108 Parcels patented according to Treaty of Detroit. .................................. 111 Acreage of transfers by year. ............. 118 Soils in the Grand Traverse region. ....... 125 Topography of the Grand Traverse region...127 Calculated land potential by market centerJB4 Villages depicted on the Land Survey of 1850-1852. ................................ 144 vii Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Parcel transfers by year. ....... . ......... 148 Selected family holdings.... ............ ..152 Native American land accumulated by familylSS Blackman and Ahgosa holdings. ............. 161 --4 l Chapter One The indigenous populations of North America develOped a number of interrelated cultural systems to utilize, control and worship the physical environment. In the area that was to become the contiguous United States, more than 1.9 billion acres were available to the Native Americans. After European contact and the establishment of foreign powers on this continent, the Native Americans access to what had been their domain diminished dramatically. At present Native Americans have access and superficial control of approximately 50 million acres, or 2.6 percent of the original land. This drastic reduction was a consequence of treaty provisions, wars, gifts, frauds, and legal land transfers. Price (1969, 12) presented four stages of early white-native relations based on evidence from North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Stage I: initial contact by European explorers and traders, some of whom maintain friendly relations and occasionaly turn "native" and intermarry: these together with those guilty of rape and seduction start a mixed-blood or half caste population; EurOpean disease and alcohol starts to weaken native peoples. Stage II: arrival of land~hungary FurOpeans, who forced back the 'moving frontier', expropriate land, exterminate many who have survived diseases, and destroy native life and resources: the mixed bloods, sometimes rejected by both atoriginals and invaders, may form a separate population. Stage III: under missionary influence various philanthropic moves produce ineffective palliatives such as reservations or mission areas, where endeavors to "improve" and educate the aboriginals destroy tribal organization and culture and continue the process of population decline. Stage Iv: "scientific administration” with the guidance of anthropologists, strengthens tribal culture and finds viable economic activity; aboriginal populations both mixed blood and full-blocd increase (1969, 212). Each stage represents a different strategy or policy by the Europeans to contend with the indigenous population. In some instances, full knowledge of the outcome was known beforehand, in other cases it was not. This study concerns itself with the consequences of one policy of the United States government whose aim was to acculturate the Native American. The 0.5. government believed that if they allowed the Native American to become a land owner they would accept the challenge and responsibility to contribute to American society. Unfortunately, this policy did not reach its objective. Definition of Problem On July 31, 1855 the hichigan Ottawa and Ojibwa signed a treaty which stipulated that "The United States will give each Ottowa and Chippewa Indian being the head of a family, 80 acres of land...(Art. I, Sec. 8, para. 2)." Other provisions of the treaty allowed sirgle members and widows also to receive land. Eventually, the Ottawa and Chippewa received a fee simple title to the land, giving them the full rights and responsibilities of an individual land owner. The problem that is being addressed in this research is what happened to the land after the fee simple patent was issued. The Federal government assumed the Native American would become a "productive" member of society and work the land (Tyler, 1973, 67). Did that happen? Or as Hashburn states, most of the land allotted to the Native American transferred by unscroupulous land deals or forfeited for delinquent taxes (1971, 18). Is that what happened? Or is it somewhere in between these two extremes? In research on justice denied Michigan Indians, Rubenstein (1976, 1974) relates a number of instances in which land frauds took place after the treaties of 1854, and 1855. be, however, only relates a few instances of fraud in relation to more than 700,000 acres which were allotted. It is important to find out more detail on the transfers which took place because of not only legal actions which could ensue but also the economic ramifications. The treaty signed on July 31, 1855, hereafter referred to as the Treaty of Detroit (1855), set aside eight distinct reserves, one for each of the nichigan Ottawa and 4 Ojibwa groups (Art. 1, Secs. 1-8) (Appendix A.). The reserves were temporarily excluded from the public land market, so that, the Michigan Ottawa and Cjibwa could make their selections of land as provided in the treaty. And of the eight groups, this study will concentrate on the selections, patents and transfers of the Grand Traverse Bands. This group is important for two reasons. First, the Grand Traverse Bands experienced the least contact with Europeans prior to settlement on their land, which did not occur until the establishment of a mission by Rev. Daugherty in 1839 (Leach, 1889) (Figure 1.1). But in the period after the Treaty of Detroit, the Grand Traverse region experienced the most rapid population growth in northern Nichigan (Table 1.1). This illustrates the fact that the Grand Traverse Bands had to cope with an extreme increase in Euro-American contact in a short period of time. Other Hichigan Ottawa and Ojibwa groups did not have this drastic change in contact patterns because they were exposed to Europeans earlier, in some cases the beginning of the 18th Century. The second reason is more of a practical consideration. The nichigan Indian Legal Services requested this study for further documentation to assist in legal claims under Cong. code 2415. There are fiVe central issues in this research: 1.) What were the methods by which the Grand Traverse Bands' transfered their allotments? 2.) Has there a difference between the methods of transfer experienced by the Euro-American and those experienced by the Native American? r . A \ —- d fl ° . 0 . .03 \ , ........... w ' '/ § § '. ‘Wo...’ ..fi‘T-r-h. 9 \ .0 - a O \ " \ O 17/ \ r /' ‘ 1 \ '. \ I \ . \ ' 0 0'0. \ d "7 0 _ __ ,_ .. ..."I I I s u—Q" ... .° ’/ I \.___‘,/’ Explorers Forts Missions ..- Nicole: 0 Fort Miami A L'Anse ... Menard Fort St.Joseph .. . . Dollier&Galinee A SltSte.Marie Jolliet&Marquet®. Fort DeBuade A St.Ignace - - LaSalle 0 Fort St.Joseph, 1691 @ Fort Pontchartrain @ Fort Michilimackinac ® Fort Repentigny FIGURE 1.1 Movement of explorers and missionaries. 3.) If the land was sold, did the Native American receive a fair market price for the parcel? 0.) How long did the Native American keep the fee simple title? And, was their any difference between the length of time the Native American kept the title and the Euro-American in the same area? And, 5.) Has there a correlation between the length of time the Native American kept the allotment and the land value or potential land value? POPULATION CHANGE, - “fin----“ -‘"------ -‘--"------“ *--- --~~-~_-“----- - County 1850 hntril Alpena Cheboygan Ellett 0977 Grand Traverse Manitou Leelanau Presque Isle Benzie Charlevoix 1860 179 1003 2158 26 TABLE 1.1 1850 - 1900 1870 1880 1985 5237 2756 9789 2197 6520 1211 6635 0003 8022 891 1330 0577 6253 355 3110 2180 3033 1720 5110 1890 10013 15581 11986 8756 13355 860 7900 0688 5237 9686 1900 16568 18250 15516 15931 20079 10556 8821 9685 13956 Note: The county boundaries changed dramatically during this time period. The Census Bureau population figures are for the county as named during the year of the census. Study Area The settlement of Michigan was a mixture of mis- sioniary and fur trader exploring the coast and inland waters. 7 The Grand Traverse Bay region of lower hichigan was an isolated corner of the state, it was away from the linkages between the population centers in the early years of this continent (Figure 1.1). Furthermore, the region was not heavily populated with fur-bearing mammals and consequently was not invaded hy trappers. Thus, the Grand Traverse area was neither visited nor settled by Euro-Americans. The Treaty of Washington, signed on harch 26, 1836, initiated recognition and contact between the Federal government and the Grand Traverse Bands. This treaty ceded over 10 million acres of northwestern hichigan to the United States government. In return, the Michigan Ottawa and Ojibwa received land and monetary compensation. Other provisions of the treaty, however, provided for assistance by skilled latorers and educators (Arts. 0, 5, and 7). The skilled laborers included hlacksmiths, carpenters, farmers and interpreters. Education was provided by missionaries. And, each group generally brought their families and possessions. In the Grand Traverse region, it is this group which became the first settlers. Because of ambiguities in the Treaty of Washington and the pressures of new settlers, the Hiohigan Ottawa and Ojibwa negotiated a new treaty, the Treaty of Detroit. And as mentioned previously, 80 acre allotments were issued to the members of the tribal groups. For the Grand Traverse Bands approximately 87,000 acres were set aside for their selection (Figure 1.2). Selection of individual parcels was FIGURE 1.2 Boundaries of the 1840 reserve*and Treaty of Detroit. 8 T 1.. e I 10 accomplished in three stages: 1.) an individual would make a selection of land and report its location at the local land office. The selection could be up to 80 acres. 2.) the federal government would issue the person a certificate of deed for the parcel. 3.) after ten years, the individual would receive the fee simple patent to the selected parcel. when the patents were finally issued, on June, 1872, the Grand Traverse Bands received 300 patents, totalling 20,000.87 acres. This research will concentrate on what happened to this land. Presently, the Grand Traverse Ottawa and Ojibwa hold title to approximately 98 acres in Leelanau Co., Michigan. Recently 120 acres, which were held in trust by the Leelanau Board of Commissioners, were presented to the Leelanau Indians Incorporated. Thus, the Grand Traverse Bands relinquished title to over 19,0C0 acres since allotment. Research Design Basically, this study is the investigation of the change in the Grand Traverse Bands settlement patterns. The Grand Traverse Ottawa and Ojibwa shifted from a seasonal migratory cycle of existence to a permanent settlement: instigated by legal and social pressures. This research will concentrate on the distributional changes of their land 11 holdings after individual allotments and permanent settlement. Actually, this study will involve the demise of their settlement and the contraction of their land holdings. Recently, a several articles have been published concerning the distribution of land parcels. They have used the rubric of "land alienation" as their central focus (ncIntosch, 1976; Price, 1978). This concept, however, is confusing because it appears to mean the land is taken from something or somebody. In actuality, the definition of land alienation refers to taking land out of the public domain and putting into the private domain. This study will investigate the transfer of land from one section of the population, the Native Americans, to another, the Euro-Americans. And as Hornbeok, in his study of land patenting in California suggests, this issue is a major factor in culture contact and land controversy (1979). The most difficult problems in land transfer research are; 1.) determining the exact boundaries of the land, and 2.) determining who owned or owns the land at a particular time. The first problem is addressed by obtaining the legal description of the property involved, and comparing that description with those of surrounding parcels. In this study, only parcels which received a patert as prescribed in the Treaty of Detroit (1855) are examined. The second problem, that of ownership, is more difficult. 0f the five hundred and thirty-two parcels described by the Treaty schedule, ownership could only be determined for four 12 hundred and sixty-six; after they transfered from Native American to Euro-American proprietorship. Although the original intent of this research was to investigate the transfer of ownership of every parcel allotted to the Grand Traverse Bands, both certificates and patents, major informational and monetary problems allow examination of only about 88 percent of the parcels. To assist in the determination of land boundaries and ownership, I will use several manuscript sources from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Archives. The Federal Government kept records of the certificates and patents issued to the individuals according to the Treaty (N.A., BG 75, Books 06-06F). The records contained a list of the following items: legal description of the tract; area; name of allottee; date of patent; when delivered; and bow delivered. Also, included in the records is a listing of the certificate number which later became the patent number of the parcel. This information forms the base data for this study. The reliability of this information had to be determined if this was to be the base data. A search of government documents at the federal, state and county level revealed some descrepancies. In the process of selecting a tract, recording its location at the Hichigan land office, transfer of that information to Washington, and Washington writing the certificate and eventually the fee simple patent, some informational descrepancies occur. The problem 13 of information reliability is exacerbated since the whole process extended over sixteen years, involved names which phonetically are dissimilar to western culture, and took place in locales 800 miles apart. Overall, eighty-nine mistakes were recorded, sixteen of which resulted in no patents being issued. A total of 3950 acres were affected, or approximately 19.7% of all the land patented. The problems varied from two people being issued the same certificate and patent number for two different parcels, to three people receiving mixed tracts, i.e. person A received the 581/0531/0 and the SE1/0NH1/0, person B the 891/0801/0 and the 331/0531/0, and person C the NB1/0Nw1/0 and the SF1/0SH1/0, when in fact person A should have the ' Si1/0SE1/0, person B the NH1/0NB1/0 and 851/0881/0, and person C the 521/0501/0 and the 591/0501/0. The ownership question is the most difficult to answer. Again, working from the Federal records, the name of the allottee was given. However, three different places recorded the name: the state land office, Hashington D.C., and the county register of deeds. Initially, the land office in either Traverse City or Ionia, Hichigan, would receive the parcel description and the name of the allottee for their original selection. But, because the Algonquian pronounciation of their name and the English sound of the name are different confusion arose. When the certificate was issued the name might be spelled differently from what it was when the name was originally recorded, and it could 14 be spelled a third way when the fee simple patent was issued. For example, the following are four spellings of the same name: hitchell Now gaw me say; hitchell Naw gaw me say; Mitchell Na gau say; and, hitchell Ne ga rouse. It is even more confusing if the given name is changed: Augustus Naw a de ge zhick; Joseph Nau de ge shig; and, Joseph Nay waw day de zhick. The worst situation, however, occurs with a partial or complete translation from Algonquian to English: George He sko be may se to George Redbird or Nay she kay she to George Allen. The information concerning the initial transfer of land from Native American to Euro-American ownership is found in the County records of the register of deeds. This office is in charge of keeping the parcel ownership records along with all plats and subdivisions. I encountered three stumbling blocks in obtaining information on the initial transfers of the Grand Traverse Ottawa and Ojibwa. First, the records in Antrim county were not completely accessible. Some of the records were kept in the basement of the old County Courthouse and were suffering from mildew and moisture rot. Any attempt to use the records would have destroyed them. Second, in Leelanau county, the Grantor-Grantee directories were organized by year and by name. This creates two problems, as mentioned earlier, the name of the patentee (grantor) was inconsistent, but also, there are over one hundred and twenty directories of grantor-grantee. And thirdly, the parcel indexes to the 15 libers (land records) in Leelanau county are owned and maintained by the Leelanau Title Company, not the county. This index is helpful if the researcher has the parcel description, the index lists information by parcel and has the liber and page of all transfers. The Leelanau Title Company graciously allowed me free access to their records for four hours. However, that was not enough time to study all the directories. At their normal fee of $25 per parcel, it would have cost over $13,300.00 to investigate all of the allotments of the Grand Traverse Bands. The research procedure was quite simple, yet time consuming. The County records contain not only the listing of the parcel description, but also the name of the grantor and grantee, the date of the transfer, the amount paid and the acreage involved. By comparing the legal descriptions of the parcels, recorded by the Federal government and by the County Register of Deeds office, I could document the changes in ownership from the Native American to Euro-American. Utilizing both the grantor-grantee directories and the title abstract indexes I could gather the needed information and cross-check the data. Thus, I was able to document almost ninety percent of the transfers. In order to understand the significance of the Native Americans land transfers, one should have a control group for comparison. A stratified random sample of parcels were selected from within the reserve area (Figure 1.3). This group is a mixture of both Native American (31) and 16 FIGURE 1.3 Random sample of parcels. 17 m.H mmeHm 18 Euro-American (30) land owners. Of the 1121 patents within the reserve issued before 1872, 533 (07.5!) were Native American and 588 (52.5%) were Euro-American. Thus, the sample is representative of the total population of the reserve area. The same procedures were used to obtain transfer information for the sample parcels, encountering some of the same difficulties. Originally sixty-five parcels were selected, however four parcels could not be found. This percentage of unfound parcels (6.2%) is approximately half of the rate experienced by Native American allotment parcels. Organization of the Chapters. The chapters are arranged so that the interaction between the Grand Traverse Bands' land base and Federal policy may be reviewed and analyzed. The first chapter presents the problem to be investigated and the research design of the study. It is important to realize that the land of the Native American is an integral part of their cultural system. Chapter Two is a discussion of the concept of land base , its components, and how they relate to the Great Lakes Algonquin cultural core. It is upon this conceptual framework that this study is based. Chapter Three is an historical overview of the Grand Traverse Ottawa and Ojibwa Bands. It is a survey of how these peoples came 19 to settle in this region and a chronology of their contacts with the Euro-American, both as individuals and as part of a political entity. This progression of events culminates with the Treaty of Detroit in 1855, and the issuance of the fee simple patents. Chapter Four is a definitional chapter. A history of the allotment system as used in the United States is presented along with the results of its use. This chapter demonstrates how the experiences of tte Grand Traverse Bands were both typical and atypical of other uses of allottments. The Fifth and Sixth Chapters present the analysis and findings of this study. The information will be not only the answers to the questions posed earlier, but also answers to extensions of the questions. Chapter Seven is a summary and statement about the conclusions which can be drawn from the findings. Questions and implications for new directions in this type of inquiry are also presented. Chapter Two The word land has different definitions. It can be referred to as either a piece of the solid earth or as a tract or parcel of property. However, to fully understand its role in a cultural group its definition should be derived from that culture. In this chapter, the definition of land base will be discussed with reSpect to the Ottawa and Ojibwa. An initial framework will be established so that the role of land base can be derived. The meaning of a phrase or word is sometimes constructed from the context in which it is commonly used. Though the phrase may have a multi-faceted definition, if it is repeatedly employed in one context, it will be that context which will eventual determine the meaning of the phrase or word (Wittgenstein, 1953). Such is the case for the phrase "land base". The term "land base" can not be used in relations to only one of its meanings. If this is done, the continued misunderstanding of the relationship between the Native Americans and their land will persist. The full meaning and use of the concept has to be incorporated in, not only 20 21 everyday language, but also government policy and law. The Najor Facets of the Land Base Concept Land is defined by the cultural group with respect to the institutions which it effects. Lee hctah (1970, 58) presented a broad definition for land as perceived by the Native American, "the relationship of a tribe to its land defines that tribe: its identity, its culture, its way of life, its method of adaptation, its pattern of survival.” Native American spokesperson, Vine Deloria Jr., stated quite frankly, "American Indians hold their lands-places as having the greatest possible meaning, and all their statements are made with this reference point in mind (1973, 75)." Kroeber believes "cultures are rooted in nature and can therefore never be completely understood except with reference to that place of nature in which they occur...(1939, 1)." Thus, land is synonomous with the natural environment in which the people live. The basic human relationship is that of man and nature: culture is the process by which man adapts to nature. Cohen contends that a population adapts to its environment. It alters its relationship to its habitat to make that habitat a better place to live or it makes itself more fit to live in that habitat. And, to adapt to the habitat requires social organization to direct the groups 22 energies (1970, 3). Thus, the population is a social unit organized to harness energy for environmental adaption. Acre specifically, Cohen states that the interrelationship between the complex of human communities and their available resources constitutes the ecological adaptation (1978, 10). The basic interaction of a community and its resources is generally refered to as their "mode of production.” Sonnefield (1978, 15) believes that subsistence security is in large part determned by the adequacy of resources, technology, and population control. Bhite takes this argument one step further saying that of the three components of a cultural system (technological, sociological, and ideological), technology is basic because the other two depend upon it (1975, 17). And, assuming technology as part of the economy Steward defines culture core as consisting of social, political, and religious patterns which are connected to the groups economic activities (1955, 37). Kessler (1970) presents a similar organization of interacting subsystems consisting of: techno-environment, socio-politioal, and ideological. The techno-environment is the means of production and distribution of subsistence goods. The sooio-political subsystem involves inter-personal relations within the group and relations with other social groups. The ideological subsystem consists of religious beliefs, value systems, and aesthetic endevours of the group. Thus, individual cultural components include; the social, the political, the economic, 23 the technological, the ideological, and the environment. An important component in the interpretation and definition of culture is the interrelatedness of the parts or components of a culture. Bidney (1953) views this interrelatedness as the basis of a "five dimensional" world in which people live: First, there is the world of nature, that which offers resistance to human efforts and whose powers and laws he must obey. Secondly, there is the conceptual or symbolic world, by which he interprets and envisages the natural world. Thirdly, there is the world of cultural reality, the man-made world of artifacts and sooiofacts which are the creation of society. Fourthly, there is the ideal world of conceptual pcssiblities and values which transcend both the actual world of nature and the actual world of ideal forms. Pifthly, there is the private world, which the ego inhatits and which it does not share with others. Bernardi agrees with this scheme and adds a sixth dimension, tile (chronos) (1977, 75). Thus, to understand culture is to realize not only the interrelatedness of the cultural components but also the interrelatedness through and with time. A number of key components of a cultural system have been presented. They are: environment, technology, resources, economy, pschology, organisms, sociology, political,symbols, ideology, and religion. Some of the categories, however, are similar and could be combined. As mentioned earlier, the above components of a culture were presented to help identify key elements in the cultural system. The purpose of which was to present how each of the 24 components related to the land base concept. And, it is important to reiterate, that each component is interrelated with the others. Economic Component. Because sustenance is a basic reed of mankind, the production and distribution of food are basic to all cultures (Aberle et al. Aberle et al., 1950). This point is well illustrated by Goodfriend's diagram (Figure 2.1) in which, every component of a culture has a "mode of production" connection (1978, 106). This contention is also supported by Harris' comments in "Cannibals and Kings," (1977) and "Cultural Haterialism" (1979). He states the idea that at the heart of a culture is the tendency to intensify production, a problem with which each culture must cope. And, in the process of producing, and distributing goods, their social organization is configured into the system. Bloch (1975, 211) demonstrates how social relations are formed by the combination of technology and environment which create production which may, in turn, be transformed into land and capital to produce labor which may then be organized. This is similar to Godelier's conjecture that social conditions are dependent and formed on the relationship between production and kinship (1975, a). In other words, social organization develops from the economic 25 onozoum .Aosafi .vsmwuvoowv muamoonaou Housuaao mo amummua ~.N manuHm AdUHHHAom couuusooun mo ovoa ZOHUHANM. mowuosvoua mo mooa Adwoom coauosoOHa mo woos 26 activities of the group. Economic analysis, however, does not eXplain all the interactions in a cultural system. Forde (19u9, u65) believes that economic determinism is inadequate to explain social and political organizations, religious beliefs, and psychological attitudes. Exploitation of natural resources is governed by both economic ard non-economic concerns and these are not always cost-efficient (Bennett, 1976, Q1). The social institutions of a community determine both the priorities and means to satisfy their needs. Socio-Political Component. The social-political and psychological components of the cultural system defines roles and gives identity to both individuals and the social group. Kessler (1972, 110) defines the socio-politioal subsystem as those aspects of culture concerned with the relationships between members within the society and members of other societies. But, Hallowell has stated that you can not separate an individual's behavior from the physical environment in which he lives (19u2, 5). Generally, psychologists have studied the relationship of individuals to their environment. This has been defined as either ecological, environmental or perceptual psychology (Hoore and Gollidge, 1976,3). It is apparent that there are several levels or 27 components to a socio-political subsystem. Starting at the center of all social interaction is the individual or self. It is the individual's social conciousness which gives the person an identity. Goldman diagrams a person's spheres of identity using concentric circles centered on "self" (Figure 2.2). Furthermore, van Eyck (1969, 1C9) has developed the concept of "collectively conditioned place consciousness" which states that a person has essentially the same identity as the place he is from. Thus, a person is identified not only by their social affiliations but also their place. who are you? If the stranger is a member of an old, or more surely new,Stone Age band he will reply, 'I am a Zuni, or an Arapesh, or a Kariera'-those are my people-the people-so and so is my mother and thus-and-so is my mother's brother and this is our land, which is the world. In other words,he places himself in a group which is a political unit, which is culturally uniform, and which occupies a definite geograhical place (at the center of the universe), and within this group he occupies more specific relationships of kinship (1976, 27) Basically, there are two elements to an individuals identity. The first is internal, or how the person individualizes his or her experiences (DeGoot, 1972). Or as Baker (1968, 137) refers to this as the environmental-orgamien-environmental continuum , in which sensual stimuli are perceived by the individual, the individual deciphers the stimuli, and ther reacts to the environment as perceived. And, as the person eXperiences the same stimuli a second time, the experience gained from the first encounter enables the persor to perceive the 28 FIGURE 2.2 An individual's circles of identity (Goldman, 1978). 29 stimuli in a different manner. In the case of adventuring into a foreign territory, at first the person is apprehensive but with more encounters into the area the person becomes confident and secure, whereas initially the person felt anxiety. Ittelson describes the individual's position in the world as One cannot be a subject of an environment, one can only be a participant....the environment surrounds, enfolds, engulfs and nothing and no one can be isolated and identified as standing outside of, and apart from it... (1973, 13-15) However, the multiple impulses generated by the environment have to be processed by the individual in an orderly fashion. Tuan (1977) believes this is done by the world-view of the cultural group which is learned by the individual. Another name for this is the "lived-space" described by Relph (1976, 12), the world in which a person exists. The identification of a person with a place is reinforced by the person's need to have roots or a place to 'call home'. To be rooted is pershaps the most important and least recognised need.of the human soul. It is one of the hardest to define. A human being has roots by virtue of his real, active and natural participation in the life of the community, which preserves in living shape certain particular eXpections for the future. This participation is a natural one in the sense that it is automatically brought about by place, conditions of birth, profession and social surroundings. Every human being needs to have multiple roots. It is necessary for him to draw well-nigh the whole of his moral, intellectual and spiritual life by way of the environment of which he forms a part (Neil, 30 1955, 53). And, as Relph suggests, to have roots is a secure point to observe the world, knowing from where you have come and your position in the order of things (1976, 38). The second element of a person's identity is his or her social and political affiliations. The social and political facets of land base are not as easily identifiable as the material aspects. Kinship, sex roles, inheritance, and other social relationships are not detemined by the environment but the environment is used to detemine the organization. The most pronounced way is through the land tenure system (Sutton, 1975). This institution controls the ownership and use of the land and not necessarily just the political components. The nation-building component of an individuals identity (Figure 2.2), refers to his or her ethnic identity. In a study of the definition of ethnicity, over 80% of the respondents stated that a common locational origin or nation was the major attribute in ethnic identity (Isajin, 197w, 117). This was also presented in the works of acynihan and Glazer, "The Helting Bet (1969) and "Ethnicity” (1976). Barth (1959) believes that the different ethnic groups preserve their identity by establishing boundaries to help differntiate the groups, thus establishing territories distinguished by the group. The "territorial imperative" could therefore, be applied to an ethnic group. An ethnic group is not defined by the area it 31 inhabits. The society is defined by the beliefs they share. This can be translated into their interpretation of reality, and of the symbols they assign to experienced phenomenon (Cohen, 197a, 9; Bateson, 1979, 31). Thus, it is important to understand the belief system of a people and to recognize the symbols they perceive. Ideology Ideology is the third component of the land base concept. It is the association of a people's beliefs, ceremonies, and ideas as they relate to an area. This definition incorporates values and symbols within the belief system. It also includes the cermonies and ideas the people display and produce (Dumart, 1970; White, 1975; Alatas, 1977). Ideology, in the context of land base, is concerned with the essence of the land, the attributes of an area that make it important to the people. Places, and particular features on the landscape, have a distinct meaning for some ethnic groups (Tuan, 1978; Sopher, 1979, 3). For example, the Ganga River for Hindus, Lake Victoria for the the Buganda, or at. Taylor for the Taos Pueblo. As Jacobs states, land is the spiritual ingredient of a cultural group (1972, 127). The sacredness of the land or an area is manifested in the attributes important to the people. The sacred attributes of an area can be placed into 32 three categories. The first of these is called the origins of the people. A particular place may be the perceived beginnings. Vine Deloria, Jr. uses the example of the Navajo, who can not state the exact date of their origins but can point to the mountains of their origin (1973, 138). The second attribute is the life-giving or earth-mother concept. This is clearly brought out by Bliade (1959) in the following passage An Indian prophet, Smohalla, chief of the Banapubm tribe, refused to till the ground. He held that it was a sin to mutilate and tear up the earth, mother of all. He said: 'You ask me to plow the ground! Shall I take a knife and tear my mother's bosom? Then when I die she will not take me to her bosom to rest. You ask me to dig for stone! Shall I dig under her skin for her bones? Then when I die I cannot enter her body to be born again. You ask me to cut grass and make hay and sell it, and be rich like white men! But how dare I cut off my mother's hair?‘ The third category is the "homeland of the sacred." The sacreds can be defined as the god-spirits or ancestors which the people hold in high esteem. Kenny states that Lake Victoria is the resting place of hukasa, the most powerful diety of the Buganda. The Lake was a symbol of his power (1977). The homeland of the ancestors can be demonstrated in a saying of the Yakima, that a person would have to dig down almost a foot to reach soil; the tOp of the ground you walk on is the dust of generations of Yakimas that you can not be taken away (Ducheneaux and Kickingbird, 1973, 11). The ideological significance of the land base is 33 displayed in the three categories of: origins, life-giving, and homelands. There are a multitude of examples which can display this significance in the overall definition of ideology ranging from ceremonies conducted at harvest time to works of art which exhibit the artists concept of some phenomenon. The important thing to remember is the role in which the ideology plays in the concept of land base. Interrelatedness of the Components Because cultural groups do not exist in a void, there is interaction with other cultural groups. And, in the process change occurs. Fisher (1973) developed the idea that in the study of culture there are key components but they have a traditional and an acculturated form. Thus, in the study of any cultural system it has to be a dynamic system, so that, exchange and change can be accommodated. This is especially important in a land base, because of the possible feedback into the system by the components. There are three major components that can be presented as having a key relationship to the land base concept: ideology, identity, and environment (Figure 2.3). And, the use of the phrase land base has to take into consideration these three elements together. So that, disruption of one will significantly affect the other two. 34 ENVIRONMENT resources subsistence technology fauna physical features flora land ceremonies boundaries homeland spirits IDEOLOGY FIGURE 2.3 The interrelationships of the land base components. 35 Ottawa and Ojibwa Example many studies of Native Americans are flawed by the use of inappropriate generalizatins. After stating some generalization or theory, the author spends the remainder of the study listing and explaining exceptions. There were over 10,000 separate groups of Native Americans inhabiting the Western Hemisphere before Euro-American contact (Driver, 1969), speaking 1000 to 2000 different languages (Driver, 1979, 25), and spanning approximately 12,000 miles. Thus, it would be hard to generalize about a "Native American" culture or how one aspect of culture dominated or controlled all others. To avoid these problems, land base will be studied from the perspective of one cultural group, which includes both the Ottawa and Ojibwa. But what cultural group contains the Ottawa and Ojibwa? The cultrral identity of the Ottawa and Ojibwa can be discerned in a number of ways. Kroeber (1939) and Driver (1969) place the Ottawa and Ojibwa in the same cultural group with respect to their pre-European location. Hurdook, on the other hand, classified them according to a combination of economic and social criteria (1975). Linguistically, they are considered part of the Algonquian language group (hitchelson, 1912: Boas, 1919; Densmore, 1929; Bockett, 1902; Voeglin and Voeglin, 1966). Socially, Callender separated them from 36 other Central Algonquians, and identified them as the northern Central Algonquians (1962, xiii). No matter what criteria a person uses, basically the Ottawa and Ojibwa are classed as a woodland cultural group, speaking an Algonquian language and located in the upper Great Lakes region (pre-contact). Some distinctions do exist even within the Ottawa and Ojibwa. According to Danzinger (1978, 8) By the early 18u03 the Chippewas numbered perhaps 30,000 and held sway over what is today the northern two-thirds of Lake Huron, the American shore of Lake Superior, northern Hinnesota, parts of North Dakota, eastern nontana, southeastern Saskatchewan, and southern Hanitoba, as well as the lake country east of Lake Winnipeg extending almost to James Bay. At this point in Chippewa history, scholars discern five tribal divisions; the Southeast Chippewas of hichigans Lower Peninsula and adjacent Ontario, the Chippewas of Lake Superior, the Southwest Chippewas of interior Hinnesota, the Northern Chippewas of the Laurentian uplands above the Great Lakes, and the Plains Chippewas or Bungees. And, though warren (1885) never specifies their location, he also refers to the five clans of the Chippewas, assuming a different location for each clan. The Ottawa consisted of four clans distributed throughout the Great Lakes region (Dodge, 1917; Kinetz, 1965, 227). In the beginning of the 18th Century Ottawa bands and clans were located in the environs around Mackinac, Detroit, and the Grand and Saginaw River basins (Kinetz, 1965, 226-230). 37 Physical Setting The Ottawa, Ojibwa, Algonquians, and Saulteaux (Great Lakes Algonquian) lived in a region of North America that consists of several physiographic and biotic realms. Thornherry places the Great Lakes area in the Central Lowlands geomorphic province, "much of the province is characterized by the flatness of rock strata and wideSpread topographic effects of glaciation (1965, 212)." The northern part of the province, however, includes the Superior Upland, an area of Laurentian uplands similar to the Adirondack Mountains of the Northeast (Thornherry, 1965, 257). The Superior Uplands are dominated structurally by the synolinal Lake Superior basin. The Great Lakes region climatically is cool in the summer with uniform precipitation throughout the year and winter temperatures below freezing for at least three months (Trewartha and Finch, 1973). Dice (1943) established national biotic provinces which were a combination of vegetation types, ecological climax, flora, fauna, climatic, physicgraphic and soil regions (Figure 2.“). The 0.5. Forest Service also delineated a number of national divisions into what it calls "ecoregions," which are a refinement, though correspond to Dice's biotic provinces (Bailey, 1978). As illustrated, the Great Lakes Algonquians lived in four different forest types; oak-hickory; birch-beech-maple-hemlock; jack, red, and white pines: and spruce—fir (Yarnell, 195a, u). 38 Hudsonian Province W ‘7‘" YT o \t .. \ Iélinoiangbd Q ProvinouQCB Q0 9 d 0 . a 0 o y p .1 0 °' -‘ ,/ \ x ‘8 Carolinian Province \_ . FIGURE 2.“ Biotio provinces of the Upper Great Lakes (Dice, 19u3). 39 Bailey's forest divisions are similar, but he adds an oak-savanna region to the south end of Lake hichigan. In addition to the forest types, another valuable region for the Great Lakes Algonquians were the ecotcnes, the transition zones from one biotic province to another (Cleland, 1966, 7). Subsistence Cycle The Great Lakes Algonquians utilized the available food resources in well established patterns of time and space. Their economic activities were demarcated by the seasons (Dunning, 1959, 33) (Figure 2.5). The cycle started in the spring, late Haroh or early April, with the coming of the crow (Gilfillian, 1901, 70). The families, dispersed for winter trapping, would come together in the spring to collect maple syrup and produce maple sugar. Generally, two families would get together and work between 300 to 500 trees (Landes, 1937, 96-97), although Wilcox (1953, 282) states that 900 taps was average and 2000 was the maximum. This would be enough to extract about one hundred pounds of the sweetner. The maple syrup was used not only on food but also in hard form as candy or as a food supplement. After the last snow melted, the maple sugar groups would come together in early May in summer villages. Five to fifteen families would gather near traditional berry 40 ,uo ..«r 5 Viz} r. ( r Figure 2.5 Yearly cycle of subsistence activities. 41 patches and a clear lake for fishing (Landes, 1968, 6; Danzinger, 1978,12). A village locale belonged, by custom, to the families occupying it regularly; strong ties of sentiment reinforced this custom (Landes, 1967,6). While in the villages not only berry gathering took place, but both fishing and some gardening and harvesting occurred. Fishing occurred year-round, yet the seasonal migration of the different species were well known. In the spring and fall, when the fish were “running," large catches were predictable and easy (Dunning, 1959, 31). The fish were so numerous at the rapids (Saulte Ste. Harie) that a skillful fisherman, in autumn, could take five hundred in two hours. (Warner and Groesbeck, 197v, 328) At least twenty varieties of fish could be caught, as evidenced by the findings at the Juntunen site in hackinaw Co., Michigan (Cleland, 1966, Appendix 8.). All the plants utilized by the Great Lakes Algonquian were native to the region until Europeans introduced some varieties of fruit trees in the late-1700s. Densmore (1928) listed 343 plants being gathered in four major categories; food, medicine, charms, and arts. Yarnell (1964) expanded the list to 373 varieties which were used in over 560 ways. He was more specific in the naming his categories: food, beverages, medicinal teas, medicine charms, smoking, dyeing, and utilitarian needs. Plants of major importance were; wild rice, corn squash, pumpkin, several tobaccos, sweet grass, and birch. 42 In the late summer, or early September, after the last of the wild rice had been collected, the villages would start to disband. One or two families would stay hoping to gather the last berries or to catch the off-shore fish, but the majority would migrate to their traditional stream sites to harvest the "running" fish. Hunting, like fishing, took place year-round except that in some seasons specific animals yielded more meat or skins. In the fall, hurting intensified while the animals were fat and their coats were thickening. Winter found the individual families trapping the headwaters of their traditional streams. Before the fur trade, a wide variety of animals were utilized. Cleland (1966, Append. G) lists over 345 species in the biotic provinces cccupied by the Great Lakes Algonquian. Not all of the species were used, but they were available. They were the typical woodland animals, bear, elk, deer and moose, racoon, woodchuck, opossum, eagle, barn owl, mallard duck, and geese, as well as numerous turtles, frogs, and snails. The fur trade, however, emphasized the fur-bearing animals, especially the beaver, otter, mink, etc. As a result, a change in emphasis from large animals to small fur-tearitg game took place (Bishop, 1976, uS-u7). Thus, contact with Europeans initiated changes in the resources used, which eventually altered other aspects of their lives. 43 Socio-Political Relations The sociOCpolitical component of the land base concept corresponds to the idea of identity. In other words, a person feels a certain sense of security knowing not only his own identity, but also that of the group to which he belongs. Dunning (1959, SQ-SS) found four levels of social relations among the Chippewa: 1.) Indian to non-Indian; 2.) Chippewa to non-Chippewa; 3.) co-resident group; and, a.) family group. The first two levels can be identified as political organizations, whereas the last two levels can be viewed as kinship groupings. The distinctions between tribal groups were quite pronounced concerning the areas utilized hy each of the groups. Hickerson notes that the political differentiation of the Great Lakes hlgonguian had its fourdation in economics (1970, 1971). And recently, Dyson-Hudson and Smith (1978) have used the term "economic defensihility," to explain a people's territorial domains This concept is based on the fact that tribal groups will defend an area which supplies their resource or economic needs. This same concept can be applied to the Great Lakes Algonquian clans. The areas which they occupied were based largely on the available resources (Landes, 1937, 3a; flickerson, 1971, 181). European contact altered not only the resources of the clans, but also the composition of the clans. According to Hickerson, there were four stages of scoio-political 44 development in adaptation to European contact First, there were autonomous patrilineal descent groups, or local clans of which there were about twenty-five. Such clans appear to have characterized proto-contact Chippewa organization. This stage, under the impact of direct trade first with the Huron middlemen, later with the French, gave way in early historical times to the political village. Village organization began to break down as its trade channels were taken over by the French and survived only in limited areas where Chippewa were frequently at war with their former allies , the Sioux, who continued to occupy adjacent territory. Upon the collapse of the village the composite hunting hand assumed the role of the basic socio-economio unit. The composite hunting-trapping band, the third stage, was adapted to relations demanding the primary production of fur and subsistence. This organization, representing a more or less stable adjustment to the fur trade ard relations with French, then British, and finally American garrisons and agencies lasted among southwestern Chippewa from about 1730 to 1850. Particularization of social life in the North did not result as it did it the South during the reservation period, in the virtual autonomy of the nuclear family, as long as for trapping continued to he the mainstay of the economy. In sum, then, the four stages of socio-political development are: 1.) patrilineal descent groups (proto-oontact); 2.) multi-descent group villages (early contact): 3.) composite hunting bands (pre-reservation contact); and, a.) nuclear or small extended families (reservation) (1971, 173-174). The most controversial element of the development scheme is the idea of family-hunting territories. In the fall, before the villages disbanded to go to Spawning streams, the winter hunting and trapping territories were discussed in council. Land and territories were not owned by any one individual. The entire band owned all the hunting 45 territories, they were only subdivided temporarily among the families (Jenness, 1935,u). The hunting areas were assigned to families or to members by the head of the family, and usually eight or ten men would hunt together (Kinietz, 1965, 237; Wertworth, 1892, 192). warren believes that issuance of hunting and trapping areas was less organized, controlled by first come first serve (1885, 252). Danzinger (1978, 11) agrees with Warren but qualifies the statement by saying, ”prior to the fur trade." Eventually the family-hunting territory evolved into a system in which the trading posts assigned trapping territories (Martin, 1978, 103). And in 20th century Canada, the government has regulated the territories (Dunning, 1959, 105). The early traders tried to encourage planned exploitation, e.g. leaving areas fallow, or families trapping separately, but to no avail (Bishop, 1970). Dyson-Hudson and Smith present a synposis of the family hunting territory question. There are basically two contending viewpoints on the origins of Northern Algonquiar hunting territories. Some scholars, beginning with Speck (1915; Speck and Eiseley, 1939; ooper, 1939: Hallowell, 19u9), argue that a territorial hunting system was an aboriginal adaptation to maximize the sustained yields from game, especially beaver. Others have presented evidence that territoriality was not aboriginal for the Northern Algonquians and in fact arose after fur trading had become established (Leacock, 19su; Knight, 1965; Bishop, 1970: 197a). While this latter view is now generally accepted, disputes still arise over what factors are the major determinants of the shift to territorial systems of land use. Leacock has emphasized the role of acculturation and barter economy 46 in encouraging the shift from cooperative group hunting to individualized trapping, suggesting that family territories were the result of competition for fur-bearing animals whose pelts were traded for food. Knight has countered this by noting that the East James Bay Cree spent over 250 years in contact with traders and participating in the trapping economy without developing territorial systems of land tenure. Contrary to Leaoock, Knight (1965, 36) argues that fur-bearing animal populations fluctuate drastically (as with many other sutarctic animal species), and that, in addition, fluctuations of the trading economy (changes in prices, credit availability, trading post location, etc.) must also be considered in assessing the viability of a territorial system (1978,31). The family hunting territory was part of a system that helped define both economic regions and family or clan identification. This is particularly evident in marriages between one family and another. It appears that European contact, and the subsequent trade, solidified the boundaries between family territories, both de jure and de facto. Ideology To understand the interaction of the Great Lakes Algonquians with the land, one must examine some basic Algonquian ideological concepts. Jenness (1930, 27—29) and, later, martin (1978, 72) found that the Great Lakes Algonquians recognized all objects possessed, not only bodies but also souls and images or shadows. Any entity, living or otherwise, can interact with any other. 47 The body and soul of an object are controlled by spirits or "manitous" (Jenness, 1930; Landes, 1968; Danzinger, 1978; dartin, 1978, 35), and, this control manifests itself in the behavior of the object. To gain favor with the manitou the Native American performs specific ceremonies and rituals at the appropiate time (Landes, 1968). Other objects, particularly animals, were controlled by "masters." Their behavior was dictated with respect to other animals and man (Jenness, 1935, 21; Danzinger, 1978, 16-17; Landes, 1968). If a ritual was not performed properly, e.g. success in hunting, the ”master" animal would not let the animal be caught or killed. The human had to repect and demonstrate that respect to the "master” (Hallowell, 1960, 42; Lips, 1947, 6; Landes, 1963, 20-22; Fiet, 1973, 119). The relationships between people and animals was generally very close, not only because of the need for sustenance, but also becasue it was generally understood that humans and animals were related. In the creation myth of the indigenous Indians, these and other beasts were once related to mankind. Chipewyan legend had it that woman was the first human being. In her nocturnal dreams she imagined herself sleeping with a handsome youth, who was in reality her pet dog transformed. One day a giant appeared in the land. With mighty strokes be shaped the rough hewn landscape into lakes and rivers and mountains-all the landforms we know today. Then he stooped ‘ down and caught up the dog, and tore it to pieces; the guts he threw into the lakes and rivers, commanding them to become the different kinds of fish; the flesh be dispersed over the land commanding it to become different kinds of beasts and threw it into the air, commanding it to to become all 48 kinds of birds; after which he gave the woman and her offspring full power to kill, eat, and never spare, for that he commanded them to multiply for her use in abundance (martin, 1978, 69) But, as Martin later explains, the Native American began to dominate the animals with technology, i.e. guns, steel traps, etc., acquired from Euro-Americans. Native American could now control their their own destiny without the "masters" (1978, Chap. 5 and 6). The individual also has a "guiding manitou," which is obtained during youth. The transition from boy to man is accomplished when the boy receives his “guiding manitou;" by going alone into the forest to experience a "vision,“ a dreamslike encounter while the person is fasting. Once the boy has received a "vision" he is considered a man. The spirit depicted in the "vision" becomes the person's "guardian manitou" (Landes, 1968). And, the "manitous" live on the landscape, and dwell at or near predominant features; caves, curious rock formations, dominant hills, waterfalls, etc. (Levi, 1956, 35; Danzinger, 1978, 16-17). You did not want to disturb their dwelling place or else harm would befall you or your community. Typical of this type of phenomenon is the Hitch Tree of the Grand Portage Band or the Painted Rocks along the shore of Lake Superior. An individual's spirit was an important part of the homeland and ultimately the land base. At a person's death, the body and soul leave to go to the "eternal hunting grounds to the west," while the shadow or spirit of the 49 person stays (Kohl, 1860, 460; Jenness, 1935, 18). Thus, there is a strong desire to keep in close contact with the burial grounds because both the remains of the fore-fathers and their spirit or shadows are there. During treaty negotiations in the mid-18005 a major concern was the burial = grounds. (re: treaty negotiations for pine and minerals) No conversations that was had at this time gave the Indians an inkling or caused them to mistrust that they were ceding away their pine and minerals, as they had in the treaty of 1837, and when they were told, in 1849, to move on and thereby abandon their burying grounds-the dearest thing to an Indian known-they began to hold councils and to ask each as to how they understood the treaties, and all understood them the same, that was; That they [the burial grounds] were never to be disturbed if they behaved themselves (wentworth, 1892, 12) For the Grand Traverse Bards of Ottawa and Ojibwa, two relations with the spirit world were quite important. The first involves their origin myth, the second their relation to the Grand Traverse region. Among the Great Lakes Algonquians, the origin myth tells of a great flood that submerged the world. After some time, the canoe which saved their fathers ran aground at "Sleeping Bear" (Baudot, 1710). Sleeping Bear sand dunes are west of Grand Traverse bay, approximately 30 miles. Though this is only one of many Great Lakes Algonquian creation myths (Morrison, 1965), it does signify the importance of the region. The bear and its symbolism is quite important because in their mythology the bear is a symbol of man and the bears "master" had the most control over behavior (Kohl, 1860, 408; Morrison, 1965, 50 39). In a myth told to Schoolcraft about "Hassom or the Fire Plume,n the importance of the Grand Traverse region is made apparent. Hassom and his wife soon reached their home at the great Sand Hills (south shore of Lake Superior). The old Spirit was delighted to see them and hailed their return with open arms. They presented him with the tobacco, and told him all the requests of the people above. He replied that he would attend to all, but he most first invite his friends to smoke with him. He then sent his Hezhinauwa (aide), to invite his friends the Spirits and name the time for their reception. Before the time arrived he spoke to his son-in-law 'By son,‘ he said, 'some of those Hanitoes I have invited are very wicked, and I warn you particularly of the one who wishes to marry my daughter. Some of them you will, however, find to be friendly. Take my advise and when they come in, sit close to your wife-so close you must touch her. If you do not you will be lost, for those who are expected to come in are so powerful, that they will draw you from your seat. You have only to observe my words closely, and all will be well.‘ Hassom said he would obey. About midday they commenced coming....There were sirits from all parts of the country. One entered who smiled on him. He was the guardian Spirit of the Ottawas, and he lived near the present Gitchy wekuadong (Grand Traverse Bay)... (Schoolcraft, 1839, 147-148) The landing of the canoe on the Sleeping Eear dunes is analagous to the landing of Noah's Ark in the Biblical story. It is the place of rejuvenation for their people. The reference to the guardian spirit of the Ottawa residing near the Grand Traverse Bay lends significance to the region in their Spiritual and religious system. Thus, the combination of the site of rejuvenation and of housing their guardian Spirit makes the Grand Traverse region very 51 significant to the land hase concept for the Great Lakes Algonquian. Summary In the land base concept there are three interrelated components; the environmental, socio-political and ideological. Each is significant in defining the concept of land base, but none has priority. An understanding of the interaction of the three components is essential to an understanding of the concept. An alteration in one of the components will affect the other two. Although a generalized definition of land base can be formulated its utility is limited without specific reference to a particular tribal group. The significance of each individual component is different for each society. To impose one definition on all is the same as saying all Native Americans lived in tipis. The Great Lakes Algonquian's were influenced by the seasons in their subsistence endeavours. During each season they exploited the resources that gave them the greatest returns for their efforts. This means that they would have to change both their location and social organization depending on the time of year. In the spring one or two families would combine to tap maple trees for syrup. The early summer would bring a number of the small groups into a 52 village setting for social activities and farming. The late summer saw the breakup of the villages after the wild rice had been harvested. Fall was the time of year for the Spawning of the stream fish and the diSpersion of families into the interior. The coming of snow found the individual families in their hunting and trapping territories. Thus, their economy was closely integrated with social organization. The ideological relationship of the Great Lakes Algonquian to the land was three fold. First, it was understood that man and the rest of the world were related and controlled by "masters." The proper respect for the "masters“ had to be displayed to gain their favor for all activities. The second relationship dealt with the fact that after the "Great Flood", the rejuventation of their society took place in the area of the Sleeping Sand dunes of Leelanau Co. And finally, the Grand Traverse region was important to the Ottawa because that was the home of their guardian Spirit. Chapter Three The history of the Grand Traverse Bands land base follows the general schemata of other Native American bands in nichigan, but because of their isolation, unique events have shaped the outcome. This brief etbnchistory of the Grand Traverse Band will focus on key moments relating Ottawa and Ojibwa settlements and Euro-American contact in the Grand Traverse region. The emphasis is on events having an immediate and direct affect on settlement and land use. The first section of this chapter will concentrate on how the Ottawa and Ojibwa moved into the Grand Traverse region. The second will explore their contacts with EurOpeans and will culminate with the first permanent Anglo resident. The third, and final, section will investigate the events proceeding the Treaty of Detroit, signed in July, 1855, which eventually disintegrated the settlements of the Grand Traverse Bands. The Movement of the Ottawa and Ojibwa into the Grand Traverse Region "There are two sides to every coin," goes the old adage. In the interpretation of historical facts, fiction must also be incorporated. Such is the case in the 53 54 settlement of the Grand Traverse region by the Ottawa and Ojibwa. The written history of the early European explorers detail a somewhat different account and progression of events then the oral history of the Ottawa and Ojibwa. The period just prior to European contact in the Great Lakes region, the early 16005, will be considered the base for tribal settlement. This would coincide with the beginning of what Quimby defines as the Early Historic Period (1610-1760)(1966, Chap. 11). Also, this is prior to the establishment of the Iroquois Condederacy. Figure 3.1 presents an illustration of what is considers the "homelands" of various tribal groups in Hichigan, ca. 1600. In about AD 1600 the several bands of the Ottawa occupied areas in Northeastern Hichigan and Ontario bordering on Lake Huron and the Potawatomi probably were dwelling in western Hichigan. By 1630 the Potawatomi had moved to the opposite side of Lake Hichigan and were living in Northeastern Wisconsin. By 1700 they were expanding southward along the Wisconsin shore of Lake Hichigan and soon became the dominant tribe in the Chicago area and southern Michigan. After 1650 the Ottawa moved westward to escape the Iroquois. The Ottawa first settled near Green Bay and then moved to the upper peninsula of hichigan and by 1750 into the upper half of the lower peninsula of Hichigan (Ouimby, 1960, 128). Writing in 1670 - 1672 Allouez establishes the locations of a number of the Great Lakes tribal groups Toward the other end of the same lake [Lake Superior] is found the mission of Saint Esprit, covering both the district krown as Chagabuamgong poirt and the neighboring Islands. Thither the Outaouacs [Ottawa], with the Hurons of Tionnontate, repair in the seasons suitable for fishing and for raising 55 Illinois ,3" Shawnee J? /\__,// «5’ b 9'0 4° 0 0“» 6‘0 s O Poorly Known Tribe IG”RE 3.1 Homeland of some Native American groups. 56 Indian corn. After surveying the entire lake Superior,together with the nations surrounding it, let us go down to the Lake of the Hurons, almost in the middle of which we see the Hission of Saint Simon, established on the islands which were formerly the true country of the same Nations of the Outaouacs and which they were forced to leave when the Hurons were ravaged by the Iroquois. The three nations now dwelling as strangers on the Bay des Puans [Green Bay] formerly lived on the mainland, to the south of this island (Hissilimakinac)-some on the shores of the Lake of the Ilinois [aiohigan], others on those of the Lake of the Hurons. A part of the so-called people of the Sault possessed territories on the mainland, toward the west and the rest also regard that region as their country for passing the winter, during which their are no fish at the Sault. The Huron's called Etiennontatehronnons lived for many years on the island itself, taking refuge from the Iroquois. Pour villages of the Otaouacs had also their lands in this region (J.B., v.55, 1670.1672, 95, 97-103). As this indicates, the activities of the Iroquois were a deciding factor in the early disruption, elimination, and migration of Great Lakes Native Averican groups in the 17th century. The Ottawa along with the Huron moved and settled several times before they established permanent residences in the Great Lakes. The Huron's in 1620 had agreed upon a peace with the Iroquois. However, a few years later, the Iroquois broke the peace and completely annihilated a number of Huron villages. The surviving Barons escaped to areas around Detroit or to western Lake Hichigan. The Ottawa, lacking any allies, were forced to move westward and united with the Huron at Bay des Puans by 1653. Pressure by the Iroquois pushed the Hurous and 57 Ottawa further west. The Hurons fled north to the western end of Lake Superior, to Chagouamigan. The Ottawa, on the other hand, settled on Eelee Island in the hississippi River, three miles below the mouth of the Sainte Croix River. However, subsequent engagements with the Sioux forced the Ottawa to flee. They eventually settled with the fluron at Chagouamigan by 1660. By 1671, the Sioux resumed their hostilities toward the Ottawa and ircluded the Huron, and so again the two groups moved. This time, however, eastward. The Ottawa and Huron going first to Hichillimakcinao and then their separate ways; the Huron south toward Detroit, the Ottawa either staying at Hichillimackinac or going to Hanitouline Islands or to Saginaw region (Blair, 1911, v. 1, 148-190: hyde, 1962, 109-1u3, Feest and Feest, 1978). As late as 1679, La Salle's ship, the "Griffin," reports observing two villages at Bichilimackinac: one Ottawa, the other Huron (Fitting, 1975, 212). Thus, in approximately a thirty to forty year period the Ottawa were forced from their homeland in southeastern Ontario to the hississippi River, then north to Chagouamigan, and finally almost to their place of origin, the northern part of Lake Enron. The subsequent occupation of the Grand Traverse region by the Ottawa and Ojibwa takes place in the mid-16003, but the exact decade is indeterminable. Referring to Figure 3.1, the Asseguns and/or nascutens occupied the Bay area (ca. 1600). Greenman (1961) believes 58 the mascotens were part of the Potawatomi. However, wakefield (1966) disputes this claim declaring the Hascoutens were actually a multitude of peoples, but generally referred to as the Sauk of northern wisconsin and Michigan. Several accounts are available describing the removal of the Asseguns and hascotens from the northern section of Hichigan, including the Grand Traverse region. Schoolcraft, in 1847, relates the following story. Ottawa and Chippwea tradition represents these tribes at first as coming into hostile collision as a nation, with a people who appear to have been their predecessors in the lakes. This collision we first hear of on the inner shores of the island of Portagunasee [Drummond Is.] and on the narrow peninsula of Pt. Detour, Lake Huron, the latter being the western cape of the entrance into the Straits of St. hary's. They fought and defeated them at three separate places, and drove them west. To this primitive people who appeared to rule in the region about Hichillimaokinac they gave the name of nushkodians, or Little Praire Indians. Chusko, an aged Ottawa of flichillimaokinac, invariably used the word in its diminitive and plural froms, namely, hush-ko—dians—ug; that is to say People of the Little Praire. He spoke of them as people whom the Algonquins drove off... The Ottawas attribute to them the small rounds and the old garden beds in Grand River valley... ...Ishgua-gonabi, chief of the Chippewas on Grand Traverse Bay, and a man knowing traditions denotes the war against Mcskoda men or dwellers on Little Eraire or Plains to have been carried on by the Chippewas and Ottawas, and in this manner he accounts for the fact that villages of the Chippewas and Ottawas alternate at this Day on the eastern shores of Lake Hichigan...(18u7, v. 1, 307—308). In 1860, however, Shoolcraft gives a somewhat different account S9 ...tribe of considerable importance called the hssegun or Bone Indians, living on the south shore of the Upper Peninsula from St. Ignace northward...this tribe trespassed on the territory of the Ottawas on the Hanitoulins and a war was the result. In this contest the Chippewas were allied with the Ottawas and a great battle was fought near Detour, where the Asseguns were completely vanquished. They were pursued by the vitorious tribes and were driven westward, finally crossing the strait and sitting down near old Fort Hackiraw on the south shore, were they established their village. But peace with their neighbors, the Ottawas who occupied the other side of the strait, did not last long, soon encroachments gave excuse for renewed hostilities. The Ottawas and Chippewas gathered their forces and crossing over the Strait, surprised and attacked the Asseguns in their new village and a terrible massacre followed. The latter were again routed and fled southward following the eastern shore of Lake hichigan as far southward as the south bark of the washtenaw, called by the French the Grand River. The Chippewas, who had been their confederates in this war remained in the lower Peninsula, however, and settled about Grand Traverse bay where a remnant still esists (cited in Dtley and Cutsheon, 1906, 88-89). Some accounts of the removal of the Asseguns or Hush-co.desh mention a last battle near the Sleeping Bear sand dunes (Leach, 1383; Blackbird, 1897). Hinsdale (1931) reinforces this claim when he states Sleeping Bear Pt. upon which is an immense sand dune, has many traditions mostly legendary. It has been a fertile field for relic hunters. No doubt it was an inviting lookout for Indians. The exposure of human bones by shifting winds indicate that bodies were buried in the sands of the dune. Tradition has it that the "Bear" was the scene of a terrific battle "in the long ago." After the annihilation of the Asseguns and the 60 Hush-co-desh, the Grand Traverse region was occupied by either the Ojibwa or the Ottawa. In Elaokbird's history of the Ottawa, he states The murders in cold blood among the Ottawa and Chippewa nations of Indians in their primitive state were exceedingly few, at least there was only one account in our old traditions where a murder had been committed, a young and foolish Ottawa having stabbed a young Chippewa while in dispute over their nets when they were fishing for herrings on the Straits of Hackinac. This nearly caused a terrible bloody war between the two powerful tribes of Indians (they were numerous then) so closely related. The tradition says they had council after council upon this subject, and many speeches were delivered on both sides. The Chippewas proposed war to settle the question of murder, while the Ottawas proposed compromise and restitution for the murder. Finally the Ottawas succeeded in settling the difficulty by ceding part of their country to the Chippewa nation, which is now known and distinguished as the Grand Traverse region as their hunting ground. A strip of land which I believe to have extended from a point near Sleeping Bear, down to the eastern shore of the Grand Traverse Bay, some thirty or forty miles wide, thence between two parallel lines running southeasterly until they strike the head waters of Huskegon river, which empties into Lake Hichigan not very far below Grand Haven. They were also allowed access to all the rivers and streams in the Lower Peninsula of Hichigan, to trap the beavers, minks, otters and muskrats. ...The chief We-weeqen-de-bey, who discovered a great copper kettle while hunting in that region, was the first settler of the Grand Traverse region according to the treaty between the Ottawas and Chippewas... About two hundred and fifty years ago...(Blaokbird, 1897, 7, 8, 69). If this is true, the first settler, He-we-gencde-bey, came to the region in the 16u05. However, in a diary entry in 1850, Rev. Peter Daugherty relates the same story but claims 61 the incident took place in the 17508 (Daugherty Diary, 1850). He also states that it was not until the late 17005 that the Ottawa migrated into the Bay region. This later date of occupation, late 17005, agrees with Greenman's contention that the Lower Peninsula was a "noman's land" before 1675, and it was not until the 17u05 that it became occupied on a permanent basis. Spraque and Smith, however, believes the date to be somewhat later, 1763 (1903, 222). Whatever the exact date, settlement into the Grand Traverse region was sometime between Blackbird's date of 16a0 and Sprague's 1763. First Euro-American Contacts The exploration of the Great Lakes region was initiated by the zeal of the early missionaires. Figure 1.1 illustrates the westward wovement of the wissionaires and early explorers and the paths of their movement, generally along the water courses. It can be assumed that most travel by the Jesuits was between the missiors and into the interior from the missions. Thus, the Grand Traverse region was circumnavigated and not visited by the missionaries at this time. The first explorers into the Grand Traverse area were drawn there by the death of their companion. In 1675 Father Pierre Harquett was returning to St. Ignace from the Chicago 62 region when he died somewhere near Ludington or Frankford, Michigan. His two partners, Pierre and Jacque, buried him along the shore and continued their journey to St. Ignace. On the way, they had to go through the Bay area, and were thus the first whites, as far as historians can surmise, to visit the Grand Traverse (Leach, 1883, 12). Another scenerio of the death of Father Harquette, however, states that the two travellers eluded the Bay by going in-land up the Benzie River (Hamilton, 1965, 2no-2u1), which flows south of the Bay. Very little is known of activities in the Grand Traverse region during the late 17th and early 18th century. A photo-plate in J.C. Bright's, "Little Traverse Bay Region" (1917), notes the Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes were a land mark for Charlevoix in 1722, tut there is no mention of the Bay per se. A clue to the lack of interest in the Grand Traverse region is found in a letter from Sr. de Celeron, Commandant of Fort Hichillimackinac, to the Marquis de Beauharnois September 2, 1741. Sir: I have finally induced the Savages to go and visit the most distant parts of their clearings. They start tomorrow; and as soon as they return if the lands turn out to be good, I shall send frenchmen there to work on them to a proper state of sowing in the spring-It is indespensible that they should be assisted, as otherwise they would settle at Grand Traverse, where they have already begun to make a few clearings, a place 25 leagues away from here, and therefore inconvenient for trading...(Hyde, 1962) Because the area was not beneficial to French trade 63 it was not encouraged as a place to settle. At the same time, trade with the Euro-Americans was becoming a major influence on the Native American population, so there was no advantage for them to move into the Grand Traverse area. There are sporadic sightings of villages in the Bay region starting in the late 17CCs. The well-known trapper of the Old Northwest Territory, Alexander Henry, lived with the Hawatam family for a number of years. The family travelled extensively in the Great Lakes region, and on one occasion camped on the shores of the Grand Traverse Bay in April of 1760. Henry relates that he saw the smoke from the village across the Bay (Quimby, 1962, 195-196). The problem arises in trying to locate the village, because the reader does not know which arm of the Bay Henry was referring to. The earliest date locating a village on Grand Traverse Bay is found in a book by Littlejohn (1875) entitled "Legends of Hichigan and the Old Northwest". Littlejohn relates the story of an attack on the main Ottawa village at the south end of the Bay. The village at this time, ca. 1803, was in the vicinity of the present site of Traverse City, and ruled by Chief White Hater. Two missionaries, Fr. Badin and Rev. Perry, made separate and infrequent trips to the area in the 18205 (Colby, 1971, 7). John Howard described a village in a small valley just west of Grand Traverse bay near Crystal Lake, Benzie Co. According to his account, the village had between two hundred and three hundred inhabitants in the 64 late 18203 and early 18305 (Harvey, 1950, 258). Information provided by Kinetz, however, disputes this stating the Ottawa would only hunt in the region just north of Crystal Lake every third year, thus it is unlikely they would have a permanent village in the area (1972, 237). One of the first BurOOAmerican residents in the Grand Traverse region was a trapper by the name of 6.5. Hubbard. He came to the area in 1822 and set up his trap lines around the Sleeping Bear sand dunes (Quaife, 19uu, 287). The 18303 started the era which most dramatically altered the life-style of the Grand Traverse Bands. In the beginning of the decade, the Federal Government established a policy of Native American dispossession with the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (« Stat. u11). Earlier treaties with Hichigan Ottawas or Ojibwas ceded sections of their land yet they were given areas in which to carry on their activities. This new policy would remove the Ottawa or Ojibwa from Hichigan altogether. In the mid-18305 there was pressure from Federal and Territorial leaders on the Native American to cede the areas they controlled. Councils were held in 1835 to select nine leaders to represent the Hichigan Ottawa and Ojibwa at the treaty negotiations. The treaty would cede ten million acres to the Federal Government in northwestern Michigan (Figure 3.2). According to a letter sent to the Hackinaw Agency in May, 1835, the six headman at Grand Traverse bay wanted Augustus Hamlin to be their representative in 65 FIGURE 3.2 Hutchison's map of reserves from Treaty of Washington. 9 ‘ ‘ an H” onu In“: I ' t 5 I. W/‘WJ'IUM _ .- -' V9 FIGURE 3.2 \ 2 g ’4 N“ “on”... a . 2(<0\ 2.1;; “'- : f \ h‘ ’0’ l‘u "' ‘ _ ~. ' a ~"‘1(.1.' \ £\.(l\ ’. I‘M-- 1 ‘ ?é ,.,...uow04] I . - . . .‘P‘x . .~ \9 o ' "‘ w M”"I/' O. a) '00 .‘i’..9r. anti/1‘ ,. y ’00-“ — - A r ‘l’_' ' '3 l . /’2.‘.0‘M.:'I «3 t m. 3 .' .Q o it uh I“ I 1 a Iii/n (A M: .4” /~' I, 5.; (’4 A7 .154 I? 1;... (5.11.496! t, "5 7! “‘7 "3" . ..Dein‘ozt a ‘_ ’Mw ’6 I p I / (“‘7’ o/é./~r/f1/. .’ “l ; ‘0‘: 4"", ‘ 1“ .’/l/l ‘lo-’ 0" C.“ ("P.J/ [bléw [a ’ can m " ‘;’ 03‘ ' ¢ (‘Ii”' (’1 J, / 1'0“), 67 Hashington (ACRHA, 183$, 90). Assuming that each headman represented a village, then there were six villages in the Bay area, in 1835. On Harch 26, 1836 the Treaty of Washington (7 Stat. U91) was ratified by Congress. There were three provisions in the treaty which had major consequences for the Grand Traverse Ottawa and Ojibwa, other than the ceding of their territory. Article Second. From section aforesaid, the tribes reserved for their own use, to be held in common, the following tracts, namely:...one tract of 20,000 acres to be located on the north shore of Grand Traverse Bay. 0 0 Article Fourth. In consideration of the foregoing cessions, the United States agree to pay to the Ottawa and Chippewa nations, the following sums, namely. 1st. An annuity of thirty thousand dollars per annum, in specie, for twenty years; eighteen thousand dollars, to be paid to the Indians between Grand River and the Cheboigun...2nd. Five thousand dollars per annum, for the purpose of education, teachers, school-houses, and books in their own language, to he continued twenty years...3rd. Three thousand dollars for missions, subject to the conditions mentioned in the second clause of this article. uth. Ten thousand dollars for agricultural implements, cattle, mechanic's tools, and such other objects as the President may deem proper... Article Eighth. It is agree, that as soon as the said Indians desire it, a deputation shall be sent to the southwest of the Hissouri River, there to select a suitable place for the final settlement of said Indians which country, so selected and of reasonable extent, the United States will forever guaranty and secure to said Indians. The twenty thousand acre reserve was to be a temporary holding area, until suitable land could be found 68 west of the Hississippi River. According to the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1836, this land would have been 5 million acres in N.w. Hissouri (1836, Q1U). According to the treaty, the Ottawa and Ojibwa were to go to this land within five years. Several misconceptions arose from this treaty provision and the associated facts. According to H. Tanner (1980) the treaty used a map produced by Eutchison in 1795 as the guide to determine the location and boundaries of the reserves (Figure 3.2). In 1839 a survey team was commissioned to set the monuments for an accurate mapping of the area. Finally, in 1auo President Van Buren established the boundaries of the reserve as Town 28, 29, 30 North Range 10 west (Shields to Porter, 18Q5; Hichigan Hist. Coll.). This location is on the southern extreme of the Bay (Figure 1.2). This location disagrees with the site depicted by Boyce in his work on treaty boundaries; he used the location depicted on the Treaty map (BAB, 1899). Another misconception was the five year period of inhabiting the reserve. The reserve was not designated until four years after the Treaty was signed. And, the move westward to Hissouri was delayed and finally forgotten because Congress never allocated the funds to support the move. Besides, an advanced party to Hissouri returned with a negative perception of the territory which instilled grave apprehension among the Ottawa and Ojibwa (ABHIA, 18u2, 23h). Annuities were paid as part of the cession of land, 69 approximately ten dollars to the head of household. In the annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Henry Schoolcraft comments The benefits of the annuities are fully appreciated by them at this era of their affairs, when the chase is nearly or quite closed, and will enable them to get through the severe seasons with less suffering then they would otherwise encounter (ARHIA, 1837, 531-532). According to the records of the Hichigan Agency, approximately four hundred people were entitled to annuites in the Bay area (Table 3.1). TABLE 3.1 ANNUITY RECEIPIENTS IN THE GRAND TRAVERSE REGION Tribe Village H H Ch Tot Fam Grand Traverse Chippewa Schquagonabe 51 U9 107 207 58 Pen. of Ahgosa Chippewa Akosa 37 uz 89 168 #7 Shawbwossing Chippewa Shawbwossing 10 10 20 no 11 Source: (NA, Roll 82u, f 0265). The third major provision of the Treaty called for five thousand dollars per annum to be spent on education and, of that money, three thousand on missions. Thus, the assumption and conditions stipulated that education would be fostered through religious organizations. The Presbyterian Board of Foreign Hissions decided to take advantage of the opportunity and dispatched Rev. Peter Dougherty of Newburgh, 70 New York, in 1838 to Hichigan (Vogel, 1967, 187). A steamer brought him to Hackinaw Island on July 7, 1838. He was advised to establish his mission at Grand Traverse Bay. Dougherty states in his diary Thurs. July 12, 1838. Hr. Johnston recommends Grand Traverse as the most promising point.-He says two or three villages have concentrated on the north shore of this bay some 50 or 60 miles from the lake. It is a band of Chippewas-the land is good and they are desirous of imitating the Indians of L'Arbour Croche, the Catholic mission, who have made considerable advance in civilization. He says no traders are among them and the Catholics have not gained a footing among them-He thinks they will not have to remove in a number of years as they are near no commodious place for a barber nor the mouth of any important river-He thinks it doubtful whether they remove at all he says the chiefs have money laid aside and design to purchase their lands as soon as they come in the market. After several days of preparation and journey Rev. Dougherty entered Grand Travers Bay for the first time. Friday August 3 Did not find the settlement as large as I expected-I made my business known and made some enquires but could not obtain little information-There are about sixty men I was told belonging to this chief -we again loaded our canoe and paddled across the bay we landed at dusk near a small village and was very much anoyed by dogs and children These appear poor and dirty. Sat. Aug 0 left with a fair wind and sailed round the pt. 3 or u miles we then took our paddles... The day was threatening and came on the rain about noon we kept on until we reached a small river which empties into the lake-here is a village the appearance of which like better than any since I left LA Croche Dougherty continued his journey south and eventually returned to New York. 71 The'fallowing year Revs. Daugherty and Fleming returned to Grand Traverse Bay. After first going to the small peninsula bisecting the bay, they settled at Chief Esguaganabe's village near the mouth of Elk River on the east shore. Soon thereafter Rev. Fleming received word that his wife had died and he left, never to return. Shortly therafter, Henry Schoolcraft, the Superindendent of the Hichigan Indian Agency, came to the Bay with an interpreter, farmer, and blacksmith to establish the government farm and workshop, as stipulated in the treaty. Schoolcraft decided to set up the government project on the peninsula, even though the mission had started in Tawassirg (Elk Rapids). In June of 1839, Chief Ahgosa and several members of his band convinced Daugherty he should move his mission from Tawassing to the peninsula. By June 29th, Daugherty had moved and set up his mission. On the 3Cth be celebrated services with a congregation which encluded Bsguagangee, the head at Tawassing (Elk Fapids) (Vagel, 1967, 189-192). Thus, the first permanent Euro-Americans were the missionary Daugherty and the government employees. iith this settlement at the tip of the peninsula, the Grand Traverse Bands isolation and freedom of use of the region ended. Era of Frustration 18u0-1855 The period from 18u0 to 1855 was a time of anxiety, frustration and constant pressure for the Grand Traverse 72 Bands. Their dealings with the Federal Government touched all aspects of their lives; shelter, livelihood, and health. The more control over their life-style the Government gained, the worse conditions became. This was compounded by increased pressure from the Euro-American homesteaders. Host frustration and anxiety was centered around the constant threat of dispossession as Specified in Article Two of the Treaty of Washington (1836). The five year period would have ended in 1au1 and the Ottawa and Ojibwa would have been subject to removal. However, as mentioned earlier, it was not until 18U0 that President Van Buren set aside the reserve. In his annual report of 1861, Comm. of Indian Affairs Crawford states ...the time now rests in the discretion of the United States, to be exercised judiciously and in a spirit of kindness to these poor people, I trust, and with reasonable notice to them when a determination is made. The project of a northern Indian territory, if it can be consummated, will afford them a suitable future home, in point of climate and other respects, and, in my judgement, the indulgence of remaining where they are should be extended to them until this new feature in our Indian policy shall be either fully adapted or rejected. Thus, the Grand Traverse Bands were now at the mercy of the Government, not bound by the treaty agreement. Rev. Daugherty reiterates the problems of not being settled They have fairly commenced a village. They have laid out a street and have erected several substantial log houses. Hhat retards them from a more rapid improvement, is the uncertainity of their location. They express themselves as being strongly desirous of remaining on their present location and 73 making it there home by purchase, if it can not be otherwise secured to them. The question of their location I say nothing. I express the desire they have often expressed to me. I would only remark that permananoe of location is very important to their advance in civilization, and as they need all the stimulus which that would afford, if their minds can be put at rest, it wil be well (ARCIA, 18u1, 306-308). ' Agent Stuart, on the other hand, perceived no problem with some of the Native American groups because of their isolation and uncertain future (ARCIA, 18u1, 290). According to Neumeye (1571, 287-288) there were four major factors that contributed to keeping the Ottawa and Ojibwa in Hichigan. First, the Native American did not want to be removed. Second, no farmers wanted their lands, initially, and the West was developing faster than northern Hichigan. Third, to some influential people, leaving the Ottawa and Ojibwa in Hichigan had its advantages. Fourth, there was a feeling of "magnanimity" toward the Native American at the government level. The distribution of the Grand Traverse Bands' villages are significant because their location is in close proximity to comtemparary settlements. The groups subsistence activities in the mid-18505 followed approximately the same pattern as illustrated in Chapter Two (Figure 2.5). As explained by Fitting and Cleland (1969, 295-296), villages had specific sizes, characteristics and functions depending on the season of the year. in their gardens they cultivated corr, pumpkins, beans, and potatoes. Apple trees, the seed for which was originally obtained 74 from the whites-either the Jesuit missionaries or the fur traders-were planted in every clearing. Hild fruits, especially choice varieties of wild plum, were grown from seed introduced from their distant southern hunting grounds. At the time of the present writing, fruit trees of their planting are found growing wild in the young forests that have sprung up an abandoned fields. The gardens were frequently some distance from the villages. The owners resorted to them at the proper season to do the necessary work, living for the time in portable lodges or in temporary structures erected for the occasion. Though they hunted more or less at all times, winter was the season devoted Specifically to that pursuit. Then the greater part of the population left the villages and scattered through the forest. The chain of inland lakes in Antrim county, having their outlet at Elk Rapids, was a favorite resort, on account of the facilities for fishing as well as for hunting and trapping. Hany plunged into the deeper solitudes of the forest and fixed their winter abode on the Hanistee, the Huskegcn, or the Sauble. Others embarked in canoes, and coasted along Lake Hichigan to its southern extremity, from there making their way to the marshes of the Kankakee and the hunting grounds of northern Indiana and Illinois. Several families had their favorite winter camping places on the northeastern shore of Boardman Lake, within the corporate boundaries of Traverse City. Here the women and children remained while the hunters made long trips in the woods, returning to camp with the Spoils, in some cases several times during the winter. One principal advantage of the location was the abundance of 75 pickerel in the lake-an abundance that seems fabulous to the white fishermen of the present day. They were caught with spear thraught holes cut in the ice, and were an important addition to the winter supply of food. In spring traders came from Hackinac, and sometimes from other places, to barter goods for furs. Not infrequently, however, the Indian hunter accompanied by his wife and children, preferred to visit the center of trade with his peltries, in person (Leach, 1883, 20-21). Dramatic changes took place, however, with the establishment of permanent white residents in the Bay region. The most noteable are the missionaries, they had a profound affect on the Bands subsistence pattern. This can be illustrated by Rev. Dougherty's report of 18H3 The village is steadily improving. Instead of the temporary mat lodge,or frail bark house, substantial log dwellings are going up. Six new lag houses have been put up this summer. Others will be put up this fall....I do not know that any accurate distinction can be made between those who follow the chase and those who follow agriculture or mechanical pursuits. All who have families make gardens, and depend chiefly on what they raise for food, and all hunt more or less in the winter. This distinction, however, may be made: after securing their crops in the fall remove to their hunting grounds and spend the winter there. Others remain here permanently, making two or three hunting excursions during the winter. Of these there are now In families, who have made arrangements for permanent settlements here; others expect to do so (ARCIA, 18u3, 321).. At the end of the five year period (18U1), some members of the Grand Traverse Bands were anxious to purchase 76 land from their annuities. Others, however, did not want to face removal and left the region, returning to the Hanitoulin Islands. Daugherty relates that fact that several families were leaving the Bay region weekly (Daugherty Diary, 18u2). This was not confined to the Grand Traverse region. Blackbird (1892, 98) states that half of the Ottawas in Hichigan went back to their lands in Canada. Shoolcraft reported 263 families had migrated, bath Ottawa and Ojibwa (18u7). A A means to insure against removal was the purchasing of land by the Bands. In 1865 a number of Native Americans tried to secure lands in Townships 28, 29, and 30, North Range 10 Nest. However, the land was not open to market at this time, and was still considered part of the reserve (Porter ta Sheilds, June U-23, 1eu5). It was not until 18u8, that Ottawa and Ojibwa in the Traverse region purchased land successfully, and this was in Townships 31 and 32, North Range 11 test. Later, the missionaries assisted in deciding the location of other permanent villages. In his diary, Rev. George Smith details his arrival in the area around Northport and his subsequent assistance to several Native Americans from the Grand River Band in buying land in the township (G.S. Diary, 18u9). In all from no to 50 families followed Rev. Smith north from the Grand River basin in 18U9 (Leach, 1883, 68). Rev. Smith relates: There are four bands enjoying in a greater or less degree the benefits of the mission; 77 these are the Hakazoo, or Black River band, the Shabwaing band, the Nagonabe band, and the Ommunise band, or the Carp River band (Smith, RHIA, 1851, 53). Other missions were established in the late 18405 or early 18505. On the map of 18U1 by Daugherty (Figure 3.3) he locates Catholic settlements on the west bank of East Bay. However, later he locates the Catholic families near Sutton's Bay, this is on the opposite share of the Bay from the previous site. According to Scheffer (1970, 9), Chief Peshawba and his band came from Cross Village to this site in 1895. The band was strongly influenced by the Catholic mission at Crass Village and tried to establish a similar mission at Grand Traverse. Barnes believes that Father Angleius Van Paemel opened the Catholic mission at what was then called Eaglestown in 1852 (1971, 110). Thus, by the early 18505 three different missions were established on the Bay, Rev. Dougherty's, Rev. Smith's, and the new Catholic mission of Fr. Van Paemel. Because land could not be purchased near Dougherty's mission on the peninsula, a number of families bought land on the west shore of the Bay, at a place now called Omena. In 1852, Daugherty decided to move his mission closer to more of his congregation and rebuilt his church and rectory amongst the new land owners (Daugherty, RHIA, 1852). The missionaries created the crack in the dike for the impeding rush of settlers. Soon after Rev. Daugherty settled on the peninsula, Lewis Miller, the first permanent 78 FIGURE 3.3 Rev. Dougherty's map of villages, 1840. 79 1 Due “4430. Avila M MM .3 u «boil-M m 7 q in at Km (Aim (mums {[3] than rwuxa FIGURE 3 . 3 80 settler to the area not aligned to a church or government agency arrived (Cracker, 1935, 32). June of 18u7 found Capt. Boardman setting up a small sawmill at the northwest corner of Boardman Lake at the foot of the Bay (Leach, 1883, 39-u0). About the same time a Frenchman, Naqaros Dona, became the first white settler in Leelanau Co., at a site two miles south of Leland, then called Shemacopink (Leach, n.d., 3). Thus, the initial onslaught of Euro-Americans started in the mid to late 18405. An event that would eventually encourage the further settlement of the region was the resurvey of northwestern Hichigan in 1850 and 1851. The area was initially surveyed in 1839, the resurvey was commissioned to correct the original's inaccuracies. There were two major consequences of the resurvey. First, it provided fairly detailed mapping of the settlements and; second, a complete description of soil, vegetation characteristics, and farming potential was produced. Thus, homesteaders had better information on what land was available and the best or worst sites for farming or logging. The 18505 signal the initial breaking of the dam and the subsequent flood of settlers. In rapid succession, township after township in the region was settled. John LeRue moved into Sleeping Bear Bay in 1847, but moved in 1851 to Northport , just north of waukazacville. Here he established a mill and eventually a dock. In 1853 Antoine Manseau settled on the Carp River, at the present site of 81 Leland. The following year John Hiller, John Porter, H.V. Buckman, John Byrant and Frederick Cook arrived at Leland. Deacon Dame, the assistant to Rev. Daugherty, relocated at Northport in 1853 or 1854 and helped construct the first wharf with John LeRue. Similarly, a wharf was built in Leland with the support of H.H. Halber, J. Nutt and John Fisher in 1854 (Leach, 1883, 66-70). As significant as the building of docks and settlements wasthe issuing of the first patent for land outside of settlements. The patent was issued to Cashmere Bashmere for 71 acres south of Sutton's Bay (Hich. Hist., 1943, 621). Sopething had to been done for the Native American to assist in either fulfilling the obligations of the Treaty of 1836 or providing land protection. In his 1847 report to the Hichigan Indian agency Rev. Daugherty states his opinion to resolve the Ottawa and Ojibwa's predicament: Several things are producing the conviction on my mind that the time has come when the interests of these people will be promoted by deciding definitely the question of their future location, by securing them the lands they now occupy by sale or otherwise, or fixing them on some other permanent home, while they have some means of aid from their annuities. The following reasons have induced this opinion: 1. They are unwilling to make much further effort at improvement in buildings, while they have no assurance of remaining to enjoy them. 2. The time has come when they should be spreading out on their lands, with more room for raising domestic animals than they can have clustered together in a small village. 3. Becoming uneasy lest they may have to leave here, they are beginning to make purchases here and there, at distant points, which will scatter them into such small hands that it will be 82 almost impossible to collect them into schools and meetings for improvement. (RCIA, 1847, 908) The following year Agent Richmond presented a different solution. The Ottawas of Lake nichigan are making great efforts to secure themselves permanent homes, by purchasing lands along the rivers and bays off the Lake; their position enables them, with moderate efforts, to live well; the land is very productive, the fishing profitable, and the county still yields to the adventureous hunter a good return for his tail... Should the proper means he adopted for congregating them in communities, at favorable points toward the northern portion of the Lower peninsula of nichigan, where the land is fertile, fisheries productive, climate healthy, and where for years they will be undisturbed by the approach of white settlements, it will facilitate their advancement and improve their conditions...(ARCIA, 1848, 550-551) The progress in farming made by the separate Grand Traverse Bands was encouraging to both the missionaries and the agents. In 18u9 Daugherty reported that they sold several thousand bushels of corn and potatoes, in addition to providing a full supply for their families (BHIA, 18n9, 11Q3). In the same report Daugherty stated the need for individual pieces of lard for the families, "thus, there would be room for domestic animals: each family could have their children under control, and habits of neatness and cleanliness could be prompted (ABHIA, 18u9, 1146)." Indian agent Henry Giltert had a somewhat revised plan which would establish four or five locations of 6 to 8 townships for the individual bands of Ottawa and Ojibwa. The land would be held in trust ty the Federal government 83 and would eventually be turned into a fee ownership when they became "sufficiently enlightened to te capable of taking charge of it themselves (ECIA, 1853, 39)." Dougherty's and Gilbert's recommendations did not fall on deaf ears in Washington. The Comm. of Indian Affairs, Geo. h. nanypenny, thought that all Native Americans could be assimilated into the larger culture by providing individual allotments (Gates, 1571, 154). This theory eventually became Federal policy in the 18505. Early in 1855 the Ottawa Bands of nichigan met at Grand River and again at Grand Traverse to work out specific points to be negotiated with the Federal government. Their frustrations had reached a level which could no longer be tolerated. They agreed to ask for a permanent home in Nichigan, continued government trusteeship, and a clarification of their rights under previous treaties (NA, Hack. R uou, f 561-562). There were, however, issues that each Band wanted tut could not agree on. The negotiations with the Federal government commenced on July 25th in Detroit and lasted one week. According to White (1978), many issues regarding Federal obligations under the old treaties, continued Federal guardianship, and the dissolution of the Ottawa and Ojibwa tribes were discussed, dropped, and renegotiated throughout the week. The strongest need of the Grand Traverse Bands was securing a home. The Bands mistrust of the Federal government with respect to the land and reservations led to 84 many disoussinons on land acquistion and ownership. The Ottawa and Ojibwa wanted 160 acre allotments, but that was not to be (NA, 86 123 Treaty Journ., 37). Finally the treaty was signed on July 31, 1855 (Appendix A). Of the four major topics negotiated at Detroit, the question of land would have the most dramatic consequences for not only the Grand Traverse Bands but all Hicbigan Ottawa and Ojibwa specified in the treaty. The treaty transformed the settlements of the different Bands from community-oriented to individual-oriented land owners. A role that was completely alien to their land base philosophy. Summary The early history of the Grand Traverse region's OCCUpation and use is ircomplete and has nany gaps. Several sources suggest the area was inhabited by the Hascotens and/or Asseguns in the beginning of the 17th century. As the century progressed, they were forced westward by the Ottawa and Ojibwa. The first contacts with Europeans occured as they journeyed by the region. The early explorers and missionaries into the Great Lakes basically by-passed the region because it offered no immediate advantages to them, both in terms of markets or goods. Few contacts and no missions or trading settlements were established. 85 The founding of the United States and its expansionist thrust eventually brought the Hichigan Ottawa and Ojibwa into contact with the Federal government. The Treaty of Washington (1836) ceded approximately 10 million acres of northern Michigan to the Federal government, including the Grand Traverse region. Provisions within the treaty provided for skilled labor and missionaries to "educate" the Ottawa and Ojibwa. The treaty also had a clause stating the niobigan Ottawa and Ojibwa would be moved west of the dississippi River into a permanent reservation. Thus, the Native Americans had to cope with the fact they would be moving from their traditional honelands. The move was to take place within five years after the treaty was signed. The time framework, however, was never met. The instability of the situation surfaced in all aspects of their lives; farming, housing, and education. Compounding this atmOSphere of apprehension was the fact that the Grand Traverse region was experiencing a large influx of Euro-American settlers. The Bichigan Ottawa and Ojibwa were caught between not knowing if they were to be removed westward or not and the fact that their homelands were being purchased by in-coming settlers. Finally, in 1855 the different Bands of Ottawa and Ojibwa met with the United States government and negotiated a new treaty This treaty dealt with issues concerning land, tribal organization, provisions of former treaties and annuities. The land issues however, had the most profound 86 effect on settlement. Every head of household was given the opportunity to select 80 acres and receive a fee simple title to the land. This provision transformed the Hichigan Ottawa and Ojibwa from a community based society to a society in which land was owned by the individual. Chapter Four The Federal government's allotment policy was initially haphazard, but later became the primary tool for dealing with Native American land rights. This transition took place in 1887 with the passage of the Dawes Act (2n Stat. L. 388), more commonly known as the General Allotment Act of 1887. Prior to this time, a number of treaties, acts and proclamations contained some type of stipulation regarding allotments. The following discussion will address (1) the use of allotments previous to 1887 and (2) the General Allotment Act and subsequent legislation. This chapter will discuss some of the ways in which allotments have been used by the United States government. Hopefully, this will enable the reader to understand not only the allotment process, but also how the Treaty of Detroit was an integral part of this policy. Also, the consequences of other allotment attempts will be presented to provide a measure against which the results of the Grand Traverse Bands allotments may be measrred. 87 88 Definition of Allotments Allotment practices may be traced either by citing the use of the word as a noun or by noting its use as a verb. Kinney (1937, 82) states that in 1633 the General Court of Massachusetts Colony declared any Indian who should come to the English plantations and live civilly and unerrly should have 'allotments amongst the English, according to the custom of the English in like case'... He also found that the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1655 made reference to "allotting" lands to Indians as a group, rather than to individuals. Thus, the Nassuchusett's Court was assigning lands to a worthy individual, whereas, the Virginia assembly dealt with a communal allotment. Under the United States Government two different treaties in 1798 used "alloting" in their terminology. In the June 1st treaty with the Oneida, tribal land was alloted to individuals and families (Cohen, 1902, 206). Later, the October 2nd treaty with the Cherokees "allotted" lands temporarily to the Indian agent (Kinney, 1937, 83). The word allotment is used as a noun and is tte parcel of land given to a person. The word allot or alloting is the verb and is the giving or distributing of the land. 89 Use in Treaties It was not until the 1805 treaty with the Choctaws (7 Stat. 9) that a Specific individual was granted a reserve: 5,120 acres in southwestern Alabama to the two daughters of Samuell hitchell "by holly, a Chaktawwomar" (Gates, 1971, 142). This started a trend toward giving land as a gift or as a special favor within a treaty. Treaties immediately after the War of 1812 sometimes stipulated an allotment for those Native Americans favoring the United States during that conflict. An example is the Aug. 9, 181a treaty signed and concluded by Andrew Jackson with the Creek of Georgia (2 Stat. 120) Provided, nevertheless, that where ary possession of any chief or warriors of the Creek nation, who shall have been friendly to the United States during the war, and taken an active part therein, shall be within the territory ceded by these articles to the United States, every such person shall be entitled to a reservation of land within the said territory of one mile square, to include improvements as near the centre there of as maybe, which shall insure to said chief, or warrior, and his descendants, so long as he or they shall continue to occupy the same,who shall be protected by and subject to the laws of the United States The land promised to the loyalist, however, was not granted in fee and was part of the trust. A subsequent treaty with the Creek, Harch 3, 1817 (3 Stat. 380) gave them the land with fee simple title only after improvements were made upon the parcel (Kinney, 1937, 8u-86). This then made the Native American a land owner with full responsibilities 90 of ownership. The advantage of receiving an allotment was the added income that could be obtained by selling the land and returning to the tribal group. Gates (1971, 108) found that once the importance of including individual reserves was realized by the tribes, they would not negotiate without such a clause. The level of absurdity reached its peak with the niami treaties of 183a, 1838, and 1euc. ...in the resulting treaty of 1834, only twenty-five individual reserves were granted, but the price paid for the cession was a dollar an acre. John B. Bichardville, principal chief of the hiamis, who already had received 8,000 acres in individual reserves, was given an additional 20,320 acres, and all his holdings were to be conveyed to him in fee. He was also to have $31,800. Francis Godgroy, already the grantee of u,u80 acres, was given 6,800 more and $17,612. The three niami treaties brougth the total reserves granted them to 112,800 acres. A total of $1,133,000 was to be paid for the cessions of these three treaties, a sum far larger than the United States could expect to recover from their sale. The Siami were also promised a reservation in the Indian country of 500,000 acres which was to be guaranteed "to them forever" (Gates, 1971, 1su). Finally, in 1833 Comm. of Indian Affairs Cass issued a statement that whenever possible individual allotments or reserves would not be negotiated. Gates (1971, 158) feels the individual reserves were not part of a well conceived plan but rather served two purposes: in the south, they were a means of eliminating the Indians; and in the north, they were used to gain the support of the Indians. These purposes identified by Gates, fit the general 91 objectives of Indian policy during the Jacksonian Era. There were two well defined elements in the policy. First, to segregate the greater part of the Native American papulation from the Anglo population. Second, the assignment of tracts of lands to individuals willing to accept the social and political system of the Anglo society (Kinney, 1937, 79-80). This can be exemplified by the combination of removal and allotments signed by the Chickasaws, Creeks, Cherokee, and Choctaw in the 18305. Generally, the provisions were made such that an individual could remain an allotment east of the hississippi or remove to a reserve in "Indian country" and not be bothered by the Anglo society. Needless to say, those who remained east of the mississippi quickly lost their land. In a thorough study of allotments in Alabama and Mississippi, nary Young (1961) found staggering amounts of land being acquired by a few Anglo individuals. For example, thirty-three buyers of land accumulated over 1.5 million acres of allotments and later bought an additional U61,u37 acres by purchasing the holdings of small speculators, parcels ranging from 100 to 10,000 acres (1961, 131-132). The importance of this study is in not only the amounts of land involved but also the progression of land owners. The land transfered from Native American to local or small land speculator to large land companies. Generally, the land companies were a conglomerate of 92 investors centered in major cities, e.g. New York or New Orleans. The treaties were signed with ambiguities which were to the advantage of the Anglos. One of the major loopholes in the Chickasaw's treaty allowed Anglo's who had married a Native American to receive all of the priviledges of the Native American (Carney, 1961, 65). Thus, the Anglo-American's extended family could occupy and develOp farms on lands that would have normally been developed by "full blood" Chickasaws. with all the problems of securing selections, issuing allotments protecting the land from squatters, verifying ownership, and the myriad of other difficulties, the Federal government of the 18005 still believed the allotment system could work. In his annual report of 1838, Comm. Crawford wrote ...unless some system is worked out by which there shall be a separate allotment of land to each individual whom the scheme shall entitle to it, you will look in vain for any general casting off of savagism. Common property and civilization can not co-exist (IRCIA, 1838). The idea of civilizing the Native American became an integral part of the Federal Indian policy in the 1BQOs. Several programs were initiated to accomplish this end. Education was regarded as one method of acculturating the Native American. Missionaries were given the responsibility of providing schools and a proper Christian education to the Native American. Treaty provision during this era 93 stipulated money for education through the missions and, in some cases, provided skilled labor to educate the Native American in carpentry, blacksmitbing, or farming. Other techniques, however, were attempted to acculturate the Native American. The Utah Indian agency experimented with a system of Indian farm allotments to feed the territory's Native Americans and provide a suitable environment for their acculturation. In 1851 Eringham Young appointed several white settlers as "farmers to the Indians." They were to establish reservation farms in which they supervized the agricultural pursrits of the tribal members and distributed the yields to the workers. However, by 1860, mismanagement and the loss of direction in the farms caused the system to fail (Beeton, 1977-1978, 31a). Thus, even local officials had difficulty managing an allotment system. Use as Policy The United States government believed in the acculturation of the Native American, and in the 18505 began a tsunami of allotments. The Treaty of 1esu with the Omaha's (10 Stat. 1033) was the first of many negotiated by Comm. Geo. Nanypenny, the strongest supporter of an allotment policy. Article Six of the treaty was typical of agreements signed by Nanypenny. 94 ...cause the whole or such portion of the land hereby reserved, as he may think proper, or of such other land as may be selected in lieu thereof, as proveided for in Article first, to be surveyed into lots and to assign to such Indian or Indians of said tribe as are willing to avail themselves for the priviledge, and who will locate on the same as a permanent home, if a single person over twenty-one years of age, one eighth of a section... (Kinney, 1937, 11A) In the seven years following 1asu, forty treaties included provisions for surveying reservations and allotting the lands to individuals in amounts ranging from 80 to 320 acres. Native Americans in Uiohigan, Wisconsin, hinnesota, Nebraska and Kansas were either given fee simple titles immediately or they could receive a fee simple title after a prescribed delay. Treaties negotiated further west were subject to a moratorium of twenty-five years before the fee simple title would be issued (Gates, 1971, 163). No matter how long the time lag, the the Native American received a title to land which they were assumed to make profitable or prOSperous. The policy of using allotments as a means to acculturate the Native American was instigated by a dissappointment in previous attempts to effectively handle Native American relations with the Federal government. Comm. of Indian Affairs Denver stated in 1858 two major problems stemming from the creation of reservations in the west. First, the delaying of any action because the reservations were still tentative encampments. Second, the expense of maintaining the reservation plus payment of 95 annuities (AHCIA, 1858). In an attempt to dissolve reservations and their subsequent expenses several proposals were presented. One example of this is a five point plan for correct acculturation described by Agent Geary of the Oregon and Nashington agency in 1859. 1.) Land should be assigned to individuals, so that each Indian could have a fixed home, and an individual right to the soil. 2.) Indians should be compelled to perform regular labor for their own support. 3.) The agent should be permitted to find homes in suitable white families for neglected Indian orphans. u.) Industrial boarding schools should be established, ”where habits of cleanliness, punctuality, and order should be carefully cultivated." 5.) Only men "of pure morals and correct department" should be employed on reservations. (Tyler, 1973, 75) This type of thinking characterized the Office of Indian Affairs for several decades. Gates states that Comm. Dole in 1863 and Comm. Smith in 1873 both emphasized allotments as a means of inducing the Native Amrioan to make improvements in their lives and farming (1971, 163). The Board of Indian Commissioners issued three recommendations in 1869 which reinforced this emphasis on acculturation. They wanted to abolish all reservations, cease the issuance of annuities, and issue land in severalty (Kinney, 1937, 1N8). The emphasis on individual allotments was paramount in the policy of the Office of Indian Affairs, but not to the Federal government overall. 96 Use as Law Previous to 1871, allotments were incorporated in treaties on an individual basis, and no standard size, time span, or guarantees existed. The Appropriation Act of 1871 (16 Stat. saw, 566) brought to an end the Senate's ability to ratify treaties negotiated with individual tribal groups. Up to this point it was the policies of the Office of Indian Affairs and the Senate which were being dictated in treaties. With the passage of this bill it would now have to be Congressional policy which would be implemented toward Native American relations, not just Senate preference. Through several different administrations, a multitude of bills and hearings, backroom politics, and the lobbying efforts of several interest groups the new Congressional policy was formulated in one all encompassing bill (Nashburn, 1975: Gates, 1971). This law is known as the Dawes Act (2Q Stat. L. 388), which was signed on February 8, 1887. The major provisions of the act were 1. A grant of 160 acres to each family head, of 80 acres to each single person over 18 years of age and to each orphan under 18, and of no acres to each single person under 18; 2. A patent in fee to be issued to every allottee but to be held in trust by the Government for 25 years, during which time the land could not be alienated or encumbered: 3. A period of a years to be allowed the Indians in which they should make their selections after allotment should be applied to any tribe-failure of the Indians to do so should result in selection for them at the 97 order of the Secretary of the Interior; u. Citizenship to be conferred upon allottees and upon any other Indians who had abandoned their tribes and adopted "the habits of civilized life." (Cohen, 19u2, 2(7-2C8) In 1881 Senator 8. Cake (Dem., Tex.) initiated a hill (8. 1773) which would be a comprehensive issuance of land in severalty (Uashburn, 1973, VIII). Though the bill was never passed it stimulated discussion and implanted the concept of land in severalty. Numerous statements were made in the following years to substantiate or discredit the allotment system. One of the most ardent supporters of the system was Sen. Pendleton (Dem., Ohio). In the Senate hearings on the Coke Bill (S. 1773) he stated that allotments "mean to encourage the idea of property...home...farming...arts of civilization" He went on to say "it will take them from barbarism, and elevate them into a plane which will not only make them fit to be citizens but fit to raise higher and higher in civilization (Nashburn, 1973, VIII)." The Curarator of the Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, John Wesley Powell, sent a letter to Congress stating his views on the issue of land in severalty: There are three prerequistes to the ultimate civilization of the North American Indians. The first is, they must adopt the civilized family. The second is, they must recognize individual property rights including property in land as they are recognized under the institutions of civilization. Third, they must abandon the industries of savagery and engage in the industries of civilization (Nashburn, 1973, VIII). 98 These three recommendations substantiated the claims of Senator Pendelton. Indian Commissioner Price in his arnual report of 1882 reiterated the belief in the allotment system by declaring that "in no case where allotments have been made and the titles secured, with proper restrictions, have any other than the best results followed (Kinney, 1937, 189)." This statement, however, disregards the claims of Nighigan Agent Smith made in 1872 that of over 8000 Indians in Michigan very few are competent to take charge of their own affairs, and...heavy losses in land and timber (took place) immediately after the first issue of patents (ABNIA, 1672, 509). A concern for the Native Aemrican's plight saw the creation of several Native American awareness organizations. These groups were generally composed of politically active people, some of whom were well-known experts in their field. Of the groups, the Indian Rights Association, the Lake Bohonk Conference, the Hissionary Boards, and the Board of Indian Commissioners all supported a bill offering land in severalty and used their congressional influence (Tyler, 1973, 95). The supreme aim of the friends of the Native American was to substitute white civilization for tribal culture, and they shrewdly sensed that the difference in the concepts of property were fundamental in the contrast between the two ways of life. They were confident, that if every Native American had his own parcel of land, guaranteed by a patent from the Federal government, he wuld enjoy a 99 security which no tribal-communal possession could afford him (Cohen, 19u2, 208). Sen. Pendelton (Dem., Ohio) tried to sum the whole purpose of the allotment system in the phrase "it must be our part to foster and encourage within them this trinity upon which all civilization depends-family, home and property (Nashburn, 1973, VIII)." These sentiments were strongly reenforced by statements after the passage of the Dawes Act. In 1891, be listed ...the reservation system belongs to a "vanishing state of things" and must soon cease to exist. ...the Indians must conform to "the white man's ways," peaceably if they will, forcibly if they must...They can not escape it, and must either conform to it or be crushed by it. ...the tribal relations should be broken up, socialism destroyed, and the family and the autonomy of the individual substituted. And, the need for "civilizing" the Native American was also used to explain why the Native American might reject allotments. Comm. of Indian Affairs Adkins states in 1872 Indian opposition would be prompted by four attitudes; Indians were loathe "to give up their savage customs;" they were suspicious of "any innovations upon their nomadic way of life;" they were ignorant of allotmert's purposes'.and their minds had been poisoned and their fears aroused by designing white men..."personal motives" had been found at the bottom of every case of Indian opposition which had come to the attention of the Indian office (ABCIA, 1872) Two rebuttals to this method of ”civilizing" the Native American address not only the method but also the process 100 and present issues never addressed in the debates. D'Arcy NcNickles wanted to know why in all of the debates on home, family and prOperty they never asked the opinion of the Native American (1957, 10A). was it because of the statements of Comm. Adkins? Also, Price (1973, 531) makes the observation that there was an overwhelming preference for civilization based on labor rather than acculturation based on the accumulation of capital. Neither of those issues have been confronted. Rep. O'Neill (Dem., No.) opposed the Act because it was not as encompassing as he had hoped. He wanted a broad-based severalty program which would solve the problems of not only the Native American but also those of the poor Anglo and the I'colored people.“ He held that after the Native American received their individual allotments, the unallotted reservation lands should be made available to workers who had lost their jobs to labor-saving machinery and to other landless people (Nardock, 1971, 216). Also, because the Native American was not using all of the resources available on the reservation, the surplus would allow expansion of livestock, farming and mineral recovery by other sectors of the population (Jurgenson, 1978, 12). Finally, there appeared to be decreased expenses for the Federal government in administering the policy (Cohen, 1942, 208). And if the excess land was not used, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Norgan calculated that the surplus lands, after allotments, could be sold for approximately $66 101 million (Otis, 193a, suv). Another arguement against the allotment policy was presented by Sen. Horgan (Dem., Ala.) with regard to its legality. He thought that it was in violation of treaty obligations to some of the Native American groups (Cong. Record, Q6th Conq., 3rd Sess., 778-788). Price also feels that the Federal government went beyond their theoretical bounds of fee control in the dividing of communal lands (1973, 043). A group that did not want land in severalty were the Nations living in the Oklahoma territory. In 1887 the International Council of Indian Territory, to which 19 tribes sent 57 representatives, voted unaimously against allotments. The Council sent Pres. Cleveland a resolution which cited the "sad experience" which would "engulf all of the nations and tribes of the territory in one common catastrOphe, to the enrichment of land monopolists (Otis, 193a, 550)." Their influence persuaded the writers of the law to exclude them from the Act, as cited in Section VIII. The Act, however, was passed and its repercusions started almost immediately. The law impacted on all aspects of Native American life, instigating migration, loss of livestock, and heightened frustration and despair. Effects of Allotments The Federal government was forewarned that some individuals both within the government and missionairy 102 people would likely attempt to take advantage of the Native American. In 1878 Comm. Bayt made the statement: Experience has shown that even the most advanced and civilized of our Indians are not capable of defending their land when title in fee is once vested in them. The reservations in trust are at once infested by a class of land-sharks, who do not hesitate to resort to any measure, however, iniquitous, to defraud the Indians of their lands (ARCIA, 1878, uu3). This was reinterated by Sen. Teller (Dem., Colo.) in his infamous speech of 1381 If I stand alone in the Senate, I want to put upon the record my prophecy in this matter, that when 30 or no years shall have passed and these Indians shall have parted with their title... (Cong. Record, n6th Cong., 3rd Sess., 783). The outward expression of the Act was to civilize the Native American, the inward expression of the Act was another matter. its purpose was defined by the minority report of the House Indian Affairs Committee in 1880. It states that the real aim of the bill, referring its predessor, to the Coke Bill (S. 1773), was to make the Indian lands vulnerable and open them up to settlement (Cohen, 19u2, 203). The exact consequence of both Hayt's and Teller's statements. Overall the consequences of the Geteral Allotment Act touched all aspects of the Native Americans life. The National Resource Board in 1935 after extensive research listed eight major social and economic effects of the allotment system (Nat. Res. Bd., 1935, 10—11). The social effects range from the break up of the community 103 organization to shattered families. The economic ramifications stemmed from the loss of land, the subdividing of inheritance, and the lack of financial support for investment or improvement. The most overwhelming of the consequences, however, was the loss of land. When the allotment period ended in 193a a total of en acts and proclamations had to be issued to clarify the statements in the Dawes Act (Kinney, 1937, 245-246) regarding the land. But these had no effect on stopping the dramatic loses. A total of 246,569 allotments were issued comprising over uo,eua,172 acres on 100 reservations (Ducheneaux and Kickingbird, 1973, 23). In 1881, the land holdings of the Native Americans were estimated to be 155,632,312 acres. A number of Federal acts and proclamations reduced their holdings to 1cu,31u,3u9 acres by 1889 (Cohen, 1942, 207). By the turn of the century, they had claim to only 77,865,373 acres. And, as stated previously by 193a allotment holdings only accounted for uo,eu8,172 acres. A loss of 114,78u,1uc acres from 1881 to 193a (Otis, 1934, 506). The enormous loss of land was known before the Act was passed. Former Comm. Hanypenny, who in the mid-18505 established the policy of allotments, said he felt he had "committed the highest crime" had he been able to foresee the results of his policy (Gates, 1971, 165). And, Comm. Horgan in 1892 had to qualify the Dawes Act because he became aware of its pitfalls 104 First, there is the danger that citizenship will be thrust upon the Irdian before he is prepared for it. Second, there is a danger that the educational system will be checked. Third, there is a danger that the Service will not be lifted out of politics. Fourth, there is danger of Christian people failing in reSponsibility (ARCIA, 1892, 217-218). Thus, as is always the case, the policy-makers define the pitfalls after the decision has been made and its weaknesses become evident. Chapter Five The General Allotment Act of 1887 and the Treaty of Detroit (1855) had one common element: both allotted land in severalty to the Native American. The strongest similarity between the two acts, however, is the consequent loss of land by the Native American. The Treaty of Detroit set aside six and one-half townships (Appendix A, Article 1, Sec. 5) from which a qualified member of the Grand Traverse Bands could select an allotment of up to 80 acres. Eligible individuals (Appendix A, Art. 1., Sec. 8, para. a) had five years to make their selection. Then, after a certificate was issued there was an additional wait of ten years before a fee simple patent could be secured (Appendix A, Art. 1, Sect. 8, para. 10). The treaty closed to public settlement over 87,u00 acres (Figure 1.2). This amount is somewhat deceiving, however, because in subsequent articles of the treaty it is stated It is also agreed that any lands within the aforesaid tracts now occupied by actual settlers, or by persons entitled to pre-emption theron, shall be exempt from the provisions of this article; provided, that such pre-emption claims shall be proved, as 105 106 prescribed by law, before the 1st day of October next. (Art. 1, Sec. 8, para. 16) Also, certain types of land and specific sections were declared closed to settlement before the treaty was negotiated. Lands of this type were defined in the Swamp Act (1eu1), the Internal Improvement Act (1846), and the Primary School Act (1836). The total acreage exempted by the three acts was 13,9uo. Also, the amount of land patented before the treaty became effective totalled 11,700 acres. Thus, 25,6u0 acres or approximately 29% of the reserve was not available for selection (Figure 5.1). A few Ottawa and Ojibwa began searching for parcels in late 1956 with the aid of either Rev. Dougherty or Rev. Smith (Dougherty Diary, 1856: Smith Diary, 1856). However, documents at the land office in Traverse City or the National Archives (Washington) no longer contain the list of individuals who petitioned for the initial parcels. Because of administrative delays the certificates were not issued until 1864. The selections made in 1&56-1857 had to be reentered because the Indian agents made mistakes on parcel selections and selectees (NA., Roll 408, f ou92-ou93). The Federal government was prepared to issue 205 certificates totalling 13,573.19 acres in May of 1857 (NA, Roll “07, f ou95). But because of mismanagement could not process the selections. Finally, in 186a the first certificates were issued. Unfortunately 1656 acres were not certified to allottees who would have received the land in 1857. Also, there were 93 descrepencies (11.5% of the total) in the 107 FIGURE 5.1 Acreage exempt from Treaty of Detroit. 108 33.535 32.3 I he as: macaw I nod ”30325.35 Humbug; a ~53 0.3qu umugmumm a H . m mmeHh 109 certificates. The errors ranged from having legal descriptions backward, e.g. SH1/0NN1/0Sec.9 instead of NN1/0SN1/0Sec.9, to incorrect township and range listings of parcels. In a few instances, two people received certificates for the same land. Finally, President Grant signed the fee simple patents for the Grand Traverse Bands on June 20, 1872. This was approximately two years after patents were issued to allottees at the other reserved areas, Little Traverse Bay and Grand River. Five hundred and thirty-two parcels were described on three hundred and four patents, totalling 20,000.17 acres. This is approximately 23% of the reserved area and only 32.0% of the 61,760 acres available for selection (Figure 5.2). Nethods of Transfer A key issue in studies of land transfer is knowing the methods by which the land transfered. It is generally assumed that allotted land was either stolen from the Native American or taken away for back taxes (Nashburn, 1971). Sutton capsulizes the allotment in his description of westward eXpansion by Euro-Americans. ...chicanery, fraud, and speculation, as well as bona fide homesteading and illegal but tolerated squatting, accompainied white entry into Indian country (1975, 05) Generally speaking, there are five methods of land 110 FIGURE 5.2 Parcels patented according to Treaty of Detroit. 111 m.m mxath 112 acquisition: warranty sale, tax sale, quit claim sale, executor's deed, referee's deed (Callahan, 1965, 28-39). In the transfer of the Grand Traverse Bards allotted lands, they experienced four of the five methods (Table 5.1). TABLE 5.1 HETHODS 0P TRANSFER PCB PBTENTEI LANDS. acres percent "2222223212"""TZIEEETEEM‘” "33:3? """"" Tax Sale $80.00 3.17 Quit Claim Sale 3,052.32 18.85 Administration Sale 120.00 .65 Total 18,317:§1 ‘166.oo Source: Author. As observed from Table 5.1, the majority of the transfers were warranty sales with a lesser amount by tax sales and the other two methods. This is similar to Nashburn's findings. transfers is similar to other Native American groups. However, knowledge of the types of warranty sales that took place and how they compare to the region overall must be considered. Differences in hethod of Transfer The percentage of warranty sales or tax sales alone cannot present the overall stability of a region, by itself 113 is not sufficient information. The oocurance of a method of transfer must be compared to the regional frequency to determine if a difference existed between the group being studied and the population as a whole. Local Euro-Americans may have experienced the same methods at the same frequency, thus, a question is whether or not there was a difference between the methods of transfer experienced by Native Americans and those experienced by Euro-Americans. It is often assumed that the Native Americans lost their land by deceit or tax sale. The work of Young (1961) and Otis (1930) verify this for lands allotted to the Five Civilized Tribes and by the General Allotment Act. However, it must be asked whether this is any different than for the majority of new Euro-American farmers and immigrants to the area. Inspection of Table 5.2 reveals a difference between the sampled Native American and the Euro-American residents of the study area. And using the chi-square test, there is a statistically significant difference between Native Americans and EurosAmericans methods of transfer (.001 level of significance). The number of ccourances alone, however, do not tell the whole story. Two Native Americans within the sample, Francis Blackman and John Ahgosa, were considered "frontmen" for land speculators from Chicago and the local area (Leach, 1888: LCP, 1978). In the reserve area alone, the two men held title to 0015.20 and 8757.78 acres, reSpectively. Together this accounts for 10.7% of the reserved land. 110 TABLE 5.2 HETHODS OF TRANSFER PCB SAEPLBI PARCELS acres percent "EZEEZE‘EQIT‘""IEZSTSB"""'“EE:S?’"“""' Tax Sale 500.00 23.03 Quit Claim Sale 156.00 6.66 Administration Sale 80.00 3.00 Total 2,305.00 1c0200 Table 5.2a Transfers for all sampled parcels. --------------- “---- ---------------- -‘-- -------------- Warranty Sale 910.60 75.52 Tax Sale 180.00 10.86 Quit Claim Sale 36.00 3.01 Administrative Sale 80.00 6.61 Total 1,211.00 100.00 Table 5.2b Transfers for sampled Euro-American parcels. Warranty Sale 655.02 57.71 Tax Sale 360.00 31.72 Quit Claim Sale 120.00 10.57 Administrative Sale 0.00 0.00 Total 1,135.02 1E0100 Table 5.2c Transfers for sampled Native American parcels. Source: Author. 115 In relation to the sample parcels, they account for 320 of the 360 acres sold by quit claim. Generally, the two men's financier would extend the money to puchase land from either the Federal government or the State. They would then stake their claim to the land and pay the minumum price for public land, $1.25/acre. After a length of time they would then sell the land to their "silent partner" for a fraction of its worth, generally 3.025/acre. Agent Smith, in a letter dated January 31, 1867 described the method: Blackman and Awgcsa informed me at the payment made to them not long since that the lands purchased by them were not purchased for themselves nor for Indians but for whitemen who furnished the money and paid for the land that they signed a good many papers for plenty land and for doing which the whitemen paid them some money as well as their expenses (NA, 8011 008, f 0215-0217). Table 5.1 demonstrates that a majority of the Grand Traverse Bands' holdings were transfered by warranty sale. However, the full story of how the transfers took place is not told by the table. In some instances the land was parcelled into smaller tracts and each tract experienced a different method of transfer. For example, the SW1/0NW1/0Sec.12 T29N 89W was patented as 00 acres, however, Charles Chang waw naw guau sold the S1/25W1/0NW1/0Sec.12 (20 acres) in 1880 in a warranty sale and the N1/25W1/0NW1/0Sec.12 (20 acres) by quit claim in 1882. Also, the oocurance of the different types of transfers is not indicative of the technique used to secure the transfer. For example, in some instances, land 116 Speculators would offer to purchase a small quantity of standing timber on an Ottawa or Ojibwa's land. The price for the timber was generally fair and paid upon the signing of an agreement. Assuming the agreement was related to the sale of the timber, the Native American would sign the document. Unfortunately, upon inspection of the agreement by a notary, the Native American would learn that instead of signing a contract for timber, he had signed a warranty deed for his property (NA, Roll 012, f 0118-0119). Other examples of land transfers without the full understanding by the Native American occurred in all of the reserved areas in Michigan. Rubenstein finds a number of similar instances in both the Little Traverse area and especially the Isabella region (1970, 1976). The basic scheme was the same: deceive the Native American into signing a document they believe to be for something else when it is actually the warranty sale of the land. Without the proper documentation, it is almost impossible to discern the facts regarding every Grand Traverse Bands' land transfer. And, that documentation is non-existent in most cases. Therefore, a number of other indicators have to be used to discern the circumstances surrounding the land transfer. A few of these indicators relate to the length of time the Native American held the title, the price paid for the land, and the value of the land. 117 Length of Ownership Because Native Americans had never owned land it is assumed that once they received a parcel they did not know what to do with it. Because of this, it has also been assumed and demonstrated (Fletcher, 1886; Young, 1961) that the land would often quickly "slip through" the Native American's hands. Young (1961) documented how land would transfer from the Native American to a small land speculatcr who would eventually sell to a large land entrepeneur. She generalizes that the land would be sold within twenty years after receiving the title. The Treaty of Detroit made explicit when the Ottawa and Ojibwa would receive the fee simple title to their parcels (Art. 1, Sec. 8, para. 9). According to the records (NA, RG75, #389), most of the patents for the Grand Traverse Bands were signed on June 26, 1872 and delivered on August 6, 1872 by Agent Betts. Thus, the base date from which the Grand Traverse Ottawa and Ojibwa owned a parcel was June 26th. much of this land transfered almost immediately. In 1872 alone, 1355.0 acres were transfered, or 6.76% of their land in less than six months. As shown in Figure 5.3, there was a rapid transfer of parcels within the first ten years, after which the rate leveled off. Generally Speaking, of the 18,317.87 acres on which information is available, the 'average length the patentee kept the title was 6.3 years, the median, however, was 2.5 years. 118 .mmm> an mummmcmmu mo mwmmuo< mflm mmauum m t1 \ 1 H.m mmDOHh 145 TABLE 6.1 CORRELATION CF DISTANCE ANB TIHB Trav City Sut Bay Leland Nrthprt distance .12339 .08206 .00390 -.11608 Table 6.1a Correlation between distance from each parcel to market and the length of time the land. land value time -.17430 n=6u Table 6.1b Correlation between the land value and the length of time the land was held. Source: Author. A visual inspection of Figure 5.3 reveals that almost two«thirds of the allotted acreage transfered by 1880. The majority of transfers took place from 1872 to 187a, with a gradual decline until 1878, the last year a large number of transfers took place. In the Grand Traverse region, as in the area studied by Ioung (1961, 102), the majority of the lands were transfered within the first ten years after the fee simple title was received. Otis (1934, nu?) cites the case of the Shawnee, Pottawatamies, and Kickapoo living in Kansas who lost the majority of their allotted lands after 5 years, even though there was a twenty year non-sale proviso in the treaty. The distribution of parcels transfering in the first six years following the issuance of the fee title display a definite trend. Host of these parcels are in the eastern portion of T29N B11N, the center region of T30N 146 R129, the north central area of T30N B118, and the west half of T31N R11H (Figure 6.2). This, however, is due to the fact that those areas are where the majority of the allotments were located (Figure 5.2). The four areas are in close proximity to their historic village sites, which were the focal points for allotment selection. The historical factor is well illustrated by the allotments adjacent to the churches established by Revs. Dougherty and Smith, in Omena and Northport respectively. Cracker (1935) reports that it was not until 1876 that the parcels around the Presbyterian Church (Omena) started to transfer, even though the church itself closed in 1871. The distinct clustering of the patents portrays itself in the temporal patterns of land transfer. Basically, the four areas of settlement experienced transfers throughout the years 1872 - 1978, however, the number and density of the transactions changed through time. Table 6.2 presents statistically the distribution of the parcels transferred. Generally, the distributions tend to be random, however, because the four areas in which allotments occurred were distinct, transfers within the separate areas can be clustered. During the two and one half years from June, 1872 until the end of 187w, a major share of the land transfers occured, 8213.2 acres (uu.a3% of the total). There were two major reasons for this temporal concentration of transfer activity. The first and the most important was the opening of the reserve to public 147 FIGURE 6.2 Parcel transfers by year. 148 8.: but. I as: .. 22 l 22 u as: g N.w mMDme 149 sales in 1872, coinciding with the issuance of the fee simple patents. Starting in 1872, the general public could make selections and homestead in the six and one-half townships closed by the treaty. Early speculators were interested in acquiring as much land as possible. The new Native American patentee's were considered fair game for the speculation schemes. As mentioned previously, a number of different methods wre used to extract the title from the naive Ottawa and Ojibwa. TABLE 6.2 NEAREST NEIGHBOB ANALYSIS BY YEAR HBAN NEAREST NEAREST NEIGHBCR NEIGHBOR YEAR N DENSITY DISTANCE STATISTIC before 1873 34 .116 .586 .429 1873 100 .267 .386 .329 1874 86 .234 .525 .414 1875 41 .100 .695 .376 1876 37 .131 .403 .482 1877 24 .095 .699 .308 1878 34 .169 .605 .324 1879 18 .094 .675 .700 1880 10 .065 .860 .329 1881 21 .076 .683 .633 1882 18 .090 .714 .304 150 Agents for land speculators circulated among the patentees and tried to persuade them to sell their lands. The two most noteworthy agents were Francis Blackman and John Ahgosa, since both were members of the Grand Traverse bands and could approach other members of the bands without generating the suspicion an Euro-American would. Generally, they would contact widows or the elderly or disabled 'persons. Brook's report of 1878, relates how a notary public would conveniently be available if a mortgage had to be signed, and it appears, from court records, that in a number of cases that notary public was Francis Blackman (Nich. Circuit Court, Doc. #62, Nov. 26, 1888). The second reason for the transfers occuring so rapidly after the issuance of the patent was the fact the Native American did not know what to do with the land once they had the title. They were not adequately prepared, culturally and technologically, to become farmers on a scale to exist in a capitalist society. Both Revs. Smith and Dougherty mentioned this as early as the 18505 (Smith Diary, 1851; Dougherty Diary, 1852). Brook's reiterates this same sentiment in his 1878 report (NA, Roll 411, f c119), and Rubenstein further substantiates this in his research (1976, 1977). 151 Buyer Specific Patterns Basically there were two types of people acquiring land in 19th century America: 1.) people wanting lands for investment or Speculation, and 2.) people wanting the lands for their own farming use. Unfortunately, the distinctions between the two are not clear-cut. However, the differences between speculator and farmer may be implied by the number of acres a person or families owns in the area. Given the technology of the time, the terrain, and the types of crops produced, a family would have to be quite industrious to work more than 160 acres (Swenga, 197C). Thus, if a person or family acquired more than one hundred and sixty acres in transfers it may indicate the land was used for speculation and investment. A listing of family names was made from the 506 tranfers )included in this study. Seventeen landholders received 160 acres or more from the treaty patentees (Figure 6.3). The acquistions of this group from Native Americans total approximately 8603 acres (42.9% of the total). This, however, includes 602 acres which the State received, if this is excluded then the total acreage acquired by the remaining sixteen landholders is 8001 acres (39.9%). Thus, almost two-fifths of the land went to a relatively small group of people. A visual survey of the parcels acquired by each family (Figure 6.4) reveals a concentration of holdings. 152 Gill Miller Nelson State Lee Deuster Ahgosa Barnhart Ballard Lederle Manseau Blackman Godfrey Kirt Heft Moffatt Rose FIGURE 6.3 ACRES 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 I l l l L Native American land accumulated by family. 153 This has been tested statistically by a nearest neighbor analysis of the parcels obtained by the families from Native Americans (Table 6.3). Each of the families display a statistically clustered distribution of transfered parcels. The Miller and Nelson families illustrate the strongest grouping of acquired parcels, whereas the Hanseau family had the weakest. However, the strongest or weakest still diSplayed statistically clustered patterns, knowing that a random pattern has a nearest neighbor statistic of 1.0. TABLE 6.3 NEAREST NEIGEBCR ANALYSIS CP PAHILIES Hean Nearest Nearest Neighbor Neighbor Family N Density Distance Statistic Deuster 14 .257 .241 .244 Gill 37 .247 .302 .300 Lee 15 .104 .502 .323 Hanseau 10 .534 .237 .346 Miller 28 .118 .178 .122 Nelson 36 .129 .264 .189 As illustrated in Figure 6.3, the Gill family accummulated over 1500 acres from Native Americans. This does not include any land the Gills acquired from Euro-Americans, from the public domain, or from Native Americans who did not receive the fee simple title vis-a-vis the Treaty of Detroit. The distribution of Gill family 154 FIGURE 6.4 Native American land accumulated by family. 155 umumsmn ' z.w HKDUHL 156 parcels is centered generally in T31N R113 (Figure 6.4). The proximity of this land to either Leland or Northport is very advantageous. which undoubtedly led to the establishment of Gills Pier, located in the northwestern portion of the township. The Gill's acquired the land by either warranty or tax sale. Approximately 36.9% of the land (556 acres) was bought at tax auctions. The average price for this land was 3.098/acre. Of the lands bought in a warranty sale, the average price per acre was $2.82, almost $.70 less per acre than the average ($3.52) the Native American was receiving, though more than the median value (52.5C). After many years of sailing, Capt. Peter Nelson settled in Northport. Eventually, the Nelson family accumulated over 1325 acres from the Grand Traverse Bands. The majority of the Nelson's land was concentrated in T31N R119, close to Northport (Figure 6.4). A few parcels were acquired just south of Ieland. Except for one hundred and twenty acres, all of the land was purchased through warranty sale (1243.76 acres) at an average price of $3.95/acre. This is forty cents higher than the average paid the Native American. The other one hundred and twenty acres were acquired through tax purchases with an average price of $.072/acre. Except for the Gill and Nelson families, the other local entreprenours acquired less than six hundred acres each from the Grand Traverse Bands. The most notable of 157 this group are: Lee, Lederle, Deuster, Manseau, Blackman and Ahgosa. The first four were among the earliest Settlers in the region. Blackman and Ahgosa were Native Americans that not only acquired land but assisted Euro-Americans to do so. Together, this group accumulated over two thousand two hundred acres (10.9! of the total). In most cases, the families were the initial homesteaders in an area and obtained lands through the various government sponsored land purchases. Eventually, they enlarged their holdings past the size which could be considered a family farm. The Lee family came to the Grand Traverse region in the mid-18505. The first parcels they received were in Sections 10, 15, and 21 of T29N B119, totalling 296.39 acres. Eventually, they expanded their operations and holdings, acquiring approximately 550 acres from patentees (Figure 6.4). The parcels, however, are distributed throughout the reserve and are not concentrated in any one area. Five parcels in Section 9 and 10 of T29N R119 provided an enlargement of their initial holdings in that area. All of the land was purchased through warranty sale at an average cost of $4.36 per acre. This is $.84 more than the average paid for warranty sale to the Native Americans and $1.55 more than the median paid. The general location of the Lee family in this area of the county is evident in that the jetty on the Nest Bay coast is named Lee's Point. Another family which came to the Grand Traverse 158 region in the 18503 were the Deuster's. John and Hubert . Deuster owned and operated a general store in Suttcn's Bay and over the years accumulated n60.8 acres from the Ottawa and Ojibwa in the Bay area (Figure 6.“). The majority of the land was in TBON E11“ with the exception of four parcels in Section 11 of T298 8118. John Deuster purchased the acreage by warranty sales except for “0 acres, which were acquired by tax sale. The average price they paid for the warranty sale land was $2.12/acre. This is $1.40 less than the average price paid, and $.38 less than the median. The Deuster's were involved in a couple of transactions which received notice either in the papers or in court (LCP, 1978). Antoine Hanseau was the first Euro-American settler on the Carp River in 1853 (Leach, 1883, 69). He built a dam for a saw mill, east of the Lake Hichigan shore, which eventually became the site for the town of Leland (Littel, 1965, 5). He sold the land in the Leland area in 1859. His son, Antoine Hanseau Jr., established a grist mill three miles north of Sutton's Bay and hanseau Sr. purchased 300 acres from Native Americans in T3ON R118 in the vicinity of the mill (Littel, 1965, 51) (Figure 5.u). Of the lands purchased by warranty sale, harseau Sr. paid an average of $2.99/acre, or about $.Su/acre less than the average. The area in which the parcels were located is adjacent to what is now known as Manseau Station. Among any group of people there are individuals who 159 are cpportunists, willing to take advantage of a situation to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Among the Grand Traverse Bands, two people were of this category and assisted Euro-Americans in acquiring allotted land, John Ahgosa and Francis Blackman. As noted previously, together both men received title to over eleven thousand acres while the land was closed to public sale, 1855—1872. This land was eventually sold to the persons who financed the advances too purchase the land. It is impossible to calculate how many acres transfered from Native American ownership to Euro-American ownership due to the persuasion of Ahgosa and Blackman. It is possible, however, to calculate and illustrate the lands which they purchased. The Ahgosa family acquired 390 acres, the majority (275 acres) by warranty sale, the remainder by either tax sale (75 acres) or quit claim purchase (no acres). The price paid per acre for the warranty deeds was $1.36 or $2.16 less than the average. The major concentration of the land was in T31N 311w, an area known as *Ahgosatown (Figure 6.5). The Blackman family did not accumulate as much territory, yet they were instrumental in a number of land transfers. For themselves, they bought orly two hundred and twenty-three acres, at $2.0u/acre (S1.u8 below the average). The lands that they purchased were Split between the northern part of T3ON R119 and the center of T293 R115 (Figure 6.5). The northern parcels are close to the village 160 FIGURE 6.5 Blackman and Ahgosa holdings 161 :maxouan I m m our: 4%, m . m mmDOHm 162 of Peshabestown, and the southern parcels near the Lee holdings. Summary Two patterns can be discerned in the lands transfered from Native American to Euro-American ownership, a temporal and a family specific pattern. The year specific information demonstrated the fact that parcels were being transfered statistically in a random pattern but in actuality the transfers were clustered among the initial allotted parcels. The frequency of transfers after the patents were issued indicates that there was, initially, intense effort to obtain Native American land, which subsequently tapered off as supply decreased. The parcel distribution of the family specific transfers reveals the territoriality of the local land speculators. Each family had their particular region in which they procured parcels. The larger operators could better control the areas in which they wanted parcels and so their land holdings were more concentrated. The much smaller Speculators, however, had to take what was available and had scattered distributions of holdings. Chapter Seven This study attempts to expand our understanding of the transfers of land from the Grand Traverse Ottawa and Ojibwa to the Euro-American. cuestions concerning who owned the land, the method of tranfer, and who purchased the land assist in completing the knowledge about the transfers. Additional information regarding the role of "land base" in the Great Lakes Algonquian cultural system and how allotments had been used by the Federal government provides a better understanding of the meaning or significance of these transfers. This study deals only with parcels in which the original patentee received the fee silple title through the requirements Specified by the Treaty of Detroit (1855). The original owner was a Native American and a member of one of the Grand Traverse bands who received title to a tract which was in a Specific reserve in northwest Hichigan. The Grand Traverse Bands land transfers did not generally follow the unscrupulous frauds or tax sales which washburn states as the general case. The majority of land transfered by warranty sale, though they did receive a price 163 164 that was substantially lower than the prices Euro-Americans received in the same time period. However, what is not known about the land is what Kind of improvements were made, if any, on the lands of the Native American or Euro-American. The Euro-Americans did keep their land for a longer period, consequently affording them time to make improvements and thus able to command a higher price. Overall, the Native American sold his or her land quite soon after receiving the fee simple title, on the average 0.3 years later. This was markedly sooner then their counter part, the Euro-American, who kept their title for at least 8.9 years. Further, when the land was sold the Native American received $3.52 per acre, whereas the Euro-American received $6.95 per acre. The rapid turnover of the Native Americans' allotments and the low price for their land can be accounted for by two factors. First, the Ottawa or Ojibwa did not know how to manage the prOperty and use it to its potential so they sacrificed long term gains for short term profits. Secondly, they encountered a number of local entrepeneurs who were anxious to obtain their lands and who, as demonstrated in a number of examples, used some deceitful techniques to do so. Neither the length of time the land was held nor the price paid per acre was related to the potential production of the land or its location. Current ecoromic land rent theory does not apply to the Grand Traverse Bands and their 165 land. The parcels were bought and sold irregardless of their location with reSpect to market centers. However, specific buyers purchased tracts which were adjacent or close to their other holdings. This is true for such land owners as Hm. Gill, J. Duester, R. Lee, and J. Niller. Overall, seventeen local entrepeneurs purchased over 8000 acres of the more than 20,000 acres allotted. Assisting in the purchase of lands were two Native Americans, Francis Blackman and John Ahgosa. who, themselves, had purchased lands from other members or the Bands. They also received title to vast sections of the reserve area once it was open to public market. They eventually, however, sold the parcels to several land speculators, who helped finance the initial purchases. The percentage of Native American allotments sold for taxes was significantly different than the lands owned by Euro-Americans. This difference may be attributed to the fact that the Native Americans had no previous experience with these financial burdens and were ill-equipped to deal with it. The tax structure assumed a profit from land based economic endeavours from which the taxes could be paid. Unfortunately, many of the Ottawa and Ojibwa in this region were unaccustomed to a capitalist economy and were not motivated to accumulate a profit. They did not have the training or equipment to participate in this type of activity and so did not. This sentiment was expressed by Agent Smith before the patents were issued (HCIA, 1871) and 166 later by Brooks in his report (1878). The Grand Traverse Bands land base was reduced dramatically after the patents were issued. The loss of their land base and increased Euro-American settlement of the Grand Traverse region combined to collapse the Band into one small community at Peshabestown. Today, this community is now trying to build its stature as a dynamic force in Native American revitalization. Future Research Directions This research addresses questions relating to the transfer of land from the Grand Traverse Bands to Euro-Americans. However, a number of other major questions concerning land and land base could follow from this study. One obvious expansion of this study is to the other Bands involved in the Treaty of Detroit, the Little Traverse, the Grand River, the Cheboygan, the Thunder Bay, Beaver Island, the Saulte Ste. Narie, and those peoples 'north of the Straits of Nackinac'. Two other areas of research which correspond to the transfer question deal with the people involved in the transfers. Hhat happened to the Native American after their land transfered? Did he or she leave the region, purchase other land, or move in with relatives? According to the Census Bureau the numbers of Native Americans in the Bay 167 area increased for a couple of decades after 1880. Does that mean the people remained, or was that natural increase? The second area which would expand our knowledge concerning Native American land and land base explores the contemporary perception of land base for the Great Lakes Algonquian. Do the contemporary Ottawa and Ojibwa in the Grand Traverse region have the same perceptions of the land base as their ancestors? what is their current perception? Is there a movement to preserve the 'old ways'? In conclusion, there are three topics in which this initial research could be the foundation. The first area could continue study of land transfers. The second area would identify the settlement patterns of the displaced people. And the third, a contemporary definition of land base would be developed for the Great Lakes Algonquians. The potential to develop additional topics is very favorable because of the recent decision by the Federal government to recognize the Grand Traverse Band of Cttawa and Ojibwa as a tribal entity. This recognition now makes it possible for these people to receive the benefits of Federal support. The questions now to be asked relate to how the support can be best utilized. APPENDIX A TREATY 0F DETROIT JULY 31, 1855 168 Appendix A TREATY WITH m OTTAWA AND OWL 1856. My fl- *8“- Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at the cit of u manna Detroit, in the State offlichigan, this the thirty-first dao igf uly, “it“ ‘9'" "' one thousand eight hundred andfifly-five, between George ‘l . filan, - WWW penny and Henry 0. Gilbert, commiseibners on the part 0 t United States, and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Mic (gen, parties to the treaty of March 28, 1836‘. In view of the existing condition of the Ottowas and Chi pewas, and of their legal and equitable claims against the United tates, it is between the contracting parties as follows: “m ,g‘ghflg ARTICLE 1. The United States will withdraw from sale for the bean. drawn inn-m. fit of said Indians as hereinafter provided, all the unsold public lands within the State of Michigan embraced in the following descriptions, to wit: “at: mun-:3 First. For the use of the six bands residing at and near Saulte Sta. ...“... M Marie, sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 2?, and 28,.in township 4? north, range 5 west; sections. 18, 19, and 30, in township 47 north, range 4 west; sections 11, 12, 18, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, and 26, in township 47 north, range 3 west, and section 29 in township 4? north, range 2 west; sections 2, 3, 4, 11, 14, and 15‘in township 47 north, range 2 cast, and soc- tioa 34 in township 48 north, range 2 east; sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, and 33 in township 45 north, range 2 cast; motions 1, 12, and 13, in township 45 north, range Least, and section 4 in township 44 north, - range 2 east. . no: the mas o! the Second. For the use of the bands who wish to reside north of the mm,:.3' Straits of Macinac townships 42 north, ranges I and 2 west; town. shi 43 north, mogul west, and township 44 northhrango 12 west. For the leaves Xm- ird. For the ver Island Band—High Island, and harden Island, mm in Lake Michigan, being fractional townships 38 and 39 north, range 11 west—40 north, range 10 ,west, and in part 39 north, range 9 and . 10 west. For certain other Fourth. For the Cross Village, Middle Vill , L’Arbrcchroche and m Bear Creek hands, and of such Bay du Noc an Beaver Island Indians as may prefer to live with them, townships 34 to 39, inclusive, north, range 5 west—townships 34 to 38, inclusive, north, range 6 west—town- ships 34, 36, and 37 north, range 7 west, and all that part of township 34 north, range 8 wcsfislying north of Pine River. - to: bands who am Fifth. For the ban who usually assemble for payment at Grand #:Lflwfi Traverse, towashi s 29, 30, and 31 north, range 11 west, and town- ' ships 29, 30 and 1 north, range 12 west, and the cast half of town- , shi 29 north, range 9 west. . A unwound Mm Sixth. For the Grand River bands, township 12 north, range 15 m west, and townships 15, 16, 17 and 18 north, range 16 west. km: the Chcboygun Seventh. For the Chcboygan band, townships 35 and 36 north, range ' 3 west. 3mm}? Thunder Ei hth. For the Thunder Bay band, section 25 and 36 in township 3O ' nor , run 7 cast, and section 22 in township 30 north, ran re 8 cast. {mim- ‘g (“9; Should either of the hands residing near Sault. Ste. Marie etcnuinc lino: in. uni-emu to locate near the lands owned by the missionary society of the Meth- :33; “ "°""°" odist E isco )al Church at Ir unis Point, in addition to those who now resxdc t are, it isagrccd t at the United States will purchase as much of said lands for the use of the Indians as the society may be willing to sell at the usual Government rice. “marina! Md! ‘0 The United States will give to each ttowa and Chippewa Indian being the head of a family, 80 acres of land, and to each single person over twenty-One years of age, 40 acres of land, and to each family of orphan chi dren under-tu-entyoono yearsof agc_containing two or more 169 persons, 80 acres of land, and to each single a ban child under twenty-one years of age, 40 acres of land- to be as noted and located within the several tracts of land bereinbefore described, under the followin rules and re ulatiom: ' Each ndian entitl to land under this article ma make his own selection of unfland within the tract reserved herein or the band to which he may long— Provided, That in case of two or more Indians claiming the same lot or tract of land, the matter shall be referred to thetlndian agent, who shall examine the case and decide between the pa ties. For the purpose of determining who ma be entitled to land under the provis one of this article, lists shall prepared by the Indian agent, which lists shall contain the names of all persons entitled, des- ignatin them in four classes. Class let, shall contain the names of heads 0 families; class 2d, the names of single )ersons over twenty- one years of age; class 3d, the names of orphan c ildreu under twenty- one years of age, comprising families of two or more persons, and class 4th, the names of single orphan children under twentv-one years of age, and no person shall be entered in more than one class. Such lists shall be made and closed by the lirst day of July, 1856, and there- after no applications for the benefits of this article will be allowed. At an time within five years after the completion of the lists, selec- tions 0 leads ma be made by the persons entitled thereto, and a notice thereof, wit a description of the land selected, filed in the allies 'of the'lndian agent in Detroit, to be' by him transmitted to the Oilico 'of Indian AEairs at Washington City. 'All sections of land under this article must be made according to the usual subdivisions; and f ractional lots, if containing less than 60 acres, may be regarded as forty-acre lots, if over sixtiy and less than one hundred and twenty acres, as eighty-acre lots. Selections for orphan children may he made by themselves or their friends, subject to the approval of the agent. , After selections are made, as herein provided, the persona entitled to the land may take immediate ion thereof, and the United States will thenceforth and until 0 issuing of patents as hereinafter rovided, hold the same in trust for such persons,- and certificates shall issued, in asuitable form, guaranteeing and securing to the holders their possession and an ultimate title to the land. But such certificates shall not be assignable and shall contain a clause cxpressl prohibiting the sale or transfer by the holder of the land described t werein. After the expiration of ten years, such restriction on the power of sale shall be withdrawn, and a patent shall be issued in the usual form to each ori inal holder of a certificate for the land described therein, Provided at such restriction shall cease only upon the actual issu- Oeipction. ii 0 w Untoithcaa ' to be entitled Felectiona may be made within I vs rem- . To be at't‘oi'dlu to usual subdivision. hm may he tetanus-ea. Sale within ten years flit-hidden. .iilcr ten years a patent shall W and restrictions on film (Mo ing of the patent; And procidal further That. the President may in ' his discretion at any time in individual ones on the recommcmlntion of the Indian a rent when it shall appear prudent and for the welfare of an holder 0 a certificate, direct a tent to be issued. .-lml pro- ‘m'd4 - also, That after the expiration: o ten years, if individual cases shall be reported to the l’rcsnient by the Indian agent, of persons who . may then be incapable of managing their own alfairs from any reason whatever, he may direct the tents in such cases to be withheld, and the restrictions provided by 10 ccrtiiicato’, continued so long as he may deem necessary and proper. Should any of the heads of families die before the issuing of the certificates or tents herein provided for, the same shall issue to the heirs of such occascd persons. _ - ' The benefits of this article will be extended only to those Indians who are at this time actual residents of the State of h-Iichigau. and entitled to participate in the annuities provided by the treaty of March 28, 1836; but this provision shall not. be construed to exclude any Indian now belon ring to the Garden Altivcr hand of Sault. Ste. Marie. All the land em raced within the tracts hereinbefore described, that shall not have been apprOpriated or selected within-live years shall Provision for case n! dentin. To whom this treaty shall cat . Aflvi‘ live 3'9!!! [1W remaining lnmls may hernia-red in the umal 170 remain the roperty of the United States. and the same. shall thereafter, for the tart or term of live years, be subject to entry in the usual man- ner and at the same rate per acre, as other adjacent public lands are then held, by Indians only; and all lands. so purchased by Indians, shall be sold without restriction. and certiticates and patents slaill he issued for the same in the usual form as in ordinary cases; and all lands remainin r unappropriatcd by or unsold to the. Indians after the expiration of t e last-mentioned term, may he sold or disposed of by the United States as in the case of all other public lands. Nothing. contained herein shall be so construed :s to prevent the appropriation, b ' sale, gift, or otherwise. by the United States, of any tract or tracts 0 land within the aforesaid reservations for the loca- tion of churches. school-houses, or for other educational purposes, and for such urposes purchases of land may likewise he made from the Indians, 0 consent of the President of the United States, having, in every instance, first been obtained therefor. It is alsoagreed that any lands within the aforesaid tracts now occu- pied by actual settlers, or by persons entitled to pro-eruption thereon, shall be exempt from the provisions of this article; provided, that such pre-emption claims she I be proved, as prescribed by law, before the lat da of October next. Any. In ian who may have heretofore purchased land for actual set- tlement, under the act of Congress known as the Graduation Act, may sell and dispose of the same; and, in such case, no actual occupancy or residence by such Indians on lands so purchased shall be necessary to enable him to secure a title thereto. , h In consideration of the. benefits derived to the Indians on Grand Traverse 'Bay by the school and mission established in 1838, and still continued by the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, it is agreed that the title to three separate pieces of land, being parts of tracts Nos. 3and 4,of the west fractional halt‘oof section 35, townshi ) 30 north, range 10 west. on which are the mission and school buildin s and improvements, not exceedia in. all sixty-three acres one hun red and twenty-four perches, shall )0 vested in the said board on payment of $1.25 per acre; and the President of the United Sitaltfs sha 1 issue a patent for the same to such person as the said board a a a int. ..The nitcd States will also pay the further sum of forty thousand dollars, or so much thereof asmay he necessary, to be applied in .liqui- dation of the present just indebtedness of the said Ottawa and Chip- pewa Indians; provided, that all claims iresented shall be investigated under the direction of the. Secretary of t )0 Interior, who shall prescribe 'such rules and regulations for conducting such investi ation, and for testing the validity and justness of the claims, as he shalfdeem suitable and proper; and no clann shall be paid except upon the certificate of the said Secretary that, in his opinion, the same is justly and equitath due; and all claimants, who shall not present their claims within sue 1 time as may be limited by said Secretary within six months from the ratification of the treaty, or whose clanns, havin been presented, shall he disallowed by him, shall be forever preclutfid from colleetimr the same, or maintaining an action thereon in any court whatever; an provided, also, that no portion of the money due said Indians for annuities as herein provuded, shall ever be appropriated to pay their debts under any retencc whatever; provided, that the balance of the amount herein a lowed, as a just increase of the amount due for the cessions and relinquishmcnts aforesaid, after satisfaction of the awards of the Secretary of the Interior, shall he paid to the said Chippewas or expended for their benefit, in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe, in aid of any of the objects specified in the second article of this treaty. ARTICLE 2. The United States will also pay to the said Indians the a: sum of five hundred and thirty-eight thousand and four hundred dol- lars, in manner following, to wit: . manner by Indians for - tlvc yearn. and then hy anyone. (trantatorchurehca, schools. etc., may he made. Indiana may sell with Mom'- con- sent. Paymeatatonld In- ans. 171 First. Ei hty thousand dollars for mlueational pn sums to be )aid “fight; ,ggmm‘ . \ 7 . . . o equal m ten an annual Instahnents of eight thousand do lars each, w neh monument-mu. sum shal be expended under the direction of the President of the United States; and in the expenditure of the same, and the a point- ment of teachers and man ement of schools, the Indians shall con- sulted, and their views an wishes adopted so far as they may be just and reasonable. Second. Seventy-five thousand dollars to be paid in tire equal annual «$3.33 gruff; instalments of fifteen thousand dollars each in agricultural implements can-l was“ 1m"- and oarpeaters’ tools, household furniture and buildin materials, cat- mm tle, labor, and all such articles as may be necessary an} useful for them in removmg to the homes herein provided and getting permanently settled thereon. - . Third. F orty-two thousand and four hundred dollars for the support ! Pent-two thaws! of four blacksmith-shops for ten years. whitmh'tt'n‘l‘t‘m Fourth. The sum of three hundred and six thousand dollars in coin, Three hundred and as follows: ten thousand dollars of the principal, and the interest on --f.,'&'”,;':,3"p,‘.',°'.l:,': the whole of said last-mentioned sum remaining unpaid at the rate of ““-" five per cent. annmilly for ten years, to be distributed per capitain the usual manner for ying annuities. And the sum of two hundred and six thousand dol ars remaining unpaid at the expiration of ten years, shall be then due and payable, and if the Indians then re uire the payment of said sum in coin the same shall be distrihut )er cupz'ta in the same manner as annuities are paid, and in not less than four equal annual instalments. Fifth. The sum of thirty-tire thousand dollars in ten annual instal- (mm-33:33:31 meals of three thousand and five hundred dollars each, to be paid only imminent- to the Grand River Ottawas, which is in lieu of all permanent annui- ties to which they may be entitled by former treaty stipulations, and which stun shall be distributed in the usual manner per mqu'lu. ARTICLE 3. The Ottawa and Chip icwa Indians hereby release and ,,.:,{,",l‘,‘"','§'.m}.‘,”"§.f discharge the United States from al liability on account. of former ire-r"- trcaty stipulations, it bein distinctly nnderstoml and agreed that the grants and payments herembefore provided for are in lieu and satis- action of a 1 claims. legal and equitable on the part of said Indians jointly and severally against the United States for land. money or other thing guaranteed to said tribes or either 012 them by the. stipula- tions of any former treaty or treaties: excepting. however, the right of tishing and encampment secured to the Chippewas of Sault Ste. Marie by the treaty of J one 16, 1820. ARTICLE 4. The interpreters at Sault Ste. Marie. Mackinac. and for Interpreter-- the Grand River Indians, shall be continued, and another provided at Grand Traverse, for the term of tire years, and as much longer as the President may deem necessary. ARTICLE 5. The tribal orgmimtion of said Ottawa and Chippewa «isglii'.'a"i§‘3i."$iiiiii Indians, except so far as may be necessary for the pnrlmse. of carrying Iii-emu. into ell'ect the revisions of this agreement, is hereby dissolved; and if at any time iereafter, further negotiations with the United States, in reference to any matters contained he rein, should become necessarv, no general convention of the. Indians shall be called; but such as reside. in the vicinity of any ustuil place of payment, or those only who are immediately interested in the questions involved. may arrange all mat- ters between themselves and the l'nited States. without the concurrence Future imam; mm- of other portions of their people, and as fully and conclusively, and "‘"d'" with the same elIect in every respect. as if all were represented. . ARTICLE ti. This agreement shall be obligatory and binding: on the “1'3"“? “he" ‘0 'W eontracting parties as soon as the same shall be ratitied by the Presi~ ’ u m" dent and Senate of the United States. In testimony whereof the said George \l'. Manypenny and the said Ileury C. Gilbert, commissioners as aforesaid, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen of the Ottawas and Chimiewas. have. hereto set their hands and seals, at the city of Detroit the day and year first above written. APPENDIX B THE CALCULATICN OF POTENTIAL LAND VALUE 172 The Calculation of Potential Land Value The land values for the allotments were calculated using the land value formula described by Barlowe (1978, 31a), V=I/r. This involves calculating the income of a parcel (I) for ten years and dividing by the actualization rate (r). Generally speaking, the actualization rate for agricultural land is five percent in the united States. To calculate the income of a parcel in 1870, the income generating pursuits have to be identified. The Grand Traverse region of the 18705 was still virgin timber land and this would have to he cleared before any agricultural pursuits could be followed. Livestock breeding was not an active pursuit in this region, nor dairy farming. The major agricultural activity was crop and grain farming. Thus, income could be generated from the timber stands on the land and the products of farming. No exact figures are given for timber yields in the Treaty area, so that, potential timber yields had to he interpolated from a variety of sources. Bamsdell suggested that the northwest portion of the Lower peninsula of Hiohigan could produce tetween 6000 and 8C00 board feet of lumber per acre (1893, 110-111). This estimate was derived from a "typical" half section of land in Benzie County, just south of the Treaty area. A second estimate of the potentiial board feet on an acre of land was presented by Brown (1919). He estimated the average yield per acre to be approximately 6117 board feet per acre. This figure takes into account the diversity of the biotic provinces in the United States and the potential yields of each province. One method used to estimate the number of board feet on an acre is to use the annual growth rate of the timber on the acre in as a prOportion of the density of the stand. The Leelanau Co. Soil Survey (1973) listed a table of the potential productivity ratings per acre per year for woodland types (Table 3., 27). Using tbs figure, it is then possible to calculate the potential stand for an acre, all that is needed is the proportion of the potential rate of growth to the density of the stand. This proportion varies according to vegetation regime and matagement technique. The Grand Traverse region is considered to be in the transition zone between the Carcliniar and the Canadian biotic provinces (Dice, 1909). And as a primordial forest, it can be categorized as low or non-managed land. A proportion of 3.007% can be used as the net annual growth rate in relation to the growing stock inventory (Cliff, 1973; national Forest Service, 197“). The average potentia productivity rating per acre iin Leelanau Co. is 237.5 bd. ft. per acre (Leelanau Co. Soil Survey, 1973), and by dividing this number by the annual growth rate (3.007) will produce an estimated growing stock of 7898.2 board feet per acre. A number within the range estimated by Ramsdell. 173 0 a more accurate estimation of the timber production was possible using records from the Hannah and Lay Lumber Co. of Traverse City. The Company logged timber from the headwaters of the Boardman River, which flows into the Grand Traverse Bay. They kept accurate records of the number of trees cut, the logs produced and the board feet out from.the logs. The majority of their logging operations were in Grand Traverse Co., just south of the allotted lands. Generally speaking, the two areas are similar in soil types, vegetation, topography and climate. A sample of logging sites was taken and averages were calculated for the number of trees cut, logs produced and board feet sawed on an acre of land. 0n the erage, the Hannah and Lay Lumber Co. cut 29.97 trees per acre which produced v.52 logs per tree and extracted 18.93 board feet per log. Thus, when the total estimated average yield per acre is 2562.99 board feet per acre. However, this is not the total numher of board feet on an acre, this is only the numher of board feet out. Generally, only 41.09% of the timber is cut (National Forest Service, 197a). Thus, the potential hoard feet per acre is 6u07.u. A number close to the average calculated by Brown and within the reange estimated by Ransdell. It is now possible to calculate the monetary potential from timber sources on the land. Again, land value can be estimated ty summing the income from the land for ten years and dividing by the actualization.rate. In this case, the income should incorporate both lumbering and farming pursuits. It will be assumed that the owner will clear cut the land in one year, so that, farming can commence unhindered. According to the Census Bureau in 1870, lumber products were valued at $16.24 per 1000 board feet. Thus, the average worth of the timber on one acre in Leelanau or Antrim Co. was $10u.06. Assuming the owner would use the land for maximum profit, crops were weighted by production according to soil productivity. Four crops were used as the major farming production; corn, oats, wheat and hay. The market value of each crop was the average commodity price listed in the "Historical Abstract of the United States" (1976). In 1870 corn sold for $.52/bushel, oats $.93/ton, wheat $1.04/ton and hay $1u.u5/ton. Income per parcel was calculated by summing the market value of the farm products for a nine year period. The potential productivity of the land for farming assumed low management techniques as sp Specified by the Soil Survey (1973). The farming potential was calculated for each parcel and proportioned in relation to the percentage of land in each soil type. This is the same technique used in calculating the timber yields per acre per allotted parcel. Finally, the income from timber yields were added to the income from farming. The combined income was then proportioned by the profit margin of farm land under low management and input techniques (Eley andwehrwein, 1900, Chap. V). In this case, a proportion of .04 on the market 174 dollar. Thus, for any parcel of land in Antrim or Leelanau Co. the hypothetical value of the land ranged from $53.37 to $108.82 per acre. These figures, however, are the hypothetical land values or potential land values. If they are compared to the land values recorded in the Federal Population Scheduale of 1870, they are only slightly larger than the recorded values. The average land value for an Euro-American in Antrim or Leelanau Co., assuming a no acre parcel was suo.a6 per acre. whereas, the Native American's land was valued at $11.02 per acre. The hypothetical land value will be used in this study because it represents the potential land value with respect to both the timber and crop production. And, even though it is slightly higher than the recorded land values it does not incorporate the differences between Euro-American and Native American ownership. LIST OF REFERENCES 175 List of References Aberle, D. F. "The Functional Prerequisites of a Society," Ethics. Vol. 60, 1950, 100-111. Altas, S. 5. "Problems of Defining Religion," International Social Science Journal. Vol. 2a, 1977, 213-233. Bailey, R. G. Ecoregions of the United States. National Forest Service,‘U. 5. Department or Agriculture, Ogden, 1978. Barker, R. G. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and_§ethods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Palo Altos: Standford University Press, 1968. Barlowe, 8. Land Resource Economics: The Economics of Real Property. Englewcod Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978. Barnes, A. Vinegarr Pie and Other Tales of the Grand Traverse Regio . Detroit: Barlo, 1971. Barth, P. ed. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Opganization of Culture Diffepences. London: Allen and Urwin, 1969. Bateson, G. hind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: 8. P. Dutton, 1979. Beeton, 8. "Teach Them to Till the Soil: An Experiment with Indian Farms, 1850-1862," American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 3, Winter 1977-1978, 299-320: Bennett, J. H. The Ecological Transititior: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press, 1976. Bernardi, B. "The Concept of Culture: A New Presentation," in The Congept and Dygamics of Culture, ed. 8. Bernardi, The Hague: mouton Publ., 1977, 75-87. Bidney, 0. Theoretical Anthropology. New York: Columbia Uanérsi y Press, 1953. Bishop, C. A. "The Emergence of the Northern Ojibwa: Social and Economic Consequences," American Ethnologist, V01. 3' 1976' 39-5“. 176 . "The Emergence of Hunting Territories Among the Northern Ojibwa," fighnglggy, Vol. 9, 1977; 1-15. Blackbird, A. J. Complete both Early and Late History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, of Hichigan, A Grammar of their Language, Personal andfifiamily History of Author, rev. ed., Harbor Springs: Babcock and Darling, Publ., 1697. Blair, 8. H. The Indian Tribes of the Upper Mississippi Valley and Region of the Great Lakes. Vol. 1, Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1911. Bloch, B. "Property and the End of Affinity," in Harxist Analyses in Social Anthropology. ed. H. BIocE, ASA Studies No. 2, London: Balaby Press, 1975, 203-228. Boas, P. "Introduction," in Handbook of American Indian Languages. ed. P. Holder,'Lincoln: U. ofPNeEraska Press, reprint, 1966, orig. 1919, 1-82. Callahan, P. Law of Real Estate. New York: Oceana Press, 1965. Callender, C. Social Organizationof the Central Algonkian Indians. Hilwaukee Public Museum, Publication in Anthropology, No. 7, 1562. Carney, C. C. The Historical Geography of the Chickasaw Lands of_0klahora. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1961. Cleland, C. E. The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethno- zoology of the Upper Great Lakes Pegion. University of Hichigan, Huseum of Anthropology, Anthropology Papers, No. 29, Ann Arbor, 1966. Cohen, P. S. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington, D. C.: GPO, reprinted, Albuquegue: University of New Hexico Press, 1902. . Cohen, Y. A. ed. Haugin Adappation: The Cultural Present. Chicago: Aldine Publ. Co., 197v. Colby, L. Grand Traverse Pay in the Great Lakes Basip; A History of a Changing Apea. Arn Arbor: The Univer— sity of Michigan Press, 1970. Cooper, J. H. "Is the Algonquian Family Hunting Ground System Pre-Columbian2," American Anthropoloqigp, Vol. Q1, 1939, 66-90. Craker, B. First Protestant Hission in the Grand Traverse 177 Region. Leland: Leelanau Enterprise, 1935. Danzinger, E. F. The Chippewas ofypake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1978. Deloria, V. Jr. God is Bed. New York: Dell Publ. Co., 1973. Densmore, P. "Uses of Plants by the Chippewa Indians," Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Eth- nology, unth Annual Report, 1926-1927, 1928, 275-398. . Chippewa Customs. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnologyo Bulletin No. 86, 1929. Dice, L. R. The Biotic Provincgs pf Ngggh Angpiga, Ann Arbor: University of Hicbigan Press, 1903. Daugherty, Rev. P. Diary, Bentley Historical Library, The University of Hichigan, Ann Arbor. Driver, H. E. Indians of North Arericp: 2nd Rev. Ed., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969. Dumcnt, L. Homo Hierachicus: The Caste System and Its Implications. London: Hiedenfield and Nicolsou Ltd., 7970. Dunbar, H. P. Nichigan: A History pf the flglgerins state. Grand Rapids: H. J. Eerdmans Press, 1963. Dunning. 8. ii. Social aQEWW o ibwa. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959. Dyson-Hudson, R. and Smith, E. A. "Human Territoriality: An Ecologocial Reassessment," American Amphrgpo lggist, Eliade, h. The Sacged and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by H. R. Trask, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Horld, Inc., 1959. Eyck, A. van. "A Miracle of Hoderatior" in Heaning ip Architecture. ed., C. Jenks and G. Baird, London: The cressen Press, 1969, 109. Peest, J. E. and Peest, C. F. “Cttawa,” in Handbook o§_North American Indians. Vol. 15, ed., H. C. Sturtevant, Smithsonian Institution, Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1978. Feit, H. A. "The Ethno-Ecolcgy of the Haswanipi Cree: or How Hunters can hanage Their Resources," in Cultural Ecology: Readings on the Canadian_13dians_and_fiski- mos, ed. B. Cox, 1973, 115-125. 178 Fisher, A. A. "The Cree of Canada: Some Ecological and Evo- lutionary Considerations," in Cultural Ecology: Readingpyon the Canadian Indians and Eskimos. ed., B. Cox, 1973. ' - ‘ Fitting, J. E. The Archaeology of Hictigan: A Guide to the Prehistory of the Great lakes Region. Bloomfield ' Hills: Cranbrook Institute of Science, 1975. , and Cleland, C. E. "Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Upper Great Lakes," Ethnohistory, Vol. 16, 1969, 289-302. Forde, C. D. HabitatL_Economy and Society: A Geographic Introductipu to Ethnology. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 19Q9. For, G. R. "The Archeology of Hiohigan,“ Hichigan History Hagazine, Vol. 8, 192a, 31u-3B8. Gates, P. R. "Indian Allotments Preceding the Dawes Act," in The Frontier Challenge: Responses to the Trans- Hississippi west. ed., J. G. Clark, Lawerence: The University Press of Kansas, 1971. Gilfillian, Rev.-J. A. “The Ojitways in Ninnesota," Coll. of Hinnesota Historical Society, Vol. 9, 1901, 55-128. Godelier, H. "Nodes of Production, Kinship, and Demographic Structures," in Harxist Analyses in Social Anthro- pology ed., 3. Bloch,7franslated by K. Young and F. Edholm, ASA Studies No. 2, London: Halaby Press, 1975, 3-28. Goodfrieud, D. "Plus Ca Change, Plus C'Est LaHeme: The Dilemma of the French Structural Harrists," Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 3, 1978, 105-127. Greenman, E. P. The Indians of Hichigan. Lansing: Hichigan Historical Phnd, 1961. Hallowell, A. I. The Role of Conjuring in Saulteap; Society. Publ. of the Phila. Anthro. Soc., Vol. 2, Phila.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1942. "The Size of Algonkian Hunting Territories: A Function of Ecological Adjustment," American AnthrOpologist, Vol. 51, 19u9, 35—u5. . "Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and World View," in Culture in Histopy: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin. Ed} S. Diamond, New York: Columtia University Press, 1960, 150-172. 179 Hamilton, R. N. "The Harguette Death Site: The Case for Ludington," flighjggn fiigtgpy Hagazine, Vol. 49, 1965, 228- 2&8. Hardy, T. F. and Sibold, A. G. State Programs for the Differential Assessment of Farm and Open Space Land. U. S. Department of Agriculture-HRS, Agricultural Economics Report, No. 25 6, Hash. D. C. GPO, 1974. Harris, H. Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. New York: ’Raddom House, 1977. . Cultural Hatepialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Random House, 1979. Harvey, S. B. "An Incident in Early Michigan History,“ Hichigan History magazine, Vol. 3Q, 1950, 258-259. Hickerson, H. The Chippewa and Their Neighbors: A Study in Ethnohistory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Hinston Inc., 1970. . "The Chippewa of the Upper Great Lakes: A Study in Sociopclitical Change," in North American Indians in Historical Perspective. ed., E. B. Leacock and N. 0. Lurie, New York: Random House, 1971, 169-199. Hinsdale, H. B. Archaeological Atlas of Hichigap. Hichigan Handbook Series No. a, Ann Arbor: University of Hichigan Press, 1931. Hockett, C. F. ”The Position of Potawatomi in Central Algonkian," Papers of the Hichigar Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, Vol. 28, 1942, 537-5u2. Hodge, P. H. Handbook of American Indians North of Nexico. Vol. 1, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 30, 1912. Hornbeck, D. "The Patenting of California's Private Land Claims, 1851-1885," Geographical Review, Vol. 69, 1979, ABA-UUB. Hyde, G. E. Indians of the Woodlands: From Prehistoric Times to 1725. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962. Isajiw, H. N. "Definitions of Ethnicity," Ethnicity, Vol. 1, 197a, 111-12a. Jacobs, H. R. Dispossessing the American Indian: Indians and Hhites on the Colonial Frontier. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972. 180 Jenness, U. "The Indian's Interpretation of Man and Nature," Proc, and.Trans. of the Royal Society of Canada, 3rd Series, Vol. 2U, Sec. II, 1930, 57-62. . The Ojibwa Indians of Parry Islgde Their Soci l and Religious Life. Department of Hines, Natural museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 78, 1935, 1-115. Jorgensen, J. G. "A Century of Political Economic Effects on American Indian Society, 1886-1980," Jour, of Ethnic Studies, Vol. 6, 1978, 1-83. Kenny, H. G. "The Powers of Lake Victoria," Anthropos, Vol. 72, 1977, 717-733. Kessler, E. S. Anthropology: The Humanizipg Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 197a. Kickingbird, K. and Ducheneaux, K. One Hundred Nillion Acres. New York: Hacmillan Publ. Co., Inc., 1973. Kinietz, H. V. The Indians of the Hestern Great Lakes. Ann Arbor: The University of Eichigan Press, 19uo. Kinney, J. P. A Continent Lost-A Civilization Hon. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1937. Knight, R. "A Reexamination of Hunting, Trapping and Ter- ritoriality Among the Northeastern Algonkian Indians," in Nan, Culture, and Animals. ed., A. Leeds annd A.P. Viyda, American Assoc. for the Advan. of Science, Publ. No. 75, 1965, 27—u2. Kohl, J. G. Kitchi-Gami: Wanderings Round Lake Superior. London: Chapman and Hall, reprint, 1956, Hinneopolis: Ross and Haines, Inc., 1660. Kroeber, A. L. Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. U. of California Publ. ir American Archeology and Ethnology, Vol. 38, 1939. Landes, R. Ojibwa Sociology. New York: ANS Press, 1937. . Ojibwa Religion and the Hidewiwip. Hadison: The University of Hisconsin Press, 1968. Leach, H. L. A History of the Grand Travepse Regiop. Traverse City: Grand Traverse Herald, 1883. . Historyof Leelanau County. Historical Records Survey, Michigan, Box 38, Bentley Historical Library, University of Hichigan, Ann Arbor, n.d. 181 Leacock, E. The upptagnais "Bumping Territory" and the Fup Ipade. American Anthropological Association, Memmoir 78, 1954. Levi, Sister M. C. Chippewa Indians: o§_Yesterday and ngay. New York: Pageant Press, Inc., 1956. Littlejohn, F. J. Legends of Michigan and the Old Northwest. Allegan: Northwestern Bible ard Publ. Co., 1875. Lips, J. E. "Notes on Montagnais-Naskapi Economy," Locken, G. 5.; Bills, N. L.; and Boisvert, R. N. "Estimating Agricultural Use Values in New York State," Land Economics, Vol. 54, 1978, 50-63. McIntosh, C. 8. "Patterns From Land Alienation Maps," Annals of the Assoc. of Amer. Geog., Vol. 66, 1976, 570-582. McNickle, 0. "Indians and Europeans: Indian-White Relations From Discovery to 1887," American Indians and American Life, The Annals, Vol. 309, 1937. Mardock, R. H. The Reformers and the American Indian. Columbia: University of Missouri‘Press, 1971 Martin, C. Keepers of the Game: Indian Animal Relationships 29d the Fur Trade. Berkeley: University of’Califor-' nia Press, 1978. Michelson, T. Preliminary Report on the Linguistic Clas- sification of Algonquian Tribes. Smithsonian Insti- tution, Bureau of American Ethnology, 28th Annual Report, I906—1907, 1912, 221-290. Michigan Historical Collection. Michigan General Land Office, Letter. I. Porter to J. Shields, June u, 18u5, Michigan Superintendency, 18Afl-18U6, Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. . Michigan General Land Office, Letter. J. Shields to I. Porter, June 23, 1855, Richigan Super- intedency, 1auu-13u6, Bentley Historical Library, University of Hichigan, Ann Arbor. Michigan History Magazine. "Captain Joe: Story of the Grand Traverse," Hichigan History Magazine, Vol. 27, 19Q3, 620-625. Moore, G. T. and Golledge, R. G. “Environmental Knowing: Concepts and Theories," in Environmental Knowipg: Theories, Research and Hethods. ed., G. T. Moore 182 and 8.6. Golledge, Stroudsberg: Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1976, 3-2u. Morriseau, N. Legegds of My Pegple: Tbe_Great Ojibway. Edited by S. Dewdney, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1965. Moynihan, D. P. and Glazer, N., ed., Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Murdock, G. P. and O'Leary, T., ed. Ethnographic Biblio- graphy of North America. Vol. 1, New Haven: Human Relations Area FiIe, 1975. National Archives. Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 182u-1881, Michigan Agency, 1828- 1880, 1860-1862, Roll 407. . Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs,11828-1881L:Michigan Agency, 1828-1880, 1865-1867, Roll 807. . Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1881, Michigan Agency, 1828-1880, 1867-1869, Roll 808. . Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letters Received by the Cffice of Indian Affairs, 1824-1881, Michigan Agency, 1828-1880, 1877-1878, Roll Q11. . Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1881, Michigan Agency, 1824-1880, 1876-1877, Roll 012. . Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letters Received by the Office o; Indian Affairs, 1828-1881, Michigan Superintendency, 182u-1851, 1840-18u1, Roll “28. . Record Group 75, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Lists and Schedules of Land Selections and Related Correspondences, 1857-1875. Michigan Agency, No. 389, 2 Volumes. Neumeyer, E. "Michigan Indians Battle Against Removal," Michigan HiStOIj Magazine, Vol. 5, 1971, 275-288. New York State. Agriculture and Markets Law. 305 Subd. 1, 183 para. C., 1971. Norton, 8. "Constructing Abstract Worlds of the Past," Geographical Analysis, Vol. 8, 1976, 269-288. Pasour, E. C. Jr. "Estimating Agricultural Use Values in New York State: Comment," Land Economics, Vol. 55, Price, C. "The Study of Assimilation," in Migration. ed., J. A. Jackson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969, 181-237. Price, M. E. Law and the American Indian: Readings, flgtes and gases. Indianapolis: The Hobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1973. Quaife, M. N. Lake Michiga . Irdpls.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1944. Quirby, G. I. Indian Cultupe and European Trade Goods. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1966. . "Alexander Henry in Central Michigan, 1763-1768," Michigan History Magazine, Vol. 86, 1962, 193-200. . Indign Life in the Upper Great Lakes: 11000 BC to AD 1800. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Rubenstein, B. A. "Justice Denied: Indian Land Frauds in Michigan, 1855-1900," The Old Northwest, Vol. 2, 1976, 131-180. . Justice Denied: An Analysis of American Indian- Hhite Relations in Michigan, 1855-1889. Unpublished Phd Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978. Relph, E. Place and Placelessness. Lordcn: Pion Limited, 1976. Rice, J. G. "The Effect of land Alienation on Settlement," Annals of the Assoc. of Amer. Geog., Vol. 68, 1978, “.72. Schoolcraft, H. Historical Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United StateSI~Vol. 1, Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1887. . Algic Researches: Inquires Respecting the Mental Characteristics of’the North American Indians. VEl.*1, American CulturedSefies, No. 160, New York: Harper and Brotters, 1839. 184 Sheffer, R. L. Peshabestown. Unpublished manuscript, Central Michigan University, 1970. Smith, Rev. G. 313:1. Bentley Historical Library, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Scunefeld, J. "Resource Perceptions and the Security of Subsistence," in Dimensions of Human Geography; £53315 OD sgpe Familiar gpg Nggle sped Theme . ed., K.H. Butzer, University of Chicago, Department of Geography, No. 186, 1978, 15-28. Sopher, D. "The Landscape of Home: Myth, Experience, Social Meaning," in The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essay . ed., D. H. Reining, 1979, 129-18). Sprague, E. L. and Smith, G. N. ed. Sprague's History of Grand Traverse and Leelanaw Counties Michigpn. B. F. Brown Publ., 1903. Speck, F. G. "The Family Hunting Band as the Basis of Algonkian Social Organization," American Anthpppg;pgist, Vol. 17, 1915, 289-305. , and Eiseley, L. C. "Significance of Hunting Territory Systems of the Algorkiar in Social Theory," American Anthropologist, Vol. 81, 1939, 269-280. State of Michigan. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment and Training, Leelanau Indian Comprehensive Plan. Houck, J. 8.; Kibbey, 8.; and Lockwood, C., Unpublished manuscript, preliminary draft, 1977. Steward, J. H. The Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: U. of Illinois Press, 1955. Sutton, I. Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and Guide to the Literature. New York: Clearwater Publ. Co., Inc., 1975. Tanner, H. Personal Communication. 18 April 1980. Thwaites, R. G. ed. Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. Vol. 55, 1670-1672, Risconsin Historical Collection. Trewartha, G. T. and Fitch, V. C. Elementary Meteorology. New York: McGraw-Hill Eook1Co., Inc., 1973. Trigger, 3. ed. "Northeast," in Eandbook of North American Indians. Vol. 15, ed., H. C. Sturtevant, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.: 185 GPO, 1978. Tuan, Y. F. "Sign and Metaphor," Annals of the Assoc. of Amer. Gqup, Vol. 68, 1978, 363-372. . Space and Place: The Pepppective of Experigng . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977. Tyler, S. L. A Historyyof Indian Policy. E. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1973. United States Congress. House of Representatives. Committe on Indian Affairs, Readjustment of Indian Affairs. Hearings... "History of the Allotment Policy," by D. Otis, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Part 9, 1938, 828-888. United States Congress. Senate. Subcommitte on Interior and Insular Affairs. Indian Land Base. Hearings... 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1978, Statement of Lee Motah, Chairman, Comanche Tribe of Indians. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Antrim Counpy, Michigg . Unpublished manuscript, 1979. . Soil Survey of Leelanau gonngy, nighjqan. Hashington, D. .: GPC, 1973. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United Stapeg; gglgninl Times to 1970. Part 1. iashington, E. C.: GPO, 1975. United States Department of the Interior. Office of Indian Affairs. Annual Report of the Commissioner pf Indian Affairs to the Secretarypof the Interior, 1836. Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1836. . Annual Report of the Commissiongr 9f Indian Affairs to the Secretary Of the Interiop, 183 . Hashington, U. C.: GPO, 1838. . Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, 1881. Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1881. . Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, 1883. HEShington, D. C.: GPO, 1883. . Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, 1887. Washington, 0. C.: GPO, 1887. 186 . Annual Report of the Commissionep of Indian Affairs to thg Secretapy pf the Iptgnign, 1888. Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1888. . Annual Report of the Commissiorer of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, 1853. Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1853. . Anngal Report of the Commissioner o; Indian Affairs to tne Secretary of the Interior, 1858. Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1858. . Annual Report of the Compissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary o§_the Interior, 1872. Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1872. . Annual Report of the Commissiorer of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, 1878. Vashington, D. C.: GPO, 1878. . Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretarygof the Interior, 1892. Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1892. . Annual Report of the Michigan Indian Agent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1835. Hashing- ton D{C.: GPO, 1835. . Annual Report of the Michigan Indian Agent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1837. Hashing- tonrD.C.: GPO, 1837. . Annual Report of the Michigan Indian Agent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1882. Hashing- ton D.C.: GPO, 1842. . Annual Report of the Michigan Indian Agent to the'Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1889. Hashing- EEn D.C.: GPO, 1889. . Annual Report of the Michigan Indian Agent to the CommissiOner of Indian Affairs, 1872. Hashing- ton D.C.: GPO, 1872. . Report to the Michigan Indian Agent, 1851. by Rev. G. Smith, in Annual Report of the Michigan Indian Agent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1851. Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1851. . Report to the Michigan Indian Agent, 185;. by Rev. P. Dougherty, in Annual Report of the Michigan Indian Agent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1852. Hashington, D. C.: GPO, 1852. 187 United States National Resources Board. Irdian Land Tenure, Economic Status, and Population Trends. Report on Land Planning, Part V, Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1935. Utley, H. M. and Cutchecn, B. M. Michigan as a Province, Territopy,and State. Vol. 1. New York: The Publ. Soc. of Michigan, 1906. Voeqelin, C.F. and F.M. North American Indian Languages. American Ethnological Society, 1966. Vogel, v. J. "The Missionary As Acculturation Agent: Peter Dougherty and the Indians of the Grand Traverse," Michigan History Magazine, Vol. 51, 1967, 185-201. Wakefield, F. "The Elusive Mascoutens," Michigan History Magazine, Vol. 50, 1966, 228-238. warren, W. History of the Ojibway Nation. Reprinted by Minneapolis: Ross and Haines, Inc., 1978, Orig. by Minnesota Historical Society, 1885. Harmer, R. M. and Groesbeck, L. J. "Historical Report on the Sault Ste Marie Area," in Chippewa V, ed., R. M. Harmer, New York: Garland Publ., inc., 1978, 325-328. Hashburn, W. E. The Assault on Indian Tritalism: The General’Allotment Law (Dawes Act) of 1887. Phila.: J. B. Lippincott Co., 975. . The American Indian and the United States: A Documentary HiStory. 3 Vols., 1973. . Red Man's Land; White Man's Law: A Study of thg;Pa§p and Present Stgtus of the American Indians. New York: Charles Soribner's Sons, 1971. Hertworth, T. P. Early Life Among the indians. Ashland: A. W. Brown, 1892. White, L. A. The Concept of Cultural Systems: A Key to Understanding Tribes and Nations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975. Hhite, R. Ethnohistorical Report on the Grand Traverse Ottawas. Unpublished manuscript, n.d. Wilcox, A. T. "The Chippewa Sugar Camp," Michigan History Magazine, Vol. 37, 1953, 276-285. 267 m 3334‘ 188 Hittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. London, 1953. Mright, J. C. The Crooked Tree: Indian Lecend§ of Northegg Michiga . Harbor Springs: Mathew Erwin Publ;, 1917. Yarnell, R. A. Aborigianal Rglationships Between Culture and Plant Life ig_the Upper Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropology Papers, No. 23, Ann Arbor, 1964. Young, M. R. d' E i 1' E ii] I' I i E E e l . I Allgtnggts in Alabama and Mississippi. 1830—1860. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII rm«1|111111leguwurl '