Mr. Jefferson's Hammer: William Henry Harrison and the Origins of American Indian Policy 0806138424, 9780806138428

Citation preview

MR. JEFFER SO N ’S HAMMER

Mr. Jefferson’s Hammer W il l ia m H e n r y H a rriso n and t h e

O r ig in s o f

A m er ic a n I ndian P o l ic y

ROBERT M. OWENS

U niversity o f Oklahom a Press : N orm an

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Owens, Robert M. (Robert Martin), 1974Mr. Jefferson’s hammer : William Henry Harrison and the origins o f American Indian policy / Robert M. Owens, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13:978-0-8061-3842-8 (harcover : alk. paper) 1. Harrison, William Henry, 1773-1841. 2. Governors—Indiana— Biography. 3. Generals— United States— Biography. 4. Indiana— History— 19th century. 5. Frontier and pioneer life— Indiana. 6. Harrison, William Henry, 1773-1841— Relations with Indians. 7. Indians o f North America— Indiana—Government relations—History— 19th century. 8. Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. 9. United States—Territorial expansion. 10. Presidents— United States— Biography. I. Tide. E392.094 2007 977.203092— dc22 2006039092 The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability o f the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity o f the Council on Library Resources, Inc. Copyright © 2007 by the University o f Oklahoma Press, Norman, Publishing Division o f the University. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the U.S.A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

For my grandfathers: C. Ralph Owens (1907-1979) Pfc. James M. B ell, U.S. Army, W orld War II (1915-1978)

Contents

List o f Illustrations

ix

Preface and Acknowledgm ents

xi

Introduction

x iii

Maps

xxi

Chapter 1. A Son o f V irgin ia

3

C hapter 2. Rustic G entility

37

C hapter 3. Indiana and Its G overnor Take Shape, 1803-1804

67

C hapter 4.1805: T h e Pivotal Year

99

C hapter 5. Close Calls and E erie Calm: 1806-1809

128

C hapter 6. A Frontier Society: Indiana, 1800-1812

166

C hapter 7. D ueling Visionaries

188

C hapter 8. Return to Arm s

211

C onclusion: T h e G randee o f N orth Bend

240

N otes

251

B ibliography

289

In d e x

303

vii

Illustrations

Anthony Wayne

155

James W ilkinson

156

Rem brandt Peale’s portrait o f W illiam H en ry Harrison

157

Anna Symmes Harrison

158

Little Tu rtle

159

T h e Shawnee Prophet

160

Tecumseh

161

Grouseland

162

M ary Adam s's court docum ent

163

The M urder o f Jane McCrea (1804 paindng)

164

W illiam H en ry H arrison M onum ent

165

IX

Preface and Acknowledgments

In w riting this study o f H arrison, I had certain advantages that previous researchers on this topic did not have. T h e simplest is tim ing. A trem en­ dous historiography o f the Northwest, including the works listed in this preface, already existed to build upon. Further, it was pure luck on my part that ed itor Douglas Clanin and the Indiana H istorical Society (IH S ) published, in 1999, the m ost com prehensive collection o f H arrison docum ents from his fron tier days. The Papers o f W illiam Henry H arrison 1800-1815 (m icrofilm ) provides vastly m ore m aterial on H arrison than previously available in any on e place. It offers roughly three tim es what Logan Esarey’s 1922 print edition o f H arrison’s Messages and Letters (2 vols.) contains, and all in an easily readable and footnoted form at. T h e present book is therefore the first to take full advantage o f this tremen­ dous resource, as well as m ore traditional archival manuscripts. I im agine that part o f the reason we have waited so lon g fo r a m ore detailed study o f Harrison is the widely scattered nature o f the documents so laboriously collected by the IHS. Lik e m ost first-tim e authors, I have many p eop le to thank. Visits to Indianapolis always proved fruitful, largely because o f the fin e collections and helpfu l staffs o f the Indiana H istorical Society and the Indiana State Library. I am grateful as w ell to Brian Spangle o f the McGradyBrockm an H ouse and the G rouseland Foundation in Vincennes. Dr. James H olm b erg and the staff o f the Filson H istorical Society in Lou isville— who have had the wisdom to keep th eir old card catalog— w ere trem endously helpful. T h ey w ere also kind enough to make m e a Filson Fellow w hile I was finishin g my dissertation. T h e Illin ois State

xi

PREFACE A N D ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

XU

H istorical Society in Springfield also honored m e with a K ing V. Hostick Award and allowed m e access to what is now called the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. Thanks as well to the Journal o f the Early Republic and the Journal o f Illin ois History fo r allow ing m e to republish parts o f articles I w rote fo r them (cited in the B ibliography). I am grateful to the editorial staff and anonymous readers o f the U ni­ versity o f O klahom a Press, whose suggestions and criticisms greatly strengthened this work. Throughout my life, I have had great teachers. Thanks to professor emeritus Donald S. D etwiler o f Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, my unofficial undergraduate adviser. I owe a great debt as well to Fred H oxie, Swanlund Professor o f H istory at the University o f Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who read innum erable early drafts o f this work and provided invaluable insight and advice. Part o f that advice constituted introducing m e to H elen H ornbeck Tanner at the N ew berry Library. H elen remains a walking treasure trove o f G reat Lakes history and has always been generous with her support. Andrew Cayton, Distinguished Professor at M iam i University, encouraged m e from the earliest stages o f this project. Dr. John H offm ann not only provided m e with my best jo b in graduate school— archivist fo r the Illin ois H istorical Survey— but was also extraordinarily gracious in sharing his know ledge o f research m ethods and M idwestern history. My thanks also to M ichael F. C onlin, associate professor o f history at Eastern W ashington University, my colleague, som etim e RA, and always friend. I am grateful as w ell to my colleagues here at W ichita State Uni­ versity fo r their support and encouragem ent and to Professor Andrejs Plakans and the H istory D epartm ent at Iowa State University, who gave m e my first real jo b . Thanks to Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. (You can’t read m icrofilm all the tim e.) A bove all others, I wish to thank my adviser, D aniel C. L ittlefield , now C arolina Professor o f H istory at the University o f South Carolina, Colum bia, fo r his unyielding support. I would not have finished with­ out him . Finally, I must thank my fam ily fo r tolerating my scholarly eccentricities and genuinely trying to understand just what I was babbling about.

Introduction

O n June 22,1807, the H M S Leopard cam e alongside the USS Chesapeake and ord ered h er to allow a boarding party to search fo r Royal Navy deserters. M uch to Am ericans’ irritation , British m en-of-war had been stopping Am erican ships to look fo r absconded sailors, o r to im press need ed m en o f any nationality, fo r decades. But this was an Am erican warship, n ot a m erchant ship, and in U.S. territo ria l waters n o less. Further, Britain and A m erica w ere at peace and had been fo r twentyfou r years. T h ose facts m eant little to the British captain. T h e Chesa­ peake was h arb orin g deserters fro m the Royal Navy and had n ot yet installed her heavy guns. T h ose facts m eant little to the Am erican captain. W hen the Chesapeake refused the request, the Leopard fire d , k illin g th ree Am ericans and w ounding several m ore. British tars then b oarded the A m erican ship, rem oved accused deserters, and le ft the Chesapeake to lim p back in to p o rt.1 T h e Chesapeake-Leopard A ffair, as it cam e to be known, was an out­ rageous international incident, im m ediately protested by the Am erican governm ent. G reat Britain, in n o hu rry to w iden its list o f enem ies in its m ortal stru ggle w ith N ap oleon ic France— the prim ary reason fo r im pressing sailors in the first place— tried to m inim ize the a ffa ir w ith ou t relin quishin g the practice o f press gangs. President Thom as Jefferson, hating Britain but despising public expense even m ore, also sought to avoid war. Eventually, diplom ats prevented a further escalation o f hostilities. For many Am ericans, however, the affair con firm ed what they had lon g suspected and vociferously m aintained: Britain was th eir im placable fo e and w ould never respect A m erican rights unless U.S.

xiii

xiv

IN TR O D U C TIO N

m ilitary victories clubbed it in to d oin g so. O n e such Am erican was W illiam H enry H arrison. As the govern or o f Indiana Territory, at that tim e a fron d er outpost, Harrison viewed any potential figh t with Britain and its nearby Canadian territories with keen interest. As the son o f a h ero o f the Am erican Revolution, he entertained a lifelo n g suspicion o f British motives, policy, and even morality. As the ranking governm ent official in his territory, the first am ong Indiana’s social elite, the com m ander-in-chief o f the territo­ rial m ilitia, and an unabashed patriot, H arrison fe lt com pelled to speak out on the issue. His first great opportunity to d o so in a public forum came when he addressed the territory’s general assembly that August. G overnor Harrison first vented his outrage over the Royal Navy’s general practice o f abusing Am erica’s rights as a neutral shipper and impressing Am erican sailors. T h e Chesapeake-Leopard A ffa ir he fou n d particularly egregious. H e railed at the insult to national honor, the “disgracefu l” episode in which a British o ffic e r had given such m ortifyin g orders to m em bers o f the U.S. Navy. It was an exam ple o f British “tyranny,” he intoned, and, G od w illing, such tyrants would be smote by virtuous and free Am ericans. These statem ents d o n ot necessarily attract the casual reader’s eye. Obviously, an Am erican official would denounce such an act by a fo reign power, and on e would exp ect him to alloy his words with affirm ations o f his own patriotism . Yet som ething else the govern or said m ight give on e pause. H e noted that open war m ight break out as a result— not an unreason­ able assum ption— and that he and his fro n tie r neighbors w ould be “peculiarly interested” in the c o n flic t T h en he added, “ [F ]o r who does not know that the tomahawk and scalping knife o f the savage are always em ployed as the instrum ents o f British ven gean ce.” W hy m ention the Indians? T h e Shawnees had no navy. T h e Delawares never im pressed Am erican sailors. H e continued, “A t this m o m e n t . . . I sincerely believe [B ritish ] agents are organ izin g a com bination am ongst the Indians w ithin ou r lim its, fo r the purpose o f assassination and m urder.”2 H arrison’s speech to the assembly reveals his W estern career in m icro­ cosm: patriotism , A n gloph obia, saber-rattling posturing, and a sm idge o f political opportunism to boot.

IN TR O D U C TIO N

XV

U pon closer exam ination, linking British and Indian interests was not only com m on but also reflexive fo r m en o f W illiam H enry H arrison’s gen­ eration. T h e vast m ajority o f Am ericans, both public officials and private citizens, took it as a given that G reat Britain was the ultim ate source fo r any “Indian trou ble.” Many Indians had sided with H is Majesty during the Am erican R evolu tion, and British agents had in d eed encou raged Indian resistance to Am erican expansion in the 1780s and early 1790s. W hat H arrison and like-m inded Am ericans seem ed unable o r unwilling to admit, however, was that they themselves w ere the prim ary sources o f unrest am ong their Indian neighbors. A rapacious Am erican hunger fo r Indian lands, the swift destruction o f resources on which Indians depended, and a string o f treaties broken largely by Am ericans fueled for m ore anti-U.S. an ger than the British Indian D epartm ent. By the late eigh teen th century and certainly by the early nin eteen th century, no in telligen t Indian needed a British (o r Spanish) agent to p oin t out that Am erica’s citizenry and governm ent posed a threat to Natives’ way o f life. W illiam H en ry H arrison and m ost oth er Am ericans, especially on the frontier, ten ded to blam e Britain n ot ju st fo r Indian troubles but fo r alm ost any ill a fflictin g the U n ited States. W h ether the issue was eco­ nom ic, social, or, in the case o f slavery, both, it p roved far easier to attribute Am erican problem s to British in terferen ce rather than look within on e’s own soul. T h e paradox, however, was the d egree to which Am ericans, fo r gen ­ eration s p rio r to th e R evolu tion , had ad m ired and em u lated British culture and society. A t the triumphant conclusion o f the Seven Years’ War, Am erican colonists had ecstatically celebrated their part in the victory over France. C olon ial leaders w ere proud o f th eir status as citizens o f the em pire. A n d yet, when they fe lt th eir rights as Englishm en w ere threat­ ened, they rebelled in an attem pt to restore them. Or, as Fred Anderson put it, “ [ M ] e n . . . who otherwise would have liked nothing better than to pursue honor, wealth, and power within the British im perial fram ework” w ere forced to con fron t issues o f local ru le versus distant sovereignty. T h eir defense o f local autonomy spurred them to seek independence, and “Am ericans who would have been im perialists in any case becam e Revo­ lutionaries firs t”3Th ey fought against the Em pire because parliam entary

XVI

IN TR O D U C TIO N

rule was cram ping their im perial style. T h at unstable cocktail o f adm iring British tradition and hating British rule always lay just beneath the surface fo r Am ericans in the early Republic. T o exp lore that issue, I chose to write a cultural biography o f W illiam H en ry H arrison. T o most, he would not be the obvious choice. As on e m anuscript referee noted, he has often been characterized as a “bland functionary.” H en ry Clay was a far greater statesman, Andrew Jackson a far greater warrior, and Thom as Jefferson easily a far greater scholar. But H arrison was on the ground in question, and his decisions, foolish o r wise, had im m ediate im pact. H e exercised trem endous authority over a vast area and was em pow ered to negotiate with numerous Native Am eri­ can peoples. H e held extraordinary m ilitary and civil pow er fo r much o f his tenure as Indiana’s governor. H arrison’s lineage and upbringing were typical fo r Am erican leaders o f his era. H is life and career span a period o f intense tumult and change in U.S. history. H e was a V irgin ia gentlem an who sought his fortune in the em erging West, with m ixed results. H e was a form er soldier who built his subsequent political career on his service during the W ar o f 1812. H e was a husband and father who sought to secure his own livelih ood and standard o f living, not always successfully. Warts and all, W illiam H enry H arrison was quintessential^ Am erican. Harrison occupies an od d niche in Am erican history. M ost Am ericans know him , i f at all, as the hapless president who d ied after on ly on e m onth in o ffic e . M y gen eration m ight rem em ber an episode o f The Simpsons that m em orialized him fo r ju st that fact. For historians spe­ cializing in the nineteenth century, the fact that he was the first president to d ie in o ffic e and that his death led to a wave o f hand-wringing and soul-searching am ong numerous ministers across the nation seems m ildly interesting. For most Am ericans, his true im pact rem ains unnoticed or m isunderstood. T h e decisions H arrison and his contem poraries— allies and opponents— m ade in the decade p rior to 1812 had a profou n d im pact on the history o f the M idwest and laid the groundw ork fo r Am erican expansion into the Far West as well. T o this day we live with the echoes o f H arrison’s proclam ations, the boundaries o f his treaties, and the ram ifications o f his actions.4

IN TR O D U C TIO N

XVII

Aside from his background, H arrison’s duties as fron tier officia l and Indian agent make him im portant to rem em ber as well. T o understand Am ericans in the early nineteenth century, on e must acknow ledge the alm ost fanatical reverence m ost held fo r the R evolutionary generation. D oin g so requires som e background inform ation, especially regarding early Am erican thinking. W ith the Peace o f Paris in 1783, Am ericans em barked on what (fo r them ) was a bold adventure and a grand sociological exp erim en t Having inh erited, on paper at least, the vast territo ry from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River, the U nited States also sought to deter* m ine how to adm inister and e x p lo it this w indfall. In a broader sense, A m erican »—in 1783 and fo r succeeding decades— also had to figu re out how they would govern themselves. It was the Am erican Revolution that posed but did not answer the ques* tion. Many o f the greatest leaders o f the Revolution em bodied the resulting ambiguity. T h e m ost prom inent and pronounced was the Virginian Thom as Jefferson, who wrote o f man’s inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit o f happiness” with the same hand he used to write bills o f sale fo r his slaves. T h e years o f Jefferson’s presidency (1801-1809) coincided with the most crucial years o f Harrison’s governorship in Indiana Territory. As Peter S. O n u f and Leon ard J. Sadosky have argued, “ [ I ]t was the sustained struggle against sinister foes”— the British, their Indian allies, rebelliou s slaves, and seem ingly m onarchical Federalists— “that gave Jeffersonian republicanism its som etim es hysterical tone and its w ide­ spread popular appeal.” Jefferson and his follow ers, w hile lacking a truly coherent political ideology, nevertheless shared beliefs that “served as a lens through which they saw the w orld and provided the tools with which, fo r better o r worse, they reshaped it.”5 In the short term at least, this worldview worked well enough, especially against outsiders not directly em powered by the political process. T h e sit­ uation becam e considerably m ore convoluted when Republicans fought am ong themselves or against other Americans who claim ed an equal share o f Revolutionary heritage. Then the logic could becom e tortured. W h ile Am ericans in the first decade o f the nineteenth century were often divided on oth er issues, th eir op in ion o f proper Indian policy was

xviii

IN TR O D U C TIO N

nearly unanimous. Jefferson, like G eorge Washington, Ben Franklin, and many oth er Revolutionary leaders, had lon g coveted W estern lands. T h e land hunger o f these prom inent speculators was m atched by many ordi­ nary Am ericans who h oped to buy o r squat upon such lands. T h ey saw opportunity in the “unused" space west o f the Appalachians. T h e key com ponent o f W illiam H enry H arrison’s popularity would be his success in securing cheap land cessions. A m erica’s R evolutionary gen eration accepted unquestioningly that Anglo-Am erican society was the best, and th erefore the only, m odel to emulate. Indians* cultures and societies were th erefore backward. W hile Natives themselves had natural rights, their way o f life did not, and Indians had to change fo r “their own g ood .” In the late nineteenth century this attitude was summed up as a desire to “kill the Indian but save the man.” Disdain fo r Indian cultures com bined with a distrust o f the Indians’ British allies in the m inds o f most Am ericans. Because the R evolution had been divine, its opponents had to be devilish. M ercy O tis W arren’s history o f the Am erican R evolution serves as a g o o d exam ple o f this sim plistic dichotom y.6 Even m ore graph ic was the m edia storm asso­ ciated with the m urder o f Jane M cCrea (see chapters 1 and 5 ). Am erican politics, Indian policy, and debates about slavery all grew largely from an intense patriotic and anti-British sentim ent. Britain’s continued close relationship with Indian tribes in the G reat Lakes region on ly exacer­ bated Am ericans’ distrust o f them. Years later Am ericans on the frontier, like W illiam H en ry H arrison and the p eop le o f Indiana T erritory, still struggled with the m eanings and repercussions o f those fears. This is not the first biography o f H arrison. A num ber o f cam paigndriven pieces w ritten du ring his post-1815 p olitical career o ffe r m ore insight into nineteenth-century political m ythology than into the facts o f H arrison’s life. Even his twentieth-century biographers tended to fall in love with “O ld Tippecan oe.” Aside from tone— I do not see it as my duty to paint H arrison as a hero o r a villain— I d iffe r from the old er biogra­ phies by showing comparatively little interest in Harrison’s genealogy. T h e fact that he was descended from Puritans strikes m e as m ore interesting than significant. N o r d o I spend much tim e on H arrison’s role during the W ar o f 1812 or his subsequent career in national politics. W hile those

IN TR O D U C TIO N

XIX

phases o f his life are much better known,7 it was during his years in Indiana that he had a much greater im pact on Am erican history. A num ber o f post-1815 cam paign biographies w ere w ritten by H ar­ rison partisans. O f those, M oses Dawson’s A H istorica l N arrative o f the C iv il and M ilita ry Services o f M ajor-General W illiam Henry H arrison, and a Vindication o f H is Character and Conduct as a Statesman, a Citizen, and a Soldier (C in cin n ati, 1824) is probably the best, although still to be used with caution. In the twentieth century, D orothy Burne G oeb el’s dissertation, W illiam Henry H arrison: A Politica l Biography (Indianapolis, 1926), offered , fo r its tim e, a very respectable treatm ent. Freeman Cleaves’s Old Tippecanoe: W illiam Henry Harrison and H is Time (N ew York, 1939) probably rem ains the most thorough H arrison biogra­ phy to date, but it is also on e o f the m ore fawning. R eading Cleaves, one gets the im pression that Tecum seh and oth er N ative Am erican chiefs were silly fo r not im m ediately selling the govern or their lands and com ­ m itting cultural suicide. A fter Cleaves, H arrison’s territorial years d rifted without serious b io­ graphical study until Andrew Cayton’s Frontier Indiana (B loom in gton , 1996), w herein the author offers insightful chapters on H arrison and territorial Indiana through the poin t o f view o f the govern or’s wife, Anna Symmes H arrison, his c h ie f p olitical rival, Jonathan Jennings, and his form er rival-turned-reluctant ally. C h ief L itd e Turtle. Professor R obert Gray G underson, author o f the classic study o f the 1840 presidential election, TheLogCabin Campaign (Lexington, 1957), was working on what no doubt would have been the definitive Harrison biog­ raphy. Professor Gunderson’s death robbed us o f such a work, although he did publish a thoughtful prelim inary study, “W illiam H enry Harrison: Apprentice in Arm s,” in the Northwest Ohio Quarterly (W in ter 1993). Some excellent secondary works in the past few decades have discussed H arrison’s role in the Northwest. Eugene Berwanger’s The Frontier Against Slavery (U rbana, 1967) and N ico le Etcheson’s The Em erging Midwest: Upland Southerners and the P olitica l Culture o f the Old Northwest, 1787-1861 (B loom in gton , 1996) discuss many o f the political and social debates H arrison and other Am erican officials contended with north o f the O hio. Reginald Horsman’s Expansion and American Indian Policy, 1783-1812 (East

XX

IN TR O D U C TIO N

Lansing, 1967) and Richard W h ite’s m agisterial The M iddle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cam ­ bridge, 1991) both place G overnor H arrison in con text as the c h ie f Am erican negotiator with Am erican Indian tribes in the region. Bernard Sheehan’s Seeds o f E xtinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian (C hapel H ill, 1973), Francis Paul Prucha’s The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians (Lin coln , 1984), Anthony F. C. W allace’sJefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate o f the First Americans (C am bridge, Mass., 1999), and P eter S. O n u fs Jefferson's Empire: The Language o f American Nationhood (Charlottesville, 2000) all exam ine, with slightly d ifferen t conclusions, the Jeffersonian m ind and its influence on Indian policy. A ll o f these works stand quite w ell on their own. Yet these very able books still le ft m e with questions. Was H arrison a sincere Republican o r ju st an opportunist? W hy d id he push so hard fo r exten d in g slavery north o f the O hio? I was especially curious about H arrison and his ro le in U.S.-Indian affairs north o f the O h io River. Typically, secondary sources discussing H arrison ’s activities at Indian treaties w ould refe r to him as a tough n egotiator, a man w ho drove a hard bargain with Indians and purchased vast quantities o f th eir land fo r a pittance. I did not dispute that this was so, but I wanted to know how he did it. I am n ot the only on e to ask these questions. In a 1975 review o f Sheehan’s Seeds o f Extinction, W illiam T. H agan o ffered , “An analysis o f Jefferson’s relations with G overnor W illiam H en ry H arrison o f Indiana T e rrito ry w ould tell us m ore about Jefferson and his im pact on the Am erican Indian than we could ever learn from his correspondence with European intellectuals."8 By academ ic standards at least, this book is not particularly late. This is a cultural biography, making efforts to place Harrison within the context o f his era. I argue that, rather than springing from internal pas­ sions o f good o r evil, his actions becom e readily understood, almost pre­ dictable, when one recognizes the man’s worldview. T o appreciate W illiam H enry Harrison’s thinking in Indiana during the early nineteenth century, one must understand the V irginia gen try o f the eighteenth century.

MAPS

Indian land cessions in Illinois. H arrison’s land cession treaties in Illinois w ere enorm ous and perhaps am ong his most corrupt. Subsequent com ­ missioners negotiated redundant cessions just to be certain o f the land tide. Reproduced with permission from Robert M. Owens, “Jean Baptiste Ducoigne, the Kaskaskias, and the Limits o f Thomas Jefferson’s Friendship , o f Illinois History 5, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 109-36, map on 131. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

June 7,1803 August 13,1803 N ovem ber 3,1804 Decem ber 30,1805 September 30,1809 June 4,1816 August 24,1816

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

O ctober 2,1818 July 30,1819 July 29, 1829 September 15, 1832 O ctober 20, 1832 September 26,1833

xxiii

M IC H IG AN TER R ITO R Y

Indian land cessions in Indiana, 1795-1809. Harrison's treaties bought dtle to about half o f what became the state o f Indiana. Note how the Fort Wayne treaties o f 1809 ju t threateningly into Indian territory, which enraged Tecumseh and the Prophet. From George A. Schultz, An Indian Canaan: Isaac McCoy and the Vision o f an Indian State (Norm an: University o f Oklahoma Press, 1972). Reproduced with permission o f the publisher. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Treaty o f Greenville, August 3,1795 Treaty o f Fort Wayne, June 3,1803 Treaty with the Delawares, August 18,1804 Treaty o f Grouseland, August 21, 1805 Treaty o f Fort Wayne, September 30,1809 Treaty o f Fort Wayne, September 30,1809 Treaty o f Fort Wayne, September 30,1809; validated by Kickapoos at Fort Wayne, December 9,1809 8. Treaty o f Fort Wayne (Kickapoos), December 9,1809

xxiv

Northwest Territory. From George C. Pence and Nellie C. Armstrong, Indiana Boundaries: Territory, State, and County (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau, 1967). Reproduced with permission o f the Indiana Historical Bureau.

xxv

MMax

M w *■* J &

>

*

i i if

t

** -r*+mśm

W*- *

s -

g^*JV£\i_

kS«! #& r

*

bafoTc that T n v K j l ,

•* jn