The following abstract of Chapter 2 of Satz, 1991, was graciously provided by Scott Mackenthun:
In Satz's Chippewa Treaty Rights (1991) Chapter Two, the author gives facts and accounts on the Treaty of 1837. First the chapter discusses the feelings and motivation for both sides of the Treaty of 1837, before it was signed. Then the paper discusses the manner in which the treaty itself was signed. Next the author talks about the history of the treaty after it was signed, and lastly the author discusses why both sides felt the terms were unfulfilled and how the treaty could never satisfy the needs of both parties.
The author hit on many of the topics and problems underlying the Treaty of 1837. The United States wanted the land originally for lumber. They also felt they needed to enter into a treaty to avoid war with the Chippewa people given the fact that their military was so shorthanded. Superintendent of Indian Affairs Dodge pushed the Chippewa to sign the treaty even though members of present day Wisconsin Chippewa were not there. The chiefs at the signing would not endorse the treaty as they believed it was disrespectful to interfere with other tribes' business. This was one of many cultural clashes in signing the treaty. Chippewa made legal agreements orally, while white men made agreements on legally binding paper. Translations and word meaning were often scrambled after being translated through numerous languages. Discussion of terms of the treaty were not all entered into the articles, making the Chippewa people feel shortchanged. The Chippewa had many independent tribes each with its own chief, while the United States had one President. Silence was often interpreted as fear, unfriendliness, lack of intelligence, or misunderstanding, but for the Chippewa it was based on a caution that was a respect for the other party.
The Treaty of 1837 was also one of lies and bribery. Many individual chiefs were paid off to sign. The Indians were told the land was worthless for agriculture, and uncultivateable. Whites insinuated that Chippewa forefathers fought with the whites and were instigators. Years later the Indians received payments for their land, often in the form of goods, many of which were unusable to the Chippewa such as horses or poorly crafted guns often with little or no ammunition. The white men had 20 years to pay off the debt and for the Indians it amounted to very little cash per person and goods that created more dependency upon the American government.
The Treaty of 1837 represented a clash in cultures and values. The treaty was a resources versus land conflict, a subsistence lifestyle versus domination lifestyle. The author does a good job of convincing the readers that the Treaty of 1837 was poorly drafted and contained much ambiguity and confusion. It is hard to believe that such a large tract of land was purchased for so little and that both sides could ever be happy from it.
Questions for the reading: What were the cultural and political views for both parties of the Treaty of 1837? What were the consequences of the Treaty of 1837?
"The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota."
Date created: June, 2002
Last modified: Feb. 17, 2003
Copyright ©2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 George R. Spangler