Treaty Rights and Natural Resources

Emma Lastine
Rapporteur : Trail of Tears
Satz, Chapter 4

1. Who were some of the biggest lobbyists for the removal order, and why were they pushing so hard for the removal?

The class discussed two groups of lobbyists that pushed for the removal order.  The first were the Traders, whom wanted the Indians to be moved west, this would ensure the dependence of the Indians on traders.  They could charge more money for supplies, whether or not the Indians needed them.  The other group supporting the Indians removal was the Whig party.  New Governor Ramsey saw the advantage of having the Indians in Minnesota because it would help created jobs.  This would also help to build political loyalties between Ramsey and other members of the Whig party.  In addition, with the annuity payments to be made in Minnesota, would keep the money in Minnesota.

2. Officials in Washington and the Minnesota Territory offered 4 reasons for the Removal Order, but do any of these directly benefit the Indians themselves?

The class felt that all four rules in some way at least affected them, whether it helped them though remains to be seen.  The first rule was that the Indians would need to be removed in order to prevent “injurious contact with the advancing white population.  The first rule was though to be potentially beneficial because it would decrease violent altercations with white settlers.  However, previous treaties specified that the Indians would not be removed from their lands as long as they remained peaceful.  So this first rule makes little sense, because Indians were trying to remain as cordial as possible with white settlers.

The second rule stated the Indians had to be removed from areas where there were “ample facilities for procuring ardent spirits.”  The class thought that this was an interesting rule as well for white settlers were the ones giving ardent spirits to the Indians in the first place.

Rule three reads, whites need to be relieved of the “annoyance” and “evils” of having Indians as neighbors.  The class was not quite sure what these words were referring to.  One student discussed it perhaps referring to sexual relationships between Indians and non-Indians.  George commented that intermarriage was a real concern for people at the time.  This also seemed contradictory to the opinions of whites that lived with Indians in the Great Lakes region.  Many people did not want them to be removed; in fact many sympathized with the Indians.  Some even went as far as saying that the US acted improperly.

Finally rule four states, removal to the west would provide opportunities for congregating the Chippewa’s together for purposed of promoting their “civilization and prosperity.”  It was mentioned in class that congregating all of the Indians together in the west would be a bad thing.  It takes lots of land to hunt and gather, but it was thought that part of the US motivations were to get these people to begin farming as a way of living and also becoming more accustomed to white culture.  In addition, with many Indians together in a small area, they would be easier to keep track of.  George urged us to think back on the Ishi video.  Ishi was amused to see so many people packed into the town.  It was also suggested that will them all confined to the same area, they would be more easily ‘molded’, which would make things easier for the missionaries. 

3. What effects did politics have on the decision that led to the Removal Order?

The class thought that the Whig party had a big influence on the removal order.  President Taylor was also part of the Whig party, so it didn’t take much pressure for him to sign the order.  To him they were not considered US citizens, but rather just as Indians.  Governor Ramsey was also a very ambitious man.  It was thought that because he too was a Whig member, that the two men were doing favors for one another.  Ramsey would help to get Taylor elected President, and Taylor would sign the order and hand it over to Ramsey to take care of.

4. Do you believe that the U.S government was at all justified in their actions against the Indians?

Overall the class didn’t feel like the US government was justified in their actions.  Thought the government didn’t intend on killing 400 natives, it seemed as thought they didn’t really care.  Ramsey went as far to say that it was not the governments fault but rather the traders and the Indians themselves (see page 58 in Satz for further information).  One student made an interesting observation, that the Indians could be looked at live stalk, such that if some died it would be no big deal, but they would maybe do it a little bit different the next time. 

The class also thought that the plan Ramsey had developed for the annuity payment was sub par at best.  Ramsey even said that his plan was ‘fully matured’, however when it came time to the annuity payment, they didn’t have the money, on top of it even being six weeks late.  It was suggested that if Ramsey wanted to keep this money in Minnesota, he would have at least provided them with some kind of shelter for the winter; however he didn’t plan on how to keep them there.  In order to survive the winter, many of the Indian burned their canoes for warmth, and bargained with traders to receive spoiled food along with supplies they didn’t even need.

Another idea brought up was even if the Indians did receive the annuity payment on time, even then how would they get back?  What good was a canoe if the waters used to travel to the payment location were frozen?  In addition to that, what would the Indians have done with cold hard cash anyways?  Beyond this, one student wondered if this was a deliberate attempt by the US government to destroy the Indian’s culture.  The Indians were encouraged to bring their families.  As in trying to lure them into Minnesota, with their families accompanying them on the trip, they may be more inclined to stay in Minnesota.  In doing so, over 400 natives died in the ordeal, thus a majority of its labor force had died (hunting, gathering, collecting wild rice).

5. Would the devastation that occurred due to the Wisconsin death march still have occurred if Livermore had been kept in Charge of the removal (he was replaced by John Watrous?

It was thought that even if Livermore had been kept in charge, the Wisconsin death march would have changed very little.  Although Livermore told Ramsey that there would be lots of difficulties, and suggesting him to move them in the spring, he didn’t not care and hired Watrous instead.  Watrous had a lot on money involved in Minnesota, and he had a lot of money to gain.  It was also mentioned that even if you are capable and qualified you run the risk of being fired if you speak the truth, as in Livermore’s case.  So the options are you either speak the truth and reap the consequences, or be a yes man.  Finally, it was said that Watrous was the ‘right’ man for the job because his plan was simple and to the point, he didn’t analyze the situation like Livermore did.

6. Why were only the Wisconsin Chippewa targeted for the removal to Minnesota?

Was not discussed in class

7. What reasons did Governor Ramsey give to defend his actions regarding the removal order?

Was not discussed in class

Return to home page

Date created: January 10, 2000
Last modified: April, 2008
Copyright © 2008, George R. Spangler