Summaryfeb27

Treaty Rights and Natural Resources

ESPM 3001/5001

Discussion Summary: Copper Treaty -- February 27

Margaret Peeters
Feb. 27 Discussion

What do you thing was the meaning of provisions in the Copper Treaty?

                  They could live on the land if they were peaceful. Certain obligations had to take place. The implicit conditions is that one party or the other will not take up arms in warfare. Given the uncertainties with a language barrier the conversation about the treaties told the Indians needed to remain peaceful, in order to stay on their land. However, it did not specify what “being peaceful” means.
                  A second provision was fish, hunting, and gathering. The Indians just wanted peace and relations without problems. The natives had been using Copper and the provision allowed the whites to sign a treaty in which they would be able to take the copper that was worth a lot but did not allow the Indians to deliberate.
                  The U.S. did not clarify provisions. The whites left it open ended so they would be able to go back and but some kind of cap on the unclear stipulation of hunting, fishing, and gathering.
                  It was understood, that the President had some power that would influence the occupancy on the territory.
                  If the Indians occupied the shores and used the water, they would continue to use the land on the shore and the use of the water. “Usufructuary.”

Why was Robert Stuart known for having harsh tactics when trying to pass a treaty?

He refused to let anyone speak unless decided on by him. Stuart was telling everyone that the Chippewa were okay with how the Treaty was going. Stuart was being very two faced. He wrote in his letters that he didn’t care whether a certain Chief of a tribe signed the treaty or not.

In what ways are the Copper Treaty and the Pine Tree Treaty similar? Dealing with the way they were written. How were they the different?

There are many parallels with the Copper and Pine Tree Treaty:

In writing the contract and then meaning something else. “Take my word for it”
The U.S. was thinking about thinking of future, dominate usage. Goal to get Indians off the land eventually.
Every treaty was another step in the legal door. Lawyers telling them that it was going to be okay. And behind their back attempting to taking away the land.
Written vaguely. Purposely didn’t specify in certain cases.
Had no objection to the white man building farms.

There are also many differences:

Indians knew the Pine Tree Treaty did not work out to their knowledge so they wanted to pay close attention to this one.
The Indians put more effort into this Treaty. They tried not to repeat the mistakes of the Pine Tree Treaty.

What were some of the reasons giving for removing the Wisconsin tribes?

They were on mineral rich land. They whites needed to get them out to utilize those resources. A lot of the mineral wealth requires a great deal of processing. They would be moved and forced to live on agricultural land. This way the whites. could introduce them to civilization. So they can resort to being civilized. They also wanted to open a corridor for people traveling out west and they wanted to cluster them so the Europeans would be able to move west. Bringing cultures together to interfere with each other or segregate them so they will not be in the way for Western expansion.

What effects did the Copper Treaty have on the Chippewa people? How did the Europeans benefit?

The Chippewa:

Were able to, for a little while, to stay on their land to hunt, fish, and gather.

The Europeans:

The whites were pushing the Indians past the Mississippi to get their land.
They wanted the Chippewa to resort to a more civilized lifestyle.
Were about to not allow the Chippewa enough time to deliberate on the important issues.
They got their copper for the lead in copper production by 1890.

Return to home page

"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: January 10, 2000

Last modified: March 2008