171 |
of no act or treaty which can be regarded as dissolving this connexion between the Miamies & Eel Rivers; the Weas by treaty of Augt. 11, 1820. 3d Art. withdrew from the connexion, and agreed to recieve their annuities at Kascaskias in the State of Illinois. No separation from the other Miamies could have been contemplated by the Eel Rivers by their treaty with Genl Tipton of Feby 11, 1828, (the last treaty made with this band) and no interruption occurred in the intercourse with, or of the position occupied by the two portions of the Miamies at the time, nor until the year 1838 or 1839, when all, or nearly all the men of the Eel Rivers having died or been assassinated, the chiefs by an unreasonable exersise of the privilege which they enjoyed under the old regulations concerning payments, excluded the Eel Rivers from a participation in any part of their National Annuities &c.
No reasonable man would charge the Department with neglect towards these unfortunate Indians, for, under the old regulations the head men of a tribe had the power to determine who should, and who should not share in their annuity payments, and no officer of the government had a right to interfere.61
Hamilton, on the other hand, described this same group as follows:
There are residing in Miami county 12 to 14 We-as, principally, if not altogether Women. They were connected by marriage with that part [of] the Miamies called Eel rivers, or Thorntown Miami, who made a treaty (with Genl Tipton) in 1828- with whom they remained when the We-as emigrated.
61. Special File 112, Sinclear to Medill, July 24,
1848; Dft.
Ex. 128.
172 |
During the life time of Fluer (whose Indian name I do not recollect) they may have received monies with the Miamies as a part of his family or band. After his death the chiefs of the Miamies refused to let them draw [their annuities].62
Apparently Medill and his successor Orlando Brown refused to look into the
matter further. However, on February 18, 1850 Judge Cole again opened the
question of the distinctiveness of the Eel Rivers from the Miamis by sending a
long argument, power of attorney, and exhibits relating to the Eel Rivers'
claim for past annuities.63 In reply to this petition, Brown
promised to investigate as to who had received the annuity payments, and also
to investigate the identity of the group called Eel Rivers. Brown wrote to Cole
as follows:
As to the identity of the Indians in question, there appears to be some difficulty. The evidence now in possession of this office, derived from different sources is not only unsatisfactory in its nature, but has rather a tendency to render the subject more difficult and complex. An investigation and report will be asked for from the proper source and when received, you will be advised of the decision of this Department.64
In early May, 1850, the first question raised by Cole, i. e., who had received the Eel River annuities, was answered by a special report from the Treasury Department dated May 4, 1850. This report stated that from 1817 to ca. 1838, all
62. Special File 112, Hamilton to Medill, July 31,
1848; Dft.
Ex. 128.
63. Special File 112, Cole to Brown, February 18, 1850 (plus enclosers); Dft. Ex. 128. Letter Book vol. 43, p. 28; Dft. Ex. 129.
64. Letter Book vol. 43, p. 48; Dft. Ex. 129.
173 |
annuities due to the Eel Rivers from the treaties of 1795, 1805, and 1809 were
paid to the Eel River band of Miamies, seperately & distinctly from the Miamie nation. and that from that period (1838) it was paid to the Miamies without distinction,- Sometimes in payment per Capita, but generally to the chiefs.
Unfortunately, adequate records of annuity payment were not available for the years prior to 1817.65
Apparently as a result of Cole's efforts, in the Congressional appropriation bill for treaty payment for the year 1850-1851, it was expressly provided that the annuities due to the Eel Rivers from the treaties of 1795, 1805, and 1809
|
|
shall not be paid to any
person, or |
In 1851, Graham N. Fitch of Logansport, Indiana, acted as a special agent for
the Office of Indian Affairs and investigated "certain difficulties which
have arisen among the Miami (Eel River) Indians in Indiana." Fitch
diligently carried out his instructions, interviewing both Whites and Indians
alike. He obtained from several Miami informants statements admitting "the
existence of" Eel Rivers "as a separate band" from the Miamies.
As the result of his investigations, Fitch reached the following conclusions
which
65. Special File 112, Clayton to Brown, May 4,
1850; Dft.
Ex. 128.
66. 9 Stat. 549.
174 |
we quote:
|
|
First |
That the Eel River Miamies are a |
|
|
|
distinct band so recognized by the |
|
|
|
United States and by the Miamies, |
|
|
Second |
That no portion of the annuity |
|
|
|
due them by treaties has been paid |
|
|
|
to the Eel Rivers since 1837 or 1838, |
|
|
|
but that it has since that period |
|
|
|
been erroneously paid to the Miamies, |
|
|
Third |
That the individuals named in the |
|
|
|
list Marked "A" [see below] are the |
|
|
|
sole survivors & representatives of |
|
|
|
the Eel Rivers (except the three |
|
|
|
women mentioned as having married |
|
|
|
Miamies & migrated West with that |
|
|
|
nation) & as such entitled to their |
|
|
|
annuities past which have not been |
|
|
|
paid them, & prospective.67 |
Fitch sent to Luke Lea, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, a list containing the
names of all Eel River Indians then living in the state of Indiana. The list
was as follows:
|
|
1. |
|
Chang,go,shing,quaw or Tshank,ca,shing,ah, the widow of Go,to,up,wah |
|
|
|
|
or Captain Flour (or Fleur) |
|
|
2. |
|
Tah,ke,quah, Dickson (Dixon)' s widow |
|
|
3. |
|
Wa,paw,se,queh, Tom Smith's widow |
|
|
4. |
|
Tah,con,zeh |
|
|
5. |
|
Maz,zon,ze,queh, Captain Flour's daughter |
|
|
6. |
|
Shing,go,queh, 5's daughter |
|
|
7. |
|
Catherine, 6's daughter |
|
|
8. |
|
Sah,ket,e,queh, Old Kentuck's granddaughter |
|
|
9. |
|
Wa,sa,cah,me,queh, Old Kentuck's granddaughter |
|
|
10. |
|
Sah,ca,quett,ah, Dickson's daughter |
67. Record Group 233, Fitch Report, December
11, 1851; Dft. Ex. 130.
175 |
|
|
11. |
|
Mariana, 10 's daughter |
|
|
12. |
|
Wa,pu,co,se,queh, 4's daughter |
|
|
13. |
|
Sally, 12's daughter |
|
|
14. |
|
Sah,co,quan, Dickson's older son |
|
|
15. |
|
Wah,ca,co,nah, or Wah,ca,co,nong, Dickson's younger son. |
|
|
16. |
|
Wah,pe,mung,qua, Tom Smith's son.68 |
There were also three additional Eel River women then living, but they had married Miami men and were residing west of the Mississippi River.69
As a result of Fitch's report, Congress in the appropriation bills for both 1851-1852 and 1852-1853 stipulated that the money appropriated for the Eel River Indians should be paid only to that group and to no other, and that all the money erroneously paid to any other Indian group (i.e., the Miami) should be reembursed from that group's annuities, to the Eel River's annuity (9 Stat. 579. 10 Stat. 46). In late 1852 Fitch was again appointed as a special agent of the Office of Indian Affairs, this time to oversee the payment of annuities, both past and present, to those Eel River Indians then residing in Indiana.70 This he did in February, 1852. Fitch's 1852 annuity roll showed that four of the 16 Eel River Indians who had been alive in 1851 were by 1852 dead (numbers 2, 4, 12, and 15 on the 1851 list).
68. Idem.
69. Idem.
70. Letter Book vol. 46, pp. 411-412; Dft. Ex. 129.
176 |
From 1852 until the commutation of annuities to the Eel River Indians in 1888, the Eel Rivers received their annuities separately and distinctly from the Miamis. Not only were the annuities paid to each of these two groups separately, but the Eel River Indian annuities were commutated several years before annuities paid to the Miami Indians in Indiana were.71
Summary and Conclusions. The origin of the Miami-Wea-Piankashaw-speaking group referred to after 1765 as "Eel Rivers" or "Eel River Indians" is obscure, but the existence of such a group, living in a village six miles up Eel River, was reliably attested in 1765. By 1778 the Eel Rivers' village was at the junction of the Eel and Wabash rivers. From this latter location Eel River chiefs went to Detroit to confer with British officials, and Eel River warriors went southward to raid American frontier posts, during the 1770's and 1780's. In August of 1791 Kenapaquomaqua, the Eel River village which lay "scattered along Eel River for full three miles," was destroyed by American troops. Shortly afterward, in 1792, the Eel River Indians made nominal peace with the Americans, although some Eel Rivers continued to engage in anti-American hostilities through 1794. By 1795 the Eel Rivers had deserted their river; then or later this group
71. Special File 112, Eel River Annuity Roll, 1853; Dft. Ex.
128. See also Eel River Annuity Rolls dated November 6, 1868, September
18-21, 1872, November 8, 1875, January 20, 1876, October 22-23, 1880, October
12-13, 1887, May 15-27, 1889, and Miami Annuity Rolls dated October 27, 1850,
January 21-October 3, 1882, July 30, 1895; Dft. Ex. 151.
177 |
removed to the upper Sugar Creek, in Boone County, Indiana, where we know they had a village in 1818. Ten years later this village and its adjoining lands were sold to the United States and the Eel Rivers moved back to their old location near present Logansport, Indiana, at the mouth of Eel River. There they remained from 1828 onward.
The number of Eel River Indians was never very large. Croghan referred to the Eel River village in 1765 as "Small," and in 1778 the Eel River Indians themselves told Hamilton that their "small numbers did not admit of sending off many Warriors" to help re-take Vincennes. Ten years later, in 1788, Hamtramck estimated the Eel Rivers had 150 warriors, which made their total population some 600 souls. In 1851 there were 16 Eel River Indians living in Indiana, and three living west of the Mississippi, making a total of 19 known Eel River Indians.
The relatively small size of the Eel River group, plus the fact that this group lived on the Wabash between two larger groups, the Miamis,and the Weas and resembled these two groups in language and culture probably accounts for three observers having identified the Eel Rivers mistakenly as "Miamis" (Croghan and Hamilton) and as "Wiachtenoos [Weas]" (Heckewelder). That the Eel Rivers were, however, a group apart from either the Miamis or the Weas is indicated 1) by frequent references to the Eel Rivers as a separate entity on the part of various eighteenth-century observers (De Peyster, Hamtramck, Gamelin, Wilkinson, Putnam, Pasteur, Wayne) and
178 |
2) by acts and statements, and by admissions of the Eel Rivers and Miamis respectively, during the first half of the nineteenth century. These acts, admissions, etc., were, briefly, as follows:
a) In 1828 the Eel Rivers, alone, ceded their reservation on Sugar Creek to the United States, despite the agreement they, the Miamis and the Weas had entered into at the Treaty of Grouseland of August 21, 1805, whereby all three groups were to be considered and treated with as one "nation."
b) In 1847 the Eel Rivers, faced with removal to the West as "Miamis," declared they were not Miamis, and thus not obligated to remove West. Their protest was upheld in a court action and they were not removed to the West.
c) In an 1848-1851 annuity dispute between the Eel Rivers and the Miamis, the Eel Rivers maintained that since they were a group separate from the Miamis, their annuities should be paid directly to them and not included in the Miamis' annuities. The separateness of the Eel Rivers and Miamis was admitted to by several Miamis during an official investigation of this dispute, and in 1851 Congress ruled that the Eel Rivers should receive their annuities separately, and made the ruling retroactive to 1838.
d) When the Eel River Indians' annuities were commuted in 1888, they were commuted separately, several years before the Miamis' annuities were commuted.
On the basis of the late eighteenth-century documentary material, and the testimony of Eel River and Miami Indians
179 |
during the first half of the nineteenth century, we conclude that from first notice of the Eel Rivers in 1765 onward through the nineteenth century, the Eel Rivers were an autonomous native group. Small in numbers, living between the Miamis and Weas, and similar in speech and customs to these latter peoples, the Eel Rivers were occasionally misrepresented during the eighteenth century as "Miamis" or "Weas." Much more often, however, they were accurately referred to as a separate group, politically independent of either the Miamis or the Weas.
Go to
Chapter V
Return
to Anth. Rep. Docket 317 Volume I Table of Contents
Go
to Anth. Rep. Docket 317 Volume II Table of Contents
Return to Ohio Valley -
Great Lakes Ethnohistory Archive Menu
Return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology List of Publications
Return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology Home
Last updated: 5
September 2000
Comments: gbl@indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University.