Reconstructing the “Martell” Delegation through Newspapers

November 2, 2013

Symbolic Petition of the Chippewa Chiefs:  This pictographic petition was brought to Washington D.C. by a delegation of Ojibwe chiefs and their interpreter J.B. Martell.  This one, representing the band of Chief Oshkaabewis, is the most famous, but their were several others copied from birch bark by Seth Eastman and published in the works of Henry Schoolcraft.  For more, follow this link.

Henry Schoolcraft.  William W. Warren.  George Copway.  These names are familiar to any scholar of mid-19th-century Ojibwe history.  They are three of the most referenced historians of the era, and their works provide a great deal of historical material that is not available in any other written sources.  Copway was Ojibwe, Warren was a mix-blood Ojibwe, and Schoolcraft was married to the granddaughter of the great Chequamegon chief Waabojiig, so each is seen, to some extent, as providing an insider’s point of view.  This could lead one to conclude that when all three agree on something, it must be accurate.  However, there is a danger in over-relying on these early historians in that we forget that they were often active participants in the history they recorded.

This point was made clear to me once again as I tried to sort out my lingering questions about the 1848-49 “Martell” Delegation to Washington.  If you are a regular reader, you may remember that this delegation was the subject of the first post on this website.  You may also remember from this post, that the group did not have money to get to Washington and had to reach out to the people they encountered along the way. 

The goal of the Martell Delegation was to get the United States to cede back title to the lands surrounding the major Lake Superior Ojibwe villages.  The Ojibwe had given this land up in the Treaty of 1842 with the guarantee that they could remain on it.  However, by 1848 there were rumors of removal of all the bands east of the Mississippi to unceded land in Minnesota.  That removal was eventually attempted, in 1850-51, in what is now called the Sandy Lake Tragedy. 

The Martell Delegation remains a little-known part of the removal story, although the pictographs remain popular.  Those petitions are remembered because they were published in Henry Schoolcrafts’ Historical and statistical information respecting the history, condition, and prospects of the Indian tribes of the United States (1851) along with the most accessible primary account of the delegation:

In the month of January, 1849, a delegation of eleven Chippewas, from Lake Superior, presented themselves at Washington, who, amid other matters not well digested in their minds, asked the government for a retrocession of some portion of the lands which the nation had formerly ceded to the United States, at a treaty concluded at Lapointe, in Lake Superior, in 1842. They were headed by Oshcabawiss, a chief from a part of the forest-country, called by them Monomonecau, on the head-waters of the River Wisconsin. Some minor chiefs accompanied them, together with a Sioux and two boisbrules, or half-breeds, from the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The principal of the latter was a person called Martell, who appeared to be the master-spirit and prime mover of the visit, and of the motions of the entire party. His motives in originating and conducting the party, were questioned in letters and verbal representations from persons on the frontiers. He was freely pronounced an adventurer, and a person who had other objects to fulfil, of higher interest to himself than the advancement of the civilization and industry of the Indians. Yet these were the ostensible objects put forward, though it was known that he had exhibited the Indians in various parts of the Union for gain, and had set out with the purpose of carrying them, for the same object, to England. However this may be, much interest in, and sympathy for them, was excited. Officially, indeed, their object was blocked up. The party were not accredited by their local agent. They brought no letter from the acting Superintendent of Indian Affairs on that frontier. The journey had not been authorized in any manner by the department. It was, in fine, wholly voluntary, and the expenses of it had been defrayed, as already indicated, chiefly from contributions made by citizens on the way, and from the avails of their exhibitions in the towns through which they passed; in which, arrayed in their national costume, they exhibited their peculiar dances, and native implements of war and music. What was wanting, in addition to these sources, had been supplied by borrowing from individuals.

Engraving of Henry Schoolcraft by Wellstood an...

Engraving of Henry Schoolcraft by Wellstood and Peters (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Martell, who acted as their conductor and interpreter, brought private letters from several persons to members of Congress and others, which procured respect. After a visit, protracted through seven or eight weeks, an act was passed by Congress to defray the expenses of the party, including the repayment of the sums borrowed of citizens, and sufficient to carry them back, with every requisite comfort, to their homes in the north-west. While in Washington, the presence of the party at private houses, at levees, and places of public resort, and at the halls of Congress, attracted much interest; and this was not a little heightened by their aptness in the native ceremonies, dancing, and their orderly conduct and easy manners, united to the attraction of their neat and well-preserved costume, which helped forward the object of their mission.

The visit, although it has been stated, from respectable sources, to have had its origin wholly in private motives, in the carrying out of which the natives were made to play the part of mere subordinates, was concluded in a manner which reflects the highest credit on the liberal feelings and sentiments of Congress. The plan of retrocession of territory, on which some of the natives expressed a wish to settle and adopt the modes of civilized life, appeared to want the sanction of the several states in which the lands asked for lie. No action upon it could therefore be well had, until the legislatures of these states could be consulted (pg. 414-416, pictographic plates follow).

I have always had trouble with Schoolcraft’s interpretation of these events.  It wasn’t that I had evidence to contradict his argument, but rather that I had a hard time believing that all these chiefs would make so weighty a decision as to go to Washington simply because their interpreter was trying to get rich.  The petitions asked for a permanent homeland in the traditional villages east of the Mississippi.  This was the major political goal of the Lake Superior Ojibwe leadership at that time and would remain so in all the years leading up to 1854.  Furthermore, chiefs continued to ask for, or go “uninvited” on, diplomatic missions to the president in the years that followed.

I explored some of this in the post about the pictograph, but a number of lingering questions remained:

What route did this group take to Washington?

Who was Major John Baptiste Martell?

Did he manipulate the chiefs into working for him, or was he working for them? 

Was the Naaganab who went with this group the well-known Fond du Lac chief or the warrior from Lake Chetek with the same name?

Did any chiefs from the La Pointe band go?

Why was Martell criticized so much?  Did he steal the money?

What became of Martell after the expedition?

How did the “Martell Expedition” of 1848-49 impact the Ojibwe removal of 1850-51?

Lacking access to the really good archives on this subject, I decided to focus on newspapers, and since this expedition received so much attention and publicity, this was a good choice.  Enjoy:

Indiana Palladium.  Vevay, IN.  Dec. 2, 1848

Capt. Seth Eastman of the U.S. Army took note of the delegation as it traveled down the Mississippi from Fort Snelling to St. Louis.  Eastman, a famous painter of American Indians, copied the birch bark petitions for publication in the works of his collaborator Henry Schoolcraft.  At least one St. Louis paper also noticed these unique pictographic documents.

Lafayette Courier.  Lafayette, IN.  Dec. 8, 1848.

The delegation made its way up the Ohio River to Cincinnati, where Gezhiiyaash’s illness led to a chance encounter with some Ohio Freemasons.  I won’t repeat it here, but I covered this unusual story in this post from August.

At Cincinnati, they left the river and headed toward Columbus.  Just east of that city, on the way to Pittsburgh, one of the Ojibwe men offered some sound advice to the women of Hartford, Ohio, but he received only ridicule in return.

Madison Weekly Courier.  Madison, IN.  Jan. 24, 1849

It’s unclear how quickly reports of the delegation came back to the Lake Superior country.  William Warren’s letter to his cousin George, written in March after the delegation had already left Washington, still spoke of St. Louis:

William W. Warren (Wikimedia Images)

“…About Martells Chiefs.  They were according to last accounts dancing the pipe dance at St. Louis.  They have been making monkeys of themselves to fill the pockets of some cute Yankee who has got hold of them.  Black bird returned from Cleveland where he caught scarlet fever and clap.  He has behaved uncommon well since his return…” (Schenck, pg. 49)

From this letter, we learn that Blackbird, the La Pointe chief, was originally part of the group.  In evaluating Warren’s critical tone, we must remember that he was working closely with the very government officials who withheld their permission.  Of the La Pointe chiefs, Blackbird was probably the least accepting of American colonial power.  However, we see in the obituary of Naaganab, Blackbird’s rival at the 1855 annuity payment, that the Fond du Lac chief was also there.

New York World.  New York.  July 22, 1894

Before finding this obituary, I had thought that the Naaganab who signed the petition was more likely the headman from Lake Chetek.  Instead, this information suggests it was the more famous Fond du Lac chief.  This matters because in 1848, Naaganab was considered the speaker for his cousin Zhingob, the leading chief at Fond du Lac.  Blackbird, according to his son James, was the pipe carrier for Buffalo.  While these chiefs had their differences with each other, it seems likely that they were representing their bands in an official capacity.  This means that the support for this delegation was not only from “minor chiefs” as Schoolcraft described them, or “Martells Chiefs” as Warren did, from Lac du Flambeau and Michigan.  I would argue that the presence of Blackbird and Naaganab suggests widespread support from the Lake Superior bands.  I would guess that there was much discussion of the merits of a Washington delegation by Buffalo and others during the summer of 1848, and that the trip being a hasty money-making scheme by Martell seems much less likely.

Madison Daily Banner.  Madison, IN.  Jan. 3, 1849.

From Pittsburgh, the delegation made it to Philadelphia, and finally Washington.  They attracted a lot of attention in the nation’s capital.  Some of their adventures and trials:  Oshkaabewis and his wife Pammawaygeonenoqua losing an infant child, the group hunting rabbits along the Potomac, and the chiefs taking over Congress, are included this post from March, so they aren’t repeated here.

Adams Sentinel.  Gettysburg, PA.  Feb. 5, 1849.

According to Ronald Satz, the delegation was received by both Congress and President Polk with “kindly feelings” and the expectation of “good treatment in the future” if they “behaved themselves (Satz 51).”  Their petition was added to the Congressional Record, but the reservations were not granted at the time.  However, Congress did take up the issue of paying for the debts accrued by the Ojibwe along the way.

George Copway (Wikimedia Commons)

Kah-Ge-Ga-Gah-Bowh (George Copway), a Mississauga Ojibwe and Methodist missionary, was the person “belonging to one of the Canada Bands of Chippewas,” who wrote the anti-Martell letter to Indian Commissioner William Medill.  This is most likely the letter Schoolcraft referred to in 1851.  In addition to being upset about the drinking, Copway was against reservations in Wisconsin.  He wanted the government to create a huge pan-Indian colony at the headwaters of the Missouri River.

William Medill (Wikimedia Commons)

Iowa State Gazette.  Burlington, IA.  April 4, 1849



Weekly Wisconsin.  Milwaukee.  Feb. 28, 1849.

With $6000 (or did they only get $5000?), a substantial sum for the antebellum Federal Government,  the group prepared to head back west with the ability to pay back their creditors.


It appears the chiefs returned to their villages by going back though the Great Lakes to Green Bay and then overland.

The Chippewa Delegation, who have been on a visit to see their “great fathers” in Washington, passed through this place on Saturday last, on their way to their homes near Lake Superior.  From the accounts of the newspapers, they have been lionized during their whole journey, and particularly in Washington, where many presents were made them, among the most substantial of which was six boxed of silver ($6,000) to pay their expenses.  They were loaded with presents, and we noticed one with a modern style trunk strapped to his back.  They all looked well and in good spirits (qtd. in Paap, pg. 205)

Green Bay Gazette.  April 4, 1849

So, it hardly seems that the Ojibwe chiefs returned to their villages feeling ripped off by their interpreter.  Martell himself returned to the Soo, and found a community about to be ravaged by a epidemic of cholera.

Weekly Wisconsin.  Milwaukee.  Sep. 5, 1849.

Martell appears in the 1850 census on the record of those deceased in the past year.  Whether he was a major in the Mexican War, whether he was in the United States or Canadian military, or whether it was even a real title, remains a mystery.  His death record lists his birthplace as Minnesota, which probably connects him to the Martells of Red Lake and Red River, but little else is known about his early years.  And while we can’t say for certain whether he led the group purely out of self-interest, or whether he genuinely supported the cause, John Baptiste Martell must be remembered as a key figure in the struggle for a permanent Ojibwe homeland in Wisconsin and Michigan.  He didn’t live to see his fortieth birthday, but he made the 1848-49 Washington delegation possible.

So how do we sort all this out?

To refresh, my unanswered questions from the other posts about this delegation were:

1)  What route did this group take to Washington?

2)  Who was Major John Baptiste Martell?

3) Did he manipulate the chiefs into working for him, or was he working for them? 

4)  Was the Naaganab who went with this group the well-known Fond du Lac chief or the warrior from Lake Chetek with the same name?

5)  Did any chiefs from the La Pointe band go?

6)  Why was Martell criticized so much?  Did he steal the money?

7)  What became of Martell after the expedition?

8)  How did the “Martell Expedition” of 1848-49 impact the Ojibwe removal of 1850-51?

We’ll start with the easiest and work our way to the hardest.  We know that the primary route to Washington was down the Brule, St. Croix, and Mississippi to St. Louis, and from there up the Ohio.  The return trip appears to have been via the Great Lakes.

We still don’t know how Martell became a major, but we do know what became of him after the diplomatic mission.  He didn’t survive to see the end of 1849.

The Fond du Lac chief Naaganab, and the La Pointe chief Blackbird, were part of the group.  This indicates that a wide swath of the Lake Superior Ojibwe leadership supported the delegation, and casts serious doubt on the notion that it was a few minor chiefs in Michigan manipulated by Martell.

Until further evidence surfaces, there is no reason to support Schoolcraft’s accusations toward Martell.  Even though these allegations are seemingly validated by Warren and Copway, we need to remember how these three men fit into the story.  Schoolcraft had moved to Washington D.C. by this point and was no longer Ojibwe agent, but he obviously supported the power of the Indian agents and favored the assimilation of his mother-in-law’s people.  Copway and Warren also worked closely with the Government, and both supported removal as a way to separate the Ojibwe from the destructive influences of the encroaching white population.  These views were completely opposed to what the chiefs were asking for:  permanent reservations at the traditional villages.  Because of this, we need to consider that Schoolcraft, Warren, and Copway would be negatively biased toward this group and its interpreter.

Finally there’s the question Howard Paap raises in Red Cliff, Wisconsin.  How did this delegation impact the political developments of the early 1850s?  In one sense the chiefs were clearly pleased with the results of the trip.  They made many friends in Congress, in the media, and in several American cities.  They came home smiling with gifts and money to spread to their people.  However, they didn’t obtain their primary goal:  reservations east of the Mississippi, and for this reason, the following statement in Schoolcraft’s account stands out:

The plan of retrocession of territory, on which some of the natives expressed a wish to settle and adopt the modes of civilized life, appeared to want the sanction of the several states in which the lands asked for lie. No action upon it could therefore be well had, until the legislatures of these states could be consulted.

“Kindly feelings” from President Polk didn’t mean much when Zachary Taylor and a new Whig administration were on the way in.  Meanwhile, Congress and the media were so wrapped up in the national debate over slavery that they forgot all about the concerns of the Ojibwes of Lake Superior.  This allowed a handful of Indian Department officials, corrupt traders, and a crooked, incompetent Minnesota Territorial governor named Alexander Ramsey to force a removal in 1850 that resulted in the deaths of 400 Ojibwe people in the Sandy Lake Tragedy.

It is hard to know how the chiefs felt about their 1848-49 diplomatic mission after Sandy Lake.  Certainly their must have been a strong sense that they were betrayed and abandoned by a Government that had indicated it would support them, but the idea of bypassing the agents and territorial officials and going directly to the seat of government remained strong.  Another, much more famous, “uninvited” delegation brought Buffalo and Oshogay to Washington in 1852, and ultimately the Federal Government did step in to grant the Ojibwe the reservations.  Almost all of the chiefs who made the journey, or were shown in the pictographs, signed the Treaty of 1854 that made them.

McClurken, James M., and Charles E. Cleland. Fish in the Lakes, Wild Rice, and Game in Abundance: Testimony on Behalf of Mille Lacs Ojibwe Hunting and Fishing Rights / James M. McClurken, Compiler ; with Charles E. Cleland … [et Al.]. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State UP, 2000. Print.
Paap, Howard D. Red Cliff, Wisconsin: A History of an Ojibwe Community. St. Cloud, MN: North Star, 2013. Print.
Satz, Ronald N. Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 1991. Print.
Schenck, Theresa M. William W. Warren: The Life, Letters, and times of an Ojibwe Leader. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2007. Print.
Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, and Seth Eastman. Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States: Collected and Prepared under the Direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs per Act of Congress of March 3rd, 1847. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1851. Print.



5 Responses to “Reconstructing the “Martell” Delegation through Newspapers”

  1. Paap, H. said

    Another good posting. A few questions are raised that I hope to follow up on later.

  2. Linda Bryan said

    Nice job on the detective work! How great to see this story put together!

    You have missed one very useful news article:
    Daily National Intelligencer Nov 25 1848, reprinted from St. Louis Republican Nov 14 1848. The entourage arrived at St. Louis the morning of Nov 13 ’48. They had a number of cultural items with them including a birchbark canoe and implements “for hunting and for war.” There is an intimation that they may have used these in performance as a money-maker to pay for their expenses, which would explain Warren’s criticism.

    The article claims that there are twelve Indians on this trek, six of them chiefs with attributed home villages as listed below, which helps prove that none was a La Pointe chief. At least one wore a presidential medal from 1825. My transcription of spellings may be in error here–the newsprint is tough to read.

    Osh-ka-ba-mis, head chief of Wisc. River band [This is Schoolcraft’s “Oshcabawiss” and the “Osh-ka-ba wis” of the petition.]

    Kay-she-sush, head chief of Vieux Desert band [Is called Kay-she-ansh on the petition]

    O-ke-mah-ke-shing, chief of Lac de Flambeau [“O gu mah-ge-zic” in the petition. A similar name is in the 1843 annuity role as second chief of the second LCO band: “”]

    Na-gun-mae, chief of Fon du Lac band [“Nah-gon nob” of the petition; Naganabe I assume]

    Ong-gua-sug, head chief of Ontonagon band [“On gua-sug” of the petition. Any chance this is Peter Azhaniguon, Peter Marksman, who signed in 1847 as an Anse Chief? If so, he is related to Copway and was educated at Illinois with him.]

    Kis-kok, second chief of Fond du Lac band [“Wis kok” in the petition. Is this “Weescoup” or Sucre/the Sweet? ]

    Ma-ka-ta-wah-js, head brave of Fond du lac band [I know of a “Muck a ta washa” on a trader roll on Upper Miss. in ’37 treaty claims.]

    Mo-zo-mah-na, “Sioux warrior”*

    Two “squaws,” one the wife of “the chief of Fon du Lac” and the other the “sister of the Lac du Flambeau chief.”

    *[I think the assumption of there being a Dakota may have been a misunderstanding–there was an Ojibwe “Maudozome” from Lake Shetek and a “Moos ome e nee” from the Snake River-St. Croix area–either would have been interpreted by outsiders as a Dakota name and actually may have been one, since these men lived on the Dakota perimeter of Ojibwe country where a few Ojibwe had Dakota names.]

    This doesn’t quite add up to twelve, but it’s ten. If Blackbird were there at beginning but left from Cleveland, perhaps he’s no. 11. Is mixed-blood Martel no 12 or is it the baby or did someone else bail out?

    They journeyed “for the purpose of securing, either by grant or purchase, a portion of the lands sold to the Government some time since, and thus to retain possession of their villages. They desire to permanently settle, build houses, cultivate the sod, and become settled, industrious citizens of the United States, instead of roaming hunters of the forest.”

    Who was the interpreter for the Martel entourage? There is an intimation in the Senate discussion that Martel did the translating.

    What I don’t understand is why there are so many of the Fond du Lac (Minn) names here if land ownership was the big issue for the delegation. These people had not been displaced and were not on ceded land. Fond du Lac and Sandy Lake are two ends of a major waterway journey and the bands had a strong relationship with one another as gatekeepers to the interior of the Upper Mississippi from Lake Superior. The Fond du Lac group were quite worldly. There was some familial connection to the major families at the Sault but I don’t yet see how they connected with the Ontonagan and eastern Wisc. bands except as the result of conversations at the 1848 annuity payment. But…the Fond du Lac band had experienced firsthand the 1847 cession treaty of Ojibwe land for the Winnebago reserve and perhaps were worried. Actually they had good reason to worry–within a few years the 1854 treaty gave whites an unfair chance at the Duluth-Superior harbor area, but that was not on the horizon yet.

    It may be that the $6000 and the land ownership became important issues later, that the Fond du Lac men originally joined the delegation for a different reason. If so, I suspect that it was for redress regarding the annuity payment–site and goods and too many mixed bloods diluting the pool of recipients for the money and goods. These were persistent problems and ones that really bothered them.


    I have read a different record of the discussion of the request for $6000 in the Senate. It’s in the (Wash. D.C.) Daily Union of Friday 16 February 1849. The Ojibwe party was still in Washington at that time, although they had left home in the fall of 1848.

    Among the gripes that were presented to the Indian Office:
    “They have complained for many years of the want of attention to some matters which they had transacted with the representative of our government [the Agent I assume]. One was, for instance, that in the distribution of annuities given to them, the half-breeds were to be allowed to participate in the distribution, which was injurious to the Indians themselves. They have also asked, in the petitions presented here, that they may become the owners of certain land. Another complaint was the bad selection of goods with which they were furnished under the treaty. Several of these matters they have complained of; and not understanding the arrangement of the government with regard to these things, they have considered it their duty to come here and enforce their claims themselves.” The number of “half-breeds” attached to their annuity payment was 800. Senator Felch of Michigan did much of the talking and explaining.

    “Major Martel” had references from his parish priest at the Sault as well as the Bishop of Cinncinati and Capt. James May of Pittsburgh. One question dealt with whether the money should be given to him or to the chiefs. Martel had got drunk during the journey once and this elicited some discussion. He had loaned $500 of his own money to the chiefs and he expressed a fear as to to whether the $4000 of his personal property in the U.S. was at risk if the $6000 were not awarded to the chiefs to repay their travel debt and the sustenance of their families since they were not hunting this season. Support was given to Martel under the assumption that if the chiefs trusted him, the Senate should as well. There was also discussion as to whether what amount would be sufficient, given that the Commissioner of Ind. Affairs had estimated $3000, assuming they were going to Detroit, not to Ojibwe country on their return. The full $6000 was allocated, unanimously after a third reading of the bill.


    One of the many stupidities of the Indian Agency in regard to the Ojibwe was the jurisdictional morass. The Ojibwe of the Upper Peninsula and the Sault had been separate from those of Minnesota-Wisconsin until the 1842 treaty included them. This brought not only a confusion as to treaty benefits but also introduced schemes by a very sophisticated set of mixed-bloods associated with the Sault who figured into a lot of political stuff in the U.P. and who knew how to work the system. (Did Martel belong to this group?) In 1848, there was a Michigan superintendent plus a Wisc. superintendent through the Wisc. Territorial governorship. (Once Wisconsin became a state, things got nuttier because in time there would be a Minn. Terr Governor with powers parallel to the Wisc.-Mich superintendency — similar to the confusion between Michigan and Wisconsin superintendencies in 1842-48.) There was a sub-agency in the Upper Peninsula under one superintendency and another at La Pointe under the other superintendency, which served all the way to the Red River to the west. The Minnesota Indians had asked for a decade for a local agent for themselves (and a local annuity payment) after the demise of the Crow wing sub-agency in 1839, but so far, no dice.

    A part of the story behind the scenes was that Jas. P. Hays, the subagent at LaPointe, was a drinker who left the office empty for periods of time. Henry Rice of the Winnebago Removal complained to the Washington Office in fall 1847 and Hays was let go in 1848. This must have left the sub-agency with a void, similar to previous empty seat situations in the Ojibwe Agency. I’m not sure when Livermore took over the job, but officially he began in 1848, another new face for the Indians to work with. The Washington office would have assumed that had an agent been on the job and pro-active in 1847-48, he would likely have seen the chiefs’ initiative developing. In similar situations, an agent defused such situations or attempted to do so; at the very least, his reports would have recorded the background to any wildcat trips to Washington.

    One of the major problems for the LaPointe Agency/SubAgency throughout its existence was its tremendous distance from communication lines. It was hard to warn Washington about anything, especially in winter and spring. The chiefs delegation went to Washington via the Mississippi River and St. Louis. That in itself is a clue about the disconnect between the Indian Office and its most distant bands–It’s hard to even know what route might be used in order to head off a set of independents.

    Always remember that H.R. Schoolcraft was on H.R. Schoolcraft’s side first and foremost. He never cared who else he trampled on, including the Indians. He was at his best when he gave statistical and anecdotal data. When he expressed an opinion, always question why he said what he said. As you say, in 1848 he held no official capacity within the Agency, although I think he was in Washington pushing one of his book projects and may have even witnessed the entourage. In your quote above, he is addressing the question of whether Indians should be allowed to buy back land from the government. But the more important concept within this discussion is the question of whether Indians can be accepted as U.S. citizens and can function as neighbors to whites. This was a really touchy issue. If these Indians could truly use this as a path to white-style lives and citizenship, a modern person would think that this marked the achievement of the most obvious goal of the Indian Agency. But it was not! The Agency never defined a citizenship path for Indians of the Old Northwest and whenever it came up against the possibility of granting any rights to Indians, it made a muddle.

    Rights for Indians was an oxymoron to Wisconsin Territory officials. Indians never got a fair shake in a trial, never could ask for justice in the case of violence or exploitation, never got the protections of the 1834 Trade and Intercourse laws despite having clauses written into their treaties asking that interdiction of whites be continued after land cessions, and had no representatives except the local agents to speak for them. Schoolcraft never advocated for Indian citizenship as far as I know and in fact, although he apparently admired the folklore and cute pictographs of the Ojibwe, he was not very nice to many Indians, especially those living the greatest distances from his comfy office while he was Agent or Superintendent in Michigan. And remember that he was removed from the Michigan Superintendency for using it for political reasons.

    As for Copway, he had Schoolcraft’s same disease–he was out for himself first and foremost. Among other things, he was an embezzler; he had alienated the Missasaugua Ojibwe and came to live on the American side of the border, mostly in the Methodist missions at Sandy Lake and in the Ontonagan but also with the ABCFM missions at Fond du Lac and LaPointe. At the time of this event, he was a sometime employee of the Bad River ABCFM mission but Wheeler was uncertain about him and Wheeler’s colleagues had already been stung by Copway in previous years.

    Copway made a career of selling himself as an expert on Indians. He did speaking tours and was a showman in the East. He was like those “experts” on Iraq who got us into the Iraq war by hanging out with Washington insiders who wouldn’t bother to seek out more voices to guide them. Ironically, he published some books and articles and now he is one of the few “Indian voices” that exist in print so he’s being studied by historians. I don’t care a fig about what Copway said about this delegation in 1848–his opinions were his own. Period. If you read some of his stuff, sometimes he wants to move the Ojibwe to the Mississippi and sometimes to the Missouri. Whichever way the wind blew, I suspect.

    The Winnebago were removed from northern Iowa to central-north west Minnesota in spring-summer of 1848 and the Menomonee were supposed to be moved there also–but were balking. There were intimations of imminent Ojibwe removal in Indian Agency documents throughout the 1846-1849 period. I suspect that one effect that this entourage to Washington had on the upcoming removal plans was that it make clear that if the Agency didn’t get going on its goal of removing these Indians, there would be sufficient white sympathizers and bleeding hearts to thwart the large-scale removal that was in the wind. With the finalization of the Wisconsin western border in 1848, things started getting muddier for the Wash. office–options for large-scale Indian land usage in the next territory to the west began to disappear with the surveys of the 1837 ceded lands and it became clear that somebody had to get going to set the new land use pattern or it would happen by default. Thus… the stage is set for Alex. Ramsey, J.S. Watrous, and the 1850 Removal Order. And for treaty negotiations in 1851 with the various Dakota bands and the Red Lake Ojibwe to buy the plains and the rivers, but to what end? Would the land be for whites or Indians?

    • philliutas said

      Thank you very much for sharing this article. It really fills a gap in the newspapers.

      Those chiefs represent a true cross-section of the Lake Superior Ojibwe leadership, which indicates to me that this delegation had a lot of support. Martell would have been their interpreter.

      Because of the WI/MN border and the many, many accounts we have of the arduous Fond du Lac to Sandy Lake route, I think we tend to group FdL too much with the Mississippi bands. Really their closest ties were to La Pointe and St. Croix. When FdL was told to remove to Sandy Lake in 1850, that was a much more significant order than when La Pointe was told to remove to FdL the next year. I think the FdL leadership knew they needed a reservation to have any hope of keeping their village lands even though their Minnesota lands were still unceded. Chief Buffalo had asked for reservations as early as 1842. By 1848, I think the Lake Superior bands could see pretty clearly what was coming.

      Considering the treatment the 1848-49 delegation got in Washington, the removal order must have seemed like a crushing betrayal. The Ojibwe just didn’t have any hope of competing with the slavery issue among the bleeding hearts once they’d left the city.

      I totally agree with your characterizations of Schoolcraft and Copway. I know nothing of Martell beyond what’s in these posts. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mazomanie was both Ojibwe and Dakota. It seems like there was a lot of overlap in the Snake River/Mille Lacs area. Charles Lippert, who works for the Mille Lacs Band and is one of my go-to guys with tricky history questions, has done a lot of research on that area.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: