-Indians attack Fort Recovery, and are repulsed-Wayne marches from Greenville-Builds Fort Defiance-Sends a peace messenger to the Indians -The reply of the Indians-Wayne marches on-Leaves his heavy baggage -Moves down the Maumee-Battle, and complete victory-Wayne destroys Indian and British property-Effect of the victory on the Indians-The army returns-Fort Wayne built-Fort Loramie built-Army in winter quarters at Greenville-Indian spirit subdued The tribes disposed to peace measures-Opposition made by the British agents--Great council held-Propositions made by the English governor of Detroit-Brant coincides-Indians do not consent-They send peace messengers to the Americans-The preliminaries of peace entered into-Great council held at Greenville, and treaty made-Terms of the treaty-Other events during the Indian War-Genet, French minister; his schemes to involve the United States in war-His attempts in the West; contemplated invasion of Louisiana and Florida-Separation of the Western States, and revolt in the Spanish provinces, projected-Genet issues commissions-Excitement among the Western people-Action of the United States governmentGenet recalled by France, who disowns his acts-Free navigation of the Mississippi insisted on by the United States; denied by Spain-Governor Miro relaxes the stringent measures in relation to duties-He grants special privileges of trade on the Mississippi-Attempts of Spain to dismember the Union-Operations in relation to the navigation of the MississippiUnsuccessful attempts of government to treat with Spain-Baron Carondelet's policy and attempts to separate the West-Treaty of Madrid-Free navigation of Mississippi secured-New Orleans a free port of depositYazoo speculation—Projected British invasion of the Spanish provinces, by way of the lakes and the Illinois-Spanish posts withheld from the Americans-The causes-Spanish perfidy and duplicity-Powers proceeds to Detroit, the head-quarters of Wilkinson-Conduct of Wilkinson-New Orleans ceases to be a port of deposit, unless duties are paid-The act of the Intendant reversed by the King of Spain-Jefferson sends ministers to France and Spain-Spain cedes Louisiana to France-Diplomacy of the American ministers relative to, the purchase of LouisianaAll Louisiana purchased from France-Spain objects, but renounces opposition-Effectual agency of Mr. Livingston-Spanish and French claims to land-British evacuate the Western posts-Northwestern TerritoryOhio set off-Indiana created-Extent of the United States' possessions in the Northwest.

THE treaty of peace of September, 1783, was not accompanied by the immediate surrender of the British posts to the American authorities. Much recrimination occurred between the two governments, each charging the other with

the non-performance and violation of certain articles of the treaty; and more than ten years of diplomatic controversy intervened, creating and cherishing bitter feelings on both sides of the Atlantic, before a great part of the disputes were in a measure settled, by Jay's treaty of 1794. In the mean time, the British retained possession of the posts on the American side of the great lakes, and, as those posts gave their possessors a decided influence over the warlike tribes of Indians in their neighbourhood, this was a subject to which the United States were peculiarly sensible.

The year 1784 had nearly passed away before the determination of the British cabinet not to evacuate the Western posts, was known to the government of the United States. To the detention of these posts on the lakes, was ascribed the hostile temper manifested by the Indians; for it unfortunately was soon apparent that the cessation of hostilities with England was not necessarily the cessation of warfare with the native tribes; and, while all hoped that the horrors of border war in the West were ended, it was not difficult to see the probability of a continued and violent struggle. Thus, to the indignity of permitting a foreign power to maintain garrisons within the limits of the nation, were superadded the murders. perpetrated by the savages, and the consequent difficulty of settling the fertile and vacant lands of the West.1

Virginia, at an early period, (in October, 1779,) had by law discouraged all settlements, on the part of her citizens, northwest of the Ohio;2 but the prospect of peace added fuel to a spirit of land-speculation that soon became stronger than law; and in what manner to throw open the immense region which lay west of the mountains, without driving the natives to desperation, was a problem for statesmen to solve. Washington, in a letter to James Duane, in Congress, in September, 1783,3 writes upon the difficulties which lay before that body in relation to the public lands. He pointed out the necessity

'Marshall's Washington, vol. ii. 2 Rev. Stat. of Vir. vol. ii. 378. 3 Sparks's Washington, vol. viii. 477.

which existed for making the settlements compact; and proposed that it should be made even felony to settle or survey lands west of a line to be designated by Congress, which line, he added, might extend from the mouth of the Great Miami. to Mad River, thence to Fort Miami, on the Maumee, and thence northward, so as to include Detroit, or, perhaps, from the fort, down the river to Lake Erie. He proposed other stringent measures, in order to preserve the tranquillity of the Northwest; but, before Congress could take any efficient steps to that effect, it was necessary that those measures of cession which commenced in 1780-81 should be completed. Six days after the date of this letter, on the 13th of September, Congress stated the terms upon which they would receive the proposals of the Old Dominion for the cession to the United States of all their right in the territory northwest of the river Ohio.1

We have seen the result of the action of Congress, and of the several States claiming the lands of the Northwestern region, terminating in the adoption of the famous ordinance of July 13th, 1787: our view must now be turned to the condition of this portion of the Northwestern Territory, from the latter period to the time of the formation of a distinct territorial government in Wisconsin. A retrospective glance at existing affairs is, nevertheless, necessary.

In July, 1784, General Washington had sent Baron Steuben to Canada for the purpose of obtaining possession of the Western posts, under the terms of the treaty of 1783, with orders, if he found it advisable, to embody the French of Michigan into a militia, and place the fort at Detroit in their hands. The baron was received by General Sir Frederick Haldimand with politeness, but, at the same time, was told by him that he had received no orders to deliver up the posts. along the lakes; and the necessary passports were refused." The retention of the posts by the British was alleged to be for the purpose of preserving the peace of the frontiers, as the

1 Old Journals, iv. 189. VOL. I.-12

Sparks's Washington, vol. viii. 463.

Indian tribes scattered along the Northwestern Territory were alarmed at the prospect before them of the advance of the white population, and were daily showing undoubted signs of dissatisfaction, if not of hostility. The true ground of existing differences between the Indians and the United States was a question of boundary, and the encroachments of white settlements already made, together with the dread of future action in this respect. The Indians maintained that the Ohio River was the line, and was not to be crossed by the Americans; and, as the Indians were not included in the treaty, it became a nice legal question how far the United States had a right to advance upon the territory then occupied by the Indians. The posts in Michigan thus withheld from the possession of the United States were Detroit and Michillimackinac; and Great Britain, in order to guard against the incursions of the Americans, took immediate measures to garrison the fort of Detroit, under instructions from Lord Dorchester.1

In December, 1786, a grand confederate council of the Indians northwest of the Ohio, was held near the Huron village, at the mouth of the Detroit River, which was attended by the Six Nations, the Hurons, Ottawas, Miamies, Shawanese, Chippewas, Cherokees, Delawares, Pottawatamies, and the confederates of the Wabash. The council was pacific, providing that the United States did not encroach on their lands. It was finally proposed to call a grand council of the Indians, in which the whole ground of complaint between the savages and the United States should be discussed, and some final determination made.

This council was held, and, although no records of its proceedings have been discovered, yet it is believed that they were forwarded to Lord Dorchester. It is probable that there was a division in their deliberations, because two separate treaties were held at Fort Harmar, in January, 1789, which were attended by only a part of the Indians. These treaties were held by General St. Clair: in the first place with the

1 Lanman's Michigan, p. 150. See Note A.

Five Nations, with the exception of the Mohawks; and the second was made with the warriors and sachems of the Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Pottawatamie, and Sac tribes.1 But these treaties, if meant in good faith, were not respected by those who made them; and, in a short time, the confederacy of Northern Indians, which had, three years before, been formed by the noted Brant, or Thayendanegea, exhibited their long-smothered feelings of hatred and hostility to the Americans; and, in their subsequent success in the defeats of Harmar and St. Clair, acquired not only a confidence in themselves, but spread terror over the frontier white settlements, and deep concern in the councils of the nation.

Major-general Arthur St. Clair had been appointed governor of the Northwestern Territory, in October, 1787. Among his first important acts was, making the treaties at Fort Harmar, in January, 1789; one of these treaties the confederated nations of the lakes especially refused to acknowledge as binding; their council, in referring to it afterward, in 1793, using these words :

"Brothers: Your commissioner, (General St. Clair,) after having been informed by the general council of the preceding fall, that no bargain or sale of any part of these Indian lands would be considered as valid or binding, unless agreed to by a general council, nevertheless persisted in collecting together a few chiefs of two or three nations only, and with them held a treaty for the cession of an immense country, in which they were no more interested than as a branch of the general confederacy, and who were in no manner authorized to make any grant or cession whatever. Brothers: How then was it possible for you to expect to enjoy peace, and quietly hold these lands, when your commissioner was informed long before he held the treaty of Fort Harmar, that the consent of a general council was absolutely necessary to convey any part of these lands to the United States?”

Also, in 1795, at the Treaty of Greenville, Masas, a Chip

1 Lanman's Michigan, p. 149, 151.