pewa chief, who signed the treaty at Fort Harmar, said"Elder Brother: I was surprised when I heard your voice, through a good interpreter, say that we had received presents and compensation for those lands, which were thereby ceded. I tell you now, that we, the Three Fires, never were informed of it. If our uncles, the Wyandots, and grandfathers, the Delawares, have received such presents, they have kept them to themselves. I always thought that we, the Ottawas, Chippewas, and Pottawatamies, were the true owners of those lands, but now I find that new masters have undertaken to dispose of them; so that, at this day, we do not know to whom they of right belong. I don't know how it is, but ever since that treaty, we have become objects of pity, and our fires have been retiring from this country."

In reference to this treaty at Fort Harmar, the truth seems to be, that the confederated nations as a whole did not sanction it, although the Wyandots, and some other tribes, acknowledged its binding force. The relations of the Indians. and the United States, in 1789, appear to have stood thus:Transfers of territory had been made by the Iroquois, the Wyandots, the Delawares, and the Shawanese, which were scarce open to any objection; but the Chippewas, Ottawas, Kickapoos, Weas, Piankeshaws, Pottawatamies, Eel River Indians, Kaskaskias, and above all, the Miamis, were not bound by any existing agreement to yield the lands north of the Ohio. If their tale is true, the confederated tribes had forbidden the treaty of Fort Harmar, and had warned Governor St. Clair that it would not be binding on the confederates. They wished the Ohio to be a perpetual boundary between the white and red men of the West, and would not sell a rod of the region north of it. So strong was this feeling that their young men, they said, could not be restrained from warfare upon the invading Long Knives, and thence resulted the unceasing attacks upon the frontier stations and the emigrants.1

1 Perkins's Annals. American State Papers, vol. v. Stone's Brant, vol. ii.

If the treaty of Fort Harmar had been the sole ground whereon the United States could have claimed of the Indians the Northwest Territory, it may be doubted whether right would have justified the steps taken in 1790, '91, and '94: but before that treaty, the Iroquois, Delawares, Wyandots, and Shawanese had yielded the south of the Ohio, the ground on which they had long dwelt. It was not without reason that Washington expressed a doubt as to the justness of an offensive war upon the tribes of the Wabash and Maumee; he says (speaking of these tribes)-- In the exercise of the present indiscriminate hostilities, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say that a war without further measures would be just on the part of the United States.1

By the third article of the Ordinance of 1787, it is declared that the lands of the Indians shall never be taken from them without their consent." It may perhaps with great truth be said that the Federal government in taking those steps in 1790 and 1791, which resulted in such calamitous consequences, acted unwisely; and that in the outset, it should have done what it did in 1793, after St. Clair's disastrous defeat; that is, have sent commissioners of the highest character to the Lake tribes, and in the presence of their friends, the British, learned their causes of complaint, and offered fair terms of compromise. Such a step, government, by its subsequent action, acknowledged to be wise and just.2

The agency of the British in keeping up Indian hostility after the peace of 1783, has been thus summed up :-Most of the tribes adhered to England during the Revolutionary struggle. When the war ceased, however, England made no provision for them, and transferred the Northwest to the United States without any stipulation as to the rights of the natives... The United States, regarding the lands of the hostile tribes as conquered and forfeited, proceeded to give peace to the savages, and to grant them portions of their own land. This produced discontent, and led to the formation of the confederacy headed

1 American State Papers, vol. v. 97.

2 Perkins, 328.

1

by Brant. To assist the purposes of this union, it was very desirable that the British should still hold the posts along the Lakes, and supply the red men with all needful things. The forts they claimed a right to hold, because the Americans disregarded the treaty of 1783; the trade with the Indians, even though the latter might be at war with the United States, they regarded as perfectly fair and just. Having thus a sort of legal right to the position they occupied, the British did, undoubtedly and purposely, aid and abet the Indians hostile to the United States.2 In 1785, Brant went to England to solicit aid for his confederacy; he stated the forgetfulness of England of her old allies, the Indians; the encroachments of the Americans; the probable consequences, war; and asked support and countenance, such as true and old friends expect. He received a non-committal answer from the British minister, and returned home; he met the confederated natives in November, 1786, and told them he could give them no distinct. assurances of aid from England; but the Indian Superintendent, John Johnson, and the commandant at Detroit, Major Matthews, in their correspondence with Brant, gave him every flattering assurance of countenance and protection in his hostile movements, which might fall short of actual aid by arms.3 In May, 1787, Major Matthews writes to Brant, apparently with the sanction of the Governor of Canada, (Lord Dorchester, formerly Sir Guy Carleton,) as he says, "his lordship is sorry to learn," &c., as follows:

3

"In your letter to me you seem very apprehensive that the English are not very anxious about the defence of the posts. You will soon be satisfied that they have nothing more at heart, provided that it continues to be the wish of the Indians, and that they remain firm in doing their part of the business, by preventing the Americans from coming into their country, and consequently from marching to the posts. On the other hand, if the Indians think it more for their interest that the Americans should have possession of the posts, and

1 Heckewelder's Narrative. 2 Perkins, 332.

3 Stone, vol. ii.

be established in their country, they ought to declare it, that the English need no longer be put to the vast and unnecessary expense and inconvenience of keeping posts, the chief object of which is to protect their Indian allies, and the loyalists who have suffered with them. It is well known that no encroachments ever have, or ever will be made, by the English upon the lands or property of the Indians, in consequence of possessing the posts; how far that will be the case, if ever the Americans get into them, may very easily be imagined, from their hostile perseverance, even without that advantage, in driving the Indians off their lands, and taking possession of them.”1

With such assurances on the part of British authority, together with the ever active influence of such wretches as Alexander McKee, Matthew Elliot, and Simon Girty, who were living disgraces on civilized society, in their transactions. between the whites and the Indians, it is not a matter of surprise that the hostility of the confederated nations against the Americans should have been kept ever alive. Of the history of the lives and conduct of these Indian traders, English agents, and leaders of murderous war-parties of savages, (for they, each, combined these characters,) this is not the place to speak; but the whole history of the border warfare of the Northwest, is replete with the instances of their perfidy and cruelty, which in the scale of humanity, sunk them beneath the savage whose cause they had espoused.

In the spring of 1790, General Washington being desirous of learning the real sentiments of the Northwestern Indians, Governor St. Clair instructed Major Hamtramck at Fort Knox (Vincennes) to send some experienced person to ascertain the views and feelings of the Miamis and their confederates. The person chosen was Anthony Gamelin, who proceeded on his mission on the 5th of April. The Piankeshaws, Kickapoos, and Weas, all referred him to their elder brethren, the Miamis, so that he had to journey on to the point where the

1 Stone's Brant, ii. 271.

Miamis, Shawanees and Delawares resided. He arrived there on the 23d of April, and on the 24th he assembled the Indians, with whom he held various conferences in public council, and in private interviews, during five or six days, the result of which may thus be summed up.

He gave to each nation two branches of wampum, and made his speech to them, in the presence of the French and English traders, who were invited to attend. He showed them the treaty at Muskingum (Fort Harmar) made between Governor St. Clair and sundry nations, which displeased them. He offered them peace, without proposing any conditions for them to submit to at this time. They told him they could give him. no answer without hearing from their father at Detroit; the Shawanees and Delawares delivered him back his branches. of wampum, and desired him to go to Detroit to hear the chief. Le Gris, the great chief of the Miamis, told him he might go back when he pleased; that he could not give him a positive answer until all the Lake nations, together with the commandant at Detroit, had been consulted on the subject of his speeches, of which he asked a copy in writing. He promised to send an answer to Vincennes in thirty days. Gamelin gave him a copy of his speech.

At the last council, Gamelin told him he had nothing to say to the commandant at Detroit, nor the commandant to him; that he had given them a copy of his speeches to be shown to him, and that he would not go to Detroit, unless they intended to take him there. Blue Jacket told him, that they did not intend to force him to go there, but only proposed it to him, thinking it for the best. An answer was promised in thirty days.1

On the 8th of May, Gamelin returned to Fort Knox; and on the 11th, news arrived that the northern savages had already gone to war upon the Americans, and that three days. after Gamelin left the Miamis, an American captive had been burned in their village. All these matters plainly foretelling.

2

1 Perkins, 329. Am. State Papers, v. 93.

* Idem. 87.