Johnson revisited: An extension of the Guide to American Indian Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899

Charles D. Bernholz, Love Memorial Library, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588[*]

John F. Wiese, Love Memorial Library, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588[**]

Abstract

In his Guide to American Indian Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899, Steven L. Johnson enumerated twenty-seven document collections in the American State Papers: Indian Affairs that were not also published, in whole or in part, in the U.S. Congressional Serial Set between the joint publishing years of 1817 and 1827. An additional nine instrument arrays were not counted in his tally of materials available in both of these references, or that appeared only in the American State Papers. This study examines Serial Set volumes in these and in subsequent years through 1994.

“A superficial examination of these sample volumes will suffice to satisfy the intelligent observer of the importance of the work to the public service, and to the history of the country. Documents of the highest interest will be found in it, which were either before unknown to the present generation, or forgotten by it, though yet of modern antiquity.”
Gales & Seaton, 1831 (American State Papers, 1832, p. x)

Steven L. Johnson, in 1977, published his Guide to American Indian Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899. In the Foreword, Raymond J. DeMallie stated that “[i]t is of the greatest importance that the user understand that this Guide is intended as an aid to research in helping to locate potential sources of data” (p. vii). Tate (1978, p. 288) remarked upon the utility of this compilation by calling it “the best single guide to nineteenth century Indian materials within the Serial Set,” while Prucha’s review of the publication (1978, p. 59) observed that “[a] bibliographical volume of this sort represents an immense amount of painstaking work that is not very rewarding in itself. The reward comes in knowledge of service performed for innumerable researchers for years to come who will profit by the increased access this Guide gives them to Indian documents of the federal government.” Nevertheless, only the briefest of published comments reiterated Johnson’s analyses (Ross, 1994, p. 212).

The U.S. Congressional Serial Set is the repository for the history of the United States and it contains those documents that track the fundamental course of the country. In particular, DeMallie emphasized in his Foreword that “[i]t is also important that the nature of the documents printed in the Serial Set be well understood. With regard to Indians, the documents deal primarily with Indian relations with the United States Government. Most deal with ‘Indian affairs’ rather than with descriptions of Indians or Indian life. The primary relations of Indians to the federal government were legal and fiscal; the documents therefore relate mostly to the Indians’ legal rights and to the cost to the government of Indian administration” (Johnson, 1977, p. viii). One supplement to the Serial Set was the American State Papers (Checklist of United States Public Documents, 1911, pp. 3-4; Imholtz, 2008). These thirty-eight volumes covered the period of 1789 through 1838 and were published intermittently between 1832 and 1861. Taken together, one may attempt to piece together the nation’s early period. The use of the American State Papers is especially useful for the period before the inception in 1817 of the Serial Set, and during the joint decades of publication of these two important resources (Imholtz, 2003).[1]

The initial volume of the American State Papers, addressing the subject of Foreign Relations, contained an Introductory Notice that included the text of the 1831 enabling act and a listing of the proposed arrangement of the information within each of its ten designated classes: “I. Foreign relations; II. Indian affairs; III. Finances; IV. Commerce and navigation; V. Military affairs; VI. Naval affairs; VII. Post office department; VIII. Public lands; IX. Claims; X. Miscellaneous” (1832, p. viii).[2] The precise classification had been defined in a House Document that detailed the Republication of congressional documents (1832). At that time, it was also decided that the contents of each class were to be chronologically arranged. In the Introductory Notice, Walter Lowrie, the Secretary of the Senate, and Matthew St. Clair Parke, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, reflected on one of the benefits of the American State Papers ensemble: “[i]n this compilation the future historian may find a body of authentic materials ready prepared for his hand” (1832, p. xi). Thus, with regard to the subject matter buried within these collections, the realm of Indian Affairs was so significant that two volumes of the American State Papers were allocated to it.[3] The Secretary and the Clerk further remarked that “[t]he class of Indian Affairs… presents our entire Indian relations, unmixed with other matter” (p. ix; emphasis added). The two volumes for Indian Affairs were thus developed to hold: “1st. All documents accompanying Indian treaties. 2d. Indian massacres and depredations. 3d. Indian wars. 4th. Efforts made for their benefit in civilization, agriculture, and the mechanical arts” (Republication of congressional documents, 1832, p. 3).

Johnson’s Guide

The American State Papers were created after the Serial Set format had been implemented, and so substantial Indian Affairs materials appear in that section of the American State Papers (henceforth, ASPIA) that had first appeared in the Serial Set. The two Indian Affairs volumes covered the periods 3 March 1789 to 3 March 1815, and 4 December 1815 through 3 March 1827, respectively. For his study, Johnson defined the interval of interest from the onset of the 15th Congress on 1 December 1817 to the end of the 19th Congress on 3 March 1827, i.e., the timeframe during which there was an overlap of publication of both the American State Papers and the Serial Set. With reference to the corresponding Serial Set, he stated that his own publication “concerns itself only with documents and reports which have been published in the Congressional Serial Set. More specifically, it is confined to those documents and reports which were ordered to be printed by the 15th through the 55th Congress, or during the period 1 December 1817 to 3 March 1899” (1977, pp. xi-xii). In Appendix II of his consideration (1977, pp. 444-445), Johnson paired documents from the second published Indian Affairs volume with the same items in the Serial Set.

This study first reexamined only the briefer period, during the years of simultaneous publication of the Serial Set and Johnson’s specific ASPIA document sets that were discussed in his Appendix II lists. While Johnson only wanted to link those materials replicated across both formats in that portion of his publication, this analysis also extended this search into later years — through the 103rd Congress, 2nd session in 1994 – within the Serial Set. It retraced his path through the early years of the Serial Set so that a continuous inspection for ASPIA links was made for the years between 1817 and 1994.

The format for the American State Papers consisted of one or more correlated documents placed in numbered item bins or files. Inspection of the first such assembly in volume 2 of Indian Affairs — folder No. 140, Treaties with twenty-one tribes (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 1-25) — reveals over a dozen treaty texts and administrative correspondence covering twenty-six pages. The following packet is just one-quarter page long and is devoted to a single note to the Senate by President James Madison. In all, 253 document groups formed a corpus covering more than 1,700 pages of text. A rich family of correspondence between the Presidents and the Senate; of tables of expenditures; of transcripts of negotiations with the tribes; and of the ultimate goal of all these exercises — treaty documents — fills these files. They illuminate the path of nationhood, regardless of later criticisms or hindsight adjudications, through federal interactions with the tribes.

As part of his inquiry, Johnson identified twenty-seven files of American State Papers documents that were not published in the Serial Set. Twenty-one of these sets were listed in the Indian Affairs Table of Contents under the heading of “Communications from the President of the United States;” three were noted as “Reports of Committees;” and one item came from each of the “Communications from the Secretary of War,” “Communications from the Superintendent of Indian Affairs,” and “Miscellaneous” groups. It is important to note that volume 2 explicitly assembled ASPIA bin numbers 140 through 253 across the years 1815 and 1827. However, by comparing Johnson’s Appendix II enumeration entitled “Congressional documents printed in both American State Papers: Indian Affairs and in the U.S. Serial Set” and those twenty-seven “Congressional documents printed in American State Papers: Indian Affairs but not printed in the U.S. Serial Set” (pp. 444-445; bold emphasis added), it is clear that there was a residual group of eighteen instrument collections that was not within either list: i.e., that ASPIA numbers 140 through 148, 172, 174, 201, 202, 214, and 250 through 253 were not marked as elements in these arrays. Given that Johnson’s particular time interval reference was between 1 December 1817 and 3 March 1827, the first half of these dozen and a half outstanding documents — for numbers 140 through 148 — was fashioned prior to this selected period and would thus not find a place in either section of his Appendix II. The remaining nine items thereby went unaccounted. In total then, Johnson initially considered one hundred five ASPIA baskets marked as No. 149 through 253.

Table I (Download Excel File) includes the identities of all the thirty-six relevant cases:

  • Johnson’s suspected twenty-four missing ASPIA items (No. 149, 152, 155, 160, 161, 171, 175, 176, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 210, 216, 219, 222, 224, 226, 227, 228, 235, 236, and 243) that were considered in this renewed examination of the Serial Set;
  • the bolded nine unaccounted packages (No. 172, 174, 201, 202, 214, 250, 251, 252, and 253) that he failed to tally in his Appendix lists as either included in, or excluded from, the Serial Set; and
  • the three residual documents with italicized bin number, title, and ASPIA page numbers that neither Johnson nor this study located in the Serial Set (No. 150, 181, and 200).

Reviewing these ASPIA volumes requires care, because they are composed of documents from earlier Congresses. Volume I, although unused by Johnson, exhibited “Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Third Session of the Thirteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 3, 1789, and Ending March 3, 1815,” according to its subtitle (American State Papers, 1832). The second volume covered “From the First Session of the Fourteenth to the Second Session of the Nineteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing December 4, 1815, and Ending March 3, 1827” (American State Papers, 1834a). While it is clear upon examination that the assembly of these American State Papers’ bins may include within its own sub-collection one or more stand-alone documents, many such ensembles make apparent that substantial segments of their materials were taken from Serial Set documents, even if the order of the items within a selected case may not have followed exactly the instrument order originally published in the Serial Set. Collection No. 198, Treaty with the Florida Indians, would be a prototypic example of ordered extraction. The portions beginning with the Minutes of proceedings of James Gadsden and Bernardo Segui, appointed by the President of the United States to hold a treaty with the Florida Indians (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 431-442) carefully follow the texts of the earlier Serial Set entries identified as Treaty with the Florida Indians (1826, pp. 5-6) and Donations by Indians to government agents (1826, pp. 12-13). The document collection for the Treaty with the Cherokees in 1804 (No. 210; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 506-511) similarly accessed Documents relating to the claim of the State of Georgia for militia services (1824), as did bin No. 222 (Treaty with the Creeks at the Indian Springs, pp. 563-584) through the Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting copies of the report and proceedings of the commissioners appointed to treat with the Creek Nation of Indians for an extinguishment of their claim to land lying within the State of Georgia, &c. (1825, p. 10); the Report and resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia with accompanying documents (1827, pp. 71-75); the Report of the select committee of the House of Representatives, to which were referred the messages of the President U.S. of the 5th and 8th February, and 2d March, 1827, with accompanying documents and a similar Report and resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia (1827, p. 785); and the Treaty with Creek Indians, &c. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a copy of a treaty with the Creek Nation of Indians. Concluded 24th January last. Also, a copy of a treaty, superseded by the same, signed at the Indian Springs on the 12th of January [i.e., February], 1825, &c. (1826, pp. 10-13). To supplement the discussion of the Treaties with several tribes (No. 226; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 595-609), the description of the travels while on these treaty excursions of two federal Commissioners, Brigadier General Henry Atkinson and Major Benjamin O’Fallon, was taken from the resource entitled Expedition up the Missouri. Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting the information required by a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st inst. respecting the movements of the expedition which lately ascended the Missouri River, &c. (1826). Their document described the tribes with whom they had made contact.[4]

As alternative applications, the 18 September 1818 removal proposal letter from Lewis Cass and Duncan McArthur to John C. Calhoun, the Secretary of War (No. 155, Treaties with several tribes; American State Papers, 1834a, p. 177) surfaced seven decades later in the Serial Set as part of the Annual report of the American Historical Association for the year 1906 (1908, p. 289), but only as a footnote in Annie Heloise Abel’s The history of events resulting in Indian consolidation west of the Mississippi.[5] The President also made frequent use of his office to announce the culmination of negotiations. ASPIA No. 216 and 219 — for the Treaty with the Quapaw Tribe and the Treaty with the Choctaws, respectively (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 529-531 and 547-558) — advised Congress of these exact outcomes through a Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of treaties between the United States and the Quapaw and Choctaw Nations of Indians (1825).[6] As will be seen, there are just three of Johnson’s twenty-seven original absent cases that never had at least one of its content documents printed in the Serial Set, at a time either before or after the second volume of ASPIA was published in 1834. Further, differences in document order within an American State Papers packet, relative to the observable published order in the Serial Set, conveyed a glimpse into editorial decisions and machinations during the creation of the ASPIA tomes.

Note as well that the texts of official Indian treaties were present in both volumes of these American State Papers. Indeed, the Papers’ very first document array — No 1, The Six Nations, the Wyandots, and others (American State Papers, 1832, pp. 5-12) — contained the Treaty with the Six Nations, 1789; the Treaty with the Wyandot, etc., 1789; and the Treaty with the Shawnee, 1786 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 18-19, 13-18, and 12-13; 1904b, pp. 23-25, 18-23, and 16-18, respectively) that were brought together in the Kappler resource and published within the Serial Set just beyond the range of years investigated by Johnson. The present study should be viewed as a supplement to Johnson’s work, with one intent to extend his search deeper into the Serial Set. Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties was designed to furnish easier Congressional access to the mass of known treaty texts and thus came to reside in the Serial Set along with other important legislative documents and reports. In a single stroke, the convergence at the very beginning of the twentieth century of Kappler’s amassed transaction texts and the Serial Set series provided a path to locate twenty of Johnson’s twenty-seven document groups that were alleged to be unrepresented within the earlier Serial Set, and to detect two of the nine unaccounted ASPIA cases that he had not enumerated.

Searching strategy

The two volumes of the American State Papers: Indian Affairs contain a treasure trove of early documents. The first Finding List volume for the CIS US Serial Set Index (1975a, pp. 2186-2189) reveals that there were 253 ASPIA sets of related materials in these two tomes. In addition, this List shows that, at most, 161 Serial Set volumes were published during the time period of the production overlap of the Serial Set and the American State Papers, i.e., during the 15th through the 19th Congress (pp. 2277-2318).[7] This latter point exhibits the logistical difficulty that Johnson addressed when he created his Guide. It is in part the source of the twenty-seven “Congressional documents printed in the American State Papers: Indian Affairs but not printed in the U.S. Serial Set” that Johnson denoted in his Appendix II (1977, pp. 445-446). This investigation therefore reexamined these twenty-seven items, as a means in part to reach beyond the terminal year of 1899 that Johnson had employed when examining the Serial Set. This retracing was especially relevant for issues concerning the fundamental documents of Indian Affairs, because Charles J. Kappler published in 1903 and 1904, at the request of Congress subsequent to Johnson’s terminal date, his treaty volumes which were devoted to the texts of almost all of the 375 recognized instruments with the tribes.[8]

Each search was made in the Readex U.S. Congressional Serial Set database by submitting a quoted string of pertinent American State Papers text The full interval covered by the Readex product runs from 1817 to 1994, adding almost an additional century of Serial Set materials to afford a more complete reappraisal of those selected ASPIA elements within 14,277 Serial Set volumes. The Finding List from the CIS US Serial Set Index (1975b, pp. 785-803) indicates that the last Serial Set volume for Johnson’s terminal 55th Congress was numbered 3841, so more than 10,000 subsequent volumes were searched to augment Johnson’s original survey.

Results and discussion

The use of the Readex digital Serial Set collection offered several advantages. First, the prospect of reconsidering “10,649 documents on Indian affairs which are located in the Serial Set volumes from 1817 through 1899” (Johnson, 1977, p. xv) was fraught with potential liabilities. The opportunity to search these digital Serial Set materials systematically and quickly was an underlying incentive for this research. Second, the chance to extend the scrutinized year range by nearly an entire century was bolstered by the ability to query the Kappler volumes (1903b and 1904b) that were specifically developed to address this very issue of treaty text accessibility in one location. Third, a search was deemed successful whenever one or more elements of an American State Papers document bin was returned by a probe within the Serial Set. In many cases, some of these discovered materials were assembled years after the publication of the initial American State Papers documents in 1834. Therefore, recovery of any of an ASPIA file’s components was accepted as the appropriate threshold.

Under these rules, and in single document cases such as for ASPIA No. 193 or 236 (Extinguishment of Indian title to lands in favor of certain states, and Supplemental article to the treaty with the Creeks; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 397-398 and 662-663), the task was clear-cut. Here, the memo to the House of Representatives in the former (No. 193) was not found in the Serial Set, while the supplemental article (No. 236) of the 1826 treaty with the Creek was, and in four places. However, for multi-part collections like the fifteen page No. 226 exemplar (Treaties with several tribes; pp. 595-609), the absence of a corresponding Serial Set entry for President John Quincy Adams’ Senate ratification request letter should not eliminate this entire array of documents from admittance into the accepted ASPIA-Serial Set pairs list. Clearly, in this situation as well as in others from Johnson’s study, it seemed reasonable to believe that if he had found in the Serial Set one or more of the treaty texts cited in the No. 226 group, Johnson would have placed this ensemble in his grouping “Congressional Documents Printed in Both American State Papers: Indian Affairs and in the U.S. Serial Set” (Johnson, 1977, pp. 444-445). However, the designated threshold of success – through the appearance in the Serial Set of a single ASPIA item from a Johnson folder – carries some penalty. Large segments of some ASPIA text sets were absent from the Serial Set: the five treaty texts on the first nine pages of ASPIA No.149 (Treaties with several tribes; pp. 127-148) were followed by thirteen pages of War Department traffic of which none can be found anywhere within the Serial Set.[9] A similar scenario occurred for No. 160, Treaty with the Cherokees (pp. 187-194), where over half of the ASPIA folders was devoted to War Department correspondence, and the balance to the Treaty with the Cherokee, 1819 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 124-127; 1904b, pp. 177-181). Simultaneously, the mass of ASPIA materials available in the subsequently published A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (1896 and 1899) shows no individual linkages whatsoever to the appropriate underlying companion documents in each ASPIA bin.[10] Thus, it may very well be easy to find in the Serial Set some fragmentary representation of the correspondence and actions denoted in the ASPIA, but the observable relationship between these documents may be lost and/or weak.

Search summary

Even with these provisos and concerns, this digital approach afforded a successful way to interrogate the Serial Set for germane ASPIA passages. Of the twenty-seven ASPIA units that Johnson declared as omitted from the Serial Set, just three were not found in this renewed hunt through these materials. As indicated above, Table I (Download Excel File) offers the characteristics of all the thirty-six pertinent cases: the bolded nine unaccounted items; Johnson’s alleged twenty-four missing sets; and the three residual document cases with italicized bin number, title, and ASPIA page numbers that were not located in the Serial Set. These fundamental data have been supplement by three other indicators: first, whether relevant materials for an ASPIA bin were found in the Serial Set by this study that would thereby eliminate that file from Johnson’s Appendix II list of constituents resident only in the American State Papers; second, whether any item from a specific ASPIA bin was present in the Serial Set beyond the 1827 cutoff date that Johnson employed for these ASPIA- Serial Set comparisons; and third, whether a treaty text (if present) from a single ASPIA folder could be found in the first or second edition of Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties second volumes in the Serial Set. Check marks signal the affirmative under each heading: one or more items from a certain designated ASPIA bin was found in a Serial Set document between the years 1817 and 1827 and/or in years beyond 1827 and/or within Kappler’s collation of treaty instruments. Outcomes varied: bin No. 210, Treaty with the Cherokees in 1804 (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 506-511) qualified under all three conditions; folder No. 175, Claims of the citizens of Georgia against the Creek (pp. 254-257) only had follow-up items published in the Serial Set after 1827 and in Kappler’s 1903 and 1904 collections; and No. 171, Treaties with several tribes (pp. 223-244), only appeared in the two Kappler volumes.

As one way to show the relevance of the now found supporting Serial Set documents, the Reference list was designed to include the identity of the two arrays of targeted ASPIA items. These corresponding American State Papers numbers are attached to the bibliographic record for each applicable Reference member. In a manner similar to Table I (Download Excel File), these ASPIA numbers are displayed in plain text to mark twenty-four of Johnson’s twenty-seven alleged missing documents that have now been recovered; in italics for the three document folders that remain absent; and in bold for the nine unaccounted ASPIA files. As one pair of such exemplars derived from the Serial Set, volume II of the cited A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (1896) provided the scripts of eleven introductory letters to the Senate that were printed much earlier than 1896 in the ASPIA and thought to be unpublished in the Serial Set, while volume X of the same title (1899) did so for two more ASPIA entries; the corresponding ASPIA bin numbers for these are affixed to the Reference citations for these compilations. An additional four of the nine unaccounted items — No. 172, 250, 251, and 252 — were also derived from volume II.[11] Therefore, all seventeen relevant ASPIA numbers are attached to the bibliographic records of these two government documents in the Reference list.

Table II (Download Excel File) translates Table I (Download Excel File) into an outcome matrix of the reexamination of Johnson’s twenty-seven absent and nine unaccounted ASPIA document bins; these two object classes are separated in this presentation. The three outcome arrays denote, first, the three ASPIA folders (No. 150, 181, and 200) whose contents may not be found in the Serial Set between 1817 and 1994. The second column marks those ASPIA files that were absent from the Serial Set between 1817 and 1827. The transition of data from Table I (Download Excel File) to Table II (Download Excel File) for bin No. 149 (Treaties with several tribes; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 127-148) entails converting the blank value under the 'Serial Set 1817-1827' heading of Table I (Download Excel File) into a check mark for No. 149 below the caption “Absent from SS during 1817-1827” in Table II (Download Excel File). Such an indication means that this study has confirmed Johnson’s declaration that ASPIA item No. 149 could not be found in the Serial Set within his criterion search period of 1817 to 1827. The third column in Table II (Download Excel File) illuminates those ASPIA units that Johnson cited as absent from the Serial Set, but was found by this analysis. As an exemplar, the two text passages (but not the financial statement table) of No. 197, Expenditures of the Indian Department (pp. 428-429) appeared in Documents accompanying the message of the President of the United States, to both Houses, at the commencement of the first session of the Eighteenth Congress (1823, pp. 55-56), and in the Message from the President of the United States, to both Houses of Congress, at the commencement of the first session of the Eighteenth Congress (1823, pp. 55-56). The counts at the bottom of the three columns indicate the number of ASPIA bins under each condition: three unavailable; fourteen correctly identified absent folders; and nineteen assumed missing units that were, indeed, in the Serial Set.

The consideration of special cases

The recovery, in whole or in part, of Johnson’s absent ASPIA entries simultaneously exposed important aspects of their composition. The following paragraphs itemize distinct circumstances within these materials and are meant to exhibit more clearly the magnitude and the scope of these special federal communications.

  • Special case I

    Raymond J. DeMallie’s description concerning the Indian Affairs instruments within the Serial Set — “[t]he primary relations of Indians to the federal government were legal and fiscal; the documents therefore relate mostly to the Indians’ legal rights and to the cost to the government of Indian administration” (Johnson, 1977, p. viii) — was very much reflected in the treaties created between these sovereigns. A major aid to unveiling Johnson’s ASPIA items, and one of the critical events for the federal government’s administration of Indian Affairs beyond the nineteenth century, was the development of the Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties suite by Charles J. Kappler (1903a and b, 1904a and b, 1913, 1929, and 1941); second editions were developed for the first two volumes. This series — later declared as “a five-volume reference work accepted as authoritative by the highest courts” (Charles Kappler Dies; Expert and Writer on Indian Affairs, 1946) — was authorized by Congress in response to the demands from the Department of the Interior for a conscientious compilation of the texts of all recognized Indian treaties (see Bernholz and Weiner, 2008a and c). Many of the ASPIA bins contained such texts, but by limiting his Serial Set search to the early part of the nineteenth century, Johnson was unable to include references to these specific, though critical, transactions. In the reassessment of Johnson’s study, twenty of his initial twenty-four missing folders consisted of the text of one or more treaties subsequently published in Kappler’s treaty tomes: only No. 192, 193, 197, and 235 did not contain negotiated items that could be located in the latter’s publication.[12] Those ASPIA files (plus the two unaccounted ones, No. 174 and 214) that possess one or more Indian treaty texts are marked in the “Kappler–1903/1904” column of Table I (Download Excel File).

    It is important to an understanding of United States Indian Affairs that there were non-federal treaty activities as well. The State of Georgia took part in treaty formation and No. 175, Claims of the citizens of Georgia against the Creeks, contained two 1821 agreements with the Creek (American State Papers, 1834a, p. 256) that were components in three Serial Set documents other than in Kappler’s collation: Citizens of Georgia — claims on Creek Indians (1828, pp. 1-2), In Senate of the United States (1848, p. 11), and Creek Nation of Indians (1848, pp. 17-18). The resulting brief Treaty with the Creeks, 1821 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 137-138; 1904b, pp. 197-198) was accompanied by a “Discharge for all claims on the Creeks” (p. 138 and p. 198), just as it was in the Statutes at Large (7 Stat. 217), but this piece of diplomacy went unnamed as such in the American State Papers, even though it immediately followed the treaty passage. This loss of information is another example of editorial judgment at work during the production of the ASPIA volumes, simultaneous with the earlier noted issue of document order within the bins.

    It is also essential to understand that the Readex product contains other paths through the Serial Set to these treaty texts. To begin with, the use of its “Topic Link” for the term Indian treaties returns almost 2,700 items, commencing with the Letter from the Secretary of War, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways & Means, accompanied with an estimate of additional appropriations for the year 1818, and a bill supplementary to the several acts making appropriations for the year one thousand eight hundred and eighteen (1818) that requested funding for acknowledged and forthcoming treaties with the Cherokee, Creek, Illinois, Kickapoo, Potawatomi, Wyandot, Seneca, Delaware, Quapaw, Miami, and Chickasaw. The final entry in that “Topic Link” list was the 1994 Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act, written in part “to reaffirm and clarify the federal relationships of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes” (1994, p. 1). The sheer number of these applicable documents is one index of the enormous significance of Indian Affairs in the history of the United States. For example, searching the Serial Set for a relevant text string from the treaty with the Menomonie found in the missing ASPIA No. 149 – i.e., for the phrase same footing upon which they stood before the late war — returned three federal documents besides the 1903 and 1904 Kappler references to this transaction. Hoffman’s robust paper on the tribe, part of the Fourteenth annual report of the Bureau of Ethnology (1896; the phrase is on pp. 20-21), was one of these three returned items, while the other two contained these ten words but not the complete text of this accord with the Menomonie.

  • Special case II

    Extra focus on treaty texts was augmented by three supplemental articles that were considered, but never ratified, by Congress.[13] In No. 149, Treaties with several tribes (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 127-148), two articles were denoted for possible inclusion in the very long 1817 document negotiated with the Wyandot, Seneca, Delaware, Shawnee, Pottawatomi, Ottawa, and Chippewa (the Treaty with the Wyandot, etc., 1817; Kappler, 1903b, pp. 100-108; 1904b, pp. 145-155). The first of this pair requested three sections of reserved land for a Dr. William Brown, as a gift for decades of services rendered to the Ottawa. The second article was understood as a retribution payment of one section of land to the two children of Stephen Johnson, who had been murdered five years earlier by the Pottawatomi. These petitions were never ratified and do not appear in the Serial Set nor in the Statutes at Large. The text of the third supplemental article was presented in No. 161, Treaties with the Kickapoos and Chippewas (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 194-200), and proposed to attach an analogous but yet unresolved wish to compensate Dr. Brown. This recommended addition to the Treaty with the Chippewa, 1819 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 129-131; 1904b, pp. 185-187) described how similar efforts had been made for Dr. Brown “at the treaty of Detroit, in the year 1807; at the treaty concluded at the foot of the Rapids of the Miami, in the year 1817; and at the treaty of St. Mary’s, in the year 1818” (American State Papers, 1834a, p. 195).[14] This wish to remunerate Dr. Brown was eventually concluded to some degree in the Treaty with the Chippewa, etc., 1833 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 296-307; 1904b, pp. 402-410), where he received $40 as part of the Schedule B payments totaling $150,000 declared in that treaty’s Article 3 “to satisfy claims made against the said United Nation which they have here admitted to be justly due” (p. 297 and 403, respectively).[15] This supplemental article to grant land to Dr. Brown and to conduct other distributions, though, only appears in the American State Papers. No. 161 also contains an explanatory letter by Lewis Cass to Secretary John C. Calhoun regarding the 1819 treaty with the Chippewa that was published later in the Annual report of the American Historical Association for the year 1906 (1908, p. 294).

  • Special case III

    Vine Deloria and Raymond J. DeMallie (1999) compiled a considerable assemblage of obscure treaty texts that were never acknowledged or recognized by the federal government, but that the authors considered as legitimate outcomes of negotiations between these sovereigns (see Bernholz, 2005). Several of these instruments were taken directly from the versions published in the American State Papers. Johnson’s ASPIA suite included two such document sets – one from the missing series and one from the unaccounted one — which referenced these particular materials.[16] In the first example (No. 155, Treaties with several tribes; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 164-180), an enclosed document illuminated an event concluded on 6 October 1818 by the Cherokee, Shawnee, Delaware, and Osage (p. 172) that was considered to reduce lingering animosities among these entities (see the Treaty between the Osage and the Cherokee, Shawnee, and Delaware; Deloria and DeMallie, 1999, vol. 1, p. 686). Similarly, in one of the unaccounted bins (No. 252, Sale of certain lands in New York by the Senecas; pp. 866-868), an agreement from August 1826 was reported in which lands from the Seneca in western New York were transferred to a group of land developers, under the auspices of an attending federal government commissioner (denoted as the Agreement between the Seneca and Troup, Ogden, and Rogers; Deloria and DeMallie, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 213-217).[17] This latter contract was published in an important New York legislative report (Report of special committee to investigate the Indian problem of the state of New York, 1889, pp. 144-150), and the transaction was apparently conducted in the Erie County Clerk’s Office (p. 144); Deloria and DeMallie replicated the Erie County version. Note, however, that the ASPIA and the Report texts differ as early as their corresponding first paragraphs, wherein the payment to the Seneca was declared as $48,216 in the ASPIA, but as $48,260 by both the Report and Deloria and DeMallie. Nevertheless, it is significant that such descriptions of tribal relations were eventually distributed beyond the ASPIA, the Serial Set, and in this case, a state County Clerk’s office. Deloria and DeMallie — the latter was the Project Director at the Institute for the Development of Indian Law and Johnson’s advisor during the preparation of his Guide — reestablished, through their publication of such negotiations, the relentless enduring question of the validity of other unrecognized pacts formed between the tribes and the federal government. The Report of special committee to investigate the Indian problem of the state of New York is just one perspective of the difficulties that were compounded at the state level, particularly in the northeastern United States where a number of dubious and unconscionable deliberations took place between various vested parties at the onset of the United States.

  • Special case IV

    The three residual ASPIA files — No. 150, 181, and 200 — were quite different from each other. ASPIA No. 150 (Amendments proposed to the treaty with the Wyandots, Senecas, Delawares, Shawanees, Pattawatamies, Ottowas, and Chippewas; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 148-150) was devoted to adjustments to an 1817 treaty with these entities that had been illuminated in item No. 149; the documents’ respective “Communicated to the Senate” dates were separated by just eighteen days. The preliminary document under consideration was the Treaty with the Wyandot, etc., 1817 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 100-108; 1904b, pp. 145-155) and the modifications proposed in No. 150 were shaped to alleviate anxiety on the part of the Wyandot and Seneca that lands reserved for them were inadequate. Absent a few allocations to individual Seneca chiefs, the land was confined to a 144 square mile tract to the Wyandot, with the Seneca understood to be “co-partners” in its control (American State Papers, 1834a, p. 149). A concomitant accounting of the transfer of lands (pp. 149-150) contended that the Wyandot had initially conveyed 3,360,000 acres to the federal government, but that these newer plans recommended the re-granting of the original reserved tract (92,160 acres) along with a square mile containing a cranberry swamp (640 acres), an additional 5,640 acres to Wyandot tribe members in severalty, and a further 30,000 acres assigned to the Seneca. These projected 128,440 acres, or less than 4% of the original tribal holdings, were under consideration in the supplementary Treaty with the Wyandot, etc., 1818 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 113-114; 1904b, pp. 162-163).[18] While these proposals were not found in the Serial Set, they were offered in amended form in the Journal of the executive proceedings of the Senate of the United States (1828, p. 113). This Journal observed on 15 January 1818 that the Senate ratified the 1817 treaty with the considerations discussed in the ASPIA document.

    Document No. 181 was a petition considering the Civilization of the Indians (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 274-275) and was presented before the House on 28 January 1822 as a plea to eliminate the destruction caused through Indian wars. It was observed that “[u]nder the auspices of Heaven, and patronized by Government, societies have been organized in various parts of the United States, to send the Gospel, together with the arts of civilized life, to the impoverished children of the forest” (American State Papers, 1834a, p. 274). Although the text of this request cannot be found in later federal documents, it was representative of the general interest in Indian welfare that had developed at the beginning of the nineteenth century and that was addressed through Congressional legislation. An act making provision for the civilization of the Indian tribes adjoining the frontier settlements (1819) — later called the Civilization Fund Act — was constructed to “employ capable persons of good moral character, to instruct them in the mode of agriculture suited to their situation; and for teaching their children in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and performing such other duties as may be enjoined according to such instructions and rules as the President may give and prescribe for the regulation of their conduct, in the discharge of their duties” (3 Stat. 516). In part, the later formation and the assigned role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (4 Stat. 735) encompassed these educational responsibilities: “And wherever farmers, mechanics, or teachers are required by treaty stipulations to be provided, they shall be employed under the direction of the War Department” (p. 737). In the same vein, Johnson’s unaccounted document No. 201 – Application of the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions for pecuniary aid in civilizing the Indians (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 446-448) — was a similar declaration before the House, although this 1824 text was included in the Serial Set as Memorial of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (1824). This early Protestant action group had worldwide exposure, but also contributed substantially to missionary work among aboriginal groups of North America (Phillips, 1968, pp. 57-87).

    The disbursement table in Johnson’s missing ASPIA No. 200 (Disbursements in the Indian department; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 443-445) was a common administrative report component, employed repeatedly and to such an extent that the February 1824 introductory message by Secretary John C. Calhoun of the Department of War to the Senate was virtually replicated the following year and sent again to Congress in a later version of the same annual announcement (see No. 221, Disbursements by Indian agents, pp. 559-562). The transmission of this request was acknowledged in the Senate Journal for 23 February 1824: “The President communicated a report from the Secretary of War, with a report of the Second Auditor, relative to the accounts for disbursements in the Indian Department, for the year ending 30th September, 1823; which was read: and, On motion, by Mr. Johnson, of Louisiana, Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, to consider and report thereon” (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the first session of the Eighteenth Congress, 1824, p. 185).

  • Special case V

    Two useful compilations of presidential messages and papers were representative of the ASPIA documents that were made available much later in the nineteenth century: A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897. Published by authority of Congress by James D. Richardson, a representative from the State of Tennessee. Volume II (1896), and A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897. Published by authority of Congress by James D. Richardson, a representative from the State of Tennessee. Volume X (1899). In the Serial Set bibliography attached below, marked with the relevant documents to address Johnson’s missing ASPIA folders, only the Annual report of the American Historical Association for the year 1906 (1908) and the two Kappler treaty volumes (1903b and 1904b) were actually published after the cutoff year for his Serial Set volume. Searching a digital version of the Set now makes a more general interrogation far easier. Indeed, this capability permitted a process by which each text item within an individual selected missing or unaccounted ASPIA file — i.e., any word segment separated from the next by a typographer’s rule (Simpson and Weiner, 1989, p. 230, rule 22) — was examined in this inquiry.

  • Special case VI

    The use of Senate Journals within the Serial Set was established in the recovery of the last few of Johnson’s ASPIA items. Communications with the Senate for a series of transactions with the Creeks (i.e., No. 228, Treaty with the Creeks; No. 235, Treaty with the Creeks; and No. 236, Supplemental article to the treaty with the Creeks; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 611-614, 662, and 662-663) were collated in the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the first session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 5, 1825, and in the fiftieth year of the independence of the United States (1826, pp. 447-479, 480, and 481, respectively). Indeed, ASPIA bin No. 235 contained nothing beyond a lone report by Sen. Thomas Hart Benton on treaty activities between the State of Georgia and the tribes. Benton, the father-in-law of John C. Frémont, was the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Among Johnson’s unaccounted sets, the Senate Journal was also employed in securing case No. 252 regarding the Sale of certain lands in New York by the Senecas (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 866-868 and Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the second session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 4, 1826, and in the fifty-first year of the independence of the said United States, 1827, p. 325). The House Journal was similarly consulted for No. 250, Intrusions on the Creek lands by the State of Georgia (pp. 862-865 and Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, being the second session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 4, 1826, and in the fifty-first year of the independence of the United States, 1827, pp. 246-249).

    Benton, again as the Chairman, sent a letter to the Senate regarding the Proposition to hold treaties with the tribes beyond the Mississippi for preserving the fur trade (No. 202; American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 448-457). This letter, and ensuing ones, were published in a document entitled In Senate of the United States (1824) and in a Letter from the Secretary of War, to the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, in relation to Indian agencies, &c. (1824). The latter included a “List of Indian agents now in service under the authority of the acts of Congress” that appeared in ASPIA No. 202. Special attention may be drawn to the inserted reference to the Military Affairs volumes of the American State Papers series that is appended to Calhoun’s memo of 23 February 1824. His letter (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 448-449) mentioned two previous comments on the fur trade, to which the insertion directed readers: “[for the first of which, see Military Affairs, No. 177, and for the latter, see No. 157 of this series].” The latter involved the ASPIA No. 157, Alteration of the system for trading with the Indians (American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 181-185) that Johnson had found in the Serial Set, while the former is document group No. 177, Expedition to the mouth of the Yellow Stone River, in the second volume of the American State Papers for Military Affairs (1834b, pp. 31-37).

  • Special case VII

    Table II (Download Excel File) proposes that no text components of two of nine unaccounted ASPIA bins (No. 174 and 214 vs. No. 172, 201, 202, 250, 251, 252, and 253) were available in the Serial Set, but that one or more elements of the remaining seven files was recoverable during the period 1817-1827. These missed items skew Johnson’s success score, but their absence from their pertinent place in Appendix II may have been driven by unknown or typographical reasons.

Conclusions

The goal of this study — to address those thirty-six missing or unaccounted American State Papers: Indian Affairs entries that Johnson could not locate within the U.S. Congressional Serial Set during the years of 1817 through 1827 — was achieved through the application of the Readex digital suite for both of these federal document resources. The ability to locate in the Serial Set more than 90% of those ASPIA items, coupled with a more secure assurance that the remainder was most likely not published there, yielded a reward founded upon two reasons. First, the decision by the government to record these historical events was a critical one. The current findings, which clearly join the ASPIA and the Serial Set and reinforce their relationship, are a confirmation that the proposal to publish such materials in this manner was indeed brought to fruition. The confusion endemic to the publishing process at the onset of this nation, as clearly described by Imholtz (2003 and 2008), forced Congress to adapt its ways to alleviate the difficulties that he cited (2003, p. 13) on this very point: “From an early period of the Government, it appears, the subject of the printing of Congress has engaged more attention, and consumed more time, than comported with the public interest” (In Senate of the United States, 1842, p. 1; emphasis added). This latter cost of printing was as meaningful in 1842 as it is today. Its consideration addresses in part the second benefit derived from this study of Johnson’s publication, where his efforts to summarize, and to form a path through, the American Indian materials published in the American State Papers and the Serial Set molded an extremely useful resource to aid future research. The ability to expand the search to entail twentieth century Serial Set assets affords a demonstration of Johnson’s underlying perception that these federal documents were, and would remain in the future, critical historical data of the United States.

The implied scope of the “10,649 documents on Indian affairs... in the Serial Set volumes from 1817 through 1899” (Johnson, 1977, p. xv) might in itself deter many from studying this worthwhile historical domain. Today’s technologies though give investigators far more firepower and so the Readex digital Serial Set for the years 1817 through 1994 was tested for all absent Johnson ASPIA bins. The extended perspective derived from this study submits that, overall, Johnson would have missed fewer of those jointly published items from the onset of the 15th to the end of the 19th Congress if he had been able to explore for applicable documents into the twentieth century; an underlying expectation of this study was that he would have done so, if given the computerized opportunity. This implied level of improved accuracy demands an additional comment. Table II (Download Excel File) suggests that, of the twenty-seven ASPIA packets alleged to be missing and the nine unaccounted ones that required consideration because of their absence from his tally, the true number of missed sources to solve the apparent American State Papers absences from the Serial Set was nineteen. If all nine unaccounted ASPIA sets are removed from this reckoning, then Johnson correctly determined that a dozen were not in the Serial Set during the years 1817 to 1827. Another dozen entries were missed; only three items appear today to be truly unavailable from a contemporary electronic database of that resource.

Perhaps just as importantly, the unveiling through digital means of these ASPIA documents may stimulate other attempts to resolve instances of other vanished documents.[19] It is clear that Johnson’s work was important to the study of Indian Affairs. It was successful in its quest to clarify, and to verify, the substantial linkages between the American State Papers and the Serial Set. Its 1970s procedural flaws demanded changes in the ways that investigators might process such data in the future, and today’s databases resolve many of those shortfalls. Now – decades later – it can serve as a model for government document investigators whose research goal may be attained with greater overall confidence and cost savings. Yet, regardless of the validity of this final estimation, the contents of Johnson’s study remain intact for new studies into Indian Affairs, a gift that requires acknowledgement.

References

A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897. Published by authority of Congress by James D. Richardson, a representative from the State of Tennessee. Volume II. (1896). House of Representatives. 53rd Congress, 2nd session. House Miscellaneous Document No. 210, part 2 (Serial Set 3265-2). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 149, 155, 160, 172, 192, 198, 210, 216, 219, 228, 236, 243, 250, 251, 252.

A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897. Published by authority of Congress by James D. Richardson, a representative from the State of Tennessee. Volume X. (1899). House of Representatives. 53rd Congress, 2nd session. House Miscellaneous Document No. 210, part 10 (Serial Set 3265-10). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 152, 176.

American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Third Session of the Thirteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 3, 1789, and Ending March 3, 1815. (1832). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.

American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the Fourteenth to the Second Session of the Nineteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing December 4, 1815, and Ending March 3, 1827. (1834a). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.

American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the Sixteenth to the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing December 27, 1819, and Ending February 8, 1825. (1834b). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.

American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, In Relation to the Public Lands, From the First Session of the First to the First Session of the Twenty-third Congress, March 4, 1789, to June 15, 1834. (1834c). Washington, DC: Duff Green.

An act making provision for the civilization of the Indian tribes adjoining the frontier settlements. (1819). 3 Stat. 516.

Annual report of the American Historical Association for the year 1906. (1908). House of Representatives. 60th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 986, volume 1 (Serial Set 5368). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 155, 161.

Bernholz, C. D. (2005). The “other” treaties: Comments on Deloria and DeMallie’s Documents of American Indian Diplomacy. Legal Reference Services Quarterly 24, 107-141 and available here.

Bernholz, C. D. (2008). Adjusting American Indian treaties: A guide to supplemental article and supplementary treaty citations from opinions of the federal, state, and territorial court systems. Government Information Quarterly 25, 541-552 and available here.

Bernholz, C. D. (2010). Standardized American Indians: The “Names of Indian tribes and bands” list from the Office of Indian Affairs. Government Information Quarterly 22, 272-279 and available here.

Bernholz, C. D. and Ellis, W. R. (2006). The missing court of claims report: Is Letitia Humphreys Court of Claims report 42? Government Information Quarterly 23, 309-324 and available here.

Bernholz, C. D. and Holcombe, S. L. (2005). The Charles J. Kappler Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties Internet site at the Oklahoma State University. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 29, 82-89 and available here.

Bernholz, C. D. and Weiner, R. J. (2008a). Charles J. Kappler — A life beyond Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties.

Bernholz, C. D. and Weiner, R. J. (2008b). The Palmer and Stevens “usual and accustomed places” treaties in the opinions of the courts. Government Information Quarterly 25, 778-795 and available here.

Bernholz, C. D. and Weiner, R. J. (2008c). The world of Charles J. Kappler: A digital portrait. Legal Reference Services Quarterly 27, 377-383 and available here.

Charles Kappler Dies; Expert and Writer on Indian Affairs. (1946). The Evening Star, 21 January 1946, B4.

Checklist of United States Public Documents, 1789-1909. (1911). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

CIS US Serial Set Index, Part I: American State Papers and the 15th-34th Congresses, 1789-1857 – Finding Lists. (1975a). Washington, DC: Congressional Information Service.

CIS US Serial Set Index, Part V: 55th-57th Congresses, 1897-1903 – Finding Lists. (1975b). Washington, DC: Congressional Information Service.

Citizens of Georgia – claims on Creek Indians. (1828). House of Representatives. 20th Congress, 1st session. House Report No. 128 (Serial Set 177). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 175.

Coen, R. N. (1971). Taliaferro portrait: Was it painted by Catlin? Minnesota History 42, 295-300.

Congressional documents. (1837). House of Representatives. 24th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 180 (Serial Set 304). Washington, DC: Blair and Rives.

Creek Nation of Indians. (1848). House of Representatives. 30th Congress, 1st session. House Report No. 826 (Serial Set 527). Washington, DC: Wendell and Van Benthuysen. No. 175.

Deloria, V. and DeMallie, R. J. (1999). Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775-1979. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. No. 155, 252.

Documents accompanying the message of the President of the United States, to both Houses, at the commencement of the first session of the Eighteenth Congress. (1823). Senate. 18th Congress, 1st session. Senate Document No. 1 (Serial Set 89). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 197.

Documents relating to the claim of the State of Georgia for militia services. (1824). House of Representatives. 18th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 16 (Serial Set 114). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 210.

Donations by Indians to government agents. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting the information required by a resolution of the House of Representatives, respecting proposed donations of land by Indian tribes to any agent or commissioner of the United States. (1826). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 5 (Serial Set 149). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 198.

Dustin, F. (1920). The treaty of Saginaw, 1819. Michigan History Magazine 4, 243-278.

Expedition up the Missouri. Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting the information required by a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st inst. respecting the movements of the expedition which lately ascended the Missouri River, &c. (1826). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 117 (Serial Set 136). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 226.

Expenditures – removal of Indians. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting the information required by a Resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th January last, in relation to the expenditures of the removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi. (1832). House of Representatives. 22nd Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 171 (Serial Set 219). Washington, DC: Duff Green.

Hoffman, W. J. (1896). The Menomini Indians. In Fourteenth annual report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1892-93 by J. W. Powell, director. In two parts – Part 1. House of Representatives. 54th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 230, part 1 (pp. 11-328) (Serial Set 3531-1). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Imholtz, A. A. (2003). The printing and distribution of the Serial Set: A preliminary contribution to 19th century congressional publishing. DttP: Documents to the People 31, 8-17.

Imholtz, A. A. (2008). The American State Papers: The incomplete story, or what was selected and what was omitted. DttP: Documents to the People 36, 18-21.

In Senate of the United States. (1824). Senate. 18th Congress, 1st session. Senate Document No. 56 (Serial Set 91). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 202.

In Senate of the United States. (1842). Senate. 27th Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 332 (Serial Set 398). Washington, DC: Blair and Rives.

In Senate of the United States. (1848). Senate. 30th Congress, 1st session. Senate Report No. 215 (Serial Set 512). Washington, DC: Wendell and Van Benthuysen. No. 175.

In the Senate of the United States. (1827). Senate. 19th Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 69 (Serial Set 146). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 253.

Instructions to commissioners, treaty Indian Springs. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of the instructions to the commissioners who made the treaty at Indian Springs in 1821, &c. (1829). House of Representatives. 20th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 91 (Serial Set 186). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 174.

Johnson, S. L. (1977). Guide to American Indian Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899. New York: Clearwater Publishing.

Journal of the executive proceedings of the Senate of the United States, from the commencement of the First, to the termination of the Nineteenth Congress. Volume III. (1828). Washington, DC: Duff Green. No. 150.

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, being the second session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 4, 1826, and in the fifty-first year of the independence of the United States. (1827). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 2nd session (Serial Set 147). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 250.

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, being the second session of the Seventeenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 2, 1822, and in the forty-seventh year of the independence of the United States. (1822). House of Representatives. 17th Congress, 2nd session (Serial Set 75). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 192.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the first session of the Fifteenth Congress; begun and held in the City of Washington, December 1, 1817, and in the forty-second year of the sovereignty of the said United States. (1817). Senate. 15th Congress, 1st session (Serial Set 1). Washington, DC: De Krafft.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the second session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 4, 1826, and in the fifty-first year of the independence of the said United States. (1827). Senate. 19th Congress, 2nd session (Serial Set 143). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 250, 252.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the first session of the Eighteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 1, 1823, and in the forty-eighth year of the independence of the United States. (1824). Senate. 18th Congress, 1st session (Serial Set 88). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the first session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 5, 1825, and in the fiftieth year of the independence of the United States. (1826). Senate. 19th Congress, 1st session (Serial Set 124). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 228, 235, 236.

Kappler, C. J. (1903a). Indian affairs. Laws and treaties. Vol. I. Statutes, executive orders, proclamations, and statistics of tribes. Senate. 57th Congress, 1st session. Senate Document No. 452, pt. 1 (Serial Set 4253). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Kappler, C. J. (1903b). Indian affairs: Laws and treaties. Vol. II. Treaties. Senate. 57th Congress, 1st session. Senate Document No. 452, part 2 (Serial Set 4254). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 149, 152, 155, 160, 161, 171, 174, 175, 176, 191, 198, 210, 214, 216, 219, 222, 224, 226, 227, 228, 236, 243.

Kappler, C. J. (1904a). Indian affairs. Laws and treaties. Vol. I. Laws. Senate. 58th Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 319, pt. 1 (Serial Set 4623). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Kappler, C. J. (1904b). Indian affairs: Laws and treaties. Vol. II. Treaties. Senate. 58th Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 319, part 2 (Serial Set 4624). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 149, 152, 155, 160, 161, 171, 174, 175, 176, 191, 198, 210, 214, 216, 219, 222, 224, 226, 227, 228, 236, 243.

Kappler, C. J. (1913). Indian affairs. Laws and treaties. Vol. III. Laws. Senate. 62nd Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 719 (Serial Set 6166). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Kappler, C. J. (1929). Indian affairs. Laws and treaties. Vol. IV. Laws. Senate. 70th Congress, 1st session. Senate Document No. 53 (Serial Set 8849). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Kappler, C. J. (1941). Indian affairs. Laws and treaties. Vol. V. Laws. Senate. 76th Congress, 3rd session. Senate Document No. 194 (Serial Set 10458). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Laws of the United States of a local or temporary character, and exhibiting the entire legislation of Congress upon which the public land titles in each state and territory have depended, December 1, 1880. Embracing, also, a digest of all Indian treaties affecting the titles to public lands; an abstract of the authority for, and the boundaries of, the existing military reservations; and a table of judicial and executive decisions affecting the various subjects arising under the public land system. Volume I. (1881). House of Representatives. 46th Congress, 3rd session. House Executive Document No. 47, part 2 and 3 (Serial Set 1976). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 219.

Laws of the United States of a local or temporary character, and exhibiting the entire legislation of Congress upon which the public land titles in each state and territory have depended. December 1, 1880. Embracing, also, a digest of all Indian treaties affecting the titles to public lands; an abstract of the authority for, and the boundaries of, the existing military reservations; and a table of judicial and executive decisions affecting the various subjects arising under the public land system. Volume I. (1883). House of Representatives. 47th Congress, 2nd session. House Miscellaneous Document No. 45, part 2 (Serial Set 2156). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 219.

Letter from the Secretary of War, to the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, in relation to Indian agencies, &c. (1824). House of Representatives. 18th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 56 (Serial Set 96). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 202.

Letter from the Secretary of War, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways & Means, accompanied with an estimate of additional appropriations for the year 1818, and a bill supplementary to the several acts making appropriations for the year one thousand eight hundred and eighteen. (1818). House of Representatives. 15th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 192 (Serial Set 11). Washington, DC: De Krafft.

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting copies of the report and proceedings of the commissioners appointed to treat with the Creek Nation of Indians for an extinguishment of their claim to land lying within the State of Georgia, &c. (1825). House of Representatives. 18th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 72 (Serial Set 116). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 222.

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act. (1994). House of Representatives. 103rd Congress, 2nd session. House Report No. 621 (Serial Set 14268). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Memorial of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. (1824). House of Representatives. 18th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 102 (Serial Set 97). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 201.

Message from the President of the United States, in relation to the survey of the Creek lands in Georgia, with accompanying documents. (1827). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 76 (Serial Set 152). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 250.

Message from the President of the United States, to both Houses of Congress, at the commencement of the first session of the Eighteenth Congress. (1823). House of Representatives. 18th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 2 (Serial Set 93). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 197.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a letter from the Governor of Georgia, with accompanying documents. (1827). Senate. 19th Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 47 (Serial Set 145). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 251.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of treaties between the United States and the Quapaw and Choctaw Nations of Indians. (1825). House of Representatives. 18th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 95 (Serial Set 118). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 216, 219.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15th December last, a statement of expenditures and receipts in the Indian department; also, the nature and extent of contracts entered into, and with whom, from the 2d of March, 1811, to the present period. (1821). House of Representatives. 16th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 47 (Serial Set 51). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 172.

Phillips, C. J. (1968). Protestant America and the Pagan World: The First Half Century of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 1810-1860. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Prucha, F. P. (1978). Guide to American Indian Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by Steven L. Johnson. American Indian Quarterly 4, 58-59.

Prucha, F. P. (1994). American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Renker, A. M. and Gunther, E. (1990). Makah. In W. C. Sturtevant and W. Suttles (Eds.). Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 7: Northwest Coast (pp. 422-430). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Report and resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia with accompanying documents. (1827). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 59 (Serial Set 151). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 222.

Report of special committee to investigate the Indian problem of the state of New York. (1889). Albany, NY: Troy Press. No. 252.

Report of the Committee on the Public Lands, in relation to the extinguishment of the Indian title to lands, the right of soil in which is claimed by an individual state or states. (1823). House of Representatives. 17th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 106 (Serial Set 87). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 193.

Report of the select committee of the House of Representatives, to which were referred the messages of the President U.S. of the 5th and 8th February, and 2d March, 1827, with accompanying documents and a report and resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia. (1827). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 2nd session. House Report No. 98 (Serial Set 161). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 222.

Republication of congressional documents. (1832). House of Representatives. 22nd Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 35 (Serial Set 217). Washington, DC: Duff Green.

Revenue of the United States. Statements exhibiting the revenue arising from duties on merchandise, tonnage, &c. during the year ending on the 31st Dec. 1825; referred to in the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the state of the finances, of the 12th December, 1826. (1827). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 146 (Serial Set 155). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton.

Ross, R. A. (1994). Using the U. S. Congressional Serial Set for the study of western history. Western Historical Quarterly 25, 208-213.

Santee Sioux of Nebraska and Flandreau Sioux of South Dakota. Letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a report concerning the Santee Sioux of Nebraska and Flandreau Sioux of South Dakota, formerly known as a confederacy of the Medawakanton and Wahpakoota bands of Dakota or Sioux Indians. (1898). Senate. 55th Congress, 2nd session. Senate Document No. 67 (Serial Set 3592). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. No. 226.

Sheldon, J. (1879). Life and public services of Oliver Forward. In Publications of the Buffalo Historical Society, Volume I (pp. 373-390). Buffalo, NY: Bigelow Brothers.

Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary: Second Edition. Volume XIV – Rob to Sequyle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tate, M. L. (1978). Studying the American Indian through government documents and the National Archives. Government Publications Review 5, 285-294.

The survey of the Creek Indians. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a letter from the Governor of Georgia, with accompanying documents, in relation to the proceedings of certain Indians in said State. (1827). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 2nd session. House Document No. 87 (Serial Set 152). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 251.

Treaty with Creek Indians, &c. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a copy of a treaty with the Creek Nation of Indians. Concluded 24th January last. Also, a copy of a treaty, superseded by the same, signed at the Indian Springs on the 12th of January [i.e., February], 1825, &c. (1826). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 165 (Serial Set 139). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 222.

Treaty with the Florida Indians. Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting the information required by a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th ultimo, in relation to the instructions given to the commissioners for negotiating with the Florida Indians, &c. &c. (1826). House of Representatives. 19th Congress, 1st session. House Document No. 74 (Serial Set 134). Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton. No. 198.

Acknowledgements

We thank August Imholtz for his insightful comments with regard to the American State Papers and the U.S. Congressional Serial Set. The Library of Congress provided permission to use the Serial Set image from their A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation resource. Further, we gratefully acknowledge Laura Weakly and Karin Dalziel of the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for creating this Web site.

Notes

*Phone: 402-472-4473
Fax: 402-472-5131
E-mail: cbernholz2@unl.edu [back]

*Phone: 402-472-2535
Fax: 402-472-5131
E-mail: jwiese2@unl.edu [back]

1 Volume 1 of the Serial Set contains the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the first session of the Fifteenth Congress; begun and held in the City of Washington, December 1, 1817, and in the forty-second year of the sovereignty of the said United States (1817). [back]

2 Access to the American State Papers is available from the Library of Congress as part of their “A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation” suite. [back]

3 See the 1837 House of Representatives Document entitled Report of the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives upon the subject of printing a compilation of Congressional documents, etc., etc. (Congressional documents, 1837). This Report noted the two acts that authorized the printing of the American State Papers, 4 Stat. 471 and 4 Stat. 669. The two Indian Affairs volumes referenced here were developed under the first act. This pair followed the first six volumes of the American State Papers series devoted to Foreign Relations, and hence were assigned volume numbers 7 and 8. They were thus officially designated as American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, Vol. 7 and 8 and published in Washington, DC by Gales and Seaton, in 1832 and 1834, respectively. [back]

4 ASPIA No. 226 is an especially important one because — as President John Quincy Adams presented in his statement to the Senate (American State Papers, 1834c, p. 595) — the attached treaty instruments were the result of efforts by Brigadier General Henry Atkinson and Major Benjamin O’Fallon during a very busy 1825. These two had finalized the enumerated treaties with the Plains and western tribes: in June, the Treaty with the Ponca, 1825 and the Treaty with the Teton, etc., Sioux, 1825;in July, the Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala Tribes, 1825; the Treaty with the Cheyenne, 1825; the Treaty with the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux Tribe, 1825 ; the Treaty with the Arikara, 1825; the Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe, 1825; and the Treaty with the Mandan Tribe, 1825; in August, the Treaty with the Crow Tribe, 1825; in September, the Treaty with the Oto and Missouri, 1825 and the Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe, 1825; and in October, the Treaty with the Makah Tribe, 1825 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 159-161, 161-162, 163-164, 164-166, 166-167, 167-169, 169-171, 171-173, 173-174, 181-182, 183-184, and 184-186; 1904b, pp. 225-227, 227-230, 230-232, 232-234, 235-236, 237-239, 239-241, 242-244, 244-246, 256-258, 258-260, and 260-262). O’Fallon also attended the Treaty with the Oto, 1817 and the Treaty with the Ponca, 1817 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 95-96 and 96; 1904b, pp. 139 and 140) and was the nephew of William Clark of Lewis and Clark fame (see his undated portrait by George Catlin in Coen, 1971, p. 299); Clark served as senior Commissioner at those Oto and Ponca signings. One outcome of examining this ASPIA entry is that the original tribe name spellings were different from the now standardized ones employed by Kappler in the treaty titles listed above (see Bernholz [2010] for more on these tribe name spelling adjustments). There is thus a difference between Atkinson and O’Fallon’s Poncars, Teetons, Ogallalas, Chayenne, Ricaras, Minnetaree, Ottoe, and Mahas treaty participants, and Kappler’s Ponca, Teton, Oglala, Cheyenne, Arikara, Minitaree, Oto, and Makah. Kappler’s final spelling example is especially unfortunate: the Makah are a tribe who live in the Pacific Northwest (Renker and Gunther, 1990). Indeed, Kappler misnamed another treaty completed with the same Omaha of the Plains: the earlier Treaty with the Makah, 1815 (Kappler, 1903b, p. 82; 1904b, pp. 115-116). A lone transaction with the true Makah took place at mid-century, with the signing of the Treaty with the Makah, 1855 (pp. 510-512 and pp. 682-685) that was part of the controversial “usual and accustomed places” reserved gathering rights instruments created among the Northwest tribes by Joel Palmer and Isaac Stevens (Bernholz and Weiner, 2008b). The 1903 rendition of Kappler’s treaty text (pp. 184-186) used the correct name Maha in the title of the 1825 transaction, just as it appeared in the Statutes at Large (Treaty with the Maha Tribe; 7 Stat. 282). In the same edition, Kappler inferred the participants in the 1815 transaction, denoting the transaction as the Treaty with the Mahas, 1815 (p. 82), even though the instrument had been called simply A Treaty of Peace and Friendship in the Statutes (7 Stat. 129). Prucha (1994, pp. 143-144) remarked on the Atkinson and O’Fallon successes, as well as on the Maha-Makah name issue. Folder No. 226 closed with the text of the Treaty with the Sioux, etc., 1825 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 177-181; 1904b, pp. 250-255), in a letter from William Clark and Lewis Cass, who acted as the federal representatives at this signing, that was published again in Santee Sioux of Nebraska and Flandreau Sioux of South Dakota. Letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a report concerning the Santee Sioux of Nebraska and Flandreau Sioux of South Dakota, formerly known as a confederacy of the Medawakanton and Wahpakoota bands of Dakota or Sioux Indians (1898, pp. 21-28). [back]

5 Abel declared that during the preparation of her study “Indian Office manuscript records have been preferred to copies of or extracts from them in the ‘American State Papers.’ Sometimes however these same ‘American State Papers’ constitute the original source. Documents are found therein of which there is no longer any trace of the official files at Washington, D. C., yet there seems to be no reason to question the authenticity of the documents since it is only too evident that none too much care has been taken to preserve the Indian Office files and the original manuscript may easily have been destroyed, while, most fortunately, the printed copy of it remains intact” (Annual report of the American Historical Association for the year 1906, 1908, p. 236). [back]

6 A portion of this 1825 treaty with the Choctaw appeared as extract No. 1717 in the two editions of Laws of the United States of a local or temporary character, and exhibiting the entire legislation of Congress upon which the public land titles in each state and territory have depended (1881 and 1883, p. 704). Only the preamble and Article 1 were reproduced. [back]

7 The expectation is that these Serial Set volume numbers increased during that period but the terminal Congressional entry on page 2318 — i.e., for the House Document No. 146 titled Duties on merchandise, tonnage, etc., 1825 — gives the impression that there should only be 155 Serial Set volumes over this time period. The 161st volume appeared earlier in the listing, at the end of the section devoted to House Reports, where Report No. 98 discussed the Controversy between Georgia and Creek Indians. However, these brief titles from the CIS US Serial Set Index — although helpful — only identify the general subject area of each document. The true titles of these House publications are, respectively: a) Revenue of the United States. Statements exhibiting the revenue arising from duties on merchandise, tonnage, &c. during the year ending on the 31st Dec. 1825; referred to in the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the state of the finances, of the 12th December, 1826 (1827), and b) Report of the select committee of the House of Representatives, to which were referred the messages of the President U.S. of the 5th and 8th February, and 2d March, 1827, with accompanying documents and a report and resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia (1827). Clearly, the CIS US Serial Set Index statement “Controversy between Georgia and Creek Indians” is more descriptive of the latter’s contents. [back]

8 All seven Kappler volumes are available online at the Oklahoma State University. See Bernholz and Holcombe (2005) for more on the second volume reserved for treaty texts. [back]

9 These five early transactions were the Treaty with the Menominee, 1817; the Treaty with the Oto, 1817; the Treaty with the Ponca, 1817; the Treaty with the Cherokee, 1817; and the Treaty with the Wyandot, etc., 1817 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 95, 95-96, 96, 96-100, and 100-108; 1904b, pp. 138, 139, 140, 140-144, and 145-155). [back]

10 Statements relevant to ASPIA folders No. 149, 155, 160, 172, 192, 198, 210, 216, 219, 228, 236, 243, 250, 251, 252 are found in volume 2, and for No. 152 and 176 in volume 10, of A compilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (1896 and 1899, respectively). [back]

11 Relevant materials were available in the Serial Set for these unaccounted ASPIA folders. An expenditure note to the President by John C. Calhoun, accompanied by receipt and expenditure tables, in bin No. 172 was printed in the Message from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15th December last, a statement of expenditures and receipts in the Indian department; also, the nature and extent of contracts entered into, and with whom, from the 2d of March, 1811, to the present period (1821, pp. 5-10). Similarly, materials captured in ASPIA No. 250 had been in the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the second session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 4, 1826, and in the fifty-first year of the independence of the said United States (1827, pp. 147-150); the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, being the second session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 4, 1826, and in the fifty-first year of the independence of the United States (1827, pp. 246-249); and the Message from the President of the United States, in relation to the survey of the Creek lands in Georgia, with accompanying documents (1827, pp. 3-8). ASPIA No. 251 cited material from a Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a letter from the Governor of Georgia, with accompanying documents (1827, pp. 5-7) that was available in The survey of the Creek Indians. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting a letter from the Governor of Georgia, with accompanying documents, in relation to the proceedings of certain Indians in said State (1827). The Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, being the second session of the Nineteenth Congress; begun and held at the City of Washington, December 4, 1826, and in the fifty-first year of the independence of the said United States (1827), as was in ASPIA folder No. 250, was cited in No. 252 (p. 325). The entire previous documentation from In the Senate of the United States (1827) emerged in No. 253. [back]

12 As one advantage, the folder for No. 174 was insightful because it included the commissions from, and the instructions by, John C. Calhoun to D. M. Forney and D. Meriwether (and their subsequent correspondence), who consummated the Treaty with the Creeks, 1821 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 136-137; 1904b, 195-196). This had been published as Instructions to commissioners, treaty Indian Springs. Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of the instructions to the commissioners who made the treaty at Indian Springs in 1821, &c. (1829). [back]

13 See Bernholz (2008) for a presentation on supplemental articles and supplementary treaties. [back]

14 Dustin (1920, p. 268) commented that, in the proposed allocations defined in the supplemental article for Dr. Brown and the others, “we see the gratitude of the red man to those who had befriended him, we see the liking in those with whom he was associated, and we also see how easy it has been for our Government to forget the first principle of honesty, namely, good faith.” [back]

15 It is interesting to note that the final sum of the amounts paid to the entities in Schedule B is shown as $175,000 (Kappler, 1903b, p. 303; 1904b, p. 409) and not the original amount of $150,000 stipulated in Article 3. These additional funds were conveyed through Article 2 of a supplemental transaction (pp. 304-307 and 410-415, respectively): “Twenty-five thousand dollars in addition to the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars contained in the said Treaty, to satisfy the claims made against all composing the United Nation of Indians, which they have admitted to be justly due, and directed to be paid according to Schedule “B,” to the Treaty annexed.” [back]

16 Besides these two, other instruments included the 1788 Agreement between the Six Nations and Massachusetts (Deloria and DeMallie, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 91-94, and No. 25, Senecas, American State Papers, 1832, pp. 210-211); the 1807 Treaty with the Cherokee (vol. 1, p. 213, and No. 121, Cherokees and Sioux, American State Papers, 1832, pp. 753-754); the 1826 Treaty between the Osage and the Delaware, Shawnee, Kickapoo, Wea, Piankeshaw, and Peoria (vol. 1, pp. 693-694, and No. 241, Expenditures of the Indian Department, and the state of our relations with several tribes, American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 673-674); the 1792 Treaty with the Wabash and Illinois (vol. 2, pp. 749-750, and No. 39, Wabash and Illinois tribes, American State Papers, 1832, p. 338); the 1804 Treaty with the Creek (vol. 2, pp. 750-751, and No. 106, The Creeks, American State Papers, 1832, p. 691); the 1814 Land grant by the Creek to Andrew Jackson and others (vol. 2, pp. 1227-1228, and No. 139, The Creeks, Wyandots, and others, American State Papers, 1832, pp. 837-838); and the 1825 Treaty with the Assiniboine (vol. 2, pp. 1247-1248, and No. 241, Expenditures of the Indian Department, and the state of our relations with several tribes, American State Papers, 1834a, pp. 672-673). Other treaty materials cited by Deloria and DeMallie occurred in different portions of the American State Papers, particularly in the many volumes dedicated to Public Lands. One such example would be the 1777 Treaty between the Cherokee and Georgia and South Carolina (Deloria and DeMallie, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 70-73, and No. 21, Claims to land in the southwestern parts of the United States, under a law of the State of Georgia, American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, In Relation to the Public Lands, From the First Session of the First to the First Session of the Twenty-third Congress, March 4, 1789, to June 15, 1834, 1834c, pp. 59-60). Readex has a digital version of the American State Papers that was consulted in this examination. [back]

17 The assigned federal commissioner representing the government on this occasion was Oliver Forward, a local justice of the peace (Sheldon, 1879). [back]

18 These possessions were diminished by the subsequent Treaty with the Wyandot, etc., 1832 (Kappler, 1903b, pp. 246-247; 1904b, pp. 339-341). A final remark about that treaty was delivered by James B. Gardiner, the Special Commissioner representing the United States, in which he commented that “[i]n the first draft of this treaty, provision was made for the removal of the band west of the Mississippi, but they refused to accept of a grant of land, or to remove there, and the articles having relation thereto were accordingly omitted. It was therefore necessary to omit the 6th article; and circumstances did not admit of time to remodel and copy the whole treaty” (p. 247 and p. 341, respectively; emphasis added). Removal was a point of discussion in Article V and VI of this transaction – including one proposal that “the said band of Wyandot may, as they think proper, remove to Canada” – but Kappler’s rendering furnished only “Article VI. [Rejected]” (p. 247 and p. 340). The Statutes at Large, however, have the original, full treaty text: “It was expressly agreed before the signing of this treaty, that the part of the fifth article relating to the granting to the said band of Wyandots lands west of the Mississippi, and every other article in relation thereto is wholly null and void, and of no effect” (7 Stat. 364, 365). Gardiner’s activities during removal may be seen in reports at this time: see Expenditures – removal of Indians (1832, pp. 44-45) for an entry of nearly $5,000 for “Disbursements made by James B. Gardiner, at the different treaties held by him with the Indians, in Ohio, under instructions form the War Department of the 29th March, 1831.” [back]

19 This objective has been achieved for a long-lost Court of Claims opinion (Bernholz and Ellis, 2006). [back]