History is shaped by narratives, and narratives of the same event can be drastically different depending on their source. Understanding the power of perspective when reading history is extremely important, especially with regard to Indigenous history. An example where this is apparent is in Dakota history, and the history of the land we currently occupy as Carleton students.
Below are excerpts from various 19th-century treaties that shrunk Dakota land and removed Dakota peoples from the area we call Minnesota. While reading, observe how in each treaty the language constructs a narrative that justifies dispossession and exaggerates Dakota compliance.
The Treaty with the Sioux, 1805
In 1805, US Army Officer Zebulon Pike was tasked with locating the source of the Mississippi River. Pike traveled upstream from St. Louis where he met a group of Dakota leaders at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi river (“Why Treaties Matter: Virtual Exhibit,” 2021). Pike wrote in his journal that two of the seven leaders agreed to sell the site where he landed, now known as Pike Island, to the United States. 15 years later, the United States returned to the site and constructed Fort Snelling.
“1805 Treaty with the Sioux,” Treaties. Vol. 2, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. 1904. Public Domain, via Oklahoma State Online Library.
There is doubt of the legitimacy of the treaty and whether the United States actually holds title to the land. As late as 1856, 50 years after the treaty was signed, a report was released by the Military Affairs Committee of the Senate claiming that there is no evidence that Dakota people “ever yielded the possessions of their lands” under the agreement struck up by Pike, despite the treaty claiming otherwise (“Why Treaties Matter: Virtual Exhibit,” 2021).
1825 & 1830 Treaties at Prairie Du Chien
In 1825, Dakota leaders and representatives from ten other nations signed a peace treaty organized by the United States at Prairie du Chien. The language in the treaty framed it as means of creating peace between conflicting tribes, but it also established boundaries that made future land purchases easier for the U.S (“Why Treaties Matter: Virtual Exhibit,” 2021).
“Treaty with the Sioux, etc. 1825,” Treaties. Vol. 2, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. 1904. Public Domain, via Oklahoma State Online Library.
The boundaries created by the United States did not ease historical tensions between the Indigenous peoples involved. The U.S. decided that land cessions were a necessary solution to promote peace among the tribes, and drafted a new treaty in 1830. After the threat of military invasion and a trade embargo, Dakota leaders signed the treaty (“Why Treaties Matter: Virtual Exhibit,” 2021). The language of the treaty, however, potrays Dakota enthusiasm and consent:
“Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, etc., 1830,” Treaties. Vol. 2, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. 1904. Public Domain, via Oklahoma State Online Library.
1851 Traverse des Sioux & Mendota Treaties
In the summer of 1851, the Dakota ceded most of their remaining land for $3,750,000 – little of which was ever received by the tribe. After the treaty, the Dakota possessed only a strip of land 20 miles wide around part of the Minnesota River (Kane, 1951). Alexander Ramsey, who was appointed Governor of the Minnesota Territory in 1849, wrote the following in a report to Congress on the treaties:
L. Lea and Alex Ramsey, “Report of Treaties with Sioux Indians.” Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior. 1851, p. 23.
Image: “Treaty of Traverse des Sioux 1851,” Charles Jirô Lippert, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0.
The “tide of migration” justification for land cession given by Ramsey is misleading. At the time of the treaty’s signing, the “white and mulatto” population of the Minnesota Territory, which included large chunks of modern-day North and South Dakota, totaled less than 6,100 people in the 1850 census (Kane, 1951). There was little ongoing migration to this territory; rather, land speculators wanted to create a wave of migration by tapping into settlers moving to Iowa and Wisconsin, which had recently gained statehood (Kane, 1951).
Conclusion: Indigenous Voices
U.S. treaties made with the Dakota people contain false and misleading language. The treaties above portray the Dakota nation as compliant and even enthusiastic over signings, when in reality signings were coercive and took advantage of Dakota cultural values. The treaties also fabricate motives that
justify land acquisition for the United States. Below is a quote from Dean Blue, a member of the Upper Sioux Community, where he reflects on historical bias in Dakota history. When you are finished reading it, reflect on the importance Indigenous history:
“The greater population, all they know is their side of the history. It’s written by white folks. None of it is ever written by Dakota. And so therefore, they have free gratis in regards to how they want to write it. And so therefore, 90% of it is inaccurate. Oh, I shouldn’t say it that way, but there’s two sides. All these things that are considered to be historical were never participated in by the Dakota.” (“The US Dakota War of 1862: Stories,” 2012)
Works Cited
Treaties. Vol. 2, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. 1904. Oklahoma State Digital Library. https://dc.library.okstate.edu/digital/collection/kapplers/id/29743/
The Sioux Treaties and the Traders. Minnesota History, 32(2), 65-80.
The US Dakota War of 1862: Stories. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.usdakotawar.org/stories
Why Treaties Matter: Virtual Exhibit. (2021). Retrieved from http://treatiesmatter.org/exhibit/
