federal-quapaw relations, 1800-1833

Federal-Quapaw Relations, 1800-1833Author(s): Jack LaneSource: The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring, 1960), pp. 61-74Published by: Arkansas Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40038038 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 23:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Arkansas Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheArkansas Historical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.191 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:30:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arkha

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40038038?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Federal-Quapaw Relations, 18004833

By JACK LANE* Atlanta, Georgia

United States government relations with the Am- erican Indians have been one of the most unique facets in the growth of our civilization. This relationship has been marked by a host of distinctions which has existed nowhere else. In negotiations the federal government recognized the Indians, for a period of time, as nations. On the other hand, government treatment of the Indians resembled that of a guardian to a ward. The fact that the government made legal treaties with them implied that the tribes were sov- ereign. In reality, each treaty diminished whatever sov- ereignity the Indians had possessed, for it reduced the hunting grounds and hence the food supply of the red man. They came to depend upon the federal government not only for protection, but for their very existence.1

Throughout American history, government relations with the Indians have been tied closely to that of a rapidly expanding nation. The fantastically swift advance of West- ern settlement has been something of an American Phenome- non. The moving force of this advance, the settler, seemed perpetually to covet Indian land. The pressure thus exerted upon the federal government by the settlers led to the unfortunate policy of concentration in which the government, through treaties, purchased Indian lands, and at the same time placed them in definable areas. In many cases it meant the wholesale removal of some tribes from one section of

*The author is a graduate student at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga. *Laurence F. Schraeckebier, The Off\c§ of Indian Affairs (Baltimore, 1927),

32.



g2 ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

the country to another. Obviously the tribes could not be moved from the vicinity of one white group without being settled near other whites. Inevitably objection would be voiced by the latter group. The policy of concentration was thus unrealistic for it did not solve the problem; it merely moved the Indian from one problem situation into another.2

During the early part of the nineteenth century, the Quapaw Indians of Arkansas Territory were caught up in this seemingly irresistable force that hungrily seized their lands and drove them from their ancestral possessions. In the sixteenth century the tribe that came to be known as the Quapaw Indians formed a part of the Southwestern Sioux tribe. When the Siouxs began their westward migra- tion, a small group separated from the main tribe and moved down the Mississippi River, settling at a point where the Arkansas River makes its confluence with the Mississippl. Hence, the name Quapaw, which means "downstream people/58

The first recorded history of the tribe begins with DeSoto's expedition into the heartland of America. One of his chroniclers describes the tribe, numbering some six or seven thousand, as being heavily fortified behind "very great walls, beset with towers."4 Between 1623 and 1761 recorded visits by Marquette, La Salle, St. Cosme and other explorers and travelers reveal that the tribe lived in three villages not more than eight or nine miles apart. Reports as to the extent of land they claimed are conflicting. One report has them as original proprietors of the country on the Arkansas River extending about three hundred miles to Osage country. One traveler stated, however, that the land which they claimed extended about forty miles in width and fifty miles in length.5 Obviously no one, not even the Indians, knew the extent of the land, but in relation to the

aLoring B. Priest, Unde Sam's Stepchildren (New Brunswick, 1942), 5-8. •Frank W. Hodge, Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, (2 parts,

Washington, 1910), part 2, pp. 333-336. «B. F. French, Historical Collection of Louisiana (5 vols., Philadelphia, 1850),

II, 172. 'Clarence E. Carter, ed., The Territorial Papers of the United States (23

vols., Washington, 1934-1958), XIX, 5, Hereafter cited as Territorial Paters,



FEDERAL-QUAPAW RELATIONS, 1800-1833 g^

area they relinquished in 1818, the last estimate is actually more realistic.

The Quapaw disposition seems to have been surprisingly mild. Reports picture them as welcoming travelers into their villages and treating them very well. As shall be noted later, the federal government found this benign temperament ex- tremely useful when they came to conclude treaties with the Quapaws. The Indians were fairly advanced in so far as civilized techniques were concerned. Early explorers found intricately dug channels, whereby the Quapaws had so- phisticated the art of fishing. Other evidences of their ad- vancement were the walls mentioned above and the elab- orately constructed mounds on which they held numerous ceremonies.*

By 1800, the presence of the white man in Quapaw villages was becoming a rather common occurrence, for settlement in the territory bordering their land was gradu- ally increasing. Arkansas Post had been established in 1686 only a few miles from their village, and had become an important trading center. In 1805, the Quapaw lands were included in the Louisiana Territory; and in 1812, they became part of the Territory of Missouri. At this time the white population of the Missouri Territory west of the Mississippi River was probably not more than ten or twelve thousand. Honest settlers, dreading the thought of being left outside the pale of civil law when Missouri became a state, began petitioning Congress for the establishment of a territorial government. A formal petition was presented to Congress on January 30, 18 19. Ten days later a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives providing for the creation of the Arkansas Territory. It was passed by the House and Senate and was approved by President Mon- roe March 2, 18 19.7

In the meantime, the federal government had been busily concluding treaties with the Indians of the Arkansas Territory. From the outcome of this treaty activity, an

•Ruben G. Thwaites, ed.f Early Western Travels (32 vols., Cleveland, 1904- 1907), XIII, 118.

vTerrUoriai Paptrs, XIX, 44.



g4 ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

agreement was drawn up with the Quapaws in 1818, whereby these Indians accepted the protection of the United States. In addition, the Quapaws agreed to relinquish all their lands east of the Mississippi River and most of their lands west of the river with the exception of a reservation near Arkansas Post. The boundaries of the Quapaw reservation were defined as "Beginning at a point on the Arkansaw river opposite the present post of Arkansaw and running thence a due SW. course to the Washita river; thence up that river to the Saline fork, and up the Saline fork to a

point from whence a due N. course would strike the Ar- kansaw river at the Little Rock ; and thence down the right bank of the Arkansaw to the place of beginning/'8 The borders of the reservation were to be marked off at the expense of the federal government, and none of the land in it was to be sold without government consent.

In return for this cession of land, the Quapaws were authorized to hunt in the ceded area. The government guaranteed that no persons would settle on lands held by the Quapaws, but reserved the right of safe passage of United States citizens through the Indians' reservation. The government also agreed to pay the Quapaws goods valued at four thousand dollars and an annuity of one thousand dollars which was to be delivered yearly thereafter for a period of five years.9

Thus, with one stroke of the pen the Quapaw Indians surrendered to the federal government an enormous section of land worth many times the price paid to them. The In- dians believed that they would be left to themselves on the lands agreed upon by the treaty, to hunt and to live out their existence free from white encroachment. This assur- ance, promoted by the government, was an unfortunate con- sequence of the policy of concentration. The settlers of the Territory, far from being satisfied with the terms of the treaty of 1818, immediately set in motion a series of peti-

•Charles C. Roycc, comp., Indian Land Cessions in the United States, in Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report, 1896-97, Part 2 (Washington, 1899), 688-690.

9Indtan Treaties, Laws, and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs (Wash- ington, 1826), 30l



FEDERAL-QUAPAW RELATIONS, 1800-1833 gj-

tions which would pressure the government into acquiring the remaining lands held by the Quapaws. Less than three months after the treaty had been signed, white inhabitants in the Territory forwarded a petition to Congress which complained of the amount of land left to the Indians. This land retained by the Quapaws, the petition stated, con- tained some of "the most rich and fertile Soil in the western country. . . . And while we highly approve of the Bene- volenc and librality of the government in Making Pro- vision for the Peaceable and inoffensive tribe of Indians, We Deprocate the measure and Protest against the unneces- sary lavishing large Portions of Public and Private Prop- erty on Savages, while a total indifference or neglect is mani- fested toward their fellow citizen/'10 It should be noted that this petition was dispatched at a time when the land ceded by the Quapaws had not been even partially settled.

In 1 88 1, Carl Shurz, Secretary of the Interior and well-known Indian reformer, made a generalization which is pertinent to this problem of the settler. "It is a well- known fact that the frontiersmen looked upon the Indian lands as the most valuable in the neighborhood simply because the Indian occupied them and the white man was excluded from them."11 The pressure placed upon the federal government in 1818 by the Arkansas settlers seems to confirm this statement by Schurz. In any sense, by 1819, the efforts of the white inhabitants to acquire free settlement of the Quapaw lands was gaining momentum.

In 1820, the territorial government, concerned over this eight or nine thousand square miles of land held by the Quapaws, directed a memorial to President Monroe asking the federal government to purchase the land claimed by the Indians. The memorial complained that the Indian reservation cut off from their seat of government in Little Rock two important counties and also blocked the territorial capital from a direct route to New Orleans. "We therefore

^Territorial Papers, XIX, 12. "Carl Schurz, "Present Aspects of the Indian Problem, North American

Review, CXXXIII (1881), 3.



gg ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

wish a treaty to be made with that tribe for their Country," the memorial stated, "but we are willing that they continue

to retain say 12 miles Sqr."12 As a matter of fact, the Qua-

paw lands did not cut off Little Rock from any part of Ar-

kansas Territory, since the treaty of 1818 guaranteed United

States citizens safe passage through the Indian reservation.

There is no indication that the Quapaws ever prevented

passage of American citizens through their lands. The ter-

ritorial government saw, however, that the chances of Ar-

kansas becoming a state were endangered, or at least pro-

longed, so long as the Quapaws held such a large tract of

land from settlement. It would only be a matter of time

until the pressure on both the territorial government and

the federal government would be great enough to force

the Quapaws to surrender their lands and move to another

area. In October, 1821, another memorial from the terri-

torial legislature was submitted to Congress stating that

the Quapaws were reported to have expressed a willingness to part with their lands, and join some other tribe. The memorial again emphasized the strategic importance of the lands since they lay between Little Rock and the

Mississippi River. 13

Why the Quapaws were willing to give up their lands and join another tribe is not quite clear. Certainly great pressure was being placed upon them by the white inhabitants. Another possible explanation may be the lack of annuities. After the treaty of 18 18, the Quapaws had become de-

pendent upon the federal government for a large part of their existence. In the spring of 1820, James Miller, Gov- ernor of Arkansas Territory, reported to Secretary of War Calhoun that the Quapaws had not received any of their annuities in two years. This caused the Indians much dis-

appointment and a great deal of suffering. Miller de- clared that many members of the tribe were "wretchedly poor, and some almost without covering."14 This destitute

^Territorial Paptrs, XIX, 144. **lbuLt 328. "/HZ., 154.



FEDERAL-QUAPAW RELATIONS, 1800-1833 gy

situation probably led the Indians to believe that they could better themselves by moving to another area.

Visits to the Quapaw villages in 1822 by Henry Con- way, territorial representative to Congress, and Robert Crittenden, Acting-Governor of the Territory, confirmed the report that the Indians were willing to sell their land and join another tribe. Conway mentioned the Caddo In- dians, located on the Red River near the Texas border, as the tribe with whom the Quapaws wished to unite. Conway also believed that the purchase of the land would create a local interest which would aid in preparing the area for state- hood.15 Crittenden, who visited the Quapaws in September, 1822, reported that the tribe was poor, indolent, miserable, and only a remnant of a nation. The claims upon the Qua- paw lands seemed so strong to Crittenden that he considered it an insult to the territorial government to permit the Indians to retain it. He believed that the government could purchase the land for twenty-five thousand dollars, and that the situation was enhanced by the Quapaw' s willingness to join the Caddo Indians on the Red River.16

In April, 1824, Crittenden received a message from Secretary Calhoun stating that seventeen thousand dollars had been appropriated for the execution of a treaty with the Quapaws and that Crittenden had been appointed the federal agent to consummate the agreement. Calhoun made it clear that, although the treaty was to be made as early as possible, caution should be used in securing every feasi- ble convenience for the Indians. He went on to state that the effort to incorporate them with the Caddoes should be made "in the Spirit of mutual friendship, and good feel-

ings."17 On November 15, 1824, leading chiefs of the Quapaw

nation met with Crittenden and his assistants at the home of Major John Harrington, located near Arkansas Post. The choice of Harrington's house gave the meeting a friendly atmosphere for not only was he a respectable citi-

»•/»&, 445. «/*«.. 549* "/Mi, 073.



gg ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

zen of the territory, but the Indians knew him well and

thought highly of him. Here the two parties drew up a

treaty that was to have far-reaching effects not only for the federal government but also for the Indians. The main provisions of the treaty stated that all Quapaw lands were to be ceded to the United States government. The four lead-

ing Quapaw chiefs were to receive five hundred dollars each, and to the nation as a whole the government agreed to pay four thousand dollars worth of goods and an annuity of one thousand dollars for fifteen years. The Quapaws were to be confined to a district of the country inhabited by the Caddo Indians. Lastly, some lands were to be retained

by certain half-breed Indians who were then living in white settlements. Included in this group was a Quapaw leader named Sarasin, who was living with the tribe, but who was considered "civilized" enough to be awarded eighty acres.18

By this time the governorship of Arkansas Territory had passed into the hands of George Izard of South Caro- lina. Izard was unquestionably the most able man to occupy the governor's chair in the history of the territory. Born in Richmond, England, he graduated with honors from the University of Pennsylvania in 1792. He then attended the military schools at Kennington, England; and following this he graduated from the University of Edinburg and the French military school at Metz.19

In many ways the government was fortunate in securing Izard for the governorship of Arkansas Territory. He had directed the military organization for the War of 1812; by 1814 he had risen to the rank of Major-General.20 President Monroe finally persuaded him in 1825 to take charge and straighten out the disorganized affairs in Ar- kansas Territory. Without doubt politics were involved in Izard' s appointment, but the man himself seems not to have been a part of these political maneuvers and one may safely assume that his integrity, honesty, and judgement were indubitably sound. He was a man of independent

^Indian Treaties. 307. 19Josiah Shinn, Pioneers and Makers of Arkansas, (Washington, 1908),

173. 20 William F. Pope, Early Days in Arkansas (Little Rock, 1895>, 173



FEDERAL-QUAPAW RELATIONS, 1800-1833 gg

means; his associates were leaders of the country, and his character was such that he put forth every effort in or- ganizing an efficient government in Arkansas. A traveler passing through Arkansas described Izard as a man who evinced "a consciousness of his commanding station, and yet he was affable and agreeable."21

Izard got along surprisingly well with the Indians of the territory. Immediately upon taking office he was con- fronted with the Quapaw problem. The treaty of 1824 had stipulated that the Indians must be moved off their lands by January, 1826. Heckaton, head chief of the tribe, visited Izard at Little Rock and in a formal conference requested that his nation be allowed to remain a few years longer on the land ceded to the United States.22 Obviously Izard could not grant the Indians permission to do this. Hecka- ton seems not to have been dissatisfied with the decision, for he later remarked that Izard was a "white man of the right kind and worthy of everybody's confidence/'23 Even though Izard had the unfortunate obligation of moving the Quapaws from their ancestral lands they continued to ad- mire and respect him.

In September, 1825, a small party of Quapaws jour- neyed to their future home, visited the Caddoes, and chose the area in which they would settle. In December of the same year, the Quapaw nation, composed of about 455 in- dividuals - 158 men, 123 women, and 124 children - left the Arkansas River and began their trek across the territory to the Red River Valley. According to the agreement of the treaty, Governor Izard appointed a sub-agent, An- toine Barraque, to accompany them and serve as a link between the Quapaws and the Caddoes. The integrity and honesty of Barraque cannot be ascertained; but in all fair- ness to him, it must be said that he was liked by the Qua- paws and that he brought them to the Caddo lands in fair condition. Also it must be noted that Izard approved of him, and this must carry some weight in the controversy that was

**Ibid., 29. ^Territorial Papers, XX, 83. *aShinn, Pioneers and Makers of Arkansas, 174.



y0 ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

to arise when the Indians reached the Caddo country. Izard spoke of him as "an intelligent Frenchman who has lived much among them [Quapaws] and who was particularly designated as the Person they wished to accompany them."24

The man in charge of the Red River Agency at the time the Quapaws arrived there was Captain George Gray, who was appointed to the post in 1819. The agency was located on Caddo lands near the point where Sulphur Fork River joins the Red River, miles from any important settlement.25 The Quapaws were moving into the area under Gray's control, as a matter of fact, only a few miles from his post. Ostensibly, once the Indians had settled in the area of the Red River Agency, they would be under the charge of Gray. When they arrived, however, Gray was away on official business, and therefore no one was present to receive them. Since they arrived with scarcely any rations left, Bar- raque proceeded to make arrangements with a contractor to acquire food for the Indians. Gray returned a few days later to find the situation rather disorganized; most of the beef delivered to the Quapaws had been lost, the Indians had received flour instead of corn, and Barraque had no statement as to how many rations he had purchased. Added to this, Gray found that the Caddo chief had been asked to confer with Heckaton without the agent's consent. He had reason to believe that Barraque had arranged this meeting. Gray, thoroughly disgusted with Barraque's conduct, or- dered him out of the country. There ensued sharp words between the two men of which much was made later.26

Barraque returned to Little Rock and reported to Izard that Gray was not only incompetent but was actually hurt- ing the Indians by permitting whiskey to be sold to them. He presented a permit allegedly signed by Gray in March, 1826, which read as follows:

The Big Chickasaw has my pirmition to pack three keaggs of whiskey thru the Caddo nation to the Sa- bine River.

C. Greay Indian Agent.27 ^Territorial Papers, XX, 83, 119. **Ibid., XIX, 85, 166, note 94. **Ibid.t XX, 234, 236. 27See abstract of Barraque's report by Izard in ibid., 234*235.



FEDERAL-QUAPAW REIATIONS, 1800-1833 ~j

In all probability this permit was not written by Gray. In the first place, Gray always spelled "permission" cor- rectly, and in the second place, he always mispelled "whiskey'* and "Caddo." Also one would hardly expect him, since he was a literate man, to mispell his own name.28

Having heard of the accusations of Barraque, Gray explained to the War Department that it was customary for all agents to permit a small quantity of whiskey to be sold to "honest and trusty" Indians.29 Gray considered Bar- raque a dangerous person among the Indians owing to his mischievious ways and strong influence among them. As can be gleaned from the letters that passed back and forth, Bar- raque exerted an authority over the Indians that was not given to him as sub-agent. Without doubt his intense dis- like of Gray caused him to alienate from the Quapaws the man who was to be responsible for their very existence. Certainly this heaped more hardship on an already dis- consolate people.80

Izard .received a letter from Heckaton, dated April 17, 1826, stating that his people were dissatisfied with Gray and wanted Barraque to remain with them as their agent. A combination of this letter and Barraque's report caused Izard to support the latter and to believe that Gray was incompetent. However, in his usual frank manner, Izard ad- mitted to the War Department that he knew nothing per- sonally of Captain Gray, who perhaps would be able to explain his conduct. The War Department was inclined to believe Gray's story, although they reprimanded him for violating government law by permitting any Indian to buy whiskey. He stayed on as agent until his death in 1828.31

In many ways the matter represented a sorry affair. Who was lying and who was telling the truth was not really important. Both Barraque and Gray were probably doing a little of both. What did matter was that the affair re- vealed a serious defect in governmental organization. Gray

**Ibid., 227. **Ibid., 226-227, 232-236, 236-238, 262-263, 441-442, 465-467, 467-468, •«/«<*., 236. •i/W*, 234, 266, 297, 774.



~2 ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

was a federal official directly responsible to the War De- partment. Barraque was an agent responsible to the territorial governor, who although responsible to the War De- partment, exercised direct control over the entire territory. Barraque probably thought he was exercising legal authority when he purchased badly needed supplies for the starv- ing Quapaws. He failed, however, to understand the intri- cacies of supplying Indian rations and ineptly bungled the op- eration. Gray was naturally disgruntled at this ; but he must share considerable blame for not being present to receive the Indians, knowing full well that their rations would be ex- hausted upon arrival. In any sense, for some reason he had never cared for the idea of a sub-agent accompanying the Quapaws and probably would not have happily received Barraque under any circumstance. Caught between these deficiencies were the Indians. While the two agents argued authority and the War Department attempted to secure the truth of the situation, the Indians suffered.

Added to this hardship was the unwitting mistake made by the Quapaws in their choice of land. The area they chose along the Red River was not only unhealthy, but in great danger of inundation by periodical flooding of the river. Gray committed another serious blunder by permitting them to settle on this land, for he undoubtedly knew it to be unsatisfactory. His reports during the spring and summer of 1826 disclose a rather dismal picture of the In- dians' condition. He feared that they would be troublesome owing to their lack of provisions, and thought that they would be in a state of starvation in a short time. By Oc- tober of the same year, Gray reported that the Quapaws were doing much better and were perfectly satisfied with their situation. The following spring the Indians planted their crops on time and their condition seemed a great deal improved. In April, 1827, Gray optimistically wrote the War Department : "I am of the opinion that the Quawpaws can do as well, on the lands they now Occupy on the Red River, as in any other part of the United States, the soil is good and productive . . . and as Healthy as any other part of Louisiana, and in fact they can have no cause of com-



FEDERAL-QUAPAW RELATIONS, 1800-1833 y~

plaint, as respects their location or present situation."32 The next month (May) a sudden rise in the river

flooded the Quapaw lands, completely destroying their spring crops. By June the Indians were in a state of starvation. Many died during those foodless months, including their chief, Heckaton. Sarasin was named to replace Heckaton as head chief. As mentioned above, in the treaty of 1824 he retained some eighty acres of land along the Arkansas River. Following the ruination of their crops, some forty families, led by Sarasin, returned to these lands in Arkan- sas. Upon arriving there, Sarasin reported to Izard that he and his followers wished to be afforded the opportunity to assimilate with the whites. He pointed out that several of their children were already in white schools, that they wanted to buy small tracts of land for cultivation, and that though they were poor, they were able to subsist on their own. The War Department, at the request of Izard, allowed the Indians to remain in Arkansas in lieu of a better ar- rangement.33

Meanwhile, the Quapaws who remained in the Caddo country had moved down the Red River near the Louisiana line. There they lived until 1833 when the government, by a new treaty, awarded the Indians a reservation in the northwestern part of what is now Oklahoma.34 By this time Sarasin had died and the Quapaws in Arkansas were forced to join their brothers in Oklahoma. A remnant of the tribe still lives there, although they have long mingled with other broken tribes.35

Although a small tribe, the Quapaws played an important role in the history of the Arkansas Territory. Their willingness to cooperate with the federal government meant not only that the settlement of the territory was given a tremendous impetus, but this settlement lacked the blood- shed which so often occurred when the Indian stood in the path of the advancing, land-hungry civilization of the whites.

**Ibid., 237, 361, 441-442. **Ibid.t 441, 447, 497, note 51. **Ibid., 742, XXI, 877, note 99; Dallas T. Herndon, Centennial History of

Arkansas (3 vols., Little Rock, 1922), I, 68. »6John G. Fletcher, Arkansas (Chapel Hill, 1947), 83.



~4 ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

As one writer states, the tragedy of the relations between the United States government and the Quapaw Indians was indeed a minor one in comparison to the treatment of the Five Civilized Tribes.30 But the Quapaw affair does vividly bring to light the knotty problem with which the government was faced. The solutions at hand were either assimila- tion or removal. The government chose the latter because it was by far the more simple. The moral problem notwith- standing, such governmental officials as Calhoun, Izard, and even Agent George Gray attempted to promote, as Cal- houn stated, "the Spirit of mutual friendship and good feelings" between the government and the Indians in general and the Quapaws in particular.

"Ibid.



federal-quapaw relations, 1800-1833

Documents