[III-34] This letter was Doc. No. 11, p. 25 of the App. to Pt. 1 of the orig. ed. It is given beyond.
[III-35] That is to say, certain ones of their nation who were murderers of some white men: see Apr. 17th. The minutes of this Winnebago conference formed Doc. No. 12, p. 26 of the App. to Pt. 1 of the orig. ed.; given beyond.
[III-36] Doc. No. 13, p. 29 of the App. to Pt. 1 of the orig. ed.; given beyond.
[III-37] On Pike's Tabular Abstract, one Red Thunder, Tonnerre Rouge, or Wuckiew Nutch, appears as a Sisseton and "first chief of all the Sioux"; while Red Cloud, Nuage Rouge, or Muckpeanutah, is exhibited as first chief of the Yanktons.
[III-38] James B. Many of Delaware, whose name occurs in Pike and elsewhere as Many, Maney, Manny, and Mary, also as Mancy in the text of 1807, was appointed first lieutenant of the 2d reg't of Artillerists and Engineers June 4th, 1798, and hence of Artillerists Apr. 1st, 1802; promoted to be captain Oct. 1st, 1804, and major, May 5th, 1813; he was transferred to the corps of Artillery May 12th, 1814, to the 4th Infantry June 1st, 1821, to the 5th Infantry Oct. 24th, 1821; on the 1st of Jan., 1822, he was made lieutenant-colonel of the 7th Infantry, to rank from June 1st, 1821; became colonel of the 2d Infantry July 21st, 1834, and died Feb. 23d, 1852.
[III-39] Pigeons are among the least fecund of birds, as they lay only two eggs at a clutch, and that not oftener than most other birds. But Pike's account of their vast numbers is not in the least exaggerated. The aggregate of individuals in existence in the United States during those and for many later years defies all attempt at calculation. Some single flights have been estimated to include millions. The settlement of the country, and consequent wanton destruction during our generation, have exterminated the wild pigeon in some regions, and reduced to comparatively few its numbers in others.
[III-40] Daniel Hughes of Maryland originally entered the army as an ensign of the 9th Infantry, Jan. 8th, 1799; became a lieutenant that year, and was honorably discharged June 15th, 1800. He was reappointed second lieutenant of the 2d Infantry Feb. 16th, 1801, and transferred to the 1st Infantry Apr. 1st, 1802; promoted to be first lieutenant Mar. 23d, 1805, and captain Dec. 15th, 1808; became major of the 2d Infantry Feb. 21st, 1814, and was honorably discharged June 15th, 1815. His subsequent career is not known to me.
[III-41] A sketch of the early history of St. Louis forms pp. 75-92 of Nicollet's Report of 1843, so often cited in the foregoing notes. It will be well to abstract here the main historical points of this article, which is not so well known as everything that Nicollet wrote should be. Some of the following items are adduced from other sources, as Billon's Annals. Louisiana was ceded by France to Spain, Treaty of Fontainebleau, Nov. 3d, 1762, ratified Nov. 13th; and by Treaty of Paris, Feb. 10th, 1763, France and Spain jointly made the cession to Great Britain. In 1762 or 1763 D'Abadie was director-general of Louisiana ad interim, vice Governor Kerlerec, relieved. He licensed Laclede, Maxent (or Maxam) and Co., merchants of New Orleans, to trade up the river. Pierre Ligueste Laclede, in charge of the party, left New Orleans Aug. 3d, 1763; proceeded to St. Genevieve and Fort Chartres, Nov. 3d; to the mouth of the Missouri in Dec.; blazed a site for his trading-post, now St. Louis; and returned to winter at Fort Chartres, 1763-64. He soon sent to the spot he had marked a boat with 30 persons, in charge of Auguste Chouteau; they arrived Feb. 15th, 1764 (so Nicollet), or Mar. 14th (Chouteau himself says). The list of the "Thirty Associates" of Laclede given by Billon, p. 17, is 31, with Antoine Riviere, who, however, did not go in this boat, but drove the cart which contained Mrs. Chouteau and four children, and which was escorted by Laclede in person. Chouteau says that Laclede came there early in April, selected a site for his own house, and returned to Fort Chartres. He brought his family in September, and established himself in his new house. The settlement was made, and at least eight persons were added to the original number by the fall of 1764. The original name was Laclede's Village. In Oct., 1764, the infant colony was annoyed by begging and pilfering Missouri Indians. D'Abadie died Feb. 4th, 1765. Neyon de Villiers had turned over the command of Fort Chartres, June 15th, 1764, to Louis St. Ange de Bellerive, by whom it was given over to the British Captain Stirling, Oct. 10th (not July 17th), 1765; Stirling died in three months, and St. Ange resumed temporary charge of the fort, pending arrival of Stirling's English successor. British dominion E. of the Mississippi, already established, was odious; it drove many persons across the river, and naturally they gathered about the nucleus Laclede had provided. By the end of 1765 several hundred were there; law was needed, and a provisional government was set up by general consent in the election or recognition of St. Ange as governor; this was in effect in April, 1766, with the first recorded document of a public character; first on record being one filed by Joseph Labusciere, notary, Jan. 21st, 1766. Laclede, St. Ange, Labusciere, and Judge Joseph Le Febvre d'Inglebert d'Brouisseau were the four persons most prominent in moving the wheels of government for four or five years. The settlement had already outgrown all the earlier ones in the vicinity and become the actual "metropolis" or capital place in the country. In 1767 the village had perhaps 80 houses, and several hundred people. Late that year Capt. Francisco Rios or Rivers arrived with some 25 men, sent by Don Antonio d' Ulloa to take Spanish possession; he could not be conveniently accommodated, so selected a camp on the Missouri, 14 miles away, where he built in 1768 Fort Charles the Prince (site of subsequent Belle Fontaine), named for the one who became in 1788 Charles IV. of Spain. Definitive possession of Upper Louisiana was taken May 20th, 1770, by Capt. Piedro Piernas, sent from New Orleans by Gen. Alex. O'Reilly (Oreiley of Nicollet), who had landed there at 5 p. m., Aug. 18th, 1769. At the close of the French régime, 1770, the village had 100 wooden and 15 stone houses; pop. 500. Before or about 1770, some other settlements were made in the region roundabout; Blanchette the hunter built his shack on les Petites Côtes, and this place became St. Charles in 1784; the place to be called both Florissant and St. Ferdinand was started by François Borosier Dunegan (so Nicollet—but query this name?) François Saucier settled at Portage des Sioux. The origin of the name Pain Court is said to be: In 1767, one Delor Détergette settled on the W. bank of the Miss. r., 6 m. S. of St. Louis, and was followed by others, all so poor that when they visited St. Louis, the people there would exclaim, "voilà les poches vides qui viennent!" "Here come the Empty Pockets!" "But," says Nicollet, "on one occasion a wag remarked, 'You had better call them emptiers of pockets'—les Vide-poches; a compliment which was retaliated by them upon the place of St. Louis, which was subject to frequent seasons of want, by styling it Pain-Court—Short of Bread." The Vide-poche place became Carondelet in 1776. Laclede died at the Poste aux Arkansas, June 20th, 1778. On May 6th, 1780, St. Louis was attacked by Indians and British, and many persons (accounts differ as to numbers) were killed or captured; it became known as l'Année du Grand Coup—year of the great blow. Similarly 1785 was called l'Année des Grandes Eaux, because of the flood in April when the Mississippi rose to an unprecedented height and inundated the lowlands; it is traditional that Auguste Chouteau moored his boat and breakfasted on top of the highest roof in St. Genevieve. The year 1788 was called L'Année des Dix Batteaux, from circumstances of piracy on the river. The winter of 1789-90 was notable for its intensity. There was no interruption of Spanish dominion until the cession of Louisiana to the United States: see Lewis and Clark, ed. 1893, p. xxxiii. and p. 2.
[IV-1] In the orig. ed. these Tables made five unpaged leaves, bound to follow blank p. 106, and thus were appended to the main text of Pike's itinerary, not put in the Appendix to Part I. It really makes little difference where these Tables go, as nobody ever reads such matter. I leave them where I find them, on the general principle of interfering as little as possible with the original composition of the book, simply introducing a chapter-head for their accommodation; and shall pass this thrilling chapter without further remark.
[V-1] Under this head I bring all the matter which formed in the orig. ed. the first 16 pieces, Nos. 1-16, pp. 1-34 of the Appendix to Pt. 1. These fall easily together, as they consist entirely of letters Pike wrote or received during his Mississippi Expedition—even the reports of his Indian councils being actually a part of his correspondence with General Wilkinson. I am also able to follow the original sequence of the pieces, with the single exception of orig. No. 16 (instructions to Kennerman), which Pike put last and I bring into chronological order of dates. The difference of my Arts. 1-18 from Pike's Nos. 1-16 results from my Art. 3, which had no number in the orig. ed. (it being merely an inclosure in Pike's No. 2), and my Art. 5, the Sioux treaty, which Pike did not separate by any sort of mark from his No. 3, though it is by far the most important piece of this whole lot. The changes I make affect the numeration after No. 2, but not the sequence in any case except that of my Art. 7 (Pike's No. 16). I indicate the original numeration and pagination.
[V-2] There were three persons of this name down to 1805. Louis Tesson Honoré 1st, tailor, b. Canada, 1734, d. St. Louis, 1807, aged 73; married Magdalena Peterson, b. 1739, d. St. Louis, 1812. The family came to St. Louis from Kaskaskia. Among 8 children was—Louis Tesson Honoré 2d, eldest son; he married (1) Marie Duchouquette, (2) Theresa Creely, in 1788; by the latter he had Louis Tesson Honoré 3d, b. St. Louis about 1790; married Amaranthe Dumoulin; d. there Aug. 20th, 1827. The one Pike names was no doubt No. 2.
[V-3] This piece is the inclosure mentioned in Art. 2. In the orig. ed. it had no number, and occupied p. 5.
[V-4] Doc. No. 3, p. 6-9, of the orig. ed. was printed in a peculiarly misleading manner. In the first place it was headed in capitals, "Conferences held with different bands of Indians, on a voyage up the Mississippi, in the years 1805 and 1806," though it was entirely occupied with a single such conference, namely, that with the Sioux, of Sept. 23d, 1805. In the second place, this major head was followed by an italicised minor head which properly covered only Pike's speech on the occasion, yet included the important terms of the treaty effected, as the latter was tacked on to Pike's speech without any separate heading, and even without any break in the text. We must therefore break orig. Doc. No. 3 into two pieces, to be enumerated as Art. 4 and Art. 5. For the former of these, which is Pike's speech, the orig. minor head of Doc. No. 3 may be retained. For the latter of these, which is the Sioux treaty, a new head must be supplied; especially as this is by far the most important result of Pike's Mississippi voyage—perhaps more important than all the rest collectively—concerning which there is a great deal to be said.
[V-5] Who the "father" may be whom Pike imposes upon the Indians in his various powwows is not always clear. Sometimes President Jefferson appears to be indicated; sometimes General Wilkinson; sometimes Pike himself. In the present instance it is General Wilkinson, and the Osage mission in mention is that upon which Lieutenant George Peter had been detailed by the general. This appears in a letter from General Wilkinson to the Secretary of War, dated St. Louis, Aug. 25th, 1805, now on file in the War Department, and in the following extract: "I find our parties under Lieuts. Pike and Peter are making rapid progress on their routes. Pike had ascended the Mississippi 150 miles on the fifth day after he left this place, and I have just received a letter from Peters [sic] dated the 19th inst., 150 miles up the Osage River, altho' he left St. Charles, 25 miles from the mouth of the Missouri, on the 10th inst. and had been obstructed by almost incessant rains and consequent high waters. He is charmed with the river and its banks, which He reports to be far superior to those of the Ohio in beauty and fertility—Independent of the immediate objects of these parties, they serve to instruct our young officers and also our soldiery, on subjects which may hereafter become interesting to the United States." George Peter of Maryland was appointed from the District of Columbia to be a second lieutenant of the 9th Infantry, July 12th, 1799, and honorably discharged June 15th, 1800; he was appointed lieutenant of Artillerists and Engineers, Feb. 16th, 1801; of Artillerists, Apr. 1st, 1802; became captain, Nov. 3d, 1807; was transferred to the Light Artillery in May, 1808; resigned, June 11th, 1809; and died June 22d, 1861.
[V-6]As explained in note1, p. 221, this article requires separation from Art. 4, from which it is totally distinct, though the two form undistinguished parts of one Doc. No. 3, of the orig. ed. I accordingly set them apart, and supply a new heading for Art. 5; but I reprint the latter precisely as it stands in the orig. ed., for reasons which will presently appear. As originally drafted by Pike, and by him communicated to General Wilkinson under cover of a letter of equal date, it appears to have been "scarcely legible," as the general informs the Secretary of War in a letter before me (see Art. 6). I doubt that this extraordinary document ever existed in a form which might not be set aside as fatally defective; and I do not doubt that we acquired legal title to the lands by some means subsequent to this invalid instrument. The probability is that upon due and sufficient investigation of points of law involved it would appear that the supposed cession of lands was not a legally accomplished fact until made such by later negotiation or legislation, with which we have here nothing to do. The following argument concerning Pike's treaty, as simply a starting-point for further steps in the transaction, was submitted in the press-proofs to my relative James M. Flower, Esq., of Chicago, who had no material modification to suggest.
Let us first examine that version of the document which Pike presents upon his own page, and which is therefore presumably authentic.
1. The preamble recites that a conference was held "between the United States of America and the Sioux nation of Indians." But it does not appear that either of the alleged parties to the transaction was officially and legally represented. The Sioux nation consisted in 1805 of at least seven tribes, only one of which was concerned in the affair; and if only the consent of this one tribe was required to effect the cession the conference is erroneously described. Furthermore, it does not appear by what authority Pike assumed to represent the United States. He signs himself "agent" at the conference. Agent of whom or of what? He was certainly not an Indian agent, empowered by the United States to effect treaties with aliens; and though it is true that he was instructed by his military superior to obtain if possible certain cessions, among which was the cession of land at and near the mouth of St. Peter's r., the question recurs whether General Wilkinson was competent to issue military orders to that effect without the authority of the government; and no such authority is expressed or necessarily implied in the terms of the alleged treaty.
2. Art. 1, which ostensibly declares what lands were supposed to be ceded, does in fact declare or describe no such lands sufficiently or recognizably, and is furthermore vitiated by a blunder which would constitute a fatal flaw in the title, if contested. (a) "Nine miles square at the mouth of the St. Croix," is in the first place an impossibility, because the mouth of the St. Croix has no such dimensions; and in the second place may mean either a tract of 81 square miles, whose center is at the mouth of the said river, or any one of four or more square tracts of the said extent, any one of whose angles, or any indetermined point of one of whose sides, is at the mouth of the said river; and in no one of these contingencies is the direction in which the remaining bounds are to be laid off described either by points of the compass or by natural landmarks. (b) The asterisk set at the words "St. Croix" refers to a memorandum which Pike causes to appear as a clause of the treaty itself, interpolated of his own motion, without the knowledge or consent of the other party to the transaction; it is also unintelligible on its face. "My demand was one league below." Below what? Below the mouth of the St. Croix? That would be the obvious inference; but it would be erroneous to so infer. "Their reply was 'from below.'" This is absolutely unintelligible as it stands; it has no meaning whatever. "I imagine (without iniquity) they may be made to agree." Is it Pike's imagination that is without iniquity? Or is it some agreement that may be brought about without iniquity between his demands and the terms of the cession? Or is it the Indians who can without iniquity be made to agree with a demand that conflicts with the terms of the cession as understood by them? In point of fact, however, this interpolated clause of the treaty, or interpolated memorandum relating to the terms of the cession, has nothing whatever to do with the lands at or near the St. Croix r., because the asterisk which points out the place of the interpolation is misplaced by error of the types. The words which stand "St. Croix,* also from," etc., should stand "St. Croix. *Also from," etc. The printer foiled Pike's intention of placing the asterisk at the beginning of the clause to which it pertains, by setting it at the end of the preceding clause, to which it does not pertain.
3. Now making the actually required transference of the asterisk to its proper and intended position (where it stands correctly on a manuscript copy of the orig. doc. now before me), the whole difficulty which this obnoxious interpolation occasions is shifted to a much more important clause of the treaty, upon which it remains in full force. Accordingly we find that this most important clause beginning "*Also from below," etc., includes an irreconcilable discrepancy between Pike's demand and the Indians' concession. He appears to have demanded that the tract of land ceded should begin "one league" below the confluence of St. Peter's with the Mississippi r.; and the Indians appear to have agreed, not to this demand, but to a cession of a tract of land which should begin "from below" the said confluence; though how far "from below" is not said, and there is nothing to show whether the distance should be more or less than the "one league" which Pike demanded and to which the Indians did not agree. But it is impossible, either with or without "iniquity," to come to any incontestable conclusion concerning a boundary so unintelligibly indicated. The most we can do is to "imagine," as Pike did, that what the Indians were willing to cede and did in fact cede by the terms of the treaty, was a tract which began on one side at no appreciable or no considerable distance below the said confluence, i. e., exactly or immediately at the mouth of St. Peter's r. This is a reasonable and natural, if not the only, inference to be drawn from the obscure and scarcely intelligible terms of the article in question; and I believe that such has always been the assumption of its true purport. The initial point assumed, then, is the mouth of St. Peter's r.; but the article does not show in what, if any, direction a line is to be drawn through this point for the purpose of establishing a practicable boundary. No line can be determined by fewer than two points; yet the article specifies no second point to or from which a line may be drawn from or to the mouth of St. Peter's r. to represent one side of the tract supposed to have been ceded. The further terms of the article throw no light on the case. These terms are only "to include the falls of St. Anthony, extending nine miles on each side of the river." This clause of the cession does not specify which one of the two said rivers the Falls of St. Anthony extend nine miles on each side of, and it is also a natural impossibility for the said falls to extend any miles on either side of any river. Seeking some other construction to be put upon terms which are obviously absurd if taken literally, we drag from obscurity a semblance of meaning they may be assumed to have. This meaning is, that the tract of land ceded does to all intent and purpose extend from a point at the mouth of St. Peter's r. to some point in or on the Mississippi r., at or beyond the Falls of St. Anthony; but to what point is not specified. However, we may assume that the phrase "to include the falls of St. Anthony" is to be construed to include no more than these falls. This assumption gives us a second datum-point of the required boundary, but does not in any way assist us to an intelligible connection between the first point and the second one, along which any line can be drawn as a boundary. This deficiency of any line whatever may be assumed to be supplied by the only remaining clause of the article, namely, "extending nine miles on each side of the river." But in what direction are nine miles on each side of the river to be taken? For anything that appears to the contrary, the distance between the mouth of St. Peter's r. and the Falls of St. Anthony may be nine miles, and there is nothing in the terms of the article which forbids the measurement of nine miles to be made up each side of the Mississippi from the mouth of St. Peter's r. to the Falls of St. Anthony, and as much further as nine miles may be found to reach. On such assumption, the cession included only a section of the Mississippi r., and not any land on either side of this river beyond its immediate banks; all that was ceded by the Sioux being in such event a waterway and a waterpower. To claim as ours by the terms of the treaty any land on either side of the river, we have to proceed upon yet another assumption, namely, that the nine miles in question were to be measured in a direction away from the river "on each side." But even assuming such to have been the intent and purport of the article, several further questions arise. The first of these concerns the meaning of the word "each" in its present connection. This word means either one of two or more things in their reciprocal relation, and thus implies both; in the present instance, as a river has only two sides, "each side" means both sides. It is clear that a distance of nine miles is to be measured away from each side of the river, i. e., is to include some distance on both sides of the river; but the terms of the article do not state whether the whole of nine miles' distance from one side of the river, and the whole of nine miles' distance from the other side of the river, was ceded, or whether a part of these nine miles on one side and the rest of these nine miles on the other was ceded; or, in the latter case, what part of these nine miles on one side and what part of these nine miles on the other side were ceded. In other words, is the tract of land ceded eighteen miles wide, or only nine miles wide? In the former case it would of course lie in two equal tracts, one on each side of the river; in the latter case, its location would be wholly indeterminate (within certain obvious limitations); for it might be four and a half miles on each side, or four miles on one side and five on the other, and so on. Even were all the foregoing questions settled—arbitrarily, conventionally, or otherwise—yet others would arise. Among these would be the shape of the two lateral boundaries of the tract of land. This tract is described as "extending nine miles on each side of the river." That is, each boundary furthest from the river is to be at the same distance from its own side of the river at every point of its own extent. This requires that these bounds should be parallel with each other, and such parallelism involves the meandering of two lines parallel at every point with the meanders of the river. Assuming that this were satisfactorily done, it would still be impossible to determine the connection of these two sides of a theoretical tract of land with the other two sides required for actual boundary. For there is nothing in the article to show the direction in which either the line which crosses the mouth of St. Peter's r., or the line which crosses the Falls of St. Anthony, is to be extended to intersect any lines, however the latter may have been projected. We are forced to yet further assumptions, for which the terms of the cession give no warrant whatever. No determinable shape is given to the tract of land by the terms of the cession. If we assume that a square was intended—as was expressly the intention in the case of the land about the mouth of the St. Croix—we are confronted with some terms of the article which put a square out of the question. By these terms the land can only be a square in case the mouth of the St. Peter's r. be nine miles below the Falls of St. Anthony, and in the further case that we measure four and a half miles from one and four and a half miles from the other side of the Mississippi, and make all connections at right angles by means of right lines. It is needless to push the difficulty further. Nothing of this sort, we may be sure, was in the minds of the Sioux at the time, and it may be doubted that anything of the sort occurred to Pike. The patent fact remains that even if both parties to the transaction were competent to execute the instrument by which certain lands were ceded, neither the situation, nor the shape, nor the size of the tract ceded can be determined from the article of the treaty relating thereto. How the cession thus left in the air may have been subsequently determined, it is not to my present purpose to inquire. My contention is simply that we acquired by Article 1 of this famous treaty no tract or tracts of land which can be located according to the terms of the article; and that if there be not a cloud upon the title to every foot of land between and including Fort Snelling and Minneapolis, and for some distance on each side of those places, then such cloud has been removed by legislative or other action subsequent to the supposed cession. It will also be remembered by those interested in such things that the question has been raised whether the Sioux who seem to have ceded this land to us had at the time a clear title to it; for Carver claimed, and some of his heirs have since sought to establish his claim, that the Sioux had at one time made over to him, for a valuable consideration, certain lands supposed to be the same, wholly or in part, as those which they made over to Pike. This case I understand was tried, and decided adversely in law; whether it be not a good case in equity is another question.
4. With the competency of both parties to the transaction brought into question, and with the size, shape, and situation of the land-grant shown to be indeterminable, we have next to consider whether Article 2 does not invalidate, vitiate, or void the whole instrument. In the version which Pike's printer offers us, it reads: "Art. 2. That in consideration of the above grants, the United States shall pay (filled up by the senate with 2000 dollars)." This is simply ridiculous. By the terms of Article 2, the valuable consideration which the Sioux received is an imaginary nonentity described as "(filled up by the senate with 2000 dollars)." However, this absurdity in the wording of an international document is so clearly due to the heedlessness of an inexperienced young officer, and what Pike meant by such phraseology is so obvious, that we can let it go with only the further remark that the purport of Article 2, as it stands on his page, is clearer than anything in Article 1. For it is an obvious editorial interpolation of his own, forming no part of the original document, but simply intended to inform the reader that at some time subsequent to the execution of the instrument by the contracting parties, the Senate of the United States voted to fill up a place which had been left blank in the original document with a clause which provided that the United States should pay $2,000 to the Indians in consideration of the grant which the latter had made. But this very fact goes far to show that the instrument was in the first place fatally defective, no valuable or any consideration whatever having been originally expressed or implied in the terms of Article 2. On this point I have carefully examined two manuscript copies of the "treaty," both made soon after the transaction in question, and both now on file in the War Department. One of the manuscripts reads: "Article 2nd.—That in consideration of the above Grants, the United States" The other manuscript reads: "Art. 2d That in consideration of the above grants the U. S." A third version of Article 2, in an official imprint of the treaty, published by the Indian Bureau, is: "Article 2. That in consideration of the above grants the United States ******" Whence it appears that the words "shall pay," which occur in the version our young friend offers in his book, were also an editorial invention of his own; there is no hint in the original instrument that the United States was to pay anything. For anything that appears to the contrary, the United States might have declared war with England, or amended the Constitution, or done nothing, in consideration of the above grant. Pike could give the Indians no assurance that the United States would do anything whatever—that they would even accept the lands as a gift, because he had no knowledge of future Acts of Congress, and no authority to make any stipulations which should be binding on the government. What is perhaps the most extraordinary thing about this extraordinary transaction is that Pike informs Wilkinson by letter of equal date that lands to the extent of about 100,000 acres had been obtained "for a song"; calls the general's attention pointedly to the fact "that the 2d article, relative to consideration, is blank;" that the "song" in mention was worth about $250, being the value of certain presents with which he had personally and privately feed the two chiefs who signed the treaty, these presents being partly from articles of his personal property; and suggests to the general "to insert the amount of those articles as the considerations to be specified in article 2d." General Wilkinson expresses unfeigned surprise at this, in a letter before me addressed to the Secretary of War, dated St. Louis, Nov. 26th, 1805, in which he says: "You have a copy of the agreement under cover, in which, for what reason I cannot divine, he [Pike] omits the stipulation on the part of the United States;" and again, after quoting some clauses of Pike's letter to himself, he remarks: "I do not fairly comprehend this reasoning, but I dare say Mr. Pike will be able to explain it satisfactorily, tho' it is unquestionable he is a much abler soldier than negotiator." We need not take the view that this was a shady transaction; yet if Wilkinson had inserted $250 as the consideration to be paid for the land, no more than this could have been claimed by the Sioux, and as this was in part Pike's personal property, some land would have been his own unless he had chosen to make it over to the United States on being reimbursed in a like amount—that is, if such a treaty was worth any more than the paper on which it was written. The facts appear to be that Pike hobnobbed with two chiefs till he got them to make him a present of the land he wanted, in consideration of some presents which he had already made to these two Indians privately.
5. The third article of the treaty is intelligible, though it is not clear what "exceptions" were "specified" in Article 1, as recited in Article 3. The purport seems to be that the Sioux should retain right of way in the land, and such other use of it as should not be abridged or nullified by our occupation. At the same time it is not clear that, since the United States were to have "full sovereignty and power," by the terms of Article 1, they were not authorized to withdraw all the privileges of Article 3 if they saw fit to do so.
6. The question of the validity of many legal documents is affected by the presence or absence of witnesses to the same. In the present case no signatures of witnesses appear on the face of the instrument, and there is nothing whatever to show that it is anything more than a part of a speech which Pike made to certain Indians, and which two of them subscribed besides himself. None of the published versions of the "treaty" which I have seen includes this important feature. But one of the manuscript copies before me has the names of four persons as witnesses, all whites. Reference to the second paragraph of Pike's speech will show him to have spoken of "a form of agreement which we will both sign in the presence of the traders now present." Four names which appear on the face of the manuscript copy just mentioned, in the usual place of witnesses' signatures, and under a word which I make out to be "Tests," (i. e., teste or testibus, in the ablative sing. or pl.) are: Wm. Meyer, M[urdoch] Cameron, James Frazer, Duncan Graham. It is remarkable that, if these names appear on the original document, they were not transcribed on all the copies, and also printed with the published versions, as an integral part of the same.
7. The names of the two chiefs who are supposed to have "touched the quill" to this transaction, i. e., signed with their respective marks, occur in variant forms in the several copies; but this is the rule in such cases, and has no significance except of clerical incompetency. In the officially published version above mentioned the two names stand "Le Petit Carbeau" and "Way Aga Enagee," each of which only differs by one letter from the correct form (in the case of the French) or from a usual form (in the case of the Sioux). Each of these chiefs has been already identified: see note2, p. 85 and p. 86.
The subsequent history of this mock instrument or valid document is not less singular than the conditions and circumstances under which it originated. Diligent search for it among the treaties duly published in the U. S. Statutes at Large fails to show that it was ever included in that collection of official papers. But certain facts were furnished, with the text of the treaty itself, to the Indian Bureau by Mr. C. C. Royce of the Bureau of Ethnology at Washington, and printed by the former Bureau in an editorial note explanatory of that text, on p. 316 of its official publication entitled "Laws of the United States relating to Indian Affairs," etc., Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884. It appears in this place that the treaty (in some form) was submitted by the President to the Senate, March 29th, 1808, thus more than two years after the execution of the instrument in writing; that the Senate reported favorably upon it April 13th, 1808, with the following amendment to fill the blank in Article 2: "After the word 'States' in the second article insert the following words: 'shall, prior to taking possession thereof, pay to the Sioux two thousand dollars, or deliver the value thereof in such goods and merchandise as they shall choose.'" With this amendment the Senate unanimously advised and consented to its ratification, April 16th, 1808. Examination of the records of the State Department fails to disclose that any subsequent action was taken by the President; and the ratification of the treaty does not appear to have ever been proclaimed. This is a very unusual circumstance; for such treaties ordinarily have three official dates of as many stages in their progress from inception to full effect, viz.: date of agreement between the contracting parties; date of ratification by the proper authority; and date of proclamation by the President. In the present case the principal evidence that the alleged cession of lands was ever a legally accomplished fact is said by Mr. Royce to consist in certain correspondence of the War Department more than twenty-five years after the date of ratification of the amended treaty by the Senate. But that the cession was effected, legally or otherwise, is certain. In 1819 Major Thomas Forsyth, Indian Agent at St. Louis, had received instructions from the War Department to deliver "a certain quantity of goods, say $2,000 worth," "in payment of lands ceded by the Sioux Indians to the late Gen. Pike for the United States": see Forsyth's Narrative, as orig. pub. in Wis. Hist. Coll., 1872, with notes by Lyman C. Draper, and repub. in Minn. Hist. Coll., III. 1874, pp. 139-67. Yet we find General H. H. Sibley saying, ibid., p. 174: "In the year 1821, Col. Leavenworth called together the chiefs and head men of the Sioux bands, and procured from them a grant of land nine miles square at the junction of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers." What can one make of such conflicting statements? Here it is said that Colonel Leavenworth procured in 1821 a grant of land which Major Forsyth is said to have paid for in 1819, and which Pike is said to have secured in 1805. In the same place General Sibley says that there was an article in the Leavenworth-Sioux treaty of 1821 by which the Indians "donated" Pike's isl. to Mr. J. B. Faribault.
[V-7] "The within articles" are those of the Sioux Treaty of same date, inclosed in this letter to General Wilkinson, which reached St. Louis on or about Nov. 26th, 1805, and was immediately communicated in full to the Secretary of War. A manuscript copy of the original is on file in the Record Division of the War Department, together with two copies of General Wilkinson's own letter to General Dearborn on the same subject and other topics. I might reproduce the manuscript of Pike's letter textually, but as the copy before me is in a clerk's hand, its peculiarities being thus not Pike's own, it is not worth while to replace the above fair imprint of the original with another version which would show no difference except in its clerical errors. See preceding article for a criticism of the treaty itself which formed the inclosure of the present letter. One passage from General Wilkinson's unpublished letter to the Secretary of War may be here cited: "He [Pike] tells me he has no doubt of being able to make Lake Sable in pretty good Season, but observes that the source of the River is in 'Lake Sang Sue,' about sixty Leagues further North & that He must 'see that also'—in which case he will have stretched his orders & we shall not hear of Him before the Spring—He reports that our flag is every where received with pleasure, & that he had patched up a Peace between the Scioux & Chepaways, who are generally at War——"
[V-8] This is the "Original Leve" of p. 85—the chief whose name would be in English Standing Elk or Standing Moose: see note2, p. 87. Élan is French for such an animal; it is the same word as the Dutch eland, which we have borrowed for a South African species.
[V-9] "Mareir" and "Tremer" are both wrong, no doubt, but I do not know what the right names are. A clerk's copy of the original letter before me has "Mercier" and "Fener"—latter perhaps François Fennai: cf. W. H. S. C., XII. p. 160.
[V-10] Article 7 was misplaced in the orig. ed. as No. 16, being brought in at the end of all the rest of the correspondence. I transfer it to its present proper place in chronological sequence of these documents. It requires no comment, being simply the written orders which the commanding officer gave his sergeant for the guidance of the latter during the former's absence, and which Kennerman proceeded to disobey in general and in particular.
[V-11] The first visit of white men to the Mandans was made in 1738, under the leadership of Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, otherwise Le Sieur Verendrye. A relation of this journey, by Rev. Dr. Edward D. Neill, occupies pp. 113-119 of the Macalester College Contributions, Department of History, Literature, and Political Science, Second Series, No. 5, which I extract in substance, as follows:
On Sept. 24th, 1738, Verendrye was at the confluence of the Red River of the North with the Assiniboine r. Two days afterward he began his journey up the latter, and on the 30th, having found a suitable place, he established Fort La Reine. Within a week, Mgr. de La Marque (otherwise Charles Nolan, Noland, or Nolant, son of J. B. Nolan and Marie Anne La Marque, b. 1694), and his brother, Sieur Nolan, with eight men, arrived in two canoes from Mackinac. On Oct. 16th Verendrye selected 10 of his own men and 10 of La Marque's party for the Mandan expedition, and their march began on the 18th. The party consisted of Verendrye, with two of his sons; La Marque and his brother Nolan; together with some voyageurs and Indians—in all 52 persons. On the 21st, at the distance of 26 leagues from Fort La Reine, they reached the first (no doubt Turtle) mountain. After slow marches southwestwardly, the first Mandans were met on the morning of the 28th. A chief came and stood near Verendrye, and one of his band presented corn on the cob and some tobacco. These Indians were only covered with a buffalo-robe, wearing no breech-clout. The Mandan chief requested the French to visit his village, and left on the 30th, accompanied by about 600 Indians. On the evening of the third day's march an Assiniboine, one of a number of this tribe who had already joined the expedition, stole a bag containing Verendrye's papers and other valuables; two men were hired to pursue the thief, and they captured him. On the morning of the fourth day's march camp was broken early in order to reach the Mandan settlement. A short distance from the village they were met on an elevation by a delegation of Mandans, who presented the calumet. Verendrye directed his son, the chevalier, to draw up the French in line, place the flag of France four paces before them, and fire three volleys. At 4 p. m., Dec. 3d, Verendrye and his associates entered the village and were conducted to the lodge of the principal chief, where a bag containing presents, and also 300 livres, was stolen. The Assiniboines were much afraid of the Sioux, from whom they had separated years before, and the Mandans, not wishing to entertain Verendrye's escort, purposely raised a rumor that the Sioux were coming, whereupon the Assiniboines decamped. Verendrye was embarrassed for want of a good interpreter, but learned that on the banks of the Missouri, lower down, were the Pananas, and then the Pananis, at war with each other. Six days after the Assiniboines decamped, Chevalier Verendrye, Sieur Nolan, six Frenchmen, and several Mandans visited a settlement on the bank of the river, and then Sieur Verendrye and Mgr. de La Marque inspected the village. There were 130 cabins. A fort was built on an elevation in the open prairie, surrounded by a ditch about 15 feet deep and from 15 to 18 feet wide. (Compare A. J. Hill's plot of Mandan fortification, in T. H. Lewis' Minor Antiq. Art. No. iv, p. 5, 1884.) The cabins were spacious, separated into several apartments by thick planks, and goods were hung on posts in large bags. The men were naked, covered only with a buffalo robe; the women also, excepting a loose apron about a foot long. On the evening of Dec. 4th Verendrye's son and Nolan came back and reported that the village they had visited was twice as large as that where they were. On Dec. 8th the latitude was taken and found to be 48° 12´ N. It was now decided to leave two men to winter with the Mandans to acquire their language, and return with the rest to Fort La Reine. Before they departed the head chief was presented with a flag, and a leaden plate upon which the arms of France were cut. When ready to leave, Verendrye fell sick and could not travel for two or three days. On Dec. 24th, still weak, he reached the Assiniboine village, and was agreeably surprised when the box of papers which had been stolen was returned in good order. On Jan. 9th, 1739, the first height of land between the Missouri and Assiniboine rivers was reached; here Verendrye remained, while La Marque hurried on to Fort La Reine. There he arrived Feb. 1st, and sent back assistance to Verendrye, who reached the post, greatly fatigued, on the 10th of this month. The two voyageurs who had been left with the Mandans returned to the fort Sept. 27th, 1739, with reports representing more fiction than fact.
In 1740 Verendrye visited Canada, and on Oct. 13th, 1741, he returned to Fort La Reine. He afterward established a fifth post called Fort Dauphin at Lac des Prairies, and a sixth, Fort Bourbon, at the mouth of the Poskoyac r. (i. e., the Saskatchewan). In April, 1742, the Chevalier Verendrye and his brother left Fort La Reine, and by way of the Mandan village, on a southwestward course, are supposed to have reached the Rocky Mountains in January, 1743. The Sieur Verendrye died Dec. 6th, 1749.
[V-12] "As they were wont to be" is a particularly fine rhetorical climax to what our young friend so innocently prides himself on having accomplished. It must have made the most stolid savage of them all smile in his sleeve,—or whatever article of nether apparel he wore,—as there never had been a time in his memory, or in the memories of any of his ancestors as far back as his tribal traditions went in the dim past, when the Sioux and Chippewas were not hereditary foes, who killed and scalped each other with alacrious and comprehensive reciprocity. It is true that in rare sporadic cases, when both sets of red brethren were exhausted in war, or when each found it necessary to let up a little on the other for a chance to hunt in peace for the necessaries of life, temporary truces had been agreed upon. But such spasms were supposed by neither party to last longer than suited the convenience of either; nay, the very councils in which such a peace was patched up sometimes ended in fresh bloodshed on the sacred spot; and the annals of all the Indians of North America might be sifted through and through to discover a more notable case of inveterate, perpetual, and ferocious warfare than is afforded by the hereditary hostility of these two powerful nations. Pike was no doubt sincere and veracious in his representations of the happy results of his peace-making; but his ignorance of the facts in the case must have been complete, or he would have known that such a truce as he effected was sure to be broken as soon as his back was turned—if not sooner. Furthermore, the expediency of interfering with such affairs may reasonably be doubted; for, paradoxical as it may appear, a patched-up peace between tribes whose hostilities are hereditary costs more lives than it saves, and makes more trouble than it prevents. The vigilance of both parties is relaxed, private enterprise replaces public policy, and individual murders multiply rapidly till the normal equilibrium of forces is readjusted by open declaration of the always existent intertribal hostility. War is the necessary and natural state of affairs among savages; it is the main business of their lives, and the principal if not the only means of attaining all that is dearest to their hearts; and it is better for all parties to proceed on that understanding in a straightforward, businesslike way than to bushwhack for surreptitious scalps. Such trophies of prowess must be had in any event and at all hazards; and secret assassinations to secure them represent in the aggregate a higher death-rate than that resulting from pitched battles. Meddling with unmanageable things is never good policy, and interference with intertribal relations of savages is generally inhumane as well as impolitic.
[V-13] The three whose answers to Pike's address are given in this article have already been sufficiently identified: see back, note7, p. 156, note10, p. 169, note13, p. 172. It is amusing to observe the unanimity with which they declined the polite invitation to visit General Wilkinson at St. Louis. Old Sweet's regrets strike me as the most ingenuous. What was the use of his going in person if he sent his pipe? If we send our card to a functionary in acknowledgment of an invitation, is not the etiquette of the occasion accomplished by that civil ceremony? Sucre's suggestion regarding the Sioux of the upper Minnesota r., whose intentions were doubtful, was eminently practical—if they wanted peace, let them so signify in the usual manner. Chef de la Terre seems to have been less resourceful in polite excuses than the other two. He could not go unless Sucre did; but some other day, perhaps, etc. Flat Mouth's remarks were the most astute. His excuse, whether feigned or not, was good; but as to his intention of burying the hatchet so far out of sight that he would let the Sioux strike him even once without digging it up, we may indulge a doubt.
[V-14] This is true in a certain sense. When Pike was on Cass l., at the mouth of Turtle r., Feb. 12th-14th., 1806, he was on a Mississippian water-way of communication with Red r. and so with Hudsonian waters. But this must not be taken to indicate that he ever reached the divide between these waters, still less that he passed to Red r. or Red l. The fact that it has been so taken gives occasion for this note. For the situation at the dates said, see note8, p. 157.
[V-15] Orig. No. 12, though only entitled, "A speech delivered to the Puants, at the Prairie des Cheins the 20th day of April, 1806," included, besides the speech covered by this heading, various other matters which came up April 21st, in another council with the same Winnebagoes, and furthermore gave a report of a conference with the Sioux, etc. Accordingly, I separate Orig. No. 12 into two articles, making Pike's speech Art. 15, and supplying a new head for Art. 16, to cover the rest of the proceedings at Prairie du Chien.
[V-16] The above paragraph formed no part of the letter to which it is appended, being an explanatory note which Pike added when he was about to print the letter in his book. One reason why the Indians did not get the medals they had been led to expect is evident in the following extract of a letter before me from General Wilkinson to the Secretary of War, dated St. Louis, Dec. 3d, 1805: "The Indians in all directions Clamour for Medals, & it is found policy to present them, but we have not one in the Country, or among the factory Goods—If you send any out let them be addressed to the Superintendant & not the Agent, for many & obvious reasons—the last aims at too much importance & the former may need some."
[V-17] This is the last letter we have from Pike on the subject of the Mississippi voyage. It is, in fact, a letter of transmittal of his official report to the commanding general, and thus a sort of preface or introduction to the whole subject. In two weeks from the date of this communication Pike had started up the Missouri on his second expedition, and of course did nothing further with his Mississippi matters until he had returned from Mexico, the following year. Article 19 therefore completes the batch of miscellaneous documents, chiefly letters, which I have grouped in this chapter of "Correspondence and Conferences." But we have still to deal with four formal articles relating to the Mississippian voyage; these I make the subjects of the following chapters.
[V-18] The reference is here to Captain Meriwether Lewis' Statistical View of the Indian Nations, etc., which formed the second one of five papers accompanying President Jefferson's message to Congress, Feb. 16th, 1806: see L. and C., ed. 1893, p. cviii.
[V-19] Mr. George Anderson, the same who furnished Pike with most of the data he obtained concerning the fur-trade. See next chapter, on the commerce of the Mississippi.
[VI-1] This article, for which I introduce a new chapter, with a new major head, formed Doc. No. 17 of the orig. ed., pp. 35-40 and a folder, of the Appendix to Pt. 1. The original title of the piece is preserved as a minor head of the chapter, and this will also serve to effect some sort of typographical uniformity with the following five pieces, A, B, C, D, E, which are integral parts of the article, yet were in the orig. ed. separated from the rest of the article under a different heading, in larger type than the main heading itself; moreover, the piece marked C, whose proper position was of course between B and D, was a separate folding blanket-sheet bound to face p. 40, thus coming after E. The construction of this table is such that it can be printed on two pages of the present edition, and be put between D and E.
Pike's remarks on the fur-trade are sound and very much to the point; together with his descriptions of the trading-houses, etc., they represent probably the best account extant of things as they were in 1805. His present Observations, etc., as well as his correspondence with Hugh M'Gillis (Arts. 8 and 9 of the foregoing chapter, pp. 247-254), were extracted for use in the Statutes, Documents, and Papers bearing on the Discussion respecting the Northern and Western Boundaries of the Province of Ontario, pub. Toronto, Hunter, Rose and Co., 1877, 8vo, pp. 318-323.
[VI-2] The Indian trade is not among the least of the vexed questions which the United States has sought to answer in the natural and necessary process of causing the Indians to make their exeunt from the world's stage. The prices at which goods were sold by private individuals, whether French, English, or American, seem exorbitant, extortionate—in a word, monstrous! But trade is a thing that seems to regulate itself, without regard to theory or sentiment; the Indian trade certainly did. I once asked the lion-tamer of a popular circus what was the secret of his profession, expecting some discerning remarks from him on the power of the human eye over wild beasts, and so forth; but all he told me was, "You just have to know your lion." In war, trade, or religion, you just have to know your Indian, as our soldiers, traders, and priests found out for their respective selves. General Whiting has some extremely moderate and judicious words on the subject, in his Life of Pike, p. 231 seq., which I will reproduce in substance, as it was a part of Pike's business on this voyage to keep an eye on the Indian traders and trade. The various expenses attending the transport of goods swelled the original value to such an extraordinary degree that a knife cost an Indian the ordinary price of a handsome sword, when he stuck it in his belt; and by the time his squaw had put a yard and a half of blue strouds around her waist, her lord was in debt for an amount that would have bought a city belle a ball dress. Such high prices would have been ruinous to the Indian had not their trade customs furnished a corrective. Few Indians ever hunted beforehand; they seldom got their stock of skins to offer for sale at a fair or any price, else the traffic would have been on more nearly equal terms. They must have their outfit for the chase first, and then they must feel the pangs of hunger before they would start on a hunt. The trader was obliged to overcome their indolence by offering certain inducements, besides furnishing the necessary means. This was an invention of necessity on which the whole system of credits was based, and on which such a structure of extortion and other evils was reared. The trader had to let his goods go on credit into lazy, improvident, always uncertain and often dishonest or criminal hands, with no security for any adequate return for his outlay except in a scale of ordinary prices that would cover him in case of extraordinary losses. He took great risks and put up his premium accordingly. He expected to realize 200 to 250 per cent. on the price of goods for which he got anything, to cover the loss on what he got nothing for. Thus the Indians were a prey to cupidity and extortion; they were swindled, as it seems to us. Yet they had a way of getting even with the most unprincipled trader, sometimes of beating him at his own game. At the end of the hunt the Indian brought in his peltries. "If these paid his debt," says Whiting, "which was not often the case, the account was squared; if an arrearage remained, as was generally the case, no reasoning nor threats could convince the red man that the responsibility held over to another season, and that his obligations survived the hunt. When that hunt terminated, and the furs obtained by it had been fairly rendered, he considered the account as canceled. Whether it was balanced or not was a question he did not undertake to answer.
"One of the objects Lieutenant Pike appears to have been instructed to keep in view while on his trip, was the investigation of these evils of the Indian trade, and to ascertain where proper trading establishments could be fixed, which were intended to correct them. These establishments were of course to be made under the patronage of the Government. They were afterward actually made under the 'factor' system. In a benevolent spirit, the United States enacted that certain stores should be conveniently placed within the Indian territory, where factors, having a salary and no interest in the trade, were to keep on hand a constant supply of articles suitable for the Indians, which were to be exchanged with them for peltries, the articles bearing only a fair cost, all expenses included, and the peltries being received at a fair rate. Government thus, out of kindness to the Indians, became a trader, and a competitor with individual traders.
"The theory was as promising as it was benevolent; but, like many theories, it did not fulfill expectation when put into practice. It is true that the Indian under it was sure of a just equivalent for such furs and peltries as he brought in. This assurance was spread abroad by agents, and was generally known and understood. But an important consideration had been omitted in the calculations that suggested the arrangement. Most of the Indians are improvident, and leave the morrow to take care of itself. The future causes them no anxiety. It is the present moment, with its gratifications, or its wants, that occupies, almost exclusively, their minds—the former exhausted with blind avidity, the latter borne with passive endurance. They seldom lay up the means of providing themselves with the small equipments of a hunting expedition. While they used the bow and arrow, it was different. Then a few hours' exertion of their own hands provided all that was necessary. But the moment a gun was put into their hands, their dependence upon the trader was secured. They must have ammunition, or their guns were more useless than the bow and arrow; and they could obtain this only on credit.
"Hence the United States factor, who had a knife at a few shillings, and a stroud at not many more, and powder and ball at a fair rate, but who could sell for cash only, or its equivalent, would find his shelves nearly as full at the end of the season as at the beginning; while the individual trader, who sold on credit, though he might sell at an enormous profit, at a thousand per cent. above his government competitor, would empty his shelves in a few weeks. Besides, no system can work well unless it is managed well. The factor was expected, by the law, to be honest and disinterested; and he was often so. Still, he was in a remote part of the country, and beset by temptations, and dealt with a people that were supposed to be unable to tell tales that could be understood. The system was abandoned after a vain experiment of a few years."
About the time that Pike was on this expedition, Lewis and Clark also had their attention turned to the same business. One of the results of their observations was Lewis' Essay on an Indian Policy, which had special regard to the commercial aspects of the case, and will never go entirely out of date till the last Indian has bought his last bullet, or had it fired into him. The reader is referred to this article, occupying pp. 1215-43 of the 1893 ed. of L. and C.
Trade is one of those things which, like a hen hunting for a nest, does best when let alone. Any hen will lay more eggs and hatch more chicks in a nest of her own selection than in the most artful contrivances of the coop to provide for her comfort and convenience. All interference with a man's tendency to take advantage of his neighbor is unwise, and injurious to both parties. It tends to sharpen the wits of the one and make him more of a knave than he was before; while it blunts the wits of the other with a specious sense of being protected, and thus makes him a bigger fool than ever. Trade being what it is, in consequence of the great quantity of human nature there is in mankind, can never be legislated into anything else than an attempt to enrich one's self at another's expense by buying cheap and selling dear. Free trade in all the markets of the world is the only natural postulate; all tariff regulations and restrictions are simply necessary concessions to the inherent weakness of artificial systems of trade. The evils of damming individual channels of trade—or rather, of attempting to dam them with desultory yet reiterated interference—reach a climax of absurdity and injury in what is known as tariff-tinkering. Very likely they ought to be dammed—all avenues of selfishness ought to be; but they never will be in this world. As to the practical worldly wisdom displayed in specific measures to promote commercial activity by legislative interference, it is probable that any jockey in the land, with a hidebound horse for sale and some arsenic in his pocket, could give our legislators pointers on those tricks which are said to be in all trades but ours.
[VI-3] "A Mr. M'Coy" is not easily identified. I am inclined to think that the name is McKay or Mackay, and that the person meant is Alexander Mackay, who had been with Sir A. Mackenzie, left the N. W. Co. in 1810, for Astor's American Fur Co., and was blown up with the ship Tonquin in 1811; but I am far from feeling sure of this.
[VI-4] David Thompson was among the Mandans from Dec. 29th, 1797, to Jan. 10th, 1798. He left McDonald's house, which was near the mouth of Mouse r., on Nov. 28th, en route to the Missouri. On Dec. 7th he reached the old Ash house on Mouse r., "settled two years ago and abandoned the following spring." Being unable to procure a guide here, he took the lead himself and struck for Turtle mountain, west of which he again crossed Mouse r., and followed this stream up to the bight of the great loop it makes in North Dakota, at a point 37 m. from the Missouri. Here leaving the river and coming south over the plains, he struck the Missouri Dec. 29th, at a point 6 m. above the uppermost Mandan village. These villages are said to have been five in number, and to have contained in all 318 houses and seven tents, inhabited by Mandan and Willow Indians in about equal numbers. (The census of the Willow Indians is given as from 2,200 to 2,500, in another place in Thompson's MS., where he calls them Fall Indians.) While among the Mandans Thompson prepared a vocabulary of about 375 words of their language. He left the villages Jan. 10th, 1798; but being delayed by storms, it was Jan. 24th before he reached Mouse r., and Feb. 3d when he regained McDonald's house. I take these items from J. B. Tyrrell's paper on the journeys of David Thompson, read before the Canadian Institute Mar. 3d, 1888, and pub. in advance of the Proceedings, Toronto, 1888, 8vo, pp. 7, 8: see also note9, 167. Another account of Thompson's travels occupies pp. 94-103 of Statutes, etc., N. and W. Bound. Ontario, pub. Toronto, 8vo, 1877.
[VI-5] The plus in the fur-trade was the standard of value, viz.: one prime beaver (abiminikwa). In the above scale of prices the plus was reckoned as $2. The scale was a multiple or fraction of this, which answered the purpose of an English shilling, French franc, Indian rupee, or our dollar. Thus Perrault tells us that in 1784 a bear, an otter, or a lynx was worth a plus; three martens or 15 muskrats were also a plus; a buffalo was two plus, etc. A keg of "made" liquor, i. e., three-fourths water, one-fourth alcohol, with a little strychnine, Cocculus indicus, or tobacco-juice to flavor and color it, has been sold to many an Indian for 20 to 40 plus. During my recent canoe voyage to the source of the Mississippi, I believe that I could have been provisioned, lodged, and transported by the Chippewas for a month at the cost of a gallon or two of "made" whisky, had I been provided with that article and disposed to put it to an unlawful purpose.
[VII-1] This article, for which I make a new chapter with a major head, was in the orig. ed. a part of Doc. No. 18 of the Appendix to Pt. 1, running from p. 41 to p. 56; the remainder of the document—continuing without break to p. 66, and including also a folding table—being an account of the Indians. I make a separate chapter for this ethnographic matter, beyond. I retain as a minor heading of the present chapter Pike's original title of No. 18, nearly in his words; but must cut it down to exclude "the savages," and in so doing I also reduce its verbiage a little. As thus restricted, this article is a rapid review or cursory description of the Mississippi, in so far as Pike ascended and descended this river. Having already given a copious commentary in my notes on his itinerary, I must refer the reader back to these for most details; here I simply bracket a few names in the text for the purpose of ready recognition, and restrict my notes to new matters which come up.
[VII-2] The form of the word Mississippi was not fixed with eleven letters till after 1800. President Jefferson, a scholar of his times and especially interested in linguistics, used nine or ten letters. Our fashion of doubling all the consonants except the first is distinctly an innovation which has no advantage over Misisipi, but on the contrary the undesirable effect of obscuring the pronunciation of the Algonquian elements by neutralizing the vowels. Analysis of the eleven letters shows three consonantal sounds, one of them repeated, and each of these four followed by a short if not neutral vowel: Mi-si-si-pi. The initial m is a nasolabial, not likely to vary, and in fact constant. This is followed by a sibilant surd, repeated, with probable and actual variation to s of c or ch in one or both places. The final consonant p is a labial surd, easily and actually variant to its sonant b. The name is really a term of two words: Misi Sipi=Misi River—whatever Misi may mean. Waiving this, and taking the name as one word, the actual variations which I have noted from time to time may be thus displayed as regards the eleven letters: (1) m, constant; (2) i, variant to a and e; (3) first s, var. to c, or missing; (4) second s, var. to c and ch, or missing; (5) second i, nearly constant, when present; (6) third s, var. to c, not to ch, when present; (7) fourth s, same as third s; (8) third i, var. to e and y; (9) first p, var. to b; (10) second p, constant, if not dropped after the third p, never present if the third p becomes b; (11) final i, var. to e and y. The permutations possible under the several variants indicated may be ciphered out by those who have leisure for amusement; probably not one-tenth of the possibilities are actualities in print; and of those actually existent probably no complete list has ever been made. We might expect to find 30 forms without much trouble. Some of the examples I have noted are: Mischipi, Freytas, from Spanish Relations of 1661, pub. 1663, perhaps the first appearance of the word in print; Messipi, Allouez, in French Relations of 1667, said to be the original form in that language; Mississipy, 1671; Messisipi, Joliet, after 1673; Micissypy, Perrot; Masciccipi, La Salle, qu. misprint in first syllable? Meschasipi and other forms in Hennepin, 1683, and his editors; Messchsipi on an old map, about 1688; Michi Sepe, Labal, as cited by Brower; Mechesebe, etc. The general evolution of the present word has been: early elimination of c or ch; tendency of all the vowels to i, with e in the first place and y in the last place longest persistent; and then the doubling of the s's and the p, all the possible cases of this process being not only extant, but neither very old nor very rare. The unconscious motif here seems to have been to give the longest river the longest name. There are many other names of the "Mycycypy" river, aboriginal, Spanish, and French, for the whole or certain parts of its course. Spanish relations from De Soto yield for lower parts of the river Chucagua in variant forms; Tamalisieu; Tapatui; and Mico. Also, for about the mouth, we have Malabanchia or Malabouchia, from French narration, D'Iberville, Mar. 2d, 1699. An Iroquois name, Gastacha, is cited. Spanish relations yield several of the earliest names, all of which have been translated; e. g., El Rio, The River, Knight of Elvas, pub. 1557; Rio Grande, Grand r., Great r., ref. to Hernando de Soto, near Quizquiz, Sunday, May 8th, 1541, and at Guachoya, Apr. 17th, 1542; Rio del Espiritu Santo, as De Biedma, River of the Holy Ghost, with variant spellings of the phrase, cf. Chavez map, in Ortelius, Antwerp, 1580, and Cortés map for Spanish Charles V., 1520; Rio de las Palmas, River of Palms, Admiral map, 1507, pub. in ed. Ptolemy, 1513 (I cite these two without prejudice to the question whether they did actually apply or were only supposed to apply to the Mississippi); Rio de los Palisados (as I find it cited, though it seems to me R. de las Palizadas would be better Spanish for Palisade r., the connotation of this term being what a steamboat man would mean if he said Snag or Sawyer r.); and Rio Escondido, Hidden r., because it was hard to find the right channel through the delta. Certain genuflexions of French knees to powers that were and happily be no longer, are reflected in the names Rivière de la Conception, sc. of the B. V. M., which Marquette conceived in one of the unisexual transports of his morbid imagination, June 15th or 17th, 1673, trans. Immaculate Conception r.; R. de Buade, sc. Frontenac r., as Joliet, who had an eye to a visible patron; R. de Colbert, as Hennepin, who kept one eye on St. Anthony and the other on King Louis; R. de Louis, R. de St. Louis, R. de Louisiane of various F. relations (St. Louis occurring in letters patent of Louis XIV. to Crozat, Sept. 14th, 1712); from descriptive phrases which are found in Radisson's relations, Forked r. and River That Divides Itself in Two have been evolved as names with the aid of capitals; the upper section of the stream, flowing from Lake Itasca, has been called R. à la Biche, Elk r., from the former F. name Lac à la Biche, translating Ojibwa Omoshkos Sogiagon; the next section, Bemidji-sibi, with many variants of this, in Ojibwa, French, Italian, and English; the next section, R. aux Cèdres Rouges, Red Cedar r., Cassina r., Cass r.; next section, Winnibigoshish r., in many variants; and below the confluence of the Leech Lake fork, Kitchi-sibi, Great r. There are also several forms of the Sioux name, to the same effect as Kitchi-sibi. I am ignorant of any English name originally given as a genuine appellation, and not a translation or mere epithet, like "Father of Waters," and the like. It is text-book tradition that this phrase translates the Algonquian term; which tradition is too untrue and too popular to ever die—let it rest in peace, along with Washington's hatchet and Tell's apple. It is Featherstonhaugh, I think (I have mislaid the mem. I once made), who remarks with great gravity and great truth, that "Father of Waters" is a misnomer, because the river resulting from the confluence of other rivers is the Son of Waters and not the father of them at all. This is a sober sort of statement, for a witticism; it is not a figurative locution or a flight of fancy; it is a solemn fact. It only stops short of the most comprehensive statement that can be made regarding the origin of rivers, which is, that all rivers arise in cloudland.