WAMPUM, HUNTING RIGHTS, AND THE CONTINUITY OF THE COVENANT CHAIN.
Robert W. Venables, Ph.D.
July 17, 2010
WAMPUM
Timothy Pickering served as the United States commissioner and negotiator at the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua. In preparation for his negotiations, Pickering made a list of treaties and legal points. He also listed a category of “Belts [wampum], Strings [wampum] & Calumet[s; tobacco pipes for use in council meetings].” This list is actually an outline of notes, probably a first draft, and was evidently made in December 1793, the date that appears at the end of the list. On the cover of this collection, Pickering provided a title: “Papers to be carried to the Indian Treaty.” Inside this cover was another title, “Papers to be examined relative to the Indian tribes.” It is likely that the documents were studied by Pickering and then returned to the War Department, the department charged with conducting peaceful Indian affairs as well as military expeditions. Unfortunately, Pickering evidently did not have copies of the documents made for his own use, and the originals were lost, perhaps in 1814 when a British army burned Washington, D.C., during the War of 1812. The official government records of Indian affairs published in 1832, the American State Papers, noted that the 1794 message from President George Washington to the United States Senate regarding the ratification of the Treaty of Canandaigua included other supporting documents, but that these papers had been lost:
Other papers, referred to in the message [from President Washington] are not on file.
(Walter Lowrie and Matthew St. Clair Clarke, eds. American State Papers. Class II. Indian Affairs. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Third Session of the Thirteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 3, 1789, and Ending March 3, 1815. Volume 4 of American State Papers. Documents, Legislative andExecutive, of the Congress of the United States. (Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832), 546.)
The list and notes written down by Pickering in preparation for his negotiations includes eighteen categories. The category marked “3” is:
“3. Treaty held with the Indians at fort [sic] Stanwix in the Autumn of 1768; marking the boundary line between their lands and those of the British Colonies.”
The category marked “7” is:
“7. The proceedings of Congress at the commencement of the war [1775] – the advice given – and the Engagements of the Indians at Albany or Fort Stanwix -- & at Fort Pitt – in 1775 to remain neuter.”
There are no dates associated with the belts, strings, and calumets listed by Pickering in his notes. However, at the very least, these treaties begin with 1768, the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, because Pickering refers to this 1768 treaty as category “3.” It is possible that Pickering also saw records of even earlier treaties because Pickering clearly assured the Haudenosaunee at Canandaigua in 1794 that he was continuing the Covenant Chain, the metaphor for all the treaties made with the Dutch, the English, and then the United States. Thus Pickering said he was negotiating so that the chain of friendship would be brightened. (William Savery, A Journal of the Life, Travels, and Religious Labors of William Savery, edited by Jonathan Evans (Philadelphia: published for the Friends' Bookstore, 1873), 358.)
Haudenosaunee negotiators usually began council meetings by reciting past meetings, emphasizing the continuity of treaty relations under the metaphor of “the covenant chain.” Thus it is possible that on October 23, when a Haudenosaunee reviewed the history of the Covenant Chain, Pickering heard an account of the 1613 Dutch treaty or actually saw a Two Row (Guswenta). The most detailed account of this speech, given by an unnamed Haudenosaunee, is based on what Pickering told the Quaker William Savery. Although Savery attended the council on October 23, he was “not present” when the speech was made. Savery’s account of what Pickering told him is incredibly brief, given that the council lasted for about five hours. Nevertheless, Savery’s brief account records the Haudenosaunee tradition of reciting the past treaties that made up the Covenant Chain:
The commissioner [Pickering] gave us some information of the speech of the Indians yesterday, when we were not present. They said, when the white people first came on this island, they saw that they were men and must have something to subsist upon, they therefore pitied them and gave them some land, and when they complained that the land became too small for the, they gave them more from time to time, for the pitied them. At length a great council fire was kindled at Albany [probably 1677], where a silver chain was made, which was kept bright for many years, till the United States and the great king over the water differed; then their brothers in Canada talked with them, and they let the chain fall out of their hands, yet it was not their fault, it was the white people’s. They then repeated how things went at the end of the war [1783], the substance of the treaty at fort Stanwix [of 1784], and the several grievances which they had suffered. The commissioner [Pickering] spoke perhaps two hours respecting the ancient boundaries of the Six Nation’s land, and inquired what was the extent of it [meaning its western limits]. They told him, all the land from a point on lake Erie to Muskingum was theirs, and that the council at the Miami last summer acknowledged it. This takes in a great part of what the Western Indians are fighting for. The commissioner told them, he did not approve of the conduct of the [United States] commissioners at fort Stanwix – that they had just then become conquerors, and the Indians must make some allowances if they spoke harshly and proudly to them. This council held five hours, and much was said on both sides.
(William Savery, A Journal of the Life, Travels, and Religious Labors of William Savery, edited by Jonathan Evans (Philadelphia: published for the Friends' Bookstore, 1873)A Journal of the Life, Travels, and Religious Labors of William Savery, edited by Jonathan Evans (Philadelphia: published for the Friends' Bookstore, 1873), 356.)
This brief account of what Pickering heard regarding the history of the treaties of the Covenant Chain was consistent with Haudenosaunee statements at earlier treaties. For example, on June 2, 1691, the Haudenosaunee negotiators at Albany recalled the first Dutch ship -- and probably the 1613 Treaty of Tawagonshi commemorated by Two Row Wampum.
Answer of the Oneydas, Onnondagas, Cayouga & Sennekas by their Sachems to His Excellr Col. [and governor] Henry Slaughters Speech….
We have been informed by our Forefathers, that in former times a Ship arrived here in this Country, wch was [a] matter of Great Admiration to us, especially our desire was to know what should be within her Belly. In that Ship were Christians & amongst the rest One Jaques [probably Jacob Eelckens who signed the 1613 treaty along with his colleague Hendrick Christiaenssen] with whom we made a Covenant of Friendship, which Covenant hath since been tyed together with a Chain, & always been kept inviolable both by the Bretheren & us, in which Covenant it was agreed, that whosoever should hurt or prejudice the One, should be guilty of injuring the Other, all of us being comprehended in One Common League.
(in testimony here of they gave a Bever Skin)
You have made a Covenant with us wherein they of Boston & Virginia are included.
(Peter Wraxall, An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs Contained in Four Folio Volumes, Transacted in the Colony of New York, from the year 1678 to the Year 1751, Charles Howard McIlwain, ed. (1754; reprint of the 1915 edition; New York: Benjamin Bloom, 1968), 16.)
Another example of this consistency is an address given at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on June 26 1744, by the Onondaga chief Canasetego. Canasetego noted how above One Hundred Years ago the Dutch came here in a Ship, and brought with them several Goods; and we were so well pleased with them, that we tied their Ship to the Bushes on the Shore.
(Treaty of Lancaster, 1744, in Benjamin Franklin, Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736-1762, with an introduction by Carl Van Doren and Historical & Bibliographical Notes by Julian P. Boyd (Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938), 50-53.)
Too often, however, only a brief note regarding the history of the treaties is written down by the white male secretaries. In 1768, for example, during the negotiations at Fort Stanwix, Guy Johnson, the Deputy Indian Agent who was also acting “as Secretary” during the negotiations, simply chose to outline twelve points made by the Haudenosaunee speaker Canaghquieson (an Oneida) when he addressed Sir William Johnson and the other white negotiators on October 25, 1768. In this outline, Guy Johnson recorded that Canaghquieson “repeated all that Sir William had said on the Black Belts given at the Condolence” but did not provide direct quotes. Then, when Guy Johnson recorded that part of Canaghquieson’s speech dealing with previous treaties, Guy Johnson simply outlined what Canaghquieson said, "We thank you for rekindling our several Council Fires [past treaties], whereby we are enabled to proceed to business as formerly, and we shall endeavour to render our Meetings useful to the Public."
[Gave] A Belt.
(“Proceedings at a Treaty held by Sir William Johnson Baronet with the Six Nations, Shawanese, Delawares, Senecas of Ohio, and other dependent Tribes, at Fort Stanwix in the months of October & November 1768, for the settlement of a Boundary Line between the Colonies and Indians, pursuant to His Majesty’s orders” in E.B. O’Callaghan and B. Fernow, eds.,. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York (15 vols.; Albany, New York: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1854-1883), VIII, 116.)
A wampum belt such as the one presented by Canaghquieson to Sir William Johnson conveys a far greater intensity and depth than wampum strings, some of which Canaghquieson had also used earlier in this same talk regarding other issues. Given the significance of wampum belts, it is likely that Canaghquieson gave a longer speech that included a recitation of past treaties and their contexts, and that Guy Johnson was only summarizing what the Oneida chief had said.
Guy Johnson wrote a slightly longer description of a speech given later at Fort Stanwix, on November 1, by an unnamed Haudenosaunee spokesman:
Brother
We remember that on our first Meeting with you, when you came with your ship we kindly received you, entertained you, entered into an alliance with you, though we were then great & numerous and your people inconsiderable and week [sic] and we know that we entered into a Covenant Chain with you and fastened your ship therewith, but being apprehensive the Bark [rope] would break and your ship be lost we made one of iron, and held it fast that it should not slip from us, but perceiving the former chain was liable to rust; We made a silver chain to guard against it. Then, Brother, you arose, renewed that chain which began to look dull, and have for many years taken care of our affairs by the command of the Great King, & you by your labors have polished the chain so that it has looked bright and is become known to all Nations, for all which we shall ever regard you and we are thankful to you in that you have taken such care of these great affairs of which we are allways [sic] mindful, and we do now on our parts
preserve it strong & bright on your part.
A Belt [of wampum].
(“Proceedings at a Treaty held by Sir William Johnson Baronet with the Six Nations, Shawanese, Delawares, Senecas of Ohio, and other dependent Tribes, at Fort Stanwix in the months of October & November 1768, for the settlement of a Boundary Line between the Colonies and Indians, pursuant to His Majesty’s orders” in E.B. O’Callaghan and B. Fernow, eds.,. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York (15 vols.; Albany, New York: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1854-1883), VIII, 126.)
HUNTING RIGHTS
On the afternoon of October 28, 1794, the United States commissioner at Canandaigua, Colonel Timothy Pickering, gave a speech to the Haudenosaunee that carefully detailed the terms of the Treaty of Canandaigua. The Quaker William Savery was present at this meeting. Savery recorded in his journal what Colonel Pickering told the Haudenosaunee about their rights to hunt in all their territories. Pickering stated that the Haudenosaunee had hunting rights in all the lands ceded by the Haudenosaunee since the Peace of Paris in 1783. Thus Pickering included the lands involved in the negotiations in 1784 at Fort Stanwix – the lands west of Pennsylvania -- and all the lands involved in the negotiations with the State of New York.
The commissioner observed, that the four mile path on the side of the inlet, between lake Erie and lake Ontario, was ceded to our predecessors, the British, in the days of sir William Johnson; yet, that the Indians shall have the right of hunting on these lands, as well as on all those ceded at the treaty of fort Stanwix; and on all other lands ceded by them since the peace.
(William Savery, A Journal of the Life, Travels and Religious Labours of William Savery compiled in 1837 from his original memoranda by Jonathan Evans. Philadelphia: The Friends Library, Volume One, p. 359. This quote can also be found in another edition of Savery’s journal: William Savery, A Journal of the Life, Travels, and Religious Labors of William Savery, edited by Jonathan Evans (Philadelphia: published for the Friends' Bookstore, 1873), 124. And this quote, with modernized spelling, can also be found in the Appendix of G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein, eds., Treaty of Canandaigua 1794 (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), p. 278.
Pickering was concerned that the white frontier population in northwestern Pennsylvania needed to know that the Haudenosaunee would be hunting amidst their settlements, and so Pickering wrote to the commanding officer at Fort Franklin on November 17, 1794. Pickering noted that although the Treaty of Canandaigua still had to be “ratified by the President and Senate,” Pickering assumed it would become law. Pickering advised the commander to make the white people aware of the treaty. Pickering also noted that the Haudenosaunee chiefs had requested that the white settlers take care not to harm Haudenosaunee who came through the area to hunt [bold added]:
you might make it known to the people on the northwestern frontier of Pennsylvania [the route of Haudenosaunee hunters into the Ohio country], to whom it is so peculiarly interesting. The Chiefs also wished this to be done, for the safety of their people who might hunt or travel within our settlements.
These hunting rights were confirmed by Pickering in 1796. This confirmation is found in the text of a February 14, 1796, “speech” written by Pickering, now Secretary of War, to be delivered by Indian agent Jasper Parish in written form to the Six Nations. Pickering noted that the Six Nations [bold added]:
were willing to adopt the useful ways of the [white] people by degrees; but that you could not lay aside your customs all at once. This was a wise answer…. continue your hunting, while the game [is] plenty as to be worth pursuing. But you already know the game is becoming scarce, and have seen to [too] that in a few years more [,] it will be gone.”
(Pickering Papers, Reel 62, 236-236A, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston)
Note Pickering’s use of the word “pursuing” – this reinforces the idea of an unlimited, free-ranging concept of the Haudenosaunee hunting grounds, because otherwise he would remind them to stay within their reservation borders – after all, he was now Secretary of War and was responsible for keeping the United States at peace with the Haudenosaunee.
Lastly, the above quote confirms that in 1796, two years after the Treaty of Canandaigua and one year after the 1795 Onondaga negotiations with New York State, the Haudenosaunee still had hunting and fishing throughout any ceded territories, because it would be illogical for Pickering to encourage the Haudenosaunee to hunt only on limited reservations.
