By the end of this exercise, I can… 

• summarize how Shab-eh-nay’s reservation was created, lost, and restored
• describe strategies that Native nations are using to restore access to their homelands
• imagine Indigenous relationships with their homelands in the future

This exercise directly relates to:

• Land purchases from American Indian Nations (1820s-1840s)
• Challenges of the 21st century

Geography

• SS.9-12.G.5. Analyze different ways of representing geographic information in order to compare cartographers’ perspectives, biases, and goals.

History

• SS.9-12.H.5. Analyze the factors and historical context, including overarching movements, that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras.
• SS.9-12.H.10. Identify and analyze ways in which marginalized communities are represented in historical sources and seek out sources created by historically oppressed peoples. 
• SS.9-12.H.14. Analyze the geographic and cultural forces that have resulted in conflict and cooperation. Identify the cause and effects of imperialism and colonization.

Indigenous values

Native people have been in the Chicago region since time immemorial – a phrase that means before human memory, or the beginning of time. Each of the Native nations that has a historical connection to Chicago has their own unique creation or origin story that tells them how they came to be. These stories describe Native peoples’ relationships to their homelands and outline relationships between people, as well as plant and animal relatives. 

Native peoples’ teachings testify to their origins here in North America – this is what it means to be Indigenous. One way Indigenous peoples narrate their connections to lands and waters is through story. In Indigenous contexts, stories are not myths or legends – rather, they are complex teaching tools that tell the listener how to live sustainably with each other and with lands and waters. Indigenous stories link Native peoples to their homelands and teach about each nation’s relationships with and responsibilities to their lands and waters. Rather than seeing humans as better than plants and animals, these stories narrate all living beings as interdependent. Indigenous stories contain information about ecology and ethnobotany, medicine, language, arts, history, and politics, among others. They also teach us about civics – how we should treat one another to build sustainable, balanced, interrelated societies. 

Indigenous values for land include reciprocal relationships. Indigenous peoples’ languages, religions or spiritual teachings, technologies, medicines, and foods come from their relationships with certain lands. This means that for Indigenous people, lands can’t be exchanged. Indigenous peoples maintain deep relationships with their homelands, whether they live there now or not. Indigenous people see the value of the land as inherent: all life has value just for being alive. They also recognize that lands, waters, plants, and animals have their own rights, perspectives, and desires. In contrast, settler laws value land based on the presence of resources that can meet human wants. Settler systems see the land as inanimate, which means it cannot have its own perspectives or desires.

Traditional Indigenous laws prioritize the health and well-being of humans, lands, waters, animals, and plants. Indigenous values of generosity and care have shaped Indigenous approaches to land, government, and kinship for millenia. Indigenous people have long welcomed newcomers into their existing kinship networks. This is both because of cultural practices of continually building new relationships and because of the new opportunities to learn, trade, and build diplomatic connections. 

An Established Native Place

Before the city as we know it existed, many Indigenous nations had long standing relationships with this place. Indigenous names for this place include Zhegagoynak, Gaa-zhigaagwanzhikaag, Zhigaagong, Šikaakonki, Shekâkôheki, Sekākoh, and Gųųšge honąk, among others. 

Native people throughout the Great Lakes and Inohkinki (the Illinois Country) have long established kinship networks and protocols for relationality. As early settlers moved through the region – which Potawatomi, Ojibwe, and Odawa people know as Neshnabéwaki – they depended on Native people for directions and safe passage. Native people educated settlers on appropriate behaviors for greetings, gift exchange, and communicating intentions. They also introduced settlers to the other Native nations with whom they had long-established and peaceable relations. Narratives about colonization often say early European settlers dominated Native people easily, but this isn’t true. For at least one hundred years, settlers depended on Native people’s hospitality, generosity, and guidance. 

Native kinship networks became increasingly important as conflicts between Indigenous nations that were exacerbated by colonial changes spread across the Great Lakes throughout the 17th and 18th century (see more on this below). In these moments, Native nations built relationships with people as either ndenwémagen (relatives in the Potawatomi language, pronounced nih·dihn·way·mah·gehn) or myeg yegwan (foreigners, pronounced mee·yehg·yeh·gwun). Acting as a good relative was essential for settlers to survive and trade, so many formed close bonds with Native people, including by marrying into Native families.

Treaties 

Native nations have inherent sovereignty. This means that their right to govern themselves and their people is essential and predates the United States. In fact, for the founders of the United States to create a new country, they needed Native nations to recognize them as a real government. Treaties are only signed between official governments for nations. When Native nations signed treaties with the United States, they affirmed that it was a new country with a right to exist. Likewise, when the United States signed treaties with Native nations, it affirmed that Native peoples were sovereign foreign governments. It needed diplomatic relationships with Native nations.

It is a myth that Indigenous people lacked boundaries before colonialism. Indigenous people had long-standing ways of recognizing territorial boundaries between Native nations. This meant that only allies of the people who controlled a territory could live in, or pass through the territory for governing, hunting, farming, and other needs. Because Native nations were distinct groups, they had clear protocols for welcoming other tribal nations – outsiders and foreigners – to live and trade on their lands. When Europeans arrived, they were just another new group. The treaties that outlined how Native nations shared or divided space were not one-time papers. Instead, these treaties were rules for relationships that needed to be renewed on a regular basis. This helped to make sure that the agreements still met everyone’s needs and that everyone knew what they were agreeing to. For Indigenous people before colonization, treaty-making was a way of ensuring sustainable, healthy, peaceful coexistence through relationships and respect.

Settlers handled legal agreements and diplomacy differently. Americans inherited ideas from European legal traditions that prioritized individually held property. This property could be owned, transferred, and modified. These could be one-time agreements, purchases, or transfers and did not require relationships beyond the single transaction. Even though settlers were newcomers on Indigenous lands, they chose to import their existing ideas about land. They chose not to recognize Indigenous laws as valid.

Settlers saw lands as able to be exchanged based on financial value, but Indigenous people did not see lands as interchangeable. The difference in these two approaches meant that Indigenous people and Europeans/Americans did not have the same expectations going into treaty talks. For example, Native nations had long made agreements about land use between themselves. These agreements did not mean a permanent loss of land, but rather clear expectations about who would use the land, when, and in what ways. On the contrary, settlers saw the treaties as permanent land transfers. Some early treaties still gave Native people the right to live, hunt, and fish on ceded land, but most later treaties aimed to keep Native people out of the ceded lands. This difference in expectations led to more conflicts. 

In treaty negotiations, US negotiators often used lies, threats, fraud, and alcohol to force Indigenous people to sign agreements. U.S. negotiators aggressively pursued signatures. Sometimes, they presented the agreement as more beneficial to Native people than it actually was. This meant that Native nations did not always have good information about what they were signing. You can read more about the specific tactics U.S. negotiators used in Module 2 – SQ 2. 

As the United States expanded, they gained possession of Native land through treaties and by force. This means that in the United States (and in what is known as Chicago), there is both land that was ceded by treaties and unceded land that was taken by force. Other land within the United States (and in Illinois) remains under the control of tribal nations. Native people were also losing their lands to individual settlers. Starting with the Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1834, any sales of Native lands had to be authorized by Congress. This meant that Native people and Native nations could not sell their lands to individual settlers or other purchasers without federal approval by Congress. 

Land restoration

When the U.S. negotiated the 1829, 1832, and 1833 treaties, they reserved parcels of land for several Native individuals, some of whom helped negotiate the treaties. These Native people and their communities were allowed to remain on these unceded parcels of land, and many did. The 1829 Treaty of Prairie du Chien reserved 1,280 acres of land for Potawatomi leader Shab-eh-nay and his descendants in what is currently DeKalb County. Shab-eh-nay initially fought U.S. invasion and allied with Tecumseh’s resistance to U.S. forces (more on this in Module 4: Activism and Resistance!). After seeing the significant violence and loss that these conflicts resulted in, Shab-eh-nay changed strategies and sought peace with the U.S. government through treaties. After the 1829 treaty, he and his family traveled between their lands here and the ones that their relatives were removed to in Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas. In 1850, they returned from one of these trips and learned that their reserved lands had been illegally auctioned off. Shab-eh-nay and his descendents fought for generations to have the land restored. In 2024, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi finally reclaimed 130 acres of the original Shab-eh-nay Reservation. As a result of this change in the land’s status, Prairie Band is now the first federally recognized tribe to have a land base in Illinois. You can see both the reclaimed and unceded land on the Indigenous Chicago Treaty Map. 

Some Native nations have mounted legal claims to restore their access to their homelands here. Earlier in the twentieth century, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi made (but lost) a formal legal claim to recover lands on the Chicago lakeshore. When the U.S. and Native nations signed the treaties for present-day Chicago, the lakeshore began at what is currently Michigan Avenue. After the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and other infrastructure projects, the city backfilled the land east of that original shoreline. The construction changed the shape of the shoreline, and the newly-created land was unceded, meaning it was never given away under a treaty. The treaties had ceded rights to land ending at the lakeshore, but had not ceded rights to Lake Michigan, to the lakebed, or to the water of the lake. Potawatomi people continue to work to have the lakefront restored to their stewardship. You can see this part of the lakefront on the Indigenous Chicago Treaty Map.

Native nations look back to the original treaties as part of their advocacy to regain their homelands. This can include pointing out when supposedly fair treaties were not actually legitimate. For example, there were times when the United States wanted land but could not get the appropriate signers to agree. The U.S. treaty commissioners then often picked Native people who would sign and claimed they were the correct person to do so. This could be a person from the same community or even from another nation! This was the case under the Treaty of 1805 Treaty of Grouseland. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (the Myaamia people) consider land on the eastern side of the state unceded for this reason. Because the treaty for these lands was signed by a tribe who did not have the right to do sign, the Miami Tribe views the treaty as fraudulent and therefore invalid. 

Many other nations continue to claim Illinois as within their homelands, even if they don’t currently have active federal land bases there. The Menominee Nation, for example, operates the Menominee Community Center of Chicago. The Center provides social and legal services, including voting for Menominee elections, for Menominee citizens. The Ho-Chunk Nation also operates a Chicago Branch Office. Like the Menominee office, it also provides social and legal services and connects urban Ho-Chunk citizens to their political representatives in the Ho-Chunk government. The presence of these urban offices both recognizes the many Ho-Chunk and Menominee people who live in Chicago today and affirms Chicago as within their homelands. 

Indigenous people who currently live in Chicago are also actively involved in caring for the land and renewing traditional lifeways. For example, the Koasati and Hacha’Maori artist SANTIAGO X has created two new effigy mounds in the city in Schiller Woods and Horner Park as a way of reminding Chicagoans of the way Indigenous peoples have built relationships with the land here since time immemorial. The Trickster Cultural Center, an art gallery in Schaumburg, has also created Indigenous gardens, which they use to harvest Indigenous plant medicines and teach community members about these practices. In spite of being forced to leave these lands, Native people have remained, returned, and retained their connections to Chicago. You can learn more about current priorities and developments for the contemporary Native community in Chicago on the website of the Chicago American Indian Community Collaborative. 

Sources

Benton, Lauren and Benjamin Straumann, “Acquiring Empire by Law: From Roman Doctrine to Early Modern European Practice.” Law and History Review. 28 (1). (February 2010): 1–38.

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. (Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions, 2015).

Low, John. Imprints: The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and the City of Chicago. (Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2016). 

Nelson, John William. Muddy Ground: Native Peoples, Chicago’s Portage, and the Transformation of a Continent. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2023). 

The Prairie Band of Potawatomi, “Shab-eh-nay Reservation: Frequently Asked Questions,” Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, pbpindiantribe.com. 

Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. “Looking after Gdoo-Naaganinaa: Precolonial Nishnaabeg Diplomatic and Treaty Relationships.” Wicaso Sa Review 23, no. 2 (2008): 29–42.

Wilkins, David E. and Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark. American Indian Politics and the American Political System. 4th ed. (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017). 

Williams, Robert A. Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012). 

Witgen, Michael. An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World Shaped Early North America. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013). 

Note to teachers: We invite you to use the components of the Indigenous Chicago curriculum that best align with the needs of your classroom. The following suggested steps can be modified as needed, and we invite you to use the teacher’s history brief to inspire new exercises that best meet the needs of your students. Please note that we suggest shortening, rather than modifying, the language of historical sources to best reflect the original source’s context, intention, and voice.  

1. Review the information in the Background section above. Note what the Background section shows about the Nonintercourse Act. Who could legally buy property from tribes? Who could not?

2. To prepare for the primary sources you’re about to look at, create a chart like the one below (adapted from Nokes, 2022, p. 130):

3. Let’s begin by looking back at these excerpts from Source 1, the Treaty of 1829. Find and highlight the sections that refer to Potawatomi people and to Shab-eh-nay. 

TREATY WITH THE CHIPPEWA, ETC.

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Prairie du Chien, in the Territory of Michigan, between the United States of America, by their Commissioners, General John McNeil, Colonel Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwater, Esq. and the United Nations of Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatamie Indians, of the waters of the Illinois, Milwaukee, and Manitoouck Rivers.

ARTICLE I. The aforesaid nations of Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatamie Indians, do hereby cede to the United States aforesaid, all the lands comprehended within the following limits, to wit: Beginning at the Winnebago Village, on Rock river, forty miles from its mouth, and running thence down the Rock river, to a line which runs due west from the most southern bend of Lake Michigan to the Mississippi river, and with that line to the Mississippi river opposite to Rock Island; thence, up that river, to the United States’ reservation at the mouth of the Ouisconsin; thence, with the south and east lines of said reservation, to the Ouisconsin river; thence southerly, passing the heads of the small streams emptying into the Mississippi, to the Rock River aforesaid, at the Winnebago Village, the place of beginning. And, also, one other tract of land described as follows, to wit: Beginning on the Western Shore of Lake Michigan, at the northeast corner of the field of Antoine Ouitmette, who lives near Gross Pointe, about twelve miles north of Chicago; thence, running due west, to the Rock River, aforesaid; thence, down the said river, to where a line drawn due west from the most southern bend of Lake Michigan crosses said river; thence, east, along said line, to the Fox River of the Illinois; thence, along the northwestern boundary line of the cession of 1816, to Lake Michigan; thence, northwardly, along the Western Shore of said Lake, to the place of beginning.

ARTICLE II. In consideration of the aforesaid cessions of land, the United States aforesaid agree to pay to the aforesaid nations of Indians the sum of sixteen thousand dollars, annually, forever, in specie: said sum to be paid at Chicago. And the said United States further agree to cause to be delivered to said nations of Indians, in the month of October next, twelve thousand dollars worth of goods as a present. And it is further agreed, to deliver to said Indians, at Chicago, fifty barrels of salt, annually, forever; and further, the United States agree to make permanent, for the use of the said Indians, the blacksmith’s establishment at Chicago.

ARTICLE III. From the cessions aforesaid, there shall be reserved, for the use of the undernamed Chiefs and their bands, the following tracts of land, viz: For Wau-pon-eh-see, five sections of land at the Grand Bois, on Fox River of the Illinois, where Shaytee’s Village now stands. For Shab-eh-nay, two sections at his village near the Paw-paw Grove. For Awn-kote four sections at the village of Saw-meh-naug, on the Fox River of the Illinois.

• Now, look at the Indigenous Chicago Treaty Map. Click “show only this” for the Shab-eh-nay reservation. What do you notice about the land? Summarize what you learn in the description of Shab-eh-nay’s lands on the map.

4. As you learned in the Background section, these lands were set aside for Shab-eh-nay and his descendants forever. This should have meant that Shab-eh-nay and his descendants could use the land as they wanted to. After his trips in the 1830s to visit his removed relatives in Iowa, Shab-eh-nay decided to try to sell the land. He first tried to sell it back to the United States in 1841, but that didn’t happen. Then, when Shab-eh-nay decided to sell some of the land in the 1840s to private buyers, the non-Intercourse Act made that transaction illegal. Take a look at Source 2, a deed of conveyance between Shab-eh-nay and Ansel A. Gates. Shab-eh-nay knew Gates and had traveled with him to Washington, D.C. to advocate for Congress to approve the sale. Though it may seem surprising that Shab-eh-nay wanted to sell his land, there were likely other factors that influenced his decision: Ten years after removal, many Native communities were being placed onto smaller and smaller reservations. They were not allowed to hunt, and the rations the federal government promised were either not delivered or were delivered but of very low quality. This led to starvation in many communities. As a result, many individual Native people wanted to sell any land they had remaining to help feed their relatives. 

• Who is the seller? Who is the purchaser?

• What does the deed attempt to transfer?

• Even though the document as you see it here is signed off on by the state of Illinois, federal law (which has more power than state law) would not have necessarily recognized the sale. What do you infer about the deed based on what you know about the non-Intercourse Act?

5. In 1850, the US illegally auctioned off Shab-eh-nay’s land. In the decades to come, Shab-eh-nay’s descendants began fighting back to restore their reservation. This fight took generations.

6. In 2024, the U.S. Department of the Interior recognized the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nations’ valid claim to these lands as the rightful heirs to Shab-eh-nay’s reservation. As the federal agency in charge of Indian Affairs, they took the land into trust to hold on behalf of the Prairie Band. Read Source 3, the Prairie Band tribal chairman Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick’s commentary in the Chicago Sun-Times (reprinted at the end of this document). Rupnick is a direct descendant of Shab-eh-nay. As you read his thoughts, note: 

• Based on the op-ed, describe the Prairie Band’s connections to the land in question.

• How have PBPN and Shab-eh-nay’s descendants worked to restore access to the land?

• What does the long fight and high cost tell you about Potawatomi connections to their homelands?

7. The Prairie Band land restoration is an example of the #landback movement that you learned about in the Hook. As the Prairie Band moves ahead with their restored relationship with their homelands, they have offered information to the public about the future in Illinois. As you read Source 4, this FAQ from the Prairie Band (reprinted at the end of this document). As you read, notice:

• What does this document tell us about the past, present, and future for Potawatomi people in what is currently DeKalb County?

• In the FAQ, the Prairie Band notes that “No one understands what it feels like to lose the place you call home better than Indians. That’s why Prairie Band has sought to reclaim our land free of lawsuits and in the least disruptive way possible for the current residents and homeowners.” How does the Prairie Band intend to work with and take care of people currently living within Prairie Band’s reservation lands? How does this reflect Indigenous values of hospitality, generosity, and care?

• Now that you know about the outcome of the Prairie Band’s work to restore their lands, what questions do you have? Where might you go to answer them?

8. As you read about in the Background section, Indigenous relationships with lands, waters, and other living beings recognize interdependence and emphasize respect, relationality, and mutual care. 

• What do you imagine for the futures of Indigenous people who have access to their homelands restored?

• Based on what you know about histories of Indigenous civics, what do you imagine for the futures of non-Native people living on Indigenous lands?

• What do you imagine for the futures of the lands and waters themselves?

9. Summing it up! This story about the restoration of Shab-eh-nay’s reservation offers an example of how Indigenous people maintain and are restoring their connections to their homelands. 

Looking across this module and in the Background section, respond to the following questions. Journal your thoughts or represent your reflections in an art form of your choice.

• How do Indigenous relationships to the lands and waters of Chicago persist in the present day? 

• How are Native nations working to reclaim access to their homelands and restore their relationships to them? 

• How do you imagine this will continue into the future? 

You can read the treaty in full here.

Under this treaty, the Odawak, Ojibweg, and Potawatomi ceded land between the Rock River and Lake Michigan north of the Indian boundary line – mostly what is now Evanston and Wilmette in exchange for commitments from settlers to provide $16,000 annually, $12,000 worth of goods, 50 barrels of salt, and permanent use of the blacksmith at Chicago. Native people also retained the right to hunt on the land ceded. This treaty reserved some parcels of land for individual treaty signers like Sauganaush (Billy Caldwell) (present-day Sauganaush and Edgebrook neighborhoods), Shab-eh-nay, and Chee-Chee-pin-quay (Alexander Robinson), as well as individuals like Archange Ouilmette (present-day parts of Wilmette and Evanston). All together, the treaty reserved tracts for about 15 individuals.

Source citation: United States and Odawak, Ojibweg, and Potawatomi Nations, “Treaty with the Chippewa etc, 1829” in Charles J. Kappler, ed. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, volume 2, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975). 

TREATY WITH THE CHIPPEWA, ETC.

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Prairie du Chien, in the Territory of Michigan, between the United States of America, by their Commissioners, General John McNeil, Colonel Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwater, Esq. and the United Nations of Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatamie Indians, of the waters of the Illinois, Milwaukee, and Manitoouck Rivers.

ARTICLE I. The aforesaid nations of Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatamie Indians, do hereby cede to the United States aforesaid, all the lands comprehended within the following limits, to wit: Beginning at the Winnebago Village, on Rock river, forty miles from its mouth, and running thence down the Rock river, to a line which runs due west from the most southern bend of Lake Michigan to the Mississippi river, and with that line to the Mississippi river opposite to Rock Island; thence, up that river, to the United States’ reservation at the mouth of the Ouisconsin; thence, with the south and east lines of said reservation, to the Ouisconsin river; thence southerly, passing the heads of the small streams emptying into the Mississippi, to the Rock River aforesaid, at the Winnebago Village, the place of beginning. And, also, one other tract of land described as follows, to wit: Beginning on the Western Shore of Lake Michigan, at the northeast corner of the field of Antoine Ouitmette, who lives near Gross Pointe, about twelve miles north of Chicago; thence, running due west, to the Rock River, aforesaid; thence, down the said river, to where a line drawn due west from the most southern bend of Lake Michigan crosses said river; thence, east, along said line, to the Fox River of the Illinois; thence, along the northwestern boundary line of the cession of 1816, to Lake Michigan; thence, northwardly, along the Western Shore of said Lake, to the place of beginning.

ARTICLE II. In consideration of the aforesaid cessions of land, the United States aforesaid agree to pay to the aforesaid nations of Indians the sum of sixteen thousand dollars, annually, forever, in specie: said sum to be paid at Chicago. And the said United States further agree to cause to be delivered to said nations of Indians, in the month of October next, twelve thousand dollars worth of goods as a present. And it is further agreed, to deliver to said Indians, at Chicago, fifty barrels of salt, annually, forever; and further, the United States agree to make permanent, for the use of the said Indians, the blacksmith’s establishment at Chicago.

ARTICLE III. From the cessions aforesaid, there shall be reserved, for the use of the undernamed Chiefs and their bands, the following tracts of land, viz: For Wau-pon-eh-see, five sections of land at the Grand Bois, on Fox River of the Illinois, where Shaytee’s Village now stands. For Shab-eh-nay, two sections at his village near the Paw-paw Grove. For Awn-kote four sections at the village of Saw-meh-naug, on the Fox River of the Illinois.

You can see all four pages of the document here.

Shab-eh-nay was a Potawatomi leader whose village was just west of what is currently known as Chicago. Though he was born Odawa in what is currently Michigan, he traveled to present-day Illinois when he was young. He married the daughter of Potawatomi leader Spotka, who lived in a large village on the Illinois River. After Spotka died, Shab-eh-nay became a village leader. Shab-eh-nay supported Shawnee leader Tecumseh in his organized resistance against American invasion. Later, he made the difficult decision to work with American officials in treaty negotiations, and ultimately removal. He thought this would give his community the best chance for survival. The U.S. government reserved land for Shab-eh-day in the 1829 Treaty of Prairie du Chien as thanks for his role as a treaty negotiator. 

Ansel Gates is one of two brothers who wanted to buy part of the land reserved for Shab-eh-nay. Shab-eh-nay wanted to sell to Gates. Since the Indian non-Intercourse act made it illegal for individual Native people to sell their land to individual settlers, Shab-eh-nay even traveled to Washington to petition Congress to allow it! Though it may seem surprising that Shab-eh-nay wanted to sell his land, there were likely other factors that influenced his decision: Ten years after removal, many Native communities were being placed onto smaller and smaller reservations. They were not allowed to hunt, and the rations the federal government promised were either not delivered or were delivered but of very low quality. This led to starvation in many communities. As a result, many individual Native people wanted to sell any land they had remaining to help feed their relatives. 

Source citation: Shabehnay and Ansel A. Gates, Deed of Sale, December 1, 1845. 

This Indenture, made this first day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-five between Ottowas & Pottawatomies, for himself and his band, of the one part, and Ansel A. Gates of the county of Lee and State of Illinois of the other part, 

Witnesseth: That the said Shabehnay, for himself and his band as aforesaid, for and in consideration of the sum of twelve hundred dollars current money of the United States to him in hand paid, at or before the sealing and delivery of these presents, by the said Ansel A. Gates, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, HATH given, granted, bargained and sold, enfeoffed, conveyed, released, and confirmed, and by these presents DOTH give, grant, bargain and sell, enfeoff, convey, release, and confirm unto the said Ansel A. Gates of the county of Lee & State of Illinois aforesaid his heirs and assigns forever, all that tract or parcel of land of six hundred and forty (640) acres, situate, lying and being in the county of DeKalb & State of Illinois Known as section twenty three in Township Thirtyeight North Range third east third Pacific Meridian, as appears by the Records of the General Land Office, being one of the two sections reserved to the said Shabehnay and his band by the Treaty made at Prairie du Chien between the United States and the Chippewa, Ottawa & Pottawatomy Indians, on the 29th day of July in the year of 1829, in words as follows, to wit: “There shall be reserved for the use of the undernamed Chiefs and their bands the following tracts of land, to wit for Shabehnay two sections at his village near the Pawpaw Grove,” as by reference to the third article of the Treaty aforesaid will more fully appear. 

Together with the buildings, improvements, rights, privileges, appurtenances and other hereditaments to the same belonging, or in any manner appertaining, and the remainders, reversions, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and all the right, title and estate of him, the said Shabehnay and his band in and to the same. TO HAVE AND HOLD the said described piece of ground and premises, with the appurtenances unto him, the said Ansel A. Gates & his heirs and assigns forever, to his and their sole use, benefit and behoof, forever. And the said Shabehnay for himself and his band, their heirs, executors, and administrators, by these presents, covenants, promises and agrees to and with the said Ansel A. Gates and his heirs and assigns in manner following, to wit: That they, the said Shabenay and his band and their heirs, shall and will warrant and forever defend the said described piece of ground and premises, with the appurtenances hereby bargained and sold unto him, the said Ansel A. Gates, his heirs and assigns, from and against them, the said Shabenay and his band, their heirs and assigns, and all persons claiming, or who may claim, by, under, or through him, them, or any of them. 

And further, that they, the said Shabenay and his band, and their heirs, shall and will at any and all times hereafter, at the request and cost of the said Ansel A. Gates, his heirs and assigns, make and execute any and every other deed of assurance in law, for the more sure and effectual conveyance of the said described piece of ground and premises with the appurtenances to the said Ansel A. Gates, his heirs and assigns, and the said Ansel A. Gates, his heirs and assigns, or his or her counsel, learned in the law, shall or may devise, advise or require.

In Testimony whereof, The said Shabehnay Chief he hath hereunto set his hand and affixed his seal the day and year first hereinbefore written. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered, in the presence of} 

(signed) Richard S. Elliott (Signed) Shabehnay [his x mark]

Late Ind. S. Agt. 

——————————————————– (bottom of contract page)  ——————————————————

Washington City, Dec 1, 1845. Received of Ansel A. Gates, of the county of Lee and State of Illinois, the sum of twelve  hundred dollars, being the consideration money specified in the above conveyance. 

Witness

(signed) Richard S. Elliott                                        (Signed) Shabehnay [his x mark]

Late Ind. S. Agt. 

——————————————————– (top of cover page) —————————————————————

Deed of Conveyance

Shahbenay to Ansel A. Gates 

640 acres of land in DeKalb County, State of Illinois 

——————————————————-

Part of Reserve to Shabehnay & his Band

Treaty of July 29/1824

——————————————————-

Executed in the county of Washington Dec. 1 1845

——————————————————-

Copy

 ——————————————————– (bottom of cover page)  ——————————————————– 

Washington, Dec 2. 1845

We certify that we were present and witnessed the payment of twelve hundred dollars, the consideration money of this written deed, and that the within named Shabenay expressed himself will satisfied and content therewith, and is in our opinion, fully competent to manage his own business.  

(Signed)  Geo. Gibson, Ret. Brig. Genl.        

(Signed) Richard S. Elliot

Late Ind. S. Agt. & Att’y for Pottawatomies

 ——————————————————-

The within deed & certificates are these copies of the originals now in my possession.

Richard S. Elliott

Washington

Dec. 5. 1845

  ——————————————————– (next page) ——————————————————– 

District of Columbia 

County of Washington:

Be it remembered, that on this 2d day of December in the year of our Lord 1845, before me the subscriber, a Commissioner of Deeds & appointed by the Governor of Illinois, in and for the said county of Washington, personally appeared the written named Indian Chief Shabehnay, and his interpreter W B Beaubien, and the said interpreter being by me duly sworn, questioned the said Shabehnay in my presence, and declared that the said Shabehnay replied that he fully understands the foregoing deed and acknowledges it his act & deed for the purposes therein set forth. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this day & year last above written. 

(signed) Edward F. Brown 

Commissioner of Deeds 

for State of Illinois 

You can read the article in full here.

Joseph ‘Zeke’ Rupnick is the Chairperson of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation as of this writing, and he was the Chairperson in 2024 when the nation reclaimed its land in DeKalb County. He is a direct descendant of Chief Shab-eh-nay. 

Source citation: Joseph ‘Zeke’ Rupnick, “Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation has Reached a Major Milestone in Reclaiming Ancestral Land in Illinois.” Chicago Sun Times, May 9, 2024. 

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation has reached a major milestone in reclaiming ancestral land in Illinois

The quest to regain stolen land began in 1849, when the U.S. government illegally auctioned off land in southern DeKalb County that belonged to a revered Potawatomi chief. Since then, the Nation has spent millions to repurchase that stolen land. 

By  Joseph ‘Zeke’ Rupnick   May 9, 2024, 2:05pm CDT

… You don’t need to look very far in Illinois to see the legacy of the many tribal nations that first lived here, but until recently there was not a single federally recognized Indian reservation in the state.

By contrast, Illinois’ neighbors Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa all have multiple federal Indian reservations. This discrepancy has been a grave injustice to many Nations, including the people of Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, whom I serve as Tribal Council chairman.

That all changed last week when the U.S. Department of the Interior placed portions of the Shab-eh-nay Reservation land, in DeKalb County, into trust for Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, making it the only federally recognized Tribal Nation in Illinois, and making Illinois the 35th state with a federally recognized Indian reservation.

This decision comes 175 years after the land was stolen from my fourth great-grandfather, the highly revered Chief Shab-eh-nay. In 1849, when Chief Shab-eh-nay traveled from his home reservation in DeKalb to visit his family in Kansas, the U.S. government illegally auctioned off more than 1,280 acres of his land near the village of Shabbona in southern DeKalb County.

Ever since our land was stolen from us, Prairie Band has sought to reclaim what is rightfully ours and continue our history as an original part of DeKalb County. In fact, starting in 2004 we bought a parcel of land on our original reservation, and over the course of 15 years we paid nearly $10 million in total to repurchase, parcel by parcel, a total of 130 acres of reservation land that already legally belonged to us.

By accepting the transfer of deeds from us and placing these 130 acres into trust, the U.S. Department of the Interior has put the government on a path to correct a historical injustice, giving generations of Potawatomi the opportunity to cultivate economic self-sufficiency in our homeland. This confirms the land as “Indian country” and solidifies jurisdictional boundaries, ensuring that the Nation can exercise sovereignty over the land.

Though this is a milestone for Native nations who are fighting for rights, recognition and restitution in states across America, we have yet to see the rightful return of land stolen from us.

That’s a process we’re still pursuing at the state of Illinois and through Congress — and as we do, we have publicly agreed that all current homeowners on the remaining reservation land will continue to retain title to their land and to live in their homes undisturbed. Because no one understands what it feels like to lose the place you call home better than Indians.

Reclaiming our land has been our life’s work for so many years. Now that we have reclaimed a portion of it, our people plan to thoughtfully and deliberately evaluate potential uses for the land before making any decisions.

We appreciate that current residents have questions. As part of this process, we intend to engage with stakeholders and community members to ensure transparency and collaboration throughout the process.

Indian tribal governments have jurisdiction within their reservations over criminal law enforcement over Indians (concurrent with federal government); civil regulatory authority over business activities; environmental and natural resource management; hunting and fishing; education; and social welfare. We will be present and attentive, and oversee a seamless transition of public services.

The continuity of public safety is very important to Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. That’s why we may seek to establish a Memorandum of Agreement with local law enforcement to ensure effective coordination and provision of law enforcement services.

The establishment of reservation lands in Illinois is unprecedented. This land is our ancestral home — it’s sacred to us, and any future plans will honor that history.

Joseph “Zeke” Rupnick is Tribal Council Chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation.

The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.

You can access the FAQ here.

The Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation is a federally-recognized tribal nation that has reservation in land in the states of Kansas and Illinois. Their homelands in the Great Lakes extend across parts of what are now the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. 

Source citation: “Illinois FAQ.” Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, pbpinddiantribe.com. 

April 2024, the U.S. Department of the Interior placed portions of the Shab-eh-nay Reservation land into trust for Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, affirming it as the only federally recognized Reservation in Illinois.

The news comes 175 years after the U.S. government illegally auctioned off 1,280 acres of Prairie Band’s Reservation land near what is now the village of Shabbona in southern DeKalb County when Chief Shab-eh-nay traveled from his home Reservation to visit his family in Kansas.

What is Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation?

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation is a federally recognized Tribal Nation with roots in northern Illinois. 

Our people – the Potawatomi people of Northern Illinois – were removed from our homelands in the early 1800s. At around that time, as part of the Treaty of Chicago, we relinquished 28 million acres of our homeland in the Great Lakes region to the U.S. government.

While we relinquished 28 million acres, we did not relinquish our 1,280 acre Reservation in what is now DeKalb County. The U.S. Senate at the time even affirmed this Reservation as ours and it was not ceded to the U.S. government. 

Despite this, in 1849, the U.S. government illegally auctioned off 1,280 acres of Chief Shab-eh-nay’s home Reservation in northern Illinois when he traveled to visit family in Kansas. Since that time, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation has been working to reclaim their stolen land. 

Currently Shab-eh-nay’s Reservation located in DeKalb County is occupied by the State of Illinois (Shabbona Lake State Park), the DeKalb County government (Chief Shabbona Forest Preserve), and approximately two dozen residential properties.

The Nation is now headquartered in Mayetta, Kan. but continues to call northern Illinois home, and is heavily involved in the community and throughout the state. 

How common are Indian Reservations throughout the United States?

Very! There are more states with reservations than without.

There are 574 federally recognized Tribes across 36 states. This status arises from treaties between the Nation and the U.S. government. No other Tribe has entered into more treaties with the U.S. Government than Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. All of them have been broken.

Illinois is a state built on Native land, but up until but up until our lands were put in trust in April 2024, it was one of only 15 states without a federally recognized Tribe.

How did Prairie Band get the land that was put in trust?

Although the U.S. government illegally auctioned off 1,280 acres of Reservation land in what is now southern DeKalb County, the land rightfully belongs to Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation – as affirmed by multiple treaties and reaffirmed by the U.S. Department of the Interior under President George W. Bush’s administration in 2001. 

Since the land hasn’t yet legally been returned to Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, the Nation spent nearly $10 million over the course of 15 years to repurchase a total of 130 acres that fall on the original Reservation land. 

We then petitioned the U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs to have the 130 acres placed into trust, affirming the Nation’s sovereignty.

What does it mean to have Reservation land put in trust? 

These three parcels totaling 130 acres are lands the Nation has previously reacquired, all of which are within the original reservation boundaries. Placing the land into trust means Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation signed over the legal land titles to the United States to be held in trust for the Nation. Since the land is placed into trust, it is definitively “Indian country” for purposes of Nation, Federal, and State jurisdiction.

There are two processes for the Department of Interior to take lands into trust for a federally recognized tribe on a discretionary basis. One process is for lands within the boundaries of that tribe’s reservation, and the other is for lands that are off-reservation. Importantly, these lands are being placed into trust pursuant to the on-reservation process. 

What can Prairie Band do with the land once it’s in Trust?

The Nation has a wide variety of options for utilization of the trust lands. The Nation’s leadership is considering potential uses but no decisions on changes in use have been made at this time.

Who’s responsible for governing the 130 acres now that it’s once again a Reservation designated for a federally recognized Tribal Nation?

Indian tribal governments have jurisdiction within their reservations over criminal law enforcement over Indians (concurrent with federal government), civil regulatory authority over business activities, environmental and natural resource management, hunting and fishing, education and social welfare. 

Prairie Band intends to oversee a seamless transition of public services. 

The continuity of public safety is very important to Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. That’s why we may seek to establish a Memorandum of Agreement with local law enforcement to ensure effective coordination. 

Does Prairie Band plan to do any development with the land?

Reclaiming our land has been our life’s work for so many years. Now that we have reclaimed a portion of it, our people plan to thoughtfully and deliberately evaluate potential uses for the land before making any decisions. 

The Nation will carefully evaluate potential uses for the land. 

What are restrictions/coordination with law enforcement on the land that’s in Trust?

Criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is complex. While the state and local governments have limited criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, the Nation may seek to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with local law enforcement to ensure continuity of adequate and efficient law enforcement services for the Trust lands.

How does this newly designation reservation impact taxes for the county? 

The county and other local taxing authorities will no longer have jurisdiction to assess real property taxes against the Trust lands.

What does this news about designated Reservation land mean for homeowners who have property on the Reservation?

No one understands what it feels like to lose the place you call home better than Indians. That’s why Prairie Band has sought to reclaim our land free of lawsuits and in the least disruptive way possible for the current residents and homeowners.

We are committed to ensuring that current homeowners can continue to retain title to their land and to live in their homes undisturbed. 

Currently, deeds for homeowners within the Reservation are subject to “all rights, claims, or title to the descendants of a Potawatomi Indian Chieftain named Shabbona and his Band.” 

We have legislation making its way through Congress that would wipe deeds clean of that clause in favor of assuring current homeowners that their property is theirs without condition. 

What is the status of the federal legislation that would address homeowner concerns? 

The legislation (Senate bill 1492 and House Bill 3144) has been filed but has not yet had a committee hearing this Congress.

The legislation would resolve the wrongful act of the federal government selling Prairie Band land without authorization.  

It would provide a damages payment for the lost use of the Reservation for 175 years and recognize the authority of the Prairie Band to acquire additional lands. Iin exchange, the Prairie Band would clear their title interest to the lands occupied by homeowners within the Reservation.  

What steps is the Nation taking to reclaim more of its original Reservation land?

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation has been deprived of its ownership and use of its Shab-eh-nay Reservation in DeKalb County since the 1830s. During this time, the Nation has been denied the cultural, social, and economic benefit of those lands.

The whole of our original Reservation that legally belongs to us has yet to be returned. Even though 130 acres has now been put into trust, not a single acre that was stolen from us per violation of U.S. treaty has been returned to us. The Nation paid nearly $10 million to buy back those 130 acres that are part of our original reservation. 

Legislation making its way through the Illinois Legislature in Springfield would transfer Shabbona Lake State Park in DeKalb County to Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, on whose Reservation the park currently sits.

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation has committed to keep the park open to the public, and to improve the infrastructure and experience of the park if the legislation passes and is signed into law.