Module 2: Land and Environment

How do shifting political boundaries impact human relationships with lands, waters, and each other?

The second module of the Indigenous Chicago curriculum focuses on the transformation of the land and environment of the Chicago region, including the cession of land through treaties that led to the removal of Native people.  Historians have recently emphasized the close ties between Native removal and the alterations of land and waterways. In the nineteenth century, these were known as “internal improvements,” and today, we refer to them as “infrastructure.”  Non-Native explorers to the Great Lakes region identified and recorded natural mines of copper, saltpeter, and other resources beginning in the 17th century and demonstrated a desire to extract wealth from the land throughout the colonial period. Later, after a series of treaties that reshaped the balance of power in the region and removed thousands of Indigenous peoples from their homelands, the United States pursued large-scale canal and drainage projects that fundamentally reshaped the wetlands ecosystem. In spite of removal and the attempts to sever their ties to this place, Native people retain their ties to Chicago and continue to maintain and renew reciprocal relationships with this land.

Indigenous creation stories situate Native peoples’ relationships to the lands that encompasses their homelands and outline the relationality between people, as well as plant and animal relatives. Maintaining these relationships through reciprocal care is an important aspect of Indigenous approaches to land and has long motivated removed Native people to stay connected to their ancestral homelands. These relationships are rooted in Indigenous systems of law that prioritize the health and well-being of humans, lands, waters, animals, and plants. In teaching these connections to your students, it is important to attend to the long-standing relationships that Indigenous people hold with land while also taking care to not romanticize or essentialize those connections in a stereotypical way. Indigenous people have been stewarding and caring for the land we live on since time immemorial, but it is a myth that  the land went unchanged or untouched prior to colonization. Rather, Indigenous people in this region historically managed the land intentionally, including by using controlled burns to manage ecosystems and increase species diversity. Native people have always altered land, but unlike European approaches that emphasized extracting from the land to meet human wants, Indigenous engagements with land are based in reciprocal relations that aim to promote collective long term health  in accordance with Indigenous scientific knowledge and legal systems. In contrast, the changes made to land after colonization that we discuss below (such as the rerouting of the Chicago river and draining of regional marshes) have negatively impacted the health of the land, as well as Native peoples’ ability to maintain their traditional lifeways and reciprocal relationships with it. 

The marshes in the Chicago-region were frequently used for wild-ricing by Neshnabé people until settlers drained them and removed Neshnabé people from their homelands. For more on this, you might explore this short 26 minute documentary, Mnomen (Wild Rice): The Food that Grows on Water, produced by the Gun Lake Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Pottawatomi Nation. The video highlights wild rice as a traditional food source, emphasizes its importance for connecting Neshnabé communities to the Great Lakes region, explains its importance for other wildlife and fish, and notes its use within ceremonies. Removal interrupted reciprocal relationships between Indigenous peoples and the marshes that were thousands of years old, disrupting Indigenous peoples’ ability to caretake the wild rice beds and ensure the health of the marshes themselves.  Those changes impacted the health of other animal and plant species. Consider how social and political changes continue to impact the health of the land as well as Indigenous relations with it.

The area’s marshes and oak savannas–rich in game, fowl, fish, and edible plants–mediated between the western tallgrass prairies and the woodlands of the Great Lakes basin. Perhaps even more significantly, the area’s waterways and portages intersect intermittently with a continental divide, flowing either into Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes or towards the Illinois River to the Mississippi River and eventually the Gulf of Mexico. The Chicago area’s local abundance as well as its position as the lowest, shortest continental divide between the watersheds of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes have made it a highly strategic and coveted geography over its long history. Over several centuries, Indigenous peoples have periodically established themselves in this transition zone to trade with travelers moving through, hold diplomatic deliberations and other kin gatherings, and project power into the surrounding regions. 

The territory immediately southwest of Lake Michigan is filled with rivers and lakes that fluctuate with the seasons and have experienced substantial alterations over both historical and geological timescales. However, changes to the region’s waterways rapidly accelerated under settler occupation as seen in the re-routing of the Chicago river, the draining of the area’s marshes, and the replacement of the Chicago portage with the Illinois-Michigan Canal (which was later expanded with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal).

From the first non-Native settlers that arrived in the region in the late 17th century, settlers long envisioned transforming the Chicago waterways to suit European desires for extraction, trade, and Christian evangelism. Early Jesuits were in favor of building a canal because they thought it would enable them to travel more quickly between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin and reach more Indigenous communities. However, for more than a century after initial contact, they were unsuccessful. Native people controlled the landscape and the portage routes, and they successfully resisted French and British attempts to incorporate the region into these respective European empires. Indigenous people continued to resist colonial encroachment following the Seven Years War (or French and Indian War), even as the Americans laid claim to the Chicago area. 

The Americans, like the British and French before them, set their sights on taking control of Chicago, but unlike their predecessors, they prioritized taking control of the waterways. Their initial surveys of the region focused on the advantageous location of the mouth of the Chicago River, the possibility to create a harbor, and the potential construction of a canal. With this in mind, the first treaty cessions in the region (see below, 1795 and 1816) focused on taking control of these water routes.  This shifted the balance of power in the region significantly. As the Americans invested in transforming local waterways at the beginning of the 19th century, the physical and social landscape began to change. The parallel timelines of the forced removal of Indigenous peoples (discussed below) and these environmental transformations are not a coincidence. Transforming the land to suit the desires of settlers drove efforts to dispossess Indigenous peoples of their land. Later, settlers would repeat similar patterns of attempting to remove Native people from land that held rich natural resources, such as following the discovery of gold in the Black Hills and in California. 

The changes made to Chicago’s waterways transformed Chicago from an environment carefully managed by and suited for Indigenous needs to one that would support a settler economy. Both the mouth of the Chicago River and the portage were shallow waterways ideally suited for canoes. The mouth of the river lay just behind a submerged sandbar, making the entrance to the river no more than a few feet deep, and the portage was similarly shallow, even during the wet seasons. This harbor kept the shoreline protected from large waves, and the calm, shallow water between the sandbar and the shore provided an ideal habitat for many types of plants and fish. The shallow Chicago and Des Plaines Rivers, as well as the wetlands across the land south of Lake Michigan were also important habitats for both plant and animal relatives that Indigenous people relied on, especially wild rice and fur-bearing aquatic mammals like beaver and otter. They were also important breeding grounds for fish. However, since larger American ships often ran aground in these shallow waters, U.S. officials began planning to alter the waterscape to benefit Euro-American shipping. Beginning in 1816, American officials rebuilt Fort Dearborn ( it was burned down in 1812) at the mouth of the Chicago River and surveys of the lands ceded in 1816 began two years later. By 1822, Congress gave permission for the creation of a canal along the existing portage route. U.S. officials broke ground on the Illinois-Michigan Canal in 1836. Plans to reroute the river and create a harbor suitable for larger ships also began in this period. Congress earmarked funding for harbor improvements in 1828 and 1831 and began construction in 1833. The buzz around these engineering projects drew incoming waves of American settlers and land speculators, many of whom expressed their disdain at the wetland and marsh-dominated region, declaring it unsuitable for capital investors. In order to make the land more desirable for these buyers, U.S. officials began several draining projects along the southern section of Lake Michigan starting in 1832. These efforts would continue over the next decades, ultimately destroying 367,485 acres of wetlands.

In addition to happening alongside the forced removal of Native people, these changes to Chicago’s waterways were also spurred by a time of technological advancement and innovation in the United States. Inventions like the steamboat in 1809 directly prompted changes to Chicago’s waterways, and the overall excitement around innovation, spurred in part by the expansion of the U.S. Patent Office, contributed to an environment that promoted the creation of technologies that could give humans power over nature. 

Indigenous people have long created maps to keep record of lands, waters, relations with each other, and the stars. These maps don’t necessarily look like European maps. Instead of being printed on paper, they might be painted or beaded onto leather, etched into bark, or told orally through stories and place names. When Europeans arrived, they didn’t recognize these kinds of maps. They thought they had to create new ones. As settlers moved through the Chicago region, they attempted to map the area for several purposes. 

First, the manuscript maps that were created in North America by early explorers and settlers served important navigational purposes. Later groups of explorers used maps from those who traveled through the region before them to learn about waterways, food sources, and the location of various Native communities. Holding knowledge about a place and how to move through it socially and geographically gave these settlers the ability to navigate the land and eventually, fueled their desire to control the space.  However, these maps could never have been created without heavy influence from Native people. During the early contact period, it was common for Jesuits and other early explorers to consult with Native people at trading centers like Michilimackinac (present-day Mackinaw Island) before embarking on a journey and to update their maps and geographical notes accordingly with seasonal changes or the present location of various Native groups.

Settlers also created navigational maps for military purposes. These manuscript maps were often created by individuals who were not cartographers, and are frequently hand written and harder to read. For example, an anonymous author created the 1812 Hay Map and its accompanying interpretation for Illinois Governor Ninian Edwards in preparation for military excursions into Indigenous territories. When it was made, the region that became northern Illinois was still “Indian Country” and was not under United States control. Edwards had given little thought to the region up to this point, but that all changed as Shawnee leaders Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa began to organize a coalition of Native people to resist American invasion into their lands. Suddenly, the Native communities that Edwards had ignored were a threat to his vision of colonialism. There are many important details to notice about the map (seen more easily on its digital interpretation): Unlike something for a general audience, it is oriented with north toward the right side of the page and is centered around a cluster of Ho-Chunk villages. The many directions of the writing suggest that it was not created by a professional cartographer and was likely created quickly, perhaps because the author was taking notes while talking to someone else. Specific details such as the number of “men” at each village and the names of certain Native leaders suggests that this person had extensive knowledge about the region (or was talking to someone who did) and was concerned about the potential military resistance at each site. 

By the time the Hay Map was created, it had become common for white traders to marry Native women as a way of building kinship ties with Native communities – a move that was necessary for both survival and successful trading, and one that additionally provided useful information for mapping. Though the Hay Map’s authorship is debated, we know that Edwards reached out to several individuals for insight as he was trying to gather information about this region. One of those people was French fur trader Louis Buisson, who was married to Sheshi (Suzanne Chevalier), a Potawatomi woman who was the granddaughter of Potawatomi leader Naunogee and the sister of Archange Ouilmette, the wife of French fur trader Antoine Ouilmette. Might Buisson have created the map using knowledge shared with him by Sheshi and her kin? While it’s impossible to know for sure, we encourage you to use this map with your students to think about the purpose of navigational maps for European exploration and expansion and the influence that Native people had on their creation. 

Printed maps for more public audiences served other purposes related to colonialism and empire-building. Often embellished and highly decorative, these maps contained exoticized images of Native people and were meant to inspire investment in colonialism. Many of these maps portrayed a view of reality that didn’t exist: they sought to claim vast areas of territory, often including areas that settlers had never traveled but were only made aware of by their Indigenous contacts who actually lived on and controlled the land in question. The accuracy of these maps was further complicated by communications between North America and Europe, as early printed maps were primarily based on the written narratives and measurements of Jesuit expeditions that were sent back to Europe. As a result, there was sometimes as much as a fifty-year gap between the Jesuit notes that cartographers in Europe were relying on and the printing and publication of the maps they created. Most of the cartographers who created the first printed maps of the area never set foot in what we now think of as the American Midwest, making them at best a snapshot in time and at worst, wholly unreliable. The 1718 Nicolas de Fer map in the pre-module is a good example of this type of map. Despite their lack of accuracy and imperial purposes, today, these maps can tell us a great deal about European visions for expansion, the presence and importance of Indigenous people, and the extent to which these early explorers were entering an established Native world. Native people are noted everywhere on de Fer’s map and actively hunting, traveling by canoe, and portaging. 

Colonial powers also used early maps to identify natural resources that could be exploited for various purposes and to “claim” land and communicate their perceived power to other colonial nations. Thus, it was common for early French maps to include the location of copper, saltpeter, and iron mines, among other natural resources, so that those on the ground could communicate an area’s potential for exploitation to those in power who remained in Europe  The 1673 map from the Marquette expedition, which was circulated with Marquette’s early narratives, identifies various natural resources and was meant to inspire support for future colonial endeavors. 

The establishment of the city of Chicago was made possible through treaties made with tribal nations who have called the Chicagoland area their home since time immemorial. The following section outlines the seven treaties that either ceded land in the Chicagoland area or were signed at Chicago, and provides an overview of the treaty-making process more broadly. 

It is a myth that Indigenous people did not have systems of private property prior to colonization. Indigenous people had long-standing practices for recognizing territorial boundaries between Native nations in terms of governance, hunting, agriculture, and other needs. Once established, these agreements between Native nations were routinely maintained. In an Indigenous approach to treaties, treaty-making creates, in the words of Ojibwe writer Leanne Simpson, networks of “healthy collective relationships” that maintain “peaceful coexistence, respect, and mutual benefit.” They require ongoing caretaking and renewal, as they create an “ongoing reciprocal and dynamic relationship to be nurtured, maintained, and respected.”

This approach to legal agreements and diplomacy looked different from the western legal models Americans expected, and settlers did not recognize Indigenous legal systems as valid. American understandings of law had been inherited from European legal traditions and were based on individually held notions of property that could be owned, transferred, and modified. Within a western legal framework, these could be one-time agreements, purchases, or transfers and did not require relationships beyond the single transaction. Whereas Europeans and Americans saw lands as able to be exchanged solely based on their financial value, Indigenous treaty signatories did not see land as interchangeable – rather, they recognized that their relationships with place reflected generations of knowledge about ecology, medicine, and food, as well as spirituality and language. The difference in these two approaches meant that Indigenous people and Europeans/Americans did not have the same expectations going into treaty talks. 

After the American Revolution, American leaders set their sights on Indigenous land in the Midwest. One of the motivating factors for the revolution was the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade settlers from invading and settling on Indigenous land west of the Appalachian Mountains. But after the war, when this proclamation was void, there was little to stop settlers from moving onto unceded Native lands, and tensions rose quickly, leading to what is often known as “The Northwest Indian War.” American leaders who sought Indigenous land in the Midwest believed that it was “destined” for the United States to expand West, and that Native people, as non-Christians, were not deserving of the land they had. Instead, these leaders, like those that came after them who outrightly used the term “manifest destiny,” believed that these lands had been given by God to the United States. These beliefs ultimately influenced the violence, and eventually the coercive, fraudulent, and deceitful tactics that US officials used to secure land upon entering into treaty talks. Tribal nations often treatied under duress or without the full knowledge of what they were signing. U.S. officials leading treaty talks (who were called Treaty Commissioners and were usually U.S. Indian agents, businessmen appointed by the U.S. government, political leaders, or military officials) aggressively sought the signatures of Native leaders, and when they could not acquire the signatures they desired, they sought out other, more amenable tribal members, or even other communities entirely who might be willing to sign treaties on behalf of those reluctant to do so. Such was the case with the 1795 Treaty of Greenville, where few (if any) representatives from the Neshnabék around Chicago attended the treaty negotiations that ceded a six-square mile tract around the mouth of the Chicago River. Instead, the land was ceded by Neshnabék from other regions, and by other tribes who ceded their claims to the land. Since Chicago had multiple overlapping land claims, these other communities recognized that they did not hold the sole right to cede this land. After the treaty was signed, Neshnabé leaders from Chicago protested the treaty, arguing that none of them were present for the negotiations and did not grant permission for the land cession. 

In other cases, U.S officials strategically timed their negotiations so that Native communities would be in need of support or would be in a position to concede. Treaty talks were often called by U.S. officials following the conclusion of a battle or longer conflict, or when Native communities were in dire need of food and supplies. For example, Native communities in the Chicago area faced supply shortages in the years following the War of 1812. In 1815, U.S. officials began planning for the Treaty of St. Louis. By the time they gathered communities together in 1816, the Neshnabék from the Chicago area were hungry (the demands of the fur trade had begun to drive away game) and low on supplies. Illinois governor Ninian Edwards argued that a canal built within the lands the U.S. wanted to acquire would bring prosperity to the Neshnabék once again. Tribal leaders were skeptical, but they accepted the treaty with the promise of an annual supply of $1,000 worth of goods, which was desperately needed to feed and provide supplies to their communities.  U.S officials were also strategic about where they called tribal leaders together. For example, the 1816 treaty took place in St. Louis and the 1829 treaty took place in Prairie du Chien, far away from the lands ceded in present-day Chicago. Conversely, Chicago was strategically chosen for the 1821 treaty because it was far away from the lands that were to be ceded in present-day Michigan. Treaty talks typically occurred over several weeks, and entire communities traveled to attend them (it is estimated that at least 8,000 Neshnabé attended the 1833 Treaty of Chicago), so holding them away from the lands to be ceded also exhausted the resources of Native communities that were required for these long journeys. Once there, Native leaders were worn down by treaty commissioners seeking even the smallest concession. 

In addition to the strategies outlined above, U.S. officials also used the threat of violence to convince Native leaders to attend treaty talks and cede land. Such was the case after the 1832 Black Hawk War (discussed further in Module 4). This conflict ended in a particularly violent event that has come to be known as the Bad Axe Massacre. Though some Neshnabé people actually aided the Americans as scouts and intermediaries during the conflict, and others were held in an encampment in Chicago to prevent their involvement, American officials used the war as an excuse for why removal was necessary, arguing that Black Hawk’s actions represented the violence of all Native communities and that accordingly, the Neshnabék must be removed. Treaty Commissioners suggested that the Neshnabék might experience similarly violent outcomes if they did not relinquish their final land claims and remove. 

The process of treaty-making ostensibly established firm boundaries for the extent of Euro-American settlement, but as settlers flooded regions ceded by tribal nations, the increased number of white settlers and their encroachment on remaining Native land pressured tribal nations to make a greater number of land cessions. As this pressure grew, many Native leaders ultimately signed treaties because they believed that peace, along with other land that was promised to have more game and be free of future incursion by American settlers, offered the best possible futures for their relatives and for future generations. While there were certainly also problems with mistranslation (intentional and accidental) of treaties written in English by U.S. officials, Native leaders had well-established practices of diplomacy across language barriers. It is too simple to say Native people lacked awareness of what they were signing. In many cases, Native people made difficult decisions that considered both the interests of their communities at the time of signing as well as those of future generations.  

A summary of important treaties in the formation of the Chicago area include: 

• 1795 Treaty of Greenville: This treaty ended a conflict known as “The Northwest Indian War.” Under this agreement, the Wyandot, Lenni-Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, Odawak, Ojibweg, Potawatomi, Myaamiaki, Eel River, Kickapoo, and the Weas, Piankashaws, and Kaskaskias (who would later become the Peoria Tribe)  ceded a six-mile-square parcel around the mouth of the Chicago River, along with small parcels of land in present-day Indiana and Michigan and large tracts of land in present-day Ohio in exchange for commitments from settlers to provide $20,000 worth of goods up front and $9,500 worth of goods on an annual basis, as well as additional cash payments ranging from $500-$1000 per tribe. Native people also retained the right to hunt, plant, and live on the land ceded, as well as move freely through the land and water ceded. This treaty is designated as Cession 24 on the Tribal Connections map.

• 1804 Treaty of St. Louis: While this treaty, signed by the Sauk and Meskwaki, does not cede land in Chicago, it does cede significant portions of present-day Illinois. The treaty exchanges the land that lies between the Fox and Illinois Rivers on the east side and the Mississippi River on the west side, as far north as present-day southern Wisconsin and as far south as present-day Missouri for commitments from settlers to provide $1000 worth of goods annually. This treaty is designated as Cession 50 on the Tribal Connections map.

• 1816 Treaty of St. Louis: In this treaty, the Odawak, Ojibweg, and Potawatomi ceded a twenty mile wide strip on the western boundary of Lake Michigan, ten miles north and ten miles south of the Chicago River as well as a strip of land extending to the Fox River – this established the Indian Boundary Line. They did so in exchange for commitments from settlers to provide $1000 worth of goods annually for twelve years. Native people also retained the right to hunt and fish on the land ceded. This treaty is designated as Cession 78 on the Tribal Connections map.

• 1821 Treaty of Chicago: This treaty is named the Treaty of Chicago not because it ceded land in Chicago, but because treaty negotiations took place there. Under the 1821 Treaty of Chicago, the Odawak, Ojibweg, and Potawatomi ceded a large tract of land in present-day southwest Michigan in exchange for commitments from settlers to provide a $1,000 annual annuity and to spend $1500 annually for ten years on a blacksmith, teacher, and agricultural instructor for the Odawa community. To the Potawatomi people, they agreed to provide $5,000 annually for twenty years and to spend $1000 annually for fifteen years on a blacksmith and teacher for the community. Native people also retained the right to hunt and fish on the land ceded. This treaty is designated as Cession 117 on the Tribal Connections map.

• 1829 Treaty of Prairie du Chien: Under this treaty, the Odawak, Ojibweg, and Potawatomi ceded land between the Rock River and Lake Michigan north of the 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. This treaty is designated as Cession 148 on the Tribal Connections map.

• 1832 Treaty of Tippecanoe: This treaty, one of three signed by the Potawatomi in October of 1832 at Tippecanoe, ceded land in the southernmost part of Chicago from the lake south on what is now the Illinois/Indiana state line across what is now Big Marsh Park and then extending further south beyond city lines in exchange for commitments from settlers to provide and annuity of $15,000 for twenty years and $85,000 in merchandize. A total of $1,400 was also paid to about two dozen individuals, and leaders Sauganaush (Billy Caldwell), Chee-Chee-pin-quay (Alexander Robinson), and Pierre Le Clerc were also given annual annuities. This treaty also set aside land for nearly two dozen Native individuals. This treaty is designated as Cession 177 on the Tribal Connections map.

• 1833 Treaty of Chicago: This treaty with representatives of the Ojibweg, Odawak, and Potawatomi ceded land north of the 1829 treaty boundary extending into what is now southern Wisconsin. Negotiated shortly after the passage of the Indian Removal Act, this treaty also resulted in the removal of Native people in the state west of the Mississippi. The signatories did so in exchange for commitments from settlers that they would provide an annuity of $14,000 for twenty years;  $100,000 in goods; $150,000 for houses, blacksmith shops, and agricultural improvements; $70,000 for education; and $150,000 for debt payments. The treaty also included individual payments to Sauganaush (Billy Caldwell), Chee-Chee-pin-quay (Alexander Robinson), and Shab-eh-nay (among other leaders).  This treaty is designated as Cession 187 on the Tribal Connections map. 

The culmination of treaties and land cessions in the Great Lakes region and the place known today as “Chicago” resulted in removal, in which those seen as having signed away legitimate title to their lands were pressured, under duress or even through outright violence, to leave their homelands and move further west. For the Neshnabék in the Chicago region, removal began two years after the Treaty of 1833. Unlike previous treaties that had allowed continued Indigenous settlement in the region (sometimes even on land ceded), as well as continued rights to hunt and fish on ceded territory, this treaty stipulated that the Neshnabék be removed west of the Mississippi. In August of 1835, about 5,000 Neshnabé people reported to the Chicago Indian Agency to collect their annual payment for treaty cessions and to be removed across the Mississippi. These Neshnabék were expected to remove west, as stipulated in the Treaty of 1833. They were led by Sauganaush (Billy Caldwell) and Padekoshēk, but their removal was to be supervised by U.S. officials. So painful was the prospect of removal for the Neshnabék that before departing, they engaged in a mourning procession at the mouth of the Chicago River, in what is now downtown. Mischaracterized by onlookers as a “war dance,” the procession of 800 Neshnabé men was actually a process of grieving their departure from these lands. 

These 5000 people were joined by others. Another group of about 750 Potawatomi people from the Fox River Valley were gathered at the Des Plaines River near present-day Lemont, IL in 1836 to remove west. About 900 additional Potawatomi people led by Shab-eh-nay and Waubunsee joined them just before they reached Peoria, amounting to 1,700 people. Another small removal of remaining Potawatomi people was completed in 1838. 

In spite of removal, Neshnabé people, and those who were pushed out of the Chicago region before them for various reasons, have never relinquished their claims to and reciprocal connections with these lands. As we have discussed in other modules, these communities still consider the Chicago region part of their ancestral homelands, and in 2024, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi reclaimed 130 of the 1,280 acres in DeKalb County that was granted to Potawatomi leader Shab-eh-nay in the Treaty of 1829 but then stolen without subsequent treaty making. Earlier in the twentieth century, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi also made (but lost) a formal claim to recover lands in Chicago, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma considers land on the eastern side of the state unceded because the treaty concerning it was signed by a tribe who did not have the sole right to do so. These formal reclamations and claims, as well as ongoing connections to the land, continue in spite of removal, both by tribal nations who remain hundreds of miles away from Chicago and from members of those communities and other tribal nations who live in the city today. In particular, many Indigenous people who currently live in Chicago are 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. Other artists like Jason Wesaw, whose water blanket appears in the Hook, have also created pieces that speak to the ongoing connections that removed Indigenous people hold to the land and waterways here. When teaching about treaties and removal, emphasize that in spite of being forced to leave these lands, Indigenous people have never relinquished their relationships with them, and that the decisions city officials make about our environment still impact these communities. 

Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill, “Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy,” Feminist Formations 25, no. 1 (2013): 8–34.

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.

Bowes, John P. Land Too Good for Indians: Northern Indian Removal. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2016). 

Calloway, Colin. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 

Keating, Ann Durkin. Rising Up From Indian Country: The Battle of Fort Dearborn and the Birth of Chicago. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012). 

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

Lewis, G. Malcolm, ed. Cartographic Encounters: Perspectives on Native American Mapmaking and Map Use. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). 

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). 

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

Sleeper-Smith, Susan. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001). 

Tanner, Helen Hornbeck. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. 2nd edition. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987). 

Warhus, Marc. Another America: Native American Maps and the History of Our Land (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1997). 

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

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