By the end of this exercise, I can… 

• assess the importance of waterways in the regional balance of power
• compare Indigenous and settler approaches to technology
• evaluate the impact of treaty changes on humans, lands, waters, plants, and animals

This exercise directly relates to:

• Land purchases from American Indian Nations (1795-1830s)
• The Indian Removal Act (1830s)

This exercise could also be paired with teaching about: 

• Innovations with technology, agriculture, and business (1816-1830s)
• The Trail of Tears. Connect to removal in the Midwest. (1830s-1860s)
• Andrew Johnson and the Constitution. Connect to removal in the Midwest (1830s-1860s)
• California Gold Rush. Connect to the exploitation of the land and resources as tied to the dispossession of Native people (1795-1830s)

Geography

• SS.9-12.G.6. Analyze and explain how humans affect and interact with the environment and vice versa.
• SS.9-12.G.7. Evaluate how political and economic decisions have influenced cultural and environmental characteristics of various places and regions
• SS.9-12.G.9.Explain how landscape, land and resource use, and means of interacting with land, animals, and plants each reflect cultural beliefs and identities.

History

• SS.9-12.H.1. Evaluate the context of time and place as well as structural factors that influence historical developments.
• SS.9-12.H.3. Evaluate the methods used to promote change and the effects and outcomes of these methods on diverse groups of people.
• SS.9-12.H.13. Analyze multiple and complex causes and effects of events in the past.

Treaties and Removal 

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. In fact, before the 19th century, most Native communities in the Midwest signed treaties from a position of power – the United States needed permission to trade and travel across the landscape. 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 for governing, hunting, farming, and other needs. 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. 

American leaders who wanted Indigenous land in the Midwest believed that it was “destined” for the United States to expand West. They thought that Native people did not deserve the land they had because they were not Christian. American leaders believed that these lands had been given to the United States by God. This would later be called “manifest destiny.” These beliefs influenced the tactics that US officials used to secure land upon entering into treaty talks. 

Most treaty negotiations in the 19th century took place within the larger context of settler violence. American settlers were consistently invading Native land and Native people in turn worked to defend their homelands. The U.S. government often used this violence to force treaty negotiations, then 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. While there were certainly also problems with translations (on purpose and accidental), Native people had long negotiated across language barriers for diplomacy and trade. It’s too simple to say they did not know what they were signing. Instead, they most often made difficult decisions to keep their communities safe and protect future generations. You can read more about the specific tactics U.S. negotiators used in SQ 2. 

Treaty-making was supposed to set firm borders for where Euro-Americans would settle, but settlers regularly ignored treaty boundaries. More settlers meant more conflict and fewer available resources, which pressured Native nations to cede more land. Many Native leaders signed treaties because they believed that peace might be found in the lands that the treaties promised. In the treaty talks, Americans promised to permanently set aside lands for Native people where they would have enough food and be free from arriving settlers. Native leaders who accepted this trade believed it offered the best possible futures for future generations of their people. This demonstrates how Native leaders had to make difficult decisions during treaty talks. They had to take care of their communities at the time, and they also had to think about the needs of future generations. In spite of being forced to leave, Indigenous people who were removed have never given up their relationships with their homelands.

A summary of important treaties in the Chicago area include: 

• 1795 Treaty of Greenville: This treaty ended a conflict known as the Northwest Indian War. Under this treaty, the Wyandot, Lenni-Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, Odawak , Ojibweg, Potawatomi, Myaamiaki, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Piankashaw, and Kaskaskia ceded six-miles 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, the U.S. government promised $20,000 in supplies right away and $9,500 in supplies every year after. The U.S. also promised cash payments ranging from $500-$1000 per tribe. Under the treaty, Native people retained the right to hunt, plant, and live on the ceded land. They also retained the right to move freely through the ceded lands and waters.

• 1804 Treaty of St. Louis: This treaty does not cede land in Chicago, but it does cede significant portions of present-day Illinois. Signed by the Sauk and Meskwaki, the treaty exchanges land between the Fox and Illinois Rivers on the east and the Mississippi River on the west, as far north as present-day southern Wisconsin and as far south as present-day Missouri. In exchange, the U.S. government promised $1000 in supplies annually. 

• 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. In exchange, the U.S. government promised $1000 worth in supplies each year for twelve years. Native people also retained the right to hunt and fish on the ceded lands. 

• 1821 Treaty of Chicago: This treaty is named the Treaty of Chicago because treaty negotiations took place there, but it didn’t actually cede land in Chicago. Under the treaty, the Odawak, Ojibweg, and Potawatomi ceded land in present-day southwest Michigan. In exchange, the U.S. government promised the Odawa people a $1,000 annual payment and to pay a blacksmith, teacher, and agricultural instructor for the Odawa community for ten years. They promised the Potawatomi people $5,000 each year for twenty years and to pay for a blacksmith and a teacher for the community for 15 years. Native people also retained the right to hunt and fish on the ceded lands. 

• 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, the U.S. government promised $16,000 annually, $12,000 in supplies, 50 barrels of salt, and permanent use of a blacksmith at Chicago. Native people also retained the right to hunt on the ceded land. This treaty reserved land for 15 individuals, including (Billy Caldwell) (present-day Sauganaush and Edgebrook neighborhoods), Shab-eh-nay (DeKalb County), and Chee-Chee-pin-quay (Alexander Robinson) (present-day Norridge and Schiller Woods neighborhoods), and Archange Ouilmette (present-day parts of Wilmette and Evanston). 

• 1832 Treaty of Tippecanoe: This treaty was one of three signed by Potawatomi negotiators in October of 1832 at Tippecanoe. It ceded land in southern Chicago between the southern border of the 1816 treaty and what is now from the Illinois/Indiana state line. In exchange, the U.S. government promised a $15,000 payment each year for twenty years and $85,000 in supplies. A total of $1,400 was also paid to about two dozen people, and leaders Sauganaush (Billy Caldwell), Chee-Chee-pin-quay (Alexander Robinson), and Pierre Le Clerc were also given annual payments. This treaty also set aside land for nearly two dozen Native individuals. 

• 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. It resulted in a massive removal of Native people out of the state in several forced marches west across the Mississippi. In exchange, the U.S. promised $14,000 annually for twenty years; $100,000 in supplies; $150,000 for houses, blacksmith shops, and agricultural improvements; $70,000 for education; and $150,000 for debt payments (merchants regularly claimed that Native people owed them huge debts as a way to get land). The treaty also included individual payments to Sauganaush (Billy Caldwell), Chee-Chee-pin-quay (Alexander Robinson), and Shab-eh-nay (among other leaders). 

The end of treaties in this region resulted in the removal of Indigenous people who the U.S. thought had lost rights to their lands through the treaties. Under removal, the U.S. pressured, threatened, and even physically forced Indigenous people to leave 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 people to stay, hunt, and fish in the region, this treaty said that the Neshnabék had to move west of the Mississippi. In August of 1835, the U.S. told about 5,000 Neshnabé people to report to the Chicago Indian Agency. They were to collect the annual payment promised in the treaty and begin their long removal west across the Mississippi. Even though they were led by Indigenous leaders Sauganaush (Billy Caldwell) and Padekoshēk, their removal was carefully monitored by U.S. officials. In 1836, 1,700 additional Potawatomi people, including those led by Shab-eh-nay and Waubensee, also began the difficult journey west. 

Removal was devastating. It meant losing consistent access to the food, medicines, places, homes, and sometimes people that had made them who they were. The idea of removal for the Neshnabék was so painful that 800 Neshnabé men held a mourning procession at the Chicago River (in what is now downtown) to grieve their homelands before they left. 

In spite of removal, Neshnabé people have never given up their claims to and connections with these lands. Neither have the other Native people who were pushed out of the Chicago region before them for various reasons. In 2024, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi reclaimed 130 of the 1,280 acres in DeKalb County granted to Potawatomi leader Shab-eh-nay in the Treaty of 1829. These lands had been from the Potawatomi people after removal. In the early 1900s, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi also made (but lost) a legal claim to recover lands in Chicago. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma considers some land in Illinois unceded because the U.S. negotiated with a tribe who did not have the sole right to sign. These claims reflect ongoing Indigenous connections to land here by Native nations who were removed hundreds of miles away and from Indigenous people who live in the city today. 

The Transformation of Chicago’s Waterways  

The Chicago landscape made it a welcoming area for people, plants, animals, birds, and insects to live. The marshes and oak savannas had lots of animals, birds, fish, and plants to eat. It’s also a unique ecosystem, since it provides a transition between the Great Plains and the forests around the Great Lakes. The landscape also made transportation convenient. The waterways and portages connect Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes to the Illinois River, the Mississippi River, and eventually the Gulf of Mexico. Chicago’s location and its abundant food sources have made it a desirable place to live, trade, and gather (for more on this, see the Convergence module!).

From the first settlers that arrived here in the late 17th century, settlers thought about changing the Chicago waterways. They wanted it to be easier to remove natural resources to send back to Europe. They also wanted the land to be easier to travel using European-style boats so that they could travel faster to trade and spread Christianity. For example, early Jesuits wanted to build a canal between the Chicago and DesPlaines Rivers so that they could get to the Mississippi River more easily. They thought it would help them travel faster and reach more Indigenous communities. They were unsuccessful. Chicago was still a Native-controlled area, and Native people successfully protected their lands and communities from settler control. 

The Americans, like the British and French before them, set their sights on taking control of Chicago. Unlike their predecessors, they prioritized taking control of the waterways. Their initial surveys of the region focused on the strategic location of the mouth of the Chicago River, the possibility to create a harbor, and the potential construction of a canal. Americans used early treaty negotiations in the region to take control of these water routes. This shifted the balance of power in the region significantly. 

Indigenous people had managed the lands and waters of Chicago to ensure balanced, sustainable ecosystems, but settlers changed the land to support capitalism. They spent significant time, money, and labor at the beginning of the 19th century to change the land. This was a national movement. Technological developments in the United States (like the steamboat in 1809), the expansion of the U.S. Patent Office, settlers’ excitement around innovation, and a belief that humans should dominate over nature all shaped the mindsets that led to major ecological changes in Chicago. 

Looking at the rivers and marshes is helpful: Before colonization, the calm, shallow water between the Chicago river’s sandbar and the shore provided an ideal habitat for many types of plants and fish. These wetlands were unique ecosystems with a lot of biodiversity. Along with the rivers, these wetlands were important habitats for plants and animals 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. 

Both the mouth of the Chicago River and the portage were ideally suited for canoes since they were shallow, even during the wet seasons, and were protected from big waves by the harbor. But since larger American ships could not navigate these shallow waters, U.S. officials decided to change them. Beginning in 1816, American officials rebuilt Fort Dearborn (it was burned down in 1812). Officials started surveying the lands ceded in the 1816 Treaty two years later. By 1822, Congress gave permission to create a canal along the existing portage route. U.S. officials broke ground on the Illinois-Michigan Canal in 1836. They also started planning to modify the river and harbor to fit larger ships. Congress gave money to change the harbor in 1828 and 1831, and construction began in 1833. Settlers’ excitement around these engineering projects brought even more American settlers and land speculators to Chicago. Many of these new arrivals complained about the wetlands and marshes because it was difficult to build on them. To make the land more desirable for buyers, U.S. officials began draining marshes along Lake Michigan starting in 1832. Chicago ultimately destroyed 367,485 acres of wetlands to build the city.

The timelines and violences of the forced removal of Indigenous peoples and these environmental changes parallel each other. This is not a coincidence. Changing the land for settlers required dispossessing Indigenous peoples. 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.

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.

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

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

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, “Myaamia Treaty Cessions,” Aacimwahkionkonci, mc.miamioh.edu. 

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). 

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. What political and ecological changes do you expect to see because of the treaties?

2. We’re going to focus on the political and ecological impacts of the 1795, 1816, and 1833 treaties for the Chicago area. 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 start by looking at the Indigenous Chicago Treaty Map. Select “Show only this feature” for the 1795 Treaty of Greenville. (Your image should look like this screenshot.)

• • Since 1795 is the beginning of the U.S. treaty making period for Chicago, the Treaty of Greenville can help us understand the balance of power for early U.S. treaties. How much of the territory in this region remained primarily controlled by Indigenous people? (Tip! This is all land *not* shaded as being part of the treaty.)

4. Then, turn to Source 1, Articles V-VII of the 1795 Treaty of Greenville (also printed later with more context). 

• • In Articles V-VII (5-7), what does the United States commit to in exchange for the land?
• • What guarantees do Articles V-VII make to Native people? 
• • Look back at the Background section (or, if you have time, read the whole treaty). In exchange for access to these lands, the U.S. promised each of these nations $20,000 worth of goods up front and $9,500 worth of goods each year after that. They also promised additional cash payments ranging from $500-$1000 per tribe. Using an online inflation calculator, estimate how much this would be worth today. What does this tell you about how much the United States wanted these lands and waters? 

5. Since Native people politically controlled this region in the 1790s, the U.S. treaty negotiators had to respect Indigenous practices and expectations. Note at Article VII does not mean that the U.S. was giving over land to Native people. Instead, this early treaty was an agreement for mutual use. Re-read Articles V-VII with this in mind.

• • How might the U.S. commitments reflect Indigenous demands during treaty making?
• • What does this tell you about what the U.S. needed to do to secure the treaty?
• • Describe the balance of power in the region at this time. How do you anticipate this will shape future treaties? If power dynamics changed, how might that impact future negotiations?
• • Settlers did not uphold the 1795 Treaty of Greenville. Over twenty years later, many settlers were moving into Indigenous lands illegally. How do you think Native leaders reacted? Why might this have led to Indigenous leaders agreeing to another treaty council?

6. Now, let’s look at Source 2, an Official Survey of the boundaries of lands ceded to the United States under the Treaty of St. Louis (also printed with more context). 

• • Which major waterways do you see on the map? 
• • How do the waterways connect Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River? Trace how it flows from Lake Michigan to the mouth of the Chicago River/“Chicago Creek,” across the portage to the Des Plaines River, into the Illinois River, through a series of smaller rivers, and all the way to the Mississippi River on the far left side of the map.

• • Identify the survey lines that show the outline of the Treaty of St. Louis (these are the long lines with distance markers on them – you can see the outline of the Treaty boundaries on the Indigenous Chicago Treaty Map, pictured here). Trace the shape of the survey lines. Where are they compared to the waterways? So far, why do you anticipate the U.S. would have wanted this area of land and these waterways?

• • Chains and links are units of measurement used by surveyors. Look closely at the writing along the long horizontal line. It reads: “From Southern extremity of Lake Michigan to Mississippi River 160 miles 75 Chains 50 Links ” and “From Southern extremity of Lake Michigan to Illinois 39 miles 45 chains” and “to Fox River 67 miles 4 chains.” Based on these details and what you already know, now why do you think the U.S. wanted this land? How would controlling this waterway have been strategic for U.S. authorities?
• • Look back at the details of this treaty in the Background section. How did settlers’ goal of building a canal impact the treaty negotiations? How did Neshnabé leaders respond to this goal?  

• • Under the 1816 Treaty of St. Louis, the United States promised the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi nations $1000 worth of goods each year for twelve years. This promise would be worth nearly $270,000 in 2024 dollars. The U.S. also promised that settlers would respect Native peoples’ hunting and fishing rights. The Treaty of St. Louis came at a time when Native people were hungry and vulnerable. Why might the U.S. have been willing to pay this price for these lands? Why might Native people have agreed?
• • As we look ahead, how might shifting control of this waterway into U.S. hands impact the political balance of power in this region?

7. The 1816 Treaty allowed Americans to begin making changes to local waterways like the Chicago River. Based on the Background section and Source 3 (this 1830 drawing of the river, also included further down in the accordion), how would you describe the Chicago River before settlers changed it? 

 

• • How fast was it? How deep was it? How straight was it?
• • What kind of transportation do you think would best fit a river like this?

 

 

8. Indigenous people and settlers each had their own technologies for navigation. Below, take a look at the canoe on the left and the steamship on the right. Which might be better for a relatively shallow and curvy waterway? Think back to what you know about Indigenous relationships with lands and waters. How did Indigenous engineers work with the landscape to design their boats?

 

 

9. Look at the 1830 map again (Source 3). Notice its language about “improving” the harbor. Americans thought good use of the land meant making changes to it. Within capitalism, settlers believed “improvements” would maximize efficiency and profit. They decided the river needed to be deeper and straighter to fit their steamships. 

• • How might Americans have seen changing the river as a sign of “improvement” and technological advancement?
• • How does this approach to technology (humans change the land to match their technology) contrast with Indigenous approaches to technology (humans develop technology to match the land) for boat design? 

• • What does this tell you about settlers’ and Indigenous peoples’ different perspectives on the water? You might add these distinctions to your comparisons from the first part of this module!
• • Early settler attempts to change the river failed as Lake Michigan’s winds and waves filled in settlers’ ditches. What might you infer about whether the waterways wanted to be changed?

 

 

10. American engineers eventually succeeded in making the river deeper and straighter (nearly 70 years later, they also reversed the river’s flow). 

• • How might this change have impacted the health and life of the plants, aquatic animals and insects, birds that eat the aquatic animals and insects, and people who relied on the previous version of the river? 
• • In addition to the river, Chicago city workers also drained marshlands to “improve” the land. To build along Lake Michigan, they destroyed 367,485 acres of wetlands. How might this change have impacted the health and life of the plants, animals, and people who relied on marshes for food, shelter, and supplies? 
• • Wetland destruction and the changes to the river were only possible because of political changes after the treaties. What do the changes to the environment tell you about the impact of Indigenous dispossession for people, animals, plants, lands, and waters?

 

 

11. Just three years after Chicago engineers drew up their 1830 design map,  the 1833 Treaty of Chicago ended treaty negotiations in the region. The Treaty of Chicago set the stage for the mass removal of Indigenous peoples in Illinois. 

• • You may have heard of the Cherokee Trail of Tears, but did you know there were dozens of removal routes that went through or close to Chicago? Look at the Indigenous Chicago Removal Map. It shows the routes of Indigenous removal in this region from 1833 to 1863. How many routes do you see? How many groups of people were removed?
• • As you look at the map, journal your initial reactions. What does it mean for thousands of people to have been removed from their homelands? 

 

Follow the National Museum of the American Indian’s “Potawatomi Nation Case Study” to understand the impact of removal on one nation in the Chicago area.

 

12. Summing it up! The US tended to see Indigenous lands as interchangeable, but Indigenous peoples who were removed lost consistent access to the lands and waters that had given them food, medicine, technologies, beauty, and a sense of home for generations. The removal routes were devastating, both psychologically and physically. Many people died or got sick along the way. Even though hunting and fishing rights were guaranteed in the treaties, the long distances of removal prevented many Indigenous people from returning to exercise their rights. New settler settlements in the places they were removed from prevented hunting and fishing. American deforestation, destruction of the wetlands, and rerouting of the river also permanently changed what fishing and hunting was possible in the area. 

• • Looking back, how did the treaties of Greenville, St. Louis, and Chicago lead to political and ecological changes in Chicago? Create a list of these changes. Take your list and create a cause-and-effect visualization (or essay) that shows the relationships between 1) treaties, 2) resulting political changes, 3) removal, and the 4) physical remaking of the waterways and marshes in the Chicago area. The templates below are two possible options. 

 

Option 1:

Option 2:

Available in full here.

At the time of the 1795 Treaty, the Native nations who signed the treaty held significant political power in the region. This included the Wyandot, Lenni-Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, Odawak, Ojibweg, Potawatomi, Myaamiaki, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Peeyankihšia (Piankashaw), and Kaskaskia nations. The 1795 treaty was meant to restore peaceful relationships between the U.S. and the tribes after a period of war in the region. This is clear in the treaty’s opening lines. 

This treaty concerns six-square-miles at the mouth of the Chicago river. It also impacts sections of land in what are currently Indiana and Ohio. 

Remember that Indigenous and American ideas about treaty making were not necessarily the same. Indigenous people had long-standing practices of diplomacy for shared land use rather than for an exclusive complete transfer. 

Excerpts of the 1795 Treaty of Greenville

Article V: To prevent any misunderstanding about the Indian lands relinquished … it is now explicitly declared that the meaning of that relinquishment is this: The Indian tribes who have a right to those lands, are quietly to enjoy them, hunting, planting, and dwelling thereon so long as they please, without any molestation from the United States; but when those tribes, or any of them, shall be disposed to sell their lands, or any part of them,  they are to be sold only to the United States; and until such sale, the United States will protect all the said Indian tribes in the quiet enjoyment of their lands against all citizens of the United States, and against all other white persons who intrude upon the same. And the said Indian tribes again acknowledge themselves to be under the protection of the said United States and no other power whatever.

Article VI: If any citizen of the United States, or any other white person or persons, shall presume to settle upon the lands now relinquished by the United States, such citizen or other person shall be out of the protection of the United States; and the Indian tribe, on whose land the settlement shall be made, may drive off the settler or punish him in such manner as they shall think fit; and because such settlements made without the consent of the United States, will he injurious to them as well as to the Indians, the United States shall be at liberty to break them up, and remove and punish the settlers as they shall think proper, and so effect that protection of the Indian lands herein before stipulated.

Article VII: The said tribes of Indians, parties to this treaty, shall be at liberty  to hunt within the territory and lands which they have now ceded to the United states, without hindrance or molestation, so long as them demean themselves peaceably, and offer no injury to the people of the United States.

Source citation: Wandat (Wyandotte), Lenni-Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, Odawak, Ojibweg, Potawatomi, Myaamiaki, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Peeyankihšia (Piankashaw), and Kaskaskia nations and the U.S., Treaty with the Wyandot, etc, Greenville, 1795, National Archives and Records Administration.

Survey maps note land boundaries and distinctive land features. This land survey was drawn over twenty years after the Treaty of Greenville and just four years after the War of 1812. By this time, settlers were eager to take control of the waterway that made Chicago so valuable – the Chicago portage and the route between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. This map outlines the boundaries of the 1816 Treaty of St. Louis (the straight lines that extend from the lake) and highlights how central that waterway was for Americans at the treaty negotiations. The map shows distances between the lake and various points on the map, which reflects how important transit would be for planning infrastructure projects on regional waterways.  

Source citation: John. C. Sullivan, 1816 Official survey of the boundaries of the Indian lands ceded to the United States by the Treaty of St. Louis, Newberry Library.

A higher resolution version of the image is available here, and a version of the map with the text printed is available here.

A Civil Agent is someone who works for the federal, state, or local government, and civil engineers help plan and oversee the construction and maintenance of infrastructure projects (like buildings and roadways). Given Harrison’s and Howard’s connection to civil engineering, we can assume that they likely worked for the state and created this map as part of their duties.  

Source citation: Howard, William and F. Harrison. “Map of the mouth Chicago River Illinois with a plan of the proposed piers for improving the harbor,” February 24, 1830. Everett D. Graff Collection, Newberry Library.