CO ,G/ — 2 ^ . • . ..x>- 2 m Aims" $3 I HV8 0 H LI B R AR I ES^SMITHSONIAN^NSTlTUTION^NOIJLfUiXSNI NVINOSHilWS S3 go z g z *. m z g o z H #gi^k 2 /MMA H x o x y^^yy ^ > z L/f ^ >* 5 -\sjr > s )XV >' )NIANZ|NSTITUTIONWNOIinXllSNI NVINOSHIIIAIS^SS I aVa 3 llXl B RAR I ES”SMITHSONIAN IN] “ 'rt 5 \ m 5 GO “ co X. „ ~ 1 urns snavaan 2 1&JB a i|fe jf) < « W g 2' Z ^ _g z LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSN! NVIN0SH1IWS S 31! .. z r= z r* z i \^°^X P . Z yf^SSX P XCv^vTx ^ O H (O Z DNIAN INSTITUTION fi& NOimillSNl NVINOSHimS S3SHV&8I1 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN IN5 z ^ _ ^ g z g z ^ is Mil > s s > H1IIMSW/S3 I BVda II^LIBRAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUUSNS NVIN0SH1IWS' S3 CO ^ _ CO 5 „ _ ^ co _ _ = ,.v.. CO * W2& 5 y^ujp ^ tc^i i « « N^^5/ 5 2 5 2 5 2 ONI AN-- INSTITUTION NOliniliSNI^NVINOSHillNS S3 I ava 3 IT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN IN — z r* z _ r- Z ^ ;HilWSWS3iavaan~LI BRAR IESa>SMITHSONIAN~INSTITUTIONC/>NOIirUliSNr NVINOSHillNS SI GO z g ^ z * g 5 I - z IONIAN INSTITUTION NOIXfUIXSNI NVIN0SH1IWS S3iavaan LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN IN — 'rt 5 \ co 5 co z o ■'■' wr ” "xiyAsv^- Q z o z ' 2 Z ihxiins S3 lava an libraries Smithsonian institution NoixnuxsNi nvinoshxiiais s z r- _ _ z f z O “ O Z ^ o O CO z \ W N^o— m xo^oc^ g m SON IAN_ INSTITUTION ^ NOIXnilXSNrNVINOSHXIWS S3 I ava 9 H_LI B RAR I ES SMITHSONIAN If z ^-. CO z m ' rn 1~LI B RAR I ES SMITHSONlAN^INSTlTUTION^NOUniLLSNI^NVINOSHillNS^ S3 I U\fUB II ~L!B RA z •- ^2 z * cd z c/> . z •„ tz * * s' t mim/ > 2 Xfoosv^X > 2 gw NOIlfUllSNI NVIN0SH1I WS " S 3 I BVUaiXu B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN^INSTITUTION “NOIlfU w co ,4 if co Xo^oX w ^ ygggftv w s §01 5 >KI s IC^I = |C,, ji) 2 J¥yff g wL M 2 iC,. Zl 2 -J z ' -j ^ -i 1 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSNI NVIN0SH1IWS S3 1 BVd Q 11 LIBRA r* z £ ^ z f“ z ^ _ : i,#^| if"#i s #% I ^ = llJ^W smJ'EfOl? - » «n X° 1 01^1^ IQ I o > w'4g@Br 2 > v#w' 2 ^ x > T 2 LI BRAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSNI NVIN0SH1IW$^S3 IdVdSIl^LIBRA UJ . „ .V> /jSSn^gJx “ w U1 M /v 2 jrfffi/s, - 5 w H /£km&\ z \%v.w q 4K/». 5 H Z CD > ^ >■' ^ X^osv^X > 2 M "NOIlfUllSNI NVIN0SH1HMSC°S3 I d Vd 8 ll\l B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ^NOUfU 1 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIinillSNI NVINOSHimS S3 I dVd8 II Z r- _ 2 NOIlfUllSNI NVIN0SH1IWS S3ldVd8ll LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION I Z ^ CD Z .<.♦•>. 2 v ■ C/5 2 .< Xc^2^X s 2 < x4S\, 2 p 1(0 x ; V • v' - ){-i ^ 1 } \ 1 y ' f vy y if* Or TRANSACTIONS - Of - the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Volume 78 1990 Transactions Carl N. Haywood, Editor 136 Schofield Hall University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701 i K Production Editor Patricia Allen Duyfhuizen Poetry Editor Bruce Taylor Assistant Editors/Intems Victoria Emmerich Christine Gruenhagen Lise Hansen Charles Larson Lonn Lorenz Caitlyn Morrell Jilloyn Rumple Patti See Keith Van Pay Transactions welcomes articles that explore features of the State of Wisconsin and its people. Articles written by Wisconsin authors on topics other than Wisconsin sciences, arts, and letters are also occa¬ sionally published. Manuscripts, queries, and other correspondence should be addressed to the editor. Transactions is a publication of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, 1922 University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53705-4099. LeRoy R. Lee, Executive Director © 1990 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters Manufactured in the United States of America All rights reserved TRANSACTIONS of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Volume 78 1990 Contents A Quantitative Survey of the Submersed Macrophytes in Devil’s Lake, Sauk County, with a Historical Review of the Invasion of Eurasian Watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum L. Richard A. Lillie Recently the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources conducted a series of limnological investigations to identify possible reasons for the deteriorating water quality of Devil’s Lake. Quantitative surveys of the aquatic macrophytes of the lake were conducted in an effort to assess historical changes in the lake’s macrophyte community. Tornadoes of Fire at Williamsonville, Wisconsin Joseph M. Moran and E. Lee Somerville On October 8, 1871, fires in the upper Midwest burned thousands of acres and killed over seventeen hundred people. In southern Door County the fires ended lumbering and shinglemaking as major industries and opened the area for the development of agriculture. Moran and Somerville examine the “tornadoes of fire’’ that witnesses testified swept the area the night Williamsonville, Wisconsin, burned, killing sixty of its seventy-seven residents. Spectral Confusion by Hummingbirds and the Evolution of Red Coloration in Their Flowers: A New Hypothesis Robert Bleiweiss It has long been thought that red hummingbird-pollinated flowers have evolved because of an innate preference by hummingbirds for red or because red is incon¬ spicuous to insects. In this article Professor Bleiweiss presents a new theory based on a previously unconsidered property of color vision: wavelength discrimination. He suggests a new “confusion hypothesis’’ for the evolution of common red color. Glaciated Karst Terrain in the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin Carol J. Rosen and Michael J. Day Although large areas of carbonate bedrock in the United States experienced the effects of Pleistocene glaciation, glaciokarst is poorly documented. In this paper the authors call attention to one major area of glaciated karst terrain developed on dolomites in northeastern Wisconsin and present some initial results of studies of the karst landforms. Photography Alfred Charles Bonanno The viewer will quickly recognize that Bonanno has the rare ability to capture universal moments. His photographs are used by major teaching centers, appear in national publications, and are held in private and public collections in several countries. A New Station in Door County, Wisconsin, for the Rare Iris lacutris Nutt. (Dwarf Lake Iris) Charles R. Hart The Iris lacustris Nutt, is known only from Michigan, Ontario and Wisconsin, and has recently been designated as a “threatened species” on state and national levels. Recently an extensive population of this threatened plant was discovered in southern Door County. Diel Periodicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch {Perea Flavescens) in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin John P. McCarty Diel activity cycles have been reported for a variety of freshwater fishes, yet the degree to which individual behavior affects population phenomena is not clear. Analysis of the spatial distributions of yellow perch in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, indicate that diel movement patterns are more variable than previously reported. Poetry Some of Wisconsin’s best-known poets and some of our most promising new poets are represented in the poetry section. Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Charles A . Long This is a report on the taxonomy as well as the geographical and ecological dis¬ tributions of Wisconsin’s voles and bog lemmings. There is also a summary of the environmental status of the animals. Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants Stanley A . Nichols This paper is another in the major studies being conducted into the quality of and changes in Wisconsin lakes. The primary purpose of these detailed macrophyte surveys is to design lake management strategies and to collect benchmark limno¬ logical data. The lakes being studied represent a broad range of Wisconsin lake types with regard to geographic distribution, chemical and physical parameters, and human impact. From the Editor As the editor of Transactions it is my pleasure to introduce our readers to the 1990 volume. This issue reflects not only a broad range of topics, but readers will be happy to see the return of the photography section which this year features the work of Alfred Charles Bonanno. This volume presents subjects as diverse as Wisconsin lakes, hummingbirds, tornadoes of fire, and the discovery of a new station for a rare plant. Of course the regular poetry section has been included. Once again I think readers will appreciate the high quality of the work about Wisconsin and by Wisconsin authors. It is hoped that future volumes of Transactions or some other component of the Academy will reflect the work being done by the recipients of the awards given at the annual meeting. We are currently exploring ways to present work dedicated specifically to poetry and pho¬ tography. The anthology of Wisconsin poets that was announced in the 1989 volume will be published early in 1991. People who attended the 1990 meeting of the Academy held in Platteville were introduced to some of the poems at an afternoon reading by our poetry editor, Bruce Taylor. For over a hundred years the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters has presented the vigorous intellectual life of people in our state. We who currently work on Transactions are dedicated to continuing that tradition, and in that spirit are happy to commend this volume to our readers. Comments, suggestions, and submissions should be addressed to the Editor. Carl N. Haywood Announcement Transactions will be featuring in its next issue a section called “Mi¬ nority Voices” and especially encourages submission of five to ten pages of previously unpublished poetry from Wisconsin poets who represent as wide and diverse a scope as possible of racial, cultural, ethnic, and esthetic diversity. v A Quantitative Survey of the Submersed Macrophytes in Devil’s Lake, Sauk County, with a Historical Review of the Invasion of Eurasian Watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum L. Richard A. Lillie Abstract . Quantitative surveys of the aquatic macrophytes of Devils Lake , Devils Lake State Park, Sauk County, were conducted July 29-31, 1987, in an effort to assess historical changes in the lake’s macrophyte community. Above-ground biomass and frequency of occurrence data were obtained from 28 transects spaced 200 m apart. Biomass samples (0.1 m2 quadrats) were collected and frequencies of occurrence (0.8 m2 quadrats) were recorded at 5 m intervals along transects from shore to a water depth of 9 m. Macrophytes occupied 78% of the 0-9 m littoral zone at an average biomass of 187 g/m2 ( within vegetated areas). Potamogeton robbinsii Oakes and Elodea canadensis Michx. were dominant , accounting for almost half of the 39,000 kg of total plant biomass. Myriophyllum spicatum L., an introduced species that accounted for an additional 22% of the total biomass, formed three distinctive surface canopy beds 25-50 m wide by up to 300 m long in water 1 .5-3.0 m deep. Milfoil distribution increased dramatically between 1979 and 1987 but showed some indication of declining in 1988 and 1989. Native macrophytes also increased in abundance and distribution. Mecha¬ nisms responsible for the growth dynamics of milfoil in Devil s Lake were not identified, but climatic fluctuations and insect disturbances may be significant. Devil’s Lake State Park, Sauk County, has a rich and diverse flora that has received attention by botanists since the mid¬ nineteenth century (Lange 1984). However, most botanical collections were of terrestrial species, and relatively little is known about the aquatic flora of Devil’s Lake (exceptions include Baker 1975; Lillie 1986). Recently, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Re¬ sources (WDNR) conducted a series of linv Richard A. Lillie has been a research biologist (Lim- nologist) with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Re¬ sources, Fitchburg, Wisconsin, for the past sixteen years. During this time, he has been involved in a wide variety of lake and stream investigations throughout the state. Dick has a B.S. in Zoology from UW-Oshkosh and a MS in Entomology from UW -Madison. nological investigations to identify possible causes and mechanisms responsible for de¬ teriorating water quality (Lillie and Mason 1986; Lillie 1986; WDNR 1988). Because some rooted submersed macrophytes can ef¬ fectively translocate nutrients from sedi¬ ments to the surrounding water column (Barko and Smart 1980; Nichols and Keeney 1976; Prentki 1979; Smith and Adams 1986), changes in the abundance or community composition of submersed macrophytes may influence lake water quality (Landers 1982; Carpenter 1983; Carpenter and Lodge 1986). Consequently, the WDNR conducted macro¬ phyte surveys in Devil’s Lake in 1984 and 1987. Specific objectives of these surveys were: (1) to document the composition, 1 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters standing crop biomass, and distribution of the submersed macrophytes in Devil’s Lake and (2) to compare current distributions with available historical data. These data, com¬ piled and summarized in this paper, represent a significant contribution to the knowledge of the flora of Devil’s Lake and should serve as the basis for monitoring future long-term changes in the lake’s aquatic plant commu¬ nity. Likewise, the documented history of the introduction, expansion, and growth dynam¬ ics of Myriophyllum spicatum L. in Devil’s Lake may provide information useful in the management of this exotic invasive species. Methods Devil’s Lake is a relatively small (151 ha), moderately soft water (total alkalinity 22 mg/ L), thermally stratified (maximum depth 14m), seepage lake with generally very good water quality (Lillie and Mason 1986). Sur¬ veys of the submersed macrophytes of Dev¬ il’s Lake were conducted July 30- August 1, 1984 and July 29-31, 1987. Methods em¬ ployed in the 1984 survey were described earlier (Lillie 1986) and were generally sim¬ ilar to those used in 1987 as described here. In 1987, macrophyte surveys were conducted via SCUBA along 28 transects spaced 200 m apart around the shoreline (Fig. 1). Two dive- teams, consisting of one diver and two top¬ side assistants each, were required to com¬ plete the field collections. Presence or ab¬ sence of all macrophyte species were re¬ corded from 644 (646 in 1984 survey) circular quadrats (0.8 m2) spaced at 5 m intervals (linear distance) along each transect from shore to a water depth of 9 m. These data were used to compute frequencies of occurrence for each macrophyte species. Divers also vis¬ ually classified total macrophyte, above¬ ground, standing crop biomass at each quad¬ rat as either absent, rare, sparse, or dense. Above-ground biomass samples were col¬ lected for dry weight determinations from a representative number of each subjective bi¬ omass class (i.e. rare, sparse, or dense) by harvesting all plant shoots and stems within 0.1 m2 quadrats (three-sided aluminum frame) at the sediment-plant interface (Table 1). In some dense stands, sampling intervals were extended to 10 m (linear distance); standing crop data were interpolated for intermediate quadrats. Biomass samples were collected from every fourth sparse and rare quadrat beginning with the first encounter of each day of field collections. All samples were bagged, labeled, placed in a iced-cooler, and trans¬ ported to the laboratory where they were sorted by species and dried at 106°C for 48 hours. A spikerush, Eleocharis acicularis R. & S., was harvested with roots intact. Because it was not possible to distinguish between Po- tamogeton illinoensis Morong and Potamo- geton amplifolius Tuckerm. in the field, data for these two species were combined (P. il¬ linoensis was the more common species based on laboratory examinations). Likewise, Ni- tella spp. and filamentous algae {Cladophora spp.) were often physically intertwined and impossible to separate; hence data for these taxa were also combined. Taxonomy was based on Fassett (1972) and Voss (1972). Voucher specimens were prepared and taxonomy verified by T. Coch¬ ran and H. litis of the University of Wisconsin- Madison Herbarium and, in the case of pond- weeds, by S. G. Smith of the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater. Average dry weight biomass for each plant taxon was computed for each 1.5-m depth interval along each transect. Average bio¬ mass was multiplied by the area of each rep¬ resentative cell (inshore and offshore bound¬ aries of cells were defined by water depth limits; lateral boundaries were defined by common boundaries half-way between ad¬ jacent transects. (See Fig. 1 to obtain areal- weighted biomass values.) These values were summed to derive estimates of total standing crop of each taxon by transect, region, depth zone, and entire lake. For purposes of dis¬ cussion, results will be presented in terms of these four areas, or combinations thereof. Inasmuch as this method of calculating standing crop biomass did not permit an un- 2 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devils Lake Fig. 1. Hydrographic map of Devil’s Lake, Sauk County, Wisconsin with accompanying maps depicting the locations of macrophyte survey transects and boundaries used in estimating plant biomass (see text for further explanation). biased computation of variance (values were interpolated for intermediate quads and un¬ sampled sites; a few cells contained only 1 quadrat), a second estimate of total standing crop was made using only the data from the rare, sparse, and dense quads that were ac¬ tually sampled (see Table 1). Average bio¬ mass of each subjective plant-biomass class 3 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Table 1 . Distribution of biomass samples by visual biomass class. Data represent the percent of quadrats in each visual biomass class within which plants were collected for dry weight measurements. Visual Biomass Class 1984 1987 “Dense” 79% 84% “Sparse” 4 24 “Rare” 1 25 “None”* - - All vegetated sites 47 61 All quadrats 56 68 *by definition - No plants; total biomass zero; no collection necessary. was multiplied by the area occupied by each class (based solely on frequency of occur¬ rence) to derive estimates of standing crop for each region. This latter method of cal¬ culation overestimated standing crop bio¬ mass by about 33% but permitted an esti¬ mation of biomass variance. Coefficients of variation of total standing crop using this sec¬ ond method of calculation were 6.8% and 6.3% for 1984 and 1987 data, respectively. These variances may be roughly applied to the more accurate areal-weighted biomass data. Actual dry-weight biomass data were com¬ pared with the subjective plant-biomass classes as assigned by divers to derive objective plant- biomass classification (Table 2). Dense stands of macrophytes were defined as areas with standing dry-weight crops exceeding 30 g/m2; sparse biomass ranged from 15 to 29 g/m2, and quads classed as rare had < 15 g/m2. A fifth class, very dense, was arbitrarily set at > 99 g/m2. Aerial photographs were taken each sum¬ mer from 1984 to 1989 and, in conjunction with ground-truth measurements, snorkeling surveys, and the transect data, were used to map the distribution of macrophytes. Subtle differences in the placement of tran¬ sects and water level changes occurring be¬ tween the 1984 and 1987 surveys influenced sample sizes and areas surveyed (see Table 3). These differences compromised the validity of detailed statistical analyses of biomass data between regions and depth-zones between years but did not seriously affect direct com¬ parisons of summary data for each species. Changes in frequencies of occurrence of the major species were evaluated using chi-squared tests. Plant associations and community structure of the 1 987 data were explored uti- Table 2. Plant biomass distribution in Devil’s Lake based on (A) subjective plant classification assigned by divers (visual estimates) and (B) objective dry weight biomass measurements (quantitative). Data represent percent of total quadrats in each classification. 1984 N = 646; 1987 N = 644. Subjective Relative Plant Biomass Classification 1984 Year 1987 “Dense” 48% 51% “Sparse” 23% 19% “Rare” 12% 13% “Absent” 17% 17% Objective Plant Biomass Year Biomass Classification (g/m2) 1984 1987 Very Dense >99 29% 29% Dense 30-99 14 19 Sparse 15-29 26 14 Rare 1-15 14 21 Absent 0 17 17 4 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devil s Lake lizing principal component analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients, and similarity in¬ dices. The degree of association between species was based on common co-occurrences (Marvan and Komarek 1978) adjusted for random chance co-occurrence. The later analysis was more informative than chi- squared tests in elucidating plant associations. Results and Discussion General distribution in 1987 Macrophytes occupied 78% of the 0-9 m littoral zone of Devil’s Lake at an average dry weight biomass of 83 g/m2 (Table 3). Dense macrophyte stands covered 21 ha (48- 51% by frequency of occurrence; see Table 2) at an average biomass of 187 g/m2. Another 16 ha of lake bottom was sparsely vegetated (14-19% frequency of occurrence). Ninety- eight percent of the total biomass of sub¬ mersed vegetation in Devil’s Lake (39,000 kg dry wt) was contained in dense beds. Eighty- five percent of the total plant biomass was confined to water less than 4.5 m deep; vir¬ tually no plants grew at depths deeper than 9 m. Highest average total biomass (313 g/m2) within a particular depth-region zone was in the 1.5-3 m Inlet region. Sixteen species of plants were recorded (Table 4). Potamoge- ton robbinsii Oakes and Elodea canadensis Michx. were dominant in water less than 4.5 m deep, and a mixture of Nitella spp. and fi¬ lamentous algae (mostly Cladophora spp.) was dominant in deeper water. Myriophyllum spicatum L. was less common but still com¬ prised 22% of the lake’s total biomass (Table 5). Ceratophyllum demersum L., Val- lisneria americana Michx., Potamogeton diversifolius Raf., and a mixture of Pota- Table 3. Regional macrophyte distribution within 0-9 m depth in Devil’s Lake during 1987. Comparable data for 1984 are given in ()s (recomputed from Lillie 1984e). Parameter Inlet North Southeast Total Bottom area* in hectares 10.3 (9.4) 22.3(21.1) 14.7(15.0) 47.4 (45.5) Densely Vegetated area** in hectares 5.2 (4.3) 10.1 (9.8) 5.7 (7.2) 21.0 (21.4) Coverage" % of total area 50 (46) 45 (47) 39 (48) 44 (47) Standing Crop in thousands of kg 15.3(10.0) 12.7 (12.3) 11.1 (11.9) 39.2 (34.2) Average Biomass" g/m2 148(106) 57 (58) 76 (79) 83 (75) Average Stand Biomassd g/m2 289 (257) 132 (140) 188 (177) 187 (174) * excludes 2.9 ha of unvegetated, steeply-sloped, rocky, bottom area adjacent to the east and west shore¬ lines. Differences between 1984 and 1987 bottom areas arise from slight positional differences in placement of transects and subsequent definition of cell boundaries. ‘‘frequency of occurrence of quadrats with total biomass > 30 g/m2 within each regional depth zone multi¬ plied by the total area within the zone. a total densely vegetated area divided by total bottom area within region. b average total dry wt biomass (g/m2) within each transect-depth zone (cell) multiplied by the area of each cell; products summed within each region; data represent all vegetation. c total standing crop dry wt biomass within region divided by total area; data represent all sites, including unvegetated areas within regions. d sum of dry wts of all quadrats with biomass > 30 g/m2 within a region divided by number of quadrats. eData in Lillie 1986 were computed using WDNR’s 1955 hydrographic map; these data were recomputed and are summarized for this publication using the more detailed hydrographic base map prepared from depth soundings made in January 1985 (see Lillie and Mason 1986). 5 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Table 4. Macrophyte community composition of Devil’s Lake (1987) listed in order of relative importance. Taxa Freq. of Occurrence Relative Importance Rank Absolute* Relative Abundance Value (IV)** Order % % (% Biomass) (as %) Potamogeton robbinsii Oakes 34.1 18.3 34.5 26.4 1 (1) Elodea canadensis Michx. 34.6 18.5 15.5 17.0 2 (3) Myriophyllum spicatum L. 19.0 10.2 21.5 15.8 3 (2) Nitella & Cladophora (mixed) 32.1 17.2 12.0 14.6 4 (6) Ceratophyllum demersum L. 18.1 9.7 8.4 9.0 5 (5) Vallisneria americana Michx. 9.0 4.8 2.6 3.7 6 (8) Potamogeton diversifolius Raf. Potamogeton illinoensis Morong mixed with 8.3 4.4 1.1 2.8 7(10) Potamogeton amplifolius Tuckerm. 8.2 4.4 0.8 2.6 8 (4) Others/unidentified** Eleocharis acicularis 5.7 3.1 0.7 1.9 9(14) (L.) Rostk. & Schmidt 4.0 2.1 1.5 1.8 10 (7) Najas flexilis (Willd.) R. & S. 5.5 3.0 0.6 1.8 11 (12) Isoetes echinospora Durieu 4.0 2.1 0.5 1.3 12 (9) Chara sp. 2.0 1.1 0.1 0.6 13(13) Potamogeton crispus L. 2.0 1.1 0.1 0.6 14(11) Megalodontab beckii (Torr.) 0.1 tr. tr. 0.1 15 (-) * Absolute frequency of occurrence based on presence/absence at 601 quadrats within 0-9 m (excludes rocky, unvegetated, east and west quartzite-talus slopes); Relative Abundance represents % of total dry wt biomass; IVs computed by averaging Relative Frequency of Occurrence and Relative Abundance. **Others include Ranunculus spp., Potamogeton pusillus sensu lato, and R gramineus. a( )s indicate 1984 ranking. bnow Bidens beckii Torr. mogeton illinoensis and Potamogeton am- plifolius (hereafter referred to as P. ill/ amp.) were also relatively common. Biomass dis¬ tribution of most taxa was depth dependent (Figs. 2 and 3). Based on depth distribution, co-occurrences (Fig. 4), and visual obser¬ vations, four relatively distinct communities were distinguishable. A diverse assemblage of relatively small, short-stemmed plants consisting of Najas flexilis (Wild.) R. & S., E. acicularis, Potamogeton crispus L., P. diversifolius, Chara spp., Isoetes echinos- pora Durieu, and V. americana comprised the shallow- water community. A mixture of P. robbinsii and E. canadensis, with lesser amounts of P. ill/ amp. and V. americana, formed a distinct community at 2-3 m. My- riophyllum spicatum, often accompanied by C. demersum at edges of beds, formed very dense beds at the outer edge of the littoral shelf in 2. 5 -3. 5 m (the lake bottom descends sharply beyond this point). A mixture of Ni- tella spp. and Cladophora spp. formed the deep-water community. Distribution of major taxa in 1987 Potamogeton robbinsii, or Robbin’s pond- weed, was the dominant macrophyte in Dev¬ il’s Lake, accounting for 34% of the total standing crop biomass. Dense stands, aver¬ aging 173 g/m2, occupied 7.2 ha (18% of all quadrats sampled). Potamogeton robbinsii was distributed in relatively broad, primarily monotypic, distinct bands at 1.5-4. 5 m ad¬ jacent to the North and Southeast shorelines (Fig. 2 and Appendix A). However, highest average stand biomass (280 g/m2) was lo¬ cated in shallow water (1-3 m) adjacent to the Inlet region. Frequency of occurrence (56- 70%) was similar in all three regions. The 6 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devil s Lake largest areal distribution of P. robbinsii (2.8 ha) was in scattered beds located off the North shore. Potamogeton robbinsii was most commonly associated with E. canadensis (Fig. 4). At the time of the survey, P. rob¬ binsii appeared to be at the peak of its growth, with strong, well-rooted plant stems. P. rob¬ binsii harbored many aquatic fauna, partic¬ ularly large numbers of dragonfly and cad- disfly larvae. Despite its extensive distribution and dense growths, P. robbinsii was rela¬ tively unnoticed by the average park user due to the plant’s low growth form (< 1 m height) and moderately deep-water habitat (the beds in the Inlet region were an exception). Po¬ tamogeton robbinsii has a much narrower ecological niche than that of C. demersum or M. spicatum (Pip 1988), and hence its dominance in Devil’s Lake reflects the rel¬ atively low concentration of inorganics present. E lode a canadensis, or waterweed, was equally as common but less abundant than P. robbinsii (16% of total plant standing crop), ranking second in overall relative impor¬ tance. Where abundant (4.0 ha), Elodea stand biomass averaged 142 g/m2. Elodea formed weakly continuous patches (relatively irreg¬ ular clumps less than 10 m across) with av¬ erage biomass up to 152 g/m2 in the North and Inlet regions. Elodea co-occurred pri¬ marily with P. robbinsii and C. demersum (Fig. 4). Elodea leaves were very short and confined to the margins of the stems (<1.5 m in length), which were weakly rooted. Very dense stands of Elodea may interfere with fishing, but generally the plant does not cre¬ ate a problem in Devil’s Lake. Myriophyllum spicatum, or milfoil, com¬ prised 21 .5% of the total standing crop. While less extensive in coverage than P. robbinsii or E. canadensis (only 3.1 ha of dense beds), average milfoil stand biomass (270 g/m2) was more than 50% higher than either competitor. A maximum biomass of 1100 g/m2 was re¬ corded at 1 quadrat. Milfoil distribution was concentrated in three distinct beds, 50 m wide by 300 m long, located 50-70 m directly offshore from high-recreation-use areas (Fig. 2). Average biomass in the Southeast and Inlet beds were identical (314 g/m2) and higher than that of the North bed. Milfoil beds generally were confined to 1.5-3 m with deeper extensions to 4.5 m in the Southeast and Inlet beds (Appendix A). Frequencies of occurrence were highest in the Inlet region (60-73%) and lowest in the North bed (15- 21%). Milfoil was commonly associated with C. demersum (Fig. 4); however, biomass was not significantly correlated within milfoil beds Table 5. Regional distribution, average biomass, and total standing crop of the five major plant taxa in Devil’s Lake. Total biomass (kg dry wt*) estimates include sparsely vegetated sites. Average densities (g/m2; = sum of dry weights/number of quads) and distributional area are given for densely vegetated sites only (i.e., those quads with biomass in excess of 30 g/m2). Taxa Inlet North Southeast All Regions Dist Aver. Total Dist. Aver. Total Dist. Aver. Total Dist. Aver. Total # Area Biomass Mass Area Biomass Mass Area Biomass Mass Area Biomass Mass Quads ha** g/m2 103k ha g/m2 103k ha g/m2 103k ha g/m2 103k P. robbinsii 2.0 280 6.5 2.8 127 3.3 2.4 139 3.7 7.2 173 13.5 116 E. canadensis 1.5 146 2.2 2.1 152 3.6 0.5 66 0.2 4.0 142 6.1 62 M. spicatum 1.0 314 3.2 0.7 106 0.7 1.5 314 4.5 3.1 270 8.4 52 Nitella/Cladoph. 1.1 55 0.9 3.0 84 2.6 1.5 49 1.2 5.6 69 4.7 72 C. demersum 0.6 160 1.1 0.7 136 1.0 0.4 232 1.2 1.7 168 3.3 31 * derived by multiplying average biomass (g/m2) within each transect-depth zone cell by the area of each cell; products summed to derive total biomass within each region. ** sum of totals exceeds that given in Table 3 due to overlap between species. 7 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Mixed species Myriophyllum spicatum Potamogeton robbinsii £| Elodea canadensis Nitella/Cladophora SI Other species Ceratophylum demersum Fig. 2. Generalized distributional map of submersed macrophytes in Devil’s Lake. The map denotes areas dominated by particular species; other species may be present as well, but in lesser amounts. Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devil s Lake z X H CL LlJ O DC LlJ § £ "C3 ■C3 .O) LL 9 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters V americana P diversifolius P ill. /amp. E. canadensis P robbinsii M. spicatum C. demersum Ni tella/Cladophora it - t - t - t - 1 0 +.1 +.2 +.3 +.4 INDEX OF COMMON CO-OCCURRENCE Fig. 4. Plant associations of the more abundant plant taxa based on common co-occurrence. (p>.05). Milfoil biomass was inversely re¬ lated to E. canadensis biomass within milfoil beds (p=.05), but the standing crop of P. robbinsii (the other species from inhabiting similar depths) was not significantly affected (p>.50). Milfoil stems often exceeded 3 m in length, and dense stands formed nearly impenetrable masses at the lake’s surface. As such, the beds created a severe nuisance to all users and a particularly dangerous threat to swimmers. Other than small beds of P. ill! amp and Ranunculus spp., milfoil was the only submergent plant in Devil’s Lake that was commonly visible from shore. Nitella spp., a muskgrass or member of the Characeae, and Cladophora spp., a fi¬ lamentous green algae, formed the dominant deep-water community accounting for 12% of the total standing crop in Devil’s Lake (82% of the biomass of all plants at 4.5- 9 m). Distribution was continuous to patchy, with highest biomass (84 g/m2) off the North shore in 7.5-9 m where frequencies of oc¬ currence were close to 90% (Appendix A). Few macrophytes were associated with the Nitella/ Cladophora community. Because these plants grow in relatively deep water and their stems are narrow and weak, they do not pres¬ ent a nuisance to people fishing on the lake. Most filamentous algae problems in Devil’s Lake are due to other algae that develop on plants or other substrates in shallower water. Little is known of the fauna associated with the deep-water Nitella/ Cladophora commu¬ nity in Devil’s Lake. Ceratophyllum demersum, or coontail, had a total standing crop of over 3,000 kg that was relatively evenly distributed among all three regions. Average stand biomass was relatively high (168 g/m2), approaching that of milfoil in the Southeast bed. The irregular distribution of coontail in Devil’s Lake (Fig. 3, Appendix A) may be related to this species’ close association with milfoil (Fig. 4); coon- 10 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devils Lake tail and milfoil were most strongly correlated at the margins of milfoil beds (p = .008). While coontail develops rootlets, it does not become firmly attached to the sediments. Hence, coontail may drift about until it becomes en¬ tangled within the inner and outer edges of the milfoil beds. The distributions of the remaining, less common species were primarily patchy. V al¬ ii sneri a americana, P. diver sifolius , P. ill! amp., P. crispus, and I. echinospora were commonly found at 1.5-4.5 m mixed with P. robbinsii and E. canadensis. Interspecific competition between many of these ecolog¬ ically similar species was reduced via spatial (depth) separation or by virtue of life-form structure (see Pip 1988). The rosulate quill- wort, I. echinospora, was almost exclusively restricted to a very narrow band between 1.5- 2.1 m. Potamogeton ill! amp. occasionally formed relatively dense beds with plant stems reaching to the lake surface. Other plants were of relatively short stature and formed a varied understory. Najas flexilis, Char a spp. , E. acicularis, and Ranunculus spp. formed the bulk of the shallow-water community that undoubtedly received a great deal of human disturbance. Eleocharis acicularis was ex¬ tremely short and often formed contiguous, grass-like mats in the interstitial spaces on the lake bottom between the larger macro¬ phytes. Megalodonta beckii (Torr.) (= Bi- dens beckii Torr.) is a relatively rare plant in Devil’s Lake (only found in one biomass quadrat) and could easily be mistaken for milfoil or coontail. This species was confined to a few widely scattered patches in 3-4.5 m off the North shore. Historical Perspective Milfoil invasion The pattern of invasion of Eurasian wa- termilfoil in other lakes has been character¬ ized as one of introduction, rapid expansion, subsequent die-off, and resurgence, not nec¬ essarily to previous maxima (Carpenter 1979; Nichols and Shaw 1986). While the invasion and subsequent expansion of milfoil in Dev¬ il’s Lake have been fairly well documented (Lillie 1986), it has not been possible to iden¬ tify the mechanism responsible for the intro¬ duction nor the exact year that the introduc¬ tion occurred. Best estimates place the time of the infestation around the early 1960s (Lil¬ lie and Mason 1986), although Meier and Ensign (1967) make no mention of milfoil in their field notes during two fish survey seine hauls of the Southeast beach area during 1967. Baker (1975) described milfoil (possibly mis- identified as M. verticillatum) in the South¬ east bed area during a 1974 SCUBA survey as “very scattered, at 1.2 to 4.5 m depth contributing little to the population of the total community.’’ The distribution and area of the three milfoil beds changed dramati¬ cally from 1979 to 1983 based on rake- survey data (Southeast bed shown in Fig. 5a) col¬ lected by the WDNR (Bale and Molter 1979, 1980, 1981; Schlesser et al. 1982; Molter and Schlesser 1983). In 1979, the North mil¬ foil bed was quite extensively developed, while the Southeast bed was just becoming estab¬ lished. The Inlet bed appeared to be slightly smaller than at present (referring to 1987). By 1983, the Inlet bed was similar or slightly larger than at present, and the North-shore bed extended slightly farther to the west than its present distribution. The Southeast bed extended considerably farther to the west along the south shoreline, but it was much less abundant along its northern extension than at present. Despite a significant decrease in fre¬ quency of occurrence of milfoil between 1984 and 1987 (p<0.05), the general configura¬ tion of the three milfoil beds remained rel¬ atively stable. Transect data suggest that the North-shore milfoil bed decreased in both size and average biomass; the Inlet bed bi¬ omass increased 140%, primarily due to in¬ creases in both size and stand biomass within the 1.5-4. 5 m zone; and the Southeast bed remained stable except for a moderate in¬ crease in biomass. Aerial photography suggests that the dis¬ tribution of milfoil in the Inlet bed expanded 11 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters 75% from 1984 to 1987, the Southeast bed expanded very slightly, and the North-shore bed declined slightly (Table 6, Fig. 5b). However, during the 1987 survey, tops of milfoil stems were 0.5 and 1 m below the lake surface at the Inlet and North beds, re¬ spectively, and at the surface in the Southeast bed. Because milfoil growth had not reached the surface at the North and Inlet beds, other submersed plants may have been mistaken for milfoil; thus milfoil distribution may have been overestimated in those two beds. Bio¬ mass estimates presented in Table 5 are be¬ lieved to be the more accurate, suggesting that milfoil biomass increased by approxi¬ mately 20% between 1984 and 1987. While the transect data (1984 and 1987) suggest an overall increase in milfoil biomass (frequency of occurrence decreased), changes in biomass within individual beds were asyn¬ chronous; the Inlet bed expanded and the North-shore bed contracted. It appears that the North-shore milfoil bed reached a peak in size in 1983 or 1984 and then experienced a gradual die-off. The expansion of the Inlet bed in 1987 may have represented a reestab¬ lishment following a period of decline ex¬ perienced in the early 1980s. The size of the Southeast bed increased substantially from 1974 to 1984 and then remained relatively stable through 1987. However, continued aerial photography and snorkeling surveys revealed a dramatic die-off of milfoil in the northern half of the Southeast bed between 1987 and 1988 (Fig. 5b). Part of this bed recovered in 1989, but the major portion of the bed remained unvegetated (except for some very scattered sparse growths of native spe¬ cies). While such asynchronous variations in milfoil have been observed in other lakes (Carpenter 1979), the mechanism responsi¬ ble for these fluctuations has not been clearly identified. While historical records of milfoil inva¬ sions in some lakes suggest that milfoil out- competes and displaces native macrophytes (Nichols and Mori 1971; Adams and Prentki 1982), some data suggest that milfoil invades disturbed areas or denuded sediments (Keast 1984). While milfoil now occupies areas in Devil’s Lake that were formerly oc¬ cupied by E. canadensis and P. robbinsii, the historical record is inadequate to deter¬ mine whether milfoil aggressively displaced the native species or whether milfoil simply filled the void created when the native species succumbed to some other disturbance (Lillie 1986). Of particular note in this re¬ spect is the recent report by Devil’s Lake State Park staff of an unusual amount of na¬ tive macrophytes accumulating along the park’s beaches during the summer of 1989. Further investigations by the author revealed that an enormous number of caddisfly (Tri- choptera: Leptoceridae) larvae had con¬ structed their cases from Elodea plant frag¬ ments. Whether the large masses of free- floating Elodea resulted from the mechanical fragmentation by the caddisfly larvae or from increased wave-action intensity accompa- Table 6. Estimated distributional coverage (ha) of Myriophyllum spicatum in Devil’s Lake 1984-1989 based on aerial reconnaissance photography. Bed Location 1984 1985 (*) 1986 1987 1988 1989 Southeast 1.3 1.4 (1.6) 1.3 1.5 0.5 0.7 North 1.1 0.8 (0.8) 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.4“ Inlet 0.7 1.1 (1-2) 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.9 Totals 3.1 3.4 (3.6) 3.1 3.8 1.8 2.0“ ‘based on ground-truth data collected August 1985. “much of the North shore milfoil bed was hand-harvested on 24 September 1988 by teams of SCUBA- divers. 12 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devils Lake Fig. 5. (a) Generalized configuration and extent of SE milfoil bed based on summer WDNR rake surveys 1979-83 (unpublished WDNR studies— -Bale and Molter 1979, 1980, 1981; Sch lesser et al. 1982; Molter and Sch lesser 1983). Numbers indicate distance (cm) from lake surface to top of plant beds (d = deep, not measured). (b) Configuration and extent of SE milfoil bed based on aerial photography taken in mid¬ summer 1981, 1984-1989. nying a moderately severe drop in lake water level (0.75 m since 1984) was not deter¬ mined. However, it was clear that large areas formerly occupied by Elodea were rapidly becoming denuded. Whether milfoil invades these areas in the future remains to be seen. Native plant community In addition to the recent changes in Elodea noted above, other changes have occurred in the native plant community of Devil’s Lake. Biomass of P. robbinsii and P. ill! amp. de¬ creased and E. canadensis, C. demersum, and Nitella/Cladophora biomass increased during the short period from 1984 to 1987. Excluding the deep-water Nitella/Clado¬ phora community, the combined standing crop of all native plants increased only 4% from 1984 to 1987. Nitella/Cladophora biomass doubled and frequency of occurrence in¬ creased significantly during the same time span. Coverage (area) of dense macrophytes (all species combined) differed very slightly from 1984 to 1987 based on visual obser¬ vations by divers and biomass measurements (Table 2). Total standing crop increased 15- 16% during the same period (including mil¬ foil). With the exception of a possible decline in Elodea and an increase in coontail, the distributions and biomass of native species 13 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters in the Southeast bed during 1984 and 1987 were generally similar to that described by Baker (1975) in his 1974 survey (Baker’s 1974 survey was restricted to only the South¬ east area; no other quantitative biomass data exist for other beds or other years). The rake- surveys conducted by the WDNR during 1979- 1983 documented an increase in the distri¬ bution of E. canadensis from 1979 to 1982 (down slightly in 1983), and a decline in the distribution of P. robbinsii from 1979 to 1983. Apparent fluctuations in distribution and rel¬ ative abundance of Nitella and filamentous algae may have resulted from changes in sampling methodology. Prior to the 1974 Baker survey, only a few scattered records exist. Perhaps most impor¬ tant are comments from WDNR fish man¬ agement surveys: 1967 — “Aquatic vege¬ tation, primarily Anacharis ( = Elodea ) canadensis, was growing profusely in the area (Southeast) of the lake seined.” Potamogeton robbinsii was also listed as common (Meier and Ensign 1967); and 1945 — “There is a weed bed (North shore) that apparently is a feeding spot for perch,” and “there is little vegetation” (Wis. Cons. Dep. 1945). While it may be safely assumed that the first of these comments refers to plants hauled up in the seines, the basis for the latter and other rec¬ ords is less certain. Many comments simply may reflect casual observations made from shore or boat, perceptions that may be grossly inaccurate. However, the consensus of opin¬ ion among people who have trolled the lake on a regular basis for many years is that sub¬ mersed vegetation has increased greatly dur¬ ing the past 30 years. Other subjective ob¬ servations, such as the milfoil expansion and the water lily disappearance off the entrance to the North shore boat landing, have been substantiated by hard data. This data further supports the short-term scientific record and conclusion that submersed vegetation has in¬ creased substantially in Devil’s Lake during the last 30 years. Acknowledgments Data collections and processing of macro¬ phytes were accomplished through the com¬ bined efforts of the following individuals whose efforts are hereby acknowledged and thanked: G. Wegner, G. Quinn, P. Garrison, D. Soltis, D. Marshall, B. Dhuey, S. Claas, T. Penniston, and I. Marx. Statistical advice and review were provided by G. Lange and P. Rasmussen. Editorial reviews of earlier drafts were provided by J. Mason, D. Knauer, and K. Lange. The editorial assistance of D. Mears and drafting by R. Burton are also appreciated. Special thanks is due J. Madsen and an anonymous reviewer for several help¬ ful review comments and suggestions. Fund¬ ing for this study was provided by the Bureau of Water Resources Management and the Bu¬ reau of Research, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 14 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devil s Lake Appendix A: Part 1 Total plant biomass (kg) distribution of major plant species in Devil’s Lake by year, region and depth (in meters). DEPTH ZONES Species Region 0-1.5 1.5-3 3-4.5 4.5-6 6-7.5 7.5-9 SUM ALL PLANTS 1984 Inlet 3,842 5,214 549 114 97 137 9,953 North 684 7,277 2,982 714 272 342 12,270 SE 448 6,818 2,701 884 758 328 11,938 34,161 1987 Inlet 6,482 5,959 1,958 36 70 814 15,319 North 759 5,496 3,187 890 665 1,736 12,733 SE 286 5,895 3,449 429 491 593 11,143 39,195 M. spicatum 1984 Inlet 15 896 421 50 11 0 1,393 North 128 1,756 14 0 0 0 1,898 SE 63 3,231 84 210 0 0 3,588 6,879 1987 Inlet 0 1,815 1,362 0 2 0 3,220 North 10 734 4 0 0 0 748 SE 19 3,131 1,306 10 5 0 4,471 8,439 P. robbinsii 1984 Inlet 2,614 3,220 0 2 7 0 5,843 North 15 4,172 1,495 18 28 0 5,728 SE 76 3,044 2,005 103 1 0 5,229 16,800 1987 Inlet 3,790 2,553 130 16 0 0 6,489 North 24 1,765 1,462 50 0 0 3,301 SE 12 1,828 1,804 82 4 0 3,730 13,520 E. canadensis 1984 Inlet 767 718 5 12 5 0 1,507 North 121 343 852 447 1 0 1,764 SE 97 395 168 47 26 0 733 4,004 1987 Inlet 1,304 872 18 0 0 1 2,195 North 285 1,885 1,425 20 11 0 3,626 SE 76 143 20 1 5 3 248 6,069 C. demersum 1984 Inlet 4 128 63 36 0 1 232 North 1 67 379 155 25 8 635 SE 0 44 360 67 32 31 534 1,401 cont. 15 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Appendix A: Part 1 Species Region 0-1.5 DEPTH ZONES 1.5-3 3-4.5 4.5-6 6-7.5 7.5-9 SUM 1987 Inlet 8 661 444 19 4 0 1,136 North 21 136 255 566 2 0 980 SE Nitella-Cladophora community 3 665 298 229 0 0 1,195 3,311 1984 Inlet 0 0 0 0 71 137 208 North 2 0 0 66 217 334 619 SE 0 1 1 459 700 297 1,458 2,285 1987 Inlet 0 0 0 0 64 812 876 North 0 1 12 248 652 1,736 2,649 SE 0 0 0 101 477 591 1,169 4,694 16 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devils Lake Appendix A, Part 2 Frequency of occurrence (% quadrats present*) of major plant species in Devil’s Lake by year, region, and depth (meters).. Species Region 0-1.5 1.5-3 3.4-5 4.5-6 6-7.5 7.5-9 SUM ALL PLANTS 1984 Inlet 84% 92% 77% 71% 73% 71% 81% North 69 99 94 95 97 83 91% SE 45 95 97 83 87 96 85% 1987 Inlet 89 98 82 50 61 96 89% North 56 95 94 91 92 93 88% SE 42 97 97 93 95 87 87% M. spicatum 1984 Inlet 24 49 77 29 14 0 31% North 50 42 20 0 0 0 30% SE 21 65 39 8 0 0 32% 1987 Inlet 0 60 73 0 6 0 26% North 8 21 15 0 0 0 11% SE 15 41 50 7 9 0 26% P. robbinsii 1984 Inlet 52 62 0 7 9 0 30% North 7 68 69 26 12 0 42% SE 10 60 81 12 4 0 38% 1987 Inlet 67 56 11 25 0 0 34% North 23 59 58 9 0 0 33% SE 15 59 70 27 4 0 36% E, canadensis 1984 Inlet 56 67 15 7 4 0 33% North 37 56 74 37 3 0 43% SE 14 25 52 25 17 0 23% 1987 Inlet 56 56 11 0 0 4 31% North 51 73 79 26 3 0 47% SE 19 25 30 7 14 7 19% C. demersum 1984 Inlet 20 20 54 43 0 5 20% North 2 12 29 63 38 8 18% SE 0 15 39 42 30 22 21% 1987 Inlet 15 47 27 38 11 0 24% North 13 12 51 52 3 0 17% SE Nitella-Cladophora community 4 13 50 27 0 0 15% 1984 Inlet 0 0 0 0 50 71 19% North 2 1 3 26 84 83 19% SE 0 2 3 58 74 96 29% 1987 Inlet 0 0 0 0 56 96 27% North 0 1 12 87 92 93 35% SE 0 0 0 53 91 87 29% *allocation of quadrats by regions and years: 1984 (1=134, N=289, SE=182) total N = 605; 1987 (1=137, N=278, SE=186) total N = 601. 17 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Appendix A, Part 3 Mean dry weight biomass (g/m2) distribution of major plant species in Devil’s Lake by year, region, and depth zones (in meters). Species Region 0-1.5 1.5-3 3-4.5 4.5-6 6-7.5 7.5-9 Avg. TOTAL PLANTS 1984 Inlet 164 281 63 17 7 6 106 North 11 116 174 43 12 11 58 SE 13 157 154 71 48 13 79 1987 Inlet 254 313 210 4 5 33 148 North 12 85 175 50 26 50 57 SE 8 137 213 33 32 23 76 M. spicatum 1984 Inlet <1 48 48 7 <1 0 15 North 2 28 <1 0 0 0 9 SE 2 74 5 17 0 0 24 1987 Inlet 0 95 146 0 <1 0 31 North <1 11 <1 0 0 0 3 SE <1 73 81 <1 <1 0 30 P. robbinsii 1984 Inlet 111 173 0 <1 <1 0 62 North <1 66 87 1 1 0 27 SE 2 70 115 8 <1 0 35 1987 Inlet 149 134 14 2 0 0 54 North <1 27 80 3 0 0 15 SE <1 43 111 6 <1 0 25 E. canadensis 1984 Inlet 33 39 <1 2 <1 0 16 North 2 5 50 27 <1 0 8 SE 3 9 10 4 2 0 5 1987 Inlet 51 46 2 0 0 <1 21 North 5 29 78 1 <1 0 16 SE 2 3 1 <1 <1 <1 2 C. demersum 1984 Inlet <1 7 7 5 0 <1 2 North <1 1 22 9 1 <1 3 SE 0 1 21 5 2 1 4 1987 Inlet <1 35 48 2 <1 0 11 North <1 2 14 32 <1 0 4 SE Nitella-Cladophora community <1 15 18 18 0 0 8 1984 Inlet 0 0 0 0 5 6 2 North <1 <1 <1 4 9 11 3 SE 0 <1 <1 37 44 12 10 1987 Inlet 0 0 0 0 4 33 8 North 0 <1 <1 14 25 50 12 SE 0 0 0 8 31 23 8 * derived by summing total kg in each cell (transect by depth) and dividing by total area in each region. 18 Quantitative Survey of Submersed Macrophytes in Devil s Lake Works Cited Adams, M. S. and R. T. Prentki. 1982. Biology metabolism and functions of littoral submersed weed beds of Lake Wingra, Wisconsin. A sum¬ mary and review. Arch. Hydrobiol. (Suppl.) 62:333-409. Baker, F. C. 1975. The littoral macrophyte veg¬ etation of southeastern Devil’s Lake. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Lett. 63:66-71. Bale, S. and C. R. Molter. 1979. Macrophyte survey of Devil’s Lake, 1979. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resourc., Southern District Rep., Fitchburg, Wis. 8 pp., mimeo. _ _ 1980. Macrophyte survey of Devil’s Lake, 1980. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resourc., South¬ ern District Rep., Fitchburg, Wis. 8 pp., mimeo _ _ . 1981. Macrophyte survey of Devil’s Lake, 1981. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resourc., South¬ ern District Rep., Fitchburg, Wis. 13 pp., mimeo. Barko, J. W. and R. M. Smart. 1980. Mobili¬ zation of sediment, phosphorus by submersed freshwater macrophytes. Freshw. Biol. 10:229- 238. Carpenter, S. R. 1979. The invasion and decline of Myriophyllum spicatum in a eutrophic Wis¬ consin lake, pp. 11-31 In J. E. Breck, R. T. Prentki, and O. L. Loucks [ed.], Aquatic Plants, Lake Management, and Ecosystem Conse¬ quences of Lake Harvesting. Proceed. Conf. held at Madison, Wis. Feb. 14-16, 1979. Inst. Environ. Studies, Univ. Wis. Madison. Carpenter, S. R. 1983. Submersed macrophyte community structure and internal loading: re¬ lationship to lake ecosystem productivity and succession, pp 105-1 1 1 In J. Taggart [ed.], Lake Restoration, Protection, and Management. Proc. 2nd Annu. Conf. N. Am. Lake Manage. Soc. Oct. 26-29, 1982, Vancouver, B. C. U.S.E.P. A. -440/5-83-001 . 327 pp. Carpenter, S. R. and D. M. Lodge. 1986. Effects of submersed macrophytes on ecosystem proc¬ esses. Aquat. Bot. 26:341-370. Fassett, N. C. 1972. A manual of aquatic plants. Madison: Univ. Wisconsin Press, 405 pp. Keast, A. 1984. The introduced aquatic macro¬ phyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Can. J. Zool. 62:1289-1303. Landers, D. H. 1982. Effects of naturally se- nescing aquatic macrophytes on nutrient chem¬ istry and chlorophyll a of surrounding waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27(3):428-439. Lange, K. I. 1984. Botanists and naturalists at Devil’s Lake State Park, Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Lett. 72:117-129. Lillie, R. A. 1986. The spread of Eurasian wa- termilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum in Devil’s Lake, Sauk County, Wisconsin, pp. 64-68 In G. Redfield, J. Taggart, and L. M. Moore [eds.], Lake and Reservoir Management, Volume II. Proc. 5th Annu. Conf. Int. Symp. N. Am. Lake Manage. Soc. Nov. 13-16, 1985, Lake Ge¬ neva, Wis. N. Am. Lake Manage. Soc., Wash. D. C. Lillie, R. A. and J. W. Mason. 1986. Historical changes in water quality and biota of Devil’s Lake, Sauk County, 1866-1985. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Lett. 74:81-104. Marvan, P. M. and J. Komarek. 1978. Algal pop¬ ulations related to different macrophyte com¬ munities, pp. 65-70 In D. Dykyjova and J. Kuet [eds.], Pond Littoral Ecosystems: Struc¬ ture and Functioning. Ecological Studies No. 28. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. 464 pp. Meier, H. and A. Ensign. 1967. Lake inventory — Devil’s Lake, Sauk County. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resourc. memo. Molter, C. and R. Schlesser. 1983. Devil’s Lake macrophyte survey — 1983. Wis. Dep. Nat. Re¬ sourc. Southern District Rep., Fitchburg, Wis. 14 pp. Nichols, D. S. andD. R. Keeney. 1976. Nitrogen nutrition of Myriophyllum spicatum: uptake and translocation of 15N by shoots and roots. Freshw. Biol. 6:145-154. Nichols, S. A. andB. H. Shaw. 1986. Ecological life histories of the three aquatic nuisance plants, Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton crispus, and Elodea canadensis. Hydrobiologia 131:3- 21. Nichols, S. A. and S. Mori. 1971. The littoral macrophyte vegetation of Lake Wingra: an ex¬ ample of a Myriophyllum spicatum invasion in a southern Wisconsin lake. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts and Lett. 59:107-1 19. Pip, E. 1988. Niche congruency of aquatic ma¬ crophytes in central North America with respect to 5 water chemistry parameters. Hydrobiologia 162:173-182. Prentki, R. T. 1979. Depletion of phosphorus from sediment colonized by Myriophyllum spicatum L., pp. 161-176 In J. E. Breck, R. T. Prentki, and O. L. Loucks [eds.]. Aquatic Plants, Lake 19 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Management, and Ecosystem Consequences of Lake Harvesting. Proceed. Conf. held at Mad¬ ison, Wis. Feb. 14-16, 1979. Inst. Environ. Studies, Univ. Wis. Madison. Schlesser, R., T. Bainbridge, and C. Molter. 1982. Macrophyte survey Devil’s Lake, 1982. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resourc. Southern District Rep., Fitchburg, Wis. 15 pp. mimeo. Smith, C. S. and M. S. Adams. 1986. Phospho¬ rus transfer from sediments by Myriophyllum spicatum. Limnol. Oceanogr. 3 1(6): 13 12-1321. Voss, E. G. 1972. Michigan flora: Part 1: Gym- nosperms and monocots. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. and Univ. Michigan Herbarium. 488 pp. Wisconsin Conservation Department. 1945. Fish Manage. Rep. No. 86, Wis. Dep. Nat. Re¬ sourc. Tech. Lib., Fitchburg, Wis. 53711. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1988. A two-year study of Devil’s Lake: results and management implications. Final Rep. for Bu¬ reau of Water Manage, by Bureau of Research. 97 pp. 20 Tornadoes of Fire at Williamsonville, Wisconsin, October 8, 1871 Joseph M. Moran and E. Lee Somerville Abstract. A small Door County park northeast of Brussels, Wisconsin, is a memorial to sixty people who lost their lives when a wildfire destroyed the tiny village of Williamsonville on the night of October 8, 1871 . The tragedy was compounded by what eyewitnesses described as “ tornadoes of fire" that accompanied the inferno. Today, we know that large wildfires often spawn intense vortices that resemble Williamsonville s tornadoes of fire. The William¬ sonville fire was one of several major wildfires on the same day that claimed more than seventeen hundred lives and destroyed millions of hectares of forest land in the upper Midwest. A dry summer coupled with a general disregard of fire prevention strategies contributed to the disaster. In southern Door County, the fires meant the end of lumbering and shinglemaking as major industries and served as an impetus for development of agriculture . On the night of October 8, 1871, a wild¬ fire swept through the tiny village of Williamsonville in Brussels township, south¬ ern Door County, Wisconsin (Fig. 1). All but seventeen of the settlement’s seventy-seven inhabitants perished. The Williamsonville tragedy was one of many that night when fires swept into lumber and shinglemill towns located on both sides of the bay of Green Bay; in all, perhaps thirteen hundred lives were lost and seventy-five hundred people were left homeless. Most victims were either lumberjacks or homesteaders. In addition to the tragic loss of life and human suffering, wildfires so devastated the forests — more than a half million hectares were burned — that the historical course of the region’s economy Joseph M. Moran, principal author, is Professor of Earth Science, College of Environmental Sciences, Uni¬ versity of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311-7001 . E. Lee Somerville is a graduate of the Regional Analysis program at UW-Green Bay. changed significantly. In southern Door County, the fire that destroyed Williamson¬ ville and other settlements was a singular event that marked the end of lumbering and shinglemaking and spurred the region’s tran¬ sition to agriculture. Geographic Setting In 1871, the Door County peninsula was thickly forested and sparsely populated. The glacial era had shaped a gently rolling terrain that was covered by northern mesic forest species (maple, hemlock, and yellow birch). Cedar swamps and tamarack and black spruce bogs occupied moist lowlands. The southern half of the county (south of Sturgeon Bay) had been settled in the mid- 1850s primarily by Belgian immigrants. They were mainly farmers but the densely forested condition of their new homeland forced them into logging as their primary occupation at least for a time (Friedman 1989). Settlers built small dwellings in isolated 21 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Fig. 1. Wildfires burned over large areas of northeastern Wisconsin on the night of October 8, 1871. Shading indicates the approximate location of the burned-over region based on maps by Tilton (1871) and Wells (1968). 22 Tornadoes of Fire settlements in the woods and survived by shinglemaking, lumbering, and some farm¬ ing and fishing. At first, poor roads limited the marketing of logs, and no doubt much valuable timber was wasted during slash-and- bum clearing of land for crops. Eventually, markets opened for wood products including lumber, railroad ties, and shingles. Shingles were split from pine and cedar logs, shaved by hand, and transported via ox carts or sleighs to Green Bay or to boats on the Bay for eventual transport to Milwaukee or Chicago. Later, shinglemills were built. Williamsonville, site of one of Door coun¬ ty’s largest shinglemills, occupied a clearing of about 4 hectares. A sketch map of Wil¬ liamsonville (Fig. 2) shows a linear pattern of settlement along the original stage road that linked Sturgeon Bay and Green Bay. The mill and a large storage bam were located well away from other buildings presumably as a fire safety measure. Roadside buildings consisted of a boarding house, store, black¬ smith shop, and eight dwellings (C. I. Martin 1881). The present highway on the map was built in the late 1920s and is now State Highway 57. Today, the former site of Williamsonville is marked by a small roadside park on land purchased by the county in 1927 at the sug¬ gestion of the Door County Historical Society (Holand 1931). Tornado Memorial Park (Fig. 3) is located 6.6 kilometers northeast of Brussels, Wisconsin. Bronze tablets com¬ memorate the sixty victims who on the night of October 8, 1871, burned to death in the “tornado of fire” that “blotted out” the village. Fig. 2. Sketch map of Williamsonville, Wisconsin. On October 8, 1871, this shinglemill village was destroyed by a wildfire; only seventeen of its seventy-seven inhabitants survived. (From Holand 1931.) 23 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters TOANAJJO memorial park. A aW5UJti3Hijrj m m ■ Igl| i I 'WsvaCfoM 1 ‘iRiauLAnoit im PovgRTir ||| IM yj.^ TH!4 HONSSItt .Ti'RUOOLiif) HIM OKliDKBM MIOOT s\ xMlil ' i ' *•* m xJRRg, ’//AS 7U& VILLAGE- ' OF 'i/lLLlAMUOHVHM , WITH A POPULA'lj'Oil ; OF n PAROOifv. Or/ - i OC'l OBEK.L, I iff], 1 xfi3 ’/(LLAOB V//> 'j fj// /; Tyj) °fJi ^ A TORtlABO Of fl.vf.', 80 W/JOilT 3OU0IJT FKfiJO&UI AH OPEN FMJ,0 ■jUPF.OiliiWIO Tlll’i Wirt d ill) '//ilp.K i BUmiSV TO 0 ({ffil, I j: Fig. 3. Tornado Memorial Park is the former site of Williamsonville, Wisconsin, and commem¬ orates the sixty people who lost their lives to a “tornado of fire” on the night of 8 October 1871. The park is 6.6 kilometers northeast of Brussels, Wisconsin, on State Highway 57. (Photograph by J. M. Moran) The Fire Although the Williamsonville fire is often considered part of the same conflagration that destroyed Peshtigo, Wisconsin, actually sep¬ arate fires engulfed the two settlements. Ac¬ cording to Wells (1968), at least two major wildfires ravaged the west side of the bay of Green Bay — one spread from near the Green Bay city limits to just south of Oconto and another burned north of Oconto into Peshtigo and then on to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (Fig. 1). On the less populated east side of the Bay, another wildfire spread from south of New Frankin northeastward to near Stur¬ geon Bay. By far, the greatest loss of life was in Peshtigo and neighboring settlements. The Peshtigo and Williamsonville fires oc¬ curred on the same night as the great Chicago fire, which claimed more than two hundred lives and destroyed 17,450 buildings. Be¬ tween October 8 and 10, 1871, other major wildfires burned over perhaps one million hectares of woodland in lower Michigan and may have claimed another two hundred lives. In all, these were the most destructive wild¬ fires in United States history.1 We are fortunate in having a detailed eye¬ witness account of the Williamsonville fire. Thomas Williamson, one of the owners of the mill and village, was startled by the rapid approach of flames. He reported that as he sat with several relatives on the stairs of his family home there came a heavy puff of wind, the trees fell in all directions, and I saw the reflections of a big fire south of us. I thought it was a mile and a half off. In less time than it takes to write this, there came another heavy gale, and the flames came rolling through the woods up to the back of the bam. . . . Then the sparks came down like a heavy snow-storm. . . . (Holand 1931) 24 Tornadoes of Fire Williamson then describes how he and his family tried to save themselves and their pos¬ sessions, but their efforts were to little avail. The next day, the bodies of thirty-five victims were found huddled together in a potato patch located about one hundred meters from the charred forest. Two of seven persons who sought refuge in a well perished. Of the eleven members of the Williamson family, only Thomas and his mother survived. William- sonville was literally erased off the map. On a Door County map published only seven years after the fire, Williamsonville was re¬ placed by Tornado, which apparently con¬ sisted of nothing more than a post office and saloon (Fig. 4). Why it Happened Although wildfires are largely random and unpredictable events, fire specialists cite fuel, ignition, and weather as key contributing fac¬ tors. No one of these ingredients alone usu- Fig. 4. On this 1878 map of Door County, “Tornado” marks the former site of Williamsonville, Wisconsin. Tornado apparently consisted of nothing more than a post office and saloon. (Map from Historical Atlas of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Snyder, VanVechten and Co., 1878, p. 101; courtesy of the American Geographical Society Collection, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Library.) 25 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters ally is sufficient to trigger major wildfires. For example, even if the weather is unusually dry for a lengthy period, wildfires are un¬ likely unless sufficient fuel (e.g. humus, woody debris) has accumulated. In his review of wildland fire behavior, Albini (1984) notes that wildfires are loosely classified on the basis of the type of fuel through which they bum. Ground fires slowly consume the subsurface organic materials that compose peat bogs and swamps; surface fires engulf forest litter, fallen trees, and other vegetation; and crown fires rapidly bum through tops of standing (usually coniferous) trees. Eyewitness accounts (e.g. Tilton 1871) indicate that the northeastern Wisconsin wildfires were unusually intense and in¬ volved all three sources of fuel. For example, Williamsonville survivors described a “sheet of fire that rolled along over the tree tops,” probably indicating a crown fire (C. I. Martin 1881). Also, eyewitnesses noted that the fire was so intense that stumps were burned out and roots were gone (Holand 1931). By early October 1871, the fire danger had become acute over much of the upper Mid¬ west partially because of the wasteful logging practices of the day. Lumbering, clear-cutting for farming, and the railroad right-of-way (then under construction between Green Bay and Menominee, Michigan) left behind con¬ siderable residue and slash accumulation in the woods. The debris fueled numerous small fires that broke out frequently throughout the summer. In fact, newspapers reported that smoke blown from the smoldering woods often obscured the midday sun and sometimes was so thick over the Bay that it slowed ship traffic. The week before the wildfires, fog horns were sounded continuously and navi¬ gation was done by compass (Pemin 1971). Numerous small fires burning in the woods of northeastern Wisconsin in the days prior to the main conflagrations meant many points of ignition, which is one reason why fire burned so rapidly over such huge areas (Haines and Sando 1969). Today, wildfires usually bum over much smaller areas because mod¬ em fire prevention practices mean that wild¬ fires typically originate from only a few ig¬ nition points. Back then, wildfire was a tolerated hazard, and as long as winds were light, workers were able to contain the flames whenever they drew close to settlements. Residents of Williamsonville, for example, vigilantly controlled small fires that flared up around their clearing in the woods, and, if winds permitted, they would set protective backfires confident that fire would not bum over the same area twice (Holand 1931). One obstacle in reconstructing the weather conditions on the day of the wildfires as well as the months preceding is a lack of reliable data. Weather-observing practices were not standardized as they are today, instruments were less reliable, and weather stations were few and far between. Nonetheless, available data indicate that the summer of 1871 was very dry throughout northeastern Wisconsin (Haines and Sando 1969; Haines and Kuehn- ast 1970). Precipitation records at Embarrass (about 58 kilometers northwest of Green Bay) and Sturgeon Bay indicate that rainfall was below average during June, July, August, and September of 1871. Although summer dryness likely contrib¬ uted to the wildfires of early October, we would be remiss in assuming that the area was in the grip of a drought of unparalleled severity. Lorimer and Gough (1982) com¬ puted a drought index for northeastern Wis¬ consin for each day, May 1 through October 31 , 1864-1979, and tabulated the number of days per month of moderate and severe drought. From May through September of 1871 , moderate drought occurred on 33 days and severe drought characterized only one day. In the 116 years of record, 22 years had a greater frequency of moderate drought and 29 years had a greater frequency of severe drought. Furthermore, March and April of 1871 were relatively wet at both Embarrass and Sturgeon Bay (Haines and Sando 1969). But what may be more important than sum¬ mer drought in contributing to the fire weather of early October was the very low relative 26 Tornadoes of Fire Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the major features of the synoptic weather pattern on the evening of 8 October 1871 based on a study by Fiaines and Kuehnast (1970). Low pressure (L) over southwest Minnesota coupled with a slow-moving high pressure system (FI) over the mid- Atlantic states meant a south to southwesterly flow over the upper Midwest. Fronts stretch northeast and southwest of the low center. humidity that persisted during the week or so prior to the wildfires (Haines and Kuehnast 1970). Low relative humidity is known to significantly elevate the fire danger by re¬ ducing the moisture content of dead logs and branches. We are indebted to Haines and Kuehnast (1970) for their reconstruction of the synoptic weather pattern of the day of the wildfires (Fig. 5). On the evening of October 8, 1871 , a slow-moving high pressure system was centered over Virginia and the Carolinas, and a deepening Alberta-type low pressure sys¬ tem was over southwestern Minnesota. A nearly stationary front stretched northeast¬ ward from the low center across northwestern Wisconsin to just north of Lake Michigan. The relatively steep pressure gradient be¬ tween the two weather systems gave rise to south to southwesterly winds over portions of Iowa, northern Illinois, and most of Wis¬ consin and Michigan. The strongest winds were over southeastern Wisconsin and north¬ ern Illinois; at 2 pm winds at Chicago and Milwaukee were from the south/southwest at a brisk 37 and 52 kilometers per hour re¬ spectively. Winds were weaker over north¬ eastern Wisconsin with Embarras and Stur¬ geon Bay reporting winds of only 19 kilometers per hour at 9 pm. Nonetheless, winds were sufficiently strong to fan many small blazes into larger conflagrations. By late on the evening of October 8, southwes¬ terly winds were driving major wildfires to- 27 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters ward Peshtigo and Williamsonville. By about 2 am on October 9, the wildfires were over and the burned-over region lay in smolder¬ ing ruin. Fire Vortices Although regional winds were only light to moderate over northeastern Wisconsin, by many eyewitness accounts, wildfires were accompanied by winds strong enough to twist and uproot large trees and rip the roofs off bams and other buildings. Also, some sur¬ vivors reported that wind and fire whirled about like a tornado and produced a roar sim¬ ilar to the sound that often precedes a tor¬ nado. In his fascinating report of the fire, Tilton (1871), a Green Bay newspaper man, quotes two residents of Sugar Bush, a small settlement near Peshtigo, who witnessed “tornadoes of fire.” Says Alfred Griffin, of the lower Sugar Bush, “When I heard the roar of the approaching tornado I ran out of my house and saw a great black, balloon-shaped object whirling through the air over the tops of the distant trees, ap¬ proaching my house. When it reached the house it seemed to explode, with a loud noise, belch¬ ing out fire on every side, and in an instant my house was on fire in every part.” G. H. Brooks makes a similar statement. He went out of his back door to see the approaching storm, saw a similar cloud or ball approaching, and then ran into the house and with difficulty closed the door, so strong was the wind. The ball had by this time reached the house and exploded with a loud noise, filling the air with great sheets of flame. A stream of fire entered his house through the crack under the back door, and swept through the house to the front door. Of course the house was ablaze in an instant from foundation to roof, the family barely escaping with their lives, supremely happy to do that. We visited the place afterwards. The house stood at a considerable distance from the woods — so far, that in any ordinary fire, it would have been perfectly safe. But here were re¬ maining but the stone walls of the cellar, di¬ lapidated stoves, melted stove-pipe and broken crockery. . . . (Tilton 1871) Tornadoes of fire were actually fire vor¬ tices, which are frequently spawned by large wildfires (Graham 1955; Haines and Updike 1971 ; Albini 1984). Development of fire vor¬ tices was probably the principal reason for both the rapid pace and destructiveness of the wildfires. Fire vortices are of two general types: fire whirlwinds and horizontal roll vor¬ tices. The Wisconsin wildfires likely gener¬ ated both types of vortices. Fire whirlwinds are the more common vor¬ tices. They are vertically oriented and vary in diameter (1 to more than 100 meters) and height (1 to more than 1000 meters) and range in intensity from weak dust-devil- like whirls to severe tornado-like disturbances. Whirl¬ winds develop both within and immediately downwind of a wildfire and are made visible by swirling smoke and masses of burning embers.2 Horizontal roll vortices, whirls that rotate about a horizontal axis, are less com¬ mon and rotate more slowly than fire whirl¬ winds (Haines and Smith 1987). If either type of fire vortex develops at the downwind lead¬ ing edge of a wildfire, they can hasten the spread of fire by scattering firebrands (burn¬ ing embers) and igniting spot fires well be¬ yond the perimeter of the main body of fire. In controlled bums, for example, fire whirl¬ winds are known to ignite spot fires many kilometers downwind from the main inferno. This is likely what happened as regional southwesterly winds steered wildfires toward Williamsonville and Peshtigo, for it explains how objects situated some distance down¬ wind of the main body of the wildfire were quite suddenly consumed by fire. In some respects, wildfires that scorched northeastern Wisconsin in October 1871 may have resembled the huge fire storms that en¬ gulfed hundreds of city blocks during Allied bombing raids on cities in Germany and Ja¬ pan during World War n. In those fire storms, violent updrafts formed over the fire center and strong cyclonic (counterclockwise) winds developed at the surface. For example, on July 27-28, 1943, heavy incendiary bomb¬ ing of Hamburg, Germany, set off a fire storm 28 Tornadoes of Fire that engulfed an area of about 12 square kil¬ ometers. Surface winds likely exceeded hur¬ ricane strength and the fire storm was ac¬ companied by intense local vortices (Ebert 1963).3 Models and experimental bums provide some insight on the genesis of fire vortices. For example, Church et al. (1980) attempted to model fire whirlwinds during experiments at the Meteotron facility in southern France near the central Pyrenees. The Meteotron is a 140 by 140 meter square array of 105 fuel oil burners which, when ignited, produces fires that merge into a highly energetic in¬ ferno. A network of weather instruments and cameras continually monitors the fire plume, a hot and buoyant mixture of combustion gases and entrained air. Church and his col¬ leagues found that vortices of varying inten¬ sity develop within the fire plume, and some travel downwind and away from the fire pe¬ rimeter. Apparently surface winds interact with the fire plume in such a way that vor- ticity (a measure of the rotational tendency of the fluid) is concentrated in a series of anticyclonic (clockwise) and cyclonic (counterclockwise) vortices. Haines and Updike (1971) point out that, once formed, a fire whirlwind feeds itself. A fire whirlwind occupies an air column that is heated intensely by the underlying burning ground cover. Intense heating destabilizes the air, especially close to the ground, and gives rise to a strong updraft that draws surface winds radially inward toward the whirlwind. In this way, horizontal surface winds trans¬ port fuel (burning logs and other debris) into the whirlwind. Burning fuel further heats the air enhancing its buoyancy and thereby the whirlwind circulation strengthens. Historical Significance In many of the devastated settlements, in¬ cluding Peshtigo, survivors of the wildfires stoically tried to put their lives back together. Some saw and shingle mills destroyed by fire were rebuilt but not in southern Door County where the wildfires had permanently altered the landscape and the local economy. The thick forests were gone, replaced by burned- over vegetation and tree stumps; the lum¬ bering era had ended. Clearing trees and stumps had always been a slow and arduous task for settlers living independently on isolated plots of land and relying on their own muscle power and that of their sluggish oxen. Ironically, the dev¬ astating wildfires of 1871 helped farmers to clear the forest and open the land to crops. Furthermore, when news of the wildfires reached the rest of the state and nation, an enormous relief effort began which brought food, clothing, money, and farm implements to the area. Xavier Martin, a prominent Green Bay politican and real estate dealer, observed that by 1874, only three years after the fire, the Belgian immigrants of Door County were in better condition and circumstances than ever before (X. Martin 1895). In effect, the fire was a catalyst that ac¬ celerated the transition to agriculture in southern Door County, a conclusion that is supported by area census data that bracket the 1871 fire. Censuses of 1870 and 1880 indicate sharp increases in population, num¬ ber of farmers, and land area in cultivation in the five southern Door County townships most severely affected by fire (Tables 1 and 2). In fact, the rate of development was much faster than statewide trends during the same period. While population more than doubled and cultivated land area almost tripled in the five southern Door townships, statewide pop¬ ulation increased 25% and farm acerage in¬ creased 31% (Ebling et al. 1948). Census data also tell us that the number of sawmill or shinglemill workers in the five townships declined from thirty-nine in 1870 to none in 1880. Farming in Door County in the 1870s was largely of the mixed or subsistence type with an emphasis on livestock (Ebling et al. 1948). That is, farmers produced primarily for their family’s essential needs (food, fiber, and shelter). Nonetheless, this stage in the re¬ gion’s agriculture was a key step in the even- 29 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Table 1. Percent change in population and farm statistics between 1870 and 1880 for the five southern Door County townships most severely affected by the 1871 wildfires. Brussels Forestville Gardner Nasewaupee Union Population + 146% + 197% + 50% + 120% + 108% Households + 141% + 181% + 53% + 87% + 87% Farmers + 145% + 269% + 100% + 115% + 98% Farm land* + 167% + 341% + 25% + 129% + 156% ‘Tilled plus permanent meadow Source: U.S. Census, 1870 and 1880. Population and Agricultural Schedules, Door County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin State Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin. Table 2. Change in population and farm sta¬ tistics between 1870 and 1880 for the com¬ bined five southern Door County townships most severely affected by the 1871 wildfires. 1870 1880 Percent Change Population 1800 4016 + 123% Households 328 692 + 111% Farmers 273 673 + 147% Farm land (acres)* 6614 17755 + 168% ‘Tilled plus permanent meadow Source: U.S. Census, 1870 and 1880. Population and Agricultural Schedules, Door County, Wiscon¬ sin. Wisconsin State Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin tual development (after 1 890) of dairy farm¬ ing, which remains important today. In 1895, Xavier Martin wrote that “it is a beautiful sight to see fine crops of wheat, rye, barley, and oats covering fenceless and stumpless fields with an even height along the high¬ ways. The wilderness of 40 years ago begins to look like the fields of Belgium. . . (X. Martin 1895). Conclusion Several factors contributed to the outbreak of wildfires that destroyed Williamsonville and other villages in northeastern Wisconsin on October 8, 1871: wasteful logging prac¬ tices, summer drought, low relative humid¬ ities just prior to the fires, and, on the day of the fires, a weather pattern that favored the region with moderate southwesterly winds. But perhaps the most devastating aspect of the wildfires was the spawning of intense fire vortices. Based on vivid eyewitness ac¬ counts, it appears that fire vortices set spot fires ahead of the main infernos, thereby ac¬ celerating the progress of the wildfires and producing isolated pockets of destruction. From an historical perspective, the wild¬ fires altered the economy of the region — especially in southern Door County where the fires meant the end of lumbering and spurred the development of agriculture. Acknowledgments This study benefited greatly from discus¬ sions with Dr. William G. Laatsch, Professor of Regional Analysis, University of Wiscon¬ sin-Green Bay. Also, Jennifer M. Tillis and Debra Anderson of the UW-Green Bay Li¬ brary and Mary Jane Herber of the Brown County Library were very helpful in locating historical documents. Endnotes ‘During the summer of 1988, in perhaps the worst wildfires since 1872 (Romme and Despain 1989), more than two million hectares of U.S. forest land burned including about 290,00 hectares in Yellowstone National Park. By contrast, in an average year, 130,000 wildfires bum over about one million hectares of U.S. land (Albini 1984). 2The North Central Forest Experiment Station (East Lansing, Michigan), has produced an ex¬ cellent videotape, “Vortices in Wildland Fires,” which includes dramatic footage of a variety of vortices spawned by wildfires. 30 Tornadoes of Fire 3An important difference between urban fire storms and forest fires is the fact that the former tends to be stationary while the latter are in motion. Works Cited Albini, F. A. 1984. Wildland fires. American Sci¬ entist 72:590-597. Church, C. R., J. T. Snow, and J. Dessens 1980. Intense atmospheric vortices associated with a 1000 MW fire. Bulletin of the American Me¬ teorological Society. 61:682-694. Ebert, C. H. V. 1963. The meteorological factor in the Hamburg fire storm. Weatherwise 16:70-75. Ebling, W. H., C. D. Caparoon, E. C. Wilcox, andC. W. Estes. 1948. A century of Wisconsin agriculture, 1848-1948. Wisconsin Crop and Livestock Reporting Service Bulletin 290:1-1 19. Friedman, R. L. 1989. Towards an environmental history of Door County: some preliminary thoughts on the relationship between people and their environment in northeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s Door Peninsula, A Natural His¬ tory, J. C. Palmquist, ed., Appleton, Wiscon¬ sin: Perin Press, p. 147-157. Graham, H. E. 1955. Fire whirlwinds. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 36:99-103. Haines, D. A. and E. L. Kuehnast. 1970. When the Midwest burned. Weatherwise 23:1 12-1 19. Haines, D. A. and R. W. Sando. 1969. Climatic conditions preceding historically great fires in the north central region. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Research Paper NC-34. Haines, D. A. and M. C. Smith. 1987. Three types of horizontal vortices observed in wildland mass and crown fires. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 26:1624-1637. Haines, D. A. and G. H. Updike. 1971. Fire whirlwind formation over flat terrain. U.S. De¬ partment of Agriculture Forest Service, Re¬ search Paper NC-7 1 . Holand, H. R. 1931. The great forest fire of 1 87 1 . Peninsula Historical Review 5:41-61. Lorimer, C. G. and W. R. Gough. 1982. Number of days per month of moderate and extreme drought in northeastern Wisconsin, 1864-1979. Forest Research Notes, No. 248, Department of Forestry, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Martin, C. I. 1881. History of Door County , Wis¬ consin. Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin: Expositor Job Print. Martin, X. 1895. The Belgians of Northeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Historical Collections 13:375-396. Pemin, P. 1971. The great Peshtigo fire: An eye¬ witness account. Wisconsin Magazine of His¬ tory. 54:246-272. Romme, W. H. and D. G. Despain. 1989. The Yellowstone fires. Scientific American 261:37-46. Tilton, F. 1871. The great fires in Wisconsin. Green Bay, WI: Robinson and Kustermann, Publishers. Reprinted in the Green Bay His¬ torical Bulletin (1931) 7:1-99. Wells, R. W. 1968. Fire at Peshtigo. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 31 Spectral confusion by Hummingbirds and the Evolution of Red Coloration in their Flowers: A New Hypothesis (Mullerian mimicry /wavelength discrimination/shade/color name) Robert Bleiweiss Abstract. Red is the predominant color among mimetic hummingbird-pollinated flowers in North America. Recent experimental studies suggest that the ability of hummingbirds to discriminate among different wavelengths is poorest in the long (red) end of the spectrum. / propose that red is the best signal for the mimetic flowers precisely because the hummingbirds' poor discrimination of long wavelengths makes them more likely to mistake flowers of slightly different shades of red as being subjectively similar; spectral confusion favors both the initial convergence and subsequent maintenance of mimicry. Since the effectiveness of floral color in attracting pollinators is a function of both the probability that the flower will be seen ( conspicuousness ) and that it will be recognized as a good food source (mimetic advantage ), the relative conspicuousness of red against green foliage may complement red's mimetic advantage. The hypotheses that red hummingbird flowers have evolved because of an innate preference by hummingbirds for red, or because red is inconspicuous to insects, are not supported by available evidence. Poor discrimination of long-wavelength signals may also explain why red predominates among other mimetic prey of birds, such as in mimicry rings of noxious butterflies. The convergent flower structure and red coloration of the North American hummingbird-pollinated flora presents an ev¬ olutionary puzzle because it provides an ex¬ ception to the general pattern that inter¬ specific competition for the services of pollinators leads to character divergence and pollinator specificity among sympatric plant Dr. Robert Bleiweiss received his Ph.D. in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology from Harvard University in 1983. He was a Chapman Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History from 1983 to 1985. Dr. Bleiweiss is currently Assistant Scientist in the De¬ partment of Zoology and Adjunct Assistant Curator of Birds in the Zoological Museum at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. His research interests include the evolution of visual signals, speciation, and biochemical systematics. species (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1979). Grant (1966) proposed that North American hummingbird-pollinated flowers are analo¬ gous to Mullerian mimics and have evolved convergent structures and red color because often than to 590 nm (yellow-orange). They tors, hummingbirds, outweigh the advan¬ tages of pollinator specificity. Humming¬ birds must learn what plants provide a nectar reward. Grant suggested that the migratory habits of temperate hummingbirds make flo¬ ral convergence beneficial for both bird and plant; a common color would increase the rate at which hummingbirds learn appropriate food sources in new areas and hence, the probability that any plant with flowers of the same color will be visited and pollinated by a hummingbird (Grant 1966; Grant and Grant 33 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 1968). Brown and Kodric-Brown (1979) have provided convincing evidence for Grant’s hy¬ pothesis that the similar appearance of the North American hummingbird-pollinated flora is due to mimetic convergence. It is less clear why these plants have evolved red as their typical color. Hummingbirds have excellent color vision (Stiles 1976; Gold¬ smith and Goldsmith 1979). All previous ex¬ planations of why red is the predominant flo¬ ral color in North America incorporate in some way the notion that hummingbirds more readily discriminate red, but each presents some difficulties. The hypothesis that hum¬ mingbirds are innately attracted to red be¬ cause of a special property of their neural apparatus (Faegri and van Der Pijl 1979) has been disproved by experimental evidence that hummingbirds learn color preferences through their experience with the best food sources (Grant and Grant 1968; Stiles 1976; Bene 1945; Wagner 1946; Lyerly et al. 1950; Col- lias and Collias 1968; Miller and Miller 1971). The hypothesis that red is a good attractant color because hummingbirds perceive it as conspicuous (i.e. contrasting) against green foliage (Grant 1966) is based on human per¬ ceptions, which may not apply to humming¬ birds. The currently favored hypothesis that red color prevents nectar-robbing insects, (which do not pollinate the flowers), from finding the plants (Grant 1966; Raven 1972) is based on the fact that red is inconspicuous to most insects. However, insects may in fact frequent red hummingbird-flowers (Lyon and Chadek 1971; Feinsinger 1977; Carpenter 1978; Snow and Snow 1980; Gill et al. 1982; Page and Whitham 1985), which often pos¬ sess other structures that appear designed to limit the foraging efforts of insects (Faegri and Van Der Pijl 1979; Gill et al. 1982; Bol¬ ton and Feinsinger 1978; Stiles 1981; Fein¬ singer 1983). Such features would be super¬ fluous for red hummingbird flowers if insects could not find them. Furthermore, at least some of these visitors, namely butterflies, are obligate nectar-feeders that can distinguish long wavelengths as a distinct hue (Swihart 1963, 1965, 1967; Swihart and Gordon 1971). In this report, I suggest a new “confusion hypothesis” for the evolution of common red color based on a previously unconsidered property of color vision: wavelength discrim¬ ination. I summarize evidence that hum¬ mingbirds actually discriminate poorly among long (red) wavelengths, and I argue that poor discrimination of long-wavelength signals fa¬ cilitates the mimetic advantage of the com¬ mon color because hummingbirds are more likely to mistake red flowers of slightly dif¬ ferent shades as being subjectively similar. I assume, as have others (possible reasons given in Brown and Kodric-Brown 1979), that the relative benefits of mimetic conver¬ gence outweigh any costs associated with lack of pollinator specificity. My explanation ad¬ dresses the more specific question: given that the plants are selected to converge, what flo¬ ral color will be favored? Data available from studies of hummingbird visual physiology and behavior supports my “confusion hypothesis.” Wavelength Discrimination by Hummingbirds Color discrimination ability is usually measured based on some criterion of relia¬ bility of discrimination, which, when applied for all wavelengths throughout the spectrum, generates a characteristic function that de¬ scribes how discrimination varies with wave¬ length. Goldsmith et al. (1981) generated a spectral discrimination function for black- chinned hummingbirds {Archilochus alex- andri) by first training them to receive a nec¬ tar reward at feeders illuminated by a mono¬ chromatic light, and then testing their ability to distinguish this light from another such light of equal brightness but with a spectral separation of 10 nm. They tested the response over the range of the human visual spectrum (410 nm to 650 nm) to generate a discrimi¬ nation function. Although the function does not give information about the minimum wavelength difference that the birds can de- 34 Spectral Confusion by Hummingbirds WAVELENGTH (nm) Fig. 1. Goldsmith et a/'s (1981) wavelength-discrimination function for the black-chinned hum¬ mingbird (Archilochus alexandri). Birds were trained to feed at bottles containing 25% sucrose mounted in front of a glass disc illuminated by the training wavelength (\). Birds were then presented with two bottles illuminated by the training wavelength, and two bottles illuminated by the test wavelength (\ ± 10 nm). The function measures the fraction of incorrect choices for the two stimuli of monochromatic light separated by 10 nm. In the function, the points along the abscissa are plotted midway between the training and test wavelengths. The training wavelength lay 5 nm to the shaded side of the data symbol. tect (the so-called just-noticeable difference), it does provide a relative measure of wave¬ length discrimination; where the birds make more errors, their wavelength discrimination is poorer. Surprisingly, Goldsmith et al. (1981) found that the birds’ ability to discriminate two stimuli was best at shorter wavelengths and decreased roughly monotonically toward longer wavelengths (Fig. 1). In particular, the birds’ ability to discriminate two stimuli decreased dramatically for wavelengths longer than 585 nm, the region in which the human sensation of orange-red begins (Jacobs 1981). Thus, hummingbirds’ poorest powers of color discrimination are in the orange to red range of the spectrum. Data on discrimination also make it possible to evaluate whether hum¬ mingbirds see as a single hue, i.e. a “color name,” the range of wavelengths that we call red. Hues, and the range of wavelengths they encompass, are perceptual categories rather than objective physical standards. Thus, the common color “red” would not be of evo¬ lutionary significance if hummingbirds dis¬ tinguished two or more hues within the re¬ gion of the spectrum we perceive as red (Table 1). Although by definition color¬ naming functions cannot be described for non¬ human animals, Goldsmith and Goldsmith (1979) found that, in making spontaneous choices, the hummingbirds’ experience with 620 nm (red) was generalized to 650 nm more often than to 590 nm (yellow-orange). They Table 1. Spectral limits of human hue “color names”1 Color Name Wavelengths (nanometers) Violet 400-440 Blue 440-500 Green 500-570 Yellow 570-590 Orange 590-610 Red 610-700 ’See Begbie, G. H. 1973. 35 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters concluded that 590 nm probably falls close to a hue border and that hummingbirds de¬ limit hues at long wavelengths in a manner similar to primates, whose hue border for orange begins at 590 nm (Table 1). In summary, it appears that human ‘’red” corresponds to a sensation that humming¬ birds also perceive as a single hue category, and that discrimination among “red” wave¬ lengths by hummingbirds is poorer than that among wavelengths of other hues. These re¬ sults are most likely to apply to all of the hummingbird genera that regularly breed in North America {Archilochus, Selasphorus, Calypte, Stellula ) because all of them are closely related (Zusi and Bentz 1982). Consequences for the Evolution of Mimicry In Mullerian complexes of distasteful prey, mimicry is advantageous because the prob¬ ability that any given individual will be sam¬ pled decreases as the number of mimetic spe¬ cies increases. Hummingbird flowers differ from classical Mullerian mimics, of course, in that the flowers advertise their palatability so they can be sampled more often. The se¬ lective basis for mimicry among either nox¬ ious or palatable prey is the same, however. In both contexts, convergence increases the rate at which the animal learns to associate the signal with a stimulus. A hummingbird that has sampled a nectar-ladened flower of a particular shade will seek out and pollinate similar-looking flowers. Thus, mimicry ben¬ efits the plant by increasing their reproductive success and benefits the bird by reducing their costs of seeking out and testing potential food sources. I propose that poorly discriminated pheno¬ types will be favored to evolve as mimics, both during the initial phase when mimetic resemblance is first evolving, and during sub¬ sequent evolution of the complex. In mim¬ icry, the mimics gain some advantage through their resemblance to another organism, the model, by exploiting the learning capacities of some animal, usually termed the ‘‘signal receiver” (Turner 1977). Fisher (1927, 1958) pointed out that the mimetic advantage can depend on the subjective perceptions of the signal receiver. I argue that discrimination ability is the key subjective element driving the evolution of mimetic color among the hummingbird-pollinated plants. According to standard models for the ev¬ olution of mimicry (Turner 1977), a mimic can evolve initially if a mutant phenotype arises that achieves sufficient resemblance to the model such that it overcomes any counterselection for other functions (in the present case, distinctness of floral display that might serve to reduce competition with other plants for the services of pollinators). It is evident that the mutant does not have to be an exact physical replica, but only that it must fall within the range of phenotypes that the signal receiver considers subjectively simi¬ lar. For hummingbird-pollinated plants, this stage will be influenced by the visual dis¬ crimination capacities of the hummingbirds. As phenotypes (wavelengths) are more likely to be confused at the long (red) end of the spectrum, the production of a mimetic mutant is more likely to occur for red models. In other words, there are more mutant pheno¬ types that would confer a mimetic advantage in the region of poor discrimination. Con¬ versely, the production of mimetic mutants of non-red models is less likely. Alternatively, two plants might by chance alone already resemble each other suffi¬ ciently well that a major mutation would not be necessary to confer some mimetic advan¬ tage (Turner 1977). The chance of being con¬ fused will be greater where the range of suit¬ able mimetic phenotypes is greater, namely, in the region where the signal receiver’s pow¬ ers of discrimination are poorest. Thus, for hummingbird-pollinated plants, the chance for this fortuitous resemblance will again be greater in the long (red) region of the spectrum. As the Mullerian advantage increases in direct relation to the abundance of the mimics (Turner 1977; Fisher 1927, 1958), then the actual advantage conferred through Muller¬ ian resemblance will be inversely related to 36 Spectral Confusion by Hummingbirds the discriminatory powers of the signal re¬ ceiver. Poor discrimination leads to the con¬ fusion of more spectral phenotypes, which therefore make up a greater proportion of the total population, and hence should gain pro¬ portionately in mimetic advantage at any stage in the evolution of mimicry. By these ar¬ guments, red facilitates the mimetic function of the common color and should be favored when the plants are under selection leading to a convergent appearance. Discussion The “confusion hypothesis” predicts that hummingbirds will learn food sources asso¬ ciated with slightly different shades (wave¬ lengths) of red faster than with a similar array of shades centered in a different hue. Gold¬ smith and Goldsmith (1979) observed that red (620 nm) and green (546 nm) stimuli were learned with equal rapidity. This finding does not refute my prediction because con¬ fusion should favor rapid learning only among slightly different shades; single shades of any hue should be learned with equal speed. The hypothesis also predicts that variation in shade (wavelength) among the mimetic flowers will not be reduced below what hummingbirds can discriminate, so red flowers should vary greatly in their physical wavelengths. I am unaware of any data in the literature that per¬ tain to these two predictions, which I am endeavoring to test. The effectiveness of floral color in attract¬ ing pollinators is no doubt a function of both the probability that the flower will be seen (conspicuousness) and the conditional prob¬ ability that the bird will recognize it as a good food source (mimetic advantage). Since hummingbirds are able to discriminate green (560 nm) from orange (590 nm) and red (620 nm) lights almost completely (Goldsmith and Goldsmith 1979), they no doubt perceive red as conspicuous against green. Therefore, the hypothesis that red is favored because it is easy to discriminate from the background of middle wavelength (green) foliage, i.e., con¬ spicuousness, may complement the mimetic advantage. Evidence that insects visit red flowers does not by itself refute the hypothesis that red has evolved to limit nectar-robbing by them, as the device need not be completely effec¬ tive to be selectively favored. Thus, red may be a particularly good advertisement for hummingbird flowers under selection to con¬ verge just because it is conspicuous against green, inconspicuous to insects, and easily confused with other shades of red. Given the suitability of hummingbirds to experimental manipulations of behavior, it should be pos¬ sible to dissect the relative contributions of these potential benefits. Should poor discrimination of long wave¬ lengths prove to be typical for insectivorous birds, then the “confusion hypothesis” may also explain the predominance of red among aposematic avian prey such as butterflies that are Mullerian mimics (Rettenmeyer 1970). This would indicate that red’s primary value is as a mimetic signal. Acknowledgments I thank Kurt Fristrup, Dana Geary, Tim Goldsmith, Jack P. Hailman, John Kirsch, Francois Vuilleumier, and Dan Wiegmann for helpful comments on drafts of this paper. Cheryle Hughes drafted the figure and Don Chandler photographed it. Works Cited Begbie, G. H. 1973. Seeing and the Eye. Garden City, New Jersey: Anchor Books. Bene, F. 1945. The role of learning in the feeding behavior of black-chinned hummingbirds. Con¬ dor 47: 3-22. Bolton, A. B., and Feinsinger, P. 1978. Why do hummingbird flowers secrete dilute nectar. Bio- tropica 10: 307-309. Brown, J. H. and Kodric-Brown, A. 1979. Con¬ vergence, competition, and mimicry in a tem¬ perate community of hummingbird-pollinated flowers. Ecology 60: 1022-1035. Carpenter, F. L. 1978. Competition between hummingbirds and insects for nectar. Amer. Zool. 19: 1105-1114. Collias, N. W., and Collias, E. C. 1968. Anna’s hummingbirds trained to select different colors in feeding. Condor 70: 273-275. 37 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Faegri, K., and Van Der Pijl, L. 1979. The Prin¬ ciples of Pollination Ecology. New York: Per- gamon Press. Feinsinger, P. 1977. Notes on the hummingbirds of Monte verde. Cordillera de Tilaran, Costa Rica. Wilson Bull. 89: 159-164. Feinsinger, P. 1983. Coevolution and pollination. In Coevolution, Futuyma, D. J., and Slatkin, M. (eds.), Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Assoc. Press, pp. 282-310. Fisher, R. A. 1927. On some objections to mim¬ icry theory; statistical and genetic. Trans. Ent. Soc. London 1927: 269-278. Fisher, R. A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Nat¬ ural Selection. New York: Dover. Gill, F. B., Mack, A. L., and Ray, R. T. 1982. Competition between hermit hummingbirds Phaethomithinae and insects for nectar in a Costa Rican rain forest. Ibis. 124: 44-49. Goldsmith, T. H., and Goldsmith, K. M. 1979. Discrimination of colors by the black-chinned hummingbird, Archilochus colubris. J. Comp. Physiol. 130: 209-220. Goldsmith, T. H., Collins, J. S., and Perlman, D. L. 1981. A wavelength discrimination func¬ tion for the hummingbird Archilochus alexan- dri. J. Comp. Physiol. 143: 103-110. Grant, K. A. 1966. A hypothesis concerning the prevalence of red coloration in California hum¬ mingbird flowers. Amer. Natur. 66: 85-98. Grant, K. A., and Grant, V. 1968. Hummingbirds and Their Flowers. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Jacobs, G. H. 1981. Comparative Color Vision. New York: Academic Press. Lyerly, S. B., Reiss, B. F., and Ross, S. 1950. Color preference in the Mexican violet-eared hummingbird, Colibri t. thalassinus (Swain- son). Behavior 2: 237-248. Lyon, D., and Chadek, C. 1971. Exploitation of nectar resources by hummingbirds, bees {Bom- bus), and Diglossa baritula and its role in the evolution of Penstemon kunthii. Condor 73: 246-248. Miller, R. S., Miller, R. W. 1971. Feeding ac¬ tivity and color preference of ruby-throated hummingbirds. Condor 73: 309-313. Paige, K. N., and Whitham, T. G. 1985. Indi¬ vidual and population shifts in flower color by scarlet gilia: a mechanism for pollinator track¬ ing. Science 227: 315-317. Raven, P. H. 1972. Why are bird- visited flowers predominantly red? Evolution 26: 674 Rettenmeyer, C. W. 1970. Insect mimicry. Ann. Rev. Entomol 15: 43-74. Snow, D. W., and Snow, B. K. 1980. Relation¬ ships between hummingbirds and flowers in the Andes of Colombia. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Zool) 38:105-139. Stiles, F. G. 1976. Taste preferences, color pref¬ erences and flower choice in hummingbirds. Condor 78: 10-26. Stiles, F. G. 1981. Geographical aspects of bird- flower coevolution, with particular reference to Central America. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 68: 323-351. Swihart, S. L. 1963. The electroretinogram of Heliconius reato and its possible relation to es¬ tablished behavior patterns. Zoologica 48: 155-165. Swihart, S. L. 1965. Evoked potentials in the vis¬ ual pathway of Heliconius reato. Zoologica 50: 55-62. Swihart, S. L. 1967. Neural adaptations in the visual pathway of certain heliconiine butter¬ flies, and related forms, to variations in wing coloration. Zoologica, 52: 1-14. Swihart, S. L. and W. C. Gordon. 1971. Red photoreceptor in butterflies. Nature 231: 126-127. Turner, J. R. G. 1977. Butterfly mimicry: the ge¬ netical evolution of an adaptation. In Evolu¬ tionary Biology, Vol 10, M. K. Hecht, W. C. Steere, and B. Wallace (eds.). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 163-206. Wagner, H. O. 1946. Food and feeding habits of Mexican hummingbirds. Wilson Bull. 58: 69-93. Zusi, R. L., and Bentz, G. D. 1982. Variation of a muscle in hummingbirds and swifts and its systematic implications. Proc. Bio. Soc. Wash. 95: 412-420. 38 Glaciated Karst Terrain in the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin Carol J. Rosen and Michael J. Day Abstract. Glaciated karst terrain , which is poorly documented in the United States, is well developed in the Door Peninsula of northeastern Wisconsin. The peninsula is a southeastward¬ dipping cuesta developed on the Silurian Niagaran dolomite. Wisconsinan glacial plucking east of the escarpment produced glaciokarst features including alternating steps and risers (schichttreppenkarst) and extensive dolomite pavements. Pre- and post-glacial karst landforms include enlarged crevices (grikes), sinkholes, and caves. Staircases and pavements are pre¬ dominantly south- and east-facing and are particularly well developed on the Brussels Hill outlier. Their distribution is as predicted by the general model of northwest-southeast ice movement. Many of the smaller karst landforms are postglacial, although shallow features may have an important inherited component, and the larger sinkholes and the caves may antedate Wisconsinan glaciation. Much of the postglacial karst development is in the Burnt Bluff Formation on the western side of the peninsula where the hydraulic gradient is steepest, joints are dilated, and the drift is thinnest. Regional joint sets at 25, 70, and 155 degrees have strongly influenced cave and sinkhole development. Although large areas of carbonate bed¬ rock in the United States experienced the effects of Pleistocene glaciation, glacio¬ karst — characteristic terrain developed through glaciation of karst landscape — is poorly doc¬ umented. In many areas glaciokarst is limited because the limestones or dolomites are man¬ tled by thick, often carbonate-rich glacial de¬ posits. These mask any preglacial karst, as well as the effects of glacial erosion, and hinder postglacial karst development. Never- Carol Rosen is an Assistant Professor of Geography at UW -Whitewater. She received her PhD from UW- Milwaukee in May, 1990. Her MS Thesis at UW- Milwaukee dealt with the Karst geomorphology of the Door Peninsula. Michael Day is an Associate Professor of Geography at UW -Milwaukee. His research focuses on karst geomor¬ phology. He received the DPhil from Oxford University in 1978. theless, glaciokarst is present in some areas, particularly where drift deposits are thin. In this paper we call attention to one major area of glaciated karst terrain developed on do¬ lomites in northeastern Wisconsin and pres¬ ent some initial results of studies of the karst landforms. The Regional Setting The Door Peninsula, which extends some 100 km into Lake Michigan and ranges from 5 to 30 km wide (Fig. 1), is a cuesta devel¬ oped on the Silurian-aged Niagaran dolomite (Sherrill 1978). The Niagaran Series is ap¬ proximately 107-m thick and consists dom¬ inantly of light gray, medium to coarse¬ grained, thin-bedded, fossiliferous dolom¬ ites. Bioherms are common and are ex¬ pressed topographically in outliers such as Brussels Hill, the highest point on the pen¬ insula at 260 m (Thwaites and Bertrand 1957). 39 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters On the western, Green Bay side of the peninsula the Niagara Escarpment rises up to 79 m above present lake level; the cuesta backslope, sloping to the southeast at gen¬ erally less than one degree, forms the main body of the peninsula. Headlands, talus-strewn bluffs, and island outliers characterize the west coast; the eastern coast is gently sloping and has sandy beaches and dunes. The peninsula is traversed by a series of five northwest-southeast-trending lowlands, the most conspicuous being Sturgeon Bay, the Porte des Morts channel, and the Ahn- apee River Valley (Fig. 1). These probably represent preglacial river valleys modified by glacial and meltwater erosion (Deller and Stoelting 1986; Johnson 1987). The Door Peninsula was glaciated exten¬ sively during the Pleistocene, latterly by two major advances of the Green Bay Lobe dur¬ ing the Wisconsinan Stage: the Port Huron advance during the Woodfordian Substage (22-1 3ka) and, following the Twocreekan Interstade, a subsequent advance during the 40 Glaciated Karst Terrain in the Door Peninsula COfT celu LUO Fig. 2. Stepped glaciokarst profiles. A in Yorkshire, England, after Sweeting (1972), B on the east side of Brussels Hill. Greatlakean Substage (11. 5-1 Oka) (Schnei¬ der 1981, 1986, 1989). Ice movement was predominantly north-south or northwest- southeast (Thwaites and Bertrand 1957; McCartney and Mickelson 1982; Schneider 1981, 1986, 1989; Need 1985). The penin¬ sula is covered by a thin veneer, mostly less than 1 m thick, of unstratified sandy till, much of which contains more than 25% calcium carbonate (Thwaites and Bertrand 1957). The drift thickens towards the southeast, where there is a cover of red clayey till and where there are moraines and some drumlins. Lo¬ cally there are lacustrine and fluvial deposits, plus some outwash, beach, and dune sands (Deller and Stoelting 1986). Mean annual precipitation is 690 mm, and mean annual daily maximum and minimum temperatures are respectively 11.6 and 1.3 degrees Celsius (Link et al. 1978). Surface water infiltrates into the dolomite aquifer very rapidly, giving rise to serious groundwater contamination (Sherrill 1975, 1978; Wiersma et al. 1984; Johnson 1987). Groundwater is calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate dominated, with a mean total hardness (as CaC03) of 299mg/l (s = 66. 1 , n = 23) (Sherrill 1978). The Glaciated Karst Terrain The Door Peninsula glaciokarst is similar to that developed on the Niagaran dolomite in the Bruce Peninsula of Ontario (Cowell 1976; Cowell and Ford, 1980, 1983) and has many of the characteristics of the “classic” glaciokarst of western Europe (Williams 1966; Sweeting 1972). The principal diagnostic features are the numerous nearly horizontal ledges and benches alternating with steep steps, or risers (Fig. 2). The ledges are developed on bedding planes that have been accentuated by intense glacial scouring and plucking on the down-ice side of the cuesta. East of the escarpment, the main body of the peninsula 41 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters decreases in elevation via a series of large benches that attain widths of over 1 km and cover areas up to 10 km2. The benches are drift mantled, and bedrock is exposed usually only where drift has collapsed into widened joints, locally giving rise to sinkholes. Be¬ tween the benches, the steps, although gen¬ erally obscured by drift, are as much as 10 m high. Superimposed upon the large benches, and most evident on steeper east-facing slopes, are smaller ledges and steps that together make up distinct staircases — the schichttreppen- karst of Bogli (1964). These ledges range typically from 5 to 20 m in width, and steps range from 0.5 to 10 m high. On ledges where the drift cover is thin, there are exposed bed¬ rock pavements, some with striations, others bearing well-defined, dissolutionally-molded dints and grikes (Rosen 1984; Johnson 1987). The ledges also carry a variety of karstic depressions, which have been documented by Rosen et al. (1987) and by Johnson (1987), and in overall morphology the staircase as¬ semblages bear a striking resemblance to Eu¬ ropean examples (Fig. 2). The staircases are predominantly south- and east-facing and are best developed on the south- and east-facing sides of hills and val¬ leys. This distribution provides independent evidence that supports the theory that ice movement was predominantly from north¬ west to southeast. Particularly well-developed staircases occur on the eastern flanks of the Brussels Hill outlier, along the western mar¬ gin of Sturgeon Bay, and on the eastern coast of the peninsula, for example at Cave Point (See Fig. 1 for locations). At Brussels Hill well-defined pavements occupy areas up to 0.75 km2 and achieve widths over 50 m (Ro¬ sen 1984). Risers, in part near- vertical but mostly veneered by talus, are 5 to 10 m in height (Fig. 2B). Pavements on the western side of Sturgeon Bay are up to 20 m wide, with risers 1 to 5 m high. Glacier basal bulldozing, plucking, and abrasion erases shallow karst features (Ford 1987) and, since the staircases and pavements themselves are of glacial origin, the crevices and sinkholes developed on them are essentially postglacial in age. Most grikes terminate at the level of the first or second bedding plane beneath the surface, but per¬ haps 25% are deeper, suggesting that in part they may have been initiated prior to Wis- consinan glaciation. A certain proportion of grikes, at least in the master joint set, may survive glacial scouring (Ford 1987), and thus the postglacial pavements may have an im¬ portant inherited component. Larger karst landforms may also have sur¬ vived glacial action, although the majority of sinkholes are small enough to have de¬ veloped entirely during the Holocene. Some larger sinkholes may antedate the last gla¬ ciation, and some may have originated as glacial scour holes, although there is no firm evidence of this. Caves too probably antedate recent glaciations, although it seems unlikely that they are strictly preglacial, i.e. devel¬ oped prior to all episodes of Quaternary gla¬ ciation. As yet there has not been sufficient analysis of cave deposits to provide a chron¬ ological framework. Postglacial karst development on the stepped surfaces is influenced strongly by three major regional joint sets oriented at 25, 70, and 155 degrees (Sherrill 1978; Rosen 1984). Con¬ sistent joint sets throughout the Michigan Basin are attributed by Holst (1982) to Paleozoic folding and more recent tectonic stresses. The 25-degree joint set is expressed only rarely on the eastern side of the peninsula. At Brus¬ sels Hill 71% of all sinkholes (n = 61) follow a joint trace. Fifty-eight percent of sinkholes occur at three-way joint intersections, 21% at two-way intercepts, and 21% are on a sin¬ glejoint (Rosen et al. 1987). Caves also show this structural control, especially by the 70- and 155-degree joint sets. Paradise Pit Cave, at 554 m long, and Horseshoe Bay Cave, at 945 m long, are among the longest in Wis¬ consin (Hennings et al. 1972; Barden 1980). Brussels Hill Pit Cave, the deepest in the state at — 28 m, is currently yielding a rich suite of Holocene faunal remains (Kox 1988). 42 Glaciated Karst Terrain in the Door Peninsula Karst depressions on the stepped surfaces range from 0.6 to 12.0 m wide and from 0. 15 to 3.0 m deep. At Brussels Hill, mean depression depth is 0.28 m (s = 0.07, n = 61). Large scattered depressions are evident in farm fields, where many have been filled in. In less-altered woodland areas most depres¬ sions are grouped in high-density lattice net¬ works that reflect the closely spaced joint sets. At Brussels Hill densities are up to 8.7/ 100 m2, and at Ledge Woods, west of Carls- ville (Fig. 1), depressions occupy 95% of the surface of a 170 m2 area. Other karst features developed throughout the peninsula include swallets, which take runoff primarily from farm fields, and var¬ ious types of karren (grooves, runnels, and solutional basins) (Rosen 1984; Johnson 1987). Enlarged joints, which are common where surficial deposits are less than 0.6 m thick, range up to more than 10 m in length and 0.8 m wide. Near Institute (Fig. 1) dissolution- widened crevices occupy about 0.4 km2. Mean spacing of joints on the 70-degree azimuth is 3. 1 m and that on the 155 azimuth is 5. 1 m. Many of the sinkholes, swallets, caves, and other karst landforms of the Door Pen¬ insula are developed on the western side of the peninsula. This distribution reflects sev¬ eral factors (Rosen 1984): 1 . Some karst features are developed pref¬ erentially in the Burnt Bluff Formation (Bar¬ den 1980), which outcrops at an elevation of about 190 to 215 m. 2. The hydraulic gradient is steepest close to the escarpment (see Cowell and Ford 1983). 3. Close to the escarpment, joints are di¬ lated as a result of glacial unloading or ice- wedging (e.g., see Stieglitz et al. 1980). 4. The drift cover is thinnest on the west¬ ern side of the peninsula. 96% of exposed karst features are in areas with less than 1.2 m- thick drift and 73% are developed where drift is less than 0.6 m thick (Rosen 1984). Conclusion The Door Peninsula is possibly the most impressive glaciated karst landscape in the United States. It contains a characteristic suite of glaciokarst landforms, including staircases and pavements, together with postglacial crevices and sinkholes, and probably pre¬ glacial caves. Development of the karst mer¬ its further study particularly because its en¬ vironmental implications are now being fully realized. Distribution of the glaciokarst agrees with predictions based upon previous models of Wisconsinan ice movement. Most of the surface landforms are postglacial in age, al¬ though some may have characteristics inher¬ ited from karstification antedating the Wis¬ consinan glaciation. Caves and larger karst landforms may have been initiated prior to the last glaciation, but like the smaller fea¬ tures they too are oriented preferentially along the regionally dominant joints. Acknowledgments Carol Rosen’s fieldwork and other ex¬ penses were funded in part by a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Graduate School Fellowship. We are very grateful to Kurt Pie- penburg for his assistance in the field. Ron Stieglitz and Scot Johnson kindly made avail¬ able a copy of the latter’s MS Thesis. Works Cited Barden, M. 1980. Caves of Door County, Wis¬ consin. In An Introduction to Caves of Min¬ nesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, E. C. Alexander, ed., National Speleological Society Convention Guidebook 21, pp 136-141. Bogli, A. 1964. Le Schichttreppenkarst. Revue Belgique de Geographie . 88: 63-81. Cowell, D. W. 1976. Karst geomorphology of the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario, Canada. MS Thesis, McMaster University, 214pp. Cowell, D. W. and Ford, D. C. 1980. Hydro- chemistry of a dolomite karst: The Bruce Pen¬ insula of Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 17(4): 520-526. Cowell, D. W. and Ford, D. C. 1983. Karst hy¬ drology of the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario. Jour¬ nal of Hydrology 61: 163-168. Deller, H. and Stoelting, P. 1986. Wisconsin’s Door Peninsula and its geomorphology. The Wisconsin Geographer 2: 29-41. 43 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Ford, D. C. 1987. Effects of glaciations and permafrost upon the development of karst in Canada. Earth Surface Processes and Land- forms 12(5): 507-521. Hennings, F., Soule, G. and Peterson, G. 1972. Caves of Door County, Wisconsin. The Wis¬ consin Speleologist 1 1(3): 63-129. Holst, T. B. 1982. Regional jointing in the north¬ ern Michigan Basin. Geology 10: 213-211. Johnson, S. B. 1987 .The Karst of Northern Door County, Wisconsin. MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 122p. Kox, N. H. 1988. Door County’s past locked in Brussels Hill. The Wisconsin Caver 8(1): 10- 11. Link, E. G., Elmer, S. L. and Vanderveen, S. A. 1978. Soil Survey of Door County, Wisconsin. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Soil Con¬ servation Service, 132pp. McCartney, M. C. and Mickelson, D. M. 1982. Late Woodfordian and Greatlakean history of the Green Bay Lobe, Wisconsin. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 93: 297-302. Mickelson, D. M., Clayton, L., Baker, R. W., Mode, W. N. and Schneider, A. F. 1984. Pleistocene stratigraphic units of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Sur¬ vey, Miscellaneous Paper 84-1, 97pp. Need, E. A. 1985. Pleistocene geology of Brown County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Information Circular 48, 19pp. Rosen, C. J. 1984. Karst geomorphology of the Door Peninsula, Wisconsin. MS Thesis, Uni¬ versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1 19pp. Rosen, C. J., Day, M. J. andPiepenburg, K. 1987. Glaciokarst depressions in the Door Peninsula, Wisconsin. Physical Geography 8(2): 160-168. Sherrill, M. G. 1975. Groundwater contamina¬ tion in the Silurian dolomite of Door County, Wisconsin. Groundwater 13(2): 209-213. Sherrill, M. G. 1978. Geology and groundwater in Door County, Wisconsin with emphasis on contamination potential in the Silurian dolom¬ ite. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Pa¬ per 2047, 38pp. Schneider, A. F. 1981. Late Wisconsin glaciation of Door County, Wisconsin. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 13: 316. _ 1986. Till stratigraphy of the northern Door Peninsula, Wisconsin. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 18: 322-323. _ 1989. Geomorphology and Quartern ary Ge¬ ology of Wisconsin’s Door Peninsula, In Wis¬ consin’s Door Peninsula: A Natural History, J. Palmquist ed., pp. 32-48. Madison: Perin Press. Stieglitz, R. D., Moran, J. M. and Harris, J. D. 1980. A relict geomorphological feature adja¬ cent to the Silurian escarpment in northeastern Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 68: 202- 207. Sweeting, M. M. 1972. Karst Landforms. Lon¬ don: Macmillan. Thwaites, F. T. and Bertrand, K. 1957. Pleisto¬ cene geology of the Door Peninsula, Wiscon¬ sin. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Amer¬ ica 68: 831-880. Wiersma, J. H., Stieglitz, R. D., Cecil, D. L. and Metzler, G. M. 1984. Characterization of the shallow groundwater system in an area of thin soils and sinkholes (Door County, Wis¬ consin). In Sinkholes: Their Geology, Engi¬ neering and Environmental Impact, B. F. Beck ed., pp. 305-310. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema. 44 The Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno “A genuine Artist with the compassionate eye” is how Studs Terkel has described A1 Bonanno. The fifteen photographs that follow demonstrate not only that artistry and com¬ passion, but the versatility and range of subject as well. Bonanno has long been known for his photographs of American Indians, and no collection of his work would be complete without some of them. Sixty-seven of these photographs have been selected by the International Center of Photography (New York) for use in its teaching program. Other of his photographs are in private collections in Japan, France, Kuwait, and the U.S. In addition, viewers can find his work in virtually every regional publication, many national newspapers, and in such magazines as Time , Parade , and Sports Medicine. Bonanno’ s work is an intellectual and emotional tour de force. Irony, beauty, joy, love, celebration, dignity, loneliness, isolation, contentment, struggle, and rejection are leitmotifs throughout his photography making it complex and difficult to categorize. The emotional range of his work is seen when the joy of children playing with a wheelbarrow, or two brothers, or a grandfather with his granddaughter, is followed by the enormous emotions swirling around autistic children. And the love of a young girl for a woman in a nursing home is a stark contrast to the newly admitted resident who has not been able to remove his hat. When a child with a bouquet stands by the three-hundred-mile fence separating the Hopi and Navajo reservations, what is captured is more than what many words have conveyed. Perhaps it is best to allow the viewer to venture into Bonanno’ s world with only this brief introduction. It is a journey well worth making, and Transactions is happy to make it possible. 45 Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno Two Children Playing 47 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Brothers 48 Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno Fred and his Granddaughter 49 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Jimmy’s World: Blind, Deaf, Autistic 50 Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno Timmy 51 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Nursing Home 52 Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno 53 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 54 The Three-Hundred Mile Fence Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno 55 Pipe Mustache Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Ruth 56 Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno The Bridegroom 57 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters MD 58 Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno Cherokee Biker 59 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Ear Ring 60 Photography of Alfred Charles Bonanno 61 Flag with 30,000 Miles on it A New Station in Door County, Wisconsin, for the Rare Iris lacustris Nutt. (Dwarf Lake Iris) Charles R. Hart Abstract. A new site for Iris lacustris Nutt . Wisconsin, is described. Recently, a fairly extensive population of Iris lacustris Nutt, was discovered in southern Door County, Wisconsin. Hereto¬ fore, the known range for this species in northeastern Wisconsin was somewhat dis¬ junct, occurring to the south in Brown County and then reappearing north of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, in Door County. Iris lacustris Nutt., a Great Lakes en¬ demic, is known only from Michigan, On¬ tario, and Wisconsin (Guire and Voss 1963; Voss 1972, p. 431). In Wisconsin this spe¬ cies is considered to be threatened and was recently elevated to the same status at the federal level as well (Harrison 1988). Prior to the discovery of the new site, the Dwarf Lake Iris had been found at a total of fifteen sites in two counties on Wisconsin’s Door Peninsula (Harrison 1988). The southerly most site, in Brown County, was reported by Trick and Fewless (1984). The other extant sites are scattered to the north of Sturgeon Bay and were recorded by Makholm in 1986. For indigenous species as rare and local as this Charles R. Hart is an Associate Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin C enter - Manitowoc County. the rare Dwarf Lake Iris, in Door County, one, any and all new stations are of signifi¬ cance in terms of recommending habitat management or other protection measures. The newly discovered population is lo¬ cated in secs. 27 and 28 of T28N R25E in the Township of Nawewaupee. It occurs ap¬ proximately 15 miles southwest of the nearest reported northerly Door County population and approximately 17 miles northeast of the southerly Brown County population. Rep¬ resentative voucher specimens of this pop¬ ulation were taken (15 June 1989, Hart- 13- 89) and are housed in the herbarium/green¬ house at the University of Wisconsin Cen¬ ter — Manitowoc County. At this locality, the Iris is closely asso¬ ciated with Toxicodendron radicans. The densest growth occurs in the preferred habitat for this Iris species, which is sandy or grav¬ elly soil (underlain by Niagara dolomite) and open, although the plant occurs in partial shade of coniferous trees (Thuja occidentalis), in mesic areas at the forest edge and along town¬ ship roads or right-of-ways. The geological location of this population is in keeping with the prior documentation of Dwarf Lake Iris colonies occurring on land previously oc¬ cupied by the postglacial Lake Nipissing (Makholm 1986). 63 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge the as¬ sistance of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Gadzinski in locating this new population and the sup¬ port for studies of this species by the UWC Senate Grants Committee and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources — Bureau of Endangered Resources. Works Cited Guire, K. E. and E. G. Voss. 1963. Distribution of distinctive shoreline plants in the Great Lakes Region. Michigan Bot. 2:99-114. Harrison, W. F. 1988. Endangered and Threat¬ ened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Threatened Status for Iris lacustris (Dwarf Lake Iris). Federal Register 53 (188): pp. 37972- 37975. Makholm, M. 1986. Ecology and Management of Iris lacustris in Wisconsin, M. S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. Trick, J. A. andG. Fewless. 1984. A New Station for Dwarf Lake Iris (Iris lacustris) in Wiscon¬ sin. Michigan Bot. 23:68. Voss, E. G. 1972. Michigan Flora Part I. Gym- nosperms and Monocots. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull. 55. 488 pp. 64 Diel Periodicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch ( Perea flavescens) in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin John P. McCarty Abstract. Analysis of the spatial distributions of yellow perch in Lake Mendota , Wisconsin , indicated that diel movement patterns are more variable than previously reported. A series of gill-net samples from several different stations in the lake showed that a significant movement onshore at dusk and offshore at dawn occurs. The movement was more directed in the morning, and closer to the surface. This movement appears to be the result of a dispersal, biased towards the offshore areas, from nocturnal concentrations of perch in shallow water. Periods of directed movement are interspersed with feeding bouts and forays deeper into the water column. In the evening the direction of the movement is reversed and perch tend to concentrate inshore, where they can rest on the bottom at night. Diet analysis indicated that perch found offshore fed exclusively on Daphnia and Leptodora, but that perch captured in littoral areas consumed both planktonic and benthic prey. Diel activity cycles have been reported for a variety of freshwater fishes, in¬ cluding such well-studied species as yellow perch ( Perea flavescens ; Helfman 1981, Hanson and Leggett 1986), golden shiner {Notemigonus crysoleucas\ Hall et al. 1979, Helfman 1981), walleye (Stizostedion vi- treum; Helfman 1981), and bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus and L. gibbosus\ Keast and Welsh 1968, Bauman and Kitchell 1974, Werner et al. 1977, Helfman 1981, Hanson and Leggett John P. McCarty is a native of Rice Lake, Wisconsin. While a student at the University ofWisconsin-Madison, he received the Chase-Noland Fellowship in Limnology, which enabled him to spend a summer at the Center for Limnology, where the work described in “Diel Peri¬ odicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin ” was conducted. At present, he is working on his doctorate at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where his current research focuses on the relationship between foraging ecology and com¬ munity ecology, specifically, how the foraging decisions of tree swallows influence the communities of insects they feed on. 1986), yet the degree to which individual behavior affects population phenomena is not clear. For example, observed diel changes in the spatial distribution of a fish population could be due to a small portion of the pop¬ ulation undergoing a highly directed, large scale movement or to a large portion of the population moving in a less directed manner. Diel migrations have been reported for many populations of yellow perch (Scott 1955, Emery 1973, Engel and Magnuson 1976) in¬ cluding the population in Lake Mendota, where fish move inshore at dusk and offshore at dawn (Hasler and Bardach 1949). Yellow perch travel in schools during the day. As in many freshwater fish species, these schools break up at dusk and reform at dawn the following day (Hergenrader and Hasler 1968, Helfman 1981). These patterns are based on observations made in a variety of ways, in¬ cluding direct observations by divers (Hasler and Bardach 1949, Helfman 1979), data from echosounding (Hasler and Villemonte 1953, Engel and Magnuson 1976), and from spatial 65 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Fig. 1 . A simple model of the daily behavior patterns of yellow perch in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, summarized from the work of Hasler and Bardach (1949). This model includes a rapid, pop¬ ulation-wide migration from nocturnal resting areas to day-time feeding areas. Dashed lines represent water depth contours. See Figure 2 for approximate horizontal scale. distributions derived from gill-net sets (Has¬ ler and Bardach 1949, Scott 1955, Engel and Magnuson 1976). In addition to movement patterns, feeding activity cycles are well known in yellow perch, with peaks generally re¬ ported before sunset and after sunrise (Keast and Welsh 1968, Helfman 1981, Hanson and Leggett 1986). The general picture of perch behavior that emerges from this literature is that perch feed offshore, in schools, on zooplankton during the day with a feeding peak after dawn and another feeding peak before dusk. At dusk these schools move rapidly inshore, where the schools break up, and the perch settle to the bottom and remain inactive until dawn. At dawn the schools reform and move off¬ shore again before the fish resume feeding. This activity pattern (Fig. 1) is commonly reported in books and reviews of yellow perch biology (Maclean and Magnuson 1977, Ney 1978, Brock 1985). There is, however, con¬ siderable variability in activity found both between and within populations (Helfman 1979, Helfman 1981). In addition to finding groups of migrating perch, Hasler and Bardach (1949) and Scott (1955) both found non¬ migrating groups of perch. Tonn and Pas- kowski (1987) reported non-migrating sub¬ populations and indicated that some perch were migrating offshore at dusk. In addition, some groups of yellow perch are consistently found inshore feeding during the day (Engel and Magnuson 1976, Sandheinrich and Hu¬ bert 1984). In this study I examined the daily behavior cycles of yellow perch in Lake Mendota by catching perch in gill-nets at several stations in the lake at different times of the day. Spe¬ cifically, I have addressed three questions: 1) Is there evidence that the perch are undergoing a daily migration? 2) Is segre¬ gation by sex and age occurring? 3) Are these movement patterns reflected in the diet? My results indicate that perch behavior in Lake Mendota is more complex than is indicated 66 Diel Periodicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch by the classic descriptions by Hasler and Bar- dach (1949) and Hasler and Villemonte (1953). Methods The study site for this project was Lake Mendota, Wisconsin (43° 4'37" N, 89° 24' 28" W), a large (area = 39.4 km2) eutrophic lake with an average depth of 12.4 m and a maximum depth of 25.3 m (Brock 1985). The physical and biological characters of this lake have been described in detail by Brock (1985). Temperature and Oxygen. Vertical tem¬ perature profiles were obtained with a ther¬ mistor at 1-m intervals, and oxygen concen¬ trations were determined using the Winkler method on water samples collected every 2 m. Samples were taken at the Deep Hole station in 23-m of water. Secchi disk depths (a mea¬ sure of water clarity) were also recorded at these times (Richard Lathrop, Wisconsin DNR, unoubl. data). Perch Distribution. Fish samples were taken from four stations in the lake: in 23 m of water (Deep Hole), in 13 m of water (inter¬ mediate), in 6 m of water, and in 3 m of water (inshore) (Fig. 2). Fish were caught using vertical gill-nets with a variety of mesh sizes (mesh sizes = 19 mm, 25 mm, 32 mm, 38 mm, 52 mm, 64 mm, 89 mm, 127 mm), set parallel to shore, during the weeks of 6 July, 30 July, 4 August, and 17 August, 1987. The two largest mesh sizes were eliminated from some August samples, because the maximum size of perch in Lake Mendota were not vulnerable to these mesh sizes (Re- gier and Robson 1966, Hamley and Regier 1973). A horizontal net with a similar series of mesh sizes was also used at the shallow station for the August sets. Nets were set between two and four hours before sunset and emptied between one and two hours after sunset for the evening samples. The nets were left set overnight after the evening samples and were emptied between two and four hours after sunrise for the morning samples. Nets were set between 0900h and 1400h CDT for the day samples. Fish were removed from the nets and sep¬ Fig. 2. Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, with loca¬ tions of sampling stations used in this study. A = 3-/7? (inshore) station, B = 6-m station, C = 73-m (intermediate) station, D = 23-m (Deep Hole) station. arated according to which direction they were traveling when caught and the depth at which they were caught. Total length was later mea¬ sured to the nearest 1 mm and weighed to the nearest gram. Stomachs were collected from between 20 and 40 individuals from each sample and were preserved in a 10% formalin solution. Data from all samples were pooled for diet and movement analysis. Catches were ex¬ pressed in catch per unit effort (fish-m 2*h *) where the time was determined for the eve¬ ning sets from the time the nets were set until they were pulled and for the morning sets from thirty minutes before sunrise until the nets were pulled. Area was considered the area of the gill-net in the water above 13-m depth. Depths below 13 m at the 23-m site were not considered since the water below the thermocline was anoxic and catches be¬ low this level were negligible. For determin¬ ing the direction and magnitude of dispersal the following vector was calculated: DISPERSAL VECTOR = 100% 67 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters where # OFF is equal to the number of perch caught moving towards the offshore areas and # IN is equal to the number of perch caught moving towards inshore areas. This gives a vector where the sign indicates the direction of movement and the magnitude gives the strength of that movement, relative to the total catch. Perch Diets. Stomach contents were ex¬ amined using a dissecting microscope at 25x. The contents were identified to genus and counted. When large numbers of prey or¬ ganisms were present, two or three 4% sub¬ samples were used to estimate total numbers present. Zooplankton prey available to perch were collected from three stations in the lake, at the 23-m (Deep Hole), 13-m (intermediate), and 3-m (inshore) stations, using transverse tows of a Clark-Bumpus metered plankton sampler affixed with an 80 p,m net. Samples were preserved in a 10% buffered formalin solution and later identified to species using a dissecting microscope at 25x. Samples were collected on several dates over the period of gill-netting. Mean abundances of zooplank¬ ton per liter over all sample dates are reported. Results Temperature and Oxygen. The thermo- cline during the period of this study varied between 7 m on 3 August, 1987, and 12 m on 18 August 1987. During the early sam¬ pling dates the thermocline was between 9 m and 10 m. The hypolimnion was anoxic dur¬ ing the entire study (Fig. 3). Secchi disk depth during the period of this study ranged from 1.7 m to 2.7 m (Richard Lathrop, Wisconsin DNR, unpubl. data). Perch Distribution. Catch per unit effort ranged from 0 for the day samples at the 6- m station to 265 for the morning samples at the 13-m station (Table 1). At the 13-m station significantly more fish were moving offshore in the morning and inshore in the evening (Table 2, X2 = 6.62, PC0.025). The magnitude of the dispersal vector is higher in the morning (15%) than in the evening (7%, Table 2). When the water column is divided into shallow (0-5 m) and deep (6- 12 m) portions, directionality is much higher in the shallow portion than in the deep portion (Table 3). This difference between the total catches in the shallow portion is highly significant (X2 = 7.87, P<0.01), whereas in the deep portion the Dispersal Vector did not differ from random expecta¬ tions (X2 = 0.07, P>0.09). This trend was especially strong in the morning sets where the Dispersal Vector equalled 22% in the shallow portion and 0% in the deep portion of the water column. Comparisons between depth distributions of 23-m and 13-m stations indicate that the horizontal movement between deep and shal¬ low water is accompanied by only minor change in depth. Perch at the 6-m station were located below 4 m (Fig. 4). Perch passed through the 13-m station moving towards the 23-m (Deep Hole) station at an average depth of 4.9 m (SE = 0.17) in the morning (Fig. 5), while at the Deep Hole station they were located at an average depth of 5.5 m (SE = 0.31) (Fig. 4). When passing through the 13-m station in the evening towards shal¬ low water, perch moved at an average depth of 6.1 m (SE = 0.19) (Fig. 5). The size distribution of perch was similar Table 1. Number of yellow perch caught at each station and sample time, expressed as catch per unit effort, with sample dates combined. Catch per unit effort equals fish*h 1 *m 2 1 000. Level of effort for each station (h«m2) given in parentheses. Sample Time 23-m Station 13-m 6-m 3-m AM 19 (468) 265 (1404) 172 (180) 178 (342) PM no sample 138 (1560) 19 (216) 169 (414) DAY 126 (546) no sample 0 (288) 172 (198) TOTAL 77 (1014) 198 (2964) 51 (684) 173 (954) 68 Die l Periodicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch TEMPERATURE (°C) Fig. 3. Sample temperature and oxygen profile for Lake Mendota taken vertically through the water column at the Deep Hole station on 20 July 1987. Water deeper than approximately 70-/7? depth was anoxic throughout the period of the study. at all but the 3-m station where a large num¬ ber of young-of-year perch were captured (Fig. 6). The mean lengths of perch caught at the 6-, 13- and 23-m stations were 192, 192, and 195 mm respectively. The length distribution of perch at the 3-m station was bimodal. The mean length of perch greater than 150 mm at the 3-m station was similar to the other sites, but a large number of perch less than 150 mm was present as well. A Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test (Sokal and Rohlf 1969) indicated that the length distribution of perch at the 3-m site was significantly different from the other sites (D = 0.25, P<0.01 ; D = 0.25, P<0.01; D = 0.29, P<0.01; when compared to the 23-, 12- and 6-m stations respectively). The absence of young-of-year perch at the offshore stations indicates that these fish do not participate in the diel offshore migration observed for the older age classes (Fig. 6). No differences were found to indicate mi- 69 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Table 2. Number of yellow perch caught at the 13-m (intermediate) station. The dispersal vector is as defined in the text (1). A positive vector indicates movement directed offshore, and a negative vector indicates movement directed inshore. X2 = 6.62, P<0.025. Sample Time Direction of Movement Inshore Offshore Total Dispersal Vector AM 159 213 372 + 15 PM 116 100 216 -7 Total 275 313 588 Table 3. Number of yellow perch caught at the 13-m (intermediate) station, separated by time of day, depth, and direction of movement when caught. Dispersal vector is defined in the text (1). X2 = 7.87, P<0.01 for depth = 0-5 m. X2 = 0.07, P>0.09 for depth = 6- 12 m. Sample Time Direction of Movement Inshore Offshore Total Dispersal Vector Depth = 0m-5m AM 96 150 246 + 22 PM 60 49 109 -10 Total 156 199 355 Depth = 6m-1 2m AM 63 63 126 0 PM 56 51 107 -5 Total 119 114 233 gration was selective in regard to sex. Sex ratios at all stations did not deviate signifi¬ cantly from 1:1. The ratios of males to fe¬ males at the station were: Deep Hole 38 males: 39 females; 13-m (intermediate) 34 males: 41 females; 6-rn 12 males: 22 females; in¬ shore 70 males: 72 females (Table 4). Perch Diets. Copepods and other small zooplankton were the most numerous taxa sampled from the lake at all three stations (Table 5). Daphnia ranged from 3% at the 3-m station to 13% at the 23-m station. Lep- todora made up less than 1% of the sample at the 23-m and 13-m stations and 1% at the 3-m station. Although there is a trend for the proportion of Daphnia in the lake to decrease from deep to shallow water, the proportion increases in the perch diets (Table 6). Daphnia make up 34% of the contents of stomachs of perch caught in the Deep Hole, 72% of the diet at the 13-m station, and 87% of the stomach contents from fish from the 3-m station. Be¬ cause of high variability between individuals within the groups, differences in diet be¬ tween sub-groups were not statistically sig¬ nificant (Table 6). In addition to Daphnia and Leptodora, other organisms (primarily chironomid fly larvae and copepods) increased in importance from 0% at the Deep Hole station, to 4% at the 13-m station, and 6% at the 6-m and 3-m stations (Table 6). The diversity of orga¬ nisms also increased from deep to shallow water. The stomachs of fish from the Deep Hole contained primarily Daphnia and Lep¬ todora, with only three chironomids and one copepod. Stomachs from the 13-m station held organisms from seven categories, and stomachs from the 3-m station contained or¬ ganisms from ten categories (Table 7). The percent of empty stomachs increased from deep to shallow water. All the stomachs from the Deep Hole station contained prey, while 2% were empty at the 13-m station, 12% were empty at the 6-m station, and 33% were empty at the 3-m station (Table 6). 70 Diel Periodicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch Discussion These results support a more variable view of perch behavior than is commonly pre¬ sented. While there are many reports of perch migrations (Hasler and Bardach 1949, Scott 1955, Engel and Magnuson 1976, Helfman 1979), only Scott (1955) gives a comparison of the numbers of perch moving in each di¬ rection, while the others imply that the mi¬ gration is a population-wide phenomenon, with schools moving en masse in a certain direction. My results correspond to those of Scott, who found a significant directional movement but also reported that a large pro¬ portion of the individuals were headed in the “wrong” direction. The difference in results NUMBER 5 tO 15 20 25 30 Fig. 4. Top panel: Depth distribution of perch from the 23-m (Deep Hole) station with all sample dates and times combined. N = 75 fish, D (mean depth) = 5.5 m (SE = 0.31). Bottom panel: Depth distribution of perch from the 6-m station with all sample dates and times combined. N = 35 fish, D = 4.3 m (SE = 0.08). found may be due to a difference in the method used in the studies. This study followed a method similar to that of Scott (1955), put¬ ting gill-nets across the presumed path of NUMBER Fig. 5. Top panel: Depth distribution of perch from the 13-m (intermediate) station, morning samples only, with all sample dates com¬ bined. N = 246 fish, D (mean depth) = 5.1 m (SE = 0.13). Cross-hatched areas indicate perch moving offshore, with N = 145 fish, D = 4.9 m, and SE = 0.17. Non-crossed- hatched areas indicate perch moving in¬ shore, with N = 101, D = 5.6 m, and SE = 0.19 . Bottom panel: Depth distribution of fish from the 13-m (intermediate) station, evening sam¬ ples only, with all sample dates combined. N = 1 90 fish, D = 6.2 m, and SE = 0.14. Cross- hatched areas indicate perch moving in¬ shore, with N = 101, D = 6.1 m, and SE = 0. 19. Non-cross-hatched areas indicate perch moving offshore, with N = 89, D = 6.3 m, and SE = 0.20. 71 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Table 4. Sex ratios of yellow perch caught at each station with all sample dates and times combined. Station Number of Males Number of Females X2 23-m 36 39 0.12 P>0.50 13-m 34 41 0.66 P>0.10 6-m 12 22 2.94 P>0.05 3-m 70 72 0.01 P>0.90 Table 5. Composition and abundances of zooplankton in Lake Mendota. Samples pooled over three sampling dates. % = percent of sample by number, x±SE = mean number per liter plus or minus one standard error. Daphnia % (x±SE) Leptodora % (x±SE) other % (x±SE) 23-m 13% (4.25 ±2.09) <1% (0.04 ±0.04) 87% (27.96 ±4.28) 13-m 11 (3.44 ±3.69) <1 (0.03 ±0.03) 89 (26.77 ±5.36) 3-m 3 (0.90 ±0.82) 1 (0.25 ±0.43) 96 (25.05 ±29.4) Table 6. Diet summary of yellow perch for each sample station and time, with all sample dates combined. N= total number of stomachs examined for each group and % empty = percent of stomachs with no prey organisms. Results are expressed as percent by number of Daphnia, Leptodora and “other”. Prey Items per Stomach = mean number of items found per stomach (standard error). Taxa present in the “other” category are listed in Table 7. Station Time N % Empty % Daphnia % Leptodora % Other Prey Items/Stomach 23-m Day 11 0 34 66 0 170 (161) 13-m AM 57 2 73 24 3 263 (287) 13-m PM 48 2 80 15 5 505 (449) 6-m AM 23 13 79 8 13 11 (13) 6-m PM 4 0 42 56 2 61 (73) 3-m AM 35 43 33 2 65 9(31) 3-m PM 37 30 54 29 17 64 (127) 3-m Day 26 23 99 0 1 318 (517) Table 7. Diversity of organisms found in yellow perch stomachs at each sampling station. % Occurrence = number of stomachs where taxa was present/total number of non-empty stomachs in sample. N = total number of non-empty stomachs in sample. Type of Organism 23-m N=11 % Occurrence 13-m N=103 6-m N-24 3-m N = 66 Daphnia 100% 96% 83% 74% Leptodora 100 82 42 27 Chironomidae 27 38 25 21 Copepoda 9 24 25 21 Ceriodaphnia 3 Pontoporeia 13 23 Diaphanosoma 3 Bosmina 1 4 1 Chydorus 2 Nematoda 2 21 Acanthocephala 1 Fish sp. 1 72 Diel Periodicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch Fig. 6. Size distribution of fish with all sample dates and times_ combined, for each station. N = 77 and TL (mean total length) = 195 mm for the_23~m (Deep Hole) station, N = 583 and TL = 192 mm for the 13-m (inter¬ mediate) station, N = 35, TL = 192_rnm for the 6-/7? station, and N = 164 and TL = 175 mm for the 3-m (inshore) station. movement, while the others were based upon nets set in deep water and in shallow water and a migration inferred from the differences in total catches at different times of the day. The large percentage of fish moving in the opposite direction in this study, 44% of the total, indicates that the movement does not occur as a rapid, population-wide migration, but is a more gradual dispersal. The extreme variability of individual diets made comparisons between the groups in Table 6 difficult. Variability of this magni¬ tude is found in other populations and is ex¬ plained as being due to either an ontogenetic change, a learned, individual preference for certain prey types (Helfman 1979, Mills et ah 1987), or unknown, complex behavioral patterns (Chabot and Maly 1986). A com¬ parison of the proportion of different zoo¬ plankton in the lake with the proportion found in stomachs reveals that the perch are feeding selectively on certain prey types, primarily zooplankton. Daphnia made up between 33% and 99% of the diets of perch but accounted for only 3% to 13% of the zooplankton in the lake. Likewise Leptodora accounted for up to 66% of the diets of the perch but made up 1% or less of the lake’s zooplankton (Ta¬ ble 5 and 6). At the two inshore stations (3-m and 6-m) where perch had access to the sediments, diet consisted of both planktonic and benthic prey. Feeding habits at the in¬ shore stations are similar to those reported for perch in lakes with an oxygenated hy- polimnion (Keast 1977, Hanson and Legget 1986, Mills et al. 1987). The picture of perch behavior that emerges from this study indicates more variation among individuals than previously cited models have included. It is unlikely that a population- wide migration occurs but rather that the perch start to disperse from their inshore areas at dawn. The dispersal is in the form of short periods of movement alternating with periods of feeding, with changes in direction along the way. This “random walk” has a vector biased towards the offshore areas. The re¬ vised conceptual model presented (Fig. 7) accounts for both the offshore movement and the large number of fish moving in the op¬ posite direction. This model also accounts for the presence of fish at the intermediate and 6-m stations during the day. If the choice of direction vector after a feeding bout has only a slight bias towards offshore areas, some 73 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters 3m 6m 13m 23m Fig. 7. Revised model of die! behavioral patterns of yellow perch in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin. This model includes a random feeding dispersal at dawn from nocturnal concentrations of perch inshore and movement directed towards the shore at dusk to reach night-time refugia on the bottom, inshore. Large perch (> 230mm) and young-of-year perch remain inshore during the day. Movements between inshore and offshore include feeding and may include feeding forays to deeper water up to approximately the 13-m contour. Dashed lines indicate water depth contours. fish will end up in the inshore areas due to chance alone. This effect would be accen¬ tuated if some individuals are biased to turn inshore. An inshore bias could occur if the preferred prey of some individuals was more abundant or accessible inshore, as is the case for those individuals feeding on benthic organisms. Two groups of perch do not take part in this diel migration. These are the young-of- year perch and perch larger than 215 mm. Yearling perch may be influenced by pre¬ dation pressure to remain close to shore where cover is available as a predation refuge, and the largest perch may be influenced by an ontogenetic shift in diet towards larger benthic organisms (i.e. amphipods, insect larvae) and small fish (including young-of-year perch), both of which are more accessible inshore (Crowder and Cooper 1982). Most studies point to the change in light intensity at dawn and dusk as the proximate cause of diel changes in yellow perch be¬ havior (Hasler and Bardach 1949, Scott 1955, Werner et al. 1977). It is likely that perch use the reduced light level around dusk as a cue to direct their movements inshore. As individuals move horizontally they intersect 74 Did Periodicity of Movement and Feeding of Yellow Perch the bottom at approximately the 6-m contour line and settle for the night. The process is reversed with increasing light levels near dawn. The ultimate causes of these diel migra¬ tions in perch are less certain. The benefits of dispersing long distances on a daily basis must be high enough to balance the energy expenditure of swimming between the littoral and the pelagic zones. A variety of factors influencing the change in distribution can be identified, including variation in local food availability (Hasler and Bardach 1949), avoidance of interspecific (Engel and Mag- nuson 1976, Werner et ah 1977) and intras¬ pecific competition (Mittelbach 1981, Sand- heinrich and Hubert 1984, Paszkowski 1985), and avoidance of predation (Maclean and Magnuson 1977, Werner et al. 1977; 1983, Tonn and Paszkowski 1987). It is likely that a combination of these factors are influencing the perch in Lake Mendota, including in¬ ability to forage efficiently at low light levels, and predation risk from nocturnal walleye. Whatever the mechanisms involved in this change in perch distribution, the movements between the littoral and pelagic zones will have profound effects on the ecosystem. In terms of biomass, perch are the most im¬ portant fish in Lake Mendota (Brock 1985), and their movements will influence both zoo¬ plankton and piscivore populations through predation effects and may affect primary pro¬ ducers through both cascading trophic inter¬ actions and the transfer of nutrients between pelagic and littoral zones of the lake. Acknowledgments My thanks to the many people at the Center for Limnology who contributed to this study. Thanks to John Magnuson for his advice and encouragement, to Yvonne Allen and Terry Schenck for assistance in the field and lab and Mary Smith for help in the field. I would especially like to express my thanks to Chris Luecke for his invaluable advice and assis¬ tance through all stages of this project. This study was funded by the Chase-Noland Scholarship in Limnology, with additional funding and support from the Center for Lim¬ nology, University of Wisconsin. Works Cited Bauman, P.C. and J.F. Kitchell. 1974. Diel pat¬ terns of distribution and feeding of bluegill ( Le - pomis macrochirus ) in Lake Wingra, Wiscon¬ sin. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 103:255-260. Brock, T.D. 1985. A eutrophic lake: Lake Men¬ dota, Wisconsin. New York: Springer- Verlag. Chabot, F. and E.J. Maly. 1986. Variation in diet of yellow perch ( Perea flavescens ) in a Quebec reservoir. Hydrobiol. 137:117-124. Crowder, L.B. and W.E. Cooper. 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction be¬ tween bluegill and their prey. Ecology 63:1802- 1813. Emery, A.R. 1973. Preliminary comparisons of day and night habitats of freshwater fish in On¬ tario lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:761- 774. Engel, S. and J.J. Magnuson. 1976. Vertical and horizontal distributions of coho salmon ( On - corhynchus kisutch), yellow perch {Perea fla¬ vescens), and cisco {Coregonus artedii ) in Pal- lette Lake, Wisconsin. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:2710-2715. Hall, D.J., E.E. Werner, J.F. Gilliam, G.G. Mit¬ telbach, D. Howard, C.G. Doner, J.A. Dick- erman, and A.J. Stewart. 1979. Diel foraging behavior and prey selection in the golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:1029-1039. Hamley, J.M. and H.A. Regier. 1973. Direct es¬ timates of gillnet selectivity to walleye ( Stizos - tedion vitreum vitreum). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:817-830. Hanson, J.M. and W.C. Leggett. 1986. Effect of competition between two freshwater fishes on prey consumption and abundance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43:1363-1372. Hasler, A.D. and J.E. Bardach. 1949. Daily mi¬ grations of perch in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin. J. Wildl.t Manage. 13:40-51. Hasler, A.D. and J.R. Villemonte. 1953. Obser¬ vations on the daily movements of fishes. Sci¬ ence 118:321-322. Helfman, G.S. 1979. Twilight activities of yellow perch, Perea flavescens. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:173-179. 75 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Helfman, G.S. 1981 . Twilight activities and tem¬ poral structure in a freshwater fish community. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:1405-1420. Hergenrader, G.L. and A.D. Hasler. 1968. Influ¬ ences of changing seasons on schooling behav¬ ior of yellow perch. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25:711-716. Keast, A. 1977. Diet overlaps and feeding rela¬ tionships between the year classes in the yellow perch C Perea flavescens). Env. Biol. Fish. 2:53- 70. Keast, A. and L. Welsh. 1968. Daily feeding periodicities, food uptake rates, and dietary changes with hour of day in some lake fishes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 25:1133-1144. MacLean, J. and J.J. Magnuson. 1977. Species interactions in percid communities. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:1941-1951. Mills, E.L., D.V. Widzowski, and S.R. Jones. 1987. Food conditioning and prey selection by young yellow perch {Perea flavescens). Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:549-555. Mittelbach, G.G. 1981. Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370-1386. Ney, J.J. 1978. A synoptic review of yellow perch and walleye biology. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 11:1-12. Paszkowski, C.A. 1985. The foraging behavior of the central mudminnow and yellow perch: the influence of foraging site, intraspecific and interspecific competition. Oecologia. 66:271- 279. Regier, H.A. andD.S. Robson. 1966. Selectivity of gillnets, especially to lake whitefish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23:423-454. Sandheinrich, M.B. and W.A. Hubert. 1984. In¬ traspecific resource partitioning by yellow perch {Perea flavescens ) in a stratifield lake. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:1745-1752. Scott, D.C. 1955. Activity patterns of perch, Perea flavescens, in Rondeau Bay of Lake Erie. Ecol¬ ogy 36:320-327. Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co. Tonn, W.M. and C.A. Paszkowski. 1987. Habitat use of the central mudminnow {Umbra limi ) and yellow perch {Perea flavescens ) in the Um- bra-Perca assemblages: the roles of competi¬ tion, predation, and the abiotic environment. Can. J. Zool. 65:862-870. Werner, E.E., J.F. Gilliam, D.J. Hall and G.G. Mittelbach. 1983. An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on the habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540-1548. Werner, E.E., D.J. Hall, D.R. Laughlin, D.J. Wagner, L.A. Wilsmann and F.C. Funk. 1977. Habitat partitioning in a freshwater fish com¬ munity. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:360-370. 76 About the Poets Shirley Anders is writer-in-residence at the University ofWisconsin-Fox Valley. Her poetry has been published in Michigan Quarterly Review, Poet and Critic, Kansas Quarterly, Prairie Schooner, and Southern Poetry Review, among others. Her chapbook The Bus Home was published in 1986 ( University of Missouri Press). Anders received a North Carolina Arts Fellowship in 1985 and a Devins Award from the University of Wisconsin Press in 1986. Howard Frederick Ibach is currently a writer! producer for a Milwaukee advertising agency. His poems have appeared in numerous publications. Presently a law student at the University of Wisconsin law school, Beth Roney Drennan works as a judicial intern for Sauk County Circuit judges. She is a former magazine editor (Sailors’ Gazette) and a former actress, starring in numerous national television commercials. Her previous work also includes working with migrant farmworkers and their children in Florida and working with the dying and their families through Hospice. Her poetry has been published by the Wisconsin Fellowship of Poets (1988 and 1990). Laurel Yourke, a native of New York City, received her PhD from UW -Madison and is currently working as a research associate through UW -Madison extension and as a teaching assistant in the Women s Studies program at UW -Madison. She also teaches English at an alternative high school in Madison. Her poetry has appeared in Cypress Review II, Cypress Review III, and Day Tonight/Night Today. Chris Halla has had his work published in Northeast, Poetry Now, Pembroke, Wisconsin Review, Blue Cloud Quarterly, and Abraxas. His chapbooks include River Bottom, (Broken Arrow Press), Adventures of a Freelance Farmer (River Bottom Press), and River Boy, River Town, River (Wolfsong). Previously, Halla was the managing editor of Wisconsin Trails/ Wisconsin Weekend; currently, he is working as a product development manager for J. J. Keller and Associates and as a freelance writer, editor, and illustrator. A former editor of the Hayden Ferry Review, John Graves Morris currently teaches English at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma. His poetry has appeared in numerous publications. 11 ■ . ■ Wisconsin Poetry Spring Again Startled by the bird’s sharp call, little flycatcher whose exultation caught my ear, I turned in time to see it fly straight for the window, the pane smack its sharp smack, bird drop, jerk in the dirt, be gone, despite my moving its slack being from the sunny flag it struck to rain-fresh earth among white violets massed at the late-leafing catalpa’s trunk. In minutes, drawn back to verify the fledgling’s wing bars, its mandible, I watched an ant drink from the open eye. Lawrence, behind the Guest House, May 1989. — Shirley Anders 79 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Three Sensations 1 . “It is still beautiful to feel the heart beat.’’ — Tomas Transtromer You, grey premonition, emerged between two pulsations, a vibration wearing the rain around your neck; a heaving under the cloth so deep and consuming you frightened away the tentacles of a candle. 2. “To die a tiny noise will do.’’ — Vicente Aleixandre Yes, it is true hesitation rises with the dawn Your name is a throb throwing itself against a wall You were absolute morning caught in my throat 80 Wisconsin Poetry 3. i( Quiet, for we too are of the night.” - . Yves Bonnefoy Cat, how can I name the sensation of touching you? It could be so many things When I touch you I hide in the deepness of your teeth I hide in the clarity of your extended claw I wrap myself in the suddenness of your white forehead I hide in you and we chant together as your shadow licks its paw The evening, quivering in my hand would have felt just right beneath us if only I could hold you the way evening tilts its head — Ho ward Frederick Ibach 81 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters The Wasp and the Secretary Split in the thorax by the fat hand Of the manila-envelope wielding man, Master of rote, who loves his mother: “Did you see that? Its head flew one way, its body another!” I hated you, too, I admit to that, But I gathered your parts on a yellow sheet And in horror saw you were still moving, Digging, chewing, As if your life were a thing worth saving. One long wing, shiny and crisp. Remained, a veined, stained-glass wisp, The color of smoke, resembling A quartz chip, Iridescent, transparent, trembling. Your legs, hollow broomstraws bent, Were signalling without intent. On their edges, saw-toothed ridges Dragged half of you Toward headless dreams of screens and ledges. Far away two blister eyes stared, Lidless, prehistoric, bare As river-bed stone, bone ovals set On either side Of molded shoulders, clay epaulets. Your pieces lay like a broken bowl, A brittle little artifact, a ceramic soul, The color of dry things, of locust, or carob, Of chalcedony, Every curve an ivory carving, a scarob. 82 Wisconsin Poetry A fallen flower crisply pinched. The overturning of a turtle trenched, The shell belly, flown apart. Grasping, drinking, And nothing but air sucked through the heart. Your schismed self, your self apart, Your tigery abdomen, glossy and fat, Squirmed, a waspish waste, lame As a worm in rain, The stinger searing for someone to blame. — Beth H. Roney Drennan 83 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Weeding: Flowers and Friendships Wild greens love all weathers, lap torrents that drown more fragile seedlings stretch boldly toward the hottest sun plunge deeper through the sparsest soil erect against the shrillest wind. They own territories: miniature suns border trumpeting morning glories friendly but not encroaching into wild but neighborly places each knowing its soil, its home. But the cultivated, no matter how loved, fear imaginary enemies seek constant tending. Heat shrivels sculptured leaves. Rains rot the roots. Strangeness settles on the stem, nips the fruit, steals every empty space till you no longer know which flowers were your own. — Laurel Yourke 84 Wisconsin Poetry Compulsories A fine, long, looping line etched, then traced by a single, sharp, silver blade slowly slicing the surface of perfect ice made more perfect by the figure skater. Her legs are perfect, in black tights, black leg warmers. Her back a study in perfect posture. Her whole form perfect in baggy black and blue and red and yellow ski sweater. No crowd, no sound. Just eyes to the ice and blessed, perfect silence. — Chris Halla 85 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Epithalamion for Betty & Steve: 28 July 1990 On a day like today, the sunlight High in the maples startles us awake. Praise is our native tongue, but we say Little, too numbed by the sales pitch, The stock quotation, the body count. Even the poet tells us that dark comes down On all we do, but the Mockingbirds’ natter Reminds us that we were made to shine, To sing. Brightness rifts through pear trees, & wind redeploys it on many walls, A movable feast of dappled light. The world comes clean, & everywhere grackles, Elms, & Oklahoma give themselves away. On a day like today, the sky is A blue so effortless that love Becomes more than a possibility, blackbirds Rising in pairs, in waves, undulating Toward the reeds in Lake Helen to roost. — John Graves Morris 86 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Charles A. Long Voles and bog lemmings of Wisconsin are field mice belonging to the rodent subfamily Arvicolinae (formerly Micro- tinae). Their resemblances to one another prevent easy identifications and they remain an enigma in the well-known fauna of Wis¬ consin. They have not been appraised tax- onomically since Hall and Cockrum’s re¬ gional study (1952) summarized by Jackson (1961). Approximately 960 new Wisconsin specimens were studied in this collection (University of Wisconsin Museum of Natural History). Forty-eight Arvicolines (or “Mi¬ crotines” according to some workers) were borrowed from neighboring museums. All the Wisconsin species (except the muskrat) are taxonomically revised herein. The char¬ acteristics of each kind are described. Some natural history information, such as breeding data, is reported. The chief aims of this paper are to report information on the taxonomy, geographical and ecological distributions, and to summarize in condensed form some in¬ formation on the environmental status of all the Wisconsin voles and bog lemmings. Where relevant, findings from specimens in closely adjacent areas in Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan are also included. Materials and Methods The kinds of voles and bog lemmings were identified by their external and dental char- Charles A. Long is Professor of Biology, UW -Stevens Point, and is the Curator of the Mammal Collections, Museum of Natural History. acters. Specimens were aged by fusion of the basioccipital-basisphenoid suture and by other useful evidences of maturity (size, breeding, angularity of the cranium). Specimens of both sexes were combined because no significant differences between them were noted. Spec¬ imens of like age were compared from place to place to ascertain geographic variation in size, cranial characters, and color. Localities were plotted on range maps, and by com¬ parison with Jackson’s (1961) records it was possible to document some expansion or con¬ traction of geographic ranges. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UW-SP) speci¬ mens are listed without reference. Specimens from the following museums were listed with these abbreviations: United States National Museum (Nat. Hist.), USNM; Chicago Nat¬ ural History Society Museum (CNHS); Uni¬ versity of Michigan at Ann Arbor (UM); Uni¬ versity Wisconsin-Madison (UWM); and University of Illinois (UI). Cranial measurements were obtained by dial calipers in millimeters. In mice that all have protruberant upper incisors, the greatest length of the skull, measured between the anteriormost extension or projection of the incisors and the posteriormost extensions of the exoccipital condyles, is the greatest lon¬ gitudinal dimension. The supraoccipital oc¬ casionally projects slightly posterior to the condyles, in which case its posteriormost point is the posterior measure. The condylobasal length is the comparable distance between the condyles and the anteriormost extension or projection of the premaxillary bones (not 87 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters including the incisors). The breadths of the skull are the zygomatic breadth, being the greatest distance between the outer borders of the zygomatic arches (at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the skull) and the narrowest constriction, the interorbital breadth between the orbits. The lambdoid breadth is the distance across the posterior face of the skull, including the lambdoid crests border¬ ing the exoccipitals. The length of the nasals is measured from the anteriormost extension as the longer distance to either posteriormost extension. The maxillary tooth-row is the al¬ veolar length of the three cheek teeth mea¬ sured along the maxillary bone. Since there is no sagittal crest in voles, the cranial depth measures from the highest point of the cran¬ ium to either the base of the cranium or to a transverse line tangent to the ventral projec¬ tions of the auditory bullae. When possible, arithmetic means are accompanied by the ob¬ served range of variation and in bog lem¬ mings by the standard error. Most cheek teeth are persistent in growth (rootless) and develop as prisms of dentine enclosed by angular borders of enamel. The projecting salients are salient angles, and the indentations between are termed re-entrant angles. More circular enclosures are called loops or islands. The patterns are extremely useful in identification of Arvicoline mice. Accounts of Species and Races Genus Pitymys McMurtrie, 1831 In Pitymys the teeth are primitive, espe¬ cially lower first and upper third molars; the M/1 has the anterior island slightly con¬ stricted, with only two to three salient angles between it and the posterior loop; the upper third molar has only two islands (two closed salient angles) between the anterior and pos¬ terior loops. The best treatment I could give the wood¬ land (pine) voles and the prairie voles to em¬ phasize the similarity in dental characters was to combine them in the genus Pitymys. This arrangement implies a close evolutionary re¬ lationship not as evident when including these voles in the genus Microtus, as is often done. Pitymys pinetorum (LeConte) 1830. Psammomys pinetorum LeConte, in Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist., New York, 3:133, type from Georgia. 1831. Pitymys pinetorum McMurtrie. In The Animal Kingdom ... by Baron Cuvier, vol. 1, p. 434, footnote. 1896. Microtus pinetorum, Miller. N. Amer. Fauna, 12:9. The scientific binomen Pitymys pinetorum refers to a mouse taken in pines. It is seldom taken in pines, and now it is sometimes called the woodland vole. It is as often referred to by the name Pitymys as by any common name, but by some workers referred to as Microtus. Description: This vole has slightly reddish or walnut brown fur, hair even, short and dense as in moles. The venter is grayish over- lain with ochraceous or buff. The tail is ex¬ ceptionally short. The foreclaws are often white, exceptionally large (elongated for dig¬ ging) and much longer than the hind claws. The skull is broad, especially the posterior extensions of the nasals, the adjacent pre- maxillaries, and the interorbital region. The post-rostral part of the skull is rather circular, the brain case encroaches into the orbits, and the nasals are short and broad. The upper third molar consists of an anterior loop, two enclosed prisms, and a posterior portion with a salient bulge confluent with a lingual loop. The lower first molar has nine angles, but only four closed prisms, with the anterior- most part constricted, but not pinched to¬ gether. The teeth are similar to those of Pi¬ tymys ochrogaster, except the first inner prism of the middle upper molar tends to be quad¬ rate and sharply angled. Comparisons: Whereas the prairie vole has a high, narrow skull, the woodland or pine vole has a low broad skull. The woodland vole has short, dense, fleecy fur of even brown or reddish brown color, instead of coarse fur in the prairie vole. The hands are broad, the foreclaws robust. The very short tail is seen only in this vole and the more grizzled bog lemmings. The acromion process of the scap- 88 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin ula flares abruptly, so that it diverges from the glenoid socket, and bends terminally to¬ ward the head of the humerus. In Microtus pennsylvanicus and Pitymys (Pedomys) och- rogaster the acromion is delicate and the fossa between it and the scapula narrow, with the opening at less of an angle. The clavicle in Pitymys pinetorum is more robust. The tunnels and dirt piles, unlike those of other mammals, are usually found below the tough, dense, and deep leaf litter, rather than standing above. Measurements: According to Jackson (1961) P. p. scalopsoides, referred to herein as kennicotti, had weights ranging up to 36 grams in old adults. External measurements in mm of six specimens from early day Chi¬ cago (listed under Cook County, Illinois), four adult specimens from Clark County, three from Wood County, and one from Klondike Pond, Sauk County, are given in Table 1 . The type specimen of P. p. schmidti, not seen by me, measured 128, 24, 18, which resem¬ bles the specimens seen in Clark County. The single specimen of P. p. nemoralis from Lynxville in western Wisconsin was much larger (133, 22, 19), resembling four topotypes of nemoralis from Stillwell, Okla¬ homa: 137 (127-144), 24 (20-27), 18.5 (18-19). Skull dimensions of the Lynxville pregnant female are also larger than Wis¬ consin and Illinois kennicotti , measuring 27.1 in greatest length, 16.0 zygomatic breadth, and 6.8 maxillary tooth row. Cranial measurements of a subadult spec¬ imen from Wolf Lake, Cook County, the type of schmidti from Clark County, three adults from Wood County, one from Dane County, and three adults from Canton, Illi¬ nois are given in Table 2. External Measurements in mm for P.p. scalopsoides (or kennicotti) Jackson Specimens from these Counties: (1961) Cook, III Clark, Wl Wood, Wl Sauk, Wl Number 6 4 3 1 Length 110-133 110-126 119-127 110-126 109 Tail 18-25 14-23 20-23 14-16 17 Hind Foot 16.5-18 16-18 16.5-18 16-18 15 Table 1 Cranial Measurements in mm for P.p. kennicotti Number Cook, Wl 1 Specimens from these Counties: Clark, Wl Wood, Wl Dane, Wl 1 3 1 Canton, III 3 Length Mean 25.1 25.5 (23.1-26.2) 25.1 25.6 (24.8-25.0) 24.9 Zygomatic Breadth Mean 13.9 — (13.7-16.0) 14.1 15.4 (14.8-15.1) 14.95 Inter- Orbital Breadth Mean 4.05 4.6 (4.5-4.75) 4.6 4.5 (4. 2-4.5) 4.35 Nasals Mean 7.5 — (7. 8-8.0) 7.9 7.4 (7. 3-8.0) 7.7 Maxillary Tooth Row Mean 5.8 5.9 (5. 6-6. 2) 5.9 — (5. 9-6.0) 6.0 Table 2 89 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Distribution: Southern Wisconsin. See Figure 1. Habitats: The pine or woodland vole oc¬ curs in a wide variety of habitats outside Wis¬ consin (Paul 1970). It is most commonly taken in hardwood (maple, hickory, oak) forests (Jackson 1961; Schmidt 1931). In southwest Wisconsin numerous burrows were found on a dry grassy hillside, and in Clark County, burrows ran under maple leaf litter, in the gray sandy-clay loam soils that roofed the burrows without caving in. Abundant meadow voles may replace Pitymys in competition (Paul 1970). Remark: Litter size varies from 1 to 5, and there are only four teats. Western Woodland Vole Pitymys pinetorum nemoralis V. Bailey A single large female is the only specimen reported from Wisconsin. Its size, massive teeth and chestnut-reddish brown color are the only distinguishing features. The type of nemoralis is from Stillwell, Adair County, Oklahoma, where the color is dark rufescent, and the topotypes are large and wide across the zygomata. Specimens from Minnesota and Iowa have been assigned to nemoralis , and in size and color the Lynxville specimen agrees with the type and topotypes. Specimen examined: Lynxville, 1 (USNM). Kennicott’s Woodland Vole Pitymys pinetorum kennicotti Baird, new combination 1858. Arvicola kennicotti Baird. Mam¬ mals of the Pacific R. R. Survey, p. 547. This available name was applied to Illinois voles, and they are insepara¬ ble from P. p. schmidti Jackson, but distinctive from reddish P. scalopsoides found eastward of Illinois. 1941. Pitymys pinetorum schmidti Jack- son. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 54:201 , December 8. 1912. Microtus pinetorum scalopsoides (Audubon and Bachman). In Cory, Mammals of Illinois and Wisconsin Field Mus. XI. p. 222, Also, Hall and Cock- rum, 1952; Jackson 1961, and others. Description: Dark brownish, almost pur¬ plish brown, slightly ochraceous in unworn pelage, and decidedly less reddish than either P. p. nemoralis or P. p. scalopsoides. The voles are smaller than in nemoralis, but are rather large from Wood County. The dark color is constant throughout the vole’s range in Wisconsin and northern Illinois. Specimens examined: Wisconsin, 12. Il¬ linois, 20. See Table 3. Jackson (1961) re- Kennicott's Woodland Vole Pitymys pinetorum kennicotti Specimens Examined: Wisconsin: Total -12 County: Number Clark County: Worden Twsp. 4 USNM 1 UWM Dane County: Town of Vermont 1 UWM Westport 1 UWM : Sauk County: Klondike Pond 2 Wood County: I Powers Bluff 3 Illinois: Total - 20 County: Number Cook County: Palas Park 3 CNHS Elk Grove 1 CNHS Wolf Lake 2 CNHS Orlando Park 1 CNHS No Specific Locality 2 CNHS Crawford County: ; Flatrock 2 CNHS DeKalb County: Somonauk 1 CNHS DuPage County: Lemont 1 CNHS Fulton County: 10 miles N.W. Canton 4UI Massoe County: Metropolis 2 CNHS Will County: New Lennox 1 CNHS Table 3 90 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Fig. 1. Distribution of Pitymys pinetorum. P. p. nemoralis is known from Crawford County and west of the Mississippi. The other race is here regarded as P. p. kennicotti and the record from Brown County needs to be confirmed. Upper and lower molar tooth-rows. Open circles, Jackson’s (1961) records. 91 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters ported a specimen from Green Bay, Wis¬ consin, in the Neville Public Museum, but it was destroyed by insects. Unfortunately no skull seems preserved, and the locality is now drastically disturbed. The record is question¬ able, but any specimens from northern Wis¬ consin may be assigned on geographic grounds to kennicotti. Prairie Voles Pity my s ochrogaster (Wagner) 1842. Hypudaeus ochrogaster Wagner. In Schreber, Die Saugethiere . . ., Supple. 3:592, type from America, probably New Harmony, Indiana (Bole and Moul- throp, Pubis., Cleveland Mus. Nat. Hist., 5:157, 1942). 1853. Arvicola austerus Le Conte. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6:405, type from Racine, Wisconsin. This name is a junior synonym. 1898. Microtus (Pedomys) ochrogaster, J. A. Allen. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 10:459, November 10. 1966. Pitymys (Pedomys) ochrogaster, El- lermann and Morrison-Scott. Checklist of Palearctic and Indian mammals. Brit¬ ish Mus. Nat. Hist., p. 681. The scientific binomen of the prairie voles means literally the mouse has an ochraceous belly. Some workers refer the species to the genus Microtus, and often it is assigned to the subgenus Pedomys. Description: The prairie vole is brown with a slight mixture of orange or orchraceous. On the belly, fur is grayish basally, the tips are richly ochraceous, except in the very young. The tail is short in the prairie vole but not nearly so short as in pine (woodland) voles or bog lemmings (in which the tail ex¬ tends only about as far as the hind feet). The skull closely resembles that of Pitymys pi- netorum. The upper middle molar has four prisms, lacking any fifth posterior loop, and the last molar has only four prisms, with posterior portion short, narrowing, and hardly invaginated (c-shaped) as seen so clearly in M. pennsylvanicus . Comparisons: The prairie vole is a clean, sociable vole, easier to handle in captivity than Microtus pennsylvanicus, and not so vi¬ cious with one another. Xeric habits are re¬ flected by less copius urine and drier feces in cage and trap. The fur has an ochraceous intermixture, usually not seen in walnut brown, blackish and reddish tones of M. pennsyl¬ vanicus. Often taken in prairie with penn¬ sylvanicus, the teeth in adults clearly char¬ acterize either species. Young prairie voles tend to be remarkable ochraceous-gray whereas young pennsylvanicus (which have the characteristic dental patterns often un¬ developed) are nearly black, very dark brown, without ochraceous showing in the fur. The feet of adult ochrogaster are more reddish tan, whereas they are brown-gray in pennsylvanicus . Measurements: See accounts of subspecies. Distribution: See Figure 2. Habitats: Thin, dry, sandy prairies, upland fields, old fields, and railroad rights-of-way. Prairie voles occur primarily in grassland in the south and west, and perhaps in relation to openings in the Southern Deciduous for¬ ests. They are not seen in the pine barrens and dunes of northwest Wisconsin, but seem associated in northward distribution to the out wash sands of the Wisconsin glaciers. Perhaps the Northern pine-hardwoods and wooded hills prevent these voles from ex¬ panding their geographic range northward. Prairie and pine voles have approximately similar geographic ranges in Wisconsin, but occupy different habitats. There are six mam¬ mae and up to seven embryos. Common Prairie Vole Pitymys ochrogaster ochrogaster (Wagner) This vole is large, nearly as large as Mi¬ crotus pennsylvanicus. The skull is larger than in P. o. minor, exceeding 26 mm in greatest length in old adults (those with basioccipi- tal-basisphenoid suture closed). The pelage is darker and less grayish than western spec¬ imens of minor, but not much darker than in the Wisconsin minor. The belly is on average 92 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Fig. 2. Distribution of Pitymys ochrogaster. P. o. minor is known from thin soil glacial sands to the northwestward. The southern race is P. o. ochrogaster. Upper and lower molar tooth-rows. Open circles, Jackson’s (1961) records. Racine Co. After Amin. 93 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters more richly ochraceous. The most constant difference between the common and minor prairie voles is size, but the common prairie vole has longer and broader nasals, and the auditory bullae tend to be relatively less inflated. Measurements: According to Jackson (1961), the total length varies up to 160 mm, tail to 40 mm, hind foot to 20 mm, total weight to 50 g, and total skull length to 28. 1 mm. The three adult males from Lynxville, in extreme southwestern Wisconsin, are clearly referable to the larger, nominate race in all measurements taken (see Table 4). Speci¬ mens from Beaver Dam and Pleasant Valley Road, in southern Wisconsin, are compara¬ bly large. Even the oldest and largest spec¬ imens from near Stevens Point are smaller than these specimens. Specimens examined: Total, 23. See Table 5. Other records are in Jackson (1961). See also Amin (1974) and Amin and Thompson (1974). Minor Prairie Vole Pity my s ochrogaster minor (Merriam), 1888, new combination. Arvicola austerus minor Merriam, Amer. Nat. 22:600; type from Bottineau, North Dakota. Common Prairie Vole Pitvmvs ochrogaster 3 Specimens From Lynxville, Wisconsin External Measurements in mm: Total Length 153 (152- 155) Tail Length 39 (38 - 40) Hind Foot 18.7 (18-19) Weight in gm 47 (44-50) Cranial Measurements in mm: Length of Skull 26.8 (25.8 - 26.9) Condylobasal Length 26 (25.3 - 26.5) Maxillary Tooth Row 6 (5.6 - 6.5) Zygomatic Breadth 15 (14.9- 15.1) Cranial Depth 9.63 (9.6 - 9.7) Interorbital Breadth 4 (3.95-4.1) Nasal Length 7.55 (7.5 - 7.6) Table 4 Common Prairie Vole Pitvmvs ochroaaster Specimens Examined: Total - 23 County: Crawford County: Lynxville 3USNM Dane County: Beeny, Sec. 18, T8N, R7E 1 UWM 5 miles N. Cross Plains 1 UWM Dodge County: Beaver Dam 1 Rock County: Milton 5 UWM Sauk County: Pleasant Valley Road, near Sumpter Church 3 1/4 -3/4 mileS., 2 miles W. Prairie de Sac 2 3 miles W. Prairie de Sac 3 | 4 miles W. Prairie de Sac 4 Table 5 Long (1976) first reported this diminutive vole in Wisconsin, extending the known range 218 miles eastward, in small local popula¬ tions living on railroad rights-of-way and thin outwash sands of brushy, grassy fields. Two taxonomists have suggested that M. o. minor is a species because of its peculiar and dis¬ tinctive behavior and small size. In Wiscon¬ sin there is no evidence of intergradation of the two prairie voles, but woodlands separate them a distance of 50 miles (between Wau¬ shara and Dodge counties) and 40 miles (be¬ tween Juneau and Sauk counties). The minor vole hardly varies in size from central Wis¬ consin into North Dakota, but Swanson (1945) reported intergradation with large M. o. och¬ rogaster in Southeast Minnesota. Another thing to keep in mind is the close similarity of skulls and dentitions of minor and ochrogaster. Measurements: The decidedly small di¬ mensions of the skull are seen in the means of Old-Adult voles shown in Table 6. Specimens examined: Total, 29. See Table 7. Status: This vole was never common in Wisconsin, and in Portage County all known localities of occurrence have been so dras¬ tically disturbed by plowing and urban de- 94 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Measurements of the Minor Prairie Vole Cranial Measurements in mm Old-Adult Vole Specimens From: Goodall, ND Elk River, MN Ft. Snelling, Mn Clark Co., Wl Stevens Point, Wl Number 5 3 2 1 6 Greatest Length Of Skull 24.07 24.33 23.74 25.93 24.6 (24.1 -25.6) Zygo- matic Breadth 12.35 13.05 12.88 13.4 13.7 (13.5-13.9) Lamb- doidal Breadth 10.39 10.51 10.31 11.4 11.2 (10.8-11.4) Nasals 6.66 6.73 6.75 7.0 6.59 (6.7 - 7.3) Inter- Orbital Breadth 3.43 3.42 3.7 3.8 3.95 (3.8 - 4.05) Table 6 velopment that the subspecies may have been extirpated. No specimens have been obtained for ten years in spite of intensive efforts to find them. Efforts should be made to preserve this species and its habitat, perhaps by intro¬ ductions onto sandy upland prairie preserves. Genus Microtus Schrank Teeth elaborate, lower first molar with deep constrictions forming separate islands or prisms, five salient angles between anterior island and posterior loop, upper third molar elaborate, with three closed prisms (salient angles) between anterior and posterior loops. Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus pennsylvanicus (Ord) 1815. Mus pennsylvanica Ord. In Guthrie, A new geography, 2nd Amer. ed., vol. 2, p. 292. 1895. M [icrotus]. Pennsylvanicus, Rhoads. Amer. Nat., 29:940. 1841. Arvicola fulva. Audubon and Bach¬ man. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadel¬ phia, 1:96. Type from a western state, probably Illinois. Minor Prairie Vole Pitvmvs ochroaaster minor Specimens Examined Total - 29 County: Number Clark County: ! Brick Creek, near Owen- | Withee 1 1 Foster Twsp. 2 UWM No Specific Locality 1 Juneau County: 4 1/2 mile N., 1 mile W. Necedah 2 Portage County: Stevens Point 14 Whiting 2 Plover 5 8 miles S. Stevens Point 1 Waushara County: Saxeville 1 UWM Table 7 95 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 1858. Arvicola riparia var. longipilis Baird. Mammals. Reports Expl. Surv. . . . 8(1)1524, type from West Northfield, Illinois or Racine, Wisconsin. The scientific name Microtus pennsylvan- icus means the mouse has small ears and was found near (“Meadows south of”) Phila¬ delphia. This vole resembles M. agrestus of Eurasia. Description: Usually the largest, darkest vole in Wisconsin, often exceeding 160 mm total length. Long blackish tail, blackish gray-brown feet, and belly overcast with whitish, pale buff (occasionally rust, red, or cinnamon buff). The skull is long, the ros¬ trum and nasals long and narrow, and the braincase well extended posterior to the zy¬ gomata. The upper third molar consists of an anterior loop, three closed prisms, and a dis¬ tinct posterior crescentic loop. In the middle upper molar an extra small posterior loop is squeezed in, rarely absent in adults. The lower first molar is pinched in anteriorly, so that there are five closed prisms behind the an¬ terior loop. This species is identified with certainty by the loop of the middle upper molar, and the identification confirmed by the extra prisms in upper third and lower first molars. The skull is long (up to 28.6 mm), the yellow incisors projecting beyond the na¬ sals. The incisive foramina exceed 5 mm in length. There is a slight reddish (not ochra- ceous) cast in the dark walnut brown upper- parts (especially in late summer and fall), which are evenly colored and hardly grizzled at all. The dorsal pelage, long and lax in winter, is remarkably constant throughout the state. Little individual variation is shown ex¬ cept in rare albinism in southeastern Wis¬ consin and a gray specimen with hairs whi¬ tish basally from Portage County. The black eyes seem small, and like the ears are fringed by coarse guard hairs. In ventral coloration the range of whitish to buff to buffy ochraceous varies remarka¬ bly, as can be seen by the following values based on a scale of pale to dark ochraceous, one to five. The standards are (1) UW-SP No. 1610 pure silvery white; (2) buffy white No. 377, (3) whitish buff No. 1089, (4) buff No. 947, (5) buffy ochraceous No. 3190 or 2259, all aforementioned specimens from central Wisconsin, and (5) dark ochraceous No. 4579 from Waupaca Co., 4851 from Vernon Co., or 5024 from Clark County. From Marathon, Wood, and Portage counties a large sample was analyzed and fell into these frequencies: pure silvery white 1; buffy white, 16; whitish buff, 37; buffy ochraceous 46; dark ochraceous, 4. The frequencies were hardly dissimilar in other parts of Wisconsin. Of course, all ventral pelages were gray bas¬ ally. From this it follows that Microtus penn- sylvanicus cannot always be distinguished from Pitymys ochrogaster by the color of the belly for the color is often ochraceous. However, whitish venters are characteristic of pennsylvanicus . Jackson (1961:230) described mutants from Wisconsin: yellow from Alderly, Dodge County, and two albinos from Madison and another from Lake Koshkonong. A pink-eyed albino in the UW-SP collection (No. 1792) is from Dodge County, and a partial albino (No. UWSP-6261) is from Horicon Marsh. This vole was normal above except for a faint intermixture of white hairs below the ears and approaching the vibrissae. The left hind foot was normal, the other three feet white. The tail was normal. The venter was pure white without gray at the hair bases. Measurements : Total length to 188 mm. (but large meadow voles seldom exceed 165 mm), tail 42 to 56 mm, hind foot 20 to 23 mm, ear 20 to 23 mm. Wts. vary to 56 g. Greatest length of skull varies to 28.6 mm, width to 15.8 mm (see Jackson, 1961:231). Distribution : Statewide, but restricted from most islands in Lake Michigan and Lake Su¬ perior, dense forests, and dry, sandy prairies. See Figure 3. Habitats: Wet, grassy or weedy soils, fields, wet meadows, marshes, bogs, riparian grassy shores, and grassy glades in open woodlands. Occasionally in cultivated fields, often on lawns and gardens, and rarely in houses. 96 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Fig. 3. Distribution of Microtus pennsylvanicus pennsylvanicus, which occurs in every county in the state. Upper molar tooth-row and lower. Open circles, Jackson’s (1961) records. 97 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Jackson rated the meadow vole as the sec¬ ond most abundant mammal in Wisconsin, exceeded possibly by the short-tailed shrew. In my field work I find the white-footed mouse to outnumber them both, except in dense for¬ est, wetlands, and the northern counties. Probably the meadow vole is most abundant there. The meadow vole is found in every county in Wisconsin. Hamerstrom (1986) discussed the 4-5 year cycle of abundance and its profound effects on harriers (Circus cyaneus). Microtus can breed every month of the year (Jackson 1961:233) and usually con¬ tinue in central Wisconsin into November, a full month later than in the Peromyscus. The litter size varies from two to nine, and is often seven. In 27 pregnant Wisconsin specimens observed, the mean was 5.2; modes 4, 6; observed range was 4-8; the peaks of breed¬ ing were April and July; and females were found pregnant from March to October (lac- tating to 14 November). The meadow vole prefers black soils and wet environments due to a need for water. It swims well, even diving, and young have been seen running over water surfaces. The nest of grasses and leaves is often on the ground surface, occasionally in a burrow eight or nine inches below ground. Foods include grass, sedges, grains, seeds, and carrion. Specimens examined: Total, 548. See Ta¬ ble 8. Other records in Jackson 1961: Long 1974. The species is widespread in Upper Michigan as well (Baker 1983). Genus Clethrionomys Tilesius, 1850 Teeth small and primitive, occasionally rooted in adults, salient projections less pointed (more arcuate) then in Microtus or Pitymys, upper third molar elaborate, posterior palate shelf-like. Red-Backed Voles Clethrionomys gapperi (Vigors) Gappers Red-Backed Vole 1830. Arvicola gapperi Vigors. Zool. J., 5:204. Type from between Toronto and Lake Simcoe, Ontario. 1928. Clethrionomys gapperi gapperi. Green. J. Mammal., 9:255, August 9. The scientific name means a swamp alder mouse, and Gapper was a man’s name. Description: This small vole has a weakly built skull, having delicately and neatly ar¬ ranged folds and prisms in the cheek teeth, and pale yellow incisors. It is easily recog¬ nized by its russet or chestnut reddish-brown dorsum, set off by ochraceous (almost yel- lowish)-grayish-tan sides. The sides are usu¬ ally flecked with dark blackish gray, a false pattern of guard hairs, but actually the gray bases of the hairs show through the coarse pelage. (There are a few brownish guard hairs in dorsal and lateral pelage evident under the microscope.) The ventral surface is whitish, either a pure or grayish white, although from place to place up to 40 percent may have pale ochraceous buff or cinnamon buff (e.g., UWSP-1497, 6075, and others). The pale coloration is conspicuous on the throat and lower cheeks and extends often as a ventral line to whitish feet and claws. The general effect is a tri-colored mouse, red-brown, gray-orange, and whitish. The tail is medium in length. There are six tubercles on the hind foot. In juveniles the coloration is not fully developed, so the dorsum and sides are rich rusty brown with just a tinge of russet, and the venter is brownish or gray with just a tinge of white. However, in young mice even the smallest seem to have bright adult col¬ oration in winter. (Apparently the hair pro¬ tection develops rapidly, much more so than in summer.) The skull is small and rather circular in profile. No other arvicoline has such a shelf-like or straight posterior border of the palate (actually the anterior border of the pterygoid fossa or posterior nares). The upper third molar has an anterior loop, three closed prisms, and a selenodont or crescentic pos¬ terior loop, resembling the pattern in Micro¬ tus. However, the more arcuate angles are more even in linear arrangement, and more delicate, the tiny prisms neatly outlined. The 98 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin upper middle molar consists of an anterior loop and three closed prisms (which is or¬ dinary in arvicolines). The lower first molar might be said to terminate with two posterior loops in tandem, only two enclosed areas intervene between the complex anterior part and the last loop. The anterior portion is pinched so that a tiny inner salient angle may occasionally be closed off as well. The third lower molar is distinctive in its three similar and large outer salient angles all in a row, and three small inner salient angles neatly arranged opposite. The teeth are narrow and small. Colors are highly variable, and large sam¬ ples are essential to compare colors from place to place. Nevertheless, the range of varia¬ bility is constant geographically. There is only one geographic race in Wisconsin and Upper Michigan. Comparisons: The coloration (reddish dor¬ sum, whitish venter) and dentition clearly distinguish this species from all other arvi¬ colines in Wisconsin. The longer tail clearly sets a red-backed vole apart from the short-tailed (woodland) pine vole and south¬ ern bog lemming. Measurements (Jackson, 1961:225): Total length varies to 150 mm, tail only 32-42 in adults, hind foot 18-20, ear 14 to 16. Weights vary to 36 grams. Total length of skull varies only to 24.8 mm, width of cranium 12.0 to 13.6 mm. Distribution: Northern woodlands and swampy communities. See Figure 4. Habitats: The red-backed voles occur in boreal forests. In Wisconsin they are found on several islands in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, and throughout the North Woods (the pine-maple, hemlock, and spruce-fir woodlands), occurring always in the pres¬ ence of at least a few trees. They dwell in swamps, bogs, and marshes as well as on forested hills and the slopes of valleys. They live in complex burrows usually below a stump or dead-fall tree. On Big Summer Island, Michigan, which is in Green Bay, red-backed voles tunneled as might moles, short-tailed shrews, or Pitymys (Long 1978). These voles are less specialized for eating grass, and they feed on nuts, seeds, and small arthropods. In Wisconsin this forest species does not range far into the southern deciduous woods or southern and western prairies. They are thought to be rather solitary, but Pitts (1983) caught six adults in the same tunnel beneath a decayed stump. Home range is about 1,000 square meters, habits mostly nocturnal, and the females have two to four litters per breeding season, of three to eight young (Jackson 1961). There are eight mammae. In only seven observed breeding females some breeding was noted in winter, pregnant specimens observed from February to late September (lactation and ju¬ veniles in November). The mean litter size was 4.75, two modes 3, 6, and the observed range 3 to 6. A female from Poverty Island, Michigan, had six embryos in August. Status: Abundant in suitable habitats, wide-spread in northern and eastern Wiscon¬ sin, and in no peril. Harmless to man. Remark: One female specimen (UW-SP 1040) from 15 mi. E. Stevens Point was belted with pure white mid-dorsally, nearly all around, the ventral white extending fairly continuously, forward to each manus. Specimens examined: Total, 296. See Table 9. Other Records: See Map. Also see Jackson 1961; Pitts 1983 (Monroe Co.); Johnson 1978 (Door Co.); Kewaunee Co., personal corr. Neville Museum; Long 1974. The species is widespread in Upper Michigan as well (Baker 1983). Genus Synaptomys Baird, 1858 Teeth specialized, entrant angles deeper on one side, shallow on the opposite, so that prisms extend as nearly transverse lophs across the tooth surface, the salient angles reduced on outerside of lower molars, inner side of upper molars, upper incisors slightly grooved along outer border. 99 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Fig. 4. Distribution of Clethrionomys gapperi gapperi. Restricted from prairies. Upper and lower molar tooth-rows. Open circles, Jackson 1961; Large triangle, Pitts 1983; small triangle, Johnson 1978. Sguare, personal report Neville Museum. 100 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin 101 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 102 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin 103 Table 9 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Southern Bog Lemmings Synaptomys cooperi Baird Synaptomys cooperi Baird. Mammals. Re¬ port Explor. and Surveys Railroad to Pacific, Part 1, Mammals, page 558, 1858. Synaptomys fatuus Bangs. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 10:47, 1896. Type from Lake Edward, Quebec. Synaptomys cooperi fatuus, Cory. The mammals of Illinois and Wisconsin. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ., 153:237, 1912. The name Synaptomys means a mouse link. It links the voles to the boreal lemmings. The name cooperi honors William Cooper of New Jersey who gave Fullerton Baird the type specimen. The type locality was fixed at Jackson, New Hampshire. Description: This chunky mouse has griz¬ zled, coarse pelage (except in winter), an extremely short tail as in Pitymys pinetorum, and ears mostly hidden by the fur. The upper parts are a coarse mixture of gray, pale ochra- ceous brown and dark brown or black guard hairs. The venter has a whitish, grayish, buffy, or tan ochraceous wash over dark plumbeous gray bases of the hairs. The feet are usually brownish but sometimes gray. There is usu¬ ally a faint groove on the the anterior face of each incisor, along the outer edges. The skull is nearly square (subquadrate) resem¬ bling Arctic lemmings, because the braincase protrudes into the orbits, encompassed by the zygomata, and the rostrum is short. The outer re-entrant angles of the upper molars are exceptionally deep, whereas the inner angles shallow, so the upper teeth are zagged, but not zig-zagged. The lower teeth have the deep re-entrant angles on the inner side of the teeth. On the middle lower molar is a small outer prism (Fig. 5). Comparisons: The short tail, coarse griz¬ zled fur, grooved incisors, squarish brain- case, and odd re-entrant angles distinguish this species. Externally the bog lemming re¬ sembles Pitymys pinetorum, especially in winter pelage. There is a superficial resem¬ blance (breadth) in their skulls as well. There 104 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Fig. 5. Distribution of Synaptomys cooperi. On Washington and Rock islands, S. c. jesseni. S. c. gossii occurs in Crawford County. In Upper Michigan and most northern counties S. c. cooperi occurs. Upper and lower molar tooth-rows. Open circles, Jackson 1961. 105 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters are three races in Wisconsin, the most dis¬ tinctive of which is the white-footed insular race jesseni. Measurements: See accounts of subspecies. Distribution: See Figure 5. Habitats: In black soils along streams, in bogs, wet forests, and in sedge meadows, red pine plantations, and bouldery ground. Runways are seldom seen. Feces are bright pale green. Irruptions sometimes occur, but are unknown in Wisconsin where this vole seems uncommon. Cooper’s Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi cooperi Baird As defined by Wetzel (1955), the nominate race for the bog lemming occurs both east and west of Lake Michigan. It is character¬ ized by a rather narrow, high cranium. All specimens examined in the University Mu¬ seum collection, except those from Wash¬ ington and Rock Islands, proved referable to S. c. cooperi, showing little variation in color. Some specimens had a rich reddish chocolate color intermixed with ochraceous, gray, and black. Winter specimens were bleached and less grizzled. Young specimens were darker brown. Specimens examined from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan were likewise refer¬ able to cooperi. Using a scale from reddish to grayish brown, the dorsal pelage being lined with dark guard hairs and darkened from below by the un¬ derlying basal gray, the most reddish spec¬ imen, a rich reddish-chestnut brown was 5742 from Portage County, Wisconsin. A shade paler is 2197 from Crivitz. Next is 5038 from Bayfield County, where the light ochraceous color separates from the dark brown lines of the guard hairs, and finally the ordinary coloration — a grayish, ochraceous brown, as in 5626 from Bayfield County. Scaled from 4 to 1 , all the adult and probably mature bog lemmings were compared against this stan¬ dard, and the color values recorded. A specimen from Fish Hawk Lake, Goge¬ bic County, Michigan, was reddish (3). From Menominee County, Michigan, four speci¬ mens averaged 1 .5 (1-2). A vole from Delta County was 3. From Bayfield County, Wisconsin, five specimens averaged 1.7 (1-2), and another with worn pelage (in June) was dark grayish, perhaps juvenile. Langlade County speci¬ mens were 1 and 3, mean 2.0; and an Oconto County specimen from Suring was 2. Two specimens from Crivitz were each 2. A specimen from Marathon County was 1, Portage County 4, and Douglas County 1. Specimens examined: Michigan, 6 UM. Wisconsin, 34. See Table 10. Measurements: External measurements of four adult males from Drummond and cranial measurements of four adults from Gogebic and Taylor counties, Upper Michigan and Bayfield County (2) are given in Table 11. White-Footed Southern Bog Lemming or Jessen’s Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi jesseni Long, 1986 Synaptomys cooperi jesseni Long, Mam¬ malia, 51:324, 1986. Holotype, UW-SP6250, skin and skull from Swen¬ son Road, T. Jessen’s Place, Washing¬ ton Island, Wisconsin. In dorsal and ventral coloration the spec¬ imens from Rock and Washington islands (Long and Long 1988) resemble S. c. coop¬ eri, but they have conspicuous white feet. The observed tails and all four feet on the specimens are grayish or plumbeous gray, as is common in juveniles elsewhere, but there is generally pure white distally, of the claws and toes. The toes and claws occasionally may be whitish in Synaptomys cooperi coop¬ eri, but they are seldom pure white, the whiteness not nearly so extensive, not set off so cleanly by dark pelage of the feet, and not so constant. White toes are even fairly con¬ stant on the forefeet in the insular specimens. Even the hind dew toes are white on the Rock Island specimen. They are white also on UW-SP 6548-49. All ten toes are pure white on these specimens. On Washington 106 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin Cooper's Southern Bog Lemming Svnaptomvs cooperi Specimens Examined Upper Michigan - Total 6 UM UP Counties: Number Delta County: 2 miles N.W. Fairport 1 Gogebic County: Fish Hawk Lake 1 Menominee County: 5 miles N. Menominee 10 miles W, Stephenson 5 miles S.W. Banat 1 1 Meadow 2 Wisconsin - Total 34 Wisconsin Counties: Number Ashland County: 6 miles S.E. Clam Lake 9 Bayfield County: Drummond 12 Burnett County: Crex Meadows 1 Douglas County: Wascott 2 Langlade County: Camp Susan 3 Marathon County: 7 1/2 miles N.E. Athens, on Big Rib River 1 Marinette County: 9 miles N.W. Crivitz, Cnty. A 3 Oconto County: 1 1 miles N.E. Suring 1 Portage County: Dewey Marsh 1 Taylor County: Near Medford 1 Table 10 Island, eight distinctively white hind toes (excluding dew toes) were seen in eleven specimens. Seven white toes were seen in the other two, and even in these there was at least a trace of white in all eight. In 22 adult and probably adult bog lemmings from mainland Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, white toes were seen only in five specimens. Some specimens from Menominee County, Michigan, show several white hind toes, as Cooper's Southern Bog Lemming Svnaptomvs cooperi External Measurements in mm 4 Adult Males From Drummond: Total Length Tail Length Hind Foot Ear from Notch 113 (110- 115) 16 (10-19) 17.6 (17-18) 9 (5-10) Cranial Measurements in mm 4 Adults from Gogebic and Taylor Counties, Upper Michigan and 2 from Bayfield County: Condylobasal Length 25.0+-.23 (24.4 - 25.5) Nasal Length 7.05+-.05 (7.0 - 7.2) Zygomatic Breadth 15. 23+-. 33 (14.6 - 15.7) Lambdoid Breadth 1 2.25+-. 12 (11.9- 12.45) Cranial Depth (with Bullae) 8.5+-.13 (8.2 - 8.8) Table 1 1 does one specimen from Bayfield County, Wisconsin, but these, the best marked from the mainland, are less distinctive than the least whitish specimens on Washington and Rock Islands. White toes were seldom observed on any forefeet of Mainland specimens, but all the front toes were pure white on the Rock Island vole, and toes of the front feet were white on seven from Washington Island. Some toes of the forefeet were white on the others also, except two of the eight specimens had only dark toes on the forefeet. White toes seem a sporadically appearing character in bog lemmings, but on Washing¬ ton and nearby Rock Islands it is ordinary and in fact constitutes a remarkable and con¬ spicuous difference allowing the large ma¬ jority of bog lemmings to be identified on sight. The geographic isolation of these bog lemmings from sedge meadows and fields on Washington and Rock Islands, with average differences in several cranial dimensions, leads to their recognition as a distinctive geo¬ graphic race endemic to these isles. Long ago the Door Peninsula was an archipelago of seven islands, when lake levels were higher, enhancing geographic isolation of the bog lemmings (see Kowalke 1946). 107 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Cuttings of sedge in the mouth of UWSP-6259 were 3, 4, 5, 5, 6 and 8 mm in length. Pregnant females were taken in April (5 embryos) and late September (3 embryos). Measurements: External measurements of six adult males and three females from Wash¬ ington Island and cranial measurements of six adults from Washington and one from Rock Islands are given in Table 12. Remark: The race is named in honor of Tom lessen, supervisor of Rock Island State Park, an amateur naturalist who obtained the first specimen and has helped on this and other natural history studies on the afore¬ mentioned islands. Specimens examined: Total, 14. Rock Is¬ land Hq., 1; Washington Island, Swenson Road, Door Co., 6; Airport, on Airport Road, 7. Goss9 Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi gossii (Coues), 1877 This vole resembles S. c. cooperi also, but it is larger and relatively larger in many di¬ mensions, especially the higher crania. The Wisconsin specimens, referred by Jackson (1961) to gossii, have wider incisors (1.9 mm) than in cooperi (1.6 mm). Specimens in southeast Minnesota and northeast Iowa have been referred to gossii. This race is known only from Lynxville, Crawford County, and may occur in other places on dry hillsides and fields in southern and southwestern Wisconsin. The habitats seem to be quite different from those in northern Wisconsin. Measurements (Jackson, 1961:224): No. 249, 769 USNM, adult male from Lynxville: total length 129, tail 22, hindfoot 19, ear from notch 14 mm, wt. 42 g., cranial length 27.7, width, 17.2, height 10.3 mm. Remark: This race was named after the Kansan naturalist B. F. Goss, and the race occurs southward and westward as far as Kansas. Specimen examined: Lynxville, 1 (USNM). White Footed Southern Bog Lemming or Jessen's Bog Lemming Svnaptomvs cooperi jesseni External Measurements in mm 6 Adult Males, 3 Females from Washington Island: Males Females Total Length 118 123 (112- 122) (119- 126) Tail Vertebrae 17 18 (15-19) (16 - 20) Hind Foot 19.4 19 (18-21) (17-20) Ear from Notch 1 1 11.3 (10-12) (11-12) Cranial Measurements in mm 6 Adults from Washington Island, 1 from Rock Island: Condylobasal Length 24.6S+-.2 (23.8 - 25.2) Nasal Length 6.87+-. 14 (6.3 - 7.3) Zygomatic Breadth 1 5.67+-.03 (1 5.6 - 1 5.8) Lambdoid Breadth 12.93+-.13 (12.6 - 13.4) Cranial Depth (with Bullae) 8.62+-.1 1 (8.3 - 9) Table 12 Summary The numbers of specimens and mapping of them reveal that of the five species and nine races of arvicoline mice now recognized in Wisconsin only Microtus pennsylvanicus is abundant and widely distributed. It may be considered a pest. Clethrionomys is next in abundance, harmless, confined to northern forests. The other species are uncommon or rare, with limited and local distributions. In tolerable numbers they are beneficial and in¬ teresting members of Wisconsin ecosystems. The pine (woodland) vole is listed by the Wisconsin Bureau of Endangered Resources as rare enough for “special concern” (Watch List). Pitymys ochrogaster minor, P. pine - torum, Synaptomys cooperi jesseni, and S. c. gossii seem to be among the rarest of Wis- 108 Voles and Bog Lemmings of Wisconsin consin animals. In this study the pine vole and prairie vole were both assigned to the genus Pitymys. Of the nine recognized races, three were not known to Jackson (1961). Two of his Wisconsin names are placed in synonymy. Acknowledgment I thank Dr. Sydney Anderson, American Museum of Natural History for advice. Key Key to Wisconsin Voles and Bog Lem¬ mings (Adults) All teeth are comprised of loops and prisms. 1 . Upper middle molar with anterior loop, three closed prisms, and one small posterior loop or islet; posterior upper molar with anterior loop, three closed prisms and distinct posterior crescentic loop; anterior lower molar deeply constricted with five closed prisms and a pos¬ terior loop . Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole 1/ Upper middle molar with anterior loop and only three prisms; posterior upper molar with two prisms, posterior loop not crescentic; an¬ terior lower molar with fewer than five closed prisms between loop .................. 2 2. Molars with deep re-entrant angles on one side only, opposite side comprised of sin¬ uous arcs; each upper incisor with small groove near outer edge extending the length of the tooth . . . Synaptomys 3. 3. Lower molars with shallow, sinuous re-entrant angles on outer or labial side; three large and one minute prisms on lower middle molar . . . Synaptomys cooperi Southern Bog Lemming 3/ Lower molars with hardly any indentation (re-entrant angles) on labial side; three large prisms in lower middle molar. Known in Wisconsin or Michigan only from fossils . . S. borealis 2! Teeth with regular re-entrant angles on both sides; upper incisors lacking grooves .... .4 4. Teeth small, neatly regular indentations, sometimes more curved than pointed, rel¬ atively thick enamel border; teeth rooted in adults, posteriormost loop of upper third molar irregular in shape; lower anterior- most loop deeply constricted as in M. penn¬ sylvanicus with only three closed prisms and a posterior loop . Clethrionomys gapperi Red-backed Vole 4/ Teeth large or medium; posterior prism of middle upper molar terminating abruptly in a shoulder or bulge confluent with salient angle, posteriormost loop of upper third molar often spear-shaped (subtriangular), lower anterior molar slightly constricted anteriorly and deeply constricted posteriorly with three closed prisms (and a posterior loop) behind this doubly con¬ stricted anterior loop . Pitymys 5. 5. Tail exceptionally short; fur fleecy, walnut or reddish brown, forefeet with robust claws; skull broad, interorbital breadth more than half the distance between the tips of the nasals to posterior extensions of premax- illaries .Pitymys pinetorum Pine or Wood¬ land Vole 5.' Tail not exceptionally short; fur coarse, griz¬ zled buff or orange-brown, forefeet normal; skull narrow, interorbital breadth about half the length from tips of nasals to posterior ex¬ tensions of premaxillaries behind the nasals . Pitymys ochrogaster ( = Microtus ochrogaster) Prairie Vole Works Cited Amin. O. M. 1974. Distribution and ecological observations of wild mammals in southeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters, 42:311-326. Amin, O. M. and W. H. Thompson. 1974. Ar- boviral antibody survey of wild mammals in southeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters, 42:87-94. Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michi¬ gan State Press, Wayne State Univ. Press, 642 p. illus. Hall, E. R. andE. L. Cock rum. 1952. Comments on the taxonomy and geographic distribution of North American microtines. Univ. Kansas Pubis., Mus. Nat. Hist., 5(23):293-312. Hamerstrom, F. 1986. Harrier, hawk of the marshes. The hawk that is ruled by a mouse. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Baltimore, 155 p., illus. Jackson, H. H. T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 504 p. 109 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Johnson, W. J. 1978. Small mammals of the Toft Point Scientific Area, Door County, Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters, 66:246-253. Kowalke, O. L. 1946. Highest abandoned beach ridges in northern Door County, Wisconsin. Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters, 38:293-298. Long, C. A. 1974. Mammals of the Lake Mich¬ igan Drainage Basin. Argonne Nat. Lab., ES-40, 108 p., illus. Long, C. A. 1976. Microtus ochrogaster minor in Wisconsin. Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Wis. Re¬ ports Fauna and Flora, No. 1 1 , p. 1 . Long, C. A. 1978. Mammals of the Islands of Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler, 56:59-82. Long, C. A. 1986. A new subspecies of southern bog lemming from two Lake Michigan isles (Mammalia: Rodentia). Mammalia, 51(2):324-326. Long, C. A. and J. E. Long. 1988. Southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, new to islands in Lake Michigan. Canadian Field Nat. 102:64-65. Paul, J. R. 1970. Observations on the ecology, populations and reproductive biology of the pine vole, Microtus pinetorum, in North Carolina. Illinois State Mus. Report 20, 28 p. Pitts, R. M. 1983. Mammals of Fort McCoy, Monroe Co., Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters, 71:151-154. Schmidt, F. J. W. 1931. Mammals of western Clark County, Wisconsin. J. Mammal, 12:99-117. Swanson, G., T. Surber, andT. S. Roberts. 1945. The mammals of Minnesota. Minneapolis Dept. Conservation. Tech. Bull., Vol. 2, 108 p., illus. Wetzel, R. M. 1955. Speciation and dispersal of the southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi (Baird). J. Mammal., 36:1-20. Zakrzewski, R. J. 1985. The fossil record. In Bi¬ ology of New World Microtus. Edited by R. H. Tamarin, Special Publ. No. 8, Amer. Soc. Mammalogists. 110 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants Stanley A. Nichols Abstract. Interspecific association was used to group 54 aquatic plant taxa found in 68 Wisconsin lakes. Three of the four groups formed could be explained by water chemistry, substrate preference, and turbidity tolerance. The fourth group appeared to be of intermediate preference to the other three groups. A number of species did not commonly associate with other species. They were often found in unique habitats. No significant negative correlation between species pairs was found. This makes it difficult to speculate about the causes of non¬ association among species. Interspecific association provides one method of objectively grouping species. Positive associations may result from simi¬ larities of adaptation and response to envi¬ ronmental conditions. They may also result from beneficial interactions such as mutual¬ ism or commensalism, favorable to one or both species. Negative associations may re¬ sult from species preferring different habitats or from detrimental interaction such as re¬ source competition or allelopathy. Studies that relate species groupings to habitat factors generally fall into two types. One type relates species groups in a single lake to within-lake habitat differences (Mirsa 1938; Spence 1967; Carpenter and Titus 1984; Nichols 1971; Schmid 1965; Sheldon and Boylen 1977; Wilson 1937 and 1941). These studies assumed water chemistry is constant, and inlake variables such as water depth, sub- Stanley A. Nichols is a Professor of Environmental Sci¬ ences, University of Wisconsin-Extension. He is a bi¬ ologist at the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, and he is associated with the Environmental Resources Center and the Department of Liberal Studies at UW-Madison. Past articles in Transactions deal with aquatic plant resources in Wisconsin waters. strate type, fetch, sediment accumulation, light penetration, and water turbulence explain plant distribution. A second type concentrates on between-lake differences, which generally mean differences in water chemistry (Seddon 1972; Moyle 1945; Swindale and Curtis 1957; Pip 1979; Olsen 1950; Kadano 1982; and Lind 1976). Studies describing resource competition or allelopathy between aquatic plants are more limited and the results are not definitive (Agami and Waisel 1985; En¬ gel and Nichols 1984; Nichols 1984; Seddon 1972; McCreary et al. 1983; Titus and Ste¬ phens 1983). Interspecific association was used to group 54 aquatic plant species found in 68 Wis¬ consin lakes. This study builds on past stud¬ ies by using both inlake (ie., substate, depth, and interspecific interaction) and between- lake (i.e., water chemistry and water clarity) habitat variation to interpret species groupings. Methods and Analysis Between 1975 and 1983 detailed macro¬ phyte surveys were completed for 68 Wis¬ consin lakes (Appendix A). The lakes were sampled by Wisconsin Department of Nat- 111 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Fig. 1. Location of sampled lakes showing different lake types ural Resources (WDNR) field staff or by pri¬ vate consultants for the WDNR Office of In¬ land Lake Renewal. The primary purpose of the surveys was to design lake-management strategies or to collect benchmark limno¬ logical data. The lakes represent a broad range of Wis¬ consin lake types with regard to geographic distribution (Fig. 1), chemical and physical parameters, and human impact. Physical and chemical data were collected during macro¬ phyte sampling or were collected earlier as part of surface-water resource inventories of each county (Appendix A). Field methods To assure geographic coverage of a lake, sampling points were selected using a grid system. Grid size and the number of sam¬ pling points per lake varied with lake size; i.e., larger lakes contained more sampling points on a larger grid. All plants within a 2-m diameter circle around the sampling point were recorded and were assigned a 1-5 den¬ sity rank based on criteria established by les¬ sen and Lound (1962). Species not identified in the field were collected and sent to the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey for identification. Specimens were then sent to the University of Wisconsin-Madison herbarium as voucher specimens. Analysis Initially all taxa that were not identified to species except for Char a spp. and Nitella spp. and all taxa that had less than 15 total occurrences in the 8419 quadrats sampled were eliminated from further analysis. For the remaining species the joint occurrence in all quadrats for each species pair was summed, Cole’s index (Cox 1967) of asso¬ ciation was calculated (Appendix B), and chi- square was used to test the significance of the association. Bonferroni’s correction (Snedecor and Cochran 1980) was used to account for random co-occurrence in the data. A chi-square value of 20, corresponding roughly to p = 0.00001, was used to deter¬ mine significance of the association. This en¬ sured an experiment- wise error rate of 0.05. If a species did not have a significant asso¬ ciation with at least four species and an ab¬ solute sum of Cole’s index values of at least 1.5, it was eliminated from further consid¬ eration. Ward’s minimum variance cluster analysis (SAS 1985) was used to group the remaining 54 species. The absolute value of (Cole’s index- 1) was the distance measure used for clustering. This facilitated calcula¬ tions by changing all distances to positive values and by assigning larger numbers to more dissimilar species. An importance value for each species in each lake was calculated by multiplying relative species frequency by average ranked species density. Theoreti¬ cally, importance values could range from 0 to 500. Only sampling points with vegetation were used when calculating importance value. Lakes were also clustered using Ward’s minimum variance cluster analysis. The pa¬ rameters compared by cluster analysis were total alkalinity, pH, total phosphorus, spe¬ cific conductance, water color, secchi depth, chloride, free carbon dioxide, water fluctua¬ tion, and whether the water body was a lake 112 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants or reservoir. Lake clusters were compared to species clusters to examine patterns that might be attributable to habitat. Correlation of importance values across lakes for all species pairs with a Cole’s index greater than ±0.5 was used to determine whether there might be species interactions shown by differing species abundances. Both Cole’s index and correlation analysis test for association among species. Cole’s index tests association based only on the presence or absence of two species in a quadrat; corre¬ lation analysis tests association based on the abundance of two species in lakes where they occur together. Results Species commonness Ceratophyllum demersum is by far the most common species, occurring at nearly twice as many sampling points as the next most frequent species (Table 1). Only six other VdX'd —Chara spp., Elodea canadensis, Na- jas flexilis, Potamogeton zosteriformis , Val- lisneria americana and Myriophyllum exal- bescens — occurred at more than 10% of the sampling points (Table 1). More than one- third or 38 or the 111 taxa identified had less than 15 total occurrences. These species were eliminated from further consideration be¬ cause their Cole’s index could not be ade¬ quately tested using chi-square. Coleys Index of Association Of the remaining 73 species, Cole’s index showed that 19 species did not commonly associate with many species or at a very high level. These species (Table 1) were elimi¬ nated from the cluster analysis because they did not meet the arbitrary criteria of associ¬ ating with four other species and having an absolute sum of 1 .5 for Cole’s index values. However, it may be significant that they do not associate with other species. Potential causes for low association are discussed later. As might be expected from the most com¬ mon species, C. demersum was associated with the greatest number of species (Appendix B). It was associated with 38 other species. Chara spp., Brasenia schreberi, and Nymphaea odorata were associated with 25 or more species. C. echinatum, Megalodonta beckii, P. berchtoldii, P. diver sifolius, P. nodosus, P. oakesianus, P. pusillus, P. stric- tifolius, P. vaginatus, Ranunculus longiros- tris, Sagittaria latifolia, S. rigida, Typha la- tifolia, Utricularia geminiscapa, and U. intermedia showed only positive association with other species. Chara spp. was nega¬ tively associated with 20 species and had no positive associations greater than 0.5. Species clusters An analysis of pseudo F/pseudo t2 provides a guideline for determining optimum cluster numbers (SAS 1985). This ratio indicates that 45, 32, 1 1 , and 4 clusters might be optimum. It seems reasonable that there is more infor¬ mation about a cluster if the number of clus¬ ters is small and the species number per clus¬ ter is large. Therefore, for most purposes, four clusters (Fig. 2) were used to determine what adaptations, interactions, or habitat preferences might cause the groups to form. Each cluster could form for different reasons. Because of the individualistic nature of spe¬ cies, each cluster is not a unique entity that requires the rigid faithfulness of each species. Therefore, the clustering dendogram (Fig. 2) is included so that species associations can be examined without the constraint of the four-cluster classification structure. Analyzing the cause of species groups Correlation Analysis. No significant negative correlations between species pairs were found. Deciding whether a negative correlation was caused by competition, al¬ lelopathy, or unique and very different hab¬ itat requirements is, therefore, a moot point. Because macrophyte community dynamics that appear to be caused by species compe¬ tition and replacement of Chara spp. and Najas flexilis have been described (Nichols 1984; and Engel and Nichols 1984), and be- 113 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Table 1 . Species Occurrence % Quads % Lakes Species Occur Occur SPECIES OCCURRING SPECIES OCCURRING IN >15 QUADS BUT > 10% OF QUADS <1% OF QUADS Ceratophyllum demersum 34.1% 66.2% Ceratophyllum echinatum Chara spp. 18.5% 52.9% Dulichium arundinaceum Potamogeton zosteriformis 16.8% 60.3% Eleocharis acicularis Elodea canadensis 16.4% 67.6% * Eleocharis palustris Najas flexilis 14.0% 61.8% * Eleocharis robbinsii Vallisneria americana 13.8% 64.7% Eriocaulon septangulare Myriophyllum exalbescens 11.9% 41.2% * Isoetes echinospora Isoetes macrospora SPECIES OCCURRING IN 1 %— 1 0% OF QUADS * Lobelia dortmanna Potamogeton richardsonnii 8.9% 45.6% * Myriophyllum tenellum Myriophyllum verticillatum 8.8% 17.6% * Nuphar advena Potamogeton amplifolius 8.4% 64.7% Potamogeton diversifolius Potamogeton robbinsii 8.2% 29.4% * Potamogeton epihydrus Potamogeton pectinatus 8.0% 47.1% * Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton praelongus 7.4% 30.9% Potamogeton nodosus Nuphar variegatum 7.0% 57.4% Potamogeton oakesianus Nymphaea tuberosa 6.5% 38.2% * Potamogeton obtusifolius Myriophyllum spicatum 5.8% 13.2% Potamogeton strictifolius Heteranthera dubia 5.7% 38.2% Ranunculus longirostris Brasenia schreberi 5.1% 23.5% * Ranunculus reptans Potamogeton gramineus 4.9% 35.3% * Ranunculus trichophyllus Potamogeton crispus 4.7% 26.5% * Sagittaria graminea Nymphaea odorata 4.4% 25.0% Sagittaria latifolia Scirpus validus 4.2% 38.2% Sagittaria rigida Potamogeton natans 4.2% 41.2% * Scirpus americanus Lemna minor 4.2% 20.6% * Sparganium chlorocarpum Lemna trisulca 3.8% 14.7% Sparganium eurycarpum Potamogeton pusillus 3.3% 22.1% Utricularia intermedia Potamogeton foliosus 2.9% 13.2% * Zanichellia palustris Potamogeton illinoensis 2.4% 22.1% Megalodanta beckii 2.0% 13.2% * Pontederia cordata 1 .9% 29.4% Myriophyllum heterophyllum 1 .7% 2.9% * Nitella spp. 1 .7% 17.6% Wolfia Columbiana 1 .6% 4.4% Typha latifolia 1 .5% 27.9% Utricularia vulgaris 1 .5% 5.9% Spirodela polyrhiza 1 .4% 8.8% Potamogeton berchtoldii 1 .4% 7.4% Polygonum amphibium 1 .3% 8.8% * Zizania aquatica 1 .2% 13.2% Myriophyllum farwellii 1 .2% 1.5% Utricularia gibba 1.1% 1.5% * Najas marina 1.1% 4.4% Utricularia geminiscapa 1 .0% 2.9% Potamogeton vaginatus 1 .0% 2.9% TOTAL QUADS 8419 TOTAL 68 * Species deleted from cluster analysis because of low association 114 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants 0.00 Semi-partial R2 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 Chara spp. Scirpus validus Myriophyllum spicatum Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton gramineus Najas flexilis Potamogeton strictifolius Potamogeton illinoensis Eleocharis acicularis Erioeaulon septangulare Isoetes macrospora Myriophyllum exalbescens Potamogeton praelongus Potamogeton amplifolius Potamogeton robbinsii Nuphar variegatum Nymphaea tuberosa Polygonum amphibium Heteranthera dubia Potamogeton nodosus Potamogeton berchtoldii Vallisneria americana Megalodonta beckii Potamogeton richardsonii Myriophyllum verticillatum Utricularia geminiscapa Brasenia schreberi Potamogeton oakesianus Myriophyllum farwelli Utricularia gibba Utricularia intermedia Ceratophyllum echinatum Utricularia vulgaris Nymphaea odorata Dulichium arundinaceum Sagittaria rigida Myriophyllum heterophyllum Potamogeton natans Potamogeton pusillus Sparganium chlorocarpum Ceratophyllum demersum Potamogeton vaginatus Potamogeton foliosus Potamogeton crispus Elodea canadensis Sagittaria latifolia Typha latifolia Lemna minor WolJJia columbiana Potamogeton diversifolius Spirodela polyrim Lemna trisulca Potamogeton zosteriformes Ranunculus longirostris Fig. 2. Dendrogram of Ward’s Cluster Analysis 115 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters cause there are a great number of negative associations with Chara spp. (Appendix B), correlation analysis was further used to test the hypothesis that competition is the result of the combined importance of other species with Chara and N. flexilis rather than com¬ petition between individual species. The cor¬ relation between the importance of Chara spp. and all other species in a lake was sig¬ nificant (p<0.05) but low (r= -0.29, n = 68); the correlation between the importance of N. flexilis and all other species was not significant. Significant positive correlations were found between 23 species pairs (Fig. 3). The ma¬ jority of the species pairs belong to species Group III. There are no Group II species pairs; one Group I species pair and eight Group IV species pairs showed significant correlation. Most of the Group IV species involve small free-floating plants such as Lemna spp., Spirodela polyrhiza, and Wolf- fia columbiana. Later discussions will try to establish whether beneficial interactions or similarity in adaptations or habitat preference is the primary cause for positive correlations. Habitat preference. Median alkalinity, pH, specific conductance, secchi disk, and free C02 values were calculated for each spe¬ cies that occurred in five or more lakes. These values were compared across species groups (Fig. 4). In addition, species substrate pref¬ erence, turbidity tolerance, and median depth of growth (Nichols in prep.) were added to the figure. Group III species are found in the lowest alkalinity, pH, and conductivity waters of the four species groups. They are also found in the most clear waters. All species except Po- tamogeton oakesianus prefer soft substrate or show no substrate preference. All species are tolerant of turbid water, show no turbidity preference, or the preference is unknown. Group II species are found in more alkaline water with a higher pH and conductivity. They show little preference pattern for sub¬ strate or turbidity tolerance. There appears to be little difference in the chemical regime between Group I and Group IV species. These groups occupy the most alkaline and the highest conductivity waters. Group I species generally prefer hard sub¬ strates and non-turbid water or they show no preference. They are also found in the highest pH water. Group IV species prefer soft sub¬ strates, but the turbidity tolerance is mixed. Group IV is found growing in the most shal¬ low water, but the depth range is broad. The growth depth of the other three groups is similar. Relating species clusters to lake clus¬ ters. Various investigators have correlated the distribution of aquatic plant species with single environmental gradients (see intro¬ duction). Community type is more likely af¬ fected by a complex of interacting factors. However, analyzing and describing a com¬ plex habitat is difficult. To approach the problem, multivariate (i.e., Ward’s) cluster analysis was used to define three lake groups (Groups A, B, and C, Fig. 5). The lake groups are roughly geographically distributed in the state (Fig. 1). Total alkalinity and specific conductance are the two parameters that show the most unique distribution among the three groups (Fig. 5). Group A lakes are located in northeast and north-central Wisconsin. They are lowest in total alkalinity and specific conductance. Group B lakes are more scattered geograph¬ ically, but many are found in northwestern Wisconsin. They are medium in specific con¬ ductance and alkalinity. Group C lakes occur most frequently in southeastern Wisconsin. They have higher total alkalinity and specific conductance and lower maximum secchi and free C02 levels than the other two lake groups. The average importance value per species was compared for each species group in each lake group via a t-test (Table 2). Each species group — except for species Group II in lake Groups A and B and species Group III in lake Groups A and C — showed significantly different average importance in each lake group (experiment-wise p<0.05; see pre¬ vious reference to Bonferroni’s correction). The average importance of species in Groups 116 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants Char a spp . □ - Scirpus validus -□ Utricularia gibba Potamogeton oakesianus $> Brasenia schreberi Myriophyllum farwelli Utricularia intermedia Ceratophyllum echinatum Ceratophyllum demersum _ Lemna trisulca Lemna minor Potamogeton vaginatus ^ Spirodela polyrhiza Potamogeton diversifolius Wolfia Columbiana 1 unit □ Group I species Q Group III species /\ Group IV species Fig. 3. Species constellations based on positive correlations 117 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters TOTAL ALKALINITY GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV I - I I - (“[ +======)===] I - ( [====+=========) ] x (—[+===)===] - 1 - ,__x - 1 mg/1 CaC03 IIIIIIIIIIIIII 10 50 100 140 PH GROUP I I - [(====+==]—) - 1 GROUP II I - [==(=====+==]—)— - 1 GROUP III I - [(====+] - )i GROUP IV I ( - [==+========) =====]-• - 1 UNITS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6.8 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.4 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV I - ( - [ ===+========= )=] - 1 I - - - ([_+—)«] - 1 I“( - [+=======)===] - - - 1 I - (”[+==)===] - -I umhos/cm I 20 I I I I I 100 I I I I I 200 I I I I 300 SECCHI GROUP I I - ■-[(=+==)] - 1 GROUP II I - [==( + ) ] - 1 GROUP III I - ( — [=====+====] — )I GROUP IV I - [ (====+=====) ==] I m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1.2 2.0 3.0 FREE C02 GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III GROUP IV I - ([ + ) ] - 1 I - [=(==+==) ] - 1 I- ( [=====+=====) ====] — — - -I I - (-[===+====)=] - 1 mg/1 IIIIIIIIIIII 1.0 5.0 10.0 Fig. 4. Habitat values for species clusters I and IV increased from lake Groups A to C. The average importance for species Group III dropped from Group A to Group B and then increased slightly in Group C lakes. The av¬ erage importance of Group II species de¬ creased in Group C lakes. Species Group I and IV never showed significant differences between each other within the same lake group. The average importance within Group A lakes is very similar. Group II and Group III spe¬ cies are significantly different only in Group B lakes. This analysis supports results from the pre¬ vious section. Group III species prefer low alkalinity, low specific conductance habitats. Group II species prefer medium alkalinity and specific conductance habitats. The water chemistry preference between species Group I and IV are similar. Both prefer the highest alkalinity and specific conductance habitats. 118 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants DEPTH OF OCCURRENCE GROUP I !”■ - - - ( — [==+====)] - 1 GROUP II I” [== (==+==) =====] - -I GROUP III I - - - [(=+==)==] - - - 1 GROUP IV I — [ (================+================) ] - I Hi IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 TURBIDITY NUMBER OF SPECIES TOLERANT NO PREFERENCE INTOLERANT GROUP 10 2 GROUP II 5 4 GROUP III 5 1 GROUP IV 4 2 5 7 0 2 SUBSTRATE PREFERENCE NUMBER OF SPECIES HARD NO PREFERENCE SOFT GROUP 14 4 GROUP II 6 4 GROUP III 1 4 GROUP IV 0 3 0 8 9 7 Boxplot definitions follow Reckow and Chapra, 1983 I -Minimum or maximum, [-25% quartile, ] -75% quartile, () -notch, +-median. Fig. 4, continued Extreme caution is necessary when inter¬ preting these data. Char a spp. is so important in species Group I and C. demersum in spe¬ cies Group IV that the average importance of the group is largely influenced by these two species (Table 3). C. demersum is so pervasive that it is the most important species in Group A and B lakes even though it does not reach its maximum importance until lake Group C. Table 3 also shows how faithful each species is to the group preference. Discussion and Interpretation Non-associating species Species that meet the criteria for com¬ monness but show low association with other species tend to grow in monotypes or clumps in unique habitats that may not be conducive to more varied plant growth. Isoetes echinospora, Lobelia dortmanna, Myriophyllum tenellum, Rannunculus rep- tans, R. trichophyllus , Potamogeton epihy- drus, and P. obtusifolius are plants of soft, sterile water (Moyle 1945; Swindale and Curtis 1957) and hard bottoms (Nichols in prep.). Because they prefer similar habitats and in some cases have a similar growth form, it is surprising they do not associate with each other. However, it is not unusual for species of comparable growth form and habitat not to be found in the same lake (Seddon 1972) and not to associate with each other when they are found in the same lake (Carpenter and Titus 1984). Colonization pattern, co¬ lonial growth, or competition are plausible explanation for this segregation (Carpenter and Titus 1984). Seddon (1972) interprets this group as having a wide habitat tolerance 119 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters TOTAL ALKALINITY GROUP A I-[(+=)]— I GROUP B I— [(=+)]— I GROUP C I - [ (==+===)=] - - — — I mg/1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I CaC03 0 100 200 300 pH I GROUP A GROUP B ! - ‘c(=!=)3;--" - --1 x GROUP C i - [(+=)] - 1 ! UNITS iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. , 0 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE GROUP A I-[(+)]“I GROUP B I-[=(==+=]) - 1 GROUP C I- ([=+==) ] - - - — umhos/cm IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III 2 5°C 0 200 400 600 800 SECCHI GROUP A I “ [====== (=====+=====] ) — — - GROUP B I - — —[=(===+===)===] - - - -I i GROUP C I [ (====+=====) ] -I | m IIIIIIIIIII I I 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 FREE CO2 GROUP A 1“ ([=+==)===] - -I GROUP B I [=(==+===) ====] - - 1 GROUP C ![( + )] - — T“ I mg/1 IIIIIIIIIII 0 10 20 30 40 50 Boxplot definitions follow Reckow and Chapra,1983 I-Minimum or maximum, [-25% quartile, ]-75% quartile, ( ) -notch, +-median. Fig. 5. Limnological characteristics of lake groups but being excluded from more productive sites by competition rather than physiological lim¬ itation. Correlation analysis done in this study could not confirm competition, but these plants are so limited in distribution and have such a low importance value when they are found that correlation analysis does not provide an adequate test of their behavior. Zizania aquatica, Eleocharis palustris, E. robbinsii, Pontederia cordata and Scirpus americanus are emergent species that often grow in monotypes, in shallow water, and 120 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants Table 2 Lake Group Species A Group I 1.1 II 1.7 III 1.4 IV 1.5 B = 3.6 t-2.0 — p0.2 J L3.7 — L— 0.6- 5.1: Lake Group Species Group A B C 1 1 - 1.1 3.6 1 1 7.0 ... .1 II l - 1.7 2.0 1 °;8 III 1 - 1.4 l 0.2 1 0.6 1 IV 1 1 - 1.5 3.7 1 5.1 1 _ - _ 1 [ 1 ' = Experiment-wise t values significant at p<0.05 on beaches. Najas marina was found in three southeastern Wisconsin lakes with extremely high alkalinity and conductivity. It is possible that non-association could also be an artifact of the sampling procedure. Association analysis is sensitive to quadrat size (Grieg-Smith 1964). The sample area (i.e., a 2-m diameter circle) may not be ap¬ propriate for studying association in mono- typic or colonial growth patterns. Species interactions Despite laboratory studies (Agami and Waisel 1985) and field observations (Engel and Nichols 1984; Nichols 1984; Seddon 1972) that support competition among aquatic spe¬ cies, data from this study support observation by McCreary et al. (1983) and Titus and Ste¬ phens (1983), who found little competition among selected aquatic species in transplant experiments. The hypothesis that the positive correlation between species is the result of specific hab¬ itat requirements beneficial to both species is favored, especially for Group III species. Growth in soft water, typical of the habitat where Group III species are found, is de¬ pauperate and localized to areas of more fer¬ tile substrate (Moyle 1945). If all species in a lake are localized to a few areas of suitable substrate, their growth will appear corre¬ lated. All but one Group III species prefer soft sediments. A stronger case for a passive mutualism or commensalism could be made for the pos¬ itive correlation between Lemnaceae and other species. Larger species could provide pro¬ tection from wind, waves, and current for these small, free-floating plants. However, they are not correlated with species in other plant groups that would offer them as much protection as Group IV species, and they are correlated with each other. One Lemnaceae species does not provide much protection to another species, although they could be dis¬ tributed to the same location by wind or cur¬ rent. Specific habitat requirements, which will be discussed later, is the preferred explana¬ tion for the correlation among these species. Species-habitat groups The species groups formed appear to be the result of similar habitat preferences. Group III species were found in the lowest alkalinity, pH, and conductivity waters. Then- growth is depauperate and is likely due to the infertility of the water where they are commonly found. They generally prefer soft substrate. Except for Myriophyllum hetero- phyllum and Potamogeton pusillus, Group ID species show their best growth in Group A lakes. The preferred habitat for P. oakesi- anus, the only Group III species to prefer hard bottom, is sandy bottom, low alkalinity ponds (Hellquist 1980). The main difference between Group III species and the soft-water species that show no association is the pref¬ erence of Group III species for soft sub¬ strates. Although pH and water-color data are 121 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts and Letters Table 3. Average Importance Value (IV) of Species by Lake Group Group A Lakes Group B Lakes Group C Lakes Group Chara spp 1.7 7.8 36.0 1 Scirpus validus 0.5 0.5 3.1 Species Myriophyllum spicatum 1.9 10.6 6.1 Potamogeton pectinatus 0.0 1.8 4.9 Potamogeton gramineus 1.6 0.8 0.0 Najas flexilis 3.2 6.4 5.5 Potamogeton strictifolius 0.0 0.1 0.0 Potamogeton illinoensis 0.1 0.6 0.1 Group Ave. IV 1.1 3.6 7.0 Group Eleocharis acicularis 0.3 0.0 0.0 II Eriocaulon septangulare 0.6 0.0 0.0 Species Isoetes macrospora 0.5 0.0 0.0 Myriophyllum exalbescens 4.7 7.1 7.8 Potamogeton praelongus 0.9 1.4 4.5 Potamogeton amplifolius 3.4 3.0 0.0 Potamogeton robbinsii 5.3 4.5 0.0 Nuphar variegatum 7.8 1.2 1.0 Nymphaea tuberosa 0.7 1.8 0.6 Polygonum amphibium 0.2 0.4 0.0 Heteranthera dubia 0.1 1.7 1.0 Potamogeton nodosus 0.0 0.0 0.0 Potamogeton berchtoldii 0.1 0.1 0.0 Vallisneria americana 4.5 7.2 0.1 Megalodonta beckii 0.1 0.2 0.0 Potamogeton richardsonii 1.4 3.8 0.0 Myriophyllum verticillatum 0.0 4.0 0.1 Utricularia geminiscapa 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group Ave. IV 1.7 2.0 0.8 Group Brasenia schreberi 7.7 0.3 0.0 III Potamogeton oakesianus 0.0 0.0 0.0 Species Myriophyllum farwelli 1.5 0.0 0.0 Utricularia gibba 1.4 0.0 0.0 Utricularia intermedia 0.8 0.0 0.0 Ceratophyllum echinatum 0.1 0.0 0.0 Utricularia vulgaris 1.7 0.0 0.0 Nymphaea odorata 5.0 0.0 0.1 Dulichium arundinaceum 0.2 0.0 0.0 Sagittaria rigida 0.0 0.0 0.0 Myriophyllum heterophyllum 0.0 1.6 4.7 Potamogeton natans 0.3 0.9 0.8 Potamogeton pusillus 0.3 0.2 3.4 Sparganium chlorocarpum 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group Ave. IV 1.4 0.2 0.7 too scant to confirm it, Group III species ap¬ pear more characteristic of bog or dystrophic conditions than the non-associated, soft-water species. Group I and IV species are found in the highest pH, alkalinity, and conductivity waters. Water chemistry preference between the two groups is similar, but they are the two most dissimilar groups in regard to spe¬ cies association. Substrate preference and 122 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants Table 3 (continued). Average Importance Value (IV) of Species by Lake Group Group A Lakes Group B Lakes Group C Lakes Group Ceratophyllum demersum 12.0 25.0 31.9 IV Potamogeton vaginatus 0.0 0.0 0.8 Species Potamogeton foliosus 0.2 0.0 9.4 Potamogeton crispus 0.0 5.8 9.0 Elodea canadensis 6.2 12.1 2.9 Sagittaria latifolia 0.0 0.0 0.2 Typha latifolia 0.1 0.1 0.4 Lemna minor 0.4 0.4 4.5 Wolffia columbiana 0.2 0.0 2.8 Potamogeton diversifolius 0.0 0.0 0.3 Spirodela polyrhiza 0.2 0.2 0.8 Lemna trisulca 0.0 1.0 0.8 Potamogeton zosteriformis 2.0 7.8 7.7 Ranunculus longirostris 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group Ave. IV 1.5 3.7 5.1 turbidity tolerance are important differences between the groups. Lemna minor, L. trisulca, Wolffia Col¬ umbiana, and Spirodela polyrhiza are asso¬ ciated with Group IV species. Their free- floating habit gives them the ultimate turbid¬ ity tolerance; they are found in quiet water over fertile bottoms (Moyle 1945). Marl bottoms frequently have a flora of Chara spp., Najas flexilis, and Potamogeton pectinatus (Moyle 1945). These three species are associated in Group I and may represent the plant community found in the highest pH, alkalinity, and conductivity waters in Wisconsin. The habitat preference of Group II species are less well defined. They prefer interme¬ diate water chemistries and have mixed sub¬ strate and turbidity preference. There is no consistent pattern of habitat or adaptation that provides a good explanation for this group. For example, Eleocharis acicularis, Erio- caulon septangular e , and Isoetes macros - pora, which grow best in Group A lakes on hard substrate, and are often grouped with the unassociated, soft- water species (Moyle 1945; Swindale and Curtis 1957), are closely linked with Myriophyllum exalbescens and Potamogeton praelongus, which grow best in Group C lakes and prefer soft bottom but are not turbidity tolerant. Certainly there are growth-forms, adap¬ tations, or habitat preference that could be used as arguments to subdivide this group. The Nuphar variegatum, Nymphaea tuber - osa, and Polygonum amphibium are all float¬ ing leaved species that prefer soft substrate. Potamogeton nodosus, P. berchtoldii, and Vallisneria americana prefer hard substrate, but show mixed turbidity preference. Perhaps the best explanation is that Group II is an intermediate group that fits into the contin¬ uum concept of plant community structure (Curtis 1959) and is found in other studies of aquatic vegetation (Pip 1979; Moyle 1945). This study found that only a few taxa were commonly found in sampled lakes; a large number were infrequently found. Species groups can be explained by species adapta¬ tion and habitat preference. Many unasso¬ ciated species are found in low pH, alkalin¬ ity, and conductivity water, and on hard substrates. One associated group is also found in low pH, alkalinity, and conductivity water but is common on soft substrates and is tur¬ bidity tolerant. Two other groups are found in similar water chemistries. They prefer high pH, alkalinity, and conductivity waters. They appear to be separated by substrate prefer¬ ence and turbidity tolerance. A final plant 123 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters group is found in intermediate water chem¬ istries, but further reason for the groups’ ex¬ istence is not clear. Acknowledgments Murray Clayton, Peter Crump, and Em¬ manuel Maurice of the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences provided statistical and computing assistance. Sandy Engel and Richard Lillie of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources critically reviewed the manuscript. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provided lake vegetation and water chemistry data. The Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison provided partial funding for data entry and analysis. 124 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants Appendix A. Sampled Lakes* Lake Name County Lake Name County GROUP A LAKES GROUP B LAKES (CONT.) Allequash Lake Vilas Little Elkhart Lake Sheboygan Amnicon Lake Douglas Moon Lake Marinette Bear Lake Oneida Mount Morris Lake Waushara Bear Paw Lake Oconto Mud Hen Lake Burnett Chain Lake Chippewa Okauchee Lake Waukesha Clear Lake T39 R7S16 Oneida Pearl Lake Waushara Decorah Lake Juneau Pike Lake Polk Devils Sauk Pine Lake Waukesha Dowling Lake Douglas Rib Lake Taylor Enterprise Lake Langlade Rolling Stone Lake Langlade Frank Lake Vilas Round Lake Polk Half Moon Lake T47 R8S17 Bayfield Twin Lake, North Polk Island Lake Rusk Twin Lake, South Polk Little Arbor Vitae Lake Vilas White Ash Lake Polk Long Lake T20 R09S17 Waushara White Ash Lake, North Polk Long Lake T32 R8 S8 Chippewa McCann Lake Rusk GROUP C LAKES Mid Lake Oneida Muskellunge Lake Lincoln Ashippun Lake Waukesha Perch Lake T45 R7 S5 Bayfield Black Otter Lake Outagamie Pine Lake Forest Como Lake Walworth Pine Lake Chippewa Ennis Lake Marquette Post Lake, Upper Langlade Lazy Lake Columbia Prong Lake Vilas Leota Lake Rock Tahkodah Lake Bayfield Oconomowoc Lake, Upper Waukesha Town Line Lake Chippewa Ottawa Lake Waukesha Pigeon Lake Waupaca GROUP B LAKES Pretty Lake Waukesha Silver Lake (Anderson) T22 Waupaca Anodanta Lake Bayfield Tichigan Lake Racine Apple River Flowage Polk Vienna Lake (Honey) Walworth Balsam Lake Polk Big Butternut Lake Polk Big Hills Lake Waushara Blake Lake Polk Bone Lake Polk Cary Pond Waupaca Cedar Lake Polk Chute Pond Oconto Clear Lake Rusk George Lake Kenosha Half Moon Lake Polk Helen Lake Portage * PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PARAMETERS AVAILABLE FROM WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SURFACE WATER INVENTORY FILE 125 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Appendix B. Cole’s Index Values* APPENDIX B. COLE’S INDEX VALUES Species no. Chara spp. Brasenia schreberi Ceratophyllum demersum Ceratophyllum echinatum Dulichium arundinaceum Eleocharis acicularis 994 -0.85 1801 -0.64 1804 0 2515 0 2566 0 Elodea canadensis 2623 Eriocaulon septangulare 2800 Heteranthera dubia 3487 Isoetes macrospora 3697 Lemna minor 3937 Lemna trisulca 3943 Megalodonta beckii 4405 Myriophyllum exalbescens 4594 Myriophyllum farwellii 4597 Myriophyllum heterophyllum4600 Myriophyllum spicatum 4603 Myriophyllum verticillatum 4609 Najas flexilis 4618 Nuphar variegatum 4663 Nymphaea tuberosa 4666 Nymphaea odorata 4669 Polygonum amphibium 5263 Potamogeton amplifolius 5383 Potamogeton berchtoldi 5386 Potamogeton crispus 5395 Potamogeton diversifolius 5398 Potamogeton foliosus 5404 Potamogeton gramineus 5410 Potamogeton illinoensis 5413 Potamogeton natans 5416 Potamogeton nodosus 5419 Potamogeton oakesianus 5420 Potamogeton pectinatus 5422 Potamogeton praelongus 5425 Potamogeton pusillus 5431 Potamogeton richardsonii 5434 Potamogeton robbinsii 5437 Potamogeton strictifolius 5440 Potamogeton vaginatus 5443 Potamogeton zosteriformis 5449 Ranunculus longirostris 5710 Sagittaria latifolia 6088 Sagittaria rigida 6091 Scirpus validus 6304 Sparganium chlorocarpum 6664 Spirodela polyrhiza 6730 Typha latifolia 7078 Utricularia geminiscapa 71 1 4 Utricularia gibba 7117 Utricularia intermedia 7120 Utricularia vulgaris 7132 Vallisneria americana 71 77 Wolffia Columbiana 7450 -0.58 0 -0.54 0 -0.97 -0.80 0 0 -1.00 -0.96 0 0 0.09 0 -0.45 -0.88 -0.95 -0.41 0 0 0 -0.66 0 0 0 0.50 0 -1.00 0 0 -1.00 0 0 -1.00 994 -0.57 0.58 0.52 0.15 -0.66 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0 -0.88 -0.97 -0.61 0.17 0.16 0.34 0.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.83 0 -0.78 0.12 0 0 0 0 -0.69 0 0 0.35 0 0.53 0 0 0 0.66 0.79 0.70 -0.63 0 1801 0 -1.00 -0.90 0.35 -0.95 0.40 -0.95 0.83 0.71 0.28 0.19 -0.64 0.81 0 0.35 -0.52 0 0.16 0 -0.68 0 0.37 0.47 0.75 0.59 -0.41 0 0 0 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.17 0 0 0.98 0.35 0.78 0 0 -0.63 0 0.86 0 0.57 -0.72 0 -0.93 0 0.90 1804 2515 1 2566 0.39 1 2623 0 0.08 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.10 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.96 0.51 0 0 0.27 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0.40 0 0 0 0.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.42 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.67 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.84 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.49 0.20 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 -0.83 0.28 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.31 o o o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 0.43 0 -1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2800 3487 1 3697 0 1 3937 0.10 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.27 0 0.14 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 0 -0.84 0 0.14 0 -0.78 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 0 0 0 0.73 0 0 0 0.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.39 0 0.24 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 -0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82 0 0.17 0 0.24 0 0 0 0.30 0 0 0 0.46 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 0 0 0 0.41 0 0.35 0 0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 -0.67 0 0 0 0.90 3943 4405 1 4594 0.24 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.27 -0.74 0 0.17 -0.52 0 0 0 0.24 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 -0.73 0 0 0 0 0.10 -0.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.15 0 0 0.23 0.11 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.30 0.20 0.13 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.76 0 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0.30 0.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.27 0 0 4597 1 4603 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.24 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0.36 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 -0.78 0 0.36 0 0 0.17 -0.93 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.32 -0.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 0 0 0.70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 4663 0.13 1 4666 0 0 1 0i8 0 0.19 1 -1 oq-0.75 0 -1.00 ' o 0 0.37 0.42 0 0 0 0 017 0.26 0 0 ' q-0.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.00 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0.27 0 0 0 29 0 0 0.08 ' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0.18 0.06 0 0 0 -0.64 0 0.06 0 0 23 0.30 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0.09 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.79 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5263 5383 1 0 1 0 0 0 -0.76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.09 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.30 0 0 0 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0.08 0 0 SUM ABS. OF COLE'S INDEX** 17.9 14.7 22.6 4.8 4.3 1.5 7.8 2.4 3.6 1.5 11.6 4.8 4.0 4.4 4.3 3.7 5.0 8.7 7 2 NO. SPECIES ASSOC. WITH** 27 30 38 9 13 6 19 10 16 4 21 17 17 12 8 7 9 19 18 1.8 4.7 13.0 5.2 2.0 8 17 27 14 7 * Experiment wise significance at chi-square p<0.05 ** Columns will not add to these totals because of deleted species 126 Interspecific Associations of Some Wisconsin Lake Plants Appendix B (continued) 5263 5383 5386 5395 5398 5404 5410 5413 5416 5419 5420 5422 5425 5431 5434 5437 5440 5443 5449 5710 6088 6091 6304 6664 6730 7078 7114 7117 7120 7132 7177 7450 0 0.26 0.19 0 0.97 0 0.95 0.35 1 0 0.42 0.45 0 0 0.24 0.60 0.23 0 0.26 0.32 0 0.51 0.14 0.13 0 -0.67 0.33 1.8 7.7 4.4 4.9 2.1 0 0.13 0.08 0 0.29 0.25 4.2 1.5 2.8 3.6 6.0 4.4 5.1 5.2 1.6 6.0 8.5 2.7 3.3 26 6.7 3.7 5.5 3.1 10 15 17 16 13 13 10 13 10 7117 7120 0 7132 0.89 1 7177 0 0 1 7450 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5.1 3.1 8.6 5.9 5.6 9 5 13 16 11 127 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Works Cited Agami, M. and Y. Waisel. 1985. Inter-relationships between Najas marina L. and three other aquatic macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 126:169-173. Carpenter, S. R. and J. E. Titus. 1984. Compo¬ sition and spatial heterogeneity of submersed vegetation in a softwater lake in Wisconsin. Vegetatio 57:153-165. Cox, G. W. 1967. Laboratory manual of general ecology. Dubuque: W. C. Brown Co. 165 pp. Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press. 657 pp. Engel, S. and S. A. Nichols. 1984. Lake sediment alteration for macrophyte control. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 22:38-41. Grieg-Smith, P. 1964. Qualitative plant ecology . New York: Plenum Press. 256 pp. Hellquist, C. B. 1980. Correlation of alkalinity and the distribution of Potamogetons in New England. Rhodora 82:331-344. lessen, R. and R. Lound. 1962. An evaluation of survey techniques for submerged aquatic plants. Game Investigational Reports No. 6. Minn. Dept. Cons., St. Paul. 8 pp. Kadono, Y. 1982. Occurrence of aquatic macro¬ phytes in relation to pH, alkalinity, Ca+ + , C1-, and conductivity. Jap. J. Ecol. 32:39-44. Lind, C. T. 1976. The phytosociology of sub¬ merged aquatic macrophytes in eutrophic lakes of southeastern Minnesota. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Wis. -Madison. 81 pp. McCreary, N. J., S. R. Carpenter, and J. E. Cha¬ ney. 1983. Coexistence and interference in two submersed freshwater perennial plants. Oec- ologia 59:393-396. Mirsa, R. D. 1938. Edaphic factors in the distri¬ bution of aquatic plants in the English lakes. J. Ecol. 26:411-452. Moyle, J. B. 1945. Some chemical factors influ¬ encing the distribution of aquatic plants in Min¬ nesota. Am. Mid. Nat. 34:402-420. Nichols, S. A. 1971. The Distribution and Con¬ trol of Macrophyte Biomass in Lake Wingra. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Wis. -Madison. Ill pp. Nichols, S. A. 1984. Macrophyte community dy¬ namics in a dredged Wisconsin lake. Wat. Res. Bull. 20:573-576. Nichols, S. A. in prep. Depth, substrate and tur¬ bidity relationships of some Wisconsin lake plants. Olsen, S. 1950. Aquatic plants and hydrospheric factors. Svens. Bot. Tids. 44:1-34. Pip, E. 1979. Survey of the ecology of submerged aquatic macrophytes in central Canada. Aquat. Bot. 7:339-357. Reckow, K. H. and S. C. Chapra. 1983. Engi¬ neering Approaches for Lake Management. Volume I: Data Analysis and Empirical Mod¬ eling. Boston: Butterworth. 340 pp. SAS Institute Inc. 1985. SAS User’s Guide: sta¬ tistics, version 5 edition. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc. 956 pp. Schmid, W. P. 1965. Distribution of aquatic veg¬ etation as measured by line intercept with SCUBA. Ecology 46:816-823. Seddon, B. 1972. Aquatic macrophytes as lim¬ nological indicators. Freshwat. Biol. 2:107-130. Sheldon, R. B. and C. W. Boylen. 1977. Max¬ imum depth inhabitated by aquatic vascular plants. Am. Midi. Nat. 97:248-254. Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1980. Sta¬ tistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press. 506 pp. Spence, D. H. N. 1967. Factors controlling the distribution of freshwater macrophytes with particular reference to the lochs of Scotland. J. Ecol. 55:147-170. Swindale, D. N. and J. T. Curtis. 1957. Phyto¬ sociology of the larger submerged plants in Wisconsin lakes. Ecology 38:397-407. Titus, J. E. andM. D. Stephens. 1983. Neighbor influence and seasonal growth patterns for Val- lisneria americana in a mesotrophic lake. Oec- ologia 56:23-29. Wilson, L. R. 1937. A quantitative and ecological study of larger plants of Sweeney Lake, Oneida County, Wisconsin. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 64:199-208. Wilson, L. R. 1941. The larger vegetation of Trout Lake, Vilas County, Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Letts. 33:135-146. 128 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters was chartered by the State Legislature on March 16, 1870, as an incorporated society serving the people of Wisconsin by encouraging investigation and dissemination of knowledge of the sciences, arts, and letters. 1990 WISCONSIN ACADEMY COUNCIL Officers Councilors Katharine Lyall, President, Madison Robert Swanson, President-elect, Menomonie Buzz Ostrorri , Past-President, Madison Susan Nurrenbem, Vice President-Sciences, Menomonie Brad Faughn, Vice President-Arts, Wausau William Urbrock, Vice President-Letters, Oshkosh Pat Blankenburg, Secretary /Treasurer, Madison Mildred Larson, Eau Claire Terrance MacTaggart, Superior John Barlow, Appleton William Blockstein, Madison Gary Rohde, River Falls Dan Neviaser, Madison Terry Haller, Madison William Stott, Jr., Ripon Councilor Emeritus _ John Thomson, Mount Horeb MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION Associate Member Receives Transactions and Inside the Academy Annual Member Receives Transactions, Inside the Academy, and the Wisconsin Academy Review Supporting Member Receives all publications Sustaining Member Patron Member Receives all publications and other benefits Life Member Receives all publications and other benefits $25 annual dues $40 annual dues $100 annual dues $200 annual dues $500 annual dues $1,000 (one lifetime payment) Your membership will encourage research, discussion, and publication in the sciences, arts, and letters of Wisconsin. Please send dues payment along with name and address to: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 1922 University Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53705-4099 608/263-1692 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Steenbock Center 1922 University Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53705 Telephone 608 263-1692 .. X- i I'f Chippewa Treaty Rights Ronald N. Satz The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Notice to the Reader On May 20, 1991, while this study was in the final stages of publi¬ cation, the six Wisconsin Chippewa bands and the state of Wisconsin agreed to accept Judge Barbara Crabb’s Final Judgment (see Appendix 7) in the Chippewa treaty rights litigation. Appendix 8 reprints the joint letter to 4 ‘The People of Wisconsin’ ’ from the six Wisconsin Chippewa tribal chairs accepting Crabb’s judgment; Appendix 9 contains the statement issued by Attorney General James E. Doyle, Jr. (Documents courtesy of Howard Bichler.) Cover art: Spearing at Torchlight, by Paul Kane. This oil on canvas painting of Indians fishing on the Fox River illustrates a technique widely used by Indians in Wisconsin. Courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada. Chippewa Treaty Rights The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective RONALD N. SATZ with the assistance of Laura Apfelbeck, Jason Tetzloff, Anthony Gulig, Timothy Spindler, Tracy Hemmy, and Laura Evert Foreword by Rennard Strickland Transactions Vol. 79, No. 1 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Transactions is published annually by the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters and welcomes articles that explore features of the State of Wisconsin and its people. Manuscripts, queries, and other correspondence should be addressed to the editor. Editor Carl N. Haywood 134 Schofield Hall University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701 Managing Editor Patricia Allen Duyfhuizen © 1991 The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Manufactured in the United States of America All Rights Reserved ISSN 0084-05.05 For my wife, Christa, and our children, Ani and Jakob Contents List of Illustrations and Maps vii From the Editor ix Foreword by Rennard Strickland xi Preface and Acknowledgments xv Notes to the Reader on Usage xix 1 Early Chippewa-U. S. Relations 1 2 The 1837 Pine Tree Treaty 13 3 The 1842 Copper Treaty 33 4 The Removal Order and the Wisconsin Death March 51 5 Reservations Replace Removal 61 6 The Curtailment of Treaty Rights 83 7 The Continuing Pursuit of Justice 91 8 The White Backlash and Beyond 101 9 Conclusion: An Agenda for the Future 125 Appendices Introduction 129 1/Joumal of the 1837 Proceedings 131 2/Treaty of July 29, 1837 155 3 A/Robert Stuart’s Report of October 28, 1842 159 Appendices, continued 3B/Robert Stuart’s Remarks of November 19, 1842 163 3C/Robert Stuart’s 1844 Report on the 1842 Proceedings 165 4/Treaty of October 4, 1842 171 5/Henry C. Gilbert’s Explanation of the 1854 Treaty 177 6/Treaty of September 30, 1854 181 7/Final Judgment of Judge Barbara Crabb, March 19, 1991 187 8/Chippewa Acceptance of Judge Barbara Crabb’ s Final Judgment May 20, 1991 193 9/State of Wisconsin’s Acceptance of Judge Barbara Crabb ’s Final Judgment May 20, 1991 195 End Notes 199 Bibliography and Sources Cited 209 VI List of Illustrations and Maps Fig. 1. Indians Spearing Fish in Winter by Seth Eastman Fig. 2. Gathering Wild Rice by Seth Eastman Fig. 3. Indian Sugar Camp by Seth Eastman Fig. 4. View of the Great Treaty Held at Prairie du Chien , Septem¬ ber 1825 by James Otto Lewis Fig. 5. The Great Seal of the Territory of Wisconsin by William Wagner Fig. 6. Henry Dodge , Governor and Superintendent of Indian Af¬ fairs for Wisconsin Territory by James Bowman Fig. 7. Chippewa Land Cessions 1837-1854 by Sean Hartnett Fig . 8 . Ojibwa Portaging Around the Falls of St. Anthony by George Gatlin Fig. 9. Ojibwa Chief Flat Mouth, 1855 Fig. 10. Treaty of 1837 Fig. 11. Ancient Mining on Lake Superior by J. C. Tidball Fig. 12. Treaty of 1842 Fig. 13. Robert and Elizabeth Stuart Fig. 14. Proclamation of 1842 Treaty by President John Tyler Fig .15. Drunken Frolic Among the Chippewas by Peter Rindisbacher Fig. 16. Symbolic Petition of Chippewa Chiefs, 1849 by Seth Eastman Fig. 17. Alexander Ramsey, Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Minnesota Territory Fig. 18. President Zachary Taylor's Executive Order of February 6, 1850 Fig. 19. Portrait of Chief Buffalo Fig. 20. The City of Superior, 1856 by P. S. Duval and Son Fig. 21. Chippewa Delegation in Washington, 1852 Fig. 22. Treaty of 1854 Fig. 23. Chippewa Reservations in Wisconsin by Sean Hartnett Fig. 24. Logging Scene on the Lac Courte Oreille s Reservation, 1909 Fig. 25. An Annuity Payment Scene at La Pointe by Charles A. Zimmerman Fig. 26. Indian School in the Vicinity of Hayward, 1880s Fig. 27. New Testament in Ojibwa Language, 1875 Fig. 28. An Indian Farmer Preparing a Seed Bed, c. 1930 Fig. 29. Chippewa Herbalist and Family in Rice Lake, 1916 vii Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 30. Chippewa Woman Preparing Splints for Basket-making, c. 1925 Fig. 31. Hunting in Winter on Snow shoes by Charles A. Zimmerman Fig. 32. Ojibwa Ceremony at the Wisconsin State Fair, 1906 Fig. 33. Chippewa Soldier from Hayward in World War 1 Uniform Fig. 34. Treaty Beer by Jason Tetzloff Fig. 35. Spear This! Fig. 36. A Cartoonist Talks to an Anti-Treaty Protester by Joe Heller Fig . 37 . Tribal and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Game Wardens at Work, 1990 by Jason Tetzloff Fig. 38. Chippewa White-Tailed Deer Harvests, 1983-90 Fig. 39. Chippewa Muskellunge Harvests, 1985-90 Fig. 40. Chippewa Walleye Harvests, 1985-90 Fig. 41. Stop Putting Your Head Under That Poor Man's Club by Bill Sanders Fig. 42. Thomas Maulson, Walleye Warrior by Mary Beth Berg Fig. 43. Centuries-Old Indian Tradition! Centuries-Old White Tra¬ dition by Steve Sack. viii From the Editor “I think I have it figured out. I could write about a ten page introduction and you could publish the findings . . . Professor Ronald Satz was responding to my previous encouragement, which admittedly bordered on nagging, for an article on the Chippewa treaty controversy. When he proceeded to add that he could have the manuscript completed in two weeks, it appeared that the long sought article would fit nicely in the 1990 volume of Transactions. One year, two hundred pages, several maps, and over forty illustrations later, what started as a brief article in¬ troducing several documents pertaining to Chippewa treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854 has developed into the most comprehensive analysis of the Chippewa treaty rights in existence. It includes a comprehensive bibliography, original documents not previously available, new maps, and careful analysis. Ronald N. Satz is dean of Graduate Studies, director of University Research, director of the Center of Excellence for Faculty and Undergraduate Student Research Collaboration, and professor of American Indian History at the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire. The author of numerous publications including American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era and Tennessee’ s Indian Peoples, Dr. Satz has served on the editorial advisory boards of scholarly presses and journals including that of the American Indian Quarterly. He has taught courses on various aspects of American Indian history at the University of Maryland, the University of Tennessee at Martin, and at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. In 1989, he taught a statewide University of Wisconsin-Extension Educational Teleconference Network Course on Chippewa Treaty Rights in Historical Perspective. Dr. Satz is among a small number of non-Indians whose biographical sketches are included in Barry T. Klein’s Ref¬ erence Encyclopedia of the American Indian, 5th ed. (1990). Laura Apfelbeck served as a graduate editorial assistant to Dean Satz while a candidate for an M.A. degree in English at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Jason Tetzloff, Anthony Gulig, and Timothy Spindler worked as graduate research assistants while candidates for M.A. degrees in history at the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire. Tracy Hemmy and Laura Evert worked on this project as undergraduate research assistants in the Center of Excellence for Faculty and Undergraduate Stu¬ dent Research Collaboration at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. The members of the staff of Transactions and the author and his assistants have worked hard to produce this book. It still would not have been possible, however, without the support of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, and especially its Executive Director, LeRoy Lee, whose encouragement is appreciated by all. We believe that this book should be read by everyone who seeks to understand the topic. It will shed light on serious issues and do much to abolish ignorance which, as pointed out by Isidore of Seville, “engenders error and nourishes vice.’’ It is in this spirit that we recommend this book to all readers. Carl N. Haywood IX Foreword Rennard Strickland Professor of Law and Director , American Indian Law and Policy Center The University of Oklahoma “One barrier that American Indians have long faced ... is that public understanding of their core issues comes slowly. Special Indian rights are complex and history based, emerging from the deep past .... In every instance, the Indian position is fragile because it finally depends on the willingness of opinion leaders in the majority society to learn about the experience of another people .... The historical search I suggest is not done out of guilt or romance; it is not a sentimental exercise. Rather, an understanding of a people and their social, legal, and economic experience ought to be reached because it is the essential basis for judging what wise policy ought to be and for assessing how the rule of law ought to operate.” Charles F. Wilkinson Oliver Rundell Lecturer The School of Law University of Wisconsin-Madison April 19, 1990 Knowing and understanding the rights of American Indians is not an easy task. These are complex and historically based issues emerging not from the whims of contemporary politicians but from the historical obligations of the deep past. Learn¬ ing about these rights is an historical search, not a sentimental journey. These are questions of law not questions of charity. Indian law and Indian history are opposite sides of the same coin. One cannot be understood in isolation. Perhaps more than any other field of American jur¬ isprudence, American Indian rights are deeply rooted in ancient ways and his¬ torical bargains. The aboriginal inhabitants of the American continents are the original sovereigns. As such, they retain rights that long predate the coming of more recent sovereigns such as our modern national or individual states. The United States Supreme Court has long held that Indian tribes, as sovereigns, hold a unique and significant place in American law with historically rooted rights. The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters performs an important service in making available this work, which is the first product of an ongoing research project on Wisconsin Chippewa treaty rights being conducted by Graduate School Dean and Professor of American Indian History Ronald N. Satz and a group of students at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. This is an important study that shows the significance of historical research in the service of public policy. xi Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Not only does Chippewa Treaty Rights : The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’ s Chip¬ pewa Indians in Historical Perspective provide access to important documents reprinted in the Appendices, but it also helps analyze the historical background of current Wisconsin treaty rights controversies in terms of these documents. In ad¬ dition, there is a splendid bibliography for those who want to explore the question in even greater depth. Publication of Chippewa Treaty Rights addresses the significant challenge presented by Professor Charles Wilkinson in the Rundell Lectures at the Uni¬ versity of Wisconsin-Madison. It does so by providing, in one convenient vol¬ ume, the materials needed to study and understand the important issue of reserved Indian treaty rights. There is no longer a serious legal question about these Indian rights. The legal status of Chippewa reserved rights is clearly established. As the title of this study suggests, these are rights the tribes continue historically to possess. As the courts have recognized, the treaties did not create Chippewa hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. These rights have always belonged to the Chippewas, who reserved them in their treaties with the United States. Now, thanks to Dean Satz and his students, these documents are available for all citizens who take seriously the task of understanding the historical journey of the people we call the Chippewas. Every year, for tens of thousands of years, the lakes of northern Wisconsin have slowly shed their winter covering of ice. As spring drives out the bitter cold, the walleye and muskellunge that live in those lakes celebrate this thawing by moving out of the depths and spawning in the clear, gravel-bottomed shallows. For hundreds of years people in boats, using spears, have taken some of those fish back to their families — a satisfying confirmation that another winter has passed. For these native people, the Chippewas, time is cyclical: the seasons pass and return, the fish spawn and then return. For centuries, the people themselves returned each spring to harvest fish — the seasons, the fish, and the people bound together in a continuing cycle dictated by nature. Illegally prevented by the State of Wisconsin from harvesting their fish for almost 80 years, the cycle has finally returned for the Chippewas; 150-year-old promises made in exchange for land title are once again being kept. After years of enforced absence, the Chippewas again gather when the ice breaks to fish from boats with spears. United States courts have now proclaimed and sustained these ancient rights reserved by the Chippewas. But the soft, cyclical, pace of nature has been replaced by another, discordant way of measuring time. The peaceful harvest of fish by the Chippewas is threatened by non-Indians who barrage the peaceful fishers with rocks and insults, and who use large motorboats trailing anchors to capsize the boats of the fishers. Because of this, the State of Wisconsin has pressured the Chippewas to give up their ancient rights to fish off their reservations. This pressure has sometimes been applied indirectly, sometimes directly, but always upon the Chippewas. And all because a small group, often acting illegally, creates disturbances in opposition to the Chip¬ pewas ’ federally recognized legal rights. The Chippewas now prepare for another spring. And just as spring rekindles life, the Chippewas rekindle the hope that their neighbors will come to respect the reality of their sovereignty, their culture, and their rights. A reading of the historical xii Chippewa Treaty Rights analysis and documents in this book should help all of us understand and appreciate Wisconsin Indian treaty rights. Understanding does not come easily, but it is es¬ sential to preservation of the rights of all of us — Indian and non-Indian alike. Preface and Acknowledgements The purpose of this book is to present an overview of the history of Chippewa- United States relations leading to the treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854 and to examine the consequences of those agreements for Chippewa and for non-Indian residents of Wisconsin and for the State of Wisconsin. After the State of Wisconsin denied Chippewas their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in ceded territory for most of the twentieth century, the Chippewa Indians have recently won court decisions recognizing their reserved treaty rights. Many non-Indian Wisconsinites have been surprised to learn that rights reserved by the Chippewa Indians during nineteenth century treaty negotiations are still valid today. This study examines the course of events leading to the recent court decisions and reviews the white backlash to Chippewa legal victories. Appendices 1 through 6 provide transcriptions of nineteenth-century documents that have shaped the course of Chippewa- American relations, and Appendices 7 through 9 reprint documents issued in 1991 that are shaping the future direction of those relations. It is my hope, as Gary Sandefur of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Native American Studies Program has as¬ serted, that “if more people in Wisconsin knew the history of Indians in the state, if more people knew how much Indians were forced to give up, and if more people knew about the historical symbolic significance of treaty rights, the misunderstand¬ ing over treaty rights and the resentment against Indians would quickly disappear’ ’ (< Capital Times 1989a). Chippewa Treaty Rights had its beginnings during the summer of 1989 when Richard Florence and Denise Sweet of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Arts and Sciences Outreach Office suggested that I develop and teach an evening course on Chippewa treaty rights. At the time, I had been engaged in research on Chippewa history for about a year, but it was really a phone call that I received while discussing treaty rights on an interview and call-in radio program for WOJB FM in Hayward a few months earlier that prompted me to agree to offer a course. A caller had asked if the Chippewa treaties actually contained a provision des¬ ignating any group of ten or more Indians leaving a reservation together as a war party that could be fired upon by whites in self-defense without criminal penalty. Tensions were running high in northern Wisconsin at the time of the call, and I had already heard several students in Eau Claire ask the same ludicrous question. As a result of the obvious need for accurate information about the Chippewa treaties, I decided to develop a course entitled Chippewa Treaty Rights in Historical Per¬ spective, which I taught during the fall semester over the statewide Educational Teleconference Network (ETN) in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin- Extension Office in Madison. The course attracted considerable attention throughout the state (Milwaukee Journal 1989e; Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1989). Larry Peterson, chair of the anti-treaty rights group Protect Americans’ Rights and Re¬ sources (PARR), announced at a press conference in Park Falls in August that he planned to take the course “to learn” (Park Falls Herald 1989). For the record, he was not among the students who enrolled. While the course was in progress, Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters editor Carl Haywood asked me to write an article on the topic for the 1990 xv Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters edition of Transactions. I agreed to do so, but the article eventually became book- length as I responded enthusiastically to Haywood’s recommendation that I provide as much information and documentation as possible. I am very grateful to Haywood who, together with retired educator Veda Stone and University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire History Department Chairs Jack Lauber and Thomas Miller, has been a constant source of encouragement during all stages of the preparation of this study. Transactions' managing editor, Patricia Allen Duyfhuizen offered many valuable suggestions in the final preparation of the manuscript; her undergraduate intern, Lise Hanson, helped in proofreading. In undertaking this project, I became indebted to many people. I especially want to acknowledge the contributions of my cheerful, talented, and hardworking student assistants. English graduate student Laura Apfelbeck, editorial assistant in the School of Graduate Studies and Office of University Research, was involved in the project from its inception. She transcribed documents for inclusion in the Appendices, commented on all drafts of the manuscript, and assisted the Transactions staff in preparing the final draft for publication. In addition to benefiting from her editorial expertise and attention to detail, everyone involved in the project appreciated Laura’s dedication and keen wit. History graduate students Jason Tetzloff, Tony Gulig and Timothy Spindler served as research assistants and transcribed materials for the Appendices. I especially enjoyed their company and conversation on the numerous trips between Eau Claire and the State Historical Society of Wisconsin in Madison. Jason and Tony also commented on early drafts of the manuscript and continued to provide assistance even when they were no longer officially working on the project. Undergraduate assistant Tracy Hemmy transcribed documents for the Ap¬ pendices and provided assistance with wordprocessing. Undergraduate assistant Laura Evert conducted library research during the final stages of the project and checked the bibliographical citations for accuracy. The team spirit, enthusiasm, and dedication exhibited by these students is greatly appreciated. Students in my un¬ dergraduate and graduate Indian history courses at the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire also contributed to this study by raising questions that led me to inves¬ tigate various facets of the history of Chippewa reserved treaty rights. I want to thank University of Oklahoma Law School professor Rennard Strick¬ land, attorney Howard J. Bichler of the Office of Tribal Attorney of the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, my University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire colleagues education professor Richard St. Germaine and history professor James Oberly, and University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point history professor David Wrone for reading and commenting on early drafts of this work. Helen Hombeck Tanner, editor of the Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History, answered queries regarding nineteenth century Chippewa villages. Numerous individuals kindly shared resource materials. University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Vine Deloria, Jr. drew my attention to the 1934 Indian Congress at Hayward and provided a photocopy of the proceedings and other relevant information. Biological Services Director Thomas R. Busiahn and Ad¬ ministrative Assistant Leanne Thannum of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) provided data on Chippewa off-reservation hunting and fishing harvests as did Michael Staggs of the Bureau of Fisheries Management of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Charles Pils of the Bureau of Wildlife Management of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Indian xvi Chippewa Treaty Rights educator James La Goo of the Milwaukee Area Technical College provided a photocopy of his collection of newspaper clippings on treaty rights issues. Eau Claire Leader-Telegram city editor Doug Mell, News from Indian Country editor Paul DeMain, and Wisconsin State Journal assistant city editor David Stoeffler in Madison answered several inquiries relative to media coverage of the treaty rights issue and helped me to locate pertinent articles, as did circulation manager Eric Erickson of the Ashland Daily Press and GLIFWC public information officer as¬ sistant Lynn Spreutels. A note of thanks is also offered to the scholars who shared copies of their unpublished research papers; their papers are listed in the Bibliography. Andy Kraushaar of the Iconographic Department at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin provided valuable assistance in locating illustrations and providing background information. Realty Specialist Carole Kraft of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Lakes Agency in Ashland, Wisconsin provided information on tribal and allotted lands prepared under the direction of Agency Superintendent Robert R. Jaeger. I am indebted to University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (UWEC) geography professor Sean Hartnett for producing all the maps for this study. Also at UWEC, Director Charles Brenner and systems programmer Robin Niemeyer of the Office of Academic Computing Services, office automation coordinator Paul Eckardt of the Office of Information Management, and undergraduate business student David Ingle rendered invaluable technical assistance at critical stages in the preparation of the final draft. Robert M. Kvasnicka and Milton Gustafson of the National Archives and Records Service in Washington, D.C. and Susan Karren of the National Archives — Great Lakes Region in Chicago greatly facilitated my research as did staff members at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Com¬ munity College, the Law Library and the Continuing Education and Outreach Office of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Law, the Library of Congress, the McFarlin Library of the University of Tulsa, the UWEC McIntyre Library, the UWEC Media Development Center, the Minnesota Historical Society, the Newberry Library, and the Oklahoma Historical Society. A special note of thanks to UWEC librarian Kathleen Henning for expediting the process of obtaining materials on interlibrary loan and for keeping me informed of all works on American Indians, treaty rights issues, and federal Indian policy that came across her desk. Funding for the Wisconsin Chippewa Treaty Rights Research Project, which enabled me to gather information for this publication, was provided by the UWEC Center of Excellence for Faculty and Undergraduate Student Research Collaboration and the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Foundation, Inc. The project is still in progress, and I encourage readers with knowledge of any pertinent manuscripts or other primary source materials not included in my Bibliography to contact me in care of the School of Graduate Studies and Office of University Research at UWEC. Finally, I wish to express my deepest thanks and appreciation to my wife Christa and to our daughter Ani and son Jakob for their support, encouragement, and patience. They gently reminded me, as the research for what I said would be a short article on Chippewa reserved treaty rights became a project that consumed my evenings, weekends, holidays, and vacations, that they too have certain reserved rights, which they intend to invoke now that this book is finished! Ronald N. Satz Eau Claire, Wisconsin XVII Notes to the Reader on Usage Throughout the text I have used “Indians” rather than “Native Americans” to designate Chippewa or other American natives because, as historian James Axtell has observed, the former term is “simpler, sanctioned by tradition, normatively neutral, and preferred by the vast majority of native peoples themselves, past and present” (Axtell 1986, xi). I have used “Chippewa” to refer to the people of the various Ojibwa-speaking bands and have restricted the use of the term Ojibwa to the language itself except in the captions for illustrations where I have used which¬ ever term appears in the actual title of the work depicted. Following contemporary usage rather than nineteenth-century convention, I refer to the collective members of Chippewa bands as “Chippewas” not “Chippewa.” Since information in parentheses and brackets appears in many of the quotations from original sources, I have used braces { } throughout the book for any information I have supplied. Any italics or underlining used in direct quotations are those found in the original material unless otherwise noted. Indian names are frequently spelled in a variety of ways in nineteenth century documents and misspelled names of non-Indians and other words also frequently occur in these sources. In order to avoid distracting the reader, I have not used {s/c} or corrected misspelled words if the meaning of the words or the identity of the individual is obvious from the context. I have used {s/c} only if failure to do so might lead one to suspect a printing error, such as when a letter is missing. Also for the sake of the reader, I have sometimes used modem town, river, and state names, without the awkward prefix “present-day,” to locate historical events. To assist the reader in locating sources cited in the Bibliography, the author’s name, the date, and the page numbers of each source appear in parentheses in the text. Information has been deleted only when the portion omitted appears as part of the text immediately preceding the citation or when there is no other work by that author or another author with the same last name listed in the Bibliography. The only exceptions to the use of this format for citations appear in captions to some of the figures because permission to reprint illustrations was usually contingent upon the inclusion of specific information. Where I refer to a document that can be found in the Appendices, the Appendix number will appear in italics after the usual parenthetical bibliographic citation. Frame numbers are provided instead of page numbers for items on microfilm. Any information I have added to a document in the Appendices is included in braces { } to set it off from parenthetical or bracketed comments by the author of the document. Finally, I want to emphasize that the use of normatively loaded words such as “barbarism,” “civilized,” and “savage” that appear in the text should not be viewed as my characterizations but as those of the United States officials or other American citizens about whom I am writing. xix " Early Chippewa- U. S. Relations 1 The Chippewa (also known as the Ojibwa or Anishinabe) Indians of present- day Wisconsin are the descendants of a northern Algonquian people who lived in an extensive area, mainly north of Lakes Superior and Huron. These people began migrating across the Great Lakes region long before Europeans arrived (Rit- zenthaler 1978, 743). Early settlements at Sault Ste. Marie, L’Abre Croche, Mack¬ inac, L’Anse, Green Bay, and Fond du Lac preceded the establishment of other villages in what are today the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota as European trade penetrated into the Great Lakes region and drew the Indians from the backwoods and upriver areas to the points of trade (Keller 1978, 2; James 1954, 19; Mason 1988, 94). By the early decades of the nineteenth century, according to anthropologist Harold Hickerson, more than three thousand Chippewas occupied seven large autonomous village centers extending from Red Lake in present-day Minnesota on the northwest to Lac du Flambeau in Wisconsin on the east. Three of these centers — those at Red Lake, Leech Lake, and Sandy Lake — were in Minnesota while the Snake River and Yellow River settlements were on branches of St. Croix River in the Minnesota- Wisconsin border region. Another two centers were in Wisconsin at Lac Courte Oreilles and Lac du Flambeau. In addition to the seven village centers, about one thousand Chippewas lived in numerous smaller villages, each with a population of only one hundred to one-hundred fifty people, located near one or another of the larger settlements (Hickerson 1962, 12-13). Hickerson’ s population estimates may be on the conservative side. Nineteenth- century Indian agent and pioneer ethnologist Henry Rowe Schoolcraft reported there were more than seventy-three hundred Chippewas living along the southern shores of Lake Superior and the sources of the Mississippi River in the mid- 1820s (1828, 98). The dearth of reliable population statistics for Indian communities in early nineteenth-century America is a perplexing problem, but there appears to be agree¬ ment among scholars that the bulk of the Chippewa population at the time of European penetration into North America was in Canada and that this population pattern has continued into the twentieth century. The Chippewa country in the United States and Canada encompasses an expanse of land from the eastern end of Lake Ontario westward to the vicinity of Lake Winnepeg in Manitoba and the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota, a range greater than that of any other Indian people in North America (Ritzenthaler 1978, 743; Tanner 1976, 1-4). Like all Indian peoples in North America, the Chippewas lived close to nature. Their traditional lifestyle involved a seminomadic existence in heavily forested regions through which the Indians traveled, depending on the season, by canoe on the numerous lakes and rivers or by toboggans and snowshoes. Primarily hunters and trappers, this forest people also fished the streams (Fig. 7), gathered wild rice in the rivers (Fig. 2), and tapped trees to make maple sugar (Fig. 3); their lives 1 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 1 . Indians Spearing Fish in Winter. A drawing by Seth Eastman, from Francis S. Drake, ed., The Indian Tribes of the United States , Vol. 1 (1884). Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(w6)13551 revolved around these differing subsistence activities according to the changing seasons. Hunting and fishing were such esteemed occupations that a Chippewa boy’s first success in each was publicly acknowledged. Chippewa religious beliefs emphasized the existence of spirits in both animate and inanimate objects and guided the Indians in their use of resources (McKenney and Hall {1838}, 99; Ritzenthaler 1978, 746-47; Danziger 1979, 9-14; State Historical Museum 1990-91; Johnston 1990, 66; Vecsey 1983, 10-11, 59-63). As Europeans ventured into the upper Great Lakes region in the seventeenth century, they introduced such goods as guns, ammunition, metal traps and ket¬ tles, and manufactured blankets — simplifying the lives of the Chippewas but also making them increasingly dependent on the traders who supplied these goods. Rapidly, Chippewa culture shifted from the stone-bone- wood-pottery materials made by Indians to metal replacements made by Europeans. As the gun replaced the bow, hunting and warfare intensified. Chippewa incursions into Sioux hunting territories to the West increased.1 By the mid-eighteenth century, scattered bands of Lake Superior Chippewas controlled the region west of the Keweenaw Peninsula as far as the upper Mississippi Valley, but they had to fight to maintain their control. Continual warfare with the Sioux in what are today Wisconsin and Minnesota preoccupied the Chippewas as the advancing line of American settlement moved westward following the American Revolution (James 1954, 23; Danziger 1979, Chs. 3-4; Keller 1978, 2; Ritzenthaler 1978, 743-44). 2 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 2. Gathering Wild Rice. An engraving after a drawing by Seth Eastman, from Mary H. Eastman’s American Aboriginal Portfolio (1853). Courtesy of the State His¬ torical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)25013 The Treaty of Paris, which in 1783 ended the American Revolution, partitioned North America between Great Britain and the United States and its allies. Conse¬ quently, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River became the northern and western boundaries of the independent United States. The Great Lakes region, however, was actually far beyond the area under American control. Chippewas and other Indians living in the area strongly resented having Great Britain and its former thirteen colonies carve up their homelands without consulting them (Jones 1982, 139-42). Following the Treaty of Paris, the United States used high-handed tactics to secure land cession treaties from Indians in the Great Lakes region. Indian resentment of American methods of acquiring land, together with American efforts to maintain peace on the frontier, led government officials to reexamine their handling of Indian-white relations. Because the United States had failed in its efforts to treat Indian affairs as a domestic problem, government officials found it necessary to treat Indian bands and tribes as if they were foreign nations. As one scholar notes, U. S. officials were “forced to consider relations with the Indians, rather than a unilateral policy for the Indians” (Jones 1982, 147-48). On July 13, 1787, American officials adopted a set of principles for dealing with the Indians north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River, a region including the lands of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians. The Northwest Ordinance declared: 3 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 3. Indian Sugar Camp. This Seth Eastman painting depicts members of a Chip¬ pewa village participating in various stages of the process of making maple sugar and syrup. From Francis S. Drake, ed., Indian Tribes of the United States, Vol. 1 (1884). Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(w6) 13600 The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians, their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorised by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friend¬ ship with them .... (Continental Congress 1787, 10) Land acquisition by “consent” implied the negotiation of formal treaties. The Constitution of the United States, drafted in 1787 and ratified two years later, recognized treaty making as the basis for conducting the new republic’s relations with Indian bands and tribes. The United States was a small, isolated, agrarian nation with military and financial weaknesses, so its founding fathers placed Indian affairs in the hands of the federal government (Wrone 1986-87, 84-85). John Marshall, one of the nation’s most distinguished Supreme Court chief justices, summarized the scope of federal authority in Indian affairs in 1832. The Constitution, he said, “confers on congress the powers of war and peace; of making treaties, and of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. These powers comprehend all that is required for the regulation of our intercourse with the Indians” (U.S. Supreme Court 1832, 559). The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution specifi¬ cally stipulates that treaties with Indian tribes have the same status as those negotiated with foreign nations: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United 4 Chippewa Treaty Rights States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Article 6, Clause 2) As the new American nation inaugurated its first president in 1789, the Northwest Ordinance and the recently ratified Constitution provided it with a basic framework for handling Indian- white relations based on the realities it confronted. Secretary of War Henry Knox briefed President Washington on the realities of Indian-white relations in the Great Lakes region within a few months of the first chief executive’s inauguration. Observing that “the Indians are greatly tenacious of their lands, and generally do not relinquish their right {to them},* excepting on the principle of a specific consideration, expressly given for the purchase of the same” (1789a, 8), Knox advised Washington that “the dignity and the interest of the nation” would best be advanced by recognizing Indian ownership of lands. Considering the number of warriors in the region, Knox urged Washington to adopt “a liberal system of justice” toward the Indians. It is highly probable, that, by a conciliatory system, the expense of managing the said Indians, and attaching them to the United States for the next ensuing period of fifty years, may, on an average, cost 15,000 dollars annually. A system of coercion and oppression, pursued from time to time, for the same period, as the convenience of the United States might dictate, would probably amount to a much greater sum of money ... but the blood and injustice which would stain the character of the nation, would be beyond all pecuniary calculation. As the settlements of the whites shall approach near to the Indian boundaries established by treaties, the game will be diminished, and the lands being valuable to the Indians only as hunting grounds, they will be willing to sell further tracts for small considerations. By the expiration, therefore, of the above period, it is most probable that the Indians will, by the invariable operation of the causes which have hitherto existed in their intercourse with the whites, be reduced to a very small number. (1789b, 13-14) Knox understood that the United States needed peace on its frontiers so it could address other issues facing it, and he believed that acquiring Indian lands by purchase rather than by conquest was in his nation’s best interests (Prucha 1984, 1: 49). The first treaty negotiated by the Washington administration with Chippewa Indians and other Great Lakes tribes, the Treaty of Greenville of 1795, specifically declared that in order to promote a “strong and perpetual” peace between the United States and the Indians of the Great Lakes “the Indian tribes who have a right to . . . {unceded} lands, are quietly to enjoy them, hunting, planting, and dwelling thereon so long as they please, without any molestation from the United States.’ ’ In return for this pledge and for the promise of protection against all white intruders, the Indians agreed to sell lands only to the United States (Kappler 2: 41, 42). Despite the rhetoric of the Northwest Ordinance and of the Washington admin¬ istration, the demands of settlers, speculators, and other whites for Indian lands and resources during the early years of the republic were often met by violating the “liberal system of justice” Secretary of War Knox had so enthusiastically *As mentioned in the “Notes to the Reader on Usage,” I have used braces { } throughout the book for any information added to a quotation. 5 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters endorsed. Knox greatly underestimated the firm attachment Great Lakes Indians had to their lands. As the demand for Indian lands grew, American officials in¬ creasingly resorted to bribery, deception, economic coercion, threats, and some¬ times brute force to secure Indian signatures on land cession treaties. The treaty¬ making process served as a convenient means of sanctioning federal land grabs under the guise of diplomacy (Satz 1975, 1-6; 1987, 35-36). In the early 1800s, the U. S. War Department opened government trading houses at Fort Wayne (Indiana, 1802), Detroit (Michigan, 1802), Chicago (Il¬ linois, 1805), Sandusky (Ohio, 1806), Fort Mackinac (Michigan, 1808), Fort Madison (Iowa, 1808), Green Bay (Wisconsin, 1815) and Prairie du Chien (Wisconsin, 1815) as part of its effort to exert economic influence over the tribes on the northwestern frontier (Prucha 1953, ll;Prucha 1984, 1: 124). 2 As Thomas Jefferson had noted in a private letter in 1803, “we shall push our trading {hojuses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in{to} debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.” By following such a policy,3 Jefferson was confident that “our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi” (Jefferson 1803, 10: 370). Jefferson’s plan conflicted with the efforts of private traders like John Jacob Astor of the American Fur Company and his lieutenants Ramsey Crooks and Robert Stuart who lobbied hard, espe¬ cially after the War of 1812, to regain control of the fur trade from the government- run trading houses. Their efforts contributed to the closing of the Green Bay trading house in 1821 and the closing of the one at Prairie du Chien the following year, as the lobbyists succeeded in convincing Congress that the trade should be turned over to private interests (Prucha 1984, 1: Ch. 4). Following the closing of the trading house at Green Bay in 1821, federal officials anxiously sought other ways to extend their authority over the Indian tribes of the upper Great Lakes region. Yet, the Lake Superior Chippewa con¬ tinued to depend on British traders and to ignore American claims to their homelands (Keller 1978, 4). As a result, the U. S. War Department established a military post and an Indian agency at Sault Ste. Marie in 1822 for the purpose of countering British influence in the region and extending American control over the Chippewas (Bremer 1987, 53, 56; Hill 1974, 165). During the mid- 1820s, American officials sought to transfer the allegiance of the scattered bands of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians from their British “Father” in Canada to their American “Father” in Washington through a series of treaty ne¬ gotiations.4 The first parley convened on the east bank of the Mississippi River above the mouth of the Wisconsin River at Prairie du Chien on August 19, 1825 (Fig. 4). In the resulting treaty (Kappler 2: 250-55), American Commissioners William Clark of the St. Louis Superintendency and Michigan Territorial Governor Lewis Cass called for “a firm and perpetual peace between the Sioux and Chip¬ pewas”; established “tribal” boundaries for the Chippewa, Sioux, Sac and Fox, Menominee, Ioway, and Winnebago Indians, as well as for bands living along the Illinois River; recognized Indian title to the newly demarcated “tribal” territories; and supposedly placed each of the various Indian peoples under American supervision. 6 Chippewa Treaty Rights IS CD E= Q. CO 0) CO 8 - CO .i ° ^ C/3 O i ■g -J qj 52 •E CD co c o: .2 U- CD co -F |i CD CO 1 2 o "0 ^ 5 E ^ CD CD / CD ^ CO 03 0 7 State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)2812 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Not all Chippewa bands were represented by full deputations at Prairie du Chien (Neill 1885, 467-70), and Clark and Cass found it necessary to include the following provision in the treaty under Article 12: The Chippewa tribe being dispersed over a great extent of country, and the Chiefs of that tribe having requested, that such portion of them as may be thought proper, by the Government of the United States, may be assembled in 1826, upon some part of Lake Superior, that the objects and advantages of this treaty may be fully explained to them, so that the stipulations may be observed by the warriors. The Commissioners of the United States assent thereto, and it is therefore agreed that a council shall accordingly be held for these purposes. (Kappler 2: 253) Such a council was assembled a year later on the western end of Lake Superior at Fond du Lac where a treaty concluded by Governor Cass and War Department official Thomas L. McKenney on August 5, 1826, claimed that “the whole Chip¬ pewa tribe” had assented to the principles and policies laid out at Prairie du Chien (Kappler 2: 268-73). A year later, at a treaty parley with Chippewa, Menominee, and Winnebago leaders concluded at Butte des Morts near Green Bay, Commis¬ sioners Cass and McKenney negotiated the southern boundary line of the Chippewa country (Kappler 2: 281-83). These treaties, as Henry Rowe Schoolcraft of the Sault Ste. Marie Agency on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan noted, were designed “to place our Indian relations in this quarter on a permanent basis, and to ensure the future peace of the frontier” (Schoolcraft 1851, 244-45). One way in which American treaty commissioners sought to extend American influence into the Great Lakes region was to convince the Indians of America’s military strength. To accomplish this goal, soldiers accompanying the commis¬ sioners drilled, paraded, and stood inspection on a regular basis. At Fond du Lac, Commissioners Lewis Cass and Thomas L. McKenney emphasized the military strength of the United States by warning the Chippewas, “You have never seen your great father’s arm. Only a small particle of it — here on your right — {pointing to the military] — but it is only a bit, and a very little bit, of his little finger.” The commissioners told the Chippewas to view agent Schoolcraft as the representative of the president of the United States. “We advise you as friends and brothers, not to offend your great father. He has sent his agent, [Mr. Schoolcraft] among you. He speaks your great father’s words, listen to him; then you will be happy — -and this is what your great father wishes you to be. It is with yourselves to be so, or not” (Edwards 1826, 475-76). The American treaty making of the mid- 1820s actually had little immediate impact on the daily lives of Wisconsin Chippewas for nearly a decade. Americans generally viewed the Chippewa country in the Lake Superior region as “sterile and forbidding” (Schoolcraft 1828, 99), and few ventured into the vast region of approximately twenty-seven million acres including about fifteen million in Wisconsin, seven million in Minnesota, and five million in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan (Wilkinson 1990, 9). Located between and thus remote from the Indian agencies established in 1 8 1 9 at Fort Snelling near present-day Minneapolis and at Sault Ste. Marie in Michigan Territory in 1822, the Wisconsin Chippewas did not have an American Indian agent residing within their country until the stationing of a subagent at La Pointe in 18375 (Hill 1974, 87, 160, 162, 165-66; Danziger 1979, 77). 8 Chippewa Treaty Rights Despite the efforts of American treaty commissioners to end intertribal hostilities, Chippewa and Sioux Indians continued to fight over the game in Wisconsin and Minnesota largely in response to the prodigious demands of the fur trade system introduced by whites (Hickerson 1962, 28-29, 94 n. 16; 1973, 30). Indeed, sur¬ veyors did not actually begin work on the boundary line between the Sioux and the Chippewas called for in the 1825 Treaty of Prairie du Chien until a decade later (Herring 1835, 66). Even though the treaties of the 1820s had little immediate impact on the Chippewas, they set the stage for later negotiations that did have far- reaching effects. Chippewa leaders had ostensibly recognized American hegemony in the region at Fond du Lac in 1826 since they agreed to a provision allowing the United States the right “to search for, and carry away, any metals or minerals from any part of their country.” Although American Treaty Commissioners Lewis Cass and Thomas McKenney gave the Indians no reason to believe that this provision would affect their land title or jurisdiction over the land (Edwards 1826, 458; Kappler 2: 269), the provision would haunt the Chippewas. “The article . . . was so worded,” a missionary observed many years later, “that I can conceive the Indians might understand that they gave permission to take specimens of minerals without in¬ tending to grant liberty to {the} Government} to work the mines, while the Gov{emment} might understand that they had full liberty to work the mines and this without any intention to deceive the Indians” (Wheeler 1843). United States treaty commissioners frequently referred to and dealt with the Chippewas as if they constituted a single tribe or nation, as when Cass and McKenney referred to assembling “the Chippewa Tribe of Indians” at the Fond du Lac ne¬ gotiations in 1826 (Kappler 2: 268). The term tribe or nation , however, is not applicable to these people because the words connote a single political and social body. In reality, separate Chippewa villages actually carried out ceremonial and political activities as independent, autonomous units (Hickerson 1988, 77-78). As Indian agent Schoolcraft observed: Their government, so far as they exercise any, is placed in the hands of chiefs. They have village chiefs and war chiefs. The former are hereditary, the latter elective. Neither are invested with much power in advance. The occasion which calls for action, brings with it an expression of the general voice. The latter is implicitly obeyed; and it is the policy of the chiefs to keep a little in the rear of public sentiment. The power of both orders of chiefs, is only advisory; but that of the war chief predominates during a state of war. No formality is exercised in taking the sense of the village, or nation, as to public men or measures. Popular feeling is the supreme law. They exchange opinions casually, and these are final. Councils generally deliberate upon what has been, beforehand, pretty well settled. (1828, 100) Many years before Schoolcraft recorded his observations of Chippewa governmental structure and before the negotiation of the 1826 treaty mentioned earlier, Cass had reported to the War Department that the Chippewas were loosely organized into villages headed by chiefs who had only limited power and that “the Government of the Indians, if it deserve that name, is a Government of opinion” (Keller 1981 , 2). Although Chippewa bands shared a common culture and the same Algonquian language, there was no overall political structure binding them together. Individuals from contiguous villages maintained communication links, intermarried, and some- 9 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters times participated together in religious ceremonies, peace councils, war parties, and treaty negotiations; but in general, such activities were dealt with by individual villages or bands rather than by united Chippewa communities. There were common law- ways, but these were set and enforced informally through the use of praise and scorn rather than formally through legal institutions tying the bands together (Hick- erson 1962, 13; Ritzenthaler 1978, 753; Wilkinson 1990, 7). By 1830, the Chippewa Indians were deeply in debt to fur traders. Like Thomas Jefferson before him, President Andrew Jackson was eager to use “national” Indian debts as a vehicle for securing “tribal” land cessions. Michigan Territorial Governor Lewis Cass informed the president that the situation among the Indians of the Great Lakes region was ideal for treaty negotiations. “The goods they received were dear,” Cass remarked, “and the peltry they furnished was cheap” (1830, 65). This situation played into the hands of federal treaty negotiators. Andrew Jackson entered the White House in 1829 committed to the removal of Indians from states and territories east of the Mississippi River to locations in the trans-Mississippi West. Years of experience in Indian affairs as an army officer and territorial governor of Florida had led Jackson to the position that American national security demanded the removal of Indians outside the nation’s geographical limits in order to provide “a connexion of our territory by the possession of their claims.” In 1830, Jackson pushed an Indian Removal Bill through Congress and lost little time in directing eastern Indians to the trans-Mississippi West (Satz 1975, Chs. 1, 3-4). The Removal Act of 1830 called for the voluntary exchange of lands east of the Mississippi River for lands in an area west of Arkansas and Missouri designated as Indian Country (U. S. Congress 1830). Treaties negotiated under this legislation promised Indian emigrants permanent title to their new lands, rations and trans¬ portation to the West, protection en route, medicine and physicians, reimbursement for abandoned property, and assistance in rebuilding their settlements in the West (Satz 1975, 31, 107, 296-98). Although Jackson’s removal policy is associated most frequently with incidents in southern Indian history such as the Cherokee Trail of Tears and the Seminole Indian War, the removal policy was applied to Indians in the Great Lakes region as well6 (Satz, 1975, 112-15; 1976, 71-93). By the mid- 1830s, removal treaties had opened large portions of southern Wisconsin to white settlement, and American policymakers cast covetous eyes on Chippewa lands in the northern part of the state (A. Smith 1973, 131-48). When President Jackson signed the Removal Bill into law in 1830, Winnebago Indian villages still bordered Lake Mendota, the site of the present-day state capital of Madison. During the following decade, southern Wisconsin witnessed an influx of land speculators and Yankee immigrants who made their way to the western Great Lakes via the Erie Canal. Far from being viewed by settlers as savages as were many Southern Indians, Potawatomis were still welcome in the kitchens of some Milwaukee settlers in 1836 when Wisconsin Territory was organized (Tanner 1987, 146). The territorial seal designed by engraver William Wagner, however, expressed the pervasive belief of the age and pointed the way toward the future of Indian-white relations in the territory. It boldly proclaimed, “Civilitas Successit Barbarum” (civilization succeeds barbarism) and depicted a white settler plowing a field while an Indian faced his destiny in the West {Fig. 5). 10 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 5. The Great Seal of the Territory of Wisconsin. William Wagner’s territorial seal reproduced from Marcius Willson’s American History (1855). Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)45609 11 2 The 1837 Pine Tree Treaty Soon after the organization of the new territory, Governor and ex officio Su¬ perintendent of Indian Affairs Henry Dodge (Fig. 6), played a major role in securing approximately half of the present state of Wisconsin from the Chippewa, Sioux, and Winnebago Indians. The land cessions included all of the western area lying north of the Wisconsin River, except a wide strip bordering Lake Superior (Kappler 2: 491-93, 493-94, 498-500). Wisconsin territorial delegate George W. Jones assured his colleagues in Congress before negotiations began that the Chip¬ pewa and Winnebago Indians themselves had asked Governor Dodge to “enable them to dispose of those lands” (Jones 1836). Treaty negotiations leading to the Chippewa land cession of 1837 (Fig. 7) opened at the St. Peters Agency located at the mouth of the Minnesota River on July 20th and lasted ten days. Dodge later informed Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey Allen Harris that he had “deemed it a subject of the first importance, that as many of the different Bands should be present at the Treaty ground, as could be collected, for the purpose of fully meeting the views of the Government, as well as to produce harmony and concert among the Indians themselves” (Fig. 8). Dodge originally reported to Harris that the one thousand Indian men, women, and children in attendance “fully represented” all of the Chippewa bands from present-day Min¬ nesota and Wisconsin (Dodge 1837a), but his later correspondence (Dodge 1838a) and the official proceedings of the treaty7 demonstrate that this was not the case at the opening of the parley. Dodge estimated the cession he sought as “containing from nine to ten millions of acres of land, and abounding in Pine Timber.” In addition, he reported that “a part of it, is represented, as being well suited to Agricultural purposes; and dis¬ coveries are reported to have been made of copper on the St. Croix, and Rum Rivers, and near Lake Courteoreille.” The region was “of the first importance to the people of the States of Illinois, Missouri, and the Territory of Wisconsin for its Pine Timber” (Dodge 1837a). Officials in the administration of President Martin Van Buren sought the land cession not to accommodate white settlers — whites were not demanding Chippewa lands— -but to enable lumbering on a large scale along eastern tributaries of the Mississippi River. Demand for cheap pine timber grew rapidly among the new towns of the Mississippi River Valley as the cost of lumber from western New York and Pennsylvania reached prohibitive levels. Transporting timber from the East was both a costly and time-consuming enterprise. When the capitol of Wis¬ consin Territory was built at Belmont in 1836, for example, the lumber needed for its construction had to be transported from a tributary of the Alleghany River in Pennsylvania down to the Ohio River and up the Mississippi River to Galena, and from there carted by an ox team. Entrepreneurs sought to take advantage of the demand for cheap lumber by exploiting the vast pine forests of northern Wisconsin 13 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 6. Henry Dodge, Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Wisconsin Territory. Painting by James Bowman. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x28)975 (Bailly 1836, 40; Dodge 1838c, 158; Fries 1951, 8-9), but the federal Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts prohibited Americans from logging on Indian lands without special permission (Prucha 1962a, 2). A land cession treaty would provide legal access to these lands. In addition to the lumbering interests, other groups would benefit from a land cession treaty. Fur traders had accumulated a large mass of unpaid credits on their 14 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig, 7. Chippewa Land Cessions 1837-1854. Map by Sean Hartnett. Land cessions associated with the treaties of 1837, 1842, 1847, and 1854 are depicted above. Only the 1837 and 1842 treaties involved cessions in Wisconsin. In 1847, the Wisconsin bands refused to participate in negotiations for the north shore of Lake Superior without a treaty-guaranteed right to remain in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin bands suc¬ cessfully blocked the cession of the north shore until their demands for reservations in Wisconsin were finally met in 1854. books against the Chippewas, and a land cession would provide an opportunity for them to recover their funds (Babcock 1924, 372-73). Army sutlers8 at Fort Snelling also needed the cash that was likely to flow from a land cession. The sutlers found themselves in a difficult situation when soldiers from the First Infantry left the area for service in the Seminole Indian War in Florida Territory before paying their debts9 (Prucha 1966, 29). Beyond economic considerations, fear influenced the decision-making process. Governor Dodge considered the purchase of the timber country an absolute necessity to avoid an Indian war. “I was satisfied in my own mind that if a purchase was not made of this pine region of the country, by the United States,” Dodge told Commissioner Harris, “there was great danger of our citizens being brought into a state of Collision with the Chippewa Indians, that would have resulted in bloodshed, and perhaps war” (Dodge 1837a). War Department officials in Washington had several other reasons to be pleased with Dodge’s actions. Traders married to Chippewa women had obtained and monopolized valuable sawmill sites and lumbering rights. Frontier entrepreneurs coveted similar opportunities and worked hard to convince the Indians to lease land for such purposes.10 Some chiefs and headmen, anxious “to procure some of the necissaries {sic} of life” during poor hunting seasons, were willing to grant leases to white “friends” (Chippewa Chiefs {1836}, 53). Such arrangements troubled 15 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 16 Fig. 8. Ojibwa Portaging Around the Falls of St. Anthony. Oil on canvas painting, 1835-36, by George Gatlin. Courtesy of the National Museum of American Art, Smithsonian Institute, Gift of Mrs. Joseph Harrison, Jr. 1985.66.465 Chippewa Treaty Rights federal officials who were eager to prevent “a complete monopoly of all the ad¬ vantages of the pine region” (Harris 1836, 1837a; Dodge 1836). Also, since the United States’ boundary with Canada on Lake Superior was not settled until the Webster- Ashburton Treaty of 1842, American officials feared British influence in the region. Indeed, there was a war scare along the northern border from Maine to Michigan before the end of 1837. At this time, the American army consisted of only five thousand soldiers stationed at scattered posts, and nearly three-fourths of them were in Florida fighting the Seminole Indians (Van Buren 1838; Bald 1961, 215-18; Prucha 1969, 311-19, 333). Anglophobia encouraged Washington bureau¬ crats to support actions designed to wean the various Chippewa bands away from British traders and officials (Harris 1837b, 3-4). With these concerns, fears, and hopes in the forefront, the War Department had instructed Dodge to treat with the Chippewas for a land cession (Poinsett 1837). The official handwritten proceedings of the negotiations recorded in journal for¬ mat by Secretary Verplanck Van Antwerp of Indiana offer a slightly different interpretation of events than provided by Dodge in his brief letter to Commissioner Harris. Although Dodge did not mention in it in his letter, the proceedings clearly indicate the Chippewa bands living in the desired region of Wisconsin arrived late. Dodge sought in vain to bind the assembled Indians to the cession before the representatives of these bands arrived. Claiming the land in question was “not valuable ... for its game, and not suited to the culture of com, and other Agri¬ cultural purposes,” he promised to provide “full value, payable in such manner, as will be most serviceable to your people.” The assembled Indians were mostly from Minnesota, and only a small fraction of their land was involved in the proposed cession; those from the Lake Superior shoreline had no land involved. All refused to discuss the proposal until the arrival of representatives of the interior Wisconsin bands whose lands were the focus of the proposed cession. After the Indians delayed the proceedings for two days, Dodge impatiently requested a reply even though the interior Wisconsin Indians had not yet arrived11 (Van Antwerp 1837, 0548-550; App. 1). Flat Mouth (Aishkebogekhozo), a member of the Pillager band from Leech Lake reputed “to have more power and control’ ’ than any other Chippewa chief (Vineyard 1838, 962), responded. He reminded Dodge that although he was a chief, there was no single chief of the entire Chippewa people. To take action before the representatives of the interior Wisconsin bands arrived, he asserted, “might be considered an improper interference, and unfair towards them” (Van Antwerp 1837, 0550; App. 1). Finally, on July 24, the fifth day of the proceedings, news arrived that La Pointe subagent Daniel P. Bushnell and trader Lyman M. Warren were approaching St. Peters with a large group of Indians from the interior Wisconsin bands. The Wind (Naudin), a chief from Snake River, reminded Dodge that the assembled Indians had to wait until these people arrived, saying: “We are a distracted people, and have no regular system of acting together. We cast a firm look on the people who are coming” (Van Antwerp 1837, 0553; App. 1). Subagent Bushnell and his party arrived on July 25th. Now that the Wisconsin Indians had joined the parley, Dodge directed that Stephen Bonga and Peter (or Patrick) Quinn interpret from the English language into Chippewa and that Scott Campbell and Jean Baptiste DuBay, a Menominee mixed-blood with ties to the 17 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters American Fur Company (State Hist. Soc. of Wisconsin 1960, 109), interpret from the Chippewa into English. Dodge then asked the chiefs and headmen from the villages on lakes Flambeau and Courte Oreilles and those along the Chippewa, St. Croix, and Rum rivers to examine a map of the proposed land cession. Chief Buffalo from La Pointe — acknowledged by Dodge to be “a man of great influence among his tribe, and very friendly to the whites” (Dodge 1838b) — immediately protested, “the notice that you have given us is rather too short.” Dodge, eager to bring the matter to a close, was reported as saying that “the country which he wished to get from them, was barren of game, and of little value for Agricultural purposes; but that it abounded in Pine timber.” He stated he was prepared to give them “a fair price” for the land, and he advised them that in the morning he expected them to be prepared to “act together, as one people” and to select “not more than two” chiefs from the various bands to speak in behalf of all. Dodge, anxious to appease mixed-bloods and traders so they would not oppose the treaty, concluded his remarks by noting he wanted the Chippewas to remember their mixed- blood relatives and to do justice to their traders when they decided on how much and how they were to be paid for the land cession (Van Antwerp 1837, 0556-557; App. 1). On July 27th, the elder Hole-in-the-Day (Pagoonakeezhig) from the Upper Mis¬ sissippi River region and La Trappe (Magegawbaw) from Leech Lake responded to Dodge. Although the chiefs agreed to cede the land requested, they wished to express their concerns. “We wish to hold on to a tree where we get our living, & to reserve the streams where we drink the waters that give us life,” La Trappe said. After the interpreters translated the chief’s words into English, Verplanck Van Antwerp wrote a footnote (one of only a handful) in his record of the proceedings, “this of course is nonsense — but is given literally as rendered by the Intrepeters {sic}, who are unfit to act in that capacity. I presume it to mean that the Indians wish to reserve the privilege of hunting & fishing on the lands and making sugar from the Maple.” Meanwhile, to emphasize the kind of tree he meant, La Trappe walked up to the table on which Dodge had set a map of the proposed cession and placed an oak sprig on it. “It is a different kind of tree from the one you wish to get from us,”12 he commented, adding, “every time the leaves fall from it, we will count it as one winter past.” By this comment, La Trappe declared his willingness to bargain with Dodge over the pinelands in Wisconsin while reserving from any land cession the deciduous forests and the waterways of the Pillager country in Minnesota. Finally, the chief requested that the United States lease the land over a sixty-year period after which the grandchildren of the Chippewas at the present parley would speak to the “Great Father” in Washington about future arrangements. Dodge flatly rejected the offer to lease the lands (Van Antwerp 1837, 0558-559; App. 7). At Dodge’s suggestion, the Chippewa chiefs agreed to consult with subagents Daniel Bushnell and Miles M. Vineyard to determine the value of their lands. This provided the United States, through its field officials, an excellent opportunity for helping to determine the value of the land it was attempting to acquire. The chiefs did, however, raise concerns and seek clarification about several other matters. “If I have rightly understood you,” La Trappe asserted, “we can remain on the lands and hunt there.” He further expressed his expectations for the future of Chippewa- white relations on the ceded lands where nineteen Chippewa villages then existed: 18 Chippewa Treaty Rights “we hope that your people will not act towards ours, as your forefathers did towards our own — but that you will always treat us kindly, as you do now.” Finally, the chief corrected Dodge’s comments about the alleged agricultural worthlessness of the land being ceded. “We understand you, that you have been told our country is not good to cultivate. It is false. There is no better soil to cultivate than it, until you get up, to where the Pine region commences’’ (Van Antwerp 1837, 0559; App. 1). Dodge’s response contained a summary of the terms being offered by President Martin Van Buren. The Indians, he said, would have “free use of the rivers, and the privilege of hunting upon the lands you are to sell to the United States, during his pleasure.’’ Dodge then assured the Indians, “your Great Father has sent me to treat you as his children; to pay you the value of your land; & not to deceive you in any thing I may do with you, or say to you.’’ The governor concluded by expressing his hope that the Chippewas would agree to use a portion of any funds provided as a result of the land cession for teachers to make their children “wise like those of the white people,” for farmers to teach them agricultural pursuits, and for various other goods to help uplift them (Van Antwerp 1837, 0560, App. 1). On Friday, July 28th, Pillager chief Flat Mouth (Fig. 9) opened the proceedings, making it clear that he was appointed to speak for all of the chiefs: My Father. Your children are willing to let you have their lands, but they wish to reserve the privilege of making sugar from the trees, and getting their living from the Lakes and Rivers, as they have done heretofore, and of remaining in this Country. It is hard to give up the lands. They will remain, and can not be destroyed — but you may cut down the Trees, and others will grow up. You know we can not live, deprived of our Lakes and Rivers; There is some game on the lands yet; & for that reason also, we wish to remain upon them, to get a living. Sometimes we scrape the Trees and eat of the bark. The Great Spirit above, made the Earth, and causes it to produce, which enables us to live. (Van Antwerp 1837, 0560-561, App. 1) Dodge promised to inform President Van Buren of the Chippewa requests regarding continued privileges on the ceded lands. He then reemphasized his earlier statement, “it will probably be many years, before your Great Father will want all these lands for the use of his white Children.” Then the governor specified the compensation to be provided for the land cession, including eight hundred thousand dollars dis¬ tributed as follows: (1) six hundred and thirty thousand dollars in annuities apportioned over twenty years — specifically earmarked purchases included three thousand dollars a year for blacksmiths and related items; four thousand dollars for cattle and provisions; two thousand dollars for mills and millers; one thousand dollars for farmers and agricultural implements; one thousand dollars for schools; and five hundred dollars for tobacco; (2) one hundred thousand dollars to the mixed-bloods as “an act of benevolence;’ ’ and (3) seventy thousand dollars for debts determined to be “justly due” traders and other creditors. (Van Antwerp 1837, 0561-562; App. 1 ) Flat Mouth protested payment to the traders from funds provided by the land cession. Instead, he asked that the Great Father pay the debts, noting that many of the debtors had been killed by the Sioux while on excursions for the traders. 19 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 9. Ojibwa Chief Flat Mouth, 1855. From Minnesota Historical Society Collections, Vol. 9 (1904). Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)25050 Furthermore, he said, the traders had no right to speak of debts owed them since these white men had taken fish from the lakes and wood from the forests without ever paying the Chippewas. The chief also questioned the fairness of the proposed twenty-year annuity. “If it was my land you was buying, I would, instead of an annuity for only 20 years — demand one from you, as long as the ground lasted. You know that without the lands, and the Rivers & Lakes, we could not live. We hunt, and make Sugar, & dig roots upon the former, while we fish, and obtain 20 Chippewa Treaty Rights Rice, and drink from the latter.” Following Flat Mouth’s remarks, Governor Dodge adjourned the meeting. ‘‘Be fully prepared,” he advised the Indians, ‘‘to finish our business” in the morning (Van Antwerp 1837, 0562; App. 1). Governor Dodge assembled the Chippewas on Saturday morning, July 29th, determined to end the negotiations and to obtain signatures on a land cession treaty. He told them that subagents Vineyard and Bushnell had agreed to the fairness of his offer and had approved of the arrangements with only the question of funds for the mixed-bloods13 yet to be answered. As the chiefs sat down together in council to discuss this matter, a large contingent of unarmed warriors approached the council lodge singing and dancing in war costume with their war flag flying. The Little Six (Shagobai), a chief from Snake River, spoke for the warriors. He informed Dodge, “the Braves of the different bands have smoked and talked together.” Fearing they could not survive the winter without aid from the traders, the braves wanted the traders to be paid, but they did not want “to undo what the Chiefs have done.” The warriors requested that the United States pay more money for the lands it wanted to use. Not only should Dodge agree to the sixty-year lease requested by Pillager chief La Trappe, but the traders should also be paid (Van Antwerp 1837, 0563; App. 7). Anxious to win the warriors’ support, Dodge agreed to pay an additional seventy thousand dollars toward the traders’ debts but said that was all he was prepared to do. He made no mention of extending the annuities from twenty to sixty years. At this point, the elder Hole in the Day, a war chief from the Upper Mississippi, spoke with great excitement and bluntly told the warriors to accept the governor’s terms. “Braves! There are many of you — but none of you have done what I have — nor are any of you my equals!! — Our Father wishes us to go home in peace.” Pledging that “death alone shall prevent the fulfilment {s/c} of it on my part,” Hole in the Day’s words carried the day (Van Antwerp 1837, 0564; App. 7). Before proceeding with the signing of the treaty, Dodge reminded the chiefs and warriors that they were “brethren of the same great Nation.” Applause greeted his comment that “it is the duty of the Braves to be obedient to their Chiefs.” Dodge concluded his comments by asserting, “both Chiefs & Braves should respect the Traders and treat them justly and kindly, that harmony and good feeling may exist among you all; & that you may be serviceable to each other.” The Little Six, the Snake River chief who had previously spoken for the warriors, reminded Dodge that some traders had dealt harshly with the Indians. Dodge was apparently unin¬ terested in pursuing that issue for he turned quickly to another subject (Van Antwerp 1837, 0564-565; App. 1) After Secretary Van Antwerp read the final terms of the treaty, Dodge signed the document (Fig. 10). As the governor waited for the Indians to sign, there was silence. There was a great reluctance among the Chippewa chiefs to step forward and sign or make their marks on the treaty. Finally, Dodge offered to give an official copy of the treaty “for all your people to look at” to the first chief to step forward and sign it. Hole in the Day then walked promptly to the treaty table and “with his characteristic intrepidity, offered his signature” (Van Antwerp 1837, 0568; App . 7). In his annual report after the conclusion of the negotiations at St. Peters, Dodge predicted the treaty would “attach” the Chippewas to the United States and, “if the proper steps are taken,” the Indians could be “easily controlled by their agents” (Dodge 1837b, 538). 21 m, nt Ifkhm *f $*»■ jftJtfc, tuuLjfcJksU^ Mm**) ^ fcjb*M&*u *f MJtm mm iitiStJL ^uXtk-f *AiA*jt** 'ftiee* C#iWf^4s #*+***<& JMD fc&tf CAfifUt *4 HtC e>» M*. Hm/L /«UL 4# L . __ _ ... . _w _ dU^^fJ^L, Aft d fUmmm m* *t 4/i? / *Su * i-Mt.ei4.ci fcrXks* £tmn f cfjEi & Ct*%+ Muir- /4*ucl *4 &t*tL Auruj ftUL £4fA/%AtM * /Bli£ftJb fkCUvM^Mi* fUAM Lt i&U&L 5 *ALL^Lu*^^l, t* ft* scu, * e&/ ^ £ctJ[ * ju^ y ../* W/ ^ * .# ■ /,/. 4r; ^ ihySf'L ,uu. .^r£: ./ ^ . .. W 1/. / .... 'Iitic6u Lz. J’roc Hli,/L it\jxl2eru> fjLMi, Cyiicn^ 4\^t>t&JlCit.4Li Ik t» ICitXtZct $£('*/&, Ulc^A*. t£ y£c CJt\-jiJit j^x-JnL. tEi no yL Hu~en^ M*. dtlfhtfftu liX tjf-l £ 4l tZfrt^ ilL ft^/ lCOi'tZy_ pCi^f huU^tf. /. jit-fa*. ItLetijriti/im. *1 it<* , ti t**, <2,. *lH ttxibci-^, JlJctnuJciti. d. Q&tittci-uf . ~£t ru. ^rtrAL*. A yi-U* IlJun-ufi.'t *-u'L *&i?l£cv u,r £ ay Jkk**. 0£& di> dk* j/t^u, Ju^fcvUttf Id i a cM JpuitL t u^tL J-zm^ ^ , t rL J&ct „ £ 1%*. L Jb&AAtk/ts t^**4C ttuuAm. CMt.dL- it* iLid-tMi+j f t** tL uk*j£f CtxA-rlr U*M> ££'*&*+*> &r <4!mL; A** i*iS4. /*€. Pi4.&y£$ C*i&IhL. C&sP**f au^t2U,u £X^f^cu*£t* %.aJL ^ 5 . 7h>~* 7tc~tu/&t< d~ <7) *££&** t-u. t%^i*s'i**** ^ “ 4 //■ i~C Thu-i. dvt d- tc ^ \ jhx. $l*V%M4ru* 4PUx.d~J c£nCl CC*f t* £* cdtl ft** Jfou*Juttu*A* C*vl£L ftu*. f*irv€U , MutL-t*. 4l*gtt*pt IS /i p&itL} itiLoL Mua# 0r’UifuMtJ aj U'tdLaj’ Wt h^iXau *%^ fiia.au , ii/dL** TlZt^, ctx*Ji A*l CU-tit^uL; JUjJtL i~* j,y. tcL t*ju n*. liu ctu-. ft*. ci*\*ctt-u^,> ^ ft* ^~ ^ft*. h-u^JtL oL jk*I3t~& efts Jhui/ttr jl-uftu f# t*mJlA&ctd« 4h* n* k£A**t ft* jbn*ftL h~%jd*sjT& >t£&uf~* lut&iid- ft* *4lL* Ifuzu/Att c 7£>rtt -vi AftJ*d-ttb f-c.Jyfiud. ^7t£^k* jlt&JL 7*. A.t t*£&*£* fs CL# . * » » ^ I • m Fig. 10. Treaty of 1837. The first page of the handwritten manuscript treaty. Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Service. Chippewa Treaty Rights Within one month of the signing of the treaty, missionary Reverend William T. Boutwell, who had witnessed the negotiations, reported to his superior in Boston, “the Ind{ian}s have no idea of leaving their country while they live — they know nothing of the duration of a man{’}s pleasure” (Boutwell 1837). This was certainly true of the leaders of the interior bands from Wisconsin. They had arrived late and played only a minor role in the proceedings, according to Van Antwerp’s journal. Yet, the portion of the land cession in Wisconsin included their village sites — the area extended from the St. Croix River east to the location of what today are the cities of Crandon, Antigo, and Stevens Point, and from Stevens Point north to Rhinelander, and from Osceola and Eau Claire north to Lake St. Croix. In addition to the village of the interior bands, the cession included a great pine forest region and the headwaters of the Chippewa, Flambeau, Namekagon, Black, and Yellow rivers (Levi 1956, 55-56). As will be demonstrated shortly, the interior bands assumed American use of the timber from ceded lands would not result in permanent white occupation of the region. They steadfastly believed that access to their ceded lands as well as to resources and wildlife (as agreed to in the treaty) would allow them to perpetuate their traditional lifestyle. Indian agent Henry Rowe Schoolcraft at the Mackinac Island-Sault Ste. Marie Agency in Michigan wondered “why it was that so little had been given for so large a cession, comprehending the very best lands of the Chippewas in the Mis¬ sissippi Valley.” On October 5, 1838, the agent was visited by Lyman M. Warren (Schoolcraft 1851, 611), the La Pointe trader who had arrived with the interior Wisconsin Indians, witnessed the treaty negotiations, and received twenty-five thou¬ sand dollars under the provision for the payment of traders’ claims under Article 4 (Van Antwerp 1837, 0556-567; App. 1 ). Warren’s reflections on the treaty pro¬ ceedings substantiate Van Antwerp’s official version and also offer important in¬ sights as to the motivations of the primary players in the drama. According to Warren, St. Peter’s agent Lawrence Taliaferro played an important behind-the-scenes role in the negotiations. Taliaferro, whose primary responsibilities included the Sioux Indians living in Minnesota, signed the treaty as a witness but is not mentioned in the official proceedings (Kappler 2: 493; App. 2). Taliaferro had strongly opposed the transfer of the Chippewa of Minnesota to the Sault Ste. Marie agency under Schoolcraft in 1827 and was actively involved in the behind- the-scenes posturing that led to the cession of Sioux claims in Wisconsin shortly after the Chippewa cession (Babcock 1924, 371-74). Warren said Taliaferro pro¬ moted the interests of the Minnesota Chippewas of the Upper Mississippi and eagerly sought to thwart those of the interior Wisconsin bands under the jurisdiction of his rival, agent Schoolcraft. Taliaferro had supposedly “loaded” Hole in the Day and another unnamed chief with presents before the proceedings began. Warren claimed (and the proceedings appear to verify) that “the Pillagers, in fact, made the treaty. The bands of the St. Croix and Chippewa Rivers, who really lived on the land and owned it, had, in effect, no voice. So {too} with respect to the La Pointe Indians.” Members of the Lac Courte Oreilles and Lac du Flambeau bands also opposed the sale (Schoolcraft 1851, 611). Warren’s observations lend a new perspective into the actions noted in the proceedings. Warren contended that Dodge “really knew nothing of the fertility and value of the country purchased, having never set foot on it. Governor Dodge thought the tract chiefly valuable for its pine, and natural millpower; and there was no one to 23 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters undeceive him.” As a result of Dodge’s persistence and Taliaferro’s bribery, “the Chippewas managed badly — they knew nothing of thousands, or how the annuity would divide among so many.” Warren claimed, for example, that the nineteen thousand dollars provided for goods under Article 2 of the treaty “would not exceed a breech-cloth and a pair of leggins apiece.” Nevertheless, Warren said, the Indians “were, in fact, cowed down by the braggadocia of the flattered Pillager war chief, Hole-in-the-Day,” whom Schoolcraft referred to as “one of the most hardened, bloody-thirsty wretches” among the Chippewas. For these reasons, according to Warren, Dodge obtained the area for much less than he was authorized to offer (Schoolcraft 1851, 611) even though he had promised to pay the Indians the full value of their lands. In assessing Warren’s comments, Schoolcraft recorded in his diary: “I have not the means of testing these facts, but have the highest confidence in the character, sense of justice, and good natural judgment of Gov. Dodge. He may have been ill advised of some facts. The Pillagers certainly do not, I think, as a band, own or occupy a foot of soil east of the Mississippi below Sandy Lake, but their warlike character has a sensible influence on those tribes, quite down to the St. Croix and Chippewa rivers. The sources of these rivers are valuable for only their pineries, and their valleys only become fertile below their falls and principal rapids” (School¬ craft 1851, 611). While the official U. S. Government version of the treaty proceedings can be compared with eyewitness accounts like those of Warren and Reverend Boutwell, it is much more difficult to obtain information about the Chippewa perspective of the negotiations. The negotiations were particularly complex since the Chippewas were not organized into any single political entity that could speak with one voice through a recognized leader — even though Dodge acted as if they were. It is unclear as to how the decisions regarding who would speak in behalf of the assembled Chippewas were determined, but the evidence appears to substantiate Warren’s claim that the interior bands from Wisconsin remained silent during the meetings with Dodge. Scholars do not know what took place or what was said as the Indians met by themselves between sessions with Dodge. Even so, scholars do know the Indians’ silence at the face-to-face meetings with Dodge should not be equated with agreement. As anthropologists have noted, many Indians customarily remain silent in am¬ biguous, uncertain, or unpredictable situations. Indian silence, which is often in¬ terpreted by non-Indians as stoicism, is more frequently “based on a caution which is at once related to fear of and to respect for the uncertain status of the other party.” This same sense of caution and desire to preserve consensus and avoid conflict may explain the behavior of Indians who refused to attend treaty councils as well as that of those who remained silent or withdrew from treaty councils rather than voicing their opinions (Washburn 1975, 16-17; Wax and Thomas 1961, 306). Methodist minister Chomingwen Pond, a white woman who has served as a pastor for churches on the Lac du FLambeau and Bad River reservations in recent years, has observed that the Chippewas ’s reticence is often wrongly interpreted by whites as unfriendliness or even a lack of intelligence ( Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 25). Also helpful in understanding Chippewa behavior at the 1837 treaty proceedings is what scholars have referred to as the Indian “ethic of non-interference,” which most Indians follow unconsciously. As Rosalie H. Wax and Robert K. Thomas 24 Chippewa Treaty Rights have observed, “the white man has been and is tom between two ideals: on the one hand, he believes in freedom, in minding his own business, and in the right of people to make up their own minds for themselves; but, on the other hand, he believes that he should be his brother’s keeper and not abstain from advice, or even action” in his brother’s behalf. In contrast, “the Indian society is unequivocal: interference of any form is forbidden, regardless of the folly, irresponsibility, or ignorance of your brother” (Wax and Thomas 1961, 308-09). Flat Mouth’s refusal to begin the treaty negotiations before the arrival of the interior bands because “to do so . . . might be considered an improper interference, and unfair towards them” (Van Antwerp 1837, 0549; App. 1) exemplifies the ethic of non-interference. Similarly, the ethic helps to explain Chippewa expressions of their fear of Governor Dodge at the negotiations. From earliest childhood, Indians are trained to “regard absolute non-interference in interpersonal relations as decent or normal and to react to even the mildest coercion in these areas with bewilderment, disgust, and fear” (Wax and Thomas 1961, 310). The Wind’s expression of fear may well have represented such a reaction to Dodge’s coercive efforts. After re¬ peatedly refusing to negotiate with Dodge until the Wisconsin bands arrived, The Wind told Dodge: “when I look at you it frightens me. I cannot sufficiently estimate your importance, and it confuses me” (Van Antwerp 1837, 0551; App. 1). It is also important to remember that the Chippewas, like other non-English- speaking Indians, often understood words and events in different terms than their white counterparts. Linguistic research reveals there was no single word in the nineteenth-century Chippewa language for fishing, so it is very likely that the convenient catchall Ojibwa word meaning “general foraging” with any kind of a device for any purpose was used by interpreters to translate the meaning of the treaty wording, “hunting and fishing” (Lurie 1987, 59-60). Such substitutions could render an Indian’s understanding very different from a white person’s understanding of treaty stipulations. And although most whites would see written words as taking priority over spoken, this is not true in Chippewa culture. Since oral rather than written communication was the typical mode of Indian negotiations, the final written document to which Indians affixed an “X” or their symbols was not as important to them as their understanding of the verbal agreements made, a direct contradiction to most white people’s assumptions. The following comment by ethnohistorian Wilcomb E. Washburn aptly describes some of the difficulties Indians had in dealing with American treaty commissioners: The white man as officeholder is, in many ways, a more perplexing and perverse figure to the Indian than the individual conqueror, or fur trapper, or explorer. Under the panoply of European formality the government representative communicated with Indian leaders, but too often the form and spirit were not in close juxtaposition. The Indian, valuing the spirit rather than the recorded form, which in his letterless society was, for the most part, superfluous, could not cope with the legalisms of the white man. Nor could an alien government sympathize with, let alone understand, the plight of a race organized into categories that had no parallels in the white bureaucratic machinery. (Washburn 1964, xiii) As Washburn indicates, Indians left treaty negotiations with understandings based on the dialogue that had taken place while whites left with a written document confirming their intentions and goals if not their actual words as understood by the Indians. Several years before the parley at St. Peters, French visitor Alexis de 25 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters Tocqueville witnessed the U. S. government’s conduct of Indian affairs and ob¬ served the impact of federal policy on the Indians, including the Chippewas in the Great Lakes region (1831-32, 134-45). Tocqueville maintained that there was a tremendous gulf between appearances and reality, and he argued that American Indian policy was skillfully designed to acquire Indian lands “with wonderful ease, quietly, legally, and philanthropically, without spilling blood and without violating a single one of the great principles of morality in the eyes of the world.” While the American public might be fooled, Tocqueville believed “it is impossible to destroy men with more respect to the laws of humanity” (1848, 324-25, 339). In 1837 at St. Peters, Governor Dodge used the formalities of the treaty-making process to benefit the national interest, but he did not treat with the Chippewas in the same manner that an American diplomat would have been obliged to handle negotiations with a European power. Interpreters played a key role in treaty negotiations. “The right understanding and successful issue of every negotiation depend upon their fidelity and ability,” Indian Commissioner Harris informed Secretary of War Joel R. Poinsett in 1837 (Harris 1837c, 528). Appointed and paid by the Indian Office, interpreters were in fact representatives of the United States government who, as Commissioner Harris poignantly observed, helped to shape the outcome of each treaty negotiation (Satz 1975, 196). For that reason, even the interpreters whom modem readers might assume to have been unbiased were paid to act in the best interests of the U. S. government, not of the Indians. Further complicating matters, interpreters sometimes had to use several languages in their attempts to convey the words of one negotiator to another. During the 1837 Chippewa parley, for example, an eyewitness reported, “it appeared as though neither the Governor or Indians understood the interpretation properly at the time, it having to pass from Indian into French and then into English before the Governor got the meaning & a high wind blowing at the time in an exposed place but after some time and one or two Repetitions The secretary was directed” what to write (Baker 1838). According to a missionary eyewitness to the 1837 treaty proceedings, government interpreter Peter Quinn was “a thick- mouthed, stammering Irishman” who was unable “to speak intelligibly” in either English or Ojibwa (Brunson 1872-79, 2: 83). Although the Chippewas did not maintain their own written record of the 1837 proceedings, a number of disgmntled Indian participants sent messages to President Van Buren through missionary Frederick Ayer. Their complaints included inade¬ quate compensation for ceded lands and the loss of fish, rice, sugar, and timber taken by a local trader without providing compensation. In one of these messages, The Wind of the Snake River area charged, as did Lyman Warren in his conversation with Agent Schoolcraft, that Hole in the Day played a leading role: “There were many Chiefs who spoke with the Gov. at St. Peters, at the Treaty. But only one however sold the land (the hole in the day). He does not own the land where I dwell, he is a mere Child” (The Wind 1837). These words could just as easily have been spoken by any of the Chippewas from the interior Wisconsin bands whose lands were ceded at St. Peters. In June of 1839, when Hole in the Day protested the transfer of annuity payments from St. Peters to La Pointe, he reminded Agent Taliaferro that he was the chief to whom Governor Dodge had given a copy of the 1837 treaty to hold because he was “the Ch{i}ef of all the Indians that sold their 26 Chippewa Treaty Rights land” (Hole in the Day 1839). By 1839, as the commissioner appointed to pay traders’ claims against Chippewa mixed-bloods under Article 3 of the treaty noted, it was well known that “the ‘Leech Lake’ Indians{,} a very warlike band of the Chippewas who took an active part in making the Treaty{,} had no interest or right whatever in the country ceded” (Lyon 1839a). Twenty-seven years after the signing of the 1837 treaty, a delegation of Chippewa chiefs, headmen, and warriors — including men from the bands at Lac Courte Or- eilles, Lac du Flambeau, and La Pointe (Bad River and Red Cliff) in Wisconsin as well as from Fond du Lac in Minnesota and Ontonagon in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan — recalled the events of the meeting at St. Peters (Chippewas of Lake Superior 1864). The occasion was the drafting of a petition they signed and took to Washington for presentation to Commissioner of Indian Affairs William P. Dole. The bilingual petition refers to the 1837 treaty proceedings and the U. S. govern¬ ment’s failure to fulfill various stipulations of that agreement. Leaders of the Bad River Reservation dictated the petition during the winter of 1864, and U. S. In¬ terpreter Joseph Gunroe, a Chippewa mixed-blood from Bayfield, transcribed it verbatim in a two-column format, one column in Ojibwa and the other in English. This document contains a brief statement about the 1837 treaty proceedings from the Chippewa point of view.14 According to the bilingual petition, “Great Father” Martin Van Buren in Wash¬ ington had assembled representatives of the Chippewa bands at St. Peters in July of 1837 to acquire the pinelands in order to provide timber for his people. The Indian response to Dodge’s demand for a land cession in 1837 was supposedly as follows: So then Father, Our Great Father requests me to sell him my Pine Timber, our Great Father is mighty, therefore whatever he says would not be in vain, and whatever he promises to do he will fulfill. Very well, I will sell him the Pine Timber as he requests me to. From the usual height of cutting a tree down and upwards to top is what I sell you, I reserve the root of the tree. Again this I hold in my hand the Maple Timber, also the Oak Timber, also this Straw which I hold in my hand. Wild Rice is what we call this. These I do not sell. That you may not destroy the Rice in working the timber. Also the Rapids and Falls in the Streams I will lend you to saw your timber, also a small tract of land to make a garden to live on while you are working the timber. I do not make you a present of this, I merely lend it to you. This is my answer, My Great Father is great, and out of respect for him I will not refuse him, but as an exchange of civility I must see and feel the benefits of this loan, and the promises fulfilled. This was the Indians answer. (Chippewas of Lake Superior 1864) Members of the 1864 delegation claimed, “we do not get, receive what was prom¬ ised, which was part of the pay for the Timber I sold. For instance the employees, three years was all they worked, also Beef and Working Cattle were promised us but we did not see any, we think they were never given to us.” The very reason for the presence of the delegation in Washington was that, with regard to the Treaty of 1837 and other agreements with the United States, “certain it is that the Indian has failed to see the promises made to him fulfilled’ ’ (Chippewas of Lake Superior 1864). 27 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters There are several discrepancies between the Indians’ remembrance of the 1837 proceedings in 1864, the official proceedings of the treaty, and the signed treaty. For example, the number of years for the annuity was actually twenty not twenty- five as claimed by the delegates in 1864. Yet the paragraphs quoted above reflect the substance, albeit not the exact wording, of the comments of the Chippewas who spoke during the negotiations based on Van Antwerp’s journal and the com¬ ments of trader Lyman Warren. As Warren’s son, interpreter William Warren15 noted some years later, “in order to arrive at the truth of a fact obtained of an Indian, respecting their past history, a person must go from one old man, to another of different villages or sections of the tribe, and obtain the version of each; if they all agree in the main fact, even if they disagree in the details, you can then be certain that the circumstance has happened, and the tale has a substantial origin”16 (Warren 1851, 47). Chippewa Indians memorized the details of important events such as treaty negotiations and taught them to their young who in turn passed the information on to the next generation with remarkable accuracy (Keller 1981, 3). Anthropologist Mary Druke reminds us that among Indian peoples the spoken word was weighted more heavily than the written word. While oral traditions of treaties may not be verbatim accounts of the treaty proceedings, they “convey an accepted interpretation of relationships based on agreements made in council ne¬ gotiations” (Druke 1985, 90-91). Indian memory, as one scholar has noted, is very reliable. “For a person who can’t run to a bookshelf or a notebook to look up either vital or trivial information, reliance on memory becomes very important in everyday life.” As a result of having to learn “by heart” multitudes of details about rituals, kinship and other social relationships, and the names and uses of hundreds of plants and animals, for example, ‘ ‘nonliterate people have more finely developed memories than do literate people” (Allen 1986, 66). Oral traditions of treaties were open to criticism by Indian listeners who either were present at the time of a recounted occurrence or heard other accounts of the tradition against which to judge the narrative. Although the 1837 Chippewa treaty did not, for example, specifically mention anything about reserving the right to make maple sugar, the reference to the maple trees in 1864 by Indians from various Chippewa bands is understandable given the number of times the Indians mention making sugar during the proceedings in 1837 and given Dodge’s promise to discuss the matter with the president. When the Chippewas signed the treaty of 1837, they fully expected to continue eating traditional foods — including maple sugar. As one scholar has noted, “maple sugar occupied such a central role in Chippewa culture, commerce and diet that one can argue from historical and anthropological evidence that . . . these Indians, regardless of treaty omissions, must have reasonably ex¬ pected their access to maple trees to continue long after they had ceded traditional lands . This deduction is confirmed by an array of documents and by specific events during the treaty period” (Keller 1989, 124, 126). In reviewing the events surrounding the 1837 treaty, it is clear that the Chippewas attempted to explain the importance of their relationship to the natural resources of Wisconsin and that they assumed the whites only wanted access to certain resources, not the land itself (Vennum 1988, 256). Many times during the proceedings the Indians insisted on reserving usufructuary rights.17 Governor Dodge, anxious to conclude negotiations and concerned about a possible outbreak of hostilities between the Chippewa and the Sioux Indians, agreed to recognize usufructuary rights in the 28 Chippewa Treaty Rights treaty but insisted on adding the phrase “during the pleasure of the President” (Van Antwerp 1837, 0566; App. 1 ). About a year and a half after he negotiated the 1837 treaty, Dodge complained to Indian Commissioner Crawford that the medals and flags he had promised would be distributed among the Indians had still not been procured by the Indian Office. “The officers of the Government must comply with all promises they may make the Indians,” he told Crawford, adding, “if they deceive them once, they never afterwards have confidence in them” (Dodge 1839, 1187). Dodge was correct. But it was his promise of continued usufructuary rights rather than of medals and flags that would ultimately be the basis by which the Chippewas determined their con¬ fidence in officials of the United States government. Removal of the Chippewa Indians from Wisconsin was not mentioned in the Treaty of 1837. In fact, as already noted, these Indians were told in Article 5 of the ratified treaty that they could continue to hunt, fish, and gather upon the lands, rivers, and lakes in the ceded territory “during the pleasure of the President” (Kappler 2: 492; App. 2). The interior Wisconsin bands — who as Reverend Bou- twell observed “know nothing of the duration of a man{’}s pleasure” (Boutwell 1837) — apparently agreed to abide by the treaty only after becoming convinced that they would receive a portion of the goods and money flowing from the agreement without having to abandon their villages, the land upon which they hunted and gathered, or their fishing areas. The annuities proved to be a mixed blessing to the Chippewas. Governor Dodge predicted shortly after the Senate ratified the treaty that the annuities would “have a salutary effect’ ’ in helping to control the Indians since they placed ‘ ‘great reliance’ ’ on the funds (Dodge 1838e, 176). The Chippewas received cash payments and goods as specified in the treaty. War Department officials made a concerted effort after 1837 to convince the Indians to accept guns, ammunition, blankets, and other merchandise as a portion of their annuities in lieu of money so that they would be less dependent upon the traders who tended to “monopolize” the cash payment. Viewing federal officials as “intruders” in their business relations with the Indians, traders belittled the merchandise supplied by the government (Dodge 1838d, 1029; Dodge 1839, 1186). Sometimes the goods supplied by the government had no value to the Indians. In 1839, for example, the War Department shipped saddles and bridles to the Chippewas at La Pointe who had no horses and no need for them along the forested and roadless south shore of Lake Superior. Despite the subagent’s protest that the goods were “of no earthly value” to the Indians, another shipment was sent in 1840 (Bushnell 1840a). Guns sent to La Pointe rarely included am¬ munition, but sometimes this turned out to be a blessing because the weapons were so poorly constructed that many exploded upon firing, crippling Chippewa hunters. Other shoddy government goods such as thin blankets and cheap pots also rankled the Indians and gave weight to the traders’ criticism of government efforts to provide goods instead of money (Danziger 1979, 81; U. S. Congress 1849, 537). Federal efforts to convince the Chippewas to accept goods in lieu of cash did not stop the Indians from buying goods on credit from traders. The purchase of fishing nets on credit from the American Fur Company continued unabated after 1837 as did the whites’ demand for Lake Superior fish. A federal official observed in 1839, “the Indians are encouraged to exertion in this branch of business, by the offer of a fair price for all the fish, they can catch, payable on the delivery of the 29 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters fish at the different Store houses built to receive them” (Jones 1838; Lyon 1839b, 97-98). A large portion of Chippewa annuities continued to end up in the pockets of traders after 1837. Indian agents continued to permit the traders to settle their accounts at the annuity payment grounds. George Copway,18 an acculturated Chip¬ pewa from Canada who witnessed numerous annuity payments in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the Great Lakes region in the years following the 1837 treaty, claimed “the dissipation, misery, and ruin” of the Lake Superior Chippewa people was directly related to annuities provided in treaties. According to Copway, annuity payments attracted people having “white faces (with black hearts),” unscrupulous white traders and whiskey peddlers as well as other “unprincipled men and va¬ gabonds” who were “no better than pickpockets” (Copway 1847, 126-28). Increasingly, the flexible and personalized exchange relationships between the Chippewa trappers and white traders in Wisconsin were replaced by the poorly organized annuity system of the federal government.19 The system, characterized by “tedious journeys” for many to the payment site and long delays once there, interfered with the traditional late fall rice-gathering and the winter hunting patterns of the Chippewa people. The insertion of the annuity system into the Chippewa hunting-fishing-fur trading system not only disrupted traditional economic cycles but also gave the United States increased leverage in dealing with the Indians as they became dependent on the annuities. Indian agents took over many of the functions previously performed by fur traders in Chippewa society (Richmond 1846, 990; Danziger 1979, 79-81; Clifton 1987, 13-14; James 1954, 44). Another significant impact of the 1837 treaty was the appearance of whites on the ceded lands.20 American entrepreneurs flooded into the northern Wisconsin pine lands even before the treaty was ratified by the U. S. Senate on June 15, 1838, nearly eleven months after its negotiation. Among the well-known traders who signed the 1837 treaty as witnesses and subsequently exploited the forest wealth thrown open to Americans by that agreement were Henry Hastings Sibley, Hercules L. Dousman, and Lyman M. Warren (Fries 1951, 11; Babcock 1924, 374; Bartlett 1921, 37; Citizens of the Pineries {1840}). Ironically, as the cutting of the pine forests progressed, white-tailed deer flourished and the subsistence value of the ceded land actually increased to the Chippewas, making the old War Department strategy of decreasing Indian hunting grounds by land cession treaties in order to encourage removal ineffective21 (Clifton 1987, 14). American officials had plenty of information indicating that any effort to remove the Chippewas from Wisconsin was bound to fail. Six months after the ratification of the 1837 treaty, La Pointe subagent Daniel P. Bushnell advised Territorial Gov¬ ernor Dodge, “the general policy of our Government in removing the Indians west of the Mississippi can never be carried into effect in relation to . . . {the interior bands of Wisconsin} Chippewas.” His reasons were twofold: the Indians would “have to change their habits entirely,” and they would expose themselves west of the Mississippi River to the Sioux, “their natural enemies.” As a result of these circumstances, any effort to remove them would be “highly improper, and inhu¬ mane” (Bushnell 1839a). In 1840, the subagent reported that the interior bands “subsist at present by hunting, fishing, and on the wild rice found in the lakes and rivers.” He again stated that any attempt to remove them and deprive them of their 30 Chippewa Treaty Rights “usufructuary right” under the 1837 treaty would meet strong opposition (Bushnell {1840b}, 339). The 1837 treaty also had an important impact on the Chippewas along the southern shore of Lake Superior. Chief Buffalo of the La Pointe Band, whom Governor Henry Dodge referred to as “a man of great influence among his tribe, and very friendly to the whites” (Dodge 1838b), spoke the sentiments of the Indians of the region in a message directed to Governor Dodge: ... I have nothing to say about the Treaty, good, or bad, because the country was not mine; but when it comes my turn I shall know how to act. If the Americans want my land, I shall know what to say. I did not like to stand in the road of the Indians at St. Peters. I listened to our Great Father’s words, & laid them in my heart. I have not forgotten them. The Indians acted like children; they tried to cheat each other and got cheated themselves. When it comes my turn to sell my land, I do not think I shall give it up as they did. Father I speak for my people, not for myself. I am an old man. My fire is almost out — there is but little smoke. When I set in my wigwam & smoke my pipe, I think of what has past and what is to come, and it makes my heart shake. When business comes before us we will try and act like Chiefs. If any thing is to be done, it had better be done straight. (Buffalo 1837) Five years after Buffalo spoke these words, the elderly chief faced American Treaty Commissioner Robert Stuart who was determined to acquire all remaining Chippewa lands in Wisconsin. As Stuart discovered, Buffalo’s “fire” was far from out. 31 3 The 1842 Copper Treaty As American lumberjacks felled the woodlands of the Chippewa land cession in the late 1830s and early 1840s, reports of vast copper deposits along the shores of Lake Superior and the Isle Royale led federal officials to push for new land cessions from the Chippewa Indians22 (Bushnell 1839b, 489; Sterling 1840; Jones 1841; Crawford 1842, 379). The reports of rich mineral deposits in the north were well-founded, for the region contained one of the most extensive deposits of surface copper anywhere in the world.23 Centuries before the birth of Christ, Indians had mined deep copper pits along the shore and used copper in making arrowheads, fishhooks, knives, needles, and bracelets.24 Chippewa mining was so extensive that scholars claim Indian miners probably worked every modem industrial mining site dotting the shore of Lake Superior (Fig. 11). In 1837, the Michigan state legislature appointed geologist Douglas Houghton as director of its newly created Department of Geology. Houghton’s surveys in the early 1840s triggered American interest in the entire Lake Superior region (Keller 1978, 16; Nute 1944, 165; Robbins 1960, 141). Many Americans hoped to profit from the copper deposits. War Department officials wanted to acquire all Indian title to the Lake Superior shoreline, and those who hoped to gain patronage positions from the department offered their services to influence the Indians to remove (Warren 1841). In March of 1841, however, Gouvemeur Kemble suggested that American interests could be served without purchasing the ore-bearing lands from the Indians. Kemble, a New York foundry owner25 and Democratic Congressman, wrote to President Van Buren’s secretary of war, Joel R. Poinsett, and then to the new Whig administration’s secretary of war, John Bell, recommending employing Chippewa men instead of whites as mine workers and paying the Indians a percentage of the money earned from the copper mining. But Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, who served both the Van Buren and the Harrison-Tyler administrations (Satz 1979b), flatly rejected Kemble’s plan of joint Chippewa and American involvement in Lake Superior mining efforts because it would have perpetuated Chippewa ownership of the re¬ gion’s mineral resources (Keller 1978, 17). Instead, Crawford called for the ac¬ quisition of all Chippewa lands in the region, noting control of the southern shore of Lake Superior was “very important” to American interests (Crawford 1842, 379). The Treaty of October 4, 1842 (Fig. 12), with the Mississippi and Lake Superior Chippewas accomplished Crawford’s purpose by ceding land north of the 1837 cession. Following the cession, copper mining boomed: the region led the world in copper production by 1890 (Keller 1978, 17). Acting Superintendent of Indian Affairs Robert Stuart of Michigan (Fig. 13) negotiated the 1842 treaty at La Pointe. Stuart, a former agent of the American Fur Company (AFC) who was active in Whig political circles in Michigan (Satz 1975, 162), had indicated a strong interest in economic opportunities in the Lake Superior region as early as the 1820s (Nute 1926, 485). The Indians who assembled at the 33 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters Fig. 11. Ancient Mining on Lake Superior. A drawing by J. C. Tidball, from Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Con¬ dition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, Vol. 5 (1 855). Courtesy of the Library of Congress. LC-USZ62-2088 treaty grounds agreed to cede the last of the Chippewa lands in northern Wisconsin (see Fig. 7) only after Stuart made oral explanations about the articles he included in the final treaty: the provision for continued hunting, fishing, and gathering privileges in ceded territory; the payments amounting to $75,000 to traders and $15,000 to mixed-bloods; the $5,000 agriculture fund to be expended under the direction of the secretary of war; and the twenty-five year annuity schedule with $31,200 in cash, goods, and services to be “equally divided” between the Mis¬ sissippi and Lake Superior bands (Kappler 2: 542-45; App. 4). Official documentation for the 1842 treaty is scanty since unlike the 1837 ne¬ gotiations neither Treaty Commissioner Stuart nor Secretary Jonathan Hulbert kept a journal, or at least neither forwarded one to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Crawford. But historian Mark Keller errs in stating that “government documents are silent on the event” (1981, 10). Stuart corresponded with Commissioner Craw- 34 Chippewa Treaty Rights /ylf'Z Z/sZsti y^Z.^4 Zfjp.esSy. - f ? fSe mere/ f-Z? Zee* ? *sSe ty Zlt, //Sii, /Sete is *Z eZ/tt/c* s&**sl /Z^y/ssse eiee, y /F/tstek eS& / /ZL. /£/* SsueC Zei jSls t/ee^eteet , Se sZ,c set ?• e<„ /Z s/ ///. //_ afreet J , // SSserS SSss ~J%.€ ''/Zeises fa/t e/tseSesy /?SS S/u JU/ti >/ eSj //« y&/ef sZf jS^Zhteettf/y, yteets. fZ.tr yert/ajfjc S*/i sZ& 'Z/*eJ e ee?e Z0 ■tv.'*/ J ZZtre* ee, 6hSef/ £* -s/etseis sZ/y t Si/ks* e /Ze ZseeeseSety Zen;, /feZetseetc sZ& Sf/tef fares r se? e 'es.Se-e , SsLJtSSf'et^ //p'settSjMi 4^>»y y^iSs Z/sZrsS. -Zy /A* "Zeer*. Sy YYtA SZt/yys *4j>*s* / /Meets ettestee u*y fe*ttS , SlS S/et/Z- te/is Zs/reZs, ZZfets/ ZZ Z/ZZyy Zmty * zZtxt ZZfsst e*. *..<,* Zjy ZZ 'ret y" *<* ZZ&y / /Zstt, €&*■ /St- st/Zi-teea, e fS /y "~Z& SAms d&ee. e ss y /Z sestZtfoZ Sts/ r- t, S ZZshss sZetti-'dt* tSauec S&tet ~Z$ Z/j Setse-t.// */Z’e y4..Stfree,. tyZ Zy*t* m4"*^y Fig. 12. Treaty of 1842. The first page of the handwritten manuscript. Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Service. 35 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 13. Robert and Elizabeth Stuart. Acting Superintendent of the Michigan Super¬ intendency Robert Stuart, who negotiated the 1842 treaty, was described by one contemporary as “a severe man in all things” (Ghent 1936, 176). Courtesy of the State Archives of Michigan. 36 Chippewa Treaty Rights ford in Washington regarding the treaty (Stuart 1842a, b; Apps. 3 A, 3B). He also responded to a letter from Reverend David Greene of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions26 in Boston inquiring “whether the later Treaty contemplates the expatriation of the Ojibways, to Queen Victoria’s dominions, or some worse place’’ (Stuart 1842c). In June of 1843, less than three months after ratification of the treaty, Stuart corresponded with Commissioner Crawford about the provision for continued usufructuary rights in ceded territory (Stuart 1843b). Additionally in a letter written two years after the negotiations, Stuart reconstructed the events of the proceedings for Crawford to settle a dispute arising from the treaty (Stuart 1844; App. 3C ). Other American eyewitnesses included missionary Reverend Leonard H. Wheeler and his interpreter, Henry Blatchford. Interpreter Blatchford prepared a contem¬ poraneous journal of the proceedings that Wheeler forwarded to his missionary headquarters in May of 1843 (Wheeler 1843). Also present at the parley was La Pointe Subagent Alfred Brunson. He wrote Wisconsin Territorial Governor James D. Doty about the proceedings (Brunson 1843b, c) and later reflected on events in his published reminiscences (Brunson 1872-79, 2: 165, 185-86, 206-07). The evidence from American eyewitnesses, including that from Stuart, indicates the commissioner used heavy-handed tactics to secure the treaty. Stuart informed the Indians assembled at La Pointe, using language very similar to Dodge’s at St. Peters in 1837, that their Great Father in Washington “knows that you are poor, that your lands are not good, and that you have very little game left, to feed and clothe your women & children-— He therefore pities your condition, and has sent me to see what can be done to benefit you.” Stuart claimed that according to the Treaty of Fond du Lac of 1826, the minerals found on their lands “no longer” belonged to the Indians but to the United States. He also reported, “the whites have been asking your Great Father to give them permission to take away all {minerals} they can find —-but your Great Father wishes first to make a new treaty, and to pay you well for these lands and minerals; he knows you are poor and needy.” Stuart cautioned the Indians against listening to “some fools {who} have been telling you Squaw stories” that the Great Father was “very anxious to buy your lands & will give you a great price for them” (Stuart 1844, 0061, 0064; App. 3C ). Like Governor Dodge in 1837, Stuart used the popular white concept of majority rule to permit the assembled representatives of the Minnesota bands and the Chris¬ tianized bands from Michigan to outmaneuver those of the Lake Superior Wisconsin bands who were not interested in ceding their lands. “Your Great Father will not treat with you as Bands, but as a Nation,” Stuart commented, adding very shrewdly, “treaties are often made when whole Bands are absent, which could not be but on the principle that all your lands are common property, and the majority of the Nation can sell or not as they please, the absentees being entitled to their share of the annuities.” Although it was “all right” for the bands to live apart and to choose their own hunting grounds, Stuart told them their lands were “common property” and could be ceded by tribal leaders assembled for that purpose just as annuities “must all be paid at one place” (Stuart 1844, 0067; App. 3C). Stuart informed the Chippewas that the whites “are numerous as the pigeons in the Spring” and that other Indian tribes had already “been sent west of the Mis¬ sissippi, to make room for the whites.” He nevertheless assured the Indians it was 37 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters the minerals on their lands, not the lands themselves, that the whites desired at this time. “But as these lands may at some future day be required,” he stated, “your great Father does not wish to leave you without a home.” He proposed that when their ceded lands were required by the president, a “home in common for you all” would be provided in present-day Minnesota (Stuart 1844, 0062, 0064; App. 3C). At first, the chiefs of the Wisconsin bands from the Lake Superior region remained silent. As the Chippewas later recalled the event, “the Chiefs along the Lake Shore did not say a word, not being willing to sell or make any agreement” (Chippewas of Lake Superior 1864). Stuart, failing as did Governor Dodge in 1837 to understand the significance of the silence, attempted to hurry the negotiations to a conclusion. Chiefs from other regions then spoke. Shingoob of Fond du Lac protested Stuart’s assertion that the Indians had surrendered all rights to minerals on their lands in 1826. He charged that the Chippewas “had been deceived” by the treaty com¬ missioners at that parley. There were similar complaints about the 1837 treaty at St. Peters being “a lying, cheating concern.” Chief White Crow from Lac du Flambeau alluded to prior discrepancies between what the Chippewas understood treaty provisions to be and what the words of the white negotiators actually told other whites when he stated, “We want nothing wrong on Paper. You may think I am troubl{e}some but the way the treaty was made at St. Peters, we think was wrong, we want nothing of the kind again.” White Crow informed the assembled Indians he was very reluctant to “touch the pen” to the treaty for fear that “he should be called upon immidiately {.sic} to remove.” Chief Buffalo of La Pointe agreed and complained Stuart was not allowing the Indians enough time to deliberate on the important issues he had presented for their consideration (Wheeler 1843). La Pointe subagent Alfred Brunson, a Methodist missionary and Wisconsin pioneer, bluntly stated, “the Indians did not act free & voluntary, but felt themselves pressed into the measure” by Stuart who according to “several reputable witnesses,” had told them “it was no difference whether they signed or not” because “the Gov{emmen}t would take the land” (Brunson 1843c). Stuart assured the Lake Shore chiefs, as had Dodge in 1837, that they would not be asked to leave ceded lands for a very long time. When the suspicious chiefs demanded to know the exact length of time, Stuart responded — depending on the individual reporting the event — “as long as we behaved well & are peaceable with our grandfather {in Washington} & his white children” (Martin {1842}), “not probbably {sic} during . . . {your} lifetime” (Wheeler 1843), “we and our children after us might be permitted to live on our land fifty years or even a hundred if we lived on friendly terms with the Whites” (Buffalo et al. 1851), or “that they were never to be disturbed if they behaved themselves” (Armstrong {1892}, 288). Stuart himself informed Reverend David Greene of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in Boston shortly after the treaty negotiations, “I have the pleasure to state, that it is not expected the Indians will have to remove from their present locations, for many years to come. There are a few on and near the mineral district, who, in imitation of Abraham and Lot, may have to move to the right, or left.” Nevertheless, Stuart assured Greene that removal of the Wisconsin Indians would not occur in the foreseeable future. As a further inducement to obtaining Greene’s support of the treaty, Stuart told the missionary, “I have consulted with your people as to the best locations for schools, Missionaries, Gov{emmen}t Officers &c; to settle at, and hope to be able to do some good in that way, as well as in 38 Chippewa Treaty Rights nominating good men to the Gov{emmen}t appointments, should the Treaty be ratified” (Stuart 1842c). Six months after making these statements, and shortly after the ratification of the treaty, Stuart opposed suggestions that the Indian Office remove the Lake Superior Chippewas to Minnesota. He advised Indian Commis¬ sioner Crawford: There are those who think that all these Indians should be at once removed to the unceded district; but this would not be in conformity with the spirit of the treaty, nor could it be easily accomplished just now, as they have considerable game, fish, and other inducements to attach them to their present homes; but so soon as they realize the benefits of schools, and the other arts of civilization, which I trust we shall be able to cluster around them, there will be less difficulty in inducing them to renounce their present habits. (Stuart 1843b) Although Stuart underestimated the Indians’ attachment to their “habits,” his ob¬ servation that removal would not be “in conformity with the spirit of the treaty” coincided with their understanding of the agreement. The actual wording of the published treaty provision appears in Article 2: The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until required to remove by the President of the United States, and that the laws of the United States shall be continued in force, in respect to their trade and inter course {sic} with the whites, until otherwise ordered by Congress. (Kappler 2: 542-43; App. 4) There was great controversy following the treaty’s ratification as to the exact mean¬ ing of this provision and the similar statement in the 1837 treaty (Kappler 2: 492; App. 2). The interpretation of these treaty provisions continues to be a source of controversy today. In 1892, Benjamin G. Armstrong of Ashland, a southerner who moved to Wis¬ consin during the territorial period, claimed in his reminiscences that Treaty Com¬ missioner Stuart had specifically told the Chippewas they “were never to be dis¬ turbed {in their possession of the ceded lands} if they behaved themselves” (Armstrong {1892}, 288). Armstrong’s reminiscences provide a sympathetic account of the Wisconsin Chippewas. Married to the niece of Chief Buffalo, who had adopted him as his son, Armstrong was a “sturdy defender” of the Wisconsin Chippewas (Armstrong {1892}, 175). Recently, anthropologist James A. Clifton has challenged Armstrong’s version of Stuart’s alleged promise. Calling Armstrong “an inconsequential figure,” Clifton stated unequivocally in an article in the 1987 issue of Transactions , “there is no independent suggestion of the truth of this assertion {by Armstrong}— that continued occupancy and use rights were contingent on good behavior as there is little support for other such claims in Armstrong’s reminiscences” (Clifton 1987, 36 n. 44). In a 1988 Associated Press news release, Clifton attacked recent court rulings restoring Chippewa hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in ceded territory, claiming the rulings relied heavily on Armstrong’s memoirs. The Wisconsin news media paid considerable attention to Clifton’s assertions because of possible implications on court decisions relating to rights reserved by the Chippewas {Eau Claire Leader- Telegram 1988a). Professor Clifton’s contention that Armstrong’s claims about 39 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Chippewa reserved rights cannot be independently corroborated is erroneous and, as will be noted, is clearly refuted by eyewitnesses to the treaty proceedings.27 The Indian recollection of the treaty proceedings as reported shortly after the negotiations supports the conclusion that Commissioner Stuart used harsh measures to secure the agreement. Less than three months after the parley concluded on August 4, 1842, Chief Buffalo of La Pointe sent a message to subagent Brunson through interpreter and treaty witness Lyman Warren indicating the La Pointe band’s displeasure with the treaty.28 Buffalo stated bluntly he was “ashamed” of it, and he charged that Stuart had refused to listen to any Indians opposing the measure. Buffalo personally requested Brunson to ask the Great Father in Washington why he had sought “to oppress his children in this remote country” (Buffalo 1842). Shortly after Buffalo dictated his words of opposition to the treaty and to Stuart’s handling of the negotiations, Stuart wrote Commissioner Crawford to assure him that the Chippewas were “highly delighted with the kind and generous dealing of the Government toward them” (Stuart 1842b, 0196; App. 3B ), but Subagent Brun¬ son sent the War Department ample evidence to refute Stuart’s claim (Brunson 1843a, b; Buffalo 1842; Martin {1842}; White Crow 1842). The correspondence Brunson forwarded to Commissioner Crawford demonstrated that Chief Buffalo was not alone in his criticism of Stuart’s handling of the ne¬ gotiations. Chief White Crow from Lac du Flambeau, for example, also complained about Stuart’s insistence that it made no difference whether or not a particular chief signed the treaty since the President would take the land if a majority of chiefs signed (White Crow 1842). Chief Martin of Lac Courte Oreilles, who claimed he had “never touched the pen” to sell lands before, also provided a communication to be shared with Commissioner Crawford. “I & my brother chiefs refused to touch the pen,” Martin assured Crawford, until Stuart promised that the Wisconsin Chip¬ pewas would be “permitted to live on the land as long as we behaved well & are peaceable with our grand father {in Washington} & his white children” (Martin {1842}). The statements of Chiefs Buffalo, White Crow, and Martin were forwarded to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Crawford on January 8, 1843, a month before the treaty was ratified by the Senate, and more than two months before it was proclaimed by President John Tyler (Brunson 1843b).29 Brunson also sent Crawford a report of a council held at La Pointe on January 5, 1843. At the council, Chief Buffalo had refuted Stuart’s contention that the Chippewas had signed away their rights to northern Wisconsin at Fond du Lac in 1826. The chief informed the assembled representatives of bands from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan that the Chippewas had been tricked into ceding land in 1837 at St. Peters “for almost nothing,” and he repeated his charge that Stuart had refused to let him speak at the recent treaty parley at La Pointe. Some warriors then stepped forward to speak. Their hearts “pained” by the treaties of 1837 and 1842, they requested a reservation be set aside so their children would have “a resting place” in Wisconsin. Their words as recorded by the subagent, with his parenthetical comments, are as follows (Brunson 1843a): Our grand father bought our lands for the copper it contains. There is a piece of land where this metal is not found; the trees are not good (pine), & there is nothing there that the pale faces can make use of. We want our Grand father to reserve us this land, where 40 Chippewa Treaty Rights we can make our sugar & plant our gardens. (At this they presented us a piece of birch bark on which was sketched a rough map of Bad River from the falls to the mouth.) Contrary to Stuart’s contention that the Chippewas were “highly delighted” with his dealing with them at La Pointe, there was considerable criticism of the com¬ missioner among the Wisconsin Chippewas, who repeatedly told American officials that their signatures on the treaty were obtained only after assurances that they would be able to remain in Wisconsin. Pressure from traders had also undoubtedly contributed to the acceptance of Stuart’s terms at the 1842 parley. According to the treaty, Stuart was to examine and then approve or disprove claims against the Indians that were to be paid out of funds provided by the United States in payment for the land it was acquiring. The list of approved claimants appended to the treaty by Stuart included his secretary for the proceedings, a majority of the witnesses to the treaty, and Stuart’s former employer and close friend John Jacob Astor of the American Fur Company. These individuals had considerable influence among the Chippewas and received the lion’s share of the $75,000 set aside for Indian debts (Kappler 2: 544-45; App. 4). Ratification of the Treaty of October 4, 1842, took more than four months (Fig. 14). The correspondence of the American Fur Company (AFC) reveals that the company, whose claims were recognized by former company agent Stuart at the negotiations, lobbied hard for ratification. As Michigan Senator William Wood- bridge confided to AFC President Ramsey Crooks, the treaty was “in much danger” in the Senate. Opponents raised several objections. Some argued the land was not yet needed. Others believed Commissioner Stuart, who had previously worked for the company, had treated the company’s claims too favorably. For some senators, opposition to the treaty was a means of venting their “vindictive hostility” toward Governor James Doty, a longtime friend of Commissioner Stuart and a strong supporter of the treaty. Finally, there were objections to the treaty provision con¬ tinuing U. S. laws (prohibiting the introduction of liquor and such) in the ceded territory as a violation of the principle of state rights. Senator Woodbridge, cau¬ tioning Crooks to bum his letter after reading it, urged the AFC official to redouble his lobby efforts against the treaty before it assumed “a party character” (Wood- bridge 1843). Whatever political machinations secured ratification of the treaty, the Chippewas had a clear understanding of what they had accepted at La Pointe. Chief Martin’s contention that the Chippewas had been assured they could remain on their lands as long as they behaved was repeated to federal officials years later in 1864 by the Chippewa delegation from Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, and La Pointe (Bad River and Red Cliff) visiting Washington that year. Although exact identifi¬ cation of the members of the delegation is difficult to determine because the Chip¬ pewas reuse names in different generations and because names reappear in several locales, Canadian scholar John D. Nichols has concluded that at least three members of the delegation may have been signers of the 1842 treaty (Nichols 1988, 3). According to the statement made by the delegation, the 1842 proceedings ended as follows: Then it was that the Chief White Crow spoke, he spoke in regard to every thing, and all the business being transacted at the time. 41 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters And said to . . . {Stuart}, My Father I understand you to say that you want the Mineral, well then I will comply with the wish of our Great Father in asking me to sell him the Mineral which he wants. I do not give you the land, it is the Mineral only that I sell if there is any to be found on my land. I do not cede the Land, as he cried with a loud voice turning to his fellow Indians in which they all responded, with Eh! Eh! And as my Great Father promises and agrees I accept. I agree with the proposition that the payment should be for Twenty Five Years, and also that I shall see the end of my payments here. Then he was answered back, and told that he any how had the privilege of remaining on the land for Fifty Years, and even for a Hundred Years, as he owned and had possession of the land, he has a right to live on it. But then there may be a time that your Great Father will call you to a Council and ask you to sell him the land you live on. (Chippewas of Lake Superior 1864) In 1864, as in 1842, Chippewa leaders from the Lake Superior country were convinced that they would not be asked to leave their lands as long as they remained at peace with the Americans. Several years after the bilingual petition was presented in Washington, La Pointe Agent John H. Knight forwarded to Indian Commissioner Ely S. Parker a speech made in 1869 by Chippewa orator Black Bird30 to a council held at Bad River. The speech (with comments added in brackets by Knight) was sent as a “specimen of Chippewa oratory furnished for . . . information and entertainment.’’ In his com¬ ments, Black Bird said the Chippewas had been “robbed’’ of their lands by the treaties of 1837 and 1842. My name is Black Bird in whose mouth there is no lie. A lie never has had a place in my mouth since I was bom. What these speakers have said is as true as everybody in these parts will testify to. The man who acted for us when the first treaty was made was named Magegawbaw and the man that acted for us when the mineral lands were ceded was named Obiskawgawgee (the White Crane). [The speaker was here referring to what previous speakers had stated that only the minerals and timber were ceded at the St. Peters treaty & treaty of ’37; the lands, birch, oak & maple timber were reserved by them also the rice fields.] Who was it that put in the treaty a cession of our lands? It must have been the Commissioner. We utter nothing against our Great Father nor his Agent. But it is our Great Father’s place to put these things right. His arms are long and strong, he has much power, he is great. Black Bird concluded his remarks by noting, “the lands still belong to us. We have never sold the lands. When our Great Father shall have made these things right with our people, we will be satisfied, then and not until then’’ (Black Bird 1869). Thus, as late as 1869, oral tradition about Chippewa reserved rights was consistent with the views of the band leaders present at the actual negotiations in 1842. The negotiations of 1842, along with those of 1837, created the basis for a later, prolonged dispute over the meaning of Chippewa reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights and the meaning of the phrase “during the pleasure of the President of the United States.’’ More than two months before the ratification of the 1842 treaty in March of 1843, La Pointe Subagent Alfred Brunson raised serious questions about the agreement (Brunson 1843b). 42 Chippewa Treaty Rights JOHN TYLER, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 8TATE8 OF AMERICA, TO ALL AND SINGULAR TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, OREET1MO : Whereas, a Treaty was made and concluded at La Pointe of Lake Su¬ perior, in the Territory of Wisconsin, between Robert Stuart, Commissioner on the paft of the United States, and the Chippewa Indians of the Missis¬ sippi ami Lake Superior, by their chiefs and headmen, on the fourth, day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty- two, which Treaty is word for word, as follows,- to wit : Articles of a Treaty made and concluded at La Point e of Lake Superior, in the Territory of fVisconsin, between Robert Stuart Commissioner on the part of the United States , and the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi , and Lake Superior , by their chiefs and headmen ; Article i. Tha'Ctnppewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, cede 10 the United States all the country within the following boundaries ; viz : beginning at the mouth of Chocolate River of Lake Superior ; thence northwardly across said lake to intersect the boundary line between the United States and the Province of Canada ; thence op said Lake Superior, to the mouth of the St. Louis, or Fond du I^ac River (including all the islands in said lake) ; theooe up said river to the American Fur Company’s trading post, at the southwardly bend thereof, about twenty-two miles from its mouth ; thence south to in¬ tersect the line of the treaty of 29th July, 1837, with the Chippewas of the Mississippi ; thence along said line fo its southeastwardly extremity, near the Plover portage on the Wis¬ consin River ; thence northeastwardly, along the boundary line, between the Chippewas and Menomonees, to its eastern termination, (established by the treaty held with tho Chip- gewas, Menomonees, and Winebagoes, at Butte des Morts, August . 1 ltd,' 1827) on tlje konawby River of Green Bay ; thence northwardly, to the source of Chocolate River ; thence down said river to itsrtiouth, tho place of beginning ; it being.-tbe intention ortho parties to this treaty, to include in this cession, all the Chippewa lands eastwacdly oLthc aforesaid line running from the American Fur Compands trading post On the Fond du Lac River to the intersection of the line of the treaty made with the Chippewas of the Missis¬ sippi July 29th 1837. Article il The Indians stipulate for the right o fainting on the ceded Ifcrritory, with the other usual privilegeajof-eeeepaircy; until required to removo by the President of the United States, and that the laws of the United States shall be continued in force, in respect to their trade and intercourse with tho whites, until otherwise ordered by Congress. Article iii. It is agreed by the parties to this Treaty, that whenever the Indians shall be required to remove from the ceded district, all tho uocetled- lands belonging to the In¬ dians of Food du l>ac, Sandy Lake, and Mississippi Bands, shall be tho common property and liocne of all the Indians, party to this Treaty. Article tv. In consideration of tho foregoing cession, the United States, engage to pay to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, and l^ake SujK-rior, annually, for twenty-five years, twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) dollars, in specie, ten thousand five hundred (10,500) dollars in goods, two thousand (2,000) dollars in provisions and tdwcco, two Fig. 14. Proclamation of 1842 Treaty by President John Tyler. From Documents Relating to the Negotiation of Ratified and Unratified Treaties with Various Indian Tribes, 1801 -1 869, Microcopy T494, Roll 9, Record Group 75, the National Archives and Records Service. Courtesy of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Media Development Center. 43 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Shortly after Stuart negotiated the treaty, Brunson — arguing that “economy should never impair justice” — informed Wisconsin Territorial Governor and Superinten¬ dent of Indian Affairs John Doty and Secretary of War John C. Spencer that the Chippewas had been shortchanged by their treaties with the United States. The Indians, he claimed, received less than eight cents an acre for eleven million acres in 1837 and only seven cents per acre for twelve million acres in 1842 — a trifle for excellent port sites and land rich in copper, fish, and timber (Brunson 1843b; Smith 1954, 285; Keller 1978, 5-6). Superintendent Stuart assured Indian Commissioner Crawford that Brunson’s “crude and visionary” perception of “alleged” injustices against the Chippewas were an “absurdity.” He advised Crawford that the subagent should be “strictly admonished” and made to acknowledge the “wise and humane policy” of the federal government that Stuart had carried out at La Pointe in 1842 (Stuart 1843a). “It is the duty of every public officer to sustain with his best exertions the views and policy of the Government,” the commissioner informed Brunson (Crawford 1843). Then, upon Crawford’s recommendation, Secretary of War James M. Porter dismissed the subagent (Porter 1843; Smith 1954, 285; Keller 1978, 5-6). 31 “The {War} Department did not remove Mr. Brunson any too soon,” Stuart assured Crawford several months later. According to Stuart, Brunson was “not only deficient in head, but depraved in heart” for making “false and absurd accusations” with regard to Stuart’s conduct at the 1842 negotiations (Stuart 1844). Not until two years after the ratification of the 1842 treaty in early 1843 did the federal government issue mining permits for the ceded territory in an organized fashion. Indeed, the special agent sent by the War Department to reconnoiter the area was overwhelmed by the “unexpected magnitude of the Cession” (Cunningham 1844, 677). Enterprising miners had entered the region, however, even before President Tyler signed the treaty and there was considerable pressure on the War Department to grant permits (Robbins 1960, 141; Doty 1843; Talcott 1845). During the copper boom of the 1840s, the Lake Superior Chippewa remained on their ceded lands enjoying, to quote Article 2 of the Treaty of 1842, their reserved “right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occu¬ pancy.” Few white settlers had any interest in the pinelands of northern Wisconsin with their harsh winters and short growing seasons, so the Indians continued to follow age-old patterns of hunting, fishing, and gathering without interference by whites (Danziger 1979, 88). The Indians assumed that under the 1842 treaty they had only granted whites the use of their lands (Vennum 1988, 257). In reviewing the circumstances surrounding the Chippewa treaties of 1837 and 1842, economists Daniel W. Bromley and Basil M. H. Sharp assert that “the Indian conception of property would easily have allowed them to believe the land in question could be shared, but that the land could not be alienated.” The Chippewas believed that as long as they behaved themselves and were orderly, they could continue to hunt, fish, and gather while whites cut pine trees and searched for minerals on the same lands (1990, 14-15). As Chief Martin commented shortly after signing the agree¬ ment, “we have no objection to the white mans {s/c} working the mines, & the timber & making farms. But we reserve the Birch bark & Ceder {s/c}, for canoes, the Rice & the Sugar tree and the priviledge of hunting without being disturbed by the whites” (Martin {1842}). 44 Chippewa Treaty Rights Many Chippewa Indians and whites in Wisconsin enjoyed a good relationship during the years immediately following the 1842 treaty according to anthropologists Charles Cleland and James Clifton. Lake Superior Chippewa men increasingly engaged in commercial fishing, either with their own equipment or as seasonal laborers for white Americans, and Chippewa women cleaned the fish before packing it in salt as American entrepreneurs sought to create a national market for this product from the Lake Superior country. As mining developed, numerous Chippewa men transported supplies, acted as guides, cut and supplied mine timber, or delivered fish, venison, furs, hides, rice, and maple sugar (the major sweetener used in the United States before 1860). Chippewa women traded surplus fruits and vegetables to miners. In the interior, some Chippewa men and women became attuned to the labor and material requirements of the lumber industry. Both along the southern shore of Lake Superior and in the interior of Wisconsin, the Chippewas delivered services and goods that created economic and social bonds, which in turn created potential allies. In addition, removal of the Chippewas from Wisconsin would have deprived many loggers and miners of female companions (Cleland 1985, 14-17; Clifton 1987, 18-19). While contemporary evidence suggests that Wisconsin Chippewas participated in the kinds of activities described by Cleland and Clifton (Ramsey 1850, 53-54), some may have tried to avoid contact with whites whenever possible. In September of 1843, for example, White Crow from Lac du Flambeau and chiefs from several other interior bands requested their annuity payments be made at the falls of the Chippewa River rather than at Bad River to the north. “If we go to Bad river {s/c},” they protested, “we are near to the white men, who work the copper mines — we sold twelve moons ago. We do not wish to be near them. Whenever we are near white men we are sure to have trouble. ’ ’ Yet the chiefs understood that total isolation from whites was not the answer. Although they asserted that “the great Spirit never made the Red men and white men to live together,” the chiefs nevertheless ac¬ knowledged their dependence on whites for some things by pleading for the res¬ toration of the blacksmith shop and the model farm that had been moved from Chippewa Falls to distant northern locations (Chippewa Chiefs 1843). Whether they sought to avoid contact with whites or whether they enjoyed a good working relationship with them, the Chippewas had no intention of leaving Wisconsin. Events of the mid- and late- 1840s, however, brought considerable pressure for removal reminiscent of Andrew Jackson’s handling of the Southern tribes in the 1830s. The return of the Democrats to the White House in 1845 elevated avowed ex¬ pansionist William Medill to the position of commissioner of Indian affairs. Medill soon began planning for the establishment of a northern “Indian colony” on the headwaters of the Mississippi River. He argued that the creation of such a colony, together with the concentration of Indians on the desirable lands north of the Kansas River to the area west of Missouri and Kansas, would permit a safe corridor for emigrants to the west coast (Satz 1988; Medill 1846a, 1848, 388-90). Territorial acquisitions in the Far West after the Mexican War had led many American officials including Medill to realize the Indian removal policy so vig¬ orously pursued by Andrew Jackson and his successors had ironically established by the mid- 1840s what Napoleon in the 1790s and the British at the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 had failed to achieve — namely, the construction of an Indian barrier to American continental expansion. This barrier stretched from Canada in the North 45 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters to Texas in the South and from the Rocky Mountains in the West to the Arkansas- Missouri-Iowa- Wisconsin line. Medill hoped to break open this barrier, and his strategy hinged on the relocation of northern Indians. Wisconsin statehood (1848) and the territorial organization of Minnesota (1849) were both still a few years in the future as Medill sought to remove Indians still in Wisconsin to northern Min¬ nesota and particularly to remove the Chippewas from the mineral-rich south shores of Lake Superior that were “exciting much interest” among American entrepreneurs (Medill 1846b, 219-20; Dodge 1847a, 1056; Satz 1975, 231-36; 1988; Trennert 1979c, 33-34). Although the Chippewa bands in Wisconsin viewed any effort to relocate them near “the wandering and vicious tribes which infest the plains and the mountains stretching from the Mississippi to the Pacific” as synonymous with a death sentence32 (Head Chiefs 1849, 2), Medill sent Isaac A. Verplanck of Bativia, New York and Charles E. Mix of the Indian Office staff in Washington to the south shore of Lake Superior in the summer of 1847 to arrange for the resettlement of the Chippewas across the Mississippi River. Medill told the commissioners that the Chippewa bands in Wisconsin are “widely scattered and lead a roving & unsettled life, & obtain subsistence principally by fishing & hunting.” As a result, “their concen¬ tration in a section of country as far as possible beyond the reach of a white frontier population, is requisite to enable the Government to give them the benefit of the benevolent course of policy it is now pursuing for the civilization & moral im¬ provement of the red race.” Medill reasoned it would be less expensive in the long run if the federal government moved the Chippewas across the Mississippi at one time rather than if the government acquired a land cession in Wisconsin and allowed the Indians to congregate on their remaining lands only to be moved again later. He told the treaty commissioners, “considering the expenses to which the govern¬ ment is subjected in surveying and disposing of lands purchased of Indians, ten cents per acre has been found to be a full price for those occupied & valuable to Indians, & which are important for settlement & cultivation by a white population” while “unoccupied & unused” lands should cost no more than five cents per acre. Medill stressed that “it is a leading object with the Department to consider the Chippewas, and to have them think themselves one United people with possessions and interests in common” rather than the separate bands claiming “exclusive in¬ terest” in different portions of their lands. “Should you succeed in effecting a treaty with them,” the commissioner cautioned Verplanck and Mix, “it should as far as possible be made clearly & unequivocally to express the meaning & intention” of the War Department (Medill 1847). The treaty commissioners obtained land cessions in present-day Minnesota (see Fig. 7), but the Wisconsin bands on the south shore of Lake Superior resisted their efforts. The Wisconsin Chippewas had no intention of relocating as part of Indian Commissioner Medill’ s grand design to rid Wisconsin, Iowa, and southern Min¬ nesota of Indians so as to provide a safe corridor for westward-bound American travelers between the Indian country southwest of the Missouri River and a new northern counterpart to be established in north central Minnesota. Treaty Commis¬ sioner Verplanck informed Indian Commissioner Medill that the Indian Office was “mistaken” if it thought that the Lake Superior Chippewas were willing to relocate. “When I said in council that I would talk no more about their lands,” Verplanck reported, “they at first understood me to say that they would never again be asked 46 Chippewa Treaty Rights to sell their lands and they expressed themselves much pleased that they were to be left alone” (Verplanck 1847). Medill, using arguments similar to those of President Jackson in his efforts years earlier to promote Indian removal to the West,33 suggested evicting the Chippewas from northern Wisconsin as a means of promoting their “civilization.” In 1846, for example, he had reported that “the principle means of subsistence of these Indians is the chase: they are widely dispersed, so that but little supervision can be exercised over them, and hence ardent spirits can be introduced among them with facility and little risk of detection. While they remain in their present situation, but little if anything can be done to give them the benefit of the benevolent policy of the government for the improvement of the Indian race.” Removal across the Mississippi River and concentration on a reduced land base would supposedly force the Chippewas “to resort to agriculture and other pursuits of civilized life” while permitting the federal government to provide better enforcement of its laws against the importation of liquor into Indian country (Medill 1846b, 219-20). Although Commissioner Medill used the control of liquor in Indian country as a reason for promoting the removal of the Wisconsin bands, the Indians’ conduct does not seem to have warranted removal. A group of forty-four whites from Eagle River complained in February of 1 847 that traffic in ‘ ‘Ardent Spirits” on the southern shore of Lake Superior “materially impeded” mining operations, “effecting also the Society, and interest of all concerned,” but they blamed the federal government for failing to “enforce the law” against the sale of liquor to Indians (Residents Near Lake Superior 1847). An altercation in September of 1847 between Chippewa Indians — from the Wisconsin River and Pelican Lake bands returning home from an annuity payment at Bad River — and whites who had sold them whiskey elicited a very revealing commentary from La Pointe subagent James P. Hays. When the whites refused to provide the intoxicated Indians with more liquor, the Indians shoved the whites off their boats and fired upon them. Subagent Hays reported the incident to Governor Henry Dodge: This is the first instance of an Indian raising his hand against a white man on Lake Superior, which has ever come within my knowledge; but it is no more than I would expect under the circumstances. If {white} men will pursue this {whiskey} traffic, they must look for such results, and have no right to complain or receive sympathy. The Chippewas as individuals, and as a nation, are well disposed, and will continue to be so as long as the cupidity and heartlessness of the whiskey dealer will permit. I fear that in our accounts of outrages and crime, we have done the Chippewas, if no other tribe, injustice in many cases; for I find on comparing them with almost any civilized community of the same size, for four years, there will be found the smaller aggregate of crime on the part of the savage; and every crime of any magnitude which has been committed may be traced to the influence of the white man. (Hays 1847, 825) According to Hays, there was much more need to control the activities of greedy whites like the whiskey traffickers than there was to decry Chippewa behavior (Fig. 15). The attempted rape of a Chippewa woman by a lumberjack near Chippewa Falls on July 4, 1849, is an example of violence inspired by drunken whites. The incident resulted in the lynching of the woman’s husband by a white mob when he tried to rescue her. Three lumberjacks were arrested, but they escaped on their way to stand trial at Prairie du Chien (Current 1976, 154). Six years before this incident 47 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 48 Fig. 15. Drunken Frolic Among the Chippewas. This painting by Swiss immigrant-artist Peter Rindisbacher depicts the dire effects of liquor on a Chippewa community along the Canadian-American border. Because alcohol was storable, immediately consumable, and addictive, white traders found it to be a particularly effective inducement in encouraging Indians to hunt more intensively for them. Courtesy of the West Point Museum Collections, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Chippewa Treaty Rights and just months after the ratification of the 1842 treaty, one of the nation’s highest ranking Army officers warned that the real culprits responsible for inciting tension and disputes between Indians and whites in northern Wisconsin were the “worse than savage white men” who sold liquor to the Indians (Gaines 1843). During the late 1840s, Wisconsin Chippewas had done nothing to trigger removal under the treaties of 1837 and 1842. Nevertheless, persistent rumors of their im¬ pending eviction troubled them and led them to take direct action to prevent such a disaster (. Detroit Daily Free Press 1848). 49 4 The Removal Order and the Wisconsin Death March In late fall of 1848, a contingent of Chippewa Indians including chiefs representing sixteen Lake Superior bands traveled to Washington to try to end any additional talk about their removal to the West ( Detroit Daily Free Press 1848). Early in 1849, they presented a petition to the members of Congress (Fig. 16). “Our people,” they said, “desire a donation of twenty-four sections of land, covering the graves of our fathers, our sugar orchards, and our rice lakes and rivers, at seven different places now occupied by us as villages.” The chiefs requested the establishment of a “permanent home” for their people at Vieux Desert or Old Garden (three sections) , at Trout Lake (four sections), at Lac Courte Oreilles (four sections), at La Pointe (four sections), at Ontonagon (three sections), at L’Anse (three sections), and at Pequaming34 (three sections). “We do not wish,” they declared, “to be driven north of the British line, nor West among the wandering and vicious tribes which infest the plains and the mountains stretching from the Mississippi to the Pacific” (Head Chiefs 1849, 1-2). The press in the Great Lakes region kept residents informed of the activities of the Chippewa delegation in Washington (Detroit Daily Free Press 1848, 1849; Green Bay Advocate 1849a, b). Iowa Senator Augustus Dodge, who heard the Indians address Congress, summarized their presentation as follows: They come here ... to ask of this and the other branch of Congress that the resting- places where the bones of their ancestors repose may be continued to them; that the Government of the United States would grant them a small portion of its vast domain among the fastnesses and marshes of Lake Superior, where their villages are situated, and where they have been enabled to obtain a precarious subsistence by gathering wild rice, cranberries, and other productions of that distant country. In addition to speaking before Congress, the delegation visited President James K. Polk, Secretary of War William L. Marcy, and Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Medill. According to Senator Dodge, “everywhere their mission was approved by all who became acquainted with them, and everywhere they excited the best sympathies of the human heart” (U. S. Congress 1849, 536). President Polk assured the Indians of “kindly feelings” on the part of the United States government. He promised to read the petition and other documents they presented him and stated, according to one newspaper editor, that “if they behaved themselves they might expect good treatment in {the} future” (Detroit Daily Free Press 1849). When the Chippewas began preparations to return to Wisconsin, they found it necessary to appeal to Congress for financial assistance. Their trip to Washington had not been approved in advance by Commissioner Medill, so no funds were on hand in the Indian Office to cover their expenses. Senator Dodge of Iowa spoke in favor of a joint resolution in their behalf. Claiming that when the Chippewas reached Green Bay on their long journey home it would still take many of them a month 51 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 16. Symbolic Petition of Chippewa Chiefs, 1849. Drawing by Seth Eastman from Schoolcraft, The Indian Tribes of the United States, Vol. 1 (1851). The chiefs who went to Washington in 1 849 requested a “permanent home” in Wisconsin; they carried this pictograph with them. Animals representing various clans travel eastward along Lake Superior (the dark line across the pictograph). Their unity of purpose is depicted by the lines linking together their hearts and eyes to a chain of wild rice lakes in ceded territory south of Lake Superior. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)341 27 to snowshoe to their villages, Dodge helped to persuade his colleagues to provide the necessary funds. In doing so, he shared some information: ... If you were to go into a calculation as to the millions of acres of land, the valuable lead and copper mines that you have acquired from these very tribes, specimens of which are to be seen at the War Department, and calculate the cost of these, as compared with their value, there would be a fearful balance against us. These Indians are now many thousand miles from home. Philanthropic gentlemen in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, have loaned them sums of money to enable them to reach here. These debts they wish to pay, and to have money enough to pay their way home. (U. S. Congress 1849, 536) Dodge’s efforts assisted the Indians in securing funds for their return trip. As the delegation left Washington, the fate of the Wisconsin Chippewas became entangled with national and state politics. Chippewa bands in Wisconsin represented a political opportunity to Whig pol¬ iticians in newly created Minnesota Territory (March 3, 1849). The Minnesota Whigs had helped capture the White House for their party in the presidential election of 1848, and they eagerly awaited the transition to the new administration, which occurred just weeks after the Chippewa delegation met with President Polk. The idea of removing the Chippewas from Wisconsin to Minnesota Territory had special appeal for some Minnesotans. Removal would mean transferring annuity 52 Chippewa Treaty Rights payments to the new territory where Alexander Ramsey {Fig. IT), recently ap¬ pointed governor and the titular head of the Whig party, would gamer a considerable number of patronage jobs from Democratic Wisconsin. After gaining statehood in May of 1848, Wisconsin had cast nearly twice as many ballots for Whig opponents in the presidential election that year than for Whig candidates. President Zachary Taylor was under considerable pressure to open opportunities for loyal, patronage- hungry Whigs. The transfer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the War Depart¬ ment to the newly established Interior Department under the direction of Ohioan Thomas Ewing and the selection of Kentuckian Orlando Brown as commissioner of Indian affairs indicated the extent of the politicization of Indian affairs. Ewing had opposed rotation in office while the Democrats were in power and was now thirsting for the opportunity to use his patronage powers to clean house; Brown, with no knowledge of Indian affairs, was little more than a liaison between Kentucky “kingmaker” John J. Crittenden and President Taylor (Hamilton 1951, 113, 132, 151, 173; Satz 1975, 164; Trennert 1979a, 42-46; White 1954, 310). The 1848 annuity payment at La Pointe may have actually helped to trigger a series of events that played into the hands of Minnesota politicians and traders. A reporter for the Cleveland Herald who visited La Pointe in 1 848 later charged that there was a direct connection between “the swindle” he witnessed there and the subsequent effort to evict the Chippewas from Wisconsin. The 1848 payment, like many others, began much later than the announced time. As a result, “thousands of Indians traversed many miles of forest, wasted six weeks’ time, and lost the crop of wild rice upon which they depended for their winter’s subsistence.” Traders, who charged what the Ohio reporter called “exorbitant rates” for “the necessaries of life,” claimed their profits were “moderate.” Yet, for every pound of pork or flour Indians purchased on credit to feed their families, the traders required them to spend an equivalent amount on “dry goods and gewgaws” as well as other “trash” that “had no value for them.” By the time the annuity funds arrived, traders “raked” more than eighty-five percent from the payment table; only a few thousand dollars remained to be divided equally among the Indians, who received about one dollar each. According to the reporter, “it was whispered that . . . {the traders} were using all their influence to have the future payments made at some point so far West that competition would not force them to be content with moderate profits.” These were the reasons, the reporter observed, “it was necessary to remove the Chippewas further West” {New York Times 1851b). Before the end of 1849, Interior Department officials learned that the newly formed legislative assembly in Minnesota Territory had passed resolutions in favor of revoking the usufructuary rights of the Chippewa Indians on lands ceded in 1837 and 1842. Upon the recommendation of Indian Commissioner Orlando Brown, President Taylor — who had once served as commandant of forts in Wisconsin and Minnesota — issued an executive order on February 6, 185035 that revoked the usufructuary rights of Chippewa Indians not only in Minnesota but also in Wisconsin and in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and ordered the removal of all of the Chippewa Indians in these areas to unceded lands in Minnesota {Fig. 18). Indian Office personnel in Washington and in Minnesota Territory offered four reasons for the presidential Removal Order and their emphasis on “prompt action” in carrying it out: (1) the Chippewas had to be removed in order to prevent “injurious contact” with the advancing white population; (2) the Indians had to be removed 53 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 1 7. Alexander Ramsey, Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Min¬ nesota Territory. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society. from areas where there were “ample facilities for procuring ardent spirits;” (3) whites needed to be relieved of the “annoyance” and “evils” of having Indians as neigh¬ bors; and (4) removal to the West would provide opportunities for congregating the Chippewas together for purposes of promoting their “civilization and prosperity” (Kappler 5: 663; Lea 1850, 4-6; 1851a; Ramsey 1850, 54-55). 54 Chippewa Treaty Rights MINNESOTA The privileges granted temporarily to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, by the Fifth Article of the Treaty made with them on the 29th of July 1837, “of hunting, fishing and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded” by that treaty to the United States; and the right granted to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, by the Second Article of the treaty with them of October 4th 1842, of hunting on the territory which they ceded by that treaty, “with the other usual privileges of occupancy until required to remove by the President of the United States,” are hereby revoked; and all of the said Indians remaining on the lands ceded as aforesaid, are required to remove to their unceded lands. Z. Taylor. Executive Office Washington City, February 6th, 1860. By the President I. Ewing, Secretary of the Interior. Fig. 18. President Zachary Taylor’s Executive Order of February 6, 1850. This type¬ script copy of President Taylor’s Removal Order is reproduced from attorney Charles J. Kappler’s compendium of Indian laws and treaties (5: 663), where it appears under the heading “Minnesota” because the order was issued in response to officials from that territory. Courtesy of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Media Development Center. News of the Removal Order shocked the Lake Superior Chippewa people. Ac¬ cording to Subagent Watrous, it “created much excitement and disatisfaction” because the Indians believed “they would not be required to remove until the present generation should pass away” (Watrous 1850, 89). As noted earlier, the Wisconsin Indians understood they had ceded only copper rights — not land rights — in 1842 and that under the 1837 and 1842 treaties they would never be forced to leave Wisconsin unless they acted improperly— i.e. , made war or otherwise acted violently against whites. And there were no white demands for Chippewa lands for settlement. In fact, when Daniel H. Johnson of Prairie du Chien attempted to obtain information for the 1850 Census in La Pointe County (later La Pointe and Douglas counties), he found the region “remote and difficult to communciate with” and inhabited primarily by individuals who spoke either French or Ojibwa. The Lake Superior country was, he reported in a certified affidavit, a “thinly settled and half civilized region.” Only about five hundred whites had settled in that area (Johnson 1858, 2). Chief Buffalo of La Pointe and other chiefs who “obstinately” opposed removal responded to the news by sending messengers to every Chippewa village to ascertain if any depredations had been committed against whites. Failing to uncover any incident that might have sparked the president’s action, they convened councils throughout the ceded territory to discuss the situation and plan their strategy for opposing “the sudden order” of the U. S. government (Watrous 1850, 89; Lake Superior News 1850a, b; Buffalo et al. 1852; Armstrong {1892}, 287-88). 55 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters A vigorous lobbying campaign of the Wisconsin legislature, various missionary groups, regional newspapers, and many local whites aided the Wisconsin Chippewas in their resistance to the Removal Order (Vennum 1988, 259). The Sault St. Marie Lake Superior News and Mining Journal, for example, responded on May 22, 1850, to reports that agent Watrous had told the Indians they would lose their annuities if they remained in Wisconsin and Michigan by observing, “this is a new and ingeniously contrived way of effecting the removal of the natives.” As far away from the La Pointe Agency in the Great Lakes region as Detroit, this editorial comment received support from regional editors ( Detroit Daily Free Press 1850). A follow-up article in the Sault Ste. Marie newspaper on June 12, 1850, referred to the Removal Order as “uncalled for by any interest of the government — uncalled for by any interest of the Indians.” The editor of the paper concluded that “this unlooked for order has brought disappointment and consternation to the Indians throughout the Lake Superior Country, and will bring upon them the most disastrous consequences.” The paper issued reports highly favoring the continued residence of the Chippewa Indians in the Lake Superior region (Lake Superior News and Mining Journal 1850b). Cyrus Mendenhall, an eyewitness to the 1842 treaty parley and mining entrepreneur associated with the Methodist Episcopal Mission Society (Kappler 2: 544; Clifton 1987, 21), rallied ministers, physicians, local officials, merchants, mine foremen, lumbermen, and other influential citizens between Sault Ste. Marie and La Pointe for support of the Chippewas. Ohio Whig Congressman Joshua R. Giddings forwarded to President Zachary Taylor a petition circulated by Mendenhall and signed by him and many other men “of high moral Character and respectability.” Declaring any removal of the Chippewas from the lands ceded in 1842 “uncalled for by any interest of the Government or people of the United States, and ... in a high degree prejudicial to the welfare of the Indians,” the petitioners urged the president to rescind his order (Giddings 1850). Mendenhall’s petition arrived at the White House after President Taylor’s un¬ expected death on July 9, 1850. Millard Fillmore, who had served as president for only a few weeks, replaced the entire cabinet (Hamilton 1951, 401-02) and then referred the petition to the Interior Department. On August 3, 1850, the Secretary of the Interior Ad Interim asked Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea,36 who was just finishing his first month in office, to prepare a report on the issue (Giddings 1850). In the meantime, regional newspapers reported that “arrangements to remove the Chippewa Indians from Lake Superior are producing much dissatisfaction among the Indians and the Whites. The Indians are loth to remove, and the Whites to let them go” (Detroit Daily Free Press 1851). Sympathetic eastern newspapers re¬ printed articles from Great Lakes newspapers accusing Agent Watrous of perpe¬ trating an “iniquitous scheme” to remove the Indians against the wishes of “the entire population of the Lake Superior country” (New York Times 1851a, b). Northern Wisconsin mine owners and whites who employed the Chippewas as fishers, sailors, guides, and hunters raised what Minnesota Governor Ramsey called “almost insuperable” obstacles to their removal (Ramsey 1851, 162). Not all non-Indian residents of the Lake Superior country openly opposed the government’s efforts to remove the Chippewas to Minnesota Territory. Missionaries residing among the Indians found themselves in a vulnerable position. As happened in the Indian removal crisis in the South during the Jacksonian era, they were tom between their interpretation of their duty to their Indian charges and their obligation 56 Chippewa Treaty Rights to civil authorities. In the early 1850s, as in the 1830s, federal officials used the fierce competition for government subsidies for Indian mission schools to their advantage (Satz 1985, 395-401; 1975, 55). The withdrawal of federal funds for the support of Indian mission schools in Wisconsin and the prospect of the restoration of those funds in Minnesota led some missionaries to resign themselves to accepting the inevitability of the removal of the Chippewas (Watrous 1852b, 48; Armstrong {1892}, 291 n. 6). During the summer of 185 1 , Copway’ s American Indian, a new weekly newspaper published in New York by Canadian-born Chippewa George Cop way 37 — one of the best-known Indians in the eastern United States — carried a report from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) about the operations of missionaries Leonard Wheeler at La Pointe and Sherman Hall at Bad River in Wisconsin. While hoping that “no compulsory means” would be used to evict the Indians from the state, the ABCFM governing board in Boston envisioned some benefits that relocation might bring the Wisconsin Chippewas. The board had learned valuable lessons during the removal crisis of the 1830s in the South and predicted the removal of the Chippewas “will cause considerable excitement among them,” but “their removal will concentrate them more, and render them more accessible to the means of instruction and improvement” (Copway’ s American Indian 1851, 1; Berkhoffer 1965, 104-05). Missionary Hall had already advised ABCFM officials to make the best of the situation and to seek federal funds for a mission boarding school in Minnesota Territory before other Protestant or Catholic missionary so¬ cieties secured them. “Whatever we may think of this policy,” Hall wrote in 1850 shortly after President Taylor had issued his Removal Order, “if we wish to continue our missionary efforts for the Oiibwas, we had better conform to it” (Hall 1850a, b; 1852). Hall’s conversion to “conformity” with the presidential order was the result of the efforts of officials in the Interior Department in Washington: Minnesota Ter¬ ritorial Governor Ramsey who openly argued that in dealing with Indians “it would be indisputably the duty of government to impose such terms as should seem proper, and by duress or otherwise compel their observance” (Ramsey 1850, 49); and La Pointe subagent John Watrous. These men actively conspired to lure the Chippewas to Minnesota from northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. To ac¬ complish their goal, they had moved the payment site for the 1850 annuity from La Pointe to Sandy Lake on the east bank of the Upper Mississippi River, a location that was some three to five hundred difficult canoe and portage miles from the various Chippewa villages in Wisconsin. They had also refused to provide services required under the 1837 and 1842 treaties at any location other than at Sandy Lake. In the fall of 1850, Watrous urged the Chippewas to bring their families to Sandy Lake for the payment, but neither he nor other federal officials made adequate arrangements to feed, shelter, or otherwise provide for the Indians there. Indeed, deliveries of annuity goods and rations were delayed until the “pelting rain and snows of autumn” nearly trapped the several thousand Chippewas who had traveled to that remote location (Watrous 1850, 89; Armstrong {1892}, 288; Buffalo et al. 1851; Buffalo et al. 1852; Watrous 1852b, 48; Pitezel 1859, 298-300; Clifton 1987, 1, 19-25). In his annual report of November 27, 1850, Indian Commissioner Lea claimed he sought the removal of the Chippewas from Wisconsin in order to isolate them 57 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters in the West from “injurious contact” with whiskey peddlers and the like and to prevent them from suffering “destitution and want” in Wisconsin as the game on which they depended became exhausted (Lea 1850, 4-5). But many Wisconsin Chippewas were destitute and in want by the end of 1850 precisely because Lea lured them to Sandy Lake in Minnesota by transferring the payment of their annuities to that location. Governor Ramsey, who boasted that a removal plan had been “fully matured” in his office, acknowledged that any such efforts undertaken after the first of November would lead to “much hardship” for emigrants (Ramsey 1850, 60-61). By forcing the Chippewas to reach Sandy Lake in October in order to collect their annuities, Ramsey set into motion a series of events culminating in what anthro¬ pologist James Clifton has recently called “The Wisconsin Death March” of 1850-1851. The Indians waited six weeks at Sandy Lake for the arrival of their subagent only to discover that he had come empty-handed because Congress failed to appropriate funds in a timely manner (Clifton 1987, 24-25). Seemingly trapped in Minnesota as the winter weather made travel back to Wisconsin extremely difficult, the Wisconsin Chippewas suffered what Governor Ramsey conceded was “a distressing mortality” (Ramsey 1851, 161). According to missionary eyewitnesses, the federal government’s “unwise course” of action in handling the annuity payment at Sandy Lake, especially its failure to provide adequate provisions for the Chippewas who traveled there, had serious consequences. Infectious diseases appeared in the makeshift Chippewa camps and spread rapidly when food supplies ran out shortly after the arrival of the first contingent from Wisconsin. The Indians traded their annuity claims for spoiled food and other shoddy provisions merchants sold at highly inflated prices. As winter set in, many Indians burned their canoes for firewood and returned to Wisconsin carrying their belongings on their backs (Hall 1850b; Pitezel 1859, 299-301). Although the mortality figures cannot be determined precisely, Chippewa eye¬ witnesses from La Pointe and from the interior bands reported that some four hundred Indians, mostly able-bodied men, died from illness, hunger, and exposure — 170 at Sandy Lake38 and another 230 on the return trip (Buffalo et al. 1851; Buffalo et al. 1852; Clifton 1987, 1, 25). Methodist Episcopal missionary John Pitezel, who traveled to Sandy Lake from Michigan and recorded his observations some months later, saw “evidences of a terrible calamity every-where” as he approached the annuity payment site. “All over the cleared land graves were to be seen in every direction, for miles distant, from Sandy Lake; they were to be found in the woods {too}. Some, it is not known how many, were interred by their friends on the way home.” Sickness and death were everywhere. “So alarming was the mortality,” Pitezel commented “that the Indians complained that they could not bury their dead” (Pitezel 1859, 300-01). Anxious to deflect any criticism of his handling of the annuity payment at Sandy Lake, Governor Ramsey wrote a long defense of his actions to Indian Commissioner Lea. “Far from famine or starvation ensuing from any negligence on the part of Government officers,” he claimed, “the Chippewas received all that Government was under treaty obligations to furnish to them, except their money; and this, as every one is aware, who is at all familiar with the thriftless habits of the Indians, and the fatal facility with which they incur debts whenever opportunity presents, is usually all of it due to their traders.” Ramsey, who had directed the Indians to 58 Chippewa Treaty Rights travel to Sandy Lake for their annuity money in the first place, told Lea that he had found it necessary to spend half of the funds on provisions for the Indians. “Had the residue been so invested, which the scarcity of supplies rendered im¬ possible,” he asserted, “it would not have subsisted the large number congregated at the payment an additional fortnight” (Ramsey 1851, 162). Subagent Watrous admitted a “great mortality” had occured as a result of the circumstances surrounding the annuity payment and reported that the Chippewas referred to Sandy Lake as a “grave yard” and that they had “a particular dread and horror for the place” (Watrous 1852a). According to a recent study of the incident, “the Ewing-Brown-Ramsey-Watrous plan to lure the Lake Superior Chip¬ pewa west and trap them there successfully removed some twelve percent, by killing them.” The tragic loss of such a large number of people weakened the Wisconsin bands. Many of their able-bodied men had died. They had also lost capital equip¬ ment — their canoes, as well as valuable time that could have been devoted to subsistence work and other productive economic activities. Dependent upon traders for food, the Chippewas who returned to Wisconsin found it necessary to encumber their unpaid and future annuity funds in order to survive the winter of 1 85 1 (Clifton 1987, 25). The tragic events associated with the annuity payment at Sandy Lake strengthened the resolve of the leaders of the Wisconsin bands to resist all efforts to remove them to Minnesota. 59 5 Reservations Replace Removal News of trauma inflicted upon the Wisconsin Chippewas as a result of the scheme to lure them to Sandy Lake aided the Indians in their opposition to removal. The intense lobbying effort on behalf of the Lake Superior Chippewas described earlier eventually proved successful. Early in June of 1851, Indian Com¬ missioner Lea informed Interior Secretary Alexander H. H. Stuart that citizens in Wisconsin and in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan strongly opposed the removal of the Chippewas. According to Lea: When the extent of this order became known, communications from sources of the highest consideration — embracing petitions from the Legislature of Wisconsin and the citizens resident in the ceded country; letters from the Authorities of Missionary estab¬ lishments, among the Chippewas of Lake Superior and other highly respectable individuals were received at this office — remonstrating in strong terms against the application of the order to these Indians. In view of “the Weighty reasons” provided in the communications from prominent citizens received in the Indian Office — that the removal of the Lake Superior Chip¬ pewas was “not required by the interests of the citizens or Government of the United States, and would in its consequences in all probability be disastrous to the Indians”— -Lea recommended in early June that the presidential order “be so mod¬ ified as to permit such portions of those bands as may desire it to remain for the present in the country they now occupy” (Lea 1851a). Then, in late August of 1851, he announced the suspension of the order “until the final determination of the President, as to whether they (the Ojibwas) should be permitted to remain, or their removal resumed” (Treat 1851). News of the suspension of the Removal Order encouraged newspaper editors from the Great Lakes region. An editorial from the Cleveland Herald reprinted in the East, for example, said the order was “uncalled for, useless, and abominable; and we are glad, for the sake of humanity and justice, that the Administration have resolved that for the present the edict shall not be enforced. We trust it may never be” (New York Times 1851b). Another widely circulated editorial from the Sault Ste. Marie Lake Superior News and Mining Journal claimed efforts to remove the Chippewas were unlike any other attempt to relocate an Indian people ever under¬ taken by the U. S. government. We believe we express the conviction of the entire population of the Lake Superior country in regarding this removal as uncalled for by the best interests of the Government, the whites, or the Indians. This is not a case of removal like any other that has taken place in this country. Generally, there has been some show of reason for this painful resort .... But it is far different in the case of the Chippewas. They occupy a remote portion of the country . . . that would not, in all probability, have been settled for a 61 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters hundred years to come, had it not been for the rich deposits of minerals lately discovered in its rocky hills. From time immemorial this people have occupied the northern region, and have become acclimated to its cold and rigorous climate; and by hunting and fishing, and the cultivation of their small patches of soil, they have lived comfortably and contentedly, causing little or no trouble to the United States and their neighbors. Until their little fields are needed for the accommodation of their white brethren, why should they be driven to strange places, a prey to the designs of their worst enemies {the Sioux}? They can live comfortably where they now are, but they will starve to death, as hundreds did last winter, in the miserable region {in Minnesota} to which the Government would remove them. Unlike Indians affected by other instances of government-sponsored Indian removal efforts, asserted the Sault Ste. Marie editor, the Chippewas were not an impediment to “the tide of civilization constantly sweeping in from the East.” In the East, the editor of the New York Times agreed with and reprinted this assessment ( New York Times 1851b). Despite the positive public reaction to Commissioner Lea’s temporary suspension of the Removal Order, Governor Ramsey and newly promoted Agent Watrous39 continued their efforts to entice the Indians to emigrate from Wisconsin. They insisted that annuity payments and educational funds be paid only in Minnesota. In addition, Watrous recommended that a company of infantry be dispatched to La Pointe to assist in promoting “a general removal” (Watrous 1851, 1852a, b, 48; Hall 1852a; Clifton 1987, 26-27). Ramsey informed Washington officials that the best way to handle Chippewa “stragglers” in Wisconsin was to follow “a rigid adherence ... to the rule of paying annuities to those only who remove to, and remain in, their proper country” (Ramsey 1851, 163; 1852, 44). In late November of 1851 after issuing his temporary suspension of the Removal Order, Indian Commissioner Lea came to the support of Ramsey and Watrous. After reading their reports in preparation for his own annual report, Lea urged administration officials to proceed with efforts to “concentrate” the Chippewas west of the Mississippi River. Lea claimed he proposed the measure for humanitarian reasons. It was ‘ ‘calculated to promote the future welfare of this large and interesting tribe” and “to save them from actual starvation; as the game on which they mainly depend for the means of living is fast disappearing, and cannot much longer afford them a support” (Lea 1851b, 4). Meanwhile, continued pressure for their removal led Chief Buffalo of La Pointe (Fig. 19) and twenty-eight other Chippewa chiefs and headmen to dictate a petition to Lea. Charging that Watrous had “aggrieved and wronged” them, the Chippewa leaders complained about the “great deception” that had been used to promote their removal to Sandy Lake. Reciting Commissioner Stuart’s 1842 promise that they could remain on their land as long as they “lived on friendly terms with the Whites,” the chiefs and headmen charged Watrous with misconduct. We are not satisfied that it is the President that requires us to remove. We have asked to see the order, and the name of the President affixed to it, but it has not been shewn us. We think the order came only from the Agent and those who advise with him, and are interested in having us remove. Since the Chippewas of Lake Superior had “never shed the blood of the Whites; nor killed their cattle; nor done them any injury; and ... are not in their way,” 62 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 1 9. Portrait of Chief Buffalo. The head chief of the La Pointe band is depicted dressed in a military uniform and wearing a peace medal. From the Madeline Island Historical Museum Collection. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)41266 the Indians asked, “why is {it} that we now hear this order to remove?’’ Claiming to be totally “in the dark’’ about the reasons for the order, Buffalo and the other leaders of the Lake Superior Chippewas called for an end to all efforts to remove their people and for the resumption of the payment of annuities at La Pointe as promised in the 1842 treaty. The Indians ended their petition with a request that they be allowed to send a delegation to Washington in order to review their griev¬ ances with American officials there (Buffalo et al. 1851). 63 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters The Chippewas waited for a response to their petition, but their patience wore thin by the spring of 1852. Chief Buffalo, who was then in his early nineties, decided to travel to Washington without prior approval. In early April, Buffalo together with Oshoga, a young chief of “rare promise and merit” (Morse 1857, 348), several other chiefs, and interpreter Benjamin Armstrong left La Pointe en route to Washington. “To return {from Washington} without anything accom¬ plished,” commented Armstrong as the delegation traveled eastward, “would be to rekindle the fire that was smouldering into an open revolt for revenge’ ’ (Armstrong {1892}, 294). Chief Buffalo led the delegation to Washington armed with a petition supporting the Chippewa cause. As they passed through white communities, Armstrong cir¬ culated the document among the residents and asked them to sign it (Armstrong {1892}, 293). “We are satisfied,” the petition said of the Indians, “that they have been hardly and injuriously used by the Agents appointed to make them their payments during the past Two seasons, & by the removal of their usual place of payment Conceeded {s/c} to them in their treaty to a place farther west where they are exposed to the cold & starvation.” The petition referred to the Chippewas as “a peaceable and inoffensive race living chiefly by hunting & fishing” (Fig. 20). Included among the residents of Lake Superior communities signing the petition were bankers, merchants, and traders. Eager to keep the Chippewas and their annuities nearby, these men had little difficulty in signing the document, which concluded that “while their removal West would in Our Opinion be a great damage to them it would in no manner benefit the white population of the Country” (Citizens of Lake Superior 1852). When the Chippewa delegation finally reached Washington during the latter part of June (Fig. 21), both Indian Commissioner Lea and Interior Secretary Stuart ordered the Indians to return home immediately since they had not received per¬ mission to make the trip. Only the intervention of Whig Senator George Briggs of New York, who encountered the delegation by accident while dining, led to a meeting with Briggs’s fellow New York Whig, President Fillmore (Armstrong {1892}, 296-97). In preparation for the meeting with “Great Grand Father’ ’ Fillmore, Buffalo had dictated a document that reviewed all of the outstanding grievances against the United States. The chief began by informing the president that Chippewa men, women, and children of northern Wisconsin were “deeply grieved” by the way in which they had been treated since 1850. Buffalo protested the violation of Chippewa reserved rights and urged Fillmore to remember the promises made at the 1842 treaty parley. “All who were present at that treaty listened to your words, which you sent to us,” the memorial stated, adding that “Commissioner {Stuart} promised . . . that if we were good men, that we should not only be permitted to remain on our lands for fifty, but one hundred years to come.” Explaining that his band had “at all times acted in obedience” to American laws and had advised other Indians to “lead a quiet and peaceable life,” Buffalo requested an explanation for the Removal Order and for the subsequent efforts to evict his people from Wisconsin (Buffalo et al. 1852). Buffalo especially complained about the indignities the Chippewas had suffered as a result of having to go to Sandy Lake to receive their annuities in 1850. He spoke of the “very bad flour,” which “resembled green clay,” and the other “rotten pro¬ visions” American officials had issued, and the loss of “so many” young people due 64 Chippewa Treaty Rights 65 Fig. 20. The City of Superior , 1856. This lithograph by P. S. Duval and Son shows Chippewas and whites fishing and sharing the shoreline of Lake Superior. Courtesy of the Library of Congress. LC-USZ62-50524 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 21. Chippewa Delegation in Washington, 1852. From Bartlett (1929, 69). Ben¬ jamin Armstrong and four unidentified chiefs are depicted here. Courtesy of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Media Development Center. to the remote location and lateness of the annuity payment, which left the Indians at the mercy of the “incliment” weather. Buffalo also charged that recent annuity payments were inadequate. “I obtained part of my annuity which was paid to me by My Agent, with one arm he paid me that, which I ought to have had in full with both arms.” Buffalo requested redress for all of these grievances. “Is it not the obligation of white men to fulfill their contracts,” he asked. “And should they not fulfill them, their contracts become null & void{,} consequently a misunder¬ standing exists, which can and ought to be adjusted to the mutual satisfaction of the parties concerned.” Buffalo concluded his remarks with a plea for “justice”: It is generally the case with the white men, when they have selected a spot to dwell at, that they begin to consider and look around them, to see what obstacles are in their way. They begin to cut away the underbrush and bad trees, in order to make the land level and smoothe so that nothing will come in contact to hurt their feet, they see good trees and they are allowed to stand & live, & they are not cut down. We beseech you to do towards us as you do, allowing the good trees { — the Wisconsin Chippewas — } to stand and live in your domain. And furthermore we pray, that in accordance to that, we so fully under- 66 Chippewa Treaty Rights stood that our annuities should be paid to us at La Pointe & that they may be continued there. (Buffalo et al. 1852) Thanks to the efforts of Senator Briggs, Buffalo soon received an opportunity to meet President Fillmore and to present the grievances of his people in person. The Chippewa delegation presented Buffalo’s petition to President Fillmore in the White House after everyone present at the meeting, including Senator Briggs, Commissioner Lea, and Secretary Stuart, had smoked the peace pipe passed to them by Buffalo. In reading the petition, the president acknowledged that he rec¬ ognized some of the signatures of leading citizens of the Great Lakes region. After deliberating a day, Fillmore agreed to rescind the Removal Order, to cease all efforts to remove the Chippewas from Wisconsin, and to pay back, current, and future annuities at La Pointe. As news of the delegation’s success reached Wis¬ consin, the Chippewas celebrated their great victory. Upon his return, Chief Buffalo convened a “grand council’’ of Chippewa bands at La Pointe where an interpreter translated the message President Fillmore had given him (Armstrong {1892}, 297-98; Buffalo et al 1852; Levi 1956, 60-61; Clifton 1987, 27). President Fillmore’s decision to allow the Chippewas to remain in Wisconsin has been the subject of recent controversy between supporters and critics of con¬ tinued Indian usufructuary rights. Scholars have not located a decree by Fillmore specifically rescinding President Taylor’s Removal Order. As noted earlier, the Interior Department ordered a temporary suspension of the order while Fillmore reviewed the status of the Chippewas (U. S. District Court 1978, 1328-330, 1350 n. 17; U. S. Court of Appeals 1983, 348; Lea 1851a; Treat 1851). Several con¬ temporaneous events shed light on the president’s motivation for undertaking such a review, reinforce Armstrong’s contention that Fillmore revoked Taylor’s order, and demonstrate that such a suspension by Fillmore is consistent with his handling of Indian affairs. Chief Buffalo and white missionaries residing among the Chippewas had pre¬ sented the Fillmore administration with strong accusations about the conduct of Agent Watrous (Fillmore 1852a; Buffalo et al. 1852; Treat 1852). At the same time, opposition to the Removal Order by distinguished white citizens of the Great Lakes region may have influenced the president (Citizens of Lake Superior 1852). By the end of 1852, Fillmore had definitely shown more interest in the well-being of Indians than had his immediate predecessors. For example, he had granted the Menominees an extension of the date of their removal from Wisconsin and had ordered the Indian Office to search for a suitable home for the tribe in Wisconsin (Ourada 1979, 118-19). He also expressed concern that “justice” to the Indians in the states of Texas and California as well as those in the Territory of Oregon required the establishment of “particular districts” or reservations so that they would not be “tenants at sufferance, and liable to be driven from place to place at the pleasure of the whites” (Fillmore 1852b, 171; Knobel 1984, 188-89; Trennert 1975, 86). There is some basis, therefore, for Chippewa editor George Copway’s recollection several years after Fillmore left office that the New Yorker’s admin¬ istration was “kind to the Indians” (Copway 1856). Whatever Fillmore’s moti¬ vation, the Chippewas were elated by his decision to allow them to remain in Wisconsin. 67 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Two years after Chief Buffalo’s meeting with President Fillmore, the Wisconsin legislature informed federal officials that “the Chippewa Indians in the region of Lake Superior are a peaceable, quiet, and inoffensive people, rapidly improving in the arts and sciences: that they acquire their living by hunting, fishing, manufacturing maple sugar, and agricultural pursuits: that many of them have intermarried with the white inhabitants, and are becoming generally anxious to become educated and adopt the habits of the ‘white man.’ ’’ Wisconsin legislators urged the Indian Office not to impose removal upon the Chippewas and recommended that laws be adopted to “encourage the permanent settlement of those Indians as shall adopt the habits of the citizens of the United States.’’ Finally, and probably an important consid¬ eration for some of the legislators with ties to the traders in northern Wisconsin, they requested that all future annuity payments be made at La Pointe (Wisconsin Legislature 1854, 397). In negotiations at La Pointe in September of 1854, United States treaty com¬ missioners found it necessary to assent to the insistent demands of the Lake Superior Chippewa for the demarcation of permanent reservations in Wisconsin. George Manypenny, who had replaced Luke Lea as commissioner of Indian affairs following the inauguration of Democrat Franklin Pierce as president in March of 1853, had hoped to secure the mineral wealth of unceded areas in the Lake Superior region by concentrating all Chippewa Indians west of the Mississippi River (Manypenny 1853, 245). A year later, however, Manypenny conceded: There are . . . within the limits of Wisconsin, and also within the northern peninsula of Michigan, a few small bands of the Chippewas of Lake Superior, who still occupy their former locations on lands ceded by the treaties of 1837 and 1842. It has not, thus far, been found necessary or practicable to remove them. They are very unwilling to relinquish their present residences, as are all the other bands of the same Indians; and it may be necessary to permit them all to remain, in order to acquire a cession of the large tract of country they still own east of the Mississippi, which, on account of its great mineral resources, it is an object of material importance to obtain. They would require but small reservations; and thus permanently settled, the efforts made for their improvements will be rendered more effectual. (Manypenny 1854, 212-13) The Wisconsin Chippewas acceded to American acquisition of the rich mineral lands along the north shore of Lake Superior only after American officials promised to establish permanent reservations. Treaty Commissioner Henry C. Gilbert in¬ formed Commissioner Manypenny that “the points most strenuously insisted upon’’ by the Wisconsin Chippewas were “first the privilege of remaining in the country where they reside and next the appropriation of land for their future homes. Without yielding these points, it was idle for us to talk about a treaty. We therefore agreed to the selection of lands for them in territory heretofore ceded” (Gilbert 1854, 0137; App. 5). Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians had learned several valuable lessons from the 1837 and 1842 treaty parleys. They absolutely refused to agree to the land cession sought by the Americans in 1854, as they had done in 1847, until permanent reservations were provided in the state. Furthermore, according to Benjamin Arm¬ strong, when the U. S. interpreter began to translate the remarks of the American negotiators, Chief Buffalo interrupted him and insisted that the Indians appoint their 68 Chippewa Treaty Rights own interpreter. “We do not want to be deceived any more as we have in the past,” asserted the chief (Armstrong {1892}, 301). The 1854 treaty (Fig. 22) provided for American acquisition of the north shore (see Fig. 7) and the establishment of four Chippewa reservations in Wisconsin (Fig. 23): Bad River located directly east of Ashland on the shore of Lake Superior with two hundred acres on Madeline Island for a fishing ground; Red Cliff situated at the northern tip of Bayfield County, which was established as a result of the 1854 treaty and an 1856 executive order by President Franklin Pierce;40 Lac Courte Oreilles in Sawyer County southwest of Ashland; and Lac du Flambeau to the east in Vilas County along the Flambeau Lake, known to the Indians as “Lake of the Torches,” because of the traditional practice of spearing fish by torchlight (Kappler 1: 933-34, 2: 648-52, App. 6; Danziger 1973, 178-79; Royce 1899, 796-97). Approximately one year after the negotiations at La Pointe, Commissioner Manypenny41 commended the people of Wisconsin for supporting the establishment of reservations in their state for the Chippewas. “They have not interposed any objection, but, on the contrary, have seemed willing that the Indians might be permitted to remain,” Manypenny said of Wisconsinites in 1855. The commissioner reported that he was undertaking “the necessary steps” to survey the boundaries of the reservations and to provide the Chippewa bands with “the means of education, and in all other respects to fulfill the beneficial stipulations of their treaty” (Many¬ penny 1855, 322-23). The following year, Manypenny issued a glowing report about the condition of the Chippewas in northern Wisconsin. He informed Secretary of the Interior Robert McClelland in 1856 that the reservation Indians of the mis¬ sionary settlement at Bad River had received “a liberal supply of farming imple¬ ments, carpenters’ tools, household furniture and cooking utensils; and every Indian having a house and residing in it, has been supplied with a good cooking stove and the usual cooking utensils, a table, bureau, chairs, bedstead, looking-glass, and many other articles for household use. The effect of this policy is quite perceptible and salutary, and has stimulated many to erect and provide for erecting new houses at Bad river {s/c} and several other places” (Manypenny 1856, 554-55). Manypenny ’s glowing report did not reflect reality for many of the Chippewa people of Wisconsin. Bad River had better soil conditions than the other areas designated for reservations, and it took some twenty years before all of the reser¬ vations granted in the 1854 treaty were selected and surveyed (Kappler 1: 928-36; Madison Weekly Democrat 1878a). Many Indians continued to roam throughout the ceded area engaging in their traditional pursuits. Without clearly marked bound¬ aries for their reservations, the Lac du Flambeau and Lac Courte Oreilles Indians found it especially difficult to protect many of their resources (Vennum 1988, 260). The St. Croix Chippewas, who were left out of the 1854 negotiations, remained landless for eighty years. They lived as squatters on cutover lands or on tax- delinquent lands belonging to various counties, eking out a living as best they could deep in the forests just west of Lac Courte Oreilles. The Sakaogan Chippewas, who were also left out of the 1854 negotiations, signed a treaty with American officials in 1855, which promised them a reservation of twelve square miles of land. Left landless since the U. S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty, they lived as squatters near Crandon. Not until after the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934 did the St. Croix and Sakaogan bands, the so-called Lost Bands, obtain legal title to the lands they had occupied for centuries — the Sakaogan Chippewas 69 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters of & trtaJty tnjeJjb Audi Cmdu.AU aJt-ffiuthtJd) iw tfcb Jhtb of Wisconsin/ tet&tuo %Jkn*y C SiXJbvd* amA» 'jfourtdb 4$ OttrrunaK Crmmr iMiawn twtkv {fAffc of th& ttmJtuL \fbUu oauL die OlifspeurtL dndttmj ef fcJtLoSup- CttOt* OtodL tiuu *kAM4A4-L^X tty Muir Qutft a tuAo cdtadmjut^'. drilclt /. Quftfiiunu f faJu,ofttj>ertor= hurdnj Ctdz. to ttuu luuiD StoJbu . ail ttx CaauU Lurt- tofonj tumid? try Its/m. iu> Cotumov (UrtHv ITul CkifLpunU ef (M&, ojtiMUUfai £cuAr of Ufa fottsurug 4oun~ clo/ty tint), oJoilfbfc, 'tdigiltoung di ti/jbnnlr, QrfitM* Htv put tmncL off ofrutke/ /river Cmoeo fta. idtUhtyn, fmiutcL’Uj CCiw of tfcv Ou/Lflunv County , TUnninj ttfciuc*> kf. Itlu Jail (hmMcb th ik Ooturcb , hwnt> tu**ty •Aertfl th. (L dtrcuokt ICtud ti 1fa> Qtuuttu of Stub \fdo- GAvubh (Hitttr, rnvnau kfu ttu. Tl'4/uu /rioef th ttuo Quentfc if £ ti fob Qlwf- {>e4\Jc tf 'Vll/iniMjKi /TOM' tot) Hunt* den. ttie. TZbnuid/h/ /Twer hr Lti eitoutt^ « cJJtei Chi{)f>ti*reU of ttw ot-tUMMcfiju /lerdy asteU dud. tL^rci) to fob ftmgmxg (bi^ton, and Cotuttb Mub ttuo h~hdU OLineittiuh of tki GoiMJU^-eUlSi monoy /for fob CcUiUry CatuL cdrevdj sktib to fob uufifiemJ of ^aJco efufmter, auJbMy GaukdUrdtwo tfamf ttu-CLj jlUltfU 0^ dfcdtt ofufvrurp fijmtry /pctblffuioL fjp tk*> Oufjumu of dob edtu4'UU]ipv aiJt U\*mt ^itomi /ins duX clcunvfti (fob /fjfreiofot/ oumtl try ttuytiv Mv Con 01 unu (ijZiuj heM of ttuu aJtvi jfrundtuiy ii/he) % 70 Fig. 22. Treaty of 1854. The first page of the handwritten treaty manuscript is reproduced above. Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Service. Chippewa Treaty Rights (1987, 10) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Lakes Agency in Ashland, Wis¬ consin. Compare tribally held acres in 1989 to the acreage originally provided and the number of acres alloted after the establishment of each reservation. Although federal officials promised in 1855 to establish a twelve-square-mile reservation at Mole Lake, the 1,700 acre reservation was not provided until the Indian New Deal of John Collier. The St. Croix Chippewa, who were also landless until they received 1,715 acres under Collier, are scattered in five small parcels of land across three counties. Today each reservation is a checkerboard of white-owned property equal to or exceeding the amount of Indian land held in trust under federal jurisdiction. Also, some Indian land is held by individual Indians rather than by the bands. 71 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters took possession of a small reservation barely comprising 1,700 acres known as Mole Lake in southwestern Forest County near Crandon, and the St. Croix Chip- pewas received a slightly larger reservation for their five scattered communities at Danbury, Webster, and Hertel in Burnett County and at Luck and Balsam Lake in Polk County (see Fig. 23). Nevertheless, the Wisconsin Chippewas had at least retained a portion of their homeland at Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac du Flambeau, and Lac Courte Oreilles as a result of the 1854 agreement (Lurie 1987, 21; Levi 1956, 95-101; Erdman 1966, 24, 27; Danziger 1979, 153-55; Masinaigan 1985; Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 10). The reservations proved to be small in terms of the traditional Chippewa hunting- fishing-gathering practices. Efforts to concentrate the Lac Courte Oreilles and Lac du Flambeau bands at the Bad River Reservation in the early 1870s failed. Although their lands were unsuitable for agriculture and they were plagued by trespassing lumbermen, settlers, railroaders, and white “sharpers” who defrauded them, the members of these bands refused to abandon their reservations (New York Times 1871; Campbell 1898, 317; Royce 1899, 857; Danziger 1973, 182-83). Reports from the Indian agent at Red Cliff in 1861 and those of the agent stationed there in 1891 indicate that the Indians near Lake Superior were experienced sailors and active fishers who sold their surplus to white communities (Webb 1861, 74; Leahy 1891 , 468). A Bureau of Indian Affairs official who traveled through northern Wisconsin in the early 1870s noted that Chippewa men opposed the federal gov¬ ernment’s efforts to train them as “agriculturalists.” He reported that, although the men considered farming to be “squaws work,” they were eager to undertake “mans” work. “All the Lake Superior Indians will work if only somebody will find something for them to do,” the official assured Indian Commissioner Edward P. Smith (Day 1873). During the second half of the nineteenth century, Chippewa men found temporary employment as sawyers, log drivers, graders for railroads, and packers of survey equipment. But, such wage labor positions were unstable and unpredictable. The Chippewas found it necessary to live by a mixture of traditional pursuits such as hunting, and fishing, and gathering, as well as wage labor, the sale of wood and other products, and annuity payments until they expired in the mid 1870s (Day 1873; Shifferd 1976, 19; Danziger 1979, 96). For many years after the establishment of the reservations, so many Chippewa men found it necessary to fish, hunt, and look for employment away from the areas reserved for them that not until 1892 could Indian Bureau officials state assuredly that a majority of the Wisconsin Chippewas were permanent reservation residents (Danziger 1973, 182). The presence of Chippewa Indians near white communities sometimes alarmed the residents. During the summer of 1878, for example, Norwegian and Swedish immigrant settlers in Burnett County in northwestern Wisconsin misinterpreted the intentions of Chippewa Indians at a nearby encampment and triggered an “Indian panic.” Wild rumors of Chippewa warriors from Wisconsin and Minnesota joining Sioux braves on the warpath caused what one observer referred to as the “timid Swedes’ ’ of Burnett County to abandon their farms and flee for their lives. Telegraph messages reporting that local officials had joined the exodus crossing over to Min¬ nesota led Governor William E. Smith to seek assistance from the U. S. War Department (Forsyth 1878; Bryant 1878; Madison Weekly Democrat 1878b; Barron County Chronotype 1878; Sf. Paul Pioneer Press 1878). 72 Chippewa Treaty Rights Wisconsin Adjutant-General Edward E. Bryant and Lieutenant Colonel James W. Forsyth, aide-de-camp to U. S. Army General Philip Sheridan, investigated the situation and found no cause for alarm. As a Minnesota editor reported, rumors of an impending attack were “absurd.” Noting that the Chippewas in both states were at peace and that the Indians in Burnett County had not taken anything from the abandoned farms, the editor commented: The Chippewas of Wisconsin ... are not only utterly dependent upon the whites, but they are surrounded upon all sides by a wide cordon of white settlements. War would simply drive them from their ancient retreats in the pine woods and rice lakes out of the two States, into the arms of their old and merciless enemies, the Sioux, across the Missouri. But not only the physical conditions render a Chippewa war on the whites impractable, but the moral conditions render it absurd. Such a panic as that in Burnett county, Wisconsin, could only arise from a profound misconception of the habits and character of the Chippewa Indians of that section. All their traditions bind them to peace with the whites. Their utter dependence on the whites guarantees it. (St. Paul Pioneer Press 1878) A newspaper editor in Rice Lake, Wisconsin, agreed with his Minnesota colleague but expressed the hope that the incident in neighboring Burnett County would ‘ ‘result in obliging the Indians to keep on their reservations” (Barron County Chronotype 1878). General Bryant and Colonel Forsyth supported this position. General Bryant lost little time in assuring Governor Smith that the situation was under control. Seemingly oblivious of the Chippewa usufructuary rights in ceded territory including Burnett County, Bryant recommended that the innocent Chip¬ pewas make way for the needs of the white settlers: While the Indians undoubtedly meditate no mischief, certainly no hostility to the whites, they are a nuisance to the settlers; they stroll about, beg, pester timid women, pick cranberries before ripe, shoot off the deer, and by their presence retard the growth of those portions of the State which they frequent. They ought to be kept on their reservations. As long as they are allowed to roam about in bands, so long will they cling to the lazy habits of Indian life. Penned up on their reservations, they would be compelled to resort more to agriculture, and it certainly would be a relief to the settlers in our northern woods, if these disagreeable bands were kept out of their neighborhoods. Colonel Forsyth agreed and informed General Bryant that he intended to recommend that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) adopt stricter regulations for the Chippewa bands in order “to keep them on their reservations, and to drive them by all politic measures into industrial pursuits” (Bryant 1878). Also ignoring Chippewa off- reservation usufructuary rights, BIA officials responded by encouraging the Indians to earn their living within their reservations under federal guidance (Danziger 1979, 96). In the 1870s, federal officials not only actively sought to prevent the Chippewas from “clinging” to such “lazy habits of Indian life” as hunting, fishing, and gathering off-reservation on ceded lands, they also reexamined the policy of ne¬ gotiating treaties with the Indian tribes. In ending treaty making for domestic political reasons in March of 1871, however, congressmen specifically recognized the validity of existing treaty obligations42 (Kappler 1: 8; Priest 1942, 96-102, 244; Cohen 1982, 128). Chippewa usufructuary rights in ceded territory as reserved in the treaties of 1837 and 1842 remained in effect. There was little legal impact on the continuing relationship between the United States and the Chippewas as a result 73 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences » Arts & Letters of the 1871 enactment, but the BIA and residents of Wisconsin increasingly un¬ dermined Chippewa usufructuary rights during the ensuing decades. Among those questioning the soundness of treaty making with Indians were some prominent residents of Wisconsin. In 1870, a committee of the Old Settler’s Club of Milwaukee County, composed of Increase A. Lapham — a charter member of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters and of the American Ethnological Society whose numerous achievements earned him the titles of “the first Wisconsin scientist” and “the first scholar of Wisconsin” (Kellogg 1933; Sherman 1876, 60-61; Quaife 1917) — and colleagues Levi Blossom and George G. Dousman, praised the federal government’s earlier decision to establish reservations in Wis¬ consin for the Chippewas rather than to remove them from the state. They quoted approvingly from Commissioner Manypenny’s 1856 report (cited earlier) and re¬ ferred to the government’s reservation policy for the Chippewas as “a move in the right direction, and one that might have been adopted with advantage at an earlier date.” While the members of the Old Settler’s Club viewed the removal policy as “at best a temporary, a short-sighted policy,” they had even harsher words for the government’s policy of “regarding a mere handful of poor, miserable Indians as a distinct nation .” Calling the idea of dealing with Indians in Wisconsin as sovereign states an “absurdity,” they commented, “why the Indians, any more than the Chinese, the Mormons, or any other people should be allowed to maintain a distinct government within our own, it is difficult to understand.” The solution was clear to them. “Let us at once cease this absurd and ridiculous policy, and treat every Indian, as we do all others, according to his individual rights; allow him the same privileges, and require of him personally, and individually, the same duties; and subject him to the same laws, as other citizens and residents within our borders, and very much of our Indian trouble will be avoided” (Lapham et al. 1870, 10, 13-14). Lapham, Blossom, and Dousman, like other Americans of their generation, had come to view Indian treaties as an obstacle to an effective Indian policy. Indeed in 1871, when Congress prohibited further treaty making with Indian tribes, the three Wisconsinites — like others who advocated making the Indians citizens — un¬ doubtedly viewed the change as only the first step toward eventual citizenship (Mardock 1971, 105). The precarious economic position of the reservation Indians made them vulnerable to the Bureau of Indian Affair’s educational and assistance programs, which were designed to promote acculturation. No longer in a position to choose from white culture those features that appealed to them, the Wisconsin bands found themselves increasingly dependent on the white man’s largesse. Chippewa agriculture, follow¬ ing white practices, was still in its early stages by 1900 and provided only a minor source of food and income. The Indians were also exploited by unscrupulous logging companies who cheated them while transforming their forests into cutover lands and by white trespassers who stripped timber from their reservations without much fear of capture and prosecution since they were often aided by conniving Indian agents {New York Times 1888b, c; Danziger 1979, 89-91, 94, 100, 103; Fries 1951, 202; Levi 1956, 242). In 1872, for example, La Pointe Agent Selden N. Clark negotiated a “give-away” contract for timber from Lac Courte Oreilles with an Eau Claire entrepreneur43 (Shifferd 1976, 22). Not until 1888 did Congress extend anti-trespass legislation to Indian reservations and the Senate launch an investigation into the logging practices on Chippewa lands {Fig. 24) that exposed numerous 74 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 24, Logging Scene on Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation, 1909. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)37336 frauds committed against the Indians (New York Times 1888b, c; 1889; Fries 1951, 202; U. S. Secretary of the Interior 1889). From the ratification of the 1854 treaty until the turn of the century, the Lake Superior Chippewas tried repeatedly to convince American officials to faithfully execute the financial provisions of their treaties (Shifferd 1976, 21). They especially complained about overdue annuity payments (Fig. 25) and funds owed them as a result of the federal government’s use during the Civil War of inflated paper currency instead of the hard coin required by the treaties. During a visit to Washington in 1864, the members of a delegation from Wisconsin recounted their recollection of the manner in which Chippewa reserved rights had been incorporated into the treaties of 1837 and 1842. The bilingual petition of 1864 cited earlier in this study was preceded by a memorial stating, “we have always kept our promises made to our Great Father, and we have the right to expect him to keep his promises made to us.”44 The petition may have contributed to the Bureau of Indian Affair’s decision in 1865 to pay the annuities at Red Cliff and Bad River in coin, but the arrearages went unpaid in spite of the contributions of Chippewa warriors to the Union cause during the Civil War (Nichols 1988, 3-5; Current 1976, 366). One administration after another found excuses for denying the Indians an au¬ dience to discuss the overdue payments (Danziger 1979, 230 n. 19). In 1867, for example, Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs Charles E. Mix rejected a Chip¬ pewa request for a conference in Washington on the basis that travel through American cities would have a bad moral influence on the Indians. Yet, Mix did not meet them in Wisconsin either (Mix 1867). For the next twenty-five years, the Chippewas persisted in their efforts to secure their overdue funds; but, as an eastern newspaper editor observed in 1888, “no one {was} willing to listen” (New York Times 1888a). In 1878, after reporting that rumors of Chippewa hostilities in Wis- 75 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 76 Fig. 25. Annuity Payment Scene at La Pointe. Photograph by Charles A. Zimmerman. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society. Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 26. Indian School in the Vicinity of Hayward, 1880s. Courtesy of the State His¬ torical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)23295 consin were groundless, La Pointe Indian agent Isaac L. Mahan informed Indian Commissioner Ezra A. Hayt that “the Chippewas have grievances that would make white men tear their hair and howl from one end of the country to the other, but they prefer to submit quietly and peaceably to the powers that be, praying without ceasing, hoping continually that the good men of the Great Father’s household will yet hear and answer their petitions by the necessary legislation.” In particular, Mahan urged Hayt to convince Congress to pay the funds the United States owed the Chippewas. “If the government would pay these poor people half what is justly their due under former treaties,” the agent asserted, “they could and would live comfortably for many seasons to come.” In the meantime, Mahan stressed the necessity of securing “large appropriations for net- twine and hooks” so Chippewa fishers could provide adequate subsistence for their families (Mahan 1878, 147-48). Despite such pleas, when the members of the U. S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs examined the records of the U. S. Treasury Department in 1892 they dis¬ covered that the federal government still owed the Chippewas more than ninety- two thousand dollars. “The breach of faith to these unfortunate people,” the Sen¬ ators asserted, “is a greater reproach to the Government by reason of the fact that, while so many tribes and bands of western Indians have resorted to war in their exasperation, the Chippewas have been uniformly faithful and friendly” (U. S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 1892, 2-4). Nevertheless, a thorough exami¬ nation of the federal statute books for the 1890s led historian Edmund Danziger, Jr. to conclude that Congress never appropriated funds to pay the Chippewas (Dan¬ ziger 1979, 230 n. 19-231, n. 19). Throughout the late nineteenth century, but especially after passage of the Dawes Severalty Act in 1887, and continuing during the early 1900s, Bureau of Indian Affairs officials sought to transform the communal Chippewa people into “civi¬ lized,” capitalistic farmers through programs of coercive education and social 77 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters IU OTOSHKI-KIKINDIUIN AD TEBENIMINUNG GAIE BEMAJIINVNG JESUS CHRIST: IMA OJIBUE INUEUINING GIIZHITONG. THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAYIOUR JESUS CHRIST: TRANSLATED INTO THE LANGUAGE OF THE 0 JIB WA INDIANS. NEW YORK: AaMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, INSTITUTED IN THE YK*B MDCCCXTt. 1876. Fig. 27. New Testament in Ojibwa Language, 1875. The conversion of Chippewas to Christianity was one of the ways non-Indians measured Indian “progress” in becoming “civilized.” Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)24983 control (Figs. 26-28). Designed to convert communal tribal property into individ¬ ually owned lands, the Dawes Act was also intended to isolate individuals from the tribal community so that they could eventually be absorbed into the larger white society (Otis 1973). Whatever the goals of the severalty legislation, lands allotted 78 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 28. An Indian Farmer Preparing a Seed Bed, c. 1930. Federal officials encour¬ aged the Chippewas to farm, but small family farms on the cutover lands available to the Indians proved inadequate for making a living. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(w6)6290 to Indians became easy targets of lumber companies or were lost through forfeiture when taxes could not be paid (Danziger 1979, 97-109; Glad 1990, 486). As one scholar has commented, “a Wisconsin county tax sale notice can be mightily confusing when you do not understand ownership to begin with, when you have never heard of taxes, and when you speak only Chippewa” (Wilkinson 1990, 17-18). Although they congregated together on an increasingly diminished land base and were under tremendous pressure to abandon tribal affiliations and identity as well as traditional communal ways, the Chippewas tried to follow their traditions as best they could (Figs. 29-30). They developed cooperative strategies for hunting, fishing, and gathering under existing conditions (Haskins 1909; Shifferd 1976, 18, 26-38; Vennum 1988, 264; Glad 1990, 486-87). Beginning during the latter part of the nineteenth century, Chippewa fishers and hunters (Fig. 31) faced increasing competition for fish and game from commercial fishers, market hunters, and white sportfishers and hunters. Northern towns like Bayfield, a stop on steamer lines, had attracted tourists since the 1860s. As early as 1870, a Bayfield hotel reported that the majority of its registrants during the previous year had been “pleasure seekers” from “down below.” All Wisconsin 79 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 29. Chippewa Herbalist and Family in Rice Lake, 1916. The Chippewa woman depicted here had a wide knowledge of herb and bark medicines. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)36518 railroads terminated in Chicago, and the flow of tourists from that city to Wisconsin was substantial. During the century following 1860, tourism and recreation became the largest combined source of employment and income in many northern counties as more and more city dwellers who enjoyed bird- watching, camping, boating, fishing, hiking, hunting, sight-seeing, and swimming were attracted by the state’s more than eight hundred miles of Great Lakes coastline, nearly fifteen thousand lakes, and more than nine thousand miles of trout streams. The promotional efforts of the Wisconsin Central Railroad, which built the rambling Chequamegon Hotel in Ashland that took several trainloads of vacationers as well as sportfishers and hunters to fill, especially contributed to the growing interest in northern Wisconsin as a vacation spot. Meanwhile, the presence of increasingly large numbers of sportfishers and hunters, together with competition for game from commercial sources, made fishing and hunting less dependable sources of food for the Indians by the early twentieth century. The Chippewas also had to contend with the power of the State of Wisconsin as they sought to eke out an existence on and off their reservations (Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 13; Shifferd 1976, 30-31; Nesbit 1985, 194, 529; Thompson 1988, 288). 80 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 30. Chippewa Woman Preparing Splints for Basket-making, c. 1925. Courtesy of the Wisconsin State Historical Society. WHi(x3) 18837 81 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 31 . Hunting in Winter on Snowshoes. From a stereograph by Charles A. Zim¬ merman. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3) 15462 82 6 The Curtailment of Treaty Rights Between the establishment of their reservations in 1854 and the end of the century, the Chippewas continued to hunt, fish, and gather both on their reservations and off, and the Indians and whites in the region coexisted (Fig. 32) peacefully despite occasional misunderstandings as occurred in Burnett County in 1878 (Hanaway 1989, 3-4). The general trend in the Wisconsin legislature as well as in the state court system during this period, however, favored the extension of state jurisdiction over tribal Indians unless federal law specifically prohibited it. For example, an 1849 statute prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to Indians was reenacted in 1858 and again in 1878 (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1916, 354-55). In 1879, the judges of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, arguing that “Indians are included within the laws when not excepted from their provisions,” ruled the state’s criminal laws applied to the Indians on their reservations. This was an ominous portent of things to come for the Chippewas (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1879a, 296-97). At the end of the nineteenth century and increasingly during the early years of the twentieth century, officials of the State of Wisconsin harassed Lake Superior Chippewa Indians who attempted to exercise their off-reservation rights to hunt, fish, and gather in ceded territory (Wilkinson 1990, 19-20; Strickland et al. 1990, 4-5). State efforts to enforce game and fish laws on reservations led to the arrest on April 23, 1901, of John Blackbird, a full blood Chippewa, on the Bad River reservation. The arresting game warden confiscated Blackbird’s net and took him to Ashland to stand trial. A municipal court judge found Blackbird guilty of violating state laws and fined him twenty-five dollars plus court costs. In default of payment, Blackbird received a sentence of thirty days imprisonment at hard labor in the county jail at Ashland. U. S. attorneys William G. Wheeler and Henry T. Sheldon arranged a test case challenging the state’s authority to convict and imprison Black¬ bird (U. S. District Court 1901, 140). In June of 1901 , attorneys Wheeler and Sheldon argued before the Federal District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that state authorities had no jurisdiction to enforce their game and fish laws on Indian reservations. The attorneys argued that Congress, in adopting the Major Crimes Act on March 3, 1885 (U. S. Congress 1885), had prescribed which acts constituted crimes when committed by “tribal Indians” on reservations and which courts had jurisdiction in cases involving those crimes. States, they contended, neither had authority to add crimes to the list enumerated by Congress nor to prosecute Indians in state courts for crimes com¬ mitted on reservations. Wisconsin Attorney General E. R. Hicks’s attempt to uphold the state’s jurisdiction was soundly rebuffed by Judge Romanzo Bunn (U. S. District Court 1901). Judge Bunn ruled that the Major Crimes Act had extended exclusive Congressional jurisdiction over Indian reservations for specific criminal offenses. “No doubt, if 83 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 32. Ojibwa Ceremony at the Wisconsin State Fair, 1906. Non-Indians watch Chippewas perform a ceremony. WHi(x3)45972 necessary,” he stated, “congress would provide for the punishment of lesser crimes committed by the Indians. But so far . . . it has not been found necessary.” The reason lesser crimes had not been enumerated, at least in the case of the Chippewas, was clear to Bunn: These Indians are a quiet, peaceable people, and all the trouble and infractions of the peace that have come among them have arisen from the mercenary acts of white men in selling them intoxicating drink in violation of law. Congress might even provide fish and game laws to restrict the Indians in their natural and immemorial rights of fishing and hunting. But it has not seen fit to do so. It would be intolerable if the state, under these circumstances, should have the power to step in, and extend its civil and criminal codes and police power over these people. It would be an invitation to an early conflict of jurisdiction. Bunn concluded his strong rebuke of state efforts to enforce fish and game laws on the Chippewa reservations with a reference to the usufructuary rights reserved by the Indians in their treaties with the United States. “After taking from them the great body of their lands in . . . Wisconsin, allowing them to reserve certain portions for reservations, and stipulating they should always have the right to fish and hunt upon all lands so ceded,” Bunn stated, “it would be adding insult as well as injustice now to deprive them of the poor privilege of fishing with a seine . . . upon their own reservation.” The judge, warning state fish and game wardens that their over¬ zealousness in arresting Indian fishers for using nets in streams on their reservations 84 Chippewa Treaty Rights was “not justifiable in law,” ordered the release of Blackbird (U. S. District Court 1901, 145). Judge Bunn’s ruling in 1901 did not prevent Wisconsin officials from continuing their efforts to extend state authority over the Chippewas. Six years later, an Indian named Morrin, who had become a U. S. citizen under the Dawes Act and had lived in Bayfield for more than five years, was arrested under a 1905 statute for fishing with a gill net in Lake Superior in violation of state fishing regulations. Morrin appealed his conviction on the basis of his alleged reserved usufructuary treaty right to fish in ceded territory. Although Morrin ’s status as a U. S. citizen added a special nuance to his claim of usufructuary rights in ceded territory, the justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court used his appeal as an opportunity to reassert state legal authority over tribal Indians on the Chippewa reservations. ... To exempt . . . Indians from state laws regulating hunting and fishing within the borders of a state after its admission to the Union would deprive the state of its sovereign power to regulate the rights of hunting and fishing, and would deny to such state admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, upon the ground that a treaty with the national government giving the right to hunt and fish within territory which subsequently is embraced within the limits of a state is a privilege in conflict with the act of admitting the state into the Union on an equality with the other states and is repealed thereby. According to the justices, the act of Congress admitting Wisconsin into the Union as a state abrogated Chippewa treaty rights pertaining to hunting and fishing within the borders of the state (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1908). Their decision, which ignored Federal Judge Bunn’s 1901 ruling, found Morrin guilty and deprived the Chippewa Indians of a major source of food and income for the next seventy-five years until it was reversed by federal appeals court judges in 1983. In addition to the State v. Morrin ruling, other dark legal clouds hung over the heads of the Wisconsin Chippewas before 1983. During World War I, while Chip¬ pewas were serving overseas in the U. S. army (Fig. 33), the Wisconsin Supreme Court continued to encroach upon tribal sovereignty and reserved treaty rights. In 1916, the court cited 1849, 1858, and 1878 statutes to uphold the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor to “all full-blood Indians” whether or not they belonged to a tribe (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1916). In 1927, the court ruled that President Zachary Taylor’s Removal Order of 1850 effectively terminated the Chip¬ pewa “right of occupancy” in Wisconsin “so far as it would interfere with the lawful occupancy of those claiming patent {land title} from the United States is concerned” (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1927, 473-74) despite earlier U. S. Supreme Court rulings in 1894 and 1918 that no executive order45 had actually terminated the Chippewa right of occupancy (U. S. Supreme Court 1894, 584; 1918, 137). According to tribal elder James Pipe Mustache of the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) Band, state officials began taking a tougher stand toward off-reservation hunting and wild rice gathering by LCO members near Hayward in 1927. Fines, jail terms, car impoundments, and rifle confiscations became common (Isthmus 1990, 1). The rise of such incidents during the Great Depression in the 1930s coincided with the state’s first appropriation to advertise the resorts and vacation spots of northern Wisconsin and the rise of automobile traffic to that region on the state’s increasing number of gravelled and concrete roads (Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 13; Nesbit 85 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 33. Chippewa Soldier from Hayward in World War I Uniform. Courtesy of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. WHi(x3)37329 86 Chippewa Treaty Rights and Thompson 1989, 480). As Wisconsin officials courted tourists and harassed Indian hunters, fishers, and gatherers, the Chippewas of northern Wisconsin con¬ fronted deteriorating living conditions and suffered from inadequate diet and health care (Danziger 1979, 119-26; Glad 1990, 487). Not all rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court supported efforts to regulate aspects of tribal life and to curtail usufructuary rights. In 1931, for example, in State v. Rufus the justices of the Court recognized that state courts did not have jurisdiction over criminal actions by an Indian within reservation limits, thereby overturning the Court’s 1879 decision in State v. Doxtater. The justices also con¬ ceded that Wisconsin had been out of step with federal court rulings regarding the handling of Indian hunting and fishing rights. Wisconsin had not been upholding an 1886 Supreme Court ruling, U. S. v. Kagama, that said federal jurisdiction over the tribes rested not upon ownership of and sovereignty over the country or reser¬ vation in which they reside but upon the fact that the tribes are wards of the federal government. The justices concluded that efforts of state courts to prosecute Indians for violating state hunting and fishing regulations within the confines of their re¬ servations should have ended with the decision in U. S.v. Kagama. Relying heavily on an article in the Yale Law Journal by a University of Wisconsin Law School professor (Brown 1930), the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices ruled that “while prosecutions brought in the state courts against Indians might have beneficial results, such is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon state courts in the absence of legislation by Congress authorizing such jurisdiction” (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1931, 335, 339). In 1933 and again in 1940, attorney Thomas L. St. Germaine of the Lac du Flambeau Band argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court that Chippewa Indians could not be prosecuted for violating state fish and game laws off their reservations either because of the provisions of the treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854. In both cases, the court conceded the Indians had the right to hunt and fish on their own lands without regard to state regulations but denied them that right on lands that had come under state jurisdiction through sales by Indians to non-Indians (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1933; 1940). On April 23, 1934, at Hayward near the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation, attorney St. Germaine voiced his concern over the erosion of Chippewa hunting and fishing rights. The occasion was the last of a series of so-called regional Indian congresses called by Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier for the purpose of explaining pending legislation (the Wheeler-Howard Bill) to tribal representatives.46 The Hay¬ ward Congress brought together Indians from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. St. Germaine was among the delegates from the Chippewa reservations in Wisconsin who raised concerns about the proposed legislation, fearing it might strip Indians of their hunting and fishing rights (U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 1934, 28-30; Deloria and Lytle 1984, 119). Attorney St. Germaine’s efforts to preserve the usufructuary rights of the Chip¬ pewas are documented in the court cases and in the proceedings of the Hayward Indian Congress mentioned above. The actual day-to-day meaning of state infringe¬ ments on hunting, fishing, and gathering rights for Indian families may be gleaned from oral histories. Reporter Ron Seely of the Wisconsin State Journal recently retold the following remembrance of a member of the Nakomis (“Grandmother”) Club on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation: 87 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters One winter morning . . . when she was a girl about 12, her father . . . and two friends left early to go deer hunting. The hunting trip was important because the winter had been harsh and the food was low. After several hours the men spotted a deer. The only problem was that it was off the reservation, just across the creek that forms the eastern boundary. Her father, knowing the family needed food, shot the deer anyway. The men gutted it and took it home. Later in the day . . . wardens came and arrested her father for violating state game laws by hunting deer off the reservation without a license. He spent six months in jail in Wausau. The woman remembers she was so mad that she wrote the judge a letter. “Don’t you know,” she asked, “that deer meant we would have enough food or not?” Her family survived the winter without her father thanks to the generosity of relatives and friends. The woman remains bitter today for what the state did to her family in violation of their reserved treaty right to hunt off the reservation ( Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 27-28). Such stories would undoubtedly be repeated many times over if the remembrances of all Chippewa grandmothers were collected. The state’s violation of Chippewa usufructuary rights in ceded territory exacted a heavy toll on the lives of Indian families — a cost that cannot be measured solely in terms of fish and game as the above example illustrates. The years between attorney St. Germaine’s efforts in 1933 and 1940 to secure recognition of Chippewa off-reservation usufructuary rights coincided with the “Indian New Deal” under the leadership of Indian Commissioner Collier. A pro¬ ponent of repealing the Dawes Act and returning lands to the Indians, Collier believed that the communal way of reservation life offered an alternate lifestyle for individualistic white Americans (Philp 1977). His hopes for the future centered around the Wheeler-Howard bill that was designed to conserve and develop Indian lands and resources; to extend to Indians the right to form business and other organizations; to establish a credit system for Indians; to grant certain rights of home rule to Indians; to provide for vocational education for Indians; and for other purposes. (U. S. Congress 1934) Collier convened a series of Indian congresses, including the one at Hayward mentioned earlier, to answer questions about the proposed legislation and to win support for it. He responded to criticisms and suggestions by offering amendments to the bill. The U. S. Congress enacted the measure, known as the Indian Reor¬ ganization Act (IRA) on June 18, 1934 (Philp 1977, 145-60). Between November 17 and June 15, 1934, voters at each of the Chippewa reservations in Wisconsin overwhelmingly agreed to accept the IRA. Under the act, Collier worked to provide the St. Croix and Sakaogan Chippewas — the so-called Lost Bands — with small reservations (see Fig. 23)\ and he encouraged the Chippewa bands to adopt con¬ stitutions and bylaws. Meanwhile, the BIA attempted to provide the tribes with jobs, relief, loans, and educational programs (Danziger 1979, 133-34, 137, 153-54). The IRA inspired optimism among some Indians. In addition to the cultural and political regeneration it heralded, programs such as the Indian Division of the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, and the Civil Works administration brought much-needed job training, jobs, and hard cash to the Chippewa reservations. But Collier’s Indian New Deal proved inadequate in meeting 88 Chippewa Treaty Rights the needs of the Chippewas of Wisconsin. The Chippewas survived the Depression and took some steps toward self-determination, but they did not become prosperous or independent. Encouraged by the state’s promotion of tourism, whites had already gained title to reservation lands and surrounded the most desirable lakes with cottages and resorts. The Chippewas, who were left with swampy, cutover lands unsuitable for either farming or recreation, faced great difficulties in maintaining tribal cohesion and in providing a sound economic base for their bands during the Depression years. During the 1940s, Congress turned an increasingly deaf ear to Collier’s programs for tribal advancement as the war effort drained human and monetary resources. Termination of the New Deal programs mentioned above dealt the Chippewa bands a severe economic blow (Danziger 1979, 168-69; Glad 1990, 489; Lurie 1987, 44). Following World War II, tourism and recreation became major components of the Wisconsin economy. Increasingly larger numbers of tourists annually spent money in northern Wisconsin on food, lodging, and alcohol. In many counties in the north, they constituted the largest combined source of employment and income. During the 1950s, nearly four million out-of-state people a year vacationed and enjoyed outdoor recreation in Wisconsin as did more than two million state residents annually by the end of the decade. Together, the out-of-state and in-state figures comprised a number half again as large as Wisconsin’s total population. Next to sight-seeing, fishing was the most popular attraction. In 1960, the state issued more than 925,000 fishing licenses, two-and-a-half times as many as were issued twenty years earlier. Between 1940 and 1960, the number of hunting licenses issued also grew significantly, from 400,000 to 622,000 (Thompson 1988, 288-89). As the total number of fishers and hunters rose annually in the 1950s, state game wardens increasingly collided with Chippewa fishers and hunters (Wilkinson 1990, 22). In 1953, the Republican-dominated Congress passed legislation designed to make law enforcement on reservations in Wisconsin a state rather than a federal respon¬ sibility. Public Law 280 subjected the Chippewas to state jurisdiction over matters that did not affect treaty rights (U. S. Congress 1953; Brophy and Aberle 1966, 184-85). Enacted at a time when terminating the unique federal relationship with the tribes was national policy, PL 280 was an invitation to Wisconsin to enforce the full gamut of its criminal laws on the reservations. Simultaneously, the state accelerated its crackdown on Indian hunting and fishing (Monette 1990, 276; Wilk¬ inson 1990, 22). Wisconsin game wardens vigorously applied state conservation laws to Indians on the Chippewa reservations during the 1950s. A series of “unjust arrests’’ of Chippewa fishers and hunters by state conservation officials led the Bad River Band Tribal Council to issue the following ‘ ‘Declaration of War’ ’ on November 10, 1959: When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to protect the rights and liberties of certain peoples of this great nation from encroachment by other peoples, it is the duty of the Tribal Council, the governing body of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, to take measures that will protect the members of said Band from unjust arrests by State Conservation officials. IT IS HEREBY DECLARED, that a state of cold war exists between the Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians and the officials of the Wisconsin Department of Conservation, and that such state shall exist until such time as the State of Wisconsin shall recognize 89 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Federal treaties and statutes affording immunity to the members of this Band from State control over hunting and fishing within the boundaries of this reservation. During this period, State conservation officials shall be denied access to all tribal and restricted lands within the boundaries of this reservation. Nothing in this declaration shall be construed to mean that the Tribal Council condones any un-Christian act, or any act of violence upon any person, or to be taken to sanction any riot, or in any manner disturbing the peace. It is known that any such acts are punishable under State Law, such jurisdiction having been given by this Band under {Public Law 280,} the Act of August 15, 1953. (Bad River Tribal Council 1959) The “cold war” over the enforcement of state regulations on Chippewa reservations appeared to have come to an end in 1966 when Attorney General Bronson C. La Follette declared treaty rights were still in force on reservations and that the state’s conservation laws only applied to the Chippewas when they were outside the bound¬ aries of their reservations (Erdman 1966, 62-63). The controversy over state reg¬ ulation of usufructuary rights on reservations in the 1950s, however, was but a precursor of other problems for the Indians. 90 7 The Continuing Pursuit of Justice During the 1950s and 1960s, the Chippewas and other reservation Indians across the United States confronted numerous efforts to abrogate their treaties and to seize tribal lands for dams and other purposes. Indians responded by turning to the federal courts for protection of rights reserved under treaties. The State of Wisconsin provided an early example of this trend. In 1962, the Menominee Indians contested the arrest of a tribal member by state wildlife authorities for hunting out of season (Lurie 1987, 59; U. S. Court of Claims 1967, 998-1010). When the case finally reached the Supreme Court several years later, the justices ruled that nineteenth- century Menominee treaty rights relating to hunting were still valid since they had never been explicitly extinguished by the United States government (U. S. Supreme Court 1968, 404-12). The Court’s contention that treaty rights must be explicitly extinguished by the federal government and just compensation provided in order for the United States to abrogate them is one of a series of legal precedents referred to by scholars of Indian law as “canons of construction.’’ Four such canons have emerged since the nineteenth century (Cohen 1982, 221-25). A brief review of them is essential to our understanding of the legal context and the results of recent Chippewa efforts to protect their treaty rights. Judicial canons or standards of interpreting Indian treaties evolved during and after the treaty-making era of American history. This period lasted from the 1778 treaty with the Delaware Indians until Congress ended treaty making in 1871. The following four canons or principles have emerged from a number of Supreme Court decisions: 1) treaties must be liberally construed to favor Indians; 2) ambiguous expressions in treaties must be resolved in favor of the Indians; 3) treaties must be construed as the Indians would have understood them at the time they were negotiated; and 4) treaty rights legally enforceable against the United States should not be ex¬ tinguished by mere implication, but rather explicit action must be taken and ‘clear and plain’ language used to abrogate them. These standards of dealing with cases involving Indians represent an acknowl¬ edgement by the federal judiciary of the unequal bargaining position of the Indians at the time of treaty negotiations. This acknowledgement is based, among other things, on the federal government’s employment of interpreters and its superior knowledge of the language in which the negotiations were conducted. Fundamen¬ tally, the canons reflect the fact that justices of the U. S. Supreme Court have acknowledged Indians did not bargain with the federal government from a position of equal strength (Cohen 1982, 221-25). 91 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters The reason for the emergence of the canons is rooted in the special trust rela¬ tionship between the Indian people and the United States (Cohen 1982, 220-22). This relationship was outlined in an 1831 U. S. Supreme Court case involving a dispute between the Cherokee Nation and the State of Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall declared Indian tribes to be “domestic dependent nations’’ whose rela¬ tionship to the United States resembled that of “a ward to his guardian.’’ Marshall viewed Indian tribes as self-governing entities, but he recognized that their location within states of the Union established a “peculiar’’ relationship with the federal government (U. S. Supreme Court 1831). The concept of the federal trust respon¬ sibility to Indians evolved judicially from Marshall’s rulings (Satz 1987, 34-49; Cohen 1982, 220-21) and has played an important role in the efforts of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians to protect their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. The primary question of concern to federal judges and legal experts in reviewing treaty rights controversies is this: what reasonable expectations did the Indians have as a result of treaty negotiations? Although federal judges have recognized the duty of the United States to carry out the terms of treaties as they were understood by Indians, it is not an easy task to determine today what the understanding of an Indian tribe or band was more than a hundred years ago. Among the most important documents used for this purpose are the proceedings that were usually recorded during the treaty councils. Copies of those documents that have been preserved in the National Archives and Records Service in Washington, D.C., are available on microfilm (Hill 1981, 44-45). The proceedings contain the official minutes of the treaty negotiations as recorded by representatives of the U. S. government. Together with related correspondence to the commissioner of Indian affairs and other gov¬ ernment officials, the proceedings often help to clarify the motives, concerns, and perceptions of U. S. treaty commissioners and Indians. Since the proceedings were written by government employees and thus undoubtedly are biased in favor of the United States government, federal judges have carefully noted those instances in which these documents support the Indians’ recollection of events and treaty pro¬ visions as opposed to the government’s written version of the treaty. In instances where the proceedings reinforce the Indians’ version (see, for example, those noted in Chapters 2-4 of this study), the courts have ruled in favor of the Indians in interpreting the provisions of the treaties (Kickingbird et al. 1980, 34). During the last two decades, the descendants of all of the Lake Superior Chippewa bands have increasingly turned to the federal courts for assistance as some white Americans have challenged their efforts to continue to enjoy the rights their ancestors reserved in the treaties they signed with the federal government. Events of the mid- and late 1960s set the stage for the legal actions of later decades. The Great Society programs of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration opened up new links between Indian leaders and the federal government (Prucha 1984, 2: 1092-095). Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) funds were used, among other things, to establish legal services programs. Wisconsin Judicare, for example, was established to assist low-income people in the state’s northern counties, which also happen to contain all of Wisconsin’s Chippewa reservations (Lurie 1987, 51, 54; Wilkinson 1990, 23). Although the programs of the Johnson administration had an important impact on the lives of many American Indians, the following events related to the rising Indian militancy47 of the late 1960s and early 1970s captured the attention of the news media48 and spotlighted Indian grievances: the organization of the American 92 Chippewa Treaty Rights Indian Movement (AIM) in Minneapolis in 1968, the seizure and occupation of Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay in 1969, the Trail of Broken Treaties that resulted in the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington, D. C., in 1972, and the seizure of the hamlet of Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota in 1973 (Prucha 1984, 2: 1116-120). Such militancy had its counterpart in Wisconsin as well. In addition to the Indian students who badgered university administrators for Indian counselors and programs in Indian studies and languages, there were such events as the three-day occupation of the Northern States Power Company dam site near the town of Winter in Sawyer County in late July and early August of 1971 by a group of about a hundred Lac Courte Oreilles Chippewas and some twenty-five AIM supporters49 and the occu¬ pation on New Year’s Eve 1974 of a vacant Catholic novitiate near the reservation town of Gresham in Shawno County by the Menominee Warrior Society.50 By the mid-1970s, however, most Indian activists in Wisconsin — like their counterparts across the United States — had turned to the legal system for assistance in redressing their grievances (Lurie 1987, 54-56, 58). Wisconsin Indians looked to the federal courts and organizations such as the Native American Rights Fund and Wisconsin Judicare to seek the benefits of the federal government’s trustee relationship to the tribes without the burden of federal domination (Lurie 1987, 54). As Indian activists Russel Lawrence Barsh and James Youngblood Henderson have noted, in the American constitutional system of checks and balances “the ultimate security of a minority excluded from or too few to take advantage of majoritarian political processes lies in the Constitution and constitu¬ tional courts” (Barsh and Henderson 1980, 138). The rising militancy of the 1960s and 1970s gave many Indians a new sense of pride in being Indian, and a new generation of leaders sought legal redress for their grievances. “The legal weapon is especially potent in the Indian situation,” a student of the new Indian politics reminds us, “because the relationship of Native Americans to the United States, unlike that of any other group in American life, is spelled out in a vast body of treaties, court actions, and legislation” (Cornell 1986, 128). As early as 1971, Wisconsin Judicare had undertaken a test case involving Chippewa fishing rights in Lake Superior under nineteenth century treaties ( Capital Times 1972). In two cases reviewed together, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on January 6, 1972, that the Red Cliff and Bad River Chippewa Indians had fishing rights in Lake Superior by virtue of the establishment of their reservations on the lake’s shores in the 1854 treaty, but the majority decision recognized the state’s right to “reasonable and necessary” regulations to prevent a substantial depletion of the fish supply and declared that Indian methods of gathering fish had to “rea¬ sonably conform to the aboriginal methods.” In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice E. Harold Hallows upheld the right of the Chippewas to fish in Lake Superior but disagreed with his colleagues on state regulation of Indian fishing. Hallows argued that the needs of whites should not determine the extent of Chippewa fishing rights nor should the Indians be limited to using aboriginal methods. As Hallows commented: The majority opinion states to the Indians you have your historic and traditional fishing rights, but the state of Wisconsin ‘who did not grant you those rights in the first place’ is going to regulate them. The regulation of the Indians’ right to fish could reduce them to the status of privileges of the white inhabitants of Wisconsin. I cannot agree that the 93 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters needs of the white inhabitants of Wisconsin must determine the extent of the Indians’ fishing rights. Nor can I agree that the methods of fishing by the Indians must be by aboriginal methods. Hallows concluded his remarks by stating, “the Indians should be allowed a spinning rod as well as a bone hook or spear” (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1971, 410-12). The most famous court case involving Chippewa hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in Wisconsin is Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Chippewa Indians v. Voigt. In early March of 1974, Wardens of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) arrested Frederick and Michael Tribble, members of the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) Band, for spearfishing on Chief Lake, located south of Hayward in ceded territory in Sawyer County. Charged and found guilty of possessing a spear for taking fish on inland off-reservation waters and for occupying a fish shanty without a proper tag, the brothers were defended by the LCO Band, which filed suit in 1974 against DNR Secretary Lester P. Voigt, DNR Conservation Wardens Larry Miller and Milton Dieckman, Sawyer County District Attorney Norman L. Yackel, and Sawyer County Sheriff Donald Primley for interfering with Chippewa off- reservation hunting and fishing rights ( Capital Times 1974; U. S. District Court 1978). In 1978, Federal District Court Judge James Doyle ruled against the Chippewas. Doyle concluded that “when the boundaries of the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation were finally determined pursuant to the 1854 treaty, the general right of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band and its individual members to hunt, fish and gather wild rice and maple sap in the area ceded by the treaties of 1837 and 1842, free of regulation by state government, was extinguished, except as to reservation lands, and except as to special hunting and fishing rights on limited parts of the ceded territory adjacent to the treaty reservations which might properly be inferred from the language of the 1854 treaty setting apart the reservations ‘for the use of’ the Chippewa” (U. S. District Court 1978, 1361). After initial rejection of their arguments by Judge Doyle, the Chippewas turned to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which in 1983 reversed Judge Doyle’s decision and reaffirmed the sanctity of the treaties and the right of the Indians to hunt, fish, and gather on and off their reservations on public lands51 in ceded territory in the so-called Voigt Decision or what has come to be known as LCO I.52 In deciding in favor of the Indians, a three-judge panel reviewed historical and ethnographical evidence and concluded the Indians had been led to believe they could continue to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on ceded lands as long as they refrained from molesting white settlers. Further, the judges ruled that the usufructuary rights were not withdrawn by the 1850 Removal Order because the order was invalid; they concluded the 1854 treaty did not specifically revoke those rights either (U. S. Court of Appeals 1983). In reversing Judge Doyle’s 1979 decision, the U. S. Court of Appeals was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, which refused to review the case (U. S. Supreme Court 1983; Milwaukee Sentinel 1983). The Court of Appeals remanded the case to Judge Doyle with instructions to “enter judgment for the LCO band . . . and for further consideration as to the permissible scope of State regulation over the LCO’s exercise of their usufructuary rights” (U. S. Court of Appeals 1983, 365). 94 Chippewa Treaty Rights Soon after the Supreme Court refused to review LCO I, the other five Chippewa bands recognized as successors to the Chippewa Indians who signed the 1837 and 1842 treaties— the Red Cliff Band, the Sokaogon Chippewa Indian Community/ Mole Lake Band, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians, and the Lac du Flambeau Band joined the Lac Courte Oreilles Band in the lawsuits that followed (Bichler 1990b, 2). Meanwhile, Governor Anthony S. Earl, a Wausau attorney who had served as secretary of the Department of Natural Resources from 1975 to 1980, was anxious to promote harmony in the northern part of the state where the Voigt Decision had stunned many non-Indians. On October 13, 1983, just ten days after the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Voigt Decision by the State of Wisconsin, Earl issued Executive Order 31 which stated: WHEREAS, there are eleven federally recognized Tribal governments located within the State of Wisconsin, each retaining attributes of sovereignty, authority for self-government within their territories and over their citizens; and WHEREAS, our Nation, over the course of two centuries has dealt with American Indian tribes through the application of international common law, negotiation of treaties, and constitutional interpretation of law, each recognizing the special govemment-to- govemment relationship as the basis for existance {sic}; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this unique political relationship developed between Indian tribes and the United States government; and WHEREAS, the State of Wisconsin was established in 1848 with a continuous vested interest in service to all of its citizens regardless of specific jurisdiction, ethnic or cultural background, religious affiliation or sex; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of all units of government, federal, tribal, state and local to recognize the pluralistic diversity of our government and society; NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANTHONY S. EARL, Governor of the State of Wisconsin, order my administration, state agencies and secretaries to work in a spirit of cooperation with the goals and aspirations of American Indian Tribal Governments, to seek out a mutual atmosphere of education, understanding and trust with the highest level of tribal government leaders. AND, FURTHERMORE , all state agencies shall recognize this unique relationship based on treaties and law and shall recognize the tribal judicial systems and their decisions and all those endeavors designed to elevate the social and political living conditions of their citizens to the benefit of all. (State of Wisconsin Executive Department 1983) Earl called for cooperation between state agencies and tribal governments, but the state and the Chippewa bands continued to confront each other in federal court. When Judge Doyle entered a partial judgment in favor of the Chippewas as specified by the Seventh Circuit of the U. S. Court of Appeals, the Wisconsin Department of Justice appealed that ruling. State officials claimed usufructuary rights could not be exercised on any land that had at any time been privately owned. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled in 1985 (LCO II) on the availability of private and public lands subject to the exercise of treaty rights. “It is appropriate once again to say,” the judges stated, “that the whole thrust of LCO I was that the usufructuary rights survived after the treaty of 1854 and that those rights must be interpreted as the Indians understood them in 1837 and 1842.” The judges also ruled that “Wisconsin’s obligation to honor the usufructuary rights of the Indians is no more or less than was the federal government’s obligation prior to Wisconsin’s statehood’ ’ (U. S. Court of Appeals 1985, 182-83). 95 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters During the 1986 gubernatorial campaign, Republican Tommy G. Thompson, the Assembly minority leader from Elroy, attempted to woo voters away from Dem¬ ocratic incumbent Governor Earl in northern Wisconsin by openly speaking against Chippewa reserved treaty rights during campaign swings in the region. At a Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources (PARR) banquet in Minocqua near the Lac du Flambeau reservation where the most active spearfishers reside, for example, Thompson spoke to about two hundred and thirty anti-treaty activists: A very major difference between Tony Earl and me is that I believe in treating all people equally. I believe spearing is wrong regardless of what treaties, negotiations or federal courts may say. The exercise of these special privileges has hurt our tourism industry, created an image problem and has hurt real estate and land values . . . . If I am governor, the state of Wisconsin will defend your right and your title to your lands. (Milwaukee Journal 1986a; Wisconsin State Journal 1989a) Thompson told a meeting of the North woods Realtors in Rhinelander that “spearing is wrong, period” and that “we cannot stand by and let our fishing areas, hunting grounds and tourism industry be threatened” (Ashland Daily Press, 1986). Governor Earl took a different approach to the treaty rights issue. In June, he appointed a sixteen-member commission to “review alternatives for resolving con¬ cerns about the exercise of treaty rights, improving understanding between Indians and non-Indians and addressing the social needs of the region.” Commission mem¬ bers included the tribal chairs of the Chippewa bands and non-Indians. Among the latter were local government officials, representatives of the tourism industry, con¬ servationists, a minister, and a college instructor. Earl named Jeff Long, chair of the town of Boulder Junction in Vilas County, and Stockbridge-Munsee tribal chair Leonard Miller, president of the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, as co-chairs. The governor urged the commissioners “to explore ways to resolve disputes stem¬ ming from the Indian treaties, to encourage better race relations and to promote tourism and economic development.” Earl urged the commission to engage in “positive thinking about Wisconsin’s Northland and its resources.” In response to reporters’ questions about proposals to abrogate treaties, Earl replied, “I’m not going to join the chorus of abrogating the treaties. Politically, it’s the easy way, but hell, I know that’s kidding the people” (Milwaukee Journal 1986b; Message Carrier 1986). Candidate Thompson criticized the governor for failing to appoint critics of off- reservation hunting and fishing rights to the tribal-community relations commission (Milwaukee Journal 1986c). Following his victory at the polls in November, Thomp¬ son was confronted with growing opposition to Chippewa treaty rights — a problem political opponents claimed his own campaign had helped to inflame. Paul DeMain, editor of News from Indian Country (Hayward, Wis.) and a former aide to Governor Earl, claims that Thompson’s courting of PARR and Stop Treaty Abuse (STA) since 1986 gave those groups a legitimacy they did not deserve and emboldened them to mount large boat-landing protests against spearfishers. “Tommy Thompson pumped those people up,” DeMain argues (Wisconsin State Journal 1989a, e; Milwaukee Journal 1989f). Evidence to support DeMain’ s contention that Thomp¬ son played into the hands of PARR and STA may be gleaned from the promotional literature of these organizations. PARR Issue, for example, regularly informs dues- 96 Chippewa Treaty Rights paying and potential members in words and in photographs of the frequent meetings between PARR officers and the governor and his aides ( PARR Issue 1991q, v). Such tactics undoubtedly assisted the development of anti-treaty sentiment as Judge Doyle addressed the various issues emerging from the Voigt Decision. After LCO II, Doyle divided the court proceedings on Chippewa treaty rights in Wisconsin into three phases: Phase I: The Declaratory Phase was to result in the determination of the nature and scope of Chippewa treaty rights. Phase II: The Regulatory Phase was to lead to a determination of the permissible scope of regulation by the state of Wisconsin. Phase ID: The Damages Phase was to lead to the determination of the amount of damages, if any, to which the Chippewas are entitled for interference by state officials with the exercise of their off-reservation treaty rights. (Bichler 1990a, 254; Masinaigan 1990a) After dividing the proceedings into these phases, Doyle began to address the various issues. On February 18, 1987, on what treaty rights opponents referred to as “Doomsday for Wisconsin” (Milwaukee Journal 1987a, 22A), Doyle ended Phase I of the court proceedings by affirming in LCO III the right of the Chippewa bands to exercise their usufructuary treaty rights to harvest nearly all varieties of fish, animal, and plant life available in ceded territory necessary to maintain a “modest living” free from state interference. The state may, however, impose restrictions upon the Chippewas provided restrictions are “reasonable and necessary to conserve a par¬ ticular resource.” Doyle ruled that the Chippewas could employ any means of harvesting resources used at the time of the negotiation of the treaties or any developed since then, the Chippewas could trade and sell harvested goods to non- Indians using modem methods of distribution and sale,53 and that “appropriate arrangements” must be made to allow the Chippewas to exercise their usufructuary rights on private lands if public lands were insufficient to support a modest living. The judge further explained his reasoning: I have found, and now repeat, that the Chippewa understanding in 1837 and 1842 was that in the absence of a lawful removal order or in the absence of fresh agreement on their part, settlement and private ownership of parcels by non-Indians would not require the Chippewa to forgo anywhere or in any degree exercise of their reserved usufructuary rights necessary to assure that, when the exercise of those rights was combined with trading with non-Indians, the Chippewa would enjoy a moderate living within the entire ceded territory. (U. S. District Court 1987a, 1432, 1435) Republican Governor Tommy Thompson responded to Doyle’s rulings by announc¬ ing that the state would appeal (Milwaukee Journal 1987a, 1A). Following Doyle’s death in June of 1987, Judge Barbara Crabb took over the case and began Phase II of the court proceedings. Judge Crabb ruled in August of 1987 (LCO IV) that the modest living standard did not restrict the Chippewas to an upper limit during their harvesting of resources. She also established the legal standards for permissible bounds of state regulation, maintaining that the State of Wisconsin could regulate Chippewa off-reservation usufructuary rights in the in- 97 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters terests of conservation, public health, and safety, provided the regulations were reasonable and necessary to conserve a particular species, did not discriminate against the Chippewas, and were the least restrictive alternative available. Effective tribal self-regulation, however, would preclude state regulation (U. S. District Court 1987b). Less than two weeks after Judge Crabb announced her ruling in LCO IV, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit criticized the legal team the Thomp¬ son administration had assembled to challenge the Voigt Decision and to protest the awarding of interim attorney’s fees to the Chippewas. Not only did the judges dismiss the state’s appeal on August 31, 1987, but they also imposed sanctions for “inexcusable” errors in filing the appeal. Pointing out that this was Wisconsin’s third error concerning appellate jurisdiction in the litigation resulting from the 1983 case, the judges expressed concern about the state’s “serious lack of understanding of the basic principles of federal appellate review.” In assessing sanctions for the “frivolous appeal” the judges stated, “we are entitled to expect better from the State of Wisconsin” (U. S. Court of Appeals 1987). Following the rulings in LCO IV and in the appeal case, state and tribal officials sought a delineation of the Chippewas’ harvesting rights. In 1988 (LCO V), Judge Crabb determined the Chippewas could not maintain “a modest living” of slightly more than $20,000 per family from the available harvest within ceded territory (U. S. District Court 1988). Crabb in 1989 (LCO VI) established Chippewa walleye and muskellunge rights using a plan proposed by Chippewa tribal conservation officials in the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission modified by a “safe harvest” calculation methodology supplied by the state. The judge prohibited state officials from interfering in the regulation of treaty rights with regard to the harvesting of walleye and muskellunge except insofar as the Indians had otherwise agreed by stipulation (U. S. District Court 1989). On May 9, 1990 (LCO VII), Judge Crabb ruled on Chippewa off-reservation deer harvest rights within the ceded territory. She recognized the state’s right to prohibit deer hunting by Indians in the summer and during evenings based on safety concerns and decided that Indians and non-Indians were each entitled to one half of the game harvest54 (U. S. District Court 1990a, 1401-02, 1413-27). Attorney General Hanaway reacted positively, noting that the decision put the Chippewas and non-Indians on an equal footing. “The decision is in a sense equal rights for everyone,” he said. Stop Treaty Abuse leader Dean Crist, however, summed up the anti-treaty rights position by observing, “the bad thing is you still have less than 1 percent of the population with 50 percent of the resource.” Crist accused Crabb of “trying to court-appoint co-management” {News from Indian Country 1990c, d) Judge Crabb ruled on October 11, 1990 (LCO VIII), that the Chippewa Indians could not sue the State of Wisconsin for an estimated $300 million in damages for denial of treaty rights over the years. In an opinion that shocked treaty rights advocates and brought loud cheers from the Thompson administration and anti¬ treaty spokespersons, Crabb argued that recent U. S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Eleventh Amendment55 indicate that states have “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits by Indian tribes. As a result, the Chippewa bands must persuade the federal government to sue the State of Wisconsin on the bands’ behalf if the Indians are to have any hope of collecting damages for the state’s past denial of their treaty 98 Chippewa Treaty Rights rights. Meanwhile, as attorneys for the various bands contemplated appealing Crabb’s ruling in Phase III of the proceedings, the judge reviewed the state’s power to regulate Chippewa harvesting and selling of timber in ceded territory (Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1990i, j). Crabb, who had earlier barred the state and its counties from challenging the Chippewas’ treaty right to harvest and sell timber, reviewed these rights in a four- week trial held in early 1991 . About 1.8 million acres of county forests lie on ceded lands, and the Wisconsin Counties Association and the Wisconsin County Forests Association have vigorously argued for many years that timber rights on county forest lands are not covered by the Chippewa treaties. In the mid-1980s Wisconsin counties earned in excess of 3 million dollars annually from timber sales. In addition to the counties, the state, which was represented in the trial independently, has about 370,000 acres of land, generating approximately $800,000 annually, involved in the timber rights dispute. Many Chippewa leaders, facing unemployment rates exceeding fifty percent on their reservations, view logging as a way to boost their economies (Wisconsin County Forests Association et al. 1990, 1, 6; State of Wis¬ consin et al. 1990, 2-3; Milwaukee Journal 1984b, 1989d; Green Bay Press Gazette 1990; Milwaukee Sentinel 1990f; Hazelbaker 1984, 6; Mulcahy and Selby 1989, 24; Eau Claire Leader-Tele gram 1990h, i, 2a, 1991). Federal Indian policy scholar Robert H. Keller recently suggested that the Chippewas “could be granted special if not exclusive access for sugaring,” or they “could be paid royalties on all commercial sugar collected from their traditional lands.” Since Chief Flat Mouth had specifically told Governor Henry Dodge at the treaty negotiations in 1837 that the Indians wanted to “reserve the privilege of making sugar from the trees,” Keller argued the Chippewas reserved the right to take maple syrup from ceded territory just as they reserved the right to harvest fish, game, and wild rice (Keller 1989, 118, 124, 128). On February 21, 1991, Judge Crabb simultaneously issued opinions and orders relating to the Chippewas’ timber harvesting claims and to the state’s right to enforce its civil boating regulations against tribal members engaged in the exercise of their usufructuary rights. Observing that neither Judge Doyle nor she had previously addressed explicitly the Indians’ usage of tree resources at the time of the nineteenth- century treaties, Crabb concluded that the harvesting and selling of timber were not among the Chippewas’ “usual and customary activities.” Crabb also argued that “logging cannot be characterized as simply a modem adaptation of a traditional harvesting activity engaged in by the Chippewa.” Conceding that the Chippewas have “a somewhat stronger argument to the effect that . . . [they] never understood they were selling timber resources other than pine,” Crabb nevertheless mled that the state and county governments could impose “reasonable and necessary” reg¬ ulations for conservation of forest products so long as they do not discriminate against Indians (U. S. District Court 1991a). Crabb also mled that the State of Wisconsin could enforce and prosecute violations of safe boating laws committed by tribal members engaged in treaty activities provided that the regulations did not “infringe, restrict, hinder, impede or prohibit the time, place or manner of treaty fishing rights (or limit the quantity or types of fish or other resources harvested) and are reasonable and necessary for purposes of public safety and conservation” (U. S. District Court 1991b). Barring appeals or the raising of other issues by the tribes or the state, Crabb concluded that all of the issues in the seventeen-year-old 99 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters litigation had now been adjudicated (U. S. District Court 1991c). In mid-March, Crabb responded to efforts by the Lac du Flambeau spearfishers to stop what they allege to be “a racially-motivated campaign of violence and intimidation ... to make it difficult or impossible for them to spear fish’ ’ by prohibiting treaty protesters from interfering with the exercise of spearing rights (U. S. District Court 199 Id). Several days later, on March 19, 1991, Crabb issued her “Final Judgment,” sum¬ marizing and clarifying the court’s decisions, which evolved from the lengthy litigation. Crabb advised all parties involved that they had two months to review the document and to determine whether or not they wished to file appeals (U. S. District Court 1991e; see App. 7). Two months later, on May 20, the six Chippewa bands and Attorney General James E. Doyle, Jr. announced in separate statements that they would not appeal the rulings. The litigation resulting from the state’s interference with the reserved treaty rights of the Chippewas, which had come to a head with the arrest of the Tribble brothers in 1974, had finally been resolved. In announcing their decisions not to appeal, the Chippewa leaders and Attorney General Doyle alluded to their hopes for a new era of cooperation and improved tribal-state relations (See Apps. 8-9). During the years between LCO I in 1983 and Judge Crabb ’s Final Judgment in 1991, while the Chippewa bands and the State of Wisconsin litigated the extent of Chippewa treaty rights, the two sides worked out a series of interim agreements.56 The agreements dealt with such issues as the exercise of treaty rights off the reservations, the measures necessary to protect natural resources, and the role of tribal and state game wardens. The Chippewas agreed to temporarily limit the exercise of their rights, and Wisconsin officials agreed not to arrest Indians har¬ vesting natural resources within the agreed-upon guidelines. The Indians and the state reached the first such agreement on the issue of harvesting white-tailed deer in November of 1983 shortly after Governor Earl issued Executive Order No. 31 calling for state-tribal cooperation. While working with leaders of the Earl admin¬ istration to establish interim agreements, the six Wisconsin Chippewa bands joined with other tribes in Minnesota and Michigan to form the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and set about adopting a conservation code, hiring tribal fish and game wardens to regulate Indian fishers and hunters, assessing and man¬ aging natural resources, and publishing data to counteract propaganda from white backlash groups {Milwaukee Journal 1984a; Strickland et al. 1990, 7-8; Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission {c.1988}, {c. 1989}; Busiahn 1989a; Busiahn et al. 1989; Masinaigan 1990b; Bichler 1990b). 100 8 The White Backlash and Beyond The 1983 Voigt Decision evoked bitter denunciations from white hunting and fishing groups. Supported by generally anti-Indian whites, these groups claimed the Indians would wantonly wipe out all fish and game. Especially objectionable to sportfishers and hunters are the traditional practices of spearing, gill-netting, and “shining” (night hunting) employed by the Chippewas who are more concerned with following their traditions and with efficient harvests than with sport. Opponents of the Voigt Decision consider it “unjust” for the Chippewas to have “special privileges” denied other Wisconsin residents — like longer hunting seasons and the right to shoot deer from vehicles — just because of some “old treaties.” Charging that Indians have “more rights” today than white citizens, irate critics of treaty rights argue Indians and whites should enjoy “equal” rights, that treaty rights must be abolished. As far away from the reservations as Milwaukee, one hears stories about drunken Indians peddling deer from their pickup trucks at taverns “up north.” Anti-Indian sentiment oozed from bumper stickers proclaiming “Save a Deer, Shoot an Indian” and “Spear an Indian, Save a Muskie.” An unofficial notice circulated in the Ashland County Courthouse declared “open season on Indians” with “a bag limit of 10 per day.” A 1984 newspaper headline summed up the situation this way, “North Woods Steaming with Racial Hostility” ( Milwaukee Journal 1984c; O’Conner and Doherty 1985). Strong opposition to federal court pronouncements on Chippewa hunting and fishing rights spurred protest and violence at boat landings throughout northern Wisconsin during every fishing season since 1983. Some whites, fearing Indians would destroy all fish and ruin tourism, have argued that Indian treaties and reser¬ vations are relics of the past. Such fears have been exacerbated by the fact that per capita income in the region has lagged behind the rest of the state by as much as twenty percent, and northern Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has nearly doubled the statewide average during some months. In addition, the efficient Chippewa methods of harvesting fish for subsistence — using gill nets and spears — upset many non-Indian sportfishers who find themselves limited by very strict state regulations. Bait shops in northern towns have sold “Treaty Beer” with labels protesting Indian spearfishing and claiming to be the “True Brew of The Working Man” {Fig. 34), and many restaurants and taverns display and dispense literature attacking spear¬ fishing and calling for the abrogation of Chippewa treaties {Fig. 35). The peaceful harvesting of fish by Chippewa spearfishers has been disrupted by non-Indians hurling rocks, insults, and racial epithets like “timber niggers,” waving effigies of speared Indian heads and signs with slogans like “Save Two Walleye, Kill a Pregnant Squaw,” and using large motorboats trailing anchors to capsize Indian boats. Treaty protesters have also placed concrete fish decoys in lakes to break the spears of Chippewa fishers. Chippewa women singing religious songs in support of the spearers have faced what one reporter has aptly called “a gauntlet of hate” 101 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 34. Treaty Beer. Distributed for the Stop Treaty Abuse (STA) organization in Minocqua, this beer has been sold in northern Wisconsin taverns as the “True Brew of the Working Man.” Called racism in a can by treaty supporters, the product label protests Indian spearfishing. Photograph by Jason Tetzloff. Reprinted with permission. as some demonstrators jeer and shout vicious taunts, racial slurs, and threats while others blow whistles in continuous shrill blasts in their ears. Even Indian school- children have been harassed. One school with a large Indian enrollment has received bomb threats (Fixico 1987, 498-507; Vennum 1988, 276-77; O’Conner and Doherty, 1985; Wilkinson 1987, 72; Strickland et al. 1990, 1; Milwaukee Journal 1989a, b; Milwaukee Sentinel 1990d; Masinaigan 1991c, 8; Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 11; Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1990g). Non-Indian eyewitnesses including members of the U. S. Civil Rights Commis¬ sion, the state’s Equal Rights Council, and state legislators have compared the acts of violence against spearfishers at boat landings in northern Wisconsin in recent years to the racial violence against blacks that rocked Milwaukee in the 1960s {Capital Times 1986; Milwaukee Sentinel 1989b; Masinaigan 1990d). Protesters in 102 Chippewa Treaty Rights SPEAR ...THIS!!! Fig. 35. Spear This! A poster found in a tavern in the Eagle River, Wisconsin, area before the 1987 Chippewa spearfishing season. From Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission ({c.1989}, 15). Reprinted with permission. Vilas County near the Lac du Flambeau Reservation have been so unruly that some Indians refer to it as “Violence County’’ ( Wisconsin State Journal 1990a). U. S. Interior Department official Patrick Ragsdale said he was “appalled’’ and “dis¬ gusted” by the language protesters used at the boat landings (. Milwaukee Sentinel 1989a). Archbishop William Wantland of the Episcopalean Diocese of Eau Claire observed, “of all the states I’ve lived in in this Union, Wisconsin is the most racist. I grew up in the South. And I said that before the Voigt Decision was handed down. 103 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters It’s obvious — the racism, the hatred, the bitterness, the prejudice.” Recently, Want- land reflected on the increasing hostility toward Indians since 1983: “I felt I was caught in a time warp this spring in Wisconsin. I thought I saw the 50s and 60s. I thought I saw Selma and Little Rock and Montgomery” ( Masinaigan 1990f, 7-8). In June of 1989, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire History Professor James Oberly raised this question for the nation to ponder, “How could a northern state with a progressive tradition {like Wisconsin} become such hospitable ground for flagrant racism?” (Oberly 1989b, 844). The white backlash of the 1980s in Wisconsin actually had its roots in the 1970s. Concern over the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in State v. Gurnoe (see Chapter 7) led some six hundred sportfishers to form an organization known as Concerned Sportsmen for Lake Superior. Fearing the Bad River and Red Cliff Bands would use the Court’s recognition of their fishing rights in Lake Superior to deplete the lake’s supply of trout, walleye, and whitefish, the members of Concerned Sportsmen argued that Indians had to “be subject to the same tough commercial fishing regulations as white men” {Milwaukee Journal 1972a, b). In 1973, Re¬ publican Reuben La Fave of Oconto, claiming he was only interested in the “wel¬ fare” of the Indians, introduced a resolution in the state senate calling for the Department of Natural Resources to “purchase” the fishing rights of the Chippewas. In response to the resolution, the Capital Times of Madison editorialized, “anytime the whites profess interest in the Indians it is time for these native Americans to keep their backs against the white pine and their peace pipes hidden” (1973). While Indian commercial fishing in Lake Superior was of growing concern to some groups in Wisconsin in the early 1970s, the conflict between state wildlife regulations and treaty-protected hunting and fishing rights of Indian tribes came to a head in the State of Washington. A brief review of what has been referred to as “the opening salvo in this century’s ‘treaty wars’” {Christian Science Monitor 1987), and the public reaction to it will help place the situation in Wisconsin from 1974 to the present in its larger context.57 In 1974, Judge George Boldt of the U. S. District Court for the Western District in Washington ruled in United States v. State of Washington that Indian tribes had the treaty right to up to one-half of the salmon and steelhead trout harvest, both the right to catch the fish and the right as governments to be involved in the actual regulation of the resource. Popularly known as the Boldt Decision, the case had taken three and a half years of litigation involving testimony from fourteen Indian tribes, the State of Washington Departments of Fisheries and Game, and various commercial and sportfishing organizations. Judge Boldt based his decision not only on the “facts” existing at the time of the litigation but also on an exhaustive historical examination of events and information going back to the actual treaty negotiations (U. S. District Court 1974). Public reaction to the ruling included the appearance of bumper stickers, buttons, and T-shirts with anti-Boldt slogans and open defiance of the ruling by non-Indian fishers (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 1981, 71). The State of Washington promptly appealed the decision, but the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Boldt (1975) and the U. S. Supreme Court declined to review the case (1976). After spending nearly a decade on costly appeals and countersuits, state officials finally embarked on the path of co-management by which the federally recognized Indian tribes and the state are partners in the 104 Chippewa Treaty Rights management of timber, wildlife, and fish (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 1981, 70-100; Olson 1984; Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 47; Cooper and Stange 1990, 52). The Boldt Decision, together with a shift in federal Indian policy toward greater self-determination for Indian tribes and the growing Indian militancy of the early 1970s described earlier, alarmed some segments of American society (Olson 1984, 511). Indeed, one account of the treaty rights controversy written in the mid-1970s referred to Indian treaties as an “American nightmare” (Williams and Neubrech 1976). Anti-Indian editorials and articles claiming that federal officials were “ob¬ sessed” with providing “goodies” to Indians and other minorities appeared in both the local and national media. “We have found a very significant backlash that by any other name comes out as racism in all its ugly manifestations,” Republican Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon advised his colleagues on the U. S. Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs in 1977 (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 1981, 1). In 1978, an article in Newsweek magazine spoke of a “Paleface Uprising” spreading from Maine to Washington state as Indians “earned that ultimate badge of minority success — a genuine and threatening white backlash” (Boeth et al. 1978, 39). The leading anti-Indian lobbyist group was the Interstate Congress for Equal Rights and Responsibilities (ICERR). This organization sprang into existence in 1976 arguing that Indian political power and treaty rights were antithetical to the American system of equality. The outgrowth of a meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, of anti-treaty rights representatives from ten western states, the ICERR attracted considerable attention in other regions as well. Indian interests, ICERR spokes¬ persons argued, must give way to those of the larger society. “We seek just one thing,” commented founder Howard Grey, “that is equal rights for all people living under the Constitution of the United States and the 14th amendment ... the 14th amendment gives equal rights for all people; that’s all we’re requesting.” ICERR lobbyists worked hard to persuade local and national legislators to introduce bills calling for the abrogation of Indian treaties, the removal of tribal jurisdictional powers, the reversal of favorable judicial rulings on Indian treaty rights, the re¬ striction of Indian access to natural resources, and the elimination of eastern Indian land claims (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 1981, 1, 9-10). The “equal rights” rhetoric of ICERR and other anti-treaty groups since the 1970s distorts a very important fact. Contrary to the arguments of such organiza¬ tions, there is no conflict between Indian treaty rights and the guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress unilaterally declared all native-born American Indians citizens of the United States in 1924. This was done as further recognition of the voluntary con¬ tributions of Indian veterans of World War I who had received citizenship in 1919. Indian treaty rights and property rights remained unaffected (U. S. Congress 1919, 1924; Cohen 1982, 639-40, 644-46). “It is no more a denial of my 14th amendment rights that Indians continue to receive the benefits of the agreement they made {in a treaty},” Seattle attorney and Indian law specialist Alvin Ziontz told the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1977, “than it is a denial of my rights that any groups that sold land to the United States Government get paid for their land.” The federal courts and the Civil Rights Commission have reached the same conclusion, but anti-treaty rights groups continue to stress the need for “equal rights” for non- Indians and Indians. ICERR members ignore the status of Indians as members of 105 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters tribes with which the United States has had a long history of govemment-to- govemment relationships. Instead, the ICERR and similar groups portray Indians as members of a racial minority receiving “special” privileges at the expense of non-minority citizens because of century-old documents that are supposedly no longer relevant (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 1981, 9-12). The ICERR and similar organizations of the 1970s were the forerunners of such Wisconsin anti-treaty groups in the 1980s as Equal Rights for Everyone (ERFE, Hayward), Wisconsin Alliance for Rights and Resources (WARR, Superior), But¬ ternut Lake Concerned Citizens (Butternut), Protect Americans’ Rights and Re¬ sources (PARR, Minocqua-Park Falls), and Stop Treaty Abuse (STA, Minocqua).58 The primary goals of these organizations are the abrogation of Chippewa treaty rights and the dissolution of reservations. ERFE, led by Paul A. Mullaly of Hayward, appeared shortly after the Voigt Decision. Decrying the Chippewa off-reservation deer season as “a rape,” Mullaly openly threatened Indian hunters. ERFE was the forerunner of other organizations, including PARR, whose leaders responded to the resumption of Chippewa spring spearfishing in 1985 by protesting the alleged “rape” of the fish population in northern Wisconsin by the Chippewas (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 1981, 180; PARR Issue 1987, 1991v; Wisconsin Ad¬ visory Committee 1989, 24; Masinaigan 1991c, 8). PARR, which has attempted to become an umbrella organization for many other anti-treaty rights groups, has very actively lobbied state and federal officials for the abrogation of Indian treaties. At PARR’s first National Convention in Wausau on March 28th to 29th in 1987, some five hundred people from as many as thirteen states and two Canadian provinces met to call for the abrogation of Indian treaties, the dissolution of Indian reservations, and an end to “special privileges” for Indians {Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1987a, b; Christian Science Monitor 1987, 6). Former newspaper editor and newly selected executive director Larry Greschner of Wood¬ ruff referred to treaty rights as “a sacred cow” and warned: There isn’t enough milk in that sacred cow to go around if it’s not handled very carefully. Because the natural wonder of our land and a billion dollar sports-tourism industry can easily be transformed into a tiny fraction of that value once those resources have been killed, cut, wrapped, frozen and processed. And we will have traded our children’s birth right for a futile gesture of remorse. (Greschner 1987) PARR National Executive Director at Large Wayne Powers of Bloomer warns that Wisconsin will become “the home of the dead seas” if Indian treaty rights are not curtailed ( PARR Issue 1991m). When presented with data indicating that, contrary to PARR news releases, Indian spearfishing and hunting is not endangering the state’s resources or tourism industry, the organization’s leaders usually return to the equal rights theme that has been the rallying cry of anti-treaty rights groups since the Boldt Decision (Fig. 36). “When you have separate rules for different colors living side by side, you’re bound to have conflicts,” Greschner stated in 1988 ( Racine Journal Times 1988). “Our position,” PARR cofounder Wayne Pow¬ ers stated in 1990, “is not a few fish and a few deer — it’s equal rights” (Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1990f, 2A). The same arguments have been made by other anti-treaty groups. Equal Rights for Everyone President Mullaly claims that the treaty rights issue in Wisconsin “is 106 Chippewa Treaty Rights 107 Reprinted with permission. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters not a natural-resources issue, it is a rights issue.” He says “there can be no special treatment of a race in a democratic society.” In reference to the entire treaty rights issue, Mullaly claims, “Like cancer this situation would have been much easier to cure if action had been taken in the earlier stages .... I am sorry that our elected officials have let this cancer spread to the point that it is almost uncurable {sic} and unbearable to those close to the infected area” (. Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1984a; Wisconsin Counties 1985). Stop Treaty Abuse (STA) leader Dean Crist, a former Chicagoan who now resides in Minocqua, also argues that the “real” issue is “equality.” Described by his own attorney as a “lightening rod” on northern Wisconsin boat landings, Crist has marketed Treaty Beer (called ‘ ‘hate and prejudice in a can” by detractors) and undertaken other efforts to draw people to the boat landings to protest Indian spearfishing and treaty rights. “Whether you’re a Chip¬ pewa or a Chinaman,” he asserts, “when you’re on the water Wisconsin conser¬ vation laws pertain and you have to fish by those rules” {La Crosse Tribune 1990). Crist and his organization portray the Chippewas as freeloaders who are benefitting from government largesse while the “true” working men — to whom STA’s treaty beer is supposedly marketed (see Fig. 34) — are denied equal rights {Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 21). Supporters of treaty rights disagree with members of PARR, STA, and other opponents who claim that “the basic point is not fish — it’s equal rights.” As one supporter puts it, “But, of course, the issue is fish and other treaty-protected Indian resources” (Cornell 1986, 124). A number of prominent non-Indian civic leaders responded to the growing opposition to Chippewa reserved rights in northern Wis¬ consin after the Voigt Decision in 1983 by openly defending those rights. Mean¬ while, concerned by the increasing appearance of posters urging people to “Spear an Indian, Save a Walleye” and reports of threatened violence and actual acts of violence against Indians, an Ad Hoc Commission on Racism was convened by the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) Band in the fall of 1984. The commission held public hearings in the town of Cable near the LCO Reservation to examine evidence and issue findings about alleged acts of discrimination and violence. Chaired by educator Veda Stone from Eau Claire, the commission included the Governor’s advisor on Indian affairs, a member of the Governor’s Committee on Equal Rights, members of the Catholic and Protestant clergy, a member of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League, an attorney and Board member of the Wisconsin Civil Liberties Union, and representatives from higher education. The Final Report of the commission, issued in November of 1984, cited numerous examples of growing racism; stressed the roles of churches, schools at all levels, and parents in combating the growth of racism; called for state economic development efforts in the north; urged the creation of state, county, and local forums for Indians and whites to discuss issues of mutual concern; and urged the mass media to play a more responsible role {Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1984b; Ad Hoc Commission on Racism in Wisconsin 1984, 5-30). As demonstrated by the role of the LCO Band in the creation of the Ad Hoc Commission, the Chippewas have been deeply concerned about the mounting white hostility and have sought to lessen tensions in a variety of ways. Anthropologist Nancy O. Lurie, an authority on Wisconsin Indians, noted in the mid-1980s that most Chippewas living on the six reservations in the state are determined not to abuse their treaty rights and are as devoted as white residents, if not more so, to protecting the resources in the northern third of Wisconsin. The harvest of fish by 108 Chippewa Treaty Rights non-Indians since the Voigt Decision has consistently been several times that of Indians. In those lakes where fish production is down, moreover, the culprit has been pollution and habitat degradation by whites, not excessive harvesting by Indians, or for that matter, non-Indians. Since 1984, Chippewa leaders have worked through the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) head¬ quartered at Odanah to gather natural resources data, to develop legal codes for protecting fish and wildlife, and to implement a system for dealing with those Indians who fail to comply (Fig. 37). GLIFWC spokesperson Walter Bresette op¬ timistically commented in 1984 that “following the {Voigt} decision, what the tribes are responsible for is basically the management of those resources in the region.” While there are some non-Indians who believe that Indian participation in the management of the region’s natural resources would benefit all Wisconsinites, anti¬ treaty groups and State officials have resisted such efforts (Lurie 1985, 379; Wis¬ consin Sportsman 1985, 42; Wilkinson 1990, 4; Milwaukee Journal 1984a; Wis¬ consin State Journal 1990c, 55; Michetti 1991). Under LCO VI, the Chippewas were to be free from state regulation of off- reservation harvesting of walleye and muskellunge so long as they enacted “a management plan that provides for the regulation of their members in accordance with biologically sound principles necessary for the conservation of the species being harvested” (U. S. District Court 1989, 1060). There have been charges that the state has attempted to indirectly regulate the Chippewas by restricting bag limits of non-Indian fishers, which in turn has led to an escalation in the hostility of protesters at the boat landings. After Crabb’s ruling in LCO VI, DNR officials cut creel limits for non-Indian anglers. The public perception, which critics charge DNR did little to correct, was that Indian spearing depleted the fish and caused the lower limits for anglers (Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 7, 16). Legal scholars Rennard Strickland of the University of Oklahoma and Stephen J. Herzberg of the University of Wisconsin-Madison are among those who believe that the DNR has attempted to circumvent the court’s ruling in LCO VI. In a report prepared at the request of members of the U. S. Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs in 1990, Strickland, Herzberg, and University of Wisconsin-Madison Juris Doctor candidate Steven Owens concluded that . . . Denied the right to directly regulate the Chippewa by the courts, {Wisconsin DNR officials} have attempted to indirectly regulate the Chippewa by restricting the bag limits placed on non-Indian fishers, which they have done by manipulating fish population estimates (termed “voodoo biology” by several observers). Since the Chippewa have historically been sensitive to the needs of non-Indians, the state uses bag limits to place pressure on the Chippewa to “voluntarily” restrict their treaty rights. Under this approach the state can contend, “But we are not regulating the Chippewa, we’re regulating the non-Indians.” (Strickland et al. 1990, 9 n. 19) Judge Crabb’s findings in LCO VI support these conclusions. Acknowledging that the DNR will impose additional restrictions on fishing in the next few years, following a comprehensive long-term fisheries plan it developed in the late 1970s, Crabb commented: These restrictions would have been imposed even if the tribes’ treaty rights had not been judicially recognized. It is purely fortuitous that the time of their implementation came shortly after the start up of Indian spring spearing. (U. S. District Court 1989, 1047) 109 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 110 Fig. 37. Tribal and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Game Wardens at Work, 1990. The wardens are checking the size and sex of fish taken by spearfishers. After state officials prohibited Indians from exercising their usufructuary rights off reservation for most of the twentieth century, the Chippewas resumed harvesting fish on lakes and rivers in ceded territory in northern Wisconsin in 1985 under an interim agreement with state officials pending further resolution of treaty rights in court proceedings. Photograph by Jason Tetzloff. Reprinted with permission. Chippewa Treaty Rights Citing Crabb’s remarks as evidence, LCO Tribal Chair Gaiashkibos charges the DNR with duplicity. “Exercising our rights off-reservation gives the DNR their out. They lower the bag limit for non-Indian people and put the blame on the Chippewa” (Michetti 1991, 7). Chippewa spearfishers have actually voluntarily limited their harvest every season since the Voigt Decision so non-Indians could fish the lakes of northern Wisconsin. The Chippewas have also taken an active role in fish rearing and stocking programs. In fact, the lakes on the Lac du Flambeau reservation are heavily stocked by the Indians, who permit non-Indians to take 90% or more of the on-reservation walleye catch. Other Chippewa bands also maintain hatcheries and stock off-reservation lakes with fish, many of which are caught by non-Indians (Strickland et al. 1990, 10, 10 n. 21; Masinaigan 1990g). The opposition of some non-Indians today to the exercise of Indian hunting and fishing rights in northern Wisconsin must be viewed in the context of the legal and moral obligations of American citizens to uphold Indian treaty rights as the “su¬ preme Law of the Land” as stipulated in Article 6, Clause 2 of the American Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding, {emphasis added} Anti-treaty rights groups in Wisconsin, especially PARR, erroneously claim there is no constitutional basis for treaty making with Indian tribes and that existing Indian treaties are no longer valid. Three historical events are often cited as evidence that tribal sovereignty is a fiction: Chief Justice John Marshall’s reference to Indian tribes as “domestic dependent nations” in the early 1830s, the ending of treaty making under the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, and the granting of U. S. cit¬ izenship in 1924. PARR Chair Larry Peterson claims that Indian sovereignty is a “fabricated” concept and that Indian treaty rights are merely “court-granted” privileges resulting from “ludicrous court decisions” that cater to Indian “greed.” PARR’s newspaper editor Jerry Schumacher argues that the courts have erred in basing their decisions on Indians’ “oral understanding of treaties” since “the Indians understood them as written.” In a manner reminiscent of the Communist¬ baiting tactics of U. S. Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, PARR’s newsletter prominently displays a list of “Traitors to the Constitution,” claiming that U. S. and state legislators, teachers, church leaders, and others who recognize tribal sovereignty deserve the label “traitor” ( PARR Issue 1991c, d, e, f, g, j, k, 1, n, o, p, r, s, t). In presenting their case against tribal sovereignty, PARR’s spokespersons seri¬ ously distort the historical record. While Chief Justice Marshal did refer to the Cherokee Nation as a “domestic dependent nation” in 1831, he did not deny the existence of a govemment-to-govemment relationship between the Cherokee Nation and the United States. Marshall’s characterization of Indian tribes recognized their “peculiar” relationship with the United States — i.e., that of nations existing within the borders of states of the Union. Marshall acknowledged that the Cherokee Nation 111 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters constituted “a distinct political society” that was “capable of managing its own affairs” with “unquestionable” right to its lands (U. S. Supreme Court 1831). The following year, Marshall ruled that Georgia could not intervene in the Cherokee country within its borders because federal — not state — jurisdiction extended over Indian country. According to Marshall, status as a domestic dependent nation did not preclude treaty making by the Indians with the United States nor lessen American obligations to uphold treaty commitments: The constitution, by declaring treaties already made, as well as those to be made, to be the supreme law of the land, has adopted and sanctioned the previous treaties with the Indian nations, and consequently admits their rank among those powers who are capable of making treaties. The words “treaty” and “nation” are words of our own language, selected in our diplomatic and legislative proceedings, by ourselves, having each a definite and well understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians, as we have applied them to other nations of the earth. They are applied to all in the same sense. (U. S. Supreme Court 1832, 559-60) PARR leaders also distort the intent of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871. The legislation, which abolished future treaty making for domestic political reasons as noted in Chapter 5, unequivocally stated that “nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe” (U. S. Congress 1871). Similarly, while Congress made all Indians U. S. citizens for reasons outlined earlier in this chapter, it specifically stipulated that “the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property” (U. S. Congress 1924). As demonstrated in Chapters 2-5, there is overwhelming evidence that oral ex¬ planations of treaty provisions by U. S. treaty commissioners and interpreters did not always match the written provisions. Chief Justice Marshall’s colleague, As¬ sociate Justice John McLean, remarked in the 1832 case mentioned above: “how the words of the treaty were understood by this unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form the rule of construction.” Believing that treaties with Indian tribes represented “more than an idle pageantry,” Justice McLean reminded American citizens of his day of the “binding force” of the agreements and of the ‘ ‘principles of justice,’ ’ which dictated that the United States uphold its commitments (U. S. Supreme Court 1832, 582-83). While some Wisconsinites have joined or supported the various backlash groups like PARR and STA mentioned earlier, voices of moderation have appeared. Some non-Indians have attempted to set the record straight on the actual amount of tribal harvesting of fish and game and the impact on tourism. A Minocqua motel owner, for example, urged Wisconsinites to separate fact from fiction: “my biggest concern is that people think the Indians are shooting all the deer .... It hasn’t happened. The Indians aren’t catching and spearing all the fish that swim . . . and they aren’t shooting that many deer” (Milwaukee Journal 1984c). He was correct on both counts. The Chippewa deer harvest (Fig. 38) is minimal compared either to the entire deer population or to the harvest by state-licensed hunters; it is smaller even than the annual road kill in the ceded territories (Busiahn 1989a). Similarly, Chip¬ pewa spring spearfishing, which resumed in 1985 under intensely monitored con¬ ditions, has never come close to approaching the impact that sportfishing has on 112 Chippewa Treaty Rights Total Tribal Harvest I Total Sport Harvest Sport and Tribal Whitetail Harvest 1983-90 1983 Fig. 38. Chippewa White-Tailed Deer Harvest, 1983-90. Data courtesy of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) and of the Bureau of Wildlife Management of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The graph compares the DNR’s record of the registered sport whitetail harvest and GLIFWC’s record of the tribal whitetail harvest. Because the difference between sport and tribal harvests is so great, the tribal harvest barely registers on the graph. Graph courtesy of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Media Development Center. the fish population in northern Wisconsin (Figs. 39-40). Contrary to the information released by anti-treaty rights groups, eighty percent of the fish speared during the 1990 spearfishing season were males (Masinaigan 1990h, 11). Considering the small number of fish actually taken annually by tribal spearfishers in comparison to that taken by anglers, former head of the DNR District Office in Spooner Dave Jacobson has observed that “there is virtually no possibility that tribes can destroy the resource” (Isthmus 1990, 9). Attempts have also been made to set the record straight as to the impact of Chippewa off-reservation fish and game harvests on tourism. Director of the Wis¬ consin Division of Tourism Dick Matty has recently stated that, contrary to the reports issued by anti-treaty groups, there has been “ no real negative impact ” on tourism as a result of Indian spearfishing. Chamber of Commerce officials in north¬ ern communities like Minocqua and Boulder Junction report that tourism is thriving. What is having a greater impact on tourism in the north than Indian spearfishing or deer hunting harvests according to tourism experts such as Rollie Cooper of the University of Wisconsin-Extension Recreation Resource Center are (1) the failure of resort owners to market their facilities in response to demographic trends such as the growth of two-income households, an aging population, and an increased 113 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Comparison of Sport and Tribal Musky Harvest in Wisconsin's Ceded Territory Sport (estimated yearly average) 9,454 Tribal [yearly average) 1153 *Spearfishing did not resume until 1985 Fig. 39. Chippewa Muskellunge Harvest, 1985-90. Data courtesy of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) and of the Bureau of Fisheries Man¬ agement of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Graph courtesy of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Media Development Center. number of single-parents families, (2) the declining quality of resorts due to their age or the failure of owners to make improvements, and (3) the poor public image given to Wisconsin by the actions and words of anti-treaty rights demonstrators at the boat landings (Thannum {1990}, 15-17; Masinaigan 1990c, and 1990h, 7). Despite the efforts mentioned above, there is still a great deal of misinformation and many misunderstandings about Chippewa treaty rights issues across Wisconsin. A recent survey conducted by the St. Norbert College Survey Center and Wisconsin Public Radio concluded, for example, that only 30% of the respondents knew that the Chippewa Indians are limited in the number of fish and game they can harvest. The public’s lack of accurate information has made it easier for anti-treaty rights leaders to exploit the fears and frustrations of their neighbors, especially during the hard economic times in the north since the Voigt Decision. During this period, the adjusted gross income in many northern Wisconsin counties failed to reach the State’s 1983 average. In addition to its lower income level, the north suffers from high seasonal unemployment rates. Such conditions create an excellent breeding ground for anti-Indian propaganda. As resource development specialist Jim Than¬ num has observed, “ignorance, poor economic conditions, and fear of the un¬ known’’ in the north have helped to create a hostile environment for Indian treaty rights in recent years (Thannum {1990}, 10-13). In addition to attempting to correct misinformation about Indian fishing and hunting harvests, some residents of the state including the leaders of numerous 114 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 40. Chippewa Walleye Harvest, 1985-90. Data courtesy of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) and of the Bureau of Fisheries Man¬ agement of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Graph courtesy of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Media Development Center. religious organizations have reacted to the violence at boat landings, the marketing of Treaty Beer, and other signs of growing racism by peaceful, non-confrontational observation at the boat landings and by speaking out in support of Indian treaty rights and tribal sovereignty. The purpose of such “witnessing” is to convey calm in the midst of tension and to demonstrate non-Indian support for treaty rights (Midwest Treaty Network {1990}; USA Today 1990, 2A; Wisconsin State Journal 1990a; News from Indian Country 1990g). Perhaps the most prominent of the treaty support organizations is Honor Our Neighbors’ Origins and Rights (HONOR), a coalition of individuals, human rights groups, church organizations, and other groups. The organization began in Wausau, where in February of 1988 a group of Indians and non-Indians responded to the increasing intensity of anti-Indian rhetoric and activity by meeting to affirm the constitutionally recognized govemment-to-govemment relationship that has been the cornerstone of American federal Indian policy. Under the coordination of Sharon Metz of the Milwaukee-based Lutheran Human Relations Association of America, HONOR organized itself as a coalition of individuals and groups dedicated to positive actions promoting peace, harmony, and intercultural understanding. Mem¬ bers speak of the Chippewa treaties as a matter of national honor, hence the name of the organization. HONOR’S promotional literature quotes the following statement by eighteenth-century English statesman Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary 115 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters for evil to prevail, is that good people do nothing” ( Vanguard 1988; News from Indian Country 1988, 1989b; HONOR {1989}). Although the exact definition of the extent of treaty rights is open to interpretation by the federal courts, efforts to abrogate Indian treaties and thereby redefine the status of Indian people within American society are efforts to undermine the rule of law and to ignore our contractual and moral obligations to the Indian people. As one Lac du Flambeau Band member commented, “if people want to abrogate the treaty, then abrogate it all. Give us back the top third of the state” ( Chicago Tribune 1987). Legal scholar Charles F. Wilkinson reminds us that “for American Indians, their survival as a people — mark down those words, survival as a people — ultimately depends on 19th-century treaties recognizing a range of special prerog¬ atives, including hunting, fishing, and water rights; a special trust relationship with the United States; and, ultimately, the principal of tribal sovereignty, the right of tribal members to be governed on many key issues by their own tribal governments, not by the states” (1990, 4-5). The Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin have emerged from the treaty rights con¬ troversy of the last two decades “increasingly conscious of the importance of maintaining an identity in the modem world that is not based merely on the white man’s categorizations of them ... but rather emphasizes the continuity of the modem Indian people with a historical tradition that precedes and is independent of whites in America.” The Chippewas find this continuity in hunting, fishing, ricing, powwows, and numerous other elements of their traditional culture that “serve not only as structural and cultural supports of the Chippewa entity but also become transformed into symbolic devices for explicit furthering of ethnic distinc¬ tiveness” (Paredes 1980, 406-07, 410). As a Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Indian commented in the summer of 1989, “spearing fish in the spring is what got me in touch with my heritage. Part of it meant food. Getting food on the table to eat, to live. But part of it, connected to eating and living, is being Chippewa.” Indeed, Chippewas argue that they are “the endangered species” in northern Wisconsin. “If we give up our ways,” they contend, “we die” (Kenyon 1989, 18, 22, 30). Despite the important relationship between reserved treaty rights and the ethnic consciousness of the Chippewa people, some influential Wisconsinites including Attorney General Donald J. Hanaway began pursuing efforts in April of 1987 to seek a negotiated out-of-court, long-term settlement between the state and the Chippewa bands. Although some media spokespersons have loosely referred to the Thompson administration’s efforts as aimed at securing an outright cash “buy-out” of Chippewa hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, Hanaway sought an agreement by which the Chippewas would curtail or lease their harvesting rights in exchange for economic and other forms of assistance from the state (. Milwaukee Journal 1987b; Hanaway 1989, 8-10; Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 5). In order to help Hanaway in bringing the Chippewas to the negotiating table, Republican Congressman Frank James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Menomonee Falls introduced legislation in the U. S. House of Representatives during July 1987 calling for the abrogation of off-reservation usufructuary rights in Wisconsin (U. S. Con¬ gress 1987a, b). Sensenbrenner may have been inspired in part by a comment made by Judge Doyle during the LCO III trial. Doyle, who clearly recognized the “prac¬ tical dilemma present in the ceded lands” and the emotional dimensions of the treaty-rights issue, stated on February 18, 1987, that a “practical” solution would 116 Chippewa Treaty Rights come not through court action but through negotiations leading to a new treaty or through unilateral congressional action (U. S. District Court 1987a, 1433). Sen- senbrenner defended his bill by remarking, “the treaties don’t recognize twentieth century life in America.’’ The congressman’s timing assisted Hanaway. Armed with a “carrot’’ from the governor — his willingness to negotiate a multi-million dollar lease of treaty rights — and a “stick” from Representative Sensenbrenner — the threat of “serious efforts” to secure enactment of the Abrogation Bill should negotiations stall in Wisconsin, Hanaway worked hard to secure a settlement ( Milwaukee Sentinel 1987). Governor Thompson publicly called Sensenbrenner’ s bill “counterproductive when negotiations are going on,” but Republican Senator Robert Kasten soon provided the state’s negotiating team with yet another “stick.” Kasten threatened to withhold federal aid if the Chippewas did not negotiate a settlement. Moreover, Democrat State Representative Mark D. Lewis of Eau Claire accused the governor himself of heavy-handedness in the negotiations with the tribes. Lewis, chair of the Trade, Industry, and Small Business Committee of the State Assembly, claimed that the governor was holding legislation creating jobs on Indian reservations hostage until the Chippewas agreed to a negotiated settlement ( Wisconsin State Journal 1987; Green Bay Press Gazette 1987a, b; Lewis 1987). Negotiations between state officials and the leaders of the Mole Lake reservation, the poorest of the six Chippewa reservations in Wisconsin ( Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 10), led to a tentative agreement offering ten million dollars to lease their usufructuary rights over a ten-year period. On January 14, 1989, the Mole Lake Indians overwhelmingly rejected the offer. Frustrated by this turn of events, At¬ torney General Hanaway acknowledged that the prospect of achieving such a set¬ tlement with other bands in the near future was equally gloomy (Hanaway 1989, 8-10). Several months after the Chippewas of the Mole Lake reservation rejected the state’s offer, Representative Sensenbrenner again introduced legislation in the House calling for the abrogation of Chippewa usufructuary rights in Wisconsin. Never¬ theless, there were “clear messages” that neither Congress nor the President would abrogate treaties. As a result, the Thompson administration continued to work toward leasing Chippewa usufructuary rights (U. S. Congress 1989a, b; Hanaway 1990, 12). In 1989 A! Gedicks of La Crosse, Executive Secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, charged that Governor Thompson had “a hidden agenda” for continuing to push a “buy-out” arrangement. According to Gedicks, Secretary of Administration James R. Klauser, the governor’s top aide and point man on treaty issues, was eager to have the Chippewas lose their legal standing to intervene in any court challenges to proposed mining operations in ceded territory. Claiming that Klauser formerly lobbied for Exxon, which in the early 1980s had proposed a zinc and copper mine near Crandon, Gedicks questioned the governor’s motivation and urged the Chippewas not to give up any rights that would weaken their legal clout against environmental threats from mining interests. Gedicks ’s remarks un¬ doubtedly found a sympathetic audience among Chippewa leaders who have long suspected that anti-treaty rights organizations have “an agenda far broader than just spearfishing.” In particular, some Indian leaders have openly asserted that these groups may be associated with or bankrolled by big companies interested in mineral 117 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters rights in the state. Whatever the validity of such fears, suspicions, and accusations, Governor Thompson continued to seek a negotiated settlement ( Milwaukee Journal 1989c; Gedicks 1985, 180-89, 1989, 8; Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 9, 17, 37). When anti-treaty rights protesters broke through police lines during the 1989 spearfishing season, the Milwaukee Journal urged Governor Thompson to call in the National Guard (1989a). The rowdy crowds at the landings exceeded that of the previous year by ten times, and State Republican Party Chair Donald K. Stitt of Port Washington urged the Republican governor to “strongly consider’ ’ declaring a state of emergency and closing off northern lakes to spearfishers and anglers ( Capital Times 1989c). Thompson took a different approach. He made an unprec¬ edented appearance in Judge Crabb’s courtroom to personally request the issuance of an injunction to halt Indian spearfishers ( Capital Times 1989b). Crabb refused to grant the Governor’s request. Commenting that it was her obligation “to enforce the law and the rights of all people under the law,’’ Crabb addressed the charge made by anti-treaty protesters that the Chippewas had more rights than non-Indians: Many people in the northern part of the state complain that the tribes are accorded unequal rights because they are permitted to hunt, fish, and gather in ways denied to the non-Indian population. The fact is, however, that the tribes do not have unequal rights. They have the same rights as any other resident of the United States to enter into contractual agreements and to go to court to enforce their rights under those contracts. In previous phases of this litigation, it has been found that the Chippewas gave up the ceded territory but retained rights to hunt, fish, and gather. Those rights are not in question now. As those rights relate to the spearing of walleye, they are circumscribed by the Department of Natural Resources’ determination of a biologically safe catch. In addition, and I em¬ phasize this, they have the same rights as any other resident of this state to seek the state’s protection in exercising their lawful rights. The judge argued that “the fact that some {non-Indians} are acting illegally and creating unjustified fears of violence does not justify abridging the rights of those {Indians} who have done nothing illegal or improper.” Referring to the “consti¬ tutional underpinnings” of American society, Crabb refused to permit “violent and lawless protests” to determine the rights of Indians in Wisconsin. “What kind of country would we have if brave people had not faced down the prejudiced, the violent, and the lawless in the 1960s? What kind will we become if we do not do the same today,” she asked in rebuffing the Governor ( Wisconsin State Journal 1989b). Judge Crabb’s popularity among protesters at the boat landings can be surmised from a slogan on one of their signs — “Save a Walleye, Spear A Crabb” ( Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 35). Although Governor Thompson failed in his efforts to obtain a court order ending the spearfishing season, his worst fears went unrealized. Cold weather helped reduce crowds and cool tempers at the boat landings. Thompson aide Klauser remarked, “fortunately, Mother Nature cooperated better than Mother Crabb” ( Capital Times 1989d). Meanwhile, Governor Thompson’s assertion to Judge Crabb that state law en¬ forcement officers were “unable and in some cases, unwilling, to guarantee the protection of the tribes in the exercise of their lawful rights” especially angered treaty supporters. Some commentators suggested that instead of proposing to spend 118 Chippewa Treaty Rights Fig. 41 . Stop Putting Your Head Under That Poor Man’s Club! Cartoon by Bill Sand¬ ers, The Milwaukee Journal. Reprinted with permission. a million dollars for promoting tourism in the north the Governor should earmark funds for law enforcement to protect Chippewa spearfishers and to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate those who would deny them their rights ( Wisconsin State Journal 1989b, c). The administration apparently had other ideas about the best way to handle the Chippewa treaty rights controversy. In October of 1989, after months of intense bargaining, Wisconsin Attorney General Hanaway and a team of negotiators reached a tentative settlement with the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Band, the heaviest spearers in northern Wisconsin (Fig. 41). If the Indians agreed to give up gill netting, as well as most of their spearfishing rights and reached an agreement with the state on outstanding issues pertaining to hunting, trapping, and gathering, Hanaway offered them annual pay¬ ments of about 3.5 million dollars and other economic incentives for a ten-year period with a renewal option for five-year periods by mutual agreement. Estimates of the total cost ranged from 42 to 50 million dollars. According to top Thompson aide James Klauser, “the cost would be paid out of surplus revenue and would require no tax increase” ( Green Bay Press Gazette 1989; Milwaukee Sentinel 1989c; Lac du Flambeau Band and State of Wisconsin 1989). Before the Lac du Flambeau pact with the state came up for a vote on the reservation, Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Chair Gaiashkibos and Bad River Tribal Chair Donald Moore went on record against the arrangement (Milwaukee Sentinel 1989d). “Our rights are not for sale and they’re not for lease. What other tribes 119 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Fig. 42. Thomas Maulson, Walleye Warrior. Maulson, an active spearer, says of PARR and similar anti-treaty groups, “All these guys are lacking are the white sheets” (Capital Times 1986b, 25). Photograph by Mary Beth Berg. Reprinted with permission. do is their business,” Gaiashkibos said ( Capital Times 1989e). Opposition to the proposed settlement led officials of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Com¬ mission (GLIFWC) to replace Lac du Flambeau Tribal Chair Michael W. Allen with Bad River Tribal Chair and “buy out” critic Donald Moore as the GLIFWC chair. At the same time, Lac du Flambeau Tribal Attorney Kathryn Tierney resigned under pressure from the other Chippewa bands as lead counsel for the Chippewa treaty rights trial pending in federal court (. Milwaukee Sentinel 1989e). On October 25, 1989, members of the band stunned state officials by rejecting the multimillion-dollar pact by a vote of 439 to 366. Thomas Maulson (Fig. 42), a leader of the off-reservation spearfishing group Wa-Swa-Gon, told a jubilant crowd outside the tribal hall after the votes had been counted that “the ‘Walleye Warriors’ will be back” (Hanaway 1990, 11; Wisconsin State Journal 1989d, f). Governor Thompson, Attorney General Hanaway, Administration Secretary Klauser, and DNR Secretary C. D. “Buzz” Besadny were caught off guard by the news. The vote was obviously a major setback to proponents of a negotiated settlement. 120 Chippewa Treaty Rights But efforts to secure such an arrangement would continue. Thompson and his aides told a group of editors and publishers two days after the balloting at Lac du Flambeau that Indian treaty rights remain the biggest problem facing the State of Wisconsin {Wisconsin State Journal 1989f, 1990c, 2). DNR Secretary Besadny had publicly stated weeks earlier that “we can — and we must — support a negotiated settlement. The treaties will not be abrogated and the Chippewa will never agree to a buyout. There can only be a lease arrangement’’ (Besadny 1989, 7). Former Dane County District Attorney James E. Doyle, Jr., the son of the late U. S. District Court judge who ruled against the Chippewas in 1978, called for a reopening of efforts to reach a negotiated settlement as he challenged Attorney General Hanaway in the 1990 election {News from Indian Country 1990f). While many politicians support a negotiated settlement of Chippewa reserved rights as a means of ending the annual treaty rights controversy centered around the Indian spearfishing season in northern Wisconsin, there has also been talk about cooperative efforts between state conservation officials and the Chippewa bands in managing natural resources. In particular, attention has focused on the so-called “Washington model.’’ As noted earlier, Washington State was embroiled in its own treaty rights controversy following the Boldt Decision in 1974. But while the treaty rights issue has been raging in Wisconsin since 1983, Indian tribes in Washington have worked with state and federal government officials as well as with private recreational and commercial fishing interests to manage fish populations with ex¬ cellent results. Between 1974 and 1987, for example, salmon harvests increased by nearly thirty percent and steelhead harvests increased by almost seventy percent. Bruce Stewart, a fish pathologist who left Wisconsin’s DNR to work in Washington State, claims that “Washington is 10 years ahead of Wisconsin’’ in terms of cooperation between Indians and state government in managing various resources {Appleton Post-Crescent 1989; News from Indian Country 1989a, 1990a; Thannum {1990}, 20; Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 54, 56). Traditional Chippewa culture reinforces cooperation rather than competition in hunting, fishing, and gathering, and the Indians have a long history of sharing resources with non-Indians (Strickland et al. 1990, 27). Lac du Flambeau spear¬ fishing organizer Thomas Maulson, an avid opponent of the Thompson adminis¬ tration’s abortive negotiated settlement, reminded an Eau Claire audience in 1990 that Indians have willingly shared the natural resources of North America “from the first day white people stepped foot on this continent.” Non-Indians, he argued, need to understand the “cultural aspect,” the fact that spearfishing is “important to American Indian heritage” {Eau Claire Leader-Tele gram 1990d, 1A). Recently the national president of Trout Unlimited, Inc. , Robert Herbst, a veteran of conflicts involving Indian treaty rights in the states of Washington, Minnesota, and Alaska, observed “there are now global environmental concerns, which demand our united attention. The magnitude of problems we jointly face make it imperative that we act as partners for the good of the resource itself, and not for the selfishness in each of us.” For these reasons, Herbst’s organization has moved from a position of opposing Indian treaty rights to one of stressing the cooperative management of resources (Kerr 1990a, 14). Some supporters of cooperative management reacted very positively to the interest shown in 1990 by U. S. Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs Chair Daniel K. Inouye in helping to resolve the treaty dispute in Wisconsin. Inouye, who had 121 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters mediated the dispute in Washington State years earlier, indicated that his goal in the Wisconsin controversy was to “resolve this matter, not only amicably and fairly, but with justice to the Native Americans” {News from Indian Country 1990b, 13). In an editorial entitled “Inouye Riding to Rescue State from its Rednecks,” Capital Times associate editor John Patrick Hunter deftly summed up the thinking of many advocates of cooperative management: “if the white establishment, here and in Washington, accepts the Indian nations as equal partners, then perhaps an agreement can be reached on fishing and timber cutting, without the explosive confrontations that have disgraced Wisconsin in recent years” (1990b). Suggestions that the Chippewa Indians co-manage natural resources with State officials infuriate anti-treaty rights groups {PARR Issue 1991u, v). In 1990 when State Assembly Speaker Democrat Thomas Loftus of Sun Prairie, who opposes spearing of spawning fish, endorsed co-management as an answer to the strife over Chippewa treaty rights, Governor Thompson’s aide James Klauser and DNR Sec¬ retary “Buzz” Besadny ruled out the approach as practiced in the state of Wash¬ ington. Declaring co-management to be “probably illegal” under the state consti¬ tution, Klauser claimed it would take legislative action or a referendum changing the constitution to make the approach legal {Wisconsin State Journal 1990b, c, p. 55; Milwaukee Sentinel 1990f). “It will be a cold day in hell,” Attorney General Hanaway told a legislative committee, before voters would agree to share authority for natural resources management with the Chippewas. In responding to Hanaway ’s comment. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission executive director Jim Schlender poignantly observed, “the affect of all the attention on the term co¬ management has been to divert attention from the need to develop consensus and meaningful cooperation in managing the resources” {News from Indian Country 1990e). Many Wisconsinites remain suspicious of what some continue to call the “special rights” of the Chippewas, and some state and county officials continue to search for ways to “modernize” Indian treaties and to curtail those rights. Between January 18th and 20th of 1990, for example, representatives of the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) and Wisconsin Administration Secretary James Klauser met in Salt Lake City, Utah, in closed session with county officials from a dozen states to discuss strategies for dealing with treaty rights issues. WCA Executive Director Mark Rogacki told reporters he was hopeful the meeting would lead to a coalition that would pressure Congress to rewrite nineteenth-century treaties. The organizers of the meeting were widely criticized in the press for refusing entry to several Wisconsin Indian county officials.59 Indians picketed the meeting, calling the con¬ ferees ‘ ‘cockroaches hiding from the sun’ ’ {Capital Times 1990a; Eau Claire Leader- Telegram 1990a; Milwaukee Sentinel 1990a; Wisconsin State Journal 1990a; Chris¬ tian Science Monitor 1990). The Salt Lake City meeting took place as Indian law specialist Douglas Endreson of San Francisco addressed the members of the State Bar of Wisconsin at their mid¬ winter convention in Milwaukee. While Secretary Klauser and Wisconsin county officials discussed ways to circumvent the treaty rights of Indians, Endreson advised Wisconsin attorneys that solutions to treaty rights conflicts would not come about until states officially recognized treaties as “existing, viable, live documents, with live people on both sides” {Milwaukee Sentinel 1990b). Endreson’ s comments received reinforcement a few days later from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. 122 Chippewa Treaty Rights The Commission issued a formal report condemning documented cases of discrim¬ ination against Chippewa Indians in northern Wisconsin and reminding Wiscon¬ sinites that Indian treaty rights are protected by the U. S. Constitution as part of the “supreme Law of the Land” (Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1990b). The actions of the Wisconsin Counties Association described above are of par¬ ticular concern since justice for the Indians depends largely on the willingness of opinion leaders in the majority society to learn about the evolution of treaty rights and to respect the continuation of those rights. Unlike non-Indian Americans, the most cherished civil rights of Indian people are not based on equality of treatment under the Constitution and modem civil rights laws. Rather, treaty rights and tribal sovereignty are of the utmost concern (Wilkinson 1990, 4-6). Non-Indians in Wisconsin must come to understand that legal and moral con¬ siderations recognized by early American leaders are as pertinent today as when the Chippewa treaties were originally negotiated. Upon returning from the ill- received conference in Salt Lake City, Secretary of Administration Klauser claimed that he had gained a stronger appreciation for the Indian position. “I came back and ordered textbooks and started reading them,” he said. Klauser’ s reexamination of the issues led him to remark, “the significance of the treaties is much greater than I understood months ago. I don’t see the treaties as being the problem” (Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 4). As the Equal Rights Commission of the Gov¬ ernor of the State of Wisconsin editorialized in the first issue of its newsletter in 1988, “the state, both as a people who live within its border and as a government, must have a conscience” with respect to the reserved rights of the Indians (ERC Conscience 1988, 2). Recent events make it clear that the federal government must also have a con¬ science if the Wisconsin Chippewa Indians are to receive redress for more than a century of injustices. In her October 11, 1990, ruling denying the Chippewas damages against the State of Wisconsin, Judge Crabb acknowledged, “after more than sixteen years of litigation during which this court and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have determined that the State of Wisconsin has violated plaintiffs’ treaty rights for over 130 years, plaintiffs are left with no means of recovering monetary damages from the state except in the unlikely event that the United States joins this suit on their behalf.” Crabb’s ruling, as she herself rec¬ ognized, “leaves the plaintiff tribes without an adequate remedy for the wrongs they have suffered” (U. S. District Court 1990b, 922-23). Today, to quote Judge Crabb, the prospect of a federal resolution of the Chip¬ pewas’ claim against the State of Wisconsin for redress of their grievances remains “as elusive as most of the promises made to them over the years” (Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1990i, 2A). Although spoken by a member of a Southern Indian tribe, the following words of Cherokee Chief John Ross during the removal crisis in Georgia in 1831 seem appropriate for the present controversy over Chippewa hunting and fishing rights and claims against the State of Wisconsin for violating those rights: . . . President {George} Washington and his successors well understood the constitutional powers of the General Government, and the rights of the individual states, as well as those belonging to the Indian Nations, and that the treaties made under their respective administrations with the . . . {Indians} were intended to be faithfully & honestly regarded 123 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters on the part of the United States; and that the judicial power would extend to all cases of litigation that might arise under those treaties. (Ross 1831, 227) Chippewa hunting and fishing rights are part of “the supreme Law of the Land.” Applying the words of Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1832 Supreme Court case of Worcester v. The State of Georgia to Chippewa treaty rights in Wisconsin, we must remember that the Lake Superior Chippewa people constitute distinct com¬ munities, occupying their own territories, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Wisconsin have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Chippewa people themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. The Chippewa bands, like the Cherokee people Marshall was speaking about in 1832, constitute distinct political communities having the right to make their own laws and be governed by themselves without the interference of state government except in those areas specifically provided by federal laws or federal court decisions. As “domestic dependent nations,” using Marshall’s words, the Chippewa bands have lost the sovereign power to treat with nations other than the United States, but they retain the right to have the meaning of treaty clauses resolved in their favor whenever the meaning is in doubt (Cohen 1982 222, 241-42). They also have the right, as Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Chair Gaiashkibos recently commented, to decide that their reserved rights “are not for sale, not for lease” ( Masinaigan 1990e). 124 9 Conclusion: An Agenda for the Future Since the arrival of whites in Wisconsin, as scholar Gerald Vizenor has poignantly observed, the Chippewa people have been “divided by colonial, national, territorial, and state claims” (1984, 32). Wisconsin Chippewa communities survived several periods of economic exploitation — the fur-trapping period, the timber-cutting period, the copper-mining era, and the resort industry period. The entrepreneurs of each of these periods, with only rare exceptions, were whites (James 1954, 33; Nesbit and Thompson 1989, 516-17). Through its treaties with the Chippewas, the United States obtained vast resources. According to historian David R. Wrone, these include 19 million acres of land, 100 billion board-feet of timber, and 13.5 billion pounds of copper, in addition to water, ports, power sites, quarries, and a “comucopic treasure” of fish, fowl, and game. In return, the Chippewas received “only a few thousand dollars, some odds and ends of equipment, and a few thousand acres of reservation lands” (1989, 5). They did, however, reserve their rights of hunting, fishing, and gathering as well as the “other usual privileges of occupancy” on ceded territory (Kappler 2: 492 App. 1, and 542 App. 4). But, state officials prevented the Chippewas from ex¬ ercising those rights for most of this century. In doing so, the state promoted a pattern of natural resource use that benefitted non-Indians at the expense of the Chippewas. Whites have garnered what several astute economists call an “exploi¬ tation premium” from the as yet uncompensated taking of Chippewa usufructuary rights. While supporters of PARR, STA, and other groups adamantly oppose a negotiated lease arrangement with the Chippewas on the basis that it would be too costly to non-Indian taxpayers, these same individuals ignore the fact that the Chippewas have suffered great monetary losses — among other things — in being denied their usufructuary rights through whites’ misallocation of resources, which benefitted non-Indians at the expense of Indians (Bromley and Sharpe 1990, 15-16; Evers and Bromley 1989, 30-34). As we move toward the twenty-first century, officials of the State of Wisconsin must seize every opportunity to redress the wrongs of the past and to work coop¬ eratively with the Chippewa bands for the benefit of all Wisconsin residents. The governor and his administration can play a positive role in facilitating cooperation between the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and the State De¬ partment of Natural Resources, between tribal governments and state/county/local governments, between Indian parents and the public schools, and between aspiring tribal entrepreneurs and private business interests in order to foster economic de¬ velopment and to promote the general welfare of all of the people in the north country. Several examples of such cooperation point the way. The efforts of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band (LCO) and the Hayward Lakes Association (HLA), an influ¬ ential group of resort owners, to build a foundation for cooperation over many years 125 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters have paid dividends. Not only have the LCO Indians spearfished without the rock throwing, vulgar threats, and racial slurs prevalent elsewhere in the north, but these Indians have also received support from the HLA for the construction and operation of a new fish hatchery. Non-Indians have joined the LCO in a variety of activities aimed at promoting better understanding and mutual respect. I have personally participated in workshops at which Indian and non-Indian teachers from the Hayward area have come together to study Indian treaty rights and various aspects of Indian culture. In the Cable area, local sportfishers have cooperated with the tribal fisheries of the Bad River and Red Cliff Bands to collect eggs from speared fish, to incubate the eggs at tribal hatcheries, and, finally, to stock rearing ponds or to restock the lakes. At Long Lake, Chamber of Commerce members not only asked area residents to honor the spearing rights of St. Croix tribal members, but they also manned two boats and accompanied the spearfishers to help promote calm. At least twelve Chambers of Commerce in the north have issued a joint statement recognizing Indian treaty rights. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) announced on November 12, 1990, that ten wardens from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission will receive special credentials to enforce state laws alongside DNR wardens for the remainder of the year and that the DNR expects to authorize some tribal wardens to enforce state law independently of DNR wardens in 1991. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and the governor’s American Indian Language and Culture Education Board have taken steps to help today’s children understand Indian cultures and appreciate Indian treaties and tribal sovereignty as something more than historical artifacts. These examples of cooperation deserve emulation (Kerr 1990b; Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1990c, e; Thannum {1990}, 18-19; News from Indian Country 1990h; Wisconsin Education Association Council 1989, 1-2; Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 20; Solterman 1991). National economic and demographic trends suggest that success in meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century will require American leaders to understand, appreciate, and accommodate the needs of minority groups in society (Thomas 1990). This includes the needs of the members of the Chippewa bands, who have a unique relationship with state and local governments as a result of treaties made at great sacrifice to the Indians under pressure from the federal government. Wis¬ consinites — Indian and non-Indian alike — have more to gain by adhering to the constitutional principles upon which this nation was founded, including the rec¬ ognition of and respect for treaty rights, than by disrespecting the law and disre¬ garding human rights. Wisconsin has deep progressive roots. There is an underlying reservoir of good will toward cultural, ethnic, religious, and political diversity in the state. Yet, one must not forget: the state that produced Senator Robert M. La Toilette also produced Senator Joseph McCarthy, the state that enacted laws to prevent southern slave¬ owners from retrieving fugitive slaves and from molesting free blacks in the 1850s was the scene of violent race riots against blacks a hundred years later, and the state that poignantly argued against the removal of the Chippewas in the 1850s flagrantly violated the treaty rights of those Indians during most of this century.60 Much of our state’s past treatment of the Chippewas is shameful (Fig. 43). The future, however, presents Wisconsinites an opportunity to redress the wrongs of the past and the present. As we approach the next Chippewa spearfishing season, let us uphold the constitutional principles that have governed this nation for more 126 Chippewa Treaty Rights CENTURIES-OLD WHITE-MAN TRADITION*- Fig. 43. Centuries-Old Indian Tradition I Centuries-Old White Tradition. Cartoon by Steve Sack, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN. Reprinted with permission. than two hundred years and honor the treaty rights of the Indians. Let us encourage our political and community leaders to build strong, positive relationships with tribal communities. Efforts to establish “committees of understanding” to improve cooperation at the local level between the Chippewa bands and neighboring com¬ munities are a step in the right direction. {Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 4). Northern Wisconsin must be transformed from a battle zone over treaty rights issues each spring and summer to a sanctuary of peace and beauty for Indians and non-Indians. False data and malicious rumors about Indian utilization of natural resources must be replaced with accurate information. On April 3, 1991, Senator Daniel Inouye came to Wisconsin to receive the results of a year-long study on the impact of spearfishing. Inouye, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, had secured congressional appropriation enabling representatives of the six Wisconsin Chippewa bands, the U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to conduct the fishery assessment. The committee’s final report, Casting Light Upon the Waters, concludes that “fear and uncertainty generated by biased perceptions” have fueled the controversy over Indian fishing rights and have obscured the fact that “Chippewa spearing has not harmed the resource” (U. S. Department of the Interior 1991, 13). The time and energy expended by those protesting the treaty rights of Indians (to say nothing of the taxpayers’ funds spent in providing emergency police services at the boat landings to protect Indians from physical abuse as they engage in legal pursuits) need to be redirected toward resolving the serious environmental and societal issues facing our communities. If Indians and non-Indians cooperatively 127 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters manage the resources of northern Wisconsin, perhaps we will be able to create what Red Cliff Band member Walter Bresette has called “a unique environmental zone” that will be recognized throughout the world as “the jewel of the planet” ( Isthmus 1990, 9). Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Chair Gaiashkibos refers to the Chippewas as “keepers” of the Earth placed here to preserve, not to destroy and abuse the resources. He tells the following traditional story: Each day the creator sends an eagle out, and he looks down and sees if the Indian people are still practicing the teachings. One day, when he doesn’t see the smoke from the Indian people, then he will destroy the Earth. (Wisconsin State Journal 1990c, 52) “Successful co-management,” Biological Services Director Thomas R. Busiahn of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission asserts, “requires building bridges between cultures and world views, and recognizing the worth in each of them” (1989b, 5). All Wisconsin residents have something to gain by the preservation of the world view that led nineteenth-century Chippewa leaders to stubbornly resist efforts to evict them from this state and its resources. Efforts to nourish that world view continue to lead the Chippewas to resist all attempts to curtail their treaty rights. Our treatment of the Chippewas today, like our treatment of them during the dark days of the Wisconsin Death March in the mid-nineteenth century, serves as an index to our commitment to the rule of law and our democratic faith. Legal scholar Felix Cohen asserted nearly forty years ago that “like the miner’s canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison air in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall of our democratic faith” (1953, 390). For, as President George Bush noted in his 1989 inaugural address, “Great nations like great men must keep their word.” As the last decade of the twentieth century unfolds before their eyes, Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians have new reasons to be hopeful that — as President Bush asserted in his inaugural address — “when America says some¬ thing, America means it, whether a treaty or an agreement or a vow made on marble steps” (Bush 1989, 349). 128 Appendices Introduction Appendices 1, 3, and 5 describe the proceedings of the 1837, 1842, and 1854 Chippewa treaties from the perspective of federal treaty negotiators. Appendices 2, 4, and 6 reproduce the treaties as ratified by the U. S. Senate and proclaimed by the President. For photographs of the first pages of the original handwritten treaties, see Figures 10, 12, and 22. Figure 14 reproduces the first page of President John Tyler’s proclamation of the 1842 treaty. Accuracy has been stressed in the reproduction of the documents, which have been transcribed in the Appendices without changes in capitalization, grammar, punctuation, or spelling. The authors’ inconsistancies and errors are also retained. Quotation marks that originally appeared at the beginning on each line of a direct quotation have been deleted, leaving quotation marks only at beginnings and endings of paragraph quotations — if the marks were used. These writers also repeated the last word of a page at the beginning of the following page; we did not repeat these words. Notes written in the margins of the documents are included here as footnotes. Asterisks * were used by the authors to indicate placement of marginal notes; numbers in braces { } were added to show sequence. Frame numbers are provided in braces for Appendices 1,3, and 5 so that readers may easily locate pertinent pages in the microfilm edition available from the National Archives and Records Service. Page numbers from volume 2 of Kappler’s Indian Affairs are provided in braces for Appendices 2, 4, and 6. Editorial additions and clarifications, which have been kept to a minimum, are also in braces. Corrections have not been added in braces where the meaning of a misspelled word is obvious. Appendix 1 Secretary Verplanck Van Antwerp’s Journal of the Proceedings of the Council held by Governor Henry Dodge in 1837. Appendix 2 Treaty of July 29, 1837 Appendix 3A Extract of Annual Report of October 28, 1842, of Acting Michigan Superintendent Robert Stuart in Relation to the Treaty of 1842. Appendix 3B Treaty Commissioner Robert Stuart’s Remarks of November 19, 1842, in Relation to the Treaty of 1842. 129 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Appendix 3C Treaty Commissioner Robert Stuart’s Speeches During the 1842 Treaty Proceedings as Reported in 1844. Treaty of October 4, 1842 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Treaty Commissioner Henry C. Gilbert’s Explanation of the Treaty Concluded in 1854 with the Assistance of David B. Herriman. Appendix 6 Treaty of September 30, 1854 Appendix 7 Final Judgment of Judge Barbara Crabb in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Indians et al. vs. State of Wisconsin et al., March 19, 1991. Appendix 8 Chippewa Acceptance of Judge Barbara Crabb’s Final Judgment, May 20, 1991. Appendix 9 State of Wisconsin’s Acceptance of Judge Barbara Crabb’s Final Judgment, May 20, 1991. 130 Appendix 1 Negotiations for the “Chippewa Treaty of July 29, 1837” Proceedings of a Council held by Governor Henry Dodge, with the Chiefs and principal men, of the Chippewa Nation of Indians near Fort Snelling, at the con¬ fluence of the SL Peters and Missisippi Rivers, commencing on the 20^ day of July 1837. The Head Men of the nation, having by direction of Governor Dodge, been advised of his desire to meet them in council, their different bands assembled together near Fort Snelling between the first and 20^ of July, to the number of upwards of a thousand individuals, men, women, & children, and on the last mentioned day, met the Governor at the Council House. Gen1. William R. Smith of Pennsylvania, appointed by the President of the United States, the colleague of Governor Dodge in the commission, did not arrive to be present at the council. The following named Chiefs were present, and recognized as such, by the Governor. Bands Chiefs From Leech Lake, ” Gull Lake & Swan River, ” Mille Lac, ” Sandy Lake ” Snake River, ” Fond-du-Lac, ” Si. Croix River, Aish-ke-boge-kozho, or Flat Mouth and The Elder Brother Pa-goona-kee-zhig, or The Hole in the day, and Songa-Komig or, The Strong Ground W a-shask-ko-koue , or Rats Liver Ka-nam-dawa-winro, or Le Brocheux Naudin, or The Wind, Sha-go-bai, or The Little Six, Pay-a-jik, & Na-qua-na-bie, or The Feather. Mang-go-sit, or Loons Foot, and Shing-gobe, or The Spruce Pe-zhe-ke, or The Buffalo Ver Planck Van Antwerp of Indiana, appointed by the President, Secretary to the Commission, was also present at the meeting of the Council. The usual ceremonies for opening a council with the Indians, having been first duly observed, Governor Dodge addressed them as follows :{0548} “Chiefs, Head Men, and Wariors of the Chippewa Nation of Indians.’’ “Your Great Father The President of the United States, has sent me to see you in Council, to propose to you the purchase of a small part of your country East of the Missisippi River. “This country, as I am informed, is not valuable to you for its game, and not suited to the culture of com, and other Agricultural purposes. “Your Great Father wishes to purchase your country on the Chippewa and SL Croix Rivers, for the advantage of its Pine Timber, with which it is said to abound. “A Map of the Country which your Great Father wishes to buy from you, will be shewn you, where on which the Rivers and Water courses are laid down; and 131 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters such explanations given through your Interpreter, as will fully explain to you, the particular part of your country East of the Missisippi River, which Your Great Father proposes to purchase, for the use of his White Children. Your Great Father knows you are poor; and this Pine region of Country, is not valuable to you for hunting purposes. His wish is, to make you a full compensation for it, the country, by giving you its full value, payable in such manner, as will be most serviceable to your people. “An estimate will be made of the probable value of your country which it is proposed to purchase, of which you will be informed. I will request you, after fully deliberating upon the subject, to tell me your price for the country, with as little delay as possible. “Your Great Father The President was desirous that the Chippewas should be fully represented in this council, that all might know what had been done; and that equal justice should be done to all. I wish you to be prepared with your answer to the proposition made you, at our meeting in Council tomorrow.” Governor Dodge having confided his remarks and intimated his readiness to hear any thing which the Chiefs or principle men might have to say to him, Aish-ke- boge-kozhe, (Flat Mouth, or La Guelle Plat) advanced and spoke as follows: “My Father, I have but little to say to you now. Living in a different part of the country from that which you propose to buy from us, I will be among the last of those who will speak to you upon that subject. “After those shall have spoken who live in and nearer to that country, I will talk more to you. “My Father, My people have all the same opinion with me, and will abide by what I say to you. I have come to listen first, to all you have to say to us, and will afterwards speak to you. My heart is with you. I have nothing more to say now. Naudin (The Wind) then came forward and said “My Father, I once shook hands with our Great Father The President of the United States, as I do with you now. I have not much to say at present; and my brother-in-law who stands near me wishes to speak to you. On tomorrow I expect that some more people will be here from the country that you wish to buy from us. I was present when they began to run the boundary line between our country and that of the Sioux at the “Red Devils Riverss {See Note A}.” When you are ready to examine that line I will say more to you.” Pe-zhe-ke (The Buffalo) “My Father. I am taken by surprise by what you have said to us, and will speak but few words to you now. We are waiting for more of our people who are coming from the country which you wish to buy from us. “We will think of what you have said to us, and when they {0549} come, will tell you our minds about it. Men will then be chosen by us, to speak to you. I have nothing more to say now.” {Note A: Red Devils Riverss is the interpretation decided upon after much analysis of the penmanship, context, and historical possibilities in consultation with Richard St. Germaine. It fits the context because an Indian named Red Devil did sign the 1825 treaty to which the speaker here refers. In an earlier transcript of this document (Iowa News 1837, 410-11), this phrase was transcribed as Red Deer’s Rump, but this has no historical meaning with which I am familiar.} 132 Chippewa Treaty Rights Pa-goona-kee-zhig (The Hole in the Day) “My Father, what Aish-ke-boge-ko- zhe (Flat Mouth) & the others who have spoken have told you, is the opinion of us all.” Na-ca-ne-ga-be (The Man that Stands Foremost) “My Father. The people will come from the country where my fathers have lived before me. When they arrive here, they will speak to you. Until then I have nothing more to say.” Governor Dodge, then, after urgently impressing upon the Indians, the great importance and necessity of their remaining quiet among each other and at peace with the Sioux, during the time that they were at S±. Peter’s attending the Council, adjourned it to meet again at 10 O’clock Tomorrow Morning. Friday July 21- 1837 The Governor was advised this morning by Mr. {M.M.} Vineyard their Agent, that the Indians did not wish to meet in council to day, as the people whom they expected, had not yet arrived, and they wanted more time to council among themselves. Saturday July 22^ The Morning being cloudy with a threatening appearance of rain, the Council did not meet until 3 O’Clock P.M. when Governor Dodge directed the Interpreter to say to the Indians, that when he had parted with them two days ago, they had told him that they expected to meet more of their friends here, and were desirous before taking any further steps about what he had spoken to them, of councilling among each other — that he had now met them to hear what they might have to say about their absent friends, and to listen to any communications which they might wish to make to him, in regard to the councils which they had held, or the conclusions resulting from them, at which they had arrived. After an interval of some 15 or 20 minutes, during which time the Intrepreter by direction of The Governor, repeated the expressions of his readiness to hear any remarks, which the Indians might wish to make to him. Flat Mouth advanced and said “My Father. I shall say but little to you at this time. I am called a Chief. I am not the Chief of the whole nation, but only of my people or tribe. I speak to you now only because I see nobody else ready to do so. I do not wish to take any further steps about what you have proposed to us, until the other people arrive, who have been expected here. They have not yet come; and to do so before their arrival, might be considered an improper interference, and unfair towards them. “The residence of my band is outside of the country which you wish to buy from us. After the people who live in that country shall have told you their minds, I will speak. “If the lands which you wish to buy, were occupied by my band, I would immediately have given you my opinion. After listening to the people who we are expecting, and who will speak to you, I will abide by what they say, and say more to you myself. “My Father, on getting up to speak to you, I hardly knew what to say. If I say no more, it is not because I am afraid or ashamed to speak my mind before my 133 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters people, & those of the whole nation, and all others present, but because I have nothing more to say.” The Buffalo remarked, that he was quite deaf, and could not hear distinctly what was said; that he had seen the Governors lips move, and turned each ear to him to listen, but could not hear well, his words; that there was another {0550} man here, who with himself had the confidence of their people, but that they did not wish to say more until the rest of them who they were expecting, should arrive. Pay-a-jik “My Father. Your children are not displeased with what you have said to them — but they wish you to give them four times more tobacco than you have yet given them. My Father, what has happened to you? Have you cut off your breasts that you can not suckle your children? If you did so *{1}, it would render them more pliant and ready to yield to your wishes. This was the case at the the Treaty of Prairie du Chien in 1825. I was there, and know what was done. The boundary line between our country and that of the Sioux, was then established; & my people wish now to have it explained to them. I have been told by the other Chiefs and Wariors to say what I have said to you. I do not say it of my own accord. My people have chosen me and another, to talk with you about the prop¬ osition that you have made to them, to buy a part of our country. “lam ready to proceed whenever the others are ready. Other men of power and authority are behind, and are expected here. They will soon come, when we will give you our answer.” The Wind “My Father” — turning round to the Indians — “I shake by the hand all the people of the different tribes of my nation who are around you,”— -and then turning to Governor Dodge — “My Father, What I said to you two days ago, I would say to the President of The United States if I saw him. My forefathers were a great and powerful people, which gives me confidence to speak. All your Children here heard what you said when you spoke to them about the lands which you wish to buy from us. I understood that it was the country upon the Si. Croix and Chippewa Rivers, and towards the East; and when I slept, I had a dream, and a little bird passed by and told me what was meant. I will listen to what others have to say, and will then speak my mind to you plainly and fully. My Father I attended a council at Prairie-du-Chien which lasted ten days. Some of those now here, were then present. This will last longer; as it is one of greater importance. It is now late in the day. When the Council meets again we will begin earlier in the morning, that we may have more time to speak.” Rats Liver (Wa-shask-ko-koue) “My Father I have nothing to say to you different from what has been said by those who have already spoken. We are all of the same mind.” Governor Dodge then directed the Intrepeter to ask the Chiefs, whether their people who were here, were troubled by the Sioux; that he had seen the Sioux dancing in their Encampment yesterday, and was glad to witness the friendly feeling, which seemed to exist among them; that he had been informed by the Agent for the Sioux, Major Taliaferro, that he had told them, they must not visit the Chippewa encampment during their stay here, but upon the most friendly terms; & that if the Sioux had given them any trouble he wanted to know it, and wished some one of the Chiefs would now mention it to him. *<1} meaning, that if he would give them whiskey 134 Chippewa Treaty Rights The Wind replied to the Governor that there was no trouble; that they were all satisfied; that all his children around him both Chippewa and Sioux wished to be friendly together, and wanted to carry on a little trade and bartering among them¬ selves; but that he was directed by his people to tell the Governor that the Soldiers and White people troubled them in their Encampment. Governor Dodge “I am glad to hear that you are on friendly terms with the Sioux, & hope you will continue to be. I wish you to take each other strong by the hand; and you must conduct yourselves well while you remain here “I will speak to the officer commanding the Garrison & request him to forbid his soldiers disturbing you for the future. {0551} He will prevent it”. The Wind. “My Father, I wish you would give the same advice to the Sioux that you have given us; but do not wish thereby, to prevent them from coming in a friendly way to visit us”. And then the Gov. adjourned the Council. Monday July 24* 1837. The Council met at 11. O’Clock A.M. Governor Dodge directed the Interpreter to inform the Indians, that he had just been advised, that four of their friends (Indians) who they had been expecting, had arrived at their encampment; and that fifty others, were said to be near here, who had come from La Pointe with Messrs. {Lyman M.} Warren and {Daniel P.} Bush- nell, & who it was believed would arrive here this evening; that as they were all of the same nation, & brethren of each other, he wished those present to consult with them; that he did not wish to hurry their deliberations among themselves, but to give them full time to consult their friends who had arrived, and those who were coming in; & that he would now hear any thing that they might have to say to him upon the subject. The Wind “My Father. I am very sorry to keep you so long, in a painful state of suspense upon the matter which you have proposed to us. My people are glad to see you, and they are gratified at the proposition which you have made to them. My Father, I speak to you now through the lips of “The Buffalo.” (the latter had advanced to the Governors table with “The Wind”, shaking him by the hand, & remarking that he would do the same with all those present, but his arm was too short-- & then stepping back, to allow the latter to speak for him). He has been to see our Great Father the President of the United States, and came back safe. When I look at you it frightens me. I cannot sufficiently estimate your importance, and it confuses me. I have seen a great many Americans, but never one whose appearance struck me as yours does. You have heard of the coming of those, whose absence has prevented our proceeding, in what you have proposed to us. This is the case with all our people here. My Father. Listen to what I am going to say to you. I listened to our Great Father the President of the {0552} United States, & have never forgotten what he said to me. Others will speak after me, whose language will please you, and set all things right “My Father. We are a distracted people, and have no regular system of acting together. We cast a firm look on the people who are coming; and all think alike, about this matter. What we are going to say to you, will not dissatisfy — but please you’ ’ . Pay-a-jik, “My Father. What I am going to say to you is not my own language, but the words of Chiefs and others around you. They all look at you, who are so 135 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters different from them You are all white, while they are half red * *{2}. How can we possibly forget the traders in this matter? You have come to dispense charity to us, and we must think of the traders. I think well of them. They have used me well, and supported me, and I wish to do them justice. We should certainly all be benighted if they did not do for us, what they have done heretofore; & if we do wrong to them, how can we expect it. “My Father. Look around on all your red children here. The trader has raised them; and it is through his means that they are, as they are; We wish you to do him justice. They will, by this means go on and support us as heretofore. I refered, in commencing to speak, to the half breeds. Many of them have been brought up among us, and we wish to provide for them. We want justice done to them”. Ma-je’-ga-bo. “My Father. I shall not say much to you. You are not a man to be spoken to in a light manner. I am not a Pillager*{3}, but went among them when small, which gives me the right to speak as one of them. My brother (The Wind) stands beside me, and we are descended from those, who in former days, were the greatest orators of our nation”. “My Father. I am not backward in saying what I wish to. I am not going to do any thing, to make your heart lean; am not going to tell you what will be said by the Chiefs. I will answer you, when you make us an offer for our lands. As soon as our friends arrive, & I hear their decision, I will say all that I have to say. I conclude upon that subject for the present, and will speak upon another. “My Father. Listen closely to me. I will hide nothing from you that has passed. But for the Traders, you would not {illegible} see all your children sitting around you, as they do, to day. It is not the Chiefs, but the traders who have supported them to the present time. Our Great Father has told us that An Agent would be sent to us — but he has not yet been among us. The Traders are in our country, to trade for the skins of animals, which we take to them. Half of what they bring into the country and sell to your children is lost to them. I am glad to see the Agent here, who is to go into our country, & support our young men, women, & children. “We wish to do justice to the half breeds, who have been brought up among us, by having them provided for. Sha-go-bai (The Little Six). “My Father, I heard of you, when I was yet a young man, a long time ago; & now I see you. I am frightened when you look at me. I am startled when the wind comes rustling by; and the thunder cloud, tho’ I know it will pass along without harming, alarms me. “So it is, my father, when you talk to your children around you, of their lands; which you wish to buy from them. But I have great confidence in the Chiefs who are here, and others who are coming. When they come to treat fully with you, we (pointing to the two men standing beside him, & himself) will sit far off and listen. I spring from the same stock with the people who stand behind you (white men — Sha-go-bai is a half breed) and am related to all the half breeds in the country where I live. “My Father. Look at the man who is standing near me. His, {0553} and my ancestors, were the Chief Men of the Country, that you want to buy from us. The Traders have raised our children, and we like them. I owe my life to the Traders, *{2} alluding to the half-breeds *{3}The common name of the Leech Lake Band 136 Chippewa Treaty Rights who have supported us. Iam glad to see the Agent here who will live among us, & give us tobacco when we want it”. The Little Buffalo “My Father. Listen to what I am going to say to you. Let it enter deeply into your ear, & upon your heart. Tho’ I may appear contemptible in your sight; when I address the wariors of my tribe, they listen to me. Nobody — no trader — has instructed me what to say to you. Those who have spoken before me, have told you the truth; & I shall speak on the same subject. I have been supported by the Trader; & without his aid, could not get through the winter, with my naked skin. The grounds where your children have to hunt, are as bare as that on which I now stand, & have no game upon them. “My Father, I am glad to see you here, to embrace the Earth We are at a loss to give anything to the Traders, as our lands and hunting grounds are so destitute — do us a kindness, by paying our old debts. I have nothing more to say. You are our Father, and we look up to, and respect you. I have come here and seen you, and my heart is at peace. I have talked with my wariors & heard their words, & my mind is tranquil”. Flat Mouth, “My Father. Your eyes are upon me, & mine upon you. Wherever I have been, the prints of the white mans hand’s have been left upon my own. Yours are not the first that I have shaken. It is I and those men (pointing to The Elder Brother, The Strong Ground and The Hole in the Day) that have brought many of your children here. Their opinions are mine. “My Ancestors were chiefs of their tribes and villages while they lived: I do not however hold my title from them, but have derived it from my own acts and merits “My Father. When I came here this morning, I supposed you wanted to talk to us about the lands, you wish to get from us, and not about the Traders. ‘ ‘After the question about selling the land shall be settled — it will then be time enough to talk about these Traders”. “My Father. I shall not be backward in speaking of what you propose to us at the proper time. Many of my people have told me to say so. But we can do nothing until the other people arrive. We must listen to them. As I have told you before after they shall speak I will say more. The Hole in the day “My Father. He who is the Master of all hears me speak. I know the Traders, & what has been their conduct. I know which of them are good men, and those who are bad, and act like drunken men. When the other people come I will speak again. Rats Liver. ‘ ‘My Father I am but little accustomed to speaking, and am generally, one of those who listen. Our Father here (the Agent) knows me, and is acquainted with my character. If I wished to speak much, I should feel no shame for my personal appearance — but this you may not wish to hear. “We are talking about the land which you have come for — I have tread all over it, with my war club in my hand. My ancestors and those of Pa-goona-kee-zhig (The Hole in the Day) were the Chiefs and protectors of that country, and drove the bad Indians (The Sioux) away from it. “My Father It is only to you that I look and listen, & not to the bad birds that are flying through the air. My own merit has brought me to the place which I occupy to day; and I do not wish any body to push me forward as a speaker “I have nothing to add now, but will say more when the business about the land has been settled.” 137 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Que-me-shan-shee or Big Mouth, “My Father, What I am going to say to you; is of not much consequence. I have smoked with some of my friends & have come to tell you the result. After reflecting upon the subject we came to no definite conclusion — but wish to do like those who have already spoken. We do not wish to do any thing to injure the white people. My Father, all that has prevented us from doing {0554} what you came here to have us do, is, that we have been waiting for others of our people who we have expected here, and who we are afraid to dissatisfy. I never before have spoken to Americans at any length; and fear My Father, that you will think that I am drunk — but I have here (putting his hand to his breast) a great deal of sense (intelligence) which I have obtained from the white people. As soon the other people come, we will unfold our minds to you. Sha-we-niq-wa-nabe. “My Father, What I have to say to you, place it strongly to your heart. The Master of life, and The Spirit of the Earth listen to us. The Master of life made the Earth, the grass and the trees that grow upon it, and the animals that roam over it. When the Great spirit made the Earth, he placed the Red Men upon it; & when the Chiefs were put upon it, it became very strong. Some of these chiefs are now here, and others are coming. They do not wish to act precipitately”. Shing-go-be (The Spruce) “My Father, I shall speak but few words to you. It is only I who can tell you the truth about the lands where I live. If you speak of the lands yonder (pointing towards the country proposed to be purchased) I will not talk foolishly about them here, in the midst of so many Indians. Altho’ only a child, I speak at once into the middle of a subject, and you shall hear straight about my lands, because I am the Master of them. After you shall have spoken to me further about them, the Master of life will hear me answer you. “My Father I could speak all day long in a loud tone of voice — but have nothing further to say to you now Mang-go-sit, (The Loons Foot) “My Father, I do not wish to say much to you. You do not know who I am, & from whence I have sprung. I never speak at any length; but it is not because I can not speak strong. I only wish to tell you now who my Ancestors were. I am the son of Le Brocheux — one of the greatest chiefs of our nation. I have given my thoughts before to your children who have spoken to you — and I think before I speak. “My Father, I will speak to you more when you know who I am. When I speak to the Chiefs, I do not speak long, but to the point. Ma-ge-go-be — after a long speech to the Indians & urging upon them to sell the land; but before doing so, to press upon the Governor to give them presents, and furnish them with more provisions — said “My Father This is all your children have to say to you now, about the lands. They are going to take a rest, and will then say more to you about them. Listen My Father, to what I have said to your children & what they have answered. What I am going to say to you now is to the purpose. The provisions that you have given us, are not enough for us. We want those of another kind — some of the cattle on the prairie. Our people do not cook properly what you have given them to eat. It has made them sick, and they want you to give them something else that will cure them. The Wind, “My Father When I saw our Great Father, the President of the United States he gave me sense. Listen to me, & let me tell you the truth. I listen to you, 138 Chippewa Treaty Rights and accede to your purposes. You must not suppose that things will not be as you wish. We are now arrangeing them to your liking. The Station of Chief is a very difficult one to hold, but when I was made one by the President I thought I never should be refused anything that I asked for. It is hard to hear our children crying here for something to eat. When I have heard their cries in the dead of winter, I have put on my belt and started off to look for it. Your look is so firm that I think it would not be possible for you not to do what you wished to. You and I both speak from what the President of the United States has told us. You have plenty of every thing to eat around you, & can give us some of the cattle that are {0555} upon the Prairie. At the treaty at Prairie du Chien, the case was as difficult as this. The Great Chief then fed us well and gave us ninety head of cattle. The Spruce. “My Father, I am not one who has asked for cattle to eat. You have come too far to bring them with you. If you wish to give meat; give it to those who want it-— I do not. Continue to give me what you have furnished to us before”. Governor Dodge, then directed the Interpreter to say to them that their father (the Agent) would tell them whether he could get any cattle for them; that he wished to see them again in council early tomorrow morning; that he was glad to hear their friends would be here this evening; that the weather was now good, & they must make up their minds as soon as they could; that he hoped the Chiefs & principal men would see that their people kept on friendly terms, with the Sioux, & if any difficulty occurred inform their Agent; that the Sioux & themselves had met here as friends, & he wanted them to part so — And then Adjd. the Council until tomorrow. Tuesday, July 25- Govemor Dodge was advised at 10 O’ Clock this morning, that seventy Five or Eighty Indians belonging to four or five different Bands, from Lakes, De Flambeau and De Courtereille, and La Pointe &, accompanied by Mr. Bushnell the Sub-Agent and a Mr. Warren a trader from La Pointe, had just arrived. These Gentlemen waited upon Governor Dodge, immediately on their arrival & informed him, that the Indians who had come with them would not be ready or willing to go into council with him to day. At their suggestion therefore, and the solicitation of Mr. Warren, The Governor postponed the meeting of the Council until 9 O’ Clock tomorrow morning. Wednesday July 26* On meeting in Council this morning, in addition to the Indians who have been present heretofore, a large number of others appeared. The following are the bands, to which they principally belong; and the names of their Chiefs. Bands From Lake De Flambeau. Na-wa-ghe-wa, or “The Knee”. O-ge-ma-ga, or “The Dandy” Pa-se-quam-jis, or “The Commissioner”, and Wa-be-ne-me-ke, or “The White Thunder” We-non-ga-be or “The Wounded Man”, and Ke-wat-se, or The Old Man Chiefs ” Lake Coutereille, 139 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters ” La Pointe (on Lake Superior). Ghe-bish-ghe-e-kow, or “The Buffalo and Ta-qua-ga-na or “Joining Lodges”. Governor Dodge directed that in the future proceedings in the Treaty, Stephen Bouga, and Patrick Quin, should intrepret from the English language into Chippewa, and Scott Campbell and Jean Batiste Dube, from Chippewa into English. He then addressed the Indians thus: “My Children of the Chippewa Nation assembled here. “I have been informed, that since I last met you, your people, whose absence had prevented the proceeding with our Councils, have arrived here. “I wish now to learn from you, if this is the case, & whether you are ready to proceed. I have before made a proposition to you — which those then present, have, I presume, communicated to the others who have recently arrived, for the purchase of a portion of your territory. You have defered giving me an answer until your friends should arrive, and as I believe they are now all here, I will renew my proposition to you; and will show you a map, explaining which part of your country it is, that I wish to buy. “I will now place the map before me, and wish the Chiefs and {0556} Principal Men, and particularly those from that part of the country which I wish to purchase, towit: Lakes De Flambeau, and Coutereille, and the Chippewa, S-. Croix, & Rum Rivers &£, to come forward and examine it with me, as I direct it to be explained to them. And after this examination, I wish you to inform me whether or not you will sell the country to me. Ghe-bish-ghe-e-kow, or “The Buffalo”, (from La Pointe), replied, “My Father. We have come from a distance, and but lately arrived here, and what you have proposed to us, we want more time to think about. The notice that you have given us is rather too short. Let us wait another day, and tomorrow we will be able to give you our answer’ ’ . The Governor, directed it to be said to them, that they could examine the map now & have it explained to them — consult among each other between this & tomorrow morning, & be prepared then, to give him an answer; that he did not wish to hurry them, but that he had already waited patiently for them during several days, and was anxious to bring the business to a close as soon as possible; that he would now be glad to hear any thing from any of the other Chiefs who might wish to speak to him; & that if they desired it, he would remain there until sundown for that purpose. He then explained the map fully, to the Chiefs and principal men, and repeated to them, that he had been informed, that the country which he wished to get from them, was barren of game, and of little value for Agricultural purposes; but that it abounded in Pine timber, for which, their Great Father the President of the United States wished to buy it from them, for the use of his white children, & that he would give them a fair price for it; that he wished them to understand the Map, & to enable them to do so, had mentioned & pointed out to them natural boundaries comencing at the mouth of Crow Wing River; thence to Lake SL Croix, thence to the head waters of the Ouisconsin River, & down said river to the Plover portage where the line dividing their Territory from the other Indians comenced; while on the west the tract would be bounded by the Missisippi River; that he wished them 140 Chippewa Treaty Rights to be prepared to morrow morning, to tell him not only, whether or not they would sell him the land, but their price for it; that he wished them all — but more particularly those from that part of the country which he wished to buy, to go home satisfied; so that when they met their people there, they might not be ashamed to tell them what they had done; that so many bands of their nation, & from such remote parts of it, had never before, he believed, met together, & that he wished them now to advise with each other, and unite and act together, as one people; that he wished the Chiefs and Wariors to consult together this evening, and select, out of their number two Chiefs in whom they had confidence to speak for them; that he wished to meet them all in council, but that not more than two of them should speak; that this was done merely to save time, & that they could all consult together, and tell the two speakers what to say to him; that altho’ they were of different bands, they belonged to the same great nation, and their interests were in common; that he wished them all to be satisfied with what should be done; that their Great Father The President of the United States would be just towards them, & that they must be just towards each other; that in their consultations he did not wish them to forget their Half breed relatives and their traders, but to do them justice, also; and that he would be glad now to hear whatever any of the Chiefs might have to say to him’ ’ . Pay-a-jik, replied that those of the S^. Croix River band who had come in yesterday had chosen him to speak for them, tho’ it had always been his custom to sit quiet, and say but little; that he and his friends had talked together, and agreed what to do. After waiting half an hour or more & none of the other Chiefs or Wariors rising to speak, The Governor again took occasion to urge upon the Indians how important {0557} it was that during their stay here, they should keep quiet among each other, and at perfect peace with the Sioux; that for one of them to strike a Sioux, or a Sioux to strike one of them, might be productive of the greatest harm; that he wished to impress this upon those who had lately arrived, as well as the others; and that he hoped his views and wishes were now fully understood by them; that if they were not, as they were now about to part until tomorrow morning, if they would ask him any questions, he would give such further explanations, as might be necessary. Several of the chiefs came forward to ask some questions in regard to the map, after which seeming to understand, & to be satisfied with it, and having nothing further to say, The Governor adjd. the Council until Tomorrow Morning Thursday Morning July 27. th The Council met at 11. O’Clock A.M. and the map with the boundaries of the country proposed to be purchased, was again fully explained to the Indians; when Govr. Dodge inquired of them, through the Intrepeter, whether they were all satisfied upon that point; whether the bands assembled here, were now, all represented in council, by their Chiefs; whether they had selected speakers to speak for them, as had been suggested to them yesterday — and if so, that they would designate them; & that these speakers would now communicate their sentiments to him. 141 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters They answered each of these questions, in the affirmative, & replied that they had chosen Ma-ghe-ga-bo * *{4} or Latrappe, and Pa-goo-na-kee-zhig (The Hole-in- The Day) to speak for them on this occasion. Ma-ghe-ga-bo then came forward in true Indian costume towit; naked, except as to his leggings, breech cloth and flap; his full head of hair hanging loosely upon his shoulders; a sort of crown upon his head, made for the occasion, & filled with feathers of the Bald Eagle, placed there by the chiefs; and the medals of several of the Chiefs hung round his neck. He advanced to the Governors table with his War Flag, and planted it there, & then turned round and addressed the Indians at considerable length. Pa-goo-na-kee-zhig followed him in an address to the Indians. Ma-ghe-ga-bo, then, with the map before him and his finger pointing to it, said to the Governor “My Father. This is the country which is the home of many of your children. I have covered it with a paper (he had done so) and so soon as I remove that paper, the land shall be yours. But should the Wind blow it off, that shall not make it so. I have listened closely to the words that the Chiefs have told me to say to you. “My Father, when we first met here, we smoked and shook hands and talked together. Four times we have gone through the same ceremony, and now on the fifth, we have come to give you our answer. I stand here to represent the Chiefs of the different bands of my nation assembled here, & to tell you of their detir- mination, to sell to you the lands that you want of them. “My Father, Listen to me. Of all the country that we grant you we wish to hold on to a tree where we get our living, & to reserve the streams where we drink the waters that give us life *{5}. I have but few words to say, but they are those of the Chiefs, and very important. What I am now going to say to you, is a kind of history of our Chiefs. The Being that created us, made us naked, He created you and your people with knowledge and power to get a living. Not so with us; we had to cover ourselves with moss and rotten wood; & you must be merciful to us. The Chiefs will now show you the tree we want to reserve. This is it (placing an oak sprig upon the Table near the map). It is a different kind of tree from the one you wish to get from us. Every time the leaves fall from it, we will count it as one winter past.’’ {0558} “My Father, In regard to the lands that you have spoken to us about, you have told us what you want, & I answer you in the name of the Chiefs. I am no Chief, but a Warior; & the badge that I wear, is not a mark of my bad conduct, but to make myself respected by my people. “We have understood you will pay us in goods and money for our lands, and we want to know now, what amount, you will give us for them’’. GovL Dodge — through the Intrepeter — “As the land belongs to them, I want them to say, what they wish me to pay them, for it. If they can not come to a conclusion upon this point among themselves, I would recommend to them, to ask the aid of Their Father’s (the Sub Agents, Messrs. Vineyard and Bushnell) to assist them. But if they can determine among themselves, let them do so. *{4} A War Chief the same who killed Govr. {Robert} Semple *{5} This of course is nonsense — but is given literally as rendered by the Intrepeters, who are unfit to act in that capacity. I presume it to mean that the Indians wish to reserve the privilege of hunting & fishing on the lands and making sugar from the Maple 142 Chippewa Treaty Rights Ma-ghe-ga-bo “My Father. If you offer us money and goods we will take both. You see me count upon my fingers (counting six) Every finger counts ten. For so many years we wish you to secure to us the payment of an anuity. At the end of that time our grand children who will have grown up, can speak to you for themselves. “We will consult with our Fathers (The Sub-Agents) and ask them what will be the value of the land, and what we ought to ask for it, for sixty years* *{6}. My Father, Take the lands that you want from us. Our Chiefs have good hearts. Our women have brought the half breeds among us. They are poor, and we wish them to be provided for {illegible}. Some of them are here, and they have left many of their children behind them. We wish to divide with them all. This is the decision of the Chiefs. “Since we have met here this morning we have fully made up our minds. We have talked it over and over again among ourselves — and we accept your proposition. “My Father, we will not look back at what has transpired heretofore, but will commence our business anew with you, from this day*{7}. What you propose to give us, we wish to share only with the half breeds, that our people may enjoy the benefit of it. We will hold firmly in our Arms what you give us, that no body may get it from us”. “My Father. We once more recomend our half breeds to your kindness. They are very numerous. We wish you to select a place for them on this River, where they may live and raise their children, and have their joys of life. If I have rightly understood you, we can remain on the lands and hunt there. We have heretofore got our living on them. We hope that your people will not act towards ours, as your forefathers did towards our own — but that you will always treat us kindly, as you do now. “My Father. We understand you, that you have been told our country is not good to cultivate. It is false. There is no better soil to cultivate than it, until you get up, to where the Pine region commences. “My Father. You will now see All your Children in whose behalf I speak. All the Chiefs who agree to selling you the land will now rise” [They did so to the number of Thirty, and upwards] Ma-ghe-ga-bo then raised the paper that he had placed over the Map, took Governor Dodge by the hand and continued “My Father, I will not let go your hand ’till I count the number of our villages. The Great Spirit first made the Earth thin, but now it is much heavier*{8}. We do not wish to disappoint you and our Great Father (The President of The United States) in the object you had in coming here. We therefore grant you the country, which you want from us; and your Children, the Chiefs that represent all the villages within its limits, are now present. The number of villages (Nineteen) is marked on this paper, and I present it to you in acknowledgement that we grant you the land. This piece (retaining in his hand another piece of paper,) we will keep, because we wish to say something more, on it. At the Conclusion of this Treaty you will ask us to touch the quill*{9}; but no doubt you will grant what we ask, before we *{6} What anuity *{7} forgetting what has been said before, and alluding to the Traders *{8> meaning, it was of little value, — but has now become much more so. *<9} sign the Treaty 143 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters do so. At the End of the Treaty, I will respect what the Chiefs have to say to you, & keep this paper for that purpose. {0559} My Father The Great Spirit has given us a clear sky to talk together today. We must now rest awhile, and when we meet again, we will speak further”. Governor Dodge. “Do you wish to give me your answer this evening, or to wait until tomorrow morning”. Answer. “Tomorrow morning, and we will consult this evening with our two Fathers (Messrs Vineyard & Bushnell) Governor Dodge. “It is proper for me to explain to you that your Great Father, never buys land for a term of years. I will agree on the part of the President, that you shall have the free use of the rivers, and the privilege of hunting upon the lands you are to sell to the United States, during his pleasure. If you sell these lands, you must sell them as all the other nations of Indians have done; & I tell you this now, that you may not, hereafter, say I have deceived you. Your Great Father has sent me to treat you as his children; to pay you the value of your land; & not to deceive you in any thing I may do with you, or say to you. If you had determined upon asking the assistance of your two Fathers (The Sub-Agents) of arriving at a conclusion in regard to the value of your lands, it is my wish, as well as that of your Great Father at Washington, that they shall do you justice. You have spoken frequently of your half breed relations. It is a good principle in you, to wish to provide for them. But you must do so in money, and can not give them land. You have mentioned your wishes to receive one half of the consideration that I may agree to give you for your lands, in goods, & the other half in money. I do not object to this, but have a proposition to make to you now, which I wish you to consider. Your Great Father recomends to you, that you take from year to year the following items in part payment for your lands, towit: certain sums of money, to provide for Teachers to educate your children, & make them wise like those of the white people; for Farmers, and Instructors in Agricultural pursuits; for Agricultural implements, and seeds to plant in the Earth; for Provisions, and salt; for tobacco; for Blacksmiths, Iron and Steele &c; and for Mills and Millers to grind your com, and other grain that you may raise. You will determine, whether you will accede to this proposition, and after consulting with your Fathers (The Sub- Agents) let me know what amount you wish me to pay you, for your lands; and I will be glad to meet you in council at an early hour tomorrow Morning”. The Governor then Adjl the Council. Friday Morning July 28* The Council met at 12 O’Clock N. Governor Dodge said to the Indians “My Friends, I have met you in council this morning to hear your answer to the proposition I made to you yesterday. I now wish to know if you have made up your minds; and who will speak for you to day. I am ready to hear you” Aish-ke-bo-gi-ko-zhe (Flat Mouth) with many of the Chiefs came forward, and all shook hands with the Governor, the Secretary, & the Agents; after which Flat Mouth spoke thus — 144 Chippewa Treaty Rights “My Father. What I am going to say, is not the expression of my own will, but that of the Chiefs present. I did not know when I started to come here this morning, that they wished me to speak for them; but I have learned their wishes, since I came here. It is hard for me to say — but it is the wish of the Chiefs, that I should speak to you; & they have appointed me to do so.” “My Father. Your children are willing to let you have their lands, but they wish to reserve the privilege of making sugar from the trees, and getting their living from the Lakes and Rivers, {0560} as they have done heretofore, and of remaining in this Country. It is hard to give up the lands. They will remain, and can not be destroyed — but you may cut down the Trees, and others will grow up. You know we can not live, deprived of our Lakes and Rivers; There is some game on the lands yet; & for that reason also, we wish to remain upon them, to get a living. Sometimes we scrape the Trees and eat of the bark. The Great Spirit above, made the Earth, and causes it to produce, which enables us to live. “My Father. We would have detirmined long ago to let you have these lands; but when we have agreed upon any point, there have been people to whisper in our ears, and trouble and distract us. What the Chiefs said yesterday they abide by. They can not look back and change. “My Father. The Great Spirit above, placed us on this land; and we want some benefit from the sale of it. If we could derive none, we would not sell it; and we want that benefit ourselves. I did not intend to speak. What I say is the language of the Chiefs. They came to me, and asked me to speak for them. I will soon be through. I was not in council yesterday because I was not well. I have heard many things said — That we were going to put out the fires of the white people in our country, that we were going to send the Traders out of it, & so forth. But I know nothing of it; and when I speak it is not with sugar in my mouth. “My Father. Your Children are rejoiced to day to see the Agents here, one of whom is to live on Lake Superior, and the other on the Missisippi, to keep peace in the country. We are pleased too that our Agents are here, that they may estimate the value of our lands, that our Young men, women, & children, may go home, with their hearts at ease. We will wait to hear what you offer to give us for the lands, & will then make you our answer. We will depend upon our two Fathers (Agents) to interest themselves for us; and will submit it to them, whether, what you offer us is enough. Yesterday when I came down after the Council, to see you, & told you I was going home, you asked me to wait; but I did not then know that I should be asked to speak to day — and I never wish to hide any thing, when I do so”. “This is all I have to say now; but I may have omitted something — and some one else may wish to speak to you. Wait a few moments, to afford them an opportunity to do this; & then we will wait for your offer. I have spoken my sentiments openly to the Americans now here, as I would do to all of them, and to the English, the French, and the people of all other nations. “My Father. The reason of my telling you yesterday that I was going home, arose from the many reports going back & forth, which I was tired of hearing — and not from any desire to mortify your feelings, or out of disrespect to you. I now give way, as some of your other Children may wish to speak to you”. After an interval of a few minutes Flat Mouth again advanced, and said 145 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters “My Father. I came forward again to speak to you. There are many of your children here from a distance, and among them, one of my relations, who I have just seen. They wish me to speak to you, for them. Three of them, are Chiefs from the Chippewa River; & what they say, is the opinion & wish of the people living there. So, they tell me, to say to you. They have granted a privilege to some men, of cutting timber on some of their lands; for which they are paid in Tobacco, & ammunition, for hunting. They wish you not to break their word with these people — but to allow them to continue to cut Timber. They have granted you all you asked of them — & they wish you now to grant their request”. Governor Dodge “My Friends. I have listened with great attention, to your Chief, from Leech Lake. I will make known to your Great Father, your request to be permitted to make sugar, on the lands; and you will be allowed, during his pleasure, to hunt and fish on them. It will probably be many years, before your Great Father will want all these lands for the use of his white Children. As you have asked me what I will give you for the country, I will now tell you; & will recommend to you, the manner in which I think it ought to be paid to you. {0561} In full consid¬ eration for that part of your country which I wish to buy from you, I offer you the sum of Eight hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000). I propose to give you an annuity for Twenty years, of $20,000 (Twenty thousand dollars) a year, in goods and money, one half in each — or all in goods, if you choose; To apply $3000 dollars a year for the same length of time, for providing you with Three Blacksmiths with their shops & implements, of labor, to be placed at different points in your country — -for Provisions and Cattle $4000 dolls a year — for building Mills, and paying Millers to attend them 2000 dollars a year — For Agricultural Implements — - hoes, ploughs &£ & Farmers to teach you how to cultivate your lands 1000 dolls a year — for schools, in which your Children may be taught to read and write like the whites, 1000 a year — & for Tobacco 500 dolls a year for 20 years. ‘ ‘These are the provisions I propose to make for you. The matter will be submitted to your Fathers (The Sub-Agents) who you have chosen, to consult with, in regard to it. As you have spoken of your half breed relatives, I wish each band of your nation assembled here, to name to me, all the half breeds connected with it; and I will recommend to you, as an act of benevolence, to donate to them, the sum of $100,000. 1 will also recomend that you pay your creditors, such amounts, as, upon examination, may be found justly due to them — & that the sum of $70,000 be applied to that purpose. These different sums will make up the amount of 800,000 dolls. This paper will now be submitted to your Agents for their consideration, & if you detirmine that your Creditors shall be paid, you had better let them take then- accounts also, and let them be settled up to this date. Aish-ke-bo-ge-ko-zhe (Flat Mouth) “My Father. I rise once more to speak to you. We have listened to what you have said to us, & I am requested by the Chiefs to reply. You have mentioned the different sums you will pay us, and have spoken 146 Chippewa Treaty Rights of our creditors. My Father. I wish the lands we are selling to day were mine! If the accounts of the Traders ought to be paid, why will not our Great Father help us to do it? Many of those of our people who owed them, are perhaps long since dead. Your children are rejoiced at the amounts which you have mentioned you would pay them; But wish you to appropriate the sums, that you have proposed to apply for them in Cattle and schools, to the purchase of goods also. “My Father. Your Children wish that all the different sums be paid to themselves, and they will hold closely onto them. As to the payments to the Traders, we will look to our Great Father for his assistance. My Father. If it was my land you was buying, I would, instead of an annuity for only 20 years — demand one from you, as long as the ground lasted. You know that without the lands, and the Rivers & Lakes, we could not live. We hunt, and make Sugar, & dig roots upon the former, while we fish, and obtain Rice, and drink from the latter “My Father. Those in whose behalf I speak, wish you to supply them with goods also, instead of the Mills, that you have proposed to provide for them. They now understand the different sums as you have set them apart’ ’ . Governor Dodge. “I only make the recomendation to you, in regards to your half breed relatives, and The Traders, as an act of kindness to the former, and of justice to the latter. But it is for you to say how it shall be. The whole amount, including the 100,000 dollars proposed to be given to the half breeds, & the 70,000 to be paid to the Traders, will be yours, to dispose of, as you shall direct, on consulting among each other — & with your Agents. Flat Mouth. “My Father. Had I known that such matters would occur as have take place here, I should never have come. If I had thought that these old accounts were to be brought up against us, I would have stayed away. “My Father. Where are our young men, that have hunted {0562} for these Traders — and supplied them with their Furs? They have, when upon their hunting excursions for them, been killed off by the Sioux — and swept away. Where have they got the Fish that they have eaten, and the wood that they have burned? They were caught from our Lakes, & Rivers, and taken from our Land — And they talk to us about paying them our debts! “My Father. If I were to repeat all that has occurred for many years back, since the Traders have been among us, I should have a long story to tell. What I now say to you, expresses the wishes and sentiments of my friends and relations, who are here. The lands to be sold are not mine. I have no claim to them. I live here like a beggar on charity. They divide with me, what they have to eat. “My Father. I never look back, and will hold to what I have said to you. Govi. Dodge. “My Friends If you have nothing further to say now, we will adjourn to meet again early tomorrow, when I shall be fully prepared, & I wish you to be so, to finish our business — And then the Govr. Adjl the Council. Saturday Morning July 29* The Council met at 12 O’Clock N. Govr. Dodge said to the Indians “My Friends. When the council adjourned yesterday you had selected your two Fathers (The Sub-Agents) to examine for you into the amount, which I have offered 147 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters to give you for your country, and the manner of its payment. I have confered with these two gentlemen, and they agree that the amount offered is a fair price for the lands, and approve of the arrangement which I propose in relation to the payments. “There is one subject which it is necessary for you now to detirmine upon. It is, whether you will make any donation to your half breed relatives; & if so, how it shall be paid to them. “I submit that matter to you for your consideration, and will wait until you decide upon it”. The Chiefs sat down to council together, and a few minutes there-after, a large number of Braves, or Wariors, approached the council Lodge, singing and dancing, with their war flag flying, & in their war costume — but without arms. They were accompanied by two or three chiefs, and on entering the CounciT{10}, Sha-go-bai (The Little Six) advanced to Governor Dodge and spoke thus. “My Father. I address myself to you, and wish you to repeat my words to our Great Father at Washington. “We are the Braves of our different bands assembled here, and we wish to say something to you. It is your desire, as we have understood you, and from our fathers here (the Sub-Agents) that the people here should all go home satisfied. The Braves of the different bfonds have smoked and talked together. You now see them all before you. They have not come here to undo what our Chiefs have done — but to ask a favor of you. They take you by the hand, and would like to see your wish accomplished, that all should return home in peace. But they are afraid to return home, if their traders are not paid. They fear they should not survive during the winter without their aid. It is the wish of the Braves that you should pay the Traders; but they do not want to undo what the Chiefs have done. “My Father. You see your children that are here. They are many. But they are only a small portion of their whole nation. “They wish you to give them something more, than you have offered them for their lands. They think it is not quite enough. You have established two agencies, one here, and the other at the Sault de SL Mary. It is now more than Twenty years since you have assisted your children at these places. But those {0563} now before you, have never gone to either of them to beg. My Father. You come now to buy our lands from us; & why do you offer us so little for them. The speaker who told you that we ought ought to be paid for them for sixty years, expressed our opinions. This is the wish of all the Braves here. If you will accede to what has been mentioned in regard to the Traders, they will come forward and “touch the pen” (sign the Treaty). We have told you what we want, and after hearing what is to be granted to us, we will go, & prepare to return home. “My Father. What I have spoken to you, is the wish of the Braves before you. If you agree to what they propose they will be ready to take you by the hand and close the bargain. If not, they will retire and go home peaceably. They will now wait your answer”. Governor Dodge, to Shag-o-bai. “Would the sum of Seventy Thousand Dollars, applied to paying all the demands of the Traders against you, satisfy you all”? *{10> Sha-go-bai is a petty chief, and placed himself at the head of the Braves as a peace maker; to conciliate both them and the Chiefs 148 Chippewa Treaty Rights Shag-o-ba, after consulting with the Braves, and several of the Chiefs, answered that it would satisfy them. Governor Dodge to the Intrepeter “Say to the Chiefs that I have listened to the words of the Braves, and it is to them (the Chiefs) that I now speak. It is the wish of the Braves it appears, that their Traders should be paid. The sum of 70.000 dollars, it is believed will cover all their just demands; & they ask that that amount shall be paid to them. I want them to be satisfied. I wish all to be satisfied, that they may take each other strongly by the hand. To reconcile all, I will agree to pay the seventy Thousand Dollars, in addition to what I have already offered them for their lands — and that is all I will give them. I want now to hear what they have to say upon that subject”. The Hole-in-The Day — evidently under high excitement first addressing himself to the Chiefs said! “Chiefs what we agreed and determined upon yesterday; shall consent to undo, when my head is severed from my body and my life no more — We must abide by it, firmly”. “Braves! There are many of you — but none of you have done what I have — nor are any of you my equals!! — Our Father wishes us to go home in peace.” Then turning ’round and addressing the Governor, he proceeded, “My Father, Listen to me — my words shall be few. What the braves have come and told you must be true, & should be listened to. The Great Spirit who placed us on this Earth hears both you and me. He put us upon it to live. Yesterday in council The Chiefs told you what they would do. They are perfectly content with that arrangement, & they abide by it to day. “Death alone shall prevent the fulfilment of it on my part; And I call the Great Being to witness what I say. We agree to what has just been done, & are satisfied with it” “My Father. The country that we are selling to you is not land that we have borrowed, but that has descended to us from our forefather. The Chiefs now before you are the descendants of those who occupied it many years ago; and some of them live upon the lands we are selling you. They are now all satisfied with what you proposed to them, to day as well yesterday — and the Great Spirit hears it”. Governor Dodge “Chiefs and Braves, I am much pleased to hear that you are all satisfied. You are brethren of the same great Nation. I met you at peace, and want you to be so, when I part from you. I hope the most friendly understanding will continue to exist between the Chiefs and Braves, as well as between them both and their Traders. “It is the duty of the Braves to be obedient to their Chiefs (applause from the Indians). They should listen to them in peace, and obey them in War. Both Chiefs & Braves should respect the Traders and treat them justly and kindly, that harmony and good feeling {0564} may exist among you all; & that you may be serviceable to each other.” Sha-go-ba (The Little Six) “My Father. Your children have listened to you. You have done what is good for us. We know you came here to do what was right, and to keep peace. It is our duty to encourage others to be upright and act justly. I speak to you the sentiments of both the chiefs and the Braves. “My Father Listen now to what they have told me to say to you. It has reference to one of our traders. You came here to do good, and allay bad feelings. I came here this morning with my Braves, and asked a favor for the Traders, which has 149 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters been granted. Let them now give us, our friend who they have in Jail*{11}. (a loud response of assent from the Indians) Governor Dodge, to the Intrepeter, “Say to them that their friend is in the hands of our Laws, and of their Great Father The President of the United States — That neither I or the Traders have any power over him — That he will be judged by the Laws, & his case then submitted to the President, who will do him justice. Shag-o-bai. “My Father. I speak to you again at the request of the Chiefs and Braves. We do not know whether you have a control over all the Traders; but we wish you to aid us, by speaking to them in our favor, as you have done to us, in theirs. There are some of them who have dealt severely with us”. Governor Dodge. “It is my duty in the relation in which I stand to you, to see justice done to you, and so far as it is in my power, I will do it in all things. I hope the Traders will have a proper respect for your rights & that you will respect those of the Traders. We are now done with that subject, & I wish to know your decision with regard to the half breeds. Son-ga-ko-mik (The Strong Ground. “My Father. We are now bringing to a close what we have been so long talking about. In regard to the Half Breeds you will be answered by some other Chief. I speak upon another subject. Look at your Children My Father, & notice their clothing. At the end of the year we wish you to bring such articles for us. We do not know the value or use of money, & don’t want it. See our women too, & the Articles they wear, & bring such for them. Kettles are very useful to our people and you must not forget them. With guns we get our living, & them you must remember’’. It was intimated by some of the other Chiefs that they would prefer to receive, a part of their annuity in money. Pe-The-ke (The Buffalo from La Pointe) “My Father, you have come here and got all your children together as if you wished to embrace and treat them kindly. We approve of what was said and done yesterday, in regard to the half breeds. I am an Indian and do not know the value of money, but the half breeds do, for which reason we wish you to pay them their share in money. You have good judgment in whatever you do, and if you do not act yourself, you will appoint some one else to didide it between the half breeds. “We wish you to do this; for if they. were to divide it themselves they might cheat each other. But if you appoint some one to do it, it will be fairly done. It will be as you please. You will either direct it to be done by our two fathers (the sub-agents) or whoever else you may choose. I have good reasons for saying to you, what I have just said; for at a certain Treaty held heretofore, there were some got rich, while others received nothing’’. Governor Dodge. “My Friends What you have said shall be considered; and your wishes attended to. It will now take some two or three hours to prepare the Treaty & have copies made of it, when I wish you to meet me here again, {0565} will read it by articles, so that every word may be clearly conveyed and understood by you. Three copies of the Treaty are prepared, of which one will be sent to your Great Father The President of the United States, for him to keep, one delivered to yourselves, and the other kept by me’’. *{,1} A son of one of the Traders was killed a short time since by an Indian, who is now in confinement at Prarie-du-Chien awaiting his trial 150 Chippewa Treaty Rights The Secretary then read The Treaty in the following words: “Articles of a Treaty made and concluded at Si. Peters (the confluence of the Si. Peters and Missisippi Rivers) in the Territory of Wisconsin, between the United States of America, by their Comissionor Henry Dodge, Governor of said Territory, and The Chippewa Nation of Indians, by their Chiefs and Head Men.” “Article 1. The Chippewa Nation cede to the United States all that Tract of country included within the following boundaries: Beginning at the junction of the Crow Wing and Missisippi Rivers betwenty and Thirty miles above where the Missisippi is crossed by the Forty Sixth parallel of North Latitude, and running thence to the North point of Lake SL Croix one of the sources of the SL Croix River; thence to and along the dividing Ridge between the Waters of Lake Superior & those of the Missisippi to the sourcess of the Ocha, Sua Sepe, a tributary of the Chippewa River; thence to a point on the Chippewa River Twenty miles below the out-let of Lake De Flambeau; thence to the junction of the Wisconsin and the Pelican Rivers; thence on an East course Twenty Five Miles; thence Southerly, on a course parallel with that of the Wisconsin River, to the line dividing the Territories of the Chippewas and Menomines; thence to the Plover Portage; thence along the southern boundary of the Chippewa Country, to the comencement of the boundary line dividing it from that of the Sioux half a days march below the Falls on the Chippewa River; thence with said boundary line to the mouth of Wah-tap River at its junction with the Missisippi; & thence up the Missisippi to the place of beginning.” “Article 2. In consideration of the cession aforesaid the United States agree to make to the Chippewa Nation annually for the term of Twenty years, from the date of the ratification of this Treaty, the following payments. 1. Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars to be paid in Money. 2. Nineteen thousand dollars, to be delivered in goods. 3. Three Thousand dollars for establishing three Black Smiths shops, supporting the Black Smiths, & furnishing them with Iron and Steel. 4. One Thousand Dollars for Farmers, and for supplying them and the Indians, with Implements of labor, with grain or seed; & whatever else may be necessary to enable them to carry on their Agricultural pursuits.” 5. “Two Thousand Dollars in Provisions.” 6. “Five Hundred Dollars in Tobacco.” “The Provisions and Tobacco to be delivered at the same time with the goods and money to be paid, which time or times, as well as the place or places where they are to be delivered, shall l?e fixed upon under the direction of the President of the United States.” “The Black Smiths Shops to be placed at such points in the Chippewa Country as shall be designated by the Superintendant of Indian Affairs, or under his direction. “If at the expiration of one or more years, the Indians should prefer to receive goods, instead of the Nine Thousand Dollars, agreed to paid to them in money, they shall be at liberty to do so. Or, should they conclude to appropriate a portion of that Annuity to the establishment of a school, or schools among them, this shall be granted them”. Article 3. The Sum of One hundred thousand dollars shall be paid by the United States to the Half Breeds of the Chippewa Nation under the direction of the President. It is the wish of the Indians that their two Sub-Agents Daniel P. Bushnell and Miles 151 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters M. Vineyard super- {0567}intend the distribution of this money among their half breed relations”: Article 4. The sum of Seventy Thousand Dollars shall be applied to the payment, by the United States of certain claims against the Indians; of which amount Twenty Eight Thousand Dollars shall at their request be paid to William A. Ailkin; Twenty Five Thousand to Lyman M. Warren, & the ballance applied to the liquidation of other just demands against them — which they acknowledge to be the case with regard to that presented by Hercules L. Dousman, & they request that it be paid” Article 5. The privilege of hunting, fishing, & gathering the wild rice, upon the Lands, The Rivers and The Lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States. Article 6. This Treaty shall be obligatory from and after its ratification by the President and Senate of the United States” “Done at Si. Peters in the Territory of Wisconsin the Twenty Ninth day of July, Eighteen hundred and Thirty seven. ”{0566 — Note: frames 0566 and 0567 are trans¬ posed on the microfilm.} The Treaty was then signed by Governor Dodge (and great eagerness was evinced by the Indians to see him do so — some of them declining to sign it, until he had, to satisfy them, run the pen a second time over his name) when it received the signatures of between Forty and Fifty of The Chiefs, Head Men, & Wariors present, with the names of some Twenty witnesses appended, and was concluded. The Indians having declined to name a Chief to whom their copy of the Treaty should be delivered for safe keeping, Governor Dodge addressed them as follows: “Chiefs and Wariors: I have asked you to name one of the number of your Chiefs, who should take your copy of the Treaty which we have just signed, & keep it safely as a sacred instrument. You decline to do so, & it becomes necessary and proper, for me to name one. I will hand it to the man who was the first among you to give it his signature*. Note [*Many of the other and older Chiefs, evincing a reluctance, & hesitating to step forward, Pa-goona-kee-zhig, or The Hole in The Day, did so promptly, with his characteristic intrepidity, offered his signature to the Treaty.] He is to keep it for all your people to look at, and know what it is; and each of your Agents will be supplied also with copies. “My Friends I regret that on parting with you after our long conference, I have not Medals to give to all of your Chiefs, and Flags to all of your Bands. Your conduct on this occasion, marked throughout by the utmost decorum propiety, and good sense, well merits something of the kind. But you shall have them when your first annuity is paid to you. These Medals & Flags have to come from your Great Father at Washington. “I will see him soon, and he will furnish me with them for you. I am very sorry too, that I have not more presents to make you. All the ammunition that I have is 10 Kegs of Powder; and 900 lbs. of Lead to be given to the Chiefs, to distribute among the Braves & Wariors of the different Bands. The small amount of goods, which I have, will be fairly distributed through the different Bands. & I wish there were many more of them. Supplies of provisions to take you home, will be im¬ mediately procured, and apportioned equitably among you by your Agents. I will remain here a day or two longer, to see that all that can be done for you now, is properly arranged. 152 Chippewa Treaty Rights “We are now about to part my friends, and it may be some time before we meet again. I expect however to make an excursion through your country next summer when I hope I shall meet many of you. I will recomend you to your Great Father the President, as a good people, who deserve the confidence and friendship of Our Government. And although you are far away from him, and scattered over a great extent of country, he will often think of you, and never forget you. I trust you will now return peaceably to your homes, and not shed the blood of any man. I hope to hear that you have made no attack upon others, unless first attacked yourselves, & in self defence. I repeat to you, that if any of the Sioux strike you, or you them, the blow will fall upon me and your Great Father the President, at the same time. They have been told not to molest you, and you have shaken hands with them in friendship. “I trust that on parting from each other, you will strengthen the grasp, and let it be a pledge of perpetual peace among you. “Your Great Father will see the Sioux, in a short time, at Washington, & will tell them, from his own mouth, that they must live in peace. He is determined that the hands of his Red Children shall no longer be stained with the blood of each other. “I recommend to you, to listen closely to the words, and to be governed in your conduct by the advice, of your two Fathers (The (Sub Agents). They have been selected by your Great Father to be your friends, & I know they will tell you the truth, & advise you for your own good. “The Treaty which we have now made will bring us oftener together hereafter, and I hope always, as friends” — And then the Governor adjd. the Council Sine Die. {0568} 153 Appendix 2 Treaty With the Chippewa, 1837 Articles of a treaty made and concluded at St. Peters ( the confluence of the St. Peters and Mississippi rivers) in the Territory of Wisconsin, between the United States of America, by their commissioner, Henry Dodge, Governor of said Ter¬ ritory, and the Chippewa nation of Indians, by their chiefs and headmen. Article 1 . The said Chippewa nation cede to the United States all that tract of country included within the following boundaries: Beginning at the junction of the Crow Wing and Mississippi rivers, between twenty and thirty miles above where the Mississippi is crossed by the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude, and running thence to the north point of Lake St. Croix, one of the sources of the St. Croix river; thence to and along the dividing ridge between the waters of Lake Superior and those of the Mississippi, to the sources of the Ocha-sua-sepe a tributary of the Chippewa river; thence to a point on the Chippewa river, twenty miles below the outlet of Lake De Flambeau; thence to the junction of the Wisconsin and Pelican rivers; thence on an east course twenty-five miles; thence southerly, on a course parallel with that of the Wisconsin river, to the line dividing the territories of the Chippewas and Menomonies; thence to the Plover Portage; thence along the southern boundary of the Chippewa country, to the commencement of the boundary line dividing it from that of the Sioux, half a days march below the falls on the Chippewa river; thence with said boundary line to the mouth of Wah-tap river, at its junction with the Mississippi; and thence up the Mississippi to the place of beginning. {491} Article 2. In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United States agree to make to the Chippewa nation, annually, for the term of twenty years, from the date of the ratification of this treaty, the following payments. 1. Nine thousand five hundred dollars, to be paid in money. 2. Nineteen thousand dollars, to be delivered in goods. 3. Three thousand dollars for establishing three blacksmiths shops, supporting the blacksmiths, and furnishing them with iron and steel. 4. One thousand dollars for farmers, and for supplying them and the Indians, with implements of labor, with grain or seed; and whatever else may be necessary to enable them to carry on their agricultural pursuits. 5. Two thousand dollars in provisions. 6. Five hundred dollars in tobacco. The provisions and tobacco to be delivered at the same time with the goods, and the money to be paid; which time or times, as well as the place or places where they are to be delivered, shall be fixed upon under the direction of the President of the United States. The blacksmiths shops to be placed at such points in the Chippewa country as shall be designated by the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, or under his direction. If at the expiration of one or more years the Indians should prefer to receive goods, instead of the nine thousand dollars agreed to be paid to them in money, 155 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters they shall be at liberty to do so. Or, should they conclude to appropriate a portion of that annuity to the establishment and support of a school or schools among them, this shall be granted them. Article 3. The sum of one hundred thousand dollars shall be paid by the United States, to the half-breeds of the Chippewa nation, under the direction of the Pres¬ ident. It is the wish of the Indians that their two sub-agents Daniel P. Bushnell, and Miles M. Vineyard, superintend the distribution of this money among their half-breed relations. Article 4. The sum of seventy thousand dollars shall be applied to the payment, by the United States, of certain claims against the Indians; of which amount twenty- eight thousand dollars shall, at their request, be paid to William A. Aitkin, twenty- five thousand to Lyman M. Warren, and the balance applied to the liquidation of other just demands against them- which they acknowledge to be the case with regard to that presented by Hercules L. Dousman, for the sum of five thousand dollars; and they request that it be paid. Article 5. The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States. Article 6. This treaty shall be obligatory from and after its ratification by the President and Senate of the United States. Done at St. Peters in the Territory of Wisconsin the twenty-ninth day of July eighteen hundred and thirty- seven. Henry Dodge, Commissioner. From Leech lake: Aish-ke-bo-ge-koshe, or Fiat Mouth, R-che-o-sau-ya, or the Elder Brother. Chiefs. Pe-zhe-kins, the Young Buffalo, Ma-ghe-ga-bo, or La Trappe, O-be-gwa-dans, the Chief of the Earth, Wa-bose, or the Rabbit, Che-a-na-quod, or the Big Cloud. Warriors. From Gull lake and Swan river: Pa-goo-na-kee-zhig, or the Hole in the Day, Songa-ko-mig, or the Strong Ground. Chiefs. Wa-boo-jig, or the White Fisher, Ma-cou-da, or the Bear’s Heart. Warriors. From St. Croix river: Pe-zhe-ke, or the Buffalo, Ka-be-ma-be, or the Wet Month. Chiefs. Pa-ga-we-we-wetung, Coming Home Hollowing, Ya-banse, or the Young Buck, Kis-ke-ta-wak, or the Cut Ear. Warriors. {492} From Lake Courteoville: Pa-qua-a-mo, or the Wood Pecker. Chief. From Lac De Flambeau: Pish-ka-ga-ghe, or the White Crow, Na-wa-ge-wa, or the Knee, O-ge-ma-ga, or the Dandy, Pa-se-quam-jis, or the Commissioner, Wa-be-ne-me, or the White Thunder. Chiefs. From La Pointe, (on Lake Superior): Pe-zhe-ke, or the Buffalo, Ta-qua-ga-na, or Two Lodges Meeting, Cha-che-que-o. Chiefs. 156 Chippewa Treaty Rights From Mille Lac: Wa-shask-ko-kone, or Rats Liver, Wen-ghe-ge-she-guk, or the First Day. Chiefs. Ada-we-ge-shik, or Both Ends of the Sky, Ka-ka-quap, or the Sparrow. Warriors. From Sandy Lake: Ka-rian-da-wa-win-zo, or Le Brocheux, We-we-shan-shis, the Bad Boy, or Big Mouth, Ke-che-wa-me-te-go, or the Big Frenchman. Chiefs. Na-ta-me-ga-bo, the Man that stands First, Sa-ga-ta-gun, or Spunk. Warriors. From Snake river: Naudin, or the Wind, Sha-go-bai, or the Little Six, Signed in presence of — Verplanck Van Antwerp, Secretary to the Commissioner. M. M. Vineyard, U. S. Sub-Indian Agent. Daniel P. Bushnell. Law. Taliaferro, Indian Agent at St. Peters. Martin Scott, Captain, Fifth Regiment Infantry. J. Emerson, Assistant Surgeon, U. S. Army H. H. Sibley. Pay-ajik, or the Lone Man, Na-qua-na-bie, or the Feather. Chiefs. Ha-tau-wa, Wa-me-te-go-zhins, the Little Frenchman, Sho-ne-a, or Silver. Warriors. From Fond du Lac, (on Lake Superior): Mang-go-sit, or the Loons Foot, Shing-go-be, or the Spruce. Chiefs. From Red Cedar lake: Mont-so-mo, or the Murdering Yell. From Red lake: Francois Goumean (a half breed). From Leech lake: Sha-wa-ghe-zhig, or the Sounding Sky, Wa-zau-ko-ni-a, or Yellow Robe. Warriors. H. L. Dousman. S. C. Stambaugh. E. Lockwood. Lyman M. Warren. J. N. Nicollet. Harmen Van Antwerp. Wm. H. Forbes. Jean Baptiste Dubay, Interpreter. Peter Quinn, Interpreter. S. Campbell, U. S. Interpreter. Stephen Bonga, Interpreter. Wm. W Coriell. {493} (To the Indian names are subjoined a mark and seal.) 157 Appendix 3 A Michigan Superintendency Detroit October 28th 1 842 — Hon: T. Hartley Crawford Com: Ind: Affairs Sir: In compliance with your instructions, and the regulations of the Department, I have the honor to submit the following statement, embracing the general matters relating to this Superintendency, as also to a portion of Wiskonsin Territory — My unavoidable detention in the Lake Superior country, has alone caused so long delay in the performance of this duty — {146} In pursuance of my appointment as Comr. to treat with the Chippewas, at La Pointe, on Lake Superior, I proceeded thither, after a few days delay at this place, on my return from Washington in August last: but owing to the difficulties of notifying the distant and scattered bands, we had arrived some time before they could be all assembled; the interim however was well employed in dividing the goods for their annuity payments, and enlighting the minds of such as had arrived, in relation to the objects of our mission — After the views {147} and intentions of the Govt, had been explained to them in general council, they agreed to sell all their lands between Lake Superior, and the Mississippi, including the islands belonging to them in said Lake, amounting in the aggregate to about 15.000.000 of acres — from the best information we have been able to obtain, the mineral district is extensive and valuable; the copper ore is said to be of the purest quality — Silver ore has been found between Lake Vieux deserts, and Trout Lake, but as no scientific person has examined it, both its quality and extent must for the present remain uncertain. The fisheries for trout, whitefish & sisquet {siscowets} along the shore and Islands of Lake Superior, may be carried on to almost any extent, and must at no distant period, become a considerable source of revenue to our citizens — much of the soil now purchased, is reported both by the geologists and surveyors, to be of excellent quality: but the mineral region bordering on Lake Superior, is rather barren and rugged — Serious feuds and difficulties have for some years past, existed between the Bands on Lake Superior, and those on the Mississippi; these troubles principally arose in consequence of the annuity payments, under the Treaty of 1837; but every irritating cause has happily been done away by the provisions of the Treaty now made; which provides that all shall share equally in the annuities of both Treaties — thus their jealousies and hostile feelings both among themselves, and toward the U. S., have been entirely allayed, which, (had they been neglected,) were likely to break into open hostility, and call for the interposition of the Govt: at great expense and hazard of our present amicable relations. — The Chiefs and head men 159 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters consulted much with me, relative to their long and cruel wars with the Sioux, and before we parted, they unanimously expressed their earnest desire, that the Gov¬ ernment would interfere and effect a reconciliation between them; they pledge themselves to abide strictly by any terms which the President may in his wisdom prescribe. Even the Flat Mouth, Chief of the Pillagers, of Leech Lake, visited La Pointe, to aid in these deliberations, they have of late suffered so severely in these barbarous hostilities, that they seem appalled — they are also kept in perpetual agitation and alarm, which hinders them from pursuing their usual avocations; even the Missionaries and Schools, as well as our own Mechanics and Farmers who are among them, are kept in constant uneasiness — I promised to represent their condition and wishes to the Department, and gave it as my opinion, that their appeal would not be disregarded, as I thought you could rely upon their sincerity — I wrote to Mr. Bruce, the Agent at S*. Peters, on the subject, and requested him to use his influence with the Sioux, to suspend hostilities for the winter, and urge upon them their obligations to agree to a general peace — I trust Sir, that you will not only approve of the project, but use your influence to bring about so desirable an end — there is no doubt in my mind of its feasibility, provided the proper men be appointed on the Commission; and to ensure the durability of peace, it is only necessary, to make one or two examples, should any aggression occur — Both the dignity and honor of our country are involved in this matter; and every dictate of humanity calls for speedy and decided action. Most of these Bands express great desire for Missionaries, and especially for schools, also Blacksmiths, Carpenters, and Farmers, to teach and aid them in the arts of civilized life — After much consultation with the Chiefs, Missionaries and Traders; I venture to recommend the following, as the most favorable stations, viz: L’Ance {L’Anse} on {148} Qui- winon {Keweenaw} Bay, for a Blacksmith’s shop, Farmer and Carpenter, part of the time, (for they should itinerate) — La Pointe for a Blacksmith’s shop, and Carpenter, part of the time — Fond du Lac, for a Blacksmiths shop, Farmer, and Carpenter part of the time — the Sandy Lake region, probably near Crow wing River, for a Blacksmiths shop, Farmer, and Carpenter part of the time — Pokegamo, or Snake River, where the Blacksmiths shop and Farmer now are, is a good station, provided peace be established with the Sioux, but if not, the station should be removed to some place near LaPointe — The station now on Chippewa River, should be abandoned in any event; the Indians are led by it into too close contact with the whites; the facility of getting whiskey there is runious, and they are often accused of committing depredations on the settlers — I would suggest whether it would not be well to have the places named for stations, visited by some judicious person, before they are determined upon; if you think so, permit me to recommend for that duty, Jeremiah Russell, the present Farmer, at Pokegamo, he is a very intelligent and judicious man; the expense of his tour would be trifling, for he would only require an Indian or half breed, acquainted with the country, to accom¬ pany him, and it is of much importance that such points be selected as will enable the Missionaries and Schools, as well as the Government Farmers, & Blacksmiths to settle together. The Indians complain much that their wishes have not been attended to in regard to the assortment of their goods, they annually receive a number of articles which are of little use to them — They earnestly beg that in the future, the following articles only, shall be sent, viz: — 3.2 1/2.2 & 1 1/2 point white Mackinac Blankets 160 Chippewa Treaty Rights — Blue strouds — grey List blue cloth — Fine blue cloth (fancy list) to cost $2.50 @ $3. — common sattinette — domestic plaids — Linsey — Red Flannel — Red Flannel and Callico shirts — 400 N.W. Guns — $2000 worth ammunition i.e. 1 1/2 lbs: of Balls & 1 1/2 lbs: Duck shot, to our lb: of Powder — the Powder to be put up in water tight casks, of 25 lbs: each — 10.000 Indian gun flints — 100 Brass Kettles, none very large — 100 Nests Tin Kettles, of 8 each, none very small; such quality and kind as the Am: Fur C°. procure — 50 yds: of Callico, (high colors) not to cost over 12 l/2cts. per yard — Their own Blacksmiths will hereafter make their axes, besides those sent heretofore were not suitable — the small and fancy articles they prefer purchasing from the Traders, with their money. — I am respectfully Sir, Your obt: Servant Robert Stuart Actg: Sup: Ind. Affairs {149} 161 Appendix 3B Treaty Commissioner Robert Stuart’s Remarks of November 19, 1842 Detroit November 19th 1842 Hon: T. Hartley Crawford Com: Indian Affairs Sir: My anxiety to transmit to you the Supt.cy a/c.s and annual report in due season, must plead my apology for the delay in forwarding the Treaty concluded with the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior at La Pointe, on 4th October last; the claims are now adjusted and I have the honor to enclose herewith the Treaty complete; which I trust will be satisfactory to the Department. The whole amt. of claims laid in, amounted to $244,331 21/100 — and for a time, it was doubtful whether at least $100,000 for debts, and $50,000 for half breeds, would not be insisted upon; but ultimately $75,000 for debts only, was agreed to, and the Indian annuities were somewhat increased, so as to enable them annually, to aid their poor half breed relatives. It is unnecessary to trouble you with further details, as you understand the advantages of the Treaty as regards both our country and the Indians; besides, the whole subject was discussed pretty fully in my late Report. — These Indians are through our late efforts, entirely reconciled among themselves, and highly delighted with the kind and generous dealing of the Government toward them; and if the impression made this summer, should be followed up next season, by the benevolent effort on the part of the Government, to mediate a Treaty of peace between the Chippewas {0196} and Sioux, it would promote the cause of humanity, and greatly advance the civilization and happiness of these hapless beings. There will not in my opinion, be much difficulty in accomplishing this object, if you appoint men who have influence with the Indians. Both Tribes should be made fully to understand, that the very first aggressor shall be severely punished; and full faith should be kept in this as well as in every other respect; for at present, both the threats and promises of the Government, are treated with incredulity, at least - If the Government, (as many think,) is in honor and duty bound to use its best endeavors, to put a stop to the horrible carnage which these Tribes are con¬ tinually committing upon each other; permit me to suggest, that it might be well, soon to issue orders to the Agent of St. Peters, to notify all his bands of Sioux, to assemble there, about the 1st of July next. — And the Sub Agent at La Pointe, should have similar instructions, as relates to all his Chippewas; so that they also may be at Fort Snelling on 1st July. The Chiefs, Head Men and Braves only, need be called, and $6000 might defray the whole expenses. — The Flat Mouth, Chief of the Chippewas of the Leech Lake Country, with about 60 of his Warriors, came to visit me at La Pointe — his main object was to complain, 163 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters that his people are not protected from the incursions of the British Half breeds, of Red River, who every summer hunt and drive the Buffalo away from his lands — I promised to represent the case to you, but need not enlarge, as the subject was fully brought before the Secty. of War in my communications last winter, at Wash¬ ington — I was then sorry that Mr. Nicollets views seemed to prevail, for I know that a serious injury is thereby inflicted on our frontier Indians, and our influence over them in consequence, greatly diminished — if you deem it advisable, please to urge the subject once more on the notice of the Secty. of War. — I have not yet received the funds for the 3rd and 4th qrs. of this year; if not sent before this reaches you, please to procure these in N. York, if practicable, for our navigation of the Upper Lakes is now nearly closed, and it would cost too much to send by land, either to Chicago, or Milwaukie. — Have the goodness also to remit me $1500, contingent fund, as we are consid¬ erably in arrears under this head. Enclosed herewith, are two diagrams of the country treated for &c: — that on wrapping paper, was made by a Half Breed at La Pointe, and is the more accurate of the two — with the boundary of the Treaty, is also traced on it, the boundary of the country reserved as the common property and home of the Indians party to the treaty, whenever they may be required to remove from their present residence. - I am respectfully Sir Your Obt: servant Robert Stuart {0197} 164 Appendix 3C Sketch of Speech to the Indians at La Pointe by Robert Stuart, Comr. September 29.1842 — I am happy to shake hands with so many of my old friends, and very glad to find them all well — Last winter I visited your Great Father at Washington, and talked with him about your circumstances — he knows that you are poor, that your lands are not good, and that you have very little game left, to feed and clothe your women & children — He therefore pities your condition, and has sent me here to see what can be done to benefit you — some of you now get a little money, goods & provisions — others get none at all, because the Govt: did not think your lands worth buying, at former Treaties — By the treaty you made with Gov: Cass at Fond du Lac in 1826, you granted the right to carry away any minerals which might be found on your lands, so that they are now no longer yours: and the whites have been asking your Great Father to give them permission to take away all they can find — but your Great Father wishes first to make a new treaty, and pay you well for these lands and minerals; he knows you are poor and needy, and that you could be made comfortable by getting a little money, Goods, provisions, & tobacco — also farmers to shew you how to cultivate the earth — carpenters to aid you to build your houses; and some more blacksmiths, to mend your Guns, Traps, Axes, & other things you need — and something for schools, that your {0061} children may be taught to read and write, like the whites — I understand that you have been displeased about your present Blacksmiths and farmers, but if any thing has been wrong, and that you will let me know it, I will write to your Great Father, and he will be glad to try and put all right, so that hereafter they may be valuable to you. From what I learn, I fear that you do not esteem your teachers & schools as you should — some of you seem to think that you may always live as you have done heretofore; but do you not see that the Great Spirit is changing things all around you — Formerly all the country down to Washington, and the Great Salt Lake, was owned and inhabited by the Red men — But now the whites fill that whole country, they are numerous as the pigeons in the Spring, this all of you who have been at Washington know: whereas many of the poor Indians have died of poverty and drinking whiskey, and others have been sent west of the Mississippi, to make room for the whites — The reason of this is not that the Great Spirit loves the whites more the he does the Indians: but that the whites have listened to their religious teachers & sent their children to school, so that they learned a great deal more than the Indians, and have become wise and rich, while the Indians remain ignorant and poor. If you will give education to your children they will by & by become wise, rich & comfortable as the whites — I hope you will open your ears and hearts to receive this advice, and that you may soon receive great light — But I am afraid for you; I see very few go to hear religious {0062} instruction from the Missionaries, altho’ they are preaching every evening in the church, and very anxious that you should learn to become wise, from the good Book of the Great Spirit — If you do this, you shall live happy and have no quarrels among yourselves, as at present, nor with the whites — you would commit no depredations, nor have 165 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters persons coming to me, or writing to your Great Father, that you kill their cattle, and take from them things which are not yours; and asking us to pay them out of your annuites. These things are very displeasing to your Great Father, and when he writes me about them, I always feel very much ashamed of my Red children- — These bad and wicked things, your Great Father is determined to have a stop put to; and he looks to your Chiefs and Braves, to set others a good example, and also to aid him, and the Govt: officers, in bringing to justice every wicked person among you-— Then you & I can hold up our heads, and look our Great Father in the face, and he will be able to feel proud of you, and tell other Indians to take an example from his Chippewa Children — - Can I tell him on my return, that you will do all this? Before we part, we must have all your jealousies and quarrels about the Treaty of Sl. Peters, made up — a stop must be put to your decoying persons from each others bands, you should and must live all united, as brethren. The greatest evil among you, and that which makes you most miserable, is drinking whiskey, this you must give up, or become poor and miserable; but I will speak more to you on this subject hereafter. When in N.Y. about 3 months since, I found about 800 of your Blankets, which were left there last year, your great Father was very angry about it, and asked me to send them up with your goods of this year - — they are now here & shall be delivered to you with the other goods, all together— This shows that your Great Father wishes every Agent to so you justice, and whenever he finds out one who does not, he will dismiss him and send you another — does not this show you the Govt: is not to blame when wrong is done to you?— The President would despise to do any wrong to his Red Children, and is determined to punish every one who will.— You find that I came here to talk to you about more things than the purchase of your lands; and whither you sell them or not, I hope we shall take much pleasant counsel together, which may be the means of improving your condition and rendering you comfortable and happy — But in order not to be too tedious in this first talk — I now propose to buy all the lands within the following boundaries— Beginning at the mouth of Chocolate River, running across the Lake to the British line, and up that line to the Grand Portage, or Pigeon River, thence along the Lake Shore, to the mouth of the Fond du Lac, or S*. Louis River, thence up said River about 22 miles to the Am: Fur C°. trading post, near the most southerly bend of said river — thence south to the line of the treaty you made with Gov: Dodge at Sl. Peters — thence along said line to its southeastwardly boundary— thence northeastwardly along the boundary line between the Chippewas and the Menomonees, to its eastern termination — thence {0063} northwardly, along the eastern fork of the Skonaby River, to the mouth of Chocolate River, or the place of beginning — I mean all the lands south and east of Lake Superior, with all the Islands in said Lake — These boundaries you see traced on this map, which I have had made, to help us to have a clear understanding — you must not expect that your great Father is very anxious to buy your lands & will give you a great price for them — I understand that some fools have been telling you Squaw stories about this; but you are not childish enough to believe them — - The principal benefit your great Father expects from you lands at present is, the removal of the minerals which are said to be on them; and not that the whites intend to settle on them at present; but as these lands may at some future day be required, your great Father does not wish to leave you without a home, & I therefore propose, that all the Lands, north & west of the Am: Fur Cos. trading post on the Fond du Lac River, 166 Chippewa Treaty Rights and from the Shore of the Lake to the British Line, including all the unceded lands yet belonging to the Sandy Lake Bands, shall be reserved as a home in common for you all, unless your great father and yourselves shall hereafter agree upon some other place for you to go to-— Go now my friends and consult among yourselves — - think well of this important subject, take advice from your wise and good freinds, but be careful not to allow bad Birds to trouble you— Your great Father now offers to do you good, be therefore wise and improve the opportunity — if not you must expect to suffer the consequences— Remember that you have already given {0064} permission by the Treaty of Fond du Lac, to have the minerals taken from your lands, which shall be done, whether you sell your lands or not; and this is all the whites now want of your lands; still, you must be ready to leave them whenever the President shall require you to do so. Tomorrow morning when the gun fires, I wish you to come again into Council, and state whether the proposal now made you in behalf of your great Father, is agreeable to you, if so, I will do all for you that I can with propriety — you know that we have been friends for many years, and I tell you all, before the great Spirit, that I would be very sorry to wrong you even if I could — - my earnest desire is to befriend you, if you will allow me to be so; but if you refuse, it may be a long time before your great father will again make you any offer whatever — meet me again tomorrow after the firing of the Gun.— Copy Opening Speech at Council October 2nd. 1842. My friends we have met once more in council before the Great Spirit, and let us remember that he witnesses whatever we do or say — It gave me pleasure to leant from a delegation of your Chiefs, that you are now disposed to sell all your lands within the limits pointed out to you in our former Council, and which you now see bounded by a yellow line on this map — it is all your lands between the Mississippi & Lake Superior, south & east of the Am: Fur Cos. trading post, on the Fond du Lac River, and all the Islands in the Lake, to the British line — I am thus particular with you, as Indians sometimes say, that the Commissioners often cheat them, just as you thought about Gov: Cass, who made the treaty of Fond du Lac with you in 1826, until I read your names in the Book, then you were satisfied you had signed it — Most of you know me to be your friend, and a man of truth — the offer now to be made for your lands will I trust be pleasing to you all— I have not come here to make a hard bargain, but to tell you at once all I shall give: this may save us much talk, for if you will not accept my proposals, there can be no treaty — I offer you more now than I intended to give before we opened these councils; partly because I find you are very poor, and the President wishes to make you happy & comfortable, and partly because you are so friendly to the whites, and will always 167 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters no doubt be ready to comply with the wishes of your Great Father — Now listen to my proposals — you shall be paid annually for 25 years $12,500 in specie — $10,500 worth of Goods, & $2000 worth of Provisions & Tobacco; to be paid so that the money, Goods, Provisions & Tobacco, both of this treaty and the Treaty you made with Gov: Dodge at S\ Peters in 1837, shall be equally distributed to every person, whether of the Mississippi, or Lake Superior Chippewas, as far up as the Sandy Lake Band, which is included — this will prevent future jealousies and allay the bad feelings which now exist among you, and make you like a band of Brothers; besides, it is just and honorable, and no good man will object to what is right — you see the trouble we are willing to take to make you all happy and bring you once {0065} more under a clear sky, and hope none of you has such a bad heart as to oppose these efforts — The President, with the Great Council at Washington, and all the good people among the whites, are very anxious for you to improve your condition, and become more like the whites, that you may be prosperous and happy — you shall therefore be allowed, besides what I have already stated, (for the 25 years,) 2 Blacksmiths’ shops, the cost of annual support, including striker, Iron, steel &c: to be $1000 each — 2 farmers $500 each — 2 Carpenters $600 each — $2000 for the support of schools among you; and a fund of $5000 to be set apart for agricultural and other such purposes, and be expended as your Great Father and Agent will direct, from time to time — To pay your Traders debts, so that you shall owe them nothing, $75,000 will be set apart, for your traders claims, to be apportioned by me, as I shall find their claims just; the money to be paid within three years — but no debt contracted before 1822, (when the British traders were excluded,) can be allowed — I hope as you will now have a great deal of both money and goods every year, that you will get no more in debt to the Traders, and never kill or take any thing belonging to the whites, so that your annuities may always be your own entirely — I am glad that you feel so much friendship for your half breeds, and that you wish to make some provision for them; but your Great Father knows and is angry at the way they have always heretofore foolishly spent their money and allowed themselves to be cheated, and forbids money hereafther to be squandered on them: still, as {0066} I wish to do yourselves and half breeds all the good I can, $15,000 besides all that has already been named, shall be paid to you next year, as a present, which you may give if you please, to your half breeds, and as your annuities will be very large every year, you can make them a present from time to time, so as to make them comfortable, and I hope you will always do so, when they merit it — I have now make you an offer which will be very beneficial to you if you accept it — do not for a moment entertain the idea that I will increase a single item of the above, nor give any thing more — you have said that other Commissioners offer first, less than they expect to give, so as to buy the land as cheap as they can, but that is not my way at all — I offer you at once all I intend to give, and hope you are satisfied — Some of you have expressed a wish to treat by bands, & others to keep reservations, but I cannot sanction either — your Great Father will not treat with you as Bands, but as a Nation — you, who know any thing of your own history, are aware that when your fathers first came from the east, they drove their enemies before them and took possession of the whole country; afterwards they separated into Bands, & for convenience took up such hunting grounds as suited them; but this gave the separate Bands no other right to the lands than merely 168 Chippewa Treaty Rights to occupy them for the time being — the whole country is your common property — you may easily see how unjust it would be to recognize the right of property by Bands, for several of your small Bands are scattered over a much larger and better country, than some of your large Bands, and why should this secure them the sole ownership, for are you not at all children of the same great Nation? you are; and it pleased me much to hear from most of your Chiefs, that this is your own general view of the subject: altho’ a few of those who thought they would gain by it, wished to have it otherwise; — you know that treaties are often made when whole Bands are absent, which could not be but on the principle that all your lands are common property, and the majority of the Nation can sell or not as they please, the absentees being entitled to their share of the annuities &c: — It is all right for you however to live apart as you do, in Bands, each choosing their own hunting grounds, this will prevent many disagreements, and make it easier for you to find game and food in small bands, than if you were all to live together — The payments cannot, as some of you wish, be made at different points, you must all be paid at one place, and this is well, for your Agent and the Missionaries will then see you all together once a year, to give you good advice, and you will thus also keep acquainted with each other — . On monday I will expect your final answer; it is now getting late in the season, and I feel anxious that you get home in good time to your hunts — {0067} 169 Appendix 4 Treaty With the Chippewa, 1842. Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointe of Lake Superior, in the Territory of Wisconsin , between Robert Stuart commissioner on the part of the United States » and the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, and Lake Superior, by their chiefs and headmen. Article I. The Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, cede to the United States all the country within the following bounderies; viz: beginning at the mouth of Chocolate river of Lake Superior; thence northwardly across said lake to intersect the boundery line between the United States and the Province of Canada; thence up said Lake Superior, to the mouth of the St. Louis, or Fond du Lac river (including all the islands in said lake); thence up said river to the American Fur Company’s trading post, at the southwardly bend thereof, about 22 miles from its mouth; thence south to intersect the line of the treaty of 29th July 1837, with the Chippewas of the Mississippi; thence along said line to its southeastwardly extremity, near the Plover portage on the Wisconsin river; thence northeastwardly, along the boundery line, between the Chippewas and Menomonees, to its eastern termination, (estab- lished by the treaty held with the Chippewas, Menomonees, and Winnebagoes, at Butte des Morts, August 11th 1827) on the Skonawby River of Green Bay; thence northwardly to the source of Chocolate river; thence down said river to its mouth, the place of beginning; it being the intention of the parties to this treaty, to include in this cession, all the Chippewa lands eastwardly of the aforesaid line running from the American Fur Company’s trading post on the Fond du Lac river to the intersection of the line of the treaty made with the Chippewas of the Mississippi July 29th 1837. Article II. The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until required to remove by the President of the United {542} States, and that the laws of the United States shall be continued in force, in respect to their trade and inter course with the whites, until otherwise ordered by Congress. Article III. It is agreed by the parties to this treaty, that whenever the Indians shall be required to remove from the ceded district, all the unceded lands belonging to the Indians of Fond du Lac, Sandy Lake, and Mississippi bands, shall be the common property and home of all the Indians, party to this treaty. Article IV. In consideration of the foregoing cession, the United States, engage to pay to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, and Lake Superior, annually, for twenty- 171 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters five years, twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) dollars, in specie, ten thousand five hundred (10,500) dollars in goods, two thousand (2,000) dollars in provisions and tobacco, two thousand (2,000) dollars for the support of two blacksmiths shops, (including pay of smiths and assistants, and iron steel &c.) one thousand (1,000) dollars for pay of two farmers, twelve hundred (1,200) for pay of two carpenters, and two thousand (2,000) dollars for the support of schools for the Indians party to this treaty; and further the United States engage to pay the sum of five thousand (5,000) dollars as an agricultural fund, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War. And also the sum of seventy-five thousand (75,000) dollars, shall be allowed for the full satisfaction of their debts within the ceded district, which shall be examined by the commissioner to this treaty, and the amount to be allowed decided upon by him, which shall appear in a schedule hereunto annexed. The United States shall pay the amount so allowed within three years. Whereas the Indians have expressed a strong desire to have some provision made for their half breed relatives, therefore it is agreed, that fifteen thousand (15,000) dollars shall be paid to said Indians, next year, as a present, to be disposed of, as they, together with their agent, shall determine in council. Article V. Whereas the whole country between Lake Superior and the Mississippi, has always been understood as belonging in common to the Chippewas, party to this treaty; and whereas the bands bordering on Lake Superior, have not been allowed to participate in the annuity payments of the treaty made with the Chippewas of the Mississippi, at St. Peters July 29th 1837, and whereas all the unceded lands belonging to the aforesaid Indians, are hereafter to be held in common, therefore, to remove all occasion for jealousy and discontent, it is agreed that all the annuity due by the said treaty, as also the annuity due by the present treaty, shall henceforth be equally divided among the Chippewas of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, party to this treaty, so that every person shall receive an equal share. Article VI. The Indians residing on the Mineral district, shall be subject to removal therefrom at the pleasure of the President of the United States. Article VII. This treaty shall be obligatory upon the contracting parties when ratified by the President and Senate of the United States. {543} In testimony whereof the said Robert Stuart commissioner, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Chippewa Indians of the Missis¬ sippi and Lake Superior, have hereunto set their hands, at La Pointe of Lake Superior, Wisconsin Territory this fourth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two. Robert Stuart, Commissioner. Jno. Hulbert, Secretary. 172 Chippewa Treaty Rights Crow wing River, Po go ne gi shik, 1st chief. Do. Son go com ick, 2d do. Sandy Lake, Ka non do ur uin zo, 1st do. Do. Na turn e gaw bon. 2d do. Gull Lake, Ua bo jig, 1st do. Do. Pay pe si gon de bay. 2d do. Red Ceder Lake, Kui ui sen shis, 1st do. Do. Ott taw wance, 2d do. Po ke gom maw. Bai ie jig, 1st do. Do. Show ne aw. 2d do. Wisconsin River, Ki uen zi. 1st do. Do. Wi aw bis ke kut te way. 2d do. Lac de Flambeau, A pish ka go gi, 1st do. Do. May tock cus e quay, 2d do. Do. She maw gon e, 2d do. Lake Bands, Ki ji ua be she shi, 1st do. Do. Ke kon o turn, 2d do. Fon du Lac, Shin goob, 1st do. Do. Na gan nab. 2d do. Do. Mong o zet, 2d do. La Pointe, Gitchi waisky, 1st do. Do. Mi zi, 2d do. Do. Ta qua gone e, 2d do. Onlonagan, 0 kon di kan, 1st do. Do. Kis ke taw wac, 2d do. Ance, Pe na shi, 1st do. Do. Guck we san sish, 2d do. Vieux Desert, Ka she osh e, 1st do. Do. Medge waw gwaw wot. 2d do. Mille Lac, Ne qua ne be. 1st do. Do. Ua shash ko kum, 2d do. Do. No din, 2d do. St. Croix, Be zhi ki, 1st do. Do. Ka bi na be. 2d do. Do. Ai aw bens, 2d do. Snake River, Sha go bi, 1st do. Chippewa River, Ua be she shi, 1st do. Que way zhan sis, 2d do. Lac Courtulle, Ne na nang eb. 1st do. Do. Be bo kon uen, 2d do. Do. Ki uen zi, 2d do. In presence of — Henry Blanchford, interpreter. Samuel Ashmun, interpreter. Justin Rice. Charles H. Oakes. William A. Aitkin. William Brewster. Charles M. Borup. (To the Indian Z. Platt. C. H. Beaulieau. L. T. Jamison. James P. Scott. Cyrus Mendenhall L. M. Warren. are subjoined marks.) {544} 173 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Schedule of claims examined and allowed by Robert Stuart, commissioner, under the treaty with the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior, concluded at La Pointe, October 4th 1842, setting forth the names of claimants, and their proportion of allowance of the seventy-five thousand dollars provided in the fourth article of the aforesaid treaty, for the full satisfaction of their debts, as follows: No. of j claim. | I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I I I I I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I I 18 I 19 I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I Name of claimant. Edward F. Ely . Z. Platt, esq., attorney for George Berkett Cleveland North Lake Co . Abraham W. Williams . William Brewster . This claim to be paid as follows, viz: William Brewster, or order . Charles W. Borup, or order . George Copway . John Kahbege . Alixes Carpantier . John W. Bell . Antoine Picard . . . Michael Brisette . Francois Dej addon . Pierre C. Duvemay . . . Jean Bts. Bazinet . . John Hotley . Francois Charette . Clement H. Beaulieu, agent for the estate of Bazil Beaulieu, dec’d . Francois St. Jean and George Bonga . . . Louis Ladebauche . Peter Crebassa . B.T. Kavanaugh . . Augustin Goslin . . . American Fur Company . This claim to be paid as follows, viz: American Fur Company . Proportion of $75,000, set apart in 4th article of treaty. . I $50 80 . I 484 67 . I 1,485 67 . I 75 03 . I 2,052 67 I $1,929 77 I 122 90 I $2,052 67 61 67 57 55 28 58 186 16 6 46 182 42 301 48 1,101 00 325 46 69 00 234 92 596 84 366 84 322 52 499 27 516 82 169 05 13,365 30 12,565 10 174 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1 N1°; 1 Name of claimant, claim. | 1 1 1 Proportion 1 of $75,000, set 1 apart in 1 4th article of 1 treaty. 1 1 Charles W. Borup . . . 1 800 20 1 1 ! 1 1 1 $13,365 30 1 1 1 24 1 William A. Aitken . . . . i . i 935 67 25 1 James P. Scott . . . . i 73 41 26 1 Augustin Bellanger . . . . i 192 35 27 1 Louis Corbin . . 1 12 57 28 1 Alexes Corbin . . . i 596 03 29 I George Johnston . . . . . 1 35 24 30 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for Sam’l Ashman . . 1 1,771 63 31 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for Wm. Johnson . . 1 390 27 32 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for estate of 1 1 Dan’l Dingley . . . . 1 1,991 62 33 1 Lyman M. Warren . . 1 1,566 65 34 1 Estate of Michael Cadotte, disallowed. 1 35 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for estate of 1 1 E. Roussain . . . . 1 959 13 36 1 Joseph Dufault . . . 1 144 32 37 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for Antoine Mace . . 1 170 35 38 1 Michael Cadotte . . . . i 205 60 39 1 Z. Platt, esq., att’y for Francois Gauthier . . i 167 05 40 1 Z. Platt, esq., att’y for Joseph Gauthier . . i 614 30 41 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for J.B. Uoulle . . 1 64 78 42 1 Jean Bts. Corbin . . . . 1 531 50 43 1 John Hulbert . . . . i 209 18 44 1 Jean Bts. Couvellion . . . . i 18 80 45 1 Nicholas Da Couteau, withdrawn. 1 46 1 Pierre Cotte . . 1 732 50 47 1 W. H. Brockway and Henry Holt, executors to 1 1 the estate of John Holliday, dec’d . . 1 3,157 10 48 1 John Jacob Astor . . . i 37,994 98 ! This claim to be paid as follows, viz: i 1 Charles W. Borup . . .. 1,676 90 1 1 Z. Platt, esq . . . . . . 2,621 80 1 1 John Jacob Astor . 1 . . . 23,696 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 $27,994 98 1 1 1 49 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for Thos. Connor . 1 . 1 1,118 60 50 1 Charles H. Oakes . . . . 1 4,309 21 51 1 Z. Platt, esq., attorney for Wm. Morrison . . 1 1,074 70 175 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters No. of claim. Proportion 1 of $75,000, set Name of claimant. 1 apart in 1 4th article of treaty. 1 52 1 Z. Platt, esq., att’y for Isaac Butterfield . . 1 1,275 56 53 1 J. B. Van Rensselaer . . 1 62 00 54 1 William Brewster and James W. Abbot . . 1 2,067 10 The parties to this claim request no i 1 payment be made to either without their 1 joint consent, or until a decision of 1 the case be had, in a court of justice. i i i 55 1 William Bell . . . . 1 17 62 1 1 $75,000 00 1 1 Robert Stuart, Commissioner. Jno. Hulbert, Secretary. {545} 176 Appendix 5 Treaty Commissioner Henry C. Gilbert’s Explanation of the Treaty Concluded in 1854 with the Assistance of David B. Herriman Office Michigan Indian Agency Detroit October 17th. 1854 Sir I transmit herewith a treaty concluded at LaPointe on the 30th Ultimo between Mr. Herriman and myself as Commissioners on the part of the United States and the Chippewas of Lake Superior and the Mississippi. On receiving your letters of August 10th, 12th, and 14th, relative to this treaty, I immediately dispatched a special messenger from this place by way of Chicago, Galena and St. Paul to Mr. Herriman at the Crow wing Chippewa Agency trans¬ mitting to him your letter requesting him to meet me at LaPointe with the Chiefs and Headmen of his Agency at as early a day as possible. I adopted this course in preference to sending a messenger from La Pointe on my arrival there for the purpose of saving time and I was thus enabled to secure the attendance of Mr Herriman and the Mississippi Chiefs some 10 or 12 days earlier than I could otherwise have done. I left for LaPointe on the 26th. of August last and arrived there the 1st. day of September — - Mr Herriman meeting me there the 14th. of the same Month. By this time a large number of Indians had assembled — including not only those entitled to payment but all those from the Interior who live about Lakes de Flambeau and Lake Courteilles. The Chiefs who were notified to attend brought with them in every instance their entire bands. We made a careful estimate of the number present {0135} and found that there were about 4.000. They all had to be fed and taken care of, thus adding greatly to the expenses attending the negotiations. A great number of traders and claim agents were also present as well as some persons from St. Paul’s who I had reason to believe attended for the purpose of preventing if possible the consummation of the treaty. The utmost precautions were taken by me to prevent a knowledge of the fact that negotiations were to take place from becoming public. The Messenger sent by me to Mr Herriman was not only trust worthy but was himself totally ignorant of the purport of the dispatches to Major Herriman. Information however of the fact was communicated from some source and the persons present in consequence greatly embarrassed our proceedings. After Major Herriman ’s arrival we soon found that the Mississippi Indians could not be induced to sell their land on any terms. Much jealousy and ill feeling existed between them and the Lake Superior Indians and they could not even be prevailed upon to meet each other in council. They were all however anxious that a division should be made of the payments to become due under former existing treaties and a specific apportionment made betweeen the Mississippi and the Lake Superior Indians and places of payment designated. 177 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Taking advantage of this feeling we proposed to them a division of the country between them and the establishment of a boundary line, on one side of {0136} which the country should belong exclusively to the Lake Superior and on the other side to the Mississippi Indians. We had but little difficulty in inducing them to agree to this proposition and after much negotiation the line designated in the treaty was agreed upon. We then obtained from the Lake Indians a cession of their portion of the Country on the terms stated in the treaty. The district ceded embraces all the mineral region bordering on Lake Superior and Pigeon river & is supposed to be by far the most valuable portion of their country. But a small portion of the amount agreed to be paid in annuities is payable in coin. The manner of payment is such as in our judgment would most tend to promote the permanent welfare and hasten the civi¬ lization of the Indians. We found that the points most strenuously insisted upon by them were first the privilege of remaining in the country where they reside and next the appropriation of land for their future homes. Without yielding these points, it was idle for us to talk about a treaty. We therefore agreed to the selection of lands for them in territory heretofore ceded. The tract for the Ance {L’Ance} and Vieux Desert bands is at the head of Ke, wa, we naw {Keweenaw} Bay Michigan and is at present occupied by them. I estimate the quantity at about 60.000 acres. These reservations are located in Wisconsin, the principal of which is for the LaPointe Band on Bad river — A large number of Indians now reside there and I presume it will ultimately become the home {0137} of most of the Chippewas residing in that state. It is a tract of land well adapted for Agricultural purposes and includes the present Missionary Station under the care of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. About one third of the land however lying on the Lake Shore is swamp & valueless, except as it gives them access to the Lake for fishing purposes. The other Wisconsin reservations lie on Lac de Flambeau and Lac Courteirelle in the Interior and the whole amount of land reserved in that state I estimate at about 200.000 acres exclusive of the Swamp land included in the LaPointe reser¬ vation. In the ceded Country there are two tracts set apart for the Indians — one on St Louis river of 100.000 acres for the Fond DuLac bands and one embracing the point bounded by the Lake and Pigeon river and containing about 120.000 acres. There are two or three other small reservations to be hereafter selected under the direction of the President. The whole quantity of land embraced within all the tracts set apart we estimate at about 486.000 acres — No portion of the reserved lands are occupied by whites except the Missionary establishment on Bad river. The provision going to each Half Breed family 80 acres of land was most strenuously insisted upon by the Indians. There are about 200 such families on my pay roll and allowing as many more to the Interior Indians which is a very liberal estimate,{0138} the amount of land required will be about 32.000. acres. A principal source of embarrassment was the provision setting aside a portion of the consideration to be paid as the Chiefs might direct &c. In other words to pay their debts with. We had much difficulty in reducing the amount insisted upon to the sum stated in the treaty. I have no doubt that there are many just claims 178 Chippewa Treaty Rights upon these Indians. The regular payment of their annuities was so long withheld that they were forced to depend to a great extent upon their traders. There claims they were all disposed to acknowledge and insisted upon providing for their payment and without the insertion of the provision referred to, we could not have concluded the treaty. I regret very much that we could not have purchased the whole country and made the treaty in every particular within the limit of your instructions. But this was absolutely impossible and we were forced to the alternative of abandoning the attempt to treat or of making the concessions detailed in the treaty. There are many points respecting which I should like much to make explanations, and for that purpose and in order to make a satisfactory settlement of the accounts for treaty expenses I respectfully request the privilege of attending at Washington at such time after making my other annuity payments as you may think proper. Hon. Geo. W. Manypenny Com. Ind. Affs. Washington D.C. I Very Respectfully I Your Obt. Servt. I Henry C. Gilbert I Commissioner {0139} 179 Appendix 6 Treaty With the Chippewa, 1854. Articles of a treaty made and concluded at La Pointe, in the State of Wisconsin, between Henry C. Gilbert and David B. Herriman, commissioners on the part of the United States, and the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior and the Mis¬ sissippi, by their chiefs and head-men. Article 1 . The Chippewas of Lake Superior hereby cede to the United States all the lands heretofore owned by them in common with the Chippewas of the Mississippi, lying east of the following boundary-line, to wit: Beginning at a point, where the east branch of Snake River crosses the southern boundary-line of the Chippewa country, running thence up the said branch to its source, thence nearly north, in a straight line, to the mouth of East Savannah River, thence up the St. Louis River to the mouth of East Swan River, thence up the East Swan River to its source, thence in a straight line to the most westerly bend of Vermillion River, and thence down the Vermillion River to its mouth. The Chippewas of the Mississippi hereby assent and agree to the foregoing cession, and consent that the whole amount of the consideration money for the country ceded above, shall be paid to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, and in consideration thereof the Chippewas of Lake Superior hereby relinquish to the Chippewas of the Mississippi, all their interest in and claim to the lands heretofore owned by them in common, lying west of the above boundary-line. Article 2. The United States agree to set apart and withhold from sale, for the use of the Chippewas of Lake Superior, the following described tracts of land, viz: 1st. For the L’Anse and Vieux De Sert bands, all the unsold lands in the following townships in the State of Michigan: Township fifty-one north range thirty-three west; township fifty-one north range thirty-two west; the east half of township fifty north range thirty-three west; the west half of township fifty north range thirty-two west, and all of township fifty-one north range thirty-one west, lying west of Huron Bay. 2d. For the La Pointe band, and such other Indians as may see fit to settle with them, a tract of land bounded as follows: Beginning on the south shore of Lake Superior, a few miles west of Montreal River, at the mouth of a creek called by the Indians Ke-che-se-be-we-she, running thence south to a line drawn east and west through the centre of township forty-seven north, thence west to the west line of said township, thence south to the southeast comer of township forty-six north, range thirty-two west, thence west the width of two townships, thence north the width of two townships, thence west one mile, thence north to the lake shore, and thence along the lake shore, crossing Shag-waw-me-quon Point, to the place of beginning. Also two hundred acres on the northern extremity of Madeline Island, for a fishing ground. 3d. For the other Wisconsin bands, a tract of land lying about Lac De Flambeau, and another tract on Lac Court Orielles, each equal in extent to three townships, 181 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters the boundaries of which shall be hereafter agreed upon or fixed under the direction of the President. 4th. For the Fond Du Lac bands, a tract of land bounded as follows: Beginning at an island in the St. Louis River, above Knife Portage, called by the Indians Paw- paw-sco-me-me-tig, running thence west to the boundary-line heretofore described, thence north along said boundary-line to the mouth of Savannah River, thence down the St. Louis River to the place of beginning. And if said tract shall contain {648} less than one hundred thousand acres, a strip of land shall be added on the south side thereof, large enough to equal such deficiency. 5th. For the Grand Portage band, a tract of land bounded as follows: Beginning at a rock a little east of the eastern extremity of Grand Portage Bay, running thence along the lake shore to the mouth of a small stream called by the Indians Maw- ske-gwaw-caw-maw-se-be, or Cranberry Marsh River, thence up said stream, across the point to Pigeon River, thence down Pigeon River to a point opposite the starting- point, and thence across to the place of beginning. 6th. The Ontonagon band and that subdivision of the La Pointe band of which Buffalo is chief, may each select, on or near the lake shore, four sections of land, under the direction of the President, the boundaries of which shall be defined hereafter. And being desirous to provide for some of his connections who have rendered his people important services, it is agreed that the chief Buffalo may select one section of land, at such place in the ceded territory as he may see fit, which shall be reserved for that purpose, and conveyed by the United States to such person or persons as he may direct. 7th. Each head of a family, or single person over twenty-one years of age at the present time of the mixed bloods, belonging to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, shall be entitled to eighty acres of land, to be selected by them under the direction of the President, and which shall be secured to them by patent in the usual form. Article 3. The United States will define the boundaries of the reserved tracts, whenever it may be necessary, by actual survey, and the President may, from time to time, at his discretion, cause the whole to be surveyed, and may assign to each head of a family or single person over twenty-one years of age, eighty acres of land for his or their separate use; and he may, at his discretion, as fast as the occupants become capable of transacting their own affairs, issue patents therefor to such occupants, with such restrictions of the power of alienation as he may see fit to impose. And he may also, at his discretion, make rules and regulations, respecting the disposition of the lands in case of the death of the head of a family, or single person occupying the same, or in case of its abandonment by them. And he may also assign other lands in exchange for mineral lands, if any such are found in the tracts herein set apart. And he may also make such changes in the boundaries of such reserved tracts or otherwise, as shall be necessary to prevent interference with any vested rights. All necessary roads, highways, and railroads, the lines of which may run through any of the reserved tracts, shall have the right of way through the same, compensation being made therefor as in other cases. Article 4. In consideration of and payment for the country hereby ceded, the United States agree to pay to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, annually, for the term of twenty years, the following sums, to wit: five thousand dollars in coin; eight thousand dollars in goods, household furniture and cooking utensils; three thousand dollars in agricultural implements and cattle, carpenter’s and other tools 182 Chippewa Treaty Rights and building materials, and three thousand dollars for moral and educational pur¬ poses, of which last sum, three hundred dollars per annum shall be paid to the Grand Portage band, to enable them to maintain a school at their village. The United States will also pay the further sum of ninety thousand dollars, as the chiefs in open council may direct, to enable them to meet their present just engagements. Also the further sum of six thousand dollars, in agricultural implements, household furniture, and cooking utensils, to be distributed at the next annuity payment, among the mixed bloods of said nation. The United States will also furnish two hundred guns, one hundred rifles, five hundred beaver-traps, three hundred dollars’ worth of ammuni {649} tion, and one thousand dollars’ worth of ready-made clothing, to be distributed among the young men of the nation, at the next annuity payment. Article 5. The United States will also furnish a blacksmith and assistant, with the usual amount of stock, during the continuance of the annuity payments, and as much longer as the President may think proper, at each of the points herein set apart for the residence of the Indians, the same to be in lieu of all the employees to which the Chippewas of Lake Superior may be entitled under previous existing treaties. Article 6. The annuities of the Indians shall not be taken to pay the debts of individuals, but satisfaction for depredations committed by them shall be made by them in such manner as the President may direct. Article 7. No spirituous liquors shall be made, sold, or used on any of the lands herein set apart for the residence of the Indians, and the sale of the same shall be prohibited in the Territory hereby ceded, until otherwise ordered by the President. Article 8. It is agreed, between the Chippewas of Lake Superior and the Chip¬ pewas of the Mississippi, that the former shall be entitled of two-thirds, and the latter to one-third, of all benefits to be derived from former treaties existing prior to the year 1847. Article 9. The United States agree that an examination shall be made, and all sums that may be found equitably due to the Indians, for arrearages of annuity or other thing, under the provisions of former treaties, shall be paid as the chiefs may direct. Article 10. All missionaries, and teachers, and other persons of full age, residing in the territory hereby ceded, or upon any of the reservations hereby made by authority of law, shall be allowed to enter the land occupied by them at the minimum price whenever the surveys shall be completed to the amount of one quarter-section each. Article 11. All annuity payments to the Chippewas of Lake Superior, shall hereafter be make at L’Anse, La Pointe, Grand Portage, and on the St. Louis River; and the Indians shall not be required to remove from the homes hereby set apart for them. And such of them as reside in the territory hereby ceded, shall have the right to hunt and fish therein, until otherwise ordered by the President. Article 12. In consideration of the poverty of the Bois Forte Indians who are parties to this treaty, they having never received any annuity payments, and of the great extent of that part of the ceded country owned exclusively by them, the following additional stipulations are made for their benefit. The United States will pay the sum of ten thousand dollars, as their chiefs in open council may direct, to enable them to meet their present just engagements. Also the further sum of ten 183 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters thousand dollars, in five equal annual payments, in blankets, cloth, nets, guns, ammunition, and such other articles of necessity as they may require. They shall have the right to select their reservation at any time hereafter, under the direction of the President; and the same may be equal in extent, in proportion to their numbers, to those allowed the other bands, and be subject to the same provisions. They shall be allowed a blacksmith, and the usual smithshop supplies, and also two persons to instruct them in farming, whenever in the opinion of the President it shall be proper, and for such length of time as he shall direct. It is understood that all Indians who are parties to this treaty, except the Chippewas of the Mississippi, shall hereafter be known as the Chippewas of Lake Superior. Provided, That the stipulation by which the Chippewas of Lake Superior relin¬ quishing their right to land west {650} of the boundary-line shall not apply to the Bois Forte band who are parties to this treaty. Article 13. This treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States. In testimony whereof, the said Henry C. Gilbert, and the said David B. Herriman, commissioners as aforesaid, and the undersigned chiefs and headmen of the Chip¬ pewas of Lake Superior and the Mississippi, have hereunto set their hands and seals, at the place aforesaid, this thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four. Henry C. Gilbert, David B. Herriman, Commissioners. Richard M. Smith, Secretary. La Pointe Band: Ke-che-waish-ke, or the Buffalo, 1st chief, his X mark. Chay-che-que-oh, 2d chief, his X mark. A-daw-we-ge-zhick, or Each Side of the sky, 2d chief, his X mark. O-ske-naw-way, or the Youth, 2d chief, his X mark. Maw-caw-day-pe-nay-se, or the Black Bird, 2d chief, his X mark. Naw-waw-naw-quot, headman, his X mark. Ke-wain-zeence, headman, his X mark. Waw-baw-ne-me-ke, or the White Thunder, 2d chief, his X mark. Pay-baw-me-say, or the Soarer, 2d chief, his X mark. Naw-waw-ge-waw-nose, or the Little Current, 2d chief, his X mark. Maw-caw-day- waw-quot, or the Black Cloud, 2d chief, his X mark. Me-she-naw-way, or the Disciple, 2d chief, his X mark. Key-me-waw-naw-um, headman, his X mark. She-gog headman, his X mark. Ontonagon Band: O-cun-de-cun, or the Buoy 1st chief, his X mark. Waw-say-ge-zhick, or the Clear Sky, 2d chief, his X mark. Keesh-ke-taw-wug, headman, his X mark. L’Anse Band: David King, 1st chief, his X mark. John Southwind, headman, his X mark. Peter Marksman, headman, his X mark. 184 Chippewa Treaty Rights Naw-taw-me-ge-zhick, or the First Sky, 2d chief, his X mark. Aw-se-neece, headman, his X mark. Vieux De Sert Band: May-dway-aw-she , 1st chief, his X mark. Posh-quay-gin, or the Leather, 2d chief, his X mark. Grand Portage Band: Shaw-gaw-naw-sheence, or the Little Englishman, 1st chief, his X mark. May-mosh-caw- wosh , headman, his X mark. Aw-de-konse, or the Little Reindeer, 2d chief, his X mark. Way-we-ge-wam, headman, his X mark. Fond Du Lac Band: Shing-goope, or the Balsom, 1st chief, his X mark. Mawn-go-sit, or the Loon’s Foot, 2d chief, his X mark. May-quaw-me-we-ge-zhick, headman, his X mark. Keesh-kawk, headman, his X mark. Caw-taw- waw-be-day, headman, his X mark. O-saw-gee, headman, his X mark. Ke-che-aw-ke- wain-ze , headman, his X mark. Naw-gaw-nub, or the Foremost Sitter, 2d chief, his X mark. Ain-ne-maw-sung , 2d chief, his X mark. Naw-aw-bun-way, headman, his X mark. Wain-ge-maw-tub , headman, his X mark. A w-ke- wain-zeence , headman, his X mark. Shay- way-be-nay-se , headman, his X mark. Paw-pe-oh, headman, his X mark. Lac Court Oreille Band: Aw-ke- wain-ze, or the Old Man, 1st chief, his X mark. Key-no-zhance, or the Little Jack Fish, 1st chief, his X mark. Key-che-pe-nay-se , or the Big Bird, 2d chief, his X mark. Ke-che- waw-be-shay-she , or the Big Martin, 2d chief, his X mark. Waw-be-shay-sheence , headman, his X mark. Quay-quay-cub, headman, his X mark. Shaw-waw-no-me-tay , headman, his X mark. Nay-naw-ong-gay-be , or the Dressing Bird, 1st chief, his X mark. O-zhaw-waw-sco-ge-zhick, or the Blue Sky, 2d chief, his X mark. I-yaw-banse, or the Little Buck, 2d chief, his X mark. {651} Ke-che-e-nin-ne, headman, his X mark. Haw-daw-gaw-me, headman, his X mark. Way-me-te-go-she, headman, his X mark. Pay-me-ge-wung, headman, his X mark. Lac Du Flambeau Band: Aw-mo-se or the Wasp, 1st chief, his X mark. Ke-nish-te-no, 2d chief, his X mark. Me-gee-see, or the Eagle, 2d chief, his X mark. Kay-kay-co-gwaw-nay-aw-she, headman, his X mark. O-che-chog, headman, his X mark. Nay-she-kay-gwaw-nay-be , headman , his X mark. O-scaw-bay-wis, or the Waiter, 1st chief, his X mark. Que-we-zance, or the White Fish, 2d chief, his X mark. Ne-gig, or the Otter, 2d chief, his X mark. Nay-waw-che-ge-ghick-may-be, headman, his X mark. Quay-quay-ke-cah , headman, his X mark. 185 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Bois Forte Band: Kay-baish-caw-daw-way, or Clear Round the Prairie, 1st chief, his X mark. Way-zaw-we-ge-zhick-way-sking, headman, his X mark. O-saw- we-pe-nay-she, headman, his X mark. The Mississippi Bands: Que-we-san-se, or Hole in the Day, head chief, his X mark. Caw-nawn-daw-waw-win-zo, or the Berry Hunter, 1st chief, his X mark. Waw-bow-jieg, or the White Fisher, 2d chief, his X mark. Ot-taw-waw, 2d chief, his X mark. Que-we-zhan-cis, or the Bad Boy, 2d chief, his X mark. Bye-a-jick, or the Lone Man, 2d chief, his X mark. I-yaw-shaw-way-ge-zhick, or the Crossing Sky, 2d chief, his X mark. May-caw-day, or the Bear’s Heart, 2d chief, his X mark. Executed in the presence of — Henry M. Rice, J.W. Lynde, G.D. Williams, B.H. Connor, E.W. Muldough, Richard Godfroy, Ke-way-de-no-go-nay-be, or the Northern Feather, 2d chief, his X mark. Me-squaw-dace, headman, his X mark. Naw-gaw-ne-gaw-bo, headman, his X mark. Wawm-be-de-yea, headman, his X mark. Waish-key, headman, his X mark. Caw-way-caw-me-ge-skung, headman, his X mark. My-yaw-ge -way-we-dunk, or the One who carries the Voice, 2d chief, his X mark. John F. Godfroy, Geo. Johnston, S.A. Marvin, Louis Codot, Paul H. Beaulieu, Henry Blatchford, Peter Floy, D. S. Cash, H.H. McCullough, E. Smith Lee, Wm. E. Vantassel, L.H. Wheeler. {652} Interpreters. 186 Appendix 7 Final Judgment of Judge Barbara Crabb in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Indians et al . v. State of Wisconsin et al., March 19, 1991* IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN LAC COURTE OREILLES BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS; RED CLIFF BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS; SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA INDIAN COMMUNITY; MOLE LAKE BAND OF WISCONSIN; ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN; BAD RIVER BAND OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS; LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Plaintiffs, FINAL JUDGMENT v. 74-C-313-C STATE OF WISCONSIN, WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD, CARROLL D. BESADNY, JAMES HUNTOON, and GEORGE MEYER Defendants, and ASHLAND COUNTY, BURNETT COUNTY, FLORENCE COUNTY, LANGLADE COUNTY, LINCOLN COUNTY, MARINETTE COUNTY, WASHBURN COUNTY, and THE WISCONSIN COUNTY FORESTS ASSOCIATION, INC., Intervening Defendants. *As amended on March 22, 1991, to correct a spelling error. 187 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Judgment is entered as follows: The usufructuary rights retained by plaintiffs as a consequence of the treaties they entered into with the United States of America in 1837 and 1842 include rights to those forms of animal life, fish, vegetation and so on that they utilized at treaty time, set forth in the facts sections of the opinions entered herein on February 18, 1987 and February 21 , 1991 . Also, plaintiffs have the right to use all of the methods of harvesting employed in treaty times and those developed since. Plaintiffs’ retained usufructuary rights do not include the right to harvest commercial timber. They do include the right to gather miscellaneous forest products, namely, such items as firewood, tree bark, maple sap, lodge poles, boughs and marsh hay. The fruits of the plaintiffs’ exercise of their usufructuary rights may be traded and sold to non-Indians, employing modem methods of distribution and sale, as set forth in the opinion entered on February 18, 1987. The usufructuary rights reserved by the plaintiffs in 1837 and 1842 have been terminated as to all portions of the ceded territory that are privately owned as of the times of the contemplated or actual attempted exercise of those rights. Plaintiffs’ modest living needs cannot be met from the present available harvest even if plaintiffs were physically capable of harvesting, gathering and processing it. The standard of a modest living does not provide a practical way to determine the plaintiffs’ share of the harvest potential of the ceded territory. The state defendants will continue to bear the responsibility and authority for the management of all of the natural resources of the state except as provided herein. Defendants are enjoined from interfering in the regulation of plaintiffs’ off- reservation usufructuary rights to harvest walleye and muskellunge within the ceded territory in Wisconsin, except insofar as plaintiffs have agreed to such regulation by stipulation. Regulation of plaintiffs’ off-reservation usufructuary rights to harvest walleye and muskellunge within the ceded territory is reserved to plaintiffs on the condition that they enact and keep in force a management plan that provides for the regulation of their members in accordance with biologically sound principles necessary for the conservation of the species being harvested, as set out in the opinion entered herein on March 3, 1989, as amended on April 28, 1989. The efficient gear safe harvest level shall be determined by the methods described in the opinion and order of this court of March 3, 1989, as supplemented and amended by proceedings in court on March 28, 1989, the court’s order of March 30, 1989 (R. 996) and the court’s order of April 28, 1989. In the event of a dispute in determining the safe harvest level for any lake that cannot be resolved by the parties, the determination shall be made by the Department of Natural Resources. Defendants are enjoined from interfering in the regulation of plaintiffs’ hunting and trapping on public lands within the ceded territory in Wisconsin, except insofar as plaintiffs have agreed to such regulation by stipulation, on the condition that plaintiffs enact and keep in force an effective plan of self-regulation that conforms to the orders of the court. All of the harvestable natural resources to which plaintiffs retain a usufructuary right are declared to be apportioned equally between the plaintiffs and all other persons, with such apportionment applying to each species and to each harvesting unit with limited exceptions as set forth in the order entered herein on May 9, 1990; and upon the condition that no portion of the harvestable resources may be exempted from the apportionable harvest. With respect to miscellaneous forest products, the 188 Chippewa Treaty Rights total estimated harvest is to be apportioned equally between the plaintiffs and all other persons, with such apportionment applying to each type of miscellaneous forest product and to each state or county forest unit or state property on which the gathering of miscellaneous forest products is permitted. The defendants and intervening defendants may regulate the plaintiffs’ gathering of miscellaneous forest products through the application of Wis. Admin. Code Section NR 13.54 and Proposed County Regulation Section 5. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing those portions of Section NR 13.32(2)(f) and Section NR 13.32(r)(2)(b) that include a percentage of “public land” as an element of the formulas for determining the maximum tribal antlerless deer quota (in Section NR 13.32(2)(f)) or the maximum tribal fisher quota (in Section NR 13.32(r)(2)(b)). Plaintiffs may not exercise their usufructuary rights of hunting and fishing on private lands, that is, those lands that are held privately and are not enrolled in the forest cropland or open managed forest lands program under Wis. Stat. ch. 77 at the time of the contemplated or actual attempted exercise of such rights. Plaintiffs may not exercise their usufructuary rights of trapping on private lands or those lands that are enrolled in the forest cropland or open managed forest lands program under Wis. Stat. ch. 77. Plaintiffs are subject to state hunting and trapping regu¬ lations when hunting or trapping on private lands. For purposes of plaintiffs’ trapping activities, privately owned stream beds, river bottoms and overflowed lands are private lands unless and until state law having state-wide effect is changed to allow such activities. Defendants may enforce the prohibition on summer deer hunting contained in Section NR 13.32(2)(e) until such time as plaintiffs adopt a regulation prohibiting all deer hunting before Labor Day. Defendants are prohibited from enforcing that portion of Section NR 13.32(2)(e) that bars tribal deer hunting during the twenty-four hour period immediately pre¬ ceding the opening of the state deer gun period established in Section NR 10.01(3)(e). Defendants may enforce the prohibition on shining of deer contained in Section NR 13.30(l)(q) until such time as plaintiffs adopt regulations identical in scope and content to Section NR 13.30(l)(q). With respect to the exercise of any of plaintiffs’ off-reservation usufructuary rights not expressly referred to in this judgment, the state may regulate only in the interest of conservation and in the interest of public health and safety, in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in the opinion entered herein on August 21, 1987. The following stipulations by the plaintiffs and defendants and consent decrees are incorporated into this judgment as though fully set forth herein: Docket Number Subject Joint Exhibit p-54 from 12/85 Trial Stipulation as to the Boundaries of the Territory Ceded by the Treaties of 1837 and 1842 (Incorporated into Order of Feb. 23, 1987, R. 452) R. 330 Stipulation that the issue of the use of Lake Superior under the Treaty of 1842 shall not be adjudicated in this case, but is re¬ served for litigation at later time 189 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences » Arts & Letters Docket Number R. 911 Subject Stipulation on Biological and Certain Remaining Issues in Re¬ gard to the Tribal Harvest of Walleye and Muskellunge (Incor¬ porated into Order of March 3, 1989, R. 991) R. 912 Stipulation on Fish Processing in Regard to the Tribal Harvest of Walleye and Muskellunge (Incorporated into Order of March 3, 1989, R. 991) R. 913 Stipulation on Gear Identification and Safety Marking in regard to the Tribal Harvest of Walleye and Muskellunge (Incorporated into Order of March 3, 1989, R. 991) R. 914 Stipulation on Enforcement and Tribal Court Issues in regard to the Tribal Harvest of Walleye and Muskellunge (Incorporated into Order of March 3, 1989, R. 991) R. 1167 Stipulation in regard to the Tribal Harvest of the White-tailed Deer on issues related to the (1) Biology of Deer Management, (2) Tribal Enforcement and Preemption of State Law, (3) Sale of Deer, (4) Wild Game Processing, (5) Management Authority and (6) Ceremonial Use (Incorporated into Order of May 9, 1990, R. 1558) R. 1222 Stipulation and Consent Decree in regard to the Tribal Harvest of Wild Rice on issues related to the (1) Biology of Wild Rice, (2) Tribal Enforcement and Preemption of State Law, and (3) Management of Wild Rice R. 1271 Stipulation of Uncontested Facts relevant to Contested Issues of Law in regard to the Tribal Harvest of Furbearers and Small Game (Incorporated into Order of May 9, 1990, R. 1558) R. 1289 Stipulation and Consent Decree (R. 1296) in regard to the Tribal Harvest of Fisher, Furbearers and Small Game (Incorporated into Order of May 9, 1990, R. 1558) R. 1568 Stipulation and Consent Decree (R. 1570) in regard to the Tribal Harvest of Fish Species Other than Walleye and Muskellunge R. 1607 Stipulation and Consent Decree in regard to the Tribal Harvest of (1) Black Bear, Migratory Birds, Wild Plants, and (2) Mis¬ cellaneous Species and Other Regulatory Matters Except as otherwise specifically provided by the parties’ stipulation (R. 1607), defendants may enforce and prosecute in state courts violations of the state boating laws in Wis. Stat. Ch. 30 and Wis. Admin. Code Ch. 5 committed by members of the plaintiff tribes engaged in treaty activities even if the plaintiff tribes have 190 Chippewa Treaty Rights adopted identical boating regulations for the off-reservation treaty activities of their members. Plaintiffs’ failure to enact an effective plan of self-regulation that conforms with the orders of the court, or their withdrawal from such a plan after enactment, or their failure to comply with the provisions of the plan, if established in this court, will subject them or any one of them to regulation by defendants. This judgment is binding on the members of the plaintiff tribes as well as on the plaintiff tribes. Defendants are immune from liability for money damages for their violations of plaintiffs’ treaty rights. Plaintiff Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians is entitled to actual attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed in phase one of this litigation in the amount of $166,722.24, which amount has been paid. Costs are awarded to plaintiffs and to the defendants and intervening defendants to the extent they are prevailing parties within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). This judgment is without prejudice to applications for additional attorneys’ fees for work performed in phase two of the litigation. The third-party complaint against the third-party defendants United States of America, William Clark, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior and John Fritz, deputy assistant secretary of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, is dismissed. The motion of plaintiff Lac Courte Oreille{s} Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians to join the United States of America as an involuntary party plaintiff is denied as untimely. Approved as to form this 19th day of March, 1991, Barbara B. Crabb District Judge Entered this 19th day of March, 1991, Joseph W. Skupniewitz, Clerk of Court 191 Appendix 8 Chippewa Acceptance of Judge Barbara Crabb’s Final Judgment May 20, 1991 TO THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN: The six bands of Lake Superior Chippewa, allied for many years in litigation against the State of Wisconsin in order to confirm and uphold their treaty right to hunt, fish and gather, and now secure in the conviction that they have preserved these rights for the generations to come, have this day foregone their right to further appeal and dispute adverse rulings in this case, including a district court ruling barring them from damages. They do this, knowing that the subject of the latter ruling is currently before the United States Supreme Court, and has been decided in favor of Indian tribes in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts. They do this as a gesture of peace and friendship towards the people of Wisconsin, in a spirit they hope may someday be reciprocated on the part of the general citizenry and officials of this state. GAIASHKIBOS, CHAIRMAN LAC COURTE OREILLES BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWAS PATRICIA R. DePERRY, CHAIRMAN RED CLIFF BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWAS RAYMOND McGESHICK, CHAIRMAN SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA INDIAN COMMUNITY; MOLE LAKE BAND OF WISCONSIN EUGENE TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN DONALD MOORE, CHAIRMAN BAD RIVER BAND OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS MICHAEL W. ALLEN, CHAIRMAN LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 193 Appendix 9 State of Wisconsin’s Acceptance of Judge Barbara Crabb’s Final Judgment Statement by Attorney General James E. Doyle, Jr. Madison, Wisconsin May 20, 1991, 9:30 A.M. Sixty days ago, Judge Crabb entered a final order in the treaty rights litigation. The Federal District Court has issued a set of decisions on a variety of issues involving the treaty. Last week, lawyers for the various bands of the Chippewa tribe involved in the litigation informed us that they would not appeal any of the issues, if the State also did not appeal. After extensive consideration and consultation, Secretary Besadny and I are announcing today that the State will not appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This means that a long and costly legal battle has been put to rest. It allows us to open a new chapter in state, community and tribal relations. This case has been fully litigated. Wisconsin and the tribe have been in court for nearly 17 years. Judge Crabb has heard a great deal of testimony and she has issued well-reasoned, comprehensive decisions. The matter has already been to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals twice. This decision has required an extensive legal review of what the state could win or lose through a possible appeal. The D-N-R, as the client agency, in consultation with the lawyers in this office, has concluded that a further appeal of this case would serve no useful purpose, and might jeopardize the gains we have made. And, I concur. The fundamental question of off-reservation treaty rights has already been decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in this litigation. In 1978, my father ruled that the Chippewas’ off-reservation rights set out in the treaties of 1837 and 1842 had been extinguished. On appeal, in 1983 the Seventh Circuit said my father’s ruling was incorrect and declared that the off-reservation rights were valid. The State asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision and the Supreme Court declined. I know that many people in Wisconsin hold out hopes that another appeal would produce a different outcome. The general rule of law is that an issue once decided cannot be litigated again. There is no reasonable basis for a belief that the Seventh Circuit, or the Supreme Court, would deviate from this general rule and that the outcome on this basic issue would be any different today. Our decision was reached after an exceptionally thorough legal review by many lawyers in this department over the last sixty days and extensive consultation with the D-N-R, the Department of Administration and the Governor’s Office. Wisconsin has won many significant victories in this case, all of which would be jeopardized in any appeal. These victories include: 195 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters 1. The tribe cannot sue the state for past monetary damages ... A claim the tribe has said is worth over $300 million. 2. The treaties do not extend to the commercial harvest of timber. A contrary ruling would cost the counties of this state millions of dollars annually. 3. The state has the ultimate authority to protect and manage the resources in the ceded territory. 4. Tribal members cannot enter onto privately-owned lands to exercise their rights. 5. Treaty rights do not extend to privately-owned stream beds, river bottoms and overflowed lands. 6. The tribe is not entitled to all the available resources necessary to sustain a modest standard of living. Rather, the resources must be shared on a 50-50 basis. 7. The State can impose on tribal members its boating and safety regulations, even when the Chippewa are engaging in treaty protected activity. Thus, the tribe cannot shine deer or engage in summer deer hunting. An appeal would put all of these significant victories at risk. And, for those who doubt that, let’s remember that the fundamental off-reservation rights were granted on an appeal. This is an appropriate time to put this case to rest. The people of northern Wisconsin are tired of fighting with each other. They know that we have far more important issues facing us. Because of outstanding community and tribal cooperation and an excellent job by law enforcement, the 1991 spearfishing season was remarkably quiet. We have had two consecutive years now of improved relations and a real understanding that both sides need to get on with their lives. Rather than spending millions of dollars on law enforcement and attorneys’ fees, I think everyone in northern Wisconsin would prefer to support economic development, tourism and education. I have been impressed with the many ways in which the citizens of northern Wisconsin . . . tribal and non-tribal . . . have been working together to bring about economic development and cultural understanding. The state has a responsibility to support those efforts through words and action. In my short time as Attorney General, I’ve made seven trips to northern Wisconsin on this issue. I’ve seen firsthand community leaders and tribal leaders sitting down together at the same table to talk about how to improve tourism and the economy. I’ve seen tribal fish hatcheries that are stocking fish in off-reservation lakes for all of us to enjoy. And, I’ve heard the good people of northern Wisconsin talk frankly about the ugly image that some in the nation have had of our state. I’m proud of what I’ve seen and the cooperation in the north convinces me even more that it is time to move on. The long legal struggle is now over. It is time to recognize, as the Court has, that both sides have rights. The work of the Court is finished. It is now up to the State and all the people of Wisconsin to build on the relationship that we have begun. 196 Chippewa Treaty Rights Those of us who call Wisconsin home do so because we love the quality of life here. Our natural resources make this state special and the people here are second to none. I know that we still have a lot of work ahead of us. But, I am confident that our children will be much better off for the struggle. 197 End Notes 1. Chippewa mixed-blood writer William Warren refers to Chippewa lands in Wisconsin and Minnesota as “blood earned country” (1849, 20) due to their “ancient bloody feud” (1850, 95) with the Sioux. For source material on Chippewa- Sioux relations collected by an amateur historian from the Chippewa Valley, see Bartlett (1929, 1-66). 2. For information on the government trading houses, see Peake (1954); Plais- ance (1954); Prucha (1984, 1: 115-34); and Viola (1974, 6-70). 3. Jefferson followed a similar approach in the South; see Satz (1981, 9-10). 4. At the Fond du Lac negotiations in 1827, for example, the treaty commis¬ sioners collected British medals and flags and gave Indian leaders and others they chose to recognize American flags and medals (Edwards 1826, 460-61, 473-74; Schoolcraft 1851, 245; Viola 1974, 145; Warren 1885, 393). Interpreter William Warren reflected on the incident years later as follows: At the treaty of Fond du Lac, the United States commissioners recognized the chiefs of the Ojibways, by distributing medals amongst them, the size of which were in accor¬ dance with their degree of rank. Sufficient care was not taken in this rather delicate operation, to carry out the pure civil polity of the tribe. Too much attention was paid to the recommendation of interested traders who wished their best hunters to be rewarded by being made chiefs. One young man named White Fisher, was endowed with a medal, solely for the strikingly mild and pleasant expression of his face. He is now a petty sub¬ chief on the Upper Mississippi. From this time may be dated the commencement of innovations which have entirely broken up the civil polity of the Ojibways. (Warren 1885, 393-94) For a history of the use of peace medals in American Indian diplomacy, see Prucha (1962a; and 1971). 5. Lawrence Taliaferro was appointed at Fort Snelling in 1819, and Henry Rowe Schoolcraft was appointed at Sault Ste. Marie in 1822 (Hill 1974, 162, 166). As late as 1837 Governor Dodge referred to the Wisconsin Chippewas as follows: “They live remote from our military posts, and have but little intercourse with our citizens, and have had no established agent of the Government to reside with them any length of time” (Dodge 1837b, 538). 6. Grant Foreman (1946) has studied the removal of Indians from Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. I have briefly examined the removal of Indians from the Old Northwest as part of a larger study of Jacksonian Indian policy (1975) and have reviewed the situation in the Old Northwest in more detail as a test case of Jacksonian policy (1976). Useful articles on individual Indian tribes and bands from the Saint Lawrence lowlands and the Great Lakes riverine regions appear in Trigger (1978). 199 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Francis Paul Prucha’s account of the removal of the northern Indians during the Jacksonian era unconvincingly argues that the emigration of these tribes was merely a “part of their migration history” and stresses federal paternalism in Indian affairs (Prucha 1984, 1: 243-69). Excellent maps and accompanying text dealing with the removal of the Indians from the Great Lakes region appear in Tanner (1987). For a recent analysis of the contrast between the rhetoric and reality of Jacksonian Indian policy that includes references to Wisconsin, see Satz (1991). 7. In 1911, the Iowa Journal of History and Politics reprinted a version of the treaty proceedings that originally appeared in volume 1, numbers 11 and 14 of the Dubuque Iowa News (1837, 408-28). The 1911 publication, however, is not a verbatim reproduction of the original handwritten copy (Van Antwerp 1837) on file in the National Archives and Records Service, which was utilized in this study (see Appendix 1). 8. The sutlers were civilian businessmen appointed by the War Department to sell items not furnished soldiers by the subsistence or quartermaster departments. 9. The First Infantry arrived in Florida in November of 1837 and departed on August 4, 1841. For information on the Seminole Indian War and the role of the First Infantry, see Mahon (1985). 10. For an example of one effort to open a mill along the Chippewa River in 1836, see Dousman (1836); Stambaugh (1836); Chippewa Chiefs ({1836}); Harris (1836); and Young and Robinson (1838). 11. References to documents included in the Appendices are highlighted in italics immediately after the related text. Frame numbers are provided instead of page numbers for items on microfilm. 12. Anthropologist James A. Clifton contends La Trappe’s comments indicate the willingness of the Pillager and other Minnesota bands to sell the pinelands in Wisconsin, which were useless to them, while reserving from sale the deciduous forests. In addition, Clifton views later efforts of the Chippewas to clarify the meaning of La Trappe’s words as evidence the Pillagers had inserted the qualification into the official record in order to be able to later “dodge undesirable ramifications of the agreement or to reopen negotiations” (Clifton 1987, 12). 13. The mixed-blood population among the Chippewas and other Wisconsin Indians never emerged as so socially cohesive a group as the Metis of central Canada. White traders not only seemed to prefer mixed-blood wives but they also took steps to educate and employ their children (Kay 1977, 329). On the significance of the mixed-bloods among the Chippewas, also see Brunson (1843a). 14. The document has recently been published with editorial notes and an historical introduction by a Canadian linguist; see Nichols (1988). 15. Governor Henry Dodge referred to William Warren as a man with “much influence” over the Chippewas who was “well qualified” to serve as an interpreter 200 Chippewa Treaty Rights (Dodge 1847b, 1086). A knowledgeable St. Paul trader referred to Warren as “the only correct interpreter in the Chippewa nation” (Rice 1847). For additional in¬ formation on Warren, see Babcock (1946). 16. On the value of oral traditions in understanding the past, see Buffalohead (1984, xiv). 17. Strickland, Herzberg, and Owens (1990, 7 n. 13) define this term as follows: “A usufructuary right is the right of a person (or group) to enjoy, use, or harvest something to which that person does not have actual title. This principle is an established part of anglo- American law and is not limited to the treaty-rights sphere. Any person (or group) may reserve a usufructuary right in property they sell or give to another. This usufructuary right is then protected under property and contract law principles. For example, any landowner is able to convey a piece of land and lake to another, but provide in the sales contract that the seller and his heirs will be able to fish in the lake forever. If this is done, under contract and property law principles the seller may use the courts to enforce the promise made between the parties at the time of sale.” 18. For information on Copway, see Smith (1988). 19. For information on the origins and use of the annuity system by federal officials as a means of social control, see Satz (1975, 104-05, 134, 143, 145, 222, 230, 246-48, 276-77, 279 n. 3, 293). 20. Historian Paul W. Gates claims that prior to the 1837 Chippewa Treaty, “the government was well ahead of the land buyers in the negotiations for Indian cessions, the surveying of the ceded lands, and the public offering of the lands” in Wisconsin. By September 30, 1836, Indian title had been surrendered to 18,512,437 acres, surveys completed on 8,679,605 acres; some 4,807,307 acres had been offered for public sale, and the government had sold 1,5051,921 acres (1969, 306 n. 1). 21. There are conflicting opinions on the extent of forest cover and deer population densities in early northern Wisconsin; compare Habeck and Curtis (1959), with Schorger (1953). 22. In 1840 Wisconsin territorial delegate John Doty informed Congress: “The Territory of Wiskonsan has as many lakes within her borders as the Empire State, and bids fair, from her fine forests, her copper, her lead, her iron, her zinc, her incomparable fish, her fertile soil, and, above all, her proverbially salubrious cli¬ mate, to at least equal any other portion of the republic” (Doty 1840, 5). 23. In 1862, a committee of the U. S. Senate reported that the copper region acquired in 1842 contained “the richest and most extensive deposits of that metal yet discovered in the world.” See U. S. Senate Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia (1862, 3). For an interesting account of excavations of early sites and illustrations of artifacts found, see Griffin (1961). 201 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 24. The worship of copper by the Lake Superior Chippewas attracted the notice of many white visitors from the 1600s to the 1800s. For an interesting account of religious ideas about copper held by the Chippewas and the impact of those ideas on the life of a member of the Ontonagon Band, see Peters (1989). 25. Kemble’s factory, the West Point Foundry Association chartered in 1818 opposite West Point on the Hudson River, became so successful in the manufacture of military weapons that it received the special patronage of the federal government (Schulze 1933, 317). 26. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was a Boston- centered missionary society comprised largely of Congregationalists and Presby¬ terians. The Board supported more Indian missionaries in the period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War than any other Protestant missionary society. For additional information, see Phillips (1954); and Berkhoffer (1965). 27. Although Armstrong’s reminiscences contain some factual errors, his com¬ ments about the 1842 promise of continued usufructuary rights based on good behavior is supported by statements from contemporaries, as noted above. Also see U. S. District Court (1978, 1323 n. 1, 1327). For rebuttals of Clifton’s arguments by Wisconsin Attorney General Don Hanaway and by University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point history professor David Wrone, see respectively Eau Claire Leader- Telegram (1988b, c). 28. In writing about what the Chippewas thought of the Treaty of 1842, historian Mark Keller erroneously claims that “there is no mention of dissatisfaction with the terms of the eventual pact in government records. This is not unusual, for what few government records exist were made by government employees, and none mention the negotiations’’ (Keller 1981, 10). 29. Anthropologist James Clifton cites Martin’s letter to support a statement in his text concerning Stuart’s promise that the Chippewas would not have to leave for a very long time (Clifton 1987, 36 n. 43), but he then ignores the letter when he attacks Armstrong’s credibility (Clifton 1987, 36 n. 44). Armstrong’s point is precisely that made by Martin in 1842, so there is indeed “independent’’ contem¬ poraneous evidence to support Armstrong’s claim. Other examples are cited in the text. 30. For information on Black Bird, see Morse (1857, 344-49). 31. In his memoirs, Brunson speaks of his “resigning’’ from office due to “intimations’’ that he refused to be a party to a “palpable fraud’’ Stuart committed by claiming Indians not party to the treaty had agreed to its terms (Brunson 1872-79, 2: 206-07). 32. In 1849, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Orlando Brown referred to the Sioux in Minnesota as “a wild and untamable people’’ who were “the most restless, reckless, and mischievous Indians of the Northwest; their passion for war and the 202 Chippewa Treaty Rights chase seems unlimited and unassuageable; and so long as they remain where they are, they must be a source of constant annoyance and danger to our citizens, as well as to the Indians of our northern colony, between some of whom (the Chip- pewas) and themselves there exists a hereditary feud, frequently leading to collisions and bloodshed, which disturbs the peace and tranquility of the frontier, and must greatly interfere with the welfare of the Indians of that colony, and with the efforts of the government to effect their civilization” (1849, 944). 33. See Satz (1975; 1976; 1979a; 1987; and 1989). 34. The congressional report of the Chippewa agent refers to Pahpogohmony as the seventh location. As a result of conversations with Helen Hombeck Tanner, editor of the Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History (1987) and Chippewa scholar Richard St. Germaine, I have determined that Pahpogohmony is most likely a mistranslation of Pequaming. 35. There has been some confusion concerning the publication of this order. Legal scholars Rennard Strickland and Stephen J. Herzberg and law student Steven R. Owens, who mistakenly attribute the order to President Millard Fillmore, claim it was never published and that it is only available through the National Archives and Records Service in Washington (Strickland 1990, 4 n. 5). The document is available in published form (see Fig. 18). In 1941, attorney Charles J. Kappler included the order in his published compendium of Indian laws under a section entitled ‘‘Executive Orders Relating to Indian Reservations,” where it appears under the heading ‘‘Minnesota” (5: 663) apparently because the order was issued in response to a request from Minnesota Territorial officials as noted in Chapter 4. 36. Luke Lea (1810-1898) had no prior experience in Indian affairs. He should not be confused with his uncle, the elder Luke Lea (1783-1851), who was an Indian agent at Fort Leavenworth from August 1849 until June 1851 (Trennert 1979; Hill 1974, 67). 37. For information on Copway, see Smith (1988). 38. Reports on the mortality at Sandy Lake vary from seventy to nearly two hundred (Hall 1850b; Clifton 1987, 25). A report from the Lake Superior News and Mining Journal reprinted in the East asserted that ‘‘hundreds” died during the winter of 1850-1851 “in the miserable region to which the Government would remove them” (New York Times 1851a). 39. Watrous was eventually removed from public office for political reasons rather than for his conduct as Indian agent (Hall 1853; Clifton 1987, 38 n. 76). 40. The St. Croix and Mole Lake Bands were not provided reservations in the 1854 treaty. Not until the mid- 1930s did the federal government recognize these bands and set aside land for them in northern Wisconsin (Lurie 1987, 21; Danziger 1979, 153-55). 203 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 41 . Manypenny, who served as Commissioner of Indian Affairs when the 1854 treaty was negotiated, later rebuked federal removal efforts. His words, while general in nature, seem relevant to the abortive efforts to remove the Chippewa that preceded the establishment of the Chippewa reservations: “In numberless instances removals have been brought about, not because there was a necessity for them, but with a view to the plunder and profit that was expected to result from the operation” (Manypenny 1880, 134). 42. In passing the Indian Appropriations Bill for 1871-72 in March of 1871, members of the U. S. House of Representatives demonstrated their general disil¬ lusionment with the administration of Indian affairs and their jealousy of the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties by attaching the following rider to a sentence providing funds for the Yankton Tribe of Sioux Indians, “ Provided , That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe” (U. S. Congress 1871 , 566; Priest 1942, 96-102, 244; Prucha 1984, 1: 531-33). The United States continued to deal with Indian governments through agreements (requiring House and Senate approval), statutes, and executive orders, which recognized rights and liabilities virtually identical to those established by treaties before 1871 (Cohen 1982, 107, 127-28). In 1924, when Congress made all Indians citizens of the United States, it again preserved their rights as tribal citizens (U. S. Congress 1924, 253). 43. The contract with William Rust of Eau Claire was renegotiated in 1873 because a counter offer had raised public questions about the terms (Kinney 1937, 255; Shifferd 1976, 22). 44. The petition was presented to Indian Commissioner William P. Dole who logged it with the notation “the same old chronic complaint” and then returned the document to the delegation (Draper {1882}). A subsequent visit by the delegation to U. S. Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin also failed to bring results (Warren 1882). 45. The Wisconsin Supreme Court based its decision on evidence that President Taylor had issued a Removal Order in 1850. According to the Court: . . . There was offered and received in evidence that which was certified to be a copy of an executive order of removal purporting to be signed by President Taylor February 6, 1850. We find no grounds upon which the validity of such a document or its competency as evidence can properly be questioned. That it evidently was not presented and offered in evidence in the two {U. S. Supreme Court} cases just above quoted cannot detract from its validity now when offered and properly received. What was said by way of recital in those two cases . . . must of course extend no further than the facts presented in each. We must therefore hold that any form of title to this land then possessed by them . . . was ceded by the Indians under the treaty of 1842-43, and their right of occupancy, so far as it would interfere with the lawful occupancy of those claiming by patent from the 204 Chippewa Treaty Rights United States is concerned, was terminated upon said executive order of 1850. (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1927, 474) For the details of this case involving the effort of two children and a grandson of a member of the Fond du Lac Band to recover possession of Wisconsin Point — a narrow, sandy peninsula extending northeasterly from the City of Superior in Doug¬ las County into Lake Superior long occupied by members of the band and visited during the summer months by white campers — see Wisconsin Supreme Court (1927). 46. The actual title of the forty-eight-page Wheeler-Howard Bill was “A bill to grant to Indians living under Federal tutelage the freedom to organize for the purposes of local self-government and economic enterprise; to provide for the necessary training of Indians in administrative and economic affairs; to conserve and develop Indian lands; and to promote the more effective administration of justice in matters affecting Indian tribes and communities by establishing a federal Court of Indian Affairs” (Prucha 1984, 2: 957). Congress approved a weakened version known as the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. Hailed by its supporters as the Indian Magna Charta, its adoption marked the climax of a bitter contest waged throughout the 1920s between what one scholar calls “Indian protectors and reformers” led by John Collier and Gertrude Bonnin and “obscurantists and ex¬ ploiters” led by Albert B. Fall and Charles H. Burke (Gibson 1980, 529). For additional information, see Hertzberg (1971, 179-209); Philp (1977, 1-160); Prucha (1984, 2: 940-68). On the Indian congresses convened by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Collier and Indian opinion on the Wheeler-Howard Bill, see Philp (1977, 145-56); Prucha (1984, 2: 955-61); Deloria and Lytle (1984, 101-21). 47. On the rise of Indian activism as a social movement, see Day (1972). 48. The importance of the media during the events at Wounded Knee in 1973 was noted and criticized in Time (1973); D. Smith (1973); and in Schultz (1973). For an example of how the media’s frame of reference sometimes impedes the recording of reality and actually helps to create events, see Landsman (1988). 49. Northern States Power (NSP) had not fulfilled the original terms of its fifty-year lease, which required the removal of Indian graves and homes when the dam was built in 1921. By 1924, NSP had flooded nearly fifteen thousand acres of federal land comprising the Chippewa Flowage, including sixteen thousand acres of Chippewa land on the Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation. Under NSP’s control, the fluctuating water level of the flowage destroyed three Indian wild rice beds that had previously supplied food and significant amounts of income, and threatened the Chippewa communal economy of hunting, fishing, and wild rice gathering in other ways as well (Lurie 1987, 55-56). At the 1989 annual meeting of the Economic and Business History Society, historian James Oberly argued, “nearly seven decades . . . {after NSP received the original lease}, there is strong feeling among the LCO Chippewa that what took place in 1921 and after was truly the crime of the century” (1989a, 13). 50. The Warriors had claimed the vacant property for the Menominee tribe to use as a hospital. They apparently drew their inspiration from the take-over of the 205 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington and the Wounded Knee confrontation in South Dakota. The incident ended only after Governor Patrick J. Lucey deployed the Wisconsin National Guard (Lurie 1987, 54-55). 5 1 . The Chippewas did not seek the broader right of engaging in usufructuary activities on privately owned land (U. S Court of Appeals 1983, 365 n. 14). 52. In numbering the Chippewa court cases, I am following Bichler (1990a). 53. At the time of the nineteenth century treaties, the Chippewas had long engaged in commercial activities and had long served, to use Judge Doyle’s words, as “participants in an international market economy.” As Doyle observed, “com¬ mercial activity was a major factor in Chippewa subsistence.” Indeed, “the Chip¬ pewa were aware of the principles of the Euro- American market economy. They understood competition and the ramifications of the fluctuations of supply and demand, as well as the value of tangible goods and services.” Although the Chip¬ pewas were “clearly engaged in commerce throughout the treaty era,” they “de¬ veloped an economic strategy that incorporated both their traditional economy and the market economy in such a way that they were able, on the one hand, to transact business with non-Indians who were participating in the Euro-American market economy and, on the other, to transact social and political relations with one another in the traditional manner” (U. S. District Court 1987, 1428-30). 54. After Judge Crabb’s white-tailed deer ruling of May 9, 1990, there was uncertainty as to whether the Chippewas were still entitled to the entire safe harvest or whether the fifty-fifty split for deer also referred to other resources such as fish (Bichler 1990b). For Crabb’s Final Judgment, see Appendix 7. 55. The Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1798, provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” 56. The agreements have been made on the basis of biological assessments obtained from both the state and tribal biologists (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission {c. 1988}, 2). Judge Barbara Crabb observed in 1989: The department {Department of Natural Resources} has negotiated a number of interim agreements with the tribes covering the harvesting not only of walleye and muskellunge, but other species of fish, deer, small game, migratory birds, bear, and wild rice. Its wardens, along with other state and local law enforcement officers, and GLIFWC {Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission} personnel, have monitored the agreements to ensure that Indian hunters and fishers have been able to implement their treaty rights. The department has done this in the face of intense opposition from individuals and groups opposed to the recognition and implementation of Indian treaty rights, with only the most modest amount of federal assistance in the form of funding for some assessment projects. It is to the tribes’ credit that they have adopted an equally cooperative attitude toward the implementation of their rights. It has not been an easy time for them, either. The tribes and their members have been subjected to physical and verbal abuse over the 206 Chippewa Treaty Rights recognition of their treaty rights, most publicly when they have attempted to exercise their treaty rights to spearfish, but not only then. Harassment has become a way of life for them. Tribal members have negotiated and entered into a series of interim agreements with the state that have circumscribed their rights to accommodate state concerns, despite their understandable impatience to reap the benefits of treaty rights that they have been forced to forgo for so many years. Each tribe has joined the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission; each plaintiff tribe is also a member of the Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force. GLIFWC has hired trained fisheries biologists who participate in the State-Tribal Technical Working and Biological Issues Groups that have produced the working papers and biological issues stipulations so helpful to the court, to treaty rights negotiators, and to fisheries managers. GLIFWC wardens have participated with DNR wardens and other state and local law enforcement officers in the monitoring and enforcement of the tribal fishing efforts under the interim agreements. Both the tribes and the officials of the State of Wisconsin responsible for implementing the tribes’ treaty rights can take pride in their accomplishments over the last six years. They deserve widespread recognition and appreciation for their efforts. (U. S. District Court 1989, 1053-054) 57. For additional information, see “Fishing in Western Washington — A Treaty Right, A Clash of Cultures” in U. S. Commission on Civil Rights (1981, 61-100). 58. For evidence of the ideological connection between these organizations, see Equal Rights for Everyone (1984). In early 1991, STA attorney Fred Hatch of Sayner was retained as legal counsel by PARR as that organization began advance preparations for night protest rallies at boat landings in the spring. The official PARR newspaper recently stated, “although PARR and STA may march to a different drummer, they are still marching down the same road, at the end of which, we all hope, is equality for everyone” ( PARR Issue 1991a, b, i). 59. Both Dane County Board Chairman Richard Wagner and Dane County Executive Richard Phelps announced they favored ending their county’s membership in the Wisconsin Counties Association as a result of its handling of the Salt Lake City conference. Wagner protested, “it’s inappropriate for any action to be taken to exclude Wisconsin officials whether they are Indians or not.” See Milwaukee Sentinel (1990c). 60. For a comparison of La Follette and McCarthy, see Thompson (1988, 601). On Wisconsin’s handling of the fugitive slave law issue, see Clark (1955), Campbell (1972, 53-54, 157-61, 176-77), and Current (1976, 147-48, 208-09, 219-21). Race relations in Wisconsin between 1940 and 1965 is treated in Thompson (1988, 305-400). 207 ■Wr- Bibliography and Sources Cited Every effort has been made to provide as much information as possible for each citation listed below. References to articles from the Collection of Chippewa Hunting and Fishing Rights Newspaper Clippings in the Government Publications Department at the McIntyre Library of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire are cited as UW-Eau Claire Clippings for brevity. Page numbers from the clippings are provided when available. A plus sign ( + ) after a page number means that the article continues on another unnumbered page in the clippings file. (These clippings are also available at the State of Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau in Madison.) Also for brevity, references to documents contained in John Porter Bloom, comp, and ed., The Territorial Papers of the United States, Vol. 27: The Territory of Wisconsin: Executive Journal, 1836-1848 ; Papers, 1836-1839 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969) and Vol. 28: The Territory of Wisconsin 1839-1848 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1975) are cited, respectively, as Territorial Papers, Vol. 27 and Territorial Papers, Vol. 28. Ad Hoc Commission on Racism in Wisconsin. 1984 Final Report, Wisconsin’s Educational Imperative: Observations and Recom¬ mendations — Indian-White Relations. Hayward: Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. (Depositories for the report include the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College, the Wisconsin Indian Resource Council, the Governor’s Office, and the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire School of Arts and Sciences Outreach Office. The report was reprinted in a special edition of the Lac Courte Oreilles Journal in January of 1985.) Allen, Paula Gunn. 1986 The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions. Bos¬ ton: Beacon Press. Anderson, Kenneth C. 1990 “The Chippewa Treaties — Federal Indian Policy,” Vilas-F orest County Land¬ owner’s Newsletter (January-March): 2-8. Appleton Post-Crescent. 1989 “State-Indian Resources Pact Studied.” October 22. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. Armstrong, Benjamin G. 1 892 Early Life Among the Indians: Reminiscences from the Life ofBenj. G. Armstrong, Treaties of 1835, 1837, 1842, and 1854: Habits and Customs of the Red Men of the Forest: Incidents, Biographical Sketches, Battles, &c. Dictated to and written by Thomas P. Wentworth. Ashland, Wis.: Press of A. W. Bowron. { 1 892} ‘ ‘ Reminiscences of Life Among the Chippewas ,” ed . William Converse Hay good . Wisconsin Magazine of History, 55 (Spring 1972): 175-96; 55 (Summer 1972): 287-309; 56 (Autumn 1972): 37-58; 56 (Winter 1972-73): 140-61. 209 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Ashland Daily Press. 1986 “Thompson: ‘Spearing is Wrong, Period.”’ November 1, p. 1. Axtell, James. 1986 The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America. New York: Oxford University Paperbacks. Babcock, Willoughby M., Jr. 1924 “Major Lawrence Taliafero, Indian Agent.’’ Mississippi Valley Historical Review 11 (December): 358-75. 1946 “William Warren and His Chippewa Writings,’’ Minnesota Archaeologist 12 (July): 40-42. Bad River Tribal Council. 1959 A Declaration of War, November 10. Department of Natural Resources Records. Record Series 27, Box 419, Folder 4, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Bailly, Alexis. 1836 Letter to Delegate Gjeorge} W. Jones, April 15. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 38-41. Baker, Benjamin F. 1838 Letter to the Secretary of War, November 3. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387, Record Group 75. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Bald, F. Clever. 1961 Michigan in Four Centuries, rev. and enlarged ed. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Barron County Chronotype (Rice Lake, Wis.) 1878 “The Indian Scare in Wisconsin.’’ June 27, p. 2, quoting the St Paul Pioneer Press. Barsh, Russel Lawrence, and James Youngblood Henderson. 1980 The Road: Indian Tribes and Political Liberty. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bartlett, William W. 1921 “Jean Brunet, Chippewa Valley Pioneer.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 5 (1): 33-42. 210 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1929 History, Tradition and Adventure in the Chippewa Valley. Chippewa Falls: Chip¬ pewa Printery. Berkhofer, Robert F. , Jr. 1965 Salvation and the Savage: An Analysis of Protestant Missions and American Indian Response, 1787-1862. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Besadny, C. D. “Buzz”. 1989 “Excerpt from a Speech to the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.” DNR Digest (July/ August): 6-7. Bichler, Howard J. 1990a “Three Perspectives on the Existence and Scope of the Chippewa Treaty Rights: St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin and Lac du Flambeau Band of Chip¬ pewa.” State Bar of Wisconsin Mid-Winter Convention Program 2 (January 17-19): 251-56. 1990b Letter to Ronald N. Satz, November 13. In possession of author. Black Bird. 1869 Speech Made in Council at Bad River, September 12. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 394. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Boeth, Richard, Jeff B. Copeland, Mary Hager, and Phyllis Malamud. 1978 “A Paleface Uprising,” Newsweek (April 10): 39-40. Boutwell, William T. 1837 Letter to Rev{erend} David Green, August 17. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Papers, Box 2. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Transcript of original in Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Bremer, Richard G. 1987 Indian Agent and Wilderness Scholar: The Life of Henry Rowe Schoolcraft. Mount Pleasant: Clarke Historical Library, Central Michigan University. Bromley, Daniel W., and Basil M. H. Sharp. 1990 “Bicultural Treaties, Endowments, and de facto Property Rights: Concepts, Lan¬ guage, and Power.” Unpublished paper. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Department of Economics, University of Auckland. September. (Photocopy courtesy of D. Bromley.) 211 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Brophy, William A., and Sophie D. Aberle, comps. 1966 The Indian, America’s Unfinished Business: Report of the Commission on the Rights, Liberties, and Responsibilities of the American Indian. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Brown,, Orlando. 1849 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 30. U. S. Con¬ gress, Senate Executive Document 1 . 31st Cong. , 1st sess. , Serial 550, pp. 937-58. Brown, Ray A. 1930 “The Indian Problem and the Law.” Yale Law Journal 39 (January): 307-31. Brunson, Alfred. 1843a Proceedings of a Council at La Pointe, January 5. Enclosed in letter cited below. 1843b Letter to James D. Doty, January 6. Enclosed in Alfred Brunson to Secretary of War J{ohn} C. Spencer, January 8, 1843. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Re¬ ceived, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Wash¬ ington: National Archives and Records Service. 1843c Letter to Governor James D. Doty, July 19. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Wash¬ ington: National Archives and Records service. 1872-79 A Western Pioneer: Or, Incidents of the Life and Times of Rev. Alfred Brunson, A.M., D.D., Embracing a Period of Over Seventy Years, Written by Himself. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Hitchcock and Walden. Bryant, Ed{ward} E. 1878 Letter to Governor William E. Smith. July 10. Reprinted in Wisconsin State Journal (Madison), July 10, 1878, p. 1. Buffalo, {Chief}. 1837 Speech to Subagent Daniel P. Bushnell, December 10. Enclosed in Superintendent of Indian Affairs Henry Dodge to Commissioner of Indian Affairs C{arey} A. Harris, February 19, 1838. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Sent, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387, Record Group 75. Washington: National Ar¬ chives and Records Service. 1 842 Speech to Subagent Alfred Brunson, October 29. Enclosed in Brunson to Governor James D. Doty, January 8, 1843. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Washington: National Archives and Records Service. Buffalo, {Chief}, Chiefs, and Head Men of the Chippeway Tribe of Indians of Lake Superior. 1851 Petition to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea. November 6. Indian Office Files, 1852, No. 70, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 212 Chippewa Treaty Rights Madison. (Reprinted in Benjamin G. Armstrong, “Reminiscences of Life Among the Chippewa,” ed. William Converse Haygood. Wisconsin Magazine of History 55 [Summer 1972]: 290-92). Buffalo, {Chief}, Chiefs, Head Men, and Warriors of Lake Superior. 1852 Memorial to President Millard Fillmore, June 12. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, Chippewa Agency , Microcopy 234, Roll 149, Record Group 75. Wash¬ ington: National Archives and Records Service. Buffalohead, W. Roger. 1984 “Introduction,” to William Warren, History of the Ojibwa People. St. Paul: Borealis Books, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1984, pp. ix-xvii. Bush, George. 1989 Inaugural Address, January 20. U. S. Congress, Senate Document 101-10, 101st Cong., 1 sess., Serial 13914, pp. 345-50. Bushnell, Daniel P. 1839a Letter to Governor Henry Dodge, February 13. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 1196-197. 1839b Report of Subagent at La Pointe, August 24. U. S. Congress, Senate Document 1. 26 Cong., 1 sess.. Serial 354, pp. 488-89. 1840a Letter to Governor Henry Dodge, July 15, 1840. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 207-09. {1840b} Extract from the Report of the Sub-Agent at La Pointe, {Fall}. U. S. Congress, Senate Document 7. 26th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 375, pp. 339-40. Busiahn, Thomas. 1989a Biological Impact of the Chippewa Off -Reservation Treaty Harvest, 1983-1989. Odanah, Wis.: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. 1989b “Fisheries Co-Management: A Response to Legal, Social and Fiscal Imperatives.” Fisheries Co-Management: Symposium Sponsored by the Native Peoples' Fish¬ eries Committee at the 117th Annual Meeting, ed. Bruce L. Smith and Pamela Burt. Odanah, Wis.: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, pp. 1-6. Busiahn, Thomas, Neil Kmiecik, Jim Thannum, and Jim Zorn. 1989 1989 Chippewa Spearing Season — Separating Myth from Fact. Odanah, Wis.: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Campbell, S. W. 1898 Report of La Pointe Agency, August 18. U. S. Congress, House Document 5, 55th Cong., 3d sess., Serial 3757, pp. 314-20. 213 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters Campbell, Stanley. 1972 The Slave Catchers : Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, 1850-1860. New York: Norton Library Paperbacks. Capital Times (Madison). 1972 “High Court Rules Indians Not Bound by Fishing Law.” January 7. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1973 “State Indians, Beware!” May 17. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1974 “Indian Suit Cites Treaty in Support of Rights.” September 6. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1986a “Violence Could Arise Between Chippewas, Whites, FBI Warns.” April 10. UW- Eau Claire Clippings. 1986b “Spear Fishing is Symbol of Tradition — and Change.” April 24, pp. 25, 30. 1989a “If More People Knew Indians’ History, Maybe They Would Understand.” May 2. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989b “Governor Thwarted; Crabb OKs Continued Spearing; State to Appeal.” May 6. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989c “More News on the Spearfishing Front.” May 6. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989d “Hanaway Sets Proper Tone on Treaties.” June 1. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989e “Spearing Effect Deflated.” October 12, p. 25. 1990a “County Reps Seek Policy on Indian Claims.” January 2. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990b “Inouye Riding to Rescue State from its Rednecks.” March 9. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. {Cass, Lewis}. 1830 “Removal of the Indians: Documents and Proceedings Relating to the Formation and Progress of a Board in the City of New York, for the Emigration, Preservation, and Improvement of the Aborigines of America.” North American Review 30 (January): 62-121. Chicago Tribune. 1987 “It’s Happy Hunting for Indians.” March 1, Section 1, p. 10+ , UW-Eau Claire Clippings. Chippewa Chiefs. {1836} Petition to President {Andrew Jackson}, {May 10}. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 53-55. 214 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1843 Petition for the Restoration of the Farm & Shop to Chippewa Falls, September 12. Enclosed in Alfred Brunson to John D. Doty, September 30, 1843. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received , La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Chippewas of Lake Superior. 1864 Statement of the Treaties Between the Chippewas and the United States, from 1825 to 1864, from the Chippewa Standpoint, as Presented to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Small Collections-Oversize , File 40, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Christian Science Monitor. 1987 “Indian Treaty Rights Under Attack.” September 8, pp. 1, 6. 1990 “Legal Uprising Over Indians.” January 22, pp. 1, 2. Citizens of Lake Superior. 1852 Petition to President Millard Fillmore, June 4. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, Chippewa Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 149, Record Group 75. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Citizens of the Pineries. {1840} Memorial to Congress, {January 1}. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 105-06. Clark, James I. 1955 Wisconsin Defies the Fugitive Slave Law: The Case of Sherman M. Booth. Mad¬ ison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Cleland, Charles. 1985 “Testimony.” Stenographic Transcript by U. S. District Court Official Court Reporter of the Court Trial of Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. vs. State of Wisconsin. Madison, Wis. Vol 3. Third Day, December 11. (Photocopy courtesy of attorney Howard Bichler.) Clifton, James A. 1987 “Wisconsin Death March: Explaining the Extremes in Old Northwest Indian Removal.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 75: 1-39. Cohen, Felix S. 1953 “The Erosion of Indian Rights, 1950-1953: A Case Study in Bureaucracy.” Yale Law Journal 62 (February): 348-90. 1982 Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Ed. Rennard Strickland et al. 1942; Rev. ed. Charlottesville, Va.: Michie/Bobbs-Merrill. 215 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Continental Congress. 1787 Northwest Ordinance. July 13. Reprinted in Francis Paul Prucha, ed. Documents of United States Indian Policy. 2nd ed. , expanded. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990. 9-10. Cooper, John, and Doug Stange. 1990 “Indian Rights — Indian Wrongs?” In-Fisherman (February): 42-54. Cop way, George. 1847 The Life, History, and Travels of Kah-Ge-Ga-Gah-Bowh, (George Copway) . . . Written by Himself. 6th ed. Philadelphia: James Harmstead. 1856 Letter to Editor, September 5. New York Times, September 8, pp. 3. Copway’ s American Indian. 1851 “An Account of the Operation of the A.B.C.C.F.M. {sic} Among the North American Indians: Removal of the Indians.” 1 (July 26): 1. Cornell, Stephen. 1986 “The New Indian Politics.” Wilson Quarterly (New Year’s): 113-31. Crawford, T. Hartley. 1842 Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 16. U. S. Congress, Senate Document 1. 27th Cong., 3d sess., Serial 413, pp. 377-88. 1843 Letter to Alfred Brunson, April 3. Records of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Part 9: Territorial Papers of the United States, The Territory of Wisconsin, 1836-1848, Supplement. Microcopy 236, Roll 44. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Cunningham, Walter. 1844 Letter from Special Agent for Lake Superior Copper Mines to Secretary of War William Wilkins, April 11. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 676-78. Current, Richard N. 1976 The History of Wisconsin, Vol. 2: The Civil War Era, 1848-1873, ed. William F. Thompson. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Danziger, Edmund J., Jr. 1973 “They Would Not Be Moved: The Chippewa Treaty of 1854.” Minnesota History 43 (Spring): 175-85. 1979 The Chippewas of Lake Superior. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 216 Chippewa Treaty Rights Day, David. 1873 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Edward P. Smith, March 31. Records of the Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 395, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Day, Robert C. 1972 “The Emergence of Activism as a Social Movement.” Native Americans Today: Sociological Perspectives, ed. Howard M. Bahr, Bruce A. Chadwick, and Robert C. Day. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 506-32. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Clifford Lytle. 1984 The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon Books. Detroit Daily Free Press. 1848 “Important Movement Among the Chippewa Indians.” November 28, p. 2, citing St. Louis Republican. 1849 “The Chippewa Indians and the President.” February 19, p. 2. 1850 “Indians to be Removed from Lake Superior.” June 1, p. 2, citing Lake Superior Journal. 1851 “Arrangements to Remove the Chippewa Indians.” June 27, p. 2, citing Lake Superior Journal. Dodge, Henry. 1836 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey Allen Harris, November 23. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 672-74. 1837a Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey Allen Harris, August 7. Documents Relating to the Negotiations of Ratified and Unratified Treaties with Various Indian Tribes, 1801-1869, Microcopy T494, Roll 3, Record Group 75. Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1837b Report to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey Allen Harris, {Fall}. U. S. Con¬ gress, Senate Document 1. 25th Cong., 2nd sess.. Serial 314, pp. 535-38. 1838a Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey Allen Harris, February 17, with enclosure of Letter from a Chippewa Chief dated January 22, 1838. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1838b Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs C{arey} A. Harris, February 19, 1838. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 217 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 1838c Message to the Territorial Council and House of Representatives, June 11. Ter¬ ritorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 156-58. 1838d Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey Allen Harris, July 6. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 1029-031. 1838e Message to the Legislative Assembly, November 27. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 165-77. 1839 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, February 8. Ter¬ ritorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 1185-187. 1847a Letter to Commissioner William Medill, March 26. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 1054-056. 1847b Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Medill, July 22. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 1085-086. Doty, John D. 1840 Report of the Wiskonsan Delegate to the House of Representatives, July 1. U. S. Congress, House Report 96, 26th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 388, 1-5. 1843 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, March 21. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Dousman, Hercules L. 1836 Letter to Colonel Z{achary} Taylor, August 9. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 645-46. Draper, Lyman C. {1882} Complaints of the Chippewas: Statement about Paper Written by George P. War¬ ren. Small Collections-Oversize, File 40, Archives Division, State Historical So¬ ciety of Wisconsin, Madison. Druke, Mary A. 1985 “Iroquois Treaties: Common Forms, Varying Interpretations.’’ The History and Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six Nations and Their League, ed. Francis Jennings et al. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press, pp. 85-98. Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. 1984a “Indian Rights Meeting Brings Comment.’’ August 16, p. 7B. 1984b “Churches Asked to Fight Indian Racism.’’ October 30, pp. 1A, 9A. 1987a “Speaker Calls for Annulment of Treaties.’’ March 29, pp. 1A, 2A. 218 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1987b “Delegates Protest Indian Treaty Rights as Unfair.” March 30, pp. 1A, 2A. 1988a “Historian Says Facts Ignored: Indians Lost Spearing Rights Over a Century Ago, Professor Says.” May 2, pp. 1A, 2A. 1988b “Hanaway: Private Treaty Talks Not Right,” May 7, p. 1A. 1988c “Professor Denounces Treaty Myths.” May 16, p. 8A. 1989 “Time Travel: Research Can Reveal History of Treaties.” October 15, pp. 1A, 10A. 1990a “Counties Association Criticized for Role on Treaty Rights.” January 16, pp. 3A, 6A. 1990b “Study: Racism Main Factor in Treaty Tension.” January 18, p. 1A. 1990c “Neighbors Practice Tolerance, Respect.” January 29, pp. 1A, 2A. 1990d “Spearfishing Important to Culture, Maulson Says.” February 4, pp. 1A, 2A. 1990e “ ‘Simple’ Treaty Solution Starts with Snacks.” March 15, pp. IB, 2B. 1990f “Equal Rights: PARR Co-Founder Explains Stand.” April 8, pp. 1A, 2A. 1990g “Chippewa Women Face Fear at Landings.” April 21, pp. 1A, 2A. 1990h “Crabb to Hear Arguments Regarding Timber Rights.” June 14, p. IB. 1990i “Judge: Bands Can’t Sue Over Denial of Rights” October 12, pp. 1A, 2A. 1990j “Official Says Ruling Fits into State Plan.” October 12, pp. 1A, 2A. 1991 “Timber Cutting Not in the Rights.” February 24, p. 3C. Edwards, A{braham}. 1826 Copy of the Journal of Proceedings under the Treaty of Fond Du Lac, as Noted by the Secretary, August 2-7. Thomas L. McKenney, Sketches of a Tour to the Lakes, of the Character and Customs of the Chippeway Indians, and of Incidents Connected with the Treaty of Fond Du Lac. Baltimore: Fielding, Lucas, Jr., Appendix, pp. 457-76. Elliott, Richard R. 1896 “The Chippewas of Lake Superior.” American Catholic Quarterly Review 21 (82): 354-73. Equal Rights for Everyone. 1984 Transcript of Meeting Held at Sawyer County Courthouse, Hayward, Wisconsin, February 10. (Courtesy of the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Tribal Governing Board.) 219 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters ERC Conscience (Milwaukee, Wis.) 1988 “Equal Rights Council and the Network.” 1 (Summer): 1-2. Erdman, Joyce M. 1966 Handbook on Wisconsin Indians. Madison: Governor’s Commission on Human Rights with the Cooperation of the University of Wisconsin Extension. Evers, Martin A., and Daniel W. Bromley. 1989 “Bicultural Negotiations over Natural Resources: The Chippewa Tribe Versus the State of Wisconsin.” Unpublished paper. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison. October 26. (Photocopy courtesy of authors.) Fillmore, Millard. 1852a Endorsement on Letter of Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea to Secretary of Interior Alexander H. H. Stuart, May 6. Indian Office Files, No. 75, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. 1852b Third Annual Message to Congress, December 6. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, comp. James D. Richardson. 10 vols. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1900. 5: 163-82. Fixico, Donald L. 1987 “Chippewa Fishing and Hunting Rights and the Voigt Decision.” An Anthology of Western Great Lakes Indian History, ed. Donald L. Fixico. Milwaukee: Uni¬ versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee American Indian Studies Program, pp. 481-519. Foreman, Grant. 1946 The Last Trek of the Indians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Forsyth, George A. 1878 Letter to General P{hillip} H. Sheridan, June 23. reprinted in Barron County Chronotype (Rice Lake, Wis.), July 4, 1878, p. 1. Fries, Robert F. 1951 Empire in Pine: The Story of Lumbering in Wisconsin, 1830-1900. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Gaines, Edmund P. 1843 Letter to Adjutant General Roger Jones, August 24. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 220 Chippewa Treaty Rights Gates, Paul W. 1969 ‘ ‘Frontier Land Business in Wisconsin.’ ’ Wisconsin Magazine of History 53 (Sum¬ mer): 306-27. Gedicks, Al. 1985 “Multinational Corporations and Internal Colonialism in the Advanced Capitalist Countries: The New Resource Wars.” Political Power and Social Theory: A Research Annual, ed. Maurice Zeitlin. Vol. 5. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, Inc., 1985, pp. 169-205. 1989 “Chippewa Treaties Could Prevent Ecological Disaster.” Green Net 2 (October): 1, 8. Ghent, W. J. 1936 “Robert Stuart.” Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Malone. Vol. 18. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 175-76. Gibson, Arrell Morgan. 1980 The American Indian: Prehistory to the Present. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company. Giddings, Joshua R. 1850 Letter to President Zachary Taylor, July 30, 1850, forwarding Petition of Citizens of the United States on the South Coast of Lake Superior and bearing an En¬ dorsement by the Secretary of Interior Ad Interim, August 3, 1850. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 390, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Gilbert, Henry C. 1854 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Geo{rge} W. Manypenny, October 17. Documents Relating to the Negotiation of Ratified and Unratified Treaties with Various Indian Tribes, 1801-1869, Microcopy T494, Roll 5, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Glad, Paul W. 1990 The History of Wisconsin, Vol. 5: War, A New Era, and Depression, 1914-1940, ed. William F. Thompson. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. {c.1988} Chippewa Treaty Rights: Hunting . . .Fishing. . . Gathering on Ceded Territory . Odanah, Wis.: The Commission. {c. 1989} Chippewa Treaty Rights: A Guide to Understanding Treaty Rights, Hunting . . . Fishing . . . Gathering . . ., A Chippewa Tradition. Odanah, Wis.: The Commission. 221 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Green Bay Advocate. 1849a “The Chippewa Indians at Washington,’’ March 22, p. 2. 1849b “The Chippewa Delegation,’’ April 5, p. 2. Green Bay Press Gazette. 1987a “Kasten Links Support of Aid to Chippewa Fishing Pact.” July 15. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1987b “Indians Agree to Treaty Talks.” August 11. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989 “Tribal Official Hails Treaty Deal.” September 27, pp. 1A, 2A. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990 “Trial to Decide if Indians Have Special Rights to State Timber.” February 5. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. Greschner, Larry. 1987 Statement of Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources, PARR National Conven¬ tion, March 22-29, Wausau, Wisconsin. Reprinted in Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, A Look at Racism in Wisconsin. Odanah, Wis.: The Commission, 1987, (unpaginated). Griffin, James B., ed. 1961 Lake Superior Copper and the Indians: Miscellaneous Studies of Great Lakes Prehistory. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, no. 17. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Habeck, J. R., and J. T. Curtis. 1959 “Forest Cover and Deer Population Density in Early Northern Wisconsin.’ ’ Trans¬ actions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 48: 49-56. Hall, S. 1850a Letter to Revjerend} S. B. Treat, March 28. 1850b Letter to Rev{erend} S. B. Treat, December 30. 1852a Letter to Rev{erend} S. B. Treat, October 7. 1852b Letter to Major J{ohn} S. Watrous, September 10. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report for 1852 . Washington, D.C.: Robert Armstrong, Printer, pp. 48-50. 1853 Letter to Rev{erend} S. B. Treat, May 17. All of the above Hall letters except the one dated 1852b are from American 222 Chippewa Treaty Rights Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Papers, Boxes 5-6, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Typescripts of originals from Harvard University, Houghton Library, Cambridge, Mass. Hamilton, Holman. 1951 Zachary Taylor: Soldier in the White House. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc. Hanaway, Donald J. 1989 “History of the Chippewa Treaty Rights Controversy.” Unpublished paper, State of Wisconsin, Department of Justice, March. 1990 “History of the Chippewa Treaty Rights Controversy.” Unpublished paper, State of Wisconsin, Department of Justice. Updated edition, March. (A copy of each of the above documents is on file in the Government Publications Department, McIntyre Library, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.) Harris, Carey Allen. 1836 Letter to Thomas P. Street, August 10. 1837a Letter to Joseph Pitt, January 3. Both of the above letters are from Records of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Part 9: Territorial Papers of the United States, The Territory of Wisconsin, 1836-1838, Supplement, Microcopy 236, Roll 43. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1837b Letter to Secretary of War Ad Interim Benjamin F. Butler, January 9. U. S. Congress, House Document 82, 24th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 303, pp. 1-9. 1837c Annual Report, December 1. U. S. Congress, Senate Document 1, 25th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 314, pp. 525-672. Haskins, Stanley G. 1909 “An Account of the Chippewa.” Indians of North America Papers, Box 1 , Folder 2, Wisconsin Indians, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Hays, James P. 1 847 Report of the La Pointe Subagent to Superintendent of Indian Affairs Henry Dodge , September 15. U. S. Congress, Senate Executive Document 1, 30th Cong., 1st sess., Serial 503, pp. 824-28. Hazelbaker, Mark. 1984 ‘ ‘Indian Treaties and Hunting Rights on Public Lands.’ * Wisconsin Counties (March): 5-6. 223 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Head Chiefs of the Chippewa Indians on Lake Superior. 1849 Petition . . . For a Grant of Lands, &c., February 7. U. S. Congress, House Miscellaneous Document 36, 30th Congress, 2d sess., Serial 544, pp. 1-2. Herring, Elbert. 1835 Letter to Governor Henry Dodge, June 22. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 63-67. Hertzberg, Hazel W. 1971 The Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern Pan-Indian Movements. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press. Hickerson, Harold. 1962 The Southwestern Chippewa: An Ethnohistorical Study. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, No. 92. Menasha, Wis.: George Banta Co., Inc. 1973 “Fur Trade Colonialism and the North American Indians.” Journal of Ethnic Studies 1 (Summer): 15-44. 1988 The Chippewa and Their Neighbors. Revised and expanded ed. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press. Hill, Edward E. 1974 The Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1880: Historical Sketches. New York: Clear¬ water Publishing Co., Inc. Hill, Edward E., comp. 1981 Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to Amer¬ ican Indians. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Hole in the Day. 1839 Letter to Maj{or} L{awrence} Toliffero {ric}, June 14. Enclosed in Superintendent of Indian Affairs Henry Dodge to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, June 20. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Holzhueter, John O. 1980 “Wisconsin’s Flag.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 63 (Winter 1979-80): 91-121 . HONOR. {1989} History of Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights. Milwaukee: HONOR. 224 Chippewa Treaty Rights Horsman, Reginald. 1970 The Frontier in the Formative Years, 1783-1815. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Iowa News (Dubuque). 1 837 “Proceedings of a Council with the Chippewa Indians.’ ’ Reprinted in Iowa Journal of History and Politics 5 (1911): 408-28. Isthmus (Madison). 1987 “Pandering to Prejudices.” September 4, p. 7. 1990 “‘We’ll Be There’: Treaty-Rights Foes Pledge Resistance to the ‘Injustice’ of Chippewa Spearfishing.” March 30, pp. 1, 9. James, Bernard J. 1954 “An Analysis of an American Indian Village: A Situational Approach to Com¬ munity Study.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Jefferson, Thomas. 1803 Letter to Indiana Territorial Governor William H{enry} Harrison, February 27. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb. 20 vols. Washing¬ ton, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903-05, 10: 368-73. Johnson, Daniel H. 1858 Letter to Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress Assembled, March 1, with Accompanying Affidavits. U. S. Congress, House Report 76. 35th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 1018, pp. 1-3. Johnston, Basil. 1990 Ojibwe Heritage. 1976; repr. ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Jones, De Garmo. 1841 Letter to Secretary of War {John C. Spencer}, December 17, 1841. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, p. 378. Jones, Dorothy V. 1982 License for Empire: Colonialism by Treaty in Early America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, Geo{rge} W. 1836 Letter to Senator Robert J. Walker, December 23. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, p. 694. 225 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 1838 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Carey Allen Harris, January 2. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, p. 897. Kappler, Charles J., comp, and ed. 1904-41 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. 5 vols. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office. Kay, Jeanne. 1977 “The Land of La Baye: The Ecological Impact of the Green Bay Fur Trade, 1634-1836.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Keller, Mark. 1981 The Chippewa Land of Keweenaw Bay : An Allotment History. Baraga, Mich.: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc. Keller, Robert H. 1978 “An Economic History of Indian Treaties in the Great Lakes Region.” American Indian Journal 4 (February): 2-20. 1989 “America’s Native Sweet: Chippewa Treaties and the Right to Harvest Maple Sugar.” American Indian Quarterly 13 (Spring): 117-35. Kellogg, Louise Phelps. 1933 “Increase Allen Lapham.” Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Ma¬ lone. Vol. 5. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 611-12. Kenyon, Richard L. 1989 “Life Among the Chippewa: ‘If We Give Up Our Ways, We Die’.” Wisconsin: The Milwaukee Journal Magazine. July 23, pp. 18-30. Kerr, Scott. 1990a “Chippewa Treaty Rights: Wisconsin Must Choose Between Confrontation and Cooperation.” Wisconsin West (March/ April): 10-14. 1990b “The Greater Hayward-LCO Progress, Inc.: One Example of Cooperation at Work.” Wisconsin West (March/ April): 14. Kickingbird, Kirke, Lynn Kickingbird, Alexander Tallchief Skibine, and Charles Chibilty. 1980 Indian Treaties. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Kinney, J. P. 1937 A Continent Lost — A Civilization Won: Indian Land Tenure in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 226 Chippewa Treaty Rights Knobel, Dale T. 1984 “Know-Nothings and Indians: Strange Bedfellows?” Western Historical Quar¬ terly 15 (April): 175-98. Knox, H{enry}. 1789a Letter to President {George Washington}, May 23. 1789b Report Relative to Northwestern Indians, June 15. Both letters may be found in United States Congress, American State Papers, Class II: Indian Affairs. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1832. pp. 7-8 and 12-14, respectively. Kohl, Johann G. 1860 Kitchi-Gami: Wanderings Around Lake Superior. London: Chapman and Hall. Lac du Flambeau Band and State of Wisconsin. 1989 Lac du Flambeau Band/State of Wisconsin Agreement. (A certified copy is on file in the Government Publications Department, McIntyre Library, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.) La Crosse Tribune. 1990 “Spearing Opponent Denies Racial Motives.” April 8, 1990, p. 1 + , UW-Eau Claire Clippings. Lake Superior News and Mining Journal (Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.). 1850a “Removal of the Indians.” June 5, p. 2. 1850b “Chippewas of L’Anse.” June 12, p. 2. Landsman, Gail H. 1988 Sovereignty and Symbol: Indian-White Conflict at Ganienkeh. Albuquerque: Uni¬ versity of New Mexico Press. Lapham, I. A., Levi Blossom, and George G. Dousman. 1870 A Paper on the Number, Locality and Times of Removal of the Indians of Wis¬ consin; An Appendix Containing A Complete Chronology of Wisconsin, from the Earliest Times Down to the Adoption of the State Constitution in 1848. Milwaukee: Starr’s Book and Job Printing House. Lea, Luke. 1850 Annual Report for 1850. Washington, D.C. : Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 227 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 1851a Letter to Secretary of the Interior A. H. H. Stuart, June 3. Report Books of the Office of Indian Affairs, Microcopy 348, Roll 6. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1851b Annual Report for 1851 . Washington, D.C.: Gideon & Co., Printers. Leahy, M. A. 1891 Report of La Pointe Agency, September 10. U. S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report for 1891 . Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1891, pp. 465-75. Levi, Sister M. Carolissa. 1956 Chippewa Indians of Yesterday and Today. New York: Pageant Press, Inc. Lewis, Mark D. 1987 Letter to Governor Tommy Thompson, September 30. Reprinted in News from Indian Country (November 1987): 6. Lurie, Nancy Oestreich. 1985 “Epilogue: Non-Claims Commission Cases.’ ’ Irredeemable America: The Indians’ Estate and Land Claims, ed. Imre Sutton. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 378-82. 1987 Wisconsin Indians. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Lyon, Lucius. 1839a Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, July 15. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1839b Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, December 16. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 91-98. Madison Weekly Democrat (Wis.) 1878a “The Wisconsin Indian Lands,’’ June 18, p. 2. 1878b “The Indian Insurrection,’’ June 25, p. 4. Mahan, I{saac} L. 1878 Annual Report to Commissioner of Indian Affairs E{zra} A. Hayt, September 1. U. S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annual Report for 1878. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1878, pp. 144-48. Mahon, John K. 1985 History of the Second Seminole War. Rev. ed. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida. 228 Chippewa Treaty Rights Manypenny, George W. 1853 Annual Report, November 26. U. S. Congress, Senate Executive Document 1, 33d Cong., 1st sess., Serial 690, pp. 243-64. 1854 Annual Report, November 25. U. S. Congress, Senate Executive Document 1, 33d Cong., 2d sess., Serial 764, pp. 211-31. 1855 Annual Report, November 26. U. S. Congress, Senate Executive Document 1, 34th Cong., 1st sess., Serial 810, pp. 321-41. 1856 Annual Report, November 22. U. S. Congress, Senate Executive Document 1, 34th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 875, pp. 554-75. 1880 Our Indian Wards. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1880. Mardock, Robert W. 1971 The Reformers and the American Indian. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Martin, {Chief}. {1842} Talk to Subagent Alfred Brunson, {undated but before January 8, 1843}. Enclosed in Brunson to Governor James D. Doty, January 8, 1843. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Masinaigan. {Masinaigan {Talking Paper} is a bi-monthly publication of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, P.O Box 9, Odanah, Wisconsin, 54861). 1985 “The St. Croix Band of Chippewa: A Brief History,” (March). UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990a “Chippewa Treaty Rights: An Overview.” (January/February): 7. 1990b “Impact of Chippewa Treaty Rights: Biological Impact.” (January /February): 4, 15. 1990c “Impact of Chippewa Treaty Rights: Economic Impact.” (January/February): 4-5. 1990d “Impact of Chippewa Treaty Rights: Political Impact.” (January/February): 5. 1990e “Impact of Chippewa Treaty Rights: Tribal Impact.” (January/February): 5. 1990f “Treaty Rights and Racism.” (January/February): 7-9. 1990g “Bad River Renovates Hatchery.” (March/ April): 3. 1990h “Does the Treaty Harvest Ruin Tourism?” (November/December): 7, 11. 1991a “Tribes Declare ’91 Quotas for Walleye/Musky.” (February/March): 2. 229 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 1991b “ Voigt Timber Decision Issued.” (February/March): 2. 1991c “Profile: Anti-Indian Organizations in Wisconsin.” (February/March): 7-8. Mason, Carol I. 1988 Introduction to Wisconsin Indians : Prehistory to Statehood. Salem, Wis. : Sheffield Publishing Co. McKenney, Thomas L., and James Hall. {1838} Biographical Sketches and Anecdotes of Ninety-Five of 120 Principal Chiefs from the Indian Tribes of North America. 1967, repr. ed., Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Medill, William. 1846a Letter to Henry M. Rice, October 31. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 1015-016. 1846b Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 30. U. S. Con¬ gress, House Document 4. 29th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 497, pp. 214-28. 1847 Letter to J. A. Verplanck and Charles E. Mix, June 4. Records of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Part 9: The Territorial Papers of the United States, The Territory of Wisconsin, 1836-1848, Supplement, Microcopy 236, Roll 46, Record Group 75. Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1848 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 30. U. S. Con¬ gress, House Executive Document 1 . 30th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 537, pp. 385-408. Message Carrier: Wisconsin Indian Resource Council News Digest (Stevens Point, Wis.) 1986 “Treaty Opponents ‘Blowing Smoke’ Says Earl.” October, p. 4. Michetti, Susan. 1991 “Indian Treaty Rights Have Environmental Implications.” Muir View: News of the Sierra Club 29 (January /February): 6-7. Midwest Treaty Network. { 1 990} Justice, Reconciliation, Respect for Diversity, Protection of All Resources Through Treaties: Witness for Nonviolence. {Milwaukee: Southeast Wisconsin Witness for Nonviolence}. Milwaukee Journal. 1972a “Fishermen Argue Over Indian Rights.” April 20. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1972b “Lake Superior is Turf in Heated Squabble on Indian Fishing.” July 9. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 230 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1984a “State Tribes Form Wildlife Panel.” April 8, pt. 2, p. 7. 1984b “Counties Want U. S. to Limit Indians’ Hunting, Fishing.” September 26. UW- Eau Claire Clippings. 1984c Treaty Rights . (Special reprint edition featuring articles by Dennis McCann and Don Boehm that originally appeared in the Journal between October 14-17; unpaginated.) 1985 Letter to the Editor from Paul A. Mullaly. May 17. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1986a “Thompson, Watts Hit Indian Treaty Rights.” June 20, pt. 2, p. 3. 1986b “Earl Names Indian Relations Panel.” June 26, pt. 1, p. 19. 1986c “Indian-Treaty Panel Criticized.” July 11, p. 3B. 1987a “State to Appeal Ruling on Chippewa Treaties.” February 19, pp. 1A, 22A. 1987b “Hanaway Invites Indians to Treaty Talks.” April 29. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989a “Time to Call Out the Guard.” May 4, 1989. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989b “As Spears of Racism Pierce the North.” May 14. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989c “Tribes Urged to Keep Treaty Rights.” July 25. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989d “Forest Group Asks to Join Treaty Case.” August 16. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989e “Call Prompts New Class on Treaty Rights: Eau Claire Professor Aims to Provide the Facts.” September 19, pp. IB, 7B. 1989f “Politicians Exasperated by Treaty Failure.” November 5, 1989. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. Milwaukee Sentinel. 1983 “Indian Hunting, Fishing Rights Upheld by U. S. Supreme Court.” October 4. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1987 “Bill Would Repeal Treaty Rights.” July 29, pp. 1, 11. 1989a “U.S. Official ‘Appalled’ by Tapes of Protests During Spearfishing.” June 2. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989b “Treaty Protests are Likened to Selma in ’60s.” September 16. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989c “Treaty Pact May Cost $35 Million.” September 29, pp. 1, 7. 1989d “Treaty Pact May Spark Legal Battle Between Chippewa Bands.” October 16. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989e “2 Lac du Flambeau Officials Ousted from Posts.” October 17, p. 5. 231 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 1989f “County Foresters Fear Timber Treaty Issues.’’ November 20, p. 5. 1990a “Indian Groups Disrupt Treaty Meeting, Conferees are Called Cockroaches.’’ January 19. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990b “Treaty Rights Called State, Tribal Matter.’’ January 19, pp. 1, 12. 1990c “Dane County Officials Quitting Association.’ ’ January 3 1 , 1990. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990d “Crackdown Sought at Landings, Arrests Are Urged for Abusive Language.’’ February 3. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990e “Counties Ask Court for Power to Limit Chippewa Timber Use.’’ February 6. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990f “Governor Fears a ‘Media Event’ at Boat Landings.’’ March 31. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. Mix, Charles E. 1867 Letter to La Pointe Agent Luther. E. Webb, November 13. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 394, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Monette, Richard. 1990 “Indian Country Jurisdiction and the Assimilative Crimes Act.” Oregon Law Review 69 (2): 269-94. Morse, Richard F. 1857 “The Chippewas of Lake Superior.” Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin 3: 338-69. Mulcahy, Robert W., and Brian M. T. Selby. 1989 “Indian Treaty Rights and Wisconsin’s County Forests.” Wisconsin Counties (December): 23-24. Museum Memo (State Historical Museum of Wisconsin). 1990 “Indian Fishing.” (December/ January 1990): 1. Neill, Edward D. 1885 “History of the Ojibways, and Their Connection with Fur Traders, Based Upon Official and Other Records.” Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society 5: 395-510. Nesbit, Robert C. 1985 Urbanization and Industrialization, 1873-1893, Vol. 3: The History of Wisconsin, ed. William F. Thompson. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 232 Chippewa Treaty Rights Nesbit, Robert C., and William F. Thompson. 1989 Wisconsin: A History. 2nd revised ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. New York Times. 1851a “Removal of the Indians.’’ September 29, p. 4, quoting the Lake Superior News and Mining Journal. 1851b “Indian Moneys.’’ September 29, p. 4, quoting the Cleveland Herald. 1871 “Another Swindle Exposed: Government and Indians Defrauded by a Set of Sharpers.’’ October 7, p. 4. 1888a “Another Indian Claim.’’ February 12, p. 16. 1888b “Indian Timber Contracts: Irregularities Discovered by the Senate Committee.’’ March 14, p. 3. 1888c “Investigation of Affairs at the Chippewa Agency.’’ April 24, p. 4. 1889 “The Chippewa Troubles.’’ June 17, p. 4. News from Indian Country: The Journal (Hayward, Wis.). 1988 “HONOR Adopts Constitution.’’ July, p. 6. 1989a ‘ ‘Co-Management, Recognition and Respect Corner-Stone of Better Relations with Resource Owners,’’ November, p. 7. 1989b “History of HONOR.’’ November, p. 21. 1990a “Co-Management: The Possibilities in Power-Sharing.’’ January 19, p. 19. 1990b “Inouye Seeks Permanent Settlement in Wisconsin Treaty Dispute, ’’ April 11, p. 13. 1990c “Federal Judge Rules Resources to be Split Between State and Ojibway.’’ Early June, p. 5. 1990d “Some See Ruling as New Beginning.’’ Early June, p. 5. 1990e “Chippewa Tribal Status as Resource Managers Disputed.’’ Early July, p. 5. 1990f “Attorney General Candidate Doyle Says He Would Seek to Reopen Negotiations with Chippewa,’’ Early October, p. 7. 1990g “Group Has 150 Reports of Spearfishing Problems,’’ Early October, p. 7. 1990h “Wisconsin State, Tribal Wardens to Team Up.’’ Mid-November, p. 7. 233 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Nichols, John D., ed. 1988 ‘ ‘ Statement Made By the Indians' ’ : A Bilingual Petition of the Chippewas of Lake Superior, 1864. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario Centre for Re¬ search and Training of Canadian Native Languages, TEXT + Series, no. 1 , Studies in the Interpretation of Canadian Native Languages and Cultures. Nute, Grace Lee. 1926 “The American Fur Company’s Fishing Enterprises on Lake Superior.” Missis¬ sippi Valley Historical Review 12 (March): 483-502. 1944 Lake Superior. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company. Oberly, James. 1989a ‘ ‘Communalism, Individualism and Corporate Capitalism: The Lac Courte Oreilles Indians, Northern States Power Company and the 1921 Chippewa Flowage Dam.” Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Economic and Business History Society. (Photocopy courtesy of the author.) 1989b “Race and Class Warfare: Spearing Fish, Playing ‘Chicken.’” The Nation 248 (June 19): 844-45, 848. O’Connor, Colleen, and Shawn Doherty. 1985 “ ‘Open Season’ on Indians,” 106 Newsweek (September 30): 35. Olson, Mary B. 1984 “Social Reform and the Use of the Law as an Instrument of Social Change: Native Americans’ Struggle for Treaty Fishing Rights.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Otis, D. S. 1973 The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands, ed. Francis Paul Prucha, 1934; Reprint ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Ourada, Patricia K. 1979 The Menomonie Indians: A History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Paredes, J. Anthony. 1980 “Anishinabe, a People.” Anishinabe, 6 Studies of Modern Chippewa, ed. J. Anthony Paredes et al. Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida, pp. 397-410. Park Falls Herald. 1989 “PARR Chairman Plans to Take Course on Treaty Rights; Group Satisfied with Recent Meeting with Govfemor} Thompson.” August 24, p. 3. 234 Chippewa Treaty Rights PARR Issue. 1987 “PARR Hires Executive Director’’ (June). Reprinted in A Look at Racism in Wisconsin, comp. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Odanah, Wis.: The Commission, 1987, (unpaginated). 1991a “Attorney Hatch Retained by PARR.’’ (Winter/Spring): 1. 1991b “Boat Landings . . . See You There.” (Winter/Spring): 1, 4. 1991c “Chairman’s Report.” (Winter/Spring): 4. 1991d “In Search of the Whole Truth.” (Winter/Spring): 3. 1991e “Issue Item.” (Winter/Spring): 3. 1991f “Issue Items.” (Winter/Spring): 6. 1991g “Issue Items.” (Winter/Spring): 9. 1991h “Issue Items.” (Winter/Spring): 12. 1991i “Issue Items.” (Winter/Spring): 13. 199 lj “Issue Items.” (Winter/Spring): 14. 1991k “Issue Items.” (Winter/Spring): 15. 19911 “Issue Items.” (Winter/Spring): 16. 1991m “Is Wisconsin Becoming the Home of the Dead Seas?” (Winter/Spring): 12. 1991n “Judicial Wisdom or Blatant Bias?” (Winter/Spring): 10. 1991o “Letter from the Editor.” (Winter/Spring): 3. 1991p “Schumacher ‘Agrees’ with ‘Mother Jones’; Maulson.” (Winter/Spring): 11. 1991q “PARR’s Parade of Activities — 1990.” (Winter/Spring): 8-9. 1991r “PARR’s ‘Traitor’s to the Constitution’ Awards.” (Winter/Spring): 6. 1991s “Senator Daniel Inouye — Friend or Foe?” (Winter/Spring): 1, 2. 1991t “Treaties with the Chippewa.” (Winter/Spring): 7, 10. 1991u “Tribal Wardens Won’t Work.” (Winter/Spring): 5. 1991v “What Does PARR Want?” (Winter/Spring): 2. Peake, Ora Brooks. 1954 A History of the United States Indian Factory System, 1795-1822. Denver: Sage Books. 235 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters Peters, Bernard C. 1989 “Wa-Bish-Kee-Pe-Nas and the Chippewa Reverence for Copper.” Michigan His¬ torical Review 15 (Fall): 47-60. Phillips, Clifford J. 1954 ‘ ‘Protestant America and the Pagan World: The First Half Century of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 1810-1860.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Philp, Kenneth R. 1977 John Collier’s Crusade for Indian Reform, 1920-1954. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pitezel, John H. 1859 Lights and Shades of Missionary Life: Containing Travels, Sketches, Incidents, and Missionary Efforts, During Nine Years Spent in the Region of Lake Superior By Rev. JohnH. Pitezel, Alias, Wa-Zah-Wa-Wa-Doong, or “ The Yellow Beard.” Cincinnati: Western Book Concern, R. P. Thompson, Printer, 1859. Plaisance, Aloysius. 1954 “The United States Government Factory System, 1796-1822.” Ph.D. dissertation. St. Louis University. Poinsett, Joel R. 1837 Letter to Governor Henry Dodge, March 25. Records of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Part 9: Territorial Papers of the United States, The Territory of Wisconsin, 1836-1838, Supplement, Microcopy 236, Roll 46, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Porter, James M. 1843 Endorsement, October 20. Enclosed in Letter of Commissioner T. Hartley Craw¬ ford to Secretary of War James M. Porter, October 20. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, p. 601. Priest, Loring Benson. 1942 Uncle Sam’s Step Children: The Reformation of the United States Indian Policy, 1865-1887. Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers College University Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. 1953 Broadax and Bayonet: The Role of the United States Army in the Development of the Northwest, 1815-1860. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1962a American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790-1834. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 236 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1962b “Early Indian Peace Medals.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 45 (Spring): 279-89. 1966 “Army Sutlers and the American Fur Company.” Minnesota History 40 (Spring): 22-31. 1969 The Sword of the Republic: The United States Army on the Frontier, 1783-1846. New York: Macmillan Co. 1971 Indian Peace Medals in American History. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1984 The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. 2 vols. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. 1990 Atlas of American Indian Affairs. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Quaife, Milo M. 1917 “Increase Allen Lapham, First Scholar of Wisconsin.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 1 (September): 3-15. Racine Journal Times. 1988 “Treaty Foes Form New Organization.” March 21, pp. 1A, 2A. Ramsey, Alexander. 1850 Annual Report to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea, October 21. Com¬ missioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report for 1850. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, pp. 43-64. 1851 Annual Report to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea, November 3. Com¬ missioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report for 1851. Washington, D.C.: Gideon & Co., Printer, 1851, pp. 149-64. 1852 Annual Report to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea, October 26. Com¬ missioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report for 1852. Washington, D.C.: Robert Armstrong, Printer, 1852, pp. 37-47. Residents Near Lake Superior. 1847 Petition to Secretary of War William L. Marcy, February 18. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 1043-044. Rice, Henry M. 1847 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Medill, June 30. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, p. 1076. Richardson, James D. , comp, and ed. 1896-99 A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. 10 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 237 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters Richmond, William A. 1846 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Medill, August 24. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 989-90. Ritzenthaler, Robert E. 1978 “Southwestern Chippewa.’’ Northeast, ed. Bruce G. Trigger. Vol. 15: Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William C. Sturtevant. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 743-59. Robbins, Roy M. 1960 Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1936. 1942; Repr. ed. Glouces¬ ter, Mass.: Peter Smith. Ross, John. 1831 Annual Message, October 24. The Papers of Chief John Ross, Vol. 1: 1807-1839, ed. Gary E. Moulton. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985, p. 224-31. Royce, Charles C., comp. 1899 Indian Land Cessions in the United States. Vol. 2: Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1896-97. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minn.) 1878 “Indian Scare in Wisconsin.’ ’ Reprinted in Barron County Chronotype (Rice Lake, Wis.) June 27, p. 3. Satz, Ronald N. 1975 American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1976 “Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era: The Old Northwest as a Test Case.’’ Mich¬ igan History 60 (Spring): 71-93. 1979a Tennessee’ s Indian Peoples: From White Contact to Removal. Knoxville: Uni¬ versity of Tennessee Press. 1979b “Thomas Hartley Crawford (1838-45).’’ The Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1824-1977, ed. Robert M. Kvasnicka and Herman J. Viola. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 23-27. 1981 “The Jackson Purchase Treaty of 1818 in Historical Perspective.’’ Journal of the Jackson Purchase Historical Society 9 (June): 9-16. 1985 “Cherokee Traditionalism, Protestant Evangelism, and the Trail of Tears.’’ Ten¬ nessee Historical Quarterly 44 (Fall): 285-301, 44 (Winter): 380-401. 238 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1987 “The United States Constitution and the Cherokees.” Kennesaw Review 1 (Fall): 34-49. 1988 ‘ ‘William Medill.’ ’ History of Indian-White Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn. Vol. 4: Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William C. Sturtevant. Wash¬ ington: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 666-67. 1989 “The Cherokee Trail of Tears: A Sesquicentennial Perspective.” Georgia His¬ torical Quarterly 73 (Fall): 431-66. 1990 “Treaty Rights History Readings.” Wisconsin West (March/ April): 17. 1991 “Rhetoric Versus Reality: The Indian Policy of Andrew Jackson.” Cherokee Removal: Before and After, ed. William L. Anderson. Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 29-54. Schoolcraft, Henry R. 1828 “Travels Among the Aborigines: The Chippewa Indians.” North American Review 27 (July): 89-114. 1851 Personal Memoirs of a Residence of Thirty Years with the Indian Tribes on the American Frontiers: With Brief Notices of Passing Events, Facts, and Opinions, A.D. 1812 to A.D. 1842. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co. Schorger, A. W. 1953 “The White-Tailed Deer in Early Wisconsin.” Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 42: 197-247. Schultz, Terri. 1973 “Bamboozle Me Not at Wounded Knee.” Harper’s Magazine 246 (June): 46-48, 53-56. Schulze, Eldor P. 1933 “Gouvemeur Kemble.” Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Malone. Vol. 5. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 316-17. Sherman, Samuel S. 1876 Increase Allen Lapham, LL.D., A Biographical Sketch Read Before the Old Set¬ tlers’ Club, Milwaukee, Wis., December 11, 1875. Milwaukee: Milwaukee News Company, Printer. Shifferd, Patricia A. 1976 “A Study in Economic Change, The Chippewa of Northern Wisconsin: 1854-1900.” Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology 6 (4): 16-41. 239 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Smith, Alice E. 1954 James Duane Doty: Frontier Promoter. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1973 The History of Wisconsin, Vol. 1: From Exploration to Statehood, ed. William F. Thompson. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Smith, Desmond. 1973 “Wounded Knee: The Media Coup d’Etat.” Nation 216 (June 25): 806-09. Smith, Donald. 1988 “The Life of George Copway or Kah-ge-ga-gah-bowh (1818-1869) — and a Re¬ view of His Writings.” Journal of Canadian Studies 23 (Fall): 5-38. Solterman, Susan. 199 1 “Learning and Unlearning Hatred: Treaty Rights and the Wisconsin Curriculum.’ ’ Rethinking Schools: An Urban Educational Journal 5 (January /February): 19. Stambaugh, Samuel C. 1836 Letter to President Andrew Jackson, September 6, enclosing application from Hercules L. Dousman with endorsements from Chippewa Chiefs and Head Men. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. State Historical Museum of Wisconsin. 1990-91 “Indian Fishing.” Museum Memo (December/ January): 1,3. State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1960 Dictionary of Wisconsin Biography. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. State of Wisconsin et al. 1990 Defendants’ Proposed Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Sub¬ mitted to the U. S. District Court, Western District, Wisconsin. June 15. (Courtesy of Howard Bichler.) State of Wisconsin Executive Department. 1983 Executive Order No. 31. October 13. Wisconsin Governor, Executive Orders, 1983-1986, microfilm, State Historical Society of Wisconsin Library, Madison, Wis. (Reprinted in Masinaigan [January 1985]: 8.) Sterling, Levi. 1840 Letter to Delegate John D. Doty, March 22. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 168-69. 240 Chippewa Treaty Rights Strickland, Rennard, Stephen J. Herzberg, and Steven R. Owens. 1990 “Keeping Our Word: Indian Treaty Rights and Public Responsibilities — A Report on a Recommended Federal Role Following Wisconsin’s Request for Federal Assistance.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Law, 1990. (The News and Information Service of the University of Wisconsin- Madison provided a copy of this report, which was submitted to the staff of the U. S. Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on April 16, 1990.) Stuart, Robert. 1842a Annual Report of the Acting Superintendent of the Michigan Superintendency, October 28. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, Michigan Superinten¬ dency, Microcopy 234, Roll 425, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1842b Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, November 19. Records of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Part 9: Territorial Papers of the United States, The Territory of Wisconsin, 1836-1848, Supplement, Microcopy 236, Roll 46, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1842c Letter to Rev. David Greene, December 8, American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Correpondence, Box 3, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Transcript of original in Houghton Library, Harvard University. 1843a Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, March 15, en¬ closing Extract of a Letter from R{obert} Stuart to Alfred Brunson, March 10, 1843. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1843b Extract from a Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, June 2. Senate Document 403. 29th Cong. 1st sess., Serial 477, p. 3. 1844 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs T. Hartley Crawford, March 29, en¬ closing Substance of a Talk to the Chippewa, September 29, 1842. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 389, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Talcott, Lt. Col. G. 1845 Letter to Secretary of War W{illiam} L. Marcy, March 17. Territorial Papers, Vol. 28, pp. 811-13. Tanner, Helen Hombeck. 1976 The Ojihwas: A Critical Bibliography. Bloomington: Indiana University Press for the Newberry Library. 241 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts & Letters Tanner, Helen Hombeck, ed. 1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press for the Newberry Library. Thannum, Jim. {1990} 1990 Chippewa Spearing Season — Conflict and Cooperation: The Two States of Wisconsin. Odanah, Wis.: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Thomas, Gale E., ed. 1990 U. S. Race Relations in the 1980s: Challenges and Alternatives. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Thompson, William F. 1988 Continuity and Change, 1940-1965. Vol. 6: The History of Wisconsin, series ed. William F. Thompson. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Time. 1973 “Trap at Wounded Knee.’’ (March 26): 67. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1831-32 Journey to America, rev. ed., trans. George Lawrence, ed. J. P. Mayer. New York: Anchor Books, 1971. 1848 Democracy in America, 12th ed., trans George Lawrence, ed. J. P. Mayer. New York: Anchor Books, 1969. Treat, S. B. 1851 Letter to S. Hall, September 24. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Papers, Box 5, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Typescripts of originals from Harvard University, Houghton Library, Cambridge, Mass. 1852 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs L{uke} Lea, May 12. Indian Office Files, 1852, No. 102, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Trennert, Robert A. 1975 Alternative to Extinction: Federal Indian Policy and the Beginnings of the Re¬ servation System, 1846-51 . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1979a “Orlando Brown, 1849-50.’’ 1979b “Luke Lea, 1850-53.’’ 1979c “William Medill, 1845-49.’’ All (1979a-c) of the above are in The Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1824-1977, 242 Chippewa Treaty Rights ed. Robert M. Kvasnicka and Herman J. Viola. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, see respectively pp. 41-56, 49-56, and 29-39. Trigger, Bruce G., ed. 1978 Northeast. Vol. 15: Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William C. Stur- tevant. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution. U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1934 Testimony Taken at Hayward, Wisconsin, April 23 and 24, Where Indians of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan Gathered for a Two Day Conference to Discuss The Wheeler-Howard Bill of Indian Rights. Mimeographed minutes. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Interior Library. (Photocopy courtesy of Vine Deloria, Jr.). U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1981 Indian Tribes: A Continuing Quest for Survival. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Gov¬ ernment Printing Office. U. S. Congress. 1830 Act of May 28. Statutes at Large. Vol. 4, p. 411-12. 1849 Delegation of Chippewa Indians, February 15. Congressional Globe. 30th Cong., 2d session, p. 535-37. 1871 Act of March 3. Statutes at Large. Vol. 16, p. 566. 1885 Act of March 3. Statutes at Large. Vol. 23, p. 385. 1919 Act of November 6. Statutes at Large. Vol. 41, p. 350. 1924 Act of June 2. Statutes at Large. Vol. 43, p. 253. 1934 Act of June 18. Statutes at Large. Vol. 48, pp. 984-88. 1953 Act of August 15. Statutes at Large. Vol. 67, p. 588-90. 1987a Congressional Record. 100th Cong., lstsess., Vol. 133, no. 125, (July 28): 1845. 1987b House of Representatives. Bill No. 3034: A Bill to Abrogate Off-Reservation, Usufructuary Rights of Indian Tribes to Hunt, Fish, and Gather in the State of Wisconsin. 100th Cong., 1st sess., July 28. 1989a Congressional Record. 101st Cong., lstsess., Vol. 135, no. 46, (April 18): 1328. 1989b House of Representatives. Bill No. 2058: A Bill to Abrograte Off-Reservation, Usufructuary Rights of Indian Tribes to Hunt, Fish, and Gather in the State of Wisconsin. 101st Cong., 1st sess., April 18. 243 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters U. S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 1983 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. Voigt et al. 700 Federal Reporter 2d 341-65. 1985 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. 760 Federal Reporter 2d 177-83. 1987 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. 829 Federal Reporter 2d 601-03. U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 1975 United States v. State of Washington 520 Federal Reporter 2d, 676-693. U. S. Court of Claims. 1967 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States 388 Federal Reporter 2d, 998-1012. U. S. Department of the Interior 1991 Casting Light Upon the Waters: A Joint Fishery Assessment of the Wisconsin Ceded Territory. Minneapolis, Minn.: Bureau of Indian Affairs. U. S. District Court, Western District, Washington. 1974 United States v. State of Washington 384 Federal Supplement 312-420. U. S. District Court, Western District, Wisconsin. 1901 In Re Blackbird 109 Federal Reporter 139-45. 1978 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. Voigt et al., reported sub. nom. U. S. v. Ben Ruby 464 Federal Supplement 1316-376. 1987a Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. 653 Federal Supplement 1420-435. 1987b Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. 668 Federal Supplement 1233-242. 1988 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. 686 Federal Supplement 226-33. 1989 Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin 707 Federal Supplement 1034-062. 1990a Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin 740 Federal Supplement 1400-27. 1990b Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. 749 Federal Supplement 913-23. 244 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1991a Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. Photocopy of unpublished opinion and order, 74-C-313-C, pp. 1-39. (Courtesy of Howard Bichler.) 1991b Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. Photocopy of unpublished opinion and order, 74-C-313-C, no. 2, pp. 1-6. (Courtesy of Howard Bichler.) 1991c Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. Photocopy of unpublished opinion and order, 74-C-313-C, no. 3, pp. 1-2. (Courtesy of Howard Bichler.) 199 Id Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc. et al. Photocopy of unpublished opinion and order, 91-C- 117-C, pp. 1-39. (Courtesy of Howard Bichler.) 1991e Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al. Photocopy of unpublished Final Judgment, 74-C-313-C, pp. 1-9. (Courtesy of Howard Bichler.) U. S. Secretary of the Interior. 1889 Correspondence Relative to Timber-Cutting on the Chippewa Reservation, Feb¬ ruary 19. U. S. Congress, Senate Executive Document 128. 50th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 2612, pp. 1-20. U. S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 1892 Report on Fulfillment of the Treaties of 1837, 1842, and 1854, April 3. U. S. Congress, Senate Report 571. 52d Cong., 1st sess.. Serial 2913, pp. 1-7. U. S. Senate Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia. 1862 Report on a Road in Wisconsin and Michigan, April 30. U. S. Congress, Senate Report 40, 37th Cong., 2d sess., Serial 1125, pp. 1-9. U. S. Supreme Court. 1831 Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia 30 U. S. (5 Peters): 1-20. 1832 Samuel A. Worcester v. State of Georgia 31 U. S. (6 Peters) 515-63. 1894 U. S. v. Thomas 151 U. S. 577-584, 14 Supreme Court 426-29. 1918 U. S. v. J. S. Stearns Lumber Company 245 U. S. 436-37, 38 Supreme Court 137-38. 1968 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States 391 U. S. 404-17. 1976 Appeal No. 75-588 from Ninth Circuit Court Decision in United States v. State of Washington 423 U. S. 1086. 245 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 1983 Appeal No. 83-6 from Seventh Circuit Court of Decision in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al. v. Voigt 464 U. S. 805. USA Today. 1990 “Battle Builds Over Indians’ Fishing Rights.’’ March 21, pp. 1A, 2A. Van Antwerp, Verplanck. 1837 Proceedings of a Council Held by Governor Henry Dodge, with the Chiefs and Principal Men, of the Chippewa Nation of Indians, July 20-29. Documents Relating to the Negotiations of Ratified and Unratified Treaties with Various Indian Tribes, 1801-1869. Microcopy T494, Roll 3, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: Na¬ tional Archives and Records Service. Van Buren, Martin 1838 Message Upon the Subject of the Disturbance on the Northern Frontier of the United States, January 8. House Executive Document 73. U. S. Congress, 25th Cong., 2nd sess., Serial 323, 1-6. Vanguard (Milwaukee). 1988 “It’s a Matter of Honor.’’ 35 (May /June): 3. Vecsey, Christopher. 1983 Traditional Ojibwa Religion and its Historical Changes. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, Vol 152. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Vennum, Thomas, Jr. 1988 Wild Rice and the Ojibway People. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press. Verplanck, J. A. 1847 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Medill, August 2. Records of the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Part 9: The Territorial Papers of the United States, The Territory of Wisconsin, 1836-1848, Supplement, Mi¬ crocopy 236, Roll 46, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Vineyard, Miles M. 1838 Report of Crow Wing Subagent, {March 31}. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 960-62. Viola, Herman J. 1974 Thomas L. McKenney, Architect of America’ s Early Indian Policy: 1816-1830. Chicago: Swallow Press, Inc. 246 Chippewa Treaty Rights Vizenor, Gerald. 1984 The People Named the Chippewa: Narrative Histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Warren, George P. 1882 Letter to Lyman C. Draper, November 9. Small Collections-Oversize , File 40, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. Warren, Lyman M. 1841 Letter to Governor James D. Doty, October 2. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Warren, William W. 1849 “Answers to Inquiries Regarding Chippewas.” Minnesota Pioneer, December 5, 12, 19, 26. Reprinted in Minnesota Archaeologist 13 (January 1947): 5-21. 1850 “Sioux and Chippewa Wars.” Minnesota Chronicle & Register, June 3 and 10. Reprinted in Minnesota Archaeologist 12 (October 1946): 95-107. 1851 “A Brief Hisory of the Ojibwas,” Minnesota Democrat, February 11, 18, 25, March 4, 11, 25, and April 1. Reprinted in Minnesota Archaeologist 12 (July 1947): 45-91. 1852 Sworn Affadavit Before a Justice of the Peace Regarding U. S. Indian Agent Watrous, January 21. Indian Office Files, 1852, No. 73, Archives Division, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. 1885 “History of the Ojibways, Based Upon Traditions and Oral Statements.” Col¬ lections of the Minnesota Historical Society 5: 21-394. Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1959 “The Moral and Legal Justifications for Dispossessing the Indians.” Seventeenth- Century America: Essays in Colonial History, ed. James Morton Smith. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Virginia, pp. 15-32. 1964 “Introduction.” The Indian and the White Man, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn. Documents in American Civilization Series. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, pp. xi-xv. 1975 The Indian in America. New York: Harper & Row. Watrous, John S. 1850 Letter to Superintendent of Indian Affairs and Governor of Minnesota Territory Alexander Ramsey, October 14. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report 247 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters for 1850. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, pp. 88-90. 1851 Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea, July 1. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, Chippewa Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 149, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1852a Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Luke Lea, June 7. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, Chippewa Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 149, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. 1 852b Letter to Superintendent of Indian Affairs Governor Alexander Ramsey , September 15. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annual Report for 1852. Washington, D.C.: Robert Armstrong, Printer, pp. 47-48. Wax, Rosalie H., and Robert K. Thomas. 1961 “American Indians and White People.” Phylon 22 (Winter): 305-17. Webb, L. E. 1861 Annual Report to Superintendent Clark W. Thompson, October 28. U. S. Com¬ missioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report for 1861 . Washington, D.C.: Gov¬ ernment Printing Office, 1861, pp. 74-76. Wheeler, Leonard H. 1843 Letter to Rev{erend} David Greene, May 3. American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions Papers, Box 3, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Typescript of original from Harvard University, Houghton Library, Cambridge, Mass. White, Leonard D. 1954 The Jacksonians: A Study in Administrative History, 1829-1861 . New York: Mac¬ millan Co. White Crow, {Chief}. 1842 Talk to Subagent Alfred Brunson, December 18. Enclosed in Letter of Brunson to Governor James D. Doty, January 8, 1843. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 388, Record Group 75. Wash¬ ington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987 American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1990 To Feel the Summer in the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the Wisconsin Chippewa. Occasional Papers: Oliver Rundell Lecture, April 19. Madison: Uni¬ versity of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. (Available through the Continuing 248 Chippewa Treaty Rights Education and Outreach Office of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School.) Williams, C. Herb, and Walt Neubrech. 1976 Indian Treaties: American Nightmare. Seattle, Wash.: Outdoor Empire Publish¬ ing, Inc. Williams, J. Fletcher. 1885 “Memoir of William W. Warren.” Collections of the Minnesota Historical So¬ ciety, 5: 9-20. Wind, The. 1837 Speech of The Wind {c. September 1837}. Enclosed in Frederick Ayer to President Martin Van Buren, September 30, 1837. Office of Indian Affairs, Letters Received, La Pointe Agency, Microcopy 234, Roll 387, Record Group 75. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. Wisconsin Advisory Committee to the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1989 Discrimination Against Chippewa Indians in Northern Wisconsin: A Summary Report. Madison: The Committee. Wisconsin Counties. 1985 “Tribal/County Issues — WCA Resolution 59.” (March): 6, quoting ERFE News. Wisconsin Education Association Council. 1989 “Understanding Indians.” News & Views (September): 1-2. Wisconsin County Forests Association et al. 1990 Intervening Defendants {’} Proposed Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Submitted to the U. S. District Court, Western District, Wisconsin. June 15. (Courtesy of Howard Bichler.) Wisconsin Legislature. 1854 Memorial to the President and Congress of the United States, Relative to the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior, February 27. Laws of 1854, Memorial 8, pp. 156-57, quoted in State v. Gurnoe 53 Wisconsin Reports 2d (1971) 397. Wisconsin Sportsman. 1985 ‘ ‘A Matter of Interpretation: Dealing with the Voigt Decison.’ ’ 14 (March): 35-43 . Wisconsin State Journal (Madison). 1987 “It’s Far Too Early to Scrap Treaties.” August 7. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 249 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 1989a “ ’86 Thompson Speech Opposed Spearfishing.” May 5, IB. 1989b ‘ ‘Judge Compares Case to ’60s Rights Battles.’ ’ May 7. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989c ‘‘Protect Indians Because It’s Right: Guest Column.” By Joe DeCecco. May 12. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1989d ‘‘No Deal, Indians Say.” October 26, 1A, 2A. 1989e ‘‘Culture, Politics Played Vital Roles.” October 27, p. 2B. 1989f ‘‘Treaty Answers: Few Have Them.” October 30, pp. ID, 2D. 1990a ‘‘Minocqua, not Managua.” March 18, pp. 1A, 17A. 1990b ‘‘Bush Asked to Appoint Treaty Aide.” March 28. UW-Eau Claire Clippings. 1990c Treaty Crisis: Cultures in Conflict, pp. 1-56. (Special edition featuring a reprinting of articles published between December 10, 1989, and April 8, 1990.) Wisconsin Supreme Court. 1879a State v. Doxtater 47 Wisconsin Reports 278-97. 1879b State v. Harris 47 Wisconsin Reports 298. 1908 State v. Morrin 136 Wisconsin Reports 552-57. 1916 Dagan v. The State 162 Wisconsin Reports 353-55. 1927 Lemieux v. Agate Land Company 193 Wisconsin Reports 462-76. 1931 State v. Rufus 205 Wisconsin Reports 317-39. 1933 State v. Johnson 212 Wisconsin Reports 301-13. 1940 State v. La Barge 234 Wisconsin Reports 449-51. 1971 State v. Gurnoe et al. and State v. Connors et al. 53 Wisconsin Reports 2d 390-412. Woodbridge, William. 1843 Confidential Letter to Ramsey Crooks, January 5. Calendar of the American Fur Company’s Papers, Part 2: 1841-1849, ed. Grace Lee Nute. Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1944. Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1945, p. 1291, entry 13,433. Wrone, David R. 1986-87 ‘‘Indian Treaties and the Democratic Idea.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 70 (Winter): 83-106. 250 Chippewa Treaty Rights 1989 ‘ ‘Economic Impact of the 1837 and 1842 Chippewa Treaties.’ ’ Unpublished paper, History Department, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. July 20. (A copy of this paper is on file in the State of Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau in Madison.) Young, Richard M., and John M. Robinson. 1838 Letter to Quartermaster General Tjhomas} S. Jesup, December 18. Territorial Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 1109-111. 251 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters was chartered by the State Legislature on March 16, 1870, as an incorporated society serving the people of Wisconsin by encouraging investigation and dissemination of knowledge of the sciences, arts, and letters. 1991 WISCONSIN ACADEMY COUNCIL Officers Councilors Robert Swanson, President Julie Stafford, President-Elect, Chippewa Falls Katharine Lyall, Past-President Roger Grothaus, Vice President-Sciences Brad Faughn, Vice President-Arts William Urbrock, Vice President-Letters Pat Blankenburg, Secretary /Treasurer Mildred Larson, Eau Claire Terrance MacTaggart, Superior John Barlow, Appleton William Blockstein, Madison Gary Rohde, River Falls Dan Neviaser, Madison Terry Haller, Madison William Stott, Jr., Ripon Susan Dragisic, Milwaukee Harry Fry, Kenosha Executive Director Councilor Emeritus LeRoy R. Lee John Thomson, Mount Horeb MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION Associate Member Receives Transactions and Inside the Academy $25 annual dues Annual Member Receives Transactions , Inside the Academy, and the Wisconsin Academy Review $40 annual dues Supporting Member Receives all publications $100 annual dues Sustaining Member $200 annual dues Patron Member Receives all publications and other benefits $500 annual dues Life Member $1,000 Receives all publications and other benefits (one lifetime payment) Your membership will encourage research, discussion, and publication in of Wisconsin. Please send dues payment along with name and address to: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters the sciences, arts, and letters 1922 University Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53705-4099 608/263-1692 Design: Patricia Allen Duyfhuizen Chippewa Treaty Rights “The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters performs an im¬ portant service in making available this work, which is the first product of an ongoing research project on Wisconsin Chippewa treaty rights being conducted by Graduate School Dean and Professor of American Indian History Ronald N. Satz and a group of students at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. This is an important study that shows the signifi¬ cance of historical research in the service of public policy. ... A reading of the historical analysis and documents in this book should help all of us understand and appreciate Wisconsin Indian treaty rights. Understanding does not come easily, but it is essential to preservation of the rights of all of us — Indian and non-Indian alike.” — Rennard Strickland , professor of law and director of the American Indian Law and Policy Center at the University of Oklahoma, and editor-in-chief of the highly acclaimed 1982 revision of The Handbook of Federal Indian Law. This study is “a remarkable piece of work. A major contribution!” — Richard St. Germaine, professor of education and Chippewa history at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and former Lac Courte Oreille s Tribal Chair. “This is a Cracker- Jacks, a first class contribution to the subject [of Chip¬ pewa treaty rights] which will knock the pins from beneath the opponents’ arguments as well as provide the public understanding of the treaty question.” —David R. Wrone, professor of history at the University of Wiscons in- Stevens Point and co-editor of Who’s the Savage? Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 1922 University Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53705 Telephone 608-263-1692 u#*' TAT* • H Wisconsin Poetry Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Wisconsin Poetry ’^VTHSO! YfaV JUL 2 6 1991 LIBRARY Transactions Vol. 79, No. 2 — Special Issue Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Transactions Transactions is published annually by the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters and welcomes articles that explore features of the State of Wisconsin and its people. Manuscripts, queries, and other correspondence should be addressed to the editor. Editor Carl N. Haywood 134 Schofield Hall University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701 Managing Editor Patricia Allen Duyfhuizen Poetry Editor Bruce Taylor Student Interns Teri Piper Jilloyn Rumple Caitlyn Morrell Polly Emerich Tracy O'Donnell Chris Gruenhagen Lonn Lorenz © 1991 The Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters Manufactured in the United States of America All Rights Reserved From the Editor It seemed to be a relatively innocent bit of dreaming when our poetry editor, Bruce Taylor, suggested that the Wisconsin Academy and Transactions publish an anthology of Wisconsin poets. And when Patricia Duyfhuizen, our production editor, indicated that she would be willing to design and produce the volume, there still seemed little more to the discussion than an idea. The past two years have proven again that ideas and hard work can make good things happen. As editor of Transactions I am pleased to be associated with this anthology and to commend it to members of the Wisconsin Academy and to all people interested in poetry. Those who made this book out of the thousands of poems submitted by hundreds of poets deserve the special thanks of those who love poetry. The work of Bruce Taylor, who selected the poems and wrote the introduction, is obvious. Patricia Duyfhuizen accepted the role of Managing Editor for this special edition and, in addition to designing the anthology, has brought order to the hundreds of activities relating to typesetting, proofreading, layout, printing, etc. The student in¬ terns, whose names appear on the copyright page, contributed much to these areas under her guidance. Jan Kroll, who is a member of the Arts and Sciences staff at UWEC, has managed every piece of paper associated with the manuscript. Only those involved in publishing can understand what this has meant to the project. Finally, the publication would not have been possible without the financial support of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, the Kohler Foundation, Inc., Evjue Foundation, Inc., and the Wisconsin Arts Board. I hope that each reader will see in this volume the joy that has gone into its making. Carl N. Haywood iii Contents Introduction xv Antler Bubble-Boggled 1 Oh-Oh 4 Can Vignettes 6 On Learning on the Clearest Night Only 6000 Stars are Visible to the Naked Eye 8 Margaret Benbow Priests 9 Crazy arms: Earlene Remembers 10 Racine 1950 11 Sally Benforado Watch Out 12 Norbert Blei Red Fingernails 13 In Snow 13 Blue Roof 14 Robert Brown The Geometry of Justice 15 Chaos 16 Notes on Walking Man 1 18 Charles Cantrell Kafka's Janitor 20 An Unprayed-for Song 21 Susan Faust Casper A Fairy Tale 24 Passage 25 Robin S. Chapman Catching Rabbits 26 What Went Wrong 27 High School 28 Going With 29 v Kelly Cherry My Calendar 30 Natural Theology 31 My Marriage 32 The Rose 34 The Doorway to Doom for Objects 35 Transformations 36 At Night Your Mouth 38 Prayer for a Future Beyond Ideology and War Dewitt Clinton Hating November 40 Man Falls with Unfinished Story 41 Elizabeth Davey Twentieth Anniversary Poem 44 Imagine This 45 Scarp 46 Travis Du Priest The Music of the Spheres 47 Lenten Walk 48 Roger Dutcher The Plains 49 Morning 49 Larry Edgerton Aaron's Ear 50 Karl Elder The Rock 51 Fast Approaching Forty 52 A Life 53 Ron Ellis Canto 55 54 Canto 65 56 Jean Feraca Botanical Gardens 58 Of Bread 59 vi Susan Firer It Was the Summer 12 Year Old Dark Haired Alyssa Danced in the Rain in a Blue Net Formal 60 Estabrook Park , 1986 62 Doug Flaherty Raspberries 64 For Ireland at the Resurrection 65 Home Before Dark 66 Night Is an Old Lady 67 Snow 68 Jesse Glass The Deep Witness 69 Gnosis M 70 John Graber 1700 Miles to Elise 74 Like Land Used Up 75 David Graham Self-Portrait as Lucky Man 76 Dusk 77 A Sense of Scale 78 The Library of Home 80 Mother Pills 82 Aedan Alexander Hanley Ghetto Spring 83 Louanne and the Pack of Kents 84 A Woman by the Mississippi 86 William Harr old Trails 87 In a Photograph by Froissart , 1856 88 Judith Harway Fossils and Relics 90 Opening the Nest 92 vii John Judson Esplanade 95 Eve White and Her Third Husband 96 Morning Song 96 Dawn at Drury Pond 97 Autumn Song 98 After Dusk , Walking Toward Drury Pond 99 Story 100 Richard Kirkwood The Farm 102 Dying Like Keats 104 David Kubach Rocky Island 105 Fellow Travelers 106 As Above , So Below 108 Peg Carlson Lauber Notes From the Search 110 Voices 115 Carl Lindner Hang-Gliding 116 Night Fishing 117 Art Lyons To Mrs. Lapitz , St. fames Catholic Grade School Five Moments to Have Again 119 Thinking of You at the Dentist 120 Lessons 120 Closing Time 121 Peter Martin Shadowboxing 122 In High School I Majored in Shop 123 Jeri McCormick Miss Rinehart's Paddle 124 viii 118 Lee Merrill Without You This Afternoon 125 For David Kubach 126 I Sit With You 127 Third Self 128 Marc Mickelson East Meets West 129 Martha Mihalyi Leaving Budapest 131 A Woman in the Glass House Speaks 132 Manual for the Deaf 133 Stephen M. Miller Duck Hunting 134 Flooded Timber 134 The Last Camp in America 135 Year 135 Kyoko Mori Every Woman 136 Sandra Nelson Lagoon 139 fane Among the Ducks 140 Hillside Fish Market 142 Gianfranco Pagnucci La Mer, La Mer 143 A Red Fox Again 144 At Dusk the Picket-Over Garden Goes Bright with Flowers Leland Stoney 146 Angela Peckenpaugh The Purple Lighter 147 From Photo of Coursing Water Silver 149 148 Felix Poliak Tunnel Visions 150 All Things are Candles 151 Discussing Poetry 151 Astigmatism 152 Eating Nuts on a Snowy Evening 152 Explaining Blindness to a Child 153 Jeff Poniewaz The Tomb of the Unknown Poet 154 Kinnickinnic River Elegy 155 Sara Lindsay Rath Souvenirs 156 Flag Day 158 Killing Frost 160 Bruce Renner Finding an Abandoned Farm 161 The Eanguage of Light Ambits 162 Melanie Richards Prairie Fire 164 Where the Sea Surrenders 165 Private Song 166 Dale Ritterbusch Dragon Poem 167 44 168 Suzanne Ryan Wild and Edible Plant Trilogy 170 Robert Schuler "Verde Que Te Quiero Verde" 173 Fantasia for Rain and Guitar 174 Winter Blues #33 175 Easter Sunday 175 Janet Shaw The Handless Maiden 176 Jacob Wrestles with the Angel: an Update The Wolf in My Mother 179 178 x Mary Shumway The Legends Convocation 180 181 Thomas R. Smith Thistledown 182 Ode to Wooden Steps 183 Olivet 186 Snow Flying 187 Keeping the Star 188 Robert Spiess The Whistling Swans Recede ... 189 Snowing ... 189 Becoming Dusk ... 190 It Showered ... 190 Peter Stambler Petrified Blackberries 191 From Olaf, to Henrik in Rome 194 David Steingass Pioneer 197 Life Close to the Bone 198 Bride of the Prairie 199 Slicing the Dust Both Ways 200 Touching the Inland Shore 202 Denise Sweet Trickster 203 Mission at White Earth 204 In September: Ode to Tomatoes 206 My Mother and I Had a Discussion One Day Fever Dreams 210 Here in America 212 Bruce Taylor Father Lewis 214 Middle-Aged Man , Sitting 215 "The Love a Stranger Might Construe" 216 Notes from the Notebooks in Cabin #3 218 208 xi Marilyn Taylor The Tenth Avenue Care Home 222 The Boy on the Plane 223 Richard Terrill "The Azaleas" or "Azaleas" 224 Two Calendars 225 Seasonal Greeting 226 Once I Met B.B. King 227 At the Lake: to a Brother Before Marriage 228 Casals 230 Jean Tobin Professor Rosenthal in the Park , 1983 231 Onions 232 Villanelle in the Sixth Year of Cross-Country Commuting Margaret 234 Dennis Trudell The Guest 236 Green Tomatoes 238 The Art of Poetry 239 Isthmus 240 Ron Wallace The Makings of Happiness 242 The Fat of the Land 243 The Art of Love 244 Grandmother Grace 246 Worried 248 Sestina for the House 250 Sinbad the Sailor 252 Ground Zero 254 In a Pig's Eye 256 Doyle Wesley Walls X 257 Clippings from New Yorker Ads: December 2nd & 16th , 1985 xii 233 259 Roberta Hill Whitman This Gift 261 Continuance 262 Beginning the Year at Rosebud , S.D. Midwinter Stars 264 Lynn Point Trail 266 In t/ze Longhouse, Oneida Museum A Nation Wrapped in Stone 269 J. D. Whitney Here 270 New 271 Yr My In- 272 Yon Know 273 Ecstasy 274 God 275 / Cnn'f 276 Oh Yr 277 Notes on Contributors 279 Acknowledgments 297 Introduction The fun is over. As poetry editor of this collection, I find myself now burdened with the traditional obligations and prerogatives to make whatever conclusions I can about this collection as a whole. My first conclusion is an obvious if not obligatory one: the poetry of Wisconsin is as diverse as the people and the landscapes of the state itself. Wisconsin poetry today does not lend itself to easy gen¬ eralization, nor to the comfortable divisions of category. It is more than the alphabet that separates the largess of the poetry of Antler with which this book begins from the precision of J. D. Whitney whose poems conclude the collection. Few, except the most mean¬ ingless, generalizations could be drawn to reconcile the traditional lyricism one may encounter on any given page of this anthology from the prosey conversationalism or the wild language fugues one might find on any other. Anthology, after all, from the Greek (anthos, flower 4- legein, to gather) means a gathering of flowers. The analogy is apt for any anthology, though particularly for this one, if we keep in mind that the gathering was done in meadow and field as much as in any carefully tended garden, as much along the medians, of busy city streets and in the window-boxes and on window-sills high above reaching for the sun, as along the shady paths that circle a quiet country pond. Just as it is shortsighted and wrong to consider the garden as only its flowers, it is, as in any such collecting, such a gathering, not any individual flower that matters as much, if you will, as the seasons and soils of the bouquet itself. Neither will the processes of classification and division provide much more than the most temporary of entrances into what is Wis¬ consin poetry today. Like any living art it shrugs off easily whatever labels we try to attach to it. It is a vibrant and varied body of literature. It represents not only the professor in Madison or Eau Claire, or the street entertainer in Milwaukee. It includes also the many fine poets writing in very individual styles and often in isolation in many smaller communities throughout the state. Among Wisconsin poets are those of all ages, both sexes, and many different races. They write in all styles about a wide variety of subject matter from many different perspectives. Included among Wisconsin poets are winners of awards as prestigious as the Walt Whitman Award for Poetry, the Wallace Stegner Fellowship in Poetry from Stanford University, and the Hopwood Award from the University of Michigan as well as awards from the Associated Writing Programs, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Academy of American Poets, the Devine Fellowship Awards in Poetry, and others. Poems by Wisconsin poets appear in magazines, reviews, and anthologies of such national distribution and recognitions as The Atlantic , The New Yorker , Poetry , The Yale Review , The Paris Review , The Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry , and others. Individual volumes by Wisconsin poets xv are published by presses as established as Wesleyan University Press, City Lights Press of San Francisco, Viking-Penguin of New York, Harcourt Brace, and others. My second conclusion is no more startling than the first. Though Wisconsin poetry is much like the poetry of many similar states, particularly those of the upper mid-west, it is in some ways as dif¬ ferent from many others, particularly the coastal and more urban, as one might initially expect. As many critics have pointed out, much of the poetry here in the upper mid-west is rooted in the land and buffeted by many weathers. Perhaps it is because even within our largest outposts we are never very far removed from open land or the point and counter-point of four distinct seasons. Spring, for ex¬ ample, traditionally heralded as thanksgiving for survival and a be¬ ginning of the new, seems even more so here to bear its burdens of the conditional joys. And the winters, long and brooding, seem al¬ ways throughout this poetry to have just barely ended or just about to begin. There is more hunting and fishing, more planting and tend¬ ing, or at least more poetry made of it all than one might find in other collections from other places. There is more sausage and beer than sushi and white wine. Yet Wisconsin poetry today also shares much with all the other poetry that is being written at this time and place in our contemporary America. Here in the deep middle of this country we may often be insulated but are not immune from the incursions from the coasts of those same cultural and aesthetic forces that shape much of American poetry. During the sixties and seventies there was nationally as well as in Wisconsin a renaissance in the writing and publication of poetry. Encouraged at first by such popularist literary movements as the Beats, and later spurred on by the energies associated with the Civil Rights and Women's movements, and finally, assisted by significant contributions by the National Endowment for the Arts, poets began to find and create outlets for their work which in turn encouraged more people to read poetry and more poetry to be written. As a result, however, most of the poetry during that period and since has been relegated to appearing in small University and independent publi¬ cations, often of limited circulation and distribution. Although there have been a few anthologies published in this period that have at¬ tempted to collect and preserve some of this work, none, including this one, can completely capture either the scope or the energy of Wisconsin poetry today. Yet without such collections it is impossible for the less than fanatical reader to gain any significant access to Wisconsin poetry as a body of Literature. Any anthology is only a list, one person's gathering, and as such contains within it another list, the poets and poems not chosen to be included, and the nearly endless possibilities of other bouquets and xvi arrangements. There are approximately 250 poems in this anthology which were selected from over 3000 submissions. Sixty-five poets are represented here from the more than 400 who responded to our re¬ quest to submit. It is, perhaps, within this group that the evidence of the scope and energy I am speaking of truly lies. I think of the youngest contributor, a six-year-old from Appleton, who seemed as proud of the fact that her poem was the first one she got to type and print on her mother's Macintosh as she was of the poem itself. I think also of the oldest contributor who at 89 had taken up poetry for "company" some five years previous when her husband died. I think particularly of the group of poems submitted in braille, one of which I have taped above the light switch on the wall of my study. And yet a selection had to be made and this is it. I hope it is one that does some small justice to the vitality and variety of Wisconsin poetry today. I hope also that it is a beginning and not an end for the many readers to whom the pleasures of the art as it is practiced throughout the state await. Bruce Taylor Eau Claire , Wisconsin Spring , 1990 Antler Bubble-Boggled Under the Locust Street Bridge at midnight in the middle of the frozen Milwaukee River alone with a bottle of wine, the starry nightsky twinkling on either side. Getting on my knees, kneeling on the snow, looking where the wind blew the snow away exposing the ice like a window, a window I can see through, A black window I can look through putting my face to its surface to ogle and be boggled by bubbles frozen at different levels in different shapes and sizes, white in color, suspended, motionless. And thinking the moment these bubbles froze wondering if anyone ever saw the moment a bubble froze, the moment an air globule gurgling and burbling on its upward rush caught solid in icy hold. What goes on in a frozen bubble? Does a frozen bubble believe it will still be a frozen bubble after it melts? Thought of when they melt, rising at last, freed. . . . Thought of people who drowned whose last bubble breaths froze midway, frozen last words waiting for spring and those who listen for them. . . . Thought of bubbles lasting millions of years in icecaps. . . . Thought of bubbles trapped in lava, dark airpockets in rock aeons. . . . l Antler Thought of bubbles rising from canoe paddles unstuck from swamp muck. . . . Bubbles in puddles created and destroyed by falling rain. . . . Bubbles with rainbows quivering at the base of waterfalls. . . . Hippopotamus fartbubbles big as hulahoops, frogfartbubbles small as a needle's eye. . . . Thought of underwater spiders who struggle bubbles of air to their underwater webs to breathe from. . . . Thought of bubbles of thought in cartoons. . . . Thought of bubbles sparkling up bottles stared at by drunks for centuries. . . . Thought of carpenter observing bubble in his level as he adjusts the angle of a beam. . . . Thought of whales in love caressing each other with bubbles. . . . Thought of girls hobbling their baubles goggled by bubble-blowing boys. . . . Thought of babyblubbering hushed by motherbreast, bubble of milk on sleeping lips. . . . Thought of Imagination Bubble-wand dipped in solution strewing bubble flotillas on the breeze, different sizes and shapes of poems at different levels rising and frozen as they rise, mind-bubbles caught for a moment observed suspended in time floating, reflecting. . . . Thought how I'm only a bubble rising from birth to death changing my shape from child to man as I rise. . . . 2 Thought of the Earth as a bubble, the Sun as a bubble, the Galaxies bubbles sparkling, flowing, bursting on the black river of space, on the black river of time. . . . Thought of the sound of a bubble's pop. . . . Thought how many bubbles there have been. . Everpresent evanescent effervescence. Mind-boggled by bubbles I gaze with awe through black window ice Realizing bubbles frozen in ice as if I never saw them before, as if I never knew they existed. Bubbles frozen in ice. How I bent to look at them. How I crouched on my hands and knees on the snow And put my face to the ice and peered down at them motionless, suspended, a long time Milwaukee River New Year's Eve 1984. Antler Oh-Oh Birds decide to give up their wings because flying indulges in an ego trip. Hermit crabs decide they have to pay rent on their shells. Snakes invent banks where they can invest their sloughed-off skins. Beavers vote to build highrise lodges above their ponds. Squirrels expect a minimum wage for storing nuts in secret. Earthworm expressways install periodic tollbooths to help defray construction costs. Lions build cages, lock themselves in and charge admission to see them. Butterflies get rich from fee to see emergence from chrysalis. Termite Thoreau goes to live by a dewdrop for awhile before returning to the termite mound. The turnip and parsnip form a partnership. Celery wants a salary. Cows demand humans make their own milk from their own tits and eat their own sawn muscles. Trees agree to sprout money instead of leaves as long as they can make newspapers out of human corpses to print tree-news. Dust motes go on strike for safer floating conditions. One raindrop says to another raindrop — "I don't believe in clouds or that we're falling." Plankton plot how to conquer the Ocean. Seahorses form cavalries and charge to periwinkle bugle-calls. Mayflies scheme to be more famous as poets than other mayflies. Mountains want to get away from it all too, tired of carrying the world on their shoulders. 4 Antler Roses make x-rated videos of rosebuds opening. Sloths realize they better change their lazy ways or else. Spiders decide not to spin webs unless they're displayed in art museums. Crickets refuse to cricket unless haikus take notice. Whales grow back their arms and legs so they can return to land and work in our factories. Flowers want to work in factories too. They feel funny just sitting around doing nothing but being beautiful and smelling good. Penguins decide to take off their tuxedos and wear their bum-clothes for a change. 5 Antler Can Vignettes Blindman holding out empty can hoping for sympathy hand-out. Old bum aluminum can scavenger ferreting can out of trashbin. Predacious diving beetle clutching bubble of air swimming to its home in the old can at the bottom of the lake. My mother with tinsnips cutting and curling can lids into butterfly and flower shapes painted with glue and sprinkled with different color glitter or sequins hung from Christmas tree as ornaments. Survivors of planecrash in Andes living for weeks off dead bodies, waiting, hoping to be rescued, finally the two strongest men cross over mountainrange and descending rejoice to discover a can, a sign people must be near, and soon they reach people and are saved and the rest are saved. Workers with the can industry 20 years get a silver pin of a tin can, 30 years a gold pin of a tin can, 40 years a ruby-studded gold pin of a tin can, 50 years a diamond-studded gold pin of a tin can. Can of worms in fisherman's boat. Can of beans 'round hobo campfire. Can of sardines in grizzly belly. Cans of "Pure Holy Land Air" selling for 50tf in downtown Jerusalem. Cans of tear gas. Cans of nuclear waste. Cans used for target practice full of bulle tholes. Andy Warhol soupcan painting in Art Museum worth more than all the poets in America made on their poems put together. 6 Antler Fifty-foot high Campbell soupcan on tower on roof of Campbell Soup Factory visible from Walt Whitman's bedroom window. Thoreau wrote: "Explore your own higher latitudes with shiploads of preserved meats to support you if they be necessary and pile the empty cans sky-high for a sign. . . ." 7 On Learning on the Clearest Night Only 6000 Stars Are Visible to the Naked Eye If seeing only 6000 stars with naked eye awestrucks us to topple in drunken ecstasy Or piss looking up in devout praise of being. What would happen if we could truly perceive, comprehend and experience the zillions of stars galaxies universes pastpresentfuture? And if, as scientists agree, we only use 10% of our brain's potential. Then the astonishment we sense is only 10% of the astonishment we could sense. And so it would seem that what seems like dots of light twinkling in pretty patterns moving across the black is really enough to shatter us like goblets when the soprano hits the highest note. And if the 10% of the brainpower we do use is ignorant of 99.9% of the totality of the Universe, perhaps a li'l vino in our goblet aint a bad idea — Perhaps a flask of wine in deep wilderness night is more powerful than the largest telescope. Margaret Benbow Priests Mother ran maiden training films before my swimmy unborn gaze, "A dark hairy man comes up to you at a party and offers you pizza and gin at his place, what do you do, my little star?" Baby sister's addled azure eye wanders, she loves pizza. Mother jumps in "JESUS CHRIST of course you say no, NO NO NO," (never mind Molly Monkey and her yes yes yes, better to die bloomless then unbloomered). Still, by nineteen I'd seen Manon and hoped to seduce priests. I would murmur to them insinuatingly, and fling back the black eclipse of a cloak to reveal dazzling new planets, in a red satin gown. My priest would rave his decades without avail, black-eyed looks rough as dogs would follow my high step into a coach. (What would become of me? Would I end old, ugly, bad and lost, with Emmett Kelly whiteface and shitty spitcurls? No; sopranos die young, and die big, of coloratura lung.) Last night years later; lotus-colored smoke wound up to party lights, and at midnight a dark hairy man clapped a kiss on me. He put his back into it, as though sinking postholes, but I turned away with blue nun lips when out of the tail of my eye I saw a young priest standing in, no, by the fire with the sexy corona of his hair outlined in brands. I thought oh man, oh man alive, Eve reared rampant from her coma and stumbling toward fire I was as Jerry Lee Lewis says in the song Breath-less-ahhh. 9 Margaret Benbow Crazy Arms: Earlene Remembers Though I grew up to marry a snowman, though I look like a glass of milk, once I was the queen of consuming passions: and in my mind distant hotbeds buck and bloom with brown-bear hugs, pink tulip skin, and the edible wild plants of lips and ears. Oh, Dave may have been just a big Vice Lord on the streets, but he was Baby Child to me. He would rub his harsh curls against my neck, and tug with excellent teeth at the peach chemise made for big tomatoes. I breathed beastly suggestions in his marvelously ready ear . . . How happy I was, in his clutches! Words failed us, we fell into broken English and then to the searing nubs of vowels, Ahh, ee, 7, ohh, you. A night lush with stars. "Look at me, baby." I kissed him so hard my nose bled, and he said: "Welcome to rock and roll." 10 Margaret Benbow Racine 1950 Days we walked to Oscar's store. It was dark, and crammed with food whose smells and names my grandfather liked: blutwurst, clabber. There were black boulders of loaves, and violet twigs of deep sea fishes dried to lace. Oscar gave me candy, or blackjack gum. We talked. Across the street, "old fool Sorris's" bold young bride, stripped to the sweetbreads, lay athwart a hammock in her Sheena jungle clout and read comics, lips moving, or stretched out her long legs water-colored and pink and absently prodded the belly and saffron heart of Riki, her yappy Peke. Sorris would poke his angry spud of a face around the screen door: just checking. He and my grandfather, enemies from boyhood, hissed insults and sneered behind smelly stogies: "Soreass!" jeered Grandpa, and of the luxury dog Rikitiki, "Ratbait!" Then we walked slowly home and he told my mother I'd been good. She hugged me, and I got to wear her rose quartz star in my hair. Spring days were plumed with pink lilac, but one midnight black as hell I woke bolt upright and knew I'd heard them: the robbers, who would get me first. Hot tears, cold sweat. Oh, I wept and prayed to Jesus and God and to "GRANDMA! GRANDMA!", that blue-eyed English angel. Grandpa heard me, stumped up grumping: he'd like to see the bastards try it. He showed me the shotgun, bayonet fixed, the old Boche rifle with its single wolvish fang. I sobbed with relief, then smiled, then slept. Beneath lilac robbers croaked, yards deep. 11 Sally Benforado Watch Out for that older woman who once rocked a cradle with slippered foot while humming a simple tune. She's paid her dues served her time now she's ready to move. An empty vessel waits on shady shores. In leaps our woman with roar and shout. The broom she holds becomes an oar for arms grown strong from bearing heavy loads. The water foams, the water churns, as she paddles her craft upstream, forcing water to give way. She sings for joy, rocking that boat. 12 Norbert Blei Red Fingernails You never said that the lady who puts words into the mouth has long red fingernails that reach down to the heart, works a silver needle and long black thread, mending torn letters that sometime say love. In Snow You stand there in snow the birds of summer lost in your hair, while the barbed wire fence rusts in my hand and the ditches turn ice. 13 Norbert Blei Blue Roof Dogs hang in trees tonight, cats spark from chimneys, cows float upon the creamy waters of last summer's creek, red roosters rise from the snowy fields . . . I sit naked with you on my blue roof, gathering soft black birds between your legs, licking the moon out of your eyes. 14 Robert Brown The Geometry of Justice Upon inspection, any geometric progression seems simple enough: the rough nature of concrete, of sidewalks, the function of curbs and right angles, the meaning of bisections, of intersections, of red brick, white stucco, marble columns and gentle curves of Romanesque arches, the walled river's slow green flow, the flat gravestones of the poor, slammed doors and sonic booms, howling sirens and more sirens, the nightly news, the father who butchers his only son, the pack of children that torture an old woman's black poodle. Pythagoras, Euclid, Descartes were no fools: they've led us by the brute strength of their brilliance to construct ourselves in their honor. Geometry, like suffering, is precise, discrete. Pythagoras believed "All things are numbers." How well we've followed him: a year or two for rape, five to life for murder, nothing for the torture of a dog. Justice, or just old-fashioned revenge, must follow strict axioms, not dare to vary from the architect's template: the man strapped to the electric chair's rigid contour jerks as the executioner delivers his jolt: the body's resistance is in direct proportion to the voltage applied — if not enough is used, more juice must be added before trying again. 15 Robert Brown Chaos This is the New Science a Post-Modern Science an Anti-Science against Newton against Method against the flawed Ideal This is a science Heisenberg (if he were here) would love a science of wayward atoms unscheduled hurricanes of volcanic eruptions earthquakes that never take place when expected This is a Quiet Science ruled by the unseen and unmeasurable blessed by subversions terrorists of order infinite anti-patterns the curl of smoke the unpredictable tangles of capillaries and roots and branches of snowflakes This is an Epileptic Science a Spasmodic Science easily bored by continuity and predictions regular heartbeats of ir 16 Robert Brown and unrecurrent brainwaves phenomena without repetition absolute amnesia This is Our New Science Our Chaos riddled by the irrational but propelled forever by the same human questions: like the meaning of death like the nature of sexual attraction forward 17 Robert Brown Notes on Walking Man I I begin , but don't know what the end will be. —Giacometti Bent backed Giaco¬ metti walked with a limp complexion the color of dust 0 his elon¬ gated bronzes stretched by pain to absurdity Children laugh when they pass his skeletal remains hu¬ man residue wind-filed cased in lava 18 Robert Brown He carved es¬ sence craved to reduce sculpture almost to dust pared us down to our bit¬ ter core 19 Charles Cantrell Kafka's Janitor Did Kafka ever drop the draft of a story into the trash at work? Say he knew the janitor might see it — a story about a janitor who sees the woman who leaves the odor of lemons in her office, and won't say she loves him when he stands beside her desk and tries to hand her roses. One day he walks to her office to spy on her. She is chewing out someone on the phone. A vase of violets sits to her right. She hangs up as he pretends to read by the coat rack. He imagined her blond, but her hair is as black as a phone. He turns and leaves. That night he touches her chair, wipes lipstick from the phone with his shirttail and tucks it deep in his pants. What can he do but inhale, close his eyes, see her but never know her, never know her body, just know the lemony veil that haunts the room. 20 Charles Cantrell An Unprayed-for Song What was the greenhouse? It was a jungle , and it was a paradise , it was order and disorder: Was it an escape? No , for it was a reality harsher than reality. — Theodore Roethke Whipped for daydreaming he retreated to his closet and became wedded to the magnet of darkness, but always fought the pull clear to his bones; always looked for a hair of light in anything, especially behind the hot glass where he watered flowers, and eyed steam gauges with such intensity in winter, he forgot his bruised buttocks. Those fragile stems that bleed at a touch, petals that wilt from a cough, listened to his rage, didn't talk back, didn't tell dirty jokes or doubt his stories from sleep about a child who rode a swan toward a sundrenched horizon and beyond to the stars. He raked spilled manure and dead seeds for sparrows, blackbirds, scarlet tanagers, blue jays. From examining the wreckage of a blackbird his father shot, he knew that deep in the craw is a bone the precise length and sharpness of a needle, and the transparent skull must vibrate to each song like the skin of the thinnest drum. His songs behind the double-glass of bone meal, mist and prize roses weren't Dorsey, but for what blossoms in the flesh, how to comprehend the fire consuming his father's face in his sleep, and why a milky ghost would curse, wobbling at the top of a walnut tree. 21 Charles Cantrell After each whipping the scum and lime of his childhood thickened for the unborn songs that grew, nourished like those accusing chrysanthemums. Within the loam and seed of each song was the question of forgiveness. If his words kissed the mouth of a bat, it was his mother. If the ghost bluegill floundered in the slaggy water, it was his father. But the forgiveness always swam in the dark bones beneath his songs of the flesh. He painted his words on the glass helmet of his soul. Drunk and enraged, he chided the genius literati, broke an ottoman across a table and pounded windows out with his fists. He winked at virgins and virgin words. Stretched under a pool table or rolling in a meadow of violets, he was always trying to measure the rhythms of the greenhouse, but with so much darkness around he hid it in suitcases or closets, the same way he packed it like dirt in flower boxes. Crying in the closet, he didn't know it might be the poet's business to remember, God's to forgive. When he left the shrinks a flower surfaced, pressed like the star of a sand dollar on the temporal bone, just under and behind the brain. How little time he had to forgive himself when those old faces were crying in his sleep. 22 Charles Cantrell crying for forgiveness. And a few were singing from earthy closets, new songs he had prepared in half-darkness. Perhaps one rose, half finished in a dream, a sick old man who like a child needs stories or songs, and is already surrounded by funereal perfume. Perhaps he was teasing words while he stroked in a pool with a mouthful of vowels, then breaking them toward order the way he broke girls or a class, moving around them like a lawnmower sparking stones, pointing out their ignorance, then asking their forgiveness. He reached, but swallowed them all: the fish, the unforgiving sun and all chances of songs for anguish or joy in the chlorine coffin. 23 Susan Faust Casper A Fairy Tale Hyde Park I never asked a glass, who is the fairest, or sulked over your skin, soft as the inside of a lamb's ear, hair the color of twilight. Or cared when whistles were for your legs not mine. Nor did I send you into the forest with only a slice of stale white bread when your lashes grew thick, cheekbones emerged, and firm, high breasts. But when the bobbies thought us coeds, and picked us nosegays, you scattered your blossoms from Speakers Corner to Kensington and teased, "Isn't it funny, how you're losing your looks, just when I'm coming into mine." So I turn toward the Thames, and let my flowers soak full of ancient spells. Tonight while you sleep, I will steep a potion of petals, and in it soak an apple red as your cheek's blush. 24 Susan Faust Casper Passage In that noisy silence, we were quiet, blue, mother and daughter worn from birthing gone too long. The world tilted as we stepped out on the wire, began to inch by inch ourselves back to one another. I leaned left as you swayed right. The wire undulated toward you. You mimicked my dance and balancing your weight with mine, we took another step forward for twelve years until now we meet, the trickiest part of all. 25 Robin S. Chapman Catching Rabbits Child in the southern summer Stalking prey, I propped up the flap Of the army knapsack with a crooked stick. Tucked inside the carrot that Bugs Bunny waved Under Doc's nose every Saturday, hid Myself in the briarpatch brush, ready to jerk The string that would topple the trap shut; Waited all that day, and the next. For cartoon rabbits to come to the bait. While, under the porch, the cat stashed His halfeaten carcasses and, each night. Rabbits cropped the blackberry shoots; why Is this still important, that vision Of the soft creature I would catch, befriend. Stroking away the fright? And the damp heat. The loud scold of the mockingbird. The scratching thorns? I wanted The knowledge I don't have yet. Of how our two real lives might intersect As the long week, later, I tried to care For the fierce marsh bird, wings full of lead. That I found in the storm sewer and brought home To the tub, feeding him the only food I could imagine, night crawlers wriggling Through my fingers and down his craw. He lay In my arms, twisting his head, the day he was Dying, and I walked him out to see the trees And the sky. I don't know yet what marsh birds Eat, or how to repair their thin-boned wings. Or if I could have saved him with such tutelage; Now it's the child who teaches me. 26 Robin S. Chapman What Went Wrong Was my grandfather drinking And my grandmother nagging him And letting her kids know She'd leave him if she could And my other grandma Weeping that no one would help her And my other grandpa Traveling as much as he could And your granddad dying In the flu epidemic Leaving your mom Half-orphaned at twelve And your other grandparents Like my first, your dad Raised to be good and sober Who never spoke; my dad Who walked out one day On all of us, my mom Who never said a word about it Your mom, who never shut up How you learned not to listen How I learned not to talk 27 Robin S. Chapman High School What sticks in the mind is the black slinky in physics the twang of its wave traveling the hall— still, who could believe water didn't travel, watching the waves reach shore? Or the formula for angular momentum, forgotten, like the words to the 45s we collected, but its sense connected; Or Mrs. McGhee in American history, sitting on the table chronicling the Civil War, swinging her divorced legs and letting us in on history's secret — It's all in the pocketbook — and now we believe her. Though back then, spinning slower and slower to "Stardust Melody," feeling the wave's motion traveling the body's wires, we might have given her an argument. 28 Robin S. Chapman Going With At ten, his hair slicked back With styling mousse. Josh Lets me know he thinks he's going With a girl in his class, who called A friend, who called to ask. In front of the mirror the rest Of the evening he tries on ties — Fat ones, thin ones — his face Alight, practicing for the first time The complicated, conventional knot. 29 Kelly Cherry My Calendar The day of longing, when light loses itself among the serpentine vines and brambles, reflecting The day of the string quartet: that music's with me yet, pure as spring water; I fish in it with my net of words The day I lay in someone's arms, listening to the clock tick — outside, it was dusk; down the hall, someone was cooking cabbage for supper The day of death, its breath soft as chinchilla against your skin Always, I celebrate the day of newness, clover and lilies, when air smells sweet as talc, the grass glows, and shadow is rolled away like a stone from the door of a sepulcher 30 Kelly Cherry Natural Theology You read it in the blue wind, the blue water, the rock spill, the blue hill rising like a phoenix from ash. Some mind makes itself known through the markings of light on air; where earth rolls, right comes after, our planet's bright spoor. ... If you look, you'll find truth etched on the tree trunk, the shark's tooth, a shell, a hunk of root and soil. Study from beginning to end. Alpha and omega — these are the cirrus alphabet, the Gnostics' cloudy "so — and yet." If a tree falls in a forest, a scared hind leaps, hearing branches break; you crawl under the log and shake honey out of a hollow, eggs from a nest, ants from the end of a stick; resting, you read God's name on the back of a bass in a blue pool; God grows everywhere, like grass. 31 My Marriage (Genus: Lepidodendron) It goes under like a spongy log, soaking up silica. I love these stony roots planted in time, these stigmaria, this scaly graduate of the school of hard knocks, these leaf-scarred rocks like little diamonds. And the rings! . . . the rings and cells that show forth clearly, fixed and candid as the star in the north. Giant dragonflies, corals, the tiny bug-eyed trilobite grace this paleosite with shell and wing, cool, amberstruck exoskeleton, nice flash of improbability felled and stuck, past petrified in present, free from possibility's hard and arbitrary demands. Once, seed ferns swooned. Kelly Cherry languid as the currents in a lost lagoon, while warm winds swarmed over the damp earth like locusts, and rain was manna. I hold that time still. Divorce keeps it real and intact, like a fossil. 33 Kelly Cherry The Rose A botanical lecture It's the cup of blood, the dark drink lovers sip, the secret food It's the pulse and elation of girls on their birthdays, it's good-byes at the railroad station It's the murmur of rain, the blink of daylight in a still garden, the clink of crystal; later, the train pulling out, the white cloth, apples, pears, and champagne — good-bye! good-bye! We'll weep petals, and dry our tears with thorns A steep country springs up beyond the window, with a sky like a pond, a flood. It's a rush of bright horror, a burning bush, night's heart, the living side of the holy rood It's the whisper of grace in the martyrs' wood 34 Kelly Cherry The Doorway to Doom for Objects " For in whatever part you say the atoms First begin to fail , this part will be The doorway to Doom for objects . . ." —Lucretius, De Rerum Natura It opens in the heart. Today and tomorrow. First love must depart. Then sorrow. And then the rest of the world Says thank you and good-bye. Crossing the threshold To die. A whirlwind sucks all things Like liquid through a straw. The great door swings Wide, the great maw Swallows all energy And soon nothing will stay. Moral entropy Cuts short the play And ends the party too. We go out to go in. We go into Nothing, or Sin. 35 Kelly Cherry Transformations I You cast me out and up: I spin and drift, slow as Argo in the southern skies. Old-power, sweet-dream, only-one, I remember your world — Green and blue, continents the color of shale, whole seas gritty with salt, air transparent as quartz! I remember your hand on my back like the shell on a snail, and ground-shadows blown by a cloud-rack. II Look at this: The celestial equator emits tropical light waves. I burn and blink. I compass your planet like the sun in Ptolemy's time, burning, blinking. III Heat is energy in transit but it's a one-way street, hot to cold, and I'll never get to meet you coming. This, though I can say hello in Greek and Sanskrit! You pass me by. I'm as insignificant to you as the sky. Be warned: An ice age is dawning. Scintillating ice crystals are forming secretly at the edges of things — of Vermont, Maine, the Antarctic Ocean. Heat is in motion. I am becoming rain. 36 Kelly Cherry IV Old ever-real, nothing's true: Space flirts with time and time cheats on you. She says she's going shopping — in that negligee? She leaves you in the lurch. Only I remain, devious as Democritus, assuming atomic weight, spending passion in the process. I feel my way slowly, in the dark, underground, and surface at your grave like an artesian spring, and all the past is drowned. 37 Kelly Cherry At Night Your Mouth At night your mouth moved over me Like a fox over the earth, skimming Light and low over the rising surfaces of my body. Hugging the horizon against hunters; Or like the other hunted, the one who runs Back exposed like a billboard to the barbed wire and starved dogs. The men in guard towers, danger sweeping the snow-patched yard Every thirty seconds, the shirt you tore. To make a tourniquet for your leg, fluttering like a signpost Against the branch of a birch tree, saying THIS WAY: You were looking for someplace to hide, to crawl into, A place to lie down in and breathe Or not-breathe until the dogs pulled the hunters past. Fooled by water, wind, snow, or sheer luck. And I folded myself around you like a hill and a valley. And the stars in my hair shone only for you. Combed into cold blue and deep red lights. And the river ran warm as blood under its lid of ice. And my throat was like an eel pulsing between your palms. And the air in my blood was tropical, I caught my breath And held it between my teeth for you To eat like a root. There were black grouse in the forest And the moon on the snow was as gold as your skin As I remember it shining on Nightingale Lane, But the dogs' barking in the distance carried too clearly, A man snapped, STAT! And you trembled, troubled and impassioned. You covered your eyes with your hand. And I felt the shudder slam like the sea Pummeled by God's fist. Wind-bit waves sizzling against the fiery cliffs of Liepaja — And you were the ship The harbor dreams of, the brave husband 38 Kelly Cherry The bride awaits, the seed For which the earth has prepared itself with minerals and salts. And I folded myself around you like a windrow and a furrow. And whispered, so no one, not dog or man or man-dog, would overhear: Now Now now now Escape into me. Prayer for a Future Beyond Ideology and War When the world dissolves in its own chemicals And the people's bodies are as ghostly as the particles discovered by Josephson in 1962, which pass through walls like light through air. And the people's buildings are born again as blueprints, and the print is invisible and the blue is the blue of the innocent, amnesiac sea. And the hardwood trees, falling in forests everywhere, their fractured branches tangled like a woman's hair after love, make no sound not because they are not heard but because there is no longer anything for them to land on and thud against (The pine trees like unplayed whole notes trapped in a barbed-wire stave)— And even the stones have become as insubstantial as thought — May there be new cities in the tolerant sky. Held in place by their own gravity (Or lack of it), places of peace where a man and a woman Holding each other in the familiar bed of their long night May see, through the window, as clear as light The stubbornly loving shadow of a star that was once our sun. 39 Dewitt Clinton Hating November In the cold dark I wait for a trace of light. It's been like this for a month. If I get up I'll never find sleep And what is more lovely Than safe, half lit dreams? It's too early to run. The floor is cold. Night lingers too long in the house. I hate November, the way light Takes so goddamn long. I've eaten all the crisp apples I can stand. It won't snow for another two weeks. Outside, running by the river, I frighten a grazing doe. She leaps ahead of me. I sprint. This is all I want. The first minutes of light. Graceful flight. The good beating of our hearts. She turns into the brush. I keep running. 40 Dewitt Clinton Man Falls with Unfinished Story This is the story of a man whose wife may die before he can finish his story. Long, long ago a man and a very nice woman decided to sun themselves on a perfect white sand beach. As far as happiness goes, they were the perfect mates. She was a bit obese, he was very chubby. One sunny day, the two thought it might be nice to go up the Blue Mountains, on a train, to see the rum distillery, way up on the very top, box lunch and all. The train stopped half way, so every¬ one could walk down to the jungle buried caves. He has a flash poor picture, in case you'd like to look. The train departed after an hour's wait. During that wait, the wife began to die, right there, half way up the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. She hugged herself all day, so she didn't see what all the tourists came to see. She spent all her time bent over. Inside her pain, she thought she better change the way she ate as she was very pudgy. At the hotel beach party, on their last night, with lots and lots of lobster, they did not have a very good time. She did not even dance. You can see this in the pictures. She looks puffy gray, he barely fits his forty-twos. They came home and very quickly she started on a weight loss diet. 41 Dewitt Clinton He thought he'd feel better on a diet, too. She lost pounds and pounds. They both lost weight together. They were the perfect love mates. Well, she got nice and spooky. Food was not the trouble, but her Uncle's busy hands and somehow lots and lots of sweets made life all so much the better, when she was only six. Now the cupboards are quite empty. She looked wild and starved. He's right out of Dachau. She checked in and stayed awhile. She took anti-this and anti-that. Six months later, still very thin, she took all her pretty babies but they only made her light and airy. Now she knows which ones will be her masters. Things get worse and worse. She gained it all right back. Clothes don't fit her now. That made her wild and fussy. She liked the taste of yogurt, ate carrot sticks for lunch. He ate, but nothing ever happened. That bothered her a lot, her weight. Stay with me, dear, we're almost to the end. He went away to write a story about a wife who touched his heart, quite deeply, who got so scared, he thought, while he was away, she might fly away, for good. 42 Dewitt Clinton He never finished his loved one's story. In his story, the man who loves his wife so dearly slips and falls and as he falls he wonders why those damp, green caves make him cry so much, and why he wishes if only he could wish, he could go back, stay inside those tourist caves, happy he was, he thought, on holiday, with his wife, waving, from inside the train, waving words I love you go have a good time. He misses her so much, right now, the man, that is, who falls, who holds this flash poor picture. Please look it over in your leisure. 43 Elizabeth Davey Twentieth Anniversary Poem My mother sprouts a single black hair from her chin and the thought of an old-woman beard sends her rummaging through vanity drawers — tangles of dental floss and hoarded bars of hotel soap, clogged mascara and eyeshadow raked by three successive daughters. Residue of simple beauty in her hands, but no tweezers. She gives up her search and brings this wound, coarse and dark, this imperfection she cannot conceal, into the kitchen. My father sets his brandy down, adjusts his slipped glasses and tilts her face into the stove- top light. He leans over her, examining as he has probed an infinity of slivers; needled and pushed wood out of fingertip skin. And then he kisses her chin, kisses with lips that have sucked bee-stung arms and barefoot arches and spat the poison away, lips which gnaw meat from bare chicken bones passed to his plate, lips that heal with a breath of brandied balm. When he finishes he smiles and pulls the hair from his teeth. 44 Elizabeth Davey Imagine This My best friend swims deep and I stand at the end of a pier; my hands resting on my hip bones, I stare down into the water. The white flash of his body passes — or just a cloud reflected in the murky green? The wind blows off the lake, the waves wear against the wooden legs, the ladder; I cross my arms, tired of waiting, and wonder how long he can hold his breath. So I call, but the water eats my voice and spits back foam; I begin again and tell him all I'll do without him. Strawberries will ripen soon and I'll wake early and fill baskets at the pick-your-own-farm, eating as I crawl through the rows, the fattest berry held up for admiration before I bite it clean from the stem. Then I'll spend the day sweating juice in the kitchen, three cups sugar for every cup of berries hulled and sliced to show the pale hollows. The jam jars will rattle in boiling water to the hum of a fan that can't give enough air. Your skin is going to wrinkle down there I tell him, but he will not break the surface; I turn and walk to shore. Listening for a splash and breath I almost walk away. But I go back to tell him the storm windows are down, through screens the neighborhood listens to its life: the rinse of dinner dishes and the quiet of a crying child. I remember love and sit down on the beaten boards, dribble my toes in the water as I wait. 45 Elizabeth Davey Scarp She teaches geology; we visit a landslide in her backyard. It's just a grassy slope that falls away from her house, too steep to be mowed. This is creep, she explains, material moving without a discrete failure surface. She climbs down in skirt and glasses, kicks at the earth-cracks under grass. I'm still thinking failure — slip-surface, surface of rupture, there are many names for the plane along which everything gives. Think of a tablecloth pulled slowly across polished wood, nothing to hold it down. The salt and pepper shakers, candlesticks, are caught in the flow; the movement tips them over. This is just a little landslide, no rock or rubble, only noticed by a woman whose kitchen cabinets pull away from the wall. She has watched cracks widen in her driveway, now tells how soil-water freezes, expands, lifts the dirt a little, then drops it downhill in thaw. Someone gave anatomy to landslides: head, the part that everything falls from; body, all the displaced rock and soil; the toe reaches forward, spills on new ground. I am not the first to turn this language back on myself. My teacher struggles to climb up; I almost reach for her hand. Then I think she can do it for herself, this land is only slowly slumping. Here is what causes the big ones: liquefaction, when you are shaken so hard the clay that holds you together loses all strength, just dissolves. 46 Travis Du Priest The Music of the Spheres The first thing I do when I wake up is to fill the house with music so empty, so silent it became over¬ night, the dark peace, the sun's rising, Mozart all one, as in Dante's circle of luminaries, loving and learning. Slowly strings and keyboards drift down the stairs into hallways and kitchen, room by room, finally reaching the basement where most silent of all sit washer and dryer, cans of paint staring at different seasons of the year: Christmas, Easter, Advent again, underneath, and waiting for the music of time. Even when I go out, I leave the radio on, imagining my dog likes Beethoven, that the Chinese porcelain figures find composers who make them laugh, that the books listen to Studs Terkel. That the house is safer, warmer, more like a home, when filled with music. That maybe once in awhile a melody floats up the chimney and out into the air where it becomes the sky and my house and I, for a moment, join our chorus to the spheres that hold the universe together. 47 Travis Du Priest Lenten Walk The brown oak leaves still on the trees and the long prairie grass, like the combed hair of a sleeping princess, wait between us and summer. The air comes fanned over mounds of snow, gusts of chill that greet the first to open an ice house on an August day. Not knowing what to expect, we dress for winter hoping for spring: the sun is warm and we open our coats. The baby son of last year (for whom I waited every two steps) now circles me time and time, grouting every single patch of leaves on the ground. By the lake — Big Water, he shouts — naming the place as ours. On the ordo, this day Belongs to Herbert. Otherwise, the silent slipping of February into March. And as we walk this late February morning on the soft fields, nature herself takes a risk, bringing June early. And I think on young George Herbert, lying all night on that cold floor in Bemerton, frightened to death of the vows he would take on the morrow, planting himself in silence, trusting to take hold. And on the homecoming I think of the way any life takes hold, the ways our lives have taken hold, and on the way this little child of mine can still ask to be carried, can still let me kiss him and not wipe the kiss off his cheek. 48 Roger Dutcher The Plains Solitude Measured By the sky. Morning The birds know What it means To live forever 49 Larry Edgerton Aaron's Ear He wakes up near midnight, suddenly deaf he thinks. Blood trickling into the marble cup of his outside ear. And yelps so loud we wake up. 'Tm bleeding ," he cries, A nine year old with finicky ears, eyes, and lungs, Maddingly hospitable to asthma and pernicious viruses. The emergency room says it's a punctured eardrum. It'll heal with Amoxicillin. Still, we worry. No yelling. We tell him. No loud tv, no headset earphones. The next day I tutor a numb, nervous boy who's deaf. Who watches my lips and lives at a remove. A fever once gripped my ears, and now I hear underwater — Sinking farther each year from the surface, sounds muffled down. Speech and bird song and car horns slowly swimming silent. I look stupidly at a clerk. "Sorry," I say. Impatiently, she repeats herself. What she says doesn't matter. What does? Surely not what Aaron doesn't hear. Not the anger my student has never heard. Not the fine articulations I miss in a room of gossips Or from a bank clerk behind her cage: white noise That drowns out a pure line of thought. Yet you have to hear to know what not to hear. Or you're always catching up, like a dubbed movie When they say "I love you, I love you" but their mouths Are chewing pasta. You're never at the moment but somewhere In the narrow territory between deaf and dead: A man dreaming that he wakes up in his own coffin, and then does. 50 Karl Elder The Rock This is the story of a man striking an unexpected rock in a garden he has worked for years, whether the garden is real or not. For a second he wants to look up to see his house is there, that he hasn't been plowing the neighbor's plot by mistake, but, certain this is no dream, he squats to extract the rock. It won't budge. He shoves at it with his boot, but it won't be moved. He selects a lever and a concrete block from the shed. No matter how deep he probes there is more of the boulder. Much later from a distance the gardener is seen with another man. They talk and gesture toward the ground. Each wears a straw hat. Both are leaning on shovels. Small mounds of clay contrast with the expanse of rich soil at their feet. The next day the scene is so far away that the exhaust fumes from the backhoe are barely visible. There are more men now, standing in a great circle, staring down from the edge of the hole. Nightfall. Everything is quiet. The yellow light from an aluminum awning upstairs cast on the green lawn like a single buttress remains on for an inordinately long time. At dawn a bulldozer arrives, fills the hole. Again the scene is a close-up, the man is plowing around the rock that is the tip of an iceberg, the peak of an underground mountain, or the earth itself — whatever. Only one thing is certain to the man: The rock is not of this world. 51 Karl Elder Fast Approaching Forty Even in perceptibly evaporating light, even as he beats these weeds for a baseball while friends wait for him to show with the poker chips, he is actually happy. How exact the thing is lost till the instant it's found, he remembers, still searching. Parting a giant thistle with his brand new glove, the only he's owned since Lord knows where he lost or who lifted the first, twenty-five years ago, despite his name burned on back with a magnifying glass — the pristine patience it took of a June morning, like one long summer as sweet as the clover blossom he'd pluck from behind the backstop to suck in the outfield — he knows without thought the distance between him and his death is infinitely divisible, having put it all behind him, his very birth someone else's version of yet another's suffering. Yet time will not be the talk at the poker table. He will speak of box scores and things, that in a game called pass the shit, you never refuse an ace. He will not talk about the lost ball either, assuming even, fast approaching forty, he finds it. And certainly he will not talk about a receipt for the ball and gloves, how as it slipped from his fingers when he got out of the car and as it zig-zagged leaf-like to the concrete, he stopped to watch, yet did not stoop to where it lay, and still lies, but stood to marvel how, even while playing father to his sons, detachment to moments of his own making remains so massive, so finally incomplete. 52 Karl Elder A Life With both hands a small boy holds a ball of string so big it doesn't occur to him there are two ends, so far from him is the center. It is only after the string is tied to the kite, the ball growing smaller — yet, with each glance, more vivid— that he can predict a beginning, the nothing the sphere is wound around. So it is that somewhere between boy and man he is made to understand that the atom, too, is hollow, and therefore the universe. He comes to see that this is how his life will go, that the string unwinding so fast, which at the very last he was unable to hold, had nothing to do with a beginning or an end, but — like the making of the sphere— everything to do with both. 53 Ron Ellis Canto 55 One of the A source said difficulties with the steel casing He takes pride were bolted Susan Lucci found Curtis of varying degrees "delicious" to work with together, opposition of fiction and reality is that it severely and unnecessarily narrows artistic options by enforcing the script, an all-too-predictable dialectic. Reality is the existence horrible; it drives us into satisfying in which he as insisted of his Whoever ignores style. But there are many others who feel differently, changing worlds of our own making. But the at a the first scene defective joint where two sections of poet, with his the precision department, it is our job to differentiate, prized the set is and in part faculty of self-consciousness, knows the external fuel tank nearby, his the subtleties department the thin wall of fictions that could quickly have burned and improvising on through not to be "true"; however unsatisfactory reality may be, as at 5,800 degrees Fahrenheit; a Nor is at least they ought to be, in it leak would have become a that Tony Curtis And since writers are, or has been late for. blow-torch a the first scene on that reason. "Mafia Princess" sane and mature individual of evil, (who will not 54 Ron Ellis dwell in fantasy) the the right-hand SRB might have burned the movie is Some are almost fair, some are bad, some are lethal, based) through its The solid fuel burns casing, perhaps poet is Moreover, there are differences among states, and fourth sections, forced the best seller on for just which to "open up" his of being very evil, the booster's third fictions at a This The state is a necessary evil simply because many individuals are themselves very capable is I beg to differ, not seal of evil is bound to become a servant point between to reality and to face the Investigators the burn-through probably occurred believed in being an instinctive actor (he hasn't bothered to read that hard truth. 55 Canto 65 She sat in the sunlight with eyes closed, where shadows of cedars moved with the wind. She saw radiant gold and sheets of red, blood moving across the lids. She saw darker shades that were the sign of the wind. She watched and knew the names of the shades and their waving, knew the names of many not sitting. She asked that they might sit. Thinking of them she let the names go. Then she saw in all the brightness still other light gather, light forming a globe that was yet sun, cedar, wind. She knew it was light named by few. Thinking of such names she let the globe She saw radiant gold and sheets of red, blood moving across the lids. She saw darker shades, the cedars moving in front of the sun. Ron Ellis that were the sign of the wind. She thought of the few, and the many, and was afraid until she let names go and saw in all the brightness light forming a globe she did not name. She held the globe without a name and knew it held breath, body, sun, cedar, wind, the many and the few. She let the globe go thinking of what she knew. 57 Jean Feraca Botanical Gardens Beyond the steaming glass and massed leaves, alone in the sunken room, I am serene. Orchids sway toward me out of Chinese vases and here above the blue seas of the carpet, I still sail in your wake; I close my eyes and find the whole garden floating up, an island rising inside me. Each time I find you, all the sorrows rush out of me like rain from wet pine. I feel huge and light, like the elm balancing on one leg, dancing like Shiva — all her great ecstatic arms wheeling and furling in the air, obedient to each impulse, at home with desire. 58 Jean Feraca Of Bread It doesn't matter that the house isn't locked. Without you, it's empty as an oven of its loaves I want neither your ham nor your cheese nor your oysters and white wine I want the yeast of you, making me rise til I split, two halves in your teeth and the butter melting, the hot bran your yam-yellow light spilling your honey seeping all through the comb Not this house with its darkening oak. Not that table laid with its cold plates. 59 Susan Firer It Was the Summer 12 Year Old Dark Haired Alyssa Danced in the Rain in a Blue Net Formal It was the summer Little Russel picked up all those dirty words, and no one could stop his 7 year old bad mouth no matter what they did. A face like an angel, then he'd open his mouth, "Hi, Mrs. Dickshiner," he'd say to me, just like that, over the fence between our yards. The next summer I planted hollyhocks. Let the bees inhibit him, I thought. But that first summer, I was stopped short, un-pre-pared. I know I heard a gun go off one night that summer, and Barbara, Russel's mother, changed her hair from banana popsicle yellow to black — in one afternoon. It was not an event you could let go by without comment. There were two robberies on our block that summer and one divorce. The Robertsons bought a new blue Nova and started parking it on their front lawn like some oversized yard decoration. The highlights at our State Fair that year were a 1,150 lb. pig named Balls and a 40,060 lb. touring cheddar cheese named The Belle (20 feet long, 6 feet high and 6 feet wide.) My daughter & Little Russel talked shy Sarah up the chestnut tree, and she fell, wrists first. Both broke. Someone (no one remembers who) rolled her over. She lay there with her arms up, wrists broken like one of those goats that faints when frightened 'til Jim found his car keys and rushed her up the block to the hospital. 60 Susan Firer How all of us cascade young into nights full of summer and music, children and gin. Our yards growing us. Around us com, beans and apples, and all our coming deaths inside and around us. And us running on adrenalin, burglars of ourselves. Death has this corduroy feel to it like autumn like loans. My father died that very brilliant October that followed Dickshiner summer. And my mother followed him. I became the most agile of beings, double jointed of home and heart. There are photos where I grin out from a circus colored mouth one child on my lap, one next to me. The children are wearing sleeveless summer dresses. I'm dressed like a homeless person, a junkie, someone who wears it all at once. 61 Susan Firer Estabrook Park, 1986 A ceiling of dragonflies we stood under outlined by glistening newly hatched mosquitoes. Estabrook Pond to the left, four deer in front of us. I was huge: nine months pregnant covered in white Indian cotton, holding the small hand of my flowered eight year old daughter. For twenty minutes, everytime I nodded the deer with the rack would nod and allow me and my daughter one step closer. It was a long game of "Captain, May I?" with deer. In the humming twilight the dragonflies dived at the mosquitoes, the mosquitoes thick in front of us, on and around us looking like screens on the coming night. I squeezed my daughter's hand for silence, awe and control; we were swelling with bites: blood spots on her cheeks, my ankles, our arms. Still everytime I nodded, the deer nodded and we moved a step closer. Four feet away from the deer, and from the road yells "Jesus, look at that," "Come on." And two boys on silver bicycles came bumping over the curb, up the grass and towards us. In seconds, they covered the same field it had taken us twenty minutes to cross. 62 Susan Firer Like a blanket folded back, the deer together turned and disappeared into the thick July green. Don't ever let anyone tell you close doesn't count. We might not always get what we want — or, how we want, but smelling, hearing the wild breath of it all holding someone's hand, life knocking within looking deep at twilight into the wild eyes of it all and getting permission to approach should keep us for a long time out searching and remembering as much of it as we're able to like the rustling sound of deer running away through thick July green. 63 Doug Flaherty Raspberries The fathers told us how sparrows ate a fill of berries beat wings dropped seeds across river and years of growing parted by waters grew into flaming briar If we believe what the fathers say about seeds cleansed in dark stomachs and if we start out heading due north knifing our bodies against the current we will fill a bucket by last light of today if we believe in the guts of words roots contained in seed then we will know that the sparrow is a bullet in the heart of the living dead 64 Doug Flaherty For Ireland at the Resurrection In the pulpit of the field the horses sleep on all fours. The grass kisses its roots, hurrying the arrival of miracles. I am a druid who knows mad gods meet gods and jostle in the dark. I spread events related to stars before our thankful bodies took us here. Dream, or shadow, perhaps a film of air coated the wombs of women, waiting, hesitant, darning flesh, waiting for love to irrigate the dark furrows of their fields. We yearn like young girls to be taken off by strangers who practice potions, spells, and herbs, no less than eucharist. I sleep in the belly of stone, dance in light of your song. Dance with your shadow, soon your shadow dances with you — water lapping a song on the lips of the moon. Come, make a wish. Now blow out the stars. 65 Doug Flaherty Home Before Dark You dropped in out of April rain and when I asked you for touch you said the white farmhouses in Connecticut all have duckponds You laughed until my mouth sheltered yours against shadows In the deep woods of my fear a black door stands against a tree and the door neither opens nor ever closes on love And then I felt your tongue a bullet in the wound of words Then I felt them slither again knowing they swim down deep the small fish not yet legal in the pool of my stomach nibbling the flesh-bitten walls until all the bait vanished I was waiting for them to break into light and stroke me once more upstream to be reborn But your eyes reminded me we are neighbors lamb and bull Our houses will never sleep again Then you winked and said again the white farmhouses in Connecticut all have duckponds Those creatures are too white to fly their souls too content to soar their stomachs heavy with love-grain I tell you need keeps me grounded and I turn to stroke your whiteness Promise to have you home before dark 66 Doug Flaherty Night Is an Old Lady unlacing her corset, cropping darkness from her thighs, thick with deceit like blinders. Behind the slaughter house for lambs, beauty dressed-out in death's clothing. All the rifles wear silencers so death cannot be heard. Suffering stalks lithely as a greyhound. The spiders are loose again, tangle and sting. Stomachs swell with prey. Even the owls moan only one syllable — nature's broken record in a wooden cage. At daybreak. Night slowly sucks darkness round her innards. From out the birth-stench of animal, a hundred white butterflies float out the rent eye-sockets of a gutted spring lamb. They fan into daydreams — prayer for mute creations of the womb, before sky lowers on their thighs to eat the flesh promise made. Before fingers of darkness stir us in a circle of lies. 67 Snow The fields assume it is cotton come to hush town gossip The people are asleep who talk all day of their stature At night the deep snow listens to its own slow tightening A red pig burrows for cabbage while a flaming black cat leaves its sizzled imprint like fossil trails in stone All winter the ground groans and turns on bald haunches Far from here ancient birds walk ocean bottoms roped apart like mountain climbers Some of these visions are private and appear suddenly before us stark as a public viewing Pins on the clothes line are the bleached bones of winter wrens who refuse to fall Jesse Glass The Deep Witness A man beats a woman because he sees her Turn inward when he touches her. He knows she is running across a black field Toward a house he can never enter. The front door is copper-cornered and moves On hinges that creak like his mother's voice Calling his shame down a well. At every Window he sees his father's face, broad As a pig's head, smiling and broad. And Through the walls he hears bed springs jangle And another man's name repeated Until he is compelled to drag her into light And weave a promise under her nose With his fists, and pull her before the deep Witness of the mirror to trace the marks Of his fear and passion, confessing like Thomas To Christ what he can't believe, even when He probes the baffling wound. 69 Jesse Glass Gnosis M 1. The female won't nurse those that can't pass her postpartum nuzzle. She counts nascent eyes, legs, & will not pop the birth bags of the odd ones with her teeth. Though for days the failures suck no milk — they're hardy: the mother leaves them under a bush but, screaming, with a voice half-human they drag themselves along. Follow blood scent to her hiding places parading in their flesh her violated image. 2. The dog with two bodies and one head, the bull endowed with four thousand eyes and ears, the poisonous gosling, the moon-calf, the Lamia, rattle their night cries in the bushes at young women sneaking to their lovers. Whisper: We are the dark ones waiting inside you for the midnight probings of a man's wrong move to unlock us. Our troops train in Limbo; our mongoloid thinkers recall the glories of Hyperboria, Atlantis, Lemuria, where we raised back steles to the flippered goat who taught us numbers and alphabets. The Nazis knew us, the flayed Albigensians, the impaled Bogomils, deciphered the code you women scream as you push us into a midwife's pail. We are syphilitic sons chained in cellar rooms, the idiot kept caged for thirty years. With cleft palates and scaley fists we demand our birthrights: the destruction of mirrors, the bed you grope in, your name, your meat. 70 Jesse Glass a kitten with six legs turned backwards crawled up our steps, starving, screaming. Mother drowned it in a scrub bucket. Twisting on the bottom underneath her broom it roared for life. '"Monster" she called it from the other room wrapped it in newspaper, and handed it to me. "Don't open this up, son, give it to the hounds!" I ran through the weeds with the small death in my hand, knowing that something loped behind me down that path, fanning the hair on my neck with fetid breath. I couldn't let it catch me or I'd grow sullen and carry sweat-stained newspapers under my arm forever like the shell-shocked man in town. Hounds stood upright at the ends of their chains and howled at my pale skin. I threw it in their jaws; the moon rose at my right hand. I heard the dogs gnash the death apart. 4. We found a book hidden deep under bras and panties, the pictures of the fiippered babies and the hard words to sound out made us watch mother as she fixed our meals: her sad heavy face, her fat legs dragging her bulk from sink to skillet. What names did she keep from us, biting her lip, and how many times had she creased those pages back over her belly, and listened to us play? 71 Jesse Glass 5. There, staring down from every wall is their portrait, in our pulse lies their potential. We lean against the pillars of the summer house and hear their roar in the forest, yet they come no farther than the light's wan crescent, waiting for our invitation to ring out from megaphones to millions of believers, for frenetic mobs to goose step to the ululation of our weird swearing of fealties. Or in the silence of the bedroom where brother and sister toil on against the blood taint, they whisper of the old days when the motile worm on father's thigh peopled a fallen world, in God's despite. Do not believe them! shouts Mother. Stand vigilant at the gates of birth and remember: 6. If it has too many or not enough it is a monster and it must be killed. Count the fingers and toes. Count the eyes. Number means much — number the eyes. 72 Jesse Glass If it walks funny; If it writhes snake-like, roaring; If it gives no reflection; If its hunger is endless; If it won't stop sucking and lie Meekly down in straw or swaddling clothes; If the mother rolls her eyes and whinnies in fear; If it smells of death, or still wears a rotting caul; It will crowd us out. It will follow us in dark places. Kill it. Kill it. 73 John Graber 1700 Miles to Elise I did not always lean so forward to the page to speak a word so far to find you past my crowded eyes now emptied of your face caught double in the iris and my heart. I did not always have to find a key unlocking my house door with you not there to welcome in with at least a touch of image in my eye more live than walls. I did not always have to bear such silence since before we met and merged and married to unfold four more voices to embrace within the ears' deaf-mute empty rooms. I did not always only feel the head's weight bearing down and table wood beneath my arms and only non-commital clothes against my skin and never anything but air against my face. I did not always miss the climbing up of children on my life with you alone, yet now all hands would find a greeting there for grip upon my hair, my hands, my heart. I did not always have to arm myself against a dearness that now threatens to dissolve my form and words, so far away from being flesh. I did not always hang or live on every word. 74 John Graber Like Land Used Up Like a plain still holding meadow curves but brown and seen from one personal place in the broad palm of it, I am, with all blades stooped in a uniform lean, like stalks crushed or blight bent wheat. The heart went out of it, all at once, all over. And, still, the still picture of it is waiting. Waiting like a long dead tree still waits, sign to a whole life spent learning to stand in one place so deep it is hard to forget. Once an apple orchard died without a sign in middle season, two years and two bounty harvests after one sharp freeze froze earth past the deepest roots, killing all from the bottom up, but not before two years' grace wore threat out in doubled seed in earth that was always ready to wed. No, not like land used up is my present plain. It's more like dues for shallow root putting in a too irrigated easy life — and as I say it, yes, I am not in one place, yes, out there past target zero there is a green that is mine, I can tell, like newborn fingers starting to move before the eyes — such, such a blue child I must have seemed, but watched, watched, the fingers begin to move all over, beyond the palms, like secrets beginning to tell. 75 David Graham Self-Portrait as Lucky Man Because I pay my bills on time and often smile when signing checks my credit limit's been raised again. I'm looking better and better these days in the bathroom mirrors of interstate highway rest stops — my pallor and road-dazzled eyes lend me the cool intelligence of actors in foreign movies where no one completes a sentence. And though I cannot find a job I'm the kind of man you would think should have no trouble. Yesterday my car stalled at a traffic light in time to avoid being hit by an escaping felon's truck. Even when I lower my eyes in pain or shyness I'm sure to glimpse five-dollar bills in the gutter. My wife is so kind I do not deserve her, though she swears I do. 76 David Graham Dusk It is the hour between dog and wolf and the hour of liver spots enlarging on the soft forearms of my grandmother. At such times the cinderblocks shrink into the vacant lot rubble. It is the hour when the retired consider part-time jobs. At meals everywhere conversation lags, the hour between mortar and brick, between ice cube and tumbler. In the backyards ropes hang still from the stripped crotches of trees. A bad time to encounter mirrors or ease down into a scalding tub. When my past comes to inhabit me it is now the hour of sand, climbing the stairs step by step even as I sleep. Hour of severed phones ringing and my father who calls me before him in his night chair. 77 David Graham A Sense of Scale We played pig-face, my brother and I, for soldiers on convoy down the Thruway, whole truckfuls of baggy green men fresh from high school, boots black as showroom tires. Dad found it easy to pass a Jeep in no hurry, so we mugged ''Anchors Aweigh" to see if those Army men would notice. "Pipe down," called Dad, but then Mom whistled "Bridge On The River Kwai," calling it by some other name, and sang all the verses in a brassy voice we'd never heard before. She was a sergeant in the War, we told all our friends, and Dad just a corporal — though he got to fly to the Philippines while she typed memos in Enid, Oklahoma. In browning snapshots they ambled hand in hand on pass or furlough until their olive drab marriage spliced with someone's reconnaissance shots and tourist views: calendar vista of Mt. Fuji through the trees; a whorehouse in Manila maybe, where dark skinned women without shirts lounged among Dadless soldiers in smoky rooms; one withered Filipino peasant with breasts sagging to her waist — captioned "Old Saddlebags" in a hand not my father's; 78 David Graham what we called "a jap" incinerated grinning halfway out of a tank turret; another, driftwood bones and scraps of flesh sunk into sand on an unlabelled beach. Stranger still. Dad himself, in a jungle with a dozen buddies, stripped down for volleyball or swimming, smiling at the future. "It wasn't bad for us," he would say, "we needed lights and running water for the darkroom. We could cool down." Still, he was so skinny and frail we hooted all the louder at this Thruway' s crop of aimless privates, with their plugs and gum, their sunday-driving nonchalance. At the rest area. Dad and Mom got carried away saluting each empty Jeep in the parking lot. I did not think then of the final shots in that album they never mentioned but allowed us to find in our nosings — - aerial views, but low, of Hiroshima not long after the blast. Acres of rubble, just like our town dump, but with here and there a chimney, phone pole, or charred tree trunk to give us a sense of scale. 79 David Graham The Library of Home Refreshing to hear a familiar name has gone under in the old home town, or perhaps a bar where I once drank beer and argued a position I hated. My savings bank gives me the time of day. Too Late, and the temperature. Very Low. I remember what I love and no more: I love a small town just after midnight, when all the stoplights begin blinking "go," and the lit and empty telephone booths begin their secret ringing in the fog. A man wants his boyhood to be simpler: even the headline's lie of omission should comfort: honor roll, marriage, and death. A never finished highway occupies dotted lines on the map, like the unlived life of the prodigal son, who would not fulfill the provincial brag. The evening paper headlines instead, "Man Gets What He Deserves," topic of every graduation speech. A house I once lived in, altered and wrong, succumbs to this bodiless longing, these swirls of an unrecorded fingerprint. Any snapshots curl their wings like dead moths and turn slowly to dust in these attics, a strangely ominous fidelity. Any brain is folded upon itself many times, like the chalkiest roadmap still refusing to go the wrong way. For here is a town whose mayor is part-time, whose children orbit with glad gravity, whose downtown will never move to the malls. 80 David Graham And at the library it is business as usual, Andrew Carnegie's strange gift to the heartland. Though on the street out front the rubber skid-patches are permanent, as is the dusting of shattered bottles over the sidewalk, and though the aisles are crowded with cookbooks and mysteries, everyone knows there is a private shelf in the librarian's office. And there are the books of which I have always heard, books of travel, lust, and complication. 81 David Graham Mother Pills Who couldn't sleep? A boy with diseases lifted from Reader's Digest , a new one each month: tuberculosis, leukemia, fear of open places, dread of the new. I pestered my mother who brought me pills in the night, aspirin she called magic, the very narcotic I pleaded for. Some nights they were, and I drifted away. Who cannot sleep? A man married to fear, mothered now by long distance, each new list of her ailments I tend and count like sheep. Her comforting voice still rains on my roof. Surely she cannot forget being kicked from within, my pink-footed scrabbling for release. That's why she takes each misstep as aimed at her. That's why she swallows pills to heal me of her memory. That's why my fitful rolling in bed can wake her. Yet regardless of my insomnia her crippled hip will act up tonight. In the years since I called her in the dark, habits die hard. Visiting her these days, I hear the all-hours radio complaining, her murmurs to my father in a new voice. I think of my gradeschool essay on her: how much she loved horses, how she was tall, how every night as she stood at the stove she retold us what a bad cook she was. I may also have drawn her long hair, eyes split behind bifocal lenses, but what remains is that sliver of light under my bedroom door, the voice my voice could waken, sure as rain. 82 Aedan Alexander Hanley Ghetto Spring An amoeba of mosquitos cutting across, or shooting through a square wire fence-hole, cats like hungry babies crying in the gangway, and wasps landing to catch their breath, their survival guided by the sun, and big, black ants peeling, skinning the faces of peonies or birds fighting in the dirt tracks carved by ice from the past winter's slow, glacial scrape across the alley, and the cops asking if old Mrs. Wilson made it this winter; and bugs, asparagus beetles, like german flags, march over the graves of perennial four o'clocks, and dog feces scatter the land like Monet's haystacks after the leaving of the long, winter snow. 83 Aedan Alexander Hanley Louanne and the Pack of Kents I was thirteen when I had my first butt. Robin, this milker, turned me on to Kents. I'd lime her barn for money and cigarettes, then walk five miles for a pack. Barefoot down the cracked-up road, pressing tar bubbles with my heels. I'd pass this old Coldspot freezer smoking fish out its sides, and this horse. Patches, who hung with the cows because he thought he was a cow. Taking the bend on HWY. J, then five steps up to Braumshreiber's general store, with its wooden floor and fake front like a Hollywood movie, I stood in the doorway, looking down. The long aisle, to its meringue ceiling and lobby lights, lit a butcher's face, his waxy mustache dulled by yellow haze, and white apron bloody with guts from Patsie Shef fen's old bull. My front tooth missing, shorts to my knees, and hair combed flat against my face. I'd ask for a pack of Kents. Louanne ran the register. "Are you old enough?" she'd say. Louanne was big. Breasts to her waist, blonde hair shorter than a fly's, and a sunburn around her raveled elastic swimsuit. 84 Aedan Alexander Hanley She'd throw me a pack and buy me a cone just so it would look good. I'd sit where the old-timers in clean pressed bibs watched trains, eat my cone, smoke a butt, and listen for the old Chessie to squeal through town, drowning out the smell of cows. 85 Aedan Alexander Hanley A Woman by the Mississippi Her expression is nothing to look at. You would think her occasional pats of the water, the rippled buildings reflecting, boats and people thinning out with each wave was a romantic thing, but it isn't. The Mississippi is like a fat slug. Its surface images of thin, rheumatic couples holding hands edge the river, and break the sand — slurry crabs hide their faces, distorted, tinged in the dirty light. The river isn't beautiful today. Its brown mouth spits-up stones along the shore, the pitted ones layered on layers of smooth snail and crab shells. And only the weepy tree at the river's back waves over the water soft and green. 86 William Harrold Trails Early autumn. First frost. A round moon leading on . . . the deer leaps high as fir-limbs propelled over wooden railings. She bounds through dry corn-stalks and leaves a strange excited trail, where the shivering shapes of rabbits twitch at a passing shadow. Then seeing what nothing else must have noticed, she streaks downhill toward the village and plunges through a field of clear glass stars, her nose bleeding for hours among the diamonds and rubies. Dawn comes. And the moon goes after other darkness. Nothing is seen except a scarecrow arriving in coat and tie to open his jewelry store. There are only nights, . . . and trails filled with lighted notions. 87 William Harrold In a Photograph by Froissart, 1856 First one drop against the cathedral spire, then a slow stream down stained glass. The Rhone and the Saone have been swelling for days. And now the flood at Lyon. Rows of tall trees wade like herons in a vast canal. The sun keeps its distance. Nothing can promise the return of grass and flowers. From their high windows two faces gaze at each other through opera-glasses, as if at the beginning of a strange new love affair. It is obvious the water is still rising. The gas lamps will not be on parade tonight. Monsieur and Madame Bouvier, deprived of their early morning walk, comfort their whimpering poodle. Monsieur stares at La Bourse de Lyon, then at the main thoroughfare that once led from Paris to Rome. Money floats on the water, dragging its dead gold feet. By evening their minds have risen to fever crest. Madame moves through the room with her slim taper searching for a memory strong enough to buoy three lives through the night. 88 William Harrold As she lifts the lid from the teapot tears slide down her silk handkerchief, and her sobs suddenly snuff the nervous flicker, the room in full darkness flooding with the ghosts of roses that once flamed the endless gardens along the Rue Bonaparte. 89 Judith Harway Fossils and Relics My father keeps the interlocking histories of rock and bone boxed up. The labored cursive of the labels is my own, as though I shared his need for names more certain than embodiment. Some things I learned: 400 million years ago this crinoid stem was anchored to the ocean floor. Water filled and emptied it. Water was everything until there was no water, and its keel bears scars from breaking with its roots. When I reach for it. I'm reaching for the sense I lack, of passing through one tart, deciduous world into another. Every spring we made our pilgrimage on knee and knuckle through inverted time: his term for tailing heaps at Retsof Salt Mine. What was deepest in the earth came out on top. Where we pored over stone. Where the tincture of his sweat belied the lime's drab grey. Where I squatted, aping gravity and interest as he prized a paradoxides from sleep, its thorax tapering, its crescent eyes almost reflecting sun. That's when the coarse rock fled my feet and I fell, hands plunged in the slope like sea-anchors, away from him. 90 Judith Harway And after, he knelt with me in the sharp-edged past, his bloody handkerchief pressed to my palms. The blind sun hovered over his left shoulder. I still hear his liquid voice invoking sediments that love each tiny life enough to risk protecting it, to harden and endure millenia of uplift and erosion. I listened past him, past my faulty hold on earth, my messy blood. Father, it's been years. Your bones betray you and you fall among the motley talus of our dreams and dreads. And I keep opening this box of recalcitrant displacements, deep embedded patterns bared and catalogued, to touch the wild unlikelihood that any life be saved. 91 Judith Harway Opening the Nest In his hands the crowbar bullies slat from joist; he weighs against the old dock's split and splinter, dragging out the rows of nails that fall to rust. When, years ago, my father struck those nails, his hands decided on the careful spaces, measured air and wood. I stood too close and caught the hammer's backswing on my leg. I fled indoors, afraid of my own blood. Perhaps I shouldn't stand so close today to glimpse the underside, or watch a young man straining, steel on wood, to pry the boards apart. * * * Inside, a world of veiny rot and pockets pinched by mandibles; a world we never saw. I think back to the silver maple tree: a carpenter ants' nest hollowed it out when I was small. I heard the wind flute in through cracks and knots, the music of no past came twisting in my window, summer nights. I rose, I listened, but I never looked into that trunk to see what I see now: a darker place, a bed of mold and eggs as white as cuticles; the buried system of the wood, the shells uncountable, the one dense nerve composed of everything. * * st- Deep in the borrowed board he spots her: Queen, a knuckle long, a ventricle for slave and lover. Kneeling down, he lifts her with a stick. My voice will make no difference, but I shout until he flings her in the lake. There is no splash. I take his hand and we stand, staring down into a nausea of limbs and eggs. 92 Judith Harway 'They find another Queen or die," he says. Something is very wrong: I see the stick float in, her bright black carapace, a squirm and ripple. As he smiles, I know his argument: that when a thing survives it's meant to. But his crowbar fits my hands, I bend and lift that stick onto the dock and bring the metal down. * * * What is your body? Trunk and limbs. Why do you lie there? It's neither lake nor land. What holds the dock up? Stakes and rusty nails. Where do the ants live? In the pores of wood. What can you see in light? The lenses of another's eyes. What else can you see? The inches underfoot. Why did you shout? The wood was damp and crowded. Why did you strike her? To see what was inside. Did she fight? Yes. She almost made it. What are you then? Human, pure. Where will the ants go? Somewhere else, another Queen. Where will she come from? Somewhere else, a different plank. 93 Judith Harway What happened in the silver maple? Ants ate all the age rings, left it hollow and the wind sang in to fill the trunk with sound. How did it sound? Like music, lovely. How did you feel? Hollow. Full. 94 John Judson Esplanade The avenue bordered green too long for him. So once, when he was alone, climbing a willow that hung somewhere in the curve of his mind, where nothing yelled, and a river wound around the land and itself, leaving, unlike a snake, live sloughs for all this thirsty world, he paused. In his head, a fond but mute applause for what struck there: one sheet of blue that stitched his eye to the furthest sigh his grandfather ever breathed; one caterpillar, who in all its lumped fur followed its own singleness beyond what any mind could personify of cramped and lumpish creeping; his tongue rung by the trill of one bird whose pleasure even fulfilled the sun. And this, he never told or turned to words, just let drift beyond the blocked concrete he walked, which realtors, in turn, had sold and sold and sold. 95 John Judson Eve White and Her Third Husband If breast-size were the measure of a woman or church attendance, then the Good Lord would have put a cow in Eden or a nun, but when He thought it over as He did. He knew that Adam was a lonesome man and the new garden quite a place: thick woods around and ferns and talking snakes; that nude male needed something wild, but warm. So he created Eve from a floating rib, and here we are, always prone to tides or moons or storms. Our hidden cargo rides at rest only when it's moored to rock. I've found that twice. Now, I hear the tick of the clock in the hall at night, and on the roof the weathervane squeaks and turns like a rusted jib. Morning Song I dip my coffee water now from the spring. An earthworm crawls across its floor, and I have two thick hinges made of brass fastened above it to the weathered hardwood door. The water seeps up through black leaves, in a hole I helped time hack from the earth, beneath a boulder dropped by the glacier's melt. It is older than any ideograph of man or the walking Chinese eye of their verb to be. Who would believe me if I said I have never been more happy with life? 96 John Judson Dawn at Drury Pond A night of invading woods' ants, and the deer mouse threshing in the trap, until, white fur exposed, she twisted to her back, caught in a forage for new food. All early morning, rain filled the pines, and now, in the first crack of light, the mist scarfed among their greens bums off, two loons rise from rush across the bay. And day has come again out of the Grand Banks, hauling its long furrow through the sky in a wake that spreads out against balsam, fir, and mountain pine, filling their darkness with sound and a scintillence: each point kindled by seafire in wave troughs, then flung westward to the sand, where every grain opened its eye and burned. 97 John Judson Autumn Song Maybe the day is cold, the light slant over the rill, steep where the alder and the black willow wait rooted in frost, their leaves hanging like the patterned sleeves of a gown my grandmother wore at an end of the season ball: splendid color, spangles on the walls. Turtles and frogs are going deeper; my mind the same, caught in this open wander, tracking light, its low angle, the heart ripened like tart fruit that fills to fall. 98 John Judson After Dusk, Walking Toward Drury Pond Moon, the clover lover, intercedes, and ahead, a slant field shakes its pine, salmon-shuddered, brook-climbed. Wind finds a way through the timothy where we climb through June toward home, where high ridge turns to plunge, and ends in pond, where the last loon calls his passing under the gray birch, which, mirrored, pulses there like a silver vein of water. 99 John Judson Story It was Tuesday, I think, about 8:30, and she was about to make her way to the cellar, through the piles of clothes to be washed on the stairs. "Dirty clothes have no need to be hid," she always said, so hers were always there for anyone to see. She had just come in from the garden, where she went first each day after breakfast chores were done, and just as the sun was climbing above the ridge to the east so it caught the dewy points and made them sparkle. She had seen, that morning, a turnip or carrot, I think. I can't tell you what, for that would be too much for what outsiders are privileged for. I'm not complaining about that you understand, for it might be more than I could take, knowing which turnip held the dew in just what way to change the day so and light her. Well, there she was, up on a Tuesday morning, her feet tracking the garden mud downstairs past the week's wash piled so anyone knew what food the family ate and where they worked or played; and there, right at the corner of the stairs, where the window looked back like a photo that framed what she'd seen, she stood and screamed. Woke the whole house up to whatever it was was lost or hurt her most when she looked back for it. I'll say, the family got up fast that morning. And when Herman came to her on her knees in a pile of dirty clothes, he caught her to him tight and rocked her head to his chest like she was a child and he some older man who had caught a look right into her head and had to stop there and hold her, rocking, not so much for the child's sake, but for what he'd suddenly known of his own, being human, and so, responsible. 100 John Judson Anyway, that's the story of how the Mitchells used to live here once, and why Herman quit his job at the mill and took their kids from school, and how they sold the place and color TV to us. I don't know where they are now. Down south of here or west. No one knows a thing for sure except those two, or maybe me and you, or some turnip or carrot- top covered with dew. 101 Richard Kirkwood The Farm Together they live, on a strange farm, more important (it's said) than the six pigs, the two cows, or chickens chickens everywhere like a multitude of angel wings like many fast clouds He tills the soil with a plow as rusty as dried blood. Drinks water right there in the field from an earthen jug covered with wet burlap. At night reads a Bible of well worn cow hide 102 Richard Kirkwood She cooks the beans mixing them with dreariness of flat flat land and a man who loves only work and God. She feeds the angel wings she sees her husband bloody for meat like an awful sunset touching the white white clouds Maybe they are happy maybe they live: the people, the dirty pigs, the gregarious cows, the multitude of wings. 103 Richard Kirkwood Dying Like Keats Like Keats, I am dying. I am seeking the real taste of the dark fall melon before it closes — squeezing me with its musk life to something smaller and blinder than its own seed. I am dying. Like Keats, each dark day I seek bright night when the strange bird sings who seems to live forever. Its song bleeds gaudy, lovely scents among dream flowers. Each day as you walk, shadowed from the shadows, songless as a broken melon, darker than a hidden song, do you know you — like Keats — are dying too? 104 David Kubach Rocky Island Aurora, my daughter, a morning girl, has chirped off early to our tent. I sit on this bleached log, a stony Lake Superior beach, eyes following the channel north between Rocky Island and South Twin, north and north some more. At some vague edge the sky and lake should separate; tonight they don't. Tonight they blend into one horizonless blue-silver shaft rising from beneath my knees, as if I sat at the secret infinitely penetrable heart of things. Like slender wings, or the tree-lined lane lost at its crossing of the greater road, the dark tips of the two islands seem barely there to represent the granite shields, the thrust and buck, of continents. Then a meteor, the closest one has come to me, intersects this climbing corridor of dimming light, flares up and is contained. Face burning in the growing chill, I grin, contained myself, another gap-toothed seeing-is believing child. 105 Fellow Travelers Out of low popple woods a little fellow came, August-ridden, to lay his head against our garbage can and fall asleep; he didn't even eat. My mother, seeing him, went bravely forth, armed only with the pot she beat, woke the little fellow up and moved him smartly out; sometimes I think of this when I can't sleep. And later, on a rising trail through sterner country where the real ones ruled, we laughed, we swore, and sang and yelled, we moved them smartly out, one summer's trail crew coming through . . . But we'd be quiet, as, at a low spot in the trail, we watched the water gather in a track; the claws at least would not retract. David Kubach Yet there was another trail that didn't climb or cross —through open lodgepole, a sunlit, easy walk. And once, all by myself, someone fell in behind me, about my size but wider. We were that way awhile, easy going, going easy, as if he were just out walking his own pale ghost on a long ghost leash. Until, at some right point, he veered to amble cross-country, on the track of his nose to where — I'm sure — the keenest of the sweets were hid. 107 David Kubach As Above, So Below Summer, this year, slow in coming, didn't so much progress as hold a convention in July. July was it— summer's womb and grave and meal and mouth, a tongue of sun stuck halfway to September, summer feeding on its future, licking ripe the blackberries above a berry backlog. From the early, chilly side, the great yellow mayfly hatches we take for granted last week of June went off with the Fourth, when the brown trout, those elegant assassins, lost their European restraint, swallowed, with those mayflies of an evening, ten thousand years of discipline in the arts of ambush and escape. While I, wader-cased, patience strained by a month's poor fishing, to say nothing of a whole life hung like a crumb on the lip of a vast anticipation, knelt in the pregnant dark, casting a fly the size of a small bird, and from behind one fallen elm, killed eight in maybe forty minutes, the river bank a factory floor of mud-slip slither, thwack, and spasm. 108 David Kubach So much for dry-fly decorum, gone downstream, in suspension, with the compost of half a life's regrets. Heavy soils, they used to hold the tree of heaven up, until it fell, became a bone, a bridge, a roof of sorts across a mouth of water — one fallen elm above the slurping trout, white, wafer rings dissolving on the thick, black tongue of river that gorged my appetite. 109 Peg Carlson Lauber Notes from the Search I. Every Mother's Daughter I am hunting for my mother. The arrow is knocked, the bowstring taut by my ear, singing a lullaby I never heard. At Mercy Hospital on Halloween Houdini did not appear again; the faithful have gone to that room for fifty years. At Mercy Hospital there is a room where my mother lay ten years after Houdini died there. Perhaps she cried. Perhaps she was just glad it was over. At Mercy Hospital the records are sealed; at the Wayne County Courthouse the records are sealed; in Lansing at the Capitol the records are sealed just as surely as my mother will be closed in her coffin before I find her, sealed and hidden where I cannot hunt her anymore. no Peg Carlson Umber II. What I Really Am I am not really this tall. I'm about two inches high right now. From day to day it varies depending on how I feel. Sometimes I reach four or five feet. My hair which sometimes feels brown, sometimes red, occasionally blond (when I'm feeling sexy) comes from a close or distant relative, depending on whether it is Monday, Thursday, or Saturday. My voice is the echo of evangelists, hymnodists churning out saving grace or comes from some strident aunt or cousin, a termagant or hog caller, a master sergeant at Farris Island. My father, I think, was full of medals which I'd have saved if I'd had them. And I'd have saved the Nazi helmet he might have brought back, or the Jap sword. He'd probably never have taken a bribe but was just not used to children. Pictures hang on the bushes along this path I walk, pictures of my family. Some have my eyes, another my mouth, this one my daughter's dimple — 111 Peg Carlson Lauber these strangers — I take them down, books from infinite bookshelves. My children and I read them late into the season as they fade steadily from the unseasonable sun. III. 8:40 After I've finished my tea I eat silence surrounded by the smell of bacon and suddenly I'm being born beyond the window from fallen crabapple blossoms. I wake walking the edge of a gorge filled with orange and purple shadows and the sound of slow water. I am standing in May washed by the rain. But after I've finished my egg I hear snow hit the tin roof of the porch, smell the snow filtering around the door as I lie down and make an angel in what has crept onto the kitchen floor under the laughter of my children and the voice of my mother who is calling me home to bed. 112 Peg Carlson Lauber IV. My Birthday On this special occasion my mother would have said, "Slaughter the guinea pigs and rabbits." My mother would be fierce, not put off by slime, blood, a few guts. She would take the knife and rip them down from throat to tail, peel the fur coat off and toss it casually over her shoulder. She would say that her grandchildren should go out and get a job, pound the pavement; she would say, "Don't coddle them!" and send them out at twenty below to sell the fur off their backs. "See," she would say, "it toughens them." My mother would not give an inch and they'd return home singing — a birthday song which she'd direct by beating her baton on their bare, cold backs. 113 Peg Carlson Lauber On this special occasion she'd cook the dinner taking the birds from the cage, the dog off the lawn, tenderizing the meat overnight, marinating it in hot blood, chopping my iris for the salad and garnishing it with our leftover nailclippings which we'd have saved for months. I have started the fire. My daughter, my son, and I huddle around it until my mother, their grandmother, comes flinging the door open, warming her hands, and beginning to love us one at a time. 114 Peg Carlson Lauber Voices At the edge of the swamp she had neither house nor mother. She kept her music in blue suitcases and was always ready to go but never played a note. Her cello lacked an E string. She sang frequently on the dock that stretched endlessly into the swamp, heard two voices answer her song with their song. She was thirty when she gave up winter and fall and composed an oratorio for A string and alto. It was a celebration but it escaped her. She stepped into the muddy water hoping to find a road to the other side where the voices had said she belonged. 115 Carl Lindner Hang-Gliding The wing of nylon, red, is something to try on. Your heart flutters as you dream. More than the flag of desire, more than rippling in the wind, you will fly yourself, a kite rising on the thinnest cord. Always there has been this itch between the shoulder blades. Feather by feather, hunger grows. In the singing light, you breathe and ride the belly pressing up against you, only you and that woman's voice, the wind, whis¬ pering "Higher, go higher." 116 Carl Lindner Night Fishing This is your secret place. Into water going black as an iris, you spin a fine line. It is weighted with sinkers of lead. It is baited with your heart. Where it kisses water, dropping down into deeper dark, a ring of silver opens like an eye. The moon, that bobber, rides the ripple, settles down again. Again the wet black gives back the stars. Diamonds in a net. You are fishing the sky. One star cracks, splinters into chunks of fire falling down the night. Before the tug, before the bubble moon breaks into its dance, you know what you have caught. 117 Art Lyons To Mrs. Lapitz, St. James Catholic Grade School Since grade two you've stayed with me like chalk dust, like milk money left unpaid. I scrubbed two sidewalk squares with paper towels for you and half the school's main stairs because I spit. At recess you hid behind the school and asked the Sisters what my father did. You made me cut and wear a tagboard baby bib and set me in the hall each day by the playground door so every kid who'd come or go to play could laugh at me. And now I think I know why you didn't spank that kid who I said stole the extra milk, why instead you made me sit in the hall for one more day — so I would learn not to snitch but to pray. 118 Art Lyons Five Moments to Have Again 1. He painted the whole garage: the support posts window trim, the eaves, everything — almost. He found a hornets' nest in a corner and, trying to paint around it, he got too close. 2. This girl at a party smiled and whispered, "Let's go." Eyes closed, he watched her long red hair flow to the floor, her soft neck open up to him. He claimed he had an early test and had to go. 3. In that high school prom picture, his wife stands with her date. On her dress two green ferns fan out to cup an almost open, single rose. He never sees the petals through the boy's hands. 4. As his mother died, he told her she wouldn't. He spoke only of those errands she shouldn't bother running, housework she need not do. He almost told her other things, but couldn't. 5. His son's football thumped on the roof as he wrote. He almost put his pencil down, grabbed his coat and went to roll in the leaves, but he sat all day writing, connecting quote to stifling quote. 119 Thinking of You at the Dentist (for A. L.) When some crying kid kicks on the waiting room rug and rips up all the picture books When the dentist pats me like a long-time pal and calls me by a different name When he lifts his mask up sticks his latex hands in my mouth till I feel sick When he scrapes my teeth clean with his metal pick and cuts my gum or hooks my lip When his drill bit screeches grinding at my teeth and grabs and kicks at tiny nerves When my cavity's chiseled to sandy bits of grit When I finally rinse and spit I think of you Lessons (for Michelle and Adam) You practiced once your strokes and dives, my swimmers at the shallow end, pushed out with schools of friends, kicked and splashed back till you arrived. Today you splashed less, swam more, cut the water, kicked to ascend, to breathe, crawl out and walk, and then your bodies rippled off the board. Closing Time (after the Country Music Awards) Art Lyons From my stool I saw all your friends leaving. Tough luck. Since your pitcher's still full and the night's not young, put a head on my beer. Babe. Put your tail in my truck. I'm empty as a keg at sunrise since you snuck off with Gus. But Gus, he just left. That song's been sung. From my stool I saw all your friends leaving. Tough luck him leaving you here like the foam in a glass, stuck like a pretty young doe that's been gutted and hung. Put a head on my beer. Babe. Put your tail in my truck. If you'll be my sweet doe. Babe, I'll be your big buck. I need you tonight like a salt lick needs a tongue. From my stool I saw all your friends leaving. Tough luck they don't want you tonight. But I do. I could pluck music from you like a guitar that's just been strung. Put a head on my beer. Babe. Put your tail in my truck. You're stacked like fresh hay. You're the honey bee that sucks crabapple trees in late May, and I've just been stung. From my stool I saw all your friends leaving. What luck. Put a head on my beer. Babe. Put your tail in my truck. 121 Peter Martin Shadowboxing I shadowbox in my kitchen late at night. I am a relentless opponent. I throw hard shots. I drop men with a single punch. My nose was broken twice in Golden Gloves boxing. I am entitled to these thoughts. 122 Peter Martin In High School I Majored in Shop They told us assembly lines were forever. That assembly lines never stopped. They showed us filmstrips about happy couples with children and Dad coming home with his lunch bucket happy, greeting his children on bended knee, setting his lunch bucket on the driveway pavement of his new ranch-style home. This was living, they said. And we believed them. 123 Jeri McCormick Miss Rinehart's Paddle The long hard rumor had hit us years before but there was nothing we could do to fend sixth grade off. One September morning we filed into Miss Rinehart's room to face the thick glasses, heavy oxfords, spit curls. The weapon occupied her middle drawer and was rarely used on girls, though Betty Jo got five whacks for her haphazard map of Brazil — the Amazon all smeared and off-course, Rio de Janeiro inland by inches. I sat through six months of imagined failures, ended up a jittery stooge with all "A"s, the best parts in plays and only now wonder about the other side of power. 124 Lee Merrill Without You This Afternoon Without you this afternoon, the thin drapes sweep through the south window. Then laughing flee north again on their long tether. I too step through the house happily back and forth As though I might live here without you always. Which I might not— my love, my purser. But though it is true that when you are late returning. When you have stalled in traffic and stayed away too long. All wind will die here and all will droop. And the creek stones so full of honey and promise at noon Will blacken and cast long shadows to the shadowy bank. Grieving us for this delicious afternoon . . . Though it is true, I ask your forgiveness. I ask with one magnanimous stroke of your lovely hand that you cancel this debt. That you cancel and enter on behalf of this solitary afternoon The balance so full for us all of wind and sun and creek rocks — The balance so fantastic and free without you. 125 Lee Merrill For David Kubach I share with the citizens of this town The same stale air. Taking theirs conditioned, I take mine straight. There is not a soul in this arid place. Not a single rise on the surface Of this unbearable, fishless moon. Somewhere there must be good country— Somewhere some place to drink And watch men dance. There is a fantastic blonde at the next table Dressed to the teeth. Would eat me raw If I would only smile. 126 Lee Merrill I Sit With You No wind over the eighty-eight acre face Of Lake Nothing. No moon in the leaf-stained water. The pike who has hunted the ducklings All summer in the shallows Is hunted himself now By the pressures of the winter thermocline. The otters in their den. The city people in their city. The loons flown south, I sit with you, my silent wife. Until the wind stirs And the ice forms Between us and the lake. 127 Lee Merrill Third Self Fog settles on the night Like sleep on a brilliant child. Louise is warm at last. Palmetto forgotten. She sleeps in a field of red mallards Springing always outward Through lilypads, cattails. Green poplin sky. Melinda is praying, kneeling sideways. Whispering into the maple sheets. New child now. The ghost of the Florida wife gone, I lumber certainly to the dock Past the second wife, the first child. The latest dog Out into the rain, the cold lake. My third self. 128 Marc Mickelson East Meets West If the damn rabbit that's poking through your gardens breaking tomato plants and chewing the leaves off radishes at night is faster than you, will you ever catch him? And if it's supposed to be partly sunny and somewhere in the 90's, should you tell the kids to put the sprinkler on the asparagus this afternoon? The old man who lives across the street, the one who spends all day in his garden, knows exactly when to water and even when to put on fertilizer just by looking at the scribbles on his calendar. He's up every day at dawn checking the sky and feeling the grass for signs of life. Last fall when you were watching football he 129 Marc Mickelson was reading the almanac and counting the ember days. And in spring while you were doing your best to understand an article on crop placement in Urban Farming he was planting with the help of the moon. And this morning he cans pickles and you bite into an English muffin and wonder what he knows. Yell over and ask him what it all means and he'll say something like knowledge is only part of knowing and send you over a jar of his best dills. The old fart. He knows the enemy lives in your hedge. He knows, but doesn't need a BB gun or have to think what gasoline could do because he has the earth on his side and a wooden 130 fence around his yard. Martha Mihalyi Leaving Budapest This bottle, its blue glass is a blue note sounded against the window, and outside, snow falls, great feathers. Were my love here, walking below, his shoulders would catch wings of snow, and the sound of blue would reach him, filling his steps with shadow. Oh, Sorrow, who asked you to live within these paper walls, to make me imagine this bottle the shape of want, blue of desire, thin song of absence? Broken-winged bird, who asked you to fall against my window as if there were something more you needed? And who, who has taught me always to hear you? 131 Martha Mihalyi The Woman in the Glass House Speaks I know everything around me can shatter in a high wind, at the kiss of stone or the highest note. What is important here is to walk gracefully, the imagined book balanced on the head and no hand, no heart, no thought to swerve for. What is important is to see through each wall another wall after and then another until I am outside myself like a bird resting on a high glass sill — who must know it is only air beneath: the blur of blue and green to fly or fall through, weightless and singing. 132 Martha Mihalyi Manual for the Deaf In lesson 33 we learn the world , which is a circle made of both hands, and we learn direction, north , one hand rising straight toward heaven. There is debt here, too, but only as much as one palm, open, can hold. Praise is here and promise , that finger to the mouth as if to tell a child his sister sleeps beyond an open door. But the word that leaves us breathless is faith: faith, the palm that lies up, floating, the palm that waits for the other to fall to it and tighten as if to press and save a wet leaf, mothwing, heart made of paper. 133 Stephen M. Miller Duck Hunting The sky raises its black lid, a wedge of thirty mallards floats above cornstalks. From my gun muzzle, color of rose. Wings drumming the earth. Flooded Timber There's nothing but white of snow, ice, then the black of water and bare trees. The boom of Jack's gun echoes on the flats and a mallard crashes through oak branches, feathers shining like spilled jewels. 134 Stephen M. Miller The Last Camp in America The women sit about the fire. One by one, men leave the light. A man fades into the bog, leaving a thin sound of birch leaves rattling. Another turns himself into a silver hook and sinks gleaming through a cedar lake. Around the fire, the women speak and tap spaces that once held children. In the forest, a branch cracks, a shape hurdles after something white. These men have entered the shadows, these men have returned to the darkness. Year It ends like it began, rain over dry marsh flight of birds. 135 Kyoko Mori Every Woman Her house is green. In the yard, a wishing well slapped on top of cropped grass pumps nothing but air. The Amway Lady opens the mint green door. Smiling, she leads me inside for skin consultation, color analysis. Three wooden butterflies perch on the wall. On the counter, the GUIDEPOST magazine shows a woman in a blue leotard posed atop her exercycle for this month's cover. She prays and pedals, cleans and cooks, sings in the choir; the Lord has blessed her with a husband and three sons, each with his own ten-speed. Nobody gets fat. The Amway Lady, all day in her kitchen demon¬ strating cosmetics in her huge pink blouse, needs this inspiration. She seats me at her table, a paper plate in front of me dotted with facial cream, a plastic bag taped at my side for the cottonballs I discard. She talks about Every Woman. Every Woman keeps a drawer full of cosmetics she no longer uses — lip¬ stick too orange, rouge too dark, eyeshadow that smears, the fantastic bargain under the fluorescent light of Osco turned into trash in the morning light. Once a year, when her husband kills deer in the north woods, she cleans out her drawer. Only once a week, she pampers herself with a cleansing mask on Saturdays while Connie Francis 136 Kyoko Mori sings love. The Am way Lady is Every Woman. She protects her family from germs in tap water and six-year-old eggs that had been stored in special warehouses before appearing in the dairy boxes of our supermarkets. Her boys play football and clarinet, cure their acne with Amway products. Every Woman, I want to say, but I'm not like that. What can I say? I'm just a kid turned a woman? I came only because it was free? It. My dresser top holds two sets of eyeshadow, one mascara, one box of rouge, no lip¬ stick. All the cosmetics I own, they were purchased eight years ago from the girl who sold Avon on our campus. A huge girl, she wore a black leotard all day after her morning exercise class. At lunch, at supper, in the cafeteria, boys going up for second helpings glanced side¬ ways at her, much the same way in third grade other boys poked elbows and snickered at one fat girl with breasts who huffed around the track in gym class. The Avon girl's room made me sneeze with scented candles, dusty potpourri. At night, her leotard was draped over a chair like a punctured balloon. She served me strawberry tea and sold me cosmetics with names like soft velvet and dusky moonlight. 137 Kyoko Mori Hi. The eyeshadow I bought then, the Amway Lady says, is no good. Eye make-up not used in four months should be discarded. So many germs in our eyes, we can even infect ourselves. At her death my mother left her vanity drawer full of cosmetics that would not keep till I was a woman. We threw them out, my aunt and I. Dusty face powder my mother had spilled rose from the upturned drawer and stung our eyes with her scent. Now the Amway Lady seats me before a larger mirror for color- analysis. She bends over me, drapes a gold cloth and a silver cloth from my shoulders. Her face close to mine, she looks into the mirror where our eyes meet. Her hair touches mine. I see her transformed, I forgive her her boys and wishing well and wooden butterflies. She is my wise old god¬ mother wishing me beautiful, her face bending over mine in thoughtfulness, her hand on my shoulder steady with hope. In my mother's hinged three-way mirror, I could see myself multiplied countless, the world of infinity held within the small silver angle. Mornings, my mother sat in the center, lipstick between her fingers like a lit candle. Some nights she put on a pink cleansing mask and peeled it off in one piece while I made faces into the mirrors to make her laugh. I see her now peeling off a thin pink mask, her face beneath it glowing, made of light, laughing like light. 138 Sandra Nelson Lagoon I shift to the right, the left, tip like an inflated knock out dummy. With my Frankenstein feet I place blade before blade and ride the silver train, my coat pocketing the wind. I skate past the dark ice which is supposed to mean something. I skate near a red mitten with nickels burned an inch into the ice. The weeping willows tap their feelers on the ice. Think of the fish tipping the discs of their eyes at the rumble of skaters. In October the water is a yellow plastic pool when the willows drop all their leaves. We pull crawfish from the slurry with broken chicken backs tied to kite string. The mystery holes claimed to contain deadly water snakes or aquatic rats are just dumb crab houses. The bluegills are so hungry they snap up when you gob on the water. Even now the water is alive while I stand in the middle of the pond. Pearls of fish and crab breaths dot the ice. Stay away from the orange flags where someone's dog fell in. 139 Sandra Nelson Jane Among the Ducks At school I was a fool. Always in a comer reading the wall's pimples like cool braille. Always sitting under Miss Ehlert's desk between her huge, swollen legs and strappy shoes. I was stupid. When it came time to read, everyone took turns. Beautiful, smooth, the little story glittered like a Christmas card — all perfect. Then Sandy read. Everyone shifted in their chairs, coughed, settled in for a rough ride. The words twisted out. "The duck sss. The ducks feel thers feel in the way tour — waiter. Jane swas it ant cricked, 'Oh, No!' " Susan, with the perfect yellow hair and beautiful, slanted, Siamese eyes glared at me. Miss Ehlert said, "That will do! Will Miss Susan Weedamont please read it?" "The duck's feathers fell in the water. Jane saw it and cried, 'Oh No!' " "Thank you Susan. Now David." While David, the boy who read like me, stumbled through the ducks, I worked a finger up my nose. Digging, all of a sudden wet — blood ran into my sleeve. Red pancakes dropped on "duck" and "No!" and "Jane" and "Oh." "My God, you ruined a new book!" My head was pushed back and paper towels covered my face. "Oh yuck," said Susan. 140 Sandra Nelson From under the paper I saw her velvet skirt, patent leather shoes and white lace anklets. Her ankles came together and touched like Dorothy's in the Wizard of Oz. My gray socks hung over the backs of my unlaced shoes. I had ratty witch-feet. "Time for music." I sing, "I'm a lizard teapot num num kraut. Here is my num-dule, here is a mouse. When I get all starred up hear me shout. Tip me clover and flour I shout." I had a beautiful voice. Mrs. Colin said, "Your voice is like birds flying south." 141 Sandra Nelson Hillside Fish Market Last night the market burned. The windows black and ugly hold no magic fish. I'd seen a buffalo nudge the glass and turn her back to me. Brown scales as big as quarters gleam through water gold as pee. I watch him crack the spines of fish. Like polished shoes the sheen of heads surrounds the butcher's feet. She rolls and air-pearls leave the tank like silver souls. In August ponds are smooth as oil. A frog is polished, emerald jade. Old mountains steam in clouds. Still waters mirror heaven's fog between the lily pads. A China dream is cracked as backs of fish move quick and jog through rubbery stems. The lilies tip their cream and yellow flowers. Kim Lee's line goes tight and slits the leaves; a nose is dragged to light. The night the Hillside Market burned, I slept and dreamed of fish. I watched them weave between my frisky legs and nibble bubbles kept in hairs. A tender fleshy mouth, a clean and gentle "O" withdrew my pearls. I slept while buildings burned. A blackened cough, a mean and ugly vomit licked the fish. They died in splintered glass with chair legs black and dried. 142 Gianfranco Pagnucci La Mer, La Mer Two porpoises along a sea coast would laugh at you, white Aphrodite up from pastures of holsteins and me Neptune of prairie corn, blackbirds in my hair, laugh at how each summer we meet in the bed of the lake, our feet planted in sand and embrace seas of earthy emotions we hardly understand. Sometimes we gulp water, and a land breeze laughs through the trees. When a herring gull drops out of the air, surveys the lake close up, east then west, and goes off after the taste of salt in his nostrils, we look up, remember a small hill of sand and climb down toward our pond, laughing to ourselves. Soon we shiver away from each other; the gull's raucous cries come back from nowhere. This far inland it's hard to imagine the sea. 143 Gianfranco Pagnucci A Red Fox Again Driving back after 10, we see a red fox cross where County A curves and begins its climb. Sitting next to me you suddenly enter the poem as if you'd said I'm leaving you. Smaller, less pure red than I remember a fox, this one in the headlights has buff on the back and tail; but the tail is huge, bigger than the animal and, as they say, floating. The other, seven years before, crossing on the curve looked back at me over a shoulder like the friend whose funeral we missed. I see all our lives together strung in small beads of bright light. All these years nothing else about the dull day but that fox coming across looking at me like the sunset on the flagship going over the horizon. Pinpoints of light splayed against our lives. Harold shoots himself at seventy-six for guilt we never knew; light plays the world for us like that, holds up a square where the entering bullet burns and lets go. The light burning and letting go, our lives on the curve where the red fox climbs or falls toward the dark valley of the Little Platte. 144 Gianfranco Pagnucci At Dusk the Picked-Over Garden Goes Bright with Flowers Everywhere I turn marigolds leap in my hand, my bunch by now so large I can't hold it. Falling flowers trail me to the house; and the breath of marigolds; the salad hounded by odor of marigolds; in the dying day, the scent of marigolds in your hair. 145 Gianfranco Pagnucci Leland Stoney That year we still bought eggs from Leland Stoney, the bachelor on Ridge Road, who had stayed home after the War, for his mother's sake, and got the Stoney Farm. When he came with eggs, we served his favorite homemade cake, chocolate fudge on white china and coffee black and boiling hot. As he drank, he blew close into his cup the way Grandfather did and a girl will remember — simple habits lifted to ancient gestures by thin, white china. 146 Angela Peckenpaugh The Purple Lighter Like a piece of candy you might use to quiet a baby, the violet lighter lies handy. Flick it on, warm your hands, think of times flames pleased: gathering driftwood, beached, bleached, brittle and light. Stalks of reeds used to seed the flames. Late night stories staring at logs, throwing on paper trash for a thrill. The blue from milk cartons like gas heater jets, pretending their demise was hotels crumbling stilly in a news reel. Halloween bonfires, the neighborhood circling, baking potatoes on sticks in the embers, eating them so hot they stung. The candles in restaurants flushing cheeks as eyes met mine, even Xmas altars, the arc of lights above red and green, transcendant, as the whole congregation rose to sing. 147 Angela Peckenpaugh From Photo of Coursing Water Shine slides through moist fronds revealing mud bottom. The bank diagonals into the rush while further on, surface glints like rhinestones, hurrying as though they'd turn to smoke. I remember leaning over, walking the flats, peering down to see were clam necks stretched, would I get cut on a shell edge? Soon sun that beat on my back became part of the dismissed landscape. I lived with the minnows in their darting medium, their cool gills brushing mine. 148 Angela Peckenpaugh Silver What would we do if you were dull. What would I say if you were empty? Like ripples on the lake, the chandelier's light, you are rich. And this is only one gleam in your eye. 149 Felix Poliak Tunnel Vision I. First the light cracked and black hairlines appeared. Then tiny pores opened like peepholes, for the night to peer in, the winds of the void to blow through. Crumbs of grey started to drown, floating downward, out of sight, islands sinking in a tide. Colors slid into shafts of blindspots, the memories of shapes sailed the seven black seas. II. Her voice enters the room, followed by her form and only last her face, a flower, a small cloud of smoke. I knew this face when it was white, distinct, bordered by black hair. Now the hair, too, has wilted, turned grey. III. I wake to the sound of rain. Scent of wet grass. It is still night. The world is all right at this hour. There is nothing to look at. A bird begins to proclaim his ownership of our tree. Over and over. No dispute. Soon dawn will invade my window, crawl up to my door. Peace is running out. Not peace: armistice. I close my eyes, sink back into my dream. My eyes are opened, become as clear and sharp as a bird's. 150 Felix Poliak All Things Are Candles The candle's dying makes the candle live, as nothing is that is not by its ceasing —-not time, nor light, nor love. All things are flames: some fiercely blazing ecstatic stakes that are at once consumed, some slower paraphrasings of the same theme; but all alive, entombed within their dying to their dying day that started in a womb. All things are candles, even stones — although we burn too hot to fathom their cool rays. Discussing Poetry A poem is a dream seen in a mirror, a lie so precisely distorted by error that it reveals a truth. There is nothing obscurer than "objective reality," nothing barer of truth than "bare truth": only a conjurer's touch can bring the mirage of the world nearer to our minds' eyes, only dreams make us surer of time's unsolved riddle behind the clock's clear hour. 151 Felix Poliak Astigmatism As far as I can see the white blossoms in the white vase bloom on no stems suspended in midair like delicate white insects above a white flower Eating Nuts on a Snowy Evening For me, eating nuts is a small pleasure. For the squirrels, it is a matter of survival. I know this. And yet I keep eating nuts watching the snow through my window . . . 152 Felix Poliak Explaining Blindness to a Child — - For Hans Magnus Enzensberger It is like many nights growing seamlessly into one, it is like many flames sliding into each other until they're one big fire, it is like colored wallpaper being slowly covered by India ink, it is like greasy soot blotting out the sparkling new snow, it is like a hundred black flies devouring a white piece of cheese, it is like a gleaming aluminum train being swallowed by a hungry tunnel, it is like bright birds in the zoo, buntings, canaries, parrots and snowy owls suddenly sprouting black feathers and becoming ravens, it is like the only TV in the world losing its screen, it is like the sun and the moon and all the stars collapsing into black holes in the sky . . . 153 Jeff Poniewaz The Tomb of the Unknown Poet Why no Tomb of the Unknown Poet? Wasn't he killed as sure as the Unknown Soldier? Didn't he die running wild after the wildest beauty the same as Wilfred Owen? Didn't he step on the toes of landmine minds? Wasn't he mowed down by machine-guns of mechanization? Didn't he throw himself on the grenade of scorn lobbed at Poetry? Drape a green flag of living grass over his casket. Blow his taps on panpipes: phoenix syrinx! Unknown Poet launched into the Unknown like a poem in a manila envelope addressed to Immortality Care of the worms who edit scrupulously but send no rejection slips. 154 Jeff Poniewaz Kinnickinnic River Elegy Behold the Kinnickinnic River K-Mart sprung up along the Kinnickinnic River I sprung up along in the post-war '40s. Behold the Kinnickinnic River K-Mart that killed the Kinnickinnic Riverbank wilderness vestige I played in as a child and boy, the field with creek cutting through it across Chase Avenue from the field where the carnival sprang up for a week each Spring. Behold the Kinnickinnic River K-Mart that along with the Freeway and Freeway Industrial Park hogtied and crucified the little that was left of the wilderness that was this place, the K-Mart that paved the banks of the Kinnickinnic River so it wouldn't flood the rec rooms of the workingclass South Side and would more truly resemble the open sewer it had become. Behold the Kinnickinnic River K-Mart I unthinkingly walked into this afternoon (while my father waited for me in his car) to buy myself blue flannel pajamas from China, 100% cotton for $10.95, while mothers & fathers half my age walk the aisles of merchandise with little offshoots of themselves in tow, loading them aboard the little endangered species merry-go-round outside the K-Mart entrance. Every item of merchandise inside that K-Mart, including my pajamas from China, killed the Kinnickinnic Riverbank ecosystem. The whole planet fast turning into one vast K-Mart. 155 Sara Lindsay Rath Souvenirs This morning I found a white undershirt that belonged to an old lover. It is soft and worn thin with a slight grease stain still on the left side from the day he had to fix his bike, the day he pulled the shirt over his head and tossed it to me. It smelled of his sweat and cologne and I slept in it for weeks before it was thrown in the wash. Now it clings to my breasts like old silk, like the palms of my lover's hands when they caressed me years ago. Once in awhile I'll look down and everything I'm wearing has belonged to someone else: another husband's khaki shorts, my mother's nightgown, my son's faded jeans; it's almost as close as you can get, like being inside their skin. Every few years on the anniversary of his arrest, the press reviews a local graverobber's sordid tale; how he'd unearth warm corpses and take them home where he'd stitch shirts and leggings, recycled items of clothing from human skin. I'd imagine him squeezing into women's bodies and shuffling around his dim house after dark, speaking in falsetto, smiling as he sipped a cup of milky tea. I saved all the newspaper clippings. 156 Sara Lindsay Rath fascinated with the ghoulish details just as I was intrigued with my baby teeth I'd saved in a silver jewelry box: nestled in the warm curl of my palm they'd click together like ragged pearls and I'd recall the trauma of pulling them; each had its own tale, its own tenuous thread. Mother threw the teeth out one day, the clippings too, as though she could snug the little teeth back in their bloody sockets, pretend my smile was the same; that nothing had changed. 157 Sara Lindsay Rath Flag Day I had the feeling I was in one of those endless on-the-road films, heat like a furnace on the Illinois prairie and our little red car with no air conditioning, one-hundred-seven degrees that day. Most of the way too hot to talk and you had the runs at Lincoln's tomb where we posed for dumb tourist snapshots, stood as far away as we could to make each other tiny, got ice cream and milkshakes in one little town and a beer at a dark and crummy fisherman's bar in New Boston along the shore of the Mississippi where I had to pee but didn't know for sure which door, "Inboards" or "Outboards," and pushed the wrong one then blushed in the mirror after I got inside. Coming into Oquawka we saw the sign: Visit the Grave of Norma Jean (Elephant). And on the granite monument by the watertower we read about gaunt Possom Red Evans and the circus' only elephant struck by lightning there where she was buried. Possum's pliers and the tent Norma'd raised still undisturbed in the yellowed clipping 158 Sara Lindsay Rath set in a frame with some old dried flowers. Late afternoon we followed a truckload of Iowa pigs so many miles that when we pulled into Keokuk the ventilating system of our Chevrolet was stinking, sour with pig piss but the motel had a pool and after the TV weatherchannel assured us the windchill was only one-hundred-and-two we floated there lukewarm and weary. I saw a man watching me from the window frame of in an old brick building across the street four floors up, sleeveless undershirt tattoo on his bicep. My God it was hot. I set my Seven-up on the side of the pool and swam around on my back a little while longer just to give him something to look at. 159 Sara Lindsay Rath Killing Frost I awaken to gunshots in bleached dawn, begin each new day on a note of death. Duck season. Hunters hide in the marsh. Saturday we canoed the Yahara, slipping between painted decoys that bobbed on our ripples and in the reeds men in camouflage cradled guns and watched. I have felt these birds fly across the ceiling of my study and when I look up they have vanished. I can only see their shadows. Tonight we shrugged further into our jackets and went into the stillness to cover the tomatoes, peppers, carry pots of geraniums inside. The sky was deep and crystalline — no wind, sharp stars. Red Mars stared out of the east with its bold eye. We'll salvage what we can from the threats we watch and wait for, things lurking on the edges of my peripheral vision, this feeling of unyielding change. Tomorrow every blade of grass and fallen leaf will be muted by a soft veil of icy white gentling the damaged landscape. Even the raccoon lying dead along the road will be frosted, luminous. The cat stretches, sighs, curls closer to my thigh. In this dark night winter moves stealthily over the countryside, a V of geese on its leading edge, pulling it closer, over the Canadian border. 160 Bruce Renner Finding an Abandoned Farm I wish I could remember more of it but when the first clouds approach on a clear sky I think of stones some place where I can say anything without the redoubtable apparatus of sky or the harsh treatment of the trees reminding me in my own voice that I am small and of little regard I believe that light is like this too yet desire ages differently I am picking my way among a few nameless implements on an abandoned farm layer upon layer of frost and metal dust and hay filtered in sunlight and a few feathers none of the elements is whole but when I look up the beams are laid out evenly and the universe is still swinging from the rafters of a hung barn in the middle of daylight I want to touch what I cannot see 161 Bruce Renner The Language of Light Ambits l I go about it this way I place both hands above the table and descend awaiting only the crush of snow I know will follow fingers splayed like maps my heart beating like a cup in the middle of my chest I lower myself down onto the blank surface like a new planet I have been waiting for what seems like days I look no worse for wear in fact now the first streamers are beginning to wave above me like banners I thought I wanted to be whole for a time I allowed my days to become duplicates of my nights but each moved through me like a separate thought each made a particular sound I thought I could hear the horizon was already a mere pinpoint I put out each star separately 162 Bruce Renner 2 I felt at once so quiet and replete I could hear myself drop the soft moon climbed into the sky either waking or falling asleep but it was only a liquid disc floating off effortlessly the grouse mice and deer slip quietly into the new emptiness what we come to inhabit changes who we are the first light fades into daylight with almost no sound at all 3 as if each life was just such a series a mellifluous bubble or arc some new path upon which light appears to travel and to know its way yet tomorrow I will remember all of this differently clouds part and the light bends easily sometimes poetry is the only solution The world keeps coming apart it's as natural and inevitable as dying but by dying we often mean a new beginning or belief 163 Melanie Richards Prairie Fire Kansas is so flat she built a path to climb, she waited and she fell; but the fire of her imagination flickers in the attic, leaves its singe on the pasture grass, drifts through the rafters. It is the heart gone mad: it has built a fortress out of caring, stone by stone. A woman lives behind this door: her hair holds you in each snarl, she's knotted hope into this shawl that cannot warm her. You will live in cities with women who forget you. With your name, she burns the barn, straw by straw, and counts the days you loved her. She knows this fire will end. She waits in the creek with the stolen horses, safe and blind. 164 Melanie Richards Where the Sea Surrenders The field wears the gold of autumn as he offers her his hand. She is new to love and hesitates, but the rush in her veins signals that blue internal landscape, a coastline where the sea surrenders, night after night, waves suspended under a spell of moon. A woman now, she will return the gold she hoarded through those winter nights, ready to touch him now, to accept the flush of that red flower in his extended hand, the heart dissolving finally, that hour when the sea forgets itself, and runs to tide, and turns to moan, and spills its urgent message on the sand. 165 Melanie Richards Private Song The light issues an invitation and the moth dissolves in fire; the sea dreams in her blue berth, wave upon wave of recollection; and in the spring we forget there is more than one way to enter the kingdom, more than one song, and so a woman alone takes to her bed for consolation, and her hands are her undoing, until her window darkens and that private song begins: she calls the stars to witness and trips the switch that lets her body fly, wingless, into another lonely night. 166 Dale Ritterbusch Dragon Poem My daughter says, "Stop it Dragon" as the creature breathes smoke, hisses and growls, menacing a frightened young girl on T.V. I turn the channel — there was no dragon in this children's tale when I read it — As if there weren't enough things to be afraid of I'm still afraid. I can feel the change, the loss of direction and control — She wakes in the night, says, "Stop it!" I can't stop it: overhead the dragon, the child protector, carved from teak, painted red and gold, its wings tipped with flat-black green moves imperceptively above her bed. I say there are good dragons and bad dragons — most of them are good, A Zoroastrian or Manichaean division that convinces me only of the neat divisions we make of everything — One of many lies I tell daily to get by. The daily lie — what falsehood, what idiot half-truth will I tell next as I explain the world? How can I say, "Stop it!" to the next lie burning inside, breathing fire and smoke searing all the years of this flesh? Even in the year of the monkey, it is the year of the dragon. 167 Dale Ritterbusch 44 The first time I saw Henry Aaron bat He hit an easy pop up And I sat back, dejected, impatient Waiting for his next at bat. It seemed forever — I was only eight. Had time only for winning. The grand moment, heroic gesture — It was always the last of the ninth 2 out, behind by 3, the bases loaded 3 and 2 the count — seventh game of the World Series And I had Henry Aaron's power; I would foul off the next, a curve low and outside Just nicking the corner, staying alive As the world waited, balanced on the outcome Of the next pitch. Always it hung across the plate. Belt high, as my wrists broke And the hard crack of the ball Resounding off that bat rose above the world Beyond the deep left center of everything. A thousand times, hit always to the same place Deep in the stands, the place I watched Waiting for Aaron's next turn at the plate. And again he was out and again — I could not understand How anyone that good could fail; I could not know the best fail most the time. 168 Dale Ritterbusch The next game went the same Until the eighth and Aaron Took a strike— a ball — Then swung and missed — the next Was low — count even. The sign shook off and Aaron guessed it right. Picked up the rotation of the seams. Knew it as his body sprung, forearms extended. Wrists breaking unleashing the coiled Power in his bat. Cleats twisting into the dirt. Trajectory of a bullet, sharp rise Above the plane, the fall — He noted where it hit And rounded first, head down. The noise we made like the voice of God Thundering in the great man's ears. I didn't want the cheers to stop. The next batter to come up to the plate Congratulating Henry with a slap On his outstretched hand. I wanted him to run the bases endlessly Never reaching home As I struck out, as I popped up Going from game to game Playing far into the night. Far into the years. 169 Suzanne Ryan Wild and Edible Plant Trilogy 1. Syrup Making Time The Tree With Double-Winged Fruit wakens at the end of winter and reaches out with glossy, red brown fingers that end in slender buds. It has a face that is brown and furrowed so tapping the tree should be done with tender respect. Elderberry branches with punched out pith make good spigots and on a sunny day after a cold night sap runs pure enough to drink but best for boiling into syrup. 40 gallons of sap makes one gallon of syrup worth the wait and work of changing and lugging buckets hours of sweating over boiling pans and filtering out the bark and bugs. Sweet Birch With Double-Toothed Leaves, Walnut, and sassy Hickories called Shagbark, Mokernut, 170 Suzanne Ryan and Pecan also run for syrup. And each morning the smell of spicy Black Walnut leaves with the wintergreen taste of chewed birch twigs starts a Bayou breakfast during syrup making time. 2. Berry Picking Time Sweaty hands pincer grasp through green red stems and white flowers. Bloodied by thorns or swollen with bites from deerflies and sucking mosquitos the fingers gently lovingly dislodge each blackberry for route to the bucket. A quick lick of purple juiced fingers and the hands return to picking. The Common Blackberry bramble stands in the sunny summer old fields somewhere between an open field and a thicket surrounded by Black Locust flower clusters and Common Barberries with their red tart berries just right for wild jelly. 171 Suzanne Ryan Among them are Smooth Sumac berries covered with acid-filled hairs which soak to make a pink lemonadish drink and wild strawberries small, tight, seedy balls found in open fields among the bull thistles and milkweed. The hardest picking is in the Bayou swamp where you can find Wild Raisin with seed pulp like dates and Red Chokeberries that are chewy like apples and best in pies. There, too are the Common Spicebush berries which make a good allspice substitute and Pickerelweed's green berries that are so tasty in cereal or made into flour. 172 Robert Schuler "Verde Que Te Quiero Verde" after Lorca green how much I want you green green wind green branches green rain sings in the leaves out of green shadows trillium sails the last bright flags of snow willows bend bronze over hills humped fresh west of town where fishermen lie on their bellies near springs waiting for the rising gold- green dawns of trout under the moon a balloon of ice in the black bed twisting green mysteries of seeds 173 Robert Schuler Fantasia for Rain and Guitar there is not enough time the reasons for flamenco someone's drums in your blood her heels pound halls down your bones she hauls the sinew of your spine tighter into the darkness of her breasts winds your hair vines round her wrist she wants you to run with her through the wet night of leaves 174 Robert Schuler Winter Blues #33 winds roar whirl-rattle ice against glass and walls smoke drowned space Chopin's ringing mad bells of the ballades Easter Sunday nothing no thing could be brighter than this April's daffodils all of the sun's trumpets ringing loud round the woods 175 Janet Shaw The Handless Maiden Once there was a miller who wished to marry his daughter to the Devil in exchange for gold. When she refused , her father cut off her hands. . . . Suddenly the house had no doors. I cried Daddy! Daddy! to stop him but the pain came down and my hands fell onto the floor in front of me like kittens, fingers curled around my thumbs, hiding my thumbs. I wanted to pick up my hands in my teeth and carry them away to a nest, but there wasn't time. I ran and then I crawled, turning back to lick up the blood trace so he couldn't find my trail. The forest closed behind me, branches locked like arms guarding, an insignia of sun on the pines. That night I lay next to a fallen log as though it were my mother. My dream tasted of metal. When I woke in the wet leaves I knew it was not a dream. 176 Janet Shaw All winter I listened to the snow whisper of what must not be given away. No! grew as round in my mouth as an apple. My teeth broke the green skin and I tasted the tart lesson: I had held out my hands when my father commanded me although I saw his knife. When the white trees blossomed like milk, I felt the itch of new fingers unfurling, crisp as crocuses, from the buds of my wounds. 177 Janet Shaw Jacob Wrestles with the Angel: an Update He was sleeping in the desert when the naked angel swooped into his dream like an aerialist releasing her trapeze. They knelt, shadow by shadow, on the sand. His arm over her slim back, he cried, "Begin!" because she seemed a kid, and he tasted a quick take-down. But she hurled him over her shoulder, spread him out like a wolf pelt, rose above him, a falcon with her talons in his wrists. Then she unfurled herself, as sweet and green as the riverbed in his groin. Seeking the beginning, he battered into her until he burst through angel into sky. Without wind, without sound, "as a cloud races through sapphire air," he raced toward the light. All night he gazed into the sun. At dawn the angel lolled on her back while he bobbed overhead like a box kite, a helium balloon, a new flag dancing, clean as a flame. She hauled him down like a jib. "But who won?" he begged, as he cut his bread for her and poured the goat milk. She smiled, and suddenly he woke alone in the desert of his bed. 178 Janet Shaw The Wolf In My Mother ("East German mother says goodbye to her daughter through the embassy fence." AP photo , September , 1989) When I understood that I must leave my home I called to the wolf in my mother to guide me to the gate. And her wolf trotted to me on long legs, her eyes yellow, her guard hairs gray on her golden underfur. She sniffed me head and tail, then lifted her muzzle and rubbed it along my cheek, across my mouth. I tasted blood and dark water of the den she'd come from. Beneath some birches she trampled down the grass, flattened a green we curled into, her beside me, her head on my shoulder, her paw at my breast. All night I heard the rhythm of dreams leaping through her heart, felt her tremble as her heart gave chase. At first light I followed her again. How thin her flanks were, how she limped from old wounds, but still she loped ahead. Often she gazed back, drawing me on, showing me how I must chase without swerving. The fence. The gate. Through the iron we touched a last time, breath to breath. Run! she told me. Remember, your own wolf runs with you now! So somehow I ran, hearing just behind me, as I do tonight, the whisper of her longer stride, knowing her shadow trails mine. 179 Mary Shumway The Legends Old as the bark-bitten pattern of stars and sun, they come after the cricket moon when fires gather in the longhouse trees and skies darken with the thunder of waterbirds. The old ones sit wrapped in their skins of sun; the young grow restless as chickarees, eyes bright as spring foxes, waiting for cold moons to flock where rivers start when tales begin, told long and over to the popping trees and shedding moons. It was always so. It will be so until our hands no longer greet the day, until fingers of light no longer weave in earth her seasons. 180 Mary Shumway Convocation When rainlight puddled in the gullies, we sloshed home Indian file from school in raingear, grins, and milkhouse boots for sneakers, sweatshirts, and a football, then crossed the slough. Down by Manny Wanders' place where drydocked launches lined the shore, where wind and ponies tamed the dunes, we played among the pines and sapling ribs of wigwams until each pass spiraled into shadow near the river. While swift current scattered daylight's embers, we limped home, dumping lumps of wet sand from our shoes along a road chilled by blackbird leaves whiffling on the limbs of spectral trees. In those Novembers traffic tuned to a one-string guitar; the town was lit by taverns and a phone booth, comer lamps that pitched in the slightest wind, and now and then by Northerns riffling down the sky. Although we grew to other towns and lights that crowded out the stars, these dunes still hold our shadows and the river brings us home. 181 Thomas R. Smith Thistledown For the first time after long heat, the sun floats pale above the oak savanna, its edges drawn. Now begins the movement inward, withdrawing its flame from the high places of summer and striving, to fully inhabit its depths, its ring of steady warmth. For it is the warmth, not the fire, of long-lasting love which endures the burning- off of years and bodies, stirred in us now by that autumnal heartbeat. Two crows fly together, their cries going out before them to meet the darkening burr oaks on the hill. Thistledown falls as if from open drawers, fold upon fold of linens tumbled before the goldenrod. On its own journey, the sower of thistles travels with us, a homespun beauty finely feathered. I lift one to the wind, coppery wings carry it over fields toward the inward-circling sun. 182 Thomas R, Smith Ode to Wooden Steps For Pablo Neruda We live surrounded by the benevolence of wood. How clearly I see it in the soaked grain of these porch steps, the black whorls welcoming rain. The ends of the boards are soft, divided where water and age knock. It takes a long time to let them in, it happens only at wood's pace. The nature of wood is vertical, which is why we dance well on a wooden floor, from its sheer upright energy. 183 Thomas R. Smith Wood splits and bends, slumps as it chooses, twists, shrugs, and develops a deep slouch, in suffering remains true. In the tree struck by lightning, in the blue stump glowing in a swamp, in the thin cracks on the 200-year-old fiddle, the honesty of wood is visible, written in the swerve of its grain. The wind pushes lightly. A maple seed whirls to rest on the top step, its small yellow brain split open. 184 Thomas R. Smith The black wood waits for the driving of the wedge, for the raindrop that dissolves its heart. 185 Thomas R. Smith Olivet In fields given over to the gold of harvest, how much returns to fill the empty places. The barndoors of western Wisconsin give glimpses of the saved souls of wheat. Saying yes to you in my heart, I took the long way home at sunset, pulled off the road at a junction called Olivet. On clotheslines I saw the sad sheets of the married, of the desire not to travel on alone. A house of dust, its beams on fire, gathered itself around me. A one-room schoolhouse overgrown with burdock stood apart from the white houses. Some abandonment in childhood must have caused me to stand alone. The dirt road loves the fields as they are. That was the kind of love you gave me. There are places I have driven by only once and lived in the rest of my life. 186 Thomas R. Smith Snow Flying "Family is fate." — Michael Meade 1. In moving air, the fates of snow weave a vagueness over hills. There is a snow that flies rather than falls, as if the same few flurry endlessly without touching ground. And if today there is no new snow, then there's no stopping, no getting rid of the snow that is here, someone forgotten whose face we see clearly at four o'clock in the morning. 2. How low the sun through curtains in January! I was born in this light showing under the doorway of the year. There is dark heat inside a family, each household wrapped around its fire, poorly vented, wasteful, throwing smoke which blinds and chokes us as it warms us. At dusk I find a pine cone and think of my mother and father growing old. 3. Night is coming. There is no alternative in winter to the threadbare furs we spread with others in the cave of the heart. No alternative to placing the long-delayed call, agreeing to accept the heat without light of the father so difficult to uproot, who stands in whatever light is left, as proud as a stump. No choice but to let snow follow its necessity over the earth, flying or falling. 187 Thomas R. Smith Keeping the Star Keep this star for when you lose the world, when grief and desire become a blurred door that floats away across a plain room without books or kisses. Look to what grows dark beyond the walls, that in night which holds the blue sky singing in its black embrace. It's all spun around a necessary star, star of prisons. Keep it: It has the power to burst from dull thoughts, breathe in airless colors, and roll back the filth of your neglect. Let it pour through the chimney hole patched with tin! Unloved objects — empty jars, faces in clippings, balls of hair spurned by the brush — all the children of failure will step forward in its blinding wind, sons and daughters of that before which there is no trivial being. 188 Robert Spiess The whistling swans recede — their sheer whiteness gleaming far down the spring sky Snowing . . . the dentist polishes my teeth 189 Robert Spiess Becoming dusk, — the catfish on the stringer swims up and down It showered — the desert toads are singing for a single night 190 Peter Stambler Petrified Blackberries Along the margin of a sandy pond parades a gray lizard, its tongue exploring the deft breeze; its eyes, sharp as arrows, penetrate the air. The marsh grass catches on dry scales, and breaks. No other sound except the splash of pond water, the easing back from shore which leaves salt crystals on the blackberry, brilliant on the dark stalk, arresting a lizard's eye, beckoning no one. Curved, sprung, bowed by the weight of birds, the stem snaps and drops its fruit into the sediment. Night after long night, a thousand unremarkable nights, leading to a million nights which cool a million hot days and send the wind above the pond's face like a blessing, the water pulses, drives silt and leaves, the white bones of lizards across the sand, beneath the waves, urgent only in their number Blackberries thicken into a grove; birds, now hollow boned, gather, drop seeds in the diminishing pond until a first cold, perplexing and unknown, drives them deep into the continent. They learn the stars and fly. A mining insect drowns in a tree vein, becomes a talisman in amber. Juice of the blackberry bursts the tiny globes of fruit; the sea wash of silica, tinted purple, settles in the cells, swells out the broken stem and fixes in the delta sands. 191 Peter Stambler On a stone wall lit by the accident of fire, the hunter comprehends the antelope rejoicing in its flight, in its dash among the mountain's rock and trees. In the seabed of the flat earth, the epicontinental shelf rises, scatters shells, broken, uninhabited along the shore; storms, too, rise, ferreted for meaning from ship decks and the gardens at court where the orange trees are buffeted and overturned. By the chance of stone, the ancient clusters, the globes fastened to a petrified stem, surface or submerge. Or: Place fresh blackberries in a jar, cover with water, a tablespoon of brown sugar, a squeezing of lime juice. Pour paraffin until it oozes to the rim, cover, set on a cool earthen floor. Through the long drought, wait for winter and the pleasure of blackberries in January. Observe the red glow gathering in the south, sweep the falling ash from the porch, station your oldest child on the roof like the watchman in Aeschylus searching for Agamemnon's signal fire. Listen to the distant crackling in the pine wood, the directionless thunder announcing no rain, the booming of thick wind, the silence of animals, the rumors rising from the sere fields where your brothers stagger through the dead corn. When the flames appear at the pine tops, rolling from one to another, seeming not to burn 192 Peter Stambler but to dance in the singing trees, take your children to the river, disbelieve reports that flames have leapt the bay, leapt twenty miles over water, engulfing steamships, boiling the shallows, roaring like Christ's sword. Cool your rosary under water, your fingers under water, your eyes, your burned forehead. In the surprising cold of morning, when the thunder subsides into the hissing of embers, of horses' flesh, return. Where the shed exploded and all the glass jars, of an instant, vaporized like so much dust, an ancient cluster, molten, inedible, fastened to a rock stem, remains. 193 Peter Stambler From Olaf, to Henrik in Rome Henrik, September, 1871 If you remember Olaf Pederson, one of us does. If you trace these characters with your pen And say, "This is Olaf's hand," you'll lie. Dreaming in your sun-burnt Rome of days We wrote together and later sold our works. Page by page, to merchants for wrapping fish. Olaf Pederson is a cooper, far north In the wilderness where wolves surprise themselves Coming, at the forest springs, upon a man; Where cedar stand so thick No underbrush obstructs the woodsman; Where cities, grace, men of learning Are a dim prospect in a darker mind. Olaf Pederson, a cooper, sits before his fire Forming iron hoops, perfect circles Measured by a hand that moves in perfect circles. Staves whine from a Belgian's lathe; A Russian notches, planes and bends the wood. In his dark recess, Olaf Pederson hammers Circles, fits the wood, and clamps it tight. Seven years he has sat before the fire, the gloom Of the factory broken by the well of flames Glinting off the anvil, dashing into the dark. Hot enough for working steel into circles. Bright enough, in that black hutch. To make a twelve hour noon, the fire burns Away the sun, is constant in my mind. In the red glow that after seven years Is all I see. Olaf Pederson, the blind cooper. Once a worker of words. 194 Peter Stambler Once an intimate with Oslo, Paris, London, Rome, Now sits on a barrelhead, dictating From the general store. It is Sunday And, I understand from the proprietor's daughter. The red is general in our sky, has sat And lowered over us all this week and more. In the evenings, when yet again the silent telegraph Brings no word, I listen to the birds rise up From the trees, crying in ever wider circles. Climbing above those brittle pines Which are the first to burn. Only those Who lose their nests fail to return. I listen, and I resolve to write to you. Here, then, is a labor. I spell each Norwegian word; My amanuensis, thirteen, puzzled by my eyes. Distracted from my work by customers In her father's shop, questions what I write. Wishes to know, contents herself with my answers. Like her, you will not comprehend America, So I must tell you how we save ourselves. The good women of our town, to soften their hard men And turn their trolls from constant usefulness. Establish, where they will, a wisp of culture. The Drunkard's Fate played two nights In Peshtigo. In disbelief, I went a second time And heard a wife reclaim her husband's fortune And his soul. It took but two dull Acts. Last night I was prevailed upon, dressed out In a cravat, and taken to the village church Turned concert hall. There the Mozart Band, newly formed. Brazened out the Water Music, a flood Of babel which must have shocked our wolves. 195 Peter Stambler But more! The trolls are sent to school Like burghers' sons. An itinerant marm Tutors them in "that science desirable As a matter of Utility and Ornament." Penmanship! She calls it, and the trolls line up, clutching Charcoal, to learn this calligraphy of the wilderness. This multiplier of the American word! "I did no wrong," they learn to spell. And carve this truth on every industry. "I see no wrong," they say and write it out Boldly in my hutch, in the smoldering forest. In the steamship's wake, at Antietam. Life in America pleads innocent. The woods Plead innocent. The wall of flames surrounds us. The old world blackens, the new burns clean. I have no sight past Peshtigo. Send news! Send news. David Steingass Pioneer Say when schooners left St. Louis they flew names like "Spirit's End" and "Omega," promising towns the Good Book would point. But say you walk months. The oxen pull slow as their eyes, so slow you lose aim of your life. Names gather in your lips as questions. In photos you sprawl part dust, part fear your eyes show squinting where prairie grass swells, and its pagan hymn might drag down any child of Europe in the space you blink. A wild itch burns your blood. Butchery makes you moan and touch the Bible in your coat, a growth numb as whatever lump of foreign tongue you forget. The Book catches flint or fang someplace you don't expect, a spot so bleak your fear leaves. Some littlist end of nowhere you grow old watching. Pigs fill the streets. Each day you pull on boots, you stamp life further into dust. 197 David Steingass Life Close to the Bone Let me tell you we could like it here. Throw the J.T.S. Brown in a glass, watch the river slide forever, the amber river home. I'll lighten this life of split pins, leave it to me. As a window shade I hang my shirt to name the sky "Team muddy river of endless regret." Watch the bricks collect a blood color you can taste. Hear the river groan like a dog curled into East Dubuque dust. Once the sun drops its heavy afternoon hand a boy looks his dad eye to eye. His muscle, full of summer twitch, dances him away. "You're never alone," bricks across town chime in. They say "Brains 2 5