TREATY OF 1825¹²

ANNOTATIONS

June 3, 1825. | 7 Stat., 244. | Proclamation, Dec. 30, 1825..

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at the City of Saint Louis, in the State of Missouri, between William Clark, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Commissioner on the part of the United States of America, and the undersigned Chiefs, Head Men, and Warriors of the Kansas Nation of Indians, duly authorized and empowered by said Nation.

It is worth noting that the Treaty of 1825’s preamble contends the Kanza treaty signatories are “duly authorized and empowered by said Nation” to cede land to the United States. Historians and contemporary Kaw citizens dispute this claim. It was often the case that treaties were signed and ratified with individuals or Indigenous groups who agreed to the terms without the approval, or even, in some cases, the knowledge, of the entire body of the Nation. As historian William E. Unrau argued, this was the period when “chief making by the government reached its zenith, the federal agents were required to identify a flexible tribal leader who enjoyed enough followers so that the government’s dispossessory objectives might not seem so blatantly pernicious.” Federal officials had sought to negotiate a Kanza land cession treaty since 1818, and some prominent leaders, such as Shonganega and Wakanzare, were notably absent in the final 1825 treaty. This ongoing U.S. government pressure led to disagreements among the Kanza on how to engage with the U.S., resulting in factionalism and town separations.¹³

ARTICLE 1.

THE Kansas do hereby cede to the United States all the lands lying within the State of Missouri, to which the said nation have title or claim; and do further cede and relinquish, to the said United States, all other lands which they now occupy, or to which they have title or claim, lying West of the said State of Missouri, and within the following boundaries: beginning at the entrance of the Kansas river into the Missouri river; from thence North to the North-West corner of the State of Missouri; from thence Westwardly to the Nodewa river, thirty miles from its entrance into the Missouri; from thence to the entrance of the big Nemahaw river into the Missouri, and with that river to its source; from thence to the source of the Kansas river, leaving the old village of the Pania Republic to the West; from thence, on the ridge dividing the waters of the Kansas river from those of the Arkansas, to the Western boundary of the State line of Missouri, and with that line, thirty miles, to the place of beginning.

The language of the treaty is worth considering. Both the current and historic definition of the word “cede” are “to give way; to yield or surrender something.” Notably, Article 1 does not state that the Kanza agreed to sell their land to the U.S. government, but, instead, that they yielded it. Given that the Kanza had few viable options other than relinquishing vast swathes of their homelands, some of which were already invaded by Euro-American settlers, the treaty’s language exemplifies the power imbalances that undergird it. Further, given that treaties are often employed to mark the terms of negotiation that end a war, the language of “ceding” invokes the structure of victor and vanquished peoples, with the victor ultimately controlling the terms of the agreement.¹⁴

This treaty forced the Kanza to relinquish lands they held in what, by 1821, had become the state of Missouri, a significant amount land that would later be part of the state of Kansas, and a smaller area that eventually became part of Nebraska.

ARTICLE 2.

From the cession aforesaid, the following reservation for the use of the Kansas nation of Indians shall be made, of a tract of land, to begin twenty leagues up the Kansas river, and to include their village on that river; extending West thirty miles in width, through the lands ceded in the first Article, to be surveyed and marked under the direction of the President, and to such extent as he may deem necessary, and at the expense of the United States. The agents for the Kansas, and the persons attached to the agency, and such teachers and instructors as the President shall authorize to reside near the Kansas, shall occupy, during his pleasure, such lands as may be necessary for them within this reservation.

This treaty – for the first time – confined the Kanza a specific and significantly smaller land area, shrinking their landbase from twenty million to two million acres. In the 1830s, other Indigenous nations, such as the Shawnee, Delaware, and Kickapoo, were removed from the east and also confined to nearby reservations in what is now the state of Kansas, but was then called Indian Territory. The concentration of more Indigenous peoples competing over the same natural resources undermined Kanza survival.¹⁵

Though the treaty states that teachers, instructors, and federal agents would “reside near the Kansas,” in reality the this was only “loosely enforced or completely ignored.” Agents never lived closer than twenty miles from the main Kanza towns and often between fifty and seventy-five miles away. There was also significant turnover in personnel and as historian William E. Unrau argued, there was “simply no one to look after the government’s obligations to the Kansas.” Government agents were supposed to serve as diplomats, distributing land payments and communicating regularly between the Kanza and the U.S. government. But that was not the case for two decades after this treaty was signed.¹⁶

ARTICLE 3.

In consideration of the cession of land and relinquishments of claims, made in the first Articles, the United States agree to pay to the Kansas nation of Indians, three thousand five hundred dollars per annum, for twenty successive years, at their villages, or at the entrance of the Kansas river, either in money, merchandise, provisions, or domestic animals, at the option of the aforesaid Nation; and when the said annuities, or any part thereof, is paid in merchandise, it shall be delivered to them at the first cost of the goods in Saint Louis, free of transportation.

The Treaty of 1825 promised $3,500 “per annum, for twenty successive years,” or $70,000 in exchange for Kanza land. Some of this land served as the basis for land grants the U.S. Congress would later allocate to public universities in the Morrill Act (1862). Morrill Act allocations included 769,879 acres of Kanza lands, from the treaties of 1825 and 1846 combined. These lands (in Kansas and Nebraska) were resold by thirty-three universities, including Kansas State University, and raised $1,067,217. This shows a significant discrepancy between the price the U.S. paid for the land and its value at the time. Furthermore, when adjusted for inflation, land grant universities raised over $21 million from the Kanza land they were given as a result of the Morrill Act.¹⁷

As the first land-grant university, founded in 1863, Kansas State University, (then named Kansas State Agricultural College), received 100 percent of their land grants--87,290 acres in all--from the U.S. government’s colonization of Kanza land. Much of the Kanza land granted to Kansas State from the Morrill Act “was rented or sold by the college,” and the university raised $517,367, or $10,812,965 when adjusted for inflation. And it wasn’t just K-State that benefited. Twenty-eight land-grant colleges were given land parcels from this treaty alone.¹⁸

ARTICLE 4.

The United States, immediately upon the ratification of this convention, or as soon thereafter as may be, shall cause to be furnished to the Kansas Nation, three hundred head of cattle, three hundred hogs, five hundred domestic fowls, three yoke of oxen, and two carts, with such implements of agriculture as the Superintendant of Indian Affairs may think necessary; and shall employ such persons to aid and instruct them in their agriculture, as the President of the United States may deem expedient; and shall provide and support a blacksmith for them.

Article 4 notes that the U.S., along with furnishing the Kanza with livestock and farming implements as partial payment for the ceded land, would appoint settlers “to aid and instruct” the Kanza “in their agriculture.” This aid and instruction was aimed at inducing Kanza women to stop farming and Kanza men to start in the tradition of Euro-American agricultural practices.

The Kanza viewed women’s farming as complementary to men’s hunting; both were equally valued and necessary for community sustenance and survival. This gender parity is foundational to Kanza worldviews. To upend gender structures was to undermine everything the Kanza understood about the world and their place in it.¹⁹

As historian Ronald Parks notes in one of the Treaty Project interviews, the introduction of such male-dominated agricultural practices was extremely difficult for the Kanza. He explains the “difficulties with what the government was asking the Kanza to do... was a major cultural revolution in terms of gender roles, because the Kanza were horticultural people. They raised corn, beans, and squash, later watermelons, potatoes, and some sunflowers, but that was considered women's work…. [As the United States government] began to try to provide some training for the students… they ran into opposition from the… hierarchy of the tribe.”²⁰

This seemingly innocuous clause, then, holds weighty consequences because it is part of a larger attempt to systemically dismantle Kanza cultural practices and replace them with Euro-American modes of living and thinking.

ARTICLE 5.

Out of the lands herein ceded by the Kanzas Nation to the United States, the Commissioner aforesaid, in behalf of the said United States, doth further covenant and agree, that thirty-six sections of good lands, on the Big Blue river, shall be laid out under the direction of the President of the United States, and sold for the purpose of raising a fund, to be applied, under the direction of the President, to the support of schools for the education of the Kanzas children, within their Nation.

In this article, the U.S. government set aside Kanza lands, which would be resold and the profits used to pay for schools. These “good lands,” which were well timbered and therefore extremely valuable, totaled over 23,000 acres, which, at the time would have been worth at least $30,000.²¹

Since the seventeenth century, assimilationist schooling was part of both European and later U.S. colonization in North America. By 1819, the U.S. Congress provided some funding for mission schools. Indigenous children were indoctrinated in the beliefs of U.S. culture through a settler-focused education. Even though Congress was partially funding assimilationist efforts, Indigenous people were often forced to pay for their own colonization as seen in this article. Because the treaty provided for the resale of land, numerous Catholic and Protestant Christian missionary groups competed over the opportunity to collect these funds and missionize the Kanza.²²

In 1851, Methodists opened a mission in Council Grove on Kanza land. Notably, the Kanza successfully resisted this attempted educational assimilation and, by 1854, the U.S. government ended its support for the Kaw Mission. The school remained open for the children of white settlers and the Kaw Mission Historical site now functions as a museum.²³

ARTICLE 6.

From the lands above ceded to the United States, there shall be made the following reservations, of one mile square, for each of the half breeds of the Kanzas nation, viz: For Adel and Clement, the two children of Clement; for Josette, Julie, Pelagie, and Victoire, the four children of Louis Gonvil; for Marie and Lafleche, the two children of Baptiste of Gonvil; for Laventure, the son of Francis Laventure; for Elizabeth and Pierre Carbonau, the children of Pierre Brisa; for Louis Joncas; for Basil Joncas; for James Joncas; for Elizabeth Datcherute, daughter of Baptiste Datcherute; for Joseph Butler; for William Rodgers; for Joseph Coté; for the four children of Cicili Compáre, each one mile square; and one for Joseph James, to be located on the North side of the Kanzas river, in the order above named, commencing at the line of the Kanzas reservation, and extending down the Kanzas river for quantity.

This article exacerbated factionalism among Kanza people and their leaders by privileging a small group over the larger Kanza population. Twenty-three “half breed tracts” of individually owned land were allocated to minor children of specific families that were deeply tied to non-Native traders and Kanza chief White Plume, all of whom were central to approving this treaty. These valuable Kansas-river-side plots were also highly coveted by speculators and settlers.²⁴

In his interview for the Treaty Project, scholar Ronald Parks notes that this article of the treaty increased a growing schism within the nation. He explains, “It really created considerable amount of suspicion and division within the tribe. … There were anywhere from 1600-1800 members of the tribe, and we’re probably talking about the twenty free . . . sections that were given there. It's disproportionate in terms of population… There was a considerable amount of jealousy and dissension… I think in retrospect it was a really bad idea and caused a lot of fractiousness.”²⁵

For the United States, factionalism and disagreement within an Indigenous nation was advantageous because it weakened the nation’s ability to mount a forceful resistance to continued colonization. Hence, mechanisms like “half-breed tracts” were commonplace in U.S. treaties with Indigenous people.

Because U.S. settler colonialism sought to eliminate Indigenous people, and thus their rights to land and sovereignty, the U.S. government used terms like “half-breed” “half-blood” or “full-blood” to describe Indigenous people. “Breed” was originally used to talk about animal species and such language subsequently became a racial slur. Nevertheless, even today, blood quantum is still part of U.S. Indian policy and law, based on the alleged ability to determine one’s identity and ancestry through a percentage of “Indian blood.” Such language and ideas were used to arbitrarily divide Indigenous communities and the federal government treated Indigenous people differently based on these assumptions. This language was also used to imply that “real Indians” were somehow (conveniently) disappearing. Often one’s supposed blood quantum had more to do with physical appearance or name than with personal identity, ancestry, or ties to tribal culture. Indigenous societies had long histories of incorporating people and defining nationhood and membership or citizenship in far different ways that had nothing to do with so-called “Indian blood.”²⁶

ARTICLE 7.

With the view of quieting all animosities which may at present exist between a part of the white citizens of Missouri and the Kanzas nation, in consequence of the lawless depredations of the latter, the United States do further agree to pay their own citizens, the full value of such property as they can legally prove to have been stolen or destroyed since the year 1815: Provided, The sum so to be paid by the United States shall not exceed the sum of three thousand dollars.

The language used in this article is especially inflammatory. The treaty writers blame the “animosities” between the Kanza and the encroaching settlers on the Kanza people. In reality, however, the “animosities” referenced here were due to the white encroachers’ land theft. In brief, this clause means the Kanza were forced to pay claims to non-Native people who settled unlawfully on their land.²⁷

To offer further context, settlers knowingly flouted treaty boundaries: they settled illegally on Kanza land where they built houses, erected fences, and grazed their livestock. Though the U.S. law was on the Kanza’s side, white settlers cast the Kanza and other Indigenous peoples as “savages” who did not use land “properly.” Settlers also used newspapers and local law enforcement to characterize the Kanza and other Indigenous peoples as innately violent while casting themselves as victims. Noted Dakota scholar Philip Deloria calls this common pattern a story of “defensive conquest,” or, the mistaken belief that “peaceful” white settlers were forced into conflict by Native aggression. This inaccurate story of settler innocence and Indigenous violence has been retold endlessly in film and literature. As numerous scholars have argued, all the Kanza and other Indigenous people did to “get in the way of settler colonization...[was] stay at home.”²⁸

ARTICLE 8.

And whereas the Kanzas are indebted to Francis G. Choteau, for credits given them in trade, which they are unable to pay, and which they have particularly requested to have included and settled in the present Treaty; it is, therefore, agreed on, by and between the parties to these presents, that the sum of five hundred dollars, towards the liquidation of said debt, shall be paid by the United States to the said Francois G. Choteau.

When the Santa Fe Trail opened in 1821, it increased traffic through Kanza lands. This impacted natural resources and the Kanza economy. With more people and livestock consuming water and disturbing wildlife, there were disruptions to Kanza hunting and agriculture. This undermined subsistence and the ability to trade. So why did traders sell supplies that they knew the Kanza could not afford to buy? As president, Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) had instructed Indian agents and traders: “we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good & influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop th[em off] by a cession of lands.”²⁹ While the U.S. government had ended their official trading system, (at that time called the factory system), in 1822, private traders continued to operate based on this model. Knowing that more land cessions were likely to come as more Americans invaded Indigenous lands, the traders were likely to recoup any lost profit in the next land cession treaty. This process is exactly what is described in Article 8.³⁰

The Chouteaus were a prominent fur trading family in the Plains region who had been trading with the Kanza since 1790. Francois Chouteau, known as the “Founder of Kansas City,” was the son of the agent for Indian affairs west of the Mississippi, demonstrating the close familial relationship between private traders and U.S. government policy. The Chouteaus established kinship and thus trade relations with Indigenous communities through intermarriage, especially among the Osage in Missouri. With little competition, the Chouteaus and other traders like them functioned as a monopoly and profited from their connections with Indigenous nations and the U.S. government as well as their involvement in treaty negotiations. Furthermore, they, including Francois, enslaved African Americans.³¹

ARTICLE 9.

There shall be selected at this place such merchandise as may be desired, amounting to two thousand dollars, to be delivered at the Kanzas river, with as little delay as possible; and there shall be paid to the deputation now here, two thousand dollars in merchandise and horses, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged; which, together with the amount agreed on in the 3d and 4th articles, and the provisions made in the other articles of this Treaty, shall be considered as a full compensation for the cession herein made.

According to historian William Unrau, this $2,000 distribution of goods was specifically intended “as an apparent inducement to a quick conclusion of the negotiations.” It was not uncommon for the U.S. government to pay for Indigenous land in goods rather than cash. The Kaw Nation has argued that these promised funds were undercut by unfair merchants, who provided overpriced goods to the nation. Furthermore, the Chouteau family used their long-standing connection to the U.S. government and tribal nations to profit from this goods-for-land arrangement. The Kaw Nation timeline notes that “The first annuity paid to the Kanza was $3,500 worth of goods purchased by Indian agent Barnett Vasquez from the Chouteau Brothers.”³²

ARTICLE 10.

Lest the friendship which is now established between the United States and the said Indian Nation should be interrupted by the misconduct of Individuals, it is hereby agreed, that for injuries done by individuals, no private revenge or retaliation shall take place, but instead thereof, complaints shall be made by the party injured, to the other by the said nation, to the Superintendent, or other person appointed by the President to the Chiefs of said nation. And it shall be the duty of the said Chiefs, upon complaints being made as aforesaid, to deliver up the person or persons against whom the complaint is made, to the end that he or they may be punished, agreeably to the laws of the State or Territory where the offence may have been committed; and in like manner, if any robbery, violence, or murder, shall be committed on any Indian or Indians belonging to said nation, the person or persons so offending shall be tried, and, if found guilty, shall be punished in like manner as if the injury had been done to a white man. And it is agreed, that the Chiefs of the Kanzas shall, to the utmost of their power, exert themselves to recover horses or other property which may be stolen from any citizen or citizens of the United States, by any individual or individuals of the Nation; and the property so recovered shall be forthwith delivered to the Superintendent, or other person authorized to receive it, that it may be restored to its proper owner; and in cases where the exertions of the Chiefs shall be ineffectual in recovering the property stolen as aforesaid, if sufficient proof can be adduced that such property was actually stolen, by any Indian or Indians belonging to the said nation, the Superintendent or other officer may deduct from the annuity of the said nation a sum equal to the value of the property which has been stolen. And the United States hereby guarantee, to any Indian or Indians, a full indemnification for any horses or other property which may be stolen from them by any of their citizens: Provided, That the property so stolen cannot be recovered, and that sufficient proof is produced that it was actually stolen by a citizen of the United States. And the said Nation of Kanzas engage, on the requisition or demand of the President of the United States, or of the Superintendent, to deliver up any white man resident amongst them.

This article attempted to subvert Kanza sovereignty to the “superintendent or other person appointed by the President.” The intent was to force the Kanza to cede judicial power to Americans appointed by the U.S. government and for U.S. understandings of law and institutional hierarchy to be followed instead of Indigenous cultural practices, which often involved different understandings of justice. This article demonstrates how the Kanza were not only losing land in this treaty, they were also losing sovereignty over their established law and order.³³

ARTICLE 11.

It is further agreed on, by and between the parties to these presents, that the United States shall forever enjoy the right to navigate freely all water courses or navigable streams within the limits of the tract of country herein reserved to the Kanzas Nation; and that the said Kanzas Nation shall never sell, relinquish, or in any manner dispose of the lands herein reserved, to any other nation, person or persons whatever, without the permission of the United States for that purpose first had and obtained. And shall ever remain under the protection of the United States, and in friendship with them.

The promise of “forever” offered here by the U.S. government, was, in reality, a very short period; the next land cession treaty between the Kanza and the U.S. was negotiated in 1846.

The Doctrine of Discovery was established European legal precedent for acquiring land in colonies. When the U.S. purchased Louisiana from France in 1803, the U.S. acquired exclusive purchase rights to Indigenous land within Louisiana. That meant Indigenous people could continue to occupy their land, but the only people they could sell it to was the U.S. government. This article articulates the Doctrine of Discovery for Kanza land. At the same time the Kanza learned they no longer retained sovereignty over their waterways – which functioned as water sources and transportation routes.³⁴

The treaty repeatedly refers to the Kanza as “friends” or “in friendship” with the U.S. However, rather than friends, the treaty enacted paternalism. This article stated the Kanza “shall ever remain under the protection of the United States,” which demonstrated the growing effort by the federal government to control more and more aspects of Kanza life. Of course, “protection” resulted in more U.S. demands for land, culminating in multiple treaties over the next half century.³⁵

ARTICLE 12.

This Treaty shall take effect, and be obligatory on the contracting parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the President, by and with the consent and advice of the Senate of the United States.

In testimony whereof, the said William Clark, commissioner as aforesaid, and the deputation, chiefs, head men, and warriors of the Kanzas nation of Indians, as aforesaid, have hereunto set their hands and seals, this third day of June, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twenty-five, and of the independence of the United States of America the forty-ninth year.

Witnesses present:

Despite the extreme losses the Treaty of 1825 represented for the Kanza people, two more major land cession treaties would be signed in 1846 and 1859 before they were forced, this time by an 1872 congressional act--the Kaw Land Bill--to leave their ancestral homelands and emigrate to Oklahoma.³⁶