Catherine Denial

Property, Kinship, and the Meaning of Marriage in Dakota Country

Pelagie Faribault’s Island:

48

The easiest factstodiscoveraboutPelagieFaribaultarelife

markers:shewasbornin1783,mar-riedin1805,andboreeightchildren.Thesearethecommonlysharedmilestonesbywhichawoman’sim-portanceisoftenunderstoodandcommunicatedinwesternculture:shewasfatheredbysomeone;shemarriedaman;shegavehimheirs.YetnothingaboutPelagie’sinnerlifesurvivesinthesedetailsorinthedocumentaryrecordoftheregion.

Pike Island, strategically located between

Mendota and Fort Snelling at the juncture

of the Mississippi and St. Peter’s rivers,

portrayed in Edward K. Thomas’s view of

the fort, about 1850

Shewas,likemanywomenofhertime,illiterate.Ifshespokeherlifestoryaloud,ithaslongsincefadedintosilence.Testimonytoherexis-tenceisfoundonlyindocumentscreatedbymenforquitedifferentends:tradenarratives,wills,legalbriefs,andmilitaryplansforimag-inedcontingencies.

ItwasinoneofthesedocumentsthatIencounteredPelagieforthefirsttime—anameinaclauseattheendofatreatypennedin1820.On

August9ofthatyear,Col.HenryLeavenworthwelcomedinterpreterDuncanCampbell,IndianAgentLawrenceTaliaferro,furtraderJeanBaptisteFaribault,and22localDakotamentotheplacehecalledCampColdwater,thetemporary

Catherine Denial, assistant professor of history at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, is at work on a manuscript about the American project of nation-building in preterritorial Minnesota, as expressed through ideas about marriage, family life, and Native kinship structures.

50 Minnesota History

did,andshenotonlyreceiveditbutmaintainedownershipevenasEuro-AmericansbecamemorepopulousintheregionandinsistedthatawomanofFrenchandIndianancestryshouldownnothingatall.Aslateas1858,theU.S.governmentpaidPelagie’sheirs$12,000forlandthatitcontin-uedtorecognizehadbelongedtoherandnotherhusband—eventhoughCongressneverratifiedLeaven-worth’streaty.3ItisthroughPelagie’slife,andthelivesofotherwomenlikeher,relegatedtothefringesofthedocumentaryrecord,thatwediscoveramorecomplexstorythanconven-tionalhistorieswouldhaveusbelieve.

When Col. LeavenworthenteredtheUpperMidwest

in1819,hedidnotspeaktheDakotalanguage.HewasconfrontedwithreadyevidenceofthecontinuedinfluenceofBritishtradersintheregion,andyethewasarmedwithordersto“gainthe confidence and friendship of all the Indian tribes with whom you may have any inter-course ...[and]holdtreatiesoffriendshipwiththetribeswithinourlimits”(emphasisintheoriginal).4Itwas,underthesecircumstances,Leavenworth’spersonaldecisiontonegotiateforlandonwhichtobuildaUnitedStatesfort.Suchanagree-menthadtechnicallybeenhammeredout14yearsbefore,whenZebulonPikesignedatreatywiththeDakotabandsoftheMinnesotaRiverregion.Thattreaty,however,wasneverpro-claimedbythepresident.5

WhenLeavenworthdecidedtoenterintoatreatywithLittleCrow’s,WhiteBustard’s,andBlackDog’sbands,heactedastheagentofapowerful,iffledgling,empirewhoseimperialdesignshewellunderstood.

JeanBaptisteFaribaultandkintoLittleCrow’sband.2

AshallowreadingofthetreatydocumenttellsuslittleabouttheregionintowhichtheUnitedStateshadbeguntoexpand,or,crucially,theopinionsofthepeoplealreadylivingthereaboutthisintrusion.Thedocumentisdry,theprosespareandbureaucratic.Itprovidesahandfulofcertainties:that32menconductedbusinessonthisspotonthatday.InthehistoriesoftheregionthatfollowedAmericansettlement,

themomentwaspreservedbecauseitwasseenasuncomplicatedandpivotal:theUnitedStateshadar-rived;moreAmericanswouldfollow;moreedificeswouldbebuilt.Thetreatysignaledthebeginningoftheendforestablishedpatternsoflivingamongtheregion’snativeandmixed-heritageinhabitants.

YetPelagieFaribault’spresenceinthedocumentgreatlycomplicatesthatstory.Ifthe1820treatygaveno-ticethattheAmericanstatehaditseyessetupontheUpperMidwest,italsoindicated—throughPelagie—thestrengthoftheculturalsystemsalreadyinplacethereandtheabilityofnativeandmixed-heritageindivid-ualstofrustratethetransformationofIndiancountryintoanAmericanstate.InEuro-Americanlawandcustom,Pelagieshouldnothavere-ceivedlandinherownright.Butshe

homeoftheU.S.FifthInfantryjustabovethejunctureoftheMississippiandSt.Peter’s(Minnesota)rivers.Thegoalofthemeetingwastofinal-izeanagreementfortheconstruc-tionofapermanentfortintheUpperMidwest.Bytheday’send,theassembledDakotahadsignedacontractgiftinga15-acrereserveoverlookingtheriverstotheU.S.military,andwithinamonth,constructionofFortSt.Anthony(renamedFortSnellingin1825)hadbegun.1

ThecontractsignedbyLeaven-worth,sixofhisofficers,Taliaferro,Faribault,Campbell,andtheDakotaleaderswasshortbutprecise.TheDakota,byinkingthedocumentwiththeirmarks,wereconsideredto“havegiven,granted,conveyed,andconfirmed”titletoamilitaryre-servetotheU.S.government.Theboundariesoftheacreagewerede-scribedwithreferencetoanumberofmarkers—rivers,caves,themilitary’stemporaryencampment,andthevil-lagesinwhichDakotaleadersLittleCrow,BlackDog,andWhiteBustardlived.Finally,thecontractacknowl-edgedtwoothergrantsfromtheDakota:aone-square-miletractoflandtoDuncanCampbell,inter-preterandkintoseverallocalDakotapeople;andownershipofPikeIslandinthemiddleoftheMississippiRivertoPelagieFaribault,wifeoftrader

In Euro-American law and custom, Pelagie should not have received land in her own right. But she did,

and she not only received it but maintained ownership even as Euro-Americans became more populous

in the region and insisted that a woman of French and Indian ancestry should own nothing at all.

Summer 2010 51

business.10 In addition, Pelagie and Jean Baptiste often lived apart, a typical arrangement for established fur-trade couples. While Jean Bap-tiste traveled to trade, Pelagie main-tained permanent residences with their children on lands at Prairie du Chien, then Pike Island, and finally at Mendota, the township across the river from Fort Snelling.11

Jean Baptiste’s prestige in the region owed something to his ability to act as a host to travelers and other traders, an ability that rested upon the labor of Pelagie. The nuts and bolts of hospitality—sleeping accom-modations and food—were her re-sponsibility, whether by reference to the tenets of Euro-American culture, the blended, mixed-heritage commu-nities of the Upper Midwest, or the Dakota community in which she was raised.12 There is scattered evidence that suggests Pelagie performed this duty skillfully. Fur trader Philander Prescott rested with the Faribaults during a journey upriver in 1820 and enjoyed his welcome to such a degree that he would have stayed longer, had he not feared that Native groups (who had set up camp by the Fari baults’

between several Dakota and Ojibwe communities in 1786 and 1787.8

Pelagie’s own marriage perpetu-ated these connections between kin-ship and trade. In 1805 she wed Jean Baptiste Faribault, a French Canadian born in 1774 in Berthier, Canada. Faribault had entered the fur trade as an employee of the North West Company in 1798 and began his career trading at the mouth of the Kankakee River in present-day Illinois. The following year, he relo-cated to a more western post on the Des Moines River, where his primary trading partners were drawn from Dakota bands. In 1804 Faribault renewed his contract, established a post at the juncture of the St. Peter’s and Mississippi rivers and then, in accordance with Dakota custom, took Pelagie as his wife.9

The glimpses of Pelagie’s life that survive in the historical record sug-gest her importance in facilitating Jean Baptiste’s success as a trader. She bore eight children during her marriage, and by the time the 1820 treaty was being negotiated, the eld est, Alexander, was old enough to assist his father with his fur-trade

Yet his actions were also shaped by more mundane concerns. Three days before the August 9 treaty signing, he had endured a torrential thunder-storm in the inadequate shelter of an ill-constructed log cabin.6 His com-pany had been drastically depleted by scurvy during the winter of 1819, and he was operating in a region where strong ties to the trade system were the surest avenue to influence and power. Viewed from the vantage point of the banks of the Mississippi River, the U.S. government’s belief in its own imperial destiny—and its policies to facilitate American ascen-dancy across the continent—meant little. The young nation’s goals could not be met by the simple assertion of power and a theoretical cultural superiority. It would take friendship, family connections, and personal relationships between Leavenworth and individuals like Pelagie Faribault for any transformation to occur.

Since her birth in 1783, Pelagie Faribault had been inti-

mately connected to all the groups with whom Leavenworth needed to establish strong relationships in 1820. Her father, Joseph Ainse, the son of French parents, was born on Mackinac Island in 1744.7 He en-tered the Upper Midwest as a fur trader and fathered Pelagie with a Dakota woman whose name is lost to us, solidifying his trade connec-tion to his wife’s band. Ainse’s work was greatly facilitated by the kinship ties he could claim with local Dakota groups, while his ability to speak the Dakota language and familiarity with their cultural practices helped him land the position of Indian agent under the British. He was called upon to negotiate what peace he could

Col. Henry Leavenworth,

about 1820Jean Baptiste Faribault, a widower

by the time of this photograph, ca. 1860

MNHist_Sum10_inside_REV.indd 51 6/17/10 10:21 AM

52 Minnesota History

andlinguisticknowledgehepos-sessed.Allofthesethingsweremadepossiblebyhiswife:byherfamilyconnections,herlanguageskills,andherlaborasahostess.Ineffect,JeanBaptiste’spowerwasowedtoPelagieand,asaresult,itwasappropriateinDakotaeyesforhertogainagiftfromtheproceedingsinacknowl-edgementofherwork.16

ThetransactionlikelylookedquitedifferentfromLeavenworth’sperspective.InEuro-Americanso-ciety,awoman’spropertybecameherhusband’sontheoccasionoftheirmarriage.Thelawsofcoverturesuspendedawoman’slegalidentitywithinthatofherhusband,grantinghimcontroloverherlandandearn-ingswhiletheywerewed.17WithintheculturalsystemLeavenworthbestunderstood,theDakotagranttoPelagiewasineverysenseagranttoherhusband;LeavenworthlikelyexpectedthelandtobegovernedandcontrolledbyJeanBaptiste.Faribault’scontemporaries,aswellassubsequenthistorians,interpretedthetransferofPikeIslandtoPela-gieFaribaultinmuchthesamewayLeavenworthdid:itwasagifttothehusband,madethroughthebodyofhiswife.

YetPelagieandJeanBaptistewerenotmarriedaccordingtothedictatesofEuro-Americanlaw.ItwasasaDakotawoman,marriedaccordingtothe“customofthecountry,”thatPelagiefacilitatedherhusband’sentryintoDakotacul-ture.Whenviewedfromwithintheboundariesofthatculture,Pelagie’s

ties.Faribault,throughtradeandkinshipties,wasaknownquantitytotheDakotawholivedneartheSt.Peter’sandMississippirivers—amanwhospoketheirlanguage,under-stoodtheirculturalpractices,and,throughPelagie,wasacknowledgedasfamily.Faribaultwasmoreuse-fultoLeavenworththanindividualslikeLawrenceTaliaferro,theIndianagentwhohadarrivedinthere-gionwiththeFifthInfantryin1819.Taliaferro’spreviousexperienceintheUpperMidwesthadbeenashortstintasamemberoftheThirdInfantryatChicagoin1816andanevenshorterstintatGreenBaythefollowingyear.Despitehiscommit-menttoestablishingpositiverela-

tionsbetweentheU.S.governmentandlocalNativegroups,TaliaferrohadnopreviousexperiencewiththeDakotaandcouldnotyetspeaktheirlanguage.15

Such was the contextinwhichLeavenworthnegotiated

withtheDakotaonAugust9.Thetreaty,thoughanimperfectexpres-sionoftheUnitedStates’goals,wasmadepossiblebyconnectingwebsoffamiliesandfriends.JeanBaptisteFaribaultoccupiedasingularlypow-erfulpositionatthenegotiations.Hispowercamenotfrommilitarymightoranyparticularexpressionofwealth,butfromthefriendshiphehadforgedwiththeFifthInfantry’scommandingofficerandthecultural

home)wouldstealthegoodshehadleftoutside.In1819,Col.Leaven-worthalsostayedwiththeFaribaultfamilyinPrairieduChienandlaterfondlyrecalled“theverypoliteandhospitablemannerinwhichIwastreatedwhilewithyou.”13

WehavenowayofknowingwhatinteractionoccurredbetweenPelagieandLeavenworthduringhisstaywiththefamily,butitiscertainthatafriendshipflourishedbetweenthecolonelandJeanBaptiste.Leaven-worthrecordedthathehadlearnedmuchabouttheDakotafromthelatter,somuchsothatheencour-agedJeanBaptistetoaccompanyhimupriverasaninterpreterandalsopromisedmilitaryassistanceif

Faribaultwouldsettleclosetotheproposedfort.IntheperiodbetweenLeavenworth’sdeparturefortheUpperMississippiandFaribault’smovenorth,JeanBaptisteprovedhimselfevenmoreindispensablewhenhedirectedthecoloneltothehemlockthatgrewatLakeSt.Croix.Withscurvydecimatinghisforces,Leavenworthwroteto“assureyouthatthehemlockisconsideredofthegreatestconsequencetous,andtheonlythingthatcansavetheexistenceofourmenandofficers.”14

Bythesummerof1820,then,Leavenworthhadincurredanin-formaldebtofgratitudetoJeanBaptiste.ItwaslargelybecauseofhishelpthatLeavenworthcouldclaimsuccessinmakingfriendlyoverturestowardthelocalDakotacommuni-

Facing: Pike Island, narrowly separated

from the fort and its gardens, in Topo-

graphicalSketchofFortSt.Anthony,

1823, by Sgt. Joseph E. Heckle (marginal

notes by Maj. Josiah H. Vose)

In effect, Jean Baptiste’s power was owed to Pelagie and, as a result, it was appropriate

in Dakota eyes for her to gain a gift from the proceedings in acknowledgement of her work.

54 Minnesota History

prices for staples such as muskrat furs tumbled in the East.23 Native communities came to believe that, by virtue of the annuities and services offered to them, the treaties would help mitigate that season’s failed wild rice harvest, clear their debts, and aid them in continued tenure on their remaining lands.24

These circumstances—national, regional, and local—came together to create the moment in 1837 in which the U.S. government negotiated trea-ties with the Dakota and Ojibwe communities that had land east of the Mississippi River. In return for land cessions, the Dakota and Ojibwe were promised financial settlements, agricultural equipment, and the as-sistance of blacksmiths and farmers in practicing both crafts. The latter provisions represented a clear at-tempt on the part of the federal gov-ernment to pressure the communities into making adaptations to American culture and suggested the nation’s in-creasing power to dictate the fashion in which the region would develop.25

Yet Pelagie’s island stands, again, as testimony to the uncertainties surrounding U.S. expansion. Since she was a French-Dakota woman who had received Pike Island as a Dakota gift in an agreement that Congress never ratified, her land occupied something of a precarious position during treaty negotiations. Although tangible practices— including the construction of Fort Snelling on land demarcated by Leavenworth’s treaty—suggested that the agreement was observed in spirit, if not in law, the Faribaults feared that the 1837 treaty with the Dakota might supersede the 1820 agreement, especially since no pro-tective clause suggesting otherwise had been entered into the new docu-

ing the rivers was capable of shelter-ing almost 250 members of the Fifth Infantry, their families, servants, and slaves. The river valley had become home to American traders such as Henry H. Sibley and Joseph R. Brown, traders who had chosen not to enter into lasting “custom of the country” marriages to facilitate their work. A number of missionaries from the American Board of Commission-ers for Foreign Missions had also set-tled in the region—the first in 1829. Acting with the blessing of the War Department, they set up homesteads with the intent of assimilating Native people into American society and converting them to Christianity. As many as 365 civilians lived around the Fort Snelling area: missionaries, employees of the Indian agency, fur traders, early settlers, general labor-ers, and their families.21

Nationally, the U.S. government’s relationship with Indian people had

swung toward a policy of removal. Locally, the potential for land ces-sions from the Dakota and Ojibwe was extremely attractive to American settlers. The eastern side of the Mis-sissippi River was pine country, and American settlement in upper Illinois and southern Wisconsin had created an insatiable demand for timber to use in construction.22 Fur traders favored the negotiation of treaties to help cover the debts incurred by local Indian communities, debts that had escalated as the eastern shores of the Mississippi became overhunted and

grant had a particular resonance. It formalized (rather than created) the Faribaults’ residency in the area, for while Pelagie had spent most of her married life in Prairie du Chien, her early years had been among the Mdewakanton, and her husband frequently lived among the Dakota at the mouth of the St. Peter’s River as he traded.18 In addition, the grant (whether Leavenworth understood this or not) acknowledged Dakota cultural practices, wherein home and hearth were controlled and owned by women. Tipis and bark lodges, the raw materials used to create clothes and bedding, and the means to pro-cess and cook food were all women’s purview.19 The grant of land on which a domestic residence might be established was congruent with gendered Dakota practice.

That the 1820 treaty captured the complexities of the moment and the fragility of the United States’ posi-

tion in the region may sound logical to modern ears, although earlier historians did their best to write such uncertainties out of the record.20 Yet even more telling than the situation in 1820 was the situation in 1838, when the U.S. government set about buying Pelagie’s land.

While the American popula-tion of the region was still small in 1838, it had grown since 1820 and the increases were manifest in very particular ways. The garrison at Fort Snelling was now complete. The stone structure on the bluff overlook-

The grant (whether Leavenworth understood this or not) acknowledged Dakota cultural practices, wherein home and hearth were

controlled and owned by women.

MNHist_Sum10_inside_REV.indd 54 6/17/10 10:24 AM

Summer 2010 55

pasture.” While pastures may seem a mundane consideration, livestock were often targeted by Native groups during periods of hostility. The loss of milk and beef cattle was a particu-larly troubling prospect for a fort still

dependent on external suppliers for most of its subsistence needs.27

Convinced of the island’s value to the military, Congress took up the issue of the Faribaults’ claim in 1838, and on April 25 a joint resolution authorized the Secretary of War to contract with the Faribaults for the purchase of Pelagie’s land.28 Poinsett finalized negotiations on March 12, 1839, agreeing to buy the island for $12,000 (about $239,000 today), subject to congressional approval. No objection was raised by the War Department or Congress to Pelagie’s ownership of the land, despite her status as a married woman. A Euro-

east of the Mississippi, and to meet the practical and security needs in controlling land so close to Fort Snelling. As Stambaugh described it, “The head of the island is sepa-rated from the walls of the fort by

a small slough, about fifty yards, in width. . . . [B]y damming this slough, or throwing a wall across it at both ends, the island can be made a part of the main land.” Taliaferro claimed he had, as early as 1820, suggested to Leavenworth that “in times of difficulty or danger from the tribes, the post would require the island (though small) as a place of safety for the public cattle and horses (being directly under the guns of the fort.)” In 1838, Maj. Joseph Plympton, the commanding officer of the fort, wrote that the military should “embrace Pike’s Island, which I consider to be of vital importance to this Fort as a

ment. The Faribaults felt it prudent to engage Samuel C. Stambaugh and Alexis Bailly (both ex-fur traders, the first a close friend of Jean Baptiste and the second married to the Farib-aults’ daughter Lucy) to lobby key figures in Washington for the protec-tion of the Pike Island claim.26

Stambaugh and Bailly were suc-cessful, impressing upon Secretary of War Joel R. Poinsett that Jean Baptiste “is a very respectable old man, a Frenchman, and has resided among that tribe forty-two years.” As ever, behind the invocation of Faribault’s name lurked Pelagie, their representatives making specific reference to the importance of kin-ship in the social fabric of the region. “[T]he Ferribault family is the most powerful and influential among the Sioux Indians,” wrote Stambaugh to Poinsett in January 1838. “It is families of this description who do much good or much evil among the Indians, with whom they are con-nected by bonds of blood; and [the] Government would save much blood and treasure, if proper pains were taken to secure their friendship.” Poinsett was convinced. Stambaugh and Bailly secured his promise that “the rights of Pelagie Faribault to the island in question should not be prejudiced by their not being inserted in the treaty.” Two things are notable in this promise: Poinsett gave weight to the unratified 1820 agreement, and he did not mention Jean Baptiste’s name.

Treaty considerations aside, the government still re-

mained interested in controlling Pike Island. That interest was twofold: to finish the work of extinguish-ing all forms of Indian title to lands

By their actions, the men who sat in judgment upon Pelagie’s case upheld Dakota gender

practice, regardless of their intellectual and ideological understanding of marital law.

Alexis Bailly, from an 1858 painting

by Theophile Hamel

Lucy Faribault Bailly,

about 1858

MNHist_Sum10_inside_REV.indd 55 6/17/10 10:25 AM

56 Minnesota History

butreflectedtheirlargerattemptstostampthesocialrelationsofEuro-Americansocietyontheregion.Theinhabitantsoftheregion,however,werenotsomalleable,evenonpaper,astheIndianagentandcommandingofficerofthefortmightwish.

Therewaspolicy,therewereideals,andthentherewasthereal-ityofthenationalcolonialventure.AllpartieswhoworkedfortheU.S.government—Plympton,Taliaferro,Poinsett,andCommissionerofIndianAffairsT.HartleyCraw-ford—agreedthatPikeIslandwasavaluable,evennecessary,holdingforFortSnelling.YetwhilePlymptonandTaliaferroarguedthattheU.S.governmentshouldignorethe1820agreementandsimplyactasifthelandbelongedtothenation,theof-ficialsstationedinWashingtonhada

differentassessmentofthesituation.EyeingtheunrestamongmidwesternIndiangroups,understandingthescarcityofgameinthearea,mind-fulofthepoweroftraderstoinflu-encerelationshipswithlocalNativecommunities,and—crucially—withnopersonalinvestmentintherapidascendancyofAmericansystemsof

culture.Theyfocusedtheirobjec-tionsonJeanBaptiste,criticizinganyclaimhecouldmaketotheislandonthebasisofhiscitizenshipandresi-dency.Theyneitheracknowledged

nortackledthequestionofPelagie’sownershipoftheland,orthefactthatshehadmaintainedresidencythereinJeanBaptiste’sabsenceuntilafloodmadetheislanduninhabit-ablein1822.TaliaferroandPlymp-tondidtheirbesttomakePelagiedisappear.Thewomanthatemergedfromtheirdiscussionsoftheislandwasawomanwithnocontroloverherproperty;awomansubjecttothestricturesofcoverture.Thistac-ticnotonlyservedthemintryingtoarguethattheFaribaultsshouldnotbemaderichbytheisland’ssale

Americanwomanofthesameeracouldbegiftedpropertywhileshewasmarried,butthepropertywouldonlyremainhers(asopposedtoherhusband’s)ifherfamilycouldaffordtocreateatrustfortheproperty’sprotection.ItwouldbemanyyearsbeforeamarriedAnglowomancouldindependentlysell,contract,orrentoutherownland.29Pelagie’sownershipofPikeIsland,however,dependeduponherbeingDakota;atleastpartofhervalueasamaritalpartnerrestedonthesame.Shelivedoutsidetheboundariesofcoverture,hadbeenmarriedbythecustomofherowncommunity,andownedallthatrelatedtothehome.Bytheirac-tions,themenwhosatinjudgmentuponPelagie’scaseupheldDakotagenderpractice,regardlessoftheirintellectualandideologicalunder-standingofmaritallaw.

ThedecisionwasnotmethappilyatFortSnelling.Taliaferroimmedi-atelywrotetotheSecretaryofWar,arguingthatDakotatitletothelandhadbeenextinguishedbyPike’streatyin1805,and—evenifthatagreementwereoverlooked—com-pletelyextinguishedbythetreatiesof1837.Taliaferroroundedouthistallyofoffensesbybringinguptheissueofresidency:noonehadmadeaper-manenthomeontheislandfor15years.Maj.PlymptonsidedwithTaliaferro,addingthatJeanBaptistewasaCanadianand“alien.”Thefort’scommandingofficeralsoforwardedaletterhehadreceivedfromTalia-ferro,whichpointedoutthatJeanBaptistehadnoclaimtothelandbe-fore1820:Hehadnottakenupresi-dencethereuntilafterLeavenworthhadsuggestedhedoso.30

Taliaferro’sandPlympton’sar-gumentsweremadesquarelyfromwithinthetenetsofEuro-American

Lawrence Taliaferro, painting,

about 1830

Facing: Jean Baptiste Faribault was

living at “Ferribault, Rice County,” in

1858 when the U.S. Treasury compen-

sated him as “the husband of the said

Pelagie Ferribault . . . deceased.”

Moving Pelagie Faribault to the center of the narrative is a necessary act. It reveals the uneven application of imperialism’s tenets in the region, the necessity of the

American system adapting, for a time, to the cultural landscape of the Dakota, and the power that individuals,

too often considered uniformly powerless, could claim.

58 Minnesota History

Notes1.“Originalgrant,bySiouxIndians,ofa

tractoflandinthevicinityofFortSnelling,”appendedtoSamuelC.Stambaugh,A State-ment and Explanation of the Origin and Present Condition of the Claim of Pelagie Ferribault(Washington,D.C.:UnionOffice,1856),EverettD.GraffCollectionofWesternAmericana,NewberryLibrary,Chicago;MarcusL.Hansen,Old Fort Snelling, 1819–1858(IowaCity:StateHistoricalSoci-etyofIowa,1918),26–28.Thisarticleuses“FortSnelling”throughoutforconsistency’ssake;similarly,“Faribault”appearshereasthefamilyname,despitevariousspellingsinarchivalsources,includingFerribault,Feribault,Farribault,andFeribo.

2.“Originalgrant,bySiouxIndians,ofatractoflandinthevicinityofFortSnelling.”

3.TreasuryDepartment,“TheUnitedStatestoJeanBaptisteFerribaultandPela-gieFerribault,hiswife,”orderofpayment,Feb.6,1858,originalsofallcitedPikeIslanddocumentsinRecordGroup217,file7483,NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministra-tion,Washington,D.C.,copiesinPikeIslandClaim,FortSnellingPapers,MinnesotaHis-toricalSociety(MHS).Thecircumstancessurroundingthispaymentarethesubjectoftheauthor’scontinuingresearch.

4.J.C.Calhoun,SecretaryofWar,toCol.HenryLeavenworth,Dec.29,1819,PikeIslandClaim.

5.“TreatywiththeSioux,1805,”inCharlesJ.Kappler,ed.,Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties(Washington,D.C.:Gov-ernmentPrintingOffice,1904),2:1031;W.EugeneHollon,The Lost Pathfinder: Zebu-

governmentattheSt.Peter’s,Craw-fordandPoinsettacknowledgedthattheUnitedStatesdidnotyetpossessthepowerrequiredtodictatetheoutcomeitwantedinthePikeIslandmatter.InCrawford’sownwords,“Asaprincipleofgeneralobservance,theUnitedStates,inmyjudgment,can-notrecognisesuchgrants[asweremadetoPelagieFaribault]....Thiscase,however,occupiesapositionofitsown....TheislandiswantedforthepurposesoftheGovernment.Toavoiddelay,anddifficulty,andcontroversy,itmaybejudicious...topurchaseit.AllIndianclaimwillbeputatrest.”31

s the events of1820and1838–1839demonstrate,Pela-

gieFaribaultoccupiedalegal,social,andculturalspacequitedifferentfromthestandardEuro-Americanmodelofthetime—anextensionoftheparticularcircumstancesoftheUpperMidwestwithitsmyriadcultures,theirdifferentideasofgenderedbehavior,andtheirunder-standingofland.Yetthatstoryiseasilymissedifweprioritizethethoughts,actions,andlifestoriesofmenoverwomen,literateoverilliterate,militaryovercivilian,andAmericansovertheDakotaandtheirmixed-heritagedescendents.Ifwe

permitthenarrativeofAmericanexpansionismtobedefinedbythosewho,becauseofrace,gender,wealth,andeducation,stoodmostreadytorecordtheirparticipationinthepro-cess,wepenanuncomplicatedstorythatsuggests—erroneously—howeasilythisMidwestwaswon.MovingPelagieFaribaulttothecenterofthenarrativeisanecessaryact.Itrevealstheunevenapplicationofimperial-ism’stenetsintheregion,theneces-sityoftheAmericansystemadapting,foratime,totheculturallandscapeoftheDakota,andthepowerthatindividuals,toooftenconsidereduni-formlypowerless,couldclaim. a

lon Montgomery Pike(Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1949),51–53.The1805treatywas,nevertheless,treatedasthoughlegalformanyyears.Indeed,ThomasFor-syth,IndianagenttotheSacandFox,ac-companiedLeavenworthintotheUpperMidwestinordertodistributetotheDa-kota$2,000ofgoodsintendedtofulfillthetermsofthetreaty,asinterpretedbyCon-gressin1808.SeeGaryClaytonAnderson,Kinsmen of Another Kind: Dakota-White Relations in the Upper Mississippi Valley, 1650–1862(1984;repr.,St.Paul:MinnesotaHistoricalSocietyPress,1997),99.

6.MinnesotaClimatologyWorkingGroup,UniversityofMinnesota,“AnnualClimatologicalSummary,Ft.Snelling,MN,Year1820,”http://climate.umn.edu/doc/twin_cities/Ft%20snelling/1820sum.htm(accessedMar.26,2010).CharlotteVanCleve(bornenroutetotheFortSnellingsitein1819)rememberedbeingtoldofavi-olentstorminwhich“theroofofourcabin[atCantonmentNewHope]blewoff,andthewallsseemedabouttofallin.Myfather...heldupthechimneytopreventatotaldownfall.”CharlotteO.VanCleve,Three Score Years and Ten: Life-Long Memories of Fort Snelling, Minnesota, and Other Parts of the West(1888;repr.,Minneapolis:Har-risonandSmith,1895),18.

7.FordetailsoftheAinsefamily’sback-ground,seeLesandJeanneRentmeester,The Wisconsin Creoles(Melbourne,FL:privatelypublished,1987),187.Aswithmanynamesfromthisperiod,thespellingofAinsevarieswidelyfromdocumentto

document:Ainsé,Ainsse,Hanse,andHainse.Ainsewasthemostcommonspell-ingIencountered.

8.Anderson,Kinsmen,67–69,71–72;GenH.H.Sibley,“MemoirofJeanBaptisteFaribault,”Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society(St.Paul,1880),3:173;“TableauGénéalogiquedelaFamilleFari-baultBrancheCanadienne,”and“FamilleFaribaultHuitGénérations1669–1937,”FaribaultFamilyGenealogies,MHS.

9.Rentmeester,Wisconsin Creoles,244;Sibley,“Memoir,”168–77;Anderson,Kins-men,67.

10.“TableauGénéalogique,”andRecordsfromtheAlexanderFaribaultBible,vol.36,p.15–16,FaribaultFamilyGenealogies.OnAlexander’scareerinthefurtrade,seeRhodaR.Gilman,Henry Hastings Sibley: Divided Heart(St.Paul:MinnesotaHistori-calSocietyPress,2004),69,113;DonaldD.Parker,ed.,The Recollections of Philander Prescott: Frontiersman of the Old North-west, 1819–1862(Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1966),130–31;Anderson,Kinsmen,153.

11.Sibley,“Memoir,”173–79.12.FortheperspectiveofregionalAmer-

icanwomenontheirdomesticresponsibili-ties,seeMaidaLeonardRiggs,ed.,A Small Bit of Bread and Butter: Letters from the Dakota Territory, 1832–1869(SouthDeer-field,MA:AshGrovePress,1996);Mrs.JohnH.(JulietteAugusta)Kinzie,Wau-bun: The Early Day in the Northwest(1856;repr.,Chicago:Rand,McNally&Co.,1901).Foranalysisofdomesticworkamong

Summer 2010 59

blendedcommunities,seeLucyEldersveldMurphy,A Gathering of Rivers: Indian, Métis, and Mining in the Western Great Lakes, 1737–1832(Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,2000),59–69.ForDakotaworkroles,seeJanetD.Spector,What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village(St.Paul:Minne-sotaHistoricalSocietyPress,1993),67–77;SamuelW.Pond,The Dakota or Sioux in Minnesota As They Were in 1834(1908;repr.,St.Paul:MinnesotaHistoricalSocietyPress,1986),26–31,37–39.

13.Parker,Recollections of Philander Prescott,27–28;H.LeavenworthtoMr.Ferribault,Jan.19,1820;LawrenceTalia-ferrotoMaj.J.Plympton,July10,1839—bothPikeIslandClaim.

14.LeavenworthtoFerribault,Jan.19,1820;Sibley,“Memoir,”176.

15.LawrenceTaliaferro,“Auto-BiographyofMaj.LawrenceTaliaferro,”Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society(St.Paul,1894),6:190–99;LawrenceTaliaferrotoJ.C.Calhoun,June30,1821,PikeIslandClaim.

16.SeeSibley,“Memoir,”176;Taliaferro,“Auto-Biography,”198–99;Anderson,Kins-men,67;Gilman,Sibley,53.

17.SirWilliamBlackstone,Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States, and of the Commonwealth of Virginia,ed.St.GeorgeTucker(1803;repr.,NewYork:AugustusM.Kelley,1969),2:441.SeealsoLindaK.Kerber,No Constitutional Right to be La-dies: Women and the Obligations of Citizen-ship(NewYork:HillandWang,1998),13–15;HendrikHartog,Man and Wife in America: A History(Cambridge,MA:Har-vardUniversityPress,2000),106–07.

18.PikehimselfmetFaribaultjustbelowthemouthoftheSt.Peter’sRiverin1805,wherethelatterhadestablishedcamp.Pike,“21stSeptr.,Saturday,”inDonaldJackson,ed.The Journals of Zebulon Montgomery Pike with Letters and Related Documents(Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1966),1:35–36.

19.WaziyatawinAngelaWilson,Remem-ber This! Dakota Decolonization and the Eli Taylor Narratives,trans.fromtheDakotabyWahpetunwinCarolynnSchommer(Lin-coln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,2005),132;Pond,Dakota or Sioux in Minnesota,

26–31,37–39;Spector,What This Awl Means,67–77.

20.HenrySibley’sreminiscencespro-videanexcellentexampleofthisimpulse:“ThesettlementofMinnesotahasbeensin-gularlyfreefromthedisordersanddeedsofviolence,whichhavealmostinvariablyac-companiedthesameprocessinotherwest-ernTerritoriesandStates.”Byremainingfreefrom“personswhoarepopularlysaidto‘livebytheirwits,’”heconcluded,Minne-sotaavoided“thosescenesofsanguinaryviolence,whichhavedisgracedtheearlierhistoryofsomanyoftheborderStates.”HenryH.Sibley,“ReminiscencesoftheEarlyDaysofMinnesota,”Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society(St.Paul,1880),3:273.

21.WhileSibleydidhavearelationshipwithaDakotawomanin1840–41,hewasbythenwellestablishedinthefurtrade,andthereislittleevidencethatheconsideredtherelationshipalong-termcommitment.SeeGilman,Sibley,36–61,75–76;NancyandRobertGoodman,Joseph R. Brown: Adventurer on the Minnesota Frontier, 1820–1849(Rochester,MN:LoneOakPress,1996),129–36;JedediahStevens,Diary,Sept.8,1829–Apr.2,1830,JedediahD.StevensPapers,MHS;HelenWhiteandBruceWhite,Fort Snelling in 1838: An Eth-nographic and Historical Study(St.Paul:TurnstoneHistoricalResearch,1998),11.

22.RonaldN.Satz,Chippewa Treaty Rights: The Reserved Rights of Wisconsin’s Chippewa Indians in Historical Perspective(Madison:WisconsinAcademyofSciences,ArtsandLetters,1991),13–17.

23.FredericAyertoDavidGreene,Oct.4,1837;ThomasS.WilliamsontoDavidGreene,May3,1838;FredericAyertoSec-retaryofWar,Sept.28,1837;W.T.BoutwelltoDavidGreene,Nov.8,1837;S.R.RiggstoDavidGreene,June22,1838—allAmericanBoardofCommissionersforForeignMis-sionsPapers,MHS.

24.Anderson,Kinsmen,146–51.25.FortheDakota,$300,000wasin-

vestedwiththecaveatthat5percentofthatsumbedistributedannuallytothecommu-nitiesofthesignatories;$110,000wassetasideformixed-heritageindividualscon-nectedtothevillagesinquestion;and$90,000earmarkedtosettleDakotadebtswithtraders.Besidesmoneyassociatedwiththeblacksmithandagriculturaloperations,theOjibwereceived$9,500incash,$19,000in“goods,”$2,000in“provisions,”and$500intobacco.“TreatywiththeSioux,1837,”and“TreatywiththeChippewa,1837,”Kappler,ed.,Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties,2:492–94.

26.Hereandbelow,S.C.StambaughtoJ.R.Poinsett,Jan.17,1838(emphasisinoriginal);J.R.PoinsetttoS.C.Stambaugh,Aug.13,1840—bothPikeIslandClaim.

27.StambaughtoPoinsett,Jan.17,1838;LawrenceTaliaferrotoJ.R.Poinsett,Apr.19,1839;LawrenceTaliaferrotoJ.C.Calhoun,June30,1821;Maj.J.PlymptontoBrig.Gen.R.Jones,Mar.26,1838—allPikeIslandClaim.OnthesortofsuppliesbroughtintothefortfromPrairieduChienandSt.Louis,seeVanCleve,Three Score Years,36;Col.JohnH.Bliss,“Reminis-cencesofFortSnelling,”Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society(St.Paul,1894),6:335,342.

28.SenateJointResolution10,25thCong.,2dsess.,Apr.25,1838.

29.J.R.Poinsett,J.B.Ferribault,Pela-gieFerribault,S.C.Stambaugh,AlexisBailly,Mar.12,1839,PikeIslandClaim;NancyF.Cott,Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2000),52–53.

30.TaliaferrotoPoinsett,Apr.19,1839;J.PlymptontoT.H.Crawford,July18,1839;LawrenceTaliaferrotoJ.Plympton,July10,1839,PikeIslandClaim.

31.T.HartleyCrawfordtoJ.R.Poinsett,Feb.28,1839,PikeIslandClaim.

The treasury order is in Record Group 217, U.S. General Accounting Office, National

Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.; copy in Fort Snelling Papers,

Minnesota Historical Society. All other images are in MHS collections.

Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use. To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory