Treaty re-enactments... good idea?

[Robert Braun]

At the recent Fort Atkinson Rendezvous... the idea for a treaty reenactment was proposed by the event director. This enactment was scheduled in conjunction with another new feature at the event--- a high quality "Native American Village."

The goal was a re-presentation of the August 5, 1825 great treaty talk at Fort Crawford. I know practically nothing about treaty discussions and history, but also knew that Pete Shrake of this board knew a great deal. He and I chatted off board, and Pete had some very good suggestions for such a program. Unfortunately, they were too late for the Fort event (NOT Pete's fault, BTW!)

I attended one of the treaty "presentations." While the replica attire of the native people was rather well done (better, by and large, than the white participant's attire. No surprise there. ) the object of the treaty presentation seemed lost on "both sides of the isle."

This was not an attempt at a presentation of the Fort Crawford Treaty at all... rather it was a rather disjointed affair that commenced with the murder of some Indian "portrayer" (shot down by another Indian as he fled the grounds... just 'why' I never found out) continued with a rail against pox ridden blankets, and ended with the (I guess) Indian Agent yammering "OK... OK..." and begging them to come to the Prairie for this "big meeting."

I have heard that the native participants were interested in the treaty program for next year's event. This raised some questions, which I put to the Board, namely:

1. Are treaty "re-enactments" appropriate subjects for public portrayals?

2. If "yes" to No. 1, should these portrayals follow a loose, approximate nature of the negotiations or "talk," or should they be tighter... more 'scripted' in accordance with a specific event?

Interesting....


Bob.

[pshrake]

Treaty Reenactments should be done very carefully.
The emotions still attached to these events and the fact that current Indian/White relations are still defined by these events make them a potential PR disaster. Not only that, but the seriousness of the event itself can be made a mockery if done as described at Fort Atkinson.

Probably the best way to do something like this is to keep it strictly by the book. Treaties were negotiated in council, verbatim journals were kept of everything that was said at these councils. In addition to this, there ususally is a wealth of additional correspondance, reports, and memoirs for these events. We also have available period lithographs, including an excellent one of the Council of 1825 so we even know what a council looked like. So to do a very accurate recreation should be no problem.

If such a recreation were to take place, I would suggest a word for word recreation. A recreation of the council meeting house (actually a brush arbor) a platform for the U.S. Commissioners and the presence of a small detachment of regulars. The council would be simply a recitation of actual speeches made by key Indian leaders and commissioners. The council could culminate in the signing of a treaty.

The visitor would not hear modern interpretations or cheesy attempts at indignation or anger for outrages against the tribes. Drama would have to be kept at a minimum. Probably the best way to eliminate any yahoos participation would be to preselect any speaker, and requireing all other participants to be silent.

A handout could be available for the visitor providing the historical background for the event. The handout in conjunction with the historical speeched would let the visitor interpret the event for themselves.

Pete

[Larry Koschkee]

Treaty re-enactments... good idea? Yes, if done in good taste. (I hate to use that cliche, but it is appropriate here)

Pete has given an excellent blue-print and if followed could be a successful event. Had the organizers of the first Indian treaty re-enactment I was part of, established the thoughtful parameters that Pete has expressed, it too would have attained the goals that most of us seek in re-enactment... that being visual literacy.

The re-enactment I have participated in was the treaty of 1868 between the U.S. Government and the Sioux plains tribes Ogala, Brule, Santee, Arapaho, Yankton, Hunkpapa , Black Feet, etc. that was held at Fort Laramie, Dakota Territory. The principal military figures that were there were Lieutenant General William Tecumseh Sherman and Generals William Harney and Alfred Terry. It was hoped that this treaty would end the blood-shed on the western plains, but these hopes were quickly dashed on rocks of dishonest intentions.

The ink had barely dried on the treaty papers, when General Terry was ordered to pursue the very same individuals that were signatory to the treaty. Eight years later Terry was the commanding officer that Custer disobeyed on his fateful date with disaster.

The 1868 treaty re-enactment committee did learn from that first event and implemented some changes the following year. As a newly elected committee member I suggested our theme for the event going forward should be... Capture the Essence of the Moment. This speaks to one of Pete's main bullet points regarding the serious nature of the event. The portrayal should at all costs be a solemn experience. Leave emotions of both sides and finger pointing out of the event. Some of the most significant changes were to rid the specific event of a "Wild West Show" motif, present the impression with a more formal stage production approach and emphasize "Pomp & Circumstance."

The audience loves military formality, crisp drilling, voice command cadence, bugle and drum rolls. In addiiton, the audience reacts favorably to Indians proud and stoical. Interpreters speaking both languages captures the undivided attention of the audience.

One final word, I believe it was Pete's final point, if economical feasible, a printed handout with historical background and maybe a significant Indian speech or two is desireable for a more lasting impression.

Unfortunately, IMHO, treaty language and speeches would, for the most part, be lost on the general public. But this should not be a deterrent to the re-enacter, because other re-enacters may feel and experience as I do... The re-enactment is more for my benefit than the general audience as I personally try to Capture the Essence of the Moment in history.

[Robert Braun]

Some outstanding points here... thank you all!

What do other board participants think? Feel free to weigh in.

Bob.

[Greg Carter]

Sorry I took so long to reply here. I have to say personally that I agree with all three of you.

First- the treaty reenactment at the Fort Rondy was a pathetic joke that not only made a complete farce of the Indian agency, but also in my mind would be considered offensive to any Indian as well.

Do I think that reenactments of such a touchy subject are a good idea? Without a doubt, yes. It is much harder to understand those events if they are presented factually by reenactors.

That said, careful planning and scripting are absolutely essential to the recreation, no matter what year, setting, etc. Larry is right that in general, the public do not tend to understand what is going on. Pete's handout idea might help in this. While treaty talks, etc might be lost on the public to a point, I think that any reenactor worth his weight in salt would want to step up to the challenge of this kind of serious, word-for-word recreation. This being said, I also agree that yahoos must be kept out. I think there were no less than 4 present at the "treaty" at the Fort program. Not wanting to rip down, but this would eliminate 4/5 of the reenactors at the event this past weekend from participating, that is unless a treaty requires a swivel cannon, lots of tipis, a dugout or aluminum canoe and about 5,000 Sioux neck chokers made of plastic.

And I for one wouldn't mind some snappy drill in the background! Browned musket barrels and chackos' anyone?

GMC

[trodgers]

Hello. I joined this group to comment on this thread.
I have been a part of several very successful "Indian Councils" at Mississinewa 1812 (please forgive me for being a little out of the time frame)

At these councils, a British officer and corresponding company of guards march with all pomp and glory to a meeting point in the Indian Village and are greeted by a group of elders. After a cursory exchange of greetings and some small gifts, the elders and the officers speak of their common needs and desire for friendly relations.
A few carefully selected tribal members may speak as well, usually in friendly terms as to their desire to have free trade and their willingness to be allies with the British cause.

The whole council is unscripted and is done with the intent of establishing and maintaining an alliance. Those allowed to speak are selected in advance and understand the scenario. Those tribal members not speaking in the council listen intently and often whisper and gesture to themselves as the future of their people is being discussed. The whole affair takes 10 to 15 minutes and the public gets a lot from it. There are no handouts as the nature of the conversation and actions are fairly clear.

As a participant, I was always aware of my historical role in the council and that modern politics have no bearing on the scenario being presented. This is just one way to do this sort of thing and really seemed to work well, both for the reeanctors and the public.

Just my 2 cents.......

Tom

[pshrake]

Hello Tom and welcome!
You make some good points and it sounds like you have had some success in recreating this sort of thing. Both your comments and Larry's point to the fact that such recreations have been attempted in the past, something I was completely unaware of.

I would point out though, councils with British officials is somewhat different from ones with American officials. A council establishing friendly relations and trade relations is different from councils resulting in land cessions. And though early 19th century American Indian policy was a direct decendant of British Policy, British policy does not have quite the same impact on Indian/White relations today as do American Treaties.

But you raise an interesting point, What type of council, or what specific council, portrayed would made a real difference on how one would do a Council Reenactment.

The Council at 1825 was primarily focused, not on land cessions but on ending a long a bloody war between the Sioux and Chippewa, establishing the authority of the U.S. over the tribes of the Great Lakes Region (many of whom were still entertaining friendly relations with Britain) and establishing drawn boundry lines between the various Indian nations of the region.

Recreating this specific council would be a challange, if for no other reason than it was a complex treaty. Perhaps to complex to distill down to a half hour or hour program.

Pete

[trodgers]

Perhaps one way to approach something complex like a treaty council is to begin the presentation AFTER the negotiations have occured. The government officials could thank all tribal members involved for their efforts, give a very brief synopsis of the treaty to "remind" the chiefs what they are about to sign (and educate the public about the treaty). Each tribal delegation could briefly comment on the nature of the confilct and all parties involved could sign the document.

All participants really must be aware that the council is to educate the public and a public debate of the evils of American Indian Policy defeats the purpose of the council. Granted, these things can be a bit touchy when you mix in modern emotions, and if that would be a problem in making the presentation, perhaps it would be better to skip it.