Mound Fort Artifacts.

[Larry Koschkee]

Rich,

When you are referencing Copway should you not cite? "The elk is to be found in the west, on the NEUTRAL GROUND (emphasis mine) lying between the Sioux and Ojibway nations: at the head waters of the Wisconsin; in the northern parts of Michigan, and near the Chippeway, St. Croix, Rum and Red rivers. This is one of the noblest looking animals in our country. When on the run, its head is held high, its back curved, on which its horns appear to rest. At one time in 1837, I saw a drove of five hundred; and a more animating sight I never beheld. I shot one, and being at that time a prisoner at the foot of Lake Pepin, and wishing to be generous to my enemies, I took it to the chief of the tribe that held me...."

Source: Copway, G. The traditional history of the Ojibway nation, 1850, p. 35.

[richw]

Ah, I see you have found Copway. As I pointed out before, his use of the term "neutral ground" does not seem to mean a demilitarized zone. Indeed, he can hardly have been held or taken prisoner in such a place!

I have been rereading Nelson, who in the 1803-04 trading season wintered on Lac Courte Oreilles. After building a house, he proceeded to the lower Grand River [Chippewa] to trade with the Ojibwe during their Fall hunt. This Lower Chippewa River region was abandoned in the Winter, when the Sioux began to send "war parties" into the area. Again, I find no evidence of neutrality as we use the word today.

To me, the region appears to be a contested region, utilized by the Ojibwe in most seasons, but abandoned by them in Winter. Furthermore, if the region were truly neutral, the fur traders would have been trading with both the Ojibwe and the Sioux. To the contrary, these fur traders were clearly afraid for their lives when evidence of Sioux warriors was found around their fur posts.

This is just some of the evidence I have seen that disputes the oft mentioned neutral zone. I have never been able to find evidence in favor of such a place, except Copway's use of the term, which clearly does not indicate a place where people toss flowers and kisses at each other.

This is all I have to say on the topic. If you come across any other historical evidence (in addition to Copway) I would be VERY interested in seeing it.

BTW, the quote you give is one of the many that show the extremely kind care given live captives of the Sioux.

[Larry Koschkee]

Actually, Copway is not a stranger to me. My first encounter occured while pursing my studies in Forestry at UW- Stevens Point. I was introduced to the research of ungulates in early Wisconsin by Arlie William Schorger. The Copway quote I provided in this thread was cited by Schorger in his work on elk and it was the basis of my neutral zone statement challenged by you early on in this thread.

You remain steadfast in your assumption that there was not a Sioux/Ojibway neutral zone. That assertation is fundamentally flawed.

1) Copway was quoted twice in this thread as stating there was a neutral zone. You can not arbitrarily assign a different meaning to the word neutral by stating: 'As I pointed out before, his use of the term "neutral ground" does not seem to mean a demilitarized zone" - "I find no evidence of neutrality as we use the word today." To do so smacks of historical revisionism.

2) Your sources, the exception being Copway, from which you are forming opinions represent a very narrow window of history.... 1802 to 1805. Perhaps within this time period there was major conflict between the warring factions and a "neutral zone" did not exist. However, you can not discount the presence of a "neutral zone" or "neutral ground" prior or subsequent to 1802, 1803, 1804 or 1805 without fact.

One case for the presence of neutral ground occured when the Chippewa and Sioux called a truce (buried the hatchet) in 1680. This truce broke down by 1736 and war raged until 1751 with no clear advantage on either side. After 1751 warfare turned in favor of the Chippewa and they gained large tracts of former Sioux territory. Between 1780 and 1825 the Chippewa territory gains were checked, no side gaining or giving up much territory. With some exception the resulting Chippewa/Sioux territorial boundary was spelled out in the 1825 Prairie du Chien Treaty.

You can see a text explanation and map of this neutral ground in Harold Hickerson's book: THE CHIPPEWA AND THEIR NEIGHBORS; A STUDY IN ETHNOHISTORY, 1970 Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston pp 35, 65-66

[richw]

Dear Larry,

yes, I have read many of Shorger's articles. I believe I also cited an 1850 newspaper article in favor of my opinion.

By your own admission, this so-called neutral zone only could have existed between 1780 and 1825. My sources, although limited, fit nicely in the middle of this period. They show there was no neutrality during those years. I also cite an attack 25 years after the treaty of 1825! So what is the evidence for this neutral zone?

Besides Copway, who talks of battles, bodies and bones in relation to what he calls a "neutral ground" clearly requires some interpretation. If by "revisionism," you mean using primary evidence instead of secondary works dating from a period when there was frequently an agenda promoting indigenous peoples' "treading lightly on the land" and "living in harmony with natural law," then I must plead guilty.