The settlers who began moving to the region in the 1830s, like the fur traders before them, were not interested in developing sustainable lifeways. They sought raw materials to power an emerging capitalist economy. The land wasn’t viewed as something that they belonged to, rather it was seen as external, something that wasn’t a part of them. The indigenous view of the land and that of the European settlers was in direct conflict. Whereas the indigenous population sought to live in harmony with it, the European settlers viewed the land simply as raw material for economic success.
Z.Z. Lydens, a noted historian of Grand Rapids, captures this well when he writes (in admittedly questionable language):
“The pioneer’s boot was more brutal to the green of the ground than the Indian’s moccasin. Then came the hooves of the oxen and the horses and then the heavy-laden wheels of the carts and the wagons. More people came and more oxen and horses, and the charm was less.”xlvii
Whereas the river was an important source of life for the indigenous population, for the white settlers, it was a means of generating economic activity. Lydens wrote, “For the Indians it had meant fish and sustenance. For the white man the rapids came to mean power to grind the grain and saw the timber.”xlviii Even early accounts of the beauty of the land often were accompanied by statements of its economic potential. An 1837 newspaper article on Grand Rapids declared that the river is:
“…not important and beautiful alone for its clear, silver-like water winding its way through a romantic valley of some hundred miles, but for its width and depth, its susceptibility for steam navigation, and the immense hydraulic power afforded at this point.”xlix
Thus a land that once provided sustenance for an entire people, was reduced to its possibility of providing hydraulic power—the logic of colonization exemplified.
As discussed earlier, the indigenous population lived in this area for several hundred years without serious ecological problems, yet the European way of life destroyed the territory surprising quickly. After several hundred years of the fur trade, game began to disappear. Early accounts of Grand Rapids history speak to the pace at which the land was logged, the river polluted, and the biological diversity lessened. In their characteristic pursuit of profit and disregard for the natural world, the settlers quickly damaged the landscape. An Odawa (often referred to as the “Ottawa” in settler histories, see the first piece in this series for a brief discussion about names and terminology) historian writing in the late 1800s lamented the speed of this destruction:
“O my destiny! O my destiny! How sinks my heart, as I behold my inheritance all in ruins and desolation. Yes desolation, the land the Great Spirit has given us in which to live, to roam, to hunt, and build our council fires, is no more to behold. Where once so many brave Algonquins and the daughters of the forest danced with joy, danced with gratitude to the Great Spirit for their homes, they are no more seen. Our forests are gone, and our game is destroyed. Hills, groves and dales once clad in rich mantle of verdure are stripped.”l
To the historians who have written the history of Grand Rapids and to those who uncritically live this way, it is often seen as necessary to justify this change. Most often, the justification is one of progress. Reflecting the notion of superiority that is built into the logic of colonialism, the indigenous way of life is seen as inferior to that of the settlers. The colonial view must portray this as a natural triumph of a superior people over an inferior people. In this way, it reflects the racism and white supremacy that was and is essential to the colonization of the United States. Z.Z. Lydens writes in his The Story of Grand Rapids:
“To the beautiful rapids came the Indian who could so easily satisfy his hunger by walking into the stream to spear a sturgeon. To these rapids then naturally came the fur trader and missionary, followed by the white settlers.”li
Not content to merely portray conquest as something that comes “naturally”, Lydens goes a step further and states that “Grand Rapids is a city that had to be.”lii Even though he wrote more than a century after the white settlers dealt directly with the indigenous people, his writing still embodies the idea of colonial superiority. While predating the concept of “Manifest Destiny” that was used to justify the conquest of the western United States, Lydens’ justification embodies that ideology.
The Plundering of the Territory
The colonial mentality isn’t simply an ideology or worldview that “conflicts” with the indigenous worldview, it is one that seeks to dominate and depose existing groups it comes into contact with. The settlers who came to Grand Rapids – beginning with the fur traders, the missionaries, and the early settlers – were not interested in coexistence, they pursued a varied policy of dominance and conquest. Indigenous people were an obstacle to the colonial view, they were something that had to be removed. An early newspaper article described the area as the “choicest, dearest spot” to the Odawa, but explained that it rapidly became “the pride of the white man” as the territory was stolen.liii
By necessity, this entailed conflict. However, this is a story that has been whitewashed in most settler narratives. In the longer histories of Grand Rapids, indigenous people get a short mention. This usually involves a discussion of the mound builders, a bit about Odawa lifeways, and then a story of the treaty-making process. Even with new understandings of native history and strong movements both within and without the academy, native history is still something that is at best “tacked on”—an obligatory mention in what remains a colonial history.
One of the ways the indigenous populations of Grand Rapids are forgotten is the assertion by a classic work of Grand Rapids history that there was little conflict with the indigenous population. Z.Z. Lydens wrote that:
“The history of Grand Rapids does not have a backdrop of conflict with the Indians. There are no tales of raids and scalping and scourging of the settlement with flame.”liv
To some degree, the statement is so laughable as to not even be worth comment. After all, the opening page of Lydens’ book begins with the story of the Odawa gathering to hear Pontiac propose that the indigenous people living in the region unite to fight back against the white invasion.lv Pontiac—who helped to coordinate a war against the tide of settlers migrating into the Midwest—was present at 1761 in the Grand River region, speaking at an assembly of 3,000. He visited again in 1762 and 1763.lvi His visits are representative of what had been a long military resistance to colonization, often with the participation of indigenous people from the Grand Rapids area. Many Odawa participated in an attack on Detroit in 1704, with other groups doing so again in 1712.lvii The Anishinaabeg people had a long string of military successes from 1754 until the War of 1812, but they were unable to keep the white settlers from advancing into the territory.lviii These included not only autonomous efforts, but also coordinated efforts between numerous groups, such as the aforementioned alliance with Pontiac. In a similar way, Odawa people living in the Grand River valley joined Tecumseh’s movement to united indigenous communities in the Midwest against the United States, calling for military resistance and a return to traditional values. At least two prominent chiefs included in histories of Grand Rapids were involved in the military resistance, with Noahquageshik even witnessing Tecumseh’s death on the battlefield.lix
It’s also worth remembering that the entire process of colonization was one of “conflict.” The indigenous populations did not give up their lands willingly. It happened only after a long and multi-faceted process of removal. It was – and to some degree still is – a process of removing a population from the land. Colonization made use of several different weapons: the threat of military force, an assault on traditional lifeways, biological warfare, and treaty-making to attempt to remove indigenous people.
The noted Grand Rapids historian Albert Baxter referred to the native population as “primitive savages.”lx Like many white historians, Baxter had the task both of writing the native history as well as justifying the progress that had destroyed their traditional lifeways. Baxter took on this task wholeheartedly, claiming that the Native ways of life were essentially unsustainable because they required “a vast amount of land to support himself and his family.”lxi This is of course at odds with both the historical record and indigenous oral traditions. He further stated that the arrival of large numbers of white settlers actually helped the Native population, as they shared technology that improved agriculture, hunting, and medicine.lxii Baxter—who was writing in the 1880s and whose views were no doubt colored by the racism of the time—called to task “those sentimentalists who mourn because the red men have been driven from their homes, and despoiled of their lands” reminding readers that the white people took the land in accordance with “Indian law” that “might makes right.”lxiii
Still, even the most ardent apologists for white conquest could not ignore the fact that the Native society was generally one of material abundance and limited crime.lxiv And Baxter himself wrote that as a consequence of the white man’s actions, by 1849, the Odawa were “…from year to year growing worse in condition, as regarded poverty, disposition and general demoralization.”lxv
Writing in the 1880s, another historian gave a justification for the colonization:
“The cause is good when the intent is just. The savages found here, even within the memory of the pioneers, could never be brought within the fold of civilization. Their occupation of the entire Peninsula, at a time when the American cultivators of the soil required it for development, was an outrage on the advance- ment of that day, almost approaching that existing scandal which renders helpless the European agriculturist of the present time. The United States, acting on the strict principles of just govern- ment, determined that he who would cultivate the land should possess it. To carry out this laudable determination, the Indians were informed of the intention of Uncle Samuel, and of the magnificent basis on which that intention was formed. They, of course, like the European aristocracy, wished to hold the people’s domain, though their own special title to it was founded, not exactly on the rights of conquest, but rather on that of some dis-honorable coup de guerre which resulted in the total annihilation of the original occupiers. Their logic failed. The sons and grandsons of the Revolution could not see precisely where the claims of the red men were founded, and consequently were doubly determined to win for the people that which pertained to them by the laws of right. Lest republican justice should not be observed in every particular, and to prevent the shedding of human blood, the power of moral suasion was brought to bear, an equitable arrangement for the purchase of the lands proposed, and every effort made to deal honestly with the savages.”lxvi
The settlers who came to Grand Rapids also held hostile views of the indigenous population. Many took pains to claim that the government “deals kindly with them,” while at the same time, said that the indigenous population had to choose between “civilization” or death:
“The indian, as such, cannot much longer exist, He must be civilized or die. The earth was made to cultivate, and not for a hunting range. The Indians must cultivate the earth, or cease to exist. It is indeed hard, but moralize upon it as we may, the world will never acknowledge those who rove over a country as its owners, nor will it allow weak nomads to occupy lands capable of sustaining a dense population.”lxvii
By contrast, an Odawa historian writing from the perspective of Odawa people living in Northern Michigan recalled that in his youth in the early 1800s he “…never knew my people to want for anything to eat or to wear, as we always had plenty of wild meat and plenty of fish, corn, vegetables, and wild fruits.”lxviii
Efforts at Removal
Armed with the view that their way of life was superior, the United States took on a process of removing the indigenous population from the area of Grand Rapids. In 1821, the United States took command of a colonial enterprise that had begun several centuries earlier with the first contact with Europeans and the impact on the fur trade and European influence on indigenous lifeways.
By 1821, the presence of white settlers had rapidly changed the lifestyles of the Odawa. The fur trade increased the importance of hunting in indigenous communities. Many Odawa began focusing more on furs for trade than they otherwise would have. Traders brought with them alcohol, which had a detrimental effect on the Anishinaabeg people. Whiskey was a prominent trade good, with traders using it to exchange for furs, berries, and maple sugar.lxix The presence of alcohol increased with the white traders, and furs traded for alcohol meant the Odawa got less of the goods they needed.lxx As early as 1730, outside observers were noticing the devastation it was bringing to Odawa villages.lxxi Along with alcohol, Europeans brought communicable diseases. An Odawa historian recalled a small pox outbreak in the late 1700s, charging that it was acquired from the British.lxxii Other sources indicate that small pox was obtained from Europeans, both through infection and as a weapon of war.lxxiii In Grand Rapids, small pox broke out among the Odawa in 1835.lxxiv Both disease and alcohol placed considerable strain on the population.
Who history remembers as the “founder” of Grand Rapids—Louis Campau—was a prominent trader in the territory that would eventually become Michigan. He traded a variety of goods with the indigenous population in exchange for furs. In 1819, he prominently distributed alcohol to Native Americans at a treaty negotiation after he felt slighted.lxxv In fact, alcohol had played a major part in the entire negotiation process.lxxvi Alcohol—specifically whiskey—was regularly employed by the government to gain native land cessions.lxxvii Campau was licensed to trade in Grand Rapids, with a provisions in his license specifically stating that he could not trade nor offer liquor to the indigenous population.lxxviii Nonetheless, Campau reportedly sold alcohol to the Native population.lxxix At times, government representatives spoke out against the trade in alcohol, but it was also a weapon in their arsenal and despite occasional words and policies to the contrary, alcohol was an effective means of subduing the native population.lxxx Even after the period of treaty-making ended, alcohol continued to be used by white traders to seize native wealth. Government annuity payments relating to treaty obligations were a target of traders, with an account from 1841 claiming that there were two traders to each Indian and two gallons of whiskey for each trader to distribute.lxxxi
Beginning in the 1820s, the United States began actively seeking title to Odawa lands. In 1821, Governor Lewis Cass and Solomon Sibley were commissioned to sign a treaty with the Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi to negotiate the cessation of lands in Western Michigan. The result was the Treaty of Chicago in 1821 which ceded lands south of the Grand River.lxxxii The treaty was signed despite the fact that most Odawa in the Grand River area refused to participate in the negotiations.lxxxiii As would be expected from a colonial power, the United States was willing to take the words of one Grand River Odawa leader – Kewaycooschum in settler histories – as representative of the whole group and allowed him to sell tribal lands.lxxxiv He was later murdered by other Odawa, allegedly for his complicity in the Treaty of 1821.lxxxv A similar fate is recorded in settler histories of a man named Wabasis who was exiled and later murdered for his role in negotiating treaties without the consent of his people.lxxxvi
In exchange for ceding their lands, the Odawa were supposed to received $1,000 annually forever in payment, and for a period of ten years, receive $1,500 annually to receive the services of a blacksmith, the purchase of cattle and farming implements, and education.lxxxvii One source reported that at the 1821 treaty negotiations, an indigenous representative allegedly objected to the ban on whiskey and declared that “we do not care for the land, nor the money, nor the goods: what we want is whisky; give us whisky.”lxxxviii Alcohol was in fact used by Cass to negotiate the treaty, with Cass dispensing whiskey at the start of negotiations and then cutting off the supply until the assembled representatives signed the treaty.lxxxix A total of 932 gallons was requested by Cass for the negotiations.xc It’s a clear example of how the United States used duplicity in its negotiations with the indigenous populations.
Reverend Isaac McCoy was given the task of providing the Grand River Ottawa with the promised farming and educational assistance. To facilitate this, he established a mission in the Grand River valley. His instructions came directly from Governor Lewis Cass, who had negotiated the 1821 treaty. McCoy’s job was essentially to subdue the Odawa and begin the process of “civilizing” them. He was to give them religious instruction, convince them of the “proper sentiments” towards the United States, encourage them to begin agriculture and the domestication of animals, and to encourage less nomadic lifestyles.xci
Many of the Odawa were hostile to the Treaty of 1821 and white visitors to the area reported that the Odawa were quite forthcoming with their critiques of the Treaty.xcii The Odawa reportedly reportedly burned the blacksmith shop to show their disgust with the Treaty.xciii According to sources, many viewed the sale of their lands in 1821 as illegal and were determined not to cede their land.xciv One Odawa leader, Black Skin, was quite vocal in his opposition to McCoy’s mission with settler accounts reporting that he made this clear repeatedly over a period of three years.xcv Hostilities were high enough that there was an attempt on McCoy’s life.xcvi His presence introduced considerable division and tension in Odawa life, while also paving the way for settlers who sold the indigenous population alcohol.xcvii He was able to establish the first school in 1826 on the west bank of the Grand River, beginning a long process of using education as another weapon to attack indigenous cultures.xcviii
Reverend Leonard Slater replaced McCoy in 1827 and greatly expanded the mission activities until the Baptists gave up their work following the Treaty of 1836. According to settler histories, he gained many converts among the Odawa and was praised for his zeal.xcix The Catholic missionary Frederic Baraga established a mission at the lower village on the west side of the Grand River. That mission lasted for around two years, before it was also abandoned once the Treaty of 1836 was signed. The mission lands were quickly seized and sold off by white settlers, with the Baptists receiving $12,000 for their portion of the so-called “Mission Reserve” lands and the Catholics $8,000.c
Both the Baptists and the Catholics played a key role in beginning the process of “civilizing” the Odawa and were critical components of the policy of dispossession. Issac McCoy endorsed the removal of Michigan’s native population to the West, arguing from allegedly “altruistic notions” according to one historian, that it was the only way Native people could survive.ci McCoy later worked to convince some Potawatomi to move to Kansas. In other cases, the church collaborated with the U.S. Army, and just across the border in Indiana, at least one settlement was burned to the ground by the military as a result of the Church’s collaboration.cii Such paternalistic attitudes were also reflected in the use of terminology to refer to the Odawa, with a writer in 1837 referring to them as “the forest child.”ciii
For his part, Baraga upheld the positions of the Catholic church and although he knew the Odawa language and later published books about it, he viewed the indigenous people as “savages”.civ He presided over the baptizing of Native converts in 1833.cv Education would continue to play a role in trying to ruin Odawa lifeways, with the later Mount Pleasant boarding school playing a similar role.cvi In the northern area of Michigan, a minister representing the government even went so far as to warn the Odawa that they faced a choice between either becoming Christian and “civilized” or being destroyed like the Native populations in the Eastern United States.cvii
The Treaty of 1836
In many histories of Grand Rapids, it is common to see 1836 as “the final blow” to the Odawa with limited discussion of indigenous people after that time.cviii While the Treaty of 1836 is an important point of reference, the indigenous population perseveres into the present. In the face of a colonial power that seeks to destroy indigenous peoples, survival is an amazing act of resistance and it should be recognized as such. That said, the Treaty of 1836 is a critical component of the story of how Grand Rapids was stolen by white settlers.
In 1834, representatives of President Andrew Jackson came to the Grand Rapids area to lay the ground work for what would become the Treaty of 1836. They met with prominent traders such as Rix Robinson, and Louis Campau, missionaries such as Leonard Slater, and various Odawa representatives.cix The discussion centered on the possibility of removal to lands west of the Mississippi, as removal was the official United States policy. That same year, a council was held in the Grand Rapids area between the Odawa of the Grand River valley and those in Northern Michigan. At the council, they agreed that they would not cede their lands and would resist removal.cx
In 1835, Henry Schoolcraft—a representative for the U.S. government—presented a draft treaty that included land cession with reservations and the temporary right to live on ceded land. In exchange, the Odawa would receive annuities and educational assistance.cxi Odawa representatives traveled to Washington DC in 1836 to negotiate a treaty. Most were very skeptical of the terms, with two leaders from the Grand River area—Muckatosha and Megiss Ininee—opening the negotiations by saying that they opposed all cession.cxii Eventually over the course of the negotiations, the Odawa position changed and they accepted the treaty.cxiii After returning to their territory and reporting on the negotiations, many Odawa were not pleased as the United States Senate had to approve the treaty and rumors of U.S. plans to remove them spread throughout native villages. When Schoolcraft came to present the Treaty as modified by the Senatecxiv, the provision for reservations had been limited to only five years rather than in perpetuity.cxv The majority of Odawa in attendance were opposed to the treaty.cxvi They eventually accepted the terms because of the prospect of annuities and the uncertainty of what would come if they tried to resist it.cxvii Still, only a strikingly small number of Odawa actually signed.cxviii
At least some Odawa felt compelled to sign the 1836 Treaty of Washington and believed they were misled about its contents.cxix If one takes the time to look, information is readily available indicating that settlers used a variety of nefarious tactics during treaty negotiations. At the first payment of annuities under the 1836 Treaty, white businessmen and government agents heavily appropriated goods for their friends and relatives according to at least one Odawa historian.cxx At these so-called “Annuity Days”, an assortment of settlers would be on hand to try to take the money. Among the most aggressive were those businessmen offering alcohol.cxxi In the early days of Grand Rapids, this was big business and federal money was aggressively pursued by white businessmen.cxxii
An account from a visitor to Grand Rapids in 1836 commented on the state of the Odawa:
“Every thing they now receive [Annuity payments], will then be bartered at the tipling shops for drink, and in another week, they will be stripped of their lands and the price of the … the overwhelming tide of emigration is fast gaining on them and and passing over their heads & the rigours of a few more winters upon constitutions shattered by alcohol will leave but few miserable survivors victims & a living reproach to the gross injustice, and revolting, mercenary, swindling treatment of the Genrl. Govrt.”cxxiii
Despite not being required to do so, some Odawa moved north in 1836, with settlers inheriting ready-made houses, farms, and even a saw mill.cxxiv
1836 to the Treaty of 1855
The specter of removal that hung over the negotiations in 1836 continued to loom large over the Odawa, who were determined not to leave their homeland. In 1838, Henry Schoolcraft tried to entice the Odawa to consider moving to Kansas. There was little interest in his offer to begin with, and the group of Odawa that he assembled to visit Kansas returned and were even more committed to resisting removal when they returned. The delegation reported that there were no sugar maples, that the fishing wasn’t good, and that the climate was dissimilar—in other words, removal to Kansas would make their traditional lifeways impossible.cxxv One of the tactics they employed to resist removal was petitioning the government, asking for small areas of land to live in their traditional ways. One such letter stated:
“The country we occupy from the severity of its climate is not well adapted to the advanced culture of the white men, whilst it is all-sufficient for our moderate wants and will afford us the means of livelihood.
We desire … to die on the soil where we have always lived, and to leave it as an inheritance to our children.”cxxvi
A final treaty was negotiated between the Ottawa and the United States in 1855.cxxvii From the government’s perspective, the treaty was ostensibly for the United States to “equitably close its dealings” with the Ottawa and to integrate them into Michigan as citizens.cxxviii Unlike the previous treaty, there was no threat of removal as most land had already been ceded. Instead, the treaty sought to finalize the terms under which the Ottawa would be integrated into Michigan, settling longstanding disputes about the Ottawa people’s right to temporarily occupy land not yet settled by white people and the payment of annuities. The Treaty of 1855 included a provision for a specific reservation, a process was outlined to give Ottawa people land allotments, and educational and technical assistance funds were set up.cxxix The treaty also dissolved the tribal structure of the Ottawa, with the State of Michigan declaring that they could not be both Ottawa and Michigan citizens. Furthermore, it absolved the United States of all its former treaty obligations.
The Odawa of Grand Rapids were forced to move in 1855 when 1,300 people began the journey north. Most Odawa moved using canoes in a trip that took two years.cxxx Once at their new northern location, they continued to lose their land as many did not understand or were manipulated about how the new allotments and taxes worked.cxxxi The Odawa were not happy with the Treaty nor their status. Between the years of 1866 and 1869, many Odawa took part in councils involving members from all over the state who were upset with the way the Treaty of 1855 had played out. Specifically, there were criticisms regarding the loss of land claims and the failure of the government to pay annuities.cxxxii They desired to go to Washington DC to negotiate a new treaty, but the request was denied and eventually legislation was passed that in theory lessened some of the issues regarding land allotments.cxxxiii
The Odawa were misled by the 1855 Treaty and not told of its full contents, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed.cxxxiv This was especially true regarding the provision that absolved the United States of previous treaty obligations. In later years, many Odawa recalled that the chiefs were tricked.cxxxv Others said that their relatives were manipulated by “traders and missionaries with vested interests”.cxxxvi They were paid well below fair value for their land.cxxxvii
Older historical works speak of the Odawa as being “incapable of civilization” and speak of their desire to live in their traditional ways as being an example of “intractability”.cxxxviii A similar criticism is leveled at Odawa who sought to obtain reservations where they could live in their traditional ways. Instead of allowing for autonomy, the white settlers demanded that they become “civilized.” However, those who did pursue so-called “civilized” ways often found themselves in no better situation, losing their place in the native community and being unwanted by the Americans, even after attaining advanced education. One educated Potawatomi recalled that upon returning to his people, observed that:
“We were neither Indians nor white men. We were not wanted by either. Having no Indian virtues or accomplishments, we were useless in the woods; and the whites did not need us, for they were our superiors.”cxxxix
After the period of treaty-making, the process of colonization continued. Odawa remained the target of racism and were viewed as lesser people, as the major works of Grand Rapids history show. The burial mounds that dotted the landscape were destroyed without consideration. Charles Belknap recalled that “there was no regret over this leveling of the mounds”.cxl The contents were used by the settlers to fill in the low spots in the cities. Odawa children were sent to boarding schools where they were not allowed to practice their traditions or speak their language. The practicing of native religions was outlawed as official government policy. Their traditional land base was destroyed and carved up. Nations were “dissolved” or “terminated” at the behest of the government and treaty obligations went unfulfilled. Colonization is not defined to a specific time and place, but rather it is an active process that continues to harm indigenous people.
Despite these ongoing effects of colonization and conquest, we typically see it as a one-off event. An oft-cited quote from Campau summarized how he viewed the conquest of West Michigan:
“A few white men arrived, and there was a little trouble. A few more white men arrived, and there was more trouble. Then a lot came, and the Indians became bad, and times grew worse. Finally, the Indians were relieved of their possessions.”cxli
See the first piece in this history for further discussion of the colonization of the area we now know as “Grand Rapids”
See the first piece in this history for further discussion of the colonization of the area we now know as “Grand Rapids”
xlvii Lydens, 4-5.
xlviii Lydens, 6.
xlix Baxter, 69.
l Blackbird, 100.
li Lydens, 105.
lii Lydens, 2.
liii Baxter, 69.
liv Lydens, 2.
lv Lydens, 1.
lvi Leeson, 143-144.
lvii Leeson, 29.
lviii Theodore J. Karamanski, Blackbird’s Song: Andrew J. Blackbird and the Odawa People, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2012), 28.
lix McClurken, 21.
lx Baxter, 22.
lxi Baxter, 23.
lxii Baxter, 24.
lxiii Baxter, 24.
lxiv Baxter, 43.
lxv Baxter, 94.
lxvi Leeson, 161.
lxvii Franklin Everett, Memorials of the Grand River Valley, (1878, Reprint. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids Historical Society, 1984), 272.
lxviii Blackbird, 11.
lxix Baxter, 32.
lxx Karamanski, 29.
lxxi Kinietz, 307.
lxxii Blackbird, 9-10.
lxxiii Karamanski, 7-8.
lxxiv McClurken, 27.
lxxv Arthur S. White, Old Grand Rapids: Pen Pictures, (1925. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Chapbook Press, undated), 32.
lxxvi Cleland, 215.
lxxvii Bernard C. Peters, “Hypocrisy on the Great Lakes Frontier: The Use of Whiskey by the Michigan Department of Indian Affairs”, Michigan Historical Review, Vol. 18, No. 22, (1992), 3.
lxxviii Gordon L. Olson, A Grand Rapids Sampler, (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids Historical Commission, 1992), 15.
lxxix Lydens, 3.
lxxx Peters, 13.
lxxxi Baxter, 32.
lxxxii “Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., 1821”, Potawatomi Web, http://www.kansasheritage.org/PBP/books/treaties/t_1821.html
lxxxiii Karamanski, 30.
lxxxiv Leeson, 154.
lxxxv Leeson, 154.
lxxxvi Leeson, 153.
lxxxvii Baxter, 27.
lxxxviii Leeson, 72.
lxxxix Peters, 6.
xc Peters, 8.
xci Baxter, 50.
xcii Baxter, 27.
xciii Baxter, 27.
xciv Leeson, 173.
xcv McClurken, 25.
xcvi McClurken, 26.
xcvii McClurken, 26-27.
xcviii Lydens, 478.
xcix Baxter, 51.
c Baxter, 52.
ci Olson, 17.
cii Dobson, 130.
ciii Baxter, 69.
civ Lydens, 464.
cv Lydens, 464.
cvi Dobson, 55. For more on the boarding school experience, see Ward Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man: The Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools, (San Francisco: City Lights, 2004).
cvii Karamanski, 33.
cviii Olson, 1.
cix Baxter, 60.
cx Karamanski, 69.
cxi Karamanski, 70.
cxii Karamanski, 82-83.
cxiii Karamanski, 86.
cxiv “Treaty with the Ottawa, Etc., March 28, 1836”, http://www.saulttribe.com/images/pdf/treaties/1836_treaty_washington.pdf
cxv Karamanski, 87.
cxvi Karamanski, 87.
cxvii Karamanski, 88.
cxviii McClurken, 29.
cxix Blackbird, 97.
cxx Blackbird, 51.
cxxi Olson, 16.
cxxii Lydens, 240.
cxxiii Olson, 16.
cxxiv McClurken, 29.
cxxv McClurken, 30-31.
cxxvi Olson, 17.
cxxvii “Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 1855”, http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol2/treaties/ott0725.htm
cxxviii Karamanski, 148.
cxxix Karamanski, 152.
cxxx Dobson, 126.
cxxxi Dobson, 127.
cxxxii Karamanski, 186.
cxxxiii Karamanski, 191-192.
cxxxiv Blackbird, 52.
cxxxv Dobson, 132.
cxxxvi Dobson, 125.
cxxxvii Dobson, 133.
cxxxviii Baxter, 34.
cxxxix Baxter, 35.
cxl Olson, 4.
cxli Olson, 18.