What were the respective roles of the federal government and the state government in Native American affairs?

From the late 1780s through the mid-1820s, it was generally accepted that Native Americans took the lead in supervising the federal government. Within the federal government, these affairs were usually assigned to the War Department, even though native tribes were, in many ways, treated as independent nations. The president, the secretary of war, the commissioner of Indian affairs, and, on some matters, Congress set policies in the nation's capital. A variety of government officials in the field then put these policies into action.

Almost every tribe had an agent or subagent who lived with or near them. These agents served as conduits through which the tribes could make their needs, desires, and complaints known to the federal government. The Sauks' and Foxes' agent between 1817 and 1830 was a fur trader named Thomas Forsyth; upon his removal from office, Felix St. Vrain became their agent. Army officers also played important roles. The commander at the fort nearest to each tribe met with tribal leaders and coordinated policies with their agent even when relations were peaceful. As tensions increased, higher-ranked officers who were responsible for larger districts often became involved, especially when as troops were mobilized to preserve peace and defeat native resistance. The affairs of the Sauks and Foxes were also overseen by the regional superintendent of Indian affairs in St. Louis, William Clark (the "Clark" of the Lewis and Clark expedition).

By the early 1830s, the Sauks and Foxes were well-accustomed to visiting their agent and the army commander at Fort Armstrong on Rock Island near Saukenuk, the superintendent in St. Louis, and even, on a few occasions, the president and cabinet members in Washington. There is no evidence, however, that they had visited the governor in the state capital at Vandalia.

(Back to questions)

When did the government of the U.S. and the government of Illinois disagree?

In the mid-1820s, some of the southern and western states began to demand a larger role in Native American affairs. This process got its start in Georgia, where the governor and the state legislature tried to pressure President John Quincy Adams to remove the Creeks and Cherokees from the state and to force the natives themselves to leave. Alabama and Mississippi soon adopted and echoed Georgia's approach.

By the fall of 1827, Illinois Governor Ninian Edwards had also begun calling on the Adams administration to remove the remaining Native Americans from Illinois. In one sense, Edwards was in a stronger position than his southern counterparts. The various tribes in Illinois had signed treaties ceding their land within the state decades earlier. Edwards only needed to ask the administration to enforce already existing treaties, not to negotiate new ones.

Beginning in September 1827, Edwards wrote a series of letters to President Adams and his secretaries of war, James Barbour and Peter Porter, regarding the Sauks and Foxes and the other Native Americans who remained in Illinois. Considering the continuing presence of these people "a grievance, so inconsistent with the rights of the State," Edwards requested federal action to remove them. Secretary Barbour quickly assured Edwards that steps would be taken to comply with this request "with the least possible delay consistent with humanity." When nothing happened within eight months, Edwards sent off more ominous letters, warning that, if the federal government did not resolve the problem, the state government would. In July 1828, Secretary Porter informed Edwards that the remaining Native Americans had agreed to leave the state by the end of May 1829. Porter also reminded the governor that it was "the business of the Department [of War, and not of the governor,] to see that they fulfill their promise."

(Back to questions)

When did the government of the U.S. and the government of Illinois cooperate?

By the time that the May 1829 deadline came and went, with some of the Sauks and Foxes still east of the Mississippi, the states had gained a powerful ally in Native American affairs in Washington. In March 1829, Andrew Jackson succeeded John Quincy Adams as president. Jackson already had a long history of challenging federal Indian policy--as both a general and a commissioner charged with negotiating land cessions. He largely accepted the arguments of many of the state governors that the native people within a state's boundaries were the responsibility of the state, not the federal, government. Furthermore, Jackson strongly believed that it was in the interest of both natives and whites that any eastern Native American who wanted to remain a member of a tribe and practice a native culture should move beyond the Mississippi.

In December 1829, President Jackson called on Congress to empower him to negotiate removal treaties with all of the tribes east of the Mississippi. Jackson's Removal Bill proved very divisive. It was attacked in pamphlets, newspapers, and public meetings, mostly in northeastern states, for six months. Many congressmen spoke out and voted against it. In May 1830, the Removal Bill passed both houses of Congress and Jackson signed it into law. He could now send commissioners to negotiate removal treaties with all of the eastern tribes. But neither the Jackson administration in Washington nor its agents in the field believed that a new treaty with the Sauks and Foxes was needed. The old treaties of 1804, 1816, and 1825 had already committed the two tribes to remove west of the Mississippi.

In this climate of removal, John Reynolds, the new governor of Illinois, felt confident that the administration would support him when he renewed the state's requests that the Sauk and Fox be forced to live up to the old treaties.

(Back to questions)