restricted access 38. Thomas L. McKenney on Trading Sites, February 14, 1826
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

43 be disposed to give it, and also with the Ottoes , to settle and adjust their title to any of the country claimed by the Sacs, Foxes, and Ioways. Article 12. The Chippewa tribe being dispersed over a great extent of country, and the Chiefs of the tribe having requested, that such portion of them as may be thought proper, by the Government of the United States, may be assembled in 1826, upon some part of Lake Superior, that the objects and advantages of this treaty may be fully explained to them, so that the stipulations thereof may be observed by the warriors. The Commissioners of the United States assent thereto, and it is therefore agreed that a council shall accordingly be held for these purposes. Article 13. It is understood by all the tribes, parties hereto, that no tribe shall hunt within the acknowledged limits of any other without their assent, but it being the sole object of this arrangement to perpetuate a peace among them, and amicable relations being now restored, the Chiefs of all the tribes have expressed a determination, cheerfully to allow a reciprocal right of hunting on the lands of one another, permission being first asked and obtained, as before provided for. Article 14. Should any causes of difficulty hereafter unhappily arise between any of the tribes, parties hereunto, it is agreed that the other tribes shall interpose their good offices to remove such difficulties; and also that the government of the United States may take such measures as they may deem proper, to effect the same object. Article 15. This treaty shall be obligatory on the tribes, parties hereto, from and after the date hereof, and on the United States, from and after its ratification by the government thereof. . . . [Charles J. Kappler, ed., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2:250–54.] 38. Thomas L. McKenney on Trading Sites February 14, 1826 The law of May 25, 1824, providing that Indian agents should designate “certain convenient and suitable places” for carrying on trade with the Indians, was opposed by traders, who found it too restrictive, and several attempts were made in Congress to repeal the act. In a report submitted to Secretary of War James Barbour, February 14, 1826, Thomas L. McKenney, head of the Indian Office, defended the act. His report was violently attacked by Robert Stuart of the American Fur Company, but the provision was retained in the laws governing trade with the Indians. . . . . The fourth section of the aforesaid act is in the words following, to wit: “And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of Indian agents to designate, from time to time, certain convenient and suitable places forcarryingontradewiththedifferentIndian tribes, and to require all traders to trade at the places thus designated, and at no other place or places.” . . . The chief object of the Congress in adopting this provision was, doubtless, the protection of the Indians. In this point of view, the provision is as just as it is humane. Just, because the Indians have claims upon the Government for protection; and humane, because , without its interference, all experience testifies that they must be injured. But the question is, does the provision in the section under consideration answer those great ends? An answer, to be conclusive, could be given only by a comparison of the state of excitements in the Indian country, and along our borders, prior to the operations of this act, and since it has been in force. But the act is of too recent origin to have disclosed any very striking effects in correcting the evils which it was intended to remedy. It is believed, however, that a comparative quiet has been produced by it already; that fewer murders have been committed among the Indians themselves, and by them upon the whites, since the trade has been restricted, than before. In my opinion, its operations have been salutary; and, if every thing which it was hoped to gain by it has not been realized, it is owing more to the short period in which the act has been in operation than to any defect in its provisions. . . . 44 The source of all the difficulty is to be found in the necessity which the traders esteem themselves to be under to carry spirituous liquors into the Indian country; and it is from this source that so much wretchedness and so many evils proceed. There are many persons engaged in...