Horse Creek Treaty: Case Study

How did the intentions of the Horse Creek Treaty compare to the outcomes?

On September 17, 1851, at the mouth of the Horse Creek, the United States government and Native Nations of the Northern Great Plains signed a treaty with a stated intent to maintain “good faith and friendship in all their mutual intercourse, and to make an effective and lasting peace.”

The treaty negotiations originally were to be held at Fort Laramie, Wyoming; however, because so many Native Nations attended, the site had to be changed to accommodate the people and their horses. It was the largest gathering of Plains Nations in American history: ten to fifteen thousand people attended. Two negotiators from the U.S. Office of Indian Affairs met with delegations representing nine Native Nations, each speaking a different language but sharing common concerns. The large number of attendees demonstrated that tribal nations felt the real impacts of Manifest Destiny and recognized the importance of this treaty gathering.

U.S. Expansion or Invasion?

Events That Led to the 1851 Horse Creek Treaty

As the United States pushed westward in the 19th century, the Native Nations of the Northern Plains were increasingly pressured and forced to defend their lands and ways of life. Explore this timeline to learn more about some of the events that led to the 1851 Horse Creek Treaty.

Explore

1803

Louisiana Purchase

The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 gave the United States the opportunity to explore and buy vast lands west of the Mississippi River from American Indian Nations that owned them.

Hover over image to zoom

Map of the Louisiana Purchase Territory; 1903; Records of the Bureau of Land Management, Record Group 49.

1815

Treaty Making: Plains Nations and U.S. Government

Into the 1840s the U.S. government signed treaties with Plains Nations, promising peace not only with the United States but also among various tribes.

Hover over image to zoom

1836–1850

Great Plains Smallpox Epidemic

Smallpox epidemics decimate Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, and Crow Nations.

Hover over image to zoom

“Small Pox Winter,” Rosebud winter count, courtesy National Anthropological Archives NAA MS 2001-10

1840

Oregon Trail

From the 1840s through the 1880s, thousands of Americans trek westward as politicians in the east push for settlement of the west.

Hover over image to zoom

1845

U.S. Trading Post: Fort James

Fort James, established by James Kipp on the Missouri River, was quickly acquired by a fur company and renamed for one of the company’s partners, Bartholomew Berthold. Fort Berthold was not a military fort but a fur trading post.

Hover over image to zoom

Trading Post, Fort Berthold, N.D., 1878. Photograph by O.S. Goff, courtesy of North Dakota State Historical Society

1846

Mexican-American War

In 1846 the U.S. declared war on Mexico, which enabled U.S. expansion into the Southwest. The phrase “Manifest Destiny” was coined during this time.

Hover over image to zoom

Birds-eye View of the Camp of the Army of Occupation, Commanded by Genl. Taylor Near Corpus Christi, Texas (from the North) Oct. 1845. Lithograph by G. & W. Endicott, courtesy of Library of Congress LC-USZC4-4557

1846

Mormon Trail

The Mormons, headed by Brigham Young, begin trek to Utah.

Hover over image to zoom

Old Mormon Trail, Colorado, ca. 1908. Photograph by the Haines Photo Co., courtesy of the Library of Congress, 2007661970.

1846

Lakota Chiefs Petition U.S. Government

A group of Brule and Oglala Lakota chiefs send a petition through a federal Indian agent to the U.S. president, asking for compensation for damage done by emigrants in driving away the buffalo.

Hover over image to zoom

1848

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

Mexico surrenders California and New Mexico to the United States.

Hover over image to zoom

Disturnell, John. Mapa de los Estados Unidos de Méjico. Map. New York: J. Disturnell, 1847. From Library of Congress Geography and Maps Division

1849

California Gold Rush

Discovery of gold in California unleashes a flood of fortune seekers and emigrants; many Americans head west and cut through Sioux Nation and other Native Nations’ territories. The increase in migrant traffic leads to disease and disruption of the buffalo population.

Hover over image to zoom

1849–1856

Cholera Epidemic

Cholera epidemics rage among the Cheyenne.

Hover over image to zoom

1851

California Becomes U.S. State

California admitted to the Union as the thirty-first state; U.S. government foresees necessity of building a railroad to link the East and West Coasts.

Hover over image to zoom

“The Far West—Shooting Buffalo on the Line of the Kansas-Pacific Railroad,” Illustration. Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, v. 32, no. 818, June 3, 1871, p. 193. From Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004669992/

1851

Horse Creek Treaty

February 1851: Congress authorizes $100,000 to hold a great council with Plains Nations.

Hover over image to zoom

De Smet, Pierre. Map of the Upper Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Region. Map. 1851. From Library of Congress Geography and Map Division. https://www.loc.gov/item/2005630226

Listen

Horse Creek Treaty: Preamble

Articles of a treaty made and concluded at Fort Laramie, in the Indian Territory, between Indian agent, commissioners specially appointed and authorized by the President of the United States . . . and the chiefs, headmen, and braves of the . . . Sioux or Dahcotas, Cheyennes, Arrapahoes, Crows, Assinaboines, Gros Ventre [Hidatsa], Mandans, and Arrickaras. . . .

The articles that follow are the terms of a treaty made at Fort Laramie, in the Indian Territory, between the Indian agent of the United States, commissioners specially appointed and authorized by the President of the United States, . . . and the chiefs, headmen, and braves of the . . . Sioux or Dahcota, Cheyenne, Arrapahoe, Crow, Assinaboine, Gros Ventre, Mandan, and Arrickara Nations. . . .

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

Listen

Horse Creek Treaty: Article II

The aforesaid nations do hereby recognize the right of the United States Government to establish roads, military and other posts, within their respective territories.

By signing this treaty, the Indian Nations named above agree that the United States Government has the right to establish roads, military bases, and other bases within their territories.

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

EXPLORE

Native Intentions

“I think by 1851 our tribes are still in a state of shock and recovery. The loss of buffalo, the encroachment by that time—westward expansion was occurring. Forts were being established. The fur trade was thriving. Life was changing for them; no longer were they able to go to their hunting grounds and bring home enough buffalo.”

—Marilyn Hudson (Mandan/Hidatsa), NMAI Interview, August 2016

By 1851 Northern Plains people faced enormous pressures and impacts on their traditional ways of life. Their leaders were forced to make hard choices under difficult circumstances.

U.S. Intentions

Print/Original The ears of your Great White Father are always open to the complaints of his Red Children. He has heard and is aware that your buffalo and game are driven off, and your grass and timber consumed by the opening of roads and the passing of emigrants, through your countries . . . But at the same time that he is willing to make just compensation for injuries you may receive, he expects and will exert the right of free passage for his white children over the roads running through your countries.

Print/Paraphrased The president of the United States is always open to hearing the complaints of American Indians. He has heard and is aware that your buffalo and game have been driven off, and your grass and timber used by the opening of roads and the passing of emigrants through your countries… But at the same time that he is willing to pay your fairly for damages you may receive, he expects and will use the right of free passage for white Americans over the roads running through your countries.

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

Commissioner David D. Mitchell, quoted in a newspaper account of the treaty proceedings published in a St. Louis newspaper, the Missouri Republican, October 27, 1851

Americans in the East were eager for news of treaty proceedings with Native Nations of the West.

Listen

Outcomes: Conflict

“In 1854, a recent West Point graduate, Army Lieutenant John Grattan, became involved in what is known as the Mormon cow incident. Grattan boasted that given thirty men, he could subdue the entire Lakota nation. He rode into Conquering Bear’s camp with thirty men to punish the people for butchering a stray Mormon’s cow that had wandered into their camp. Conquering Bear refused to give up the guest in his camp who had shot and butchered the Mormon’s cow. He explained that it was a misunderstanding, and he offered compensation to the Mormon with his choice of Conquering Bear’s horses. When negotiations broke down and Conquering Bear turned to leave, the troops began shooting into the tipis and shot Conquering Bear. He later died from the wounds. In retaliation for the shooting of Conquering Bear, the warriors attacked Grattan and his men, leaving the bragging Grattan lying in the dust.”

Craig Howe, Lydia Whirlwind Soldier, and Lanniko L. Lee, eds., He Sapa Woihanble: Black Hills Dreams (St. Paul: Living Justice Press, 2011)

This story, often referred to as “the Mormon cow incident,” provides damning evidence for both the abuse of power and the value of a stray cow over the lives of Lakota people.

Outcomes: Westward Expansion

“ . . . when the railroad went thru and the settlers began to come in on this territory . . . they realized that this land had been taken away from them by the Government and that the Government was letting these white people come in and kill all the game up where they used to hunt.”

—Wolf Chief (Hidatsa)

Indian Court of Claims 1930. The Indians of the Fort Berthold Reservation in the State of North Dakota, comprising the tribes known as the Arickarees, the Gros Ventres, and the Mandans, and the Individual Members Thereof v. the United States, No. B-449

Wolf Chief, a member of the Hidatsa Nation, recounts his people’s historical understanding of the impacts of the Horse Creek Treaty, almost fifty years after it occurred.

Article II: Discussion Questions

What do you think Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara leaders intended to achieve by attending the 1851 Horse Creek Treaty council?
Is Mitchell asking for or demanding “the right of free passage for his White Children over the roads running through your countries”? How can you tell?
Do you think emigrant travel through Native lands in the northern Great Plains would have consequences? For whom? Why?
Do you think the Mormon Cow incident was an inevitable consequence of Article II? Use evidence from the sources to support your findings.
What does Wolf Chief’s realization reveal about the Mandan,Hidatsa, and Arikara understanding of the Horse Creek Treaty and the actual consequences?

Listen

Horse Creek Treaty: Article III

In consideration of the rights and privileges acknowledged in the preceding article, the United States bind themselves to protect the aforesaid Indian nations against the commission of all depredations by the people of the said United States, after ratification of this treaty.

In exchange for the rights and privileges agreed to in Article 2, the United States promises to protect the Indian Nations named in this treaty against all attacks or other crimes by the people of the United States, after this treaty is formally approved.

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

EXPLORE

Native Intentions

“Our people would talk about certain things that they wanted in those treaties. For instance, in that 1851 treaty they wanted to keep the miners and the settlers and the trappers and the traders and the ranchers out of our land.

And they asked for protection, they said, ‘Keep them out of our land . . . ’ And that was the main point that they wanted. And they thought they got it.”

—Grant Bulltail, (Crow) NMAI Interview, August 2016

Mr. Bulltail reflects on the pressure that the Crow Nation was under at this time. Their homelands had already been invaded by trappers, traders, and miners. They believed the U.S. promise of “protection,” as stated in the treaty, because Native people shared an integrity of word—one’s word was integral to one’s honor and status.

U.S. Intentions

Print/Original“ . . . it will be expected that each nation will be held responsible for depredations committed within its territory, unless it can be clearly shown that the people of some other nation committed them, and then that nation will be held responsible.”

Print/Paraphrased“ . . . it will be expected that each nation will be held responsible for attacks and other crimes committed within its territory, unless it can be clearly shown that the people of some other nation committed them, and then that nation will be held responsible.”

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

Commissioner David D. Mitchell, quoted in a newspaper account of the treaty proceedings published in a St. Louis newspaper, the Missouri Republican, October 27, 1851

This treaty guarantee of protection promised a dramatic change in policy and action. “Protection” by the United States had not previously been afforded to tribal nations as the westward movement invaded Native homelands, decimated the bison, and brought disease that killed up to eighty percent of some Native communities.

Listen

Outcomes: Conflict

“Not long after the Fort Laramie Treaty [1851 Horse Creek Treaty], the Cheyennes were blamed for violating it. It happened just a few years after the treaty was signed, when they were camped along the Platte River. Three men had gone out hunting deer and antelope—Plum Man, War Shirt, and Shirt Inside Out. Plum Man and Shirt Inside Out heard a gun. They came down and found War Shirt shot dead. The story went on that the Cheyennes had robbed the stage and broken the treaty, but it was not true. The Cheyennes thought the government had broken it by letting a Cheyenne be killed and not punishing the killer.”

John Stands in Timber and Margot Liberty, Cheyenne Memories: Second Edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998)

John Stands in Timber (Cheyenne) recounts how the U.S. failed to keep its word to punish depredations against Indian people.

Article III: Discussion Questions

What did the Crow intend to get from the treaty negotiations?
Who do you think might be responsible for documenting “depredations” committed within and against Native Nations? How would they go about this?
Was the failure to punish the killer of the Cheyenne man a failure to honor Article III?

Listen

Horse Creek Treaty: Article V

The aforesaid Indian nations do hereby recognize and acknowledge the following tracts of country, included within the metes and boundaries hereinafter designated, as their respective territories.

The Indian nations named in this treaty recognize and acknowledge as their respective territories the land areas that lie within the boundaries described in the following section of the treaty.

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

EXPLORE

Native Intentions

“The Government proposed that each . . . tribe at this council lay aside their weapons and discontinue their warfare against each other. It was made known to us at this Fort Laramie Treaty that these lands belong to the three tribes.”

—Red Bear (Arikara)

Pressures on Native Nations had been building throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At the time of the Horse Creek Treaty, the U.S. government was advocating for settlement of the West, a policy that directly threatened Native Nations’ sovereignty and ways of living. Native leaders had to make difficult decisions in order to ensure peace and security for their people.

U.S. Intentions

Print/Original“In order that justice may be done to each nation, it is proposed that your country shall be divided into geographical districts—that the country and its boundaries shall be designated by such rivers, mountains and lines, as will show what country each nation claims and where they are located. In doing this it is not intended to take any of your lands away from you, or to destroy your rights to hunt, or fish, or pass over the country, as heretofore.”

Print/Paraphrased“In order to be fair to each nation, it is proposed that your lands shall be divided into geographical districts—that the land and its boundaries shall be defined by the rivers, mountains, and lines that will show what district each nation claims and where they are located. In doing this it is not intended to take any of your lands away from you, or to destroy your rights to hunt, or fish, or travel through the country, as you have always done.”

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

Commissioner David D. Mitchell, quoted in a newspaper account of the treaty proceedings published in a St. Louis newspaper, the Missouri Republican, October 27, 1851

David D. Mitchell was a treaty commissioner for the 1851 Horse Creek (Fort Laramie) Treaty. In this account of treaty proceedings, reported in a St. Louis newspaper, Mitchell states that the intent is not to take lands away from Native Nations.

U.S. Intentions

Print/Original“I have thought and observed much on this subject, and have no hesitation in saying, that an intermixture with the Anglo-Saxon race is the only means by which the Indians of this continent can be partially civilized. In order to carry out this plan, I beg leave to suggest, for the consideration of the department, the following measures, viz: the laying off of Nebraska Territory . . . thence along our established boundaries to the western of the State of Missouri, to the place of beginning. This will give the United States all the agricultural lands south of the Missouri river that are considered exclusively Indian territory . . .
In obedience to the instructions of the department, I commenced, early in the spring . . . to assemble the various tribes at Fort Laramie . . . to counsel and treat . . . The result of the council was a confederated treaty among themselves as well as with the Government of the United States.”

Print/Paraphrased“I have given a lot of thought and study to this subject, and have no hesitation in saying that close association with the Anglo-Saxon race is the only means by which the Indians of this continent can be even partly civilized. In order to carry out this plan, I suggest, for the consideration of the department, the following measures: namely, the boundary marking of Nebraska Territory . . . from that point along our established boundaries to the western border of the State of Missouri, and from there back to the starting point. This will give the United States all the agricultural lands south of the Missouri River that are now considered exclusively Indian Territory . . .
Following the instructions of the department, I began, early in the spring, . . . to bring together the various tribes at Fort Laramie . . . to discuss and draw up a treaty . . . The result of the council was a treaty of alliance among the Indians themselves as well as with the Government of the United States.”

View Original Version View Paraphrased Version

Commissioner David D. Mitchell, quoted from the 1851 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, December 2, 1851

Following the Horse Creek Treaty negotiations, David D. Mitchell submitted his findings to be included in the annual report of the Secretary of the Interior. In this section, he reflects on the Horse Creek Treaty and its implications on the U.S. government’s policies towards Native Nations.

Outcomes: Conflict

“You know, they were supposed to protect our land and here they come, and ravaged our land, and caused Indian wars. Because some of those reservations that they established overlap each other like the Shoshone and the Crow and the Sioux and the Crow.”

—Grant Bulltail, (Crow) NMAI Interview, August 2016

Mr. Bulltail reflects on the significance of intentions and outcomes of the 1851 Horse Creek Treaty.

Article V: Discussion Questions

What was Red Bear’s understanding of the 1851 Horse Creek Treaty? (He refers to it as the Fort Laramie Treaty.)
Do Mitchell’s stated intentions at the treaty council [speech] differ from the statement [report excerpt] he provides to the Secretary of the Interior? What evidence supports your findings?
What do you think Mitchell’s intentions were going into the treaty negotiations, given his background and statements regarding his “plan?” Cite evidence that supports your conclusions.
What is Mr. Bulltail’s understanding of the 1851 Horse Creek Treaty?

Lands of the Horse Creek Treaty Nations

See the lands of the Native Nations involved in the Horse Creek Treaty. Explore the maps and notice how Native Nations’ lands have changed over time.

EXPLORE

Land of the Horse Creek Treaty Nations, 1851

Click and drag to move map. Use the buttons to zoom.

Land of the Horse Creek Treaty Nations, Present Day

Click and drag to move map. Use the buttons to zoom.