From James Madison to William Harris Crawford, 29 June 1816
To William Harris Crawford
Montpellier, June 29th, 1816.
Dear Sir,
I return the draught of instructions to the Commissioners for treating with the Chicasaw Indians.
Not being aided by a map, I am not sure that I understand distinctly all your demarkations. I take for granted they are correct, unless it be otherwise in the reference to the portion of the Chicasaw lands lying within the State of Tennessee. You will be able to decide on re-examining that part of the document.1 After obtaining the lands on the Tombigbee, and those running up to the Tennessee river,2 the order in which the other purchases ought to be pressed is of importance. Will it not be best to give preference to the tract within Kentucky, if that State concur in the price?3 The tract being remote and small, the Chicasaws may be the less unwilling to part with it; and its containing claims of Revolutionary officers is another consideration deserving notice. If the State of Tennessee retains its anxiety for the lands within its limits between the Tennessee River and the Mississippi, it may be well to prefer efforts for obtaining that cession to the purchase of lands to which there are no State claims, and which are not immediately essential to the great object of providing for the security of our Gulf frontier.
I think you have given too great a scope to the Commissioners in referring to the market proceeds of the land (page 3) as the ultimatum. The sum would be enormous for an Indian purchase, and the more so, as the Chickasaw claim, however strong, is opposed by other claims which may fairly derogate from its worth. Your reference in another place to the customary rates for extinguishing Indian titles, with a liberal discretion to exceed them, seems a better, because a safer course. I have accordingly interlined a modification, which you will regard as a general idea only, to be varied and expressed as you chuse.4
I enclose a different mode of stating the decreasing annuity to be paid in lieu of a gross sum or an ordinary annuity, which you will incorporate in your own phraseology.5 There appeared to be some danger of a construction which would take the whole intrinsic value of the lands for the sum to be divided into annuities.
Printed in , 3:11–12.
1. In the final version of the instructions to the commissioners, Crawford stated that “the extinguishment of the Chickasaw title to the lands lying in the Great Bend of the Tennessee river has long been an object of desire to the inhabitants of the western parts of Tennessee and Kentucky. The fertility of the soil, and the excellent navigation which that river affords from the foot of the Muscle Shoals to its junction with the Ohio, render the acquisition of this tract of country of great importance to the United States” (, Indian Affairs, 2:101).
2. These lands were “understood to be comprehended within a line running from the Flat or Shining Rock, on Bear Creek, to the ridge dividing the waters which fall into the Black Warrior from those of the Tombigbee river; thence, along the ridge, to a point due east of the mouth of Tibby creek; thence, directly to the mouth of that creek; thence, up the Tombigbee river, to the Cotton Gin Port; thence, along the line run by General Coffee, to its intersection of the Cherokee line defined by the late treaty” (ibid., 100).
3. The instructions anticipated that the Chickasaw headmen might not grant the United States the full extent of its demands. “Under these circumstances, it is with some degree of reluctance that the President feels it necessary to direct that propositions be made to them for the purchase of that part of their hunting grounds lying within the State of Kentucky […]. If the cession shall be obtained, the purchase money will have to be paid by the State of Kentucky” (ibid., 101).
4. Interlineation not indicated.
5. In the final instructions the value of the payment was to be calculated according to the ways in which the Chickasaw made “progressive improvements” in their way of life, it being “extremely desirable to avoid a perpetuity, unless it be essential to the accomplishment of the main object.” In the event of the Chickasaw failing to make progress, “it is desirable that the annuity agreed upon should be the greatest during the first years of its enjoyment, and that it should gradually diminish to a small amount, if not entirely cease, at a given period of time. This system will be favorable to the extinguishment of their title to such portion of their unsettled lands as may become indispensable to the United States in the progress of their population” (ibid., 101).