From Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 16 December 1804
To Henry Dearborn
Dec. 16. 04.
Th: Jefferson to Genl. Dearborne.
The letter of the Little Turtle to Genl. Wilkinson is so serious, that I suppose it should be answered. among other things I imagine it will be proper to have said to him that tho’ the US. will always protect the Indians in the right to their lands so long as they chuse to keep them, yet they have also always professed themselves ready to buy whenever the Indians chuse to sell. that it will certainly be convenient for us to own a given breadth of country on the right bank of Ohio and on the Wabash, that our citizens descending those rivers may find accomodation & safety through their whole length. that the Delawares being in possession of the country in the fork of the rivers, & desirous to sell, we bought: but the Piankeshaws also claiming the same lands & willing to sell their right, we purchased their right also. that we have never heard that any other tribe has any right in them, nor do we believe they have: but that if a right can be proved in any other, & that we have bought from those who had no right, we will do justice to those having the right, & demand justice from those who have sold us what was not theirs. if on the other hand the right to these lands was in the Delawares & Piankeshaws we shall permit no other tribe to intermeddle with their right to sell and ours to buy. every tribe shall be master of their own lands, to keep or to sell them as they please without controul from any other.
I do not know on what grounds the Little Turtle interferes, unless the Miamis have any claim to that country, which I believe they have not. I presume Harrison’s success in extinguishing Indian title is at the bottom of the Turtle’s dislike of him. the late purchase from the Sacs & Reynards is important as it fortifies our right to keep the British off from the Missisipi. I should suspect Brough to be of a discontented temper, which discolours to his mind whatever is done by others. Affectionate salutns
Th: Jefferson
RC (PHi: Daniel Parker Papers); addressed: “The Secretary at War”; endorsed for the War Department. PoC (DLC).
letter of the Little Turtle: in a letter of 13 Dec. to Dearborn, James Wilkinson enclosed a letter he had received from William Wells, the U.S. Indian agent at Fort Wayne. Wells transcribed a speech from Miami leader Little Turtle intended for Wilkinson. Little Turtle expressed dismay at the recent cession by the Delawares and Piankashaws, which he characterized as unauthorized and “contrary to the wishes of all the Indians in this country.” The Miami leader explained that the United States did not need the land yet, that he needed more time to encourage farming among his people, and that he hoped for a higher purchase price in the future, when the needs of both peoples would better match. He proceeded to blast William Henry Harrison for creating new chiefs, giving them authority over lands that did not belong to them, and then purchasing the lands. Little Turtle insisted that Harrison had “struck our existence at the root” and that “his conduct will finally get us at war.” He hoped that Wilkinson would pass along these sentiments to TJ, who he presumed would never purchase land against the wishes of the area’s Indians, most of whom would “wish a war with the United States rather than sell the Lands” in question “if they had any prospect of being supported by any foreign power” (DNA: RG 107, LRMS). In a sharply worded letter of 24 Dec. to Wells, Dearborn conveyed TJ’s resolve not to force land sales but insisted that any claims the Miamis had to the Delaware-Piankashaw cession “ought to be shewn in a clear & unquestionable manner, instead of attempting to substantiate it by such threats of war as the Little Turtle has thought proper to make” (DNA: RG 107, LSIA).
Dearborn had also presumably shared a letter of 5 Nov. from James Bruff (Brough), the military commander at St. Louis, to Wilkinson. Bruff expressed discontent with how Harrison and others had handled a murder case involving some Sacs. He also disputed Harrison’s assumption of authority over the Louisiana commandants, which Bruff believed a violation of “old established principles of rank” (DNA: RG 107, LRMS; printed in , 13:76-80).