 |
|
|
|
This entire document can be downloaded in Word Format: Click Here
CLARK COUNTY INDIANS WERE NOT COWLITZ - Page 5
Removal of 1860
The second event relied upon to establish Cowlitz as indigenous to the lower Lewis River is the report of Indian Agent Lansdale about removing a band in 1860. Lansdale wrote:
“This band of Klikitats, however, have never been treated with or their lands purchased. White settlers have occupied the most valuable places for grazing, field culture, and fishing. So driven from post to pillar was this scattered and injured people, that but one white settler, and he a former member of Congress, would allow them to remain, even temporarily, on lands yet belonging to them, the title to which has always heretofore been acknowledged by our government as vesting in the aboriginal inhabitants till fully treated with and ample compensation allowed.”
From this description it is possible to read and to confirm the tribal affiliation of this group. Cowlitz advocates may imply that Lansdale was referring to the Cowlitz because the Cowlitz did not sign a treaty. However, the reference applies better to the Klickitat, the tribe Lansdale actually identified, who also did not sign a treaty. Joel Palmer, in 1855, was Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Oregon. In October of that year he wrote:
“The Klickitat Tribe, whose country is included within the limits of this purchase, [Yakima Treaty] had declined attending the council and were not represented by any of their tribe, and upon the return of these Yakima Chiefs and people from the Council, it is said the Klickitats were much enraged, at the sale of their country without their knowledge or consent, and declared they would not abide by an agreement in which they had no vote.” [1]
Palmer goes on to explain that he had required the Klickitats of the Willamette and Umpqua valleys to return to their home country east of the Cascades, though they had resided in Oregon for many years.
The land purchase involved in the Yakima Treaty did not include Clark County, nor did any treaty ever sell Indian land in Clark County. In 1855, Clark County was not claimed by any tribe. White settlement was well along, and the aboriginal Cathlapotle Chinookans had largely faded from history. What happened to Cassino's band after his death in 1848 is not recorded. But they too were never treated with or had their land purchased. And they were the undisputed aboriginals in the area.
According to the Lansdale report, this Lewis River band numbered about 100 in 1860 and was being allowed to remain on the land of a prominent settler who had been a member of Congress. From this it is possible to determine exactly where the band was camped in 1860. The first Washington Territory delegate to Congress was Columbia Lancaster. [2] He settled on his claim eleven years earlier along the Lewis River in 1849, along the south bank, just east of Gee Creek and including Squaw Island. “Columbia Lancaster DLC” still appears on legal descriptions, and nearby Lancaster Lake bears his name.
Lansdale's report does not suggest that the Indians had been there a long time, rather, that more recently they had been driven there by whites. By this time steamers were regularly going up and down both forks of the Lewis River and whites had been farming the Lewis River bottoms for up to15 years. Whatever their tribal affiliation, this group did not become indigenous after 1850 by permissive camping on land being legally settled by whites under the laws of the United States.
Lansdale wrote that 43 of the Indians voluntarily were moving overland to the Yakima Reservation. 37 others had gone by steamer to Rockland, Washington [across from the Dalles] and were proceeding from there to Lansdale's agency. This is consistent with their reported identity as Klickitat, a tribe that ultimately acquiesced in the Yakima Treaty and moved to the Yakima Reservation. [3] There is no reported evidence that this group or any of the families in this group later merged with the Cowlitz Tribe. [4]
BIA researchers looked at other parts of the Lansdale report and reached the same conclusion:
“The idea that Umtux' band was Taidnapam is apparently based entirely upon Ray's 1966 Handbook of the Cowlitz Indians. Even Ray's version provided no authority for the assumptions that the removal was directly from the Vancouver internment camp to the Yakima Reservation, that it was undertaken by the army, or that it ensued shortly after Umtux' death. It is clear from the full context that Lansdale classified this band not as `Lewis River Cowlitz' but as Klickitats.” [5].
The Catholic Church Records
In a letter dated January 30, 2004, Dr. Beckham refers to the “Vancouver Mission Sacramental Registers” and states:
“The priest indexed 101 different Cowlitz Indians involved in baptisms, and burials, through this mission. With an average of three `rites' per person this documents more than 300 different occasions in the years 1838-1860 of interactions of members of the Cowlitz Tribe with the priest of this mission.” [6]
In a recent talk he explained how this information supports the Cowlitz claim to Clark County:
“There is another place we can go and that is to the records of the Catholic missionaries who came to Fort Vancouver in 1839. In a period of less than a decade, there are now more than 100 Cowlitz Indians who were baptized, buried or married by the priests in the mission at Fort Vancouver. The reason that they were there, of course, is in part because they lived in Clark County and the Lewis River watershed.” [7]
If this were true it would be a very important piece of information, because there was also a mission at Toledo in Cowlitz country. If Cowlitz Indians were visiting Vancouver rather than Toledo, this supports the idea that they lived in Clark County.
But the statement is false. The index to the register lists more than 100 Cowlitz Indians in 23 years, of which less than a dozen participated in a rite at Vancouver, most of whom were wives or children of mixed marriages involving other tribes or whites. The vast majority of the rites were performed at the Mission of the Cowlitz near Toledo in the heart of Cowlitz aboriginal territory. The priests frequently traveled from Vancouver to the Cowlitz mission where there was a residence for them. [8] The main register of the Catholic Records was kept at Fort Vancouver, and notes the priests made while away were copied into it after their return. [9]
The mission at Cowlitz kept a separate register from Nov 1, 1842 through Oct 19, 1844,
published as part of the Vancouver records. [10] Most of the Cowlitz entries appear in this Cowlitz register. [11]
Vol. II of the Vancouver Church Records covers the years 1842 to 1860. There was one Cowlitz marriage recorded in this 19-year period. A Cowlitz baptism was performed “at the mountain of the Cowlitz”. Four baptisms were recorded of children born to one Cowlitz woman and there were six isolated others. There were no Cowlitz burials. Total Cowlitz identified at the Fort: 11, only one of whom participated in more than one event.
Volume II records identify approximately 70 Klickitat and a like number of Chinook with many entries indicating burials and many of the individuals recorded on several occasions. There were 59 Cascades Indians recorded during this time, 19 Iroquois and 18 Walla-Wallas.
The register shows that Klickitat and Chinook, in particular, frequented the Fort for religious ceremonies, while Cowlitz, as a group, did not. One man married a Cowlitz woman; they lived at or near the Fort and had four children. Five of eleven entries in fifteen years are from this family.
The Church Records strongly support an inference that Klickitat and Cowlitz were not of the same tribe. The priests consistently distinguished the two. Since the source of tribal identification was most likely the Indians, or their differing languages, it appears that Klickitats did not self-identify as Cowlitz in the1830s to 1850s.
Hudson's Bay Company Employment Records
One other important source of information is the records kept by the Hudson's Bay Company of the many traders, hunters, cooks, and other employees stationed at the Fort from 1827 to 1843. These employees and their families lived at Kanak Village, (named for the native Hawaiians) though in some cases the data may include HBC employees at other locations in the region. Indian males were not identified, except to indicate whether they were Iroquois or “other.” However, the tribal affiliation all Indian wives was recorded in detail. Out of 107 Indian wives recorded, only two were Cowlitz. [12]
Was Cathlapotle Village Ever Deserted?
Key to a reoccupation by a different tribe is the idea that Cathlapotle village was deserted in the early 1830s. More than one writer has made this assertion, citing the journal of Dr. Tolmie. But Tolmie did not record an observation of the site. He did make a crucial observation that the famous Chinookan Chief, Cassino, had his home in the Lewis river area in 1833.
Details of Tolmie's observations are found in Appendix “A” to this paper.
Was Chief Umtux or the Lewis River Band “Taidnapam”
The present day Cowlitz Tribe resulted from the merger of two tribes. As explained by the BIA:
“The Upper Cowlitz Indians (also known as the Cowlitz Klickitats). . .were later gradually amalgamated with the Lower Cowlitz Indians. After 1863, Federal government policies combined the Upper and Lower Cowlitz for administrative purposes, and during the 1860's attempted to place the two on the Chehalis Reservation. By 1878, the Indian Agent reported that prior hostilities between the two bands had ended and that they were beginning to intermarry. An actual community and political or tribal merger occurred gradually throughout the second half of the 19th century.” [13]
If separate tribes merge, it is legitimate for the merged group to claim all the aboriginal lands of the predecessor tribes. For this principle to have any application to the present questions, however, one of the tribes must have had aboriginal lands in Clark County. Here, the facts would have to show:
- The Cathlapotle Chinookans died out or moved away. (1830s)
- A new group took over.
- The takeover was long term and exclusive, such that the new group established its true cultural homeland in Clark County. (sometime before 1855 to 1860)
- The new group later consolidated with the Cowlitz. (1863 to 1878)
The Cowlitz Tribe says there was a group of Sahaptin speaking Indians known as Taidnapam living in the mountainous upper reaches of the Cowlitz and Lewis Rivers. These were either part of or closely related to the Klickitats. This group relocated to the mouth of the Lewis River sometime between 1830 and 1855, and established a new tribal homeland. Descendants of this group entered a tribal merger with the Lower Cowlitz in the second half of the 19th century.
This argument was carefully considered by the BIA historians and soundly rejected. The BIA Historical Technical Report (1997) says the “Tai-Tin-a-pam, a band of Klickitats. . . living near the head of the Cowlitz, are probably about seventy-five in number,” quoting Governor Isaac Stevens writing in 1853-4. [14] The headwaters of the Cowlitz rise on Mt Rainier. This is the group the BIA found to have merged with the Lower Cowlitz in subsequent decades. The finding was specific to this particular group and does not mean all Indians considered Taidnapam or Klickitat became part of the modern Cowlitz Tribe.
As previously noted, the BIA rejected “the idea that Umtux' band was Taidnapam.” However, if it did include Taidnapam, two questions remain: did these Indians establish an aboriginal homeland in Clark County, and did they later merge with the Lower Cowlitz?
The answer to the first question is same as if the group had already been Cowlitz when it moved in: too temporary, after white settlement, and not exclusive.
The BIA has answered the second question: the subsequent merger was with different Taidnapam, then still living near the upper reaches of the Cowlitz and Lewis Rivers. These were observed by J. Ross Browne, still living on Mt. Rainier in 1857, (two years after Umtux' death and three years before the Lansdale removal.) [15] If they were still there in 1857, they were not in Clark County in 1855 and 1860.
The BIA reports provides fine detail on the merger of Upper Cowlitz and Lower Cowlitz, even tracing the families involved. The merger was not between Cowlitz and all persons who might have been considered Taidnapam. It happened over time as a result of forcing the Upper Cowlitz families to live with the lower Cowlitz. The family names of Upper Cowlitz traced from the time of the merger do not include the few family names that can be associated with the Lewis River Indians. [16] The Lewis River Indians were not forced into any merger with the Cowlitz.
Cowlitz' conflicting positions on the tribal affiliation of the Lewis River Indians in the 1850s have major conceptual and evidentiary problems:
In 1855, Indians known as Cowlitz spoke a Salish language. Did they first transform into Sahaptin speakers, enemies of the Cowlitz, and then merge with them after 1863? Or were they Cowlitz all along, making the merger irrelevant?
If the Lewis River Indians were Upper Cowlitz Taidnapam, did they first move from Mt. Rainier to the Lewis River, then back up to Mt. Rainier, and a third time down to the Chehalis valley for the merger? How could Browne have seen them, still on Mt. Rainier in 1857?
The Cowlitz merger happened gradually after 1863, and hostilities subsided by 1878. If Umtux was Taidnapam, how could he have been Chief of his Cowlitz enemies when he died in 1855?
The Lewis River Indians went en masse to the Yakima reservation in 1860. Did they move off that reservation to Mt. Rainier, then join the migration to the Chehalis valley to merge with the Lower Cowlitz in 1863?
Conclusion:
The BIA and the Indian Claims Commission properly rejected a Cowlitz claim to aboriginal territory in Clark County. The evidence shows that after the Cathlapotle Chinook, Klickitats inhabited Clark County near the mouth of the Lewis River. They were not identified as Cowlitz in the 1850s. In 1860 they joined the Yakamas, not the group that later merged with the Cowlitz Tribe.
-----
Alvin Alexanderson
The Author
I am Alvin Alexanderson, a resident of the area and an attorney with experience in researching historical records and Indian matters, but not a professional historian. I have appeared in dozens of courts in several states, before state and federal administrative agencies and in state and Federal appellate Courts. I am a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Oregon.
I intend this document to be relied upon by any individual or tribunal seeking the truth of the matters covered. To the best of my ability, it gives a true picture of the historical facts, as they can now be determined.
I have an interest in the matter because I own property near the proposed reservation and I oppose the development of the land. I have not been offered any payment to prepare or present this information.
I have legal training in how to rank and evaluate evidence, for example, giving more weight to contemporaneous records than to accounts by people who were not there. Discovering the truth about historical matters is mainly about obtaining and evaluating evidence. I have done this kind of work for over thirty years.
I have studied the ethical rules applicable to historians and make this pledge to the reader:
- Nothing herein has intentionally been altered, or had its meaning changed, been taken out of context, or given the wrong context.
- Where I have inserted bracketed information, I believe it conveys a meaning generally agreed among historians and researchers. I do not use bracketing to lead the reader to conclude that a disputed meaning is an accepted fact.
- If I am aware of important contrary evidence, it has been disclosed. I may state my disagreement with it, but I do not leave it out.
- To the extent possible and as time has permitted, I have checked primary sources, rather than relying on undocumented or unverified secondary accounts.
- If I know that a source has been discredited or proven wrong, I say so or do not use it.
- I have circulated my drafts to others for review and comment. I have not withheld any challenges to my interpretations. I have written a separate response to some arguments by Professor Beckham and Dennis Whittlesey.
- This is a work in process and I have not been able yet to obtain and check every source that may be considered evidence. I plan to update it as needed.
APPENDIX A- Tolmie's observations.
Interpretation of Dr. Tolmie's journal requires knowledge of the river features and distances, in order to apply his travel times and interpret landmarks. It is best done with a contour map of the Columbia and its banks from the Oak Point area to Vancouver.
1833: At 6: 30 PM on May 2, 1833 Tolmie passed Oak Point, heading upstream. Oak Point is 14 miles downstream of the Cowlitz River. His crew paddles for three hours and camps [17].
The next day, May 3, 1833, they start out a 5:30 AM and arrive three hours later at “Tawalish, a small lodge near to where Kiesno the highest chief on the river & his party are encamped.” “Kiesno intends proceeding to the fort today.”
Tolmie notes that the Tawalish River mouth is broad and flat and that canoes going to Fraser's river ascend it. Tolmie has not yet passed the famous Coffin Rock, an important Indian burial site.
The Tawalish River has to be the Cowlitz River, located 5 miles below Coffin Rock. There is no other significant river between Oak Point and Coffin Rock. Only the Cowlitz River leads to the Puget Sound area and the Fraser River. On his return trip, he calls it the Cowlitz River and ascends it, May 21, 1834.
At 10:30 he passes Coffin Rock. From Oak Point to Coffin Rock is about 19 miles. Tolmie has recorded paddling time totaling 5 hours less an unrecorded amount of time spent to talk with Kiesno and to catch a snake at the Cowlitz River. Average speed with no stops would be about 4 miles per hour. However, speed would vary a lot with tide, and current.
At 11:30 he has breakfast and Kiesno arrives. He starts along Deer Island at 1:30 PM and at 3:00 still has _ hour to go to pass the island. Deer Island is about 6 miles long. He is making about 3 mph over the ground.
At 4:00 PM he notes that his course is south. Just past Deer Island, the course of an upstream traveler turns south to the Lewis River. Tolmie notes an extensive plain on the Eastern Shore. The Woodland area is the only place above Coffin Rock where hills recede extensively on the east bank.
At 5:30 he is at a “river which flows into the Columbia in a S.W. by S. direction.” His travel time from the upstream end of Deer Island was two hours. At three mph the distance covered would be 6 miles. Lewis River enters flowing S. W. about 5 miles from Deer Island.
At the mouth of the unnamed river, Tolmie writes “Chief Kiesno lives on its banks, and I now see his canoe a good way up paddling homewards.”
Tolmie's crew paddles 9.5 hours, arriving at the Fort at 3 am. The distance from the Lewis River to Vancouver is 20 river miles, or just over two miles per hour.
There can be no doubt Kiesno (Cassino) “highest chief on the river” lived on or near the Lewis river in 1833. Tolmie's travel times and observations do not allow for any other interpretation.
APPENDIX B-Author's Analysis of the Church Records.
- Entries in Vol II were classified at Vancouver, unless stated otherwise in the Priest's notes.
- If the entry states that it was at Vancouver or is listed under “Acts done at Vancouver” it is so classified.
- If the rites were listed as being “Acts made at the Cowlitz” or “of the mission of Colville” or “mission to the Cowlitz” they were classified as not at Vancouver.
- If the entries appeared in the separate register kept for the Cowlitz mission the rites were classified as not at Vancouver.
- If there was no location given, the entries were examined for Canadian names associated with the Cowlitz mission and farm. See A-73. The reference names used were Bouchard, Fagnant, Plamondon, Bercier, and Coutenoir. If a reference name is listed in the entry the rite is classified as not at Vancouver.
- If the entry appears in a group of rites near in time to an entry that has place information it is classified with the latter.
The author found 11 Vancouver rites listed under “Cowlitz” in the index. All the rest took place somewhere else, usually at Cowlitz or Colville (Colville possibly being a translation error.)
Footnotes
[1] October 9, 1855. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Oregon Superindendency
[2] An Illustrated History of the State of Washington, The Lewis Publishing Co. p. 151 (1893)
[3] Now Yakama Reservation and Yakama Nation.
[4] As claims cases were anticipated got under way, some Yakima Indians sought to join the Cowlitz and participate in any monetary award for land claims in Clark County. Some were allowed to join, and controversy over the “Yakima Cowlitz” continues. Genealogical Technical Report p. 93
[5] Historical Technical Report p. 64-7.
[6] Further Considerations of Professor Beckham, Environmental Assessment Exhibit O
[7] Talk given at Woodland on April 13, 2004
[8] Catholic Church Records of the Pacific Northwest Vol I and II, Warner and Munick, French Prairie Press 1972, Introduction.
[9]Ibid., A-73
[10] Ibid., 72-82.
[11] See Appendix B for an explanation of the authors method to decript the index.
[12] Demographics of Kanaka Village 1827-1843, Ron Towner
[13] Summary under the Criteria and Evidence for Proposed Finding Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Feb 12, 1997, 62 Federal Register 8983.
[14] Historical Technical Report Cowlitz Indian Tribe p 27 et seq.
[15] Ibid., 70
[16] Anthropological Technical Report p. 19 et seq.
[17] All journal references are by date of entry to The Journals of William Fraser Tolmie Physician and Fur Trader, Mitchell Press Ltd. Vancouver Canada 1963.
Return to page one
Previous page
For More Information Contact:
American Land Rights Association
Tel: 360-687-3087 - FAX: 360-687-2973
Email us with questions or comments about this web site.
All pages on this website are ©1999-2006, American Land Rights Association. Permission is granted to use any and all information herein, as long as credit is given to ALRA
