The 1851 treaty at Fort Laramie was negotiated on the United States side by federal commissioners who came to the Plains with clear objectives set in Washington. Understanding who they were and what they sought helps explain both the shape of the agreement and the misunderstandings that followed.
Who represented the United States
The negotiations were led principally by David D. Mitchell, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs at St. Louis, who had long experience in the fur trade and in dealings on the Plains. He was joined by the agent Thomas Fitzpatrick, a former trapper and guide whose knowledge of the country and its peoples made him a key figure. Interpreters, traders, and other experienced frontiersmen assisted in bridging the many languages spoken at the council. The Jesuit missionary Pierre-Jean De Smet also attended and was respected by many of the nations present.
The government aims
The commissioners came with several goals. First and foremost was the safety of the overland trails. By 1851 the number of emigrants crossing the Plains had grown dramatically, and the government wanted assurances of peaceful passage, together with the right to establish roads and military posts along the routes.
A second aim was to reduce conflict among the Plains nations themselves, which the government believed threatened the stability of the region and the safety of travelers. To this end the treaty attempted to assign each nation a recognized territory. In return, the United States promised annual distributions of goods for a term of years.
Underlying these specific aims was a broader assumption common among United States officials of the era: that Native nations could be persuaded to accept fixed territories and a settled relationship with the federal government as westward migration rose.
Aims and understandings that did not match
The commissioners tended to view the treaty through the lens of clear boundaries and orderly administration. Many Native leaders, by contrast, understood the agreement as a promise of peace, respect for their lands, and compensation for the disruption emigration caused. These differing understandings, combined with later changes made in Washington, set the stage for disputes.
Notably, the Senate reduced the term of the promised annuities after the treaty was signed, a change the Native signers had not agreed to at the council. Such alterations undercut trust and foreshadowed the broken promises of later years. To read more, see our articles on the Horse Creek council and the promised annuities, or explore the 1851 treaty history category.
Leave a Reply