The indigenous people of what is now the state of Michigan and the Great Lakes region of North America

have
always referred to themselves as the Anishnaabeg, loosely translated into English as "The People," or "The
Original People." The Anishnaabeg are commonly known today as the Ojibway (or Chippewa), the
Odawa (or Ottawa), and the Bodowadomie (or Pottawatomie).

Anishnaabeg creation stories trace their origins to the beginning of time, and the people believe that the Creator
gave them a special relationship with the land on which they live. It is undisputed that American Indian peoples
have lived in Michigan for much longer than non-Indian peoples, who have inhabited the area for just over 350
years (Cleland, 1992:11

In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the People of the Three Fires, the Chippewa, Odawa, and
Potawatomi, collectively known as the Anishinaabeg, negotiated a series of treaties with representatives of the
United States government. These treaties continue to have force today. They affect the rights and privileges of
both Indians and Euro-Americans

One of the most fundamental differences separating Indians and Euro-Americans was in how they thought about
land ownership. For the Anishinaabeg land was something "owned" by no one particular person. Like the air
breathed by Indians or the water in which a canoe floated, the land was simply there to be used. Basil Johnston,
a contemporary teller of traditional Ojibway stories, illustrates this sense of possession in his book Ojibway
Ceremonies. In this volume he relates a story called "The Council" a speech made by Chief Mishi-Waub-
Kaikaik. The Council had been called to discuss whether or not to sign treaties with the Whites. Mishi-Waub-
Kaikaik told his fellow chiefs:

To control and possess the land as the White Man wishes does not make sense. Can man possess a gust
of the North Wind or a measure of flowing water? Can he control a mass of clouds or a herd of moose?

No. Do not mistake the truth. It is not man who owns the land; it is the land that owns man. And we, the
Anishnabeg, were placed on this land. From beginning to end it nourishes us; it quenches our thirst, it
shelters us, and we follow the order of its seasons. It give us freedom to come and go according to its
nature and its extent--great freedom when the extent is large, less freedom when it is small. And when we
die we are buried within the land that outlives us all. We belong to the land by birth, by need, and by
affection. And no man may presume to own the land. Only the tribe can do that."

[Basil Johnston, Ojibway Ceremonies, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982); 1990 edition,
p.169-170]

Mishi-Waub-Kaik could not understand the White man's concept of property ownership, American law had only
the most limited way to incorporate Mishi-Waub-Kaik's views. American law divided property rights into two
types: usufructuary and fee simple. Usufructuary rights, or the rights to harvest the "bounty" of the land such as
wild animals or wild plants without regard to personal ownership, is as close a match as American law held to
the Indian concept of ownership. Usufructuary rights, however, were in American law always secondary to the
concept of fee simple ownership.

The concept of fee simple conveys to the owner a right to do with the land as the owner chooses. The land is
held exclusively by the individual owner and can be used without regard to the wishes of the community.
Although in the twentieth century fee simple ownership has been somewhat limited in practice, for example
communities may pass zoning ordinances that control the type of land use or buildings that may be put up in a
particular location, the concept of fee simple ownership remains the basic way American law discusses the land
Just as there was a fundamental conceptual difference between the Anishinaabeg and the Euro-Americans over
the concept of land ownership there was also a fundamental difference over the process through which an
agreement was to be reached

For the Indians, the most fundamental issue was finding a way to stay in their homeland and retain its use.
Continual western settlement by Euro-Americans created a crisis among Indians. Treaty negotiations were a
tool that could be used by Indians to attempt to hold the land, delay settlement, or when faced with inevitable
White immigration, protect the tribe insofar as possible from the consequences of settlement.

For the United States government treaties in the Great Lakes region had two goals. Prior to 1815 the basic
objective was to maintain the peace. At a minimum treaties sought to assure the Indian tribes neutrality in the
ongoing rivalry between the Americans in the Old Northwest Territory and the British in Canada. For a brief
period Indian tribes were able to play off American and British interests in order to obtain favorable agreements.
However, with the conclusion of the War of 1812 the Indians' ability to play the British against the Americans
all but vanished. In this new environment treaties were transformed from a mechanism to maintain peace to a
means through which to obtain the land. Government negotiators sought to "extinguish" such claims as the
Indians might have to the land. This action prepared the way for the entry of white settlers into a particular area
and the legal and orderly transfer of land ownership, as Euro-Americans understood this process, from the
government to settlers.

In general the negotiations held between Indians and the United States government were not conducted on a
level playing field. The most obvious difference was that negotiations frequently followed a military defeat of
the Indians or took place within a framework in which the Indians understood that, if necessary, the United
States government would resort to military force. For example, The Battle of Fallen Timbers, which occurred in
northern Ohio in 1794 represented a major military setback for the Indian tribes of the Great Lakes. It preceded
and set the tone for the Treaty of Fort Greenville in 1795