The tone of the three immediately preceding letters, is more pacific than might have been anticipated. Indeed, they seem to indicate a change in the intentions of the writer, which it will be found somewhat difficult to reconcile with portions of his subsequent conduct. He is in these letters—particularly the last addressed to Lieutenant Langan, though intended more especially for the information of Sir John Johnson—the friend of peace—perhaps being compelled to assume that attitude by the force of circumstances—having reason to anticipate the success—temporary, as it proved—which was to crown the Indian diplomacy of General St Clair. In his first letter to Langan, Brant had declared that "the Six Nations had sold themselves to the devil," or, in other words, "to the Yankees," which in his opinion was equivalent thereto—and the result was shortly afterward such as to sustain his sagacity.
No records of the proceedings of the grand council so long assembling in the Autumn of 1788, have been discovered, although it appears by a letter from Captain Brant to his friend Matthews, who had returned once more to Quebec, written in March, 1789, that all the proceedings and speeches had been forwarded—by Captain McKee probably—to Lord Dorchester. The presumption is, that the council came to no harmonious conclusion, inasmuch as a treaty was shortly afterward held with the Americans at Fort Harmar, which was attended by only a part of the Indians, while its proceedings were subsequently disavowed by other and the larger portions of the nations.
Be these things, however, as they may, on the 2d of May following, (1789, [FN-1]) General St. Clair wrote to President Washington from New-York, announcing that on the 9th of the preceding month of January, he had concluded two separate treaties with the Indians assembled in council at Fort Harmar; the first with the sachems and warriors of the Five Nations, the Mohawks excepted—and the second with the sachems and warriors of the Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa, Chippewa, Pottawattamie and Sac Nations. The reason of these separate negotiations, as explained by General St. Clair, Was found in the Roman maxim—"Divide et impera." "A jealousy," says the General, "subsisted between them, which I was not willing to lessen by appearing to consider them as one people. They do not so consider themselves; and I am persuaded their general confederacy is entirely broken. Indeed, it would not be very difficult, if circumstances required it, to set them at deadly variance." [FN-2] This Machiavellian policy of dividing to conquer—of poising nations, tribes, and factions against each other, that all may the more easily be crushed at will—is an ancient mode of war, and has been practised by every government having the opportunity. Its morality, however, cannot be defended—more especially in regard to the simple children of the American forests, against whom it has been prosecuted with the greatest success. Still, there was an approximation to justice, in a pecuniary point of view, toward the Indians, in these negotiations of General St Clair, which had not been previously countenanced by Congress. From the date of the peace with England, to the reception of the address of October, 1786, from the Grand Council at Huron Village, Congress had acted upon the principle that the treaty with Great Britain invested them with the fee of all the Indian lands within the boundaries of the United States. The address of the Indian Council, of December, 1786, written, as has been assumed, by Captain Brant, asserted a contrary principle—viz: that the Indians were the only rightful proprietors of the soil. And this principle was acceded to in the instructions of Congress to General St. Clair, of October, 1787, and July, 1788. [FN-3] However greatly the Indians may have been defrauded since that date, such has at least been the basis of all subsequent negotiations with them for lands.
[FN-1] Erroneously dated, May 2d, 1788, in the State Papers as will be seen by the dates of the treaties, and by the Report of the Secretary of War, July 7, 1789.
[FN-2] St. Clair's letter, Am. State Papers, Vol. IV. p. 10.
[FN-3] Vide State Papers, Vol IV. p. 9; and report of the Secretary of War, July 15, 1789—same vol. p. 13.
Although the Mohawks were not parties to the treaty of Fort Harmar, yet it appears that they, at least their chief, Thayendanegea, must have been present at its negotiation. This fact is disclosed in a passage in his letter to Major Matthews, already referred to: "You'll hear by this opportunity the result of our jaunt to the southward, as Captain McKee has sent down all the proceedings of our councils with the American Commissioners, speeches, and answers. Our proceedings have been such as I hope will be approved of. I must farther mention that much may yet be done, if we meet with necessary assistance, as business cannot be carried on in the upper country to advantage without the attendance of the Five Nations, which they cannot do without being more amply supplied than heretofore with ammunition, provisions, &c. I have ever been forward in pointing out what I thought would tend to the good of our service, and which has ever been attended to, notwithstanding that my friends below seem to credit these reports. Still, my attachment to government is such, that personal injury will not have sufficient weight to make me swerve from the duty I owe my King." [FN]
[FN] Letter from Joseph Brant to Capt. Matthews, March 8,1789, among the Brant papers. Writing to Governor Clinton respecting the conduct of Captain Brant touching St. Clair's proceedings at Fort Harmar, President Washington said—"Captain Brant has not been candid in his account of General St. Clair, nor done justice in his representation of matters at Muskingum. It is notorious that he need all the art and influence of which he was possessed to prevent any treaty being held; and that, except in a small degree, General St. Clair aimed at no more land by the treaty of Muskingum than had been ceded by the preceding treaties."Letter from President Washington to Governor Clinton, Dec. 1, 1790.