Lenape ownership of the Delaware valley has been disputed in two ways; (1) supposedly the Susquehannocks sold Delaware valley lands in the seventeenth century; (2) in the eighteenth century, the Iroquois briefly denied Lenape ownership, asserting an Iroquois "right of conquest." Neither of these challenges to the Lenape title withstands close examination. I have already published a refutation of the Iroquois claim in "The Delaware Interregnum," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 89 (1965); pp. 174-198. My present purpose is to show that the Susquehannock's never claimed Lenape lands.

To substantiate this thesis, I must account for four references in the sources: (1) Thomas Campanius Holm's remark that the Lenape were "subject and tributary" to the Susquehannock's¹;   (2) Lenape chief Mattahorn's remark to Governor Stuyvesant in 1651 that he and other Lenape sachems "were great Chiefs and Proprietors of the lands, both by ownership and by descent and appointment of Minquaas [Susquehannock's] and River Indians [Lenape]"²;   (3) a deposition made in 1684 by old Swedish settlers on the Delaware that Swedish Governor Peter Minuit in 1638 "agreed with the Susquehanna Indians and bought from them as much of the Adjacent Lands as they could shoot over with a Cannon bullet from Cristina"³;   (4) a deposition made in 1638 by four crewmen of the Swedish ship Kalniar Nyckel, stating that five sachems, representing Susquehannock nations as well as Lenape, "transferred all the land, as many days' journeys on all places and parts of the river as they [the Swedes] requested; upwards and on both sides."⁴

Besides these source records, there is a positive statement by the authoritative historian of New Sweden, Amandus Johnson. He wrote that the Susquehannock's, about 1630-1636, "were at war with the Delaware [Lenape], who were conquered by them, compelled to pay taxes and to recognize their sovereignty and supervision in matters of land treaties and the like with the whites.⁵

It will be best to take up these documents in turn.

(1) The Holm remark identifies no specific transactions. Its vagueness makes it a matter of interpretation as I have already dealt with it in the body of this article.

(2) The Dutch transaction in 1651 needs to be seen as part of a series of Dutch actions. These began in 1633 when Arent Corssen, an employee of the Dutch West India Company, sailed into the Schuylkill River and there purchased a small plot of land from the Lenape living in the important village of Passyunk.⁶   As often happened, Corssen made only a down payment on his purchase price; the Dutch forgot about the rest until their quarrel with the Swedes made it expedient for them to re-negotiate Corssen's purchase.⁷   In 1646 Dutch Commissioner Andries Hudde bought the area called Wicaco from Lenape sachems Sheghire Hondon and Rinnowhj (Renowickam).⁸    In 1648 Hudde began to build on the Schuylkill, saying that he had been invited to do so by the sachems of Passyunk, who were "the native proprietors."⁹

In 1651 Governor Stuyvesant came to the Delaware from Manhattan, and had two conferences with various Indians. In each of these conferences, the Lenape sachems asserted their ownership of the land and presented some of it to Stuyvesant.¹¹   Finally, in 1655 four Lenape sachems conveyed to representatives of Governor Stuyvesant certain lands "so far landward in as our right extends. To wit, to the bounds and limits of the Minquaes [Susquehannock's'] country." The special significance of this act was created by the presence of four Susquehannock sachems as witnesses. They were not parties to the conveyance, and they did not protest Lenape claims; the conveying deed lists only Lenape sachems as granting parties.¹²   There can be no reasonable doubt that the Dutch recognized only the Lenape as native owners of the soil.

(3) and (4). The Swedish depositions. The 1684 deposition of Swedish settlers is suspect for at least two reasons, and it is contradicted by other sources of greater probative value. To begin with, the deponents were all over seventy years old, and the precision of their memories is at least open to question. Secondly, the deposition is carefully marked, "These Antient Sweeds doe Certify respectively from the date of their arrivall." Since none of them affirmed being with Governor Minuit in 1638, and none is on record as so being, their testimony about the 1638 transaction can be considered hearsay; their own disclaimer of responsibility is the strongest reason for so classifying it.

Contrary sources include the deposition of 1638, in the following respects:

I do not here affirm the correctness of the 1638 deposition, the all-inclusive language of which was almost certainly the product of active imaginations. It is given here as one among several documents contradicting the 1684 deposition. My point here is simply that the two depositions, of 1638 and 1684, cannot both be held for true. From other sources I propose to show that neither was true.

The most plausible deponent about the 1638 proceedings was the Lenape chief Mattahorn. He stated that he had been present when Minuit came up the Delaware, and had bargained with Minuit. So far, his statements are confirmed by the sailors' deposition of 1638, which mentions Mattahorn by name as one of the participating sachems. Mattahorn's testimony about the nature of the bargain, however, is in flat contradiction to the sailors'. Mattahorn told his story twice to the Dutch, the first time with other Lenape sachems agreeing, in 1648; the second time, in 1651, to Stuyvesant himself. Mattahorn asserted that Governor Minuit had bought only a small piece of land at Paghackingas much as was contained within "six trees" "to plant some tobacco on it." In addition to "some small things" given as presents, the Indians were to receive half the tobacco raised on their granted land. They never got it. Mattahorn said that all the other lands occupied by the Swedes had been "stolen." He referred only to Lenape landowners. Allowing for Dutch purposes in recording his words, he still sounds truer to what we know of Indian ways than the 1638 deposition of the Kalniar Nyckel seamen.¹⁴

Finally, we have the manuscript journal of Governor Johan Rising, as translated and extracted by Amandus Johnson. On 17 June, 1654, Rising met with twelve sachems of the Lenapeno Susquehannock's being presentand "reminded them of the land, which we had bought from them." He requested their confirmation of the sale, which (according to Rising) they gave. Clearly he was engaged in trickery; for, when he showed the old deeds to the Lenape sachems, he read only their names, omitting entirely the substance of the deeds. (Thus he could claim later that he had won their assent to the transfer of all their lands, while they were actually agreeing only to what they remembered of their former transactions.) For our purpose, however, we need only note that when the Susquehannock sachem Agaliquanes called on Rising the very next day after his conference with the Lenape, no mention was made of lands. If the Susquehannock's had participated as grantors in the earlier transactions, they would surely have been required, like the Lenape, to confirm their grants. Rising's failure to raise the subject with Agaliquanes points unmistakably to Rising's knowledge that the Susquehannock's made no claim to the Delaware valley lands. This conclusion is strengthened by a further fact. On 7 June, 1755, the Susquehannock's did present some land to the Swedes, clearly identified in Rising's journal as being on the east side of the Elk River. There was no doubt of Susquehannock right there; the Elk fell into Chesapeake Bay and was accordingly outside any Lenape claim. It appears, then, that Governor Rising, like the Dutch, recognized Lenape ownership of the Delaware valley.¹⁵

Rising's journal contradicts Holm directly. Holm stated that the Indians' deeds "were read to them word for word." Rising stated that he had read only the sachems' names on the deeds. Eyewitness Peter Lindeström also stated explicitly that only the sachems' names were read.¹⁶ The testimony of the two participants certainly outweighs that of the man who used them as his sources, and the discrepancy raises a question. Why did Holm alter what was so plainly stated in his sources? It would appear that Holm was engaged in the familiar historical process of tidying up his ancestors' morals for public display.

We turn now to Amandus Johnson's assertion of Susquehannock sovereignty, which is all the more puzzling because Johnson translated and edited the Swedish documents recited above. For his dictum, Johnson cited three sources. First, he gave Thomas Campanius Holm, about whom no more need be said. Johnson also cited "Young's Report" and Lindeström, without specifying pages.¹⁷   "Young's Report," which Johnson located without series, volume, or page number in the massive Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, apparently refers to the Relation of Captain Thomas Yong who visited the Delaware River in 1634. This document was printed in Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, 4th series, 9 (1871) : pp. 117-131. Nothing in Yong's Relation refers to sovereignty, taxes, tribute, or land treaties. He wrote only that the Susquehannock's and the Lenape were in a state of war while he was on the Delaware, with the Susquehannock's apparently having the better of it.

Johnson's third cited source, Peter Lindeström, wrote nothing to warrant a belief in Susquehannock sovereignty over the Lenape; on the contrary, he asserted emphatically the independence and proprietary rights of the Lenape. He specifically listed six Lenape towns on the west bank of the Delaware, having "the most intelligent savages of several nations of savages, who own this River and dwell here . . . [under six sachems] each one commanding his tribe or people under him . . . and these chiefs have their names after the name of the countries which they rightfully own."¹⁸

Thus, with Yong and Lindeström eliminated, only Holm is left as source for Amandus Johnson's sweeping assertion of Susquehannock sovereignty; and, as we have seen, Johnson's quotations from Governor Rising's journal emphasize the distinction between the territories of the Susquehannock's and of the Lenape. It appears that Johnson's "sovereignty" remark was unfounded.

Some of the difficulty in interpreting the sources arises from ambiguity in their language, but perhaps a further thought may be permitted about the confusion. It is to be explained, I think, by the different interests of the parties making the records. The Dutch and the Swedes were all present on the Delaware with one strong motive: they wanted to make a lot of money fast. People with that motive rarely concern themselves much about niceties of truth and honor, and there is every reason to believe that the present case followed the rule. The simplest way to "save the phenomena" is to conclude that the records were kept with less attention to accuracy than to profit. When that rather obvious assumption is made, the conflicts in the sources can be explained in each instance by the situation then prevailing. Perhaps the reader will forgive me for leaving the rest to him.

However, we have to do the best we can with what we have, and there are two more bits of evidence that may be added to the file. The Dutchman, Andries Hudde, and the Swede, Johan Printz, sent private reports to their respective higher authorities, which show complete agreement on the distinction between Susquehannock and Lenape territories. In 1648 Hudde complained that the Swedes were claiming to have bought all the land "on this River [Delaware] . . . likewise the Minquas [Susquehannock's'] land."¹⁹   In 1651 Governor Printz wrote that the Swedes had bought the Susquehannock's' country "six years ago, only for the sake of trade," but that the Swedes had lawfully bought "this country" (the Delaware valley) and "possessed it entirely without reproach for fourteen years."²⁰

Taking all this evidence into account, I can find no serious justification for concluding other than that the Lenape rights of ownership in the Delaware valley were fully respected by the Susquehannock's and recognized by the Europeans.