Download Lecture

Lecture 44: Indians in North America: Experiences with the
United States Government
Introduction
The years between’ 1783 and 1891 were a devastating period for the Indians of the United
States. In 1783 the new nation’s territory was limited primarily to the eastern seaboard. By 1830
its territory included most of the area east of the Mississippi, and by 1853 United States territory
stretched to the Pacific. Although the government had acquired the territory from European and
Mexican governments, the land was inhabited by Indians, most of whom were unwilling to
accept the sovereignty of the United States. Working against the Indians’ claims to their land
were the hordes of settlers ready to take the lands, pushing the Indians to lands farther west. In
response to the tremendous demand of non-Indians for Indian lands, the government tried a
number of methods of dealing with Indians, most aimed at taking their land.
The Continental Congress initially dealt with the Indians as separate but conquered
peoples who could be moved west to “Indian Country” and who need not be reimbursed for their
lands. When the demand for land grew, inducements in the form of “permanent” land grants and
payments were offered to Indians who would move west, and when they failed, military force
was used to march Indians off of their lands. The government next moved to open more land to
non-Indian settlement and to assimilate Indians into non-Indian culture by reducing “Indian
Country” to a number of small reservations. By 1880 even the tribes of the West had been
confined to small reservations; by 1891 allotment of Indian land to individual Indians had
resulted in the ceding of more than 12 million acres of reservation land (Debo, p. 305).
Indians’ resistance to demands for their removal was usually futile. Indians in the Ohio
area led by Little Turtle, resisted intrusion into their territory for four years but were finally
defeated by United States troops. Resistance and revolts were also used as pretexts for removal.
Thus, Indians could choose between removing themselves voluntarily and being forced by the
military on a long exodus that could take the lives of thousands. Tribes often split into opposing
factions, one side believing that removal was inevitable and therefore willing to sign treaties and
the other side refusing to give up tribal lands no matter the cost. Traditional tribal government
and unity were frequently casualties of removal and reservation policies. Eventually, however,
policies such as allotment provoked widespread opposition among Indians and resulted in
organized resistance, particularly among the Indians of “Indian Country” in Oklahoma.
Nevertheless, the government continued to weaken the protective provisions of the Allotment
Act, easing the way for the alienation of Indians’ lands.
Lecture 44: Indians in North America: Experiences with the United States Government
I.
Indians in the New Republic
A.
United States Indian policy was based in large part on English policy, which
encouraged the separation of colonists and Indians. King George III articulated
this policy in the Proclamation of 1763, which set up boundaries between Indian
and non-Indian lands, creating the first “Indian Country” (Tyler, pp. 29-30).
B.
The Continental Congress affirmed its exclusive right, as the agent of the United
States, to deal with the Indians. Its first priority in handling Indian affairs was the
question of Indian lands. The federal government’s efforts, however, were
frequently thwarted by the British and by state’s rights advocates.
1.
Within three weeks of the signing of the Peace of Paris, the Continental
Congress issued a proclamation forbidding trespass on Indian lands. Weak
enforcement, however, allowed settlers to take possession of Indian lands.
2.
In 1778 the government signed its first Indian treaty with the Delaware
(Lenni Lenape). That treaty, later repudiated by the Delaware, gave the
United States the right of access through Indian lands and the promise of
Indian supplies and troops for the war against Britain. In the years
following the Peace of Paris, the United States negotiated land-cession
treaties with a number of tribes.
a.
The initial treaties of the 1780s with the Iroquois, Delaware,
Wyandot, Chippewa, Ottowa, Shawnee, and Cherokee were based
on the presumption that Indian land claims had been extinguished
by conquest; therefore, no compensation was offered for the ceded
lands (Prucha, p. 34).
b.
The government eventually recognized that if conquest was the
only means of obtaining legitimate Indian land cessions, the
country would be involved in protracted wars it could not afford.
Therefore, United States representatives began to negotiate treaties
that offered payments for Indian land. The first of these was the
treaty of Fort Harmar in January 1789, which granted a small
compensation for the land ceded in the treaties of Fort Stanwix and
Fort McIntosh (Prucha, p. 40).
3.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the ensuing Indian resistance, and the
Treaty of Greenville 71n 1795 set the pattern for future cession of Indian
lands (Debo, pp. 91-94).
a.
Indian land acquired through treaty and purchase was to be divided
into one-square-mile tracts and sold to settlers.
b.
The Indians of the Northwest, however, refused to accept the
treaties that deprived them of their lands. They argued that the
agreements were signed by Indians who lacked tribal authority, that
Indian signatures were obtained through coercion and trickery, and
that the original land-cession treaties were based on the
presumption that tribes were conquered nations.
c.
The Wyandot, Miami, Shawnee, Chippewa, Delaware, and
Potawatomi, led by Little Turtle, resisted United States troop
expeditions into the Ohio country from 1790 to 1794. In 1794,
however, United States troops defeated a large Indian force and
began destroying Indian villages.
d.
In the Treaty of Greenville in 1795, twelve Indian tribes were
forced to cede southeastern Indiana and all of Ohio. The defeated
Indians withdrew to Indiana.
B.
During the War of 1812 some Indians fought for the British, but others fought for
the United States. The fate of Indians on either side was similar (Debo, pp. 109-
12).
1.
2.
C.
II.
Led by Tecumseh, a Shawnee leader, Indians in the Ohio Territory and the
Red Sticks of the Creek Confederacy joined the British side. After
Britain’s defeat these Indians were forced to flee or sign land-cession
treaties.
Other members of the Creek federation fought with United States troops.
At the end of the war, they were forced to sign a treaty which dealt with
them as if they were a conquered people and required them to give up the
majority of their territory.
The land cessions obtained at the end of the War of 1812 were only a prelude to
future American demands. Settlers continued to demand that the Indians give up
more land and move west.
Removal and Westward Expansion
A.
Between 1790 and 1825, the government passed legislation that defined the
changing boundaries between “Indian Country and non-Indian lands. This
legislation prohibited non-Indian settlement in “Indian Country” and included
inducements for eastern tribes to relocate west of the boundary, promising them
perpetual possession of their new lands.
1.
Four temporary acts passed in the 1790s gave the federal government the
authority to regulate trade in “Indian Country,” to supervise the entry of
non-Indians, to expel trespassers, and to punish crimes committed in “Indian
Country.” The boundaries of “Indian Country” were defined and redefined.
2.
In 1802 a permanent trade and intercourse act reiterated the provisions of
the temporary acts and clearly defined the boundary between “Indian
Country” and non-Indian lands. This act, with periodic additions, remained
in force until 1834.
3.
After the addition of the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson and others
proposed that the Mississippi River be the new boundary for “Indian
Country.” Eastern tribes were encouraged to voluntarily relocate
west of the Mississippi.
4.
In 1825 President Monroe proposed new boundaries for “Indian Country”
and asked for increased emphasis on the voluntary removal of eastern Indian
tribes. The proposed ‘‘Indian Line” ran along the western borders of
Arkansas and Missouri. In the north the Mississippi River was the boundary
(Prucha, p. 229).
B.
In the 1830s Congress passed legislation providing Indians who would relocate
with permanent homelands, government assistance, and liberal compensation.
Although the enabling legislation did not provide for forced removal, military
force was used to remove Indians who did not relocate voluntarily.
1.
Despite their efforts to remain on their lands in Alabama, the Creek
Indians were forced to move to Oklahoma.
a.
In 1823 the Creek Council established death as the penalty for any
member of the federation who agreed to cede Creek land without
authority from the council. William McIntosh and other Creeks
2.
defied the penalty by signing agreements to cede Creek land in
Georgia and Alabama.
b.
Approximately 1,300 Creeks voluntarily moved to Oklahoma in
1828. The remaining members of the confederacy voted to remain
on their Alabama lands, accepting state law if necessary.
c.
In 1832 the Creek signed a treaty which surrendered their territory
to the State of Alabama, opening 5 million acres to non-Indian
settlement.
d.
Although the treaty did not require the Creek to relocate, nonIndians intended to see that they did. When the majority of the
Creeks refused to move, non-Indians used misrepresentation,
forgeries, rigged courts, bribery, intoxication, and force to remove
them (Debo, p. 118).
e.
A small uprising in 1836 became the pretext for the forced removal
of the entire federation (Van Every, pp. 170-87).
(1)
The Lower Creeks involved in the revolt were defeated by
an army of nearly 11,000 whites and Upper Creeks.
(2)
The 1,600 Lower Creeks presumed to have been involved
in the resistance, as well as 900 Creeks who lived in nearby
towns, were marched to Oklahoma in chains.
(3)
The remaining 15,000 Creeks were marched to assembly
points and then taken west in groups of 2,000 to 3,000
under military escort.
(4)
During the winter of 1836-1837, the Creeks marched across
Arkansas. More than 3,500 died in the march itself; nearly
half of the total Creek population died during or
immediately after removal.
The federal government exploited divisions in the Cherokee Federation to
force the Cherokee removal to Oklahoma.
a.
The Georgia legislature passed a series of laws confiscating
Cherokee land, abolishing tribal government, and enforcing state
law on Cherokee land.
b.
The Cherokee sought redress against the State of Georgia from the
Supreme Court. Favorable decisions failed to protect them.
(1)
In 1831 the Supreme Court defined the tribe as a “domestic
dependent nation” (Debo, p. 121).
(2)
In 1832, in the case of Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Cherokee were a “distinct community...
with boundaries accurately described.” Therefore, the
“citizens of Georgia” had no legal right to enter Cherokee
lands, except “with the assent of the Cherokees themselves,
or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of congress”
(Debo, pp. 122-23).
c.
In 1835 the United States negotiated a treaty with the RidgeBoudinot faction of the Cherokee Federation, a faction that
accepted removal as inevitable. Although the Cherokee council and
15,665 Cherokee repudiated the treaty, the Ridge-Boudinot faction
signed the Treaty of New Echota. When the Senate ratified the
d.
C.
D.
E.
III.
treaty, President Van Buren ordered the military to remove the
Cherokee to Oklahoma.
Nearly 17,000 Cherokee were immediately confined in temporary
stockades. The forced removal to Oklahoma, which came to be
known as the Trail of Tears, began in June 1838 and ended in
March 1839 (Van Every, pp. 259-71).
(1)
The first contingents were sent west by steamer in the heat
of the summer.
(2)
In October and November the remaining Cherokee began
the journey West by land.
(3)
Four thousand Cherokee died from disease and exposure on
the Trail of Tears. The first contingents suffered so greatly
that the Cherokee council requested and was granted
permission to organize the remainder of the exodus.
In the l830s much of the land west of the Mississippi was under the legal
jurisdiction not of the United States but of Mexico and Britain. By 1848, however,
the United States had acquired control of virtually the entire region.
1.
Texas was annexed in 1845.
2.
The United States acquired Oregon south of the 49th parallel in 1846.
3.
By the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War in
1848, and by the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, the United States acquired
the former Mexican territory in the Southwest and California.
Americans had moved west before 1848, often in violation of both international
boundaries and the United States laws which protected “Indian Territory.” In
1848, with the legal acquisition of this vast territory, the trickle of westward
emigration became a flood.
1.
In 1848 Oregon Territory was organized, Wisconsin became a state, and
gold was discovered in California.
2.
In 1849 Minnesota Territory was organized. More than a hundred
thousand non-Indians had reached California.
3.
In 1850 California was admitted as a state. Utah and New Mexico were
formally organized as territories.
4.
In 1854 Kansas and Nebraska were organized as territories. Their
boundaries stretched from southern Kansas to Canada between the
Missouri River and the Rockies, thus preempting a large section of the old
“Indian Territory.”
By 1854, only a few years after many tribes had been promised homes that would
be protected “as long as the grass shall grow,” non-Indians had claimed the
greater part of “Indian Territory.” Scattered remnants, the largest in the apparently
worthless Oklahoma region, remained, but “Indian Country,” as it was originally
defined, no longer existed.
Reservation Policy
IV.
A.
The idea of a reservation was built on the familiar concept of “Indian Country.” It
was hoped that by reducing the size of “Indian Country,” Indians could be quickly
assimilated (Tyler, pp. 72-75).
1.
By reducing the Indians’ territories, reservations would force the Indians to
adopt European-American agricultural practices and become independent
farmers.
2.
Smaller reservations would place the Indians in closer contact with and
under the direct supervision of farmers, teachers, physicians, missionaries,
and other agents of “civilization”; that would force or encourage the
Indians to abandon their “primitive” tribal ways.
3.
Reservations would offer a more practical means of protecting the Indians
from alcohol, disease, and the abuses introduced by violent frontier
settlers.
4.
Reservations were intended to speed the assimilation of the Indians and, as
a result, bring an end to federal supervision over them.
B.
The first reservations were established by the three commissioners who negotiated
with California’s Indians in 1851. The Senate rejected the treaties because
California settlers claimed they “gave away” too much land to the Indians.
However, officials were eventually empowered to establish a fixed number of
reservations of limited size.
C.
In the late 1850s and early 1860s, the government began to extend the concept of
reservations to the tribes of the Plains, Northeast, and Southwest, as well as those
of California. Many of the treaties signed in this period defined the boundaries of
reservations. By the end of the Civil War, the establishment of reservations
became the dominant federal policy.
D.
The boundaries of the reservations soon began to shrink because of increasing
numbers of settlers and the discovery of mineral resources and good farmland and
grazing land on the reservations.
Allotment Policy
A.
When it became apparent that assimilation attempts on the reservations had
produced few concrete results, the policy of allotment was developed to remedy
that failure.
1.
The concept of individual ownership of land was fundamental to nonIndian economic, political, legal, and social structures. Communal
ownership, an integral part of most Indian cultures, was regarded as
antithetical to “progress” and “civilization.”
2.
Ownership of land, it was assumed, would lead to cultivation. Cultivation,
it was hoped, would lead to the adoption of machinery, the Protestant work
ethic, and non-Indian culture.
3.
Since cultivation would reward the most “progressive” Indians, it would
give them enough power to disrupt traditional leadership.
4.
Reservations and the provision of goods for the Indians were costly
policies that had already come under attack.
5.
6.
Even “friends of the Indians” argued that Indians had no right to claim
large tracts of arable land which they did not, and could not, cultivate.
Many opportunists realized that individually held Indian lands could be
more easily alienated than reservations, which could not be sold or ceded
without tribal consent.
B.
After limited debate Congress approved the General Allotment Act on February 8,
1887; it came to be known as the Dawes Act, taking the name of the most recent
sponsor of allotment legislation.
1.
The act specified the acreage to be allotted where conditions permitted; if
the reservation lacked sufficient agricultural and grazing lands to provide
allotments of the specified size for all residents, the allotments were to
made in proportion to these figures.
a.
Each head of a family would receive 160 acres of agricultural and
grazing land.
b.
Single adults and orphans under the age of 18 would each receive
80 acres of agricultural and grazing land.
c.
Single children under the age of 18 would each receive 40 acres of
agricultural and grazing land.
d.
If no agricultural lands were available and the allotment was
comprised entirely of grazing land, the recipients would be given
larger allotments.
2.
The act established the general procedure to be followed in allotting Indian
lands. Among the most important points were the following:
a.
All eligible Indians were to have four years to select allotments; if,
at the end of that period, an eligible Indian had not chosen an
allotment, the reservation agent or the special allotting agent would
make and record a selection in his behalf.
b.
For a period of twenty-five years, the allotments would remain in
trust status; the president was authorized to extend that period if
necessary.
c.
At the end of the trust period, the allottees would receive patents in
fee simple for their lands; they would then be able to sell, lease, or
dispose of their lands as they chose.
d.
Allottees would receive United States citizenship and become
subject to the laws of the state or territory in which their allotments
were located.
e.
When allotments had been made to all eligible Indians on any
reservation, the unallotted “surplus” lands could be sold to the
United States with tribal consent and opened to homesteaders.
C.
Allotment policy provoked widespread Indian opposition (Debo, pp. 301-3).
1.
The most organized resistance occurred among the tribes of “Indian
Territory.”
a.
The principal leader of the Osage rejected the plan.
b.
In 1886 and 1887, though forbidden to leave the reservation,
Caddo and Kiowa leaders traveled to Washington, D.C. to voice
their opposition to the proposed legislation.
c.
D.
On his return, the Kiowa leader Lone Wolf called the first of a
series of general Indian councils on allotment.
d.
After these councils, the tribes of “Indian Territory” drafted formal
proposals urging the government not to implement the policy, or at
least to delay implementation until the policy had been tested in the
courts.
2.
Protests in the rest of the country were less organized; Indians on many
reservations voiced their disapproval of allotment plans, and a significant
number refused to choose allotments when their reservations were divided.
A series of laws enacted from 1891 to 1908 further weakened the provisions of
the Dawes Act by speeding the alienation of Indian lands by encouraging the
Indians to obtain revenue, not by farming their allotments, but by leasing or
selling them.
Bibliography
Brown, Dee. Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New
York: Bantam Books, 1970.
Debo, Angie. A History of the Indians of the United States. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1970. Especially chapters 5-7, 15, 16.
Hagan, William T. American Indians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. The Indian Heritage of America. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.
Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and
Intercourse Acts, 1790-1834. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962.
Spicer, Edward H. A Short History of the Indians of the United States. New York: D. Van
Nostrand Co., 1969.
Tyler, S. Lyman. A History of Indian Policy. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973. Especially chapters 3, 4, 5.
Van Every, Dale. Disinherited: The Lost Birthright of the American Indian. New York: Avon,
Discus Books, 1966. Especially chapters 12, 13.
Washburn, Wilcomnb E. The Indian in America. The New American Nation Series, edited by
Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris. New York: Harper and Row, Colophon
Books, 1975.
405