PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...Major Change in Federal Indian Policy



Okla-homey
2/8/2011, 07:25 AM
February 8, 1887: Cleveland signs the Dawes Severalty Act

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7580/dawesindianland.jpg

124 years ago today, in a well-meaning but ultimately flawed attempt to assimilate American Indians, President Grover Cleveland signs an act to end tribal control of reservations and divide their land into individual holdings.

Named for its chief author, Senator Henry Laurens Dawes from Massachusetts, the Dawes Severalty Act reversed the long-standing American policy of allowing Indian tribes to maintain their traditional practice of communal use and control of their lands.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4749/daweshenrydawes002.jpg
Henry Laurens Dawes

Instead, the Dawes Act gave the president the power to divide Indian reservations into individual, privately owned plots. The act dictated that men with families would receive 160 acres, single adult men were given 80 acres, and boys received 40 acres. Women received no land.

The most important motivation for the Dawes Act was white hunger for Indian lands. The act provided that after the government had doled out land allotments to the Indians, the sizeable remainder of the reservation properties would be opened for sale to whites. Consequently, Indians eventually lost 86 million acres of land, or 62 percent of their total pre-1887 holdings.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7885/daweswestnativeamerican.jpg

Still, the Dawes Act was not solely a product of greed. Many religious and humanitarian "friends of the Indian" supported the act as a necessary step toward fully assimilating the Indians into American culture. Reformers believed that Indians would never bridge the chasm between "barbarism and civilization" if they maintained their tribal cohesion and traditional ways.

J.D.C. Atkins, commissioner of Indian affairs, argued that the Dawes Act was the first step toward transforming, "Idleness, improvidence, ignorance, and superstition.... into industry, thrift, intelligence, and Christianity."

In reality, the Dawes Severalty Act proved a very effective tool for taking lands from Indians and giving it to whites, but the promised benefits to the Indians never materialized. Racism, bureaucratic bungling, and inherent weaknesses in the law deprived the Indians of the strengths of tribal ownership, while severely limiting the economic viability of individual ownership. Many tribes also deeply resented and resisted the government's heavy-handed attempt to destroy their traditional cultures.

Despite these flaws, the Dawes Severalty Act remained in force for more than four decades. In 1934, the Wheeler-Howard Act repudiated the policy and attempted to revive the centrality of tribal control and cultural autonomy on the reservations. The Wheeler-Howard Act ended further transfer of Indian lands to whites and provided for a return to voluntary communal Indian ownership, but considerable damage had already been done.

On a related aside. the Dawes Act had no effect on the Five Tribes situated in Oklahoma (all generally east of what is now I-35.) This was due to a pre-existing treaty with each tribe that stipulated those tribes would own their lands "as long as the grass grows and water flows", etc. That said, not to be outdone, white folks who wanted to force allotment on the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminoles, and get their mits on hundreds of thousands of acres in those tribal areas, managed to get the Curtis Act through Congress in 1898.

The Curtis Act of 1898 did not take any land from the Five Tribes. Instead, it eliminated the authority of tribal governments to govern those lands. This move resulted in the loss of autonomy for the Five Tribes. Facing chaos resulting from disestablishment of their tribal governments and judicial systems by the Curtiss Act, the Five Tribes "voluntarily" agreed to accept the allotment system.

Sooner_Bob
2/8/2011, 09:55 AM
Several of mine and my wife's family members didn't even accept their allotments. My wife's family was ashamed to be seen as Indian way back when.

OUMallen
2/8/2011, 10:23 AM
Several of mine and my wife's family members didn't even accept their allotments. My wife's family was ashamed to be seen as Indian way back when.

My mother was ashamed as recently as the 60s at OU, I'm sad to say.

StoopTroup
2/8/2011, 10:52 AM
From the looks of that map...I think Dean might owe the Indians some rent. :D ;)

Okla-homey
2/8/2011, 11:53 AM
Several of mine and my wife's family members didn't even accept their allotments. My wife's family was ashamed to be seen as Indian way back when.

It has been estimated, in a peer-reviewed, scholarly but very readable study written by a PhD at the National Archives on the Curtiss Act's effects, that upwards of 70% of Oklahoma tribal members did not come forward to sign for and claim their allotments. His position is that the consensus among Indians in the last decade of the 18th century was that bad things tend to happen when you sign the white man's paper.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cJy5ltkEkzoC&pg=PP9&lpg=PP9&dq=Allotment+policy+Ft+Worth+archives&source=bl&ots=-RzpImAwQM&sig=y6XkaQ0tPLDzl4y2K_E4RRn7q84&hl=en&ei=enVRTfq3J4O88gaelojyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

KantoSooner
2/8/2011, 12:05 PM
Speaking as a Scots-Irish-German-Cherokee-Chickasaw, and thus able to shamelessly play whatever side of this game I think gains me the most, let me say that there is delicious irony in the entire treaty controversy mess. The Europeans got themselves into the dilemma by refusing to forthrightly say, "We've got more guns and we're taking your stinking land." No. They wanted the land to be 'uninhabited' or for the indians to sell or give it away. Had they simply said they were taking it by force, the whole thing would have been settled long ago.
Now white americans have to deal with an unquestioned past of 300+ years of lying, cheating and treaty breaking.
And when the stress gets too much, they can go to indian casinos to be fleeced of their money and have indians sell THEM cheap-*** whisky.

Human beings come up with the most outlandish stuff....

The Profit
2/8/2011, 12:13 PM
Speaking as a Scots-Irish-German-Cherokee-Chickasaw, and thus able to shamelessly play whatever side of this game I think gains me the most, let me say that there is delicious irony in the entire treaty controversy mess. The Europeans got themselves into the dilemma by refusing to forthrightly say, "We've got more guns and we're taking your stinking land." No. They wanted the land to be 'uninhabited' or for the indians to sell or give it away. Had they simply said they were taking it by force, the whole thing would have been settled long ago.
Now white americans have to deal with an unquestioned past of 300+ years of lying, cheating and treaty breaking.
And when the stress gets too much, they can go to indian casinos to be fleeced of their money and have indians sell THEM cheap-*** whisky.

Human beings come up with the most outlandish stuff....



Somehow you managed to cover all sides of the debate. Brilliant post!!

GDC
2/8/2011, 09:32 PM
There was nothing "well-intentioned" about either the Dawes or Curtiss acts.