Michael
Gerson, one of the most eloquent and principled critics of Donald
Trump, insists that we are at June 1973, the moment when John Dean’s
testimony broke the dam that a year later swept Richard Nixon off into
disgrace. Others agree: This is an inflection point. And yet an equally
well-informed friend insists, “I no longer believe in political
inflection points and neither should you.” Who knows? But even if we do
not recognize the turning points in the moment, we can anticipate what
the end will feel like when it does arrive.
To
be sure, Trump could hang on until the 2020 election. It is even
possible, if considerably less likely, that he could be reelected and
march off into a glitzy retirement at Trump properties in Florida and
New Jersey, his retreat from public life punctuated only by bursts of
increasingly senile bombast. But it does seem more likely than it once
was that he will go down in disgrace.
The
mood of that moment was given to us in an episode now faded into the
remote, pre-Paul Manafort-conviction, pre-Michael Cohen-guilty-plea
world, when Omarosa Manigault-Newman, the flashy villainess of more than
one Trump reality-television show, turned on her benefactor with juicy
and not entirely incredible revelations. A puerile justice this: the
secret taper of others taped, the once upright Marine general caught
trying to bully the only black woman close to the president by locking
her in the Situation Room while threatening her with legal consequences
to force her resignation. Her betrayal of her benefactor proved a tawdry
but revealing final episode in this particular show.
But
to really get the feel for the Trump administration’s end, we must turn
to the finest political psychologist of them all, William Shakespeare.
The text is in the final act of what superstitious actors only refer to
as the “Scottish play.” One of the nobles who has turned on their
murderous usurper king describes Macbeth’s predicament:
Those he commands move only in command,
Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title
Hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe
Upon a dwarfish thief.
And so it will be for Trump. To be clear, these are very
different people. Macbeth is an utterly absorbing, troubling, tragic,
and compelling figure. Unlike America’s germaphobic president, who
copped five draft deferments and has yet to visit the thousands of
American soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan or Iraq, he is
physically brave. In fact, the first thing we hear about him is that in
the heat of battle with a rebel against King Duncan (whom he later
murders) Macbeth “unseamed him from the nave to th’ chops.” He
is apparently faithful to his wife, has a conscience (that he
overcomes), knows guilt and remorse, and has self-knowledge. He also has
a pretty good command of the English language. In all these respects he
is as unlike Trump as one can be.
But
in the moment of losing power, the two will be alike. A tyrant is
unloved, and although the laws and institutions of the United States
have proven a brake on Trump, his spirit remains tyrannical—that is,
utterly self-absorbed and self-concerned, indifferent to the suffering
of others, knowing no moral restraint. He expects fealty and gives none.
Such people can exert power for a long time, by playing on the fear and
cupidity, the gullibility and the hatreds of those around them.
Ideological fervor can substitute for personal affection and attachment
for a time, and so too can blind terror and sheer stupidity, but in the
end, these fall away as well.
And thus their courtiers abandon
even monumental tyrants like Mussolini—who at least had his mistress,
Claretta Petacci, with him at his ignominious end. (Melania’s affections
are considerably less certain.) The normal course of events is sudden,
epic desertion, in which an all-powerful political figure who loomed
over everything is suddenly left shrunken and pitiful, a wretched little
figure in gaudy robes absurdly too big for him, a figure of ridicule as
much as, and even more than, hatred.
This is going to happen to Trump at some point. Of the Republicans in Congress it may be said of most of them: Those he commands move only in command, nothing in love. For
now, admittedly, there are those who still court his favor—Senator
Lindsey Graham, for example, once the trusty vassal of Senator John
McCain, the bravest of warriors and noblest of dukes, seems to have
switched his allegiance from his dying lord to the swaggering upstart
aged prince. But that is about ambition, not affection.
For
the moment, the Republicans will not turn on Trump. They fear a peasant
revolt, many of them; they still crave favors; they may think his
castle impregnable, although less so if they believe what the polls tell
them about some of its tottering walls. But if they suffer a
medieval-style slaughter on Election Day, the remnants of the knights of
the GOP will know a greater fear than that of being primaried. And at
the moment when they no longer fear being swept away in 2020, when the
economy may be in recession and Robert Mueller’s probe is complete with
revelations whose ghastliness would delight the three witches of the
Scottish play, they will suddenly turn on Trump. Act V of this play will
also have a nonlinear finish.
And
what of Trump himself? In this respect he will be like Macbeth. Where
Nixon, who was a statesman, saw the inevitable and resigned, this
president is more likely to go down spitting defiance. As for the rest
of us, Macduff says to the cornered king just before their final death
grapple:
Live to be the show and gaze o’ th’ time.
We’ll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,
Painted upon a pole, and underwrit
“Here may you see the tyrant”
And so it will likely be, as Americans gaze back and
wonder how on earth this rare monster, now deposed, ended up as their
president.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
Portrait
of Native Americans from the Cherokee, Cheyenne, Choctaw, Comanche,
Iroquois, and Muscogee tribes in Euro-American attire. Photos date from
1868 to 1924.
The cultural assimilation of Native Americans was an assimilation effort by the United States to transform Native American culture to European–American culture between the years of 1790 and 1920. George Washington and Henry Knox were first to propose, in an American context, the cultural transformation of Native Americans. They formulated a policy to encourage the civilizing process. With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing
public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural
values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens.
Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process
for minorities.
Americanization
policies were based on the idea that when indigenous people learned
United States (American) customs and values, they would be able to merge
tribal traditions with American culture and peacefully join the
majority of the society. After the end of the Indian Wars,
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the government outlawed the
practice of traditional religious ceremonies. It established Native American boarding schools
which children were required to attend. In these schools they were
forced to speak English, study standard subjects, attend church, and
leave tribal traditions behind.
The Dawes Act of 1887,
which allotted tribal lands in severalty to individuals, was seen as a
way to create individual homesteads for Native Americans. Land
allotments were made in exchange for Native Americans becoming US
citizens and giving up some forms of tribal self-government and
institutions. It resulted in the transfer of an estimated total of
93 million acres (380,000 km2) from Native American control.
Most was sold to individuals or given out free through the Homestead
law, or given directly to Indians as individuals. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
was also part of Americanization policy; it gave full citizenship to
all Indians living on reservations. The leading opponent of forced
assimilation was John Collier, who directed the federal Office of Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945, and tried to reverse many of the established policies.
Europeans and Native Americans in North America, 1601–1776
Eastern North America; the 1763 "Proclamation line" is the border between the red and the pink areas.
Epidemiological and archeological
work has established the effects of increased immigration of children
accompanying families to North America from 1634–1640. They came from
areas where smallpox was endemic in the Netherlands, England and France,
and passed on the disease to indigenous people. Tribes such as the Huron/Wendat and others in the Northeast particularly suffered epidemics after 1634.
During this period European powers fought to acquire cultural and
economic control of North America, just as they were doing in Europe.
At the same time, indigenous peoples competed for dominance in the
European fur trade and hunting areas. The French, English and Spanish
powers sought to engage Native American tribes as auxiliary forces in
their North American armies, otherwise composed mostly of colonial
militia in the early battles. In many cases indigenous warriors formed
the great majority of fighting forces, which deepened some of their
rivalries. To secure the help of the tribes, the Europeans offered
goods and signed treaties. The treaties usually promised that the
European power would honor the tribe's traditional lands and
independence. In addition, the indigenous peoples formed alliances for
their own reasons, wanting to keep allies in the fur and gun
trades, positioning European allies against their traditional enemies
among other tribes, etc. Many Native American tribes took part in King William's War (1689–1697), Queen Anne's War (1702–1713) (War of the Spanish Succession), Dummer's War (c. 1721–1725), and the French and Indian War (1754–1763) (Seven Years' War).
As the dominant power after the Seven Years' War, Great Britain instituted the Royal Proclamation of 1763, to try to protect indigenous peoples' territory from colonial encroachment of peoples from east of the Appalachian Mountains.
The document defined a boundary to separate Native American country
from that of the European community. In part, this justified the
English taking complete control of lands on the European side, but the
proclamation did not effectively prevent individual ethnic European
colonists from continuing to migrate westward. The British did not have
sufficient forces to patrol the border and keep out colonists.
Europeans and European governments continued to use military/diplomatic
and economic force to secure control of more territories from Native
Americans. For further information see European colonization of the Americas.
From the Native American perspective, European control of an area
generally means a dramatic change in their way of life, with free
movement across hunting grounds curtailed or objected to, for instance,
by Europeans who had different conceptions of property and the uses of
land.
The struggle for empire in North America caused the United States in its earliest years to adopt an Indian policy similar to the one devised by Great Britain in colonial times.
They realized that good relations with bordering tribes were important
for political and trading reasons, but as had the British, they reserved
the right to abandon these good relations to absorb the lands of their
enemies and allies alike as the agricultural frontier moved west. The
United States continued the use of Native Americans as allies, including
during the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.
As relations with England and Spain normalized during the early 19th
century, the need for such friendly relations ended. It was no longer
necessary to "woo" the tribes to prevent the other powers from using
them against the United States. Now, instead of a buffer against other
"civilized" foes, the tribes often became viewed as an obstacle in the
expansion of the United States.
George Washington formulated a policy to encourage the "civilizing" process. He had a six-point plan for civilization which included:
impartial justice toward Native Americans
regulated buying of Native American lands
promotion of commerce
promotion of experiments to civilize or improve Native American society
presidential authority to give presents
punishing those who violated Native American rights.
Robert Remini, a historian, wrote that "once the Indians adopted the
practice of private property, built homes, farmed, educated their
children, and embraced Christianity, these Native Americans would win
acceptance from white Americans". The United States appointed agents, like Benjamin Hawkins, to live among the Native Americans and to teach them how to live like whites.
How different would be the
sensation of a philosophic mind to reflect that instead of exterminating
a part of the human race by our modes of population that we had
persevered through all difficulties and at last had imparted our
Knowledge of cultivating and the arts, to the Aboriginals of the Country
by which the source of future life and happiness had been preserved and
extended. But it has been conceived to be impracticable to civilize the
Indians of North America – This opinion is probably more convenient
than just.
— Henry Knox to George Washington, 1790s.
Indian removal
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 characterized the US government policy of Indian removal,
which called for relocation of Native American tribes living east of
the Mississippi River to lands west of the river. While it did not
authorize the forced removal of the indigenous tribes, it authorized the
President to negotiate land exchange treaties with tribes located in
lands of the United States. The Intercourse Law of 1834 prohibited
United States citizens from entering tribal lands granted by such
treaties without permission, though it was often ignored.
On September 27, 1830, the Choctaws signed Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek
and the first Native American tribe was to be voluntarily removed. The
agreement represented one of the largest transfers of land that was
signed between the U.S. Government and Native Americans without being
instigated by warfare. By the treaty, the Choctaws signed away their
remaining traditional homelands, opening them up for American settlement
in Mississippi Territory.
While the Indian Removal Act made the relocation of the tribes
voluntary, it was often abused by government officials. The best-known
example is the Treaty of New Echota. It was negotiated and signed by a small fraction of Cherokee
tribal members, not the tribal leadership, on December 29, 1835. While
tribal leaders objected to Washington, DC and the treaty was revised in
1836, the state of Georgia proceeded to act against the Cherokee tribe.
The tribe was forced to relocate in 1838. An estimated 4,000 Cherokees died in the march, now known as the Trail of Tears.
In the decades that followed, white settlers encroached even into
the western lands set aside for Native Americans. American settlers
eventually made homesteads from coast to coast, just as the Native
Americans had before them. No tribe was untouched by the influence of
white traders, farmers, and soldiers.
Office of Indian Affairs
The Office of Indian Affairs (Bureau of Indian Affairs as of 1947) was established on March 11, 1824, as an office of the United States Department of War,
an indication of the state of relations with the Indians. It became
responsible for negotiating treaties and enforcing conditions, at least
for Native Americans. In 1849 the bureau was transferred to the Department of the Interior as so many of its responsibilities were related to the holding and disposition of large land assets.
In 1854 Commissioner George W. Manypenny
called for a new code of regulations. He noted that there was no place
in the West where the Indians could be placed with a reasonable hope
that they might escape conflict with white settlers. He also called for
the Intercourse Law of 1834 to be revised, as its provisions had been
aimed at individual intruders on Indian territory rather than at
organized expeditions.
In 1858 the succeeding Commissioner, Charles Mix,
noted that the repeated removal of tribes had prevented them from
acquiring a taste for European way of life. In 1862 Secretary of the
Interior Caleb B. Smith questioned the wisdom of treating tribes as quasi-independent nations.
Given the difficulties of the government in what it considered good
efforts to support separate status for Native Americans, appointees and
officials began to consider a policy of Americanization instead.
Americanization and assimilation (1857–1920)
Portrait of Marsdin, Non-Native Man, and Group of Students from the Alaska region.
The movement to reform Indian administration and assimilate Indians
as citizens originated in the pleas of people who lived in close
association with the natives and were shocked by the fraudulent and
indifferent management of their affairs. They called themselves "Friends
of the Indian" and lobbied officials on their behalf. Gradually the
call for change was taken up by Eastern reformers. Typically the reformers were Protestants from well organized
denominations who considered assimilation necessary to the
Christianizing of the Indians; Catholics were also involved. The 19th
century was a time of major efforts in evangelizing missionary
expeditions to all non-Christian people. In 1865 the government began
to make contracts with various missionary societies to operate Indian
schools for teaching citizenship, English, and agricultural and
mechanical arts.
Grant's "Peace Policy"
In his State of the Union Address on December 4, 1871, Ulysses Grant
stated that "the policy pursued toward the Indians has resulted
favorably ... many tribes of Indians have been induced to settle upon
reservations, to cultivate the soil, to perform productive labor of
various kinds, and to partially accept civilization. They are being
cared for in such a way, it is hoped, as to induce those still pursuing
their old habits of life to embrace the only opportunity which is left
them to avoid extermination."
The emphasis became using civilian workers (not soldiers) to deal with
reservation life, especially Protestant and Catholic organizations. The
Quakers had promoted the peace policy in the expectation that applying
Christian principles to Indian affairs would eliminate corruption and
speed assimilation. Most Indians joined churches but there were
unexpected problems, such as rivalry between Protestants and Catholics
for control of specific reservations in order to maximize the number of
souls converted.
The Quakers were motivated by high ideals, played down the role
of conversion, and worked well with the Indians. They had been highly
organized and motivated by the anti-slavery crusade, and after the Civil
War expanded their energies to include both ex-slaves and the western
tribes. They had Grant's ear and became the principal instruments for
his peace policy. During 1869–1885, they served as appointed agents on
numerous reservations and superintendencies in a mission centered on
moral uplift and manual training. Their ultimate goal of acculturating
the Indians to American culture was not reached because of frontier land
hunger and Congressional patronage politics.
Many other denominations volunteered to help. In 1871, John H. Stout, sponsored by the Dutch Reformed Church, was sent to the Pima reservation
in Arizona to implement the policy. However Congress, the church, and
private charities spent less money than was needed; the local whites
strongly disliked the Indians; the Pima balked at removal; and Stout was
frustrated at every turn.
In Arizona and New Mexico, the Navajo were resettled on
reservations and grew rapidly in numbers. The Peace Policy began in 1870
when the Presbyterians took over the reservations. They were frustrated
because they did not understand the Navajo. However, the Navajo not
only gave up raiding but soon became successful at sheep ranching.
The peace policy did not fully apply to the Indian tribes that
had supported the Confederacy. They lost much of their land as the
United States began to confiscate the western portions of the Indian
Territory and began to resettle the Indians there on smaller
reservations.
Reaction to the massacre of Lt. Col. George Custer's unit at the Battle of the Little Big Horn
in 1876 was shock and dismay at the failure of the Peace Policy. The
Indian appropriations measure of August 1876 marked the end of Grant's
Peace Policy. The Sioux were given the choice of either selling their
lands in the Black Hills for cash or not receiving government gifts of
food and other supplies.
Code of Indian Offenses
In 1882, Interior Secretary Henry M. Teller
called attention to the "great hindrance" of Indian customs to the
progress of assimilation. The resultant "Code of Indian Offenses" in
1883 outlined the procedure for suppressing "evil practices."
A Court of Indian Offenses, consisting of three Indians appointed
by the Indian Agent, was to be established at each Indian agency. The
Court would serve as judges to punish offenders. Outlawed behavior
included participation in traditional dances and feasts, polygamy,
reciprocal gift giving and funeral practices, and intoxication or sale
of liquor. Also prohibited were "medicine men" who "use any of the arts
of the conjurer to prevent the Indians from abandoning their heathenish
rites and customs." The penalties prescribed for violations ranged
from 10 to 90 days imprisonment and loss of government-provided rations
for up to 30 days.
The Five Civilized Tribes were exempt from the Code which remained in effect until 1933.
In implementation on reservations by Indian judges, the Court of
Indian Offenses became mostly an institution to punish minor crimes.
The 1890 report of the Secretary of the Interior lists the activities of
the Court on several reservations and apparently no Indian was
prosecuted for dances or "heathenish ceremonies." Significantly, 1890 was the year of the Ghost Dance, ending with the Wounded Knee Massacre.
The role of the Supreme Court in assimilation
In 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney expressed that since Native Americans were "free and independent people" that they could become U.S. citizens. Taney asserted that Native Americans could be naturalized and join the "political community" of the United States.
[Native Americans], without doubt,
like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the
authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the
United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe,
and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled
to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from
any other foreign people.
— Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1857, What was Taney thinking? American Indian Citizenship in the era of Dred Scott, Frederick E. Hoxie, April 2007.
The political ideas during the time of assimilation policy are known by many Indians as the progressive era, but more commonly known as the assimilation era.(1890–1928).
The progressive era was characterized by a resolve to emphasize the
importance of dignity and independence in the modern industrialized
world.
This idea is applied to Native Americans in a quote from Indian
Affairs Commissioner John Oberly: "[The Native American] must be imbued
with the exalting egotism of American civilization so that he will say
‘I’ instead of ‘We’, and ‘This is mine’ instead of ‘This is ours’." Progressives also had a faith in the knowledge of experts. This was a dangerous idea to have when an emerging science was concerned with ranking races based on moral capabilities and intelligence.
Indeed, the idea of an inferior Indian race made it into the courts. The progressive era thinkers also wanted to look beyond legal
definitions of equality to create a realistic concept of fairness. Such
a concept was thought to include a reasonable income, decent working
conditions, as well as health and leisure for every American. These ideas can be seen in the decisions of the Supreme Court during the assimilation era.
Through cases such as Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, Talton v. Mayes, Winters vs. United States, United States v. Winans, United States v. Nice, and United States v. Sandoval
the court set many precedents and provided building blocks for much of
the new legislation concerning Native Americans. One of the basic
decisions that had to be made in most of these cases was how to classify
the Indian nations and what rights they were to have. Lone Wolf v.
Hitchcock provides an excellent example of the implementation of the
paternal view of Native Americans as it refers back to the idea of
Indians as "wards of the nation."
Some other issues that came into play were the hunting and fishing
rights of the natives, especially when land beyond theirs affected their
own practices, whether or not Constitutional rights necessarily applied
to Indians, and whether tribal governments had the power to establish
their own laws. As new legislation tried to force the American Indians
into becoming just Americans, the Supreme Court provided these critical
decisions. Native American nations were labeled "domestic dependent
nations" by Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, one of the first landmark cases involving Indians.
Some decisions focused more on the dependency of the tribes, while
others preserved tribal sovereignty, while still others sometimes
managed to do both.
Decisions focusing on dependence
United States v. Kagama
The United States Supreme Court case United States v. Kagama
(1886) set the stage for the court to make even more powerful decisions
based on plenary power. To summarize congressional plenary power, the
court stated:
The power of the general government
over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in
numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of
those among whom they dwell. It must exist in that government, because
it never has existed anywhere else; because the theater of its exercise
is within the geographical limits of the United [118 U.S. 375, 385]
States; because it has never been denied; and because it alone can
enforce its laws on all the tribes.
The decision in United States v. Kagama led to the new idea
that "protection" of Native Americans could justify intrusion into
intratribal affairs. The Supreme Court and Congress were given unlimited
authority with which to force assimilation and acculturation of Native
Americans into American society.
United States v. Nice
During the years leading up to passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act, United States v. Nice (1916), was a result of the idea of barring American Indians from the sale of liquor. The United States Supreme Court case overruled a decision made eleven years before, Matter of Heff, 197U.S.48 (1905), which allowed American Indian U.S. citizens to drink liquor.
The quick reversal shows how law concerning American Indians often
shifted with the changing governmental and popular views of American
Indian tribes.
The US Congress continued to prohibit the sale of liquor to American
Indians. While many tribal governments had long prohibited the sale of
alcohol on their reservations, the ruling implied that American Indian
nations could not be entirely independent, and needed a guardian for
protection.
United States v. Sandoval
Like United States v. Nice, the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Sandoval
(1913) rose from efforts to bar American Indians from the sale of
liquor. As American Indians were granted citizenship, there was an
effort to retain the ability to protect them as a group which was
distinct from regular citizens. The Sandoval Act reversed the U.S. v. Joseph
decision of 1876, which claimed that the Pueblo were not considered
federal Indians. The 1913 ruling claimed that the Pueblo were "not
beyond the range of congressional power under the Constitution".
This case resulted in Congress continuing to prohibit the sale of
liquor to American Indians. The ruling continued to suggest that
American Indians needed protection.
Decisions focusing on sovereignty
There were several United States Supreme Court cases during the assimilation era that focused on the sovereignty
of American Indian nations. These cases were extremely important in
setting precedents for later cases and for legislation dealing with the
sovereignty of American Indian nations.
Ex parte Crow Dog (1883)
Ex parte Crow Dog
was a US Supreme Court appeal by an Indian who had been found guilty of
murder and sentenced to death. The defendant was an American Indian
who had been found guilty of the murder of another American Indian. Crow Dog
argued that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to try him
for a crime committed between two American Indians that happened on an
American Indian reservation. The court found that although the
reservation was located within the territory covered by the district
court's jurisdiction, Rev. Stat. § 2146 precluded the inmate's
indictment in the district court. Section 2146 stated that Rev. Stat. §
2145, which made the criminal laws of the United States applicable to
Indian country, did not apply to crimes committed by one Indian against
another, or to crimes for which an Indian was already punished by the
law of his tribe. The Court issued the writs of habeas corpus and certiorari to the Indian.
Talton v. Mayes (1896)
The United States Supreme Court case of Talton v. Mayes
was a decision respecting the authority of tribal governments. This
case decided that the individual rights protections, specifically the
Fifth Amendment, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do
not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as
the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent
nations", the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal
government. Talton v. Mayes
is also a case dealing with Native American dependence, as it
deliberated over and upheld the concept of congressional plenary
authority. This part of the decision led to some important pieces of
legislation concerning Native Americans, the most important of which is
the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Good Shot v. United States (1900)
This
United States Supreme Court case occurred when an American Indian shot
and killed a non-Indian. The question arose of whether or not the United
States Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this issue. In an effort to
argue against the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over the
proceedings, the defendant filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari.
This request for judicial review, upon writ of error, was denied. The
court held that a conviction for murder, punishable with death, was no
less a conviction for a capital crime by reason even taking into account
the fact that the jury qualified the punishment. The American Indian
defendant was sentenced to life in prison.
Montoya v. United States (1901)
This
United States Supreme court case came about when the surviving partner
of the firm of E. Montoya & Sons petitioned against the United
States and the Mescalero Apache Indians for the value their livestock
which was taken in March 1880. It was believed that the livestock was
taken by "Victorio's Band" which was a group of these American Indians.
It was argued that the group of American Indians who had taken the
livestock were distinct from any other American Indian tribal group, and
therefore the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe should not be held
responsible for what had occurred. After the hearing, the Supreme Court
held that the judgment made previously in the Court of Claims would not
be changed. This is to say that the Mescalero Apache American Indian
tribe would not be held accountable for the actions of Victorio's Band.
This outcome demonstrates not only the sovereignty of American Indian
tribes from the United States, but also their sovereignty from one
another. One group of American Indians cannot be held accountable for
the actions of another group of American Indians, even though they are
all part of the American Indian nation.
US v. Winans (1905)
In
this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yakama tribe,
reaffirming their prerogative to fish and hunt on off-reservation land.
Further, the case established two important principles regarding the
interpretation of treaties. First, treaties would be interpreted in the
way Indians would have understood them and "as justice and reason
demand".
Second, the Reserved Rights Doctrine was established which states that
treaties are not rights granted to the Indians, but rather "a
reservation by the Indians of rights already possessed and not granted
away by them"
These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the
United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which
include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights.
Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to
regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil
and criminal jurisdiction.
Winters v. United States (1908)
The United States Supreme Court Case Winters v. United States was a case primarily dealing with water rights of American Indian reservations. This case clarified what water sources American Indian tribes had "implied" rights to put to use. This case dealt with the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and their right to utilize the water source of the Milk River
in Montana. The reservation had been created without clearly stating
the explicit water rights that the Fort Belknap American Indian
reservation had. This became a problem once non-Indian settlers began
moving into the area and using the Milk River as a water source for
their settlements.
As water sources are extremely sparse and limited in Montana, this
argument of who had the legal rights to use the water was presented.
After the case was tried, the Supreme Court
came to the decision that the Fort Belknap reservation had reserved
water rights through the 1888 agreement which had created the American
Indian Reservation in the first place. This case was very important in
setting a precedent for cases after the assimilation era. It was used as
a precedent for the cases Arizona v. California, Tulee v. Washington, Washington v. McCoy, Nevada v. United States, Cappaert v. United States, Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, United States v. New Mexico, and Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona which all focused on the sovereignty of American Indian tribes.
Choate v. Trapp (1912)
As more Native Americans received allotments through the Dawes Act, there was a great deal of public and state pressure to tax allottees. However, in the United States Supreme court case Choate v. Trapp, 224U.S.665 (1912), the court ruled for Indian allottees to be exempt from state taxation.
Clairmont v. United States (1912)
This
United States Supreme Court case resulted when a defendant appealed the
decision on his case. The defendant filed a writ of error to obtain
review of his conviction after being convicted of unlawfully introducing
intoxicating liquor into an American Indian reservation. This act was
found a violation of the Act of Congress of January 30, 1897, ch. 109,
29 Stat. 506. The defendant's appeal stated that the district court
lacked jurisdiction because the offense for which he was convicted did
not occur in American Indian country. The defendant had been arrested
while traveling on a train that had just crossed over from American
Indian country. The defendant's argument held and the Supreme Court
reversed the defendant's conviction remanding the cause to the district
court with directions to quash the indictment and discharge the
defendant.
United States v. Quiver (1916)
This
case was sent to the United States Supreme Court after first appearing
in a district court in South Dakota. The case dealt with adultery
committed on a Sioux
Indian reservation. The district court had held that adultery committed
by an Indian with another Indian on an Indian reservation was not
punishable under the act of March 3, 1887, c. 397, 24 Stat. 635, now §
316 of the Penal Code. This decision was made because the offense
occurred on a Sioux Indian reservation which is not said to be under
jurisdiction of the district court. The United States Supreme Court
affirmed the judgment of the district court saying that the adultery was
not punishable as it had occurred between two American Indians on an
American Indian reservation.
Native American education and boarding schools
Non-reservation boarding schools
In 1634, Fr. Andrew White of the Society of Jesus established a mission in what is now the state of Maryland,
and the purpose of the mission, stated through an interpreter to the
chief of an Indian tribe there, was "to extend civilization and
instruction to his ignorant race, and show them the way to heaven".
The mission's annual records report that by 1640, a community had been
founded which they named St. Mary's, and the Indians were sending their
children there "to be educated among the English".
This included the daughter of the Pascatoe Indian chief Tayac, which
exemplified, or an early co-ed school. The same records report that in
1677, "a school for humanities was opened by our Society in the centre
of [Maryland], directed by two of the Fathers; and the native youth,
applying themselves assiduously to study, made good progress. Maryland
and the recently established school sent two boys to St. Omer who
yielded in abilities to few Europeans, when competing for the honour of
being first in their class. So that not gold, nor silver, nor the other
products of the earth alone, but men also are gathered from thence to
bring those regions, which foreigners have unjustly called ferocious, to
a higher state of virtue and cultivation."
In 1727, the Sisters of the Order of Saint Ursula founded Ursuline Academy in New Orleans,
which is currently the oldest, continuously-operating school for girls
and the oldest Catholic school in the United States. From the time of
its foundation it offered the first classes for Native American girls,
and would later offer classes for female African-American slaves and
free women of color.
Male Carlisle School Students 1879.
The Carlisle Indian Industrial School founded by Richard Henry Pratt in 1879 was the first Indian boarding school
established. Pratt was encouraged by the progress of Native Americans
whom he had supervised as prisoners in Florida, where they had received
basic education. When released, several were sponsored by American
church groups to attend institutions such as Hampton Institute. He believed education was the means to bring American Indians into society.
Pratt professed "assimilation through total immersion". Because
he had seen men educated at schools like Hampton Institute become
educated and assimilated, he believed the principles could be extended
to Indian children. Immersing them in the larger culture would help them
adapt. In addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the Carlisle
curriculum was modeled on the many industrial schools: it constituted
vocational training for boys and domestic science for girls, in
expectation of their opportunities on the reservations, including chores
around the school and producing goods for market. In the summer,
students were assigned to local farms and townspeople for boarding and
to continue their immersion. They also provided labor at low cost, at a
time when many children earned pay for their families.
Carlisle and its curriculum became the model for schools sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By 1902 there were twenty-five federally funded non-reservation schools
across fifteen states and territories with a total enrollment of over
6,000. Although federal legislation made education compulsory for Native
Americans, removing students from reservations required parental
authorization. Officials coerced parents into releasing a quota of
students from any given reservation.
Pupils at Carlisle Indian Industrial School, Pennsylvania (c. 1900)
Once the new students arrived at the boarding schools, their lives
altered drastically. They were usually given new haircuts, uniforms of
European-American style clothes, and even new English names, sometimes
based on their own, other times assigned at random. They could no longer
speak their own languages, even with each other. They were expected to
attend Christian churches. Their lives were run by the strict orders of
their teachers, and it often included grueling chores and stiff
punishments.
Additionally, infectious disease was widespread in society, and
often swept through the schools. This was due to lack of information
about causes and prevention, inadequate sanitation, insufficient funding
for meals, overcrowded conditions, and students whose resistance was
low.
Native
American group of Carlisle Indian Industrial School Male and Female
Students; Brick Dormitories And Bandstand in Background 1879.
An Indian boarding school was one of many schools that were established in the United States during the late 19th century to educate Native American
youths according to American standards. In some areas, these schools
were primarily run by missionaries. Especially given the young age of
some of the children sent to the schools, they have been documented as
traumatic experiences for many of the children who attended them. They
were generally forbidden to speak their native languages, taught Christianity
instead of their native religions, and in numerous other ways forced to
abandon their Indian identity and adopt American culture. Many cases of
mental and sexual abuse have been documented, as in North Dakota.
By 1923 in the Northwest, most Indian schools had closed and
Indian students were attending public schools. States took on increasing
responsibility for their education.
Other studies suggest attendance in some Indian boarding schools grew
in areas of the United States throughout the first half of the 20th
century, doubling from 1900 to the 1960s.
Enrollment reached its highest point in the 1970s. In 1973, 60,000
American Indian children were estimated to have been enrolled in an
Indian boarding school. In 1976, the Tobeluk vs Lund
case was brought by teenage Native Alaskan plaintiffs against the State
of Alaska alleging that the public school situation was still an
unequal one.
The Meriam Report of 1928
The Meriam Report,
officially titled "The Problem of Indian Administration", was prepared
for the Department of Interior. Assessments found the schools to be
underfunded and understaffed, too heavily institutionalized, and run too
rigidly. What had started as an idealistic program about education had
gotten subverted.
It recommended:
abolishing the "Uniform Course of Study", which taught only majority American cultural values;
having younger children attend community schools near home, though
older children should be able to attend non-reservation schools; and
ensuring that the Indian Service provided Native Americans with the
skills and education to adapt both in their own traditional communities
(which tended to be more rural) and the larger American society.
Indian New Deal
John Collier, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1933–1945, set the priorities of the New Deal
policies toward Native Americans, with an emphasis on reversing as much
of the assimilationist policy as he could. Collier was instrumental in
ending the loss of reservations lands held by Indians, and in enabling
many tribal nations to re-institute self-government and preserve their
traditional culture. Some Indian tribes rejected the unwarranted outside
interference with their own political systems the new approach had
brought them.
Collier's 1920– 1922 visit to Taos Pueblo
had a lasting impression on Collier. He now saw the Indian world as
morally superior to American society, which he considered to be
"physically, religiously, socially, and aesthetically shattered,
dismembered, directionless". Collier came under attack for his romantic views about the moral superiority of traditional society as opposed to modernity. Philp says after his experience at the Taos Pueblo, Collier "made a
lifelong commitment to preserve tribal community life because it offered
a cultural alternative to modernity. ... His romantic stereotyping of
Indians often did not fit the reality of contemporary tribal life."
Collier carried through the Indian New Deal with Congress' passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.
It was one of the most influential and lasting pieces of legislation
relating to federal Indian policy. Also known as the Wheeler–Howard Act,
this legislation reversed fifty years of assimilation policies by
emphasizing Indian self-determination and a return of communal Indian land, which was in direct contrast with the objectives of the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887.
Collier was also responsible for getting the Johnson–O'Malley Act
passed in 1934, which allowed the Secretary of the Interior to sign
contracts with state governments to subsidize public schooling, medical
care, and other services for Indians who did not live on reservations.
The act was effective only in Minnesota.
Collier's support of the Navajo Livestock Reduction program resulted in Navajo opposition to the Indian New Deal. The Indian Rights Association denounced Collier as a "dictator" and accused him of a "near reign of terror" on the Navajo reservation.
According to historian Brian Dippie, "(Collier) became an object of
'burning hatred' among the very people whose problems so preoccupied
him."
Change to community schools
Several
events in the late 1960s and mid-1970s (Kennedy Report, National Study
of American Indian Education, Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975) led to renewed emphasis on community schools.
Many large Indian boarding schools closed in the 1980s and early 1990s.
In 2007, 9,500 American Indian children lived in an Indian boarding
school dormitory.
From 1879 when the Carlisle Indian School was founded to the present
day, more than 100,000 American Indians are estimated to have attended
an Indian boarding school.
While
the concerted effort to assimilate Native Americans into American
culture was abandoned officially, integration of Native American tribes
and individuals continues to the present day. Often Native Americans
are perceived as having been assimilated. However, some Native Americans
feel a particular sense of being from another society or do not belong
in a primarily "white" European majority society, despite efforts to
socially integrate them.
In the mid-20th century, as efforts were still under way for
assimilation, some studies treated American Indians simply as another
ethnic minority, rather than citizens of semi-sovereign entities which
they are entitled to by treaty. The following quote from the May 1957
issue of Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, shows this:
The place of Indians in American
society may be seen as one aspect of the question of the integration of
minority groups into the social system.
Since the 1960s, however, there have been major changes in society.
Included is a broader appreciation for the pluralistic nature of United
States society and its many ethnic groups, as well as for the special
status of Native American nations. More recent legislation to protect
Native American religious practices, for instance, points to major
changes in government policy. Similarly the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 was another recognition of the special nature of Native American culture and federal responsibility to protect it.
As of 2013, "Montana is the only state in the U.S. with a
constitutional mandate to teach American Indian history, culture, and
heritage to preschool through higher education students via the Indian
Education for All Act."[59] The "Indian Education for All" curriculum, created by the Montana Office of Public Instruction, is distributed online for primary and secondary schools.
Modern cultural and linguistic preservation
To evade a shift to English, some Native American tribes have
initiated language immersion schools for children, where a native Indian
language is the medium of instruction. For example, the Cherokee Nation instigated a 10-year language preservation plan that involved growing new fluent speakers of the Cherokee language
from childhood on up through school immersion programs as well as a
collaborative community effort to continue to use the language at home. This plan was part of an ambitious goal that in 50 years, 80% or more of the Cherokee people will be fluent in the language.[62] The Cherokee Preservation Foundation
has invested $3 million into opening schools, training teachers, and
developing curricula for language education, as well as initiating
community gatherings where the language can be actively used. Formed in 2006, the Kituwah Preservation & Education Program (KPEP) on the Qualla Boundary focuses on language immersion programs for children from birth to fifth grade,
developing cultural resources for the general public and community
language programs to foster the Cherokee language among adults.
There is also a Cherokee language immersion school in Tahlequah, Oklahoma that educates students from pre-school through eighth grade.
Because Oklahoma's official language is English, Cherokee immersion
students are hindered when taking state-mandated tests because they have
little competence in English.
The Department of Education of Oklahoma said that in 2012 state tests:
11% of the school's sixth-graders showed proficiency in math, and 25%
showed proficiency in reading; 31% of the seventh-graders showed
proficiency in math, and 87% showed proficiency in reading; 50% of the
eighth-graders showed proficiency in math, and 78% showed proficiency in
reading.
The Oklahoma Department of Education listed the charter school as a
Targeted Intervention school, meaning the school was identified as a
low-performing school but has not so that it was a Priority School. Ultimately, the school made a C, or a 2.33 grade point average on the state's A–F report card system.
The report card shows the school getting an F in mathematics
achievement and mathematics growth, a C in social studies achievement, a
D in reading achievement, and an A in reading growth and student
attendance.
"The C we made is tremendous," said school principal Holly Davis,
"[t]here is no English instruction in our school's younger grades, and
we gave them this test in English." She said she had anticipated the low grade because it was the school's first year as a state-funded charter school, and many students had difficulty with English.
Eighth graders who graduate from the Tahlequah immersion school are
fluent speakers of the language, and they usually go on to attend Sequoyah High School where classes are taught in both English and Cherokee.
Many of us have claimed “everything happens for a reason”
or “it was meant to be” when presented with strange outcomes or random
occurrences. Some of us see a great plan at work when we look at nearly
everything; others see vast plots afoot every time they watch the news.
In some cases, like business ethics,
it is a useful way of thinking. Until the scientific revolution, it
defined a great deal of western thought about the natural world. Today,
however, it is a scientific no-no.
Less positively, it is associated with the teleological fallacy, where the current use of something is taken as evidence of it being designed to fulfill that purpose.
A person who thinks this way might say things like “we have large noses so we can fit glasses on our faces”
or “it is dry in the desert so cactus plants have a place to live.”
Both statements assume a grand purpose for noses or areas with low
rainfall that doesn’t exist or are unsubstantiated. It is an
unscientific worldview that can get in the way of finding the real
causes at work.
A tendency to teleological thinking is correlated with a belief in creationism.
This is intuitively reasonable since a tendency to think everything is
part of a plan lends itself to trying to impose divine order on random
biological events. Somehow, studies have not been carried out to see if
the same correlation exists with similar beliefs; until now anyway.
Some people find meaning and larger purposes everywhere
Researchers
in France have published a new study showing the relationship between
teleological thinking and a belief in conspiracy theories. Their study, published in Current Biology, involved 2000 test subjects from the general public and university student bodies.
Their
study consisted of a pen and paper test. The first part consisted of
100 questions. These were all true and false questions designed to
determine how inclined the subject was to teleological thought. The
statements were simple, such as “Bats hunt mosquitoes to control
overpopulation.”In this case, a person answering “true” would reveal
their tendency to teleological thinking.
The
rest of the questions focused on how well the subjects could judge an
explanation’s plausibility and determined any biases in their answers.
The
next part of the test focused on grand conspiracy theories of a general
nature. Participants had to rate the likelihood that statements such as
“the government is involved in the murder of innocent citizens and/or
well-known public figures, and keeps this a secret” were correct. They
then did the same thing for specific conspiracy theories, such as ones revolving around the assassination of President Kennedy.
Lastly,
subjects were asked to rank images shown to them consisting of black
and white squares on a grid on a scale of “certainly not random” to
“certainly random.” As this picture shows, the answers are rather clear
and can be used to determine if a person tends to assign meaning to
random data.
As
you can see in this chart. The images were both simple and complex, and
either had a structure or were randomized. A person who thinks that
there is a pattern to the top row's pictures is likely to ascribe
meaning to random data. (Wagner-Egger et al.)
The
second iteration of the experiment asked the same questions but added
the subject’s belief in creationism to the analysis. The final version
added a section to better asses how being good at correct teleological thinking (e.g. thinking that pasta comes in different shapes to hold different sauces) factored into the conspiracy mindset.
What did they find?
As
you might have guessed, the people who scored high on the teleological
thinking test, those who see things as having a purpose even when they
don’t, were more likely to believe in the general grand conspiracies.
This held true, to a lesser extent, for those who only scored high on
“correct” teleological thinking as well.
Subjects who believed in any of the conspiracy theories tended to believe in all of them, confirming previous studies
that hinted at a “conspiracy mentality” which drives some people to see
conspiracies everywhere. The authors suggest that the correlation
between the three scales of teleological thinking they tested for; test,
true and false casual, suggests “the existence of a teleological mentality, that partly overlaps with the conspiracist mindset.”
What about the creationists?
When
the belief in creationism was factored in, the researchers found a
strong correlation between a belief in creationism, the conspiracy
mentality, and teleological thinking. The results held true even when
accounting for demographics, political views, and religious tendencies.
The
authors remind us that “teleological thinking has long been associated
with creationism and identified as an obstacle to the acceptance of
evolutionary theory.”
With this in mind, they propose that we can
start viewing conspiracies as creationistic, in that an intelligence
purposefully created every socio-political event, and that we can view
creationism as a grand conspiracy; in that it assumes everything was purposefully designed for specific reasons.
Teleological
thinking is a common thought process that we all use every once in a
while. When it gets out of hand, however, it can cause some people to
see patterns where none exist and to reject the idea that some things
might not be the result of a master plan. While it might be some time
before we finally learn how to educate people out of fallacious
teleological thinking, we do have a better understanding of how it
alters the way some people view the world.
Indian termination was the policy of the United States from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. It was shaped by a series of laws and policies with the intent of assimilating Native Americans
into mainstream American society. Assimilation was not new. The belief
that indigenous people should abandon their traditional lives and become
"civilized" had been the basis of policy for centuries. But what was
new was the sense of urgency, that with or without consent, tribes must
be terminated and begin to live "as Americans".
To that end, Congress set about ending the special relationship between
tribes and the federal government. The intention was to grant Native
Americans all the rights and privileges of citizenship, reduce their
dependence on a bureaucracy whose mismanagement had been documented, and
eliminate the expense of providing services for native people.
In practical terms, the policy ended the U.S. government's recognition of sovereignty of tribes, trusteeship over Indian reservations,
and exclusion of state law applicability to native persons. From the
government's perspective Native Americans were to become taxpaying
citizens, subject to state and federal taxes as well as laws, from which
they had previously been exempt.
If you can't change them, absorb
them until they simply disappear into the mainstream culture. ... In
Washington's infinite wisdom, it was decided that tribes should no
longer be tribes, never mind that they had been tribes for thousands of
years.
— Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Opening Keynote Address
The policy for termination of tribes collided with the Native
American peoples' own desires to preserve native identity, reflected in
an activism that increased after World War II and survived through the anti-collectivism era of Joseph McCarthy.
The termination policy was changed in the 1960s and rising activism
resulted in the ensuing decades of restoration of tribal governments and
increased Native American self-determination.
Process
Termination
began with a series of laws directed at dismantling tribal sovereignty.
From June 1940 until September 1950, six laws were passed that gave
states criminal or limited-criminal jurisdiction over tribes and
reservations within those states. In 1949, the Hoover Commission Report,
recommending integration of native peoples into mainstream society, and
the 1952 House Report (HR No. 2503), investigating the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, both portrayed termination as cost effective and benign in
its effects.
The House concurrent resolution 108
of 1953 announced the federal policy of termination and called for the
immediate ending of the Federal relationship with a selected group of
tribes.
The resolution established that Congress would pass termination acts on a
tribe by tribe basis. Most such acts included the cessation of federal
recognition and all the federal aid that came along with that
designation. Between 1953 and 1964, the government terminated
recognition of more than 100 tribes and bands as sovereign dependent
nations. These actions affected more than 12,000 Native Americans or 3%
of the total Native American population. Approximately 2,500,000 acres
(10,000 km2) of trust land was removed from protected status during these years. Much was sold by individuals to non-Natives.
The termination of these tribes ended federal government
guardianship of and recognition of those tribal governments and US
jurisdiction of tribal lands.
In addition to ending the tribal rights as sovereign nations, the
policy terminated federal support of most of the health care and
education programs, utility services, and police and fire departments
available to Indians on reservations. Given the considerable geographic
isolation of many reservations and inherent economic problems, not many
tribes had the funds to continue such services after termination was
implemented.
The tribes initially selected for termination had been considered
groups who were the most successful in the United States, in some cases,
because of natural resources controlled by their reservations.
A few tribes mounted legal challenges to maintain tribal
government and the trust relationship with the federal government.
Through the Indian Claims Commission,
tribes had the ability to file claims against the government for
breaches of treaty or grievances. The five year dead-line for making a
claim, August 1951, caused many tribes to file in the months preceding
the end of the registration period. In some instances, pending claims
cases with complex legal issues aided the tribes in preventing
termination, while in others, tribes were taken advantage of by
government agents and their associates.
Legislation and policy
The Kansas Act of 1940
Federal policy up until the 1940s had mainly held that the Federal Government had sole jurisdiction over Indians. The Kansas Act of 1940
was "trial" legislation granting state jurisdiction over most criminal
offenses committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations. If
successful, it was to be implemented elsewhere. Kansas
had been exercising jurisdiction over offenses, including those listed
in the Indian Major Crimes Act, and their authority to do that was
called into question. To clarify the state's authority, they proposed
the act to fill a perceived gap in jurisdiction. None of the four federally recognized tribes living in Kansas: Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Sac & Fox, and Iowa, had tribal courts to deal with offenses, and state jurisdiction did not extend to Indian lands. The law, passed on 8 June 1940, as Title 25 U.S. Code § 217a ch. 276, 54 Stat. 249
gave Kansas courts jurisdiction to try persons for conduct that
violates state law, even if the federal government is also able to try
the offense under federal jurisdiction.
Almost immediately, similar statutes were passed in North Dakota, Iowa and New York, granting state jurisdiction over most offenses committed by or against Indians in Indian country.
Survey of Indian conditions
In 1943 the United States Senate commissioned a survey of Indian conditions. It indicated that living conditions on the reservations were extremely poor. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and its bureaucracy were found to be at fault for the troubling problems due to extreme mismanagement. Congress concluded that some tribes no longer needed federal
'protection' and would be better off with more independence, rather than
having them depend on and be poorly supervised by the BIA. They also
thought the tribes should be assimilated to mainstream American society.
Goals of termination included freeing the Indians from domination by
the BIA, repealing laws that discriminated against Indians, and ending
federal supervision of Indians. Senator Arthur V. Watkins of Utah, the strongest proponent of termination, equated it with the Emancipation Proclamation, which had declared the freedom of all slaves in the territory of the Confederate States of America.
Whereas it is the policy of
Congress, as rapidly as possible, to make the Indians within the
territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and
entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable
to other citizens of the United States, to end their status as wards of
the United States, and to grant them all of the rights and prerogatives
pertaining to American citizenship.
North Dakota jurisdiction on Devils Lake Indian Reservation
On 31 May 1946, Congress enacted An Act to confer jurisdiction on the State of North Dakota over offenses committed by or against Indians on the Devils Lake Indian Reservation,
[Public Law 394] 60 Stat. 229. In language reminiscent of the Kansas
Act of 1940, the law granted the State of North Dakota jurisdiction for
criminal offenses occurring on lands occupied by the Spirit Lake Tribe, but retained the right of the federal government for jurisdiction on offenses against federal law.
Indian Claims Commission Act
In 1945, earnest discussion began on creating an Indian Claims Commission.
The idea had been circulating for years but had never gained much
momentum. However, in the wake of termination, it took on new life.
Policymakers saw that settling claims would become the means to speed
along the process of ending "Indian-identity" and move tribe members
into the broader society. Simultaneously it would eliminate the need of
the government to continue serving as tribal guardian,
or at the very least allow the government to reduce "appropriations for
tribes in proportion to the size of their claim settlements".
On 13 August 1946 the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, Pub.
L. No. 79-726, ch. 959, passed. Its purpose was to settle for all time
any outstanding grievances or claims the tribes might have against the
U.S. for treaty breaches, unauthorized taking of land, dishonorable or
unfair dealings, or inadequate compensation. Claims had to be filed
within a five-year period. Most of the 370 complaints that were
submitted were filed at the approach of the 5-year deadline in August 1951.
The life of the Commission was extended but eventually Congress
terminated it on 30 September 1978; it transferred outstanding claims to
the United States Court of Federal Claims. The final case, Pueblo of San Ildefenso v. United States, was finally resolved in 2006.
Iowa jurisdiction on Sac and Fox Indian Reservation
On 30 June 1948, Congress enacted An Act to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation,
[Public Law 846] 62 Stat. 1161. In language reminiscent of the Kansas
Act of 1940, the law granted the State of Iowa jurisdiction for criminal
offenses occurring on lands occupied by the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, but retained the right of the federal government for jurisdiction on offenses against federal law.
New York Act of 1948
On 2 July 1948 Congress enacted An Act to confer jurisdiction on the State of New York with respect to offenses committed on Indian reservations within such State,
[Public Law 881] 62 Stat. 1224. The language was virtually identical to
the Kansas, North Dakota and Iowa statutes, with two important
differences. It covered all reservations lands within the state and
prohibited the deprivation of hunting and fishing rights which may have
been guaranteed to "any Indian tribe, band, or community, or members
thereof". It further prohibited the state from requiring tribal members
to obtain fish and game licenses.
California Act of 1949
On 5 October 1949 Congress enacted An Act to confer jurisdiction on the State of California over the lands and residents of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in said State, and for other purposes,
[Public Law 322] 63 Stat. 705, which stated that "on and after January
1, 1950, all lands located on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in
the State of California, and the Indian residents thereof, shall be
subject to the laws, civil and criminal, of the State of California".
The law also made provisions for the tribe and the Secretary of the
Interior to negotiate easements for city improvements, thus it did not terminate tribal status.
New York Act of 1950
Within two years, Congress was reviewing a second piece of legislation with regard to New York,
to grant the state civil as well as criminal jurisdiction over Indians
and tribes. During congressional hearings on the law, tribes strongly
opposed the passage, fearful that states would deprive them of their
reservations. The State of New York disavowed any intention to break up
or deprive tribes of their reservations and asserted that they "did not
have the ability to do so".
On September 13, 1950, Congress enacted An Act to confer
jurisdiction on the courts of the State of New York with respect to
civil actions between Indians or to which Indians are parties, [Public Law 785] 64 Stat. 845,
granted the courts of New York authority to settle civil disputes
between Indians or Indians and others within the State. It allowed the
tribes to preserve customs, prohibited taxation on reservations,
and reaffirmed hunting and fishing rights. It also prohibited the state
from enforcing judgments regarding any land disputes or applying any
State Laws to tribal lands or claims prior to the effective date of the
law 13 September 1952.
House Concurrent Resolution 108
House Concurrent Resolution 108 of 1953 was a formal statement issued on August 1, 1953 by the United States Congress announcing the official federal policy of termination. The resolution called for the immediate termination of the Flathead, Klamath, Menominee, Potawatomi, and Turtle Mountain Chippewa, as well as all tribes in the states of California, New York, Florida, and Texas. Termination of a tribe meant the immediate withdrawal of all federal
aid, services, and protection, as well as the end of reservations.
Individual members of terminated tribes were to become full United
States citizens and have the benefits and obligations of any other
United States citizens. The resolution also called for the Interior Department to identify quickly more tribes who appeared ready for termination in the near future.
A January 21, 1954 memo by the Department of the Interior,
reviewing the effects of Resolution 108, stated that bills to terminate
66,000 Indians (1⁄7
of the total population) were under consideration by Congress. In
addition to the above list, the memo sets forth bill provisions for the
terminations of the Iroquois Confederation of Six Nations, Seneca, and the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin (formerly of New York); the Seminole Tribe of Florida; the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; a Kansas bill covering the Potawatomi, the Kickapoo, the Sac and Fox, and the Iowa Tribe; and 41 California Rancherias.
A memo dated January 19, 1955 for the BIA issued by the
Department of the Interior indicates additional terminations are being
reviewed in proposed legislation for four Indian communities of southern
Minnesota, including the Lower Sioux Community in Redwood and Scott counties, the New Upper Sioux Community in Yellow Medicine County, the Prairie Island Community in Goodhue County, and about 15 individuals living on restricted tracts in Yellow Medicine County.
Public Law 280
Public Law 280, passed in 1953, gave State governments the power to assume jurisdiction over Indian reservations, which had previously been excluded from state jurisdiction. It immediately granted the state criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian populations in California, Nebraska, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Special clauses prevented this law from being invoked on the Red Lake Reservation in Minnesota and the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon. After being admitted as a state in 1958, Alaska
was added to the list of covered states where termination would be the
goal. Public Law 280 also allowed any state to assume jurisdiction over
Indian lands by a statute or an amendment to the state constitution.
This law made both the states and Native Americans unhappy: the former
because they had new responsibilities without any increase in funding to
support additional staff and supplies, the latter because they were
subject to new state laws.
The federal goal in implementing P.L. 280 was two-fold: 1) to
fill the jurisdictional gap resulting from the native communities' lack
of independent formal judicial systems, which had resulted in a general
perception of lawlessness in their communities and 2) to assimilate
native peoples and their tribes into the cultures of their neighbors by
shifting the financial burden of prosecuting crimes in Indian Country to
their respective states.
The main effect of Public Law 280 was to disrupt the relationship
between the federal government and the Indian tribes. Previously the
tribes had been regulated directly by the federal government. In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court
had ruled that state laws cannot be enforced on Indian land. While
this preserved a kind of sovereignty and independence for tribes on
reservations, in other ways they depended on a complex bureaucracy for
services.
In 1955, Nevada
extended state jurisdiction over public offenses "committed by or
against Indians in the areas of Indian country" and determined that
Indian customs and traditions which were inconsistent with any State law
would not be given full force and effect in civil actions. Montana enacted legislation covering criminal offenses for the Flathead Reservation. Washington (state)
passed a law in 1957 allowing tribes to voluntarily go under state
jurisdiction and in 1963 assumed at least partial jurisdiction on all
reservations within the state. In 1963, Idaho
made provisions for tribes to be able to come under full jurisdiction
of the State or operate with concurrent jurisdiction between Indian
country and the State.
Indian Relocation Act of 1956
As part of the Indian Termination Policy, The Indian Relocation Act
of 1956, was passed. It was a federal law encouraging Native Americans,
who lived on or near Indian reservations to relocate to urban areas for
greater employment opportunities.
It is estimated that between the 1950s and 1980s, as many as
750,000 Native Americans migrated to the cities, some as part of the
relocation program, others on their own. By the 2000 census, the urban
Indian population was 64% higher than it had been in the pre-termination
era of the 1940s.
Regaining federal recognition
In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson
proposed ending termination, building partnerships between tribal
governments and the United States, and fostering tribal
self-determination and self-development, though the proposal never
passed. Subsequent presidents followed this informal approach until
1988, when House Concurrent Resolution 108 was formally abandoned.
Of the more than one hundred tribes terminated during this era,
many regained federal recognition. The tribes achieved this through long
court battles, which for some tribes took decades and exhausted large
amounts of money.
Some tribes, like the Choctaw and Seneca,
were able to delay termination long enough to have it cancelled before
implementation. Other tribes were marked for termination, like the Cold
Springs, Middletown, and Montgomery Creek Rancherias of California and
the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma but, due to errors in process, were not
successfully terminated. Some tribes such as the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin and Stockbridge-Munsee Community
pursued federal litigation to halt termination. Still others, though
marked for termination, fought the process and prevented laws from
coming out of committee or reaching the floor for a vote.
Tribal leaders played key roles in getting their cases heard by the United States Congress, through the political process, and by the Supreme Court
in suits and appeals. The tribes garnered publicity by creating
resistance groups. These both publicly protested the termination
policy, and fought political and court battles in Washington for
restoration of tribal sovereignty or other goals.
Re-recognized and restored tribes
Tribes which were terminated but regained their status as federally recognized sovereign states include:
The Lumbee have been recognized as an American Indian tribe by the State of North Carolina
since 1885. In 1956, the U.S. Congress also recognized the Lumbee as an
American Indian tribe but denied federal Indian benefits. The 1956
Lumbee Act blocked the BIA
from fully recognizing the Lumbee and withheld the full benefits of
federal recognition from the tribe. Efforts are currently underway to
pass federal legislation that will grant full recognition.
The Chinook Indian Nation
was terminated and has been fighting for restoration. In 2001 the US
Congress endorsed restoring four bands of the Chinook Indian Nation: the
Cathlamet (Oregon), Clatsop (Oregon), Wahkiakum (Washington) and Lower Columbia Chinook (Washington), but reversed the decision in 2002. An appeal is in process.
The Brothertown Indians
of Wisconsin were the first tribe in the US to accept United States
citizenship in 1839 and have their communal land allocated to individual
households, in order to prevent removal further west. In a 2012 final
determination on the Brothertown petition for federal recognition, the
Department of the Interior determined that since Congress granted them
citizenship which terminated their tribal status, only Congress could
restore the tribe's federal recognition. They are still attempting to
gain restoration.
By the early 1960s, some federal leaders began opposing the
implementation of any more termination measures, although the
administration of President John F. Kennedy did oversee some of the last terminations. The last two terminations occurred in the 1960s, those of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska,
legally began in 1962—after Kennedy signed the order, at the urging of
Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall—and culminated in 1966; and that of the Tiwa Indians of Ysleta, Texas which transferred federal authority to the State of Texas in 1968. Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon changed federal policy, encouraging Indian self-determination instead of termination.
Forced termination is wrong, in my
judgment, for a number of reasons. First, the premises on which it rests
are wrong. ... The second reason for rejecting forced termination is
that the practical results have been clearly harmful in the few
instances in which termination actually has been tried. ... The third
argument I would make against forced termination concerns the effect it
has had upon the overwhelming majority of tribes which still enjoy a
special relationship with the Federal government. ... The
recommendations of this administration represent an historic step
forward in Indian policy. We are proposing to break sharply with past
approaches to Indian problems.
— President Richard Nixon, Special Message on Indian Affairs, July 8, 1970.
Some tribes resisted termination by filing civil lawsuits. The litigation lasted until 1980, when the issue made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 1974 Boldt Decision
was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980, recognizing that tribes
retained treaty rights for fishing and hunting, including the right to
conduct such activities off the reservation and without state
regulation.
Activism in the 1960s led to the founding of several Native American rights organizations, such as the American Indian Movement (AIM), and other organizations that helped protect the rights of Indians and their land. In 1975, Congress implicitly rejected the termination policy by passing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
which increased tribal control over reservations and helped with
funding to build schools closer to reservations. On January 24, 1983,
President Ronald Reagan issued an American Indian policy statement that supported explicit repudiation of the termination policy.
Tribes which evaded termination
Termination, although often accompanied with pressure and coercion, was considered "voluntary" and required tribal consent.
Some of the tribes in this category may have had a formal termination
agreement approved, but they were successful at warding off termination
until repudiation, or terms of their agreement were unmet. Other tribes
in this category were approved for termination, but were successful in
testifying before Congress that they should not be terminated.
Iroquois Confederation of the Six Nations
Beginning
in 1953, a Federal task force began meeting with the tribes of the Six
Nations. Despite tribal objections, legislation was introduced into
Congress for termination. The proposed legislation involved more than 11,000 Indians of the Iroquois Confederation and was divided into two separate bills. One bill dealt with the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Tuscarora tribes and the other dealt with the Seneca (see § Seneca Nation).
The arguments the Six Nations made in their hearings with
committees were that their treaties showed that the United States
recognized that their lands belonged to the Six Nations, not the United
States and that "termination contradicted any reasonable interpretation
that their lands would not be claimed or their nations disturbed" by the
federal government. The bill for the Iroquois Confederation died in committee without further serious consideration.
"Emigrant Indians" of New York
A January 21, 1954 memo by the Department of the Interior advised
that a bill for termination is to be prepared including "about 3,600
members of the Oneida Tribe residing in Wisconsin. These Indians have no
land in Federal trusteeship and are not receiving any Federal services
in such fields as health or education." Clarification of who these tribes were was found in a Department of the Interior memo entitled Indian Claims Commission Awards Over $38.5 Million to Indian Tribes in 1964, which states that the Emigrant Indians of New York are "now known as the Oneidas, Stockbridge-Munsee, and Brotherton Indians of Wisconsin".
In an effort to fight termination and force the government into
recognizing their outstanding land claims from New York, the three
tribes began filing litigation in the 1950s.
As a result of a claim filed with the Indian Claims Commission, the
group was awarded a settlement of $1,313,472.65 on August 11, 1964. To distribute the funds, Congress passed Public Law 90-93 81 Stat. 229 Emigrant New York Indians of Wisconsin Judgment Act
and prepared separate rolls of persons in each of the three groups to
determine which tribal members had at least one-quarter "Emigrant New
York Indian blood". It further directed tribal governing bodies of the
Oneidas and Stockbridge-Munsee to apply to the Secretary of the Interior
for approval of fund distributions, thereby ending termination efforts
for these tribes. With regard to the Brothertown Indians, however,
though the law did not specifically state they were terminated, it
authorized all payments to be made directly to each enrollee with
special provisions for minors to be handled by the Secretary. The
payments were not subject to state or federal taxes.
When guidelines were established in 1978 to regain federal recognition, the Brothertown Indians
submitted a petition. It was rejected because they had lost federal
recognition through congressional legislation granting them citizenship.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs acknowledged in 1993 that the federal
government had recognized them as a sovereign tribe in treaties for
1831, 1832 and in the "1839 act which granted them citizenship and gave
the tribe land in Wisconsin". Based on these findings the tribe
petitioned the Department of the Interior again.
In 2012 the Department, in the final determination on the Brothertown
petition, determined that the tribal status of the group was terminated
by the 1839 act granting citizenship. The acting Assistant Secretary
noted that only Congress could restore the tribal status.
In an ongoing effort to regain recognition, the tribe asked the Town
Board of Brothertown, Wisconsin for support. In a vote held on 27
December 2013, the town refused to endorse a plan to seek Congressional
approval.
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Nation
In 1954 at Congressional hearings, the Flathead Tribes were able to resist the government's plans to terminate their tribe.
An opinion issued April 8, 1980 in the US District court for the State
of Montana confirmed that the Flathead Reservation held in trust by the
US Government had not been diminished nor terminated since enactment of The Flathead Act
of April 23, 1904. It further clarified that Congress's intent to
terminate must be clear and cannot be inferred, stating "A congressional
determination to terminate must be expressed on the face of the Act or
be clear from the surrounding circumstances and legislative history."
Kansas tribes
Because jurisdiction over criminal matters had already been transferred to the State of Kansas by the passage of the Kansas Act of 1940, the government targeted the four tribes in Kansas for immediate termination. In February 1954 joint hearings for the Kansas tribes were held by the House and Senate Subcommittees on Indian Affairs.
The Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation tribal leader, Minnie Evans (Indian name: Ke-waht-no-quah Wish-Ken-O), led the effort to stop termination.
Tribal members sent petitions of protest to the government and multiple
delegations went to testify at congressional meetings in Washington,
DC. Tribal Council members Vestana Cadue, Oliver Kahbeah, and Ralph Simon of the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas
traveled at their own expense to testify as well. The strong opposition
from the Potawatomi and Kickapoo tribes helped them, as well as the Sac & Fox and the Iowa Tribe, avoid termination.
Chippewa Indians of the Turtle Mountain Reservation
Though
termination legislation was introduced (Legislation 4. S. 2748, H.R.
7316. 83rd Congress. Termination of Federal Supervision over Turtle
Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians), the law was not implemented. In 1954, at the Congressional hearings for the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians,
tribal Chairman Patrick Gourneau and a delegation spoke in Washington,
DC. They testified that the group was not financially prepared, had high
unemployment and poverty, suffered from low education levels, and
termination would be devastating to the tribe. Based on their testimony,
the Chippewa were dropped from the tribes to be terminated.
Minnesota Sioux Communities
Discussions between the BIA and the Indians from the Lower Sioux Community in Redwood and Scott counties, the New Upper Sioux Community in Yellow Medicine County, the Prairie Island Community in Goodhue County and some scattered individuals living on restricted tracts in Yellow Medicine County
began in 1953 and continued throughout 1954. Though the Prairie Island
and Lower Sioux communities drafted agreements with individual land
ownership, the Upper Sioux strongly opposed fee simple title to tribal
lands.
On January 26, 1955, Senator Edward Thye introduced into Congress
a bill (S704) to provide for termination of the tribes. Opposition, not
only of the Dakota, but of other citizens who realized their state
expenses might increase, were made to the committee reviewing the bill.
The Governor's Commission on Human Rights also opposed the legislation,
indicating that it would "not adequately protect the interests of the
Indians". The bill died in committee, never reaching the Senate floor.
Seminole Tribe of Florida
Being proposed for termination galvanized the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
On 9 October 1953, an emergency meeting was called at the agency
headquarters on the Dania Reservation. There were two issues to be
considered: 1) convincing the government that the tribe was not ready to
take over management of its own affairs and 2) convincing the
government that not all native people living in Florida were Seminole.
On March 1–2, 1954, designated tribal members testified at a Joint
Hearing before the Subcommittees of the Committees on Interior and
Insular Affairs of the 83rd Congress. Additional hearings were held 6–7
April 1955, requesting the continuance for the next 25 years of
government supervision and separation of the Seminoles from the
Miccosukees and Traditionals. By March 26, 1957, a committee had been
formed to draft a constitution and corporate charter. The constitution
and bylaws were accepted by tribal vote on August 21, 1957
and ratified by Congress later that same year. The Miccosukees formed
their own government, receiving state recognition in 1957 and federal
recognition as the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida in 1962. Some Traditionals refused to affiliate with either tribe, not wanting relations with the federal government.
Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma
On August 1, 1956, the US Congress passed Public Law ch. 843, 70 Stat. 893 to terminate the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma. Three years were allotted for completion of termination
and one of the stipulations required that a parcel of land in Kansas
City, Kansas reserved as the Huron Cemetery which had been awarded to
the Wyandottes by treaty on January 31, 1855 was to be sold by the
United States. Litigation was filed by a group of Absentee Wyandots
against the United States and the City of Kansas City, Kansas which
resulted in an inability of the US to fulfill the terms of the
termination statute and ultimately kept the Wyandotte Tribe from being
terminated.
The Bureau of Land Management records confirm that the Federal Register
never published the termination of the Wyandotte lands and thus they
were never officially terminated.
To clarify the uncertainty, since an actual act had been passed, when Congress restored the other Oklahoma Tribes,
it included the Wyandotte in the repeal. On May 15, 1978, in a single
Act, entitled Public Law 95-281, the termination laws were repealed and
the three tribes were reinstated with all rights and privileges they had
prior to termination.
California Rancherias
41 Rancherias in California were approved for termination under the original terms of the 1958 California Rancheria Termination Act,
Public Law 85-671 and another 7 Rancherias were targeted in the 1964
amendment to the Act. For five of the Rancherias terminations were not
completed by the US government.
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
After eleven years as Choctaw chief, Harry J. W. Belvin persuaded Representative Carl Albert
of Oklahoma to introduce federal legislation to begin terminating the
Choctaw tribe, as a means to circumvent BIA intrusion into tribal funds
and government.
On April 23, 1959, the BIA confirmed that H.R. 2722 had been submitted
to Congress at the request of the tribe, and would sell all remaining
tribal assets, but would not effect any individual Choctaw earnings. It
also provided for retention of half of all mineral rights which could be
managed by a tribal corporation.
On August 25, 1959, Congress passed a bill to terminate the tribe, which was later called Belvin's law as he was the main advocate behind it.
In actuality, the provisions of the bill were intended to be a final
disposition of all trust obligations and a final "dissolution of the
tribal governments". The original Act was to have expired in 1962, but was amended twice to
allow more time to sell the tribal assets. As time wore on, Belvin
realized that the bill severed the tribe members access to government
loans and other services, including the tribal tax exemption. By 1967,
he had asked Oklahoma Congressman Ed Edmondson to try to repeal the termination act. Congress finally repealed the law on August 24, 1970.
Seneca Nation
On August 31, 1964, H.R. 1794, An Act to authorize payment for certain interests in lands within the Allegheny Indian Reservation in New York,
was passed by Congress and sent to the president for signature. The
bill authorized payment for resettling and rehabilitation of the Seneca Indians.
As part of their reservation was effected by the construction of the
Kinzua Dam on the Allegheny River, 127 Seneca families (about 500)
people were being dislocated. The legislation provided benefits for the
entire Seneca Nation, because the taking of the Indian land for the dam
broke (abridged) a 1794 treaty between the Government and the Senecas.
In addition, the bill provided that within three years, a plan from the
Interior Secretary should be submitted to Congress withdrawing all
federal supervision over the Seneca Nation. (Technically the state of
New York, and not the Federal Government, had had supervision over the
Senecas since 1949.)
Accordingly, on September 5, 1967, a memo from the Department of
the Interior announced that legislation had been proposed to end federal
ties with the Seneca.
In 1968 a new liaison was appointed from the BIA for the tribe to
assist the tribe in preparing for termination and rehabilitation. Like the Choctaw, the Seneca were able to hold off termination until President Nixon issued his Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs in July 1970.
Jurisdictional terminations and restorations
Termination
acts were passed dealing with particular tribes or groups of tribes
because of special circumstances. They followed the basic termination
policies, but sometimes had minor variations. In some cases, when
termination was reversed, the government granted recognition, but no
restoration of federal trust lands occurred. Some of those tribes,
specifically in California, are still seeking restoration of reservation
lands.
Menominee Termination Act
The Menominee tribe of Wisconsin
was one of the first tribes proposed for termination. Observers
believed they did not need governmental services because of the value of
their timber lands. On June 17, 1954, Congress passed the Menominee
Termination Act, ending the special relationship between the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin and the federal government. Though the act was passed in 1954, it was not until April 30, 1961, that they were officially terminated.
The Menominee did not initially cooperate with the new policy.
They had recently won a court case against the government over
mismanagement of forestry enterprises, and Senator Watkins threatened to
withhold the $8.5 million settlement unless the Menominee agreed to
termination. Previously, the tribe had been able to support themselves
and fund most social programs with revenue generated by the logging
industry and lumber mill. Their economic situation, however, was
precarious since they only had one resource.
This act was unique because it left out termination of Menominee hunting and fishing rights. The state of Wisconsin
tried to subject the Menominee tribe to state hunting and fishing
regulations, including requiring individuals to get permits for hunting.
When the tribe filed suit against the state to defend their treaty
rights, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
upheld these regulations. They ruled that Congress had abrogated all
Menominee hunting and fishing rights by passing the Menominee
Termination Act.
The tribe appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1968 in Menominee Tribe v. United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that termination of a tribe did not
abrogate treaty rights unless there was specific legislative intent to
do so.
The Menominees' hunting and fishing rights were guaranteed under the
Wolf River Treaty of 1854. Since the Menominee Termination Act made no
mention of these treaty hunting and fishing rights, the U.S. Supreme
Court found that the treaty rights had not been abrogated. They ruled
that the Menominee were still entitled to their traditional hunting and
fishing rights free from state control.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had gone against Public Law 280 when
they denied the Menominee their hunting and fishing rights (124 N.W.2d
41, 1963). Public Law 280 explicitly states that "Nothing in this
section ... shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or
community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal
treaty, agreement or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or
fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof." These proceedings show that while the abrogation of federal treaties is legal (under Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock),
Congressional intent to abrogate these treaties cannot be inferred, it
must be explicit. Unless specifically abrogated by Congress, treaty
rights remain in effect, whether a tribe is terminated or not.
After they were terminated, the commonly held land and money were
transferred to the corporation Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI), and
the geographical area of the reservation was admitted to the state as a
new county. Menominee County
soon became the poorest county in the state. MEI funds were rapidly
depleted. Concern about corruption within MEI, including its selling of
former tribal land, led community members such as Ada Deer and James
White to form a group called the Determination of Rights and Unity for
Menominee Stockholders (DRUMS) in 1970.
They fought to regain control of MEI and, by the end of 1972,
they controlled the corporation. The activists worked to restore
Menominee tribal government and regain sovereignty. Their success was
reflected in the Menominee Restoration Act, signed by President Richard Nixon
in 1973. With the help of the Menominee Restoration Committee (MCR),
the reservation was reformed in 1975, a tribal constitution was signed
in 1976, and the new tribal government took over in 1979.
Klamath Termination Act
The Klamath tribe in Oregon was terminated under the Klamath Termination Act,
or Public Law 587, enacted on August 13, 1954. Under this act, all
federal supervision over Klamath lands, as well as federal aid provided
to the Klamath because of their special status as Indians, was
terminated.
The legislation required each tribal member to choose between remaining a
member of the tribe, or withdrawing and receiving a monetary payment
for the value of the individual share of tribal land.
Those who stayed became members of a tribal management plan. This plan
became a trust relationship between tribal members and the United States
National Bank in Portland, Oregon.
Of the 2,133 members of the Klamath tribe at the time of termination,
1,660 decided to withdraw from the tribe and accept individual payments
for land.
The termination of the Klamath Reservation, in actuality included
three distinct but affiliated tribes. The Act defines the members as
the "Klamath and Modoc Tribes and the Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians, and of the individual members thereof". A portion of the Modoc Tribe,
had been taken as prisoners to Indian Territory in 1873 following the
Modoc War in Oregon. In 1965, as a part of the US settlement with the
Klamath reservation, a series of hearings were held from April to
August. The hearings concluded without allowing the Oklahoma Modoc to be included in the rolls of the Klamath Tribe.
Ironically, the western Modoc were restored to tribal status on
May 15, 1978, in an Act which reinstated the Modoc, Wyandotte, Peoria
and Ottawa Tribes of Oklahoma.
Almost a decade later, through the leadership and vision of the Klamath
people, and the assistance of a few congressional leaders, the Klamath
Restoration Act was adopted into law in 1986, reestablishing the Klamath
as a sovereign state.
Western Oregon Indian Termination Act
The Western Oregon Indian Termination Act,
or Public Law 588, was passed in August 1954. It called for termination
of federal supervision over the trust and restricted property of
numerous Native American bands and small tribes, all located west of the
Cascade Mountains in Oregon.
The act also called for disposition of federally owned property which
had been bought for the administration of Indian affairs, and for
termination of federal services which these Indians received under
federal recognition. The stipulations in this act were similar to those of most termination acts.
The Western Oregon Indian Termination Act was unique because of
the number of tribes it affected. In all, 61 tribes in western Oregon
were terminated. This total of tribes numbered more than the total of
those terminated under all other individual acts.
The history of the area, with the Coastal Reservation being established
by Executive Order and not treaty, then separated into the Siletz and
Grande Ronde Reservations, then those two reservations being combined,
and yet again separated, makes the situation complicated, and difficult
to ascertain specific tribal data. The final roll of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz contained 929 names and the final roll of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde contained 862 names.
The combined total of these two confederations' population was 1,791,
though there may well have been scattered native peoples in the coastal
region who were not affiliated with these reservations.
There were restoration acts that restored all of the bands who
had tribe members that had been located on the Grand Ronde or Silez
Reservations. Some of these tribes were restored with those acts and
later obtained their own federal recognition.
November 18, 1977: Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians were restored by federal statute, Public Law No. 95-195, 91 Stat. 1415
Records of the Bureau of Land Management confirm that upon restoration
4,250.68 acres of land were re-established in the federal trust.
November 22, 1983: Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community were restored by federal statute. Public Law No. 98-165, 97 Stat. 1064 Upon restoration 10,678.36 acres of land were placed back into trust by the Bureau of Land management.
June 28, 1989: Coquille Indian Tribe were restored by Federal Statute, Public Law 101-42, though they had been restored as part of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians in 1977. The Bureau of Land Management placed 6,481.95 acres of land into trust for the tribe upon restoration.
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Termination Act
On August 23, 1954, the United States Congress passed two laws to terminate the federal relationship with the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas.
Public Law ch. 831, §1, 68 Stat. 768 provided that the Secretary of the
Interior was to transfer to the State of Texas the tribal lands for the
benefit of the tribe. In addition, it terminated the federal trust
relationship to the tribe and the individual members of the tribe and
canceled any federal debts.
On March 22, 1983, Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox released an
opinion (JM-17) stating that the state's assumption of power over the
property of the Alabama-Coushatta was a violation of the Texas
Constitution. He stated that as the federal government had withdrawn its
recognition that the tribe was "merely an unincorporated association
under Texas law, with the same legal status as other private
associations ... the 3,071 acre tract is entirely free from any legally
meaningful designation as an 'Indian Reservation'".
In response to concerns by the tribe, Representative Ronald D. Coleman
of Texas introduced a federal bill on February 28, 1985 to restore
federal jurisdiction for the tribe. Because the initial bill HR 1344 allowed gambling, amendments were made
and the Yselta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes
of Texas Restoration Act was reintroduced as HR 318.
Public Law 100-89, 101 STAT. 666 was enacted 18 August 1987 and
restored the federal relationship with the tribe. Section 107
specifically prohibits all gaming activities prohibited by the laws of
the state of Texas.
Ute Indians of Utah
On August 27, 1954, the US Congress passed Public Law 671 Chapter ch. 1009 68 Stat. 868 to partition the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
in Utah between the mixed-blood and full-blood members. The Act
provided for termination of federal supervision over the mixed-blood
members, terminated their access to Indian Health Services and allowed
for a distribution of assets to them. In addition it created a
development program to assist the full-blood members to prepare for
federal termination.
Anyone with less than half Ute blood was automatically classified as
part of the mixed-blood group. Anyone with more than half Ute blood
quantum was allowed to choose which group they wished to be part of
going forward.
Under the Act, the mixed-bloods were to select representatives in
an unincorporated association, the Affiliated Ute Citizens (AUC), which
in turn created the Ute Distribution Corporation (UDC) to manage their
oil, gas, and mineral rights and unliquidated claims against the federal
government as part of the plan for distributing assets to individual
mixed-bloods. The UDC issued stock shares to mixed-bloods and which
could be redeemed through the First Security Bank of Utah. Mixed-bloods
who wanted to dispose of their stock prior to August 27, 1964, had to
give first-refusal rights to tribe members.
In November 2002, mixed-bloods whose citizenship in the tribe had
been terminated filed a civil action in the Washington DC US District
Court, Felter vs. Kempthorne, to repeal the Ute Partition Act. On 27 January 2006, the case was dismissed
and an appeal was filed. In a decision dated January 19, 2007, the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the remand to the
district court for further review.
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
On September 1, 1954, the US Congress passed Termination of Federal Supervision over Paiute Indians of Utah
U.S. Code, Title 25, Sections 741-60. The legislation at §742 specified
that the included bands were the Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and
Indian Peaks Bands of the Paiute Indian Tribe (omitting the Cedar Band).
As with other termination agreements, the Act provided for termination
of federal trusts and distribution of tribal lands to individuals or a
tribally organized entity. It had provisions to preserve the tribal
water rights and a special education program to assist tribal members in
learning how to earn a living, conduct affairs, and assume their
responsibilities as citizens. The Bureau of Land management terminated tribal trusts on March 1, 1957, as did the Indian Health Service.
On April 3, 1980, Congress passed the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
Restoration Act, Public Law 96-227 94 Stat. 317, which restored the
federal trust relationship of the Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and
Indian Peaks Bands of the Paiute Indian Tribe and restored and
reaffirmed that the Cedar Band was part of the Tribe. The law
acknowledged that the Kanosh, Koosharem, and Indian Peaks Bands had lost
their lands as a result of termination and that the Cedar Band had
never had any. It proposed to develop within two years of enactment a
plan to secure reservation land for the tribe not to exceed 15,000
acres. The Bureau of Land management reinstituted the federal trust on 43,576.99 concurrent with the enactment of the statute.
Oklahoma Termination Acts
On August 1, 2, and 3, 1956, Congress passed three related Acts terminating the federal supervision of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; and the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma.
All three Acts were substantially identical and called for the
termination of federal supervision over trust lands at the end of three
years by creating the means to transfer to individual members the
property of the tribes. The Wyandotte Nation was not successfully terminated due to a legal complication.
On May 15, 1978, in a single Act, entitled Public Law 95-281, the
termination laws were repealed and the three tribes were reinstated
with all rights and privileges they had prior to termination. A special section of the Reinstatement Act addresses the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma confirming that the provisions of the Klamath Termination Act did not apply to them except as provided for sharing in future claims against the United States.
California Rancheria Termination Act
Three California Rancheria Termination Acts (and an amendment) were passed in the 1950s and 1960s. The first Act, passed in 1956, the second in 1957, and the final act of 1958 targeted 41 Rancherias for termination and an additional 7 under an amendment of 1964.
The first termination occurred on March 29, 1956, for the Koi Nation of the Lower Lake Rancheria in two laws, Public Law 443 [H. R. 585] 70 Stat. 58 and Public Law 751 [H. R. 11163] 70 Stat. 595 which amended the description of the property.
After years of attempting to have their status reaffirmed, the Bureau
of Indian Affairs "citing oversights in official records", recognized the tribe on December 29, 2000.
The second termination occurred on July 10, 1957, when the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians was displaced with passage of Public Law 85-91 71 Stat. 283 authorizing the sale of the Coyote Valley Rancheria
by the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army for the
Russian River Basin project to build the Coyote Valley Dam. Like the Koi Nation, this may have been a recording error, as the tribe is a federally recognized entity.
One final Rancheria appears to have been terminated prior to the 1958 Act. According to the Indian Health program records, Laguna Rancheria was terminated as of February 4, 1958.
On August 18, 1958, Congress passed the California Rancheria Termination Act, Public Law 85-671 (72 Stat.619). The act called for the distribution of all 41 rancheria communal lands and assets to individual tribe members.
Before the land could be distributed, the act called for a government
survey of land on the rancheria. The government was required to improve
or construct all roads serving the rancheria, to install or rehabilitate
irrigation, sanitation, and domestic water systems, and to exchange
land held in trust for the rancheria.
All Indians who received a portion of the assets were ineligible to
receive any more federal services rendered to them based on their status
as Indians.
In 1964, an amendment to the California Rancheria Termination Act (78 Stat.390)
was enacted, terminating additional rancheria lands. Overall, then,
there were three rancherias terminated prior to Public Law 85-671, 41
mentioned in Public Law 85-671, an additional 7 included in the
amendment of 1964 and 5 that were never terminated but were listed,
correcting the number of California Rancherias terminated from the
oft-cited 41 to 46 total terminations.
Many tribes expressed dissatisfaction with termination immediately.
Federal failures to live up to promised improvements and educational
opportunities that were supposed to be part of an agreement to accept
termination led eventually to lawsuits calling to reverse terminations.
The success of these suits and frustration with unmet promises caused Tillie Hardwick in 1979 to consult with California Indian Legal Services, who decided to make a class action case. On July 19, 1983, a U.S. District Court in Tillie Hardwick, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Case #C-79-1710-SW ordered federal recognition of 17 of California's Rancherias.
The Hardwick decision restored more terminated tribes than any other
single case in California and prompted the majority of the terminated
Rancherias to pursue federal restoration.
Of the 46 terminated Rancherias, 31 have been restored; 6 Rancherias are still attempting to restore their federal status.
Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Termination Act
On September 21, 1959, Congress passed Public Law No. 86-322, 73 Stat. 592 calling for the termination of the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina. The Bureau of Land Management terminated their trust status on July 2, 1960.
After termination in 1959, the Catawba
nation in South Carolina was determined to fight to regain federal
recognition. In 1973, the Catawba filed their petition with the United States Congress for federal recognition. It was not until 20 years later, November 20, 1993, that the land claim settlement with the state of South Carolina and the federal government finally came to an end.
Based on the Treaty of Nations Ford of 1840, the Catawba agreed
to give up claims on land taken from them by the state of South
Carolina. In return, the Catawba Indian Nation received federal recognition and $50 million for economic development, education, social services, and land purchases.
On October 27, 1993, the US Congress enacted Public Law No. 103-116,
107 Stat. 1118, to restore the tribal relationship with the federal
government and resolve the land disputes.
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
On September 5, 1962 Public Law 87–629 76 Stat. 429 was passed terminating the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.Conditions
were similar to other termination agreements, but each tribal member
was allotted up to 5 acres of tribal land for personal use as a homesite
and the remaining lands were ordered to be sold. One special provision
concerned retaining mineral rights to the property by individuals owning
at least 25% in the land. The Bureau of Land Management confirmed that the federal trust was terminated on October 27, 1966.
Fred Leroy, a Ponca and Vietnam veteran, formed the Northern Ponca Restoration Committee
in 1986–87 and began lobbying the state of Nebraska for recognition. In
1988 the state recognized the tribe and agreed to endorse them for
federal restoration. On October 31, 1990, the Ponca Restoration Act was passed by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush. Concurrent with their restoration, the Bureau of Land Management restored the tribal trust lands of 241.84 acres.
Tiwa Indians of Texas (now known as Ysleta del Sur Pueblo)
On April 12, 1968, under Public Law 90–287 82 Stat. 93 the United States Congress relinquished all responsibility for the Tiwa Indians of Ysleta, Texas
to the State of Texas. The Tiwa Indians Act specified that tribal
members would be ineligible for any services, claims or demands from the
United States as Indians.
Public Law 100-89, 101 STAT. 666 was enacted on August 18, 1987,
and restored the federal relationship with the tribe simultaneously with
those of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe. The restoration act renamed the
tribe to the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, repealed the Tiwa Indians Act, and specifically prohibited all gaming activities prohibited by the laws of the state of Texas.
Alaskan natives
Because Alaska was not granted statehood until 1959, Native American issues played out differently there. The discovery of oil in the Kenai Peninsula and Cook Inlet regions in 1957, and along the North Slope in 1968, brought the issue of native land ownership to the forefront of a conflict over state land selection.
In 1936, the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was extended to include the Alaskan natives. As Alaska did not become a state until 1959, the Alaskan Natives
were passed over as termination policy formed in 1953. The fervor for
termination faded before Alaskan Natives became subjects of the
discussion. Alaskan Natives hurriedly filed land claims with the Department of the Interior as state land selections and statehood drew closer.
Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall
was a supporter of the Natives. In 1966, he issued a freeze on state
land selections. In 1969 he issued the Deep Freeze, which declared
ninety percent of the state off limits to any form of federal land
transfer. One of the main bodies responsible for representing the
interests of the Alaskan Natives is the Alaska Federation of Natives.
From 1966 to 1971, this group lobbied for a fair land claims settlement
act, which resulted in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
ANCSA was intended both to provide the state with land promised in
gaining statehood and the Natives with a 40-million-acre (160,000 km2) land base.
This act (43 U.S.C. § 1617) was signed into law by President Richard Nixon
on December 18, 1971. It revoked previous land claims by the Alaskan
natives. Initially, the legislation divided the land into twelve
regional (a thirteenth would be added later for natives living outside
of the state) and 220 local corporations. U.S. citizens with one-fourth
(equivalent to one grandparent) or more Alaska Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
blood living when the Act was passed were considered Native American,
and were qualified to participate in receiving dividends from oil
production. Natives could register with their village or, if they chose
not to enroll with their village, could become "at large" shareholders
of the regional corporation. (Note: The Tsimshian Indians of the Annette Island Reserve of Metlakatla had been granted a reserve from Congress after emigrating from Canada; they were exempt from ANCSA.)
Each registered member of the village corporations received 100
shares of stock in the village corporation. The corporations were
granted the 44-million-acre (180,000 km2) land base, or about
twelve percent of the state of Alaska. In addition, they received
around $962.5 million from both federal and state governments, which was
distributed over eleven years. The first five years saw 10% of the
money received go to the shareholders of the company, and 45% each to
the regional and local corporations. Afterward, half of the money was
distributed to the regional corporations and half to the village
corporations and "at large" shareholders on a per capita basis.
Response and effects
The
land grant came at a cost. Aboriginal title to the land and aboriginal
hunting and fishing rights were extinguished by the act in exchange for
fee-simple title to the land and monetary grants to the Native
corporations. Certain aboriginal rights, including subsistence and
medical care, were protected under other laws, including the Nelson Act
of 1905, the Snyder Act of 1921, the Health Facilities Act of 1957, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, and the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act of 1976. In addition, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) protected over 100 million acres (400,000 km2)
of federal lands in Alaska and the subsistence lifestyle of the Alaskan
Natives. This act, passed into law in 1980, doubled the size of the
country’s national park and refuge system. It created 10 new national
parks and increased the area of three existing units.
By enacting this law, the government effectively protected land for the
Alaskan Natives to continue subsistence living. These laws indicate
that the government does not distinguish between tribal nations and the
Alaskan Natives.
A negative aspect of the ANCSA was that any child born after the
passage of the ANCSA could receive no shares under the statute, but
could become shareholders by inheritance. Shares could also be inherited
by non-Natives, putting the Natives in a difficult position in trying
to maintain Native control of the corporations. Shares could also be
sold after a 20-year period. Sovereignty was extinguished with the ANCSA
and all aboriginal rights were subject to state law.
The village corporations owned only the surface of the selected land.
Minerals located below the surface belonged to the regional
corporations.
Politics
The
political climate after World War II based its ideology on building a
patriotic, strong, conforming society with all ethnic groups melding
together in which free democracy protected American principals of growth
through one's own achievement. The Truman administration laid the
groundwork for termination, authorizing the Indian Claims Commission
to settle and pay off Indian groups and surveying conditions in Indian
country with the Hoover Task Force. The claims and large expenditures
for the survey, coupled with high war debt, led the Eisenhower
administration to seek ways to retrench federal budgeting and spending.
In attempting to grasp what was meant by assimilation into the
broader society, understanding the political landscape of the times is
important. Assimilation did not mean amalgamation. Cultural diversity
was not something to be appreciated, it was a problem that needed to be
solved.
This was the United States of "separate but equal". To put the period
in historic context, House Concurrent Resolution 108 passed in 1953, McCarthyism was in full swing and the Communist Control Act of 1954 was designed to keep "collectivism" out of politics. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, and the US was a decade away from the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anti-miscegenation laws were predominant (see Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States) and until the Perez v. Sharp decision of 1948 and Loving v. Virginia decision of 1967 racial inter-marriage was banned in over 30 states.
Allotment programs of the previous decades had led to surplus
lands being sold by the government to allow white settlement on former
reservation lands, creating an attitude that reservations were standing
in the way of progress for both native peoples and newly arrived whites.
In fact, one of the main architects of the termination policy, Senator Arthur V. Watkins' parents had expanded their farm by purchasing surplus reservation lands from the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.
But it was not just land for settlement; reservations were barriers to
the government earning revenues from oil leases, mining leases, timber
leases and hydroelectric dams. The perception was that the Indians were
under-utilizing their resources and blocking the ability of the
government to exploit the environment as a revenue base.
Politicians from both Democratic and Republican backgrounds supported termination
and in truth geographic location may have played a much stronger roll
in support than party affiliation. A review of the political figures
involved shows a preponderance of supporters were from western states
with high Indian populations.
In fact, rather than true opposition to termination, the question was
whether termination should be unilaterally applied or whether tribal
consent should be obtained. Even those who had a real understanding of
native peoples and customs, did not question that they would be
terminated, but rather how quickly it should be done, how ready they
were, whether Congress should immediately or gradually withdraw its
trust obligations—in other words to what degree implementation would
occur and when.
The native political positions were a little more clearly in favor or opposition. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
had had management issues for decades. Poorly trained personnel,
inefficiency, corruption, and lack of consistent policy plagued the
organization almost from its founding.
For some tribes, relief from BIA oversight of policies and funds seemed
as if it might pave the way for tribes to maintain their own
traditional ways of operating.
But for the vast majority of tribes, termination meant death – an end
to sovereignty, an end to communal life, an end to services like
healthcare, utilities, and education.
Legislative figures
Some
of the major supporters of the termination movement included political
appointees, which clearly illustrate that support was not particularly
partisan. Truman's appointee as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Dillon S. Myer, was a hard-line "Terminationist" as well as an advocate of complete assimilation. For example, in implementing the relocation
program, Myer targeted school programs mainstreaming mixed-bloods into
public schools and allowing only full-bloods to attend reservation
schools, forbidding education on Indian cultures. Myers' militaristic style resulted in calls for his replacement when Eisenhower was elected, culminating in the appointment of Glenn L. Emmons.
Emmons had lived and worked among New Mexico's Indians and while he
favored termination, he was a "Protectionist", believing that with a
gradual withdrawal of government assistance, native peoples would learn
to be self-sufficient. He opposed programs that exploited native
vulnerability and failed to take their wishes into consideration.
Truman's first Secretary of the Interior Julius Krug forsook his obligation to preserve Alaskan natives' rights to the Tongass National Forest.
It was widely believed that he had relinquished responsibility to
protect the Alaskan natives in favor of corporate timber interests.
Though urged to stop passage of the Tongass Timber Bill and set aside reservation lands, instead the bill was passed (Public Law 385) in 1947. The following year, Krug prepared the Krug Indian Land Confiscation Bill
to put an end to all native land claims in Alaska, but was forced to
abandon the measure due to opposition shortly before he resigned. Krug was replaced by Oscar L. Chapman, a "Protectionist" who was a supporter of Bosone's termination amendment requiring tribal assent. Eisenhower's election saw a shift back to a "Terminationist" Secretary of the Interior, with the appointment of Douglas McKay. McKay, former Republican governor of Oregon, supported termination as a means of fully assimilating the Indians. Orme Lewis,
Arizona Republican and Assistant Secretary of the Interior Department,
clearly supported termination and was one of the primary officials to
meet with Watkins to map out the termination policy.
The ranks of "Protectionist" elected officials—who felt that the
Tribes should be consulted, policies should move slowly, and termination
should occur only when Indians were ready—were small, but powerful.
Some of the leaders were Utah Senator Reva Beck Bosone, Democrat
who introduced House Joint Resolution 490, which allowed termination
only with the Indians' consent, on their own terms, as she felt they
were capable of managing their own affairs. Oregon Senator Richard L. Neuberger, Democrat and Oregon Representative Albert Ullman, Democrat
worked together to delay implementation of the Klamath termination law
until hearings with the Indians were held and amendments could be made.
Montana Senator James Murray, Democrat and Montana Representative Lee Metcalf, Democrat strongly opposed ending federal trust status unless the tribes had requested it.
and worked on four proposals demanding restoration of the federal
responsibility for Indian welfare, education, employment and health
care. New Mexico Senator Clinton P. Anderson, Democrat advocated that the views of the tribes should be considered or legislation should not be passed, as did Oregon Senator Guy Cordon, Republican.
Republican Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah was the chief Congressional proponent of Indian termination
The chief Congressional proponent of Indian termination and leader of the "Terminationists" was Republican Senator Arthur V. Watkins of Utah. He was appointed as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs in 1947, shortly after he was elected to the Senate and quickly went to work to free the Indians from their wardship status under the BIA.
Patrick McCarran (Nevada Democratic Senator), introduced the McCarran Amendment
in 1952 as part of the Department of Justice’s Appropriation Act. The
Amendment was supposed to simplify Indian water rights by waiving, on a
limited basis, the U.S. sovereign immunity for state litigation
involving water. Since Native rights are held in the name of the U.S.,
the Supreme Court ruled in 1971 in the US v. District Court for the
County of Eagle and US v. District Court for Water Division No. 5, that
their rights are usage rights and not legal title; thus, states can
determine whether tribal rights apply or not. Karl E. Mundt South Dakota Republican Congressman),
believed that unless a permanent solution to Indian claims was offered,
"detribalization" would remain out of reach and Native Americans would
continue to rely on the government to do what they should be doing for
themselves. William Langer (North Dakota Republican Senator), Chairman of the Senate Civil Service Committee saw dissolution of the BIA as a means to reduce excessive government spending.
Several tribal leaders played important roles in the process of termination, including Choctaw Chief Harry J. W. Belvin. Belvin lobbied heavily for Choctaw
termination, which contributed to the tribe's being one of more than
100 scheduled for termination. The effective date of the policy was
pushed back three times, and the termination law was repealed in 1970,
after another change in policy. Many of the younger members of the
Choctaw tribe opposed termination and got Belvin's attention. By 1970,
Belvin had turned from supporting termination to advocating its repeal.
Ada Deer was instrumental in reversing termination. She was a leader in regaining tribal status for the Menominee tribe. Deer and other Menominee
leaders believed that "only repeal of the termination act, return of
the land to its trust status, and full recognition of the tribe and its
sovereign authority could right the wrongs against their people and
their land". Ada Deer faced strong opposition from House Interior Committee chairman Wayne Aspinall,
who had been a long-time supporter of termination. The Menominee bill
to reverse termination had to go through his committee. Deer's work paid
off when Aspinall was upset in the Colorado Democratic primary in 1972, and thus lost his committee chair.
In 1973, Congressmen Lloyd Meeds and Manuel Lujan held House field hearings. The Menominee Restoration Act moved quickly through Congress, and President Richard Nixon signed it into law December 1973. In 1975, the restoration was complete when Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton
held a ceremony in which he signed the documents that dissolved
Menominee Enterprises, Incorporated. He gave all Menominee lands back to
the tribe. Ada Deer's work to reverse Menominee termination was
successful.
James White worked alongside Ada Deer to help bring about the
reversal of termination. White helped found the organization known as
Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Stockholders (DRUMS) in
1970. Members of DRUMS strongly protested the development of the Legend Lake
project and put up their own candidates for election to Menominee
Enterprises, Inc. board of directors. DRUMS succeeded in blocking the
planned Legend Lake development and controlled most of the board of MEI
by 1972. In addition, White's work with DRUMS helped bring about the
reversal of Menominee termination.
Tillie Hardwick
was a Pomo Indian woman who was instrumental in reversing the
California Indian Rancheria termination policy of the U.S. government.
She filed suit on behalf of the Pinoleville Indian Rancheria in 1979 which was modified into a class action lawsuit in 1982. The case, Tillie Hardwick, et al. v. United States of America, et al.
Case #C-79-1710-SW (often cited as Hardwick I) confirmed, as of
December 22, 1983, that 17 of the California Rancherias had been
wrongfully terminated and reaffirmed their recognition by the federal
government. As many of the tribes involved had lost their lands to
private parties, an amended Hardwick case was filed in 1986 (often cited
as Hardwick II) to partially restore land claims.
The Hardwick case affected more tribes than any other case in
California and became precedent not only for additional wrongful
termination cases, but is cited in nearly every gaming decision for the
California tribes.
Bill Osceola (June 30, 1919 – April 16, 1995) participated in both the March 1–2, 1954 and April 6– 7, 1955 Congressional hearings on the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
On April 4, 1955, when the tribe created a board of directors to
organize the tribe, he was appointed chairman. Lacking the necessary
funds to make repeated trips to Washington, DC and Tallahassee, Florida
to argue their case, Osceola came up with a plan to build a rodeo arena
on the Dania Reservation as a tourist attraction. He convinced cattlemen
in Brighton to commit cattle and got lumber donations from people in
Broward County. Opening day at the Rodeo saw 500 spectators and proceeds
were used to organize the tribe and gain federal recognition.
The rodeo that Osceola began in an effort to save his tribe was
christened on February 7, 1997 as the Bill Osceola Memorial Rodeo, to
honor his memory.
In February 1954 in hearings before the joint Senate and House
Subcommittees on Indian Affairs in Washington DC, two delegations from
Kansas were successfully able to thwart termination attempts against the
Kansas Tribes. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation tribal chair Minnie Evans, along with James Wahbnosah and John Wahwassuck and a delegation from the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas Tribal Council including members Vestana Cadue, Oliver Kahbeah, and Ralph Simon traveled at their own expense to argue against termination.
Effects
During 1953–1964, more than 100 tribes were terminated, approximately 1,365,801 acres (5,527 km2) of trust land were removed from protected status, and 13,263 Native Americans lost tribal affiliation.
As a result of termination, the special federal trustee relationship of
the Indians with the federal government ended, they were subjected to
state laws, and their lands were converted to private ownership.
The tribes disapproved of Public Law 280, as they disliked states
having jurisdiction without tribal consent. The State governments also
disapproved of the law, as they did not want to take on jurisdiction for
additional areas without additional funding. Consequently, additional
amendments to Public Law 280 were passed to require tribal consent in
law enforcement.
On May 3, 1958, the Inter Tribal Council of California (ITCC) was
founded in response to the pressures of termination and other issues.
Many scholars believe that the termination policy had devastating effects on tribal autonomy, culture and economic welfare.
The lands belonging to the Native Americans, rich in resources, were
taken over by the federal government. The termination policy had
disastrous effects on the Menominee tribe (located in Wisconsin) and the Klamath tribes (located in Oregon), forcing many members of the tribes onto the public assistance roll.
Termination had a devastating effect on the health care and
education of Indians along with the economic stability of tribes. Along
with the end of federal control over land came the end of many federal
services which included education and health care.
Education
By
1972, termination clearly had affected the tribes' education. There was a
75% dropout rate for the Menominee Tribe, which resulted in a
generation of Menominee children who had only a ninth grade education.
The tribes lost federal support for their schools, and the states were
expected to assume the role of educating the Indian children. The Menominee
children, for example, did not have their own tribal schools any more
and were discriminated against within the public schools. The Menominee
education program became a part of Joint School District No. 8. Younger
children were still able to attend schools close to their homes, but
high school students had to travel to either Gresham, Wisconsin, or Shawano for schooling.
All terminated tribes faced new education policies, which gave the
children fewer educational opportunities that were not as good as what
the whites received.
The idea of termination was to restore complete sovereignty to
the United States, and to encourage assimilation into a modern,
individualistic society, rather than a savage tribal mentality. In 1966
the Keshena and Neopit
3rd and 6th graders' success on the Iowa Test for basic skills was
compared to the rest of their school district (Joint School District No.
8). The school district had a composite grade for the 3rd and 6th
graders of 82% and 60%, respectively. However, the two schools composed
mostly of Indian students had drastically lower scores. Keshena's
scores on this same test were about 13% for the 3rd graders and 17% for
the 6th graders, while Neopit's were 15% for the 3rd graders and 8% for
the 6th graders. From these test scores, it can be seen that education
was not improved when termination occurred and the Indians' level of
education was nowhere near that of whites in the area.
Terminated tribal children struggled to stay in school, and those
who did were excluded from programs that paid for higher Indian
education. In 1970 the BIA began to make annual grants that gave
scholarships to Indians to attend college. This helped the
non-terminated tribes, but individuals within terminated tribes were not
allowed to apply for these funds. As a result, individuals who were
successful and managed to graduate from high school had trouble going to
college because they could not apply for scholarship assistance.
Health care
The Indian Health Service provided health care for many Indian tribes, but once a tribe was terminated all tribe members lost their eligibility. Many no longer had easy access to hospitals and had no means to get health care. For example, the Menominee people had no tribal hospitals or clinics. The tribal hospital at Keshena
had to close because it did not meet state standards, and the lack of
funds available prevented the county from making improvements. Along
with the hospital, the tribal clinic was also closed after termination
occurred.
When there was a tuberculosis epidemic, 25% of the people were
affected and had no means to get treatment because there was no longer a
hospital or a clinic.
The health standards of Indians fell well below those of whites. The
Menominee tribe had three times the infant mortality rate as the rest of
the state. Dental care was also affected by termination; ninety percent
of school age children in the Menominee tribe were in need of dental
care, which was no longer provided as a free service since they did not
have tribal status.
The Western Oregon tribes who were terminated, much like the Menominee
tribe, also felt the effects of termination on their health care
services. In a 1976 survey, 75% of the Indians in Western Oregon
reported needing dental care and 30% were in need of eyeglasses. In
addition to affecting adults, schools also reported that the primary
problem for Indian children was the need of medical treatment that their
parents could not afford.
Many Indians relocated off the reservations during termination
and also had no access to health care. When they relocated they were
given private health care for six months, but then they had none unless
they were close to a city with an Indian health care facility.
Eventually the Bureau of Indian Affairs
could not provide necessary health services for the many tribes that
were terminated, and Congress began reform the Indian health care
policy. In 1955, the Indian Health Service was transferred from the administration of the BIA to the Public Health Service,
which resulted in an almost immediate improvement in funding, training
and services. By 1964 the reforms were leading to progress, as Indian
life expectancy rose from 51 years in 1940 to 63.5 years.
Economy
Termination,
although not the only cause of Indian poverty, had a significant effect
on it. The Menominee tribe proves a strong example of this; although
the economy of the Menominee tribe had never flourished, it became even
worse after the tribe was terminated. Prior to termination, Menominee
income centered around the mill which was built on a community
philosophy and tried to employ as many individuals as possible. After
termination the mill was run as a business and unemployment rose to
between 18 and 28 percent. The mill did generate increased net sales,
however; $4,865,000 in 1973 compared to $1,660,700 in 1961. Despite
higher sales, the mill's net loss was also much higher in 1973 ($709,000
compared with only a net loss of $108,700 in 1961); this was largely
due to the mill's property taxes increasing from $164,000 in 1961 to
$607,300 in 1973.
With no new industry and the new taxes being introduced, 80 percent of
the tribal population fell below the poverty line. In the 1960s, they
were forced to sell ancestral land and went from having $10 million in a
federal reserve to being considered a "pocket of poverty". Welfare
costs within the county also increased during the period of termination.
In 1963, tribal members were given a total of $49,723 for welfare, but
by 1968 the amount had nearly doubled. As termination continued, the
struggles only became worse for the tribe.
As termination continued, the unemployment rates continued to
increase. The Menominee tribe had 800 individuals within the tribe and
220 individuals who were unemployed in June 1968. By June 1973, right
before the termination policy ended, the tribe had almost a 40 percent
unemployment rate, with only 660 individuals in the tribe and 260
individuals who were unemployed.
The Menominee Indians experienced high poverty rates from the
very beginning of termination, unlike the Klamath Tribe which was able
to escape poverty for a brief period. The Klamath tribe had for years
been living off timber and revenue from leasing tribal lands. When
termination occurred, tribal land was sold and most of the Klamath tribe
was considered above the poverty line, because each tribal member
gained $40,000 from the sale. While they had escaped poverty briefly,
their economy still suffered from termination. Most families quickly
spent the money earned from the initial land sale and were forced to
sell more land in order obtain food for the family. After just a few
years, the Klamath tribe was in the same situation as many other tribes
that were terminated.
