Custer Died For Your Sins Page 6

  Article II of the Treaty with the Wyandots, Delawares, Shawanese, Senecas, and Miamies of July 22, 1814, provided that:

  The tribes and bands abovementioned, engage to give their aid to the United States in prosecuting the war against Great Britain, and such of the Indian tribes as still continue hostile; and to make no peace with either without the consent of the United States the assistance herein stipulated for, is to consist of such a number of their warriors from each tribe, as the president of the United States, or any officer having his authority therefore, may require.

  Within a generation these same tribes that fought and died for the United States against Great Britain were to be marched to the dusty plains of Oklahoma, dropped in an alien and disease-ridden land, and left to disappear. Hardly had the war been concluded when the first of a series of removal treaties began to force the tribes west across the Mississippi, first to Missouri and Arkansas, then on to Oklahoma. By 1834 the United States had pretty well cleared the eastern states of the former Indian allies.

  On reviewing the record of the United States in its Indian treaties, it seems humorous to Indian people to hear the outraged cries against Communist domination and infidelity. Indeed, Czechoslovakia and Hungary got off easier with Russia than did America’s allies in the War of 1812. And few Communist satellites have been treated as have the Five Civilized Tribes whose treaty rights were declared in the Supreme Court and yet who were powerless against the perfidy of Andrew Jackson.

  Perhaps the greatest betrayal of Indian people was the treatment accorded the Choctaws. Treaty after treaty was signed with the Choctaws, one of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes (because they were so like white men), until the final treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek forced them across the Mississippi to the parched plains of Oklahoma. The Choctaws stubbornly resisted each encroachment but were finally forced to make the long trek westward.

  In an earlier treaty, ten years prior to Dancing Rabbit Creek, the Choctaws had asked for a provision guaranteeing that the United States would never apportion the lands of the tribe, as they preferred to hold their lands in common. So in the Treaty of January 20, 1825, Article VII, the United States provided that “the Congress of the United States shall not exercise the power of apportioning the lands.”

  Just prior to the admission of Oklahoma as a state, the lands of the Choctaw were allotted, although a minority opinion in the report on the Dawes Allotment Act stated that perhaps the Choctaw method of holding land in common was superior to that of the white man because there was so little poverty among the members of the Five Civilized Tribes.

  Today the Choctaws and people of the other “Civilized” Tribes are among the poorest people in America. Their little allotments have been subdivided and grown smaller. As they are sold the people move into friends’ and neighbors’ allotments, huddling there in absolute destitution.

  During the drive to sever federal services in the 1950’s the Choctaws were talked into agreeing to terminate the federal responsibilities. Over the last ten years they have waged a continual fight to postpone the time when they must surrender all lands, rights, and services. The condition of the people is so bad that only a massive crash program of development can save the tribe from its poverty. Yet in the ten years since termination was proposed the tribe and its members have even been denied the use of loan funds from the Interior Department which could be used to develop projects that would employ Choctaws.

  There has been another side to the machinations of the United States government against the Indian tribes, however, and that was the unilateral action of the Congress. Paralleling treaty negotiations, throughout history statutes were continually passed by Congress to regulate Indian Affairs. Although a treaty would promise one thing, subsequent legislation, designed to expand the treaty provisions, often changed the agreements between tribe and federal government completely.

  Continual infringement on treaty rights by statute rarely reached the ears of the tribesmen in time to remedy the situation either by further agreements or appeals to conscience. Some actions were outright thefts of land, such as the wholesale giveaway to railroads for construction purposes. Other detrimental laws were overtly philanthropic and seemed to reflect just dealings between the Congress and the tribes. But in all respects, the beneficial aspects of Congressional actions affecting Indian tribes have been so minute that they are irrelevant.

  Congress has passed a number of important pieces of legislation which pertain to the relationships between the United States government and the various Indian tribes. Some of these stand out over the years as landmarks in the ever-changing federal policy.

  Even prior to the Constitution, the Northwest Ordinance, passed by the Congress of the Articles of Confederation, outlined a lofty attitude and policy for dealing with Indian people:

  The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in the property, rights, and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

  It was just a short time later that the Treaty with the Delawares, discussed above, was signed and the big push westward over the prostrate bodies of slaughtered Indians was begun.

  Subsequent policies have generally referred to the policy of humanity and justice initially outlined by the Northwest Ordinance. Many a land steal has been covered up with the generalities of the Northwest Ordinance.

  Certain influential white men knew quite early that the shores of the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Superior, contained immense deposits of copper and other minerals. And there was a desperate need for copper in early America. On April 16, 1800, a Joint Resolution was passed in Congress authorizing the President to determine whether Indian title to copper lands adjacent to Lake Superior was still valid and, if so, the terms on which Indian title could be extinguished.

  In the Treaty of August 5, 1826, almost as if it were an afterthought, an article (III) stated:

  The Chippewa tribe grant to the government of the United States the right to search for, and carry away, any metals or minerals from any part of their country. But this grant is not to affect the title of the land, nor the existing jurisdiction over it.

  The Chippewas, in the dark as to the importance of their mineral wealth, signed the treaty. This was the first clear-cut case of fraudulent dealings on the part of Congress. Certainly no one could have accused the Congress of “utmost good faith.”

  Close examination of subsequent Congressional dealings shows a record of continued fraud covered over by pious statements of concern for their wards.

  The basis for Congressional interference into the realm of Indian activities was originally the third clause in section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which declared that Congress had the “power to regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes. . .” From this obscure phrase—which if we reread the early Delaware treaty was to provide the Delaware with modern utensils they needed—came the full-blown theory of the incompetency of the Indian, his wardship, and the plenary power of Congress to exercise its whim over Indian people.

  The next important statute referring to the Indian people was the Act of March 3, 1819 (3 Stat 679), which was entitled “An act making provision for the civilization of the Indian tribes adjoining the frontier settlements.” This act stipulated that:

  . . . for the purpose of providing against the further decline and final extinction of the Indian tribes adjoining the frontier settlements of the United States, and for introducing among them the habits and arts of civilization, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in every case where he shall judge improvement in the habits and condition of such Indians practicable, and that the means of instruction can be introduced with their own consent, to employ capabl
e persons of good moral character, to instruct them in the mode of agriculture suited to their situation . . .

  In essence, although the treaties read that the United States would never disturb the tribes on the land they had reserved to themselves, Congress determined that it had the right to make Indians conform to their idea of civilization and outlined the great legislative attempt to make them into farmers.

  Practically all subsequent legislation has revolved around the Congressional desire to make Indians into white farmers. Most laws passed to administer Indian lands and property have reflected the attitude that, since Indians have not become successful white farmers, it is perfectly correct to take their land away and give it to another who will conform to Congressional wishes.

  One of the two most important laws passed in the last century was the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat 729). This act concentrated mainly on the trade aspect of Indian Affairs and was supplemented by a companion act outlining the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its duties. From these two acts came the immense power of the Department of the Interior over the lives and property of the Indian people.

  The other important law of the last century was the General Allotment Act, or the Dawes Act, passed in 1887 and amended in 1891, 1906, and 1910 until it included nearly every tribe in the country. The basic idea of the Allotment Act was to make the Indian conform to the social and economic structure of rural America by vesting him with private property.

  If, it was thought, the Indian had his own piece of land, he would forsake his tribal ways and become just like the white homesteaders who were then flooding the unsettled areas of the western United States. Implicit in the ideology behind the law was the idea of the basic sameness of humanity. Just leaving tribal society was, to the originators of the law, comparable to achieving an equal status with whites.

  But there was more behind the act than the simple desire to help the individual Indian. White settlers had been clamoring for Indian land. The Indian tribes controlled nearly 135 million acres. If, the argument went, that land were divided on a per capita basis of 160 acres per Indian, the Indians would have sufficient land to farm and the surplus would be available to white settlement.

  So the Allotment Act was passed and the Indians were allowed to sell their land after a period of twenty-five years during which they were to acquire the management skills to handle the land. However, nothing was done to encourage them to acquire these skills and consequently much land was immediately leased to non-Indians who swarmed into the former reservation areas.

  By 1934 Indians had lost nearly 90 million acres through land sales, many of them fraudulent. The basic device for holding individual lands was the trust, under which an Indian was declared to be incompetent. Indians were encouraged to ask for their papers of competency, after which land was sold for a song by the untutored Indian who had never heard of buying and selling land by means of a paper.

  Many Indians sold their land for a mere fraction of its value. Others received title to their land and lost it through tax sales. In general the policy was to encourage the sale of Indian lands, as it was believed that this process would hasten the integration of Indians into American society.

  The churches strongly supported the Dawes Allotment Act as the best means available of Christianizing the tribes. Religion and private property were equated in the eyes of many churchmen. After all, these were the days when J. P. Morgan used to take entire trainloads to the Episcopal conventions and John D. Rockefeller had his Baptist advisor helping him distribute his wealth. Wealth was an index of sainthood.

  Bishop William H. Hare, noted missionary bishop of the Episcopal Church, is said to have remarked that the Allotment Act would show whether the world or the church was more alert to its opportunity. In other words, it was to be a race between the stealers of men’s land and the stealers of men’s souls for two unrelated goals—90 million acres of land and the Christianizing of some of the feathered friends who lived on those lands.

  It was, of course, no contest. The church came in a dead last. Indians were not magically turned into white, churchgoing farmers by their little plot of ground. Sharper white men than the missionaries, representing the Christians’ traditional opponent, easily won the contest. And the American Indians were the losers. But at least they had the comfort of hearing the missionaries’ sermons against greed.

  Gone apparently was any concern to fulfill the articles of hundreds of treaties guaranteeing the tribes free and undisturbed use of their remaining lands. Some of the treaties had been assured by the missionaries. The Indians had not, however, been given lifetime guarantees.

  * * *

  Perhaps the only bright spot in all of Indian-Congressional relations came at the beginning of the New Deal. Backed by a sympathetic President and drawn up by scholar John Collier—probably the greatest of all Indian commissioners—the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in 1934.

  This act, known popularly as the Wheeler-Howard Act, provided for self-government of the reservations by the Indian residents. Written into the law was a prohibition on further allotment of Indian lands and provisions for land consolidation programs to be undertaken by the tribal councils in order to rebuild an adequate land base.

  In many cases the Indian Bureau was authorized to buy land for landless Indians and to organize them as recognized tribal groups eligible for governmental services. Programs for rehabilitation were begun, Indians were given preference in hiring within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and a revolving loan fund for economic development was created. Overall the IRA was a comprehensive piece of legislation which went far beyond previous efforts to develop tribal initiative and responsibility, but one provision was unfortunate. Once having voted down the acceptance of the provisions of the act, a reservation was forbidden from considering it again.

  Unfortunately, Indian tribes were given only a short ten years under this act to bring themselves to an economic and social standard equal with their white neighbors. Following World War II the Congressional policy toward Indian self-government was to change radically. But that story deserves a special chapter in this book.

  In looking back at the centuries of broken treaties, it is clear that the United States never intended to keep any of its promises. Like other areas of life, the federal government adapted its policies to the expediency of the moment. When the crisis had passed, it promptly proceeded on its way without a backward glance at its treachery.

  Indian people have become extremely wary of promises made by the federal government. The past has shown them that even the most innocent-looking proposal is often fraught with implications the sum total of which is loss of land.

  Too often the attitude of the white man was, “Tell the Indians anything to keep them quiet. After they are settled down we can do what we want to do.” Alvin Josephy brings this attitude out magnificently in his book The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest.

  “What,” people often ask, “did you expect to happen? After all, the continent had to be settled, didn’t it?”

  We always reply, “Did it?” And continue, “If it did, did it have to be settled in that way?” For if you consider it, the continent is now settled and yet uninhabitable in many places today.

  There were many avenues open for the government besides wholesale theft. In Canada, for example, there are Indian reservations in every province. Indians have not had their basic governmental forms disturbed. They still operate with chiefs and general councils. Nor were they forced to remove themselves whenever and wherever the white man came. Nor did they have their lands allotted and then stolen piece by piece from under them.

  It would have been fairly simple for the federal government to have provided a special legal status whereby Indian rights would have vested while keeping their original sovereignty and entitlements of self-government. There was no need for the government to abruptly change from treaty negotiations to a program of cultural destruction, as it did in
1819 with its Indian assimilation bill. And when the Five Civilized Tribes had adapted to a semi-white political structure the government could have supported the great experiment of the Cherokees instead of removing them to Oklahoma.

  Even in the closing years of the last century, when the tribes had by and large adapted from hunters to ranchers, the government could have kept its promises and left the tribes alone. There was no reason for it to allot the lands of the Choctaw. The United States had promised never to do so. Yet, in large measure, if there is Indian poverty today—and Indians rank lowest of any group in every conceivable statistic used to measure poverty—it is the fault of the United States government.

  The betrayal of treaty promises has in this generation created a greater feeling of unity among Indian people than any other subject. There is not a single tribe that does not burn with resentment over the treatment it has received at the hands of an avowedly Christian nation. New incidents involving treaty rights daily remind Indian people that they were betrayed by a government which insists on keeping up the facade of maintaining its commitments in Vietnam.

  The complicity of the churches too is just beginning to be recognized. After several hundred years of behind-the-scenes machinations, the attempt of the churches to appear relevant to the social needs of the 1960’s is regarded as utter hypocrisy by many Indian people. If, they argue, the churches actually wanted justice, why haven’t they said or done anything about Indian rights? Why do they continue to appear in bib-overalls at the Poor People’s March? Why do they wait until a problem is nearly solved and then piously proclaim from the pulpits that they have discovered that the movement is really God’s will?

  Even today Indian rights are stuck in a legalistic limbo from which there is apparently no escape. When a tribe tries to get its rights defined it is politely shunted aside. Some tribes have gone to the Supreme Court to seek relief against the United States by claiming a violation of their rights as wards. They have been told in return that they are not wards but “dependent domestic nations.” And when other tribes have sought relief claiming that they are dependent domestic nations, they have been told they are “wards of the government.”