The Dawes Act: Assimilation Into Settler Society

The Dawes Act: Assimilation Into Settler Society

Anabelle Mahoney HIS 344H: History of the North American Indian April 30, 2018

1 Shortly after reservations began to be established for Native Americans, The Dawes Act of 1887 was enacted to allow the United States government to divide Native land, allocate small portions of the land to individual Natives, and sell huge portions to non-Natives. In turn, Natives would be granted US citizenship, but could no longer live as tribes. Culturally, Natives view interconnectedness as central to how the world works. This means they believe that every being is connected to one another and that these connections are essential in maintaining the natural balance of their lives. The separation of tribes was therefore devastating to Natives and created a lack of balance from their perspectives. In looking at this significant part of United States history, I will be addressing the underlying reasons behind the creation of the Dawes Act. The reason behind the Dawes Act was supposedly to protect Native property rights, though in actuality, the purpose was to assimilate and disfranchise Natives while profiting from their land. I argue that the elaborate ruse behind the creation of the Dawes Act was to strengthen the settler state by more thoroughly incorporating Natives into settler society.

The Dawes Act states that it was created “to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the Territories over the Indians.”1 In saying, “the protection of the laws of the United States,” The Dawes Act is explaining that Natives who voluntarily give up their land, will be declared United States citizens. However, giving up land is not the only stipulation. Natives also had to be separate from any tribe therein, and adopt a “civilized life.”2 By removing Natives from their tribe and forcing them to change their lifestyle, the United States government was aiming to strip away the cultural identity of Natives and assimilate them into American society.

When the Territory was divided, the Indians were forced to take their lands in severalty and 1 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act 2 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act

2 dispose of the town sites, so the towns and their organizations were largely owned and controlled by white men.3 The Act sought to remove any form of government Natives had by stating that Indian police, or any other employees in the public service, were to become United States citizens through the Act in order to keep their jobs.4 The US government took even more power away from Natives in subsequent Acts. Tribal courts were abolished in Indian Territory and Federal courts were substituted in their place, giving the President veto power over all acts of tribal councils.5 In taking away tribal courts, the US government sought to control the Natives by taking away aspects of their culture.

The US government also attempted to take away Native culture by using settler-colonial rhetoric. Indian Territory was defined as, “A large tract of country which is practically unexplored, is without civil organization or government except such as is afforded by the tribes which own it, and in which most of the elements of civilization are extremely primitive.”6 From this definition, it is clear that American citizens were taught to view Natives through a very ethnocentric lens, evidenced by phraseology such as “unexplored,” and “primitive” as citizens were evaluating the Natives according to their own cultural standard. This inherent cultural bias and feigned lack of concern for the Natives marked the thinking behind the Dawes Act. This thinking started to create the narrative that the US government and its people were seeking to help and improve the lives of Natives when in actuality, people just wanted Natives to assimilate into settler society in order to create a stronger nation state.

3 C. H. Fitch, ”The Five Civilized Tribes: Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 32, no. 1 (1900): 15-21. doi:10.2307/197278.

4 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act 5 V. O. King, "The Cherokee Nation of Indians." The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 2, no. 1 (1898): 58-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242755.

6 Henry Gannett, "Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 27, no.

3 (1895): 272-76. doi:10.2307/197313.

3 The supposed purpose behind the Dawes Act was to help Natives. It was thought that separate Indian governments, dealing only with Indian citizens and their property, were no longer adequate.7 American citizens were incredibly biased against Native ways of life because they had different systems of beliefs. Eurocentric views place value upon rationality, observation, individualism, and the power of truth, whereas Indigenous ways of knowing place value upon nature, sharing, experience, interconnectedness, and balance. American citizens believed that since Natives had little in common with American people, a “very serious” problem would arise from Natives retaining their traits, characteristics, and traditions.8 This “very serious” problem goes unnamed. It is evident that the Dawes Act was created mainly to assimilate Natives into the American belief system because separate views would only create a divide in the nation state that European settlers created. The American people had such a fear of those who were different from them that they wanted all Natives to be regulated under the American government. Moreover, it was thought that until the division of the land was accomplished, progress in the development of the country would be slowed.9 This again depicts the ethnocentrism and fear that was common from the American people, as they created a narrative of helping Natives.

Though Americans claimed to want to help the Natives, Native opinions were not taken into consideration in the creation of the Dawes Act. A Nez Perce man, who shared the feelings of many Natives, spoke to an allotting agent, saying, “How is it…that we have not been consulted about this matter? Who made this law? We do not understand what you say. This is our land by

7 Orville H. Platt, "Problems in the Indian Territory." The North American Review 160, no. 459 (1895): 195-202. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25103473.

8 Orville H. Platt, "Problems in the Indian Territory." The North American Review 160, no. 459 (1895): 195-202. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25103473.

9 C. H. Fitch, "The Five Civilized Tribes: Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 32, no. 1 (1900): 15-21. doi:10.2307/197278.

4 long possession and by treaty. We are content to be as we are.”10 This statement is evidence of how the Dawes Act was never created with the wellbeing of Natives in mind. The Nez Perce were never even previously consulted on the matter. The Cherokees, being a larger group, were originally not included in this Act. However, they were later included and were, unsurprisingly, unwilling to give up their land as well. The chairman from the meeting regarding the Cherokees stated that the only remedy for the “evils that afflict these people” lied in the division and allotment of their public domain among the individuals of the several tribes.11 It is evident that these “evils” are subjective and are viewed from the context of a different culture. This narrative of helping Natives cannot be classified as anything other than perpetuated rhetoric.

This rhetoric is again evidenced in American expectations regarding results of the Dawes Act. It was hoped that, “the full-blooded Indian will be benefited by the change, and that by the necessary mingling with the whites his education and condition will be improved.”12 Moreover, it was hoped that Natives would “know and understand the value of [their] home” and “become good citizens and as good farmers as their neighbors.”13 In these statements, there is an inherent bias for the preference of the “American” way of life. American citizens saw Natives as unable to survive on their own because they did not operate with the same beliefs. In this way, Americans assumed Natives would benefit from this Act and “become good citizens” simply because they would be imitating American ideals. The Dawes Act was to implement a whole system of subdivision lines controlled by a primary triangulation, by means of which errors

10Emily Greenwald, Reconfiguring the Reservation: The Nez Perces, Jicarilla Apaches, and the Dawes Act. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002.

11 V. O. King, "The Cherokee Nation of Indians." The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 2, no. 1 (1898): 58-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242755.

12 C. H. Fitch, "The Five Civilized Tribes: Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 32, no. 1 (1900): 15-21. doi:10.2307/197278.

13 C. H. Fitch, "The Five Civilized Tribes: Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 32, no. 1 (1900): 15-21. doi:10.2307/197278.

5 would become known and could be “corrected.”14 Americans attempted to alleviate their own fears of a divided (and therefore less powerful) nation state by controlling Natives from the inside. Throughout these sources, there is a narrative of protection that American citizens use as an excuse for their reasoning of removing Natives from their land. For example, it is stated that, “real Indians will need all the protection that can be given them, for they are totally unable to take care of their own interests.”15 This is a narrative that has been continually taught to the American people—when Natives have existed for thousands of years without the “protection” of American settlers, well able to “take care of their own interests.” In fact, early Europeans could not have survived in America if Natives had not incorporated them into their existing systems.

The narrative of protection continues when American citizens feign to be concerned over too many white settlers claiming Native land.16 Essentially, citizens are not concerned over settlers claiming land, but are concerned they will not also have a stake in something so prosperous. Concern is also placed upon the absence of land titles in the claims that this was why few settlers dared to make more than the most temporary sort of improvements.17 American citizens wanted to lay legal claim over Native land in a way that was irrevocable. They asserted that they were concerned by the lack of “improvements,” while this is just an example of Americans rationalizing their desires in terms of protection again. Americans should logically have no opinion over the improvement of land that is not there’s. This narrative only makes sense

14 Henry Gannett, "Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 27, no. 3 (1895): 272-76. doi:10.2307/197313.

15 C. H. Fitch, "The Five Civilized Tribes: Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 32, no. 1 (1900): 15-21. doi:10.2307/197278.

16 Henry Gannett, "Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 27, no. 3 (1895): 272-76. doi:10.2307/197313.

17 Henry Gannett, "Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 27, no. 3 (1895): 272-76. doi:10.2307/197313.

6 in the context of American citizens wanting to prosper from the creation of a stronger nation state.

Government officials played into these greed driven desires and moreover, reinforced cultural biases and narratives. The Secretary of the Interior, in his report, presented results growing from the Indians' methods of administering public business. He recommended the total extinction of tribal government in the Territory and the substitution of a system by which Indians would become United States citizens and be governed by United States laws.18 President Grover Cleveland, in his message to Congress, fully accepted the Secretary’s conclusions, and added that the Natives’ system of government had become “practically impossible,” and the “evils” can only be cured “by the resumption of control by the government which created them.”19 The Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Year of 1892 was of the opinion that Natives should not even be allowed the authority to lease their land as nearly all would avail themselves of the “privilege.”20 A privilege is considered a special right or advantage. Natives doing what they want with their land, does not quite seem like a “privilege,” but the inherent cultural bias of the Commissioner does not allow him to see how inappropriate this word choice is. The Commissioner goes on to say that, “the Indian would squander the proceeds and still live an idle, vagabond life.”21 Through this intense cultural bias and ethnocentrism, the Commissioner, and American citizens in general, rationalize taking away Native land for the unification of settler society.

18 V. O. King, "The Cherokee Nation of Indians." The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 2, no. 1 (1898): 58-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242755.

19 V. O. King, "The Cherokee Nation of Indians." The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 2, no. 1 (1898): 58-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242755.

20 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Year of 1892. (Washington: Government Printing Office), 404.

21 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Year of 1892. (Washington: Government Printing Office), 404.

7 This rationalization allowed writers of the Dawes Act to be blind in assuming that legislation alone would solve all of the problems that might arise in the administration of allotment policy.22 But, thrusting money, land, and power into the hands of Natives unfamiliar with the management of this wealth created an even larger problem.23 The Commissioner wrote that, “The average Indian is not competent to make leases and care for his own interest. As it would require constant watchfulness to protect him from imposition, I consider that leasing would be detrimental, and that the land would soon become impoverished.”24 The government set Natives up to fail and then used the problems and subsequent consequences that arose as evidence to why they could not take care of themselves. The land allotted to the Indians included desert or near-desert lands unsuitable for farming.25 In addition, the techniques of self-sufficient farming were much different from their tribal way of life.26 Many Indians did not want to take up agriculture, and those who did want to farm could not afford the tools, animals, seed, and other supplies necessary to get started.27 There were also problems with inheritance as young children often inherited allotments that they could not farm (as they had been sent away to boarding schools in attempt to assimilate them into American society).28 Multiple heirs caused problems as well; when several people inherited an allotment, the size of the holdings became too small for efficient farming.29 The US government was unable to see that Natives were struggling in their 22 Lauren L. Fuller, "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Analysis of the Protective Clauses of the Act through a Comparison with the Dawes Act of 1887." American Indian Law Review 4, no. 2 (1976): 26978. doi:10.2307/20067993.

23 Lauren L. Fuller, "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Analysis of the Protective Clauses of the Act through a Comparison with the Dawes Act of 1887." American Indian Law Review 4, no. 2 (1976): 26978. doi:10.2307/20067993.

24 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Year of 1892. (Washington: Government Printing Office), 404.

25 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act 26 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act 27 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act 28 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act 29 “Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act

8 new environments, not because they were incompetent, but because Native cultural way of life— amongst other unfair aspects—did not allow them to be successful.

In the name of helping and protecting Natives, the Dawes Act stripped Natives of their land and cultural identity. The true purpose was both to profit from the land and to assimilate Natives into American society, creating a stronger nation state. Senator Dawes even remarked that the application of allotment was characterized by extreme haste, saying, “The pressure of western land-seekers and business promoters was steady and powerful, forcing Government to a faster pace in the business of opening up Indian lands.”30 Dawes acknowledges this reason behind the Act, but it is still important to note that American people were unable to view the Dawes Act from a Native perspective because of their own inherent cultural biases and ethnocentric views. This fact can be evidenced throughout this paper, but especially in the statement: “History will record that the Cherokee, in his individual progress, has demonstrated ‘the capability of the American Indian, under favorable conditions, to realize in a high degree the possibilities of Anglo-Saxon civilization.’”31 The “possibilities of Anglo-Saxon civilization” are held in such a high regard that Americans at this time seem completely blind and untrusting of any other way of life. American citizens wanted to assimilate Natives into American culture to create a stronger and more unified settler state through the incorporation of Natives into settler society. The Dawes Act is an example of how the American government disenfranchised Natives by taking away everything they had ever known in order to “protect” them.

30 Lauren L. Fuller, "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Analysis of the Protective Clauses of the Act through a Comparison with the Dawes Act of 1887." American Indian Law Review 4, no. 2 (1976): 26978. doi:10.2307/20067993.

31 V. O. King, "The Cherokee Nation of Indians." The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 2, no. 1 (1898): 58-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242755.

9

Bibliography Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Year of 1892. Washington: Government Printing Office.

“Dawes Act,” DocsTeach. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/dawes-act Fitch, C. H. "The Five Civilized Tribes: Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 32, no. 1 (1900): 15-21. doi:10.2307/197278.

Fuller, Lauren L. "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Analysis of the Protective Clauses of the Act through a Comparison with the Dawes Act of 1887." American Indian Law

Review 4, no. 2 (1976): 269-78. doi:10.2307/20067993.

Gannett, Henry. "Indian Territory." Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 27, no. 3 (1895): 272-76. doi:10.2307/197313.

Greenwald, Emily. Reconfiguring the Reservation: The Nez Perces, Jicarilla Apaches, and the Dawes Act. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002.

King, V. O. "The Cherokee Nation of Indians." The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 2, no. 1 (1898): 58-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30242755.

Platt, Orville H. "Problems in the Indian Territory." The North American Review 160, no. 459 (1895): 195-202. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25103473.

“Transcript of Dawes Act (1887).” Our Documents. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php? flash=false&doc=50&page=transcript