Tejada 1
Osbert Tejada
History 480 V
Professor Wall
11/18/2014
The “Indian Problem” and Native American Citizenship
The relationship between Europeans and Native Americans is one that has defied
absolute categorization ever since the first Europeans began settling the Americas. As more
Europeans settled along the East Coast and the fledgling United States expanded, the demand for
land and resources caused conflict with the natives. This conflict took on a new character in the
1830’s and the years immediately after, when the white strategy for dealing with Native
Americans shifted from outright violence to relocation. Perhaps the most noteworthy iteration of
this is Andrew Jackson’s infamous trail of tears, which ushered in the era of reservations. These
reservations are plots of federal land where Native Americans were compelled to live by order of
the United States government. The issue with these reservations is that they were a temporary
idea at best, with no other foreseeable function than to allow the U.S. government to consolidate
its acquisition of land. Reservations created a unique situation for the Natives, who were
uprooted from their ancestral lands, separated from family members, and essentially unable to
live as they had before relocation. The reservations, in addition to their tribal membership put
Native Americans into a state of political limbo, where they had certain rights as members of
their tribes, but depended on the U.S. government at the same time.
While they lived on reservations American Indians were draining U.S. resources without
contributing anything useful in return. This aspect of reservation life is at the center of what has
been referred to as the “Indian Problem,” which is the question of how the United States
government was supposed to deal with Native Americans. The passage of the Dawes Act in
Tejada 2
1887 made assimilation seem like a feasible plan, because it was an early experiment in granting
Native Americans provisional citizenship. Under the Dawes Act Indian land was divided into
plots meant for single families to live on, and those who accepted life on these plots separate
from their tribes were granted United States citizenship.1 The catch that this act is predicated on
is important to note, because it only grants citizenship to those Indians who choose to live
separately from their tribes. As early as 1887, becoming a citizen of the United States for Native
Americans meant leaving behind parts of their heritage. This condition of provisional
citizenship is tied to the nature of the “Indian Problem,” because it demonstrates how the very
existence of Native Americans was considered an issue at the time.
Solving the Indian problem with assimilation through eventual citizenship would prove to
be an uphill battle. The character of citizenship as a privileged status through which people are
eligible for government benefits meant that there was a reason for people to oppose citizenship
status for Native Americans. Often couched in discrimination, this view was held by people who
claimed that Native Americans were not ready for citizenship or western civilization because of
the primitive way of life they had grown accustomed to. Those in favor of granting citizenship
to Native Americans claimed that assimilation was the best option for the general welfare of the
natives, and that it would allow them to make positive contributions to American society. Still,
even some support of Native American citizenship was based on thinly veiled racism and
patronizing sentiment. Government officials at the time could define what a U.S. citizen was
and change the requirements to meet this status at their discretion, as a result Native Americans
1
Brad Tennant, "Excluding Indians Not Taxed: Dred Scott, Standing Bear, Elk and the Legal Status of Native
Americans in the Latter Half of the Nineteenth Century." International Social Science Review vol. 86, no. 1/2
(January 2011): 25. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost
Tejada 3
were often at the mercy of people who had little to no hands on experience with them; people
whose opinions of them were influenced by nothing more than secondhand accounts. These
varied iterations of citizenship all had one shared trait; each of them valued elements of western
society and culture over their aboriginal counterparts. That being said, this paper will shed light
on the different ways that Native Americans and sympathetic white reformers tried to deal with
the “Indian problem.” Its purpose is to demonstrate that a shared cause doesn’t always lend
itself to a single solution, because native and white views on citizenship, race, and assimilation
often made it difficult to reach a consensus.
There is an abundance of material on the subject of citizenship, a topic that has grown
especially popular in recent years. Much and more has been written about the way Native
Americans have been treated by the United States government, but the scope of this type of
writing is limited to policy analysis. Where the specific issue of Native American citizenship is
concerned, recent literature deals with how natives used citizenship and their understanding of it
in different ways. This paper considers that aspect of the discussion, while paying more
attention to a time period when Native Americans were not citizens of the United States. In
other words, this paper focuses more on the process of attaining citizenship, and it pays special
attention to the complex narrative that accompanied this development.
In the years prior to 1924 when Congress granted Native Americans citizenship, their
legal status was often left in the air, so to speak. Presentation College professor Brad Tennant
titled his study on Native American citizenship “Excluding Indians not Taxed,” as a nod to one
of the earliest documented references to Native American legal status in the history of the United
States. While the phrase first appeared in the Constitution, its meaning was interpreted
Tejada 4
differently by the Supreme Court as time went on. For most of its history this phrase had been
used in an exclusionary manner to prevent Native Americans from getting citizenship, or even
the protections conferred by it if they had already achieved the status of a legal citizen. This is
exemplified by the story of John Elk, a Native American who renounced his tribal affiliations in
1880 in order to become a registered voter in Omaha Nebraska. Elk was denied by the local
registrar who assumed that he did not pay taxes, and was therefore not a United States citizen.
Elk’s battle for voting rights eventually culminated in the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk
v. Wilkins, which established that an individual Native American “could not become a citizen
simply of his own free will; the federal government must formally acknowledge an Individual
Native American as a citizen.”2 Cases like this one make it ironic that the period from 1880 to
1930 is sometimes referred to as the assimilation era, a time when members of the United States
government were clearly using their power to prevent Native Americans from assimilating. The
decision in Elk v. Wilkins reinforced the national ward status that had been imposed on Native
American tribes since the Trail of Tears and the first reservations shortly thereafter. As wards,
the Native tribes have minimal autonomy and depended on the U.S. government to provide basic
goods like food, money, and shelter. Blocking Native American attempts to assimilate served to
support their dependent state, and thus perpetuate the “Indian Problem.”
In her analysis of clandestine dances performed on reservations during the 1920’s and
‘30s, Durham University professor Gabriella Treglia uses the term “bi-culturalism” to refer to the
ways that Native Americans responded to government officials who tried to ban their religious
and cultural dances. Indeed, the defining characteristic of this response is its dual nature since
2
Tennant, "Excluding Indians Not Taxed," 38.
Tejada 5
those who defended and opposed these dances did so with similar reasons in mind, the protection
and progress of Native Americans as a group. In reference to people who wrote to congress in
order to defend these dances, Treglia notes that the “petitioning of Congressional representatives
indicates that some practitioners believed themselves entitled to use the support and lobbying
mechanisms available to American citizens in order to defend Native cultural practices.”3 In this
case government officials working on reservations believed the dances to be incompatible with
citizenship, and as such they tried to suppress them. Reaching out to members of congress is a
telling strategy, because it shows that Native Americans could call upon the virtues of United
States citizenship while actively resisting assimilation.
The religious aspect of these dances is equally important, because it provided another
loophole that could be used to defend them. Some Native Americans sought to protect these
dances on the grounds that banning them would violate their first amendment right to freedom of
religion. Unfortunately for the natives, members of congress they reached out to and employees
with the Office of Indian Affairs were in agreement; they believed that these dances were
emblematic of a lesser religion not worth their attention. When it came down to it, the only way
that these dances could be protected effectively was through a loophole in the Dawes Act of
1887. In a 1929 Oklahoma dispute over an Indian dance called the powwow, officials with the
Office of Indian Affairs were unable to stop the performance of this dance because it was done
on land that was granted through severalty after the trust period stipulated by the Dawes Act.
Treglia points out that “the protection conferred by allotted land appears to have survived the
extension of congressional guardianship power granted by the Supreme Court decisions of the
3
Ga riella Treglia, Usi g Citize ship to Retai Ide tity: Nati e A eri a Da e Ba s of the Later Assi ilatio Era,
1900Journal of American Studies vol. 47, no. 3, (August 2013): 780.
Tejada 6
1909-1916 period.”4 The land in question was owned by a man named Frank Eagle, and since
the powwow dance took place on his land, his right of ownership superseded the powers of
guardianship exercised by the Office of Indian Affairs. These clashes over dance are valuable
because they demonstrate how Native Americans perceived their cultural identity, and how they
used citizenship to their advantage in defending this identity.
The other half of Treglia’s bi-culturalism equation comes from Native American
reservation residents who opposed these dances, and believed that they prevented the Natives
from achieving civilization. These people were called progressives because they argued that
embracing western civilization would help Native Americans thrive and prosper. Their concept
of citizenship was one that intended to embrace the ways of the white men and use them to
protect what was left of Native American culture. Indians who held this view, for the most part,
shared a background of education at government boarding schools for Native Americans and
employed language used by Office of Indian Affairs officials. In spite of their enthusiasm for
following the path of white civilization, these progressive Indians were ignored by government
officials. Native Americans who tried to enlist help for preventing dances were often “dismissed
by both commissioner and superintendent [of the OIA] as pawns of unspecified troublemakers
who wanted to exacerbate intercommunity tensions.”5 The irony of this situation is palpable,
because the Natives who tried to tow the government line were suspected of having ulterior
motives. In the end, the Native Americans who resisted assimilation through government
channels were the most successful.
4
5
Treglia, Usi g Citize ship to Retai Ide tity,
Treglia, Usi g Citize ship to Retai Ide tity,
.
.
Tejada 7
In the early twentieth century, one of the most influential groups in the fight for Native
American citizenship was the Society of American Indians. Comprised of Native Americans and
Europeans, this group sought to advocate for Indian rights through the education of the masses
and by fostering discussion and understanding among all parties that dealt with Native
Americans. To meet this end the Society of American Indians published a quarterly magazine
that featured writing by authors white and Indian alike, all of whom provided ideas and input
meant to improve the situation of Native Americans living in the United States. In the opening
pages of each issue the society printed a list of its objectives, which included “providing through
our open conferences the means for free discussion on all subjects bearing on the welfare of the
[Native American] race … to promote citizenship and obtain the rights thereof.”6 What makes
this publication so unique is that it utilized writing from multiple disciplines in order to
illuminate what Native Americans were going through at the time. Another one of its listed
objectives is to preserve the “true” history of the race, untainted by those who would seek to
tarnish the image of Native Americans. The Society of American Indians also had an office in
Washington D.C. and organized annual meetings to discuss the situation of Native Americans
and what progress, if any had been made toward its improvement. The fact that this magazine
was published in English means that most of its Native writers had a western education under
their belts, and as such their perspective would mirror that of the progressive Indians who
opposed tribal dances.
The founder of the Society of American Indians was one Gawaso Wanneh, better known
as Arthur Caswell Parker. The son of a Seneca Indian and a European school teacher, Arthur C.
6
O je ts of the “o iety, The American Indian Magazine, Volume 4, Issue 3 (September 1916); 209.
Tejada 8
Parker was born on the Cattaragus reservation in New York in April 1881.7 Being of mixed
blood himself, Parker was in an ideal position to attempt to improve the situation of Native
Americans. An archeologist by training, Parker was a prolific writer on the subject of Indian
affairs. In a 1916 paper titled “The Social Elements of the Indian Problem” Parker discussed the
issues facing Native Americans at the time and how he believed these issues could be fixed.
Like his contemporaries Parker acknowledged that no progress could be made if Native
Americans lacked a defined legal status. “The legal status of the Indian has never been defined.
He is not an alien, he is not a foreigner, he is not a citizen. There is urgent need for a new code
of law that defines the status of Indians.”8 As wards of the state, Native Americans had limited
control of their property rights, no voting rights, and lacked the ability to utilize the court system
effectively. Parker believed that Native Americans were more than capable of thriving in the
context of western civilization, but he also believed that civilization had treated his people
unfairly in the past.
Parker argues that the benefits the United States government conferred upon Native
Americans were not really benefits, but minor concessions that could be used as excuses to
explain away the dismal state of Indians in America without doing anything to help. In his eyes,
the beginning of the reservation system was a turning point where Native Americans were
confined to the realm of the second-class citizen. Parker claimed that the U.S. government
“made him [Native Americans] a man without a country; usurped his responsibility; demeaned
his manhood; destroyed his ideals; broken faith with him; humiliated his spirit; refused to listen
7
U i ersity of Ro hester Li raries. Rare Books, “pe ial Colle tio s a d Preser atio . Arthur Caswell Parker
th
Papers. http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=770 (Accessed November 15 , 2014).
8
Arthur C. Parker, The “o ial Ele e ts of the I dia Pro le , The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 2
(September 1916): 263.
Tejada 9
to his petitions.”9 Indians living on reservations lacked the autonomy and independence they had
before, since they depended on the United States government for food, clothing, and even small
sums of money. As Elk and similar court cases demonstrated, when Native Americans tried to
ask the government for help, they were often ignored on the grounds that they were not citizens.
Parker believed that unless the U.S. government was willing to Native Americans half way, the
“Indian Problem” would persist.
As a potential engine for the assimilation of Native Americans, education was a
particularly attractive, if not practical option. It would allow for the Natives to learn the English
language, arithmetic, and general aspects of western culture necessary to function in “civilized”
society. Even today education is considered one of the most valuable benefits of citizenship,
because it offers the promise of a better life. Advocates for Native American citizenship in the
early twentieth century didn’t have to look much further than Doctor Charles Alexander Eastman
for proof that education could make productive citizens out of Indians. Born a Sioux Indian,
Charles Eastman’s original name was Ohiyesa. Eastman spent the first fifteen years of his life
among Sioux tribesmen outside the boundaries of civilized society. Much of his childhood was
spent as a refugee in Manitoba in the wake of the 1862 Lakota/Sioux uprisings. It was Charles
Eastman’s father who had expressed an interest in adopting civilization, himself a converted
Protestant after spending several years as a prisoner of war. Armed with a new name and
perspective on life, Jacob Eastman believed that if Native Americans “could not prevent white
incursions on their land and the destruction of their traditional culture, perhaps they could
9
Parker, The “o ial Ele e ts of the I dia Pro le ,
.
Tejada 10
appropriate the most useful ways of the whites who were moving west.”10 In 1873 at the age of
fifteen Ohiyesa moved with his father, uncle, and grandmother to Flandreau South Dakota and he
took on the name Charles Eastman.
Ohiyesa’s first encounters with United States society and education stood in stark
contrast with the advanced degrees, political activism, and published works of Doctor Charles
Alexander Eastman. He had spent fifteen years learning about Sioux customs, hunting, and
warfare tactics, just to be told that he had to abandon all of that to focus on a brand new way of
life. As was to be expected, Eastman described his first days at school using negative language.
“I was something like a wild cub caught overnight, appearing in the corral the next morning with
the lambs. I had seen nothing thus far to prove to me the good of civilization.”11 Charles
Eastman’s early experience with education shows how U.S. assimilation policy isolated Native
Americans and forced them to leave behind most, if not all of their original upbringing. In many
ways this was a no-win situation for Native American culture, which was likely to be forgotten
whether or not the individual natives chose to embrace civilization and education. In spite of all
this, Charles Eastman still went on to complete his doctoral degree and worked to improve the
lives of his people.
Upon his arrival at the Pine Ridge reservation to practice medicine, Charles Eastman
learned that he had to see to the health of several thousand Indians without the necessary supplies
and personnel. This was the result of a lack of government attention and funding, which is
exactly what Doctor Eastman noted in a brief essay that was featured by the American Indian
10
Gretchen Cassel Eick, U.“. I dia Poli y,
-1890: As Illuminated Through the lives of Charles A. Eastman and
Elai e G. East a , Great Plains Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, (January 2008): 31.
11
Charles A. Eastman, From the Deep Woods to Civilization, (Boston: Norwood Press, 1916), 23.
Tejada 11
Magazine in 1916. “Much of my labor was wasted because of the impossibility of seeing that
my directions were followed…major operations were generally out of the question on account of
the lack of hospital facilities.”12 Eastman noticed that the rapid, forced transition to reservation
life was also a factor that contributed to the health problems of the Native Americans he was
working with. Certain types of bacteria that weren’t problematic when these Indians lived as
nomads were causing diseases like trachoma and tuberculosis now that they had adopted
sedentary lifestyles. It wasn’t until Doctor Eastman had made a name for himself and his brand
of medicinal practice that the U.S. government was willing to commit more resources to keeping
his patients healthy. Through his work as a physician Charles Eastman did his best to honor the
ideals of his late father, who truly believed that the best option for Native American welfare was
to embrace civilization.
Until now, most of the advocates of Native American assimilation mentioned in this
paper have attempted their goals through various civic and academic channels. In the fight for
Indian rights there were certain people who stood out because they took a different approach.
People like Delos Lonewolf, who was a graduate of the Carlisle Indian school and believed that
the solution of the Indian problem lied in the economic rights of Native Americans. On
reservations Indians had limited economic independence, and even the Dawes Act would take
over twenty years to give Native Americans full jurisdiction over the land they were allotted.
Many Indians struggled in their dealings with paper money, since their tribes lacked the concept
of ownership and organized trading through barter economies. When he was asked about how
he would improve the situation of Native Americans, Lonewolf said “give us our money, and if
12
Charles A. East a , The I dia ’s Health Pro le , The American Indian Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 2 (April 1916):
142.
Tejada 12
we are good enough to work let us have the privilege to handle our own money…work is the
only salvation for Indians.”13 Lonewolf believed that Native Americans were capable of
handling their own finances, and that depending on the government economically made people
think less of them. Economic independence is often taken for granted today, but it is still an
important part of citizenship. This ideal is one that is tied to the traditionally American idea of
rugged individualism, and if Native Americans could achieve it, they would be one step closer to
assimilation.
Considering the ways in which the United States government mistreated Native
Americans and popular opinion about them at the outset of the twentieth century, it seems like it
would be difficult to find many white advocates of Native American citizenship. In fact, one of
the most influential scholars in the founding of the Society of American Indians was one Fayette
Avery McKenzie; an Ohio State University professor who happened to be of European descent.
McKenzie graduated from Fisk University, and spent the majority of his life trying to promote
the progress and welfare of Native and African Americans.14 He spent several years teaching at
the Shoshoni Indian reservation in Wyoming, and his first-hand experience with Native
Americans influenced his writing. Expressing a viewpoint shared by many of his colleagues in
the Society of American Indians, McKenzie argued that “the Indian has not been incorporated
into our national life, and cannot be until we … give him a defined status, early citizenship and
control of his property, adequate education, efficient government, and genuine social
13
Delos Lo e olf, Ho to “ol e the Pro le , The American Indian Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3 (July 1916): 258.
Tennessee Depart e t of “tate. Te essee “tate Li rary Ar hi es. Fayette Avery McKenzie Papers.
http://www.tn.gov/tsla/history/manuscripts/findingaids/329.pdf (Accessed November 15th, 2014
14
Tejada 13
recognition.”15 This dependent “national ward” status imposed on Native Americans through
reservation life was part of a cycle that perpetuated itself, a cycle that couldn’t be stopped unless
it was acted upon by some outside force. McKenzie’s studies show how the Indian problem was
caused by decisions made by the United States government, and he concluded that its solution
was also in government intervention.
Like Eastman, McKenzie’s experience on reservations showed him the inadequacy of
resources being used to assimilate Native Americans. McKenzie acknowledged that over half of
all Indians living on reservations were in some type of school, and that over the years the
government had been increasing its expenditures for Indian education, but he thought that still
wasn’t enough. “I consider it a great achievement to have effected so complete an introduction
to the educational system of our civilization, but we must in all honesty recognize that it is for
the great mass of Indians merely an introduction.”16 The above quote is from an essay that
McKenzie titled “The Assimilation of the American Indian,” where he notes that the highest
level of government school available to the Native American was the grammar school. With less
preparation the Indians ill equipped to compete in American society, and then their exclusion
from civilization and citizenship can be justified.
As far as advocates for the citizenship and assimilation of Native Americans go, few had
a solution to the Indian problem as simple as the one proposed by Richard Henry Pratt. Given
his military experience as a U.S. army general and decorated civil war veteran, it’s no surprise
that Pratt was so direct; his idea for solving the Indian problem was to promote the intermingling
15
Fayette A. M Ke zie, The Assi ilatio of the A eri a I dia , The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 19, No.
6 (May 1914): 769.
16
McKenzie, The Assi ilatio of the A eri a I dia ,
.
Tejada 14
of Native Americans and whites. Pratt’s view of the Native American was nothing short of
ideal, because he said that “if I was the commissioner of Indian Affairs and I had a
superintendent of schools who could not see in every little Indian boy a possible president of the
United States, I would dismiss him.”17 This kind of understanding was one that could only be
cultivated by direct contact of the two groups, something that was prevented by the reservation
system. Pratt understood that without direct interaction it was easy for whites and Indians to let
prejudice color their perspectives of one another. He knew that the Indian problem was one
characterized by isolation and separation.
In his assessment of the Indian problem, Arthur Caswell Parker said that “to a people so
hampered and dispirited, civilization and religion have been offered, as if their very environment
were not adverse to these agencies.”18 This statement was an accurate summary of how Native
Americans had been living since Andrew Jackson’s relocation in 1830. In the eyes of the United
States government Indians were little more than an obstacle to be dealt with. In a post Trail of
Tears United States, thousands of Native Americans had been forced away from their homelands
to live on reservations. The prospect of reservation life was bleak, because it meant that the
Indians were no longer independent, economically, politically or otherwise. The reservation
system made Native Americans aliens on their own soil, people without the right to vote, limited
property rights, and without any meaningful political representation. With their traditional way
of living on the brink of destruction, Native Americans were at the whim of a polity that wanted
almost nothing to do with them. The ultimate irony of this situation is that civilization was
17
R.H. Pratt, Ci ilizi g the I dia y Co ta t, ot y “egregatio , The American Indian Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3
(July 1916): 246.
18
Parker, The “o ial Ele e ts of the I dia Pro le , 265.
Tejada 15
touted as a cure by white Americans, but it was civilization that had subjugated the Native
Americans in the first place.
U.S. government policy toward the Indians was indifferent at best, and abusive at worst,
it had reduced the tribes to dependent national wards. In fact, much of this policy was meant to
preserve the status quo and prevent the complete assimilation of Native Americans. That being
said, it is important to note that the potential solution for the Indian problem is assimilation, and
that the Indian problem was actively being perpetuated by United States legislation. U.S.
government officials understood that citizenship was an integral part of assimilation, and as such
they defined and re-defined it in ways that ensured it wouldn’t apply to most or even all Native
Americans. As they went through various forms of western education, a group of Native
Americans emerged that fought for the welfare of their group at large through political activism
and social work. Like any political movement, this one was made up of people with differing
opinions; and there were disagreements as to how the situation of Native Americans could be
improved. One method was through education and adopting the English language, while others
proposed a more robust set of economic liberties. Through citizenship and ultimately
assimilation, this educated class of Native Americans sought to uplift their people and preserve
what was left of their heritage.
Native Americans have inhabited this country since before the United States was even
founded, so the fact that they didn’t receive blanket citizenship until 1924 is a testament to the
fickle nature of the citizen. Their fight for citizenship is an important one, because it lends itself
to a chicken and egg scenario. What comes before the other, citizenship, or assimilation? In this
case the answer is citizenship; the benefits conferred by citizenship mean that there is a vested
Tejada 16
interest in making it an exclusive status. Assimilation is an ongoing process that marginalized
groups may go through in one way or another, and in the case of Native Americans citizenship
was an important milestone on the path to complete assimilation. Whether complete assimilation
is even possible is up for debate, but a major source of tension between progressive Indians
white reformers came from how they should approach fighting for the citizenship of Native
Americans. A popular opinion was that citizenship would be easier to achieve if Native
Americans assimilated, but this viewpoint is flawed because citizenship is more concrete than the
concept of assimilation. Even after a marginalized group achieves citizenship, it can still be as
far removed from assimilation as possible. If the struggle that Native Americans went through to
become citizens was any indication, there are as many ways to become assimilated as there were
opinions on how Native Americans should go about achieving citizenship.
Tejada 17
Bibliography
“Objects of the Society,” The American Indian Magazine, Volume 4, Issue 3 (September 1916);
201-265, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012189679?urlappend=%3Bseq=127.
Eastman, Charles A. “The Indian’s Health Problem,” The American Indian Magazine, Vol. 4,
No. 2 (April 1916): 139-145,
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012189679?urlappend=%3Bseq=56
Eastman, Charles A. From the Deep Woods to Civilization, (Boston: Norwood Press, 1916)
Lonewolf, Delos. “How to Solve the Problem,” The American Indian Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3
(July 1916): 257-259, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012189679?urlappend=%3Bseq=180
McKenzie, Fayette A. “The Assimilation of the American Indian,” The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 6 (May 1914): 761-772, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2763215
Parker, Arthur C. “The Social Elements of the Indian Problem,” The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 2 (September 1916): 252-267, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2763824
Pratt, Richard H. “Civilizing the Indian by Contact, not by Segregation,” The American Indian
Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3 (July 1916): 244-248,
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012189679?urlappend=%3Bseq=168
Eick, Gretchen C. “U.S. Indian Policy, 1865-1890: As Illuminated Through the lives of Charles
A. Eastman and Elaine G. Eastman,” Great Plains Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (January 2008): 2747, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23534183
Tennant, Brad. "Excluding Indians Not Taxed: Dred Scott, Standing Bear, Elk and the Legal
Status of Native Americans in the Latter Half of the Nineteenth Century." International Social
Science Review Vol. 86, No. 1/2 (January 2011): 24-43, Academic Search Complete,
EBSCOhost
Treglia, Gabriella. “Using Citizenship to Retain Identity: Native American Dance Bans of the
Later Assimilation Era, 1900-1933” Journal of American Studies Vol. 47, No. 3 (August 2013):
777-800, doi:10.1017/S002187581200206X
University of Rochester Libraries. “Rare Books, Special Collections and Preservation.” Arthur
Caswell Parker Papers. http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=770 (Accessed November
15th, 2014)
Tennessee Department of State. “Tennessee State Library Archives.” Fayette Avery McKenzie
Papers. http://www.tn.gov/tsla/history/manuscripts/findingaids/329.pdf (Accessed November
15th, 2014)