Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
Introduction
Native Peoples Pre-Contact1
There are several theories about the origins of Native North Americans. Most Arheologists/Anthropolgists posipt the central hypothesis that Native peoples migrated to the
Pacific Coast of North America from north eastern Asia - Berigia and Kelp Highway are
examples of what is known as the Pacific Coast Migration Model. An alternative hypothesis
presented by many Native communities is that “We have always been here.” An illustration
of this comes from how they refer to themselves, for examples The Seneca -“The People of
the Great Hill”; The Cayuga - “The People of the Great Swamp”; The Onondaga - “The
People of the Hills”; The Oneida - “The People of the Upright Stone”; The Mohawk - “The
People of the Flint”.
Native People Tied to the Land
• Names of Tribes “The People ...”
• Production skills often region specific
• Individuals don’t own land
Pre-Colonial Native Communities
• Democratic Government
• Status of Women
• Extensive Trade Networks
• Commodities used as currency
• Reciprocity
1
Adapted from Barrington, Linda “The Other Side of the Frontier: Economic Explorations into Native American History” Editors Introduction [pp. 1-36] and Chapter 2 (The Mississippians and Economic
Development Before European Colonization [pp. 86-102]. Wesview Press. 1999)
1
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
Historical Overview (Contact - 1970s)
Eras in European/US - Native North American Relations2
• Discovery, Conquest, and Treaty Making (1532 - 1828)
• Removal and Relocation (1828 - 1887)
• Allotment and Assimilation (1887 - 1928)
• Reoganization and Self-Government (1928 - 1945)
• Termination (1945 - 1961)
• Self-Determination (1961 - Present)
Discovery, Conquest, and Treaty Making (1532 - 1828)
Declining Native Population
• Native population decimated (Estimates of 4-12 million at time of contact, less than
200,000 by 1800s)
• European population outnumbers Native population by mid 1700s.
• Diseases often arrived before colonists (spread aided by trade networks.)
• Empty villages are viewed as gift from God by pilgrims
Ownership of land and the resources contained within belonged to the European who conquered or discovered it. Conquered people were treated as slaves, assimilated into European
society or exterminated.
Felix Cohen3 has argued that the incident that established the policy of treaty making
with Native North Americans occurred in 1532. At that time the Emperor of Spain consulted
Francisco de Vitoria, to ensure Spain was following religious principles in its dealing with
the Native population. Victoria, decided that Natives were the true owners of the land as a
consequence Spain could not obtain title via discovery. In addition, “So long as the Indians
respected the natural rights of the Spaniards, recognized by the law of nations, to travel in
their lands and to sojourn, trade, and defend their rights therein, the Spaniards could not
2
Adapted from Deloria, Vine Jr. and Lytle, Clifford M. “American Indians, American Justice” Univeristy
of Texas Press, Austin. 1983
3
Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Albuquerque: Univeristy of New Mexico Press, 1942
2
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
wage a just war against the Indians and therefore could not claim any rights by conquest”
[pp. 46-47]
The U.S. continued this policy until Johnson v. McIntosh 1823. Where Chief Justice
John Marshall decided that discovery was a recognized method for obtaining title to Native
Land. This trumped Indian’s title to land as their right to the land merely that of occupation.
He further decided Native nations to be “domestic dependent nations” and subject to the
guardianship of the federal government. Native nations were classified to be a legitimate
legal and political entity with the right to self-governance and the ability to engage in legal
and political relations with the federal, state and local governments but not quite “foreign
nations” which had the right of full sovereignty.
Extensive Trade/Alliances
• French formed Alliances with the Algonquian and Huron
• British formed Alliances with the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, Choctaw
and Chickasaw
• During 1740’s roughly 100,000 deerskins exported annually from what is now South
Carolina
• Indian Territory provided protection from other European powers and competition for
trade goods
New Technology Introduced
• Introduction of metal (Inflation of Wampum)
• Introduction of the horse (Discussed in Detail Later)
• Introduction of farm animals
• The Cotton Gin (1793)
– Southern lands more productive in cotton production
– Increased demand for Souther land
– Brought about removal of “The Five Civilized Tribes” (Chickasaw, Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw and Seminole)
3
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
Demand for Land by Colonies/US
• Population growth of Europeans
• Europeans have God given right to develop land merely Occupying “vacant” land
• British declare land between Appalachian Mountains and Ohio River to be an Indian
Reservation in 1774
• British restriction of westward expansion beyond Appalachian Mountains cited as
grievience in Declaration of Independence
Key Treaties Concerning Land Acquisition
• Treaty of Paris 1783
– British cede land east of Mississippi to the United States
• Treaty of Greenville 1795
– Indian Tribes cede Ohio Valley to the United States
• Louisiana Purchase 1803
• Treaty of Fort Wayne 1809
– Chiefs sell parts of Indiana to the United States
• Florida acquisition 1819
Assimilation of Native People
• Formation of Praying Towns (It is important to save the savage.)
• Factory System 1795 - 1822 (Will be discussed in detail later)
– Trading posts established to control trade with Indians
– Indians traded raw goods for finished goods
– Depleted the population of fur-bearing mammals
• Intercourse Acts 1790-1802, 1834
4
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
– Established Indian Country
“Be it enacted, that all of that part of the United States west of the Mississippi,
and not within the States of Missouri and Louisiana, or the Territory of Arkansas,
and also that part of the United States east of the Mississippi River, and not within
any State to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, for the purposes
of this act, be taken and deemed Indian country.”
– Only licensed traders allowed to conduct business with Indians
– Federal government had exclusive rights to purchase Indian territory
• Civilization Fund Act of 1819
– Designed to “civilize” Indian tribes adjoining frontier settlements. It provided
funding for the President of the United States to “...employ capable persons of
good moral character...” to instruct Indians “...in the mode of agriculture suited
to their situation; and for teaching their children in reading, writing, and arithmetic...”
• Assimilated Indians rejected
Evolution of Colonist-Native Relationship
• Immunity/Protection from Natives
• Co-existence
• Colonial Imperialism
4
4
This map of North America in 1780 is from the Birmingham Public Library Digital Collections website, is
part of their Cartography Collection and is available at http://bplonline.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/
collection/p4017coll7/id/719/rec/4
5
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
5
Key Documents/Legislation
• Treaty with the Six Nations, October 22, 1784 pp.4
• Establishment of the War Department, August 7, 1789 pp. 13
• Trade and Intercourse Act, July 22, 1790 pp. 14
• President Washington on Government Trading Houses, December 3, 1793 pp. 16
• Establishment of Government Trading Houses, April 18, 1796 pp. 16
• President Jefferson On Indian Trading Houses, January 18, 1803 pp. 21
• Civilization Fund Act, March 3, 1819 pp. 33
• Abolition of the Government Trading Houses, May 6, 1822 pp. 33
• Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. WIlliam McIntosh, 1823 pp. 35
• Creation of a Bureau of Indian Affairs in the War Department, March 11, 1824 pp. 37
5
This map of North America in 1812 is from the Birmingham Public Library Digital Collections website, is
part of their Cartography Collection and is available at http://bplonline.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/
collection/p4017coll7/id/756/rec/6
6
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
Removal and Relocation (1828 - 1887)
The next phase of U.S.-Native Relations began with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Removal and Relocation. A similar policy was used by the Canadian government. At this
stage in the relationship, the best solution to the Indian problem was to remove them from
the areas bordering the current and relocate far enough west such that they may assimilate
slowly. The map below6 provides a picture of the size of the United States in 1828. During
this time Tribes were relocated from the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, and other regions in
the southeast to present day Oklahoma. This most famous of these relocations is known as
the “Trail of Tears”, 1831.
Assimilation/Rejection of Native People
• Many Cherokee owned plantations and slaves
• Cherokee constitution formed modeled on US constitution
• Development of social classes
• Cherokee utilize US government to fight removal Policy but passed
• Civilized tribes moved off homeland and moved west of MIssissippi
6
This map of North America in 1828 is from the Birmingham Public Library Digital Collections website, is
part of their Cartography Collection and is available at http://bplonline.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/
collection/p4017coll7/id/667/rec/4
7
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
New Technology Introduced
• System of reading and writing developed by Sequoyah
• Travel Improvements (Canals, Railroads, Steamboats)
– Western territory easier to access
– Increased Demand for western land
– Texas annexation 1845
– Mexican acquisition 1848 (Nevada, Colorodo, New Mexico and California)
– Oregon country 1848
Tribal Sovereignty
• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831
– The Cherokee Nation is not a “foreign nation” in the sense intended by the U.S.
Constitution.
– Indian nations are “domestic dependent nations” to be protected by the federal
government.
– The Supreme Court refused to hear arguments in the case.
– The question at hand was Georgia’s ability to seize for its own use lands of the
Cherokee Nation that had been promised to Georgia by the United States.
• Worcester v. Georgia 1832
– Tribal Laws supersede State Law in Cherokee Territory.
– Missionary Samuel A. Worcester refused to obey law requiring whites residing in
Cherokee country to obtain a permit and take an oath of allegiance to Georgia.
– The ruling was seen as upholding Tribal Sovereignty and brought the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act into question. In response to this President
Andrew Jackson is rumored to have said “John Marshall has made his decision;
now let him enforce it!”
– A Treaty Party made up of a small faction of Cherokee, headed by Major Ridge
and his son John, signed the Treaty of New Echota 1835. This sold Cherokee land
to the United States and paved the way for the “Trail of Tears”.
• Cherokee Tobacco Case 1870
8
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
– Cherokee refused to by taxes required by the Internal Revenue Act of 1868 on
tobacco manufactured in the Cherokee Nation because the Cherokee Treaty of
1868 exempted them from such taxation. US Supreme Court ruled that treaties
with Native nations are not the same as those with foreign nations - Congressional
laws are superior to treaty agreements with Native nations.
• Cherokee Outlet Case 1889
– Federal government refused to approve sale of Cherokee property to cattlemen
for $30 million yet were “obliged” to sell the land for $8.6 million to the Federal
government
The Removal/Relocation Policy was able to work so long as there existed land that
was not desired by the United States and its population. As the United States Expanded
its borders to include the Plains there became less and less land fitting possessing this
quality. The solution was the establishment of the Reservation system via the 1851 Indian
Appropriations Act.
• The Indian Appropriations Act 1851
– U.S. Policy concentrating the Native Population onto reservations that could be
adapted to agriculture.
– The best way to protect the Native Population was to concentrate them into small
areas and maintain separation.
– Tribes to reside on Reservations that were ill suited to agricultural use.
Key Documents/Legislation
• Creation of a Bureau of Indian Affairs in the War Department, March 11, 1824 pp. 37
• President Jackson on Indian Removal, December 8, 1829 pp. 47
• Indian Removal Act, May 28, 1830 pp. 52
• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 1831 pp. 53
• Worcester v. Georgia 1831 pp. 60
• President Jackson on Indian Removal, December 7, 1835 pp. 70
• Transfer of Indian Affairs to the Department of the Interior, March 3, 1849 pp. 79
• Indian Commissioner Lea on Reservation Policy, November 27, 1850 pp. 81
9
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
• Creation of the Indian Peace Commission, October 30, 1865 pp. 101
• Report of the Indian Peace Commission, January 7, 1868 pp. 105
• Indian Commissioner Taylor on Indian Civilization, November 23, 1868 pp. 122
• President Grants Peace Policy, December 5, 1870 pp. 134
• Cherokee Tobacco Case, December 1870 pp. 134
• Abolition of Treaty Making, March 3, 1871 pp. 135
• Assignment of Indian Agencies to Religious Societies, November 1, 1872 pp. 140
• Standing Bear v. Crook, May 12, 1879 pp. 150
• Report on the Mission Indians of California, October 10, 1883 pp. 156
Allotment and Assimilation (1887 - 1928)
Allotment was based upon the premise that the best way to help the Native population
assimilate was to introduce the market mechanism and property ownership. As a consequence, the U.S. President was granted the ability to allocate Reservation lands according to
a detailed formula. The expectation was that the Indian lessee would become a U.S. citizen
under the jurisdiction of the state in which he resided and owner of the property he was
allocated.
As a consequence of the Allotment Policy, Reservations were broken up into sub-units
and the U.S. government became the owner of “excess land”. This new excess land was quick
to be redistributed among U.S. citizens. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior, became
responsible for putting these alloted units to productive use. If he was of the opinion that
the lessee was unable to utilize their allotment then he had the ability to lease the use of the
land to the person of his choice.
• The General Allotment Act (The Dawes Act) 1887
– Each Indian (including ex-slaves) deserved a certain parcel of land with private
ownership and all “Excess land” was then sold
– Encouraged Indians to be farmers, Head of Indian household received 160 acres
of farmland or 320 acres of grazing land.
– Approximately 25 percent of claimants were awarded allotments
– Private ownership of land would help Indians assimilate by encouraging Indians
to develop their land
10
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
– Congressman Henry Dawes of Massachusetts “...expressed his faith in the civilizing power of private property with the claim that to be civilized was to ‘wear
civilized clothes...cultivate the ground live in houses, ride in Studebaker wagons,
send children to school, drink whiskey [and] own property.”
During this time period Indian education changed substantially with the development of
the Indian Boarding Schools like the Carlisle School in Carlisle, PA. The Secretary of War
was authorized to convert vacant military posts to use as schools with the Act of July 31,
1882. A more detailed discussion of the impact these schools had on the Native population
will take place later.
• General Allotment Act (Dawes Act), February 8, 1887 pp. 170
• Use of English in Indian Schools, September 21, 1887 pp. 173
• Report of the Dawes Commission November 20, 1894 pp. 189
• Citizenship for Indians in the Indian Territory, March 3, 1901 pp. 198
• Indian Citizenship Act, June 2, 1924 pp. 218
Reoganization and Self-Government (1928 - 1945)
The Meriam Report 1928, was commissioned by the Institute for Government Research now known as the Brookings Institute. It indicted the past treatment of Indians “However
much of the early policy of rationing may have been necessary as a defensive, preventative
war measure on the part of the whites, it worked untold harm to the Indians because it was
pauperizing and lacked any appreciable educational value.” It respected the idea that some
Natives may want to maintain their culture and placed the emphasis on self-government.
“In every activity of the Indian Service the primary question should be, how is the Indian to
be trained so that he will do this for himself.” It very much set the stage for the WheelerHoward Act (Indian Reorganization Act) 1934, which reversed the policy of allotment and
encouraged tribal organization. The promise of which was cut short by yet another change
in policy to Termination.
Key Documents/Legislation
• Meriam Report 1928 pp. 219
• Wheeler-Howard Act (Indian Reorganization Act), June 18, 1934 pp. 223
• Indian Commissioner Collier on the Wheeler-Howard Act 1934 pp. 225
11
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
Termination (1945 - 1961)
Termination Policy was a response to the increasing budgetary pressures that resulted from
the expansion of government programs that took place during the New Deal and current
World War. House Concurrent Resolution 108, August, 1 1953, explained that it was “...the
sense of Congress that, at the earliest possible time, all of the Indian tribes and the individual members thereof located within the States of California, Florida, New York and
Texas, should be freed from Federal supervision and control and all disabilities and limitations specifically applicable to Indians.” That being said, Indian reservations in California,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin and the then-territory of Alaska were not terminated but made subject to state civil and criminal jurisdiction. Despite the desire to reduce
government programs for Indians, they were now eligible for the new aid programs that were
implemented.
One such program was one meant to again relocated the Native population. This time it
was away from the Reservation into the urban areas of Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles7 , San
Francisco, San Jose, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Dallas. Relocatees were supposed
to receive temporary housing, counseling, guidance finding a job, permanent housing, community/social resources and money to tide them over based upon the size of the family. A
man, his wife and four children received $80 a week for four weeks as a result of the Urban
Indian Relocation Program 1952.
Key Documents/Legislation
• Definition of Indian Country June 25, 1948 pp. 233
• House Concurrent Resolution 108, August 1, 1953 pp. 234
• Relocation of Indians in Urban Areas 1954 pp. 238
• Secretary of the Interior Seaton on Termination Policy, September 19, 1958 pp. 239
• Williams v. Lee January 12, 1959 pp. 242
Self-Determination (1961 - Present)
The end of the Termination Era and true beginning of the Self-Determination Era was signaled by President Nixon in a Special Message on Indian Affairs, July 8, 1970. “Because
termination is morally and legally unacceptable, because it produces bad practical results,
7
A discussion of the challenges faced by relocation to Los Angeles is available in “I Can Carry on from
Here: The Relocation of American Indians to Los Angeles”, by Ned Blackhawk in Wicazo Sa Review, Vol.
11, No. 2. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 16-30.
12
Intro/Historical Overview - Econ. of NA - RIT - Dr. Jeffrey Burnette
and because the mere threat of termination tends to discourage greater self-sufficiency among
Indian groups, I am asking the Congress to pass a new Concurrent Resolution which would
expressly renounce, repudiate and repeal the termination policy expressed in House Concurrent Resolution 108.” This was followed by a number of Acts designed to provide Native
Nations the necessary tools for achieving self-governance and determination.
Key Documents/Legislation
• President Johnson, Special Message to Congress, March 6, 1968 pp. 249
• Civil Rights Act of 1968, April 11, 1968 pp. 250
• Report on Indian Education, November 3, 1969 pp. 253
• President Nixon, Special Message on Indian Affairs, July 8, 1970 pp. 256
• Indian Education Act, Jun2 23 1972 pp. 263
• Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, December 28, 1973 pp. 267
• Indian Financing Act, April 12, 1974 pp. 269
• Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, January 4, 1975 pp. 275
• Indian Health Care Improvement Act, September 30, 1976 pp. 279
• Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, March 6, 1978 pp. 285
• Federal Acknowledgement of Indian Tribes, October 2, 1978 pp. 290
13