Oklahoma Indian Land Allotment

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Oklahoma Indian Land Allotment Oklahoma Indian Land Allotment Alyssa Isenberg Holliday Energy Law Group PC Holliday Energy Law Group, PC is a San Antonio-based transactional energy law firm focused on rendering title opinions and providing operational/regulatory advising to oil and gas operators active across the continental United States. We represent clients throughout all stages of a drilling program – from acquisition through divestiture – in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Ohio, and Illinois. ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Three Categories of Native Americans • Five Civilized Tribes • Choctaw Nation • Muskogee (Creek) Nation • Cherokee Nation • Chickasaw Nation • Seminole Nation • The Osage Nation • “Wild Tribes” • Remaining tribes in the state • E.g. Cheyenne, Comanche, Ponca, and Shawnee Nations ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO History of the Five Civilized Tribes • Between 1830 and 1845, each signed a treaty with U.S. government removing them from ancestral lands in southeast U.S. to designated areas in Indian Territory • Trail of Tears • Patents issued from U.S. government to each tribe • Tribes held land for interest of their people • Under treaties, U.S. government made commitments • Wouldn’t create state out of tribal land without consent of tribes • Would protect Indian nations from attack by whites ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO History of Five Civilized Tribes, Continued • During Civil War, tribes primarily sided with Confederacy • Signed a treaty with the Confederacy in 1861 • After, signed Reconstruction Treaties with U.S. government • Tribes forced to sell or cede to U.S. government lands owned west of 98th Meridian for settlement of western tribes • By early 1890s, much of Indian Territory population was white • White settlers moving in on Indian Territory • Intermarriage • People began questioning how Indian Territory allocated ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Early Stages of Allotment • 1887: General Allotment Act passed • a/k/a Dawes Act • Provided for allotment of reservation lands • Specifically exempted Five Civilized Tribes, Osage, Miami and Peoria, and Sac and Fox in Indian Territory • 1889: Boomers lobbied for opening of Unassigned Lands in Indian Territory purchased by U.S. government by Creek and Seminole but not assigned to other tribes • Land Run of 1889 • 1890: Congress passed Organic Act creating Oklahoma Territory ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Dawes Commission • 1893: Dawes Commission established • Allotment negotiations with the Five Civilized Tribes • 1896: Commission to take census of membership and create rolls of tribal members eligible to receive allotments • 1897: First allotment agreement • Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Allotment Agreements TRIBE HOMESTEAD SURPLUS TOTAL ACRES SEMINOLE 40 80 120 CREEK 40 120 160 CHEROKEE 40 70 110 CHOCTAW 160 160 320 CHICKASAW 160 160 320 OSAGE 160 480 640 ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Restrictions on Alienation • Ex: Choctaw and Chickasaw • Homestead: 160 acres • Inalienable for 21 years • Surplus: 160 acres • Alienable • ¼ first year • ½ second year • Etc. until 5th year after allotment ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Restrictions on Alienation • Indian Nation • Degree of Indian Blood • Homestead or surplus • Allotted or inherited • Age of allotee • Year/treaties in place ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Acts affecting Alienation • 1908: Removed restrictions on alienation for non-Indian blood and <1/2 blood • 1926: Required conveyances from full-blood devisees & heirs to be approved by county court. • 1933: Established restrictions on alienation by ½ blood heirs in certain circumstances • 1947: Repealed much of 1933 Act. Removed restrictions on death of allottee, required court approval of conveyances by heirs & devisees of ½+ of Indian Blood ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Fitzpatrick Charts • Designed to help identify alienability of allotted lands • http://thorpe.ou.edu/treatises/fitzpatrick/fitzchart.html ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO Leasing • Mineral Leasing Act of 1920: authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease lands of the United States or its Territories for development of Natural Resources. (Amended 47 times) • Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982: enacted to provide Indian tribes with flexibility in the development and sale of mineral resources. • Specifically, allowed Tribes to enter into JV agreements with mineral developers. • Because final approval of these actions is through the federal government each project is subject to CERCLA, NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act … and will required impact statements prior to approval. • Energy Policy Act of 2005 (part of the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act) ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO QUESTIONS? [email protected] ENERGY IS THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING WE DO.
Recommended publications
  • Independent Freedpeople of the Five Slaveholding Tribes
    Anderson 1 “On the Forty Acres that the Government Give Me”1: Independent Freedpeople of the Five Slaveholding Tribes as Landholders, Indigenous Land Allotment Policy, and the Disruption of Racial, Gender, and Class Hierarchies in Jim Crow Oklahoma Keziah Anderson Undergraduate Senior Thesis Department of History Columbia University April 15th, 2020 Seminar Advisor: Professor George Chauncey Second Reader: Professor Celia Naylor 1 Kiziah Love, interview with Jessie R. Ervin, spring 1937, Colbert, OK, in The WPA Oklahoma Slave Narratives, ed. T. Lindsay Baker and Julie Philips Baker (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996), 262. See Appendix 6 for a full transcript of Kiziah Love’s slave narrative. © 2020 Anderson 2 - Notice - None of the work included in this document may be cited or quoted without express written permission from the author. © 2020 Anderson 3 - Table of Contents - Acknowledgements 4 Introduction 5-15 Chapter 1: “You’ve an Indian Not a Negro”: Racecraft, 15-36 Land Allotment Policy, and Class Inequalities in Post-Allotment and Post-Statehood Oklahoma Racecraft and Land Use in the Pre-Allotment Period 15 Racecraft, Blood Quantum, and Ideology in the Jim Crow South & Indian Territory 18 Racecraft in the Allotment Process: Blood Quanta, One-Drop-of-Blood Rules, and Land Land Allotments, Indigeneity, and Racecraft in Post-Statehood Oklahoma 25 Chapter 2: The Reshaping of Gender in the Post-Allotment and 38-51 Post-Statehood Period: Independent Freedwomen Landowners, the (Re)Establishment of Black Infrastructure, and
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War and Reconstruction in Indian Territory
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and University of Nebraska Press Chapters 2015 The iC vil War and Reconstruction in Indian Territory Bradley R. Clampitt Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/unpresssamples Clampitt, Bradley R., "The ivC il War and Reconstruction in Indian Territory" (2015). University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and Chapters. 311. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/unpresssamples/311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Nebraska Press at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Nebraska Press -- Sample Books and Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Civil War and Reconstruction in Indian Territory Buy the Book Buy the Book The Civil War and Reconstruction in Indian Territory Edited and with an introduction by Bradley R. Clampitt University of Nebraska Press Lincoln and London Buy the Book © 2015 by the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska A portion of the introduction originally appeared as “ ‘For Our Own Safety and Welfare’: What the Civil War Meant in Indian Territory,” by Bradley R. Clampitt, in Main Street Oklahoma: Stories of Twentieth- Century America edited by Linda W. Reese and Patricia Loughlin (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013), © 2013 by the University of Oklahoma Press. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data The Civil War and Reconstruction in Indian Territory / Edited and with an introduction by Bradley R.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge Bowl 2020
    Notice: study guide will be updated after the December general election. Sponsored by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Challenge Bowl 2020 High School Study Guide Sponsored by the Challenge Bowl 2020 Muscogee (Creek) Nation Table of Contents A Struggle To Survive ................................................................................................................................ 3-4 1. Muscogee History ......................................................................................................... 5-30 2. Muscogee Forced Removal ........................................................................................... 31-50 3. Muscogee Customs & Traditions .................................................................................. 51-62 4. Branches of Government .............................................................................................. 63-76 5. Muscogee Royalty ........................................................................................................ 77-79 6. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Seal ...................................................................................... 80-81 7. Belvin Hill Scholarship .................................................................................................. 82-83 8. Wilbur Chebon Gouge Honors Team ............................................................................. 84-85 9. Chronicles of Oklahoma ............................................................................................... 86-97 10. Legends & Stories ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Choctaw Nation and the Dawes Commission
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1954 The Choctaw Nation and the Dawes Commission Jeanne Francis Moore Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Moore, Jeanne Francis, "The Choctaw Nation and the Dawes Commission" (1954). Master's Theses. 1157. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/1157 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1954 Jeanne Francis Moore THE CHOCTAW INDIANS AND THE DAWES COMMISSION by ;' Sister. Jeanne Francis Moore A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate Scnoo1 of Loyola University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts June 1954 --------._-------------,------_.. -.. ,._-- \ LIFE Sister Jeanne Francis Moore was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, , May 20, 1906. ; She was graduated from the Saint John Acad.~, Indianapolis, IndianaI June 20, 1923 and entered the novitiate of the Sisters of Providence Q~ Septem-~ ber 7, 1923. She received her degree of Bachelor of Arts from Saint Mar.y-of- the-Woods College in June, 1942. From 1926 to 1942 she taught in the elementar.y parochial schools of Chicago, Illinois; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Washington, D.C. After receiving her degree she taught at the Immaculata Seminar.y in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
    University of Oklahoma College of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 12-10-1894 Report of Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialset Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation S. Misc. Doc. No. 24, 53rd Cong., 3rd Sess. (1894) This Senate Miscellaneous Document is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 53D CONG!mss, } · SENATE. f Mrs. Doo. 3d Session. t No. 24. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STA'l1ES. ---------- DECEMBER 10, 1894.-Resolved, That the Report of the Commission appointed to negotiate with the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians, known as the Dawes Commis­ sion, which report is attached to the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior as Appendix B, be printed as a Senate document. Attest: WM. R. Cox, Secretary. B. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE .FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES. WASHINGTON, D. C., Nove1nber 20, 1894. SIR: The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, appointed under the sixteenth section of an act of Congress making appropriations for the Indian service, approved March 3, 1893, report what progress has thus far been made by it~ Immediately upon receiving their instructions they entered upon their work and made their headquarters, on reaching the Territory, at Muskogee, in the Creek Nation, removing it in March to South McAlester, in the Choctaw Nation, where it still remains.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnology of the Yuchi Indians
    ii: iff m Class. PKKSKNTKl) m UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHROPOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM ^OL. I NO. 1 ETHNOLOGY OF THE YUCHI INDIANS BY FRANK G. SPECK DissertatJon presented to the Faculty of the University of Pennsylvania for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy i'ii.i_^ij...i:ruiA PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM w I UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHROPOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM VOL. I. NO. 1. ETHNOLOGY OF THE YUCHI INDIANS BY FRANK G. SPECK GEORGE LEIB HARRISON FELLOW IN ANTHROPOLOGY PHILADELPHIA PUBLISHED BV THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM 1909 Cll Gift The Uaiveraity 28 '0& CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION 5 THE YUCHI INDIANS 6 HISTORICAL SKETCH 7 POPULATION 9 ENVIRONMENT 11 Neighbors 11 Natural Environment 13 LANGUAGE 15 MATERIAL CULTURE 18 Agriculture 18 Hunting 19 Fishing 23 Pottery and Work in Clay 25 Basket Making 31 Other Occupations 34 Houses 37 Domestic Utensils 41 Food and its Preparation 42 Dress and Ornament 46 DECORATIVE ART AND SYMBOLISM 54 MUSIC 61 DIVISION OF TIME 67 SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 68 Kinship 68 The Clans 70 crimes and punishments 73 The Societies 74 (3) 4 CON'TKXTS. I'AGi: SOt'lAl. AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.—Continued. The Town and Town Square 78 Town Officials and Council 81 WARFARE 84 GAMES 86 CUSTOMS 91 Birth 91 Naming 93 rl\rriage 95 Initiation 96 Menstruation 96 Burial 97 Miscellaneous 99 HELIGION 102 Religious Beliefs and Folklore 102 Symbolism of the Town Square Ill Ceremonies 112 The Annual Town Ceremonies 116 NEW fire rite 120 scarification rite 121 the rite of the emetic 122 dancing 124 Treatment of Disease 132 shamanism 132 ceremonies 135 AMULETS 137 MYTHOLOGY 138 SUPPLEMENTARY MYTHS 143 ETHNOLOGY OF THE YUCHI INDIANS.
    [Show full text]
  • President Benjamin Harrison, Who Took Office on March 4, Issued the Proclamation on March 23, 1889, Opening the Unassigned Lands
    President Benjamin Harrison, who took office on March 4, issued the proclamation on March 23, 1889, opening the unassigned lands. It is rumored the opening on the lands would be Saturday, April 20, 1889. Being a religious man, Harrison was afraid claimants would be too tired to attend church on Sunday so the opening was reset for Monday, April 22, 1889. A cannon blast at noon and 50,000 men and single women over 21, rushed to stake a claim of up to 160 acres of land. At the beginning Norman, Guthrie, Oklahoma City and Kingfisher were to be the only four towns in the Unassigned Lands. By August there were 27 towns in the Oklahoma district with about 50,000 citizens. Congress passed the Organic Act in December, 1889, setting up a Bill of Rights, a three-part government and appointed executive and judicial officials for the seven counties formed by the Land Run. Legislative officials would be elected by the voters. The 500 plus square miles in this area became Third County. It was bordered on the west and south by the South Canadian River. The northern border was what is now SW 59th Street in Oklahoma City and the east boundary was the Pottawatomie Indian Treaty line, located near present-day 132nd Ave SE in Norman. The bounda- ries were changed in 1891. The other six counties formed by the Land Run of 1889 were Logan, Oklaho- ma, Canadian, Kingfisher, Payne and Beaver. Ten townships formed in the new county after the Run with many smaller communities and crossroads.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstruction in the Chickasaw Nation
    RECONSTRUCTION IN THE CHICKASAW NATION, 1865-1877 By PARTHENA LOUISE JAMES Bachelor of Arts Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1963 Submitted to the faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May, 1967 1n«iR~ STArE -ilwtlfflfftf L~S!Ft,A~Yf JAN 10 M 1865-1877 Thesis Approved: .na Dean of the~--- Graduate College 358863 ii PREFACE The Chickasaw Indians have the doubtful honor of being remembered by historians as the smallest and most warlike of the Five Civilized Tribes . Like so many other tribes, they were forced to leave their na­ tive homes and settle in Indian Territory as white c ivilization advanced ac ross the American, continent. Some twenty years after coming to their new lands , the lives of the Chickasaws were again interrupted. The Civil War broke out and the Chickasaws , almost unanimously, joined the Confederate States of Ame rica. They felt a strong sympathy for the Southern cause, since they not only owned Negro slaves which they had purchased wi_th money received from the sale of Southern Chickasaw lands, but also had many friends who joined the Confederate Army at the outbreak of the fighting. Th e purpose of t his thesis is to investigate the effec ts of the post-Civil War reconstruction period on the Chickasaws. The Chickasaws suffered little direc t damage from t he Ci vil War since there was but limited fighting within the Chickasaw Nation and the tribe was spared a division of opinion in choosing sides in the conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • How Did Law, Order, and Growth Develop in Oklahoma?
    Chapter How did law, order, and growth develop 10 in Oklahoma? Where did the name “Oklahoma” originate? In 1866, the U.S. and Five Civilized Tribes signed the Reconstruction treaties. That was when Choctaw Chief Allen Wright coined the word “Oklahoma.” He made it from two Choctaw words, “okla” and “humma,” meaning “Land of the Red Man.” He meant it for the eastern half of Indian Terri- tory, the home of the five tribes. In later years, however, “Oklaho- ma country” became the common name for the Unassigned Lands. It was 1890 when the western half of the old Indian Territory became the Territory of Oklahoma. What was provisional government? On April 23, 1889, the day after the Land Run, settlers met in Oklahoma City and Guthrie to set up temporary governments. Other towns followed suit. Soon all the towns on the prairie had a type of skeleton government, usually run by a mayor. Homesteaders also chose town marshals and school boards. They chose committees to resolve dispute over land claims. Sur- veyors mapped out Guthrie and Oklahoma City. There were dis- putes about an unofficial government making official property Allen Wright Oklahoma Historical lines, but, later, the surveys were declared legal. Today, they remain the Society basis for land titles in those cities. The temporary or provisional governments were indeed “unof- ficial.” They succeeded only because the majority of people agreed to their authority. Not everyone agreed, however, and crime was hard to control. Often troops from Fort Reno closed the gap between order and disorder. The army’s presence controlled violence enough to keep set- tlers there.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA the CHEROKEE NATION, Plaintiff
    Case 1:13-cv-01313-TFH Document 248 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE CHEROKEE NATION, Plaintiff/ Counter Defendant, v. RAYMOND NASH, et al., Defendants/ Counter Claimants/ Cross Claimants, --and-- Civil Action No. 13-01313 (TFH) MARILYN VANN, et al., Intervenor Defendants/ Counter Claimants/ Cross Claimants, --and-- RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Counter Claimants/ Cross Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Although it is a grievous axiom of American history that the Cherokee Nation’s narrative is steeped in sorrow as a result of United States governmental policies that marginalized Native American Case 1:13-cv-01313-TFH Document 248 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 78 Indians and removed them from their lands,1 it is, perhaps, lesser known that both nations’ chronicles share the shameful taint of African slavery.2 This lawsuit harkens back a century-and-a-half ago to a treaty entered into between the United States and the Cherokee Nation in the aftermath of the Civil War. In that treaty, the Cherokee Nation promised that “never here-after shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation” and “all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees .
    [Show full text]
  • Researching Native Americans at the National Archives in Atlanta
    Researching Individual Native Americans at the National Archives at Atlanta National Archives at Atlanta 5780 Jonesboro Road Morrow, GA 30260 770-968-2100 www.archives.gov/southeast E-Mail: [email protected] Spring, 2009 Researching Individual Native Americans at the National Archives at Atlanta Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Tribal Association ............................................................................................................................ 1 Race .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Tribal Membership ........................................................................................................................... 2 Textual Records ............................................................................................................................... 2 Native American Genealogy ............................................................................................................ 3 Published Resources ......................................................................................................................... 3 Online Resources ............................................................................................................................. 4 Dawes Commission ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Chickasaw Perspective on Removal Lesson Plan – Grades 9-12
    Through Our Own Eyes: A Chickasaw Perspective on Removal Lesson Plan – Grades 9-12 BENCHMARKS This lesson will fulfill the following Oklahoma Academic Standards: (1) Oklahoma History and Government Content Standard 2.3: Integrate visual and textual evidence to explain the reasons for and trace the migrations of Native American peoples including the Five Tribes into present-day Oklahoma, the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and tribal resistance to the forced relocations. (2) Oklahoma History and Government Content Standard 2.4A: Summarize the impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction Treaties on Native American people, territories, and tribal sovereignty; including the reasons for the reservation system. (3) U.S. History Content Standard 1.2A: Summarize the reasons for immigration, shifts in settlement patterns, and the immigrant experience including the Chinese Exclusion Act, the impact of Nativism, Americanization, and the immigrant experiences at Ellis Island. (4) U.S. History Content Standard 1.2B: Examine the rationale behind federal policies toward Native Americans including the establishment of reservations, attempts at assimilation, the end of the Indian Wars at Wounded Knee, and the impacts of the Dawes Act on tribal sovereignty and land ownership. LESSON SUMMARY In this lesson, students will learn about the removal of the Chickasaws from their traditional homelands of Mississippi and surrounding states Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky into Indian Territory, present-day Oklahoma. They will accomplish this by reading the provided reference material and completing the accompanied set of reading questions. LESSON IMPORTANCE This lesson will provide students comprehensive knowledge about the history of the Chickasaw Removal while building reading comprehension, critical thinking and writing skills.
    [Show full text]