1
The history of the indigenous people of North America and their relationship with the
United States government is complex and often sensitive. An intricate web of treaties and agreements define the history of the Native Americans since European settlement of
North America. As long as Europeans and Native Americans have lived side by side, their relationship has largely been riddled with strife. As European settlers became more abundant and needed more land on which to settle, they began to view Native Americans as a nuisance. To solve this problem, Indian tribes all across North America were forced by the National government to move to areas set aside for them called reservations.
Native Americans had no choice and were often forced to move to these areas and
Fig. 1. A map of Minnesota with the White Earth Reservation outlined. Base map files courtesy of Sean Hartnett, The University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. 2
abandon the land that had been their home and the home of their ancestors. The White
Earth Indian reservation, located in northern Minnesota was no exception.
The Mississippi Anishinabe, also called the Ojibwe or the Chippewa, were given
the White Earth Reservation in exchange for vast lands throughout the Midwest and
along the Great Lakes. The reservation was located on rich farmland and land with
substantial stands of timber. The land was that on which it seemed any civilization could
prosper. Subsequent laws passed by the United States, however, made it extremely
difficult for the Anishinabe of White Earth to prosper. The value of the land and timber
on the reservation made White Earth vulnerable to corruption and many laws were passed
opening up the reservation to non-Indian settlers. Laws passed by the United States
government, resulted in gross loss of land on White Earth whittling the reservation down
to a mere 7%, in 1985, of its original land holdings.1 In the 1970s the massive land loss
came to the attention of the U.S. government and an investigation discovered that around
100,000 acres of land had questionable titles and much of the land was indeed lost
illegally.2 The government and all other parties involved wanted to avoid a lengthy
process of litigation, so in the early 1980s a bill was drafted in hopes of resolving the
situation. The three parties, the Anishinabe, the non-Indian landowners, and the
government (national, state and local governments) spent several years attempting to
write a bill that pleased everyone. In the end, neither Indian nor non-Indian were willing to compromise and many were left unhappy with the final version of the bill. Despite
1 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., 11 September 1985, 18-19.
2 Ibid., 5.
3 this disagreement, the White Earth Land Settlement Act (WELSA) was made law in 1986 leaving the people of the White Earth Indian Reservation with little choice.
White Earth is the largest band of Ojibwe in Minnesota with a total enrollment of over 20,000 people which meant that WELSA had the potential to affect a lot of people.
After conducting preliminary research on WELSA I was intrigued and wanted to learn more about the effects of this controversial piece of legislation. I was surprised to find that little has been written about WELSA since it was passed. The bill is mentioned in passing in a few sources, but a thorough examination of the content of the legislation and the reaction of people, both Indian and non-Indian, to the legislation are absent from any widely available and easily understandable documents. The history of the White Earth
Indian Reservation and WELSA are vital to the continued study of land tenure of Indian
Reservations nationwide and they are also of importance in avoiding future misfortune such as this.
History of Land Tenure on White Earth
Chosen by early Anishinabe leaders for its rich agricultural land, the White Earth
Reservation was established in 1867. At the time the treaty was signed there were
Ojibwe settlements scattered throughout the upper Midwest, including Minnesota. As the
European population increased, the land on which the Ojibwe had settled became increasingly more valuable and for this reason the Treaty of 1867 sought to concentrate the Ojibwe in Minnesota on a single piece of land.3 In exchange for the reservation land, the Ojibwe gave their existing land, in the words of the treaty, “The Chippewas of the
3 Melissa Meyer, The White Earth Tragedy: Ethnicity and Dispossession at a Minnesota Anishinabe Reservation, 1889-1920 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 40-42.
4
Mississippi hereby cede to the United States all their lands in the State of Minnesota,
secured to them by the second article of their treaty of March 20, 1865… the lands herein
ceded, estimated to contain about two million of acres.”4 In exchange the Chippewa
were given money from the United States government for agricultural assistance, doctors,
education and other miscellaneous items deemed necessary by the tribe. The land set
aside for the Chippewa would be held in trust by the government which meant that the land would not be subject to taxes and would be protected by the government. On March
19th, 1867 the treaty was signed in Washington D.C. by three government representatives and ten Chippewa leaders creating the White Earth Reservation.
After the establishment of the reservation, Anishinabe around Minnesota moved to White Earth and begin their lives on the reservation. In 1889 the government passed another piece of legislation concerning the White Earth Reservation. “An act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota” was passed on
January 14th and now goes by the popular name, the Nelson Act.5 The Nelson Act was
similar to the General Allotment Act of 1887 which divided all Indian reservations in the
United States would be divided into allotments and given to individual Indians. Specific
to Minnesota, the Nelson Act stated that all land held by the Ojibwe in Minnesota would be ceded, or forfeited, for allotments of land on the Red Lake or White Earth
reservations. Many Ojibwe agreed to the relocation because they believed that the stipulation in the act for agricultural assistance would be beneficial and others thought
4 Charles Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, Treaties (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904), 974.
5 Charles Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 1, Laws (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904), 301.
5
that having a land title would offer protection. However, many Native Americans did not
want to give up their land and refused to be removed. Eventually the act passed with a
clause that allowed the Ojibwe to take allotments where they lived. Many took
advantage of the clause and took allotments where they were currently settled, but much
pressure was applied in some areas, particularly on the Mille Lacs band of Ojibwe, for the Native Americans to move to White Earth.6
The General Allotment Act and the Nelson Act were both part of the United
States government’s plan to assimilate the Indians into the European immigrant
population. By giving allotments of private land to the Native Americans government
officials from the Department of the Interior (DOI) hoped that Native American’s would
become farmers and improve the land, in accordance with European immigrant standards,
simultaneously breaking tribal bonds.7 There were other reasons that officials from the
DOI wanted to concentrate the Ojibwe on reservations. One of the main reasons was that any land not allotted to an individual Indian would be sold to whoever could afford it.
The situation was slightly more complicated because much of the reservation land that was to be either sold or allotted contained valuable stands of timber. Officials from the
DOI realized that the large white pines on White Earth land were valuable so the officials decided that those lands would be appraised and sold at auction.8 Appraisers who
determined the value of timber understated the value to benefit the lumber companies,
seriously to the detriment of the Indians of White Earth. 9
6 Meyer, 48
7 Ibid, 51.
8 Ibid., 52-57.
9 Ibid., 138. 6
The abundant and valuable white pines on White Earth land made the Chippewa
more vulnerable to corruption. In 1904 and 1906 two laws were passed that greatly
affected the timber on White Earth. The Clapp Rider was a law passed in 1904 that
allowed lumber companies to negotiate the purchase of timber on recently allotted lands.
The result was that the White Earth Reservation rarely got paid the real value of the
timber on their land because the Anishinabe were not used to conducting business and
dealing with money. The 1906 Clapp rider however was markedly more detrimental.
The 1906 law stated, “All restrictions as to sale, incumbrance, or taxation for allotments
within the White Earth Reservation…held by adult mixed blood Indians, are hereby
removed.”10 In essence, individuals deemed to be mixed blood could sell their land to timber hungry lumber companies which would terminate the 25 year trust period.11 The
ending of the trust period opened the door for the logging industry to take advantage of
the Chippewa and paved the way for many future problems. Several of the most
powerful loggers had friends in the government who represented their interests, but
Native Americans had no such allies. Unsuspecting or naïve Native Americans often
accepted payment of no value in exchange for their land. According to Melissa Meyers,
a leading historian of land tenure on White Earth, “Some received tin tokens from land
buyers that could only be redeemed for goods at specific company stores. Lumber
companies issued duebills marked non-negotiable which merchants cashed only at
10 Charles Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 3, Laws (Compiled to December 1, 1913) (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1913), 220.
11 Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims : Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 98th Cong., 1st sess., 16 November 1983, 4.
7
Fig. 3. Indians on White Earth lining up to receive their land allotments in 1905.12
substantial discounts.”13 Inexperienced and naïve, many Chippewa lost what was
probably their only chance for prosperity. Complicating the issue further was the fact
that the term mixed-blood was not defined in the act. The United States government
determined mixed blood by simply having individuals sign an affidavit stating that they
were mixed blood. No other kind of assessment was conducted. This led to many full-
blood Indians claiming to be mixed-blood because the lure of instant cash was too hard to
resist. This unclear verbiage complicated the issue and opened up White Earth even
further to unlawful land sales. The Clapp Riders set the White Earth Reservation apart
12 Robert Beaulieu, Chippewa Indians awaiting land allotments, US Indian Agency, White Earth, photograph, 1905, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.
13 Meyer, 157.
8
from reservations elsewhere in the country. In 1983 an attorney for the Division of
Indian Affairs stated,
Over time through the Clapp amendment…restrictions on alienation were purportedly lifted and the members of the band who owned those allotments either sold the property or through actions on the part of the county in obtaining tax judgments against those properties, the county would sell them…But the actual reason the reservation was diminished is because of the allotment process… [White Earth] began as an 80,000 acre reservation. I believe today 7 percent, or about 56,000 acres is presently in trust either for individual members or the band itself.14
Other reservations that were also covered with valuable pine forests were able to escape
land loss through strong leaders. The Menominee Reservation in Wisconsin rejected the
option to allot their reservation and was able to keep their forests. 15
Finally in the 1970s a variety of officials recognized that massive dispossession had occurred on reservations throughout the Unites States. Congress mandated an investigation, the 2415 Land Claims Project, and in 1978 representatives of the federal government came to White Earth. They found a complicated history of improperly recorded land transactions, and finally concluded that many “claims to White Earth lands and their subsequent sales and transfers of those lands were, in fact, illegal.”16 The
investigation had uncovered more than two hundred thousand acres of questionable titles
after completing an examination of only one third of the titles.17 The investigation was
called off by Congress in 1982 and the next year Senate Bill 855 (S. 885) was introduced
14 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 18-19.
15 LaDuke, 128.
16 Ibid, 121.
17 Meyer, 231. 9
on November 17th. The result of the 2415 Land Claims Project was the ‘clouding’ of many land titles held by non-Indians and sometimes even Indians. The term “clouded title” meant that the land was subject to a claim by an allottee or the heir of an allottee.
With a cloud on the title, banks would not lend against the value of the land. This made the sale of any land or improvements nearly impossible. Landowners on White Earth looked to the DOI and the county government for a solution.
On November 16th, 1983 there was a hearing held in Washington D.C. to discuss
S. 885 sponsored by Minnesota Senator Arlan Stangeland. The bill was designed, “To
settle unresolved claims relating to certain allotted Indian lands on the White Earth Indian
Reservation, to remove clouds from the titles to certain lands, and for other purposes.”18
The stated goal of the hearing was to “try and develop a legislative solution to the problems that have been created by these land claims on the reservation.”19 Many
different groups were represented at this hearing including Minnesota government
officials, private land owners within the original White Earth Reservation and members of the White Earth Reservation. All parties acknowledged the complexity of the land claims on the reservation and the need for legislation rather than litigation. Simply,
S.885 said that allottees would be given “fair market value of the land…plus simple
interest at the rate of six per centum.”20 The allottees would have two years to make their
claim, and only $2,000,000 would be available per year. Representing the interests of the
18 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Unresolved Claims on the White Earth Indian Reservation, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 November 1983, i.
19 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims, 1.
20 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Unresolved Claims on the White Earth Indian Reservation, 10.
10
White Earth Reservation was Darrell Wadena, who was the chairman of the White Earth
Reservation Business Committee. In a statement he submitted to the court he said that
the compensation provided by the bill was grossly insufficient. He stated that the tribe
believed, “the only remedy fair to the Indians is to provide for the return of economically viable lands to the Reservation with adequate resources to develop such lands for the benefit of the Band as a whole.”21 He urged the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs to reconsider the bill and offered suggestions to improve the bill.
S. 885 and S. 1396
Senate bill S. 885 and S. 1396 were very similar. In fact both bills were titled,
“To settle unresolved claims relating to certain allotted Indian lands on the White Earth
Indian Reservation, to remove clouds from the titles to certain lands, and for other
purposes.”22 Both bills defined an allotment as the “allocation of land on the White Earth
Reservation, Minnesota, granted pursuant to the Act of January 14, 1889…and the Act of
February 8, 1887…to a Chippewa Indian” and an allottee as the one who received such
an allotment.23 The bills then described the type of allotments that were deemed illegal
and would therefore be affected by the legislation. For example, allotments that were
never sold or mortgaged by an allottee but were tax forfeited and allotments sold or mortgaged during the trust period without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior
21 Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims : Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 99.
22 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Unresolved Claims on the White Earth Indian Reservation, i.
23 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 3.
11
would both be deemed illegal. Excluded from both bills was any allotment sold or
mortgaged by mixed blood Indians. The Secretary of the Interior would then publish a
list of allotted lands that had left Indian hands illegally. The list would be published in
local and state newspapers so allottees and their heirs could make claims. The bills were very similar, but there were some important differences. Principally, the amount of
money allocated for compensation, and what would happen after the bill passed were the
primary differences.
Both bills stated that fair market value for the land would be awarded with
interest. What is different, however, is the amount of money the government was willing
to spend. According to S. 885 “There is hereby authorized to be appropriated an amount,
not to exceed $2,000,000 per year, for administration of this Act and for payment of
compensation hereunder.”24 The bill allowed only two years for Indians to make claims,
so only $4,000,000 would be provided to compensate the Chippewa for their land. Two
years later, the new bill, S. 1396, allocated a considerably larger sum of money for
compensation. With the passage of S. 1396 the tribe would receive $3,500,000 designated for economic development, $10,400,000 for individuals “entitled to compensation” and 10,000 acres of land.25
What would happen after the bill passed was also somewhat different. S. 885
stated that after passage, “no action may be brought in any court contesting the validity of
24 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Unresolved Claims on the White Earth Indian Reservation, 11.
25 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 21.
12
any tax forfeiture, sale, mortgage or other taking.”26 This vague stipulation was much
more clearly stated in S. 1396. The 1985 bill said that with approval, “all claims against
the United States, the State of Minnesota …by the White Earth Band…shall be deemed
never to have existed.”27 Both bills gave the Chippewa of White Earth had a window of
time in which to make claims against the United States and get compensation but after
that window closed, no claims of any kind could be brought against the government.
Wrangling in Washington
As with most bills, hearings were held in Washington D.C. before the bill would
be voted on in Congress. An additional difference between the bills was that S. 1396
included a preface that acknowledged how complex the land issue on White Earth was
and how important it was that litigation be avoided. In the bill it is stated, “Claims on
behalf of Indian allottes or heirs and the White Earth Band involving substantial amounts
of land within the White Earth Indian Reservation in Minnesota are the subject of
existing and potential lawsuits involving many and diverse interests in Minnesota and are
creating great hardship and uncertainty for government, Indian communities and non-
Indian communities.”28 This sentiment and sense of urgency was echoed in much of the
testimony given in both 1983 and 1985. For the 1983 hearing many people were present to testify and represent their cause. There were representatives of county governments,
26 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Unresolved Claims on the White Earth Indian Reservation, 10.
27 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 12.
28 Ibid., 2.
13
people representing townships located within White Earth, residents and farmers, and two
people representing the Chippewa of White Earth.
The one thing that all parties agreed on was that a solution needed to be reached;
litigation would be too costly and time consuming. The attorney general of Minnesota,
Hubert Humphrey III, stated, “We all believe that a fair and reasonable legislative settlement is much better than the chaos that would reign if all of these claims ended up in court.”29 Humphrey along with a few others present at the hearing indicated neither
support for nor opposition to the legislation. They simply agreed that both sides were
suffering because of the past actions of government and legislation needed to be agreed
upon to end the ordeal that affected many people.
Thirteen people testified on November 16, 1983 on S. 885. The people
representing county governments and the non-Indians living on White Earth all supported
the legislation. Michael Kraker, the county attorney for Mahnomen County which lies
completely within the borders of White Earth, testified that, “we found the proposed
legislation in our opinion to be fair and equitable.”30 Kraker also commented on giving
the land back to the Indians: “the current landowners would not on a willing basis, sell to
the Federal Government, to have their land turned over, or sell to a willing Indian buyer if
he had the money supplied by someone.”31 This statement suggested that the non-Indian land owners were stubborn and unwilling to compromise.
29 Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims : Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 8.
30 Ibid., 38
31 Ibid., 39
14
Some of these non-Indian land owners were present at the hearing and presented
their own testimony. Each landowner basically stated that they were innocent parties
unjustly suffering. After the investigations in the 1970s and a court case, State vs. Zay
Zah, some people living within the borders of White Earth received letters from state and county government representatives stating that the titles to their land were ‘clouded’
meaning that there was a possible Indian claim against the land.32 The consequences of
such ownership questions were serious because the current owners could not borrow
against their land. This often meant that farmers could not borrow to plant crops,
homeowners could not borrow money to improve their homes, and in addition people
could not sell their homes or property. Melvin Schaumburg, whose farm was located on
the White Earth Reservation, stated, “I cannot get a mortgage to make improvements on
the land. My son would like to take over the farm, but he cannot get a loan to buy it. I
am of retirement age and would like to see my son take over the farm but cannot.”33 This
was the situation of many non-Indians living on White Earth and many supported S. 885
as a solution to the problem.
People on the other side of the issue saw S. 885 as totally inadequate. Three
people at the hearing testified that they did not support the legislation; two of them were
Chippewa Indians. The non-Indian opponent was the director of the Office of Trust
Responsibilities for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sidney Mills. He outlined what a complicated process locating all the original allottees and their heirs would be and stated
32 For more about State vs. Zay Zah see Holly Youngbear-Tibbetts. “Without Due Process: The Alienation of Individual Trust Allotments of the White Earth Anishinaabeg.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15 (1991) : 93- 138.
33 Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims : Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 46.
15
that the proposed legislation was insufficient. He stated, “We do…have serious concerns
with the proposal as drafted. Our preliminary cost analysis of the legislation estimates a
potential cost of between $30 and $40 million to implement such a proposal.”34 The two
Chippewa Indians that testified were Vernon Bellecourt and Darrell Wadena. Bellecourt
was in Washington D.C. representing the Coalition of Allottees and Heirs of the White
Earth Indian Nation, also known as Anishinabe Akeeng. He echoed the sentiment that a
solution was needed, but he completely rejected the proposed legislation. He said “The
Coalition of Heirs considers any legislative solution that does not include return or
exchange of land to rightful Indian heirs and allottees to be totally unacceptable.”35 He
also stated that Anishinabe Akeeng was willing to work with government officials to
come to an acceptable solution. Darrell Wadena was the chairman of the White Earth
Reservation Business Committee and basically reiterated what Bellecourt said. He said that the situation was incredibly complicated and the legislation fell short of a solution.
He also outlined some additions to the legislation to make it more acceptable to the White
Earth Indians. He summarized his testimony by saying, “the business committee believes the only remedy fair to the Indians is to provide for the return of economically viable lands to the Reservation with adequate resources to develop such lands for the benefit of the Band as a whole… [and] the proposed legislative resolutions fall pitifully short.”36
Several of the people present recognized that S. 885 was simply a start, something to get the ball rolling so that an acceptable solution could be reached. After
34 Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims : Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 18.
35 Ibid., 34.
36 Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims : Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 99.
16 the hearings, no further actions were officially recorded concerning the bill. The primary reason that S. 885 did not pass Congress according to Humphrey was because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not approve of the amount of money that the bill would give to the White Earth Reservation.37 The national government was going through a budget crisis of its own and was not willing to give the Anishinabe any more money. This left the people of White Earth very little bargaining power or room to negotiate. For many however, it did not matter because they did not want money, no matter how much, in exchange for land that was legally theirs. They wanted the land pure and simple.
S. 1396: The White Earth Land Settlement Act of 1985
Two years later after all involved parties gave feedback and input on S. 885, S.
1396 was introduced. This bill was read on June 27, 1985 and was also subsequently referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs where again a hearing was held. The differences between S. 885 were previously discussed, the main ones being an increase in the amount of money appropriated and 10,000 acres of land. Many of the same people who were present at the 1983 hearing were also present at the 1985 hearing, but there were also some newcomers representing both sides of the issue; a total of 17 people testified at the hearing.
Minnesota Senator Rudy Boschwitz was the sponsor of the bill and gave the first testimony. He alluded to the fact that S. 885 had been close to passage but action on the bill was delayed and time ran out effectively killing it. When asked why the bill did not
37 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 8.
17 pass he stated, “It was a question of money. Also, I think there were some conflicting pressures within the White Earth Band itself which contributed to it. But basically it was just a question of bucks.”38
Next to testify was Minnesota’s attorney general, Hubert Humphrey III, who had also been present at the 1983 hearing. Mimicking his 1983 testimony, he urged that time was running out and a solution was needed quickly. He submitted a revised bill which included a few changes, including an increase in monies provided for economic development and a loan to the tribe for economic development. These stipulations were added in hopes that the legislation would be more acceptable to the White Earth
Chippewa. With these few changes, Humphrey supported S. 1396. State Senators Roger
Moe and Collin Peterson also endorsed Humphrey’s version of the bill. There were also representatives of county governments, including Michael Kraker who had been present at 1983, and most of them supported the Humphrey version of the legislation.
A major difference between the 1983 and 1986 hearings was the number of witnesses representing the White Earth Chippewa. Vernon Bellecourt was the only
White Earth representative from the earlier hearing that returned to Washington D.C. to oppose S. 1396. Referencing S. 1396 he stated, “Anishinabe Akeeng, joined by representatives of the White Earth Tribal Council presented a unified front in staunch opposition to these bills.”39 He stated later that, “the time is long overdue, America must now break from the policies of the past which have victimized we, the Anishinabe, and
38 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 8.
39 Ibid., 197.
18 other Indian Nations.”40 Also representing Anishinabe Akeeng at the hearing were
Winona LaDuke, Marvin Manypenny, John Morrin, and Dale Hanks. They all submitted testimony stating that they, representing Anishinabe Akeeng, opposed S. 1396. Laduke testified, “I wish to point out to you that a per capita payment, or an individual compensation check is meaningless to our community.” Mannypenny testified, “You’re no longer dealing with an ignorant people…We’ve heard a lot of talk about money here.
Money is not the question.”41 That was the sentiment of the representatives of the White
Earth Nation. They wanted the land back that had been promised to them but illegally taken away. Roger Aitken, superintendent of the Minnesota Agency of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, not a Chippewa from White Earth agreed. “We strongly reiterate herein that no place has allottee or heir ever stated that a monetary solution would be acceptable, not once have I heard that an heir will settle for money over land.”42 There was clearly a discrepancy between the two sides about what the issue actually was. The government thought that pushing more money towards White Earth Reservation was a solution, whereas the Chippewa of White Earth did not want money, they wanted land.
Despite this discrepancy an agreement was reached in April of 1985. A key player on the White Earth Reservation, who had been present at the S. 885 hearings, was not present at the S. 1396 hearings. Darrell Wadena’s title in 1983 was chairman of the
White Earth Reservation Business Committee. In 1985 he held two positions, Chairman of the White Earth Reservation Tribal Council and President of The Minnesota Chippewa
40 Ibid., 200.
41 Ibid., 158-165.
42 Ibid., 95.
19
Tribe. He was an important man on the White Earth Reservation and was the primary
liaison between the Reservation and the state and national governments. Although
Wadena was not physically present at the S. 1396 hearing his opinions were represented.
Four documents with Wadena’s signature were submitted to the committee for
consideration. First was a letter from Wadena to Senator Boschwitz, dated April 25,
1985 endorsing a slightly reformed version of S. 1396. According to the letter, “The
White Earth Reservation Tribal council endorsed the draft by formal resolution on April
2, 1985.”43 Interestingly, Wadena himself did not sign the letter. Forrest Gerard, whose
role at the White Earth Reservation is unclear, actually signed the letter for Wadena. The
text of this resolution was not submitted to the committee. The text of resolution 94-85,
however, was submitted. This resolution, dated April 29, 1985, and signed by Darrell
Wadena himself and paints quite a different picture than the April 25 letter. The
resolution stated, “This proposed legislation would have a detrimental and devastating
impact on tribal members…therefore be it resolved that the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal
Executive Committee go on record opposing the legislation.”44 Four days after Wadena
had written a letter supporting the legislation, he voted to oppose the same legislation. It
was clear that opinions on the Reservation were mixed and not consistent.
43 Ibid., 45.
44 Ibid., 232.
20
Fig. 4. The April 25th letter from Darrell Wadena endorsing S. 1396.45
Foreigners
The debates and arguments over WELSA in Washington paled in comparison to what was happening on the White Earth Reservation. The clouding of titles pitted Indian against non-Indian. WELSA affected almost 1000 land owners and over 100,000 acres
45 Ibid., 45. 21
of land.46 Both sides blamed the government for the undesirable situation and both
claimed to be the innocent victims, but neither could agree on a solution.
The primary underlying cause of the problem, and of the continuing inability to
reach a solution, were the different ways Indians and non-Indians viewed the land. This conflicting vision fueled the original creation of reservations and the passing of the
General Allotment Act of 1887. To the European immigrants who had settled in the
United States, caring for the land meant controlling it and making it useful for themselves
and their communities. In Native Americans views, they cared for the land by respecting
it and treading lightly on it. “Indian people don’t think of the land belonging to them,
they think about them belonging to the land.”47 Europeans respected the land, whereas
Native Americans worshiped it. The U.S government split up reservations through the
General Allotment Act in the belief that if Indians owned a piece of land, they would
make it useful and ideally become farmers like their white neighbors. This was not how
Indians were used to living, however, and that adjustment was often not easily made.
This fundamentally different conception fueled tensions between Indian and non-
Indian after the 1970s investigation left many landowners with clouded titles. Many non-
Indian communities had been settled along railroad lines and generations old farms had
been established on reservation land. Most people with clouded titles learned that their
land was clouded when banks or mortgage companies would not let them borrow against
46 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 6 January 1987.
47 Clouded Land, prod. Randy Croce, 58 min., UC Video, 1987, videocassette.
22
their land, or when they tried to sell their property and others could not get money to
purchase the land.48
The clouding of their titles enraged the private landowners on White Earth most
of whom had no idea that there were claims against their land. People had bought the
land in good faith and believed that the titles on their land were clear. Often the land had been owned by family members for generations so when land was passed on, the new owners had no idea that the land was formerly owned by Indians. Some performed research before purchasing land, consulting lawyers and government officials, but still ended up purchasing land that had at some point been wrongfully taken from White Earth
Indians.49
In most cases it was only a portion of an estate that was under a cloud, but people
feared a domino effect. If they had to give up a small portion of their land, more claims
might be found against the rest of their land. They had not known that the land that they
bought was subject to claim, so why should they be punished? One farmer, Sylvester
Spaeth had 2,810 acres of farm land and upon selling that land in 1982 he discovered that
810 of those acres had clouded titles. Since the title was clear, he had to let the buyer use
the land without having been paid for it which caused him to lose 500,000 dollars in interest. 50
The thought of having to forfeit their homes, farms and their livelihoods was
inconceivable. People had spent their lives on the land and were intensely tied to it; relocating was not an option. Naomi Steinmetz, a dairy and wheat farmer with eighty
48 Clouded Land.
49 Clouded Land.
50 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 6 January 1987. 23
acres of clouded land said, “I don’t think I’d let them have it without a fight. I think
maybe if I saw it was going to come [I would] maybe burn the buildings and let them
have nothing.”51 Farmers were very vocal about losing their land, in addition many resort
owners came forth to voice their opinions. Like their neighboring farmers, resort owners
relied on their property for income. Within the White Earth Reservation there were many
lakes that had become popular vacation spots for people around Minnesota. Resort
owners had spent their lives improving the land, building cabins, making the land
profitable and relocating was not an option. They could not simply go somewhere else
and build a resort. The options of these people whose lives were so closely tied to the
land on which they lived were few.52 Additionally many wanted to cash in on the rising value of lake property but could not because they had clouded titles.53
The time of the disputes, the 1980s, was a difficult period for the farm economy
which greatly worsened the situation. Farmers could not afford to sacrifice anything and
did not see why they should have to suffer for something they did not do. Susan
Steinmetz, daughter-in-law of Naomi and also a farmer stated, “We can’t stand any kind
of setback…The slightest thing just sets us back just so far…I don’t how the government
can expect us to give up anything.”54 Losing a few productive acres would have a significant impact on small struggling farmers. The issue of not being able to borrow
against the value land also hurt farmers. Planting in the spring required a lot of capital
and farmers often had to borrow to buy seed, fertilizer and other necessities. Since some
51 Clouded Land.
52 Clouded Land.
53 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 6 January 1987.
54 Clouded Land.
24
of the land had clouded titles, banks would not lend them the money they needed,
jeopardizing the farmers ability to plant spring crops. This economic hardship made a
complex situation even more difficult and harder for farmers to understand or relate to the
Indians whose land had in fact been taken illegally.
One way non-Indian landowners voiced their opinions was through an
organization called the United Township Association (UTA). UTA was “comprised of
the townships that lie within the boundaries of White Earth reservation” according to
UTA, “Townships are grassroots governments they represent all people.”55 At every
opportunity the UTA testified in support of legislation that got rid of clouds on titles.
The organization did not support S. 1396 however because UTA opposed the return of
10,000 acres to the reservation which the bill included. Many farmers spoke through this organization, using UTA as an avenue to make their voices heard. The other way farmers voiced their opinion was by protesting in St. Paul in front of the capital building.56
The White Earth Anishinabe
Both Indian and non-Indian landowners believed they were victims of the
government and many people on opposing sides understood and respected the rights of
the other, but no one was willing to compromise. The Indians of White Earth knew their
land was taken illegally and they wanted it back. When reservation land was set aside, it
was held in trust by the U.S. government. The 1867 Treaty establishing the reservation
stated that the land granted as reservation land would be “Exempt from taxation and sale
55 Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota Land Claims : Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 195.
56 Clouded Land.
25 for debt, and shall not be alienated except with the approval of the Secretary of the
Interior and in no case to any person not a member of the Chippewa tribe.”57 The land would be protected by the government and held in trust. Removing the trust from the land was often done illegally through national government actions and land was frequently taken because of failure to pay taxes which was clearly contrary to the terms of the 1867 treaty. Any subsequent sale of this land consequently invalid and according to the White Earth Indians, should have been given back to them. The government had failed to protect their land and it was the government’s job to get it back for them.
Native Americans respected the land and, like many of the non-Indians who settled on Reservation land, felt strongly tied to it. The reservation was part of their identity. In the words of Pastor Joseph Vold, a pastor on the White Earth Reservation,
“To be cut off from the land is to die.”58 Many White Earth Anishinabe moved off the reservation because of a lack of land and absence of jobs.59 This absence however, did not remove the attachment that the Anishinabe people felt to their land. Many who lived off of the reservation still called White Earth their home. Elaine Stately, a White Earth
Band Ojibwe moved off of White Earth for economic reasons and had seven children, all born off of the reservation. In an interview she stated that part of her longed to be back on White Earth and one of her children said speaking of White Earth, “nothing can replace the feeling of going home, nothing.” Although none of her children had lived on
White Earth, they still considered the home of their ancestors, their home.
57 Charles Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, 976.
58 Clouded Land.
59 Clouded Land.
26
Not only did the Anishinabe of White Earth feel emotionally tied to the land, they
needed it for economic reasons. Very few jobs were available on the reservation and
poverty was a major issue with no improvement in sight. The unemployment rate in the
1980s was in the neighborhood of 80-90%. Vernon Bellecourt, a member of Anishinabe
Akeeng stated, “The cause of poverty, the cause of economic deprivation, hardship that
we have suffered for a hundred years is very basic. It is because of loss of land and exploitation of resources.”60 The Anishinabe hoped that the return of their land would
give them something to live on and allow them to survive and perhaps even thrive.
The government proposal to pay the allottees and heirs would have avoided the
problem of moving non-Indian families off the land, but the people of White Earth
simply rejected it. The idea of receiving money for land was familiar to the White Earth
Anishinabe. An Anishinabe chief, White Cloud, said in 1874, “Land cession always
means the loss of political power. Cash payments for land mean little if a tribe has no
political power…Land cessions lead to poverty. Poverty always leads to further removal
from the land.”61 The Anishinabe believed that experience had taught them that money
was only a temporary solution to their economic problems. A daughter of Elaine Stately,
a member of the White Earth Band said, “The land will always be there for them.
Money, it comes and it goes.”62 White Earth Indians were not only concerned about the
present, but about future generations as well. If White Earth did not get their land back
60 Clouded Land.
61 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 194
62 Clouded Land.
27
now, what would be left of the reservation in the future? The land was not just theirs; it
also belonged to the Anishinabe of the future.63
To voice their opinions the Anishinabe formed groups, they spoke to the tribal
council, or they simply protested. The White Earth Anishinabe were at a disadvantage
because they had no direct support from county government officials, unlike the non-
Indian landholders. The people of White Earth relied on their strength in numbers hoping
that that would be enough to get the government to listen.
The primary and most vocal organization that spoke out again WELSA was
Anishinabe Akeeng, ‘the people’s land’ in Ojibwe, which was a Coalition of Allottees and Heirs of the White Earth Indian Nation. As previously mentioned, many members of
Anishinabe Akeeng testified at the hearings for WELSA condemning the legislation as
severely inadequate. Many of the important educated members of the White Earth band
were members of this group. They were determined to get the land back into the hands of
White Earth Indians and some devoted their lives to this cause.64
People also hoped to convey their message through their tribal council. During
the September 11, 1985 hearings in Washington D.C. concerning WELSA, a statement
was made that no meetings were formally called by the tribal council. However, there
was a meeting called on May 13, 1985 by the community of White Earth of which the
tribal council was in attendance held. The atmosphere during that meeting was filled
with tension and anger because the tribal council conflicted with the members of White
Earth who opposed WELSA. The message of the people opposed to WELSA was, “our
63 Clouded Land.
64 Meyer, 231-234.
28
land is not for sale at any price!”65 Angry outbursts were common as the two sides tried to convince the other that they were correct. A White Earth member at the meeting stated, “Congress said you either get this or get nothing. [I would] rather take nothing than sell our land.”66 The Anishinabe of White Earth asked the council to withdraw their
support of WELSA and the council was very unwilling to do so at first. After unrelenting
pressure, however, a council member finally gave in saying, “I will move Mr. Chairman
that we rescind our vote, but I also want you to know one thing, I believe it to be a
mistake.”67 The end of this statement was muted by the rapturous outbursts from the
meeting attendees. The chairman of the council at the time was Darrell Wadena, whose support of WELSA and role in its passage was controversial.
The simplest way the people of White Earth let their voices be heard was through protest. Some protests were planned and some were spontaneous. Some were held on the reservation and some were held in St. Paul, where many of the government officials involved had offices. One unplanned protest occurred after some of the people of White
Earth heard on television that the tribal council had endorsed WELSA. They simply
started marching from their homes to the tribal headquarters to show the tribal council
that they did not support this action and were prepared to fight for what they believed was right. A ‘Run for the Survival of the Anishinabe people and the Land’ was held from
May 5 to May 13, 1985 going three hundred miles from Minneapolis to the White Earth
Reservation. On another occasion, some Anishinabe were arrested in St. Paul while
65 Clouded Land.
66 Clouded Land.
67 Clouded Land.
29
protesting outside of Senator Rudy Boschwitz’s office.68 Since the White Earth
Anishinabe could not rely on the tribal council nor government officials to represent their
best interests, this was one of the only ways the Anishinabe could fight against what they believed to be a gross injustice.
Although neither side would compromise, the opposing sides had some important
things in common. Both were fighting for the same thing: the right to live on the land
that they believed belonged to them. Additionally, each side felt unrepresented and not
involved in the legislative process. A few witnesses present at the hearings for both S.
885 and S. 1396 urged government officials to hold hearings closer to White Earth so that
everyone could be involved. They argued that very few could afford to travel to
Washington D.C. to represent their interests which did not allow government
representatives to see the whole picture. Despite these appeals no formal meetings were
held near White Earth.
Passing S. 1396
Eventually the Committee of Indian Affairs sent the bill to the full Senate to be
voted on. After the bill was introduced and the hearing was held, a series of amendments
were proposed however none of the amendments seriously affected the content of the bill.
On December 13, 1985, S. 1396 was passed by the Senate and moved onto the House for
approval. It was referred to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs where it
sat for am extended period of time. On March 11, 1986 the bill was called up by Arlan
68 Clouded Land. 30
Stangeland in the House under a suspension of the rules.69 According to Stanley Bach a
Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process for the House of Representatives “Suspension
of the rules is a procedure that the House of Representatives often uses on the floor to act expeditiously on relatively noncontroversial legislation.”70 S. 1396 was not exactly
absent of controversy and both sides were aware of this. The word controversy was used
several times by government officials and other witnesses at the S. 1396 hearing. 71 Even
though bill S. 1396 was clearly fraught with controversy it was passed under the
suspension of the rules and by a voice vote in the House. Two days later on March 13,
1986 the bill was signed by President Ronald Reagan as public law number 99-264.
The Aftermath
With the passage of WELSA, there were still many questions and disgruntled people living on White Earth. The non-Indian landowners with clouded titles were not happy because the law did not immediately clear their titles. In the bill there was an option for members of White Earth to sue for right to the land within 180 days. Allowing
Indians to make these claims left the landowners feeling uncertain of their future on the land. Far more dejected were the Anishinabe of White Earth. The majority of the tribe had never said that monetary compensation was suitable or desirable, so WELSA was completely inappropriate. Winona LaDuke, a member of Anishinabe Akeeng and
69 Meyer, pg 229
70 Stanley Bach, Suspension of the Rules on the House: Principal Features [article online]
71 Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, White Earth Indian Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 9.
31 founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project (WELRP) stated, “WELSA was a slap in the face to the people of White Earth. It left our people with little choice.”
The Anishinabe of White Earth were not passive, however. Twenty two White
Earth members sued the, “U.S. government, U.S. Interior officials, the state of
Minnesota, the counties of Becker, Clearwater and Mahnomen, and several landholders on the reservation” after the act was passed in 1986. Many of the Indians that filed suit were members of Anishinabe Akeeng, including Marvin Manypenny who in October,
1986 stated that filing a suit was “the only way for Indian people to protect our rights.
We've tried negotiating and no one wants to listen.” 72 In March, 1987, more suits were filed that brought into question the constitutionality of the White Earth Land Settlement
Act. According to the lawyer representing the White Earth Indians, the act was unconstitutional for four reasons: “They were deprived of due process of law because the act gave them too little time and information to file land claims properly, a deadline for filing suits that would protect claims violates the heirs' right to petition the government, heirs who are repaid for land taken away decades ago will be paid the original value of the land, instead of its current value, violating the Constitution's guarantee of ‘just compensation’ for the taking of private property and heirs are deprived of equal protection under the law because they are forced to take.” 73
Before any titles were cleared, WELSA had to be certified by the Interior
Department which had to come within two years of the passage of WELSA, March 1988.
Once the act was certified it would officially clear all clouded titles on White Earth and
72 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 4 October 1986.
73 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 24 March 1987.
32
after certification the 180 days to file suit would begin after which no suits could be filed.
The law suits questioning the constitutionality of WELSA filed by White Earth
Anishinabe delayed certification until the last possible moment. The Interior Department
had scheduled that certification would happen on January 11, 1988, but district court
judges agreed to extend the date. Finally on March 18, 1988 district judges gave the
Interior Department their approval to certify WELSA.74 As of April 1989, 39 people filed
suit to get their land back and none had won.75
Although the Anishinabe felt largely defeated and their wishes ignored by the
government, they did not give up the idea of getting their land back. WELRP was
founded by Winona LaDuke in 1989 and still operates today, with the goal of raising
money to buy back land for the Anishinabe of White Earth. LaDuke used a 20,000 dollar
Reebok Human Rights award she received from the United Nations to start WELRP.76
As of 1999 the project had recovered 1,300 acres. The mission of WELRP as stated on their website, “is to facilitate recovery of the original land base of the White Earth Indian
Reservation, while preserving and restoring traditional practices of sound land stewardship, language fluency, community development, and strengthening our spiritual and cultural heritage.”77
Darrell Wadena was a controversial figure during the passage of WELSA and continued to be controversial after the passage. After he endorsed WELSA many called for his resignation because they believed he failed to represent the best interests of the
74 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 18 March 1988.
75 Star Tribune (Minneapolis), 14 May 1989.
76 Ibid.
77 “White Earth Land Recovery Project” http://www.welrp.org, accessed 9/29/2005.
33
Reservation. Wadena supported WELSA because he didn’t think the reservation had
enough support to block the passage. Senator Rudy Boschwitz claimed, “If Chip hadn't gotten the deal, a lot of lawyers would have made a lot of money and a lot of titles would have been tied up in knots for years. The reservation and the Chippewa people wouldn't have gotten some of the advantages they got.”78 The people that Wadena was elected to represent, the Chippewa of White Earth, did not feel this way. His support of WELSA wasn’t the only thing that made him a controversial figure. In 1995 Wadena and two other tribal council members were indicted for illegally taking funds from and for voter fraud. Money from the act was used to build a casino which did in fact bring a significant number of jobs to the reservation. Wadena, however, hired a drywall company that he had an interest in so that he could get paid for the construction of the casino despite the fac that Wadena’s companies bid was 40,000 dollars more than a company in Fargo,
North Dakota. From the casino project Wadena received over 400,000 dollars illegally.79
In 1996 Wadena was convicted of “conspiracy, theft, embezzlement, bribery and money laundering.” Wadena was sentenced to four years and three month in a federal prison and ordered to pay 635,000 dollars in fines. 80
78 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 8 August 1989.
79 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 30 August 1995.
80 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 21 October 1997. 34
Fig. 2. The land ownership on the White Earth Reservation as of 1999.81
Conclusions
The first monetary awards from WELSA were received in April, 1990. Five
White Earth Anishinabe received money for illegally taken land. All five were original landowners on the reservation and the five were paid a total of 496,935 dollars.82 Today
81 Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life (Cambridge: South End Press, 1999), 141.
82 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 10 April 1990. 35
Fig. 5. The government building that houses the White Earth Land Settlement Act office where White Earth Indians can make a claim. Photo taken by the author.
members of the White Earth band can go to the WELSA office located in a non-descript government office building in Bemidji, Minnesota and make a claim if they believe that their land was illegally taken, or if they are an heir to illegally taken land. If their claim turns out to be valid, they are issued a check from the United States Treasury. This is not what the people of White Earth wanted. They wanted the land back that the U.S. government had promised, and subsequently failed, to protect. From the very beginning, when the Chippewa first met European explorers, the ‘white man’ has not been kind to
Native Americans. Since the initial founding of our government, the policy of the United
States towards Native Americans has not been a beneficent one. I assumed that our mistreatment of Native Americans was a thing of the past, but I was wrong. I was appalled to learn that as recently as 1986 our government passed legislation that harmed 36 and not helped the Chippewa of Minnesota. When I look at how the government that I, in theory, elected I feel partially responsible for the destruction that has occurred on the
White Earth Reservation. It is too late to plead with my senators to condemn this legislation, but supporting organizations like WELRP can make a difference and we can hope that our mistreatment of Native Americans has finally come to an end.
37
Bibliography
Secondary sources
Bach, Stanley. Suspension of the Rules on the House: Principal Features. http://www.house.gov/rules/98-314.htm accessed 10/20/2004.
Blegen, Theodore. The Land Lies Open. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1949.
Castile, George, and Robert Bee. State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1992.
Hilger, Mary Inez. Chippewa Families: A Social Study of White Earth Reservation, 1938. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1998.
Kinney, Jay. A Continent Lost, a Civilization Won: Indian Land Tenure in America. New York: Octagon Books, 1975.
Kugel, Rebecca. To be the Main Leaders of our People: A History of Minnesota Ojibwe Politics, 1825-1898. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1998.
Laduke, Winona. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Cambridge: South End Press, 1999.
Long, John and Gordon DenBoer. Atlas of historical county boundaries: Minnesota. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2000.
Marks, Paula Mitchell. In a Barren Land: American Indian Dispossession and Survival. New York: William Morrow, 1998.
McCormick, Anita Louise. Native Americans and the Reservation in American History. Springfield: Enslow Publishers, 1996.
McDonnell, Janet. The Dispossession of the American Indian, 1887-1934. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Meyer, Melissa. The White Earth Tragedy: Ethnicity and Dispossession at a Minnesota Anishinaabe Reservation, 1889-1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
Powell, Burt. “Land Tenure on Northern Plains Indian Reservations.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1975.
38
Sieciechowicz, Krystyna. “Northern Ojibwa Land Tenure” Anthropologica 28, no. 1 (1986) : 187-202.
Smith, Burton. “The Politics of Allotment: The Flathead Indian Reservation as a Test Case.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 70, no. 3 (1979) : 131-140.
Sutton, Imre. Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature. New York: Clearwater Publishing Company, 1975.
Vizenor, Gerald. “Minnesota Chippewa: Woodland Treaties to Tribal Bingo.” American Indian Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1989) : 31-57.
Washburn, Wilcomb. The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Act of 1887. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1975.
Weil, Richard. “Destroying a Homeland: White Earth, Minnesota.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 13, no. 2 (1989) : 69-95.
“White Earth Land Recovery Project” http://www.welrp.org, accessed 9/29/2005.
Youngbear-Tibbetts, Holly. “Without Due Process: The Alienation of Individual Trust Allotments of the White Earth Anishinaabeg.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 15 (1991) : 93- 138.
Primary Sources
Croce, Randy. Clouded Land. Produced and Directed by Randy Croce. 58 min. UC Video, 1987. Videocassette.
Kappler, Charles. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. 2, Treaties. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904.
Kappler, Charles. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. 1, Laws. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904.
Kappler, Charles. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. 3, Laws (Complied to December 1, 1913). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1913.
United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Indian Affairs. Unresolved Claims on the White Earth Indian Reservation: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 98th Cong., 1st sess., 17 November 1983.
United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Indian Affairs. White Earth Indian 39
Land Claims Settlement: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 99th Cong., 1st sess., 11 September 1985.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. White Earth Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota land claims: oversight hearing before the Committee on Interior and Affairs. 98th Cong., 1st sess., 16 November 1983.