DOCSLIB.ORG

The History of Federal Indian Policy Prior to 1928 by Ernest Cavazos

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The History of Federal Indian Policy Prior to 1928 by Ernest Cavazos The History of Federal Indian Policy Prior to 1928 By Ernest Cavazos For American Indian Law 00001 FEDERAL POLICY TOWARD hMERICAN INDIANS PRIOR TO 1928 I. HISTORY A. Pre-revolutionary era. B. Post-revolutionary era. 1. Cherokee Nation. 2. Delaware Nation. 3. The Six Nations. 4. Ponca Nation. II. Legislation and Courts A. Trade and Intercourse Act. B. Appropriation Acts. c. Allotment/Dawes Act of 1887. 1 . The Burke Act. D. The Merian Report. E. Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Con. 695 (C.C.D. Neb. 1879) (No. 14 1 891 ) • F. State v. Tinno, 94 Idaho 759, 497 P.2d 1385 (1972). III. Analysis A. Concept of Discovery. B. Concept of Conquest. 00002 The History of Federal Indian Policy Prior to 1928 The American Indian Policy has gone from one that respected Indians rights to one that led to an immoral path of submission for the Indians. Public concern for the Indian plight was slow 1n comm1ng. However, it eventually led to the Merian Report and a call for reform in 1926.1 The past Indian injustice has to be viewed in a realistic manner. That is to say, that there will never be a complete remedy or solution for the past injustice. The only hope is that the present and future Federal Indian Policy will follow a more humane route. The object of this paper is to outline, analyze, and follow the American Federal Indian Policy from the Pre-revolutionary era to the era of allotment and assimilation. In doing so, some of the different Indian nations will be researched with intent to set a better understanding of this plight. Also, some of the actions of the Federal Government will be scrutinized. In the Pre-revolutionary era there were three ma1n different Indian policies in North America: the British, French, and Spanish. For the purpose of the report, emphasis will be only on two of the three main European countries east of the Mississippi; England and France.2 The peace that was bounded by the marriage of Pocahontas with John Rolfe was short lived. The English soon learned the cost of ignoring Indian rights. This lack of respect for the Indians led to the massacre of 1622. The Indian was accused of being 2 treacherous and barbaric during the latter part of the 17th century due to the massacre.3 The heads of each English settlement dealt with the Indians in order to guarantee the coexistence of the two and to prevent an Indian uprising such as the one in 1622.4 Not until the second half of the 17th century were there any significant Indian wars. The first was 1n New England and became known as King Philip's War. The second war was in Virginia and is known as Bacon's Rebellion. These wars were caused mainly by the diminishing negotiating powers of the Indians. As the English numbers grew they began to outnumber the Indians and their negotiating powers began to suffer.5 TI1e Indian negotiating powers was strengthened with the French intrusion into the land east of the Mississippi. The presence of the French colonies in the area angered the English, but at the time there was little they could do. The powerful Indian nation played both sides and both sides attempted to buy the Indian loyalty. The main Indian tribes caught between the French and the English were; the Cherokees, Chectans, Chickasaws, and Creeks. It is reported that by the mid 18th century the King of England was sending as much as 3,000 English pounds worth of presents to the Governor of Georgia and South Carolina for the Indians of the Southe&st. The Europeans vie~;ed the presents as a means to arm the Indians against a common foe. On the other hand, the Indians probably viewed such gifts as protection money to (}0004 3 insure against the power of the Indian.6 Eventually the continued strained relations between the French and English led to the French and Indian War of 1756. To assure direct control of the Indians the King of England appointed two superintendents of Indian Affairs. One was in charge of the Indians in the Northern colonies and the other of the Southern colonies. Their duties were to keep the peace, negotiate treaties, and report to the crown the Indian affairs. 7 The Indians became either an important ally or fierce foe. Their ferocity was evidenced by the attack on General Edward Braddock who was attacked by over six hundred Indians and two hundred and twenty French soldiers.B It is said that most of the Indian tribes were quick to join the French due to their repeated victories and smooth talking French representatives.9 On the other hand, most of the problems were solved by William Johnson as superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Northern colonies. He was instrumental in preventing complete chaos. After the attack of Braddock near the Mononghalea River, Johnson was quick to prevent most of the Iroquoi Indians from joining the forces of Montcalm.10 The Indian superintendent for the Southern colonies was Edmond Atkins. Although historians regard Atkins as a failure, he was instrumental in recruiting Indians to aid George Washington 1n 1757. In 1758 he recruited aid from the Indians for General John Forbes.ll The importance of the English Indian superintendents 4 1n the French and Indian Wars is immeasurable. The superintendents were instrumental in guaranteeing the victory of their countrymen. This was due in part to the English Government allowing them to supply and deal with the Indians.l2 Against popular belief scalping their enemy was not an Indian custom. Scalping came about due to the English colonists offering a reward for the head of their enemy and it was easier and more convenient than bringing the entire head of their enemies. Scalping became widespread due to the French and Indian War.l3 With the close of the French and Indian war, Indian independence came to an end. However, it was until 1766 before the English were able to secure peace with the Indians. The wars increased the hatred of the Indian by the English colonists. At the end of the war the King of England passed a proclamation of 1763 closing the lands beyond the Appalachjan Mountains to white settlers.l4 The proclamation is of importance because it gave the King•s approval to the Indian•s claim of sovereignty and validated the custom of buying land from the Indians.l5 The war had long term consequences for the King of England, it eventually led to his loss of the new world. The closing of the land beyond the Appalachian Mountains and high taxes brought about by the expenses accumulated by the war helped lead to the American Revolution.l6 The American Revolution gave r1se to the American Indian Policy. The colonists were quick to appoint commissioners to deal 000f;6 5 with the Indians. Since the colonists were scattered throughout the new world they had more to loose from the Indians adherence with the side of the crown. The Continetal Congress appealed to the Indian to remain neutral. On the other hand, Britain attempted to enlist the Indians against the Americans.l7 The American Indian Policy was to attack hostile Indian nations, burn their crops and villages until they learned to mend their evil ways.l8 The Americans resented the Indian assistance to the crown and sought vengence for years to come. Again as with the French and Indian War, many of the Indians chose the wrong side. At the end of the war Indian's rights were not represented at the Peace of Paris of 1783. At the conference England relinquished its claim to the government and territories of the United States. There has never been doubt that England held title to the lands, "subject to the Indian right of occupancy."l9 The Articles of Confederation, Article IX, gave Congress the exclusive powers of managing Indian Affairs and trade. The need to assure the Federal Government had sole power to deal with the Indians and not have the state interfere was a necessity. This issue is evidenced by the enactment of the Ordinance of 1786. The Ordinance gave Congress the sole right to regulate Indian Affairs under the Articles of Confederation.20 However, the state continued to sign treaties with the Indians in violation of the Ordinance. The Ordinance stated that, 6 The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but lands founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them. 21 The Treaty of Hopewell guaranteed the Cherokees that the white man would not infringe on their lands. However, within two years the treaty was violated and Henry Knox, Secretary of War under the Confederation, asked Congress to honor its commitment to the treaty. Congress issued a proclamation, but it failed to meet its obligation under the treaty. The Indian powers enabled them to keep encroachments by the settlers in check during the 1790's.22 The treaty of Hopwell was the first diplomatic relations between the United States and the Cherokees. The Cherokee Indians occupied the land along the Tennessee River and land in Alabama, Carolina, and Georgia. The need to deal with the Cherokee was great due to the damages that two thousand warriors could cause.23 The encroachment of Cherokee lands, guaranteed by the treaty created a tense situation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Afraid of Bear to Zuni: Surnames in English of Native American Origin Found Within
    RAYNOR MEMORIAL LIBRARIES Indian origin names, were eventually shortened to one-word names, making a few indistinguishable from names of non-Indian origin. Name Categories: Personal and family names of Indian origin contrast markedly with names of non-Indian Afraid of Bear to Zuni: Surnames in origin. English of Native American Origin 1. Personal and family names from found within Marquette University Christian saints (e.g. Juan, Johnson): Archival Collections natives- rare; non-natives- common 2. Family names from jobs (e.g. Oftentimes names of Native Miller): natives- rare; non-natives- American origin are based on objects common with descriptive adjectives. The 3. Family names from places (e.g. following list, which is not Rivera): natives- rare; non-native- comprehensive, comprises common approximately 1,000 name variations in 4. Personal and family names from English found within the Marquette achievements, attributes, or incidents University archival collections. The relating to the person or an ancestor names originate from over 50 tribes (e.g. Shot with two arrows): natives- based in 15 states and Canada. Tribal yes; non-natives- yes affiliations and place of residence are 5. Personal and family names from noted. their clan or totem (e.g. White bear): natives- yes; non-natives- no History: In ancient times it was 6. Personal or family names from customary for children to be named at dreams and visions of the person or birth with a name relating to an animal an ancestor (e.g. Black elk): natives- or physical phenominon. Later males in yes; non-natives- no particular received names noting personal achievements, special Tribes/ Ethnic Groups: Names encounters, inspirations from dreams, or are expressed according to the following physical handicaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Voices Teacher Guide
    Teacher Guide for High School for use with the educational DVD Contemporary Voices along the Lewis & Clark Trail First Edition The Regional Learning Project collaborates with tribal educators to produce top quality, primary resource materials about Native Americans, Montana, and regional history. Bob Boyer, Kim Lugthart, Elizabeth Sperry, Sally Thompson © 2008 Regional Learning Project, The University of Montana, Center for Continuing Education Regional Learning Project at the University of Montana–Missoula grants teachers permission to photocopy the activity pages from this book for classroom use. No other part of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher. For more information regarding permission, write to Regional Learning Project, UM Continuing Education, Missoula, MT 59812. Acknowledgements Regional Learning Project extends grateful acknowledgement to the tribal representatives contributing to this project. The following is a list of those appearing in the DVD, from interviews conducted by Sally Thompson, Ph.D. Lewis Malatare (Yakama) Lee Bourgeau (Nez Perce) Allen Pinkham (Nez Perce) Julie Cajune (Salish) Pat Courtney Gold (Wasco) Maria Pascua (Makah) Armand Minthorn (Cayuse/Nez Perce) Cecelia Bearchum (Walla Walla/Yakama) Vernon Finley (Kootenai) Otis Halfmoon (Nez Perce) Louis Adams (Salish) Kathleen Gordon (Cayuse/Walla Walla) Felix
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
    Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Overview
    Indian Claims Insight Historical Overview The Constitution of the U.S. authorizes the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties. The removal of Indian Nations from American lands desired by white settlers was grounded in the treaty- making process. This practice continued a policy established in colonial times, under which white European settlers sought to usurp Native American lands through a process of negotiation rather than direct conquest. The Constitution expressly prohibits the States from entering into treaties or alliances and makes no distinction between treaty making involving foreign nations and treaty making with Native Americans, although it does make a distinction between foreign nations and Indian tribes in the language empowering Congress to regulate commerce. The earliest treaties refer to “Indian Nations” or “Indian tribes.” Of all the treaties signed, most involved Native American lands, Indian removal or resettlement, or clarification of boundaries between white settlements and Indian lands. Despite the fact that treaty making process between the U.S. Government and the Indian Nations/Tribes was overwhelmingly skewed to favor U.S. territorial expansion, Indian removal, and white settlement of lands previously occupied by Native Americans, it is the grounding of the territorial expansion in the treaty-making process that provided the only hope for Native Americans to seek redress. The following timeline highlights major events impacting the history of Indian claims 1789-present. 1 Treaty signed by George Treaty Making Period 1789-1871 Washington 1817 Secret articles of the Treaty of On Dec. 2, 1817 in his annual address to Congress, President James Monroe Peace and Friendship between the provided examples of Government actions involving the purchase of Indian U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Gendered Ideals in the Autobiographies of Charles Eastman and Luther Standing Bear
    Compromising and Accommodating Dominant Gendered Ideologies: The Effectiveness of Using Nineteenth-century Indian Boarding school Autobiographies as Tools of Protest Sineke Elzinga S1012091 M North American Studies 24 June 2019 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hans Bak Second Reader: Dr. Mathilde Roza NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES Teacher who will receive this document: Prof. Dr. Hans Bak and Dr. Mathilde Roza Title of document: Compromising and Accommodating Dominant Gendered Ideologies: The Effectiveness of Using Nineteenth-century Indian Boarding school Autobiographies as Tools of Protest Name of course: Master Thesis Date of submission: 25 June 2019 The work submitted here is the sole responsibility of the undersigned, who has neither committed plagiarism nor colluded in its production. Signed Name of student: Sineke Elzinga Student number: S1012091 Abstract Gendered ideals dominant in nineteenth-century America have been significantly different from gendered ideals in Native American communities. In using their Indian boarding schools autobiographies as tools of protest, these Native writers had to compromise and accommodate these gendered ideals dominant in American society. This thesis analyzes how Zitkála-Šá, Luther Standing Bear and Charles Eastman have used the gendered ideals concerning the public and domestic sphere, emotion and reason in writing, and ideas about individuality and analyzes how this has affected the effectiveness of using their autobiographies as tools of protest for their people. Keywords Indian boarding school autobiographies,
    [Show full text]
  • What Sort of Indian Will Show the Way? Colonization, Mediation, and Interpretation in the Sun Dance Contact Zone
    WHAT SORT OF INDIAN WILL SHOW THE WAY? COLONIZATION, MEDIATION, AND INTERPRETATION IN THE SUN DANCE CONTACT ZONE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sandra Garner, B.A., M.A. Graduate Program in Comparative Studies The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Lindsay Jones, Advisor Maurice Stevens Richard Shiels Copyright by Sandra Garner 2010 ABSTRACT This research project focuses on the Sun Dance, an Indigenous ritual particularly associated with Siouan people, as a site of cultural expression where multiple, often conflicting concerns, compete for hegemonic dominance. Since European contact the Sun Dance has been variously practiced, suppressed, reclaimed, revitalized, and transformed. It has also evoked strong sentiments both from those that sought to eradicate its practices as well as those who have sought its continuance. In spite of a period of intense colonial repression, during the last three decades the Siouan form of the Sun Dance has become one of the most widely practiced religious rituals from Indigenous North America and the number of Sun Dances held and the numbers of people participating has grown significantly. How has the Sun Dance ritual endured in spite of a lengthy history of repression? What is it about the Sun Dance that evokes such powerful sentiments? And, how do we account for the growth of the Sun Dance. I argue that the current growth and practice of the Sun Dance must be considered within the context of colonialism; a central focus of this dissertation. I identify the complex and messy ways that individuals mediate the inequitable power relations that shape colonialist interactions, as well as the way they interpret these social spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribes of Oklahoma – Request for Information for Teachers (Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies, OSDE)
    Tribes of Oklahoma – Request for Information for Teachers (Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies, OSDE) Tribe:_____Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma__________________ Tribal website(s): http//www.ponca.com_________________________ 1. Migration/movement/forced removal Oklahoma History C3 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.” Oklahoma History C3 Standard 2.7 “Compare and contrast multiple points of view to evaluate the impact of the Dawes Act which resulted in the loss of tribal communal lands and the redistribution of lands by various means including land runs as typified by the Unassigned Lands and the Cherokee Outlet, lotteries, and tribal allotments.” Original Homeland – present day Kentucky, Indiana, and Nebraska Location in Oklahoma – North central Oklahoma primarily in Kay County Traditionally the Ponca share common social and cultural characteristics with the Omaha, Osage, Kaw and Quapaw peoples. They once lived in the area of northern Kentucky and southern Indiana along the Ohio River, then migrated west into what is today known as Nebraska. The Ponca first encountered Europeans in 1789 when they lived in villages along Ponca Creek near the Niobrara River in northeastern Nebraska. Despite several treaties with the U.S., in 1868 due to an “administrative blunder” by federal agents, the entire Ponca Reservation was given to the Sioux. When the error was discovered, the U.S. government chose to remove the Poncas south to Indian Territory rather than admit the mistake.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Standing Bear: Establishing Personhood Under the Law
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association American Judges Association 2009 The Case of Standing Bear: Establishing Personhood under the Law Joe Starita University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview Starita, Joe, "The Case of Standing Bear: Establishing Personhood under the Law" (2009). Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association. 287. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/287 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the American Judges Association at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Case of Standing Bear: Establishing Personhood under the Law Joe Starita t ten o’clock on the morning of May 1, 1879, in Omaha, Yes, for the most part, the witness said. Nebraska, U.S. District Court Judge Elmer Dundy’s The young agency store clerk left the stand and Lieutenant Agavel smacked against a wooden bench and the trial of Carpenter, the arresting officer, was sworn in as the second Ma-chu-nah-zha v. George Crook1 was officially underway. witness. Standing Bear’s attorney again focused on dress and Delayed by heavy spring rains and widespread flooding, the work habits. judge had just arrived from Lincoln the night before, but now When you arrested the prisoners, he asked, were they wear- he was settled at the bench and he asked the attorneys repre- ing citizens’ clothing? senting Standing Bear to call their first witness.
    [Show full text]
  • Osage Nation of Oklahoma
    United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, DC 20240 JUN 26 2020 The Honorable Geoffrey Standing Bear Principal Chief, Osage Nation 627 Grandview Pawhuska, Oklahoma 74056 Dear Principal Chief Standing Bear: In 2016, the Osage Nation (Nation) submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) an application to transfer into trust approximately 63.1 acres of land known as the Pawhuska Property (Site) in Osage County, Oklahoma, for gaming and other purposes.1 The Nation will relocate its existing Pawhuska facility to the Site, and develop approximately 17 acres of the Site with a casino and hotel (Proposed Project). The Nation also submitted a request for a determination whether the Nation is eligible to conduct gaming on the Site. The Proposed Project would replace the Nation's existing Pawhuska Osage Casino in Osage County. The Nation intends to close the existing casino and relocate it to the Site operating approximately 300 feet directly across Highway 99/60. We have completed our review of the Nation's request, the Regional Director's Findings of Fact,2 and the documentation in the record. As discussed below, it is my determination that the Department of the Interior (Department) will transfer the Site into trust for the benefit of the Nation pursuant to Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).3 Once transferred into trust, the Nation may conduct gaming on the Site pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).4 Background In 1870, Congress removed and relocated the Osage people from their lands in Kansas, which were then sold, to lands in the Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma.5 There, Congress established the boundaries of the Nation's Reservation in 1872, consisting of approximately 1.47 million acres, which subsequently became part of the Oklahoma Territory in 1890.6 1 See Letter from Property Manager, Osage Nation, to Robin Philips, Superintendent, Osage Agency (Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Foundation of American Indian Education
    History and Foundation of American Indian Education Written by Stan Juneau Revised and Updated by Walter Fleming and Lance Foster Indian Education for All Division 2001/rev. 2012-2013 History and Foundation of American Indian Education Written by Stan Juneau Revised and Updated by Walter Fleming and Lance Foster Indian Education for All Division 2001/rev. 2012-2013 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: Traditional Indian Education and European Intrusion (1492-1787) 4 Traditional Indian Education 5 Indians in Montana 6 An Intrusion Process: Involuntary Minorities 7 Chapter Two: Federalism and the Indian Treaty Period (1787-1871) 9 Legal Foundations 10 The Constitution and the Commerce Clause 10 Indian Treaties and Education 11 Indian Treaties in Montana 12 End of Treaty Period 12 Effects of Treaties on Indian Lands and Education 13 Chapter Three: The Indian Boarding School (1617-Present) 17 Missionary Period (1500s-1800s) 18 Federal Period (1800s-Present) 19 The Federal Boarding School System 19 Carlisle Indian School 20 Boarding Schools in Montana 23 Indian Boarding Schools Today 25 Chapter Four: The Allotment Period (1887-1934) 28 Property as a Basis of Western Societies 29 The Dawes Act of 1887 (General Allotment Act) 30 The Allotment Period in Montana 30 Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 31 The Meriam Report of 1928 31 Chapter Five: Tribal Reorganization Period (1934-1953) 34 The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 35 Tribal Constitutions 36 The Johnson-O’Malley Act of 1934 37 The Reorganization Period in Montana 38 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • American Indians in Oklahoma OKLAHOMA HISTORY CENTER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
    American Indians in Oklahoma OKLAHOMA HISTORY CENTER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Nawa! That means hello in the Pawnee language. In Oklahoma, thirty-eight federally recognized tribes represent about 8 percent of the population. Most of these tribes came from places around the country but were removed from their homelands to Oklahoma in the nineteenth century. Their diverse cultures and rich heritage make Oklahoma (which combines the Choctaw words “okla” and “huma,” or “territory of the red people”) a special state. American Indians have impacted Oklahoma’s growth from territory to statehood and have made it into the great state it is today. This site allows you to learn more about American Indian tribes in Oklahoma. First, read the background pages for more information, then go through the biographies of influential American Indians to learn more about him or her. The activities section has coloring sheets, games, and other activities, which can be done as part of a group or on your own. Map of Indian Territory prior to 1889 (ITMAP.0035, Oklahoma Historical Society Map Collection, OHS). American Indians │2016 │1 Before European Contact The first people living on the prairie were the ancestors of various American Indian tribes. Through archaeology, we know that the plains have been inhabited for centuries by groups of people who lived in semi-permanent villages and depended on planting crops and hunting animals. Many of the ideas we associate with American Indians, such as the travois, various ceremonies, tipis, earth lodges, and controlled bison hunts, come from these first prairie people. Through archaeology, we know that the ancestors of the Wichita and Caddo tribes have been in present-day Oklahoma for more than two thousand years.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Bear.Pdf
    1 Standing Bear v. The United States In 1877, Chief Standing Bear of the Ponca Tribe lived in an 800 square foot house he built of lumber he cut and sawed himself. The house had windows, furniture, heating stoves, and a pantry full of dishes. He was a Christian, dressed in American clothing and raised crops and livestock. His net worth probably exceeded $150,000 in today’s money. Two years later he was arrested as a fugitive and sued General George Crook of the United States Army for his release. Standing Bear’s lawsuit was the first step on the tortuous road of American Indian rights that still winds on today. Who are the Ponca? The Ponca are an offshoot of the Omaha, speaking a dialect of the same Siouan-rooted language as the Omaha. The Omaha are believed to have migrated from the lower Great Lakes and Ohio Valley to the Missouri River valley of Iowa and Nebraska prior to the 1700s. At this time, they moved farther into Nebraska in response to pressure from the Lakota as they were pressured in turn by the Ojibwa who were acquiring European weapons. As they moved up the Missouri, they displaced the Arikara and learned earthlodge building. They were a semi-nomadic tribe, living in tipis during their buffalo hunts, and in earthlodge villages while they farmed. In the early 1700s, they also acquired their first horses, probably by trade with the Comanche, approximately the same time they separated from the Omaha. The separation was apparently an amicable one, as the two tribes maintained friendly relationships and frequently intermarried.
    [Show full text]