INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microOIming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will Hnd a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. UniversiW Micrœlms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WCl R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8027515 Fixico,D o n a l d L e e TERMINATION AND RELOCATION; FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY IN THE 1950's The University of Oklahoma Ph.D. 1980 University Microfilms Internetionel 3 0 0 N.ZeebRoad.AmiArbot.MI48106 18 Bedford Row. London WCIR 4EI, England Copyright 1980 by Fixico, Donald Lee All Rights R eserved THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE TERMINATION AND RELOCATION: FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY IN THE 1950S A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DONALD LEE FIXICO Norman, Oklahoma 1980 TERMINATION AND RELOCATION: FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY IN THE 1950S APPROVED BY A\cu^-JLy DISSERTATION COMMITTEE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE i l l ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i Chapter I. THE IMPACT OF WORLD WAR I I ON INDIAN/WHITE RELATIONS . 1 I I . INDIAN AFFAIRS IN THE TRUMAN ADMINISTRATION, 1948-1951 49 I I I . THE TERMINATION YEARS, 1952-1955 ............................................ 94 IV. THE EISENHOWER PROMISE TO AMERICAN INDIANS, 1956-1959 159 V. THE RELOCATION PRCGEL^M: URBANIZATION OF THE RED MAN . 213 VI. PRELUDE TO RED POWER AND AIM ACTIVISM, 1960-1963 . 250 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 296 PREFACE Termination, a word connoting final extinction, adequately describes federal Indian policy from World War II through the last years of the John F. Kennedy administration. During this period, 1945-1963, the United States Congress initiated legislative action abrogating fed­ eral recognition of Indian groups and responsibilities to Native Ameri­ cans. Concurrently Congress funded the Bureau of Indian Affairs to initiate the Relocation Program, which assisted and supervised those Indians willing to remove from rural communities and reservations to urban areas for economic development. The zenith of termination and relocation in federal-Indian relations occurred during the 1950s. More specifically, between 1954 and 1960, over 61 tribes, groups, communities, rancherias and allotments were terminated, and relocation effected one-half of the current total Indian population living in urban areas. Ironically termination was based on House Concurrent Resolution 108, which was approved in both houses of Congress—but never enacted into law. After World War II, federal supervision of Indian affairs floundered without direction and seemed confusing. No legislation was enacted to define federal Indian policy the next decade when H. C. R. 108 set the foundation for termin­ ation in the 1950s. I l l Termination and relocation were not new concepts in federal- Indian relations. Yet, it is important to realize that termination has been interpreted ambiguously; having positive and negative effects also. Origins of termination and relocation can be traced back to the earliest negotiations of American colonial officials with Indians of the Atlantic Coast. Treaties resulted in termination, or reduction of Indian domains as Anglo-American settlements displaced and removed the native popula­ tion westward. Termination has been interpreted as being good and bad for Native Americans. Usually this policy has been viewed as having ill effects on Indians. Termination has been identified as genocide of Native Americans during the Indian wars, liquidation of reservations, and dissolution of treaties. Abrogation of Indian rights, withdrawal of federal responsibilities to the native population and reduction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have also been depicted as forms of ter­ mination for the purpose of mainstreaming Indians. Finally, termination has been defined as extinction of Native American cultures as the ulti­ mate move towards transforming the Red Man into a white American. In contrast to the negative views of termination, the federal government and Anglo-American viewpoints have suggested that the Indian way of life was no longer viable—especially in the 20th century. Es­ sentially termination would liberate Native Americans from their trust status as "second class" citizens to enjoy equal opportunities and privileges that other Americans had under the Constitution. In order for American Indians to survive in a modernized society after World War II, Indian cultures had to be altered. Certain American cultural iv items and values were adopted. Emphasis on education, acquiring m aterialistic items of white American culture, and competing with other Americans for jobs and positions in society were viewed as Americaniza­ tion of Indians. In the process of studying termination and relocation, the former has had the greater impact on Native Americans since World War II. The spectrum of definitions of termination necessitates a thorough study of the positive and negative repercussions of federal Indian policy during the 1950s. Obviously this study of termination and relocation does not explore indepth the details of legislation affecting each tribe. Rather, the purpose of this work focuses on an overview and the signifi­ cant repercussions of this crucial period of federal Indian policy. Unfortunately, too often literature about American Indians has been written from the non-Indian viewpoint with disregard for the view­ point of the people who were being written about. In studies of federal- Indian relations, the perspective of the federal government tends to neglect the responses and views of Native Americans. To provide the best comprehensive study of federal-Indian relations during this critical period, the viewpoint of the federal government, public opinion of non- Indians, and the Indian point of view are given to provide an overall balanced perspective. Most of all, evaluation of the repercussions of termination and relocation of federal Indian policy in the 1950s is essential for understanding the problems of American Indians in this recent past as they prepare for the future. Donald L. Fixico ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study of federal Indian policy from World War II through th e John Kennedy ad m in istratio n has demanded the a tte n tio n of numerous individuals at various research institutions throughout the country. I have the greatest admiration for these individuals who are highly knowledgeable of research materials on Indian affairs. Although the following list is lengthy I would like to take this opportunity to thank each of these individuals for their gracious services in directing me to needed research information. I wish to thank Mr. Kent Carter, Chief of the Federal Archives and Records Center at Fort Worth, Texas, and his assistants, Ms. Barbara Rusk and Ms. Jeanette Ford who were more than helpful during my research on Oklahoma Indians. I am also grateful to Ms. Valerie Foster and Mr. Allen Core of the Department of Tribal Operations at the Bureau of Indian A ffairs in Muskogee, Oklahoma, fo r the d ire c tio n they provided and for gaining permission for me to research materials at the Federal Archives and Records Center in Fort Worth. I would also like to thank Mr. Herb Pankratz and Dr. John Wickman of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, Kansas; Mr. Allan Perry, Archivist at the Federal Archives and Records Center in Kansas City, Missouri; Dr. Benedict Zobrist, Mr. Philip Laguerquist, Ms. Eliza­ beth Safly, Mr. Dennis Bilanger, Mr. C. Warren Ohrvall, and Mr. Harry v i Clark of th e Harry S. Truman Memorial L ibrary; Mr. Glen Burchet, Federal Archives and Records Center in San Francisco, California; Ms. Carmen Facio, Realty Specialist of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Sacramento, California; Mr. Peter Bounce, Chief of Archives, Federal Archives and Records Center in Chicago, Illinois; and a special thanks to tfe. Elizabeth Trimmer, Assistant Archivist. I am also appreciative for the assistance of Mr. John Aubrey of the Newberry Library in Chicago who also introduced me to Father Peter Powell, the respected scholar on the Cheyennes. I am grateful for the assistance of the staff at the National Archives in Washington, D. C., and to Mr. Dennis Petersen, Chief of Tribal Government Services, his assistant, Mr. Michael Smith, and Mr. Robert Pennington, Chief of Tribal Government Services for sharing their knowledge of federal Indian policy with me.