DOCSLIB.ORG

Delaware Indian Land Claims: a Historical and Legal Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Delaware Indian land Claims: A Historical and Legal Perspective DAVID A. EZZO Alden, New York and MICHAEL MOSKOWITZ Wantagh, New York In this paper we shall discuss Delaware Indian land claims in both a histori­ cal and legal context. The first section of the paper deals with the historical background necessary to understand the land claims filed by the Delaware. In the second part of the paper the focus is on a legal review of the Delaware land claims cases. Ezzo is responsible for the first section while Moskowitz is responsible for the second section. 1. History The term Delaware has been used to describe the descendants of the Native Americans that resided in the Delaware River Valley and other adjacent areas at the start of the 17th century. The Delaware spoke two dialects: Munsee and Unami, both of these belong to the Eastern Algonquian Lan­ guage family. Goddard has noted that the Delaware never formed a single political unit. He also has noted that the term Delaware was only applied to these groups after they had migrated from their original Northeastern homeland. Goddard sums up the Delaware migration as follows: The piecemeal western migration, in the face of white settlement and its attendant pressures during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, left the Delaware in a number of widely scattered places in Southern Ontario, Western New York, Wisconsin, Kansas and Oklahoma. Their history involves the repeated divisions and consolidations of many villages and of local, political and linguistic groups that developed in complicated and incompletely known ways. In addition, individuals, families and small groups were constantly moving from place to place. (Goddard 1978:213) 164 DELAWARE INDIAN LAND CLAIMS 165 Tanner (1987:2) has correctly noted that the Delaware were the "most transient of all Indian people on the Great Lakes scene". To discuss all of the Delaware migrations would be beyond the scope of this paper (see Map 1). The purpose here is to outline the key Delaware subgroups and movements that are needed to properly understand the claims filed by the Delaware under the Indian Land Claims Commission. Delaware Migrations Since Statehood It is interesting to note, as Grumet (1989:90) has pointed out, that the Delaware maintained their traditional kinship system of three clans — Tur­ tle, Turkey and Wolf, through all of their western migrations. Over time, however, these clans ceased to be matrilineal. The Delaware raids on frontier settlements in Pennsylvania and Vir­ ginia ended in August 1794, when the Delaware were defeated at the Battle of Fallen Timbers on the Maumee River in Ohio. After the American Rev­ olution, the demand by settlers for Ohio land cessions resulted in a number of treaties signed by the Delaware including the following: Fort Stanwix, 1784; Fort Mcintosh, 1785; Fort Finey, 1786; and Fort Hamar, 1789 (Tanner 1987:69). Tanner has noted that all of these treaties ceding Indian land were done at sparsely attended council meetings with inadequate Indian representa­ tion. At the treaty of Greenville in 1795 which followed Wayne's victory in 1794, two-thirds of the Ohio territory was ceded to the American Gov­ ernment. This land had been home to several Indian tribes including the Delaware, Shawnee, Mingo and Wyandot (see Map 2). After the Greenville treaty, the main body of the Delaware left Ohio and accepted an invitation from the Piankasharo Indians and relocated to the White River in Indiana (Kraft 1986:236). Although the majority of the Delawares moved to Indiana, several subgroups did not. One group of Delaware moved to Missouri at the invitation of the Spanish Government in 1789. Another group, a Moravian mission band, established the town of Fairfield on the Thames River in Ontario in 1792. A third group of Munsee, settled among the Seneca in 1791 (Goddard 1978:223; see Map 3). From 1790 to 1799 the American Congress passed four trade and inter­ course acts relating to Indian Affairs and Commerce. Waldman (1985:190) has noted that this act "required federal approval and public treaty for the purchase of Indian land by states." In 1802 a new act was passed that codified the four previous ones. This act would become very important in Indian land claims filed under the Indian Land Claims Commission. During the war of 1812, despite attempts by the British to persuade the Delaware to attack American settlements, they remained neutral. The 166 DAVID A. EZZO and MICHAEL MOSKOWITZ Indian lands occupied by the main body of the Delaware along with the Mo­ hicans and Munsees were originally obtained from the Miami and Pakashaw Indians in 1770 (Senate Report 1518:8, 1968). On December 12, 1808, President Thomas Jefferson signed a document which recognized this land transfer, stating that these three tribes and their descendants could remain on the White River "forever" (Senate Report 1518:8, 1968). In this case, forever for the Delaware would last only ten years. Before discussing the westerly movements of the main body of the Delaware, the history of the group that would later be known as the Stock- bridge-Munsee after this group had moved to Wisconsin in the 1830s should be outlined. After the American Revolution, in 1783, a group composed of both Munsee and Mahican moved to Canada (Brasser 1978:209). Another group of about 420 Mahicans accepted an invitation from the Oneida to relocate to a tract of land on Oneida Creek in New York. By 1786 most of the Indians had settled here at New Stockbridge. Due to pressure from both White settlers and the Oneida, by 1791 Chief Sachem Hendrick Aupaumut was considering relocation. The Stockbridge removal was delayed, however, due to the efforts of Shawnee Chief Tecumseh who attempted to organize a anti-white Confederacy (Brasser 1978:209). In 1801, 63 Brotherton Indians (formerly of New Jersey) accepted an invitation to join the Mahican Indians at New Stockbridge (Kraft 1986:232). Brasser has noted that in 1818, about seventy-five Stockbridges led by John Metoxen departed for Indiana. Upon their arrival, they learned that the Delaware and Miamis had been forced to sell their land. Missionaries then purchased some land from the Menominee and Winnebago Indians in Wisconsin for the Stockbridge (New York Indians). In 1828 a group of Indians from New Stockbridge settled on the Fox River in Wisconsin. They were led there by John W. Quinney. As of 1831, there were about 100 Delaware and 225 Stockbridges living on the Fox River. The purchase of this land was disavowed by the Wisconsin Indians and the Stockbridge community was removed to Calumet County (east of Lake Winnebago) between 1832 and 1834. In 1837 a number of Moravian Munsee from Canada joined this group; thus they came to be called the Stockbridge- Munsee. In 1837, John W. Quinney drafted a new tribal constitution that called for choosing tribal officers by election rather than by the traditional heredi­ tary leadership system. This caused some dissension among the tribe which was increased by the efforts of the United States government to "extinguish Indian claims east of the Mississippi." As a result, the Stockbridge agreed to cede half their land to the United States in return for money to finance removal. About 70 Stockbridge and about 100 Munsee left for the Missouri River in 1839. Many of these people did not survive the hardships of the DELAWARE INDIAN LAND CLAIMS 167 move. Some joined the main body of Delaware in Kansas and a few went back to Wisconsin. In 1856,the Stockbridge-Munsee were given a reservation in Shawano County, Wisconsin. About 150 Indians moved to this reservation in 1859. They were joined by a number of Brotherton and New York Iroquois. The Stockbridge-Munsee suffered a substantial loss of their land base due to the 1887 General Allotment Act. In 1938, the Stockbridge-Munsee tribal constitution was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. They were given 2,250 acres of land in Bartlane township. The current Stockbridge-Munsee population is about 1,000. In 1986, they filed a claim to six square miles of land that they formerly occupied in Madison and Oneida Countiesin present-day New York State (see Map 7). A suit is still under review by the court and a judgement is expected soon in this case (Peg Rogers, personal communication). The St. Mary's Treaty (1818) The discussion will now return to the main body of the Delaware. The treaty of St. Mary's, Ohio, was signed on August 3, 1818. This treaty required the Delaware, Munsee, Mahicans and Nanticokes to give the United States occupancy rights to all their lands in Indiana (Newcomb 1956:97). The principal negotiators of the St. Mary's treaty were Chief William Anderson and Indian Agent John Johnstone (Senate Report 1518:9, 1968). In return for their Indiana Lands the Delaware were promised land west of the Missouri on the James Fork of the White River (406 F. Supp. 1309, 1975:1318; Goddard 1978:229). The Delaware were given three years to relocate. A total of 1,346 Delaware and 1,499 horses completed the move (Kraft 1986:236). The treaty of St. Mary's also illustrates the common United States government practice of only negotiating with a portion of the Indian tribal groups with rights to the land under review. In this case, for example, only some of the Stockbridge were present when the Indiana lands were ceded (406 F. Supp. 1309, 1975:1318). The Stockbridge Mahican had written to Chief Anderson through Agent Johnstone advising him not to sell the Indian lands.
Recommended publications
  • Indians (2)” of the John G

    Indians (2)” of the John G

    The original documents are located in Box 4, folder “Indians (2)” of the John G. Carlson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 4 of the John G. Carlson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON January 8, 1974 Dear Chief Fools Crow and Matthew Kirig: On behalf of the President, I want to thank you for your letter of November 19 to him, and for the specific questions you enclosed in the Bill of Particulars which Vine DeLoria delivered to Brad Patterson. We promised to have a detailed response to the specific questions, and the enclosure to this letter, prepared principally by the Department of Justice, constitutes that response. As you asked, the response avoids rhetoric and" soothing words" in its answers and confines itself to facts of history and law, with citations of statutes and Court decisions. By way of preface, however, I would like to add a personal word.
  • Indigenous People of Western New York

    Indigenous People of Western New York

    FACT SHEET / FEBRUARY 2018 Indigenous People of Western New York Kristin Szczepaniec Territorial Acknowledgement In keeping with regional protocol, I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and by honoring the sovereignty of the Six Nations–the Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Seneca and Tuscarora–and their land where we are situated and where the majority of this work took place. In this acknowledgement, we hope to demonstrate respect for the treaties that were made on these territories and remorse for the harms and mistakes of the far and recent past; and we pledge to work toward partnership with a spirit of reconciliation and collaboration. Introduction This fact sheet summarizes some of the available history of Indigenous people of North America date their history on the land as “since Indigenous people in what is time immemorial”; some archeologists say that a 12,000 year-old history on now known as Western New this continent is a close estimate.1 Today, the U.S. federal government York and provides information recognizes over 567 American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and villages on the contemporary state of with 6.7 million people who identify as American Indian or Alaskan, alone Haudenosaunee communities. or combined.2 Intended to shed light on an often overlooked history, it The land that is now known as New York State has a rich history of First includes demographic, Nations people, many of whom continue to influence and play key roles in economic, and health data on shaping the region. This fact sheet offers information about Native people in Indigenous people in Western Western New York from the far and recent past through 2018.
  • BROKEN PROMISES: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans

    BROKEN PROMISES: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans

    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS BROKEN PROMISES: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans BRIEFING REPORT U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business DECEMBER 2018 Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, Catherine E. Lhamon, Chairperson bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Vice Chairperson directed to: Debo P. Adegbile Gail L. Heriot • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are Peter N. Kirsanow being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their David Kladney race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national Karen Narasaki origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Michael Yaki • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution Mauro Morales, Staff Director because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or Washington, DC 20425 national origin, or in the administration of justice. (202) 376-8128 voice • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information TTY Relay: 711 in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, www.usccr.gov religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress.
  • Topography Section References

    Topography Section References

    Section 8 References 8. REFERENCES 1. Purpose and Need for the proposed Action Bureau of Indian Affairs (2006). Website. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html. 3.2.1 Topography Fenneman, N.M., & Johnson, D.W. (1946). Physical Divisions of the United States: Washington, DC. US Geological Survey Special Map Series. NASA Visible Earth Image catalog (1991, October 18). SRTM, Landsat. Retreived February 13, 2000, from http://visibleearth.nasa.gov USGS (2006). Seamless Data Distribution System. Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS). United States Geological Survey. Retrieved March 22, 2006, from http://seamless.usgs.gov 3.2.2 Soils USDA– SCS (1987). Hydric Soils of the United States. United States Department of Agriculture– Soil Conservation Service. USDA. Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Data Mart. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1993, October). Soil Survey Manual. Retrieved April 8, 2006 from http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/print_version/chapter6.html U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, (2005). National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. Retrieved from http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/ 3.2.3 Geological Setting and Mineral Resources Cadwell, D.H., Connally, G.G., Dineen, R.J., Fleisher, P.J., & Rich, J.L. (1987) Surficial Geologic Map of New York – Hudson-Mohawk Sheet. New York State Museum Geological Survey. Bureau of Indian Affairs Draft EIS 8-1 Oneida Nation of New York Conveyance of Lands Into Trust Section 8 References Fisher, D.W., Isachsen, Y.W., & Rickard, L.V.
  • Fort Washita AND/OR COMMON Fort Washita Q LOCATION

    Fort Washita AND/OR COMMON Fort Washita Q LOCATION

    National Historic Landmark-Westward Expansion Form No. 10-300 (Rev 10-74) (Military and I^^an Affairs) XVI UNITHI) STATES ULI'ARTMLl PDF THL. INILR1OR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM DATE ENTERED SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS_______ I NAME HISTORIC Fort Washita AND/OR COMMON Fort Washita Q LOCATION STREET& NUMBFR Route 199 — NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Durant _X VICINITY OF 3rd STATF CODE XOUNTY CnDi •klahbmaa 40 Bryan 013 CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENTUSE v _.DI STRICT X PUBLIC -^OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE fhMUSEUM X_BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL ApARK _STRUCTURE __BOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL .—PRIVATE RESIDENCE _SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS _OBJECT —IN PROCESS —YES RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC ..BEING CONSIDERED _.YES UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION _NO —MILITARY —OTHER OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Oklahoma Historical Society STREET & NUMBER ^ Willey Pase Hisctorical Building CITY, TOWN STATE Oklahoma City VICINITY OF Oklahoma LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. County Clerk REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC Bryant County Courthouse STREETS NUMBER CITY.4th TOWN and———————————— Evergreen STATE Durant Oklahoma 74701 REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE None DATE _ FEDERAL —STATE ^.COUNTY ..-LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE ^EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED JfcjRIGINALSITE GOOD RUINS X ALTERED MOVFD DATF _FAIR _ UNEXPOSED DESCRIBETHE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Fort Washita situated at the mouth of the Washita River was created as a protection for the "civilized" Chickasaws and Choctaws from the more violent Plains Indians. Established in 1842, Fort Washita was an impressive facility constructed of logs and limestone quarried nearby.
  • Tribal and House District Boundaries

    Tribal and House District Boundaries

    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribal Boundaries and Oklahoma House Boundaries ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 22 ! 18 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cimarron ! ! ! ! 14 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 ! ! Texas ! ! Harper ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n ! ! Beaver ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! Kay 9 o ! Woods ! ! ! ! Grant t ! 61 ! ! ! ! ! Nowata ! ! ! ! ! 37 ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! 7 ! 2 ! ! ! ! Alfalfa ! n ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! 27 i ! ! ! ! ! Craig ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! h ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26 s ! ! Osage 25 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 58 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 38 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes by House District ! 11 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Absentee Shawnee* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Woodward ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 36 ! Apache* ! ! ! 40 ! 17 ! ! ! 5 8 ! ! ! Rogers ! ! ! ! ! Garfield ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 40 ! ! ! ! ! 3 Noble ! ! ! Caddo* ! ! Major ! ! Delaware ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! Mayes ! ! Pawnee ! ! ! 19 ! ! 2 41 ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! 4 ! 74 ! ! ! Cherokee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ellis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 72 ! ! ! ! ! 35 4 8 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 3 42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 77
  • Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power

    Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power

    Volume 39 Issue 3 Article 1 1994 Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power Katharine F. Nelson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Katharine F. Nelson, Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 525 (1994). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol39/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Nelson: Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 39 1994 NUMBER 3 RESOLVING NATIVE AMERICAN LAND CLAIMS AND THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT: CHANGING THE BALANCE OF POWER KATHARINE F. NELSON* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 526 II. INDIAN TITLE AND THE NONINTERCOURSE ACT ........... 530 III. THE HISTORY OF TRIBAL ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS ................................................... 533 A. Before Oneida I and II. ....................... 533 B. O neida I .......................................... 542 C. O neida II ......................................... 543 IV. NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS ............................... 546 A. Land Claims ......................................
  • [Nps-Waso-Nagpra-Nps0031649; Ppwocradn0-Pcu00rp14.R50000]

    [Nps-Waso-Nagpra-Nps0031649; Ppwocradn0-Pcu00rp14.R50000]

    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/01/2021 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2021-06655, and on govinfo.gov 4312-52 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0031649; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Princeton University has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Princeton University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed. DATES: Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Princeton University at the address in this notice by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Bryan R. Just, Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton, NJ 08544, telephone (609) 258-8805, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
  • The Choctaw Nation and the Dawes Commission

    The Choctaw Nation and the Dawes Commission

    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1954 The Choctaw Nation and the Dawes Commission Jeanne Francis Moore Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Moore, Jeanne Francis, "The Choctaw Nation and the Dawes Commission" (1954). Master's Theses. 1157. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/1157 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1954 Jeanne Francis Moore THE CHOCTAW INDIANS AND THE DAWES COMMISSION by ;' Sister. Jeanne Francis Moore A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate Scnoo1 of Loyola University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts June 1954 --------._-------------,------_.. -.. ,._-- \ LIFE Sister Jeanne Francis Moore was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, , May 20, 1906. ; She was graduated from the Saint John Acad.~, Indianapolis, IndianaI June 20, 1923 and entered the novitiate of the Sisters of Providence Q~ Septem-~ ber 7, 1923. She received her degree of Bachelor of Arts from Saint Mar.y-of- the-Woods College in June, 1942. From 1926 to 1942 she taught in the elementar.y parochial schools of Chicago, Illinois; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Washington, D.C. After receiving her degree she taught at the Immaculata Seminar.y in Washington, D.C.
  • Washita Basin Project Oklahoma

    Washita Basin Project Oklahoma

    Washita Basin Project Oklahoma James M. Bailey, Ph.D. Bureau of Reclamation 2008 0 Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 1 Washita Basin Project ...................................................................................................... 2 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................. 3 Prehistoric and Historic Setting .................................................................................. 4 Project Investigation and Authorization .................................................................. 11 Project Construction................................................................................................... 16 Uses of Project Water ................................................................................................. 30 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 32 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 33 Index................................................................................................................................. 35 1 Washita Basin Project Located adjacent to America’s arid west/humid east division line known as the 100th meridian, western Oklahoma’s rolling uplands are susceptible to unpredictable weather cycles.
  • The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730--1795

    The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730--1795

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2005 The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795 Richard S. Grimes West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Grimes, Richard S., "The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795" (2005). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4150. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4150 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730-1795 Richard S. Grimes Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Mary Lou Lustig, Ph.D., Chair Kenneth A.
  • Delaware Indians V. Cherokee Nation, 193 US

    Delaware Indians V. Cherokee Nation, 193 US

    DELAWARE INDIANS v. CHEROKEE NATION. 127 193 U. S. Syllabus. beneficiaries of the $300,000, but the disposition of that under the treaty was to be in the United States, and only to be used for freedmen who should remove from the territory. None have removed. There is an intimation in the brief of their counsel that in their memorials to Congress they ex- pressed a willingness to remove, but Congress did not choose and has not chosen to remove them; indeed, has provided for the exact opposite-provided for the allotment of homes to them out of the lands of the Indians and for payment to the Indians therefor if it should be determined, in this suit, that the freedmen were not, independently of that agree- ment, "entitled to allotments in Choctaw and Chickasaw lands." As we hold the freedmen were not so entitled, the decree of the Court of Claims is Afirmed. DELAWARE INDIANS v. CHEROKEE NATION. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 240. Argued December 1, 2, 1903.-Decided February 23, 1904. In a suit brought under § 25 of the act of June 28, 1898, 30 Stat. 495, by the Delaware Indians residing in the Cherokee Nation for the purpose of determining their rights in and to the lands and funds of the Cherokee Nation under their contract and agreement with the Cherokee Nation of April 8, 1867. Held that the registered Delawares acquired in the 157,000 acres set off to them east of the ninety-sixth meridian only the right of occupancy during life with a right upon allotment of the lands to not less than 160 acres together with their improvements, and their children and descend- ants took only the rights of other citizens of the Cherokee Nation as the same are regulated by law.