ABSTRACT “SELF-DETERMINATION WITHOUT TERMINATION:” THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND DEFINING SELF- DETERMINATION POLICY DURING THE KENNEDY AND JOHNSON ADMINISTRATIONS by Hannah Patrice Blubaugh This thesis examines the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and most representative Native American rights organization, and its lobbying efforts during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to define and develop the concept of Native American self- determination. Based on the preservation of tribal status by rejecting termination, consultation and participation in the process of policy formation, and self-sufficient economic development, the NCAI promoted this vision of self-determination through legislative action by way of resolutions and testimonials to influence a new direction of federal Indian policy during the transitional decade between the 1950s’ termination era legislation and the 1970s’ proclaimed self-determination. “SELF-DETERMINATION WITHOUT TERMINATION:” THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND DEFINING SELF- DETERMINATION POLICY DURING THE KENNEDY AND JOHNSON ADMINISTRATIONS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History by Hannah Patrice Blubaugh Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2018 Advisor: Dr. Andrew Offenburger Reader: Dr. Steven Conn Reader: Dr. Helen Sheumaker © Hannah Patrice Blubaugh 2018 ! ! ! This thesis titled “SELF-DETERMINATION WITHOUT TERMINATION:” THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND DEFINING SELF- DETERMINATION POLICY DURING THE KENNEDY AND JOHNSON ADMINISTRATIONS by Hannah Patrice Blubaugh has been approved for publication by The College of Arts and Sciences and Department of History Dr. Andrew Offenburger Dr. Steven Conn Dr. Helen Sheumaker ! ! ! Table of Contents Acknowledgments iv Introduction 1 Chapter 1 14 A ‘New Trail’ Towards Self-Determination Chapter 2 37 Expressing Self-Determination in the Great Society Conclusion 63 Bibliography 66 iii Acknowledgments I never saw myself getting my Masters degree so soon after finishing my Bachelors. It was definitely a challenge of will and spirit. I’ve come out on the other side hopefully a better historian and overall person. That being said, I have a few people to thank for supporting me through this endeavor. I would like to especially thank my advisors and committee members for their unrelenting support and feedback. Dr. Andrew Offenburger, who advised me as an undergraduate, continually told me I could do it when I felt and explicitly said, “I can’t do this.” Somehow he was able to convince me that I could. This would not have been possible without his confidence in me. Thank you also to Dr. Steven Conn who provided helpful job and life advice. I am incredibly fortunate to have as a graduate assistant worked on Origins: Current Events in Historic Perspective with him. I immensely enjoyed the opportunities to write for Origins on my other historic interests. A huge thanks also goes to Dr. Helen Sheumaker for being a willing reader and offering her thoughtful comments on things I did not consider when writing this. My time in the graduate program provided for a deeper connection with other faculty members in the department. I appreciate the challenge and advice of Dr. Erik Jensen and Dr. Amanda McVety in our core graduate classes, working with us during the developing stages of our projects through to writing our first chapters. This project may have gone through many different phases, but I’ve always been supported with critical insight in how to improve my research. I must give recognition to my wonderful, close-knit cohort. From the very beginning we’ve supported and helped each other whether in class or in our offices. Erin, Heather, and Margaret have truly been an incredible graduate school support system. They are all intelligent, driven women who will go far in all their endeavors. Thank you to my family and friends outside of the history department for being supportive of my decision to continue my education and helping in whatever way they could. I believe I’ve made you proud. May I give myself kudos for persevering in the face of great mental obstacle? You did it. iv Introduction In 1970, President Richard Nixon issued an address on Indian affairs calling for “self- determination without termination.” “The time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions,” said Nixon, ushering in what many historians define as the era of self- determination.1 This came after almost a decade of half-hearted or under-supported attempts by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to do the same. The 1960s did witness a significant transition in federal Indian policy, though. Prevailing termination challenged Native American’s legal rights and cultural identity, and served as a means of assimilating them into American society and completely ending all federal assistance. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), founded in 1944 to be the unified voice of tribal nations, effectively opposed termination and other legislative actions in the federal government and urged self-determination. The philosophy of self-determination allows for tribes to work for their established goals with the resources to do so. Self-determination never manifested because the federal government felt that tribes could not make the proper decisions for themselves with the given assistance. Federal paternalism stifled Native nations chance to be self-determined, whatever that meant for them. For the NCAI, the principles of self-determination meant the preservation of treaty rights, consultation and participation in the policy process, and economic self-sufficiency. This is evident through the focus they had on lobbying for these particular issues. The ability to make their own decisions depended on rejecting termination, being involved in the formulation of federal Indian policy, and developing their economic resources so to be self-sufficient. The 1960s saw a federal bureaucracy more receptive to Native American self-determination, though they often missed these key points that the NCAI saw as paramount to self-determination. The NCAI took it upon themselves, as representative of a majority of Native Americans, to inform and lobby the federal government on what they defined as bringing Native American self- determination. Historical Context !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Richard Nixon “Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations for Indian Policy, July 8, 1970” Hearings before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, 92th Congress, 1st Session, October 19 and 20, 1972 (Washington, D.C.: United States Printing Office, 1972), 220. ! ! 1! ! ! Federal Indian policy of the first half of the twentieth century followed assimilationist ideology aimed at integrating Native Americans into modern society often at the expense of tribal sovereignty, land base, and culture. It remained a foundation of congressional policy throughout the majority of the twentieth century taking many forms, often suggesting that it was for the good of Native Americans to fully integrate into American society. Starting in the late nineteenth century, the Dawes Act (1887), also known as the General Allotment Act, reduced reservation lands by selling individual allotments to Indians. Although the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) (1934) ended such practices, the complications that arose from the allotted land triggered the heirship land problem that became a legislative issue in the 1960s. Movements to improve Indian affairs occurred early on. An Indian reform movement began in the 1920s, in which “an exhaustive survey of conditions prevalent among Indians,” produced the Merriam Report, whose recommendations would not come to fruition until the 1930s and 1940s.2 The report symbolized a concerted effort by the federal government to assess the weaknesses in Indian programs implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and to protect Indian rights. The Merriam Report suggested improved health programs, progress in education, and a special claims commission to hear claims of individual tribes against the United States. Many of its ideas served as the background for the Indian Reorganization Act. John Collier, serving as Commissioner of Indian Affairs from 1933-1945, contributed immensely to the relaxation of assimilation in favor of Indian cultural development. The Indian Reorganization Act represented the recommendations of reformers, research studies, and the BIA during the previous decade, advocating that Indians express their opinion on the proposed legislation in “Congresses” held in areas with concentrated Indian population.3 However, it required practical application by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the IRA met criticism. The onset of World War II caused many of the economic programs for Indians under the Indian New Deal to be cut, and a more rigorous attempt at removing Native American federal trust status ensued. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 S. Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy, (Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1973), 114. 3 Tyler, A History of Indian Policy,129. 2 Donald Fixico describes the ascent of termination as federal Indian policy following World War