Indian Self Rule Kenneth Philp Published by Utah State University Press Philp, Kenneth. Indian Self Rule: First-Hand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1995. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/. For additional information about this book https://muse.jhu.edu/book/9341 No institutional affiliation (20 Nov 2018 21:27 GMT)
INTRODUCTION The Indian Reorganization Act Fifty Years Later Kenneth R. Philp In January 1984, Francis Paul Prucha wrote an excellent article on "American Indian Policy in the Twentieth Century" for the Western Historical Quarterly. He indicated that historians and other people, for the most part, have failed to see American Indians as communities that have evolved over time. To correct this problem, Prucha has suggested that scholars should explore in greater depth the recent history of Indian-white relations and federal Indian policy. According to Prucha, there are several topics that need illumination. Scholars should focus their research on the accomplishments of individual Indians, the urbanization of Indians, the Indian policies of other federal agencies besides the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the increasingly sophisticated way that tribes have interacted with the federal government. Furthermore, we need to look at how Indian groups have used lawyers and created tribal mechanisms to better manage their destiny, at the economic history of reservation communities, and at the contradiction that exists between federal recognition of tribal automony and the federal paternalism associated with honoring the government's trusteeship responsibility. This book addresses many of the issues raised by Prucha. It provides an assessment, from different disciplinary perspectives, of the Indian progress toward self-rule during the years since the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act. It is also enriched by the viewpoints of Indian people and former government officials who helped formulate and administer federal Indian policy. [15J
16 Introduction In my judgment, this book will be indispensable to both scholars and students who want to learn more about the contours of recent Indian history. I also hope that the substance of this volume will be carried by a strong breeze out of the halls of academia into the world at large. If it is, Indians, federal and state policy makers, and the general public should better understand the complex development of Indian history and the issues of tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and the trusteeship obligation of the United States government. It seemed unnecessary to follow the usual format of an introduction and merely summarize the contents of this book. What follows instead is an overview of federal Indian policy since the New Deal. It is intended to place the themes of the Conference on Indian Self-Rule and this book in historical perspective. The fiftieth anniversary of the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt provides us with an opportunity to examine an important turning point in American Indian history. One of Roosevelt's many legacies was to openly repudiate the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887. This legislation had shattered Indian homelands and created a class of 100,000 landless people. President Roosevelt not only condemned this tragedy, he brought about a fundamental change in Indian-white relations. Beginning in 1933, the federal government abandoned its effort to assimilate Indians for a policy that emphasized tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The central purpose of land allotment had been to exterminate the Indians' group life and cultural heritage. The federal government worked toward this goal by sending Indian students to boarding schools, where an all out attempt was made to force them into mainstream society. A strategic offensive also was mounted against Indian land. Reservations were opened up to white settlement after tribesmen received title to 160 acre homesteads. Between 1887 and 1933, the Indians lost over 87 million acres of land under the provisions of the Dawes Act. The appointment of John Collier as Indian commissioner in 1933 reflected President Roosevelt's determination to set Indian affairs on a new course. Collier was a well-known advocate of Indian rights and a brilliant critic of land allotment. The commissioner believed that the land allotment system had violated tribal sovereignty and the vested rights that Indians had obtained in previous treaties for the cession of
Introduction 17 large areas of their traditional homelands. Collier stressed that the government had a legal and moral obligation to recognize the bilateral contractual relationship with Indians that existed before 1871 when Congress had prohibited treaty making. Collier honored this legal and moral obligation by restructuring federal Indian policy. He was the architect of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This legislation offered the Indians a tribal alternative to assimilation. The IRA set up mechanisms to encourage cultural pluralism and tribal self-government, and it increased federal assistance for the economic development of reservation communities. The IRA was designed to protect and increase the amount of land set aside for Indian homelands. It ended future land allotment, extended trust restrictions on Indian land until otherwise directed by Congress, permitted the voluntary exchange of restricted allotments and heirship land to consolidate checkerboard reservations, and restored to tribal ownership remaining surplus land created by the Dawes Act. The IRA directed the secretary of the interior to initiate conservation measures on Indian land and authorized an annual appropriation of $2 million for the acquisition of new tribal real estate. The major thrust of the IRA was to encourage the process of tribal self-government. Indians were allowed to hold positions in the Indian Bureau without regard to civil service laws. An annual appropriation of $250,000 was authorized to help tribes establish constitutions, bylaws, and charters of incorporation for business purposes. Tribal councils that adopted constitutions could employ legal counsel, prevent the leasing or sale of land without tribal consent, and negotiate with federal or state governments for public services. Other important provisions of the IRA included federal aid for economic reconstruction and education. Congress authorized a $10 million revolving credit fund to stimulate economic development on reservations and an annual appropriation of up to $250,000 for tuition and scholarships to increase Indian enrollment at vocational schools, high schools, and colleges. The IRA recognized the importance of mutual consent in Indian-white relations by allowing tribes the right to accept this legislation in a special referendum. Officials in the Roosevelt administration implemented other policies that were directly related to the Indian Reorganization Act. They
18 Introduction started economic recovery on reservations by bringing Indians under most of the New Deal relief programs and by creating a separate Indian Civilian Conservation Corps. Commissioner Collier issued two policy statements that guaranteed Indian religious freedom and curtailed missionary activity at boarding and day schools. And he used the Johnson O'Malley Act to provide federal funds for states where Indians had enrolled in public schools. An Indian Arts and Crafts Board also was established in the Interior Department. The Indian Bureau, in cooperation with the Justice Department, asked Felix S. Cohen, a legal scholar, to compile a list of statutes, treaties, and judicial decisions that dealt with Indian rights. Cohen published his research in the Handbook of Federal Indian Law. This volume presented legal and moral arguments that defended the concepts of Indian sovereignty, political equality, tribal self-government, and federal jurisdiction in Indian affairs. The ultimate success of these reforms depended on whether tribes voted for and made use of the Indian Reorganization Act. A total of 258 elections were held. They did not apply to the Indians of Oklahoma or the Natives of Alaska, who wcre automatically blanketcd in under most sections of the IRA in 1936. Over two-thirds of the eligible tribes voted to accept the IRA. This represented only 40 percent of the Indians who cast ballots, because large tribes such as the Navajos, who opposed stock reduction, voted against the measure. Ninety-two out of 258 tribes or approximately 36 percent wrote constitutions; 72 tribes or 28 percent agreed to draft charters of incorporation for busincss purposes. There were many reasons why the Indians did not overwhelmingly endorse the IRA. Suspicion toward the federal government remained strong because of the previous record of broken treaties and promises. Many Indians feared that the IRA would encourage segregation and increase the power of paternalistic federal bureaucrats over their lives. They were more concerned with scttling claims against the government and securing federal recognition of their treaty rights than participating in IRA tribal governments controlled by the Indian Bureau. Indians were disappointed because the IRA did not provide for complete self-determination. By 1940, over 60 percent of the employees of the Bureau were Indians, but they still did not hold critical policy-
Introduction 19 making positions. Most of the decisions made by IRA tribal councils were subject to administrative review by superintendents and the secretary of the interior. The federal government continued to control tribal trust fund expenditures, per capita payments, and the leasing and other use of tribal property. Tribal factionalism made it difficult to administer the IRA. Internal disunity was caused by wide variations in acculturation, mixedversus full-blood rivalry, and religious and cultural differences. IRA constitutions frequently led to bitter disputes over who would control newly established tribal councils. Many Indians, especially those in the Southwest, disliked IRA tribal governments because they threatened local village autonomy or traditional ways of running tribal affairs. Tribal governments also were the vehicle for implementing unpopular conservation measures that led to the slaughter of sheep, goats, and horses to prevent overgrazing. All of this is not to say that IRA tribal governments were unsucessful. They made significant political progress, and tribal councils generally showed good judgment in controlling their resources. Tribal councils used IRA loans and tribal funds to purchase land, livestock, and farming and fishing equipment. Group action through IRA corporations and cooperatives increased the utilization of Indian resources. Over one hundred additional cattle associations were set up, and the number of Indian-owned cattle increased dramatically. Agricultural production increased fourfold. Tribes also set up trading stores and arts and crafts guilds to promote the sale of their pottery, blankets, and silver jewelry. As impressive as these achievements were, most tribes experienced difficulty in developing their reservation resources. The $10 million revolving credit fund was too small to permanently end Indian poverty. Many tribes were denied access to this fund when the Solicitor's Office in the Interior Department ruled that a tribe had to vote for the IRA and draft a constitution and business charter before it could borrow money. Between 1934 and 1945, Congress funded $4.2 million in loans because only 28 percent of the tribes that voted for the IRA decided it was worthwhile to draft business charters in the midst of the Great Depression. The credit fund revolved one and one-half times, which
20 Introduction enabled the Indian Bureau to advance $6.6 million to tribal enterprises and credit associations. A significant increase in Indian-owned land was critical to the IRA policy of encouraging community life and tribal sovereignty. In 1934, the National Resources Board indicated that to make the Indians selfsupporting Congress would have to spend over $103 million to acquire 25 million acres of additional agricultural and grazing land. Congress refused to implement this costly recommendation. Pressured by white economic interests, it agreed to spend about $5 million under the IRA's land acquisition program. This money, along with tribal funds and special congressional legislation, allowed the Indian Bureau to purchase 4 million acres of new tribal land. Unfortunately, most of this property was submarginal land that had little economic value. During the Second World War, Congress ended the IRA policy of acquiring more land for tribes. This decision and the lack of adequate credit had disastrous economic consequences. By 1945, Indian farm families had a net annual income of $501. This was only slightly better than 1928 when the Institute of Government Research issued its famous report on Indian poverty. Another shortcoming of the IRA was that it failed to solve the problems associated with land allotted before 1933. The continued restrictions on the sale of allotted land under the IRA threatened indefinite government supervision over many competent individuals. Indians found that it was all but impossible to obtain loans from private sources to make improvements on their property. Over 45,000 Indians were heirs to 6 million acres of allotted land that had been divided by inheritance into small unproductive parcels. It cost the Indian Bureau over $1 million annually to administer this property. The IRA permitted the voluntary consolidation of this land into tribal ownership, but most Indians refused to give up private control over their real estate. Indian political self-determination and economic progress under the IRA depended to a large degree on the success or failure of the Indian Bureau's educational program. Willard Beatty, the director of Indian education during the New Deal, closed boarding schools and encouraged Indian students to attend government day schools or nearby public schools. He developed a progressive education curriculum aimed
Introduction 21 at solving rural problems on reservations. Beatty also began a bilingual education program to promote Indian literacy. But he found it impossible to retain control over Johnson-O'Malley funds, and public schools refused to create special Indian programs in their districts. Beatty's innovations in the field of Indian education did not lead to increased congressional support. The IRA's $250,000 annual authorization for Indian tuition and scholarships was not fully funded. Only a few hundred Indians attended college during the New Deal. More importantly, Congress refused to spend the money needed for new Indian educational facilities after it closed boarding schools. Consequently, thousands of Indian children were denied an education. And no serious efforts were made to train adult Indians in the sophisticated administrative skills needed to make the IRA function properly. The reconstruction of Indian affairs during the Roosevelt years was part of a larger effort to develop a sense of pan-indianism throughout the Western Hemisphere. Commissioner Collier believed that Indians in the United States needed to collaborate with other tribal groups in the New World in their quest for social justice. He hoped that international contacts between tribes would lead to a broad cultural renaissance and strengthen the Indians' claim to tribal sovereignty. On April 14, 1940, representatives of nineteen American republics and their Indian delegates met at Patzcuaro, Mexico. The delegates at Patzcuaro made recommendations patterned after the framework of the Indian Reorganization Act. They suggested that all American governments help Indians maintain their separate group identity by providing them with needed land, credit, and technological assistance. They also signed a treaty that created a permanent Inter-American Indian Institute that was required to meet every four years to discuss common Indian problems. A shift in sentiment away from the Indian New Deal began during the Second World War. The war not only disrupted pan-indian reform in the Western Hemisphere, it encouraged a sense of national unity and social consensus that led to a renewed emphasis on integrating minority groups. More than 40,000 Indians migrated to urban areas to find warrelated jobs. Another 25,000 served with distinction in the armed forces. Many of these individuals permanently left their reservations because they had become disillusioned with the operation of the Indian
22 Introduction Reorganization Act. It had failed to provide enough land and credit to support a growing population, and many individuals did not want to remain farmers. The IRA also had led to the growth of a centralized Indian Bureau to provide expanded social services. This development had led to some social progress, but it also contradicted earlier promises that the federal government would respect tribal sovereignty and the right to self-determination. After 1945, Congress responded to the Indians' dislike of federal paternalism and their desire to be independent. Indian Bureau programs were dismantled, and Congress, without Indian consent, passed termination legislation that ended federal wardship over several tribes. The government also lifted restrictions on more than 2.5 million acres of Indian allotments and heirship land. This decision was part of a broader policy that encouraged Indians to leave their reservations and relocate to more prosperous cities. Termination had tragic consequences. It led to the sale of valuable Indian land and hampered tribal self-determination and economic development under the Indian Reorganization Act. The Indian Bureau curtailed the use of IRA credit funds and relied on private enterprise to establish industries on or near reservations. Tribal economic development languished because the private sector of the economy was unable or unwilling to solve the problem of poverty and employment on reservations. Only five hundred new industrial jobs were created during the Eisenhower years. This failure helps explain why over 35,000 Indians decided to move to urban centers under the Indian Bureau's relocation program. Once they left their reservations, Indians were cut off from federal services. They also encountered cultural isolation and found it difficult to obtain decent jobs or adequate housing. By 1960, most Indians were aware that termination had simply given Congress an excuse to ignore their treaty rights and end vital federal services. During the next two decades, Indian opposition to termination intensified. Both Indians and federal officials began to reexamine the positive legacy of the Indian New Deal. The presidential administrations of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon generally followed the principles behind the Indian Reorganization Act. They renewed the federal commitment to tribal selfdetermination and the development of reservation economic resources.
Introduction 23 In 1969, President Johnson created the National Council on Indian Opportunity in the Office of the Vice-President. A few years later, President Nixon established the American Indian Policy Review Commission to study the Indians' unique relationship to the federal government. This new direction in Indian affairs was led by Indian commissioners such as Philleo Nash, Robert Bennett, Louis Bruce, and Benjamin Reifel. These men had begun their careers by working for the government during the New Deal. Some of the many policy initiatives during their tenure included expanding the IRA credit fund, encouraging Indian preference for employment at all levels within the Indian Bureau, and working closely with the National Tribal Chairmen's Association. Self-determination was emphasized by allowing Zuni Pueblo and the Miccosukees of Florida to direct Indian Bureau programs on their reservations. Congress also was influenced by the long shadow cast by the Indian New Deal. It reaffirmed the concepts behind the Indian Reorganization Act in several important pieces of legislation. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 strengthened the New Deal policy of guaranteeing Indian religious freedom and giving tribes jurisdiction over civil and criminal law on their reservations. The Indian Financing Act of 1974 consolidated several loan funds and increased money available for tribal business enterprises. The most far-reaching reform was the Indian Self Determination and Educational Assistance Act of 1975. It provided aid to Indian students and encouraged the Indians to manage their own schools. Tribal councils were given a significant role in setting policy goals and administering federal programs that affected them. Congress did not fund the IRA land acquisition program on an annual basis, but it did provide additional tribal land for Taos Pueblo, the Havasupais, and the Warm Springs Indians. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 guaranteed Native American ownership of 44 million acres of land and created a $1 billion fund to be used by 225 corporations set up by village communities. Congress also returned several terminated tribes to federal trust status. The Inter-American Indian Institute, required by treaty to meet every four years, did not receive the attention it deserved from either
24 Introduction tribal communities or the federal government. But Indians did understand the international dimension of their struggle for social justice. Twenty-three western tribes formed the Council of Energy Resource Tribes modeled after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Indian activists also presented a resolution to the International Human Rights Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, calling on the United Nations to turn its attention to the plight of Native Americans. Today, the federal government, as it did in the 1950s, has repudiated the philosophy behind the Indian New Deal. Former Secretary of the Interior James Watt has labeled Indians as social misfits and characterized their homelands as examples of the failure of socialism. The commitment to Indian education has waned with the abrupt closing of ten off-reservation schools and President Ronald Reagan's veto of a bill allocating funds for Indian community colleges. The Reagan administration dismissed 17,000 claims of Indians who had been illegally deprived of their rights or property, until it was overruled by a federal judge in Washington, D.C. Cutbacks in federal programs have battered reservation economies. Since 1980, average unemployment on reservations has increased from 40 percent to almost 80 percent. The question of Indian water rights also has not been resolved. Widespread public criticism forced President Ronald Reagan to issue a statement on January 24, 1983 concerning federal Indian policy. The president repudiated termination and pledged to uphold the Indian Self-Determination Act. He admitted that without healthy reservation economies the concept of self-government had little meaning. The president, however, offered little real hope for the future. Instead, he followed the discredited economic policies of the 1950s by insisting that tribes would have to reduce their dependence on federal revenue and rely on private enterprise to provide money for capital investment. It remains unclear how the withdrawal of federal funds and services, and cutbacks in Indian education will automatically solve Indian social problems. Times and circumstances do change, but it is important to understand and appreciate the fundamental historical developments of the recent past. For Native Americans, these developments have their roots in the Indian Reorganization Act. They include a sincere respect for
Introduction 25 mutual consent and the bilateral relationship in Indian affairs, recognizing the value of a pluralistic society, and the need for direct federal financial commitment to insure educational opportunity, selfdetermination, and the economic well-being of all Indian people.