OUR DEALINGS WITH THE INDIANS. · 2015-02-25 · 1896.] Our Dealings with the Indians. 23 OUR...

1896.] Our Dealings with the Indians. 23

OUR DEALINGS WITH THE INDIANS.

BY J. EVAETS GREENE.

FROM the earliest occupation of North America by Euro-peans a distinction may be traced between the treatment ofthe aboriginal inhabitants by the Spanish and French on theone hand, and the English on the other. The former,whilerecognizing in some measure the Indians' right of occu-pancy in their lands, yet generally, if not uniformly, tookpossession on their arrival, of such lands as they chose,without the formality of purchase, or of consent gainedfrom the Indians. They asserted the sovereignty of theirmonarchs, the kings of Spain and France, respectively.They declared the Indians subjects of the foreign king, andthough they were compelled sometimes in emergencies totreat with the hostile or threatening savages, it was as aking may treat with his rebels, without definitively abat-ing any of his pretensions or conceding any of their claimsto independence.

In later times, when the supremacy of the Europeanswas established, and the mutual relations of the two raceshad become somewhat settled, the native right of occu-pancy was doubtless distinctly recognized as a species oftribal property, whose nature and limits were more or lessclearly defined by law. The tribes, therefore, so far asthey were the possessors of this common property, wereregarded as somewhat in the nature of corporations withwhich bargains might be and were made from time to timeby the crown, which reserved to itself the right to dealwith them in that capacity. But they were not regarded

24 American Antiquarian Society. [April,

as in any sense independent, and the individual Indianswere considered subjects of his majesty, the king of Spainor France, as the case might be, and amenable to his laws,so far as his power extended, and their condition for thetime permitted.

The English colonists, on the other hand, adopted a dif-ferent theory and policy. The land indeed was held to bethe king's, and he granted it to favored persons or corpora-tions at his pleasure, without regard to the rights or wishesof the Indians. But everywhere, from Massachusetts toGeorgia, the actual occupation of the land was preceded byobtaining the real or apparent consent of the Indiansthrough purchase or otherwise. The Indian right of occu-pancy was distinctly and practically recognized from thebeginning, as a species of property which must be acquiredbefore the absolute title to the land was complete in thewhite settler. The native tribes also, instead of beingtreated as the subjects of a foreign king, were regarded ashaving a political, independent existence. They sent andreceived envoys; they were parties to negotiations andtreaties. They were commonly styled "Indian nations,"and were dealt Avith as if that designation were trulydescriptive.

Which of these theories and policies was the more justand humane in its nature and purpose cannot be doubted ;which was in the long run the wiser is not perhaps so clear.The former had at least the advantage of clearness andconsistency. It was capable of application throughout,without material changes, while the latter became irrecon-cilable Avith the faets as time went on, and led to confusionand various mischiefs, as we shall see.

The conditions in Spanish America were so differentfrom those which confronted the French and English colo-nists, that attempts to compare results throw little lightupon the comparative merits of theories and policies.

In the West Indian islands, the Spaniards found for


the most part simple and unwarlike peoples of not muchtoughness of physical or moral fibre, who succumbed readilyto slavery, and, having no heart to resist or strength toendure its cruel severities, perished quickly and miserably.

On the continent, especially in Mexico and Peru, theSpaniards found large native populations, not hunters ornomadic herdsmen, but sedentary, possessing many of thedomestic arts and settled social and political institutions.To exterminate them, to drive them out, to allow them toremain independent or. semi-independent, retaining theirown political institutions—any one of these courses Avas tothe Spaniards impossible. The natives were subjugated,as the Eomans subjugated the Gauls and Britons. TheyAvere made subjects of the Spanish monarchy. Social dis-tinctions, of course, were persistent; the Spaniard or thecréole of pure blood looked down Avith haughty contemptupon the Indian and the mongrel ; but the people of thenative stock accepted the institutions of their conquerors,and Mexico and Peru, a generation or two after the con-quest, were as thoroughly Hispanized as Gaul in the earlycenturies of our era Avas Eomanized.

The conditions confronting the French in Canada Averemore like those with Avhich our forefathers had to deal inNew England, yet they differed in some important respects.

The Indians whom the Frenchmen found on the banks ofthe St. Lawrence Avere not native there. They Avere fugi-tives from the ferocious and conquering Iroquois. TheyAvelcomed the French as allies and protectors from their ene-mies, and their relations Avith the new comers Avere formedand controlled by this condition of mutual helpfulnessagainst the common foe.

I think the comparative freedom of Canada in later 3'earsfrom Indian wars and troubles may be due in part to thisfriendly relation with the Algonquin and allied tribes fromthe beginning, and also to the fact that the English, suc-ceeding the French in this protective relatictfi, had also a


friendship of long standing with the Iroquois, formed whenthe latter were the active and implacable foes of the Frenchand Canadian Indians.

But, aside from this, the French, though less successfulas colonists, and partly because they were less successful,got on better with the Indians. Their settlements werelike a slender stream, spreading here and there into littlepools, but affecting scarcely at all the general forest condi-tions of the country, and having little of menace in itsaspect, while the English were like a rising tide, coveringthe land as it advanced, and plainly threatening to sweepaway all that the Indian loved and prized, and to make theland uninhabitable for him.

Moreover, the Frenchmen, as individuals, got on betterwith the Indians than the Englishmen. The former under-stood them better and had more sympathy with their tastesand pursuits. The young Frenchmen took to the woods,and not all the orders of their despotic king and the effortsof their governors could restrain their enthusiasm for themore than half-savage life of the coureur de bois. Theyreadily formed temporary or permanent connections withIndian women, and the wilderness was filled with half-breeds. Count Frontenac, the most .capable and brilliantof the French governors of Canada, who was not unfamiliarwith the splendid court life of France, with its rigid con-ventionalities, on at least one occasion joined the Indiansin their war-dance, not wholly from policy or afiectation,but because he found in the fierce excitement of the savageceremony something congenial to his temper. Even MadAnthony Wayne was not mad enough for that, nor couldany Englishman or American of English stock in a positionof command or authority have ventured or wished to takehis-part in such a function.

The English colonists bought their lands of the Indians,and I believe their descendants have generally been proudof this proof of their superiority in justice to the colonists


of other nations, as perhaps they ought to be. Those earli-est bargains were probably as fair as any that have beenmade since between the white man and the red. The con-sideration given by the former was usually triñing, but so,as the Indians understood it, Avas the thing granted. Withthe continent behind them it meant little to them that theneAV comers should be allowed to occupy a few squaremiles of land. They did not appreciate the aggressiveforce of civiiizati'on, nor indeed did the colonists them-selves, as appears from the declaration, made some yearsafter the establishment of the Massachusetts colony, thatin laying out a road to Concord they were going as far inthat direction as ever wouid be necessary. The destinyof the white race in North America was not then a manifestdestiny to either of the parties to these bargains.

But buying lands and treaty making went on throughthe colonial period of our history. While it seems proba-ble that the negotiations on both sides were actuated by asmuch of good faith as usually goes to the making of trea-ties between civiiized nations, ail of these and even thoseof much later times had these two features in common :The white men showed amazing shortsightedness, or so itseems to us now, and equally amazing ignorance of or indif-ference to the fact that the other party Avas irresponsible,unauthorized, or even imaginary. They were shortsightedas appears from their successive agreements, warranted, asit seems, by their sincere belief at the time, that theadvance of white settlement should not transgress certainfixed and not remote limits, but that beyond these the Indi-ans shouid be forever undisturbed.

Each of these agreements in its turn it became impossi-ble to observe. The swelling tide of Avhite settiementtouched those treaty barriers and they crumbled away.Colonial or federal authority Avas as helpless in the face ofthis invasion as Mrs. Partington with her mop before aspringtide. Hence in part the "Century of Dishonor," of

'2s

w h i c h i h c h i t e M i x . . h i c k - o u v v r o i c r - a \ * l < v i ¡ r a ' n t l y n i u i b i l -

i c r l y , i - i ' j ) { i : i i Í H i r i h r r o n r c - ^ - i o n i i ( ' i i u r n i i l i o n u ! i l i , - < _ M ' ' ' i ' ' * ' - ' ' >

W l l i r j i t h c l T h ; l V f h i ' c n ; - i ! n ! ! I M \ n ! ¡ H ' l ' W : l n r - ^ ( ' - . I S l i J .

; i i U ' r ; i U . t l i f i l i - h i H | . •! t n - - - î i n f > n j j i U r l i i n t h e t : i ' ' ' '.\\:\\

i l i r t i ' c ; i f i t ' - w i ' i ' r f i n t k e p t ! u \ " i i l i a U ' ; S ' l v r t i r i l . — h u t r m n

n ; í l ü l ' < ' ; i n J Ú W t i M V j r H r \ ' Í Í [ ' r ^ ' r i l t - I j r w m . i t h i * r i u i t l ' i d n i '

> í ; i U ' > n ] f r i a n d r u l e r s l i r i i i ü ' w X v . ú t l i r - \ - a r r , - - « ' n - ^ i n i p i i — - i -

l l U \ l ' U i l í i a l i l l C V U ' i ' l ' i ' ( ' \ ' ( ' | ' I l l l l i l i - , ' j ' h r Ü M M I \ \ ( M I . - M i i -

( i ü r l í ' i l i i i i ' - c r ¡ i " _ ; i i t i ' U ' n u - w i s h i i i r ! i i > i n i i - i ^ i i ^ ^ * ' i " h ; i ' . ( '

¡ K M ' U w i ' - i ' i ' n o i i i i h t ( í k i i ' i i v ' J j a t Í Í H ' í f f M l h ' - n i N - ! - ' I ' t n I H »

o h . - n I f ' í I ' ; i i i < l I h t ' i r n ' i - i T \ n i H ' i ' i t ü ; ' > > - ~ n * l < ' - ' n . í l , k Í P - V , u n 'I

U l i - , \ \ \ v \ i M i i ; l ] E I n ; i , i \ [ * i n ü M í ) - I M I H ' ( i l l i c r U : i \ !••;! . . [ ' l l i c

Í r i i m i ' J ¡ < - i l . ' í l i í l i ' ' u l l \ t h ; i i í •.! ! r í ' : a \ ' n n ^ l r t u \<\' ' i r o l ^ f ' i i . I l

s c i - i i i - ; i ! n i ( s - í i m r * ' ' I H i ! i ' t f i . - i l t l i c Ü H ' Ü U I H I n i ; t ' ! c M M - I n h a i

t l ' ( ^ ; t í i f - i l l l i l i ' i ; t - t i c i ' : l i e n i ' i l l / ' r l ^ l l i c r n í h a ü J \ \ : y \ \ \ - A

í j K ; i r ¡ r r ( ¡ r i ' h r p l ' r - c ' n i - i ' ; : r ! l f \ r u n l ' i \\:.\\\' i i r l i i - \ c ^ | \\\--,\ \\l^>

T i i i i i n i i - c d i i M r i ' u i : u i i \\\ U I ' , I ! . - Í U V ' H ' I 1 ) ) ( t - - < ' v , i í r ü I ' l ' l - ' i H ' ) ! ; ( -

. > l : i î i ' o f O h i s ! , < ! ] • : • , ü ' t r . i î p n M n i ' I I J Ï n ¡ H > , n r I ; ; . ' i 1 H i r v ^ h U r -

w n u l d I n i i i : ' i l l ' n i M l c n i \\\\\\ \ \ \ v , M Í > - . Í - > i p ¡ ' i r i \ i ' ] - -x-. \\\\'

\ v ( ' - i r r i i î i j i u i u b i r v o l ' i h ' i l i z u h n ü . M i v w A i u l ' I I M ' - ' I ' - ¡ h - ' T - -

> i \ ' i ' - o l u s ' ' M l - o t ' ( ! . < • l u ' i u u i | H * í > ^ > ! í ' n i o í i h r [ f j i i M i - ' n i i s ; i -

- n ] r n i f ) I \ J f r l i i r i ' i l H t j . ' n i l i U u l l l i i l l t l l i ' h r i l ' ' 1 1 , c h 1 i > ' :. ' - i , : i l ! i i

o t l i i ' i s r ( j U ; í l l \ ' f n l i n \ \ v \ - \ ' l U T i ^ p l r H \ \ i l i i l i n - n n i . - - . , , ' d n -

n h \ ' n i u f i i l i h ' i ' . \ v l i i ' i i l l i s ' I ' X p i ' r i f i i c i ' n f r c j n ' n î r d I n J l n n ' - -

o i i i i ' i i t , i l ' a i i y l h u i ' j r o u h l . i > > l i ; i \ i ' l i i u ^ I i l t n o , i x ' t i i ' T . l ' u !

¡ r l i a - I H T M i l l * ' p r a . ' f i r r v<{ d i | ¡ h i j i i ; i l i - i - i n . - s i ! w j . > ' - . • n i 4

r n i i i i h - i i - - f o | i a \ ' ' ' « u - p i i ' - i ' H l . • ; ' ] \ ' a n í ; i L ' r \ i \ ' f I r . U ' t - i ! ' . i > i ¡ - ! í ' i - -

i l y u Í H r l ¡ Ú \ v \ b a \ i ' h i ! \ \ ' l \ \ \ t " V . \ | , r f [ u i i l ! i i ' I h • I Ü ' r r i i

W h r r i d u e .

T h e \ v i , - ^ r - t n i ' t l i r h n l i a i i s - ^ w w d r a r h ' c n n U L ' h ! ¡ I M I t h r - v c

a i ^ r i T r i i r j i L - i ; a \ T i i n - ; ! T n i i ( y f n r l i i r i r I ' M I H I T , I ' . ' h ' i M - ; ! Î . ( 1

' ¡ ' n a n i l - r h ) « Í H ' 1 V i l r i l i ! i ' ' r n l i j l i r i I ' l i U c f i i i h r \ \ \ { \ \ > a ! . = i l i i - '

r i ' i l i i K i n w a - i i r r | i r r - . > ¡ ! i i r . \.\A\X \ \ W \ - \ > \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \\\ \ M V . - \ ^ f ^ ' h i ' '

I , ) i w w o r i 1 1 1 ' n i l u T , ; , i h i I o u M \ \ { A ' i f - . I r t r r . l ' M i n ' • . • n ! h c H : .

I l j v . - I r a n i ^ v t u l i i u i a I ' c c c n i w r i l o ' . w l m i i t L ; i M i r r : ¡ l ' h - : \ \ -

w i l l i l i H > i i l ' j i ' i l M ) ; t ' t U a m i - n f a i r l y a s A i r . L ' u u - . r \ d i , i n

(}ür

' i iHiii i i :- [if t h e ^Vl^sl , • • i^^'iKiro

i v i i i i ; ¡i eau- - ! ' i o i h c r^ ' I^^ í (>r

in tin- rc-^i.-iunri; u\ \\u- scUtr-

i'.- in

\ ñ < \ ' a i i i ! t l i ¡ e I i i i o k ,

i h i s vívw o í ' t l i e MI

t r i l l e s ( i f I n d i a n s i'uv j :

ü K ' i l t o f t h e i)\ú<< v a l l e y .

S p i ' a k i n L ' - o f t h i ' a t l i i r k n p o n i l i e K e n t u c k y

A ï i n L i o e s a n d J r o < j U o i < a i t i h n - , í i u t ! h e y w r r < ' J o i n e d l i y

b a n d s o t O t t a w a - . , P o t t a w a l o r n i e s a s u l C h i p p e w a y - ^ f r o m i h e

h i k e s , w h o t h l H a t l a e k e d i h e w h i t e s e t t l e r s I o n " - riv t h e

l a t t e i ' h a d e i î l u T i h e \\i\\ ( ¡ r t l i e i h a n r c l u l n ¡ | - t î h r i i i . " '

A n d r i s i ' w h e t ' e h e >; i_ \s o l ' t h r s e a í t a e k s t h a t t h e y w e r e

t o t a l l y u n p r o v o k e d h e r a u s e ü i a d r - - o n l a n d w h i - r e t h e y d i d

n ( j t t l i i ' ! n > e l v r - ^ { i \ \ e ! i . " " A r i . i a i i a i n o t ' t h e K i - n t i i r k y s e t -

t l e r s : " T h e y o u - . t e d n o I n d i a n s t V o n i iUv Í a n d ~ t h e v ¡ o o k .

I n t i i e i r e y e s t h e a t i a r k un t h e p a r ! ( i f t l i e I n d i a n ^ w a s a s

w a n t o n a-, i t w a s c r u e l , a n d i n a l l p i ' d l i a h i l i i y t h i s \ i i - w w a s

T l i e ~ e r e m o t e r t r i b e s , w h o , Mr. i i o < i s o y e l t l h i i d i > . -]uut\,\

h a v e b e e n i l i l i l i t e r e - t i ^ d s p e c t a l o r . - o f t h e e o n l U e t f o r t l n ^

O h i o v a l l e y , n i JLi i i t w e l l , (»n p r i i n i p l e s p i e t t y i r e i i e r a l l y

a p p r o v e d hy o t i r c o u n t r y m c n f o r m o r e t h a n s e y e n t y y e a i ' s .

o p p o s e \>y t'ov^.-v, i f n e c e s s a r y , t l i< ' f u r t h e r I ' N t e n s j o n o t ' a

K u r o p e ; i i i s y s t e m (Hi t h i s e o t u i n e s i t . A n d s o / e . - d o u s a n

a i l v o e a t e o f t h e e x t r e n n - s t n j i p l i c a t i o n <il" t h i - . M o ) i i ' < i c d o c -

t r i î i e a s M i - . i í s i u - e v í - l t . ¡ n i - l u b e t - x p c c l c d l o ' • o i n p r e h e i u l

t h a t t h e i > e e ! i ] i a i i o i i o f I v c r i l u c k y \>y w h i l e m e n w a - a m o r < '

i o r n i i d a b l e ¡ n c n a e c t o t h e P o t t a w a t t o i i i i c - o l ' t l i e h i k e , - , o r

I ' v i - n t h e l í a k o t a s o f t h e n | . p ( ' r M i - ^ - o u r i , t h a n t h e a i l ¡ ü > í -

n i e n t o f t h e h u u n i ! a r \ ' !>(•( w r e i i \ e i i c z u i - ! ; ! a n d H r i l i - h

i h l i a i i a c a n b e t o t h i ' T n i t c i l S t a l e s .

T l i e ( U h e r p i - c ( d i a r f e a l u r e <.if t h e s e t r e a t i e s w a s t h a t .

w h i l e t h e w d i i t c n e j r o t i a t o r . s r e p i ' e s e i i t e d a n o r ^ a u i / i - d a n d

r e . - p o n s i h i e ^ i i ' o v e r n m e ü U ;| p r c î p e r i y q u a l i f i e d a n d . - i c c r e i i i t e d

p a r l y o f t h e ( l U i e r p a r t \ ^ a s w . - i i ü i n í j ^ .

/ ' , • • • • ' , , ¡ . , i . | ) .

30 American Antiqitarian Society. [April,

The Indian tribes or bands were styled "nations," butthey had no valid claim to that title. Even the Iroquois,the most politically inclined of any of the native inhabitantsof the northern and eastern parts, at least, of North Amer-ica, had no ruler, no acknowledged authority, no repre-sentative system, no real political entity. They had lead-ers, of course, who advised and persuaded if they could,but no man felt obliged to do or refrain from doing any-thing because the leaders had promised for him. The chiefmight feel bound by his word, but tho warriors, for whoseconduct he had pledged himself, did not think themselvesbound. They might be persuaded to keep the chief'streaty, but if so they yielded to his influence, or were con-trolled by the same motives which induced him to make it,not by the conviction that it Avas their duty, and that theirown good faith Avas involved in keeping it.

The Indian nation, nominally a party to the treaty, Avasin fact non-existent or imaginary. Moreover, most ofthese treaties were made by negotiators on each side igno-rant of the others' language, and on one side, though natu-rally shrewd and with native talent for diplomacy, unskilledin forms and phrases, and both parties dependent uponinterpreters perhaps incapable, sometimes dishonest, andhaving strong motives to deceive one or both of the con-tracting parties.

These latter facts are not suggested as excuses for thebreach of any treaty. If the government, royal, colonialor federal, chose to treat under these conditions, wellknown, as the^' must have been, honesty and honor re-quired it to keep its promises in spirit and substance atleast, if not in the letter, so long as their observance Avaspossible.

The British crown claimed by right of discovery not onlythe sovereignty of the country, which afterwards becamethe territory of the united States, but also the absolute

1896.] Cur Dealings with the Indians. 31.

title to the land, subject only to the Indians' right of occu-pancy, which latter right, it was held, could only be alien-ated to the crown or with its consent. To these rights theUnited States succeeded. But the United States has rec-ognized only tribal possession or occupancy, and this con-forms to the Indian notions of right in land, notions quitein accord with the latest theories of land reformers aniongour own people. ^The individual Indian had no rights andno means of enforcing them if he had them. He was nota citizen and could not become one under our naturalizationlaws. He could have no standing in the courts, as plaintiffor defendant. He was sometimes styled "award of thenation," but there was no tribunal by which his rights assuch could be defined and maintained. He was subject toconstraint and coercion by the Secretary of the Interior andhis subordinates.

The tribes could make treaties, or have treaties made forthem. These were negotiated by the President and ap-proved by the Senate, with the same forms and effect astreaties with Great Britain or France. They were there-fore, for that purpose, at least, recognized as independentnations. Treaty-making under that name, however, wasabandoned in 1871, and since that time negotiations withthe Indians have resulted in "conventions" or "agree-ments," legally so styled, though differing from treatiesonly in the forms of conclusion and ratification.

But this independent nationality, so fully conceded insome of the early treaties after our revolution that intruderson Indian lands were declared to be beyond the protectionof the United States, and liable to be dealt with as theIndians might please, was found by the United Statesunsatisfactory in some respects, as having inconvenientconsequences if followed to its logical results, and we findthe courts denying to the Indian tribes the status of foreignnations, and defining them as "dependent domestic na-


tion8," 1 or, from another point of vieAV, and for anotherpurpose, as "national wards."

The purport of these treaties was usually the cession ofland and the promise to live peaceably Avithin their newboundaries, on the part of the Indians, and on. the otherpart gifts of goods and sometimes of money, in compensa-tion for the land in the earlier treaties, or in those madelater by the United States, besides present gifts, promisesof money, annuities, rations, ñirming stock and implements,schools, and instruction in farming and other arts, withprotection against citizens of the United States and ene-mies of either party.

The United States, as the stronger party, of course tookcare to hold all that was given by the Indians, but disputesconcerning boundaries and conditions have been frequent,and complaints of unprovoked attacks upon peaceful set-tlers on the ceded lands Avere not uncommon. From whathas before been said of the want of a responsible party onthe Indian side of the agreement, it is clear such resultscould scarcely be avoided. The chiefs could plead inexcuse that they could not control their young men, andthe aggressive band could say that they had not signedaAvay their land or authorized anybody to sign for them.Such disputes and the unwarranted intrusion of lawlessAvhite men cause war on the border, and prepare the wayfor new treaties and new cessions of territory.

Though a few of the chiefs have always been wise enoughto see that money payments were injurious rather thanbeneficial to the Indians, the mass of the tribes were eagerfor such payments. But one tribe at least, it seems° ahundred years ago Avas not. When in 1793, a council washeld with the Deiawares for the purpose of settiing the east-ern boundary of the land conceded to them, they insistedupon the Ohio river as their boundary, claiming that theland west of it Avas theirs by former treaties. A considera-

1 United States v. Eagsdale, 5 Peters, 1.


ble sum of money and annuities for fifty years were offeredfor their consent to fix the boundary further westward, andto this proposition they are said to have made the follow-

Money is to us of no value, and to most of us unknown ;and, as no consideration \yhatevcr can induce us to sell thelands on which we get sustenance for our women and chil-dren, we hope we may be allowed to point out a mode by.which your settlers may be easily removed and peacethereby obtained. AVe know that the settlers aré poor, orthey would never have ventured to live in a country whichhas been in continual trouble ever since they crossed theOhio. Divide, therefore, this large sum of money whichyou have oflercd us among these people. Give to eachalso a portion of what you say you would give to usannually, over and above the very large sum of money,and we are persuaded they would most readily accept of itin lieu of the lands you sold them. If you add also thegreat sum you must expend in raising and paying armieswith a view to force us to yield you our country, you willcertainly have more than sufficient for the purpose ofrepaying these settlers for all their labor and improve-ments.

To whom should be given the credit for the language inwhich this proposition is expressed I do not know. To theIndians the terms might seem reasonable, but to any whiteman the futility of buying lands without getting them, ofpractically hiring men to trespass upon Indian lands andfoment troubles with the Indians, especially when no in-crease of territory or other national advantage could begained by it, is apparent.

Money payments to Indians have always, I suppose, donemuch more harm than good. Captain Pratt, principal ofthe Carlisle Indian School, described at the Mohonk Con-ference last October, the distribution of fifty thousanddollars to the Cheyennes and Arapahoes in the IndianTerritory in the autumn of 1894. He said: "Gamblersand the vilest men to be found in that- vile region were

3

34 . American Antiquarian Society. [April,

there in multitudes. . . . The Indians were broughttogether from one hundred miles away, and were kept therea week. They abandoned their farms and brought theirponies, dogs and tepees, received and squandered theirmoney, and got nothing but harm from it. It is so always.Giving them money in this way enriches the neighboringwhite man and destroys the Indian."

Other forms of payment, annuities, rations, clothing andso forth, are more permanently, if less rapidly, demoral-izing. Education, in the form of schooling or instructionin agriculture or the mechanic arts, is of course beneficial,and so, no doubt, is the supply in reasonable quantity ofstock and implements, if precaution is taken that these areproperly used. But of these good things the Indians havo,until quite recent years, received but little from the gov-ernment. Appropriations have doubtless been made byCongress substantially in compliance with the stipulationsof treaties ; stock and implements have been purchased, andteachers, formers, carpenters and blacksmiths employed.The legislation was good in the main, but the administra-tion until lately was as bad as it could well be.

An Indian agent, with a salary of fifteen hundred dollars,could retire at the end of four j'ears with a fortune of fiftyor a hundred thousand dollars. The teachers, farmers,carpenters, were selected by politicians without consciencefrom among their needy followers, without knowledge ofthe arts they were expected to teach and to practise, andwith no sense of duty to the government which employedthem or to the Indians for whose benefit and from whosemoney they were paid. They were teachers in a sense, forthey taught by example the vices of civilization. One ofthem, after cynically confessing that, if he wished, he couldbe of no use in the capacity in which he was nominallyemployed, was asked what were his qualifications forappointment. "Well ," he said, '<I suppose I was astatesman out of a job."


This was the situation in general twenty-five years agoor more. It has improved very much since, .especiallywithin the last ten years. President Grant's plan ofrequesting the great religious bodies of the country to~select Indian agents provided better security than beforefor suitable appointments to these important offices. Theestablishment of the board of Indian commissioners caveuseful supervision of the purchase and distribution of Indiansupplies, and the growth of Indian Eights Associations,,with their vigilant agents penetrating everywhere, scruti-nizing the Indian administration and exposing its short-comings fearlessly, and the comparative accessibility ofthe Indian reservations in these times, are all wholesome:influences, tending to the correction of abuses and theencouragement of honest and intelligent work. The recentextension of the civil service rules to the Indian servicehas, of course, been most helpful, so that, I suppose, thisservice is now fairly honest and efficient. On the whole,,however, the government, so for as it has kept faith with,the Indians by doing what it has promised in its treatiesand agreements, has not. done much to elevate, but mucbto degrade them. If less ferocious, because their oppor-'tunities for ferocity are restricted, they are certainly lessenergetic. They have less individual independence and'apparently less capacity or wish for it. They have acquiredvices and diseases which in their aboriginal condition wereunknown to them, and they do not seem to have gained new'virtues or sounder sanitary conditions.

The greatest obstacle to their advancement has been, in'my opinion, the policy of the government, according,doubtless, with their own inclination, to keep them together,'to maintain their tribal relations, to herd them on reserva-tions, to merge the personal and property rights of theindividual in those of his tribe. Thus the tribal Indian hasno personal status before the law. The tribe is something.


though it has not always been easy to say what ; the Indianis nothing.

Treaties were made with the tribes, as we have seen, withthe same formalities and to the same legal effect as with aEuropean power. It seems a logical inference that thetribes were independent foreign nations. But the SupremeCourt says : " No" ; they are not independent or foreign.They may be defined, says the court, as "dependentdomestic nations," and " in a state of pupilage.'"^ Anothercourt of high authority says an Indian tribe is " neither astate nor a nation."^

The individual tribal Indian is nobody, so far as thecourts can tell. He is not a citizen. The fourteenthamendment declares that "all person born or naturalizedwithin the United States and subject to the jurisdictionthereof are citizens of the United States and of the severalStates." But it is held that this definition does not includeIndians, because they are not, within the meaning of theamendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Theyare not foreign citizens or subjects, as the same courtdecides. Being, therefore, neither citizens nor aliens, theyare nobody and cannot sue or be sued.^

So rigidly is this disability maintained that when, abouttwenty years ago, a number of Indians, for no crime, butsimply for refusing to leave their homes at the arbitrarycommand of the Secretary of the Interior, were confinedfor days without food or fire in the severest winter weather,and were at length fired upon, some of them killed andothers wounded, they could obtain no relief nor even havetheir case inquired into under the writ of habeas corpus,because, as tribal Indians, they had no rights in the courts.

Another illustration, quite as striking, is given by thecase of the Apache scouts who served under General Crook

1 United States v. Eagsdale, 5 Peters, 1.2 Bashe i]. Washington, 19 Indiana, 53.8 Karrahoo v. Adams, 1 Dillon, 314.


in the campaign against Gerónimo as regularly enlistedmen, were honorably discharged, and visited Washington,invited by the Secretary of the Interior. There, becausethey wished to return to their home in Arizona, though theSecretary and the General commanding the army had otherplans for them, they were put into the charge of a militaryofficer as prisoners of war. The writ of habeas corpus wasinvoked in vain, and I believe they are still held as pris-oners together with the hostile Indians Avhom they helpedto capture.

The lands-in-severalty act, so far as it has been carriedinto effect, has improved the status of the Indian. It hasput an end to the tribal community, giving to each individ-ual his own lands and making him a citizen of the UnitedStates and of the State in which he lives. The lands notallotted are sold, and so the Indians are no longer isolatedin place or in their political relations, but are scatteredmore or less among their white neighbors, having equalcitizenship with them. This is a step and a long step,some think it too long for a single stride, in the right direc-tion. It brings those who take it, within the protection ofthe law, gives them the right of suffrage, the right of freeeducation in the common schools, and all those advantageswhich States and communities provide for their people.

For his own protection against improvidence and fraud,the Indian is made incapable for tAventj'-five years, of alien-ating his land or of leasing it, except by permission of theSecretary of the Interior under certain conditions, and hisland is not taxable. This last restriction, meant for theIndian's protection, operates to his injury, for it makes himan object of jealousy and dislike as a priviieged person,and tends to prevent the supply of local needs, such asschools and roads, in districts where thei*e are many Indi-ans, so fully as in others Avhere all the property can betaxed to pay for them.

This land-in-severalty policy is not new. It was tried


forty years ago with the Delawares, Shawnées and Wyan-dots of Kansas. Its results then and there were unsatis-factory. It promises to succeed better now under morefavorable conditions.

The condition of the Indians in this country is not whatit ought to be after they have been in contact for two orthree centuries with a civilized and Christian people. Ourfailure in dealing with them is due not so much to inten-tional oppression or wrong, or to indifference to their wel-fare, as to our shortsightedness and the conflicting theoriesearly adopted regarding their status and their relation to thewhite people, which make our policy concerning them andour actual dealing with them inconsistent, confused and un-stable. While they were regarded at one time and for onepurpose as independent foreign nations, at another as de-pendent domestic nations, at another as wards or pupils, norational policy or treatment could be adopted' and steadilypursued.

Thus, disregarding the theory of pupilage, we have manytimes done with them what they wished, though we knewit would be injurious, rather than what we believed wouldbe for their permanent advantage. At other times, ignor-ing our theory of their independence, we have compelledthem by threats or induced them by deceit to consent toterms which they would never knowingly and without coer-cion have accepted. And now we hold ourselves obligedby treaties to keep many tribes in a condition of pauperismand consequent vice, from which they have neither thepower nor the wish to emerge while we keep our promisesto them.

For the Indian race, "the Indian" in the abstract, I seeno hope. I can find no reason to believe that we or ourposterity will ever see a thoroughly civilized, happy andprosperous Indian community. I do not know that weshould wish to see such a community, and therefore weneed not mourn that, as I believe, it is impossibie. I have

1896.1 Our Dealings with the Indians. 39

no sympathy with the eloquent sentimentality of CharlesSprague's oration, with which many of us were doubtlessfamiliar in our youth, beginning: "Not many generationsago where you now sit, surrounded by all that delights andembellishes civilized life, the rank thistle nodded in thewind and the wild fox dug his hole unscared." The lateSenator Conkling is said to have declared this oration themost eloquent in the English language. I willingly con-cede it a high, though not the highest, place as a specimenof eloquence, but to my mind, the eloquence is wasted andthe sentiment misdirected. "The Indian," as a race, anation, a tribe, a distinct element among our people, maydisappear without leaving cause for regret. The two hun-dred and seventy-five thousand, more or less, individualIndians are proper subjects for philanthropic interest, andthere is hope that they, if wisely guided, may becomeself-respecting and self-helping men and women.

I have no doubt that this result might be attained withinthe space of one generation. The many examples of whitechildren captured by Indians, who were at maturity as sav-age, fierce and cruel as the Indians themselves,^ and ofIndian children reared in civilization who became respecta-ble persons, contented, prosperous and useful members ofcivilized communities, prove that in those parts of characterand conduct in which white men differ from Indians envi-ronment is a more powerful influence than heredity. Dr.Eastmaq, a Sioux of pure blood, educated in New England,looks what he is, an accomplished gentleman, whose per-sonal character and professional attainments have won therespect of all who know him. Other instances in abund-ance prove that nothing in his case was exceptional exceptthe opportunity. Any Indian child, allowing, of course,for natural differences of capacity and disposition, wouldshow a like result under like conditions.

It is not an undertaking so great as to strain the

Winning of the West," II., p. 8.

4:0 American Antiquarian Society. [April,

resources of our government to take the thirty thousand orthereabout Indian children of school age and scatter themamong the schools of the united States, thus freeing themfrom the tribal relations and influences, and, having pro-vided for their education, let them shift for themselves aslaborers, craftsmen or in other walks of life accordintr totheir tastes and opportunities. The experiment of theIndian school at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, under the chargeof Captain Pratt, whose humanity and sense of justiceand honor are unquestionable, but not more so than hispractical wisdom and the success which has rewarded hisefforts Avithin the scopö of his authority and opportunity,—is conclusive evidence that this policy is practicable. Any-one who has seen a group of Apache children as they ar-rived at Carlisle, with all the characteristics of the savage,not only in their dress and manner, but visibly stampedupon their features in hard lines of craft, ferocity, sus-picion and sullen obduracy, and has also seen a year laterthe same children neatly dressed, with their frank intelli-gent fiices, not noticeably unlike in expression those ofwholesome and happy boys and girls of our own race, mustbe convinced that education under suitable conditions i.s thetrue solution of the Indian problem, and that if all theIndian children, could be placed under the same influencesas the few hundreds at Carlisle, that problem would disap-pear within ten years.

At present it is a serious and difficult problem. I donot say that Ave are making no progress toward its solution.Within a few years notable progress has been made incertain directions, but the efforts of statesmen and philan-thropists are hampered by the obligations of treaties andagreements, whose operation is now recognized as ruinousto the Indians and injurious to ourselves. Let any un-biased person carefully inform himself of the condition ofthe five so called civilized tribes or nations in the IndianTerritory as it was sixty years ago, and their present con-


dition as revealed by the report of the commission of whichMr. Dawes is chairman, and he cannot fail to see that,instead of advancing, they have fallen into a horrible quag-mire of vice, crime and political debauchery and corruption,in which they are sinking deeper every year. This is truealso in a measure, but not, I believe, without some excep-tions, of other Indians who retain their tribal condition.

The obligations of treaties and agreements literallyconstrued forbid our effectual interference for their rescue.Now, what shall be done? Fiat justitia, ruat ccelum, ofcourse. But is it justice to let agreements, however fairlyand solemnly made, with beneficent purpose, but undermisconception of the I'eal interests of both parties, andwithout prevision of their future relations and conditions,become the means of perpetuating a state of things ruinousto one party and disastrous and disgraceful to the other?

Two methods of meeting this difficulty occur to me:First, buy up and extinguish all treaty rights by newagreements for cash or other immediate payments at a fairvaluation. The result would certainly be disastrous to theIndians for a time. The payments would not benefit theIndians or remain in their hands, but would be distributedamong the gamblers and ruffians of the frontier countryreinforced by thousands of others, whom the scent of theprey would entice from all parts of the nation. Manymore Indians would die of disease, debauchery and violencein one year than under present conditions. But afterwardthe government, relieved of all formal obligations, and ofthe confusing and paralyzing influence of conflicting theo-ries as to Indians' rights and relations, would be free todeal with the whole question as justice and humanitymight require, guided by such wisdom as experience hastaught.

That is one way. Another, and probably a better way,is this : Let our government adopt in its future dealingswith the Indians, having made formal, public declaration

42 Ame^'ican Antiquarian Society. [April,

thereof, a policy substantially as follows : All that in anyform, expressly or by implication, Ave have undertaken toexpend or to do for the Indians shall be expended and donewith scrupulous fidelity. The national honor demands this,and we do not wish to be relieved of the least part of anyburden we have assumed. But these national obligationson their behalf we declare to be the property of the Indiansas wards, and to be employed by us as their guardians fortheir benefit, not necessariiy in the precise methods and forthe specific purposes originally contemplated, but in suchmanner and for such purposes as, guided by the wisestcounsel we can command, we believe wiil best promote thereal and permanent interest of the beneficiaries.

Under this poiicy, annuities, rations and other demoral-izing and pauperizing subsidies would be discontinued, andthe money thus saved Avould be spent for sciiools, foreducating Indian children in schools and academies amongcivilized people, for roads, irrigation works and other publicimprovements in the Indian country, in which the Indianscouid have employment and thus earn their living.

It is a delicate and perhaps a dangerous undertakingthus to reject the letter, while respecting the spirit of ourobligations, to discriminate among our promises, choosingwhich Ave wili lieep and which ought not to be kept. Butthe responsibiiity for the weifare of this dependent andsubject, and doubtless much Avronged people is upon us ;we cannot shirk it. If we must confess that Ave have nothonor and integrity enough at the command of our nationalgovernment honestly to administer such a trust, " a centuryof dishonor" is but a trifling blot on our national charac-ter compared with the permanent infamy involved in theconfession.

OUR DEALINGS WITH THE INDIANS. · 2015-02-25 · 1896.] Our Dealings with the Indians. 23 OUR...

Documents

Transcript of OUR DEALINGS WITH THE INDIANS. · 2015-02-25 · 1896.] Our Dealings with the Indians. 23 OUR...