The Sioux Nation and Indian Territory: The Attempted ... · Sioux Nation and Indian Territory 45 7...

The Sioux Nation and IndianTerritory: The Attempted

Removal of 1876

RICHMOND L.CLOW

The second article of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 gavethe Sioux Nation sole ownership of the Black Hills country,which lay in western South Dakota. However, enterprisingpioneers were not thwarted by the treaty provision and oftentried to obtain possession of the region. White speculators livingin Missouri River towns expounded on the possible mineralwealth to be found in the area. The lure of yellow gold providedan incentive for the federal government to move into the BlackHills country and open it to white settlers.' The United StatesArmy, because of demands to open the Black Hills, sentLieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer to explore theregion in 1874. The small quantities of gold that he found ledto a booming gold rush in the Sioux-controlled country ofwestern South Dakota. The miners' illegal entry into that regionforced Congress to try to obtain title to the disputed land.^

During this time of crisis with the western Sioux, Secretaryof Interior Columbus Delano thought that the only way thefederal government should deal or negotiate with the SiouxNation for title to any portion of their reservation was through

1. U.S., Statutes at Large, vol. 15 (1869), 636; Donald Jackson, Cusier's Gold(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), p. 2; U.S., Congress, House, HostileIndians in Dakota. H. Misc. Doc. 65, 44th Cong., 3d sess., 1873-1874 (Serial 1572),p. 1; see also Walson Parker, Gold in the Black Hills (Norman: University ofOklahoma Press, 1966), and Jane Conrad, "Charlie Collins: The Sioux CityPromotion of the Black iii\\$," South Dakota History 2, no, 2 (Spring 1972): 131-71.

2. Jackson, Cusfcr's Gold, p. 115,

Copyright © 1976 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.

Sioux Nation and Indian Territory 45 7

Grant's Peace Policy.^ According to this policy the Indians wereconsidered wards of the federal government and were to betreated in a just and humane manner. In 1875 President Grantappointed the first Black Hills commission that was to obtainthe title of the disputed country in an honorable fashion. IowaSenator William Boyd Allison, a member of the SenateCommittee on Indian Affairs, headed the delegation thattraveled to the Sioux Reservation in late summer. Thecommission failed to obtain title to the country because theSioux wanted more for their land than the commission wasauthorized to pay, and the stalemate between the commissionand the Sioux Nation left the United States without title to theBlack Hills.-*

After the commission's unsuccessful effort, the Board ofIndian Commissioners presented the first seriousrecommendation for removing the Sioux Nation elsewhere as asolution to the Black Hills question. They wanted to break thelarge Sioux bands into smaller groups or family units and placethem on homesteads. The board thought these small unitsshould be placed on farms on their Dakota reservation orremoved to Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma. E.Howard, Sioux Indian agent at the Spotted Tail Agency innorthwestern Nebraska, stated that the only long range Indianpolicy that would benefit the Sioux was removal to IndianTerritory. He thought that when the Sioux gave the federalgovernment their title to the Black Hills, they could be inducedas a large body to remove to Indian Territory. This was an earlyattempt to solve the Black Hills ownership confhct; remove theSioux to Indian Territory and title to the Black Hills could beobtained.^

At the same time discussions began on Sioux removal, thepeace policy began to deteriorate on the northern plains. E. C.Wakins, special Indian inspector working at various agencies in

3. Ottmha Daily Bee, 22 July 1B75; U.S. Board of Indian Commissioners,Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners, 1876 (Washington,D.C: Government Printing Office, 1 877), p. 3.

4. U.S., Department of the Interior, Office of Indian ASfäiis, Annual Report ofthe Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, ¡875(Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1875), p. 36.

5. Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners for the Year1875, p. 145.


458 South Dakota History

Dakota Territory, advocated the use of military force to curbthe activities of some Sioux warriors led by Sitting Bull. Hestated, "The true policy, in my judgment, is to send troopsagainst them in the winter, the sooner the better, and whipthem into subjection. They richly merit punishment for theirincessant warfare, and their numerous murders of white settlersand their families or white men wherever found unarmed."^Wakins thought a force of one thousand men would be neededto defeat and force the hostile Sioux into submission. Hisrecommendations began a twofold federal Indian policy towardthe Sioux. The congressional and executive branches ofgovernment would continue to work with the agency Sioux in apeaceful manner, while the United States Army would beginfull war operations against the hostñe northern Sioux."^

On 3 December 1875 the secretary of war directed thesecretary of interior to order all Sioux to return to theirrespective agencies. Any Indians failing to comply with thisorder were considered at war with the United States, and theWar Department would take any action it thought necessary toforce the Sioux to the agencies. Many Sioux were not at theiragencies by the end of January, and preparations were begun inFebruary for an army campaign against them.^

As the military began to mobilize. Congress attempted tosettle the Black Hills question peacefully. During the firstsession of the Forty-Fourth Congress, Senator William Allisonintroduced Senate Bill S59O, which, as initially introduced,authorized that a peaceful settlement be made with the SiouxNation for that portion of their reservation known as the BlackHills. ̂ Some senators hoped to avoid a military confrontation,despite the fact that army operations were already under wayagainst the hostile northern Sioux. Also, some senators thoughtthat Congress should not provide further support for the Siouxif they did not agree to the provisions of the bill.'"

6 U.S., Congress, House, Military Expeditions Against the Sioux Indians HExec. Doc. 184, 44th Cong., 1st sess., 1875-1876 (Serial 1691) p 2

7. Ibid., p. 3.8. Ibid., pp. 3-4.9. U.S., Congress, Senate, Journal, 44th Cong., 1st sess., 1875-1876, p. 304.

10. U.S., Congress, Senate, Congressional Record 44th Cont; 1st sess1875-1876,4,pt. 2:1768,1796.


Sioux Nation and Indian Territory 459

During floor debate, Nebraska Senator Algernon SidneyPaddock, former secretary of Nebraska Territory, added newdimensions to the bill. He wanted the president to appoint afive-member commission to meet with the Sioux and work outa settlement concerning ownership of the lands in question.According to Paddock, the commission's main objective wouldbe to obtain an agreement with the Sioux Nation for therelinquishment of not only the Black Hills, but also for theentire reservation given to the Sioux Nation in the Treaty of1868. Paddock said, "I think they could more easily be inducedto go to the Indian Territory; to remove absolutely from thatwhole section, and so relieve us from the entire complicationwhich has grown out of the discovery of gold." Sioux removalto Indian Territory, from congressional and pioneer views,would be an easy and practical method of securing Sioux titleto the Black Hills. ÍÍ

Paddock's main purpose in advocating Sioux removal toIndian Territory was probably directed at removing the SpottedTail and Red Cloud agencies from the northwest portions ofNebraska. The Treaty of 1868 defined this area as neutral landto which the Sioux could go, but in a recent court case, Gordanvs. General Ruggles, a United States federal court ruled thatNebraska was a sovereign state and her citizens could not beexcluded from any area within the boundaries of the state. Thisdecision nullified certain provisions of the 1868 treaty. Theruling also made it legal for miners to use these agencies assupply points and rest stops before traveling to the gold ñeldsof the Black Hills. Sioux removal to Indian Territory would be apositive end to Sioux occupation of state lands of Nebraska.'^

Supporting Sioux removal. Senator Allison observed that inthe entire Sioux Reservation the land near the Black Hills wasbest suited for agricultural purposes. Miners already in the BlackHills would need the land to supply them with food. Also, if theUnited States gained title to only the disputed land, that areawould be surrounded by a vast Indian reservation. Such asituation would hinder communication and travel from the

11. Senate, Congressional Record. 44 Cong., 1 sess., 1875-1876, 4, pt.4:3530-31.

12. Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners for the Year1875, p. 143.



Black Hills to other parts of the state; therefore, Sioux removalwas the best solution to the problems encountered by theminers' entry in the Black Hills.'^

On the other hand, Kansas Senators John James Ingalls andJames Madison Harvey, joined by Missouri Senator Lewis VitalBogy, disputed any proposed plans to remove the Sioux toIndian Territory and acquire the Black Hills. They wanted peaceon the frontier, but believed that there was no need to obtainthe Black Hills. These senators thought that the region was bestsuited for the roving Sioux and that the production of the BlackHills gold mines was not great enough to warrant governmentexpenditures. Also, the government could feed them there aswell as in Indian Territory.'^

Despite this limited opposition, the Senate approved thebill on 3 June 1876, by a vote of thirty to eight. It authorized acommission to visit the various Sioux agencies and negotiate asettlement with them. A provision for the removal of the Siouxto Indian Territory was not incorporated in the bill, but thewording implied that the commission was to obtain title to theentire Sioux Reservation and the Sioux would be placedelsewhere. 5̂

After approval by the Senate, the bill was assigned to theHouse Committee on Indian Affairs. During committee actionMissouri Congressman Charles Henry Morgan added anamendment stating that nothing in this bill could be construedor twisted to allow for the removal of the Sioux Nation toIndian Territory. Morgan's committee prevented any Siouxremoval attempts, but would still allow peace efforts orattempts to purchase the Black Hills to proceed. This action washighly praised by many Missourians as an effort to keep theSioux far from their borders.'^

Congressman Andrew Rechmond Boone from Kentuckyand a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs reported the

13. Senate, Concessional Record. 44 Cong., 1 sess., 1875-1876 4 pt 4 353214. Ibid., pp. 3531-32.15. Ibid., p. 3539.16. U.S., Congress, Woüse, Journal. 44th Cong., 1st sess., 1875-1876, pp. 1050,

1084; U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Indian Affairs, Index of Reports ofCommittees of the House of Representatives, H. Rept. 674, 44th Cong , 1st sess1875-1876 (SeriaH712), p. \,St. Louis Republican. 1 June 1876.



amended bill to the House floor several times between 15 Juneand 12 July 1876, but the House recommitted the measure tothe Committee on Indian Affairs. '"̂ Congressman Omar DwightConger from Michigan, in giving the apparent reason why theHouse would not consider the bill despite the need for a peacesettlement, stated, "I think we had better find out whether theSioux have captured all our army before we go treating withthem."'^ The reluctance of the House to pass this legislationprobably stemmed from Custer's ill-fated expedition on theLittle Big Horn. He was part of the United States command sentto the Powder River country to end raids and depredations ofSitting Bull and his bands. When he was killed on 25 June 1876,the members of Congress probably became hesitant to act onany measure dealing with the Sioux until the outcome of thepresent war was known. As a result, Senate bill S590 died incommittee.'^

Even though many whites had a partial hand in provokingthe Sioux to war, the Sioux victory over Custer aroused pubhcsentiment against the Indians. The magnitude of the crisisconvinced Congress of the need for a permanent settlement thatwould clarify the Black Hills and removal issues. BecauseCongress failed in the previous attempt to authorize asettlement with the Sioux, they incorporated stronger measuresagainst them in the Indian Appropriations Bill of 15 August1876, This bill stated that Congress would make no furtherappropriations for Sioux supplies or annuities unless theyrelinquished all land west of the 103rd meridian of longitude,which included the Black Hills. They were also required toforfeit all claims to lands outside of their reservation boundariesthat were defined as neutral lands in the Treaty of 1868. Thiswould eliminate the Sioux agencies from the state lands ofNebraska. They had to allow the United States to constructthree wagon roads across any part of the remaining portions ofthe reservation. The Indians were given a choice betweenremoval to Indian Territory and new agency sites along theMissouri River. In place of payments for the land, the

\1. House Journal, A'\ Cong., 1 sess., 1875-1876, pp. 1109, 1573.1 8. House Journal, 44 Cong., 1 sess., 1875-1876, p. 1257; House, Congressional

Record, 44 Cong,, 1 sess., 1875-1876, 4, pt. 5:4520.\9. House Journal, 44 Cong., 1 sess., 1875-1876, p. 1958.



government committed itself to providing specified rations untilthe Indians were able to become self-supporting in their newlocations. ^^

The harsh provisions, as stated in the bill, were directed atthe agency Sioux who did not take part in the present war, butthe government insisted that they sign the agreement for all theSioux people. The United States Army would dictate a peacesettlement with the northern Sioux when military action againstthem was completed. ̂ ^

The House Committee on Indian Affairs had not supportedprevious plans to remove the Sioux, but Congress wrote itsapproval for this removal in the bill's provision definingself-support. Many persons involved with the Sioux wantedthem to support themselves through the cultivation of the soil.However, they also realized that the soils of Dakota were unfitfor farming and that the Sioux should be moved to the IndianTerritory, despite the questionable superiority of Oklahoma'ssoil. The president appointed George Mannypenny, H. C. Bulis,Newton Edmunds, Reverend Henry Whipple, Albert G. Boone,Augustine S. Gayiord, and Jared Daniels as commissioners toobtain an agreement with the various Sioux bands for theirremoval to Indian Territory.22

The commissioners left for the Sioux Reservation on 24August 1876 and reached the Spotted Tail and Red Cloudagencies in mid-September. During councils at each agency, thecommissioners impressed upon the Sioux the option of eitherremoving to the Missouri River and receiving scanty rations, orremoving completely to Indian Territory and obtaininggovernment help. Spotted Tau, the great Brule chief, did notwant to return to the Missouri River as he had lived there beforeand left the graves of over one hundred Brule. He was also

20. H. Exec. Doc. 10, pp. 2-3.21. U.S., Congress, House, The Removal of the Sioux Indians. H. Exec Doc 10

44th Cong., 2d sess., 1876-1877 (Serial 1751), pp. 2-3 (hereafter cited as H. Exec!Doc. 10); V.S.,CQngrcs&,Semte,Letterfromtht Secretary of Interior S Exec Doc4, 44th Cong., 2d sess., 1876-1877 (Serial 1718), pp. 1-3; Mary Jane Bowler, "TheSioux Indians and the United States Government, 1862-1878" (Master's thesisWashmgton University, St. Louis, May 1944), p. IST; St. Louis Globe Democrat 29Aug. 1876.

22. Ibid.


Red Cloud

reluctant to agree to removal, but consented to send adelegation to inspect the land far to the south. ̂ ^

Most of the Indians preferred to go to the Missouri River,but the commissioners claimed that some Sioux were anxious togo to Indian Territory and begin new lives as self-supportingfarmers. The commissioners told the Sioux that they would notbind themselves to removal by signing the agreement, but byagreeing to move to Indian Territory, the western bands ofSioux living in Nebraska could stay at their present locations forthe winter.^'*

Ultimately, the commissioners succeeded in persuading thewestern bands to sign a ten-article agreement. Article Four ofthe agreement provided for the removal of the Sioux Nation toIndian Territory. One chief stated an accurate summary of thecommission's meeting with the Sioux when he said, "We havebeen moved five times after promises we never move, I thinkyou had better put the Indian on wheels and you can movethem about whenever you wish."^^ The commission left thewestern Sioux and visited the various bands located on theMissouri River who also signed the agreement. Finally, 171Sioux, Arapahoe, and Cheyenne had placed their signatures onthe agreement. By accepting such a small number of signatures,the commission violated the Treaty of 1868, which required athree-fourths majority of all adult males to approve a change,not a majority of chiefs and headmen.^^

After the commission completed the agreement with the

23. U.S., Congress, Senate, Certain Concessions from the Sioux Indians. S. Exec.Doc. 9, 44th Cong., 2d sess., 1876-1877 (Serial 1718), pp. 5, 8, 39 (hereafter cited asS. Exec. Doc. 9).

24. Ibid., pp. 3, 36; New York Times, 10 Sept. 1876.25. S. Exec. Doc.9, p. 8.26. Ibid., pp. 22-28.



western Sioux, Commissioners Boone and Daniels escorted adelegation of four or five chiefs from the various bands toIndian Territory. Spotted Tail, Man-Afraid-of-Horses, and RedDog were the major chiefs on the expedition. Red Cloud didnot join the ninety-four-member delegation because he thoughthe should stay with his people. The party's objective was tochoose land for their people that was suited for agriculture. Oneyear after the land selection was made, the Sioux were to moveto these permanent homes. The stipulation was made that if thedelegation was unable to make a wise decision, the governmentwould select a home for them in the territory.^7

Upon Boone's return from the territory, he reported thatthe Sioux Nation would definitely be moved to Indian Territorywhen the grass turned green in the coming spring. 2» He stated,"It makes httle difference whether they consent or not, theyhave to do that or do worse. The government has decided toremove them from their present reservation." ̂ 9 Boone went onto say that most members of the party who went to IndianTerritory were pleased with the area and that he anticipated notrouble from the white people of Kansas with the forthcomingremoval plans.^^

The proposed home for the Sioux Nation in IndianTerritory was the unsettled, open tracts of land west of theninety-sixth meridian. The Sioux were to be placed on theCanadian River west of the Seminóle and Chickasaw tribes andeast of the Cheyenne-Arapahoe agency. The governmentplanned to have part of the Sioux bands travel to the territoryby railroad. They would leave their reservation and travel toKansas City, then on to Wichita, and finally arrive in Oklahoma.The remaining Sioux would come overland by way of theRepublican River, Fort Hays, and Fort Supply. The Siouxtraveling overiand would bring all the livestock that the tribeowned. The plans for Sioux removal had progressed to a stageof being implemented, and the government was simply waitingfor the grass to turn green. ̂ '

27. Ibid., pp. 19-21; V,S., Statutes at Large, vol. 19 (1877). 255.28. S. txec. Doc. 9, pp. 19-21.29. Omaha Daily Bee, 8 Dec. 1876.30. Ibid.31. Ibid.; S. Exec. Doc. 9, p. 3.



Spotted Tail

The commissioners did not consult the Indian nationsalready in the territory, whose land surrounded the uncededopen tracts, on the forthcoming Sioux removal. They arguedthat the government's policy toward the Sioux was theirremoval to Indian Territory and that this voided any previoustreaties made with the Indians already in Oklahoma. Besides,the Indians in the territory had more land than they needed andwhen the Sioux arrived, they would occupy this surplus landand would help prevent pioneers from homesteading in IndianTerritory.''^

When Spotted Tail returned to his agency in Nebraska, hepublicized his dislike for the Indian Territory. He spoke to hispeople during council and presented an alternative plan toremoval. He wanted to see the president and settle the BlackHills issue by a means other than removal. He said, "The rascalsin the Black Hills are children of the Great Father, he knowshow many there are, I wish that they should pay $5.00 eachman to the Indians."^^ This plan, of course, was not consideredby Congress.

32. St. Louis Globe Democrat. 5 Oct. 1 876.33. Lt. Horace Neide, agent at the Spotted Tail Agency, to Commissioner of

Indian Affairs, 15 Dec. 1876, Record Group 75, National Archives, Washington, D.C.This is a copy of a letter written by Spotted Tail, translated by William Cleveland,missionary to the Sioux, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, SpottedTail Agency, 1876-1877.



After a summer of military campaigns against the warringSioux, the army did not favor any plans to remove them toIndian Territory. General Philip Sheridan, commander of thedivision of the Missouri, thought that removal plans should bepostponed. He proposed that they should be moved to theMissouri River; then after a period of adjustment andcivilization, they should be taken to the territory. The Siouxwould need preparation for their trip south and should begradually moved when the Indians there were ready to receivethem. Also, it would be dangerous to move the Sioux after thearmy had conducted military operations against some of thehostiles.^'' I

Colonel Ranald Mackenzie, veteran Indian fighter of thesouthern plains, also vigorously opposed Sioux removal. Hebelieved that the Indians in the territory should be loyal to theUnited States and the Sioux did not fit into this category. Theywere unmanageable and would be a bad influence on theIndians already in the Indian Territory. Also, it would be cruelto all persons involved to send the Sioux south. Citizens nearthe territory along with government personnel would suffer.Mackenzie even disapproved of the Sioux delegation that wentto the Indian Territory on a tour of inspection. ^̂

Some members of the American Board of Commissionersfor Foreign Missions also opposed the planned Sioux removal.The board doubted the wisdom of the removal of the entireSioux Nation to Oklahoma because they did not approve of anyplans that would affect their future programs for mission work.The mission group thought that any civilization work for theSioux could be done with equal success west of the MissouriRiver. 36

Support for the removal came from Commissioner ofIndian Affairs John Q. Smith. Even thought provisions of thePeace Policy did not include removal to Indian Territory, theremoval concept continually surfaced as a means to implement

34. U.S., Department of War, Annual Report of the Secretary of War 1876(Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1876), p. 447.

35. George Mannypenny, Our Indian Wards (Cincinnaü: Robert Clark and Co1880), pp. 325, 34448.

^6. Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners 1876 DD94-95. '



the Peace Policy. Smith wanted the Sioux removed to theterritory in order to consolidate most of the Indians into onemajor area. He reasoned that the Indians would benefit becauseit would be harder for the whiskey peddlers and opportunist ofwhite society to prey on the Sioux. Living in Indian Territorywould permit the Sioux to acculturate more easily. ̂ "̂

Smith thought that a major drawback to Sioux removal wasthe nearness of the Staked Plains. This area could entice theSioux to forget their goal of becoming farmers and ride into thehigh plains west of the territory. The distance of haulingsupplies was great and would require additional governmentexpenditures, but to Smith these limitations were not greatenough to prevent the forthcoming Sioux removal.^^

President Grant favored the plan. He defended the minersin the Black Hills who had taken possession of the area andstated that they should not be excluded from the land that theycontrolled despite Sioux ownership. He also favored the idea ofSioux self-support and strongly urged that they should befarmers in Indian Territory. Congress had stated its apparentapproval by authorizing the Commission of 1876 to obtain anagreement with the Sioux for their consent to be moved toOklahoma and it was probable that Congress and the presidentwould approve of the commission's work on the SiouxReservation.^^

The commissioners and the various Sioux bands had signedthe Agreement of 1876 during congressional recess. WhenCongress convened in December 1876, Senator John Inglesfrom Kansas and Congressman Joseph Franklin from Missouriintroduced resolutions in their respective branches of Congressordering the secretary of interior to report the progress that hadbeen made on the Sioux removal. If removal was implemented,it would directly affect their states as they bordered on IndianTerri to ry.'*°

Senator William Allison, who had tried to gain previous

37. S. Exec. Doc. 9, p. 3; Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1876,pp. VIMX.

38. S. Exec. Doc. 9, p. 3.39.Ibid.40. Senate Journal. 44 Cong., 2 sess., 1876-1877, pp. 35, 511, 515; House

Journal. 44 Cong., 2 sess., 1876-1877, pp. 4, 8, 39-40.



authorization for a settlement with the Sioux Nation,introduced Senate Bill SI 185 on 26 January 1877. Thismeasure, if approved, would ratify the agreement made by theCommission of 1876, and would approve Sioux removal.**'

The Senate, anxious to complete an agreement with theSioux Nation, considered the bill on the following day. Duringfloor debate. Senator Lewis Bogy attacked the removal articleof the agreement. He stated, "I for one, am opposed to allowingthe wild Indians of the prairies to go at any time to the IndianTerritory; and I will oppose here and at all times any tendencyin that way.'"*^ Despite Bogy's strong sentiments, the Senatepassed the measure in its entirety.

After Senate passage, the bill was sent to the House forapproval. The Speaker of the House referred the measure to theHouse Committee on Indian Affairs, which reported the bill tothe floor on 14 February 1877. Committee member AndrewBoone proposed that the measure should have specialconsideration by the House. It was agreed that the bill would bespecial order of the day until the House disposed of themeasure."*^

Opposition to any attempts to remove the Sioux camefrom representatives of states near the Indian Territory. RobertAnthony Hatcher, congressman from Missouri, introduced aresolution from the state legislature of Missouri petitioningagainst the removal of the Sioux Nation to Indian Territory.This began a series of resolutions introduced by Missouricongressmen showing their constituents' dislike for any attemptto remove the Sioux.'^'' During House deUberation of SenateBill SI 185, Congressman Roger Queries Mills from Texasamended the measure. His amendment stated "that nothing inthis act shall be construed to authorize the removal of the SiouxIndians to the Indian Territory and the President of the UnitedStates is hereby directed to prohibit the removal of any portionof the Sioux Indians to the Indian Territory until the same shallbe authorized by an act hereafter."'*^ On 16 February 1877 the

A\. Senate Journal, 44 Cong., 2 sess., 1876-1877, pp. 156, 161.42. Senate, Concessional Record, 44 Cong., 2 sess., 1876-1877, 5, pt. 2:1055.A'h. House Journal, AA Cor\%., 2 sess., 1876-1877, pp. 323,415, 443.44. Ibid., pp. 457, 458, 464, 516.45. Ibid., pp. 454-55.


The unceded open tracts of land in Indian Territory, wherethe Sioux Nation was to be settled, were later opened to white homesteaders

in the "Boomer Rush. "

House, with little opposition, passed the amended bill, whichprohibited any attempt to remove the Sioux to the territory.**

The House version of the Agreement of 1876 was then sentto the Senate for approval. Senator Paddock from Nebraskabelieved that the government's correct and true Indian policywas the removal of all Indians to the territory, and this includedthe Sioux. He proposed an amendment that would nullify theHouse amendment and would allow for the removal of theSioux Nation.'*'' During Senate reconsideration of its bill, whichhad been amended by the House, public opposition to removalbecame increasingly evident. Senator Francis Cockrell fromMissouri presented a resolution from the state legislature ofMissouri on 21 February 1877. Like previous resolutionsintroduced in the House, it protested removal, claiming that the

46. Ibid., p. 455.47. Senate, Congressional Record, 44 Cong., 2 sess., 1876-1877, 5, pt. 2:1349.



wild Sioux would cause injury and grief for white settlementssurrounding the Indian Territory. Also, the Sioux would takelands in Oklahoma that many white homesteaders would

Even before this resolution homesteaders were demandingthat Oklahoma Territory be opened to settlement. In theprevious session of Congress, Congressman Henry Lillie Piercefrom Massachusetts requested that the Committee on IndianAffairs introduce legislation to permit homesteading in theterritory. He also stated that an organized government shouldbe established to allow for any orderly settlement of theterritory. The removal of the Sioux to Oklahoma would preventmany white settlers from homesteading the open tracts ofIndian Territory.**^

Railroad companies also had a vested interest in events thataffected the territory. They could only obtain land grants inareas where Indian title to the land was relinquished. Therailroad could build on open tracts of land in Oklahoma, butthe presence of the Sioux would take away acres of that land.^°The state legislature of Kansas wanted a rail route from theeastern portion of the state to the capital of Texas. They hopedthat land settlement would follow the railroad. Sioux removalwould only hinder white attempts to gain possession of the landand construct a railroad. Except for the area near the BlackHills, white men were not immediately lured to the lands of theSioux Reservation; therefore, it would be better to keep theSioux in Dakota at points along the Missouri River.^^

Despite strong protest from Senator Paddock, the Senatefinally passed the House bill on 21 February 1877. PresidentGrant signed the bill on 28 February 1877, All hopes to removethe Sioux to Indian Territory ended. Instead the second optionfor removal would be implemented and the Sioux would

48. Senate Journal. 44 Cong., 2 sess., 1876-1877, pp. 5, 219; Senate,Congressional Record, 44 Cong., 2 sess., 1876-1877, 5 pt. 3:1734.

49. House Journal, 44 Cong., 1 sess., 1875-1876, pp. 544, 1721.50. Morris L. Wardell, A Political History of the Cherokee Nation (Norman:

University ol Oklahoma Press, 1938), pp. 256,258,260-62.51. U.S. Congress, Siinate, Resolution of the Legislature of Kansas. S. Mise, Doc.

79,44th Cong. 1st sess., 1875-1876 (Serial 1665), p. 1 ; Wardell, .4-PO/I7ÍQI///is/orvof the Cherokee Nation, p. 256.



remove to locations on the Missouri River. The same Congressthat had authorized the Commission of 1876 to enter into anagreement with the Sioux for their removal to Indian Territoryhad reversed its decision.^^

The final bill ehminating Sioux removal to Indian Territoryappeased most white parties involved. States near the IndianTerritory would not be plagued with the hostile Sioux. Theycould freely concentrate on railroad construction andhomesteading efforts in the territory. Newton Edmunds, formergovernor of Dakota Territory and a commission member, waspleased with the decision to send the Sioux to the MissouriRiver. Businessmen in Dakota Territory could now find newmarkets for their goods.^^ Also, the United States gainedpossession of the Black Hills.

Though Congress did not consult the Sioux on its decisionto send them to the Missouri River instead of Indian Territory,they were given the best option available to them. TheAgreement of 1876 centered on taking the Black Hills from theSioux and sending them to an alien land. However, some whoworked with the Sioux did not favor the removal of the westernbands to the Missouri River. James Irwin, agent for the RedCloud Agency in 1877, indicated Congress' purpose for movingthem when he said, "It is apparent to the proper authoritiesthat it will not militate against public interest."^^

Reverend Henry Whipple, former member of theCommission of 1876, also criticized Congress for refusing toallow the Sioux people to move to Indian Territory. He wasdisturbed that Congress changed the agreement made with theSioux and did not even bother to consult them. Whipple calledthis act a "violation of faith and honor." ^̂ ^^ stated, "I fear

52. Senate Journal. 44 Cong,, 2 sess., 1876-1877, pp. 307, 340, 352; After thebill had been passed. Senator James Harvey from Kansas presented a resolution fromhis home state. The resolution, like those from Missouri, stated the citizens'objections to Sioux removal This resolution must have helped to reinforce theSenate's decision to agree with the House amendment (Ibid., pp. 382, 383, 515).

53. George Hyde, Spotted Tail's Folk (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press1961), p. 23On.5.

54. James Irwin, acting agent for the Red Cloud Agency, to the Commissioner ofIndian Affairs, 27 June 1877, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs RedCloud Agency, 1877, RG 75, National Archives.

55. Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners, ¡876, p. 106.



the reason is that greedy white men have fixed their eyes onthat Indian paradise and will not cease until it is wrested fromits lawful possessors." He added, "Have we learned nothingfrom the past?"^^

Reverend Whipple's predictions of the white man's interestin Indian lands in the territory came true. In the following year,the same group prevented the removal of the various tribes fromNew Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. By the late 1870s, thefirst white homesteaders, known as Boomers, began to line theborders of Indian Territory for the rush to the same lands fromwhich the Sioux and other tribes had been barred.^"^ Had thesetribes been allowed to settle the open tracts of land west ofOklahoma City, the history of Oklahoma and South Dakotawould have been drastically altered.

56. The removal policy that Congress followed in attempting to settle the Siouxproblems was not new. Through the short history of Indian-United States relations,removal of various Indian tribes to another part of the country was a reoccurringmethod used in an attempt to solve conflicts. The government removed the problemfrom one area to another, but never cured the trouble. Ibid.

57. Carl Coke Rister, Land Hunger (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,1942), pp. 38, 40.


Copyright of South Dakota History is the property of South Dakota State Historical Society and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.


depr36009a

Typewritten Text

All illustrations in this issue are the property of the South Dakota State Historical Society except those on the following pages: p. i, from South Dakota Bicentennial Commission, Pierre; pp. 412, 414, 415, 416, and 505, from Robinson Museum, Pierre; pp. 417 and 418, from Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth, Tex.; pp. 423, 425, 428, 430, and 431, from Century 39, no. 5 (Mar. 1890); p. 443, from Michael Edward Melody; pp. 445, 449, and 453, from Eleventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1889–90 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1894); pp. 461 and 470, from Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1877 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1877); p. 509, from Museum of Agriculture, Brookings; p. 524, from Marion E. Gridley, ed. & comp., Indians of Today (Chicago: Towertown Press, 1960).

The Sioux Nation and Indian Territory: The Attempted ... · Sioux Nation and Indian Territory 45 7...

Documents

Transcript of The Sioux Nation and Indian Territory: The Attempted ... · Sioux Nation and Indian Territory 45 7...