|Other short titles||Dawes Severalty Act of 1887|
|Long title||An Act to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the Territories over the Indians, and for other purposes.|
|Nicknames||General Resource allotment Deed of 1887|
|Enacted past||the 49th United States Congress|
|Effective||February 8, 1887|
|Public law||Pub.L. 49–105|
|Statutes at Large||24 Stat. 388|
|Titles amended||25 U.S.C.: Indians|
|U.s.C. sections created||25 U.S.C. ch. nine § 331 et seq.|
Dawes Deed of 1887
(also known as the
General Allotment Human activity
Dawes Severalty Human action of 1887
) regulated land rights on tribal territories within the United States. Named subsequently Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, information technology authorized the President of the Usa to subdivide Native American tribal communal landholdings into allotments for Native American heads of families and individuals. This would convert traditional systems of state tenure into a government-imposed system of private property past forcing Native Americans to “assume a capitalist and proprietary relationship with property” that did non previously exist in their cultures.
The human activity allowed tribes the option to sell the lands that remained subsequently allotment to the federal government. Before private holding could be dispensed, the government had to determine “which Indians were eligible” for allotments, which propelled an “official search for a federal definition of Indian-ness.”
Although the act was passed in 1887, the federal government implemented the Dawes Act “on a tribe-by-tribe footing” thereafter. For example, in 1895, Congress passed the Hunter Human action, which administered Dawes “among the Southern Ute.”
The nominal purpose of the human activity was to protect “the property of the Natives” as well as to compel “their absorption into the American mainstream.”[half dozen]
Native peoples who were accounted to be “mixed-blood” were forced to have U.Due south. citizenship, while others were “detribalized.”[iv]
Betwixt 1887 and 1934, Native Americans “lost command of about 100 million acres of land” (United states has i.9 billion acres of land
[vii]) or about “ii-thirds of the state base they held in 1887” equally a event of the act.[viii]
The loss of land and the suspension-upwards of traditional leadership of tribes produced negative cultural and social furnishings that take since prompted scholars to refer to the act as ane of the most subversive U.Southward. policies for Native Americans in history.
The “Five Civilized Tribes” (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee, and Seminole) in Indian Territory were initially exempt from the Dawes Act. The Dawes Commission was established in 1893 every bit a delegation to register members of tribes for allocation of lands. They came to define tribal belonging in terms of blood-quantum. But, considering there was no method of determining precise bloodlines, commission members often assigned “full-blood status” to Native Americans who were perceived as “poorly-alloyed” or “legally incompetent,” and “mixed-claret condition” to Native Americans who “almost resembled whites,” regardless of how they identified culturally.
The Curtis Human action of 1898 extended the provisions of the Dawes Human activity to the “V Civilized Tribes,” required the abolitionism of their governments and dissolution of tribal courts, allotment of communal lands to individuals registered as tribal members, and auction of lands alleged surplus. This law was “an outgrowth of the land blitz of 1889, and completed the extinction of Indian land claims in the territory. This violated the promise of the United states that the Indian territory would remain Indian land in perpetuity,” completed the obliteration of tribal land titles in Indian Territory, and prepared for admission of the territory country to the Union as the state of Oklahoma.
The Dawes Act was amended over again in 1906 under the Burke Act.
During the Great Depression, the Franklin D. Roosevelt assistants passed the US Indian Reorganization Human action (as well known as the Wheeler-Howard Law) on June 18, 1934. It prohibited any farther land allocation and created a “New Bargain” for Native Americans, which renewed their rights to reorganize and form self-governments in order to “rebuild an acceptable state base.”
The “Indian Problem”
During the early 1800s, the U.s. federal government attempted to accost what it referred to as the “Indian Trouble.” Numerous new European immigrants were settling on the eastern border of the Indian territories, where most of the Native American tribes had been relocated. Conflicts betwixt the groups increased as they competed for resource and operated according to different cultural systems. Many European Americans did not believe that members of the two societies could coexist within the same communities. Searching for a quick solution to their problem, William Medill the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, proposed establishing “colonies” or “reservations” that would be exclusively for the natives, similar to those which some native tribes had created for themselves in the east.
It was a class of removal whereby the US government would uproot the natives from electric current locations to areas in the region beyond the Mississippi River. This would enable settlement past European Americans in the Southeast, where in that location was a growing demand for admission to new lands past them. With the removal of the Indians, whites would be protected from the corrupt “evil” ways of the subordinate natives.
The new policy intended to concentrate Native Americans in areas away from encroaching settlers, but information technology resulted in considerable suffering and many deaths. During the later nineteenth century, Native American tribes resisted the imposition of the reservation system and engaged with the U.s. Army in what were called the Indian Wars in the West for decades. Finally defeated past the Us military force and continuing waves of encroaching settlers, the tribes negotiated agreements to resettle on reservations.
Native Americans ended up with a total of over 155 meg acres (630,000 kmtwo) of land, ranging from arid deserts to prime agricultural state.
The Reservation arrangement, though forced upon Native Americans, allotted each tribe a merits to their new lands, protection over their territories, and the right to govern themselves. With the United states of america Senate to be involved only for negotiation and ratification of treaties, the Native Americans adapted their ways of life and tried to go on their traditions.
The traditional tribal system, a defining characteristic of Native Americans every bit a social unit of measurement, became credible to the not-native communities of the United states of america and created a mixed stir of emotions. The tribe was viewed as a highly cohesive group, led by a hereditary, chosen master, who exercised ability and influence among the members of the tribe by aging traditions.
Administering the reservation organization revealed corruption and abuse at many levels, and often Native Americans were left wanting for supplies, annuities and cash.
By the end of the 1880s, many U.s. stakeholders seemed to have reached consensus that the assimilation of Native Americans into American civilisation was top priority and needed for the peoples’ very survival. This was the belief amongst people who admired them, likewise as people who idea they needed to go out backside their tribal landholding, reservations, traditions and ultimately their Indian identities.[eighteen]
Senator Henry Dawes launched a campaign to “rid the nation of tribalism through the virtues of private holding, allotting land parcels to Indian heads of family.”[
On February 8, 1887, the Dawes Allotment Human activity was signed into police force by President Grover Cleveland. Responsible for enacting the allotment of the tribal reservations into plots of land for individual households, the Dawes Human activity was intended past reformers to achieve six goals:
- breaking up of tribes every bit a social unit,
- encouraging private initiatives,
- furthering the progress of native farmers,
- reducing the toll of native administration,
- securing parts of the reservations as Indian state, and
- opening the residuum of the land to white settlers for turn a profit.
The Act facilitated assimilation; they would become more “Euro-Americanized” equally the government allotted the reservations and the Indians adapted to subsistence farming, the chief model at the time. Native Americans held specific ideologies pertaining to tribal land, to them the land and earth were things to be valued and cared for, it represented the plants and animals that produced and sustained life, it embodied their existence and identity, and was office of their environment of belonging.
In contrast to most of their white counterparts, they did not see the land from an economic standpoint.
Only, many natives began to believe they had to suit to the majority civilisation in guild to survive. They would have to encompass these beliefs and give up to the forces of progress. They were to prefer the values of the dominant society and run into country as real estate to be bought and developed; they learned how to employ their state finer in order to get prosperous farmers.
Every bit they were inducted as citizens of the country, they would shed those of their discourses and ideologies that were presumed to be uncivilized, and exchange them for ones that allowed them to get industrious self-supporting citizens, and finally rid themselves of their “need” for government supervision.
Provisions of the Dawes Deed
The of import provisions of the Dawes Act
- A head of family would receive a grant of 160 acres (65 ha), a single person or orphan over 18 years of historic period would receive a grant of 80 acres (32 ha), and persons under the age of 18 would receive 40 acres (16 ha) each;
- the allotments would exist held in trust by the U.South. Government for 25 years;
- Eligible Native Americans had 4 years to select their country; afterwards the choice would be made for them by the Secretary of the Interior.
Every fellow member of the bands or tribes receiving a land allotment is subject to laws of the state or territory in which they reside. Every Native American who receives a land allotment “and has adopted the habits of civilized life” (lived separate and apart from the tribe) is bestowed with United States citizenship “without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting the right of whatsoever such Indian to tribal or other property”.
The Secretarial assistant of the Interior could issue rules to assure equal distribution of water for irrigation among the tribes, and provided that “no other cribbing or grant of water past any riparian proprietor shall be authorized or permitted to the damage of any other riparian proprietor.”
The Dawes Act did non apply to the territory of the:
- Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Miami, and Peoria in Indian Territory
- Osage and Sac and Fox in the Oklahoma Territory
- whatsoever of the reservations of the Seneca Nation of New York, or
- a strip of territory in the Country of Nebraska adjoining the Sioux Nation
- Red Lake Ojibwe Reservation
- The Osage Tribe of Oklahoma
Provisions were later extended to the Wea, Peoria, Kaskaskia, Piankeshaw, and Western Miami tribes by act of 1889.
Allotment of the lands of these tribes was mandated by the Human action of 1891, which amplified the provisions of the Dawes Human activity.
Dawes Act 1891 Amendments
In 1891 the Dawes Human action was amended:
- Allowed for pro-rata distribution when the reservation did non have plenty land for each individual to receive allotments in original quantities, and provided that when land is only suitable for grazing purposes, such land be allotted in double quantities
- Established criteria for inheritance
- Does not apply to Cherokee Outlet
Provisions of the Curtis Act
The Curtis Human action of 1898 extended the provisions of the Dawes Act to the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory. It did away with their self-regime, including tribal courts. In addition to providing for resource allotment of lands to tribal members, it authorized the Dawes Commission to brand determination of members when registering tribal members.
Provisions of the Burke Human action
The Shush Act of 1906
amended the sections of the Dawes Act dealing with Us Citizenship (Section half dozen) and the mechanism for issuing allotments. The Secretary of Interior could force the Native American Allottee to accept title for land. US Citizenship was granted unconditionally upon receipt of land allocation (the private did non need to move off the reservation to receive citizenship). Country allotted to Native Americans was taken out of Trust and subject area to taxation. The Burke Act did not apply to any Native Americans in Indian Territory.
Identity and detribalization
The furnishings of the Dawes Act were subversive on Native American sovereignty, culture, and identity since it empowered the U.South. authorities to:
- legally preempt the sovereign right of Indians to define themselves
- implement the specious notion of claret-breakthrough as the legal criteria for defining Indians
- institutionalize divisions between “full-bloods” and “mixed-bloods”
- “detribalize” a sizeable segment of the Indian population
- legally advisable vast tracts of Indian country
The federal regime initially viewed the Dawes Act equally such a successful “democratic experiment” that they decided to further exploit the use of blood-quantum laws and the notion of “federal recognition” as the qualifying means for “dispensing other resources and services such as health care and educational funding” to Native Americans long after its passage. Under Dawes, “state parcels were dispersed” in accordance with perceived blood quanta. Indigenous people labeled “full-blooded” were allocated “relatively pocket-size parcels of land deeded with trust patents over which the authorities retained consummate control for a minimum of twenty-five years.” Those who were labeled “mixed-blood” were “deeded larger and meliorate tracts of land, with ‘patents in fee simple’ (complete command), only were besides forced to accept U.S. citizenship and relinquish tribal status.”
Additionally, Native Americans who did non “meet the established criteria” as being either “total-blood” or “mixed-blood” were effectively “detribalized,” beingness “deposed of their American Indian identity and displaced from their homelands, discarded into the nebula of American otherness.”
While the Dawes Human activity is “typically recognized” as the “primary instigation of divisions between tribal and detribalized Indians,” the history of detribalization in the United states of america “really precedes Dawes.”
The Dawes Act ended Native American communal property of holding (with ingather land ofttimes beingness privately endemic by families or clans), past which they had ensured that everyone had a home and a identify in the tribe. The act “was the culmination of American attempts to destroy tribes and their governments and to open Indian lands to settlement by non-Indians and to development by railroads.”
Land owned by Native Americans decreased from 138 meg acres (560,000 km2) in 1887 to 48 million acres (190,000 km2) in 1934.
Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado was one of the most outspoken opponents of allotment. In 1881, he said that resource allotment was a policy “to despoil the Indians of their lands and to brand them vagabonds on the face of the earth.” Teller also said,
the real aim [of allotment] was to get at the Indian lands and open them up to settlement. The provisions for the apparent do good of the Indians are but the pretext to get at his lands and occupy them. … If this were done in the proper name of Greed, information technology would be bad enough; only to practice information technology in the proper name of Humanity … is infinitely worse.
In 1890, Dawes himself remarked most the incidence of Native Americans losing their land allotments to settlers: “I never knew a white human being to go his human foot on an Indian’south country who ever took it off.”
The amount of land in native hands apace depleted from some 150 million acres (610,000 kmtwo) to 78 1000000 acres (320,000 kmii) by 1900. The remainder of the land one time allotted to appointed natives was declared surplus and sold to non-native settlers as well as railroad and other large corporations; other sections were converted into federal parks and military compounds.
The concern shifted from encouraging private native landownership to satisfying the white settlers’ demand for larger portions of land.
Given the conditions on the Great Plains, the land granted to about allottees was non sufficient for economic viability of farming. Partitioning of land amidst heirs upon the allottees’ deaths quickly led to land fractionalization. Near allotment land, which could exist sold after a statutory catamenia of 25 years, was eventually sold to non-Native buyers at bargain prices. Additionally, state deemed to be “surplus” beyond what was needed for allotment was opened to white settlers, though the profits from the sales of these lands were often invested in programs meant to aid the Native Americans. Over the 47 years of the Human activity’s life, Native Americans lost well-nigh xc million acres (360,000 km2) of treaty land, or about two-thirds of the 1887 land base. About 90,000 Native Americans were made landless.
Civilisation and gender roles
The Dawes Act compelled Native Americans to prefer European American civilisation by illegalizing Indigenous cultural practices and forcibly indoctrinating settler cultural practices and ideologies into Native American families and children. Past forcibly transferring communally-owned Native land into private property, the Office of Indian Affairs (OIA) “hoped to transform Native Americans into yeoman farmers and subcontract wives through the assignment of private land holdings known as allotments.” In an endeavor to fulfill this objective, the Dawes Deed “outlawed Native American culture and established a code of Indian offenses regulating individual behavior according to Euro-American norms of conduct.” Whatever violations of this code were to be “tried in a Court of Indian Offenses on each reservation.” Included with the Dawes Act were “funds to instruct Native Americans in Euro-American patterns of idea and beliefs through Indian Service schools.”
With the legalized seizure of many Native American country holdings, Indigenous structures of domestic life, gender roles, and tribal identity were critically altered, as was intended by European American society. For instance, “an important objective of the Dawes Act was to restructure Native American gender roles.”
White settlers who encountered Native American societies in the latter-one-half of the nineteenth century “judged women’s work [in Native societies] every bit lower in status than that of men” and causeless it was a sign of Ethnic women’southward “disempowerment and drudgery.” Equally a issue, “in evolutionary terms, whites saw women’s performance of what seemed to be male tasks – farming, home building, and supply gathering – equally a abuse of gender roles and an impediment to progress.” In reality, the gendered tasks “accorded many Indigenous women esteem and even rewards and condition within their tribes.”
By dividing reservation lands into privately owned parcels, legislators hoped to complete the assimilation procedure by forcing Native Americans to adopt individual households, and strengthen the nuclear family and values of economical dependency strictly within this small household unit of measurement.
The Dawes Human activity was thus implemented to destroy “native cultural patterns” by drawing “on theories, common to both ethnologists and material feminists, that saw ecology modify every bit a way to issue social change.” Although private belongings ownership was the “cornerstone” of the act, reformers “believed that civilization could only be effected by concomitant changes to social life” in Ethnic communities. Equally a result, “they promoted Christian marriages amongst Indigenous people, forced families to regroup nether male heads (a tactic oftentimes enforced by renaming), and trained men in wage-earning occupations while encouraging women to support them at habitation through domestic activities.”
Reduction of sovereignty
In 1906 the Burke Human activity (also known as the forced patenting act) amended the GAA to requite the Secretary of the Interior the power to issue allottees a patent in fee unproblematic to people classified “competent and capable.” The criteria for this determination is unclear but meant that allottees deemed “competent” by the Secretary of the Interior would take their land taken out of trust status, subject to taxation, and could be sold past the allottee. The allotted lands of Native Americans determined to be incompetent by the Secretary of the Interior were automatically leased out by the federal regime.
The act reads:
… the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, and he is hereby authorized, whenever he shall be satisfied that any Native American allottee is competent and capable of managing his or her diplomacy at whatever fourth dimension to cause to be issued to such allottee a patent in fee elementary, and thereafter all restrictions as to sale, encumbrance, or taxation of said land shall be removed.
The use of competence opens up the categorization, making it much more than subjective and thus increasing the exclusionary power of the Secretarial assistant of Interior. Although this act gives power to the allottee to decide whether to keep or sell the land, given the harsh economical reality of the fourth dimension, and lack of admission to credit and markets, liquidation of Indian lands was almost inevitable. It was known by the Section of Interior that virtually 95% of fee patented land would somewhen be sold to whites.
In 1926, Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work deputed a study of federal administration of Indian policy and the status of Native American people. Completed in 1928,
The Problem of Indian Administration – ordinarily known as the Meriam Report after the written report’s director, Lewis Meriam – documented fraud and misappropriation by government agents. In item, the Meriam Report found that the Full general Allotment Human action had been used to illegally deprive Native Americans of their land rights.
After considerable debate, Congress terminated the allotment process under the Dawes Act past enacting the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (“Wheeler-Howard Human action”). However, the allocation process in Alaska, under the dissever Alaska Native Allotment Act, continued until its revocation in 1971 by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Deed.
Despite termination of the allotment process in 1934, effects of the Full general Allocation Human action go along into the present. For example, one provision of the Act was the institution of a trust fund, administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to collect and distribute revenues from oil, mineral, timber, and grazing leases on Native American lands. The BIA’s alleged improper management of the trust fund resulted in litigation, in particular the case
Cobell five. Kempthorne
(settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion), to force a proper bookkeeping of revenues.
For nearly one hundred years, the consequences of federal Indian allotments take developed into the problem of
fractionation. As original allottees die, their heirs receive equal, undivided interests in the allottees’ lands. In successive generations, smaller undivided interests descend to the adjacent generation. Fractionated interests in individual Native American allotted land go along to expand exponentially with each new generation.
at that place are approximately four million owner interests in the x,000,000 acres (40,000 kmtwo) of individually endemic trust lands,[
a state of affairs the magnitude of which makes management of trust assets extremely hard and costly. These four 1000000 interests could expand to 11 1000000 interests by the year 2030 unless an aggressive approach to fractionation is taken.[
At that place are now unmarried pieces of property with ownership interests that are less than 0.0000001% or one/9 millionth of the whole interest, which has an estimated value of 0.004 cent.
The economical consequences of fractionation are severe. Some recent appraisal studies[
suggest that when the number of owners of a tract of land reaches between ten and twenty, the value of that tract drops to zero. Highly fractionated land is for all practical purposes worthless.
In improver, the fractionation of state and the resultant ballooning number of trust accounts quickly produced an administrative nightmare. Over the past 40 years, the expanse of trust land has grown by approximately 80,000 acres (320 km2) per year. Approximately 357 meg dollars[
is collected annually from all sources of trust asset direction, including coal sales, timber harvesting, oil and gas leases and other rights-of-mode and lease action. No unmarried fiduciary institution has ever managed as many trust accounts every bit the Department of the Interior has managed over the last century.[
Interior is involved in the management of 100,000 leases for individual Native Americans and tribes on trust land that encompasses approximately 56,000,000 acres (230,000 km2). Leasing, use permits, sale revenues, and involvement of approximately $226 meg per year are collected for approximately 230,000 individual Indian coin (IIM) accounts, and about $530 million per year are collected for approximately one,400 tribal accounts. In addition, the trust currently manages approximately $2.8 billion in tribal funds and $400 one thousand thousand in individual Native American funds.[
Under electric current regulations, probates need to exist conducted for every account with trust assets, fifty-fifty those with balances betwixt one cent and ane dollar. While the average cost for a probate process exceeds $3,000, even a streamlined, expedited procedure costing as fiddling as $500 would crave virtually $x,000,000 to probate the $5,700 in these accounts.
Unlike most private trusts, the federal government bears the unabridged cost of administering the Indian trust. As a result, the usual incentives found in the commercial sector for reducing the number of pocket-size or inactive accounts do not utilise to the Indian trust. Similarly, the United States has not adopted many of the tools that states and local government entities accept for ensuring that unclaimed or abased holding is returned to productive use inside the local community.[
Fractionation is not a new event. In the 1920s, the Brookings Establishment conducted a major study of weather of the Native American and included data on the impacts of fractionation. This report, which became known equally the Meriam Report, was issued in 1928. Its conclusions and recommendations formed the ground for state reform provisions that were included in what would become the IRA. The original versions of the IRA included two key titles, one dealing with probate and the other with land consolidation. Because of opposition to many of these provisions in Indian Country, ofttimes by the major European-American ranchers and manufacture who leased state and other private interests, virtually were removed while Congress was considering the bill. The final version of the IRA included simply a few bones country reform and probate measures. Although Congress enabled major reforms in the structure of tribes through the IRA and stopped the allotment process, information technology did not meaningfully address fractionation as had been envisioned by John Collier, then Commissioner of Indian Diplomacy, or the Brookings Institution.
In 1922, the General Bookkeeping Office (GAO) conducted an inspect of 12 reservations to determine the severity of fractionation on those reservations. The GAO found that on the 12 reservations for which information technology compiled information, there were approximately fourscore,000 discrete owners but, considering of fractionation, there were over a million buying records associated with those owners. The GAO also institute that if the land were physically divided past the fractional interests, many of these interests would represent less than i square foot of ground. In early 2002, the Department of the Interior attempted to replicate the audit methodology used by the GAO and to update the GAO report data to assess the connected growth of fractionation; information technology establish that information technology increased by more than 40% betwixt 1992 and 2002.
Every bit an example of continuing fractionation, consider a existent tract identified in 1987 in
Hodel 5. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987):
Tract 1305 is xl acres (160,000 yard2) and produces $1,080 in income annually. It is valued at $8,000. It has 439 owners, one-third of whom receive less than $.05 in almanac hire and two-thirds of whom receive less than $1. The largest interest holder receives $82.85 annually. The common denominator used to compute partial interests in the property is 3,394,923,840,000. The smallest heir receives $.01 every 177 years. If the tract were sold (assuming the 439 owners could agree) for its estimated $8,000 value, he would be entitled to $.000418. The authoritative costs of handling this tract are estimated by the Agency of Indian Diplomacy at $17,560 annually. Today, this tract produces $2,000 in income annually and is valued at $22,000. It now has 505 owners but the common denominator used to compute partial interests has grown to 220,670,049,600,000. If the tract were sold (assuming the 505 owners could concur) for its estimated $22,000 value, the smallest heir would now exist entitled to $.00001824. The administrative costs of handling this tract in 2003 are estimated by the BIA at $42,800.
Fractionation has get significantly worse. As noted in a higher place, in some cases the land is so highly fractionated that information technology tin can never be fabricated productive. With such small-scale ownership interests, it is nearly impossible to obtain the level of consent necessary to lease the land. In improver, to manage highly fractionated parcels of land, the government spends more than money probating estates, maintaining title records, leasing the land, and attempting to manage and distribute tiny amounts of income to individual owners than is received in income from the land. In many cases, the costs associated with managing these lands can be significantly more than the value of the underlying asset.
And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes
(1940), claimed the allotment policy of the Dawes Human action (every bit later extended to utilize to the Five Civilized Tribes through the Dawes Committee and the Curtis Human action of 1898) was systematically manipulated to deprive the Native Americans of their lands and resources.
Ellen Fitzpatrick claimed, Debo’s book “avant-garde a crushing assay of the corruption, moral depravity, and criminal activity that underlay white administration and execution of the allotment policy.”
- Deed for the Protection of the People of Indian Territory (Curtis Act), 1898
- Forced Fee Patenting Act (Shush Act), 1906
- Wheeler–Howard Act
- Nelson Act of 1889, Minnesota’s version of the Dawes Human action
- Americanization of Native Americans
- Ancient title in the United states of america
- Competency Commission
- Land run
- Great Māhele
- Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations
- Checkerboarding (state)
- Indian Removal
“General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act), Act of Feb. viii, 1887 (24 Stat. 388, ch. 119, 25 USCA 331), Acts of Forty-9th Congress–Second Session, 1887”. Retrieved
“Dawes Act (1887)”.
OurDocuments.gov. National Archives and Records Assistants. Retrieved
Blansett, Kent (2015). Crutchfield, James A.; Moutlon, Candy; Del Bene, Terry (eds.).
The Settlement of America: An Encyclopedia of Westward Expansion from Jamestown to the Endmost of the Frontier. Routledge. pp. 161–162. ISBN9780765619846.
Grande, Sandy (2015).
Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought, 10th Anniversary Edition. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 142–143. ISBN9781610489898.
M. B. Osburn, Katherine (1998). Mccall, Laura; Yacovone, Donald (eds.).
A Shared Feel: Men, Women, and the History of Gender. NYU Press. p. 247. ISBN9780814796832.
Friedman, Lawrence M. (2005).
A History of American Constabulary: Third Edition. Simon & Schuster. p. 387. ISBN9780684869889.
“The U.Southward. Has Nearly 1.nine Billion Acres of Country. Here’s How It is Used”.
Schultz, Jeffrey D.; Aoki, Andrew 50.; Haynie, Kerry 50.; McCulloch, Anne K., eds. (2000).
Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Volume two Hispanic Americans and Native Americans. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 608. ISBN9781573561495.
Schultz, Jeffrey D.; Aoki, Andrew 50.; Haynie, Kerry 50.; McCulloch, Anne Grand., eds. (2000).
Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Book 2 Hispanic Americans and Native Americans. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 607. ISBN9781573561495.
“The Thirties in America: Indian Reorganization Act” Archived 2013-08-28 at the Wayback Machine, Salem Printing, Retrieved Baronial 13, 2013.
Deloria Jr., Vine (1988).
Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Academy of Oklahoma Printing. p. 54. ISBN9780806121291.
Sandweiss, Martha A., Ballad A. O’ Connor, and Clyde A. Milner II.
The Oxford History of The American Westward, New York: Oxford Academy Press, 1994. p. 174. Print.
The Dispossession of the American Indian, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991. p. ane
Carlson, Leonard A.
Indians, Bureaucrats, and Land, Westport, Connecticut: 1981. p. 6. Print.
Carlson, Leonard A.
Indians, Bureaucrats, and Land, Westport, Connecticut: 1981, p. 1.
Indians, Bureaucrats, and State,
Indians, Bureaucrats, and Land, pp. 79–lxxx
Sandweiss, Martha A., Carol A. O’ Connor, and Clyde A. Milner II.
The Oxford History of The American Westward. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. p. 174
Indians, Bureaucrats, and Land, p. 79
The Dispossession of the American Indian. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991. p. ane.
The Dispossession of the American Indian. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991. p. two. Print.
The Dispossession of the American Indian. Indianapolis: Indiana Academy Press, 1991. p. three. Print.
The Dawes Deed and the Allotment of Indian Lands.
Norman: U. of OK Printing, 1973, pp. 5–6. Originally published in 1934.
Dawes Act Sec. half-dozen
Dawes Act Sec. 7
Dawes Human action Sec. 8
act of 1889, March 2, ch. 422 (postal service, p. 344)
Otis, pp. 177–188
“Dawes Severalty Human action Amendments of 1891 (Statutes at Large 26, 794–96, NADP Document A1891)”. Retrieved
Dawes Amendment Sec 1 and Sec ii
Dawes Subpoena Sec. iv
Dawes Amendment Sec. 5
“Shush Act (34 Stat. 182) Chapter 2348, May 8, 1906. [H. R. 11946.] [Public, No. 149.]”. Archived from the original on 2011-05-25. Retrieved
Grande, Sandy (2015).
Crimson Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought, 10th Anniversary Edition. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 164. ISBN9781610489898.
Terry L. Anderson, Property Rights Amongst Native Americans
Kidwell, Clara Sue. “Allotment”,
Oklahoma Historical Lodge’due south Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture.
(retrieved 29 December 2009)
Gunn, Steven J. Major Acts of Congress:Indian Full general Allocation Human activity (Dawes Act) (1887). accessed 21 May 2011
Otis, pp. 18–19
Barrows, Isabel C., ed. (1890).
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Lake Mohonk Conference of Friends of the Indian. The Lake Mohonk Conference. p. 87.
Struggle for State: Native North American Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Colonization. San Francisco: Metropolis Lights Books, 2002. p. 48. Print.
Case DS, Voluck DA (2002).
Alaska Natives and American Laws
(2d ed.). Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Press. pp. 104–105. ISBN978-one-889963-08-ii.
Simonsen, Jane E. (2006).
Making Home Work: Domesticity and Native American Assimilation in the American West, 1860–1919. University of North Carolina Printing. pp. 10–xi. ISBN9780807830321.
Gibson, Arrell 1000. Gibson. “Indian Land Transfers.”
Handbook of North American Indians: History of Indian–White Relations, Book 4. Wilcomb E. Washburn and William C. Sturtevant, eds. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1988. pp. 226–29
Bartecchi D (2007-02-xix). “The History of “Competency” equally a Tool to Command Native American Lands”.
Pine Ridge Projection. Archived from the original on 2008-12-eleven. Retrieved
And Yet the Waters Run
at Princeton Academy Press website (retrieved January 9, 2009).
History’southward Memory: Writing America’due south By, 1880–1980
(Cambridge: Harvard Academy Press, 2004), ISBN 0-674-01605-X, p. 133, excerpt available online at Google Books.
Debo, Angie. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the 5 Civilized Tribes
(Princeton: Princeton University Printing, 1940; new edition, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984), ISBN 0-691-04615-8.
- Olund, Eric N. (2002). “Public Domesticity during the Indian Reform Era; or, Mrs. Jackson is induced to go to Washington.”
Gender, Place, and Culture
- Stremlau, Rose. (2005). “To Domesticate and Civilize Wild Indians”: Allotment and the Campaign to Reform Indian Families, 1875–1887.
Journal of Family unit History
- Dawes Act of 1887: full text from the Native American Documents Project
- Dawes Act (1887) Data & Videos – Chickasaw.Television set
- Wheeler-Howard Human action (Indian Reorganization Human action) 1934
- Oklahoma Digital Maps: Digital Collections of Oklahoma and Indian Territory
The Primary Objective of the Dawes Act Was to