|
CHAPTER IX
ORGANIZATION OF AN INDIAN TERRITORY
AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE TRIBES
The policy of Calhoun and
Monroe, of the Jackson administration as enunciated
in the legislation of 1830, and as put into effect
during the decades of the twenties and thirties, was
subjected to changing national conditions that were
never foreseen, or at least not provided for, by those
who first outlined and put into effect the scheme
of Indian seclusion. "The Indian country for
the Indians" is the keynote of the history of
the Indian country during the first half of the nineteenth
century, and under that subject title the developments
of that period have been described on preceding pages.
A second period now appears in the history of Indian
Territory, during which the early policy, though subjected
to many modifications incident to our national growth
and changed political conditions, was sought to be
maintained and defended against an encroaching power
that eventually forced the Indian tribes into the
current of American life and compelled them to share
alike in the responsibilities of our political system
and adapt themselves to the customs of the white race.
It will first be necessary to discuss
the political relations of the Indians with the United
States, and the early efforts made to bring the tribes
into a working connection with the general government.
From the history of these attempts it will be seen
that the political destiny of the Indian Territory
has been the subject of attention on the part of Congress
since the region west of the Mississippi was first
set aside for Indian occupation; that it has been
wrought out and modified from time to time by the
varied events of our national history; and that Oklahoma
statehood has been the product of political and economic
movements that have been going on for the greater
part of a century.
The formation of a distinct political
government in its earlier relations with the Indians,
and from time to time up to the final incorporation
of the Territory in a state, was attempted by Congress
in legislation and by some of the Indian nations and
the Indian authorities in a practical action. The
Delaware treaty of 1778 mentioned the possible formation
of an Indian state, with a representative in Congress.
The subsequent removal and concentration of the Indians
on lands west of the Mississippi, where they were
to remain free from the jurisdiction of any state,
was, in effect, not only a guarantee of the integrity
of the Indian country and of the right of the individual
tribes to regulate their own affairs, but also a recognition
of some general relationship that should exist between
the collected tribes and the general government of
the United States—in other words, that Indian
Territory would have a similar status, politically,
with the other territories in the federal scheme.1
December 16, 1824, the house committee
[Footnotes]
1See
reports of committees, 1st. Sess., 30th Cong., Rep.
No. 736, June 27, 1848.
113
|
114
on Indian affairs was instructed "to
inquire into the expediency of organizing all the
territories of the United States lying west of the
state of Missouri and the territories of Arkansas
and Michigan into a separate territory, to be occupied
exclusively by the Indians."2
In his message of January 25, 1825, Monroe
recommended the establishment of an adequate government
over the tribes to be removed, and in the following
December the house committee on Indian affairs was
instructed to inquire into the expediency of establishing
in the Indian country "a territorial government
over them of the same kind and regulated by the same
rule, as the territories of the United States are
now governed."
In 1826 the secretary of war recommended
the organization of a territorial government over
the Indian country west, and the committee on Indian
affairs reported a bill to that effect. The secretary
commented as follows on one clause of the bill: "The
third object of the bill is the establishment of a
territorial government by the United States for their
protection and their civilization. The bill proposes
a governor, three judges, and a secretary, to be appointed
by the president." The secretary of war in December,
1829, said: "I beg leave to suggest for your
consideration if an Indian territory, without the
range of western states or territories, might not
be advantageously created."
The work of the three commissioners appointed
under the act of 1832 to visit the Indian country
has already been described. On February 10, 1834,
they addressed their report from Fort Gibson, and
recommended, as of primary importance, in view of
their observations and experience among the tribes,
the organization of an Indian territory. As a basis
of organization the commissioners suggested the appointment
of a governor, secretary, marshal, prosecuting attorney,
and a judiciary, and an annual council of the Indians,
the number of the delegation from each tribe to be
designated by the president. The northern boundary
of the proposed territory was to be the south bank
of the Missouri and Platte rivers. In this way a confederacy
of the tribes was outlined. The assent of the Choctaw,
Creek and Cherokee tribes was to be essential to the
perfecting of such confederacy. The council was to
make regulations for inter-tribal intercourse; to
preserve peace; to settle boundary disputes; and arrest
offenders of law.
The bill for the organization of an Indian
territory, reported by the committee on Indian affairs
in May, 1834, and which failed to become a law, was
accompanied by a report on the advantages of such
an organization. This report declared it to be now
the fixed policy of the government to induce the Indians
to remove "to a territory set apart and dedicated
to their use and government forever . . . to fit them
for the enjoyment of the blessings of free government.
And a further hope is now encouraged, that whenever
their advancement in civilization should warrant the
measure, and they desire it, that they may be admitted
as a state, to become a member of the Union."
A bill "to provide for the security and protection
of the emigrant and other Indians west of the state
of Missouri and of the territory of Arkansas,"
describing the boundaries of an "Indian territory,"
was introduced and likewise failed of passage in February,
1836.
The substance of the bills which for
several years had been before Congress, for the organization
of a government for Indian
[Footnotes]
2Rep. of commissioner of Indian
affairs, Dec., 1836 (1830?).
|
115
Territory, was considered by the councils
of various tribes during the summer of 1837. The Delaware,
Shawnees, Pottawatomies, Kickapoos and a number of
the smaller tribes expressed themselves as well pleased
with the proposed plan of government, and requested
that the president and Congress should carry it into
effect as soon as pracitcable. In the summer of 1838
Isaac McCoy and Captain Armstrong (acting
superintendent of Indian affairs) were instructed
to present to the southern tribes the principles of
the territorial bill which at the previous session
had passed the senate. The matter was submitted to
the Choctaw council at their regular meeting. They
objected to the organization of the territory, without
assigning any definite reasons, though intimating
that they lacked confidence in the government of the
United States.3 Though the commissioners
did not formally present the matter to the Cherokees
and Creeks, they discovered that a general belief
prevailed that the design of organizing the territory
was in reality a design to rob them of their country.
This impression, it was thought, was promoted by mischievous
white men who had selfish interests in the matter.
"Almost all white men who mingle with the Indians,
in the Indian country," was McCoy's version,
" are opposed to the plan of organizing an Indian
territory, and of rendering the Indians secure in
their possessions. First, there are white men married
to Indian women, who identify themselves with the
Indians as much as possible, and are permitted to
remain in the Indian country. Those who have preferred
savage to civilized society do not desire the improvements
of the former. Secondly, traders can make more profitable
speculations on poor, ignorant, suffering Indians,
oppressed beneath their wants and woes, than upon
a people in more comfortable circumstances; and hence
they prefer the present condition of Indians to one
improved. And, thirdly, the agents employed by the
government easily perceive that by the improvement
of the condition of the Indians, they will become
capable of managing their own matters, and that the
necessity for agents will vanish. None, in either
of the three classes, would venture upon open opposition
to government, which would afford a tangible ground
of complaint, and might occasion their removal from
the Indian country. Nevertheless, there are a thousand
ways in which these men can keep an influence continually
bearing upon the Indians, dampening, in its tendency,
to all improvement."
A beginning of Indian confederation which
might eventually have solidified the Indian country
under a territorial government was made in the autumn
of 1837, when the Cherokees called a general council
to which neighboring tribes were invited, and some
attended. This council was for the purpose of confirming
existing friendship among them. A year later a more
general invitation to a similar gathering was extended
to tribes further off. A suspicion among some of the
tribes that the movement concealed some purpose hostile
to their individual welfare, and also perhaps an unwillingness
to accept the leadership of the Cherokees in this
matter prevented any definite results from this convention
of the tribes. United action among the Indians was
as difficult to obtain as it was impossible at the
time to secure concerted action of the houses of Congress
on a bill for territorial organization.
The plans for the formation of a government
over the Indian Territory in 1836-37 went so far as
the selection of a site
|
116
for the seat of such government. Rev.
Isaac McCoy, the tireless missionary, was instructed
in 1837 to report on a proper reservation not over
ten miles square. "For the above purpose,"
he reports, "I would respectfully recommend a
tract commencing where the southern boundary of the
land of the Peorias and the Kasaskias crosses the
Osage river. . . . This tract is nearly four-square,
and . . . . in point of soil, timber, water, and stone,
it is surpassed in value by no place of equal dimensions
in this country. Its eastern boundary is very near
the present town of Osawotomie, Kansas.
During the winter of 1838-39 the house
again failed to act upon the Indian territorial bill
as passed by the senate. Though the question had been
one of the most important in the discussion of Indian
affairs for many years, and though it was considered
by many friends of the Indians as one of the first
that should have been taken in providing for their
welfare, it was believed that the time and labor bestowed
on the subject had not all been wasted. Summarizing
the results of the Indian policy to that time, McCoy
says: "About ninety-five thousand Indians, belonging
to twenty-three tribes, have been collocated within
the proposed Indian Territory. Plats of the boundaries
proposed for it have so long been kept before the
public that the contemplation of the lines has become
pretty uniform among men, when reflecting upon the
matters of the territory. Some have their land secured
to them by patent, and measures are in progress which
will soon secure the lands to all by the same indisputable
title. Just views of the causes of Indian decline
and misery, and of the means which ought to be employed
for reclaiming them, and our obligation to employ
those means, have been promoted. Most of the immigrants
who have had time to recover from the damage sustained
in their removal, are improving their condition. A
knowledge of the just ground laid for producing a
better condition is increasing and inspiring hope,
an promoting industry and enterprise. Even the indigenous
tribes are imbibing a spirit of improvement. Some
tribes have already laid a solid basis of civil and
religious institutions; others are following them
at greater or less distance. The whole is assuming
the appearance, and customs, and enjoyments of a civil
community; and as order is restored, and the social
relations of life promoted, they are brought within
the reach of religious instruction, from regular attendance
on which the unsettled state of their affairs had
prevented them."
The subject of a territorial government
for the Indian Territory continued to receive the
attention of Congress at various intervals throughout
the forties. In June, 1846, the committee on Indian
affairs reported a bill defining the Indian territory.
The encroachments of white settlers, threatening to
dispossess the Indians of their country or limit their
occupation, had by this time brought the subject into
considerable prominence, and, acting on a memorial
from the American Mission Association, the committee
said: "It is sufficiently evident . . . . [as
a result of the rapid growth and progress of population]
that we have approximated the point when this government
must decide whether existing guarantees of treaties
with those tribes shall be maintained in the spirit
which dictated them. . . . A feeling of distrust and
alarm is getting abroad on this subject among those
who have long proved themselves the sincere and disinterested
friends
|
117
of the Indian, and for the policy adopted
for the amelioration of his social condition."
After reviewing the improved condition
of the Indians since their removal, and the intentions
often expressed to constitute them a distinct political
entity, the house committee on Indian affairs, June
27, 1848, in reporting a bill for the organization
of an Indian Territory, outlined its general provisions
and adduced the following considerations in support
of its passage: "Nothing, your committee believe,
would so hasten the improvement and happiness of these
tribes as. . . . the integrity of their territory,
independence of government, and political equality.
. . . Your committee do not suppose that there can
every be any disposition on the part of the government
to violate its plighted faith with these comparatively
helpless people; but it appears that apprehensions
do exist as to the inviolability of their territory,
which tend to disturb their tranquillity and retard
their improvement.
The bill then reported dedicated forever
to the Indian tribes a territory bounded on the east
by Missouri and Arkansas, on the north by the Missouri
and Platte rivers, on the west by the 105th meridian,
and on the south by the Mexican possessions. It secured
to each tribe the unqualified right of self-government,
except as that right should interfere with the supremacy
of the nation. Trial and punishment of criminals was
reserved to the tribes, though the pardoning of capital
offenses was reserved to the president United States.
Of chief interest is the clause providing for a confederation
of the respective tribes. A general council, with
representatives from the various tribes, should regulate
the affairs of the confederacy and intertribal relations.
There should be a governor, and a territorial delegate
should sit in the national house of representatives.
The confederation was to be voluntary, and any tribe
might withdraw when it saw fit.
"The confederation of the several
tribes," declared the committee, "and the
annual assembling of delegates of their own selection
in a common council, would be a powerful stimulant
to improvement. . . . By giving them a representative
in Congress they would feel that they were no longer
considered inferior, strangers. . . . A vigilant guardian
would be placed over the administration of their affairs.
. . . The present expensive system of agencies, sub-agencies,
and superintendencies might be withdrawn as they became
capable of managing their own affairs."
The Mexican war and the
consequent extension of the American domain extension
of the American domain westward to the Pacific coast
completely changed the situation of the Indian country.
Instead of being on the extreme limits of our possessions,
lying as an outside frontier across which there was
small incentive to induce the homeseeker to emigrate,
as a result of the Mexican cession the Indian country
suddenly became a forbidden land interposed between
the prosperous east and the new El Dorado, with its
unbounded possibilities on the west. Coincident with
the acquisition of the Californias came the discovery
of gold, which more than any other single cause in
American history stimulated westward extension. Up
to this time the commerce with Mexico over the Santa
Fe trail, and the trade with the Indian tribes, had
afforded the principal incentives for white men to
enter and cross the Indian land. But with the rush
to California and the Oregon emigration of about the
same time, the domain of
|
118
the Indians was traversed in all directions
by the hosts of emigrants bound for the west.
Next in time, if not in importance, came
the agitation for new states west of Missouri, resulting
from the compromise of 1850 and the repeal of the
Missouri compromise, and the contest between the free
and slave states in occupying this territory and forming
states that would become political instruments in
deciding the great issues then pending before the
nation.
Two new factors were thus introduced
in the Indian situation. The movement of vast bodies
of population to the west and the free-state contest
were the causes lying behind the events that are to
be considered in this portion of history, and that
resulted in a consolidation of tribes and a delimitation
of the Indian country until, within a few years after
the close of the Civil war, the "Indian Territory"
had become a definite geographical area, designed
for the home of all the Indian inhabitants of the
United States.
The opening of a portion of the Indian
country and centralization of some of the minor tribes
had been suggested by the commissioner of Indian affairs
during the forties. In his annual report of November,
1850, the commissioner affirms his advocacy of a policy
which, by a partial change in the relative position
of the tribes, would "throw open a wide extent
of country for the spread of our population westward,
so as to save them from being swept away by the mighty
and advancing current of civilization which has already
engulfed a large portion of this hapless race."
The commissioner refers to the outlet to the west
by the southern route through Texas, but calls attention
to the necessity of an overland route at a higher
latitude, and suggests for that purpose the vacating
of lands between the Sioux territory and the Kansas
river, where were some tribes to whom their treaties
did not guarantee lands in perpetuity.
In this is seen the beginning of the
movement, caused partly by the natural pressure of
population to the west and partly by the desire for
new areas from which could be carved free or slave
states,which in a few years led to the Kansas-Nebraska
bill and the formation of two territories out of the
former Indian country.
Senator S. C. Pomeroy of Kansas
on November 15, 1862, presented a memorial to the
interior department, in which he represented "that
there is a strong and increasing anxiety on the part
of the white settlers, which is also shared to a considerable
extent by the enlightened and civilized Indians of
our frontier states, for the removal and consolidation
of the small tribes into one general distinctive Indian
country, where all the tribes may be concentrated
in one settlement . . . " He followed this with
eight reasons in support of such a policy. In referring
to this memorial, Indian Commissioner Dole
upheld its chief points and noted that he had advocated
a like plan in his previous annual report.
The policy of the government in dealing
with the Indians for their lands after the war was
recommended, substantially as later carried out, by
the commissioner of Indian affairs in his report of
November, 1864. He says: "The territory south
of Kansas and west of Arkansas, heretofore known as
the 'Indian country' . . . . embraces seventy-five
thousand square miles. The total number of the tribes
inhabiting this country prior to the rebellion, according
to the best data now available, was in the neighborhood
of seventy thousand, or less than one to each square
mile. . . . It is perfectly evident that the area
of the country is
|
119
vastly in excess of the necessities
of the Indians by whom, in virtue of various treaties,
it was owned at the commencement of the war. Under
the operations of the war the relations of these people
to the general government have been very materially
changed. Very many of them have united their fortunes
with the rebels, while many more, and it is believed
a majority, have remained steadfast in their loyalty
and in the observance of their treaty stipulation.
In the readjustment of our relations with these people,
which must necessarily occur at the close of the war,
the former class should meet with the condemnation
their conduct so justly deserves, and the latter should
be treated with the most generous consideration; but
it can be no wrong to either class that they should
be required to receive within the limits of their
country other tribes with whom they are on friendly
terms. . . . The tribes now located in Kansas and
Nebraska and it may be some others, are on friendly
terms with those of the 'Indian country,' excepting
so far only as their friendship may have been interrupted
by the war. . . . The 'Indian country' is not encroached
upon to any appreciable extent by white settlements,
and is well adapted by climate, soil and location
to support a large population of these people. . .
. . I feel that I cannot too strongly urge the importance
of preserving the 'Indian county' for the use of Indians
alone, and in all treaties or other arrangements which
may hereafter be made with its former owners, insisting
upon, and if need be enforcing, such terms as will
secure ample homes within that country for all such
tribes as from time to time it may be found practicable
and expedient to remove thereto." The reasons
here expressed for obtaining the consent of the Indian
tribes to a cession of portion of their lands were
clearly to obtain land upon which other Indians might
be settled, and if there was any intention at that
time to open such ceded lands to public settlement
it was one of those ulterior purposes that are accomplished
under the mask of more convenient and more generous
means.
That the treaties finally concluded in
1866 were the result of pre-arrangement and of plans
that had been considered for some years previously,
is indicated by an unratified agreement made with
the loyal Creeks who were in the refugee camp at the
Sac and Fox agency in Kansas in 1863. The officials
of the Indian department had concluded a treaty with
this portion of the tribe by which they ceded, for
the use of other Indians to be moved on to the lands,
all their country north of the Arkansas river, for
a distance of forty miles from the east boundary of
the Creek Nation. The price fixed for this cession
was $200,000. This land, it should be noted, belonged
to the rebel half-breeds of the Creek Nation. This
agreement is not mentioned in any of the subsequent
records, and was merely an incident of the rebellion,
noteworthy only because it shows the policy of the
government with regard to the concentration of the
tribes within the territory originally granted to
the five civilized nations.
The destructive effects of the Civil
war upon the Indian tribes were turned into instruments
of persuasion by the government in securing the cessions
needed for the location of tribes from other states
in Indian Territory. It would have required, probably,
greater financial inducements and long continued negotiations,
to gain the consent of the Cherokees and other civilized
tribes to a partition of their patented lands, had
they been an undivided and prosperous people such
as they were before the war. The commissioner of Indian
affairs in 1864
|
120
reported that he had been unsuccessful
in his negotiations with the Cherokees for the cession
of a part of their lands upon which to locate the
Delawares from Kansas. But, he continues, "recent
information, of an unofficial character, has led me
to believe that further negotiation would be attended
with better success. The fortunes of war have greatly
impoverished this tribe, and as a means of in some
degree relieving them from their pressing wants, and
enabling them to resume their former vocations, I
respectfully suggest the propriety of purchasing from
them the tract of country they now own within the
state of Kansas, known as neutral lands. This tract
of land is represented as being very desirable for
the purpose of settlement, and it is understood that
the loyal Cherokees are willing to dispose of it on
very favorable terms."
A quotation from the contemporary press
will indicate some phases of the Indian policy at
the close of the war, especially with reference to
territorial organization. The Nation, in its issue
under date of February 1, 1866, said: "Among
the propositions which for some years past have been
growing upon the attention of public men, is one providing
for the organization of the country south of Kansas
into a territory with a proper form of civil government.
. . . In the provisional treaty made at Fort Smith,
the idea of an original Indian Territory was kept
in view. Conditions were made for the purchase of
land for the settlement of civilized tribes from Kansas
or elsewhere as fast as arrangements could be made.
The western portion of the territory can and will
be used for the hunter tribes. . . . All the hunter
Indians south of the North Platte and east of the
mountains could be readily concentrated into the western
half of the territory, especially if the parallelogram
of Texas, known as 'Young's Territory,' running between
that state and New Mexico to within half a degree
of the Kansas state line, could be added thereto."
This last mentioned scheme is interesting, since it
is not generally known that the addition of a large
block of Texas territory to the Indian country was
ever entertained.4
"A bill has been introduced into
Congress," continues the article from the Nation,
"providing for the organization of a territorial
government. Should it become a law, as is likely,
we shall see a worthy attempt made to enable the Indian
to perpetuate his existence . . . as a part of our
common country, and entering at the proper time the
family of states. In connection with it, provision
should be made for as early an abolition of tribal
distinctions as can be brought into practical effect.
Further, while indiscriminate trading should not be
allowed, measures ought to be adopted looking to the
abandonment of the present system of licenses."
Under an act of Congress July 20, 1867,
"to establish peace with certain hostile Indian
tribes," an Indian peace commission was appointed,
and visited, in the performance of their duties, the
wild tribes of western Indian Territory. In the statement
of the objects of this commission are some interesting
fact revealing the purposes
[Footnotes]
4The commissioner of Indian
affairs, July 12, 1867, in response to an inquiry
from the senate relative to Indian hostilities on
the frontier, recommended "that a large territory
be set apart south of the south line of Kansas, and
west of Arkansas, including the present Indian Territory
and the country known as the Staked Plains of Texas,
and so much of New Mexico as may be necessary, for
the exclusive occupation and ultimate home of all
the Indians south of the Platte and east of Arizona."
|
121
of the government at that time concerning
the Indian problem.5
One of the objects of the commission
was "to secure, as far as practicable, our frontier
settlements, and the safe building of our railroads
looking to the Pacific;" and another was, "to
suggest or inaugurate some plan for the civilization
of the Indians." In the passage of the act was
indicated, so the commission believed, the intention
of Congress to collect at some early day all the Indians
east of the Rocky mountains on one or more reservations.
The commission met the Kiowas, Cheyennes,
Arapahoes, Comanches and Apaches at Medicine Lodge,
near Fort Larned, and as a result formulated the treaties
by which those tribes were given definite locations
in Indian Territory. "Since October, 1865,"
the commission asserted, "the Kiowas, Comanches
and Apaches have substantially complied with their
treaty stipulations entered into at that time."
The commission, in its report, reviewed
the Indian hostilities east of the Rocky mountains
during recent years, told o the friction between the
white and Indian races, the injustice too frequently
committed by Americans in dealing with the Indian
occupants, and recommended some measures for the uplift
and improvement of the tribes. After exhibiting the
harshness and barrenness of results that accompanied
the policy of Indian removal, the commission concluded
that but one resource remained to be tried, with honor
to the nation, "and that is to select a district,
or districts of country, . . . on which all the tribes
east of the Rocky mountains may be gathered. For each
district let a territorial government be established,
with powers adapted to the ends designed. The governor
should be a man of unquestioned integrity and purity
of character . . . . agriculture and manufactures
should be introduced among them as rapidly as possible;
schools should be established which the children should
be required to attend; their barbarous dialects should
be blotted out and the English language substituted,"
etc.
The commission recommended the selection
of two territories (the second being north of Nebraska).
In the first territory (Indian Territory) the commission
calculated on concentrating within a few years the
following tribes: Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws,
Seminoles (the five civilized tribes already there),
Osages, Wichitas (and affiliated bands), Kiowas and
Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Apaches, Pottawatomies,
Kansas Indians (various tribes), and Navajoes [Navajos]
of New Mexico.6 Eventually, as it turned
out, practically all these Indians were located in
Indian Territory.
[Footnotes]
5Report of Indian peace commission,
Jan. 7, 1868. Exec. Doc., 2d Sess., 40th Cong.
6The government later endeavored
to obtain a part of the Cherokee lands for the Navajoes
[Navojos] , but the Cherokees rejected the proposition
on the ground that the Navajoes [Navajos] were not
civilized Indians within the meaning of the treaty.
|
|
|
|
