Oklahoma History Unit 6 Review: The Dawes Act and Allotment

Background and Context

• In the late 19th century, the U.S. government sought to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream American society
• Believed that private land ownership would encourage Native Americans to adopt European-American culture and values
• Pressure from settlers and land speculators to open up Native American lands for settlement and development
• Government officials viewed communal land ownership practiced by many tribes as an obstacle to assimilation
  • Believed it hindered individual initiative and progress
• Previous treaties and agreements had established reservations for Native American tribes
  • Reservations were viewed as a temporary solution until assimilation could be achieved

Key Figures and Events

• Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts introduced the General Allotment Act in 1887
  • Also known as the Dawes Act or the Dawes Severalty Act
• The act was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on February 8, 1887
• Senator Dawes believed that allotment would help Native Americans become self-sufficient farmers and integrate into American society
• The Dawes Commission, headed by Henry L. Dawes, was established to negotiate with Native American tribes and implement the allotment process
• Key Native American figures who opposed allotment included:
  • Choctaw Chief Green McCurtain
  • Creek leader Isparhecher
  • Cherokee Chief Joel B. Mayes

The Dawes Act: Purpose and Provisions

• The Dawes Act authorized the President to survey Native American tribal lands and divide them into individual allotments
• Each head of household would receive 160 acres, with smaller allotments for single individuals and orphans
• Allotments were to be held in trust by the U.S. government for 25 years
  • During this period, allottees could not sell, lease, or otherwise encumber their land without government approval
• After the trust period, allottees would receive full ownership of their land and become U.S. citizens
• Surplus lands remaining after allotment were to be sold to non-Native settlers, with proceeds used for the benefit of the tribes
• The act aimed to break up tribal communal land ownership and encourage individual land ownership and farming

Implementation of Allotment

• The Dawes Commission negotiated with Native American tribes to secure their agreement to allotment
  • Some tribes, like the Choctaw and Chickasaw, initially resisted but eventually agreed under pressure
• Tribal lands were surveyed and divided into individual allotments
  • The process was often rushed and inaccurate, leading to disputes and confusion
• Native Americans were required to select their allotments within a specified timeframe
  • Many were unfamiliar with the concept of private land ownership and struggled to make informed decisions
• Allotment rolls were created to document the members of each tribe and their allotments
  • These rolls later became the basis for determining tribal membership and eligibility for benefits
• The Burke Act of 1906 amended the Dawes Act, allowing the Secretary of the Interior to remove allotments from trust status before the 25-year period if the allottee was deemed "competent"

Impact on Native American Tribes

• Allotment resulted in a significant loss of tribal land base
  • Surplus lands were sold to non-Native settlers, often at low prices
• Many Native Americans lost their allotments due to fraud, coercion, or inability to pay property taxes
• Communal land ownership, which was central to many Native American cultures and economies, was disrupted
• Traditional subsistence practices, such as hunting and gathering, became more difficult as land was divided and sold
• Allotment contributed to the erosion of tribal sovereignty and self-governance
  • The U.S. government assumed greater control over Native American affairs
• Social and cultural disruption as families were separated and traditional ways of life were undermined
• Poverty and economic hardship increased among Native American communities

Oklahoma's Unique Situation

• Indian Territory, which later became part of Oklahoma, was home to the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole)
• These tribes had been forcibly removed from their ancestral lands in the southeastern U.S. during the Trail of Tears
• The Five Civilized Tribes had established successful governments, schools, and economies in Indian Territory
  • They initially resisted allotment, arguing that it violated their treaty rights
• The Curtis Act of 1898 extended the provisions of the Dawes Act to the Five Civilized Tribes
  • It abolished tribal governments and courts, and mandated allotment of tribal lands
• The Dawes Commission created enrollment lists for the Five Civilized Tribes, known as the Dawes Rolls
  • These rolls have had a lasting impact on tribal membership and identity in Oklahoma

Long-term Consequences

• Allotment resulted in the loss of over 90 million acres of Native American land by 1934
  • Much of this land ended up in the hands of non-Native owners
• Fractionation of allotments occurred as land was divided among heirs over generations
  • This made land management and economic development difficult
• Allotment contributed to the decline of traditional Native American cultures and languages
• Many Native Americans were left landless and without a means of subsistence
  • This led to increased poverty, health problems, and social issues
• The legacy of allotment has complicated issues of tribal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and land rights
• Efforts to address the negative impacts of allotment continue to this day
  • Such as land consolidation programs and the restoration of tribal lands

Legacy and Modern Perspectives

• The Dawes Act is widely recognized as a failed and destructive policy
  • It had devastating consequences for Native American tribes and individuals
• Allotment is seen as part of a larger pattern of U.S. government policies aimed at assimilating and dispossessing Native Americans
• The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ended allotment and sought to restore tribal land bases and self-governance
  • However, much of the damage had already been done
• Many Native American tribes and individuals continue to grapple with the effects of allotment
  • Such as fractionated land ownership, jurisdictional conflicts, and loss of cultural identity
• Some tribes have used the Dawes Rolls as a basis for determining tribal membership
  • This has led to controversies over enrollment and disenrollment
• Efforts to address the legacy of allotment include:
  • Land buy-back programs to consolidate fractionated allotments
  • The restoration of tribal lands and jurisdiction
  • Strengthening of tribal sovereignty and self-governance