Reuminations-Thoughts on Music, Books, and the American West: August 2016

Having lived in the Western United States my entire life, I am accustomed to hearing the larger than life myths that accompany this region. Myths are hard to change. Some of the most famous myths have long been embedded in the overall picture Americans have of ourselves. I would like to affirm some myths and deconstruct others regarding The American West and the Indigenous People who live there.

The West As a Moving Target

The boundary of the Western United States has moved westward several times since it was first identified. To an Eighteenth Century Virginian, such as Thomas Jefferson, the West was a wilderness populated by hostile Indigenous tribes. The West was also viewed as an open region, populated by "backward savages." The US governmental view was that the Indigenous tribes were not "using" the land beyond the Cumberland Gap, one of the West's first identified mountain passes. Indigenous lands were invaded by White settlers who turned old growth forests into farmland. The war with Western Indigenous tribes had moved further West. This type of invasion was to be repeated with westward expansion as a result throughout the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.

The notion was that these "uncivilized savages" should not retain their lands, and that "civilized" European-Americans were needed to occupy Indigenous lands. These "pioneers," as they were called, were supported by the US government financially, militarily, and sociologically. The lands west of Cumberland Gap were assumed to be open for agricultural development and the pioneers were told that they were expected to use such land in a manner as defined by the new USA. The "pioneers" (e.g. invaders) were lionized as heroes. A parade of "Americans" were honored in literature designed to justify the displacement of Indigenous tribes and the continued enslavement of African-Americans.

Manifest Destiny Protecting Migrating Settlers

The "Unconquered West" was to become the target of seekers of gold, arable land, and a national attitude that was labeled "Manifest Destiny."

Manifest Destiny as Myth

The philosophy called Manifest Destiny was one of the pillars of the ideological superstructure used to expand European-American control over the North American continent. That the US government supported Westward expansion was never seriously questioned. Although Manifest Destiny did not enter the American Mythical nomenclature until the Mid Nineteenth Century, the assumption of European-American entitlement to all of North (and South) American lands was embedded in European-American public discourse. This was because "savages" did not make use of their lands in a manner acceptable to the USA, nor did those Indigenous peoples have a concept of land ownership in their traditional beliefs. The God of Abraham, Jesus, and The Prophet was also the European-American God who was personalized by the Torah, Bible, and Quran. Cultural Imperialism became the policy of the US government with respect to Westward Expansion.

The oral traditions of Indigenous tribes in the time prior to and during European-American hegemony westward were as varied as the tribes themselves. Each tribe had a language that may have been similar to other tribes' languages, but was different enough to require bilingual interpreters or sign language communication. There were and are agreements between various tribes that spanned centuries. The Iriquois Confederation of Five Civilized Tribes predated European-American presence by a century. This cooperative agreement, among many others, was evidence that contradicted the second Western American Myth...the "Noble Savage."

Indigenous Peoples As "Primitive Noble Savages"

The Noble Savage became a primary archetype strengthened by authors like James Fenimore Cooper. There has been a long disagreement among researchers in anthropology as to whether non European-American peoples were similar to or different from Europeans prior to first contact with European-American civilizations.

Stereotype Noble Savage from Deer Slayer by James Fenimore Cooper

The Noble Savage myth dates from the Seventeenth Century, and emerged from Romanticism. That the idea of a Noble Savage existed did not stop the US government from promulgating the idea that Indigenous tribes needed to be assimilated into European-American culture with their own beliefs to be eradicated.

Use of the Noble Savage Stereotype as Marketing Tool in 19th Century

Suffice to say that a tribe of Indigenous people, if invaded by European-American culture, will strive to keep secret the beliefs that are most precious to their culture. Perhaps it was this self-preservational dynamic of Indigenous tribes' spiritual, family, cultural, governing, and language structure and beliefs throughout the world that led European-Americans to become determined to erase Indigenous cultures with the purpose of assimilation of such peoples into European-American culture. This process was fairly similar worldwide through the destruction of the very foundations of Indigenous culture...spiritual beliefs, extended clan family structure, tribal decision-making, and most importantly, their native language.

The European-American "Progress Marches On" Myth

The systematic process of Indigenous Cultural destruction was justified by another Western Myth, the Superiority of European-American Culture over Indigenous Cultures. The arrogant belief that European-American cultures were the key to bringing the Indigenous tribes into what came to be called "The Melting Pot" reflected the Cultural Imperialism of the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth centuries of the Americans of European-American descent.

Progress became intertwined with the Protestant Ethic in the Nineteenth Century, and pursuit of wealth became interwoven with rapid advancements in technology. As improvements in agricultural technology, communication, transportation, and manufacturing emerged, the ease of living in each phase of the New West improved. The Indigenous tribes of North America were gradually stripped of their culture, sources of sustenance, hunting and fishing land, and health. A combination of gradual incursion, curtailment of the various tribes' ability to migrate with the seasons, phony promises made in treaties not worth the paper they were signed on, and harassment leading to further genocide stripped the tribes of the very characteristics and customs that defined them in how they saw themselves and how other tribes saw them.

During the Presidency of Andrew Jackson,the Southeastern regional US Indigenous tribes were ordered to be relocated to the land beyond the Louisiana Purchase to enable the expansion of agriculture and slavery into those tribes' lands. Although the Trail of Tears is the most famous example of President Andrew Jackson's cruel and imperialistic ejection of tribes from their homelands, other tribes experienced similar relocation. The purpose of creation of Indian Territory was to ostensibly reserve that land for Indigenous peoples, but the reality was that fortune seekers, farmers, and riff raff invaded Indian Territory and sabotaged the intended setting aside of land for tribal settlements. This behavior was pervasive throughout the Nineteenth Century.

In the first decade of the Nineteenth Century, Napoléon sold France's Louisiana lands to Thomas Jefferson's United States, leading to the invasion of Louisiana by Lewis and Clark. Their exploration was first contact between the US Government and Missouri and Columbia River drainage area Indigenous Tribes. The tribes that the Lewis and Clark Expedition encountered were generally receptive with a few exceptions. The rivers that flowed into the Missouri and Columbia Rivers were mapped, detailed notation and drawings were recorded, and flora and fauna were carefully described.

Manifest Destiny as Defined by Indigenous Tribes

As a rule, Americans other than Indigenous Tribal members have viewed the Lewis and Clark Expedition as a heroic exploration of new USA Westward expansion. But within a generation, the Mandan Tribe who hosted the Americans in their first Expedition winter were dead. Within two generations, the Nez Perce Tribe, who gave the Expedition the horses they desperately needed to proceed onward to the Pacific Ocean, were brutally and forcefully evicted from their Wallowa Valley lands by the US cavalry.

The US Army's use of weapons far advanced over those of Indigenous tribes made contact with US troops fatal for too many Indigenous men, women and children to count. The transcontinental railroad was built through hunting grounds. Various mercantile trails and cattle trails crisscrossed what was the edge of the American West. In less than 100 years the Americans had evicted the Southern US tribes, decimated the Northeastern and also the tribes from what is now called the American Midwest. The bison, now America's National Animal, was the source of nearly every tool or food that Northern Plains tribes used. Hundreds of treaties were signed and then broken by US Army officers and troops. Ironically, it was the Indigenous people who were labeled as dishonest.

Cultural Imperialism shoved tribes who were hunters and constantly moving from place to place into lands believed to be useless for American citizens. Labeled as reservations, the tribes were ordered to learn to be farmers on land unfit for growing crops. Tribes were relegated to eating spoiled meat and other food which was unfit for Caucasian consumption. Alcohol was provided to Indigenous people who had never been exposed to it. Rampant diseases, such as smallpox and measles and drinking were ignored by people paid to assist the tribes, often as government agents. Sacred lands, such as the Paha Sapa (Black Hills) were stolen and traditional spirituality ignored or discouraged. As the Nineteenth Century ended, Indigenous people in the USA numbered 250,000. This was down from an estimated 20 million people in the time of first contact with European-American civilizations. Several tribes were "delisted" from US Governmental Tribal lists. This meant that these tribes no longer were even eligible for reservations, medicine, and other life sustaining elements. Other tribes simply died out. The saga of Ishi, a member of a California tribe, the Yahi, poignantly documented his last years as the sole surviving member, residing in a museum as a living exhibit in San Francisco. That Ishi became the last member of the Yahi Clan of the Yana Tribe of California reflects the chaos and danger that Indigenous people faced when having first contact with Caucasians. Later in this article, the history of the State of California will be examined through use of prior scholarly research. See illustrations below:

In 19th Century America, Indigenous people were not thought to be competent to manage their own affairs, and even the sympathetic press referred to them as "savages"

The Area of California in Which Ishi's tribe, the Yana Lived

Ishi, a man without his people lived in a museum as a human exhibit

Here is his death mask

For more information on Ishi please double click the link to this excellent overview of his life: Ishi's story told at the time he was alive

The annexation of Texas in 1845 into the United States led to systematic military engagement with Indigenous tribes such as the Comanche. Other tribes were also driven from their traditional lands even more rapidly than the Comanche. The demise of the bison from the Southern Plains occurred more rapidly than in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Montana. The decline of the Southern Plains tribes led to all of their former territories being changed into large ranches or subsistence farming. Although the US government supported this type of farming through the Homestead Act, the lower precipitation and droughts caused hundreds of thousands of square miles becoming unusable and essentially dead. Acreage in such regions remain ruined with little hope for restoration of the tall grass prairies before invaders took the land and ruined it.

Diagram of Western Plains with The Comanche Territory in Circle -Comancheria

Comanche Wars-Battle of Plum Creek

Note the Top Hats on Warriors

Northwestern tribes were either moved or placed on lands that homesteaders could not use. The Apsalooke, known as the Crow tribe, lost their mountain lands to mining and tourism. The Arapahoe and Shoshone tribes were moved from the mountains to a reservation with little useful farming and ranching land. The Utes were moved from their homes in the mountains of Colorado and Utah to two small reservations in Colorado's southwestern corner. These mountain tribes were relocated from their homelands to allow mining and ranching interests access to billions of dollars worth of various minerals, oil shale, and ranches. Thus, royalties for these minerals were paid to the US and State Governments instead of the tribes. In several different periods of time, the US Government looked the other way when oil companies failed to pay royalties to various tribes. That trend was challenged by several tribes, and they maintained that the US government did not exercise due diligence in monitoring output of minerals and oil from the Western US reservations. The tribes' challenge was upheld, and either the US Government or the dishonest companies had to pay tribes their lost revenue.

Tribes in the arid Southwest were generally kept in their traditional lands. Pueblos were protected by their history of being deeded by the Spanish Kinghe famous s through land grants, which were honored by treaty after the Mexican War. The Navajo (Di'neh) were settled on a 25,000 square mile reservation in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. This happened after a large portion of the tribe endured the Long Walk from their lands to Fort Sumner, New Mexico. The famous frontiersman Kit Carson along with the US Army conducted a slash and burn campaign against the Navajo, marched them some 400 miles in freezing weather, and then the tribe was told to learn how to farm on the arid semi-desert of New Mexico's Llano Estacado. Some 3000 Navajo died there due to starvation, US Army neglect, and diseases that rampages through the tribe.

The Navajo (Di' Neh) Tribe in Ft. Sumner NM after The Long Walk

Many children and elderly died in a failed attempt to turn the tribe into farmers

Plains tribes engaged Cavalry soldier in the "Eight Year Indian War with several brilliant warriors and

chiefs over the length of the fighting. Now famous warriors and chiefs tactics are studied by military intructors

With the massacre at the Little Big Horn and the 7th regiment's deaths, commanded by Custer and Chief Gall respectively,

the United States as a whole was outraged. Senior Army staff, as ordered by President Grant intensified the "Indian War" against tribes that had not submitted to stay on a reservation. From Washington DC downward, the free tribes, the Lakota, Apaches, Northern Cheyenne, and others faced a search and destroy mission comparable to hunting down ISIS in this time. The remaining free Indigenous tribes kept their way of life for as long as they could.

Map of the Little Bighorn Engagement

Courtesy of National Park Service

The National Park Service has placed a memorial for the Indigenous warriors killed at Little Bighorn

Photo Courtesy of the National Park Service

Northern Cheyenne Survivors of Little Big Horn in 1926

Photo Courtesy of the National Park Service

Important leaders such as President Grant appointed several seasoned leaders, most notably General Sheridan, whose battle tactics were important in the US Civil War. Treaties the United States Government initiated had been broken repeatedly by the United States. The Smithsonian has identified 503 broken treaties with various tribes from 1778 to the present day. This list of broken treaties comes from the National Archive and may be viewed in Wikipedia. This list of broken treaties may be found below:

If you survive looking at the list of broken treaties....this blog article continues below

1778–1799

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Land Cession Reference (Royce Area)	Tribe(s)
1778	September 17	Treaty of Fort Pitt	Treaty with the Delaware	7 Stat. 13		Lenape
1784	October 22	Treaty of Fort Stanwix	Treaty with the Six Nations	7 Stat. 15	1, 2	Six Nations (Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Onondaga)
1785	January 21	Treaty of Fort McIntosh	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc.	7 Stat. 16		Wyandot, Lenape, Ojibwe, Odawa
1785	November 28	Treaty of Hopewell	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 18	3	Cherokee
1786	January 3	Treaty of Hopewell	Treaty with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 21		Choctaw
1786	January 10	Treaty of Hopewell	Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 24		Chickasaw
1786	January 31	Treaty of Fort Finney	Treaty with the Shawnee	7 Stat. 26		Shawnee
1788	September 3	Ordinance of Congress	Moravian Indian Grants	v34 p 485-487	4, 5, 6	Christian Indians
1789	January 9	Treaty of Fort Harmar	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc.	7 Stat. 28		Wyandot, Lenape, Council of Three Fires (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi), Sauk
1789	January 9	Treaty of Fort Harmar	Treaty with the Six Nations	7 Stat. 33		Six Nations (Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Onondaga)
1790	August 7	Treaty of New York	Treaty with the Creek	7 Stat. 35	7	Creek
1791	March 3	Act of Congress		1 Stat. 221		Piankeshaw, Kaskaskia
1791	July 2	Treaty of Holston	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 39	8	Cherokee
1792	February 17		Additional article to the Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 42		Cherokee
1792	April 23	Philadelphia Agreement	Agreement with the Five Nations of Indians			Five Nations (Seneca, Oneida, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Onondaga)
1794	June 26	Treaty of Holston	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 43		Cherokee
1794	November 11	Treaty of Canandaigua	Treaty with the Six Nations	7 Stat. 44	9, 10	Six Nations (Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Onondaga)
1794	December 2	Treaty of Oneida	Treaty with the Oneida, etc.	7 Stat. 47		Five Nations (Seneca, Oneida, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Onondaga)
1795	August 3	Treaty of Greenville	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc.	7 Stat. 49	11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27	Wyandot, Lenape, Shawnee, Council of Three Fires (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi), Sauk, Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Piankeshaw, Kaskaskia
1796	May 31	Treaty of New York	Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada	7 Stat. 55	28	Seven Nations of Canada (Akwesasne Mohawk, Kahnawake Mohawk, Anishinaabeg (Algonquin and Nipissing) and Mohawk of Oka, Odanak Abenaki, Becancour Abenaki, Jeune-Lorette Wyandot, Oswegatchie Onondaga)
1796	June 29	Treaty of Colerain	Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 56		Creek
1797	March 29	Treaty of Albany	Relinquishment by the Mohawks	7 Stat. 61		Mohawk
1797	September 15	Genesee Agreement	Agreement with the Seneca	7 Stat. 601	29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41	Seneca
1798	June 1	Ratified Treaty Number 28	Convention Between the State of New York and the Oneida Indians			Oneida
1798	October 2	Treaty of Tellico	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 62	42	Cherokee

1800–1809

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Land Cession Reference (Royce Area)	Tribe(s)
1801	October 24	Treaty of Chickasaw Bluffs	Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 65		Chickasaw
1801	December 17	Treaty of Fort Adams	Treaty with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 66	43	Choctaw
1802	June 16	Treaty of Fort Wilkinson	Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 68	44	Creek
1802	June 30	Treaty of Buffalo Creek	Indenture with the Senecas	7 Stat. 70	45	Seneca
1802	June 30	Treaty of Buffalo Creek	Treaty with the Seneca	7 Stat. 72		Seneca
1802	October 17	Treaty of Fort Confederation	Provisional Convention with the Choctaws	7 Stat. 73	46	Choctaw
1803	June 7	Treaty of Fort Wayne	Treaty with the Delawares, etc.	7 Stat. 74		Lenape, Shawnee, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, Wea, Kickapoo, Piankeshaw, Kaskaskia
1803	August 7	Treaty of Vincennes	Relinquishment of land to the United States by the Eel-Rivers, Wyandots, Piankeshaws, Kaskaskias, and Kickapoos, Treaty with the Eel River, etc.	7 Stat. 77	47	Eel River, Wyandot, Piankeshaw, Kaskaskia, Kickapoo
1803	August 13	Treaty of Vincennes	Treaty with the Kaskaskia	7 Stat. 78	48	Kaskaskia
1803	August 31	Treaty of Hoe Buckintoopa	Treaty with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 80		Choctaw
1804	August 18	Treaty of Vincennes	Treaty with the Delawares	7 Stat. 81	49	Lenape
1804	August 27	Treaty of Vincennes	Treaty with the Piankeshaw	7 Stat. 83		Piankeshaw
1804	October 24	Treaty of Tellico	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 228	52	Cherokee
1804	November 3	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 84	50, 51	Sac and Fox
1805	July 4	Treaty of Fort Industry	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc.	7 Stat. 87	53, 54	Wyandot, Odawa, Ojibwe, Munsee, Lenape, Shawnee, Potawatomi
1805	July 23	Treaty of Chickasaw County	Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 89	55	Chickasaw
1805	August 21	Treaty of Grouseland	Treaty with the Delawares, etc.	7 Stat. 91	56	Lenape, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River, Wea
1805	September 23	Pike's Purchase	Treaty with the Sioux			Sioux
1805	October 25	Treaty of Tellico	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 93	57	Cherokee
1805	October 27	Treaty of Tellico	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 95	58, 59	Cherokee
1805	November 14	Treaty of Washington	Convention with the Creeks	7 Stat. 96	60	Creek
1805	November 16	Treaty of Mount Dexter	Treaty with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 98	61, 62	Choctaw
1805	December 30	Treaty of Vincennes	Treaty with the Piankashaw	7 Stat. 100	63	Piankeshaw
1806	January 7	Treaty of Washington	Convention with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 101	64, 65	Cherokee
1807	March 3	Act of Congress		7 Stat. 448		Lenape
1807	September 11	Treaty of Chickasaw Old Fields	Elucidation of the convention with the Cherokees of January 7, 1806	7 Stat. 103		Cherokee
1807	November 17	Treaty of Detroit	Treaty with the Ottawa, etc.	7 Stat. 105	66	Odawa, Ojibwe, Wyandot, Potawatomi
1808	November 10	Treaty of Fort Clark	Treaty with the Osage	7 Stat. 107	67, 68, 69	Osage
1808	November 25	Treaty of Brownstown	Treaty with the Chippewa, etc.	7 Stat. 112	70	Council of Three Fires (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi), Wyandot, Shawnee
1809	February 28	Act of Congress		2 Stat. 527		Alabama
1809	February 28	Act of Congress		2 Stat. 527		Wyandot
1809	September 30	Treaty of Fort Wayne	Treaty with the Delawares, etc.	7 Stat. 113	71, 72, 73	Lenape, Potawatomi, Miami, Eel River
1809	September 30	Treaty of Fort Wayne, Addendum	Supplementary Treaty with the Miami, etc., Separate article with the Miamies and Eel-Rivers, forming part of the treaty of September 30, 1809	7 Stat. 115		Miami, Eel River
1809	October 26	Treaty of Vincennes	Convention with the Wea	7 Stat. 116		Wea
1809	December 9	Treaty with the Kickapoo		7 Stat. 117	74	Kickapoo

1810–1819

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Land Cession Reference (Royce Area)	Tribe(s)
1814	July 22	Treaty of Greenville	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc.	7 Stat. 118		Wyandot, Lenape, Shawnee, Seneca, Miami
1814	August 9	Treaty of Fort Jackson	Treaty with the Creeks, Articles of agreement and capitualtion with the Creeks	7 Stat. 120	75	Creek
1815	July 18	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 123		Potawatomi
1815	July 18	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Piankashaw	7 Stat. 124		Piankeshaw
1815	July 19	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Teton	7 Stat. 125		Lakota
1815	July 19	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Sioux of the Lakes	7 Stat. 126		Mdewakantonwan Dakota
1815	July 19	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Sioux of St. Peter's River	7 Stat. 127		Wahpekute Dakota, Wahpetonwan Dakota
1815	July 19	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Yankton Sioux	7 Stat. 128		Ihanktonwan Dakota
1815	July 20	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Omaha	7 Stat. 129		Omaha
1815	September 2	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Kickapoo	7 Stat. 130		Kickapoo
1815	September 8	Treaty of Springwells	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc.	7 Stat. 131		Wyandot, Lenape, Seneca, Shawnee, Miami, Council of Three Fires (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi)
1815	September 12	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Osage	7 Stat. 133		Osage
1815	September 13	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Sauk	7 Stat. 134		Sac
1815	September 14	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Foxes	7 Stat. 135		Fox
1815	September 16	Treaty of Portage des Sioux	Treaty with the Iowa	7 Stat. 136		Iowa
1815	October 28	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Kansa	7 Stat. 137		Kaw
1816	March 22	Treaty of Washington]	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 138	76	Cherokee
1816	March 22	Treaty of Washington	Convention with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 139		Cherokee
1816	May 13	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Sauk	7 Stat. 141		Sac
1816	June 1	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Sioux	7 Stat. 143		Wahpekute Dakota, Wahpetonwan Dakota, Wazikute Nakota
1816	June 3	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Winnebago	7 Stat. 144		Winnebago
1816	June 4	Treaty of Fort Harrison	Treaty with the Wea and Kickapoo	7 Stat. 145		Wea, Kickapoo
1816	August 24	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Ottawa, etc.	7 Stat. 146	77, 78, 78a	Council of Three Fires (Odawa, Ojibwe, Potawatomi)
1816	September 14	Treaty of Chickasaw Council House	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 148	79	Cherokee
1816	September 20	Treaty of Chickasaw Council House	Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 150	80, 81	Chickasaw
1816	October 24	Treaty of Choctaw Trading House	Treaty with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 152	82	Choctaw
1817	March 30	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Menominee	7 Stat. 153		Menominee
1817	June 24	Treaty with the Oto		7 Stat. 154		Otoe, Missouri
1817	June 25	Treaty with the Ponca		7 Stat. 155		Ponca
1817	July 8	Treaty of Cherokee Agency	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 156	83, 84, 85, 86	Cherokee
1817	September 29	Treaty of Fort Meigs	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc., Treaty of the Foot of the Rapids, Treaty of Miami Rapids	7 Stat. 160	87, 88, 89, 90, 91	Wyandot, Seneca, Lenape, Shawnee, Potawatomi, Odawa, Ojibwe
1818	January 3	Vincennes Contract	Agreement with the Piankeshaw			Piankeshaw
1818	January 22	Treaty of Creek Agency	Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 171	92, 93	Creek
1818	June 18	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Grand Pawnee	7 Stat. 172		Chaui Pawnee
1818	June 19	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Noisy Pawnee	7 Stat. 173		Pawnee
1818	June 20	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Pawnee Republic	7 Stat. 174		Kitkehahki Pawnee
1818	June 22	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Pawnee Marhar	7 Stat. 175		Pawnee
1818	August 24	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Quapaw	7 Stat. 176	94	Quapaw
1818	September 17	Treaty of St. Mary's	Treaty with the Wyandot, etc.	7 Stat. 178		Wyandot, Seneca, Shawnee, Odawa
1818	September 20	Treaty of St. Mary's	Treaty with the Wyandot	7 Stat. 180	95, 96	Wyandot
1818	September 21	Treaty of Edwardsville	Treaty with the Peoria, etc.	7 Stat. 181	96a	Peoria, Kaskaskia, Michigamea, Cahokia, Tamaroa
1818	September 25	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Osage	7 Stat. 183	97	Osage
1818	October 2	Treaty of St. Mary's	Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 185	98	Potawatomi
1818	October 2	Treaty of St. Mary's	Treaty with the Wea	7 Stat. 186		Wea
1818	October 3	Treaty of St. Mary's	Treaty with the Delawares	7 Stat. 188		Lenape
1818	October 6	Treaty of St. Mary's	Treaty with the Miami	7 Stat. 189	99	Miami
1818	October 19	Treaty of Old Town	Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 192	100	Chickasaw
1819	February 27	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 195	101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109	Cherokee
1819	July 30	Treaty of Edwardsville	Treaty with the Kickapoo	7 Stat. 200	110	Kickapoo
1819	August 30	Treaty of Fort Harrison	Treaty with the Kickapoo	7 Stat. 202	110	Kickapoo
1819	September 24	Treaty of Saginaw	Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 203	111	Ojibwe

1820–1829

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Land Cession Reference (Royce Area)	Tribe(s)
1820	June 16	Treaty of Sault Ste. Marie	Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 206	112	Ojibwe
1820	July 6	Treaty of L'Arbor Croche and Michilimackinac	Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa	7 Stat. 207	113	Odawa, Ojibwe
1820	July 19	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Kickapoo	7 Stat. 208		Kickapoo
1820	August 11	Treaty of Vincennes	Treaty with the Wea	7 Stat. 209	114	Wea
1820	September 5	Treaty of Vincennes	Treaty with the Kickapoo of the Vermilion, Convention with the Kickapoo	7 Stat. 210		Kickapoo
1820	October 18	Treaty of Doak's Stand	Treaty with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 210	115	Choctaw
1821	January 8	Treaty of Indian Springs	Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 215	116	Creek
1821	January 8	Treaty of Mineral Spring	Treaty with the Creeks, Articles of agreement with the Creeks	7 Stat. 217		Creek
1821	August 29	Treaty of Chicago	Treaty with the Ottawa, etc.	7 Stat. 218	117	Council of Three Fires (Odawa, Ojibwe, Potawatomi)
1822	August 31	Treaty of Fort Clark	Treaty with the Osage	7 Stat. 222		Great and Little Osage
1822	September 3	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 223		Sac and Fox
1823	March 3	Act of Congress	Moravian Indian Grants	3 Stat. 749	4, 5, 6	Christian Munsee
1823	September 3	Moscow Agreement	Agreement with the Seneca			Seneca
1823	September 18	Treaty of Moultrie Creek	Treaty with the Florida Tribes of Indians	7 Stat. 224	118, 119	Seminole
1824	May 26	Act of Congress	Moravian Indian Grants	4 Stat. 57	4, 5, 6	Christian Munsee
1824	August 4	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 229	120	Sac and Fox
1824	August 4	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Iowa	7 Stat. 231		Iowa
1824	November 15	Treaty of Harrington's	Treaty with the Quapaw	7 Stat. 232	121	Quapaw
1825	January 20	Treaty of Washington City	Convention with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 234	122	Choctaw
1825	February 12	Treaty of Indian Springs	Convention with the Creeks	7 Stat. 237		Creek
1825	June 2	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Osage	7 Stat. 240	123	Great and Little Osage
1825	June 3	Treaty of St. Louis	Treaty with the Kansa	7 Stat. 244	124	Kansa
1825	June 9	Treaty of White Paint Creek	Treaty with the Ponca	7 Stat. 247		Ponca
1825	June 22	Treaty of Fort Lookout	Treaty with the Teton, etc., Sioux	7 Stat. 250		Teton (Lakota), Yankton-Yanktonai (Nakota)
1825	June 29	Broken Arrow Agreement	Agreement with the Creeks, Appendix			Creek
1825	July 5	Treaty of Teton River	Treaty with the Sioune and Oglala Tribes	7 Stat. 252		Oglala Sioux
1825	July 6	Treaty of Teton River	Treaty with the Cheyenne Tribe	7 Stat. 255		Cheyenne
1825	July 16	Treaty of Arikara	Treaty with the Hunkpapa Band of the Sioux Tribe	7 Stat. 257		Hunkpapa
1825	July 18	Treaty of Arikara	Treaty with the Arikara Tribe	7 Stat. 259		Arikara
1825	July 30	Treaty of Mandan	Treaty with the Belantse-Etoa or Minitaree Tribe	7 Stat. 261		Hidatsa
1825	July 30	Treaty of Mandan	Treaty with the Mandan Tribe	7 Stat. 264		Mandan
1825	August 4	Treaty of Mandan	Treaty with the Crow Tribe	7 Stat. 266		Crow
1825	August 10	Treaty of Council Grove	Treaty with the Great and Little Osage	7 Stat. 268		Great and Little Osage
1825	August 16	Treaty of Sora Kansas Creek	Treaty with the Kansa	7 Stat. 270		Kansa
1825	August 19	Treaty of Prairie du Chien	Treaty with the Sioux, etc.	7 Stat. 272		Sioux, Ojibwe, Sac and Fox, Menomini, Ioway, Ho-chunk, and Council of Three Fires (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi)
1825	September 26	Treaty of Fort Atkinson	Treaty with the Oto and Missouri Tribe	7 Stat. 277		Oto, Missouri
1825	September 30	Treaty of Fort Atkinson	Treaty with the Pawnee Tribe	7 Stat. 279		Pawnee
1825	October 6	Treaty of Fort Atkinson	Treaty with the Omaha Tribe	7 Stat. 282		Omaha
1825	November 7	Treaty of St. Louis	Convention with the Shawnee	7 Stat. 284	125, 126	Shawnee
1826	January 24	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 286	127, 128, 129, 130, 131	Creek
1826	March 31	Supplement to the Treaty of Washington	Supplementary article to the Treaty with the Creeks of January 24, 1826	7 Stat. 289		Creek
1826	August 5	Treaty of Fond du Lac	Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 290		Ojibwe
1826	October 16	Treaty of Mississinwas	Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 295	132, 133	Potawatomi
1826	October 23	Treaty of Mississinwas	Treaty with the Miami	7 Stat. 300		Miami
1827	August 11	Treaty of Butte des Morts	Treaty with the Chippewa, etc.	7 Stat. 303	134	Ojibwe, Menomini, Ho-chunk
1827	September 19	Treaty of St. Joseph	Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 305	135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140	Potawatomi
1827	November 15	Treaty of Creek Agency	Articles of agreement with the Creeks	7 Stat. 307	141	Creek
1828	February 11	Treaty of Wyandot	Treaty with the Eel River, Treaty with the Thorntown Party of the Miami Indians, Treaty with the Miami	7 Stat. 309	142	Eel River
1828	May 6	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Western Cherokee; Treaty with the Cherokees West of the Mississippi River; Convention with the Cherokees	7 Stat. 311	143, 144	Cherokee
1828	August 25	Treaty of Green Bay	Treaty with the Winnebago, etc.; Treaty with the Winnebago Tribe and the United Tribes of Pottawatomie, Chippewa and Ottawa; Articles of agreement with the Winnebagoes, Pottawatimies, Chippewas, and Ottawas	7 Stat. 315		Ho-Chunk, Council of Three Fires (Potawatomi, Ojibwe, Odawa)
1828	September 20	Treaty of St. Joseph	Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 317 7 Stat. 603	145, 146	Potawatomi
1829	July 29	Treaty of Prairie du Chien	Treaty with the Chippewa, etc., Second Treaty of Prairie du Chien	7 Stat. 320 7 Stat. 604	147, 148	Council of Three Fires (Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi)
1829	August 1	Treaty of Prairie du Chien	Third Treaty of Prairie du Chien, Treaty with the Winnebago	7 Stat. 323	149	Ho-Chunk
1829	August 3	Treaty of Little Sandusky	Treaty with the Delawares; Articles of agreement with the Delawares	7 Stat. 326	150	Lenape
1829	September 24	Treaty of James Fork	Supplementary article to the Treaty of St. Mary's; Supplementary articles of agreement with the Delawares of October 3, 1818	7 Stat. 327	150a	Lenape

1830–1839

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Land Cession Reference (Royce Area)	Tribe(s)
1830	July 15	Treaty of Prairie du Chien	Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, etc., Fourth Treaty of Prairie du Chein	7 Stat. 328	151	Sac and Fox, the Mdewakanton, Wahpekute, Wahpeton and Sisiton Sioux, Omaha, Ioway, Otoe and Missouria
1830	September 27	Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek	Treaty with the Choctaw	7 Stat. 333		Choctaw
1830	August 31	Treaty of Franklin	Treaty with the Chickasaw	N/A
1830	September 1	Supplement to the Treaty of Franklin	Supplemental Treaty with the Chickasaw	N/A
1831	February 8	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Menominee	7 Stat. 342		Menomini
1831	February 17	Supplement to the Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Menominee	7 Stat. 346		Menomini
1831	February 28	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Seneca	7 Stat. 348		Seneca nation
1831	July 20	Treaty of Lewistown	Treaty with the Seneca, etc.	7 Stat. 351		Seneca nation, Shawnee
1831	August 8	Treaty of Wapakoneta	Treaty with the Shawnee	7 Stat. 355		Shawnee
1831	August 30	Treaty of Miami Bay	Treaty with the Ottawa	7 Stat. 359		Ottawa
1832	January 19		Treaty with the Wyandot	7 Stat. 364		Wyandot
1832	March 24	Treaty of Cusseta	Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 366		Creek
1832	May 9	Treaty of Payne's Landing	Treaty with the Seminole	7 Stat. 368		Seminole
1832	September 15		Treaty with the Winnebago	7 Stat. 370
1832	September 21		Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 374
1832	October 11		Treaty with the Appalachicola Band	7 Stat. 377
1832	October 20		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 378
1832	October 20		Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 381
1832	October 22		Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 388
1832	October 24		Treaty with the Kickapoo	7 Stat. 391
1832	October 26		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 394
1832	October 26		Treaty with the Shawnee, etc.	7 Stat. 397
1832	October 27		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 399
1832	October 27		Treaty with the Kaskaskia, etc.	7 Stat. 403
1832	October 27		Treaty with the Menominee	7 Stat. 405
1832	October 29		Treaty with the Piankashaw and Wea	7 Stat. 410
1832	December 29		Treaty with the Seneca and Shawnee	7 Stat. 411
1833	February 14		Treaty with the Western Cherokee	7 Stat. 414
1833	February 14		Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 417
1833	February 18		Treaty with the Ottawa	7 Stat. 420
1833	March 28		Treaty with the Seminole	7 Stat. 423
1833	May 13		Treaty with the Quapaw	7 Stat. 424
1833	June 18		Treaty with the Appalachicola Band	7 Stat. 427
1833	September 21		Treaty with the Oto and Missouri	7 Stat. 429
1833	September 26	Treaty of Chicago	Treaty with the Chippewa, etc.	7 Stat. 431		Ottawa, Ojibwe and Potawatomi
1833	October 9		Treaty with the Pawnee	7 Stat. 448
1834	May 24		Treaty with the Chickasaw	7 Stat. 450
1834	October 23		Treaty with the Miami	7 Stat. 458
1834	December 4		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 467
1834	December 10		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 467
1834	December 16		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 468
1834	December 17		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 469
1835	July 1		Treaty with the Caddo	7 Stat. 470
1835	August 24		Treaty with the Comanche, etc.	7 Stat. 474
1835	December 29	Treaty of New Echota	Treaty with the Cherokee	7 Stat. 478		Cherokee
1835	March 14	Treaty of Washington	Agreement with the Cherokee	N/A
1836	March 26		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 490
1836	March 28	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Ottawa, etc.	7 Stat. 491		Ottawa and Ojibwe
1836	March 29		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 498
1836	April 11		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 499
1836	April 22		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 500
1836	April 22		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 501
1836	April 23		Treaty with the Wyandot	7 Stat. 502
1836	May 9		Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 503
1836	August 5		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 505
1836	September 3		Treaty with the Menominee	7 Stat. 506
1836	September 10		Treaty with the Sioux	7 Stat. 510
1836	September 17		Treaty with the Iowa, etc.	7 Stat. 511
1836	September 20		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 513
1836	September 22		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 514
1836	September 23		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 515
1836	September 27		Treaty with the Sauk and Fox Tribe	7 Stat. 516
1836	September 28		Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 517
1836	September 28		Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 520
1836	October 15		Treaty with the Oto, etc.	7 Stat. 524
1836	November 30		Treaty with the Sioux	7 Stat. 527
1837	January 14	Treaty of Detroit	Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 528
1837	January 17	Treaty of Doaksville	Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw	11 Stat. 573
1837	February 11		Treaty with the Potawatomi	7 Stat. 532
1837	May 26		Treaty with the Kiowa, etc.	7 Stat. 533
1837	July 29		Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 536
1837	September 29		Treaty with the Sioux	7 Stat. 538
1837	October 21		Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 540
1837	October 21		Treaty with the Yankton Sioux	7 Stat. 542
1837	October 21		Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 543
1837	November 1		Treaty with the Winnebago	7 Stat. 544
1837	November 23		Treaty with the Iowa	7 Stat. 547
1837	December 20		Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 547
1838	January 15	Treaty of Buffalo Creek	Treaty with the New York Indians	7 Stat. 550		Seneca, Mohwak, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Tuscarora
1838	January 23	Treaty of Saginaw	Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 565
1838	February 3	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Oneida	7 Stat. 566
1838	October 19	Treaty of Great Nemowhaw	Treaty with the Iowa	7 Stat. 568
1838	November 6	Treaty of Wabash Forks	Treaty with the Miami	7 Stat. 569
1838	November 23	Treaty of Fort Gibson	Treaty with the Creeks	7 Stat. 574
1839	January 11	Treaty of Fort Gibson	Treaty with the Osage	7 Stat. 576
1839	February 7	Supplement to the Treaty of Detroit	Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 578
1839	September 3	Treaty of Stockbridge	Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee	7 Stat. 580 11 Stat. 577

1840–1849

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Tribe(s)
1840	November 28	Treaty of the Wabash	Treaty with the Miami	7 Stat. 582
1842			Treaty with the Wyandot
1842	May 20	Treaty of Buffalo Creek	Treaty with the Seneca	7 Stat. 586	Seneca
1842	October 4	Treaty of La Pointe	Treaty with the Chippewa	7 Stat. 591	Ojibwe
1842	October 11		Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes	7 Stat. 596
1843			Agreement with the Delawares and Wyandot
1845			Treaty with the Creeks and Seminole
1846			Treaty with the Kansa Tribe
1846			Treaty with the Comanche, Aionai, Anadarko, Caddo, etc.
1846			Treaty with the Potawatomi Nation
1846			Treaty with the Cherokee
1846			Treaty with the Winnebago
1846	November 21	Bear Spring Treaty	Treaty with the Navajo		Navajo people
1847			Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and Lake Superior
1847			Treaty with the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians
1848	August 6	Treaty of Fort Childs	Treaty with the Pawnee – Grand, Loups, Republicans, etc.	9 Stat. 949	Pawnee
1848	October 18		Treaty with the Menominee	9 Stat. 952	Menominee
1848	November 24		Treaty with the Stockbridge Tribe	9 Stat. 955	Stockbridge Indians (Mahican)
1849			Treaty with the Navaho
1849	December 30	Treaty of Albuquerque	Treaty with the Utah	9 Stat. 974	Ute

1850–18591860–1869

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Tribe(s)
1850			Treaty with the Wyandot
1851	July 23	Treaty of Traverse des Sioux	Treaty with the Sioux-Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands	Sioux
1851	August 5	Treaty of Mendota	Treaty with the Sioux-Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands	Sioux
1851	September 17	Treaty of Fort Laramie	Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, etc.	Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow, Shoshone, Assiniboine, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara
1852			Treaty with the Chickasaw
1852			Treaty with the Apache
1853			Treaty with the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache
1853			Agreement with the Rogue River (not ratified)
1853			Treaty with the Rogue River, 1853
1853			Treaty with the Umpqua–Cow Creek Band
1854			Treaty with the Oto and Missouri
1854			Treaty with the Omaha
1854			Treaty with the Delawares
1854			Treaty with the Shawnee
1854			Treaty with the Menominee
1854			Treaty with the Iowa
1854			Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes of Missouri
1854			Treaty with the Kickapoo
1854			Treaty with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, etc.
1854			Treaty with the Miami
1854			Treaty with the Creeks
1854	September 30	Treaty of La Pointe (1854)	Treaty with the Chippewa	Ojibwe
1854			Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw
1854			Treaty with the Rogue River, 1854
1854			Treaty with the Chasta, etc.
1854		Treaty of Calapooia Creek	Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya
1854			Treaty with the Confederated Oto and Missouri
1854		Treaty of Medicine Creek	Treaty with the Nisqualli, Puyallup, etc.	Nisqually, Puyallup and Squaxin Island
1855		Willamette Valley Treaty of 1855 Treaty of Dayton	Treaty with the Kalapuya, etc.
1855	January 22	Treaty of Point Elliott	Treaty with the Dwamish, Suquamish, etc., Point Elliott Treaty	Duwamish, Suquamish, Snoqualmie, Snohomish, Lummi, Skagit, Swinomish
1855			Treaty with the S'klallam
1855	January 31	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Wyandot	Wyandot
1855	January 31	Treaty of Neah Bay	Treaty with the Makah	Makah
1855	February 22	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Chippewa	Ojibwe (Mississippi and Pillager)
1855	February 27	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Winnebago	Ho-chunk
1855		Treaties of Walla Walla	Treaty with the Wallawalla, Cayuse, etc.	Cayuse, Nez Perce, Umatilla, Walla Walla and Yakama
1855			Treaty with the Yakima
1855			Treaty with the Nez Perces
1855	June 22	Treaty of Washington	Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw	Choctaw and Chickasaw
1855			Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon
1855			Treaty with the Quinaielt, etc.
1855	July 16	Treaty of Hellgate	Treaty with the Flatheads, etc.	Bitterroot Salish, Kootenai and Pend d'Oreilles
1855			Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa
1855			Treaty with the Chippewa of Sault Ste. Marie
1855			Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, etc.
1855			Treaty with the Blackfeet
1855			Treaty with the Molala
1856			Treaty with the Stockbridge and Munsee
1856			Treaty with the Menominee
1856			Treaty with the Creeks, etc.
1857			Treaty with the Pawnee
1857			Treaty with the Seneca, Tonawanda Band
1858			Treaty with the Ponca
1858			Treaty with the Yankton Sioux
1858			Treaty with the Sioux
1858			Treaty with the Sioux
1859			Treaty with the Winnebago
1859			Treaty with the Chippewa, etc.
1859			Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes
1859			Treaty with the Kansa Tribe

1860–1869

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Tribe(s)
1860			Treaty with the Delawares
1861			Treaty with the Arapaho and Cheyenne
1861			Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes, etc.
1861			Treaty with the Delawares
1861			Treaty with the Potawatomi
1862			Treaty with the Kansa Indians
1862			Treaty with the Ottawa of Blanchard's Fork and Roche de Boeuf
1862			Treaty with the Kickapoo
1863			Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi and the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands
1863	June 9		Treaty with the Nez Perce	14 Stat. 647	Nez Perce
1863			Treaty with the Eastern Shoshoni
1863			Treaty with the Shoshoni-Northwestern Bands
1863			Treaty with the Western Shoshoni
1863			Treaty with the Chippewa-Red Lake and Pembina Bands
1863			Treaty with the Utah-Tabeguache Band
1863			Treaty with the Shoshoni-Goship
1864			Treaty with the Chippewa—Red Lake and Pembina Bands
1864			Treaty with the Chippewa, Mississippi, and Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish Bands
1864			Treaty with the Klamath, etc.
1864			Treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River
1865			Treaty with the Omaha
1865			Treaty with the Winnebago
1865			Treaty with the Ponca
1865			Treaty with the Snake
1865			Treaty with the Osage
1865			Treaty with the Sioux—Miniconjou Band
1865			Treaty with the Sioux—Lower Brule Band
1865			Agreement with the Cherokee and Other Tribes in the Indian Territory
1865			Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho
1865			Treaty with the Apache, Cheyenne, and Arapaho
1865			Treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa
1865			Treaty with the Sioux-Two-Kettle Band
1865			Treaty with the Blackfeet Sioux
1865			Treaty with the Sioux-Sans Arc Band
1865			Treaty with the Sioux-Hunkpapa Band
1865			Treaty with the Sioux-Yanktonai Band
1865			Treaty with the Sioux-Upper Yanktonai Band
1865			Treaty with the Sioux-Oglala Band
1865			Treaty with the Middle Oregon Tribes
1866			Treaty with the Seminole
1866			Treaty with the Potawatomi
1866			Treaty with the Chippewa—Bois Fort Band
1866			Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw
1866			Treaty with the Creeks
1866			Treaty with the Delawares
1866			Agreement at Fort Berthold, Appendix
1866			Treaty with the Cherokee
1867			Treaty with the Sauk and Foxes
1867			Treaty with the Sioux—Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands
1867			Treaty with the Seneca, Mixed Seneca and Shawnee, Quapaw, etc.
1867			Treaty with the Potawatomi
1867			Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi
1867	October 21	Medicine Lodge Treaty	Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche	15 Stat. 581
1867			Treaty with the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache
1867			Treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho
1868			Treaty with the Ute
1868			Treaty with the Cherokee
1868	April 29	Treaty of Fort Laramie	Treaty with the Sioux—Brule, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, Sans Arcs, and Santee—and Arapaho	15 Stat. 635
1868			Treaty with the Crows
1868			Treaty with the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho
1868	June 1	Treaty of Fort Sumner	Treaty with the Navaho; Navajo Treaty of 1868; Treaty of 1868; Treaty of Hwéeldi	15 Stat. 667	Navajo
1868			Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock
1868	August 13	Treaty of Lapwai	Treaty with the Nez Perce	15 Stat. 693	Nez Perce

1870–1879

Treaty-making between various Native American governments and the United States officially concluded on March 3, 1871 with the passing of the United States Code Title 25, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, Section 71 (25 U.S.C. § 71). Pre-existing treaties were grandfathered, and further agreements were made under domestic law.

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Land Cession Reference (Royce Area)	Tribe(s)
1870	January 31	Executive Order		N/A	527, 528	San Pasqual and Pala Valley Mission Indians
1870	March 30	Executive Order		N/A		Round Valley Indian Reservation
1870	April 12	Executive Order		N/A	620, 621	Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Mandan
1870	April 12	Executive Order		N/A	529	Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Mandan
1870	July 15	Act of Congress		16 Stat. 359	650	Kickapoo of Texas and Mexico
1870	July 15	Act of Congress		16 Stat. 362	534	Great and Little Osage
1870	July 15	Act of Congress		16 Stat. 362	530	Great and Little Osage
1871	February 6	Act of Congress		16 Stat. 404	403	Stockbridge and Munsee
1871	March 3	Act of Congress	United States Code Title 25, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1, Section 71	16 Stat. 566
1871	March 3	Act of Congress		16 Stat. 569	650	Kickapoo of Texas and Mexico
1871	March 14	Executive Order		N/A	537	Paiute, Snake, Shoshoni
1871	March 27	Executive Order		N/A	534	Osage
1871	November 9	Executive Order		N/A	531	Southern Apache
1871	November 9	Executive Order		N/A	573, 603	Apache
1871	November 9	Executive Order		N/A	541	Apache
1871	November 9	Executive Order		N/A	582	Apache
1871	December	Memorandum		N/A		Methow, Okanagan, Kootenay, Pend d'Oreille, Colville, North Spokane, San Poeil et al.
1872	April 9	Executive Order		N/A	533	Methow, Okanagan, et al.
1872	April 23	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 55	566	Ute
1872	May 8	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 85		Kaw
1872	May 23	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 159	506	Potawatomi and Absentee Shawnee
1872	May 29	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 190		Lake Superior Chippewa
1872	May 29	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 190		Cheyenne and Arapaho
1872	June 1	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 213	256	Miami (Meshin-go-mesia's band)
1872	June 5	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 228	534	Great and Little Osage
1872	June 5	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 228	535	Kaw
1872	June 5	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 266		Flathead
1872	June 7	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 281		Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux
1872	June 10	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 381		Ottawa and Chippewa
1872	June 10	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 388		Ottawa of Blanchards Fork and Roche de Boeuf
1872	June 10	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 391		Omaha, Pawnee, Oto, Missouri, and Sac and Fox of the Missouri
1872	July 2	Executive Order		N/A	533, 536	Methow, Okanaga, et al.
1872	September 12	Executive Order		N/A	537, 638, 646	Paiute, Snake, and Shoshoni
1872	September 20	Agreement	Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians	Rev. Stat 1050	538	Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux
1872	September 26	Agreement		18 Stat. 291	539, 540	Shoshoni
1872	October 19	Agreement		N/A	540A	Wichita and affiliated bands
1872	October 26	Executive Order		N/A		Makah
1872	December 14	Executive Order		N/A	541, 600	Apache
1872	December 14	Executive Order		N/A		Apache
1873	January 2	Executive Order		N/A		Makah
1873	January 9	Executive Order		N/A	607	Tule River, King's River, Owen's River, et al.
1873	February 14	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 456	538	Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux
1873	February 19	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 466	249	New York Indians
1873	March 1	Executive Order		N/A	337	Lac Courte Oreille Band of Chippewa
1873	March 3	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 539	542	Pembina Chippewa
1873	March 3	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 631	330	Miami
1873	March 3	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 633	543	Creek and Seminole
1873	March 3	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 626	544, 583	Round Valley Indian Reservation
1873	March 3	Act of Congress		17 Stat. 626		Crow
1873	April 8	Executive Order		N/A	576	Paiute, et al.
1873	April 8	Executive Order		N/A	583	Round Valley Indian Reservation
1873	May 2	Agreement	Amended Agreement with Certain Sioux Indians	17 Stat. 456; 18 Stat. 167		Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux
1873	May 29	Executive Order		N/A	643, 644	Mescalero Apache
1873	June 16	Executive Order		N/A	545	Nez Perce
1873	July 5	Executive Order		N/A	565, 574	Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, et al.
1873	August 5	Executive Order		N/A	546	Apache
1873	August 16	Agreement		N/A	557	Crow
1873	September 6	Executive Order		N/A	405	Niskwali, et al.
1873	September 9	Executive Order		N/A	349	Dwamish, et al.
1873	September 13	Agreement	Brunot Treaty^[20]	N/A	566	Colorado Ute
1873	October 3	Executive Order		N/A	547, 607	Tule river, King's river, Owen's river, et al.
1873	October 21	Executive Order		N/A	548	Makah
1873	November 4	Executive Order		N/A	549	Mississippi Chippewa
1873	November 4	Executive Order		N/A	550	Mississippi Chippewa
1873	November 4	Executive Order		N/A	372, 551	Quinaielt, Quillehute, et al.
1873	November 8	Executive Order		N/A	552, 553	Coeur d'Alene, et al.
1873	November 22	Executive Order		N/A	554	Colorado River Indian Reservation
1873	November 22	Executive Order		N/A	555	Dwamish, et al.
1873	December 10	Executive Order		N/A	563	Jicarilla Apache
1873	December 23	Executive Order		N/A	351	Dwamish, et al.
1873	December 31	Executive Order		N/A		Santee Sioux
1874	January 31	Executive Order		N/A	557	Crow
1874	February 2	Executive Order		N/A	643	Mescalero Apache
1874	February 12	Executive Order		N/A	558, 576	Paiute, et al.
1874	February 14	Executive Order		N/A		Odawa and Ojibwe in Michigan
1874	February 25	Executive Order		N/A	559	Skokomish (S'klallam)
1874	March 19	Executive Order		N/A	560	Paiute
1874	March 23	Executive Order		N/A	561, 562	Paiute
1874	March 25	Executive Order		N/A	563	Apache (Jicarilla bands)
1874	April 9	Executive Order		N/A	564	Muckleshoot Indian Reservation
1874	April 9	Executive Order		N/A	588	Apache
1874	April 15	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 28	565	Gros Ventre, Piegan, Blood, Blackfoot, River Crow
1874	April 29	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 36	566	Ute
1874	May 26	Executive Order		N/A	567, 568	Pillager Chippewa
1874	June 22	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 140	569	L'Anse and Lac Vieux Desert Ojibwe
1874	June 22	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 166	539	Shoshoni
1874	June 22	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 167	538	Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux
1874	June 22	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 170	570	Omaha
1874	June 22	Act of Congress		N/A		Kickapoo of Texas and Mexico
1874	June 23	Agreement		N/A	571	Eastern Shawnee
1874	June 23	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 272		Kaw
1874	June 23	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 273	572	Papago
1874	June 23	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 273		New York Indians
1874	July 21	Executive Order		N/A	573	Apache
1874	August 19	Executive Order		N/A	574	Gros Ventre, Piegan, Blood, Blackfoot, River Crow
1874	November 16	Executive Order		N/A	466, 554, 593
1874	November 24	Executive Order		N/A	531	Southern Apache
1874	December 15	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 291	539	Shoshoni
1875	January 11	Executive Order		N/A	614	Sioux
1875	February 12	Executive Order		N/A	575	Shoshone, Bannock, Sheepeater
1875	March 3	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 445	576, 577	Paiute
1875	March 3	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 446	578, 579	Alsea Indian Reservation, Siletz Indian Reservation
1875	March 3	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 447	580	Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
1875	March 3	Act of Congress		18 Stat. 447	571	Modoc
1875	March 16	Executive Order		N/A	581	Sioux
1875	March 25	Executive Order		N/A	557	Crow (Judith Basin Indian Reservation)
1875	April 13	Executive Order		N/A	622, 623	Gros Ventre, Piegan, Blood, Blackfoot, River Crow
1875	April 23	Executive Order		N/A	582	Apache
1875	May 15	Executive Order		N/A	589, 646	Paiute and Shoshoni
1875	May 18	Executive Order		N/A	583	Round Valley Indian Reservation
1875	May 20	Executive Order		N/A	614	Sioux
1875	June 10	Executive Order		N/A	545	Nez Perce
1875	June 23	Executive Order		N/A	584	Sioux
1875	July 3	Executive Order		N/A	577	Paiute
1875	October 20	Executive Order		N/A		Mescalero Apache
1875	October 20	Executive Order		N/A	585	Crow
1875	November 22	Executive Order		N/A	586	Ute
1875	December 21	Executive Order		N/A	587, 588	Southern Apache
1875	December 27	Executive Order		N/A		Missin Indians (Portrero [Rincon, Gapich, LaJolla], Cahuila, Capitan Grande, Santa Ysabel [Mesa Grande], Pala, Agua Caliente, Sycuan, Inaja, Cosmit)

1880–present

)

Year	Date	Treaty Name	Alternative Treaty Name	Statutes	Land Cession Reference (Royce Area)	Tribe(s)
1880	January 6	Executive Order		N/A	615	Navajo
1880	January 17	Executive Order		N/A		Mission Indians (Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, Santa Ysabel Indian Reservation)
1880	March 6	Agreement		21 Stat. 199	616, 617	Ute
1880	March 6	Executive Order		N/A	618	Nez Perce (Moses' Band)
1880	March 16	Act of Congress		21 Stat. 68		Kaw
1880	May 14	Agreement		N/A		Crow
1880	May 14	Agreement		N/A		Shoshoni, Bannock, and Sheep-eater
1880	June 8	Executive Order		N/A		Havasupai
1880	June 12	Agreement	Agreement with the Crows	N/A	619	Crow
1880	June 15	Act of Congress		N/A		Ute
1880	July 13	Executive Order		N/A	620, 621	Arikara, Gros Ventre, and Mandan
1880	July 13	Executive Order		N/A	622, 623	Gros Ventre, Piegan, Blood, Blackfoot, and River Crow
1880	July 13	Executive Order		N/A	613	Sioux (Drifting Goose's Band)
1880	July 23	Executive Order		N/A		Malheur Indian Reservation
1880	September 11	Agreement		N/A	616, 617	Ute
1880	September 21	Executive Order		N/A	624	Jicarilla Apache
1880	November 23	Executive Order		N/A		Havasupai
1882–83			Agreement with the Sioux of Various Tribes
1883			Agreement with the Columbia and Colville
1891	January 12	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 712		Mission Indians
1891	February 13	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 749		Sac and Fox
1891	March 3	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 1016	506	Citizen Band of Potawatomi
1891	March 3	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 1022	525	Cheyenne and Arapaho
1891	March 3	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 1027	553	Coeur d'Alene
1891	March 3	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 1032	712, 713	Gros Ventre and Mandan
1891	March 3	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 1035	496	Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux
1891	March 13	Act of Congress		26 Stat. 1016	506	Absentee Shawnee
1891	October 16	Executive Order		N/A	400, 461	Hupa et al.
1892	June 17	Executive Order		N/A	716	Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
1892	June 17	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 52	400	Klamath River Indian Reservation
1892	July 1	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 62	717, 718	Colville Indian Reservation
1892	July 13	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 124	552	Coeur d'Alene
1892	July 13	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 139	625	Spokane
1892	October 22	McCumber Agreement	Agreement Between the Turtle Mountain Indians and the Commission	52nd-2nd-Ex.Doc.229		Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
1892	November 21	Executive Order		N/A	655	Navajo
1892	November 21	Executive Order		N/A	719	Red Lake Band of Chippewa
1892	November 28	Executive Order		N/A		Yakima
1893	February 20	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 469	720	White Mountain Apache
1893	March 3	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 557	650	Kickapoo
1893	March 3	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 640	289	Cherokee
1893	March 3	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 643	606	Tonkawa
1893	March 3	Act of Congress		27 Stat. 644	591	Pawnee
1893	April 12	Executive Order		N/A		Osette Indians
1893	September 11	Executive Order		N/A		Hoh River Indians
1894	June 6	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 86	370	Warm Springs
1894	August 15	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 314	411	Yankton Sioux
1894	August 15	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 320	400	Yakima
1894	August 15	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 332	552	Coeur d'Alene
1894	August 15	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 320		Yakima
1894	August 15	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 323	479	Alsea et al.
1894	August 15	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 326	442	Nez Perce
1894	August 15	Act of Congress		28 Stat. 332	652	Yuma
1902	March 10	McLaughlin Agreement	Agreement Between the Red Lake Indians and the Commission	33 Stat. 46
1904	April 21	Act of Congress	Turtle Mountain Chippewa Treaty; 10-cent Treaty; Agreement with the Turtle Mountain Band, amended and ratified	33 Stat. 194		Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians

Notes and references:

Jump up ^ The Great Treaty of 1722 Between the Five Nations, the Mahicans, and the Colonies of New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, , University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Jump up ^ However, not all international agreements are considered to be treaties requiring Senate concurrence. This is explained somewhat in a letter from U.S. Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard to Philippine Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago in connection with the RP-US Vishe other countries, derives from the President's responsibilities for the conduct of foreign relations (Art. II, Sec. 1) and his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Senate advice and consent is not needed, inter alia, because the VFA and similar agreements neither change US domestic nor require congressional appropriation of funds. It is important to note that only about five percent of the international agreement entered into by the US Governments require Senate advice and consent.". The letter is quoted in full in Footnote 42 of "G.R. No. 138570. October 10, 2000". Retrieved 2009-01-28.
Jump up ^ Milestones: 1776-1783: The Model Treaty, 1776, Department of State, Office of the Historian, via archive.org
Jump up ^ The history of The Netherlands
Jump up ^ Journals of the Continental Congress --THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1783
Jump up ^ Neutrality – The eighteenth century "Following the end of the war, the United States signed treaties of amity and commerce with Sweden in 1783, Prussia in 1785, and Morocco in 1787."
Jump up ^ Treaty between the King of Prussia and the United States of America
Jump up ^ Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805 – The Avalon Project at Yale
Jump up ^ Commercial treaty with England [microform] : Internet Archive
Jump up ^ TAC Program – United Kingdom Commerce and Navigation Treaty
Jump up ^ Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, pages 386-391]
Jump up ^ Treaty with the Ottoman Porte, p. 408. List of the Treaties between the United States and Foreign Nations [to 1845], U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875. Library of Congress
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Mustafa Aydın, Çağrı Erhan and Gökhan Erdem, CHRONOLOGY OF TURKİSH-AMERİCAN RELATİONS, Faculty of Political Science, Ankara University
Jump up ^ Treaty of Amity and Commerce, p. 458. List of the Treaties between the United States and Foreign Nations [to 1845], U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875. Library of Congress
Jump up ^ Treaties List
Jump up ^ Primary Documents – U.S. Peace Treaty with Austria, 24 August 1921
Jump up ^ Primary Documents – U.S. Peace Treaty with Hungary, 24 August 1921
Jump up ^ The Avalon Project : Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy
Jump up ^ "World's Worst Internet Law" ratified by Senate
Jump up ^ http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol1/html_files/ses0151.html

External links:

Treaties in Force, United States Department of State
List of documents relating to the negotiation of ratified and unratified treaties with various Indian Tribes, 1801–1869 (1949) from the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Native American Treaties and Information from UCB Libraries GovPubs
List of Treaties between the U.S. and Foreign Nations 1778–1845 from the Library of Congress
List of Treaties between the U.S. and Indian Tribes 1778–1842 from the Library of Congress
List of Treaties 1845–1851 from the Library of Congress
List of Treaties 1851–1855 from the Library of Congress
List of Treaties 1855–1859 from the Library of Congress
Indian Land Cessions in the U.S., 1784 to 1894: List of Dates
United States Treaties and International Agreements: 1776-1949

Sources from The Smithsonian, The National Archive, various State Archives, and Wikipedia

This is the original copy of one of the very first US Government Broken Treaties with Native Americans

The Melting Pot (Assimilation) Myth

Author's note: This section is a case study of one state's (California) engagement with Indigenous Tribes, including some attention to the pre-United States European and Mexican eras of California's history. Of all the Myths covered, this is the one that has had the longest and most deleterious impact on California Indigenous people. The text is edited from a document originally written by the National Park Service

This myth is the focus of the US Government's Twentieth Century attack on the integrity and culture of the tribes that survived the assimilation attacks of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. If the reader's question is what more insanity could the American Government bring to Indigenous Tribes and their families and children, the underhanded machinations of federal and state governments cannot be underestimated. In 1900, Indigenous Tribes and their members numbered 250,000 living in the United States. The decimation of whole tribes was unthinkable and yet, it happened more than can be understood. Research here is based upon several sources, most prominently the excellent history of the Indigenous People of California by the National Park Service.

_____________________________

In California,. Indigenous tribes suffered even worse than elsewhere in North America. The heavy hand of the Spanish conquerors of what was then Mexico, forced a number of tribes to live near the chain of missions established by Junipero Serra. Though Father Serra was a cut above average colonial missionaries, the fact remains that many of the tribes in California died out or lost their traditional identity under the Spanish. The purpose of the mission system was to gather the Indigenous people in regional groups nearby each mission, and this began when the missions were being constructed, as that was accomplished using Indigenous tribal members. The treatment of Indigenous people by the Spanish was as a slave to master relationship. The priests in the Catholic Missions had harsh penalties for tribes or members who did not accept hard labor. Like many other Spanish Colonial sites, the harsh treatment of Indigenous people went unreported to the Spanish Crown. As happened in Spanish New Mexico, the tribes revolted. They were harshly deprived of their traditional spirituality, and had to keep it hidden from the Spanish to preserve its integrity. The Mexican successors to the Spanish were not as destructive as the Spanish, but did secularize the Missions, and the large ranchos the wealthy land holders built were maintained by Indigenous labor. When the Americans came to California after the Mexican War, the sheer volume of non-Indigenous people meant that many sites where the California tribes did not have the wherewithal to engage the occupiers in battle. There were 310,000 Indigenous people in California in 1769 as tabulated by the Spanish, By 1840, the number had gone down to 100,000, with scarlet fever, small pox, and pneumonia killing huge numbers of Indigenous people, and the number of tribes was severely reduced. During 1850-1860, in American occupation after the Mexican War, the California Legislature adopted laws which were legally set up to essentially treat the Indigenous people as proto-slaves.

In 1850, An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians was enacted by the first session of the California Legislature. This law set the tone for Indian-White relations to come.
The act provided for the following:

The Justice of the Peace would have jurisdiction over all complaints between Indians and Whites; "but in no case shall a white man be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an Indian or Indians."
Landowners would permit Indians who were peaceably residing on their land to continue to do so.
Whites would be able to obtain control of Indian children. (This section would eventually be used to justify and provide for Indian slavery.)
If any Indian was convicted of a crime, any White person could come before the court and contract for the Indian's services, and in return, would pay the Indian's fine.
It would be illegal to sell or administer alcohol to Indians.
Indians convicted of stealing a horse, mule, cow, or any other valuable could receive any number of lashes not to exceed 25, and fines not to exceed $200. (It should be noted that the law provided that abusing an Indian child by Whites was to be punished by no more than a $10 fine. It is hard to compare the penalty with the crime.)
Finally, an Indian found strolling, loitering where alcohol was sold, begging, or leading a profligate course of life would be liable for arrest. The justice, mayor, or recorder would make out a warrant. Within 24 hours, the services of the Indian in question could be sold to the highest bidder. The term of service would not exceed four months.

Author Comment: This description of forced labor under what would be suspicious legal practice, the Indigenous person would have no choices in his sentence. The resulting 4 months of hard labor constituted slavery. This is not unlike some of the more abusive conditions that African Americans endured when sentenced to Parchman Farm in Mississippi, or similar detention camps when slavery had been outlawed but forced labor laws for "offenders" was the usual practice.

This law was widely abused with regard to the use of Indians as laborers, though it did allow Indians to reside on private land. The use of this law to sentence Indigenous People to hard labor was a form of slavery, because Indigenous offenders did not have any other options to choose from.vDuring 1851 and 1852, the California Legislature authorized payment of $1,100,000 for the "supression of Indian hostilities. Again, in 1857, the Legislature issued bonds for $410,000 for the same purpose." (Heizer, 1978:108) While theoretically attempting to resolve White-Indian conflicts, these payments only encouraged Whites to form volunteer companies and try to eliminate all the Indians in California.

According to the National Park Service, in their official online history of the Indigenous people of California:

In 1860, the law of 1850 was amended to state that Indian children and any vagrant Indian could be put under the custody of Whites for the purpose of employment and training. Under the law, it was possible to retain the service of Indians until 40 years of age for men and 35 years of age for women. This continued the practice of Indian slavery and made it legal for Indians to be retained for a longer period of time and be taken at a younger age.

In further documenting the treatment of Indigenous people by Americans after 1845, The Parks Service history states:

Before 1845, the Spanish/Mexican population of California numbered only a few thousand. But by 1849, during the gold rush, the non-Indian population of California had grown to 100,000. The Indian population was already in a weakened condition, suffering from disease and lack of food, and from violent confrontations with the new landowners. Once the Americans arrived, California Indians were at an even greater disadvantage. With the lure of instant wealth in front of them, the new settlers wanted little to do with the Indians. The American approach to dealing with the Indians was summed up best by California historian Hubert Howe Bancroft:

That part of the early intercourse between aboriginal Americans and European which belongs to history may be briefly given, short work was made of it in California. The savages(sic) were in the way; the miners and settlers were arrogant and impatient; there were no missionaries or others present with even the poor pretense of soul saying or civilizing. It was one of the last human hunts of civilization, and the basest and most brutal of them all. (Bancroft, 1963a:474)

"The Indians had a precisely balanced relationship with their food supply. Soon after the arrival of the Americans serious depletion of that supply began to occur: mining operations adversely affected salmon fishing and destroyed fish dams." (Heizer, 1978:108) On the Americans' arrival, the large ranchos were broken up, and the new, more numerous landowners on smaller parcels of land were less tolerant of Indians. The small ranchos were farmed and grazed more intensively, and this caused an even greater reduction in the Indians' natural food supply. Jobs once belonging to Indians, especially skilled jobs, were taken by Whites.

We need only look at the early record of the California Legislature to understand the relationship of the Americans to the native population during this era. At the first California State Constitutional Convention, those assembled voted to eliminate the Indians' right to vote because they feared the control Indians might exercise. In 1850, An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians was enacted by the first session of the State Legislature. This law set the tone for Indian-White relations to come.

The act provided for the following:

The Justice of the Peace would have jurisdiction over all complaints between Indians and Whites; "but in no case shall a white man be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an Indian or Indians."
Landowners would permit Indians who were peaceably residing on their land to continue to do so.
Whites would be able to obtain control of Indian children. (This section would eventually be used to justify and provide for Indian slavery.)
If any Indian was convicted of a crime, any White person could come before the court and contract for the Indian's services, and in return, would pay the Indian's fine.
It would be illegal to sell or administer alcohol to Indians.
Indians convicted of stealing a horse, mule, cow, or any other valuable could receive any number of lashes not to exceed 25, and fines not to exceed $200. (It should be noted that the law provided that abusing an Indian child by Whites was to be punished by no more than a $10 fine. It is hard to compare the penalty with the crime.)
Finally, an Indian found strolling, loitering where alcohol was sold, begging, or leading a profligate course of life would be liable for arrest. The justice, mayor, or recorder would make out a warrant. Within 24 hours, the services of the Indian in question could be sold to the highest bidder. The term of service would not exceed four months.

This law was widely abused with regard to the use of Indians as laborers, though it did allow Indigenous to reside on private land.

During 1851 and 1852, the California Legislature authorized payment of $1,100,000 for the "supression of Indian hostilities. Again, in 1857, the Legislature issued bonds for $410,000 for the same purpose." (Heizer, 1978:108) While theoretically attempting to resolve White-Indian conflicts, these payments only encouraged Whites to form volunteer companies and try to eliminate all the Indians in California.

In 1860, the law of 1850 was amended to state that Indian children and any vagrant Indian could be put under the custody of Whites for the purpose of employment and training. Under the law, it was possible to retain the service of Indians until 40 years of age for men and 35 years of age for women. This continued the practice of Indian slavery and made it legal for Indians to be retained for a longer period of time and be taken at a younger age.

In 1862, the Alta California reported: "Little more than a hundred miles from San Francisco, in Mendocino County, the practice of Indian stealing is still extensively carried out. Only recently, George H. Woodman was caught near Ukiah with sixteen Indian children, as he was about to take them out of the county for sale. It is well known that a number of men in that region have for years made it their profession to capture and sell unfortunate juveniles, the price ranging from $30 to $150 depending on their quality." (Harrison, 1966:4)
This was not an isolated situation. U.S. Agent George Hanson reported: "A band of desperate men have carried on a system of kidnapping for two years past. Indian children were seized and carried into lower counties and sold into virtual slavery. . . . The kidnappers follow at the heels of the soldiers to seize these children when their parents are murdered to sell them at the best advantage." (Balin, 1971:18) When there was no other way, there was "a class of whites who systematically killed adults to get their children." (Ibid., p. 19)

The other practice that provided much of the labor force, especially in southern California, was to have city officials pick up Indians as vagrants. These officials would then turn the Indians over to the ranchers and other people who needed laborers. This was all done under the provisions of the 1850 law. After four months or some other term of service, the employer would return the Indians to the city, usually to a place where alcohol was served. Shortly after their return, the Indians would be picked up once again as vagrants, and returned to the labor force.

These types of activities occurred until 1866, when, to comply with the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the State Legislature repealed the law. The 14th Amendment provides that no state should infringe on any citizen's "privileges or immunities" nor "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," nor deny to any person "the equal protection of the law."

The Park Service history goes on to state:

That part of the early intercourse between aboriginal Americans and European which belongs to history may be briefly given, short work was made of it in California. The savages were in the way; the miners and settlers were arrogant and impatient; there were no missionaries or others present with even the poor pretense of soul saying or civilizing. It was one of the last human hunts of civilization, and the basest and most brutal of them all. (Bancroft, 1963a:474)

"The Indians had a precisely balanced relationship with their food supply. Soon after the arrival of the Americans serious depletion of that supply began to occur: mining operations adversely affected salmon fishing and destroyed fish dams." (Heizer, 1978:108) On the Americans' arrival, the large ranchos were broken up, and the new, more numerous landowners on smaller parcels of land were less tolerant of Indians. The small ranchos were farmed and grazed more intensively, and this caused an even greater reduction in the Indians' natural food supply. Jobs once belonging to Indians, especially skilled jobs, were taken by Whites.

We need only look at the early record of the California Legislature to understand the relationship of the Americans to the native population during this era. At the first State Constitutional Convention, those assembled voted to eliminate the Indians' right to vote because they feared the control Indians might exercise. In 1850, An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians was enacted by the first session of the State Legislature. This law set the tone for Indian-White relations to come.

During 1851 and 1852, the California Legislature authorized payment of $1,100,000 for the "supression of Indian hostilities. Again, in 1857, the Legislature issued bonds for $410,000 for the same purpose." (Heizer, 1978:108) While theoretically attempting to resolve White-Indian conflicts, these payments only encouraged Whites to form volunteer companies and try to eliminate all the Indians in California.

In 1860, the law of 1850 was amended to state that Indian children and any vagrant Indian could be put under the custody of Whites for the purpose of employment and training. Under the law, it was possible to retain the service of Indians until 40 years of age for men and 35 years of age for women. This continued the practice of Indian slavery and made it legal for Indians to be retained for a longer period of time and be taken at a younger age.
In 1862, the Alta California reported: "Little more than a hundred miles from San Francisco, in Mendocino County, the practice of Indian stealing is still extensively carried out. Only recently, George H. Woodman was caught near Ukiah with sixteen Indian children, as he was about to take them out of the county for sale. It is well known that a number of men in that region have for years made it their profession to capture and sell unfortunate juveniles, the price ranging from $30 to $150 depending on their quality." (Harrison, 1966:4)
This was not an isolated situation. U.S. Agent George Hanson reported: "A band of desperate men have carried on a system of kidnapping for two years past. Indian children were seized and carried into lower counties and sold into virtual slavery. . . . The kidnappers follow at the heels of the soldiers to seize these children when their parents are murdered to sell them at the best advantage." (Balin, 1971:18) When there was no other way, there was "a class of whites who systematically killed adults to get their children." (Ibid., p. 19)

The other practice that provided much of the labor force, especially in southern California, was to have city officials pick up Indians as vagrants. These officials would then turn the Indians over to the ranchers and other people who needed laborers. This was all done under the provisions of the 1850 law. After four months or some other term of service, the employer would return the Indians to the city, usually to a place where alcohol was served. Shortly after their return, the Indians would be picked up once again as vagrants, and returned to the labor force.

These types of activities occurred until 1866, when, to comply with the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the State Legislature repealed the law. The 14th Amendment provides that no state should infringe on any citizen's "privileges or immunities" nor "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," nor deny to any person "the equal protection of the law."

The Park Service history continues:

While the state was enslaving and eliminating California natives, the federal government, in 1851, appointed three commissioners to negotiate treaties with California Indians. By 1852, 18 treaties had been negotiated with 139 tribes. The treaties were negotiated because the federal government perceived Indian tribes as foreign nations, and treaties were the legal means for developing an agreement and ensuring peace with them. The 18 treaties set aside 7,488,000 acres of land, or approximately one-third of California, for Indian use. This land settlement was similar to that negotiated with other tribes in other states. The treaties also provided funds for materials and food to allow the Indians to become self-sufficient. The treaties met with hostility in California. On January 16 and February 11, 1852, the State Senate concluded that the treaties "committed an error in assigning large portions of the richest mineral and agricultural lands to the Indians, who did not appreciate the land's value." (Ellison, 1925:4-5) The legislature instructed the United States senators from California to oppose ratification of the treaties, and called for the government to remove the Indians from the state as they had done in other states.

In February 1852, President Millard Fillmore submitted the 18 treaties to the United States Senate for ratification. The California senators were recognized and the Senate went into secret session to discuss the treaties. During this session, the Senate failed to ratify the treaties, and by order, they were placed in secret files, where they remained for the next 53 years. In 1871, the United States Congress declared that it would no longer negotiate treaties with American Indians.

Although the United States Government failed to ratify the treaties, it did continue the policy of setting up reservations and moving the Indians to them. However, no attempt was made to negotiate new treaties. In 1852, while not acknowledging any claims of California Indians to the land, the United States appointed Edward F. Beale as the first Superintendent of Indian Affairs in California. Beale's plan was to establish five reserves on which the Indians would reside. Congress appropriated $250,000, and in September 1853, Beale gathered some 2,000 Indians and established the 50,000-acre Tejon Reserve. By focusing all his effort at Tejon, Beale neglected some 61,000 hungry natives. "Beale declared that humanity must yield to necessity, they are not dangerous, therefore they must be neglected." (Heizer, 1978:110) In 1854, Beale was removed from his post. However, based on the information he acquired as superintendent, Beale eventually gained control of the reservation land.
Congress appointed Col. Thomas J. Henley as the new superintendent in 1854. Henley, following Beale's original plan, established the Nome Lackee Reservation; Nome Cult, Mendocino; Fresno Indian Farm; and Kings River Indian Farm. However, Henley did not act in the best interest of California Indians. The reservations suffered from lack of water. Squatters grazed their cattle on the unfenced land and destroyed crops that were being raised to support the Indians. "Most of these squatters were business partners or relatives of Henley and, therefore, impossible to remove." (Heizer, 1978:110) It is important to note that all of these early reserves eventually left federal ownership, and the Indians who resided on them were once again forced to move to other lands to make new homes. Every time Indians were removed, the commissioners prospered.

In 1870, in an attempt to get away from corrupt superintendents and to convert the Indians to Christianity, the federal government turned over operation of the reservations to the Quaker Church. In California, the Methodists, Baptists, and other churches eventually took on management of the reservations. While the new management was not corrupt and was far better for the general welfare of the Indians, the church was less tolerant of Indians continuing their traditional beliefs. Thus, the reservations became missions and the first tools under American control to be used in assimilating Indians into the general population. Once again, California Indians were confronted with change and forced to adapt from being prisoners-of-war to being wards of the church.

In the early 1880s, Helen Hunt Jackson wrote A Century of Dishonor and sent a copy of her book to each United States congressman. She was then appointed to a commission to examine the condition of Indians in Southern California. Her visits resulted in The Report on the Condition and Needs of the Mission Indians of California, by special agents Helen Jackson and Abbot Kinney. The report summarized the problems and concerns of Southern California Indians; many of the conditions outlined in the report, however, were applicable to all California Indians. The report noted that Indians had been continually displaced from their land. She also noted that while many Indians had taken "immoral" paths, others had chosen the responsibilities of herding animals and raising crops. In her report, she also noted that the United States government had done little to right the wrongs of the past. While Jackson did not solve all the problems of Southern California Indians, her work did bring their concerns to the attention of the American public and Congress.

The National Park Service history continues:

One recurring concern was the lack of education and training necessary for survival in American society. The government, as well as Jackson, saw education as a way of assimilating Indians into the mainstream of United States society.

The period began of establishing "Indian Schools" to strip the tribe member of his or her identity as a member of the tribe began.

Reports from the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs at that time expressed the goals of the government in relation to the educational process. In 1908, one report stated, "the rooms held three or four each and it was arranged that no two tribes were placed in the same room. This not only helped in the acquirement of English, but broke up tribal and race clannishness, a most important victory in getting Indians toward real citizens." (Spicer, 1969:235) An earlier report stated, "I can see no reason why a strong government like ours should not govern and control them [Indians] and compel each one to settle down and stay in one place, his own homestead, wear the white man's clothing, labor for his own support, and send his children to school." (Spicer, 1969:236) Other people had even stronger ideas. For instance, George Ellis, in his book, The Red Man and the White Man in North America, wrote, "The Indian must be made to feel he is in the grasp of a superior." (Ellis 1882:572) In opposition to this view, the Indian Rights Association was formed in 1882. This Indian advocate group would play a powerful role in formulating Indian policy in upcoming years.

Author's Note: This era of sending Indigenous children off their reservation and away from their family to boarding school was the single most traumatic experience most Indigenous people report in their lives. The actions of cutting their hair, prohibiting them from speaking their native language, and not allowing any action that could be interpreted as coming from their home tribe effective caused a whole generation of children to forget their language and spirituality and to be thought of as not fitting in with the tribe members who avoided "Indian Boarding Schools." This governmental action, along with breaking reservations into parcels of land to be sold constituted a disorientation of tribal life not dissimilar to the Nazis in Germany with their marking Judaic citizens with identification, banishing them to a common ghetto, and forcing them to leave their homes or be liquidated. In the case of Indigenous people, boarding school former students cite feelings of alienation, isolation, and having there culture ripped away, leaving them in a horrible netherworld somewhere between White and Red cultures. The resulting anguish and anger led tribal members to become hostile in most cases, and in rare cases violent.

While the approaches differed, all agreed that education was necessary. "In California, three types of educational programs were established for native peoples. The first was the Federal Government reservation day school. The second type was the boarding school, fashioned after Carlisle. And finally, the nearby public school that allowed Indians to attend began a slow, though steady, increase in popularity among policy makers." (Heizer, 1978:115) While the public schools seemed the best alternative, most Indians did not have the right to attend these schools until the 1920s.

In 1881, an elementary school system for Indians was established in California. However, the Indians soon recognized that the schools were a threat to their culture, as well as to the tribe as a political unit. "As a result, considerable resistance to the schools developed. Native peoples destroyed the day school at Potrero in 1888, and burned the school at Tule River in 1890. At Pachanga, a Luiseno named Venturo Molido, burned the school and assassinated the school teacher in 1895." (Heizer, 1978:115)

Here is the result of establishing Boarding Schools for Indigenous children:

Much of the destruction and violence could have been avoided if the school system and the government had recognized the great importance the Indians placed on being able to maintain their cultural beliefs. In 1891, school attendance was made mandatory. But while attendance was mandatory, there were still Indian children who did not attend.

As many Indigenous People know all too well:

The major tool the government used in trying to assimilate Indigenous persons during this time was the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the Dawes Act, which appeared to be generally advantageous to Indians. However, the major intent of the act was to break down the role of tribal government. The act itself provided that each Indian living on a reservation would receive a 160-acre allotment of land per family unit, and each single man would receive 80 acres if the reservation had enough land. If there was not enough land, other provisions were made. Indians not residing on a reservation would be entitled to settle on any surveyed or unsurveyed government lands not appropriated. The lands allotted would be held in trust for 25 years by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If all other provisions of the act were met, that is, if the Indians made use of the lands for agriculture and became self-sufficient, then the land would become the property of the individual. "Native people understood full well the implications of allotment and offered considerable resistance. Nevertheless, the Bureau of Indian Affairs began ordering allotments of various sizes at Rincon, Morongo, and Pala Reservations in 1893. . . . The next year, allotments were begun at Round Valley Reservation. By the turn of the century, 1,614 individual allotments were made among eight reservations in the state." (Heizer, 1978:117)

Long before the passage of the Dawes Act, people recognized that problems would occur from its implementation. In 1881, Senator Henry Moore Teller of Colorado spoke in opposition to an earlier form of the Allotment Act. Senator Teller concluded, "If I stand alone in the Senate, I want to put upon the record my prophecy in this matter, that when 30 or 40 years shall have passed and these Indians shall have parted with their title, they will curse the hand that was raised professedly in their defense to secure this kind of legislation, and if the people who are clamoring for it understood Indian character and Indian laws, and Indian morals, and Indian religion, they would not be here clamoring for this at all." (Spicer, 1969:234) The senator would soon be proven correct.

Other Indians, such as the Cupenos from Warner Springs, chose to fight for their lands in the courts. With the assistance of the Indian Rights Association, they began a suit to stop their eviction from their home at the Warner Ranch. In 1888, they won a favorable decision which temporarily stopped their eviction. However, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and in 1903, the Cupenos were evicted from their home.

Some tribes chose to purchase land for their tribe:

Still other Indians chose to purchase land which was once theirs and reside on it. However, not every transaction was fair. In 1904, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Indians who bought land from Whites were being dispossessed by the heirs of the granters, who gave no valid titles. "The Northern California Indian Association reported that about 10,000 Indians lived on land to which whites hold title. They were subject to eviction 'at any time.' The Indians are recognized for what they are not, usually competent to compete with white men in economic struggle. . . . Congress should buy lands for Indians in locations where they now are and allot them small farms in severalty. . . . It is also asked that their status as to citizenship be satisfactorily established. This petition is now before congress. It should be granted for justice and honesty. . . ." (San Francisco Chronicle, 1904). The struggle for homes would continue.

The 20th Century Brings More Hardships and Victories

In 1905, Indians became more involved in matters concerning them. With the rediscovery of the 18 lost treaties, Indians and their supporters began a drive for land, better education, the rights of citizenship, and settlement of the unfulfilled treaty conditions. This period held victories for Indians as well as the beginning of many battles that would take a long time to resolve.

"Senate action on the treaties was secret. And thus the matter rested, gathering dust in the archives of the government until clerks working in the secret Senate files found the slumbering treaties. That was in 1905." (Footnight, 1954:24) Thus the California land claims case began. As early as 1909, the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco was looking into the matter of Indian rights under the 18 treaties. "And in 1924 a special section on Indian Affairs was formed for the purpose of making a complete study of the rights, wrongs, and present condition of California Indians." (Johnson, 1966:36)

"Another group that was active in this area was the Native Sons of the Golden West. Study committees were formed and publicity as to the needs of the California Indians appeared in its magazine, The California Grizzly Bear. In 1922 and again in 1925, there were articles of real importance in arousing public opinion. There were many other groups active in the cause of the California Indians: among them were the Indian Welfare Committee of the Federated Women's Clubs, the California Indian Rights Association, Inc., the Northern California Indian Association, the Mission Indian Federation, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union." (Johnson, 1966:36)

"The early 1920s witnessed the evolution of the powerful Mission Indian Federation in southern California. The Federation was headed by a White man, Jonathan Tibbets of Riverside, but like the Indian Board of Cooperation, the Federation had a large body of Indian members. Non-Indians dominated many meetings and urged the membership to follow their advice. However, the Bureau of Indian Affairs soon grew intolerant of all these Indian concern groups and provoked an incident that persuaded many people that Indian grievances were indeed legitimate. 'At the Federal meetings expressions of ill will or hostility to the government were occasionally heard. Grievances were aired and complaints, both legitimate and trivial, were uttered. As a result and under orders of the Department of Justice, some 57 Indians were placed under arrest on the charge of conspiracy against the government. Upon arraignment they were dismissed without bail.' " (Heizer, 1978:715)

Another organization which has already been mentioned was the Indian Board of Cooperation. The board was founded in 1910 by a Methodist minister, Fredrick Collett. "The policy of the Board is to encourage the Indians to do for themselves everything that they can, and to assist them in the doing of these things that they can not do without help." The Board's objectives included organizing Indians, obtaining passage of a bill so Indians could present their claims to the United States Court of Claims, obtaining legal services, ensuring funds appropriated for Indians be used for the Indians' best interest, and promoting all movements intended to enhance the welfare of Indians. (California Indian Herald, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1923:11)

In 1919, the board established auxiliaries which were small Indian organizations that acted on the local level and raised funds for the board through memberships and special events. The Indian Board of Cooperation assisted Indians on many issues over the next decades. By May 1924, the board boasted 88 auxiliaries, with a membership of 10,400. (California Indian ) Herald, 1924:2While Indians could belong to the auxiliaries, the board was made up of Whites. Most of the funds the board used for operation were obtained from Indians who paid between four and six dollars each to be members. Thus, much of the cost of financing the early land claims case came from Indians themselves. This action made the Indigenous People self-advocates in the great American tradition. The Indigenous Tribes found the way to speak for their own benefit. The era of treating Indigenous Tribes as being in need of someone outside the tribe to speak for them was over.

California Indians obtained the opportunity to file in the United States Court of Claims when the Indian Board of Cooperation assisted in filing what came to be known as the "Test Case." "The suit is brought as a test case to establish the rights of all tribes and bands of California Indians whose lands were taken from them without fair compensation." (California Indian Herald, 1923:4) The case involved 1,008 square miles located in the Klamath National Forest, in Humboldt and Siskiyou counties. The case asked what legal rights the government had to the land. While the Indians never won back the land in question, the case did raise an important question: Did Indians have a right to redress for the lands lost?

In 1927, the California Legislature enacted "An act to authorize the attorney general to bring suit against the United States in the court of claims in behalf of the Indians of the State of California in the event that the Congress of the United States authorizes the same." (Johnson, 1966:37) For the first time, California Indians had the support of the California Legislature in their effort to seek redress for the settlements made in the 18 treaties that were not ratified.

In 1928, the United States Congress passed the California Indian Jurisdictional Act, also known as the Lea Act. The law provided that ". . . by defining California Indians as those who resided in the state on June 1, 1852 and their descendants now living in the state. . . . All claims of whatsoever nature of the Indians . . . be submitted to the Court of Claims by the Attorney General of the State of California acting for and on behalf of said Indians . . . with the right of either party to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. . . . It is hereby declared that the loss to said Indians on account of their failure to secure the lands and compensation provided for in the eighteen unratified treaties is sufficient ground for equitable relief . . . the value of any lands so granted could not be in excess of $1.25 per acre. (Johnson, 1966:37) The law signified the legal beginning of the land claims case. "While the Lea Act had, as indicated, some undesirable features, it was a step forward, as it was the first act of Congress of this nature after twenty years of effort." (Johnson, 1966:35)

"With the rediscovery, in 1905, of the 'lost' treaties of 1851, public opinion began to favor the Indians. Between 1906 and 1910, legislation was passed appropriating funds which were used to purchase many small tracts of land in central and north central California for the landless Indians of those areas. These tracts today are the bulk of those Indian lands known as 'rancherias.' " (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1966:13) While the act provided lands for many Indians, still others had to go to the legislature to ask for help. A 77-year-old Pit River man stated: "My people are homeless. They are driven from place to place by the white men on whose property they seek refuge. The Washington Government does not aid us. Our children are not wanted in the schools. We have no medical aid for our sick. We have no implements, nor lands for farming. My people are willing to work. Give us a place in the desert and we will be happy." (California Indian Herald, 1923:13) So even in the 1920s, the problem of homeless Indians continued though the issue of land was at last being addressed.

The lack of land was not the only problem confronting Indians. "General conditions in the Far West were far from good in 1919-1920, after more than a half-century of conquest. McDowell wrote in 1919 of the majority of California Indians 'that more than all else, they have for generations been treated by their white neighbors as an inferior people and have been accepting that appraisement quite as a matter of course. . . . They get their own living with the work of their own hands. . . . With apparently few exceptions, the California Indians are seasonal, or casual, work people. The earning time for the great majority is the growing seasons. . . . [Others] of them find employment in sawmills, on the surface of mines, in logging camps, and on railroads and public roads. During sheep shearing season these Indians are in demand. . . . They herd cattle, milk cows, and do general farm labor. The women who live near cities and towns go out by day as domestics and laundresses.' " (Forbes, 1969:74) The general welfare of California Indians continued to be poor, but they resumed their efforts to gain civil rights.

Indians began to view education differently in this era. Much of this change in attitude may have derived from the support groups that assisted them. While many Indians continued to attend boarding schools and day schools, more Indians began to attend public school in California. "In 1915 only 316 Indian pupils were attending public school in California but by 1919 this number had increased to 2199." (Forbes, 1967:73) In 1917, the federal government decided to have Indians attend public schools. Even after this policy was adopted, however, the right to attend public school was not granted to every Indian child. "Between the 1920's and early 1940's, the Bureau of Indian Affairs ceased to have any appreciable role in California-Nevada Indian education, thanks in great measure to Indian efforts to establish local public schools or to gain admittance to existing schools. The latter was facilitated by the case of Piper vs. Big Pine School District (1924) in which Indians won the right to attend public schools." (Forbes, 1969:118)

In 1917, a major victory for Indians occurred when the California Supreme Court decided that California Indians were citizens. In 1922, 50 Hoopa Indians took advantage of citizenship and voted in the general election. They had to travel 24 miles to do so, but "for the first time in their history voted as free-born American citizens." (California Indian Herald, 1923:14). While California Indians had been acknowledged as citizens, it was not until June 2, 1924 that the Indian Citizenship Act was passed. Among other things the Indian Citizenship Act contained one provision of special interest to California Indians: "That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any to tribal or other property." The granting of citizenship came 100 years after the Indians were first granted citizenship by the Mexican government. It also came after more than 10,000 Indians had fought in the First World War.

The granting of citizenship in 1924 should have guaranteed Indians their First Amendment right of religious freedom. However, as late as the 1920s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a deliberate effort to control and in some cases eliminate the Indians' ability to practice their religious beliefs. "On April 26, 1921, during the Secretaryship of Albert B. Fall, Commissioner Charles H. Burke of the Bureau of Indian Affairs addressed to all Indian Superintendents (Indian Agents) a document called Circular 1665. He stated: 'The sundance and all other similar dances and so called religious ceremonies are considered 'Indian Offenses' under existing regulations and corrective penalties are provided. I regard such restrictions as applicable to any (religious) dance which involves . . . the reckless giving away of property . . . frequent and prolonged periods of celebration . . . in fact, any disorderly or plainly excessive performance that promotes superstitions, cruelty, licentiousness, idleness, danger of health, and shiftless indifference of family welfare. In all such instance, the regulations should be enforced." (Indian Defense Association of Central and Northern California)

On February 14, 1923, a supplement to Circular 1665 was issued. Some of the main features of the amendment were that "Indian dances be limited to one day in the midweek and at one center of each district; the months of March, April, June, July and August being exempted (no dances in these months). That none take part in the dances or be present who are under 50 years of age. That a careful propaganda be undertaken to educate public opinion against the (Indian religious) dance." (Ibid.)"Then on February 24, 1923, the Commissioner broadcasted a 'Message to All Indians.' It read: 'I could issue an order against these useless and harmful performances, but I would rather have you give them up of your own free will, and, therefore, I ask you in this letter to do so. If at the end of one year the reports which I receive show that you are doing as requested, I shall be glad, for I shall know that you are making progress — but if the reports show that you reject this plea, then some other course will have to be taken.'" (Ibid.)

The restriction on religion led John Collier to write:"Now today, this late date, the Indian Bureau has commenced a new onslaught. The Indians are deeply and universally religious. They still know how as tribes to follow ancient paths leading to the water of heaven. United in this life of religion, they can still stand up together as men, and they can still cling to their coveted remnants of soil. They can resist the efforts to turn them into drifting social half-breeds slave-driven by 6,000 Indian Bureau job holders who make their living 'civilizing' the Indians. Therefore, an actual inquisition shall be elaborated against their adult worship. Their treasure of the soul which no man yet has known enough to be able to estimate shall be forcibly thrown away; their last liberty and last dignity and their end of life, which they know to be God, shall be denied." (Ibid.) So the passing of the Citizenship Act in 1924 meant much more than the right to vote; it meant that all constitutional guarantees would be afforded to this country's first inhabitants. While freedom of religion is one of those rights, it was more than 50 years before the Indians' constitutional right of religion would be guaranteed.

Old School House at Ft. Bidwell, Modoc County

During the next three decades, California Indians continued to experience ups and downs. In 1934, two major pieces of legislation were enacted that affected California Indians: the Indian Reorganization Act and the Johnson-O'Malley Act. Of these, the Indian Reorganization Act probably had the more far-reaching effects. First, the act provided for keeping Indian land in trust; it returned to the tribe reservation land that remained surplus after allotments; and it restricted the granting of rights-of-way over reservation lands, restricted release of lands, and provided for the Secretary of the Interior to purchase inholdings in the reservation for Indian use. The act also ordered that forests on Indian lands be managed on a sustained-yield basis, authorized $250,000 to defray the expenses of organizing Indian-chartered corporations or other organizations under the act, and provided $10,000,000 for a revolving fund to promote economic development. Finally, the act provided for loans to Indians to attend trade or vocational schools.

"The viewpoint underlying the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was most fully and clearly expressed by John Collier, as in this memorandum written while he was Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1943: 'I see the broad function of Indian policy and Indian administration to be the development of Indian democracy and equality within the framework of American and world democracy. . . . The most significant clue to achieving full Indian democracy with and as a part of American democracy, is the continued survival, through all historical change and disaster, of the Indian Tribal group, both as a real entity and a legal entity. I suspect the reason we do not always give this fact the recognition it deserves is that we do not want to recognize it. . . . Congress through the Indian Reorganization Act, invoked the tribe as a democratic operational mechanism. . . . We can divest ourselves of the lingering fear that tribalism is a regression, and we can look upon it as a most important single step in assimilating Indians to modern democratic life. . . . Indians have the right of self-determination. . . .

The Indian office is moving from guardian to advisor from administrator to friend in court (Spicer, 1969:247-248) The Indian Reorganization Act was based on the assumption that the way to assimilate Indians into American society was to have tribal government work as a democracy, much as the United States government operates. This was a reversal in attitude from the Dawes Act of 1887, which attempted to disband Indian tribal organization. However, both acts sought in different ways the goal of Indian self-determination.

Another important piece of legislation was "the Johnson O'Malley Act which provided federal funding to local school districts to pay costs for reservation residents in lieu of local taxes." (Heizer, 1978:125) This act removed the only remaining argument against Indian children attending public schools. It also provided that Indian children no longer needed to be moved long distances from their homes and families to attend school, even though some still chose to do so. Toward the end of World War II and immediately thereafter, Indians began to establish organizations. The major difference between these organizations and earlier ones was that Indians governed them. Three important organizations that were established were the Native American Church, the National Congress of American Indians, and the Federated Indians of California.

The Congress of American Indians was established "to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian people; to preserve Indian cultural values; to seek an equitable adjustment to tribal affairs and tribal claims; to secure and to preserve rights under Indian treaties or agreements with the United States; to promote the common welfare of the American Indian; and to foster the continued loyalty and allegiance of the American Indians to the flag of the United States. . . ." (Spicer, 1969:290)

The Native American Church was established for a much different purpose, the advancement of Native American religion. The reasons for its establishment are found in the church's preamble and articles of incorporation, which state, "Whereas, The 'human rights' of all citizens of our country are guaranteed and protected by amendment 1 to the Constitution of our country . . . this corporation is formed to foster and promote religious believers in Almighty God and the customs of the several Tribes of Indians throughout the United States in the worship of a Heavenly Father and to promote morality, sobriety, industry, charity, and the right living and cultivate a spirit of self-respect and brotherly love and union among the members (Spicer, 1969:288)

Finally, the Federated Indians of California was established for a very specific reason. "In 1944 the Court of Claims awarded the California Indian their first substantial judgment, netting them approximately $5,000,000." (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1966:13) However, in establishing the $5,000,000 amount, the court followed the mandate of the Lea Act, which provided ". . . a gross recovery, the benefits which were to have been paid to only 1/3 to 1/2 of them under the 18 unratified treaties of 1851-1852. By this proposed settlement this figure is now established at $17,816,624.48. From this figure must be deducted . . . the subsequent specific benefits granted by the government to all of the Indians . . . this amount is fixed at $12,650,761.02." (Kenny, 1944:44) Benefits granted to the Indians included items such as thread, thimbles, needles, hoes, etc. However, the vast majority of the $12,000,000 covered administrative costs of running the Bureau of Indian Affairs in California. Add to this those funds misspent early on, and it is easy to see that Indians actually received very little benefit from the $12,000,000.

The proposed $5,000,000 settlement caused an uproar. In response to the controversy, the government established the Indian Land Claims Commission in 1946. Because Indians were no longer willing to allow non-Indians to push the Indian cause, in 1947 the Federal Indians of California was founded. The group submitted an $88,000,000 claim as a proposed settlement above and beyond the $5,000,000 already awarded. The 100 delegates present adopted a resolution granting the executive committee the power to hire legal counsel and press the claim. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1966:13)

Much of the activity occurring after World War II was the result of Indians being introduced to a wider perspective. "Now, war as we know it is a horrible thing, but the war did one thing for our Indian people as it did for so many representatives of many ethnic groups. It took them out of their environment, and it scattered them all over the world, as well as the United States, and they saw how the other half lived." (Harrison, 1966:11) Many Indians returned from the war more aware of the way in which governments worked. The war had shown them how the rest of the world lived, and they were no longer satisfied with what was previously theirs. Some returned to their groups with this newly developed knowledge, while others ventured out on their own.

Following World War II, a movement called "termination" began. Termination was to be a process of removing Indians and their land from federal trust. "After the war, as the United States spent millions of dollars rebuilding Germany and Japan, the government hoped to rid itself of its embarrassing failure to 'rebuild' Indian nations by simply withdrawing government aid to Indian people. This philosophy was expressed in the Hoover Commission survey of 1948." (Heizer, 1978:122)

The 1950s saw the beginning of the Hoover Commission's recommendation to initiate termination. "California Indian tribes were to be among the first targets for termination. The commissioner of Indian affairs who inaugurated this policy, Dillon Meyer, was principally known as the man responsible for administering Japanese-American concentration camps during World War II. In 1952, the Bureau of Indian Affairs began to energetically push termination: the Indian Service introduced to Congress several termination bills specifically for California, and in anticipation of that policy, the government ended all Indian Service welfare payments to pauper Indians in the state." (Heizer, 1978:122)

Also in 1950, the first $5,000,000 settlement was distributed to Indians in California. "Congress finally adopted legislation providing $150 for each California Indian (leaving a portion of the award still in the U.S. Treasury)." (Forbes, 1969:106) However, by 1951, 23 separate claims had been filed with the Indian Land Claims Commission for additional relief.The first law that actually initiated termination was in the field of criminal justice. "In 1953 Congress passed Public Law 280, which brought California Indian Reservations under the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the state." (Heizer, 1978:122) Crime occurring on the reservation was no longer the responsibility of the United States government. This new law caused much confusion and resulted in poor protection for Indians on reservations. It was frequently reported that many county sheriffs would arrive three or four days late for emergency situations. In 1957, California Indians called unsuccessfully for repeal of the act.

In late 1952, another issue was brought to the attention of the public. "Twenty-two young Indians, veterans of World War II and Korea, claimed they cannot buy shaving lotion because it contains alcohol. They have formed an Indian Right Organization to fight what they call 'this new menace to the Indian.'"(Sacramento Bee, Dec. 29, 1952, p. 1) However, this was not the first time that the problem had been brought to the attention of the government. In 1946, Indians, in a hearing in Eureka, requested that the prohibition against the sale of alcohol to Indians be lifted. In April 1953, Governor Earl Warren signed into law Senate Bill 344, which for the first time in 81 years made it legal for "full blooded Indians" to purchase alcohol. (Sacramento Bee, Apr. 9, 1953, p. 10)

In 1954, the process of termination moved closer to reality through House Resolution 108 the intent of which was "as rapidly as possible to make the Indians within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are applicable to other citizens of the United States. . . . Indian tribes and the individual members thereof, located within the States of California [and other states] . . . should be freed from Federal supervision and control and from all disabilities and limitations specially applicable to Indians (Spicer, 1969:218)

"The California Legislature had endorsed the idea of termination in 1953 but during 1954 made an abrupt change, largely as a result of the hearings conducted by the State Senate Interim Committee on Indian Affairs. The committee found that most reservations were simply unprepared for termination, with a multitude of problems often including undefined boundaries, no roads, no water, no sanitation, substandard housing, and 2,600 complicated heirship cases. The state was unwilling to accept the financial responsibility for correcting the failures of bureau management and opposed the BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] termination legislation." (Forbes, 1969:112)

"In 1954, a conference of social scientists, mainly anthropologists, met under the chairmanship of former Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs John H. Provinse for the purpose of pooling their knowledge and bringing it to bear on federal Indian policy. A portion of the statement they produced follows. 'An assumption which seems to underlie the basic philosophy of much of the United States approach centers about the idea that assimilation of the American Indian into the normal stream of American life is inevitable, that Indian tribes and communities will disappear. There was complete agreement on the part of the discussants that this prediction is unwarranted. . . . Group feeling and group integrity among the American Indian are as likely to gain strength in the decades ahead as they are to lose it.'" (Spicer, 1969:249-250)

Again in 1957, the process of termination was initiated. "In 1957-58, the State Senate Interim Committee conducted another investigation and found that 'with minor exceptions . . . very little has been done to carry out the recommendations set forth in the [1954-55] report' to prepare Indian reserves for termination. In spite of that fact, the committee in 1957 recommended termination legislation. . . ." (Forbes, 1969:112-113)

In 1958, the Rancheria Termination Act was enacted. "The law provides for the distribution of all rancheria land and assets and directs that a plan be prepared for each rancheria outlining to whom and how the assets shall be distributed. Such a plan, when approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and accepted by the participant, becomes the operating program under which title is transferred from the Government to the Indians." (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1966:16) While plans were developed and termination proceeded, many of the plans were not implemented. However, "In response to the pressures of termination, the land claims case, and other issues, on May 3, 1958, Inter Tribal Council of California (ITCC) was founded. The Council was the successor to the California Indian Congress, which was disbanded at the formation of the new group. The purpose of ITCC is to protect Indian land ownership, preserve established privileges and immunities, and promote understanding and unity and preserve cultural values." (Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1958, pp. 4, 9)

In 1959, the problems with termination were temporarily forgotten. "In that year, the Indian Claims Commission issued an order stating that the Indians of California had aboriginal title, as of 1853, to approximately 64 million acres of California land west of the Sierra Nevada." (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1966:20) A settlement of $29,100,000 was awarded as redress. This amounted to approximately 47 cents per acre. The Indian Claims Commission approved the settlement in 1964, and Congress appropriated the funds that same year.

Indian Grinding Rock State Historic Park, Amador County

A new era for Indians was about to begin, and just as the social scientists had predicted in 1954, tribal governments and tribal identity did play an important role. "Nationally the civil rights movement ushered in an era of social consciousness among White Americans. In conjunction with the end of the claims and termination issues among native leadership, the climate was again ripe for reform in Indian affairs." (Heizer, 1978:716)

As previously mentioned, the Indian Claims Commission awarded California Indians $29,100,000 as redress for land from which they had been evicted. While most California Indians eventually would accept the payment, some would not. Members of the Pit River and Feather River groups opposed the settlement. So, when the settlement was awarded, many Indian people were not satisfied with the 47 cents per acre they were to receive.

During the 1960s and 1970s, people who had not previously identified themselves as Indians began to do so. A new awareness was rising, and with this came an increase in the number of Indians listed in the census. However, another program that had an effect on the number of Indians in California was the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) program of relocation. "During the war about 23,000 Indian men and 800 Indian women served in the armed forces, and an estimated 46,000 Indians left the reservation to find employment. Many remained to make California their home.

Then, in 1950, the BIA established a job-placement program . . . [and] the program to assimilate Indians into the mainstream expanded from that point. Strangely, the BIA didn't keep records of its relocation pro gram, but nearly 100,000 Indians were relocated to California between 1952-1968 to find employment lacking on reservations. . . . " (Sacramento Bee, Sept. 6, 1982, p. 23) Indian people who had lived on reservations were now faced with the new problems of living in an urban environment and the inability to find services. Many were just not ready to live in a city.

In 1964, a monumental case concerning Indian religion occurred in California. On April 28, 1962, a group of Navajos met in Needles to perform a religious ceremony in which peyote was used. Peyote is a drug derived from the buttons of the mescal cactus. The Indians were arrested and tried for violating the law which prohibited unauthorized possession of the drug. Judge Mathew O. Tobriner of the California Supreme Court issued the court's decision, In responding to a lower court's verdict, Tobriner wrote, "The court ruled to deny Indian use of peyote was a violation of their religious freedom. 'We preserve a greater value than an ancient tradition when we protect the rights of the Indian who honestly practices an old religion. . . .' " (35 CAL Reporter, 1964:708) At this point, public consciousness began to recognize Indian religion and the value it had to the Indian people.

The year 1964 also saw the formation of the American Indian Historical Society by Rupert Costo, a Southern California Indian. "The AIHS was especially concerned with bringing an Indian viewpoint to bear upon historical writing but it also became concerned with many related issues including the white biases of school textbooks and the non-Indian orientation of school curricula." (Forbes, 1969:120) Since its formation, the society has published The Indian Historian,and from 1973 until recently, it published the Wassaja, an Indian newspaper.

The 1960s and 1970s brought the concept of Indian self determination to reality. Indian Self Determination is a program in which Indians determine their future through the development of policies that meet their needs as they have defined them. It is too early to say if the program is a success. However, an early example of Indians having control over their lives was evidenced in the California Indian Health Demonstration Project. "This project originated in the State Department of Public Health, Bureau of Maternal and Child Health in 1967. Nine projects were set up among reservation communities throughout the state. Funded by state and federal health departments, these pilot projects stressed Indian participation and control and have acted as a catalyst for community cooperation in bringing medical and dental services to rural and reservation Indians. . . . By 1973, sixteen projects had been set up. . . ." (Heizer, 1978:124) With the formation of the California Rural Indian Health Board in 1969, an Indian-controlled coordinating body took charge.

In 1967, the California Indian Education Association was founded. In October of that year, a conference in North Fork, California ". . . brought together about 200 Indians who thoroughly analyzed the problems involved in Indian education. . . . Basically, the North Fork Conference called for increased Indian involvement at all levels of the education process. It especially emphasized the role of the Indian family and community in the education of children and advocated the development of Indian-directed out-of-school educational projects. Stress was placed upon the value of the native heritage. The North Fork Conference also called for the restoration of Johnson O'Malley funds. . . ." (Forbes, 1969:121) With the formation of the California Rural Indian Health Board, the American Indian Historical Society, and the California Indian Education Association, California Indians were involved in the process of controlling their past, present, and future.

The acknowledgment of Indians continued in 1968 when Governor Ronald Reagan signed a resolution calling for the fourth Friday of each September to be American Indian Day in California. This acknowledgment has done much to inform the general public about Indian heritage and the problems that are confronted by Indians in California.

"Another important development since the 1960s was the creation of Native American studies departments at major universities in California. In the fall of 1969, Indian students at the University of California at Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Davis and at Sacramento State University demanded that these institutions begin programs and offer courses in Indian culture and history." (Heizer, 1967:125) Today, much valuable information has come from these programs. They have also assisted Indian students by providing them with needed services, and have promoted a better Indian self-image.

"Indian land issues became international news in November 1969 when a group called Indians of All Tribes occupied Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay and held the site for nearly two years." (Heizer, 1967:716) "Within two months, the Pit River Tribe learned the lesson of Alcatraz." (Balin, 1971) On June 5, 1970, the Pit River Tribe issued a proclamation that stated: "We are the rightful and legal owner of the land. . . . No amount of money can buy the Mother Earth; therefore, the California Indian Land Claims Commission has no meaning. The Earth is our Mother and we cannot sell her." (Ibid.) Since then, the Pit Rivers have successfully reoccupied a number of pieces of land. By 1970, the census showed that there were 91,018 Indians in California. This number did not differentiate between California Indians and Indians who came here from other states. In 1972, 120 years after the Indians signed the 18 lost treaties, 60,000 California Indians received $633 each as compensation for land covered by the treaties. Some Indians refused the payment, and some failed to cash the check, but others who had waited for generations and had spent much time and money trying to resolve the issue accepted the payment. The land claims case was finally over.

Ten of the original terminated rancherias left Indian ownership by 1974. The same year, California reservation Indians filed and won a class action suit known as the Rincon decision. The suit charged that the Indian Health Service had not provided California Indians with health care comparable to that provided in other states. The U.S. District Court in San Francisco agreed. The State of California began to supplement federal Indian Health money in 1975, the first state to do so. (Heizer, 1978:126; Sacramento Bee, Sept. 6-7, 1981) In 1982, California Indians received most of the $8,700,000 supplemental funds from the Rincon ruling award.

In 1976, the California Native American Heritage Commission was established. Since that time, the commission has assisted Indians in preserving cultural and religious sites important to them. By 1980, the number of Indians in California had grown to more than 201,000, more Indians than in any other state. Probably a little more than half of these are the descendents of aboriginal Californians. Their population is still far below the approximately 310,000 Indians living in California when Europeans first arrived on these shores.

Ya-Ka-Ama Indian School, Sonoma County

Author's Note and Conclusion

In 1972, when I first read Dee Brown's book Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, my reaction to the book was a combination of incredulity and anger. Having had a adopted sister of Indigenous heritage, I found my self determined to do what I could personally to address what was then almost 500 years of European-American chaos here in the American West.

The scope of a book on every tribe in every state would be very wide. Indigenous people have lived in what is now the Americas for thousands of years. By now, if you as a reader have at all been moved by this article, I would encourage you to inform yourself about the history of Indigenous tribes in the USA and Canada.

I have hopefully explained why each of these destructive myths have not only harmed Indigenous People, and to quote a musician, "rust never sleeps." As I finish this article, politicians are ruminating about sending undocumented people seeking a better life back to any one of the 200+ countries and regions around the world. European-Americans baffle my Indigenous friends about sending immigrants back to their country of origin. They say "they don't understand the stupidity of talking about repatriating immigrants, when they are immigrants too.

Each state on the United States has a track record of the worst sort of outrageous cultural imperialism toward Indigenous Tribes. There has been land snatching, countless millions of Indigenous people turned into slaves or worse. Genocide in this country and the Americas in total accounts for the worst mass murders in the world. Some 100,000,000 Indigenous People have been killed by gold hungry, land hungry, and enslavement of Indigenous people. Today, the fate of the Earth and our own existence hangs by a thread, and Congressional and Industrial jackoffs are denying publicly and PREPARING PRIVATELY for what will be the worst era of human life in the period of written history. Species are disappearing at a record pace, trees are being cut raising the possibility of reducing the overall air quality worldwide, and the spectre of famine is growling at the front door.

All life is sacred, the Earth as our home is alive itself, changing constantly as we walk on it. What was a cornfield today could be a volcano tomorrow. It happened in Mexico in the last century. The ocean will rise as various human related chemicals and gases are released by fossil fuel consumption. What was a beach last year could be underwater in 25 years. The species we live with have equal rights to survive. Indigenous Peoples around the globe understand these principles. We are going to face the results of how we live here on Earth,and right now, the time to address the issue is now. Indigenous Tribes understand this. What is it that prevents the rest of the world from seeing the cliff before we drive off of it. The seventh generation of our current generation should be considered when making decisions about how we interact with this planet. What will they think? It is up to us.

A History of American Indians in California:
HISTORIC SITES

Underlined sites are links to more detailed reports.

1. Ahwahnee, Mariposa County
2. Alcatraz, San Francisco
3. Anderson Marsh, Lake County
4. Angel Island, Marin County
5. Anoyum, San Diego County
6. Bald Rock Dome, Butte County
7. Black Mountain, San Luis Obispo County
8. Bloody Island, Lake County
9. Bryte Memorial Building, Yolo County
10. Camp Hill, San Luis Obispo County

11. Captain Jack's Stronghold, Modoc County
12. Channel Islands, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties
13. Chaw'se/Indian Grinding Rock State Historic Park, Amador County
14. Cherokee, Butte County
15. Chimney Rock, San Luis Obispo County
16. Cho-Lollo, Tulare County
17. Cupa, San Diego County
18. D-Q University, Yolo County
19. Dana Point, Orange County
20. Dry Creek Valley, Sonoma County

21. El Scorpion Ranch, Los Angeles County
22. Estens and Kuvuny, Ventura County
23. Ferndale Ranch, Ventura County
24. Foresta Big Meadow, Mariposa County
25. Fort Bidwell Boarding School, Modoc County
26. Fort Bidwell School, Modoc County
27. Fort Gaston, Humboldt County
28. Frank Day's Home, Butte County
29. Gabriel's Grave, Monterey County
30. Glen Eden Springs, Riverside County

31. Greenville Meeting Hall, Plumas County
32. Gunther Island, Humboldt County
33. Helo/Mescalitan Island, Santa Barbara Island
34. Herbert Young's Residence, Butte County
35. Hilltop Tavern, Alameda County
36. Hopland High School, Mendocino County
37. Humqaq, Santa Barbara County
38. Hunting Blinds, Modoc County
39. Ishi's Hiding Place, Butte County
40. Knights Ferry, Stanislaus County

41. La Casa Grande, Sonoma County
42. La Jolla Village, San Diego County
43. Lake County Courthouse, Lake County
44. Las Viejas Mission, San Diego County
45. Madonna Mountain, San Luis Obispo County
46. Malki Museum, Riverside County
47. Manchester Reservation School, Mendocino County
48. Manchester Round House, Mendocino County
49. Mankins Ranch, Plumas County
50. Marie Potts' Home, Sacramento County

51. Mechoopda Indian Rancheria, Butte County
52. Mutamai, San Diego County
53. Mesa Grande Street, San Diego County
54. Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County
55. Nome Lackee Indian Reservation, Tehama County
56. North Fork School, Madera County
57. Old Kashia Elementary School, Sonoma County
58. Old Spanish Town, Santa Barbara County
59. Old Tule Reservation, Tulare County
60. Onomyo, Santa Barbara County

61. Painted Cave, Monterey County
62. Painted Caves, San Luis Obispo County
63. Pate Valley, Tuolumne County
64. Pete's Adobe, San Diego County
65. Place Where They Burnt the Digger, Amador County
66. Port San Luis, San Luis Obispo County
67. Quechla, San Diego County
68. Ramona Bowl, Riverside County
69. Rancho Canada Larga, Ventura County
70. Re-kwoi, Del Norte County

71. Rice Canyon Petroglyph Area, Lassen County
72. Roberts House, El Dorado County
73. Rogerio's Rancho, Los Angeles County
74. Round Valley Commissary, Mendocino County
75. Round Valley Flour Mill, Mendocino County
76. Round Valley Methodist Church, Mendocino County
77. Rust's Cemetery, Mariposa County
78. San Pasqual Battlefield State Historic Park, San Diego County
79. San Pasqual Cemetery, San Diego County
80. Santa Lucia Peak, Monterey County

81. Santa Rosa Rancheria, Kings County
82. Sherman Institute, Riverside County
83. Shisholop, Ventura County
84. Sloughhouse, Sacramento County
85. Paauw/Smith, San Diego County
86. Smith River Shaker Church, Del Norte County
87. Sonoma Barracks, Sonoma State Historic Park, Sonoma County
88. Squem, Monterey County
89. State Capitol, Sacramento County
90. Sutter's Fort, Sacramento County

91. Takimildin, Humboldt County
92. Tejon Indian Reservation, Kern County
93. Tischler Rock, Orange County
94. Tommy Merino's Home, Plumas County
95. Toro Creek, San Luis Obispo County
96. Trabuco Adobe, Orange County
97. Tulapop, Los Angeles County
98. Viejas V.F.W., San Diego County
99. Wilson Cemetery, Mariposa County
100. Wilton Baseball Field, Sacramento County

101. Ya-Ka-Ama, Sonoma County
102. Yosemite Rancheria, Mariposa County2

A History of American Indians in California:
SELECTED REFERENCES

Anderson, Dr. John. Personal Communication. Native Land Claims Genealogies, Native Religions, Kamiakin Institute, Sandpoint, Idaho. June 1986.

Archibold, Robert. "Indian Labor at the California Missions; Slavery or Salvation." Journal of San Diego History, Vol. XXIV, 1978

Balin, Roxanne. "One of the Last Human Hunts of Civilization, and the Basest and Most Brutal of Them All." Image 3 Graphic, 1971.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. History of California. Vols. I, II, and IX. Reprint. Santa Barbara: Wallace Hebberd, 1963-64

Banning, Evelyn I. "Helen Hunt Jackson in San Diego." Journal of San Diego History. Vol. XXIV, FaIl, 1978, No. 4.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. The California History Plan. Vol. I. Sacramento: 1973.

California Indian Herald Vols. I and II. 1922-23.

Cook, Sherburne Friend. Population Trends Among the California Mission Indians. University of California Press, 1976.

________________. "Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840." University of California Anthropological Records, 20 (5) 1962.

Cranston, Senator Alan. Personal communication with his office. 1986.

Ellis, George. The Red Man and the White Man in North America. 1882.

Ellison, W. H. "Rejection of California Indian Treaties." Grizzly Bear. May 1925, pp. 4-5

Fehrenbacher, Don E. A Basic History of California. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964.

Forbes, Jack D. The Indians in America's Past. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1964.

_______________. Native Americans of California and Nevada: A Handbook.Healdsburg, CA: Naturegraph Publishers, 1969.

_______________. "The Native American Experience in California History."California Historical Society Quarterly, September 1971.

Gemmill, Mickey, "Proclamation: To the President and the American People." June 5, 1970.

Goodman, David M., A Western Panorama 1849-1865: The Travels, Writings, and Influence of J. Ross Browne. Glendale: A. H. Clark, 1966.

Harrison, Michael. "Indian Problem Today." Paper, Sonoma State College. 1966.

Heizer, Robert F., et al. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1978.

Heizer, Robert F. and M. A. Whipple. The California Indians: A Source Book. University of California Press, 1971.

Hill, Dorothy. The Indians of Chico Rancheria. Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1978.

Hislop, Donald L. The Nome Lackee Indian Reservation: 1854-1870. Chico: Association for Northern California Records and Research, 1978.

Hurtado, Albert L. Ranchos, Gold Mines and Rancherias: A Socioeconomic History of Indians and Whites in Northern California, 1821-1860. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1981.

Hyde, Thomas. Personal communication. 1980.

Indian Defense Association of Central and Northern California. 1924.

"Indians on the Warpath: 1954." Footnight. July 21, 1954, p.24.

Jackson, Helen Hunt. A Century of Dishonor. Roberts Brothers, 1885.

Johnson, Kenneth M. K-344; or the Indians of California vs. United States.Los Angeles: Dawson's Book Shop, 1966.

Kelsey, C. E., "Report of the Special Agent for California Indians to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs." March 21, 1906.

Kroeber, Alfred Louis. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington: 1925.

La Pena, Frank. Personal communication. June 1986.

Los Angeles Times. "Indian Form Council to Safeguard Rights," May 5, 1958.

Margolin, Malcolm. The Way We Lived Berkeley: Heyday Books, 1981.

Marysville Herald. January 8, 1857.

Miller, Queenie. Personal communication. 1976.

Morrison, Lorrin L. Warner: The Man and the Ranch. Los Angeles, 1962.

Northern California Indian Association. "The Indian Friend: Report at the Zayate Indian Conference." July 30-31, 1906.

Out West. Vol. XVI, No. 5. May, 1902.

Risling, David. Personal communication. August, 1980.

Sacramento Bee. 1946-1981.

Sacramento Union. April 28, 1964.

San Francisco Chronicle. March 7, 1904.

San Francisco Evening Bulletin. September 11 and 22, 1857.

Schaaf, Greg. Personal communication. June 1986.

Somersal, Laura. Personal communication. 1980.

Spicer, Edward H. A Short History of the Indians of the United States. New York: 1969.

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indians of California. 1966.

Waterman, Thomas T. "Yurok Geography." University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16 (5): 177-314.

Wollenberg, Charles M. All Deliberate Speed: Segregation and Exclusion in California Schools 1855-1975. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.

Reuminations-Thoughts on Music, Books, and the American West

Monday, August 29, 2016

Cowboyin' It by Peter Reum