4.7 Dawes Act

The Dawes Act of 1887 marked a pivotal shift in U.S. Indian policy, aiming to assimilate Native Americans through individual land ownership. It divided tribal lands into allotments, undermining communal systems and opening "surplus" lands to non-Native settlement.

This policy had far-reaching consequences, eroding tribal sovereignty and causing massive land loss. The act's impact continues to shape Native American issues today, influencing land ownership, economic development, and ongoing efforts to address historical injustices.

Background and context

• Native American land ownership and tribal sovereignty faced unprecedented challenges in the late 19th century
• Westward expansion and federal policies aimed at assimilating Native Americans into mainstream American society set the stage for the Dawes Act
• The Dawes Act of 1887 represented a significant shift in U.S. Indian policy, moving from tribal treaties to individual land allotments

Native American land ownership

Top images from around the web for Native American land ownership

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Native American land ownership

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Dawes Act - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Communal land ownership formed the basis of many Native American societies
• Tribes held land collectively, with individuals having use rights rather than private ownership
• Traditional land use patterns included seasonal migrations and shared resource management
• Concept of individual land ownership conflicted with many Native American cultural and spiritual beliefs

Westward expansion pressures

• Manifest Destiny ideology fueled American settlers' push into Native territories
• Discovery of gold and other resources intensified land conflicts (California Gold Rush)
• Railroads and new transportation routes cut through Native lands
• U.S. government sought to consolidate control over western territories

Allotment policy origins

• Reformers advocated for allotment as a means of "civilizing" Native Americans
• Senator Henry Dawes championed the policy as a way to promote individual land ownership
• Allotment viewed as a solution to perceived inefficiencies of communal land use
• Policy drew inspiration from previous treaties that included land allotment provisions (Treaty of Fort Laramie)

Key provisions of act

• The Dawes Act, also known as the General Allotment Act, fundamentally altered Native American land ownership
• It aimed to break up communal tribal lands and promote individual property ownership among Native Americans
• The act had far-reaching consequences for tribal sovereignty and Native American culture

Individual land allotments

• Divided tribal lands into individual parcels assigned to tribal members
• Allotment sizes varied based on family status: 160 acres for family heads, 80 acres for single adults
• Land held in trust by the U.S. government for 25 years before full ownership granted
• Aimed to encourage farming and ranching among Native Americans

Tribal land dissolution

• Broke up communal tribal lands held in reservations
• Surplus lands not allotted to individuals were opened for non-Native settlement
• Reduced overall land base of many tribes significantly
• Undermined traditional tribal governance structures

Citizenship requirements

• Native Americans who accepted allotments became U.S. citizens
• Citizenship came with the expectation of adopting "civilized" ways
• Required renunciation of tribal affiliations and customs
• Aimed to accelerate assimilation into mainstream American society

Implementation process

• The Dawes Act implementation varied across different Native American tribes and regions
• The process of selecting reservations and distributing allotments was complex and often contentious
• Implementation faced numerous challenges, including resistance from tribes and logistical difficulties

Reservation selection criteria

• Focused initially on reservations in agricultural areas
• Prioritized lands with potential for farming or ranching
• Considered proximity to white settlements and potential for non-Native expansion
• Some tribes exempted due to treaty rights or political considerations (Five Civilized Tribes)

Allotment size variations

• Standard allotments: 160 acres for family heads, 80 acres for single adults over 18
• Smaller allotments of 40 acres given in areas with irrigated land
• Some tribes negotiated different allotment sizes based on local conditions
• Variations led to inequalities between and within tribes

Surplus land disposition

• Lands remaining after allotment declared "surplus" by the government
• Surplus lands opened to non-Native settlers through various means (land runs)
• Proceeds from land sales meant to be held in trust for tribal benefit
• Often resulted in checkerboard pattern of Native and non-Native land ownership

Impact on Native Americans

• The Dawes Act had profound and lasting effects on Native American communities
• It fundamentally altered traditional ways of life and tribal social structures
• The act's implementation led to significant land loss and economic hardship for many tribes

Tribal sovereignty erosion

• Undermined tribal governments' authority over land and resources
• Reduced tribes' ability to make collective decisions about land use
• Weakened traditional leadership structures and decision-making processes
• Increased federal government control over Native affairs

Cultural disruption effects

• Forced shift from communal to individual land ownership
• Disrupted traditional subsistence patterns and seasonal migrations
• Undermined cultural practices tied to specific lands and resources
• Accelerated loss of language and cultural knowledge in some communities

Economic consequences

• Many allottees lacked resources to develop their land effectively
• Increased vulnerability to land speculation and fraudulent deals
• Loss of communal resources led to increased poverty in many tribes
• Fragmentation of land made it difficult to pursue large-scale economic activities

Resistance and opposition

• Many Native Americans and their allies actively resisted the implementation of the Dawes Act
• Legal challenges and political advocacy sought to protect tribal lands and sovereignty
• Debates over the act's merits and consequences continued throughout its implementation

Native American responses

• Some tribes initially refused to participate in allotment process
• Ghost Dance movement emerged partly in response to land loss and cultural disruption
• Native leaders lobbied Congress and government officials to protect tribal lands
• Some individuals strategically used allotment to protect key tribal territories

Legal challenges

• Tribes filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Dawes Act
• Supreme Court case Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) upheld Congress's power to abrogate treaties
• Legal battles over specific allotments and land sales continued for decades
• Some tribes successfully delayed or modified allotment through legal action

Supporter vs critic arguments

• Supporters argued allotment would lead to Native American "civilization" and self-sufficiency
• Critics warned of land loss and cultural destruction
• Debate over whether individual or communal land ownership was more beneficial
• Discussions of assimilation vs. preservation of Native cultures intensified

Long-term consequences

• The Dawes Act had far-reaching and often devastating long-term effects on Native American communities
• Its impact on land ownership and tribal sovereignty continues to shape Native American issues today
• The act's consequences led to significant policy shifts in the 20th century

Land loss statistics

• Native Americans lost approximately 90 million acres of land due to allotment
• Tribal land holdings reduced from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million by 1934
• Some tribes lost over 90% of their original reservation lands
• Land loss varied widely between tribes, with some losing all their lands

Fractionation of ownership

• Inheritance laws led to increasingly divided ownership of allotments
• Many parcels now have hundreds or thousands of individual owners
• Fractionation makes land use and management extremely difficult
• Contributes to ongoing economic challenges in many Native communities

Reservation checkerboarding

• Created a patchwork of Native and non-Native owned lands within reservations
• Complicates tribal jurisdiction and law enforcement
• Makes cohesive land management and economic development challenging
• Continues to impact tribal sovereignty and governance today

Legacy and modern relevance

• The Dawes Act's effects continue to shape Native American policy and land issues in the present day
• Efforts to address the act's negative consequences have led to new policies and legal frameworks
• Contemporary tribal land issues often trace their roots to the allotment era

Indian Reorganization Act connection

• Passed in 1934 to reverse the effects of the Dawes Act
• Ended allotment and restored some lands to tribal ownership
• Encouraged re-establishment of tribal governments
• Shift towards self-determination in federal Indian policy

Land claim settlements

• Many tribes have pursued legal action to reclaim lost lands
• Some successful settlements have resulted in land returns or compensation
• Complex process often involving federal legislation and negotiations
• Ongoing efforts to address historical injustices related to allotment

Contemporary tribal land issues

• Efforts to consolidate fractionated lands through buy-back programs
• Debates over tribal jurisdiction on checkerboarded reservations
• Environmental and resource management challenges on fragmented lands
• Continued impact on economic development and tribal sovereignty

Historical interpretations

• Scholars and historians have debated the Dawes Act's intentions, implementation, and consequences
• Interpretations of the act have evolved over time, reflecting changing perspectives on Native American history
• The Dawes Act remains a crucial topic in understanding U.S.-Native American relations

Assimilation vs dispossession debate

• Early interpretations often focused on assimilationist goals of the act
• Later scholars emphasized land dispossession as primary motivation
• Debate over balance between ideological and economic factors
• Recognition of complex interplay between assimilation and dispossession goals

Intentions vs outcomes analysis

• Discussions of disconnect between stated intentions and actual consequences
• Examination of role of individual actors (reformers, government officials, settlers)
• Analysis of unintended consequences and long-term effects
• Consideration of Native agency and resistance in shaping outcomes

Dawes Act in historiography

• Shift from viewing act as well-intentioned but flawed to seeing it as part of colonization process
• Increased focus on Native perspectives and experiences in historical accounts
• Integration of Dawes Act analysis into broader narratives of U.S. expansion and Indigenous dispossession
• Growing recognition of act's central role in shaping modern Native American issues