From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available.(May 2007)

The General Allotment Act of 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act or the Dawes Severalty Act) authorized the President of the United States to survey Native American tribal lands and divide the areas into allotments for individual Native American families. It was enacted on February 8, 1887 and named after its sponsor, U.S. Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts. The act was amended in 1891 and again in 1906 by the Burke Act. The act remained in effect until 1934.

Encompassing sweeping changes, this Act is now generally viewed as having enormous effects on the native tribes it was designed to assist. The Dawes Commission, set up under a Native American Office appropriation bill in 1893, was created not to administer the Dawes Act, but to attempt to persuade the tribes not covered by the Act to agree to the allotment plan the Act established. It was this commission that registered the members of the Five Civilized Tribes in the Dawes Rolls.

The General Allotment Act did not apply to Alaska Natives; however, the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906 included provisions under which individual Alaska Natives could acquire titles to land in a similar manner.^[1]

Contents 1 Summary of sections 2 Effects 3 Contemporary Interpretations of the Dawes Act 4 See also 5 References 6 Sources 7 External references

• Section One authorizes the President to survey Native American tribal land and divide the arable area into allotments for the individual Native American. It says that a Native American family may receive 160 acres if they are to farm, 80 acres if they are to raise cattle and 40 acres for any normal living purposes.

• Section Two states that each Native American will choose his or her own allotment and the family will choose for each minor child. The Native American agent will choose for orphan children.

• Section Three requires the Native American agent to certify each allotment and provide two copies of the certification to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs one to be kept in the Indian Office and the other to be transmitted to the (United States Department of the Interior/Secretary of the Interior) for his action, and to be sent to the (General Land Office).

• Section Four provides that Native Americans not residing on their reservation and Native Americans without reservations will receive the equal allotment.

• Section Five provides that the Secretary of the Interior will hold the allotments "in trust" for 25 years. At that time, the title will belong to the allotment holder or heirs. It also allows the Secretary to negotiate under existing treaties for the land not allotted to be purchased on "terms and conditions as shall be considered just and equitable between the United States and said tribe of Indians."

• Section Six states that upon completion of the Land Patent process, the allotment holder will become a United States citizen and "be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens".

• Section Seven addresses water rights on irrigated land.

• Section Eight exempts the Five Civilized Tribes and several others from the act.

• Section Nine appropriates the funds to carry out the act.

• Section Ten asserts the Power of Eminent Domain of the Congress over the allotments.

• Section Eleven contains a provision for the Southern Ute Native Americans.

The land granted to most allottees was not sufficient for economic viability, and division of land between heirs upon allottees' deaths resulted in land fractionalization. Most allotment land, which could be sold after a statutory period of 25 years, was eventually sold to non-Native buyers at bargain prices. Additionally, land deemed to be "surplus" beyond what was needed for allotment was opened to white settlers, though the profits from the sales of these lands were often invested in programs meant to aid the American Indians. Over the 47 years of the Act's life, about 90 million acres (360,000 km²) of treaty land — about two-thirds of the 1887 land base — was lost to Native Americans, and about 90,000 Indians were made landless.^[2]

The Dawes Act, with its emphasis on individual land ownership, also had a negative impact on the unity, self-government, and culture of Indian tribes.^[3]

By breaking up reservation lands into privately-owned parcels, legislators hoped to complete the assimilation process by forcing the deterioration of the communal life-style of the Native societies and imposing Western-oriented values of strengthening the nuclear family and values of economic dependency strictly within this small household unit (Gibson, 1988).

In 1906 the Burke Act (also known as the forced patenting act) further amended the GAA to give the Secretary of the Interior the power to issue allotees a patent in fee simple to people classified ‘competent and capable.’ The criteria for this determination is unclear but meant that allotees deemed ‘competent’ by the Secretary of the Interior would have their land taken out of trust status, subject to taxation, and could be sold by the allottee. The allotted lands of Indians determined to be incompetent by the Secretary of the Interior were automatically leased out by the Federal Government (Bartecchi, 2007). The act reads:

“..the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, and he is hereby authorized, whenever he shall be satisfied that any Indian allottee is competent and capable of managing his or her affairs at any time to cause to be issued to such allottee a patent in fee simple, and thereafter all restrictions as to sale, encumbrance, or taxation of said land shall be removed.”

The use of competence opens up the categorization, making it much more subjective and thus increasing the exclusionary power of the Secretary of Interior. Although this act gives power to the allottee decide whether to keep or sell the land, provided the harsh economic reality of the time, lack of access to credit and markets, liquidation of Indian lands was almost inevitable. It was known by the department of interior that virtually 95% of fee patented land would eventually be sold to whites only (Robertson, 2002).

The Act forced Native people onto small tracts of land distant from their kin relations. Traditionally, in most indigenous societies, women were farmers while men were hunters and warriors. The allotment policy depleted the land base, ending hunting as a means of subsistence. According to Victorian ideals, the men were forced into the fields to take on the woman's role and the women were domesticated. This Act imposed a patrilineal nuclear household onto many traditional matrilineal Native societies. Native gender roles and relations quickly changed with this policy since communal living shaped the social order of Native communities. Women were no longer the caretakers of the land and they were no longer valued in the public political sphere. Even in the home, the Native woman was dependent on her husband. Before allotment, women divorced easily and had important political and social status for they were usually the center of their kin network. With this act, women were deprived title to land and the distribution of allotments proved this point. To receive the full 160 acres, women had to be married and even then, her husband received title to the land.

In 1926, Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work commissioned a study of federal administration of Indian policy and the condition of Indian people. Completed in 1928, The Problem of Indian Administration — commonly known as the Meriam Report after the study's director, Lewis Meriam — documented fraud and misappropriation by government agents. In particular, the Meriam Report found that the General Allotment Act had been used to illegally deprive Native Americans of their land rights. After considerable debate, Congress terminated the allotment process under the Dawes Act by enacting the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ("Wheeler-Howard Act"). (However, the allotment process in Alaska under the separate Alaska Native Allotment Act continued until its revocation in 1971 by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.)

Despite termination of the allotment process in 1934, effects of the General Allotment Act continue into the present. For example, one provision of the Act was the establishment of a trust fund, administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to collect and distribute revenues from oil, mineral, timber, and grazing leases on Native American lands. The BIA's alleged improper management of the trust fund resulted in litigation, in particular the ongoing case Cobell v. Kempthorne, to force a proper accounting of revenues.

The Dawes Act has also come to play a significant role in Native American religious freedom. The Dawes Rolls became a major criterion for tribal enrollment and helped form the basis of CDIB (Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood) numbers used to determine tribal membership and eligibility for eagle feather permits. Eagles are religious objects to many Native Americans. Therefore families that did not sign onto the Dawes Rolls often cannot prove their Native American heritage and consequently cannot obtain eagle feather permits for their religious use of eagle feathers.

Ward Churchill has argued that the Act "imposed a formal eugenics code," by setting a "blood quantum" requirement for tribal citizenship. John LaVelle of the University of New Mexico contends that Churchill's interpretation is "sorely lacking in historical/factual veracity and scholarly integrity." LaVelle contends that the Act contains no blood quantum requirement, and that such requirements were adopted voluntarily by tribes, and not imposed by the US government. LaVelle asserts that "[t]he main flaw of this federal/tribal conspiracy theory is that it rests on — and propagates — demonstrably false information concerning the contents and impact of the General Allotment Act." Other scholars have relied in their work on Churchill's assertion that the General Allotment Act contained a blood quantum requirement.^[4]

• Alaska Native Allotment Act
• Indian Reorganization Act
• Cobell v. Kempthorne
• Americanization (of Native Americans)

• Case, David S. and David A. Voluck. (2002). Alaska Natives and American Laws, 2nd ed. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Press.
• Olund, Eric N. (2002). “Public Domesticity during the Indian Reform Era; or, Mrs. Jackson is induced to go to Washington.” Gender, Place, and Culture 9: 153-166.
• Stremlau, Rose. (2005). “To Domesticate and Civilize Wild Indians”: Allotment and the Campaign to Reform Indian Families, 1875-1887. Journal of Family History 30: 265-286.
• Pine Ridge Project Blog Bartecchi, David (2007). "The History of "Competency" as a Tool to Control Native American Lands"

• Dawes Act of 1887 fulltext from the Native American Documents Project
• Wheeler-Howard Act (Indian Reorganization Act) 1934

v • d • e Rights of American Indians
Trials	Cherokee Nation v. Georgia · Colliflower v. Garland · Standing Bear v. Crook · Cobell v. Kempthorne · Talton v. Mayes
Acts	Indian Civil Rights Act · Civilization Act · Pueblo Lands Act · Native American Technical Corrections Act · American Indian Religious Freedom Act · Burke Act · Dawes Act · Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act · Indian Child Welfare Act · Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 · Indian Gaming Regulatory Act · Indian Intercourse Act · Indian Removal Act · Indian Reorganization Act · Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act
Other	Public Law 280 · National Indian Gaming Commission · Dawes Rolls · Eagle feather law