The Dawes Severalty Act was designed to promote Indian

Signed into law in 1887 by President Grover Cleveland, the Dawes Act contained several provisions:

A head of family would receive a grant of 160 acres, a single person or orphan over 18 years of age would receive a grant of 80 acres, and persons under the age of 18 would receive 40 acres each.
The land allotments would be held in trust by the US Government for 25 years.
Eligible Indians had four years to select their land; afterward the selection would be made for them by the Secretary of the Interior.

While attempting to paint the Dawes Act as a noble purpose of Indian empowerment and western settlement for all, the primary purpose of the Dawes Act was to break up tribal lands, assimilate Indians to American culture, and transfer Indian lands to white settlers. These goals were supported by the passage of future legislation including the Curtis Act in 1898, which did away with tribal governments and courts. The Burke Act of 1906, which forced Indians to accept citizenship upon receiving the land, thus making that land subject to taxation and could be sold by the person taking control of the land. Many did sell, as the land was unfit to sustain any consistent farming crops, yielded little natural resources of value, and had increasing property tax bills. This economic reality forced these new landowners to sell their lands to land speculators and large corporations such as railroad and oil companies or lose it for nothing due to bankruptcy.

The overall effect of the Dawes Act on American Indians was a negative one. One of the most significant impacts on American Indians was the destruction of the communal holding of property where tribes worked as a collective to ensure the collectives survival. Due to the individual ownership of large sections of land and the corresponding costs of maintaining that land, many American Indians were forced into selling tribal lands to railroad companies looking to acquire territory for the growing desire for more railroad tracks throughout the central and western United States. Oftentimes these purchases were made under duress and below fair market value. American Indian land ownership of traditionally tribal lands decreased by nearly 50% by 1900. Furthering the transfer of Indian territory to those outside native tribes, surplus lands that were not claimed by allottee’s (American Indians receiving lands) were often sold to white settlers or large corporations looking to acquire as much territory as possible.

The overall effect of the Dawes Act on American Indians was a negative one. One of the most significant impacts on American Indians was the destruction of the communal holding of property where tribes worked as a collective to ensure the collectives survival.

After decades of the destructive policies of the Dawes Act, the allotment procedures of native lands was finally terminated by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. While land was no longer being taken, sold, or parceled out to individuals, tens of millions of acres had already been sold off to corporations and individuals, divided up among descendants, or seized by the US Government. Traditional communal cultures of reservations and tribes had been systematically targeted and destroyed and would be virtually impossible to re-build.

The promised benefits of those seeking the Americanization of the native populations never came true. Racism, corruption, and bureaucratic power grabs allowed for the destruction of traditional tribal cultures and eroded the strengths of tribal ownership of land. These actions, along with the events at the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, only further perpetuated the resentment and divide between the American Government, its citizens, and those of American Indian heritage.

The promised benefits of those seeking the Americanization of the native populations never came true. Racism, corruption, and bureaucratic power grabs allowed for the destruction of traditional tribal cultures and eroded the strengths of tribal ownership of land.

Over the first century of its existence, the United States government tried various strategies to solve what it often called the "Indian problem"—the persistence of Native American communities in the face of expanding Euroamerican settlement. Early policies were informed by a belief that Euroamericans and Indians could not coexist. Initially, the federal government sought to remove Indians from lands Euroamericans desired. As Euroamerican expanded to every part of U.S. territory, policy shifted from removal to that of creating reservations, small islands of Indian land surrounded by a sea of Euroamerican settlement. Pressure grew in the late nineteenth century both to open up reservations to settlers and to find a way for Indians and Euroamericans to coexist peacefully. Policy makers and reformers alike began to promote allotment in severalty—the division of Indian lands into individually owned parcels—and the sale of leftover lands as a final solution to the "Indian problem." These ideas were incorporated into the 1887 General Allotment Act.

The General Allotment Act sought to impose private property ownership on Native Americans by dividing their reservations into individual farms. Its more familiar name, the Dawes Act, pays tribute to Massachusetts Senator Henry L. Dawes, who promoted the legislation. The Dawes Act fit into a broader federal policy of assimilating Indians into the American mainstream, and it dovetailed with government-sponsored education programs and Christian mission work in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

Although the ideas underlying the assimilation policy had long existed, Congress and reformers alike showed renewed interest in assimilation in the aftermath of military conflicts like the Battle of Little Big Horn (1876) and the Nez Perce conflict (1877). They sought a more humane way to coexist with (or dispossess) Indians. Many reformers and politicians believed that private property was essential to what they considered "civilized" life and thought Indians were doomed to perish if they held land collectively. Other supporters of the legislation believed that Indians controlled more land than they could or would use productively, and these supporters wanted Indians' holdings reduced to family farm-sized parcels. The Dawes Act became law because it incorporated both humanitarian and expansionist ideals.

Under the act's terms, the president used his discretion to identify which reservations would undergo allotment in severalty. The original legislation specified varying amounts based on a person's age and family status, but it was amended in 1891 to provide at least eighty acres to each person. The federal government could purchase so-called "surplus" land—anything remaining after the allotments were made-but the allotments themselves were to be held in trust for twenty-five years. At the end of the trust period, Indians would receive fee patents—full ownership rights—to their lands. Subsequent amendments eroded the trust period and permitted allottees to lease or sell their lands. Between the sale of "surplus" land and the sale of allotments, many tribes lost substantial portions of their reservations.

Scholars generally agree that the Dawes Act was poorly implemented and that it failed to achieve its assimilationist goals. In addition, some tribes successfully resisted allotment, while others escaped it because their land was of little interest to non-Indians. Congress officially overturned the allotment policy in 1934 and indefinitely extended the trust period on existing allotments. Since then, tribes have actively confronted the problems of checkerboarding (the intermixing of Indian and non-Indian lands) and fractionation (the division of inherited trust allotments into uselessly small shares).

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Dawes Act has featured prominently in a new battleground: the courtroom. The class action lawsuit Cobell v. Norton (filed in 1996) involves individual accounts that were established primarily to hold revenue generated from the lease and sale of Indian land allotments. The plaintiffs charge that the United States has mismanaged individual Indian moneys and cannot provide a proper accounting of the funds. Although the Dawes Act was intended to be the ultimate solution to the "Indian Problem," it has instead generated ongoing conflict.

bibliography

Greenwald, Emily. Reconfiguring the Reservation: The Nez Perces, Jicarilla Apaches, and the Dawes Act. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002.

McDonnell, Janet A. The Dispossession of the American Indian, 1887–1934. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.

Meyer, Melissa L. The White Earth Tragedy: Ethnicity and Dispossession at a Minnesota Anishinaabe Reservation, 1889–1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

Otis, D.S. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973 [1937].

Emily Greenwald

See also:Indian Removal and Response.

Bureau Of Indian Affairs , The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the federal agency responsible for administering policies for Indian nations and communities. Organization The… Dawes Commission , Sources The Indian Problem. Richard Henry Pratt, an army officer on the southern Plains, made an interesting observation in the late nineteenth centu… Indian Reorganization Act , INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 represented a shift in U.S. Indian policy away from forced acculturation and a… Indian Education , Education, Indian EDUCATION, INDIAN. For generations, Native Americans educated their children through ceremony, story telling, and observation, teac… Alice Cunningham Fletcher , Fletcher, Alice Cunningham Fletcher, Alice Cunningham Alice Cunningham Fletcher (1838-1923), American ethnologist, was born in Cuba during a temporar… Indian rhinoceros , Rhinoceros unicornis (Indian rhinoceros) See RHINOCEROTIDAE. Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) See RHINOCEROTIDAE.