we are honored to have you join us here for this important commemoration. we gather today in the kennedy caucus room of the russell senate office building. but we recognize that we're in the region, which was the ancestral of the next shenk the piscotty carnoy pur monkey and manahawkin peoples. this is washington. everybody claims it but gather acknowledging that this is

ancestral land of the peoples and we gather to tell that are all too often ignored misunderstood or turned into myths that people believe that are far from reality. my name is jane campbell and i have the honor of serving the president and ceo of the united states capitol historical society. to set the in a good mood, we are going to pause for a moment of reflection from larry wright mr. right is an enrolled member of the ponca tribe of nebraska, served as tribal chairman for 11 years and is currently the executive director of the national congress of american indians, which describes itself as the oldest, largest and most

representative american indian and alaska native organization, serving the broad interests of tribal governments and communities. in this position, mr. wright is responsible for managing the organization's day to day success and public education arm. he's a military veteran and a former studies teacher from lincoln, nebraska. mr. wright. she she should have said recovering social status teacher to still working on that. but it's an honor to be sworn in and honored to be asked to give the invocation. i'll say this in my language and they'll translate. and so with all respect, just ask you to. pray in your own way while i do. so thank you.

oh, okay. then on the whole holding on by the wood, i guess they will last you that she they go along with the we will ensure the pumpkin got the beluga don mcgregor no sugar. okay. they won't be the icky to harm modern burger. oh yeah. somebody's got to with the horseshoe the other no sugar okay the only the make it home with all. eduardo look i would like to we great spirit we thank you this day we thank you for the blessings that you you you bestow upon us. we thank all of those that made this day possible bring us together to learn our past and and talk about our future.

we thank you for the strength and guidance that you give us. i say a special prayer to for all for all my people, my ponca people, all of our tribal nations, all those that come together and on our behalf to help help our sovereignty, help our people and pray for, strength and guidance. and thank you for all these blessings. got to go. we blanch. i know. thank you. thank you very much, larry. we forward to hearing more from you this on the panel. now, some of you were with us last night and some of you weren't. so this story will sound familiar. but i want to tell you something, just to put it all in perspective. ann richards was governor of texas and she was speaking to a group of us when we were young elected officials.

and she said, you know what, people you to say something 12 times before people hear. so if you're hearing it this story for the second time, you know you're only partway there. five years ago, i was the newly appointed ceo of the capitol historical society today. so one of the things you do when you're new is you go around and you talk to the leaders. i'm one of those leaders, congressman tom cole, who was our one of our congressional advisor at the time. he was ranking member of the rules committee. and so he sat down with me and he questioned me about, my plans and what were we going to do at the historical society? it was 2019. i told him that we were planning a symposium in 2020 to recognize fact that women had earned the right to vote. and we wanted to look the

struggle for the right to vote and the impact of women having the to vote. and he looked at me and, he said, look, i'm good with women voting. i think that's a fine thing. my mother was in the oklahoma legislature all about it. but i want you to promise me that in 2024 you will do equally significant to commemorate the 100th anniversary of. my people earning right to vote. and that was the beginning of this symposium. and so today's event is part of the delivery on that promise. he then gave me a handful books to read. he's a ph.d. historian who was a professor turned congressman. here, take these home and read them, including at that time, killers of the flower moon, which nobody had heard of.

so i've learned a lot. today we come together to, commemorate the indian citizen chipped act or the schneider, which many of us had an opportunity to see at the national archives. and they are displaying it for the this period of time, so that if you haven't there and you have an opportunity to go see it, it's in the rubenstein gallery of rights. now, in 2019, 24, when the snyder act was passed, it granted citizenship to native americans born within the territorial limits, the united states and extended the 15th amendment, which granted citizens the right to vote and thereby created indigenous suffrage. it would be a vast oversight

simplification to say that. the schneider act guarantees american indians access to the polls across the country. it has taken the civil rights movement and years of continuing activity to try to secure those rights. and the work is not done. it also be an oversimplification to say that the schneider resolved the inherent difficulty and important tensions between, the concepts of citizenship and sovereign. and these debates to this day. and will be represented in the conversations these five years have been a real education for me. and our team. and we've been affected greatly from our advisory committee who we want to acknowledge the honorable dan boren, kiki, carol, sophia, andre jacobs,

maria maribel bunch, heidi, total cheyney and hilary tompkins. and we're grateful for all them for helping us put this together. we are also grateful for our partners who have in this program. our presenting partner, wells fargo. our platinum park partner, chix, the chickasaw nation. our bronze partner, mcguire woods. and the american association. each of which have made contributions to this effort. we are some at some point today. i'm going to introduce to a very special young woman who did the art that is on the program. so look at the art and know that we are going to meet. we going to meet cedar hunt, who is a high school from montana,

who entered her into the congressional art competition and won the montana's first district and she's even bringing her mother. so we will see her at some point, acknowledge her. we want to thank senator markwayne mullin and the senate rules committee for making this room to us. so now i would like to invite to the podium our first panel on native american citizenship, suffrage and and history. joining us today are two distinguished scholars, dr. lyla teeters noel and dr. david j. solverson. dr. dr. noel is a lecturer here at heart in harvard university's history and letters literature program. she holds degrees from vassar college, from columbia

university and the university of new hampshire. in 2021, lila was a j. willard hearst fellow, the american society for legal history and the university of wisconsin law school, as well as a recipient of the charlotte w newcomb fellowship with the institute for citizens and scholars. current project is entitled native citizens. the fight over native americans citizenship in the u.s.. 1887 to 1924. david silverman is a professor history at george washington university city, where he has taught since 23. he's the author of several books on native american colonial american and american racial history, including this land, is land. the wampanoag plymouth colony and the troubled history of thanksgiving, which was

published in 2019. and thunder firearms and the violent transformation of native america, which appeared under the harvard university press, 2016. he is currently writing a new book about indigenous people and race in the united states. would you please these distinguished scholars, the stage. we will hear their presentations and then will have an opportunity for questions. so do you want discuss what? no. i'm going to sit right there. so i'll be able to see you. excellent. well, thank you so much for having me here today. i really consider it an honor. be here and amongst these scholars and activists.

i've already learned a lot. and i'm forward to the conversations that happen over the course of the day. so as jane said, i'm primarily a legal historian. my specialty is passage of the 1924 indian citizenship, also known as the semester act. and when i started doing research into this legislation, the predominant understanding at among legal historians was that by 1924, native citizenship in the us was relatively uncontroversial and that congress passed the legislation shown as a type of belated patriotic response. native american service during world were one that citizenship was a belated gift to native american people and indeed, you look at the congressional record of the debates surrounding 1924 act, you'll likely be convinced of this interpretation.

there was hardly any debate over the 1924 act and the legislation was supported. the department of the interior, the bureau of indian affairs and some of the most well-known native americans at the time, including charles eastman arthur parker, carlos montezuma. it seemed as if there was this consensus that the time had come for american citizenship. but when we look beyond the immediate passage of the 1924 legislation, it's clear just how controversial american citizenship was the united states in the decade preceding the snyder act. so, for example, in the winter of 1923, many representatives and native american activists came to dc to form a committee of 100 to reflect on the state

of native policy and to recommendations to congress. the secretary of the interior, in their final report. they noted that the american was largely in support of native american citizenship, but they also noted, quote, the cold facts that every time a bill confirms citizenship has been introduced in congress, indians themselves had have in opposing them and the evidence they said was in congressional archives. and, of course, historians and activists within, native communities have always known the duality of american citizenship that on one hand, citizen worship is a powerful tool that comes with essential rights that can help bolster sovereignty, but that it also be coercive and threatening to. so in my allotted time today, i,

i would talk a little bit about the controversy surrounding native american citizenship, the lead up to 1924 as a way to understand why some native americans and non-natives thought that u.s. citizenship was the best path forward for native america and nations, and why others opposed it. and then i'll also sort of gesture towards how those debates to shape suffrage debates over the course of the 20th century. so i alluded to there are plenty people who supported the legal and social integration of native americans into the american body politic. the primary indigenous activists were members. the society of american indians, which was a pan indian reform organization founded in 1911. and it worked closely. non-native reform groups, congress and the bureau to address corruption policy

changes and the well-being of native american nations and individuals. they spent a lot of time in these halls for many of, the leaders of the societies, such as president charles eastman citizenship in the u.s. was the best way to protect and ensure the future of native americans for citizenship would open up greater access to the courts, which allowed many native americans to serve on juries and make suffrage a greater possibility. they traveled around the nation, galvanizing americans to write to their congressional leaders, urging them to support native americans citizenship as society member, chickasaw citizen and, u.s. congressman from oklahoma charles carter wrote citizen in ship would be a, quote, simple of justice to render to the indian, that which has long been due to him, end quote.

very efforts were incredibly success civil. i really think that they are the linchpin and turning non-native american sentiment pro native american citizenship in this period and their efforts led to the passage. the 1919 indian veterans act which allowed native veterans to apply for u.s. citizenship. the other eager to make native american citizens was u.s. congressional representatives before the 1924 act. the primary for native americans to become citizens was through the doors act or the general allotment act of 1887. this piece legislation was determined break up tribal reservations tribal communities and communally held lands. this was conceived of as a definite and purposeful blow to tribal sovereignty and tribal nations.

i believe silverman will talk more about the desert. yes. okay. but i just want to give you a brief overview of it so you can understand the importance. the argument a lot each tribal member or had a family a specific parcel of land and importantly allotment would be held trust by the u.s. government for 25 years during which the land would be immune from local and state taxation. the act also allottees citizens of the united. it's hard to the effect of this conceived as in is similar to a progress, a piece of legislation and to millions of land loss. and an attempted to strip native of their cultures and land practices. in 1906. congress altered the terms of

the dawes act through the burke act. we're going to get into some legal weeds here, but i urge you to. stay with me. well the days that made native american allottees citizens upon receiving their allotment, the 1906 act delayed that until trust period for the individual land allotment was terminated meaning that now citizenship, taxation and end of the trust relationship, the personal trust relationship all coincided at one moment. you could become a citizen once, you receive the pot and then fee for your allotment and you became vulnerable to taxation in congress. also declared that the 25 year trust period could be terminated early so long as the secretary the interior approves. so this meant that the secretary could declare a native american

individual ready for citizenship, which would terminate the trust provision on an allotted land early, which would then them liable to state and local taxation. and this could be done without an individual's consent or application citizenship, and it could be done against their explicit. for congressmen who. lived in states with large native american populations, particularly that had been allotted they had the potential to open up a new incredibly large tax base. and these congressmen were hearing from constituents and their state government counterparts notes about how difficult it was non-native citizens to funds local governments areas opened by the act, quote unquote surpluses. congress was being by their constituents, release indian land to taxation and the burke

act seemingly gave the secretary of the interior permission to do just that. so in other words for many native americans citizen just came to look like just another way to take american lands out of indigenous possession. by 1917, it was bureau policy to release native americans quickly as possible from the trusts to make them citizens to give them their patented fee to make them vulnerable taxation and citizenship was thus a way to citizens who were ideologues committed to native american right, who saw native americans being essential to american identity and those who were driven by more material concerns against. this backdrop. it's very easy to see opposition

to citizenship. and i want to emphasize in this next part about how native american activism, really changed citizenship policy in the united states. first, this will come as surprise. there was sustained to impose citizenship because of the tax obligations that came along with it. and i to be clear, this wasn't just shirking small tax bills. these were large tax bills. and these tax bills out in force patenting as this process came to be known, was incredibly. many native americans could not afford the taxes and would lose their land or other as a result. communities had counted on the 25 year trust period as a way to bolster resources and, establish revenue on some reservations. up to 90% of land that was forced patent it was it would be lost.

resistance to forest patenting to the early release of the trust and the imposition of citizenship was swift. the patterns would appear by u.s. certify wide mail, which often led to extended standoffs between native american individuals, postal workers. and then also we had numerous court cases coming out of indian country to fight forest, which are ultimately successful. and by 1922, the courts decided that forest patenting is an process. every citizenship bill introduced. between 1887 and 1922 had allotment provisions included in it. citizenship in this period was intimately tied with allotment and assimilation. but native american, whether they were for or against citizenship, indigenous peoples. right to their culture and histories and allotments

threatened mabini tribal nations ability to practice fully their cultures and to memorialize their histories. and of course, allotment would lead to taxation. one of the loudest and effective advocates against allotment in the name of cultural sovereignty was pablo abeyta of the pueblo people. he met with congressional representatives repeal to reject citizenship because of the repeated reliance on allotment and the assimilation it represented. the pueblo worked with many artists, including date de d.h. lawrence, to publicize their protests and this led to congress abandoning at least two citizenship bills. it created a nightmare for congress and the last rejection of citizenship that i to cover. and this time came the whole show or the iroquois and they

they're probably the most well known for their rejection of us censure and they rejected based on political sovereignty and law. their tribal councils wrote many letters to congress personally or through reminding congress that imposing citizenship upon would be a violation of their sovereignty, a violation of treaties, an assault on international law. as one lawyer reminded congress, quote they are independent nations and they still have complete over their internal affairs and quote the legacy of world war one hung heavy in these protest. one lawyer for the john nash only wrote, quote, we proclaimed, but yesterday the right of weak to self-determination we denounced. but yesterday other peoples who broke their treaties solemnly made and waged war on them for

deed where we hypocrites are in search only for a world to praise, end quote. the whole nation, he threatened, tie these issues up in courts lawsuits filed or threatened public protests. the uproar made by these type bills made passing indian citizenship nearly impossible as the committee of 100 recognized that 1923, when the 1924 act passed it not because it was uncontroversial, but because it was done so swift, fully and quietly. and it was a much different piece of legislation session than might congress had previously envisioned. there are four main changes i want to highlight. one, the citizenship act did not remove tax protections early. two, it did not any sort of continued allotment in it.

three, it did not affect tribal status or claims, tribal property and it contains no cultural provisions. although i do want to recognize that obviously assimilation pressures would continue and continue. of course, citizenship was still imposed, was still non-cancer sure, but it would be up to the generation of indigenous americans to leverage that citizenship to not only preserve our indian sovereignty, but to strength in it and to fight for a greater, greater suffrage rights in the nation that declared them citizens in a particular really cruel bit of irony. the very victories of 1924, the exclusion of early taxation provisions and the continued ability to claim tribal status would become some of the major ways that states would try to

limit native american sovereignty. and so this is a fight that would continue from 1924 and that we're living with today. thank you. good morning, everybody. i'm to be on this program today with, such luminaries and i'm humbled this, morning aware that i'm a addressing a history that some of the people in this room have lived and whose ancestors have lived. i'd like to begin this morning by offering a theoretical and historical framework for approaching subject of the indian citizenship act. my theoretical framework, which i offer for those here and online, who are unfamiliar with

indian country, is that native americans are, not just another american racial or ethnic group like asian-americans, americans or irish americans, for two central reasons. one is that are indigenous, which is to say they were here first. as such, they did not come into. the united states voluntarily, the vast majority of them never asked to join it as full members. white people imposed the country them. the history of native peoples relations. the united states has involved a constant struggle to defend the inherent sovereignty that comes being indigenous, and by that i mean the right to self-governance recognize territorial boundaries and the power to engage with other foreign states. put another way, the focus of

peoples aspirations, unlike, say, african-americans, has not been equal with white people. the most of them today certainly expect that status. but the exercise of greatest sovereignty possible. the second central reason the native people differ from other american racial and ethnic groups is that they are organized into polities. tribal nations that govern their members and their territory. though the united states does not permit them to engage in foreign relations like other sovereign powers, these tribal nations exist not only by virtue of their members inherent indigenous rights, but by virtue of recognition by the united states through senate ratified treaties which under the constitution, are the supreme law of the land and by supreme court rulings. thus, tribal nations engage in

government to government relations with the federal government, which makes native people different than any other group in america. again, that background i'd like to devote rest of my time here to discussing the historical background to the indian citizenship act by contending that in the century plus preceding the indian citizenship act, native people experience granting of u.s. citizenship as a by which white people, dispossessed and subjugated them, not as a gift, promising equality and opportunity from. the country's very founding. u.s. authorities voiced the desire to christianize civilize and absorb native people into the nation in the hope that this offer would indians to surrender their land and authority voluntarily. american leaders also hoped this

program would lead posterity, which is to say us to see some moral purpose in the country's expansion at native expense. precious few native people took up the offer not only because they found it unattractive on its face, but because they had witnessed white americans exploitation and. even extirpation of christian civilized indians who tried a pattern that stretched back into the 17th century. and i'd be happy elaborate on on that pattern in our discussion. in other words from the start native people saw the fundament problem in the utopian dreams of white reformers for indian assimilation and citizenship. the main obstacle was not indian opposition. formidable as it was but the unwillingness of most white americans to treat they deemed as racial inferiors with

dignity. never equality, no matter how culturally similar they were. this pattern played out repeatedly throughout the 19th century. the most glaring early examples during the indian removal period. our histories of that dark chapter tend to overlook that most removal treaties, which were designed to make the process to look voluntarily voluntary contained provisions to allow native people to remain back if they took up private property accepted state law and became citizens. though handful of moneyed elite indians generally of white ancestry made good on this offer the vast who took up the offer suffered plunder and murder at the hands of white mobs. this was the case for example

for thousands of creeks or muskogee us whom southern whites robbed. 2 million allotted acres and, then drove west of the mississippi in chains in what can only be called an -- of violence. 5000 choctaws represent, a quarter of their tribe. also suffered whites fleecing them of their allotments and the opportunity to remain in their native homeland state governments helped to orchestrate this pillage while the federal government stood by and did nothing. the only place where indian success became citizens was wisconsin. there several hundred brother towns indians and stockbridge mohicans took the citizen. citizen and ship and private property option, which they called becoming rather than to kansas. having already migrated from

southern new england to escape white persecution in, some of them were confident that their status as civilized christians equipped to compete in white society. despite the obstacles of race, prejudice. most of them spoke and wrote english. they governed their own churches. they ran sawmills grist, mills, farms, logging operations. quite a number of them had command of white law. three of the brother town indians would go on to serve in the wisconsin legislature. yet many of them came to regret the transition to citizenship as white. the tax man and hucksters zeroed in on their alignments. three years into the experiment most of the stockbridge mohicans petition to return their and back to the legal status as

indians, they have all their lives been called indians. the has appealed to congress. it is their desire to continue adding that their natures and their disposition words can no more be changed than skins be made white and transparent. the stock ridgers did return citizenship and managed to secure another reservation which they retained to this day. the brother towns who remain citizens, has lost everything in a state with a seal containing the latin saying civilization replaces, barbarism and depicting an indian hunter retreating westward in the face of a white man guiding plow. the pattern continued throughout the 19th century in the midwest and the northern portion of federal indian. kansas. repeatedly a native people

facing tried to parlay the acceptance of private property and citizenship into the right remain where they were. hence, for example, the eponymously named citizen potawatomi broke the --. by and large, not entirely. by and large, the native people who made these attempts were mixed indian white backgrounds, which they hoped would provide them with some measure of acceptance by the white majority. their attempts are written across maps of this era in places called half breed tracks. they're all over the midwest. one enrolled member of the car, charles curtis, would parlay the profits from his half breed allotment into fortune that would contribute to him becoming a federal senator, kansas and ultimately vice president under herbert. almost no has heard of this guy. even among his stories and so

that that begs conversation. most people though found that citizenship was an empty promise. there very few charles curtis's out there. the united states intended reservations to be way stations on the on the road to assimilation private property and not permanent homelands. but these places didn't function the way the u.s. intended. in actuality the federal government government failed miserably in making these places reasonably decent places to live. it did not provide food to sustain people could no longer support themselves. traditional means, nor did it provide adequate farming implements and livestock to promote the transition to farming. it did not provide near sufficient medical care for people ravaged by diseases, preyed on their malnutrition,

frayed psychologies and, poor sanitation. its agents routinely the people they were supposed to protect. and perhaps worst of all, and this is is closely related to the issues of citizenship the government did next to nothing. as surrounding whites plundered the reservations of livestock fencing and firewood trespassed on grazing lands and trafficked in liquor. in other words native people could see plainly that the bound but did not protect while it protected did not bind. whites. the government's plan to assimilate indians toward incorporating them, citizens included forcing native children to attend boarding schools, some on the reservations, others very far away. in these places. white authorities, the children to a daily regiment of military

drills, roll calls, work details and corporal punishment with little time for rest and leisure. none of this resembled mainstream white american life. this was not preparation shown for participation in white america. the education was rudimental eerie and outrightly white supremacy, including the relentless message that the students backgrounds were savage and inferior health conditions abysmal marked sickness and death from communicable diseases. at rates the government never would have tolerated white people following school. most native alums found no more acceptance in white society than if they had never attended school in the first place and little opportunity to apply the skills they had learned on the reservation. it was during the reservation and boarding school regimes that

congress passed the dawes act 1887 and the curtis act of 1898, named after aforementioned charles curtis himself to speed along the indian to private property and. the dawes act. authorize the division of indian reservations tracts usually of 160 acres or less. and the allotment of those parcels, parcels among native individuals. as we've already heard, would be a 25 year restriction on the allottees selling the track. the tracts to provide time for him or her to learn how to manage the land as a source of. once interim period elapsed, each indian would receive a fee lifting all restrictions on alienation mortgages, leases from then on again just to the point, you know, you have to say these 12 times. the title holder would be

responsive able to pay property taxes and the risk of having the tract confiscated for debt. furthermore, he or she would become an american citizen if the government judged the lady to have become civilized before end of the 25 year wait he she could be granted unrestricted ownership and citizenship. early as for the remaining undivided of the reservation, the would purchase this surplus the tribe and keep most of proceeds as an interest bearing account to fund its civilization programs, including the boarding schools. i find a strange species of cruelty to force to have forced people to fund what amounted to the kidnaping and cultural reprograming of their own children, as if to twist the knife further. the government's plan was sell the indian surplus territory to white homesteaders.

the idea here was that by the time indians became property holdings citizens, they would be enveloped by white society and ready to join it. allotment legislation had been in the works years as white reformers concluded that the reservations were to turn indians into civilized yeomen and white economic interests now zeroed in on the natives remaining profitable resources. a as early as 1876, the commissioner of indian affairs was already questioning and, i quote, whether any high degree of civilization is possible without ownership of land, a notion that was reflective of the teachings of that era as anthropology. over the next several years, white progressives, who styled themselves as friends of the indians, gathering at an annual

conference at lake mohonk, the upper hudson river valley, turned this principle into mantra. in one of the conference series, more memorable speeches, merrill gates, the president of amherst college, declared and we by which he meant white reformers, must make the indian more intelligently selfish. before we can make him unselfish, intelligent, we need to awake and in him wants discontent with the teepee and the starving rations. the indian camp and winter is to get the indian out of the blanket and into trousers and trousers with a pocket in them and in a pocket that aches to be filled with. dollars. massachusetts senator henry dawes, whose name and surname became synonymous with allotment

since little aik of this sort when he visited the cherokee. in 1885, one cherokee officer boasted to and i quote that there was not family in the whole cherokee nation that had not a home of its. there was not a pauper in the nation and the nation did not owe a dollar. it built its own capital and built its own schools and hospitals. in other words, leave us alone. but dawes was unimpressed by the shared security afforded by the cherokees communal principles. they have gone as as they could go. he judged because they own their land in common, consistent with the ideology of his republican party. dawes to see individuals striving for wealth to create a rising sea that lifted all boats practically. commissioner of indian affairs from the late 19th through the

early 20th centuries agreed whole heartedly with them, as did the vast majority of the many organized ones created by the friends of the indians, most native spokesmen, and more than a few whites, including in congress, insisted that this legislation would prove to be nothing more than a massive plundering of indian land. and they were correct. it did not take. 25 years after allotment for the pillage to begin because the interim period the government repeatedly granted citizenship and the right to sell the land to indians it deemed which meant nothing more than those of mixed white indian backgrounds. there had been more than 155 million acres of indian land in 1881. by 1934, that number was 48 million. so 155 million acres to 48.

two thirds of native people were either completely landless or so land poor that they could not earn a subsistence. they became minorities, their own reservations. nowhere more so than in indian territory promised to the removed tribes forever. where? by 1907, when oklahoma became state, the number of whites stood at almost 550,000 compared to 80,000 african-americans and just 61,000 native people. superintendent of indian charles bourke surveying. the wreckage in 1923 lamented a race of landlord has been transformed into a race. tenants. what i'm saying here is that the allotment act and there and the allotment acts and they're supporting legislation had not turned indians white citizens. instead these measures became yet another example of how in

white america involved exploiting native people with impunity while claiming to act in their benefit reducing them to destitution and then blaming them for the results results. virtually no white people during this entire era conceived of a system like we have now in which tribal nations have secure land bases, exercise self-government and practice their religious and lives however they choose. now, that vision almost certainly existed in the minds of some native people before 1924, but not as a realistic political possibility because whites simply would not consider it. the range of options were very narrow throughout american history as far back as the colonial era, most white americans responded to native american indifference. and quite frankly, with campaigns, exterminate them.

the only dissenting voices from white america came from progressives of the day who conceived that indians who became christian and civilized could become citizens with all same rights and responsibilities as white people. and here's the rub these reformers would not confront that most of their fellow white americans would not grant people that option, nor would they consider. the united states tolerating native living in their own on their own land, protected from white exploitation. they considered such a course to be just a slower to extinction than outright extermination. the desperation native people in the face of these options, i contend, largely explains why some of them, like the acculturated formerly educated and professionally native people

who founded the society of american in 1911, advocate for the indian citizenship ship act. it helps to explain why native veterans of world war one did so to their options. were meager. the only they could conceive to the destitution of reservation life was full incorporation into the united states. i'll close just by noting today things are different. the results, the result generations of native american activism, lawyering, lobbying and sheer resilience. it's also a result at least enough white people being to listen. but i fear for the future. the current era's combination of indian sovereignty and citizenship exists at the sufferance. an american majority and the will of congress, i contend that

the current status quo is not based on informed principled public commitment to indian self-determination, but instead on a passive of, a state of affairs handed to us by lawmakers and in the 1970s. most americans know nothing about the history i've discussed here this morning. most americans know nothing about the current state of indian country and its place within american federalism, even if americans did possess this knowledge. i fear that a sizable of them would revert to the position reformers in the 19th and early 20th century that native american difference is unacceptable and even dangerous. or that native american sovereignty somehow a special handout rather than an inherent indigenous right. my pessimism is grounded in an awareness of this country's

history and the current state of our society. thanks. well, you certainly given us much to think about. this is our our moment to have questions. if you are from the audience, have questions. i think we have someone with a mic cards with. cards. okay. k. this is katie ryan and sam holliday, who are the two key staff members who have been putting this together. so raise your hand and they will you a card to write your write your question on and we do that. we have been joined by the artist that i told you about. cedar would you stand up? this is cedar hunt.

who? the artist and. comes to us from montana and even brought her mother. so we welcome we welcome and her mom and if you if you get an opportunity to talk to her the piece is got a whole sense of history. it's it's ledger art and it is imposed the kind of ledgers that were required for so many native people that somehow white folks felt like the native people couldn't handle their own finances. so there was a ledger that they had to go to get their own money. and that's that's a little bit of the story. but you'll see there will be with us a while. so take a moment. talk to this talented young

woman. okay. question during 1924, federal act consideration and it did the legislature consider any state level barriers that was any of that taken into consideration. shows so you know as a as mentioned the debates in congress are pretty sparse when it comes to the 1924 act. however, does come up is how the act will affect suffrage for indigenous people. and and so sort of propels congress to a conversation of state level legislation and snyder the man who bears his name on the piece of legislation assure the congressmen that the act would not change any state

legislation affecting native suffrage. so that's one way that it it comes. professor and i would add that, you know, we need to be careful not to conflate the granting of citizenship with the exercise of equal rights, even the indian citizenship act, states like new mexico and arizona continued to prohibit native people from voting. they didn't gain that right in those states until world war two receiving citizenship didn't mean justice. there have been rights commissions that have focused on the unequal application of justice or we might say the unequal application of injustice in states like south dakota arizona and new mexico. these these commissions conducted these investigations

almost every decade from 1940s onward. and you know they're patterns that have become all too familiar to us in the context of the black lives matter movement. but, you know, all of those issues to native america as as well, even states where native people, theoretically or legally had the right to vote, there's a distinct pattern of white obstruction of of native peoples to the polls. you know which i you know if anyone is the news it's a pattern that has continued up to this this very time. so, you know i do sum it up. we need to be very careful not to conflate citizenship with legal and social equality. and we another question from the audience, would you discuss and some this will come up in our later panels but we you're

you're the first off the bat so you get the first you know the first the first hit would. you discuss the significance of the various strategies that tribal nations and active artists are employing in the citizenship struggle, both historically and currently the unique relationship. nations we have. i'll i'll leave the current struggle to the people are fighting it they know far more about it than than i do certainly you know what i can say historically. is that native people. in their early 20th century are in such a desperate strait straight that they are grasping for any means as to protect what

little had left and you know you know the thrust of my talk was to have confront what a narrow of options there were the conception that native people could simultaneously be citizens and sovereign nations did not exist in hardly any white people's minds. it almost certainly existed native peoples minds. but it wasn't even part of the discussion. the state of reservations by and large was so abysmal that some native people said the only other possibility. here is to get with the mainstream to try to integrate and hope hope hope against historical patterns is that doing everything people ask will

lead to some measure of justice and dignity in the public square square. that was and that was an experience that very few of them were able to realize not because of their own shortcomings, because but because of the white supremacy of the majority american population. yeah, i, i add as well that i think we're also in midst of sort of reevaluating the, the 1920s as a time of native american activism, right. as dr. silberman has emphasized, was this very small band possibilities for. native american peoples facing overwhelming odds for a country that was bent on the destruction of their tribal nations. however, i think activism really

helped up the future generations is right. there's an establishment of tools that becomes very helpful so. for example, the the cultural work that the are doing that people like charles eastman are doing that is really trying to explain young to non-native america ends the interim value of native american culture ideas histories. they're pretty successful in making inroads to populations that had been wildly hostile to to rights so for example the pueblo are able to create a coalition that is able to protect a lot of cultural practices and i think the you can call like the pr move right

actually helps set up some of the conversations that come later in the 20th century that have their own drawbacks which i'm happy to talk more about some point. another sort of strategy i would highlight is this appeal to international law that the whole notion capitalize on it's not effective in the united states contact in in 1924. however if you know anything about the whole nation, you'll know that their lands are surrounded by two settler colonial nations and the united states of those nations by no are trying to impose on native population at the time the whole nation is surrounded by canada. go to the league of nations and say this is why you are founded. this is a violation of international law. stand up for us. they don't. however, it sets a precedent.

tribal nations using international organizations as a way to bolster claims tribal sovereignty that will manifest a little bit more productively in 1950s and obviously 1970s and onward. and then also in of this idea of tribal sovereignty existing alongside u.s. citizenship, i think a way that we can u.s. court like u.s. to be nice to some of the taxation cases that i referenced before as certainly intending to leave the door open for sort of almost like a dual citizenship situation or for a way for people to hang on to tribal nationhood while also being members of of the us. there's a way that those cases are sort of providing a

precedent that native can use later on to see, to say, look, 1916, the u. supreme court said that tribal belonging is not income flecked with u.s. citizenship, and that is a way that can sort of manifest as greater rights in the latter half of the 20th century. we got another question from the. and so give a sense of what our audience is like. the title of law was an act to authorize the sit. the secretary of interior to issue certificates of citizenship to. are there any extant certificates and what those certificates say? do you know. yeah. so this is one of the great mysteries of the 1924 acts, right? the mismatch of the name, which

seems narrow in its and its ambition and. then the texts which makes it all made of americans in the territorial states, citizens and honestly don't have a great answer for that. and anyone here does. please come me. but but my understanding is that congress is really trying to handle the fallout from that 1922 decision and which ends patterning. and so they're dealing with revoking a lot of patterns that were forced and while also trying to impose citizenship on certain natives. it's real sort of like crisis moment for a congress in 1922 to 1926 as they deal with the fallout this as far as certificates their. the certificate is actually your

your payment fee. it's just that the title to your land so yes you can find them there online and in terms of what's sort of ironic about this is in the period that i was talking about before there was actually paperwork that could confer from an indigenous person's status as a u.s. so it led to this again, crisis where sometimes americans would try to to claim rights that were inherent in citizenship. but without proof of citizenship, it became very hard to do that. and the bureau of indian affairs was only marginally in providing people with evidence of their citizenship status. yeah, i. i'd like to note that the

granting of these certificates when, you know, when they were delivered to native people in reservation settings very often was by a ritual which will drive home the point that i was making earlier in most white americans minds private property holding civil association were inextricable from citizenship. so the ritual would involve a native man emerging from a teepee shooting arrow off into the distance and then dropping the bow and to a plow and putting his on it and. sometimes, you know, they'd raise american flag. it speaks to the point. okay, we're going to do one more question and then i will take a

break. so for those of you who are in person, we're going take a break, reconvene at 11:00 for our online urs. we'll be back at the podium at 11:00. for those of are here in person, we have a coffee and a little snacks and an opportunity for you to talk informally with one another so we've got two questions. i'm going to give you two questions to answer together. and they don't really go together so you can you know, roll with this one. is that one of our one of our audience members was thinking about own experience visiting indian reservation agents in 1968 when he was dispatched as part of a congressional outreach to look at the impact of the war on poverty, to see if it was making any headway in native

country. and so do you have any thoughts about that? and then on a more contemporary question, one of our one of our audience members suggests that perhaps there's some similarities to the russian invasion ukraine to take that that might analogous to the white settlers coming on to the native land. so if you would like to either one of those questions please i can take a stab at both of them. the war on poverty is actually an important moment in the beginning of the modern era of native sovereignty and self-determination, not and the reason that's the case is that federal funds began to be

through tribal government rather than through federal agents. and that forced many, many tribal nations to create the the apparatus to receive, distribute track, track those funds. so that's an important moment. i'm no expert on ukrainian affairs but you know as an informed person i've read enough to know that you know, like most nations that invade other nations the aggressor nation has a historical mythology mythology to justify the aggression. that was certainly the case in the united states. you know, where the ideology of manifest destiny the notion that

god destined white america to expand at indigenous expense in order to spread christianity opportunity in short, western civilization was a galvanizing force. it served justify all of the horrors of that expansion entailed and. you know let's be clear about what i mean by horrors. these were wars of extermination against native communities that targeted women, children and, the elderly. make no mistake about it. and the idea, again, was that god blessed this endeavor. so, yes, there are certainly parallels. i suffer a and lyla supports it. and so we have for each of you, a small gift from this society today. but the the gifts are,

paperweights that are our models of the capital made from marble, that was from the capital. when they did the restoration, they gave some of the capitol steps. and we have made it into these things. and hope you will display that in your offices and remember that we are so grateful for time you spent with us and for being us today. thank you so very much.