legal circumstances, parker still believed the treaties were legal and that they needed to be upheld. he also advocated ending the treaty making process in 1871. from that point on, any agreements would take the form of executive orders. again, i sort of already explain what his thinking was on that, i will go back into it. this was a controversial thing about parker. some scholars look at that as selling out. i think we have to look at it from the perspective of what it 1870, rather than looking back from our current point and saying, oh, he was selling out the idea of sovereignty. i think parker was looking at it like a political entrepreneur and someone who practiced pragmatic politics. he was a pragmatist.

did native americans become citizens? mr: genetin-pilawa: no. , we will move forward talk about how the ironies and confusions of this play a key role in the legacies of it. go ahead. >> i'm a little confused, because i was understanding the ideas of fulfilling the treaties in ending the treaty-making process. i get that. bit, i executive order don't understand the motivation there. understand the power of executive orders. mr: genetin-pilawa: i think he is optimistic in the sense that those executive orders would be , with humanitarian

efforts in mind. remember where his political education came from. this is key, and you read about this. what was the case and western new york when the seneca tribe were removed, who became allies? neighbors. neighbors who had a shared enemy in the land companies. that is going to be such a different situation than in the west. everything that he had learned up to this point, his personal experience had been there could here.red interest this will not be the case in the dakotas, the southern plains, california. does that make sense? the real tragedy in parker's life is not that he was a sellout in any way, the tragedy

is his political education set him up to fail. farmers understood that in a way that the western indians did not. mr: genetin-pilawa: yeah. policy becomes a not-so-peaceful policy almost immediately. when parker began his tenure of commissioner, he ran into conflict and controversy right away. william welsh, who was an episode both visionary in the leader of the newly-created board of commissioners gained 8070,erable founder and and use it to advanced campaigns that differ drastically from parker's ideas.

ander was imagining native non-native people working together. here's what they ended up with. --episcopalpo lehman layman. drygoods, blankets, drygoods, drygoods. these are all people who represent industries that .enefit from indian confinement some of them are involved in railroads. these are all people who are wealthy philanthropists, many of them. directw of them had any experience working with tribal communities. all of them stand to benefit personally, in one way or another, from a continuing process of reservations and confinement. does that make sense? these men, involved in drygoods,

transportation, they held a driving philosophy. philanthropist understood the best interest of the indian people, better than indians themselves. they worked to monitor the appropriations and rations purchased, to disperse and supplies, but they also push their own reform agenda which caused tension with parker. it was characterized by christian, coercive character. the key feature of william welsh was that he wanted to continue to dispossess indians of their land. it wanted to hold them on increasingly smaller reservations and undermine their sovereignty. in this crucial moment following 1869, 1870, when the federal government is beginning to experiment with social policy, things you might

policy, andatory the kinds of policies that are being developed to help former slaves incorporate themselves into larger body politics, at the same time this is going on, which are radical changes in the government, any time a radical change in the history of indian-white relations could take place, these men right here advance a body of suggestions that is differing in no significant ways the kinds of suggestions that were abdicated for generations. indians, confine indians, forced them to assimilate as quickly as possible or die out. right, make sense, some familiar? yes? >> in the reading for this week, there was a lot about weather the condition of indians was due

to lack of civilization or to their race. civilized ifcome they were indians, because their race was inferior. ok, that is 40 years before this. with somebody like parker being at the head of this organization, our people now feeling that indians could be raised to be the equal of whites, or do they still think they are an inferior race? mr: genetin-pilawa: the same people believed the same thing for native american people. that's not everybody, but there are those people. on the one side of this tension is someone like parker, who is toocating giving resources give people some kind of compensatory policy. to give them time and opportunities to assimilate.

on the other hand you have these guys who are looking for more of the same. does he say, i think the indians could be equal, or does he say some of my best friends are indians? grantnetin-pilawa: supports the peace policy and the kinds of ideas that parker advocates. i don't want to stifle conversation i want to move to a conclusion here in the last couple of minutes. they were appointed through the, signs off on it, but they were appointed to the executive branch. started out with a point that this is a moment of optimism but it is fleeting. why is it fleeting?

how does that connect to a larger reconstruction era? despite all the efforts of reformers, the reality was it was impossible to hold these two simultaneous goals. time toive people assimilate and develop the west as quickly as possible. they can't exist simultaneously. the two images from the one, simply lecture could not coexist. as settlers moved west, they continue to encroach on indian land. these interactions became increasingly violent to at the 1870's. general george armstrong custer led an expedition into the region. settlersers and flooded into the region. they fought battles with the lakota. ultimatument an

saying all residents the two go back to their reservations. comply, thedn't general attacked. general custard suffered one of the worst defeats in u.s. history by sitting bull. violence exploded throughout the and it washe 1870's, often the indians who suffer the worst. from the perspective of the reformers and policymakers who advocated the peace policy only a few years prior, it looked like there was no peace, native people are resisting aspects of the civilization policies. from the indian perspective, this makes sense. they wanted to retain their homeland and things the united states owed them. they could choose to accept or not accept whatever they wish. as a result, reformers are in

gauge of the conclusion it would have to change indian policy once again. the reservations have failed because indians were too community-minded. would then work, these reformers, to break apart reservations and divide the land into individual family-held plots. this would be the allotment policy of the 1880's through the 1930's. this would result in a final land grab in which tribal committees lose about 100 million of the 150 million acres of land they held by the end of the 19th century. although this. opened with optimism -- although this period opened with optimism for native inclusion in a place in the american nation, by the end of the 1870's, much like the

experience of african americans in the south, the needs and goals of mainstream society came to overshadow and and this optimistic. . period. i want to end with one final thought, and that is the 14th amendment. does someone know the 14th amendment? someone please know the 14th amendment. citizenship for african people, former slaves. i wanted to think about what citizenship might mean to native american people, because we will take up this idea after our break. it is understandable how the 14th amendment and how citizenship and political inclusion is important for african-american entities, particularly in the aftermath of slavery and segregation. think about what citizenship and

the colonizing nation means for colonized people. is that a good thing or not? is it a reward, a benefit, something to strive for, or something else? done a great job today, i really appreciate the interaction and everything. thanks, and thanks for all being here. appreciate it. >> join us every saturday students and join topics ranging from the american revolution to 9/11. lectures in history is also available as podcasts. visit our website or download them from itunes. this year marks the 90th anniversary of the joint committee on taxation. to discuss its history, the u.s.

capital historical society brought together former committee staff members and top experts. the committee is nonpartisan, . an hour.panel is about >> our first panel is going to examine portions of the history of the joint committee on taxation. our first speaker is george yin. and his paper deals with the joint committee's role. george? mr. yin: thank you for the u.s. capital historical society and to the joint committee, tom, and the rest of the staff for organizing it and invited me to participate. it's wonderful to see so many familiar faces enjoying and celebrating the 90th anniversary of this great institution. i thought it would use my time to mention just a few of the

surprises i discovered in researching the history of the joint committee. truth be told, virtually everything i have learned has been very interesting, if not surprising. in addition to satisfying our curiosities, the story of the joint committee is important because the staff of this accidental committee ended up being situated right in the middle of three major intersections in government. those of the legislative and executive branches, the house and senate, and the political parties. it is the first, and i believe the only legislative committee staff to ever be so situated. in that sense, those of you who now serve or have served have been part of a grand experiment, and i hope to explore some of the implications in my broader research. although for reasons that they will relate to us shortly, the legislativvi