prisoners and outbursts they would be in prison for the extent of the war. for me i have heard of other captures of african sailors being shipped to the west indies. slavery, the cain field? i was terrified. >> you can watch the full program anytime online at c-span.org slash history. just to search james 14. >> our topic today is going to start with the discussion of our topic today is we are going native americans, this is one of two different discussions we are having. i want to make clear that we are not talking about the indian wars in this kind of lecture. that's going to be in a couple of weeks. we are going to use that as a way to link kind of wars throughout the 19th century all the way up to, and including, the spanish american war. so, our focus is kind of around that. we are thinking more kind of legal policy and issues, and such. so, the goal is to think in that

broad 19th century way. so, our start point is a couple key things we need to kind of deal with. the second half of our semester, one of the big questions we are picking up on is, what does it mean to be an american? all right, who cannot claim to be an american? that's one of the big questions that's going to kind of take us through the end of our semester into, as we deal with the 19th century. so, in the upcoming weeks, we will talk about, you know, immigrants, we will talk about kind of the progressive era, things like that. but i think this is a good start point to think about who is claiming american status and what does that mean. so, we are going to build from some of the ideas we talked about with the manifest destiny. some of the discussion of political violence and build into these other things. a couple key

concepts that we need to deal with, first of, all its settler colonialism. have you heard that phrase before? i see a couple of yes and a couple of knows. some hands heads kind of bobbing each which way. okay, when we talk about some settler colonialism, let me give you a general definition here. we are talking about colonialism that seeks to replace the original population. colonialism that seeks to replace the original population with new settlers. hence, settler colonialism. and this is done in a couple different ways. but one way is through kind of depopulation, right? an intentional effort to remove either physically, physically take them to another place, remove, or to exterminate. population, right? second away the settler

colonialism functions is through assimilation. getting the previous population to transition into membership in the new population. and there is a third way, the recognition of a previous population as a unit within this new organization. we are not going to see that nearly as much. we are going to see the first two more in our discussion today. so, settler colonialism, is something we kind of have to keep in mind. second big thing we need to keep in mind is the frontier, and what is the frontier, how does it function? and for that, we are going to deal with fred with jackson

turner. in 1893, frederik jackson turner, as a historian at the university of wisconsin, delivered a lecture about the frontier. the census bureau in 1890 had said there was no longer a frontier and one of the things that turner wanted to talk about was wealthy frontier had meant in american history. he essentially argued that america does not exist without a frontier, that america's existence is directly tied to this notion of a frontier, but what is a frontier? is i think a fantastic question. and in turner's construction of this, basically the frontier in american history is always functioned as basically a colony. the same way overseas colonies had functioned for

european powers, this is how a frontier functions for the united states. it was a place for raw materials to be produced, dedicated market to export finished goods, but more importantly, it was a safety valve. people disgruntled at home who moved to the congolese, the same way people who were disgruntled in the east coast would move to the frontier. and that process reproduced kind of what it meant to be america. so, you have this kind of continuous colonies, things kinds of right up close to it. what makes the american frontier different than some of these other colonies is that there is this constant integration of the frontier into what is called the metro poll, into the mother country itself. so that is an important distinction. but turner does not necessarily see the front here in purely positive lights, he sees it as an important space for the recreation of what it means to be american. but he also says, i want to

quote a piece from him, he says that the democracy born a free land. by this, he means kind of the frontier as a space where no one has claimed this land. just not true, but that is the conception. the democracy borne of free land, strong and selfishness and individualism, intolerant of administrative experience and education, and pressing individual liberty beyond his proper bounds has its dangers as well as its benefits. so, from turner's perspective, the frontier is an important location and it's necessary for defining the american character. but it's also a place that has generated a very unique vision of what it means to be american. and one

that is very much tied to very kind of brutal and violent realities, right? so that is important for us, in terms of thinking about native americans and that connection. because again, in turner's vision of the frontier, it's free land, it's open space. so he's conceptualizing it as a space without people already there. okay, third thing we need to think about our ideas in the 19th century about social development. for that, we are going to turn to luis h. morgan. he wrote a book in 1877 called ancient, the title is, it's a 19th century book, so the title is forever long. we just call it ancient society. and basically, what he's talking about through kind of studying kinship relationships and such is that all societies move through a uniform and

identifiable path into civilization, from savagery, to barbarism, to civilization. and savagery, he identifies as kind of that hunter gatherer kind of lowest rudimentary level of technology. very little in terms of hierarchical social organizations, but it's the start. in his mind, it's the most primitive. and then you move into barbarism, which you might see as analogous to bronze age technology, right? the use of, you know, smelting technology to create, first of all, iron tools and then into bronze, then more intricate social organizations. more sedentary lifestyles. his vision of how this works it is based in technology, but then also in sedentary life. so, for hunter gatherers to more permanent societies, then ultimately into what he defines as civilizations, with he defines and breaks up into maine shunt ancient, medieval, and modern. so kind of how we understand the western world and its breakup. and of course, america is the pinnacle. it's

the top, it's the most modern of all places, it is the most civilized. so okay, great. so, you take this notion kind of all societies. he talks about what is called model genesis. are you familiar with this term, model genesis? that all people come from one singular creation. samantha, do you have a question? >> so, [inaudible] the pinnacle, did morgan view, like, the early colonists were technically british colonists as, like, savages? >> no, no, no. they still are part of civilized world. they are just, so again, morgan's vision is kind of anglo-saxon america. anglo-saxon vision. so, the british, even the french, i guess you could throw in, are

kind of western european conceptions, or the height of civilization. >> so that includes all the western world? >> yes, yeah. brandon? >> would you have included the -- uncivilized tribes who had civilized into american society? >> [inaudible] he would have put them somewhere in that space between barbarism and civilized. they are not there yet. at least that's my understanding of morgan. i admit that i have not read everything that morgan wrote, so i don't know 100%. but i think that's where you put them. he puts most native americans in barbarism or kind of savagery into barbarism. that's kind of where he sees native americans, but i don't know if you would necessary

classify. so, the civilized tribes, i think you would say are imitating civilized, may not necessarily be civilized. good questions, fantastic questions. all right, for so morgan is obviously not the only person out there and his ideas are not the only ideas. but they are representative of a notion, a set of ideas. this idea that native americans aren't necessarily civilized or they are maybe an earlier edge of civilization, and that one of the things that could be done is to help progress them into the civilized era, into the modern world. the civilizing mission. which we will actually talk about as we go through the rest of the semester is kind of this notion of what's later individuals would call the white man's burden. we will talk about that. so, those type of ideas. but also than the idea that native americans were

potentially an impediment to progress, right? because they are stuck in barbarism. if they are stuck in barbarism, there is no way to bring them into the modern world, what do you do then? these conceptions of who is modern, who is not, whether or not progress can happen. you tie that into this idea of the frontier and notions of settler colonialism. and i think what you get to see intellectual framework for understanding what's going to happen throughout the 19th century. again, like i said, we're not going to talk about wars, we'll talk about it in a couple of weeks, but everything short of war, here, we are going to talk about in terms of settler colonialism and its connections. does that make sense? any questions before we move on? fantastic! all right, so we'll start with the trail of tears. all of you have heard of the trail of tears before i,

assume? yes? okay. how many of you have heard about the gourd georgia gold rush? okay, so a couple of you have. right in, 1828, in northern georgia, the appalachians portions of georgia, they find gold. hence the gold rush. but people are kind of pressing into this area, increasing population. and then in 1830, he second kind of vein is going to be found, but this is going to be in land claimed by the cherokee. this is not going to stop the minors from going into that territory and the charity cherokee are like, please, please don't. please get out. it's actually called the great intrusion. i mean, what a -- wonderfully kind of almost victorian understatement. intrusion. this is an invasion of minors into cherokee lance. and because of

that, there's this desire to kind of take those lands out of the hands of the cherokee. now, the golden rush doesn't lead to the indian removal act, i want to make that clear but it made it easier for people to support the indian removal act. oh, this colder than their heels? sure! there was already a push to remove some of this line from what is referred to as the five civilized drives -- the cherokee, the muskogee, the creek, the seminal, the choctaw and the chickasaw. i got them all. that is bad for me. so there's already that movement that's going there. and in 1830 the congress passes the interim move will act, which empowers the federal government to send out negotiators. that's all it does. and you can send out these negotiators to create treaties to exchange lands in the southeast for lands in what's designated, indian

territory, writer? that portion of louisiana purchase territory west of arkansas. the very first of these treaties is actually the treaty of dancing rabbit creek, with the choctaw in 1831. and so they signed this agreement to move from, basically, georgia, to indian territory and they are going to do it in three waves. from 1831, ultimately to 1833. not all the choctaw. we're talking about, what? 15,000 out of a population of just shy of 20,000. so the vast majority. the thing is the first wave hits a blizzard. second wave is going to be decimated by cholera. and all three waves are going to face significant supply shortages and kind of general incompetence on the part of the federal individuals who are leading this process. so that all said and done, something like 2000 to 4000 people are going to die in the process of moving. and this actually in this talk to

removal that we actually for the first time people use the phrase trail of tears. that's the first, that's the law like the start fort. there is an effort to actually to get a treaty with the seminole in 1832. and what, but they do is they sent a negotiator down to the seminole and they seminole are like, oh, we're not so sure about how you feel about this land in oklahoma. can we send people to check it out? and so they do. oh yeah, sure. and so they go to oklahoma and they come back, and the thing is that there is this report that supposedly, that these seminole leaders sign, saying, oh yeah, this land is terrific and wonderful and amazing! except that none of them actually signed it. and so, when the seminal say, well, we're not

moving, the u.s. government says, yes you are. you have. two and that's what is going to lead to eventually the second seminole war in 1835. again, that's a couple of weeks from now, we'll talk about that. but so you get some people are going to fight back against removal but i think in the situation where we think about the cherokee. the cherokee's response to this whole process is perhaps the greatest a sample that they've had some level assimilated parts of white culture. they've taken bits and pieces and said that, we'll, if you are going to make us do this, let's do this.

granted, you look like you're, like that's not -- >> [inaudible] by supporters. >> the chair he have white supporters. so the cherokee actually have a number of people that are on this site in this process. right? so, in the early 18, georgia she get a large portion of its western land claims. to the united states government, which basically would encompass alabama and mississippi. and then in that process, the georgia gives up its length claims for the cherokee don't give up their land killings. and in 1825, they basically create a new capital and in 1827, write a constitution. i mean, if you look -- if the whole point is native americans and need to assimilated to white culture, i mean the fact that the cherokee had done

exactly what whites have said, do you, and it doesn't seem to matter, seems to be a big deal. they actually pass a law in 1828, saying that any member of the cherokee nation that science some sort of removal agreement or land claim agreement without the approval of the council has committed treason against the cherokee nation. and so, like, they've got this figured out. so when the indian removal act comes along, they are already set and ready to go in. the problem is georgia has looked to u.s. government saying, hey, you promised us when we said did you all this land that you would come and help us remove portions of native americans living in our territory. you're not doing that. so the georgia

state legislature just passed a series of laws giving them the power to basically do whatever they wanted. the cherokee sued. and in 1831, it goes to u.s. supreme court, at which point the u.s. supreme court says, we're not going to hear your case. which i've always loved. i always love that the supreme court can say, yeah, no, thanks! we understand this is a huge concern having major ramifications but just -- we are going to have t that they. the next year, in 1832, another suit makes its way to the supreme court. this time where they're actually going to hear the case in [inaudible] first the state of georgia. and the supreme court actually sides with the check in this. at least on some level. and based on the ruling, here is that the state of georgia doesn't have

the right to pass these laws and you know affect the cherokee because the constitution is collect clear when it comes to the phrases indian affairs, only the federal government has that authority. the georgia's attempts to kind of control the cherokee violate the constitution. and president jackson's response to this is basically, cool! don't care. there is the famous the, like, the thing, you know, this idea that he said, you know, marshall has made his decision, let's see him in force. is that when you're going to, ask brandon? >> wasn't at his response to it? >> well, so, there seems to be no evidence that shows him actually saying this. now, could he have said it out loud? no one wrote it down? yeah, entirely possible.

but we don't have any documented evidence as far as i've been able to find that says that he said that specifically. but the sentiment is there. right? the sentiment of, you know, basically, i don't care. and on some level, it's not so much that he's not going to enforce the ruling. it's just that he's not going to side with the cherokee. you know, the supreme court has sided with the cherokee. you can't remove us in this way. there's still the indian removal act that jackson's a supporter of so he doesn't really have a problem. but it all is really kind of interesting, because 1832, remove jackson basically declared war on south carolina over the nullification prices,

so it's a busy year for him right? it ultimately ends up happening is in 1835 a treaty is fine and signed with a faction of the cherokee basically, the whole thing is that after a decision from the supreme court that it seems that they've won, but this doesn't look like the federal government is going to care. a rift begins to develop amongst the leadership of the chirpy. something, well, it's inevitable that the air going to force us to leave. so let's get the best terms we can now. and another group saying, we're not leaving under any circumstance. and what happens is the group that ultimately is in favor of leaving at least on the best terms they can get some the treaty in 1835. and even though that would technically be an act of treason under the cherokee constitution, under their law, the u.s. government says, no, you signed this treaty, off you go! and so in about three different waves they're forced

-- some voluntarily move. there are some that are literally drug, kicking, screaming, it's an interesting mix. about 60,000 or so. and again about 2 to 4000 are going to die on the way. now, you would think, after thousands of people have died in a process of forced removal, the federal government would go, you know, let's not do that again. you'd be wrong. because in 1864, they are going to do it again. and in 1864, they are going to do it again. and now, some of this has to do with the civil war itself. right? in 1860 -- actually 1861 -- larger chunks of the u. s. army are drawn off the great plains and sent back east to fight. which means that what you are going to end up having in the west is mostly

territorial militia. and so that's going to be a bit of an issue. even with the u.s. army there, that's not a guarantee that treaties will be upheld and things like that. but now, because of the civil war, right? there are some native american tribes and nations that will side with the confederacy. not necessarily because they agree with the confederacy, but because the confederacy has promised them land, right? a recognition of land. bernie, did you have a question? >> yeah. did those tensions with -- when they signed -- when they agreed with the confederates, were there tensions between tribal members at that time too? >> some,

there was internal conflict over whether or not to side with the confederacy, yeah. and so there is, there's always tension that we are going to see. many -- the cherokee, at one point, actually, before they were forced into indian territory, large chunks of them, there were some that owned slaves themselves. they had adopted the notion of african slavery. so some of them would have supported conceptions of the confederacy. anyway, in fact the very last confederate general to surrender is going to be a cherokee general. stand waitie, i believe his name was? sounds right in my head. so there is going to be some that are going to fight for the confederacy because they believe in ideas of the confederacy and summers some good just the devil that promise be the best is the devil that i go with. so, and because of a lot of those internal tensions, right? it's hard to know who is with who. and then of course you've got the u.s. army not overly concerned about identifying

clearly who is with who, right? it's all kind of a model problem to begin with. and there have been claims in the new mexico territory of the kiowa, the comanche and the navajo supporting the confederacy. and some groups join some don't. and what happens is that in 1883, there is this kind of fear that the navajo, kind of, on the border with enough and the new mexico territory that they're kind of in support of the confederacy. there's no evidence for this, but in january of 1864, the u.s. monty sense kit carson -- the famous mountain man kit carson -- ahead of a unit to basically bring the navajo in. to bring him from, kind of, that arizona new mexico border, bring them to fort sumter in the eastern part of new mexico. several hundred miles. and so 8000, between eight and 9000 navajo, are going to be forced at gunpoint to march across new mexico -- has anyone actually been to new mexico? have you've been to the western part of new mexico, you've been there? actually, going through mountains, that's also fairly dry, kind of desert like. yeah? 18 days, several hundred miles. i want you to imagine that march. i don't want to march anywhere, i'm just going to tell you that right now. but i don't want to watch for 18 days with 1000 people, [inaudible]

like i, i don't want to do this. they eventually get to sumner, to the bosque redondo area. and they're basically put into camps for all intents and purposes, internment camps. overcrowded and under supply. and they're going to stay there for about four years. and forced in these to live in these conditions. 200 people are going to die on the march. but because of the conditions, several hundred more are going to die in, kind of, eastern new mexico. eventually, in 1868, u. s. government is going to sign a treaty with the navajo and say, you can go home. it's now a reservation. and you cannot leave it. but if you go. so this kind of forced movement of populations is still ongoing. i mean, you can make arguments, obviously, about the internment of japanese, japanese americans during world war ii, kind of linking those. that's outside of our time range. but i think you can make some sort of connections there. all right, questions about trail of tears, long walk? yeah, dawson? >> do they have any, like, written,

like, recorded statistics for how long they were making them walk, like, every day? >> oh, i don't know exactly how -- how much per day. but we are talking somewhere between three and 400 miles in 18 days. so i'm not a mathemagician but i'm pretty sure someone can figure that you'll get someone to forget that out. samantha? >> could it be argued that this would be, like, one of the first internment camps for world war ii? or is this, like, a very different condition compared to what it would have been? like? for example in nazi internment camps. >> it's going to be it's a trip question. it's different on one level. is going to be the same on another level. the movement of individuals, forced movement of individuals to a specific location, and then into a confined space. that's said, some of these, comes most of these camps don't have a fencing around them and that's not the case. so it's not at

that level is, not the same. but in terms of those who leave the camps are then i tracked down and either killed or brought back, so on that level, i mean these are places you're not allowed to leave. >> so could it be argued these could not be the original [inaudible] -- >> i don't know if it could. i would actually argue, and i don't know, but i'd imagine colonial powers had been using concepts like this prior to the 1860s and i imagine that even during things like the crimean ware there may have been aspects like this. i don't know of the top of my head exactly when that begins, but the idea of moving a population and at least in a time of war, seems like it's not a new concept. but i don't have specific dates i could give you otherwise. sorry! other questions? great

questions. okay. then let's shift gears a little bit. and talk about a different trail, the oregon trail. now. i ain't going to lie. i love me the oregon trail. when it was video game. all right? the green screen, ford the river, oh, you died of dysentery? right? which the text base version of the game starts in the 1970s when it becomes popular in the 1980s and 1990s. and so it's this you start in independence, missouri, and you are supposed to lead your party to the willamette valley, across the [inaudible] reverse and problems along the way, like broken axles and all kinds of things like dying of cholera and distal dysentery but what's so interesting in that game is that you never once encountered native americans. it's not part of the

game. which when you think about it doesn't make sense. illegitimately doesn't make sense. there's no way that you can have traveled from independence, missouri, to the willamette valley, 180 days, by the 1850s, 140 days, there's no way you could've done that without encountering native americans. yet they're written completely out of the game. all right. native americans only kind of pop up in our vision of the kind of westward expansion that organ trail plays on in those westerns and then they are always presented as some sort of antagonistic force. so

it's really interesting that if we get most of our history from pop culture if you've played oregon trail you're missing some things. right? but that said, the oregon trail is a fantastic game and you should play. the reason you want to get to the willamette valley has everything to do with the fur trade and john jacob astor, right? and his fur empire of the pacific northwest. and we are talking big money, right? the first rate is big, big money. and the oregon trail itself initially we're talking about fur traders, we're not talking about why countries initially. so the trail that they blazed is not one that's easily traversed by people in covered wagons. right? lewis and clark's an exhibition out and then kind of following along those lines, eventually

by the 1830s, you get some of the first wagon trains. the problem is they get basically to idaho, they get to basically fort hall, and they're stuck. because the trail the rest of the way you have to give up basically you why can i put everything on to some donkeys and traverse them out that way because it's just not possible in the early trail to actually get there by wagon. now, by the 1840s, they've got a bunch of new trails. and the thing is there is no one singular oregon trail. there's a bunch of different things. all leaving from some point, usually along the missouri, somewhere in the missouri valley. and oddly enough, a lot of them converge at fort kearney, right, in what is it? nebraska territory. and that's usually the convergence point and follow the platte river and get through that region. but then they eventually split off. some of them in gold rush in california, some of them would follow the oregon trail to a point and then dive south into california. some will follow the oregon trail to a certain point and then dive off towards the great salt lake, because

we're talking about the movement of the mormon populations. some will, instead of staying in oregon country, they'll kind of move and head up into the puget sound region. so but the thing that is really interesting is we are talking about somewhere in the range of 400,000 people traversing land that while the united states claims it, really don't have control over it. and those 400,000 people, they are going to encounter native americans. it's going to be part of how they get across that territory. and there is a fear that as more and more settlers are passing through this great american desert, as they're moving across the great plains i -- know you like to think of it, you're midwestern, as you are moving across the great plains, that this is going to

lead to conflict. right? and as more and more of these white settlers don't finish the journey, as they don't go to oregon, as they stop along the way, and start to claim chunks of land that are recognized as native american land, that's going to be a problem. so in 1851, you get an attempt to kind of deal with some of this in the fort laramie treaty. you can see fort laramie there. this point of the map is nebraska territory, eventually wyoming territory, right? this is the first of two big treaties that are going to be signed at fort laramie. and what the 1851 fort laramie treaty is supposed to do, supposed to do, is recognize native american claims, land claims, in the region, right? while at the same point in exchange for that recognition and annuities, annual payments

of certain amounts of cash to native americans, specifically we're talking about the lakota, the cheyenne, the arikara, the arapaho, the mandan, a couple of others i'm forgetting off the top of my head. the crow, the blackfeet as well i? don't know. anyway, recognizing the territory in exchange for, kind of, allowing safe passage for these settlers with the idea that they weren't going to stop, right? you can pass through our territory to the willamette valley. that's perfectly fine with us, in exchange for you not staying, you recognizing our land claim, and a little bit of money, that would be nice. now originally, when the treaty is negotiated, it's a 50-year annuity, right? so the idea is that until 1901, the u.s. government will be paying these tribes and nations for the right to go across their

land. congress changes it to a ten-year pay scheme without telling anyone who signed the treaty. now, of course when they found out they are like, no, that's not okay. but regardless, the treaty was basically broken almost immediately, in part because people are just refusing to go the rest of the way to oregon. they are stopping. they're settling chunks of land, they are homesteading -- come back to that as a concept -- but on top of that, the u.s. army isn't doing what it said it would do, which is to either

help these people along or stop them from engaging in negative activities towards native americans. basically the u. s. army was, i don't, care, do what you want. when in 1866 as the u.s. army is being pulled out of the west, and you turn it to those state militias, we've now got, or these territorial militias, have now got large numbers of white settlers in regions that they shouldn't be in, competing for limited resources with the people whose land the united states actually recognizes it is. and when you have that type of reality, you are going to have a kind of a recipe for violence so. so violence is actually going to escalate. and what ends up happening, as as white settlers moving to some of these regions and they take some of these resources, it causes internal fights within various native american nations, as their limited resources, and

they fight among themselves now. in other cases, it turns into those, kind of, struggles that we see all too often between white settlers and native americans and often only depicted from the middle point of that struggle, the native americans coming in attacking white settlers as opposed to seeing it as the white settlers having essentially started that process by claiming that land that wasn't theirs in the first place. and it's like this is significant tragedies, right? in 1864, you know, the sand creek massacre in colorado is a direct example of this type of and we're not going to talk about war but in 1867 for the grant administration is like, we will -- grant isn't present yet -- but in 1867 this it desire to find this kind of peace so a peace commission is granted by congress and told to go out and solve the problem. they're not going to bother going to be told to go into it. so there's a peace commission

is going to be identified as a fairly large failure, all things said and done, in part because it can never gain the trust effectively with native americans and can never effectively gain the trust of the congressional individuals who have sent them there in the first place, for any number of reasons. but if there is a success, it's the second fort laramie treaty and that's the 1868 treaty. success is kind of a bad word, because the treaty is signed, and it's a fantastic treaty, except for then, it's violated very quickly just like the 1851 treaty. but in this 1868 treaty, the u.s. government recognizes and creates the great sioiux reservation, recognizing the low coated claim to the black hills, essentially saying it is

yours from now until the end of the universe. most, all of west river south dakota is part of the great sioux reservation. the treaty is also going to say that they are going to close down the forts along the bozeman trail. gold had been found in montana, and so there had been an attempt to go out towards boozman and find the gold. they said, we will close down those forts. they don't, but they say they're going to. and they are going to recognize and defend, and protect, you, know the boundaries of the great sioux reservation, they don't. 1874, gold is found in black hills. you notice, like, everything kind of has a connection back to gold being found? gold was found in georgia, oh, problem. gold was

found in california, oh, problem. gold was found in colorado, oh, problem. yay. it's almost like there is a theme. so they found gold in 1874 and basically, the custer's expedition finds this gold okay, this is going to be a problem. and rather than trying to keep white miners out of the black hills, which they are supposed to based on the treaty, the u.s. army is just like yeah, okay, go ahead, do your thing. and between 1876 and 1889, the u.s. government just unilaterally changes the fort laramie treaty. just changes it. without getting the approval of anyone else involved, eventually just claiming the black hills. now, in 1980, this issue was --

resolved is a strong word, so we are not going to use it -- it was taken up by the u.s. supreme court in u.s. versus sioux nation of indians, in which the supreme court recognized that the unilateral changing of the treaty, those actions taken by the federal government, were wrong. and the taking of the black hills was wrong. the u.s. government had violated the treaty, it was wrong for them to do it. and so, the supreme court ruled in favor of the lakota, giving, i believe, it was initially, what? 30 something million, 35, $35 million. and then an additional 1. 41, 105 million on top of

that, basically to pay for the value of the black hills so that the u.s. government will have bought the black hills. to this day, that money has not been touched. how much money, do you know off the top of your head, brandon? >> i think it's over 4 billion. >> it's somewhere in the range, 4 billion, several billion. it's increasing every day with interest. there's no real desire to take it. because the thing is, if you take the money, then you are saying yes, of course, it's perfectly all right for the u.s. government to have taken this land. >> i know there was an attempt at one point where -- lakota president wanted to get the money, but he was immediately rejected. >> yeah, there have been a couple actually, from what i understand, there had been a couple times where they said well maybe it's okay at this point to take the money. but there's this strong argument about never taking the money because that's then retroactively excusing the action that was taken. and so,

when i first moved down here, i didn't realize kind of this notion about occupied land, and how important that still is to, kind of, culture here in western south dakota. i didn't realize, as i think many of us, you, know unless you've been here for a while, you don't see it. samantha, yeah? >> was there attempts to keep white people out at one point point? like fort stockade, there was kind of an attempt in the beginning to keep people out with that? >> yes? how and, kind of, i don't want to say it was necessarily disingenuous in that they weren't trying, but how much their hearts were in it has always been an issue that has been questioned. like, how much they are actively trying to do this, and how much is going through the motions? does that make sense? >> kind

of. >> okay. again, it's hard for me to say specifically how many people were like, no, this is our job, we need to get them out, and the overall reaction of the u.s. army was to basically allow it to happen. so, sorry. wish i had a better answer than that. it's all complicated. yay! you know, we'd just save a lot of time and effort if we just said history is complicated, all right, and just moved on from there. okay, done. by the way, you're not allowed to do that in your papers. you can't just say it is complicated and be done. all right, last part we want to talk about, the last kind of movement has to do with acculturation and assimilation. so, the first stuff we are going to talk about is more kind of this question of depopulation, right, and

settler colonialism? acculturation and settler colonialism. we want to focus on this transition into more of a culture ration and assimilation as part of settler colonialism. it's worth noting that in the fort laramie treaty, there was also calls for kind of on these reservations for there to be eight movement towards farming. how serious that was, it's still a good open question. but that becomes kind of this key component, right? since the 1840s, the way the united states has really kind of sought to occupy its territorial lands has been through this notion of homesteading. and it's important to realize when we talk about homesteading, it's based on a really important idea, that unowned resources can be claimed by individuals who will then use those resources. and more largely talking about land here. you've got to notice that is unknown resources. so whether we are talking about settlement in

kansas, right, kind of that home setting process or the 1862 homestead law that gets passed by the united states government, it is this idea that there is this unused resource, that this land is not being used, or at the very least, not being used appropriately. so this gets back to what turner was talking about and this kind of free land idea, this kind of open space. and so, in 1862, the federal government actually passes a law saying that if you move out to this territory, you can make a claim of 160 acres, build a house, farm that land for five years, you get a title to that land. now, 160 acres where i am from back east, that's a sufficient amount of land for a subsistence farm. out here, not so much. just because the water resources are

so limited in parts of the great plains. brendan, did you have a question? >> yeah, did the general public out east understand how dull the soil and barren this place was? >> no, no. it's -- they didn't really, so they understood on one level, right? because they call it the great american desert and they understood that it was very difficult to find necessary water resources. but there's also this kind of idea that 160 acres, you know, anyone can make a good farm on 160 acres, not realizing, well, when you ask, where would the water come from? well, you'll find it. no, you won't. because they don't understand, many of these people, the policy makers themselves don't come out and see, and survey, and they are relying on secondhand, third hand reports. or they are just drawing lines on the maps and they are not really understanding. if you go to parts of indiana, illinois,

even western ohio, they are fairly flat. but there are lots of rivers, there's lots of water. and if that's your vision, and you just assume that kansas looks the same as iowa or as ohio, right, in terms of access to water, you are not going to have a good understanding of what's going on. >> then didn't the army corps of engineers come out to survey the land? >> yeah, yeah, the army -- >> or was that before? >> so, the army corps of engineers is surveying ongoingly. but that doesn't mean that people writing the policy are listening to the army corps of engineers. you would think they would listen, yes. i am with you, i think you are right. you think they would listen. but they are no, in some cases. it's other cases, obviously, the homestead law a lot of these things are going

to be debated. and so, there is going to be, they are going to bring in some of this. but we are talking about very singular reminded individuals. they know the right answer. i'm not trying to cast aspersions really, they believe that they have the right answer, right? that they understand. and unless you have traveled significantly in the united states, and even today, it's hard to know how, just how different regions of this country are. so yeah, they just did not understand. i think ultimately they did not understand. some of that also the army corps of engineers in some cases army being in the mountains, they're too far, so they are not really doing stuff on the plains or, so there's any number of reasons for why they might not be listening to those reports. so, jericho? >> could it also stem from, like, a euro-centric view, like europe is a lot of different places -- >> well, i think some of this could, from yes, a euro-american perspective. but i think with things like the homesteading law, their encouragement is for white settlers to move. so, you would

think that they would want to provide the best information, the best policies to facilitate that settler movement. >> do you think they were overassuming native people's abilities, assuming that everybody can do it? >> could they have been over assuming abilities? i mean, yes. potentially. i don't know, the idea is that 160 acres should be sufficient, all right? realistically speaking, if you are talking in some of these regions without sufficient, you know, kind of irrigation technology, you are talking 320 to maybe 640 acres is, like, the minimum you need to run a subsistence farm. but don't tell someone in pennsylvania that, right? like, no man, i

can make it work on 40. you know? because it's just very, the land is so different. it's hard for people to conceptualize just how different those things are. and i think more than anything, i, maybe me, it's me giving them the benefit of the doubt more than a should. i want to believe that they are not acting in a way to be intentionally, you know, harmful. it's just, they believe -- 160 acres should be sufficient. so i think if many more of them had traveled them out here they would've said oh, no. >> [inaudible] like background information. >> i think so. they thought they knew. they were all guilty of that on some level, right? at some point someone comes to what's with new information like no, i know. and that no, you really don't. i'm guilty of that, i will at least admit that myself. like, i'm guilty of that. so, like i said, i don't want to cast too many aspersions here. brendan, do you -- >> they kind of probably looked at native american tribes themselves and started because the great plains tribes, they were known for moving

around. >> well, that's not modern, that's not know how you live. life you should be sedentary, you should have a farm, yes. you know, like obviously you are wrong. >> that's how the east settled because -- so you think that they would maybe, like, maybe there's a reason why. >> yes, you would think that. you would want to think that. oh, there's a reason for -- they don't. because they believe they have the right answer. like, it keeps coming back to that. jericka? >> like, with whatever the guy with the civilized, barbaric and savage -- >> -- morgan, yeah. >> do you think it was because they thought they were more, like, uncivilized, so they did not know what they were doing and that it was more of -- >> because if you accept the idea that native americans are still locked in barbarism, then they lack the same kind of scientific knowledge to be able

to understand their world sufficiently to make the best uses of those resources. so yeah, i think that plays into it, definitely. but then again, that doesn't answer the question if you're going to send white settlers to this region, why would you not then check? i don't have good answers for that. i wish i did! i wish i did! and you can actually see, again, some of this playing out so that, in the dawes act in 1887, again, the idea of creating 160 acre plots, taking the reservation lands, and moving them from communally owned lands to privately owned lands, right? to individuals owning those chunks of land. dawes himself had talked about, his quote was that the need to adopt the habits of civilized life, right? actually the problem, really the problem here is that native americans just aren't civilized and that if we make them farmers everything will be fine. and what's really interesting here is 1887, we're

in the gilded age, kind of, into the progressive era in this, again, this question of what is an american and how does an american function, and this idea of the yeoman farmer as kind of the quintessentially american idea, is also kind of the strong emphasis on capitalism. and if you have communally owned land, oh, that's not capitalist! but privately owned land, private ownership of the means of production, that enhances and expands the capitalist world and therefore this is good. capitalism is the modern thing. so -- dawson? >> when these plots of land, like, in mind, did they also have a certain method of farming in mind? was it like crops or like livestock -- >> yes, they did, and largely their vision is forming as opposed to ranching. and they actually, he would said oat scientific data for how to

farm and most of the scientific data they sent was just wrong. right? and some of the data was used well until the 1920s and the 1930s, it actually helps explain the dust bowls in the 1930s. they're using scientific information that was outdated or just wrong. so yet they had a vision of kind of, if we think just kind of the great sioux reservation which then gets divided up into smaller reservations, there would just be like plots of farms as far as the eye can see, without river, without really kind of looking, that's not going to work in some of these places. so again because they believe they have the answer. they believe they have the answer. and so they are trying to make that work and so you have this idea every head of household will get a chunk of land and every household will have a certain amount. the thing is then that gets sub divided

amongst heirs, right? you know? once that becomes a bit of an issue, if 160 acres wasn't enough to begin with and you get to divide that amongst, say, two sons, not that's 80 acres and that's definitely not going to be enough. and then further and further. but one other thing that the dawes act does is that it opens up that land once the land had been kind of divided up amongst those people who were classified as, classified as sufficiently native american to receive a plot of land, because they start defining who is and who is not native american, right? how much blood do you have to have in order to be a full-blooded versus mixed blood and kind of what percentage, they get kind of -- it's kind of a little bit ofeugenics creeping in there. it's a

little worrisome. but once that happens, then they take large chunks of the remaining land and open it up to sell for non native settlers so white settlers could buy these chunks of land. from 1887 until, say, 1934, all right, that kind of span, the dawes act takes native american owned land from about 138 million acres down to about 48 million acres. so 90 million acres are going to be lost as a result of this kind of allotment process. the great sioux reservation, by is being broken up into the different chunks, they are going to lose 9 million acres themselves. it's going to be opened up to these types of white settlement and land grabs as well. but the thing is, what would end up happening is under the dawes act the head of the household would get this land -- this 160 acres -- and it would be held in security by the united

states for 25 years. at the 25-year your mark, you could sell it. so what ended up happening is, a lot of people started, you know, 25 years down the line, started selling off that land, again, to non native land buyers. so even the land that had been divided amongst native americans is now going to be gobbled up by white settlers as well. so a whole process shift in that direction. so we are talking about, again, kind of, this massive restriction or loss of land in this process. but again, the idea was to convert native americans to what is the modern way, the modern american way of doing things. so that, that's, that's this whole process of assimilation isn't just something that's happening amongst native americans, and americans are native americans. we are going to talk about this next week when we talk about immigration, and this process of how does one become american, right? and we're going to talk

about settlement and settlement houses in the progressive era, right? they are different, but they have very similar goals in mind as the boarding schools. right? the boarding schools that are going to be created in the late 19th century, the idea of them -- well i mean richard henry pratt gives us the idea -- kill the indian and save the man -- the idea that by teaching and immersing individuals in, kind of, a white, middle class american culture, you can erase the limitations created by being native american and enter into the modern world. and again, what does it mean to be american? how do you get to that? in 1879, the united states indian industrial school opens in carlisle,

pennsylvania. sometimes it's just called the carlisle school. and it's run by richard henry pratt. and richard henry pratt had been the commander at fort marion, i believe it was, fort marion, in florida. during the -- referred to as the dakota war or the great sioux war, however you want to define it, in 1876, right, p.o.w.s from that war, native americans, were taken to florida and held at fort marion. pratt was in charge of the p.o.w.s and he got the idea in 1878 that if these p.o.w.s were trained in english and american culture,

that they could then return to the great sioux reservation, they could return out west, and be emissaries for american culture. and so he actually kind of works with the hampton institute in virginia, which is created in 1868 as a school for freedmen two between how to be american after slavery. in 1878 they started an indian school version of this, is what they called it, they're at hampton, and then pratt basically pitched this idea to congress. and congress was like, all right, cool, let's do this. and so they set up the school in carlisle. and he goes over and he is going to lead this. and from 1879 to 1918 about 10,000 native american children are going to go through this school and about 140 different tribes.

so you can tell, a lot of different people coming through this. but initially, the starting group, the initial children that were brought to card what carlisle, where the lakota. and they are brought as leverage to prevent another uprising. basically, we have your kids. you can't fight back because we have your kids. wow, u. s. government, good job! come on, right? wow! the moment you stepped foot in carlisle there, basically, they stripped everything that was native american of you, right? every aspect of your heritage. from your hair to your clothes to your language to your religion. these 10,000 kids, most of them who didn't speak english on any level, were baptized as christian without ever being told what that meant. so

there's just kind of everything about you has to fundamentally -- you can't use your own name. they had like, lists of names on a border wall, and you had to pick one. and so, there's stories of people basically pointing out a bunch of symbols, they don't know what they mean. and that becomes their name. you were severely beaten if you continued to use the language of of your ancestors. by the way, that became a kind of resistance tool. remember when we were talking about slavery and kind of resistance activities, right? so continuing to speak your own language is a resistance activity, right? breaking the school property became a resistance activity. so they are going to fight back. don't get me wrong, these kids are not acquiescing. but we're talking about really, really

regimental, i've quasi-militaristic life. uniforms and drills and all these types of things. and the carlisle school becomes kind of the model for a bunch of federally funded off reservation schools. and it's going to be 25, i think, at one point, in 15 different states and territories. that doesn't count the hundreds of schools that are going to be on reservations that are largely run by religious organizations. in 1891, congress passes a law requiring the compulsory attendance of native american children in these schools. they have to go. and this law empowers federal agents to basically rip kids out of the arms of their parents and send them to these schools. all of this as a way to force assimilation. the idea is once

they've gone through these schools, once they've been immersed in american, kind of, white culture, once they've learned english, once they've learned skills that are necessary in the industrial age, they'll be able to return to the reservations, be emissaries for this culture. and of course when they returned, they often found they were ostracized and rejected because they were no longer of that culture, or at least a significant distance had been built between them. we're talking about people coming back with significant problems. ptsd, right? high rates of depression. in these schools, we are talking really poor conditions. in some cases, the kids had to build the very buildings that they were going to live in. fantastic! suicide rates were extremely high at

these schools. kids built coffins for their classmates. just think about how traumatic that is. i mean, not just for the person who has died, but the kids -- oh yes, i'm building a coffin for my friend. sexual abuse was rampant. disease spread quite regularly and effectively and efficiently. overcrowded and under supplied. tens of thousands of kids coming through this system. and what's so interesting is, again, this idea they were supposed to go back to the reservation and they were supposed to then help bring the rest of their tribes and nations into the modern age through this new education that they've received. many of them went back and used that education to fight. they went

back and they filed lawsuits. now knowing how the legal system worked, they went back as lawyers and fought. they went back and they set up schools on their reservations to teach their language and heritage. you will not destroy us. so it has the reverse effect in some cases. but all of this is part of this much larger process, right? this whole notion that we started from the settler colonialism idea. and what does it mean to be american and how does that work? can you have all of these people, now, that fit certain aspects of what it means to be american, but are they american? i mean, again, you can go back to the 1830s and the cherokee. they have printed newspapers, they have a written constitution they've adopted, slavery. they've done all the things that wet people have said you have to do in order to be part of this society, but

they can never undo one thing. they are always going to be native american. they are never going to be white. and if that's the case, can they ever claim to be an american? like you said, one of the things we are going to talk about the next couple of weeks is what it does it mean to be an american? so we start here, with native americans. we are going to talk about americans by choice, if you will, next week, when we start talking about immigration and things like that. are there any questions, concerns, issues at this point? all right, well groovy! well, then i will see you next week, all right and we'll pick up with immigration and will govern. thanks, guys! have a good one!

>> university political science professor adolf reed provided a history of the jim crow era through the day-to-day life of black people in the south. including himself. here is some of what he said. >> we know that roughly three fourths of the so-called racial wealth gap lights between the richest 10% of white people and the richest 10% of black people. we know also that the bottom 50% of blacks and whites have no wealth no. sometimes, people who are committed to the notion of a racial wealth gap will respond to that point by saying, well, there's collective wealth. but there's no collective blackwell. there's no collective white wealth. in fact, the thing i just wrote, since we all have been conditioned for 100 years to think of black people as

operating with a hive mind, so we all want the same thing, public can speak for everybody now. that point may not come through clearly enough. but let's imagine a white nurse, who has fallen on hard times. and is facing eviction. and then imagine the possibility of her trying to dip into the pool of collective white wealth, to pay a landlord or pay a mortgage. or even better, she texts jeff bezos and asks him to pitch in, because they're white together. i mean, that doesn't happen. so, what's going on here is that the whole wealth focus is

and extrapolation of the mindset of the investor class onto all black people. so, making rich black people richer doesn't do anything at all but for the rest of us. in fact, to the extent that it legitimizes the largest patterns of inequality because they are richer, it does bad for the rest of us. as my colleague walter ben michaels have been saying for years now, the problem with this notion of social justice as closing disparities is that, because we're in a society that gets more and more on across the board, almost on a daily basis, winning disparities would mean, for that ideal, would mean that the society can be considered just if 1% of the population controlled 95% of

the resources. so long as 12% of that 1% was black, 14% was hispanic, it was half women, et cetera. that is a notion of social justice that is as legitimate to defend in a philosophy class as any other, but also it's not the one that i'm committed to. >> you can watch the full program at c-span.org slash history. just search adolf reed or the title of his book. jim crow and it's after lives. springfield is >> the city of springfield, so much of it is built around that legacy of abraham lincoln. illinois is the land of lincoln, certainly springfield is the city of lincoln. his home is here, the old state capital where you get the house divided speech is here, his old lofts are here. of course he's buried on the