>> watch historic presidential elections, saturdays at 7:00 eastern, american history tv on c-span 2. >> the house will be in order.>> c-span celebrates 45 years in congress like no other, we have been your primary source for capital health, providing balanced unfiltered coverage, c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable.>> 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 are in the region which was the ancestral lands of the piscotty, and mannahock peoples, this is washington, d.c., everybody claims it, but we gather acknowledging that this is ancestral land of the native peoples and we gather to tell stories 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 as the president and ceo of the united states capital historical society. two set the day in a good mode,

we are going to pause for a moment of reflection from larry wright junior, mr. wright is a member of the tribe of nebraska, served as chairman for 11 years and currently the executive director of the national congress of american indians which describes itself as the oldest, largest and most representative american indian and alaskan native ionization, serving the broad interests of tribal governments and communities. in this position, mr. wright is responsible for managing the day-to-day success and the public education arm, he is a military veteran and former social studies teacher from lincoln nebraska. mr. wright .>> she should have

said recovering social studies teacher, i'm still working on that, but it is an honor to be here this morning and to give the invocation, i will say this in my language and i will translate, so with all due respect, just i ask you to pray in your own way while i do this, so thank you. >> [speaking non-english] to we great spirit we thank you thise

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 >> great spirit, we thank you for this day, we thank you for the blessings you bestow upon us, we thank all those that made this day possible and bring us together to learn about our past and talk about our future, thank you for the strength and guidance that you have given us, and to say a special prayer for all of my people and tribal nations come all of those that come together and work on our behalf to help our sovereignty and help our people, and pray for strength and guidance and thank you for all these blessings. thank you.

>> we look forward to hearing more from you on this afternoon on the panel. some of you were with us last night and some of you weren't, so the story will sound familiar, but i want to tell you something just to put it all in perspective, and the governor of texas was speaking to a group of us when we were young, elected officials and she said you know what, people, you have to say something 12 times before people here it, so if you're hearing it for this story for the second time, you know, you are only partway there. five years ago, i was the newly appointed ceo of the capital historical society, so one of the things you do when you are new is you go around and you talk to the leaders, one of those leaders was tom cole who

was one of our congressional advisers, at the time, he was the ranking member of the rules committee, so he sat down with me and he questioned me about my plans and what we were going to do at the historical society, it was 2019, i told him that we are planning a symposium in 2020 two recognize the fact that women had earned the right to vote and we wanted to look at the struggle for the right to vote and the impact of women having the right to vote and he looked at me and he said, look, i'm good with women voting, i think that is a fine thing, my mother was in the oklahoma legislature, i'm all about it. i want you to promise me that in 2024, you will do something equally significant to commemorate the 100th anniversary of my people earning the right to vote.

and that was the beginning of this symposium. so, today's event is part of the delivery on that promise. he gave me a handful of books to read, he is a phd historian who was a professor turned congressman, take it home and read them, including at that time killers of the flower moon which nobody had heard of, so i learned a lot. today we come together to commemorate the indian citizenship act, or the schneider act which many of us had an opportunity to see at the national archives and they are displaying it for this period of time so that if you haven't been there and you have an opportunity to go and see it, it is in the rubenstein gallery.

in 1924, when the snyder act was passed, it granted citizenship to native americans born within the territorial limits of 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 oversimplification to say that the schneider act guaranteed 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 would also be an oversimplification to say that the schneider act resolved the inherent difficult and important tensions between the concepts of citizenship and sovereignty, and these debates

continued and will be represented in the conversations. these five years have real education for me and for our team and we have benefited greatly from our advisory committee, who we want to acknowledge the honorable dan born, sophia zero and hillary thompkins and we are grateful for all of them for helping us put this together. we are also grateful for our partners who have invested in this program, our presenting partner, wells fargo, our platinum partner the chickasaw nation, our bronze partner, mcguire woods and the american historical association, each of which have made contributions to this effort.

at some point today i'm going to introduce you 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 cedar hunt, who is a high school student from montana, who entered her art into the congressional art competition and won the montana's first district, and she is even bringing her mother, so we will see her at some point and acknowledge her. we also want to thank senator mark moen and the senate rules committee for making this room available to us. so now i would like to invite to the podium our first panel on native american citizenship,

suffrage and sovereignty and history, joining us today are two distinguished scholars, dr. noel and dr. david silver's and -- silverston. dr. noel holds degrees from columbia university and university of new hampshire, in 2021, lila was a j willard hurst fellow with the american society for legal history and the university of wisconsin law school, a recipient of the charlotte w newcomb fellowship with the institute for citizens and scholars, her current project is entitled native citizens, the fight over native american citizenship in the u.s. 1887 to 1924.

david silverman is a professor of history at george washington university where he has taught since 2003, he is the author of several books on native american colonial american, and american racial history, including this land is their land, the plymouth colony and the troubled history of thanksgiving. which was published in 2019 and thunderstix, firearms and the violent transformation of native american peoples which appeared under the harvard university press in 2016. he is currently writing a new book about indigenous people and race making in the united states history, would you please welcome these distinguished scholars to the stage.>> [applause] >> we will hear those

presentations and then we'll have an opportunity for questions. >> excellent, thank you so much for having me here today, i really consider it an honor to be here and amongst the scholars and activists, i have already learned a lot and i'm looking forward to the conversations over the course of the day. so, as jane said, i'm primarily a legal historian and my specialty is the passage of the 1924 indian citizenship act, also known as the spider act, and when i started doing research into this legislation, the predominant understanding, at least among legal historians was that by 1924, native american citizenship in the u.s. was relatively

uncontroversial. and that congress passed the legislation as a type of related, patriotic response to native american service during world war i, that citizenship was a belated gift to native american people. indeed, if you look at the congressional record of the debate surrounding the 1924 act, and will likely convince you of this interpretation. there was hardly any debate over the 1924 act, and the legislation was supported by the department of 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 though there was a consensus that the time had come for native american citizenship, but when we look beyond the immediate

passage of the 1924 legislation, it is clear just how controversial native american citizenship was in the united states. in the decade preceding the snyder axe, so for example, in the winter of 1923, many congressional representatives and native american activist came to d.c. to form a committee of 100, to reflect on the state of native american policy and to make recommendations to congress and the secretary of interior. in their final report, they noted that the american populace was largely in support of native american citizenship, but they also noted, the cold facts that every time a bill has been introduced in congress, indians themselves have led and opposing them, the

evidence 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, citizenship is a powerful tool that comes with essential rights that can help bolster sovereignty but that it also can be coercive and threatening to sovereignty, so in my allotted time today, i thought i would talk a little bit about the controversies surrounding native american citizenship in the lead up to 1924. as a way to understand why some native americans and some non- natives thought that u.s. citizenship was the best path forward for native american nations and why others opposed it, and i will also gesture towards how those debates continue to shape suffrage debates over the course of the

20th century, so as i alluded to, there are plenty of people who supported the legal and social integration of native americans into the american body politic, the primary indigenous activists were members of the society of american indians which is a pan- indian reform organization founded in 1911 and it works closely with non-native reform groups, congress and the bureau to address corruption, policy changes and the general well- being of native american nations and individuals, they spent a lot of time in these halls. for many of the leaders of this society such as president charles eastman, citizenship in the u.s. is the best way to protect and ensure the future of native americans. for citizenship would open up greater access to the courts, would allow many native americans to serve on juries and would make suffrage a greater possibility, they traveled around the nation,

galvanizing non-native americans to write to their congressional leaders, urging them to support native american citizenship, as society member chickasaw citizen and u.s. congressman from oklahoma, charles carter wrote, citizenship would be a simple act of justice to render to the indian that which has long been due to him. their efforts were incredibly successful, i really think that they are the linchpin in turning non-native americans sentiment pro-native american citizenship in this period. and their efforts led to the passage of the 1919 indian veterans act, which allowed native veterans to apply for u.s. citizenship. the other group was u.s. congressional representatives, before the 1924 act, the

primary way for native americans to become citizens was through the dawes act or the general allotment act, this piece of legislation was determined to 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 dr. silverman will talk more about the act but i just want to give you a brief overview of it so you can understand the importance. the act had a family a specific parcel of land and import me, that allotment would be held in trust by the u.s. government for 25 years, during which time the land would be immune from local and state taxation, the act also made citizens of the

united states, it is hard to overstate the effect of this legislation, conceived of as in a similar tory progressive piece of legislation and led to the millions of land lost, and it attempted to strip native americans of their cultures and land practices, in 1906, congress altered the terms of the dawes act through the burke act, we are going to get into some legal weeds but i urge you to stay with me. while it made american citizens upon receiving the allotment, the 1906 act delayed that until the trust period for the individual land allotment was terminated, meaning that now citizenship, taxation, and the end of the trust relationship, the personal trust relationship all coincided at one moment,

you could only become a citizen once you receive the patent for your allotment and you became vulnerable to taxation. congress also declared that the 25 year trust period could be terminated early, so long as the secretary of the interior approved, so this meant that the secretary could declare native american individual ready for citizenship which would terminate the trust provision on an allotted land early which would then make them liable to state and local taxation. and this could be done without an individual's consent or application for citizenship and it could be done against their explicit wishes. for congressman who lived in states with large native american populations, particularly those that had been allotted, they now have

the potential to open up a new, incredibly large tax base and these congressman were constantly hearing from constituents and their state government counterparts about how difficult it was for non- native citizens to fund local governments in areas opened by the dawes act surpluses, congress was being pushed by their constituents to release indian land to taxation and the burke act seemingly gave the secretary or interior permission to do just that, so in other words, for many native americans, citizenship came to look like just another way to take native american lands out of indigenous possession. by 1917, it was bureau policy to release native americans as quickly as possible from the

trust, to make them citizens, to give them their patent, to make them vulnerable to taxation and citizenship was thus a way to appease citizens who were ideologically committed to native american citizenship, who saw native americans as being essential to american identity and those who were driven by more material concerns. against this backdrop it is probably 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 no surprise, there was a sustained objection to impose citizenship because of the tax obligations. and i want to be clear, this wasn't just small tax bills, these were large tax bills and these enforced patenting as

this process became to be known, was incredibly destructive. many native americans could not afford the taxes and will lose their land or other property 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 patented would be lost. resistance to forced patenting to the early release of the trust and the imposition of citizenship was swift. the force of patents would appear by u.s. certified mail which often led to extended standoffs between native american individuals and postal workers and also we had numerous court cases coming out of indian country to fight for forced patenting which was ultimately successful and by 1922 the courts have decided that forced patenting is an

illegal 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 americans whether they were for or against citizenship maintained indigenous peoples right to their culture and histories and an allotment threatening practicing fully their cultures and to memorialize their histories. and of course, allotment with the taxation. one of the loudest and affective activists in the name of cultural sovereignty was pablo abeyta of the people, he met with congressional representatives repeatedly to reject citizenship because of the repeated reliance on allotment and the assimilation

it represented. he worked with many famous artists including dh wants to publicize their protest and this led to congress abandoning at least two citizenship bills, it created a pr nightmare for congress and the last rejection of citizenship that i want to cover in this time came from the iroquois and they are probably the most well-known for their rejection of the u.s. citizenship and they rejected it based on political sovereignty and international law, there tribal councils wrote many letters to congress, reminding congress that imposing citizenship upon them would be a violation of the tribal sovereignty, a violation of treaties and assault on international law.

they are independent nations and they still have complete control over their internal affairs. the legacy of world war i hung heavy in these protests, one lawyer for the tribe wrote, we proclaimed yesterday the right of week peoples to self- determination, we denounced but yesterday other people's who broke their written treaty solemnly made and waged war on them for the deed, where we hypocrites and search only for world praise? they threatened to tie these issues in courts, lawsuits filed or threatened, public protests, the uproar made by these types of bills made passing indian citizenship nearly impossible, as the committee of 100 recognized in 1923. when the 1924 act passed, it

passed not because it was uncontroversial but because it was done so swiftly and quietly and it was a much different piece of legislation than congress previously envisioned. there are four main changes i want to highlight, one, the citizen act did not remove tax protections early, two, it did not have any sort of continued allotment provision in it, three, it did not affect tribal citizenship status or claims to tribal poverty and four, it contains no cultural assimilation provisions, although i do want to recognize that obviously a simulation as pressures would continue and continue today. of course, citizenship was still imposed, was still nonconsensual but it would be opposite the next generation of indigenous americans to leverage that citizenship, to

not only preserve indian sovereignty but to strengthen it and to fight for greater suffrage rights in the nation that declare them citizens, in a particularly cruel bit of irony, the very victories of 1924, the exclusion of early taxation provisions and the continued ability to claim tribal status would be, some of the major ways that states would try to limit native american sovereignty. so, this is a fight that would continue from 1924 and that we are living with today. thank you.>> [applause] >> good morning everybody. i'm honored to be on this program today, and i'm also humbled this morning, that i am

addressing history, that some of the people in this room have lived and as ancestors have lived, i would like to begin this morning by offering a theoretical and historical framework for approaching the 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 african americans, asian americans, jewish americans or irish americans, for two central reasons. one is that they 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 on them, the history of native peoples relations with the united states has involved a constant struggle to defend the inherent sovereignty that comes with 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 native peoples aspirations unlike say african americans has not been equal rights with white people, although most of them today certainly expect that status, but the exercise of the greatest sovereignty possible. the second central reason that native people differ from other american racial and ethnic groups is that they are organized into tribal nations that govern their members and

their territory, although 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 gratify 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. against that background i would like to devote the rest of my time to discuss the historical background to the indian citizenship act, by contending that in this century plus proceeding, native people experienced the granting of u.s. citizenship as a tool i 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 encourage indians to surrender their land and authority voluntarily. american leaders also hoped this program would lead to 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 americans exploitation and even extrication of russian civilized indians who tried a pattern that stretched back into the 17th century and i

would be happy to elaborate on that pattern in our discussion. in other words, from the start, native people solve the fundamental 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 those they deemed as racial inferiors with dignity, never mind equality, no matter how culturally similar they were. this pattern played out repeatedly throughout the 19th century, the most glaring early examples came during the indian removal period, are histories of that dark chapter tend to overlook that most removal treaties which were designed to make the process look voluntary contained provisions to allow native people to remain back

east if they took a private property, accepted state law and became citizens. although a handful of elite indians generally avoid ancestry made good on this offer, the vast majority 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 whom southern whites robbed of 2 million allotted acres and then drove west of the mississippi in chains and what can only be called an of violence. 5000 talk to representing a quarter of their tried also suffered whites fleecing them of their allotments and the opportunity to remain in their homeland. state governments hoped to

orchestrate this pillage while the federal government stood by and did nothing. the only place where indians successfully became citizens was wisconsin. several hundred stockbridge mohicans took the citizenship and private property option which they called becoming of white, rather than relocate to kansas, having already migrated from the southern new england to escape white persecution. some of them were confident that their status as civilized christians equipped them to compete in white society despite the obstacles of white race prejudice. most of them spoke and wrote english, they governed their own churches, they ran sawmills, risk mills, farms and logging operations, quite a number of them have a command of white law, three of the

other town indians would go to serve in the wisconsin legislature, yet many of them came to regret the transition to citizenship as white creditors, the taxman and hucksters zeroed in on their allotments. three years into the experiment, most of the stockbridge mohicans petitioned to return their citizenship and revert back to the legal status. they had all their lives and called indians, that stockbridge has appealed to congress, it is their desire to continue, adding that their natures and dispositions can no more be changed than their skins be made white and transparent, the stockbridge did return their citizenship and managed to secure another reservation which it retained to this day. the brother towns who remained citizens lost everything. in the state with the seal

containing the latin saying, civilization replaces barbarism and depicting an indian hunter retreating westward in the face of a white man guiding a plow. the pattern continued throughout the 19th century in the midwest and the northern portion of federal indian territory, kansas, repeatedly, native people facing dispossession try to parlay the acceptance of private property and citizenship into the right to remain where they were, hence for example the citizen pod wanted from oklahoma. 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 halfbreed tracks, they are all over the midwest. one enrolled member, charles curtis would parlay the profits from his half of allotment into a fortune that would contribute to him, becoming a federals editor from kansas and ultimately vice president under herbert hoover. almost nobody has heard of this guy, even among historians. most native people found that citizenship was an empty promise, and in united states, they intended summations on the way to citizenship, not permanent homeland but these places did not function the way the u.s. intended. the federal government failed miserably in making these

places reasonably decent places to live. it did not provide sufficient food to sustain people who could no longer support themselves through traditional means, nor did it provide adequate funding -- farming and livestock to promote the transition to farming, it did not provide anyone sufficient medical care, for people that suffer from malnutrition. its agents routinely built the people they were supposed to protect. and perhaps worst of all, and this is closely related to the issuance of citizenship, the government did next to nothing surrounding whites with livestock, firewood, trespassing on grazing lands, in other words, native people

could see plainly that the law abound but did not protect indians while it's protected but not bind whites. the government's plan to assimilate indians toward incorporating them as citizens included forcing native children to attend boarding schools. some on the reservations, others very far away. in these places, white authorities subjected the children to a daily regimented to military drills, work details and corporal punishment with little time for rest and leisure. none of this resembled mainstream white american life, this was not preparation for participation in white america, the education was rudimentary and outright white supremacist, including the relentless message that the students backgrounds were savage and inferior. health conditions were abysmal,

marked by sickness and death from diseases at rates the government never would have tolerated for white people. following school, most native alums found no more acceptance in white society that if they never attended school in the first place and little opportunity to apply the school skills they learned on the reservation. it was during the reservation and boarding school regimes that congress passed the dawes act of 1887 and the curtis act of 1898 named after the afro mentioned charles curtis himself, to speed on the transition to private property and citizenship, the dawes act authorized the division of indian reservations usually of 160 acres or less, and the allotment of those parcels among native individuals. there would be a 25 year restriction on the pilates

selling the tracks, to provide time for him or her to learn how to manage the land as a source of capital. once that interim period elapsed, each indian would receive a fee patent lifting all on leases, and from then on, just to repeat the point, and you have to say these things 12 times, the titleholder would be responsible to pay property taxes and run the risk of having the tract confiscated for dad. furthermore, he or she would become an american citizen. if the government judged the lottie to become civilized before the end of the 25 year wait, he or she could be granted unrestricted ownership and citizenship early. as for the remaining undivided

plans for the reservation, the government would purchase surplus from the tribe and keep most of the proceeds as an interest-bearing account to fund civilization programs including the boarding schools. i find it a strange pieces of cruelty to forge people to find what amounted to the kidnapping and cultural reprogramming of their own children. as if to twist the knife further, the government's plan was to sell the indian surplus territory to white homesteaders, the idea here was that by the time indians became private property holding citizens, they would be enveloped by white society and ready to join them. allotment legislation had been in the works for years as white reformers concluded that the reservations were failing to turn indians into civilized human, and has white economic interests zeroed in on the natives remaining profitable

resources. as early as 1876, the commissioner of indian affairs was already questioning whether any high degree of civilization is possible without individual ownership of land, a notion that was reflective of the teachings of that era's and apology. over the next several years, white progressives chris styled themselves as friends of the indians, gathering at late mohawk, turning this principle into a mantra. in one of the conference series more memorable speeches, meryl e gates declared we, white reformers, must make the indian more intelligently selfish for we can make him unselfishly intelligent. we need to awaken in him once,

discontent with the teepee and the starving rations of the indian camp in winter is needed 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 surname became synonymous with allotment says little ache of this sort in 1885, one chair officer boasted to him, that there was not a family in the whole cherokee nation that had not a home of its own, there was not a popper 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 cherokee's communal

principles. they have gone as far as they could go, he judged, because they own their land in common. consistent with the ideology of his republican party, dawes wanted to see individuals striving for wealth to create arising economic see that lifted all boats. practically every commissioner of indian affairs from the late 19th through the early 20th centuries agreed wholeheartedly with him, as did the vast majority of the many organizations 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 regret, it did not take 25 years after allotment for the pillage to begin because during the interim period, the government repeatedly granted

citizenship and the right to sell the land to indians it deemed competent. which usually 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 left either completely landless or so poor that they could not earn a subsistence. they became minorities on their own reservations, nowhere more so than in federal indian territory comest to the removed tribes forever whereby 1907 when oklahoma became a state, the number of whites stood at almost 550,000 compared to 80,000 african americans in just 61,000 native people.

superintendent of indian affairs, charles burke surveying the wreckage in 1923 lamented, a race of landlords has been transformed into a race of tenants. what i'm saying is that the allotment act and their supporting legislation had not turned indians into white citizens. instead, these measures became yet another example of how power in white america involved exploiting native people with impunity while claiming to act in their benefit, reducing them to destitution and blaming them for the results. virtually no white people during this entire era conceived of the system like we have now. in which tribal nations have secured land bases, exercised self-government and practice their religious and cultural lives however they choose. 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 have responded to native american difference quite frankly with campaigns to exterminate them. the only dissenting voices came from progressives of the day who conceived that indians who became christian and civilized could become citizens with all the same rights and responsibility's as white people. and here's the rub, these reformers would not confront that most of their fellow white americans would not grant native people that option. nor would they consider the united states tolerating native people living in their own way on their own land, protected from white exploitation.

they considered such a course to be just a slower path to extinction than outright extermination. the desperation of native people in the face of these limited options i contend largely explains why some of them, like the acculturated, and professionally accomplished native people who founded the society of american indians in 1911 advocated for the indian citizenship act. it helps to explain why some native veterans of world war i did so, too. their options were meager. the only alternative they could conceive to the destitution of reservation life was for incorporation into the united states. i will close by noting, today things are different, the results of generations of native american activism,

lobbying and sheer resilience, it is also the result of at least enough white people being willing to listen, but i fear for the future. the current era's combination of indian sovereignty and citizenship exists at the sufferance of an american majority. and the will of congress. i contend that the current status quo is not based on informed principal public commitment to indian self- determination. but instead on a passive acceptance of the state of affairs handed to us by lawmakers and activists in the 1970s, most americans know nothing about the history i have 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 portion would revert to the position of reformers in the nearly -- early 19th and 20th century, that native american sovereignty is somehow a special handout rather than an inherent indigenous right. my pessimism is grounded in awareness of this country's history and the current state of our society, thanks.>> [applause] >> you have certainly given us much to think about. this is our moment to have questions if you are from the audience, if you have questions, please, i think we have somebody with a

microphone. we have cards. okay, this is katie and sam who are the two key staff members who have been putting this together, so raise your hand and they will bring you a card to write your question and while we do that, we have been joined by the artists that i told you about. cedar, would you stand up? this is cedar hunt who is the artist and comes to us from montana and even brought her mother. we welcome you. history. it's it's ledger art and it is you get an opportunity to talk to her, the piece has a sense of history. it is ledger art. and it is imposed on the kind

of ledgers that were required for so many native people that somehow white folks like the native people couldn't handle their own finances so there was a ledger they had to go to get their own money. that is a little bit of the story. cedar will be with us for a while. take a moment to talk to this talented young woman. questions. during the 1924 federal citizenship act consideration, did the legislation consider any state-level barriers? was any of that taken into consideration? >> sure, so, as i mentioned,

the debates in congress are pretty sparse when it comes to the 1924 act. however, what does come up is how the act will affect suffrage for indigenous people. and so that sort of propels congress to a conversation of state-level legislation and snyder, the man who bears his name on the piece of legislation assured congressman the act would not change any state t legislation affecting native suffrage. that is one way it comes up. >> i would also add that we need to be careful not to conflate the granting of citizenship with the exercise of equal rights. even after the indian citizenship act, states like new mexico and arizona continue to prohibit native people from voting. they didn't gain that right in those states until after world

war ii. receiving citizenship didn't mean justice. there have been civil 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 commissions have e conducted these investigations almost every decade from the 1940s onward. they are patterns that have become all too familiar to us in the context of black lives matter. but, you know, all of those issues apply to native america as well. even in states where native people theoretically were legally had the right to vote, there is a distinct pattern of white obstruction of native people and their access to the polls which, if anyone is

following the news, it's a pattern that has continued up until this very time. to sum it up, we need to be very careful not to conflate citizenship with legal and social equality. >> we have another question from the audience. would you discuss, and some of this will come up in our later panels, but you are the first off the bat so you get the first hit. would you discuss the significance of the various strategies the tribal nations and activists are employing in the citizenship struggle, both historically and currently in the unique relationship between nations that we have?

>> i believe the current struggle to the people who are fighting it, they know far more about it than i do certainly. what i can say historically is that native people in the early 20th century are in such a desperate straight they are grasping for any means to protect what little they have left. again, the thrust of my talk was to have us confront what a narrow band of options there were. the conception that native people could simultaneously be citizens and sovereign nations. it did not exist, in hardly any white people's minds and will

certainly native peoples minds. 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 against hope, hope against historical patterns the doing everything white people ask will lead to some measure of justice and dignity in the public square. and that was an experience the very few of them were able to realize. again, not because of their own shortcomings, but because of the white supremacy of the majority of the american population. >> yeah, i would add as well that i think we are also in the

midst of sort of reevaluating the 1920s as a time of native american activism, right? as dr. silverman has emphasized, there was the small band of possibilities for native american peoples facing overwhelming odds for a country that was bent on the destruction of their tribal nations. however, i think their activism really help set up the future generations, right? there is an establishment of tools that becomes very helpful. so, for example, the cultural work that the public are doing, that is really trying to explain to non-native americans the intrinsic value of native american culture, ideas, histories.

they are pretty successful in making inroads to populations that had been wildly hostile to their rights. so, for example, the pueblo are able to create a coalition that really is able to protect a lot of cultural practices. i think you can call it lexi pr move, actually helps set up some of the conversations that come later in the 20th century that have their own drawbacks, which i'm having happy to talk more about at some point, another sort of strategy i would highlight is this appeal o to international laws that the shoshone capitalized on. it's not effective in the united states context in 1924. however, if you know anything about you will note their lands

are surrounded by canada in the u.s. both of those nations, by no coincidence, are trying to citizenship on native populations at the time. surrounded by canada, going to the league of nations and going say this is a violation of international law stand up for a us. they don't. however, it sets a precedent of tribal nations using international organizations as a a way to bolster claims to tribal sovereignty that we will see manifest a little bit more productively in the 1950s and obviously 1970s and onward. and then also, in terms of this idea of tribal sovereignty, existing alongside you a citizenship, i think there is a way that we can read u.s. court cases like u.s. versus nice,

some of the taxation cases, certainly not intending to wh leave the door open for almost like a dual citizenship situation for a way for people to hang onto tribal nationhood while also being members of the u.s.. there is a way that those cases are sort of providing a precedent the native peoples can use later on to see and say, look in 1916, the us supreme court said the tribal belonging is not in conflict with you a citizenship. and that is a way that can sort of manifest greater rights in the latter half of the 20th century. >> we have another question from the audience. this will give you a sense of wonder audiences like. the title of the law was

enacted to authorize the secretary of interior to issue certificates of citizenship to indians. are there any certificates and what do the certificates say? do you know? >> yeah, this is one of the great mysteries of the 1924 acts. the mismatch of the name which seems very narrow in its ambition. and then the text which makes all native americans in the territorial united states citizens. and honestly i don't have a great answer for that. if anyone here does, please come find me. but my understanding is that congress is really trying to handle the fallout from that 1922 decision which ends force patenting.

so they are dealing with revoking a lot of patents that were forced while also trying to impose citizenship uncertain natives. it's a real crisis moment for congress in 1922 to 1926 is a deal with the fallout from d this. as far as certificates, the certificate is actually just your patent and fee. your patent and fee. so yes, you can find them. they are online. and in terms of -- what is sort of ironic about this is in the period i was talking about before, there was actually no paperwork to confirm an indigenous person's status as a you a citizen. so, it led to this again,

another crisis where sometimes native americans would try 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 helpful in providing people with evidence of the re citizenship status. >> i would like to note that the granting of these certificates, when they were delivered to native people in reservation settings, very often was accompanied by a ritual which will drive home the point i was making earlier that most white americans in their minds, private property holding and civilization were inextricable from citizenship. so the ritual would involve a

native man emerging from a tp, shooting an arrow into the distance and then dropping the bow and going to a plow and putting his hands on it. and sometimes they would raise an american flag. it speaks to the point. >> okay, we're going to do one more question and then we will take a break. for those of you who are in person, we're going to take a break, reconvene at 11:00. for those online we will be back at the podium at 11:00. for those in person we have coffee and a little snack and an opportunity for you to talk informally with one another. we have two questions. i'm going to give you two

questions to answer together. and they don't really go together. so you can roll with this. one is that one of our audience members was thinking about his own experience visiting indian reservations 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. do you have any thoughts about that? and on a more contemporary question, one of our audience members suggests that perhaps there is some similarities to the russian invasion of ukraine to take that land that might be analogous to the white settlers coming onto the native land.

so, if you would like to take 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 nato 70 and self-determination. and the reason that is the case is that federal funds began to be funneled through tribal government, rather than through federal agents. and that forced many tribal i nations to create the apparatus to receive, distribute track those funds. again, that is an important moment. i am no expert on russian ukrainian affairs. but as an informed person i have read enough to know that,

you know, like most nations that invade other nations, the aggressor nation has a historical mythology to justify the aggression. that was certainly the case in the united states. where the ideology of manifest destiny, the notion that god destined white america to expand at indigenous expense, in order to spread democracy, christianity, opportunity, in short, western civilization was a galvanizing force. io it served to justify all of the horrors that expansion entailed. let's be clear about what i mean by horrors. these were wars of extermination against native

communities the targeted women, children and the elderly. make no mistake about it. and the idea again, god bless this endeavor. so, yes, there are certainly comparables. >> and lilette supports it. we have for each of you a small gift from the society. the gifts are paperweights that are models of the capital made from marble that was one, when they did the restoration they gave us some of the capital steps marble and we have made into these things we hope you will display in their offices and remember that we are so grateful for the time you spent with us and for being with us today. thank you so very much. >> [ applause ]

>> friday nights, watch c- span's 2024 campaign trail. a weekly discussion on how the campaigns progressed the past week. reporters join to talk about the political news and to take a look at the week ahead. watch c-span 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7:00 eastern on c-span. online@c-span.org. or download the podcast on c- span now or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of conquering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill providing balanced unfiltered