who knew? i am seeing no more objections. thank you all for your time. that was fantastic. took in friday nights, watch the same 2024 campaign trail. a weekly discussion on how the presidential, senate, and house campaigns progressed in the past week. reporters join each week to talk about issues, messages, and event striving political news. we take a look at the week ahead. 2024 campaign trail. friday nights at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. down loan as a podcast. your unfiltered view of politics.

two? covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill , providing balance unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to were the policies debated and decided with the support of people companies. season, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. two? we are honored to have you heard for this important commemoration. we gather today in the kennedy caucus room of the russell senate office building. but we recognize we are in the region which was the ancestral lands of the neck a check -- pet and manahawkin peoples. this is washington dc.

everybody claims it. we gather acknowledging that this is ancestral land of the native peoples. often ignored, misunderstood or turned into myths that people believe are far from reality. my name is jean calais campbell. i am the president of united states historical society. to set the day in a good mode, we are going to pause for a moment of reflection from larry wright juanny romero. mr. wright, and a rolled member of the tribe of nebraska. served as tribal chairman for 11 years.

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 organization. serving the broad interest of governments and communities. this position, mr. wright is responsible for managing the organization's day-to-day success and its public education arm. he is a military veteran and a former social studies teacher from lincoln, nebraska. mr. right. be sworn in and honored to be asked to give the invocation. i'll say this in my language >> she should of said recoverig social studies teacher. still working on that. it's an honor to be here this morning and an honor to be given . i will say in my language and translate.

with all due respect, i ask you to pray in your own way while i do this. thank you. >> [ speaking in a global language ] only the make it he with all. only the make it he eduardo look i would like to we great spirit we thank you this day we thank you for the blessings that you you you bestow upon us. we thank all of those that made this day possible bring us together to grace baird, we thank you for this day. we thank you for the blessings that you bestow upon us. we thank all of those that made this day possible to bring us

together. to learn about our past and talk about our future. we thank you for the strength and guidance that you give us. i say a special prayer for all my people, all of our tribal nations. all of those that come together and work on our behalf to help our sovereignty, to help our people. and pray for strength and guidance and thank you for all of these blessings. thank you. >> thank you very much, larry. we look forward to hearing more from you this afternoon on the panel. now, some of you were with us last night and some of you were not. the story will sound familiar. i want to tell you something just to put it all in

perspective. ann richards was governor of texas and she was speaking to a group of us when we were young elected officials. she said, you know what? you have to say something 12 times before people here. if you are hearing the 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. one of the things you do when you are new, you go around and talk to leaders. one of those leaders was congressman tom cole. he was one of our congressional advisors. at the time he was the ranking member of the rules committee. 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 were

planning a symposium in 2022 recognize the fact that women have 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. he looked at me and said, look, i am good with women voting. i think that is a fine thing. my mother was in the oklahoma legislator. i am all about it. but, i want you to promise me that in 2024, you will do something equally significant to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of my people earning the right to vote. that was the beginning of this symposium. today's event is part of the delivery on that promise. he then gave me a handful of books to read. he is a phd historian who was a professor, turn congressman.

take these home and read them. including at that time, killers of the flower of the moon. which nobody had heard of. so, i learned a lot. today we come together to commemorate the indian citizenship act. or the snyder act. many of us had an opportunity to see at the national archives and they are displaying it for this period of time. if you have not been there and have an opportunity to go see it, it is in the rubenstein gallery of rates. in 1924, when the center act was passed, it granted citizenship to native americans born within the territorial limits of the u.s. and extended the 15th amendment which granted citizens the right to

vote. the right, created indigenous severance. it would be a vast oversimplification to say that the snyder 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 snyder act resolved the inherent difficult and important attentions behind the concepts of citizenship and sovereignty. these debates continue until this day and will be represented in the conversations. these five years have been a real education for me and for our team. we benefited greatly from our advisory committee, who we want to acknowledge. the honorable

dan, carol, sophia, andre jacobs, maria, heidi, and hillary tompkins. we are grateful for all of them for helping us put this together. we are also grateful for our partners who invested in this program. our presenting partner, wells fargo. platinum partner, the chickasaw nation. mcguire woods. and the american historical association. each made contributions to this effort. as some point today i will 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. she even is bringing her mother so we will see her at some point and acknowledge her. we also want to thank senator mark mullen 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. the native american citizens that suffrage and sovereignty in history. joining us today, two distinguished scholars. dr. lila teeters know. and dr. j severson. dr. nall is a lecturer in harvard university history and

literature program. she holds degrees for vassar college, olympia university and the university of new hampshire. in 2021, lila was aj willard hurst fellow with american society for legal history. and the university of wisconsin law school. as well as a recipient as the charlotte weijia newcomb fellowship with the institute for citizens and scholars. current project entitled, native citizens, the fight over native american citizenship in the u.s., 1887 to 1924. david silverman, a professor of history at george washington university. 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 indians, plymouth

colony and the troubled history of thanksgiving. it was published in 2019. thunder , firearms, and the final transformation of native america. it 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 states? -- stage. we will hear their presentations and then we will have an opportunity for questions. i will sit right there. i will be able to see you. >> 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 conversation that happened over the course of the day. as jane said, i primarily am a legal historian. my specialty is the passage of the 1924 indian citizenship act. also known as the snyder act. when i started doing research into this legislation, the predominant understanding, at least among old historians, was that by 1924, native american citizenship in the u.s. was relatively uncontroversial. congress passed legislation as a type of belated 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

debates surrounding the 1924 act, you will likely be convinced of this interpretation. there was hardly any debate over the 1924 act. the legislation was supported by the department of interior, bureau of indian affairs and some of the most well-known native americans at the time including charles, arthur parker, carlos -- it seemed like there was a consensus that the time had come for native american citizenship. 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 proceeding. the snyder act. for example, the winter of 1923, many congressional representatives and native

american activists 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 the interior. in the final report, they noted that the american populace was largely in support of native american citizenship. they also noted, quote, the cold facts that every time bill confirmed citizenship, has been introduced in congress, indians themselves have led an opposing them. and, quote. it was in congressional archives. historians and activists within native communities have always known the duality of american citizenship. on one hand, citizenship is a powerful tool that comes with essential rights, that can help

bolster sovereignty. it also can be coercive and threatening to sovereignty. in my allotted time today, i thought i would talk a little bit about the controversy surrounding native american citizenship in the lead up to 1924. as a way to understand why some native americans and non- natives thought that u.s. citizenship was the best path forward for native american nations, and why others oppose that? i will also gesture toward how those debate continues suffers debates over the course of the 20th century. 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. it was a pan indian reform

organization founded in 1911. 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. spend a lot of time in these halls. for many leaders of the society such as president charles eastman, citizen was the best way to protect and ensure the future of native americans. 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 congressional leaders, urging them to support native american citizenship. as society members, chickasaw citizen and u.s. congressman from oklahoma, wrote that

citizenship would be a simple act of justice to render to the indian that which has been long due to him. their efforts were incredibly successful. i really think that they are the linchpin in turning non- native american sentiment, pro- american native citizenship in this period. the efforts led to the passage of the 1919 indian veterans act. it allowed native veterans to apply for citizenship. the other group eager to make native american citizens, u.s. congressional representatives. before the 1924 act, the primary way for native americans to become citizens was through the general allotment act of 1887. this piece of legislation was determined to break up tribal reservations, tribal communities and communally held

lands. this was conceived of as a definite purposeful blow to tribal nations. i believe dr. silverman will talk more about the act? yes? okay. i want to give you a brief overview of it so you can understand the importance. each tribal member, had a personal of land. that allotment would be held in trust from 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 as as a progressive piece of legislation, it led to millions of land loss. it attempted to strip native

americans of their cultures and land practices. in 1906, congress altered the terms of the act to the burke act. we will get through some legal weeds but i urge you to stay with me. well it made citizens upon receiving allotment, it delayed that until the individual land allotment was terminated. meaning that now citizenship, taxation, and the end of the trust relationship, the personal trust relationship, coincided at one moment. you can only become a citizen once you receive the fee for your allotment and you became vulnerable to taxation. congress also declared that the 25 year trust.

could be terminated early. so long as the secretary of the interior approved. this meant that the secretary could declare native american individual ready for citizenship, which would terminate the trust provision on an allotted land early. it would then make them liable to state and local taxation. this could be done without an individual's consent or application for citizenship. and it could be done against explicit wishes. for congressman who lived in states with large native american populations, particularly those that had been allotted, they now had the potential to open up a new incredibly large tax space. these congressman were constantly hearing from constituents and state government counterparts about how to -- difficult it was for non-native citizens to fund local governments in areas open by the dawes act. congress was

being pushed by constituents to release indian land to taxation. the burke act seemingly gave the secretary of interior permission to do just that. in other words, for many native americans, citizenship came to look like another way to take native american lands out of indigenous possession. i 1917 it was bureau policy to release native americans as quickly as possible from the trust, to make them citizens. to give them the fee, to make them vulnerable to taxation. citizenship was 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 material concerns.

against this backdrop, it probably is very easy to see the opposition to citizenship. i want to emphasize in the next part about how native american activism really changed citizenship policy in the united states. first it will come as no surprise, there was sustained objection to impose citizenship because of the tax obligations that came with it. i want to be clear, this was not shirking a small tax bill. these were large tax bills and the tax bills enforce patenting as the process came to be known. it was incredibly destructive. many native americans could not afford the taxes and would lose their land or other property as a result. communities counted on the 25 year trust period as a way to bolster resources and establish revenue. o forest patenting to the early release of the

trust and the imposition of citizenship was swift. the patterns would appear by u.s. certify wide mail, which often led to extended standoffs between native american resistance to force patenting, the early release of the imposition of citizenship was swift. the patents would appear by u.s. certified mail which often led to extended standups between native american individuals and postal workers and then also, we had numerous court cases coming out of indian country to fight forest patenting. by 1982, the courts had decided that it is an illegal process. every citizenship, though, introduced between 1887 and 1922, had allotment provisions included in it. citizenship in this period was tied with allotment and

assimilation but native americans, whether they were for or against citizenship maintained indigenous rights to their culture and history and allotment threatened tribal nations' ability to practice fully their cultures and to memorialize their history. and, of course, allotments would lead to taxation. one of the loudest and effective advocates against allotment in the name of cultural sovereignty was pablo abeyta of the pueblo people. he met with congressional representatives repeatedly to reject citizenship because of the repeated reliance on allotment and the assimilation it represented. pueblo worked with many pfamous artists including dh lawrence to publicize their protests and this led to congress abandoning at least two citizenship bills. it created a pr nightmare for

congress. the last suggestion of citizenship that i want to cover in this time came from the iroquois and they are the most well-known for their rejection of u.s. citizenship and they rejected it based on political sovereignty and international law. their tribal council wrote many letters to congress, personally or through lawyers, reminding congress that imposing citizenship upon them would be a violation of their tribal sovereignty, a violation of treaties and assault on international law. as one lawyer reminded congress, quote, 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 wrote, quote, we proclaimed but yesterday the right of weak people for self-

determination. we denounce but yesterday other peoples who broke their written treaties solemnly made and waged war on them. where we hypocrites in search only for world craze? the haudenosaunee threatened to tie these issues up in court. lawsuits filed or threatened, public protests, the uproar made by these type of bills made causing indian sedition nearly possible, as the committee of 100 recognized in 1933. when the 1924 act passed, it past not because it was uncontroversial but because it was done so swiftly and quietly and it was a much different piece of legislation than what r congress had previously envisioned. there four main changes i want to highlight. n one, the citizenship act did

not remove tax protections early. two, it did not have any sort of continued allotment for the indigenous. three, it did not affect tribal citizenship status or claims to tribal property. four, it contained no cultural provision although, i want to recognize that obviously, assimilation is precious and would continue and continues today. >> of course, citizenship was e still imposed, was still nonconsensual but it would be up to the next generation of gh indigenous americans to leverage that citizenship, to not only preserve indian of sovereignty but to strengthen it and to fight for greater suffrage rights in the nation that declared them. in a particularly cruel bit of irony, the very victory of 1924, the exclusion of early

taxation provision and the continued ability to claim tribal status would become some of the major ways that states would try to limit native american sovereignty. this is a fight that would continue from 1924 and that we are living with today. thank you. >> [ applause ] >> good morning, everybody. i am honored to be on this program today with such luminaries. i am also humbled this morning, aware that i am addressing history and some of the people in this room have lived and whose 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. that is 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 as members. white people imposed the country on them. the history of native peoples relations with the united states have involved a constant struggle to defend the inherent sovereignty which comes with being indigenous. by that, i mean, the right to self-governance, recognized

territorial boundaries and the power to engage with other foreign states. to put another way, the focus of native people's aspirations, unlike say, african americans, has not been equal rights with white people. though, most of them today certainly expect that status. the exercises 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 polity, tribal nations that govern their members and their territory, though the united states does not permit them to engage in foreign relations like other sovereign powers. the tribal nations exist not only by virtue of their members' inherent indigenous rights but by virtue of recognition by the united states through a senate ratified treaty, 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 here to discussing this historical background to the indian citizenship act by contending that in the century plus preceding the indian citizenship act, native people experienced the granting of ou u.s. citizenship as a tool by which white people dispossessed and subjugated them, not as a ti gift promising equality and opportunity. from the country's very founding, u.s. authorities voiced a 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 that 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 this offer, not because they found it unattractive on its face but because they had witnessed quite americans exploitation and even extrication of christian civilized indians who tried, a pattern that stretched back into the 17th century and i would be happy to elaborate on that pattern. in other words, from the start, native people saw the fundamental problem in the utopian dreams of white performers or indian assimilation for 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, nevermind 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. though a handful of indians, and generally of white ancestry us made good on this offer, the

vast majority who took up the offer suffered plunder and murder at the hands of white mobs. this is the case, for example, for thousands of creeks or muskogee's who 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 choctaw's, representing a quarter of their tribe also suffered whites releasing them of their allotments and the opportunity to remain in their native homeland. state governments helped to orchestrate this pillage while the federal government stood by and did nothing. the only place where indians successfully became citizens was wisconsin. there, several hundred brother town indians and mohicans took the citizenship and private

property options, which they called becoming white, rather than relocate to kansas, having already migrated from southern new england to escape white persecution. some of them were confident that their status as civilized christians equip them to compete in white society, despite the obstacles of white race prejudice. most of them spoke and wrote english, they covered their own churches. they ran sawmills, farms and logging operations. quite a number of them had a command of white long. three of the brother town indians would go on to serve in the wisconsin legislature. yet, many of them came to regret the transition to citizenship as white creditors, the taxman zeroed in on their allotments. three years into the experiment, most of the

mohicans petitioned to return their citizenship and revert back to the legal status as indians. they had all their lives been called indians. it is their desire to continue. adding, that their natures and their dispositions can no more be changed and their skins be made white and transparent. they did return their citizenship and managed to secure another reservation, which they retain to this day. the brother town's who remain citizens lost everything. in the state with a seal containing the latin saying, civilization replaces barbarism and depicting an indian hunter retreating westward in the face of a white man guiding a plow. the pattern continued throughout the 19th century in the midwest and the northern

portion of rural indian territory, kansas. repeatedly, native people facing dispossession tried to parlay be acceptance of private citizenship into the right to remain where they were, hence, for example of oklahoma. by and large, not entirely, but the native people who made these attempts were of mixed indian and white ground, 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 tax-free tracks. they are all over the midwest. one enrolled member, charles curtis, would parlay the profits from his half allotment into a fortune that would contribute to him becoming a federal senator from kansas and

ultimately vice president under herbert hoover. almost no one has heard of this guy, even among historians. that makes for some conversation. most native people found that citizenship was an empty promise. >> the united states intended reservations to be weigh stations on the road to assimilation, private property and citizenship, not permanent o homelands but these places did not function the way the u.s. intended. in actuality, the federal government failed miserably in making these places reasonably decent places to live. did not provide sufficient food to sustain people who could no longer support themselves through traditional means, nor, did it provide adequate farming

or livestock to promote the transition to farming. did not provide anywhere near sufficient medical care for people ravaged by diseases that preyed on their malnutrition, psychologies and poor sanitation. its agents routinely built the people they were supposed to protect. perhaps worst of all, and this is closely related to the issues of citizenship, the government did next to nothing as surrounding whites plunderedl the reservation's livestock, fencing and firewood, trespassed on grazing lands and trafficked in liquor. in other words, native people could see plainly that the law found but did not protect indians while it protected but did not fined whites. the government's plan to assimilate indians toward incorporating them as citizens

including 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 regiment of military drills, roll calls, work details and corporal punishment with little time for rest and leisure. none of this resembled mainstream white american life. this was not preparation for participation in white america. the education was rudimentary and outrightly white supremacist including the relentless message that the students' backgrounds were savage and inferior. conditions were abysmal, marked by sickness e and death from communicable diseases at rates government never would have tolerated to white people. following school, most native alums found no more acceptance in white society than if they had never attended school in the first place and little

opportunity to apply the skills they had learned on the reservation. it was during the reservation and boarding school regimes that congress passed the dodds act of 1987 and the curtis act of 1898 named after the aforementioned charles curtis himself. speed along the indian transition to private property and citizenship. the dawes act authorized the division of indian reservations and contracts of 160 acres or less and the allotment of those parcels, among native individuals. as we have already heard, there would be a 25 year restriction on the selling of the track to provide time for him or her to learn how to manage the land as a source of capital. once that interim period lapsed, each indian would receive a fee patent, lifting

all these on alienation, mortgages and leases. from then on, just to repeat the point -- you have to say these things 12 times. the titleholder would be go responsible to pay property taxes and run the risk of having the tract compensated. -- confiscated. furthermore, he or she would become an american citizen. if the government judged them 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 land of the reservation, the ec government purchased this surplus from the tribe and keeps most of the protein to fund its civilization programs including boarding schools. i find it a strange species of cruelty to force people to fund 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 it. allotment legislation has been in the works for years and white reformers concluded that the reservations were failing to turn indians into civilized citizens and as white economic interest, zeroed in on the natives remaining profitable resources. as early as 1876, the commissioner of indian affairs was already questioning, and i quote, whether any high degree of civilization is possible without individual ownership of land, a notion that was reflected with the teaching of that era's anthropology.

over the next several years, white progressives, who style in themselves of friends of the indians, gathering at an annual conference in the upper hudson river valley, turned this principle into a mantra. and one of the conference series, meryl gates, the president of amherst college declared, we, by which he meant white reformers, must make the indian more intelligently selfish before we can make him unselfishly intelligent. we need to awaken in him wants. discontent with the tp 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 have a pocket in them and in a e pocket that aches to be filled

with dollars. massachusetts senator henry dawes, whose surname became synonymous with allotment , sensed a little ache of the sort when he visited the cherokees in 1985. one cherokee officer boasted to him, and i quote, 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 the nation did not owe a dollar. it builds 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 had 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 a rising economic state that lifted it all. practically every commissioner of indian affairs, from the late 19 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 the legislation would prove to be nothing more than a massive plundering of indian land and they were correct. it did not take 25 years after allotment for the pillage to begin because during the interim period, the government repeatedly granted citizenship and the right to sell the land to indians it deemed, didn't, 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 but by 1934, that number was 48 million. so, 155 million acres to 48. one thirds of native people were left either completely landless or so land poor that they could not earn assistance. they became minorities on their own reservations. nowhere more so than in federal indian territory promised to the tribes forever whereby 1907, when oklahoma became a state, the number of whites stood at almost 550,000 compared to 80,000 african americans and just 61,000 native people. the superintendent of indian affairs, charles burke, surveying the wreckage in 1923 lamented a landlord has been transformed into a racist tenant. what i am saying here 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 then 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 secure land bases, exercise self-government and practice religious and cultural lives however they choose. that division 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, very narrow. throughout american history, as far back as the colonial era,

most white americans had responded to native american difference, quite frankly, with campaigns to exterminate them. the only dissenting voices from white america came from progressives of the day who conceived that indians who became christian and civilized comes citizens with all the same rights and responsibilities as white people. here is the rug. these reformers would not m 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 case of these limited options, i contend,

largely explains why some of them, like the acculturated formally educated and rationally accomplished native people, who founded the society of american indians in 1911, advocated for the indian citizenship act. it helps to explain how some native veterans of world war i did so too. their options were meager. the only alternative they could conceived to the destitution of reservation life was full incorporation into the united states. i will close just by noting that three things are different. the result of generations of native american activism, loitering, lobbying and sheer resilience. it is also a result of enough white people being willing to listen. but, i fear for the future. the current domination of indian sovereignty and

citizenship exists at the suffering of an american majority and the will of congress. i contend that the current as status quo is not based on informed principled public commitment to indian self- determination but, instead, on a path to acceptance on a 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 of them would revert to the provision of reformers in the early 20th century that american difference is unacceptable and even dangerous or that native american sovereignty is somehow a special handout rather than

its inherent indigenous rate. my pessimism is grounded in the awareness of this country's history and the current state of our society. >> [ applause ] >> you have certainly given us much to think about. this is our moment to have questions. if you have questions, i think we have someone with the microphone. cards? we have cards. okay. this is katie ryan and sam holiday, who are the two key staff members who have been putting this together. raise your hand and they will bring you a card to write your question on. while we do that, we have been

joined by the artists. cedar, will you stand up? this is cedar hunt . she comes to us from montana and even brought her mother. we welcome cedar and her mom and if you get an opportunity to talk to her, she has a whole sense of history. it is imposed on the kind of ledgers that were required for so many native people that somehow white folks don't like the native people couldn't handle their own finances so there was ledger where they had to go to get their own and that

is a little bit of the story but, cedar will be with us for a while so take a moment to talk to this talented young woman. >> okay. question. during the 1924 federal citizenship act considerations, did the legislation consider any state level barriers? tt 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. that sort of propels congress to a conversation of state

level legislation and the man who bears his name on the piece of legislation assures congress meant that the act would not change any state of legislationh affecting native suffrage. that is one way that 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 continued to prohibit native people from voting. they did not gain that right in those states until after world war ii. receiving citizenship did not mean justice. there have been a civil rights commissions that have focused

on the unequal application of justice, or we might say, the unequal application to injustice or states like south dakota, arizona, and new mexico. these commissions have conducted these investigations almost every decade from the 1940s onward and they are patterns that have become all too familiar with us. in the context of black lives matter movement, all of that as well. in the states where native americans legally have the right to vote, there is a distinct pattern of white obstruction of the natives people's access to the polls. if anyone is following the news, that is continuing through this very time. we need to be very careful not to conflate citizenship with legal and social equality.

>> we have another question from the audience. some of this will come up in our later panel but you are the first off the bat. you get the first hit. would you discuss the significance of the various strategies that tribal nations and activists are employing in the citizenship struggle both historically and currently and the unique relationship between nations that we have? w >> i will leave the current struggle to the people who are fighting it. they know far more about it than i do, certainly. historically, native people in their early 20th century are in

such a straight that they are grasping for any means to protect what little they had left. 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 nation did not exist and hardly any white people's minds. it was not even part of the discussion. the state of reservation, 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 historical patterns that doing everything that people ask will lead to some measure of justice and dignity in the public square. that was an experience that 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. >> i would add as well that i think, we are also in the midst of reevaluating the 1920s as a time of native american activism. there was this very small band of possibilities for native american people facing

overwhelming odds for a country that was bent on the destruction of their tribal nation. however, i think their activism really helped set up the future generations. there is an establishment of tools that become very helpful. for example, the cultural work that the pueblo are doing, that is really trying to explain to non-native americans the intrinsic value of native american culture, ideas, history . they are pretty successful in making inroads to populations that have been wildly hostile to the right. for example, the pueblo are able to create a coalition that is able to protect a lot of

cultural practices. you can call it a pr move, right? it actually help start some of the conversations that come later in the 20th century but have their own drawbacks. we will talk more about it at some point. another strategy i would highlight is this appeal to international law that the haudenosaunee capitalize on . it is not effective in the united states context in 1924. however, if you know anything about the haudenosaunee, you know that their land are surrounded by two colonial nations, canada and the united states. both of those nations, by no coincidence are trying to impose citizenship on native populations at the time. the haudenosaunee, surrounded by canada, go to the league of nations and say , this is why

you are founded. this is a violation of international law. stand up for us. they don't. however, it sets the precedent of tribal nations using international organizations as a way to bolster claims to tribal sovereignty that we will see manifest a little bit more productively in the 1950s and 1970s and onward. also, in terms of this idea of tribal sovereignty existing alongside u.s. citizenship, i think there is a way that we can read u.s. court cases -- some of the taxation cases i referenced before -- i am certainly not intending to leave the door open to a dual citizenship interpretation or 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 providing a precedent that native people can use later on to say, in 1916, the u.s. supreme court said that tribal belonging is not in conflict with u.s. citizenship and that is a way that can manifest radar rights in the latter half of the 20th century. >> we have another question from the audience. this will give you a sense of what our audience is like. the title of the law was asking to authorize the secretary of interior to issue certificates of citizenship to indians. are there any certificates and what do those certificates say?

no? >> this is one of the great mysteries of the 1924 act, the mismatch of the names, which seem very narrow it's and envision. then, the text, which makes all native americans in the territorial united states citizens. honestly, i don't have a great answer to that but if anyone does, please come find me. my understanding is that congress is really trying to handle the fallout from the 1922 decision which ends forced patenting. they are dealing with revoking a lot of itpatents that were fo it while also trying to impose citizenship on certain natives. it is a real crisis moment for congress from 1922 to 1926 as

they deal with the fallout. as far as certificates, the certificate is actually your th patent and fee. it is the title to your land. yes, you can find them. they are online. what is ironic about this, in the period i was talking about before, there was actually no paperwork that could confirm an indigenous person's status as a u.s. citizen. it led to this, 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 es marginally helpful in providing people with evidence of their

citizenship status. >> i would like to note that the granting of these certificates, when they were delivered to native people and reservation settings, barry often was accompanied by the original which will drive home the point that i was making earlier that in most white americans' minds, private property holding civilizations were inextricable from citizenship. the ritual would involve a native man emerging from atp, shooting an arrow off into the distance and then dropping the bow and going to a plow and putting his hands on it. sometimes he would raise an

american flag. that speaks to the point. >> we are going to do one more question and then we will take a break. for those of you who are in person, we will take a break, reconvene at 11:00. we will be back at the podium at 11:00. for those of you that are here in person, we have a coffee and a little snack and an opportunity for you to talk informally with one another. we have two questions. i will give you two questions to answer and they don't really come together. 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 impacts of the war on poverty, to see if it was making any headway in the native country. do you have any thoughts about that? on a more contemporary question, one of our audience members suggests that perhaps there is some similarity to the russian invasion of ukraine, to take that land that might be analogous to the white settlers coming in to the native land. if you would like to take either one of those questions. >> i can take a stab at both of them. the war on poverty is an important moment in the beginning of the modern era of

self-determination. the reason that is the case is that federal funds began to be funneled through tribal government rather than through federal agents. that forced many tribal nations to create the apparatus to receive, distribute, track those funds. 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, 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, western civilization, was a galvanizing force. it served to justify all of the horrors that expansion entailed. let's be clear about what i mean. these are wars of extermination against native communities that targeted women, children, and the elderly. make no mistake about it. the idea again was that god blessed this endeavor. there are certainly parallels. >> and, lila supports it.

>> we have a small gift from the society. >> thank you. >> the gifts are paperweights that are models of the capital made from marble i was from the capital when they did the restoration. they gave us some of the steps marble and we have made it into these things and we hope you will display that in your 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 ] if you are enjoying american history tv, sign-up for our newsletter using the qr code on your screen to receive weekly highlights of upcoming programs likeleures and history, american artifacts, the presidency and more.