Transcripts For CSPAN2 Lectures 20240704

Clear that were not talking about the indian wars in this kind of lecture thats going to be in a couple weeks and were gonna use that as as a way to link. Kind of wars throughout the 19th century all the way up to it including the spanishamerican war so our focus is were kind of around that. Were thinking more kind of legal policy and issues and and such so the goal is to think in that broad 19th century way so our start point is a couple key things we need to kind of deal with the second half of our semester one of the Big Questions were picking up on is what does it mean to be an american . All right who can claim to be an american . Thats one of the Big Questions thats going to kind of . Take us through the end of our semester into as we deal with the 19th century. So in upcoming weeks were going to talk about, you know, immigrants. Were going to talk about kind of the progressive error and things like that. I think this is a good start point. To think about who is claiming american status. And what does that mean . So were going to build from some of the ideas. We talked about with manifest destiny. From the discussion of Political Violence and build into these are other things. Couple key concepts that we need to deal with first of all a settler colonialism. Have you heard that phrase before . I see a couple yeses and a couple knows some heads kind of bobbing every which way, okay when we talk about settler colonialism, let me give you kind of a general definition here. Were talking about colonialism that seeks to replace. The original population colonialism that seeks to replace the original population with new settlers hence settler colonialism and and this is done in a couple different ways. One way is through kind of depopulation right an intentional effort to remove. Either physically, you know like the physically take them to another place remove or to exterminate. Depopulation right a second way that settler colonialism functions is through assimilation. Right getting the previous population to transition into membership in the new population. And theres a third way right the recognition of a previous population as unit within this new. Organization, were not going to see that nearly as much were going to see the first two more in our discussion today. So settler colonialisms. I mean we need to kind of keep in mind second big thing. We think about is the frontier. And what is the frontier . How does it function . And for that were going to deal with Frederick Jackson turner in 1893 Frederick Jackson turner as a historian at the university of wisconsin delivered. Well lecture about the frontier the Census Bureau in 1890 had said there was no longer a frontier and one of the things that turner wanted to talk about was what the frontier had meant in American History. The essentially argued that america doesnt exist without a frontier than americas existence is directly tied to this notion of a frontier. But what is a frontiers i think a fantastic question and in turners construction of this. Basically the frontier in American History has always function as basically a colony. The same way overseas colonies had functioned for european powers. This is how the frontier function for the United States. It was a place for Raw Materials to be produced. A dedicated market to export finish goods but more importantly it was a safety valve. And people disgruntled at home. Well move to the colonies on the same way people who are disgruntled on the east coast would move to the frontier. And that process reproduce. Kind of what it meant to be america. So you have this kind of contiguous colonies thing. Thats kind of right up close to it. And what makes the american frontier different than some of these other colonies is that theres this constant integration of the frontier. Into whats called the metropole into the mother country itself. And so thats an important distinction. But turner doesnt necessarily see the the frontier in purely positive light cc is a important space. For the recreation of what it means to be american but he also says i want to quote a piece from him. He says that the democracy born of freeland and by this he means kind of the frontier is a space where no one can has claimed this land. Just not true, but like thats the conception the democracy born of freeland strong and selfishness and individualism. Intolerant of administrative experience and education and pressing individual liberty. Beyond is proper balance has its dangers as well as its benefits. So from turners perspective, the frontier is an important location and its necessary for defining the american character, but its also a place that has generated a very unique vision of what it means to be american. Right and one that is. Very much tied to very kind of brutal and violent realities, right . So thats important for us right in terms of thinking about native americans and and that connection because again in turners vision of the frontier, free land its open space. So hes conceptualizing it as a without people already there. Okay, third thing we need to think about. Our ideas in the 19th century about social development. And for that were going to turn to lewis h morgan. I wrote a book in 1877. Called ancient society the title is its a 19th century book. So like the title is like forever long. We just call it ancient society. And basically what hes talking about through kind of studying kinship relationships and such. Is that all societies . Move through a uniform and identifiable path. Into civilization from savagery to barberism to civilization right and and savagery he identifies as kind of that huntergatherer kind of lowest rudimentary level of technology. Very little in terms of hierarchical social organizations, but its the start is in his mind the most primitive. And then you move into barbarism which you might see as analogous to bronze age technology, right the use of you know, smelting technology to create first of all iron tools with that into bronze and more intricate social organizations more sedentary lifestyles his vision of how this works is based in technology, but then also in sedentary life. So for huntergatherers to more permanent societies and then ultimately into what he defines a civilization which he defines breaks up into ancient medieval and modern. To kind of how we understand the western world and its break up and of course. America is the pinnacle its the top. Its the most modern of all places. It is the most civilized. So, okay great. So if you take this notion kind of all societies because he talks about whats called monogenesis. Are you familiar with this term monogenesis . That all people come from one singular creation. Samantha, do you have a question . So good. America was like the pinnacle. Did morgan view like the early colonists who were like technically british colonists as like savages . Oh, no, no. No, they still are part of civilized world. They are just so the again morgans vision is kind of Anglosaxon America english acts and vision to the british are the british even the french i guess he would throw in but kind of western european conceptions are the height of civilization. That includes all the western world. Not just yes. Brandon would you put in the five civilized tribes you had civilized into American Society five civilized tribe. He would have put them somewhere in that space between barbarism and civilized. Were theyre not there yet. At least thats my understanding of morgan. I meant that i have not Read Everything that morgan wrote so i dont know 100 but i think thats where you put the he puts most native americans in barberism or kind of savagery into barbers. Thats kind of where he sees native americans, but i dont know if he would necessarily classify. So the civilized tribes. I think you would say are imitating the civilized that may not necessarily. Be civilized. A good question. These are fantastic questions. So morgan is obviously not the only person out there and his ideas are not the only ideas but they are representative of kind of a notion a set of ideas and this idea that native americans arent necessarily civilized or theyre on maybe an earlier edge of civilization. And that one of the things that could be done is to help progress them into the civilized era into the modern world the civilizing mission, which will actually talk a lot about as we go through the rest of the semester this kind of notion of kind of what later. Individuals were called the white mans burden. All right, well talk about that. So those type of ideas but also then the idea that native americans are potentially an impediment. To progress right because they are stuck. In barbarism and so if theyre stuck in barbarism and theres no way to bring them into the modern world. What do you do then . Right. So these conceptions of who is modern who is not whether or not progress can happen you tie that then to this idea of the frontier and notions of settler colonialism, and i think what you get is the intellectual framework for understanding what whats going to happen throughout the 19th century again, like i said, were not going to talk about the wars. Ill talk about that in a couple weeks, but everything short of war here. Were going to talk about in terms of settler colonialism and its connections. Does that make sense any questions before we move on . Fantastic all right, so well start with the trail of tears. All of you have heard the trail of tears before i assume. Yes, okay. How many of you have heard about the georgia gold rush . Okay, so a couple of you have alright in 1828 in northern georgia in the appalachian portions of georgia. They find gold. Hence the gold rush but people are kind of pressing into this area increasing population and then in 1830 a second. Kind of vain is going to be found, but this is going to be in land. Claimed by the cherokee when it does not going to stop the the miners from going into that territory the cherokee yearly, please. Please dont. Please get out. Its actually called the great intrusion. I mean what . What a wonderfully kind of almost victorian understood intrusion, right . This is an invasion of minors into cherokee lands. And because of that theres this. Desire to kind of take those lands out of the hands of the cherokee. The gold rush doesnt lead. To the indian removal act. I want to make that did gold rush doesnt lead to it. This created that boot it made it easier. For people to support the indian removal. It had already been a push to remove some of this land from what are known as the five civilized tribes, the cherokee, muskogee, creek, seminole, choctaw and chickasaw. Adding is bad for me, all right. Theres that movement in 1830 Congress Passes the indian removal act which empowers the federal government to send out negotiators, send out negotiators to create treaties to Exchange Lands in the southeast for lands in what is designated indian territory, that portion of Louisiana Purchase territory west of arkansas. The first of these is the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek with the choctaw in 1831. And they signed this agreement to move from basically georgia to indian territory and did it in 3 ways from 1831 and ultimately 1833. We are talking about 15,000 the out of a population shy of 20,000, the vast majority. The thing is the first wave hits a blizzard. Secondly, the second wave is decimated by cholera. All three waves are going to face significant supply shortages and the general incompetence on the part of the federal individuals who are leading this process so all said and done Something Like 2000 to 4000 people are going to die in the process and the choctaw a removal we actually, the first time people use the phrase trail of tears. That is the start point. There is an effort to have a treaty with the seminole in 1832, what they do is send negotiated to the seminal and about this land in oklahoma, can we send people to check it out. Sure. So go to oklahoma and they come back and there is a report that supposedly, these seminole leaders signed so this land is terrific and wonderful and amazing except none of them actually signed it. And so when they said we are not moving the Us Government said yes you are, you have to. That will lead to the second seminole war in 1835. Thats a couple weeks from now, we will talk about that but some people fight back against removal. What is interesting when we think about the cherokee, the cherokee response to this whole process is perhaps the greatest example they had some level assimilated parts of white culture, they have taken bits and pieces and said if youre going to make us do this you are not the supporters the cherokee actually have a number of people on their side in this process. So in the early 1800s, georgia seeded a portion of its western land claims to the United States government which will encompass alabama and mississippi. And then in that process, georgia gives up its land, the cherokee dont give up their land, 1825 they basically create a new capital and in 1827 write a constitution and if you are looking, if the whole point is native americans need to assimilate into white culture the cherokee had done what the white subset do and it doesnt seem to matter seems to be a big deal. They passed a law in 1828 that any member of the Cherokee Nation that signs a removal agreement or land claim agreement without the approval of the council has committed treason against the Cherokee Nation. Theyve got this figured out. So when the indian removal act comes along their set and ready to go, the problem is georgia has looked to the Us Government saying you promised if we see you this land that you would help us remove portions of native americans living in our territory but you are not doing that so the Georgia State Legislature Passes a series of laws giving them power to do whatever they wanted. The cherokee sued. In 1831 it goes through the Us Supreme Court at which point the Us Supreme Court says we are not going to hear your case. Always love the Us Supreme Court no. Thanks. We understand this is a huge concern with major ramifications but we are just have tea that day. The next year, 1832, another suit makes its way to the Supreme Court and they hear the case in worchester versus the state of georgia and the Supreme Court sides with the cherokee. At least on some level, the ruling here is that the state of georgia doesnt have the right to pass these laws that affect the cherokee because the constitution is quite clear that when it comes to the phrase Indian Affairs only the federal government has that authority. So georgias attempts to control the cherokee violate the constitution. President jacksons response to this is dont care. The thing like this idea good he said marshall made the decision, lets enforce it isnt that his response to it . There seems no evidence that shows him actually saying this. Could he have said it out loud . And no one wrote it down . Entirely possible. We dont have documentary evidence that ive been able to find that says that he said that specifically but the sentiment is there, the sentiment of i dont care. On some level it is not so much that he is not going to enforce the ruling, just that he is not going to side with the cherokee, the sermon court sided with the cherokee, you cant remove us in this way but the indian removal act that jackson supported, he doesnt have a problem. It all gets interesting because 1832, jackson basically declared war on South Carolina over the nullification crisis. Its a busy year for him. Ultimately what ends up happening in, 1835, a treaty is signed with a faction of the cherokee. The whole thing, the decision from the Supreme Court, feel like they have won. It doesnt look like the federal government is going to care. A rift begins to develop among the leadership of the cherokee. Some saying it is inevitable that they are going to force us to leave so lets get the best terms we can now. Another group saying we are not leaving under any circumstances. What happens, the group that is in favor of leaving on the best terms they can get sign a treaty in 1835 and even though that would technically be an act of treason under the cherokee constitution under their law, the Us Government says you signed this treaty, off you go. And three different waves, they are forced, some move muslim are dragged kicking and screaming. It is an interesting mix, 16,000 or so, and 2 to 4000 are going to die along the way. You would think after thousands of people have died in a process of forced removal to federal government would go lets not do that again. You would be wrong. Because in 1864 they are going to do it again. In 1864 they do it again. Some of this has to do with the civil war itself. In 1860 through 1861 large chunks of the u. S. Army, off the great plains, sent back east to fight which means that what youre going to end up having is mostly territorial militia. Thats going to be a bit of an issue. With the u. S. Army there, thats not a guarantee that treaties will be upheld but because of the civil war there are some that will side with the confederacy. Not just because they agree with the confederacy but the confessor he confederacy has promised them land, recognition of land. You had a question . To detentions with when they agreed ultimately agreed with confederates with tribal members of time too . Internal conflict whether the flag was the confederacy, there is always tension that we are going to see. The cherokee before they were forced into indian territory, some owned slaves, they adopted the notion of slavery. Some would have supported conception with the confederacy, the last confederate general to surrender is a cherokee general. Stand weighty i believe he was, sounds right in my head. Some will fight for the confederacy because they believe in the ideas of the confederacy, some do it, the devil i know best is the devil i go with. Because of those internal tensions its hard to know who is with who and of course youve got, the u. S. Army not overly concerned about identifying clearly who is with who. It is a muddled problem to begin with and they claimed in the new mexico territory, supporting the confederacy and some groups did, many dont and what happens is in late 1863 there is this kind of fear, the navajo, the border between arizona and the new mexico territory that they are supportive of the confederacy. There is no evidence for this but in january 18, 64, kit carson, the famous mountain man came out with a unit to bring the navajo in, bring them from the arizona new mexico border to fort sumner, eastern part, several hundred miles and so 8000 navajo are forced at gunpoint to march, has anyone actually been to new mexico . Have you been to the western part of new mexico, going through mountains, fairly dry and desert like. 18 days, several hundred miles i want you to imagine that march. I dont want to march anywhere. I dont want to march for 18 days with 8,000 people, that just feels bad, i dont want to do this. They get to sumner, to the redondo area and get into camps, for all intents and purposes internment camps. They are going to stay there for four years. Forced to live in these conditions. 200 people are going to die in the march but because the conditions, several hundred more are going to die in eastern new mexico. Eventually, 1868 the Us Government will sign a treaty and say you can go home. It is not a reservation and you cannot leave it. Off you go. So this forced movement of population is still ongoing. We talk about the internment of japanese americans during world war ii, linking those, that is outside our time range but you can make some sort of connection there. And questions about the trail of tears, long walk, dawson. Do they have any recorded statistics for how long they were making them walk, like every day . I dont know exactly how much per day but we are talking 3 to 400 miles in 18 days. Im not a mathematician but pretty sure it is someone can figure that one out. Could be argued that this would be one of the first internment camps before world war ii or is this a different condition compared to what it would have been like in nazi internment camps . A tricky question. It is different on one level, the same on another level. It is a movement of individuals, forced movement of individuals to a specific location and into a confined space. Some of these camps, most of these camps dont have fencing around them. It is not the same but in terms of those who leave the camps are tracked down and either killed or brought back, on that level, these are places you are not allowed to leave. It would be like the original i would argue i dont know, i would imagine colonial powers have been using concepts like this prior to the 1860s and even during things like the crimean war, who knows . Dont know in my head exactly when that begins. The idea of moving a population in a time of war, it is not a new concept but i dont have specific dates to give you otherwise. Other questions . Okay. Lets shift gears a little bit. Talk about different trail, the oregon trail. I love the oregon trail when it was a videogame. All right . The river, died of dysentery, the text version of the game starts in the 70s but is popular in the 1980s and 90s. You start in independence, missouri and you are supposed to lead your party, crossing various rivers and problems along the way like broken axles, and all kinds of things, dying of cholera and dysentery. What was so interesting in that game is that you never once encounter native americans. Its not part of the game. If you think about it, doesnt make sense. Legitimately doesnt make sense. There is no way you could travel from independence, missouri to that valley in 180 days, no way you could have done that without encountering native americans. They are written completely out of the game. Native americans only popup in our vision of the westward expansion the oregon trail plays on in those westerns and always presented as some sort of antagonistic force. If we get most of our history from pop culture if you play the oregon trail you are missing some things. The oregon trail is a fantastic game and you should play it. It has everything to do with the trade. And John Jacob Astor and his for empire of the pacific northwest. Talking big money. The oregon trail itself initially talking about for traders, not talking ragan trains initially, the trail they blaze is not one that is easily traversed by people in covered wagons. Lewis and clarkes expedition following along those lines, eventually by the 1840s you get the first wagon trains. They get basically to idaho to fort hall and are stuck because the trail the rest of the way, you have to give up basically your wagon and put everything on donkeys and traversed the mountains that way. Just not possible. In the early trail, to actually get there by wagon. By the 1840s they cut a new trail. The thing is there is no one singular oregon trail. Theres a bunch of Different Things all leaving from some point usually to the Missouri Valley and when they converge at fort kearny in nebraska territory, that is usually the conversion point the platte river, go through that region they also spin off, the gold rush in california follow the same oregon trail to a point, then dive south. Some follow the oregon trail to a certain point and dive to the great salt lake, talking about movement of mormon populations. Some in oregon country, will move and head up into puget sound region. The thing that is really interesting is we are talking somewhere in the range of 400,000 people traversing land that, while the United States claims it, really dont have control over it. Those 400,000 people are going to encounter native americans. It is going to be how they get across that territory. There is a fear that if more and more settlers are passing through this Great American desert, Movement Across the great plains, as you move across the great plains, this is going to be conflict. As more and more of these white settlers dont finish the journey, dont go to oregon, they stop along the way and start to claim chunks of land recognized as native american land, that is going to be a problem. In 1851, you get an attempt to deal with some of this in the fort laramie treaty. You can see fort laramie at this point on this map, nebraska territory, this is wyoming territory. This is the first of two big treaties. The 1850 one fort laramie treaty is supposed to what it is supposed to do is recognize native american claims, land claims in the region. At the same point, in exchange for that recognition and annuities, annual payments of certain amounts of cash to native americans, specifically talking the lakota, cheyenne, arapaho, a couple others that i am forgetting off the top of my head. The crow. I dont know. Anyway. Recognizing their territory in exchange for allowing safe passage for settlers was the idea. They werent going to stop. You can pass through our territory, that is perfectly fine with us, in exchange for recognizing our land claim and a little bit of money. When the treaty is negotiated the 50 year annuity, that until 1901 the Us Government were paying these tribes and nations to the right to go across their land. Congress changes it to 10 year pacing without telling anyone who signs the treaty. When they find out, that is not okay. The treaty was broken almost immediately, in part because people are just refusing to go the rest of the way to oregon. They are stopping, settling chunks of land, homesteading, but on top of that, the u. S. Army isnt doing what it said it would do, which was to help these people along or stop them from engaging in negative activities towards native americans, they are saying do whatever you want and when in 186060 one is the u. S. Army is pulled out of the west and return to those state militias, weve now got large numbers of white settlers in regions that they shouldnt be in competing for limited resources, the people whose land the United States recognizes it is. When you have that type of reality, you have a recipe for violence. The violence will escalate. White settlers moving to certain regions and take those resources, because of internal fights in various native american nations, very limited resources and in other cases turns into those struggles that we see too often between white settlers and native americans and often depicted in the middle point of that struggle. Native americans coming in at attacking white settlers as opposed to seeing it as white settlers having started that process by claiming that land that wasnt theirs in the first place. These are significant tragedies in 1864, the sand creek massacre in colorado is a direct example of this type of problem. We are not going to talk about war but in 1867 the grant administration, grant isnt president yet but in 1867 there is this desire to have some sort of peace, a Peace Commission is created by congress to solve the problem. They are not going to but they are going to be told to go and do it. The piece commission is identified as a fairly large failure, all things said and done, in part because it could never gain the trust effectively of native americans, could never effectively gain the trust of the congressional individuals who sent them there in the first place. For any number of reasons but if there is a success it is the second fort laramie treaty, the 1868 treaty. Success is kind of a bad word, the treaty is signed and is a fantastic treaty but was violated very quickly, the 1851 treaty in this 1868 treaty, the Us Government recognizes and creates the great sioux reservation. Recognizing the lakota to the black hills saying it is yours now until the end of the universe. All of west river, south dakota is part of the great sioux reservation. The treaty is going to close down the forts on the trail, gold had been found in montana, an attempt to go we will close those forts, they are going to. Then recognize and defend and protect the boundaries of the great sioux reservation, 1874, gold is found in the black hills and notice everything has a connection back to gold being found in georgia, california, gold was found in montana, gold was found in colorado, pikes peak, gone. Almost like there is a theme. They found gold in 1874 and the custer expedition finds this gold and rather than trying to keep white minors out of the black hills which they are supposed to, take that, do you think, from 1876 to 1889 the Us Government unilaterally changes the fort laramie treaty, just changes it, without getting the approval of anyone else involved and actually just claiming the black hills. In 1980, this issue was resolved is a strong word so we are not going to use it, was taken up by the Us Supreme Court in us versus the sioux nation in which the Supreme Court recognized that unilateral changing of the treaty, actions taken by the government were wrong and the taking of the black hills was wrong. The Us Government had violated the treaty, it was wrong for them to do it and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the lakota giving them initially 35 million, and additional 105 million on top of that, to pay for the valley of the black hills so that the Us Government bought the black hills. To this day that money has not been touched. How much money . Over 4 billion. It is somewhere in the range of several billions, increasing every day with interest and there is no real desire because you pay the money and you say it is perfectly all right for the Us Government to have taken this land. There is a sense at one point a president wanted to get the money but was immediately rejected. Theres been a couple times when maybe it is okay at this point to take the money. A strong argument about never taking the money because that retroactively excuses the action that was taken, so there is when i first moved down here i didnt realize because this notion about occupied land and how important that still is to the culture here, i didnt realize as i think many of us unless youve been here for a while you dont see it. The attempt to keep white people out, the stockade, they pulled all those people out and in the beginning to keep people out with that . How you kind of i dont want to say it was disingenuous but how much their hearts were in it has always been questioned. How much they are actively trying to do this and how much they are going through the motions. Does that make sense . It is hard for me to say specifically how many people we need to get them out but how many, the overall reaction of the u. S. Army was to basically allow it to happen. Sorry. Wish i had a better answer than that. It is all complicated. We would save a lot of time and effort if we just said history is complicated and moved on from there. But you are not allowed to do that in your papers, just say it is complicated and be done. Okay. All right. Last part we want to talk about, the last movement, enculturation and assimilation. The first stuff we talk about, the question of depopulation. We want to focus on the transition into enculturation and assimilation as part of colonialism coming in the fort laramie treaty there is also calls on these reservations for there to be a Movement Towards farming. How serious that was, a good open question but that becomes this key component, right . Since the 1840s the way the United States has sought to occupy its territorial land has been through the notion of homesteading. It is important to realize when we talk about homesteading, its a really important idea. That unowned resources can be claimed by individuals who then use those resources and we are largely talking about land here but notice it is unowned resources so when we are talking about the settlement in kansas, that homesteading process or the 1862 homestead law passed by the United States government, this idea that there is this unused resource, that the land is not being used or at the very least not being used appropriately. Right . Gets back to what turner was talking about, the free land idea, open space. So in 1862 the federal government passed a law saying that if you move out to this territory, make a claim of 160 acres, get a house, farm that land for five years you can get a title for that land. 160 acres, where i am from back east is a sufficient amount of land for a subsistence farm. Out here, not so much. Just because Water Resources are so limited in parts of the great plains, did you have a question . Did they understand how dull the soil was . At one level, its called Great American desert and they understood that it is very difficult to find necessary Water Resources, that was also this kind of idea that one hundred 60 acres, anyone can make a good farm on 160 acres, not realizing, where did the water come from, we will find it. No, because they dont to many people, the policymakers themselves dont come out and see and survey, they are relying on secondhand, thirdhand reports or just draw lines on maps and not really understand. If you go to parts of indiana and illinois, even western ohio, they are fairly flat, lots of rivers, lots of water and if that is your vision and you just assume that kansas looks the same as iowa or ohio in terms of access to water you are not going to have a good understanding of what is going on. The army corps of engineers come out to survey the land . That was before. The army corps of engineers is surveying ongoing. Doesnt mean the people writing the policy are listening to the army corps of engineers. I think they would listen, you would think they would listen but they are not. Obviously the homestead law will be debated so theres going to be they are going to bring in some of this. We are talking very singularly minded individuals, they know the right answer. Im not trying to cast aspersions, they believe they have the right answer and understand. Unless you have traveled significantly in the United States it is hard to know how different regions of this country are. They didnt understand it. They just didnt understand it. The army corps of engineers in some cases were too far north. Doing stuff on the plains. Theres any number of reasons they are not listening to those reports. Also stemmed from a eurocentric view. Thats where it could come from, but i think the homesteading law, their encouragement is they want settlers to move. You would think that they would want to provide the best information, the best policies to facilitate the settler movement. Peoples abilities assuming everybody could do it . Could be assuming abilities, yes. Potentially. I dont know. The idea is 150 acres should be sufficient. Realistically speaking, if we are talking in some of these regions, without sufficient Irrigation Technology you are talking 320, 6 at 40 acres at a minimum to run a substance tons farm. But someone in pennsylvania i could make it work on 30, you know . Because the land is so different, it is hard for people to conceptualize it. More than anything, may be giving them the benefit of the doubt more than i should but they are not acting in a way, to be intentionally harmful. They believe, 160 acres should be sufficient. I think traveling out here, no, i think so. I think they thought they knew. At some point someone comes to us with new information, i know, you really dont, i am guilty of that, i admit that myself. I am guilty of that. I dont want to cast too many aspersions. Native americans themselves, the great plains tribes were known for moving around. That is not you should be sedentary, you should have a farm. The good you would think they would maybe theres a reason why they didnt. You would think that. You want to think that. There is a reason, they dont because they believe they have the answer. It keeps coming back to that. The guy with the civilized fashion, do you think it was because they thought they were more uncivilized didnt know what they were doing and it was more of a if you accept the ideas that native americans are still locked in barbarism, they lack the same kind of scientific knowledge to understand their world sufficiently to make the best use of those resources so i think that plays into it definitely. Again, that doesnt answer the question if you are going to send white settlers to this region why would you not then check . I dont have a good answer for that. I wish i did. Some of this plays out so that in 1887 this idea of creating a one hundred 60 acre plot, taking the reservation and moving them from communally owned lands to privately owned lands, individuals owning those chunks of land, quote was the need to adopt the habits of civilized life. Naturally the problem here that native americans just arent civilized and if we make them farmers, everything will be fine. Whats interesting here, 1887, into the progressive era, the question of what is an american and how does an american function, the yeoman farmer is the quintessentially american idea is a strong emphasis in capitalism. If you have communally owned land, thats not capitalist. Privately owned land, the means of production privately owned, enhances and expands the capitalist world and therefore this is good, capitalism is the modern thing. These plots of land, did they also have a certain method of farming in mind . Crops or livestock . Largely their vision is farming as opposed to ranching and they would send out Scientific Data for how to farm and most of the data was wrong. Well into the 20s and 30s they had to explain the dustbowl of the 1930s using scientific information that was outdated or just wrong. They had a vision, if we think of the great sioux reservation, just plots of farms as far as the eye could see without looking ongoing, thats not going to work in some of these places. Again, they believed they had the answer. So they are trying to make that work. If you have this idea every head of household will get a chunk of land, every household will have a certain amount, the thing is than that gets subdivided, it becomes an issue that if 160 acres wasnt enough to begin with, divide that among 80 acres and that is not going to be enough, and the thing that the act does is it opens up that land once the land had been divided up among those people classified as sufficiently native american to receive a plot instead of defining who or who is not native american at how much blood do you have to have to be fullblooded versus mixed blooded and what percentage, kind of a eugenics creeping in. A little worrisome. Once that happens they take large chunks of the mainland and open it up for sale to nonnative settlers so white settlers could purchase these chunks of land. From 1887 until 1934, that span. It takes native american owned land from 138 million acres down to 48 million acres so 90 million acres are going to be lost as a result of this allotment process. The great sioux reservation broken up into different chunks, they will lose 9 million acres themselves the will be opened up to these types of White Settlement and land grabs as well. What would end up happening is the head of household would get this land, 160 acres and it would be held in security for 25 years. At the 25 year mark you could sell it. What ended up happening is a lot of people, 25 years down the line start selling off that land to nonnative land buyers. Even the land divided among native americans is now gobbled up by white settlers. Its a whole process that shifts in that direction. We are talking massive restriction on loss of land in this process. The idea was to convert native americans to the modern american way of doing things. This whole process of assimilation isnt just happening with native americans. We talk about immigration, this process of how does one become american, we talk about settlement houses in the progressive era. They are different but have similar goals in mind as the boarding schools. Boarding schools that are going to be created in the 19th century. Richard henry pratt gives us the idea, the idea that by teaching and immersing, white middleclass american culture, race the limitations created by being native american and enter into the modern world. And the United States, it is the carlisle school. It is run by Richard Henry pratt. Richard henry pratt, at fort marion, in florida. During what i referred to as the dakota war, the great sioux war, in 1876, pows from that war were taken to florida and held at fort marion, pratt was in charge of the pows. He got this idea, these pows are trained the they could return to the great sioux reservation and return out west and be emissaries for american culture. Works with the Hampton Institute in virginia which was created in 1868 as a school for friedman to train how to be american after slavery. And served as an Indian School version of this, lets do this. They set up the school in carlisle and lead this. From 1879 to 1918, 10,000 native American Children go through the school. A lot of people coming through this. The initial children brought to carlisle were look to and they are brought as leverage to prevent another uprising. We have your kids, cant fight back because we have your kids. The Us Government, go join them. The moment you step foot in carlisle, they strip everything that was native american out of you. Every aspect of your heritage from your hair to your clothes to your language to your religion, 10,000 kids, most of them didnt speak english on any level were baptized as christians, without being told what that meant. Everything about you, you cant use your own name, lists of names and stories about people pointing at symbols, they dont know what they mean and that becomes their name. You were severely beaten if you use the language of others, that became a resistance tool. Talking about slavery and resistance activities. Speaking your own mind became a resistance activity. Breaking School Property became a resistance activity. These kids are not acquiescing but we are talking about really really regimented life, because im militaristic life, reforms and drills and all these things and that becomes the model for a bunch of federally funded off reservation schools, 25 i think, 15 states and territories, doesnt count the hundreds of schools on reservations largely run by religious organizations. In 1891 Congress Passed into law, requiring the compulsory attendance of native American Children in these schools. They have to go. This law empowers federal agents to basically rip kids out of the arms of their parents and send them to these schools. All of this as a way to force assimilation. Once theyve gone through these schools and immersed in american white culture, they learned english, skills that are necessary in the industrial age, able to return to be emissaries for this culture. When they return they often found they were ostracized and rejected because they were no longer of that culture, significant distance had been built between them. People coming back with ptsd, high rates of depression, in these schools we are talking really poor conditions. In some cases, the kids had to build the buildings they were going to lay in. Fantastic. Suicide rates were extremely high, kids built coffins for their classmates. Think of how traumatic that is. Not just for the person who had died but i am building a coffin for my friend. Sexual abuse was rampant. Disease spread quite regularly and effectively and efficiently. Overcrowded and undersupplied. Thousands of kids come through this. And what was so interesting was that they were supposed to go back to the reservation and help bring the rest into the modern age through new education they received which many of them went back and used that education to fight and they filed lawsuits knowing how the legal system worked, went back and set up schools on reservations to teach language and heritage, will not destroy us. It has the reverse effect in some cases but it is part of a larger process, the notion that we started from settler colonialism idea and what does it mean to be american . How does that work . All those people now that fit certain aspects of what it means to be american, but are they american . Go back to the 1830s and the cherokee, they have printed newspapers, a written constitution, they have done all the things white people said they have to do to be part of this society, but they can never undo one thing, they will always be native american, they will never be white. If that is the case, can they ever claim to be an american . One thing we will talk about in the next couple weeks, what does it mean to be an american . We start here with native americans, talk about americans by choice if you will next week, we Start Talking immigration and things like that. Any questions, concerns, issues, at this point . Groovy. I will see you next week and we will pick up with immigration and we will go from there. Thanks, guys, have a good one. If you are enjoying American History tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on screen to receive the weekly schedule are claiming programs like lectures in history, the presidency, and more. For sign up for the American History tv newsletter today and watch American History tv every saturday or anytime online, cspan. Org history. Live sunday on in depth, fc gwen joins booktv to talk about native American History, the civil war and more. Mister gwen has published several books including empire of the summer moon and rebel yell. s latest, his majestys airship about a british blimp that went up in flames in 1930, killing more people than the hindenburg did seven years later, joining the conversation with phone calls, Facebook Comments and texts. In depth with fc gwen live sunday at noon eastern on booktv on cspan2. Listening to programs on cspan through cspan radio just got easier. Tell your Smart Speaker to play cspan radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7 00 am eastern, important congressional hearings and other Public Affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5 p. M. And 9 p. M. 9 00 pm eastern, catch washington today for a fastpaced report on the stories of the day. Listen to cspan anytime. Tell your Smart Speaker play cspan radio. Cspan powered by cable. Order your copy of the one hundred eighteenth congressional directory now available, cspanshop. Org, your access to the federal government with bio and Contact Information for every house and senate member, Important Information on congressional committees, the president s cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. Scan the code at the right order your copy today or go to cspan. Org. Its at 29. 95 since pushing and handling. You