Tribes Who Resisted: The Dawes Act Resistance

The Dawes Act, also known as the General Allotment Act, was a U.S. federal law enacted in 1887 that aimed to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream American society by dissolving tribal lands and distributing them to individual Native American households. This act had a profound and often devastating impact on Native American tribes, leading to significant land loss, cultural disruption, and economic hardship. However, many tribes actively resisted the Dawes Act through various means, demonstrating their resilience and determination to preserve their way of life. This article delves into the history of this controversial law and highlights the stories of the Indian tribes who resisted Dawes Act, showcasing their courageous efforts to protect their lands and cultures.

Understanding the Dawes Act and Its Impact

Before we dive into the tribes that resisted, it's essential to understand what the Dawes Act was and why it was so detrimental. The Dawes Act was the brainchild of Senator Henry Dawes, who believed that private land ownership would incentivize Native Americans to adopt farming and integrate into American society. The act authorized the federal government to survey tribal lands and divide them into individual allotments. Each head of household would receive 160 acres, single adults 80 acres, and children 40 acres. Any remaining land was declared "surplus" and sold to non-Native Americans.

The impact of the Dawes Act was catastrophic. Native American tribes collectively lost approximately 90 million acres of land between 1887 and the 1930s. This land loss shattered tribal economies, disrupted traditional ways of life, and undermined tribal sovereignty. The allotment system also clashed with the communal land ownership practices of many tribes, leading to confusion, disputes, and the erosion of tribal social structures. Furthermore, the act often resulted in Native Americans receiving less desirable land, while the most valuable land was acquired by white settlers and speculators. The Dawes Act effectively accelerated the dispossession and marginalization of Native American communities.

Key Provisions of the Dawes Act

To fully grasp the resistance efforts, it's crucial to understand the key provisions of the Dawes Act. These provisions not only dictated the process of land allotment but also had profound social and cultural implications:

1. Land Allotment: The core of the act was the division of tribal lands into individual allotments. This directly contradicted the traditional communal land ownership systems of many tribes. The size of the allotment varied, with heads of households receiving the largest parcels and children receiving the smallest. This disrupted traditional family and social structures, as land ownership became individualized rather than communal.
2. Surplus Land: Any land remaining after allotments were made was deemed “surplus” and opened for sale to non-Native Americans. This provision led to a massive transfer of land from Native American ownership to white settlers, speculators, and corporations. It was a significant driver of Native American land loss and dispossession.
3. Citizenship: Native Americans who accepted allotments and adopted “the habits of civilized life” were granted U.S. citizenship. While this might seem like a positive aspect, it was often used as a tool to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream American society, undermining their tribal identities and sovereignty. Citizenship was conditional and came at the cost of giving up traditional ways of life.
4. Trust Period: The allotted lands were held in trust by the government for 25 years. During this period, Native Americans could not sell or mortgage their land. The idea was to protect Native Americans from being swindled out of their land. However, this trust period often extended indefinitely, effectively preventing Native Americans from fully controlling their property.
5. Education and Assimilation: The Dawes Act was part of a broader federal policy aimed at assimilating Native Americans. This included establishing boarding schools where Native American children were forced to abandon their languages, cultures, and traditions. The Act, therefore, had a comprehensive strategy for cultural transformation, attacking the very core of Native American identity.

Tribes That Resisted the Dawes Act

Despite the immense pressure and challenges posed by the Dawes Act, numerous tribes mounted significant resistance efforts. These acts of resistance ranged from legal challenges and political activism to armed conflicts and cultural preservation efforts. Here are some notable examples of Indian tribes who resisted Dawes Act:

The Cherokee Nation

The Cherokee Nation mounted one of the most organized and sustained resistances to the Dawes Act. They understood the threat the act posed to their sovereignty and way of life. The Cherokees, who had already established a sophisticated government and educational system, viewed the act as an existential threat. Their resistance took several forms:

• Legal Challenges: The Cherokee Nation pursued legal avenues to challenge the constitutionality of the Dawes Act. They argued that the act violated existing treaties and infringed upon their tribal sovereignty. While they didn't succeed in overturning the act entirely, their legal efforts brought national attention to the issue and highlighted the injustices faced by Native Americans.
• Political Activism: Cherokee leaders actively lobbied Congress and other government officials to repeal or amend the act. They formed alliances with sympathetic politicians and organizations to advocate for their rights. Their persistent political efforts helped to shape public opinion and laid the groundwork for future reforms.
• Cultural Preservation: The Cherokee people worked diligently to preserve their language, traditions, and cultural heritage. They established Cherokee-language schools and maintained their traditional ceremonies and social structures. This cultural resilience helped them to maintain their identity and cohesion in the face of assimilation pressures.

The Cherokee's resistance was multifaceted, combining legal, political, and cultural strategies. Their efforts, while not completely successful in preventing allotment, laid a foundation for future activism and advocacy for tribal rights.

The Creek (Muscogee) Nation

Like the Cherokee, the Creek (Muscogee) Nation also strongly resisted the Dawes Act. The Creeks had a long history of self-governance and a strong sense of tribal identity, which they were determined to protect. Their resistance was characterized by:

• Organized Opposition: The Creek Nation established formal organizations to resist the implementation of the Dawes Act. These organizations worked to educate tribal members about the act and to coordinate resistance efforts.
• Refusal to Enroll: Many Creek people refused to enroll in the Dawes Rolls, the official lists of tribal members eligible for allotments. This was a direct act of defiance and a way of rejecting the allotment system. By refusing to enroll, they hoped to undermine the act's implementation and maintain their communal land ownership.
• Armed Resistance: In some cases, Creek resistance turned violent. The Green Peach War, a conflict within the Creek Nation, was partly fueled by disagreements over the Dawes Act and the allotment process. While these conflicts were tragic, they demonstrated the intensity of Creek opposition to the act.
• Preserving Traditions: Despite the pressures of allotment and assimilation, the Creek people worked to preserve their language, culture, and traditions. They held traditional ceremonies, maintained their kinship systems, and passed on their knowledge to future generations. This cultural resilience was a crucial aspect of their resistance.

The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations

The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, also part of the Five Civilized Tribes, faced similar pressures under the Dawes Act and mounted significant resistance efforts. Their resistance included:

• Legal Challenges: The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations pursued legal challenges to protect their land and sovereignty. They argued that the Dawes Act violated existing treaties and that the allotment process was unfair and unjust. Although their legal efforts did not fully prevent allotment, they helped to raise awareness of the issues and lay the groundwork for future legal battles.
• Negotiation and Compromise: While resisting the Dawes Act, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations also engaged in negotiations with the federal government to try to mitigate its impacts. They sought to secure the best possible terms for their people and to protect their remaining lands and resources. This pragmatic approach reflected their commitment to the well-being of their communities.
• Economic Strategies: The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations developed economic strategies to cope with the challenges posed by the Dawes Act. They established businesses, invested in education, and worked to diversify their economies. This economic resilience helped them to maintain their self-sufficiency and to adapt to the changing circumstances.
• Preserving Cultural Identity: Despite the pressures of assimilation, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations worked to preserve their languages, cultures, and traditions. They held cultural events, taught their languages to their children, and maintained their traditional social structures. This cultural preservation was a key aspect of their resistance and their ability to maintain their identity.

The Nez Perce Tribe

The Nez Perce Tribe, known for their history of resistance to U.S. government policies, also opposed the Dawes Act. Their resistance was rooted in their deep connection to their ancestral lands and their determination to preserve their way of life. Key aspects of their resistance included:

• Refusal to Allot: Many Nez Perce people refused to accept allotments under the Dawes Act. They saw the act as a threat to their communal land ownership and their tribal sovereignty. This refusal was a powerful act of defiance and a way of asserting their rights.
• Leadership and Advocacy: Nez Perce leaders played a crucial role in resisting the Dawes Act. They spoke out against the act, advocated for their people, and worked to build alliances with other tribes and organizations. Their leadership was essential in galvanizing resistance efforts.
• Cultural and Spiritual Resistance: The Nez Perce maintained their cultural and spiritual practices as a form of resistance. They held traditional ceremonies, practiced their religion, and passed on their cultural knowledge to future generations. This cultural and spiritual resilience helped them to maintain their identity and strength in the face of adversity.

The Lakota Sioux

The Lakota Sioux, who had a history of conflict with the U.S. government, also resisted the Dawes Act. Their resistance was shaped by their experiences with broken treaties and their determination to protect their remaining lands and resources. Notable elements of their resistance included:

• Ghost Dance Movement: The Ghost Dance Movement, a spiritual movement that swept through many Native American tribes in the late 19th century, was particularly strong among the Lakota Sioux. The Ghost Dance was a religious ceremony that promised the restoration of Native American lands and the return of the buffalo. While the Ghost Dance was primarily a spiritual movement, it also served as a form of resistance to U.S. government policies, including the Dawes Act.
• Wounded Knee Massacre: The Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, in which U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed Lakota men, women, and children, was a tragic consequence of the tensions surrounding the Ghost Dance and the Dawes Act. While the massacre was a devastating event, it also served as a symbol of Lakota resistance and their determination to protect their way of life.
• Political Activism: Lakota leaders continued to advocate for their rights and to challenge U.S. government policies. They worked to preserve their culture, language, and traditions, and to protect their remaining lands and resources. Their activism has been crucial in maintaining their tribal identity and sovereignty.

Legacy of Resistance

The resistance to the Dawes Act, while not always successful in preventing land loss and cultural disruption, had a lasting impact. These acts of defiance demonstrated the resilience and determination of Native American tribes to preserve their cultures, traditions, and sovereignty. The resistance efforts also laid the groundwork for future activism and advocacy for tribal rights.

The Dawes Act was eventually repealed in 1934 with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act, which aimed to reverse some of the harmful effects of the allotment policy. However, the legacy of the Dawes Act continues to be felt in Native American communities today. The land loss, cultural disruption, and economic hardship caused by the act have had long-term consequences.

Despite these challenges, Native American tribes have persevered and continue to fight for their rights and self-determination. The stories of Indian tribes who resisted Dawes Act serve as a powerful reminder of their resilience, strength, and commitment to their cultural heritage.

Conclusion

The Dawes Act was a devastating piece of legislation that had a profound impact on Native American tribes. However, the tribes' resistance to the act demonstrates their unwavering commitment to preserving their cultures, traditions, and sovereignty. From legal challenges to cultural preservation efforts, these tribes employed a variety of strategies to protect their way of life. The legacy of their resistance continues to inspire Native American communities today as they fight for their rights and self-determination. Understanding the history of the Dawes Act and the resistance it sparked is crucial for appreciating the ongoing struggles and triumphs of Native American tribes.