 |
| Moni Chaki (Ponca Chief Standing Bear) |
When I first started working on this a few years ago, I wanted to talk about how treaties don't usually stand the test of time. If there's one thing that rings true throughout the history of mankind: Treaties are promises made, but seldom kept. We know that one of the very first treaties was inscribed on a stone block around 2100 BC regarding a border agreement between the rulers of Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia -- and it was broken by war.
More recent in our history was the Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolutionary War. Representatives of King George III of Great Britain and representatives of the newly formed United States of America signed that peace treaty in Paris, France, on September 3, 1783. Yes, thought July 4th, 1776, was the day we declared our Independence -- September 3, 1783 was the day when we won our Independence and became a nation.
More recent in our history was the Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolutionary War. Representatives of King George III of Great Britain and representatives of the newly formed United States of America signed that peace treaty in Paris, France, on September 3, 1783. Yes, thought July 4th, 1776, was the day we declared our Independence -- September 3, 1783 was the day when we won our Independence and became a nation.
That treaty set the boundaries between the British Empire and the United States on this continent. Believe it or not, it even included details regarding fishing rights, restoration of destroyed property, and returning prisoners of war. Less than 30 years later, that peace treaty meant absolutely nothing.
In fact, when the War of 1812 broke out, the British invaded the United States to take back what they believed was rightfully theirs. The British actually torched most of Washington D.C. to show the Americans that the Treaty of Paris was null and void.
We all know that the pages of human history are filled with good intentions. When it comes to treaties, man's history is littered with treaties that were painstakingly sought yet later broken. For me, I was in the Marine Corps in 1975 when I saw first hand how nations make treaties and break them to fit their own plans, political agenda, or desire for conquest.
The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 was signed on September 17, 1851, between United States treaty commissioners and representatives of the Arapaho, Arikara, Assiniboine, Cheyenne, Crow, Hidatsa, Mandan, and Sioux Nations. The treaty set traditional territorial claims, and the United States government acknowledged that all the land covered by the treaty was considered Indian territory. The federal government did not claim any part of it.
In fact, when the War of 1812 broke out, the British invaded the United States to take back what they believed was rightfully theirs. The British actually torched most of Washington D.C. to show the Americans that the Treaty of Paris was null and void.
We all know that the pages of human history are filled with good intentions. When it comes to treaties, man's history is littered with treaties that were painstakingly sought yet later broken. For me, I was in the Marine Corps in 1975 when I saw first hand how nations make treaties and break them to fit their own plans, political agenda, or desire for conquest.
In the case of what took place in 1975, it was the violation of the Paris Peace Accords which was the peace treaty that ended the Vietnam War. In January of 1973, I had just turned 17 years-old and had started the paperwork to enlist in the Marine Corps. Later that same month, the Paris Peace Accords was signed. That peace treaty was supposed to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War.
The treaty agreed to remove all remaining American forces from Vietnam. The negotiations that led to the treaty, like other treaties throughout history, actually started years before it was agreed upon. As with most treaties, all concerned sought to ensure that it benefited them.
Almost as soon as it was signed, the North Vietnamese Communist violated it's provisions. In fact, for the next two years, the Communist North Vietnamese, supported by the Soviet Union and Communist China, frequently broke that agreement only to be met with a weak response by South Vietnamese forces who by then were not supported by the United States military. We promised to support them, but we didn't because by then the politicians here didn't care if the result would be wholesale slaughter and Communist enslavement or oppression.
In fact, it was only a couple of months after that peace treaty was signed that fighting broke out there. That was March of 1973. The Communist North Vietnamese started an offensive to increase their control and acquire more of South Vietnam by the end of that year. It was two years later when North Vietnamese Communists launched a massive offensive to conquer all of South Vietnam. They defeated South Vietnam on April 30, 1975.
I was there as a part of Operation Frequent Wind when that took place. I remember how we all worked as hard as we could to get as many friendly South Vietnamese out of that country. We all knew the Communists would kill anyone who had been in the South Vietnamese government, friendly to Americans, or who they saw as a threat to their indoctrinating the South, enslaving the South, to accept Communism.
The people of South Vietnam wanted to live free but were conquered by the Communists that year. For the next ten years, it was a closed nation. No one knew what was really taking place there. But that changed in 1985. Ten years after the Fall of Saigon, a European news agency reported about the Communist Re-Education Camps. I remember watching the reports and was shocked to hear that millions of South Vietnamese had been exterminated in those camps by the Communists.
Some estimates say the prison camps held a million to two million inmates for Communist indoctrination. That may be the case considering reports say there were more than 400,000 former South Vietnamese military officers and enlisted personnel placed in those camps. Along with them were tens of thousands of civilians who worked for the South Vietnamese government, thousands of teachers, nurses, doctors, writers, farmers, businessmen, political activists, and all sorts of others who the Communists saw as threats to their creating a perfect Communist slave state.
Moving past my justifiable hate for Communism, as I said before, treaties are broken all the time by everyone. No, contrary to some, not just the United States. Does that make it okay? Of course not. But, whether it's okay or not has nothing to do with the fact that it has happened over and over and over again for as long as man has walked this earth. By the way, for you who will write me saying that's a baseless opinion, it's not. It is a conclusion that anyone would come to when looking at history. And if you don't think Native Americans broke treaties and it was just the United States that did so, here's one example of tribes breaking a treaty just so they would be able to wage war on age-old enemy tribes.
Some estimates say the prison camps held a million to two million inmates for Communist indoctrination. That may be the case considering reports say there were more than 400,000 former South Vietnamese military officers and enlisted personnel placed in those camps. Along with them were tens of thousands of civilians who worked for the South Vietnamese government, thousands of teachers, nurses, doctors, writers, farmers, businessmen, political activists, and all sorts of others who the Communists saw as threats to their creating a perfect Communist slave state.
Moving past my justifiable hate for Communism, as I said before, treaties are broken all the time by everyone. No, contrary to some, not just the United States. Does that make it okay? Of course not. But, whether it's okay or not has nothing to do with the fact that it has happened over and over and over again for as long as man has walked this earth. By the way, for you who will write me saying that's a baseless opinion, it's not. It is a conclusion that anyone would come to when looking at history. And if you don't think Native Americans broke treaties and it was just the United States that did so, here's one example of tribes breaking a treaty just so they would be able to wage war on age-old enemy tribes.
The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 was signed on September 17, 1851, between United States treaty commissioners and representatives of the Arapaho, Arikara, Assiniboine, Cheyenne, Crow, Hidatsa, Mandan, and Sioux Nations. The treaty set traditional territorial claims, and the United States government acknowledged that all the land covered by the treaty was considered Indian territory. The federal government did not claim any part of it.
In return, the tribes guaranteed safe passage for American settlers on the Oregon Trail, and allow for the building of roads and forts on those lands. This was in exchange for a 50 year/$50,000 annuity to be paid in cash to each tribe. My friends, $50,000 in 1851 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,664,896.10 today (2020).
The treaty was meant to be effective and create a lasting peace among the eight tribes since each of them waged war on the others at different times. Sadly, that treaty was broken before it could get ratified by the Senate. Fact is, while the ink was still wet, the Sioux and Cheyenne violated that treaty when they joined forces to wage war against the Crow Indians. Over the next two years, that was a very bloody war.
The U.S. government made about 370 treaties with various Native American nations. All were painstakingly negotiated over and signed by U.S. Commissioners and tribal leaders starting in 1788 until 1868. Of those treaties, the U.S. Senate ratified most Indian treaties that were negotiated with tribes from the Atlantic to the Pacific. No, treaties with tribes were not restricted to only western tribes. At least 45 of those treaties were never ever ratified by the Senate simply because they never truly went into effect -- such as the case with the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 because it was violated so quickly.
Did those treaties, among other things, promise permanent lands, money, food, clothing, seeds, shovels, and recognition of the Indian tribes as nations? Yes. Many of the treaties did all of that and much more. Sadly, mostly because of politics and changes of administrations at the time, most of those treaties made promises that our federal government didn't keep. We will talk more about that in a minute, but really it's a sad history that many tribes saw as a betrayal of trust between them and the United States for good reason.
For example, one unforeseen event was the Pike's Peak Gold Rush. In 1858, the federal government failed to stop the flood of miners and settlers into Colorado during the Pike's Peak Gold Rush. So besides the Sioux and Cheyenne fighting the Crow Indians, the flood of Americans into the area was a big factor in why the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 didn't hold together.
Soon, the very people who the tribes agreed to allow to pass through their lands -- then decided to stay and take over Indian lands in order to mine them. Gold fever brought in thousands who had zero respect for the U.S. government, U.S. troops trying to keep them out, treaties made, whether or not they were violating treaties, and certainly didn't respect the property that belonged to the tribes.
Another thing took place in regards to resources. Just as what took place in California in 1849, the flood of gold seekers and opportunists competed with the tribes for water and food in the form of wild game. Soon, the tribes were being driven out because of limited resources. All of this resulted in horrors and years of war.
While most agree that this was all because of the federal government not enforcing the treaty to keep out the gold-hungry emigrants, and we know that scenario is also what would kill the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, I can't help but wonder if the U.S. Army was even capable of keeping out such a huge influx of people determined to come in. While I'm not trying to get political here, even with the capabilities and technologies that we have today in comparison to what was available to our 19th century cavalry in 1858 or 1868, the federal government has had a hard time securing our Southern border with Mexico. That's today. Knowing this, knowing how difficult it is to keep out those who don't belong here in today's world with all of the modern technology at our disposal, makes me question whether blaming the government for not keeping out the gold seekers is really justified.
I was recently reading about the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. I am not too surprised that there are people alive today who really think that the treaty is still in effect even though it was broken and violated, and screwed up when it was made.
How many broken treaties, treaties that were signed and violated, yet are considered by some to still be in effect? Who knows. The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 is interesting to me for a number of reasons. I was recently contacted by someone who told me that it is in fact still in effect -- even though it was broken, violated, became null and void after the Little Big Horn, and obsolete in today's world. And no, he didn't know about the screw-up when it was made. He didn't know about the Ponca mistake.
What Is The Ponca Mistake?
In 1868, the United States signed a peace treaty with the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Sioux tribes, and the Arapaho. Known as the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the treaty established the Great Sioux Reservation. Its lands were west of the Missouri River while also designating the Black Hills as "unceded Indian Territory."
Troubles with that treaty started immediately. Not between the United States and the Sioux tribes, but between the Sioux and the Ponca Indians. This has to do with the screw-up that I've been talking about. Yes, the Ponca mistake. It was a mistake that pit tribe against tribe, and later caused a real problem of credibility for the Sioux who has claimed the Great Sioux Reservation as stipulated in that treaty.
Fact is, in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the federal government screwed up and mistakenly included all Ponca lands in the Great Sioux Reservation that the U.S. gave to the Sioux. This mistake created conflicts between the Ponca and the Sioux who used the Fort Laramie Treaty to claim the land as their own. The Sioux told the Ponca that their ancestral lands were now theirs because the U.S. government said so. To make matter worse, the federal government didn't fix the problem. Instead, they made it worse by forcing the removal of the Ponca Indians from their own ancestral lands -- and relocating them to Oklahoma.
If we look at who was there first, the Ponca had claimed to the Black Hills and what became the Great Sioux Reservation simply because the Ponca Indians were there long before the Sioux ever arrived. The Sioux were newcomers to that area in comparison to the history of the Ponca, and yet it was the Ponca who lost their lands to the Sioux who were willing to use American laws and treaties to deny the Ponca their ancestral rights. Yes, the Sioux denied the Ponca their ancestral lands using the mistake made by the federal government.
Why the mistake? Let me explain. There were many small Indian nations such as the Ponca, Omaha, Osage, Kansa, and Quapaw tribes in the South Dakota and Nebraska areas. The Ponca, Omaha, Osage, Kansa, and Quapaw tribes once lived in a large area east of the Mississippi River long before Christopher Columbus ever found the Bahamas in 1492. Many of those five tribes moved West while being chased out by other warring tribes. It's true. Many tribes chased others tribes off their lands the exact same way that the United States chased tribes off their lands. Imagine that.
As for the Ponca and Omaha Indians, they were allies and split from the other three tribes around 1500. They went by following the Des Moines River to its headwaters, then they moved northeast. They crossed the Missouri River and ran into the Arikara Indians. They waged war against the Arikara Indians, eventually driving the Arikara out of the area. That was the west bank of the Missouri River. That area is included in what is today the state of Nebraska.
Not to long after defeating the Arikara in a horrible war, the Ponca and Omaha separated. Some speculate they separated sometime around 1600. By 1700, the Ponca were living on lands where the Niobrara River flows into the Missouri River. We know this because they are listed on maps from 1701, and were known by fur traders at the time.
The Ponca Indians signed their first treaty with the United States in 1817. They signed another treaty with the U.S. government in 1825. That treaty was to get help to stop the wars between the tribes. Another treaty with the U.S. government was signed in 1858. In the 1858 treaty, the Ponca gave up parts of their land to the federal government.
It was that 1858 treaty that granted the Ponca Indians a permanent reservation home on the Niobrara River. The Ponca did reserve a small area for the tribe to occupy. They agreed to move to the reserved area within one year after the ratification of the treaty. They were promised that the new reservation would become their permanent home.
In return for the land, the U.S. government promised them protection against hostile tribes which threatened to exterminate them. And there was more, the federal government promised to provide them with 30-year annuities in the form of cash, schools for ten years, a mill to grind grain and one to saw timber, and federal employees in the form of an interpreter, a miller, a mill engineer, and a farmer. In an 1858 report by the Commissioner for Indian Affairs at the time, he stated that the mission of the treaty was to "colonize and domesticate" the Ponca Indians.
Life on the reservation was tough for the Ponca Indians. While "life being tough on a reservation" is heard a lot when talking about Indian reservations in general, part of the reason that they had it tough had to do with the Sioux. For the Ponca Indians, giving up hunting and taking up farming was not a major problem for them. They planned on doing so and saw it as something that could be done.
The Ponca signed their last treaty with the U.S. government in 1865. In that treaty, the Ponca agreed to move their reservation to the east and south of where they were located. In that treaty, the Ponce Indians gave up most of their 1858 reservation in exchange for lands surrounding them south of the Niobrara River and Ponca Creek. They were also given islands in the Niobrara River which were next to their new reservation lands. In all, the 1865 treaty guaranteed them a reservation of 96,000 acres in Knox and Boyd Counties in present-day Nebraska.
The problems that they had on the reservation had to do with a general failure of the federal government to live up to its promises. Their problems farming had to do with droughts and locusts. Their bigger problem had to do with the Sioux. The Sioux killed the Ponca livestock, destroyed their crops, and waged a war against them with the federal government refusing to step in to stop it.
The Ponca signed their last treaty with the U.S. government in 1865. In that treaty, the Ponca agreed to move their reservation to the east and south of where they were located. In that treaty, the Ponce Indians gave up most of their 1858 reservation in exchange for lands surrounding them south of the Niobrara River and Ponca Creek. They were also given islands in the Niobrara River which were next to their new reservation lands. In all, the 1865 treaty guaranteed them a reservation of 96,000 acres in Knox and Boyd Counties in present-day Nebraska.
The 1865 treaty was very specific in that it stated its reasons for being agreed upon. It states the agreed-up move of the Ponca was to return them to their ancient burial grounds, to return their traditional lands, and to relocate the Ponca tribe away from the Sioux who were attacking them from the West. So in the hopes of avoiding further war with the Sioux, the Ponca moved. As for holding up their end of the treaties, the Ponca Indians were known to have kept up their part of the treaties to the letter. In fact, it's said that, unlike the Sioux who violated their treaties by conducting raids and attacking Americans outside of their reservation lands, the Ponca never stole from, attacked, or killed American settlers.
As for the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, when the federal government signed that treaty with the Sioux, that treaty created the Sioux reservation, That treaty included most of South Dakota west of the Missouri River. By mistake, the U.S. government screwed up the 1868 treaty with the Sioux by also including the southern boundary of the South Dakota area which were already lands reserved for the Ponca Indians in the 1865 treaty.
As for the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, when the federal government signed that treaty with the Sioux, that treaty created the Sioux reservation, That treaty included most of South Dakota west of the Missouri River. By mistake, the U.S. government screwed up the 1868 treaty with the Sioux by also including the southern boundary of the South Dakota area which were already lands reserved for the Ponca Indians in the 1865 treaty.
Yes, it's true, two different tribes were granted the same land by treaty with the U.S. And because that was done, the U.S. government literally gave the Ponce land to the Sioux.
How could that happen? Well, it appears that the Fort Laramie Treaty Commissioners had either forgotten about the provisions of the 1865 treaty with the Ponca or were simply ignorant of what the 1865 treaty contained.
Who were the Fort Laramie Treaty Commissioners? The members of the commission included:
Nathaniel Green Taylor, former Methodist minister and commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Senator John B. Henderson, chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, sponsor of the bill that authorized the commission; Samuel F. Tappan, journalist, abolitionist, and activist, chair of the investigation into the Sand Creek massacre; John B. Sanborn, former U.S. Army Major General, , and former member of the commission organized by Alfred Sully to investigate Fetterman's defeat; U.S. Army Brevetted Major Generals Alfred Terry and William S. Harney; U.S. Army Major Gen. Christopher C. Augur, Commander of the Department of the Platte; and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, Commander the Division of Missouri.
Nathaniel Green Taylor, former Methodist minister and commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Senator John B. Henderson, chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, sponsor of the bill that authorized the commission; Samuel F. Tappan, journalist, abolitionist, and activist, chair of the investigation into the Sand Creek massacre; John B. Sanborn, former U.S. Army Major General, , and former member of the commission organized by Alfred Sully to investigate Fetterman's defeat; U.S. Army Brevetted Major Generals Alfred Terry and William S. Harney; U.S. Army Major Gen. Christopher C. Augur, Commander of the Department of the Platte; and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, Commander the Division of Missouri.
Known as "The Indian Peace Commission" or the "Great Peace Commission," they were a group created by an act of Congress on July 20, 1867, "to establish peace with certain hostile Indian tribes." From 1867 and throughout 1868, the commissioners negotiated with a number of tribes -- including the Arapaho, Bannock, Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa, Kiowa-Apache, Navajo, the five bands of Sioux, and Snake Indian tribes.
In short, the treaties were designed to put the tribes to reservations in an effort "to remove, if possible, the causes of war; secure, as far as practicable, our frontier settlements and the safe building of our railroads looking to the Pacific; and to suggest or inaugurate some plan for the civilization of the Indians." Yes, with the purpose of "civilizing them." But also to encourage assimilation, and transition their individual cultures away from nomadic and to an agricultural existence.
The Peace Commission was formed because the Indian Wars were expensive. They have also formed because of the debate over what was known as the "Indian question" which focused on steering the U.S. away from a state of constant war in the West. The U.S. Congress, which can't usually decide on anything, concluded that peace was a lot more preferable to complete extermination which was being advocated by some political and military leaders in Washington D.C. at the time. And believe it or not, the commission was authorized to raise a Volunteer Army of 4,000 men to move the tribes by force if the treaty process failed.
In all, because language barriers adversely affected negotiations, the question was asked if the tribes even know what they were agreeing to in the treaties. Some believe they didn't fully understand most of the provisions they agreed to. Of course, besides the challenge regarding communications, the Peace Commission assumed that the tribal leaders could act on their tribes' behalf. In fact, that wasn't the case at all. Tribal leaders had no power because tribes made decisions by consensus. That meant those chiefs who were negotiating for their tribes, really did so without any sort of authority to make their people adhere to the treaties.
To compound the problems from the U.S. government side of the equation, the Commission acted as a representative of Congress -- but what they agreed upon was not always what government bureaucrats saw as right or needed. Because of that, some treaties that were agreed to saw no movement in Washington D.C. or were rejected outright by some departments. And really, even for those treaties that were ratified by the Senate, treaties that promised benefits such as food and supplies, they were often delayed or not provided at all by departments in the federal government that purposely dragged their feet doing what they were tasked to do.
All of these factors, lack of communication, lack of leadership, and the actual sabotage of the peace effort within the U.S. government bureaucracy, are many of the reasons why the Indian Peace Commission is seen as a failure. The Peace Commission's efforts went for not as the conflict started up again. For a brief moment in 1868, it seemed as though peace may have been achieved. But really, that's probably the feeling of most who accomplish such agreements.
Is it possible for treaties to simply become obsolete or archaic? Well, many treaties of days gone by contain obsolete commitments or obsolete requirements. Many of the provisions regarding supplying food, water, blankets, plant seeds, needles, flannel shirts for Indian women, became part of a bygone era. Besides becoming unnecessary in many cases, many provisions of treaties ended up being fulfilled or were superseded by state or federal legislation. Issues such as education, health, welfare, the homeless, drug use, poverty, business opportunities, revitalization, and others, extend way beyond treaty requirements or what treaties ever covered years ago.
Here's another aspect of today versus yesterday when it comes to treaties. A lot of services provided to Native American Indians by the Federal Government are provided to some Native American Indian groups which never had treaties with the United States. Not having a treaty hasn't stopped federally recognized tribes from getting assistance today.
So now, you're probably wondering what happened after the Ponca Indians' land was given to the Sioux by mistake. Well, the Sioux waged war over that land since the U.S. government now said it was theirs. And to make matter worse, the U.S. government decided to relocate the Ponca to Oklahoma.
Standing Bear v. Crook (1879)
Ponca Chief Standing Bear protested the tribe's removal. There's a story about how the Chief's eldest son, Bear Shield, was on his deathbed when Standing Bear promised that he would one day bury him on their tribe's ancestral lands. To do that, to fulfill his promise, Chief Standing Bear left the reservation in Oklahoma and traveled back to the Ponca homelands given to the Sioux. Some say it was the Sioux who contacted the U.S. government and had Chief Standing Bear arrested.
When he was confined at Fort Omaha, the newspapers got a hold of the story of the Ponca Indian Chief returning to his tribe's rightful ancestral home to find a place to bury his son. Soon there were many well-meaning people who took his side. Two were prominent attorneys who offered their services pro bono.
By 1881, the federal government returned 26,236 acres of Knox County, Nebraska to the Ponca Indians. It's said only half of the tribe left their homes in the Indian Territory and returned north.
As for the Ponca tribe today, in the 1960s the federal government terminated the tribe which was listed as the Northern Ponca from their listings. The government distributed its land by allotment to tribal members and then sold off the rest. It's believed that fraud was involved when members were tricked into selling off their separate allotments over the years.
The Ponca Indian tribe has worked hard to reestablish its cultural identity and improve its place in the world today. Seeking recognition and legitimacy is a tough task, but their labor was rewarded on October 31, 1990, when the Ponca Restoration Bill was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. Today, the Ponca is a federally recognized tribe.
I find it interesting that some question the legitimacy of the Ponca Indians being in the north before the Sioux or many other tribes. Back in the 1930s, an archeological dig excavated a prehistoric Ponca village. Among the items unearthed were large circular homes up to sixty feet in diameter, located a couple of miles along the south bank of the Niobrara River.
The good news today is that the Ponca are recognized as the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska with over 2,780 tribal members. Their tribe is today headquartered in Niobrara, Nebraska. Sadly though, even though their history proves they belong there, the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska is the only federally recognized tribe in Nebraska without its own reservation. That is something that should be remedied.
Tom Correa
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment.