Even the wildest Indians might have been led along the path to civilization had we approached the subject in the proper manner. Setting aside temporarily my rule not to refer to affairs prior to 1850, permit me to indicate what Rev. Zeisberger and Rev. Heckewelder accomplished in the Ohio wilderness before the American Revolution. They established missions on the Muskingum River and conducted these successfully, in spite of the fact that all the Ohio and Indiana Indians were at war with the settlers of Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania. These men dealt with, and worked among, a class of Indians as hostile as many of those in the West. At the time the missions were destroyed by one Williamson and other white murderers, the chapels, houses, fenced fields, and other evidences of civilization were in advance of that exhibited in any white community lying between central Pennsylvania and the Spanish missions. The reason for the success of the Moravian mission lay in this fact: that the missionaries were permitted to labor unhampered in a remote section of the country, there were no white people near, no demoralizing influences. They did not force industry upon the natives suddenly, but by a slow and persistent policy of training and education, brought about the desired result. With us, in these modern days, in far too many places, we have not only exhibited undue haste in preparing our Indians for citizenship, but we have shown a general incompetence in managing their affairs.
There is yet another and equally important reason so many of our Indians are discouraged, or backward, or indolent. Most nations, or tribes of men, learn the lessons of life in the hard school of adversity. The Indian had his school of adversity, but the curriculum was totally different from that observed in any other institution of similar character. He had, on the one hand what Mr. Humphrey has called “the great Unselfishness” (page [375]), and on the other the exact opposite of “the great Unselfishness.” The “great Selfishness” destroyed the Indian—nothing else. The Indian found it exceedingly difficult to adapt himself to the new conditions. Through education, he was able to fathom the inconsistencies of the white man’s teachings and practices. Being human, he refused to develop his property, if by so doing he merely fattened the pocketbook of some covetous white man. His vast tribal estates furnished him with moneys at stated occasions, and, relying too much upon these, he drifted into indolent habits. The unlettered aborigine, as well as the educated Indian, observed that we were continually concerned with the Indian rather than with white people responsible for the Indians’ condition. This to them was inexplicable. The illustration presented me on this score by a certain educated Indian presents the thought quite forcibly. “Suppose a ranchman owned a large tract of land on which grazed some thousands of sheep. Around his ranch ranged hundreds of coyotes. The wolves frequently destroy the sheep. The ranchman is continually changing the sheep from one pasture to another, in order to avoid the wolves. He devotes all his energies to the sheep, instead of destroying the wolves.”
Consider the whiskey problem, about which so much has been printed. There are laws and regulations sufficient to control this evil. Yet everyone seems concerned in preventing Indians from drinking whiskey, or arresting drunken Indians. So long as the State authorities do not enforce the laws against white men who introduce whiskey, it will be impossible to prevent Indians from drinking. Equally applicable are the laws against theft from Indians. In spite of all our investigations, few white men are ever sent to the penitentiary for swindling Indians. As in the case of whiskey, there are ample laws for the protection of Indian property and the punishment of grafters, yet they are seldom enforced. Honorable William H. Taft, ex-President of the United States, has in his public addresses frequently called attention to our lax enforcement of laws and our apparent disrespect of the courts, as compared with the high regard in which the English hold their legal machinery, and the impartial manner in which they administer justice.
All these things, in their ensemble, discourage the average Indian, just as they would affect the average white man. Prison sentences, instead of small fines, would put an end to graft and drunkenness, and would have a far-reaching effect in raising the Indian to a real citizenship. We have tried moral suasion and it has failed absolutely. Let us now employ force against the guilty.
CHAPTER XL. CONCLUSIONS
In studying Indians, the scientist deals with facts. The historian is a scientist in that he records facts; the sociologists and persons interested in political economy and government, draw conclusions from facts. Manifestly, we should formulate our Indian policy upon scientific principles. We should be governed solely and absolutely by facts and past experiences. Yet, although our Government in all other branches of its great Service profits by human experience in our own country and elsewhere, in our handling of the Indian, it is safe to affirm that we have not heeded the lessons of the past.
The Indian policy the past two or three years has appreciably changed for the better. If the reforms instituted by Honorable Cato Sells can be carried out as planned, we shall conserve much of the Indian property that remains. The Indians still possess vast estates, and with economy and protection, there is sufficient land to care for all of them, save on a few reservations. In Oklahoma and Minnesota it will be necessary to either buy farms, or permit Indians to continue as paupers, or move them to Montana, Idaho or Nevada. The great Navaho tract, including a portion of the Public Domain, is now crowded. There can be no further increase of Navaho population in the present area. Either the Indians must have more land, or suffer. Omitting all other reservations and Indian areas, and classifying them as satisfactory (although some of them are not) the situation confronting us today may be bluntly stated as follows:—You can take no more land away from the Indians, unless you desire to make of them paupers. You cannot expect them to hold their own with the white people, unless you change their status from a paper citizenship to a real citizenship. Making of them citizens, without the ordinary protection enjoyed by other Americans, produces instead of citizens, paupers. The detailed evidence of this has been presented in previous chapters.
We all admit that we owe the Indian much. Nobody denies that we have done the individual Indian a service, through our education and civilizing influences. Why, then, is it that there is not more land under cultivation today than in 1871? Because of the conflicting rulings and laws, the breaking of treaties, the cancelling of agreements entered into by States, and, finally, the taking of individual farms. This has discouraged the average Indian.
Far be it from me to be disloyal to my own Government, but I express the firm conviction that our particular form of government is such that administration of Indian Affairs is rendered extremely difficult. Put plainly (if not bluntly), our form of government is not conducive to satisfactory management or supervision of a dependent people. The reason, as every thinking man and woman knows, is because we make the high office of Indian Affairs a political appointment. The Commissioner no more than learns his duties, and becomes competent and efficient, than he is removed and another installed in his place. Since 1834 there have been thirty-one Commissioners, and the average tenure of office is a trifle over two and one-half years. The same is true of Indian Superintendents—formerly called Agents. I never could understand why they changed the name, for the Superintendent is still an Agent. I am perfectly willing to accept the shrewd Indian’s definition—“It is the same man, only he wears a different coat.”
The frequent changes in the office of Commissioner has not worked to the advantage of the Indians. Since 1907 we have had three Commissioners and an acting Commissioner—F. E. Leupp, R. G. Valentine, F. H. Abbott, and Cato Sells. All of these men have been energetic and intelligent, as were their predecessors, but they have been removed, or they resigned under political pressure; and as a result those who are fighting for the Indians’ rights must go over the same old story, again and again, submit and resubmit the same evidence as one appointee succeeds another. This is even true of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior himself. As an illustration, I would cite the case of French-Canadians of northern Minnesota.