16. Sloan later claimed that he was sent to Hampton “in order to get me away from the reservation” and that he decided to become a lawyer while he was incarcerated. See testimony of February 27, 1934, 132; and testimony of February 11, 1935, 528. He repeated this story in a commencement address at Carlisle, delivered in April 1912, and reprinted in the school magazine. See “The Indian’s Protection and His Place as an American,” Red Man, v. 4 (May 1912), 398–403.
17. Annual Report of the U.S. Secretary of Interior, 1887, Serial 2542, 1035. For more on Sloan at Hampton, see Donal F. Lindsey, Indians at Hampton Institute, 1877–1923 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 128, 230.
18. Standing Bear v. Crook, in Prucha, Documents, 150.
19. Quoted in Hoxie, A Final Promise, 8. Standing Bear’s companions on his lecture tour were Susette and Francis La Flesche. The siblings became prominent Indian spokespeople in the 1880s and 1890s.
20. For a fuller description of the Standing Bear tour and the events leading up to the passage of the Omaha allotment act, see ibid., 25–39.
21. Elk v. Wilkins (November 3, 1884), in Prucha, Documents, 165–66.
22. Quoted in Hoxie, A Final Promise, 76.
23. Quoted in Judith A. Boughter, Betraying the Omaha Nation, 1790–1916 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998), 113.
24. Arthur Tinker to Secretary of the Interior, December 22, 1890, Reports of Inspection of the Field Jurisdictions of the Office of Indian Affairs, Omaha and Winnebago Agency (RIFJ, Omaha), National Archives Microfilm 1070, Reel 32.
25. For a report on Sloan and his recent admission to the bar, see Senate Executive Document 31, 52 Congress, 1 Session, Serial 2892, “Report on Returned Hampton Students,” 27.
26. “Supplemental Hearing . . . on H.R. 25663, January 27, 1913, 25.
27. Sloan v. U.S., 95 F 193, July 1, 1899, 194, 196, 197.
28. Sloan v.U.S., 118 F 183, October 31, 1902, 285,286, 288, 293, 294.
29. Sloan v. U.S. 193 U.S. 614, April 4, 1904.
30. Inspector McCormick to Secretary of Interior, June 20, 1894, RIFJ, Omaha, Reel 32.
31. James McLaughlin to Secretary of Interior, June 19, 1895, RIFJ, Omaha, Reel 32. The reference to Senator Thurston is in Arthur Tinker to Secretary of Interior, March 10, 1899, RIFJ, Omaha, Reel 32.
32. The Flournoy controversy is described in Boughter, Betraying the Omaha Nation, 146–53. While Boughter provides a useful summary of the case, she was critical of Sloan. Unfortunately, in reaching her judgment, she seems to have ignored both Inspector McLaughlin’s laudatory reports on Beck and Sloan and the Omaha lawyer’s later career as an Indian advocate.
33. U.S. v. Flournoy Livestock and Real Estate Co., 69 F 886, October 8, 1895, 891–92. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Flournoy’s appeal can be found at Flournoy Livestock and Real Estate Company v. Beck, 163 U.S. 686, October 23, 1895. The final appeals court disposition of the case is: U.S. v. Flournoy Livestock and Real Estate Co., 71 F 576, January 7, 1896.
34. Arthur Tinker to Secretary of Interior, March 10, 1899, RIFJ, Omaha, Reel 32.
35. Samuel Brosius to Matthew Sniffen, February 14, 1909, Indian Rights Association Papers (hereafter IRA Papers), Reel 21.
36. See U.S. v. Rickert quoted in Hoxie, A Final Promise, 218.
37. The Heff decision and its consequences are discussed in Hoxie, A Final Promise, 219–21. Justice Harlan dissented in the case, but he did not file a dissenting opinion.
38. U.S. v. Thurston County et al., 140 F 456, September 14, 1905, 458, 459.
39. For a discussion of Lone Wolf and its aftermath, see Hoxie, A Final Promise, 154–59. An extended discussion of the legal history of increased federal authority over Indians, noncitizens, and racial minorities during the turn of the twentieth century can be found in Sarah H. Cleveland, “Powers Inherent in Sovereignty: Indians, Aliens, Territories, and the Nineteenth Century Origins of Plenary Power over Foreign Affairs,” Texas Law Review, v. 81, n.1 (November 2002), 1–284. Cleveland, an expert in international law, argues that racial ideology and perceived threats from outside its borders caused U.S. jurists to uphold expanded power for federal agencies engaged with foreign, Indian, and territorial affairs at the same time that it struck down the extension of such powers in the domestic arena.
40. U.S. v. Thurston Co. et al., 143 F 287, March 21, 1906, 289.
41. Rainbow et al. v. Young, Sheriff, 161 F 835, June 8, 1908, 837. The court also addressed the question of whether or not the agent’s actions could be subject to judicial review: “[W]e think it is intended there shall be none.” Ibid., 838.
42. Hallowell v. United States, 209 U.S. 101, decided March 23, 1908; see syllabus for quotation.
43. U.S. v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278, December 13, 1909, 290–91; emphasis mine. See also U.S. v. Sutton 215 U.S. 291. Interestingly no lawyers appeared on behalf of the Indian defendants in either case. The government’s attorneys evidently made their arguments without opposition. It would seem that the Indian Office was seeking to establish a legally sanctioned policy with these decisions.
44. Marchie Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286, May 15, 1911. See Lawyer’s Edition Headnotes.
45. Ibid., 316.
46. Hallowell v. United States, 221 U.S. 317, May 15, 1911, 324.
47. Thomas Sloan to Richard Henry Pratt, August 24, 1909, Richard Henry Pratt Papers, Box 8, Folder 283, Yale University (hereafter Pratt Papers). See also Washington Herald, March 7, 1909, 7. See also Samuel Brosius to Thomas Sloan, February 14, 1909, IRA Papers, Reel 21.
48. Quoted in. D. Anthony Tyeeme Clarle, “At the Headwaters of a Twentieth-century Indian Political Agenda: Rethinking the Origins of the Society of American Indians,” in Daniel M. Cobb and Loretta Fowler, eds., Beyond Red Power: New Perspectives on American Indian Politics and Activism (Santa Fe: School of Advanced Research 2007), 79.
49. “The Indian of Tomorrow,” n.d., National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Reel 5, PCMSR.
50. Quoted in Hoxie, A Final Promise, 163.
51. In February 1918 Thomas Sloan testified against a bill that would have banned peyote. Supporting him were the Smithsonian anthropologist James Mooney and the SAI member (and fellow Omaha) Francis La Flesche. Among those in favor of the ban were Charles Eastman and Richard Pratt. See “Peyote Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs on H.R. 2614” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1918).
52. The discussion of Coolidge is in Sloan to Arthur Parker, November 11, 1911, SAI Papers. For more a sympathetic view of Parker’s career and role in the SAI, see Joy Porter, To Be Indian: The Life of Iroquois-Seneca Arthur Caswell Parker (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 91–142.
53. Sloan to Parker, February 19, 1912, and ibid., March 16, 1912, SAI Papers.
54. Parker to Sloan, November 20, 1911, SAI Papers.
55. Parker to Sloan, January 22, 1912, SAI Papers.
56. Dennison Wheelock to Richard Henry Pratt, December 20, 1912, Folder 323, Pratt Papers.
57. “The Indian’s Protection and His Place as an American,” 399; Sloan to Fayette McKenzie, March 31, 1916; Sloan to Parker, May 6, 1916, SAI Papers.
58. Sloan to Parker, April 17, 1916, SAI Papers.
59. See, for example, “Indian Appropriation Bill . . . Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate . . . on H.R. 26874,” 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, 55–57, January 17, 1913. Senator Robert La Follette’s papers also contain a file of correspondence with Crow tribal leaders seeking to stop the allotment of their reservation. The file contains a 1911 letter in which Sloan offered to represent the tribe in Washington, D.C. See Thomas Sloan to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, n.d. but stamped “August 23, 1911,” Robert La Follette Papers, Library of Congress, Box 122, Indian Affairs, Crow. In aletter to Slo
an dated August 24, the acting secretary of interior denied Sloan’s request.
60. See U.S. v. Chase, 245 U.S. 89, November 5, 1917.
61. For Sloan’s report on his investigation of the Yankton agency, see “Hearings Before the Joint Commission . . .” January 21 and March 9, 1914, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, Part 5, 508–24. The creation of the Joint Commission is described in Hoxie, A Final Promise, 178–79.
62. “Hearings Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate . . . on H.R. 21050,” 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, v. 2, 33.
63. Ibid., 64–66. See also Paul C. Rosier, Rebirth of the Blackfeet Nation, 1912–1954 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001), 15–18. Sloan’s work at Blackfeet earned the praise of the Indian Rights Association. See Samuel Brosius to Sloan, March 11, 1915, IRA Papers.
64. “Granting Indians Rights to Select Agents and Superintendents. Hearing . . . on S.3904,” 64th Congress, 1st Session, March 9, 1916, 39–41.
65. “Leasing of Crow Indian Lands. Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs . . . on S.2890,” 66th Congress, 1st Session, 16.
66. “Army Reorganization. Hearing Before the Committee on Military Affairs on H.R. 8287,” 66th Congress, 1st & 2nd Congress, v. 2, 2224–26.
67. “Hearings on H.R. 21150,” 57.
68. “Army Reorganization Hearing,” 2228.
69. Wassaja, v. 2, n . 9 (December 1917), 1, 2. Eastman’s name was added to the list of sponsors in January 1918, in v. 2, n.10. A collection of Wassaja is included in PCMSR.
70. American Indian Magazine, v. 6, n. 3 (Autumn 1918), 139. Montezuma’s address was reprinted the following year in v. 7, n. 1 (Spring 1919), 11. The society’s magazine changed its name from Quarterly Journal in 1916.
71. Wassaja, v. 3, n. 8 (November, 1918), 2.
72. Ibid., 3.
73. “Editorial Comment,” American Indian Magazine, v. 6, n. 4 (Winter 1919), 161–62.
74. Charles Eastman, “The Indian’s Plea for Freedom,” American Indian Magazine, v. 6, n. 4 (Winter 1919), 163.
75. Wassaja, v. 4, n. 11 (February 1920), 2; excerpts from Sloan’s speech were published in American Indian Magazine, v. 7, n. 3 (Fall 1919), 162; the election is described in ibid., 179.
76. “Thomas L. Sloan,” reprinted in American Indian Magazine, v. 7, n. 3 (Fall 1919), 143.
77. Richard Pratt to Sloan, February 23, 1920, Series II, SAI Papers. Privately, Pratt expressed reservations about Sloan’s association with anthropologists and his tolerance for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies.
78. Thomas Sloan to Hubert Work, March 10, 1923, Series II, SAI Papers.
79. The description of Sloan’s physique is in “Thomas L. Sloan,” 40. The charges of “slandering” are in Thomas Sloan to Richard Pratt, June 5, 1920; the meeting with Harding is described in Sloan to Pratt, June 29, 1920. Both letters in Box 8, Folder 283, Pratt Papers, Yale University.
80. The anti-Sloan correspondence was attached to a general circular from SAI member P. H. Kennerly to L. V. McWhorter, May 11, 1921, SAI Papers. Carter’s letter, included in this packet, was dated September 20, 1920. For Parker, see Parker, To Be Indian, 136. For Roe Cloud’s position, see Joel Phister, The Yale Indian: The Education of Henry Roe Cloud (Durham: Duke University Press, 2009), 205, n. 188.
81. Hazel Hertzberg, The Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern Pan Indian Movements (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1971), 193, 194, 197.
82. Pratt preferred Wheelock. See Richard Pratt to Rose La Flesche, March 25, 1921, Folder 409, Pratt Papers, Yale University.
83. Foreword to G. E. E. Lindquist, The Red Man in the United States (New York: George H. Doran, 1923), vi. The commissioner conceded that many tribal traditions were “beautiful . . . but many are benighted and sometimes degrading. . . .” Burke was to act on his principles in 1921, when he issued his famous “dance order,” banning dances that involved “acts of self-torture, immoral relations between the sexes, the sacrificial destruction of clothing or other useful articles, the reckless giving away of property, the use of injurious drugs or intoxicants, and frequent or prolonged periods of celebration. . . .” See Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the Indian (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 801.
84. An apparently complete list of invitees was published in the New York Times, May 12, 1923.
85. See Prucha, The Great Father, 807–8.
86. The committee’s resolutions were published in January 1924. See “The Indian Problem,” House Document 149, 68 Congress, 1 Session, 1–4.
87. Sloan to Secretary of Interior, December 14, 1923, SAI Papers; Sloan to Richard Pratt, March 4, 1924, Box 8, Folder 283, Pratt Papers, Yale University.
88. Oswald Garrison Villard, “For the Indians’ Sake,” Nation (December 26, 1923), 734.
89. John Collier, “The Red Slaves of Oklahoma” Sunset (March 1924), 96.
90. Sloan to Richard Pratt, March 4, 1924.
91. For the persistence of non-Indian interest in romantic views of Indians and the dilemma this produced for Indian activists, see Michelle Wick Patterson, “‘Real’ Indian Songs: The Society of American Indians and the Use of Native American Culture as a Means of Reform,” American Indian Quarterly, v. 26, n. 1 (Winter 2002), 44–66.
92. Elizabeth Shepley Sergeant, “The Red Man’s Burden,” New Republic (January 16, 1924), 199.
93. “Appraisal of Tribal Property of Indians,” Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on H.R. 13835, February 16, 1923, 25.
94. Ibid., 15.
95. Ibid.
96. For a comprehensive description of the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act, see Gary C. Stein, “The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924,” New Mexico Historical Review, v. 47, n. 3 (1972), 257–74. See also Bruyneel, The Third Space of Sovereignty, 97–121.
97. In the 1920s and 1930s Sloan lobbied on behalf of the Blackfeet, the Montana Salish, the Omaha and Winnebago tribes from his native Nebraska, the Washington Yakimas, and Mission Indian communities in Southern California. He also maintained regular contact with delegations representing Oregon Klamaths, Creeks from Oklahoma, and the Minnesota Ojibwes. He traced many of his ties to these groups to contacts among Hampton alumni as well as to his years of activism with the Society of American Indians. By 1928 Sloan had moved to Southern California, where he represented Indian allottees he had first met in Washington and developed new contacts with western tribes. Over the next decade he filed suits on behalf of Indians at Palm Springs and was involved with reformers and tribal activists in California, Washington, and Oregon. See St. Marie et al. v. United States, 24 F. Supp, 237, July 23, 1938; 108 F. 2nd 876, January 3, 1940 (appeals court) and 311 U.S. 652, October 14, 1940. For Sloan’s activities in California, see Los Angeles Times, September 29, 1929 (“Thomas Sloan, Attorney, Guest of Wigwam Club of America”), ibid., July 7, 1937 (“Palm Springs Indians Win Champion in Land Sale Row”), and ibid., June 20, 1938 (letter from Thomas Sloan “representing Indians of California”). Sloan described his first contact with California Indians (which occurred in 1922) in a 1937 congressional hearing. See “Hearings Before the Committee on Indian Affairs on S. 1651,” U.S. Senate, 75th Congress, 1st Session, March, 1936, 129.
98. “Indian Conditions and Affairs,” Hearings . . . on H.R. 7781, February 11, 1935, 531.
99. Thomas Sloan to Matthew Sniffen, March 27, 1940, IRA Mss.
100. For a description of the politics surrounding the passage of the American Indian Civil Rights Act, see Prucha, The Great Father, 1106–8.
CHAPTER SEVEN
1. For a description of Collier’s early supporters, see Lawrence Kelly, The Assault on Assimilation: John Collier and the Origins of Indian Policy Reform (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1983), chapter 8.
&n
bsp; 2. Robert Yellowtail to John Collier, June 6, 1932, Papers of John Collier, Reel Four, File 177. For a listing of Collier’s correspondents, see The John Collier Papers, 1922–1968: A Guide to the Microfilm Edition, ed. Andrew M. Patterson and Maureen Brodoff (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1980), 7–12. In their introduction to Collier’s correspondence from the years 1922 to 1933, the editors write, “This series pertains almost exclusively to Indian matters. . . . Correspondents include prominent lawyers (Louis Hanna, Richard Hanna), United States Senators (Lynn Frazier), Congressmen (James A. Frear), authors (Mabel Dodge Luhan, Elizabeth Shepley Sergeant) and others who devoted their energies to Indian causes.” The editors do not mention Indian correspondents. Collier does not appear to have corresponded during this period with Charles Eastman, Thomas Sloan, Fred Lookout, or even Chee Dodge, the Navajo leader who later became an important ally.
3. John Collier, From Every Zenith (Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Books, 1963), 4.
4. Ibid., 126, 119, 123.
5. For a biographical profile of Yellowtail, see Frederick E. Hoxie and Tim Bernardis, “Robert Yellowtail, Crow,” in The New Warriors: Native American Leaders Since 1900, ed. R. David Edmunds (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001), 55–77.
6. Quoted in Frederick E. Hoxie, Parading Through History: The Making of the Crow Nation in America, 1880–1935 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 328.
7. Quoted in ibid., 258.
8. “Address by Robert Yellowtail in Defense of the Rights of the Crow Indians, and the Indian Generally Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, September 9, 1919,” U.S. Senate Report 219, 66th Congress, 1st Session, Serial 7590 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1919).
9. Yellowtail’s draft “plank” for the national parties was enclosed in his letter to John Collier, dated May 25, 1932. Papers of John Collier, Reel 4, File 177.
10. “To the Indians of Montana,” enclosed with Yellowtail to Collier, May 25, ibid.
11. For Sloan and his Coahuilla clients, see Van H. Garner, The Broken Ring: The Destruction of California Indians (Tucson: Westernlore Books, 1982), 127–40.
This Indian Country Page 44
