Termination Resolution
Termination Resolution refers to a mid-20th century U.S. government policy aimed at assimilating American Indians into mainstream society by ending their special legal status and the associated federal services. Advocates of this policy believed it would grant American Indians equal citizenship and self-reliance, while opponents argued that it would dismantle tribal governance and community, exacerbating cultural and economic challenges. The policy led to the repeal of laws that recognized tribal sovereignty and the transfer of jurisdiction over tribal affairs to state authorities without tribal consent. Major legislation, such as House Concurrent Resolution 108 and PL 83-280, initiated the termination of specific tribes, which resulted in significant loss of trust land and federal benefits for affected communities. The Menominee tribe in Wisconsin was notably impacted by these actions, facing challenges in adjusting to a post-termination environment, including economic and social difficulties. Over time, both American Indians and non-Indians critiqued the termination policy for its adverse effects, leading to a shift in U.S. policy towards greater support for tribal self-determination and autonomy, as articulated by President Nixon in 1969. The termination era thus remains a significant and contentious chapter in the relationship between the U.S. government and Native American tribes.
Termination Resolution
Significance: By the Termination Resolution of August, 1953, Congress ended its policy of special treatment of American Indians.
Termination was viewed by its advocates as freeing American Indians from special laws and regulations, making them equal to other citizens, and by opponents as precipitously withdrawing federal responsibility and programs. The term used for the federal policy came to be applied to the people themselves: terminated tribes. Termination actions included repealing laws setting American Indians apart, ending Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) services by transferring them to other federal agencies or to the states, and terminating recognition of the sovereign status of specific tribes.
The Origins of Termination Policy
Termination, many have observed, did not deviate from the norm of federal policy. Its emphasis on breaking up American Indian land holdings is often compared to the General Allotment Act of 1887 (the Dawes Severalty Act). The latter required the allocation of a certain number of acres to each person and, during its forty-seven years in force, reduced tribal lands by nearly ninety-one million acres.
In public debate, opponents of termination argued that the United States had a special obligation to American Indians because they had been conquered and deprived of their accustomed way of life. All people in the United States, opponents said, have the right to be different and to live in the groupings they prefer. Any changes in federal supervision of American Indians should be implemented slowly and with the involvement of the affected tribes; rather than dissolving tribal communities, federal policy should continue meeting tribes’ special needs until those needs no longer exist. Opponents also pointed to American Indian culture, tribal lands, and tribal government—their form of community—as their source of strength.
Advocates of termination asserted that all US citizens should be similar, and there should be no communities with special legal rights. Dissolving separate American Indian communities would expedite the integration of these people into the mainstream. American Indians, according to Senator Arthur V. Wakens, would be freed from wardship or federal restrictions and would become self-reliant, with no diminution of their tribal culture. Wakens saw termination as liberation of American Indians and compared it to the Emancipation Proclamation. Non-natives objected to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, the prior federal policy, and were swayed toward termination by several arguments: American Indian communal property ownership and their form of government resembled communism; the IRA’s promotion of American Indian traditions amounted to condoning heathenism; developers wanted tribal lands made available; and Congress perceived that the resignation of Indian Commissioner John Collier (the IRA’s chief advocate) and severe BIA budget cuts had diminished its effectiveness, necessitating a stepped-up program of assimilation.
After Collier’s resignation, Senator William Langer asked Acting Commissioner William Zimmerman for a formula for evaluating tribal readiness for termination. On February 8, 1947, Zimmerman presented, in a congressional hearing, three categories of tribes—those who could be terminated immediately, those who could function with little federal supervision within ten years, and those who needed more than ten years to prepare. He discussed the four criteria used in his lists and presented three specimen termination bills. This testimony was embraced by termination supporters and, Zimmerman believed, frequently misquoted.
In 1950, Dillon Myer, a staunch advocate of immediate termination, became Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Although he claimed to be streamlining the BIA, it seemed to some that he was moving to dissolve both the bureau and all IRA programs. Myer was asked to write a legislative proposal for expeditious termination of federal supervision of American Indians. The result was House Concurrent Resolution 108 (August 1, 1953), which passed with little debate. The resolution directed Congress to make American Indians subject to the same laws, privileges, and responsibilities as other citizens; to end their wardship status; and to free specific tribes from federal control as soon as possible. Once the named tribes were terminated, the BIA offices serving them would be abolished.
PL 83-280 (August 15, 1953) also advanced termination. It transferred to the states, without tribal consent, jurisdiction over civil and criminal offenses on reservations in California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin. It provided that, by legislative action, any other state could assume similar jurisdiction.
A rush of termination bills was introduced in 1954. As problems with the termination process became known and the membership of congressional committees changed (after 1956), legislation slowed. These acts caused several changes: Tribal lands were either appraised or put under a corporation’s management; the federal government no longer protected the land for the tribe; state legislative and judicial authority replaced tribal government; tribe members no longer received a state tax exemption; and tribes lost the benefits of special federal health, education, and other social programs.
Fifteen termination acts were passed between 1954 and 1962, affecting 110 tribes or bands in eight states: the Menominee, Klamath, Western Oregon (61 tribes and bands), Alabama-Coushatta, Mixed-Blood Ute, Southern Paiute, Lower Lake Rancheria, Wyandotte, Peoria, Ottawa, Coyote Valley Ranch, California Rancheria (37 rancherias), Catawba, and Ponca.
The Menominee Litigation
Termination of the Menominee of Wisconsin received the most attention. The tribe was specifically targeted in House Concurrent Resolution 108, and their termination act was passed on June 17, 1954. They appeared to be the healthiest tribe economically, as a result of their lumbering and forestry operations, but were not as ready for termination as they seemed. In 1951, the Menominee won a fifteen-year legal battle against the federal government, awarding them $8.5 million in damages for mismanagement of their tribal forest. They could not obtain the award, however, until Congress passed an act appropriating it. The tribe asked that part of the money be released—amounting to $1,500 per capita. Senator Wakens’ Subcommittee on Indian Affairs told the tribe that if they could manage $1,500 per person, they were ready for freedom from federal wardship. Termination, he suggested, was inevitable, and the tribe would not receive the money unless they moved to accept a termination amendment to the per-capita payment bill. The election was not a true tribal referendum, as only 174 members voted; many of these later said that they had not understood what they were voting for.
Final termination of the Menominee did not go into effect until 1961. The tribe had to decide how to set up municipalities, establish a tax system, provide law and order, and sell their tribal assets. There were complications concerning the payment of estimated taxes on Menominee forests. Federal officials saw the tribe’s reluctance as procrastination. State agencies could provide only limited assistance, because the tribe was still under federal control.
As a result of these experiences and others, both American Indians and non-Indians became critical of termination. BIA expenditures spiraled in the late 1950s. Many terminated tribe members felt uncomfortable living in the mainstream and often were not accepted socially by non-Indians. Relocated Indians often suffered poverty in the cities and often became dependent on social programs. Some terminated tribes later applied for federal recognition. During its short span (the last act was passed in 1962), termination affected 13,263 of a total population of 400,000, or 3 percent of the federally recognized American Indians. The acts withdrew 1,365,801 acres of trust land, or 3 percent of the approximately 43,000,000 acres held in 1953. The end of federal endorsement of the termination policy was seen in 1969, when President Richard M. Nixon, in a message to Congress, called for promotion of self-determination and the strengthening of American Indian autonomy without threatening community.
Bibliography
Fixico, Donald Lee. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945-1960. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P, 1992. Print.
"History and Culture: Termination Policy: 1953–1968." American Indian Relief Council. American Indian Relief Council, n.d. Web. 19 May. 2015.
"Menominee Termination and Restoration." Indian Country. Milwaukee Public Museum, 2015. Web. 19 May. 2015.
Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Vol. 2. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1995. Print.
Walch, Michael C. "Terminating the Indian Termination Policy." Stanford Law Rev. 35.6 (1983): 1181–1215. Print.