Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
Funding the California Indian Superintendency (13 pages)
Go to the Archive Home
Go to Thumbnail View of this Item
Go to Single Page View of this Item
Download the Page Image
Copy the Page Text to the Clipboard
Don't highlight the search terms on the Image
Show the Page Image
Show the Image Page Text
Reset View and Center Image
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Rotate Left
Rotate Right
Toggle Full Page View
Flip Image Horizontally
More Information About this Image
Get a Citation for Page or Image - Copy to the Clipboard
Go to the Previous Page (or Left Arrow key)
Go to the Next Page (or Right Arrow key)
Page: of 13
Historical Society of Southern California
.
GHG FES E-BS STS TOA
.
on S-Lg i a
.
G9 S49 $9 €-G9 S19 1-09 O68
fof fj . . tj } 4 .
al
.
PEL ESL SIL T-OL 0°69 6-89 8-19 199 9
>
gasusRBhB asa sUs esas SSeeseasae
(Gs 10 7S eee
el td
+
+
+
+
+
+
“fb
+
4
+
+
“
+
: 5
m3
= ae
+ a 8
+ gE
Ey
ANAUL 2 PIVOS TVUOLVN ‘SNOLLVIUdOUdIV ‘IVLOL ‘T cate ALES
(
Funding the California Indian Superintendency
question naturally arises as to the basis upon which Congress
appropriated the money. Those who favored funding emphasize
humanitarianism, austerity and prevention of Indian outbreaks.
Opponents maintained that the reservation system was too expensive, denied government responsibility for the tribesmen, and
protested decisions based on inadequate information.
Many representatives supported appropriations on the premise
that money would prevent or lessen the seriousness of Indian
outbreaks. This attitude was exemplified by Congressman John
A. Kasson (Republican-Iowa) in 1865 when he argued in favor
of a $25,000 appropriation for cattle, clothing, food, and agricultural implements. “I submit . . in all seriousness whether it is
safe for us in this House to provoke a renewal of the war, and an
extension of it, by refusing appropriations to these Indians,”
stated Kasson.'* This position was often founded on the belief
that it was cheaper to feed than fight the Indians. Timothy G.
Phelps ( Republican-California), for example, maintained in 1863,
“,. it is cheaper for us to make this appropriation to feed and
take care of these Indians than it is to take the chances of a war
with them.” Or as Josephy Lane (Democrat-Oregon) said in
1859, “The Indians must be fed, or we will have to fight them,
and it is cheaper to feed than fight them.”"*
The whole question of whether it was in fact cheaper to feed
the Indians is a difficult one to answer. The crux of the problem
is the matter of what constituted hostility — an issue which
repeatedly confused and compounded conduct of nineteenth
century government-Indian relations. It is also virtually impossible to separate with complete accuracy expenditures by a war
or peace criteria. Military appropriation acts did not consistently
specify how much money was allotted to the army in California.
No accurate comparison between army and Bureau expenses can
be made as a result. Moreover, it is difficult to gauge the degree
to which Indian or army appropriations contributed to maintenance of peace. In the end it is more important, at least for the
purposes of this study, to note that many representatives made
appropriation decisions on the premise that Indian wars were
more costly than expenditures for Indian removal and civilization.’”