Collection: Directories and Documents > Tanis Thorne Native Californian & Nisenan Collection

About This Item:

Title: Funding the California Indian Superintendency Collection Type: Directories and Documents Collection Name: Tanis Thorne Native Californian & Nisenan Collection # of Pages: 13 Download PDF: User Login Required Download OCR Text: User Login Required

Date Scanned: 2024-09-03 14:21:59 OCR Software Version #: tesseract 5.4.1 Item Sourced From: PDF First Created: 2025-03-17 03:17:31 Last Updated: 2025-03-17 03:17:31

Original Held At: Searls Historical Library Location: 161 Nevada City Hwy, Nevada City, CA 95959

Page: of 13  

Historical Society of Southern California Aside from war prevention, the economy of a provision was often espoused in support of appropriations, particularly in cases of reservation establishment and maintenance. When a bill was first introduced in 1853 for creation of five reservations, Congressman Joseph W. McCorkle (Democrat-California ) argued that on the reserves the Indians “will be able to support themselves entirely. This will, therefore, be an economical investment of money... .” Much the same position was taken by Senator Milton S. Latham (Union Democrat-California) in arguing for abolition of the two districts and a reduction of the number of reserves. The measure, according to him, would save $30,000 to $50,000 a year and, thus, “will be the most economical and proper arrangement.”’® The economy argument was often primarily concerned with relieving the treasury. Indeed, speakers probably participated in debate more out of concern for the budget than a desire to see the proper implementation of policy. The majority of the debaters sat on House and Senate finance committees and raised questions which in the main were budgetary rather than Indian policy oriented. In emphasizing cost few explored with any depth or precision the long term cost-benefit relationship of appropriations. In an attempt to hold down appropriations, representatives tended to forget that policy cost should be judged by its ultimate rather than immediate cost. While some were thus concerned with primarily saving money, others sought to hold appropriations to a minimum for the benefit of the Indians. By establishing reservations and expending as little as possible to. subsist the Indians, it was hoped they would be forced toward self-sufficiency. By the late 1850s and early 1860s, the latter reasoning had become the Bureau’s official position in California and Congress’s attitude toward the whole of Indian appropriations.’ Humanitarianism was also frequently espoused in support of an appropriation. Moralistic and idealistic in one sense, humanitarianism was premised on the belief that Indians deserved humane treatment as well as a form and standard of living comparable to white Americans. It was the federal government’s duty, argued many speakers, to see to it that the Indians’ socio-economic 4 level was altered to match that of white Americans. Senator 4 George Houston (Democrat-Alabama ) exemplified this position — rral Funding the California Indian Superintend when a $100,000 appropriation to preserve the peace by means of clothing and food came up on the floor. “It is time,” he stated for the nation to avise as one man and vindicate the national honor and keep the escutcheon clean, and maintain our faith with the Indians.” Congressman Chauncy F. Cleveland (Democrat-Connecticut ) agreed when he stated: “We must either adopt the policy of killing them off by arms and starvation, or this more humane policy. It seems to me that this is the polic we ought to adopt. We owe it to ourselves and to the Indians 0 Cleveland and Houston like many of their contemporaries Fogel humanitarianism with preserving and protecting America’s selfconceived moral image. In another sense, humanitarian argua ments were practical and based on the recognition the government might as well attempt a more humane policy, since the tribesmen had already been dispossessed of their lands, William K. Sebasee Ham-(Democrat-Arkansas), for example, argued in 1853: We find the country in possession of a large number of Indian tribes .. . Our emigrants went there, and went with a kind of feeling which contended itself with nothing less than the possession of the whole country . . . . The only excuse, therefore, which you can render to the people of that country for not Genipiine the lands is to congregate the Indians upon small military argicultural reservations just lar intain li a arge enough to maintain life upon, an respect their rights.’ pee Although based on a deep-seated moral and religious conviction humanitarianism was also a political weapon. It was sometimes an appeal designed to gain the support of representatives moti__ vated by a concern for obtaining appropriations for the Indians’ welfare. In the final analysis, humanitarianism could have been a practical way of saying Indian expenditures were economical Opponents of appropriations often blended arguments. A tapits cal position was to combine the belief that the policy approach was wrong with the argument that implementation had a exceedingly expensive. Many who formed this type of union considered the California system counterproductive, since it encouraged indigence rather than self-sufficiency and was, therefore, too costly. Senator William C. Dawson ( Whig-Georgia) for example, stated during a discussion of removal-subsistence [57]