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 funds, “Why tell them, No, no, no, do not labor, we will gather and appropriate money to buy clothing and food to support you.””? Dawson also combined a lack of sympathy for humanitarian principles with austerity. When a $100,000 appropriation for supplies and presents came before the Senate, he maintained “If these Indians are perishing and dependent, the fault is not ours. I do not believe that the Government brought this condition upon them.” Feeding the Indians, he continued, was “very expensive, and it will induce the Indians to become indolent.”” In 1868 Congressman Benjamin Butler (Republican-Massachusetts) argued, “I do not understand why it is that the Indian alone, of all people on the globe, should be exempted from the penalty of the primeval curse of man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. We have taxed our constituents to feed lazy Indians. . . .”” Clearly, there were by the mid-1860s growing objections to supporting “lazy Indians.” After twenty years and three million dollars, many speakers were troubled that California tribesmen 3 seemed no closer to self-sufficiency. But there was little agreement over where the line between indigence and self-sufficiency vis-a-vis appropriations should be drawn. As an alternative to providing subsistence, Senator Isaac P. Walker (Democrat-Wisconsin) suggested providing the Indians ™ with a homestead. In his opinion, furnishing cattle kept the peace ~ only until the beef ran out and only served to “exasperate” the . Indians. In 1869 Congressman Samuel B. Axtell (Democrat-Cali% fornia), perhaps for other reasons, argued against continuance of ~ the reservation system. “This attempt of the nation,” he asserted, ~ “to establish great poorhouses to sustain them in that State is not = only a failure so far as the Indians are concerned, but it demoral~ izes the white men who have anything to do with the matter.” ~ ( Funding the California Indian Superintendency making?” Senator William Fessenden ( Whig-Maine) expressed ses misgivings in 1862. “My difficulty in this matter,” he ra the Senate, “is the want of information upon the subUnfortunately, it is difficult to measure the representativeness of debate. Roll call votes are often employed for this purpose but only four were held during the years under study.” Mere over, since less than 10% of the Congressional membership participated in debate, it is difficult to form an opinion about representativeness. But if what political scientists tell us about modern Congressional operation was true of the nineteenth century, most of the crucial decisions were made in sessions of the House Committees of Ways and Means and Indian Affairs as well as Senate Committees on Finance, Appropriations, and Indian 3 Affairs and not on the floor of Congress, But determining com2 mittee motive, intent, and action is equally difficult; for, tran__ scripts of proceedings were not retained in committee cn and minute books were a rarity.” Yet, it seems probable that _ committee intent was probably indicative of Congressional intent i The fact that amendments were usually approved by committee 4 before introduction, that most committee amendments were 4 accepted by Congress and that members of committees amounted = to 59% of all Senate debaters and 74% of House participants dem_ onstrates a strong correlation between committee and Congres: sional intent. Thus, it would seem from the evidence at hand = that statements upon the floor represented the thinking of 4 am as a whole, especially when one considers that these _ aed pone oie held most of the power and influence Although the specific reasons underlying appropriations varied greatly among speakers, most, in the case of California, were Reservations, he maintained, should be abolished and the Indians ~ employed by whites as laborers.”® S Frequently, fear that the facts at hand were insufficient or _ unreliable blocked or reduced appropriations. In 1857 Senator — John Bell (Whig-Tennessee) opposed a $162,000 amendment for = removal-subsistence on these grounds. As he put it, “I wish to” direct the attention of the Senate to the question, whether or not ~ the appropriations proposed to be made at the present time} exceeded the amount which information before us justified us in ~ » guided by conscientious desire to formulate and implement a vorkable policy, Policy in their minds centered around two nebulous extremes — civilization and extermination. Few however, really supported extermination by arms or attrition. But vhen it came to the implementation of a civilization program speakers were often at odds, Fundamental differences arose from the degree of emphasis to be placed upon methods designed ppimarily for the benefit of whites or Indians, Those who as-