Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
A Case Study of a Northern California Indian Tribe - Cultural Change to 1860 (1977) (109 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 109
.
of central California.
These Indians have been disappointed so often by the government agents making treaties with them and promises of subsistence that were never performed that if their wants are not now
supplied they never will again have anything to do with these agents
and they will have to be removed from the white settlements by
force. The citizens of the State where those Indians reside have
also lost all faith in efforts of the government to rid them of
these Indians and there is an important necessity of showing, both
that the money appropriated will be at once used for the purpose
indicated by Congress. °
In the fall of 1854, Superintendent Henley established the Nome Lackee reservation in Tehama County and initiated his Indian relocation program. Henley met with:
twenty chiefs representing all the Nisenan tribes within a radius of fifty miles of
Grass Valley. His intention was to affect their immediate removal, however, he was
solicited at this meeting by some immigrants from Nevada to abandon his relocation
plan and furnish temporary subsistence for local Nisenan tribes in their homelands 166
One immigrant summarized his anti-Indian removal position.
They (Nisenan tribes in the Grass Valley area) are harmless,
peaceable, and have so far been on good terms with the whites.
We are confident that they cannot be fairly induced to abandon
their native homes for the proposed advantages of what is to them
unknown country. 167
Henley told the anti-removalists that congressional money for Indian welfare was
intended only for those Indians who relocated. However, if the majority of Nevada
County citizens wanted Grass Valley Nisenan tribes to remain on their homeland he
would not attempt to remove them. The majority favored removal 168 Henley implementedhis relocation program. He told Grass Valley Nisenan tribes that if they relocated,
the Federal Government would plant their crops, feed and cloth them until they were.
self-supporting on reserves.169 King Weimer, chief of the Grass Valley confederation
of tribes, agreed to these terms and consented to lead a delegation of three chiefs
from each tribe of the confederation to inspect the Nome Lackee reservation during
the winter of 1854 and make recommendations on removal to their tribesmen. However,
King Weimer had no confidence in the immigrants' words, for the "big white chief"
(Superintendent Beale) had fooled him before and he did not regard Superintendent
Henley as any better than Beale.170 During Beale's administration, Grass Valley
38