Native American Reservation Governments

The relationship between the United States government and Native American tribes has been marked by a long history of broken treaties and forced removals. Beginning in the early 1800s, the federal government pursued policies designed to take Native lands and relocate tribes far from their ancestral territoriesAncestral territories are the lands where your ancestors (family from long ago) lived for many generations..

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the president to negotiate removal treaties with southeastern tribes. What followed was one of the darkest chapters in American history. The Cherokee Nation, despite having adopted a written constitution, established schools, and achieved economic prosperityEconomic prosperity means having success with money and being able to support your community., was forcibly removed from their lands in Georgia. In 1838-1839, approximately 16,000 Cherokee people were forced to march over 1,000 miles to Indian TerritoryIndian Territory was land (mostly in present-day Oklahoma) that the U.S. government set aside for Native tribes who were forced to move from their homelands. in present-day Oklahoma. This journey, known as the Trail of TearsThe Trail of Tears was the forced march of Native Americans from their lands to new territory, where thousands died from cold, hunger, and disease., resulted in the deaths of approximately 4,000 Cherokee people from exposure, disease, and starvation.

The pattern continued throughout the 19th century. Treaties were signed promising tribes permanent homelands, only to be broken when those lands proved valuable to American settlers. The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie guaranteed the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho vast territories in the Great Plains. Within decades, these promises were violated as gold discoveries brought floods of settlers and the federal government sought to confine tribes to smaller and smaller reservationsReservations are areas of land set aside by the government where Native American tribes were required to live..

Despite these betrayals, Native peoples never surrendered their understanding of themselves as sovereign nationsSovereign nations are groups of people who have the right to govern themselves and make their own laws.. Even as they were confined to reservations, tribes maintained their own forms of government, cultural practices, and collective identity. The very existence of treaties—formal agreements between nations—acknowledged tribal sovereignty, even as federal policy sought to undermine it.

By the late 19th century, federal policy shifted from removal to assimilationAssimilation means forcing a group of people to give up their own culture and adopt the dominant culture instead.—a deliberate attempt to destroy tribal cultures and incorporate Native peoples into mainstream American society. The Dawes ActThe Dawes Act of 1887 was a law that divided tribal lands into individual plots, trying to force Native people to farm like white settlers. of 1887, also known as the General Allotment Act, represented the most significant assault on tribal sovereignty and collective landholding.

Under the Dawes Act, reservation lands held collectively by tribes were divided into individual allotmentsAllotments are individual pieces of land given to each person or family, rather than land owned by the whole tribe together.—typically 160 acres for family heads and smaller plots for individuals. The stated goal was to transform Native peoples into individual farmers and property owners. However, after allotments were distributed, any "surplus" land—millions of acres—was opened to white settlement. The policy was devastating. Between 1887 and 1934, tribal landholdings decreased from 138 million acres to just 48 million acres. Much of the remaining land was desert or otherwise unsuitable for farming.

The allotment policy attacked more than land ownership. It struck at the heart of tribal governance and identity. Many Native cultures emphasized communal propertyCommunal property means land and resources that are owned and shared by the whole community, not by individuals. and collective decision-making. Allotment forced an alien system of individual ownership that contradicted traditional values. Moreover, to receive allotments, Native people were pressured to adopt "civilized" ways—speak English, practice Christianity, cut their hair, and abandon traditional clothing and customs.

Yet even during this dark period, tribes resisted. Many refused allotments. Some communities found ways to maintain collective use of allotted lands through informal arrangements. Traditional leaders continued to command respect and authority even when federal agents tried to undermine them. This resistance was not merely passive survival; it was active defense of tribal sovereignty and identity.

The devastating impacts of the allotment policy eventually prompted a significant policy change. In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization ActThe Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 was a law that ended allotment and encouraged tribes to form their own governments with constitutions. (IRA), also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act. This law represented a dramatic reversal of federal policy. The IRA ended allotment, encouraged tribes to adopt written constitutions and form tribal governments, and provided mechanisms for tribes to regain some control over their lands and resources.

Under the IRA, tribes could vote to accept or reject reorganization. Those that accepted could draft constitutions establishing formal governmental structures—typically including tribal councils, courts, and police forces. While this represented a step toward self-governance, the IRA was not without problems. The constitutions were often based on U.S. governmental models and had to be approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Many traditional forms of government—hereditary chiefs, clan systems, consensus decision-making—didn't fit easily into these constitutional frameworks. Some tribes viewed the IRA as another form of federal control rather than true self-determinationSelf-determination is the right and power of a group of people to make their own decisions and govern themselves..

Nevertheless, the IRA marked an important shift. For the first time in decades, federal policy officially recognized that tribes should have the power to govern themselves. The act acknowledged, even if imperfectly, that tribal sovereignty was not something the federal government granted but something it needed to respect. Many tribes used the IRA framework to rebuild their governmental institutions and begin the long process of asserting greater autonomy.

The legacy of the IRA is complex. While it provided tools for tribal self-governance, it also imposed Western governmental structures on communities with very different political traditions. Yet tribes demonstrated remarkable adaptability, taking the IRA's framework and modifying it to reflect their values and needs. This pattern—adapting external structures while maintaining cultural identity—would become a recurring theme in how tribes maintained sovereignty.

The brief period of support for tribal self-governance came to an abrupt end in the 1950s. A new federal policy called terminationTermination was a 1950s policy that ended the federal government's recognition of certain tribes and their sovereignty, attempting to eliminate tribes altogether. sought to end the federal government's recognition of tribal sovereignty altogether. Between 1953 and 1964, Congress terminated more than 100 tribes, ending their status as sovereign nations and their special relationship with the federal government.

Terminated tribes lost their reservation lands, their governmental authority, and federal services including healthcare and education. Tribal members were suddenly subject to state jurisdiction, and their lands were opened to taxation and sale. The policy was justified with claims that it would "free" Native peoples from federal supervision and allow them to become "regular citizens." In reality, termination was economically devastating and culturally destructive.

Alongside termination, the federal government promoted relocationRelocation was a program that encouraged Native Americans to leave their reservations and move to cities to find jobs and assimilate into mainstream society. programs encouraging Native peoples to leave reservations and move to urban areas. The Bureau of Indian Affairs provided one-way tickets and temporary assistance to relocate to cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis. Proponents claimed this would provide economic opportunities. Critics argued—correctly—that it was another attempt to destroy tribal communities and assimilate Native peoples into mainstream American culture.

The termination era demonstrated that tribal sovereignty remained precarious, dependent on federal policy that could change with political winds. Yet once again, Native peoples resisted. Terminated tribes fought for decades to restore their federal recognition. The Menominee of Wisconsin, terminated in 1954, waged a tireless campaign and finally regained federal recognition in 1973. Their struggle inspired other terminated tribes and contributed to the eventual abandonment of termination as official policy. This resistance showed that sovereignty wasn't just a legal status—it was a deeply held identity that survived even government attempts to eliminate it.

By the 1960s and 1970s, Native American activism and broader civil rights movements forced another policy shift. Native activists demanded recognition of treaty rights, an end to termination, and genuine tribal self-determination. In 1970, President Richard Nixon delivered a message to Congress calling for a new era of self-determination without termination. This represented a fundamental change: tribes should control their own affairs without fear of having their sovereignty revoked.

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 put this principle into practice. This landmark legislation allowed tribes to take over the administration of federal programs previously run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes could contract to operate their own schools, health clinics, law enforcement, and social services. Rather than having programs imposed on them, tribes could design and implement programs that reflected their communities' actual needs and values.

This era saw other crucial developments. The Indian Child Welfare Act (1978) gave tribes jurisdiction over child custodyChild custody means the legal responsibility and authority to care for and make decisions about a child. cases involving Native children, addressing the crisis of Native children being removed from their families and placed with non-Native families. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) recognized Native peoples' right to practice traditional religions and access sacred sites. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1988) allowed tribes to operate casinos on reservation lands, providing a crucial source of revenue for economic development and governmental services.

These policies didn't solve all problems—implementation was often incomplete, funding remained inadequate, and legal challenges continued. But they represented a critical shift in federal-tribal relations. For the first time since colonization, official federal policy supported rather than undermined tribal sovereignty. Tribes weren't passive recipients of these changes; their activism, legal victories, and persistent assertion of sovereignty made this era possible.