In a late chapter I promised to submit testimony from those high
in authority, now the highest, showing that among those who had
given the subject the most thoughtful attention, the opinion was
unanimous in favor of the “abolition of the civil Indian agents and
licensed traders,” and the transfer of the Indian Bureau back to
the War Department, where it originally belonged. The question as
to which cabinet minister, the Secretary of War or the Secretary of
the Interior, should retain control of the bureau regulating Indian
affairs, has long been and still is one of unending discussion, and is
of far more importance to the country than the casual observer might
imagine. The army as a unit, and from motives of peace and justice,
favors giving this control to the Secretary of War. Opposed to this
view is a large, powerful, and at times unscrupulous party, many of
whose strongest adherents are dependent upon the fraudulent practices
and profits of which the Indian is the victim for the acquirement of
dishonest wealth--practices and profits which only exist so long as
the Indian Bureau is under the supervision of the Interior Department.
The reasons in favor of the War Department having the control of
the government of the Indians exist at all times. But the struggle
for this control seems to make its appearance, like an epidemic,
at certain periods, and for a brief time will attract considerable
comment and discussion both in and out of Congress, then disappear
from public view. To a candid, impartial mind I believe the reasons
why the Indians should be controlled by the Department of War, the
department which must assume the reins of power when any real control
is exercised, are convincing. It may be asked, Then why, if the
reasons are so convincing, are not proper representations made to
the authorities at Washington and the transfer secured? This inquiry
seems natural enough. But the explanation is sufficiently simple. The
army officers, particularly those stationed on the frontier, have but
little opportunity, even had they the desire, to submit their views
or recommendations to Congress as a body or to members individually.
When impressed with ideas whose adoption is deemed essential to the
Government, the usual and recognized mode of presenting them for
consideration is by written communications forwarded through the
intermediate and superior commanders until laid before the Secretary
of War, by whom, if considered sufficiently important, they are
submitted to the President, and by him to Congress. Having made this
recommendation and furnished the Department with his reasons therefor,
an officer considers that he has discharged his duty in the premises,
and the responsibility of the adoption or rejection of his ideas then
rests with a superior power. Beyond the conscientious discharge of
his duty he has no interest, certainly none of a pecuniary nature,
to serve. In the periodical contests which prevail between the
military and civil aspirants for the control of the Indian Bureau, the
military content themselves as above stated with a brief and unbiassed
presentation of their views, and having submitted their argument to the
proper tribunal, no further steps are taken to influence the decision.
Not so with those advocating the claims of the civil agents and traders
to public recognition. The preponderance of testimony and the best
of the argument rest with the military. But there are many ways of
illustrating that the battle is not always to the strong nor the race
to the swift. The ways of Congress are sometimes peculiar--not to
employ a more expressive term.
Under the Constitution of the United States there are but two houses
of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and most
people residing within the jurisdiction of its laws suppose this to
be the extent of the legislative body; but to those acquainted with
the internal working of that important branch of the Government, there
is still a third house of Congress, better known as the lobby. True,
its existence is neither provided for nor recognized by law; yet it
exists nevertheless, and so powerful, although somewhat hidden, is its
influence upon the other branches of Congress, that almost any measure
it is interested in becomes a law. It is somewhat remarkable that those
measures which are plainly intended to promote the public interests are
seldom agitated or advocated in the third house, while those measures
of doubtful propriety or honesty usually secure the almost undivided
support of the lobby. There are few prominent questions connected
with the feeble policy of the Government which can and do assemble
so powerful and determined a lobby as a proposed interference with
the system of civilian superintendents, agents, and traders for the
Indians. Let but some member of Congress propose to inquire into the
workings of the management of the Indians, or propose a transfer of
the bureau to the War Department, and the leaders of the combination
opposed raise a cry which is as effective in rallying their supporters
as was the signal of Roderick Dhu. From almost every State and
territory the retainers of the bureau flock to the national capital.
Why this rallying of the clans? Is there any principle involved? With
the few, yes; with the many, no. Then what is the mighty influence
which brings together this hungry host? Why this determined opposition
to any interference with the management of the Indians? I remember
making this inquiry years ago, and the answer then, which is equally
applicable now, was: “There is too much money in the Indian question
to allow it to pass into other hands.” This I believe to be the true
solution of our difficulties with the Indians at the present day. It
seems almost incredible that a policy which is claimed and represented
to be based on sympathy for the red man and a desire to secure to him
his rights, is shaped in reality and manipulated behind the scenes with
the distinct and sole object of reaping a rich harvest by plundering
both the Government and the Indians. To do away with the vast army of
agents, traders, and civilian employees which is a necessary appendage
of the civilian policy, would be to deprive many members of Congress
of a vast deal of patronage which they now enjoy. There are few, if
any, more comfortable or desirable places of disposing of a friend who
has rendered valuable political service or electioneering aid, than to
secure for him the appointment of Indian agent. The salary of an agent
is comparatively small. Men without means, however, eagerly accept
the position; and in a few years, at furthest, they almost invariably
retire in wealth. Who ever heard of a retired Indian agent or trader
in limited circumstances? How do they realize fortunes upon so small a
salary? In the disposition of the annuities provided for the Indians
by the Government, the agent is usually the distributing medium.
Between himself and the Indian there is no system of accountability, no
vouchers given or received, no books kept, in fact no record except the
statement which the agent chooses to forward to his superintendent.
The Indian has no means of knowing how much in value or how many
presents of any particular kind the Government, the “Great Father”
as he terms it, has sent him. For knowledge on this point he must
accept the statement of the agent. The goods sent by the Government are
generally those which would most please an Indian’s fancy. The Indian
trader usually keeps goods of a similar character. The trader is most
frequently a particular friend of the agent, often associated with him
in business, and in many instances holds his position of trader at the
instance of the agent. They are always located near each other. The
trader is usually present at the distribution of annuities. If the
agent, instead of distributing to the Indians all of the goods intended
for them by the Government, only distributes one half and retains the
other half, who is to be the wiser? Not the Indian, defrauded though
he may be, for he is ignorant of how much is coming to him. The word
of the agent is his only guide. He may complain a little, express some
disappointment at the limited amount of presents, and intimate that the
“Great Father” has dealt out the annuities with a sparing hand; but the
agent explains it by referring to some depredations which he knows the
tribe to have been guilty of in times past; or if he is not aware of
any particular instance of guilt, he charges them generally with having
committed such acts, knowing one can scarcely go amiss in accusing
a tribe of occasionally slaying a white man, and ends up his charge
by informing them that the “Great Father,” learning of these little
irregularities in their conduct and being pained greatly thereat, felt
compelled to reduce their allowance of blankets, sugar, coffee, etc.,
when at the same time the missing portion of said allowance is safely
secured in the storehouse of the agent near by. Well, but how can he
enrich himself in this manner? it may be asked. By simply, and unseen
by the Indians, transferring the unissued portion of the annuities from
his government storehouse to the trading establishment of his friend
the trader. There the boxes are unpacked and their contents spread out
for barter with the Indians. The latter, in gratifying their wants,
are forced to purchase from the trader at prices which are scores of
times the value of the article offered. I have seen Indians dispose
of buffalo robes to traders, which were worth from fifteen to twenty
dollars each, and get in return only ten to twenty cups of brown sugar,
the entire value of which did not exceed two or three dollars. This
is one of the many ways agents and traders have of amassing sudden
wealth. I have known the head chiefs of a tribe to rise in a council in
the presence of other chiefs and of officers of the army, and accuse
his agent, then present, of these or similar dishonest practices. Is
it to be wondered at that the position of agent or trader among the
Indians is greatly sought after by men determined to become rich, but
not particular as to the manner of doing so? Or is it to be wondered
at that army officers, who are often made aware of the injustice done
the Indian yet are powerless to prevent it, and who trace many of
our difficulties with the Indians to these causes, should urge the
abolishment of a system which has proven itself so fruitful in fraud
and dishonest dealing toward those whose interests it should be their
duty to protect?
In offering the testimony which follows, and which to those at all
interested in the subject of our dealings with the Indian must have no
little weight, I have given that of men whose interest in the matter
could only spring from experience and a supposed thorough knowledge
of the Indian character, and a desire to do justice to him as well as
to the Government. At the present writing a heavy cloud portending
a general Indian war along our entire frontier, from the British
possessions on the north to the Mexican border on the south, hangs
threateningly over us. Whether it will really result in war or in
isolated acts of barbarity remains to be seen. But enough is known to
prove that the day has not yet arrived when the lawless savage of the
plains is prepared or willing to abandon his favorite pastime of war
and depredation upon the defenceless frontier, and instead to settle
quietly down and study the arts and callings of a quiet and peaceful
life. It is impossible for the Indian to comprehend the force of any
law or regulation which is not backed up by a power sufficiently strong
to compel its observance. This is not surprising, as a large proportion
of their white brethren are equally obtuse. Lieutenant-General
Sheridan showed his thorough appreciation of the Indian character,
in an endorsement recently written by him upon a complaint relating
to Indian depredations, forwarded from one of his subordinates to
the War Department. General Sheridan writes, “We can never stop the
wild Indians from murdering and stealing until we punish them. If a
white man in this country commits a murder, we hang him; if he steals
a horse, we put him in the penitentiary. If an Indian commits these
crimes, we give him better fare and more blankets. I think I may say
with reason, that under this policy the civilization of the wild red
man will progress slowly.”
As might naturally be expected, a massacre like that at Fort Phil
Kearny, in which ninety-one enlisted men and three officers were
slain outright, and no one left to tell the tale, excited discussion
and comment throughout the land, and raised inquiry as to who was
responsible for this lamentable affair. The military laid the blame
at the door of the Indian Bureau with its host of civil agents and
traders, and accused the latter of supplying the Indians with the arms
and ammunition which were afterward turned against the whites. The
supporters of the Indian Bureau not only did not deny the accusation,
but went so far as to claim that all our difficulties with the Indians
could be traced to the fact that the military commanders, particularly
Generals Hancock and Cooke, had forbidden the traders from furnishing
the Indians with arms and ammunition. This was the official statement
of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in the spring of 1867. It was
rather a queer complaint upon which to justify a war that, because the
Government would not furnish the savages with implements for murdering
its subjects in approved modern method, these same savages would
therefore be reluctantly forced to murder and scalp such settlers and
travellers as fell in their paths, in the old-fashioned tomahawk, bow
and arrow style. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his report to
the Secretary of the Interior in the spring of 1867, labored hard to
find a justification for the Indians in their recent outbreak at Fort
Phil Kearny. The withholding of arms and ammunition from the Indians
seemed to be the principal grievance. As the views of the Commissioner
find many supporters in quarters remote from the scene of Indian
depredations, and among persons who still cling to the traditionary
Indian, as wrought by the pen of Cooper, as their ideal red man, I
quote the Commissioner’s words: “An order issued by General Cooke at
Omaha on the 31st of July last, in relation to arms and ammunition, has
had a very bad effect. I am satisfied that such orders are not only
unwise but really cruel, and therefore calculated to produce the very
worst effect. Indians are men, and when hungry will like others resort
to any means to obtain food; and as the chase is their only means of
subsistence, if you deprive them of the power of procuring it, you
certainly produce great dissatisfaction. If it were true that arms and
ammunition could be accumulated by them to war against us, it would
certainly be unwise to give it to them, but this is not the fact. No
Indian will buy two guns. One he absolutely needs; and as he has no
means of taking care of powder, he necessarily will take, when offered
to him, but a very limited quantity. It is true that formerly they
hunted with bows and arrows, killing buffalo, antelope, and deer with
the same; but to hunt successfully with bow and arrows requires horses,
and as the valleys of that country are now more or less filled with
white men prospecting for gold and silver, their means of subsisting
their horses have passed away, and they now have but few horses. I
mention these facts so as to place before the country, as briefly as
possible, the condition as well as the wants of the Indians.”
Unfortunately for the Commissioner, his premises were entirely wrong,
and his conclusions necessarily so. It is a difficult task to prove
that men whose habits, instincts, and training incline them to deeds
of murder, will be less apt to commit those deeds, provided we place
in their hands every implement and facility for their commission;
yet such in effect was the reasoning of the Commissioner. Where or
from whom he could have obtained the opinions he expressed, it is
difficult to understand. He certainly derived no such ideas from a
personal knowledge of the Indians themselves. How well his statements
bear examination: “If it were true that arms and ammunition could be
accumulated by them to war against us, it would certainly be worse to
give it to them, but this is not the fact. No Indian will buy two guns.”
On the contrary, every person at all familiar with the conduct of the
Indians knows that there is no plan or idea which they study more
persistently than that of accumulating arms and ammunition, and in the
successful execution of this plan they have collected, and are to-day
collecting arms and ammunition of the latest and most approved pattern.
This supply of arms and ammunition is not obtained for purposes of
hunting, for no matter how bountifully the Indian may be supplied with
firearms, his favorite and most successful mode of killing the buffalo,
his principal article of food, is with the bow and arrow. It is, at
the same time, the most economical mode, as the arrows, after being
lodged in the bodies of the buffalo, may be recovered unimpaired, and
be used repeatedly. “No Indian will buy two guns!” If the honorable
Commissioner had added the words, provided he can steal them, his
statement would be heartily concurred in. From a knowledge of the
facts, I venture the assertion that there is scarcely an Indian on
the plains, no matter how fully armed and equipped, but will gladly
barter almost anything he owns, of proper value, in exchange for good
arms and ammunition. Even if his personal wants in this respect are
satisfied, the Indian is too shrewd at driving a bargain to throw away
any opportunity of possessing himself of arms or ammunition, as among
his comrades he is aware that no other articles of trade command the
prices that are paid for implements of war. An Indian may not desire
two guns for his own use, but he will buy or procure one gun and one
or more revolvers as a part of his equipment for war, and there are
few of the chiefs and warriors of the plains who to-day are not the
possessors of at least one breech-loading rifle or carbine, and from
one to two revolvers. This can be vouched for by any officer who has
been brought in contact with the hostile Indians of late years. As to
the Indian not having proper means to take care of his ammunition,
experience has shown that when he goes into action he carries a
greater number of rounds of ammunition than do our soldiers, and in
time of peace he exercises far better care of his supply than do our
men. The army declared itself almost unanimously against the issue
of arms to the Indians, while the traders, who were looking to the
profits, and others of the Indian Bureau, proclaimed loudly in favor
of the issue, unlimited and unrestrained. General Hancock, commanding
at that time one of the most important and extensive of the Indian
departments, issued orders to his subordinates throughout the Indian
country, similar to the order referred to of General Cooke. The order
simply required post commanders and other officers to prevent the
issue or sale of arms and ammunition to any Indians of the plains.
As we were then engaged in hostilities with nearly all the tribes,
it would have been simply assisting our enemies not to adopt this
course. A spontaneous outcry came from the traders who were to be
affected by this order--an outcry that did not cease until it resounded
in Washington. General Hancock reported his action in the matter to
his next superior officer, at that time Lieutenant-General Sherman.
General Sherman at once sent the following letter to General Hancock,
emphatically approving the course of the latter, and reiterating the
order:
HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSOURI,
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, January 26, 1867.
GENERAL: I have this moment received your letter of January 22,
about the sale of arms and ammunition to Indians by traders and
agents. We, the military, are held responsible for the peace of the
frontier, and it is an absurdity to attempt it if Indian agents
and traders can legalize and encourage so dangerous a traffic. I
regard the paper enclosed, addressed to Mr. D. A. Butterfield, and
signed by Charles Bogy, W. R. Irwin, J. H. Leavenworth, and others,
as an outrage upon our rights and supervision of the matter, and
I now authorize you to disregard that paper, and at once stop the
practice, keeping the issues and sales of arms and ammunition under
the rigid control and supervision of the commanding officers of the
posts and districts near which the Indians are.
If the Indian agents may, without limit, supply the Indians with
arms, I would not expose our troops and trains to them at all, but
would withdraw our soldiers, who already have a herculean task on
their hands.
This order is made for this immediate time, but I will, with all
expedition, send these papers with a copy of this, to General
Grant, in the hope that he will lay it before the President, who
alone can control both War and Indian Departments, under whom, at
present, this mixed control of the Indian question now rests in law
and practice.
Your obedient servant,
W. T. SHERMAN, Lieutenant-General Commanding.
General W. S. HANCOCK, commanding Department of the Missouri.
This was before the peace policy had become supreme, or the appointment
of agents from the Society of Friends had been discovered as a supposed
panacea for all our Indian difficulties.
General Sherman, as stated in his letter, forwarded all the papers
relating to the arms question to the headquarters of the army. General
Grant, then in command of the army, forwarded them to the Secretary of
War, accompanied by the following letter, which clearly expresses the
views he then held:
HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 1, 1867.
SIR: The enclosed papers, just received from General Sherman, are
respectfully forwarded, and your special attention invited. They
show the urgent necessity for an immediate transfer of the Indian
Bureau to the War Department, and the abolition of the civil agents
and licensed traders. If the present practice is to be continued,
I do not see that any course is left open to us but to withdraw
our troops to the settlements and call upon Congress to provide
means and troops to carry on formidable hostilities against the
Indians, until all the Indians or all the whites on the great
plains, and between the settlements on the Missouri and the Pacific
slope, are exterminated. The course General Sherman has pursued in
this matter, in disregarding the permits of Mr. Bogy and others,
is just right. I will instruct him to enforce his order until
it is countermanded by the President or yourself. I would also
respectfully ask that this matter be placed before the President,
and his disapproval of licensing the sale of arms to Indians asked.
We have treaties with all tribes of Indians from time to time.
If the rule is to be followed that all tribes with which we have
treaties, and pay annuities, can procure such articles without
stint or limit, it will not be long before the matter becomes
perfectly understood by the Indians, and they avail themselves of
it to equip themselves for war. They will get the arms either by
making treaties themselves or through tribes who have such treaties.
I would respectfully recommend that copies of the enclosed
communications be furnished to the Military Committee of each house
of Congress.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
U. S. GRANT, General.
Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
In response to a request from General Grant to furnish the Department
with a statement of his views on the question of a transfer of the
Indian Bureau from the Interior to the War Department, General John
Pope, whose great experience among and knowledge of the Indians of
the plains eminently qualified him to judge of the real merits of the
question, wrote an able letter, briefly stating the prominent reasons
favoring the proposed change. As the question of the transfer of the
Indian Bureau from the control of the Interior to that of the War
Department is constantly being brought up, and after the failure of
the present policy is most likely to be raised again, the arguments
advanced by General Pope, being those generally maintained by the army,
and still having full force, are here given:
WASHINGTON, D. C., January 25, 1867.
GENERAL: In compliance with your suggestions, I have the honor to
submit the following leading reasons why the Indian Bureau should
be retransferred to the War Department. The views which I shall
submit are by no means original, but are well-settled opinions of
every officer of the army who has had experience on the subject,
and are and have been entertained for years by nearly every citizen
of the territories not directly or indirectly connected with the
present system of Indian management.
Under present circumstances there is a divided jurisdiction
over Indian affairs. While the Indians are officially at peace,
according to treaties negotiated with them by the civil officers
of the Indian Bureau, the military forces stationed in the Indian
country have no jurisdiction over the Indians, and of consequence
no certain knowledge of their feelings or purposes, and no power
to take any action, either of a precautionary or aggressive
character. The first that is known of Indian hostilities is a
sudden report that the Indians have commenced a war, and have
devastated many miles of settlements or massacred parties of
emigrants or travellers. By the time such information reaches
the military commander, the worst has been accomplished, and the
Indians have escaped from the scene of outrage. Nothing is left
to the military except pursuit, and generally unavailing pursuit.
The Indian agents are careful never to locate their agencies at
the military posts, for reasons very well understood. It is not in
human nature that two sets of officials, responsible to different
heads, and not in accord either in opinion or purpose, should act
together harmoniously; and instead of combined, there is very
certain to be conflicting action. The results are what might be
expected. It would be far better to devolve the whole management of
Indian affairs upon one or the other department, so as to secure
at least consistent and uniform policy. At war the Indians are
under the control of the military, at peace under the control of
the civil officers. Exactly what constitutes Indian hostilities is
not agreed on; and, besides this, as soon as the military forces,
after a hard campaign, conducted with great hardship and at large
expense, have succeeded in forcing the Indians into such a position
that punishment is possible, the Indian, seeing the result and
the impossibility of avoiding it, immediately proclaims his wish
to make peace. The Indian agent, anxious, for manifest reasons,
to negotiate a treaty, at once interferes “to protect” (as he
expresses it) the Indians from the troops, and arrests the further
prosecution of the military expedition just at the moment when
results are to be obtained by it, and the whole labor and cost of
the campaign are lost. The Indian makes a treaty to avoid immediate
danger by the troops, without the slightest purpose of keeping it,
and the agent knows very well that the Indian does not intend to
observe it. While the army is fighting the Indians at one end of
the line, Indian agents are making treaties and furnishing supplies
at the other end, which supplies are at once used to keep up the
conflict. With this divided jurisdiction and responsibility it is
impossible to avoid these unfortunate transactions. If the Indian
department, as at present constituted, were given sole jurisdiction
of the Indians, and the troops removed, it is certain that a
better condition of things would be obtained than now exists,
since the whole responsibility of Indian wars, and their results
to unprotected citizens, would belong to the Indian Bureau alone,
without the power of shifting the responsibility of consequences
upon others. The military officer is the representative of force,
a logic which the Indian understands, and with which he does
not invest the Indian agent. It is a fact which can be easily
authenticated, that the Indians, in mass, prefer to deal entirely
with military commanders, and would unanimously vote for the
transfer of the Indian department to the War Department. In this
they are mainly influenced by the knowledge that they can rely upon
what the military commander tells or promises them, as they see he
has power to fulfil his promise.
The first and great interest of the army officer is to preserve
peace with the Indians. His home during his life is to be at some
military post in the Indian country, and aside from the obligations
of duty, his own comfort and quiet, and the possibility of escaping
arduous and harassing field service against Indians at all seasons
of the year, accompanied by frequent changes of station, which
render it impossible for him to have his family with him, render
a state of peace with Indians the most desirable of all things to
him. He therefore omits no proper precautions, and does not fail
to use all proper means, by just treatment, honest distribution of
annuities, and fair dealing, to secure quiet and friendly relations
with the Indian tribes in his neighborhood. His honest distribution
of the annuities appropriated to the Indians is further secured by
his life commission in the army, and the odium which would blast
his life and character by any dishonest act. If dismissed from
the service for such malfeasance, he would be publicly branded
by his own profession, and would be powerless to attribute his
removal from office to any but the true cause. The Indian agent,
on the other hand, accepts his office for a limited time and for
a specific purpose, and he finds it easy when he has secured his
ends (the rapid acquisition of money) to account for his removal
from office on political grounds or the personal enmity of some
other official of his department superior in rank to himself. The
eagerness to secure an appointment as Indian agent, on a small
salary, manifested by many persons of superior ability, ought of
itself to be a warning to Congress as to the objects sought by
it. It is a common saying in the West that next to, if not indeed
before, the consulship to Liverpool, an Indian agency is the
most desirable office in the gift of the Government. Of course
the more treaties an Indian agent can negotiate, the larger the
appropriation of money and goods which passes through his hands,
and the more valuable his office. An Indian war on every other day,
with treaty-making on intermediate days, would be therefore the
condition of affairs most satisfactory to such Indian agents. I by
no means say that all Indian agents are dishonest. In truth I know
some who are very sincere and honorable men, who try to administer
their offices with fidelity to the Government; but that the mass
of Indian agents on the frontier are true only to their personal
and pecuniary interests, I am very sure no one familiar with the
subject will dispute. I repeat, then, that a condition of peace
with the Indians is above all things desirable to the military
officer stationed in their country: something very like the reverse
to the Indian agent.
The transfer of the Indian Bureau to the War Department would at
once eliminate from our Indian system the formidable army of Indian
superintendents, agents, sub-agents, special agents, jobbers,
contractors, and hangers-on, who now infest the frontier States and
territories, and save to the Government annually a sum of money
which I will not venture to estimate. The army officers detailed
to perform duty in their places would receive no compensation
in addition to their army pay. Previous to the creation of the
Interior Department and the transfer of the Indian Bureau to that
department, army officers performed well and honestly the duties
of Indian agents, and it is only necessary to refer to our past
history to demonstrate that our relations at that time with the
Indians were far more friendly and satisfactory than they have
been since.... The military are absolutely necessary in the Indian
country to protect the lives and property of our citizens. Indian
agents and superintendents are not necessary, since their duties
have been and can still be faithfully and efficiently performed
by the army officers stationed with the troops. Harmonious and
concerted action can never be secured while both parties are
retained. The military are necessary--the civil officers are not;
and as it is essential that the one or the other be displaced,
I cannot see what doubt exists as to which party must give way.
These are only the general reasons for the retransfer of the
Indian Bureau to the War Department--reasons which are well
understood by every one familiar with the subject.... In order
that any policy whatever may be consistently and efficiently
pursued, a change in our present administration of Indian affairs
is absolutely essential. The retransfer of the Indian Bureau to
the War Department is believed to be the first step toward a
reformation, and until that step is taken it is useless to expect
any improvement in the present condition of our Indian relations.
I am, General, respectfully your obedient servant,
JOHN POPE, Brevet Major-General U. S. Army.
GENERAL U. S. GRANT, General-in-Chief, Washington, D. C.
General Grant was at that time so impressed with the importance of
General Pope’s letter that he forwarded it to the Secretary of War,
with the request that it might be laid before both branches of Congress.
It might be urged that the above letters and statements are furnished
by officers of the army, who are exponents of but one side of the
question. Fortunately it is possible to go outside the military circle
and introduce testimony which should be considered impartial and free
from bias. At this particular period in the discussion of the Indian
question, Colonel E. S. Parker, a highly educated and thoroughly
cultivated gentleman, was asked to submit a plan for the establishment
of a permanent and perpetual peace, and for settling all matters of
difference between the United States and the various Indian tribes.
Colonel Parker is well known as a distinguished chief of the once
powerful Six Nations, and since the time referred to has been better
known as Commissioner of Indian Affairs during the early part of
the present administration. Being an Indian, his sympathies must
be supposed to have been on the side of his own people, and in
his endeavor to establish a permanent peace he would recommend no
conditions prejudicial or unjust to their interests. He recommended:
“First, the transfer of the Indian Bureau from the Interior Department
back to the War Department, or military branch of the Government, where
it originally belonged, until within the last few years. The condition
and disposition of all the Indians west of the Mississippi river, as
developed in consequence of the great and rapid influx of immigration
by reason of the discovery of the precious metals throughout the entire
West, renders it of the utmost importance that military supervision
should be extended over the Indians. Treaties have been made with a
very large number of the tribes, and generally reservations have been
provided as homes for them. Agents, appointed from civil life, have
generally been provided to protect their lives and property, and to
attend to the prompt and faithful observance of treaty stipulations.
But as the hardy pioneer and adventurous miner advanced into the
inhospitable regions occupied by the Indians, in search of the precious
metals, they found no rights possessed by the Indians that they were
bound to respect. The faith of treaties solemnly entered into was
totally disregarded, and Indian territory wantonly violated. If any
tribe remonstrated against the violation of their natural and treaty
rights, members of the tribe were inhumanly shot down, and the whole
treated as mere dogs. Retaliation generally followed, and bloody
Indian wars have been the consequence, costing many lives and much
treasure. In all troubles arising in this manner, the civil agents
have been totally powerless to avert the consequences, and when too
late the military have been called in to protect the whites and punish
the Indians, when if, in the beginning, the military had had the
supervision of the Indians, their rights would not have been improperly
molested, or if disturbed in their quietude by any lawless whites, a
prompt and summary check to any further aggression could have been
given. In cases where the Government promises the Indians the quiet
and peaceable possession of a reservation, and precious metals are
discovered or found to exist upon it, the military alone can give the
Indians the needed protection, and keep the adventurous miner from
encroaching upon the Indians until the Government has come to some
understanding with them. In such cases the civil agent is absolutely
powerless.
“Most of the Indian treaties contain stipulations for the payment to
Indians of annuities, either in money or goods, or both, and agents
are appointed to make these payments whenever Government furnishes
them the means. I know of no reason why officers of the army could not
make all these payments as well as civilians. The expense of agencies
would be saved, and I think the Indians would be more honestly dealt
by. An officer’s honor and interest are at stake, which impels him to
discharge his duty honestly and faithfully, while civil agents have
none of these incentives, the ruling passion with them being generally
to avoid all trouble and responsibility and to make as much money
as possible out of their offices. In the retransfer of this bureau,
I would provide for the complete abolishment of the system of Indian
traders, which in my opinion, is a great evil to Indian communities.
I would make Government the purchaser of all articles usually brought
in by Indians, giving them a fair equivalent for the same in money,
or goods at cost prices. In this way it would be an easy matter to
regulate the sale or issue of arms and ammunition to Indians, a
question which of late has agitated the minds of the civil and military
authorities. If the entry of large numbers of Indians to any military
post is objectionable, it can easily be arranged that only limited
numbers shall be admitted daily.”
Colonel Parker next quotes from messages of Washington and Jefferson,
showing that they had favored the exclusion of civil agents and
traders. His recommendation then proceeds: “It is greatly to be
regretted that this beneficent and humane policy had not been adhered
to, for it is a fact not to be denied, that at this day Indian trading
licenses are very much sought after, and when once obtained, although
it may be for a limited period, the lucky possessor is considered as
having already made his fortune. The eagerness also with which Indian
agencies are sought after, and large fortunes made by the agents in a
few years, notwithstanding the inadequate salary given, is presumptive
evidence of frauds against the Indians and the Government. Many other
reasons might be suggested why the Indian department should altogether
be under military control, but a familiar knowledge of the practical
working of the present system would seem to be the most convincing
proof of the propriety of the measure. It is pretty generally advocated
by those most familiar with our Indian relations, and, so far as I
know, the Indians themselves desire it. Civil officers are not usually
respected by the tribes, but they fear and regard the military, and
will submit to their counsels, advice, and dictation, when they would
not listen to a civil agent.”
In discussing the establishment of reservations, and the locating of
the Indians upon them, Colonel Parker says: “It may be imagined that
a serious obstacle would be presented to the removal of the Indians
from their homes on account of the love they bear for the graves of
their ancestors. This, indeed, would be the least and last objection
that would be raised by any tribe. Much is said in the books about the
reverence paid by Indians to the dead, and their antipathy to deserting
their ancestral graves. Whatever may have been the customs for the dead
in ages gone by, and whatever pilgrimages may have been made to the
graves of their loved and distinguished dead, none of any consequence
exist at the present day. They leave their dead without any painful
regrets, or the shedding of tears. And how could it be otherwise with
a people who have such indefinite and vague ideas of a future state of
existence? And to my mind it is unnatural to assume or suppose that the
wild or untutored Indian can have more attachment for his home, or love
for the graves of his ancestors, than the civilized and enlightened
Christian.”
I regret that I cannot, in this brief space, give all the suggestions
and recommendations submitted by this eminent representative of the red
man, displaying as they do sound judgment and thorough mastery of his
subject. In regard to the expense of his plan he says: “I believe it to
be more economical than any other plan that could be suggested. A whole
army of Indian agents, traders, contractors, jobbers, and hangers-on
would be dispensed with, and from them would come the strongest
opposition to the adoption of this plan, as it would effectually close
to them the corrupt sources of their wealth.”
General Grant, then commanding the army, must have approved at that
time of the views of the distinguished Indian; for a few years later,
on entering upon the duties of President of the United States, he
appointed him Commissioner of Indian Affairs, thus giving Colonel
Parker an opportunity to inaugurate the system which he had urged
as being most conducive to the welfare of his people and tending to
restrain them from acts of war. The influences brought to bear by the
exponents of the peace policy, as it was termed, were too powerful
to be successfully resisted, and Colonel Parker felt himself forced
to resign his position, for the reason, as stated by him, that the
influences operating against him were so great that he was unable to
give effect to the principles which he believed should prevail in
administering the affairs of his important bureau.
The latter part of the summer and fall of 1867 was not characterized
by active operations either upon the part of the troops or that of the
Indians. A general council of all the tribes infesting the southern
plains was called to assemble on “Medicine Lodge creek.” This council
was called in furtherance of a plan of pacification proposed by
Congress with a view to uniting and locating all the tribes referred to
on a reservation to be agreed upon. Congress provided that the tribes
invited to the council should be met by a peace commission on the part
of the Government, composed of members of each house of Congress,
distinguished civilians, and officers of the army of high rank. At this
council all the southern tribes assembled; presents in profusion were
distributed among the Indians, the rule of distribution, I believe,
being as usual that the worst Indians received the greatest number of
valuable presents; an agreement was entered into between the Indians
and the representatives of the Government; reservations embracing a
large extent of the finest portions of the public lands were fixed
upon, to the apparent satisfaction of all concerned, and the promise of
the Indians to occupy them and to keep away from the settlements and
lines of travel was made without hesitation. This was the beginning of
the promised era of peace. The lion and the lamb had agreed to lie down
together, but the sequel proved that when they got up again “the lamb
was missing.”