A TRAGEDY IN OKLAHOMA, AND THE OSAGE TODAY
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
April 30, 2017


“WHO KNOWS WHAT EVIL LURKS IN THE HEARTS OF MEN? THE SHADOW KNOWS.” THE OSAGE MURDERS, THREE ARTICLES, ONE VIDEO -- EVENTS AND LEGAL ISSUES. FOR CBS SUNDAY MORNING VIDEO, SEE LAST STORY BELOW. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF THE OSAGE NATION TODAY WOULD FILE SUIT AGAINST EVERYONE FROM THE LOCALS WHO PROFITED, THE FBI WHO SEEMINGLY DIDN’T DO THE WHOLE JOB IN THEIR INVESTIGATION, THE OIL COMPANIES WHO ALMOST CERTAINLY ALSO PROFITED, TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH CONTINUES TO VIEW AND TREAT NATIVE AMERICANS AS DISTINCTLY INFERIOR, AS THEY – WE – DO THE BLACKS. WE MUST GET THE LAWS THAT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE UNTIL TODAY CHANGED OR ELIMINATED ENTIRELY. ALL THE ARTICLES BELOW PRESENT A PIECE OF THE PICTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED AS THE EVIL SYSTEM WHICH IT IS. KILLING PEOPLE FOR MONEY AND BECAUSE THEY AREN’T WHITE MUST BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BREAKING A TREATY WITH THE INDIAN NATIONS AFTER NEARLY EXTERMINATING THEM, SURELY IS. THIS, TO ME, IS TRULY A STORY OF THE EVIL SIDE OF THE "WHITE MAN'S BURDEN" PHILOSOPHY.


“They bought cars and built mansions; they made so much oil money that the government began appointing white guardians to "help" them spend it.”

NPR, www.npr.org/2017/04/17, Steve Inskeep.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/white+man%27s+burden –

“white man's burden”
n.
The supposed or presumed responsibility of white people to govern and impart their culture to nonwhite people, often advanced as a justification for European colonialism.

[From "The White Man's Burden," a poem by Rudyard Kipling.]



1921 AND FOLLOWING


http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/author-in-stl-to-discuss-osage-indian-murders-of-s/article_7075930c-87a1-5d1f-af36-c2546bcba2d2.html
Author in STL to discuss Osage Indian murders of 1920s
By Joe Holleman St. Louis Post-Dispatch Apr 28, 2017

Photograph – David R. Francis, Missouri History Museum
Photograph – Joe Holleman

Author David Grann will be in STL on Wednesday to discuss his latest book, "Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI."

The book examines the systematic murder in the 1920s of the oil-rich Osage Indians, crimes that helped push the fledgling Federal Bureau of Investigation into national prominence.

The crimes, Grann and other historians contend, ultimately may have been aided by a land-division policy that legendary St. Louis politico David Francis supported.

The policy took tribal land and divided it up among individual families, which made each family more susceptible to intimidation.



http://www.npr.org/2017/04/17/523964584/in-the-1920s-a-community-conspired-to-kill-native-americans-for-their-oil-money
In The 1920s, A Community Conspired To Kill Native Americans For Their Oil Money
April 17, 20174:44 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
Steve Inskeep

Photograph -- Ernest and Mollie Burkhart married in 1917. Unbeknownst to Mollie, a member of the Osage tribe, the marriage was part of a larger plot to steal her family's oil wealth. Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoman Collection/Courtesy of Doubleday
RELATED: Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI,
by David Grann; Hardcover, 338 pages purchase


Generations ago, the American Indian Osage tribe was compelled to move. Not for the first time, white settlers pushed them off their land in the 1800s. They made their new home in a rocky, infertile area in northeast Oklahoma in hopes that settlers would finally leave them alone.

As it turned out, the land they had chosen was rich in oil, and in the early 20th century, members of the tribe became spectacularly wealthy. They bought cars and built mansions; they made so much oil money that the government began appointing white guardians to "help" them spend it.

Killers of the Flower Moon

And then Osage members started turning up dead.

In his new book, Killers of the Flower Moon, David Grann describes how white people in the area conspired to kill Osage members in order [sic] steal their oil wealth, which could only be passed on through inheritance. "This was a culture of complicity," he says, "and it was allowed to go on for so long because so many people were part of the plot. You had lawmen, you had prosecutors, you had the reporters who wouldn't cover it. You had oilmen who wouldn't speak out. You had morticians who would cover up the murders when they buried the body. You had doctors who helped give poison to people."

Interview Highlights

On how the conspiracy worked

What makes these crimes so sinister is that it involved marrying into families. It involved a level of calculation and a level of betraying the very people you pretended to love. And the way these murders would take place is that people would marry into the families and then begin to kill each member of the family. ... That's exactly what happened to [Osage woman Mollie Burkhart]. She had married a white man, and his uncle was the most powerful settler in the area. He was known as the King of the Osage Hills ... and he had orchestrated a very sinister plot played out over years where he directed his nephew, who had married Mollie Burkhart, to marry her so that he could then begin to kill the family members one by one and siphon off all the wealth.

On how Mollie Burkhart's family was killed

One day in 1921, her older sister disappeared and Mollie looked everywhere for her and couldn't find her. And about a week later, her body was found essentially in a ravine, decomposed. She'd been shot in the back of the head.

Then just a few weeks later, Mollie's mother began to grow increasingly sick. She seemed to be almost disappearing, withering in front of her. And within two months she, too, had died. And evidence later suggested that she had been secretly poisoned.

Not long after that, Mollie was sleeping in her bed in her house with her white husband; they had a couple children. And she heard a loud explosion. She got up in panic and terror. ... She had another sister who lived not far away, and in the area where her sister's house was she could see almost this orange fire ball rising into the sky. It almost looked as if the sun had burst into the night. And her sister's house had been blown up killing that sister as well as her sister's husband and a servant who lived in that house.

Photograph -- Mollie Burkhart (second from right) lost all three of her sisters under suspicious circumstances. Rita Smith (left) died in an explosion, Anna Brown (second from left) was shot in the head and Minnie Smith (right) died of what doctors referred to as a "peculiar wasting illness."
The Osage National Museum/Courtesy of Doubleday

On how far the conspirators went to cover up their crimes

Almost anyone who tried to investigate the killings — or at least stop them in the area — they, too, were killed. One attorney tried to gather evidence and one day he was thrown off a speeding train and all the evidence that he had gathered had disappeared. Another time, an oilman had traveled to Washington, D.C., to try to get help. ... He checked into a boarding house in Washington, D.C. ... He was then found the next day stripped naked. He had been stabbed more than 20 times; his head had been beaten in. The Washington Post at the time said what everyone at that point knew, which was there was a conspiracy to kill rich Indians.

On how authorities reacted to the deaths

It's really important to understand back then that there was so much lawlessness. That was one of the things that shocked me when I began researching the story, that even in the 1920s much of America remained a country that was not fully rooted in its laws. Its legal institutions were very fragile; there was enormous corruption, particularly in this era and in this area. And the conspirators were able to pay off lawmen, they were able to pay off prosecutors. There was so much prejudice that these crimes were neglected.

Mollie Burkhart beseeched the authorities to try to investigate, to get help, but because of prejudice they often ignored the crimes. And she issued money for a reward, she hired private investigators, but the crimes for years remained unsolved, and the body count continued to increase. By 1924 there were at least 24 murders alone. ...

Finally, the Osage, in desperation, they issued a resolution, a tribal resolution, beseeching the federal authorities to help. And finally a then-very obscure branch of the Justice Department intervened. It was known as the Bureau of Investigation and it was what ... would later be renamed the FBI.

On the FBI's investigation

J. Edgar Hoover ... was the new director, and it became one of the FBI's first major homicide cases that it ever dealt with. ... The bureau initially badly bungled the case. ... [Hoover] turned the case over to a frontier lawman at the time who finally put together an undercover team that included ... probably the only American Indian agent in the bureau at the time. They went undercover. ... They were able, through some dogged investigation and at great danger, to eventually capture some of the ringleaders. And those ringleaders included not only Mollie Burkhart's husband, it also included [his] uncle, a man who was seen as this great protector of the community.

On what the FBI missed in their investigation

The bureau was so anxious to wrap up the case that they ignored many, many other unsolved crimes and many, many other killers. ... When you begin to look at the documents and you begin to collect the evidence from the Osage, it becomes abundantly apparent. ...

I pulled some of the guardian papers and there was this little booklet that came out. It had a little fabric cover. All it was was essentially identifying the name of a guardian and which Osage they were in charge of. And when I opened up the book, I could see the name of the guardian and when I began to look at the names of the Osage under them I could see written next to many of them simply the word "Dead. Dead. Dead." It was almost like a ledger; it was like this forensic, bureaucratic accounting.

But when you're looking at it, you're beginning to realize you're looking at hints of a systematic murder campaign, because there's no way all these people died in a span of just a couple years. It defied any natural death rate. The Osage were wealthy, they had good doctors. ... And then when you begin to look into each of those individual cases, you start to find trails of evidence suggesting poisonings, a murder. You start to try to trace the money ... and where the wealth went. And what you begin to discover is something even more horrifying than the bureau ever exposed.

Radio producer Taylor Haney, radio editor Shannon Rhoades and digital producer Nicole Cohen contributed to this story.



THIS AVALON PROJECT LISTING OF TREATIES IS IN CHART FORM, SHOWING DATE, TITLE AND, BY LINKS, TEXT OF THE TREATIES. THIS CHART IS GOOD FOR A QUICK OVERVIEW OR, WITH THE LINKS, FOR A CLOSE STUDY OF THE TREATIES. SEE BELOW.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp
Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans
Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library
THE AVALON PROJECT: Documents In Law, History and Diplomacy




https://iltf.org/land-issues/history/
home / land issues / history

LAND TENURE HISTORY

Key factors that have shaped U.S. Indian policy and led to the fractured state of Indian land tenure in Indian Country today include countless federal laws and legislative acts. Perhaps the single most devastating federal policy was the General Allotment Act of 1887, also called the Dawes Act after Senator Henry Dawes, the Act’s lead proponent.

History of Allotment

The U.S. federal government began the policy of allotting Indian land as early as 1798. Several treaties with Indian tribes included provisions that stated land would be divided among their individual members. After 1871, however, Congress declared that no further treaties would be made and all future dealings with Indians would be conducted through legislation.

Tribe/Reservation Allotment Legislation

While some tribes were allotted under the General Allotment Act of 1887, others were allotted through treaty or tribe-, state-, or reservation-specific legislation. The interactive map above shows each tribe-reservation that was allotted, the specific allotting legislation, and the number of allotments made until 1934 when further allotments were prohibited.

Click on a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) region on the map to access allotment information for a specific tribe or reservation or click on the name of the region below the map.

Why Allotment?

There were several reasons that allotment proponents supported the policy. First, many of them considered the Indian way of life and collective use of land to be communistic and backwards. They also saw the individual ownership of private property as an essential part of civilization that would give Indian people a reason to stay in one place, cultivate land, disregard the cohesiveness of the tribe, and adopt the habits, practices and interests of the American settler population. Furthermore, many thought that Indian people had too much land and they were eager to see Indian lands opened up for settlement as well as for railroads, mining, forestry and other industries.

General Allotment Act of 1887 (Dawes Act)

The Allotment advocates eventually succeeded in convincing the federal government to adopt the policy nationally. In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act, which authorized the president (at the time Grover Cleveland) to survey Indian tribal land and divide the area into allotments for individual Indians and families. The Allotment Act (also known as the Dawes Act, named for Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, the Act’s lead proponent) was applied to reservations whenever, in the president’s opinion, it was advantageous for particular Indian nations. Members of the selected tribe or reservation were either given permission to select pieces of land – usually around 40 to 160 acres in size – for themselves and their children, or the tracts were assigned by the agency superintendent. If the amount of reservation land exceeded the amount needed for allotment, the federal government could negotiate to purchase the land from the tribes and sell it to non-Indian settlers. As a result, 60 million acres were either ceded outright or sold to the government for non-Indian homesteaders and corporations as “surplus lands.”

Although the General Allotment Act was the first major piece of legislation designed to allot Indian reservations across the U.S., many tribes were allotted under special legislation that was unique to their tribe or reservation. These acts usually are similar to the General Allotment Act but often contain special provisions.

grand-rush

[On the “grand rush” go to http://www.histdocs.com/home/productpages/587.php?cat=American%20Indians.”]


Origins of the Trust Relationship

Under the policy of allotment, Indian land ownership was not the same as land ownership for other homesteaders. Non-Indian settlers could sell or alienate their land because they had complete fee simple ownership. Under the General Allotment Act, Indian allottees were declared “incompetent” to handle their land affairs and the United States would retain legal title to the land as trustee for the allottee; Indian allottees only had beneficial or usufruct title. In other words, as long as the allotment was held in trust by the federal government, the Indian landholder could use the land but not sell it or lease it without the federal government’s approval. However, the Act stated that 25 years after the allotment was issued, Indian allottees would be given complete, fee simple ownership of the land. At that point, the landowner could sell or lease it to anyone.

Despite the original safeguards in place to help Indian people retain their land, the General Allotment Act caused Indian land holdings to plunge from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres by 1934 when allotment ended. This happened for several reasons. First, during the allotment of many reservations, the most productive land was identified as “surplus to Indian needs” and sold off to white settlers or business interests. In addition, many Indian people did not become the farmers the U.S. government wanted them to be. The General Allotment Act did not provide for agricultural education or farming equipment. In addition, the allotted land was often inappropriate for agriculture, and for some Indian groups, intensive agriculture was culturally unacceptable. Cut off from their livelihoods and their previous ways of survival, some Indian people sold their land after the 25-year trust period because they had no means of supporting themselves and had nothing else to sell.

Amendments to the General Allotment Act also made it easier for Indian land to pass into non-Indian hands. For example, in 1902 legislation known as the “Dead Indian Act” was passed that allowed Indian landowners to sell lands they inherited even if they were still in trust. In 1906, the Burke Act was passed, which authorized the secretary of the interior to decide whether an Indian person was “competent” to manage his or her lands. If the Indian person was deemed “competent,” the secretary could take the land out of trust and the land would become taxable. The secretary of the interior was authorized to do this with or without the knowledge and/or against the wishes of the allottee. Thus, many Indian people ended up having their land sold in tax forclosure auctions because they owed taxes on land they thought was in trust. With the Act of May 29, 1908, the secretary of the interior was also given power to sell the allotments of deceased Indian landowners if he deemed the heirs incompetent. In the end, 27 million acres of Indian land were lost as a result of these acts.

So much Indian land was passing out of Indian hands that even the U.S. government became alarmed. In 1928, a government report entitled “The Problem of Indian Administration” (also known as the “Merriam Report”) sharply criticized the policy of allotment and the U.S. Indian Service in general. The report provided undeniable evidence of the destructiveness of federal Indian policy and spurred significant changes in the federal administration of Indian affairs.

Allotment Ends, Challenges Remain

In 1934, the Wheeler-Howard Act (also known as the Indian Reorganization Act) was passed ending the process of allotment on Indian lands in the contiguous United States. and ensuring that all remaining trust allotments would stay in trust indefinitely. It did not, however, prevent land from passing out of trust when it was inherited by a non-Indian heir or when an allotment owner petitioned the secretary to terminate the trust status of the allotment or remove restrictions upon alienation. Furthermore, the Act did not change some parts of the General Allotment Act that had made the use of allotments increasingly difficult among Indian people:

Probates still increased fractionation with growing numbers of common interest holders in each allotment

The trust system still kept decision-making authority over the land in the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a distant and paternalistic landlord

Large percentages of reservation land were now held by non-Indians

The inherent sovereignty of Indian nations was limited to those lands held in trust

Allotment not only caused 90 million acres of Indian land to be removed from Indian ownership and control, its impact continues to have serious consequences, such as the increasingly fractionated ownership of Indian land title, checkerboard ownership patterns on many reservations and loss of access to important sacred sites, to name just a few.

The allotment of American Indian reservations was a policy put into effect by many pieces of legislation. This section provides brief summaries of and links to all general allotment legislation, including the General Allotment Act of 1887, its amendments and other related legislation. In addition to legislation that allotted land, also listed is legislation touching on a multitude of issues arising from allotment, such as leasing, the determination of heirs and disposal of allotment lands, the powers of the secretary of the interior over allotment lands, and the determination of Indian “competency.”

Historical Allotment Legislation

dawes_1880_loc The policy of allotment on American Indian reservations was put into effect by many pieces of legislation. This section provides brief summaries of and links to all general allotment legislation, including the General Allotment Act of 1887, its amendments and more recent legislation that impacts Indian land tenure.

“. . . . – DUPLICATION OF PARAGRAPH ABOVE”

Below is a list of relevant historical allotment legislation.

General Allotment Act, Act of Feb. 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 388, ch. 119, 25 USCA 331)

Relevant Provisions: Size of allotments; public domain allotments; trust land; descent and partition; trust funds; rights of way; citizenship; trust periods

Section 1: Authorizes the president to allot tribal lands to individual Indians in designated amounts on reservations created by treaty, act of Congress, or executive order. If a treaty or agreement with a tribe was made earlier and provided for larger allotments to members of that tribe, the president is authorized to allot land according to the treaty or agreement. If the lands are not suitable for farming but appropriate for grazing, the president is authorized to allot sections of land larger than the amounts specified in this section of the General Allotment Act.
Section 2: Provides that the Indian allottees themselves make their own selection of land as to accommodate those who had already made improvements or built upon a piece of land. Indian heads of families are authorized to select allotments for their children and Indian reservation agents are authorized to select land for orphans. This section also authorizes the secretary of interior to direct agents to make allotment selections for individual Indians who fail to select land within four years of the president’s direction to allot the reservation.
Section 3: Stipulates that allotments shall be made by agents, regular and special. Allotments will be certified and certificates duplicated, so that one copy is held by the Indian office, and one copy in the General Land Office.
Section 4: Allows any Indian not residing upon a reservation, or for whose tribe no reservation has been provided, to secure an allotment upon public lands.
Section 5: Provides that after an Indian person is allotted land, the United States will hold the land “in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian” (or his heirs if the Indian landowner dies) for a period of 25 years. (Land held in trust by the United States government cannot be sold or in any way alienated by the Indian landowner, since the United States government considers the underlying ownership of the land held by itself and not the tribe. After the period of trust ends, the Indian landowner is free to sell the land and is free from any encumbrance from the United States.) This section also authorizes the president to extend this period of trust wherever deemed appropriate. This section states further that:
Any contract made that involves the land before the end of the trust period is null and void; after patents have been issued to Indians for their allotments, the laws of descent and partition of the State in which the allotments are located replace tribes’ inheritance laws and are applied to the allotment; and, if there is any land on the reservation that has not been allotted, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to negotiate with the tribe for the purchase of this surplus land by the United States. These purchases have to be ratified by Congress and will be sold to white settlers in tracts not exceeding 160 acres. Money that is earned by selling the land to white settlers is to be held in trust by the government for the sole use of tribes to whom the reservation belonged but subject to appropriation by Congress for the education and civilization of the Indians.

This section also states a hiring preference for Indian people in public service who have followed the provisions of the General Allotment Act and have become citizens of the United States.

Section 6: After allotments have been made, every member of the bands or tribes to whom allotments have been made are subject to laws of the state or territory in which they reside. Every individual Indian who receives trust patents is bestowed with United States citizenship (This section was amended by the Burke Act in 1906).
Section 7: The secretary of the interior is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations for water rights on irrigated lands within the reservation.
Section 8: None of the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Seminoles, Osage, Miamies, Peorias, Sacs and Foxes, in Indian Territory, nor any reservations of the Seneca Nation of New York, nor an executive order reservation in Nebraska, are subject to the provisions of the General Allotment Act.
Section 10: Nothing in the act is to be construed as affecting the right of Congress to grant right of way through lands granted to an Indian person or tribe, or condemn such lands to public uses, upon making just compensation.
Click here for full text in Charles J. Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, produced by Oklahoma State University Library

BETWEEN THE Act of October 19, 1888 (25 Stat. 611) AND THE BURKE ACT OF 1906, ARE SOME 30 OR MORE ACTS, MOSTLY SMALL IN COVERAGE. THE BURKE ACT IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL. A LISTING INCLUDING BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS IS AVAILABLE ON THIS SAME WEBSITE. –
https://iltf.org/land-issues/history/
home / land issues / history.




JUNE 18, 1934, Indian Reorganization Act (current amended version as codified in Title 25)

Relevant Provisions: Trust periods; surplus land; sale of allotments; alienation; public domain allotments; devise and descent; tax exemption; tribal governments

Section 1: Prohibits further allotment of Indian lands on or after June 18, 1934.
Section 2: Extends, until otherwise directed by Congress, existing periods of trust and restrictions on alienation placed on Indian lands.
Section 3: Authorizes the secretary of the interior to restore to tribal ownership the remaining surplus lands of any Indian reservation opened to sale or other disposal provided that the rights or claims of any persons to any lands such on the date of the withdrawal shall not be affected. Contains several provisos pertaining to the Papago Reservation.
Section 4: Prohibits transfers of restricted Indian land, individually-owned or otherwise, except to an Indian tribe. This section also restricts an Indian individual’s testamentary disposition of restricted Indian land to the heirs of the devisee, to members of the tribe having jurisdiction over the land, or to the tribe itself.
Section 5: Authorizes the acquisition of lands, water rights, surface rights, and interests by the U.S. government for Indians and declares that purchased lands shall be tax exempt.
Section 8: Leaves scattered Indian homesteads on the public domain out of the scope of this act.
Section 13: States that: The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any of the Territories, colonies, or insular possessions of the United States, except that sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16, shall apply to the Territory of Alaska: Provided, That Sections 2, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 18 of this Act shall not apply to the following-named Indian tribes, the members of such Indian tribes, together with members of other tribes affiliated with such named tribes located in the State of Oklahoma, as follows Cheyenne, Arapaho, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo, Delaware, Wichita, Osage, Kaw, Otoe, Tonkawa, Pawnee, Ponca, Shawnee, Ottawa, Quapaw, Seneca, Wyandotte, Iowa, Sac and Fox, Kickapoo, Pottawatomi, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. Section 4 of this Act shall not apply to the Indians of the Klamath Reservation in Oregon.
Section 15: Relates to the Sioux Nation.
Section 18: Provides that the act as a whole should not apply to any reservation wherein a majority of tribal members voted against its application.
Click here for full text in Charles J. Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, produced by Oklahoma State University Library

Links to additional resources on the Indian Reorganization Act:

Indian Reorganization Act (current amended version as codified in Title 25)
Indian Reorganization Act (showing all amendatory changes)

. . . .

Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 540)

Relevant Provisions: leasing

Authorizes the secretary of the interior to lease allotted lands for mining purposes where the allottee is deceased and the heirs to or devisees of any interest in the allotment either have not been determined or cannot be located.

Click here for full text in Charles J. Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, produced by Oklahoma State University Library.

Recent Allotment Legislation

The information in this section revolves around the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983 and its amendments. These pieces of legislation are important attempts by the federal government to address the effects of allotment and to prevent the further fractionation of Indian land title.

Below is a list of recent allotment legislation.

Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, Public Law 97-459 (96 Stat. 2517)
Passed Jan. 12, 1983




Hodel V. Irving

Deals with the original section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, which states that undivided fractional interests in allotments that are less than two percent of the total acreage of a tract or earn less than $100 for the owner during the previous year shall revert to the tribe upon the death of the interest owner, regardless of whether the deceased owner made a will and had legal heirs. The Court held that this provision is unconstitutional. View Court Case Link here.


. . . .


1997, Babbitt v. Youpee

The Court held that section 207 of the amended Indian Land Consolidation Act that forced escheat of certain individually-owned Indian property to a tribe is unconstitutional.
Court Case Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com


Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000, Public Law 106-462 (114 Stat. 1992)
Passed Nov. 7, 2000
FOR THE WHOLE TEXT, GO TO WEBSITE.

. . . .

American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004
Passed Oct. 27, 2004

Amends the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) of 1983 and the ILCA amendments of 2000 creates a uniform, federal probate code for all reservations (except Alaska, the Five Civilized Tribes and Osage) across the U.S. Applies to all individually owned trust lands unless a tribe has its own probate code.
Expands tribal authority to draft tribal probate codes which may supersede provisions of the act.
Contains provisions for voluntary and involuntary land consolidations and sales both inside and outside of probate.

. . . .

Court Cases
cobel_court

Elouise Cobell photo courtesy of Indian Country Today.

Listed below are brief summaries of important U.S. Supreme Court cases related to allotment and Indian land tenure. Click on the case name link to read the full text of court decisions after 1893.
. . . .

Charles J. Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties
First People, Native American Indian Agreements and Treaties
The Avalon Project from Yale University Law School
Why Treaties Matter: Dakota and Ojibwe Treaties in Minnesota
Tribe/Reservation Allotment Legislation

. . . .

Click on a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) region on the map to access allotment information for a specific tribe or reservation or click on the name of the region below the map.

Alaska, Navajo, Midwest, Eastern Oklahoma, Southern Plains, Southwest, Western, Pacific Area, Northwest, Rocky Mountain, Eastern, Great Plains
. . . .

Click here to view the American Indian History Timeline. (Please note: Due to its large size, the timeline cannot be printed directly from this website.)




CURRENT LEGAL ISSUES ON LAND ALLOTMENT

https://www.law360.com/articles/779503/the-current-battle-over-native-american-land-allotment
Expert Analysis
The Current Battle Over Native American Land Allotment

April 1, 2016, 4:24 PM EDT
Law360, New York (April 1, 2016, 4:24 PM EDT) --
David C. Smith
Dustin T. Greene

US ASSIMILATIONIST POLICIES, STATE CONDEMNORS

The assimilationist policies of the federal government toward Native Americans initiated in the late 19th century, including the allotment of tribal land, “proved disastrous,”[1] resulting in, among other things, the fractionation of Native American lands. In an effort to ameliorate the effects of this policy, Congress passed the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA).[2] ILCA allows the secretary of the interior to acquire fractional interests in land previously allotted to individual Native Americans, consolidate them at the tribal level and hold them in trust for that tribe’s benefit.[3]

ILCA is increasingly coming in to conflict with efforts by states, local governments and utilities, among others (the “state condemnors”), that wish to condemn Native American lands. When initiating an eminent domain proceeding involving allotted lands the state condemnors typically rely on 25 U.S.C. § 357 which, in some circumstances, permits the condemnation of “[l]ands allotted in severalty to Native Americans.” However, federal law does not permit the condemnation by a state of tribal lands held in trust by the United States absent specific congressional approval.[4] Accordingly, those courts considering the issue have universally held that § 357 does not permit condemnation when a tribe has obtained an interest in those lands as they are no longer allotted to “Native Americans.”[5]

As ILCA has been implemented, and tribes have increased their beneficial ownership of interests in fractionated allotments previously held by individual Native Americans, those attempting to condemn Native American lands have challenged this precedent. They now insist that once lands are allotted they are always allotted for purposes of § 357 despite the subsequent change in beneficial ownership.[6] Thus, the argument goes, even if a tribe acquires an interest in an allotment under ILCA, the allotment remains subject to condemnation under § 357 because it had previously been allotted to individual Native Americans. However, such an interpretation of both § 357 and ILCA ignores basic principles of statutory construction and tribal sovereignty and the fundamental purpose behind enactment of ILCA.

. . . .

Likewise, such an interpretation disregards well accepted canons of statutory construction. First, to the extent there is any ambiguity in § 357, of which there is none, it must be construed in favor of the individual Native Americans and the tribe[15] and any statute purporting to terminate Native American property rights, as the state condemnors seek to do under their interpretation of § 357, must be interpreted narrowly.[16] Secondly, statutes authorizing the condemnation of private lands, generally,[17] and § 357, specifically,[18] must be strictly construed in favor of the owner.

Equally important, in disregarding the beneficial interests of tribes in allotted land so as to permit condemnation under § 357, one would have to ignore the longstanding principle embedded in our Native American law jurisprudence and preexisting the General Allotment Act itself, that tribal lands may not be sold absent approval of the federal government.[19] It would also render largely meaningless Congress’ subsequent enactment of 25 U.S.C. § 324, providing that no right of way across “any lands belonging to a tribe” shall be made without tribal approval.

The state condemnors also cannot avoid the fact that their interpretation of § 357 ignores well established principals of sovereign immunity. While they attempt to limit the inquiry to the original nature of the land over a century ago, they can’t disregard the fact that the condemnation has an immediate effect on the tribal owner which is a necessary party to any such proceeding.[20] They also cannot overcome the fact that there has been no waiver of the tribe’s sovereign immunity by the tribe or Congress.[21]

Finally, such an interpretation of § 357 eviscerates the purpose of ILCA, itself. ILCA was specifically designed to “allow tribes to consolidate their tribal landholdings, reduce the fractionated interests in Native American lands and reduce the further transfer of Native American lands out of Native American ownership.”[22] By consolidating previously unproductive and highly fractionated lands at the tribal level, Congress sought to foster the economic development of tribal communities through the development of industry, recreational facilities and housing.[23] In 2009, the longstanding lawsuit, Cobell v. Salazar, provided significant funding for ILCA so that fractionated interests could be purchased for the benefit of those communities. Nothing could be more inconsistent with that purpose than if state condemnors could then take those lands through a condemnation proceeding and use them for purposes that may be at odds with those of the tribe.

The state condemnors argue that not allowing them to condemn tribal land under § 357 will impede their own development of necessary infrastructure. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Currently under § 357 they may have to deal with hundreds or thousands of individual landowners in seeking to condemn fractionated Native American land under ILCA, many of whom may be difficult to locate. With the consolidation of those interests under ILCA, they may now be able to deal principally with the tribal government. Additionally, many projects such as pipelines and transmission lines involve both land owned solely by the tribe and land held both by the tribe and its members. It is reasonable under those circumstances to negotiate the terms of any rights of way on a unified basis and not seek to condemn some parcels and negotiate rights of ways over others. Furthermore, recognizing tribal ownership through ILCA reduces the workload of the departments of Interior and Justice who must currently handle condemnation proceedings on behalf of the many individual owners of fractionated interests under § 357. Finally, and most importantly, it requires the state condemnors to finally respect tribal nations as independent sovereigns instead of condemning property without regard to tribal interests.

—By David C. Smith and Dustin T. Greene, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

DISCLAIMER: Smith is class counsel in Cobell v. Jewell. Smith and Greene represent the plaintiffs in Davilla v. Enable Midstream Partners LP, Case No. CIV-15-01262-M (W.D. Okla.).

David Smith is a partner in Kilpatrick Townsend's Washington, D.C., office and teaches Federal Indian Law at Wake Forest University School of Law and Notre Dame Law School.

Dustin Greene is a senior associate Kilpatrick Townsend's Winston-Salem, North Carolina, office.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. FOR ALL CITATIONS, SEE WEBSITE.


*THIS THORPE ARTICLE IS TOO LONG TO INCLUDE IN A BLOG, BUT IT’S AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRIBES AND TRIBAL LANDS WITH MODERN SITUATIONS. GO TO THE THORPE WEBSITE TO READ IT.

http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html
Lindsay G. Robertson, June 2001
Native Americans and the Law: Native Americans Under Current United States Law

Native American tribal governments are an integral part of the political fabric of the United States. As the Supreme Court of the United States determined in its 1831 decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Peters) 1, tribal governments are not "states" in a constitutional sense, nor are they "foreign states," at least for purposes of Article III original jurisdiction. Instead, they are "domestic dependent nations," with many sovereign powers retained from the pre-contact period. As tribal governments have grown in political and economic power, the Supreme Court, the United States Congress, the federal executive, and the tribes have engaged in an increasingly important discussion to determine the scope of their powers. States, municipalities and individual citizens have all contributed to this conversation. The result is a legal regime of fascinating complexity.

. . . .



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage_Nation
Osage Nation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Osage Nation (English pronunciation: /ˈoʊseɪdʒ/ oh-sayj) (Ni-u-kon-ska, “People of the Middle Waters”) is a Midwestern Native American tribe of the Great Plains who historically dominated much of present-day Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The tribe developed in the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys around 700 BC among other groups in its language family. It migrated west of the Mississippi after the 16th century due to wars with Iroquois invading the Ohio Valley from New York and Pennsylvania in a search for new hunting grounds.

The term "Osage" is a French version of the tribe's name, which can be roughly translated as "warlike". The Osage people refer to themselves in their indigenous Dhegihan Siouan language as Wazhazhe, or "Mid-waters".[3]

At the height of their power in the early 19th century, the Osage had become the dominant power in the region, feared by neighboring tribes. The tribe controlled the area between the Missouri and Red River, the Ozarks to the east and the foothills of the Wichita Mountains to the south. They depended on nomadic buffalo hunting and agriculture.

The 19th-century painter George Catlin described the Osage as

the tallest race of men in North America, either red or white skins; there being many of them who are six and a half, and others seven feet.[4]

The missionary Isaac McCoy described the Osage as an "uncommonly fierce, courageous, warlike nation" and said they were the "finest looking Indians I have ever seen in the West".[5]

In the Ohio Valley, the Osage originally lived among speakers of the same Dhegihan language stock, such as the Kansa, Ponca, Omaha, and Quapaw. Researchers believe that the tribes likely became differentiated in languages and cultures after leaving the lower Ohio country. The Omaha and Ponca settled in what is now Nebraska, the Kansa in Kansas, and the Quapaw in Arkansas.

The Osage were forced to remove from Kansas to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) in the 19th century and the majority of their descendants live in Oklahoma. In the early 20th century, oil was discovered on their land. Many Osage became wealthy through leasing fees generated by their headrights, but during the 1920s, they suffered manipulation and numerous outright murders by whites eager to take over their wealth. In the 21st century, the federally recognized Osage Nation has 10,000 enrolled members, 6,780 of whom reside in the tribe's jurisdictional area. Members also live outside the nation's tribal land in Oklahoma and in other states around the country, including Kansas.

History

Image -- Map of traditional Osage lands by the late 17th century

. . . . A LONG AND FASCINATING HISTORY HAS BEEN ELIMINATED HERE BECAUSE IT IS TOO BULKY.

In 1906, the Osage Allotment Act was passed by U.S. Congress, as part of its effort to extinguish Native American tribal rights and structure, and to prepare the territories for statehood as Oklahoma. In addition to breaking up communal land, the Act replaced tribal government with the Osage National Council, to which members were to be elected to conduct the tribe's political, business, and social affairs.[35]

Although the Osage were encouraged to become settled farmers, their land was the poorest in the Indian Territory for agricultural purposes. They survived by subsistence farming, later enhanced by stock raising. They discovered they were fortunate to have lands covered with the rich bluestem grass, which proved to be the best grazing in the entire country. They leased lands to ranchers for grazing and earned income from the resulting fees.

Oil discovery[edit]

The Osage had learned about negotiating with the US government. Through the efforts of Principal Chief James Bigheart, in 1907 they negotiated to retain communal mineral rights to the reservation lands. These were later found to have great amounts of crude oil, from which tribal members benefited from royalty revenues from oil development and production. The government leased lands on their behalf for oil development; the companies/government sent the Osage members royalties that dramatically increased their wealth by the 1920s. In 1923 alone, they earned $30 million in royalties. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs called them "the richest people in the nation."[citation needed]

They are the only tribe since the early 20th century within the state of Oklahoma to retain a federally recognized reservation.[1]

In 2000 the Osage sued the federal government for its management of the trust assets, alleging that it had failed to pay tribal members appropriate royalties and had not historically protected the land assets and appreciation. The suit was settled in 2011 for $380 million, and a commitment to make numerous changes to improve the program.

In August 2016 the Osage nation bought Ted Turner's 43,000-acre Bluestem ranch.[37]
Federal law related to Osage government and sovereignty[edit]

. . . .

A 1992 US district court decision ruled that the Osage could vote in a process to reinstate the Osage National Council as city members of the Osage nation, rather than being required to vote by headright. But, this decision was reversed in 1997 with the United States Court of Appeals ruling that ended the government restoration.[40] In 2004 Congress passed legislation to restore sovereignty to the Osage Nation and enable them to make their own decisions about government and membership qualifications for their people.[41]

In March 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the 1906 Allotment Act had disestablished the Osage reservation established in 1872.[42] This ruling potentially affected the legal status of three of the seven Osage casinos, including the largest one in Tulsa, as it meant the casino was not on federal trust land. Federal Indian gaming law allows tribes to operate casinos only on trust land.[43]

The Osage Nation's largest economic enterprise, Osage Casinos,[44] officially opened newly constructed casinos, hotels and convenience stores in Skiatook and Ponca City in December 2013.[45][46]

. . . .

The tribe auctioned off development rights of their mineral assets for millions of dollars. According to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in 1924 the total revenue of the Osage from the mineral leases was $24,670,483.[47] After the tribe auctioned mineral leases and more land was explored, the oil business on the Osage reservation boomed. Tens of thousands of oil workers arrived, more than 30 boom towns sprang up and, nearly overnight, Osage headright holders became the "richest people in the world."[48] When royalties peaked in 1925, annual headright earnings were $13,000. A family of four who were all on the allotment roll earned $52,800, comparable to approximately $600,000 in today's economy.[49]

In the early 1920s there was a rise in murders and suspicious deaths of Osage, called the "Reign of Terror", and the Osage Indian Murders. In one plot, in 1921, Ernest Burkhart, a European American, married Molly Kyle, an Osage woman with headrights. His uncle William "King of Osage Hills" Hale, a powerful business man who led the plot, and brother Byron hired accomplices to murder Kyle family heirs. They arranged for the murders of Molly Kyle's mother, two sisters and a brother-in-law, and a cousin, in cases involving poisoning, bombing, and shooting.[33]

With local and state officials unsuccessful at solving the murders, in 1925 the Osage requested the help of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was the bureau's first murder case. By the time it started investigating, Molly Kyle was already being poisoned. This was discovered and she survived. She had inherited the headrights of the rest of her family. The FBI achieved the prosecution and conviction of the principals in the Kyle family murders. From 1921-1925, however, an estimated 60 Osage were killed, and most murders were not solved.[33] John Joseph Mathews, an Osage, explored the disruptive social consequences of the oil boom for the Osage Nation in his semi-autobiographical novel Sundown (1934).

Changes to law and management claims[edit]

As a result of the murders and increasing problems with trying to protect Osage oil wealth, in 1925 Congress passed legislation limiting inheritance of headrights only to those heirs of half or more Osage ancestry. In addition, they extended the tribal control of mineral rights for another 20 years; later legislation gave the tribe continuing communal control indefinitely.[33] Today, headrights have been passed down primarily among descendants of the Osage who originally possessed them. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has estimated that 25% of headrights are owned by non-Osage people, including other American Indians, non-Indians, churches, and community organizations. It continues to pay royalties on mineral revenues on a quarterly basis.[34]

Beginning in 1999, the Osage Nation sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (dockets 99-550 and 00-169) for mismanaging its trust funds and its mineral estate. The litigation eventually included claims reaching into the 19th century. In February 2011, the Court of Federal Claims awarded $330.7 million in damages in partial compensation for some of the mismanagement claims, covering the period from 1972 to 2000. On October 14, 2011, the United States settled the outstanding litigation for a total of $380 million.[50] The tribe has about 16,000 members.[51]

The settlement includes commitments by the United States to cooperate with the Osage to institute new procedures to protect tribal trust funds and resource management.[52]

Mineral Council[edit]

Limestone, a mineral resource for the Osage Nation

The Osage Tribal Council was created under the Osage Allotment Act of 1906. It consisted of a principal chief, an assistant principal chief, and eight members of the Osage tribal council. The mineral estate consists of more than natural gas and petroleum. Although these two resources have yielded the most profit, the Osage have also earned revenue from leases for the mining of lead, zinc, limestone, and coal deposits. Water may also be considered a profitable asset that is controlled by the Mineral Council.

The first elections for this council were held in 1908 on the first Monday in June. Officers were elected for a term of two years, which made it difficult for them to accomplish long-term goals. If for some reason the principal chief's office becomes vacant, a replacement is elected by the remaining council members. Later in the 20th century, the tribe increased the terms of office of council membersto four years.

In 1994 by referendum, the tribe voted for a new constitution; among its provisions was the separation of the Mineral Council, or Mineral Estate, from regular tribal government. According to the constitution, only Osage members who are also headright holders can vote for the members of the Mineral Council. It is as if they were shareholders of a corporation.

Modern Osage Nation[edit]

Yatika Starr Fields, Osage painter and muralist
Osage Nation before 1906[edit]

The Osage wrote a constitution in 1881, modeling some parts of it after the United States Constitution.[53]

Current government[edit]

The Osage Allotment Act of 1906, mentioned in more detail under the previous section Natural Resources and Headrights, provided for a principal chief, assistant principal chief and an eight-member tribal council as the recognized governing body of the Osage Tribe. Each allottee received 657 acres (2.66 km2) of surface rights and mineral rights were reserved to the Osage Tribe.[54] Only allottees and their descendants with headrights could vote or run for office in the tribe and, over the generations, headrights and votes became highly fractionated.

Today, the Osage Nation has 13,307 enrolled tribal members, with 6,747 living within the state of Oklahoma.[1] It has established membership based on a person's lineal descent from a member listed on the Osage Rolls at the time of the Osage Allotment Act of 1906. A minimum blood quantum is not required. But, as the Bureau of Indian Affairs restricts federal scholarships to persons who have 25% or more blood quantum in one tribe, the Osage Nation tries to support higher education for its students who do not meet that requirement.

By its new constitution in 1994, the Osage voted that original allottees and their direct descendants, regardless of blood quantum, were citizen members of the Nation. Due to court challenges, this constitution was overruled.

In 2004, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 108-431, An Act to Reaffirm the Inherent Sovereign Rights of the Osage Tribe to Determine Its Membership and Form a Government.[55] After this, the Osage Government Reform Commission formed to develop a new government. The Reform Commission held weekly meetings to develop a referendum that Osage members could vote upon in order to develop and reshape the Osage Nation government and its policies.[55] On March 11, 2006, the Constitution was ratified in a second referendum vote. By a 2/3 majority vote, the Osage Nation adopted the new constitutional form of government. It also ratified the definition of membership in the Nation.[53]

The tribal government is headquartered in Pawhuska, Oklahoma and has jurisdiction in Osage County, Oklahoma.[1] The current governing body of the Osage nation contains three separate branches; an executive, a judicial and a legislative. These three branches parallel the United States government in many ways.

The tribe operates a monthly newspaper, Osage News.[56] The Osage Nation has an official website and uses a variety of communication media and technology.

Judicial branch[edit]

The judicial branch maintains courts to interpret the laws of the Osage Nation. It has the power to adjudicate civil and criminal matters, resolve disputes, and judicial review. The highest court is the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court has a Chief Justice, currently Meredith Drent,[57] who replaced former Chief Justice Charles Lohah. There is also a lower Trial Court and more inferior courts as allowed by the tribal constitution.[58]

Executive Branch[edit]

The executive branch is headed by a Principal Chief, followed by an Assistant Principal Chief. The current Principal Chief is Geoffrey Standing Bear, and Raymond Red Corn is the Assistant Principal Chief, who were both sworn in on July 2, 2014. Administrative offices also fall under this executive branch.[59]

Legislative Branch[edit]

The legislative branch consists of a Congress that works to create and maintain Osage laws. In addition to this role, their mission is to preserve the checks and balances within the Osage government, carry out oversight responsibilities, support trial revenues, and preserve and protect the nation's environment. This Congress is made up of twelve individuals who are elected by the Osage constituency and serve four-year terms. They hold two regular Congressional sessions and are headquartered in Pawhuska.[60]

Economic development[edit]

For more details on Osage Nation's casinos, see Osage Casino.

The Osage Nation issues its own tribal vehicle tags and operates its own housing authority. The tribe owns a truck stop, a gas station, and ten smoke shops. In the 21st century, it opened its first gaming casino and as of December 2013, has seven casinos.[1] Casinos are located in Tulsa, Sand Springs, Bartlesville, Skiatook, Ponca City, Hominy and Pawhuska.[61] The tribe's annual economic impact in 2010 was estimated to be $222 million. Osage Million Dollar Elm, the casino management company, is encouraging employees in education, paying for certificate classes related to their business, as well as for classes leading to BA and master's business degrees.[62]

Osage Nation Museum[edit]

Located in Pawhuska, Oklahoma, the Osage Nation Museum[63] provides interpretations and displays of Osage history, art, and culture. The continuously changing exhibits convey the story of the Osage people throughout history and celebrate Osage culture today. Highlights include an extensive photograph collection, historical artifacts, and traditional and contemporary art.

Founded in 1938, the ONM is the oldest tribally owned museum in the United States. Historian Louis F. Burns donated much of his extensive personal collection of artifacts and documents to the museum. [64]

Representations in media[edit]

John Joseph Mathews, an Osage, explored the adverse social effects of the oil boom for the Osage Nation in his semi-autobiographical novel Sundown (1934).

Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote a series of children's books, known as Little House on the Prairie (1932–1943). The novel Little House on the Prairie and its TV adaptation are based on her family's pioneer days in Kansas. They squatted on Osage land and encountered members of the tribe.

Daniel H. Wilson features the Osage Nation as saving humans in his science fiction novel Robopocalypse (2011).

Notable Osage[edit]

FOR THIS LIST OF SOME 30 OSAGE PEOPLE OF LITERARY AND PROFESSIONAL IMPORTANCE, SEE THIS WEBSITE.

See also[edit]

Indigenous peoples of North America portal
Osage alphabet
Osage Treaty (disambiguation), several treaties
Sacred Sun, a 19th-century Osage woman who was among a group taken to France.


OSAGE ALPHABET -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage_alphabet

MORE ABOUT LANGUAGE PRONUNCIATION -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manner_of_articulation