Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:25:03.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federal Policy Affecting the Education of Indians in California, 1849–1934

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Irving G. Hendrick
Irving G. Hendrick*
Affiliation:
Department of Education at the University of California, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has become increasingly clear in recent years that historians need to devote more effort at presenting the perspective of those who have been the recipients or victims of policies. Yet, except for a few testimonials and oral history presentations, evidence from the recipient's perspective is rare. On the other hand, published reports, correspondence, and other documentary evidence produced by policy makers and implementors is available through conventional sources. In the case of Indian education these sources are hardly overworked, and in spite of the limited view from the top down which they reveal, they say much about the policy makers purposes, and the policies themselves.

Type
Article III
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , Summer 1976 , pp. 163 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by New York University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. The figures listed are the most widely cited based on informed estimates. The Kelsey figure, on the other hand, is taken from his Census on Non-Reservation California Indians, 1905–1906, Archeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Good sources for the other figures are: Ellison, William H., “The Federal Indian Policy in California, 1846–1860,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 9 (June, 1922): 39–40; and Hodge, Frederick M., ed., Handbook of American Indians, North of Mexico, Bulletin no. 20, (Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology, 1907–1910).Google Scholar

2. An excellent presentation of attitudes held by public officials and private citizens toward Indians during the early years of statehood is found in Heizer, Robert F. and Almquist, Alan F., The Other Caiifornians: Prejudice and Discrimination under Spain, Mexico and the United States to 1920 (Berkeley, 1971).Google Scholar

3. Reference to such an instance is discussed in letters from Dodge, A. H. to [Irwin, Governor William], September 17, 1873, and Lt. Col. A. D. Nelson to Asst. Adjutant General, September 22, 1973, California Archives, Sacramento, Calif., Indian War Files, 1860–1881, Box 2.Google Scholar

4. Heizer, and Almquist, , Other Californians, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

5. According to Beale, Edward F., Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California, the land provided Indians in the treaties was the “most barren and sterile” in the state, and of a quality that “only a half-slaved and defenseless people would have consented to receive.” U. S. Treaties, etc., 1850–1853, Message from the President of the United States communicating eighteen treaties made with Indians in California, 1851–1852, (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1905), p. 8.Google Scholar

6. Ibid.Google Scholar

7. The California Teacher, 4 (January, 1867): 128. Sec. 56 of the Statutes of California did permit any board of trustees by a majority vote to admit “in to any public school half-breed Indian children who live in white families or under guardianship of white persons.” California Statutes, March 24, 1866, c. 342, sec. 56.Google Scholar

8. U. S., Office of Indian Affairs, Reports on Indian Affairs, California Superintendency, 1861, 1871, (Washington, D. C, 1861–1871), No. 19, p. 98.Google Scholar

9. U. S., Commissioner of Education, Bureau of Education Reports, (Washington, D.C., 1872), p. 418.Google Scholar

10. U. S., Secretary of Interior, Report on the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, (Washington, D. C, 1906), p. 68.Google Scholar

11. Report on the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1885, p. 111.Google Scholar

12. U. S., Commissioner of Education, Special Report on Indian Education, (Washington, D. C, 1888), p. 175.Google Scholar

13. Adams, Evelyn C., American Indian Education (New York, 1971), pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

14. Rules 19 and 54 are the ones referred to; U. S., Office of Indian Affairs, Rules for the Indian School Service, (Washington, D. C, 1900). The harsher aspects of student recruitment and the withholding of rations was officially ended in 1894.Google Scholar

15. Letter from Commissioner W. S. Jones, to the Superintendent, Greenville School, California, January 13, 1902, National Archives, Archives Branch, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar

16. “How Far are the Principles of Education Along Indigenous Lines Applicable to American Indians,” Pedagogical Seminary, 15 (September, 1908): 365–369.Google Scholar

17. The Rincon Day School in the Palo Agency was discontinued and its two students transferred to a public school in 1910. Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1910, p. 18.Google Scholar

18. Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1904, p. 166.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., p. 436.Google Scholar

20. Letter from Superintendent [unnamed, probably Dale H. Reed.] to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, February 5, 1917, National Archives, Archives Branch, San Francisco, California; Record Group 75, Files of Special Indian Agent Col. L. A. Dorrington, Box 2.Google Scholar

21. Investigation, Greenville Indian School, Desertion of Katherine Dick, Edith Buckskin, Rosa Jones, Elweza Stonecoal, Mollie Lowry, 1916, Dorrington File, Box 6.Google Scholar

22. Letter from Superintendent Tardy, Eugene M. to Merrit, E. B. Asst. Commissioner, November, 1916, Dorrington File, Box 4.Google Scholar

23. Letter from Commissioner Cato Sells to Mr. Raken, December 22, 1916, Dorrington File, Box 4.Google Scholar

24. Dorrington File, Box 4.Google Scholar

25. California Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1924, p. 65., National Archives, Archives Branch, Los Angeles, California, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Records of the Mission Agency, Box 58462.Google Scholar

26. Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1918, p. 20.Google Scholar

27. Adams, Evelyn C., American Indian Education, p. 68.Google Scholar

28. The data given are calculated from figures contained in file No. 58471, National Archives, Archives Branch, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar

29. National Archives, Archives Branch, Los Angeles, California, Box 58477.Google Scholar

30. Letter from Fee, Mary Helen to Ellis, Superintendent C. L., June 27, 1923, National Archives, Archives Branch, Los Angeles, California, Box 58471.Google Scholar

31. Letter and “Returned Student Survey” from McDowell, Malcolm to Dorrington, Colonel L. A., December 6, 1917, Dorrington File, Box 9.Google Scholar

32. Percentages are calculated from census statistics found in: California, Fourteenth Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1890, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

33. Adams, , American Indian Education, p. 63.Google Scholar

34. Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1894, p. 14.Google Scholar

35. Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1903, p. 21.Google Scholar

36. Letter from Kelsey, C. E. to Asbury, Calvin H., October 17, 1912, Dorrington File, Box 6.Google Scholar

37. Letter from Peairs, H. B. to Asbury, Calvin H., December 24, 1912, Dorrington File, Box 10.Google Scholar

38. Letter from Kelsey, C. E. to Asbury, Calvin H., February 4, 1912, Dorrington File, Box 6.Google Scholar

39. Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1914, p. 8.Google Scholar

40. McDowell, Malcolm, “Report of the Landless Indians of California,” 1919, p. 19; Department of Special Collections, University of Oregon Library, Eugene, Oscar H. Lipps Papers.Google Scholar

41. Two reports prepared by Government staff in 1919 and 1920 explain in detail the status of Indian education in California during this period. See McDowell, Malcolm, “Report of the Landless Indians of California,” 1919; also Lipps, O. H. and Michaels, L. F., “Confidential Report on Conditions of California Indians,” June 15, 1920, University of Oregon Library, Eugene, Department of Special Collections, Oscar H. Lipps Papers.Google Scholar

42. Letter from Peairs, H. B. to Superintendents, All, June 12, 1923, National Archives, Archives Branch, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar

43. April 12, 1917, California State Archives, Sacramento, California.Google Scholar

44. Georgiana Caroline Carden, Correspondence and Papers, MS No. 68/129.Google Scholar

45. Letter from Superintendent [C. M. Conser] to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 2, 1920, National Archives, Archives Branch, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar

46. California Statutes, 1921, Ch. 685, Sec. 1662.Google Scholar

47. Piper vs. Big Pine School District of Inyo County, 193 Cal 664 (1924).Google Scholar

48. Information obtained from the Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the years given.Google Scholar

49. A Survey of the Indians of Northeastern California, (Sacramento, [1920–1921], p. 82.Google Scholar

50. Carden, , Correspondence and Papers, October 23, 1922.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., August 11, 1923.Google Scholar

52. Meriam, Lewis, Problem of Indian Administration, Institute of Government Research, Studies in Administration (Baltimore, 1928), p. 716.Google Scholar

53. “Press Release,” April 21, 1933, Lipps Papers.Google Scholar

54. “Human Dependency and Economic Survey,” Sacramento, California, Indian Jurisdiction,” (Denver, May, 1936), p. 15. (Mimeographed.) Google Scholar