The federal government’s attitude toward Native Americans has shifted dramatically over the past 220 years; virtually the only thing the varied policies have had in common is a staunch belief by their proponents that each was in the best interests of the Indians they affected.

Some policies proposed a peaceful co-existence with gradual assimilation of Indians into the Euro-American culture. Others aimed to step up the assimilation process with manual labor schools and allotment of tribal lands. Still others pushed separating Indians from European settlements, first by moving Native Americans west of the Mississippi and later, as the frontier moved further westward, by forcing Indians onto remote reservations.

It is interesting to note, however, that each time the federal government has tried to eliminate the tribal culture or break its trust ties with Indian tribes, Congress has recognized the folly and detrimental effects of such policies and has reversed them.

For example, the General Allotment Act of 1887, commonly known as the Dawes Act, called for tribal reservation lands to be broken up into individual parcels. The federal government would hold these parcels in trust for individual Indians for at least 25 years – longer if the President thought it necessary. After the trust period expired, the Indian owner would have free title to his allotted land and could sell or lease it like any other land. Indians who accepted allotted lands also would become U.S. citizens under the Dawes Act.

In 1898, the Curtis Act attempted to replace the tribal government and social structure with Indian “towns,” complete with individually owned lands, the abolition of tribal courts and tribal laws, and the replacement of tribal payments from the U.S. with annual payments to individual Indians.

This “reform” movement’s goal was to make Indians self-sufficient and end the federal government’s self-imposed “guardianship” role toward Indian tribes. However, by the 1920s, it became clear that these efforts only served to destroy both cultural identity and cultural support for Indian tribes.

In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act to reverse the allotment system and encourage a renewal of tribal organizations. The act prohibited further allotment of reservation lands and extended the trust periods on already-allotted Indian lands indefinitely.

Congress tried once again to end its fiduciary responsibility and relationships with Indian tribes in 1953, when it passed House Concurrent Resolution 108. This resolution urged the termination of federal supervision and aid to Indian tribes in New York, California, Florida and Texas, as well as specifically named tribes elsewhere; it called for the closure of Bureau of Indian Affairs offices in those states, and called on the Secretary of the Interior to recommend legislation that would terminate the federal recognition of various tribes. Federal support and recognition of the Menominee Indians of Wisconsin were terminated under this policy; that move generated such tremendous outcry that the action was reversed in 1973.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson proposed ending termination and instead focusing on building true partnerships between tribal governments and the United States that would foster self-determination and self-development among Indians. Richard Nixon and other presidents echoed this policy, but Congress did not formally repudiate House Concurrent Resolution 108 until 1988. In the meantime, the Bureau of Indian Affairs established formal procedures in 1978 for recognizing Indian tribes.

Since Johnson’s call for partnership in Indian programs, every presidential administration has pursued a policy of self-determination for tribal governments. In a 1984 policy statement, the Bureau of Indian Affairs noted that its thrust had changed from administering programs and services to helping tribes take control of their own affairs.

With the passage of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, both in 1988, Congress reaffirmed its own commitment to promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government without the threat of terminating the federal government’s trust responsibility. In the Tribally Controlled Schools Act, the Congress declared “its commitment to these policies and its support, to the full extent of its responsibility, for Federal relations with the Indian Nations” and rejected “any policy of unilateral termination of Federal relations with any Indian Nation.”