Indian Citizenship Act

Last updated

Native Indian Citizenship Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Other short titlesNative Indian Freedom Citizenship Suffrage Act of 1924 and 1925
Long titleAn Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue certificates of citizenship to Native Indians.
Acronyms (colloquial)ICA
NicknamesSnyder Act
Enacted bythe 68th United States Congress
EffectiveJune 2, 1924
Citations
Public law Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  68–175
Statutes at Large 43  Stat.   253
Codification
Titles amended 8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
U.S.C. sections amended 8 U.S.C. ch. 12,subch. III § 1401b
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as H.R. 6355 by Homer P. Snyder (R-NY) on February 22, 1924
  • Committee consideration by House Indian Affairs, Senate Indian Affairs
  • Passed the House on March 18, 1924 (Passed)
  • Passed the Senate on May 15, 1924 (Agreed)
  • Agreed to by the House on May 23, 1924 (Agreed) and by the Senate on 
  • Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924
President Coolidge stands with four Osage Indians at a White House ceremony 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.jpg
President Coolidge stands with four Osage Indians at a White House ceremony

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43  Stat.   253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that imposed U.S. citizenship on the indigenous peoples of the United States. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines a citizen as any persons born in the United States and subject to its laws and jurisdiction, the amendment had previously been interpreted by the courts not to apply to Native peoples.

Contents

The act was proposed by U.S. Representative Homer P. Snyder (R-NY), and signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Native Americans who served in the armed forces during the First World War. [1]

Text

The text of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.

Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.]

SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CHS. 233. 1924.

See House Report No. 222, Certificates of Citizenship to Indians, 68th Congress, 1st Session, Feb. 22, 1924.

The act has been codified in the United States Code at Title 8, Sec. 1401(b).

History and background

U.S. Constitution

Under Article One of the United States Constitution, "Indians not taxed" were not counted in the population of a state for purposes of apportionment. Indigenous tribes were largely considered to be separate nations, with citizenship and treaty rights, so their people were not considered to be citizens of the United States.

The earliest recorded date of Native people becoming U.S. citizens was in 1831, when the Mississippi Choctaw became citizens after the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830 was ratified. Under article XIV of that treaty, any Choctaw who elected not to move to Native American territory could become an American citizen when he registered, and if he stayed on designated lands for five years after treaty ratification.[ citation needed ]

The U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) said that Native people could become citizens, although their acquisition of citizenship was by way of naturalization (that is, not by birth within U.S. territory): [2]

They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people. [3] [4]

After the American Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (ratified in 1870, after the 14th Amendment came into effect) repeated the exclusion, declaring: [5]

all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

Fourteenth Amendment

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment declared all persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were citizens. However, the "jurisdiction" requirement was interpreted to exclude most Native Americans, and in 1870, the Senate Judiciary Committee further clarified the matter: "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States". [2] About 8% of the Native population at the time qualified for U.S. citizenship because they were "taxed". [2] Others obtained citizenship by serving in the military, marrying whites, or accepting land allotments [6] such as those granted under the Dawes Act. [2]

The exclusion of Native people from U.S. citizenship was further established by Elk v. Wilkins (1884), [7] when the Supreme Court held that a Native person born a citizen of a recognized tribal nation was not born an American citizen and did not become one simply by voluntarily leaving his tribe and settling among whites. The syllabus of the decision explained that a Native person "who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution".

Indian Citizenship Act

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 declared:

all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States.

This grant of citizenship applied to about 125,000 of the 300,000 indigenous people in the United States, the total population of which was between 106 million and 123 million at that time. The indigenous people not included had already become citizens by other means, such as by entering the armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating into mainstream American life. [8] :121 Citizenship was granted in a piecemeal fashion before the Act, which was the first more inclusive method of granting Native American citizenship.

Even Native Americans who were granted citizenship rights under the 1924 Act may not have had full citizenship and suffrage rights until 1948 because the right to vote was governed by state law. According to a survey by the Department of Interior, seven states still refused to grant Indians voting rights in 1938. Discrepancies between federal and state control provided loopholes in the Act's enforcement. States justified discrimination based on state statutes and constitutions. Three main arguments for Indian voting exclusion were Indian exemption from real estate taxes, maintenance of tribal affiliation, and the notion that Indians were under guardianship or lived on lands controlled by federal trusteeship. [8] :121 By 1947, all states with large Indian populations, except Arizona and New Mexico, had extended voting rights to Native Americans who qualified under the 1924 Act. Finally, in 1948, the states withdrew their prohibition on Indian voting because of a judicial decision. [9]

Under the 1924 Act, indigenous people did not have to apply for citizenship, nor did they have to give up their tribal citizenship to become U.S. citizens. Most tribes had communal property, and to have a right to the land, individual Indian people needed to belong to the tribe. Thus, dual citizenship was allowed. Earlier views on granting Indian citizenship had suggested allocating land to individuals. Of such efforts, the Dawes Act was the most prominent. That Act allocated once-tribally-owned land to individual tribal members, and because they were landowners and eventually would pay taxes on the land and become "proficient members of society", they could be granted citizenship. This idea was presented by a group of white American citizens, called "Friends of the Indian", who lobbied for the assimilation of indigenous people into American society. They specifically hoped to do that by elevating indigenous people to the status of U.S. citizens. Though the Dawes Act allocated land, the notion that this should be directly tied to citizenship was abandoned in the early 20th century in favor of a more direct path to American citizenship. [9]

Debate

Although some white citizen groups were supportive of Indian citizenship, Native Americans themselves were divided on the debate. Those who supported it considered the Act a way to secure a long-standing political identity. Those who rejected it were concerned about tribal sovereignty and citizenship. Many leaders in the Native American community at the time, like Charles Santee, a Santee Sioux, were interested in Native American integration into the larger society but adamant about preserving the Native American identity. Many were also reluctant to trust the government that had taken their land and discriminated so violently against them. [9]

One group who opposed the bill was the Onondaga Nation. They believed acceptance of this act was "treason" because the United States Senate was forcing citizenship on all Indians without their consent. According to the Iroquois, the bill disregarded previous treaties between the Indian Tribes and the United States, specifically the 1784 Treaty of Fort Stanwix, the 1789 Treaty of Fort Harmor, and the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua in which the Iroquois were recognized as "separate and sovereign". The removal of the word "full" from "full citizenship" in the text of the original bill was used as a reason why some Native Americans were not granted the immediate right to vote with the bill. [10]

On May 19, 1924, Snyder said on the House floor, "The New York Indians are very much opposed to this, but I am perfectly willing to take the responsibility if the committee sees fit to agree to this." After passage of the Bill, Snyder became the representative of some of these Indians. [11]

On December 30, 1924, the Chiefs of the Onondaga sent a letter to President Calvin Coolidge: [12]

Therefore, be it resolved, that we, the Indians of the Onondaga Tribe of the Six Nations, duly depose and sternly protest the principal and object of the aforesaid Snyder Bill, … Wherefore, we the undersigned counselling (sic) Chiefs of the Onondaga Nation, recommend the abandonment and repeal of the Snyder Bill.

With little lobbying effort from Native Americans themselves, two primarily white groups shaped the law: Progressive senators and activists, like the "Friends of the Indians." Progressive senators on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee were for the Act because they thought it would reduce corruption and inefficiency in the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Such institutions would no longer be in control of citizenship regulations if citizenship were automatically granted to all Indigenous people. They also hoped to empower Indians through citizenship. [9]

Other groups for Native American citizenship supported it because of the "guardianship" status they felt the U.S. government should take to protect indigenous people. They worried Indians were being taken advantage of by non-indigenous Americans for their land. They advocated that the government had an obligation to supervise and protect Native citizens. The Indian Rights Association, a key group in the development of this legislation, advocated that federal guardianship was a necessary component of citizenship. They pushed for the clause "tribal rights and property" in the Indian Citizenship Act to preserve Indian identity but gain citizenship rights and protection. [9]

One advocate for American Indians during the early 20th century, Joseph K. Dixon, who had previously advocated for segregated Indian units during World War I in an effort to prevent their assimilation, wrote (referring to soldiers who served in World War I): [13]

The Indian, though a man without a country, the Indian who has suffered a thousand wrongs considered the white man's burden and from mountains, plains and divides, the Indian threw himself into the struggle to help throttle the unthinkable tyranny of the Hun. The Indian helped to free Belgium, helped to free all the small nations, helped to give victory to the Stars and Stripes. The Indian went to France to help avenge the ravages of autocracy. Now, shall we not redeem ourselves by redeeming all the tribes?

Nipo T. Strongheart, a performer-lecturer on Native American topics at Lyceum and Chautauqua and similar activities across the United States from 1917 thru the 1920s, [14] gathered signatures on petitions supporting Indian enfranchisement into the tens of thousands. [15] Some of his trips into Pennsylvania were in support of Melville Clyde Kelly, a supporter of the bill in Congress, who had a district there. [14] The petitions and other advocacy work helped pass the bill, but he was ultimately disillusioned with the results.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Five Civilized Tribes</span> Native American grouping

The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied by the United States government in the early federal period of the history of the United States to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminoles. White Americans classified them as "civilized" because they had adopted attributes of the Anglo-American culture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting rights in the United States</span> Suffrage in American elections

Voting rights, specifically enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been a moral and political issue throughout United States history.

Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), was a case filed in 1996 by Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice against the state of Hawaii and argued before the United States Supreme Court. In 2000, the Court ruled that the state could not restrict eligibility to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to persons of Native Hawaiian descent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma</span> Indian reservation

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is a Native American reservation occupying portions of southeastern Oklahoma in the United States. At roughly 6,952,960 acres, it is the second-largest reservation in area after the Navajo, exceeding that of eight U.S. states. The seat of government is located in Durant, Oklahoma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cherokee Nation</span> Native American tribe in Oklahoma, United States

The Cherokee Nation, formerly known as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, is the largest of three federally recognized tribes of Cherokees in the United States. It includes people descended from members of the Old Cherokee Nation who relocated, due to increasing pressure, from the Southeast to Indian Territory and Cherokees who were forced to relocate on the Trail of Tears. The tribe also includes descendants of Cherokee Freedmen, Absentee Shawnee, and Natchez Nation. As of 2023, over 450,000 people were enrolled in the Cherokee Nation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians</span>

The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians is a federally recognized Native American tribe of Odawa. A large percentage of the more than 4000 tribal members continue to reside within the tribe's traditional homelands on the northwestern shores of the state of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. The historically delineated reservation area, located at 45°21′12″N84°58′41″W, encompasses approximately 336 square miles (870 km2) of land in Charlevoix and Emmet counties. The largest communities within the reservation boundaries are Harbor Springs, where the tribal offices are located; Petoskey, where the Tribe operates the Odawa Casino Resort; and Charlevoix.

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), was a United States Supreme Court landmark 1884 decision with respect to the citizenship status of Indians.

<i>Talton v. Mayes</i> 1896 United States Supreme Court case

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.

The Cherokee Freedmen controversy was a political and tribal dispute between the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen regarding the issue of tribal membership. The controversy had resulted in several legal proceedings between the two parties from the late 20th century to August 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Muscogee Nation</span> Federally recognized Native American tribe in Oklahoma

The Muscogee Nation, or Muscogee (Creek) Nation, is a federally recognized Native American tribe based in the U.S. state of Oklahoma. The nation descends from the historic Muscogee Confederacy, a large group of indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands. Official languages include Muscogee, Yuchi, Natchez, Alabama, and Koasati, with Muscogee retaining the largest number of speakers. They commonly refer to themselves as Este Mvskokvlke. Historically, they were often referred to by European Americans as one of the Five Civilized Tribes of the American Southeast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Choctaw freedmen</span> Native American tribal membership dispute

The Choctaw freedmen are former enslaved African Americans who were emancipated and granted citizenship in the Choctaw Nation after the Civil War, according to the tribe's new peace treaty with the United States. The term also applies to their contemporary descendants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native American civil rights</span> Legal, social, or ethical principles pertaining to Native Americans

Native American civil rights are the civil rights of Native Americans in the United States. Native Americans are citizens of their respective Native nations as well as of the United States, and those nations are characterized under United States law as "domestic dependent nations", a special relationship that creates a tension between rights retained via tribal sovereignty and rights that individual Natives have as U.S. citizens. This status creates tension today but was far more extreme before Native people were uniformly granted U.S. citizenship in 1924. Assorted laws and policies of the United States government, some tracing to the pre-Revolutionary colonial period, denied basic human rights—particularly in the areas of cultural expression and travel—to indigenous people.

Pan-Indianism is a philosophical and political approach promoting unity, and to some extent cultural homogenization, among different Indigenous groups in the Americas regardless of tribal distinctions and cultural differences.

United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916), is a United States Supreme Court decision which declared that Congress still retains plenary power to protect Native American interests when Native Americans are granted citizenship. United States v. Nice overruled the Heff decision which declared that Native Americans granted citizenship by the Dawes Act were also then citizens of the state in which they resided, meaning the sale of alcohol to such Native Americans was not subject to Congress's authority.

Creek Freedmen is a term for emancipated Creeks of African descent who were slaves of Muscogee Creek tribal members before 1866. They were emancipated under the tribe's 1866 treaty with the United States following the American Civil War, during which the Creek Nation had allied with the Confederate States of America. Freedmen who wished to stay in the Creek Nation in Indian Territory, with whom they often had blood relatives, were to be granted full citizenship in the Creek Nation. Many of the African Americans had removed with the Creek from the American Southeast in the 1830s, and lived and worked the land since then in Indian Territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Native Americans in the United States</span>

The history of Native Americans in the United States began before the founding of the country, tens of thousands of years ago with the settlement of the Americas by the Paleo-Indians. Anthropologists and archeologists have identified and studied a wide variety of cultures that existed during this era. Their subsequent contact with Europeans had a profound impact on their history afterwards.

This is a timeline of voting rights in the United States, documenting when various groups in the country gained the right to vote or were disenfranchised.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native Americans in United States elections</span>

Native Americans in the United States have had a unique history in their ability to vote and participate in United States elections and politics. Native Americans have been allowed to vote in United States elections since the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, but were historically barred in different states from doing so. After a long history of fighting against voting rights restrictions, Native Americans now play an increasingly integral part in United States elections. They have been included in more recent efforts by political campaigns to increase voter turnout. Such efforts have borne more notable fruit since the 2020 U.S. presidential election, when Native American turnout was attributed to the historic flipping of the state of Arizona, which had not voted for the Democratic Party since the 1996 U.S. presidential election.

References

  1. "Featured Document Display: Honoring Native American Soldiers' World War I Service". National Archives Museum. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 4 NCC Staff (June 2, 2015). "On this day in 1924: All Indians made United States citizens". National Constitution Center. Retrieved September 5, 2015.
  3. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 60 U.S. 383 (1856), at 404
  4. Dred Scott v. Sandford, Opinion of Chief Justice, page 7.
  5. McCool, Daniel, Susan M. Olson, and Jennifer L. Robinson. Native Vote, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  6. "1924 Indian Citizenship Act" (PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved September 5, 2015.
  7. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
  8. 1 2 Peterson, Helen L. (May 1957). "American Indian Political Participation". American Academy of Political and Social Science. 311 (1): 116–121. doi:10.1177/000271625731100113. S2CID   144617127.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Bruyneel, Kevin (2004). "Challenging American Boundaries: Indigenous People and the 'Gift' of U.S. Citizenship". Studies in American Political Development. 18 (1): 30–43. doi:10.1017/S0898588X04000021. S2CID   145698348.
  10. THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924 – Onondaga Nation
  11. Homer Snyder Statement on House Floor
  12. Letter of Onondaga Nation to Calvin Coolidge
  13. Paul Rosier, Serving their country: American Indian politics and patriotism in the twentieth century, 46.
  14. 1 2 Lori Lynn Muntz (May 2006). Representing Indians: The Melodrama of Native Citizenship in United States Popular Culture of the 1920s (Thesis). Department of English, University of Iowa. p. 265. ISBN   978-0-542-79588-6. UMI3225654. Retrieved August 26, 2014.
  15. Prengaman, Kate (August 10, 2014). "Pride for his people – New displays at Toppenish museum celebrate life and influence of Nipo Strongheart, a Yakama with a passion for Indian rights". Yakima Herald-Republic. Yakima Washington.