By Marco Caba-Acevedo
Spring 2025
House Concurrent Resolution 108 and Public Law 280, each passed on August 1st and 15th of 1953, respectively, sought to terminate the intergovernmental relationships between the American federal government and several Native nations. HCR 108 called for Native nations to be made subjects of American state laws and responsibilities, meaning that the independent governments of Native nations would no longer be recognized by America (House Concurrent Resolution 108, 1953). PL 280, meanwhile, transferred criminal jurisdiction in certain Native nations deemed “assimilated” (or rather, Americanized) to the local governments of the states they are located, namely: Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin (Public Law 280, 1953). Today, we call these “termination policies” because their core function was to terminate the relationship between the federal government and Native nations, a massive blow to tribal sovereignty. They treated affected nations as if they were merely wards of the states they are located, rather than sovereign lands and people. However, the Native nations were not ignorant of the effects of these policies, discussing them and coming to different conclusions. Their responses to termination throughout the 1950s and 60s were diverse, be it by fighting back against the policies themselves, or accepting them on certain terms and deciding their destinies as American citizens, showcasing the diversity of Native nations in their beliefs on sovereignty.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was one of several organizations that reacted against these policies. Led by group president Joseph Garry, then a WWII veteran and chairman of the Schitsu’umsh tribe of Idaho, they called out the U.S government’s disrespect for their previous relationship as sovereign equals (Calloway 2023). Under his leadership, the NCAI pushed fervently against HCR 108 and PL 280, his experience in war and broken promises informing the “We Are Citizens” speech. The NCAI emphasized how “In exchange for Federal protection and the promise of certain benefits, our ancestors gave forever to the people of the United States title to the very soil of our beloved country” (National Congress of American Indians 1954, 101). They knew the policies would “destroy tribal governments” and that “If the Federal government will continue to deal with our tribal officials as it did with our ancestors on a basis of full equality […] we will be enabled to take our rightful place in our communities” (National Congress of American Indians 1954, 102). To them, the reservations of Native nations imprisoned no one, because they are ancestral homelands retained for their perpetual use, and thus, they can only terminate the relationship with their consent (Calloway 2023). To the NCAI, the elimination of their “Indian” status was also the elimination of each tribe’s existence, and thus a direct attack on tribal sovereignty. This reaction displays not only an acute awareness of the deeper implications of HCR 108 and PL 280, but also a strong sense of shared identity among tribal nations. Do not mistake this for all tribal nations being the same. This is rather a shared solidarity in their desire to protect their individual identities, and those individual identities form the basis of sovereignty.
Others believed these laws presented an opportunity for Native Americans as individuals. Edward Dozier of the Santa Clara Pueblo, a WWII veteran like Joseph Garry, and a participant in the American Indian Chicago Conference of 1961 (AICC), supported specific aspects of the policy. A gathering of over 460 Native Americans across 90 tribes, the conference was a week-long conclave created to share viewpoints between native nations, and it ended with the creation of the Declaration of Indian Purpose (Dozier 1961). To those at the conference, the termination of the tribes’ Indian status, combined with the outlawing of segregation, matters little in comparison to the issue of maintaining diversity while integrating. Dozier and the Conference were hopeful and confident that Native nations would not only maintain unity with America while preserving that diversity, but that “ONLY by the maintenance of freedom for cultural variation can a heterogeneous society […] support the cultural value, so widely shared, of individual freedom” (Dozier 1961, 115). As Dozier described, the many kinds of tribes present at the conference showed their enormous diversity, but were united in the common goal of eliminating such second-class citizenship. Like the NCAI, the AICC group emphasized the diversity among tribal nations, but was fully in tune with their goal of expressing sovereignty. Their focus was simply more on individual expression and opportunities. A desire to be a part of the American community, working within the industries and making families in urban environments, while maintaining their individuality. This was not a subordination view of the resolutions. This was a firm stance to continue the partnership between native peoples and the American federal government.
In essence, Native nations haven’t just idly sat by while the Federal Government passed laws over them. They interacted with these laws on a legal and personal level, and each nation’s viewpoint was, and still is, unique. They formed international organizations and conference groups with each other to discuss these laws and present their views to Congress. Some condemned the policies as attacks on tribal sovereignty, others emphasized the potential power it could give to individual Native Americans’ success, but all additionally emphasized the vast array of differing tribes and why their diversity is key to their sovereignty as individuals and groups.
References
Calloway, Colin G. 2023. First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History. 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Dozier, Edward. (1961) 2015. “A Human Right in a Free World.” In Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887, edited by Daniel M. Cobb, 115–19. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
National Congress of American Indians. (1954) 2015. “We Are Citizens.” In Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887, edited by Daniel M. Cobb, 101–2. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
U.S. Congress. 1953a. House Concurrent Resolution 108. 83rd Cong., 1st sess. August 1.
U.S. Congress. 1953b. Public Law 280. 83rd Cong., 1st sess. August 15.
