By Max Keller
Spring 2025
The first half of the 20th century saw major changes in American society, both economically and culturally. As the booming economy of the 20’s gave way to the Great Depression, the United States would see a massive shift in domestic policy in many aspects of life, including the federal protections and rights granted to Indian Nations. The well-known “New Deal” programs of the 1930’s that sought to fix the economic failures of the Depression were not limited to non-tribal citizens, as the federal government began a series of legislative changes that would come to be known as the “Indian New Deal.” This new series of rules and regulations would advertise themselves as being a new beginning for the American Indian. But while their impact was certainly pronounced, they produced mixed results. And perhaps no piece of legislation in this era had a greater impact on the tribal communities across the United States than the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).
The IRA was a major piece of legislation passed in 1934, championed by John Collier, an American bureaucrat who had many sympathies for Native communities due to his exposure to Pueblo communities in the southwest. The bill was in direct opposition to the Dawes Act that had dominated US-Indian affairs since its passing in 1887. The Dawes Act was the main piece of legislation that perpetuated the allotment of tribal lands, causing native nations across the country to lose land and livelihood for decades. As Henry Roe Cloud put it, “if the present allotment law of 1887 is going to continue, it will mean that those dark consequences that the Indian is suffering today will continue…”. The dismantling of the allotment system was one of the main targets of the original IRA bill, along with establishing a Court of Indian Affairs and providing additional federal assistance to tribal communities.
Collier’s bill did not remain entirely untouched by federal changes during its creation, as some provisions such as the establishment of a federal Indian court were removed. However the final product was a piece of legislation that many proponents claimed would give tribal nations back their land and independence. Provisions in the final version of the IRA not only ended allotment, but provided a process for tribal governments to draft constitutions.
One of the important ways in which the IRA changed federal treatment of tribal communities is the fact that it was not a binding piece of legislation. Tribal governments were allowed to vote on the bill, only accepting the terms if a majority vote was reached. However, even though these resolutions were put to votes, even this was not entirely respecting of native practices. Majority vote, instead of a traditional consensus, was the only thing required for the IRA to be accepted. Furthermore, abstaining votes were controversially counted in favor of the IRA in some communities. However, the ability for tribes to vote on the IRA was a major shift from previous federal policies on Indian peoples, and sparked debates within reservations across the country about the benefits and drawbacks of the bill.
While the ending of allotment and the general increase in tribal autonomy led many to support the IRA, there were also many arguments against it. One of the major reasons for tribes rejecting the new deal was their general distrust and fear of the federal government. George White Bull voiced one of the major concerns of the bill, “that the passage of the new Bill would in turn jeopardize our interests in some of the allotment and treaties”. Decades of broken treaties and promises made by the federal government did not give many Indian peoples confidence, and the drastic shift back to tribal independence did not sit well with many people who had never known life outside of American intervention. There were also several consequences of the bill that directly harmed reservation communities, such as massive livestock reductions. This decrease in economic security and independence, along with an increase in dependence on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, led many critics to cite the bill as just another harmful treaty that the government used to cheat tribal communities.
In the end, most US Indian tribes accepted the IRA and drafted tribal constitutions, although many did not, including Native nations such as the Navajo, Seneca and Iroquois. Many of the tribes that did not accept the treaty did so out of distrust for Collier or the U.S.’s promises, while others did so to preserve their ongoing treaty rights. The legacy of the IRA is a mixed one; the Indian New Deal era was filled with a mixture of increased Indian independence in parallel with further federal intrusion into reservation affairs through the BIA. While the New Deal Era was an important one for tribal livelihood, the subsequent entry of the United States into World War II quickly shifted domestic focus away from fixing Indian injustices. While the IRA was ultimately accepted in the majority of Indian communities, tribal nations continued to struggle for recognition, independence, and support long after its passing.
Citations
Cobb, Daniel M., ed. “‘Fooled So Many Times’ (1934): George White Bull and Oliver Prue.” In Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887, 64–67. University of North Carolina Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469624815_cobb.17.
Cobb, Daniel M., ed. “‘As One Indian to Another’ (1934): Henry Roe Cloud.” In Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887, 59–63. University of North Carolina Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469624815_cobb.16.
Cobb, Daniel M., ed. “[II Introduction].” In Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887, 55–58. University of North Carolina Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469624815_cobb.15.
Calloway, Colin. First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History, 6th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2019, chapter 8.
