History 420 - Dr. Gayle Olson-Raymer

The Consequences of Manifest Destiny on American Indians

Introduction: Today we continue our discussion of Manifest Destiny by focusing on the ways that the policies and beliefs of Manifest Destiny dramatically influenced the cultural, spiritual, political and economic lives of the many American Indian Nations living on the North American continent. We will begin by discussing various Federal Indian Policies that were passed during the era of Manifest Destiny, continue with an analysis of how the state of California during this era dealt with California Indians, and conclude with a local case study of what happened to the California Indians in Humboldt County.

But first, a word about this map. Aaron Carapella, a self-taught mapmaker from Warner, Oklahoma, has pinpointed the locations and original names of hundreds of American Indian nations before their first contact with Europeans.

As a teenager, Carapella says he could never get his hands on a map that depicted the more than 600 tribes — many now forgotten and lost to history - with their original names and locations. Now, the 34-year-old designs and sells maps as large as 3 by 4 feet with the names of tribes hovering over land they once occupied. Your can read more about the map and how to obtain a copy by clicking here.

Discussion Goals:

• To understand the colonial attitudes and policies that influenced 19th Century Federal Indian Policy
• To understand the Federal Indian policies passed during the era of Manifest Destiny.
• To examine California's Indian policies.
• To understand the genocidal nature of the Massacre at Indian Island that took place in Humboldt County in 1860

Goal #1: To understand the colonial attitudes and policies that influenced 19th Century Federal Indian Policy.

Because the Indian policies that arose during colonial America greatly influenced 19th Century Federal Indian Policies, it is important to briefly discuss the issue of sovereignty which is at the heart of all relations between American Indians and the federal government. But first, what does it mean to be sovereign? And what does it mean to be a sovereign nation?

Sovereignty and Indian Policies in Colonial America. At the time of European contact with the North American continent, all Indian nations exercised the powers of sovereigns by forming treaties, trade agreements, and military alliances with other Indian nations. In recognizing such sovereignty, each Indian nation consisted of a unique group of people who had a distinct language and a distinct moral, cultural, and religious structure; controlled and regulated a specific geographical area; and possessed governmental powers acknowledged by the tribal people and enforced by some sort of tribal authority. (And by the way, these are the required characteristics of a civilized nation.)

• After British colonial settlement, many sovereign Indian nations negotiated similar agreements with new sovereign partners - the colonial administrations of Britain and its colonies. By signing such treaties, both the colonists and the Indian nations recognized each other's sovereignty: the Indian nations recognized the colonial governments as sovereign nations, while the colonial governments also acknowledged the sovereignty of the Indian nations.
• While these were the ideal policies of the British crown and the colonists, it is important to note that actual policies were two different things.Therefore, colonial and British governmental actions indicated that they did not fully accept Indian sovereignty. 
• In fact, various colonial governments enacted four types of Indian policies, each of which began to diminish the sovereignty of Indian nations:
  • Dispossession.  When the colonists initially bartered for Indian lands claiming that they could make the region more profitable, the Indians refused to sell.  Colonists resorted to dispossessing Indian lands by simply claiming and moving onto Indian land and refusing to move.
  • Removal.  The colonists asserted that because they could use the land more profitably than tribal nations, Indians would have to remove themselves from their ancestral lands and relocate beyond the boundaries of colonial settlement.  If Indians refused to relocate, the colonists responded that they would be forceably removed.
  • Assimilation.  While the colonists preferred that Indian people remove themselves from their settlements, they were willing to accept some Indian presence within the colonies if they assimilated into their society by accepting Christianity and British culture and traditions.
  • Elimination. If the Indians refused to move, assimilate, or accept colonial governors, colonists had the right to wage war.

  Discussion:

  • How did the coloial policies of dispossession, removal, assimilation, and elimination "diminish the sovereignty of Indian nations?"
  • Are contemporary Indian nations sovereign?
  • From the various methods discussed this semester in class, which might you use to assess your students' understanding of the above two questions?

However, as we will learn today, once the American Revolution was over and the newly-created United States of America had a Constitution, Indian sovereignty would gradually be eroded. In short, by the end of the colonial era, the colonists and the king had developed a confusing policy about Indian sovereignty: while they recognized it, they also sought to erode it. These early attitudes and policies of the colonies and the King contributed to the federal Indian policies designed by the newly-created United States government.

Goal #2: To understand the Federal Indian policies passed during the era of Manifest Destiny.

Within seven years after the end of the Revolutionary War, the new American government created three distinct policies that determined how the Americans would deal with Indians: the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790.

• The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 explained how the United States government would deal with the Indian nations. Section 14, Article 3 of the Ordinance proclaimed, "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them."
• The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) declares that "The Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Constitution thereby specified that there were three governmental entities within the United States with forms of sovereignty - Indian tribes, state governments, and the federal government.
• The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 stated that all govermental interactions with Indians would be under federal - not state - control. This included buying and selling Indian land. It also protected Indian lands against non-Indian aggression, subjected trading with Indians to federal regulation, and stipulated that injuries against Indians by non-Indians was a federal crime. The conduct of Indians among themselves while in Indian country was left entirely to the tribes.

These federal actions indicated that the U.S. government should and would act in good faith in its negotiations with sovereign Indian nations. However, Indian sovereignty soon became a problem for the growing United States. While Euro-Americans wanted to move westward and conquer the land to the Pacific Ocean, it was clear that the hundreds of sovereign Indian nations living on the North American continent were not going to willingly or voluntarily give up their land. Consequently, the United States government took two steps:

• Signing hundreds of treaties with Indian nations, treaties which in turn were bolstered by a series of US Supreme Court Decisions - which you can learn more about by clicking here.
  • What is a treaty?
  • This photo is the only known photograph of a treaty signing. In the middle is General Sherman who signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie with members of the Sioux Nation in 1868.
• Passing hundreds of laws designed to define relations between the federal government and Indian nations. Collectively, these are known as Federal Indian Policies.
  • How are laws and treaties different?

The Federal Indian Policies we will discuss today were largely responsible for the enormous loss of Indian lands between 1763 and 1889. As Euro-Americans moved westward, they began to demand access to more territory - the vast majority of which was occupied by American Indians.

Thus, from 1830 throughout the remainder of the Nineteenth Century, the federal government responded with four specific policies that aimed to open up Indian land to white settlement: removal, reservations, allotment, and elimination. The federal implementation of each policy further eroded Indian sovereigny.

Removal. By the early 1830s, about 80,000 members of the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations lived on land that many Americans felt could be more profitably farmed and settled by non-Indians. But all five nations had signed treaties with the federal government guaranteeing the right to live in their ancestral lands and maintain their sovereign systems of tribal government. Not surprisingly, these nations were unwilling to give up their land and to negotiate new treaties with the federal government that would give away any of their territory.

President Andrew Jackson decided that a new federal policy would be necessary in order to remove the Indians from their lands. Thus, he supported the Removal Act of 1830 which gave the President the right to make land "exchanges" by forcibly removing the five tribes from their ancestral lands against their will. The Removal Act was bolstered by the 1834 Indian Intercourse Act which moved Indian Country (see map) westward across the Mississippi and was set aside for all Indians who were removed. Consequently, over the next several decades, more than 40 tribes were removed to Indian Country - the area that now comprises the state of Oklahoma.

From 1830 to 1840, between 70,000 and 100,000 American Indians living in the East were forcibly resettled by the US Army. Many others were massacred before they could be persuaded to leave; an unknown number died from disease, exposure, and starvation suffered during the Trail of Tears as well as on other enforced, long-distance marches westward to Indian Territory.

While the removal policy helped to alleviate the immediate "Indian problem," as more and more Americans continued to move westward, they found other Indian tribes living in freedom throughout the continent. Because these Indians prevented non-Indians from settling in many desirable areas, and because many white settlers did not feel safe living amidst the Indian "danger," another new policy was created to deal with the Indians - they would be confined to a land reserved exclusively for their own use - areas that came to be called reservations.

Reservations. The men who created the reservation system believed that if Indians could be confined to one particular geographical place reserved for them, they could become 'civilized" and assimilated into American life. They could be encouraged to stop being Indians and to become like white men. Thus, the reservations were to make sure the remaining tribes were converted to Christianity; taught English, sewing, and small-scale farming; and ultimately, to be Americanized.

Although treaties were the primary method for creating reservations, Congress suspended formal treaty making in 1871. Thereafter, executive orders, congressional acts, or any legal combination recognized by the federal government were used to establish federal reservations. By the end of the 19th Century, 56 of 162 federal reservations had been established by executive order. After 1919, only an act of Congress could establish reservations.

While some Indians adjusted to life on the reservation, the vast majority did not become more like the white man. Indeed, most fought to maintain their Indian culture and traditions. While the reservation system continued to grow and resulted in the loss of even more territory (as seen at the right in the map), it was clear that all Indians were not going to be confined to reservations and that the vast majority were not going to become Americanized. Thus, arose the necesssity for another new federal policy - allotment.

Allotment. Many Americans believed that Indians would never become Americanized as long as they lived in large reservation communities in which they celebrated their cultural and spiritual traditions and owned land communally. Further, American policy makers believed that the reservations did not give Indians an incentive to improve their situation. So, the federal government's new policy was designed to destroy the idea of communal land ownership on the reservations. This policy was signed into law as the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887. and its ultimate goal was to assimilate Indian people into white, Euro-American society.

The Dawes Act allowed the President to give, or allot, portions of certain reservation land to individual Indians - 160 acres to each head of family and 80 acres to others - to establish private farms. Each head of family would receive final title to the land and American citizenship after a 25-year period during which they had willingly assumed responsibility for the land. It also authorized the Secretary of Interior to negotiate with the tribes for purchasing "excess" lands for non-Indian settlement. Any land remaining after allotment would be sold to whites; all proceeds were to be used to "civilize" Indians on the reservation.

The results of the Dawes Act and its allotment policies were catastrophic for American Indians. When allotment went into effect, Indians still owned over 138 million acres of land. But when Dawes was repealed 47 years later, 90 million acres had passed from Indian hands into the hands of whites, representing a 60% loss of land.

In addition to the Dawes Act, the federal government adopted another assimiliation policy designed to go hand-in-hand with allotment - Indian Boarding Schools. This article is filled with excellent photos and information about the boarding schools. (Please look at the photos even if you do not want to read the article.)

Ultimately, allotment and Boarding School policies failed to assimilate Indians and force them to accept a more settled, Americanized way of life. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a large number of Indians and several Indian nations still lived in communal groups that refused to live on reservations or to be involved in allotment. Thus, the federal government moved ahead with another policy to deal with these recalcitrants - elimination.

Elimination. The rationale for eliminating Indians grew out of a belief that Indian resistance was equivalent to a declaration of war against the US. Using such a rationale, in the late 1800s the US Army declared war upon several tribes, began eliminating resisters, and sought to absolutely subjugate any survivors. But war was hardly a last resort nor was it something used only at the end of the nineteenth century. A review of official miliary records, some of which are incomplete, shows that from 1776 to 1907, the US Army was involved in 1,470 official actions against Indians. These figures do not include actions against undertaken by private armies against American Indians. For an brief but important case study of the federal government's war against the Sioux, click here.

By the turn of the century, this first era of Federal Indian policy had drawn to a close. The consequences had been disastrous for American Indians:

• The Indian population had dramatically decreased. Between 6 - 10 million native peoples lived in the US at the time of its birth; by 1900, less than 250,000 people remained and the majority of tribes had dwindled to the brink of extinction.
• Most surviving Indians had been forced onto reservations or lived on allotted lands where they were expected to shed their "Indianness" and become civilized, Christianized, and Anglicized.
• The self-sufficiency and ecological balance that characterized the Indian tribes at the time of European settlement had been destroyed. From the early 1800s forward, the Native Americans were forced into a position of economic dependency upon the US government.
• The majority of Indian tribal landholdings had passed into white ownership. Between 1887 and 1934, tribal lands dwindled from 138 million acres to 48 million, 20 million of which were arid or semi-arid.

But no discussion of Federal Indian Policy can end without this very important point: Despite over 100 years of such destructive federal Indian policies, the cultural and spiritual heritage of of many Indian nations survived. Indeed, by the end of the 19th Century, American Indians across the nation refused to be assimilated and victimized by their historical experiences with the federal government. As the twentieth century commenced, this survival mode helped to revitalize many Indian nations as they continued their resistance to becoming assimilated and to celebrating their spiritual, cultural, lingual, and political traditions. The history of American Indian nations, then, must be one of both victimization and survival!!

For a great video to use in class showing how skateboarding on the Pine Ridge Reservation has helped young people hold on to their traditional beliefs, go to https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15090387bd733049?projector=1

Goal #3: To examine California's Indian policies

During its first ten years as a state, California neither recognized Indians as citizens with civil rights, nor did it treat Indians as sovereign people. As soon as the state government was created, the new legislators passed a series of legislative acts that legally encouraged and carried out genocide against California Indians.

1. In 1850, California's first legislature passed the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians - which wrote the following into law.

• Indians could not testify against whites.
• Landowners could not permit Indians who were peaceably residing on their land to continue to do so.
• Whites would be able to obtain control over Indian children.
• If any Indian was convicted of a crime, any white person could come before the court and contract for the Indian's service.
• It was illegal to sell or administer alcohol to Indians.
• Indians convicted of stealing a horse, mule, cow, or any other valuable could receive any number of lashes not to exceed 25, and fines not to exceed $200.
• Any Indian found strolling, loitering where alchohol was sold, begging, or leading a "profligate course of life" would be liable to arrest.

2. In 1850 with the first California constitution, Article VII gave the Governor the power "to call for the militia, to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." Governor Burnett, in keeping with his call for militias, allocated state funding to “protect” Euro-American gold mining settlements. California legislation offered militia members individual payments for proof of dead California Indians. The state funded both the bullets for the voluntary militias, and $10 to $25 for proof of executed Indians – scalps, heads, hands, or bodies.

• In 1851 Burnett made his second address to the California state legislature which clarified his agenda: “A war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected. He also highlighted significant events of 1850, including "repeated calls ... upon the Executive for the aid of the militia to resist and punish the attacks of the Indians upon the frontier."
• Consequently, numerous vigilante type paramilitary troops were established whose principal occupation was to kill Indians and kidnap their children. Groups such as the Humboldt Home Guard, the Eel River Minutemen and the Placer Blades terrorized local Indians
• Well-known19th century historian Hubert Howe Bancroft to described these actions as follows:

  “The California valley cannot grace her annals with a single Indian war bordering on respectability. It can, however, boast a hundred or two as brutal butchering, on the part of our honest miners and brave pioneers, as any area of equal extent in our republic ... The handiwork of these well-armed death squads combined with the widespread random killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000 Indians in the first two years of the gold rush. A staggering loss of two thirds of the population. Nothing in American Indian history is even remotely comparable to this massive orgy of theft and mass murder. Stunned survivors now perhaps numbering fewer than 70,000 teetered near the brink of total annihilation."

3. California passed a law in 1854 "making it a crime to disinter, mutilate or remove the body of any deceased person" - but Indian bodies were understood to be exempt from the law. This begins a period of Indian grave robbing that does not end until federal legislation (NAGPRA, 1990) is passed in the late 20th Century that specifically makes this practice illegal. NAGPRA requires that all Indian human remains, funeral objects,and sacred objects in federal museums and any museum receiving federal assistance be given back to their tribes.

4. In 1860, California passed an amendment to the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians [Approved April 18, 1860.] In essence, this amendment declared that Indians who were not already indentured/enslaved could be kidnapped.

"Sec. 3. County and District Judges in the respective counties of this state, shall, by virtue of this act, have full power and authority, at the instance and request of any person having or hereafter obtaining an Indian child or children, male or female, under the age of fifteen years, from the parents or person or persons having the care or charge of such child or children, with the consent of such parents or person or persons having the care or charge of any such child or children, or at the instance and request of any person desirous of obtaining any Indian or Indians, whether children or grown persons, that may be held as prisoners of war, or at the instance and request of any person desirous of obtaining any vagrant Indian or Indians, as have no settled habitation or means of livelihood, and have not placed themselves under the protection of any white person, to bind and put out such Indians as apprentices, to trades, husbandry, or other employments, as to them shall appear proper, and for this purpose shall execute duplicate articles of indenture of apprenticeship on behalf of such Indians, which indentures shall also be executed by the person to whom such Indian or Indians are to be indentured - such indentures shall authorize such person to have the care, custody, control, and earnings, of such Indian or Indians, as shall require such person to clothe and suitably provide the necessaries of life for such Indian or Indians, for and during the term for which such Indian or Indians shall be apprenticed, and shall contain the sex, name, and probable age, of such Indian or Indians; such indentures may be for the following terms of years: Such children as are under fourteen years of age, if males, until they attain the age of twenty-five years; if females, until they attain the age of twenty-one years; such as are over fourteen and under twenty years of age, if males, until they attain the age of thirty years; if females, until they attain the age of twenty-five years; and such Indians as may over the age of twenty years, then next following the date of such indentures, for and during the term of ten years, at the discretion of such Judge; such Indians as may be indentured under provision of this section, shall be deemed within such provisions of this act, as are applicable to minor Indians."

What were the goals of such legislation?

1. Promoting Indian slavery. Californians interpreted the 1850 law in such a way that all Indians, including children, faced indentured servitude through a simple procedure of arrest and "hiring out" through any local justice-of-the-peace. Once they were indentured, the term limitation was almost always ignored, thus resulting in slavery.
   • The result was a profitable slave trade in Indian men, women, and children throughout Northern California. Children were readily bought and sold, for household work; and women were purchased for both household work and sexual liaisons.
   • Another practice occurred when officials picked up Indians as vagrants. These officials would then turn the Indians over to the ranchers and other people who needed laborers. After four months, the employer would return the Indians to the city, usually to a place where alcohol was served. Shortly after their return, the Indians would be picked up once again as vagrants, and returned to the labor force.
   • In 1860, the Act was amended to allow for any Indian not already indentured to be kidnapped.
2. Denying Indians equal protection under the law by forbidding Indians to defend themselves in a court of law, describing the only type of life acceptable via Euro-American customs, allowing the courts to contract Indians out as servants.
   • Under the 1850 Act, article 6 states that "in no case shall a white man be convicted of any offence upon the testimony of an Indian." This clearly is denial of equal protection - the belief that Indians did not deserve equal protection under the law in the land they had occupied for generations, or justice in the case of murder or abuse.
   • Enslaving Indians and denying them equal protection became illegal in 1866, when, to comply with the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the State Legislature repealed the law.
   • The 14th Amendment provides that no state should infringe on any citizen's "privileges or immunities" nor "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," nor deny to any person "the equal protection of the law."
   • But all this did was remove the legal barriers. Persons who were already enslaved were not immediately released, nor was the law adequately enforced until the end of the century.
   • It was not until 1872 that the California Constitution was amended to allow Indians to testify in courts of law.
3. Pomoting vigilante violence against Indian people by empowering and funding militias designed specifically to kill Indians.

Goal #4: To understand the genocidal nature of the Massacre at Indian Island that took place in Humboldt County in 1860

One of the worst depredations against Indians in California occurred in 1860 in Humboldt County. Known as the Indian Island Massacre, this tragic event almost destroyed the Wiyott Nation and left their sacred island where the annual World Renewal Ceremony was performed in ruins. The Wiyott people were not able to reclaim their island for over 140 years. Below is a timeline of events leading up to the 1860 Indian Island Massacre as well as the events that followed.

Pre-Contact.  About 1500-2000 Wiyot people lived in their ancestral territory that included the current tows of McKinleyville, Blue Lake, Arcata, Eureka, Kneeland, Loleta, Fortuna, Ferndale, and Rohnerville.  Indian Island was and remains the center of the Wiyot People’s world.  It is home to the ancient village of Tuluwat and the traditional site of the World Renewal Ceremony held annually to welcome the new year.  The ceremony lasted between 7-10 days and began with the men leaving the island and returning the next day with the needed supplies.  The elders, women, and children remained behind. The ground beneath Tuluwat village is an enormous clamshell mound (or midden). This mound, measuring over six acres in size and estimated to be over 1,000 years old, is an irreplaceable physical history of the Wiyot way of life. Contained within it are remains of meals, tools, and ceremonies, as well as many burial sites.

1850.  The town of Eureka was founded by a group of miners who needed a more convenient route to the overland trail from Sacramento the California gold fields.  Shortly thereafter, Humboldt Bay became the busiest port between San Francisco and Portland.  As Eureka’s population and economy grew, its white residents became increasingly uneasy about local Indians whom ranchers blamed for thefts and cattle loss.  Merchants began to see Indian villages that thrived along the Bay as a direct threat to their growing trade.

1860. An army officer at Fort Humboldt observed, "Cold-blooded Indian killing being considered honorable, shooting Indians and murdering even squaws and children that have been domesticated for months and years, without a moment's warning and with as little compunction as they would rid themselves of a dog." An editorial in the Humboldt Times opined, "The whites cannot afford horses and cattle for their [Indian] sustenance, and will not. Ergo, unless Government provides for the Indians, the settlers must exterminate them."

• In February, the Humboldt Volunteer Militia was created, two years after Humboldt citizens sent the following letter to the governor:

"It has now been two months since the Indians in this vicinity started in open hostility to us, though so far they have confined their operations to the trail connecting this County to Weaverville. This being our direct channel of communication with the Sacramento Valley, and a trail over which the United States Mail must pass once a week, it is of the utmost importance that it should be kept open. The Indians on this trail first manifested their hostility to us by shooting a man who was traveling alone. We supposed that a few men would be sufficient to punish the Indians and make them ask for peace, and accordingly, a party was organized, provided for by private means and sent in search of the hostiles. After trailing the Indians for several days, they were attacked from ambush and one man was killed. In the meantime their camp which they had left unguarded was attacked, and ten mules were killed. This party consisted of only twelve men. Subsequently, another party of twenty-five men went out who were provisioned at a heavy private expense. In endeavoring to drive the Indians from the vicinity of the trails, they were fired upon in a deep canyon, and one man was killed, another wounded. The company has now disbanded, not feeling inclined to incur further danger and hardships at their own expense. The trails are now closed, there being no travel over them except by night or in large parties. The question now is what is there to.be done? There are no troops here at the garrison and the people are not able to carry on a war at their own expense. The people of the county are of the opinion that if the militia could be called out, and arms furnished, the merchants would feel encouraged to furnish supplies, and wait for the State to pay. We can furnish the men if they can only be supplied."

• On February 16, The Indian Island Massacreoccured at the hands of the newly-created Humboldt Volunteer Milita. Armed with hatchets, clubs, and knives, militia men paddled to Indian Island where Wiyot men, women, and children were sleeping after a week of ceremonial dancing.  Two other villages were raided on the same night – one on the Eel River and another on the South Spit.  Somewhere between 80-100 people were killed on Indian Island.  A baby, Jerry James, was the only infant that survived the massacre on the Island.  Another 200-600 Wiyot were massacred in the other raids.
• Journalist Bret Harte published a front-page editorial in The Northern Californian in which he expresses horror over the massacre. Subsequently, he was run out of the county and moved to San Francisco.

  "Our Indian troubles have reached a crisis. Today we record acts of Indian aggression and white retaliation. It is a humiliating fact that the parties who may be supposed to represent white civilization have committed the greater barbarity. But before we review the causes that have led to this crowning act of reckless desperation, let us remind the public at a distance from this savage-ridden district, that the secrecy of this indiscriminate massacre is an evidence of its disavowal and detestation of the community. The perpetrators are yet unknown.

  The people of this county have been long-suffering and patient. They have had homes plundered, property destroyed, and the lives of friends sacrificed. The protection of a Federal force has been found inadequate and when volunteer forces have been raised and the captured savages placed on reservations, by some defective screw in the Federal machinery, they have escaped. They have returned to their old homes. Old outrages have been renewed. The friendly Indians about the Bay have been charged with conveying arms and ammunition to the mountain tribes and receiving slaughtered beef as a reward. A class of hard-working men who derive their subsistence by cattle raising have been the greatest sufferers, and if in the blind fury of retaliation they spare neither age or sex, though they cannot be excused a part of the blame should fall upon that government which places the responsibility of self-defense on the injured party. If your government says, virtually, 'Protect yourselves,' it cannot consistently find fault with the manner.

  Justice demands that we should show thus much in explanation. We do not extenuate. If the deed was committed by responsible parties, we will give place to any argument that may be offered in justification. But we can conceive of no palliation for woman and child slaughter. We can conceive of no wrong that a babe's blood can atone for. Perhaps we do not rightly understand the doctrine of 'extermination.' How a human being ... could with cruel, unpitying hand carry out the 'extermination' that his brain had conceived - who could smite the mother and a child so wantonly and cruelly - few men can understand. What amount of suffering it takes to make a man a babe-killer, is a question for future moralists. What will justify it, should be a question of present law.

  It is the 'beginning of the end.' It will not be strange if these separate tribes are gathered into a burning focus on every trail. It will not be safe for the white man to travel alone. Every tree may hide some wretched and revengeful father. A spirit has been raised that nothing but blood will appease. An 'irrepressible conflict' is really here. Knowing this, was it policy to commence the work of extermination with the most peaceful? And what assistance can be expected from a Legislature already perplexed with doubts and suspicion, in the face of the bloody record we today publish?

  A report was brought from Eureka on Sunday morning, that during the night nearly all the Indians camping on Indian Island, including women and children, were killed by parties unknown. A few loaded canoes bringing the dead bodies to Union on their way to Mad river, where some of the victims belonged, confirmed the report. But when the facts were generally known, it appeared that out of some sixty or seventy killed on the Island, at least fifty or sixty were women and children. Neither age or sex had been spared. Little children and old women were mercilessly stabbed and their skulls crushed with axes. When the bodies were landed at Union, a more shocking and revolting spectacle never was exhibited to the eyes of a Christian and civilized people. Old women, wrinkled and decrepit, lay weltering in blood, their brains dashed out and dabbled with their long gray hair. Infants scarce a span long, with their faces cloven with hatchets and their bodies ghastly with wounds. We gathered from the survivors that four or five white men attacked the ranches at about 4 o'clock in the morning, which statement is corroborated by people at Eureka who heard pistol shots at about that time, although no knowledge of the attack was public. With the Indians who lived on the Island, some thirty from the mouth of Mad river were staying, having attended a dance on the evening previous. They were all killed with the exception of some few who hid themselves during the massacre. No resistance was made, it is said, to the butchers who did the work, but as they ran or huddled together for protection like sheep, they were struck down with hatchets. Very little shooting was done, most of the bodies having wounds about the head. The bucks were mostly absent, which accounts for the predominance of female victims.

  On Monday we received a statement from our Senior, at Eureka en route for San Francisco. He says: 'About 9 o'clock, I visited the Island, and there a horrible scene was presented. The bodies of 36 women and children, recently killed, lay in and near the several ranches - they were of all ages, from the child of but two or three years to the old skeleton squaw. From appearances, the most of them must have been killed with axes or hatchets - at the heads and bodies of many were gashed as with such an instrument. It was a sickening and pitiful sight. Some 5 or 6 were still alive and one old woman was able to talk, although dreadfully wounded. Dr. Lee, who visited them and dressed the wounds of those live, says that some will recover if properly cared for.' It is not generally known that more than three bucks were killed - though it is supposed there must have been 15 or 20. It is thought that the bodies of the men were taken away by Indians early this morning as four canoes were seen to leave the Island.

  On the beach south of the entrance it is reported that from thirty to fifty were killed. It is also reported, that at Bucksport, all were killed that were there. I passed in sight of them about 11 o'clock and saw the ranches on fire. It is also said that the same has been done at the several ranches on Eel river.

  No one seems to know who was engaged in this slaughter, but is supposed to have been men who have suffered from depredations so long on Eel river and vicinity. It is said that some jerked beef, about 100 lb., was found in one of the Indian ranches on Indian Island and on south beach. Indian Island is scarcely one mile from Eureka, the county seat of Humboldt county. With the exception of the conjectures that the Indians on the Island offer aid and assistance to the mountain Indians, they are peaceful and industrious, and seem to have perfect faith in the good will of the whites. Many of them are familiar to our citizens. 'Bill' of Mad river, a well known and rather intelligent fellow, has proven a faithful ally to the white men on several occasions and - has had his wife, mother, sister, two brothers and two little children, cruelly butchered by men of that race whom he had learned to respect and esteem.

  Some of the victims lived a few hours after having been brought up to Union. A number of citizens visited the scene where the canoes were unloaded; and it is but justice to the community and simple humanity to say, that the general expression was one of deep sympathy with the miserable sufferers, and honest, deep and utter abhorrence of the act of wanton brutality, and its perpetrators."

After 1860.  An estimated 200 Wiyot people still lived in the area.  Federal troops collected the surviving Wiyot people from other villages and confined them to the Klamath River Reservation.  After a disastrous flood on the Klamath, the Wiyot were moved to the Smith River Reservation and later to the Hoopa and Round Valley Reservations.

1870.  A shipyard repair facility was built on part of the Island and operated there until the 1980s.  During that time, it dumped creosote, solvents, and other chemicals that were used to maintain ships.

Late 19th Century.  Non-Indian settlers built dikes and channels on Indian Island that changed tidal action along the shore and caused some erosion of the clamshell-shaped mound.

Early 1900s.  A church group purchased 20 acres in the Eel River estuary for homeless Wiyot people.  This land later became known as the Table Bluff Rancheria of Wiyot Indians.

1910.  Under 100 full blood Wiyot people were estimated to be living in Wiyot territory.

1913. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber sent one of his staff members, Llewellyn Loud to Humboldt County to collect Indian human remains. Loud conducted most of his work at Indian Island. He recorded 24 skeletons existing in 22 graves that existed prior to the 1860 massacre.

1918. Loud published his report and thereafter, Indian Island became a popular site for local hobbyists and entrepreneurs to search for collectables and human remains.

1923. Eureka dentist, H. H. Stuart began extensive excavations of Indian graves at Indian Island. He eventually dug up 382 graves.

1960. The City of Eureka acquired ownership of most of Indian Island.

1961. Eureka High School teacher and collector of local history, Cecile Clarke received uanimous approval from the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors "to excavate and preserve relics of Indian tribes native to this region" on Indian Island.

1963-69. Clarke and her team excavated sites on Indian Island. It carried out radiocarbon dates tests confirming the site's original occupation as 880A.D.

1992.  In February, the first candlelight vigil was held to remember those who lost their lives in the Massacre and to help the community heal.  About 75 people participated that year and by 1996, over 300 participated.  The Wiyot hope that at some  point, the vigil can be held on Indian Island which remains inaccessible to the Wiyot.

2000.  The Wiyot Tribe purchased 1.5 acres of Indian Island and began cleaning the debris and pollutants left on the village site.

2004.  On May 18th, the Eureka City County unanimously approved a resolution to return 60 acres - comprising the northeastern tip of Indian Island where the Tribe once celebrated its World Renewal Ceremony - to the Wiyot Tribe. Some of the remaining Wiyot people lived on the 88-acre Table Bluff Reservation and 550 members were enrolled in the Wiyot nation.

2009. In February, the Wiyot Tribe had its 17th candlelight vigil

2010. In February, the Wiyot Tribe commemorated the 150 year anniversary of the Indian Island Massacre.

2013. The Wiyot Tribe completed the clean-up of dioxin, asbestos, and other toxins left by the former shipyard.

2014. In February, the Wiyot Tribe had it 22nd and final candlelight vigil as shown in the photograph below.

• In March, Eureka Major Frank Jager wrote the following letter to the Wiyot people, "As Mayor of Eureka, on behalf of the City Council and the people of Eureka, we would like to offer a formal apolgy to the Wiyot people for the actions of our people in 1860. Nothing we say or do can make up for what occurrred on that night of infamy. It will forever be a scar on our history We can, however, with our present and future actions of support for the Wiyot, work to remove the prejudice and bigotry that still exists in our society today." Other city officials then rewrote the letter, left out the apology and the reference to prejudice and bigotry, and delivered what many Eurekans have called the "non-apology" letter.
• Between March 28-30, 2014, the Wiyot Tribe held its first World Renewal Ceremony since February 1860. This sacred ceremony took place over three consecutive days at Tuluwat on Indian Island, Pimad on the South Jetty, and at Rrawuraghumuk at Table Bluff Reservation.

2015. In April, the Eureka City Council received a request from the Yurok Tribe to transfer more of the publicly-owned land on Indian Island to the Tribe. On April 7, the City Council unanimously voted to refer the tribe's request to a committee that promised an "expeditious" process.

Methods Discussion: One of the tried and true measures of assessing what your students have learned is a strong analytical Essay Question/Prompt. Today, we end our discussion with one such question/prompt. Please take out a piece of paper, write your name and "Essay Question/Prompt" at the top. Then spend 10 minutes addressing the following:

There is little consensus among American historians about whether or not the Federal Indian policies that were implemented in the 19th Century were genocidal in intent and consequence. However, there is very little disagreement among American historians about California's Indian policies - the vast majority agree that they were genocidal in both intent and consequence.

1. Do you believe 19th Century federal policies were genocidal? Provide evidence from what we have learned to support your answer.
2. Do you believe California's 19th Century Indian policies were genocidal? Provide evidence from what we have learned to support your answer
3. How were the federal policies different from those of California?
4. Be sure to keep your "Essay Question/Prompt" method assignment. It will go into your Portfolio.

Conclusions: The Consequences of Manifest Destiny on American Indians

1. The State of California decided to solve the “Indian Problem” through policies of forced labor, slavery, and vigilante militia whose job it was to kill local Indians. 
2. The policies of the federal government in regard to California Indians paralleled the federal policies passed during the era of Manifest Destiny: making treaties, removing Indians from their ancestral homelands and placing them on reservations, educating their children through Americanization and assimilation, and alloting Indian lands.
3. State and Federal attitudes about the “Indian Problem” resulted in policies and/or actions that had enormous consequences for the Indians of California:
   • Many of the previously sovereign Indian Nations became semi-sovereign, impoverished nations largely dependent upon the U.S. government for their well being.
   • The Indian nations of California were the victims of genocidal policies. The vast majority of the Indians who had lived in California had either been forcibly removed to Indian reservations, or they had been killed.
   • The Indian population of 1850, ranging between 70,000-100,000, dropped to about 30,000 by 1870.  By the 1900 federal census, only 16,000 Indians were recorded in California.
4. Northern Californian citizens responded to Indian raids, Indian killings, and economic competition from Indian communities with acts of vigilante violence – none of which were punished by local, state, or federal agencies.
5. Despite the many attempts to destroy the Indians of California, within several generations, most nations had survived and replenished their populations and maintained many of their tribal cultural, political, economic, and spiritual traditions.
   • By the end of the twentieth century, California had more Indian people than any other state in the nation.
   • About one-sixth of the estimated Indian population of the nation lived in California - approximately 320,000 Indians.
   • The Bureau of Indian Affairs served about 56,000 Indians who live on California's 104 federally recognized Indian reservations, about one-third of which are located in Northern California.
   • About 200,000 urban Indians and 75,000 other indigeneous Indians live on about 80 reservations that are not federally recognized.
   • As of late 1999, approximately 52 California Indian Nations had applied to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for federal recognition