The West after 1865: railroads, homesteads and Native nations
Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Dividing reservation land
The Dawes Act (cards A to E). Card A, the Dawes Act, February 8, 1887, section 1 (excerpt): "the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized, whenever in his opinion any reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes, to cause said reservation, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed if necessary, and to allot the lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon in quantities as follows: To each head of a family, one-quarter of a section; To each single person over eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section;" Card B, the Dawes Act, in our words: it is named for Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, who wrote it. Supporters argued that Native families who owned their own farms would prosper and, over time, join the wider society. The Act let the president divide reservation land, which a nation held in common, into plots for individuals. Land left over after the plots were assigned was called surplus and opened to non-Native settlers. Card C, land held by Native nations, in our words: the Bureau of Indian Affairs says Native nations controlled about 138 million acres before the Dawes Act and only 48 million acres by 1934. The losses came from allotment and from the sale of surplus land. The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act stopped any new allotments. Card D, how big is a section, in our words: surveyors divided western land into sections, and each section into four quarter sections. The Homestead Act of 1862 named a quarter section, or 160 acres, as the most a homesteader could claim. Card E, Young Joseph (In-mut-too-yah-lat-lat), a chief of the Nez Perce; today the Nez Perce Tribe (Nimiipuu) is a self-governing nation in Lapwai, Idaho; from "An Indian's Views of Indian Affairs", The North American Review, April 1879, written for readers of the magazine (excerpt): "My friends, I have been asked to show you my heart. I am glad to have a chance to do so. I want the white people to understand my people."
In the words quoted in card A, whose judgment decides whether a reservation is divided, and what does card B add, Ari asks?
- Congress's, since card B says the Act was written by a senator
- The settlers', since the words say the land suits farming and grazing
- The nation's, since the words speak of the Indian located there taking a plot
- The President's, "in his opinion"; the words do not mention consent
Using cards A and D, what plot sizes did the law offer, and what does the difference show, Bo asks?
- 80 acres to a family head and 40 to a single adult, so plots rose with family
- 640 acres to a family head and 160 to a single adult, a whole section for each family
- 160 acres to a family head and 80 to a single adult, which was enough to farm well
- 160 acres to a family head and 80 to a single adult, so plots rose with family
Card C says nations held about 138 million acres before the Dawes Act and 48 million by 1934. Which statement is fair, Jun asks?
- A fall of about 65 percent, the whole of it from allotment
- A fall of about 35 percent, found by dividing 48 by 138
- A fall of about 65 percent, from allotment and surplus sales
- A fall of 90 percent, taking the 90 million acres lost as a percent
Supporters said owning farms would help Native families prosper. What does card C do to that argument, Kira asks?
- It shows the aim caused the loss, since the loss followed the Act by decades
- It shows nations' land fell by about two thirds, which the aim does not mention
- It disproves the aim, since no Native family prospered on a farm
- It leaves the argument alone, since land totals say nothing about families' lives
A student says Dawes Act supporters wanted nations to lose 90 million acres. What do the cards show, Luz asks?
- The result and the stated aim, but not that the loss was the aim
- Surplus sales alone explain the loss, since card B names them
- The aim was to protect the land, since card B says families would prosper
- The loss was the stated aim, since card B names allotment as the Act's method
Card B calls land left after the plots "surplus." Whose view does that word reflect, Milo asks?
- The nations': they agreed which land was extra when plots were assigned
- Surveyors': the word gives the exact size left after each plot
- The Bureau of Indian Affairs': the word shows the land was valued low
- The government's and settlers': left over though nations held it
Card C says the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act "stopped any new allotments." What does that leave unsaid, Pia asks?
- That the Act caused the loss of 90 million acres
- That lost land was returned to the nations, since the Act ended allotment
- That allotments had ended by 1900, since the losses came early
- Whether land already lost was returned, which the card leaves unsaid
Card E was written for magazine readers in April 1879. What does that audience suggest about its purpose, and what can it not show, Ren asks?
- To demand land back from the government, since he is a chief and a leader
- To report a land sale, since magazines print reports
- To address his own nation, since it opens with "my friends"
- To explain his people to outsiders; it does not show how the Act worked
For the question "How many acres did Native nations hold in 1934?", which card is best, and why not another, Tala asks?
- Card A, which gives plot sizes from which totals follow
- Card E, since a chief's view in 1879 points to the later loss
- Card C, which gives the 1934 figure; card B describes the Act
- Card D, which sets the acres in a section, so totals follow
Which conclusion do cards A to E support best, Zee asks?
- The Act took the land from Native nations by 1934
- Allotment alone explains the loss, since card A sets plot sizes
- The Act let the president divide land, and nations' holdings fell by 1934
- The Act protected nations' land, since card B says families would prosper there