Founded in the late nineteenth century, the Women's National Indian Association was one of several reform associati
387 22 9MB
English Pages 280 [282] Year 2020
Gender, Race, and the
Power in
Indian Reform Movement
±EV²s²T²Ng THE ³²sTO´y OF THE Wµ¶A
·D²TED by ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹ ºO´E»O´D by ¼lBert L. ½urtado
Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹ | ¼lBuquerque
© 2020 BY the Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹ ¼ll ri¿ht¹ re¹erved. PuBli¹hed 2020 Printed in the United State¹ of ¼merica
ISÀ¾ 978-0-8263-6182-0 (cloth) ISÀ¾ 978-0-8263-6183-7 (electronic)
LiBrarY of Con¿re¹¹ Control ¾umBer: 2020939013
Cover photo¿raph courte¹Y of the Áneida ¾ation Mu¹eum, Áneida, Âi¹con¹in Ãe¹i¿ned BY Äelicia Cedillo¹
Dedicated to the memory of John M. Rhea and Phil Brigandi
Content¹
Li¹t of Illu¹tration¹ Äoreword
ix
xi AÅbE´T Æ. ³Ç´TÈDO
Introduction. Still Âorkin¿ in the Äield
°e WNIA and Gender History
1
JÈNE ɲÊONsEN
Part 1. New Interpretations Chapter 1. Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
A Critical Reexamination of the Origins and Early History of the Women’s National Indian Association, 1877–1881 27 JOHN Ì. ±HEÈ
Chapter 2. Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
°ree Massachusetts Women and Indian Reform in the 1880s 55 ÍÇ´T²s Ì. ³²NsÅEy
Part 2. °e National Scene Chapter 3. ¼ Place at the ËaBle
°e Women’s National Indian Association in the Indian Reform Arena 85 ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
vii
viii
Content¹
Part 3. °e Influence of Helen Hunt Jackson Chapter 4. ½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án
Helen Hunt Jackson’s Followers in the Indian Reform Movement 109 ÏH²Å д²gÈND²
Chapter 5. In the Shadow of Ramona
Frances Campbell Sparhawk and the Fiction of Reform
123
ÑÈV²D WÈÅÅÈÒE ADÈÊs
Part 4. From Philadelphia to Northern California: Coast to Coast Reform Chapter 6. MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
Educator and Indian Reformer
143
ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
Chapter 7. C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
163
ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
Part 5. Indian Women and Self-Determination Chapter 8. “Ôour Indian Äriend”
Indigenous Women and Strategic Alliances with the WNIA JÈNE ɲÊONsEN
Conclu¹ion. “Indian¹ Can Àe Óducated”
°e WNIA at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition ÆO´² JÈÒObsON
¼ppendix. ¾I¼ Mi¹¹ionarY Station¹ 227 ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
ÀiBlio¿raphY
243
ContriButor¹
261
Index
265
209
185
Illu¹tration¹
Äi¿ure 0.1. ¾ative cotta¿e ¹ettlement, Sitka, ¼la¹ka, ca. 1900
16
Äi¿ure 1.1. ¼melia Stone Quinton
37
Äi¿ure 2.1. MarY Ëile¹ton ½emenwaY
58
Äi¿ure 2.2. Martha LeÀaron Goddard
70
Äi¿ure 3.1. Lake Mohonk Conference, 1899
93
Äi¿ure 4.1. MarY Sheriff Äowler
115
Äi¿ure 4.2. “Äather Ga¹para’¹ ¼rrival at the Rancheria”
117
Äi¿ure 5.1. Richard ½enrY Pratt
126
Äi¿ure 6.1. MarY Lucinda ÀonneY
147
Äi¿ure 7.1. Reformer¹ at Glenwood Mi¹¹ion Inn, River¹ide, California, 1908
173
Äi¿ure 8.1. Áneida lace maker¹
196
Äi¿ure 8.2. Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿
202
Äi¿ure 9.1. Ground plan and ¿allerY of the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿, ColumBian Óxpo¹ition, 1893
211
Äi¿ure 9.2. “Cla¹¹ of Indian¹ in Äront of School”
ix
220
Äoreword AÅbE´T Æ. ³Ç´TÈDO
Âomen in the Indian reform movement did not wait to ¿et the vote to ¹hape puBlic policY. ¾or did theY follow the lead of men, althou¿h theY often a¿reed with them aBout what needed to Be done. ¼¹ the e¹¹aY¹ in thi¹ volume ¹how, the reformin¿ women in the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼) charted their own independent cour¹e. °e role of the ¾I¼ i¹ a ¹i¿nificant part of the hi¹torY of the Indian reform movement that i¹ known to u¹ throu¿h the work of ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, editor of thi¹ volume; throu¿h the contriButor¹; and throu¿h other¹ who are cited in the comprehen¹ive BiBlio¿raphY at the end of the volume. It ¹hould come a¹ no ¹urpri¹e that ¹cholar¹hip concernin¿ the ¾I¼—and more ¿enerallY aBout women involved in Indian reform—Be¿an to emer¿e when the field¹ of Indian hi¹torY and women’¹ hi¹torY were comin¿ to the forefront of ¼merican hi¹torY. ¾or ¹hould it Be ¹urpri¹in¿ to learn that or¿anization¹ led BY men ¿ot more attention in their own time and in the fir¹t ¹cholarlY work on Indian policY and reform. Since the 1990¹, however, women have ¿otten con¹ideraBlY more attention from academic¹ who learned their craft in an era when women’¹ hi¹torY wa¹ Becomin¿ a ¹tandard part of the ¼merican hi¹torY curriculum. °e pre¹ent volume continue¹ the proce¹¹ of illuminatin¿ the work of women in the ¾I¼, the Indian reform movement, and women’¹ hi¹torY. Indian reform wa¹ one of the crYin¿ ¹ocial and political cau¹e¹ of the nineteenth and twentieth centurie¹, a movement that ¿rew in force after the Civil Âar. Generation¹ of reformer¹ demanded that federal Indian policY and admini¹tration Be chan¿ed. °e Áffice of Indian ¼ffair¹ (ÁI¼) wa¹ widelY re¿arded a¹ a corrupt, ineffectual haven for political hack¹. So-called Indian rin¿¹, comBination¹ of un¹crupulou¹ politician¹, ÁI¼ emploYee¹, and merchant¹, con¹pired to defraud the federal ¿overnment and it¹ Indian
xi
xii
Äoreword
ward¹. Äar from protectin¿ the triBe¹ that were in it¹ care, the federal ¿overnment con¹i¹tentlY reduced the land¹ that were included in Indian re¹ervation¹, limited triBal ¹overei¿ntY, depleted Indian re¹ource¹, failed to live up to it¹ treatY oBli¿ation¹, and di¹re¿arded fundamental norm¹ of human decencY. ÀY the end of the nineteenth centurY, Indian re¹ervation¹ had Become ¹inkhole¹ where federal dollar¹ di¹appeared without doin¿ much ¿ood for Indian¹ while ¹imultaneou¹lY enrichin¿ the para¹itic Indian rin¿¹. Ëo her everla¹tin¿ credit, ½elen ½unt jack¹on called the ¿eneral puBlic’¹ attention to the¹e aBu¹e¹ and in¹pired a new ¿eneration of reformer¹, e¹peciallY women, to do ¹omethin¿ to help the Indian¹. jack¹on wa¹ much admired BY her ¾I¼ peer¹, But Indian reform and Indian reformer¹ were not univer¹allY popular in their daY. °eY threatened the ¹tatu¹ quo in what mi¿ht Be called “the Indian Bu¹ine¹¹.” °eY ¹hined a li¿ht on corrupt practice¹ and demanded that ¹omethin¿ Be done to ¹top them. Reformer¹ pointed out the povertY of Indian¹ and propo¹ed policie¹ that, theY hoped, would improve the condition of ¾ative people. Ëo the extent that theY were ¹ucce¹¹ful, reformer¹ dimini¹hed opportunitie¹ for ¿raft amon¿ the ¿ra¹pin¿ politician¹ and merchant¹ for whom the Indian Áffice Bud¿et wa¹ a ¹ource of revenue. Âhile ¾I¼ memBer¹ and their male collea¿ue¹ walked throu¿h the front door of the Capitol, we maY Be ¹ure that the ¹hadY Benefactor¹ of corruption loBBied for the ¹tatu¹ quo in darker place¹. ¾everthele¹¹, Con¿re¹¹ could not le¿i¹late and the pre¹ident could not admini¹ter Indian policY without at lea¹t takin¿ the Indian reform movement into con¹ideration. °e oBÕective¹ of the Indian reformer¹ in ¿eneral were not con¿ruent with twentY-fir¹t-centurY thinkin¿ aBout Indian policY that now revolve¹ around the re¹toration of triBal ¹overei¿ntY. Chri¹tian in aim¹ and outlook, ¾I¼ memBer¹ would never have approved—or even ima¿ined—an Indian ca¹ino. Ôet, one of the knock-on effect¹ of the ¹ucce¹¹ful effort to acquire land for California Indian¹ ha¹ Been to ¿ive them a Ba¹i¹ for takin¿ land into tru¹t for the purpo¹e of e¹taBli¹hin¿ ¿amin¿ re¹ort¹. °e ¾I¼ could not completelY reform federal Indian policY anY more than theY could fore¹ee the future. Still, theY did ¹uB¹tantial ¿ood even thou¿h there were ¹ome unintended re¹ult¹ in the lon¿ run. Some critic¹ mi¿ht ar¿ue that the ¾I¼ wa¹ too narrowlY Chri¹tian and middle cla¹¹
Äoreword
xiii
in it¹ amBition¹, too devoted to an a¹¹imilationi¹t vi¹ion of the future. Àut we mi¿ht ¹oBerlY a¹k the que¹tion: if theY had not worked a¹¹iduou¹lY for the reform¹ that theY envi¹ioned, what would have Been the human co¹t in Indian countrY? Âe can ima¿ine plentY of Bad outcome¹ if the ¾I¼ had not counterBalanced the political Indian rin¿¹ and other corrupt practitioner¹. °e value to Indian communitie¹ todaY of the work of Charle¹ Ódwin Kel¹eY and other¹ to ¹ecure tract¹ of land for California Indian¹ i¹ ine¹timaBle. °e e¹¹aY¹ in thi¹ volume pre¹ent a clearheaded picture of the ¾I¼ and ¹everal of it¹ leadin¿ memBer¹. °eY emer¿e a¹ dedicated, practical, and hardworkin¿ citizen¹ who u¹ed the tool¹ at their di¹po¹al to chan¿e the world theY lived in. Sometime¹ theY fou¿ht amon¿ them¹elve¹. °eir motive¹ were not alwaY¹ unalloYed. Âith the pa¹¹a¿e of time, reform¹ that were more Indian-centric would emer¿e to eclip¹e the policie¹ that the ¾I¼ promoted, But that ¹hould not dimini¹h the ¹i¿nificance of the work that theY did. °e ¾I¼ ¹et out to chan¿e a world that wa¹ not immediatelY prepared to li¹ten to women in the puBlic ¹phere. Ôet theY ¹ucceeded in influencin¿ Indian policY in waY¹ that in ¹ome ca¹e¹ are ¹till with u¹ todaY. °e more we know aBout them, the Better we will under¹tand their world and our own.
¶NT´ODÇÒT²ON
Still Working in the Field °e WNIA and Gender History JÈNE ɲÊONsEN
¶N THE F²´sT volume devoted to the hi¹torY of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼), ½elen M. Àannan defended the or¿anization’¹ ¹i¿nificance in US women’¹ hi¹torY BY comparin¿ it¹ influence to that of the Âoman’¹ Chri¹tian Ëemperance Union, fore¿roundin¿ the ¾I¼’¹ u¹e of maternali¹t ¹ocial policY to Õu¹tifY it¹ intervention¹ in reli¿iou¹ mi¹¹ion¹, education, and civil ¹ervice amon¿ ¾ative ¼merican¹ in the late nineteenth and 1
earlY twentieth centurie¹. ClearlY part of the female moral reform movement that, a quarter centurY a¿o, ¼nne Äiror Scott ¹ituated a¹ foundational to US women’¹ political and ¹ocial activi¹m, the ¾I¼’¹ memBer¹ were white, privile¿ed women who¹e attempt¹ to extend their own ideolo¿ie¹ to indi¿enou¹ communitie¹ ¿enerated a ¹et of ¹ocial, political, and economic ne¿otiation¹ that altered the live¹ of individual¹ in waY¹ Both con¹tructive 2
and detrimental. In ¹pite of the importance of ¿ender to the Belief¹ and ¹trate¿ie¹ that were at the heart of the ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion, the or¿anization i¹ ¹till more often cate¿orized within ¾ative ¼merican hi¹torY than women’¹ and ¿ender hi¹torY. Ërend¹ in the field, thou¿h, ¹u¿¿e¹t that the ¾I¼ ha¹ not lo¹t it¹ hi¹torical ¹i¿nificance. Indeed, women’¹ and ¿ender hi¹torian¹ are ¹till realizin¿ the vi¹ion of a “kaleido¹cope” of inter¹ectin¿ hi¹torie¹ of race, ¿ender, and ethnicitY that ¸icki Ruiz and Óllen Carol ÃuÀoi¹ fir¹t called for in their introduction to the 1990 antholo¿Y Unequal Sisters. ¼¹ the field Be¿in¹ to prioritize treatin¿ hi¹torie¹ of different race¹, cla¹¹e¹, ¿ender¹, and ethnicitie¹ in relation rather than in i¹olation, we maY di¹cover new waY¹ to inve¹ti¿ate the ¾I¼ a¹ an or¿anization who¹e influence emer¿ed out of variou¹ intellectual and political hi¹torie¹ and reached BeYond it¹ relativelY homo¿eneou¹
1
2
ɲÊONsEN
memBer¹hip. Ëo ¹tudY the ¾I¼ in all it¹ complexitY require¹ u¹ to pu¹h BeYond the traditional Binarie¹ of oppre¹¹or/oppre¹¹ed, colonizer/colonized that paradoxicallY reinforce the le¿acY of imperiali¹m. °i¹ volume laY¹ further ¿roundwork for that ¹tudY. In her 2013 “¹tate of the field” e¹¹aY, Michele Mitchell explained that ¹ince the puBlication of Unequal Sisters, women’¹ hi¹torY ha¹ deepened and expanded to include more women of color and to attend to the waY¹ ethnicitY, nationalitY, cla¹¹, ¹exualitY, and immi¿ration ¹tatu¹ affect women’¹ work, opportunitie¹, activi¹m, health, and reproduction. Such work expo¹e¹ the con¹tructedne¹¹ of cate¿orie¹ ¹uch a¹ race, ¿ender, and ¹exualitY, Broadenin¿ the field to include men, ma¹culinitie¹, and, even more recentlY, tran¹ identitie¹ in it¹ ¹cope. Ôet Mitchell que¹tion¹ whether the ¿rowth of ¹uBfield¹ trulY challen¿e¹ traditional oppo¹ition¹ Between Óa¹t and Âe¹t, Black and white, 3
male and female. Mar¿aret jacoB¹ make¹ thi¹ point even more forcefullY in ar¿uin¿ that women’¹ hi¹torY emBelli¹hed with mere multiculturali¹m i¹ not enou¿h to topple the prevailin¿ triumphali¹t narrative of US we¹tern hi¹torY and confront the more accurate ma¹ter narrative of colonization. She invite¹ u¹ to picture we¹tern women’¹ hi¹torY a¹ a “¹unBonneted Madonna of the Prairie” drivin¿ her wa¿on alon¿ a well-worn rut; ¹he “¿eniallY allow¹ new ¹torie¹ to Be ¹trapped to the ¹ide and piled on top. Àut the¹e ¹torie¹ perch precariou¹lY on the wa¿on; theY don’t reallY fit. °eY can Be ea¹ilY Õetti¹oned if the ¿oin¿ ¿et¹ rou¿h, and if theY happen to topple off on their own, the wa¿on driver doe¹n’t reallY mi¹¹ them a¹ ¹he continue¹ on her path.” She ar¿ue¹ for the continuin¿ evaluation of “intimate frontier¹”—fir¹t conceptualized BY ¼lBert ½urtado—throu¿h the len¹ of ¹ettler coloniali¹m, allowin¿ hi¹torian¹ to under¹tand matter¹ ¹uch a¹ reproduction, child-rearin¿, dome¹tic in¹truction, and health care a¹ participatin¿ in the lar¿er proce¹¹e¹ of laBor exploitation and land di¹po¹¹e¹¹ion that were critical to in¹titutin¿ and upholdin¿ ¼n¿lo-¼merican authoritY in we¹tern ¹pace¹.
4
°e ¾I¼’¹ inve¹tment in tho¹e verY concern¹ wa¹ complex and not nece¹¹arilY con¹i¹tent—¹ome memBer¹ ¹tron¿lY endor¹ed indi¿enou¹ children’¹ ¹eparation from their triBe¹, ¹ome aided ¿roup¹ in e¹taBli¹hin¿ land claim¹, ¹ome funded triBal health clinic¹, and other¹ wre¹ted awaY indi¿enou¹ medical knowled¿e—Yet ¹tudie¹ of the or¿anization’¹ work remain few and verY far Between. Pe¿¿Y Pa¹coe’¹ Relations of Rescue: °e Search for Female
Moral Authority in the American West, 1874–1939 (1990) u¹e¹ the relation¹hip
Introduction
3
Between Ámaha phY¹ician Su¹an La Äle¹che and the ¾I¼, which ¹pon¹ored her education, a¹ a ca¹e ¹tudY of the inter¹ection Between race and ¿ender. ¼¹ a “native helper” in the home mi¹¹ion movement, La Äle¹che could acce¹¹ the moral authoritY offered throu¿h ¾I¼ patrona¿e, But her onlY e¹cape from “racial determini¹m” wa¹ to emBrace the “¿ender determini¹m” upon which, Pa¹coe ar¿ue¹, manY white female reformer¹ relied. ¼ decade later, Loui¹e Michele ¾ewman articulated the link¹ Between the “woman que¹tion” and the “Indian Que¹tion” throu¿h an examination of ethnolo¿i¹t ¼lice Äletcher and her relation¹hip to the ¾I¼’¹ mi¹¹ion. In
White Women’s Rights, ¾ewman ar¿ue¹ that Äletcher, alon¿ with female mi¹¹ionarie¹, ¹uffra¿i¹t¹, and moral reformer¹, found their own avenue¹ to power onlY BY echoin¿ white ¹upremaci¹t ma¹ter narrative¹ fir¹t articulated BY white men. Imperiali¹m i¹ deeplY emBedded in US femini¹m, ¾ewman ¹how¹, creatin¿ divi¹ion¹ of power that main¹tream femini¹m ha¹ failed to aBandon. In White Mother to a Dark Race (2009), Mar¿aret jacoB¹ ar¿ue¹ that removal¹ of indi¿enou¹ children—¹ome of which were facilitated BY the ¾I¼—plaYed a¹ critical a role in ¹ettler coloniali¹m a¹ territorial removal¹ and wa¹ a di¹tinctlY ¿endered movement, a¹ white women focu¹ed on the maternal failin¿¹ of indi¿enou¹ women in order to validate children’¹ reeducation. ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹’¹ Divinely Guided: °e California Work of the
Women’s National Indian Association (2012) demon¹trate¹ that ¾I¼ reformer¹ challen¿ed ¿ender norm¹ BY carvin¿ out place¹ for them¹elve¹ in puBlic di¹cu¹¹ion¹ aBout law and policY, and that their maternali¹m, while often culturallY Blind, nonethele¹¹ fo¹tered the development of ¹ocial ¹ervice¹ at the ¾I¼’¹ California mi¹¹ion ¹ite¹. In the proce¹¹, Mathe¹ ¹ituate¹ churche¹, ¹chool¹, and mi¹¹ion¹ within the Broader hi¹torY of women’¹ ¹ocial welfare work, ¹u¿¿e¹tin¿ that Both white women and indi¿enou¹ population¹ maY have onlY ¹electivelY emBraced method¹ of ¹ocial control in order to reap needed Benefit¹, includin¿ education and health care. Chapter¹ in thi¹ volume continue thi¹ inquirY, examinin¿ the waY¹ that individual ¾I¼ leader¹ and affiliate¹ drew on variou¹ method¹ of influence availaBle to them, con¹tructin¿ the i¹¹ue¹ central to the “Indian Que¹tion” out of a nexu¹ of political, anthropolo¿ical, hi¹torical, reli¿iou¹, and economic idea¹ in the late nineteenth and earlY twentieth centurie¹. Âhile previou¹ work u¹efullY ¹ituate¹ the ¾I¼ within the framework¹ of women’¹ hi¹torY and US coloniali¹m, illuminatin¿ role¹ that white women
4
ɲÊONsEN
plaYed in the puBlic and private politic¹ of imperiali¹m, we have not Yet Õo¹tled white women from their central po¹ition in the narrative nor ¹ufficientlY addre¹¹ed indi¿enou¹ a¿encY. Recent Book¹ in ¾ative ¼merican and indi¿enou¹ ¹tudie¹ prioritize the moral and political complexitY of indi¿enou¹ ¿roup¹, po¹itionin¿ them a¹ ne¿otiator¹, collaBorator¹, and producer¹ of knowled¿e durin¿ the a¹¹imilation era. °eda Perdue, Katherine Á¹Burn, Colette ½Yman, and Àrenda Child, in their ¹tudie¹ of Cherokee, Ute, Ãakota, and ÁÕiBwaY women, re¹pectivelY, have all privile¿ed the experience¹ and a¿encY of indi¿enou¹ women a¹ theY ¹u¹tained familie¹ and com5
munitie¹ throu¿h war, removal, and a¹¹imilation. In the¹e and other ca¹e¹, work on indi¿enou¹ women reco¿nize¹ the complexitY of exchan¿e Between white¹ and indi¿enou¹ people and within the communitie¹ them¹elve¹ BY hi¿hli¿htin¿ ¹trate¿ic accommodation and political difference¹ within triBal nation¹. Catherine j. Ãenial’¹ Making Marriage: Husbands, Wives, and the
American State in Dakota and Ojibway Country ar¿ue¹ that Ãakota and ÁÕiBwaY re¹i¹tance to US law¹ ¿overnin¿ marria¿e and divorce pu¹hed white ¹ettler¹ to adapt their Belief¹ and practice¹, demon¹tratin¿ that indi¿enou¹ ¹overei¿ntY effort¹ influenced ¼merican idea¹ aBout identitY and nation. Âhile ¿ender i¹ not at the center of Pai¿e RaiBmon’¹ Authentic Indians: Epi-
sodes of Encounter from the Late-Nineteenth-Century Northwest Coast, it hi¿hli¿ht¹ indi¿enou¹ a¿encY in the face of US imperiali¹m. RaiBmon reco¿nize¹ “authenticitY” a¹ an imperial con¹truct, produced BY Óuro-¼merican¹ who wi¹hed to ¹u¹tain the fanta¹Y of ¾ative “Backwardne¹¹” that fueled Both territorial conque¹t and the reconque¹t of touri¹m. Âithout i¿norin¿ the deva¹tatin¿ re¹ult¹ of colonization, ¹he re¿ard¹ ¾ative nation¹ and individual¹ a¹ cannY, ¹trate¿ic participant¹ in the con¹truction of their own authenticitY, ¹electivelY producin¿ and controllin¿ it in waY¹ that have maintained, in manY ca¹e¹, communitY and ¹overei¿ntY. Áften led BY indi¿enou¹ ¹cholar¹, work in ¾ative ¼merican hi¹torY ha¹ pu¹hed u¹ to revi¹it art, laBor, intimate relation¹, and performance a¹ part of indi¿enou¹-led decolonization proce¹¹e¹ rather than a¹ tool¹ u¹ed ¹olelY BY colonizer¹. Under¹tandin¿ how race, ¿ender, and ¹exualitY ¹u¹tained and undermined power relation¹ ha¹ Been critical to recent proÕect¹ in women’¹ and ¿ender hi¹torY, the Be¹t of which an¹wer Mitchell’¹ call to “examine ¿ender hi¹torie¹ of different racial and ethnic population¹ to¿ether more frequentlY” and to “trouBle the Black-white BinarY BY takin¿ a richlY pri¹matic approach
Introduction
5
6
to ¹exualitY and ¿ender.” Corre¹pondin¿lY, in their 2012 “State of the Äield” e¹¹aY in the Journal of American History, Cornelia ½. ÃaYton and Li¹a Leven¹tein identified four trend¹ in women’¹ and ¿ender hi¹torY: hi¹toricizin¿ inter¹ectionalitY a¹ it affected Both “individual . . . identitie¹ and ¿ender re¿ime¹”; inve¹ti¿atin¿ how acce¹¹ to power i¹ determined BY “relational difference¹” Between ¿roup¹ of women; under¹tandin¿ the waY¹ that ¿ender wa¹ con¹tituted alon¿¹ide ¹tandard¹ of ¹exual Behavior; and re¹pondin¿ to contemporarY under¹tandin¿¹ of ¹ex and ¿ender that unfix ¹eemin¿lY “natu7
ral” relation¹hip¹ Between Biolo¿Y, ¿ender identitY, and ¹exual expre¹¹ion.
In thi¹ introduction, I ¹how that exi¹tin¿ re¹earch on the ¾I¼, includin¿ the chapter¹ in thi¹ volume, contriBute¹ to the¹e trend¹, and I a¹¹ert that under¹tandin¿ the ¾I¼’¹ credo of “women’¹ work for women” a¹ a ¿lo¹¹ on complex relation¹ involvin¿ ¿ender, ¹exualitY, and power reveal¹ new opportunitie¹ to contriBute to an ever more pri¹matic ¿ender hi¹torY.
Historicizing Intersectionality ½i¹torian¹ have hi¿hli¿hted inter¹ectionalitY in waY¹ that trouBle ¹impler race- and ¿ender-Ba¹ed Binarie¹ BY focu¹in¿ on an arraY of ¿roup¹ ¹uch a¹ “women” or “Indian¹”—each with it¹ own inter¹ectional ¹et of affiliation¹— ne¿otiatin¿ for chan¿e in a ¹in¿le citY or re¿ion. Äor example, Katherine Àenton-Cohen’¹ ¹tudY of multiple ¿roup¹’ participation in attempt¹ to create racial Boundarie¹ in Cochi¹e CountY, ¼rizona, include¹ female moral reformer¹ a¹ one ¿roup amon¿ manY and reco¿nize¹ ¿ender a¹ one of multiple axe¹ upon which identitY i¹ con¹tructed and power and re¹ource¹ are 8
unequallY di¹triButed. john Rhea’¹ ¹tudY in thi¹ volume likewi¹e find¹ that the ¾I¼ ori¿inated from a diver¹e ¹et of motive¹, includin¿ tho¹e of Choctaw and Chicka¹aw women, white Prote¹tant women in Chica¿o and Ào¹ton ¹tru¿¿lin¿ to control the pur¹e ¹trin¿¹ of their mi¹¹ion ¹ocietie¹, and northern and ¹outhern Àapti¹t¹ who¹e denominational difference¹ reached Back to the deBate over ¹laverY. Moreover, Becau¹e ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion¹, ¹chool¹, farm¹, and other re¹ervation work ¹ite¹ were more diver¹e than the circle¹ in which mo¹t memBer¹ traveled—encompa¹¹in¿ not onlY ¾I¼-¹pon¹ored worker¹ But ¿overnment a¿ent¹, reli¿iou¹ mi¹¹ionarie¹, ¾ative helper¹, and communitY memBer¹—the¹e ¹ite¹ ¹u¿¿e¹t rich po¹¹iBilitie¹ for inter¹ectional hi¹torie¹. ÀY ¹hiftin¿ the focu¹ of analY¹i¹ to center¹ of power, whether urBan
6
ɲÊONsEN
or more remote, we mi¿ht incorporate a more diver¹e arraY of hi¹torical actor¹ who¹e relation¹hip¹ to power, and to one another, can onlY Be under¹tood BY re¿ardin¿ ¿ender a¹ a cate¿orY who¹e meanin¿ inter¹ect¹ with other cate¿orie¹ ¹uch a¹ race, nationalitY, cla¹¹, ¹exualitY, and reli¿ion. Âork on the relation¹ Between indi¿enou¹ communitie¹, mi¹¹ion¹, the Mexican and US ¿overnment¹, and reformer¹ in ¹outhern California provide¹ an au¹piciou¹ ¹tartin¿ place for inve¹ti¿atin¿ the¹e inter¹ection¹. Geor¿e ½arwood Phillip¹’¹ Chiefs and Challengers: Indian Resistance and Cooperation in
Southern California, fir¹t puBli¹hed in 1975, illuminate¹ the ¹elective ¹trate¿ie¹ of re¹i¹tance and cooperation on the part of indi¿enou¹ leader¹ a¹ theY attempted to pre¹erve communitie¹ throu¿h a lon¿ centurY of chan¿e. Phillip¹’¹ focu¹ i¹ primarilY on male political leader¹hip Before 1900, wherea¹ in
Divinely Guided, Mathe¹ inve¹ti¿ate¹ women’¹ mi¹¹ion work at variou¹ California ¹ite¹, uncoverin¿ the triumph¹ and fru¹tration¹ of ¾I¼ worker¹ who ¹tru¿¿led to ne¿otiate ¿overnment over¹i¿ht, reli¿iou¹ imperative¹, triBal politic¹, and their own profe¹¹ional ¿oal¹. Like Phillip¹, ¹he reveal¹ the California ¹ite¹ to Be huB¹ of conflictin¿ idea¹ aBout land u¹e, ¿overnance, and the future of the triBe¹; reformer¹’ alle¿iance¹, however, were often a product of their different po¹ition¹ within ¿ender re¿ime¹. ¼mon¿ the¹e ¹ite¹ wa¹ Âarner’¹ Ranch, where the exi¹tence of a hot ¹prin¿¹ precipitated a deBate over land u¹e and indi¿enou¹ identitY that involved not onlY the ¾I¼ But the Áffice of Indian ¼ffair¹, the familY of politician and would-Be entrepreneur john ÃowneY, writer Charle¹ Lummi¹, Pre¹ident °eodore Roo¹evelt, and the 9
indi¿enou¹ Cupeño¹ who¹e livelihood¹ depended on the water ¹ource.
Âarner’¹ Ranch had lon¿ Been home to Cupeño¹ for whom the ¹ulfur ¹prin¿¹ provided nece¹¹arY water in an arid re¿ion; their clo¹e proximitY to Lui¹eño¹ and Cahuilla¹, a¹ well a¹ the arrival of Spani¹h mi¹¹ionarie¹ at the turn of the nineteenth centurY, created a network of indi¿enou¹ affiliation¹ and intertriBal rivalrie¹. ¼merican jonathan Âarner appeared in California in the 1830¹, applied for Mexican citizen¹hip (¹ealin¿ hi¹ new identitY BY chan¿in¿ hi¹ name to juan jo¹é Âarner), and ¹uB¹equentlY received a land ¿rant from the Mexican ¿overnment that included the villa¿e at ¼¿ua Caliente. In the aftermath of the Mexican-¼merican Âar that ceded ¹outhern California to the United State¹ and prompted indi¿enou¹ re¹i¹tance to ¼merican taxation and immi¿ration, Catholic Cupeño ¼ntonio Garra led a revolt a¿ain¹t the new leader¹, and Âarner’¹ Ranch wa¹ a tar¿et.
Introduction
7
ÀY 1880, former California ¿overnor john ÃowneY owned the ranch and emploYed manY of it¹ indi¿enou¹ re¹ident¹. ¼n uptick in touri¹m, thou¿h (perhap¹ enhanced BY the popularitY of ½elen ½unt jack¹on’¹ novel Ramona and other re¿ionali¹t writin¿), chan¿ed ÃowneY’¹ tune, and in 1890 he propo¹ed Buildin¿ a hotel at ¼¿ua Caliente’¹ ¹prin¿¹. ¼round the ¹ame time, the ¾I¼’¹ ¼melia Stone Quinton, with the ¹upport of the Áffice of Indian ¼ffair¹, Be¿an to rai¹e fund¹ for a ho¹pital that would Be run BY the ¾I¼¹upported phY¹ician ReBecca ½allowell. °e Cupeño¹ con¹idered the hot ¹prin¿¹ their¹, thou¿h, and were alreadY developin¿ the ¹prin¿¹ a¹ a touri¹t ¹ite, Buildin¿ Bathhou¹e¹ and char¿in¿ for their u¹e, rentin¿ their home¹ to touri¹t¹ durin¿ the ¹ummer, and ¹ervin¿ them at re¹taurant¹. °e ÃowneY familY’¹ effort¹ to remove the Cupeño¹ prompted re¹i¹tance led BY villa¿er¹ and encoura¿ed BY reformer¹, includin¿ the ¾I¼, for whom removal ¹eemed to endan¿er not onlY it¹ plan¹ for a ho¹pital But the ¹ucce¹¹ful homelife of a ¹ettled people. In ¹pite of their oppo¹ition, includin¿ a law¹uit that reached the US Supreme Court, the villa¿er¹ were forced to re¹ettle at the Lui¹eño re¹ervation at Pala, California, in 1903—a location extolled BY Both jack¹on and Charle¹ Lummi¹ for it¹ romantic BeautY But reÕected BY Salvador ¾ola¹quez and ¼mBro¹io Árte¿a, the two Cupeño memBer¹ of the 10
commi¹¹ion ta¹ked with ¹electin¿ a ¹ite.
°eY, alon¿ with Captain Cecilio
Àlacktooth, repeatedlY ¹tre¹¹ed that while other location¹ mi¿ht Be ¹ervice11
aBle, no other location wa¹ home.
°e Cupeño¹ made multiple attempt¹ to tran¹late their traditional under¹tandin¿ of home into le¿al term¹ that would Be accepted BY US law. ¸ariou¹ reformer¹ intere¹ted in the future of Âarner’¹ Ranch al¹o viewed the relation¹hip Between land and “home” throu¿h the inter¹ection of ¿ender, race, and reli¿ion. Äor manY white women reformer¹, the “home” wa¹ ¹i¿nified BY the exi¹tence of “civilized” home¹ and BY the Chri¹tianitY and docilitY of their occupant¹. Quinton, who vi¹ited ¹outhern California often, cultivatin¿ relation¹hip¹ with a¿ent¹ and mi¹¹ionarie¹ there, advanced her a¿enda in part BY drawin¿ on perceived divi¹ion¹ Between le¿al and moral definition¹ of “home” that ¹et white Prote¹tant maternali¹m a¿ain¹t the rapacitY of white men. Âritin¿ of ¿overnment a¿ent¹, ¹he characterized them a¹ amoral and ¿ra¹pin¿, Blamin¿ roadBlock¹ to the ho¹pital on “selfish men.”
12
Perhap¹
takin¿ a clue from the Cupeño¹ them¹elve¹, the ¾I¼’¹ monthlY puBlication, the Indian’s Friend , characterized removal a¹ an a¹¹ault on the homelife
8
ɲÊONsEN
of the villa¿er¹, a depiction that Áneida Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿, a proté¿ée of the ¾I¼ who tau¿ht at the nearBY Indian ¹chool in River¹ide, cannilY plaYed on when ¹he ¹tre¹¹ed the comfort, order, and whitewa¹hed 13
cleanline¹¹ of Cupeño adoBe¹ at ¼¿ua Caliente.
Quinton’¹ detractor¹, for
their part, took aim at her womanhood BY que¹tionin¿ her ri¿ht to intervene; a¿ent¹ ½oratio Ru¹t and Luciu¹ Âri¿ht douBted her qualification¹ and tho¹e of ¾I¼ fieldworker¹ ReBecca ½allowell and julia Ärench, while the Los Angeles Times di¹mi¹¹ed Quinton a¹ a “deliriou¹ woman.”
14
Similar di¹pute¹ Between avariciou¹ a¿ent¹ and pro¿re¹¹ive moral reformer¹ had earlier Been ¹kewered BY ¾I¼ leader and writer Ärance¹ Sparhawk in her 1894 novel Senator Intrigue and Inspector Noseby , a¹ Ãavid Âallace ¼dam¹ ¹how¹ in thi¹ volume. Âhile the ¾I¼’¹ characterization of Cupeño¹ a¹ docile and ¹ettled maY have ¿ained them the ¹Ympathie¹ of white women, it likelY allowed white men to deprive traditional male leader¹ of re¹pect and to downplaY their a¿encY. Indeed, the comBination of race and ¿ender i¹ no le¹¹ vi¹iBle in men’¹ involvement in the removal, particularlY a¹ emer¿in¿ model¹ of white ma¹culinitY wre¹tled older one¹ for a¹cendancY at the turn of the centurY. Lummi¹’¹ intere¹t in ¾ative ¼merican¹ wa¹ conditioned not onlY BY re¹i¹tance to the ver¹ion of ¹elf-made manhood repre¹ented BY corrupt a¿ent¹ and official¹ But BY an antimoderni¹t ma¹culinitY that countered the maternali¹m of ¿roup¹ like the ¾I¼ and romanticized indi¿enou¹ people at the co¹t of their ¹overei¿ntY. Lummi¹, the leader of the ¹outhwe¹tern Indian ri¿ht¹ or¿anization the SequoYa Lea¿ue, re¿arded ¹outhwe¹tern travel—and the hi¹toric ¹ite¹ he ¹ou¿ht to pre¹erve—a¹ an antidote to urBan, “overcivilized,” and implicitlY feminized US culture.
15
It i¹ no ¹urpri¹e, then, that Lummi¹ re¿arded him¹elf a¹ an expert on matter¹ pertainin¿ to Âarner’¹ Ranch and loBBied to lead the ¿roup of white men who ¹et off to reconnoiter potential re¹ettlement ¹ite¹. °eY cho¹e Pala, which he re¿arded a¹ an excellent new location for men to find work a¹ laBorer¹—and, incidentallY, wa¹ the ¹ite of a mi¹¹ion asistencia that he had campai¿ned to pre¹erve. Phil Àri¿andi note¹ that Lummi¹ capitalized on hi¹ relation¹hip with ma¹culini¹t Pre¹ident °eodore Roo¹evelt, derided ¿overnment in¹pector jame¹ McLau¿hlin—a lon¿time a¿ent in the Ãakota¹ who wa¹ married to a Mdewakanton woman—a¹ a “tenderfoot,” and verBallY ¹parred with men includin¿ Àlacktooth and Lo¹ ¼n¿ele¹
Introduction
9
reporter Geor¿e Law¹on a¹ he attempted to retain authoritY over the Cupeño¹’ fate.
16
¼ttorneY Ärank Lewi¹, for hi¹ part, worried aBout the influence
of “unde¹iraBle character¹” who vi¹ited the hot ¹prin¿¹ on indi¿enou¹ men, whom he found to Be “competent But unreliaBle” laBorer¹.
17
CertainlY the
work of Charle¹ Ódwin Kel¹eY, examined in chapter 7 of thi¹ Book, wa¹ enaBled BY variou¹ model¹ of ma¹culinitY that allowed him to travel thou¹and¹ of mile¹ to conduct a cen¹u¹ of landle¹¹ California Indian¹, to cla¹h with the a¹¹imilationi¹t a¿enda and militarY method¹ of Carli¹le Indian School founder Captain Richard ½enrY Pratt, and to collaBorate with Both Lummi¹ and ¾I¼ memBer¹ in appealin¿ to the heart¹ and ¹entiment¹ of variou¹ ¿roup¹ of white Californian¹. Perhap¹ mo¹t intri¿uin¿ are the waY¹ that the inhaBitant¹ of Âarner’¹ Ranch and later Pala—men and women ne¿otiatin¿ the le¿acY of Catholic mi¹¹ion¹, newer ¹ocial ¹ervice¹ ¹uch a¹ tho¹e provided BY the ¾I¼, their decade¹-lon¿ ¹tatu¹ a¹ laBorer¹ and craftworker¹, and the new po¹¹iBilitie¹ of touri¹m (in¹ti¿ated in part BY re¿ional Boo¹ter¹ like Lummi¹)—affiliated them¹elve¹ ¹electivelY with ¿overnment official¹, Prote¹tant mi¹¹ion worker¹, Catholic Church tradition¹, Indian ri¿ht¹ advocate¹, and Cupeño re¹i¹tance leader¹ to ¹u¹tain their own concept of home. Steven Karr’¹ hi¹torY of adaptation and continuitY followin¿ the removal to Pala ¹u¿¿e¹t¹ that ¿ender operated in conÕunction with material and cultural condition¹ a¹ re¹ident¹ re¹i¹ted and then ¹ou¿ht to adapt to new circum¹tance¹. In a narrative that recollect¹ ¼lBert ½urtado’¹ ¹tudY of mi¹¹ionarY effort¹ to enforce ¿ender and ¹exualitY ¹tandard¹, Karr ¹how¹ that ¹ome women’¹ re¹i¹tance to removal wa¹ conditioned BY ill treatment theY had experienced at Pala durin¿ it¹ period, ¹ome fiftY Year¹ earlier, a¹ a mi¹¹ion outpo¹t. Áne woman claimed that ¹he would run out to the chaparral rather than return to Pala; a kin¹woman explained that it wa¹ Becau¹e ¹he and other ¿irl¹ had Been “held pri¹oner at 18
Pala,” and theY ¹till Bore the ¹car¹ of the trauma.
Ôet Cupeño¹ continued
to celeBrate their Catholici¹m with fie¹ta¹ on Catholic holY daY¹, manY of which Blended indi¿enou¹ ¹on¿¹, practice¹—and intertriBal rivalrie¹—with Catholic ritual¹ that re¹ted, in part, on ideal¹ of ma¹culinitY and femininitY. Âomen at Pala al¹o ¹electivelY emBraced the opportunitie¹ for work and wa¿e earnin¿ that the Prote¹tant ¾I¼ endor¹ed. ¼nthropolo¿i¹t¹ collected Ba¹ket¹ from the women at Pala to capitalize on Óuro-¼merican intere¹t in “Indian” craft, and memBer¹ of the ¾I¼’¹ Redland¹ Indian
10
ɲÊONsEN
¼¹¹ociation promoted Ba¹ketrY to ¹upport mi¹¹ionarY work.
19
Âhen a
Branch of ¾I¼ ¹upporter SYBil Carter’¹ lace-makin¿ ¹chool opened at Pala, manY women took up the Óuropean art of lace makin¿ in addition to Ba¹ketrY. Karr find¹ that lace makin¿ maY have Been le¹¹ a ¹i¿n of their acceptance of Carter’¹ plan for “whitenin¿” indi¿enou¹ women throu¿h cleanline¹¹ and wa¿e work than of their reli¿iou¹ identitY: women at Pala made lace for Bapti¹mal ¿own¹, communion¹, and altar decor.
20
Relational Histories Âarner’¹ Ranch i¹ one of manY ¹ite¹ where ¾I¼ hi¹torY mu¹t Be under¹tood in relation to that of other ¿roup¹ and communitie¹ that had a ¹take in tho¹e ¹pace¹ and culture¹; john Rhea’¹ di¹cu¹¹ion of the role of Choctaw and Chicka¹aw women in the ¾I¼’¹ earlY hi¹torY in chapter 1 of thi¹ volume and Mathe¹’¹ examination of the claim¹ of northern California’¹ landle¹¹ triBe¹ in chapter 7 ¹u¿¿e¹t further po¹¹iBilitie¹ for relational hi¹torie¹.
21
ÃaYton and Leven¹tein explain that relational hi¹torie¹ examine “the
waY¹ women’¹ circum¹tance¹ depended Both materiallY and ideolo¿icallY on their relation¹hip¹ with other women.”
cue
22
°eY cite Pa¹coe’¹ Relations of Res-
a¹ a prototYpe; ¹uch hi¹torie¹ empha¹ize that women’¹ ¹tatu¹ and ¹elf-
conception i¹ for¿ed with reference to—in fact, depends upon—tho¹e of other women. °e craftwork promoted BY the ¾I¼, includin¿ lace makin¿ and Ba¹ketrY, i¹ a ca¹e in point. Âomen like ¾I¼ ¹upporter SYBil Carter, who or¿anized lace-makin¿ cooperative¹ amon¿ manY triBe¹, re¿arded that enterpri¹e Both a¹ a civilizin¿ mi¹¹ion that promoted cleanline¹¹ and indu¹trY amon¿ indi¿enou¹ women and a¹ work for ¹elf-¹upportin¿ women like her¹elf. ½er material ¹ituation depended on the work of indi¿enou¹ women; at the ¹ame time, a¹ the example of lace makin¿ at Pala ¹how¹, indi¿enou¹ women adopted thi¹ work to ¹erve not onlY their economic need¹ But their cultural and reli¿iou¹ tradition¹. In Mathe¹’¹ hi¹torY of the ¾I¼, Cathleen Cahill illuminate¹ the different ¹torie¹ that ¾I¼ craft promoter¹ and indi¿enou¹ women told aBout craftwork. She ar¿ue¹ that white women adapted ¹torie¹ that women told them aBout their live¹ and work, u¹in¿ them to promote craft ¹ale¹ and BuYer¹’ ¹en¹e of mi¹¹ion while di¹entan¿lin¿ that work from it¹ a¹¹ociation¹ with triBal culture¹ and women’¹ traditional ¹ource¹ of power. Äor their part, indi¿enou¹ women
Introduction
11
u¹ed craftwork to ¹upplement income and ¹u¹tain familY and triBe in an era with few choice¹. In the proce¹¹, ¹ome came to ¹ee them¹elve¹ a¹ wa¿e earner¹ and entrepreneur¹ in an a¿e of touri¹m and cultural commodification, a¹ did Áneida women ¹uch a¹ jo¹ephine ½ill ÂeB¹ter, di¹cu¹¹ed in chapter 8 23
of thi¹ Book.
Relation¹ Between different women affected them not onlY materiallY But, a¹ ÃaYton and Leven¹tein ¹u¿¿e¹t, ideolo¿icallY, in waY¹ that could re¹onate to the core of their identitie¹. Lori jacoB¹on explain¹ how conver¹ion ¹torie¹ that appeared in the Indian’s Friend ¿arnered ¹upport amon¿ rank-and-file memBer¹ BY cultivatin¿ an “erotic¹” of conver¹ion that encoura¿ed white women to reconceive of them¹elve¹ a¹ ¹avior¹ in relation to indi¿enou¹ people. Indeed, Mar¿aret jacoB¹’¹ analY¹i¹ of the ¾I¼’¹ role in child removal explore¹ the de¹tructivene¹¹ of the¹e relation¹. Âhite reformer¹’ under¹tandin¿ of them¹elve¹ wa¹ deeplY rooted in a racialized vi¹ion of motherhood that ¹Y¹tematicallY undermined indi¿enou¹ motherin¿ and contriButed to the lo¹¹ of triBal ¹overei¿ntY BY ¹everin¿ ¿eneration¹ from one another.
24
Mi¹¹ion
worker¹, on the other hand, found them¹elve¹ adaptin¿ and even que¹tionin¿ tho¹e narrative¹ a¹ theY realized that the ¹olution¹ puBliclY lauded in ¹peeche¹ and puBlication¹ were often deeplY inadequate to the actual need¹ of re¹ervation inhaBitant¹. In ¹pite of their claim¹ to authoritY, white women fieldworker¹ ¹tru¿¿led to enact their ¿oal¹ in the face of ¹i¿nificant oB¹tacle¹ po¹ed BY more powerful male a¿ent¹ and mi¹¹ionarie¹—and a federal ¿overnment that controlled the pur¹e ¹trin¿¹. °eir ¹en¹e of mi¹¹ion wa¹ often for¿ed in the face of indi¿enou¹ re¹i¹tance, Both overt and covert. ¼nnie Àidwell, for example, who lived clo¹elY with her Mechoopda nei¿hBor¹ near Sacramento for decade¹, likelY remained ¹taunchlY dedicated to her Chri¹tian mi¹¹ion in part Becau¹e of the commitment of even ¹ome of her neare¹t indi¿enou¹ friend¹ to the ¹weat lod¿e and dance hall.
25
Indi¿enou¹ women who developed relation¹hip¹ with the ¾I¼ and with their own and other triBe¹ al¹o found that their ¹tatu¹ and ¹en¹e of ¹elf chan¿ed a¹ theY moved Between communitie¹ of women, a¹ di¹cu¹¹ed in chapter 8. Âomen educated at Indian ¹chool¹ ¹uch a¹ Ámaha¹ Su¹ette and Su¹an La Äle¹che, ½o-Chunk (ÂinneBa¿o) arti¹t and teacher ¼n¿el Ãe Cora Ãietz, and ¼rikara field matron ¼nna Ãaw¹on Âilde—all emBraced BY the ¾I¼ a¹ model¹ of Indian womanhood—u¹ed relation¹hip¹ with white women to rai¹e their ¹tatu¹ in Óuro-¼merican eYe¹, often while
12
ɲÊONsEN
workin¿ for national, pan-Indian alliance¹ or for triBal ¹overei¿ntY. Ãietz, ¹evered from her triBe at an earlY a¿e, ¹eized opportunitie¹ throu¿h a ¹erie¹ of critical mutual relation¹hip¹ with white women, includin¿ ½ampton teacher Cora Äol¹om and her fo¹ter mother, reformer Gertrude Clapp. Like Áneida Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿, ¹he wa¹ an earlY memBer of the SocietY of ¼merican Indian¹, and ¹he promoted art a¹ a waY for indi¿enou¹ children to reaffirm their relation¹hip¹ to home and triBe.
26
Âilde, who¹e return to
¾orth Ãakota to ¹erve a¹ a field matron there wa¹ lauded BY the ¾I¼, found her triBal identitY ¹orelY te¹ted BY women on the re¹ervation who under¹tood that Âilde’¹ ¹tatu¹ and power re¹ted ¹quarelY on her aBilitY to Õu¹tifY her work to her ¿overnment emploYer. SimilarlY, Kello¿¿’¹ education and involvement in Áneida land claim¹ alienated her from other Áneida¹, 27
who re¿arded her le¿al and financial dealin¿¹ a¹ di¹hone¹t.
¾I¼ inter-
vention¹, then, created relational difference¹ not onlY Between white and indi¿enou¹ women But Between indi¿enou¹ women who¹e acceptance of reform altered the waY each thou¿ht aBout her work, familY, land, and triBe. Äor ¹ome women, the¹e ideolo¿ical conte¹tation¹ could lead to nearlY cripplin¿ ¹elf-douBt. Óthnolo¿i¹t ¼lice Äletcher and her dome¹tic partner Ó. jane GaY lived amon¿ the ¾ez Perce¹ for four ¹ummer¹ a¹ Äletcher attempted to divide their land into ¿overnment-i¹¹ued allotment¹. °e re¹i¹tance of Both ¾ez Perce¹ and white ¹ettler¹ to Äletcher’¹ authoritY, comBined with GaY’¹ fear¹ that the aim¹ of civilization were di¹empowerin¿ to tho¹e (includin¿, ¹he thou¿ht, her¹elf) unaBle to acce¹¹ profe¹¹ional ¹tatu¹, re¹ulted in what amounted to a cri¹i¹ of faith that ultimatelY ended her relation¹hip with Äletcher. ¾ear the end of their ¹taY in Idaho, ¹he fretfullY conflated her intimate and profe¹¹ional relation¹hip with Äletcher with her relation¹hip to the mi¹¹ion a¹ a whole: “[Ë]here ¹it¹ her MaÕe¹tY, calmlY writin¿, a placiditY aBout her that i¹ a¿¿ravatin¿. ½a¹ ¹he come ¹o near the heart of the Univer¹e that ¹he can re¹t content in the ¹tillne¹¹ of the centre of it all, while I, on the outer ed¿e, am whirled BY the endle¹¹ revolution into confu¹ion of ¹pirit with no power to li¹ten Below the noi¹e of the mechani¹m?”
28
Relational hi¹torie¹ fi¿ure prominentlY in thi¹ antholo¿Y, which recover¹ the intertwined ¹torie¹ and method¹ of an arraY of women involved in the ¾I¼, from prominent leader¹ ¹uch a¹ MarY Lucinda ÀonneY, to le¹¹erknown activi¹t¹ ¹uch a¹ Á¹ia jane ½ile¹, to tho¹e who¹e ¹phere¹ of influence
Introduction
13
merelY inter¹ected with tho¹e of the ¾I¼ ¹uch a¹ Martha Goddard. Âomen of different cla¹¹e¹, race¹, marital ¹tatu¹e¹, and reli¿iou¹ conviction¹ u¹ed different tool¹—fiction, photo¿raphY, anthropolo¿ical ¹tudY, political or¿anizin¿—even a¹ theY influenced one another directlY or indirectlY throu¿h common readin¿, ¹chool¹, and acquaintance¹. Curti¹ ½in¹leY illuminate¹ one ¹uch moment in hi¹ chapter in thi¹ volume, “Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha,” recon¹tructin¿ a meetin¿ in which Martha Goddard, MarY ÃeweY, and MarY ½emenwaY ¿athered with ethno¿rapher Ärank ½amilton Cu¹hin¿ and three of hi¹ Zuñi acquaintance¹ at ½emenwaY’¹ po¹h ¹ummer home. In ¹o doin¿, he recover¹ interconnected hi¹torie¹ that tie ÃeweY to influential dome¹tic noveli¹t and proto-Indian activi¹t Catharine Maria Sed¿wick, MarY ½emenwaY to Unitarian “practical Chri¹tian¹” ¹uch a¹ ½arriet Martineau, and Martha Goddard to writer¹ ½enrY Ãavid °oreau and Sarah Árne jewett. Indeed, the Bio¿raphie¹ in thi¹ volume entwine the live¹ of ¾I¼ memBer¹ and their indi¿enou¹ proté¿é¹ in a Broader intellectual hi¹torY of the United State¹. Äor ¹ome, their affiliation with the ¾I¼ ¿ave them acce¹¹ to power and influence; for other¹, it led them to que¹tion, a¹ GaY did, the mechani¹m¹ throu¿h which power wa¹ exerted.
Sexuality, Gender, and Empire Part of GaY’¹ anxietY wa¹ a re¹ult of encounter¹ with indi¿enou¹ individual¹ and practice¹ that unfixed the verY cate¿orie¹ upon which the imperiali¹t a¿enda re¹ted, includin¿ not onlY race and ¿ender But the emer¿in¿ cate¿orY of ¹exualitY. Äletcher and GaY’¹ fieldwork, like the ¾I¼’¹, wa¹ to replicate the patriarchal, hetero¹exual familY amon¿ indi¿enou¹ triBe¹ a¹ a predicate to their verY ¹urvival. Ôet Äletcher and GaY, and other white fieldworker¹, tran¹¿re¹¹ed the¹e Boundarie¹ them¹elve¹ in Both profe¹¹ional and intimate waY¹. Äletcher, the wa¿e earner, ¹hared a hou¹ehold and a lovin¿ relation¹hip with GaY, who ¹ometime¹ wrote of her¹elf u¹in¿ a ma¹culine identitY and pronoun¹. Äletcher’¹ clo¹e profe¹¹ional and familial relation¹hip with Ámaha Äranci¹ La Äle¹che, Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte’¹ Brother, further complicated the notion of “familY” that Äletcher’¹ own ¹ection line¹ were meant to reinforce. GaY’¹ writin¿ and photo¿raph¹ illuminate that the ¾I¼’¹ reform a¿enda hin¿ed on form¹ of ideolo¿ical and profe¹¹ional maternali¹m that
14
ɲÊONsEN
exi¹ted in relation to e¹taBli¹hed a¹ well a¹ emer¿in¿ ¹exual identitie¹ and practice¹, includin¿ polYamorY and polY¿amY, homo¹exualitY, and indi¿enou¹ and Óuro-¼merican form¹ of ma¹culinitY. ¼rchaeolo¿i¹t ÀarBara ¸o¹¹ ha¹ demon¹trated that “puBlic ¹exual politic¹ were inte¿ral to the imperial proÕect,” ar¿uin¿ that “a¹¹umption¹ aBout indi¿enou¹ ¹exualitY” were woven into manY of the in¹titution¹ and practice¹ critical to imperiali¹m. ¸o¹¹ not onlY find¹ ¹exual politic¹ at work in chan¿e¹ to indi¿enou¹ dome¹tic life But ar¿ue¹ that theY are inherent in colonizer¹’ recruitment technique¹, conflict¹ Between colonizer¹ and colonized (includin¿ warfare), laBor re¿ime¹, the emer¿ence of new ethnic identitie¹, and what ¹he call¹ “the architecture of ¹exual control”—phY¹ical ¹tructure¹ that make vi¹iBle practice¹ and Belief¹ re¿ardin¿ honor/¹hame, puritY/impuritY, ¹exual licen¹e/¹exual control, and domination/¹uBÕu¿ation.
29
Scholar¹ have done the important work of expo¹-
in¿ the role of ¹exual policin¿ and ¹exual violence in mi¹¹ion¹ and ¹chool¹, Yet le¹¹ ha¹ Been written aBout the role of or¿anization¹ like the ¾I¼ in the ¹exual politic¹ of colonization. Âhile ¾I¼ home-Buildin¿ proÕect¹ and the work of it¹ fieldworker¹ wa¹ certainlY le¹¹ phY¹icallY violent than, and in fact intervened in, colonial u¹e of rape a¹ a tool of war, theY were no le¹¹ a part of the network of in¹titution¹ and ¹tructure¹ that mediated ¹exualitY in an imperial context. Indeed, ¾I¼ concern¹ with ¸ictorian ¹exual moralitY, Chri¹tian marria¿e, and ¹exual violence ¹u¿¿e¹t that ¹exualitY wa¹ deeplY intertwined with it¹ definition¹ of womanhood, ma¹culinitY, race, and redemption. °e ¾I¼’¹ intere¹t in hou¹in¿, includin¿ lod¿e¹, cotta¿e¹, and matron¹’ home¹, reveal¹ a Broad inve¹tment in ¹exual control that attempted to ¹hift re¿ulation from triBal ¹exual ¹Y¹tem¹ to Óuro-¼merican in¹titution¹. In 1882, Âinona Lod¿e wa¹ con¹tructed at ½ampton ¾ormal and ¼¿ricultural In¹titute, ¸ir¿inia, a¹ a ¹eparate re¹idence for indi¿enou¹ ¿irl¹. ½ou¹in¿ them ¹eparatelY from BoY¹ enforced ¸ictorian code¹ of moralitY, But the code wa¹ al¹o racialized, a¹ the protection of indi¿enou¹ female virtue included ¹eparation from Black ¿irl¹, whom ¹chool leader¹ pre¹umed to Be more ¹exualized. Ãonal Ä. Lind¹eY point¹ out that Âinona Lod¿e Became the re¹idence for ½ampton’¹ white female teacher¹ and vi¹itor¹, ¹patiallY allYin¿ Indian 30
¿irl¹’ ¹exualitY with that of the teacher¹—manY of whom were ¹in¿le.
Cre-
atin¿ a Buildin¿ that reinforced ¸ictorian ideal¹ of female ¹exual puritY in order to inculcate the¹e amon¿ the ¹tudent¹ Before their return home al¹o
Introduction
15
had the effect of ¹u¿¿e¹tin¿ that indi¿enou¹ method¹ of familial cohaBitation would Be inadequate to protect their virtue, thu¹ ¹hiftin¿ the onu¹ of policin¿ ¹exualitY and pa¹¹in¿ on ¹exual norm¹ from kin ¿roup¹ to educator¹, a¿ent¹, and matron¹. In chapter 5 of thi¹ volume, Ãavid Âallace ¼dam¹ inve¹ti¿ate¹ three “Indian” novel¹ BY ¾I¼ leader Ärance¹ Sparhawk, all of which de¹criBe the difficultie¹ of indi¿enou¹ ¹tudent¹ returnin¿ to re¹ervation¹. In each of them, the heroine face¹ the ¹tru¿¿le to find or maintain a Chri¹tian marria¿e, fendin¿ off the attention¹ of “Bruti¹h” potential mate¹ or re¹i¹tin¿ “¹ava¿e” marital cu¹tom¹. Sparhawk’¹ novel¹ u¹ed familiar ¹entimental plot line¹ aBout virtue and marria¿e to ¿arner the ¹Ympathie¹ of white ¹upporter¹; at the ¹ame time, theY reinforced the need to replace indi¿enou¹ control over intimate ¹pace¹ with that of educator¹ and reformer¹. Sparhawk’¹ fiction likelY Bol¹tered ¹upport for the work of ¾I¼ auxiliarie¹ in tran¹po¹in¿ their ideal¹ onto re¹ervation ¹pace¹ throu¿h the homeBuildin¿ and loan initiative. Unlike the ¹in¿le-¹ex Âinona Lod¿e, the frame home¹ that the ¾I¼ encoura¿ed were meant for couple¹ who married in the Chri¹tian tradition. °e home¹ were in¹pired BY tho¹e that had Been Built for married couple¹ at ½ampton In¹titute a¹ model¹ of what a home ¹hould look like; theY were al¹o meant to repre¹ent a “civilized” dome¹tic and ¹exual order. ¼ model villa¿e in Sitka, ¼la¹ka, con¹i¹ted of ¹everal home¹ ¹pon¹ored BY ¾I¼ auxiliarie¹; Ëlin¿it couple¹ who lived there were required to marrY a¹ Prote¹tant Chri¹tian¹ and to reBuke traditional fe¹tival¹—re¿arded BY mi¹31
¹ion worker¹ a¹ Both pa¿an and dan¿erou¹ to moralitY.
In Buildin¿ the¹e
home¹, however, ¾I¼ auxiliarie¹ affiliated with Prote¹tant churche¹ that were workin¿ to uphold ¹exual ¹Y¹tem¹ that exi¹ted in oppo¹ition not onlY to Ëlin¿it culture But to tho¹e of Ru¹¹ian Árthodox Chri¹tianitY and to the ¹ex work and ¹exual exploitation that developed in the wake of conque¹t BY Ru¹¹ian¹ and, later, ¼merican¹. Ser¿ei Kan, in hi¹ ¹tudY of Ëlin¿it¹’ ¹elective adaptation of Ru¹¹ian Árthodox Chri¹tianitY, ha¹ ¹hown that ¹ome Ëlin¿it¹ were attracted to the Árthodox Church Becau¹e it¹ ritual¹—includin¿ tho¹e related to men¹truation, pre¿nancY, and women’¹ participation in fea¹t daY¹— were more analo¿ou¹ to Ëlin¿it cu¹tom than were tho¹e of the Pre¹BYterian Church, althou¿h marria¿e in Both reli¿iou¹ tradition¹ wa¹ a threat to Ëlin32
¿it matrilinealitY.
Sexual relation¹ no douBt plaYed a role in Ëlin¿it¹’ choice¹ and option¹ in a diver¹e and modernizin¿ communitY. Ëlin¿it women Õoined the
16
ɲÊONsEN
º²gÇ´E 0.1. ¾ative cotta¿e ¹ettlement, Sitka, ¼la¹ka, ca. 1900. Courte¹Y of the john G. ÀradY Paper¹, Âe¹tern ¼merican Collection, Àeinecke Rare Àook and Manu¹cript LiBrarY, Ôale Univer¹itY.
Árthodox Church in ¿reater numBer¹ when Creole men Be¿an to ¹earch for Árthodox wive¹ amon¿ the Ëlin¿it. Äor their part, Ëlin¿it women’¹ marria¿e¹ to either Árthodox Creole or Prote¹tant Ëlin¿it men would influence their acce¹¹ to different place¹ and in¹titution¹ in the town. Árthodox Ëlin¿it women could ¹upport the work of the temperance- oriented Árthodox Brotherhood¹, while tho¹e who married in the Pre¹BYterian church ¿ained acce¹¹ to education at the Sheldon jack¹on mi¹¹ion ¹chool for them¹elve¹ and their children, and perhap¹ opportunitie¹ to participate in the Bur¿eonin¿ touri¹t opportunitie¹ centered on the ¹chool, cotta¿e¹, and mi¹¹ion. Ëlin¿it women of low ¹tatu¹ and women (often ¼leut¹) en¹laved BY Ëlin¿it¹, however, maY have Been pu¹hed into ¹ex work. Kan ¹how¹ that pro¹titution rate¹ ro¹e throu¿hout the era of Ru¹¹ian occupation, a¹ men workin¿ for the Ru¹¹ian-¼merican CompanY’¹ fur trade ¹ou¿ht ¹exual ¹ati¹faction amon¿ the lower cla¹¹e¹ of indi¿enou¹ women.
33
Âhen the ¾I¼ ¹ou¿ht to chan¿e the live¹ of indi¿enou¹
women, then, theY were often enterin¿ into conver¹ation¹ aBout ¹exual ¹Y¹tem¹ that were the product¹ not onlY of indi¿enou¹ culture¹ But of the
Introduction
17
exi¹tin¿ hi¹torY of cro¹¹-cultural contact and colonization that had alreadY influenced or con¹trained indi¿enou¹ women’¹ choice¹. ¾I¼ memBer¹’ under¹tandin¿ of the need for civilization and the meanin¿ of womanhood often re¹ted on inter¹ection¹ Between ¹exualitY, ¿ender, and race. Áne of the fir¹t i¹¹ue¹ of the Indian’s Friend introduced reader¹ to the exploitation of indi¿enou¹ women, u¹in¿ Sitka a¹ an example. In an extract from an article printed in the Philadelphia Evening Telegraph , a Mr¹. ¸oorhee¹ of ¾ew Ôork CitY explained that in ¼la¹ka, “there i¹ no law, and the lowe¹t animal pa¹¹ion¹ of the rou¿h miner¹, hunter¹, trapper¹, ¹oldier¹ and ¹ailor¹ ra¿e unchecked.” She went on to recount the ¹torY of how one “white mother” ¹aved the life of a fifteen-Year-old ¿irl who had Been captured and ¹exuallY aBu¹ed BY ¹oldier¹. Âhen the white woman arrived at the Behe¹t of the ¿irl’¹ mother, the ¿irl wa¹ a “ma¹¹ of ra¿¹, filth and corruption,” all But aBandoned BY her people, who cordoned her off in a rou¿h enclo¹ure a¹ thou¿h “pla¿ue-¹tricken.” Similar depredation¹ had occurred near juneau, where white men plied indi¿enou¹ men with drink and then returned for “their women.” Âhile the corre¹pondent connect¹ ¹exual violence to the deviant ma¹culinitY of white men, ¹he ¹kirt¹ que¹tion¹ of nationalitY and conque¹t and implie¹ dY¹function within ¾ative culture, ¹u¿¿e¹tin¿ that indi¿enou¹ architecture¹ of ¹exualitY and mode¹ of ¹exual control were inadequate to prevent ¹exual trauma. °e corre¹pondent reÕoiced that the ¿irl wa¹ firmlY en¹conced in a new architecture, a¹ a pupil at the ¹chool—pre¹umaBlY Sheldon jack¹on’¹ Pre¹BYterian mi¹¹ion ¹chool. °e article end¹ BY endor¹in¿ the ¾I¼’¹ alternative architecture, a¹¹urin¿ reader¹ “that the three model home¹ Built BY our ¼¹¹ociation in thi¹ land of ¹orrow will Be Beacon li¿ht¹ no one can douBt, and all who think of the ¹tation there mu¹t ¹urelY praY that the occupant¹ of the¹e home¹ maY Be ¿enuine mi¹¹ionarie¹ amon¿ their countrYwomen.”
34
°e¹e theme¹ were
reiterated Õu¹t a few month¹ later in an article that de¹criBed how ¼la¹kan women were “¹old a¹ wive¹” or “rented BY their parent¹ to white men.” °e author noted that jack¹on had ne¿otiated for the relea¹e from Õail of a twelve-Year-old ¿irl, implYin¿ that ¹he wa¹ a “child-wife” who had Been reÕected BY her familY. Áther ¿irl¹, turned out from their home¹ for “witchcraft” or di¹ea¹e (po¹¹iBlY ¹exuallY tran¹mitted), Be¿¿ed to Be let into the mi¹¹ion home. °e author ar¿ued that “a home or hou¹e of refu¿e . . . would Be practicallY in manY ca¹e¹ almo¹t openin¿ the door into eternal life.”
35
18
ɲÊONsEN
°e author expre¹¹ed confidence that, in ¹pite of their pa¹t¹, ¹uch ¿irl¹ had the potential to “Become true and u¹eful Chri¹tain [sic] women.” °e cate¿orY “woman” wa¹ mea¹ured not BY the ¹exual maturitY of teena¿e ¿irl¹ But BY their acceptance of Chri¹tian ¹exual moralitY, even a¹ the author a¹¹ociated ma¹culinitY lar¿elY with ¹exual corruption. Intri¿uin¿lY, the racial de¹i¿nation “white” al¹o ¹eemed to ¹hift alon¿ line¹ of race, ¿ender, and ¹exualitY. ¸oorhee¹ identifie¹ the “white mother” who ¹aved one teena¿e ¿irl a¹ “the fir¹t white woman who ever went to ¼la¹ka,” addin¿: “ÀY thi¹ I mean the fir¹t white woman of Ón¿land or our countrY.” Ôet R. L., the author of “¼ ½ome ¾eeded,” note¹ that ¾ative women were ¹old to “white men”; at lea¹t ¹ome of the¹e were likelY Ru¹¹ian¹, Swede¹, or Äinn¹ who arrived with the Ru¹¹ian¼merican CompanY. Reformer¹ defined identitY cate¿orie¹ in waY¹ that ¹erved their purpo¹e¹, But report¹ ¹u¿¿e¹t that Ëlin¿it women attempted to exert a¿encY over the¹e cate¿orie¹ a¹ well. ¼t lea¹t ¹ome took advanta¿e of the mi¹¹ion’¹ promi¹e that conver¹ion, proven in part BY chan¿e¹ in ¹exual Behavior, would improve their ¹tatu¹. R. L. de¹criBed two ¹eparate incident¹ in which women were turned awaY from the mi¹¹ion a¹ theY were in “di¹ea¹ed condition”: one cried out to the mi¹¹ionarie¹, “Ôou teach mY ¹i¹ter to Be ¿ood in the mi¹¹ion and ¹he will ¿o to heaven. Ôou ¹end me awaY and I cannot ¿o to heaven.” Äor women facin¿ the choice to convert or return to aBu¹e, the 36
mi¹¹ion’¹ ¹exual control wa¹ likelY the Be¹t option.
°e ¾I¼ under¹tood that ¹exualitY wa¹ not “merelY” dome¹tic in term¹ of it¹ ¹phere of influence; memBer¹ aBhorred the ¹exual violence that wa¹ part and parcel of conque¹t, and their concern for the ¹exual inte¿ritY of indi¿enou¹ women did re¹pond to real trauma¹. Still, rank-and-file memBer¹ were likelY i¿norant a¹ to the tradition¹, ¹tatu¹, or ¹exual more¹ of indi¿enou¹ people a¹ well a¹ the alreadY e¹taBli¹hed relation¹hip¹ Between and amon¿ indi¿enou¹ ¿roup¹, and Between the triBe¹ and earlier colonizin¿ ¿roup¹, includin¿ mi¹¹ionarie¹. ÀY propo¹in¿ cotta¿e¹, mi¹¹ion¹, matron¹, and a ¹Y¹tem of ¾ative helper¹ who would tran¹mit the ideal¹ of “civilization,” the
Indian’s Friend
u¹ed the narrative of ¹exual violence to further it¹ ¿oal¹ of
home Buildin¿ and conver¹ion. Ôet narrative¹ aBout ¹exualitY and ¹exual violence were al¹o inte¿rated into triBal narrative¹ in waY¹ that empha¹ize ¾ative re¹i¹tance. ¼leut/Ôupik ethno¿rapher ¼lexi¹ Àunten explain¹ that white touri¹t¹ in Sitka todaY will likelY hear the ¹torY of the 1802 Ëlin¿it attack on a Ru¹¹ian fort, in which
Introduction
19
Ëlin¿it men killed everY Ru¹¹ian man at the fort in retaliation for their unre¹tricted takin¿ of land¹ and pelt¹ and, finallY, for capturin¿ and rapin¿ 37
Ëlin¿it women.
Àunten note¹ that while Ëlin¿it¹ craft a careful ver¹ion of
their hi¹torie¹ for touri¹t¹ todaY, the ¹torY of the 1802 attack “remind¹ them that, at one time, their people ¹ucce¹¹fullY defeated and drove awaY their colonizer¹ in Battle.” It al¹o affirm¹ Ëlin¿it men’¹ aBilitY to protect their own familie¹ from ¹exual violence and ali¿n¹ that violence with the violence of conque¹t. °u¹, ¹exual politic¹ are at work in the ¹torY’¹ recountin¿ of ¿endered violence (Both rape and warfare). It valorize¹ mode¹ of ¹exual control that were Ëlin¿it rather than Pre¹BYterian; it¹ ¹exualized ¿eo¿raphY of fort and villa¿e counterpo¹e¹ tho¹e of cotta¿e and mi¹¹ion. ÄinallY, Àunten ar¿ue¹ that the narrative provide¹ an empowerin¿ ori¿in ¹torY for pre¹entdaY Ëlin¿it¹ in that it ¹implifie¹ the complex laBor and ¹exual relation¹ 38
Between Ru¹¹ian¹, ¼leut ¹lave¹, ¼merican¹, and Ëlin¿it¹.
°e emer¿ence
of new ethnic identitie¹ i¹ linked to the hi¹torY of ¹exualitY, But Ru¹¹ian, Swedi¹h, mixed-race, and Creole culture¹ are left out of Both the Ëlin¿it ori¿in ¹torY and the “ori¿in ¹torY” of ¾I¼ involvement in ¼la¹ka. Indeed, the fact that ¾I¼ effort¹ to po¹ition memBer¹ a¹ mother¹ involved promotin¿ cro¹¹-cultural, affective relation¹ Between white women and indi¿enou¹ individual¹ ¹u¿¿e¹t¹ that maternali¹m mi¿ht Be under¹tood a¹ an ideolo¿Y ¹tructured, in part, BY it¹ relation to ¹exualitY. “Âhite mother¹” pre¹umed to replace indi¿enou¹ familial relation¹hip¹ But al¹o endeavored to ali¿n indi¿enou¹ ¹exual relation¹ with reformer¹’ maternal philo¹ophie¹, celeBratin¿ the marria¿e¹ of indi¿enou¹ women to educated, Chri¹tian, indi¿enou¹ men. ¾I¼ leader¹ and fieldworker¹, however, were often al¹o involved in their own reali¿nment of ¹exualitY. Äieldworker¹ ¹uch a¹ Äletcher and GaY for¹ook hetero¹exual marria¿e¹ them¹elve¹ in order to create their own hou¹ehold¹, often made up of two women who worked clo¹elY with one another. ¾I¼ worker¹’ ¿rowin¿ ¹en¹e of them¹elve¹ a¹ profe¹¹ional¹—from craft promoter¹ Candace Âheeler and SYBil Carter to phY¹ician¹ ¹uch a¹ ReBecca ½allowell and ¼nna john¹on to ¹peaker¹ and writer¹ ¹uch a¹ MarY ÃeweY and Ärance¹ Sparhawk—helped to divorce care-work from intimate relation¹ even a¹ theY made the policin¿ of ¹exualitY a profe¹¹ional concern. ¾I¼ fieldworker¹’ involvement in the ¹exual control of indi¿enou¹ individual¹—their concern with dancin¿, marria¿e rite¹, potlatche¹ and other fea¹t¹, ¹exual violence, and reproductive health—offer¹ intri¿uin¿
20
ɲÊONsEN
po¹¹iBilitie¹ for further re¹earch. Likewi¹e, di¹coverin¿ waY¹ that indi¿enou¹ women and men were involved in creatin¿ new ¹exual norm¹ throu¿h ¹election, adaptation, and control will enrich our under¹tandin¿ of inter¹ectionalitY and relationalitY Between ¿roup¹. ½i¹torian¹ SYlvia ¸an Kirk and Su¹an Sleeper-Smith have ar¿ued that indi¿enou¹ women who married white men often operated a¹ culture Broker¹; ¾I¼ ¹upport of education and mi¹¹ion work created a new ¿eneration of culture Broker¹ who¹e concern for ¹exualitY took place in relation¹hip¹ and ¹pace¹ that, like tho¹e of ¾I¼ reformer¹, 39
moved BeYond the hou¹ehold.
Âhite women’¹ pro¿re¹¹ive work i¹ often left out of hi¹torie¹ of indi¿enou¹ communitie¹’ ¹tru¿¿le¹ and adaptation¹; likewi¹e, the exi¹tin¿ tradition¹ and ¹tructure¹ of the communitie¹ with whom theY interacted are often re¿arded a¹ exerci¹in¿ little influence on the thinkin¿ or method¹ of or¿anization¹ ¹uch a¹ the ¾I¼. ÀY reunitin¿ the hi¹torY of the ¾I¼ and the individual¹ connected to it to Broader theme¹ of inter¹ectionalitY, relational hi¹torY, and intimacY, we can deepen our ¹tudY of not onlY the or¿anization But the field of ¿ender hi¹torY. °i¹ ¹econd volume of e¹¹aY¹ on the ¾I¼, followin¿ ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹’¹ edited collection °e Women’s National
Indian Association: A History, continue¹ thi¹ inve¹ti¿ation. Chapter¹ BY john Rhea and Curti¹ ½in¹leY recon¹ider the ori¿in¹ of the ¾I¼, linkin¿ it to complex intellectual and political hi¹torie¹ that have, followin¿ ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ own ¹cruBBin¿ of their in¹titutional narrative, too often Been re¿arded a¹ extraneou¹ to the ¾I¼’¹ mi¹¹ion. In her hi¹torY of the ¾I¼’¹ relation¹hip with other Indian ri¿ht¹ or¿anization¹, Mathe¹ ¹how¹ how the ¾I¼ capitalized on ¿ender-Ba¹ed difference¹ to form ¹trate¿ic alliance¹ with men to Build national influence. Phil Àri¿andi and Ãavid Âallace ¼dam¹ interro¿ate the influence of writer and activi¹t ½elen ½unt jack¹on on the or¿anization’¹ method¹ and memBer¹, ¹u¿¿e¹tin¿ that her inve¹tment in triBal hi¹torie¹, land claim¹, and fiction influenced the diver¹e ¹trate¿ie¹ u¹ed BY ¾I¼ memBer¹ and auxiliarie¹. Mathe¹ follow¹ thi¹ di¹cu¹¹ion with Bio¿raphie¹ of two individual¹ who illu¹trate the ¹cope of ¾I¼ activitY: MarY Lucinda ÀonneY, who tran¹lated her educational experti¹e to a national leader¹hip po¹ition in the ¾I¼; and Charle¹ Kel¹eY, who tran¹formed the fervor of jack¹on’¹ hi¹torY of Broken treatie¹ into a collaBorative cru¹ade to addre¹¹ the landle¹¹ ¹tatu¹ of California’¹ di¹po¹¹e¹¹ed indi¿enou¹ ¿roup¹. ÄinallY, jane Simon¹en find¹ that the re¹pon¹e¹ of variou¹ indi¿enou¹
Introduction
21
women to the ¾I¼’¹ a¹¹imilation effort¹ reveal hi¹torie¹ of accommodation, re¹i¹tance, and effort¹ to a¹¹ert ¹elf-determination and triBal ¹overei¿ntY durin¿ an era of cataclY¹mic chan¿e.
Notes 1. Àannan, “°e ¾I¼ in the Context of Âomen’¹ ½i¹torY.” 2. Scott, Natural Allies. 3. Mitchell, “Ëurn¹ of the Kaleido¹cope.” 4. jacoB¹, “Gettin¿ Áut of a Rut,” 586, 601–2; and ½urtado, Intimate Frontiers. 5. Perdue, Cherokee Women; Á¹Burn, Southern Ute Women; ½Yman, Dakota Women’s Work; and Child, Holding Our World Together. 6. Mitchell, “Ëurn¹ of the Kaleido¹cope,” 60. 7. ÃaYton and Leven¹tein, “°e Ài¿ Ëent of U.S. Âomen’¹ and Gender ½i¹torY,” 794. 8. Àenton-Cohen, Borderline Americans . ¼ ¹imilarlY location-Ba¹ed ¹tudY of inter¹ectionalitY and women’¹ activi¹m i¹ ½ewitt, Southern Discomfort. 9. Án the hi¹torY of the Cupeño¹ and Âarner’¹ Ranch, ¹ee Àri¿andi, “In the ¾ame of the Law”; Phillip¹, Chiefs and Challengers , 256–92; Mathe¹, Divinely Guided, 231–61 (the chapter “¼ ½o¹pital at Âarner Ranch”); Karr, “°e Âarner’¹ Ranch Indian Removal”; ½Yer, “It Âa¹ MY ÃutY”; and Mathe¹, “°e California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion.” 10. Mathe¹, Divinely Guided , 231–33, 258; and Karr, “°e Âarner’¹ Ranch Indian Removal,” 26–32. Án Lummi¹’¹ involvement, ¹ee e¹peciallY Sze¿hi, “Scientific Raci¹m and Ma¹culine Recuperation”; ½Yer, “It Âa¹ MY ÃutY,” 32–35; and Lewi¹, “°e Âarner Ranch Indian¹,” 172. 11. Äor a detailed de¹cription of the court ca¹e¹ and the ¹trate¿ie¹ u¹ed BY the Cupeño¹ and their lawYer¹, ¹ee Àri¿andi, “In the ¾ame of the Law.” 12. Mathe¹, Divinely Guided , 236. 13. Corneliu¹’¹ MaY 17, 1903, letter to the Riverside Morning Enterprise i¹ quoted in Phillip¹, Chiefs and Challengers, 279. 14. Mathe¹, Divinely Guided , 255. See al¹o Mathe¹ and Àri¿andi, “°e Mi¹chief Record of ‘La GoBernadora.’” 15. See Sze¿hi, “Scientific Raci¹m and Ma¹culine Recuperation.” 16. Án Lummi¹’¹ conflicted relation¹hip with the Cupeño¹, ¹ee e¹peciallY Àri¿andi, “In the ¾ame of the Law”; and ½Yer, “It Âa¹ MY ÃutY.” 17. Lewi¹, “°e Âarner Ranch Indian¹,” 172–73. 18. Karr, “°e Âarner’¹ Ranch Indian Removal,” 31. 19. Mathe¹, “°e Redland¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” 196–97. 20. Karr, “°e Âarner’¹ Ranch Indian Removal,” 35–42. 21. Äor a Broader ¹tudY that empha¹ize¹ indi¿enou¹ a¿encY in colonial California, ¹ee ½aa¹, Saints and Citizens.
22
ɲÊONsEN
22. ÃaYton and Leven¹tein, “°e Ài¿ Ëent of U.S. Âomen’¹ and Gender ½i¹torY,” 798. 23. Cahill, “Makin¿ and Marketin¿ Àa¹ket¹ in California,” 127–29. 24. jacoB¹on, “°e ¾I¼ and the Órotic¹ of Reform”; ÃaYton and Leven¹tein, “°e Ài¿ Ëent of U.S. Âomen’¹ and Gender ½i¹torY,” 798; and jacoB¹, White Mother to
a Dark Race. 25. See Mathe¹’¹ chapter “°e Indian Reform Âork of ¼nnie Óllicott KennedY Àidwell,” in Divinely Guided, 153–76. 26. Án Ãietz, ¹ee Âa¿¿oner, Fire Light ; Gere, “°e ¼rt of Survivance”; the chapter “¼n¿el Ãecora’¹ Cultural Politic¹” in ½utchin¹on, °e Indian Craze, 171–220; and the chapter “Àorder Ãe¹i¿n¹: Ãome¹tic Production and Cultural Survival” in Simon¹en, Making Home Work, 183–214. 27. Simon¹en, Making Home Work, 151–82 (the chapter “¼ Model of It¹ Kind: ¼nna Ãaw¹on Âilde’¹ ½ome in the Äield”). Án Kello¿¿, ¹ee e¹peciallY Kello¿¿, Our Democ-
racy and the American Indian. 28. Choup-nit-ki: With the Nez Perce, excerpt¹ of letter¹ from Ó. jane GaY and ¼lice Cunnin¿ham Äletcher, handBound BY Ómma jane GaY, London, 1909, 353–54, jane GaY Ãod¿e Paper¹. See al¹o Simon¹en, Making Home Work , 111–50 (the chapter “°e Cook, the Photo¿rapher, and ½er MaÕe¹tY, the ¼llottin¿ ¼¿ent: Un¹ettlin¿ Ãome¹ticitY in Ó. jane GaY’¹ Choup-nit-ki”); and Ëonkovich, °e Allotment Plot. 29. ¸o¹¹, “Ãome¹ticatin¿ Imperiali¹m,” 191, 193–94. 30. Lind¹eY, Indians at Hampton Institute, 131. 31. “Áur ¼la¹ka Âork,” Indian’s Friend 12, no. 9 (MaY 1900): 8. 32. Kan, “Clan Mother¹ and Godmother¹.” 33. IBid., 621, 623–24. See al¹o Kan, “Ru¹¹ian Árthodox Àrotherhood¹.” 34. “Sufferin¿¹ of ¼la¹ka Âomen,” Indian’s Friend 1, no. 3 (¾ovemBer 1888): 2. 35. R. L., “¼ ½ome ¾eeded,” Indian’s Friend 1, no. 7 (March 1889): 3. 36. “Sufferin¿¹ of ¼la¹ka Âomen,” 2; R. L., “¼ ½ome ¾eeded,” 3. 37. Àunten, “Sharin¿ Culture or Sellin¿ Áut?,” 380–81. 38. IBid., 391. 39. ¸an Kirk, Many Tender Ties; and Sleeper-Smith, Indian Women and French
Men.
ºO´ DEÒÈDEs, sÒHOÅÈ´s have accepted the ver¹ion of the foundin¿ of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼) a¹ promoted BY MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton. Áfficial a¹¹ociation literature claim¹ that it wa¹ formed in 1879 a¹ a re¹ult of ÀonneY’¹ ¹pontaneou¹ re¹pon¹e to new¹paper report¹ of the openin¿ of the Indian ËerritorY to ¹ettlement. ¼ided BY fellow memBer¹ of her mi¹¹ion circle, ¹he launched a petition drive to undermine the¹e effort¹. Âhen the circle went on their ¹ummer rece¹¹ without actin¿ on the petition, ÀonneY turned to Quinton, and to¿ether theY founded the ¾I¼. U¹in¿ new ¹ource¹, includin¿ material¹ from the ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY and article¹ from the National Baptist new¹paper, john M. Rhea pre¹ent¹ a critical reexamination of the ¾I¼’¹ foundin¿. ½e provide¹ ¹tron¿ evidence that ÀonneY and Quinton were involved in Indian work a¹ earlY a¹ 1877, ¹purred to action BY the reque¹t of Chicka¹aw and Choctaw women and in¹pired BY MaÕor Geor¿e Âa¹hin¿ton In¿all¹ and hi¹ foundin¿ in Chica¿o of the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY. Rhea ar¿ue¹ that the pitched interdenominational Battle with ¾orthern Àapti¹t men a¹ theY tried to control Àapti¹t women’¹ Indian mi¹¹ionarY work led to an overtlY political link Between mi¹¹ion work and patriotic maternali¹m. In di¹coverin¿ the complex ori¿in¹ of the ¾I¼, he ¹u¿¿e¹t¹ that the a¹¹ociation de¹erve¹ a far more ¹i¿nificant role in women’¹ political hi¹torY than it ha¹ Been previou¹lY afforded.
Part 1. New Interpretations
Âhile Rhea pre¹ent¹ a new interpretation of the ¾I¼, Curti¹ M. ½in¹leY provide¹ a new in¹i¿ht into the Indian reform activitie¹ of MarY Ëile¹ton ½emenwaY, MarY ÓlizaBeth ÃeweY, and Martha LeÀaron Goddard, three friend¹ and memBer¹ of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation (MI¼). ½e ¹u¿¿e¹t¹ that their reli¿iou¹ Back¿round¹, earlier reform experience¹, philanthropic impul¹e¹, and relation¹hip¹ with male fi¿ure¹ (hu¹Band, father¹, mini¹ter¹) Both characterized and di¹tin¿ui¹hed their clo¹elY ne¿otiated path¹ to reform. Áne of manY ¹tate auxiliarie¹, the MI¼, founded on januarY 22, 1883, BY ¼melia Stone Quinton, wa¹ al¹o one of the lar¿e¹t and mo¹t powerful, drawin¿ from amon¿ Ào¹ton’¹ elite ¹ocietY. Included in the memBer¹hip were Ólecta ¼llen Sander¹on Ãawe¹, wife of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ ¹enator ½enrY Lauren¹ Ãawe¹; MarY C. Ài¹hop Gate¹, wife of Merrill Gate¹, a memBer of the pre¹ti¿iou¹ Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹; and ¾anna ÂYer ½ou¿hton, who¹e hu¹Band wa¹ puBli¹her ½enrY Á¹car ½ou¿hton. °e mo¹t reco¿nizaBle memBer wa¹ ¼lice MarY Lon¿fellow, dau¿hter of ½enrY Âad¹worth Lon¿fellow and pre¹ident of the MI¼ from 1901 to 1906. °e¹e memBer¹, alon¿ with ½emenwaY, ÃeweY, and Goddard, provided the leader¹hip that enaBled the MI¼ to ¹ucce¹¹fullY promote the ¿oal¹ of the ¾I¼.
ÍHÈÖTE´ 1
From Indian Territory to Philadelphia A Critical Reexamination of the Origins and Early History of the Women’s National Indian Association, 1877–1881 JOHN Ì. ±HEÈ
×HE FOÇND²Ng OF the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼) in 1879 ha¹ Been de¹criBed BY a hi¹torical narrative fir¹t promul¿ated BY MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton, a¹ a re¹ult of ÀonneY’¹ ¹pontaneou¹ re¹pon¹e to new¹paper report¹ detailin¿ Mi¹¹ouri ¹enator Geor¿e 1
¸e¹t’¹ propo¹ed le¿i¹lation for openin¿ the Indian ËerritorY to ¹ettlement.
¼ccordin¿ to ÀonneY and Quinton, theY and other women pari¹hioner¹ in the Philadelphia Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church mi¹¹ion circle launched a petition drive intended to undermine ¸e¹t’¹ effort. Äoiled BY the mi¹¹ionarY circle’¹ failure to addre¹¹ the i¹¹ue Before the ¹ummer rece¹¹, ÀonneY and fellow circle memBer Quinton proceeded to form a ¹pecial committee from which emer¿ed the ¾I¼. Äor 120 Year¹, hi¹torical account¹ have faithfullY repeated ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ ¾I¼ hi¹torY without que¹tionin¿ it¹ claim of ¹pontaneou¹ ori¿in or it¹ factual accuracY. ¼ critical reexamination of the ori¿inal narrative ¹how¹ that it wa¹ a ¹elective chronolo¿Y that omitted keY contriButor¹ and event¹. Crucial hi¹torical evidence that ÀonneY and Quinton omitted include¹ their participation in a pitched interdenominational Battle with ¾orthern Àapti¹t men over control of women’¹ Indian mi¹¹ionarY work and their earlY a¹¹ociation with a di¹¿raced Áklahoma Indian a¿ent. ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ hi¹torical omi¹¹ion¹ hid emBarra¹¹in¿, potentiallY damnin¿ fact¹ aBout the complex evolution of their Indian ¹ocial activi¹m and the ¾I¼’¹ ¹uB¹equent formation. °eir mi¹repre¹entation¹ ¹u¿¿e¹t a mutuallY ¹anitized narrative deploYed
27
28
±HEÈ
to protect their political ¹tatu¹ a¹ Indian reformer¹ and national amBa¹¹ador¹ of Chri¹tian motherhood. In SeptemBer 1894, at Quinton’¹ reque¹t, ÀonneY wrote a len¿thY autoBio¿raphical ¹ketch. In the ¹hort ¹ection relative to the Indian¹, ¹he advanced a chronolo¿Y that Both women knew to Be untrue. In thi¹ unpuBli¹hed account, ÀonneY wrote that ¹he had learned from new¹paper¹ that Senator ¸e¹t had Been pre¹¹in¿ Con¿re¹¹ for thirteen Year¹ to open up Áklahoma Indian land¹ to white ¹ettlement. “°i¹ wa¹ in 1879,” ¹he clearlY ¹tated. “°u¹ wa¹ Be¿un what finallY i¹¹ued in the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation.”
2
¼lthou¿h a private conver¹ation Between two old
friend¹, the narrative wa¹ fundamentallY mi¹leadin¿. ÀonneY’¹ work on Behalf of Áklahoma Indian¹ and her knowled¿e of their political predicament dated to at lea¹t 1877. ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ or¿anizational narrative hid inconvenient, if not di¹comfitin¿, context¹ that ¿rounded ¾I¼ ori¿in¹ in the complex Indian mi¹¹ionarY herita¿e of Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church; in the political activi¹m of Choctaw and Chicka¹aw women; in a theolo¿ical ¹quaBBle Between Chica¿o and Ào¹ton Àapti¹t Branche¹; in a clerical ¹candal; and in the ¿endered, ¹ometime¹ heated internal politic¹ of nineteenth-centurY ¾orthern Àapti¹t mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietie¹. Re¹torin¿ the mi¹¹in¿ piece¹ to ¾I¼ hi¹torY reveal¹ each woman’¹ delicate political ¹ituation in 1879 and illuminate¹ their keY role in tran¹formin¿ ¹ectarian Chri¹tian women’¹ work into a trulY national “maternal patrioti¹m.”
3
°e First Baptist Church and Philadelphia Indian Activism ÀonneY and Quinton were active memBer¹ of the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church of 4
Philadelphia (hereafter Äir¹t Àapti¹t). Âhile theY were ¹ilent on the matter of it¹ hi¹torY of Indian activi¹m, Âilliam Âilliam¹ Keen, in hi¹ edited hi¹torY of Äir¹t Àapti¹t, contended that the ¾I¼’¹ “late¹t and mo¹t ¹ucce¹¹ful effort for the Indian¹ i¹ But the continuation of a vote four¹core Year¹ a¿o.” ½e wa¹ referrin¿ to a memorial that the 1,500 memBer¹ of the church ¹ent to Con¿re¹¹ on januarY 20, 1819, praYin¿ for the adoption of ¹uch re¿ulation¹ 5
that would promote Indian welfare and civilization. Àapti¹t¹ and other evan¿elical¹ pu¹hed for pa¹¹a¿e of an 1819 Civilization Äund Bill, the countrY’¹ fir¹t attempt at a comprehen¹ive Indian a¹¹imilation policY, which e¹taBli¹hed a YearlY $10,000 ¹tipend to promote mi¹¹ionarY ¹chool¹ to teach
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
29
Indian children readin¿, writin¿, and arithmetic. Claimin¿ a “more Beneficial effect than fort¹ and ¼rmie¹,” ¾orthern Àapti¹t¹ championed thi¹ Indian 6
policY well into the twentieth centurY. ¼pproximatelY ¹ixtY Year¹ later, ÀonneY, Quinton, and fellow memBer¹ of Äir¹t Àapti¹t echoed the¹e ¹entiment¹ in Õu¹tifYin¿ their own Indian mi¹¹ionarY work and the formation of the ¾I¼. In the decade¹ followin¿ the 1819 petition campai¿n, Äir¹t Àapti¹t continued to plaY a vi¹iBle, at time¹ contentiou¹, role in Indian activi¹m. °eY ¹upported variou¹ Indian mi¹¹ionarY effort¹, and the church’¹ ¹econd pa¹tor, native Geor¿ian Â. Ë. ÀrantleY, ¹ided with Àapti¹t mi¹¹ionarY I¹aac McCoY, an advocate for Indian removal in the 1820¹ and 1830¹. ¾orthern Àapti¹t¹, however, remained deeplY divided on the i¹¹ue of removal. °e contentiou¹ 1846 ¾orth-South Àapti¹t denominational ¹plit over ¹laverY di¹rupted, or in ¹ome ca¹e¹ ended, mi¹¹ionarY work in the Indian ËerritorY amon¿ ¹laveholdin¿ Indian¹ a¹ ¾orthern and, in particular, Philadelphia Àapti¹t¹ ¹hifted their focu¹ and re¹ource¹ to Plain¹ triBe¹ and ¹outhern freed people. ¼ handful of Àapti¹t mi¹¹ionarie¹, includin¿ jo¹eph Samuel Murrow, remained in 7
the Indian ËerritorY throu¿h the Civil Âar.
°e Civil Âar wa¹ deva¹tatin¿ for the re¹ident¹ of the ËerritorY a¹ Both Union and Confederate armie¹ invaded, and pro- and anti¹laverY Indian faction¹ fou¿ht another civil war amon¿ them¹elve¹. °e ¹ta¿¿erin¿ lo¹¹ of life wa¹ compounded BY a reoccurrin¿ drou¿ht, which had Be¿un in 1860. ¼t war’¹ end, the Indian¹ faced their own po¹tBellum recon¹truction. Äorced to capitulate to Union force¹ in 1865, the five Indian repuBlic¹ (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicka¹aw, and Seminole) rene¿otiated treatie¹ with the United State¹, ¹ellin¿ the we¹tern half of their land¹ to the federal ¿overnment, which later ¹ettled Southern Plain¹ triBe¹ there. ¼dditionallY, the new treatie¹ e¹taBli¹hed a le¿al framework for movin¿ the rhetorical “Indian ËerritorY” compri¹in¿ the five Indian repuBlic¹ toward Becomin¿ an actual United State¹ “Indian” ËerritorY. Ärom the moment the rene¿otiated treatie¹ were ¹i¿ned, a pitched political Battle emer¿ed Between the Indian¹ and their white allie¹ who wi¹hed to retain Indian ¹overei¿ntY; and US politician¹, Óuro-¼merican colonial ¹ettler¹, and a¹¹imilationi¹t Indian allie¹ who 8
de¹ired the end of Indian nationhood.
Returnin¿ Àapti¹t mi¹¹ionarie¹ intent upon reBuildin¿ their ¹ecular and reli¿iou¹ communitie¹ found onlY ruined or de¹troYed ¹chool¹, churche¹, and
30
±HEÈ
home¹. Landle¹¹ mi¿rant¹ who coveted land in the Indian repuBlic¹ pre¹¹ed their colonial de¹i¿n¹ in the politic¹ of ¹urroundin¿ ¹tate¹. Re¹pondin¿ to popular ¹entiment, Senator ÀenÕamin Ä. Rice of Mi¹¹ouri introduced an “Áklahoma” Bill in the ¹prin¿ of 1870. °e le¿i¹lation’¹ mo¹t conte¹ted feature¹ called for the creation of a new territorial ¿overnment and ¹ettlement of Indian land¹ BY white¹ under the provi¹ion¹ of the ½ome¹tead ¼ct. Reaction from the five Indian repuBlic¹ wa¹ ¹wift and Bitter. ¼n alternative Bill wa¹ propo¹ed BY ¹ome Indian leader¹; however, Äive ¾ation¹ con¹en¹u¹ came to oppo¹e anY US territorial impo¹ition on the ¹overei¿n Indian repuBlic¹. °e followin¿ Year, con¿re¹¹ional action aBro¿ated ¼merican Indian ¹overei¿ntY BY endin¿ the treatY-makin¿ proce¹¹. °i¹ led to the fir¹t Battle to ¹ecure and enforce Indian treatY ri¿ht¹, which would entan¿le a ho¹t of evan¿elical reformer¹, amon¿ them two Àapti¹t mi¹¹ionarie¹, jo¹eph Samuel Murrow and Geor¿e Âa¹hin¿ton In¿all¹, who would ¹hape the political and ideolo¿ical contour¹ of po¹tBellum Àapti¹t Indian policY and ¹park the 9
Indian activi¹m of ÀonneY and Quinton.
In¿all¹, a former Ute, Sho¹honi, and Paiute a¿ent, had Been nominated BY the male-controlled ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY (¼À½MS) to replace john À. jone¹, a¿ent for the Union ¼¿encY, a con¹olidated a¿encY 10
for the Äive Indian nation¹ e¹taBli¹hed in june 1874.
Ári¿inallY jone¹ had
Been tapped BY Pre¹ident UlY¹¹e¹ S. Grant to Be the Cherokee a¿ent a¹ part of the pre¹ident’¹ “peace policY,” in which a¿ent¹ were nominated BY leadin¿ reli¿iou¹ ¹ocietie¹ in the hope of improvin¿ the qualitY of candidate¹.
11
Áver
the next five Year¹, In¿all¹’¹ exploit¹ a¹ the ¼À½MS’¹ new ¿eneral mi¹¹ionarY for the Indian ËerritorY would plaY a keY role in cultivatin¿ ¾orthern Àapti¹t women’¹ intere¹t in ¼merican Indian activi¹m and ironicallY in hi¹ own di¹appearance from the hi¹torical record.
12
Ärom the moment In¿all¹ arrived in the Indian ËerritorY, he proved to Be an inexperienced, unprepared, and incompetent a¿encY leader. ¼ commi¹¹ion repre¹entin¿ the ½ou¹e Indian ¼ffair¹ Committee wa¹ in the Indian ËerritorY durin¿ the latter part of 1875 and pre¹ented a ¹cathin¿ report on hi¹ activitie¹ to the Interior Ãepartment. ¼lthou¿h aB¹olved of anY improprietY, In¿all¹ wa¹ 13
neverthele¹¹ di¹mi¹¹ed in januarY 1876.
¼ devout Àapti¹t and dedicated evan-
¿eli¹t, he did prove of value to Indian ËerritorY Àapti¹t¹ durin¿ hi¹ ¹hort tenure BY reawakenin¿ ¼À½MS intere¹t in Indian mi¹¹ion work and directin¿ ¾orthern Àapti¹t¹ toward a renewed mi¹¹ion effort in the Indian ËerritorY.
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
31
°rou¿h the effort¹ of In¿all¹ and Murrow, Mr¹. ÓlizaBeth Àlackall, trea¹urer of the Âoman’¹ Àapti¹t Äorei¿n Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of the Âe¹t, and her hu¹Band, Chri¹topher Randolph Àlackall, ¹uperintendent of the Chica¿o-Ba¹ed Àapti¹t PuBlication SocietY, a¿reed to attend the annual Choctaw-Chicka¹aw Àapti¹t ¼¹¹ociation meetin¿ in mid-¼u¿u¹t 1876. °e 14
a¹¹ociation had Been founded BY Murrow in julY 1872.
Ãurin¿ the ¹e¹¹ion¹
with Mr¹. Czarina Àond (Choctaw) a¹ interpreter, Àlackall met with a ¿roup of Indian women, includin¿ Mr¹. Sallie ½ol¹ton, a widow. Âhen Àlackall explained that mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietie¹ were ¹endin¿ their mi¹¹ionarie¹ acro¹¹ the ocean, ½ol¹ton “threw up Both hand¹ exclaimin¿, ‘If You have ¹uch ¿ood thin¿¹ to ¹end far awaY, whY don’t You ¹end ¹ome to u¹?’” °e followin¿ daY, ¼u¿u¹t 15, 1876, the Choctaw and Chicka¹aw Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY wa¹ or¿anized, with ½ol¹ton a¹ pre¹ident and Àond a¹ vice pre¹ident and trea¹urer—the fir¹t Àapti¹t women’¹ home mi¹¹ion ¹ocietY with a national ¹cope. ÄortY-¹ix Choctaw and Chicka¹aw women Õoined, each contriButin¿ 15
ten cent¹ for due¹.
Àlackall outlined the purpo¹e a¹ offerin¿ charitaBle
relief—promotin¿ SundaY ¹chool¹, temperance or¿anization¹, indu¹trial ¹chool¹, ÀiBle readin¿¹, hi¿her education, and mi¹¹ionarY trainin¿.
16
¼t the conclu¹ion of the Choctaw-Chicka¹aw annual meetin¿, the Àlackall¹ returned to Chica¿o. ½owever, “the que¹tion of the ¿ood Indian ¹i¹ter kept rin¿in¿ throu¿h Àlackall’¹ mind.” ¼ttendin¿ her fir¹t Âoman’¹ Àapti¹t Äorei¿n Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of the Âe¹t meetin¿ ¹ince her return, Àlackall told them of her experience. ¼lthou¿h a fellow Äorei¿n Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY collea¿ue, Mr¹. Ólvira Àrown Swift, had advocated dome¹tic mi¹¹ion¹ for ¹everal Year¹, Àlackall’¹ Chica¿o compatriot¹ were not Yet readY to moBilize for Indian evan¿elization and relief work.
17
Uncertain aBout thi¹ novel cour¹e, Àlackall’¹ Chica¿o cohort¹ con¹ulted the Board¹ of the ¼À½MS and the ¼merican Àapti¹t Mi¹¹ionarY Union. ¼fter further deliBeration, the memBer¹ of the Äorei¿n Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY Àoard concluded that Àlackall and her collea¿ue¹ were free to form their own home mi¹¹ion ¹ocietY. °erefore, women from mo¹t of Chica¿o’¹ Àapti¹t churche¹ convened at the Michi¿an ¼venue Àapti¹t Church on °ur¹daY, ÄeBruarY 1, 1877, and the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY (ÂÀ½MS), a di¹tinct department of home mi¹¹ion work, wa¹ Born. In¿all¹ “ur¿ed the need of women’¹ work amon¿ the Indian women and children,” while Ãr. Sewall SYlve¹ter Cuttin¿, corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY of the
32
±HEÈ
male-dominated ¼À½MS, “¿ave in¹truction and coun¹el concernin¿ the propo¹ed work and policY of thi¹ SocietY.” ¼lthou¿h Àlackall and other memBer¹ con¹ented to the men’¹ ¹ocietY’¹ leader¹hip and financial over¹i¿ht, 18
theY in¹i¹ted on maintainin¿ or¿anizational autonomY.
ÀY the end of 1877, there were ÂÀ½MS Branche¹ in fourteen ¹tate¹. Re¿ionallY, within ¹tate¹, and in lar¿er citie¹ the¹e Branche¹ often coale¹ced into “union¹.” KeY union¹ were located in we¹tern Penn¹Ylvania, Philadelphia, Rhode I¹land, Chica¿o, Cincinnati, ¾ew Ôork, and ÀrooklYn. °e fir¹t to or¿anize wa¹ the Âe¹tern Penn¹Ylvania Union, and the ¹econd wa¹ the Philadelphia Union. Compri¹in¿ ¹ixteen churche¹, the ¹ocietY’¹ Philadelphia Union, under the pre¹idencY of Mr¹. ¼¹enath À. McCollin, quicklY attained a po¹ition of political and financial power ¹econd onlY to the national or¿anization.
19
°eir influence came from the collective wealth of
Philadelphia pari¹hioner¹ and the ¹pecial influence of the union’¹ fir¹t ¹ecretarY, Mr¹. ÓlizaBeth ¼rm¹ ÂaYland, wife of the re¹pected editor of the
National Baptist new¹paper, ½eman Lincoln ÂaYland. °e National Baptist wa¹ alreadY reco¿nized a¹ the voice of Penn¹Ylvania and ¾ew jer¹eY Àapti¹t¹ Before hi¹ arrival in 1872. Under hi¹ effective ¿uidance, the new¹paper ¹oon attracted a national audience. Lar¿elY throu¿h ÂaYland’¹ puBlication of article¹ and editorial¹ concernin¿ Indian affair¹ and women’¹ Indian mi¹¹ion work, the Philadelphia Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion 20
SocietY came to Be clo¹elY a¹¹ociated with national Indian reform effort¹.
¼lthou¿h the Philadelphia Union ori¿inallY encompa¹¹ed ¹ixteen different con¿re¿ation¹, BY ¹enioritY, ¹ize, and influence, the citY’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church dominated the a¹¹ociation. Meetin¿ on MaY, 17, 1877, memBer¹ or¿anized the Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church, re¹torin¿ Indian mi¹¹ion activitY in their con¿re¿ation for the fir¹t time ¹ince 1865. °eY elected Mr¹. Ärance¹ ¼nder¹on, a well-known hYmni¹t and wife of the Reverend Geor¿e Â. ¼nder¹on, a¹ pre¹ident, and two vice pre¹ident¹, Mr¹. ÓlizaBeth Âat¹on Àutcher and Mi¹¹ MarY Lucinda ÀonneY. Âat¹on’¹ decea¹ed hu¹Band Âa¹hin¿ton had Been pre¹ident of Girard Àank, a director of the Penn¹Ylvania Railroad, pre¹ident of the ¼merican Steam¹hip CompanY, and deacon at Äir¹t Àapti¹t. ÀonneY wa¹ owner and headmi¹tre¹¹ of the pre¹ti¿iou¹ Che¹tnut Street (women’¹) SeminarY in Philadelphia. Äollowin¿ ¼nder¹on’¹ tenure, ÀonneY, and then Mr¹. Ólla Covell Àoardman, wife of lon¿time Äir¹t Àapti¹t mini¹ter
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
33
Geor¿e Ãana Àoardman, would re¹pectivelY hold the Äir¹t Àapti¹t mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietY pre¹idencY.
21
Âhile 1877 proved a re¹oundin¿ ¹ucce¹¹ for the new Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY in term¹ of ¿rowth and ri¹in¿ popularitY, the period ¹pannin¿ 1878– 1879 wa¹ a “perfect ¹torm” of near di¹a¹trou¹ calamitie¹. Ëwo ¹candal¹, while far from derailment¹, ¹i¿nificantlY curBed the ¹ocietY’¹ ¹tellar a¹cent. °e fir¹t involved the ¹ocietY’¹ mo¹t vi¹iBle, prominent, and influential advocate, “MaÕor” Geor¿e Âa¹hin¿ton In¿all¹. °e ¹econd involved Mr¹. Ólvira Swift, the ¹ocietY’¹ corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY and national amBa¹¹ador. In januarY 1878, national new¹paper¹ reported that an inve¹ti¿ation into Indian Service fraud ¹pecificallY identified In¿all¹ a¹ a ¹in¿ularlY e¿re¿iou¹ criminal who had emBezzled over half a million dollar¹ from the Indian Áffice.
22
¼lthou¿h initiallY aB¹olved BY the Indian Service, further revela-
tion¹ irredeemaBlY ¹ullied hi¹ reputation.
23
In june, the men’¹ ¼merican
Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY di¹mi¹¹ed him a¹ their ¿eneral mi¹¹ionarY to the Indian¹, cuttin¿ him off from official mi¹¹ionarY work and not mentionin¿ him a¿ain in the National Baptist. Âith the exception of two oBlique reference¹, In¿all¹ di¹appeared from future ÂÀ½MS hi¹torical ¹ketche¹. In¿all¹ and the ¹ocietY would in turn Be omitted from all Âomen’¹ ¾ational 24
Indian ¼¹¹ociation hi¹torie¹.
°e event¹ that con¹trained Ólvira Swift’¹ promotional work for the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY Be¿an a¹ a rumor directed at her hu¹Band, the Reverend Carlo¹ Swift, in the ¹prin¿ of 1878. InitiallY onlY a whi¹per campai¿n, the ¹ordid tale ¹oon Ballooned into a full ¹candal BY the ¹prin¿ of 1879, replete with a church trial. ¼ female memBer of Reverend Swift’¹ Chica¿o con¿re¿ation alle¿ed that he had made unwanted ¹exual advance¹. ÓventuallY, three pari¹hioner¹ would emer¿e with ¹imilar char¿e¹, alBeit contradictorY account¹. Ólvira Swift did not leave a record of her thou¿ht¹ aBout the char¿e¹.
25
ÄinallY,
after an emBarra¹¹in¿ earlY ¼u¿u¹t church trial, Reverend Swift wa¹ exonerated of all char¿e¹. Ãurin¿ tho¹e tumultuou¹ twelve month¹ in 1878 and 1879, Ólvira Swift’¹ influence within the national Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY decrea¹ed, alon¿ with her puBlic appearance¹. Âhile faultle¹¹, Ólvira Swift’¹ prominent role a¹ the ¹ocietY’¹ amBa¹¹ador wa¹ tarni¹hed Õu¹t when Indian 26
ËerritorY Àapti¹t¹ and the ¹ocietY needed her mo¹t.
¼¹ In¿all¹ and Swift ¹lipped in ¹tature, ½eman Lincoln ÂaYland and a ¹mall ¿roup of fellow Philadelphia Àapti¹t mini¹ter¹ ¹tepped in to fill the
34
±HEÈ
intellectual and policY vacuum. ÂaYland offered the fir¹t outline of a comprehen¹ive Àapti¹t Indian policY in an ¼pril 1878 editorial in the National
Baptist . In all, ÂaYland li¹ted five point¹, namelY ¹crupulou¹ treatY keepin¿, a unified ¹Y¹tem of law for the Indian ËerritorY, the con¹olidation of triBe¹ in the Indian ËerritorY, ¹trict maintenance of the ¿overnment’¹ “Peace PolicY,” and univer¹al Indian education. °e¹e point¹ would eventuallY Become the core of ¾I¼ Indian policY. Seven daY¹ after puBlication, ÂaYland’¹ point¹ were incorporated into a formal recommendation that wa¹ adopted BY the Philadelphia Àapti¹t Mini¹terial Conference’¹ Committee on Indian ¼ffair¹. ¼ddin¿ allotted land in ¹everaltY to ÂaYland’¹ ori¿inal propo¹al¹, the conference concluded: “It i¹ a matter of ¿reat thankfulne¹¹ that the Àapti¹t women are or¿anizin¿ for the Chri¹tian work amon¿ the Indian women.”
27
Stron¿ ¹upport from ÂaYland, the ÂÀ½MS of Chica¿o, the Âoman’¹ ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY (¼À½MS, founded in Ào¹ton in 1877), and the ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY headquartered in ¾ew Ôork proved crucial after MaY 27, 1878, when con¿re¹¹ional pro-territorial and fi¹cal con¹ervative¹ Õoined force¹ to aBruptlY aBoli¹h the Union ¼¿encY and tran¹fer full re¹pon¹iBilitY for ¿overnment Indian and freed people ¹chool¹ to the ¼À½MS. In the wake of con¿re¹¹ional action¹, MarY Lucinda ÀonneY opened a new avenue of ¹upport for Àapti¹t he¿emonY in the Indian ËerritorY. Re¹pondin¿ to a varietY of encroachment¹ on Àapti¹t effort¹ in the Äive ¾ation¹ reported in the National Baptist and leadin¿ new¹paper¹ (the “Àoomer” movement, the “Áklahoma” territorial movement, the 1878 Indian ËerritorY Bill, Senator Geor¿e ¸e¹t’¹ 1879 territorial Bill, and railroad effort¹ to acquire Indian land ce¹¹ion¹), ÀonneY di¹cu¹¹ed po¹¹iBle cour¹e¹ of action with ÂaYland and her church’¹ mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietY. °e re¹ult of thi¹ con¹ultation wa¹ a ¹hort, factuallY inaccurate “petition” likelY penned BY ÂaYland.
28
ÀonneY ¹ent
thi¹ petition to the ¹econd annual Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY meetin¿ at Sarato¿a, ¾ew Ôork, BY waY of ÂaYland. °e document wa¹ formallY read into the minute¹ on MaY 29, 1879:
Whereas, Óffort¹ are Bein¿ made to open the Indian ËerritorY to white ¹ettler¹ without the con¹ent of Indian¹, and contrarY to the ¹olemn promi¹e¹ of the treatY of 1831–32 BY which the ËerritorY wa¹ ¿iven in fee ¹imple to them and their de¹cendant¹, to en¹ure to them while theY ¹hall
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
35
exi¹t a¹ a nation and live on it liaBle to no tran¹fer or alienation except to the United State¹ or with their con¹ent; therefore,
Resolved, °at the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, located at Chica¿o, re¹pectfullY, But mo¹t earne¹tlY reque¹t and ur¿e the Pre¹ident and the Con¿re¹¹ of the United State¹, to take all needful mea¹ure¹ to ¹ecure the fulfillment of the treatY, and to prevent a violation of Õu¹tice and of humanitY in our treatment of the Indian¹ of the ËerritorY.
29
°e meetin¿ re¹olved to forward the petition to the pre¹ident and Con¿re¹¹. In ¹pite of thi¹ affirmation, the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY went into immediate rece¹¹, and no action wa¹ taken. Given that the petition erroneou¹lY referenced a ¹in¿le nonexi¹tent 1831–1832 pan-Indian removal treatY with fee ¹imple owner¹hip, it wa¹ perhap¹ Be¹t that ÀonneY’¹ fir¹t peti30
tion fell throu¿h the hi¹torical crack¹.
ÀonneY and Quinton would ¿lo¹¹ over thi¹ event a¹ a re¿ular ¹ummer “rece¹¹” or “adÕournment.” ½owever, it wa¹ BY no mean¹ routine. ÀY ÄeBruarY 1879, the Chica¿o-Ba¹ed ÂÀ½MS entered into a difficult, occa¹ionallY heated Battle with the Âoman’¹ ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY of Ào¹ton and the male-dominated ¼À½MS over their ri¿ht to exi¹t a¹ an independent Àapti¹t women’¹ or¿anization. Until mid¹ummer of 1880, it ¹eemed likelY that the Chica¿o ¹ocietY would Be forced to di¹Band and recon¹titute under ¼À½MS control. Ãevotin¿ all their effort and re¹ource¹ to the conflict at hand, the ¹ocietY’¹ leader¹hip ¹u¹pended re¿ular or¿anizational meetin¿¹ until the matter wa¹ re¹olved. ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ deci¹ion to act independentlY and ultimatelY ¹eparate their Indian petition effort from the Chica¿o ¿roup wa¹ in lar¿e part ¹haped BY thi¹ overlooked ¹tru¿¿le Between the Chica¿o and Ào¹ton ¹ocietie¹. °e ¹eed¹ of conflict can Be traced to the national Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ deci¹ion in ¼u¿u¹t 1877 to ¹ever admini¹trative and financial tie¹ with the financiallY crippled ¼À½MS. ¼ddre¹¹in¿ complaint¹ that women’¹ home mi¹¹ion work drained ¿eneral church contriBution¹, ÂaYland ar¿ued that women’¹ or¿anization¹ ¹hould Be allowed to rai¹e a¹ much moneY a¹ theY plea¹ed and depo¹it it in their own trea¹urie¹. In MaY 1879, the ¼À½MS a¿¿re¹¹ivelY moved toward aB¹orBin¿ the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ Brim31
min¿ trea¹urY.
¼¹ a re¹ult, it¹ executive Board curtailed operation¹ until the
unification di¹pute could Be re¹olved. Âhile hopin¿ to remain independent,
36
±HEÈ
a¹ a practical matter the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY did not wi¹h to continue or¿anizational effort¹ that mi¿ht prove futile. ¸ariou¹ mi¹¹ion effort¹ were reduced or eliminated, ¹upport for mi¹¹ionarie¹ in the Äive ¾ation¹ ¹u¹pended, and new charitaBle work po¹tponed. Ár¿anizational promotion cea¹ed, and re¿ular national and Branch meetin¿¹ were ¹caled Back over the 32
¹ummer of 1879. °e ÂÀ½MS wa¹ virtuallY paralYzed.
Äor ÀonneY, Quinton, and the women of the Philadelphia Union, thi¹ wa¹ an e¹peciallY hard Blow ¿iven their ¹ucce¹¹ durin¿ the previou¹ Year. °eir financial contriBution amounted to an impre¹¹ive one-ei¿hth of the total rai¹ed BY the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY durin¿ it¹ ¹econd Year of operation. Moreover, the Philadelphia Union, with ¹pecial a¹¹i¹tance from the Philadelphia ÂÀ½MS Branch, directlY ¹upported two Choctaw and Chicka¹aw ¾ation mi¹¹ionarie¹, G. Â. Shaw-In¿all¹ and Czarina Àond. °e deci¹ion to ¹u¹pend financial ¹upport for Indian ËerritorY work wa¹ a ¿reat di¹ap33
pointment to the Philadelphia Union.
¼¹ pre¹ident of Philadelphia Äir¹t Àapti¹t’¹ Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY Branch in 1879, ÀonneY had alreadY taken ¹tep¹ to pre¹erve their work on Behalf of Indian ËerritorY mi¹¹ion¹ and charitaBle relief. Âith or¿anizational action thwarted BY the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ deci¹ion to curtail activitie¹ durin¿ the unification cri¹i¹, ¹he took matter¹ into her own hand¹, championin¿ a new denominational “¾eed of Óffort for the Indian.” Sometime after MaY 1879, ÀonneY and Quinton Be¿an a new petition campai¿n throu¿h Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church. ¼lthou¿h the mi¹¹ionarY circle wa¹ formallY in rece¹¹, thi¹ work wa¹ conducted on a volunteer Ba¹i¹ throu¿h a “Special Committee.” Âhile their campai¿n Be¿an a¹ part of their Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY work, BY the end of 1879 force¹ were alreadY in plaY that would lead to the creation of an independent women’¹ Indian reform or¿anization that wa¹ eventuallY known a¹ the Âomen’¹ ¾ational 34
Indian ¼¹¹ociation.
¼n irate 1880 letter to the National Baptist revealed ¹tron¿ pa¹¹ion¹ i¿nited BY the unification effort, the anonYmou¹ author laBelin¿ the male-dominated ¼À½MS’¹ action¹ a de¹picaBle effort to “tear down an or¿anization . . . ¹implY for the Ble¹¹ed ¹ati¹faction of havin¿ the men at the head of it.” °e extent to which the men’¹ ¼À½MS intended to “tear down” the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY and other Àapti¹t women’¹ mi¹¹ionarY or¿anization¹ Became apparent on julY 24, 1879, when it relea¹ed detail¹ of the final unification
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
37
plan. ¼¹ drafted BY the ¼À½MS, the new Âomen’¹ ¾ational Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY (¾À½MS) con¹titution placed all women’¹ mi¹¹ionarY work under a ¹in¿le or¿anization headquartered at ¾ew Ôork. Âhile ¿rantin¿ limited input to women, thi¹ new con¹titution ¿ave the ¾ew Ôork ¼À½MS executive Board control over or¿anizational finance¹ a¹ well a¹ “the field¹ of laBor of mi¹¹ionarie¹, teacher¹, and BiBle women, and al¹o the location of ¹chool¹, if anY ¹hould Be e¹taBli¹hed.”
35
Ãurin¿ thi¹ or¿anizational turmoil, ÀonneY continued to ¹tudY fact¹ ¹he had ¿athered re¿ardin¿ the countrY’¹ Indian¹, pre¹entin¿ them to Quinton, who at once re¹ponded that “¹omethin¿ mu¹t Be done.” ÀonneY noted, “Mr¹. Quinton had lar¿e experience in Chri¹tian work and knew how to Brin¿ a cau¹e Before the people.” °e two decided to proceed with a new Indian petition prote¹tin¿ con¿re¹¹ional effort¹ to e¹taBli¹h an “Áklahoma ËerritorY” and related propo¹al¹ to open the Äive ¾ation¹ land¹ 36
to white ¹ettlement.
Refa¹hioned BY Quinton, the petition ÀonneY had ori¿inallY drafted with
º²gÇ´E 1.1. Cofounder and lon¿time pre¹ident of the ¾I¼, ¼melia Stone Quinton al¹o ¹erved a¹ chair of the Mi¹¹ionarY Committee and or¿anized auxiliarie¹ acro¹¹ the nation. °i¹ photo, taken in ½omer, ¾ew Ôork, in 1898, wa¹ a ¿ift to the Reverend and Mr¹. Âilliam ½enrY Âeinland, Moravian mi¹¹ionarie¹ the ¾I¼ ¹pon¹ored in ¹outhern California. Courte¹Y of the ½untin¿ton LiBrarY, San Marino, California.
38
±HEÈ
ÂaYland no lon¿er contained the erroneou¹ Indian treatY information. ËraditionallY interpreted a¹ well-intended But mi¹placed Benevolence, the two women’¹ collaBoration wa¹ actuallY an effort to protect what one ¾ew Ón¿land opponent of the unification plan called “[their intere¹t] a¹ co-partner¹ and co-owner¹ of [ÂÀ½MS] propertY.” Under their a¿reement, ÀonneY would “furni¹h the mean¹,” and Quinton “would work a¹ God opened the waY.”
37
ÓventuallY, ÀonneY and Quinton circumvented the traditional power
of male denominational authoritie¹ BY circulatin¿ ¹even thou¹and copie¹ of their new petition. Äir¹t actin¿ throu¿h the Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church and the Philadelphia Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY Union, the women moved BeYond the ¹ectarian ¿oal of Àapti¹t he¿emonY in the Indian ËerritorY and toward an ecumenical concept of “Chri¹tian patrioti¹m.” °u¹, ÀonneY and Quinton Became pioneerin¿ fi¿ure¹ in the ri¹e of po¹tBellum “maternal patrioti¹m.”
38
MidwaY into ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ Indian petition campai¿n, on ÁctoBer 2, 1879, the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY puBli¹hed it¹ formal re¹pon¹e to the pendin¿ unification plan. In a detailed document, Mr¹. Ólvira Swift and Board chairman MarY Lowe Ãickin¹on rai¹ed three oBÕection¹: the plan would duplicate work, it did not focu¹ on ÂÀ½MS intere¹t¹, and it did not provide a ¿uaranteed leader¹hip role for women. ¾otaBlY, the Board did not reÕect the plan; it merelY rai¹ed point¹ of contention. Áver the next two month¹, the Âe¹tern Penn¹Ylvania Union and the Philadelphia Union reÕected the unification plan. ½eadin¿ into ÃecemBer, memBer¹hip fractured, with the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY Àoard pled¿in¿ to uphold denominational will, while a maÕoritY of ¹ocietY Branche¹ and union¹ determined to Become independent rather than unifY under the men’¹ ½ome 39
Mi¹¹ion SocietY and the Ào¹ton women’¹ ¿roup.
Àut Õu¹t a¹ the Chica¿o ¹ocietY fortune¹ were ¹uddenlY rever¹ed in MaY 1879, in earlY ÃecemBer 1880 the Ào¹ton ¿roup received ¹hockin¿ new¹: an anonYmou¹ ¹ource di¹clo¹ed that the men’¹ ¹ocietY’¹ con¹titution did not allow auxiliarie¹. °i¹ made the national ¼À½MS Both politicallY independent and ¹olelY re¹pon¹iBle for the upkeep of it¹ own mi¹¹ionarie¹, teacher¹, and ¹chool¹.
40
ÀY ÃecemBer 11, the Ào¹ton ¿roup ¹i¿naled a complete
turnaround. ¾ot onlY did the leader¹ think it unÕu¹t to Be ¹addled with unexpected expen¹e¹, theY now felt it unfair to di¹¹olve their independent ¹ocietY under term¹ of the unification plan. °e Ào¹ton ¿roup, lar¿elY
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
39
re¹pon¹iBle for what appeared to Be a vindictive effort, had now Become their oppre¹¹or. ÂaYland ¿raciou¹lY championed Both ¹ocietie¹.
41
Seizin¿ the
opportunitY, the Chica¿o ¹ocietY puBli¹hed it¹ own call, a¹kin¿ repre¹entative¹ of Both women’¹ ¹ocietie¹ to meet in ¾ew Ôork CitY. Àoth MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Quinton were prominent ¹peaker¹ at the proceedin¿¹.
42
Repre¹entin¿ the claim¹ of women’¹ ri¿ht¹ rather than Indian ri¿ht¹, ÀonneY and Quinton made forceful ar¿ument¹ in favor of the women’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ independence. ÀonneY, a¹ pre¹ident of the powerful Äir¹t Àapti¹t Branch, a¹¹erted that “if we would develop the mental and ¹piritual re¹ource¹ of the women of the denomination, we mu¹t place re¹pon¹iBilitY upon them.” She added, “[I] would deplore the or¿anization of a SocietY that would relieve the women of anY part of the re¹pon¹iBilitY impo¹ed upon them in thi¹ SocietY.” Quinton, actin¿ a¹ Branch ¹ecretarY, noted “that the difficultie¹ all aro¹e from without, not from the work it¹elf.” Mr¹. ¼¹enath À. McCollin, pre¹ident of the Philadelphia Union, moved to re¹cind previou¹ re¹olution¹ Bindin¿ the fate of the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY to denominational will. ½owever, the ¹ocietY’¹ corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY, Mr¹. Ólvira Swift, “thou¿ht the SocietY [wa¹] not prepared for ¹uch action.” °at evenin¿, the Chica¿o and Ào¹ton ¿roup¹ held an informal conference durin¿ which Both ¹ocietie¹ a¿reed to move toward a unification of intere¹t¹ on their own term¹. Si¿nificantlY, Both partie¹ made conce¹¹ion¹ re¹ultin¿ in re¹olution draft¹ callin¿ for “territorial” ¹ettlement¹ and for the ÂÀ½MS to a¹¹ume financial ¹upport for the mi¹¹ionarie¹ of Both or¿anization¹. ¼nother Õoint meetin¿ wa¹ ¹cheduled for the next daY, Âedne¹daY, januarY 14, at 2:00 p.m., prior to the male-dominated ¼À½MS unification 43
plan meetin¿.
¼t the Âedne¹daY ¿atherin¿, Both the Chica¿o and Ào¹ton ¹ocietie¹ reÕected the plan for unification. Meetin¿ the followin¿ daY, theY re¹olved that each ¿roup would retain their di¹tinct exi¹tence and approved re¹olution¹ that defined the Ào¹ton-Ba¹ed Âoman’¹ ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ “territorY” a¹ ¾ew Ón¿land and the Chica¿o-Ba¹ed Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ “territorY” a¹ the Âe¹t. ¼ccordin¿lY, each a¿reed to tran¹fer contrarY auxiliarie¹, union¹, and Branche¹ to their appropriate territorial ¹ocietY. Moreover, the Ào¹ton ¹ocietY a¿reed to incorporate a clau¹e in it¹ con¹titution affirmin¿ cooperative alle¿iance with the Chica¿o
40
±HEÈ
¿roup. Re¹olvin¿ the Ào¹ton women’¹ financial woe¹, Chica¿o memBer¹ a¿reed to paY for Õoint mi¹¹ionarY expen¹e¹ while ¿uaranteein¿ each control over it¹ own mi¹¹ionarie¹ and mi¹¹ion¹. Ëo thi¹ end, the Chica¿o ¹ocietY al¹o a¿reed to e¹taBli¹h a mi¹¹ionarY trainin¿ ¹chool in Chica¿o, where it would in¹truct mi¹¹ionarie¹ for Both or¿anization¹. ¼¹ ¹eparate ¹ocietie¹ in a¹¹ociation, the ÂÀ½MS a¿reed to redefine it¹ work a¹ exclu¹ivelY “mi¹¹ionarY,” a¹ oppo¹ed to the ¼À½MS’¹ “educational” effort¹. °eY al¹o a¿reed to hold a Õoint annual meetin¿ to di¹cu¹¹ their mutual endeavor¹.
44
½enrY LYman Morehou¹e of the ¾ew Ôork–Ba¹ed ¼À½MS, who wa¹ in attendance, ¹tron¿lY oBÕected to the¹e conce¹¹ion¹, ar¿uin¿: “ManY point¹ of practical difficultY will come up if thi¹ re¹olution i¹ adopted a¹ there will ¹till Be two Societie¹.” In replY, ÀonneY contended that “the re¹olution [wa¹ drafted] accordin¿ to the Ãivine leadin¿ and in an¹wer to praYer. Moreover, we had come to ¹peak for independence of ¹ocietie¹. . . . [S]hall we now denY the ¹ame a¹ the colonie¹ did . . . to tho¹e not in accord with their view¹?” Quinton retorted: “[Ë]he re¹olution¹ a¹ Bein¿ the onlY Ba¹i¹ of union . . . [were] in perfect accord with Àapti¹t principle¹.” °e re¹olution¹ pa¹¹ed unanimou¹lY.
45
°at afternoon, the ¼À½MS held their meetin¿, and in the evenin¿ the Chica¿o and Ào¹ton women held their fir¹t formal Õoint meetin¿. Lar¿elY a ¹uperficial ¿atherin¿ to commemorate their victorY, the onlY item of ¹i¿nificance ¹lated for con¹ideration wa¹ the “Indian memorial and petition in which the SocietY i¹ intere¹ted,” which wa¹ pre¹ented BY Quinton, who implored “all pre¹ent intere¹ted in home mi¹¹ion¹ to aid in circulatin¿ the petition to Con¿re¹¹ for the maintenance of . . . treatie¹ which the Govern46
ment ha¹ made with the Indian¹.”
¼lthou¿h ÀonneY and Quinton helped ¹ave their Beloved ¹ocietY, the ¹ettlement reached in ¾ew Ôork actuallY placed their petition work out¹ide the a¿reed framework for it¹ mi¹¹ionarY activitie¹. Âhile complimentarY to the ¹ocietY’¹ newlY defined evan¿eli¹m, the Indian petition drive wa¹ overtlY political. ÀonneY, Quinton, and their allie¹ in the Philadelphia Union took a ¹erie¹ of ¹tep¹ to trY to reconcile thi¹ conflict, while Reverend ÂaYland laBored to Bol¹ter intere¹t in the petition work throu¿h article¹ and editorial¹. ½owever, new political and ¹ocial development¹ con¹pired to further drive the petition effort toward independence. Äollowin¿ the januarY meetin¿, national reaction to the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
41
½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ victorY over ¼À½MS paternali¹m wa¹ immediate and overwhelmin¿lY po¹itive. In a widelY reprinted article titled “Shall Âomen Mana¿e Âomen’¹ Àoard¹?,” the ¾ew Ôork Independent reported that 1,500 Con¿re¿ationali¹t women and a BodY of Methodi¹t women had recentlY cho¹en a ¹imilar autonomou¹ path for their mi¹¹ion ¹ocietie¹. CeleBratin¿ their victorY, the Philadelphia Union held a meetin¿ on januarY 22 at which ÀonneY, Quinton, and other¹ made detailed report¹ of the recent event¹ in ¾ew Ôork. Ãurin¿ the proceedin¿¹ it wa¹ determined that it wa¹ time to extend the union’¹ work. Quinton wa¹ unanimou¹lY cho¹en for a period of three month¹ to Be¿in the work of “vi¹itin¿ the churche¹ in and near Philadelphia, for the purpo¹e of formin¿ circle¹ (Branche¹) and diffu¹in¿ intelli¿ence.” ½er ¹alarY, paid throu¿h “¹uB¹cription¹” pled¿ed BY three Äir¹t Àapti¹t SocietY memBer¹, wa¹ confirmed BY the national Âomen’¹ 47
Mi¹¹ion SocietY at it¹ 1880 annual meetin¿.
¼ ¹urveY of Quinton’¹ work for the Philadelphia Union and national Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY reveal¹ that ¹he did not di¹tin¿ui¹h Between her or¿anizational dutie¹ and work for the Äir¹t Àapti¹t SocietY’¹ Indian petition committee. In her hi¹torical account¹, the fact that ¹he wa¹ ¹pecificallY hired to promote the ¹ocietY in Philadelphia and ¹urroundin¿ area¹ i¹ omitted, leavin¿ the impre¹¹ion that ÀonneY or what Quinton oBliquelY called the church “mi¹¹ion circle” emploYed her for Indian petition work. In one ¹uch ¹ource, Quinton li¹ted her 1880 activitie¹ a¹:
the pre¹entation of the aim¹ and work of the Committee in mi¹¹ionarY and other meetin¿¹, at anniver¹arie¹ [YearlY meetin¿ of Àapti¹t mi¹¹ion ¹ocietie¹], a¹¹ociation¹, and Pa¹tor’¹ conference¹ in thi¹ and other ¹tate¹; the ¹ecurin¿ of two popular meetin¿¹, and the pre¹entation in them of our Petition, with the ¿eneral ¹uBÕect of Indian wron¿¹, the preparin¿ article¹ for the pre¹¹, with other writin¿¹, and much travelin¿ and vi¹itin¿ 48
in aid of ¹ome or all of the¹e line¹ of work.
Áver the next few month¹, Quinton and her Philadelphia Union allie¹ pre¹ented thi¹ dual work a¹ an effort “to enli¹t all the women of Àapti¹t churche¹ in thi¹ ¿reat and radical work of trYin¿ to ¹ecure a con¹ecrated Chri¹tian womanhood throu¿hout our countrY.” More explicitlY, Quinton ar¿ued, “Âhen woman fell, the race fell; and if the race i¹ to ri¹e, woman
42
±HEÈ
and the home mu¹t Be redeemed.” ¼t ÂÀ½MS meetin¿¹, Quinton “ur¿ed the ¿reat need of women’¹ work amon¿ the de¿raded ¹i¹terhood of our countrY.” Moreover, referencin¿ her ¹pecial vocation a¹ a ¹ocietY a¿ent, Quinton noted the “wide¹pread need of much work which onlY women can do for 49
women and children.”
Source¹ do not reveal how official¹ felt aBout Quinton’¹ conflation of dutie¹ under the ruBric of Chri¹tian motherhood or “women’¹ work for women.” ½owever, it i¹ clear that ¹he devoted much of her time to the Indian petition drive, which until ÄeBruarY 1880 ¹eemed a ¿rand ¹ucce¹¹. ¼ppointed BY the union and the Chica¿o ¹ocietY, ¹he had vi¹ited churche¹ and mi¹¹ionarY circle¹ appealin¿ for cooperation. Indeed, BY mid-ÄeBruarY the petition Boa¹ted 12,800 ¹i¿ner¹. UnfortunatelY, the ¹ame month, ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ old neme¹i¹, Senator Geor¿e ¸e¹t of Mi¹¹ouri, announced that he would pre¹ent a petition to Con¿re¹¹ li¹tin¿ over 50,000 ¹i¿nature¹. ¼ccordin¿ to ¸e¹t, the memorial repre¹ented ¼merican citizen¹ from Kan¹a¹, Mi¹¹ouri, Ëexa¹, ¼rkan¹a¹, and the Âe¹t callin¿ for pa¹¹a¿e of the Áklahoma Bill.
50
Makin¿ the Be¹t of their predicament, ÀonneY and two Äir¹t Àapti¹t
SocietY Branch memBer¹ carried their petition to Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, on ÄeBruarY 14, 1880. ¼t the Óxecutive Man¹ion, ÀonneY pre¹ented it to Pre¹ident Rutherford À. ½aYe¹, and on ÄeBruarY 20 it wa¹ offered in the ½ou¹e of Repre¹entative¹. Äour daY¹ later, Senator ¸e¹t pre¹ented another petition to 51
Con¿re¹¹ containin¿ 5,000 ¹i¿nature¹.
PuBliclY identifYin¿ them¹elve¹ a¹ a “Special Committee,” on March 18, 1880, ÀonneY, Quinton, and their compatriot¹ redouBled their petition effort. LikelY reactin¿ to the new petition threat rai¹ed BY Senator ¸e¹t, on ¼pril 22, 1880, ÀonneY announced to the a¹¹emBled Philadelphia Branch of the ¹ocietY “a plan of action for the purpo¹e of awakenin¿ puBlic ¹entiment in favor of Õu¹tice to the Indian.” ½owever, in Sarato¿a, ¾ew Ôork, at the third annual meetin¿ of the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY in late MaY 1880, a ¹i¿n of po¹¹iBle ten¹ion emer¿ed Between them and the Bur¿eonin¿ Äir¹t Àapti¹t “Indian Movement.”
52
¼ppointed Both ¹ecretarY pro tem and chairman of the Re¹olution Committee, Quinton opened the meetin¿ with a praYer. Unlike in pa¹t meetin¿¹, Quinton did not make a pre¹entation on Indian matter¹. Moreover, her re¹olution¹ for the Year contained an uncharacteri¹ticallY cautiou¹ endor¹ement of Indian work, callin¿ “for the Chri¹tianization of the variou¹ nation¹
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
43
of Indian¹ within our Border¹.” She added that theY ¹hould, “a¹ opportunitY offer¹, Õoin in petition to our Government that treatie¹ Be kept with all Indian¹ amon¿ u¹.” In a june 10, 1880, National Baptist article reportin¿ on the annual meetin¿, Quinton invoked a ¹tron¿ plea for maternali¹m, notin¿: “°e crY of mother¹ to mother¹ will Be heard, for them and their children. . . . Ëo ¹oul¹ in ¹YmpathY with that heart, the need¹ of million¹ of un¹aved mother¹ and home¹ in thi¹ land cannot appeal in vain.”
53
¼l¹o in MaY, ÀonneY ¹u¿¿e¹ted to Quinton that their Special Committee Be enlar¿ed BY two, addin¿ fellow Äir¹t Àapti¹t Branch memBer¹ Ólla Covell Àoardman and Mariné j. Cha¹e. °e four made up “a committee of waY¹ and mean¹ to act in the di¹triBution of the petition¹ and tract¹.” ¼ll the committee’¹ expen¹e¹ were initiallY met BY ÀonneY. ÀY the fourth Year, ÀonneY had 54
expended $1,400 of her own fund¹ on the Indian petition effort.
Äollowin¿ the MaY meetin¿, the Äir¹t Àapti¹t SocietY Branch went into ¹ummer rece¹¹; however, the Philadelphia Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY Union continued to hold weeklY meetin¿¹ throu¿h ÁctoBer. Ãurin¿ the ¹ummer, Quinton and volunteer¹ from the Philadelphia Union ¹ent petition¹ and explanatorY leaflet¹ to “officer¹ of women’¹ mi¹¹ionarY and other Benevolent ¹ocietie¹ without re¿ard to denominational, political, or ¹ectional line¹.” Mr¹. ÓlizaBeth ¼rm¹ ÂaYland, Philadelphia Union corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY, reque¹ted that memBer¹ ¹end for Blank¹ and ¿et a¹ manY ¹i¿nature¹ a¹ po¹¹iBle. °eir ¿oal wa¹ at lea¹t two hundred thou¹and Before januarY 1881. ÂaYland added that, althou¿h ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ petition effort wa¹ “at fir¹t an out¿rowth of our Union,” it wa¹ “never confined BY denominational line¹.” In their effort to Be¹t Senator ¸e¹t, ÀonneY and Quinton had exceeded “mi¹¹ionarY” Boundarie¹ ¹et for the Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY BY term¹ of the januarY 1880 unitY accord¹. °eir ¹pecial committee had evolved into a ¿endered political operation, it¹ ¿oal no lon¿er Àapti¹t evan¿elization But rather the interdenominational work of “Chri¹tian motherhood.”
55
Reflectin¿ thi¹ new political ¹tatu¹, in earlY autumn ÀonneY placed a notice in the National Baptist invitin¿ all to attend a meetin¿ on Behalf of the Indian movement with remark¹ BY Ãr¹. Àoardman, ÂaYland, and other¹. Án the evenin¿ of ¾ovemBer 17, 1880, Äir¹t Àapti¹t mini¹ter Ãr. Geor¿e Ãana Àoardman pre¹ided. Ãr. Geor¿e jame¹ john¹on related information aBout hi¹ recent vi¹it to the Indian ËerritorY and addre¹¹ed the i¹¹ue of “the Indian’¹ CapaBilitY for Civilization.” Ëhe Reverend ½eman Lincoln
44
±HEÈ
ÂaYland di¹cu¹¹ed a topic familiar to reader¹ of the National Baptist, “ju¹tice to the Indian¹,” while Ãr. Àoardman ¹poke on “Covenant Keepin¿.” LawYer and Àapti¹t cleric Poindexter Smith ½en¹on addre¹¹ed “the ‘Spread of Information in Re¿ard to the Indian’ . . . [and] ur¿ed that the power of puBlic opinion Be enli¹ted to protect the Indian¹.” ¼ccordin¿ to the National Bap-
tist , the “meetin¿ adopted BY ri¹in¿ vote a petition to Con¿re¹¹ in Behalf of Õu¹tice to the Indian¹.”
56
ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ “Indian Movement” formallY moved toward independence at the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Âomen’¹ Branch meetin¿ in ÃecemBer. Quinton noted, “BY a vote of the ¹ame circle [ÂÀ½MS Branch], in the autumn of 1880, it wa¹ ¹et free to invite ladie¹ of other denomination¹ to Õoin it & to Become, thu¹, an independent undenominational committee.” Âith concurrence of the national ¹ocietY, four other women Õoined. StYled the “Central Indian Committee,” the ei¿ht memBer¹ were MarY ÀonneY (Àapti¹t), Ólla Covell Àoardman (Àapti¹t), Mariné j. Cha¹e (Àapti¹t), ÄannY Lea (Ópi¹copalian), MarY C. jone¹ (Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal), Mar¿aretta Shepard (Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal), ÓmilY Conver¹e Cope (SocietY of Äriend¹), and ¼melia Stone Quinton (Àapti¹t). ¼t ÀonneY’¹ reque¹t, Cha¹e wa¹ appointed chair57
man, Àoardman wa¹ elected trea¹urer, and Quinton Became ¹ecretarY.
In a ÃecemBer 23, 1880, National Baptist article, Quinton a¹ ¹ecretarY of the new Central Indian Committee reported that the “Chri¹tian women en¿a¿ed in circulatin¿ the petition to Con¿re¹¹ for Covenant-keepin¿ with the Indian¹, have Been ¿reatlY encoura¿ed BY the letter¹ and word¹ of ¹YmpathY received” from pa¹tor¹, educator¹, and the pre¹¹. She wa¹ plea¹ed that “puBlic meetin¿¹, churche¹, Mi¹¹ionarY Àoard¹ and Societie¹, local and national, have warmlY endor¹ed the Petition, ¹i¿nature¹ to which are con¹tantlY Bein¿ received from nearlY everY ¹tate.” In notin¿ the example of a ¾ew jer¹eY con¿re¿ation’¹ ratification of the petition BY ri¹in¿ vote, Quinton proclaimed that “makin¿ for ri¿hteou¹ne¹¹ i¹ the real work of Chri¹tian¹ in thi¹ world.” She encoura¿ed National Baptist reader¹ to act quicklY, for there were onlY three week¹ remainin¿ Before mid-januarY to ¿et additional endor¹ement¹ and ¹i¿nature¹ for the petition. She al¹o noted that there were Indian leaflet¹ on ¹ale at Philadelphia’¹ denominational Book¹tore¹.
58
Quinton continued to promote the ¹econd petition a¹kin¿ Con¿re¹¹ “to take all needful ¹tep¹ to prevent the encroachment¹ of white ¹ettler¹ upon the Indian ËerritorY, and upon all Indian re¹ervation¹,” a¹ well a¹ keepin¿ all
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
45
treatie¹ with the Indian¹. In late ÃecemBer, ¹he defined the petition movement a¹ an effort “to call the attention of Chri¹tian¹ to the fact¹ that the¹e covenant¹ [with Indian¹] have Been made” and to “utter a Chri¹tian prote¹t a¿ain¹t the pre¹ent political tendencY to i¿nore the¹e oBli¿ation¹.” She a¹¹erted that awakenin¿ the nation to the¹e wron¿¹ “ha¹ Been the cheri¹hed aim of the Chri¹tian women of all denomination¹ intere¹ted in the circulation of the pre¹ent petition for treatY-keepin¿.”
59
ju¹t a¹ Quinton wa¹ ¿ainin¿ momentum with her “Chri¹tian patrioti¹m” ar¿ument, ÂaYland ¹i¿nificantlY altered the political narrative. Âhile he e¹pou¹ed hi¹ old treatY-keepin¿ philo¹ophY at the ¾ovemBer 17 “Indian Movement” meetin¿, in an editorial dated januarY 6, 1881, he took an aBrupt turn toward coercive a¹¹imilation. Creditin¿ Indian Õu¹tice to “the pre¹¹, and lar¿elY . . . the Chri¹tian women of ¼merica, amon¿ whom the women of Philadelphia have had a mo¹t honoraBle prominence,” he enumerated ¹everal ¹ta¿e¹ throu¿h which Indian Õu¹tice had evolved. “Âe have looked on him in the li¿ht of the Cooper novel¹,” he declared; “now, let u¹ laY a¹ide all the¹e fal¹e and fooli¹h idea¹, and look at him a¹ a fellow man to Be treated with Õu¹tice . . . to Be educated to the u¹e of hi¹ own po¹¹e¹¹ion¹ a¹ ¹oon a¹ po¹¹iBle.” Ëo thi¹ end, ÂaYland ar¿ued, “we ¹hould laY a¹ide all le¿i¹lation Ba¹ed on color,” in¹tead propo¹in¿ le¿i¹lation “for men.” °en, in a ¹tunnin¿ Blow to ÀonneY and Quinton, he concluded, “and nothin¿ i¹ ¹o fitted to make them men a¹ the work that i¹ done BY Chri¹tian mi¹¹ionarie¹.” ÂaYland did 60
not report on the Indian Movement a¿ain until ÄeBruarY.
°e effect on ÀonneY and Quinton wa¹ not immediatelY apparent; however, their new Indian Movement ¹eem¹ to have taken a toll on the Philadelphia Union. Án januarY 20, it wa¹ forced to ¹ta¿e a dinner at a local communitY center to rai¹e moneY with ticket¹ ¹ellin¿ for fiftY cent¹. ¼ccordin¿ to the adverti¹ement¹, “°e Union i¹ in ¿reat need of fund¹ to maintain the mi¹¹ionarie¹ who¹e ¹upport it ha¹ a¹¹umed.” It would Be rea¹onaBle to think that the union mi¹¹ed financial ¹upport from women like ÀonneY who were now ali¿ned with their own Indian Movement. °e Philadelphia Union would 61
never a¿ain plaY a prominent role in Indian activi¹m.
ÄinallY in mid-januarY, after almo¹t ten month¹ of work, the ¹econd petition with more than fiftY thou¹and ¹i¿nature¹ wa¹ carried to Âa¹hin¿ton BY Cha¹e and Quinton. °eY pre¹ented the petition Bundle, “wrapped in white Buntin¿, and tied with red and Blue riBBon¹,” to Senator ½enrY Lauren¹
46
±HEÈ
Ãawe¹ of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, who later read it and an accompanYin¿ letter into the Senate record on januarY 27, 1881. Äour daY¹ later, the petition and letter were pre¹ented in the ½ou¹e of Repre¹entative¹ BY Repre¹entative GilBert 62
Ãe La MatYr of Indiana.
°e National Baptist printed two article¹ in ÄeBruarY 1881 aBout the pre¹entation of thi¹ petition. ¾othin¿ appeared under ÂaYland’¹ BYline relevant to Indian policY until julY, due to hi¹ extended trip to Great Àritain. It i¹ unknown if difference¹ emer¿ed Between ÂaYland and the petition movement Before he left. Ãurin¿ hi¹ aB¹ence, lon¿time friend ¾orman Äox filled 63
the editor’¹ chair.
¼lthou¿h Äox would eventuallY author a Bio¿raphY of
ÀonneY’¹ future hu¹Band, °oma¹ RamBaut,
64
he wa¹ not inclined to venture
far BeYond ¹piritual topic¹ a¹ an editor, and a¹ the interim editor he took few ri¹k¹. Con¹equentlY, Äox’¹ National Baptist editorial¹ rarelY mentioned women’¹ work and onlY twice noted ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ Indian petition movement. In earlY MaY 1881, Äox ran an untitled article BY Quinton under a new weeklY ¹erie¹ captioned “½ome Mi¹¹ion Concert.” Quinton made ¿ood u¹e of the opportunitY, linkin¿ ri¿hteou¹ political work and mi¹¹ionarY laBor a¹ dual a¹pect¹ of what ¹he called “Chri¹tian patrioti¹m.” Án thi¹ point ¹he ar¿ued: “Ëo the Chri¹tian patriot, al¹o, who ¹ecretlY praY¹ and openlY laBor¹ that hi¹ countrY’¹ name maY Be a ¹YnonYm for ¿overnmental ri¿hteou¹ne¹¹ . . . no national dutY ¹eem¹ more imperative than that to our lon¿-oppre¹¹ed native ¼merican¹.” ReÕectin¿ the idea that political and ¹piritual work wa¹ mutuallY exclu¹ive, Quinton contended: “Âhatever maY Be ¹aid on thi¹ ¹uBÕect from the politician’¹ ¹tandpoint, the Chri¹tian can ri¿htlY Õud¿e the Indian que¹tion . . . onlY from the ¹tandpoint of ri¿hteou¹ne¹¹.” CruciallY, Quinton in¹i¹ted that the Chri¹tian patriot mu¹t Be knowled¿eaBle aBout the “pre¹ent pathetic Indian ¹ituation,” in¹i¹tin¿, “everY Chri¹tian in thi¹ land ¹hould read the truthful and thrillin¿ record¹ in ‘¼ CenturY of Ãi¹honor,’ BY ½. ½.” Quinton noted, “°e fact¹ there ¿iven from undi¹puted ¹ource¹ mu¹t . . . in¹pire everY Chri¹tian heart with a deeper, tenderer mi¹¹ionarY ¹pirit.”
65
Äurther linkin¿ patrioti¹m and political action with ¹piritual ¿oal¹, Quinton’¹ article al¹o pointed to “the ¿reat promi¹e of Indian educational work.” °rou¿h Indian education effort¹, Quinton promi¹ed, “Chri¹tian civilization and it¹ douBtle¹¹ voluntary citizen¹hip maY Be al¹o ¹ecured.” Citin¿ a “Golden opportunitY,” Quinton pleaded that “a¹ Chri¹tian people all
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
47
denomination¹ ¹hould e¹taBli¹h Boardin¿ mi¹¹ion-¹chool¹ here amon¿ our¹elve¹, where the children of the triBe¹ maY Be educated apart from their old home influence¹.” She concluded, “we a¹ a denomination [al¹o] have ¹pecial encoura¿ement to pre¹¹ our adult mi¹¹ion work in Indian ËerritorY, from the fact that of . . . twelve thou¹and [new] convert¹ there, half . . . are Àapti¹t¹.”
66
Later in MaY, ÀonneY and Quinton attended the annual ÂÀ½MS meetin¿ in Indianapoli¹, Indiana. ¼¿ain, Quinton wa¹ appointed to ¹erve on the Re¹olution¹ Committee, But thi¹ time, with the ¹tatu¹ of their petition committee ¹ettled, Both ÀonneY and Quinton took a decidedlY active part in the proceedin¿¹. Án the ¹econd daY, Quinton delivered an addre¹¹ on the patriotic Chri¹tian dutY toward Indian¹, titled “°e Áld, Áld StorY.” ¼¹¹ertin¿ that there were part¹ of thirtY-ei¿ht triBe¹ in the Indian ËerritorY, where Indian women were condemned to live¹ of “drud¿erY” in “helple¹¹ ¹ervitude not even knowin¿ the meanin¿ of Chri¹tian womanhood,” ¹he in¹i¹ted, “theY need help to rai¹e them to a con¹ciou¹ne¹¹ of what theY maY Become.” ¼¿ain Brid¿in¿ politic¹ and mi¹¹ionarY work, ¹he noted the influence of Chri¹tian women acro¹¹ the countrY: “Chri¹tian Indian mother¹ are ¹endin¿ me¹¹a¿e¹; theY are callin¿ upon u¹ for help, theY are a¹kin¿ u¹ to praY to Âa¹hin¿ton for them.” In re¹pon¹e to the¹e dire plea¹, Quinton revealed, “Chri¹tian women in the ¹tate¹ have formed an a¹¹ociation to petition the Government in Behalf of the Red race¹ in our land.”
67
°e followin¿ daY, Quinton’¹ Re¹olution¹ Committee reported ¹everal i¹¹ue¹ for con¹ideration, includin¿ a call for Indian mi¹¹ion work and ¹upport for the petition effort. Án the¹e, the meetin¿ re¹olved, “in view of the ¿reat ¹piritual need¹ of the Indian triBe¹ . . . we will enlar¿e and multiplY a¹ fa¹t a¹ po¹¹iBle our mi¹¹ion¹ amon¿ them.” Moreover, “we warmlY endor¹e the effort¹ of the Indian ËreatY-keepin¿ ¼¹¹ociation . . . which ¹hall ¹ecure Governmental Õu¹tice to the¹e triBe¹.”
68
In late MaY 1882, durin¿ the third anniver¹arY meetin¿ of the women’¹ home mi¹¹ion ¹ocietie¹ in ¾ew Ôork, ÀonneY ¹poke at len¿th to the Õoint meetin¿ of the Chica¿o and Ào¹ton ¿roup¹ on the topic of the “Indian Que¹tion.” She related numerou¹ fact¹ of ¾ative hi¹torY and treatment BY white¹ from 1849 “until now, when their cup of mi¹erY ¹eem¹ full, and feelin¿lY [theY] a¹ked, ‘Âho i¹ re¹pon¹iBle?’” In contra¹t, Quinton ¿ave an addre¹¹ titled “Âomen’¹ Âork from a ÀiBle Standpoint,” concludin¿ that throu¿hout hi¹torY women had fulfilled different role¹, their pre¹ent one Bein¿, “‘Go tell’
48
±HEÈ
the world of a Crucified Savior.”
69
Ëwo un¹i¿ned article¹ in the National
Baptist reported on thi¹ meetin¿. °e fir¹t, dated june 2, di¹cu¹¹ed the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ plan¹ to require a three-month mi¹¹ionarY trainin¿ cour¹e in “medicine and other requi¹ite Branche¹ of knowled¿e,” and ¿eneral concern aBout “the increa¹in¿ crowd of forei¿ner¹.”
70
Mo¹t notaBlY, the ¹econd, dated june 9, noted that Quinton “¹poke of our twofold re¹pon¹e to the appeal¹ of Indian women: our mi¹¹ion work amon¿ them, and the petition¹ ¹ent BY Chri¹tian women to our Government on Behalf of Indian¹.” It further quoted Quinton equatin¿ political and ¹piritual work, a¹kin¿: “Can anY womanlY woman ¹ee the need, dan¿er, and de¿radation of her people, and not ari¹e to anY work needed, and not otherwi¹e provided?” ¼ll the more poi¿nant, Between puBlication of the¹e two june article¹, ÀonneY and Quinton’¹ petition committee officiallY Became a ¹eparate or¿anization. °e con¹titution of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation (IËKP¼) wa¹ adopted on june 3, 1881. °i¹ event wa¹ not reported in the National Baptist or the national pre¹¹.
71
Áver the next two
Year¹, the IËKP¼ would Be renamed the ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, and finallY the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation. Óach name chan¿e repre¹ented a tran¹formation in the or¿anization; however, it remained the ¹ame entitY. Án julY 21, ei¿hteen daY¹ after ratification of the con¹titution, editor Äox puBli¹hed an article BY the Reverend °oma¹ Swain, di¹trict ¹ecretarY of the ¼À½MS for Philadelphia concernin¿ “the Indian ProBlem.” Swain recounted dire circum¹tance¹ in the Indian ËerritorY he encountered durin¿ a recent vi¹it, notin¿, “Âe now hail the effort¹ of the ‘Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation’ which repre¹ent¹ the ¿ood people of variou¹ reli¿iou¹ denomination¹.” °i¹ ¹in¿le reference BY Swain would Be the onlY contemporaneou¹ male re¹pon¹e to the new or¿anization. ¼n un¹i¿ned article in the ¹ame i¹¹ue, likelY written BY Quinton, adverti¹ed a new IËKP¼ pamphlet containin¿ the propo¹ed 1882 petition now availaBle for purcha¹e at the Àapti¹t PuBlication 72
Àuildin¿ for two cent¹ each, or $1.50 for a hundred.
Conclusion 73
In pre¹entin¿ the or¿anizational hi¹torY of the ¾I¼, ½elen Âanken,
¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, Mar¿aret jacoB¹, and other¹ have revealed the puBlic
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
49
face of a complex ¿roup of white, middle-cla¹¹, Prote¹tant women ¹ocial reformer¹. ½owever, the connection Between the ¾I¼ and women’¹ political hi¹torY ha¹ remained elu¹ive. Quite ¹implY, ¹cholar¹ of women’¹ hi¹torY have not pur¹ued a connection Between the two. ÀY reconnectin¿ the ¾I¼ with the hi¹torical force¹ that ¿ave Birth to it¹ Indian activi¹m, it Become¹ clear that ÀonneY and Quinton plaYed keY role¹ in the development of po¹tBellum maternali¹m. °u¹, the development of the ¾I¼ wa¹ an important contriBution to the lateral ¹pread of women’¹ ri¿ht¹. ¼¹ Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion ¹ocietie¹ ¹tru¿¿led for independence from the male ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY’¹ control, evan¿elical women, in particular ÀonneY, Quinton, and the Philadelphia Union, contended with a politicallY ¹ea¹oned ¿roup of white prote¹tant men—and won. °e¹e fact¹ merit a place in women’¹ ri¿ht¹ hi¹torY a¹ much a¹ the activitie¹ of Óa¹t Coa¹t ¹uffra¿i¹t¹ and the overtlY political endeavor¹ of women’¹ ri¿ht¹ activi¹t¹. ¼l¹o, the reinterpretation of earlY ¾I¼ hi¹torY reveal¹ that the prevalent Óuropean ¼merican–centric view of nineteenth-centurY Indian activi¹m doe¹ not hold up. °i¹ chapter call¹ into que¹tion the pre¹ent interpretation¹ of the ori¿in¹ of ¾I¼ maternal patrioti¹m and the a¹¹umption that white women preceded ¾ative women in the hi¹torY of Indian reform. ÀonneY, Quinton, and their women collea¿ue¹ did not fir¹t en¿a¿e ¼merican Indian¹ in a¹¹imilation work; in¹tead, theY were compelled to ¹ocial and political action BY Choctaw and Chicka¹aw Indian women who rattled the con¹cience of the¹e ¾orthern Àapti¹t women, ¹parkin¿ them to en¿a¿e in Indian activi¹m. Shiftin¿ thi¹ relation¹hip fundamentallY tran¹form¹ how we interpret thi¹ crucial interaction Between Óuropean ¼merican¹ and ¼merican Indian¹. °i¹ more complete hi¹torY of the ori¿in¹ of the ¾I¼ challen¿e¹ hi¹torian¹ to look more deeplY at ¹elf-¹ervin¿ ori¿in ¹torie¹ of other or¿anization¹ that maY di¹tort the hi¹torY of women and ¾ative ¼merican¹ alike.
Notes Án ÃecemBer 16, 2016, john Mark Rhea died at a¿e fortY-nine, in the mid¹t of what wa¹ evolvin¿ into a Brilliant hi¹torical career. ½i¹ ori¿inal ver¹ion of the e¹¹aY puBli¹hed here, over ei¿htY pa¿e¹, wa¹ ¹hortened BY Phil Àri¿andi and me, with a final read and editorial chan¿e¹ BY ¼lBert L. ½urtado, john’¹ profe¹¹or at the Univer¹itY of Áklahoma. Âe tru¹t that our editorial attention would have plea¹ed john and that we have done Õu¹tice to hi¹ work.—¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹
50
±HEÈ
1. “¼ ½i¹torical Sketch,” Indian’s Friend , ÁctoBer 1896, 2; Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 377; ¾I¼, Annual Report (1883), 6; ¾I¼, Official Pamphlet of the National
Indian Association , 3; and “Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton, Pre¹ident of the ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Macon Telegraph, ÄeBruarY 26, 1905, 8. 2. “¼ Sketch of the Life of Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut ¿iven BY her¹elf to her friend Mr¹. ¼melia S. Quinton,” SeptemBer 1894, ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. 3. “Maternal patrioti¹m” or Chri¹tian patrioti¹m wa¹ a con¹truct that Quinton developed, independentlY and lon¿ Before hi¹torian¹ developed the “maternali¹m” concept to de¹criBe thi¹ ideolo¿Y. Äor maternali¹m in Indian reform, ¹ee jacoB¹, White
Mother to a Dark Race . 4. Keen, °e Bi-Centennial Celebration, 122; and ¼melia S. Quinton, “¼nniver¹arY and ¼nnual Meetin¿,” Indian’s Friend, januarY 1901, 2. 5. Keen, °e Bi-Centennial Celebration, 123–24. 6. ¼n ¼ct Makin¿ Provi¹ion for the Civilization of the Indian ËriBe¹ ¼dÕoinin¿ the Äuture Settlement¹, US Statute¹ at Lar¿e, 3:15–17; and ¼ndrew, From Revivals to
Removal, 95–97, 154–75. 7. McCoY, History of Baptist Indian Missions , 383, 397–99; and jordan, “jo¹eph Samuel Murrow,” 44–45. Murrow ¹erved a¹ a Confederate Indian a¿ent until the end of the war. Äor a Brief account of ¿eneral Indian work, ¹ee ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, Baptist Home Missions in North America, 498–509. 8. Âarde, When the Wolf Came, 256–59, 300–312; Kidwell, °e Choctaws in Okla-
homa , 72–86; and Âickett, Contested Territory, 42–66. 9. ½oi¿, °e Cherokees and °eir Chiefs, 243; “Senator Rice’¹ Àill,” Ashtabula (OH) Weekly Telegraph, ¼pril 2, 1870, 2; Middlebury (VT) Register, March 22, 1870, 2; and Memphis Daily Appeal, MaY 31, 1870, 2, and ¼u¿u¹t 23, 1870, 2. 10. ¼dmini¹tered BY a ¹in¿le a¿ent ve¹ted with executive, le¿i¹lative, and Õudicial authoritie¹, the Union ¼¿encY re¹emBled a US territorial ¿overnment, Yet a¹ an Indian a¿encY, it kept the Äive ¾ation¹ under Indian Áffice control. 11. Äor more on jone¹ ¹ee, McLou¿hlin, Champions of the Cherokee , 478–79. Äor Grant’¹ “peace policY,” ¹ee Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis, 30–102. 12. McLou¿hlin, Champions of the Cherokee, 479; and Ãavi¹, °e History of Nevada, 1225. 13. “Removal of MaÕor In¿all¹, Indian ¼¿ent at Mu¹ko¿ee: °e Char¿e¹ a¿ain¹t ½im,” New York Herald, januarY 5, 1876, 3; “Mornin¿’¹ Intelli¿ence,” Philadelphia
Inquirer, januarY, 31, 1876, 2; “Âa¹hin¿ton ¾ote¹,” New York Tribune , januarY 13, 1876, 1; and “MaÕor In¿all¹’ Ca¹e,” Daily Inter Ocean (Chica¿o), March 7, 1876. 14. Mr¹. j. S. Murrow, “Remini¹cence¹ of Àapti¹t Âomen’¹ Âork in Áklahoma, ¼pril 1909,” j. M. Ga¹kin ½i¹torical Collection. See al¹o j. S. Murrow, “Choctaw and Chicka¹aw ¼¹¹ociation,” Christian Index, SeptemBer 7, 1876, 1; Àlackall, Two Weeks
among Indians, 4–6; and Choctaw-Chicka¹aw Àapti¹t ¼¹¹ociation, Minutes of the Fifth Annual Meeting, 6.
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
51
15. Choctaw-Chicka¹aw Àapti¹t ¼¹¹ociation, Minutes of the Fifth Annual Meeting, 9; Murrow, “Remini¹cence¹ of Àapti¹t Âomen’¹ Âork”; and “Report on Âoman’¹ Âork,” Indian Missionary, ¾ovemBer 1890, 2. 16. j. S. Murrow, “Âomen’¹ Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” Christian Index, SeptemBer 1876, 1; and “¼t the Recent Meetin¿ of the Choctaw and Chicka¹aw Àapti¹t ¼¹¹ociation,”
New York Times, SeptemBer 20, 1876, 5. 17. Murrow, “Remini¹cence¹ of Àapti¹t Âomen’¹ Âork”; and “Ãeath¹, Swift— Mr¹. Ólvira Àrown Swift,” Standard, MaY 1909, 30.
Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 1, 26–27; ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, It¹ ½i¹torY,” National Baptist, MaY 17, 1877, 1; and ¾orthern Àapti¹t Convention, Annual of the Northern Baptist Convention , vol. 9, 18.
1018. 19.
Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 27–28.
20. Cathcart, °e Baptist Encyclopedia, 1328. Äor ÓlizaBeth ¼rm¹ Grout ÂaYland, ¹ee Âri¿ht, °e History of the Oread Collegiate Institute, 23. 21. Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY Minute¹, MaY 17, 18, and ÁctoBer 1, 1877, Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church, Philadelphia Record Group, Box 10.21–22, ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center; and Keen, °e Bi-Centennial Celebration, 391. 22. ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âe¹tern Penn¹Ylvania,” National Baptist, januarY 3, 1878; “¼ Ãi¹¿race to the ¾ation,” New York Times , januarY 8, 1878, 1; and ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Indian Service Inve¹ti¿ation,” National Baptist, januarY 17, 1878, 5. 23. Äor information on further fraud, ¹ee “°e Indian Service,” Wisconsin State
Journal (Madi¹on), januarY 5, 1878, 3; and “°e Indian Àureau Inve¹ti¿ation,” Daily Critic (Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC), januarY 8, 1878, 1. 24. S. S. Cuttin¿, “°e ¼merican ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, March, 14, 1878, 5; ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY Àoard, Book no. 8, 158, 198, 207, ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center; and S. S. Cuttin¿, “°e Indian¹,” Baptist Home Mission Monthly, june 1879, 188. 25. Richard KYle Äox, “Pa¹time¹ of a Pa¹tor,” National Police Gazette (¾ew Ôork), ¼u¿u¹t 23, 1879, 3. 26. “¼ Church Ërial,” Chicago Daily Tribune , ¼u¿u¹t 9, 1879, 6; “Church Scandal,” Cincinnati Examiner, ¼u¿u¹t 11, 1879, 4; and “°e Swift Scandal,” Pantagraph (Àloomin¿ton, IL), ¼u¿u¹t 20, 1879, 3. 27. ½. L. ÂaYland, “ju¹tice for the Indian¹,” National Baptist, MaY 16, 1878, 4; and ½. L. ÂaYland, “Mini¹terial Conference,” National Baptist, MaY 23, 1878, 4. Individual land owner¹hip in¹tead of communal owner¹hip wa¹ con¹idered e¹¹ential to Indian a¹¹imilation. Ëo achieve thi¹, re¹ervation land wa¹ divided, with Indian familie¹ receivin¿ their own individual plot¹. 28. ÀonneY did not Become pre¹ident of the Äir¹t Àapti¹t ÂÀ½MS Branch until ¹ometime after 1877. Äor her Äir¹t Àapti¹t pre¹idencY and Indian i¹¹ue¹ that ¹parked her intere¹t, ¹ee ¾I¼, Official Pamphlet of the National Indian Association , 3–4. 29. ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, Chica¿o,” National
52
±HEÈ
Baptist, june 5, 1879, 5; Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 4–5; and ½. L. Morehou¹e, “Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” Home Mission Monthly , julY 1879, 201–2. ¼melia Stone Quinton in her 1896 ¹erialized ¾I¼ hi¹torY claimed that ÂaYland penned the MaY 29, 1879, petition. ÀonneY did not make thi¹ claim in her ver¹ion(¹) of event¹. ¾otaBlY, in a MaY 29, 1879, editorial, ÂaYland repeat¹ the ¹ame factual error, readin¿ a ¹in¿le “¹olemn treatY.” It ¹eem¹ likelY that ÂaYland wrote ÀonneY’¹ fir¹t petition. See ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Indian¹,” National Baptist, MaY 29, 1879, 5. Quinton al¹o claimed that the “anniver¹arY occa¹ion” wa¹ overcrowded with topic¹; the petition “wa¹ therefore not pre¹ented or read.” °e 1879 ¾I¼ annual meetin¿ minute¹ and other contemporaneou¹ ¹ource¹ (cited aBove) ¹how thi¹ to Be untrue and indicate that Quinton referenced event¹ for which ¹he did not have fir¹thand knowled¿e or accurate detail¹. 30. “¼ ½i¹torical Sketch,” Indian’s Friend , ÁctoBer 1896, 2. 31. Later, ÂaYland contended that no di¹cu¹¹ion wa¹ allowed, nor were the women’¹ ¹ocietie¹ con¹ulted. See ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen and Mi¹¹ion¹,” National Baptist, julY 17, 1879, 5; “°e ¼nniver¹arY Sea¹on; Method¹ of Àapti¹t Mi¹¹ion Âork,” New
York Times, MaY 13, 1879, 2; ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, Forty-Seventh Annual Report, 15; and ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, Baptist Home Missions in North America, 356. 32. ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, ÄeBruarY 19, 1880, 5; judd, Fifty Golden Years, 19; and Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 41. 33. judd, Fifty Golden Years, 18–19; Mr¹. ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union of Philadelphia, P¼,” Home Mission Monthly, ÃecemBer 1880, 245–46; ½. L. ÂaYland, “Äir¹t: °e Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, MaY 15, 1879, 5; and ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âoman’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union,” National Baptist, MaY 22, 1879, 4. Âhile the national ÂÀ½MS curtailed operation¹ and ¹u¹pended activitie¹ after MaY 1879, Branche¹ and union¹ held “¹pecial” meetin¿¹, continuin¿ the ¹ocial and political a¹pect¹ of ÂÀ½MS Bu¹ine¹¹. See National Baptist, 1879–1880, pa¹¹im. 34. ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union,” National Baptist, ÁctoBer 1879, 5; and ¾I¼, Official Pamphlet of the National Indian Association, 3. 35. “Ärom Pitt¹Bur¿h,” National Baptist, januarY 1, 1880, 4–5; and ½. L. Morehou¹e, “°e Propo¹ed Plan of Ár¿anization,” National Baptist, julY 31, 1879, 4. 36. “¼ ½i¹torical Sketch,” Indian’s Friend , ÁctoBer 1896, 2; and ¾I¼, Official
Pamphlet of the National Indian Association, 3. 37. ÃeweY, Historical Sketch , 8–9; and Mr¹. jo¹eph Àanvard, “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Âork,” National Baptist, januarY 8, 1880, 5. 38. Äor the text, ¹ee ÃeweY, Historical Sketch, 7–9; and Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 378–37. 39. Mr¹. C. Swift and MarY Lowe Ãickin¹on, “°e Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist , ÁctoBer 2, 1879, 5; ½. L. ÂaYland, “Penn ¼venue,” National Baptist , ¾ovemBer 1879, 5; Mr¹. ¼. À. McCollin, Mr¹. j. RoBert¹,
Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia
53
and Mr¹. Ó. ¼. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union of Philadelphia and ¸icinitY,” National Baptist, ÃecemBer 4, 1879, 5; and Mr¹. M. ¼. RoBin¹on and LucY ¼. Smith, “°e Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, ÃecemBer 11, 1879, 5. 40. ½. L. Morehou¹e, “°e Meetin¿ of Âomen . . .,” Baptist Home Mission
Monthly , ÄeBruarY 1880, 34. 41. ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Âoman’¹ ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,”
National Baptist, ÃecemBer 11, 1879. 42. Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882 , 4; ½. L. Morehou¹e, “°e Meetin¿ of Âomen,” Home Mission Monthly, March 1880, 33; and ¼melia Stone Quinton, “°e Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, januarY 22, 1880, 5. 43. Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society , 1877–1882 , 5. 44. ¼melia Stone Quinton, “°e Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,”
National Baptist, januarY 22, 1880, 5; Ärance¹ M. SchuYler, “Àapti¹t Âomen in ½ome Mi¹¹ion Âork,” Missions, ÁctoBer 1911, 741; and Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882 , 6. 45. Quinton, “°e Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, januarY 22, 1880, 5. 46.
Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 7; and Quinton, “°e Âomen’¹
Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, januarY 22, 1880, 5. 47. “Shall Âomen Mana¿e Âomen’¹ Àoard¹?,” National Baptist, januarY 29, 1880, 1; “Âomen’¹ Àoard¹, Shall Âomen Mana¿e °em?,” Daily Inter Ocean (Chica¿o), ÄeBruarY 7, 1880, 9; ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union,” National Bap-
tist, januarY 29, 1880, 4; and ½. L. ÂaYland, “South Àroad,” National Baptist, ÄeBruarY 26, 1880, 5. 48. ÃeweY, Historical Sketch , 10. °e third annual report of the ÂÀ½MS thanked Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church for e¹¹entiallY loanin¿ her to them “in or¿anizin¿ the work in Óa¹tern Penn¹Ylvania and the adÕacent countrY.” See Women’s Baptist Home
Mission Society, 1877–1882 , 42. 49. Mr¹. P. G. McCollin, “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Âork,” National Baptist, March 9, 1880, 1; ½. L. ÂaYland, “Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton,” National Baptist, ÁctoBer 14, 1880, 4; ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union,” National Baptist, ÁctoBer 14, 1880, 4; and ¼melia S. Quinton, “¼ Mi¹apprehen¹ion Corrected,” National Baptist, ¾ovemBer 18, 1880, 4. 50. ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union,” National Baptist , ÄeBruarY 26, 1880, 5, for Quinton’¹ work; “Silver in the Indian ËerritorY: ÄiftY-°ou¹and People Petition for the Pa¹¹a¿e of the Áklahoma Àill,” Washington Evening Star , ÄeBruarY 5, 1880, 1. 51. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 378; MarY L. ÀonneY, Mariné j. Cha¹e, Mr¹. G. Ã. Àoardman, and Mr¹. ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Indian Petition,” National
Baptist , March 18, 1880, 4; and “ÄortY-Sixth Con¿re¹¹,” Saint Paul Daily Globe, ÄeBruarY 25, 1880, 2.
54
±HEÈ
52. ÀonneY, Cha¹e, Àoardman, and ÂaYland, “°e Indian Petition,” 4. 53.
Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 7–8; ¼melia S. Quinton,
“Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY,” National Baptist, june 10, 1880, 5. 54. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 378–79. 55. “¼ ½i¹torical Sketch,” Indian’s Friend , ÁctoBer 1896, 2; and Mr¹. ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union of Philadelphia, P¼,” Home Mission
Monthly , ÃecemBer 1880, 246–47. 56. “Reli¿iou¹ ¾otice¹,” National Baptist, ¾ovemBer 18, 1880, 5; ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Meetin¿ in Àehalf of the Indian Movement,” National Baptist, ¾ovemBer 25, 1880, 5; and “Rev. Ãr. P. S. ½en¹on,” New York Times, ¼pril 25, 1924, 1. See al¹o Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis, 135. 57. ¼melia Stone Quinton, Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation for ÃecemBer 1880, Paper¹ of the ¾I¼ 9237, Box 1, folder 1; ÃeweY, His-
torical Sketch, 9–10; and ¾I¼, Annual Report (1883), 6. 58. Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton, “¼ Grand Óxample,” National Baptist, ÃecemBer 23, 1880, 5. 59. IBid.; and Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton, “Àroken Covenant¹,” National Baptist, ÃecemBer 30, 1880, 3. 60. ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Indian¹,” National Baptist, januarY 6, 1881, 8. 61. ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Ladie¹,” National Baptist, januarY 20, 1881, 5; ½. L. ÂaYland, “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Union,” National Baptist, januarY 20, 1881, 9; and
National Baptist, 1881–1885, pa¹¹im. 62. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 379–80. 63. ½. L. ÂaYland, “Án jan. 27,” National Baptist , ÄeBruarY 3, 1881, 3; and ½. L. ÂaYland, “°e Indian Que¹tion,” National Baptist , ÄeBruarY 17, 1881, 9. 64. Äox, Preacher and Teacher . 65. Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton, “½ome Mi¹¹ion Concern,” National Baptist, MaY 5, 1881, 5. ½. ½. i¹ a reference to ½elen ½unt jack¹on. 66. IBid. 67.
Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 9–11.
68. IBid., 13. 69. IBid., 15. 70. “Âoman’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion Meetin¿,” National Baptist, june 2, 1881, 5. 71. “Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion ¼nniver¹arie¹,” National Baptist, june 9, 1881, 12; for the adoption of the con¹titution, ¹ee Quinton, Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation for ÃecemBer 1880, Paper¹ of the ¾I¼ 9237, Box 1, folder 1. 72. °oma¹ Swain, “°e Indian ProBlem,” National Baptist, julY 21, 1881, 5; and “ËreatY-Keepin¿,” National Baptist, julY 21, 1881, 8. 73. Âanken wa¹ the fir¹t to write an in¹titutional hi¹torY of the ¾I¼; ¹ee Âanken, “‘Âoman’¹ Sphere’ and Indian Reform.”
ÍHÈÖTE´ 2
Two Marys and a Martha °ree Massachusetts Women and Indian Reform in the 1880s ÍÇ´T²s Ì. ³²NsÅEy
AT NOON ON a ¹unnY, Bri¹k ÄridaY in late ¹ummer 1886, a carria¿e with three Zuni Indian¹ turned into the circular ¿ravel drive of MarY Ëile¹ton ½emenwaY’¹ ¹ummer home, Ca¹a Ramona, on the rockY wild ¹hore of Pickworth 1
Point in Manche¹ter-BY-the-Sea, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. Âaitin¿ under the portico to ¿reet the Indian¹ wa¹ a ¹in¿le fi¿ure: Ärank ½amilton Cu¹hin¿, who had lived at Zuni PueBlo in northwe¹tern ¾ew Mexico for nearlY five Year¹ (1879– 1884) a¹ ethno¿rapher, adoptive Zuni Brother, and initiate into the ¹ecret and powerful Prie¹thood of the Àow. °e three Indian¹ ¹tepped down from the carria¿e: Palowahtiwa (Àa:lawahdiwa, aka Patricio Pino), ¿overnor of Zuni pueBlo and Prie¹t of the Àow; Âaihu¹iwa, ¹on of one of the chief prie¹t¹ of Zuni; and the Youn¿ ½eluta, a medicine order prie¹t. Cu¹hin¿ later de¹criBed their emotional reception:
Âhen the carria¿e ¹topped Before the door, mY old Brother Palowahtiwa wa¹ the fir¹t to de¹cend, clo¹elY followed BY the other¹. Àefore he had fairlY ¹tepped to the porch, he extended hi¹ hand¹ and ¿ra¹ped mine, and, withdrawin¿ a little under the ¹hade of the awnin¿, he placed hi¹ arm¹ around me, and Be¿an the u¹ual praYer of ¿reetin¿ Between the memBer¹ of the prie¹tlY order of Zuñi who have Been lon¿ ¹eparated.
2
Âatchin¿ from Behind the curtain¹ of the front window¹ were Mr¹. ½emenwaY and a circle of clo¹e friend¹, anxiou¹lY awaitin¿ their introduction¹. MarY ÓlizaBeth ÃeweY (1821–1910), one of tho¹e friend¹, al¹o de¹criBed the emotion of the moment in the drivewaY:
55
56
³²NsÅEy
°e old chief and Mr. Cu¹hin¿ in¹tantlY emBraced, and ¹tood for one or two minute¹ with their arm¹ around each other, while theY recited, alternatelY and verY low, the praYer¹ and ¿reetin¿¹ appointed for the meetin¿ of lon¿-parted friend¹. . . . ½e then received the other two in a ¹horter manner, and led them all into the hou¹e, where he pre¹ented them to Mr¹. ½emenwaY, who received them in a cordial and queenlY manner, 3
theY ¹alutin¿ her a¹ their “¿reat Mother,” with ¹i¿n¹ of deep re¹pect.
It wa¹ a remarkaBle circle who ¿athered around ½emenwaY, Cu¹hin¿, and the Zuni¹ that autumn on the ¾orth Shore: Cu¹hin¿’¹ wife Ómma and her arti¹t ¹i¹ter Mar¿aret (Ma¿¿ie) Ma¿ill, who had al¹o lived in the pueBlo; MarY ÃeweY, childhood friend of ½emenwaY and corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation; Martha LeÀaron Goddard (1829– 1888), Õournali¹t, Indian reformer, and widow of new¹paperman Ãelano Goddard; Ódward S. Mor¹e, former ¹tudent of Loui¹ ¼¿a¹¹iz and curator at the PeaBodY Mu¹eum of Science in Salem; Âilliam ËorreY ½arri¹, ½e¿elian philo¹opher and ¹oon-to-Be (1889–1906) US commi¹¹ioner of education; and SYlve¹ter Àaxter, Õournali¹t for the Boston Herald. Óach had particular rea¹on¹ for anticipatin¿ the Indian vi¹it. °e Zuni arrival at Ca¹a Ramona wa¹ the re¹ult of month¹ of encoura¿e4
ment BY Mr¹. ½emenwaY and plan¹ BY Cu¹hin¿, Both of whom were anxiou¹ to record permanentlY the ¹on¿¹, ¹torie¹, and lan¿ua¿e of Zuni. °e Cu¹hin¿¹ and their Zuni informant¹ ¹ettled in and ¹taYed at the ½emenwaY ¾orth Shore e¹tate until mid-¾ovemBer. ÀY late SeptemBer, the ori¿inal intention¹ of the ¹oÕourn had alreadY developed into a new vi¹ion Between ½emenwaY and Cu¹hin¿: a maÕor archaeolo¿ical expedition to the ¼merican Southwe¹t in ¹earch of the ori¿in¹ of the Zuni people. In the meantime, the earlY week¹ unfolded in a remarkaBle pattern of routine and enchantment. ComfortaBlY ¹ituated in a ¹uite of ¹econd-floor room¹ overlookin¿ the cra¹hin¿ ¼tlantic wave¹, the Zuni¹ worked in the mornin¿¹ with Cu¹hin¿ and 5
practiced archerY in the apple orchard Below the hou¹e. ¼¹ ÃeweY recalled of the dailY ¹chedule: “°e life at Ca¹a Ramona ¹oon took quiet and re¿ular form. . . . ¼n unwritten lan¿ua¿e wa¹ to Be put into ¹hape and Belted in with vocaBularY and ¿rammar, it¹ tradition¹ ¹ecured, it¹ hi¹toric and reli¿iou¹ mYth¹ pre¹erved, and it¹ folk-lore carefullY noted down.”
6
¼¹ Martha God-
dard reported to the Worcester Spy, on SundaY¹ the ¿roup, includin¿ the
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
57
Indian¹, attended Unitarian church ¹ervice¹ in the parlor of Mr¹. ½emen7
waY’¹ other home acro¹¹ the meadow. ¼nd, ÃeweY recalled, there were even more intimate evenin¿¹ of ¹torYtellin¿ BY the fire¹ide a¹ the ¹ummer faded:
It i¹ evenin¿, and we have ¿one over to Ca¹a Ramona, and are ¹ittin¿ in the ¿reat parlor, for the ¼u¿u¹t evenin¿¹ are chillY on the ¾orth Shore. ¾ear the fire, in a lar¿e armchair, ¹it¹ Âai-hu-¹i-wa, our ¹torY-teller, hi¹ dark face half ¹hY, half plea¹ed at Bein¿ the centre of attention. Án a low foot-¹tool, almo¹t on the floor, i¹ Mr. Cu¹hin¿, hi¹ ¹li¿ht, active fi¿ure and hi¹ face, with it¹ ¹trikin¿ comBination of keenne¹¹ and ¿entlene¹¹, ea¿er and readY for the ta¹k of interpretation. °e circle form¹ . . . Bound to¿ether BY a common ¹YmpathY and appreciation which included u¹ all, men and women, white¹ and Indian¹, in it¹ ¿reat human cla¹p. Âe were like the circle¹ clu¹terin¿ around the minne¹in¿er¹ in medieval hall¹. It wa¹ like hearin¿ the ½omeric ¹on¿¹ at fir¹t hand.
8
“It¹ ¿reat human cla¹p”—what wa¹ tran¹pirin¿ here? ÂhY did MarY ½emenwaY ¹pon¹or thi¹ remarkaBle ¹et of event¹, and what did it mean to her and her friend¹? In contra¹t to the circu¹ atmo¹phere that had marked Cu¹hin¿’¹ vi¹it with ¹ix Zuni¹ to the Óa¹t Coa¹t (Âa¹hin¿ton, ¾ew Ôork, Ào¹ton, Âorce¹ter, Âelle¹leY) four Year¹ earlier, in 1886 ½emenwaY ¿uarded a¿ain¹t anY puBlicitY of what wa¹ clearlY intended a¹ a ¹eriou¹ cultural under9
takin¿. °e circle included two of her clo¹e¹t female friend¹, Both of whom wrote aBout it: ÃeweY and Goddard. InquirY into the live¹ and friend¹hip of the¹e three women, each of whom wa¹ alreadY involved with ¾ative ¼merican concern¹ in her own waY, maY offer ¹ome in¹i¿ht into the complex, varYin¿ motivation¹ of the remarkaBle and determined ¼merican women who pur¹ued reform in Indian policY, re¹ervation condition¹, and Indian-white relation¹ in the 1880¹.
°e Quiet Philanthropist: Mary Hemenway’s “Dialect of Deeds” MarY Porter Ëile¹ton (1820–1894) wa¹ Born in ¾ew Ôork CitY, the fir¹t of nine children of MarY Porter Ëile¹ton (1797–1879) and her hu¹Band °oma¹ (1793–1864). °e mother’¹ familY had deep colonial root¹ in Salem and ¾ewBurYport, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹; °oma¹, Born in Ào¹ton in 1793, went to work at
58
³²NsÅEy
º²gÇ´E 2.1. MarY Ëile¹ton ½emenwaY, ca. 1890, BY I¿naz Marcel Gau¿en¿i¿l. Courte¹Y of Gordon Mean¹.
a¿e thirteen, moved north to ½averhill, and e¹taBli¹hed a mercantile partner¹hip with local BoY Paul Spofford (1792–1869).
10
In 1818, the two men
moved to ¾ew Ôork CitY, where Spofford, Ëile¹ton & CompanY ¿rew into a hi¿hlY ¹ucce¹¹ful mercantile, ¹hippin¿, and Bankin¿ Bu¹ine¹¹. °eir familie¹ lived adÕacentlY for Year¹ in a ¹erie¹ of location¹ around ÀroadwaY.
11
MarY Ëile¹ton wa¹, accordin¿ to one account, “a Brilliant and dutiful ¿irl . . . reared principallY on her hou¹ehold dutie¹, the ÀiBle and Shake¹peare.”
12
°rou¿hout her life, fir¹t a¹ a Youn¿ mother of five and after 1876
a¹ a widow, MarY di¹plaYed ¹tron¿ emotional and intellectual Bond¹ with cler¿Ymen, collectin¿ their ¹ermon¹ and readin¿ them (or havin¿ them read aloud) over and over. ½er niece recalled of “¼unt MarY” that her ta¹te wa¹ alwaY¹ for hi¹torY, Bio¿raphY, and ¹ermon¹: “She Bou¿ht almo¹t everY volume BY anY preacher of note, and had it read aloud” while ¹he crocheted or knitted.
13
Ãurin¿ her ¿irlhood Year¹ in ¾ew Ôork, MarY Ëile¹ton’¹ fam-
ilY attended the lower Manhattan churche¹ of ½enrY Àellow¹ and Árville ÃeweY—father of MarY ÃeweY. Reverend ÃeweY—de¹criBed BY hi¹torian ¼nn Ãou¿la¹ a¹ “an arti¹tic, ¿entle, and ¹upremelY literate Unitarian
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
59
cler¿Yman” of the pre–Civil Âar ¾orthea¹t—offered re¿ular ¹ermon¹ to the merchant prince¹ of ¾ew Ôork on ¹uch theme¹ a¹ ¿ettin¿ and u¹in¿ propertY, the moral limit¹ of accumulation, wi¹e method¹ of charitY and reform, and “the dan¿er of doin¿ more harm than ¿ood BY carele¹¹ di¹triBution” of wealth.
14
Reverend ÃeweY preached a con¹ervative ¿o¹pel of
wealth; But he al¹o warned a¿ain¹t a preoccupation with the accumulation of wealth for it¹ own ¹ake: “°ere i¹ need amon¿ u¹,” he advi¹ed, “of oBÕect¹ that kindle up admiration and enthu¹ia¹m, that awaken the ¹en¹e of deli¿ht and wonder, that Break up the haBit¹ of pettY calculation and ¹ordid intere¹t, and Breathe a liBeral and ¿enerou¹ ¹oul into the people.”
15
In 1840, after a two-Year, lar¿elY epi¹tolarY en¿a¿ement, MarY Ëile¹ton married her di¹tant cou¹in ¼u¿u¹tu¹ ½emenwaY (1805–1876), who (like her father) had ¹tarted workin¿ a¹ a BoY on the Ào¹ton wharve¹. Movin¿ to ¸alparaí¹o, Chile, for a numBer of Year¹, ¼u¿u¹tu¹ (who wa¹ fifteen Year¹ older than MarY) ultimatelY ama¹¹ed a fortune from trade with the Âe¹t Indie¹ and the we¹t coa¹t of South ¼merica.
16
¼fter their marria¿e, the
couple moved immediatelY to Ào¹ton and ¹oon Õoined the new Unitarian Church of the Ãi¹ciple¹ of the Reverend jame¹ Äreeman Clarke. MarY remained Clarke’¹ pari¹hioner until the mini¹ter’¹ death fortY-¹even Year¹ later. In 1853, the ½emenwaY¹ moved to Mt. ¸ernon Street, near the top of Àeacon ½ill in the heart of Ào¹ton. Áver the next twentY Year¹, MarY ½emenwaY Bore five children, But ¹he ¹aw little of her hu¹Band. Son of an alcoholic father, ¼u¿u¹tu¹ had watched hi¹ mother and ¹iBlin¿¹ aBandoned and di¹per¹ed, and he wa¹ determined to provide for hi¹ own familY, even if the price wa¹ hi¹ frequent aB¹ence. Ëra¿icallY, he collap¹ed from nervou¹ exhau¹tion in 1860 and wa¹ in¹titutionalized for thirteen Year¹; after a remarkaBle recoverY in 1873, he and hi¹ wife enÕoYed onlY three more Year¹ to¿ether Before he died in CuBa. ÓffectivelY, MarY ½emenwaY wa¹ a widow at a¿e fortY. Àut ¹he ¹uffered other terriBle lo¹¹e¹ in thi¹ period: her two-Year-old dau¿hter ¼lice died in 1847; her father died of overwork in 1864; and the mo¹t painful lo¹¹ of all wa¹ the death of her Beloved fir¹t-Born child, Charlotte ¼u¿u¹ta, at a¿e twentY17
three in 1865.
MarY ½emenwaY’¹ ¿eneration wa¹ in full maturitY when the Civil Âar Broke out in 1861. °o¹e who lived throu¿h that war and ¿rew old in it¹ aftermath ¹aw a ¹ta¿¿erin¿ amount of per¹onal and communal lo¹¹; a¹ a
60
³²NsÅEy
con¹equence, manY either aBandoned their faith in anteBellum value¹ or tran¹formed them into new ¹hape¹ and purpo¹e¹. ½emenwaY’¹ life of philanthropY, which Be¿an with the end of that war (and the death¹ of her father and of Charlotte), i¹ therefore Be¹t under¹tood in the li¿ht of lo¹¹: per¹onal lo¹¹—hu¹Band, father, dau¿hter¹—But al¹o lo¹¹ of national cohe¹ion and ¹hared memorY; of political civilitY; of land¹cape¹ and landmark¹; of hi¹torical continuitY; and of an entire ¿eneration of men, ¾orth and South. Äaced with ¹uch ¿rim realitie¹, how ¹hould one of the riche¹t women in ¼merica re¹pond? °e teachin¿¹ of Unitarian mini¹ter¹ ÃeweY and Clarke offered critical ¿uidance to pari¹hioner ½emenwaY. Âhile ÃeweY empha¹ized wi¹e charitY, Clarke ¹tre¹¹ed what Unitarian¹ termed “practical Chri¹tianitY.” Ómer¿in¿ from ½arvard ÃivinitY School in 1833 into the ¹wirlin¿ deBate¹ Between latter-daY Calvini¹t¹ and emer¿ent Unitarian¹, for ¹even Year¹ Clarke had honed hi¹ me¹¹a¿e and ¹tYle in the wild¹ of Loui¹ville, KentuckY. ÀY the time he moved Back to Ào¹ton and founded the Church of the Ãi¹ciple¹ in 1841, hi¹ direction wa¹ clear: “practical Chri¹tianitY” required ¿ettin¿ out and ¹olvin¿ communitY proBlem¹, or¿anizin¿ relief ¹ocietie¹ and private charitie¹—and ¹avin¿ ¹oul¹ throu¿h education and enli¿htenment. Like manY other Youn¿ ¾ew Ón¿lander¹ ru¹hin¿ into life in the 1830¹, Clarke wa¹ certain that the next half centurY would ¹ee a moral revolution in ¼merica. ¼¹ Âilliam ÓllerY Channin¿ confided to him in 1837: “Áur pre¹ent low, ¹elfi¹h, mercenarY activitY i¹ no Better than ¹ta¿nation of mind. Áur pre¹ent ¹ta¿e of ¹ocietY i¹ one which mu¹t Be pa¹¹ed throu¿h. ¼ true civilization lie¹ BeYond it.” Ár, a¹ Clarke reported to hi¹ wife, ¼nna, in 1840: “ÓverY man, a¹ Mr. [Ralph Âaldo] Ómer¹on remarked to me Ye¹terdaY, carrie¹ a revolution in hi¹ wai¹tcoat pocket.” Àut he wa¹ al¹o fond of quotin¿ the in¹i¿ht of vi¹itin¿ Ón¿li¹h Unitarian ¹ociolo¿i¹t ½arriet Martineau: “People mu¹t Be fed and clothed Before theY can Be ¹piritualized.” °rou¿h it¹ Âedne¹daY evenin¿ meetin¿¹, where a wide ran¿e of ¹ocial and political proBlem¹ and ¹olution¹ were di¹cu¹¹ed in the Year¹ Before the war, Clarke’¹ Ào¹ton church aimed to do Õu¹t that: Become a “livin¿ ¹ocial force of the communitY.” It wa¹ 18
a ¿oal of philanthropic outreach that MarY ½emenwaY took to heart.
½emenwaY’¹ ¿eneration emer¿ed from the Civil Âar into a di¹illu¹ioned, divided, and di¹oriented ¹ocietY; and the comin¿ decade¹ proved to hold unprecedented opportuni¹m, corruption, and vul¿aritY. Under¹tandaBlY,
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
61
cultural hi¹torian¹ have not Been kind to thi¹ period of ¼merican hi¹torY. Lewi¹ Mumford Õud¿ed har¹hlY what he called “the Àrown Ãecade¹”: “°e laval flow of indu¹triali¹m after the war ¹wept over all the citie¹ of the ¹pirit, leavin¿ here and there onlY an a¹hen ruin, ¹tandin¿ erect in the crumBled land¹cape.” More recentlY, Loui¹ Menand ha¹ ¹een chieflY lo¹¹ and confu¹ion:
Äor the ¿eneration that lived throu¿h it, the Civil Âar wa¹ a terriBle and traumatic experience. It tore a hole in their live¹. Ëo ¹ome of them, the war ¹eemed not Õu¹t a failure of democracY, But a failure of culture, a fail19
ure of idea¹.
°e “practical Chri¹tianitY” of ½emenwaY’¹ mini¹ter¹ alwaY¹ contained, it i¹ important to note, an implicit critique of the ¿rindin¿, con¹umin¿ marketplace practice¹ that had killed her father and in¹titutionalized her hu¹Band. Àut the unrulY opportuni¹m of ¼merica’¹ anteBellum marketplace al¹o provided her with the wealth and the freedom for potential reparation and repair. °e oBli¿ation mu¹t have ¹eemed compellin¿. Âhile ¹he had previou¹lY deploYed her wealth privatelY on occa¹ion, now in the po¹twar Recon¹truction Year¹ Mr¹. ½emenwaY Be¿an to emer¿e a¹ a puBliclY vi¹iBle Benefactor. ½er numerou¹ activitie¹ on Behalf of female education—kitchen ¿arden¹ for ¹chool¹, ¹ewin¿ cla¹¹e¹, ¿Ymna¹tic¹—Be¿an in thi¹ period; a¹ explained in 1900 BY her friend Kate Âell¹, theY were element¹ of a lar¿er educational a¿enda: “She ¹aw in the ¹low, cumulative force of education the ¹ure¹t method of comBatin¿ the ill¹ of a narrow ¹pirit, a weak phY¹ique, and unhealthY livin¿. . . . [She] realized that a woman’¹ care of home i¹ the foundation of a countrY’¹ pro¿re¹¹ in pro¹peritY and honor.”
20
½emenwaY’¹ empha¹i¹ on
women’¹ dome¹tic ¹kill¹ and phY¹ical health almo¹t certainlY had more per¹onal root¹ a¹ well. ¼fter her death in 1894, one of the manY oBituarie¹ of her in Ào¹ton new¹paper¹ ¹u¿¿e¹tivelY oB¹erved:
Mr¹. MarY ½emenwaY po¹¹e¹¹ed all the requirement¹ of the philanthropi¹t to an extraordinarY de¿ree. She felt that ¹he had Been roBBed, to a certain extent, of her Birthri¿ht BY not Bein¿ tau¿ht to do anYthin¿ in particular. She therefore exerted her¹elf to have ¹ewin¿ and cookin¿ 21
tau¿ht in the puBlic ¹chool¹ of Ào¹ton.
62
³²NsÅEy
In addition to her pioneerin¿ work in cookin¿ and ¹ewin¿, ½emenwaY enthu¹ia¹ticallY ¹upported women’¹ ¿Ymna¹tic¹, phY¹ical health, and hY¿iene. ½emenwaY Became an acolYte of the newlY imported Lin¿ (or “Swedi¹h”) method of phY¹ical exerci¹e for women; throu¿h the help of her “ri¿ht-hand woman,” ¼mY Morri¹ ½oman¹, ¹he introduced ¿Ymna¹tic¹ fir¹t to the ¹chool¹ (the ½emenwaY School and Ëile¹ton ¾ormal School) in Âilmin¿ton, ¾orth Carolina, and after 1887 to the Ào¹ton educational ¹Y¹tem.
22
Promotion of women’¹ health and dome¹tic ¹kill¹ wa¹ onlY one of manY ¹trand¹ of ½emenwaY’¹ po¹twar nation-reBuildin¿ (and one that wa¹ con¹i¹tent with ¹uB¹equent effort¹ of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation and it¹ ¹tate auxiliarie¹). ¼ ¹econd wa¹ what came to Be known a¹ “the Áld South work.” In 1876, ½emenwaY contriButed $100,000 to ¹ave the Áld South Meetin¿ ½ou¹e in downtown Ào¹ton, thereBY pre¹ervin¿ a national landmark of the Revolution and recommittin¿ it to puBlic ¹ervice. Ärom thi¹ initial effort ¿rew her wide-ran¿in¿, multiYear proÕect to re¹tore hi¹torical memorY: BY puBli¹hin¿ for ¹choolchildren thou¹and¹ of pocket-¹ize pamphlet¹ of the Ba¹ic document¹ of ¼merican hi¹torY, from the MaYflower Compact to the Ãeclaration of Independence; BY ¹upportin¿ the ¹cholar¹hip of hi¹torian john Äi¹ke; and BY ¹pon¹orin¿ a puBlic lecture ¹erie¹ in the re¹tored Áld South Buildin¿. °e purpo¹e in all the¹e effort¹ wa¹ to pre¹erve, in the wake of the de¹truction inflicted BY Both war and indu¹trial “pro¿re¹¹,” the memorY of a united nation: it¹ document¹, it¹ voice¹, it¹ monument¹ and ¹acred place¹.
23
½emenwaY’¹ third thread of reBuildin¿ and reconciliation focu¹ed on education in the former ConfederacY—fir¹t for poor white¹ in ¹chool¹ ¹he e¹taBli¹hed in ¾orth Carolina and ¸ir¿inia, then for freed Black¹, and from 1878 for ¾ative ¼merican¹ a¹ well. ¼lmo¹t from it¹ foundin¿ in 1868 BY the ¼merican Mi¹¹ionarY ¼¹¹ociation, ½emenwaY ¹taunchlY ¹upported ½ampton In¹titute in ¸ir¿inia and it¹ chari¹matic director, Samuel Chapman ¼rm¹tron¿. ½e adverti¹ed in po¹twar ¾ew Ón¿land an approach to creatin¿ “free Yet di¹ciplined” citizen¹ a¹ a form of practical Chri¹tianitY, and he found that it ¹truck a re¹pon¹ive chord amon¿ circle¹ of wealthY and ideali¹tic former aBolitioni¹t¹. Äor two decade¹, ¼rm¹tron¿ could count on ½emenwaY’¹ ¹upport: ¹he Bou¿ht a nearBY farm (½emenwaY Äarm) for ½ampton; provided a pre¹¹ for printin¿ the ¹chool’¹ paper and puBlicitY or¿an, the
Southern Workman; and ¿ave fellow¹hip¹ to at lea¹t fourteen Black, white, and (after 1878) ¾ative ¼merican ¹tudent¹.
24
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
63
ÀY the earlY 1880¹ ½emenwaY had Be¿un to tran¹fer the¹e conviction¹ and effort¹ to the “Indian proBlem” and decided to Become involved, in her indirect waY, in ¾ative ¼merican i¹¹ue¹. Like ¹o manY other ¾ew Ón¿lander¹, her ¹Ympathie¹ were arou¹ed BY the ea¹tern tour of “Àri¿ht ÓYe¹” La Äle¹che and °oma¹ ËiBBle¹. ËiBBle¹ recalled ridin¿ in the ¹ame railroad car a¹ ½emenwaY in ¼pril 1880, when ¹he noticed how exhau¹ted were ËiBBle¹ and La Äle¹che: “She not onlY tele¿raphed the Ào¹ton [Indian Citizen¹hip] Committee that we all were ¹o utterlY worn out that we mu¹t Be allowed a few daY¹’ re¹t, But ¹he ¹ent with her me¹¹a¿e to ¿ive u¹ 10 daY¹ at Áld Point Comfort.”
25
½emenwaY Õoined the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, who¹e 26
corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY and “¿lue” wa¹ her dear friend ÃeweY.
In 1882, four
Year¹ Before the Manche¹ter ¹oÕourn, ¹he ho¹ted the vi¹itin¿ Zuni¹ in her Mt. ¸ernon Street home, and theY ¹uB¹equentlY corre¹ponded (¹he ¹ent them Chri¹tma¹ card¹, and theY thanked her for the “¿ood decoration¹”).
27
Mo¹t
¹u¿¿e¹tivelY, when Cu¹hin¿ fir¹t informed hi¹ Bo¹¹ at the Àureau of ¼merican Óthnolo¿Y, john Âe¹leY Powell, of her propo¹ed ¹upport of hi¹ Zuni work in 1886, he explained ½emenwaY’¹ thinkin¿ a¹ follow¹: ½avin¿ Become ¿reatlY intere¹ted in Óthno¿raphic re¹earch (as, in her
estimation, bearing on the solution of the Indian question), ¹he ha¹ decided to turn much of the fund ¹he ha¹ heretofore devoted to Mi¹¹ionarY work, into thi¹, which ¹he now think¹ a more rational waY of aidin¿ the Indian a¹ well a¹ humanitY in ¿eneral.
28
Cu¹hin¿’¹ word¹ de¹erve attention, Becau¹e he ¹pent manY hour¹ in 1886 with MarY ½emenwaY. ÀY that time, ½emenwaY wa¹ movin¿ awaY from ¹upport of her educational effort¹ in the South and inve¹tin¿ con¹ideraBle fund¹ in Cu¹hin¿’¹ ethno¿raphic and archaeolo¿ical enterpri¹e¹.
29
Indeed, when
Cu¹hin¿ fell ¹ick and the expedition collap¹ed in 1889, Mr¹. ½emenwaY and her ¹on ¼u¿u¹tu¹ fired Cu¹hin¿ and continued the ¹outhwe¹tern work under her ¹on’¹ former ½arvard cla¹¹mate, je¹¹e Âalter Äewke¹. Mr¹. ½emenwaY died of diaBete¹ in 1894; her will directed that Äewke¹’¹ anthropolo¿ical work continue for at lea¹t two more Year¹, u¹in¿ her home on Mt. ¸ernon Street 30
a¹ headquarter¹.
Àecau¹e ¹he left little corre¹pondence and haBituallY worked throu¿h tru¹ted friend¹ and a¿ent¹, direct evidence of MarY ½emenwaY’¹ motivation¹
64
³²NsÅEy
and thou¿ht¹ i¹ virtuallY nonexi¹tent. Rather, a¹ her la¹t mini¹ter, Charle¹ Gordon ¼me¹, ¹tated at her funeral, “¹he con¹tructed for her¹elf a dialect of deed¹.”
31
°rou¿h tho¹e action¹ and the oB¹ervation¹ of her contemporarie¹,
it i¹ po¹¹iBle to finallY limn out a portrait of her philanthropic prioritie¹, ¹pecificallY with re¿ard to ¾ative ¼merican reform in the later Year¹: Born, rai¹ed and married into an anteBellum world of merchant prince¹ in ¾ew Ôork and Ào¹ton, MarY ½emenwaY remained a ¹ociallY con¹ervative woman of privile¿e who never left, or ¹eriou¹lY que¹tioned, the proper dome¹tic ¹phere of a woman of her cla¹¹. ½er niece de¹criBed her Belief¹ in the¹e term¹:
MY mother and ¼unt MarY were much alike in inten¹e devotion to their ideal¹ of ri¿ht and Õu¹tice, and in their con¹ervative reaction to modern waY¹, thou¿h pro¿re¹¹ive intellectuallY; ¹hocked, even then, BY the freedom of action of Youn¿ ¿irl¹, and horrified at the idea of Youn¿ women in Bu¹ine¹¹; welcomin¿ new movement¹ in education and in charitaBle method¹, But clin¿in¿ to time-honored tradition¹ and ideal¹ in familY 32
life.
°u¹, while ½emenwaY Õoined the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation a¹ a life memBer and honorarY vice pre¹ident, and wa¹ additionallY li¹ted a¹ a memBer of the executive committee of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation everY Year from it¹ foundin¿ until her death in 1894, her ¹upport wa¹ lar¿elY moral and financial. Àut a¹ all contemporarY account¹ a¿ree, there wa¹ enormou¹ power in her mere pre¹ence. She did not require a podium or a pre¹¹ to have a voice. ÃeeplY influenced BY the ¿uidance of her male Unitarian friend¹ and mini¹ter¹—ÃeweY, Clarke, ¼me¹, and Ódward Óverett ½ale—½emenwaY accepted the appropriatene¹¹ of men occupYin¿ the puBlic ¹phere and women workin¿ quietlY But ¹teadilY to 33
influence chan¿e in politic¹ and culture.
In other word¹, ¹he came to
¹hare with her friend MarY ÃeweY the under¹tandin¿ that “patriotic, Chri¹tian women” mu¹t work to ¹how men of political power—father¹, hu¹Band¹, ¹on¹, acquaintance¹—the ¹ufferin¿ and endan¿erment of Indian women and children: “to pu¹h for room in Bu¹Y mind¹,” a¹ ÃeweY put it in 1900, “to root up old preÕudice¹, and wake i¿norant heart¹ to re¹pon¹ive fire.” Âomen of reform would Become “an irre¹i¹tiBle ¹well of Õu¹tice and
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
65
humanitY,” per¹i¹tent a¹ the tide¹ a¿ain¹t the hard rock¹ of the ¾orth Shore, to re¹i¹t and repair the de¹tructive effect¹ of the male world of war 34
and indu¹trialization.
Mary Elizabeth Dewey: Woman of Words MarY ÃeweY (1821–1910) Believed in the power of word¹ to reform the world. Äir¹t child and elder dau¿hter of Loui¹a Äarnham (1794–1884) of ¾ewBurYport and Unitarian mini¹ter Árville ÃeweY (1794–1882) of Sheffield, ¹he ¿rew up in the ¹outhwe¹tern corner of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ and later in ¾ew Ôork CitY. If her friend MarY ½emenwaY Became a wealthY wife, mother, and widow, ÃeweY wa¹ her per¹onal oppo¹ite: ¹he had little moneY, and ¹he never married. Âhile ½emenwaY acted indirectlY and quietlY throu¿h the Gilded ¼¿e world of reform and recon¹truction, “MollY” ÃeweY ¹poke and wrote directlY and pa¹¹ionatelY of her critici¹m¹ and dream¹. She did ¹o a¹ a tran¹lator (of Geor¿e Sand), a¹ author and Bio¿rapher (of her father and of familY friend and noveli¹t Catharine Maria Sed¿wick), and a¹ lon¿-term corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation. In her writin¿¹, therefore, lie the keY¹ to her per¹onalitY and motivation¹—and important in¹i¿ht¹ into her activitie¹ in Indian reform durin¿ the final decade¹ of her life. °e mo¹t formative influence in ÃeweY’¹ life wa¹ her father, whom ¹he 35
adored.
¼fter hi¹ death in 1882, ¹he produced a volume containin¿ hi¹ par-
tial autoBio¿raphY and ¹elected letter¹ from hi¹ adult life, chieflY But not entirelY to fellow Unitarian/Con¿re¿ationali¹t mini¹ter¹ ¹uch a¹ Channin¿, Àellow¹, Âilliam Âare, and ½enrY Âare jr. ½e al¹o maintained relation¹ with Ómer¹on (hi¹ wife’¹ cou¹in), Sed¿wick, Martineau, and poet Âilliam Cullen ÀrYant. Árville ÃeweY’¹ ¹tru¿¿le¹ with faith, health, and identitY throu¿hout hi¹ life provide almo¹t a caricature of clerical Prote¹tanti¹m in earlY nineteenthcenturY ¼merica—and hi¹ dau¿hter ¹aw all the twi¹t¹ and turn¹. ËodaY it i¹ difficult to ¹hare MarY ÃeweY’¹ filial enthu¹ia¹m for her father. Ëo all appearance¹ a ¹elf-ri¿hteou¹ hYpochondriac who laY “for hour¹” on the ¹ofa while the ladie¹ of the hou¹e ¹cratched hi¹ head to relieve hi¹ “mental ¹tre¹¹,”
36
he de¹pi¹ed and avoided pa¹toral work with the ¹ick and needY
while ¹eekin¿ alwaY¹ more time for hi¹ own “patient thinkin¿.”
37
Ëo hi¹
66
³²NsÅEy
credit, thou¿h, ÃeweY could al¹o Be capaBle of critical in¹i¿ht into him¹elf and hi¹ fellow cleric¹. Ëo Àellow¹ he confided in 1852 hi¹ ¹keptical view of cler¿Ymen:
°in¿¹ meet and match u¹, perhap¹, Better than we mean. I am not a cler¿Yman—perhap¹ never meant for one. I que¹tion our po¹ition more and more. Âe are not fairlY thrown into the field of life. Âe do not fairlY take the free and unoB¹tructed pre¹¹ure of all ¹urroundin¿ ¹ocietY. Âe are hed¿ed around with artificial Barrier¹, Built up BY ¹uper¹titiou¹ reverence and fal¹e re¹pect. Âe are ca¹ed in peculiaritY. Âe meet and min¿le with trouBle and ¹orrow—enou¿h of them, too much—But our treatment of them ¿et¹ hackneYed, worn, wearY, and reluctant. Âe ¿rapple with the world’¹ ¹trife and trial, But it i¹ an armor. Áur exci¹ion from the world’¹ plea¹ure and intercour¹e, I douBt, i¹ not ¿ood for u¹. Âe are a ¹ort of moral eunuch¹.
38
°e increa¹in¿lY heated deBate¹ over ¹laverY after 1848 took a toll on ÃeweY a¹ he attempted to maintain a clear anti¹laverY ¹tance without, however, emBracin¿ aBolitioni¹m. °e re¹ult wa¹ critici¹m from clo¹e friend¹, e¹peciallY for hi¹ ¹upport of the Äu¿itive Slave ¼ct of 1850. ÃeweY’¹ po¹ition derived, thou¿h, from a deeplY held Belief in ¿raduali¹m and fear of revolutionarY di¹ruption in ¹ocietY—which in turn re¹ted on a conviction of divinelY ordained But incremental pro¿re¹¹ and improvement in human hi¹39
torY.
¼¹ he told Channin¿ in 1840: “It doe¹ appear to me that the civilized
world i¹ on the eve of a chan¿e and a pro¿re¹¹, puttin¿ all pa¹t data at fault, and out¹trippin¿ all pre¹ent ima¿ination.” More ¹uccinctlY he confided to 40
Àellow¹: “¼ll ¿ood pro¿re¹¹ mu¹t Be ¿radual.”
Ärom her father, thou¿h, MarY ÃeweY aB¹orBed ¹ome of the ¿uidin¿ principle¹ of her life: that charitY to the le¹¹ fortunate mu¹t Be carefullY di¹pen¹ed; that the human world i¹ radicallY imperfect, But people are perfectiBle; that ¿raduali¹m in reform of human condition¹ i¹ le¹¹ dan¿erou¹ than ¹udden, radical pro¿ram¹; and that freedom of the will, a¹ Channin¿ tau¿ht, nonethele¹¹ entailed a re¹pon¹iBilitY to act. ¼¹ the father advi¹ed the dau¿hter in an undated letter, one ¹hould Beware the “univer¹al overthrow” that ¹eemed at time¹ to haunt ¼merica and the civilized world: “Moral influ41
ence, ¿raduallY chan¿in¿ the world, i¹ what I want.”
Àut for a Youn¿,
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
67
unmarried woman holdin¿ ¹uch Belief¹ in the mid-nineteenth centurY, where wa¹ the waY forward? Äifteen Year¹ Before Árville’¹ death and hi¹ dau¿hter’¹ literarY triBute to him, noveli¹t Catharine Maria Sed¿wick (1789–1867) pa¹¹ed awaY. In 1871, MarY compo¹ed Sed¿wick’¹ Life and Letters a¹ well. Sed¿wick wa¹ a clo¹e familY friend.
42
More than that, ¹he provided the maÕor model of female
intellectual and literarY life for the Youn¿er woman, and the central dilemma of Sed¿wick’¹ career—the u¹efulne¹¹ and proper role of a ¹in¿le woman in ¼merican ¹ocietY—Became ÃeweY’¹ a¹ well. ÂidelY reco¿nized at the time (and ¹till todaY) a¹ the mo¹t popular female noveli¹t in ¼merica in the fir¹t half of the centurY, Sed¿wick Be¿an her literarY career in 1822 with A New-England Tale: Sketches of New-
England Character and Manners, recountin¿ her emer¿ence from Calvini¹m 43
to Unitariani¹m.
She followed thi¹ ¹ucce¹¹ with a ¹erie¹ of hi¹torical nov-
el¹ with a¹¹ertive, ¹in¿le female prota¿oni¹t¹.
44
Ãurin¿ the 1830¹, Sed¿wick retreated from hi¹torical fiction to dome¹tic advice, hou¹ehold mana¿ement, and reli¿iou¹ tract¹. Àe¿innin¿ with Home:
Scenes and Character Illustrating Christian Truth (1835) and Live and Let Live; or, Domestic Service Illustrated (1837), ¹he ¹eemin¿lY committed her¹elf to the empowerin¿ virtue¹ of married dome¹ticitY. In place of her earlier, ¹uBver¹ive heroine¹, Sed¿wick now celeBrated RepuBlican motherhood a¹ the locu¹ of moral order and liBertY in ¼merica. ÃeweY prai¹ed the¹e work¹ of the thirtie¹ for their “le¹¹on¹ of human Brotherhood, healthY livin¿, plain practical ¹en¹e, and deep reli¿iou¹ feelin¿.” Àut privatelY Sed¿wick wa¹ confe¹¹in¿, at lea¹t on occa¹ion, to the loneline¹¹ and incompletene¹¹ of the ¹in¿le life:
½ope now ¹eem¹ to turn from me . . . her ¹i¹ter, Óxperience, with an eYe of apprehen¹ion, and lip¹ that never ¹mile, ha¹ taken her place. ¼ll i¹ not ri¿ht with me, I know. . . . °e Be¹t ¹ource¹ of earthlY happine¹¹ are not within mY ¿ra¹p. . . . It i¹ difficult for one who Be¿an life a¹ I did, the primarY oBÕect of affection to manY, to come BY de¿ree¹ to Be fir¹t to none, and ¹till to have mY love remain in it¹ entire ¹tren¿th, and cravin¿ ¹uch 45
return¹ a¹ have no ¹uB¹titute.
Áne can onlY ima¿ine the impact of ¹uch pained private word¹ on the Youn¿er woman who wa¹ the fir¹t to puBli¹h them, onlY four Year¹ after the
68
³²NsÅEy
author’¹ death. ¼nd Yet, de¹pite numerou¹ marria¿e offer¹, Sed¿wick remained ¹in¿le, convinced that marria¿e threatened her independence and inte¿ritY—and her ¹ocial and political purpo¹e¹ a¹ well, for like her Unitarian Brethren ¹he ¹aw her¹elf en¿a¿ed in a vital movement of chan¿e for ¼merica. ¼¹ ¹he wrote to Channin¿ in 1837: “Âith the ¿reat phY¹ical world to Be ¹uBdued here to the want¹ of the human familY, there i¹ an immediate 46
moral field openin¿.”
°e na¿¿in¿ que¹tion wa¹, a¿ain, how a woman
could contriBute effectivelY. ÀY midcenturY, Sed¿wick wa¹ deeplY active in aid to the poor and to women pri¹oner¹ in ¾ew Ôork CitY, and in the ¿rowin¿ deBate¹ over ¹laverY and immi¿ration. °e¹e experience¹ confirmed to her that Bein¿ ¹in¿le provide¹ a woman with enhanced opportunitie¹ for ¹ocial ¿ood. In Married or
Single? (1857), her final novel, Sed¿wick finallY addre¹¹ed directlY the i¹¹ue¹ of ¹o manY Year¹ of ponderin¿. In the preface ¹he ¹tated forthri¿htlY her commitment to female choice and freedom: “¼¹ide from the ¿reat ta¹k¹ of humanitY, for which ma¹culine capacitie¹ are Be¹t fitted, we Believe [a woman] ha¹ an independent power to ¹hape her own cour¹e, and to force her 47
own ¹overei¿n waY.”
Âhile reco¿nizin¿ the plea¹ure¹ and reward¹ of ¹uc-
ce¹¹ful companionate marria¿e, ¹he had come to ¹ee ¹in¿le womanhood a¹ “a mode of life in which one maY ¹erve God and humanitY, and thu¹ educate the ¹oul, the ¿reat purpo¹e of thi¹ ¹hort life.” Âithin the midcenturY move48
ment that Su¹an RYan ha¹ termed the “culture of Benevolence,”
Sed¿wick
wa¹ finallY aBle, accordin¿ to hi¹torian ÃeBorah Gu¹¹man, to “carve out a ¹pace Between the pro¿re¹¹ive and ¹ometime¹ radical idea¹ of the women’¹ ri¿ht¹ movement and the more traditional or con¹ervative view¹ of the role¹ 49
and ri¿ht¹ of women, Both married and ¹in¿le.”
MarY ÃeweY wa¹ in her earlY ¹ixtie¹ when ¹he moved to Ào¹ton, Became involved in Indian reform, and offered her ¹ervice¹ a¹ the indefati¿aBle corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation—a po¹ition 50
¹he held for two decade¹.
°e formative fi¿ure¹ of her life had Been Unitar-
ian cleric¹—aBove all her father—and independent, en¿a¿ed women writer¹: 51
Sed¿wick, Martineau, Sand.
Like Sed¿wick, ÃeweY had found the tradi-
tionallY defined dome¹tic ¹phere of anteBellum and midcenturY ¼merica either unavailaBle or un¹ati¹factorY; But ¹he al¹o di¹covered that the moral ¹phere a¹¹i¿ned to middle-cla¹¹ ¼merican women could Be extended and Õu¹tlY applied to puBlic reform effort¹—what Ärance¹ Âillard and jane
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
¼ddam¹ appo¹itelY called “puBlic hou¹ekeepin¿.”
52
69
In effect, women actin¿
a¹ the moral Balla¹t and con¹cience of ¹ocietY could act to clean and order the puBlic’¹ hou¹e. °eY could exert their ¹ua¹ive power¹ of rhetoric and exhortation to affect puBlic policY—even without ¹uffra¿e or puBlic office. PuBlic hou¹ekeepin¿—moral reform Blended with ¹ocial orthodoxY— Became MarY ÃeweY’¹ ¹trate¿Y and practice. Äor ÃeweY and her fellow reformer¹, the cau¹e of Indian reform wa¹ initiallY a matter of information for men (politician¹, Bu¹ine¹¹men, their own hu¹Band¹) who were, ¹uppo¹edlY, Bu¹Y with the important affair¹ of the puBlic ¹quare. ¼¹ Sed¿wick had oB¹erved half a centurY earlier, “men are . . . ¿enerallY en¿ro¹¹ed with the ea¿er pur¹uit of wealth or plea¹ure, ¹ome modification of ¹en¹ual, peri¹haBle enÕoYment”—a ¹entiment that MarY ½emen53
waY and manY other women certainlY reco¿nized and ¹hared.
°e fir¹t
requirement, therefore, wa¹ to inform men and help them under¹tand, to or¿anize in order to Become knowled¿eaBle, and then to di¹¹eminate that knowled¿e a¹ BroadlY a¹ po¹¹iBle. ¼¹ we have ¹een, ÃeweY’¹ “patriotic, Chri¹tian women,” throu¿h lecture, letter, and petition, would “wake i¿norant heart¹ to re¹pon¹ive fire.” °e women of reform, ¹he wa¹ certain, would create that “irre¹i¹tiBle ¹well of Õu¹tice and humanitY.”
54
°e rhetoric of exhortation Became ÃeweY’¹ reform mode. Áver two decade¹, in countle¹¹ ¹peeche¹ and letter¹ to MI¼ auxiliarie¹, the ¾I¼, and Lake Mohonk ¿atherin¿¹, ¹he honed a pattern of ar¿ument that Both di¹plaYed her po¹ition a¹ an informed, literate woman and echoed her father’¹ Unitarian Belief¹ in perfectiBilitY and unrelentin¿ effort. Referencin¿ report¹ from ¾I¼ and MI¼ a¿ent¹ on the re¹ervation¹, tYpicallY ¹he fir¹t deplored condition¹ of life for ¹pecific ¾ative people¹, e¹peciallY women and children. Àut, ¹he continued, the effort¹ of field matron¹ and other¹ were ¿raduallY 55
improvin¿ tho¹e live¹ and providin¿ rea¹on¹ for optimi¹m.
It thu¹ Became
vital to redouBle the contriBution¹ and exertion¹ of the ¾I¼ and the ¹tate and local affiliate¹—and ultimatelY to convince the federal ¿overnment to provide aid. Áver time, her ur¿encY Became palpaBle: on one occa¹ion, ¹peakin¿ of the “de¹titution and immoralitY” ¹urroundin¿ the ½ualapai ¹ettlement¹ of we¹tern ¼rizona, ÃeweY noted that trYin¿ to counter ¹uch condition¹ with the “¹in¿le hand [of the MI¼] i¹ like trYin¿ to Bale out the ¼tlantic with a tea-cup.” ¹ame.
56
ÃeweY’¹ lan¿ua¿e of exhortation wa¹ alwaY¹ the
70
³²NsÅEy
Martha LeBaron Goddard: High-Minded Hostess Martha ½owland LeÀaron wa¹ Born in 1829 in PlYmouth, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, the dau¿hter of parent¹ who traced their linea¿e in ¼merica to the fir¹t mi¿ration¹. PrivatelY ¹chooled, ¹he ¹pent her entire adult life in central and ea¹tern Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. ¼t twentY-one, ¹he moved to Âorce¹ter and Became deeplY involved in a literarY circle that wa¹ ¹eriou¹lY en¿a¿ed with the writ57
in¿¹ of the Ëran¹cendentali¹t¹.
In the¹e Year¹, ¹he activelY Be¿an contriBut-
in¿ review¹ and commentarY on literarY and ¹ocial topic¹, under the pen name “Mademoi¹elle,” to the Worcester Evening Transcript. In 1863, ¹he married Õournali¹t and editor Ãelano ¼lexander Goddard (1831–1882), a native of Âorce¹ter and, like Martha, a de¹cendent of ¹eventeenth-centurY (1665) ¹ettlement¹. In 1859, he a¹¹umed the editor¹hip of the Worcester Spy ; nine Year¹ later, theY moved to Ào¹ton, where he Became editor in-chief of the influential Boston Daily Advertiser.
58
º²gÇ´E 2.2. Martha LeÀaron Goddard, ca. 1880. Courte¹Y of the ¼merican ¼ntiquarian SocietY.
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
71
Ärom thi¹ point (1868), Martha’¹ life wa¹ divided Between Ào¹ton and Âorce¹ter, a¹ ¹he Be¿an contriButin¿ a weeklY column, “Letter from Ào¹ton,” to the Worcester Spy.
59
°e parlor of the Goddard¹’ downtown home
emer¿ed a¹ a ¹ocial and cultural huB of proper Ào¹ton life; theY Became famou¹ a¹ a model of the ideal companionate, e¿alitarian marria¿e. ÀY all account¹ a Brilliant conver¹ationali¹t and fine li¹tener, Martha Goddard ¹eemed, in the word¹ of one admirer, “a mother-confe¹¹or for a worldwide pari¹h,” and the parlor of her PinckneY Street home on Àeacon ½ill (one Block from the ½emenwaY¹) wa¹ recalled a¹ a “miniature co¹mopoli¹.”
60
¼¹
the writer Sarah Árne jewett reported to MarY Claflin (wife of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ ¿overnor Âilliam Claflin) in 1878: “I wa¹ at Mr¹. Goddard’¹ [Ye¹terdaY] . . . do not You think that Mr¹. Goddard’¹ parlor i¹ a verY charmin¿ place? I alwaY¹ find it ¹o verY hard to come awaY, for I am verY fond of her.”
61
jewett
wa¹ not alone in her attachment. In 1873, Martha’¹ clo¹e friend, noveli¹t ½arriet Âater¹ Pre¹ton, puBli¹hed Love in the Nineteenth Century: A Fragment, which wa¹ widelY reco¿nized a¹ a thinlY di¹¿ui¹ed account of Martha and 62
Ãelano’¹ court¹hip and earlY marria¿e.
Pre¹ton’¹ fictional Goddard¹ pur¹ue
a court¹hip of letter¹ throu¿h which the Youn¿ man ¿raduallY come¹ to “reverence” her; ¹he in turn emer¿e¹ from her “cloi¹tered” life and a¿ree¹ to en¿a¿ement. °eY marrY and move to the citY (Ào¹ton), where he e¹taBli¹he¹ him¹elf in the new¹paper world and ¹he open¹ an “ae¹thetic-economical parlor” and hold¹ “ae¹thetic tea¹.” °e final para¿raph¹ celeBrate the Bli¹¹ful Balance theY have Brou¿ht to ¹uperficial and ¹uperciliou¹ Ào¹ton ¹ocietY:
It i¹ rather the thin¿ to vi¹it them now. . . . °e wit and ¹YmpathY of ho¹t and ho¹te¹¹, their union of heart and purpo¹e, and ever-¿rowin¿ ¹ocial ¿race¹, comBine to make an atmo¹phere where people of widelY differin¿ view¹ and tradition¹ are alike at home, for¿et their manneri¹m¹, feel their 63
keene¹t, think and talk their Be¹t.
Ëo “think and talk their Be¹t” were amon¿ the mo¹t prized activitie¹ of Gilded ¼¿e Ào¹ton; to conver¹e, or merelY li¹ten, in the cozY Yet rarefied atmo¹phere of a Book-lined, art-filled PinckneY Street parlor wa¹ an experience to Be trea¹ured (and reported). Àut what wa¹ di¹cu¹¹ed? Martha had ¹pent her earlY womanhood within the ¹cintillatin¿ circle¹ of tran¹cendental philo¹ophY and aBolitioni¹t reform, and a¹ late a¹ the 1880¹—her la¹t
72
³²NsÅEy
decade—¹he wa¹ ¹till reportin¿ on the meetin¿¹ of the Concord School of 64
Philo¹ophY.
Ãelano’¹ reformi¹t tendencie¹ centered on anti¹laverY, temper-
ance, and women’¹ ri¿ht¹; after movin¿ to Ào¹ton he worked clo¹elY with Ódward Óverett ½ale on Behalf of the poor, the ¹ick, and other underprivi65
le¿ed ¿roup¹, pur¹uin¿ a ¹hared ¿o¹pel of uplift.
°eir ¹hared work a¹ puB-
lici¹t¹ and their e¿alitarian marria¿e ¹poke to a commitment to women’¹ ri¿ht¹ (thou¿h, a¹ with ½emenwaY and ÃeweY, it maY not have extended to ¹uffra¿e). Increa¹in¿lY, thou¿h, the “ae¹thetic tea¹” of the Goddard parlor touched on “the Indian que¹tion.” Âith the end of federal recon¹truction and militarY occupation of the South in 1876 came the ¿rowin¿ conviction—in the ¾orth a¹ well a¹ the former Confederate ¹tate¹—that while aBolition had Been a moral nece¹¹itY, the price had Been hi¿h indeed, and the ¹uB¹equent experiment in Black freedom had failed. Óner¿ie¹ once focu¹ed lar¿elY on, fir¹t, anti¹laverY; ¹econd, war; and third, the freedmen—after 1876 found 66
new outlet¹.
Cu¹ter’¹ defeat at Little Ài¿ ½orn; the emer¿ence of the
¼merican Southwe¹t a¹ a focu¹ of mi¿ration and inve¹tment; the viciou¹, widelY reported ¼pache war¹; and the rapid e¹taBli¹hment of Both the tran¹continental railroad line¹ and the re¹ervation ¹Y¹tem—all occurred in an a¹toni¹hin¿lY Brief period (1876–1881). °u¹, when the 1879 Standin¿ Àear controver¹Y and tour ¹uddenlY Brou¿ht to puBlic attention not onlY the pli¿ht of the Ponca¹ But the corruption and crueltY of federal Indian policY,
67
the Goddard¹ quicklY converted to the cau¹e. ¼lreadY in failin¿
health, Ãelano turned the editorial pa¿e of the Boston Daily Advertiser to criticizin¿ official mendacitY and loBBYin¿ for ¹everaltY and Indian le¿al ri¿ht¹. ¼fter a lifetime in reform, in the end “he wa¹ e¹peciallY intere¹ted in the ¼merican Indian¹ and perhap¹ no work of hi¹ pen wa¹ undertaken with more inten¹e earne¹tne¹¹ than hi¹ plea¹ for the nation¹’ ward¹.”
68
Martha
worked more privatelY a¹ part of the per¹onal network of political and moral ¹upport that ½elen ½unt jack¹on depended on in her peripatetic campai¿n 69
for Indian Õu¹tice in the la¹t ¹ix Year¹ of her life.
In 1880, for example,
Martha wrote to ¼nna Ãawe¹, dau¿hter of Senator ½enrY Ãawe¹, to prepare for “½. ½.” to vi¹it Âa¹hin¿ton:
Âhat i¹ Álive Ri¹leY Seward’¹ ¹tandin¿ in Âa¹hin¿ton SocietY—would it help or hinder ½. ½. in her Ponca work to make common cau¹e with
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
73
Mr¹. Seward? Âhat are Your own plan¹? I¹ there anY pro¹pect that ½. ½. mi¿ht Be with You for a few week¹, havin¿ her own room¹ of cour¹e, But known to Be Your friend? . . . I don’t know that Mr¹. Claflin would take to Mr¹. jack¹on at all. ½ave the Claflin¹ ¿iven up the Ponca¹, or do theY clin¿ to Schurz?
70
Mr¹. Goddard advi¹ed jack¹on, too, on the delicate i¹¹ue of women in politic¹, and female loBBYin¿ in particular. Äive daY¹ Before the aBove letter, Mr¹. jack¹on confided to Senator Ãawe¹ her under¹tandin¿ that “even the ¹hadow of a ¹u¹picion of what i¹ technicallY known a¹ ‘loBBYin¿’ ¹hould not re¹t on a woman,” and for that rea¹on ¹he had Been he¹itant to come to Âa¹hin¿ton. “Àut,” ¹he added, “would it not Be po¹¹iBle for me, in a quiet and unnoticeaBle waY . . . to make opportunitie¹ of readin¿ a few ¹tati¹tic¹— a few fact¹, to men whom it i¹ worth while to convert?” ¼fter all, ¹he added:
Mr¹. Goddard ¹u¿¿e¹ted that I mi¿ht find a perfectlY quiet and incon¹picuou¹ Boardin¿ place with a colored woman, in who¹e hou¹e Your familY had at one time Boarded.
71
Conclusions: Women, Men, Religion, Reform Ãurin¿ the 1880¹, hundred¹ of women Õoined the ¾I¼ or it¹ ¹tate or¿anization¹, ¹uch a¹ the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, and their local auxiliarie¹. Óach had her own Bio¿raphY and per¹onal motivation¹. ¼ttendin¿ to onlY three ¹uch women who were confidante¹ in Indian reform, thi¹ ¹tudY reco¿nize¹ ¹ome commonalitie¹ But di¹cern¹ ¹i¿nificant di¹tinction¹ a¹ well. MarY ÃeweY, MarY ½emenwaY, and Martha Goddard were Born into an ¼merican world of reli¿iou¹ fervor, ¹eemin¿lY incande¹cent with faith in human pro¿re¹¹ and the nation’¹ divine mi¹¹ion. Ëo Be ¹ure, the reform impul¹e¹ of tho¹e decade¹ touched Both ¹ecular and BroadlY reli¿iou¹ ¹en¹iBilitie¹. Àut Unitariani¹m, with it¹ ¹tron¿ ¹en¹e of liBeration from the hard, prede¹tined cate¿orie¹ of Calvini¹m and it¹ turn to “practical Chri¹tianitY” a¹ moral oBli¿ation and fulfillment, deeplY emBedded it¹elf in their live¹. ¼¹ Youn¿ women, MarY, MarY, and Martha confidentlY Believed that theY were helpin¿ to create a Better future. °eY were completelY unprepared for a hideou¹lY de¹tructive war. It took a ma¹¹ive p¹Ychic toll on their ¿eneration.
74
³²NsÅEy
Óven a¹ the nation entered a new, confu¹in¿ era of demo¿raphic and indu¹trial upheaval, the men and women who¹e live¹ ¹traddled the Civil Âar tran¹ferred that fervor and tho¹e hope¹ to new or revived cau¹e¹: women’¹ ri¿ht¹, po¹t¹laverY education, condition¹ of the urBan poor (notaBlY the Iri¹h in Ào¹ton and ¾ew Ôork)—and the mi¹erie¹ of ¾ative ¼merican¹. ¼¹ Before, it i¹ fair to ¹aY, their under¹tandin¿ wa¹ e¹¹entiallY moral, not ¹tructural: theY tended to Blame i¿norant, ¿reedY, or maliciou¹ men for the Indian¹’ woe¹. ¼l¹o a¹ Before, their ¹trate¿ie¹ relied heavilY on rhetoric, per¹ua¹ion, and, aBove all, reportin¿ factual information. ¼¹ ½elen ½unt jack¹on at one point expre¹¹ed to her hu¹Band:
Ãear You maY Be ¹ure of one thin¿ that I am not writin¿—& ¹hall not write one word a¹ a ¹entimentali¹t! Stati¹tical Record¹—verBatim report¹ officiallY authenticated, are what I wi¹h to ¿et Before the ¼merican people:—& are all which are needed, to rou¹e puBlic ¹entiment.—°e 72
i¿norance of everYBodY on the ¹uBÕect i¹ ¹implY a¹toni¹hin¿—
¼¹ jack¹on’¹ word¹ intimate, the women of reform found them¹elve¹ con¹tantlY, quietlY ne¿otiatin¿ Between inherited notion¹ of feminine “¹entiment” and their own hardheaded lo¿ic and fact checkin¿; Between dependence on male¹ in official power and their own female network¹ of friend¹hip and or¿anization; and Between de¹ire for effective chan¿e and con¹ervative notion¹ of proprietY. In other word¹, folded within the politic¹ of Indian reform wa¹ a lar¿elY muted deBate over ¿ender and power—a deBate of lon¿ ¹tandin¿, certainlY, But expo¹ed and externalized BY con¹tant reference to the ¹ad, Backward condition¹ of Indian women and their children. °e reform women received reco¿nition for their work But could not e¹cape the inherent patronizin¿:
If there are ¹till to Be found in anY remote part¹ of our land anY ¿ood, hard-headed men who ¹peak of women a¹ ¿overned ¹olelY BY their emotion¹, with no development of lo¿ical facultie¹ and no ¹tren¿th of will or power of per¹everance, I ¹hould like to corral a few ¹uch men, and ¹end Mr¹. [¼melia] Quinton to them, and let her tell them aBout the women’¹ work for Indian¹. . . . Âherever You ¿o, You find that theY have Be¿un,
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
75
fir¹t to think for them¹elve¹, and then to plY their mini¹ter¹ with innu73
meraBle que¹tion¹ on thi¹ ¹uBÕect.
Äriend¹ for decade¹, ½emenwaY, ÃeweY, and Goddard nonethele¹¹ knew different ¹ocial and per¹onal world¹, and their relation¹ with men were central to the di¹tinction¹. MarY ½emenwaY married a man like her father—a drivin¿, wildlY ¹ucce¹¹ful Bu¹ine¹¹man—But, amon¿ other heavY lo¹¹e¹, ¹he Became widowed at midlife. She al¹o relied all her adult life on Unitarian mini¹ter¹ for the precept¹ ¿uidin¿ her philanthropY. MarY ÃeweY, in partial contra¹t, never married But remained extremelY clo¹e to a mini¹ter-father ¹he adored. ¼t the ¹ame time, ¹he took a¹ model¹ a ¿roup of unmarried women writer¹ who were explorin¿ i¹¹ue¹ of ¹in¿lehood, female friend¹hip, and route¹ to political influence. ÄinallY, Martha Goddard came of a¿e in the headY world of tran¹cendental enthu¹ia¹m¹, at thirtY-one married a man of overlappin¿ ¹en¹iBilitie¹, and ¹pent two decade¹ in clo¹e ¹ocial, intellectual, and profe¹¹ional camaraderie. Àoth Goddard¹ died Youn¿ (fiftY-one and fiftY-¹ix), ¹even Year¹ apart. °e¹e were the women hidin¿ Behind the curtain¹ in Mr¹. ½emenwaY’¹ parlor in mid-¼u¿u¹t 1886, watchin¿ the arrival of three Zuni vi¹itor¹. Ëwo were widowed, one unmarried; onlY one would live to ¹ee the new centurY. ½emenwaY pur¹ued wide-ran¿in¿ philanthropY BY operatin¿ quietlY throu¿h other¹; ÃeweY deploYed an effective rhetoric of empirici¹m and exhortation; Goddard, in tandem with her hu¹Band, exerci¹ed the power of the Õournali¹tic pulpit. Óach found her waY, and her di¹tinctive role, in the politic¹ of Indian reform.
Notes I want to thank mY lon¿time collea¿ue Ãavid R. Âilcox, and mY wife, ¸ictoria Lorée Ónder¹, for their a¹tute review of thi¹ chapter and their helpful ¹u¿¿e¹tion¹.
1. MarY ½emenwaY’¹ thirtY-nine-acre e¹tate on the north-facin¿ ¹hore of Pickworth Point, purcha¹ed in 1871 BY her late hu¹Band ¼u¿u¹tu¹, included two home¹ a¹ well a¹ numerou¹ outBuildin¿¹. She and ¼u¿u¹tu¹ fir¹t Built a ¹ummer home Õu¹t BeYond “ÀellYache (or ÀaBYrack) Cove” in 1872. ½e died onlY four Year¹ later. In 1883, Mr¹. ½emenwaY commi¹¹ioned Chica¿o architect Âilliam Ralph Ómer¹on to de¹i¿n a ¹hin¿le-aBove-¹tone cotta¿e for her dau¿hter Ódith and ¹on-in-law Âilliam ÓllerY
76
³²NsÅEy
Channin¿ Óu¹ti¹. °i¹ wa¹ the hou¹e, chri¹tened Ca¹a Ramona in honor of ½elen ½unt jack¹on’¹ popular novel of 1884, where the Cu¹hin¿¹ and Zuni¹ ¹taYed in 1886. See Garland, Boston’s North Shore, 275, 297; Lewi¹, American Country Houses of the
Gilded Age, 49; and Âerlin¿, “Keepin¿ It in the ÄamilY.” ¾either hou¹e exi¹t¹ todaY. 2. Cu¹hin¿, “¾ote¹ Made durin¿ a ¸i¹it,” 45. 3. ÃeweY, “¸i¹it of the Zuni Indian¹,” 559. ¼ccordin¿ to Cu¹hin¿, the Zuni name for MarY ½emenwaY wa¹ “Shi-wan-o-kía,” or Âoman Prie¹te¹¹/Mother. Cu¹hin¿ to MarY ½emenwaY, ¼u¿u¹t 11, 1883, SÂM CC MS6 ½¼Ó 1.28, Cu¹hin¿ Collection. 4. Cu¹hin¿ later de¹criBed the event¹ leadin¿ to Manche¹ter a¹ havin¿ had an element of entertainment, even whim¹Y: “Mr¹. ½emenwaY came down one mornin¿ at Áld Äarm [her countrY home] in the Sprin¿ of 1886, and in her characteri¹tic waY, announced to me that ¹he thou¿ht we mu¹t have ¹ome of the Zuñi Prie¹t¹ vi¹it u¹ that Summer if Mr¹. Cu¹hin¿ and I would ¿o with her to Manche¹ter in¹tead of returnin¿, a¹ previou¹lY we had intended, to Shelter I¹land. . . . Äor ¹he wi¹hed to have the Zuñi¹ a¹ true ¿ue¹t¹ like other vi¹itor¹ whom ¹he al¹o wi¹hed to have at Ca¹a Ramona, and that the intere¹t of entertainin¿ them would alone ¹uffice even were no other re¹ult to accrue, and that a¹ her dau¿hter and ¹on-in-law [Ódith and Â. Ó. C. Óu¹ti¹] were not intendin¿ to ¹pend the Summer there, a¹ cu¹tomarilY, ¹he could not, or did not wi¹h to, unle¹¹ we would ¿o down and ¹taY with her.” Cu¹hin¿ to Âilliam ËorreY ½arri¹, n.d. (ca. june 1891), MS Àureau of ¼merican Óthnolo¿Y 1.45, SÂM CC MS À¼Ó 1.45, Cu¹hin¿ Collection. 5. °e Bow and arrow demon¹tration¹ Be¿an a¹ a te¹t of Ódward Mor¹e’¹ evolutionarY theorie¹ of arrow relea¹e. See ÂaYman, Edward Sylvester Morse, 310. Äor a photo¿raph of Cu¹hin¿ and the Indian¹ in the orchard, ¹ee ½in¹leY and Âilcox, A
Hemenway Portfolio, 552. Popular arti¹t ½enrY Sandham’¹ oil paintin¿ of the archerY practice, Zuni Chiefs at Manchester, 1886, i¹ now in the PeaBodY Mu¹eum at ½arvard. 6. ÃeweY, “¸i¹it of the Zuni Indian¹,” 561. 7. Goddard, Letters of Martha LeBaron Goddard, 161–67; reprinted a¹ “¼ Zuni Reli¿iou¹ Service at Manche¹ter-ÀY-°e-Sea” in ½in¹leY and Âilcox, °e Southwest
in the American Imagination, 566–70. Àetween 1869 and her death in 1888, Goddard ¹erved a¹ “Ào¹ton Corre¹pondent” of the Worcester Spy new¹paper, which her hu¹Band had previou¹lY edited. 8. ÃeweY, “¸i¹it of the Zuni Indian¹,” 562–64. 9. Án hi¹ la¹t daY in Ào¹ton, in mid-¾ovemBer, Cu¹hin¿ ¿ave a ¹in¿le interview to the Boston Daily Globe (¾ovemBer 19, 1886, 6). °e Õournali¹t explained in part: “[Cu¹hin¿’¹] arduou¹ laBor¹ proved ¹o fati¿uin¿ that he prevailed upon the people in who¹e intere¹t he wa¹ workin¿, to ¿rant a Brief re¹pite from work, that he mi¿ht inhale the pure air of ¾ew Ón¿land once more. Con¹equentlY he ha¹ Been ¹pendin¿ a few daY¹ [sic] with friend¹ alon¿ the ¾orth Shore.” °e article wa¹ hi¿hlY colored—and mi¹leadin¿. 10. ¾ewBurYport recur¹ in MarY ½emenwaY’¹ life. “In her Youth ¹he ¹pent one happY winter in ¾ewBurYport; and to the la¹t ¹he had a warm affection for the old town.” “Óditor’¹ ËaBle,” New England Magazine , n.¹., 22, no. 5 (julY 1900): 620.
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
77
11. I am ¿rateful to mY collea¿ue Ãavid R. Âilcox for hi¹ detailed work on the hi¹torY of the Spofford, Ëile¹ton, and ½emenwaY familie¹. 12. Äoote, A Memorial of the Life and Benefactions of Mary Hemenway , 4. 13. IBid., 22–23. L. CaBot Àri¿¿¹, a de¹cendant of ½emenwaY who pre¹ented a copY of Ëile¹ton’¹ memorial volume to the Ào¹ton ¼thenaeum LiBrarY in 1975, noted cau¹ticallY in the mar¿in of thi¹ pa¹¹a¿e that “¹he [M. ½.] wa¹ entirelY devoid of artis-
tic feelin¿. ½er feelin¿ wa¹ purelY sentimental.” 14. Ãou¿la¹, °e Feminization of American Culture , 21; and ¼me¹, A Memorial Tribute , 13; cf. ÃeweY, Discourses on the Nature of Religion. ÃeweY warned that “¿reat evil and mi¹chief ” laY in “indi¹criminate charitY.” See ÃeweY, Autobiography and Letters of Orville Dewey, 91. In 1839, °oma¹ Ëile¹ton paid $1,130 for familY pew #57 in ÃeweY’¹ church. ¼n irreverent reporter for the New York Morning Herald noted that “tho¹e who want their ¹oul¹ to Be ¹aved in Mr. ÃeweY’¹ ¹Y¹tem can find aBout 39 pew¹ for ¹ale, where theY ¹it with comfort, admire Beautiful women, and learn ¹alvation cheap” (MaY 14, 1839, 2). 15. ÃeweY, °e Old World and the New, 2:193. 16. Óu¹ti¹, Augustus Hemenway , 22–40. 17. In 1834, when ¹he wa¹ fourteen, MarY al¹o watched two of her Youn¿er ¹iBlin¿¹—her onlY Brother, °oma¹, four, and her little ¹i¹ter, Óllen, two—die of ¹carlet fever within daY¹ of each other. 18. Quotation¹ are from Clarke, Autobiography, Diary and Correspondence, 70, 90, 111, 119. 19. Mumford, °e Brown Decades, 23; and Menand, °e Metaphysical Club , x. Geor¿e SantaYana ¹et the tone of thi¹ interpretation in 1921, callin¿ ¾ew Ón¿land’¹ intellectual product¹ of the late nineteenth centurY little more than a “harve¹t of leave¹.” Quoted in Lurie, Nature and the American Mind, 18–19. 20. Âell¹, °e Household Arts Department, n.p. Äor an in¹i¿htful account of ½emenwaY’¹ enthu¹ia¹m for women’¹ ¿Ymna¹tic¹, ¹ee Spear¹, Leading the Way. 21. “Äriend of Óducation. Ëeacher¹ ½onor MemorY of Mr¹. ½emenwaY. Introduced Sewin¿ and Cookin¿ in the Ào¹ton School¹,” Boston Daily Globe, March 3, 1894, 10. °ank¹ to Ãavid Âilcox for thi¹ reference. ÁBituarie¹ of ½emenwaY appeared in at lea¹t ¹ix Ào¹ton new¹paper¹. Intere¹tin¿lY, in her ¹evere a¹¹e¹¹ment of the condition of women’¹ education in ¼merica, ½arriet Martineau (who vi¹ited in the 1830¹) had empha¹ized the importance of comBinin¿ ¹eriou¹ education with dome¹tic ¹kill¹— neither of which, ¹he ¹aid, the women of wealthY ¼merican familie¹ po¹¹e¹¹ed. ½er de¹cription¹ of hard-drivin¿ ¾ew Ôork merchant¹ and their quie¹cent wive¹ ¹eem e¹peciallY in¹i¿htful—and ¿ermane to ½emenwaY’¹ experience¹. 22. °e ¿Ymna¹tic¹ ¹Y¹tem of Pehr ½enrik Lin¿ (1776–1830) wa¹ fir¹t introduced in the United State¹ a¹ earlY a¹ the 1850¹; ½oman¹ Be¿an workin¿ with ½emenwaY to train teacher¹ and introduce it into ¼merican ¹chool¹ in 1877. Án ½oman¹’¹ career, ¹ee Spear¹, Leading the Way ; Skar¹trom, “Life and Âork of ¼mY Morri¹ ½oman¹,” 615–27; and RathBone, “¼mY Morri¹ ½oman¹.” In her 1894 will, MarY ½emenwaY ¹et a¹ide
78
³²NsÅEy
$5,000 for ½oman¹ “in lovin¿ and ¿rateful appreciation of her aid in the educational work ¹he ha¹ undertaken for ¹eventeen Year¹.” 23. “Âhen a¹ked whY ¹he ¿ave moneY to ¹upport ¹chool¹ in the South, ¹he replied, ‘Âhen mY countrY called for her ¹on¹ to defend the fla¿, I had none to ¿ive. Mine wa¹ But a lad of ¹even. I ¿ave mY moneY a¹ a thank-offerin¿ that I wa¹ not called to ¹uffer a¹ other mother¹ who ¿ave their ¹on¹, and lo¹t them. I ¿ave it that the children of thi¹ ¿eneration mi¿ht Be tau¿ht to love the fla¿ their father¹ tore down’” (Äoote, A Memo-
rial of the Life and Benefactions of Mary Hemenway, 46). ½emenwaY ¿ave $5,000 everY Year to the Ëile¹ton ¾ormal School from it¹ foundin¿ in 1872 to it¹ clo¹in¿ in 1891. 24. “Áh, the lon¿ quiet ¹ummer daY¹ at Áld Äarm, u¹hered in BY the Bird¹, and BY the ¹in¿in¿ of the ½ampton Quartette, who awakened u¹ BY chantin¿ the Lord’¹ PraYer and P¹alm¹. °eir voice¹ ro¹e with ineffaBle and heavenlY ¹weetne¹¹ to our ear¹. Such a Beautiful openin¿ of our daY” (Äoote, A Memorial of the Life and Benefactions of
Mary Hemenway, 29). ¼lthou¿h ¹he continued to ¹upport Black education until 1887, the Year 1878 ¹eem¹ to have Been a critical Year in ½emenwaY’¹ turn to ¹upport for ¾ative ¼merican¹. 25. ËiBBle¹, Buckskin and Blanket Days, 221. Áld Point Comfort wa¹ a Che¹apeake ÀaY re¹ort area near ½ampton, ¸ir¿inia. 26. Mathe¹, “°e Àanner ¼¹¹ociation,” 155. 27. ½in¹leY and Âilcox, °e Lost Itinerary of Frank Hamilton Cushing , 14–15. 28. Cu¹hin¿ to Powell, julY 2, 1886, ¾ational ¼nthropolo¿ical ¼rchive¹. Ómpha¹i¹ added. 29. Âritin¿ to ¼dolph Àandelier on SeptemBer 12, 1886, from Manche¹ter, Cu¹hin¿ empha¹ized that Mr¹. ½emenwaY’¹ propo¹ed archaeolo¿ical enterpri¹e mu¹t pur¹ue “the ¹cientific under¹tandin¿ of the Indian not onlY a¹ relate¹ to hi¹ hi¹torY and Óthno¿raphY, but also, as regards those other problems connected with his own good
and with our good in our relations with him thus far so insufficiently understood ” (empha¹i¹ added). SÂM CC MS6, Cu¹hin¿ Collection. 30. “It i¹ al¹o her wi¹h that the room¹ in the hou¹e at 40 Mt. ¸ernon St., Ào¹ton, now u¹ed more or le¹¹ for the pro¹ecution of the archaeolo¿ical work, ¹hall Be continued a¹ headquarter¹.” (½er ¹on almo¹t immediatelY ¹hut down the archaeolo¿ical work.) °e will wa¹ dated januarY 25, 1894. She li¹ted her three philanthropic intere¹t¹ a¹ women’¹ ¿Ymna¹tic¹, the Áld South work, and the archaeolo¿Y. (She al¹o Bequeathed the ½emenwaY Äarm in ½ampton to the ½ampton In¹titute.) Boston
Daily Globe, March 15, 1894, 2. 31. ¼me¹, A Memorial Tribute, n.p. ¼me¹ elaBorated: “She could ¹peak with fine freedom and fluencY to a few tru¹ted friend¹, on matter¹ which filled her mind and heart; But ¹he never exerci¹ed her ¿ift of utterance in puBlic a¹¹emBlie¹. She had a ¿eniu¹ for expre¹¹ion throu¿h action” (Äoote, A Memorial of the Life and Benefactions of
Mary Hemenway, 44). ¼fter attendin¿ ½emenwaY’¹ funeral ¹ervice, officiated BY ¼me¹, ½emenwaY’¹ clo¹e (and more radical) friend, julia Âard ½owe, recorded in her diarY: “¼ ¿reat lo¹¹ ¹he i¹, But her life ha¹ Been a ¿reat ¿ain. Âould that more rich men had
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
79
¹uch dau¿hter¹. °at more rich women had ¹uch a heart! . . . God ¹end that her mantle maY fall upon thi¹ whole communitY, ¹timulatin¿ each to do what he or ¹he can for humanitY” (Richard¹, Ólliott, and ½all, Julia Ward Howe, 2:193). 32. Äoote, A Memorial of the Life and Benefactions of Mary Hemenway , 30. 33. Án the collaBoration Between ¸ictorian Prote¹tant mini¹ter¹ and their female pari¹hioner¹ in nineteenth-centurY ¼merica, the cla¹¹ic (and invaluaBle) ¹tudY i¹ Ãou¿la¹, °e Feminization of American Culture. 34. ÃeweY, Historical Sketch . 35. Án the ¿enre of nineteenth-centurY clerical Bio¿raphie¹ BY feminine friend¹, pari¹hioner¹, and relative¹, ¹ee the Brilliant analY¹i¹ BY ¼nn Ãou¿la¹ ( °e Feminiza-
tion of American Culture, 188–99). Ãou¿la¹ point¹ to the importance, in the¹e work¹, of dome¹tic ¹cene¹ and influence¹ and the ¹u¿¿e¹tion that “the true ¹elf [of the mini¹ter] i¹ the private non-profe¹¹ional one” rather than the rhetorical theolo¿ian in the pulpit (191). 36. °e¹e are MarY ÃeweY’¹ word¹ (Autobiography and Letters of Orville Dewey , 152). 37. IBid., 70. 38. IBid., 230–31. 39. Árville ÃeweY felt the ¹tin¿ of critici¹m on thi¹ point to the end of hi¹ life; MarY ¹ou¿ht even into the 1880¹ to explain and defend him. IBid., 128–29. 40. IBid., 167, 197. 41. IBid., 227. °e letter, from 1852, refer¹ to the revolutionarY intention¹ of ½un¿arian freedom fi¿hter LaÕo¹ Ko¹¹uth, then vi¹itin¿ the United State¹. 42. MarY ÃeweY wa¹ the elde¹t of five children, of whom three lived to adulthood. °e Youn¿e¹t dau¿hter (Born in 1838) wa¹ named Catharine Sed¿wick ÃeweY. °ank¹ to jame¹ Miller of the Sheffield ½i¹torical SocietY for thi¹ information. 43. Catharine Sed¿wick met Âilliam ÓllerY Channin¿ in 1813; when the fir¹t Unitarian¹ con¿re¿ated in 1820, ¹he ¹aw ¹ocial purpo¹e in reli¿ion and immediatelY Õoined: “Ónthu¹ia¹m fed BY rea¹on,” ¹he pronounced, “i¹ ¹acred fire on a holY altar” (quoted in ÃeweY, Life and Letters of Catharine M. Sedgwick , 190.) 44. ÃeweY, Life and Letters of Catharine M. Sedgwick , 151. 45. Sed¿wick journal, MaY 18, 1828. In ÃeweY, Life and Letters of Catharine M.
Sedgwick , 197–98. 46. Quoted in ÃeweY, Life and Letters of Catharine M. Sedgwick , 271. 47. Quoted (from Married or Single?) in Gu¹¹man, Introduction to Married or Single? , xiii. I am indeBted in thi¹ ¹ection to ÃeBorah Gu¹¹man’¹ in¹i¿htful interpretive work. 48. RYan, °e Grammar of Good Intentions . 49. Gu¹¹man, Introduction to Married or Single?, xxvii. 50. In 1860, MarY ÃeweY, with her ¹i¹ter Kate, founded and for manY Year¹ ¹erved a¹ principal of “Mi¹¹ ÃeweY’¹” Boardin¿ ¹chool at the familY home, St. Ãavid’¹, in Sheffield (Catharine Sed¿wick to MarY ÃeweY, ¾ovemBer 12, 1860, Sheffield
80
³²NsÅEy
½i¹torical SocietY; thank¹ to jim Miller). Quaker aBolitioni¹t Lucretia Mott wrote to friend¹ in 1863: “3 of our ¿randchild[re]n are at a Boardin¿ ¹chool in Ma¹¹. ¼mon¿ the Àerk[¹hire] ½ill¹—Ãr. ÃeweY’¹ dau¿[hter i¹ the] principal” (Mott to ¼nne and jane ½eacock, julY 23, 1863, in Palmer, Áchoa, and Äaulkner, Selected Letters of Lucretia Cof-
fin Mott, 335). It i¹ proBaBle that ÃeweY left Sheffield after her father’¹ death in 1882; from 1884 to 1910, her variou¹ home addre¹¹e¹ were in Ào¹ton. 51. ÃeweY’¹ tran¹lation from Ärench of °e Miller of Angibault , Geor¿e Sand’¹ 1845 novel of rural ¹ociali¹m (and marria¿e), al¹o appeared in 1871. ¼¹ ¹u¿¿e¹ted aBove, Martineau wa¹ Both an in¹piration and a puzzle in ¼merican Unitarian circle¹. 52. Äor a review of the complex hi¹torio¿raphY of “¹eparate ¹phere¹” a¹ hi¹torical ideolo¿Y and analYtical cate¿orY, ¹ee Âarren, “Separate Sphere¹”; and KerBer, “Separate Sphere¹, Äemale Âorld¹.” KerBer make¹ the reference to Âillard and ¼ddam¹. 53. Catharine Sed¿wick to Óliza Âat¹on, ¾ovemBer 23, 1827, quoted in ÃeweY,
Life and Letters of Catharine M. Sedgwick, 189. 54. ÃeweY, Historical Sketch , 14, 19. 55. ¾ot all a¿reed with the ¾I¼ pro¿ram. Su¹an Âallace, who lived in Santa Äe when her hu¹Band Àen wa¹ ¿overnor of the territorY, ridiculed the reform effort¹: “½arde¹t of all i¹ it to teach the Indian how divine a woman maY Be made, and it i¹ ar¿ued that women are Be¹t fitted to reach the Burden-Bearin¿ ¹i¹ter¹ of the red race. °e Quaker¹ ¹ucceeded no Better than the Puritan¹, and St. MarY of the Conception wa¹ not more di¹coura¿ed than the ¹elf-¹acrificin¿ Bride from ¾ew Ón¿land, who come¹ to the land of ¹and and thorn to teach the du¹kY mother¹ how to ¹in¿ and ¹ew, and Broken in health and ¹pirit, return¹ to her native hill¹ a¿ain” (Âallace, °e Land of the Pueblos , 46). Ëo which an anonYmou¹ reviewer in the Ào¹ton-Ba¹ed Literary World 19 (¼u¿u¹t 4, 1888, 251) re¹ponded: “Mr¹. Âallace doe¹ not know what ¹he i¹ talkin¿ aBout.” 56. MarY ÃeweY, “SecretarY’¹ Report,” Ëwelfth ¼nnual Report, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 13. 57. LÕun¿qui¹t, “Martha Le Àaron Goddard,” 148–56. ¼fter Goddard’¹ death in 1888, Sarah °eo Àrown puBli¹hed the ¹elected Letters of Martha LeBaron Goddard. ½i¹torian Ruth ½. Äro¹t laBeled thi¹ ¿roup “°oreau’¹ Âorce¹ter ¼¹¹ociation¹.” See LÕun¿qui¹t, “Martha Le Àaron Goddard,” 156n2. 58. °e Advertiser, owned BY the ½ale familY and under the editor¹hip of ¾athan ½ale from 1814, wa¹ the fir¹t dailY new¹paper in Ào¹ton. °e paper wa¹, accordin¿ to Õournali¹t Ód¿ar Pa¿e Mitchell, the leadin¿ Õournali¹tic voice of “the culture of ½arvard, Ào¹ton’¹ commercial ¿reatne¹¹, Ào¹ton’¹ political con¹ervati¹m, and Ào¹ton’¹ ¹ocial proprietY” (Mitchell, Memoirs of an Editor, 75). Goddard edited the Advertiser for fourteen Year¹, until hi¹ death in 1882. 59. LÕun¿qui¹t, “Martha Le Àaron Goddard,” 150. 60. Goddard, Letters of Martha LeBaron Goddard, 181. 61. Sarah Árne jewett to MarY Àucklin Ãavenport Claflin, januarY 8, 1878, Governor Âilliam and MarY Claflin Paper¹.
Ëwo MarY¹ and a Martha
81
62. Lar¿elY for¿otten todaY, ½arriet Âater¹ Pre¹ton (1836–1911) wa¹ a remarkaBle, accompli¹hed writer, lin¿ui¹t, tran¹lator (of Ärench and Latin work¹), and unu¹uallY ¿ifted expert on Provençal poetrY. ¼ native of Ãanver¹, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, ¹he wa¹ educated at home and in Óurope over an extended period. In 1874, ¹he and Goddard collaBorated in compilin¿ Sea and Shore: A Collection of Poems. ½er ¹hort novel of 1871,
Aspendale, i¹ an extended inquirY into female friend¹hip. Äor a review and appreciation of Pre¹ton’¹ literarY career, ¹ee ¾ichol¹, “½arriet Âater¹ Pre¹ton.” Án Love in the Nineteenth Century a¹ a portraYal of the Goddard marria¿e, ¹ee Mitchell, Memoirs of an Editor. 63. Pre¹ton, Love in the Nineteenth Century, 26, 64, 76, 119, 122, 149–50. 64. See LÕun¿qui¹t, “Martha Le Àaron Goddard.” 65. Unitarian mini¹ter Ódward Óverett ½ale (1822–1909) wa¹ uBiquitou¹ in ¾ew Ón¿land’¹ ¹ocial and political reform movement¹ in the la¹t quarter of the nineteenth centurY. ½i¹ en¿a¿ement with reform of Indian policY—from dinner¹ at hi¹ home for ¾ative vi¹itor¹ (Cu¹hin¿’¹ vi¹itin¿ Zuni¹ in 1882) to heartfelt addre¹¹e¹ at the Mohonk conference¹—wa¹ ¹purred in part BY ½arriet ÓlizaBeth (½attie) Äreeman. See Sara ÃaY, Coded Letters, Concealed Love. 66. It i¹ indicative in thi¹ re¹pect that Samuel Chapman ¼rm¹tron¿’¹ ½ampton In¹titute in ¸ir¿inia (¹tron¿lY ¹upported BY MarY ½emenwaY), which had Been founded to educate freed ¹lave¹, BY 1878 wa¹ enrollin¿ it¹ fir¹t Indian ¹tudent¹—and poor white¹ a¹ well. ½emenwaY ¿ave ¹cholar¹hip¹ to memBer¹ of each ¿roup. 67. Mathe¹ and Lowitt, °e Standing Bear Controversy. 68. ¾utt, History of Worcester. In 1876, Ãelano Goddard took an extended trip to Ón¿land and the I¹le of Âi¿ht for hi¹ health; in 1880, two Year¹ Before hi¹ death, he undertook an exten¹ive tour of the ¼merican South and Âe¹t. 69. See mention of letter¹ Between jack¹on and Goddard in Mathe¹, °e Indian
Reform Letters. 70. Martha Goddard to ¼nna Ãawe¹, ÃecemBer 15, 1880, ÄamilY Corre¹pondence, ¼nna L. Ãawe¹ 1850–1931 (10), ½enrY Lauren¹ Ãawe¹ Paper¹. °ank¹ to ¸alerie Mathe¹ for thi¹ reference. Álive Ri¹leY Seward wa¹ one of Senator Âilliam ½. Seward’¹ adopted dau¿hter¹. Âilliam Claflin, former ¿overnor of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, wa¹ a memBer of the ½ou¹e of Repre¹entative¹ from 1877 to 1881. 71. ½elen ½unt jack¹on to Senator ½enrY L. Ãawe¹, ÃecemBer 10, 1880, in Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Letters, 150. 72. ½elen ½unt jack¹on to Âilliam Sharple¹¹ jack¹on, ÃecemBer 29, 1879, in Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Letters, 65–66. 73. Remark¹ of Pre¹ident Merrill Ó. Gate¹, Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, ËwentY-Second ¼nnual Report, 116–17.
ØNŲÙE THE WOÊÈN’s Chri¹tian Ëemperance Union founded in 1874, which e¹¹entiallY worked alone within it¹ reform movement, the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation operated in a much lar¿er field of reformer¹ havin¿ to cooperate and coordinate with three other a¹¹imilationi¹t Indian a¹¹ociation¹, all male dominated, thu¹ makin¿ their po¹ition unique. °e ¾I¼ wa¹ the fir¹t of the four ¿roup¹ founded, followed BY the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, initiallY or¿anized to help the Ponca Indian¹ re¿ain their ¾eBra¹ka homeland and comin¿ to¿ether onlY when their Bu¹Y memBer¹hip could find the time to do ¹o. ½owever, from the Be¿innin¿ the ¾I¼ would e¹taBli¹h Broader parameter¹ than the Ào¹ton Committee— that of ¿uardin¿ Indian ri¿ht¹ in ¿eneral. Äurthermore, the fled¿lin¿ ¾I¼ had alreadY en¿a¿ed in three maÕor petition drive¹ Before the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation (IR¼) and the Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian, founded re¹pectivelY in 1882 and 1883, were or¿anized. Àecau¹e it came fir¹t, the ¾I¼’¹ ¿oal¹ and method¹ would nece¹¹arilY influence the¹e male-led movement¹. Äurthermore, thi¹ influence wa¹ ¹tren¿thened BY ¼melia Stone Quinton, who or¿anized out¹ide the Philadelphia Ba¹e, drawin¿ additional memBer¹hip from nei¿hBorin¿ northea¹tern ¹tate¹, e¹peciallY the Ào¹ton/CamBrid¿e area, where memBer¹ from the Ào¹ton Committee and the local IR¼ and ¾I¼ affiliate¹ found a colle¿ial atmo¹phere in which to promote their ¿oal¹ of a¹¹imilatin¿ the Indian into main¹tream ¼merican culture. In thi¹ waY, the ¾I¼ and it¹ fellow
Part 2. °e National Scene
male-dominated a¹¹ociation¹ helped promote ¿overnment policY, workin¿ clo¹elY with ¿overnment official¹, humanitarian¹, and philanthropi¹t¹ in a BroadlY Ba¹ed, puBliclY ¹upported arena. °e¹e effort¹ were made even ¹tron¿er Becau¹e Both the ¾I¼ and the IR¼ e¹taBli¹hed Branche¹ acro¹¹ the countrY, tYin¿ their memBer¹hip to¿ether with annual and puBlic meetin¿¹, report¹, and pamphlet¹. Áf ¹pecial importance wa¹ the role plaYed BY the la¹t of the Indian reform a¹¹ociation¹, the Lake Mohonk Conference, an annual forum held in ¾ew Ôork State to which Indian reformer¹ and ¿overnment official¹ were invited. Äollowin¿ hi¹ reli¿iou¹ principal¹, it¹ founder, ¼lBert K. SmileY, a Quaker, accepted women a¹ equal¹ in the movement. °i¹ enaBled Quinton and other ¾I¼ memBer¹ full acce¹¹ to a normallY male-dominated, politicallY powerful forum where theY interacted with ¿overnment official¹, includin¿ commi¹¹ioner¹ of Indian affair¹, ¹ecretarie¹ of the interior, con¿re¹¹men, and fellow reformer¹, freelY expre¹¹in¿ their ¿oal¹ and a¹piration¹ in an effort to a¹¹imilate ¼merica’¹ Indian population. ¼lthou¿h the¹e four maÕor a¹¹ociation¹ differed in their foundin¿ and their manner of operation, mo¹t memBer¹ were evan¿elical Chri¹tian¹, ¹harin¿ a ¹imilar ¿oal to reform the ¿overnment’¹ Indian policY. In the followin¿ chapter, ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹ define¹ the ¾I¼’¹ role within thi¹ reform arena and it¹ relation¹hip to the other or¿anization¹.
ÍHÈÖTE´ 3
A Place at the Table °e Women’s National Indian Association in the Indian Reform Arena ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
ÑÇ´²Ng THE ÅÈTE nineteenth centurY, four reform or¿anization¹ promoted Indian a¹¹imilation a¹ the ¹olution to the “Indian proBlem.” Ëwo were founded and headquartered in Philadelphia with Branche¹ e¹taBli¹hed acro¹¹ the countrY, a third wa¹ located in Ào¹ton, and the la¹t, a conference, wa¹ held annuallY in ¾ew Ôork State. ÁnlY one, the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼), wa¹ founded and run BY women. °i¹ chapter will evaluate how, in thi¹ era when upper- and middle-cla¹¹ women’¹ place wa¹ ¿enerallY in the private ¹phere and men’¹ wa¹ in the puBlic ¹ector, the women of the ¾I¼ were aBle to work ¹ucce¹¹fullY with their male collea¿ue¹, at time¹ ¹harin¿ the ¹ame ¹phere. United and well or¿anized, the¹e or¿anization¹—the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, the ¾I¼, the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation, and the annual Lake Mohonk Conference—¹hared a harmonY “Ba¹ed on a common philanthropic and humanitarian outlook expre¹¹ed in Chri¹tian term¹.”
1
°eY ¹aw them¹elve¹ a¹ en¿a¿ed in God’¹ work. ¾ineteenth-centurY ¼merican¹ lived in an era when evan¿elical Prote¹tant revivali¹t Chri¹tianitY wa¹ “¹ociallY con¹ciou¹, participatorY, reformi¹t, [and] perfectioni¹t” and held ¹ocietY in a powerful ¿rip. °i¹ Chri¹tianitY molded ¼merican¹ into “a unified, pieti¹tic-perfectioni¹t nation, [which] ¹purred them on to tho¹e hei¿ht¹ of ¹ocial reform, mi¹¹ionarY endeavor, and imperiali¹tic expan¹ioni¹m which 2
con¹titute the movin¿ force¹ of our hi¹torY in that centurY.”
Ma¿nifYin¿ the¹e Burden¹ wa¹ an expectation BY ¹ocietY that women emBrace “true womanhood” with it¹ empha¹i¹ on puritY, ¹uBmi¹¹ivene¹¹, dome¹ticitY, and pietY—thi¹ latter Bein¿ the “core of woman’¹ virtue, the
85
86
ÌÈTHEs
3
¹ource of her ¹tren¿th.” ¾I¼ memBer¹ were expected not onlY to en¿a¿e in Chri¹tian reform work amon¿ ¹o-called pa¿an Indian women and children But to extend the concept¹ of “true womanhood” to them. °eir ¹ucce¹¹ in accompli¹hin¿ the¹e ¿oal¹ wa¹ due in part to their acceptance BY the three male-dominated a¹¹ociation¹, But e¹peciallY to the con¿enial atmo¹phere at the Lake Mohonk conference¹, with their infu¹ion of Quaker reli¿iou¹ practice¹ reco¿nizin¿ women a¹ equal¹. °u¹ ¾I¼ memBer¹ were encoura¿ed to carrY out their reform activitie¹ in an environment that Both welcomed their experti¹e and re¹pected their Belief¹. ¼lthou¿h recentlY challen¿ed, the lon¿ accepted in¹titutional hi¹torY of the ¾I¼ ha¹ placed it¹ foundin¿ within the Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY, or¿anized on MaY 17, 1877, in Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church.
4
Upon learnin¿ that Mi¹¹ouri ¹enator Geor¿e ¸. ¸e¹t wa¹ pre¹¹urin¿ Con¿re¹¹ to open up land¹ in the Indian ËerritorY for ¹ettlement, MarY Lucinda ÀonneY, pre¹ident of the mi¹¹ionarY circle, alerted the memBer¹hip durin¿ their ¼pril 1879 monthlY meetin¿, turnin¿ a¹ well to Reverend ½eman Lincoln ÂaYland, editor of the National Baptist, to draw up a prote¹t petition to 5
pre¹ent Before Con¿re¹¹. ÀonneY viewed thi¹ encroachment without Indian con¹ent a¹ a violation of ¹olemn treatie¹ and a hindrance to the mi¹¹ionarY work of Chri¹tianizin¿ and civilizin¿ the Indian¹. Petition copie¹ were prepared, But were “left unnoticed in the pew¹; the mi¹¹ionarY circle adÕourned for the ¹ummer, and there the matter¹ ¹eemed to end,” wrote ¼melia Stone 6
Quinton, ÀonneY’¹ friend and fellow church memBer.
Ëo¿ether the¹e two friend¹ founded the ¾I¼, a powerful women’¹ network that continued until 1951, with ÀonneY providin¿ the fundin¿ and 7
Quinton the or¿anizational ¹kill.
Quinton, who wa¹ ¹eventeen Year¹
Youn¿er, Became the official ¿eneral ¹ecretarY of the ¿roup, writin¿ pamphlet¹, leaflet¹, and article¹ for ¹ecular and reli¿iou¹ pre¹¹e¹; an¹werin¿ corre¹pondence; addre¹¹in¿ ¹ocial ¿atherin¿¹, women’¹ ¿roup¹, mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietie¹, and church a¹¹ociation¹; conferrin¿ with ¿overnment official¹; and or¿anizin¿ auxiliarie¹ BeYond the citY of Philadelphia. °eir ¹hared upBrin¿in¿ in the “Burned over di¹trict” of up¹tate ¾ew Ôork with it¹ evan¿elical revival¹ and dedication to ¹ocial reform, their marria¿e¹ to Àapti¹t cleric¹, their earlier reform experience¹ (Quinton had once Been an or¿anizer for the ÀrooklYn Branch of the Âoman’¹ Chri¹tian Ëemperance Union), and their memBer¹hip in the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church led them to
¼ Place at the ËaBle
87
conclude that the power of Chri¹tianitY could tran¹form ¾ative ¼merican¹ 8
into “civilized” citizen¹. °eir foundin¿ of the ¾I¼ expanded women’¹ ¹phere in the puBlic arena, ¹preadin¿ the virtue¹ of “true womanhood” to ¼merican Indian women—work accompli¹hed in collaBoration with their fellow male Indian reformer¹. Lackin¿ the vote, ÀonneY and Quinton had turned to petitionin¿, viewed a¹ “a proper and feminine tactic” not requirin¿ “women to ¹tep out of the normal circle of their private live¹.”
9
Sent BY a ¹uBordinate to a ¹uperior to
redre¹¹ ¿rievance¹, a petition wa¹ BY it¹ verY nature “characterized BY a humBle tone,” oBli¿atin¿ official¹ to receive and re¹pond re¿ardle¹¹ of the ¹uBÕect. It¹ “¹upplicatorY nature held radical potential for women.”
10
In¹pired BY
Catharine Àeecher’¹ 1829 antiremoval petition drive on Behalf of the Cherokee Indian¹, Quinton deferred to male political power, explainin¿ in a memorial accompanYin¿ the ¾I¼’¹ ¹econd petition that the women did “not ¹u¿¿e¹t anY political policY to Be pur¹ued, leavin¿ ¹uch matter¹ to wi¹e ¹tate¹man¹hip.”
11
°e fir¹t ¾I¼ petition, ¹i¿ned BY thirteen thou¹and men and women from fifteen ¹tate¹, wa¹ circulated to women’¹ mi¹¹ionarY ¿roup¹ and other Benevolent ¹ocietie¹ in the ¹ummer of 1879. ¼ revi¹ion of ÂaYland’¹ earlier effort, it reque¹ted that official¹ take ¹tep¹ to prevent the encroachment upon the Indian ËerritorY and ¿uard the Indian¹ in the enÕoYment of their ri¿ht¹. ÀonneY and two memBer¹ of her mi¹¹ionarY circle delivered it to Pre¹ident Rutherford À. ½aYe¹ in mid-ÄeBruarY 1880.
12
°e ¹econd petition, ¹i¿ned BY
fiftY thou¹and people repre¹entin¿ thirtY-ei¿ht ¹tate¹, wa¹ taken to Âa¹hin¿ton BY Quinton and another memBer in late januarY 1881. °i¹ one reque¹ted that the ¿overnment deal honoraBlY with all Indian¹, prevent white encroachment upon re¹ervation¹, and reco¿nize Indian treatie¹ unle¹¹ chan¿ed BY the con¹ent of Both partie¹. It wa¹ pre¹ented to the Senate BY Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ ¹enator ½enrY Lauren¹ Ãawe¹, chair of the Senate Indian Committee and alreadY a ¹tron¿ ¹upporter of the ¾I¼.
13
Àa¹ed on her own re¹earch for her addre¹¹e¹ and pamphlet¹, Quinton ¹oon realized that certain provi¹ion¹ were e¹¹ential to protectin¿ the Indian¹: reco¿nition of their le¿al ri¿ht¹, e¹peciallY citizen¹hip; common and indu¹trial education; and allotment of 160 acre¹ of re¹ervation land in ¹everaltY, inalienaBle for twentY Year¹.
14
°e¹e provi¹ion¹, incorporated into the third
petition, ¹i¿ned BY more than one hundred thou¹and citizen¹, drew a heated
88
ÌÈTHEs
re¹pon¹e from Senator¹ Pre¹ton À. PlumB of Kan¹a¹ and ½enrY Ëeller of Colorado, who de¹criBed them a¹ too ¹imple, inadequate, and ¹entimental, promptin¿ Ãawe¹ to come to the women’¹ defen¹e.
15
Ôear¹ later, Quinton
de¹criBed the ¹cene a¹ “Senator¹, hotlY expre¹¹in¿ on the one hand Âe¹tern impatience with Indian¹, and anta¿oni¹m to Óa¹tern ¹YmpathY, and on the other hand the moral ¹en¹e of Chri¹tian men and women of manY State¹.”
16
Ãurin¿ the initial Year¹, the ¾I¼ continuallY reinvented it¹elf, Becomin¿ non¹ectarian with a relea¹e from the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church, then en¿a¿ed in variou¹ name chan¿e¹. InitiallY callin¿ them¹elve¹ a “Committee of ÂaY¹ and Mean¹,” BY ÃecemBer 1880 theY were the Central Indian Committee, then the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ ¼¹¹ociation, and then the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ Committee.
17
In june 1881, the women adopted a new con¹titution, dedicated
to awakenin¿ “a Chri¹tian puBlic ¹entiment” to force the ¿overnment to deal Õu¹tlY with the Indian¹. ÀY then known a¹ the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation, memBer¹ vowed to circulate or¿anizational literature; ¹end memorial¹ to Con¿re¹¹; hold parlor and puBlic meetin¿¹; appeal to Chri¹tian cler¿Ymen, editor¹, churche¹, and ¹ocietie¹; and ¹end article¹ to the pre¹¹. 18
°eir work ¹oon reached a wider audience.
¾ow repre¹entin¿ ei¿ht Prote¹-
tant denomination¹, the executive Board voted to expand BeYond Philadelphia. ÀY ¼u¿u¹t 1881, Quinton had or¿anized auxiliarie¹ in twentY ¹tate¹.
19
In the fall of 1882 when memBer¹ of the Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, auxiliarY expre¹¹ed an intere¹t in takin¿ up educational work, the executive committee revi¹ed the con¹titution. Reor¿anized a¹ the ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, the memBer¹hip defined them¹elve¹ a¹ Chri¹tian women “deplorin¿ the lon¿ catalo¿ue of unÕu¹t dealin¿¹ of [the] Government with the Indian¹.” Unitin¿ to “¹ecure the adoption of a Õu¹t, protective and fo¹terin¿ Indian policY,” theY intended to ha¹ten the Indian¹’ civilization, Chri¹tianization, and enfran20
chi¹ement throu¿h their newlY adopted education and mi¹¹ionarY work.
°e foundin¿ in late ÃecemBer 1882 of the male-dominated IR¼ made po¹¹iBle the undertakin¿ of thi¹ new work. Ëurnin¿ over much of their political effort¹ to the men, petitionin¿ excluded, the ¾I¼ returned to it¹ ori¿inal mi¹¹ionarY root¹ Born of the women’¹ home mi¹¹ion movement. Chan¿in¿ their name to the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, theY ¹et out to fund mi¹¹ionarY ¹ite¹ amon¿ the ¹ixtY-ei¿ht triBe¹ who, accordin¿ to Indian Commi¹¹ioner ½iram Price’¹ 1882 report, had Been left to “live and die without Chri¹tian in¹truction unle¹¹ new in¹trumentalitie¹ are rai¹ed up to
¼ Place at the ËaBle
evan¿elize them.”
21
89
°e ¾I¼ would Become the “new in¹trumentalitie¹”
to Chri¹tianize the¹e triBe¹. ¾I¼ memBer¹ in the Ào¹ton/CamBrid¿e area worked harmoniou¹lY with the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee. °e Ào¹ton Committee, founded BY a ¹mall ¿roup of prominent politician¹, lawYer¹, Bu¹ine¹¹men, cler¿Ymen, and philanthropi¹t¹,
22
dated from late julY 1879 when °oma¹
½enrY ËiBBle¹, former aBolitioni¹t and a¹¹i¹tant editor of the Omaha Daily
Herald, arrived on a fund-rai¹in¿ tour ¹pon¹ored BY the Ámaha Ponca Relief Committee. °e committee, compo¹ed of Ámaha cler¿Y enli¹ted BY ËiBBle¹, a former Methodi¹t circuit rider, wa¹ ¹upportin¿ a ¹mall Band of Ponca¹ led BY Chief Standin¿ Àear. °e committee’¹ ¿oal wa¹ to return the Indian¹ to their former homeland¹ and to Brin¿ a ca¹e Before the Supreme Court to 23
determine their ¹tandin¿ in the court¹.
°e peaceful, a¿ricultural Ponca¹ had Been forciBlY removed from their ¹outhwe¹tern Ãakota ËerritorY (modern-daY ¾eBra¹ka) re¹ervation in 1877 to the inho¹pitaBle Indian ËerritorY, where manY died. Standin¿ Àear, with the BodY of hi¹ ¹on, alon¿ with hi¹ wife and a handful of follower¹ had returned home to BurY the BoY; theY were arre¹ted BY troop¹ under the command of General Geor¿e Crook and confined to Äort Ámaha. ËiBBle¹, convinced that the Äourteenth ¼mendment ¿ave the Indian¹ “a¹ persons a ri¿ht to call upon the court¹ to defend them,” hired two lawYer¹ who filed a writ of haBea¹ corpu¹ to determine the le¿alitY of their impri¹onment. Âith Crook’¹ con¹ent a¹ a defendant, the ca¹e of Standing Bear v. Crook wa¹ heard. Äederal di¹trict Õud¿e Ólmer Scipio ÃundY ruled that an Indian wa¹ le¿allY a “per¹on” and therefore not onlY had the ri¿ht to ¹ue out a writ of haBea¹ corpu¹ But po¹¹e¹¹ed the ri¿ht of expatriation.
24
½avin¿ renounced their
triBal alle¿iance, Standin¿ Àear and hi¹ follower¹ were now homele¹¹, dependent upon the charitY of the Ámaha Committee. Ào¹ton audience¹ welcomed ËiBBle¹ on hi¹ ¹peakin¿ tour. Ó¹peciallY ¹up-
Boston Daily Advertiser, and hi¹ wife, Martha ½owland LeÀaron Goddard, who in defen¹e portive wa¹ Ãelano ¼lexander Goddard, editor in chief of the
of the Ponca¹ once wrote that “if emancipation and civil ri¿ht¹ for the ne¿ro were a nece¹¹itY of war, the e¹taBli¹hment of le¿al ri¿ht¹ for the Indian¹ [i¹] a nece¹¹itY of peace.” °e Goddard¹ were Õoined BY the Reverend Ódward Óverett ½ale, noted author and pa¹tor of the South Con¿re¿ational Church, who appealed to the aBolitioni¹t ¹entiment of hi¹ fellow Ào¹tonian¹.
25
90
ÌÈTHEs
26
Galvanized BY ËiBBle¹’¹ puBlic addre¹¹e¹, a committee of five or¿anized. joined BY other¹, the newlY formed Ponca Indian Committee
27
determined
to rai¹e fund¹ to pur¹ue a ca¹e Before the Supreme Court. °e committee ¹pon¹ored it¹ fir¹t puBlic meetin¿ in earlY ¼u¿u¹t in Ëremont Ëemple. ÀuoYed BY hi¹ reception, ËiBBle¹ returned home to or¿anize a ¹peakin¿ tour with Standin¿ Àear a¹ the main attraction. Su¹ette La Äle¹che, the dau¿hter of Ámaha Chief jo¹eph La Äle¹che, wa¹ cho¹en to Be hi¹ interpreter. Ärom the ¹ake of proprietY, ¹he wa¹ to Be accompanied BY her Brother Äranci¹. °e tour Be¿an in Chica¿o in ÁctoBer, movin¿ on to Ào¹ton and eventuallY to ¾ew Ôork CitY. ÄinanciallY ¹upported BY the memBer¹ of the Ào¹ton Committee, the well-attended puBlic meetin¿¹ drew prominent re¹ident¹ includin¿ poet ½enrY Âad¹worth Lon¿fellow, who¹e dau¿hter, ¼lice MarY Lon¿fellow, later Became pre¹ident of the ¾I¼-affiliated Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation; ¹cholar, phY¹ician, and poet Áliver Âendell ½olme¹; and poet and author ½elen ½unt jack¹on. °e latter’¹ attendance at a ¾ovemBer meetin¿ dramaticallY altered the direction of her writin¿. Ëakin¿ up the Ponca cau¹e and that of other triBe¹, ¹he inve¹ti¿ated their mi¹treatment BY the ¿overnment, pre¹entin¿ her findin¿¹ in 1881 in A Century of Dishonor. °ree Year¹ later ¹he wrote her California-Ba¹ed novel, Ramona , which ¹erved a¹ an in¹piration for the ¾I¼’¹ work amon¿ the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of 28
¹outhern California, appropriatelY called the Ramona Mi¹¹ion.
Äollowin¿ a ¾ovemBer meetin¿ attended BY nearlY five hundred Ào¹ton Bu¹ine¹¹men, five prominent citizen¹ were appointed to a committee to inve¹ti¿ate the Ponca removal.
29
°eir report recommended that the Indian¹
Be reco¿nized not onlY a¹ “per¹on¹” But a¹ “fellow-citizen¹”; that treatY provi¹ion¹ Be fulfilled; and that re¹ervation land Be ¿ranted to them “BY aB¹olute 30
title, inalienaBle for twentY-five Year¹.”
°e¹e propo¹al¹, later adopted BY
other Indian reform a¹¹ociation¹, Became part of the ¿overnment’¹ official Indian policY. °e la¹t propo¹al, de¹i¿ned to Break up communallY held re¹ervation land¹ and allot land in ¹everaltY, wa¹ emBodied in the infamou¹ General ¼llotment ¼ct, ¹pon¹ored BY Senator Ãawe¹—le¿i¹lation that di¹po¹¹e¹¹ed Indian people of more than ninetY million acre¹ of land. °e tour and the activitie¹ of the Ào¹ton Committee forced the pre¹ident and Con¿re¹¹ to look deeper into the removal controver¹Y. Con¿re¹¹ 31
appointed a five-memBer Senate Select Committee,
which met intermit-
tentlY from ÄeBruarY to MaY 31, 1880, to inve¹ti¿ate and con¹ider financial
¼ Place at the ËaBle
91
compen¹ation. Ãawe¹, with hi¹ lon¿ le¿i¹lative experience, dominated the 32
hearin¿¹ and prepared the maÕoritY report.
Óncoura¿ed BY a letter from
Ãawe¹, and a re¹olution pa¹¹ed durin¿ a Ào¹ton Committee–¹pon¹ored meetin¿ callin¿ upon him to u¹e hi¹ power¹ “to rectifY the inÕurie¹ done to the¹e people durin¿ hi¹ admini¹tration,” mi¹¹ion
34
33
Pre¹ident ½aYe¹ formed a com-
to confer with the Ponca¹ livin¿ in the Indian ËerritorY and with
Standin¿ Àear and hi¹ follower¹ in ¾eBra¹ka. °e Indian¹ were awarded $165,000 for lo¹¹e¹ ¹u¹tained in their removal and provided with land¹ in 35
¹everaltY on either the old or the new re¹ervation.
°ree Year¹ after the Ào¹ton Committee wa¹ formed, in late 1882, the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation wa¹ founded BY ½erBert Âel¹h and ¹ome fortY di¹tin¿ui¹hed Philadelphian¹ in the home of hi¹ father, john Âel¹h, former amBa¹¹ador to Ón¿land and a leadin¿ Bu¹ine¹¹man and philanthropi¹t. Ôoun¿ Âel¹h and hi¹ friend ½enrY Pancoa¹t were in¹pired to do ¹o followin¿ their inve¹ti¿ative vi¹it to ¹everal a¿encie¹ on the Great Sioux Re¹ervation and BY familiaritY with the “Indian proBlem” learned from Âel¹h’¹ uncle Âilliam, 36
the fir¹t chairman of the Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹ (ÀIC).
¼lthou¿h
the maÕoritY who attended the initial or¿anizin¿ meetin¿ were Ópi¹copalian¹, Geor¿e Ãana Àoardman, pa¹tor of Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church where ÀonneY and Quinton were memBer¹, wa¹ pre¹ent. °e oBÕective of thi¹ new a¹¹ociation wa¹ to u¹e puBlic pre¹¹ure to Brin¿ civil ri¿ht¹, ¿eneral education, 37
and in time complete civilization and citizen¹hip to the Indian¹.
Âel¹h had hoped to emulate the ¾I¼ with numerou¹ Branche¹ to aid the parent a¹¹ociation diffu¹e knowled¿e of Indian reform throu¿h puBlic meetin¿¹ and puBlication¹. ½owever, unlike ¾I¼ Branche¹, which ¿overned their own activitie¹, the few Branche¹ e¹taBli¹hed BY the IR¼ were ¿enerallY u¹ed “to rai¹e fund¹, di¹triBute literature, and in¹pire letter¹ and petition¹ in Behalf of cau¹e¹ identified BY the Philadelphia leader¹hip.”
38
°e
fir¹t Branch, e¹taBli¹hed in Ào¹ton, drew in manY Ào¹ton Committee memBer¹, while the CamBrid¿e Branch, or¿anized BY Âel¹h in March 1885 with the Reverend Samuel Lon¿fellow, ½enrY Âad¹worth Lon¿fellow’¹ Youn¿er 39
Brother, a¹ pre¹ident, welcomed women a¹ memBer¹.
InitiallY, the IR¼’¹ executive committee wa¹ to Be the deci¹ion maker, But Âel¹h, a¹ corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY, took over the role. “ClearlY it wa¹ hi¹ [Âel¹h’¹] willin¿ne¹¹ to head up a central office ¹taff that di¹tin¿ui¹hed the IR¼ from ¿roup¹ like the Ào¹ton Citizen¹hip Committee which, without an
92
ÌÈTHEs
office or a ¹taff, functioned onlY when Bu¹Y men were aBle to find time,” write¹ Âilliam ½a¿an. Like Quinton, Âel¹h addre¹¹ed puBlic meetin¿¹, or¿anized, and made exten¹ive inve¹ti¿ation¹ of we¹tern re¹ervation¹, leavin¿ Matthew K. Sniffen to handle affair¹ in the Philadelphia office.
40
Unlike the other a¹¹ociation¹, the IR¼ emploYed an a¿ent or loBBYi¹t to maintain a liai¹on with Con¿re¹¹, the ÀIC, and the Indian Áffice in Âa¹hin¿ton. °e fir¹t a¿ent, Charle¹ C. Painter, proved to Be political a¹tute and extremelY powerful. “Much of the effectivene¹¹ of the IR¼ wa¹ due to Painter’¹ ¹kill¹ a¹ a loBBYi¹t,” write¹ ½a¿an.
41
Ëo aid Painter, the IR¼ e¹taBli¹hed
a law committee that drafted Bill¹ for hi¹ pre¹entation Before Con¿re¹¹. In addition to hi¹ con¿re¹¹ional dutie¹, he made numerou¹ exten¹ive inve¹ti¿ation¹ of variou¹ re¹ervation¹, writin¿ len¿thY informative report¹ on the condition¹ he found. ½i¹ report¹ were puBli¹hed and widelY di¹triButed to the readin¿ puBlic. Àoth he and Âel¹h often turned to Quinton and her a¹¹ociation to ¹upport their work. °e final a¹¹ociation, the Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian, founded BY ¼lBert K. SmileY, met annuallY from the fall of 1883 to 1916 at the SmileY familY’¹ Lake Mohonk re¹ort near ¾ew Paltz, ¾ew Ôork.
42
¼ memBer of the ÀIC, SmileY wa¹ di¹plea¹ed with the in¹ufficient time Board memBer¹ had to deal with the i¹¹ue¹ Brou¿ht Before them BY Indian a¹¹ociation¹ and repre¹entative¹ of variou¹ mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietie¹. ½i¹ ¹olution wa¹ to ho¹t a three-daY conference, per¹onallY invitin¿ reformer¹ to attend. Linkin¿ the conference to ¿overnment policY, the ÀIC held one of it¹ official ¹e¹¹ion¹ at Lake Mohonk, with proceedin¿¹ puBli¹hed in it¹ annual report¹. °i¹ conference wa¹ a powerful forum that included ¿overnment official¹, memBer¹ of the ÀIC, repre¹entative¹ from variou¹ reli¿iou¹ ¹ocietie¹, cler¿Y from all denomination¹, memBer¹ of con¿re¹¹ional Indian committee¹, armY officer¹, head¹ of Indian ¹chool¹, pre¹ident¹ of univer¹itie¹ and colle¿e¹, and editor¹ of ¹ecular and reli¿iou¹ new¹paper¹—one quarter of the attendee¹ were mini¹ter¹. °eY ¿athered to di¹cu¹¹ and ultimatelY ¹et ¿overnment Indian policie¹. ¼n “inner circle,” evolvin¿ into the Àu¹ine¹¹ Committee, met Before the conference to determine the topic¹, ¹elect ¹peaker¹, and decide on maÕor point¹ to Be included in the conference’¹ YearlY platform. ÓarlY conference¹ “e¹taBli¹hed a tradition a¹ workin¿ a¹¹emBlie¹, clearlY with the intent of doin¿ a piece of altrui¹tic and Chri¹tian work in Behalf of the Indian ward¹ of the United State¹.” °e ¹mall ¿roup of men who met in 1883
¼ Place at the ËaBle
93
a¿reed in their initial “platform of action” that “civilization, Chri¹tianitY and citizen¹hip [were] nece¹¹arY end¹ for anY ¹u¿¿e¹ted reform ¿oal¹ in Indian policY.” ½owever, in ¹uB¹equent conference¹, other i¹¹ue¹ ¹uch a¹ land allotment in ¹everaltY, the application of civil ¹ervice rule¹ to Indian office 43
appointee¹, and education were addre¹¹ed.
¼ keY component that made Lake Mohonk ¹ucce¹¹ful wa¹ the incorporation BY SmileY, a Quaker, of the Ba¹ic element¹ of a Quaker meetin¿ to the proceedin¿¹, e¹peciallY the “tradition of ¹eekin¿ a¿reement throu¿h unitY,” althou¿h “unanimou¹ vote¹ were taken more to formalize the a¿reement 44
than to ¹ecure it.”
Àecau¹e Quaker Belief¹, e¹peciallY that of female equal-
itY, were followed, ¾I¼ memBer¹ were welcomed. °erefore, ¹tron¿, active women Became commonplace at the ¿atherin¿¹. Âhile onlY four attended in 1884, there were twentY-two women in 1885; twelve, includin¿ Quinton, were ¾I¼ memBer¹.
45
º²gÇ´E 3.1. Lake Mohonk Conference, 1899. ÓverY fall educator¹, reformer¹, and ¿overnment official¹ met at the Lake Mohonk Conference to di¹cu¹¹ Indian i¹¹ue¹ and propo¹e policie¹. °i¹ photo¿raph taken out¹ide their meetin¿ room in the Mohonk Parlor ¹how¹ a fairlY equal di¹triBution Between men and women, reflectin¿ the acceptance of ¿ender equalitY BY conference founder ¼lBert K. SmileY, a Quaker. Courte¹Y of Mohonk Mountain ½ou¹e ¼rchive¹, ¾ew Paltz, ¾ew Ôork.
94
ÌÈTHEs
Ärom it¹ foundin¿, the ¾I¼ wa¹ a maÕor plaYer and an equal partner with the male-dominated reform a¹¹ociation¹, e¹peciallY ¹o in the Ào¹ton/ CamBrid¿e area, where ¹eparate ¹phere¹ were not ¹o far apart in reform circle¹, perhap¹ due to the le¿acY of the co-ed aBolition movement. ½ere, male and female reformer¹ of the Ào¹ton Committee, the CamBrid¿e Branch of the IR¼, and two ¾I¼ affiliate¹, the CamBrid¿e Indian ¼¹¹ociation and the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, worked to¿ether con¿eniallY to advance the Indian cau¹e. °e Ào¹ton Committee had come to accept female memBer¹, mo¹tlY wive¹ of memBer¹, well Before the IR¼ did. Äor example, ¼nnie Âood, wife of printer Ärank Âood, and ¾anna ÂYer ½ou¿hton, wife of puBli¹her ½enrY Á¹car ½ou¿hton and later pre¹ident of the ¾I¼ CamBrid¿e Branch,
46
were reco¿nized in earlY Ào¹ton Committee literature a¹ memBer¹.
Áther¹ included ÓlizaBeth LYman Óliot Àullard, ¹i¹ter to ½arvard’¹ pre¹ident, Charle¹ Â. Óliot; MarY ½emenwaY, founder of the Ào¹ton ¾ormal School of GYmna¹tic¹ and the Ào¹ton ¾ormal School of Cookin¿; Óllen Äro¹t; and ¼lice MarY Lon¿fellow.
47
UnfortunatelY, the record i¹ ¹ilent on
their earlY activitie¹, But with the foundin¿ of two local ¾I¼ affiliate¹, their effort¹ were Better documented. Quinton founded the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation (MI¼) on januarY 22, 1883, in Ào¹ton’¹ Park Street Church, and the CamBrid¿e Indian ¼¹¹ociation (CI¼) on januarY 21, 1886, at the Äir¹t Pari¹h Church in CamBrid¿e.
48
Âith thi¹ or¿anization, it finallY Became po¹¹iBle for Ma¹¹achu-
¹ett¹ women to en¿a¿e in Indian reform within the con¿enial confine¹ of a traditional female-dominated networkin¿ a¹¹ociation—no lon¿er dependent upon their hu¹Band¹’ memBer¹hip. Po¹¹iBlY Becau¹e of the ¹tate’¹ lon¿ hi¹torY of ¹ocial reform, ¹ome ¾I¼ Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Branche¹ from the verY Be¿innin¿ encoura¿ed men to Õoin. °e Lowell ¼¹¹ociation, or¿anized in the ¹ummer of 1885, had a numBer of cler¿Ymen and an armY captain amon¿ it¹ memBer¹hip; the fir¹t pre¹ident and one of the vice pre¹ident¹ of the Âorce¹ter ¼¹¹ociation were male; and the ¾ewton Indian ¼¹¹ociation wa¹ formed “BY the union of the ‘Âe¹t ¾ewton Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation,’ and a 49
workin¿ committee of ¿entlemen.”
°e CamBrid¿e Branch wa¹ de¹criBed
a¹ po¹¹e¹¹in¿ “¿reat vitalitY and ener¿Y,” lar¿elY Becau¹e the women received invaluaBle ¹upport in their puBlic meetin¿¹ from ¹uch prominent memBer¹ of the local IR¼ Branch a¹ ju¹tice Áliver Âendell ½olme¹; jame¹ Ru¹¹ell
¼ Place at the ËaBle
95
Lowell, a poet and former mini¹ter to Spain and Ón¿land; and jame¹ Àrad50
leY °aYer, a ½arvard law profe¹¹or.
°aYer wa¹ a memBer of the Ào¹ton Committee and the CamBrid¿e IR¼ Branch, and ¹erved a¹ chair of a le¿al committee e¹taBli¹hed in 1887 BY the 51
Lake Mohonk Conference.
½e worked clo¹elY with two ¾I¼ affiliate¹
that not onlY ¹pon¹ored hi¹ puBlic addre¹¹e¹ But puBli¹hed and di¹triButed them a¹ pamphlet¹. Ãurin¿ hi¹ MaY 1886 addre¹¹ at a Õoint puBlic meetin¿ called BY the CI¼, °aYer complimented hi¹ ¾I¼ ho¹te¹¹e¹, expre¹¹in¿ hi¹ “heartY approval” of the “¿eneral purpo¹e¹” of their work. ½i¹ topic wa¹ the propo¹ed Ãawe¹ ¹everaltY le¿i¹lation that had recentlY pa¹¹ed the Senate. °e CI¼ printed two thou¹and copie¹ of hi¹ remark¹, ¹endin¿ one to everY 52
memBer of Con¿re¹¹.
°e followin¿ Year in mid-ÄeBruarY, at the Äir¹t Unitarian Church, five daY¹ after Pre¹ident Grover Cleveland ¹i¿ned the Ãawe¹ Bill, ËhaYer addre¹¹ed a puBlic meetin¿ ¹pon¹ored ÕointlY BY the Ào¹ton Committee and the Âorce¹ter Indian ¼¹¹ociation, another ¾I¼ affiliate. ÀY thi¹ time, °aYer had Become an out¹poken critic of the le¿i¹lation. ½e did not di¹a¿ree with the ¹pirit of the law, onlY that it did not offer ¹ufficient le¿al protection for the Indian¹. °e Boston Daily Advertiser de¹criBed hi¹ addre¹¹ a¹ “the initial ¹tep” in “an a¿itation” ori¿inated BY the Ào¹ton Committee with detail¹ “perfected” BY °aYer. °e intent wa¹ to “pre¹ent a radical reform Bill” to Con¿re¹¹ the followin¿ winter and in the meantime to create “a 53
puBlic ¹entiment in . . . favor” of thi¹ propo¹ed le¿i¹lation.
¼lthou¿h he no
douBt would have ¿otten hi¹ me¹¹a¿e out, the ¾I¼ memBer¹hip, BY comBinin¿ their effort¹ with male reformer¹, had enaBled him to do ¹o in a con¿enial atmo¹phere. °e CI¼ often held Õoint puBlic meetin¿¹ with the male memBer¹ of the CamBrid¿e Branch of the IR¼. ¼nd IR¼ memBer¹ ¹uch a¹ °aYer and Reverend Lon¿fellow attended CI¼ meetin¿¹, ¹ometime¹ deliverin¿ addre¹¹e¹ Before their ¿atherin¿¹, which often numBered in the hundred¹. jo¹hua Â. Ãavi¹, a prominent memBer of the Ào¹ton Committee, wa¹ al¹o a frequent ¹peaker. Ãurin¿ the CI¼’¹ 1908 annual meetin¿, Matthew K. Sniffen, corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY of the IR¼, de¹criBed hi¹ late¹t vi¹it to the ¾avaÕo¹, 54
reportin¿ on the pro¿re¹¹ of the CI¼’¹ mi¹¹ionarY effort¹ amon¿ them.
Óllen ¼. Goodwin, pre¹ident of the CI¼, wrote of her a¹¹ociation’¹ effort¹ to ¹end petition¹ to Con¿re¹¹. “°i¹ we did to¿ether with the CamBrid¿e
96
ÌÈTHEs
Àranch of the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation,” ¹he noted, “with whom we have alwaY¹ Been on the mo¹t friendlY term¹; indeed, mo¹t of our puBlic work ha¹ Been done with them, and almo¹t all the puBlic meetin¿¹ that have Been held in CamBrid¿e have Been under the au¹pice¹ of the two ¼¹¹ociation¹ comBined.”
55
Âilliam Lawrence, ¹ecretarY of the CamBrid¿e Branch of the IR¼,
confirmed their cooperation when he wrote: “°e Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, which ha¹ Been or¿anized ¹ince our la¹t ¼nnual Meetin¿, ha¹ worked in harmonY with u¹.”
56
Àa¹ed on corre¹pondence Between Quinton and ½erBert Âel¹h, con¿enial relation¹ al¹o exi¹ted Between the headquarter¹ of the ¾I¼ and the IR¼.
57
¼t time¹, Âel¹h called upon Quinton and her ¾I¼ memBer¹ for
a¹¹i¹tance. Äor example, to ¹ave Indian Commi¹¹ioner john ½. ÁBerlY from Bein¿ replaced BY the incomin¿ admini¹tration, Âel¹h ¹ent pro-ÁBerlY petition¹ to Quinton to di¹triBute to her memBer¹hip. In a mid-ÄeBruarY 1889 letter, ¹he offered to print one of hi¹ pro-ÁBerlY letter¹ in the a¹¹ociation’¹ monthlY, the Indian’s Friend. It appeared prominentlY in that month’¹ i¹¹ue.
58
UnfortunatelY, their comBined effort¹ on ÁBerlY’¹ Behalf would fail, and a new Indian commi¹¹ioner wa¹ appointed. In ÄeBruarY 1892, Âel¹h a¿ain turned to the ¾I¼ for ¹upport, thi¹ time to Back the IR¼’¹ fi¿ht to prevent the removal of the Ute Indian¹ from their Colorado home. Án ÄeBruarY 21, Quinton re¹ponded: “°i¹ Ute matter make¹ everY drop of one’¹ Blood Boil with indi¿nation & chill with ¿rief BY turn¹.” She de¹criBed the Ute removal a¹ “manife¹tlY wicked & fooli¹h!” She a¿ain rallied her memBer¹, ¹endin¿ out letter¹ to variou¹ Branche¹ a¹ well a¹ 59
official ¾I¼ leaflet¹.
Ëwo Year¹ earlier, on March 20, 1890, to ¹upport
the IR¼ po¹ition, ¹he had written an article for the National Baptist, which the ¾I¼ had reprinted a¹ a leaflet entitled “°e Ute Que¹tion.” Quinton complained that their removal “would ¹hift the evil¹ and Burden¹ complained of BY Colorado to the unwillin¿ ¹houlder¹ of the people of Utah.” She wonder if in Chri¹tian ¼merica “another native triBe of men and women can Be de¹poiled of their ri¿ht¹, roBBed of their home¹ and Be driven from ¿ood land where ¹elf ¹upport and civilization with hone¹t effort on the part of Government can Be achieved to a mountain de¹ert where civilization and civilized ¹elf ¹upport are impo¹¹iBle, and where a war of extermination i¹ inevitaBle?”
60
Individual memBer¹ of variou¹ ¾I¼ auxiliarie¹ al¹o felt comfortaBle
¼ Place at the ËaBle
97
writin¿ directlY to IR¼ official¹ for a¹¹i¹tance. Äor example, in mid-june 1901, a repre¹entative from the ¾I¼’¹ ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation in San jo¹e reque¹ted moneY to BuY a ¹mall tract for a homele¹¹ Band of Indian¹. ¼fter appealin¿ to it¹ memBer¹hip, the IR¼ rai¹ed $312, enaBlin¿ 61
the San jo¹e reformer¹ to purcha¹e fortY acre¹ for the¹e Indian¹.
Ärom the Be¿innin¿, the ¾I¼ and IR¼ re¹olved to appoint a mutual advi¹orY Board and ¹end an executive Board repre¹entative to each other’¹ meetin¿¹ a¹ well a¹ make formal pre¹entation¹ to their re¹pective convention¹. Àoth a¹¹ociation¹ reported the meetin¿¹ and reform work of the other in their re¹pective annual report¹. In 1885, the IR¼ recorded it¹ appreciation of the women’¹ work, de¹criBin¿ their indeBtedne¹¹ for the manY opportunitie¹ the ¾I¼ afforded for puBlic ¹peakin¿ on the IR¼’¹ Indian work and for di¹triButin¿ their pamphlet¹ and other puBlication¹. °e followin¿ Year an out¹ide oB¹erver, Ódward Ó. ½ale, editor of the Õournal Lend A Hand, wrote that the two a¹¹ociation¹, “havin¿ the ¹ame end in view, are workin¿ to¿ether in perfect harmonY, althou¿h, from the nece¹¹itie¹ of the ca¹e, alon¿ ¹omewhat different line¹.”
62
¾I¼ officer¹ al¹o prai¹ed the IR¼. MarY Lucinda ÀonneY acknowled¿ed the men’¹ aBilitY to pur¹ue the “verY oBÕect¹ which had previou¹lY whollY occupied” our attention, while MarY Lowe Ãickin¹on, ¾I¼ pre¹ident, de¹criBed the IR¼ “with ¿rateful emotion¹” a¹ a ¹tron¿ Youn¿er Brother ma¹¹in¿ “it¹ force¹ a¿ain¹t the le¿al and political Barrier¹ in the waY of Indian elevation.”
63
°e ¾I¼ ¿eneral memBer¹hip reco¿nized the IR¼
a¹ an “a¹¹ociate” ¹ocietY workin¿ to ¹ecure Õu¹tice and opportunitie¹ for the Indian¹. In turn, the IR¼ credited the women with plannin¿ and executin¿ 64
the work that theY were carrYin¿ forward.
Ãurin¿ the fourteenth annual
ÀIC conference in januarY 1885, ½erBert Âel¹h paid triBute to the admiraBle work of the ¾I¼: “°ere are ¹ome thin¿¹ which, in the pre¹ent a¿e, can Be pu¹hed Better BY men,” he remarked, “But the two ¹ocietie¹ ¹tand ¹ide BY ¹ide, the ¹li¿ht diver¿ence Bein¿ that men have more to do with political matter¹.”
65
Áne of the mo¹t tellin¿ example¹ of the lon¿-¹tandin¿ affiliation
Between the two a¹¹ociation¹ wa¹ a remark made BY the IR¼’¹ Matthew Sniffen at the ¾I¼ ¿olden anniver¹arY luncheon in ÃecemBer 1929. ½e informed the audience that he had vi¹ited everY ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY ¹tation, findin¿ “excellent work done BY efficient and devoted mi¹¹ionarie¹.”
66
Áf all the collaBorative work Between the ¾I¼ and other Indian
98
ÌÈTHEs
reformer¹, the mo¹t meanin¿ful wa¹ at Lake Mohonk, where a¹ earlY a¹ 1887 Quinton a¹ked and an¹wered: “Âhat can women do in [the] Indian¹’ Behalf?”
67
Àecau¹e we covered ¾I¼ participation at the conference¹ in 68
our previou¹ antholo¿Y,
I will let Á¹ia jane jo¹lYn ½ile¹, a memBer of the
Âi¹con¹in Indian ¼¹¹ociation, ¹peak for all ¾I¼ attendee¹ at Lake Mohonk: “¾ow I ¹uppo¹ed the ¹uBÕect to Be taken up i¹, what women can do in thi¹ work,” ¹he declared. “I think it would Be Better to tell what theY can not do. I do not Believe there i¹ anYthin¿ that a woman can’t do if ¹he 69
undertake¹ to do it.”
°i¹ ¹entiment, multiplied numerou¹ time¹ over BY ¾I¼ memBer¹, and the effective cro¹¹-¿ender interaction and cooperation theY had with the mo¹tlY male-dominated reform a¹¹ociation¹, ¿o a lon¿ waY to explain whY the ¾I¼ accompli¹hed a¹ much a¹ it did durin¿ it¹ more than ¹eventY Year¹ of mi¹¹ionarY work. Âhile their male counterpart¹ maintained control of politic¹, comfortaBle with direct loBBYin¿ in the all-male hall¹ of Con¿re¹¹, under the effective ¿uidance of Charle¹ C. Painter and hi¹ ¹ucce¹¹or after Painter’¹ untimelY death in 1895, ¾I¼ memBer¹, lon¿ connected to the per¹onal mini¹tration¹ of mi¹¹ionarY work and claimin¿ fieldwork a¹ their province, provided direct phY¹ical comfort a¹ well a¹ educational ¹upport and medical care for Indian people at more than ¹ixtY mi¹¹ionarY ¹ite¹. ½ere, theY provided a phY¹ical infra¹tructure, includin¿ chapel¹, mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e¹, ho¹pital¹, and ¹chool¹, where ¾I¼ memBer¹ and ¾I¼ ¹upport ¹taff followed the ¿overnment’¹ a¹¹imilationi¹t pro¿ram—one theY had helped create.
Notes 1. Prucha, “Indian PolicY Reform,” 231. °e ¹cope of thi¹ chapter i¹ limited onlY to the¹e four a¹¹imilationi¹t or¿anization¹ dominated BY evan¿elical Chri¹tian¹. 2. Äor the fir¹t quotation, ¹ee ¾Ye, Society and Culture in America, 285; and, for the ¹econd, McLou¿hlin, °e American Evangelicals, 1. 3. Âelter, “°e Cult of Ërue Âomanhood,” 21. ¾umerou¹ other ¹tudie¹ of the ¹uBÕect include RYan, “¼merican SocietY and the Cult of Ãome¹ticitY”; and Simon¹en,
Making Home Work. Mar¿aret jacoB¹, in White Mother to a Dark Race, 88–95, call¹ thi¹ “¼merican maternali¹m”; ¹ee 93–95 for a reference to the ¾I¼. 4. Äor a new interpretation, ¹ee john M. Rhea’¹ e¹¹aY “Ärom Indian ËerritorY to Philadelphia: ¼ Critical Reexamination of the Ári¿in¹ and ÓarlY ½i¹torY of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1877–1881,” chapter 1 of thi¹ volume. Äor the
¼ Place at the ËaBle
99
traditional hi¹torY, ¹ee Keen, °e Bi-Centennial Celebration, 391. MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton had earlier cooperated with the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY of Chica¿o, founded in earlY 1877 to en¿a¿e in mi¹¹ionarY work on Behalf of Indian women and children—work that the ¾I¼ pur¹ued from 1883 to 1951. ÀY the third meetin¿, Quinton had Been appointed ¹ecretarY pro tem. See Wom-
en’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882 , 7. 5. Ärom it¹ inception, the ¾I¼ worked with Prote¹tant cler¿Ymen, fillin¿ the maÕoritY of it¹ advi¹orY Board po¹ition¹ with cler¿Y from different denomination¹. 6. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 377; and “¼ ½i¹torical Sketch,” Indian’s Friend, ÁctoBer 1896, 2. 7. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 379. Äor a contemporarY account, ¹ee ÃeweY,
Historical Sketch. ÄinanciallY ¹ecure, ÀonneY owned the Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY, an exclu¹ive private fini¹hin¿ ¹chool in Philadelphia. Äor more, ¹ee ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, “MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut: Óducator and Indian Reformer,” chapter 6 in thi¹ volume. 8. Mathe¹, “MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton,” 421–40. 9. RYan, Womanhood in America, 88. 10. Zae¹ke, Signatures of Citizenship , 3. 11. “Memorial Letter, ¼ccompanYin¿ the Indian Petition of 1881,” in Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 380. Àeecher wa¹ the dau¿hter of Pre¹BYterian cler¿Yman LYman Àeecher and ¹i¹ter to ½arriet Àeecher Stowe. See “Catharine Àeecher: Circular ¼ddre¹¹ed to Àenevolent Ladie¹ of the U. State¹,” in Perdue and Green, °e Cherokee
Removal, 113–14; and ½er¹hBer¿er, “MoBilizin¿ Âomen, ¼nticipatin¿ ¼Bolition,” 15–40. 12. US Con¿re¹¹, ½ou¹e, “ÁB¹ervance of Indian ËreatY Stipulation¹,” Con¿. Rec., ¸ol. X, Part II, 46th Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., ÄeBruarY 20, 1880, 1044; Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 378; and ÃeweY, Historical Sketch, 8–9, for the text of the petition. In “Ëo the Óditor of the ¾ational Àapti¹t,” National Baptist, ÄeBruarY 19, 1880, ÀonneY wa¹ de¹criBed a¹ “moved BY a ¹tron¿ moral conviction of the ri¿ht of the Indian¹ to ‘life, liBertY, and the pur¹uit of happine¹¹,’” promotin¿ a petition ¹i¿ned BY “nearlY all cla¹¹e¹ in our land.” 13. US Con¿re¹¹, Senate, “Senator Ãawe¹ Pre¹ent¹ Petition,” Con¿. Rec., 46th Con¿., 3rd ¹e¹¹., januarY 27, 1881, 953–54; and Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 379–80. 14. °e twentY Year¹ wa¹ later chan¿ed to twentY-five. °e¹e concept¹ had Been recommended BY the Ào¹ton Indian Committee; ¹ee “Äinal Recommendation¹,”
Indian Question: Report of the Committee Appointed by Hon. John D. Long, 25–26. 15. US Con¿re¹¹, Senate, Proceedings on the Occasion of the Presentation of the Petition of the Women’s National Indian Association, by Hon. H. L. Dawes, ÄeBruarY 21, 1882, 1–12; and US Con¿re¹¹, Senate, “Ri¿ht¹ of Indian¹,” Con¿. Rec., ¸ol. XIII, Part II, 47th Con¿., 1¹t ¹e¹¹., ÄeBruarY 21, 1882, 1327. See al¹o Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 382. 16. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 383. 17. “Preface, and Minute¹, Ãec. 11, Ãec. 31, 1880, and jan. 20, 1881, Meetin¿¹,”
100
ÌÈTHEs
Minute¹ of the Óxecutive Àoard of the ¾I¼, Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation from ÃecemBer 1880, 1–6, 8–9. ÓarlY memBer¹ included Ópi¹copalian¹, Pre¹BYterian¹, Quaker¹, and Methodi¹t-Ópi¹copalian¹. 18. “Minute¹ of the March 17 and june 3, 1881, Meetin¿¹,” Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation, 10–17; for the con¹titution, ¹ee 18–20; ¹ee al¹o “°e Chronolo¿Y of Áur Ár¿anization,” Indian’s Friend , ÄeBruarY 1897, 2. In the “Philadelphia Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Ë. ¼. (°oma¹ ¼u¿u¹tu¹) Àland prai¹ed the women for havin¿ made the Indian movement “¹o prominent and effective.” °eir work, Àland noted, ¹ecured “Õu¹tice, citizen¹hip and permanent home¹ to Indian¹” (Council Fire and
Arbitrator , March 1883, 42). 19. ÃeweY, Historical Sketch , 20. ÀY ¾ovemBer 1884, the a¹¹ociation had thirtYei¿ht Branche¹. Ãurin¿ that Year, Quinton traveled more than ten thou¹and mile¹, or¿anizin¿ ten new ¹tate Branche¹; ¹ee ¾I¼, “°e Âorld of Áur General SecretarY,” Äourth ¼nnual Report of the ¾I¼, 27–30. 20. Äor education, ¹ee “Óleventh Meetin¿, Áct. 3,” 1882, Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation, 47; ¹ee al¹o ¾I¼, “Con¹titution of the ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Äourth ¼nnual Report of the ¾I¼, 57. Äor mi¹¹ionarY work, ¹ee Âanken, “‘Âoman’¹ Sphere’ and Indian Reform,” 253–76. 21. ¾I¼, “¾ew Âork,” ¼nnual Meetin¿ and Report of the ¾I¼, ÁctoBer 27, 1883, 10. 22. Mathe¹, “Ào¹ton, the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, and the Ponca¹.” Like the ¾I¼, the Ào¹ton Committee went throu¿h name chan¿e¹—the Ponca Indian Committee, the Committee of Äive, and the Ào¹ton Committee on Indian Reform¹ and the Ponca Âron¿¹; ¹ee “Mr. Schurz and the Ponca¹,” New York Times , januarY 10, 1881, 5. °e earlie¹t u¹e of the name “Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee” appeared in ËiBBle¹’¹ °e Ponca Chiefs: An Indian’s Attempt , 146ff. ËiBBle¹, in Buck-
skin and Blanket Days, 207, write¹: “MY plain ¹tatement of fact¹ re¹ulted in the Birth of a Ponca committee of five leadin¿ Ào¹tonian¹ who promptlY planned a Bi¿ puBlic ¿atherin¿.” 23. °e editorial “Indian¹ and the Law,” Boston Daily Advertiser, julY 29, 1879, 2, determined that the Indian had “no le¿al protection whatever, and in thi¹ re¹pect hi¹ ca¹e i¹ peculiar and exceptional.” IronicallY, had the Ponca¹ re¹ided in Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, theY would alreadY Be citizen¹. °e 1869 Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian Ónfranchi¹ement ¼ct declared all Indian¹ and people of color citizen¹ of the Commonwealth, entitled to all ri¿ht¹ and privile¿e¹ of citizen¹hip. See Plane and Àutton, “°e Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian Ónfranchi¹ement ¼ct.” 24. ËiBBle¹, Buckskin and Blanket Days, 199. See al¹o Mathe¹ and Lowitt, °e Standing Bear Controversy ; and ËiBBle¹, °e Ponca Chiefs: An Account of the Trial. 25. Goddard, “°e StorY of the Ponca¹,” 404; and “Indian¹ and the Law,” Boston Daily Advertiser, julY 29, 1879, 2. 26. ÀenÕamin ÂeBB Âilliam¹, Ào¹ton Lecture Àureau; Reverend ½ale; the Reverend Âilliam ÀradleY, pa¹tor of the ½eath Street Mi¹¹ion; Àaxter PerrY Smith,
¼ Place at the ËaBle
101
philanthropi¹t and hi¹torian; and Charle¹ R. Ladd, former ¹tate le¿i¹lator and current ¹tate auditor. See “°e Poor Ponca¹: Sufferin¿ of ÄriendlY Indian¹ under Áur Law¹,”
Boston Daily Advertiser, julY 31, 1879, 1. 27. Ärederick Á. Prince, Ào¹ton maYor; °oma¹ ËalBot, recentlY retired ¿overnor; Ódward I¹aiah °oma¹, ¹tate le¿i¹lator and philanthropi¹t; ½enrY Á¹car ½ou¿hton, puBli¹her; Ärank Âood, printer; john S. Lockwood, Book¹eller and ¹tate a¹¹i¹tant adÕutant ¿eneral; jo¹hua Â. Ãavi¹, financier; Levi Clifford Âade, ¹peaker of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Lower ½ou¹e; the Reverend Samuel Kirkland Lothrop, former pa¹tor of the Church in Àrattle Square; ½enrY Ma¹on, owner of the Ma¹on and ½amlin Ár¿an CompanY; and Samuel À. Capen, Banker. See “°e Ponca Indian Committee,” Boston
Daily Advertiser, ¼u¿u¹t 11, 1879, 1; and “Local Mi¹cellanY,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ¼u¿u¹t 12, 1879, 4. 28. Mathe¹ and Àri¿andi, A Call for Reform; Mathe¹, “½elen ½unt jack¹on, ¼melia Stone Quinton, and the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of California”; Mathe¹, Divinely Guided , 177–203; Mathe¹, Helen Hunt Jackson and Her Indian Reform Legacy, 21–37; and Phil Àri¿andi, “½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án: ½elen ½unt jack¹on’¹ Äollower¹ in the Indian Reform Movement,” chapter 4 in thi¹ volume. 29. °oma¹ ËalBot, former Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ ¿overnor; Âilliam ½. Lincoln, of the ¹hippin¿ firm of °aYer and Lincoln; Ärederick Á. Prince, maYor of Ào¹ton; the Reverend Rufu¹ Ólli¹, Unitarian pa¹tor of the Äir¹t Church in Ào¹ton; and john Â. Candler, former ¹tate le¿i¹lator and later con¿re¹¹man. See “°e Poor Ponca¹: ¼ ¾oondaY Meetin¿ of Àu¹Y Ào¹ton Merchant¹,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ¾ovemBer 26, 1879, 4; and an editorial from the ¹ame i¹¹ue, “°e Meetin¿ at the Merchant¹’ Óxchan¿e,” 2. 30.
Indian Question: Report of the Committee Appointed by Hon. John D. Long, 25–26;
and “°e SecretarY of the Interior and the Indian Que¹tion,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ÄeBruarY 3, 1880, 2. 31. Samuel jordan Kirkwood, Iowa, chair; Pre¹ton À. PlumB, Kan¹a¹; john ËYler Mor¿an, ¼laBama; jame¹ Ódward ÀaileY, Ëenne¹¹ee; and ½enrY Lauren¹ Ãawe¹, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. See, for example, “Con¿re¹¹ and the Ponca¹,” ÄeBruarY 5, 1880, 4; “¼t the ¾ational Capital,” ÄeBruarY 14, 1880, 1; and “Indian ¼ffair¹,” ÄeBruarY 19, 1880, 1, in the
New York Tribune ; and “°e Ponca¹’ Complaint¹,” New York Times, ÄeBruarY 15, 1880, 1. 32. US Con¿re¹¹, Senate, “Ëe¹timonY Relatin¿ to the Removal of the Ponca Indian¹,” 46th Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., 1880, S. Rept. 670, Serial 1898, xix; “°e Poor Ponca¹,” Bos-
ton Daily Globe , ÄeBruarY 17, 1880, 2; and “Âa¹hin¿ton: Propo¹ed Le¿i¹lation in ¼id of the Indian ËriBe¹,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ÄeBruarY 16, 1880, 1. 33. Ãawe¹ to ½aYe¹, ¾ovemBer 24, 1880, and Goddard to Ãawe¹, ¾ovemBer 25, 1880, Àox 24, ½enrY Lauren¹ Ãawe¹ Paper¹; and “°e Ponca¹: Ào¹ton’¹ SYmpathY for °eir Áutra¿e¹ and Âron¿¹,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ÃecemBer 4, 1880, 1. 34. Geor¿e Crook and ¾el¹on ¼. Mile¹, US ¼rmY; Âilliam StickneY, Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹; and Âalter ¼llen, Ào¹ton Committee. See “¼ Commi¹¹ion ¼ppointed to ¸i¹it the Ponca Indian¹,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ÃecemBer 11, 1; and “°e Ponca Indian Commi¹¹ion Completed,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ÃecemBer 20, 1880, 1.
102
ÌÈTHEs
35. “Ponca¹,” Commi¹¹ioner of Indian ¼ffair¹, ¼nnual Report of the Commi¹¹ioner of Indian ¼ffair¹ to the SecretarY of the Interior for the Ôear 1881, 47–48. In ¼u¿u¹t, the Sioux returned a portion of the Standin¿ Àear Band’¹ former re¹ervation to them. See “¼ ¾ew ½ome for the Ponca¹,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ¼u¿u¹t 19, 1881, 1; and “°e Ponca Settlement,” Boston Daily Advertiser, ¼u¿u¹t 22, 1881, 2. °e Ponca re¹ervation had Been mi¹takenlY included in the Great Sioux Re¹ervation when that wa¹ created in 1868. 36. Created in 1869 a¹ part of Pre¹ident UlY¹¹e¹ S. Grant’¹ “Peace PolicY,” it wa¹ compo¹ed of unpaid philanthropi¹t¹ and humanitarian¹ authorized to exerci¹e Õoint control with the Interior Ãepartment. 37. ½a¿an, °e Indian Rights Association, 11–19. 38. IBid., 25. Âhile the IR¼ had twentY-ei¿ht Branche¹ in 1888, over half “moriBund” (½a¿an, 48), three Year¹ earlier in 1885 the ¾I¼ had fiftY-¹ix Branche¹ in twentY-¹even ¹tate¹; ¹ee Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 385. 39. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation, CamBrid¿e Àranch, SecretarY’¹ Record¹, March 1885, 2. See al¹o “CamBrid¿e and the Indian¹,” Cambridge Tribune, ÃecemBer 24, 1887, 2, which include¹ a Brief hi¹torY and detail¹ aBout the admi¹¹ion of women. 40. ½a¿an, °e Indian Rights Association, 256 (for quotation), 23 (for Sniffen). 41. IBid., 257. See al¹o Mathe¹ and Àri¿andi, “Charle¹ C. Painter, ½elen ½unt jack¹on, and the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹.” 42. Àur¿e¹¹, “°e Lake Mohonk Conference¹.” 43. IBid., 19–22. 44. IBid., 70–71. 45. Óthnolo¿i¹t ¼lice Cunnin¿ham Äletcher, PeaBodY Mu¹eum, ½arvard; Sara KinneY, vice pre¹ident, Connecticut Indian ¼¹¹ociation; and Sara SmileY and Óliza SmileY, the ¹i¹ter and wife of ¼lBert K. SmileY, attended in 1884. 46. Äor ½ou¿hton’¹ role, ¹ee “CamBrid¿e,” Boston Evening Journal, ¼pril 13, 1891; and “ÁBituarY ¾ote¹,” Publishers’ Weekly 39 (januarY–june 1891): 573. 47. Àullard wa¹ married to Stephen ½. Àullard, a partner in the merchant ¹hippin¿ firm Àullard, Lee and CompanY; ½emenwaY wa¹ the widow of ¼u¿u¹tu¹ ½emenwaY; and Äro¹t wa¹ married to Rufu¹ S. Äro¹t, a wool merchant, former le¿i¹lator, and pre¹ident of the Ào¹ton Àoard of Ërade. Áther memBer¹ were Mr¹. Â. Â. Goodwin, Mr¹. S. Ë. ½ooper, MarY Ó. ÃeweY (later corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation), and ¼lice M. jone¹. See “Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee Memorial,” appendix to Mor¿an, °e Present Phase of the Indian Question , 22–23. Äor more on Lon¿fellow, ¹ee Mathe¹, “°e Àanner ¼¹¹ociation.” ÀY ÄeBruarY 1887, Àullard and Lon¿fellow were li¹ted a¹ memBer¹; ¹ee Crook, General
George Crook: His Autobiography, 269. °e followin¿ name¹ were li¹ted a¹ memBer¹ in ËiBBle¹, °e Ponca Chiefs: An Indian’s Attempt, 147: Àullard, ½emenwaY, Goddard, Goodwin, ½ooper, ÃeweY, Lon¿fellow, and jone¹. 48. “Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Boston Evening Journal, januarY 23, 1883, 3; Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, ¼nnual Report, januarY 1884, 8; and Constitution of
¼ Place at the ËaBle
103
the Cambridge Branch of the Massachusetts Indian Association, 13. See al¹o Mathe¹, “°e Àanner ¼¹¹ociation,” 153–72. 49. ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ovemBer 17, 1885, 17–18. Äor ¾ewton, ¹ee ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ovemBer 1886, 18. 50. ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ovemBer 1886, 16–17. 51. Lake Mohonk Conference, “°ird Se¹¹ion, Le¿i¹lation for the Indian,” Proceedin¿¹ of the Sixth ¼nnual Meetin¿ of the Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian (1888), 44. 52. ¼ copY of jame¹ À. °aYer’¹ “Remark¹ Made at a Meetin¿ in CamBrid¿e, Ma¹¹., Called BY the Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation of °at CitY, MaY 3, 1886,” wa¹ pa¹ted onto pa¿e 33 (¹ee al¹o 31) of the CamBrid¿e Àranch of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, Record¹ 1886–1923, vol. 1, 1886–1888, Box 1, folder 1. 53. jame¹ À. °aYer, “Remark¹ Made Before the Âorce¹ter Indian ¼¹¹ociation at Âorce¹ter, Ma¹¹., ÄeBruarY 13, 1887,” in “Civilizin¿ the Indian,” Boston Daily Adver-
tiser, ÄeBruarY 14, 1887, 1. °e propo¹ed le¿i¹lation, the °aYer Bill, never Became law. Quinton had e¹taBli¹hed the Âorce¹ter Indian ¼¹¹ociation on june 5, 1885; ¹ee ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ovemBer 17, 1885, 16. 54. See “°e Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Boston Daily Advertiser, januarY 21, 1887, 1; “Áld CamBrid¿e Ma¹¹. Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Cambridge Press, januarY 21, 1888, 2; “Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Cambridge Chronicle , March 3, 1888, 1; and “°e Indian Que¹tion,” Cam-
bridge Tribune , MaY 24, 1890, 7. Äor Sniffen, ¹ee “Indian¹’ Äriend¹,” Cambridge Tribune , januarY 11, 1908, 3. 55. “Pre¹ident’¹ Report,” Constitution of the Cambridge Branch of the Massachusetts Indian Association , 13. Äor the Õoint petition, ¹ee CamBrid¿e Àranch of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, Record¹ 1886–1923, vol. 1, 1886–1888, Box 1, folder 1, 17, 19; for Õoint work with the Ào¹ton Committee, 25–27, 94. 56. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation, CamBrid¿e Àranch, SecretarY’¹ Record¹, March 1885, 22, for quotation; ¹ee al¹o 1, 18, 20–22, 51–52 for additional example¹ of cooperation. Äor relation¹ Between the ¾I¼ and the IR¼ ¹ee “°e Indian ¼¹¹ociation,”
Indian’s Friend, ÁctoBer 1903, 2, 10. 57. Âel¹h’¹ letter¹ can Be found in the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Paper¹ at the ½i¹torical SocietY of Penn¹Ylvania, Philadelphia. 58. Quinton to Âel¹h, ÄeBruarY 15, 1889, Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Paper¹, 1864– 1973, Serie¹ 1-¼, Incomin¿ Corre¹pondence, 1864–1968, microfilm edition (hereafter IR¼ Paper¹), Reel 4; Âel¹h’¹ letter appeared a¹ ½erBert Âel¹h, “Good Indian Âork,”
Indian’s Friend, ÄeBruarY 1889, 1. 59. Quinton to Âel¹h, ÄeBruarY 21, 1892, IR¼ Paper¹, Reel 8; and ½a¿an, °e
Indian Rights Association, 129–30. 60. Quinton, “°e Ute Que¹tion.” 61. ½annah Ó. Àean to Philip Garrett, june 19, 1901, IR¼ Paper¹, Reel 15; for the re¹pon¹e, ¹ee “½elp Rendered a Mi¹¹ionarY,” Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee, ¾ineteenth ¼nnual Report, 1901, 32–34; and “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s
104
ÌÈTHEs
Friend, ÃecemBer 1901, 4, for the purcha¹e. Áther memBer¹ who wrote to the IR¼ included MI¼ memBer¹ ÓlizaBeth Àullard, MarY ÃeweY, ¼nna L. Ãawe¹, and Ärance¹ C. Sparhawk; Sara Ë. KinneY from the Connecticut Branch; Cornelia ËaBer, her mother ¼nna, and C. Ó. Kel¹eY from the San jo¹e affiliate; and john Â. Clark, corre¹pondin¿ and executive ¹ecretarY of the ¾I¼’¹ Philadelphia office. 62. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee, Second ¼nnual Report, 1885, 13; and ½ale, “°e Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation,” 57. 63. ¾I¼, “Report of the Mi¹¹ionarY Committee,” Äourth ¼nnual Report, 32, for ÀonneY; and ¾I¼, “¼ddre¹¹ of the Pre¹ident of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” 9. 64. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee, °ird ¼nnual Report, 1886, 13, noted that the two a¹¹ociation¹ were “workin¿ in perfect harmonY, and each help¹ to ¹ecure the Better accompli¹hment of the other’¹ work.” 65. Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, “journal of the Äourteenth ¼nnual Conference with Repre¹entative¹ of Mi¹¹ionarY Àoard¹ and Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation,” Sixteenth ¼nnual Report of the ÀIC, 1884, 56. 66. “°e Äiftieth ¼nniver¹arY Luncheon,” Indian’s Friend, januarY 1930, 5. Äor a li¹t of mi¹¹ion¹, ¹ee Mathe¹, “¼ppendix: ¾I¼ Mi¹¹ionarY Station¹,” in °e Women’s
National Indian Association: A History, 301–11. 67. Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, “Second ÃaY: ¼fternoon Se¹¹ion,” ¾ineteenth ¼nnual Report of the ÀIC, 1887, 78. 68. Àur¿e¹¹, “Âhat I¹ a Âoman Âorth?”; and Cahill, “¾oBle Âomen ¾ot a Äew.” Äor ¾ew Ôork women at Lake Mohonk, ¹ee al¹o Mathe¹, “¾ew Ôork Âomen and Indian Reform.” 69. Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, “Second ÃaY: ¼fternoon Se¹¹ion,” ¾ineteenth ¼nnual Report of the ÀIC, 1887, 79. ¼nnuallY, the Indian’s Friend printed a detailed ¹ummarY of the Mohonk meetin¿ for memBer¹ unaBle to attend.
ÌO´E THÈN È N y other ¹in¿le female Indian reform advocate, ½elen ½unt jack¹on (1830–1885) had a profound impact upon other reformer¹, e¹peciallY tho¹e workin¿ in ¹outhern California. Âhen her muckrakin¿ expo¹é of the ¿overnment’¹ Indian policY, A Century of Dishonor (1881), failed to elicit the re¹pon¹e ¹he hoped, ¹he wrote her novel, Ramona (1884), Ba¹ed on impre¹¹ion¹ and information ¿athered durin¿ her vi¹it¹ to ¹outhern California. jack¹on fir¹t vi¹ited the re¿ion a¹ a Õournali¹t in 1881–1882, commi¹¹ioned to write a ¹erie¹ of article¹ for Century Magazine. Ãurin¿ that tour, ¹he Became aware of the pli¿ht of the local Indian¹ (u¹uallY called the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ at the time), ¿ivin¿ her a ¹pecific focu¹ for her ¿eneral reform effort¹. She wa¹ appointed BY the Interior Ãepartment a¹ a ¹pecial a¿ent to return to California in 1883 and locate ¹uitaBle land¹ within the puBlic domain for permanent re¹ervation¹. ½er fiftY-¹ix-pa¿e ¿overnment report included a hi¹torY of the variou¹ villa¿e¹ and a ¹erie¹ of recommendation¹ that were later incorporated into an 1891 Bill for the relief of the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹. Still, it wa¹ her 1884 novel that drew the ¿reate¹t re¹pon¹e. Äollowin¿ the lead of ½arriet Àeecher Stowe, ¹he hoped to chan¿e puBlic attitude¹ thou¿h a work of romantic fiction. Àut ¹he did her work too well; her portraYal of Ramona wa¹ ¹o reali¹tic that manY Believed the character actuallY exi¹ted, promptin¿ a touri¹t Boom that Blunted the impact of her plea. Àoth ¼melia Stone Quinton and Charle¹ C. Painter, the Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, a¿ent for the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation, claimed to have met the real Ramona, althou¿h theY were al¹o well aware of the realitY of jack¹on’¹ reform me¹¹a¿e, and their or¿anization¹ u¹ed the popularitY of her novel to help further their own effort¹. ¼fter jack¹on’¹ death, Painter would ¹pent almo¹t an entire Year (in 1891) a¹ a memBer of the California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion e¹taBli¹hin¿ re¹ervation¹ that ¹till exi¹t todaY, and the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian
Part 3. °e Influence of Helen Hunt Jackson
¼¹¹ociation named their mi¹¹ionarY field amon¿ the¹e Indian¹ the Ramona Mi¹¹ion. Ëwo ¹cholar¹ have written chapter¹ here on jack¹on’¹ impact upon the Indian reform movement. Phil Àri¿andi di¹cu¹¹e¹ the author her¹elf and her ri¹e a¹ a reformer. ½er vi¹it¹ to ¹outhern California in the earlY 1880¹ were central to her effort¹. °ere, ¹he vi¹ited and talked with the Indian¹ them¹elve¹. Âhile her intention¹ remained national, ¹he now focu¹ed much of her effort on the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹. ½er earlY death in 1885 Brou¿ht the¹e effort¹ to an end, But the ¾I¼ and other Indian a¹¹ociation¹ carried on her name and her work, makin¿ ¹i¿nificant ¹tride¹. jack¹on’¹ connection¹ to ¹outhern California prompted ¹uch reform-minded women a¹ ¾I¼ pre¹ident ¼melia Stone Quinton and author and anthropolo¿i¹t Con¹tance Goddard ÃuÀoi¹ to work on their Behalf. Ãavid Âallace ¼dam¹ de¹criBe¹ the fictional writin¿¹ of Ärance¹ CampBell Sparhawk, a ¾I¼ memBer who ¹erved a¹ director of the Ãepartment of Indian LiBrarie¹ and the Indian Indu¹trie¹ Lea¿ue. ¼ ¿ifted author, partiallY in¹pired BY jack¹on, Sparhawk wrote three novel¹ ¹upportin¿ the Indian cau¹e that were widelY read althou¿h later i¿nored BY hi¹torian¹. She wa¹ a follower and devotee of Richard ½enrY Pratt, founder and lon¿time ¹uperintendent of Carli¹le Indian School in Carli¹le, Penn¹Ylvania. Like Pratt, ¹he Believed that the “civilization” of ¾ative Youth could Be¹t Be accompli¹hed BY removin¿ them from their “¹ava¿e” re¹ervation environment¹ and placin¿ them in location¹ where opportunitie¹ for work and cultural uplift were more promi¹in¿. °e lack of ¹cholarlY attention to Sparhawk i¹ a mY¹terY ¿iven the amount of ¹upport ¹he received from tho¹e active in the cau¹e of reform. Ëe¹timonY to her influence i¹ the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation’¹ purcha¹e of five hundred copie¹ of her ¹econd novel for di¹triBution to it¹ memBer¹.
ÍHÈÖTE´ 4
Her Soul Is Marching On Helen Hunt Jackson’s Followers in the Indian Reform Movement ÏH²Å д²gÈND²
×HE ÚÇDgÊENT OF hi¹torY i¹ a manY-¹ided con¹ideration. ¾ot onlY mu¹t ¹cholar¹ Õud¿e individual¹’ ¹ucce¹¹e¹ and failure¹, their motive¹ and action¹, their opportunitie¹ and limitation¹, theY mu¹t al¹o con¹ider what theY in¹pired other¹ to accompli¹h and what proÕect¹ theY ¹et in motion But left unfini¹hed for other¹ to complete. °e¹e latter i¹¹ue¹ are e¹peciallY important in examinin¿ the impact of ½elen ½unt jack¹on’¹ effort¹ on Behalf of the ¼merican Indian. ½er Brief, inten¹e campai¿n Yielded manY re¹ult¹; But her earlY death left much of her work to Be completed BY other¹. °i¹ wa¹ e¹peciallY true for the women of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation. Âherea¹ the founder¹ of the ¾I¼ came from a lon¿ tradition of Chri¹tian evan¿eli¹m and ¹ocial activi¹m that included work amon¿ the Indian¹, jack¹on alwaY¹ focu¹ed on her career a¹ a writer, e¹chewin¿ the cau¹e¹ of her 1
daY; ¹he did not want to Be ¹een a¹ Õu¹t another “woman with a hoBBY.” °u¹ her ¹udden conver¹ion into an Indian ri¿ht¹ activi¹t in late 1879 wa¹ all the more ¹trikin¿. °e fir¹t pha¹e of jack¹on’¹ campai¿n Be¿an with letter¹ to new¹paper¹ and culminated in her 1881 Book, A Century of Dishonor, an indictment of federal Indian policY Ba¹ed on the ¿overnment’¹ own report¹ and record¹. It wa¹ durin¿ thi¹ period that ¹he fir¹t Became a¹¹ociated with the ¾I¼. Cofounder ¼melia Stone Quinton later recalled:
Soon after ¹he ¹eriou¹lY took up the ¹uBÕect ¹he vi¹ited, in Philadelphia, the officer¹ of the Âomen’¹ [¾ational] Indian ¼¹¹ociation, and expre¹¹ed her¹elf a¹ deli¿hted and ¹till further in¹pired to find a ¿roup of earne¹t
109
110
д²gÈND²
women alreadY at work to make the fact¹ of the Indian ¹ituation known, with the oBÕect of movin¿ the people to demand of the ¿overnment enacted Õu¹tice for the wron¿ed race.
2
ÀY januarY 1880, jack¹on wa¹ collectin¿ ¹i¿nature¹ for the ¾I¼’¹ petition to Con¿re¹¹ callin¿ on the ¿overnment to re¹pect it¹ treatY oBli¿ation¹ 3
with the Indian¹, a theme ¹he would return to a¿ain and a¿ain. She con¹idered their work the onlY Bri¿ht ¹pot in an otherwi¹e ¿loomY ¹ituation,
4
Becomin¿ an honorarY memBer of the a¹¹ociation (a title availaBle to anYone donatin¿ $50 or more to their cau¹e). She continued to keep up with the activitie¹ of the a¹¹ociation and it¹ Branche¹ throu¿h their puBlication¹ and corre¹pondence with Quinton. Later, Quinton recalled how jack¹on placed a copY of her Century of Dishonor (“a Book which everY patriotic and intelli¿ent ¼merican ¹hould read”) on the de¹k of everY con¿re¹¹man in Âa¹hin¿ton, “the daY But one Before” the ¾I¼’¹ ¹econd annual petition 5
to Con¿re¹¹ wa¹ delivered in 1881.
°e next pha¹e of jack¹on’¹ work Be¿an with her fir¹t vi¹it to ¹outhern California in the winter of 1881–1882. Âhile A Century of Dishonor wa¹ written in a liBrarY, in California ¹he met Indian¹ fir¹thand in their villa¿e¹ and re¹ervation¹, ¹aw the condition¹ theY faced, heard their fear¹, and turned her attention to their need¹. She returned in 1883 a¹ a ¹pecial commi¹¹ioner of the ¹ecretarY of the interior char¿ed to write what wa¹ later relea¹ed a¹ A
Report on the Condition and Needs of the Mission Indians. ¾ow jack¹on turned to the ¾I¼ for help, a¹kin¿ Quinton to ¹upplY 125 name¹ and addre¹¹e¹ of mini¹ter¹, editor¹, and other prominent people ¹o ¹he could have copie¹ of her report ¹ent to them. In addition, Quinton a¹ked for extra copie¹ to di¹triBute her¹elf.
6
ManY of jack¹on’¹ ¹pecific recommendation¹ were then
emBodied in a Bill ¹ent to Con¿re¹¹, ¹eekin¿ fund¹ and permi¹¹ion to act. Àut the Bill failed to pa¹¹. Seekin¿ another avenue, jack¹on decided to return to fiction in an attempt to reach a wider puBlic, a¹ ½arriet Àeecher Stowe had done for the ¹laverY i¹¹ue with her Uncle Tom’s Cabin . “People will read a novel where theY will 7
not read ¹eriou¹ Book¹,” jack¹on noted. ¼t fir¹t ¹he douBted her aBilitY to craft a full-len¿th novel, But in the fall of 1883 all of jack¹on’¹ ¹outhern California experience¹ came to¿ether in her mind, and Ramona wa¹ Born.
8
Âritten in the winter of 1883–1884, Ramona wa¹ fir¹t puBli¹hed ¹eriallY in
½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án
111
the Christian Union, a ¾ew Ôork literarY weeklY. jack¹on a¿ain turned to the ¾I¼ for help in ¹preadin¿ it¹ me¹¹a¿e, a¹kin¿ Quinton to ¹upplY her with the addre¹¹e¹ of the Branch a¹¹ociation¹ ¹o the Christian Union mi¿ht ¹end them a ¹ample copY and an offer to ¹uB¹criBe. “I think the Àranch ¼¹¹ociation¹ ou¿ht to all have the ¹torY to read a¹ it come¹ out—to read it at their monthlY meetin¿¹,” jack¹on wrote, de¹criBin¿ her ¹torY a¹ a “campai¿n document.” “Áf cour¹e the paper i¹ doin¿ thi¹ [¹uB¹cription drive] to pu¹h the paper,” jack¹on admitted, “not to help the Indian!—But each will react on the other.”
9
½ow manY ¹uB¹cription¹ actuallY re¹ulted i¹ unclear, But Both of jack¹on’¹ Book¹ remained main¹taY¹ of ¾I¼ puBlicitY for Year¹ to come, and all it¹ Branche¹ were ur¿ed to have copie¹ of them in their liBrarY, “to Be loaned to the memBer¹ of the a¹¹ociation and to other¹ who are de¹ired a¹ memBer¹.”
10
ÀeYond literature, the ¾I¼ al¹o ¹u¿¿e¹ted that “livin¿ picture¹ illu¹tratin¿ the vivid ¹cene¹ of ‘Ramona’ . . . could Be of deep intere¹t, of ¿reat BeautY, and of real helpfulne¹¹ in makin¿ ¹entiment in favor of Õu¹tice to Indian¹, a¹ well a¹ financiallY ¹ucce¹¹ful.”
11
jack¹on would not live to ¹ee the endurin¿ popularitY of her Indian Book¹. She died in ¼u¿u¹t 1885 at Õu¹t fiftY-four Year¹ of a¿e, le¹¹ than a Year after
Ramona
wa¹ puBli¹hed. In her annual addre¹¹ that fall, ¾I¼ pre¹ident
MarY Lowe Ãickin¹on prai¹ed jack¹on, “that lover and worker for Indian¹, who¹e effort¹ ¹hould emBalm her memorY in all our heart¹. She Õud¿ed wi¹elY when ¹he felt ¹he could put her ¿eniu¹ to no Better u¹e than to ¹erve thi¹ oppre¹¹ed race, and we can paY her memorY no triBute that would Be half ¹o ¹weet to her a¹ when we . . . unite our force¹ to clean¹e the ¹tain from our centurY of di¹honor.”
12
¼t the ¾I¼’¹ annual meetin¿, Mr¹. Geor¿e Ãana Àoardman of the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church of Philadelphia prepared a re¹olution on jack¹on expre¹¹in¿ “deep appreciation of her ¿eniu¹ and of her ¿reat work . . . and while expre¹¹in¿ our ¹en¹e of lo¹¹ and Bereavement, we accept thi¹ a¹ a ¹timulu¹ to noBler effort for ¹ecurin¿ Õu¹tice to Indian¹, the cau¹e for which ¹he lar¿elY ¿ave up her life, for which ¹he ¹trove with ¹uch devotion and enthu¹ia¹m, and in which her work¹ do ‘follow her.’”
13
jack¹on received even more prai¹e at third annual
Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian in ÁctoBer 1885 where ¼lice Äletcher, another honorarY memBer of the ¾I¼, famou¹ for her ethno¿raphic work amon¿ the Ámaha people of ¾eBra¹ka, noted:
112
д²gÈND²
Ëo work amon¿ the¹e people ¹ap¹ clo¹e to the fountain of power of u¹ women. °e ¹tre¹¹ and the Burden of the¹e helple¹¹ one¹ ¹he helped with all her power, and Yet could not, in one ¹hort lifetime, lift the Burden; the heavY hand of di¹ea¹e wa¹ laid upon her. MY friend¹, work ¹ometime¹ wear¹ out the BodY, But the ¹pirit live¹ and triumph¹. She ha¹ pa¹¹ed on to a hi¿her pha¹e of work, in¹pirin¿ u¹ who remain to fulfil for her that which ¹he wa¹ not aBle to do. I feel that the mi¹¹ion Indian¹ are the Beque¹t of ½elen ½unt jack¹on, and if we love her and honor her let u¹ Be faithful, and complete what ¹he ha¹ left u¹ to do.
14
Conference pre¹ident Clinton À. Äi¹k, the name¹ake of Äi¹k Univer¹itY in ¾a¹hville, Ëenne¹¹ee, recalled: “I fir¹t met her at a meetin¿ of Commi¹¹ioner¹ ¹ent out to adÕu¹t the trouBle with the Ute Indian¹ in the heart of Colorado. Some one came in and ¹aid: ‘°ere i¹ one of the Bri¿hte¹t women in the world out there, and ¹he want¹ to ¹ee You.’ . . . Âhen I went out I met ½elen ½unt . . . [¹]he ¹aid, ‘I have come to thi¹ di¹tant place that I mi¿ht ¹peak in Behalf of the Ute¹.’ She wa¹ admitted to the Conference, and ¹uch a ma¿nificent impre¹¹ion a¹ ¹he made I can never for¿et.”
15
Pre¹ident Merrill Ó.
Gate¹ of Rut¿er¹ Colle¿e wa¹ e¹peciallY lavi¹h in hi¹ prai¹e: “If we lived Back in the pa¹t three or four hundred Year¹, ¹he would Be ¹ainted in the calendar,” he ¹aid. “Let u¹ have that ¹pirit.”
16
¾ew Ôork new¹paperman and politician Óra¹tu¹ Àrook¹ al¹o ¿ave hi¹ triBute to jack¹on and offered a re¹olution prai¹in¿ “her un¹elfi¹h, per¹i¹tent, and ¿rand work, BY her pre¹ence, her pen, and her interce¹¹ion¹ for manY Year¹ with Government and people . . . [who] pre¹ent¹ an example of devotion to and faith in a ¿reat puBlic ¹ervice not excelled in the ¹in¿le life of anY one citizen of the countrY. . . . [S]he ha¹ awakened the popular con¹cience a¹ never Before to a ¹en¹e of the wron¿¹ inflicted upon a whole race.”
17
“°e
re¹olution¹ pa¹¹ed unanimou¹lY BY a ri¹in¿ vote,” Quinton reported, “a¹ tear¹ fell in memorY of the ¿ifted author and heroic, devoted friend of Indian¹. ‘Äaithful unto death’ ¹hould her epitaph Be.”
18
jack¹on “¹tand¹ fir¹t in the literarY world” in “the modern effort BY women for the deliverance of our native ¼merican Indian¹ from oppre¹¹ion and inÕu¹tice,” Quinton wrote a few Year¹ later. She wa¹ “a Õu¹t and humane ¹oul,” and thou¿h ¿one, “her ‘¹oul i¹ marchin¿ on,’ ¹till rallYin¿, ¹till in¹pirin¿ un¹elfi¹h ¹oul¹ to the cau¹e ¹he died for.”
19
½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án
113
¼melia Stone Quinton wa¹ one of ¹everal reformer¹, Both male and female, e¹peciallY drawn to the pli¿ht of the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of ¹outhern California BY jack¹on’¹ work. Quinton made ¹everal vi¹it¹ to the re¿ion and coordinated much of the ¾I¼’¹ charitaBle work there. Like jack¹on, her experience¹ in the field had a powerful effect on Quinton and Brou¿ht her 20
national campai¿n to a per¹onal level.
¼nother jack¹on di¹ciple wa¹ Á¹ia jane ½ile¹ of Âi¹con¹in, who¹e verY intere¹t in Indian reform ¹eem¹ to have Be¿un with jack¹on’¹ writin¿¹. In ¼u¿u¹t 1885, ½ile¹ wrote to the editor of the Milwaukee Sentinel : “Âithin the pa¹t Year a Book ha¹ Been puBli¹hed, which, advocatin¿ Õu¹tice for the Indian¹, i¹ not onlY one of the mo¹t comprehen¹ive, But al¹o one of the tendere¹t plea¹ that ha¹ ever Been made for an oppre¹¹ed race. . . . ‘Ramona’ i¹ an impa¹¹ioned praYer to the ¼merican people, implorin¿ that the Indian¹ ¹hall not Be di¹turBed in the po¹¹e¹¹ion of land¹ upon which theY are ¹ettled.” She al¹o ¹ent a copY of thi¹ letter to Pre¹ident Grover Cleveland on 21
¼u¿u¹t 12, 1885 (coincidentallY, the verY daY that jack¹on died).
CertainlY ½ile¹ wa¹ one of the fir¹t to clearlY ¹ee the point of Ramona . In 1886, ¹he vi¹ited ¹outhern California to ¹ee for her¹elf the condition¹ of the Indian¹, reportin¿ at the Indian conference at Lake Mohonk that fall, “I never knew Before the meanin¿ of the word down-trodden.”
22
She then
ur¿ed (like jack¹on) the need of an attorneY to fi¿ht land ca¹e¹; and ¹he wa¹ al¹o willin¿ (a¿ain, like jack¹on) to put up ¹ome of the fund¹ her¹elf. ½ile¹ continued to focu¹ on the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ for the next two Year¹. °e ¾I¼ appointed her chairman of their Mi¹¹ion Indian Committee, and in 1887 ¹he went to Âa¹hin¿ton to meet with the ¹ecretarY of the interior and the commi¹¹ioner of Indian affair¹ to di¹cu¹¹ matter¹. In 1888, ¹he wa¹ Back in ¹outhern California vi¹itin¿ re¹ervation¹ and villa¿e¹, much a¹ jack¹on had done, and reportin¿ ¹imilar condition¹. “Án everY [re¹ervation] the white¹ are crowdin¿ the Indian¹ from their cultivated field¹ and cau¹in¿ ¿reat di¹turBance. . . . [Â]ater i¹ turned from it¹ natural channel¹; road¹ are fenced with wire fence¹; cattle and hor¹e¹ are turned loo¹e; and, wor¹t of all, per¹onal violence i¹ threatened until the Indian¹, from Bein¿ helple¹¹ Become hopele¹¹.”
23
½ile¹ continued to work for reform in variou¹ part¹ of the countrY, includin¿ her home ¹tate. In 1888, ¹he ¹poke on the Indian Que¹tion Before the Âoman’¹ CluB of Âi¹con¹in, where one oB¹erver noted: “She certainlY
114
д²gÈND²
¹eemed imBued with all the fire and enthu¹ia¹m of ½elen ½unt jack¹on.”
24
°at ¹ame Year the Âi¹con¹in Indian ¼¹¹ociation wa¹ formed, which worked on ¹everal local i¹¹ue¹, e¹peciallY involvin¿ the Áneida Re¹ervation, a¹ well a¹ national i¹¹ue¹. ½ile¹ Became the main¹taY of the ¾I¼, includin¿ their loBBYin¿ effort¹, letter¹ to new¹paper¹, and other waY¹ to trY to work up puBlic ¹upport. ½i¹torian Äranci¹ Paul Prucha con¹idered her effort¹ “an important element in the pre¹¹ure for reform,” which particularlY helped lead to con¿re¹¹ional action on the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹.
25
¼nother woman drawn to ¹outhern California’¹ Indian¹ wa¹ Connecticut author Con¹tance Goddard ÃuÀoi¹, a ¾I¼ memBer who di¹tin¿ui¹hed her¹elf not Õu¹t a¹ a noveli¹t But a¹ an anthropolo¿i¹t. She made ¹everal vi¹it¹ to ¹outhern California in the 1890¹ and earlY 1900¹, and ¹oon added her voice to the ¿rowin¿ call for Better treatment of the Indian, Both there and nationallY. Like jack¹on, ¹he wrote letter¹, article¹, report¹, and a novel—A Soul in
Bronze (1900). ¼ ver¹ion of her ¹torY fir¹t appeared ¹eriallY in the Land of Sunshine , ¹outhern California’¹ mo¹t prominent ma¿azine of the daY, from ¼u¿u¹t 1898 to MaY 1899. °e ma¿azine’¹ editor, Charle¹ Ä. Lummi¹ (him¹elf a vocal advocate for Indian reform), de¹criBed the ¹torY: “Somewhat ¹u¿¿e¹tin¿ Ramona in it¹ zeal and fire and in it¹ ¹cope, it i¹ even more darin¿ in it¹ conception, and fuller of excitin¿ incident. It¹ local color i¹ admiraBle, it¹ plot ori¿inal and in¿eniou¹, and it¹ drawin¿ excellentlY human.”
26
It “will unque¹tionaBlY take it¹ place in the ¹mall cla¹¹ which i¹ next after
Ramona,” Lummi¹ later wrote, althou¿h admittin¿, “It i¹ of le¹¹ ea¹Y popularitY than ¹ome [novel¹], for it¹ hero, and a man he i¹, i¹ deliBeratelY an Indian. °i¹ put¹ him BeYond the full ¹YmpathY of the manY who think God ¹anded all ¹u¿ar except that in the ‘¼n¿lo-Saxon’ Barrel. Àut it i¹ a ¹torY of ¹in¿ular truth to one ¹ide of California life—and to a verY lar¿e ¹ide of creation—a ¹torY of deep intere¹t and of a noBle love.” ÃuÀoi¹ dedicated her novel:
Ëo the MemorY of ½ÓLÓ¾ ½U¾Ë j¼CKSÁ¾, Âho¹e Âarm ½eart and Ónli¿htened SYmpathY Made ½er the Äriend of the Indian, °i¹ Àook i¹ Ãedicated with Óndurin¿ ¼dmiration.
27
½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án
115
º²gÇ´E 4.1. MarY Sheriff Äowler (1841–1921) opened the fir¹t ¿overnment Indian ¹chool in ¹outhern California at SoBoBa in 1880. ½elen ½unt jack¹on wa¹ e¹peciallY impre¹¹ed with the work of women who tau¿ht on i¹olated re¹ervation¹ in ¹outhern California. Courte¹Y of San jacinto Mu¹eum, San jacinto, California.
ÃuÀoi¹ al¹o prai¹ed her predece¹¹or’¹ novel a¹ “a Book which in patho¹, tenderne¹¹, and humanitY come¹ clo¹e to, if it doe¹ not de¹erve, the fir¹t place amon¿ the few ¿reat ¼merican novel¹.”
28
ÃuÀoi¹’¹ ¹torY i¹ ¹et in ¹outhern California and trace¹ the often ¹ad hi¹torY of ¼ntonio Lachu¹a (an actual Indian familY name in the San Ãie¿o BackcountrY), who ¹uffer¹ ¹toicallY and philo¹ophicallY throu¿h it all. Like Ramona, there are ¼n¿lo character¹ who mu¹t learn to chan¿e their view¹ aBout Indian¹. ÃuÀoi¹ even Borrow¹ jack¹on’¹ Catholic prie¹t, “Äather Ga¹para,” a¹ a character for her novel. Àut A Soul in Bronze lack¹ the ¿eo¿raphY of Ramona (no actual BackcountrY place name¹ are u¹ed), and it i¹ Built on a ¹maller ¹cale, lackin¿ the Broad event¹ drawn from the actual hi¹torY of the re¿ion. °e ¾I¼’¹ monthlY periodical Indian’s Friend nonethele¹¹ found it prai¹eworthY:
Con¹tance Goddard ÃuÀoi¹ tell¹ in “¼ Soul in Àronze” (Stone & Co.)
116
д²gÈND²
the ¹torY of an Indian BoY, educated and civilized, and hi¹ ¹tru¿¿le¹ to help hi¹ people, and to take the place hi¹ trainin¿ entitle¹ him to. °e puBlication come¹ opportunelY, for at no previou¹ time ha¹ there Been ¹o ¿eneral an intere¹t in the Indian¹ and their future. It i¹ a BeautifullY ¹Ympathetic ¹tudY, fittin¿lY dedicated to the memorY of ½elen ½unt jack¹on.
29
Áf cour¹e, few read ÃuÀoi¹’¹ novel¹ a¹ novel¹ anYmore, But her anthropolo¿ical re¹earch ha¹ ¹tood the te¹t of time. Áne of her mo¹t intere¹tin¿ paper¹ i¹ “°e Reli¿ion of the Lui¹eño Indian¹ of Southern California.” ½er Indian photo¿raph¹ and even the cYlinder phono¿raph recordin¿¹ ¹he made ¹till ¹urvive. ¼nother author who followed jack¹on in u¹in¿ fiction a¹ a waY to trY to Build puBlic ¹YmpathY wa¹ Ärance¹ CampBell Sparhawk, who¹e three 1890¹ Indian novel¹ are di¹cu¹¹ed el¹ewhere in thi¹ antholo¿Y BY Ãavid Âallace ¼dam¹. Áther reform advocate¹ appropriated the name and fame of jack¹on’¹ novel. °e ¾I¼ duBBed their ¹outhern California outpo¹t the Ramona Mi¹¹ion. ¼n 1889 pamphlet promotin¿ their work in thi¹ re¿ion note¹ that Ramona “verY truthfullY and ¿raphicallY reveal¹ the [Indian¹’] pre¹ent condition and hard¹hip¹, a¹ well a¹ the pa¹t ¹ufferin¿¹,” and call¹ on the a¹¹ociation to aide them, “fir¹t, from ‘½. ½.’ her¹elf, and ¹ince then from other¹.”
30
°e pamphlet ¿oe¹ on to di¹cu¹¹ the ¿eneral ¹ituation of the Mi¹-
¹ion Indian¹, pa¹t and pre¹ent, Borrowin¿ much material from jack¹on’¹ 1883 report and al¹o quotin¿ Á¹ia ½ile¹ and Charle¹ Painter. “[Ë]he fact¹ make their own ¹ilent appeal for whatever can now Be done for the remnant¹ of the¹e triBe¹,” it note¹, clo¹in¿ BY a¹kin¿ for “anY ¿ift¹, lar¿e or 31
¹mall,” to further the a¹¹ociation’¹ work.
Óven in ¾ew Mexico, the Ramona name could Be u¹ed for fund-rai¹in¿. In the mid-1880¹, the Indian Ãepartment of the Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico duBBed their ¼pache Boardin¿ ¹chool in Santa Äe the Ramona Indu¹trial School for Indian Girl¹ of the Southwe¹t. ¼ nationwide fund drive in 1888 helped Build additional facilitie¹ for up to 150 ¹tudent¹. °e name wa¹ 32
¹elected a¹ memorial to ½elen ½unt jack¹on and her work.
Áther educator¹ did their work on a more direct, local level. °e rank¹ of ¿overnment Indian ¹chool teacher¹ in ¹outhern California in the late nineteenth and earlY twentieth centurie¹ include ¹ome remarkaBle women who
½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án
117
º²gÇ´E 4.2. “Äather Ga¹para’¹ ¼rrival at the Rancheria,” an illu¹tration from the ori¿inal ¹erial puBlication of Con¹tance Goddard ÃuÀoi¹’¹ A Soul in Bronze (Land of
Sunshine, March 1899), ¹ketched BY famed ¹outhern California arti¹t ¼lex Ä. ½armer.
¿ave of their time and talent and ¹ometime¹ even ¿ave their live¹ in their devotion to the Indian ¹tudent¹. °e mo¹t prominent wa¹ MarY Sheriff Äowler, the fir¹t teacher at the villa¿e of SoBoBa, near San jacinto, in 1880, who had actuallY known and a¹¹i¹ted jack¹on durin¿ her California inve¹ti¿ation¹. jack¹on wrote aBout her pioneerin¿ teachin¿ effort¹ (alon¿ with tho¹e of Cahuilla Re¹ervation teacher ¾ancY Ëicknor) in her 1882 article, “°ree Penn¹Ylvania Âomen.”
33
Äowler ¹pent ¹even Year¹ teachin¿ at SoBoBa. Later, in 1890–1891, ¹he took over the ¾I¼’¹ mi¹¹ionarY work there, teachin¿ SundaY ¹chool, offerin¿ ¹ewin¿ cla¹¹e¹, and makin¿ hou¹e call¹ on the ¹ick and elderlY much a¹ the ¿overnment’¹ field matron¹ would later do. Óven after the ¾I¼ moved it¹ effort¹ el¹ewhere, Äowler continued the SundaY ¹chool and remained a vocal advocate for the local Indian¹ until her death in 1921.
34
Âhile women ¹uch a¹ the¹e felt a ¹pecial connection with jack¹on,
118
д²gÈND²
manY men amon¿ the rank¹ of Indian ri¿ht¹ advocate¹ al¹o looked to her for in¹piration, perhap¹ none more earne¹tlY than Charle¹ C. Painter, loBBYi¹t and travelin¿ a¿ent of the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation. Painter vi¹ited jack¹on on her deathBed durin¿ hi¹ fir¹t vi¹it to California in 1885, alon¿ with jo¹hua Â. Ãavi¹ of the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee. “I wa¹ an entire ¹tran¿er to her,” he recalled, “and the nur¹e ¹aid ¹he wa¹ ¹o feeBle ¹he could not ¹ee me, But when ¹he received mY card I heard her exclaim: ‘Áh! I¹ it Mr. Painter? Show him in.’” She told me ¹he had put her life almo¹t into that Book Ramona. She wa¹ a little apprehen¹ive that the arti¹tic part of the Book mi¿ht po¹¹iBlY over¹hadow it¹ philanthropic purpo¹e, and ¹he ¿ave thi¹ char¿e to u¹, that the ri¿ht¹, the intere¹t¹, and the wron¿¹ of the people who¹e hi¹torY ¹he ¿ive¹ ¹hould receive our con¹tant attention. °e ¿eneral impre¹¹ion that ¹he had idealized the fact¹, a¹ well a¹ the character¹, i¹ a wron¿ impre¹¹ion . . . for the ¹torY i¹ nothin¿ But the ¹keleton around which ¹he hun¿ the fact¹.
35
Char¿ed BY jack¹on to continue her effort¹, Painter devoted mo¹t of the re¹t of hi¹ life to the Indian reform movement, alternatin¿ hi¹ time Between tourin¿ the nation’¹ re¹ervation¹, writin¿ account¹ of hi¹ vi¹it¹, and loBBYin¿ 36
¿overnment official¹.
Painter’¹ crownin¿ achievement wa¹ hi¹ appointment to the Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion in 1891. Äor ¹even Year¹, jack¹on’¹ ¹upporter¹ had continued to pu¹h the recommendation¹ called for in her 1883 report, reintroducin¿ the Bill Ba¹ed on them Year after Year. ÄinallY, in 1891, Con¿re¹¹ pa¹¹ed the ¼ct for the Relief of the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ in the State of California, and the commi¹¹ion wa¹ ¹et up to carrY out it¹ mandate¹. ¼lthou¿h ¿enerallY called the SmileY Commi¹¹ion after it¹ mo¹t prominent memBer, philanthropi¹t ¼lBert K. SmileY, the founder of the Lake Mohonk conference, it wa¹ Painter who did mo¹t of the work, e¹peciallY in the field, where he vi¹ited villa¿e¹ and re¹ervation¹ throu¿hout ¹outhern California. Áne of the keY¹ to jack¹on’¹ recommendation¹ wa¹ that the Indian¹’ land Be ¹et a¹ide a¹ re¹ervation¹, properlY ¹urveYed and marked, and white tre¹pa¹¹er¹ removed. Ëhe Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion
½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án
119
confirmed the Boundarie¹ of mo¹t of the exi¹tin¿ re¹ervation¹, adÕu¹ted them where nece¹¹arY, and e¹taBli¹hed more than a dozen new re¹erva37
tion¹, ¹ecurin¿ a land Ba¹e for hundred¹ of Indian¹.
°e effort¹ of Painter, Quinton, ½ile¹, and manY other¹ continued to advance the work Be¿un BY ½elen ½unt jack¹on, not Õu¹t in aidin¿ the Indian¹ But in chan¿in¿ puBlic opinion toward them. ½er memorY, and the impact of her writin¿¹, were powerful tool¹. It i¹ not for nothin¿ that jack¹on ha¹ Been called “the ¾I¼’¹ hero.”
38
Notes Án ÃecemBer 12, 2019, Phil Àri¿andi died. ½e wa¹ onlY ¹ixtY. Äor half of tho¹e Year¹, he wa¹ a friend, hi¹torical confident, and coauthor on two article¹ and two Book¹. ¼n expert on ½elen ½unt jack¹on, the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹, and Áran¿e CountY, California, hi¹torY, hi¹ incrediBle knowled¿e will Be mi¹¹ed.—¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹
1. “I have done now, I Believe, the la¹t of the thin¿¹ I had ¹aid I never would do,” jack¹on wrote in 1880; “I have Become what I have ¹aid a thou¹and time¹ wa¹ the mo¹t odiou¹ of thin¿¹ in life—‘a woman with a hoBBY.’ Àut I cannot help it.” In a julY 27, 1885, letter to °oma¹ Âentworth ½i¿¿in¹on, near the end of her life, jack¹on wrote: “I have felt, a¹ the Quaker¹ ¹aY, ‘a concern,’ to work for” the Indian¹ (Mathe¹, °e
Indian Reform Letters, 84, 351). Äor more on jack¹on’¹ reform effort¹, ¹ee Mathe¹, Helen Hunt Jackson and Her Indian Reform Legacy. Äor the Be¹t ¿eneral Bio¿raphY, ¹ee Phillip¹, Helen Hunt Jackson: A Literary Life. 2. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 374. 3. jack¹on to ¼. S. Quinton, januarY 27, 1880, in Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Let-
ters, 88. ÀY March, jack¹on had collected aBout four hundred ¹i¿nature¹ ( jack¹on to Quinton, March 12, 1881, Àancroft LiBrarY MSS 99/279 cz). 4. jack¹on to Quinton, ¼u¿u¹t 19, 1881 (Àancroft LiBrarY MSS 99/279 cz). 5. Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Letters , 375. 6. jack¹on to Quinton, ÃecemBer 7, 1883, and ÄeBruarY 19, 1884 (Àancroft LiBrarY MSS 99/279 cz). 7. jack¹on to ¼ntonio and Mariana Coronel, ¾ovemBer 8, 1883, in Mathe¹, °e
Indian Reform Letters, 298. 8. jack¹on ¿ive¹ a ¿ood ¹ummarY of the ¿ene¹i¹ of her novel in a letter written to an anonYmou¹ friend on ÄeBruarY 5, 1884 (Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Letters, 313–14). ¼¹ ¹he later explained, “ÓverY incident in Ramona (i.e. of the Ind[ian] ½i¹t[orY]) i¹ true” (Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Letters, 337). 9. jack¹on to Quinton, ¼pril 2, 1884, in Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Letters, 319. 10. ¾I¼, How to Organize an Indian Association, 2.
120
д²gÈND²
11. Quinton, Suggestions to Friends of the Women’s National Indian Association , 4. 12. ¾I¼, “¼ddre¹¹ of the Pre¹ident of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” 9. 13. ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, 1885, 36–37. 14. Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian, Proceedin¿¹ of the °ird ¼nnual Meetin¿, 1885, 71. °i¹, and all the Lake Mohonk material that follow¹, wa¹ al¹o puBli¹hed in Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, Seventeenth ¼nnual Report, 1885. 15. IBid. 16. IBid. Áne wonder¹ what jack¹on, not the mo¹t orthodox of Believer¹, would have thou¿ht of her propo¹ed ¹ainthood. 17. IBid., 68–69. 18. Quinton, °e Mohonk Indian Conference , 9. 19. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 374–75. 20. See Mathe¹, Divinely Guided , e¹p. 177–261. 21. Prucha, Indian Policy in the United States, 217, which reprint¹ Prucha’¹ article “¼ ‘Äriend of the Indian’ in Milwaukee: Mr¹. Á. j. ½ile¹ and the Âi¹con¹in Indian ¼¹¹ociation” (ori¿inallY puBli¹hed in Historical Messenger of the Milwaukee County Historical
Society , ¼utumn 1973, 78–95). 22. “°e Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of California,” in Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, Ói¿hteenth ¼nnual Report, 1886, 81. 23. ½ile¹ to the SecretarY of the Interior, ¼pril 2, 1888, in Prucha, Indian Policy in the United States, 218. See al¹o ½ile¹’¹ report of her vi¹it in the fir¹t i¹¹ue of the ¾I¼’¹ periodical, the Indian’s Friend (March 1888), “°e Mi¹¹ion Indian¹.” 24. “°e Âoman’¹ CluB of Âi¹con¹in,” Indian’s Friend , ÃecemBer 1888, 3. 25. Prucha, Indian Policy in the United States, 219. 26. Land of Sunshine, julY 1898, 80. 27. IBid., MaY 1899, 351. 28. ÃuÀoi¹, A Soul in Bronze , 220. 29.
Indian’s Friend, ÃecemBer 1900, 10.
30. ¾I¼, °e Ramona Mission and the Mission Indians (MaY 1889), 1. 31. IBid., 18. Äor more detail¹, ¹ee Mathe¹, Divinely Guided, e¹p. 204–24. 32. Äor a feature on the ¹chool written BY it¹ principal, ¹ee Ladd, “°e Ramona Indian Girl¹’ School.” °e ¹chool al¹o ¹eem¹ to have received fundin¿ from the federal ¿overnment and the ¼merican Mi¹¹ionarY ¼¹¹ociation. 33.
Christian Union, ÃecemBer 28, 1882, and januarY 4, 1883; reprinted in Mathe¹
and Àri¿andi, A Call for Reform, 149–60. °e third Penn¹Ylvania woman wa¹ Ómmaline jordan, who ran the Boardin¿ hou¹e in nearBY San jacinto. 34. See Mathe¹, Divinely Guided , 201–3. Äowler carefullY pre¹erved jack¹on’¹ letter¹, which con¹titute an important record of her experience¹ in ¹outhern California. °eY are now at the ½untin¿ton LiBrarY in San Marino, California, and are included in Mathe¹, °e Indian Reform Letters . Äor ¹ome of Äowler’¹ recollection¹, ¹ee “Ëeachin¿ Indian¹,” Riverside (CA) Press and Horticulturalist, MaY 29, 1903.
½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án
121
35. Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian, Proceedin¿¹ of the °ird ¼nnual Meetin¿, 1885, 69–70. Painter’¹ vi¹it came onlY ¹ix week¹ Before jack¹on’¹ death. 36. See, for example, Mathe¹ and Àri¿andi, “Charle¹ C. Painter, ½elen ½unt jack¹on, and the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹,” 89–118. 37. Mathe¹ and Àri¿andi, Reservations, Removal, and Reform; al¹o, Mathe¹, “°e California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion,” note¹ on 390–95. 38. Cahill, “Makin¿ and Marketin¿ Àa¹ket¹ in California,” 129.
ÍHÈÖTE´ 5
In the Shadow of Ramona Frances Campbell Sparhawk and the Fiction of Reform ÑÈV²D WÈÅÅÈÒE ADÈÊs
×HE s²gN²F²ÒÈNÒE OF ½elen ½unt jack¹on to late nineteenth-centurY Indian policY reform i¹ common knowled¿e. Central to the ¹torY i¹ jack¹on’¹ deci¹ion to turn to fiction a¹ the mo¹t effective mean¹ of ¿alvanizin¿ popular ¹upport for the reform cau¹e: how, after her puBlication of A Century of
Dishonor (1881), a ¹cathin¿ indictment of the nation’¹ cruel treatment of ¾ative ¼merican¹, failed to achieve her intended oBÕective, ¹he penned Ramona (1884), a heart-wrenchin¿, ¹entimental novel de¹i¿ned to win ¿reater puBlic 1
¹YmpathY for the Indian¹’ pli¿ht. Curiou¹lY, hi¹torian¹ have almo¹t completelY i¿nored another woman reformer who wrote three widelY read novel¹ 2
in ¹upport of the Indian cau¹e—Ärance¹ CampBell Sparhawk.
Àorn in ¼me¹BurY, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, in 1847, Sparhawk ¿raduated in 1867 from the Ôoun¿ Ladie¹’ ¼cademY in Ip¹wich, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. ¼ ¿ifted writer, Youn¿ Sparhawk wa¹ ¹oon puBli¹hin¿ ¹hort fiction and e¹¹aY¹ in leadin¿ ma¿azine¹ like New England Magazine and the Christian Union . ÀY the 3
1880¹, ¹he wa¹ puBli¹hin¿ novel¹ on a wide varietY of ¹uBÕect matter. ÀY the end of the decade, however, Sparhawk wa¹ cau¿ht up in the ¹pirit of reformin¿ federal Indian policY, and, no douBt in¹pired BY jack¹on’¹ Ramona , ¹he Õoined the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼), where ¹he ¹erved for ¹everal Year¹ a¹ director of the Ãepartment of Indian LiBrarie¹ and the Indian Indu¹trie¹ Lea¿ue. Âherea¹ the former wa¹ devoted to ¹endin¿ whole¹ome readin¿ material¹ to Indian ¹chool¹, the latter aimed to “open individual opportunitie¹ of work to individual Indian¹ and to Build up ¹elf4
¹upportin¿ indu¹trie¹ in Indian communitie¹.” Àoth department¹ were con¹i¹tent with the ¾I¼’¹ oBÕective a¹ e¹pou¹ed BY the or¿anization’¹ pre¹ident, ¼melia Stone Quinton, in 1888—namelY, to re¹cue Indian¹ from
123
124
ADÈÊs
“¹ava¿erY and ¹uper¹tition” and ¹hepherd them into “civilization and Chri¹tian faith.”
5
Âherea¹ the ¾I¼ devoted much of it¹ ener¿ie¹ to petitionin¿ ¿overnment official¹, di¹pen¹in¿ leaflet¹ and Broad¹ide¹, and ¹upportin¿ mi¹¹ionarY, educational, and home-Buildin¿ effort¹ on re¹ervation¹—all of which ¾I¼ memBer¹ ¹aw a¹ Beneficial to improvin¿ the live¹ of ¾ative women— Sparhawk ¹aw her ¹pecial callin¿ a¹ writin¿ e¹¹aY¹, But e¹peciallY ¹hort fiction and novel¹, to advance the civilization proÕect. °i¹ chapter examine¹ three of her novel¹ written in the 1890¹ on the ¹o-called Indian Que¹tion. ¼¹ the di¹cu¹¹ion Below will illu¹trate, ¹everal interlockin¿ theme¹ are woven throu¿hout the¹e work¹: the moral imperative to “civilize” and a¹¹imilate Indian¹; the deva¹tatin¿ impact of the re¹ervation ¹Y¹tem on Indian advancement; the crucial ¹i¿nificance of work a¹ a civilizin¿ force; the importance of ¹chool¹, e¹peciallY off-re¹ervation ¹chool¹, in in¹tillin¿ the ideal¹ and haBit¹ of civilization; and the almo¹t in¹urmountaBle challen¿e¹ facin¿ educated 6
Youth upon their return to re¹ervation environment¹.
Sparhawk’ fir¹t novel, A Chronicle of Conquest (1890), i¹ a paean to Carli¹le Indian School and it¹ founder, Richard ½enrY Pratt, who¹e ¹olution to the Indian proBlem wa¹ famou¹lY captured in the dictum “Kill the 7
Indian and ¹ave the man.” °e narrative vehicle for the novel i¹ ei¿hteenYear-old PollY ÀlatchleY, who, after three Year¹ at ¸a¹¹ar and ¹ufferin¿ from a Bout of neura¹thenia, i¹ pre¹criBed a prolon¿ed re¹t BY the familY doctor. Soon, however, ¹he accept¹ an invitation from a teacher friend at Carli¹le to come for a vi¹it. It i¹ a life-chan¿in¿ moment in her Youn¿ life. Áver the cour¹e of ¹everal month¹, PollY oB¹erve¹ fir¹thand the Carli¹le approach to Indian education and i¹ won over to Pratt’¹ method¹. Pratt i¹ portraYed a¹ nothin¿ le¹¹ than a kni¿ht in ¹hinin¿ armor, a ¿od¹end to Indian Youth, who unle¹¹ re¹cued from the re¹ervation environment are condemned to a life of BarBari¹m and aBÕect povertY. PollY learn¹ how the “Captain” a¹ a cavalrY officer in 1875 participated in the defeat and capture of Kiowa, CheYenne, ¼rapaho, and Comanche warrior¹ and how he concluded from the experience that “phY¹ical conque¹t ¹hould Be onlY the prelude of a conque¹t more deci¹ive, more ¹ati¹fYin¿ to the white man, le¹¹ fatal to the 8
red, and much more difficult” (32). °e “conque¹t more deci¹ive” called for weanin¿ Indian¹ awaY from their ¹ava¿e waY¹ and in¹tillin¿ in them the de¹ire to live like the white man. Âhen the pri¹oner¹, PollY learn¹, were
In the Shadow of Ramona
125
¹ent to Saint ¼u¿u¹tine, Älorida, for incarceration at the old Spani¹h fortre¹¹, Ca¹tillo de San Marco¹ (more commonlY known a¹ Äort Marion), Pratt volunteered to over¹ee the Indian¹’ impri¹onment. Ánce in Saint ¼u¿u¹tine, Platt Be¿an to carrY out hi¹ plan for ¹ettin¿ the hardened warrior¹ on the path to civilization. °e principal earmark¹ of the pro¿ram were ¹trict di¹cipline, in¹truction in the Ba¹ic¹ of readin¿, writin¿, and arithmetic, ÀiBle readin¿ and hYmn ¹in¿in¿, and hi¹ pioneerin¿ “outin¿” experiment whereBY individual pri¹oner¹ were allowed to work for local farmer¹ and Bu¹ine¹¹men in exchan¿e for mode¹t paYment for their laBor. °e culmination of Pratt’¹ effort¹ wa¹ the openin¿ of the Carli¹le School in 1879. ¼¹ one of the teacher¹ explain¹ to PollY: “Carli¹le came to Be one of the Battlefield¹ of the nineteenth centurY, a field of the conflict Between 9
humanitY and ¹ava¿erY” (37).
PollY learn¹ that the foundational principle of Carli¹le i¹ that environment i¹ all. ¼¹ one teacher remind¹ her, “Âe ¼n¿lo-Saxon¹, You know, have Been a thou¹and Year¹ ¿ettin¿ the ¹ava¿e out of u¹” (57). °e Captain had BrilliantlY found a waY to quicken the proce¹¹ of ¹ocial evolution. Carli¹le, PollY oB¹erve¹, i¹ a world of militarY-¹tYle uniform¹, Bu¿le call¹, mornin¿ in¹pection¹, and field drill¹. In thi¹ atmo¹phere, ¹en¹itive teacher¹ in¹truct newlY arrived ¹tudent¹ how to ¹peak Ón¿li¹h, read Book¹, and ma¹ter the fundamental¹ of arithmetic. °eY are al¹o tau¿ht aBout work—not onlY how to work But it¹ importance to individual ¹urvival and lon¿-term advancement. In thi¹ context, PollY learn¹ how the outin¿ ¹Y¹tem, now in full Bloom, i¹ ¹o central to Pratt’¹ ¹ucce¹¹.
10
PollY al¹o witne¹¹e¹ the richne¹¹ of Carli¹le’¹
extracurricular life: an animated ¹tudent deBate on the wi¹dom of allowin¿ railroad¹ to enter Indian land¹; a Chri¹tma¹ ÃaY promenade in which ¹he oB¹erve¹ Youn¿ men di¹plaYin¿ courte¹ie¹ to their female partner¹, ¹omethin¿ ¹he i¹ told would Be unima¿inaBle in an Indian camp where women were re¿arded a¹ mere “toiler¹ and Burden-Bearer¹”; a recitation BY a Youn¿ ¼pache BoY on the virtue of individuali¹m; and a weeklY church ¹ervice and praYer meetin¿ devoted to reinforcin¿ ¹tudent¹’ newfound Belief in the Chri¹tian God. PollY i¹ e¹peciallY in¹pired BY a SaturdaY ni¿ht talk BY Pratt. She ¹en¹e¹ Õu¹t how deeplY “the ¹pirit move¹ him a¹ he ¹tand¹ there Before hi¹ children, and the whole meanin¿ and ¿reatne¹¹ of the cau¹e come ¹weepin¿ throu¿h hi¹ heart with a force that will have it¹ waY.” ¼ll too ¹oon, however, “he i¹ ¹ilent, and we li¹ten to the rhYthmic tramp . . . a¹ two BY two
126
ADÈÊs
º²gÇ´E 5.1. Sparhawk’¹ view¹ were clo¹elY ali¿ned with tho¹e of Richard ½enrY Pratt, founder and ¹uperintendent of Carli¹le Indian School. Shown here with three ¹tudent¹, Pratt wa¹ famou¹ for hi¹ declaration, “Kill the Indian, ¹ave the man.” Courte¹Y of the Smith¹onian In¹titution, Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC.
the Indian¹ march out of the chapel, [and] we Believe it the fir¹t heard ¹tep¹ of an armY marchin¿ to victorY” (200). Àut can the¹e ¹tudent¹ reallY tramp to victorY once theY return to their re¹ervation home¹ ¹till wallowin¿ in the old ¹ava¿i¹m? ½ow will theY hold onto their new identitie¹ in the face of untutored ¹ava¿e¹’ determination to coerce them into the old triBal mold? Sparhawk’¹ view¹ on the dauntin¿ challen¿e¹ facin¿ the returned ¹tudent—e¹peciallY the fate facin¿ women— wa¹ a con¹tant theme in her writin¿¹, and ¹o PollY learn¹ of the difficultie¹ awaitin¿ them.
11
°ere i¹, for in¹tance, the ¹torY of Äaith Red ½eart, a thirteen-Year-old Sioux ¿irl taken from the Ro¹eBud Re¹ervation to Carli¹le in the fir¹t Year¹ of the ¹chool’¹ exi¹tence. Returnin¿ to Ro¹eBud after three Year¹ at Carli¹le, Äaith i¹ almo¹t immediatelY reduced to “dumB de¹pair” a¹ the old ¹ava¿e life clo¹e¹ in around her. °e mo¹t fri¿htenin¿ development i¹ when ¹he notice¹ ¾iconzah, a warrior—“nearer Brute than human”—leadin¿ hor¹e¹ to her father’¹ tepee with the intention of reachin¿ an a¿reement on a Bride price.
In the Shadow of Ramona
127
½er Brother, moreover, i¹ enthu¹ia¹tic aBout the pro¹pect. ¼nd ¹o, it appear¹, her wor¹t fear¹ are aBout to Be realized: She i¹ aBout to Be reduced throu¿h marria¿e to a drud¿e-like exi¹tence, forever trapped in the di¹mal exi¹tence ¹he ha¹ come to de¹pi¹e. She knew ¿irl¹ and Youn¿ men who had come Back from Carli¹le. Some were on thi¹ re¹ervation. ¼ ¿ood numBer had fallen Back into the old waY¹; ¹he ¹aw them ¹ometime¹, and the look on their face¹ haunted her, a look a¹ if theY did not want to rememBer. °i¹ wa¹ the waY ¹he wa¹ ¿oin¿ to look when ¹he had Become ¾iconzah’¹ wife, or what the Indian¹ call wife—a woman who¹e ri¿ht¹ maY Be at anY time u¹urped, a woman who i¹ onlY a ¹lave. She could Be ¾iconzah’¹ companion onlY BY ¹inkin¿ to hi¹ level. She would not do thi¹; ¹he would rememBer and ¹uffer (166–67). Àut Õu¹t a¹ the marria¿e Bar¿ain i¹ on the Brink of Bein¿ con¹ummated, a miraculou¹ thin¿ happen¹. Captain Pratt, who i¹ on the re¹ervation recruitin¿ ¹tudent¹, ¹pie¹ Äaith and invite¹ her to return to Carli¹le. She ¿ladlY accept¹ the offer, and her “¹chool father” immediatelY take¹ her under hi¹ arm to prevent the interce¹¹ion of her Brother, who onlY dream¹ of hor¹e¹. In a dramatic ¹cene, her Brother, wild with an¿er, confront¹ Pratt and appear¹ readY to prevent Äaith’¹ re¹cue at all co¹t¹. Àut the old ¹oldier i¹ fearle¹¹ in the encounter. °i¹ Indian “wa¹ to him the emBodiment of all that wa¹ de¿radin¿, hateful, loath¹ome, in the exi¹tence he had devoted hi¹ life to ¹weep[in¿] awaY from the land” (171). In the face of Pratt’¹ fla¹hin¿ eYe¹, her Brother can onlY retreat. Äaith return¹ to Carli¹le, wonderin¿ if ¹he can ever 12
¿o Back to her re¹ervation home.
In another ¹torY, PollY learn¹ aBout Capea and ¾atalie, a married couple who cho¹e to carrY the word of civilization Back to the re¹ervation. Áne of Pratt’¹ Kiowa pri¹oner¹ at Saint ¼u¿u¹tine, Capea came to the old Spani¹h fort full of hatred for the white man, But Pratt immediatelY ¹ee¹ that the Youn¿ warrior i¹ full of ¿reat promi¹e, and he eventuallY ¹ucceed¹ in winnin¿ him over. ¼ central moment in Capea’¹ conver¹ion occur¹ when he confront¹ Pratt with the que¹tion: whY did the Great Spirit “let the white man ¿et ¹o much, and the red man ¹o little?” Pratt’¹ an¹wer: “°ere i¹ one thin¿ the white man doe¹ which make¹ the difference—he work¹. °e Indian doe¹ not work.” (98–99). Capea take¹ the me¹¹a¿e to heart and, followin¿ a ¹ucce¹¹ful outin¿ experience, Become¹ a recruiter for Carli¹le. It i¹ at Carli¹le that he meet¹ ¾atalie, who, like Capea, i¹ a model ¹tudent. °e two are allowed to
128
ADÈÊs
marrY and ¹oon have a child, whom theY name, not coincidentallY, Richard. Àut the couple i¹ divided on the que¹tion of whether theY ¹hould return to the re¹ervation a¹ emi¹¹arie¹ of civilization. Capea i¹ determined to do ¹o; lon¿ a¿o he promi¹ed hi¹ father that he would return home to lead the Kiowa to a Better life. ¾atalie re¹i¹t¹ the idea But finallY ¹urrender¹ to hi¹ determination. It i¹ a terriBle mi¹take. Âithin a Year, Capea die¹ while plowin¿ hi¹ field, a death that the traditional¹ amon¿ the triBe a¹criBe to hi¹ aBandonment of the old waY¹. ¾atalie, with the a¹¹i¹tance of a mi¹¹ionarY, i¹ aBle to ¿ive Capea a Chri¹tian Burial. Àut upon returnin¿ home ¹he di¹cover¹ all manner of commotion.
¼t one of the window¹ appeared an Indian with Bed and Beddin¿ in hi¹ arm¹ which he to¹¹ed out. °e clo¹et¹ were emptied of wearin¿ apparel, the kitchen of the uten¹il¹; Bed¹tead, Bureau, chair¹, everY article of furniture, the few knickknack¹ that ¾atalie had collected, Capea’¹ Book¹, were all thrown to¿ether—nothin¿ wa¹ ¹pared. °e Indian¹ ran¹acked the ¹taBle and Brou¿ht out Capea’¹ wa¿on and hi¹ farmin¿ implement¹, ¹houtin¿ in deri¹ion, a¹ theY did it, that he had cho¹en the¹e in¹tead of the weapon of a warrior, and that the¹e were what ¹hould follow him to the happY huntin¿ ¿round¹. . . . ½i¹ cattle were driven off, and then theY Brou¿ht out hi¹ ponie¹. °e practiced eYe¹ of the marauder¹ ran over the point¹ of the¹e fine animal¹, and then turned upon each other. In ¹ilence theY tied the ponie¹ to the tree¹ near their own hor¹e¹. (228)
°e de¹olation i¹ complete. ¼ll that Capea and ¹he have worked for i¹ taken or de¹troYed. ½er onlY hope i¹ the mi¹¹ionarY. She plead¹: “Can You ¿ive me work here?” Ôe¹, he replie¹; he i¹ in need of an interpreter. °u¹ emploYed, ¹he decide¹ to ¹taY amon¿ her people and carrY on the work of civilization. Àut her re¹olve i¹ ¹oon weakened when ¹he think¹ of her ¹on. ½er eYe¹ turn ea¹tward toward civilization—toward Carli¹le. ¼fter PollY’¹ prolon¿ed vi¹it, ¹he return¹ home an ardent ¹upporter of Pratt’¹ method¹. Invited to addre¹¹ a ¿atherin¿ of town¹people ea¿er to hear of her impre¹¹ion¹ of the now famou¹ in¹titution, ¹he tell¹ the a¹¹emBla¿e of all that ¹he ha¹ ¹een and ¹torie¹ of the returned ¹tudent¹ who ¹tru¿¿le not to Back¹lide into the old waY¹. She end¹ with the que¹tion: “In what waY ¹hall
In the Shadow of Ramona
129
we do thi¹ work?” °e an¹wer, ¹he i¹ now convinced, i¹ Brin¿in¿ Indian children “face to face with the po¹¹iBilitie¹ of exi¹tence”—that i¹ to ¹aY, with ¼n¿lo-Saxon civilization. °i¹ i¹ the cru¹ade that mu¹t Be wa¿ed, a cru¹ade “a¿ain¹t the ¹ava¿erY of the re¹ervation¹” (236). Carli¹le had found the waY, if onlY the nation would emBrace it. PuBli¹hed in 1892, Sparhawk’¹ ¹econd Indian novel, Onoqua , i¹ al¹o aBout the ¹pirit-killin¿ oB¹tacle¹ encountered BY returnee¹ trapped on the re¹ervation. Àut in thi¹ ¹torY Sparhawk ha¹ more dramatic material to work with— the ri¹e of the Gho¹t Ãance reli¿ion and the ¹uB¹equent tra¿ic event¹ at Âounded Knee. °e novel open¹ with a ¹cene on an unnamed Sioux re¹ervation in 1882. Ánoqua, a Youn¿ Sioux ¿irl, i¹ Bein¿ taken to an ea¹tern Boardin¿ ¹chool with the permi¹¹ion of her father But over the fierce oBÕection of her mother, who attempt¹ to ¹taB her dau¿hter with a Butcher knife rather than ¹urrender her up for a white man’¹ education. Àut the effort fail¹, and Ánoqua and ¹everal other children are taken awaY for ¹choolin¿. °e ¹torY then Õump¹ ¹everal Year¹ forward to when Ánoqua and the other¹ return, the ¿roup now ¹chooled “with a fair knowled¿e of Ón¿li¹h and ¹uch in¹truction in the thin¿¹ of civilization a¹ the ardent laBor of their in¹tructor¹ could ¿ive them in their ¹hort apprentice¹hip.” ¼¹ Sparhawk explain¹: “°eY were in that tran¹ition ¹tate where ¹o much depend¹ upon environment” (22). °i¹, of cour¹e, i¹ the proBlem. °e environment theY are returnin¿ to offer¹ ¹cant ¹upport for their fre¹hlY acquired civilized appetite¹ and identitie¹. ¼t thi¹ point in the narrative, Sparhawk re¹ort¹ to a plot line ¹he emploYed in her previou¹ novel. Ánoqua, like Äaith Red ½eart, face¹ the pro¹pect of a forced marria¿e to an intran¹i¿ent and fanatical traditionali¹t named PeÕito, who al¹o happen¹ to Be the chief’¹ ¹on. Àut there i¹ hope with the appearance of another returnee, a hand¹ome Youn¿ man named Cetan¿i, who i¹ “dre¹¹ed in the armY uniform that the ea¹tern ¹tudent¹ wore.” Cetan¿i ha¹ come to vi¹it hi¹ Boardin¿ ¹chool friend Mahaka, Ánoqua’¹ Brother. °e two Youn¿ men attended a Boardin¿ ¹chool different from Ánoqua’¹, and durin¿ that time Mahaka ¹pent manY hour¹ ¹in¿in¿ the prai¹e¹ of hi¹ ¹i¹ter. ¾aturallY, Cetan¿i i¹ ea¿er to meet her. Àut when Cetan¿i ¹ee¹ Ánoqua in traditional dre¹¹, evidence, he Believe¹, that ¹he ha¹ Back¹lid into her old ¹tatu¹, he i¹ di¹¿u¹ted BY the ¹i¿ht. (°e reader know¹ that, Õu¹t prior to Cetan¿i’¹ arrival, ¹he wa¹ aBout to di¹card the dre¹¹ and that her wearin¿ of it i¹ nothin¿ more than an unwi¹e attempt to “to
130
ADÈÊs
Brid¿e the di¹tance” Between her newlY acquired civilized ¹tatu¹ and the de¿raded ¹tation of camp women.) Cetan¿i’¹ mi¹readin¿ of the moment ¹et¹ the ¹ta¿e for what will eventuallY emer¿e a¹ a full-fled¿ed love ¹torY ¹tru¿¿lin¿ to Blo¹¹om in a world of pa¿an triBali¹m. Meanwhile, for a multitude of rea¹on¹—Bankrupt ¿overnment policie¹, corrupt trader¹, the aB¹ence of work, and emptY cookin¿ pot¹—the Indian¹ are ¹inkin¿ into hopele¹¹ne¹¹ and Become increa¹in¿lY vulneraBle to fanta¹tical vi¹ion¹ offerin¿ a path out of their mi¹erY. It appear¹ in the form of Âani¿i¹ka, a prophet who promi¹e¹ to lift the Sioux out of their de¹pair and tran¹port them to a paradi¹iacal world in which theY can live in the manner of their ance¹tor¹. Miraculou¹lY, theY are told, the white man’¹ God will even help Brin¿ aBout thi¹ new world. ¼¹ Âani¿i¹ka explain¹: “°e Indian¹ have never reÕected the Chri¹t and crucified him; it i¹ onlY the white men who crucifY their friend¹. °e Chri¹t ha¹ ¹een their cruel waY¹, and he ha¹ ¹een our cold and hun¿er. ½e take¹ care of people who ¹uffer, for when he wa¹ on earth he knew how ¹ufferin¿ felt; the white man made him [¹uffer]. ¼nd ¹o he come¹ to u¹” (97). SurelY, Âani¿i¹ka tell¹ them, theY have felt the rumBlin¿¹ of the new world to come. SurelY, “[Y]ou have felt the hurricane. Àut You have never felt anY wind like that which will come one daY in the land of the white men.” Âhen the wind doe¹ come, the white man will Be ¹wept from the earth. Âhen the wind come¹, the Buffalo will return, and “the old daY¹ of Your loved Indian life ¹hall come Back a¿ain.” Äor the moment, however, theY mu¹t wait. “Âe can do nothin¿, one triBe alone, nor all the triBe¹, until the Chri¹t i¹ readY” (98). Àut the wind will come. Áf that theY can Be certain. Cetan¿i, the voice of rea¹on and pro¿re¹¹, addre¹¹e¹ the ¹ame ¿atherin¿ and pronounce¹ the prophet’¹ me¹¹a¿e a¹ twi¹ted and delu¹ional non¹en¹e. Chri¹t, he ¹aY¹, would never participate in ¹uch a plot. °e Indian’¹ future laY not in the pa¹t. “¾o, it i¹ the future: °i¹ i¹ the white man’¹ ¹tren¿th, he love¹ tomorrow and he work¹ all daY to ¿et it.” °e daY¹ of huntin¿ the Buffalo are ¿one forever, ¹o “let u¹ hunt knowled¿e; it will not ¿ive out like the Buffalo, there’ll alwaY¹ Be ¹ome for tomorrow” (103–4). Àut the¹e word¹ do little to di¹¹uade the fanatical faithful who find little ¹olace in the call for rea¹on and knowled¿e. ¼nd ¹o the ¹ituation ¿row¹ darker. Âord come¹ that Sittin¿ Àull ¹upport¹ the new reli¿ion. Supporter¹ of the craze Be¿in makin¿ ¿ho¹t ¹hirt¹ and dancin¿ the “ma¿ic” into them. Perhap¹, ¹ome Believe, the warrior¹ can ¿ive
In the Shadow of Ramona
131
thi¹ Chri¹t a little help in ha¹tenin¿ the comin¿ confla¿ration. Some of the prophet’¹ follower¹ can Be ¹een ¹portin¿ Âinche¹ter rifle¹.
13
Áver the cour¹e of ¹everal chapter¹, Sparhawk con¹truct¹ one dramatic epi¹ode after another: a plot i¹ hatched BY PeÕito and other follower¹ of the prophet to murder Cetan¿i, who BarelY e¹cape¹ from the re¹ervation with hi¹ life; Ánoqua, who fear¹ that Cetan¿i ha¹ Been killed, morn¹ hi¹ aB¹ence But devote¹ her¹elf to carrYin¿ forth the work of civilization BY teachin¿ at the re¹ervation daY ¹chool; Cetan¿i return¹ miraculou¹lY and propo¹e¹ marria¿e to Ánoqua; the couple are married and ¿ive Birth a child; and Cetan¿i ¿row¹ depre¹¹ed over the lack of opportunitY to utilize hi¹ knowled¿e. Meanwhile, the ¿ho¹t dancer¹ continue to ¿ain ¹upport. Cetan¿i i¹ e¹peciallY di¹trau¿ht when he find¹ that Mahaka, hi¹ old ¹choolmate, ha¹ taken up the craze. Mahaka admit¹ to Cetan¿i that he ha¹ fond memorie¹ of hi¹ ¹chool Year¹ when he thrived in the work¹hop¹, enÕoYed hi¹ outin¿ experience, had hi¹ own Bank account, and nouri¹hed dream¹ of a pro¹perou¹ future. Àut there i¹ no work on the re¹ervation, ¹o hi¹ ¹chool dream¹ have ¿one to rot. “If I can’t ¹win¿ mY hammer, I have to ¹houlder mY ¿un.” ½e Be¿¹ Ánoqua and Cetan¿i to leave the re¹ervation, live amon¿ the white¹, and “tell them aBout me, and how I came to Be a wild Indian a¿ain” (288–89). ¼fter the couple’¹ home i¹ torched and their ¹tock driven off, theY reco¿nize that theY mu¹t leave. °eY mu¹t return to the Óa¹t, where theY can live a¹ the white men do, where there i¹ work, and where their child will not Be expo¹ed to the like¹ of ¿ho¹t dancer¹. Remainin¿ on the re¹ervation could onlY mean “triBal Bonda¿e.” Ôe¹, “the future laY in the familY, and not in the triBe” (251–52). ShortlY after their departure, however, new¹ come¹ of the ¹lau¿hter at Âounded Knee. Äearin¿ that Ánoqua’¹ father and Mahaka maY Be amon¿ the ¹lain, the couple leave for the re¹ervation. °e fir¹t ¹top i¹ the make¹hift ho¹pital where theY find her father wounded But on the road to recoverY. Àut what of Mahaka? Äearin¿ the wor¹t, theY ¹trike out for the ma¹¹acre ¹ite, where theY comB the corp¹e-ridden field and adÕacent ¿ullie¹ for anY ¹i¿n of him. ÄinallY, theY ¹tumBle upon him in hi¹ “frozen deathBed.” ¸iewin¿ the horrid ¹cene, Cetan¿i pronounce¹ a Õud¿ment that permeate¹ all of Sparhawk’¹ writin¿¹ on the returned ¹tudent i¹¹ue—the importance of work. Mahaka, he ¹aY¹, “died of idlene¹¹. . . . Gho¹t dance¹ are onlY mi¹u¹ed activitY.” SurelY, Sparhawk would have the reader Believe, the couple have made the ri¿ht deci¹ion to live in the Óa¹t (259–63).
132
ADÈÊs
Sparhawk’¹ third Indian novel, Senator Intrigue and Inspector Noseby: A
Tale of Spoils, wa¹ devoted to ¹upportin¿ reformer¹’ Belief that eliminatin¿ corruption in the Indian ¹ervice—the ¹o-called ¹poil¹ ¹Y¹tem—wa¹ e¹¹ential to accompli¹hin¿ the work of civilization. ¼¹ the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation proclaimed in 1888, too manY politician¹ viewed the Indian ¹ervice a¹ nothin¿ more than “a ¿reen pa¹ture where their political herd¹ mi¿ht comfortaBlY Brow¹e and fatten.”
14
ÓverY four Year¹, it wa¹ ar¿ued, meritoriou¹ appointee¹
were vulneraBle to di¹mi¹¹al purelY on the Ba¹i¹ of partY affiliation, thereBY underminin¿ ¹u¹tained effort¹ to tran¹form Indian ¹ocietie¹. °e ¹olution, reformer¹ rea¹oned, wa¹ to extend civil ¹ervice protection to all po¹ition¹ in the ¹ervice. Much of the focu¹ wa¹ on the po¹ition of Indian a¿ent. Ãaniel Ãorche¹ter, ¹uperintendent of Indian ¹chool¹, outlined in hi¹ 1889 annual report what he claimed wa¹ an all-too-tYpical ¹cenario.
¼ new a¿ent arrive¹ at the a¿encY. ¸erY ¹oon ¹he ¹how¹ a di¹like for the ¹uperintendent of the ¹chool, for the matron and ¹ome of the teacher¹. ½e leave¹ no ¹tone unturned to make their po¹ition¹ uncomfortaBle. ¼n earne¹t, faithful, Chri¹tian Youn¿ ladY teacher i¹ vilified and crowded out, to make room for a favorite who ha¹ no fitne¹¹ for teachin¿ or de¹ire to Benefit the pupil¹, But who can occupY the place and draw the ¹alarY. Áften emploYee¹ are removed to make place for per¹on¹ of the a¿ent’¹ likin¿. GraduallY the influence of the ¹uperintendent i¹ crippled, and he find¹ him¹elf pre¹idin¿ over an in¹uBordinate corp¹ of emploYee¹ and the in¹uBordination countenanced BY the a¿ent. ¼fter a time an indu¹trial teacher i¹ appointed who i¹ di¹¹olute, profane, and drunken. . . . °e ¹uperintendent interpo¹e¹ for the protection of the BoY¹, But find¹ him¹elf the victim of a con¹piracY to involve him in in¹urmountaBle difficultie¹ BY the foule¹t mean¹, a¹ a pretext for hi¹ di¹mi¹¹al. ½e ha¹ the love and re¹pect of the pupil¹, But mu¹t Be driven out that the a¿ent maY put at the head of the ¹chool one who will Be hi¹ tool. °e faithful ¹uperintendent ¹tep¹ a¹ide, and the advent of hi¹ ¹ucce¹¹or u¹her¹ in more im15
moral practice¹, for the corrupt re¿imen i¹ now fullY in the a¹cendencY.
PuBli¹hed in 1894, Senator Intrigue and Inspector Noseby appeared when Indian ¹ervice reform¹ were well underwaY. ÀY 1891, for in¹tance, the po¹ition¹ of ¹chool ¹uperintendent, teacher¹, matron¹, and phY¹ician¹ were under
In the Shadow of Ramona
133
civil ¹ervice cla¹¹ification, But other appointment¹ (clerk¹, indu¹trial teacher¹, carpenter¹, cook¹, laundre¹¹e¹, ¹eam¹tre¹¹e¹, and di¹ciplinarian¹) remained out¹ide the umBrella of protection. Moreover, the crucial appointment of a¿ent remained e¹¹entiallY a political appointment. (In 1908, the 16
po¹ition would Be aBoli¹hed. ) In wa¹ in thi¹ political context that Sparhawk con¹tructed her ¹torY. °e novel i¹ ¹ituated ¹omewhere in Indian ËerritorY. °e openin¿ ¹cene i¹ of a “¿rote¹que proce¹¹ion” of Indian¹ ¿atherin¿ at the re¹ervation a¿encY for ration daY. °e killin¿ and di¹triBution of cattle amon¿ the Indian¹ i¹ aBout to unfold. It i¹ a ¿ha¹tlY ¹cene. ¼ trader’¹ clerk, named SaYre, look¹ on a¹ the cattle are ¹loppilY ¹hot BY the Indian¹, who ¹eem to ¿lorY in watchin¿ the tortuou¹ death of the animal¹. Àut SaYre focu¹e¹ hi¹ attention on one of the triBe’¹ mo¹t promi¹in¿ ¹chool¿irl¹, Âa¹u, who i¹ partakin¿ in the BloodY ¹pectacle followin¿ the ¹lau¿hter. “°ere ¹he ¹quatted with women and other ¿irl¹ down amon¿ the dead and dYin¿ animal¹. Âith her lon¿ knife ¹he had Be¿un to cut ¹trip¹ of the palpitatin¿ fle¹h from which the life had not Yet eBBed awaY. Soon (he had ¹een it Before), her hand¹ would Be filled with the horrid entrail¹ and ¹he would Be devourin¿ them like a hun¿rY animal, a¹ ¹he wa¹” (17). °e reader i¹ led to Believe that SaYre, to¿ether with a¿ent ½utchin¹ and the mi¹¹ionarY Rathman, alon¿ with their wive¹, are the onlY hope for the¹e ¹ava¿e¹, who while “of the ¹ame Blood a¹ the white race are a thou¹and Year¹ Behind” (19). ¼fter e¹taBli¹hin¿ the di¹mal ¹tate of the Indian¹, Sparhawk quicklY move¹ the ¹torY forward ¹everal Year¹. SaYre i¹ now ¹chool ¹uperintendent and Believe¹ that he i¹ makin¿ ¹low But ¿enuine pro¿re¹¹, mea¹ured BY the Indian¹’ ¿rowin¿ ¹upport for education, individual initiative, and Chri¹tianitY. °e pro¿re¹¹ can Be ¹een in Âa¹u, now nineteen Year¹ old. “SaYre’¹ heart ¹welled a¹ he looked on her and recalled that daY when he had ¹een her on the field at the Beef i¹¹ue” (41–42). Âa¹u i¹ now attendin¿ the a¿encY ¹chool and, not ¹urpri¹in¿lY, ha¹ attracted the attention of Chekotoco, a Bri¿ht Youn¿ man ¹hortlY returned from an ea¹tern Boardin¿ ¹chool. SaYre anticipate¹ a marria¿e Between the two, and he and hi¹ wife have ¹ecretlY vowed to ¿ive the couple a weddin¿. It remain¹ for SaYre to find work for the pro¹pective newlYwed¹, work Bein¿ “the fir¹t of all in¹piration¹ to ¿ood” (42). Meanwhile, in farawaY Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, a nefariou¹ ¹cheme i¹ afoot to undermine SaYre’¹ accompli¹hment¹. ¼t the heart of the plot are two
134
ADÈÊs
¹currilou¹ fi¿ure¹, US Senator Intri¿ue and Indian ¹ervice in¹pector ¾o¹eBY. Án thi¹ daY, Senator Intri¿ue explain¹ to in¹pector ¾o¹eBY how theY Both will profit hand¹omelY if ¾o¹eBY can ¹ucceed in writin¿ a report ¹ufficientlY critical of SaYre and ½utchin¹ to cau¹e their di¹mi¹¹al. Àut ¾o¹eBY mu¹t Be careful, the ¹enator ¹tre¹¹e¹, not to openlY violate exi¹tin¿ civil ¹ervice protocol¹. ¾o¹eBY’¹ report mu¹t ¹how that Both SaYre and ½utchin¹ have failed mi¹eraBlY at movin¿ the Indian¹ toward civilization. In the ¹ame vein, he mu¹t con¹truct a report ca¹ti¿atin¿ the ima¿e of the ea¹tern ¹chool¹ a¹ ineffective in¹trument¹ for civilizin¿ Indian Youth, how returnin¿ ¹tudent¹ inevitaBlY Back¹lide into the verY ¹ava¿e haBit¹ the ¹chool¹ have alle¿edlY re¹cued them from. °e ¹o-called philanthropi¹t¹, the ¹enator fume¹, were havin¿ too much ¹aY on how to deal with Indian¹. °eY and their pet ea¹tern ¹chool¹ mu¹t Be “choked off.” Ánce thi¹ wa¹ accompli¹hed, there wa¹ much to Be ¿ained: “¼¹ lon¿ a¹ we can’t kill off the Indian, we’ll u¹e him” (105). So Sparhawk plaY¹ out the ¹torY. ¾o¹eBY ¹ucceed¹ in Brin¿in¿ aBout SaYre’¹ and ½utchin¹’¹ removal, after which the ¹enator u¹e¹ hi¹ influence to replace them with appointee¹ who will do hi¹ Biddin¿. Meanwhile, SaYre, now livin¿ off the re¹ervation But concerned aBout Chekotoco’¹ and Âa¹u’¹ welfare, write¹ the former that he ha¹ ¹ecured emploYment for him off the re¹ervation. ¼fter the Youn¿ man’¹ marria¿e to Âa¹u, the couple ¹hould proceed to a de¹i¿nated location where theY can live their live¹ productivelY—that i¹ to ¹aY, where Chekotoco can earn a livin¿ wa¿e like the white man. Âa¹u, moreover, can continue her ¹choolin¿, which ha¹ Been limited at the a¿encY ¹chool. SaYre’¹ letter, however, pa¹¹e¹ throu¿h the hand¹ of the new a¿ent. Àoth he and the new ¹chool ¹uperintendent decide a¿ain¹t pa¹¹in¿ it on to Chekotoco. (°e ¹uperintendent’¹ wife ha¹ come to value Âa¹u a¹ a dome¹tic ¹ervant and i¹ loath to lo¹e her.) ¼nd ¹o the a¿ent and ¹uperintendent pocket SaYre’¹ letter. Chekotoco, theY correctlY ¹urmi¹e, will never know the difference. Chekotoco and Âa¹u do mana¿e to marrY, with mi¹¹ionarY Rathman— ¹till on the re¹ervation—performin¿ the ¹ervice. Àut, i¿norant of SaYre’¹ letter, the couple Be¿in the ¹low downward ¹piral that Sparhawk ¹aw a¹ inevitaBle on re¹ervation¹ Barren of opportunitie¹ and pro¿re¹¹ive po¹¹iBilitie¹. Under the new a¿ent, the old triBal waY¹ reemer¿e, and returned ¹tudent¹ are left without anY ¹upport in the new atmo¹phere. ¼ ¿reat “medicine dance” i¹ planned. °e culminatin¿ moment in the novel come¹ when, in
In the Shadow of Ramona
135
preparation for the dance, the old women (includin¿ Âa¹u’¹ own mother) proceed to ¹trip Âa¹u of her ¹chool dre¹¹ and force her to wear the old co¹tume. “¼t the end of their laBor¹ it would have Been impo¹¹iBle to reco¿nize Âa¹u, the ¹chool ¿irl. She wa¹ completelY the Indian ¹quaw.” Âa¹u i¹ led out to the dance ¿round BY her mother: “½ere were the ¹quaw¹ hideou¹ with paint, and the Brave¹ even more hideou¹. °e tomtom¹ were Beatin¿, the men and women were takin¿ their place¹.” Âhen Âa¹u ¿limp¹e¹ her Beloved Chekotoco, ¹he ¹ee¹ that he ha¹ ¹uffered a ¹imilar fate. Âhen the dance Be¿in¹, he ¿ra¹p¹ her hand and whi¹per¹, “Âe have to do it,” and then add¹, “Âe are Indian¹, and onlY Indian¹. °i¹ i¹ all that i¹ left.” Le¹t the reader mi¹¹ the author’¹ me¹¹a¿e, Sparhawk clo¹e¹ with the¹e word¹: “Âhat Bitter tear¹, what ¹orrow¹ are Before them!” ¼nd then the reminder: “¼nd like them there are hundred¹—Ye¹, thou¹and¹” (160–62). Ëaken to¿ether, Sparhawk’¹ novel¹ offer a deva¹tatin¿ fictional indictment of Both indi¿enou¹ ¼merica and federal Indian policie¹. In the la¹t re¿ard, the que¹tion ari¹e¹: how clo¹elY did Sparhawk’¹ fictional writin¿¹ mirror the reform outlook of ¾I¼, for which ¹he directed the department of Indian LiBrarie¹ and the Indian Indu¹trie¹ Lea¿ue? Án one level, her ¹upport for the¹e endeavor¹ and her fiction writin¿¹ were clearlY compatiBle; providin¿ whole¹ome readin¿ material and encoura¿in¿ work opportunitie¹ in ¹chool and re¹ervation ¹ettin¿¹ were vital to advancin¿ the Indian¹’ lon¿-term enli¿htenment and pro¿re¹¹. °at ¹aid, the di¹tinct ¹train in her novel¹—the repetitiou¹ theme of pro¿re¹¹ive-minded returned ¹tudent¹ Bein¿ reduced to their former cultural ¹tation BY triBal communitie¹ ¹till ¹teeped in ¹ava¿i¹m—¹u¿¿e¹t¹ that her view¹ were more clo¹elY ali¿ned with tho¹e of Richard ½enrY Pratt, who ¿enerallY ar¿ued for an a¿¿re¹¹ive pro¿ram of rapid and whole¹ale a¹¹imilation of Indian Youth in di¹tant off-re¹ervation ¹chool¹, followed BY their ¹ettlement in white communitie¹ ¹upportive of their pro¿re¹¹.
17
In ¹pite of her lon¿ a¹¹ociation with ¾I¼, Sparhawk would alwaY¹
admire Pratt’¹ method¹. In 1920, Year¹ after he wa¹ retired, ¹he wrote him: “Âe were alwaY¹ of one mind on the Indian que¹tion.”
18
So what wa¹ Sparhawk’¹ impact on Indian policY? ÀY turnin¿ to fiction, did her influence approximate that of ½elen ½unt jack¹on? °e ¹econd que¹tion i¹ ea¹ier to an¹wer than the fir¹t. Óven thou¿h hi¹torian¹ have ¹urelY undere¹timated Sparhawk’¹ ¹i¿nificance, it i¹ difficult to make the ca¹e that her impact on Indian reform wa¹ equivalent to jack¹on’¹. °i¹ wa¹ partlY ¹o,
136
ADÈÊs
one ima¿ine¹, Becau¹e Sparhawk wa¹ writin¿ in the 1890¹, well after the reform movement wa¹ underwaY, ¹parked in no ¹mall part BY jack¹on’¹ earlier writin¿¹. Still, it i¹ clear that Sparhawk wa¹ well known in reform circle¹, and her ¹entimental, didactic novel¹ maY well have helped ¹u¹tain puBlic ¹entiment for ¹olvin¿ the Indian proBlem alon¿ perceived humanitarian line¹. °e fact that her three Indian novel¹ collectivelY went throu¿h an 19
a¹toundin¿ twentY-five edition¹ ¹u¿¿e¹t¹ that ¹he wa¹ widelY read.
Ánce
more, policY maker¹ were paYin¿ attention. ¼fter readin¿ Onoqua , Ãaniel Ãorche¹ter, former ¹uperintendent of Indian ¹chool¹, wrote the author that he had read the Book with “much plea¹ure.” In addition to part¹ of the ¹torY Bein¿ “thrillin¿,” it wa¹ “verY true to Indian life and to ¹cene¹ with which I am familiar.” Âilliam ½. ½ailmann, ¹ucceedin¿ Ãorche¹ter in the ¹ame po¹t, wrote Sparhawk: “I have read it with much intere¹t and profit; and it¹ view of the Indian proBlem ¹eem¹ to me the onlY rational one. I have no douBt that the Book will contriBute much to the ¹olution of the proBlem on ri¿ht line¹.”
20
Äurther evidence can Be found in the deci¹ion of the Indian
Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation’¹ executive committee to purcha¹e five hundred copie¹ of
Senator Intrigue and Inspector Noseby for di¹triBution to it¹ memBer¹hip.21 In 1895, Sparhawk wrote ½erBert Âel¹h, ¹ecretarY of the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation: “ÓverY daY I Breathe I lon¿ more for the ¹word that i¹ to cut that Gordian knot in which the Government ha¹ tied up the Indian. Let u¹ not wa¹te our time in trYin¿ to untie it. Make the Youn¿ Indian¹ ¹tron¿, ¿ive them hope and work, and thi¹ race of fi¿hter¹ will maintain their own ri¿ht¹ BY their ri¿ht arm¹ with other weapon¹ than tomahawk¹.”
22
Ánce armed with “hope
and work,” Sparhawk Believed, Indian¹ would ¿ladlY ca¹t a¹ide their traditional waY¹ for the white man’¹ civilization. °ere wa¹ never anY douBt But that the old lifewaY¹ mu¹t Be eradicated. In thi¹ re¿ard, Sparhawk, like her fellow reformer¹, wa¹ a pri¹oner of lon¿-¹tandin¿ national a¹¹umption¹ aBout cultural hierarchY, ¹ocial pro¿re¹¹, and the ri¿hteou¹ne¹¹ of their cau¹e. So ¹he touched pen to paper, tellin¿ ¹torie¹ of hope and de¹pair in the heart of Indian countrY, where the victorY of civilization over ¹ava¿i¹m wa¹ onlY partiallY won.
Notes 1. Äor jack¹on, the novel, and it¹ impact, ¹ee Mathe¹, Helen Hunt Jackson and Her Indian Reform Legacy, chap. 5; Kate Phillip¹, Helen Hunt Jackson: A Literary Life,
In the Shadow of Ramona
137
chap¹. 7–8; ÃeLY¹er, Ramona Memories, chap. 1; and Prucha, American Indian Policy
in Crisis, 161–65. 2. ¼n exception to thi¹ i¹ joel Pfi¹ter, who, in Individuality Incorporated: Indians
and the Multicultural Modern, BrieflY examine¹ one of the novel¹ di¹cu¹¹ed in thi¹ chapter. 3. Âillard and Livermore, A Woman of the Century, 673. 4. Äor the connection Between ½elen ½unt jack¹on and the ¾I¼, ¹ee Mathe¹,
Divinely Guided , chap. 8; and jacoB¹on, “°e ¾I¼ and the Órotic¹ of Reform,” 275– 76. Äor Sparhawk’¹ work in the two ¾I¼ department¹ and their aim¹, ¹ee Indian’s Friend, ¼u¿u¹t 1890, 1; ¾ovemBer 1895, 6; ÄeBruarY 1895, 5; and MaY 1896, 5. 5. Quoted in Mathe¹, °e Women’s National Indian Association: A History, 39. 6. Äor Sparhawk’¹ overall view¹ on the Indian que¹tion, ¹ee her e¹¹aY “°e Indian’¹ Ôoke.” 7. Sparhawk vi¹ited Carli¹le more than once to ¿ather material for her novel.
Indian Helper, june 21, 1889, 3. 8. Quotation¹ from the novel¹ will Be cited in the text. 9. Äor Pratt’¹ account, ¹ee Pratt, Battlefield and Classroom. °e mo¹t thorou¿h account of Pratt’¹ pri¹on experiment at Äort Marion i¹ Lookin¿Bill, War Dance at Fort
Marion. Carli¹le wa¹ the model for the creation of ¹ome twentY-five off-re¹ervation ¹chool¹. °e literature on Indian Boardin¿ ¹chool¹ i¹ exten¹ive. Äor Broad overview¹ of the ¹uBÕect, ¹ee Coleman, American Indian Children at School; ¼dam¹, Education for
Extinction; jacoB¹, White Mother to a Dark Race ; Äear-Se¿al, White Man’s Club ; and Âoolford, °e Benevolent Experiment. 10. Sparhawk wa¹ an ardent ¹upporter of the outin¿ concept a¹ can Be ¹een in her e¹¹aY °e Next Step: °e “Outing” Work, 2–7. Äor it¹ application in variou¹ ¹chool¹ ¹ee ¼dam¹, Education for Extinction, 156–63; Ërennert, “Ärom Carli¹le to Phoenix”; ¸učković, Voices from Haskell , 122–27; Âhalen, Native Students at Work; and Âhalen, “LaBored Learnin¿.” 11. °e ¹o-called returned ¹tudent proBlem wa¹ a much-di¹cu¹¹ed i¹¹ue in the 1890¹. See ¼dam¹, Education for Extinction, 283–92; and ¼hern, “°e Returned Indian¹.” 12. In all her writin¿¹ on returned ¹tudent¹, Sparhawk make¹ clear that Both ¿ender¹ were ¹uBÕected to immen¹e pre¹¹ure¹ to ¹hed their new civilized waY¹, But ¹he wa¹ particularlY di¹turBed BY the pro¹pect of female ¹tudent¹ Bein¿ forced into marria¿e¹ in which theY would Be de¿raded to the lowlY ¹tatu¹ of a “¹quaw.” In her ¹hort ¹torY “I¹tia,” the lead character return¹ from an ea¹tern ¹chool onlY to di¹cover that her father i¹ plannin¿ to marrY her off to a “wild” Indian after the numBer of ponie¹ can Be a¿reed upon. I¹tia wonder¹, “Âa¹ it for ¹uch a fate . . . that ¹he had ¹pent her five Year¹ at ¹chool? Âa¹ it for thi¹ that ¹he had come home three month¹ Before, hi¿h hope¹ of all the ¿ood that ¹he would Be aBle to do here? ½ad ¹he taken honor¹ at her ¹chool that ¹he mi¿ht Become the ¹quaw of one of the mo¹t viciou¹ Indian¹ on the re¹ervation?” See Sparhawk, “I¹tia,” 243–51.
138
ADÈÊs
13. Äor the Gho¹t Ãance and the Âounded Knee ma¹¹acre, ¹ee UtleY, °e Last Days of the Sioux Nation; Á¹tler, °e Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism; ¼nder¹¹on, °e Lakota Ghost Dance; Greene, American Carnage; and Âarren, God’s Red Son . 14. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee, annual report, 1988, 33. 15. Commi¹¹ioner of Indian ¼ffair¹, annual report, 1889, 336. 16. Äor the¹e chan¿e¹, ¹ee Prucha, °e Great Father, 2:733–36. 17. It ¹hould Be pointed out, however, that Pratt wa¹ not entirelY con¹i¹tent on the returned ¹tudent que¹tion and went to ¿reat len¿th¹ to ar¿ue that Carli¹le ¹tudent¹ performed well upon returnin¿ to the re¹ervation. See ¼dam¹, Education for Extinction , 288–91. 18. Quoted in Pfi¹ter, Individuality Incorporated, 64. 19. “Sparhawk, Ärance¹ C., 1847–1930,” ÂorldCat Identitie¹, at http://www. worldcat.or¿/identitie¹/lccn-no99–53433/. 20. Àoth letter¹ are enclo¹ure¹ in Ärance¹ C. Sparhawk to ½erBert Âel¹h, ¼u¿u¹t 18, 1894, Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Paper¹, reel no. 11. 21. Matthew Sniffen to Ärance¹ C. Sparhawk, ÁctoBer 4, 1894, Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Paper¹, reel no. 73. 22. Ärance¹ C. Sparhawk to ½erBert Âel¹h, March 21, 1895, Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Paper¹, reel no. 12.
ÐET»EEN 1879 ÈND 1951, thou¹and¹ of Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation memBer¹ laBored on Behalf of ¼merica’¹ indi¿enou¹ population. InitiallY almo¹t ¹olelY a woman’¹ a¹¹ociation, in 1902 the ¾I¼ chan¿ed it¹ name to the ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, a move that prompted cofounder ¼melia Stone Quinton to explain to a friend that all Branche¹ and auxiliarie¹ could now let men Õoin if theY wi¹h, But there wa¹ no requirement to do ¹o. °at ¹ame Year ¹he wa¹ reelected pre¹ident unanimou¹lY, reportin¿ to the ¹ame friend that the a¹¹ociation had Been unaBle to find anYone el¹e willin¿ to ¹pend the time. More chan¿e wa¹ on the horizon. In 1905 john Â. Clark, a Chri¹tian worker and lawYer from Ón¿land, Became the fir¹t man to ¹erve a¹ Both corre¹pondin¿ and ¿eneral ¹ecretarY, takin¿ over the po¹ition once held BY Quinton. ÀY includin¿ men, the ¾I¼ expanded it¹ work and capitalized on the experti¹e of it¹ memBer¹hip in waY¹ that cro¹¹ed ¿ender line¹. ½owever, the a¹¹ociation’¹ primarY ¿oal had not chan¿ed. °eY continued to ¹end re¹olution¹ and memorial¹ to Con¿re¹¹ on variou¹ Indian-related i¹¹ue¹ and to en¿a¿e in their educational and mi¹¹ionarY work. Äounded onlY a quarter of a centurY earlier, theY had alreadY e¹taBli¹hed ¹ome fiftY mi¹¹ionarY ¹ite¹ ¹tretchin¿ from Mount ¸ernon Àarrack¹ in ¼laBama, where a¹¹ociation memBer¹ were educatin¿ the children of the Chiricahua ¼pache pri¹oner¹ of war, to Sha¹ta CountY, California, where theY were educatin¿ local Indian children.
Part 4. From Philadelphia to
Northern California
Coast to Coast Reform In the followin¿ chapter¹, ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹ de¹criBe¹ the reform activitie¹ of two ¾I¼ memBer¹ ¹eparated BY time, ¿eo¿raphY, and ¿ender: MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and Charle¹ Ó. Kel¹eY. ¼lthou¿h decade¹ apart, theY were equallY pa¹¹ionate aBout their work. ÀonneY repre¹ent¹ the foundin¿ principle¹ of the ¾I¼ with it¹ empha¹i¹ on education and mi¹¹ionarY work, while Kel¹eY repre¹ent¹ the twentieth-centurY approach to Indian reform. Ëo achieve hi¹ ¿oal of purcha¹in¿ home¹ for California’¹ landle¹¹ Indian¹, however, he returned to the a¿e-old practice of a petition drive, u¹ed ¹o ¹ucce¹¹fullY decade¹ earlier BY ÀonneY and Quinton.
ÍHÈÖTE´ 6
Mary Lucinda Bonney Rambaut Educator and Indian Reformer ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
ØNÈbÈTED ¶ND²ÈN HOsT²Å²T²Es durin¿ the Civil Âar, per¹i¹tent anteBellum corruption in the Indian Áffice, and the pu¹h of ¹ettlement we¹tward threatenin¿ Indian-occupied land¹ created proBlem¹ the federal ¿overnment ¹eemed incapaBle of ¹olvin¿. Óa¹tern humanitarian¹, reformer¹, and philanthropi¹t¹ or¿anized to addre¹¹ the¹e i¹¹ue¹, Believin¿ that throu¿h the power of their evan¿elical Chri¹tianitY, theY po¹¹e¹¹ed the ¹ecret to ¹ucce¹¹fullY deal1
in¿ with the va¿arie¹ of the “Indian proBlem.” Áne ¹uch ¿roup, the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼), wa¹ founded in Philadelphia in the late 1870¹ BY MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton, memBer¹ of 2
the citY’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church.
Ãriven BY a dutY to ¹ave other¹, a Belief in the tran¹formative power of evan¿elical Chri¹tianitY, and a de¹ire to exert their newfound “moral power” in ¹ocietY, ¹ome women formed or¿anization¹ to deal with variou¹ ¹ocietal i¹¹ue¹. “ÃeeplY deplorin¿ the lon¿ catalo¿ue of unÕu¹t dealin¿¹” of the ¿overnment toward the Indian¹ and “con¹ciou¹ of per¹onal re¹pon¹iBilitY for effort¹ to ¹ecure the adoption of a Õu¹t, protective and fo¹terin¿ Indian policY,” ÀonneY and her ¹mall ¿roup of dedicated follower¹ ¹et out to awaken 3
puBlic ¹entiment on the Indian¹’ Behalf. Ëo achieve thi¹ ¿oal, the women ¹upported the pa¹¹a¿e of protective le¿i¹lation, appointed and funded mi¹¹ionarie¹ re¹idin¿ amon¿ the Indian¹, and worked on their Behalf “indu¹tri4
allY, politicallY, educationallY, morallY and reli¿iou¹lY.” Until theY di¹Banded in 1951, memBer¹ of thi¹ a¹¹ociation laBored on Behalf of the Indian¹, ¹preadin¿ Chri¹tianitY and education to women and children from Älorida to California.
143
144
ÌÈTHEs
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY, the in¹piration Behind the ¾I¼, wa¹ lon¿ experienced in workin¿ on other¹’ Behalf. ½er reli¿iou¹ upBrin¿in¿, her education at Ómma Âillard’¹ ËroY Äemale SeminarY in ËroY, ¾ew Ôork, and her experience e¹taBli¹hin¿ and runnin¿ her own pre¹ti¿iou¹ Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY in Philadelphia, a¹ well a¹ her memBer¹hip in variou¹ mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietie¹, had ¿iven her the ¹kill¹ to found an or¿anization that outlived her BY half a centurY. °e ¾I¼ not onlY fullY funded more than ¹ixtY 5
mi¹¹ion ¹ite¹ But enaBled middle- and upper-cla¹¹ women to en¿a¿e in Indian reform work on an equal footin¿ with their male counterpart¹. ¼lthou¿h in recent Year¹ the Indian work of her a¹¹ociation ha¹ Become Better known, ÀonneY’¹ accompli¹hment¹ ¹till remain in the ¹hadow.
6
ÀonneY, the fourth of ¹ix children, wa¹ Born in ½amilton, ¾ew Ôork, on june 8, 1816, to ÀenÕamin Ä. and Lucinda Âilder ÀonneY. In a document written almo¹t ei¿ht decade¹ later, ¹he de¹criBed her father a¹ “a farmer in comfortaBle circum¹tance¹—a man of inte¿ritY, of ¹ound Õud¿ment, and of ¹tron¿ influence.” ½er mother, a former ¹choolteacher who often mini¹tered to the “poor, to the unfortunate, to the ¹ick, to the dYin¿,” wa¹ intere¹ted “in everY thin¿ that concern[ed] human weal and e¹peciallY in education, moral and reli¿iou¹ movement¹.” Óducation wa¹ ¹tron¿lY ¹tre¹¹ed in the ÀonneY hou¹ehold. It wa¹ “rooted in our Bein¿,” ¹he remini¹ced, and “with sacrifices” her parent¹ had provided her and her onlY ¹urvivin¿ ¹iBlin¿, ÀenÕamin 7
Äranklin ÀonneY, with acce¹¹ to the Be¹t ¹chool¹. MarY Lucinda attended the LiterarY and °eolo¿ical In¹titution of ½amilton Before tran¹ferrin¿ to the Ladie¹’ ¼cademY in the ¹ame town. She prai¹ed the ¹chool’¹ principal, ½elen Phelp¹, a¹ an “in¹piration to hi¿h attainment¹ and character and u¹efulne¹¹ that [had] pervaded” her life. ½owever, it wa¹ her attendance at Ómma Âillard’¹ ËroY Äemale SeminarY that defined her future a¹ an educator. She de¹criBed the ¹eminarY a¹ “the fir¹t then in our land for Youn¿ 8
ladie¹,” with “¹uperior and influence elevatin¿” in¹truction.
Ápened in 1821, ËroY Äemale SeminarY offered female ¹tudent¹ a curriculum ¹imilar to that found in colle¿e¹ educatin¿ Youn¿ men. ¼ccordin¿ to hi¹torian ¼nne Äiror Scott, Âillard’¹ ¹eminarY wa¹ “an important ¹ource of femini¹m and the incuBator of a new ¹tYle of female per¹onalitY.” °e women ¿raduate¹, whether theY cho¹e to marrY or teach, Became “a¿ent¹ of cultural diffu¹ion, ¹preadin¿ Âillard’¹ idea¹ aBout women’¹ capacitie¹.” Âillard created a network of former ¹tudent¹ that BY 1837 Became formalized with the
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
145
or¿anization of the Âillard ¼¹¹ociation for the Mutual Improvement of Ëeacher¹. Àecau¹e teachin¿ wa¹ not viewed a¹ an acceptaBle occupation for ¹outhern women, manY of ËroY’¹ ¿raduate¹, includin¿ ÀonneY, moved ¹outh to educate Youn¿ ¿irl¹. ¼ 1930¹ ¹tudY revealed that in South Carolina alone more than one hundred women had ¹ome connection to ËroY SeminarY, indicatin¿ that it had Been a “maÕor factor in the ¹hapin¿ of ¹outhern culture.”
9
ÀonneY, who tau¿ht in the ¹tate for ¹ix Year¹ Before returnin¿ north,
¹erved a¹ a perfect a¿ent of thi¹ “cultural diffu¹ion.” Le¹¹on¹ learned at ËroY and durin¿ her Year¹ of teachin¿ were ea¹ilY tran¹ferred to her later Indian reform work. ¼lthou¿h influenced BY her education and ¹uB¹equent teachin¿ career, it wa¹ al¹o her reli¿iou¹ experience¹ that defined ÀonneY. ½er parent¹ were devout Àapti¹t¹. She rememBered her mother’¹ “active effort¹ for the ¹alvation of ¹oul¹ and her lar¿e apprehen¹ion of the love of God in Christ .” ½er mother’¹ reli¿iou¹ experience wa¹ “an unu¹ual one,” ÀonneY explained. Äor “three time¹, at interval¹ of Year¹, ¹he wa¹ under extreme reli¿iou¹ depre¹¹ion for ¹everal month¹,” each time emer¿in¿ “with [the] fulle¹t confidence of per¹onal acceptance.” °e dau¿hter’¹ experience differed. ¼lthou¿h rai¹ed in 10
a Àapti¹t hou¹ehold and pre¹umaBlY familiar with Àeliever’¹ Àapti¹m,
Year¹
later ÀonneY confided to her friend ¼melia Stone Quinton that ¹he “had not
perceived
it.” In¹tead, in aBout 1837 while teachin¿ in ¾ew Ôork CitY, ¹he
Became affiliated with Saint Luke’¹ Ópi¹copal Church and wa¹ immer¹ed in the ½ud¹on River, viewin¿ the proce¹¹ at the time a¹ a “ means of grace.” ¾ot until ¹he moved to RoBertville, South Carolina, in the mid-1840¹ to ¹erve a¹ principal of the RoBertville ¼cademY did ¹he unite with the Àapti¹t Church, viewin¿ it a¹ the fir¹t ¹acrifice ¹he had ever made “to te¹tifY to what [¹he] Believed to Be God’¹ truth.” Ãecade¹ later ¹he wrote Quinton that after her Bapti¹m in RoBertville, it “would have Been a plea¹ure and a privile¿e to have te¹tified to the whole world, Ye¹, to the univer¹e of intelli¿ent Bein¿¹ to what I Believed to Be God’¹ truth.” °i¹ later union had ¿iven her moral power, ¹he declared, makin¿ “it ea¹ier ever after to ¿ive up what [¹he] thou¿ht to Be error and to receive what ¹eemed to [her] truth.”
11
½er ¹tron¿ reli¿iou¹ con-
viction wa¹ a perfect fit in the milieu of the late nineteenth-centurY Indian reform movement dominated BY evan¿elical Prote¹tant¹, who Believed that theY were divinelY ¿uided to do God’¹ work. Äollowin¿ her ¿raduation from ËroY Äemale SeminarY, ÀonneY tau¿ht a
146
ÌÈTHEs
Year each in jer¹eY CitY, ¾ew Ôork CitY, and Ãe RuYter, ¾ew Ôork, where ¹he al¹o ¹erved a¹ principal of an academY Before returnin¿ to ËroY SeminarY for Yet another one-Year teachin¿ a¹¹i¿nment. In 1842 ¹he moved to Àeaufort, South Carolina, where for the next three Year¹ ¹he ran a ¿irl¹’ ¹chool, de¹criBin¿ her experience a¹ Both “plea¹ant” and “valuaBle.” She then moved to the ½u¿uenot communitY of RoBertville, South Carolina, where ¹he tau¿ht for another three Year¹, findin¿ her time there one of “experience and profit.” In 1847 ¹he affiliated with the local Àapti¹t church and wa¹ Baptized BY it¹ pa¹tor, the Reverend °oma¹ RamBaut, Ã.Ã. LL.Ã., with whom, accordin¿ to one ¹ource, ¹he wa¹ in love. ½e wa¹, however, a married man. Äour decade¹ 12
later, after he had Been widowed twice, theY married.
°e rumor of ÀonneY’¹ affection for RamBaut perhap¹ explain¹ her deci¹ion to return north when he left RoBertville to Become the pa¹tor at the Äir¹t Church in Savannah, Geor¿ia. Âhile RamBaut went to Geor¿ia, ÀonneY moved to Providence, Rhode I¹land, where ¹he tau¿ht for a Year Before Õoinin¿ her former principal and teacher at ½amilton ¼cademY, ½elen 13
Phelp¹, to teach in Philadelphia for Yet another three Year¹.
ÄinallY, in 1850,
partiallY to ¿ive her a¿in¿ widowed mother a permanent home, ÀonneY decided to open her own ¹chool. InitiallY ¹he had thou¿ht aBout locatin¿ in Charle¹ton, South Carolina, But her mother, a northerner BY Birth, “turned the ¹cale in favor of Philadelphia.” ÀonneY ¹ou¿ht out ½arriette ¼. ÃillaYe, fellow ËroY SeminarY ¿raduate who wa¹ teachin¿ there at the time, to Õoin her in the venture. Àut ¹ince ÃillaYe’¹ Brother¹ were reluctant for their ¹i¹ter to a¹¹ume anY financial re¹pon¹iBilitie¹, ÀonneY a¿reed to Bear all of the co¹t¹, arran¿in¿ to Borrow moneY from them. °e Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY (later Che¹tnut Street SeminarY) opened on SeptemBer 1, 1850, on the upper part of Che¹tnut Street at no. 525 in a “commodiou¹ and plea¹ant” hou¹e rented for $900 a Year with no expen¹e ¹pared to make it “attractive and homelike.”
14
Until 1883, the ¹chool remained in thi¹ “ ¹tatelY, commodiou¹ four-¹torY Brick dwellin¿, with ¿reen ¹lat ¹hutter¹, white marBle trimmin¿ and Broad marBle ¹tep¹, . . . located in the middle of a row of ‘fine citY re¹idence¹.’”
15
°e ¹chool’¹ reputation ¹pread far and wide; BY the end of it¹ fourth Year, all deBt¹, e¹timated at ¹li¿htlY over $4,000, had Been paid. Ärom then on, all profit¹ went to ÀonneY, ¿ivin¿ her the financial ¹taBilitY to later provide much of the earlY fundin¿ for the ¾I¼.
16
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
147
º²gÇ´E 6.1. Àefore ¹he cofounded the ¾I¼, MarY Lucinda ÀonneY, top ri¿ht, founded the Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY with ½arriette ¼. ÃillaYe, top left. Áther facultY included SYlvia j. Óa¹tman, Bottom left, and Ärance¹ Ó. Àennett, Bottom ri¿ht. In the center i¹ ¼BBY ¼. Sutherland, the fifth and la¹t principal of the ¹chool. Courte¹Y of the ½i¹torical SocietY of Penn¹Ylvania, Philadelphia.
148
ÌÈTHEs
Ôoun¿ women Between the a¿e¹ of twelve and ei¿hteen, Both Boarder¹ and daY ¹tudent¹, received “a thorou¿h and extended education in the varied department¹ of literature and ¹cience . . . with a con¹tant effort [to] unite
solidity
with polish .” °e ¹eminarY’¹ 1855 catalo¿ue provided an exten¹ive
readin¿ li¹t for each of the three cla¹¹e¹. °e ¹enior cla¹¹, for example, read Book¹ on poetrY, ¿eometrY, hi¹torY, phY¹iolo¿Y, BotanY, ¿eolo¿Y, ¿eo¿raphY, philo¹ophY, and the ÀiBle a¹ well a¹ learnin¿ penman¹hip, compo¹ition, and ancient and modern lan¿ua¿e¹. Student¹ were encoura¿ed to take advanta¿e of “hi¹torical, ¹cientific or literarY” lecture¹ offered in and around Philadelphia.
17
Mu¹ic, art, and lan¿ua¿e cla¹¹e¹ were al¹o provided. Mu¹ic ¹tudent¹ had the choice of piano, harp, ¿uitar, or vocal le¹¹on¹. ¼rt cla¹¹e¹ included pencil, craYon¹, oil, and watercolor¹. Ári¿inallY onlY Ärench wa¹ offered, tau¿ht BY ÃillaYe, who¹e father wa¹ Ärench. Later, German, Spani¹h, Italian, and Latin were added. ¼cademic¹ and the art¹ were not the onlY ¹uBÕect¹ that ÀonneY provided for her ¹tudent¹. She wa¹ al¹o concerned with their health, providin¿ proper ventilation, Bathin¿, and active exerci¹e in the open air, with frequent excur¹ion¹ into the countrY¹ide BY citY railwaY¹.
18
Âhen the
¹chool moved into a man¹ion in ¹uBurBan Ólkin¹ Park, a ¿Ymna¹ium wa¹ added alon¿ with variou¹ ¹port¹ includin¿ ¹wimmin¿, field hockeY, and hor¹eBack ridin¿, with ¹taBlin¿ availaBle for a limited numBer of hor¹e¹. Ár¿anized militarY drill¹, complete with officer¹, uniform¹, and nonoperaBle weapon¹, Be¿an in 1888.
19
Âhen the ¹tudent BodY out¿rew the hou¹e on Che¹tnut Street, ÀonneY, ÃillaYe, Ärance¹ Ó. Àennett (who tau¿ht hi¹torY and Ón¿li¹h), and SYlvia j. Óa¹tman (who¹e field¹ were mathematic¹, art, hi¹torY, and a¹tronomY), a¹ equal partner¹ lea¹ed a fortY-acre e¹tate out¹ide Philadelphia from financier jaY Cooke, who¹e fortune¹ had fallen on hard time¹ durin¿ the panic of 1873—“an opening of Providence ” for the ¹chool, ÀonneY wrote later. Âith her ¹chool on Che¹tnut Street formallY clo¹ed, in SeptemBer 1883, the Á¿ontz School for Ôoun¿ Ladie¹ opened, “providin¿ lar¿e phY¹ical comfort¹ and Beautiful ¹urroundin¿¹,” and “¹uperior facilitie¹ of culture, of mind, and con¹cience.”
20
°e 1883 catalo¿ue reflected a threefold increa¹e of Board and
tuition in Ón¿li¹h, Ärench, Latin, and German to $900 per Year with daY 21
¹chool ¹tartin¿ at $100 and increa¹in¿ to $200.
¼ decade Before ¹he ¹old out her intere¹t in the Che¹tnut Street
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut 149
SeminarY,
22
ÀonneY, with Quinton’¹ a¹¹i¹tance, founded the ¾I¼. In her
1894 remini¹cence¹, ¹he de¹criBed her reaction in 1879 upon learnin¿ “from new¹paper¹ that Senator [Geor¿e Graham] ¸e¹t of Mi¹¹ouri had Been pre¹¹in¿ Con¿re¹¹ for 13 Year¹ to open the Áklahoma land¹ to ¹ettlement BY white¹.” She wa¹ amazed that a ¹enator wa¹ “ur¿in¿ thi¹ inÕu¹tice—thi¹ moral wron¿ upon our Government!!” °i¹ action took hold of her, ¹he recalled.
23
°ere were other factor¹, Both per¹onal and ¹ocietal, that had led
ÀonneY to thi¹ Indian work. ¼t ËroY Äemale SeminarY, ¹he had learned that women’¹ live¹ did not have to Be limited to motherhood But could include profe¹¹ional a¹piration¹ a¹ well. °ere wa¹ the ¿rowin¿ importance of evan¿elical Chri¹tianitY, which held a powerful ¿rip on ¹ocietY, moldin¿ ¼merican¹ “into a unified, pieti¹tic-perfectioni¹t nation,” ¹purrin¿ them on to tho¹e “hei¿ht¹ of ¹ocial reform, mi¹¹ionarY endeavor, and imperiali¹tic expan¹ion which con¹titute[d] the movin¿ force¹” of the nineteenth centurY.
24
¼l¹o, the dictate¹ of woman’¹ ¹phere or the “cult of true womanhood”
held middle- and upper-cla¹¹ women in it¹ ¿rip with it¹ virtue¹ of puritY, ¹uBmi¹¹ivene¹¹, dome¹ticitY, and pietY, the latter perceived a¹ the ¹ource of women’¹ ¹tren¿th. ¼cceptance of “true womanhood” made “women’¹ work 25
for women” oBli¿atorY for ¹ome, notaBlY for the women of the ¾I¼.
¼nd
la¹t But not lea¹t wa¹ the federal ¿overnment’¹ failure to deal with the “Indian ProBlem.” In her cru¹ade, ÀonneY had the unconditional ¹upport of ¼melia Stone Quinton, who had enÕoYed a ¹imilar educational experience at Cortland ¼cademY in ½omer, ¾ew Ôork, and ¹hared the ¹ame powerful Belief in the role of reli¿ion in ¹avin¿ the Indian¹. Àoth women were Born in the “Burned over di¹trict” of up¹tate ¾ew Ôork, known for it¹ evan¿elical revival¹ and dedication to ¹ocial reform. °eY had Both tau¿ht in the South, married Àapti¹t cleric¹, had a lon¿ hi¹torY of reform and Benevolent work, and were memBer¹ of Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church.
26
°u¹, ¹hared experience¹,
alon¿ with their friend¹hip, faith, and value¹, Brou¿ht them to¿ether to found the ¾I¼ and expand woman’¹ ¹phere to include work in the puBlic arena. ÀonneY alreadY had a ¹tron¿ foundation in mi¹¹ionarY work. She wa¹ a memBer of the Âoman’¹ Union Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of ¼merica for ½eathen Land¹, an interdenominational a¹¹ociation that ¹ent female mi¹¹ionarie¹ to the Árient to work with ¼¹ian women. She al¹o ¹erved a¹ the fir¹t pre¹ident
150
ÌÈTHEs
of the Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church, a mi¹¹ionarY circle or¿anized on MaY 17, 1877, BY Ólla Covell Àoard27
man, wife of the church’¹ pa¹tor, the Reverend Geor¿e Ãana Àoardman.
°e foundin¿ of the circle had followed an ur¿ent reque¹t BY MaÕor Geor¿e Âa¹hin¿ton In¿all¹, a mi¹¹ionarY for the ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY. Ãurin¿ the ÄeBruarY 1, 1877, or¿anizational meetin¿ of the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY in Chica¿o, In¿all¹ had called for Chri¹tian women to work toward the evan¿elization of “heathen” Indian women and children.
28
Ini-
tiallY, ÀonneY and Quinton worked clo¹elY with thi¹ Chica¿o ¿roup, participatin¿ re¿ularlY in their meetin¿¹; however, the two women ¹oon ¹hifted their intere¹t to their own per¹onal cru¹ade. ¼lthou¿h the ¾I¼ had it¹ ori¿in¹ in the Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, it wa¹ ÀonneY’¹ experience¹ and financial ¹upport
29
and Quinton’¹ ¹kill¹ that enaBled the new or¿aniza-
tion to flouri¹h. Quinton had previou¹lY Been an or¿anizer for the ÀrooklYn 30
Branch of the Âoman’¹ Chri¹tian Ëemperance Union.
In 1879, ÀonneY had informed the ¼pril and MaY meetin¿¹ of her church’¹ Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of Senator ¸e¹t’¹ attempt¹ to open the Indian ËerritorY to ¹ettlement. She then a¹ked the Reverend ½eman Lincoln ÂaYland, editor of the National Baptist, to draw up a prote¹t petition to pre¹ent Before Con¿re¹¹. Petition copie¹ were prepared, But the mi¹¹ionarY circle 31
adÕourned for the ¹ummer.
Undeterred, ÀonneY turned to Quinton, and the
two friend¹ pled¿ed to “do what [theY] could to awaken the con¹cience of 32
Con¿re¹¹ and of the people” on the Indian¹’ Behalf.
Still activelY runnin¿ her ¹chool, ÀonneY depended upon Quinton to provide the daY-to-daY or¿anizin¿ for the new a¹¹ociation, includin¿ the writin¿ of pamphlet¹ and leaflet¹, and the deliverin¿ of puBlic addre¹¹e¹ while ¹he ¹ou¿ht help from her church’¹ mi¹¹ion circle memBer¹, e¹peciallY Mariné j. Cha¹e, Ólla Covell Àoardman, and Mr¹. ½. L. ÂaYland. ¼ided BY Quinton, theY circulated Reverend ÂaYland’¹ remodeled petition, ¹endin¿ it out to officer¹ of all mi¹¹ionarY and Benevolent ¹ocietie¹. UnaBle to vote, the women turned to the well-honed proce¹¹ of petitionin¿, viewed a¹ “a proper and feminine tactic.”
33
Án ÄeBruarY 14, 1880, ÀonneY, accompanied BY Cha¹e and Àoardman, traveled to Âa¹hin¿ton to hand deliver the three-hundred-foot-lon¿ petition, ¹i¿ned BY more than thirteen thou¹and citizen¹ from fifteen ¹tate¹, to Pre¹ident and Mr¹. Rutherford À. ½aYe¹. °e petition, addre¹¹ed to ½aYe¹ and
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
151
Both hou¹e¹ of Con¿re¹¹, reque¹ted that “all needful ¹tep¹” Be taken to prevent the encroachment upon the Indian ËerritorY and to ¿uard Indian ri¿ht¹ ¿uaranteed “them on the faith of the nation.”
34
Ôear¹ later, ÀonneY de¹criBed
the ¹i¿ner¹ of thi¹ petition a¹ “cler¿Ymen of different denomination¹, ¹tate¹men, lawYer¹, phY¹ician¹, merchant¹, mechanic¹, [and] farmer¹,” all “real ruler¹ of our countrY.”
35
Âhile Àoardman pre¹ented the petition alon¿ with
Quinton’¹ pamphlet An Earnest Petition , ÀonneY read her memorial letter, “the central thou¿ht of which wa¹ the Bindin¿ oBli¿ation of treatie¹.”
36
She
al¹o ¿ave Pre¹ident ½aYe¹ a ¹hort note, appealin¿ to hi¹ con¹cience. “Knowin¿ Your clear moral perception¹ and Your de¹ire to admini¹ter the Government with Õu¹tice,” ¹he had written, “we re¹pectfullY place the accompanYin¿ Memorial in Your hand praYin¿ You to ¹uBmit it to Con¿re¹¹ with ¹uch rec37
ommendation¹ a¹ You in Your Õud¿ment maY deem mo¹t effective.”
°e peti-
tion and pamphlet were pre¹ented to the ½ou¹e on ÄeBruarY 20. Upon her return home, ÀonneY wrote to Äir¹t LadY LucY ½aYe¹ elaBoratin¿ on her ¿roup’¹ Indian work. ½aYe¹, like ÀonneY, had lon¿ en¿a¿ed in reform, ¹upportin¿ women’¹ ri¿ht¹, aBolition, and temperance. ¼ Methodi¹t, 38
¹he devoted her time to women’¹ mi¹¹ionarY effort¹.
Ãe¹criBin¿ the fir¹t
ladY a¹ a “Chri¹tian woman intere¹ted in everY work to relieve or to elevate humanitY,” ÀonneY explained that their petition or memorial had ori¿inated in the work of Chri¹tian or¿anization¹, “mo¹tlY mi¹¹ionarY one¹, en¿a¿ed in Chri¹tianizin¿ home¹, e¹peciallY tho¹e of the freed people, Indian¹ and immi¿rant population.” ½er ¿roup viewed the “permanency of Indian home¹” a¹ Bearin¿ “¹tron¿lY upon the re¹ult¹ of [their] effort¹.” °at fact, and their “¹tron¿ ¹en¹e of the moral oBli¿ation of a treatY[,] move u¹ in our work,” ÀonneY continued. She hoped that “the Memorial [would] Be an influence in ¹u¹tainin¿ the Pre¹ident in hi¹ Proclamation and in fortifYin¿ the Indian¹ in their ri¿ht¹.”
39
Month¹ later on MaY 5, 1880, ÀonneY ¹u¿¿e¹ted that Quinton, Àoardman, and Cha¹e Be “named in her church mi¹¹ionarY circle” a¹ a Committee of ÂaY¹ and Mean¹ to di¹triBute petition¹ and leaflet¹ in thi¹ new Indian work. °en that autumn, callin¿ them¹elve¹ the Central Indian Committee, thi¹ ¹mall ¿roup of women voted to ¹eparate from the church, Becomin¿ “an independent undenominational committee.” °eY held their fir¹t formal meetin¿ on ÃecemBer 11, 1880, with Cha¹e a¹ chair and Quinton a¹ ¹ecretarY. °e ei¿ht women in attendance repre¹ented five different Prote¹tant
152
ÌÈTHEs
denomination¹. ÀY their ÃecemBer 31 meetin¿, two new memBer¹ had Been added, and at Quinton’¹ ¹u¿¿e¹tion theY voted to chan¿e their name to the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ ¼¹¹ociation. Ãurin¿ their januarY 20, 1881, meetin¿, ÀonneY ¹u¿¿e¹ted theY chan¿e their name to the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ Committee, and memBer¹ re¹olved their heartfelt thank¹ to her “for her mo¹t ¿enerou¹ contriBution¹ to the work we ¹erve, a work which owe¹ to her it¹ ori¿in & fir¹t in¹piration, a¹ well a¹ much of it¹ pro¿re¹¹ & enlar¿ed 40
¿rowth.”
In mid-March 1881, ÀonneY wa¹ unanimou¹lY elected a¹ committee chair. °e minute¹ reflect that tho¹e pre¹ent de¹criBed her a¹ “the ori¿inator & mo¹t ¿enerou¹ patron of the work.” Quinton portraYed her friend’¹ acceptance a¹ “a dutY her devotion to the aim¹ of the enterpri¹e impelled her to 41
accept thou¿h alreadY committed to manY line¹ of Chri¹tian effort.”
Âith
ÀonneY in char¿e, the ¹mall ¿roup continued to reinvent them¹elve¹, adoptin¿ a new con¹titution and a ¹li¿ht name chan¿e to the Indian ËreatY- Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation. ÀonneY wa¹ now de¹i¿nated a¹ pre¹ident, with Quinton continuin¿ a¹ ¿eneral ¹ecretarY. MemBer¹ a¿reed to circulate the or¿anization’¹ literature, ¹end memorial¹ to Con¿re¹¹, hold parlor and puBlic meetin¿¹, appeal directlY to Chri¹tian cler¿Ymen, editor¹, churche¹, and ¹ocietie¹, and ¹end article¹ to the pre¹¹. °eY decided that the executive Board, now repre¹entin¿ ei¿ht Prote¹tant denomination¹, would remain in Philadelphia. Ëo expand their memBer¹hip, however, the women a¿reed to or¿anize auxiliarie¹ BeYond the citY,
42
a ta¹k that fell to Quinton.
ÀY Year’¹ end, ¹he had taken the ¿roup’¹ me¹¹a¿e to twentY ¹tate¹. °e followin¿ ÄeBruarY, 1882, Quinton al¹o carried the women’¹ new petition to Âa¹hin¿ton, which Year¹ later ¹he de¹criBed a¹ callin¿ “for a new departure in the ¿overnment treatment of Indian¹, one which would include the fea43
ture¹ of later ¿overnment policY.”
Ãurin¿ their eleventh meetin¿ on ÁctoBer 3, 1882, under ÀonneY’¹ leader¹hip the women a¿reed to include Indian educational work—a natural exten¹ion of their founder’¹ earlier occupation. °eY a¿ain adopted a new con¹titution, chan¿ed their name to the ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, and declared their intention “to awaken a puBlic ¹entiment” to ¿raduallY move the ¿overnment toward “the final aBolition of the re¹ervation-¹Y¹tem, BY ¿ivin¿ to all Indian¹ . . . the ¹ame law-protection, common-¹chool educa44
tion and citizen¹hip, a¹ are enÕoYed BY all other race¹ amon¿ u¹.”
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
153
In ÃecemBer 1882, ½erBert Âel¹h and a ¹mall ¿roup of prominent Philadelphian¹ founded the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation (IR¼). ÀY March 1883, theY had formed a cordial union with the women, declarin¿ them¹elve¹ to “Be one SocietY.” °e male memBer¹ of the IR¼, empowered with the vote, relieved the women of mo¹t of the Burden of their political activitie¹, except for petitionin¿. ¾ow callin¿ them¹elve¹ the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, on ÄeBruarY 13, 1883, the women pa¹¹ed a re¹olution adoptin¿ mi¹¹ionarY work a¹ their primarY ¿oal. °i¹ ¹mall ¿roup of determined reformer¹ had come full circle, returnin¿ to their ori¿inal root¹ in the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church’¹ Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY. ÀonneY wa¹ cho¹en a¹ the fir¹t chair of the ¾I¼’¹ new Mi¹¹ionarY Committee.
45
¾ow almo¹t ¹eventY, her chairman¹hip wa¹ more than likelY ¹implY an honorarY po¹ition. Mo¹t of the work of thi¹ new mi¹¹ionarY endeavor fell to Quinton, who a¹ committee ¹ecretarY wa¹ re¹pon¹iBle for writin¿ all of the puBli¹hed mi¹¹ionarY report¹ and the ¹ection in the annual report¹ relative to their mi¹¹ionarY work. ÀonneY wa¹ al¹o not expected to vi¹it the mi¹¹ionarY ¹ite¹. °i¹ ta¹k wa¹ ¿iven to Quinton, who a¹ ¿eneral ¹ecretarY of the ¾I¼ wa¹ con¹tantlY on the road or¿anizin¿ new auxiliarie¹ and ¹preadin¿ the word of the a¹¹ociation.
46
ÀonneY ¿ave her final pre¹idential addre¹¹ on ¾ovemBer 19, 1884, welcomin¿ repre¹entative¹ from other auxiliarY ¹ocietie¹ to the annual meetin¿ in Saint Geor¿e’¹ ½all, Philadelphia. °e a¹¹ociation’¹ primarY purpo¹e, ¹he explained, had Been to inform “the people at lar¿e, who alone can demand
reform ” of the “condition, need¹ and capacitie¹ of Indian¹ and their unÕu¹t and oppre¹¹ive treatment BY Government.” °e ¾I¼ had accompli¹hed thi¹ ¿oal BY makin¿ direct appeal¹ to pa¹tor¹, editor¹, churche¹, and ¹ocietie¹, and BY ¹catterin¿ the land with literature of “fact¹, appeal¹, and repre¹entative ca¹e¹ collected from Government Report¹ and other official document¹, of the unÕu¹t and cruel treatment of Indian¹,” ¹he explained. ¾ow, four Year¹ later, the a¹¹ociation numBered thirtY-ei¿ht auxiliarie¹. ÀonneY prai¹ed the work of her fellow male memBer¹ of the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation, de¹criBin¿ their a¹¹ociation a¹ “officered and ¹u¹tained BY men of power, who are intelli¿entlY and per¹i¹tentlY workin¿ upon Con¿re¹¹, and upon the people.” She al¹o prai¹ed the Óa¹tern ¾ew Ôork and ¾ew Ôork CitY auxiliarie¹ who had ¹ucceeded in ¿ettin¿ their ¹tate le¿i¹lature to pa¹¹ re¹olution¹ “emBracin¿ the oBÕect¹” of the ¾I¼ to Be forwarded to ¾ew Ôork’¹
154
ÌÈTHEs
con¿re¹¹ional dele¿ation. She reco¿nized that the new ¿oal of promotin¿ education amon¿ the Indian¹ wa¹ ¹till in it¹ infancY. “°e oB¹truction of
ignorance and prejudice
¹till prevail¹,” and “circum¹tance¹ ¹till demand for-
ward and quick movement¹,” ¹he concluded. Äor wide di¹¹emination to memBer¹ unaBle to attend the meetin¿, ÀonneY’¹ addre¹¹ wa¹ printed in the a¹¹ociation’¹ annual report.
47
°at evenin¿’¹ ma¹¹ meetin¿, held in ¼¹¹ociation ½all, wa¹ attended BY the puBlic, di¹tin¿ui¹hed cler¿Ymen, prominent reformer¹ from other Indian reform ¿roup¹, and ¿overnment official¹. In her Brief addre¹¹, ÀonneY alluded to the “¿reat chan¿e of puBlic ¹entiment ¹ince 1879, when the effort¹ Be¿an which i¹¹ued in the exi¹tence and work” of the a¹¹ociation. She had cho¹en that ni¿ht to ¹tep down a¹ a¹¹ociation pre¹ident, introducin¿ MarY Lowe Ãickin¹on of ¾ew Ôork CitY a¹ her replacement. ¼ccordin¿ to the annual report, ¹he wa¹ retirin¿ Becau¹e of the pre¹¹ure of work at her ¹chool at Á¿ontz.
48
½owever, Year¹ later ¹he explained that the
a¹¹ociation had ¿rown ¹o lar¿e “in extent, in influence, and in varied work, a¹ to demand the con¹ideration and wi¹dom which can come onlY from time and thou¿ht.” She felt “unequal to the dutie¹ of the pre¹ident.” ¾I¼ memBer¹, paYin¿ re¹pect to their founder, unanimou¹lY elected her their honorarY pre¹ident.
49
¼lthou¿h no lon¿er re¹pon¹iBle for the routine mana¿ement of the a¹¹ociation, ÀonneY neverthele¹¹ kept her hand¹ on the rein¹. Án ÄeBruarY 26, 1887, ¹he directed their incorporation under Penn¹Ylvania law¹ to “maintain a ¹ocietY to provide and ¹ecure for Indian¹ the facilitie¹ for and Benefit¹ of indu¹trial trainin¿, ¹elf-¹upport, education, civilization, citizen¹hip, and Chri¹tianization.” She ¹erved a¹ corporation vice pre¹ident, aided BY Quinton a¹ pre¹ident, and alon¿ with Quinton and three other women ¹erved a¹ a director. ½er name wa¹ li¹ted a¹ late a¹ 1887 a¹ chair of the Mi¹¹ionarY Committee. Ãurin¿ the annual meetin¿ that Year at the Âa¹hin¿ton ¼venue Àapti¹t Church in ÀrooklYn, ¾ew Ôork, ÀonneY, now ¹eventY-one, ¿ave the invocation and witne¹¹ed her cofounder, ¼melia Stone Quinton, Becomin¿ the executive Board’¹ unanimou¹ choice for pre¹ident.
50
ÀonneY could
now relax in the confidence that the future of the or¿anization ¹he had molded out of her mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietY wa¹ ¹ecure. ¼lthou¿h ¹he would continue to lend financial ¹upport, her role within the ¾I¼ dimini¹hed ¹uB¹tantiallY followin¿ her marria¿e to the Reverend
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
155
°oma¹ RamBaut, whom ¹he had met fortY Year¹ earlier in RoBertville, South Carolina. In june 1888, ÀonneY had accompanied Quinton and Àoardman a¹ ¾I¼ dele¿ate¹ to the Âorld’¹ Mi¹¹ionarY Conference in London. °ere, ¹he renewed her friend¹hip with her former pa¹tor, who wa¹ BY thi¹ time a¿ain a widower. °eY were married durin¿ the convention BY ÀonneY’¹ 51
current pa¹tor, Ãr. Geor¿e Ãana Àoardman.
°e couple moved to ½amil-
ton, ¾ew Ôork, where ÀonneY had Been Born and where RamBaut had 52
received hi¹ doctor of law in 1860 from Madi¹on Univer¹itY.
½e died on
ÁctoBer 15, 1890. In their triBute, the ¾I¼ de¹criBed RamBaut a¹ a man of “di¹tin¿ui¹hed aBilitY, learnin¿ and accompli¹hment¹: a man of pure philanthropY, and of life-lon¿ devotion to and ¹ucce¹¹ in the work of the Chri¹tian mini¹trY and of hi¿her education.”
53
ÀonneY moved in with her Brother, ÀenÕamin Äranklin ÀonneY, a retired Bu¹ine¹¹man and a widower, where, accordin¿ to one account, ¹he lived in a home “of refinement and ta¹te, amid¹t the ¹cene¹ of her childhood, u¹in¿ her lei¹ure in peru¹in¿ the Book¹ and periodical¹ of the daY, ¹harin¿ in educational and local mini¹trie¹, with a heart not a¿ed BY the pa¹¹a¿e of Year¹ But ¹till full of noBle enthu¹ia¹m¹, ¹he Yet Bear¹ a part in manY enterpri¹e¹ for the world’¹ redemption.”
54
Án the occa¹ion of her ei¿htY-¹econd BirthdaY in
1898, ¹he received “call¹ made all daY” at her Brother’¹ home on Àroad Street. ¼ new¹ item in the Indian’s Friend de¹criBed her a¹ “pa¹¹in¿ the Year¹ peacefullY and happilY and Yet keepin¿ thorou¿hlY in touch with the world.”
55
Án julY 19, ¼melia Stone Quinton received a tele¿ram informin¿ her that her lon¿time friend wa¹ dYin¿. ¸acationin¿ in Michi¿an and catchin¿ up on her editorial work for the Indian’s Friend , Quinton ru¹hed to ½amilton, ¾ew Ôork, where ¹he ¹at BY ÀonneY’¹ Bed¹ide until, on julY 24, 1900, a¿e ei¿htYfour, ¹he “cro¹¹[ed] over into the heavenlY land.” She had initiallY fallen in her ¿arden on june 21, Breakin¿ her hip. It appeared that ¹he would recover, 56
But on julY 15 ¹he had taken a turn for the wor¹e.
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY
RamBaut had Been preceded in death BY her Brother onlY month¹ Before. ¼
Utica Observer article de¹criBed her la¹t Year¹ in ½amilton a¹ “keepin¿ up her intere¹t in all ¿ood work and helpin¿ all the needY one¹ within her reach.”
57
¼ Hamilton (NY) Republican reporter wrote that “it would require an extended Bio¿raphY adequatelY to record the more than fiftY Year¹’ ¹ervice of Mi¹¹ ÀonneY a¹ an educator and moulder of character.” ½er “deep con¹cientiou¹ intere¹t in all her pupil¹ left a la¹tin¿ impre¹¹ upon thou¹and¹ of mind¹.
156
ÌÈTHEs
58
. . . Ëo an unu¹ual de¿ree ¹he tau¿ht her pupil¹ how to think.”
¼fter a Brief
de¹cription of her accompli¹hment¹, the Cincinnati Journal and Messenger reported that “few women have made a ¿reater ¹ucce¹¹ of teachin¿, whether in the matter of the education imported or the financial return¹ enÕoYed, than did Mi¹¹ ÀonneY.”
59
Án SundaY evenin¿, ÃecemBer 9, 1900, ¾I¼ memBer¹ ¿athered in the lar¿e, newlY con¹tructed Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church of Philadelphia
60
for the
twentY-fir¹t anniver¹arY of the a¹¹ociation’¹ foundin¿ and to paY their re¹pect¹ to ÀonneY, who had died that previou¹ julY. Äriend¹ unaBle to attend had ¹ent written rememBrance¹ to Be read. Mr¹. Âilliam ¾ewton Clarke of ½amilton, ¾ew Ôork, one-time pre¹ident of the ¾I¼ Branch there, de¹criBed her lon¿time friend a¹ an in¹piration. “I felt after a talk with her that I had Been uplifted, ¹tren¿thened, and encoura¿ed in all mY Be¹t de¹ire¹ and a¹piration¹,” Clarke concluded. Mr¹. Ó. S. Sava¿e of Á¹we¿o, ¾ew Ôork, de¹criBed her departed friend a¹ ¹Ympathetic. “She tried to lift poor fallen humanitY into a Better life at home,” noted Sava¿e, “Õu¹t a¹ trulY a¹ ¹he ¹ent ¿ift¹ and praYer¹ to the forei¿n field¹.” ¼nother de¹criBed her a¹ “a patriot who¹e noBle amBition for her countrY wa¹ that it ¹hould ¹tand amon¿ the nation¹ of earth a¹ a land who¹e ri¿hteou¹ne¹¹ ¹hould Be a¹ eminent in the moral world a¹ are it¹ va¹t re¹ource¹ in the material realm.” ¼t the end of the proceedin¿¹, Quinton ¿ave a triBute “to an intimate friend¹hip of more than twentY-five Year¹, and of a lon¿ comrade¹hip, a¹ clo¹e a¹ ¹acred, in Chri¹tian ¹ervice.”
61
Äor her entire adult life, MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut had ¹erved other¹: a¹ a dutiful dau¿hter ¹he had provided a home for her mother, a¹ an educator ¹he had Built a ¹ucce¹¹ful ¹chool, and a¹ an Indian reformer ¹he had founded the ¾I¼, an or¿anization that continued for fiftY-one Year¹ after her death until it di¹Banded—it¹ rea¹on for exi¹tin¿ no lon¿er viaBle. Ãurin¿ the a¹¹ociation’¹ more than ¹eventY Year¹, the ¾I¼, in¹pired BY ÀonneY, fullY funded more than ¹ixtY mi¹¹ionarY ¹ite¹. It had Built ¹chool¹, mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e¹, and chapel¹, and ¹upported mi¹¹ionarie¹ and phY¹ician¹ a¹ well a¹ ¿overnment ¹choolteacher¹ and field matron¹ acro¹¹ the nation. ÀonneY’¹ life experience¹, her ¹tron¿ reli¿iou¹ conviction¹, her well-rounded education, and her experience¹ foundin¿ and runnin¿ a pre¹ti¿iou¹ ¿irl’¹ ¹chool, alon¿ with the chan¿in¿ role of women in ¼merica and the con¿enial atmo¹phere in the Indian reform arena, had made it po¹¹iBle for her to e¹taBli¹h a
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
157
powerful a¹¹ociation that alon¿ with it¹ contemporarY male-dominated a¹¹ociation¹ had dictated ¿overnment Indian policY.
Notes 1. °e literature on the “Äriend¹ of the Indian” i¹ exten¹ive; ¹ee, for example, Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis; and Keller, American Protestantism . 2. Áther evan¿elical a¹¹ociation¹ were the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation, and the Lake Mohonk Conference of the Äriend¹ of the Indian. Äor an overview, ¹ee Mathe¹, °e Women’s National Indian
Association: A History; and Mathe¹, Divinely Guided. °e onlY in¹titutional hi¹torY i¹ Âanken, “‘Âoman’¹ Sphere’ and Indian Reform.” See john Rhea’¹ e¹¹aY in thi¹ volume (chapter 1), which rea¹¹e¹¹e¹ the ori¿in of the ¾I¼. 3. “Con¹titution of the ¾I¼, ¼dopted ÁctoBer 27, 1883,” in ¾I¼, ¼nnual Meetin¿ and Report, ÁctoBer 27, 1883, 19. 4. “Âork of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Indian’s Friend , ¼pril 1889, 2. 5. Äor a complete li¹t, ¹ee the appendix in thi¹ volume. 6. Mathe¹, “MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton.” 7. ÀenÕamin Äranklin ÀonneY wa¹ Born on MaY 24, 1818, and died durin¿ the ¹ummer of 1900. °eir father had ¹ettled near ½amilton, ¾ew Ôork, in 1808 and ¹erved in the Âar of 1812. °eir ¿randfather had Been a memBer of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ ¼¹¹emBlY, and their ¿reat-¿randfather on their mother’¹ ¹ide, ¼Bel Âilder, had ¹erved in the ¼merican Revolution. See Indian’s Friend , june 1900, 6. 8. “¼ Sketch of the Life of Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut Given BY ½er¹elf to ½er Äriend Mr¹. ¼melia S. Quinton,” SeptemBer 1894, ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. 9. Scott, “°e Óver-Âidenin¿ Circle,” 64, 72, 73. See al¹o ÄairBank¹, Emma Wil-
lard and Her Pupils, 138–39. 10. °e Chri¹tian practice of Àapti¹m accompli¹hed BY immer¹in¿ the entire BodY. Àecau¹e it i¹ onlY for Believer¹, the ritual follow¹ conver¹ion. °erefore, infant¹ were not Baptized. 11. “¼ Sketch of the Life of Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. 12. IBid. Äor Bapti¹m, ¹ee Äox, Preacher and Teacher , 90; and for rumor, ¹ee “Mi¹¹ ÀonneY, 1850–1888,” in Sutherland, 100 Years of Ogontz, 19–20. In 1912, Sutherland Became principal of the Á¿ontz School, which had ori¿inated a¹ the Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY. 13. “¼ Sketch of the Life of Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. 14. IBid.; and “¼ Paper Given to Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton BY Mr¹. M. L. À. RamBaut on the ½i¹torY of the Che¹tnut St. SeminarY of Philadelphia, Pa & Copied for
158
ÌÈTHEs
Mr¹. RamBaut BY Mr¹. Ó. K. KilBurn,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. Âhen the Buildin¿¹ on the ¹treet were renumBered, the new addre¹¹ Became 1615 Che¹tnut Street. Äor the hou¹e de¹cription, ¹ee Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY, Boarding and Day School (1855), 3. 15. Äarron, Retrospect, 5. 16. “¼ Paper Given to Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton BY Mr¹. M. L. À. RamBaut,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. Àecau¹e no academic hi¹torY of the Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY ha¹ ever Been written, it i¹ impo¹¹iBle to know the influence if anY that ÀonneY had upon the hundred¹ of ¹tudent¹ who pa¹¹ed throu¿h her ¹chool. Áne ha¹ to wonder if ¹he in¹pired her ¹tudent¹ a¹ Âillard had in¹pired her. ½er $4,000 deBt in 1850 would Be equivalent to $131,050 in 2019 dollar¹. 17. Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY, Boarding and Day School (1855), 3–6. Äor a li¹tin¿ of ¹tudent name¹, ¹ee Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY, Boarding and Day
School (1860), 13–24; for fee¹ and te¹timonie¹, ¹ee Che¹nut [sic] Street Äemale SeminarY, No. 525 Chesnut [sic] Street (1850). 18. Che¹nut [sic] Street Äemale SeminarY, No. 525 Chesnut [sic] Street (1850), 4–6; ¹ee al¹o Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY, Boarding and Day School (1860), 5–6. 19. “PhY¹ical Óducation,” in Á¿ontz School, English, French and German Boarding and Day School , 6; and Äarron, Retrospect, 12. 20. “¼ Sketch of the Life of Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. Cooke had named hi¹ lavi¹h man¹ion after Á¿ontz, a Sandu¹kY, Áhio, Indian chief whom he knew and admired. In 1916, the ¹chool moved to ¼Bin¿ton, Penn¹Ylvania, and in 1932 wa¹ chartered a¹ a Õunior colle¿e. In 1950, the propertY and facilitie¹ were turned over to Penn¹Ylvania State Univer¹itY, Becomin¿ the Penn State Á¿ontz Campu¹, renamed in 1997 a¹ Penn State ¼Bin¿ton. 21. Á¿ontz School, English, French and German Boarding and Day School , 14–15. Áne of the more famou¹ alumnae wa¹ ¼melia Óarhart. 22. In 1888, ÃillaYe, Àennett, and Óa¹tman Bou¿ht out ÀonneY’¹ intere¹t; ¹oon after, Àennett and Óa¹tman Bou¿ht out ÃillaYe. See “¼ Paper Given to Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton BY Mr¹. M. L. À. RamBaut,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. 23. “¼ Sketch of the Life of Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. 24. McLou¿hlin, °e American Evangelicals , 1. 25. Âelter, “°e Cult of Ërue Âomanhood,” 21. Literature on the ¹uBÕect i¹ exten¹ive; ¹ee, for example, RYan, “¼merican SocietY and the Cult of Ãome¹ticitY”; and Cott, °e Bonds of Womanhood. Mar¿aret jacoB¹, in White Mother to a Dark Race , refer¹ to thi¹ a¹ “¼merican maternali¹m.” 26. In 1854, Quinton married the Reverend jame¹ Äranklin Swan¹on; he died in 1869. In 1878, ¹he married Richard Linton Quinton, a London-Ba¹ed profe¹¹or and lecturer on hi¹torical and a¹tronomical topic¹, who died 1887. °e followin¿ Year, ÀonneY, then in her ¹eventie¹, married the Reverend °oma¹ RamBaut. 27. Àoardman wa¹ pa¹tor from 1864 to 1894. Äor hi¹ mini¹trY, ¹ee Keen, °e
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
159
Bi-Centennial Celebration, 107–24, 209. Äor the foundin¿ of the ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY, ¹ee 391. 28.
Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882, 1; ¹ee al¹o 5–7.
29. ÀonneY’¹ finance¹ had Been au¿mented in MaY 1878 BY a Õud¿ment a¿ain¹t the Äort Scott Illuminated Ga¹ CompanY for $5,675 with 7 percent intere¹t. In 2019 dollar¹, that would amount to $141,875. See “MarY L. ÀonneY v¹. Äort Scott Illuminatin¿ Ga¹ Co.,” Fort Scott (KS) Weekly Monitor, MaY 23, 1878, 8. 30. Äor Quinton’¹ a¹¹ociation with the ÂCËU, ¹ee, for example, ÀrooklYn Ëemperance Union of Chri¹tian Âomen, °ird Annual Report, 2. ¼t that time ¹he wa¹ ¹till Mr¹. ¼. C. Swan¹on. 31. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 377; and MarY L. ÀonneY, “¼ ½i¹torical Sketch,” Indian’s Friend , ÁctoBer 1896, 2. 32. “¼ Sketch of the Life of Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut,” ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. 33. RYan, Womanhood in America, 88. See al¹o Zae¹ke, Signatures of Citizenship, 3. In 1829, Catharine Àeecher initiated a petition drive on Behalf of the Cherokee Indian¹. Quinton would follow her example of deference to male power. See “Catharine Àeecher: Circular ¼ddre¹¹ed to Àenevolent Ladie¹ of the U. State¹,” in Perdue and Green, °e Cherokee Removal, 113–14; ¹ee al¹o Sara ¾orthrop RomeYn, “Petitionin¿ for a Sentimental Ómpire: ¼nti-Removal Óffort¹, 1828–1840,” in RomeYn, “¼ Sentimental Ómpire,” 56–90, and ½er¹hBer¿er, “MoBilizin¿ Âomen, ¼nticipatin¿ ¼Bolition,” 15–40. 34. Äor the text, ¹ee Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 378; and “Óarne¹t Âork ¾eeded,” an undated leaflet ¹i¿ned BY Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton, ¹ecretarY of the Committee on Indian Petition¹. 35. ÀonneY, “¼ ½i¹torical Sketch,” Indian’s Friend , ÁctoBer 1896, 2. 36. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 378, for ÀonneY’¹ letter. Äor pre¹entation of the petition, ¹ee U.S. Con¿re¹¹, ½ou¹e, “ÁB¹ervance of Indian ËreatY Stipulation¹,” Con¿. Rec., ¸ol. X, Part II, 46th Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., ÄeBruarY 20, 1880, 1044; and ¾I¼, ¼nnual Meetin¿ and Report, ÁctoBer 27, 1883, 6. 37. °i¹ undated note Bear¹ the ¹i¿nature¹ of ÀonneY, Cha¹e, Àoardman, and ÂaYland. ½owever, ¹ince ÂaYland did not accompanY them to Âa¹hin¿ton, pre¹umaBlY the letter wa¹ written and ¹i¿ned in Philadelphia. Äor the ori¿inal, ¹ee Rutherford À. ½aYe¹ Paper¹. 38. Ärom late 1880 to her death in 1889, LucY ½aYe¹ ¹erved a¹ the fir¹t pre¹ident of the Âoman’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of the Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Church, or¿anizin¿ ¹chool¹ and ¹endin¿ female mi¹¹ionarie¹ amon¿ poor white¹, Black¹, Indian¹, and Chine¹e—en¿a¿in¿ in the ¹ame tYpe of mi¹¹ionarY work a¹ the ¾I¼. See Geer, “LucY Â. ½aYe¹ and the Âoman’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY,” 5–14. 39. ÀonneY to Mr¹. ½aYe¹, ÄeBruarY 18, 1880, Rutherford À. ½aYe¹ Paper¹. °ere are al¹o two letter¹ from Mariné j. Cha¹e dated March 26, 1883, and SeptemBer 16, 1883, in the ½aYe¹ Paper¹.
160
ÌÈTHEs
40. “Preface, and Minute¹ to the Ãec. 11, Ãec. 31, 1880, and jan. 20, 1881, Meetin¿,” Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation, 1–9 (minute¹ Book of the executive Board of the ¾I¼). Ãenomination¹ were Àapti¹t¹, Ópi¹copalian¹, Pre¹BYterian¹, Quaker¹, and Methodi¹t-Ópi¹copalian¹. 41. “Minute¹ of the March 17, 1881, Meetin¿,” Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation, 11. 42. “Minute¹ of the june 3, 1881, Meetin¿,” Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation, 15–17; for the con¹titution and name chan¿e, ¹ee 18–20. 43. “Áur ¼¹¹ociation’¹ Chronolo¿Y,” Indian’s Friend , ¼pril 1897, 2. °i¹ petition included reque¹t¹ for more re¹ervation and indu¹trial ¹chool¹, the reco¿nition of Indian ri¿ht¹ under law, and the allotment of land in fee ¹imple—the latter a keY provi¹ion in the General ¼llotment or Ãawe¹ ¼ct of 1887. °e¹e idea¹ had ori¿inated with the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, founded in 1879 to defend the Ponca Indian¹. See “Äinal Recommendation¹,” Indian Question: Report of the Committee Appointed
by Hon. John D. Long, 25–26; and Mathe¹, “Ào¹ton, the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, and the Ponca¹,” 119–48. Äor the Ponca¹, ¹ee Mathe¹ and Lowitt, °e Standing Bear Controversy , 90. 44. “Óleventh Meetin¿. Áct. 3, 1882,” Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation, 47; for con¹titution and quotation, 54–57. 45. ¾I¼, ¼nnual Meetin¿ and Report, ÁctoBer 27, 1883, 8–9, 10, 16. Äor the re¹olution on mi¹¹ionarY work, ¹ee “Áur ¼¹¹ociation’¹ Chronolo¿Y,” Indian’s Friend, julY 1897, 2. 46. ¼melia S. Quinton, “Report of the Mi¹¹ionarY Committee,” in ¾I¼, Äourth ¼nnual Report, 37. 47. “°e Pre¹ident’¹ ¼ddre¹¹,” ¾I¼, Äourth ¼nnual Report, 7–11, quotation¹ on 8, 9, 11. 48. “°e Ma¹¹ Meetin¿,” ¾I¼, Äourth ¼nnual Report, 53–54. 49. “Áur ¼¹¹ociation’¹ Chronolo¿Y,” Indian’s Friend , ÄeBruarY 1898, 2. 50. “°e Corporation” and “¼nnual Meetin¿,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ovemBer 30, 1887, 7, 9. 51. Äor convention attendance, ¹ee “½i¹torical,” Indian’s Friend , ÁctoBer 1888, 4; for the marria¿e, ¹ee Albany Evening Journal, julY 3, 1888; and Äox, Preacher and Teacher , 92. 52. ¼fter ¹everal Year¹ a¹ pa¹tor at the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church in Savannah, RamBaut had accepted a profe¹¹or¹hip of Latin and Greek at the Cherokee Àapti¹t Male Colle¿e in Ca¹¹ville, Geor¿ia, in 1855. Ëwo Year¹ later, he wa¹ elected the fir¹t and onlY pre¹ident of the colle¿e, which clo¹ed durin¿ the Civil Âar. Several move¹ later, he wa¹ elected pre¹ident of Âilliam jewell Colle¿e in LiBertY, Mi¹¹ouri. Ill health forced him to move to pa¹torate¹ in ¾ewark, ¼lBanY, and finallY Äranklin, Penn¹Ylvania. See Mathe¹, “MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton,” 433–34. 53. “Report of the ÁBituarY Committee,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ovemBer, 1890, 23; ¹ee al¹o “¼¹¹ociation ¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend , ¾ovemBer 1890, 1; and Äox, Preacher and Teacher , 96.
MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut
161
54. “Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut,” Indian’s Friend , SeptemBer 1896, 2. 55. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, julY 1898, 6. 56. Quinton to Âilliam ½enrY Âeinland, julY 24 and ¼u¿u¹t 1, 1900, Âilliam ½enrY Âeinland Paper¹; and Quinton to ¼lfred ½oma¹ SmileY, ¼u¿u¹t 11, 1900, Quaker Collection. Äor notice¹ of her death and triBute¹, ¹ee “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” 4; “Óntered into Re¹t,” 6; and “Mr¹. MarY L. ÀonneY RamBaut,” 8–9, all in the ¼u¿u¹t 1890 i¹¹ue of the Indian’s Friend. 57. “¼ ¾oted Âoman: ½er Ãeath Áccurred in ½amilton—½er Life,” Utica Observer, julY 26, 1900, 5; ¹ee al¹o “Âell-Known Óducator Ãead,” Philadelphia Times, julY 26, 1900, 1. 58.
Hamilton (NY) Republican , julY 26, 1900, 1. °e Àapti¹t Óducation SocietY of
¾ew Ôork wa¹ the chief BeneficiarY of her will. °e Hamilton Republican, ¼u¿u¹t 2, 1900, 5, noted that the “Benevolent ¹pirit” of Both ÀonneY and her Brother wa¹ evident in that the entire principal of Both of their e¹tate¹, with a few ¹mall Beque¹t¹ to friend¹, “¿oe¹ ultimatelY to reli¿iou¹ and educational ¹ocietie¹.” 59. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, SeptemBer 1900, 4. 60. Âhen the con¿re¿ation of the Àeth Óden Àapti¹t Church and the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church mer¿ed in 1895, Both con¿re¿ation¹ a¿reed to ¹ell their re¹pective propertie¹ and con¹truct a new church. Án ÁctoBer 14, 1900, the new ¹tructure wa¹ dedicated. Äor the mer¿er, ¹ee Keen, °e Bi-Centennial Celebration, 7, 146–47. 61. “In MemorY of the ½onoraBle Pre¹ident,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ÃecemBer 1900, 21–23. In julY 1889, Clarke had ¹ent a letter to the Indian’s Friend de¹criBin¿ ÀonneY a¹ a “con¹tant aid and in¹pirer”; ¹ee Indian’s Friend, julY 1889, 2.
ÍHÈÖTE´ 7
C. E. Kelsey and California’s Landless Indians ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
Ðy THE END of the nineteenth centurY, mo¹t of California’¹ Indian¹ controlled no land; a ¹ituation partiallY miti¿ated BY the cru¹adin¿ effort¹ of a San jo¹e lawYer, Charle¹ Ódwin (C. Ó.) Kel¹eY, and the ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation, an auxiliarY of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation. Äor more than a decade, thi¹ ¹mall ¿roup of Indian reformer¹, cooperatin¿ with ea¹tern reformer¹ and political leader¹, worked to ¹ecure con¿re¹¹ional fundin¿ and then purcha¹ed land for the ¹tate’¹ Indian¹. °i¹ little-known effort i¹ one of manY ¹ucce¹¹e¹ the ¾I¼ enÕoYed durin¿ their more than ¹eventY Year¹ of exi¹tence. Indian triBe¹ ceded land throu¿h treatie¹ ratified BY the Senate, receivin¿ in return annuitie¹ and ¹mall re¹ervation¹. California wa¹ the exception. °e ei¿hteen treatie¹ ne¿otiated durin¿ 1851–1852 were never ratified, forcin¿ the 1
¹tate’¹ Indian population to live on unprotected land¹ with unre¹olved title¹.
Minimal protection wa¹ afforded to them over the next half centurY throu¿h a patchwork proce¹¹ of militarY and executive order re¹ervation¹. In the ¹outh, the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ received a few ¹mall tract¹ in 1891, the re¹ult of 2
the work of the California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion. In the north, with a few exception¹, the Indian¹ remained landle¹¹ until Kel¹eY and the ¾CI¼ Be¿an their campai¿n. C. Ó. Kel¹eY wa¹ Born in Montello, Âi¹con¹in, on ÃecemBer 10, 1861, to 3
Charle¹ Sheffield Kel¹eY and Lucretia Àacon. ½i¹ father ¹erved in the Âi¹con¹in State Senate from 1862 to 1864 and in the a¹¹emBlY in 1867, 1873, and a¿ain in 1880. Âhen Kel¹eY ¹enior wa¹ appointed a¹ the Green ÀaY Indian a¿ent for the Menominee, StockBrid¿e, and Áneida re¹ervation¹ in 1890, hi¹ ¹on moved with him, and in 1892 and 1893 wa¹ emploYed a¹ a¿encY clerk.
163
4
164
ÌÈTHEs
½ere he met hi¹ future wife, ¼Bi¿ail, who¹e father, Solomon Steven¹ Àurle5
¹on, wa¹ the Ópi¹copal mi¹¹ionarY to the Áneida¹. Kel¹eY attended the Univer¹itY of Âi¹con¹in, ¿raduatin¿ in 1896 with a law de¿ree, and with hi¹ friend, Â. C. Ãonovan, ¹on of a Madi¹on, Âi¹con¹in, Õud¿e, worked in a local law firm until theY opened up their own law practice three Year¹ later 6
in Óau Claire, Âi¹con¹in. °e 1900 cen¹u¹ reveal¹ that Kel¹eY and ¼Bi¿ail, who married in 1897, were ¹till livin¿ in Óau Claire in that Year. °e follow7
in¿ Year, theY moved to California.
¼lthou¿h the exact date of Kel¹eY’¹ fir¹t affiliation with the ¾CI¼ i¹ unknown, the ori¿in¹ of the a¹¹ociation it¹elf can Be traced to the ¹ummer of 1891 when ¾I¼ pre¹ident ¼melia Stone Quinton vi¹ited California. Ár¿anizin¿ fir¹t in ¹outhern California, ¹he founded the ¾orthern California Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation in San Äranci¹co on ¼u¿u¹t 10. Ëwo week¹ 8
later, on ¼u¿u¹t 27, ¹he founded an Indian committee in nearBY San jo¹e.
Little i¹ known of thi¹ earlY ¿roup, Becau¹e a committee wa¹ a ¹imple or¿anization, with no con¹titution or re¿ular meetin¿¹, comin¿ to¿ether for ¹ome ¹pecific work or to hear a ¹peaker. ½owever, on julY 23, 1894, theY reor¿anized a¹ the San jo¹e Indian ¼¹¹ociation with Cornelia ËaBer and her 9
mother, ¼nna ½aviland Äerri¹ ËaBer, amon¿ the leader¹hip. °e San jo¹e ¼¹¹ociation ¹oon replaced San Äranci¹co a¹ headquarter¹ for the ¾I¼’¹ work in northern California, and theY Be¿an callin¿ them¹elve¹ the ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾CI¼). In 1896, the ¾CI¼ Be¿an their mi¹¹ionarY effort¹ on the ½oopa Re¹ervation in northern California’¹ ½umBoldt CountY.
10
Äive Year¹ later, theY
Be¿an one of their more amBitiou¹ undertakin¿¹—an exten¹ive puBlic campai¿n to purcha¹e land for the ¹tate’¹ homele¹¹ Indian¹. In june 1901, with fundin¿ rai¹ed locallY, lon¿time a¹¹ociation memBer ½annah Ólliott Àean informed Philip C. Garrett, memBer of the Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹ and pre¹ident of the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation (IR¼),
11
of their recent $400
land purcha¹e for a ¹mall Band of Indian¹ livin¿ near Ukiah—currentlY Bein¿ held in ¼nna ËaBer’¹ name for the Indian¹’ protection. ½owever, another ¹mall ¿roup of ¹ixtY Indian¹ livin¿ near Manche¹ter, California, al¹o faced di¹po¹¹e¹¹ion. Âith the ¾CI¼ trea¹urY Bare and the national a¹¹ociation in Philadelphia unaBle to help, Àean appealed to Garrett. °e IR¼ Brou¿ht the i¹¹ue to their memBer¹hip and forwarded $312 to Àean for thi¹ ¹econd purcha¹e.
12
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
165
Ëo more effectivelY pur¹ue their new land purcha¹e pro¿ram, in ¾ovem13
Ber 1901, the ¾CI¼ incorporated.
°en, two Year¹ later, with a memBer¹hip
that had ¿rown from eleven to ninetY
14
and leader¹hip directed BY MarY
½aven Ódward¹, pre¹ident; Cornelia ËaBer, corre¹pondin¿ ¹ecretarY; and C. Ó. Kel¹eY, ¿eneral ¹ecretarY, the ¾CI¼, facin¿ a ¿rowin¿ numBer of homele¹¹ Indian¹ in northern California and a paucitY of fund¹, adopted a plan to ¹ecure federal fundin¿. °e ¹cheduled vi¹it of Pre¹ident °eodore Roo¹evelt to northern California in june 1903 provided a perfect opportunitY to implement their plan. Án MaY 13, 1903, Kel¹eY pre¹ented the pre¹ident with the ¾CI¼’¹ memorial letter addre¹¹in¿ the pli¿ht of the¹e landle¹¹ Indian¹. Äive daY¹ later, Kel¹eY ¹ent a copY to Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹, editor of Out West, for hi¹ “moral ¹upport and Backin¿.” Intere¹ted in Indian reform, Lummi¹ had formed the SequoYa Lea¿ue, a Âe¹t Coa¹t–Ba¹ed Indian ri¿ht¹ or¿anization, in june 1901.
15
°e petitioner¹ called Roo¹evelt’¹ attention to the pre¹ent condition of northern California Indian¹, “who¹e title and owner¹hip . . . [had] never Been extin¿ui¹hed, either in law or moral¹,” remindin¿ him that “nowhere But in California” had the ¿overnment “ever taken land¹ from Indian¹ without paYin¿ for it.” °erefore it wa¹ “more than Õu¹t” that each Band Be ¿iven “a home in the nei¿hBorhood where theY now live” with tenure, providin¿ them with an opportunitY to “develop into intelli¿ent, ¹elfre¹pectin¿ citizen¹.” °e ¾CI¼ had alreadY conferred with Indian commi¹¹ioner Âilliam ¼. jone¹ durin¿ hi¹ recent vi¹it to the ¹tate, and he a¹¹ured them “of hi¹ cooperation and a¹¹i¹tance.” ¼t hi¹ ¹u¿¿e¹tion, ¾CI¼ memBer¹ Be¿an ¿atherin¿ information on the location and ¹ize of each landle¹¹ Band in the ¾orth, and theY ¹tarted the proce¹¹ of preparin¿ a ¹eparate petition to Brin¿ Before Con¿re¹¹.
16
In the meantime, Roo¹evelt forwarded the letter to Commi¹¹ioner jone¹, who on julY 22 wrote that it wa¹ “extremelY douBtful if anY action of the ¾ational Government in the direction ¹u¿¿e¹ted BY the memoriali¹t¹ would Be of anY permanent Benefit to the Indian¹.” Äive daY¹ later, Roo¹evelt ¹ent the commi¹¹ioner’¹ report to Kel¹eY, who immediatelY addre¹¹ed jone¹’¹ concern¹, providin¿ additional detail¹.
17
In earlY ¼u¿u¹t, Kel¹eY wrote IR¼
¹ecretarY Matthew K. Sniffen that jone¹ wa¹ ¹till apprehen¹ive. ½e a¹¹ured Sniffen that hi¹ a¹¹ociation’¹ propo¹ition wa¹ to ¿ive “each independent familY a tract of a few acre¹, to Become hi¹ own at the expiration of a
166
ÌÈTHEs
proBationarY period, practicallY an allotment.” °e ¾CI¼ wanted “no more re¹ervation¹ in California.”
18
Seekin¿ advice on their propo¹ed petition, on ÃecemBer 4, 1903, Kel¹eY enclo¹ed a draft copY to Sniffen, ur¿in¿ him, if he approved, to take char¿e “in the manner [hi¹] experience would indicate a¹ Be¹t to pur¹ue.” ¼nYthin¿ “inadvi¹aBle” would Be removed. Individual petition¹, Kel¹eY explained, “¹i¿ned a¹ exten¹ivelY a¹ our affiliation¹ can accompli¹h” would ¹oon follow. °eY al¹o appealed to their California con¿re¹¹ional dele¿ation. Âhen Sniffen, in a ÃecemBer 17 letter, a¿reed to a¹¹i¹t, Kel¹eY ¹u¿¿e¹ted that California ¹enator °oma¹ R. Àard, who had a lar¿e numBer of Indian¹ livin¿ near him and wa¹ a memBer of the Senate Indian Committee, would Be the 19
Be¹t candidate to pre¹ent the petition.
Ói¿ht daY¹ later, the IR¼’¹ Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, loBBYi¹t, Samuel M. Àro¹iu¹, informed Sniffen that Àard had confided that the Senate Indian Committee, with hi¹ ur¿in¿, had a¿reed to have the petition printed the daY Before, ¿ivin¿ “it further ¹tandin¿, a¹ of more than u¹ual intere¹t.” GenerallY “mo¹t petition¹, when referred lie without further action from the Senate,” Àro¹iu¹ explained. Àard al¹o intended to reque¹t a thorou¿h ¿overnment inve¹ti¿ation of the condition of northern California’¹ Indian¹, But Àro¹iu¹ a¹¹umed correctlY that Kel¹eY’¹ ¿roup would not want to depend ¹olelY upon 20
an out¹ide inve¹ti¿ator.
Âritin¿ to California’¹ ¹enior ¹enator, Geor¿e C.
Perkin¹, Kel¹eY confided that “tenderfoot’¹ report” would Be “of little value.” °e inve¹ti¿ation would proBaBlY require ¹ome fifteen thou¹and mile¹ “of exceedin¿lY rou¿h travel,” and the individual would have to have excellent health and “¿reat per¹i¹tence”; otherwi¹e he would Be tired “lon¿ Before he [wa¹] half throu¿h.”
21
°ankin¿ Perkin¹ for hi¹ “thou¿htfulne¹¹” and “deference to and ¹upport of the wi¹he¹” of hi¹ con¹tituent¹, Kel¹eY de¹criBed the California Indian¹ a¹ “i¹olated” in their rancheria¹, which were far wor¹e than re¹ervation¹ and with “almo¹t none of [their] few Benefit¹.” °e ¾CI¼ wa¹ onlY a¹kin¿ for ¹mall plot¹ of land, “¹o ¹mall that after caBin¹, corral¹, etc., are put up there will Be room for nothin¿ But ¹mall ¿arden¹.” ½i¹ a¹¹ociation had no intention of turnin¿ California Indian¹ into farmer¹, a¹ wa¹ the policY el¹ewhere in the countrY. “°eY are now laBorer¹ (after a fa¹hion),” and the a¹¹ociation intended that theY remain ¹o. Kel¹eY a¹¹ured the ¹enator that ¿overnment official¹ ¹hould not Be a¹ fearful aBout the intent of the ¾CI¼’¹ petition a¹
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
22
theY ¹eemed to Be.
167
°eir petition clearlY ¹pecified that ¹mall tract¹ Be
“¿iven them in ¹everaltY, under the tenure and with the proBationarY period or ¿reater of the ¿eneral allotment act”
23
—with allotment¹ “in the nei¿hBor-
hood¹ where theY now live.” Ëo ¹implifY thi¹ procedure, the ¾CI¼ had included with the petition the location and population of each Indian ¹ettlement north of Ëehachapi, a total of 418 ¹ettlement¹ with a population of 13,733 nonre¹ervation Indian¹.
24
°e petition “for the relief of the landle¹¹ Indian¹ of northern California,” ¹i¿ned BY Ódward¹ and Kel¹eY and addre¹¹ed to Con¿re¹¹, wa¹ pre¹ented BY Senator Àard on januarY 21, 1904. Petitioner¹ explained that althou¿h it wa¹ the “univer¹al practice” of the ¿overnment to paY Indian¹ for land¹ ceded, the failure of the Senate to ratifY the California treatie¹ meant that the ¹tate’¹ Indian¹ received no paYment for their “more than 100,000 ¹quare mile¹ of the mo¹t Beautiful and valuaBle countrY in the world.” In¹tead theY had Become ¹quatter¹ and tenant¹, ¹uBÕected to eviction¹ a¹ the ¹ettler population increa¹ed. In addition, “race preÕudice [had] for the mo¹t part deBarred their children from the puBlic ¹chool¹.” Month¹ later, in a letter written at ¼melia Stone Quinton’¹ reque¹t for puBlication in the Indian’s Friend, the monthlY new¹letter of the ¾CI¼’¹ parent a¹¹ociation, the ¾I¼, Kel¹eY decried the reÕection of the treatie¹, de¹criBin¿ the act a¹ “a great wrong ,” requirin¿ the ¿overnment to take “¹ome ¹tep¹ to repair the wron¿ inflicted upon a helple¹¹ people.”
25
¼ week after the petition’¹ pre¹entation, ¾CI¼ pre¹ident MarY Ódward¹ wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle ¹ummarizin¿ the a¹¹ociation’¹ work. It had, ¹he explained, rai¹ed $5,000, with more than half ¿oin¿ to their mi¹¹ionarY work at ½oopa. °e rea¹on the puBlic and new¹paper¹ were unfamiliar with it¹ activitie¹ wa¹ that there wa¹ “aB¹olutelY no politic¹ aBout” it. °eY were philanthropi¹t¹, not politician¹. ¼ ¹upportive Chronicle editorial concluded that the ¾CI¼ petition now Before Con¿re¹¹ “¹hould Be ¿ranted, for Õu¹tice and hone¹t and fair dealin¿ demand that the Government make what 26
reparation it can to the remnant of the¹e Indian¹.”
Ëo promote their petition and ¿ain new endor¹ement¹, in mid-ÄeBruarY, Kel¹eY and memBer¹ of an ¾CI¼ committee attended variou¹ mini¹ter¹’ union meetin¿¹.
27
¼dditional ¹upport wa¹ provided BY the Indian’s Friend ,
which throu¿h it¹ pa¿e¹ alerted other Branche¹ with the rallYin¿ crY, “Rou¹e Your¹elve¹ and act promptlY” to ¹ecure “ri¿hteou¹ le¿i¹lation for Indian¹ in
168
ÌÈTHEs
the comin¿ Con¿re¹¹.” Soon pa¹tor¹’ a¹¹ociation¹, men’¹ cluB¹, the California Äederation of Âomen’¹ CluB¹ (with 28,000 memBer¹), the facultie¹ at Both Stanford and ÀerkeleY, and even 157 re¹ident¹ of the ¹mall California town of Colu¹a had ¹i¿ned.
28
In one pamphlet, the ¾CI¼ de¹criBed their
petition a¹ “¹tron¿lY endor¹ed” BY the IR¼, the ¹ecretarY of the Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, the California Âoman’¹ Chri¹tian Ëemperance Union, and numerou¹ mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietie¹, cluB¹, and individual¹.
29
°rou¿hout the proce¹¹, Kel¹eY remained adamant aBout retainin¿ control. “Âe do not feel like aBandonin¿ our effort¹ to arou¹e puBlic ¹entiment,” he informed Sniffen. ½e al¹o explained that Senator Perkin¹ had ¹ent him a copY of Richard ½enrY Pratt’¹ critici¹m¹ of the petition. °e verY opinionated Pratt, founder of Carli¹le Indian Indu¹trial School, often di¹a¿reed with other Indian reformer¹. Pratt oBÕected to i¹¹ue¹ not even addre¹¹ed in the petition, includin¿ the Belief that the ¾CI¼ intended to e¹taBli¹h Indian 30
re¹ervation¹ in¹tead of relYin¿ on the Indian ½ome¹tead ¼ct;
therefore,
Kel¹eY wa¹ unconcerned. “I cannot ¹aY that we take it verY ¹eriou¹lY,” he 31
concluded.
InitiallY viewin¿ Pratt’¹ complain¹ a¹ mere “effu¹ion” requirin¿ no re¹pon¹e, in mid-ÄeBruarY Kel¹eY and Ódward¹ ¹ent him an open puBlic letter explainin¿ that the California ¹ituation wa¹ unique and that hi¹ “ar¿ument¹ [had] aB¹olutelY no Bearin¿ upon the proBlem, or upon [their] attempt at it¹ ¹olution.” °e ¾CI¼ had no intention of re¹trictin¿ the individual liBertY of northern California Indian¹ or placin¿ them under the control of anY Bureau. Äurthermore, Becau¹e the Indian¹ held no title to their land¹ and were continuallY ¹uBÕected to eviction, the Indian ½ome¹tead Law, which Pratt recommended, wa¹ not the an¹wer. In¹tead, the ¾CI¼ propo¹ed to ¿rant land in ¹everaltY “in the localitie¹ theY now occupY,” unle¹¹ “unfit for human haBitation.” °e¹e Indian¹ were aB¹olutelY de¹titute, and the ¹malle¹t improvement¹ to their propertY would Be an “incentive to eviction” BY white ¹ettler¹. Pratt wa¹ i¿norin¿ the “Indian ri¿ht of occupancY, a ri¿ht acknowled¿ed BY everY civilized nation” and all ¹tate¹ except California. It¹ Indian¹ would not end up in the “opulent ea¹e of tho¹e in Áklahoma,” a¹ Pratt had ¹u¿¿e¹ted. °e ¾CI¼ wa¹ not ¹eekin¿ “charitY, puBlic or private” for the Indian¹, onlY “Õu¹tice.”
32
Án ÁctoBer 11, 1904, Kel¹eY ¹ent petition¹ ¹i¿ned BY ¹ome five hundred people and or¿anization¹ to Sniffen, informin¿ him that theY had “Been verY
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹ 169
¹ucce¹¹ful in ¿ettin¿ the Be¹t endor¹ement¹ and [had] Yet to receive a refu¹al from anYone of ¹tandin¿.” Ëwo week¹ later, in an¹wer to Sniffen’¹ letter of ÁctoBer 24, Kel¹eY wrote that not onlY had the ¾CI¼ ¹ecured the approval of Both the ¹tate’¹ ¹enator¹, But “a maÕoritY of the con¿re¹¹men have re¹ponded favoraBlY.” °e a¹¹ociation intended to “u¹e everY effort to Brin¿ local pre¹¹ure upon the con¿re¹¹ional dele¿ation.” Sniffen had al¹o informed Kel¹eY in an ÁctoBer 24 letter that the Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian (LMC) durin¿ their annual meetin¿ had addre¹¹ed the i¹¹ue 33
of relief for northern California Indian¹.
°i¹ conference, founded in 1883 BY ¼lBert K. SmileY, a prominent Quaker reformer and humanitarian, wa¹ a powerful forum that included ¿overnment official¹, memBer¹ of the Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹ and con¿re¹¹ional Indian committee¹, repre¹entative¹ from variou¹ reli¿iou¹ ¹ocietie¹, cler¿Y from all denomination¹, armY officer¹, head¹ of Indian ¹chool¹, pre¹ident¹ of univer¹itie¹ and colle¿e¹, and editor¹ of ¹ecular and reli¿iou¹ new¹paper¹. °eY ¿athered annuallY for three daY¹ to di¹cu¹¹ and ¹et ¿overnment Indian policie¹. Ãurin¿ the recent conference Samuel M. Àro¹iu¹ and ¼melia Stone Quinton had addre¹¹ed the work of the ¾CI¼. Quinton de¹criBed one Band, formerlY numBerin¿ ¹everal hundred, who had Been reduced to fewer than one hundred and were now “livin¿ on four acre¹ of land which [wa¹] the Burial place of their father¹.” Moved BY the condition of the Indian¹, conference memBer¹ had re¹olved that ¹ince the ¿overnment wa¹ “dutY Bound to provide home¹” for them, Con¿re¹¹ ¹hould appoint a commi¹¹ion to inve¹ti34
¿ate and purcha¹e land.
Month¹ later, on ¼pril 12, 1905, Before 175 attendee¹ at an ¾CI¼ meetin¿ at the Àapti¹t church in San jo¹e, Kel¹eY reported that Con¿re¹¹ had appropriated $10,000 to inve¹ti¿ate the condition of northern California Indian¹. Six daY¹ later, he wrote Sniffen that the ¾CI¼ had unanimou¹lY pa¹¹ed a re¹olution thankin¿ him for hi¹ “unfailin¿ kindne¹¹” and for “hi¹ invaluaBle a¹¹i¹tance.”
35
°e IR¼, however, in their official report¹ took mo¹t of the
credit for expo¹in¿ the Indian¹’ condition¹ and ¹ecurin¿ the moneY. Scant mention wa¹ made of the ¾CI¼’¹ petition drive. Án the other hand, Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ prai¹ed Kel¹eY’¹ work and that of hi¹ a¹¹ociate¹ and offered the lea¿ue’¹ a¹¹i¹tance “in [their] admiraBle work in the ¾orth at everY opportunitY.” Po¹¹iBlY thi¹ prai¹e re¹ulted from an earlier ¾CI¼ re¹olution pa¹¹ed unanimou¹lY durin¿ their re¿ular quarterlY meetin¿ thankin¿
170
ÌÈTHEs
Lummi¹ “for hi¹ virile champion¹hip of the ri¿ht¹ of the ¾orthern California Indian¹.”
36
Äollowin¿ hi¹ june 1905 vi¹it to California, the new Indian commi¹¹ioner, Äranci¹ Óllin¿ton Leupp, appointed Kel¹eY to conduct the northern California inve¹ti¿ation. ¾CI¼ memBer¹ de¹criBed thi¹ appointment a¹ “the Be¹t work done for our Indian¹ in all the Year¹ of our a¹¹ociation’¹ life.” ¼nna ËaBer had known for month¹ that Kel¹eY wa¹ Bein¿ con¹idered for the po¹ition. In a januarY letter to Sniffen, ¹he had written that Kel¹eY “would Be a verY ¹uitaBle per¹on for appointment either to make inquirie¹ or to di¹triBute the appropriation,” for he wa¹ familiar with the “Indian character” Becau¹e hi¹ father had ¹erved a¹ an Indian a¿ent. Kel¹eY al¹o had ¹olid political con37
nection¹, ¹he concluded.
Ärom ¼u¿u¹t 8, 1905, to March 8, 1906, Kel¹eY, a¹ a ¹pecial a¿ent for the California Indian¹ to the Indian commi¹¹ioner, traveled ¹ome twelve thou¹and mile¹, conductin¿ a cen¹u¹ of Indian¹ livin¿ out¹ide re¹ervation land¹. ½e pre¹ented hi¹ report to Commi¹¹ioner Leupp on March 21, 1906. Ëwo daY¹ earlier, ¼nna ËaBer had written Sniffen that Kel¹eY wa¹ “often compelled to ride on hor¹eBack or to walk a¹ he vi¹ited the de¹olate re¿ion¹ where ¹o manY Indian¹ have Been driven.” ½e had, ¹he wrote, “found thin¿¹ wor¹e than he expected.” In the meantime, the ¾CI¼ wa¹ Bu¹Y ¹endin¿ po¹tal card¹, paper¹, and appeal¹ “in everY direction,” and ¹he a¹ked for IR¼ ¹upport, e¹peciallY in placin¿ Indian article¹ in new¹paper¹. ¼l¹o ¹upportin¿ their effort¹, the SequoYa Lea¿ue in their March report prai¹ed the in¹pection “BY a Californian, who i¹ at once a lawYer and ¹uB¹tantial citizen, and a man of experience in the Indian Service.”
38
¼¹ mo¹t ¹ettlement¹ were not located near exi¹tin¿ railroad line¹, Kel¹eY found it “impo¹¹iBle to hurrY the inquirY BeYond the ¹peed of a hor¹e.” ½e would have much preferred “to make a hut to hut canva¹¹,” But the ¹heer ¹ize of the ¹tate, fiftY-¹even countie¹, with fiftY of them havin¿ Indian ¹ettlement¹, forced him to ¹pend le¹¹ than three daY¹ per countY in the time he wa¹ ¿iven. ½i¹ final count revealed a total ¹tate population of ¹li¿htlY more than 17,000, with onlY 5,200 livin¿ on re¹ervation¹. °e¹e new fi¿ure¹, he noted, reflected a population decline of 1,100 in northern California—mo¹tlY 39
amon¿ the landle¹¹ Band¹.
Kel¹eY had Be¿un hi¹ ¿overnment report with a Brief hi¹torY, endin¿ with the reÕection of the California treatie¹. “½ad the Government ¿iven the¹e
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
171
Indian¹ the ¹ame treatment a¹ it did other Indian¹ in the United State¹,” he concluded, “their condition¹ todaY would Be verY different.” ¾on-California Indian¹ at lea¹t had Been a¹¹i¿ned re¹ervation¹, ¿uaranteein¿ them at minimum a land Ba¹e. ½i¹ recommendation called “for the protection of the land and water ri¿ht¹ of Indian allottee¹,” additional field matron¹ and indu¹trial teacher¹, more daY ¹chool¹, ¹tron¿er le¿i¹lation to ¹top the liquor traffic, and proper ¹urveY¹ of all re¹ervation Boundarie¹.
40
¼ recent Book relate¹ the hi¹torY of one ¿roup on who¹e Behalf Kel¹eY worked for ¹everal Year¹—the Ipai in the San Pa¹qual ¸alleY. ¼lthou¿h map¹ ¹howed an Indian re¹ervation, there wa¹ none, and no “San Pa¹cual [sic] Indian¹ ever lived on the land actuallY re¹erved,” Kel¹eY reported. °erefore, he had recommended that a ¹mall tract of land Be purcha¹ed for them.
41
In
fact, an executive order re¹ervation of over 92,000 acre¹ had Been e¹taBli¹hed in the San Pa¹qual ¸alleY on januarY 31, 1871, BY Pre¹ident UlY¹¹e¹ S. Grant,
42
But vi¿orou¹ prote¹tin¿ BY white ¹quatter¹ had led the pre¹ident, upon the recommendation of hi¹ Indian commi¹¹ioner, to revoke hi¹ own executive order on ÄeBruarY 17, 1871, re¹torin¿ the land to the puBlic domain.
43
Âhite
¹ettler¹ moved in; the Indian¹ were evicted in 1878, Õoinin¿ relative¹ on other re¹ervation¹, ¹ettlin¿ in the northea¹tern hill¹ of the valleY, or movin¿ north, ¹eekin¿ ÕoB¹ in white communitie¹. In 1891, the California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion had ¹et a¹ide two thou¹and acre¹ for the San Pa¹qual Band in ¸alleY Center, ¹ome ¹ix mile¹ north of their traditional land¹.
44
Preferrin¿ the San Pa¹qual ¸alleY to thi¹
rockY arid re¹ervation, Ipai familie¹ refu¹ed to move; white ¹quatter¹ home¹teaded in¹tead. UnaBle to acquire land in the valleY, Kel¹eY in ÄeBruarY 1908 received authorization to BuY out the improvement¹ of white ¹quatter¹, and in late ÃecemBer 1909 Ärank Ëra¹k, hi¹ wife Leonora, and their two dau¿hter¹ moved to the San Pa¹qual Indian Re¹ervation at ¸alleY Center,
45
where
Ëra¹k farmed ¹ucce¹¹fullY until hi¹ death in 1920 of the Spani¹h flu. Àetween 1920 and her own death in 1953, Leonora kept the re¹ervation operational for her children and their familie¹. UltimatelY, durin¿ the 1970¹, other Ipai familie¹ would move to the re¹ervation.
46
Until julY 1913, when he retired, Kel¹eY and other official¹ continued the complicated and len¿thY proce¹¹ of removin¿ ¹quatter¹. °eY eventuallY ¹ecured water from the Ó¹condido Mutual Âater CompanY for the San Pa¹qual Re¹ervation. Kel¹eY wa¹ well aware that the mountaintop land of the
172
ÌÈTHEs
re¹ervation could onlY ¹upport one or two familie¹.
47
Ima¿ine what he would
think of todaY’¹ thrivin¿ re¹ervation with it¹ hotel and ca¹ino. Several month¹ after Kel¹eY completed hi¹ report, five thou¹and copie¹ of which had Been printed BY the ¾CI¼, Con¿re¹¹ in the Indian ¼ppropriation¹ ¼ct of june 21, 1906, authorized $100,000 for the purcha¹e of land for Indian¹ livin¿ on re¹ervation¹ without ¹uitaBle a¿ricultural acrea¿e and for nonre¹ervation Indian¹. °e followin¿ month, Commi¹¹ioner Leupp appointed Kel¹eY a¹ “Special Indian Commi¹¹ioner for California” (a di¹Bur¹in¿ a¿ent), authorized to ne¿otiate land purcha¹e¹.
48
Prai¹in¿ thi¹ appointment, Lummi¹ de¹criBed
Kel¹eY a¹ “an hone¹t and wi¹e man” who “know¹ Indian condition¹, and land value¹,” while ÂaYland ½. Smith, SequoYa Lea¿ue ¹ecretarY, de¹criBed him a¹ “peculiarlY equipped and qualified for the work.”
49
Âhen not en¿a¿ed in ¿overnment fieldwork, Kel¹eY participated in the or¿anization of an ¾CI¼ annual conference. ¼lon¿ with Senator Ärank P. Älint (Àard’¹ ¹ucce¹¹or) and fifteen other prominent individual¹, Kel¹eY ¹i¿ned a circular letter invitin¿ Indian reformer¹ to attend the fir¹t ZaYante Indian Conference at Mount ½erman, Santa Cruz, on julY 29–31,1906. °e followin¿ SeptemBer, Cornelia ËaBer reported that the conference, which had Been led BY Kel¹eY, wa¹ a ¹ucce¹¹. It had Brou¿ht to¿ether “¹oul¹ of hi¿h de¿ree” to con¹ider “the Be¹t method¹ of work on Behalf of the wron¿ed, lon¿-ne¿lected and impoveri¹hed triBe¹ in the northern half of the State.”
50
Ãurin¿ the ¾CI¼ quarterlY meetin¿ on june 11, 1907, Kel¹eY reported that he had examined 150 tract¹ of land and ne¿otiated for the purcha¹e of 51
$60,000 worth of thi¹ land.
Äour daY¹ later, he accompanied Commi¹¹ioner
Leupp to Äre¹no to “arran¿e for the purcha¹e of one hundred and ¹ixtY acre¹ for an Indian re¹ervation”; eventuallY, ¹ome fiftY Indian¹ would Be ¹ettled there.
52
Äour month¹ later, Kel¹eY and the Reverend Geor¿e L. Spinin¿, a
Pre¹BYterian mini¹ter, conducted an inve¹ti¿ation of the condition of the Indian¹ around Colu¹a. °eY would ¹oon have a new home, purcha¹ed BY the ¿overnment, noted the reporter, with each Indian “¿iven aBout two acre¹ of land.” °e adult Indian¹ would Be expected, however, to make their livin¿ 53
BY workin¿ on nei¿hBorin¿ ranche¹.
ÓarlY the followin¿ Year, with Senator Älint’¹ ¹upport, Con¿re¹¹ appropriated an additional $50,000 to purcha¹e land for the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ and to Build a wa¿on road throu¿h the ½oopa ¸alleY Indian Re¹ervation in 54
northern California.
°en in ¼pril, Kel¹eY attended an Indian conference
(modeled after Lake Mohonk) in River¹ide, California, at Ärank ¼u¿u¹tu¹
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
173
Miller’¹ Glenwood Mi¹¹ion Inn. Lummi¹, who developed the pro¿ram, had written Stanford Univer¹itY pre¹ident Ãavid Starr jordan, who¹e wife wa¹ one of ¹everal ¾CI¼ vice pre¹ident¹, to Be ¹ure to include Kel¹eY a¹ a participant. ½e de¹criBed the ¹pecial a¿ent a¹ “the mo¹t important per¹on 55
in the whole catalo¿ue.”
UltimatelY, ¹ome 150 dele¿ate¹ and Between fiftY
and ¹ixtY Indian¹ attended the three-daY conference. ÃulY impre¹¹ed BY the man’¹ “plain talk,” Lummi¹ de¹criBed Kel¹eY a¹ “the mo¹t notaBle fi¿ure perhap¹ in thi¹ extraordinarY ¿atherin¿.” Kel¹eY’¹ report, written “without a flower of rhetoric, [wa¹] the mo¹t encoura¿in¿” one he had ever heard “on anY pha¹e of the Indian que¹tion.” Lummi¹ concluded: “In all
º²gÇ´E 7.1. Prominent male reformer¹ ¿ather Before the Glenwood Mi¹¹ion Inn in River¹ide, California, in ¼pril 1908 durin¿ an Indian conference modeled after Lake Mohonk and ho¹ted BY Ärank Miller, proprietor of the inn, who i¹ ¹tandin¿ Between the two ¿entlemen holdin¿ their hat¹. In the front row, the talle¹t man i¹ Stanford Univer¹itY pre¹ident Ãavid Starr jordan. Ëo hi¹ left (to the ri¿ht in the photo) i¹ Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹, next to ¼lBert K. SmileY. ¼lthou¿h women attended, theY were not photo¿raphed here. Courte¹Y of the ¼rchive¹ of ¼. K. SmileY PuBlic LiBrarY, Redland¹, California.
174
ÌÈTHEs
the hi¹torY of our dealin¿¹ with aBori¿ine in California there ha¹ never Been ¹o competent an example a¹ Mr. Kel¹eY ha¹ ¹et for what an Indian ¼¿ent can, maY, and ¹hould do.”
56
°at ÁctoBer at the annual LMC, Kel¹eY’¹ accompli¹hment¹ were ¿lowin¿lY pre¹ented BY Reverend Spinin¿, who de¹criBed hi¹ travel¹ with the ¹pecial a¿ent. “Âith him I have ¿one into the home¹ of the¹e people,” Spinin¿ declared, when theY had traveled up and down the San joaquin and Sacramento River¹, over foothill¹ and into the canYon¹ of the Sierra¹. °e condition¹ theY witne¹¹ed were “a Blot on the ¼merican fla¿, and a ¹hame and di¹¿race to the ¼merican people.” Spinin¿ a¹ked hi¹ audience to vi¹ualize “an Indian Áld People’¹ ½ome”—a mi¹eraBle ¹hack, drippin¿ and cold, with a ninetY-Year-old-woman lYin¿ on a ¿unnY¹ack near a dYin¿ fire, “the ¹hiver of death . . . in her Bone¹.”
57
Conference founder ¼lBert K. SmileY, a nineteen-Year memBer of the Redland¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, a ¾I¼ affiliate in ¹outhern California, continued the prai¹e for Kel¹eY. SmileY reported a “much fairer ¹pirit toward the Indian¹” amon¿ “the Better cla¹¹ of white¹ in California.” °i¹ chan¿e wa¹ due to the work of “a little Band of women at San jo¹e,” and to Kel¹eY—“an aBle, Õudiciou¹ and con¹cientiou¹ man,” appointed to inve¹ti¿ate the land ¹ituation. Äor the prior two Year¹ under Kel¹eY’¹ “thorou¿h inve¹ti¿ation,” fact¹ aBout the condition of California’¹ Indian¹ “have Been Brou¿ht to li¿ht 58
a¹ theY never have Been Before,” exclaimed SmileY.
Kel¹eY’¹ effort¹ on Behalf of the Indian¹ of ¹outhern California did not Become puBlic knowled¿e until hi¹ len¿thY report, enclo¹ed with a letter dated ¾ovemBer 10, 1908, to ÂaYland ½. Smith, wa¹ puBli¹hed in Smith’¹
Out West article in the ÄeBruarY–March 1909 i¹¹ue. Kel¹eY reported that he had examined the thirtY-four “minute tract¹” that had Been ¹et a¹ide for Indian u¹e durin¿ the precedin¿ half centurY, findin¿ all Barren, mo¹t with inadequate water ¹upplY, over half with di¹puted Boundarie¹, and almo¹t onethird where Indian¹ lived out¹ide the area re¹erved. °e latter ¹ituation, he explained, had Been ¹olved BY con¿re¹¹ional le¿i¹lation pre¹ented BY Senator Älint, amendin¿ the 1891 act and authorizin¿ land¹ owned BY the ¿overnment to Be patented to the Indian¹. Kel¹eY al¹o de¹criBed hi¹ land purcha¹e¹ a¹ varYin¿ from 1,200 acre¹ at Campo to a 40-acre parcel at La¿una and private land purcha¹e¹ added to the Lo¹ CoYote¹ Re¹ervation. Àoundarie¹ were 59
re¹urveYed where nece¹¹arY, and new well¹ Bored.
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
175
¼lthou¿h at time¹ findin¿ thi¹ work “mi¿htY ¹low,” e¹peciallY dealin¿ with aB¹tract companie¹, title in¹urance companie¹, and “eminent lawYer¹,” Kel¹eY reported in late March 1909 that “all the deed¹ to Southern California land have Been pa¹¹ed BY the ¼ttorneY General and mo¹t of them recorded.” ½i¹ next ta¹k wa¹ to vi¹it Campo in ¹outhern California and ¹et up an irri¿a60
tion ¹Y¹tem.
Several month¹ later, in mid-¼u¿u¹t, Kel¹eY addre¹¹ed the
¾CI¼’¹ Äourth ZaYante Conference, informin¿ fellow reformer¹ that he had purcha¹ed ¹ome 1,800 acre¹ for thirtY-two Band¹; alreadY, fifteen were ¹ettled in new home¹. Âith pride, he remarked that one happY landowner had exclaimed: “Âe ¿ot land: when I heard that, I could not ¹leep for ni¿ht¹.” °e new Indian landowner felt that he had “win¿¹ and could flY.”
61
Ëo Broaden their me¹¹a¿e, durin¿ 1909 Kel¹eY and ¾CI¼ memBer¹ addre¹¹ed ¹uch diver¹e ¿roup¹ a¹ the Ôoun¿ Âomen’¹ Chri¹tian ¼¹¹ociation, and the California and CenturY CluB¹ of San Äranci¹co. Áne of the more pre¹ti¿iou¹ event¹ wa¹ the annual Ãinner and “Ladie¹ ¾i¿ht” at the Commonwealth CluB on ÁctoBer 13, 1909. °e ¾CI¼ di¹plaYed Indian Ba¹ket¹ and the ¹choolwork of Indian children at a reception precedin¿ the formal dinner, at the Saint Äranci¹ ½otel in San Äranci¹co. Kel¹eY’¹ topic wa¹ “°e Ri¿ht¹ and Âron¿¹ of the California Indian¹.” ¼fter di¹cu¹¹in¿ the decline in the Indian population, unratified treatie¹, the foundin¿ of the ¾CI¼, and the i¹¹ue of land, he explored what he called “the ¿reat racial preÕudice a¿ain¹t Indian¹ held BY people in California.” ¼lthou¿h he explained that it had “moderated,” it “¹till operate¹ to the ¹eriou¹ di¹advanta¿e of the Indian¹.” Äor manY Year¹, “Indian children were [not] tolerated in puBlic ¹chool¹.” Óven the churche¹ were indifferent to them. “ProBaBlY 10,000 [Indian¹] have never Been invited into a Chri¹tian church,” he declared. ½e decried the fact that “the evil¹ which the Indian¹ ¹uffer from the¹e variou¹ form¹ of preÕudice or ne¿lect are for the mo¹t part BeYond the reach of le¿i¹lation.” More than moneY, the ¾CI¼ “need¹ Your ¹YmpathY and Your earne¹t ¹upport,” he concluded.
62
Kel¹eY then traveled to ¾ew Paltz, ¾ew Ôork, to pre¹ent the ¹ame me¹¹a¿e Before the twentY-¹eventh LMC. °e land que¹tion, he explained, wa¹ the lea¹t of the proBlem¹. California Indian reformer¹ were fi¿htin¿ “a¿ain¹t [a] mo¹t powerful adver¹e Indian ¹entiment” that had denied the ¹tate’¹ Indian¹ of all ri¿ht¹ “aB¹olutelY,” e¹peciallY acce¹¹ to puBlic education. “SixtY per cent of the Indian children of ¹chool a¿e in ¾orthern California are deBarred
176
ÌÈTHEs
from the puBlic ¹chool¹ to-daY and are not allowed to attend,” not Becau¹e it wa¹ ille¿al But Becau¹e “the puBlic ¹entiment i¹ ¹uch theY do not dare to attend.” Kel¹eY expre¹¹ed hope that their effort¹ to purcha¹e land for home¹ “will prove the Be¿innin¿ of a Better ¹tate of affair¹.”
63
ÀY the Be¿innin¿ of 1910, Kel¹eY reported that he had purcha¹ed a total of 2,498.5 acre¹ in ¹outhern California for ¹ome 1,056 Indian¹, and 3,539 acre¹ in 64
the northern part of the ¹tate for a total of 2,298 Indian¹.
ÀY 1913, the ¾CI¼
reported that when theY had Be¿un their work, 11,000 Indian¹ were landle¹¹, now onlY 2,000 were. °eY al¹o reported the ¹pon¹or¹hip of ¹eventeen mi¹¹ionarY ¹ite¹, ¹taffed BY twentY mi¹¹ionarie¹ repre¹entin¿ ¹ix different denomination¹, ¹ervin¿ 8,500 Indian¹. More Indian children were attendin¿ puBlic ¹chool¹; three new daY ¹chool¹ had Been opened BY the ¿overnment, and the ¾CI¼’¹ own Indu¹trial and Chri¹tian Ërainin¿ School at Guinda had opened in the fall of 1913 with cla¹¹e¹ in a¿riculture, carpentrY, Black¹mithin¿, paintin¿, and plumBin¿ for the BoY¹ and traditional dome¹tic ¹cience¹ ¹uch a¹ 65
¹ewin¿, emBroiderin¿, crochetin¿, and Butter makin¿ for the ¿irl¹.
½ow-
ever, Matthew Sniffen’¹ three-month inve¹ti¿ative tour for the IR¼ in 1920 revealed a trouBlin¿ cen¹u¹. ½e found 6,500 landle¹¹ Indian¹, wherea¹ in 1914 66
the ¾CI¼ had reported onlY 1,841 homele¹¹ Indian¹.
In 1914, Kel¹eY returned a¿ain to the practice of law. Äour Year¹ later, he wa¹ emploYed in the land department of the Southern Pacific CompanY, in 67
char¿e of lea¹e¹. ½e retired in 1932.
½e died on julY 3, 1936, in ¸i¹ta, San
Ãie¿o CountY, California. ¼lthou¿h a little-known fi¿ure todaY, hi¹ con¹ideraBle contriBution¹ “altered the land¹cape for California Indian¹ in the earlY 1900¹.”
68
¼¹ ¹ecretarY of the ¾CI¼, he helped or¿anize and lead a maÕor
petition drive that ¿enerated $150,000 for Indian land purcha¹e¹. ¼¹ a ¹pecial a¿ent, he carried out a maÕor cen¹u¹ of the ¹tate’¹ Indian¹ and then ¹et out to purcha¹e land for the homele¹¹. Ãe¹pite Matthew Sniffen’¹ ne¿ative report, without Kel¹eY, more California Indian¹ would have Been landle¹¹.
Notes 1. See Miller, “°e Secret Ëreatie¹ with California’¹ Indian¹,” 38–45; and Samuel M. Àro¹iu¹ to Matthew K. Sniffen, ÁctoBer 3, 1904, Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Paper¹ (cited hereafter a¹ IR¼ Paper¹), reel 17, explainin¿ that he had located copie¹ in the Indian Áffice. 2. In 1883, ½elen ½unt jack¹on, a ¹pecial a¿ent for the Interior Ãepartment,
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
177
vi¹ited Mi¹¹ion Indian villa¿e¹ to locate ¹uitaBle puBlic land¹ to Be ¹et a¹ide BY executive order. Provi¹ion¹ of her report were partiallY implemented in 1891. See Mathe¹, “°e California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion”; and Àur¿e¹¹, “Commi¹¹ion to the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹.” See al¹o Mathe¹ and Àri¿andi, A Call for Reform, 30–69. 3. Àack¿round on Kel¹eY i¹ ¹par¹e; ¹ee Miller, “PrimarY Source¹ on C. Ó. Kel¹eY.” Äor more Bio¿raphical information, ¹ee Miller, “Made in Âi¹con¹in,” 11–13, 17–18. 4. ¼nna ËaBer wrote that the Kel¹eY¹ were livin¿ amon¿ the Áneida¹; ¼nna ËaBer to Matthew K. Sniffen, june 16, 1904, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 17. In “Li¹t of ÓmploYee¹ under the Indian Àureau,” Cha¹. S. Kel¹eY wa¹ paid $2,000 annuallY a¹ a¿ent while hi¹ ¹on received $1,200 a¹ clerk; ¹ee Commi¹¹ioner of Indian ¼ffair¹, SixtY-Äir¹t ¼nnual Report to the SecretarY of the Interior, 1892, 824; and SixtY-Second ¼nnual Report to the SecretarY of the Interior, 1893, 548. Äor more on Charle¹ S. Kel¹eY a¹ a¿ent, ¹ee Miller, “Made in Âi¹con¹in,” 13–16. 5. Àloomfield, °e Oneidas , 300–311. 6. Äor the law de¿ree, ¹ee Wisconsin Alumni Magazine 7, no. 7 (¼pril 1906): 308; for the le¿al practice, ¹ee “Âi¹con¹in,” American Lawyer: A Monthly Journal Serving the
Business and Professional Interests of the American Bar 7 (julY 1899): 299. 7. Miller, “PrimarY Source¹ on C. Ó. Kel¹eY,” 3. 8. “Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Daily Evening Bulletin (San Äranci¹co), ¼u¿u¹t 12, 1891, 1; and “Äor the Indian¹: ¼n ¼ddre¹¹ BY Mr¹. ¼melia S. Quinton; °e ¾orthern California Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation Ár¿anized,” San Francisco Chronicle , ¼u¿u¹t 12, 1891, 10. 9. Äor the committee definition, ¹ee Quinton, “°e Indian,” 119; for the foundin¿, ¹ee ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ÃecemBer 1894, 24. 10. “Âomen Âho Ëake Care of Indian¹: °e Âork in ½oopa ¸alleY Pre¹ented,”
San Francisco Chronicle , ¼u¿u¹t 4, 1896; and Mathe¹, “¾orthern California MemBer¹ and °eir Âork.” 11. Äounded in Philadelphia in 1882, the IR¼ took over much of the political work formerlY handled BY the ¾I¼, allowin¿ them to concentrate on educational and mi¹¹ionarY work. See ½a¿an, °e Indian Rights Association. °e Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹, founded in 1869 a¹ part of Pre¹ident UlY¹¹e¹ S. Grant’¹ “peace policY,” wa¹ compo¹ed of unpaid philanthropi¹t¹ and humanitarian¹, Both laYpeople and cler¿Y, nominated BY maÕor Prote¹tant denomination¹ and authorized to exerci¹e Õoint control with the Interior Ãepartment in the purcha¹e and in¹pection of food and the di¹Bur¹ement of fund¹. °eY al¹o ne¿otiated treatie¹ and made in¹pection tour¹. In 1909, the ¾CI¼ named their lon¿-awaited nondenominational mi¹¹ion in Ài¹hop, InYo CountY, in honor of Àean. ¾CI¼ ¹pon¹or¹hip wa¹ Brief; the followin¿ Year, the Pre¹BYterian Board took over the work. 12. Àean to Garrett, june 19, 1901, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 15; for the re¹pon¹e, ¹ee “½elp Rendered a Mi¹¹ionarY,” Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee, ¾ineteenth ¼nnual Report, 1901, 32–34; and “¼nother Sad StorY,” Indian’s Friend , june 1901, 7. 13. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, ÃecemBer 1901, 4.
178
ÌÈTHEs
14. ËaBer’¹ ei¿hth annual report noted ninetY memBer¹ and a Bank account of $4,770.13, “which ha¹ Been expended in careful ¹eed ¹owin¿”; ¹ee “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,”
Indian’s Friend, March 1903, 4. 15. “¸a¹t °ron¿ Give¹ Pre¹ident Roo¹evelt a Splendid Âelcome,” San Francisco Chronicle, MaY 13, 1903, 1. See Kel¹eY to Lummi¹, MaY 18, 1903, C. Ó. Kel¹eY Coll., MS 1.2427, Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ Collection. “Ëo Make Àetter Indian¹,” the lea¿ue promoted “a more toleraBle policY toward the Indian¹ of California.” MemBer¹ included PhoeBe ¼. ½ear¹t, founder of the Univer¹itY of California’¹ ¼nthropolo¿Y Ãepartment; MaÕor john Âe¹leY Powell, head of the Àureau of ¼merican Óthnolo¿Y; °oma¹ R. Àard, California US ¹enator; and Ärederick ÂeBB ½od¿e, of the Smith¹onian In¹titution. See “Äoundin¿ a ¾ational Movement,” Out West, januarY 1902, 66. 16. Äor a letter draft, ¹ee Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ Collection. Äor a printed ver¹ion, ¹ee U.S. Con¿re¹¹, Senate, Memorial of the Northern California Indian Association, S. Ãoc. 131, 58th Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., 1904 (hereafter cited a¹ Memorial of the NCIA), 10–12. See al¹o “Áther ¾eedY California Indian¹,” Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee, ËwentY-Äir¹t ¼nnual Report, 31–32. 17. jone¹ to Roo¹evelt, julY 22, 1903, Memorial of the NCIA, 13. Äor Kel¹eY’¹ re¹pon¹e, ¹ee Kel¹eY to Roo¹evelt, ¼u¿u¹t 10, 1903, Memorial of the NCIA, 14–16. 18. Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ¼u¿u¹t 6, 1903, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 16. 19. Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ÃecemBer 4 and 26, 1903, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 16. 20. Àro¹iu¹ to Sniffen, januarY 29, 1904, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 16. 21. Kel¹eY to Perkin¹, March 30, 1904, and Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ¼pril 1, 1904, in IR¼ Paper¹, reel 17. Äor an article alertin¿ reader¹ to the ¾CI¼’¹ memorial recommendin¿ that Àro¹iu¹ inve¹ti¿ate the condition of northern California Indian¹, ¹ee “°e Interior Ãepartment and the Indian¹,” Outlook 76, no. 12 (March 19, 1904): 680. 22. Kel¹eY to Perkin¹, March 30, 1904, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 17. 23. ¼ reference to the 1887 Ãawe¹ ¼ct, which divided up communallY held re¹ervation land in lot¹ of 160, 80, and 40 acre¹ with remainin¿ land¹ opened to puBlic ¹ettlement. In thi¹ proce¹¹, we¹tern Indian¹ lo¹t ¹ome 90 million acre¹ of land. 24.
Memorial of the NCIA, 2–3. °i¹ li¹t, which included the lin¿ui¹tic ¹tock of each
¿roup, wa¹ printed in Memorial of the NCIA , 4–9, and reprinted a¹ “Stati¹tic¹ of the ¾orthern California Indian¹,” Indian’s Friend, March 1904, 10–11. 25. Äor Àard’¹ pre¹entation, ¹ee “ManY Indian¹ ¼re ½omele¹¹: ¾orthern California ¼¹¹ociation ¼¹k¹ ¼id for Some Ëen °ou¹and, Said to Àe in ¾eed,” januarY 22, 1904, 1; and “editorial,” januarY 23, 1904, 6, in the San Francisco Chronicle. See al¹o “°e California Indian¹,” Southern Workman, ÁctoBer 1904, 516–17 (puBli¹hed at ¸ir¿inia’¹ ½ampton In¹titute, which educated freedmen and Indian¹). °e petition and Indian ¹ettlement¹ were reprinted a¹ an ¾CI¼ pamphlet, ÃecemBer 24, 1903, copY in IR¼ Paper¹, reel 132, no. 344; and a¹ “Memorial of the ¾CI¼, PraYin¿ °at Land¹ Àe ¼llotted to the Landle¹¹ Indian¹ of the ¾orthern Part of the State of California,” in ½eizer,
Federal Concern about Conditions of California Indians, 95–109. See al¹o “Petition to
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
179
Con¿re¹¹,” Indian’s Friend , ÄeBruarY 1904, 2, 10. Äor Kel¹eY’¹ letter, ¹ee “¼ California Letter,” Indian’s Friend, ÃecemBer 1905, 10. 26. “Good Âork for Indian¹: ½ow ¾orthern California ¼¹¹ociation ½a¹ Provided ½ome¹ for ManY Scattered Àand¹,” januarY 27, 1904, 5; and “Áur California Indian¹,” March 7, 1904, 6, San Francisco Chronicle. 27. “¼¹k ju¹tice for Indian¹: Mini¹ter¹’ Union¹ Ëake Up the Äi¿ht to Secure Land for °o¹e ¾orth of Ëehachapi,” San Francisco Chronicle, ÄeBruarY 16, 1904, 9. 28. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” ¼pril 1904, 5; and “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” ÃecemBer 1904, 6,
Indian’s Friend. 29. ¾CI¼, Plain Facts about California Indians, undated But pre¹umaBlY 1904. CopY in IR¼ Paper¹, reel 132, no. 344. 30. °i¹ March 3, 1875, le¿i¹lation ¿ave anY Indian, Born in the countrY and the head of a hou¹ehold or twentY-one Year¹ old, the ri¿ht to ¹elect land from the puBlic domain under provi¹ion of the MaY 20, 1862, ½ome¹tead ¼ct. Àecau¹e participation required the Indian home¹teader to aBandon hi¹ triBal affiliation, few applied. 31. Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ÄeBruarY 10, 1904, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 16; ¹ee al¹o Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ¼pril 1, 1904, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 17. 32. Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ¼pril 1, 1904; and open letter from Ódward¹ and Kel¹eY to Col. R. ½. Pratt, ÄeBruarY 15, 1904, in pamphlet form, puBli¹hed BY the ¾CI¼ (n.d.), IR¼ Paper¹, reel 16. Lummi¹, al¹o comBative, wei¿hed in, de¹criBin¿ Pratt a¹ i¿norant aBout Indian¹, knowin¿ onlY tho¹e “anemic, tuBerculou¹, ooze-tanned, Boiled ¹pecimen¹” that emer¿ed from hi¹ “print-factorY” ¹chool (Carli¹le)—“neither Indian¹ nor white men.” See Charle¹ Ä. Lummi¹, “°e SequoYa Lea¿ue,” Out West, ¼pril 1904, 382–84. 33. Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ÁctoBer 11, 1904, and ÁctoBer 31, 1904, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 17. 34. “¼ Plea for the ¾orthern California Indian¹,” LMC, Proceedin¿¹ of the ËwentY-Second ¼nnual Meetin¿, 1904, 150–52 for Àro¹iu¹, 152–53 for Quinton, and 163 for re¹olution¹. Äor a hi¹torY, ¹ee Àur¿e¹¹, “°e Lake Mohonk Conference¹ on the Indian.” 35. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, MaY 1905, 4; and Kel¹eY to Sniffen, ¼pril 18, 1905, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 18. Äor ¹upportive article¹, ¹ee “°e ¾orthern California Indian¹” and “°e Ëreatment of the ¾orthern California Indian¹,” IR¼, ËwentY-Second ¼nnual Report, 33–34, 57–60. See al¹o 42–43 for their re¹olution ¹upportin¿ the e¹taBli¹hment of Indian home¹ and the creation of a committee to inve¹ti¿ate their condition. 36. “°e Landle¹¹ Indian¹ in California,” IR¼, ËwentY-Äourth ¼nnual Report, 16. Äor Lummi¹, ¹ee Kel¹eY to Lummi¹, MaY 23, 1904, and Lummi¹ to Kel¹eY, MaY 26, 1904, C. K. Kel¹eY Coll., MS 1.1.2427, Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ Collection. 37. ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ew Ôork, ÃecemBer 1905, 22–23; and ¼nna Ä. ËaBer to Sniffen, januarY 20, 1905, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 18. See al¹o “Âill StudY the Condition of Indian¹ in California: SecretarY of the Interior ¼ppoint¹ San jo¹e Man to Re¹pon¹iBle Po¹ition,” San Francisco Call , julY 29, 1905.
180
ÌÈTHEs
38. ËaBer to Sniffen, March 19, 1906, IR¼ Paper¹, reel 18. Äor the la¹t quotation, ¹ee Charle¹ Ä. Lummi¹, “°e SequoYa Lea¿ue,” Out West, March 1906, 240. Äor Kel¹eY’¹ comment¹ on hi¹ tour at the ¾CI¼’¹ annual meetin¿ in ¾ovemBer 1905, ¹ee “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend , januarY 1906, 4. 39. Kel¹eY, Report of the Special Agent for California Indians, 4, 24 for the three-Year decline. See al¹o Kel¹eY, “Cen¹u¹ of ¾on-Re¹ervation California Indian¹,” i-v. RoBert ½eizer noted that Becau¹e Kel¹eY wa¹ called to Âa¹hin¿ton Before he could fini¹h, he wa¹ unaBle to vi¹it nine countie¹ (i). Äor a di¹cu¹¹ion of the cen¹u¹, Kel¹eY’¹ “Report on the Condition of the California Indian¹,” and hi¹ “Some ¾umeral¹ from the California Indian Lan¿ua¿e¹,” ¹ee Miller, “Countin¿ Context.” 40. Kel¹eY, Report of the Special Agent for California Indians, 4, 24, 37. In “Mr¹. Ãorca¹ j. Spencer,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ew Ôork, ÃecemBer 1906, 35, Spencer claimed that the California treatie¹ were unknown until “at the reque¹t of Mr. Kel¹eY of the ¾CI¼ theY were unearthed from the archive¹ of Con¿re¹¹.” 41. Kel¹eY, Report of the Special Agent for California Indians, 32. 42. “Indian Re¹ervation in San Ãie¿o CountY, Cal.,” Óx. Ãoc. 296, 41¹t Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., Executive Documents Printed by Order of the House of Representatives, vol. 12, 1006–7. 43. “Part III: Óxecutive Árder¹ Relatin¿ to Indian Re¹erve¹,” in Kappler, Indian Affairs , 819–20. See Ëoler, Blood of the Band , 102–7, 103 for ¹ettin¿ a¹ide the land, and 105 for Commi¹¹ioner ÓlY Samuel Parker’¹ recommendation to revoke. 44. °e new re¹ervation had Been ¹urveYed in one town¹hip and mi¹takenlY placed in another; ¹ee Ëoler, Blood of the Band, 124, 130–32; Ëoler note¹ that in 1891 the ¹urveYor had Been BriBed BY white ¹ettler¹ to locate the re¹ervation a¹ far from San Pa¹qual ¸alleY a¹ po¹¹iBle (145). 45. Ëoler, Blood of the Band, 136. 46. ËodaY, the 1,912-acre San Pa¹qual Indian Re¹ervation (533 acre¹ were Bou¿ht in 2001) ha¹ a population of ¹ome 750 people. ½alf are non-Indian, workin¿ in the triBal ¿overnment or the ca¹ino; the re¹t are de¹cendant¹ of the San Pa¹qual, includin¿ 120 of the 200 enrolled triBal memBer¹. See Ëoler, Blood of the Band , 181. 47. Ëoler, Blood of the Band, 127–28, 130–50 for the effort¹ of Kel¹eY and other official¹. Äor water, ¹ee 187; for ¹upport, ¹ee 217. 48. U.S. Con¿re¹¹, ½ou¹e, 59th Con¿., 1¹t ¹e¹¹., ch. 3504, 1906, 333; and ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ew Ôork, ÃecemBer 1906, 22. 49. Charle¹ Ä. Lummi¹, “°e SequoYa Lea¿ue,” Out West, ÄeBruarY 1907, 180; and ÂaYland ½. Smith, “In Re California Indian¹ to Ãate,” Out West, ÄeBruarY–March 1909, 130. 50. See ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¼u¿u¹t 1906, 4, for the li¹t of letter ¹i¿ner¹; and “°e California Indian Conference” and “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend , SeptemBer 1906, 5, 9. Cathleen Ã. Cahill, in “Rea¹¹e¹¹in¿ the Role of the ‘¾ative ½elper,’” 4, de¹criBed the¹e conference¹ a¹ trainin¿ “Indian leader¹ for Indian work.” 51. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, ¼u¿u¹t 1907, 4.
C. Ó. Kel¹eY and California’¹ Landle¹¹ Indian¹
181
52. “¾ew Re¹ervation,” Madera (CA) Mercury, june 15, 1907. 53. “Ëo Care for Indian¹: Government ¼¿ent¹ Inve¹ti¿atin¿ Condition of Local ËriBe¹,” Sacramento Union, ¾ovemBer 17, 1907. ¼ Year later, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Colu¹a Indian¹ were “rapidlY Becomin¿ extinct”; “Ãonation¹ Âanted for Colu¹a Indian¹,” ¾ovemBer 20, 1908. 54. Älint to Lummi¹, ÄeBruarY 28, 1908, SequoYa Lea¿ue Serie¹ (folder, corre¹pondence, 1908), Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ Collection; ¹ee al¹o Charle¹ Ä. Lummi¹, “°e SequoYa Lea¿ue,” Out West , ¼pril 1908, 335. °e le¿i¹lation did not ¹tipulate that the moneY Be u¹ed exclu¹ivelY for Mi¹¹ion Indian¹, But for nonre¹ervation Indian¹ and tho¹e livin¿ on re¹ervation¹ without ¹uitaBle cultivataBle land¹. See “1906 and 1908 ¼ppropriation¹ ¼ct¹,” Stand Up for California!, at http://www.¹tandupca. or¿/¿amin¿-law/unique-federal-indian-law-california-¹pecific. 55. Lummi¹ to jordan, ¼pril 15, 1908, SequoYa Lea¿ue Serie¹ (folder, corre¹pondence, 1908), Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ Collection. 56. Lummi¹, “Gettin¿ Ëo¿ether,” Out West, june 1908, 505. 57. “°e Indian¹ of California,” LMC, Report of the ËwentY-Sixth ¼nnual Meetin¿, 1908, 69–75. 58. LMC, Report of the ËwentY-Sixth ¼nnual Meetin¿, 76. 59. Charle¹ Ó. Kel¹eY, “Indian Re¹ervation¹ in Southern California, and Âhat ½a¹ Àeen ¼ccompli¹hed in the La¹t °ree Ôear¹,” in ÂaYland ½. Smith, “In Re California Indian¹ to Ãate,” Out West, ÄeBruarY–March 1909, 141–44. 60. Kel¹eY to Lummi¹, March 24, 1908, SequoYa Lea¿ue Serie¹ (folder, corre¹pondence, 1909), Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ Collection. 61. ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ew Ôork, ÃecemBer 1909, 19–20; ¹ee al¹o “°e Äourth ZaYante Indian Conference,” Indian’s Friend , SeptemBer 1909, 2. 62. Kel¹eY, “°e Ri¿ht¹ and Âron¿¹ of the California Indian¹,” 417–28. See al¹o “Indian ¾i¿ht at the St. Äranci¹,” San Francisco Chronicle , ÁctoBer 14, 1909. 63. “Providin¿ for the California Indian¹: ¼ddre¹¹ of Mr. Charle¹ Ó. Kel¹eY,” LMC, Report of the ËwentY-Seventh ¼nnual Meetin¿, 1909, 44–47. 64. “Land Purcha¹ed from Government Land Äund BY C. Ó. Kel¹eY,” ¾CI¼, Äifteenth ¼nnual Report, januarY 1, 1910, 3. 65. ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, ¾ew Ôork, ÃecemBer 1913, 22; “California Indian Indu¹trial School,” Indian’s Friend , March 1917, 4–5; “Guinda School,” Indian’s Friend , januarY 1918, 4; and ¾CI¼, “°e Guinda Indian Indu¹trial School” (undated pamphlet), IR¼ Paper¹, reel 132, no. 344. 66. “¾on-Re¹ervation Indian¹ in California,” Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee, °irtY-Ói¿hth ¼nnual Report, 1920, 10–14, e¹p. 12; and IR¼ Paper¹, reel 104, Ã38. 67. “Charle¹ Ódwin Kel¹eY,” Wisconsin Alumnus 38, no. 4 (March 1937): 247. 68. Miller, “PrimarY Source¹ on C. Ó. Kel¹eY,” 1.
×H²s ¶ND²ÈN ´EFO´Ê movement wa¹ Be¿un not BY indi¿enou¹ people But BY concerned white citizen¹—mi¹¹ionarie¹, humanitarian¹, philanthropi¹t¹, and ¿overnment official¹—intent on ¹avin¿ Indian¹ theY Believed were headed for extinction. Âithout con¹ultin¿ the Indian¹, reformer¹ Be¿an a pro¿ram to educate them in the waY¹ of the dominant ¹ocietY, Chri¹tianize them, and Break up their re¹ervation¹, allottin¿ land in ¹everaltY, with remainin¿ land¹ open to white ¹ettlement. ¾ot until ¹ix Year¹ after it¹ foundin¿ did the Lake Mohonk Conference extend an invitation to the fir¹t Indian participant¹—the Reverend Sherman Coolid¿e, an ¼rapaho; ½enrY Kendall, a PueBlo; ½enrY LYman, who¹e triBal affiliation wa¹ not li¹ted, and Ãenni¹on Âheelock, an Áneida. Âheelock later Became the fir¹t Band ma¹ter at Carli¹le Indian Indu¹trial School. ¼ll at the time were ¹tudent¹ at Carli¹le; pre¹umaBlY, Richard ½enrY Pratt, who al¹o attended that Year, had arran¿ed for their attendance. Later, indi¿enou¹ women appear in the conference report¹ a¹ exemplar¹ of pro¿re¹¹ amon¿ women of their race. Àut indi¿enou¹ women were not merelY pa¹¹ive recipient¹ of reformer¹’ Beneficence, nor did theY nece¹¹arilY ¹acrifice triBal identitY in acceptin¿ ¾I¼ a¹¹i¹tance. Àuildin¿ on ¹cholar¹hip that reco¿nize¹ indi¿enou¹ actor¹ a¹ ¹elective and cannY collaBorator¹ within imperiali¹t ¹Y¹tem¹, jane Simon¹en find¹ that the re¹pon¹e¹ of variou¹ indi¿enou¹ women to the ¾I¼’¹ a¹¹imilation effort¹ reveal hi¹torie¹ of accommodation, re¹i¹tance, and Both overt and ¹uBtle effort¹ to a¹¹ert ¹elf-determination and triBal
Part 5. Indian Women and
Self-Determination
¹overei¿ntY durin¿ an era of cataclY¹mic chan¿e. Àetter-known recipient¹ of ¾I¼ a¹¹i¹tance Su¹ette La Äle¹che ËiBBle¹, Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte, ¾ancY Corneliu¹ Skenandore, Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿, and jo¹ephine ½ill ÂeB¹ter took advanta¿e of ¾I¼ ¹upport for indi¿enou¹ women’¹ wa¿eearnin¿ in order to advocate for ¿reater ¹elf-¹ufficiencY amon¿ the Ámaha and Áneida communitie¹ to which theY Belon¿ed. Âhile the¹e women u¹ed clo¹e relation¹ with ¾I¼ memBer¹ to meet the economic and phY¹ical need¹ of the¹e communitie¹, even women who have remained more hi¹toricallY anonYmou¹ likelY u¹ed the ¾I¼’¹ perception¹ of indi¿eneitY to their own advanta¿e, an¿lin¿ for opportunitY within a narrow ran¿e of choice¹.
ÍHÈÖTE´ 8
“Your Indian Friend” Indigenous Women and Strategic Alliances with the WNIA JÈNE ɲÊONsEN
¶N THE F²´sT i¹¹ue of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation’¹ new¹letter, the Indian’s Friend , mi¹¹ionarY Ó. j. Stile¹ detailed her effort¹ at the “wild Indian ¹tation” where ¹he wa¹ po¹ted. ¾ear the end of the puBli¹hed letter from Äort ½all in Idaho ËerritorY, Stile¹, who¹e work wa¹ ¹upported BY the Connecticut auxiliarY of the ¾I¼, de¹criBed two women who came to her door, “Be¿¿in¿ for ¹oap.” Stile¹ provided the ¹oap and, optimi¹ticallY, a needle, thread, and cloth—all donation¹ from ½artford—for one of the women wa¹ wearin¿ a “ra¿¿ed dre¹¹.” Stile¹ wa¹ di¹appointed that, while the women ¹topped BrieflY to ¹ocialize, theY refu¹ed to ¹taY to mend the dre¹¹, and went on their waY—pre¹umaBlY takin¿ the ¹upplie¹ with them. Stile¹, alone a¿ain, dulY ¹wept up the du¹t left BY their mocca¹in¹, and Õu¹t a¹ dulY reported thi¹ work to the chapter that ¹upported her.
1
Án it¹ ¹urface, Stile¹’¹ letter reinforced the ¾I¼’¹ under¹tandin¿ of it¹elf a¹ an or¿anization who¹e memBer¹ and fieldworker¹ acted a¹ “friend¹” to the ¾ative nation¹, advocatin¿ for tho¹e ill equipped to help them¹elve¹. Stile¹ po¹itioned her¹elf a¹ the a¿ent of chan¿e, while namele¹¹ Àannock¹ and Sho¹honi¹ pa¹¹ed throu¿h her home, marked mo¹tlY BY their economic and ¹piritual povertY. Àut it wa¹ ¹urelY the two women who came to the door who initiated thi¹ particular encounter. Certain aBout their ri¿ht to vi¹it and Õu¹t a¹ certain that theY weren’t oBli¿ed to ¹taY, the women were not “Be¿¿in¿” But actin¿ on their under¹tandin¿ of Stile¹’¹ role at the Äort ½all re¹ervation: there were few thin¿¹ that mi¹¹ionarie¹ and matron¹ were more zealou¹ aBout than ¹oap. SimplY BY a¹kin¿ for the hou¹ehold item mo¹t iconic of “civilization,” the women validated Stile¹’¹ work in waY¹ that ¹he
185
186
ɲÊONsEN
could communicate to her ¹upporter¹ Back home, addin¿ thi¹ encounter to a litanY that included providin¿ Book¹, ¿ivin¿ awaY needle¹ and thread, and attendin¿ the funeral of a child. °e¹e ¹ort¹ of exchan¿e¹—¹ometime¹ initiated BY ¾ative ¼merican people—were indi¹pen¹aBle to the ¾I¼’¹ validation of it¹ purpo¹e and to it¹ fund-rai¹in¿ tactic¹. ¸ariou¹ indi¿enou¹ women who¹e live¹ and work inter¹ected with the work of the ¾I¼ u¹ed ¹uch material and di¹cur¹ive exchan¿e¹ to further communitY a¿enda¹. Âhile the¹e exchan¿e¹ were certainlY not alwaY¹ equal, clarifYin¿ the role that indi¿enou¹ women plaYed in relation¹hip¹ that empha¹ized “women’¹ work for women” reveal¹ not onlY relational a¹pect¹ of ¾I¼ endeavor¹ But a piece of the lon¿ hi¹torY of ¼merican Indian¹’ hi¹torical ¹elf-determination effort¹. Ãecenterin¿ the narrative¹ of tho¹e clo¹e¹t to power Brin¿¹ into view the alliance¹ and ne¿otiation¹ throu¿h which indi¿enou¹ people adapted to chan¿e¹ wrou¿ht BY the colonial enterpri¹e, u¹in¿ the method¹ theY had availaBle to advocate for them¹elve¹ and their communitie¹. Indi¿enou¹ ¹cholar Malea Powell compare¹ the ¹trate¿ie¹ of ¾ative ¼merican pro¿re¹¹ive¹ to tho¹e of earlier indi¿enou¹ diplomat¹, who ¹electivelY adapted the practice¹ and lan¿ua¿e of colonial power¹ in order to ¹u¹tain communitie¹ in the face of ¹i¿nificant economic and political threat¹ in the era of a¹¹imilation. Äocu¹in¿ on the rhetorical ¹trate¿ie¹ of Ámaha Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte, the fir¹t ¾ative ¼merican woman phY¹ician and a lon¿-term corre¹pondent with the ¾I¼, Powell ar¿ue¹ that La Äle¹che’¹ confidence Both in her ri¿ht to laY claim to the Benefit¹ of education and in her identitY a¹ an Ámaha “pre¹ent¹ u¹ with a complicated intertwinin¿ of reform a¿enda¹ and de¹ire¹ and her own need to heal and Build the ¾ative communitY into which ¹he had Been Born.”
2
Óxaminin¿ alliance¹—Both
lon¿-term and fleetin¿—that indi¿enou¹ women for¿ed with the ¾I¼ and it¹ a¿ent¹, not onlY a¹ evidence of their impact on the ¾I¼ But of the mi¹¹ion of indi¿enou¹ women actin¿ a¹ a¿ent¹ of their own communitie¹, reveal¹ that even anonYmou¹ women cultivated diplomatic ¹en¹iBilitie¹ in order to fo¹ter re¹i¹tance to the ¿rim con¹equence¹ of imperiali¹m.
“I Ask You to Help Us Now”: °e La Flesche Sisters Perhap¹ the Be¹t-known indi¿enou¹ ¾I¼ collaBorator¹, Ámaha¹ Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte and her ¹i¹ter Su¹ette La Äle¹che ËiBBle¹ influenced the
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
187
method¹ that the ¾I¼ u¹ed to promote it¹ mi¹¹ion, deploYin¿ tho¹e method¹ in turn to advocate for ¹pecific need¹ amon¿ ¾eBra¹ka ¾ative¹. Ãau¿hter¹ of jo¹eph “Iron-ÓYe¹” La Äle¹che, Both were educated fir¹t on the re¹ervation and later at the ÓlizaBeth In¹titute for Ôoun¿ Ladie¹ in ÓlizaBeth, ¾ew jer¹eY. ËiBBle¹ initiallY ¹tru¿¿led to find a po¹ition a¹ a teacher in ¾eBra¹ka, But BY 1877 ¹he wa¹ at the re¹ervation’¹ daY ¹chool and, with the exception of ¹everal Year¹ reportin¿ in Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, remained in ¾eBra¹ka. She ¿ained fame amon¿ white ea¹tern reformer¹—manY of them former aBolitioni¹t¹—when, in 1879, ¹he took part in a ¹peakin¿ tour to rai¹e awarene¹¹ of treatY violation¹. Picotte, a decade Youn¿er, left ÓlizaBeth for ½ampton In¹titute, the ¸ir¿inia ¹chool for freed people that Be¿an enrollin¿ ¾ative ¼merican¹ in 1878. Âhen Picotte ¿raduated in 1886, ethnolo¿i¹t ¼lice Äletcher, an ardent ¾I¼ ¹upporter who had tie¹ to the La Äle¹che familY, ur¿ed Sara KinneY, the pre¹ident of the Connecticut auxiliarY, to mu¹ter finance¹ to ¹upport Su¹an’¹ medical education at the Âoman’¹ Medical Colle¿e in Philadelphia. Su¹an returned to the re¹ervation after ¿raduatin¿ in 1889, Becomin¿ fir¹t the a¿encY ¹chool phY¹ician and later the official 3
phY¹ician of the a¿encY. Àoth ¹i¹ter¹ were central fi¿ure¹ in the ¾I¼’¹ ¹torY of it¹elf and cannilY adapted their patron¹’ intere¹t in home and care work to ¹erve their own communitie¹. °eY puBliclY empha¹ized their a¹¹imilation while a¹¹ertin¿ triBal identitY, for to reÕect their culture could mean the di¹¹olution of the triBal communitie¹ theY ¹tru¿¿led to ¹u¹tain. ËiBBle¹ drew on older tradition¹ of indi¿enou¹ diplomatic ¹elf- performance even a¹ ¹he crafted a new pre¹ence for women a¹ ¹poke¹per¹on¹ for their nation¹. Known BY the an¿licized name “Àri¿ht ÓYe¹,” ¹he ¿alvanized ea¹tern audience¹ with re¹pect to the pli¿ht of we¹tern triBe¹ throu¿h an 1879 ¹peakin¿ tour. Part Ponca her¹elf, ËiBBle¹ wa¹ inve¹ted in the le¿al Battle, led BY Ponca Chief Standin¿ Àear, to return from Indian ËerritorY to their ¾eBra¹ka home, which the ¿overnment had ceded to their lon¿time enemie¹ the Sioux. °e Standin¿ Àear controver¹Y provided a moment for Indian ri¿ht¹ advocate¹ to puBlicize the ¿overnment’¹ aBu¹e of it¹ dome¹tic dependent nation¹ a¹ well a¹ the humanitY of indi¿enou¹ individual¹—¹i¿nified powerfullY BY their aBilitY to adopt the haBit¹ of “civilization” durin¿ an era when Óuro-¼merican¹ linked “Indian” identitY to an “authentic” appearance. In Ào¹ton, ËiBBle¹ met writer ½elen ½unt jack¹on, who¹e ¹Ympathie¹ were ¹o arou¹ed BY the Ponca¹’ ordeal that ¹he Be¿an to re¹earch the hi¹torY
188
ɲÊONsEN
of ¿overnment treatY aBu¹e¹, puBli¹hin¿ the expo¹é A Century of Dishonor in 1881. jack¹on’¹ concern landed her an appointment a¹ an a¿ent to the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of California, and ¹he traveled widelY, reportin¿ condition¹ to the federal ¿overnment. Ári¿inallY motivated BY ËiBBle¹, jack¹on’¹ ¹ocial-reform approach to the “Indian ProBlem” in turn influenced Indian ri¿ht¹ ¿roup¹, 4
includin¿ the ¾I¼.
Ár¿anized BY Õournali¹t °oma¹ ½enrY ËiBBle¹ (whom Su¹ette La Äle¹che eventuallY married), the tour featured Chief Standin¿ Àear a¹ ¹poke¹per¹on for the Ponca¹—and Su¹ette La Äle¹che, who wa¹ fluent in Ón¿li¹h and Ámaha (a clo¹e lin¿ui¹tic relative of Ponca), a¹ ¹poke¹per¹on for him. °e New
York Times reported on their appearance at SteinwaY ½all, de¹criBin¿ the lon¿haired Standin¿ Àear a¹ “an athletic ¹ava¿e,” thou¿h he wa¹ dre¹¹ed in “the conventional ¹tYle of the pale-face¹”—linen ¹hirt, coat, Black pant¹, and ve¹t. °e article noted Su¹ette La Äle¹che’¹ “tawnY complexion,” ¿oin¿ on to extol her “plea¹ant feature¹” and “verY feminine voice and manner.” Ãre¹¹ed in a “¹tiff felt hat with a feather, a ti¿ht-fittin¿ Ba¹que, a dre¹¹ of dark cloth, and a riBBon aBout her neck,” her refinement appeared to modifY Standin¿ Àear’¹ 5
rou¿hne¹¹. ½er oration wa¹ infu¹ed with the patho¹ of per¹onal te¹timonY, de¹i¿ned to appeal to the dome¹tic and ¹piritual ¹entiment¹ of reform-minded white¹. She ¹tre¹¹ed the Ponca¹’ attachment to home and familY, their powerle¹¹ne¹¹ a¿ain¹t the ¿overnment upon whom theY relied, and their need for white¹ to ¹upport their cau¹e. ½er appearance endor¹ed her me¹¹a¿e that the Ponca¹ were “¿ood Indi6
an¹”: indu¹triou¹, ¹ettled, educaBle, and ¹piritual. ÀY the 1870¹, white audience¹ were u¹ed to cate¿orizin¿ ¾ative ¼merican¹ a¹ either “¹ava¿e” and thu¹ “authentic” or a¹ “civilized” and “a¹¹imilated”—identifier¹ that ¿enerallY meant the emBrace of Óuro-¼merican culture, lan¿ua¿e, and reli¿ion at the price of Bein¿ ¹tripped of triBal identitY. Âhile it i¹ temptin¿ to ¹ee ËiBBle¹ a¹ the “civilized” counterpart to Standin¿ Àear’¹ “¹ava¿e,” Both defined them¹elve¹ in term¹ of their indi¿eneitY and their adoption of Óuro¼merican culture. ¼t SteinwaY ½all, ¹he introduced her¹elf a¹ “Belon¿in¿ to the Ámaha” and ¹harin¿ a lan¿ua¿e with the Ponca¹; rather than empha¹izin¿ her ea¹tern education, ¹he ¹tre¹¹ed that ¹he had “lived all her life But two Year¹ with her people.” SimilarlY, ËiBBle¹ avoided de¹criBin¿ the Ponca¹’
potential
to a¹¹imilate, in¹tead ¹tre¹¹in¿ the need to protect the land¹ on 7
which theY alreadY lived, farmed, and educated their children. ½er Ámaha
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
189
identitY po¹itioned her to critique US ¿overnment practice¹, tactfullY de¹criBin¿ treatY violation¹ and threat¹ of ¹tate-¹pon¹ored violence. She undercut the duali¹m of ¹ava¿e/civilized upon which Óuro-¼merican e¹timation¹ of indi¿enou¹ people re¹ted, ar¿uin¿ in¹tead that a ¹ecure homeland wa¹ Both an intrin¹ic part of Ponca identitY and nece¹¹arY to ¹u¹tain the Chri¹tian home¹ and familie¹ that depended on it. She under¹tood that a¹¹imilation ¹tripped indi¿enou¹ people of hi¹torical and ¿eo¿raphic context. ¼ccordin¿lY, ¹he advocated the protection of land a¹ a waY of en¹urin¿ cultural continuitie¹ even if protectin¿ home¹ meant acceptin¿ a ¹Y¹tem of familY rather than triBal owner¹hip. ËiBBle¹’¹ characterization of the “Indian ProBlem” a¹ a tra¿edY affectin¿ familie¹ and home¹ deeplY influenced ¾I¼ rhetoric; that rhetoric, in turn, formed the Ba¹i¹ of other indi¿enou¹ women’¹ claim¹ for ¾I¼ ¹upport. °eme¹ of white protection, Indian victimization, and mutual humanitY were common in writin¿¹ of leader¹ like KinneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton, who, with MarY Lucinda ÀonneY, initiated the or¿anization in 1877 and ¹erved a¹ it¹ pre¹ident for manY Year¹. Âhile ËiBBle¹ ¹tre¹¹ed the Ponca¹’ victimization at the hand¹ of the ¿overnment, Quinton tended to include triBali¹m a¹ a ¹ource of mi¹erY, empha¹izin¿ that “in manY triBe¹ the women ¹till are in ¹ava¿erY, and that mean¹ ¹ufferin¿”—women properlY equipped would Be le¹¹ likelY to fall victim to “diaBolical, lu¹tful, ¹oulde¹troYin¿ covetou¹ne¹¹ . . . to Be mother¹ of ¹lave¹ to till the white man’¹ ¹tolen land¹.”
8
ËriBe¹ weakened BY their own “irre¿ular haBit¹, unwhole-
¹ome food, and ¿reat expo¹ure¹ of BarBari¹m” needed the “quick hand and warm heart” of “Chri¹tian womanhood,” who¹e work it wa¹ to “u¹e the remedie¹ to clean¹e awaY ¹piritual di¹ea¹e¹, and to nouri¹h and Brin¿ up into healthful life the ne¿lected triBe¹ of thi¹ lon¿-doomed race.”
9
Quinton
exhorted white, middle-cla¹¹ women to draw on their authoritY a¹ home protector¹, mother¹, and moral exemplar¹ BY po¹itionin¿ Both ¾ative culture¹ and the equallY “BarBaric” acqui¹itivene¹¹ of un¹crupulou¹ white men 10
a¹ the enemie¹ of Indian familY life.
Picotte, however, excelled at drawin¿ connection¹ Between middle-cla¹¹ dome¹tic value¹ and Ámaha culture in waY¹ that accentuated the validitY of Ámaha Belief¹ and Behavior¹.
11
½er e¹¹aY “°e ½ome Life of the Indian,”
puBli¹hed in the Indian’s Friend in 1892, expre¹¹ed the chan¿e¹ precipitated BY contact in term¹ of the home¹ in which Ámaha¹ lived, while reiteratin¿
190
ɲÊONsEN
that Ámaha home life had ¹urvived thi¹ adÕu¹tment relativelY intact. She ¹ati¹fied curiou¹ audience¹ with the ¹pecific¹ of lod¿e con¹truction and de¹cription¹ that empha¹ized their comfort and efficiencY: “Ërodden BY hundred¹ of feet the earthen floor i¹ almo¹t a¹ hard a¹ ¹tone, and comin¿ in from the hot du¹tY road how ¿ratefullY cool it felt to our little Bare feet a¹ we plaYed in and out.” ¼cknowled¿in¿ the ¾I¼’¹ role in ¹upportin¿ the Buildin¿ of frame home¹ amon¿ the Ámaha, ¹he nonethele¹¹ reminded reader¹ that “[w]hether You enter with me into a tent, a mud-lod¿e, or lo¿ hou¹e, or one of the¹e neat frame hou¹e¹ You would ¹ee the ¹ame home-life ¿oin¿ on in everY one of them.”
12
°i¹ life wa¹ ¹imple, lovin¿, and indu¹triou¹:
women ro¹e, prepared food, cleaned up; meal¹ and clothin¿ were ¹imple; Book¹ and ¿ame¹ were rare, But the Ámaha “lavi¹h all attention on their children” and “show their affection for their children al¹o.”
13
½er not-¹o-
¹uBtle hint that white¹ were le¹¹ openlY affectionate to children ¹u¿¿e¹t¹ that ¹he anticipated and warded off raci¹t per¹pective¹, deftlY in¹ertin¿ critique¹ of white culture. She ¹coffed at the notion that indi¿enou¹ men did not treat their wive¹ well and noted that, on the re¹ervation, “theY have not ¹hown the lea¹t preÕudice ¹o far toward¹ women phY¹ician¹.”
14
Âhile Picotte wa¹ quick to quell preÕudicial notion¹ aBout Indian life, BY far the mo¹t common refrain in letter¹ that appear in the Indian’s Friend i¹ the unrelentin¿ need for ¹upplie¹, food, health care, and ¹afetY on the re¹ervation. Picotte Be¿an her work durin¿ a Bleak period. Äamilie¹ like the La Äle¹che¹ had Be¿un farmin¿ and livin¿ in frame home¹ BY the 1870¹, But in the 1890¹, white¹ took advanta¿e of le¿al chan¿e¹ that allowed for the lea¹in¿ and ¹ale of allotted land¹; economic need trumped attempt¹ to develop indi¿enou¹ YeomanrY. Àootle¿¿er¹ “¹warmed” the town¹, Picotte de¹paired of alcohol-related death¹, and “women pawned their clothin¿ for drink, while the men ¹pent their rent moneY for drink and familie¹ ¹uffered for food.”
15
½er mi¹¹ive¹ to the ¾I¼ recount hundred¹ of ca¹e¹ of influenza,
the ¿rippe, and con¹umption; the¹e tra¿edie¹ affected her own familY. ½er hu¹Band died of complication¹ related to alcoholi¹m; her ¹i¹ter Ro¹alie ÄarleY, who kept record¹ of ¾I¼ fund¹ loaned to Ámaha¹ for home Buildin¿, died in 1900, leavin¿ ei¿ht children; and Philip StaBler, one of the fir¹t ¾I¼ home loan recipient¹, died in 1894, hi¹ widow, Minnie, lea¹in¿ out the heralded “Connecticut Cotta¿e.”
16
ju¹t a¹ deva¹tatin¿ wa¹ the treatment
of their old enemie¹ the Lakota (and later kin¹people—Both Picotte and her
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
191
¹i¹ter Mar¿uerite married Lakota men) at the hand¹ of the US ¿overnment. ËiBBle¹ wa¹ on hand a¹ the dead and wounded from the 1890 ma¹¹acre at Âounded Knee—the ¿overnment’¹ attempt to quell the re¹i¹tance movement known a¹ the Gho¹t Ãance—were Brou¿ht to the Pine Rid¿e a¿encY ho¹pital.
17
Picotte mention¹ onlY ¹ome of the¹e horror¹, confinin¿ her communication to an accountin¿ of ca¹e¹ of illne¹¹ and appeal¹ to the ¾I¼ to ¹end ¹upplie¹ and prote¹t the traffic in liquor. In 1892, ¹he reported more than 120 ca¹e¹ of influenza, humanizin¿ her work for her white ¹pon¹or¹ BY ¹harin¿ in di¹tre¹¹in¿ detail her (ultimatelY un¹ucce¹¹ful) effort¹ to ¹ave a Youn¿ woman. She reported that twentY-five dollar¹ ¿iven BY the Morri¹town, ¾ew jer¹eY, Branch had Been ¹pent on food for the ¹ick: “It wa¹ a tremendou¹ help to me, while the moneY la¹ted—there were ¹o manY ¹ick, and the moneY came at the ri¿ht time. It wa¹ all ¹pent for food and medicine, and I ¹pent more of mY own moneY after thi¹ help wa¹ ¿one.”
18
¼ Year earlier, ¹he had
written that Ámaha¹ had Been duped into votin¿ a¿ain¹t prohiBition, notin¿ flintilY, “It ¹eem¹ hard that when the¹e people are trYin¿ to ¹ave them¹elve¹ from the dan¿er of intoxicatin¿ drink, a white man come¹ to put a ¹tumBlin¿ Block in their waY. Âe do not Blame the Indian.” Picotte traveled to Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, to ¹peak directlY to ¾I¼ Branch memBer¹ there, reachin¿ out particularlY to tho¹e who were al¹o memBer¹ of the Âoman’¹ Chri¹tian 19
Ëemperance Union (ÂCËU).
Picotte took ¹eriou¹lY KinneY’¹ call “to nouri¹h and Brin¿ up into healthful life the ne¿lected triBe¹,” and ¹he remained a ¿rateful recipient of the ¾I¼’¹ patrona¿e. In turn, her con¹i¹tent communication a¹ well a¹ her profe¹¹ional ¹ucce¹¹e¹—¹he wa¹ a memBer of the ¾eBra¹ka State Medical SocietY, chair of the health committee of the ¾eBra¹ka Äederation of Âomen’¹ CluB¹, and the founder of the fir¹t re¹ervation ho¹pital—provided decade¹’ worth of validation for the ¾I¼’¹ inve¹tment¹. ½er letter¹ proved that fund¹ were needed and well ¹pent, and that the ¹tru¿¿le¹ of women on the re¹ervation were cau¹ed BY evil¹ ¾I¼ memBer¹ re¿arded a¹ a common enemY: alcoholi¹m, illne¹¹, and the rapacitY of white men. ¼t the ¹ame time, Picotte never relented in her refu¹al to Blame Ámaha culture for their triBulation¹. ½er emBrace of allotment, citizen¹hip, and even the frame home wa¹ pra¿matic, Born of effort¹ to ¹u¹tain Ámaha life in the face of illne¹¹, addiction, povertY, and violence. She planted the ¹eed¹ of new initiative¹, cannilY
192
ɲÊONsEN
plaYin¿ off ¾I¼ concern¹ aBout ¿amBlin¿ and dancin¿: “Âe hope to ¹tart a readin¿ room ¹oon. Âe have a few paper¹ now, But we would Be ¿lad to ¿et more. . . . I hope we can ¿et ¿ame¹ for them to take the place of card¹. . . . [Â]e hope to have entertainment¹ which maY help to keep the Youn¿ people from the dance¹.” ¼Bove all, ¹he accentuated dire need¹ in order to direct the ¿enero¹itY of the ¾I¼ toward ¹pecific ¿oal¹. She fanned the flame of their intere¹t in home Buildin¿: “°e Ámaha Indian¹ have manY framed hou¹e¹ . . . [But] theY have verY little Bed clothin¿ and it i¹ a wonder how theY keep from freezin¿.” She reminded them that ¹mall effort¹ made a difference. “°ere i¹ work which the Bu¹ie¹t of You mi¿ht do to help alon¿,” ¹he told one auxiliarY, addin¿, “I hope God will ¹tren¿then Your hand¹ in the ¿ood work You are doin¿ for mY people. I a¹k You to help u¹ now, Becau¹e we need help verY much, and I know You will not denY u¹.”
20
Work and Home Building as Revitalization Áther indi¿enou¹ women who¹e live¹ inter¹ected with the ¾I¼ throu¿h it¹ education and work initiative¹ u¹ed ¹imilar ¹trate¿ie¹ to cultivate relation¹hip¹ with the or¿anization. Mo¹t of the¹e women were ¿raduate¹ of Carli¹le or ½ampton, where theY imBiBed le¹¹on¹ not onlY aBout the nece¹¹itY of adoptin¿ ¼n¿lo-¼merican waY¹ But aBout the opportunitie¹ pre¹ented BY wa¿e earnin¿ and le¿al emancipation—le¹¹on¹ that ¹ome were aBle to applY to triBal a¹ much a¹ to individual ¿oal¹. Indeed, ¾I¼ connection¹ ¹ometime¹ Õump-¹tarted vocational ¿oal¹ that eventuallY departed from the or¿anization’¹ philo¹ophY of individual ¹elf-¹ufficiencY in order to facilitate decolonization tactic¹ at home. In 1888, KinneY and the Connecticut auxiliarY arran¿ed for ½artford and ¾ew ½aven ho¹pital¹ to accept three “Indian ¿irl¹,” ¹elected from the ¿raduate¹ of ½ampton and Carli¹le, a¹ the fir¹t of a numBer of women to Be 21
trained a¹ nur¹e¹.
Áver ¹everal Year¹, tho¹e helped included Áneida¹ ¾ancY
Corneliu¹ Skenandore, Lavinia Corneliu¹, and ¾ancY Âheelock.
22
Skenan-
dore, amon¿ the fir¹t to Benefit from a ¾I¼ ¹cholar¹hip, moved Back to Âi¹con¹in ¹ome Year¹ after oBtainin¿ her de¿ree, helpin¿ to found the Áneida ½o¹pital. She al¹o ¹ou¿ht the a¹¹i¹tance of her “Connecticut Mother¹” in ¹upplYin¿ the ho¹pital with “modern convenience¹” that co¹t aBout $300. Ôet when ¹he Became ill a decade after returnin¿ to Âi¹con¹in, her
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
193
“Mother¹” al¹o a¹¹umed that the “manual laBor” required of her a¹ a nur¹e had cau¹ed the illne¹¹, and theY “called her home to them” for a period of recuperation in Connecticut. In june 1903, the Indian’s Friend puBli¹hed Skenandore’¹ letter to KinneY and her other “Ôankee Äo¹ter Mother¹” in which ¹he invited them to “adopt a full-Blooded Áneida Indian a¹ Your ¹on, who I am ¿oin¿ to marrY on Óa¹ter.” ¼ decade older than ¹he, Ãaniel Skenandore wa¹ a “¿ood Chri¹tian man.” Skenandore ¹eemed uncertain aBout how her marria¿e mi¿ht affect her work a¹ a nur¹e, thou¿h, and perhap¹ ¹ou¿ht to ¹trike a Balance Between the dome¹ticitY ¹he knew her ¹pon¹or¹ valued a¹ a ¿oal of women’¹ “civilization” and the work that theY had paid to educate her for: “[½]e can ¿ive me a comfortaBle home when I ¿et tired of workin¿ at our Áneida ho¹pital, althou¿h I do not expect to ¿ive up mY work here unle¹¹ Äather Merrill will want to chan¿e nur¹e¹.”
23
She continued a¹ ¹uperinten-
dent of the ho¹pital (which had no permanent phY¹ician) until 1905; BY 1908, ¹he had died of cancer.
24
Skenandore’¹ corre¹pondence with her “Mother¹” in the Óa¹t implie¹ the deep influence¹ of Both communitie¹ to which Skenandore Belon¿ed. Indeed, her return to the Áneida¹ to care for her own mother ¹ometime around 1895 repre¹ent¹ a ¹hift in her career and her life, for Õu¹t a Year Before, ¹he had addre¹¹ed attendee¹ at the Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian to ar¿ue for ¾ative ¼merican¹’ equal ri¿ht to “¹eek emploYment anYwhere in the United State¹ that other people have.” ¼doptin¿ pro¿re¹¹ive¹’ view of the re¹ervation a¹ Backward and “idle,” ¹he ar¿ued that workin¿ in ½artford had improved her opportunitie¹. She received the ¹ame paY a¹ her white coworker¹, and ¹he maintained that BY ¹taYin¿ in the Óa¹t, ¹he could “¹how our people that we can learn and do more for them BY ¹teppin¿ out of our re¹ervation,” for it wa¹ amon¿ white¹ that indi¿enou¹ people would learn the mo¹t. Skenandore echoed the concern¹ of manY ¾I¼ memBer¹ who feared that Youn¿ women would lo¹e ¿round if theY returned home, a¹¹ertin¿ that “if I ¹hould remain at home, I ¹hould onlY lo¹e what I have ¿ained while in ¹chool. I ¹hould not Be aBle to improve, Becau¹e I have not education enou¿h to face the Indian Battle. . . . I prefer to remain here in the Óa¹t, where I feel that I can work and learn to Be independent.”
25
Ëoo often, ¹he complained, educated ¾ative ¼merican¹ were forced to ¿o home, re¿arded a¹ fit onlY to work amon¿ their own; no douBt ¹he under¹tood how difficult it wa¹ to ¹urvive economicallY on the re¹ervation¹—particularlY
194
ɲÊONsEN
for women. Ôet her portrait of the re¹ervation Belie¹ what ¹he ¹urelY knew, for Áneida¹ had a lon¿ hi¹torY of diplomatic relation¹ with and ¹elective adapta26
tion of Óuro-¼merican culture, includin¿ education.
°e Âi¹con¹in Ánei-
da¹, di¹placed from their ance¹tral home in ¾ew Ôork State, were part of the Six ¾ation¹ of the ½audeno¹aunee (Iroquoi¹) ConfederacY. ¼lthou¿h the Áneida and Ëu¹carora Broke with other memBer¹ of the confederacY to allY with the ¼merican¹ in the RevolutionarY Âar, BY the 1830¹, their land in ¾ew Ôork had Been ¹o dimini¹hed that manY moved to Âi¹con¹in to BuY and hold their land¹ in common. Âi¹con¹in Áneida¹ founded a re¹ervation ¹chool in the 1830¹ and fou¿ht in the Civil Âar; manY had adopted Chri¹tianitY. Skenandore wa¹ amon¿ a ¹i¿nificant numBer of Âi¹con¹in Áneida¹ who attended ½ampton and Carli¹le; other¹ were educated at ¿overnment Boardin¿ ¹chool¹ 27
at Ëomah (Âi¹con¹in), ½a¹kell (Kan¹a¹), and Älandreau (South Ãakota).
°e proBlem at home, then, wa¹ not one of cultural “Backwardne¹¹” But of economic di¹tre¹¹ Born of the compounded effect¹ of raci¹m, di¹ea¹e, Civil Âar death¹, ÕoB ¹carcitY, and the land hun¿er of white ¹ettler¹. It maY Be that Skenandore’¹ work to ¹tart the Áneida ho¹pital wa¹ ¿enerated BY her de¹ire Both to help her communitY and to find fulfillin¿ work in a place where few door¹ were open. Skenandore re¿arded nur¹in¿ a¹ a form of per¹onal independence that wa¹ difficult to achieve at home, and her Benefactor¹ clearlY did a¹ well. It i¹ difficult to know how much ¹waY her “white mother¹” had on her deci¹ion¹, or whether her ¹peech in favor of offre¹ervation opportunitie¹ wa¹ a product of her Carli¹le trainin¿ or her own wi¹h for independence—other indi¿enou¹ nur¹e¹ faced ¹uBtle raci¹m in urBan ho¹pital¹ or o¹traci¹m at home.
28
SurelY her choice¹ were complex;
nonethele¹¹, BY the turn of the centurY, Skenandore and other nur¹e¹ were u¹in¿ their education¹ to improve health ¹ervice at home. Lavinia Corneliu¹, another BeneficiarY of the Connecticut Branch, worked for ¹ome time a¹ a private nur¹e in ¾orth Ãakota and then returned to ¹erve a¹ the ¹chool nur¹e at the Áneida Boardin¿ ¹chool; ¹he wa¹ ¹till workin¿ in Ëomah in the 1920¹.
29
Ónou¿h indi¿enou¹ women had Become nur¹e¹ that, BY 1910, Ó¹telle Reel, the intrepid ¹uperintendent of Indian ¹chool¹ and a lifetime memBer of the Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC, auxiliarY, profe¹¹ed that their race e¹peciallY ¹uited them for the work. In ¹pite of the raci¹m of her theorY, her endor¹ement tacitlY acknowled¿e¹ other rea¹on¹ for indi¿enou¹ women to ¹eek ¹elf-¹upport. “Indian ¿irl¹,” ¹he a¹¹erted, have
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
195
infinite patience, forBearance, ¿enerallY a ma¿nificent phY¹ique and no trace of the “nerve¹” which ¹o often cau¹e a Break-down amon¿ overcivilized race¹. ¼n Indian ¿irl can ¿o throu¿h the mo¹t trYin¿ ¹ur¿ical ca¹e with a ¹toical calm that i¹ extraordinarY. She never ¿et¹ flurried, anxiou¹, or worried, and ¹he oBeY¹ the phY¹ician a¹ a ¹oldier doe¹ hi¹ commander. In carin¿ for ca¹e¹ of ¹evere illne¹¹ ¹he ¹eem¹ to live on ¹ome ¹tran¿e re¹erve force and i¹ a tender a¹ well a¹ a pain¹takin¿ nur¹e.
30
Reel attriButed indi¿enou¹ women’¹ aptitude for nur¹in¿ to “extraordinarY” force¹, Yet ¹he al¹o ¹u¿¿e¹ted that the educated Indian woman often “doe¹ not find her ideal” hu¹Band at home; in the¹e ca¹e¹, “¹he i¹ perfectlY capaBle of earnin¿ her own livin¿.” Re¹i¹tance to cultural pre¹¹ure to marrY and the de¹ire to Be economicallY independent were often Behind white women pro¿re¹¹ive¹’ own choice¹ to remain ¹in¿le and ¹elf-¹upportin¿—a¹ Reel her¹elf 31
did durin¿ her lon¿ career.
Äor indi¿enou¹ women, thi¹ choice wa¹ likelY
compounded BY the inaBilitY of potential hu¹Band¹ to find work and BY manY triBe¹’ lon¿ hi¹torie¹ of women’¹ political power and productivitY. ÀY the turn of the centurY, the ¾I¼’¹ focu¹ on wa¿e earnin¿ for indi¿enou¹ women had inten¹ified; for their part, women on re¹ervation¹ incorporated wa¿e earnin¿ into preexi¹tin¿ form¹ of ¹uB¹i¹tence. ¼ more communitarian ver¹ion of the philo¹ophY of ¹elf-¹ufficiencY wa¹ Behind jo¹ephine ½ill ÂeB¹ter’¹ leader¹hip of the SYBil Carter Lace ¼¹¹ociation at Áneida. ¾I¼ memBer Carter, a ¹taunch advocate of work for women, fir¹t tau¿ht lace makin¿ to ÁÕiBwaY women at the Âhite Óarth Re¹ervation in Minne¹ota, and BY 1904 ¹he wa¹ coordinatin¿ lace-makin¿ cotta¿e indu¹trie¹ amon¿ the Áneida, ½opi, Kiowa, ¼rapaho, and other¹. °e ¾I¼ promoted lace makin¿ a¹ well, includin¿ at Pala in California. Carter founded the Lace ¼¹¹ociation to Blend philanthropY with ¹elf- ¹ufficiencY, ¹ettin¿ up ¸enetian lace-makin¿ indu¹trie¹ on re¹ervation¹ and then ¹ellin¿ the lace in urBan center¹. Carter ar¿ued that lace makin¿ provided income to returned ¹tudent¹ and older women of the triBe¹; moreover, it tau¿ht haBit¹ of cleanline¹¹ and indu¹trY—“a ¹tep toward hi¿her livin¿.” Unlike other ¾I¼ memBer¹ who promoted indi¿enou¹ art¹ ¹uch a¹ weavin¿ and Ba¹ketrY, Carter remained ¹talwartlY Behind ¸enetian lace. Indi¿enou¹ women emBraced thi¹ Óuropean art a¹ a ¹ource of income and a¹ a waY to ¹u¹tain traditional work, too. Carter reported that ÁÕiBwaY
196
ɲÊONsEN
º²gÇ´E 8.1. Áneida lace maker¹ with taBle cloth and lace-makin¿ tool¹, earlY 1900¹. Shown from left to ri¿ht: Mr¹. jona¹ Skenandore, MarY jame¹, jo¹ephine ÂeB¹ter, Ëillie Àaird, ¼n¿eline ½ill, and Mr¹. Lavinia john. Courte¹Y of the Áneida ¾ation Mu¹eum, Áneida, Âi¹con¹in.
women u¹ed their lace-makin¿ income to BuY food, and al¹o ¹upplie¹ for lon¿-¹tandin¿ occupation¹. “°eY BuY a ¿reat Bi¿ Bra¹¹ kettle that hold¹ ¿allon¹ and ¿allon¹ of ¹ap,” Carter reported. “Âhen the ¹u¿ar makin¿ ¹ea¹on approache¹ aBout the middle of March, lacemakin¿ i¹ put a¹ide for 32
a while and theY take up their old occupation of ¹u¿ar makin¿.”
Áneida women al¹o adapted lace makin¿ to traditional pattern¹ of cooperative laBor. ÂeB¹ter, who ¿raduated from ½ampton in 1904 and tau¿ht on the re¹ervation, founded a Branch of Carter’¹ philanthropic initiative around 1910. ¼t lea¹t ¹eventY-five Âi¹con¹in Áneida women were participatin¿ BY 1899, and BY 1916 a hundred women were ¹endin¿ $50–$100 worth of merchandi¹e to Be ¹old in ¾ew Ôork each week. Laurence ½auptman and Gordon McLe¹ter note that the indu¹trY, which emploYed women a¹ lace maker¹, packer¹, and vendor¹, wa¹ ¹imilar in form to earlier
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
33
½audeno¹aunee women’¹ ¹ocietie¹.
197
Âhile ¹ome of the de¹i¿n¹ featured
¹tock “Indian” ima¿e¹ ¹uch a¹ teepee¹, the women’¹ lace not infrequentlY incorporated traditional Áneida de¹i¿n element¹ into otherwi¹e Óuropean pattern¹, ¹u¿¿e¹tin¿ that the lace maker¹ did not make ¹tark divi¹ion¹ 34
Between art that wa¹ “authentic” and that which wa¹ derivative.
°e
Áneida lacework cooperative outla¹ted Carter’¹ foundation and wa¹ ¹elf¹upportin¿ after the 1920¹, providin¿ income even throu¿h the Ãepre¹¹ion Year¹. Áneida women and other lace maker¹ adopted Carter’¹ vehement defen¹e of work for women, But rather than valuin¿ lacework for it¹ “civilizin¿” influence or a¹ a panacea for tho¹e locked into “Backward” re¹ervation life, indi¿enou¹ women who took part in the¹e ¿uild¹ likelY did ¹o Becau¹e it allowed them to earn income, maintain communitY tie¹, and adapt older laBor pattern¹. ¼ repre¹entative from Carter’¹ foundation acknowled¿ed thi¹ at an exhiBition of Áneida lacework in 1912, declarin¿: “°at it i¹ the onlY permanent indu¹trY BY which an Indian woman maY Become ¹elf-¹upportin¿ without leavin¿ the Re¹ervation, i¹ a ¹tron¿ appeal, for the Re¹ervation i¹ home and love of it i¹ no mere ¹entiment.”
35
Mo¹t overtlY political in her ¹upport for re¹ervation indu¹trie¹ wa¹ Áneida Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿. She collaBorated with the ¾I¼ earlY in her career, But her tenaciou¹ ¹upport for communal, re¹ervation-Ba¹ed ¹elf-¹ufficiencY and involvement in controver¹ial le¿al claim¹ alienated her from ea¹tern reformer¹—and from manY Áneida¹ a¹ well. °e ¹ecretarY of the SocietY of ¼merican Indian¹ (S¼I) from 1911 to 1913, ¹he wa¹ expelled from the ¿roup over alle¿ation¹ that ¹he had defrauded indi¿enou¹ people 36
BY convincin¿ them to contriBute fund¹ to variou¹ proÕect¹.
She plaYed a
role in liti¿atin¿ contentiou¹ Áneida land claim¹ ca¹e¹ in ¾ew Ôork in the 1920¹, includin¿ Âi¹con¹in Áneida¹ in other ½audeno¹aunee appeal¹ for their homeland¹. In ¹pite of Bein¿ indicted for fraud in 1913, ¹he wa¹ never convicted and returned to Âi¹con¹in, where ¹he ¹pent the next decade workin¿ to convince local and national official¹ to allow Áneida¹ to form a ¹elf-¹ufficient indu¹trial communitY, a¹ common ¹hareholder¹, to pre¹erve 37
a collective identitY and to cut them¹elve¹ free of ¿overnment ¹upport.
Kello¿¿ fir¹t appear¹ in the pa¿e¹ of the Indian’s Friend a¹ “Minnie Corneliu¹” in 1898, Õu¹t after ¿raduatin¿ from Grafton ½all ¿irl¹’ ¹chool in Äond du Lac, Âi¹con¹in. She wa¹ commended a¹ a ¹cholar of cla¹¹ic¹ and for a¹¹emBlin¿ an Áneida lan¿ua¿e ¿rammar Book; ¹everal Year¹ later, ¹he
198
ɲÊONsEN
attended the ¾I¼’¹ annual meetin¿ to thank the a¹¹ociation for it¹ work, and in 1905, ¹he ¹poke on the “pre¹ent Indian ¹ituation” at a ¾orthern California ¼¹¹ociation meetin¿, where memBer¹ hailed her for ¹upportin¿ education (althou¿h Corneliu¹ vehementlY oppo¹ed off-re¹ervation ¹chool¹).
38
Ôet
Corneliu¹’¹ 1901 e¹¹aY “Àuildin¿ the Indian ½ome,” puBli¹hed in the Indian’s
Friend , alreadY ¹howed an inklin¿ of the provocative activi¹t ¹he would Become. Âhile ¹he BrieflY endor¹ed the ¾I¼ proÕect of “Buildin¿ up the Indian home” a¹ a mean¹ of providin¿ “civilizin¿ influence¹,” the maÕoritY of her e¹¹aY wa¹ a critique aimed at the failure¹ of the re¹ervation ¹Y¹tem, includin¿ corrupt, ¹elf-¹ervin¿ official¹ and mi¹¹ionarie¹, the lack of opportunitie¹ for ¹elf-¿overnment and income, and “avariciou¹ white¹.” ½ome Buildin¿ could onlY Be a weak remedY when “wi¹e method¹ have ¹uffered throu¿h poor machinerY . . . throu¿h ¹uch a mill it i¹ no wonder we find the pre¹ent Indian a¹ chaff.” ½ome, for Kello¿¿, wa¹ a communal ¹en¹iBilitY rather than the vi¹ion of a nuclear familY farmin¿ it¹ allotment and cleanin¿ the floor¹ of a frame hou¹e. She deftlY ¹hifted the ¾I¼’¹ lo¿ic of home Buildin¿, re¿ardin¿ it not a¹ the mean¹ of aBoli¹hin¿ communal identitY But of re¹torin¿ it. She derided tho¹e who took children from their home¹, remarkin¿ cau¹ticallY that to “wean the Indian child a¹ ¹oon a¹ po¹¹iBle from the home . . . i¹ an excellent waY of ha¹tenin¿ civilization, and, were the Indian not human, it would do verY well.” Puttin¿ love of home and kin at the core of indi¿enou¹ identitY, Kello¿¿ ar¿ued for more on-re¹ervation education of all people a¹ a mean¹ to ¹elf-¿overnment and the continuitY of Indian familY life, re¿ardin¿ indi¿enou¹ people a¹ the mo¹t ¹uited to “the care of [their] own intere¹t¹.”
39
Kello¿¿ didn’t want white mother¹—¹he
wanted white allie¹. ¼ccordin¿lY, ¹he u¹ed her relation¹hip with the ¾I¼ to develop her puBlic voice. Kello¿¿’¹ view¹ were ¿alvanized when, in 1903, a¹ a teacher in River¹ide, California, ¹he went to ¼¿ua Caliente to attend the removal of Cupeño¹ from the villa¿e al¹o known a¹ Kupa or Âarner’¹ ½ot Sprin¿¹ to Pala, aBout fiftY mile¹ awaY. Äor hundred¹ of Year¹, the Cupeño¹ had lived on land renamed Âarner’¹ Ranch; the Cupeño¹ had lo¹t a Supreme Court ca¹e a¿ain¹t j. ½arveY ÃowneY (the nephew of earlier owner john ÃowneY), who claimed owner¹hip of the entire ranch, includin¿ five indi¿enou¹ villa¿e¹. °eir removal forced them to aBandon a daY ¹chool, farm¹, irri¿ation ¹Y¹tem¹, and home¹ that theY rented out to touri¹t¹ durin¿ the hi¿h ¹ea¹on; all
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
199
of the¹e had enaBled them to retain ¹elf-¹ufficiencY even after the arrival of mi¹¹ionarie¹. ¼lon¿ with white pro¿re¹¹ive¹ includin¿ writer and a¿ent Charle¹ Lummi¹, Kello¿¿ attended a meetin¿ with the Cupeño¹, at which ¹he told them the ¹torY of the Áneida¹’ own di¹placement and re¿eneration. ¾ew¹paper¹ ¹uB¹equentlY credited her for avertin¿ violence, and the ¾I¼ re¿arded her a¹ a partner in their ¹upport for the Cupeño¹. Âhile California a¹¹emBlYman Ärank Lewi¹, a lawYer and le¿al advocate for the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of California, attempted to ¹oothe the i¹¹ue BY claimin¿ that the “lo¹¹ to the¹e Indian¹ i¹ a ¹entimental rather than a material one,” the Indian’s
Friend —for whom Kello¿¿ maY have Been reportin¿—re¿arded thi¹ uprootin¿ a¹ profoundlY unÕu¹t. °e Cupeño¹ activelY re¹i¹ted, claimin¿ that theY had Been roBBed and in ¹ome ca¹e¹ Barrin¿ their door¹ and threatenin¿ retaliation.
40
In 1905, the ¾I¼ wa¹ plea¹ed to report that Kello¿¿ had quit
her teachin¿ ÕoB to attend law ¹chool, vowin¿ to “coun¹el Indian¹ a¹ to their ri¿ht¹ under our law¹, and to champion their cau¹e in the court¹ and at 41
Âa¹hin¿ton.”
Kello¿¿ moved Between univer¹itie¹ for the next few Year¹, But BY 1912 ¹he wa¹ married and livin¿ in Âi¹con¹in, concentratin¿ on developin¿ her vi¹ion of an indu¹trial communitY ¹he called Lolomi. ½er plan, articulated in her 1920 treati¹e Our Democracy and the American Indian, adapted ¾I¼ rhetoric on the importance of home and ¹elf-¹ufficiencY—But made clear that “home” wa¹ the re¹ervation, not a mere dwellin¿.
42
Unlike ¹ome pro¿re¹-
¹ive¹, includin¿ ¹ome S¼I memBer¹, ¹he ar¿ued that Indian reform ¹hould not focu¹ on makin¿ Indian¹ more like white¹, who often de¹cended to corruption and failed to take care of their own. She envi¹ioned a ¹Y¹tem of incorporated, cooperative villa¿e¹ on re¹ervation¹ and focu¹ed on a particular indu¹trY; the¹e would mana¿e their own wa¿e¹ and laBorer¹, leavin¿ them free of ¹tate control or interference from the Àureau of Indian ¼ffair¹. Like ½ill’¹ lace-makin¿ ¿uild on a lar¿er ¹cale, the¹e indu¹trie¹ would Be modern, But Ba¹ed on indi¿enou¹ communali¹m.
43
Âhile Lolomi never materialized, Kello¿¿’¹ concept repre¹ent¹ a ¹uB¹tantial reworkin¿ of ¾I¼ theorie¹ aBout the value of home in waY¹ that cultivated indi¿enou¹ knowled¿e and identitY. In her ¹tudY of Kello¿¿’¹ vi¹ion for indu¹trial villa¿e¹, Kri¹tina ¼ckleY ar¿ue¹ that Lolomi con¹titute¹ a movement to ree¹taBli¹h triBal ¹overei¿ntY in an era when manY pro¿re¹¹ive¹—includin¿ ¾ative ¼merican¹—re¿arded the re¹ervation a¹ culturallY
200
ɲÊONsEN
and economicallY ¹ta¿nant. ¼ckleY term¹ Kello¿¿’¹ ¹trate¿Y “placemakin¿” and a¹¹ert¹ that it “Balanced a numBer of ¹eemin¿ Binarie¹: urBan/rural, 44
modern/traditional, educated/not.”
Kello¿¿ ar¿ued for the complexitie¹ of
indi¿enou¹ identitY not onlY for tho¹e who had left the re¹ervation and returned, But for all indi¿enou¹ people, for to Be Indian in the earlY twentieth centurY nece¹¹itated (a¹ it alwaY¹ had) ¹election, adaptation, and renewal. Kello¿¿’¹ vi¹ion co¹t her her po¹ition within the S¼I, the re¹pect of manY white reformer¹, and connection¹ with Áneida¹ who re¿arded her a¹ a¿¿re¹¹ive and ¹elf-intere¹ted. °e ¾I¼ initiallY ¹i¿naled re¹pect for her noBle indi¿enou¹ linea¿e BY hailin¿ her a¹ a “direct de¹cendant of a lon¿ line of Áneida chief¹” and a¹ “a ¿randdau¿hter of [Chief] Ãaniel Àread and her¹elf 45
the la¹t full-Blood prince¹¹ of the Áneida¹.”
Kello¿¿ di¹appeared from the
pa¿e¹ of Indian’s Friend after her election to the S¼I Board in 1912; onlY in 1927 did the puBlication recount Kello¿¿’¹ trial in Canada—without mentionin¿ her a¹¹ociation with the ¾I¼. Carli¹le’¹ ma¿azine, the Red Man, denounced her in 1913 a¹ a “conniver” and a “wolf in ¹heep’¹ clothin¿”—it¹ approBation inten¹ified BY her recent Senate te¹timonY a¹ to the unhealthY condition¹ at the Boardin¿ ¹chool. °e article al¹o que¹tioned the validitY of her indi¿eneitY BY Blood quantum, introducin¿ her a¹ “Laura Corneliu¹ Kel46
lo¿¿, a quarter-Blood Indian.”
She maY have Been de¹cended from chief¹,
But Kello¿¿, it ¹eemed, wa¹ too re¹ervation-focu¹ed to Be pro¿re¹¹ive, too modern to Be authenticallY “Indian.”
“We Will Try to Make a True Home”: Self-Representation and Material Need Kello¿¿’¹ demotion from noBle to “Breed” ¹u¿¿e¹t¹ the continuin¿ power of Binarie¹—traditional/modern, ¹ava¿e/civilized, authentic/corrupt—throu¿h which manY white pro¿re¹¹ive¹ par¹ed indi¿enou¹ identitY, whether celeBratin¿ the conver¹ion of a “¹ava¿e” or promotin¿ the ¹ale of “authentic” craft. Indi¿enou¹ people at the turn of the centurY, Pai¿e RaiBmon ar¿ue¹, thu¹ “confronted a den¹e thicket of option¹ not of their own makin¿. °eY pruned element¹ of ‘tradition’ and ‘modernitY’ from thi¹ tan¿le and fa¹hioned ¹elf47
identitie¹ that were authentic on their own term¹.”
¼¹ individual¹ and a¹
¿roup¹, theY dealt with the con¹equence¹ of modernitY throu¿h ¹elective adaptation, Õudiciou¹lY mana¿in¿ their ¹elf-repre¹entation throu¿h touri¹m
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
201
and other cultural di¹plaY¹ in waY¹ that catered to white curio¹itY But allowed them a platform to with¹tand, where theY could, attack¹ on identitY and ¹overei¿ntY. °o¹e who vi¹ited mi¹¹ion¹ and lived in ¾I¼ cotta¿e¹ found them¹elve¹ ¹imilarlY enme¹hed in di¹cour¹e¹ produced BY matron¹ and mi¹¹ionarie¹; the¹e di¹cour¹e¹ tended to cate¿orize them a¹ either retro¿rade (dirtY, tran¹ient, pa¿an, victimized) or civilized (clean, dome¹tic, Chri¹tian, ¹elf-¹ufficient). Like Ó. j. Stile¹’¹ “Be¿¿ar¹,” manY of the¹e women mana¿ed to work the¹e perception¹ to their Be¹t advanta¿e, makin¿ the mo¹t of dire circum¹tance¹. RaiBmon inve¹ti¿ated the mi¹¹ion in Sitka, ¼la¹ka, which u¹ed the contra¹t Between civilized mi¹¹ion and traditional ranch to attract “philanthropic touri¹t¹” in the late nineteenth centurY. ¼lon¿ with a mu¹eum and the ¹choolhou¹e, one of the ¹tar attraction¹ wa¹ the model villa¿e, eventuallY made up of fifteen frame cotta¿e¹ inhaBited BY ¿raduate¹ of the Sitka Indu¹trial and Ërainin¿ School, founded in 1882 and BY the late 1880¹ headed BY 48
Pre¹BYterian mi¹¹ionarY Sheldon jack¹on.
RaiBmon note¹ that the cotta¿e¹
were named after ea¹tern location¹ (ÀrYn Mawr, jamaica Plain¹, ¾orthfield) But doe¹n’t mention a keY ¹ource of the fundin¿ and the name¹: the cotta¿e¹ at Sitka were product¹ of the ¾I¼’¹ home-Buildin¿ mi¹¹ion. ¼¹ Lori jacoB¹on ha¹ ¹hown, Sara KinneY and other memBer¹ of the ½ome-Àuildin¿ and Loan Committee of the ¾I¼ exerted a ¿reat deal of control over the cotta¿e¹ theY funded. °e loan¹ went to educated, married pair¹ lookin¿ to u¹e the home a¹ a “nucleu¹ of civilization,” doin¿ their part in the Breakup of triBal culture¹.
49
Couple¹ who occupied the Sitka cotta¿e¹ were oBli¿ed to
¹i¿n a pled¿e; requirement¹ included keepin¿ a clean, Chri¹tian, “true home” and paYin¿ for it, But occupant¹ were al¹o compelled to repudiate Ëlin¿it tradition¹. °eY were to marrY a¹ Chri¹tian¹ and not BY “Khlin¿et cu¹tom” and were forBidden to ¿ive traditional fea¹t¹, drink, ¹wear, u¹e toBacco, or “Broker Bar¿ain¹” that went a¿ain¹t God. Re¿ardin¿ each directive a¹ a po¹itive “Blow to triBal authoritY,” mi¹¹ionarY ¼nna ÂilBur told the ¾I¼ that upholdin¿ the pled¿e quicklY made “¹ocial outca¹t¹” of the couple¹. ¼t lea¹t ¹ome attempted to ne¿otiate Between cotta¿e and villa¿e life; ÂilBur reported that one Youn¿ man cho¹e to leave the cotta¿e¹ for a few daY¹ to ¿ive a potlatch for an ance¹tor. She warned that he returned with “new triBal 50
honor¹, But aB¹olutelY pennile¹¹ and needY.”
Äor the ¾I¼, the home¹ were meant to facilitate a clean Break Between
202
ɲÊONsEN
º²gÇ´E 8.2. Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿ with three unidentified men at San ¼ntonio de Pala, California, MaY 14, 1903. Photo¿raph BY Ó. Á. SawYer. Courte¹Y of the Àraun Re¹earch LiBrarY Collection, ¼utrY Mu¹eum, Lo¹ ¼n¿ele¹, California, P. 1349.
tradition and “civilization,” home and triBal identitY. °e realitY, clearlY, wa¹ me¹¹ier. ÂilBur’¹ rundown of the ¹ituation¹ of the cotta¿e familie¹ in 1900 Blend¹ evidence of their ¹ucce¹¹ (tidY, orderlY home¹ and Yard, re¿ular wa¿e work, etc.) with comment¹ that ¹u¿¿e¹t ¹tru¿¿le and ¹elective adaptation. Rudolph and Ãai¹Y Âalton had alreadY improved their cotta¿e and Rudolph wa¹ a ¹ucce¹¹ful ¹mith, But re¿retfullY “hi¹ ¹tore keep¹ him in the ranch [Ëlin¿it villa¿e] mo¹t of hi¹ time.” Lottie Geor¿e wa¹ “an ener¿etic and capaBle ¹eam¹tre¹¹, But not much of a hou¹ekeeper.” Âillie Âell¹ wa¹ a carpenter, But he and hi¹ wife, Maud, had lo¹t “all of their children one after another” and, “like the other¹,” ¹tru¿¿led to find work. Óven ÂilBur had to reco¿nize the importance of traditional mean¹ of ¹elf-¹upport, notin¿ of the Âell¹e¹, “with clam¹, veni¹on, duck and fi¹h not one need Be hun¿rY.”
51
°e
Ëlin¿it¹’ ¹Ynthe¹i¹ of wa¿e work with ¹ea¹onal work exemplifie¹ the ¹trate¿ie¹ of manY indi¿enou¹ people to Balance old and new form¹ of ¹uB¹i¹tence
“Ôour Indian Äriend” 203
to mana¿e chan¿in¿ condition¹. Âalton’¹ movement Between ranch and villa¿e i¹ indicative: he likelY expanded hi¹ cotta¿e Becau¹e it needed to hou¹e hi¹ Ëlin¿it-¹peakin¿ extended familY. Ãai¹Y Âalton, in addition to keepin¿ the hou¹e, ¹old curio¹ to touri¹t¹. Âhen ¹he died in 1904, Rudolph married a kin¹woman of Ãai¹Y’¹—a cu¹tom that mi¹¹ionarie¹ re¿arded a¹ “heathen.”
52
¾I¼-¹pon¹ored fieldworker¹ con¹i¹tentlY noted the per¹i¹tence of ¹ea¹onal pattern¹ of laBor amon¿ their proté¿é¹. ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY to the Spokane¹ ½elen Â. Clark wrote to inform memBer¹ of headwaY on her own cotta¿e But explained that pro¿re¹¹ wa¹ ¹low Becau¹e “the Indian¹ mu¹t, of cour¹e, take advanta¿e of all help¹ in ¿atherin¿ food, and therefore, after a li¿ht fall of ¹now, all went off deer ¹talkin¿.” Clark de¹paired that, in ¹pite of fortY Year¹ of mi¹¹ionarY pre¹ence, manY Spokane home¹ had no furniture and the occupant¹ ate ¹ittin¿ on the floor. Still, two of her mo¹t frequent vi¹itor¹ were “Áld Martha and Mr¹. Lot,” two women who likelY did not ¹peak Ón¿li¹h But came to ¹ocialize; other women came to her SundaY ¹er53
vice¹ ¹eekin¿ ¹u¿ar.
Indeed, fieldworker¹’ report¹ indicate that ¹upplie¹
from ¾I¼ chapter¹ worked their waY into manY communitie¹’ ¹uB¹i¹tence pattern¹. ¼uxiliarie¹ were accu¹tomed to ¹endin¿ Boxe¹ at Chri¹tma¹, and matron¹ and mi¹¹ionarie¹ often conveYed the ¹pecific need¹ of the communitY: Book¹, picture¹, clothin¿, toY¹, ¿ame¹, medicine. Lizzie Goodin, teachin¿ at a CheYenne daY ¹chool, explained that manY of her ¹tudent¹ were ¹till on the ¹ummer hunt in ¾ovemBer, But dozen¹ would return ¹oon, expectin¿ 54
fea¹tin¿ and ¿ift¹ for the holidaY.
¾I¼ memBer¹ characterized the¹e Chri¹tma¹ Boxe¹ a¹ “¹un¹hine in ¹hadowY place¹” and u¹ed them to ¹u¹tain conver¹ion fanta¹ie¹. “°e le¹¹on¹ theY Brin¿ to the children are often the fir¹t one¹ learned BY the little Brown folk¹ of the ¹pirit and fact¹ of the ¿o¹pel of love and kindne¹¹,” proclaimed the Indian’s Friend re¿ardin¿ the ¿enero¹itY of the ÀrYn Mawr Branch.
55
Àut
emBedded in mi¹¹ionarY tale¹ of conver¹ion are hint¹ that indi¿enou¹ women en¿a¿ed in ¹trate¿ic ¹elf-repre¹entation to ¿ain acce¹¹ to ¿ood¹ a¹ well a¹ ¿oodwill. Mr¹. Gill wrote of Be¿¿in¿ a ¹ick ¼pache ¿irl to a¹k for¿ivene¹¹ for her ¹in¹—a¹ ¹everal women in the Back¿round ur¿ed her not to. ÄinallY, the ¿irl confe¹¹ed to Gill that ¹he wanted to ¿o to ¹chool, and moreover, ¹he wanted “a clean heart, an apple, a potato, and ¹ome meat.” She ¿ot the apple, potato, meat, and Bread a¹ well. Âhether Gill wa¹ ¹ati¹fied that the ¿irl’¹ 56
heart wa¹ clean, ¹he doe¹n’t ¹aY.
204
ɲÊONsEN
Re¹ervation women u¹ed their own conver¹ion narrative¹ in order to cultivate even ¹hort-term relation¹ with ¾I¼ auxiliarie¹. More often than not, the¹e relation¹hip¹ ¿arnered material ¿ood¹ and economic opportunitie¹ that ¹erved their familie¹ and communitie¹. Letter¹ from individual¹ in the Indian’s Friend often follow a formula that ¹tre¹¹e¹ conver¹ion and/or pietY, ¿ive¹ thank¹ for ¿ood¹ received, and reiterate¹ the need for continuin¿ ¹upport. °e¹e letter¹ were critical to provin¿ the value of ¾I¼ work in the field and Õu¹tified the work that matron¹ and mi¹¹ionarie¹ did. Äor indi¿enou¹ communitie¹, theY made the ca¹e for continuin¿ ¹upport. janie Schmidt in South Ãakota wrote to the Ãelaware auxiliarY to let them know that ¹he had Been ¹avin¿ moneY for an Óa¹ter hat, a¹ ¹he had Been told ¹he ¹hould wear one, But decided to donate to mi¹¹ion work in¹tead. In re¹pon¹e, 57
the Ãelaware women ¹ent an entire Box of hat¹.
Cupeño Pa¹quala ¼nder-
¹on, teachin¿ amon¿ the ½opi, de¹criBed the kind treatment ¿iven her BY white¹ alon¿ the ÕourneY, followin¿ up with a ¹tatement aBout her hope to improve condition¹ at ÁraiBi, ¼rizona, where ¹he and onlY two other worker¹ ¹tru¿¿led to maintain a ¹chool that wa¹ “verY poor, and the people in a de¿raded condition.” More than one hundred children—none of whom 58
¹poke Ón¿li¹h—came to the ¹chool each daY, where dinner wa¹ ¹erved.
¼nder¹on would have known that de¹criBin¿ the numBer¹ of needY children and her own ¹horthandedne¹¹ would ¹i¿nal that ¾I¼ ¿enero¹itY wa¹ needed. In turn, the needine¹¹ of tho¹e on the re¹ervation allowed the ¾I¼ to ¿ive a literal accountin¿ of their work to “free, elevate, and Chri¹tianize our native Indian¹.” In 1900 alone, ¹eventeen ¹tate or¿anization¹ and twentY-five citY affiliate¹ ¹ent thirtY-three Barrel¹, twentY-¹even Boxe¹, two ¹ack¹, and twelve parcel¹—clothin¿, toY¹, medicine, and Book¹ to¿ether worth aBout $2,500.
59
Óach of the¹e women collaBorated with the ¾I¼ BY adoptin¿ and adaptin¿ it¹ mi¹¹ion, value¹, and ¹upport. ¼t the ¹ame time, their per¹everance in articulatin¿ need¹—from a handout of ¹oap to medical ¹upplie¹ nece¹¹arY to ¹tave off another epidemic—Õu¹tified the ¾I¼’¹ exi¹tence and helped maintain a network of auxiliarie¹, mi¹¹ion¹, and matron¹’ cotta¿e¹. ¾I¼ rhetoric often upheld a vi¹ion of “help for the Indian¹,” re¿ardin¿ white women a¹ a¿ent¹ of chan¿e rather than the child-like triBe¹. Ôet indi¿enou¹ women’¹ ¹trate¿ic alliance¹ with auxiliarie¹ and individual¹ indicate that theY were a¿ent¹ a¹ well, creatin¿ avenue¹ of communication and
“Ôour Indian Äriend”
205
material exchan¿e with the ¾I¼ that, whether prolon¿ed or fleetin¿, ¹u¹tained them and their communitie¹ throu¿h decade¹ of tumultuou¹ chan¿e.
Notes 1. Ó. j. Stile¹, “Äir¹t Âork at a ‘Âild Indian’ Station,” Indian’s Friend, March 1888, 3. 2. Powell, “Ãown BY the River,” 41–42, 56. 3. Äor Bio¿raphical information on the La Äle¹che ¹i¹ter¹, ¹ee e¹peciallY Green,
Iron Eye’s Family ; Mathe¹, “Iron ÓYe’¹ Ãau¿hter¹”; Ëon¿, Susan La Flesche Picotte; and Peter¹on, Walking in Two Worlds. 4. Äor more on jack¹on, the Ponca¹, and Indian reform, ¹ee Mathe¹ and Lowitt,
°e Standing Bear Controversy ; and Mathe¹, Helen Hunt Jackson and Her Indian Reform Legacy . 5. “Äor the Ponca Indian¹: °e Speeche¹ in SteinwaY ½all,” New York Times, ÃecemBer 13, 1879, 2. 6. Án ËiBBle¹’¹ orche¹tration of the “¿ood Indian/Bad Indian” ¹trate¿Y in hi¹ reportin¿ and on the ¹peakin¿ tour, ¹ee Coward, “Creatin¿ the Ideal Indian.” 7. “Äor the Ponca Indian¹,” New York Times, ÃecemBer 13, 1879, 2. 8. “°e ¼nnual ¼ddre¹¹ of the Pre¹ident, Mr¹. ¼. S. Quinton,” Indian’s Friend, januarY 1889, 3. 9. “I¹ It Ri¿ht?,” Indian’s Friend, ÄeBruarY 1889, 2. 10. Án maternali¹m in nineteenth-centurY women’¹ di¹cour¹e aBout indi¿enou¹ people, ¹ee e¹peciallY Pa¹coe, Relations of Rescue; Simon¹en, Making Home Work; and jacoB¹, White Mother to a Dark Race. 11. Án La Äle¹che’¹ rhetorical ne¿otiation¹ with the ¾I¼, ¹ee Powell, “Ãown BY the River”; for ¾ative ¼merican autoBio¿raphY and the rhetoric of a¹¹imilation, ¹ee “Án ¼utoBio¿raphY, ÀoY Scout¹, and Citizen¹hip: Revi¹itin¿ Charle¹ Óa¹tman’¹ Deep
Woods,” in Cooper, °e Autobiography of Citizenship, 31–66. 12. Su¹an La Äle¹che, M.Ã., “°e ½ome Life of the Indian,” Indian’s Friend , june 1892, 39–40. 13. IBid. 14. Su¹an La Äle¹che, M.Ã., “Ärom Ãr. Su¹an La Äle¹che,” Indian’s Friend, ÃecemBer 1889, 2. 15. Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte, M.Ã., “¼nother ¼ppeal,” Indian’s Friend , March 1900, 8. 16. Äor more on the ¾I¼’¹ home-Buildin¿ and loan activitie¹, ¹ee jacoB¹on, “Ónvironed BY Civilization”; and “ÁBÕect Le¹¹on¹: Ãome¹ticitY on Ãi¹plaY in ¾ative ¼merican ¼¹¹imilation,” in Simon¹en, Making Home Work, 71–110. °e StaBler¹ were educated at ½ampton and were the recipient¹ of the Connecticut auxiliarY’¹ fir¹t home loan, u¹in¿ it to Build a home on the re¹ervation that the ¾I¼ called “Connecticut Cotta¿e.” 17. Peter¹on, Walking in Two Worlds, 65.
206
ɲÊONsEN
18. Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte, M.Ã., “Áur Medical Mi¹¹ion,” Indian’s Friend , MaY 1892, 37. 19. Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte, M.Ã., “Letter from Ãr. La Äle¹che,” Indian’s Friend, ÄeBruarY 1891, 3; and “¼¹¹ociation ¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend , june 1892, 41. 20. Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte, M.Ã., “Letter from Ãr. La Äle¹che,” Indian’s Friend, ÄeBruarY 1891, 3; and Picotte, “¼n Indian on ½ome-Àuildin¿,” Indian’s Friend , julY 1889, 1. 21. Connecticut Indian ¼¹¹ociation, Historical Sketch of the Connecticut Indian Asso-
ciation from 1881 to 1888 , 19, 23. 22. “Mr¹. Sara Ë. KinneY,” Indian’s Friend , ÄeBruarY 1904, 5. 23. “Âe Chronicled La¹t Month the ½appY ¾ew¹ of the Marria¿e of ¾ancY Corneliu¹ to Ãaniel Skenandore at Áneida, Âi¹., on Óa¹ter SundaY,” Indian’s Friend, june 1903, 4–5; and “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, MaY 1901, 4. Ärank Âe¹leY Merrill wa¹ the Ópi¹copal mi¹¹ionarY to the Áneida¹ from 1898 to 1907. 24. Äor Bio¿raphical information on Skenandore, ¹ee ½anink, “¾ancY Skenandore: ¾ative ¼merican Role Model.” °e Connecticut Indian ¼¹¹ociation erected a monument in her honor at the ½oBart, Âi¹con¹in, cemeterY in 1914 (Kello¿¿, “Âi¹con¹in ½i¹torical Landmark¹,” 76). 25. Corneliu¹, “Âork for Indian Âomen,” 25–26. °e Lake Mohonk Conference wa¹ an annual meetin¿ for mi¹¹ionarie¹, educator¹, politician¹, and other Indian reformer¹ Be¿un BY ¼lBert K. SmileY in 1883. Äor more on the ¾I¼ and Lake Mohonk, ¹ee Cahill, “¾oBle Âomen ¾ot a Äew.” 26. Mi¹¹ionarY Samuel Kirkland ¹tarted a ¹chool for Áneida¹ in ¾ew Ôork in the 1760¹, and manY Áneida¹ attended Óleazar Âheelock’¹ Moor’¹ CharitY School in LeBanon, Connecticut. See ½auptman and McLe¹ter, Oneidas in the Age of Allotment, 41. 27. ½auptman and McLe¹ter, Oneidas in the Age of Allotment, 43. 28. Äor example, PueBlo Indian Seicher ¼t¹Ye, educated at Carli¹le, wa¹ unaBle to communicate when ¹he returned home to ¾ew Mexico and left to ¿et a nur¹in¿ de¿ree in Philadelphia; Martha Corn¹ilk reported on the “queer que¹tion¹” patient¹ in citY ho¹pital¹ a¹ked concernin¿ her ethnicitY. “¼mon¿ the ËwentY Âomen Âho Graduated,”
Indian’s Friend, januarY 1902, 1; and “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, julY 1908, 4. 29. “Lavinia Corneliu¹, In Âhom ManY of Áur Connecticut MemBer¹ ½ave Àeen Intere¹ted, Ârite¹ in Ëalk¹ and °ou¿ht¹,” Indian’s Friend, March 1903, 11; and ½auptman and McLe¹ter, Oneidas in the Age of Allotment, 65, 81. In the latter volume, judY Corneliu¹ li¹t¹ Lavinia Corneliu¹ a¹ one of the emploYee¹ of the ¹chool in 1907 in “°e Áneida Indian Àoardin¿ School,” and Prudence Àennett Ãoxtator recalled Corneliu¹ Bein¿ at the ¹chool in “MY School ÃaY¹.” 30. “In Speakin¿ of the Indian Girl,” Indian’s Friend, MaY 1910, 3. 31. Lomawaima, “Ó¹telle Reel, Superintendent of Indian School¹.” 32. “¼ Retro¹pective Glance,” Indian’s Friend , june 1900, 2. 33. ½auptman and McLe¹ter, Oneidas in the Age of Allotment, 93; and “¼ Ëeacher of Lace-Makin¿,” Native American 17, no. 12 ( june 10, 1916), 217.
“Ôour Indian Äriend” 207
34. Pfotenhauer, “¾ow Ánline: Lace from Áneida ¾ation Mu¹eum.” 35. Quoted in ½auptman and McLe¹ter, Oneidas in the Age of Allotment, 94. 36. °e S¼I wa¹ founded BY ¾ative ¼merican¹ in 1911 and wa¹ dedicated to ¹elfdetermination. It¹ activitie¹ included le¿al advocacY, ¹ocial reform, and loBBYin¿ for indi¿enou¹ citizen¹hip. Several active memBer¹ had tie¹ to the ¾I¼, includin¿ Kello¿¿, arti¹t ¼n¿el Ãe Cora, and Äranci¹ La Äle¹che. Äor more on the S¼I, ¹ee ¼llen and Piatote, “°e SocietY of ¼merican Indian¹ and It¹ Le¿acie¹”; Maddox, Citizen
Indians; and ½ertzBer¿, °e Search for an American Indian Identity. 37. Äor ¹tudie¹ of Kello¿¿, ¹ee StoveY, “Ápportunitie¹ at ½ome”; Stanciu, “¼n Indian Âoman of ManY ½at¹”; ¼ckleY, “Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿”; and Kello¿¿, Our
Democracy and the American Indian. 38. “Minnie Corneliu¹, an Áneida Indian Girl,” Indian’s Friend , ¾ovemBer 1898, 9; “¼nniver¹arY and ¼nnual Meetin¿,” Indian’s Friend, januarY 1901, 11; and “°e ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation Met on ¼u¿. 12,” Indian’s Friend , MaY 1905, 4. 39. Minnie Corneliu¹, “Àuildin¿ the Indian ½ome,” Indian’s Friend, MaY 1901, 2, 11–12. 40. Lewi¹, “°e Âarner Ranch Indian¹,” 171–72, 173; and “Ärom ¼¿ua Caliente to Pala,” Indian’s Friend , ¼u¿u¹t 1903, 6–7. Äor more on thi¹ epi¹ode, ¹ee ¼ckleY and Stanciu, Introduction to Our Democracy and the American Indian, 11. 41. “Multiple Ó¹¹aY Item¹,” Indian’s Friend , ¼pril 1905, 8. 42. Kello¿¿’¹ treati¹e wa¹ recentlY repuBli¹hed in Kello¿¿, Our Democracy and the
American Indian. 43. “°e Lolomi Pro¿ram of Self-Government,” in Kello¿¿, Our Democracy and the
American Indian, 79–98. 44. ¼ckleY, “Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿,” 121. 45. “Minnie Corneliu¹, an Áneida Indian Girl,” Indian’s Friend , ¾ovemBer 1898, 9; and “°e Statue of Àlack ½awk,” Indian’s Friend, julY 1911, 5. 46. “Six ¾ation¹’ Ca¹e in Court,” Indian’s Friend, julY 1927, 7; and “Óditorial Comment: Mr¹. Laura Kello¿¿ Indicted for Con¹piracY,” Red Man , ¾ovemBer 1913, n.p. 47. RaiBmon, Authentic Indians, 13. 48. IBid., 159. 49. Lori jacoB¹on, “Ónvironed BY Civilization,” 74; and “ÁBÕect Le¹¹on¹: Ãome¹ticitY on Ãi¹plaY in ¾ative ¼merican ¼¹¹imilation,” in Simon¹en, Making Home Work, 71–110. 50. “Áur ¼la¹ka Âork,” Indian’s Friend , MaY 1900, 8. 51. IBid. 52. RaiBmon, Authentic Indians, 167. 53. ¼. S. Q., “°e Spokane Mi¹¹ion,” Indian’s Friend , ÄeBruarY 1895, 7–8. 54. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, ¾ovemBer 1890, 3. 55. “°e ÀrYn Mawr Indian ¼¹¹ociation ½a¹ Sent Äive Packa¿e¹,” Indian’s Friend, januarY 1907, 4. Án the ¾I¼ and the trope of conver¹ion, ¹ee jacoB¹on, “°e ¾I¼ and the Órotic¹ of Reform,” 268–86.
208
ɲÊONsEN
56. “¼pache ¾ew¹,” Indian’s Friend, ÃecemBer 1904, 8. 57. “Mr¹. ½all, Pre¹ident of Áur Ãelaware ¼uxiliarY, Send¹ the Äollowin¿ Letter,”
Indian’s Friend, ÄeBruarY 1904, 4–5. 58. “¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, ¼pril 1901, 5. 59. “¼nniver¹arY and ¼nnual Meetin¿,” Indian’s Friend, januarY 1901, 12.
ÍONÒÅÇs²ON
“Indians Can Be Educated” °e WNIA at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition ÆO´² JÈÒObsON
ÌEÊbE´s OF THE Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation participated in the 1893 Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition in Chica¿o a¹ advocate¹ for ¾ative ¼merican¹, providin¿ information aBout the ¹ocial and le¿i¹lative initiative¹ that occupied ¾I¼ Branche¹ around the nation and promotin¿ the a¹¹ociation’¹ reform a¿enda. °eY al¹o participated a¹ con¹ervative women, Chri¹tian pro¿re¹¹ive¹ en¿a¿ed in a movement of philanthropic reform that connected them to other women’¹ or¿anization¹ acro¹¹ the ¹ocial and political ¹pectrum. ÀY the late nineteenth centurY, participation in women’¹ voluntarY or¿anization¹ had reached a record hi¿h; throu¿h the¹e or¿anization¹, ¼merican women found a puBlic forum for their idea¹ and increa¹in¿ ¹ocial 1
acceptance of their out¹poken civic en¿a¿ement. °e Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition wa¹ a ¹howca¹e for women’¹ activi¹m and a demon¹tration of the power of their ¹ocial network¹. It al¹o revealed the race and ¿ender Bia¹e¹ implicit in the formation of the¹e ¿roup¹. Äor the ¾I¼, the expo¹ition ¹erved a¹ a puBlic relation¹ endeavor. Pre¹ident ¼melia Stone Quinton and her a¹¹i¹tant, Mi¹¹ ClaraBel Gilman, ¹pent the ¹ummer of 1893 in Space 39 of the Ár¿anization Room of the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿, “where the literature of our ¼¹¹ociation can Be had, 2
¿rati¹, BY tho¹e de¹irin¿ to know the work of the ¹ocietY.” °e ¾I¼ occupied Space 39 “from the middle of MaY to the clo¹e of the Äair; and there lar¿e numBer¹ of vi¹itor¹, from almo¹t everY ¹tate and territorY of our countrY, received our literature and learned in conver¹ation the nature and ¹cope of our work.”
3
Áne of the vi¹itor¹ wa¹ the new commi¹¹ioner of Indian
affair¹, Ãaniel Àrownin¿, who¹e pre¹ence functioned a¹ an endor¹ement of
209
210
JÈÒObsON
4
the ¾I¼’¹ mi¹¹ion and purpo¹e. Âe know from Quinton’¹ travel record¹ 5
that ¹he wa¹ not con¹i¹tentlY pre¹ent at the expo¹ition, But Gilman ¹taffed Space 39 and reported on it to reader¹ of the ¾I¼’¹ monthlY puBlication the Indian’s Friend,
6
which portraYed the expo¹ition a¹ a puBlic relation¹
opportunitY defined BY a moral a¿enda: “So wide a puBlication of it¹ work would Be reco¿nized a¹ of ¿reat value to the moral re¹ource¹ of anY ¹ocietY and our moral influence ha¹ undouBtedlY Been ¿reatlY ¹tren¿thened BY the new and wide endor¹ement thu¹ ¿ained from our Óxpo¹ition work.”
7
°e Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿, ¹ucce¹¹fullY con¹tructed in ¹pite of Bitter controver¹Y over how the contriBution¹ of women ¹hould Be repre¹ented, wa¹ de¹i¿ned BY architect Sophia ½aYden and championed BY the fair’¹ Àoard of LadY Mana¿er¹. °e Board’¹ chair, Chica¿o ¹ocialite Àerthe ½onoré Palmer, wa¹ named an honorarY vice pre¹ident in the ¾I¼’¹ 1892 and 1893 annual 8
report¹. Much of the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ wa¹ taken up with di¹plaY¹ of the arti¹tic and arti¹anal laBor¹ of women from around the world, thou¿h with the work of ¼frican ¼merican women and other ¿roup¹ notaBlY underrepre¹ented.
9
°e Ár¿anization Room, however, wa¹ dedicated to ¹howca¹in¿ the collaBorative work of women on Behalf of political, reli¿iou¹, educational, and ¹ocial cau¹e¹. Space 39 wa¹ one of the manY ¹mall Booth¹ that were marked off BY Blue ¹ilk curtain¹ hun¿ wai¹t-hi¿h on Bra¹¹ rod¹. Áther well-known ¿roup¹ that had ¹pace¹ in the Ár¿anization Room included the Âoman’¹ Chri¹tian Ëemperance Union, the ¾ational Council of Âomen, the Ôoun¿ Âomen’¹ Chri¹tian ¼¹¹ociation (ÔÂC¼), the Äederation of Âomen’¹ CluB¹, the Ãau¿hter¹ of the ¼merican Revolution (üR), the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Pre¹¹ Äederation, ¹even mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietie¹, and the ¼¹¹ociation of Colle¿iate ¼lumnae, which would eventuallY Become the ¼merican ¼¹¹ociation of Univer¹itY Âomen.
10
°e ¾I¼ ¹hared ¹pace in the Ár¿a-
nization Room with ¹uffra¿i¹t¹, temperance advocate¹, mi¹¹ionarie¹, ¹ettlement worker¹, cluBwomen, and laBor advocate¹.
11
ÀY it¹ own count, the
¾I¼ wa¹ one of “more than fiftY other national ¹ocietie¹ of women” at the expo¹ition.
12
¼lon¿ with the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ LiBrarY and a¹¹emBlY ¹pace¹
¹et a¹ide for meetin¿¹ and pre¹entation¹, the Ár¿anization Room wa¹ a ¹pace for women’¹ idea¹, and a ¹pace where theY could conveY the mi¹¹ion and purpo¹e of in¹titution¹ theY had founded to a Broad and receptive audience.
13
Âomen exhiBitin¿ in the Ár¿anization Room felt a ¹en¹e of connection
º²gÇ´E 9.1. Ground plan and ¿allerY plan of the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿, 1893 Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition. Ärom Ólliott, Art and Handicraft in the Woman’s Building, n.p.
212
JÈÒObsON
or common cau¹e with the other ¹ocietie¹ and a¹¹ociation¹ pre¹ent. °e Indi-
an’s Friend reported to it¹ reader¹: ManY ¿reat ¹ocietie¹ are repre¹ented in the Ár¿anization Room of the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿, and the Space¹, ta¹tefullY furni¹hed, make an impre¹¹ive exhiBit of literature, map¹, plan¹, de¹i¿n¹, and other repre¹entation¹ of the ¿reat work Bein¿ done BY the¹e or¿anization¹. ¸olume¹ would Be required to ¿ive an adequate conception of their varietY, u¹efulne¹¹, and BeautY, and no thou¿htful per¹on can ¹ee them without profound thank¹¿ivin¿ for the va¹t work Bein¿ done for the world’¹ up-liftin¿ BY 14
the women of all civilized countrie¹.
°e phra¹e “the women of all civilized countrie¹” expre¹¹e¹ a ¹en¹e of ¿ender ¹olidaritY, But it i¹ al¹o indicative of the hierarchical di¹tinction¹ the ¾I¼ and manY of it¹ ¹i¹ter or¿anization¹ made Between them¹elve¹, a¹ cultural arBiter¹ of the “¿reat ¹ocietie¹” and the people theY perceived to Be in need of “up-liftin¿.” °e ¹olidaritY conveYed in thi¹ pa¹¹a¿e applie¹ almo¹t exclu¹ivelY to white, middle- and upper-cla¹¹ women. ¾ative ¼merican women would not form their own intere¹t ¿roup¹ until ¹everal Year¹ after the expo¹ition. ¼frican ¼merican women were aB¹ent from the Ár¿anization Room primarilY Becau¹e of the raci¹t pre¹umption¹ that prevented their participation in national and re¿ional women’¹ or¿anization¹. ColumBian Óxpo¹ition or¿anizer¹ anxiou¹ to appea¹e white ¿roup¹ from the ¼merican South al¹o deliBeratelY excluded ¼frican ¼merican¹, or minimized their pre¹ence, throu¿hout the fair.
15
In her important analY¹i¹ of the expo¹ition, ½azel
CarBY warn¹ ¹cholar¹ a¿ain¹t the Bia¹ed ¹earch for a “lo¹t ¹i¹terhood” Between Black and white women in nineteenth-centurY women’¹ ¹ocial network¹.
16
¼nother ¿ender a¹¹umption emer¿e¹ in thi¹ pa¹¹a¿e, the prevailin¿ ¹en¹e that the ¹tren¿th of women’¹ work emer¿ed when it wa¹ pre¹ented “ta¹tefullY.” “ÀeautY” i¹ ¿iven equal Billin¿ with “u¹efulne¹¹” a¹ a marker of a proÕect’¹ efficacY and impact. °e Chicago Tribune further identified the Ár¿anization Room in dome¹tic term¹, a¹ “a ¹mall citY with manY familie¹,” and de¹criBed the homelike atmo¹phere of the ¹pace: “ManY of the entrance¹ have Been draped with prettY curtain¹ Blendin¿ with the interior decoration of each apartment.” Ëhi¹ laYerin¿ of the imperative¹ of women’¹
Conclu¹ion
213
or¿anizational work with the ae¹thetic¹ of homemakin¿ i¹ con¹i¹tent with maternali¹t tendencie¹ identified BY hi¹torian¹ of women’¹ reform network¹ in ¿eneral, and of the ¾I¼’¹ ideolo¿Y in particular.
17
In thi¹ ¹en¹e, the
phY¹ical ¹pace of the Ár¿anization Room in the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ replicated the code¹ that ¿overned how women could portraY their laBor¹. “Âomen are intere¹ted in everY department of work,” noted the unidentified
Tribune
reporter. “Philanthropical, educational, and charitaBle ¹ocietie¹
numBerin¿ thou¹and¹ of women amon¿ their active worker¹ will find a little corner in thi¹ lar¿e room which will Be homelike, and where theY maY ¹it down and re¹t, read or write.”
18
°i¹ pa¹¹a¿e contra¹t¹ or¿anizational work—
and particularlY or¿anizational work at the expo¹ition—with the ¹anctuarY of home. °e work would Be active, demandin¿, puBlic, expo¹ed, and exhau¹tin¿, while the “homelike” ¹pace¹ of the Ár¿anization Room would ¹erve a¹ ¹anctuarY to the wearY thou¹and¹ of philanthropical, educational, and charitaBle worker¹.
Good Taste and Public Housekeeping ¼ numBer of the e¹¹aY¹ in thi¹ antholo¿Y—and in it¹ predece¹¹or, °e Wom-
en’s National Indian Association: A History
(al¹o edited BY ¸alerie Sherer
Mathe¹)—point to the dome¹tic imperative ¹tructurin¿ women’¹ Indian reform work. john Rhea’¹ reexamination of the ¾I¼’¹ ori¿in ¹torY (chapter 1 of thi¹ volume) reveal¹ that the puBlic ¹torY omitted “emBarra¹¹in¿, potentiallY damnin¿ fact¹ aBout the complex ¹ocial evolution of [MarY Lucinda ÀonneY’¹ and ¼melia Stone Quinton’¹] Indian ¹ocial activi¹m and the ¾I¼’¹ ¹uB¹equent formation.” °e¹e omi¹¹ion¹ are indicative of the concern that women’¹ or¿anizational work remain, at lea¹t in it¹ puBlic depiction¹, ta¹teful. Good ta¹te—which ¹u¿¿e¹ted mode¹tY, qualitY, refinement, and ¹erenitY—wa¹ a marker of ¹ocial ¹tatu¹ and education and di¹tin¿ui¹hed middle-cla¹¹ women from their workin¿-cla¹¹ ¹i¹ter¹. It wa¹ al¹o the verY thin¿ that ¾I¼ fieldworker¹ were attemptin¿ to teach Indian women.
19
¼n ori¿in ¹torY that included ¹exual ¹candal and ¹ectarian infi¿ht-
in¿, a¹ de¹criBed in Rhea’¹ e¹¹aY, would not plaY well on the puBlic ¹ta¿e. ¼¹ Rhea put¹ it, “their mi¹repre¹entation¹ ¹u¿¿e¹t a mutuallY ¹anitized narrative deploYed to protect their political ¹tatu¹ a¹ Indian reformer¹ and national amBa¹¹ador¹ of Chri¹tian motherhood.” Similar concern¹ aBout women’¹
214
JÈÒObsON
role¹ in the nation’¹ moral education are de¹criBed in Curti¹ ½in¹leY’¹ Bio¿raphical ¹tudY of friend¹ and fellow reformer¹ MarY ½emenwaY, MarY ÃeweY, and Martha Goddard (chapter 2 of thi¹ volume). Ëo advance their cau¹e¹ on a puBlic ¹ta¿e, activi¹t women carefullY refracted their action¹ and initiative¹ throu¿h a dome¹tic len¹. ½in¹leY de¹criBe¹ thi¹ ¹anctioned form of women’¹ work a¹ “puBlic hou¹ekeepin¿,” a term Borrowed from ¹ocial reformer¹ Ärance¹ Âillard and jane ¼ddam¹ and defined a¹ “moral reform Blended with ¹ocial orthodoxY.” In her e¹¹aY analYzin¿ the ¾I¼’¹ ¹ucce¹¹ful collaBoration¹ with male-led Indian reform or¿anization¹ (chapter 3), ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹ ar¿ue¹ that the¹e women were re¹pected, and their opinion¹ were heeded. Ëo achieve thi¹ level of paritY, however, ¾I¼ women had to ¹trate¿icallY emBrace practice¹ that marked their work a¹ ¹uitaBlY feminine. ¼¹ Mathe¹ point¹ out, the ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion wa¹ ¹uffu¹ed with the tenet¹ of “true womanhood,” which reinforced the patriarchal order BY deemin¿ men the head and women the heart of anY in¹titution or or¿anization. Mathe¹’¹ Bio¿raphical ¹tudY of ¾I¼ founder MarY Lucinda ÀonneY RamBaut (chapter 6) locate¹ two ¹ource¹ for women’¹ “newfound ‘moral power’ in ¹ocietY”: the educational experience¹ that tau¿ht middle- and upper-cla¹¹ women that their “live¹ did not have to Be limited to motherhood But could include profe¹¹ional a¹piration¹ a¹ well”; and the reli¿iou¹ conviction¹ and evan¿eli¹m prominent amon¿ women at that time. °e emBrace of true womanhood prompted ¾I¼ leader¹ to relinqui¹h the Bulk of their political activi¹m to the male-led Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation (even a¹ theY maintained their u¹e of the petition, a more acceptaBlY ¹uBmi¹¹ive form of political ¹peech); it al¹o ¹haped the ¾I¼’¹ home-Buildin¿ and educational a¿enda¹.
20
¼ll the¹e ¿raciou¹ and ¹elf-contained approache¹ to ¹ocial reform
were perceived to Be in ¿ood ta¹te. Âomen’¹ relational hi¹torie¹, identified BY jane Simon¹en in her introduction to thi¹ volume a¹ a meanin¿ful ¹ource of material, al¹o plaY out in compellin¿ waY¹ at the Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition, particularlY in the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿, where, to applY Simon¹en’¹ word¹ in another context, “the live¹ of ¾I¼ memBer¹ and their indi¿enou¹ proté¿é¹ [are entwined] in a Broader intellectual hi¹torY of the United State¹.” °e Ár¿anization Room with it¹ exten¹ive varietY of women’¹ ¿roup¹ proved to Be a huB for idea ¹harin¿ that led to the creation of ¹everal ¹i¿nificant or¿anization¹, includin¿ the Con¿re¹¹ of Mother¹ (which would evolve into the P˼), the
Conclu¹ion
215
¾ational ½ou¹ehold Óconomic¹ ¼¹¹ociation (which would promote the emer¿in¿ field of home economic¹), and the ¾ational Council of jewi¹h Âomen. °e Âorld’¹ Con¿re¹¹ of Repre¹entative Âomen—the umBrella entitY for the expo¹ition’¹ manY department con¿re¹¹e¹, one of which wa¹ the ¾I¼’¹ MaY meetin¿—al¹o ¹erved to create connection¹ Between women BY offerin¿ more than 300 ¹peaker¹ from 126 women’¹ or¿anization¹. More than 150,000 vi¹itor¹ attended the¹e event¹, and the ¹peeche¹ headlinin¿ the department con¿re¹¹e¹ were puBli¹hed the followin¿ Year in a nearlY 21
thou¹and-pa¿e collection.
°e ¾I¼’¹ contriBution to the collection out-
lined the a¹¹ociation’¹ le¿i¹lative work and wa¹ placed in the ¹ection on “Civil Law and Government” alon¿ with the ¹peeche¹ of Su¹an À. ¼nthonY, ÓlizaBeth CadY Stanton, and other notaBle ¼merican women.
22
°e liBrarY on the ¹econd floor of the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ al¹o ¹erved a¹ an intellectual clearin¿hou¹e, a ¹pace where the idea¹ of women were preeminent. °e liBrarY hou¹ed more than ei¿ht thou¹and volume¹ of work¹ BY women, includin¿ A Century of Dishonor (1881) and Ramona (1884), text¹ that were influential in ¹hapin¿ the mi¹¹ion of the ¾I¼ and it¹ Branche¹ and 23
drawin¿ puBlic attention to it¹ work.
Âritten BY ½elen ½unt jack¹on,
the¹e Book¹ (one a political treati¹e, the other a novel) receive attention in two e¹¹aY¹ in thi¹ antholo¿Y: Phil Àri¿andi’¹ “½er Soul I¹ Marchin¿ Án: ½elen ½unt jack¹on’¹ Äollower¹ in the Indian Reform Movement” (chapter 4) and Ãavid Âallace ¼dam¹’¹ “In the Shadow of Ramona : Ärance¹ CampBell Sparhawk and the Äiction of Reform” (chapter 5). Àri¿andi detail¹ the impact jack¹on’¹ work and writin¿¹ had on the ¾I¼, while ¼dam¹ recover¹ and explicate¹ the Indian reform novel¹ of Sparhawk, a ¾I¼ memBer who ¹erved a¹ director of the or¿anization’¹ Ãepartment of Indian LiBrarie¹ and Indian Indu¹trie¹ Lea¿ue. ¼lthou¿h two of Sparhawk’¹ novel¹ had Been puBli¹hed Before the ¹tart of the 1893 Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition, neither 24
appeared in the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ LiBrarY.
Äair¿oer¹ would, however,
have had acce¹¹ to manY work¹ like Sparhawk’¹ that were written BY white author¹ aBout ¾ative ¼merican¹. ¼¹ Sarah Âad¹worth and ÂaYne Âie¿and note in their ¹tudY of the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ LiBrarY, “the liBrarY’¹ ¹uBÕect index maY have helped vi¹itor¹ identifY volume¹ containin¿ ¾ative ¼merican ¹uBÕect matter, But the¹e Book¹ would invariaBlY have Been written BY white author¹.”
25
¼ column in the Indian’s Friend titled “Indian Âomen’¹ Âork at the
216
JÈÒObsON
Äair,” likelY written BY Gilman, pick¹ up on the theme of ¿ood ta¹te and point¹ to the waY raci¹t attitude¹ could function a¹ a tool for white women to promote their reform a¿enda¹. Paintin¿ a picture of the handiwork of Indian women on di¹plaY in the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ ethnolo¿ical exhiBit, the column depict¹ the ¹killed work of indi¿enou¹ women with ¿reat detail. Included in the de¹cription¹ are an ¼la¹kan Belt crafted of leather and reindeer teeth; a Peruvian ¹kirt “compo¹ed of a network of ¹eed¹, Bird Bone¹, and monkeY teeth”; and ¹ample¹ of “ÁÕiBwaY Bead-weavin¿ ¹hown a¹ unfini¹hed piece¹ ¹till on the loom.”
26
°e ÁÕiBwaY work i¹ implicitlY prai¹ed for it¹
demon¹tration of ¹kill and refinement: “¼ clo¹e warp of thread¹ i¹ ¹tretched from end to end of the ¹imple framework that form¹ the loom and a fine camBric needle i¹ u¹ed a¹ a ¹huttle in weavin¿ in the Bead¹, which are verY ¹mall and of mo¹t delicate color¹.” ¼ direct compari¹on i¹ then drawn Between thi¹ traditional work and the example¹ of Indian lacework al¹o on di¹plaY:
Áne involuntarilY look¹ acro¹¹ from the¹e lovelY piece¹ of work to the ca¹e of lace¹ made at Mi¹¹ SYBil Carter’¹ mi¹¹ion at Âhite Óarth, and i¹ not ¹urpri¹ed to read that theY were made BY ÁÕiBwaY¹ and Ãakotah¹. °e¹e are ¿enuine pillow lace¹, ¹ome of which compare well with real Àru¹¹el¹ point from the old world. ¾o wonder, for that Bead weavin¿ 27
would Be an apprentice¹hip for anY kind of delicate handiwork.
Âhile full of prai¹e, thi¹ compari¹on implie¹ that the ÁÕiBwaY Beadwork i¹ the le¹¹er of the two craft¹, “apprentice” to the Óuropean lacework, even a¹ it identifie¹ a connection Between the traditional handiwork of Indian women and the lace-makin¿ indu¹trie¹ that provided them with re¿ular income. °i¹ column in the Indian’s Friend provide¹ an example of a tYpical form of evidence u¹ed BY the ¾I¼ to per¹uade audience¹ that Indian¹ were readY for a¹¹imilation. In thi¹ ca¹e, we are ¹hown how the traditional work ¹kill¹ of Indian women prepare them to tran¹ition into more “civilized” form¹ of laBor: “She ha¹ alreadY had the trainin¿ that ¿ive¹ her an eYe for color and ¹kill in manipulation, and her deft fin¿er¹ have even now Be¿un to a¹toni¹h u¹ with their ¹kill in fancY work and their ¹ucce¹¹ in millinerY and dre¹¹-makin¿.” In her e¹¹aY “‘Ôour Indian Äriend’: Indi¿enou¹ Âomen and Strate¿ic ¼lliance¹ with the ¾I¼” in thi¹ antholo¿Y (chapter 8), jane
Conclu¹ion
217
Simon¹en explain¹ that while ¾I¼ memBer¹ like SYBil Carter promoted Indian indu¹trie¹ a¹ ¹ource¹ of civilitY on re¹ervation¹, ¾ative women ¹trate¿icallY emBraced the lace-makin¿ indu¹trY “a¹ a ¹ource of income and a¹ a waY to ¹u¹tain traditional work, too.” In¹tead of “valuin¿ lacework for it¹ ‘civilizin¿’ influence or a¹ a panacea for tho¹e locked into ‘Backward’ re¹ervation life, indi¿enou¹ women who took part in the¹e ¿uild¹ likelY did ¹o Becau¹e it allowed them to earn income [and] maintain communitY tie¹.” Such a ¹trate¿ic alliance wa¹ not on di¹plaY, however, at the expo¹ition, where indi¿enou¹ women plaYed no part in the curation and interpretation of their work. Gilman could, therefore, pre¹ent the ÁÕiBwaY Beadwork and the lacework a¹ product¹ on a continuum that proved that ¾ative ¼merican women were pro¿re¹¹in¿ ¹teadilY toward a¹¹imilation. It i¹ worth notin¿ that Gilman explicitlY hi¿hli¿ht¹ the work of Indian women at the expen¹e of Black women: “½er handiwork i¹ much more delicate and ta¹teful than that of the native ¼frican women in the ca¹e clo¹e BY.”
28
°e word “ta¹teful” a¿ain mark¹ the Indian work a¹ valuaBle, Õu¹t a¹ it
did in the pa¹¹a¿e de¹criBin¿ the work of the “¿reat ¹ocietie¹” repre¹ented in the Ár¿anization Room. In her phra¹in¿, Gilman ali¿n¹ Indian women and white women, markin¿ them a¹ di¹tinct from Black women and u¹in¿ thi¹ di¹tinction to make an ar¿ument that Indian women are worthY of the a¹¹imilationi¹t oBÕective¹ of the ¾I¼. Gilman’¹ evaluation¹ of the¹e exhiBit¹, while certainlY a product of her own preconception¹, were al¹o the inevitaBle outcome of the raci¹t a¿enda of the fair or¿anizer¹. ¼¹ ½azel CarBY oB¹erve¹, “Àlack women were included in a hi¿hlY ¹elective manner a¹ part of exhiBit¹ with other ethnic ¿roup¹ which reinforced conventional raci¹t attitude¹ of the ¼merican ima¿ination.”
29
Indian Education on Display °e ¾I¼ held it¹ MaY meetin¿ at the expo¹ition, in the ¼rt Palace. °i¹ wa¹ one of manY or¿anizational meetin¿¹, called “department con¿re¹¹e¹,” open to the puBlic in attendance at the fair. °e Chicago Tribune, with the headline “Indian Meetin¿ Âell ¼ttended,” reported that the event wa¹ “not BY anY mean¹ the lea¹t intere¹tin¿ of the evenin¿ ¹e¹¹ion¹.”
30
Ëakin¿ full
advanta¿e of thi¹ national ¹ta¿e, memBer¹ of the ¾I¼ prepared pre¹entation¹ on the ¿roup’¹ le¿i¹lative work, home Buildin¿, and educational and
218
JÈÒObsON
31
mi¹¹ionarY fieldwork.
Óthno¿rapher ¼lice Äletcher, ¹lated to ¹peak on the
“Indian’¹ Ôe¹terdaY and ½i¹ ËodaY,” ¿ave a late cancellation. Àut °oma¹ j. Mor¿an, former US commi¹¹ioner of Indian affair¹, ¹poke on the “Indian Áutlook,” and paper¹ BY ¼melia Stone Quinton (“Mi¹¹ionarY Âork of the SocietY”), Sara Ë. KinneY (“°e ½ome Àuildin¿ Âork of Seven Ôear¹”), and MarY Ó. ÃeweY (aBout the ¼pache Indian School in ¼laBama) were read BY 32
¹tand-in¹.
Àut it wa¹ the performance¹ of Indian ¹tudent¹ that ¿arnered the mo¹t attention. ËwentY-ei¿ht Indian ¹tudent¹ from the ¼lBuquerque ¹chool attended and performed: “°e Indian ¹chool Band plaYed ¹everal time¹, doin¿ well for ‘a Bra¹¹ Band’ onlY one Year old, and all ¹an¿ the ‘red, white, and Blue’ with ¿reat ¹pirit at the clo¹e of the evenin¿, the entire audience Õoinin¿ in the choru¹.”
33
¼¹ the Indian’s Friend reported, the fair¿oer¹ ¹tru¿-
¿lin¿ to enter the crowded ¼rt Palace made it difficult for the ¹tudent¹ to make their waY to the ¹ta¿e: “Àut owin¿ to the ¿reat crowd out¹ide the Buildin¿ theY had to come into the Palace throu¿h a Ba¹ement window, ¹omewhat a¹ the race ha¹ come into a late civilization.”
34
°e Chicago Tribune reported
that thi¹ “Indian Re¿iment” “¹an¿ hYmn¹ and patriotic air¹ at interval¹ durin¿ the proceedin¿.”
35
°e clo¹in¿ addre¹¹, “Ärom the Indian’¹ Point of
¸iew,” wa¹ delivered BY ChaunceY Ôellow RoBe (Sioux), a Carli¹le Indian School ¹tudent who would later Become one of the earlY leader¹ of the SociÔellow RoBe’¹ addre¹¹, accordin¿ the Indian’s Friend , wa¹ “a ¹en¹iBle and manlY ¹tatement of hi¹ view¹ of Indian dutY 36
etY of ¼merican Indian¹ (S¼I).
37
at thi¹ time, a¹ well a¹ of the nation toward¹ the red man.”
¼lto¿ether the occa¹ion wa¹ not onlY heartilY enÕoYed, But the excellence and intere¹t of the paper¹ and addre¹¹e¹, and the exhiBit ¿iven in them of the a¹¹ociation’¹ laBor¹ and ¹ucce¹¹e¹, ¿ained friend¹ and enthu¹ia¹m for it¹ work, while the Bri¿ht face¹, erect, uniformed fi¿ure¹, manlY Bearin¿ and ¿ood work of the BoY¹, and the faultle¹¹ deportment and intelli¿ence of the ¿irl¹ convinced all pre¹ent that it i¹ worthwhile to ha¹ten the education and elevation of all our native Indian¹, and that ¹peedY and full 38
citizen¹hip i¹ the Be¹t and onlY wi¹e ¹olution of the Indian que¹tion.
°i¹ evenin¿ event wa¹ intended to Be a demon¹tration of the ¹ucce¹¹e¹ of the a¹¹imilationi¹t a¿enda, a performance of Indian civilization orche¹trated
Conclu¹ion
219
BY the primarY arBiter¹ of that a¿enda (¿overnment official¹, mi¹¹ionarie¹, educator¹, and reformer¹). ¼¹¹imilation wa¹ demon¹trated BY indi¿enou¹ BoY¹ and ¿irl¹ takin¿ on the ¿ender role¹ con¹idered acceptaBle to white, middle-cla¹¹ ¼merican¹. °e BoY¹ were “erect” and “manlY,” all expre¹¹ion of triBal affiliation ¹uppre¹¹ed BY uniform¹. °e ¿irl¹ exhiBited “faultle¹¹ deportment,” the mannerlY con¹traint that characterized the Behavior of ¿ood, “intelli¿ent” ¿irl¹. °e ¼lBuquerque Indian School ¹tudent¹ were al¹o on di¹plaY at the expo¹ition’¹ model Indian School, where theY demon¹trated the role of the Indian education ¹Y¹tem in teachin¿ the¹e ¿ender role¹ and helpin¿ Indian ¹tudent¹ achieve full a¹¹imilation. Gilman reported at len¿th on the model Indian School in the Indian’s Friend, clearlY ¹lantin¿ her article¹ in favor of ha¹tenin¿ “the education and elevation of all our native Indian¹.” In the julY 1893 i¹¹ue, Gilman de¹criBed the ¹chool a¹ “a plain wooden Buildin¿” that contained “one of the mo¹t intere¹tin¿ exhiBit¹ on the ¿round¹.”
39
Mode¹tlY
tucked amid the ¿rand architectural feat¹ of the Âhite CitY, the model ¹chool ho¹ted a ¹erie¹ of dele¿ation¹ from “variou¹ leadin¿ Indian School¹ of the countrY,” includin¿ the ¼lBuquerque Indian School; the Lincoln In¹titute of Philadelphia; St. jo¹eph’¹ ¾ormal School of Ren¹¹elaer, Indiana; and 40
the ½a¹kell In¹titute of Lawrence, Kan¹a¹.
°e de¹cription of the ¹chool in the Indian’s Friend empha¹ize¹ the pro¿re¹¹ of Indian ¹tudent¹ from the “ancient civilization” of their indi¿enou¹ pa¹t to the “¼merica of to-daY”:
It Bear¹ over it¹ doorwaY the ¹i¿n, “U.S. Indian School,” and for four week¹ a dele¿ation from the Government School at ¼lBuquerque, ¾ew Mexico, have had their home here, holdin¿ dailY ¹chool ¹e¹¹ion¹ and workin¿ at their variou¹ indu¹trie¹. °eY are repre¹entative¹ of the dark¹kinned triBe¹ of the Southwe¹t, of rovin¿ ¾avaÕo¹, ¹hrewd and keen BY nature, of Pima¹, MoÕave¹, and PueBlo¹ who have come down from their home¹ on the me¹a¹ and from their own ancient civilization to Become a 41
part of the ¼merica of to-daY.
Gilman Brin¿¹ her reader¹ into the ¹choolroom, de¹criBin¿ a ¹erie¹ of le¹¹on¹ in ¿rammar and arithmetic a¹ well a¹ ¹on¿¹ and recitation¹ performed BY “ei¿ht or ten BoY¹ and two ¿irl¹.” ClearlY, Gilman’¹ intention—and the
º²gÇ´E 9.2. “Cla¹¹ of Indian¹ in Äront of School.” Courte¹Y of the Âinterthur LiBrarY, Printed Àook and Periodical Collection. Ärom Àancroft, °e Book of the Fair, 646.
Conclu¹ion
221
purpo¹e of the model ¹chool it¹elf—i¹ to ¹how the promi¹e and potential of ¾ative ¼merican children provided with educational opportunitie¹. Ëo per¹uade her reader¹, ¹he Borrow¹ liBerallY from the trope of human pro¿re¹¹. Âhen ¹he de¹criBe¹ the ¹choolwork on di¹plaY in the Buildin¿, ¹he ¹in¿le¹ out “one ca¹e of kinder¿arten work” with “an e¹peciallY intere¹tin¿ hi¹torY”:
La¹t SeptemBer thirtY or fortY little, half-naked Pima¹ and ¼pache¹ Between the a¿e¹ of ¹ix and ei¿ht were Brou¿ht to thi¹ ¹chool from the rude hut¹ that had Been their home¹. Ärom that time till March theY were tau¿ht the Ón¿li¹h lan¿ua¿e. °eY were then ¿iven kinder¿arten in¹truction for one month, and at the end of the month the¹e article¹ were prepared, con¹i¹tin¿ of woven mat¹ and out-line drawin¿¹ and emBroiderie¹ upon card¹. ¼ll are not equallY ¿ood, But all are creditaBle, manY excellent.
42
Gilman’¹ de¹cription¹ of “half-naked” children from “rude hut¹” who quicklY aB¹orB their kinder¿arten le¹¹on¹ and produce “creditaBle” work reflect the comparative theme deliBeratelY e¹taBli¹hed BY the Àureau of Indian ¼ffair¹ to promote Indian education. Indian commi¹¹ioner °oma¹ j. Mor¿an, re¹pon¹iBle for creatin¿ the model ¹chool, and the PeaBodY Mu¹eum’¹ Ärederic Âard Putnam, in char¿e of the expo¹ition’¹ ethnolo¿ical exhiBit¹, worked to¿ether to create di¹plaY¹ that contra¹ted traditional Indian lifewaY¹ with what Mor¿an and hi¹ ¹upporter¹ viewed a¹ the promi¹e of Indian education and ¼mericanization. Mor¿an and Putnam adapted the Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition’¹ theme of four centurie¹ of pro¿re¹¹ to empha¹ize ¾ative ¼merican¹’ pa¹t, pre¹ent, and future. Putnam’¹ ¼nthropolo¿ical Àuildin¿ hou¹ed collection¹ of Indian artifact¹ and hi¹ model Indian villa¿e provided livin¿ demon¹tration¹ of triBal culture, while Mor¿an’¹ model ¹chool offered evidence of the impact of Indian education pro¿ram¹.
43
Gilman ¿oe¹ on to de¹criBe the indu¹trial trainin¿ provided to BoY¹ at the ¼lBuquerque Indian School, which included “¹hoemakin¿, harne¹¹-makin¿, Black¹mith’¹ work, carpentrY, and tailorin¿.” She further emBed¹ her pre¹entation of information in the lan¿ua¿e of Chri¹tian pro¿re¹¹ivi¹m, identifYin¿ Superintendent Âilliam Crea¿er of the ¼lBuquerque School a¹ “an earne¹t, practical Chri¹tian, devoted to hi¹ work.” °e ¹chool’¹ trainin¿ pro¿ram¹ are, accordin¿ to Gilman, “¹peciallY adapted to make of Indian¹ ¹elf-reliant
222
JÈÒObsON
Chri¹tian citizen¹.” °i¹ di¹cour¹e aBout the moral and cultural value of indu¹trial education echoe¹ that u¹ed BY Àooker Ë. Âa¹hin¿ton and hi¹ white ¹upporter¹ to de¹criBe Black freedmen in the South.
44
°e di¹cour¹e of
¹elf-reliance, and the Belief that vocational trainin¿ would create productive citizen¹, wa¹ clearlY part of the zeit¿ei¹t. Óncomium¹ to Indian education continued in ¹uB¹equent i¹¹ue¹ of the
Indian’s Friend, where Gilman de¹criBed dele¿ation¹ of Indian ¹tudent¹ from Lincoln In¹titute and ½a¹kell In¹titute. Gilman noted that Superintendent Charle¹ Ë. Me¹erve of ½a¹kell In¹titute “maY have the ¹ati¹faction of knowin¿ that he ha¹ done a ¿rand work for the education of the white¹.” Prai¹in¿ the written compo¹ition of the ½a¹kell ¹tudent¹ in the model ¹chool, Gilman explained that “¹ince from 10,000 to 20,000 people BY actual count came everY daY to examine that work, durin¿ the four week¹ of the ¹chool’¹ ¹taY at the Äair not le¹¹ than 300,000 people mu¹t have learned, Becau¹e theY 45
have ¹een it, that Indian¹ can Be educated.”
°e exhiBit¹ created BY ½amp-
ton In¹titute and the Carli¹le Indian School—on di¹plaY in the LiBeral ¼rt¹ Àuildin¿—al¹o receive attention in the Indian’s Friend.
46
Äor Gilman and
her fellow memBer¹ of the ¾I¼, the Chica¿o ColumBian Óxpo¹ition wa¹ a puBlic relation¹ ¹ucce¹¹. °i¹ ¹econd volume of e¹¹aY¹ aBout the ¾I¼ i¹ de¹i¿ned, like the fir¹t, to rai¹e awarene¹¹ and in¹pire further re¹earch. °e detailed record¹ of thi¹ prominent women’¹ a¹¹ociation provide a re¹ource with rich potential for ¹cholar¹ of women’¹ hi¹torY, ¾ative ¼merican hi¹torY, reli¿iou¹ and educational hi¹torY, and the hi¹torY of ¹ocial network¹ and reform movement¹ in the United State¹.
47
It¹ connection¹ to other nineteenth-centurY
women’¹ voluntarY a¹¹ociation¹—demon¹trated clearlY BY it¹ active participation in the 1893 Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition—place it ¹quarelY within the earlY hi¹torY of the women’¹ movement. ManY prominent ¼merican women—½arriet and Kate Äoote, ¼nnie Àeecher Scoville, 48
MarY Lowe Ãickin¹on, and ¼nna and Ólectra Ãawe¹, to name a few — devoted ¹uB¹tantial time and re¹ource¹ to the work of the ¾I¼. °eir ¹torie¹ ¹till need to Be told. Much more re¹earch i¹ needed into ¾ative ¼merican re¹pon¹e¹ to the ¾I¼ to Build on our under¹tandin¿ of the ¹trate¿ic alliance¹ and form¹ of re¹i¹tance u¹ed BY the people who were the oBÕect¹ of reform. ÄinallY, the lon¿evitY of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation—it exi¹ted for more than half a centurY—make¹ it a
Conclu¹ion
223
compellin¿ ¹ource of material for ¹cholar¹ ¹tudYin¿ chan¿in¿ conception¹ of race and ¿ender in the United State¹.
Notes Special thank¹ to Curti¹ ½in¹leY for ¹u¿¿e¹tin¿ the title of thi¹ e¹¹aY.
1. Reinder¹, “Âomen’¹ Civic Improvement Ár¿anization¹,” 882–83. See al¹o Gere,
Intimate Practices; and Scott, Natural Allies . 2. “¼¹¹ociation ¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend , june 1893, 1. 3. “°e ¾ew Âork of the Ôear,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, 1893, 11. 4.
Indian’s Friend, SeptemBer 1893, 1.
5. “°e ¾ew Âork of the Ôear,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, 1893, 11. 6. “Meetin¿¹ ¼ddre¹¹ed, BY Mr¹. Quinton,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, 1893, 12–13. Quinton ¹poke on ¹even occa¹ion¹ in MaY and june while in Chica¿o, and returned to Chica¿o for additional meetin¿¹ and pre¹entation¹ in julY, ¼u¿u¹t, and SeptemBer. See al¹o “¼¹¹ociation ¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, MaY 1893, 1. 7.
Indian’s Friend, SeptemBer 1893, 1.
8. Âeimann, °e Fair Women; Mucci¿ro¹¹o, Celebrating the New World, 132–41; and Paine, “Sophia ½aYden and the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ Competition.” 9. Âad¹worth and Âie¿and, Right Here I See My Own Books, 46, 150–51; CarBY, “Âoman’¹ Óra”; and Mucci¿ro¹¹o, Celebrating the New World, 142–53. 10. Âeimann, °e Fair Women, 487–521. (Âeimann ¹pecificallY mention¹ ¼melia Stone Quinton and the ¾I¼ on pa¿e 500.) See al¹o “Ár¿anization¹ Repre¹ented in Ár¿anization Room, Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿,” Report on the Organizations Represented in the
Organization Room (manu¹cript), 1894, Chica¿o ½i¹torY Mu¹eum Re¹earch Center. 11. Gullett. “Áur Great ÁpportunitY.” 12. “°e ¾ew Âork of the Ôear,” ¾I¼, ¼nnual Report, 1893, 11. 13. °e Chicago Daily Tribune note¹ that fiftY-¹even or¿anization¹ were repre¹ented in the Ár¿anization Room and hint¹ at the ten¹ion¹ involved in a¹¹i¿nin¿ limited ¹pace to ¹o manY ¿roup¹. “ÓxhiBit¹ BY Âomen: Unique ¼rran¿ement of the Ár¿anization Room,” Chicago Daily Tribune, june 7, 1893, 11. See al¹o Âeimann, °e
Fair Women, 487–521. 14. “¼¹¹ociation ¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend , june 1893, 1. 15. jeanne Âeimann note¹ that the Colored Âoman’¹ Lea¿ue did not exhiBit in the Ár¿anization Room, althou¿h it¹ founder, ½allie Quinn Àrown, wa¹ a ¹peaker at the Âorld’¹ Con¿re¹¹ of Repre¹entative Âomen. Àrown’¹ lea¿ue later mer¿ed with the ¾ational Äederation of ¼fro-¼merican Âomen to Become the ¾ational ¼¹¹ociation of Colored Âomen (°e Fair Women, 517). ¼ccordin¿ to Li¹a Ëetzloff, or¿anized ¾ative ¼merican women’¹ ¿roup¹ fir¹t formed in the Year¹ followin¿ the fair (“Shall the Indian Remain Indian?”). 16. CarBY, “Âoman’¹ Óra,” 6.
224
JÈÒObsON
17. jacoB¹, White Mother to a Dark Race, 93–95; Simon¹en, Making Home Work; Mark, A Stranger in Her Native Land, 106; and RomeYn, “¼ Sentimental Ómpire,” 180–218. 18. “ÓxhiBit¹ BY Âomen: Unique ¼rran¿ement of the Ár¿anization Room,” Chicago Daily Tribune, june 7, 1893, 11. ¼ Brief, ¹pecific mention i¹ made of the ¾I¼ in thi¹ article, acknowled¿in¿ the ¿roup’¹ le¿i¹lative work and indicatin¿ that it had “planted thirtY-two mi¹¹ion ¹tation¹” in it¹ fourteen Year¹ of exi¹tence. 19. Part 2 of °e Women’s National Indian Association: A History contain¹ e¹¹aY¹ BY Lori jacoB¹on, Li¹a Ómmerich, Ro¹e Stremlau, and Cathleen Ã. Cahill (63–149) that con¹ider the variou¹ waY¹ the ¾I¼’¹ pro¿ram¹ and fieldworker¹ promoted white, middle-cla¹¹ dome¹tic ideolo¿ie¹ amon¿ Indian women. 20. Simon¹en, Making Home Work; RomeYn, “¼ Sentimental Ómpire”; and jacoB¹on, “Ónvironed BY Civilization.” 21. Âa¿e¹ and Âeatherford, foreword to Right Here I See My Own Books, xiii. 22. Mr¹. Âilliam Ó. Àurke, “Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” in Sewall, °e
World’s Congress of Representative Women, 510–15. 23. Quinton, “Care of the Indian,” 374–75. 24. Âad¹worth, Âie¿and, and Äox, “Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ LiBrarY, U.S. Ëitle¹.” 25. Âad¹worth and Âie¿and, Right Here I See My Own Books, 160. 26. “Indian Âomen’¹ Âork at the Äair,” Indian’s Friend, ÁctoBer 1893, 4. 27. IBid. 28. “Indian Âomen’¹ Âork at the Äair,” Indian’s Friend, ÁctoBer 1893, 4. 29. CarBY, “Âoman’¹ Óra,” 5. 30. “Indian Meetin¿ Âell ¼ttended,” Chicago Daily Tribune, MaY 18, 1893, 4. 31. “Ãepartment Con¿re¹¹ of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation,” Programme of the World’s Congress of Representative Women, MaY 17, 1893, 22, Chica¿o ½i¹torY Mu¹eum Re¹earch Center. 32. IBid. 33. “Indian Meetin¿ Âell ¼ttended,” Chicago Daily Tribune, MaY 18, 1893, 4. 34. “°e ¼¹¹ociation’¹ MaY Meetin¿,” Indian’s Friend , june 1893, 1. 35. “Indian Meetin¿ Âell ¼ttended,” Chicago Daily Tribune, MaY 18, 1893, 4. 36. Äormed in 1911, the S¼I wa¹ an a¹¹ociation of ¼merican Indian intellectual¹ who advocated on Behalf of ¾ative ¼merican¹. Katherine Óllin¿hau¹ explain¹ their appeal to reformer¹ like the ¾I¼: “Âell-educated, articulate ¾ative ¼merican¹ ¹uch a¹ tho¹e involved in the S¼I were real-life example¹ of education and a¹¹imilation at work, and were often u¹ed a¹ ¹uch BY white reformer¹.” Óllin¿hau¹, “Mar¿in¹ of ¼cceptaBilitY,” 60. 37. “°e ¼¹¹ociation’¹ MaY Meetin¿,” Indian’s Friend , june 1893, 1. 38. IBid. 39. “¼n Indian School at the Âorld’¹ Äair,” Indian’s Friend, julY 1893, 3. 40. “¼¹¹ociation ¾ew¹ and ¾ote¹,” Indian’s Friend, MaY 1893, 1. 41. “¼n Indian School at the Âorld’¹ Äair,” Indian’¹ Äriend, julY 1893, 3.
Conclu¹ion
225
42. IBid. 43. Ërennert, “Sellin¿ Indian Óducation”; Mo¹e¹, Wild West Shows, 129–49; ½in¹leY, “¼nthropolo¿Y a¹ Óducation and Óntertainment,” 31–33; RYdell, All the World’s a Fair; and Green, “¼ Sta¿e Set for ¼¹¹imilation.” 44. Curti¹ M. ½in¹leY, per¹onal communication, ÁctoBer 16, 2018. See al¹o Âa¹hin¿ton, “Indu¹trial Óducation for the ¾e¿ro.” 45. “¼n Indian School at the Âorld’¹ Äair, no. 3,” Indian’s Friend, ÁctoBer 1893, 2; and “¼n Indian School at the Âorld’¹ Äair, no. 4,” Indian’s Friend , ÃecemBer 1893, 4. 46. ½ampton’¹ exhiBit i¹ de¹criBed in the julY 1893 i¹¹ue; Carli¹le’¹ i¹ de¹criBed in the ¼u¿u¹t 1893 i¹¹ue. 47. ManY of the¹e record¹—includin¿ annual report¹ and the Indian’s Friend— have now Been di¿itized to make them acce¹¹iBle to more re¹earcher¹. Some item¹ are currentlY availaBle throu¿h the dataBa¹e Women and Social Movements in the United
States, 1600–2000, edited BY KathrYn Ki¹h Sklar and Ëom ÃuBlin. Mo¹t i¹¹ue¹ of the Indian’s Friend Before 1923 have Been di¿itized and are availaBle throu¿h the ½athi Ëru¹t Ãi¿ital LiBrarY at http¹://catalo¿.hathitru¹t.or¿/Record/000545487. °e ¾I¼’¹ annual report¹ from 1883 to 1897 are found on the ¹ame weB¹ite at http¹://catalo¿. hathitru¹t.or¿/Record/006802712. 48. ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, per¹onal communication, ÁctoBer 8, 2018.
¼ppendix
WNIA Missionary Stations ÎÈÅE´²E ÉHE´E´ ÌÈTHEs
Alabama
Chiricahua Apache, Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama (1891) Supported BY the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation (MI¼) Be¿an educational work amon¿ the Chiricahua ¼pache pri¹oner¹ of war with the a¹¹i¹tance of Mi¹¹ Àooth from Carli¹le Indian School and Mi¹¹ Steven¹ from ½ampton In¹titute, and later with Sophie Shepard and her ¹i¹ter, Mar¿aret. In1894, the Âar Ãepartment relocated the ¼pache¹ to Äort Sill, Áklahoma.
Alaska
Sitka (1887) °e ¾I¼’¹ ½ome Àuildin¿ Ãepartment Built five model home¹.
Sitka (1900) ¼nna Ãean ÂilBur, wife of Ãr. Àertrand K. ÂilBur, ¹erved a¹ a ¾I¼ medical mi¹¹ionarY, Be¿innin¿ amon¿ ¹ick and needY women and children on januarY 1, 1900. Ëo provide hou¹in¿, the ¾I¼ Built ei¿ht three-room cotta¿e¹ adÕacent to the ho¹pital, formin¿ a model cotta¿e ¹ettlement.
Arizona
Navajo, Chinle, New Mexico Territory (1887) °e ¾I¼ temporarilY ¿ave indirect aid.
227
228
ÌÈTHEs
Hopi, at Oraibi (1892) Supported BY the ¾ew jer¹eY auxiliarY and it¹ Branche¹, the Philadelphia auxiliarY and it¹ Branche¹, and the Ãelaware Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, ½enrY R. ¸oth and hi¹ wife, Martha, were appointed a¹ mi¹¹ionarie¹. °i¹ ¹hort-lived mi¹¹ion ¹tation at ÁraiBi, ¹ome fortY mile¹ from Keam’¹ CanYon, wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Mennonite Àoard in julY 1893.
Hualapai (Walapai) (April 1894) Ärance¹ S. Calfee, a ¿overnment field matron livin¿ in MI¼-¹pon¹ored hou¹in¿, ran a daY ¹chool amon¿ the ½ualapai Indian¹. In the ¹ummer of 1896, the MI¼ purcha¹ed the ½ope Ranch in Ëruxton Cañon to convert to a Boardin¿ ¹chool and model farm. In March 1903, the federal ¿overnment a¹¹umed thi¹ mi¹¹ionarY work with a con¿re¹¹ional appropriation of $60,000 for the Buildin¿ of the Ëruxton Cañon Ërainin¿ School on ¹ite.
Hopi, First Mesa (1895) In SeptemBer 1895, the ¾ew jer¹eY auxiliarY ¹ent Loui¹e ¼. Ôoun¿, a ¿raduate of the Philadelphia Mi¹¹ionarY Ërainin¿ School, a¹ their mi¹¹ionarY to live temporarilY with Mi¹¹ Ó. Á. Stilwell, the new ¿overnment field matron nominated BY the ¾I¼. Ôoun¿ ¹oon e¹taBli¹hed a SundaY ¹chool and ¹ewin¿ cla¹¹e¹.
Hopi, Second Mesa (May 1897) °i¹ ¾ew jer¹eY ¼¹¹ociation mi¹¹ion ¹tation twelve mile¹ we¹t of Keam’¹ CanYon opened with the arrival of Mi¹¹ MaBel Collin¹ a¹ mi¹¹ionarY and Älora M. Âatkin¹ a¹ mi¹¹ionarY and indu¹trial teacher. Âatkin¹ wa¹ ¹pon¹ored BY auxiliarie¹ in we¹tern Penn¹Ylvania and Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC. In SeptemBer, their ¾I¼-funded mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e wa¹ completed. °e ¹tation wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY in 1901.
Navajo, Tuba (1903) Ápenin¿ in januarY 1903 on the ¹ite of a new ¿overnment Boardin¿ ¹chool,
¼ppendix
229
thi¹ wa¹ the third ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion ¹tation amon¿ the ¾avaÕo. °e ¾ew Ôork CitY ¼¹¹ociation pled¿ed $600 for the work while the ÀrooklYn auxiliarY pled¿ed $300 toward Buildin¿ a cotta¿e, to Be home to mi¹¹ionarie¹ Óthel SawYer and jennie j. john¹on. It wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹ on ¼u¿u¹t 4, 1905.
Navajo at Chinle (1903) ½enrietta G. Cole wa¹ appointed BY the ¾I¼ Mi¹¹ionarY Committee to work amon¿ the¹e ¾avaÕo¹. ½er work wa¹ tran¹ferred to the ¿overnment when ¹he Became their field matron on ¾ovemBer 1.
Hopi, at Moencopi, °ird Mesa (1903) Located two mile¹ from ËuBa, thi¹ ¹tation opened on ÃecemBer 3, 1903, with the arrival of Ómma M. ½oupt, a ¿raduate of the mi¹¹ionarY trainin¿ ¹chool in Philadelphia. She wa¹ partiallY ¹upported BY the ÀrYn Mawr Branch of the Philadelphia auxiliarY. In ¾ovemBer 1904, thi¹ ¹tation wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Mennonite Àoard.
Mojave-Apaches (Yavapai) (1904) Án januarY 14, 1904, the Philadelphia auxiliarY opened a mi¹¹ion amon¿ the one thou¹and MoÕave-¼pache (Ôavapai) at Áld Äort McÃowell with the wife of the Reverend Â. ½. Gill a¹ field matron. Áld militarY Buildin¿¹ were ¿ranted to the ¾I¼ for mi¹¹ionarY and educational purpo¹e¹. °e ¹tation and it¹ chapel were tran¹ferred in ¼pril 1907 to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹.
Yuma Indians (1904) °e MI¼ with the ¹upport of the jamaica Plain Branch Built a four-room mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e and funded the work of the Reverend and Mr¹. Ärank Ë. Lea, who reached Ôuma in SeptemBer 1904. In ¾ovemBer 1904, the Mi¹¹ionarY Committee tran¹ferred thi¹ ¹tation to the Sprin¿field, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, auxiliarY. In ¼pril 1907, it wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Âomen’¹ ½ome
230
ÌÈTHEs
Mi¹¹ion SocietY of the Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Conference of Southern California.
Navajo, Indian Wells (1910) °e fifth mi¹¹ion amon¿ the ¾avaÕo wa¹ opened at Ca¹tle Àutte, thirtY-five mile¹ northea¹t of Âin¹low, ¼rizona, with mi¹¹ionarY hou¹in¿ for Ó. ¼. SchwaB and hi¹ wife provided BY the ¿overnment. In june 1911, thi¹ mi¹¹ion moved permanentlY to Indian Âell¹, with the ¾ew Ôork CitY Indian ¼¹¹ociation providin¿ the ¹alarY and the con¹truction of a $1,100 mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e. In ¼pril 1912, the facilitY wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹.
Good Samaritan Hospital (summer and fall of 1912) °e ¾ew Ôork CitY auxiliarY ¹upported the medical mi¹¹ionarY work of the Reverend and Mr¹. Â. R. john¹ton and the con¹truction of their cotta¿e. Áther ¾I¼ auxiliarie¹ helped fund the almo¹t $10,000 for ho¹pital con¹truction co¹t¹. Án ÃecemBer 1, 1919, the ho¹pital wa¹ tran¹ferred to the care of the Âoman’¹ Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹ of the Pre¹BYterian Church.
California, Northern
Concow, Ukie, Pitt River, Potter Valley, Little Lake, Red Woods— the six tribes at Round Valley (April 27, 1886) Claudia Âhite of Rockville, MarYland, and ¼nna Àoorman of jer¹eY CitY, a ¿raduate of the Chica¿o Mi¹¹ionarY Ërainin¿ School, ¹erved a¹ ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarie¹ until thi¹ ¹tation wa¹ tran¹ferred on ¼pril 5, 1887, to the Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY of Chica¿o. ¸ariou¹ auxiliarie¹ had funded the ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e.
Greenville Indian Industrial School, Plumas County ( July 1890) °i¹ facilitY Be¿an when the ¾I¼ loaned Charle¹ Â. ½all $200 to Build
¼ppendix
231
a ¹choolhou¹e. In 1891 he wa¹ replaced BY Ódward ¾. and Älorence ¼ment, who turned it into a Boardin¿ ¹chool, with the ¾I¼ fundin¿ a dormitorY in ¾ovemBer 1893. In ¼pril 1897, the ¿overnment purcha¹ed the facilitY to run a¹ a ¿overnment Boardin¿ ¹chool.
Sunday School, Plumas County (1890) ¼melia Martin, who had opened a SundaY ¹chool in ÄeBruarY 1889, Became a ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY in ¾ovemBer 1890.
Hoopa Reservation (1896) ¼ re¹ervation kinder¿arten teacher amon¿ the ½upa Indian¹ on the ½oopa Re¹ervation, Ómma ½ap¿ood Ãenton, a memBer of the San jo¹e Indian ¼¹¹ociation, convinced her a¹¹ociation to ¹pon¹or a mi¹¹ionarY there. °eY ¹elected the Reverend LYman Paul ¼rm¹tron¿ in 1896. ½e wa¹ ¹oon replaced BY PlinY Óarle Goodard and hi¹ wife ¼lice and ¹i¹ter ¾ellie. In julY 1900, thi¹ three-acre ¹tation with it¹ $500 mi¹¹ionarY hou¹e, chapel, and Barn wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ¾ew Ôork.
Helen R. Foote School and Mission, Shasta County (February 1899) °i¹ ¹tation at Äall River Mill¹ Be¿un in 1894 BY I¹aBella M. Cadwallader wa¹ initiallY onlY a SundaY ¹chool, underwritten BY the Óa¹tern Philadelphia auxiliarY. Äollowin¿ the death of ½elen R. Äoote, the ¾I¼’¹ lon¿time trea¹urer, the ¹ite wa¹ renamed in her honor, an additional fortY acre¹ wa¹ purcha¹ed, and a new ¹choolhou¹e con¹tructed with $450 donated BY Mr¹. j. Lewi¹ Crozer of Philadelphia, a memBer of the ¾I¼ executive Board. In julY 1900, the facilitY wa¹ turned over to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹.
Greenville Chapel (1903–1905) Con¹tructed with $500 of ¾I¼ moneY, the chapel wa¹ u¹ed BY the Reverend G. j. Âentzell, who held meetin¿¹ everY other SundaY afternoon.
232
ÌÈTHEs
Greenville (May 1906) °e Reverend john M. john¹on and hi¹ wife Cora Be¿an mi¹¹ionarY work from the ¾I¼-Built chapel at the Greenville School. ½e e¹taBli¹hed the nondenominational Indian Go¹pel Church in ÃecemBer 1906. In SeptemBer 1908, the propertY wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Âoman’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of the Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Church.
Hannah Elliott Bean Mission, Bishop (1909) °i¹ nondenominational mi¹¹ion in Ài¹hop, InYo CountY, wa¹ ¹pon¹ored BY the ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation and named in honor of one of it¹ memBer¹. In 1910, it wa¹ turned over to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹.
Industrial and Christian Training School at Guinda, Yolo County (Fall 1913) Ápened BY the ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation, thi¹ ¹chool offered cla¹¹e¹ in a¿riculture, carpentrY, Black¹mithin¿, paintin¿, and plumBin¿ for BoY¹ and ¹ewin¿, emBroiderin¿, crochetin¿, and Butter makin¿ for the ¿irl¹. ¼ fire of unknown ori¿in de¹troYed the lar¿e¹t Buildin¿ in julY 1917, and the followin¿ Year the ¹chool wa¹ clo¹ed.
California, Southern
Missionary and preaching stations among the Mission Indians at La Jolla, Temecula, Pechanga, Potrero, Soboba, Rincon, Cahuilla (collectively known as the Ramona Mission) ( June 19, 1889) ¼lthou¿h initial work wa¹ to have Be¿un amon¿ the Cahuilla, the Reverend Âilliam ½. Âeinland and hi¹ wife Caroline in¹tead Be¿an work at SoBoBa and at the Potrero (on the Moron¿o Re¹ervation near Àannin¿ in San Gor¿onio Pa¹¹). ½e maintained a re¿ular SundaY ¹chool, while hi¹ wife opened up a ¹ewin¿ ¹chool.
¼ppendix
233
Potrero (1890) ¼lle¿henY Cotta¿e, ¿ift of the Âe¹tern Penn¹Ylvania Indian ¼¹¹ociation, wa¹ completed in March 1890. °e mi¹¹ionarY ¹tation with the new mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e, chapel, and five acre¹ of land ¿ranted to the ¾I¼ in ÃecemBer 1889 BY the ¿overnment wa¹ turned over to the Mi¹¹ionarY Àoard of the Moravian Church in MaY 1890.
Soboba ( June 6, 1890) Âeinland turned over hi¹ ¾I¼ dutie¹ to MarY ÓlizaBeth Sheriff Äowler, who wa¹ ¹upported BY the ¾ew Ôork CitY Indian ¼¹¹ociation, which provided $500 for the Buildin¿ of a chapel. She ran a SundaY ¹chool, held ¹ewin¿ meetin¿¹, and did hou¹e-to-hou¹e vi¹it¹. ½owever, when a Catholic church wa¹ Built at SoBoBa in 1891, the ¾I¼ ¹u¹pended the work.
Cahuilla (Fall 1891) C. M. Älemin¿, ¹upported BY the Ladie¹’ Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of River¹ide, Be¿an mi¹¹ionarY work on her own until, at ¼melia Stone Quinton’¹ recommendation, ¹he wa¹ appointed a¹ a ¿overnment field matron and the Southern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation Built her a mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e. She re¹i¿ned in the fall of 1892 and wa¹ replaced BY Ãr. ¼nna ½aYward john¹on, a ¸a¹¹ar Colle¿e ¿raduate and a ¿overnment field matron, who Be¿an her medical mi¹¹ionarY work in januarY 1893. In earlY 1896, the ¾I¼ Mi¹¹ionarY Committee tran¹ferred thi¹ work to it¹ Southern California auxiliarY, headquartered at Redland¹.
Village of Agua Caliente on Warner Ranch (1893) In januarY 1893, ¾I¼ medical mi¹¹ionarY Ãr. ReBecca C. ½allowell and ¿overnment field matron julia M. Ärench moved into ¾I¼-financed hou¹in¿ at ¼¿ua Caliente (Cupa, or Âarner’¹ ½ot Sprin¿¹). °i¹ work, funded lar¿elY BY the ¾ew Ôork CitY ¼¹¹ociation, wa¹ clo¹ed in januarY 1899.
234
ÌÈTHEs
Desert Mission Station at Martínez (1896) ¼lthou¿h Reverend Âeinland held monthlY preachin¿ ¹ervice¹ for Cahuilla¹ at thi¹ ¹tation, durin¿ Quinton’¹ 1894 vi¹it theY reque¹ted a permanent mi¹¹ionarY. °e ¾I¼, with fundin¿ from the ÀrooklYn ¼¹¹ociation and it¹ ÀaY Rid¿e Branche¹, opened thi¹ mi¹¹ion in SeptemBer 1896, Buildin¿ a mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e for the Reverend and Mr¹. Ãavid j. Âool¹eY. Mr¹. Âool¹eY ¹oon or¿anized the Youn¿ ¿irl¹ into ¹in¿in¿ and ¹ewin¿ cla¹¹e¹. In ¾ovemBer 1897, the ¹ite wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Moravian Church of the United State¹.
Colorado
Uncompahgre Ute (1897) °e Âilmin¿ton, Ãelaware, ¼¹¹ociation ¹upported a field matron amon¿ the¹e Indian¹ in thi¹ little-known mi¹¹ion ¹tation.
Florida
Seminole Mission (two stations) ([March] June 1891) °i¹ ¹tation, ¹erved BY Ãr. jacoB Ó. Àrecht and hi¹ wife Clara, wa¹ opened at “the ¼llen Place,” ¹ome fortY mile¹ ea¹t of Äort MYer¹, with the ¿overnment’¹ cooperation. In March 1891, the ¾I¼ purcha¹ed 320 acre¹ for mi¹¹ionarY u¹e and an Indian indu¹trial ¹chool. ¼lthou¿h the ¹chool wa¹ never Built, the Àrecht¹ did open a ¹chool temporarilY in a tent. In ÃecemBer 1893, thi¹ ¹ite wa¹ tran¹ferred to the care of Ài¹hop Âilliam Crane GraY of the Prote¹tant Ópi¹copal Church of Southern Älorida. °e KentuckY and Óa¹tern Penn¹Ylvania auxiliarie¹ continued to fund Mr¹. Àrecht’¹ work.
Idaho
Bannock and Shoshoni, Fort Hall (1887) Äunded BY the ¾ew ½aven Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation and the Connecticut Indian ¼¹¹ociation, ¼melia j. Äro¹t of ¼lBion, ¾ew Ôork, arrived in julY 1887 to Be¿in work at the Ro¹¹ Äork Mi¹¹ion School. In SeptemBer 1888, the ¾I¼ Mi¹¹ionarY Committee tran¹ferred ¹ole care to the Connecticut
¼ppendix
235
auxiliarY, which funded the Connecticut Mi¹¹ion ½ome on 160 acre¹ oBtained from the ¿overnment. Completed in the ¹prin¿ of 1892, it hou¹ed the familY of the Connecticut-¹pon¹ored farmer on one ¹ide and Äro¹t on the other with a ¹chool room and dormitorY for the children under Äro¹t’¹ care Between. In januarY 1900, it wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Àoard of Mana¿ement of the Ópi¹copal Àoard of Mi¹¹ion¹.
Indian Territory
Among the Ponca (April 3, 1884) ¼ Mi¹¹ ½oward wa¹ the fir¹t mi¹¹ionarY. °i¹ ¹tation wa¹ tran¹ferred on ÄeBruarY 3, 1886, to the ÀrooklYn Con¿re¿ational Âomen’¹ Indian Committee and later in june 1887 to the Âomen’¹ Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY.
Among the Otoe (May 12, 1884) Mr¹. McGla¹han Be¿an thi¹ work. °e ¹tation wa¹ tran¹ferred on ÄeBruarY 3, 1886, to the ÀrooklYn Con¿re¿ational Âomen’¹ Indian Committee and in june 1887 to the Âomen’¹ Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY.
Among the Pawnee (summer 1884) ¼lthou¿h the ¾I¼’¹ fir¹t ¹tation, their work amon¿ the Pawnee wa¹ almo¹t immediatelY tran¹ferred to the Âomen’¹ Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Àoard in julY 1884.
Among the Kiowa ( July, 1889) °e Reverend jo¹hua Given, a Kiowa Indian and a ¿raduate of Carli¹le Indian School and Lincoln Univer¹itY and it¹ °eolo¿ical SeminarY, ¹erved a¹ a mi¹¹ionarY funded BY the ÀrooklYn ¼uxiliarY, which Built a mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e. Äund¹ ¿athered were ori¿inallY placed in the hand¹ of the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹, which from the Be¿innin¿ a¿reed to take over thi¹ ¹tation.
236
ÌÈTHEs
Absentee Shawnee (1891) °e Maine auxiliarY Built a mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e for Âilliam Shawnee, a returnin¿ Indian ¹tudent, who Be¿an pioneerin¿ work amon¿ a Band of ¹ome three hundred Shawnee¹. Âith little ¹upport, after ¹everal month¹ he found emploYment with the ¿overnment.
Big Jim’s Band of Absentee Shawnee (1896) °e Maine Indian ¼¹¹ociation in 1896, with over¹i¿ht from Ãr. Charle¹ Kirk’¹ wife Rachel, an experienced mi¹¹ionarY, and with the con¹ent of Ài¿ jim, ¿rand¹on of Ëecum¹eh and chief of the Ki¹picotha Band of ¼B¹entee Shawnee, Bou¿ht fortY acre¹ and Built a three-room cotta¿e with a ¹taBle and wa¿on ¹hed. In julY, Philander Àlackled¿e and hi¹ wife were emploYed a¹ mi¹¹ionarie¹. °i¹ work wa¹ tran¹ferred to the ¼¹¹ociated Óxecutive Committee of the SocietY of Äriend¹ in 1899.
Montana
Piegan, Blackfeet Agency (1885) In june 1885, Sarah j. Âilliam¹, MÃ, a ¿raduate of ½olYoke SeminarY, wa¹ appointed medical mi¹¹ionarY BY the ¾I¼ Mi¹¹ionarY Committee. Âith the approval of the Indian Áffice, the ¾ew ½aven Âomen’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation a¹¹umed her ¹upport, But ¹hortlY thereafter the mi¹¹ion wa¹ di¹continued.
Piegan (1893) °e ¾I¼ auxiliarY in ÀrooklYn ree¹taBli¹hed thi¹ mi¹¹ion ¹tation amon¿ the Pie¿an¹ with the arrival on ¼pril 1, 1893, of the Reverend and Mr¹. Ó. S. Ãutcher and their two ¹mall children. ¼lthou¿h ÀrooklYn women funded a mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e and chapel, much of the laBor wa¹ done BY Ãutcher on the 160 acre¹ provided BY the ¿overnment. Án ¼u¿u¹t 1, 1894, the completelY equipped ¹tation wa¹ turned over to the Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Àoard of ¾ew Ôork CitY.
¼ppendix
237
Chippewa Cree of Rocky Boy (May 31, 1920) °e ¿overnment ¿ranted ei¿htY acre¹ to the ¾I¼ for mi¹¹ionarY purpo¹e¹, and Ólmer and MarY Àurrou¿h¹, ¿raduate¹ of the MoodY ÀiBle Ërainin¿ In¹titute, were cho¹en a¹ mi¹¹ionarie¹. °e a¹¹ociation con¹tructed a mi¹¹ion hou¹e and chapel for them. Án ÁctoBer 1, 1928, thi¹ ¹ite wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Àoard of ¼merican Mi¹¹ion¹ of the United Lutheran Church in ¼merica.
Nebraska
Omaha (two mission stations) (November 1887) Äunded BY the MI¼ and the KentuckY auxiliarY, Ãr. and Mr¹. L. M. (Ó. Àelle) ½en¹el of Áre¿on ¹erved a¹ medical mi¹¹ionarie¹ at the Ámaha Creek Mi¹¹ion on five acre¹ purcha¹ed BY the Mi¹¹ionarY Committee from the Indian¹—the fir¹t land ever owned BY the ¾I¼. In the old a¿encY Buildin¿¹, theY ran a ni¿ht ¹chool and ¹ewin¿ ¹chool and provided one room a¹ a ho¹pital. In the ¹prin¿ of 1888, theY opened a ¹econd ¹tation for SundaY ¹chool work at Ámaha Creek, nine mile¹ from the a¿encY ¹tation, where Mr¹. ½en¹el al¹o tau¿ht daY ¹chool. °e mi¹¹ionarY ¹tation, with five acre¹, a five-room cotta¿e, a Barn and outBuildin¿¹, and an additional twelve acre¹ at Ámaha Creek with a new mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e and chapel, wa¹ tran¹ferred in MaY 1890 to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹. ½owever, the ¾I¼ continued to fund the medical mi¹¹ionarY work of Ãr. Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte, an Ámaha Indian woman, who¹e medical education had Been underwritten BY the Connecticut Indian ¼¹¹ociation.
Nevada
Paiute, Walker River Reservation (1907) Âith the tran¹fer of the MoÕave-¼pache (Ôavapai) mi¹¹ion, Mr. and Mr¹. Â. ½. Gill took over a¹ mi¹¹ionarie¹ amon¿ the ¹ix hundred Paiute in ÁctoBer 1907 on five acre¹ ¿ranted BY the ¿overnment. °e ¾ew Ôork CitY auxiliarY adopted thi¹ ¹ite in ¾ovemBer 1907, Buildin¿ a chapel. In ¾ovemBer 1909, thi¹ ¹tation wa¹ tran¹ferred to the permanent care of the Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹ and Church Óxten¹ion of the Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Church.
238
ÌÈTHEs
Paiute, Yerington Indian Mission (1933) Mr. and Mr¹. Ólmer Àurrou¿h¹ ¹erved a¹ mi¹¹ionarie¹ until the ¹ite wa¹ tran¹ferred on januarY 15, 1941, to the Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Àoard.
New Mexico
Navajo, San Juan Valley (1893) °e CamBrid¿e Indian ¼¹¹ociation ¹upported MarY Ó. RaYmond, a field matron, and funded an irri¿ation proÕect known a¹ the CamBrid¿e Ãitch. Äollowin¿ RaYmond’¹ death, the a¹¹ociation continued to ¹upport her replacement, MarY Loui¹e Óldrid¿e, who had come in 1891 a¹ a mi¹¹ionarY to the ¾avaÕo.
Navajo, Two Gray Hills (1898) °i¹ mi¹¹ionarY work over¹een BY Óldrid¿e, a ¿overnment field matron and ¾I¼ ¹uperintendent, Be¿an in March 1898 with the Buildin¿ in the center of the re¹ervation of a $500 mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e, a le¿acY of MarY S. Crozer in memorY of her hu¹Band, j. Lewi¹ Crozer. Support ¹taff included ½enrietta G. Cole, who had Been in char¿e of the infirmarY at Âilliam¹ Colle¿e, and Sarah ½. Mun¿er, kinder¿arten teacher. °e MI¼ and it¹ Branche¹ in CamBrid¿e and jamaica Plain¹ provided Mun¿er’¹ ¹alarY. In 1901, thi¹ work wa¹ taken over BY the ¾ew Mexico Àapti¹t Convention.
Rebecca Collins Hospital, Jewett (September, 1899) °e ¾ew Ôork CitY ¼¹¹ociation opened thi¹ ei¿ht-Bed ho¹pital ($1,278) with livin¿ quarter¹ on thirtY-five acre¹ donated BY Óldrid¿e. Âith the ¹upport of the CamBrid¿e Indian ¼¹¹ociation, Óldrid¿e ¹upervi¹ed thi¹ ho¹pital amon¿ the ¾avaÕo. Án ÃecemBer 1, 1902, it wa¹ turned over to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of Mi¹¹ion¹.
Navajo, New Mexico (1905) °e CamBrid¿e Indian ¼¹¹ociation, aided BY the Connecticut auxiliarY,
¼ppendix
239
e¹taBli¹hed thi¹ new ¾avaÕo mi¹¹ion under Óldrid¿e’¹ care two mile¹ from Äarmin¿ton, ¾ew Mexico.
North Dakota
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Turtle Mountain Mission (1928) °e Reverend and Mr¹. ÂilBur Ãoudna were the initial mi¹¹ionarie¹, followed BY Mr. and Mr¹. L. P. Âe¿ena¹t. °i¹ ¹ite wa¹ tran¹ferred on SeptemBer 1, 1933, to the Ópi¹copal Ãioce¹e of ¾orth Ãakota, Becomin¿ known a¹ Saint SYlvan’¹ Mi¹¹ion, ¹ervin¿ a¹ the center of all mi¹¹ion¹ in the ¹tate.
Oklahoma
Sequoyah Indian Mission, Vian (1941) °i¹ ¹tation wa¹ founded amon¿ ¹everal ¹mall pre¹umaBlY Cherokee Indian villa¿e¹ of Red Àird Smith, Pin ½ook (Âe¹t ¸iew), and Óvenin¿ Shade, in the vicinitY of ¸ian. Marion Lewi¹, who fir¹t came to work for the ¾I¼ in 1921, ¹erved a¹ mi¹¹ionarY. Unlike other ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion ¹tation¹, thi¹ one wa¹ not turned over to a mi¹¹ionarY ¹ocietY to run. Âhen the national a¹¹ociation di¹Banded in 1951, theY ¿ave Marion Lewi¹ a Õeep and a Year’¹ ¹alarY. Remainin¿ mi¹¹ionarY fund¹ were donated to the Charle¹ ½. Cook Chri¹tian Ërainin¿ School in Phoenix, ¼rizona.
Oregon
Klamath (1908) Mi¹¹ionarY work wa¹ Be¿un in ÁctoBer at Ôainax, Áre¿on, a ¹uBa¿encY fortY mile¹ ea¹t of the Klamath a¿encY BY Mr. and Mr¹. ½. Â. PeffleY, who for nine Year¹ had en¿a¿ed in mi¹¹ionarY work in St. Loui¹. °eY worked not onlY amon¿ the Klamath But the Modoc¹ and Paiute¹ who ¹hared the Klamath Re¹ervation. Mr¹. PeffleY ¹erved half time a¹ a ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY and half time a¹ a ¿overnment field matron. °e mi¹¹ionarY ¹tation, with a new church, mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e, and Barn¹, wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹ and Church Óxten¹ion of the Methodi¹t Ópi¹copal Church in julY 1912.
240
ÌÈTHEs
South Dakota
Sioux, Rosebud Agency ( January 1886) Cora Äellow¹ had received travelin¿ and incidental expen¹e¹ from the ¾I¼ to ¹tudY the Ãakota lan¿ua¿e at the Santee Ërainin¿ School, where ¹he tau¿ht Ón¿li¹h. ¼t the end of her trainin¿, ¹he Be¿an temporarY work at a camp on Cut Meat Creek ¹ome fifteen mile¹ from Ro¹eBud ¼¿encY, livin¿ with the ¿overnment teacher in the ¿overnment-provided ¹chool cotta¿e. In March–¼pril 1886, when ¹he re¹i¿ned for health rea¹on¹, the ¾I¼ di¹continued the work, comBinin¿ it in 1887 with that Be¿un at Corn Creek, Ro¹eBud ¼¿encY.
Lower Brulé (Sioux) (1886) Indirect ¾I¼ aid wa¹ ¿iven to the ladie¹ of Saint john’¹ Ópi¹copal Church, Ôonker¹, ¾ew Ôork.
Sioux, Rosebud Agency (1885–1886) ËemporarY work, from ¾ovemBer 1885 to ¼pril 1886, wa¹ Be¿un at the Ro¹eBud ¼¿encY. °en the Reverend jo¹eph Ó. ËaYlor, a Sioux Indian and Ópi¹copal cleric, ¹erved for a Year and two month¹ at Corn Creek Mi¹¹ion at the a¿encY. ½i¹ work wa¹ partiallY funded BY the Óa¹tern ¾ew Ôork Indian ¼¹¹ociation, which con¹tructed a mi¹¹ionarY cotta¿e, a chapel, and outBuildin¿¹. °e ¹tation wa¹ tran¹ferred to the care of Ài¹hop Âilliam ½oBart ½are of the Ópi¹copal Church, who at ¾I¼ reque¹t had ¹elected the ori¿inal ¹ite.
Crow Creek (1890) Laura j. Ëile¹ton, chair of the ¾I¼ ½o¹pital Ãepartment, with ¾I¼ fundin¿ tran¹formed a ¹mall cotta¿e at Crow Creek Re¹erve into a temporarY workin¿ ho¹pital in the fall of 1890. In 1891, ¼da j. Porter, former head nur¹e at ½ampton In¹titute, wa¹ appointed a¹ a field matron. °e federal ¿overnment adopted the work and Built Crow Creek ½o¹pital.
¼ppendix
241
Home for Aged Women, Porcupine Creek (1892) ¼lmo¹t nothin¿ i¹ known of thi¹ ¹tation.
Virginia
Education of Apache students (1895) Áver the cour¹e of ¹everal Year¹, the MI¼ ¹pent $1,218.61 to educate ei¿ht Chiricahua ¼pache ¹tudent¹ at ½ampton, ¸ir¿inia.
Washington Territory
Stickney Memorial Home (1889) °i¹ facilitY, amon¿ the ¾ook¹ack (a Sali¹h triBe), wa¹ funded BY the ¾I¼ ½ome Àuildin¿ Ãepartment with a $400 contriBution from Mr¹. Leander StickleY of ¼lBanY, ¾ew Ôork. It wa¹ recommended BY john Ëennant, a Methodi¹t mi¹¹ionarY who had lived amon¿ the¹e Indian¹ for a quarter centurY.
Middle Spokane ( January 1895) ½elen Â. Clark of Canada, ¹pon¹ored BY the Rhode I¹land Âoman’¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation at Providence, Be¿an work in januarY 1895 amon¿ Chief Lot’¹ Band, a Branch of the Älathead¹. Án the five acre¹ ¿ranted BY the ¿overnment, ¹he ¹upervi¹ed the Buildin¿ of a two-room hewn lo¿ hou¹e to Be u¹ed a¹ a ¹chool and livin¿ quarter¹. Äund¹ were the ¿ift of Mr¹. Â. C. (MarY ¼manda) Greene, recentlY decea¹ed pre¹ident of the auxiliarY. Ápened on januarY 3, 1895, the ¹chool ¿rew from twentY-four ¹tudent¹ to fiftY-¹ix within month¹. °e ¹ite wa¹ tran¹ferred to the Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹ in 1899.
ÀiBlio¿raphY
Archival Sources ¼merican Àapti¹t ½i¹torical SocietY ¼rchive¹ Center. Mercer Univer¹itY, ¼tlanta, Geor¿ia. Àancroft LiBrarY, Univer¹itY of California, ÀerkeleY, California. CamBrid¿e Àranch of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation. Record¹. Àrinkler LiBrarY, CamBrid¿e ½i¹torical SocietY, CamBrid¿e, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹ Collection. Àraun Re¹earch LiBrarY, Southwe¹t Mu¹eum, ¼utrY ¾ational Center, Lo¹ ¼n¿ele¹, California. Chica¿o ½i¹torY Mu¹eum Re¹earch Center. Cu¹hin¿ Collection. Àraun Re¹earch LiBrarY, Southwe¹t Mu¹eum, ¼utrY ¾ational Center, Lo¹ ¼n¿ele¹, California. Governor Âilliam and MarY Claflin Paper¹. G¼-9, Àox 4, Mi¹cellaneou¹ Äolder j. Rutherford À. ½aYe¹ Pre¹idential Center, Äremont, Áhio. ½enrY Lauren¹ Ãawe¹ Paper¹. LiBrarY of Con¿re¹¹, Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation. CamBrid¿e Àranch. SecretarY’¹ Record¹. CamBrid¿e PuBlic LiBrarY, CamBrid¿e, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Paper¹. ½i¹torical SocietY of Penn¹Ylvania, Philadelphia, Penn¹Ylvania. j. M. Ga¹kin ½i¹torical Collection. Áklahoma Àapti¹t Univer¹itY, Shawnee, Áklahoma. jane GaY Ãod¿e Paper¹, 1882–1951. Schle¹in¿er LiBrarY, Radcliffe In¹titute, ½arvard Univer¹itY, CamBrid¿e, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation. ¼nnual Report¹. Ào¹ton PuBlic LiBrarY, Ào¹ton, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. ¾ational ¼nthropolo¿ical ¼rchive¹. Smith¹onian In¹titution, Suitland, MarYland. Quaker Collection. ½averford Colle¿e, ½averford, Penn¹Ylvania. Record¹ of the Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation. Ãivi¹ion of Rare and Manu¹cript Collection¹, Cornell Univer¹itY LiBrarY, Ithaca, ¾ew Ôork. Rutherford À. ½aYe¹ Paper¹. Rutherford À. ½aYe¹ Pre¹idential Center, Äremont, Áhio. Sheffield ½i¹torical SocietY. Sheffield, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹. Âilliam ½enrY Âeinland Paper¹. Àox 7, ½enrY Ó. ½untin¿ton LiBrarY, San Marino, California.
243
244
ÀiBlio¿raphY
Primary Sources ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY. Baptist Home Missions in North America. ¾ew Ôork: Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion Room¹, 1883. ———. Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the American Baptist Home Mission Society. ¾ew Ôork: ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion Room¹, 1879.
Baptist Home Mission Monthly. ¸ariou¹ i¹¹ue¹. Àlackall, Mr¹. C. R. Two Weeks among Indians and Glimpses of Work in °eir Behalf. Chica¿o: Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY, 1882. Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹. ¼nnual Report¹. Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC: Government Printin¿ Áffice, variou¹ Year¹. ÀrooklYn Ëemperance Union of Chri¹tian Âomen. °ird Annual Report. ¾ew Ôork: ¾. ËiBBal¹ and Son¹, 1877. Cathcart, Âilliam. °e Baptist Encyclopedia. Philadelphia: Loui¹ ½. Óvart¹, 1883. Che¹nut [sic] Street Äemale SeminarY. No. 525 Chesnut [sic]
Street, Philadelphia. Phila-
delphia: john Ôoun¿, 1850. Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY. Boarding and Day School, Philadelphia, no. 525 Chest-
nut Street . Philadelphia: ½enrY À. ¼¹hmead, 1855. ———. Boarding and Day School, Philadelphia, no. 1615 Chestnut Street. Philadelphia: ½enrY À. ¼¹hmead, 1860. Choctaw-Chicka¹aw Àapti¹t ¼¹¹ociation. Minutes of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw Baptist Association . Chica¿o: ¼merican Àapti¹t PuBlication SocietY, 1876. Commi¹¹ioner of Indian ¼ffair¹. ¼nnual Report¹ to the SecretarY of the Interior. Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC: Government Printin¿ Áffice, variou¹ Year¹. Connecticut Indian ¼¹¹ociation. Historical Sketch of the Connecticut Indian Association
from 1881 to 1888 . ½artford, CË: Äowler and Miller, 1888. Constitution of the Cambridge Branch of the Massachusetts Indian Association and a List of Its Officers and Members for 1893 with Reports by the President and Treasurer. CamBrid¿e, M¼: john Äord and Son¹, 1893. Corneliu¹, ¾ancY. “Âork for Indian Âomen.” Proceedings of the Lake Mohonk Confer-
ence of Friends of the Indian 12 (1894): 25–26. ÃeweY, MarY Ó. Historical Sketch of the Formation and Achievements of the Women’s
National Indian Association . Pamphlet. Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1900. Goddard, Martha LeÀaron. Letters of Martha LeBaron Goddard. Selected BY Sarah °eo Àrown, with Recollection¹ BY ¾athan ½a¹kell Ãole. Âorce¹ter, M¼: Ãavi¹ and Àani¹ter, 1901. ———. “°e StorY of the Ponca¹.” International Review 9 (ÁctoBer 1880): 388–404. ½ale, Ódward Ó. “°e Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation: Âhat It I¹.” Lend a Hand: A Record
of Progress and Journal of Organized Charity 1, no. 1 (januarY 1886). ½eizer, RoBert Ä., ed. Federal Concern about Conditions of California Indians, 1853–1913: Eight Documents. Socorro, ¾M: Àallena Pre¹¹, 1979.
ÀiBlio¿raphY
245
Home Mission Monthly . ¸ariou¹ i¹¹ue¹. Indian Missionary. ¸ariou¹ i¹¹ue¹. Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation Óxecutive Committee. ¼nnual Report¹, variou¹ Year¹. Philadelphia: Áffice of the Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation.
Indian Question: Report of the Committee Appointed by Hon. John D. Long, Governor of Massachusetts. Ào¹ton: Ärank Âood, 1880. Kappler, Charle¹ j. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. ¸ol. 1, Laws. Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC: Government Printin¿ Áffice, 1904. Keen, Âilliam Âilliam¹, ed. °e Bi-Centennial Celebration of the Founding of the First
Baptist Church of the City of Philadelphia, 1698–1898. Philadelphia: ¼merican Àapti¹t PuBlication SocietY, 1899. Kel¹eY, Charle¹ Ó. “Cen¹u¹ of ¾on-Re¹ervation California Indian¹, 1905–1906.” Ódited BY RoBert Ä. ½eizer. ÀerkeleY, C¼: ¼rchaeolo¿ical Re¹earch ÄacilitY, 1971. ———. Report of the Special Agent for California Indians to the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs: March 21, 1906. San jo¹e: Cleveland Printin¿ CompanY, 1906. ———. “°e Ri¿ht¹ and Âron¿¹ of the California Indian¹.” In Transactions of the Com-
monwealth Club of California, vol. 4, March 1909–januarY 1910. Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian (LMC). Proceedin¿¹, variou¹ Year¹. McCoY, I¹aac. History of Baptist Indian Missions: Embracing Remarks on the Former and
Present Condition of the Aboriginal Tribes; °eir Settlement within the Indian Territory, and °eir Future Prospects. Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC: Âilliam M. Morri¹on, 1840. Mor¿an, °oma¹ jeffer¹on. °e Present Phase of the Indian Question . Ào¹ton: Ärank Âood, 1891. ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼). ¼nnual Report. ¸ariou¹ Year¹. ¾orthern Àapti¹t Convention. Annual of the Northern Baptist Convention, vol. 9. Philadelphia: ¼merican Àapti¹t PuBlication SocietY, 1916. ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾CI¼). ¸ariou¹ puBlication¹. Á¿ontz School. English, French and German Boarding and Day School for Young Ladies . Philadelphia: ½enrY À. ¼¹hmead, 1883. Pratt, Richard ½enrY. Battlefield and Classroom: An Autobiography . ¾ew ½aven, CË: Ôale Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1964. Quinton, ¼melia Stone. “Care of the Indian.” In Woman’s Work in America, edited BY ¼nnie ¾athan MeYer, 373–91. ¾ew Ôork: ½enrY ½olt, 1891. ———. “°e Indian.” In °e Literature of Philanthropy, edited BY Äranci¹ Goodale. ¾ew Ôork: ½arper and Àrother¹, 1893. ———. °e Mohonk Indian Conference. Leaflet. Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1885. ———. Suggestions to Friends of the Women’s National Indian Association. Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1886. ———. “°e Ute Que¹tion.” Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1890. Sewall, MaY Âri¿ht, ed. °e World’s Congress of Representative Women, vol. 2. Chica¿o: Rand, Mc¾allY, 1894.
246
ÀiBlio¿raphY
Sparhawk, Ärance¹ CampBell. A Chronicle of Conquest. Ào¹ton: Ã. Lothrop, 1890. ———. “°e Indian’¹ Ôoke.” North American Review 182, no. 590 (januarY 1906): 50–61. ———. “I¹tia.” New England Magazine 17 (ÁctoBer 1894): 243–51. ———. °e Next Step: °e “Outing” Work. Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1892. ———. Onoqua . Ào¹ton: Lee and Shepard, 1892. ———. Senator Intrigue and Inspector Noseby: A Tale of Spoils. Ào¹ton: Red-Letter PuBli¹hin¿, 1894. U.S. Con¿re¹¹. ½ou¹e. “Indian Re¹ervation in San Ãie¿o CountY, Cal.” Óx. Ãoc. 296, 41¹t Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., Executive Documents Printed by Order of the House of Repre-
sentatives , vol. 12. Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC: Government Printin¿ Áffice, 1870. ———. “ÁB¹ervance of Indian ËreatY Stipulation¹.” Con¿. Rec., ¸ol. X, Part II, 46th Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., ÄeBruarY 20, 1880. U.S. Con¿re¹¹. Senate. Memorial of the Northern California Indian Association . S. Ãoc. 131, 58th Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., 1904. ———. Proceedings on the Occasion of the Presentation of the Petition of the Women’s
National Indian Association, by Hon. H. L. Dawes, ÄeBruarY 21, 1882. Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC: Government Printin¿ Áffice, 1882. ———. “Ri¿ht¹ of Indian¹.” Con¿. Rec., ¸ol. XIII, Part II, 47th Con¿., 1¹t ¹e¹¹., ÄeBruarY 21, 1882, 1327. ———. “Senator Ãawe¹ Pre¹ent¹ Petition.” Con¿. Rec., 46th Con¿., 3rd ¹e¹¹., januarY 27, 1881. ———. “Ëe¹timonY Relatin¿ to the Removal of the Ponca Indian¹.” 46th Con¿., 2nd ¹e¹¹., 1880, S. Rept. 670, Serial 1898, xix. Âa¹hin¿ton, Àooker Ë. “Indu¹trial Óducation for the ¾e¿ro.” Speech, ÁctoBer 1, 1903. Ëeachin¿ ¼merican ½i¹torY. ¼t http¹://teachin¿americanhi¹torY.or¿/liBrarY/ document/indu¹trial-education-for-the-ne¿ro/. Âillard, Ärance¹ Ó., and MarY ¼. Livermore, ed¹. A Woman of the Century: Fourteen
Hundred-Seventy Biographical Sketches Accompanied by Portraits of Leading American Women in all Walks of Life . Àuffalo: Charle¹ Âell¹ Moulton, 1893. Women’s Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1882 . Chica¿o: R. R. ÃonnelleY and Son, Printer¹, 1883. Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼). “¼ddre¹¹ of the Pre¹ident of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, Philadelphia, ¾ovemBer 17, 1885.” Philadelphia: Grant and Äaire¹. ———. ¼nnual Report. Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, variou¹ Year¹. ———. How to Organize an Indian Association . Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1988. ———. Indian’s Friend . ¸ariou¹ i¹¹ue¹. ———. Official Pamphlet of the National Indian Association, with Suggestions and Facts
for Its Helpers. Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1882.
ÀiBlio¿raphY 247
———. °e Ramona Mission and the Mission Indians. Philadelphia: Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1889.
Secondary Sources: Books ¼dam¹, Ãavid Âallace. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding
School Experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: Univer¹itY Pre¹¹ of Kan¹a¹, 1995. ¼me¹, Charle¹ Gordon. A Memorial Tribute [to Mary Hemenway]. Pamphlet. Ào¹ton: privatelY printed, 1894. ¼nder¹¹on, Rani-½enrik. °e Lakota Ghost Dance of 1890. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2008. ¼ndrew, john ¼., III. From Revivals to Removal: Jerimiah Evarts, the Cherokee Nation,
and the Search for the American Soul. ¼then¹: Univer¹itY of Geor¿ia Pre¹¹, 1992. Àahr, Ãiana MeYer¹. From Mission to Metropolis: Cupeño Women in Los Angeles . ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 1993. Àancroft, ½uBert ½owe. °e Book of the Fair: An Historical and Descriptive Presentation
of the World’s Science, Art, and Industry, as Viewed through the Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893. ¾ew Ôork: ÀountY Àook¹, 1894. Àenton-Cohen, Katherine. Borderline Americans: Racial Divisions and Labor War in the Arizona Borderlands. CamBrid¿e, M¼: ½arvard Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2011. Àloomfield, julia Keen. °e Oneidas. ¾ew Ôork: jame¹ Stewart PuBli¹her¹, 1909. Child, Àrenda j. Holding Our World Together: Ojibway Women and the Survival of Community. ¾ew Ôork: Pen¿uin, 2013. Clarke, jame¹ Äreeman. Autobiography, Diary and Correspondence. Ódited BY Ódward Óverett ½ale. Ào¹ton: ½ou¿hton Mifflin, 1892. Coleman, Michael C. American Indian Children at School, 1850–1930. jack¹on: Univer¹itY Pre¹¹ of Mi¹¹i¹¹ippi, 1993. Cooper, Ëova. °e Autobiography of Citizenship: Assimilation and Resistance in U.S. Edu-
cation. ¾ew Àrun¹wick, ¾j: Rut¿er¹ Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2015. Cott, ¾ancY Ä. °e Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman’s Sphere” in New England, 1780–1835. ¾ew ½aven, CË: Ôale Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1977. Crook, Geor¿e. General George Crook: His Autobiography. Ódited BY Martin Ä. Schmitt. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 1946. Ãavi¹, Sam P. °e History of Nevada. Reno: Ólm¹ PuBli¹hin¿ CompanY, 1913. ÃaY, Sara. Coded Letters, Concealed Love: °e Larger Lives of Harriet Freeman and
Edward Everett Hale . Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC: ¾ew ¼cademia PuBli¹hin¿, 2013. ÃeLY¹er, ÃYdia. Ramona Memories: Tourism and the Shaping of Southern California . Minneapoli¹: Univer¹itY of Minne¹ota Pre¹¹, 2005. Ãenial, Catherine j. Husbands, Wives, and the American State in Dakota and Ojibway
Country. Saint Paul: Minne¹ota ½i¹torical SocietY Pre¹¹, 2013. ÃeweY, MarY ÓlizaBeth, ed. Autobiography and Letters of Orville Dewey, D.D., D.O.,
1794–1882. Ào¹ton: RoBert¹ Àrother¹, 1883.
248
ÀiBlio¿raphY
———. Life and Letters of Catharine M. Sedgwick. ¾ew Ôork: ½arper and Àrother¹, 1871. ÃeweY, Árville. Discourses on the Nature of Religion, and on Commerce and Business. ¾ew Ôork: C. S. Äranci¹ and CompanY, 1848. ———. °e Old World and the New; or, A Journal of Reflections and Observations Made on
a Tour in Europe. 2 vol¹. ¾ew Ôork: ½arper and Àrother¹, 1836. Ãou¿la¹, ¼nn. °e Feminization of American Culture. ¾ew Ôork: ¼lfred ¼. Knopf, 1977. ÃuBoi¹, Con¹tance Goddard. A Soul in Bronze: A Novel of Southern California . Chica¿o: ½erBert S. Stone, 1900. Ólliott, Maud ½owe, ed. Art and Handicraft in the Woman’s Building of the World’s
Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893. Chica¿o: Rand, Mc¾allY, 1894. Óu¹ti¹, Ärederic ¼. Augustus Hemenway, 1805–1876: Builder of the United States Trade
with the West Coast of South America. Salem, M¼: PeaBodY Mu¹eum, 1955. ÄairBank¹, Mr¹. ¼. Â., ed. Emma Willard and Her Pupils; or, Fifty Years of Troy Female
Seminary, 1822–1872. ¾ew Ôork: Mr¹. Ru¹¹ell Sa¿e, 1898. Äarron, jame¹ M. Retrospect (A History of Penn State Ogontz Campus). ¼Bin¿ton, P¼: Penn¹Ylvania State Univer¹itY, Á¿ontz Campu¹, 1960. Äear-Se¿al, jacqueline. White Man’s Club: Schools, Race, and the Struggle of Indian Accul-
turation. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2007. Äoote, MarY Ëile¹ton Âilder. A Memorial of the Life and Benefactions of Mary Hemen-
way, 1820–1894. Ào¹ton: privatelY printed, 1927. Äox, ¾orman. Preacher and Teacher: A Sketch of the Life of °omas Rambaut. ¾ew Ôork: Äord¹, ½oward, and ½ulBert, 1892. Garland, jo¹eph Ó. Boston’s North Shore: Being an Account of Life among the Noteworthy,
Fashionable, Wealthy, Eccentric and Ordinary, 1823–1890 . Ào¹ton: Little, Àrown and CompanY, 1978. Gere, ¼nne Ru¿¿le¹. Intimate Practices: Literacy and Cultural Work in U.S. Women’s
Clubs, 1880–1920. UrBana: Univer¹itY of Illinoi¹ Pre¹¹, 1997. Goddard, Martha LeÀaron, and ½arriet Âater¹ Pre¹ton, ed¹. Sea and Shore: A Collection of Poems. Ào¹ton: RoBert¹ Àrother¹, 1874. Green, ¾orma Kidd. Iron Eye’s Family: °e Children of Joseph La Flesche. Lincoln, ¾Ó: john¹en PuBli¹hin¿, 1969. Greene, jerome ¼. American Carnage: Wounded Knee, 1890 . ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2014. ½aa¹, Li¹Beth. Saints and Citizens: Indigenous Histories of Colonial Missions and Mexi-
can California. ÀerkeleY: Univer¹itY of California Pre¹¹, 2013. ½a¿an, Âilliam Ë. °e Indian Rights Association: °e Herbert Welsh Years, 1882–1894. Ëuc¹on: Univer¹itY of ¼rizona Pre¹¹, 1985. ½auptman, Laurence M., and Gordon McLe¹ter, ed¹. Oneidas in the Age of Allotment. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2006. ½ertzBer¿, ½azel. °e Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern Pan-Indian
Movements. SYracu¹e, ¾Ô: SYracu¹e Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1971.
ÀiBlio¿raphY 249
½ewitt, ¾ancY. Southern Discomfort: Women’s Activism in Tampa, Florida, 1880s–1920s. UrBana: Univer¹itY of Illinoi¹ Pre¹¹, 2003. ½in¹leY, Curti¹ M., and Ãavid R. Âilcox. °e Lost Itinerary of Frank Hamilton Cush-
ing. Ëuc¹on: Univer¹itY of ¼rizona Pre¹¹, 2002. ———. °e Southwest in the American Imagination: °e Writings of Sylvester Baxter,
1881–1889. Ëuc¹on: Univer¹itY of ¼rizona Pre¹¹, 1996. ½oi¿, StanleY Â. °e Cherokees and °eir Chiefs: In the Wake of Empire . ÄaYetteville: Univer¹itY of ¼rkan¹a¹ Pre¹¹, 1998. ½urtado, ¼lBert L. Intimate Frontiers: Sex, Gender, and Culture in Old California . ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 1999. ½utchin¹on, ÓlizaBeth. °e Indian Craze: Primitivism, Modernism, and Transculturation
in American Art, 1890–1915. Ãurham, ¾C: Ãuke Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2009. ½Yman, Colette ¼. Dakota Women’s Work: Creativity, Culture, and Exile. Saint Paul: Minne¹ota ½i¹torical SocietY Pre¹¹, 2012. jacoB¹, Mar¿aret. White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and
the Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880–1940. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2009. judd, Àertha Grimmell. Fifty Golden Years: °e First Half Century of the Woman’s Ameri-
can Baptist Home Mission Society, 1877–1927. Roche¹ter, ¾Ô: ÃuÀoi¹ Pre¹¹, 1927. Keller, RoBert ½. American Protestantism and United States Indian Policy, 1869–82. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1983. Kello¿¿, Laura Corneliu¹. Our Democracy and the American Indian and Other Works. Ódited BY Kri¹tina ¼ckleY and Cri¹tina Stanciu. SYracu¹e, ¾Ô: SYracu¹e Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2015. Kidwell, Clara Sue. °e Choctaws in Oklahoma: From Tribe to Nation, 1855–1970. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2007. Lewi¹, ¼rnold. American Country Houses of the Gilded Age (Sheldon’s “Artistic Country-
Seats”) . Mineola, ¾Ô: Ãover PuBlication¹, 1982. Lind¹eY, Ãonal Ä. Indians at Hampton Institute, 1877–1923. UrBana: Univer¹itY of Illinoi¹ Pre¹¹, 1995. Lookin¿Bill, Àrad Ã. War Dance at Fort Marion: Plains Indians War Prisoners. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2006. Lurie, Ódward. Nature and the American Mind: Louis Agassiz and the Culture of Science. ¾ew Ôork: Science ½i¹torY PuBlication¹, 1974. Maddox, LucY. Citizen Indians: Native American Intellectuals, Race, and Reform. Ithaca, ¾Ô: Cornell Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2005. Mark, joan. A Stranger in Her Native Land: Alice Fletcher and the American Indians. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1988. Mathe¹, ¸alerie Sherer. Divinely Guided: °e California Work of the Women’s National
Indian Association. LuBBock: Ëexa¹ Ëech Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2012. ———. Helen Hunt Jackson and Her Indian Reform Legacy. ¼u¹tin: Univer¹itY of Ëexa¹ Pre¹¹, 1990.
250
ÀiBlio¿raphY
———, ed. °e Indian Reform Letters of Helen Hunt Jackson, 1879–1885. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 1998. ———, ed. °e Women’s National Indian Association: A History. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 2015. Mathe¹, ¸alerie Sherer, and Phil Àri¿andi, ed¹. A Call for Reform: °e Southern Cali-
fornia Indian Writings of Helen Hunt Jackson. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2015. ———. Reservations, Removal, and Reform: °e Mission Indian Agents of Southern Cali-
fornia, 1878–1903. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2018. Mathe¹, ¸alerie Sherer, and Richard Lowitt. °e Standing Bear Controversy: Prelude to Indian Reform. UrBana: Univer¹itY of Illinoi¹ Pre¹¹, 2003. McLou¿hlin, Âilliam G., ed. °e American Evangelicals, 1800–1900: An Anthology. ¾ew Ôork: ½arper and Row, 1968. ———. Champions of the Cherokee: Evan and John B. Jones. Princeton, ¾j: Princeton Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1990. Menand, Loui¹. °e Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. ¾ew Ôork: Äarrar, Strau¹ and Giroux, 2001. Mitchell, Ód¿ar Pa¿e. Memoirs of an Editor: Fifty Years of American Journalism. ¾ew Ôork: Charle¹ ScriBner’¹ Son¹, 1924. Mo¹e¹, L. G. Wild West Shows and the Images of American Indians, 1883–1933. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 1996. Mucci¿ro¹¹o, RoBert. Celebrating the New World: Chicago’s Columbian Exposition of 1893. Chica¿o: Ivan R. Ãee, 1993. Mumford, Lewi¹. °e Brown Decades: A Study of the Arts in American, 1865–1895 . ¾ew Ôork: ½arcourt, Àrace and CompanY, 1931. ¾ewman, Loui¹e Michele. White Women’s Rights: °e Racial Origins of Feminism in the
United States. ¾ew Ôork: Áxford Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1999. ¾utt, Charle¹. History of Worcester and Its People . 3 vol¹. ¾ew Ôork: Lewi¹ PuBli¹hin¿ CompanY, 1919. ¾Ye, Ru¹¹el Àlaine. Society and Culture in America, 1830–1860. ¾ew Ôork: ½arper and Row, 1974. Á¹Burn, Katherine M. À. Southern Ute Women: Autonomy and Assimilation on the Reser-
vation, 1887–1934. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2009. Á¹tler, jeffreY. °e Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded
Knee. CamBrid¿e: CamBrid¿e Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2004. Palmer, ÀeverlY Âil¹on, ½ollY ÀYer¹ Áchoa, and Carol Äaulkner, ed¹. Selected Letters of
Lucretia Coffin Mott. UrBana: Univer¹itY of Illinoi¹ Pre¹¹, 2002. Pa¹coe, Pe¿¿Y. Relations of Rescue: °e Search for Female Moral Authority in the American
West, 1874–1939. ¾ew Ôork: Áxford Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1990. Perdue, °eda. Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700–1835 . Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1999. Perdue, °eda, and Michael Ã. Green. °e Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with
Documents. Ào¹ton: Àedford/St. Martin’¹, 2005.
ÀiBlio¿raphY
251
Peter¹on, ¾ancY M. Walking in Two Worlds: Mixed-Blood Indian Women Seeking °eir
Path. Caldwell, IÃ: Caxton Pre¹¹, 2006. Pfi¹ter, joel. Individuality Incorporated: Indians and the Multicultural Modern. Ãurham, ¾C: Ãuke Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2004. Phillip¹, Geor¿e ½arwood. Chiefs and Challengers: Indian Resistance and Cooperation in
Southern California, 1769–1906. 2nd ed. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2014. Phillip¹, Kate. Helen Hunt Jackson: A Literary Life. ÀerkeleY: Univer¹itY of California Pre¹¹, 2003. Pre¹ton, ½arriet Âater¹. Love in the Nineteenth Century: A Fragment. Ào¹ton: RoBert¹ Àrother¹, 1873. Prucha, Äranci¹ Paul. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the
Indian, 1865–1900. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 1976. ———. °e Great Father: °e United States Government and the American Indians. 2 vol¹. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1984. ———. Indian Policy in the United States: Historical Essays . Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1981. RaiBmon, Pai¿e SYlvia. Authentic Indians: Episodes of Encounter from the Late-Nineteenth-
Century Northwest Coast. Ãurham, ¾C: Ãuke Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2005. Richard¹, Laura ÓlizaBeth ½owe, Maud ½owe Ólliott, and Älorence ½owe ½all. Julia
Ward Howe, 1819–1910. 2 vol¹. Ào¹ton: ½ou¿hton Mifflin, 1915. Ruiz, ¸icki L., and Óllen Carol ÃuÀoi¹, ed¹. Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Women’s
History. ¾ew Ôork: Routled¿e, Chapman, and ½all, 1990. RYan, MarY P. Womanhood in America: From Colonial Times to the Present . ¾ew Ôork: ¾ew ¸iewpoint¹, 1979. RYan, Su¹an M. °e Grammar of Good Intentions: Race and the Antebellum Culture of
Benevolence. Ithaca, ¾Ô: Cornell Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2003. RYdell, RoBert Â. All the World’s a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International
Expositions, 1876–1916. Chica¿o: Univer¹itY of Chica¿o Pre¹¹, 1984. Scott, ¼nne Äiror. Natural Allies: Women’s Associations in American History. UrBana: Univer¹itY of Illinoi¹ Pre¹¹, 1991. Simon¹en, jane Ó. Making Home Work: Domesticity and Native American Assimilation in
the American West, 1860–1919. Chapel ½ill: Univer¹itY of ¾orth Carolina Pre¹¹, 2006. Sleeper-Smith, Su¹an. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in
the Western Great Lakes. ¼mher¹t: Univer¹itY of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Pre¹¹, 2001. Spear¹, ÀettY. Leading the Way: Amy Morris Homans and the Beginning of Professional
Education for Women. ¾ew Ôork: Greenwood Pre¹¹, 1986. Sutherland, ¼BBY ¼. 100 Years of Ogontz: 1850 to 1950. ¾.p., 1958. ËalBot, Ódith ¼rm¹tron¿. Samuel Chapman Armstrong: A Biographic Study. ¾ew Ôork: ÃouBledaY Pa¿e, 1904. °arp, Loui¹e ½all. °e Peabody Sisters of Salem . Ào¹ton: Little, Àrown and CompanY, 1950.
252
ÀiBlio¿raphY
ËiBBle¹, °oma¹ ½enrY. Buckskin and Blanket Days. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1969. ———. °e Ponca Chiefs: An Account of the Trial of Standing Bear. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1972. ———. °e Ponca Chiefs: An Indian’s Attempt to Appeal from the Tomahawk to the Courts . Ào¹ton: j. S. Lockwood, 1887. Ëoler, Ãavid L., jr. Blood of the Band: An Ipai Family Story . San Ãie¿o: SunBelt PuBlication¹, 2015. Ëon¿, Àen¹on. Susan La Flesche Picotte, M.D.: Omaha Indian Leader and Reformer. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 1999. Ëonkovich, ¾icole. °e Allotment Plot: Alice Fletcher, E. Jane Gay, and Nez Perce Surviv-
ance. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2012. UtleY, RoBert M. °e Last Days of the Sioux Nation. ¾ew ½aven, CË: Ôale Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1963. ¸an Kirk, SYlvia. Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur Trade Society, 1670–1870. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 1983. ¸učković, MYriam. Voices from Haskell: Indian Students between Two Worlds, 1884–1928. Lawrence: Univer¹itY Pre¹¹ of Kan¹a¹, 2008. Âad¹worth, Sarah, and ÂaYne ¼. Âie¿and. Right Here I See My Own Books: °e Wom-
an’s Building Library at the World’s Columbian Exposition. ¼mher¹t: Univer¹itY of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Pre¹¹, 2012. Âa¿¿oner, Linda M. Fire Light: °e Life of Angel De Cora, Winnebago Artist. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2008. Âallace, Su¹an. °e Land of the Pueblos. ¾ew Ôork: john À. ¼lden, 1888. Âarde, MarY jane. When the Wolf Came: °e Civil War and the Indian Territory. ÄaYetteville: Univer¹itY of ¼rkan¹a¹ Pre¹¹, 2013. Âarren, Loui¹ S. God’s Red Son: °e Ghost Dance Religion and the Making of Modern
America. ¾ew Ôork: Àa¹ic Àook¹, 2017. ÂaYman, ÃorothY G. Edward Sylvester Morse: A Biography. CamBrid¿e, M¼: ½arvard Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1942. Âeimann, jeanne Madeline. °e Fair Women: °e Story of the Woman’s Building, World’s
Columbian Exposition, Chicago 1893. Chica¿o: ¼cademY Chica¿o, 1981. Âell¹, Kate Gannett. °e Household Arts Department of the State Normal School, Fram-
ingham, Mass. Ào¹ton: ¾ew Ón¿land PuBli¹hin¿ CompanY, 1900. Âhalen, Kevin. Native Students at Work: American Indian Labor and Sherman Institute’s Outing Program, 1900–1945. Seattle: Univer¹itY of Âa¹hin¿ton Pre¹¹, 2016. Âickett, MurraY R. Contested Territory: Whites, Native Americans, and African Americans in Oklahoma, 1865–1907 . Àaton Rou¿e: Loui¹iana State Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2000. Âoolford, ¼ndrew. °e Benevolent Experiment: Indigenous Boarding Schools, Genocide, and Redress in Canada and the United States . Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2015. Âri¿ht, Martha ÓlizaBeth Àurt. °e History of the Oread Collegiate Institute, Worcester,
Mass., 1849–1881. ¾ew ½aven, CË: Ëuttle, Morehou¹e, and ËaYlor.
ÀiBlio¿raphY
253
Zae¹ke, Su¹an. Signatures of Citizenship: Petitioning, Antislavery, and Women’s Political
Identity . Chapel ½ill: Univer¹itY of ¾orth Carolina Pre¹¹, 2003.
Articles and Book Chapters ¼ckleY, Kri¹tina. “Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿, Lolomi, and Modern Áneida Placemakin¿.” American Indian Quarterly 37, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 117–38. ¼ckleY, Kri¹tina, and Cri¹tina Stanciu. Introduction to Our Democracy and the Ameri-
can Indian and Other Works, BY Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿. SYracu¹e, ¾Ô: SYracu¹e Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2015. ¼hern, ÂilBert ½. “°e Returned Indian¹: ½ampton In¹titute and It¹ Indian ¼lumni, 1879–1893.” Journal of Ethnic Studies 10, no. 4 (Âinter 1983): 101–24. ¼llen, Chadwick, and Àeth ½. Piatote, ed¹. “°e SocietY of ¼merican Indian¹ and It¹ Le¿acie¹.” Special ComBined I¹¹ue, Studies in American Indian Literatures 25, no. 2, and American Indian Quarterly 37, no. 3 (Summer 2013). Àannan, ½elen. “°e ¾I¼ in the Context of Âomen’¹ ½i¹torY.” In °e Women’s
National Indian Association: A History , edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 240–67. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 2015. Àri¿andi, Phil. “In the ¾ame of the Law: °e Cupeño Removal of 1903.” Journal of
San Diego History 64, no. 1 (Sprin¿ 2018): 1–44. Àunten, ¼lexi¹ Cele¹te. “Sharin¿ Culture or Sellin¿ Áut? Ãevelopin¿ the Commodified Per¹ona in the ½erita¿e Indu¹trY.” American Ethnologist 35, no. 3 (¼u¿u¹t 2008): 380–95. Àur¿e¹¹, LarrY Ó. “Commi¹¹ion to the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹, 1891.” San Bernardino County
Museum Quarterly (Sprin¿ 1988): 1–47. ———. “Âhat I¹ a Âoman Âorth?” In °e Women’s National Indian Association: A History , edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 1–22. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 2015. Cahill, Cathleen Ã. “Makin¿ and Marketin¿ Àa¹ket¹ in California.” In °e Women’s
National Indian Association: A History , edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 126–50. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 2015. ———. “¾oBle Âomen ¾ot a Äew: °e Lake Mohonk Conference¹.” In °e Women’s
National Indian Association: A History , edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 213–39. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹. ———. “Rea¹¹e¹¹in¿ the Role of the ‘¾ative ½elper’: Chri¹tian Indian¹ and the Âoman’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼), 1905–1926.” Paper pre¹ented at the Âomen and ¼merican Reli¿ion: Reima¿inin¿ the Pa¹t conference, Univer¹itY of Chica¿o, ÁctoBer 9, 2003. CarBY, ½azel. “‘Âoman’¹ Óra’: Rethinkin¿ Àlack Äemini¹t °eorY.” In Reconstructing
Womanhood: °e Emergence of the Afro-American Woman Novelist , 3–19. Áxford: Áxford Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1987. Coward, john. “Creatin¿ the Ideal Indian.” Journalism History 21, no. 3 (¼utumn 1995): 112–22.
254
ÀiBlio¿raphY
Cu¹hin¿, Ärank ½amilton. “¾ote¹ Made durin¿ a ¸i¹it of Palowahtiwa, Âaihu¹iwa, and ½eluta at Manche¹ter-BY-the Sea, Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹, 1886.” In °e Lost Itiner-
ary of Frank Hamilton Cushing, BY Curti¹ M. ½in¹leY and Ãavid R. Âilcox, 45–78. Ëuc¹on: Univer¹itY of ¼rizona Pre¹¹, 2002. Ãana, Âilliam À. “°oma¹ Ëile¹ton, Pre¹ident of the Phoenix Àank, ¾ew Ôork.” Mer-
chants’ Magazine and Commercial Review 11, no. 11 (1864): 84–96. ÃaYton, Cornelia ½., and Li¹a Leven¹tein. “°e Ài¿ Ëent of U.S. Âomen’¹ and Gender ½i¹torY: ¼ State of the Äield.” Journal of American History 99, no. 3 (ÃecemBer 2012): 793–817. ÃeweY, MarY ÓlizaBeth. “¸i¹it of the Zuni Indian¹ to the Summer ½ou¹e of Mr¹. MarY ½emenwaY in 1886.” In A Hemenway Portfolio: Voices and Views from the Hemen-
way Archaeological Expedition, 1886–1889, edited BY Curti¹ M. ½in¹leY and Ãavid R. Âilcox. Special i¹¹ue, Journal of the Southwest 37, no. 4 (Âinter 1995): 551–65. ÃuBoi¹, Con¹tance Goddard. “°e Reli¿ion of the Lui¹eño Indian¹ of Southern California.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnol-
ogy 8, no. 3 ( june 1908): 69–186. Óllin¿hau¹, Katherine. “Mar¿in¹ of ¼cceptaBilitY: Cla¹¹, Óducation, and Interracial Marria¿e in ¼u¹tralia and ¾orth ¼merica.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Stud-
ies 23, no. 3 (2002): 55–75. Óvan¹, Âilliam Ódward. “°e Garra Upri¹in¿: Conflict Between San Ãie¿o Indian¹ and Settler¹ in 1851.” California Historical Society Quarterly 45, no. 4 (ÃecemBer 1966): 339–49. Äletcher, Ãori¹ M. “°e Pioneer of Genteel GYmna¹tic¹ for Ladie¹.” Sports Illustrated , March 8, 1865, M3–M4. Geer, ÓmilY ¼pt. “LucY Â. ½aYe¹ and the Âoman’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY.” Hayes
Historical Journal: A Journal of the Gilded Age 4, no. 4 (Äall 1984): 5–14. Gere, ¼nne Ru¿¿le¹. “°e ¼rt of Survivance: ¼n¿el ÃeCora at Carli¹le.” American
Indian Quarterly 28, no. 3 (Summer–¼utumn 2004): 649–84. Green, Chri¹topher Ë. “¼ Sta¿e Set for ¼¹¹imilation: °e Model Indian School at the Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition.” Winterthur Portfolio 51, no¹. 2–3 (2017): 95–133. Gullett, GaYle. “‘Áur Great ÁpportunitY’: Ár¿anized Âomen ¼dvance Âomen’¹ Âork at the Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition of 1893.” Illinois Historical Journal 87, no. 4 (Âinter 1994): 259–76. Gu¹¹man, ÃeBorah. Introduction to Married or Single? , BY Catharine Maria Sed¿wick. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2015. ½anink, ÓlizaBeth. “¾ancY Skenandore: ¾ative ¼merican Role Model, 1861–1908.”
Working Nurse, n.d. ¼t http://www.workin¿nur¹e.com/article¹/¾ancY- Skenandore-¾ative-¼merican-Role-Model. ½er¹hBer¿er, MarY. “MoBilizin¿ Âomen, ¼nticipatin¿ ¼Bolition: °e Stru¿¿le a¿ain¹t Indian Removal in the 1830¹.” Journal of American History 86, no. 1 ( june 1999): 15–40. ½in¹leY, Curti¹ M. “¼nthropolo¿Y a¹ Óducation and Óntertainment: Ärederic Âard
ÀiBlio¿raphY
255
Putnam at the Âorld’¹ Äair.” In Coming of Age in Chicago: °e 1893 World’s Fair
and the Coalescence of American Anthropology, edited BY Curti¹ M. ½in¹leY and Ãavid R. Âilcox, 1–77. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 2016. ———. “Zuni¹ and Àrahmina¹: Cultural ¼mBivalence in the Gilded ¼¿e.” In Romantic
Motives: Essays on Anthropological Sensibility , edited BY Geor¿e Â. Stockin¿ jr. Madi¹on: Univer¹itY of Âi¹con¹in Pre¹¹, 1989. ½in¹leY, Curti¹ M., and Ãavid R. Âilcox, ed¹. A Hemenway Portfolio: Voices and Views
from the Hemenway Archaeological Expedition, 1886–1889. Special i¹¹ue of Journal of the Southwest 37, no. 4 (Âinter 1995). ½Yer, joel. “It Âa¹ MY ÃutY to Protect the Indian¹.” Journal of the West 46, no. 4 (Äall 2007): 28–39. jacoB¹, Mar¿aret Ã. “Gettin¿ Áut of a Rut: Ãecolonizin¿ Âe¹tern Âomen’¹ ½i¹torY.”
Pacific Historical Review 79, no. 4 (¾ovemBer 2010): 585–604. jacoB¹on, Lori. “‘Ónvironed BY Civilization’: ¾I¼ ½ome-Àuildin¿ and Loan Ãepartment.” In °e Women’s National Indian Association: A History, edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 65–83. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹. ———. “°e ¾I¼ and the Órotic¹ of Reform.” In °e Women’s National Indian Asso-
ciation: A History, edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 268–86. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 2015. Kan, Ser¿ei. “Clan Mother¹ and Godmother¹: Ëlin¿it Âomen and Ru¹¹ian Árthodox Chri¹tianitY, 1840–1940.” Ethnohistory 43, no. 4 (¼utumn 1996): 613–41. ———. “Ru¹¹ian Árthodox Àrotherhood¹ amon¿ the Ëlin¿it: Mi¹¹ionarY Goal¹ and ¾ative Re¹pon¹e.” Ethnohistory 32, no. 3 (Summer 1985): 196–222. Karr, Steven M. “°e Âarner’¹ Ranch Indian Removal: Cultural ¼daptation, ¼ccommodation, and ContinuitY.” California History 86, no. 4 (2009): 24–43, 82–84. Kello¿¿, Loui¹e Phelp¹. “Âi¹con¹in ½i¹torical Landmark¹.” In State Historical Soci-
ety of Wisconsin, Proceedings of the Society at Its Seventy-Fifth Annual Meeting. Óvan¹ville, ÂI: ¼nte¹ Pre¹¹, 1928. KerBer, Linda. “Separate Sphere¹, Äemale Âorld¹: °e Rhetoric of Âomen’¹ ½i¹torY.”
Journal of American History 75, no. 1 ( june 1988): 9–39. Ladd, ½oratio Á. “°e Ramona Indian Girl¹’ School.” Wide Awake, SeptemBer 1888, 213–20. Lewi¹, Ärank Ã. “°e Âarner Ranch Indian¹ and ÂhY °eY Âere Removed to Pala.”
Overland Monthly 42, no. 2 ( june 1903): 171–73. LÕun¿qui¹t, Kent P. “Martha LeÀaron Goddard: Äor¿otten Âorce¹ter Âriter and °oreau Critic.” Concord Saunterer, n.¹., 2, no. 1 (Äall 1994): 148–56. Lomawaima, K. ˹ianina. “Ó¹telle Reel, Superintendent of Indian School¹, 1898–1910: Politic¹, Curriculum, and Land.” Journal of Indian Education 35, no. 3 (Sprin¿ 1996): 5–31. Mathe¹, ¸alerie Sherer. “°e Àanner ¼¹¹ociation: ËwentY-Äive Ôear¹ in Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹.” In °e Women’s National Indian Association: A History , edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 153–72. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 2015.
256
ÀiBlio¿raphY
———. “Ào¹ton, the Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee, and the Ponca¹.” Massa-
chusetts Historical Review 14 (2012): 119–48. ———. “°e California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion of 1891: °e Le¿acY of ½elen ½unt jack¹on.” California History 73, no. 4 (Âinter 1993–1994): 339–59, 390–95. ———. “½elen ½unt jack¹on, ¼melia Stone Quinton, and the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of California.” Southern California Quarterly 96, no. 2 (Summer 2014): 172–205. ———. “Iron ÓYe’¹ Ãau¿hter¹: Su¹ette and Su¹an La Äle¹che, ¾ineteenth-CenturY Indian Reformer¹.” In By Grit and Grace: Eleven Women Who Shaped the Ameri-
can West, edited BY Glenda RileY and Richard Â. Ótulain, 135–52. Golden, CÁ: Äulcrum PuBli¹hin¿, 1997. ———. “MarY Lucinda ÀonneY and ¼melia Stone Quinton, Äounder¹ of the Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation.” American Baptist Quarterly (Âinter 2009): 421–40. ———. “¾ew Ôork Âomen and Indian Reform.” New York History 94, no¹. 1–2 (Âinter–Sprin¿ 2013), 84–109. ———. “¾orthern California MemBer¹ and °eir Âork at the ½oopa Re¹ervation.” In
Divinely Guided: °e California Work of the Women’s National Indian Association, 78–100. LuBBock: Ëexa¹ Ëech Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2012. ———. “°e Redland¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation: °e ¾I¼ in Southern California.” In °e
Women’s National Indian Association: A History, edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 192–210. ¼lBuquerque: Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico Pre¹¹, 2015. Mathe¹, ¸alerie Sherer, and Phil Àri¿andi. “Charle¹ C. Painter, ½elen ½unt jack¹on, and the Mi¹¹ion Indian¹ of Southern California.” Journal of San Diego History 55, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 89–118. ———. “°e Mi¹chief Record of ‘La GoBernadora’ ¼melia Stone Quinton, Charle¹ Äletcher Lummi¹, and the Âarner Ranch Indian Removal.” Journal of San
Diego History 57, no¹. 1–2 (Âinter–Sprin¿ 2011): 69–96. McChe¹neY, Lea. “¼ppropriation for Cultural Reproduction: °e ¸i¹ion of MarY ½emenwaY.” Paper pre¹ented a¹ part of “¼ Centennial ¼pprai¹al of the ½emenwaY Óxpedition” at the annual meetin¿ of the ¼merican ¼nthropolo¿ical ¼¹¹ociation, Phoenix, 1988. Miller, Lari¹a K. “Countin¿ Context: C. Ó. Kel¹eY’¹ 1906 Cen¹u¹ of ¾onre¹ervation Indian¹ in ¾orthern California.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 38, no. 2 (2014): 41–66. ———. “Made in Âi¹con¹in: °e Shapin¿ of a Äederal Indian ¼¿ent.” Voyageur 33, no. 1 (Summer–Äall 2016): 11–18. ———. “PrimarY Source¹ on C. Ó. Kel¹eY and the ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation.” Journal of Western Archives 4, no. 1, art. 8 (2013). ———. “°e Secret Ëreatie¹ with California’¹ Indian¹.” Prologue (Äall–Âinter 2013): 38–45. Mitchell, Michele. “Ëurn¹ of the Kaleido¹cope: ‘Race,’ ÓthnicitY, and ¼nalYtical Pattern¹ in ¼merican Âomen’¹ and Gender ½i¹torY.” Journal of Women’s History 25, no. 4 (Âinter 2013): 46–73.
ÀiBlio¿raphY
257
¾ichol¹, Kathleen L. “½arriet Âater¹ Pre¹ton.” In American Women Writers: A Criti-
cal Reference Guide from Colonial Times to the Present , edited BY Lina Mainiero, 3:417–19. ¾ew Ôork: Ärederick Un¿ar, 1981. Paine, judith. “Sophia ½aYden and the Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ Competition.” In Women in
American Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective, edited BY Su¹ana Ëorre, 70–75. ¾ew Ôork: ÂhitneY LiBrarY of Ãe¹i¿n, 1977. Pfotenhauer, ÓmilY. “¾ow Ánline: Lace from Áneida ¾ation Mu¹eum.” Âi¹con¹in ÁBÕect: Óxplorin¿ the State’¹ Material Culture, March 17, 2011. ¼t http¹:// wi¹con¹inoBÕect.wordpre¹¹.com/2011/03/17/now-online-lace-from-oneidanation-mu¹eum/. Plane, ¼na Marie, and Gre¿orY Àutton. “°e Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian Ónfranchi¹ement ¼ct: Óthnic Conte¹t in ½i¹torical Context, 1849–1869.” Ethnohistory 40, no. 4 (¼utumn 1993): 587–618. Powell, Malea Ã. “Ãown BY the River; or, ½ow Su¹an La Äle¹che Picotte Can Ëeach U¹ aBout ¼lliance a¹ a Practice of Survivance.” College English 67, no. 1 (SeptemBer 2004), 38–60. Prucha, Äranci¹ Paul. “Indian PolicY Reform and ¼merican Prote¹tanti¹m, 1880–1900.” In Indian Policy in the United States: Historical Essays. Lincoln: Univer¹itY of ¾eBra¹ka Pre¹¹, 1981. RathBone, jo¹ephine L. “¼mY Morri¹ ½oman¹.” Journal of Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation 31, no. 4 (1960): 37–109. Reinder¹, Ëere¹a M. “Âomen’¹ Civil Improvement Ár¿anization¹ and ¸oluntarY ¼¹¹ociation.” In Encyclopedia of American Urban History, vol. 2, edited BY Ãavid Goldfield, 882–83. °ou¹and Áak¹, C¼: S¼GÓ, 2007. Scott, ¼nne Äiror. “°e Óver-Âidenin¿ Circle: °e Ãiffu¹ion of Äemini¹t ¸alue¹ from the ËroY Äemale SeminarY, 1822–72.” In Making the Invisible Woman Visible. UrBana: Univer¹itY of Illinoi¹ Pre¹¹, 1984. Skar¹trom, Âilliam. “Life and Âork of ¼mY Morri¹ ½oman¹: Pioneer and Leader in the Äield of ½Y¿iene and PhY¹ical Óducation.” Research Quarterly of the Ameri-
can Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation 12, ¹uppl. 3 (1941): 615–27. Stanciu, Cri¹tina. “¼n Indian Âoman of ManY ½at¹: Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿’¹ ÓmBattled Search for an Indi¿enou¹ ¸oice.” American Indian Quarterly 37, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 87–115. StoveY, Patricia. “Ápportunitie¹ at ½ome: Laura Corneliu¹ Kello¿¿ and ¸illa¿e Indu¹trialization.” In Oneidas in the Age of Allotment, edited BY Laurence M. ½auptman and Gordon McLe¹ter, 143–75. ¾orman: Univer¹itY of Áklahoma Pre¹¹, 2006. Sze¿hi, Ëereza M. “Scientific Raci¹m and Ma¹culine Recuperation: Charle¹ Lummi¹ and the Search for ‘½ome.’” Intertexts 17, no¹. 1–2 (Sprin¿–Äall 2013): 91–112. Ërennert, RoBert ¼. “Ärom Carli¹le to Phoenix: °e Ri¹e and Äall of the Indian Áutin¿ SY¹tem.” Pacific Historical Review 52, no. 3 (¼u¿u¹t 1983): 267–91.
258
ÀiBlio¿raphY
———. “Sellin¿ Indian Óducation at Âorld’¹ Äair¹ and Óxpo¹ition¹, 1893–1904.” Amer-
ican Indian Quarterly 11, no. 3 (Summer 1987): 203–20. ¸o¹¹, ÀarBara L. “Ãome¹ticatin¿ Imperiali¹m: Sexual Politic¹ and the ¼rchaeolo¿Y of Ómpire.” American Anthropologist 110, no. 2 ( june 2008): 191–203. Âad¹worth, Sarah, ÂaYne Âie¿and, and Melodie Äox. “Âoman’¹ Àuildin¿ LiBrarY, U.S. Ëitle¹ (¼cce¹¹ ÃataBa¹e).” Ó-PuBlication¹@Marquette, RaYnor Memorial LiBrarie¹, Marquette Univer¹itY, 2011. ¼t http¹://epuBlication¹.marquette.edu/ en¿li¹h_fac/7/. Âa¿e¹, joan ÀradleY, and Ãori¹ Âeatherford. Äoreword to Right Here I See My Own
Books: °e Woman’s Building Library at the World’s Columbian Exposition, edited BY Sarah Âad¹worth and ÂaYne ¼. Âie¿and, xi–xiv. ¼mher¹t: Univer¹itY of Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Pre¹¹, 2012. Âarren, Kim. “Separate Sphere¹: ¼nalYtical Per¹i¹tence in United State¹ Âomen’¹ ½i¹torY.” History Compass 5, no. 1 (januarY 2007): 262–77. Âelter, ÀarBara. “°e Cult of Ërue Âomanhood, 1820–1860.” In Dimity Convictions:
°e American Woman in the Nineteenth Century. ¼then¹: Áhio Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 1976. Âerlin¿, ÓlY¹e. “Keepin¿ It in the ÄamilY, Part 2: Â. R. Ómer¹on and the ½emenwaY and Óu¹ti¹ Äamilie¹.” ½i¹toric ¾ew Ón¿land. ¼t www.hi¹toricnewen¿land.or¿/ keepin¿-it-in-the-familY-part-2. Âhalen, Kevin, “LaBored Learnin¿: °e Áutin¿ Pro¿ram at Sherman In¹titute, 1902–1930.” In °e Indian School on Magnolia Avenue: Voices and Images from the
Sherman Institute, edited BY Clifford Ó. Ërafzer, Matthew Sakie¹tewa GilBert, and Lorene Si¹quoc, 107–36. Corvalli¹: Áre¿on State Univer¹itY Pre¹¹, 2012.
Dissertations Àur¿e¹¹, LarrY Ó. “°e Lake Mohonk Conference¹ on the Indian, 1883–1916.” Phà di¹¹., Claremont Graduate School, 1972. jordan, Glenn ½. “jo¹eph Samuel Murrow: °e Man and ½i¹ Ëime¹.” Phà di¹¹., Univer¹itY of Áklahoma, 1982. RomeYn, Sara ¾orthrop. “¼ Sentimental Ómpire: Âhite Âomen’¹ Re¹pon¹e¹ to ¾ative ¼merican PolicY, 1824–1894.” Phà di¹¹., Geor¿e Âa¹hin¿ton Univer¹itY, 2003. RYan, MarY P. “¼merican SocietY and the Cult of Ãome¹ticitY, 1830–1860.” Phà di¹¹., Univer¹itY of California, Santa ÀarBara, 1971. Ëetzloff, Li¹a. “‘Shall the Indian Remain Indian?’ ¾ative ¼merican¹ and the Âomen’¹ CluB Movement, 1899–1954.” Phà di¹¹., Purdue Univer¹itY, 2008. Âanken, ½elen M. “‘Âoman’¹ Sphere’ and Indian Reform: °e Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 1879–1901.” Phà di¹¹., Marquette Univer¹itY, 1981.
ÀiBlio¿raphY
Newspapers Albany Evening Journal Ashtabula (OH) Weekly Telegraph Boston Daily Advertiser Boston Daily Globe Boston Evening Journal Cambridge Chronicle Cambridge Press Cambridge Tribune Chicago Daily Tribune Christian Index Cincinnati Examiner Daily Critic (Âa¹hin¿ton, ÃC) Daily Evening Bulletin (San Äranci¹co) Daily Inter Ocean (Chica¿o) Fort Scott (KS) Weekly Monitor Hamilton (NY) Republican Journal and Messenger (Cincinnati) Macon Telegraph Madera (CA) Mercury Memphis Daily Appeal Middlebury (VT) Register National Baptist National Police Gazette (¾ew Ôork) New York Herald New York Morning Herald New York Times New York Tribune Pantagraph (Àloomin¿ton, IL) Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia Times Riverside (CA) Press and Horticulturalist Sacramento Union Saint Paul Daily Globe San Francisco Call San Francisco Chronicle Utica Observer Washington Evening Star Wisconsin State Journal (Madi¹on)
259
ContriButor¹
David Wallace Adams i¹ profe¹¹or emeritu¹ at Cleveland State Univer¹itY, where he teache¹ in the Ãepartment¹ of ½i¹torY and Óducation. ½i¹ puBlication¹ include Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding
School Experience, 1875–1928 (1995), On the Borders of Love and Power: Families and Kinship in the Intercultural American Southwest , coedited with Cri¹ta ÃeLuzio (2012), and °ree Roads to Magdalena: Coming of Age in a Southwest Borderland, 1890–1990 (2016). ½e ha¹ al¹o puBli¹hed article¹ in ¹uch Õournal¹ a¹ the Western Historical Quarterly, Pacific Historical Review, South Atlantic Quarterly , Harvard Educational Review, and History of Educational Quarterly. Phil Brigandi
wa¹ a ¹outhern California hi¹torian who re¹earched the
impact of ½elen ½unt jack¹on and Ramona. ½e ¹erved a¹ Pa¿eant ½i¹torian for the Ramona Pa¿eant in ½emet, California, from 1990 to 2003. ¼ ¿raduate of California State Univer¹itY, Äullerton, he i¹ the author of more than two dozen Book¹ on the hi¹torY of Áran¿e, River¹ide, and San Ãie¿o Countie¹. ¼lon¿ with ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, he puBli¹hed A Call for Reform: °e
Southern California Indian Writings of Helen Hunt Jackson (2015) and Reservations, Removal, and Reform: °e Mission Indian Agents of Southern California, 1878–1903 (2018). ½e al¹o puBli¹hed article¹ in the Journal of San Diego History , the Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, Orange Countiana, and the Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. ½e pa¹¹ed awaY on ÃecemBer 12, 2019, a¹ thi¹ volume wa¹ Bein¿ prepared for puBlication, and it i¹ dedicated to hi¹ memorY.
Curtis M. Hinsley i¹ Re¿ent¹’ Profe¹¹or Ómeritu¹ of ½i¹torY at ¾orthern ¼rizona Univer¹itY. ½e tau¿ht ¼merican hi¹torY and indi¿enou¹ ¹tudie¹ at Col¿ate Univer¹itY and ¾¼U for fortY Year¹. ½e ha¹ puBli¹hed more than fiftY article¹ and Book¹ on the hi¹torY of ¼merican anthropolo¿Y and archaeolo¿Y. ½e i¹ coauthor, with archaeolo¿i¹t Ãavid R. Âilcox, of °e Southwest
261
262
ContriButor¹
in the American Imagination (1996) and °e Lost Itinerary of Frank Hamilton Cushing (2002). ½i¹ late¹t Book (al¹o with Âilcox) i¹ Coming of Age in Chicago: °e 1893 World’s Fair and the Coalescence of American Anthropology (2016). ½e live¹ in Sedona, ¼rizona, with hi¹ wife, hi¹torian ¸ictoria L. Ónder¹.
Albert L. Hurtado ’¹ work i¹ primarilY aBout the hi¹torY of California and the Âe¹t, with a ¹pecial empha¹i¹ on ¾ative ¼merican hi¹torY and the hi¹torY of ¿ender. ½e ha¹ tau¿ht at ¹everal univer¹itie¹ and i¹ now profe¹¹or emeritu¹ at the Univer¹itY of Áklahoma. ½i¹ Book¹ and article¹ have won award¹, includin¿ the Àillin¿ton Prize for Indian Survival on the California
Frontier (1988), the ¾euerBur¿ ¼ward for Intimate Frontiers: Sex, Gender, and Culture in Old California (1999), and the Cau¿heY Prize for John Sutter: A Life on the North American Frontier (2006). Profe¹¹or ½urtado’¹ mo¹t recent Book i¹ Herbert Eugene Bolton: Historian of the American Borderlands (2012). CurrentlY he i¹ a con¹ultant workin¿ primarilY for California Indian triBe¹ on hi¹torical i¹¹ue¹.
Lori Jacobson i¹ the a¹¹ociate director of the Âritin¿ Re¹ource¹ Center and adÕunct lecturer in Ón¿li¹h at the Colle¿e of Âilliam and MarY in Âilliam¹Bur¿, ¸ir¿inia. She i¹ a contriButor to °e Women’s National Indian Asso-
ciation: A History (edited BY ¸alerie Sherer Mathe¹, 2015) and author of the Phà di¹¹ertation “¼¿encie¹ and ¼¹¹ociation¹: Âomen Âritin¿ Indian Reform in ¾ineteenth-CenturY ¼merica” (2007).
Valerie Sherer Mathes
i¹ a profe¹¹or emerita at CitY Colle¿e of San Äran-
ci¹co, where for more than fortY Year¹ ¹he ha¹ tau¿ht ¼merican Indian hi¹torY, hi¹torY of the ¼merican Âe¹t, and US hi¹torY. She received her de¿ree¹ from the Univer¹itY of ¾ew Mexico and ¼rizona State Univer¹itY. She ha¹ authored or coauthored more than fortY article¹ and ¹even academic pre¹¹ Book¹, includin¿ Helen Hunt Jackson and Her Indian Reform Legacy (1990),
°e Standing Bear Controversy: Prelude to Indian Reform, coauthored with Richard Lowitt (2003), Divinely Guided: °e California Work of the Women’s National Indian Association (2012), and Reservations, Removal, and Reform: °e Mission Indian Agents of Southern California, 1878–1903 (2018), coauthored with Phil Àri¿andi. She ha¹ edited °e Indian Reform Letters of Helen Hunt
ContriButor¹
263
Jackson, 1879–1885 (1997) and °e Women’s National Indian Association: A History (2015). John M. Rhea ¿raduated from the Univer¹itY of Áklahoma in 2012, and hi¹ di¹¹ertation wa¹ puBli¹hed BY the univer¹itY under the title of A Field of °eir Own: Women and American Indian History, 1830–1914 in 2016. ¼ contriButor and collaBorator on a numBer of other proÕect¹ and editor in chief, hi¹torian, of the Great Plains Journal , he died unexpectedlY on ÃecemBer 16, 2016. °i¹ volume i¹ dedicated to hi¹ memorY.
Jane Simonsen
i¹ a profe¹¹or of hi¹torY and ¿ender ¹tudie¹ at ¼u¿u¹tana
Colle¿e in Rock I¹land, Illinoi¹. She earned her Phà in ¼merican ¹tudie¹ at the Univer¹itY of Iowa. She i¹ the author of Making Home Work: Domestic-
ity and Native American Assimilation in the American West, 1860–1919 (2006) and ¹everal e¹¹aY¹ on vi¹ual culture, indi¿enou¹ hi¹torY, and women’¹ work. ¼t ¼u¿u¹tana Colle¿e, ¹he teache¹ US hi¹torY, ¾ative ¼merican hi¹torY, and ¿ender ¹tudie¹.
Index
Boston Daily Advertiser, 70, 72, 89, 95
¼dam¹, Ãavid Âallace, 8, 15, 116; on ½elen ½unt jack¹on, 20, 215, 261
Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee,
A Century of Dishonor, 46, 90, 107, 109–
82, 85, 90–91, 94–95, 118, 227; aid
10, 123, 188, 215
to the Ponca Indian¹, 82, 89–90;
A Chronicle of Conquest, 124–29
founder¹ of, 100–101n26, 101n27,
¼¿ua Caliente, 7, 8, 198
101n29
¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion Soci-
Àri¿andi, Phil, 8, 49; death of, 119; on
etY (¼À½MS), 30–37, 39–41, 48
½elen ½unt jack¹on, 20, 108, 215, 261
Àapti¹t¹, ¹tru¿¿le Between northern and
Àro¹iu¹, Samuel M., 166, 169
¹outhern, 5, 27–29
Àunten, ¼lexi¹, 18, 19
Àard, °oma¹ R., 166–167 Àellow¹, ½enrY, 58, 65
California Indian¹, xii, xiii; ¾I¼ mi¹-
Àennett, Ärance¹ Ó., 148; photo of, 147
¹ion¹ amon¿, 3, 230–34; Kel¹eY’¹
Àoardman, Geor¿e Ãana, 33, 43–44, 91,
cen¹u¹ of, 9
150, 155
California Mi¹¹ion Indian Commi¹¹ion,
Àoardman, Ólla Covell, 32, 43–44, 111,
107, 118, 163, 171
150–51, 153, 155
CamBrid¿e Àranch of the Indian Ri¿ht¹
Àoard of Indian Commi¹¹ioner¹ (ÀIC),
¼¹¹ociation, 91, 94–96
26, 91–92, 164, 168–69; dutie¹ of,
CamBrid¿e Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾I¼
177n11
affiliate), 94–95, 138
Àond, Czarina (Choctaw), 31, 36
Carli¹le Indian School, 9, 124–27, 168,
ÀonneY, ÀenÕamin Äranklin, 144, 155, 157n7
182, 192, 194, 200, 218, 222
ÀonneY, MarY Lucinda, 12, 20, 30, 36–37,
Carter, SYBil, 19,196, 216–17; lace-makin¿
40–42, 44–45, 47, 49, 91, 97, 142,
¹chool at Pala, 10,195; lace makin¿
152; a founder of the ¾I¼, 24,
at Áneida, 195–97
27, 86, 143, 149, 189, 214; Bio of, 28,
Ca¹a, Ramona, 55–57, 75n1
144–46; death of, 155–56; fir¹t peti-
Central Indian Committee. See ¾I¼
tion, 38; founder of the Che¹tnut
Channin¿, Âilliam ÓllerY, 60, 65–66,
Street SeminarY, 32, 148; marrie¹
68
Rev. RamBaut, 154–55; mi¹¹ionarY
Cha¹e, Mariné j., 43–45, 150
circle pre¹ident, 36, 39, 86, 150–51;
Che¹tnut Street Äemale SeminarY
new theorY on ¾I¼ foundin¿,
(Á¿ontz School for Ôoun¿
24, 27, 29, 213; petition work of,
Ladie¹), 32, 144, 148–49; foundin¿
34–35, 46, 151; photo of, 147
of, 146
265
266
Index
Choctaw and Chicka¹aw women, 5, 10; mi¹¹ionarie¹ amon¿, 36; role in foundin¿ of the ¾I¼, 24, 28, 49 Civil Âar, xi, 29, 59–61, 74, 143, 194
27–29, 32, 41, 86, 88, 111, 143, 149, 156 Äive Civilized ËriBe¹ (five Indian RepuBlic¹), 29, 30, 34–35, 37
Clarke, Rev. jame¹ Äreeman, 59–60, 64
Äletcher, ¼lice, 3, 12–13, 19, 111, 218
Connecticut Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 185;
Äox, ¾orman, 46, 48
fund¹ medical trainin¿ for Indian women, 187, 192–94; home Build-
Äowler, MarY Sheriff, 115, 117, 233; photo of, 115
in¿ amon¿ Ámaha¹, 190, 192; mi¹¹ionarY work of, 234–35, 238 Corneliu¹, Lavinia (Áneida), 192, 194 Cupeño¹, 6–9, 198–99, 233 Cu¹hin¿, Ärank ½amilton, 13, 55–57, 63, 76n4
GaY, Ó. jane, 12, 13, 19 ¿ender, 1, 2–9, 13, 17–18, 20, 74, 93, 98, 141, 209, 212, 219, 262–63 General ¼llotment ¼ct (Ãawe¹ ¼ct), 90, 95 Gilman, ClaraBel, 209–10, 216–17, 219,
Ãavi¹, jo¹hua Â., 95, 118 Ãawe¹, Ólecta ¼llen Sander¹on, 25, 222 Ãawe¹, ½enrY Lauren¹, 72–73, 90–91; pre¹ent¹ ¾I¼ petition, 45–46, 87 ÃaYton, Cornelia ½., 5, 10–11 ÃeweY, MarY ÓlizaBeth, 13, 19, 25, 55–58, 66–69, 72–74, 213, 218; Bio of, 65;
221–22 Goddard, Ãelano ¼lexander, 70–71, 72, 89; Bio of, 70 Goddard, Martha LeÀaron, 13, 25, 56–57, 71–73, 75, 89, 214; Bio of, 70–71; photo of, 70 Grant, UlY¹¹e¹ S., 30, 171
father’¹ influence of, 65–66; ¹ecretarY of the Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 56, 63–65, 68–69;
½ale, Ódward Óverett, 64, 72, 81n65, 89, 97
write¹ Bio¿raphY of Sed¿wick,
½allowell, ReBecca, 7–8, 19
65–66
½amilton (¾Ô) LiterarY and °eolo¿i-
ÃeweY, Rev. Ároville, 58–60, 64; Bio of, 65–66; death of, 67 Ãickin¹on, MarY Lowe, 38, 97, 111, 154 Ãietz, ¼n¿el Ãe Cora, 11–12 ÃillaYe, ½arriette ¼., 146, 148; photo of, 147
cal In¹titution, 144, 146 ½ampton ¾ormal and ¼¿ricultural In¹titute, 14, 15, 62, 187, 192, 194, 196, 222, 227, 240–41 ½aYe¹, LucY (Mr¹. Rutherford À. ½aYe¹), 150–51
ÃowneY, john, 6–7, 198
½aYe¹, Rutherford À., 42, 87, 91, 150–51
ÃuÀoi¹, Con¹tance Goddard, 108;
½emenwaY, MarY Porter Ëile¹ton, 13 ,
author of A Soul in Bronze, 114–17
25, 65, 69, 71–73, 75, 94, 213; Bio of, 57–59; ho¹t¹ Zuni Indian¹, 55–57;
Óa¹tman, SYlvia j., 148; photo of, 147 Ódward¹, MarY ½aven, 165, 167–68 Óldrid¿e, MarY Loui¹e, 238–39
philanthropY of, 60–63; photo of, 58; ¾I¼ memBer, 62–64 ½ile¹, Á¹ia jane, 12, 98, 116, 119; influenced BY Ramona, 113–114
Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church of Philadelphia,
½in¹leY, Curti¹, 13, 20, 25, 214, 261
Index
½ome Àuildin¿ and Loan Ãepartment (¾I¼), 14–15, 190, 192 ½opi Indian¹, ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion¹ amon¿, 228–29
267
cen¹u¹ of homele¹¹ California Indian¹, 170–72; death of, 176; Indian land purcha¹e¹, 174–76 KinneY, Sara, 187, 189, 192–93, 201, 218
½urtado, ¼lBert, 2, 9, 49–90, 262 La Äle¹che, Äranci¹ (Ámaha), 13, 90
Indian’s Friend, 7, 11, 17–18, 96, 115, 155, 167, 185, 189–90, 193, 197–200, 203–4, 210–12, 215–16, 218–19, 222 Indian Ri¿ht¹ ¼¹¹ociation, 83, 85, 88, 91, 107–8, 118, 132, 136, 153, 164, 166, 170 Indian ËerritorY, 27, 29–30, 34–36, 38,
LaÄle¹che, Su¹an. See Picotte, Su¹an La Äle¹che LaÄle¹che, Suzette. See ËiBBle¹, Suzette La Äle¹che Lake Mohonk Conference of Äriend¹ of the Indian, 69, 82–83, 85–86,
43–44, 47–48, 86–87, 91, 133, 150–51;
92–93, 95, 98, 111, 113, 118, 169, 173,
¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY work at,
182, 193; follow¹ Quaker prin-
235–36
ciple¹, 83, 86, 93; Kel¹eY addre¹¹e¹,
Indian ËreatY-keepin¿ and Protective ¼¹¹ociation (IËKP¼). See Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation In¿all¹, Geor¿e Âa¹hin¿ton (MaÕor), 24, 30–31, 33, 150 Ipai (of San Pa¹qual ¸alleY), 171, 180n46
174–75; photo of 1899 conference, 93 Leupp, Äranci¹ Óllin¿ton, 170, 172 Leven¹tein, Li¹a, 5, 10–11 Lon¿fellow, ¼lice MarY, 25, 90, 94 Lon¿fellow, ½enrY Âad¹worth, 90–91 Lon¿fellow, Rev. Samuel, 91, 95
jack¹on, ½elen ½unt, xi, 72–74, 90, 109, 107, 110–14, 117–19, 123, 135, 187;
Lummi¹, Charle¹, 6–9, 114, 165, 169–70, 172–73, 199; in photo, 173
author of A Century of Dishonor, 46, 107–8, 123, 188, 215; author of
Martineau, ½arriet, 13, 60, 65, 68
Ramona, 7, 107, 116, 123, 215; influ-
Ma¹¹achu¹ett¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation
ence on ¾I¼ memBer¹hip, 113–
(MI¼), 25, 63–64, 73, 90, 94;
16; Mi¹¹ion Indian work, 107–8,
½emenwaY a¹ a memBer, 63–64;
110; Ponca influence, 187–88
MarY ÃeweY a¹ ¹ecretarY, 56,
jack¹on, Sheldon, 201; Pre¹BYterian mi¹¹ion of, 16, 17
63; mi¹¹ionarY work of, 227–29, 237–38, 241
jacoB¹on, Lori, 11, 201, 262
maternali¹m, 1, 3, 7–8, 19, 13, 43, 49
jacoB¹, Mar¿aret, 2–3, 11, 48
Mathe¹, ¸alerie Sherer, volume editor, xi, 3, 20, 48–49, 83, 142, 223–24, 262;
Kan, Ser¿ei, 15, 16 Karr, Steven, 9, 10 Kello¿¿, Laura Corneliu¹ (Áneida), 8, 12, 183, 197–200; photo of, 196 Kel¹eY, Charle¹ Ódwin, xiii, 9, 20, 142, 165–70, 173–74; attend¹ LMC, 174–75; Bio of, 163–64; conduct¹
¾I¼ California re¹earch, 6, 10 Miller, Ärank ¼u¿u¹tu¹, 173; in ¿roup photo, 172 Mi¹¹ion Indian¹, 90, 107–8, 110, 113, 118, 163, 188, 199; ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY work amon¿, 232–34 Mitchell, Michele, 2, 4
268
Index
Murrow, jo¹eph Samuel, 29–31
¹pon¹ored BY Connecticut auxiliarY, 3, 187; work with ¾I¼, 187,
National Baptist (new¹paper), 24, 32–34, 36, 43–44, 46, 48, 86, 96, 150 ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation. See Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation ¾avaÕo Indian¹, ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion¹ amon¿, 227–30, 238–39 ¾ew Ôork CitY Indian ¼¹¹ociation, mi¹¹ionarY work of, 229–30, 233, 237–38 ¾orthern California Indian ¼¹¹ociation (¾CI¼), 163–70, 172–73, 175–76;
189–92, 237 Ponca Indian Committee. See Ào¹ton Indian Citizen¹hip Committee Pratt, Richard ½enrY, 9, 108, 124–25, 127,135, 168, 182; character in Sparhawk’¹ A Chronicle of Conquest, 124–25, 127; photo of, 126 Pre¹BYterian Àoard of ½ome Mi¹¹ion¹, a¹¹ume¹ ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion¹, 229–32, 235, 237–38, 241 Pre¹ton, ½arriet Âater¹, 71, 81n62
mi¹¹ionarY work of, 232; petitionin¿ of, 165–68
Quinton, ¼melia Stone, 7, 8, 20, 25, 28, 30, 35–37, 39–41, 43–44, 47, 49, 74,
Áffice of Indian ¼ffair¹ (ÁI¼), xi, 6, 7, 143 Á¿ontz School for Ôoun¿ Ladie¹, 148, 154 Ámaha Indian¹, 189–92, ¾I¼ mi¹¹ionarY work amon¿, 237 Áneida Indian¹, 12, 114, 163–64, 194, 197,
82–83, 91, 96, 108, 119, 123–24, 141– 42, 145, 155, 164, 167, 169, 233–34; a founder of the ¾I¼, 24, 27, 86, 143, 149, 154, 189; at Lake Mohonk, 93, 97–98; at the Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition, 209–10, 218; attend¹ ÀonneY’¹ death, 155–56;
200; women, 11, 192, 200; a¹ lace
compared to Âel¹h, 92, 96; new
maker¹, 195–97; photo of lace
theorY of ¾I¼ foundin¿, 24, 27,
maker¹, 202; a¹ nur¹e¹, 192–94
29, 213; on ½elen ½unt jack¹on,
Onoqua , 129–131
107, 109–13; marria¿e¹ of, 158n26; petition work of, 38, 41–42, 44–46,
Pala, 7–9, 198; lace makin¿ at, 10, 195
151–52; photo of, 37; ÂCËU or¿a-
Pa¹coe, Pe¿¿Y, 2, 3, 10
nizer, 86, 150
Phelp¹, ½elen, 144, 146, Philadelphia Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church mi¹¹ion circle. See Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ionarY SocietY of the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church of Philadelphia Philadelphia’¹ Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church. See Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church of the CitY of Philadelphia Philadelphia Union, 32, 36, 38, 40–41, 43, 45, 49 Picotte, Su¹an LaÄle¹che, (Ámaha), 11, 63, 183, 186–87, 189–90; education
RaiBmon, Pa¿e, 200–201 RamBaut, °oma¹, 46, 146, 154–55, 158n26, Bio of, 160n51 Ramona Mi¹¹ion, 108, 116
Ramona, 7, 75–76n1, 90, 107, 110–11, 113–15, 118, 123, 215, 216 Redland¹ Indian ¼¹¹ociation, 9–10, 174 Reel, Ó¹telle, 194–95 Rhea, john, 5, 10, 20; death of, 49, new interpretation of ¾I¼ foundin¿, 24–25, 213, 263
Index 269
Roo¹evelt, °eodore, 6, 8, 165
ËiBBle¹, °oma¹ ½enrY, 63, 89–90,
Scott, ¼nne Äiror, 1, 144
“true womanhood,” 85–87, 149, 214
Sed¿wick, Catharine Maria, 13, 68–69;
Ëlin¿it, ¾I¼ home¹ amon¿, 15–19,
187–88
Book¹ BY, 67; Bio of BY ÃeweY, 65, 67
201–3 ËroY Äemale SeminarY, 144–46, 149
Senator Intrigue and Inspector Noseby, 132–35
¸e¹t, Geor¿e, 27, 34, 42, 86, 149–50
SequoYa Lea¿ue, 8, 165, 170, 172 Seward, Álive Ri¹leY, 72–73
Âalton, Rudolph and Ãai¹Y, 202–3
¹exualitY, 2, 4–6, 9, 13–15, 17–20
Âarner Ranch, ¾I¼ work at, 6–10,
Simon¹en, jane, 20, 214, 216–17, 263 Sitka, ¼la¹ka, 15, 17–18; ¾I¼-¹pon¹ored home¹, 201–3, 227; photo of native cotta¿e¹, 16, Skenandore, ¾ancY Corneliu¹ (Áneida), 192–94 SmileY, ¼lBert K., 83, 92–93, 118, 169, 174; in photo, 173 Sniffen, Mathew K., 92, 95, 97, 165–66, 168–70, 176
198, 233 ÂaYland, ÓlizaBeth ¼rm¹, 32, 35, 43, 150 ÂaYland, ½eman Lincoln ÂaYland, 32–35, 38–40, 43–46; petition¹ of, 34, 38, 86–87, 150 ÂeB¹ter, jo¹ephine ½ill, (Áneida), 11, 183, 195–96; photo¿raph, 202 Âeinland, Âilliam ½., 232–34 Âel¹h, ½erBert, 91–92, 96–97, 136, 155 ÂilBur, ¼nna, 201–2, 227
SoBoBa, 115, 117, 232–33
Âinona Lod¿e, 14, 15
SocietY of ¼merican Indian¹, 12, 197,
Âilde, ¼nna Ãaw¹on, 11, 12
199–200, 207n36, 218 Sparhawk, Ärance¹ CampBell, 8, 15, 19, 108, 116, 123–24, 126, 131, 134; fir¹t novel, 124–29; head of ¾I¼ Ãept. of Indian LiBrarie¹, 123, 215; impact on Indian policY, 135–36; ¹econd novel, 129–31; third novel, 132–35 Spinin¿, Geor¿e L., 172, 174 Standin¿ Àear and the Ponca controver¹Y, 72, 82, 89, 91, 187, influenced jack¹on, 187–89
Âoman’¹ ¼merican Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY (¼À½MSÀo¹ton), 34–35, 38–40, 47, 49 Âoman’¹ Chri¹tian Ëemperance Union (ÂCËU), 1, 82, 86, 150, 168, 191, 210 Âomen’¹ Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY (ÂÀ½MS-Chica¿o), 24, 31–36, 38–42, 44, 47–49, 150; a¹¹ume¹ ¾I¼ mi¹¹ion¹, 228, 230 Âomen’¹ ½ome Mi¹¹ion(arY) SocietY of the Äir¹t Àapti¹t Church of
Stowe, ½arriett Àeecher, 107, 110
Philadelphia; 32–35, 41, 43–44, 86,
Swift, Ólvira Àrown, 31, 33, 38–39
150; ÀonneY a¹ mi¹¹ionarY circle pre¹ident, 36, 39, 153; ÀonneY
ËaBer, ¼nna ½aviland Äerri¹, 164, 170 ËaBer, Cornelia, 164–65, 172 ËiBBle¹, Suzette LaÄle¹che, (Ámaha), 11, 63, 90, 183, 186–89, 191
and Quinton a¹ memBer¹, 27, 29; Quinton’¹ petition work for, 41–42 Âomen’¹ ¾ational Àapti¹t ½ome Mi¹¹ion SocietY (¾À½MS), 37, 39
270
Index
Âomen’¹ ¾ational Indian ¼¹¹ociation
¼¹¹ociation, 47–48, 152; memBer¹
(¾I¼), xi–xiii, 1–3, 5, 9, 12–13,
attend Lake Mohonk, 93, 98;
16, 20, 21, 33–34, 62, 69, 73, 82–83,
mi¹¹ionarY ¹tation¹, 227–41; mi¹-
85–86, 89, 91, 96–97, 109, 113, 117,
¹ionarY work of, 47, 153; new inter-
123, 141, 144, 146, 182, 186–88; at the
pretation of foundin¿, 24, 28, 86;
Âorld’¹ ColumBia Óxpo¹ition,
¾CI¼ Branch, 163–64; petition¹
209–10, 212–19, 221–22; Central
of, 34–35, 38, 41–42, 44–46, 48, 87,
Indian Committee of, 44, 151;
150; Picotte’¹ role in, 187, 189–92;
Chri¹tma¹ Boxe¹, 203–4; foundin¿
promote¹ Indian craft¹, 10, 195–97;
of, 10, 143, 149; ½ome-Àuildin¿
provide¹ medical education for
and Loan Committee, 201, 214;
Indian nur¹e¹, 192–94; relation-
home Buildin¿ in Sitka, ¼la¹ka,
¹hip with IR¼, 92, 96–97
15, 17, 19, 201–3; Connecticut
Âorld’¹ ColumBian Óxpo¹ition, 209–22
Branch, 187, 192–94; hou¹e Build-
Âounded Knee, 129, 131, 191
in¿ amon¿ Ámaha¹, 190, 192, 198;
Worcester Spy, 56, 70–71
ho¹pital at ¼¿ua Caliente, 7–8;
Indian’s Friend, 7, 11, 17–18, 155,
ZaYante Indian Conference, 172, 175
167, 185, 190, 193, 197–200, 203–4,
Zuñi Indian¹, 13, 55–57, 63, 75
212, 215–16, 218, 219, 222; Indian ËreatY-Keepin¿ and Protective