The US government’s official role in Indian affairs began as far back as the Continental Congress (1786) when the Indian tribes were still considered independent nations with whom the settlers had to make treaties (Jackson 1). The purposes for these interactions were to buy land and to keep peace between encroaching settlers and natives. Unfortunately, these first transactions reflected the cultural misunderstandings between the two parties that would continue to plague communication until this century (Taylor 5). The Europeans assumed the Indians viewed land in the same way—individuals owning plots of land for agricultural purposes. Most of the eastern tribes were nomadic and moved to meet seasonal needs for hunting. When the Europeans offered to buy land, the natives did not understand that they would thence be barred from the use of that land for migrating and for hunting. Even at these early stages of negotiations, conflicts arose between the two levels of government as to who had jurisdiction. The federal government alone had authority to make treaties with foreign nations, but the states had to deal with the individual tribes. This led to more local intervention by "agents" of the federal government to actually negotiate between states and tribes (Jackson 15). Another role of these agents was, as Henry Knox stated, "to familiarize Indians with the American way of living" (Jackson 20).

As the bureaucracy began to develop to meet the needs of the westward expansion, the department’s oversight was given to the Secretary of War. This did not seem to be an intentional statement of purpose but rather a decision of convenience because the Department of the Interior did not exist yet. However, Francis Prucha felt that this may have been because the Indians had been viewed as siding with the British during the Revolutionary War and thus were adversaries(319). Unfortunately, the cross-purposes of the two offices did lead to continual mismanagement. The army viewed the Indians as enemies to be annihilated when conflicts arose, while the Indian office viewed them as nations with whom to negotiate (Prucha 319). As the expansion of population and land continued, the US began to view itself as the superior resident nation and the Indians as an inferior subculture. This led to the general removal policy with the Americans having greater right to land. By 1831, the Supreme Court in settling a case with the Cherokee nation who had lost their land to the state of Georgia called the Indians "wards" of the government because they resided on US land (Prucha 192). With this shift in language, the government took on the burden of reservation management and cultural assimilation.

Eventually, with the oversight of the conflicting offices becoming overwhelming, the Secretary of War who tended to neglect the Indian office for duties of defense recommended the creation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By 1849, the office was officially transferred to the new Secretary of the Interior (Jackson 52). By now the duties were beginning to shift to a financial focus with the bureau overseeing the annuities being paid to tribes for their land and to the enculturation of the Indians. Indians were to be taught the virtues of individual land ownership (allotments) and personal responsibility (Jackson 148). Thus, treaties written during the 1800s including the provision of agricultural tools, seeds, livestock and education.

After the 1930s the oversight continued to expand to encompass "education; health; social services; land management; forestry; soil conservation; regulation of grazing; irrigation; electric power; tribal government support; law and order; loans; business, agricultural, and industrial development; tourism; employment and relocation; construction, operation, and maintenance of necessary facilities such as hospitals, schools, irrigation works, and roads; management of trust responsibilities for Indian land and Indian funds in the U.S. Treasure; and many more functions" (Taylor 52-53).

Although the modern history of the bureau has shown a more friendly attitude to its "wards," misguided idealism still plagued the decisions being made. In the 1940s and 1950s, the government began to allow more Indian participation in decision-making and in leadership (Taylor 23). By 1951, the plan was initiated to start turning over all management to the Indians. However, without any support the government termination of responsibility and management was doomed to fail. The Indians were not prepared to take the full load of leadership. Removing the vocabulary of "termination" in the 1960s, the government switched to "redevelopment" of Indians as a people of "special status" (Taylor 25).

Several problems seemed to plague the government’s relationship with the native tribes throughout its history. One is the nature of bureaucracy. As the duties expanded, so did the staff, resulting in the dispensing of political appointments and the hiring of ignorant workers who knew nothing of the tribes with whom they worked. Considering the human factor in this burgeoning endeavor of "guiding" the Indians, the bureau staff consisted of people with racist philosophies, naive intentions, ignorance, weak personalities, and overbearing personalities. Depending upon the philosophy of the head of the department at any given time, the Indians were viewed as enemies, children, wards, nuisances, pagans, or misguided saints. Also, there was and continues to be the problem of accountability with corruption and racism among the agents and the army constantly affecting Indian welfare. Too many layers of management result in those most intimately acquainted with the local problems being unable to sway those in Washington who had the clout to bring about solutions. The decisions made at the top were being made by the people most separated from the daily conditions of the Indians they were overseeing.

Basic timeline of interaction between whites and natives from 1830 on:

www.emayzine.com/lectures/chronolo.htm

www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/bia-gen.html

www.thehistorynet.com/AmericanHistory/articles/1997/02972_text.htm

www.atlnta.com/native.html

www.mc.maricopa.edu/academic/cult_sci/anthro_old/amerind.html

www.ilt.columbia.edu/k12/naha/nanav.html

http://www-library.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/native/nativepm.html

www.udayton.edu/~race/nalaws.htm

http://www.connerprairie.org/policy.html

Jackson, Curtis E. and Marcia J. Gall. A History of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Its Activities among Indians. San Francisco: R & E Research Associates, Inc., 1977.  (A good summary that tries too hard to be objective and ignores the personalities that shaped the history.)

Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Goverment and the American Indians. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.  (Excellent analysis of the history and the personalities and issues involved.)

Taylor, Theodore W. The Bureau of Indian Affairs. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984.  (Focuses on policies with good analysis and history.)