Does The Concept Of 'paternalism' Accurately Describe Indian Policy During The Nineteenth Century?

The American policy towards Indians during the nineteenth century was not always consistent, it was often a series of reactions to the constant struggle of searching for a solution to the 'Indian question.' Every time an answer was formulated there were so many problems with it, that eventually it was deemed a failure. Traditionally the policies undertaken, as a whole, have been considered paternalistic in nature. Francis Prucha considered the American people to have been "abiding paternalism," which meant "providing for the Indians' needs in a fatherly way without giving them responsibility." Certainly many Presidents considered themselves to be acting on a paternalistic way; Andrew Jackson considered himself to be a great friend and protector of the Native Americans and, similarly, Ulysses S. Grant believed himself to be benevolent guardian, choosing policies that would safe guard the Indians. In contrast to this belief in a policy of paternalism, Ostler assesses the 'peace policy' undertaken by Grant to be an attempt at 'honourable expansion,' simply a manifestation of the American imperialism that directed much of their policy and was further reflected in the harsher reservation policies to follow. The assessment of whether nineteenth century Indian policy was paternalistic or essentially imperialistic is an important one to make, however, it begins with the assumption that it is either one or the other. This assumption takes for granted a particular level of coherence within the policies that, in more recent evaluations, has been deemed to be missing.

The existence of a sense of paternalism, a feeling that the American whites where looking after the Natives for their own good, originated in the minds of contemporary politicians and thinkers. According to Francis Pruha, paternalism was the honourable reaction of the politicians to outcries from 'aggressive frontiersmen;' it was the Christian response to the plight of the Indians. Evidence does tell us that, during the nineteenth century, white Americans considered the Indians to be a race far below their own who had little capacity to become civilised and who lacked the basic skills to look after themselves in the modern world of the civilised whites. As with many theories of racial superiority, the science of the time was manipulated and manufactured to support it. Dr. Charles Caldwell, a medical professor at the University of Pennsylvania and influential lecturer, conducted research on the skulls of animals and came to a conclusion that was in accordance with contemporary assumptions. He determined that, "when the wolf, the buffalo and the panther have been completely domesticated like the dog, the cow and the household cat, then, and not before, may we expect to see the full-blooded Indian civilised, like the white man." This belief in the 'animal-like' condition of the Indians led to many Americans having feelings of more than racial superiority. Many Americans did not judge the lives of Native Americans to the same standards as their own lives, their belief in the savage nature of the Indians led them to struggle to see the looting, or even murder, of Indians to be a crime. It was this mentality that allowed the politicians of the day to comment that "I have never seen a good Indian (and I have seen thousands) except when I have seen a dead Indian" without facing reverberations. It was this dangerous perception of the subordinate and expendable qualities of the Indians that contributed to many of the paternalistic policies, as attempts to protect the Indians from white aggression.

The qualities of Indian policy in the nineteenth century, and the way in which it was enforced depended very much on the particular circumstances of any given moment. The personality and beliefs of each President were incredibly influential on policy and, yet, on occasion, Presidents had to yield to the wishes of others when circumstances changed beyond their control. James Monroe was strongly opposed to the notion of relocating the Indians in the 1820s despite rising pressure for policy in that direction. Amidst the mounting concerns from, both Removalists and Gradualists, that there was no option other than relocation Monroe remained steadfast in his insistence that any relocation must be entirely voluntary and the western land acquired must be equal to that lost in the east; otherwise the policy would be "revolting to humanity and totally unjustifiable." When John Quincy Adams succeeded Monroe in the Whitehouse he was even more adamantly opposed to forced removal. Adams was a vehement legalist and, rather than out of a strong sense of moral obligation to the Indians, opposed it on the basis that it would violate earlier treaties. It was not until Jackson entered the Whitehouse that the advocates of forced colonisation found an ally in the President. Jackson, however, was not an ardent Removalist. Jackson's policy of forced removal came from a belief that he was a father figure to the "children of the forest" and was acting in the best interests of everyone involved. The Indians, particularly those that had fought alongside him in 1812, did not see it that way. Similarly to Jackson, President Grant considered himself a guardian of the Native Americans and, in his inaugural address, called for "any course towards them [the Indians] that tends to their civilisation and ultimate citizenship." Throughout his presidency Grant endorsed a 'Peace Policy' and acted with benevolence towards the Indians. His attitude towards the Indians can be attributed to his experiences with them throughout his time in the army, during which time he wrote to his wife remarking that the Indians were to be pitied rather than feared. Yet, despite Grant's determination to solve the 'Indian question' with a humanitarian approach, there were times when he had very little choice and was confined by circumstances. In 1874, following the panic of 1873, white Americans began to focus on the Black Hills in the hope of finding gold. The Black Hills, however, were the land of the Plains Sioux and had been guaranteed to them in the Treaty of 1868. After a number of failed attempts to get the Plains Sioux to either rent or sell their lands to the government, faced with a dilemma, Grant reluctantly chose to rescind on the promises of 1868. Hence, even with the best intentions of peaceful relations with the Indians, Grant's hand was forced by circumstances.

The motivations of many of the Presidents during the nineteenth century can, therefore, be attributed to a paternalistic attitude. However, the extent to which the concept of 'paternalism' can be attributed to the policies rather than motivations is questionable. Indian policy during the nineteenth century had three separate phases; separation, concentration and Americanization. While each of these strategies may have been justified by those instigating them through paternalistic notions, the reality of the policies in practice was very different. The policy of separation that had been so adamantly opposed by Monroe and Adams was finally implemented in the 1830s under Jackson. The aim of the policy was to remove the Indian presence from east of the Mississippi river by relocating them to land in the west. Many of the Indians moved voluntarily, though the use of voluntarily should be viewed with caution as they were given much 'persuasion' by the white Americans. However, it was the forced relocation of the Cherokee Indians, who had previously refused to leave, that most emphatically undermines the idea of a paternalistic approach. After many delays a group of approximately eighteen thousand Indians were transported along the route that came to be known as the 'Trail of Tears.' Thomas Crawford, the commissioner of Indian Affairs reported to Jackson that "good feeling has been preserved, and we have quietly and gently transported eighteen thousand friends to the west bank of the Mississippi." What Crawford chose to omit was the harrowing conditions of the transport and that by the time they had reached the west back their totally number of 'friends' had fallen by four thousand, almost a quarter of the total party had died on route. Private John Ge Burnett recalled that he had "fought through the civil war and seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruelest work I ever did." President Jackson may have been able to convince himself that the policies he enacted came from an honourable, paternalistic notion but those who saw their implementation and effects knew the realities. Perhaps one of the most cruel aspects of the policy of separation, however, was that within ten years of the forced relocation, the expansive greed of the white Americans was once again coveting the land the Indians were living on.

Within a decade after the Cherokee removal there was extensive expansion to the west and north. Migration fever took hold of America; in 1843 there was a substantial migration to Oregon and the 1848 discovery of gold brought huge expansion to California. By the late 1840s the Indian country was located in the middle of what would otherwise have been a unified nation, with trails cutting through it. By 1850 the Secretary of Interior recognised the policy of separation was no longer working and a new approach was devised; the policy of concentration. Essentially the policy involved concentrating all Indians into large reservations that would allow the land to be freed up for white settlers and prevent Indian interruptions along the migration trails. The reservations were to be under strict governmental control and would also mean a significant loss of land. The concentrations in the North of the Great Plains that were authorised in March 1853 took fifteen million acres of land and placed all the Indians from it into a reservation of one and a half acres. In the post Civil War years the government objectives in relation to the Indians were to continue to enforce the policy of concentration, force upon them the 'white' way of life and to have full control of affairs in the West. By March 1871 Congress voted to remove any recognition of the Indian tribes as sovereign nations, while not invalidating any previous treaties it banned the creation of any future treaties. The rights of the Indian tribes were further undermined by the actions of President Grant in his actions regarding the Black Hills in 1874. By the end of the nineteenth century the Indian policy had moved to its third phase and was focused primarily on 'Americanization.' Primarily through education there were hopes of bringing the culture and religion of white Americans to Native Americans and bring an end to their unique cultural identities.

The notion that 'paternalism' was the guiding concept behind Indian policy during the nineteenth century is an idealistic one. Though there may have been politicians that believed their actions were origination from an honourable idea of paternal protection, the impact they had could not have been further from paternalistic. The constant betrayal of the Native Americans by people that were claiming to be acting in their best interests is observed throughout this period. Edward Wynkoop, speaking about the death of Black Kettle remarked that he had "met his death at the hands of white men in whom he had too often fatally trusted." Breaches of trust can be observed through out this period, any policy implemented that then became an obstacle to white ambitions was quickly overturned or overlooked. The belief that Indian policy can be described as paternalistic can only be held by those that look at the words of those initiating the policies rather than at the realities of those policies when they were implemented.