Answer: The shift in federal Indian policy to the allotment system, often referred to as the Dawes Act or the General Allotment Act, can be attributed to several factors and motivations that evolved over time. This policy shift occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States. Below are some key factors that explain this shift:
Desire for Assimilation: Many policymakers and reformers believed that assimilating Native Americans into mainstream American society was in their best interest. They saw the reservation system as an obstacle to assimilation and believed that individual land ownership would encourage Native Americans to adopt Euro-American farming practices, lifestyles, and cultural norms.
Pressure for Land: As the United States continued to expand westward, settlers and speculators coveted the vast amounts of land held by Native American tribes. This desire for access to land, especially in the American West, played a significant role in the shift toward allotment. Breaking up tribal land into individual parcels made it available for sale and settlement.
Economic Considerations: The federal government viewed the reservation system as costly to administer and saw allotment as a way to reduce these costs. By dividing tribal lands into smaller parcels, they believed that it would become more manageable and that the surplus lands could be sold or leased, generating revenue for the government.
Political and Ideological Factors: Some policymakers held paternalistic views, believing that they knew what was best for Native American communities. They believed that by breaking up reservations and encouraging individual land ownership, Native Americans would become self-sufficient and less dependent on government support.
Pressure from Advocates of Reform: Influential individuals and organizations, including religious missionaries and reformers, advocated for changes in Indian policy. They often saw the reservation system as perpetuating poverty and cultural isolation and believed that allotment would provide Native Americans with the tools to improve their lives.
Assumption of Surplus Lands: The Dawes Act operated on the assumption that there were "surplus" lands on reservations that could be allocated to individual Native Americans. This often led to the reduction of reservation lands, as any land not allotted to individual tribal members was deemed surplus and made available for sale or settlement.
Fragmentation and Loss of Tribal Lands: The allotment policy had the unintended consequence of fragmenting tribal lands and reducing the overall land base of many Native American nations. This fragmentation made it difficult for tribes to engage in traditional agricultural practices and led to the loss of valuable resources.
Resistance and Opposition: It's important to note that not all Native American communities embraced the allotment policy. Many tribes and individuals resisted allotment and fought against the policy through legal means, activism, and protest.
The Dawes Act was passed in 1887, but its effects were felt over several decades. While it was initially intended to benefit Native Americans by promoting assimilation and self-sufficiency, it often resulted in the loss of tribal lands, cultural disruption, and economic challenges for Native American communities. It is now widely seen as a flawed and detrimental policy in the history of federal Indian policy.