kimzolciakwedding.com – Grover Cleveland, the only U.S. president to serve two non-consecutive terms, is remembered for his reformist stance on many domestic issues, but his approach to Native American policy remains a subject of complex debate. Cleveland’s presidency marked a transitional period in the United States’ relationship with its Indigenous peoples. His administration’s policies oscillated between efforts to safeguard Native American rights and furthering the American government’s long-standing agenda of assimilation and land allotment.
In this article, we will explore the key aspects of Cleveland’s Native American policy, evaluate its impact on Indigenous communities, and examine whether his efforts can be classified as progress or a setback for Native American rights during the late 19th century.
The Context of Native American Policy in the 19th Century
A Century of Displacement and Broken Treaties
By the time Grover Cleveland took office in 1885, Native American tribes had been subject to decades of displacement, violence, and broken treaties. The 19th century had witnessed a concerted effort by the U.S. government to remove Native Americans from their ancestral lands to make way for European settlers, particularly as the nation expanded westward. This resulted in the forced relocation of tribes through policies like the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and later, the reservation system, which confined Native Americans to small, often inhospitable tracts of land.
While the reservations were intended as a form of protection and assimilation, they became a means to control and weaken Native American communities. As settlers encroached upon Native lands, tribes saw their territories diminished, their resources depleted, and their traditional ways of life under constant threat.
The late 19th century also saw the rise of the concept of “civilizing” Native Americans through forced assimilation. The federal government began to implement policies that sought to transform Native cultures into more Euro-American-like communities, undermining Indigenous identities in the process.
The Dawes Act and Assimilation Policies
In 1887, just before Grover Cleveland’s first term, the U.S. government passed the Dawes Severalty Act (also known as the General Allotment Act). The act aimed to break up communal tribal landholdings and divide them into individual allotments for Native families. The goal was to encourage Native Americans to adopt farming practices similar to those of European settlers, while simultaneously eroding the power and land base of Native tribes.
Though the act was initially intended to “civilize” Indigenous peoples by integrating them into American society, its effects were largely disastrous. It led to a loss of millions of acres of Native lands, which were often sold to settlers or corporations. The policy further undermined the traditional social structures of Native communities, as tribal governments were weakened, and Native Americans were forced to navigate a new, unfamiliar way of life. The Dawes Act would remain a cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Native Americans for decades, but its harmful effects were already becoming evident by the time Cleveland took office.
Cleveland’s Approach to Native American Policy
Grover Cleveland inherited a policy environment shaped by years of dispossession, treaty violations, and systemic neglect of Native American communities. His presidency was marked by some notable shifts in policy, particularly when compared to the more aggressive policies of his predecessors, such as the Indian Removal Act and the Dawes Act. Cleveland’s actions regarding Native American rights were influenced by his more personal approach to governance, characterized by an inclination toward honesty and reform.
Cleveland’s Opposition to the Dawes Act and Policy of Land Allotment
One of the key aspects of Cleveland’s Native American policy was his recognition of the negative consequences of the Dawes Act. Though he did not outright repeal it, Cleveland expressed his discontent with the law and its implications for Native communities. Cleveland understood the impact of land allotment on tribal sovereignty and the loss of Indigenous lands to outside settlers.
In his 1887 message to Congress, Cleveland urged caution in the implementation of the Dawes Act. He warned that the policy had been detrimental to Native American communities, exacerbating their economic and social struggles. Cleveland advocated for a more restrained approach to allotment, recognizing that too much land was being taken away from Native tribes and that the policy was contributing to the erosion of Native American culture and identity.
Despite this opposition, Cleveland was unable to reverse the course of the Dawes Act during his time in office. Political pressures from settler groups, land speculators, and a prevailing belief in the necessity of assimilation meant that Cleveland’s critique of the policy did not translate into substantial legislative reform. However, his concerns over the negative impacts of land allotment would continue to resonate in the years following his presidency.
The Establishment of the Indian Rights Association
Grover Cleveland’s administration saw the growth of organizations advocating for the rights of Native Americans, including the Indian Rights Association (IRA). The IRA was a prominent lobby group that worked to protect Native American rights, focusing on issues such as land protection, the enforcement of treaty rights, and better living conditions for Native peoples. Cleveland was sympathetic to their cause, and his presidency witnessed the emergence of a more visible Native rights movement.
Although Cleveland did not entirely embrace the IRA’s agenda, his administration maintained a more receptive stance toward reformist efforts to address some of the pressing concerns facing Native communities. Cleveland was open to dialogue with reform groups and saw the importance of mitigating the negative effects of previous policies. However, as with many of his other reform efforts, Cleveland’s actions on Native American issues were often more about managing the status quo than creating substantive change.
Cleveland’s Approach to the Indian Bureau
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the agency responsible for managing relations with Native American tribes, was another focal point during Cleveland’s presidency. The BIA had been long criticized for inefficiency, corruption, and poor treatment of Native peoples, and Cleveland recognized the need for reform. He sought to professionalize the Bureau and remove corrupt officials who had abused their power and mistreated Indigenous communities.
Cleveland appointed reform-minded individuals to positions within the Bureau, including some who had experience in Indian education and legal advocacy. His goal was to improve the administration of federal programs for Native Americans and ensure that resources were being allocated fairly. However, like many of his other reforms, the impact of Cleveland’s efforts was limited by political realities and resistance from entrenched interests. Although Cleveland made strides toward reforming the BIA, the agency continued to be a source of frustration and inefficiency for Native Americans throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Case of the Ghost Dance and the Wounded Knee Massacre
One of the most tragic and defining events for Native Americans during Cleveland’s presidency was the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890, which occurred in the final year of his second term. The massacre marked the culmination of a period of violent repression of Native American spiritual and cultural practices, most notably the Ghost Dance movement.
The Ghost Dance, a religious and cultural revival movement among Native American communities, was seen as a threat by the U.S. government, which feared that the movement could spark a larger uprising. In response to the growing tensions, the U.S. military intervened and massacred hundreds of Lakota Sioux at Wounded Knee in South Dakota. The event was a devastating blow to Native American communities and is often regarded as the symbolic end of Native resistance to U.S. expansionism.
Though Cleveland was not directly responsible for the massacre, it occurred under his watch, and the event further highlighted the disconnect between U.S. government policy and the realities faced by Native peoples. Cleveland’s administration did not take strong steps to prevent the violence, and the massacre became an enduring symbol of the brutal consequences of the U.S. government’s treatment of Indigenous peoples.
The Legacy of Cleveland’s Native American Policy
Progress or Setback?
Grover Cleveland’s approach to Native American policy presents a mixed legacy. On the one hand, Cleveland was a president who expressed a degree of sympathy for Native Americans and was critical of the policies that had undermined their sovereignty. He opposed the unchecked expansion of land allotments and attempted to rein in the excesses of the Dawes Act. He also took steps to reform the Bureau of Indian Affairs and showed openness to the ideas of reform groups.
On the other hand, Cleveland’s presidency did little to substantially change the course of U.S. policy toward Native Americans. He was unable to repeal the Dawes Act or secure the protection of Native American lands in the face of growing settler demands. His efforts were constrained by political pressures, and his administration was marked by the continuation of policies that ultimately led to further assimilation and cultural erosion for Native peoples. The Wounded Knee Massacre, which took place during his second term, underscored the tragic and violent reality of U.S. government actions against Indigenous communities.
In terms of policy outcomes, Cleveland’s tenure did not lead to significant progress for Native Americans. While he expressed concern over their treatment, his actions were insufficient to alter the trajectory of U.S.-Native American relations. The policy of assimilation continued, and Native American tribes continued to lose their lands, sovereignty, and way of life.
Lasting Effects
Despite his limited success in achieving meaningful reform, Grover Cleveland’s administration contributed to a broader conversation about Native American rights and the need for change. His opposition to unchecked land allotment and his attempts at reforming the Bureau of Indian Affairs foreshadowed future efforts in the 20th century to address the injustices suffered by Native communities. However, it would take many more decades before Native American sovereignty and rights began to gain the attention and respect they deserved from the federal government.
In conclusion, Grover Cleveland’s Native American policy was marked by well-meaning but ultimately limited efforts at reform. His presidency cannot be considered a major turning point in Native American history, but it did reflect a growing awareness of the need to rethink the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the United States. Despite facing immense challenges, Cleveland’s actions did offer some hope for reform in a deeply flawed system, but progress for Native Americans would remain slow and painful for many years to come.
