-
3. Establishment of the Agency, 1918–1930
- University of Nebraska Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
chapter three Establishment of the Agency, 1918–1930 Finally winning the 1918 appropriation was a triumph of political organizing , but it was only the first step toward tribal rebirth. Congress had recognized the Choctaws as Indians who deserved government land and services. Within two years, however, the U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed that they were not Indians but assimilated citizens of Mississippi because they had no reservation or tribal councils and they “had adopted the manner of living of the white citizens of the state.”1 Historian Paige Raibmon has deemed this the “one drop rule of civilization ,” an ideology by which government officials can decide that any evidence of assimilation obliterates Indian identity.2 For Choctaw leaders , their manner of earning a living and lack of tribal government was irrelevant to their continuing collective identity as treaty partners with promises that the appropriation had only begun to fulfill. Thus, Article 14 lands remained at the center of Choctaw nationalism. Politicians and policy makers at the federal level were sympathetic to Choctaws’ desires for land, but conflict over convoluted land claims made resolution of their claims difficult. Nevertheless, government funds delivered much-needed support for destitute Choctaw communities. During the first several decades of the twentieth century, the federal government purchased farms for Choctaws. Unlike in most jurisdictions, the government did not regard these lands as allotments held in trust, but rather expected the Choctaws to reimburse them for these purchases. The oia also construct- 58 Establishment of the Agency, 1918–1930 ed schools, which they hoped would promote middle-class norms, not only for Choctaws but for the region’s poor whites. Choctaws, on the other hand, used these schools to fortify their communities and bolster their status as a third racial group. All of these efforts played out against a backdrop of rural poverty and racism—a setting that presented constant roadblocks to Choctaw success. As always, Choctaws negotiated these obstacles as best they could, and their communities saw slow improvements. Securing the Appropriation: Disease, War, and Paternalism The 1916 Choctaw appropriation remained unfunded until a series of events in 1918.3 The 1918 influenza pandemic devastated the Choctaws. The government estimated that several hundred Choctaws died, and 1920 census data suggests a possible twenty percent loss. The Choctaws and their allies used this grave situation to move the appropriations bill.4 The flu pandemic was important in drawing attention to the Choctaws, but Indian oral histories attribute the government’s interest to the need for manpower in the First World War. Former Choctaw Council member Baxter York believed that the federal government only “rediscovered” the Mississippi Choctaws because they were “looking for good men to fight the Germans.”5 Military conscription sparked mixed emotions and raised questions about the Choctaws’ legal standing. Several Choctaws wrote to Monsignor William Henry Ketcham, director of the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, requesting aid in resisting the draft.6 J. A. Charley, a Choctaw man from the Conehatta community in Newton County, informed the monsignor that since the Choctaws “had nothing,” they should not be obligated to go to war. Other Choctaws emphasized that Indians were not United States citizens and had no quarrel with anyone . A few of these letters explained that some white men had threatened Choctaws with arrest if they refused to register, while others had told them that they need not enlist. These Choctaws requested that Monsignor Ketcham ask the president what he wanted them to do.7 [35.175.113.125] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 16:22 GMT) 59 Establishment of the Agency, 1918–1930 Both Monsignor Ketcham and Father A. J. Ahern, the priest at the Tucker mission, sought exemptions for the Choctaws because both men believed that state citizenship did not equate with U.S. citizenship . They soon discovered that such actions were futile. “I will let the authorities know what you say about the Choctaws of Mississippi being taken into the army,” Ahern wrote to Choctaw leader Culbertson Davis. “I am afraid they will do as they please no matter what we say.”8 Some Choctaws raised enough money to send Willie Jim to Jackson, Mississippi, to inform the draft board they would not serve. Choctaws ’ failure to register for the draft prompted at least one complaint to the War Department, but no prosecutions for draft evasion followed.9 Choctaws’ resistance to conscription echoed that of their poor black and white neighbors, for lower-class southerners generally did not support the war...