In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century 134 was seized in the 1877 act, along with the Black Hills, thus entitling the Sioux tribes to interest on the award if they should accept compensation.29 Attempting to find a resolution to the Black Hills controversy, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey introduced a bill in Congress during early 1987. On March 10, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii cosponsored the bill known as S.R. 705, and Bradley reintroduced it. In the House of Representatives, James Howard of New Jersey cosponsored the Bradley bill (H.R. 1506) with Congressmen Morris Udall of Arizona and George Miller of California. The bill involved returning 1.3 million acres of federal land, including the Black Hills, to the Sioux.30 Throughout Indian Country and in Washington, D.C., the Black Hills controversy aroused attention, and it was the focus of the meeting of the Aberdeen area tribal chairmen’s association at Pierre, South Dakota, in August 1987. During the meeting, a mild shock occurred when, in the middle of August, Los Angeles millionaire Philip Stevens, who claimed to be the great-grandson of Oglala leader Standing Bear, offered a plan to the chairmen and then asked to be appointed their “chief negotiator.” Stevens claimed, “I guarantee that by the [national] election [of 1988], I will get you the Black Hills and $3 billion.”31 The tribal chairmen made no immediate response but announced that they would take this proposition back to their tribal councils. Surprisingly, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council adopted a resolution rejecting Stevens’s proposition.32 Stevens’s hard-line proposal was not easily dismissed. During the first week in October 1987, Gerald M. Clifford of the Black Hills Steering Committee went to Washington, D.C., with Philip Stevens and Mario Gonzales, counsel for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, to meet with staff members in the Senate, House, and Senator Bradley’s office to discuss the possibility of the Stevens plan.33 A couple of weeks later, on October 20, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council adopted a resolution supporting Stevens and his plan. Furthermore , the council directed the Steering Committee in Washington to support Stevens. This course of action caused some difficulty with delegates of the Steering Committee, and they did not meet again to discuss the Stevens proposition. Clifford was suspicious of Stevens’s promise and doubted his claim of being the great-grandson of Standing Bear. About the same time, U.S. Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota organized the Open Hills Association to oppose the Bradley bill and any land return of the Black Hills.34 Factions with diverse opinions began emerging, representing certain Lakota tribes and elements within the tribes. In November, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council held a fo- 135 Controversy and Spirituality in the Black Hills rum to disseminate information on the Black Hills controversy. Taking no action, the Standing Rock Sioux maintained their previous position of support for the Bradley bill and the Black Hills Steering Committee. During the same month, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council adopted a resolution requesting Bradley to reintroduce the Sioux Nation Black Hills bill.35 Disunited, the Lakota tribes saw no answer in the near future, except for the return of the Black Hills. On December 9, 1987, the Lakota Times took a poll among the Sioux people to learn of their opinions on the Black Hills controversy. A surprising nineteen percent of the respondents wanted to accept the $1.3 million in compensation for the Black Hills. Calculated on a per capita basis, this would give the Sioux $2,800 each.36 On December 23, a forum was held in South Dakota to discuss the effects of the Bradley bill. Gerald Clifford, coordinator of the Black Hills Steering Committee, which supported the measure, described the bill as a reconciliation between the Sioux and non-Indians. He argued that racial tension clouded the Black Hills issue in South Dakota and stated that he hoped to bring a settlement and put an end to the racial tension between Indians and whites, a tension that had been brewing for more than 100 years. The Bradley bill had not been resolved when the congressional session ended; it would have to be considered the following year.37 In February 1988, Senator Bradley sent a letter to the Black Hills Steering Committee, stating in part that “I will not amend my bill, S.R. 705, to include additional millions or billions.”38 The...

Share