The Oklahoma Bar Journal April 2024

by individual tribe members.” 6 There were varying motivations for the allotment policy, but the central animating features were a desire to assimilate Indian tribes and peoples to Western norms and institutions and to free Indian land for non- Indian settlement. 7 “[A]dvocates of the policy believed that individual ownership of property would turn the Indians from a savage, primi tive, tribal way of life to a settled, agrarian, and civilized one.” 8 “[W]ith lands in individual hands and (eventually) freely alienable, white settlers would have more space of their own.” 9 The allotment policy proved disastrous for Indian tribes and tribal members. Almost immedi ately, approximately 60 million acres of “surplus land” left after individual tribal members received their allotments were opened to non-Indian settlement. 10 An addi tional 27 million acres passed into non-Indian hands through the

of incorporation. 17 It facilitated the rebuilding of tribal land bases by authorizing the purchase of lands for tribes to be held in trust for their benefit by the United States. 18 Despite these advances, however, “Congress made no attempt to undo the dramatic effects of the allotment years on the ownership of former Indian lands.” 19 FRACTIONATION Allotment was not only harm ful because of the literal loss of land. Even for those allotments that remained – and continue to remain – in Indian hands, the policy nevertheless has resulted in “constructive dispossession” 20 Indian families may continue to own their allotments, but because that ownership often is shared among hundreds if not thousands of co-owners, “the result on the ground is realistic deprivation of through the fractionation of ownership of allotted lands.

removal of restrictions on the alien ation of allotments. 11 The removal of these restrictions freed the allot ments from federal supervision and also subjected them to state taxation. 12 Subsequently, “[t]hou sands of Indian owners disposed of their lands by voluntary or fraud ulent sales; many others lost their lands at sheriffs’ sales for nonpay ment of taxes or other liens.” 13 Recognizing the deleterious effects allotment had on Indian tribes and their lands, Congress repudiated the policy in 1934 with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act. 14 The first section of the act provided that “hereafter no land of any Indian res ervation ... shall be allotted in sever alty to any Indian.” 15 It extended the trust period of allotments indef initely and restored any unsold surplus lands to tribal ownership. 16 It authorized tribes to reorganize through the adoption of consti tutions and bylaws and charters

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

APRIL 2024 | 29

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL