Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes

Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
Name	Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
Formation	1893
Dissolution	1934
Type	Federal commission
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Leaders	Elias C. Boudinot; David H. Jerome; Charles H. Burke
Jurisdiction	Indian Territory; Oklahoma Territory; United States
Parent organization	Bureau of Indian Affairs; United States Department of the Interior

Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes was a federal body created in the late 19th century to negotiate with the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation (Mvskoke), and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma following Indian Removal and during the transition to Oklahoma statehood. It operated at the intersection of policies driven by figures such as Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and agencies including the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the United States Department of the Interior, influencing treaties, allotment, and settlement processes. The Commission’s work affected landmark instruments and controversies connected to the Dawes Act, Curtis Act of 1898, and the incorporation of tribal lands into Oklahoma.

Background and Establishment

The Commission emerged after pressure from members of the United States Congress, advocates like Dawes Commission supporters, and attorneys such as Elias C. Boudinot who acted amid competing claims involving the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation (Mvskoke), and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Debates in the United States Senate, interventions by presidents including Grover Cleveland and William McKinley, and rulings by the United States Supreme Court shaped its mandate. The Commission’s establishment was part of a broader federal effort tied to the Dawes Act, the Curtis Act of 1898, and aspirations for Oklahoma territorial consolidation promoted by legislators such as Thomas B. Curtis and local interests including the Boomer Movement and Sooner Movement.

Membership and Organization

The Commission’s roster included appointees with legal, political, and administrative backgrounds, among them Elias C. Boudinot, David H. Jerome, Charles H. Burke, and other commissioners drawn from offices like the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the United States Department of the Interior. Membership was influenced by presidential appointments under administrations of Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, and oversight came from committees in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Organizational ties connected the Commission with legal figures such as W. A. Durant and with lobbyists who interfaced with firms in Washington, D.C. and business interests from Tulsa, Oklahoma and Guthrie, Oklahoma.

Mandate and Functions

Charged to investigate, adjudicate, and negotiate claims over tribal citizenship, enrollment, and allotment, the Commission implemented provisions of the Dawes Act and the Curtis Act of 1898 to extinguish communal titles held by the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation (Mvskoke), and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Its functions included receiving testimony, issuing decisions on membership akin to processes in the General Allotment Act framework, and preparing records used by the United States Census and the Office of Indian Affairs. The Commission’s work interfaced with land disposition mechanisms employed by entities such as the Railroad companies and influenced settlements involving corporations from Kansas City, Missouri and St. Louis, Missouri.

Key Actions and Decisions

The Commission conducted hearings that produced rolls and finalized allotment plans, decisions that mirrored precedent from cases before the United States Supreme Court and administrative actions by the Secretary of the Interior. It negotiated or implemented settlements relating to tribal claims against the United States, adjudicated citizenship disputes like those involving the Cherokee Freedmen, and processed land patents that converted communal holdings into private property eligible for sale to settlers and developers in places such as Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Commission’s determinations intersected with legislative milestones including the Oklahoma Enabling Act and affected the administration of programs under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s era reforms.

Impact on Tribal Land and Sovereignty

By enforcing allotment and confirming rolls, the Commission facilitated large transfers of land from tribal control to non-tribal ownership, accelerating settlement by individuals associated with the Sooner Movement, Land Run of 1889, and later land markets centered in Guthrie, Oklahoma and Oklahoma City. The breakup of communal landholdings undermined traditional governance structures of the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation (Mvskoke), and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and reduced jurisdictional autonomy recognized in earlier treaties like the Treaty of New Echota and adjudicated in decisions connected to the Worcester v. Georgia lineage. Economic consequences influenced migration to urban centers, interactions with oil industry interests around Bartlesville, Oklahoma and Shidler, Oklahoma, and legal contests involving Indian Claims Commission predecessors.

Controversies and Criticism

Critics pointed to the Commission’s role in dispossession, contested procedures for enrollment such as those affecting the Cherokee Freedmen and other descendants, and alleged conflicts involving appointees with financial ties to land speculators and railroads in St. Louis, Missouri and Kansas City, Missouri. Legal challenges invoked the United States Supreme Court and claims advanced by tribal councils of the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation (Mvskoke), and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, while reformers associated with figures like John Collier and political movements during the Progressive Era advocated for changes in federal Indian policy. Scholarly debate engaged historians of American Indian policy, attorneys at the Indian Rights Association, and journalists from outlets in Washington, D.C. and Oklahoma.

Legacy and Dissolution

The Commission’s work wound down as federal policy shifted under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and as tribal governments sought restoration of self-governance, with political shifts under Franklin D. Roosevelt and advocacy by leaders such as Mabel McLarin and Clifton R. Champ. Its records remained central to litigations before bodies including the Indian Claims Commission and later cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, shaping decisions by judges and legal scholars. Long-term legacies include the rolls and plats used by the Bureau of Land Management, the legal framework debated in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia-related scholarship, and continuing disputes over citizenship, land titles, and reparative measures pursued by the Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Creek Nation (Mvskoke), and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

Category:History of Oklahoma