Indian Relocation Act of 1956

Indian Relocation Act of 1956
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Indian Relocation Act of 1956
Enacted by	84th United States Congress
Effective	1956
Public law	Public Law 959
Introduced in	United States Congress
Signed by	Dwight D. Eisenhower
Status	repealed/deprecated

Indian Relocation Act of 1956 The Indian Relocation Act of 1956 was a United States federal law that provided incentives for Native Americans to move from reservations to select urban centers. It operated within a mid-20th-century policy environment shaped by Franklin D. Roosevelt-era programs, Harry S. Truman-era commissions, and the Eisenhower administration’s broader termination and assimilation objectives. The law intersected with contemporaneous initiatives such as Public Law 280, the House Concurrent Resolution 108, and policies advanced by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Background and Legislative History

Congress debated relocation amid debates over Termination policy (United States) and assimilation promoted by actors including the Indian Claims Commission and the William T. Coleman Jr.-era legal circles. Legislative momentum built after studies by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, reports referencing the Meriam Report, and testimony from representatives of tribes such as the Navajo Nation, the Lakota people, and the Pueblo peoples. Sponsors in the 84th United States Congress framed the bill alongside measures affecting Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act precursors and programs involving the Office of Economic Opportunity. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the measure into law amid coordination with the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, reflecting policy currents also evident in actions by state actors such as California and Oregon that were grappling with urban migration trends.

Provisions of the Act

The Act authorized funding mechanisms and grants administered through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to facilitate voluntary relocation to specified urban areas like Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, and New York City. It provided vocational training linked to War on Poverty-era employment programs and coordination with agencies including the United States Employment Service and the Veterans Administration for eligible veterans. The statutory language permitted assistance for housing, transportation, counseling, and job placement, and it envisioned partnerships with local agencies and entities such as municipal housing authorities in Seattle and Phoenix. The law did not abolish tribal status, but its provisions operated alongside termination policy (United States) statutes and intersected with rights adjudicated before the United States Supreme Court in cases involving tribal jurisdiction.

Implementation and Federal Programs

Implementation relied on regional BIA relocation offices that funneled applicants into urban labor markets coordinated with organizations such as the Urban League, Catholic Charities, and tribal advocacy groups like the National Congress of American Indians. Federal cooperation included elements of the Social Security Administration for benefits coordination and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for welfare and education referrals. Programs utilized vocational schools, community colleges such as Diné College precursors, and job-training centers modeled after Job Corps sites. Implementation varied across regions served by BIA districts covering areas including the Four Corners region, the Great Plains, and the Southwest, with measurable migration flows toward metropolitan hubs including Denver and San Francisco.

Impact on Native American Communities

Relocation altered demographic patterns for nations such as the Ojibwe, Pueblo, Cherokee Nation, and Choctaw Nation by increasing urban Native populations in cities like Minneapolis–Saint Paul and Albuquerque. Economic outcomes were mixed: some participants accessed employment in sectors dominated by firms such as Union Pacific Railroad-related industries, municipal services, and manufacturing employers, while others faced underemployment and discrimination reminiscent of barriers documented in civil rights struggles involving entities like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Social effects included strains on tribal kinship networks, challenges for tribal governments including the Navajo Nation Council and the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act-era institutions, and cultural adaptations mediated by urban Indian centers that later affiliated with national organizations including the American Indian Movement.

Criticism, Opposition, and Legal Challenges

Critics included tribal leaders from the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, activists associated with the National Congress of American Indians, and legal advocates who argued the policy mirrored termination-era objectives. Opposition drew on constitutional claims and administrative law challenges before tribunals including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and constitutional issues ultimately considered by the United States Supreme Court in related Indian law precedents. Scholars and litigants cited harms that echoed controversies in cases involving Worcester v. Georgia-era jurisdictional doctrines and later rulings concerning tribal sovereignty such as California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.

Legacy and Long-term Effects

The Act’s legacy includes the substantial urbanization of Native populations that led to the formation of enduring urban Indian organizations in cities like Chicago and Portland, shifts in lobbying power within groups like the National Indian Education Association, and contributions to movements exemplified by the Trails of Broken Treaties caravan. Long-term policy ramifications influenced later legislation such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and informed Supreme Court jurisprudence in cases involving tribal jurisdiction and federal obligations. Demographic, cultural, and political transformations stemming from mid-20th-century relocation continue to affect contemporary institutions including tribal colleges, urban Indian health clinics, and intergovernmental relations involving the Department of the Interior and tribal governments.

Category:United States federal legislation Category:Native American history