All treaties and agreements

PlainsTreaty

Black Hills Agreement (Act of February 28, 1877), Lakota

Congress's Act of February 28, 1877 ratified a 1876 Black Hills agreement signed by about 10 percent of adult Sioux men.

Signed
1876-09
Senate
Ratified February 28, 1877

What happened

What happened

The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty set apart the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Black Hills, and said no cession would be valid without the signatures of at least three fourths of adult male Sioux. The Supreme Court says that in 1874 an Army expedition under Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer confirmed gold in the Hills, and the discovery was widely reported.

In 1876 commissioners led by George W. Manypenny presented the Sioux and the Northern Arapaho and Cheyenne with an agreement dated September 23, 1876. Article 1 cut the reservation's northern and western boundaries. The Indians ceded all territory outside it, "including all privileges of hunting." In return the United States promised aid, schools and subsistence rations. The Supreme Court says only 10 percent of adult male Sioux signed it, and that it traded their rights to the Black Hills and hunting land for rations "for as long as they would be needed."

Congress ratified it by the Act of February 28, 1877 (19 Stat. 254). The Act did not confirm Article 4, which called for removal to Indian Territory, and said nothing in it authorized moving the Sioux there.

In 1980 the Supreme Court called the Act, in effect, an abrogation of the Fort Laramie Treaty and held it a taking. It affirmed an award of interest on $17.1 million, the 1877 market value of the Black Hills. The Court quoted the Court of Claims on "the pattern of duress practiced by the Government on the starving Sioux."

Good to know. The phrase "pattern of duress" is the finding of the Court of Claims, as quoted by the Supreme Court.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the removal of the Sioux Indians to the Indian TerritoryAgreement with the Sioux, Arapaho, and Northern Cheyenne, 1876 (Tribal Treaties Database, OSU)
  2. signed by only 10% of the adult male Sioux populationUnited States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) (Cornell LII)
  3. the pattern of duress practiced by the Government on the starving Sioux to get them to agree to the sale of the Black HillsUnited States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) (Cornell LII)
  4. including all privileges of hunting; and article 16 of said treaty is hereby abrogatedAgreement with the Sioux, Arapaho, and Northern Cheyenne, 1876 (Tribal Treaties Database, OSU)

Research notes. The "pattern of duress" language is the Court of Claims' finding as quoted by the Supreme Court.

What happened next

Everything the record holds about this land and this treaty, in order: what earlier agreements said, what this one did, and what the United States, the courts and the nations did afterwards.

  1. 1876

    This treaty

    Signed

    Congress's Act of February 28, 1877 ratified a 1876 Black Hills agreement signed by about 10 percent of adult Sioux men.

  2. 1877

    This treaty

    Ratified by the Senate

  3. 1883

    In court

    Ex parte Crow Dog

    Federal courts had no jurisdiction to punish one Lakota man for killing another on the reservation, the Court held in 1883.

  4. 1980

    In court

    United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

    In 1980 the Supreme Court held the 1877 Act took the Black Hills from the Sioux Nation, requiring just compensation with interest.

The law behind it

The legal ideas behind the decisions, and related records without a date. Court cases and laws with a date are in what happened next, above.

  • Legal doctrine

    criminal jurisdiction

    Who may prosecute a crime in Indian country depends on who the offender and victim are and where it happened.

  • Legal doctrine

    inherent sovereignty

    Tribes' powers of self-government predate the Constitution and are not delegated by Congress, though the Supreme Court says Congress can limit or end them.

  • Legal doctrine

    claims

    The 1946 Indian Claims Commission let tribes press land and treaty claims against the United States for money, as in the Sioux case.

  • Legal doctrine

    plenary power

    Congress claims 'plenary' power over Indian affairs, upheld since Kagama and Lone Wolf; Justice Thomas has questioned it, and the Brackeen Court said it has borders.

  • Legal doctrine

    recognized title

    Where Congress by treaty or statute recognized that Indians would hold land permanently, taking it requires compensation, as in the Sioux Nation case.

  • Legal doctrine

    takings

    Native land held by treaty must be paid for if taken (Sioux Nation, 1980), but unrecognized 'Indian title' is not compensable (Tee-Hit-Ton, 1955).

Who is doing the work today

The nations connected to this treaty come first, then groups returning land and defending treaty rights. Support goes directly to them.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Sources

Sources

  1. law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/448/371legal text copy
    the principal sum of $17.1 million (the fair market value of the Black Hills as of 1877)
  2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1868)pointer

Corrections to this record

  • A note was listed as “United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) held the taking required just compensation ($15.5 million plus interest per Wikipedia, pointer). The Lakota have refused the award. Stat. cite [from-memory].”; corrected from law.cornell.eduthe principal sum of $17.1 million (the fair market value of the Black Hills as of 1877)
Research notes

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) held the taking required just compensation (interest on a principal sum of $17.1 million, the 1877 fair market value of the Black Hills). The Lakota have refused the award. Stat. cite.

Shapes are approximate and are not legal descriptions of land, title or jurisdiction.