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.
nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the removal of the Sioux Indians to the Indian Territory
Agreement with the Sioux, Arapaho, and Northern Cheyenne, 1876 (Tribal Treaties Database, OSU)signed by only 10% of the adult male Sioux population
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) (Cornell LII)the pattern of duress practiced by the Government on the starving Sioux to get them to agree to the sale of the Black Hills
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) (Cornell LII)including all privileges of hunting; and article 16 of said treaty is hereby abrogated
Agreement 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.
- 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.
- 1877
This treaty
Ratified by the Senate
- 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.
- 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:
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes
- Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
- Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana
- Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana
- Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
- Oglala Sioux Tribe
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Oyate)
Working with these nations
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Nation government Seeking return of about 6,700 acres at Fort Reno
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Oyate) Nation government Pe' Sla (1,942 acres, Nov 30, 2012)
- Right Relationship Boulder (Land Group) Native-led Funds tribal youth camps and gatherings, plant-gathering access, trail content with tribes, pushes for tribal… Give on their site Website
- Cheyenne River Youth Project (CRYP) Native-led Youth programs Website
- Siċaŋġu Co (Sicangu Community Development Corporation; Wolakota Buffalo Range) Native-led Sicangu Lakota economic engine incl. Wolakota Buffalo Range, food sovereignty initiative, local foods Give on their site Website
- Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation (Lakota Land Systems) Native-led Lakota-led regenerative community development on Pine Ridge: Lakota Land Systems Give on their site Website
Native legal and land defense, nationally
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
- NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.
Sources
Sources
- 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)
- 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.edu
the 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.