Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868), Lakota (Sioux) and Arapaho
The 1868 Fort Laramie treaty set apart the Great Sioux Reservation, promised closure of Bozeman Trail forts, and required three-fourths consent to any cession.
- Signed
- April 29, 1868
- Senate
- Ratified February 16, 1869
- Land set aside for the nations
- about 29 million acres
- Promises
- 2 of 2 broken or only partly kept
What happened
What happened
On April 29, 1868, at Fort Laramie, Lieutenant General William T. Sherman and other U.S. commissioners signed a treaty with bands of the Sioux Nation and the Arapaho. The Supreme Court says the treaty "was concluded at the culmination of the Powder River War of 1866-1867," in which Sioux leaders, led by Red Cloud, fought to protect their lands from settlers. The Senate ratified it on February 16, 1869, and it was proclaimed on February 24, 1869.
Article 2 set apart a district bounded by the Missouri River, the northern line of Nebraska, the 104th meridian and the 46th parallel for the "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Sioux. Article 16 declared the country north of the North Platte River and east of the Big Horn Mountains "unceded Indian territory." It promised that the military posts there would be abandoned and the road to the Montana settlements closed.
Article 12 said no cession of reservation land would be valid unless signed by at least three-fourths of the adult male Indians occupying or interested in it.
The Court's 1980 opinion tells what followed. The Black Hills, inside the reservation, held gold and silver. The Army made an expedition into the Hills in 1874. In 1877 Congress passed an Act implementing a new "agreement" and so, the Court said, "in effect, abrogated the Fort Laramie Treaty." The Court held that the 1877 Act was a taking requiring just compensation, with interest on a principal sum of $17.1 million.
What was promised, and what happened
- Broken
The Great Sioux Reservation is set apart for the Sioux's absolute and undisturbed use and occupation. (Art. 2)
thus, in effect, abrogated the Fort Laramie Treaty
law.cornell.edu - Broken
No cession of reservation land is valid unless signed by three-fourths of adult male Indians. (Art. 12)
thus, in effect, abrogated the Fort Laramie Treaty
law.cornell.edu
Good to know. Calling the 1877 Act an "agreement" is the Supreme Court's wording.
Summarized with AI assistance from 5 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.
unless executed and signed by at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians, occupying or interested in the same
Tribal Treaties Database (Oklahoma State University): Treaty with the Sioux-Brule, Oglala, Miniconjou ... and Arapaho, 1868 (Fort Laramie)shall be held and considered to be unceded Indian territory
Tribal Treaties Database (Oklahoma State University): Treaty with the Sioux-Brule, Oglala, Miniconjou ... and Arapaho, 1868 (Fort Laramie)The Fort Laramie Treaty was concluded at the culmination of the Powder River War of 1866-1867
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)thus, in effect, abrogated the Fort Laramie Treaty
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)the Sioux were entitled to an award of interest on the principal sum of $17.1 million
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)
Research notes. The sources are the treaty text and the 1980 Supreme Court opinion, which give no acreage. Later reductions of the Great Sioux Reservation after the 1877 Act are not covered here. Calling the 1877 Act an 'agreement' is the Court's wording.
What the treaty did to the land
About 29 million acres recognized, kept or set aside for the nations. Each shape is a numbered area in the federal government’s 1899 record of land cessions.
recognized as Native landabout 21 million acres
Land of the Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne and others in several states, ceded 1876 (area 597)
Recognized as unceded Indian territory in the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty, then ceded by the Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho in a September 1876 agreement confirmed by Congress in February 1877.
recognized as Native landabout 7.8 million acres
Land of the Sioux in Nebraska, ceded 1875 (area 584)
Part of the land the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty treated as unceded Sioux territory, with hunting rights, in Nebraska; the Sioux gave up these rights in a June 1875 agreement.
Linked to this treatyabout 4.4 million acres
Land of the Sioux in North Dakota, recorded 1868 (area 516)
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.
- 1868
This treaty
About 29 million acres recognized as land of the Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne and others
The 1868 Fort Laramie treaty set apart the Great Sioux Reservation, promised closure of Bozeman Trail forts, and required three-fourths consent to any cession.
- 1869
This treaty
Ratified by the Senate
- 1874
Promise broken
Fort Laramie 1868 and the Black Hills: abrogation by the Act of Feb. 28, 1877
The 1868 Fort Laramie treaty set aside the Black Hills for the Sioux; Congress took them in 1877 without three-fourths consent.
- 1875
Land lost
About 7.8 million acres ceded to the United States by the Sioux
The 1899 record: “Cede hunting privilege and all rights to certain territory in Nebraska retained by them under treaty of 1868”
- 1876
Related agreement
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.
- 1876
Land lost
About 21 million acres ceded to the United States by the Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne and others
The 1899 record: “Cede all claim to remainder of country described in article 16 of treaty of Apr. 29, 1868”
- 1877
Land returned
Black Hills (He Sapa) claim and LANDBACK Mount Rushmore campaign
The Supreme Court held in 1980 that compensation was owed for the Black Hills; the Sioux have declined the money and want the land.
- 1879
Related history
Standing Bear v. Crook
In 1879 a federal judge held that an Indian is a "person" who may seek habeas corpus, and discharged Standing Bear and his companions.
- 1882
Promise broken
Claims that failed: Cheyenne River (Solem v. Bartlett, 1984) and Omaha (Nebraska v. Parker, 2016) were not diminished
Surplus-land acts opened Cheyenne River and Omaha land to settlers, but the Court held the reservations survived.
- 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.
- 1887
Related history
General Allotment (Dawes) Act
The 1887 Dawes Act let the President divide reservations into individual allotments and buy the leftover land for settlers.
- 1887
Related history
The General Allotment (Dawes) Act of 1887 and the loss of the communal land base
The 1887 General Allotment Act broke reservations into individual plots and opened the rest to settlers, shrinking the Indian land base.
- 1889
Promise broken
Act of March 2, 1889: the Great Sioux Reservation divided and about 9 million acres opened
The Act of March 2, 1889 split the Great Sioux Reservation into smaller ones and opened about half the remainder to settlers.
- 1903
In court
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Congress could open Kiowa and Comanche reservation land without the three-fourths consent the 1867 Medicine Lodge Treaty required.
- 1904
Promise broken
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip (1977): the 1904 Act diminishes the Rosebud Reservation
Rosebud land was opened by Acts of 1904-1910 without the treaty's three-fourths consent; the Supreme Court held the boundaries diminished.
- 1944
Law
Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pick-Sloan Plan)
The Flood Control Act of 1944 approved the Pick-Sloan Missouri River plans; dams built under it flooded reservation land of several Native nations.
- 1944
Promise broken
Oahe Dam and Pick-Sloan: Standing Rock, Cheyenne River, Lower Brule and Crow Creek
Oahe Dam flooded Missouri River bottomlands on Sioux reservations; Congress paid the Cheyenne River Tribe under half of what it sought.
- 1977
In court
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip
Acts of 1904, 1907 and 1910 diminished the Rosebud Sioux Reservation, the Court held in 1977, even without the consent the 1868 treaty required.
- 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.
- 1984
In court
Solem v. Bartlett
In 1984 a unanimous Court held that the 1908 Cheyenne River Act opened reservation land to homesteaders without diminishing the reservation.
- 2012
Related history
Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations
Interior's Land Buy-Back Program bought fractional land interests from willing owners and placed nearly 3 million acres in tribal trust.
- 2012
Land returned
Pe' Sla returned to the Oceti Sakowin
On November 30, 2012, a 1,942-acre parcel bought for $9 million was returned to the Oceti Sakowin; ILTF gave $900,000 in rapid financing.
- 2016
In court
Nebraska v. Parker
An 1882 act opening Omaha land to settlers did not shrink the reservation, so the village of Pender lies within it.
- 2016
Related history
Dakota Access Pipeline and Lake Oahe (2016-2026): context, not an adjudicated treaty violation
The Dakota Access Pipeline crosses Lake Oahe near Standing Rock; courts ruled on environmental review, not on the 1868 treaty.
- 2020
Related history
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Land promised to the Creek Nation by treaty remains a reservation, so Oklahoma could not prosecute a tribal member there.
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
abrogation
Abrogation is Congress overriding a treaty: Lone Wolf (1903) allowed it, but modern courts require clear evidence Congress chose to break the treaty.
Legal doctrine
allotment
Allotment divided tribal reservations into individual parcels under the 1887 Dawes Act and opened the unallotted remainder to purchase.
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
trust doctrine
The 1831 'ward and guardian' description became a trust relationship that courts enforce for damages mainly where a statute or regulation creates the duty.
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
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).
Legal doctrine
diminishment
Only Congress can shrink a reservation, and courts require a clear statement; Solem, Hagen and Parker show how that test works.
Legal doctrine
disestablishment
Disestablishment means Congress ended a reservation entirely; courts require clear intent from Congress, and McGirt (2020) held the Creek Reservation was never disestablished.
Legal doctrine
indian country
Federal law defines 'Indian country' as reservations, dependent Indian communities and Indian allotments; the definition decides which government's laws apply.
Legal doctrine
canons of construction
Courts read ambiguous treaties in favor of tribes and as the Indians would have understood them, rules the Supreme Court has repeated for more than a century.
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
citizenship
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) held the Fourteenth Amendment did not make Native people citizens at birth; Congress declared all remaining non-citizen Indians citizens in 1924.
Legal doctrine
political status
Morton v. Mancari (1974) held that the BIA's Indian hiring preference is political, based on tribal membership, not an impermissible racial classification.
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
- Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
- Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
- Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana
- Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
- Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
- Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska
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
- Owamniyomni Okhodayapi (formerly Friends of the Falls) Native-led Dakota-led restoration and return of care for sacred St. Anthony Falls (Owamniyomni) site in Minneapolis, with… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Lakota People's Law Project (program of Sacred Defense Fund) Native-led Legal advocacy 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
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
- Honor the Earth Native-led Pipeline resistance, sovereignty, energy justice 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
- digitreaties.org/treaties/treaty/183517089reference work
Research notes
Stat. page verified by V2: 15 Stat. 635 (govinfo page 635; Senate Feb. 16, 1869; proclaimed Feb. 24, 1869). The Stat. vol. 15 OCR index misprints 685; Kappler page 998 per Wikipedia (pointer). NARA lists it as Treaty No. 369 on microfilm M668 roll 16, NAID 299803 per archives.gov, but the NARA catalog-links table shows NAID 183517089 (conflict between NAID forms). Ratification detail: 1869-02-16 (Senate)
Shapes are approximate and are not legal descriptions of land, title or jurisdiction.