Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Violation

Ponca: 1858 treaty, the 1868 land error, 1877 removal and Standing Bear v. Crook (1879)

Not yet reviewed by this nation. What follows comes from public records and research. It does not speak for the nation.

An 1858 treaty promised Ponca protection on their land; the US removed them in 1877 and a third of the tribe died.

Treaty
Treaty with the Ponca, 12 Stat. 997
Nations
Ponca (Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma)
When
1868-1881
Land affected
The Niobrara reservation (temporarily); about a third of the tribe in 1877-78.
Acreage
about 26,236 acres restored in 1881

What happened

In the Treaty with the Ponca (signed March 12, 1858; ratified March 8, 1859; 12 Stat. 997), the Ponca ceded most of their homeland. In Article 2 the United States agreed "to protect the Poncas in the possession of the tract of land reserved for their future homes, and their persons and property thereon," during good behavior on their part. The National Park Service (NPS) says the reserved tract was about 58,000 acres.

The NPS says the United States "did little to protect them" from attacks by the Brule Sioux. When the government created the Great Sioux Reservation in 1868, "the Ponca Reservation was included within its boundaries, depriving them of title to their remaining lands." In 1877 the federal government decided to remove the Ponca to Indian Territory, and federal troops enforced the orders. The Encyclopedia of the Great Plains says no lands had been reserved for them in Indian Territory.

The NPS says that by the summer of 1878 one-third of the tribe had died and nearly all the survivors were sick or disabled. After his son died, Chief Standing Bear led a group home in early 1879. The Army arrested them, and in United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, Judge Elmer Dundy ruled on May 12, 1879 that they were "persons" under the law and could not be held. The Encyclopedia says the decision "provided no lands for them"; they secured allotments on their former reservation in 1890.

Good to know. Sources describe the deaths differently: as many as 200, or one-third of the tribe.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 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. To protect the Poncas in the possession of the tract of land reserved for their future homes, and their persons and property thereonTreaty with the Ponca, 1858 (OSU Tribal Treaties Database)
  2. the Ponca Reservation was included within its boundaries, depriving them of title to their remaining landsChief Standing Bear (National Park Service, Missouri National Recreational River)
  3. Judge Dundy's bold decision protected Standing Bear's Poncas from being returned to Indian Territory, but it provided no lands for them.Trial of Standing Bear (Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, University of Nebraska)

Research notes. The NPS gives May 12, 1879 for the ruling; another source I did not open gave April 30. Sources differ on whether the case was appealed (NPS says the Supreme Court refused to hear it; the Encyclopedia says Dundy directed there would be no appeals); I left this out. The input's 1881 act returning 26,236 acres, the death of Standing Bear's son 'Bear Shield', and the termination/restoration dates (1966 or 1962; restored Oct. 31, 1990) were not verified from a source I could open, so they are omitted. The NPS and Interior pages say the 1868 treaty included the Ponca reservation within the Great Sioux Reservation (input's 'Santee' alternative not confirmed). The reporter citation for the case was not checked. The Ponca nations' own history pages could not be opened. The Encyclopedia says as many as 200 Ponca died; NPS says one-third of the tribe.

Treaty or agreementShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

Land return and Native-led work nearby

Native legal and land defense, nationally

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

Connections

These links were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Nations named 3

Concerns the instrument 2

Taken to court in 1

Located in 1

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poncapointer
  2. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-12/pdf/STATUTE-12-Pg997.pdfprimary record
  3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Bearpointer
  4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Bear_v._Crookpointer
The record’s fields
What happened
Ponca: 1858 treaty, the 1868 land error, 1877 removal and Standing Bear v. Crook (1879) -- The Ponca ceded land in the Mar. 12, 1858 treaty but kept a tract along the Niobrara and Ponca rivers, with the U.S. promising to protect them in possession 'during good behavior.' Through an error, the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux placed the Ponca reservation inside the Great Sioux Reservation (Wikipedia's Standing Bear article attributes the transfer to the Santee Dakota; sources vary). The Ponca were forced to Indian Territory in 1877; by spring 1878 nearly a third of the tribe had died of starvation and disease, including Standing Bear's son Bear Shield. Standing Bear and others walked home; the habeas corpus case United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook was decided May 12, 1879 by Judge Elmer S. Dundy (D. Neb.), who held that 'an Indian is a person' within the meaning of habeas corpus and that the government had no legal basis to hold the Ponca. The Hayes administration allowed Standing Bear's group to return; an 1881 act returned about 26,236 acres in Knox County, Nebraska, and about half the tribe moved north.
Legal aftermath
Standing Bear v. Crook is a landmark on personhood, not a land judgment. The Northern Ponca were later terminated (effective 1966 per Wikipedia; the termination act itself believed 1962) and restored as the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska on Oct. 31, 1990.not yet checked against a source
Kind
Violation
Confidence
Medium
Nation review
Not yet reviewed by this nation
Notes
  • Some details are disputed
  • Some details not yet checked against a source

Correct this record