¹ Richard C. Pratt, “The Advantages of Mingling Indians with Whites,” Official Report of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of Charities and Correction, 1892, 46–59. Reprinted in Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the Indian,” 1880–1900, ed. Francis Paul Prucha (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 260–71.

² Lewis Meriam, The Problem of Indian Administration, A Report of a Survey Made at the Request of the Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, and Submitted to Him, February 21, 1928 (Washington, DC: The Institute for Government Research, 1928), 88.

³ Deloria, Vine Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 27Google Scholar.

⁴ McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020).

⁵ Biolsi, Thomas, Organizing the Lakota: The Political Economy of the New Deal on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Hoxie, Frederick, “Crow Leadership amidst Reservation Oppression,” in State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy, ed. Castile, George Pierre and Bee, Robert (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Estes, Our History Is the Future; Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs.

⁶ Vann Woodward, C., The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁷ Key, V. O., Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Knopf, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁸ Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, 4.

⁹ Sheingate, Adam, “Institutional Dynamics and American Political Development,” Annual Review of Political Science 17 (2014): 461–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Glaeser, Edward L., “The Political Economy of Hatred,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (2005): 45–86Google Scholar.

¹¹ Samuel DeCanio, Democracy and the Origins of the American Regulatory State (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015).

¹² Frederick Hoxie, A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 69.

¹³ Pamela Brandwein, “Law and American Political Development,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 7 (2011): 187–216; Ira Katznelson and John S. Lapinski, “At the Crossroads: Congress and American Political Development,” Perspectives on Politics 4 (2006): 243–60; Sheingate, “Institutional Dynamics and American Political Development,” 461–77.

¹⁴ Desmond S. King and Rogers M. Smith, “Racial Orders in American Political Development,” American Political Science Review 99 (2005): 75–92; Desmond S. King and Rogers M. Smith, “‘Without Regard to Race’: Critical Ideational Development in Modern American Politics,” The Journal of Politics 76 (2014): 958–71.

¹⁵ Julie Novkov, “Legal Archaeology,” Political Research Quarterly 64 (2011): 348–61; Julie Novkov, “Making Citizens of Freedmen and Polygamists,” in Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal, ed. Carol Nackenoff and Julie Novkov (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), 32–64; Carol Nackenoff and Julie Novkov, “Statebuilding in the Progressive Era: A Continuing Dilemma in American Political Development,” in Statebuilding from the Margins: Between Reconstruction and the New Deal, ed. Carol Nackenoff and Julie Novkov (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), 1–31.

¹⁶ Robert Lieberman, “Ideas and Institutions in Race Politics,” in Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, ed. Daniel Beland and Robert Henry Cox (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

¹⁷ Kevin Bruyneel, The Third Face of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.-Indigenous Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012).

¹⁸ Paul Frymer, Building an American Empire: The Era of Territorial and Political Expansion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017); Paul Frymer, “‘A Rush and a Push and the Land Is Ours’: Territorial Expansion, Land Policy, and U.S. State Formation,” Perspectives on Politics 12 (2014): 119–44.

¹⁹ Arthur Spirling, “U.S. Treaty Making with American Indians: Institutional Change and Relative Power, 1784–1911,” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2012): 84–97.

²⁰ Nick Estes, Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance (New York: Verso, 2019), 67.

²¹ Maggie Blackhawk, “Federal Indian Law as Paradigm within Public Law,” Harvard Law Review 132 (2019): 1787–877.

²² David E. Wilkins, “Transformations in Supreme Court Thought: The Irresistible Force (Federal Indian Law and Policy) Meets the Movable Object (American Indian Tribal Status),” The Social Science Journal 30 (1993): 181–207.

²³ David E. Wilkins, “African Americans and Aboriginal Peoples: Similarities and Differences in Historical Experiences,” Cornell Law Review 90 (2005): 515–30, 516.

²⁴ Tom Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs: Native Americans and Whites in the Progressive Era (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005).

²⁵ Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 1st ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942), 174–75.

²⁶ Charles Wilkinson and The American Indian Resources Institute, Indian Tribes as Sovereign Governments: A Sourcebook on Federal-Tribal History, Law and Policy, 2nd ed. (Oakland, CA: American Indian Lawyer Training Program, 2004); Elmer R. Rusco, A Fateful Time: The Background and Legislative History of the Indian Reorganization Act (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 2000), 55–56.

²⁷ Frederick Hoxie, Talking Back to Civilization: Indian Voices from the Progressive Era (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001); Peter Iverson, “We Are Still Here:” American Indians in the Twentieth Century (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1998); Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, vol. I and II, unabridged, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984).

²⁸ Cornell, The Return of the Native; Prucha, The Great Father; Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs.

²⁹ Hoxie, A Final Promise; Cornell, The Return of the Native.

³⁰ Deloria and Lytle, The Nations Within; Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs.

³¹ John Fahey, Saving the Reservation: Joe Garry and the Battle to Be Indian (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001); Kenneth Philp, Termination Revisited: American Indians and the Trail to Self-Determination, 1933–1953 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999); Thomas W. Cowger, The National Congress of American Indians: The Founding Years (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999); Richard Drinnon, Keeper of Concentration Camps: Dillon S. Myer and American Racism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); Charles Wilkinson, Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations (New York: W.W. Norton, 2005).

³² Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, reprint ed. (Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein, 1988); Wilkinson, Blood Struggle.

³³ Prucha, The Great Father; George Pierre Castile, To Show Heart: Native American Self-Determination and Federal Indian Policy, 1960–1975 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1998).

³⁴ Prucha noted: “Because there was no roll call vote on the Dawes Act, it is impossible to determine a sectional breakdown of support and opposition to the measure. The great delay in getting action in the House of Representatives shows, however, that there was no concerted popular pressure, either western or eastern, for the bill. Only the persistent agitation of the Lake Mohonk reformers [from the assimilationist Indian Rights Association] finally brought the legislation to a successful conclusion” (ibid., 669).

³⁵ Hoxie, A Final Promise; Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs.

³⁶ Prucha, The Great Father.

³⁷ David E. Wilkins, “‘With the Greatest Respect and Fidelity’: A Cherokee Vision of the ‘Trust’ Doctrine,” The Social Science Journal 34 (1997): 495–510.

³⁸ Jason Edward Black, American Indians and the Rhetoric of Removal and Allotment, (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2015), 132.

³⁹ Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs, 162–63.

⁴⁰ Hoxie, A Final Promise; Vine Deloria Jr., and Clifford M. Lytle, The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1984).

⁴¹ Iverson, “We Are Still Here”; Hoxie, A Final Promise.

⁴² Hoxie, Talking Back to Civilization, 139.

⁴³ Ibid., 141.

⁴⁴ Kenneth R. Philp, John Collier's Crusade for Indian Reform, 1920–1954 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1977).

⁴⁵ Rusco, A Fateful Time, 66.

⁴⁶ Stephen Cornell, The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Philp, John Collier's Crusade for Indian Reform; Deloria and Lytle, The Nations Within.

⁴⁷ Generally speaking, newly admitted states’ representatives arrived in the Capitol in the following calendar year.

⁴⁸ Hoxie, A Final Promise, 36.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 108–15.

⁵⁰ For examples, see Thomas Biolsi, Deadliest Enemies and the Making of Race Relations On and Off Rosebud Reservation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Alexandra Harmon, Indians in The Making: Ethnic Relations and Indian Identities around Puget Sound (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs; Laurence M. Hauptman, Coming Full Circle: The Seneca Nation of Indians, 1848–1934 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2019), 164; Frederick E. Hoxie, This Indian Country: American Indian Political Activists and The Place They Made (New York: Penguin Press, 2012); Hoxie, A Final Promise.

⁵¹ For examples, see Black, American Indians and the Rhetoric of Removal and Allotment, 100; David E. Wilkins, “The U.S. Supreme Court's Explication of ‘Federal Plenary Power’: An Analysis of Case Law Affecting Tribal Sovereignty, 1886–1914,” American Indian Quarterly 18 (1994): 349–68. David E. Wilkins, “Tribal-State Affairs: American States as ‘Disclaiming’ Sovereigns,” Publius 28 (1998): 55–81; Biolsi, Deadliest Enemies.

⁵² Wilkins, “The U.S. Supreme Court's Explication of ‘Federal Plenary Power,’” 355.

⁵³ Paul Stuart, The Indian Office: Growth and Development of an American Institution, 1865–1900 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1978).

⁵⁴ Holm, The Great Confusion in Indian Affairs; Biolsi, Organizing the Lakota.

⁵⁵ Hoxie, This Indian Country.

⁵⁶ Hoxie, A Final Promise.

⁵⁷ Fowler noted that even when tribal advocates doubted their prospects of success, the trip could be worthwhile because it conferred prestige in the community. Loretta Fowler, Tribal Sovereignty and The Historical Imagination: Cheyenne-Arapaho Politics (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002).

⁵⁸ Katznelson and Lapinski, “At the Crossroads,” 248–50.

⁵⁹ Kirsten Matoy Carlson, “Making Strategic Choices: How and Why Indian Groups Advocated for Federal Recognition from 1977 to 2012,” Law and Society Review 51 (2017): 930–65.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 954.

⁶¹ Survey of Conditions of the Indians of the United States Part 21, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 71st Congress, 3rd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931), 11767–75.

⁶² Ibid., 11774.

⁶³ Ibid., 11775.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 11775.

⁶⁵ Kirsten Matoy Carlson, “Congress and Indians: Whether Federal Indian Law Is More Responsive to Indian Interests Than the Courts,” University of Colorado Law Review 86 (2015): 77–179.

⁶⁶ My logic behind this classification is as follows. Some hearings are conducted to evaluate a particular piece of legislation. It seems unlikely that the committee would reward a bill with the high-profile attention of a hearing if the committee's objective was to snuff out the proposal. Other hearings were not tied to a specific bill; they are investigative or fact-finding hearings. All the same, such hearings do define a problem to be investigated. Again, committee chairs have no obligation to give every claim such a high-profile moment. Rather, committee chairs’ incentive is to deny the spotlight to claims that they want to squelch and grant a visible public profile to claims that they want to promote.

⁶⁷ To a degree, these averages reflect the detailed testimony that federal bureaucrats provided in long appropriations hearings. If we exclude the eleven hearings that were longer than 700 pages from the analysis, federal bureaucrats’ share of testimony drops to 44 percent.

⁶⁸ Charles Stewart and Barry Weingast, “Stacking the Senate, Changing the Nation: Republican Rotten Boroughs, Statehood Politics, and American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 6 (1992): 223–71; Russell D. Murphy, Strategic Calculations and the Admission of New States into the Union, 1789–1960: Congress and the Politics of Statehood (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008).

⁶⁹ Deloria, Custer Died for Your Sins.

⁷⁰ W. W. Caruthers, in Testimony Relating to Capt. Frank D Baldwin, 5th US Infantry, Taken by a Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1898), 7.

⁷¹ Clyde Ely, in Survey of Conditions of the Indians in the U.S. Part 18: Navajos in Arizona and New Mexico, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 71st Congress, 3rd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931), 339, 342.

⁷² Petition by Ministers of the Gospel in Indian Territory, in Statehood for Indian Territory and Oklahoma, Remarks of Robert L. Owen Before the Committee on Territories in the House of Representatives (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), 92–93.

⁷³ Dr. George H. Niemann, in Survey of Conditions of the Indians in the United States Part 15 Oklahoma, Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 71st Congress, 3rd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931), 6942.

⁷⁴ Mitchell Tillotson, in Survey of Conditions of the Indians in the U.S. Part 21, Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 71st Congress, 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931), 154.

⁷⁵ General Deficiency Appropriation Bill for 1894 and Prior Years, Hearings before Subcommittee of House Committee on Appropriations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1894), 99–112.

⁷⁶ The Indian Appropriation Bill of 1906, Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate of the United States, January 28 to February 13, 1905 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1906), 64–85, 116, 146–50, 167–74.

⁷⁷ Construction of a Sanatorium and Hospital at Claremore, Okla., Hearings Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, 69th Congress, 2nd Sess., on H.R. 6564 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1927).

⁷⁸ Survey of Conditions of the Indians in the United States Part 4, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 70th Congress, 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1930), 1542–84.

⁷⁹ The Indian Appropriation Bill of 1906.

⁸⁰ The Indian Appropriation Bill, Volume 2 (Supplement), Hearings Before the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate, 63rd Congress, 3rd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1915), 111–13.

⁸¹ Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill for 1893, Hearings Before Subcommittee of House Committee on Appropriations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1892), 133, 172–77; General Deficiency Appropriation Bill for 1894 and Prior Years, 35, 99–112.

⁸² Pensions, Hearings Before the Committee on Pensions, House of Representatives, 67th Congress, 1st Sess., May 17, 1921 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1921), 29–30.

⁸³ Osage Indians Funds, Report No. 1336 to Accompany S.R. 57, United States Senate, 54th Congress, 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1897).

⁸⁴ Testimony Taken by a Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate, in the Case of Capt. Frank D. Baldwin, 5th U.S. Infantry, Nominated to Be Lieutenant-Colonel and Inspector-General of Volunteers (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1898); Conduct of Indian Agencies, Part 2, Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate, 55th Congress, 2nd Sess., March 23 and 25, 1898 (Washington, DC: Senate Unpublished Hearings Collection, 1898); Quanah Parker quotes are from pages 30 and 96.

⁸⁵ Hagan, William T., Quanah Parker, Comanche Chief (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Deloria and Lytle, The Nations Within.

⁸⁷ Granting Indians the Right to Select Agents and Superintendents, Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 64th Congress, 1st Sess., on S. 3904 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1916), 21.

⁸⁸ Crow Indian Reservation, Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, on the Bill S. 2087 and the Bill S. 2963 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1908), 171–75, 195–220, 274–321, 326–38, 366, 420–21, 439–40.

⁸⁹ Hoxie, Frederick E., Parading Through History: The Making of the Crow Nation in America, 1805–1935 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 226–65Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Crow Indian Reservation, Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 439.

⁹¹ J. F. Estes, in Indian Appropriation Bill Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 63rd Congress, 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1913), 54.

⁹² Construction of a Sanatorium and Hospital at Claremore, Okla., Hearings Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, 69th Congress, 2nd Sess., on H.R. 6564 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1927), 3.