The Brothertown Indians and American Indian Policy
by Jason S. Walter

In 1982, the Brothertown Nation commemorated the 150th Anniversary of the Treaty of 1832, which had granted the Brothertown Indians a home in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Legislature formally congratulated the Brothertown Indians on their 150th Anniversary under joint Rule 7, which stated:

The members of the Wisconsin Legislature, on the motion from Representative Hephner and Senator Hanaway, under joint Rule 7, congratulate the Brothertown Indians on their 150th Anniversary celebration in Wisconsin: commend them on the numerous contributions made by their people to the State of Wisconsin: commend the courageous men who fought, from the Revolution to the present, and earned respect and dignity for the Brothertown Tribe; and wish the Brothertown Indians continued success in bringing to the public’s attention the important role they play in history. ¹

Though the State of Wisconsin recognizes the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin as a distinct Indian tribe, the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin are one of about 250 tribes and Indian communities that are not recognized by the federal government. ² Nevertheless, the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin have kept their customs and traditions alive. For example, they gather at annual homecoming, reunions, funerals, weddings, and picnics. ³ Moreover, the Brothertown Indians have a functioning tribal government. As of 2001, the tribe is optimistic that their application for federal recognition and acknowledgment will be accepted by the United States government, an action which they believe will reinvigorate the once federally recognized tribal government. ⁴

The federal government, on highly questionable and controversial grounds, has denied the Brothertown Indians federal recognition as a distinct Indian tribe since 1839. This position is diffi-cult to sustain, in view of the Brothertown group’s ancestry, common culture, and social identity. ⁵ In 1834, the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin demanded individual titles to their lands, which were owned communally by the tribe. In 1837, the Brothertown Indians again requested that their land titles be held individually, along with petitioning for citizenship. ⁶ These requests for citizen-ship were logical and calculated because Brothertown leaders believed that by acquiring citizenship the tribe could not be forced to move west, as was common after the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

On March 3, 1839, Congress granted the Brothertown Indians full United States citizenship and divided their lands into separate entities, which were individually owned. ⁷ Perhaps the United States Congress was agreeable to the request for citizenship because such a request was consistent with the government’s American Indian policy during the 19th century. There is little doubt that the federal government wanted American Indian tribes to assimilate into American society and culture. Furthermore, Congress understood that providing the Brothertown Indians with citizenship would ultimately end the federal government’s responsibilities to the tribe.

Unfortunately, citizenship was only a short-term victory. While the Brothertown Indians did indeed succeed in maintaining their residence in Wisconsin by acquiring United States citizenship, that same citizenship meant they ultimately relinquished their sovereign nation status and associated rights. Nevertheless, the tribe felt they had not lost the power to govern themselves and continued to do so until the Civil War. ⁸ In fact, the Brothertown Indians believed the benefits of citizenship would be an addition to the rights, privileges, and protection to which their tribal status entitled them. ⁹ However, during the 1870s, as was common throughout the United States due to the passage of the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act), non-Indians began buying huge portions of Indian lands. The Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin had already experienced the devastating consequences of non-Indians buying their lands near fifty years earlier. Although the tribal council still met and made decisions for the tribe as a whole, the Brothertown lands on Lake Winnebago continued to fall into non-Indian hands.

These events illustrate how the Brothertown Indians have been directly and indirectly affected by federal government policies and decisions. The tribal group is a small regional example of the much larger national pattern of how federal government policies resulted in loss of tribal government and the division of tribal lands. Without question, the federal government’s policies, such as the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Allotment Act of 1887, had an impact on the Brothertown Indians’ decision to request citizenship, which ultimately resulted in the detribalization action.

Eventually, the federal government granted citizenship to all Indians while allowing them to retain their sovereignty and tribal governments; however, that decision did not change the federal recognition status for the Brothertown Indians. Consequently, the tribe have been trying to reestablish their relationship with the federal government through a variety of different means. In 1978, the Department of the Interior established regulations for the acknowledgment of tribes, and this resulted in increased interest among the tribal members. The Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin began to research their tribal history in order to satisfy the criteria for federal recognition. In 1996, this research culminated in a petition for federal acknowledgment of their status as a tribe. The tribe is currently fourth on the list of petitions awaiting review. ¹⁰

The Brothertown Indians are an amalgamation of Christian Indian groups from the New England and Long Island, New York areas. The conversion to Christianity of various Indian groups was in part the result of the Great Awakening, a religious movement in New England during the 1740s. ¹¹ During this time period, the New England tribes found it increasingly difficult to function, due to pressure to give up farming and sell their lands. Consequently, over a number of years, plans were made to migrate to Oneida County, New York. These plans were essentially the idea of Samson Occom, a Mohegan, who urged the tribes to band together and move west to an area where they would be under less pressure from whites. ¹²

The general idea behind migration was to improve the conditions of the New England tribes, especially to alleviate the pressure to give up farming and to sell their lands. Samson Occom believed that it was necessary for the tribes to hold land that could not be alienated. Besides their problems with land, the tribes were also confronted with an array of social, economic, and leadership problems. Finally, there was a clear need for larger and better lands for agriculture, along with an improved environment to practice Christianity. ¹³

Thus, the Brothertown Indians became a distinct tribe when seven Christian communities organized and migrated to land granted to them by the Oneida Indians in 1774. The seven com-munities associated with the move west included the Pequots at Groton, the Pequots at Stonington, the Mohegans, the Montauks, the Eastern and Western Niantics, the Farmington or Tunxis Indians, and the Narragansett Indians. The migration of the seven tribes was carried out under the leadership of Samson Occom and Joseph Johnson (Occom’s son-in-law). Both Occom and Johnson were familiar with upstate New York, and they were determined to lead their people, along with other New England Indians, to a home where they could live in peace and lead Christian lives. ¹⁴

After the completion of negotiations with the Oneida tribe in the spring of 1774, the first group of Brothertown Indians (those who could endure hardship) went to New York. Upon arrival, the Brothertown immediately built log huts, started gardens, and planted cornfields. Moreover, barns were built, fields were enclosed, and various kinds of livestock were introduced. ¹⁵ Even though old tribal relations were broken by the migration, the hereditary tribal customs continued through the establishment of a new tribal government. The newly organized tribal government was modeled after Connecticut town government. The new town was named Brothertown because, as Christians, they wanted to live in Brotherhood. ¹⁶ Before the rest of the tribe could join these early migrants, the American Revolutionary War began, and the Brothertown Indians quickly moved to support the Colonial cause. Due to dangers from raiding groups of pro-British Indians during the Revolutionary War, the Brothertown Indians, along with most of the white settlers in the area, were not able to return to their land until after the 1783 Treaty of Paris. ¹⁷

At the end of the War, the Brothertown Indians returned to clear their land and to establish a new homeland. However, in 1792, the tribe suffered a tremendous loss due to the death of Samson Occom. After Occom’s death, the Brothertown Indians fell prey to religious factionalism. Furthermore, the Indians were beginning to see the devastating effects of land leasing, which led to further pressure on the group to sell their land and move west again. ¹⁸ By the early 1800s, the Brothertown Indians were looking for yet another place to settle.

In 1816, Eleazar Williams, an Episcopal missionary, commenced preaching among the Oneidas, and he articulated his dream of establishing an Indian empire in the West. By 1823, Williams and representatives of the Oneidas had secured joint occupation of some 4,000,000 acres of land from the Menominees and Winnebagos in what would become Wisconsin. ¹⁹ The negoti-ations between the New York tribes and the Menominee and Winnebago Indians constitute a complex and confusing story, yet it is clear that the Brothertown Indians joined in the plans to move to Wisconsin by purchasing 23,040 acres along the Fox River. However, before the Brothertown Indians could move, the federal government negotiated an exchange of this tract for an equal amount of land situated along Lake Winnebago in present-day Calumet County. ²⁰

The Brothertown Indians began their migration to these new lands in 1831. A majority of the tribe had arrived by 1837. ²¹ The group of Brothertown Indians who migrated to the nascent Wisconsin Territory possessed considerable advantages, for they had experience and knowledge of government and the means necessary for a good start in a new community. Furthermore, although the distance from New York to Wisconsin was too great for them to transport all their belongings, the Erie Canal from Utica to Buffalo, completed in 1825, allowed the travelers to reach Green Bay by boat along the Great Lakes. ²²

The tribe’s move westward to Wisconsin took place during the time period following passage by the United States government of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. However, the Act itself did not directly force the Brothertown Indians to move to Wisconsin in the same way that it produced other great tragedies and loss of human life, such as the Cherokee migration, often described as “The Trail of Tears.” Yet the Removal Act of 1830 was directly related to a major decision that the Brothertown Indians subsequently made, one that had devastating unforeseen consequences for them.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 effectively evicted the major Indian tribes from land east of the Mississippi and moved them to “Indian Territory” in the West. ²³ In theory, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a voluntary exchange of eastern lands for western lands; however, the reality of the situation often led to Indians being coerced or tricked into making the exchange. A tactic often used by federal government officials was to secure an agreement with some Indian leader whom the government claimed spoke for the tribe, make the exchange agreement, and then declare that the negotiated exchange was binding on all members of the tribe, regardless whether they were even aware that the arrangement had taken place. After an agreement was concluded, the government claimed the right to move all the Indians said to be included in the exchange, by force if necessary.

The seeds of Indian removal were planted during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. In 1803, Jefferson suggested to Congress the possibility of removal of the Eastern Indian tribes, and he succeeded in incorporating a provision for exchange of Indian lands in the act that organized the Louisiana Territory in 1804. ²⁴ The removal of Indians to a western “Indian Country” was based on the philosophy that there existed sufficient land and satisfactory resources for all people within that vast territory, and that separation of Indians from non-Indians would prevent conflict between the groups. ²⁵ However, while the lands ceded to Indians were sparsely settled, if at all, at that time, and though the lands seemed to have no value, it was not long before settlers pushed westward into these new Indian lands, producing fresh conflict and demands for further removals of Indians.

So even though the Brothertown Indians’ move to Wisconsin cannot be traced directly to action resulting from the Indian Removal Act of 1830, there probably was a connection. Perhaps the group believed it was best to move while they could do so under their own terms and to negotiate their own migration westward, rather than allow the federal government to dictate their removal. Therefore, one might argue that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 indirectly caused the Brothertown Indians’ relocation to Wisconsin, because they reached the conclusion that removal from their New York lands was inevitable, given the political and social climate of the early 1800s. Still, there is also significant evidence that the Indians were themselves looking for a place to move. The possibility of a move to the Ohio Valley, to land held by the Delaware tribe, was discussed, but those plans never materialized. ²⁶ In 1821, a delegation of tribal representatives from the Brothertown, Stockbridge, and Oneida groups traveled to Green Bay, Wisconsin and negotiated the purchase of 860,000 acres. ²⁷ But whether or not the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was the indirect cause of the Brothertown relocation to Wisconsin, the Act ultimately had serious and long lasting effects on the Brothertown Indians once they arrived in Wisconsin.

A Treaty of October 27, 1832, resulted in the establishment of the Brothertown reservation on the east side of Lake Winnebago in what is now Calumet County. Specifically, the reservation granted to the Brothertown Indians extended four miles north and south of Lake Winnebago and extended eight miles from east to west. ²⁸ But the Brothertown Indians had hardly settled in the new Wisconsin Territory when a new threat appeared. The federal government entered into negotiations with tribes in New York and Wisconsin to exchange their lands for land in the Indian Territory of Kansas. ²⁹ On January 15, 1838, the United States and the tribes concluded the Treaty of Buffalo Creek. ³⁰ As a result, the Brothertown Indians were again in danger of being forced to move west. The Treaty of Buffalo Creek is a clear example of the consequences of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, for the objectives of the Treaty of Buffalo Creek were the same as those of the Act.

The immediate problem for the Brothertowns was how to hold on to their land in Wisconsin. Among most American Indian tribes, it was customary to hold land in common rather than vested in individual ownership. Unfortunately, this practice subjected their lands to government actions, such as the Treaty of Buffalo Creek. Hence, the Brothertown Indians concluded that, if they held title to land individually, as non-Indians did, then their lands would be protected. This appears to be the major reason that the Brothertown Indians requested citizenship and “severalty,” or division of all tribal lands among the members of the tribe. ³¹

On March 3, 1839, the United States Congress passed legislation dividing the Brothertown tribal lands in severalty and making the tribal members United States citizens. However, by grant-ing the Brothertown Indians citizenship, the Congress found it necessary to remove from the tribe the power to make laws to govern the same land. The basis for such a decision came in part from previous United States Supreme Court cases. For example, Worester v. Georgia (1832) established that the Cherokee Nation was “a distinct community, occupying its own territory” in which “the laws of Georgia can have no force.” ³² This Supreme Court case was one of the most important in the history of United States–Indian relations, establishing the sovereignty of tribes. Because Con-gress intended to assure that, in the governance of the Brothertown Indian lands, Territorial and, later, State law would be enforced, Congress found it necessary to remove from the tribe the power to make laws to govern tribal land after citizenship was granted.

Consequently, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 had an unusual effect on the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin. While the objective of the Act had been to move Indian tribes that occupied land east of the Mississippi further to the west, the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin had already moved west twice, albeit still east of the Mississippi. Yet by 1838, the federal government was trying to move them to lands further west, in Kansas. The Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin, realizing that citizenship would block their removal from their location along Lake Winnebago, decided to accept citizenship, but in doing so they inadvertently gave up their tribal status. However, it is important to note that the Brothertown Indians themselves believed the benefits of citizenship would be enjoyed in addition to the rights, privileges, and protection afforded by their tribal status. ³³

Land patents were issued to Brothertown Indians in 1845, pursuant to the 1839 Act of Congress. Tribal leaders continued to govern the tribe in much the same manner as they had before the Act granting them citizenship was passed. ³⁴ During their early years in Wisconsin, the Brother-town Indians made encouraging progress in agriculture, establishing functioning farms. Further-more, the Brothertown Indians helped erect some of the first structures in Fond du Lac County, and they also built the first gristmill in the area, an essential to frontier life. ³⁵ Brothertown Indians helped Colwert K. Pier and Fanna Pier, often cited by local historians as the “first settlers” in the area, to build their first home in Fond du Lac County. ³⁶

Calumet County, in which the Brothertown Indians lived, was formed in 1840, a year after the Brothertown Indians received citizenship. Without question, the Brothertown Indians were involved and active in the establishment of this County. For example, the first elections within the County were held in one of their homes. Furthermore, one Brothertown Indian was the first post-master in Calumet County, two were justices of the peace who performed marriages, and three served as members of Wisconsin’s legislature. However, before long, their county organization gave way to one in which white settlers dominated, most of them of German origin. ³⁷

By 1861, when the American Civil War began, non-Indians were buying up Brothertown land, due largely to the Brothertown Indians being forced to sell their land to pay the taxes that were now required of them. White settlers were also beginning to buy land surrounding the Brothertown Indians’ former reservation. Consequently, by the 1870s, much of the land had been lost to non-Indians, and many tribal members were living on other reservations, working as tenants on other people’s farms, or else living in one of the cities in the Lake Winnebago area. ³⁸ Nevertheless, the tribe continued to act on behalf of its members. For example, it petitioned the Congress for per-mission to clear the title to some remaining lands on the frontier reservation and joined in a lawsuit against the United States over the land it and other New York tribes claimed in Kansas. This case was eventually won, and the tribes involved (including the Brothertown) received a per capita payment. ³⁹ Clearly, this illustrates that, despite the loss of their land, the tribe continued various activities to further the interests of its members.

Furthermore, Congress recognized the continued existence of the tribe in several pieces of legislation. ⁴⁰ This history of post-1839 recognition is of particular importance to the Brothertown Indians, who currently seek to regain federal recognition of their tribal status. Perhaps the most explicit example of continued recognition occurred in 1878, when Congress passed legislation providing for the sale of some previously unallocated Brothertown Indian land. As part of the legis-lation, Congress authorized five trustees, “members of the Brothertown tribe,” to take “in trust for the Brothertown Indians” the land patents in question. But Congress specified that the trustees could not dispose of the land without tribal permission, and specifically laid out the terms by which the tribal government must participate to permit legal sale. ⁴¹

Provided, however, that said lands or any part thereof, shall be sold by the said trustees whenever a majority of the said Brothertown Tribe shall petition for the same . . . . And the said trustees shall distribute and pay over the proceeds arising from such sale or sales to the Brothertown Indians, according to the formers usages, customs, and regulations of said tribe. ⁴²

Thus Congress explicitly recognized the continued existence of the Brothertown tribe, acknowledged its leadership, and accepted as valid the tribe’s rules and regulations. It is also clear that the government understood that the tribe was functioning, since the law required a majority of its members to approve any sale. ⁴³

In 1887, the federal government established a new policy affecting Indian tribes, the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act). ⁴⁴ The Dawes Act was a nationwide change that dealt primarily with the ownership of land by breaking down tribal lands into small property units. Each of these pro-perty units of 40 to 160 acres was given to an individual Indian. ⁴⁵ Land that remained after all of eligible Indians had received their shares was sold to whites. Consequently, the Dawes Act resulted in increased alienation of land holdings to non-Indians. The Dawes Act also provided for Indian citizenship. Every Indian born in the United States to whom an allotment was made, or any Indian who had voluntarily taken up residence apart from his tribe and adopted habits of “civilized life,” was declared by the Act to be a citizen of the United States, without impairing the rights he/she might have to tribal or other property. ⁴⁶

The Dawes Act is still the subject of scholarly debate in terms of its intent. Most scholars believe that the legislation was an attempt to force assimilation of Indians into white society and to end their tradition of communal ownership of land. There is little question that this position was taken by members of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior. However, some believe that the Act was a response to the claim that Indians owned too much land and that this land was underutilized. The allotment policy would make more land available to white farmers and force the Indians into farming. ⁴⁷ Regardless of the original intent, both of these goals seem to have been achieved by the legislation. Yet a third view of the Dawes Act has been that it was intended as a reform to protect Indian lands from encroaching white settlers. Some scholars have viewed the Dawes Act as a beginning of a new policy that allowed Indians to assume an active role to the economic system. In general, this was the viewpoint of The Indian Rights Association in 1887. ⁴⁸

The Dawes Act also allowed the United States to acquire the remaining lands on reser-vations, once individual distributions had been made, and to open them to white settlement. The expectation was that Indians would be able to farm their individual allotments. If the intent of the Act was to encourage Indians to become farmers, it was not very successful, for many Indians had no knowledge of farming, and others had no interest in this occupation. As a result, many Indians sold their lands and lived off the money they received. Once this money ran out, they had no further means of support. The result was a further downward economic spiral for many Indians.

The Brothertown Indians were not directly affected by the provisions of the Dawes Act, since they had already been granted citizenship and their tribal lands already had been broken up, but they experienced the same devastating sequence of events as other Indian tribes. Indeed, the Brothertown Indians simply experienced these traumatic changes prior to many other tribes. By the 1870s, much of the Brothertown Indians’ land had already been lost to non-Indians, and the neigh-boring Stockbridge Indians were beginning to experience similar land loss. ⁴⁹ Stockbridge Indians who needed cash sold their allotments to business dealers who coveted the forested lands for lumbering. Other Stockbridge Indians lost their allotments because of failure to meet tax or loan payments. ⁵⁰ Thus, as had been the case for the Brothertown Indians, the Stockbridge Indians began to see their reservation land disappear. ⁵¹ Even though ex-Governor James Doty, in 1851, hailed the positive results of the grant of citizenship to the Brothertown Indians, the reality of the situation was that the Brothertown Indians, like other Indians throughout the country, were selling their lands to meet bills for taxes and necessities. ⁵²

By the 1900s, over half of the Brothertown Indians no longer lived in Calumet County. In general, the Brothertown Indians left Calumet County because the original land allotments appor-tioned to support each family unit had become insufficient, once children and grandchildren were grown and a single allotment was required to support the large families of several generations. Brothertown Indians who had married into Stockbridge, Oneida, or other tribal lines increasingly made their homes on those reservations. ⁵³ Those Brothertown Indians living with other tribes experienced a sharp decline in their standard of living as the Dawes Act affected those tribes.

In addition to the land problem, the Brothertown Indian had difficulties finding jobs, due to a lack of employment opportunities in Calumet County and on the reservations. Many moved to places where they could find jobs, including Fond du Lac, Oshkosh, Milwaukee, Sheboygan, Green Bay and other neighboring communities. A significant number of Brothertown Indians moved further west to Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. ⁵⁴ Lack of employment opportunities made it virtually impossible for the Brothertown Indians to continue to exist as a tribal group.

One objective of American Indian policy in the nineteenth century was clearly to force individual Indians into something resembling citizenship. As a result of these policies, Indian tribes throughout the country often gained citizenship at the expense of loss of tribal recognition and reservation lands. ⁵⁵ Indian landownership dramatically fell from 155,632,319 acres in 1881 to 77,865,373 acres in 1900. ⁵⁶ To stop further loss of reservation lands, the federal government passed the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This act encouraged reservation Indians to take a more active role in managing their own affairs. It also provided for limited self-government through councils elected by the tribe. ⁵⁷

By 1940, the Brothertown Indians found themselves an impoverished underclass, buried in poverty and scattered around the State of Wisconsin and beyond, a condition they shared with tribes like the Oneida and Stockbridge. ⁵⁸ However, unlike the Brothertown Indians, the Stockbridge and Oneida Indians were able to obtain funds from the federal government to reorganize their tribal government and regain some of the land that had been lost. About 15,000 acres of land in the Wisconsin township of Bartelme were purchased through a federal program for use by members of the Stockbridge Indian tribe. ⁵⁹

Unfortunately, it had been determined that the Brothertown Indians were not eligible for such federal assistance, since they had not been directly affected by the Dawes Act. Nevertheless, throughout the first four decades of the twentieth century the Brothertown Indians continued to keep alive their traditions by participating in a variety of community activities. Most of these activities ended during World War II, because many Brothertown Indians entered military service or moved to more distant cities to work in defense plants. At the conclusion of World War II, many Brother-town Indians remained in the cities or moved to new locations as the defense industries shifted to peacetime production. Only a few returned to the Fond du Lac–Brothertown area, and those who did suffered from lack of employment. Despite this scattering, many tribal members maintained contact with each other throughout the postwar period. ⁶⁰

In 1978, the federal government established yet another policy that directly affected the Wisconsin Brothertown Indians. Guidelines were established whereby Indian tribes could regain federal recognition that they had lost for various reasons. This acknowledgment process provided for federal recognition of Indian tribes and established eligibility to receive services provided to Indians. ⁶¹ The purpose of the Federal acknowledgment regulations was to recognize that a govern-ment-to-government relationship existed between the United States and tribes that had existed since first European contact with non-Indians. ⁶² The Brothertown Indians believed that they had a good case for recognition, since they could provide a current tribal roll established only ten years earlier. Unfortunately, according to the original regulations interpreting the legislation, tribes that had lost federal recognition through congressional legislation could not be reinstated. Based on this provision, the Brothertown Indians were denied federal recognition, because they had attained citizenship by means of an Act of Congress. ⁶³ However, with the advent of the Federal Acknow-ledgment Project, in 1980, the Brothertown Indians decided to apply for what is called “Federal Recognition.” The Brothertown Indians were the 67th tribe to apply for Federal Acknowledgment. ⁶⁴

This federal policy stimulated renewed interest among the Brothertown Indians of Wiscon-sin in that it focused attention on retribalization. The Brothertown Indians began researching their tribal history to satisfy the criteria for reestablishing the tribe’s relationship with the federal govern-ment. ⁶⁵ In 1996, the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin filed a petition for federal acknowledgment. As of August 4, 2000, the Brothertown Indians were number four on the “Active, Waiting to be Acknowledged” list. ⁶⁶

The Brothertown Indians have maintained their tribal identity despite the massive economic, social, and political pressures on them. Forced to move repeatedly in order to preserve their way of life, the tribe received guarantees from the federal government, only to find that same government acting to strip the tribe of its land. In an attempt to preserve their land, the Brothertown Indians accepted citizenship and registered their land in severalty, but this action brought the loss of tribal status and stripped the tribe of its communal lands. There is little question that detribalization and division of tribal lands into allotments were the two great destroyers of the Brothertown Nation. Regaining tribal status has remained a fundamental objective of the Brothertown Indians for several decades. Although not yet recognized by the federal government, the Brothertown Indians continue as an operative tribe in Wisconsin, recognized by other Indian tribes and by the State of Wisconsin.

1 - State of Wisconsin Citation By The Legislature. return

2 - Olivia N. and Phillip G. Tousey, “Historical Sketch: The Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin” (unpublished manuscript, Marian College Archives), 2. return

3 - Will Ottery and Rudi Ottery, A Man Called Sampson, 1580-1989 (Maine: Penobscot Press, 1989), 53; Olivia and Phillip Tousey, 9. See also: “June Quarterly Report Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin,” Annual Homecoming Picnic July 15, 1995 sign-up sheet (Marian College Archives). return

4 - Jack Campisi, The Brothertown Indian Nation of Wisconsin: A Brief History (The Brothertown Indian Nation, 1991), 3-4. This history was submitted by the Tribal Council to the Department of Public Instruction for school use. return

5 - Olivia and Phillip Tousey, 2. return

6 - Brothertown Indians, “The Brothertown Indians: Samson Occom” (Brothertown Indians Internet Homepage), available on the Internet: www.jps.net/herblst/indians.htm (link no longer functioning 11/20/2006). See also: Indian Country Wisconsin, “Brothertown History: Citizenship,” available on the Internet: http://192.206.48.3/wirp/ICW-157.html (link no longer functioning 11/20/2006; document relocated at http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/ICW-157.html). return

7 - Moses M. Strong, History of the Territory of Wisconsin From 1836 to 1848 (Madison: Democrat Printing Co., 1885), 115. Lyman P. Fowler, In the matter of the Brothertown Indians of the State of Wisconsin: before the 44th Congress. (Washington), 1876, (Pamphlet, State Historical Society of Wisconsin 56-1614). return

8 - Campisi, 4-5. return

9 - Olivia and Phillip Tousey, 2. return

10 - “Brothertown celebration raises $6,800,” The Fond du Lac Reporter, August 4, 2000. return

11 - James P. Ronda, “Reverend Samuel Kirkland and the Oneida Indians,” in The Oneida Indian Experience: Two Perspectives, ed. Jack Campisi and Laurence M. Hauptman (Syracuse University Press, 1988), 25-26. return

12 - Duane Champagne, Native America: Portrait of the Peoples (Washington, D.C.: Visible Ink Press, 1994), 82-83. Samson Occom became a Christian convert at the age of eighteen. Through his life he devoted himself to teaching and converting Indians to Christianity. Occom was the first student of Eleazor Wheelock a Christian missionary who had been teaching Indians since 1743. However, Occom split with Wheelock over the emphasis and focus of their mission. Occom wanted to minister to Indians directly, while Wheelock wanted to train Indian missionaries. Consequently, Occom became a minister and teacher in an Algonkian-speaking community of Indian people in eastern New York called Brotherton. Occom tried to relocate his followers after encroachment by New York settlers. return

13 - William DeLoss Love, Samson Occom and the Christian Indians of New England (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2000), 207-208. return

14 - Laura E. Conkey, Ethel Boissevain, and Ives Goddard, “Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Late Period,” in Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, v. 15, William C. Sturtevant and Bruce G. Trigger, eds., (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), 181-182. return

15 - Thomas Commuck, “Sketch of the Brothertown Indians,” Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin v. IV, ed. Lyman Copeland Draper (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1906), 298; Love, 225-230. return

16 - Love, 208-209. return

17 - Will and Rudi Ottery, 45. return

18 - Love, 290-298. return

19 - Jack Campisi, “Oneida,” in Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, v. 15, ed. William C. Sturtevant and Bruce G. Trigger (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), 485. return

20 - The Brothertown Indians. available on the Internet at www.jps.net/herblst/indians.htm (link no longer functioning 11/20/2006). return

21 - Campisi, 4. See also: William A. Draves, “Descendants of Brothertown Indians Hope to Share in 1.3 Million Grant,” Fond du Lac Commonwealth Reporter, November 21, 1967, 3, 14. return

22 - Love, 324-326. return

23 - Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy (Washington: United States Department of the Interior, 1973), 56-59. The Indian Removal Act of May 28, 1830 was originally entitled: “An Act to Provide for an Exchange of Lands with the Indians Residing in Any of the States or Territories, and for Their Removal West of the River Mississippi.” return

24 - Theda Perdue and Michael Green, The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford Books, 1995), 221-222. return

25 - Theodore W. Taylor, The Bureau of Indian Affairs (Westview Press, 1984), 10. return

26 - Love, 316-319. return

27 - Albert G. Ellis, “Advent of the New York Indians into Wisconsin,” in Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin v. II, ed. Lyman Copeland Draper (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1903), 417. return

28 - Charles J. Kappler ed., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties v. II (Treaties) (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 377-382. return

29 - Ellis, 445. return

30 - Kappler, 502-516. (7 Stat., 550). Proclamation occurred on April 4, 1840. In 1838, the United States negotiated a treaty with the New York tribes whereby they were to exchange their claims in Wisconsin for land in the Kansas Territory. return

31 - Campisi, 4-5. return

32 - Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States (University of Oklahoma Press, 1970), 105-106. See also Worester v. Georgia (1832), 31 U.S. 515 (1832), available on the Internet at www.judicare.org/sct.html (link no longer functioning 04/20/2009). return

33 - Olivia and Phillip Tousey, 1. return

34 - Campisi, 5. return

35 - A. J. Andrew, History of Northern Wisconsin: An account of its settlement, growth, development, and resources, and extensive sketch of its countries, cities towns and villages (Chicago: The Western Historical Company, 1881), 172-173. See also Olivia and Phillip Tousey, 7. return

36 - Maureen Betz and John Ebert, Fond du Lac County: The Gathering Place (Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, 1999), 35. return

37 - Love, 328-329. return

38 - Campisi, 5. return

39 - Love, 321-323. return

40 - Olivia and Phillip Tousey cite other specific instances in which the Brothertown Indians have been recognized by the U. S. government subsequent to the 1839 citizenship act. By an Act of Congress, funds were granted to the Brothertown Indians for Kansas land they had never received (1898); in arguments in the Fowler v. Scott case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court (1885); and in special Indian population enumerations including the Brothertown Indians (1900 and 1910). return

41 - Campisi, 5-6. See also Pages 76-77 in Letter from Research Associates, Rd. #2 Box 492 Red Hook, N.Y. 12571, to June Ezold, October 17, 1985 (Marian College Archives). return

42 - Kappler, 173-173. (20 Stat., 513) Proclamation occurred on April 20, 1878. return

43 - Page 77, Letter from Research Associates, Rd. #2 Box 492 Red Hook, N.Y. 12571, to June Ezold, October 17, 1985. (Marian College Archives). return

44 - Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900 (University of Oklahoma Press, 1976), 252-253. return

45 - United States Statues at Large 24:388-391. See also United States Department of Interior “Bureau of Indian Affairs” 24 Stat. 388 available at www.doi.gov/bia/cla/clalwas.htm (link no longer functioning 11/20/2006). return

46 - Prucha, 252-253. return

47 - Stephen J. Herzberg, “The Menominee Indians: From Treaty to Termination,” Wisconsin Magazine of History v. 60, 4 Summer, (1977): 279-280; Tyler, 95-97. return

48 - Prucha, 227-228; Tyler, 95-97. return

49 - Mohican Nation: Stockbridge-Munsee Band, “Reservation: people of the waters that are never still” (Mohican Nation Stockbridge-Munsee Band, 1997). Available on Internet at: www.mohican.com/history/res.htm (link no longer functioning 11/20/2006). return

50 - Joyce M. Erdman, Governor’s Commission on Human Rights: Handbook on Wisconsin Indians (Madison: State of Wisconsin, 1966), 35. return

51- Nancy Oestreich Lurie, Wisconsin Indians (Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1987), 24. return

52 - Robert C. Nesbit, The History of Wisconsin, v. III: Urbanization & Industrialization 1873-1893 (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1985), 423. return

53 - Commuck, 298; Love, 329. return

54 - Love, 329. return

55 - Nesbit, 419-420. return

56 - Prucha, 257. return

57 - Peter Nabokow, ed., Native American Testimony: A Chronicle of Indian-White Relations from Prophecy to the Present, 1492-1992 (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 306-308; Tyler, 131-132. return

58 - Campisi, 6. return

59 - Mohican Nation: Stockbridge-Munsee Band. Also See: Erdman, 35. return

60 - Campisi, 5-6. return

61 - “Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe.” The Federal Acknow-ledgment Project was originally entitled 25 CFR Part 54. The original regulations were redesignated as 25 CFR 83, and published in the Federal Register, v. 47, no. 61, pages 13326-13328, March 30, 1982. In 1994, the Federal acknowledgment regulations were revised and published by the Federal Register, v. 59, no. 38, pages 9280-9300, February 25, 1994. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and Research Web Page at www.doi.gov/bia/bar/Indexr.htm (link no longer functioning 11/20/2006). return

62 - Brothertown Indians, Available on the Internet: www.jps.net/herblst/indians.htm (link no longer functioning 11/20/2006). return

63 - Olivia and Phillip G. Tousey, 2. return

64 - June Ezold, e-mail correspondence with author, November 7-8, 2001. return

65 - Ezold, e-mail correspondence with author. return

66 - “Brothertown celebration raises $6,800,” The Fond du Lac Reporter, August 4, 2000. return

Copyright 2002 by Clarence B. Davis. All Rights Reserved. Printed by Action Printing, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
Electronic publication by Fond du Lac Public Library has been approved by Clarence B. Davis.

Return to the Local History Manuscripts main page