Political corruption exists at every level of government. Every day in America, some person is charged with using their governmental position for private gain. The term grafting, while not in common use today, is a description of this form of crime.
But is grafting always a crime? Might there be situations where governmental policies encourage grafting? One such example of international grafting was the Dawes Act of 1887. The stated purpose of the Dawes Act was to divide up Native American communal properties so that households and individuals could own their own property. The underlying real purpose of the Dawes Act was to force Native Americans to assimilate into American culture.
The Dawes Act and subsequent legislation provided land allotments of varying amounts depending on a person’s status as a member of a family unit. The land would be held in a trust by the U.S. government for 25 years. All of this was contrary to treaties signed with Native American tribes which gave them ownership of tribal lands.
In just 10 years, tribal lands were substantially depleted. Land not allocated for Native American use was declared surplus and sold to non-natives. Eventually, even the land allotted to Native Americans was sold to non-natives for very low prices. This was a designed graft built into the Dawes Act and subsequent legislation.
In the 47 years of the Dawes Act, Native Americans lost about two-thirds of their land provided for in treaties. Nearly 90,000 Native Americans no longer had any land.
When land remained in Native American families, the passage of rights generated another problem. Heirs receive equal undivided interests. As generations pass these rights on to their heirs, the land rights continue to diminish for any one individual. In the early 21st century, these rights were often worth less than one penny in value. Native American families who chose to hold on to their land now are left with property which is virtually valueless because of provisions written into the legislation.
Was this intentional grafting written into federal law? It’s hard to imagine otherwise. The Dawes Act and subsequent legislation appear to be intentional in its purpose to deprive Native Americans of what was promised to them in treaties with the U.S. government.
Just imagine what might happen if government agencies were able to confiscate private property in today’s society. There is no need to imagine the consequences because this practice is still ongoing through eminent domain provisions in every governmental jurisdiction.
* * *
“I never knew a White man to get his foot on an Indian’s land who ever took it off.”–Senator Henry Dawes