DBQ Prep (Native America VS. Federal Goverment)

Manifest Destiny

The 19th-century belief that the United States was divinely destined to expand westward, which justified taking Native land and treating Indigenous peoples as obstacles to progress rather than sovereign nations.

Westward Expansion (Early–Mid 1800s)

Rapid settlement of western territories by white Americans increased pressure on Native lands, leading to conflict, displacement, and federal policies prioritizing settlers over Native rights.

Indian Removal Act (1830)

Federal law that authorized the forced relocation of Native tribes east of the Mississippi River to western lands, demonstrating the government’s willingness to violate Native sovereignty for expansion.

Treaty System (Pre-1871)

The U.S. government used treaties to negotiate land cessions with Native tribes, but these agreements were frequently broken, creating long-term mistrust and conflict.

Native American Sovereignty (Before 1865)

Although Native tribes were treated as distinct political entities, the U.S. government routinely ignored their sovereignty when it conflicted with American economic or territorial goals.

Economic Motives for Expansion

Access to land, gold, farming opportunities, and trade routes drove federal and settler interest in the West, often overriding moral or legal concerns about Native peoples.

Impact of the Civil War on Federal Power

After 1865, the U.S. government emerged stronger and more centralized, with increased military capacity and political authority to enforce policies in western territories.

Railroads and Western Development

Post–Civil War railroad expansion accelerated settlement and resource extraction, intensifying conflicts between the federal government and Native Americans over land and control.

Continuity in U.S. Indian Policy

Despite changes over time, U.S. policy consistently prioritized westward expansion and national growth over Native autonomy, setting the foundation for later reservation and assimilation policies.

Why 1865 Is a Turning Point

The end of the Civil War allowed the federal government to shift attention westward, escalating efforts to control Native Americans through military force, treaties, and later legal policies.

Core DBQ Argument (1865–1900)

The relationship between Native Americans and the U.S. government changed in method—from military conflict to legal and cultural control—but remained rooted in the denial of Native sovereignty and the prioritization of westward expansion.

Indian Appropriations Act (1871)

Ended the U.S. government’s recognition of Native tribes as independent nations, eliminating treaty-making and legally placing Native Americans under federal authority.

Significance of Ending Treaty-Making

Marked a shift from negotiated agreements to unilateral federal control, reinforcing the unequal power relationship between the U.S. government and Native Americans.

Reservation System

Forced Native Americans onto designated lands, restricting movement, limiting economic independence, and increasing dependence on the federal government.

Purpose of Reservations

To contain Native populations, open land to white settlement, and reduce armed resistance by placing tribes under federal supervision.

Dawes Act (1887)

Divided tribal land into individual allotments to promote assimilation; surplus land was sold to white settlers, resulting in massive Native land loss.

Effects of the Dawes Act

Undermined tribal unity, reduced Native land ownership, and imposed American values of private property on Indigenous communities.

Boarding Schools (e.g., Carlisle)

Federal schools designed to assimilate Native children by erasing Indigenous languages, religions, and cultural practices.

Goal of Assimilation Policies

To transform Native Americans into culturally American citizens, replacing tribal identity with individualism and obedience to federal authority.

Plains Wars / Armed Conflict

Military conflicts between Native tribes and the U.S. Army, especially in the Great Plains, reflecting Native resistance to land seizure and federal control.

Shift from Violence to Bureaucracy

After 1865, federal policy increasingly relied on laws, institutions, and education rather than direct military force to control Native Americans.

Continuity in U.S. Indian Policy

Despite policy changes, the U.S. government consistently prioritized westward expansion and economic growth over Native sovereignty and rights.

Native American Resistance

Included armed conflict, negotiation, legal adaptation, and cultural survival in response to federal policies.

Native American Agency

Native Americans were not passive victims; they actively resisted, adapted, and attempted to preserve their cultures despite federal pressure.

Typical DBQ Document Perspective — U.S. Government

Often justifies policies as necessary, benevolent, or civilizing while masking coercion and land seizure.

Typical DBQ Document Perspective — Native Leaders

Highlights broken treaties, loss of land, and the defense of Native sovereignty and cultural identity.

Typical DBQ Document Perspective — Reformers

Supports assimilation policies out of paternalism, believing Native cultures were inferior and needed to be “improved.”

Outside Evidence You Can Use Anywhere

Dawes Act, Indian Appropriations Act, reservation system, boarding schools, Plains Wars.