From Termination to Restoration
This page is dedicated to telling the story of the legalities of restoring the Alabama-Coushatta, by Narcissa McArthur
Many American Indian tribes experienced termination and restoration in their histories. Termination occurs when the federal government ends its trust relationship with a tribe and thus must rely on the State government for assistance. The federal government enacted termination in order to ease its fund allocation to tribes as well as promote self determination. In many instances although wanting autonomy, tribal economies and living standard suffered. Thus, many tribes sought restoration to federally recognized tribal status in order to become self sufficient once again. This was the case for the Alabama-Coushatta of Texas. The Alabama-Coushatta, however, were a unique tribe in their relations with white Americans throughout their history. They were the only Texas tribe who did not go to war against Texans, but remained friendly which extended to their relations with the United States once they became federally recognized in 1928 and remained so during the process of restoration.[1]
This is the story of the journey from termination to restoration, of the passionate arguments for and against restoration by all parties involved, and ultimately a story of how the tribe’s unique standing particularly influenced restoration. Despite divisions over restoration, the unique, friendly relations between Alabama-Coushatta and the Texan and American governments undeniably allowed for restoration and the passage of the Yselta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act in 1987.
Since settlement in Texas, the Alabama-Coushatta maintained a cordial relationship with Anglo-Americans throughout their history. In the early eighteenth century, the Alabama migrated westward to Louisiana from Alabama. After a century of moving back and forth from Louisiana to Spanish ruled east Texas, the Alabama eventually settled permanently in East Texas near Livingston in 1848.[2] The Coushatta joined the Alabama and during the time of Texas Independence and Statehood, the tribes remained peaceful with other tribes and Anglo-Americans. In 1854, the State of Texas created the first Alabama reservation consisting of 1,200 acres. According to James Ludwell Davis Sylestine, the tribe functioned on its own without state interference and established friendships with Anglo-Americans living near the reservation by working as farm hands.[3] The tribe formally came under federal jurisdiction in 1928 in which they received another 3,071 acres. The federal government and Texas worked together to co-manage the tribe with the federal government holding legal responsibility over the tribe and its lands and appropriating funds while the state government provided services to the tribe such as health care and resource management.[4] Yet in 1954, the United States government terminated its formal relationship with the Alabama-Coushatta via an Act of Congress with the Texas government assuming administrative, legal, and service responsibility for the tribe. Due to the tribe’s special peaceful relations with the State of Texas, the tribe’s reservation was not liquidated but instead all federal responsibilities were given to Texas.
This is the story of the journey from termination to restoration, of the passionate arguments for and against restoration by all parties involved, and ultimately a story of how the tribe’s unique standing particularly influenced restoration. Despite divisions over restoration, the unique, friendly relations between Alabama-Coushatta and the Texan and American governments undeniably allowed for restoration and the passage of the Yselta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act in 1987.
Since settlement in Texas, the Alabama-Coushatta maintained a cordial relationship with Anglo-Americans throughout their history. In the early eighteenth century, the Alabama migrated westward to Louisiana from Alabama. After a century of moving back and forth from Louisiana to Spanish ruled east Texas, the Alabama eventually settled permanently in East Texas near Livingston in 1848.[2] The Coushatta joined the Alabama and during the time of Texas Independence and Statehood, the tribes remained peaceful with other tribes and Anglo-Americans. In 1854, the State of Texas created the first Alabama reservation consisting of 1,200 acres. According to James Ludwell Davis Sylestine, the tribe functioned on its own without state interference and established friendships with Anglo-Americans living near the reservation by working as farm hands.[3] The tribe formally came under federal jurisdiction in 1928 in which they received another 3,071 acres. The federal government and Texas worked together to co-manage the tribe with the federal government holding legal responsibility over the tribe and its lands and appropriating funds while the state government provided services to the tribe such as health care and resource management.[4] Yet in 1954, the United States government terminated its formal relationship with the Alabama-Coushatta via an Act of Congress with the Texas government assuming administrative, legal, and service responsibility for the tribe. Due to the tribe’s special peaceful relations with the State of Texas, the tribe’s reservation was not liquidated but instead all federal responsibilities were given to Texas.
The Pathway to Restoration
TX Attorney General Jim Mattox, 1989, image from texasobserver.org
In 1983, Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox released an opinion stating that the Alabama-Coushatta were no longer a tribe, calling the reservation an “unincorporated association.”[5] This led to their subjection to state taxation for the first time in their 130 year history as a reservation.[6] With their reservation deemed illegal, the tribe braced for other assaults on their sovereignty. The Alabama-Coushatta worried that the taxation would lead to a loss of their land, especially due to dwindling state funding for the tribe.[7] For example, the state appropriated $250,000 to the tribe in 1975, yet in 1979, the state only appropriated $36,000.[8] The 1985 Texas Legislature determined to no longer appropriate funds to administer or service the reservation, but to provide the tribe money through the tribe’s mineral fund without the tribe’s permission.[9] According to a newspaper article in the Houston Chronicle May 1987, the Alabama-Coushatta “felt betrayed after years of loyalty.”[10]
Problems Leading to an Interest in Restoration
Representative Charlie Wilson, D-TX, 1989, image from beaumontenterprise.com
Sudden taxation coupled with economic struggles also led to a push for restoration. Around the time of restoration, since 1963 the tribe had relied upon tourism for its main source of income and hoped newly discovered oil would provide much needed financial stability.[11] At the time of congressional hearings, tourism was diminishing as did oil and gas production.[12] Post secondary education opportunities and health care suggest other reasons impelling restoration. Many proponents of restoration believed reinstating a trust relationship with the federal government would in fact provide long term security for the tribe. Growing discontent with the neglect felt by the tribe by the state government to uphold its end of the agreement upon federal termination to protect the tribe’s land and abandonment of the state’s historic relationship with the tribe, led to Representative Charlie Wilson and Ronald Coleman introducing House Bill 1344 to Congress in order to restore federal responsibility over the Alabama-Coushatta reservation.
Testimonies at the Hearings on H.R. 1344
Arnold Battise, 2007, image from texasindianbar.com
The proposed Congressional act garnered much support. The tribal council and county supported the move, especially since once reinstating federal trust, tax collection would discontinue.[13] On October 17, 1985, the House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs listened to testimonies concerning passage of the restoration act. Tribal spokesman Arnold Battise, tribe chairman Morris Bullock, Representative Charlie Wilson and Texas Governor Mark White are a few supporters who testified in favor of the act. Each indicated the economic and social stability the act would provide for the reservation. Bullock’s argument mostly encompassed listing more problems the tribe experienced due to termination including inadequate housing, Alabama-Coushatta students unable to afford college because the state did not provide assistance, no health care on the reservation which proved problematic for the 70% who suffered from poor eyesight, 44% who had diabetes, 40% enduring high blood pressure, and 47% diagnosed with arthritis.[14] Bullock pointed to “external sources [that] have to do with the legal status of the tribe and its relationship with the State of Texas and the United States” as the greatest threat to the tribe’s existence. Battise accentuated the tribe’s want of self-determination, but self-sufficiency required restoring protection for tribal land. Battise effectively summarized the motive to support passage to “secure homeland, tribal government and way of life.”
Government officials Wilson and White also testified. White discussed local areas showing strong local support for the act and expressed optimism about the tribe’s local businesses.[15] His testimony displayed a positive tone, stressing the camaraderie of the Alabama-Coushatta and their neighbors. Wilson, the one of the act’s creators, offered an overview as to why the tribe needed restoration. He cited the tribe’s long friendship with the state of Texas, but over the years since termination Texas had not been able to adequately assist the tribe through health care or education in ways the federal government could.[16] He also stated because Mattox asserted the Alabama-Coushatta as no longer a reservation and the forthcoming problems associated with such a determination including taxation, foreclosures, and inadequate funding. Wilson played upon the tribe’s traditional tendencies and the prevalence of its Creek dialect on the reservation. In doing so, Wilson maintained the Alabama-Coushatta’s identity, autonomy, and pride.
Hazel E. Elbert, deputy assistant secretary for Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior, testified against the proposed legislation and instead suggested a postponement because the Department wanted additional time to study the tribe’s eligibility for federal trust. Because of termination, the Department had access to limited information concerning the tribe.[17] The Department stressed evidence of Alabama-Coushatta identity and a list of all former and current members.[18] Her testimony indicates, once again, the unique status of the Alabama-Coushatta.
Government officials Wilson and White also testified. White discussed local areas showing strong local support for the act and expressed optimism about the tribe’s local businesses.[15] His testimony displayed a positive tone, stressing the camaraderie of the Alabama-Coushatta and their neighbors. Wilson, the one of the act’s creators, offered an overview as to why the tribe needed restoration. He cited the tribe’s long friendship with the state of Texas, but over the years since termination Texas had not been able to adequately assist the tribe through health care or education in ways the federal government could.[16] He also stated because Mattox asserted the Alabama-Coushatta as no longer a reservation and the forthcoming problems associated with such a determination including taxation, foreclosures, and inadequate funding. Wilson played upon the tribe’s traditional tendencies and the prevalence of its Creek dialect on the reservation. In doing so, Wilson maintained the Alabama-Coushatta’s identity, autonomy, and pride.
Hazel E. Elbert, deputy assistant secretary for Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior, testified against the proposed legislation and instead suggested a postponement because the Department wanted additional time to study the tribe’s eligibility for federal trust. Because of termination, the Department had access to limited information concerning the tribe.[17] The Department stressed evidence of Alabama-Coushatta identity and a list of all former and current members.[18] Her testimony indicates, once again, the unique status of the Alabama-Coushatta.
Opposition
James Sylestine, an Alabama-Coushatta tribal historian, adamantly argued against restoring formal relations with the federal government for a variety of reasons based on personal experience growing up under federal jurisdiction and instead argued for full autonomy. Much of his strong views stemmed from his dislodgement as a tribal member upon marrying a non-Alabama-Coushatta. In his essay “Government Paternalism,” Sylestine argues the dangers of depending on government because it removes one’s self-respect, freedom, and independence. He contends that upon federal recognition in 1928, the tribe suffered. He evidenced that education received by the tribe under government paternalism was inadequate and simply taught vocational skills, gardening and furniture making for boys and home economics for girls.[19] He also stated their political sovereignty diminished because of a “government coup” during the 1930s to install government officials to administer the tribe’s affairs instead of chiefs.[20] He recognized that the members supporting the act were not alive during the time of government paternalism and therefore were not aware of its incompetence, regardless of federal or state government influence. In his essay he further stated that Alabama-Coushatta families earned an annual income of $40,000, and therefore were not in need of federal assistance.
Thus, to Sylestine, restoration seemed a terrible idea for the survival of the tribe. He contacted many Congressmen so as to halt the Bill from enactment. In a letter to Senator Heinz in 1986, Sylestine lobbied the Senator to block the legislation, explaining that government paternalism caused him problems and wanted to prevent such a life on the future generation of Alabama-Coushatta.[21] He countered arguments about inadequate education on the reservation by stating that one of the Indians who testified during the Congressional hearings was a lawyer and another a school teacher. Sylestine also wrote to Senator John McCain in 1987 several days after the bill’s passage in the House of Representatives listing the same reasons against the bill’s passage.[22] Sylestine’s relentlessness in trying to block the passage of the act shows his tenacity and passion regarding the fate of the Alabama-Coushatta.
Although State Comptroller Bob Bullock approved of the measure in order to draw more funding, he opposed federal restoration because HR 1344 allowed for gambling, and he believed would lead to “high stakes bingo” gambling on the reservation.[23] In a press release he declared “We might as well get the highway department to put up a sign at the state line that says ‘Gangsters Welcome.’”[24] Yet according to Indian rights activist lawyer Don Miller, the tribe did not have an interest in gambling neither would they allow ‘gangsters’ on the reservation. In addition, Representative Coleman emphasized his willingness to amend the bill to coincide with existing Texas law on the matter.[25] In none of the testimonies advocating for the passage of the act did they mention gambling.
Thus, to Sylestine, restoration seemed a terrible idea for the survival of the tribe. He contacted many Congressmen so as to halt the Bill from enactment. In a letter to Senator Heinz in 1986, Sylestine lobbied the Senator to block the legislation, explaining that government paternalism caused him problems and wanted to prevent such a life on the future generation of Alabama-Coushatta.[21] He countered arguments about inadequate education on the reservation by stating that one of the Indians who testified during the Congressional hearings was a lawyer and another a school teacher. Sylestine also wrote to Senator John McCain in 1987 several days after the bill’s passage in the House of Representatives listing the same reasons against the bill’s passage.[22] Sylestine’s relentlessness in trying to block the passage of the act shows his tenacity and passion regarding the fate of the Alabama-Coushatta.
Although State Comptroller Bob Bullock approved of the measure in order to draw more funding, he opposed federal restoration because HR 1344 allowed for gambling, and he believed would lead to “high stakes bingo” gambling on the reservation.[23] In a press release he declared “We might as well get the highway department to put up a sign at the state line that says ‘Gangsters Welcome.’”[24] Yet according to Indian rights activist lawyer Don Miller, the tribe did not have an interest in gambling neither would they allow ‘gangsters’ on the reservation. In addition, Representative Coleman emphasized his willingness to amend the bill to coincide with existing Texas law on the matter.[25] In none of the testimonies advocating for the passage of the act did they mention gambling.
The Bill's Enactment
The Yselta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act passed the Senate as HR 318, an amended version of HR 1344 in September 1986, and was signed into law August 1987 by President Reagan.[26] Title II of the Bill concerns the Alabama-Coushatta, which the Bill makes clear to consider the Alabama and Coushatta as one tribal entity for the purpose of the law. Provisions include restoring federal recognition, rights and benefits to the tribe, allowing the tribe to retain its existing tribal constitution and bylaws, recognizes the tribal council’s authority, authorizes Texas to provide services to benefit the tribe, prohibits gambling, and authorizes the State civil regulatory jurisdiction for violation of such prohibitions.[27]
The act ultimately passed for the good of the tribe, despite animosity from tribal historian James Sylestine and apprehensions from State Comptroller Bob Bullock. Those involved with the debate at the time saw the bill's enactment as a way to improve their lives and to increase their self-sufficiency. The tribe's important history of having peaceful relations with the State and federal governments played a significant role in the passage of the bill. To this day, the Alabama-Coushatta remain in a federal trust relationship.
The act ultimately passed for the good of the tribe, despite animosity from tribal historian James Sylestine and apprehensions from State Comptroller Bob Bullock. Those involved with the debate at the time saw the bill's enactment as a way to improve their lives and to increase their self-sufficiency. The tribe's important history of having peaceful relations with the State and federal governments played a significant role in the passage of the bill. To this day, the Alabama-Coushatta remain in a federal trust relationship.
Endnotes
[1] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Representative Charles Wilson), James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[2] James Ludwell Davis Sylestine, “Government Paternalism,” 4 October 1987, 2 James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[3] Sylestine, “Government Paternalism,” 3.
[4] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Arnold Battise, tribal spokesman), James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[5] Attorney General Mattox to Charles Travis, 22 March 1983, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[6] “Bullock Fears ‘Bingo Binge,’” Woodsman, December 5, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[7] “Indians Seeking Support,” Polk County Enterprise, July 21, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Cindy Horswell, “Alabama-Coushattas see hope in U.S. guardianship,” Houston Chronicle, May 26, 1987, Metropolitan Section, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[11] “Texas tribe hopes gas brings in funds,” The Dallas Morning News, June 14, 1983, 22A, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[12] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Morris Bullock, chairman of Alabama-Coushatta tribe), James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[13] “County Backs Move Restoring Indian Lands to U.S. Trusteeship,” Woodsman, August 8, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[14] Hearings on H.R. 1344 (1985), (Statement of Morris Bullock).
[15] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Mark White, Texas Governor) , James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[16] Hearings on H.R. 1344 (1985), (Statement of Representative Charles Wilson).
[17] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Hazel E. Elbert, deputy assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior), James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Sylestine, “Government Paternalism,” 8.
[20] Ibid.
[21] James Ludwell Davis Sylestine to Senator John Heinz, 1 January 1986, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[22] James Ludwell Davis Sylestine to Senator John McCain, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[23] “Bullock Fears ‘Bingo Binge,’” Woodsman, December 5, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[24] Bob Lowry, “Indian supporters challenge Bullock on reservation bill,” Houston Chronicle, December 1, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[25] Ibid.
[26] “Yselta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act” (PL 100-89, 18 August 1987), Available: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/hr318#overview, Accessed: 26 March 2013.
[27] Ibid.
[2] James Ludwell Davis Sylestine, “Government Paternalism,” 4 October 1987, 2 James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[3] Sylestine, “Government Paternalism,” 3.
[4] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Arnold Battise, tribal spokesman), James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[5] Attorney General Mattox to Charles Travis, 22 March 1983, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[6] “Bullock Fears ‘Bingo Binge,’” Woodsman, December 5, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[7] “Indians Seeking Support,” Polk County Enterprise, July 21, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Cindy Horswell, “Alabama-Coushattas see hope in U.S. guardianship,” Houston Chronicle, May 26, 1987, Metropolitan Section, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[11] “Texas tribe hopes gas brings in funds,” The Dallas Morning News, June 14, 1983, 22A, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[12] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Morris Bullock, chairman of Alabama-Coushatta tribe), James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[13] “County Backs Move Restoring Indian Lands to U.S. Trusteeship,” Woodsman, August 8, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[14] Hearings on H.R. 1344 (1985), (Statement of Morris Bullock).
[15] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Mark White, Texas Governor) , James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[16] Hearings on H.R. 1344 (1985), (Statement of Representative Charles Wilson).
[17] Hearings on H.R. 1344: Before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 99th, (1985), (Statement of Hazel E. Elbert, deputy assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior), James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Sylestine, “Government Paternalism,” 8.
[20] Ibid.
[21] James Ludwell Davis Sylestine to Senator John Heinz, 1 January 1986, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[22] James Ludwell Davis Sylestine to Senator John McCain, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[23] “Bullock Fears ‘Bingo Binge,’” Woodsman, December 5, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[24] Bob Lowry, “Indian supporters challenge Bullock on reservation bill,” Houston Chronicle, December 1, 1985, James Ludwell Davis Sylestine Papers, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
[25] Ibid.
[26] “Yselta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act” (PL 100-89, 18 August 1987), Available: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/hr318#overview, Accessed: 26 March 2013.
[27] Ibid.