TaTankakinyanke-Running Bull was b. abt 1825 and his wife was Pejutawin-Medicine Woman, b. abt 1858. He had a daughter and her name was Minnie KiKteWin Running Bull b. about 1882. He had two sons, one ticaKdeWakuwa, b. abt 1884, d. abt 1887 and Hoksina, b. 1888, d. abt 1890.
I have not done extensive research on this family but he may have been Struck by the Ree's son at minimum he was one of the chiefs headmen.
One of the reasons you have not heard much about him is that after 1890 (Struck by the Ree d. 1889) the government abolished the chief system. The divisions of Sioux attempted to acknowledge their leaders but the government refused to do so.
It was not until the election of 22 Sept 1931, that Yanktons were allowed to elect a tribal chair and once again have leaders. Alfred Clement Smith (my grandfather and grand nephew of Struck by the Ree) was elected. This was also the year that my grandfather and grandmother(Dorothy Ruth Cote, great-great granddaughter of War Eagle) encouraged the women to become involved in tribal elections and were allowed to vote.
Then just as we were coming into our own the IRA (the Indian Reformation Act) came about and our tribe did not vote for it. Just as soon as they had given us the opportunity to lead ourselves as we once had done, they took it away from us and abolished our rights as human beings and castrated out men to being powerless as protectors. We were not allowed to elect our tribal leaders until 1963! as punishment. In 1963, Percy Archambeau was elected our tribal chair.
I had posted the following excerpt once before on this site and it was misconstrued as being something other than what it was, a history of the Yankton's during the depression, a time when Clement Smith accepted leadership under great odds and circumstances.
So Yankton's or anyone for that fact, who are interested in what was going on on the Yankton rez with reference to politics and economics will be interested in the following from
Peyote and the Yankton Sioux; The Life and Times of Sam Necklace by Thomas Constantie Maroukis with foreward by Leonard Bruguier. This is book recommended reading for any Yankton interested in our history, religion and politics. It is a history of the Yankton's from the earliest times to the present and great reading.
Any man who accepts leadership during troubled times, in my opinion, has my appreciation and my indebtedness.
The following is
not not for people who have ADD but for Sioux history buffs and geneologists.
THE DEPRESSION YEARS ON THE YANKTON RESERVATION
1930 through 1940 , Yankton Reservation, South Dakota and Washington D.C.
The four years of President Herbert Hoover’s administration (1929-33) were grim for American Indians in spite of the fact that the Department of the Interior had some reform-minded officials who were being pressured by an increasing number of Americans call for change. The Meriam Report was a model for reform. The main obstacle to meaningful change was the continued assumption that assimilation should be the goal of federal Indian policy. There were some improvements; for example, appropriations for food and clothing at government boarding schools were increased, and some of the corporal punishment of students was curtailed. Boarding school principals were now required to have college degrees, and several boarding schools were closed. Health-care appropriation also increased, but overall the Hoover administration took a cautious approach to change. Its efforts were minuscule compared with the great economic needs. On the eve of the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, two-thirds of American Indians were landless. With a land base of 138 million acres in 1887, reservations accounted for only 52 million acres, and half of that was desert or semi desert. Historians are in universal agreement that federal Indian land policy “failed miserably” and that safeguarding Indian rights and land titles was not a governmental priority.
The onset of the Depression was not immediately obvious on the Yankton Reservation, because economic conditions were already depressed. As the Depression wore on and the weather became more and more severe, however, the situation worsened with the fear of sporadic starvation. Per capita income dropped as the farming crisis grew and white farmers in the area were less able to employ seasonal Yankton workers. The summer of 1931 was extremely hot, dry, and windy, creating dust storms with dark clouds that hid the sun. Dust piled up everywhere, especially along fences and homes. Hordes of grasshoppers invaded the region. Virtually all crops and vegetation withered in the sun. Many cattle died. The next two years brought more heat and dryness. In June 1933 the grasshoppers returned. There was little that could be done; Father Sylvester of the Marty Mission gathered some of his parishioners for a procession through parched fields, reciting the rosary, sprinkling holy water on the fields, and imploring God to stop the grasshoppers. The agency’s annual economic report for 1933 outlined these harsh conditions. There were only 201 employed people on the reservation, many of them earning minimal wages. This affected housing and clothing. Out of 289 homes (144 were one- or two-room houses), 174 were listed in fair to poor condition, and 25 percent of the people were described as having inadequate clothing. In 1933, however, came the beginning of relief. The government started a biweekly distribution of staples, such as flour, sugar, and cheese. Father Sylvester opened a soup kitchen at the mission feeding 100 to 200 people daily.
Not only were the summers insufferable, but the winters were not much better, with extreme cold and blizzards. Some described the winter of 1936 as the blizzard of the century. Heating homes was difficult. Almost everyone had coal- or wood-burning stoves, but there was little coal to be distributed. Some people burned their furniture and wood from their front porches for heat. Many Yanktons remember the despair of these years. No one could forget the grasshoppers, the shortage of food, or the deaths of many horses. Some of these memories have been preserved. Cecil Provost put it well: “no rain, dust, grasshoppers—day after day.” William O’Connor said the “times were deplorable.” The Marty Mission reopened its soup kitchen when necessary, and the government began to increase its supply of rations. In 1935 the government delivered several hundred mutton carcasses to hl peas the food crisis. Even with the government aid there rarely was sufficient food. Some communal farming was tried, and there were small family gardens, but they were not enough. In the winter of 1936 Father Sylvester wrote to John Collier, seeking help for the reservation: “Indians here freezing and starving. Situation deplorable . . . . Indians burning their furniture.” The following year several South Dakota newspapers reported on starvation on the Yankton Reservation, with headlines such as “Yankton Indians Starve.” The New Deal programs helped somewhat, but overall economic conditions did not improve.
President Roosevelt appointed Harold Ickes as secretary of the interior and John Collier as commission of Indian Affairs. These two men would reverse many of the government’s Indian policies. Collier had been advocating the reform of federal Indian policy for years. His reforms were based on a new philosophical principle that replaced the assimilation model of the past half-century with a model based on cultural pluralism, including economic development, a degree of self-government, religious freedom, and cultural autonomy. Some called it the “Indian New Deal.” Collier’s first step was emergency relief to impoverished reservations. The Yanktons received direct relief with the distribution of food and surplus clothing. In March 1933 Congress established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to put the nation’s unemployed to work. Some Yanktons went to Chamberlain, South Dakota, to work in an integrated CCC camp. This was not a satisfactory solution for the heavy unemployment. Secretary Ickes and Collier had Congress approve a separate administrative unit called CCC-ID (Indian Division) in order to set up work camps on reservations. The workers received a salary of $30 per month. By the summer of 1933 the camps were open, and thousands were put to work. The Works Progress Administration (WPA), a New Deal program that provided work for people from all walks of life, sponsored some of the jobs. Both the CCC and WPA employed Yanktons. On the reservations they built the Song Hawk Dam and other smaller dams, springs were revitalized to provide water for cattle, and soil conservation projects were undertaken. Rebuilding roads and construction jobs at the new Indian hospital in Wagner also provided jobs. Over 80,000 American Indians were employed by the CCC-ID, 8,405 in South Dakota. The WPA employed several thousand more. These relief and rehabilitation programs did not solve the deep-seated economic problems, but they did provide jobs and much-needed income. These programs were essential to John Collier’s vision, but his real goal was to move beyond relief to reform.
The heart of John Collier’s reforms was embodied in the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), passed by Congress in June 1934. It established a variety of administrative programs that altered the federal relationship with American Indians. Its primary feature was to develop limited self-government on the reservations. In addition, the bill ended the allotment system, effectively stopping the loss of reservation land. Funds were also made available for community development, economic development, and loans for education. The IRA did not automatically apply to all reservations. Voters were asked to accept or reject reorganization und the new bill. The IRA received a mixed response, because it was a product of an Indian bureau that had developed and implemented many harmful policies over the last-century. The vote on the IRA created tension and divisiveness. Each reservation had to vote several times. The first vote was to accept or reject reorganization, but it was not a simple majority vote. A majority of eligible voters had to vote no in order to reject the IRA. That meant that voters who stayed home had their votes counted as yes votes. This created considerable resentment, as reconsideration was prohibited. There were 174 Indian groups that voted approval of the IRA and 78 that rejected. Upon approval, a tribal council was elected to draft a constitution that required approval by the secretary of interior and ratification by a majority vote on each reservation. The IRA then allowed each reservation government to petition for a charter of incorporation, which also had to be ratified by the voters. With the approval of the charter the tribe became a corporation. Under this system the tribal council had the power to hire lawyers, to control the sale or lease of tribal land, and to enter into negotiations wit the federal, state, and local governments. The IRA did not establish home rule or self-determination as it is understood today, but the reservations that accepted the IRA acquired limited power over local affairs.
The debates over the IRA, both on and off the reservations, were intense. Off the reservations the debates were between those who advocated a continuation of the assimilation policies of the past and those who supported Collier’s reforms. The anti-reform group included almost all the Christian missionaries. For example, the Catholic missions in South Dakota launched a negative campaign against John Collier and the IRA. Their attacks were circulated in letters and published in the Little Bronzed Angel and the Catholic Sioux Herald. They implied that John Collier was against religion and was promoting socialist if not communistic policies. They suggested that the very existence of Catholic schools was threatened by the passage of the IRA. Some longtime employees of the BIA also opposed the bill, arguing that it was a step backward and would revive the “blanket Indian” and perpetuate “tribalism.” Those in support of the IRA were the reformers of the 1920s and 1930s who believed that government polices were bankrupt.
On the reservations the debates were also intense, particularly in South Dakota, where they became an extension of the struggle between full-bloods and mixed-bloods. For the most part the full-bloods or traditionalists opposed the IRA; the mixed-bloods supported it. The full-bloods or traditionalists were suspicious of the federal government. They feared a loss of rights to a new tribal government. Those who had not sold their allotted land were afraid of confiscation of the land or loss of heirship rights. They feared that there was an underlying government agenda that was not in their best interests. Their suspicions were most intense against the mixed-bloods who supported the IRA. Many of the latter were landless, having sold their allotments and moved into the small towns in the area. Others were born after the allotment period and had not received any land. The full-bloods resented them for supposedly giving up their “Indian ways” and living an Anglo-American lifestyle. For their part, most of the mixed-bloods looked down on full-bloods for being unwilling or unable to be “progressive” and for clinging to “old ways.” The mixed-bloods saw the IRA as an opportunity for upward mobility by gaining political and economic benefits through a local government system that had access to economic development funds. Prior to the IRA, the debate was over who should represent the tribe in negotiations with the government. Under the IRA, an elected tribal council would have certain political and economic prerogatives. As the stakes increased, the intensity of the debate followed suit.
The debate over public issues was not new; it was a continuation of the political, economic, and cultural struggles that had been going on since the allotment system was instituted. As the Depression wore on and issues went unresolved, some Yanktons believed that a new tribal council was needed. A committee of nine, called the Claims Committee, was elected in 1924. It dealt with claims issues such as the Pipestone Quarry but did not involve itself in other reservation business. By 1931 four members of the committee had died; one resigned, leaving a committee of four, chaired by David Simmons. Many Yanktons felt that they were not well represented and wanted another election, because the remaining four members had not been reelected. In the summer of 1931 petitions were circulated calling for the election of a new tribal committee. Several Yanktons, including Sam Necklace, signed the petition, which was forwarded to the commissioner of Indian Affairs, who approved it and recommended that a constitution and bylaws be written. He also pointed out that the constitution had to be approved by his office before the Yanktons could vote on it. The commissioner reminded C. C. Hickman, the superintendent of the Yankton Agency, that an elected tribal council served only in an advisory capacity to the commissioner and the superintendent; it could only act on issues that were submitted to it and final action always rested with the Department of the Interior.
In September 1931 a constitution and bylaws were drafted and sent to Washington for approval. The constitution was based on a dependency model; the Yanktons could take no action without federal approval. The commissioner’ office approved the constitution, and the superintendent called a meeting of eligible voters to debate and vote on it. After a contentious meeting, the new constitution was approved by a vote of 230 to 125. The opposition was led by Raymond and Gertrude Bonnin and David Simmons (Gertrude’s half-brother). They argued that there was a duly constituted tribal committee and that the Clement Smith faction would control the new committee. After the new constitution was approved, an election was held for nine members of a new Business Committee. Clement Smith was elected chairman. One important point concerning Yankton politics in the 1920s and especially in the 1931 election is that women began to participate in the petitioning process and as voters.
The ratification of the constitution and the election of a tribal council did not settle the question of the old Claims committee of 1924. It was unclear if it was defunct or if there were two committees. The new constitution did not address the issue. Commissioner Charles J. Roads responded to this dilemma by declaring that the Yanktons had two elected committees. The 1924 committee would be responsible for claims issues; the 1931 committee would serve as the Tribal Council. Many Yanktons believed that politics influenced the ruling to keep two committees. The Bonnin/Simmons faction struggled with the Clement Smith group, which had initiated the 1931 constitution. The Bonnins were well-known personalities in Washington and may have influenced the decision of the commissioner to keep the 1924 committee. Gertrude was president of the National Council of American Indians, and Raymond was executive secretary-treasurer. They used the organization letterhead to send lengthy letters; they also wrote to several member of Congress, asking them to intervene with Roads on their behalf. The Bonnins lived in Washington part of the year and knew Rhoads personally. He would not accept any negative reports about the Bonnins that were sent to him by Superintendent Hickman.
The majority of the Yanktons were not happy with the decision. In April 1932 a new petition was sent to the BIA to “finally determine the selection of a new tribal business and claims committee” and readoption of a constitution and bylaws. The commissioner approved. The Yanktons met on 22 September at the agency headquarters in Greenwood. James Irving was elected to serve as chair of the meeting, and David Ree nominated Sam Necklace to serve as secretary. Sam declined the nomination, says that he wanted to take an active part in the proceedings. After considerable debate, they voted to abolish the 1924 committee. A new constitution was proposed, establishing a governing body called the Yankton Sioux Tribal Business and Claims committee, made up of nine enrolled Yanktons serving two-year terms. The constitution was approved which effectively decertified the 1931 constitution and 1931 Business Committee. The floor was opened for nomination to the new committee. There were twenty-one nominations. Sam Necklace nominated Ben Vardall, a member of the Native American Church. Everyone voted for nine candidates, with the top nine who received the most votes becoming the new governing body. Vardall was not elected. Joseph Grabbingbear and Clement Smith received the most votes. On 5 October, Commissioner Rhoads approved the new constitution and bylaws and certified the election.
The Yanktons now had a new constitution and a new governing body; but in an ironic twist of events much of what seemed settled became quite unsettled with the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the appointment of John Collier. The year 1933 was a watershed for the Yanktons. Not only was it the depth of the Depression, with hunger stalking the reservation, but other changes also occurred. On 1 April Superintendent Hickman was removed from office for his questionable role in Yankton politics. The Yankton Agency was also downgraded to a subagency and placed under the jurisdiction of the Rosebud Agency. The Yanktons now had an assistant superintendent who reported to Rosebud instead of directly to Washington. The change was ostensibly made for economic reasons, reducing the numbers of federal employees on the Yankton Reservation. It remained a subagency until 1967, when it was reestablished as an independent jurisdiction. As a subagency it received less consideration from the Rosebud superintendent. Amidst these changes the Yanktons now had to decide whether to accept reorganization under the Indian Reorganization Act. In the fall the Yanktons began a series of meetings to debate their future. On 27 October 1934, they voted to accept in principle being organized under the IRA. Commissioner Collier sent them a congratulatory letter. Voting to ratify an IRA constitution would be another matter.
A new IRA constitution was a product of the BIA, but each reservation could add amendments. The constitutions gave reservation governments more local autonomy. The guidelines, however, required approval of the constitution by the secretary of interior, and any action taken under the new constitution was subject to review. Meanwhile the Yanktons were preparing for an election of their tribal council, based on the 1932 constitution, which called for biennial elections. At a meeting in September there were twenty nominations from the floor for nine positions on the council. Amos Shields, a member of the Peyote community, nominated Sam Necklace. As in 1932, Joe Grabbingbear and Clement Smith were the top vote getters. Sam did not fare well; he tied for fourteenth.
In 1935 the Yanktons voted on the IRA constitution and bylaws; much to the surprise of the BIA, they rejected it by a vote of 299 to 187. The absentee ballots favored the constitution 57 to 1. The integrity of the absentee ballots was questioned, but they were not enough to change the result. This meant that the Yanktons could not be organized under the IRA, which caused long term confusion about the status of the tribe. They lost access to some federal benefits (it did not affect the CCC or WPA programs); they lost federal recognition of elected officials; and they gained the anger of John Collier. Attempting to rectify the situation, they submitted several new constitutions to Washington, but none were acceptable. For example, in December 1935 Gertrude and Raymond Bonnin prepared a new non-IRA constitution that gave the Yanktons more autonomy. They acquired over 300 signatures, including all the Necklaces, and forwarded it to Washington for approval; it was returned unapproved. There was also a group that continued to press for approval of an IRA constitution. The debates continued, but the deadlock remained. The Yanktons voted down another constitution in 1936. The two-year term of office was about to expire for the Yankton Business and Claims Committee, but the BIA would not approve the scheduling of a new election. The Yanktons did not have a duly elected governing body, but they went ahead anyway and conducted an unauthorized election. The same situation continued in 1938; the federal government would not approve an election, but the Yanktons nevertheless elected nine people to the Business and Claims Committee. Clarence Foreman became the new unauthorized Chairman. Collier wrote to Superintendent C. R. Whitlock of the Rosebud Agency, reminding him that the recently elected Yankton committee was not recognized by his office.
With the absence of an authorized governing body there was a need for some type of administrative structure to coordinate federal relief and rehabilitation programs on the local level. The commissioner’s office recommended that each of the tree districts on the reservation (White Swan, Greenwood, and Chouteau Creek) elect a local rehabilitation committee. The town of Marty was later added as a fourth district. Each district elected three representatives to a local rehabilitation committee, with one member of each committee serving on a central rehabilitation committee that dealt directly with government officials. These committees were recognized by the BIA only in matters pertaining to federal rehabilitation programs. This was the closest thing to a governing body that the Yanktons had.
Led by Clement Smith, 397 Yanktons signed a petition in 1939 in support of an amendment to the IRA that would exclude the Yanktons from its jurisdiction, allowing them to organize on their own. Collier testified against the amendment. He argued that the Yanktons would lose additional benefits if it passed. After hearing various sides on the amendment, the House Committee on Indian Affairs decided to take no action. In 1940 Clement Smith returned to Washington to testify again against the IRA. He said it “sets up the practice of communism.” The chair of the House committee replied: “Frankly the Chair will state that he is of the opinion that the witness does not know what he is talking about.” The deadlock continued, but the BIA was clear about the significance of the Yankton decision to reject an IRA constitution. The political status of the Yanktons was outlined in a letter from William Zimmerman, assistant commissioner of Indian Affairs, to Superintendent Whitlock. Zimmerman reminded Whitlock that the tribal council headed by Clement Smith should not be recognized as it was not a duly constituted tribal body. He added that “at the present tie, there is no tribal council with whom the [Indian] Service can deal in effecting Rehabilitation agreements….Terms of the Tribal Council elected in 1934 have expired and successors have not been chose.” The lack of a recognized governing body continued until the Yanktons adopted a constitution in 1963. Meanwhile tribal business was conducted by calling special meetings, electing temporary chairs, and voting on issues by those in attendance.
The majority of reservation governments (including most of the Sioux) voted to accept an IRA constitution, but not the Yanktons. The debate over the IRA was influenced by many factors—some real, some imagined—including rumors, misinformation, misunderstandings, interference by so-called outsiders, Collier’s abrasiveness, missionary involvement, and a number of competing factions, such as full-bloods versus mixed-bloods as well as old versus young. There was some realignment of the factions as groups came together to defeat the new constitution. The most harmful rumor was that under the new constitution the land of those who held allotments and feared losing their land. They believed that the mixed-favored the new constitution because it would increase their power by giving them more control over tribal resources. This was a very trying time. Many of the Yanktons interviewed in the 1960s and 1970s have vivid memories of the IRA turmoil. One, Bill O’Connor, said that who was in favor of the IRA was accused of favoring it for personal gain. He also said that hose opposed were call “Old Dealers” and those in favor were called “New Dealers.” Others reported the same fear about losing land; some called the IRA “communistic.” Some people feared that if you sold land or made it profitable the proceeds would come under tribal control, which of course meant the BIA. The fact that BIA approval was required for certain actions taken by a tribal council convinced some that the government had no intention of allowing the Yanktons much autonomy. In the end there was too much opposition to the new constitution. Clement Smith, “unofficial” tribal chairman, originally supported the IRA but then campaigned against the new constitution. Raymond and Gertrude Bonnin worked hard to defeat the new constitution, finding support among the full-bloods and among the Peyote community.
Another significant factor that helped defeat the new constitution was that the missionaries on the reservations opposed the IRA from the beginning; in fact, they opposed virtually all of Collier’s reform policies. All three denominations (Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Catholics) advised their parishioners to vote against the constitution. Father Sylvester was the main leader of the church opposition. He and other missionaries did not consider the “Indian New Deal” to be reform; they considered it a retreat to “tribalism.” Father Sylvester wrote in the Little Bronzed Angel that “it would be a pity to encourage Indians to look upon certain things in his past as desirable.” Four days after the election re received a letter of rebuke from Superintendent W.W. Roberts for his involvement in helping defeat the IRA constitution, especially sending some of his staff door to door to speak against it. A frustrated Roberts asked why he was so opposed to the constitution whereas Catholics on the Rosebud Reservation supported it.
There is not a general consensus as to whether the Yanktons’ decision to reject reorganization under the IRA hurt them in the long run. On the national level the debate still continues over John Collier’s reforms. Some have argued that Collier was an assimilationist but took the long view that American Indian cultures needed to be nurtured and strengthened and only then assimilated into American society. The structure of IRA governments was styled after American models of government and did not take into account traditional people and traditional structures. It has also been pointed out that the power of the tribal councils was limited and major decisions required federal approval. Native American scholars such as Vine Deloria, Jr., however have argued the positive side of the Indian New Deal. Deloria contends that the real importance of John Collier’s reform ideas laying a conceptual shift away from the ideas that reservations were delegated certain powers to the ideas that reservations had inherent powers but that this conceptual shift did not bear fruit until the mid 1960s. He also argues that Collier’s strongest reforms were in economic are, not the political arena. Others have pointed to the end of the allotment system, the increase in the reservation land base, and the closing of boarding schools as positive. As for the Yanktons, it is unclear how the approval of an IRA constitution could have revised the crushing economic problems of unemployment, poor housing, and an eroded land base. The Indian New Deal did, however, allow the Native American Church to operate in the open.
From: Peyote and the Yankton Sioux; The Life and Times of Sam Necklace by Thomas Constantine Maroukis and Foreword by Leonard R. Bruguier