|
|
Post by mamabear on Dec 19, 2005 16:14:27 GMT -5
We've been confused about the 1886 census and the update of the 1886 done in 1889. Why doesn't the lawsuit go back to 1884? Because as per Barbara Butt's letter to Mr. Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary U.S.D. of Interior, March 6,2000; " In 1884, congress formally recognized them as the Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux"(MMS). So between 1884 and 1886 Land was given to the MMS and the reason for the census in 1886 was about the ISSUE OF LAND.Who already had land and who needed land. Two years is a long time to overlook, because Legally the issue of L.D. starts in 1884. **** Another issue is the letter dated Oct. 8,1904 from the Special Indian Agent in MN to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Washington D.C. This letter shows MANY of the allottees SOLD their 1886 lands; Including Harry Bluestone and Samuel Bluestone (just to name two).This letter describes the Legal descriptions of each land plot.***The question now is....How can part of the L.D.'s who have been approved as defendants stake claim to land their family SOLD?  .....Another issue is the letter dated Aug. 17,1971 FROM: U.S.D.Interior office of the solicitor, Washington D.C. TO: Field Solicitor , Twin Cities MN.; "The roll or census compiled by Walter S. McLeod was sent to the commissioner of Indian Affairs on Sept.2,1886and did not refer to the Date of May 20,1886 and in itself undated." Also,"some of the older Indians at Shakopee believe McLeod's Roll contained Sisseton,Wahpeton,and Wapakute Sioux." This letter also states" There are allegations concerning Mr. McLeod's reliability due to his participation in Questionable Land transactions with these Indians" Does ANYBODY have this 1884 census or Roll of the MMS taken at the time of the Federal Recognition??? REMEMBER THE ISSUE IS ALL ABOUT THE LAND!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by wazi on Dec 20, 2005 1:04:20 GMT -5
there is so much missing about this case. i am still thinking about the buttes allegation that the Santee Sioux are no longer Mdewakanton, Wahpekute and Wahpeton. my thoughts are not comprehending this argument. but what do i know anyways.....
wazi
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Dec 20, 2005 7:57:23 GMT -5
::)Wazi: Buttes is pulling a fast one on yas, I think. She and Kaardal, I feel had decided who they want on their LD List before they sent their packets requesting documentatiion, to those on their predetermined list. If my gut hunch is correct, they don't want anyone on that 1917 McLaughlin list who is from Nebraska and South Dakota, because their thinking is they already received payment for their loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgberg on Dec 20, 2005 9:39:06 GMT -5
should they be going by the mclaughlin list beings how they were "loyal indians"?
|
|
|
|
Post by marnie on Dec 20, 2005 15:46:07 GMT -5
mamabear,
If you or anyone has this 1884 census or roll of MMS, taken at the time of the Federal Recognition,
I would sure like to have a copy/ please send me a copy via email if possible. I would sure be grateful.
marnie
|
|
allie
Full Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by allie on Dec 20, 2005 17:04:11 GMT -5
Question? Where or who has this 1917 Mclaughlin list and what bands are on that list. I would like a copy of that list if possible. Thanks
Allie
|
|
dgng
Junior Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by dgng on Dec 20, 2005 17:16:18 GMT -5
There was a special census taken in 1883, called "List of Dacotah Indians in Minnesota, October 1, 1883" that included 237 Dakota people. (NARS, RG 75, LR, Sioux in Minnesota file). The Indian appropriations act for 1885, which was passed July 4, 1884, contains a section titled "Sioux of Different Tribes, Including Santee Sioux of Nebraska," which provides $10,000 to buy stock and other necessities of "civilization" for the "Medewakanton band" living in Minnesota on October 1, 1883.
That's the closest thing I can find to an "1884 census" and it pertains to the 1885 appropriations. The 1886 appropriations apply to those Dakota living in Minnesota on May 20, 1886, which is what we are calling the "1886 Census."
I don't know if that helps or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgberg on Dec 20, 2005 23:06:02 GMT -5
hey dgng, could i possibly get a copy of that census?
thanx
|
|
|
|
Post by mamabear on Dec 21, 2005 16:03:19 GMT -5
Marnie, that's the roll that I'm looking for. The 1886 was made to find out who had land and who needed land. I am also looking for the list of the Santee Sioux Band of Indians who lost thier lands in Minnesota due to the Act of Congress March3,1863, entitled "An Act for the Removal of the Sisseton, Wahpaton, Medawakanton, and Wahpakoota Bands of Sioux or Dakota Indians and for the disposition of their lands in Minnesota and Dakota." Script was not issued to replace the lands taken by the Gov. until sometime in 1885 and then it wasn't until 1898 that the script was honored, and then possession not given till 1899. In the case of our Great Grand Mother. And the land that she lived on in MN was 1886 land, outside of Redwood Falls.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Dec 22, 2005 1:16:36 GMT -5
folks: Actually, the "1886" Census was really done in 1885 and sent in to Washington in 1886.. The Nara has made a microfilm of it and the1917 McLoughlin list, as well as the 1885 Annuity Roll. The Minnesota State Historical Society has the Microfilm containing these documents,whuiich are in Records Group 75-Records of the BIA..
The 1917 McLaughlin Roll cost a pretty penny to photocopy as it is 219 pages long.
type in the words"1885 Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Census" in your search engine and this should bring up the web site(s) pertaining to this and other Censues.
|
|
|
|
Post by mamabear on Dec 22, 2005 22:29:13 GMT -5
dgng...Do you have a copy of the 1883 census If so, can you let me get a copy or check a name for me? |
|
|
|
Post by wazi on Dec 23, 2005 13:23:41 GMT -5
Okay how did we get to this argument? I thought the initial question regarded the 1884 census information? My statement was not meant to be in any judgmental shape or form. I simply was curious to Dr. Butte's research regarding the separation of the Mdewakanton. I myself do not buy into the argument that the Santee in Nebraska, or in Flandreau, over on the Rosebud, Crow Creek, Pine Ridge, Sisseston and where ever else they are simply removed from their identity. I understand that Congress acted and their maybe a law that says this, but I do not buy that anyone of us can say that we are not descendants. Many just may not be able to link to the 1886 census that is being used. So please lets not get into a big LD fight on this forum. I come from both sides here. I have been certified, but I also descend from people who are not on that list, but are in the history books of the Dakota.
wazi
|
|
|
|
Post by kunsi10 on Dec 23, 2005 14:16:38 GMT -5
Wazi, thank you... Very well put!
|
|
|
|
Post by dakotaboi on Dec 25, 2005 3:02:24 GMT -5
Yes, gp and wazi...... great words!
If only we could put as much energy into helping others become certified "LDs" as we put into arguing moot points. We'd all be in the Yacht Club by now!!! LOL!
--dakotaboi
|
|
dgng
Junior Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by dgng on Dec 26, 2005 22:37:05 GMT -5
let me see if i can get a copy of it from microfilm. will get back to you now that the ceremony for the 38 is completed today.
|
|
|
|
Post by wigwam2 on Jan 5, 2006 20:41:42 GMT -5
::)Wazi: Buttes is pulling a fast one on yas, I think. She and Kaardal, I feel had decided who they want on their LD List before they sent their packets requesting documentatiion, to those on their predetermined list. If my gut hunch is correct, they don't want anyone on that 1917 McLaughlin list who is from Nebraska and South Dakota, because their thinking is they already received payment for their loss. This is a great example of being paranoid. How cynical can ya get? Might not be outright name calling but the insinuation is there. Do we all agree that this is honorable talk? |
|
|
|
Post by dgberg on Jan 5, 2006 20:56:55 GMT -5
i'm not sure. hermin1, can you back this up with an example? i'm sure some of us can find examples. for one- trying to charge some money for whats supposed to be public information.
|
|
|
|
Post by bordeauxblood69 on Jan 20, 2006 12:51:49 GMT -5
hey everyone I'm new to this I was just reading hermin 1 put up and I was wondering about the Mclaughin list. I'm looking info on Elizabeth starr aka (nameless)and or (chepawwin) she is my gg grandmother who was married to Peter Halpin (Arpan) B. 1847 D. 1899 I have info on him but nothing about her all I know is that she is an enrolled member of the Yankton sioux tribe. I was told that this list has the Info that I need to tie myself and family to the wolf child claim. I'm thinking this is an a allotment list from 1902 sissiton wahpeton, there is a person who is an appointed states attorney here who has this list and was said that she was going to sell copies to people also just a few families have this list as well and are not going to share this. How rude is that? My guess was that this states attorney is not for the people and just for herself. Anyone with any info I would greatly appreciate thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Jan 20, 2006 14:23:28 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with observations.
|
|
|
|
Post by linda on Jan 21, 2006 8:54:41 GMT -5
Would the name Wiyantoicewin be on the McLaughin List?
Does anyone know what Wiyantoicewin means?
|
|
.....Another issue is the letter dated Aug. 17,1971 FROM: U.S.D.Interior office of the solicitor, Washington D.C. TO: Field Solicitor , Twin Cities MN.; "The roll or census compiled by Walter S. McLeod was sent to the commissioner of Indian Affairs on Sept.2,1886and did not refer to the Date of May 20,1886 and in itself undated." Also,"some of the older Indians at Shakopee believe McLeod's Roll contained Sisseton,Wahpeton,and Wapakute Sioux." This letter also states" There are allegations concerning Mr. McLeod's reliability due to his participation in Questionable Land transactions with these Indians"
thank you for allowing me access to this site.