Volume 21 Number 1
October 1981

Eugene F. Provenzo Jr. and Gary N. McCloskey

Education played a crucial role in the assimilation and termination policy of the Federal government. General Richard H. Pratt, the founder of the Carlisle Indian School, and one of the leading figures in the Indian education movement during the late nineteenth century, stated the general policy as follows:

The policy of assimilation and termination evolved out of programs begun during the Grant administration. According to the Indian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1871, no longer was any group of Indians in the United States recognized as an independent nation (see Note 7). Under the new policy, religious groups including the Methodists, the Baptists and the Catholics, who had previously been educating the Indians through missions, began to receive Federal support for educating and civilizing them. Implementation of these religiously based programs presented fundamental problems in light of the question of the separation of church and state (see Note 8). By 1882, a radical shift in policy was initiated by Henry M. Teller, the Secretary of the Interior, who in his report of 1882 declared that the previous attempts to civilize the Indians were failures (see Note 9). Support for religious affiliated schools was gradually withdrawn, and in their place the government attempted to establish a system of Federally controlled schools (see Note 10).

The withdrawal of Federal support for church-administered schools has commonly been interpreted as being part of the history of the church/state controversy in education, and in the specific case of the Catholics a continuation of the Nativist and anti-Catholic tradition that dominated American culture throughout much of the nineteenth century" (see Note 11). It is the thesis of this study that the withdrawal of support for Indian education in the case of the Catholics represented more than an expression of anti-Catholicism, it was also an attempt by the Federal government to eliminate any alternatives to their program of Americanizing the Native American population by means of education.

Essentially, the Federal government attempted to implement a uniform Americanization program for the Native American population. While on the surface, this program, which emphasized assimilation and termination, differed little from the approach taken towards the Indians by the Catholic Church-the Catholic approach to Indian education in fact represented an important challenge to the basic philosophy underlying the Federal policy. While the Catholics advocated a pluralistic approach to educating the Native American populations, the Federal government felt that Americanization could only be achieved through a unitary policy (see Note 12).

Basically, the Federal government in its approach to Indian education attempted to impose a specific definition and model of culture on the Native Americans. The Reverend Lyman Abbott, at the Sixth Lake Mohonk Conference of Friends of the Indians in 1888, characterized the position of the Federal government as far as Indian education was concerned when he stated that education should not be provided as a gift to the Indian, but instead should be

Although Catholic missionary educators were also concerned with "civilizing" the Indians, the approach which they took throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries tended to recognize to a much greater degree the need of the Indians to accept on their own both American culture and Christianity rather than have it imposed upon them by an external force. In doing so, the Catholics attempted to develop a system of education which was more immediately responsive to the values and traditions of the Indians they were educating, than the system imposed by the Federal government.

Both the Federal government and the Catholics had as their specific purpose the Christianizing of Indian groups. In the case of the government, however, there was no attempt to impose an explicit dogma on the Indians. Civilization and Christianity were consistently linked with one another. As Katherine Iverson has explained, the debate over whether or not the Indians should be first civilized or Christianized was largely a semantic issue:

In contrast, as might be expected, the Catholics saw religious instruction as being of primary importance and providing the surest means by which the Indians would become civilized.

Catholic criticism of government policies became explicit during the 1890s. In articles in publications such as The Catholic World and The American Ecclesiastical Review, detailed criticisms are directed against Federal educational policies. D. Manley in an article published in The Catholic World in July, 1892, for example, argued that the government’s efforts had failed for two specific reasons. The first involved the placement of Indian reservations in the midst of white populations. Basically, Manley argued that the white populations rather than setting an example for the Indian groups with whom they were in close contact, tended to corrupt them. A second argument maintained that, the day schools and training schools such as Carlisle, Hampton and Albuquerque, were unable to overcome "the evil influence of the wigwam" (see Note 16).

Manley argued that boarding schools, especially those run by the Catholics were more successful since:

In an effort to support his argument, Manley quoted General Samuel Chapman Armstrong, the founder of Hampton Institute, in support of government schools. Based on the evidence of the particular effectiveness of the Catholic boarding schools for the Indians, Manley explained that abandoning the system of contract schools would prove to be a disaster:

Manley ultimately believed that the Indian as a "civilized pagan" would present as much of a problem to the government as an uneducated Indian.

During the early 1890s, discussions were also pursued trying to explain why there had not developed a Native American clergy within the Catholic Church. L.W. Reilly writing in The American Ecclesiastical Review in 1891 cited a number of reasons why Indians had not become members of the clergy. Citing various Catholics involved in missionary work with the Indians, Reilly put forward six reasons for the lack of the development of a Native American clergy. These included: the lack of a tradition of civilization, the nomadic life of many of the Indians, the reservation system, the lack of moral fortitude among many Indian tribes, their limited intellectual capacity, and the slowness of Indians in mastering languages other than their own (see Note 19).

Reilly’s comments clearly reflected a bias in terms of what he felt the Indian was capable of achieving. Yet despite these problems, Reilly argued that the Indian could overcome these limitations and achieve ordination. By the end of the decade major arguments were being made in favor of the need for a renewed effort to establish an Indian clergy. In an anonymous article published in The Catholic World in June, 1897, entitled "Native Indian Vocations," there was an attempt to link an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Christianizing India to the situation of the American Indian." Arguing that the traditional approach to the American Indian had involved their being seen as primitive savages, the author maintained instead that it was the missionaries attitude that led the Indians not to seek ordination, by making them feel unworthy of such a position. Citing a wide-range of missionary and non-religious authorities, the author stated that:

Arguing that as this was indeed the case, then there was a need for a program of education in which church leaders encouraged Indians to become members of the clergy (see Note 22).

This argument calling for the establishment of a Native American or Indian clergy was a breakthrough for some Catholics in terms of understanding the Indian as being capable of self-determination. If, as the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire argues, the colonial situation is a "culture of silence," the inclusion of Indians in the Catholic clergy represented an important attempt to encourage the development of a significant degree of autonomy and independence on the part of Native Americans. Unlike the traditional Protestant missionaries who had worked among the Indians, the Catholics at least recognized the potential of the Native American people to lead themselves (see Note 23).

Skepticism about the possibility of establishing an Indian clergy was restated by the Jesuit Frederic Eberschweiler, in an article in The Catholic World in September, 1897 (see Note 24). Responding to the previously discussed anonymous article, Eberschweiler denied that the Indians by the very nature of their situation as a subject people could effectively serve as members of the clergy.

Following arguments similar to those outlined by Reilly in his 1891 article in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Eberschweiler did not see how it was possible for the Indians to overcome the limitations imposed upon them by their traditions and beliefs, as well as their domination by the mainstream culture.

Aside from the question of vocations, and in part due to the struggle to keep their Indian schools operating, Catholics in the 1890s became stronger in their arguments supporting the need for religion in education. A secularized Christianity was seen by them as being incapable of truly civilizing the Native American population. Arguing that the policy towards the Indian on the part of the Federal government had consistently been one of "greed, outrage and dishonor," Charles Carson in his 1898 article in The Catholic World, "The Indians As They Are," maintained that without religion the educational policy of the Federal government was doomed to failure (see Note 26). Educating and civilizing the Native American would not solve his problems.

Carson went on to maintain that the argument over religious education was not based upon whether or not there was good instruction going on, but instead was based upon the jealousy of Federal government towards the success of the Catholics in educating the Indians. As he stated:

Catholic authors such as Carson, clearly felt that the Catholic schools were being singled out for discriminatory treatment because of the general anti-Catholic sentiment within the culture.

What the Catholics did not realize was the opposition to Catholic religious schools on the part of the Federal government was not motivated so much by strong anti-Catholic feelings, as by much more broadly based anti-sectarian feelings. Sectarian schools, whether Catholic or Protestant, posed a major threat to the philosophy of assimilation and termination that was being promoted by the Federal government during the late nineteenth century. By the end of the 1890s, the Catholics were virtually the only sectarian group concerned with the religious education of the Indians and the operation of Federally funded contract schools. In 1899, of the $119,644.50 set aside for contract schools by the Federal government, Catholics received $116,884.50 or nearly 98% of the total funds available (see Note 29).

This fact is a reflection of the extent to which the various Protestant denominations had withdrawn from being involved with educating Indian or Native American groups (see Note 30). Through their withdrawal from the running of contract schools for Indians by the end of the 1890s, the different Protestant denominations had in effect accepted the policy of termination and assimilation that was being promoted by the Federal government. Religious and missionary education was clearly seen as delaying the general process of assimilation and termination. General Richard Pratt, for example, argued in 1892 that:

Pratt was not alone in his viewpoint. Similar positions were maintained by the Protestant religious leader Lyman Abbott and James M. King, the Secretary of the National League for the Protection of American Institutions (see Note 32).

At the Sixth Lake Mohonk Conference in 1888, Lyman Abbott argued that the relationship between the government and the churches in terms of contract schools and Indian education was "as perplexing in its results as it is anomalous in its nature (see Note 33). In his view, such a relationship would produce a fragmentary policy at best. In order to have a unified policy towards Indian education, either the state or the churches would have to take sole responsibility. In Abbott’s mind, the state had to assume this role since it was the government’s duty to care for the Indians. As he explained: "The education of the wards of the nation is a duty imposed upon the nation itself (see Note 34).

A few years later in 1892, James M. King at the Tenth Lake Mohonk Conference argued, as had Abbott before him, that the state should be responsible for developing a system of schools for the Indians. Maintaining that the various denominations should demonstrate their value to the Indian by their actions in the world, instead of proselytizing them. As King stated:

Such ideas were not limited to religious leaders, but were even found among the Board of Indian Commissioners as early as 1885. At that time, Merrill E. Gates, President of Rutgers and Amherst Colleges, and a member of the Board of Indian Commissioners, called for Federal involvement in the education of Indian families and tribes. According to Gates:

Gates elaborated on his ideas stating that the direct involvement of the government was essential to the ultimate civilizing of the Indians, and that education played a crucial role in this civilizing process (see Note 37).

During the presidential election of 1892, the Catholics sided with Grover Cleveland largely as a result of his support for Catholic Indian schools (see Note 41). Cleveland’s success at the polls was widely perceived as a Catholic victory, yet his election did not stem the tide of the anti-contract school movement on the part of the Federal government (see Note 42). As the result of the passage of various appropriation bills, Congress continued to move toward increasing the number of schools that were under direct government control (see Note 43).

The Catholics’ support of religious schools for Native Americans during the late nineteenth century represented a significant challenge to the policy of assimilation and termination promoted by the Federal government. Calling for the Indians to have the right to follow the Christian religion of their choice, the Catholics permitted the Indian a greater degree of autonomy and respect than the Federal government. In doing so, the Catholics promoted a significantly different model of colonization from that of the Federal government.

The development of an alternate model of colonization-one that allowed greater autonomy and self-determination for the Native American people may explain the greater degree of success on the part of the Catholics in the field of Indian education than that of the Federal government. In addition, such findings would seem to suggest that the process of colonization of the Native American people was not as monolithic or as singular as may first appear to be the case. What is more, the existence of this alternate approach on the part of the Catholics may explain to some extent the failure of the Federal government’s policy of assimilation and termination. As a result of the Catholics’ ability to maintain their right to educate the Indians with Federal support, the Federal government was not able to fully and successfully implement its desire for a single unified approach to dealing with the Indian problem.

1. See: Evelyn C. Adams, American Indian Education, (New York: King’s Crown Press, 1946); Francis P. Prucha (Ed.), Americanizing the American Indians, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); Katherine Iverson, "Civilization and Assimilation in the Colonized Schooling of Native American," in Philip G. Altbach and Gail P. Kelly, Education and Colonialism, (New York: Longman, Inc., 1978), pp. 149-180.

2. Iverson, op. cit., p. 149.

3. John F. Berens, "Old Campaigners, New Realities: Indian Policy Reform in the Progressive Era, 1900-1912," Mid-America, Vol. 59 (1977), p. 52.

4. Ibid.

5. Richard H. Pratt, "The Indian: No Problem," Missionary Review of the World, Vol. 33 (1910), p. 856.

6. "Indian Education at Hampton and Carlisle," Harper’s, Vol. 62 (1899), pp. 659-675.

7. U.S. Statutes at Large, 16:566.

8. P.J. Rahill, The Catholic Indian Missions and Grant’s Peace Policy, 1870-84, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1953).

9. Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1882, (Washington, 1882), 1, xiv. See also: Chester A. Arthur, First Annual Message (December 6, 188 1) in James D. Richardson, (Ed.) Messages and Papers of the Presidents, (New York, 1911) VIII, pp. 54-57.

10. Fredric Mitchell and James W. Skelton, "The Church-State Conflict in Early Indian Education," History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 6 (1966), pp. 41-5 1.

11. See: Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade: 1800-1860, (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964), pp. 142-192; Iverson op cit.; Francis P. Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976); Francis P. Prucha, The Churches and the Indian Schools, 1888-1912, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979); Rahill, op. cit.

12. Rahill, op. cit., pp. 323-343; Mitchell and Skelton, op. cit., pp. 43-49.

13. Lyman Abbott, "Education for the Indian" in Prucha, Americanizing the American Indians, p. 212.

14. For general background on the colonization issue see: Martin Carnoy, Education as Cultural Imperialism, (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1974).

15. Iverson, op. cit., p. 157.

16. D. Manley, "The Catholic Church and the Indians," The Catholic World, Vol. 55 (1892), p. 477.

17. Ibid., p. 478.

18. Ibid.

19. L. W. Reilly, "Why Is There No Indian Priest?" The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 4 (1891), pp. 268-280.

20. "Native Indian Vocations," The Catholic World, Vol. 65 (1897), pp. 343-355.

21. Ibid., p. 353.

22. Ibid., p. 355.

23. For further background on Freire’s ideas see: Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos, (New York: Seabury Press, 1970); Cultural Action for Freedom, (Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review, 1970); Education for a Critical Consciousness, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos, (New York: Continuum, 1973).

24. Frederic Eberschweiler, S.J., "An Indian Clergy Impossible," The Catholic World, Vol. 64 (1897), pp. 815-824.

25. Ibid., p. 824.

26. Charles Carson, "The Indians as They Are," The Catholic World, Vol. 68 (1898), pp. 146-160.

27. Ibid., p. 146.

28. Ibid.

29. Statistics of Indian Tribes, Indian Agencies and Indian Schools of Every Character, (Washington, 1899), p. 75.

30. Mitchell and Skelton, op. cit., pp. 44-4-7.

31. Elaine Goodale Eastman, Pratt: The Red Man’s Moses, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1935), p. 112.

32. Abbott, op. cit.; James M. King, "Sectarian Contract Schools," in Prucha, Americanizing the American Indians, pp. 289-292.

33. Abbott, op. cit., p. 209.

34. Ibid., p. 211.

35. King, op. cit., p. 290.

36. Merrill E. Gates, "Land and Law as Agents in Educating Indians, " in Prucha, Americanizing, the American Indians, p. 5 1.

37. Ibid., pp. 45-56.

38. Francis P. Cassidy, "Catholic Education in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore," The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 34 (1948), pp. 299-300.

39. "The Negroes and the Indians," The Catholic World, Vol. 48 (1889), pp. 727-740.

40. Collection on the First Sunday in Lent," The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 1 (1889), pp. 110-111.

41. Harry J. Sievers, "The Catholic Indian School Issue and the Presidential Election of 1892," The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 38 (1952), pp. 129-155.

42. Prucha, American Indian Policy in Crisis, p. 318.

43. Washington Gladden, "The Anti-Catholic Crusade," Century Magazine Vol. 47 (1894), pp. 789-95.

44. Ibid.

45. "Mischievous Appropriation," The Outlook, Vol. 79 (1905), pp. 149-150; "Indian Appropriations for Sectarian Schools," The Outlook, Vol. 79 (1905), pp. 221-222; "Unfair Indian Fighting," The Outlook, Vol. 79 (1905), pp. 263-265; "The Indian School Blunder," The Independent, Vol. 58 (1905), pp. 333-334; "Trust Funds for Catholic Schools, " The Nation, Vol. 80 (1905), p. 106; "The State, the Church and the Indian," The Outlook, Vol. 79 (1905), pp. 370-372; "The President and the Indian," The Outlook, Vol. 79 (1905), pp. 417-419.

46. U.S. Statutes at Large, 34:1221-1222.

47. Quick Bear v. Leupp, App.D.C., 28SCt690, 21OUS50, 52LEd954.

48. Prucha, The Churches and the Indian Schools, 1888-1912, p. 160.

49. The Knights of Columbus," The Independent, Vol. 71 (1911), p. 1348; "Religious Garb in Indian Schools" The Independent, Vol. 72 (1912), pp. 374-375; "Indian Government Schools," The Outlook, Vol. 100 (1912), pp. 718-719; " Catholics and Indian Schools, " The Outlook, Vol. 102 (1912), pp. 234-235.

50. Prucha, The Churches and the Indian Schools, 1888-1912, p. 202.

Eugene F. Provenzo Jr. is Associate Professor of Social Foundations of Education at the University of Miami. He holds the Ph.D. degree from Washington University in St. Louis. He has several publications to his credit including an article in progress on the origins of the Carlisle Indian School and a children’s book on 19th century Indians.

Rev. Gary N. McCloskey, O.S.A., is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Biscayne College. He received the M.A. degree from the Catholic University of America. His area of concentration is Roman Catholic religious education and its history as ethnic education. In this regard, he became interested in the Catholic education of American Indians in the 19th century and the influence that ethnic concerns had on its progress.