Talk:Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


When were the provisions of this treaty first broken by the United States Government?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Was the treaty ever in force? Can a treaty be in force that was concluded under pressure (Red Cloud's War) contrary to valid international law (Article 1 of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramy)?--Son sonson 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Last Treaty?[edit]

At visit to Grant's Tomb I saw a historical display stating that this treaty was the last to recognize the sovereignty of a native American nation. Is there support for this? patsw 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No Deal[edit]

Somebody might want to note that the Lakotas *refused to accept* the over-$100 million settlement. twang 21 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I thought this was a cool article...would love to see it more in depth. I have read alot about how after the first Treaty dealt with, most of the tribal members didn't show up for the signing of the second treaty. So the agents responsible for the treaty, forged alot of the Indian 'signatures' or marks. Kawasak.kid (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Article 16 map[edit]

I think the map should be updated to reflect also article 16 of the treaty. See, for example national geographic map 1868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


I read that it was in Fort Rice actually/learned that in school; is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The treaty was signed by different tribes and leaders at different times and places. Many did sign at Fort Laramie, but some did not at first make peace and later signed at Fort Rice, notably Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapa Sioux.[1][2][3]. SpinningSpark 07:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved from article[edit]

In the treaty, the U.S. included all Ponca lands in the Great Sioux Reservation. Conflict between the Ponca and the Sioux/Lakota, who now claimed the land as their own by U.S. law, forced the U.S. to remove the Ponca from their own ancestral lands in Nebraska to land in Oklahoma; it did not meet the needs of the Ponca, many of whom made their way back to Nebraska. Article 16 in the treaty specified that in addition "the country north of the North Platte River and east of the summits of the Big Horn Mountains shall be held and considered to be unceded Indian territory,[...] no white person or persons shall be permitted to settle upon or occupy any portion of the same; or without the consent of the Indians first had and obtained, to pass through the same."

The treaty includes an article intended to "ensure the civilization" of the Lakota, financial incentives for them to farm land and become competitive, and stipulations that minors should be provided with an "English education" at a "mission building." To this end the U.S. government included in the treaty that white teachers, blacksmiths, a farmer, a miller, a carpenter, an engineer and a government agent should take up residence within the reservation. In the late 19th century, the federal government shifted from mission schools on reservations to establishing Indian boarding schools; the first was the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. Chief Manuelito sent his sons to this school, believing that it would help them eventually protect their freedoms.[1] Repeated violations of the otherwise exclusive rights to the land by gold prospectors led to the Black Hills War. Migrant workers seeking gold had crossed the reservation borders in violation of the treaty. Indians had attacked these gold prospectors and war ensued. The U.S. government seized the Black Hills land in 1877. It later broke up the Great Sioux Reservation into several reduced reservations.


  1. ^ Suzan Shown Harjo (2014). Nation to Nation: Treaties Between the United States and American Indian Nations. Nation to Nation. Washington D.C.: National Museum of the American Indian. p. 127. ISBN 1588344789.

Moving this here for now, since it's mostly uncited. Will incorporate back into the article in time as sources are found. Will use this content to look. GMGtalk 16:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


  • Mallory, Gerrick: “The Corbusier Winter Counts.” Smithsonian Institution. 4th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1882-’83. Washington, 1886. Pp. 127-146.
  • Serial 1220, 38th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 5, House Executive Document No. 1.

Hey Naawada2016. I'm trying to make all the reference formatting consistent. For these two references, did you find them available online anywhere? Because I haven't been able to so far. GMGtalk 18:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey GreenMeansGo. Sorry, I am not on Wikipedia all the time. About Mallory - try this:
What I did to a start was this: I made an ordinary search for "Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology" and came to Smithsonian Institution. All the Annual Reports are there. The winter counts are a small parts of the entire fourth volume. All right?
About Serial 1220 etc, please give me some time and I will come back. It is something of a task you have taken upon you, so thanks.Naawada2016 (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey, no worries Naawada2016. Thanks for all your help fleshing out the article. I knew basically nothing about the subject when I started (which is part of why it was fun). Incidentally, I've already nominated it for OTD here for November 6, the 150th anniversary of Red Cloud's signing. But I'll admit I've wondered whether we could be super bold, and try to get it to WP:TFA on that day instead. Probably means we would have to skip GA entirely and go straight to FA, which is a whole different kind of bold.
Other than the few remaining citations (which I'll try to remedy today if I can), I wonder if someone super experienced with GA reviews like User:Ritchie333 or User:Serial Number 54129 might be willing to give us a quick pre-vetting to see if there's anything we're missing that would be obviously caught in the GA review. GMGtalk 12:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey againGreenMeansGo. About Serial 1220 etc: I can't give you a source on the net. Actually, it is a speech of Arikara chief White Shield in 1864. Now, this is just an extra source about the situation of the three village tribes on the Upper Missouri during the 1850s and 1860s. We can delete this "Serial 1220" source and just keep the reference to Roy W. Meyer's book, which should be all right. What is best? You have used many hours on this article and I will accept any decision of yours. (It comes as a surprise for my, but yes - 1868 and 2018. Anniversary!)Naawada2016 (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's no absolute requirement that sources be online. It's just that if they were, it's definitely best to include a link. If you have access to a paper copy, it might be best to include a short quotation in the citation so that it increases verifiability for readers. If you can type up that quotation and post it here, I can take care of the formatting for you. GMGtalk 10:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The original source is an Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1864. Usually they are on the Serial Number Set as Executive Doc. No. 1. I have (old) hand written copies from microfilms. BUT - I made a search for the printed book and found it here Does it make sense? The speech of Arikara head chief White Shield is on page 264. We may quote, "We, the Arickarees, have been driven from our country on the other side of the Missouri river by the Dakotas". I think it is all right to quote from the Annual Report - or is it original research? We quote from other official documents as far as I know - statistical reports, a census and so on. Next - how about the Ponca Indians? Some old text about the situation of the Poncas following the 1868 Sioux treaty is removed or paused. Are you working on some text? I have written this (in Italic) to the text included under "Article II", following the line "'No one has ever been able to explain' this blunder", ref. to Howard: The Ponca Tribe. Instead of restoring the Ponca title to the reservation, "...government soldiers were sent in to remove the Ponca..." in 1877. (ref: Buffalohead, Eric: "Dhegihan History: A Personal Journey. Plains Anthropologist. Vol. 49 (Nov. 2004), No. 192, pp. 327-343, quote p. 329). The Sioux kept up their raids on the Poncas following the signing of the 1868 treaty. (Ref: Standing Bear, Luther (1975): My People, the Sioux. Lincoln. P. 75. Ref: Howard, James H. (1965): The Ponca Tribe. Pp. 29 and 133 Ref: McGinnis, Anthony (1990): Counting Coup and Cutting Horses. Evergreen. P. 127). The only new source is Eric Buffalohead, himself a Ponca. Use your own text about the Poncas or take what is all right in mine.Naawada2016 (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Perhaps link, in "depending on the interpretation of article XVI" to "depending on the interpretation of article XVI
 Done GMGtalk 15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
"and who were to be delivered to the government." Is this only the tribe members, or white settlers as well? If it is the former, please clarify
Done? Maybe? The issue there is that tribe members were no longer to be subject any type of an internal tribal justice system. As far as who actually does the cuffing and booking, in detail the government agreed to apprehend white criminals once the tribes convinced the Indian Commissioner they ought to, and the tribes agreed to "deliver up the wrongdoer to the United States" for any of their members who committed crimes. The context of all that was that whites were basically barred from the reservation (article II), and moreover, the US government in effect agreed to use military force against whites to enforce that. Although it took less than a decade for Grant to get a bit of indigestion and decide he didn't much like keeping his army around to police white settlers. But because of article I, it was the government's job exclusively, with no mechanism for the tribes to do anything about it if the government just figured meh with the whole thing. So, you know, no way does that scenario inevitably lead to open warfare.
But yeah, whites "can't" go on the reservation, so the tribes have to be the cops on the beat, meaning they literally swore in a whole mess of special police whose only job was to catch other tribe members and deliver them to the local fort, a strange arrangement for a criminal justice system really, and in case you were wondering whether it eventually gets less complicated and overall more equitable with time...not really. GMGtalk 15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps add a see also in the background section (or main article)
 Done GMGtalk 15:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Link Indian Peace Commission in lede.
This was intentional actually, because I haven't written it yet, and it's currently a pretty bad redirect in this context. It made sense when Medicine Lodge Treaty was the only substantial 1868 article we had, but it doesn't any more and I figured it would be confusing to readers.
The Commission was basically the government concocted cultural genocide dream team, with bona fide "make-Georgia-howl" war hero Sherman at the head, in an effort to solve the "Indian problem" (obviously no ominous similarities to Nazi Germany in that formulation). They negotiated a whole mess of treaties in 1868 designed to civilize the west, eliminate communal land ownership, confine the tribes to reservations, and turn the natives into whites English-speaking Christian farmers. They failed mostly, ended up inadvertently recognizing the tribes as basically sovereign nations, got half-way distracted with Johnson's impeachment, and reported back to Congress saying essentially "screw this noise, don't make any more damned treaties". Although in his defense, Sherman hadn't actually met any problem thus far that couldn't be solved with unprecedented death, he was more than willing to wipe Southern and mostly white cities off the map, and didn't really understand in anything other than a logistical sense, why the natives should be treated any differently, engaged, as many of them were, in open war against the federal government. Congress mostly agreed and basically just started unilaterally annexing land in the 1870s because bigger-army-diplomacy.
As good a story as all that is, Medicine Lodge doesn't really give any more of that context than this article does. But unfortunately, like the 1877 articles, this is a whole interconnected narrative that has to be laid out as a foundation before the main article for the peace commission comes together. Currently working on Treaty of Bosque Redondo, and maybe one or two more articles and I'll have enough to make the main. GMGtalk 14:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I started it, but I'll probably need a couple more days to get it to a point where it's not obviously incomplete. GMGtalk 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done - Although there's still more big-picture work to do, the basic narrative is done. GMGtalk 17:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
"30 student who could be made to attend" perhaps you mean "30 students who could be made to attend"?
 Done GMGtalk 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Formalize whether or not the articles are written out (i.e. "Article 10" and later "Article eleven"
Should be consistent now with spelling out <10 and numerals for >10. GMGtalk 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"their newly establish territory." perhaps you mean "their newly established' territory."?
 Done GMGtalk 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"had illegally taken the land." clarify what land, exactly, was taken.
 Done GMGtalk 15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
  • Nit picky, but several sources are too old for ISBN's, so need |orig-year=
  • I'd also like to see every source that can have one have an ISBN or OCLC.
  • To find all such things, consider adding User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck <--that script.
    • First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
    • On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
    • Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.
Done to the extent possible. Still a couple works that are too old for ISBNs and are obviously reprints, but no database I found seems to care about the republication date, and neither does the book itself. So that's just kindof floating out there with nothing much to be done about it. AFAIK everything else without a unique identifier just doesn't have one. So for example, I don't think there are major reliability issues with the Nebraska State Historical Society publication, but nobody seems to keep entries for it anywhere.GMGtalk 14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Chiefs and Headmen is unsourced.
  1.  Done GMGtalk 14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: