United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Significance, Indians Are "persons", Impact, The Dawes Severalty Act, Further Readings

petitioners claim army respondent

Petitioners

Standing Bear and other Ponca Indians

Respondent

George Crook, U.S. Army General

Petitioners' Claim

That confinement of American Indians by the U.S. Army violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Lawyers for Petitioners

John L. Webster, Andrew J. Poppleton

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Genio M. Lambertson

Justice for the Court

Elmer S. Dundy

Place

Lincoln, Nebraska

Date of Decision

12 May 1879

Decision

The Court upheld Standing Bear's claim and ordered the Poncas released from U.S. custody.

Related Cases

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903).
United States v. Omaha Tribe of Indians, 253 U.S. 275 (1920).
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).

Sources

Bacon, Donald C., et al., eds. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.

Additional Topics

United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Significance

The ruling established that Indians are "persons" under U.S. law and those who are not members of tribes have rights to challenge U.S. actions. Issues surrounding Standing Bear's vulnerability to the whim of U.S. officials led reformers to lobby for major changes in U.S. Indian policy. As a result, the 1887 Dawes Act converted communally-controlled reservation lands into individually-owned land pa…

United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Indians Are "persons"

Having received funding and direction from the federal government, Indian agents from the BIA began seeking land in 1877. Among a group of Ponca that traveled to Indian Territory with the agents to find land was a respected tribal leader named Standing Bear. Greatly discouraged by what they saw, the group abruptly returned to the Ponca reservation. However, by the end of April a large group of Pon…

United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - Impact

Standing Bear was the first case to challenge the U.S. government's extensive use of military authority over Indians and to question the legal authority of the United States to confine Indians on reservations against their will. The decision was the first recognition that Indians were persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, Indians still did not have citizenship status, and their precise …

United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook - The Dawes Severalty Act

The Dawes Severalty Act, named after Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, is sometimes called the General Allotment Act. Passed in February of 1887, it established federal Indian policy for the next half-century, until its effective repeal by the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Under the Dawes Severalty Act, the president was authorized to order a survey of Indian reservation…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.