|
Description |
The Paiute Tribe of Utah
Gary Tom and Ronald Holt
Tabuts [ elder brother/ wolf] carved people out of sticks and was
going to scatter them evenly around the earth so that everyone
would have a good place to live. But Shinangwav [ younger
brother/ coyote] cut open the sack and people fell out in bunches
all over the world and that's why people fight. The people left in
the sack were the Southern Paiutes, and Tabuts put them here in
the very best place. 1
For a thousand years the Paiute people have lived in an area that is
presently known as southern Utah, southeastern California, northern
Arizona, and southern Nevada. Their homeland is adjacent to the Great
Basin and included the resource- rich Colorado Plateau and a portion of
the Mojave Desert.
Neither the written word nor the course of historical events have
been kind to the Southern Paiutes. Theirs is a story of resiliency under
great pressure and of disappointment after many promises. With the
encroachment of Euro- American settlers into the area came the destruction
of much of their traditional culture, religion, economy, and the title
to their ancestral homeland. It took less than twenty- five years of contact
with the Mormon settlers to reduce the Paiute population by 90 percent
and turn them from being peaceful, independent farmers and foragers
into destitute, landless people who survived by doing seasonal and part-time
work for the white settlers. Some Paiute groups even ceased to exist.
To further the official demise of the Paiutes, the federal government
and the Mormon church made only feeble attempts to provide needed
services. These attempts implemented many ill- conceived policies purported
to " help the Indian tribes." In spite of all this, the majority of
Paiutes never left their ancestral lands— they remained and survived the
barrage of acculturation, relocation, and termination policies and prac-
• 123—
— 124— A History of Utah's American Indians
tices. The Paiutes survived challenges that would have overwhelmed a
less flexible people. They adapted to their changing environment yet retained
their distinct identity and deep roots in southern Utah.
The Paiute Lifestyle
The Southern Paiute language is one of the northern Numic branches
of the large Uto- Aztecan language family. Most scholars agree that the
Numic peoples began moving into the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau
about 1,000 years after the beginning of the Christian era.
Prior to their contact with Europeans the Paiutes' aboriginal land
covered an area of more than 30 million acres— from southern California
to southern Nevada, south- central Utah, and northern Arizona. These
areas provided not only a wide variety and choice in foodstuffs but also
climates that were comfortable to live in. The Paiutes knew the fragile
environment intimately and were able to exist and maintain a way of life
without overtaxing the resources of the land.
Their mobile lifestyle included moving frequently, primarily according
to the seasons and plant harvests and animal migration patterns. They
lived in independent groups of from three to five households. The largest
concentration of Paiutes in Utah lived along the banks of the Santa
Clara River.
Paiute housing reflected the seasonal cycles. In the summer a windbreak
might be all that was required. In the winter a cone- shaped structure
was made of a framework of three or four poles; branches were then
leaned against the framework. The walls would then be covered with
juniper bark, rushes, or other material. Starting in the 1850s, many Paiutes
began to use canvas or skin teepees, adapting this Plains style of dwelling
from their contact with the Utes.
Data indicates that the Paiutes were highly sophisticated botanists.
They used at least thirty- two families of flora encompassing some ninety-six
species of edible plants. The list would be greatly expanded were it to
include the equally impressive array of medicinal plants, many of which
also had nutritional value. In similar fashion, the Paiutes utilized most of
the varieties of fauna found within their territory: hoofed animals, rodents,
carnivores, birds, reptiles, and insects. Many Euro- Americans commented
at great length on the fact that no portion of the area's fauna—
from ants to deer— was overlooked as a food source. The mountains of
the Great Basin provided a great source of pine nuts from pinyon pines.
Lakes provided fish and other aquatic resources. The major gatherings
of the pre- contact period were centered around the pine nut harvest and
The Paiutes — 125—
A group of Paiute wickiups. ( Utah State Historical Society— USHS)
the spring fish spawning time at Fish Lake. These gatherings provided a
good time to catch up on news and to socialize. In many instances, mates
were found at these gatherings.
Groups of Paiutes usually centered around one or more major food
or water resources. Groups often used resources within other groups'
core areas, and groups such as the Moapa in Nevada were often seen in
Utah. This mobile existence and the lack of ethnographic data make it
somewhat unclear how many bands of Paiutes existed in Utah, but at
least sixteen major groups, or thirty- five smaller groups, have been identified.
The major groups have been categorized by their main area of
activity; they include: Parowan area; Santa Clara— three to seven groups;
— 126— A History of Utah's American Indians
A Paiute family and their home. ( USHS)
Kaiparowits; Cedar City— at least two groups; Beaver Dam area;
Tonoquints— multiple groups; Ash Creek— Toquer's group and possibly
others; Antarianunts; Panguitch Lake; Harmony; Uinkarets; Virgin
River— multiple groups; San Juan— two groups; Beaver; and Kaibab. 2
One factor that may help account for a lack of consistency in band
names is the dramatic changes that were taking place in Paiute life when
data initially was gathered on their social organization. In most cases,
the Paiutes did not have the population or the stable residence to be designated
as " tribes" as defined by the federal government. However, with
the loss of their best lands and decimation by introduced diseases due to
the arrival of Mormon and other settlers, members of the various original
Paiute groups coalesced to form sedentary groups.
The Paiutes — 127—
Leadership roles also began to change with the arrival of the Euro-
Americans. Major decisions were made in council meetings, with adult
males, old women, and other interested persons present. The traditional
Paiute leader was called niave. He would be identified by each community
to lead by example and through a search for consensus. Although
such a " chief" was not a decision maker, he would offer advice and suggestions
at council meetings and would later work to carry out the
council's decisions as well as other prescribed duties. White settlers assumed
that the Paiute " chiefs" had more authority than they actually
did. As early as 1855, Mormon settlers were " setting apart" as chiefs those
Paiutes who were allied with them. The Mormon practice of appointing
band leaders and backing those Paiutes who stressed accommodation
with whites may have led to factional splits within Paiute groups. 3
At the time of European contact, traditional rituals associated with
childbirth, puberty, and funerals were still taking place. Paiutes prayed
and conducted rituals to influence the spirits of nature and show their
respect and gratitude to them. In the Paiutes' view of the natural world,
there was one most- powerful spirit being, often called simply the " one
who made the earth". The sun was one visible aspect of this spirit; most
Paiutes made prayers to the sun at sunrise and sometimes at noon or
sunset. The Paiutes also associated the mythic heroes Coyote and Wolf
with this spirit, seeing the good and virtuous Wolf and wicked and silly
Coyote as two necessary sides of the same all- powerful creator. Other
supernatural beings such as the Thunder People and Water Babies were
also part of the Paiutes' world. Each of the food and medicinal plants as
well as the various game animals also had spirits, according to the Paiutes.
A medicine man was called paugant in Paiute, meaning " one who
has sacred power." This medicine man usually had one or more animal
spirit helpers. A spirit helper might be an eagle, a porcupine, a squirrel,
or some other animal that the pauganthad dreamed of or had encountered
in some other mystical way. He would pray through this animal,
perform magico- religious rituals with its feathers or fur, and might even
capture one to keep as a pet. These animal spirits were believed to assist
medicine men in healing the sick or, when applied to enemies, in causing
illness and death through sorcery.
In the late nineteenth century, Paiutes borrowed the " cry" ceremony
from the Mohaves and other Yuman- speaking tribes living to the south. 4
The Las Vegas area Paiutes may already have adopted this funerary- type
ceremony in the era before white settlement. In the " cry" singers chant
songs from evening until dawn over the course of one or more nights.
— 128— A History of Utah's American Indians
These songs belong to several sacred song cycles, including the salt song
cycle, the bird song cycle, and others. Between spells of singing, relatives
and friends of the dead get up and give speeches about the person. When
it was first adopted, the " cry" was a separate ceremony from funerals,
and often a " cry" was held to honor several people who had died over a
given period. Later, the " cry" was combined with individual funeral ceremonies
and was held at the same time. In some cases, a second memorial
" cry" was held a year, or sometimes two years, after the funeral.
The Paiutes also enjoyed different gambling games. Most notable
was the hand " bone" game, which is still played today. Two teams would
sit facing each other. Each team took turns hiding one or more pairs of
" bones" in their hands. " Bones" were bone or wood cylinders, one of
which was marked with a stripe around the middle, while the other was
unmarked. While one team was hiding the bones, that team's members
would sing their own game songs to give themselves luck and discourage
their opponents. The competing team would then begin to sing its songs.
Using traditional hand gestures and special words, one of the members
of the second team would try to guess which hand on the opposite team
held which bone. Score would be kept by stick counters thrust into the
ground near each team. The two teams would play for valuable stakes,
such as buckskins, horses, jewelry, and other goods.
Another popular gambling game was played with stick dice— a die
being a flat piece of wood colored on one side and white on the other. A
player would strike the dice on hard stone, usually a metate, making the
dice fly up and fall to the ground with one side up. Different combinations
of plain and colored sides had different point values. Score was
kept in different ways, usually by moving a counter along a row or circle
of stones.
The Newcomers
Originally the Spanish considered Paiutes and Utes to be one group.
They believed the area northeast of the Hopi was populated by those
they called " Yutas" a term the Spanish used to refer to both the Paiutes
and their neighbors to the east, the Utes. The Spanish term gave the present
state of Utah its name. Paiutes and Utes both use another term— pronounced
Payuts by the Paiutes and Payuch by the Utes— to refer to the
Paiutes as distinct from the Utes. Up until the mid- 1600s, the Utes and
Paiutes essentially shared a similar way of life. Once the Utes acquired
the horse, however, a series of cultural changes took place among the
Utes based on the mobility provided by horses. 5 Later, the horse would
The Paiutes — 129—
Paiute Indians perform a Round Dance on the Kaibab Plateau. Photographed
by John K. Hillers of the Powell expedition between 1871 and 1875. ( USHS)
prove to be devastating to their generally friendly relationship with the
Paiutes, as the Utes began to raid Paiute villages and take women and
children as slaves to trade in the Rio Grande Valley and in California.
Other slave raids also came from the Navajos and the Spanish. This activity
created a population imbalance among Paiutes of males to females
and children. In 1776 the Dominguez- Escalante party from Sante Fe made
the first recorded European visit to Utah Paiute lands.
Through the mid- 1800s the Paiutes had encountered only a few Euro-
Americans, primarily traders, travelers, and trappers. The Old Spanish
Trail from Santa Fe to California flourished from 1830 to about 1850
and passed right through the middle of Paiute territory. Most of the travelers
were passing through to the fertile fields of California. Eventually
the traffic through some Paiute farming areas was so heavy that the Paiutes
had to abandon fields that were too close to the trail. Skirmishes were
few, being limited to random potshots by the intruding pioneers and the
theft of some livestock by the Paiutes.
— 130— A History of Utah's American Indians
Meanwhile, in 1847 Brigham Young led a group of settlers into the
Great Salt Lake area in an attempt to set up a quasi- independent state.
The pioneers were members of a persecuted religious group, the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints ( LDS), commonly known as Mormons.
By 1849 the Mormon population had increased to the point that
they began to expand their colonization efforts. Brigham Young envisioned
a string of Mormon settlements from Salt Lake City to southern
California— a " Mormon corridor" that would link Salt Lake City to the
sea. Young's oft- repeated Indian policy was that " it was better to feed the
Indians than to fight them" although Mormons, like white settlers elsewhere,
had no qualms about taking Indian lands for their own use. Upon
exploring Paiute territory, the Mormons identified some good sites for
settlement. Unfortunately for the Paiutes, these sites were often their core
living and foraging areas.
Mormon theology came as a two- edged sword for the Paiutes. According
to Book of Mormon teachings, Indians were seen both as a chosen
people and as a cursed people. Many Mormons believed that the
Paiutes had to be " civilized" before they could be " saved." It seemed that
their Indian culture was considered to be a major stumbling block to
their salvation. One of the major points of contention with the Mormons
was that the Paiutes and other tribes should not worship symbols
such as the sun, stars, and moon.
The lives of the Paiutes shifted dramatically as Mormons became
full- time residents in Paiute country in 1851. The Paiutes utilized various
adaptive strategies in an effort to keep their population and culture
intact. However, their lifeways were to be altered ecologically, economically,
and socially. The influx of settlers also brought large numbers of
domesticated livestock to Paiute country. This livestock was allowed to
graze anywhere, and eventually overgrazing would take its toll on the
Paiutes' food sources. Now, not only was the land being taken but also
the seeds that provided a significant portion of the people's diet were
being consumed. Much of the Indians' culture was lost or significantly
changed.
One of the main reasons for Mormon expansion was that more land
was needed to house the many new converts coming to the region. Mormon
colonization of Southern Paiute lands was rapid. By the end of 1858,
eight years after colonization efforts began, Mormons had established
eleven settlements in Southern Paiute territory. The best farmlands and
sources of water were taken for the new Mormon towns. The industrious
Paiutes were hired to provide much of the labor needed to create the
The Paiutes — 131—
new settlements. They helped prepare the fields for planting and performed
various domestic chores. The Mormons, in turn, provided new
sources of material goods, food, and agricultural knowledge.
The Paiutes viewed the Mormon settlements with mixed feelings.
The Mormon presence provided some protection from the depredations
of the wagon trains and the slave raiding of the Utes, Navajos, and Mexicans.
But the Paiutes would have been less accommodating if they had
understood the sheer magnitude and devastating consequences of Mormon
settlement. Prior to 1851, the Paiutes had adapted to the many
changes brought on by the Euro- Americans as they passed through Paiute
country. But the worst period for the Paiutes in southern Utah and Nevada
was the decade or so following Mormon settlement. During those
years, the Mormon settlers themselves suffered from epidemics of diseases
such as cholera, scarlet fever, whooping cough, measles, mumps,
tuberculosis, and malaria. Since Paiutes were frequently living near the
settlements, they soon contracted these diseases but had less acquired
immunity to them. Some Paiute groups during this time experienced
more than a 90 percent drop in population. 6
The Mountain Meadows Massacre
One of the most controversial results of Mormon- Paiute interaction
in the decade following Mormon settlement of the area was the reported
collaboration of individuals of the two groups in one of the most horrific
events of early Utah history— the Mountain Meadows Massacre, in
which more than one hundred California- bound emigrants were attacked
and then treacherously murdered in the area southwest of Cedar City in
early September of 1857.
The tragic event still remains somewhat clouded in mystery despite
some extensive and valuable treatment by historians. 7 The whole story
does not need to be retold in detail here, as it is commonly available; but
it is important to note that many Paiute leaders ( among others) believe
and claim that, contrary to most published accounts, Indians did not
participate in the initial attack on the wagon train nor in the subsequent
murder of its inhabitants.
The basic account, current for decades now, essentially maintains
that Indians initially attacked the wagon train— most likely under urging
or encouragement from local Mormon leaders— but that the emigrants
were able to repel the attackers after some loss of life and injury.
The Indians then were said to have appealed for assistance from area
Mormons, who perhaps on their own determined to take advantage of
— 132— A History of Utah's American Indians
^^^^^^ Mw ^.
Two Paiute men. ( USHS)
the situation involving perceived antagonists in those emotionally charged
times following the zealous Mormon Reformation of 1856 and the prospect
of war with federal troops looming on the horizon— the so- called
Utah War of 1857- 58.
The common history continues that local Mormons approached the
beseiged emigrant wagon train under a flag of truce and convinced the
The Paiutes — 133—
Ta- peats, a Paiute Indian who lived along the Virgin River near St.
George. This photograph was taken by John K. Hillers of the
Powell expedition sometime between 1871 and 1875. ( USHS)
emigrants to surrender their weapons, promising in return a safe escort
out of the area. The desperate emigrants agreed, only to be slaughtered
by their would- be protectors a few miles away, it again being claimed
that Native Americans helped take part in this brutal act of treachery.
Accounts collected by the Paiute Tribe call into question this recounting
of events, claiming that in great part Paiutes have been wrongfully
blamed for assisting in something that was not of their making. Some of
the interviews collected were with decendants of area Paiutes of that time,
but the interviews suffer from the limited vocabulary and command of
— 134— A History of Utah's American Indians
English of the tellers plus a garbling of facts generally characteristic of
such long- range reminiscences. Excerpts from a couple of these interviews
are presented below. The interested reader can consult the Paiute
Tribe for more complete transcripts and accounts.
One interview was conducted with Yetta and Clifford Jake on November
18, 1998. Mr. Jake started the interview by introducing himself
and stating that he was eighty years old. He then continued:
I used to chop wood for the old man Isaac Hunkup and his
sister.... He was telling me a story, telling me what they see and
what they hear also. And the Mountain Meadow massacre and
Paiute didn't know anything about what was taking place over
there. They were calm and quiet. They didn't know nothing about
nothing. There was two brothers that come to the pine valley,
hunting deer.... But what he was telling me was that they were
there camping out there in the mountain. In the morning during
the day [ they] heard a gun, like popping, popping like a firecracker.
So they went up on the mountain. There was a wagon
train the people where people were shooting and killing the
wagon train people, is the way he used to tell it. Oh, my goodness!
Two guys were still waiting when they got down, they got
everything, everything. Even their houses, the wagons were tipped
over, they had some cows and sheep and the pigs and chickens
and the womenfolks also. They got womenfolks. They were running
around and getting shot there. They were watching from a
knoll. Them two guys. " Oh, my god" they said, " they are killing
them people." They said that " I don't see no Indians around here"
he said. No Indians live around this area. This is their hunting
place, not the pine valley.
So, anyway, they got down, they got all of those things. Those
things they took away from the settlers, the wagon train. And
they talked together. " Let's follow the rim about a mile, a couple
of miles, away from them, see what they are going to do." So they
went. They took all of them people that [ were] massacring the
wagon train. They went over towards the east. They followed
them quite a ways from they followed them till they get to the
place to where they are going to change their clothes. So, anyways,
they followed them clear to New Harmony. From there they sneak
up on them about a half mile. They watch them and they watch
them. They sit there. They clean theirselves; they took off their
The Paiutes — 135—
Indian outfits off— clothes, Indian clothes. And they were white
people. Them white people, they washed themselves up and
cleaned themselves. They were white people that done it. And
they said, " Let's get going" they said. " Let's get going to warn
them other people down to Sham [ the Paiute encampment]."
They traveled to get there as fast [ as] they can. I don't know if
they were on a foot or on a horse. But, anyway, they made it
down there ... to get a hold of them Indians, house to house. I
want them to be aware. We are going to [ be] blamed for something
that we didn't have happen. For those people, for shooting
them wagon train. Better beware. They said they got really scared.
After awhile during that day one of the guys from the younger
Indians they saddle up their horse and warn the people around
the area. Clear to Cedar City and ... maybe Moapa too. So beware;
we are going to get blamed, going to get blamed for what
those white people did. There were no Indians in that massacre....
The authority came down. They got there. They said Indians
don't leave their dead like this. They started blaming the Indians
for it. The Paiute Indians around this area, they didn't know
anything about what happened over there. They didn't even know
nothing. There weren't no Indians around that place there....
That's what takes a place that time. Us Paiute nation got blamed
for that.
An interview in December 1998 with Will Rogers also provided interesting
commentary. He said in part:
.. . they gathered some Indians up there; I don't remember how
much he said, five or six. Well, anyway, them that thing was coming
down on the way on this side there was lot of people over
them, them that man John Seaman I was telling about he was
looking at them white people— they were white people— they
were these Mormons, they were going to massacre that, uh, that
wagon train. And then he said, " I wonder what they gonna do?"
they didn't tell them people what they was going to do, you know.
Well, anyway, they did no Indians went down there, he said; them
four guys stayed on that mountain, on that little mountain up
there, and watched them guys kill them people— they killed all
of them off they said, they killed all of them off. That time they
— 136— A History of Utah's American Indians
were going to go down there, but they won't let that Indians go
down there, you know, after it happened; they said it took about,
he said it took about three [ or] four hours I think he said, you
know, to shoot them people all. Some of them were half- dead,
some of them wasn't even dead. And, uh, there was lot of that
silver dollars was there; them little coins, silver dollars, those big
as a silver dollar, two- hundred- dollar gold piece, gold piece was
about a silver dollar. Well, anyway, from there they were going to
get some them Indians you know they were going to get some
that thing, they wouldn't let them have any ' cause that that was,
uh, it was something no good, you get sick. " Don't get it, don't
get anything" he said [ they] told them Indians.
That that man, he didn't go down there, he said that John
Seaman he got scared but only three guys went. But, anyway, he
watched all those people die off. It was this white man's doing it
dressed up as Indians; there were about, I think he said it could
have been forty- five or fifty he said; you know he didn't count
them people.
Gloria Bulletts Benson, who helped conduct the interviews, summarized
some of the important points found in the interviews in a memo to
Paiute Tribal Chairwoman Geneal Anderson. Most importantly, she
stressed that there were no Paiutes involved in the killings, according to
the accounts of the interviewees. Paiute involvement was limited to hearing
and watching from a distance the killing of the emigrants and some
of their animals, and the robbing of the possessions of the dead. Some
Paiutes reportedly followed the killers towards New Harmony and saw
them take off their " Indian" clothes and bury and/ or divide some of the
stolen goods. Paiutes were told to avoid the area and not pick up any of
the scattered money, as it was " bad medicine." Area Paiutes were afraid
that they would be blamed for the massacre and sent word of it to surrounding
band areas to warn others. 8
A book published by the Kaibab Paiute Tribe in 1978, Kaibab Paiute
History, The Early Years by Richard W. Stoffle and Michael J. Evans, included
commentary on a photograph: " Dan Bullets noted that Tunanitaa
[ John Seaman's father] was picked up by John D. Lees's group traveling
to the Mountain Meadow Massacre. One other Paiute accompanied the
group, but neither was allowed to participate in the killing. Tunanita'a
found a gold coin after the massacre but the Mormons took it away from
him, saying it was bad medicine for him to have it."
The Paiutes — 137—
Three Paiutes at their wickiup, photographed by John K. Hillers in
1872. Note the woman seated at the grinding stone. ( USHS)
Additional information important to historians is found in the oral
history of Sybil Mariah Frink that was gathered by her son John E. Scottern
and her granddaughters Ruth Scottern and Gyppe Scottern and great-granddaughter
Patsy Ruth Carter Iverson. A brief summary of relevant
points follows.
Sybil was born in Missouri in 1838. She and her family were early
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints. Her parents
died, but she traveled to Utah with her grandmother and married Byron
Warner in 1854, when she was sixteen. Before she married she lived at
— 138— A History of Utah's American Indians
the fort in Fillmore and learned some of the Paiute language and Indian
ways. She moved with her husband to Harmony, and was there at the
time of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. One evening she overheard
her husband and other men at her house discussing plans to wipe out
the Fancher party wagon train. " She said nothing, fearing for her life. At
a later date, these fourteen men met at her home, painted their faces, and
dressed themselves as Indians." She followed them at a distance and reportedly
watched the massacre from some bushes. Only a few small children
were spared, and it is said that Sybil even cared for some of them
until they were claimed by authorities later and returned to relatives.
Her husband is said to have discovered that she knew of the treachery
and that he threatened to kill her if she ever told of it. She later divorced
him in about 1865 and reportedly either left or was excommunicated
from the LDS Church, although she remained in the territory, serving
as a nurse and midwife. She married Timothy Scottern in about 1866.
She died under mysterious circumstances in 1906 after being summoned
to a remote location to care from the sick. Some have seen a conspiracy
or vengeance in her mysterious death. 9
Although much about the massacre remains shrouded in mystery,
resulting in intense speculation and controversy even up to the present,
the Native American claim that few, if any, of their people were involved
in the massacre in any way has seldom been heard or accorded a fair
presentation. Though some things in the interviews and accounts cited
here are confused and could have their critics, elements of them certainly
are plausible and deserve serious consideration in attempts to understand
that tragedy. The fact that so much evidence, including relevant
pages from the journals of many settlers, has been lost or destroyed, testifies
to many Native Americans and their sympathizers that much of the
official history cannot be considered to be complete or truthful. However,
there is certainly some evidence that Indians with base camps on
the Muddy and Santa Clara Rivers were involved at least in the initial
siege of the wagon train.
Skeptics of Paiute involvement point to other interesting facts. According
to historians, Paiutes had not been known to attack wagon trains,
confining their activities to the rustling of stray cattle or other livestock
belonging to emigrant parties. 10 The fact that the Mormons assigned
some blame to them has been seen by some as merely an attempt to put
their own culpability in a better light, to protect both their reputation
and themselves from prosecution. Paiutes claimed that they had nothing
to do with the initial attack, and, even after some Paiutes answered a
The Paiutes — 139—
summons from Mormon leaders to come to the area, their assistance
was non- existant or minimal, one reason being that they did not have
the weaponry to attack the emigrants, who were equipped with long-range
rifles. Critics also point out that it is highly unlikely that Mormons
would supply the Indians with firearms and ammunition when their own
supplies of both were limited and they were facing the threat of federal
action. 11
Paiutes were not prosecuted by federal officials for the massacre, and,
although most Mormons successfully avoided prosecution, John D. Lee
was eventually apprehended, tried, convicted, and executed for his part
in the affair. Many then and to the present have felt that Lee became a
scapegoat to end further prosecution efforts against other Mormons.
Relationships with Early Settlers
The Mormon settlements continued to grow, and newer arrivals,
some less tolerant, came to the region. Prospectors and miners came in
search of precious metals, coal, and lead. The remaining lands of the
Paiutes soon were being taken. Soon, enough Mormons had moved into
the area that they no longer needed or desired Paiute labor. By the 1870s,
the Paiutes who lived near the region's settlements had become destitute.
Justification for taking land was given by the Mormon church and
its members, including the idea that the Indians were not making efficient
use of the land and therefore the Mormons had the right to take it
over because they could support more people by their methods of agriculture
than the Indians could. Although their theological view saw the
Indians as potential converts and chosen people, the common pioneer
view of the Paiute was as a savage and beggar. The Mormons assured
their dominance over the Paiutes and the other Great Basin Indians
through a combination of physically displacing them from the resources
necessary to sustain their aboriginal lifestyle and dealing with them according
to an attitude that has been called theological paternalism. 12
In 1856- 57, agent George W. Armstrong became the first official
governmental contact person for the Southern Paiutes. His first act was
to attempt to establish two farm sites for the Paiutes totaling 1,200 acres.
However, nothing came of this recommendation. 13
In 1865 a series of treaties was negotiated with the Indians of Utah.
These treaties virtually would end the Indians' claim to any and all land
and remove them to a reservation in the Uinta Basin. The Paiute leader
Tutzegubet, who had become friendly with the Mormons, signed this
treaty. He was to receive " one dwelling house" five acres of plowed and
— 140— A History of Utah's American Indians
This Paiute Circle Dance was photographed by John K. Hillers between 1871
and 1875. Most of the dancers are wearing rabbitskin robes. ( USHS)
fenced land, and one hundred dollars per annum for the term of twenty
years. 14 Upon his arrival at the reservation he also would receive oxen
and farming implements, a high price indeed for the some 30 million
acres of land to which the Indians were supposedly relinquishing their
claims.
Life on the reservation would have posed additional problems for
the Paiutes. The Utes were continuing their practice of stealing Paiute
women and children, yet officials expected the Paiutes to move to the
same reservation to which the Utes had been moved. Attempts to remove
the Paiutes from their homeland were a complete failure. The situation
with the Paiutes grew worse; despite their theological status in
Mormonism as a chosen people, they came to be considered no more
than a nuisance that the Mormons felt compelled occasionally to feed.
In 1873 John Wesley Powell and George W. Ingalls headed a special
commission to look into the problem. The commission identified 528
Paiutes left in Utah and suggested that they be moved to the Moapa reservation
in nearby Nevada. Money for such a move was scarce, however,
and the Paiutes refused to leave their homeland.
The Paiutes — 141—
The first Paiute reservation came into being during this period. Anthony
Ivins was mayor of St. George and ran cattle in the " Arizona Strip"
country. However, hungry Paiutes were stealing from his livestock operation
in the Mt. Trumbull area. When Ivins found them in his way, he
utilized federal channels to get himself named a " Special Indian Disbursing
Agent" serving from 1891 until 1893, and removed the Shivwits from
their homeland in northern Arizona to southern Utah. Through his efforts
the first Paiute reservation was established in 1891 on the Santa
Clara River west of St. George. 15 This began a new phase in Paiute history,
with the Indians now dependent on both Mormon church charity
and the federal government's good will. The Paiutes who had originally
been residents of the reservation area were either dead or had moved—
most to the Moapa reservation in Nevada or to Cedar City. This fact
illustrates the devastating effects of white colonization, since the the Virgin
and Santa Clara Rivers had been the riverine core of the Paiute homeland
and its center of densest population. The new reservations would
prove to be too small and have too few resources for the Paiutes to sustain
themselves from them.
Ivins purchased land and farming equipment for the Indians at Santa
Clara with a $ 40,000 congressional appropriation. The reservation was
formally established by the government in 1903. In 1916 President
Woodrow Wilson issued an executive order which expanded the size of
the reservation to its current 26,880 acres. Three other Paiute reservations
soon followed. The Indian Peaks reservation was established on
August 2,1915, and was enlarged between 1921 and 1924. The reservation
consisted of 10,240 acres of rough rocky land mostly covered with
juniper but which also yielded large quantities of pine nuts from pinyon
pines. The Indian Peaks Band was composed of remnants of the Parogoon,
Pahquit, and Tavatsock bands. 16 Their ancestral land blended into the
traditional Shoshone lands, and some intermarriage with Shoshones was
not uncommon. Their land stretched from Indian Peak into Nevada. Isolated,
they were the last group to become dependent on whites. They
lived some seventy miles northwest of Cedar City in five log homes.
The Koosharem Band of Paiutes/ Utes was established in 1928, and
their reservation was enlarged in 1937. These people considered themselves
Utes and were possibly a remnant of the Fish Lake Utes. Their
ancestral homeland stretched from Richfield to Escalante. They were
under de facto control of the local Mormon church— Sevier Stake— which
also was trustee of their water rights until the Paiutes sued for those rights
in 1958.
— 142— A History of Utah's American Indians
by John K. Hillers between 1871 and 1875. ( USHS)
Kanosh would be the last reservation to be formally established in
Utah until 1984. It was created in 1929 and was expanded in 1935 and
1937. The Kanosh Band members were descended from the Pavant Indians
who inhabited the Corn Creek area near Fillmore at the time of the
arrival of the Mormons. Earlier, several attempts to no avail were made
to remove the Pavants to the Uintah Reservation.
The last group of Utah Paiutes to achieve offical status was the Cedar
City Band. As early as 1899 the federal government appropriated money
to buy land for the Cedar band; however, no lands were purchased and
the money was returned to officials. In 1919 the Cedar City area Paiutes
were administrated to as a " scattered band" out of the Goshute reserva-
The Paiutes — 143—
This Paiute Indian was photographed in the vicinity of St. George
by John K. Hillers between 1871 and 1875. ( USHS)
tion to the northwest. They had use of eighty acres of land for farming
plus five and one- half acres they lived on. Consequently, they were encouraged
to move to either the Indian Peaks or the Goshute reservation;
but, once again, they were too attached to their homeland to leave.
Because many deaths from tuberculosis had taken place, attempts
were made by the government to move the Paiutes in 1924, and money
was appropriated to purchase nine lots in Cedar City. Two months later,
however, William Palmer wrote an article for a local paper saying that
the government refused to do anything for the Paiutes. Some city officials
thought that the Indians could be made into a tourist attraction.
On December 15, 1926, the Paiutes moved to property purchased for
— 144— A History of Utah's American Indians
them by the Mormon church, which retained title to the land. Their old
camp, shacks, and belongings were burned and the Indians were moved
to their present location near the Little League ballpark in Cedar City.
Continued efforts to help the Paiutes were sporadic and disorganized.
William Manning, then the director of the Music Department at the
Branch Agricultural College ( now Southern Utah University), organized
an " Indian show" in order to raise money to buy blankets and clothing
and provide the local Indians with a bit of cash. In the early 1920s Manning
wrote of the Paiutes' lifestyle:
Each family lived in a little one room shack which was their
kitchen, bedroom, and living room. Around the walls ranged
bed rolls in the day, and at night the floor was covered with beds,
especially if company came. Food was prepared on a small stove
and eaten from a small table with the pot or frying pan set in the
middle. Each helped himself out of the pot with his fingers, and
at on the floor, the room being too small for very many chairs. 17
Federal Paternalism
The federal government did establish two schools for the Utah Paiutes:
the Shebit day school in 1898 and a school near Panguitch in Orton,
Utah, in 1901, which was moved to Shivwits in 1908. Once the federal
government became involved, it too would impact the lives of the Paiutes
through its Indian policies, some of which had been made for Eastern
tribes. The Paiutes would be subject to rulings which might not fit their
situation. One such opinion was that of early Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Marshall, who described American Indians as " domestic dependent
nations" in the Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation vs.
Georgia in 1831. The argument of the time was that, while the tribes
retained rights as independent political powers, they were subordinate
to the United States and were becoming dependent on the United States
for their welfare and existence. The Indians had the right to occupy their
lands until the federal government chose to extinguish their title. This
situation brought with it the notion that the " white man's burden" was
to civilize the Indians. Of course, this brought other players into the process
such as Mormons, other religous denominations, eastern Indian sympathizers,
and Congress. Matters of interpretation of " trust responsibility"
were part of the political and social climate.
One of the first Indian policies to affect the Paiutes was the allotment
of tribal lands to individuals under the Indian Homestead Act of
The Paiutes — 145—
1875. There basically were two approaches to Indian affairs: the gradual
approach and the immediate approach. Senator Henry Dawes favored
the gradual assimilation of Indians into white society through gradual
allotment. On the other hand, many land speculators, reformers, and
homesteaders favored the immediate allotment of all reservation land.
The Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 served as a compromise. Indian lands
were divided up into individual plots and, after an initial twenty- five-year
" trust" period, they would become liable to taxation. Lands declared
" surplus" would then be sold to the whites.
By 1934, the national tribal land base had been reduced by about 86
million acres through white acquisition. Under this allotment system the
Koosharem and Kanosh bands experienced change: at Koosharem, 400
acres in three allotments were patented between 1904 and 1913; at Kanosh,
1,840 acres were patented in twelve allotments in 1919- 20. These allotments
served as a core of Indian- owned land around which the Paiutes/
Utes could organize their work and other movements. The allotments
also served to mark land for potential Indian ownership. When the reservations
were established at Koosharem and at Kanosh they were adjacent
to the allotments. Allotment gave the Indians land where before
they had only squatters rights. By the time the allotment policy had
reached the Paiutes, and the BIA attempted to fulfill its trust obligations,
the federal government was trying to eliminate reservations. This was
reflected in the establishment of only four small reservations by executive
order between the years 1891 and 1929. They not only were small
but also contained little irrigable land or water rights.
On lanuary 1,1927, the BIA consolidated several offices and put six
small reservations and four Indian settlements under the jurisdiction of
the Paiute agency located at Cedar City. The young superintendent was
Dr. E. A. Farrow, who had previously worked at the Kaibab Paiute Reservation
just across the border in northern Arizona. Also during this period
the Indian Peaks Band moved to Cedar City.
Many factors during this period would affect the lives of the Paiutes.
In October 1929 the stock market crashed, ushering in the era known as
the Great Depression. The low point came in 1933 when the American
banking system virtually collapsed. The Depression era, however, actually
benefited many Paiutes by providing some federal projects they could
take advantage of. The Paiutes overall economic condition seemed to
improve. Because their annual yearly income had averaged between $ 150
and $ 200, the more dependable incomes many were now able to earn on
federal programs seemed a real luxury.
— 146- A History of Utah's American Indians
Kwi- toos and his son were Paiute Indians who lived along the
Virgin River in the vicinity of St. George. They were photographed
by John K. Hillers of the Powell expedition between 1871
and 1875. ( USHS)
The Depression brought at least one Mormon church- sponsored
project to the Paiutes: church leaders gave William Palmer $ 500 to develop
an arts and crafts business for the Paiutes. Articles such as gloves,
moccasins, beaded bookends, and bows and arrows were created for sale
to tourists and local whites. Palmer stated that, " During these times when
there has been no work for them, this bit of employment has gone far
toward supplying actual living necessities. They know that the church
has furnished this money and they are grateful to them for it." Palmer
claimed that by reinvesting the original $ 500, he was able to provide $ 1,107
worth of employment in approximately one year. 18
The Paiutes — 147—
Termination
Termination was one of the government's poorly conceived policies
to acculturate and assimilate the Indians. It seemed to be a carryover
from the Dawes Allotment Act of 1887. Many whites believed that tribalism
was the major stumbling block to the assimilation of Indians into
the mainstream society and that the Indians should not be treated differently
from other citizens. With this in mind, the federal government set
out to " terminate" from federal trust relationship those Indian tribes
deemed ready to survive on their own. The Utah congressional delegation
was heavily involved in seeing termination become a reality. As has
been mentioned, the acculturation process would continue, although the
loss of land also continued for the Indians. Budget constraints and the
eventual abolishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs were among the
reasons that made termination a popular idea with many non- Indian
Americans.
The implementation of the policy of withdrawal of services and trust
status was based on a four- step process: withdrawal of federal trusteeship;
relocation of Indians to urban centers; creation of a claims commission
to liquidate land claims and thereby eliminate any further reason
for tribal allegiance; and the progressive dismantling of the BIA. One
important person behind termination in the late 1940s and early 1950s
was Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah, who grew up near the Uintah- Ouray
Reservation. The former director of the War Relocation Authority ( WRA),
Dillion Myers, who had been responsible for removing 110,000 Japanese-
Americans from the West Coast to concentration camps in the interior
was now the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Myers was appointed
in 1950 and quickly appointed some of those who had served with him
at the WRA. At a meeting including Senator Watkins and Orme Lewis,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, on February 27, 1953, a strategy for
termination was developed. Without consulting any Indians, the men
decided that termination was to be rapid process in which services were
to be transferred from the BIA to the various states; tribal assets would
be redistributed to individuals or tribes as groups, and trust responsibility
for tribal lands would be transferred; tribal income and funds were to
be disbursed on a pro- rata basis; and legislation would be passed for the
" rehabilitation" of the Indians and their integration into the dominant
society.
The Southern Paiutes of Utah were not mentioned in Assistant Commissioner
Zimmerman's 1947 report on Indian readiness for withdrawal
or in House Concurrent Resolution 108.19 Zimmerman's criteria for ter-
— 148— A History of Utah's American Indians
mination included degree of acculturation, economic resources and educational
level of the various tribes and their members, the willingness of
the tribe to be terminated, and the willingness of the state to assume
responsibility for services. The Southern Paiutes did not qualify in any of
the aforementioned areas, yet they were the first group to be considered
for termination and, to some degree, served as the model for the withdrawal
hearings and the implementation of termination in later tribal
cases.
There were many reports that showed how ill- prepared the Paiutes
were for termination. During the process there were promises made and
meetings held to placate the Southern Paiutes. The Goshutes also were
being considered for termination but spoke out against it. It is still a
mystery how and why the Paiutes ended upon the list of tribes to be
terminated. Many scholars agree with Mary Jacobs when she speculates
that: " perhaps Senator Watkins, already a strong believer in the merits of
termination included these small groups from his own state because of
his own convictions and for encouragement to other legislators to terminate
Indians in their own states." 20 Another factor was that the Paiutes
were receiving little federal assistance anyway and had little political influence
to oppose the process.
One last meeting was to take place before the termination legislation
was to be signed. It was held in Fillmore, December 30, 1953, with the
Paiute bands; Skull Valley and Kaibab Indians were also there. Senator
Watkins extolled the benefits and advantages of termination, claiming it
would: 1) release the Indians from government control; 2) help everyone
see how well Indians could take care of their own affairs; and 3) provide
full citizenship to Indians in which they would get all the benefits available
to them from the state and county governments. The Paiutes were
advised twice during the meeting that the bill was not final and that they
could make changes and suggestions. It was said that the bill would be
changed to conform with " any recommended and approved adjustments."
At no time did any of the officials mention anything but the benefits of
termination, and, most importantly, at no time were the Paiutes asked if
they wanted to be terminated in the first place. Clifford Jake, Indian Peaks
spokesman, spoke out against termination and was told to sit down, shut
up, and mind his own business. 21 Promises continued to be made, such
as no limit on the planting of wheat; there also was a promise by an oil
company that urged the band to accept termination and then grant the
company an oil lease on Kanosh land. Neither of these promises materialized.
The Paiutes — 149—
Me- kwi- uk and his daughter were Paiute Indians living along the
Virgin River in the early 1870s. Photo by John K. Hillers. ( USHS)
Hearings were set for the termination bill on February 15, 1954, in
Washington, D. C. The bill was moving unusually fast through the legislative
process. Gary Orfield has documented how Senator Watkins dominated
the hearings and forced termination of the Utah Paiutes, writing,
" only Watkins of the five Senate members was present for more than one
hearing." 22 Orfield also underscored the lack of concern for the living
conditions and dependence of the tribal peoples about to be " set free."
Arguing for termination in the meeting on May 4, 1954, Watkins presented
an incredible view of the degree of Paiute assimilation and a distorted
account of their history. This left the testimony in favor of termi-
— 150— A History of Utah's American Indians
nation a maze of contradictions. Through all this the Paiutes were without
money to travel to Washington, D. C., to voice their opposition. Telegrams
were sent in opposition by the Kanosh Tribal Council and the
Koosharem Tribal Council, and these were followed by opposition from
the Indian Peaks and the Shivwits bands. However, these protests came
with no particular organization, and there was also the fact that there
was disunity within some bands. This indicates that the Paiutes themselves
were not adequately informed by the federal government as to the
implications of withdrawal of the trust relationship. Even though the
Paiutes clearly did not meet the criteria for termination, the legislation
sped through Congress, and on September 1,1954, President Eisenhower
signed Public Law 762, the bill terminating the Paiutes, after just one and
one- half years of BIA preparation.
Next came the implementation of the law. It now became evident
just how much the Paiutes were dependent on white advice in the early
1950s, especially concerning legislation and tribal business ventures. In a
letter to Rex Lee, area director Harry Stevens suggested that $ 50,000 be
allotted to prepare the four Paiute bands " to earn a livelihood, to conduct
their own affairs and to assume their responsibilities as citizens." 23
The Paiutes were given until February 21, 1957, to prepare themselves
for the end of the recognition of their special status as Indians. In order
to facilitate this transition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs established a three-pronged
support system composed of the BIA Withdrawal Office in Cedar
City; an educational/ vocational training program administered by
the University of Utah ( based on relocation); and the national BIA relocation
program. The Indian Claims Commission would serve as an integral
part of the termination effort, which was presented as holding the
future promise of wealth in exchange for the Paiutes giving up all claims
to their homelands.
The BIA Withdrawal Office in Cedar City included Director Wesley
T. Bobo; a realty officer, Frank M. Scott; and a clerk/ stenographer. The
Cedar City withdrawal office was not established until August 1955, and
Scott did not arrive until December of that year. From the Paiute viewpoint,
therefore, nothing had really happened since they had been scheduled
for withdrawal; from the BIA viewpoint, almost an entire year of
the three years allotted was lost due to funding and administration problems.
From November 1955 to lune 1957 Bobo and Scott were engaged
in an intensive effort to explain and discuss the implications of the termination
bill with area Paiutes. Once again the resiliency and adaptability
of the Paiutes was evident as they adapted to the changes being thrust
ThePaiutes — 151—
upon them. The BIA offered the Paiutes various options for the disposition
of their land: a trusteeship for their property could be created; the
tribal property could be sold and the proceeds distributed on a per- capita
basis; or the property could be divided into individual parcels. It is indicative
of the poor quality of the Paiute reservation lands that no acceptable
bids were made ( estimates of an acceptable bid in the case of
the Shivwits reservation varied from $ 1.00 to $ 2.65 an acre). The Indian
Peaks property was finally sold to the Utah Fish and Game Department
for $ 39,500 to serve primarily as an antelope reserve.
In implementing the withdrawal of the federal trust responsibility,
one of the duties of the BIA was to designate a trust authority to assume
responsibilities for the land and for Paiute minors. The convoluted logic
of termination insisted that, although the Paiutes were deemed ready to
be released from the federal trust relationship, another trustee had to be
selected for them. First Security Bank officials had been approached but
were not interested. The Utah Attorney General ruled that the state could
not assume trusteeship. 24 On June 20,1956, W. T. Bobo met in Salt Lake
City with William J. Fitzpatrick, vice- president and trust officer of Walker
Bank and Trust. The meeting was originally to ascertain whether Walker
Bank would be interested in serving as trustee for the " subsurface rights
and monies which we may have for transfer." Walker Bank was selected
as trustee without regard for the wishes of the Paiutes; as a result, the
Paiutes left the trusteeship of the BIA, but their meager resources entered
the trusteeship of a bank.
Although the Paiutes had received minimal services from the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, now they were totally ineligible for any services.
The federal government would no longer take an active interest in them
and they were left in the care of the local authorities. The period between
1957 and 1975 was characterized by general neglect on the part of the
State of Utah for any but the most basic needs of the Paiutes. This was a
time of growing hopelessness and social and economic decline for the
majority of the Paiute people. By all accounts, increased mortality rates,
unemployment, and alcoholism were rampant among the Paiutes during
this period. The bad economic times shattered families, and children
were often raised by relatives or by whites.
For the terminated tribes, the true impact and meaning of federal
withdrawal of trust responsibility became increasingly clear. They suffered
the loss of land, federal expertise and legal protection, federal health
and education funds to individuals, and training, housing, and business
grants. The tribes and individuals were faced with taxes and the loss of
— 152— A History of Utah's American Indians
Two Paiute children, Mon- su and Su- vu- it, photographed in the
vicinity of St. George by John K. Hillers in the early 1870s. Note
the coyote- hide quiver with arrows in the foreground. ( USHS)
the limited sovereignty they had enjoyed under the earlier Indian Reorganization
Act.
Life Under Termination
Almost immediately after Public Law 762 took effect Congress began
to speak in favor of economic development instead of termination. 25
Secretary of Interior Fred E. Seaton in a 1958 radio speech abandoned
the policy of unilateral termination of tribes.
In the aftermath of the decision to terminate the Southern Paiutes
the BIA did make some attempts to relocate and rehabilitate them. The
The Paiutes — 153—
Ta- peats stands in front of his wickiup near the Virgin River.
Photographed by John K. Hillers between 1871 and 1875. ( USHS)
BIA assumed that Indians had to overcome the common attitude that
they were lazy, dirty, ignorant, submissive, and unfit for anything but
subservient labor in the white man's fields. The BIA contracted with the
University of Utah in July 1955 to implement a relocation/ job training
plan. The contract included Ute Indians from the Uintah- Ouray Reservation.
Like so many of the policies that affected the Paiutes, the University
of Utah project disrupted lives but did not last long enough to produce
any lasting results. In fact, of the fourteen Paiutes who participated
in the Adult Vocational Training through Relocation program, not one
stayed away from the reservation or finished the training.
— 154— A History of Utah's American Indians
Denied federal welfare, education, health, and employment assistance
after 1957, the Paiutes found themselves plunged even deeper into poverty
and despair. Memories of termination- period experiences were common
among survivors, who recounted increased alcohol use and the early
death of others. The medical consultant's report, by Dr. Glen Leymaster,
listed problems among the Paiutes of obesity, tuberculosis, an " extreme
degree" of malnutrition among young infants, as well as sanitation and
sewage- disposal problems. Tuberculosis was a continuing problem, and
it had been the cause of about one- third of recorded Paiute deaths between
1889 and 1926.26
The LDS church also began to make a more conscious effort to spend
more time and resources pursuing Indian converts— two proponents of
such a policy being George Albert Smith and Spencer W. Kimball. In
1947 an Indian placement program began on an informal basis when a
Navajo girl came to live with an LDS stake president, Golden Buchanan,
of Sevier County. Official church sponsorship of the program followed
in July 1954.27 In 1957 William Manning organized a Cedar Indian
Branch. Other branches were established at Richfield ( by Judge Reed
Blomquist), at Shivwits, and at Kanosh.
The Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946, created a
special commission to which tribes could bring their outstanding grievances
against the United States. This was brought about because an 1863
statute barred claims by Indian tribes based on treaties. Although there
were many problems with the Indian Claims Commission, it would give
the Paiutes an opportunity to receive compensation for land of theirs
that had been taken. Since the 1865 Paiute Treaty had not been ratified
by the Senate, any claims to land had to be predicated on exclusive immemorial
possession, because joint use was not recognized in the claims
act. The Paiutes plight was reported by William Palmer, acting as a representative
of the mayor of Cedar City; the Cedar City Chamber of Commerce;
and the president of the Parowan Stake of the LDS church at a
meeting in Washington, D. C., with Commissioner William Brophy.
Palmer continued his role as adviser by contacting Ernest Wilkinson,
who with Felix Cohen was an author of the claims act. The promise of
payment for lost land appeared early in the 1950s, but the tortuous legal
process took so long that actual payments were not made until more
than twenty years later.
The Paiutes joined with other bands to pursue their claims. There
was some maneuvering by the Justice Department to weaken the individual
tribal cases through consolidation and to remove lands from settle-
The Paiutes — 155—
ment that had traditionally been jointly utilized by two or more groups.
Because there were some time limitations and the federal government
wanted to eliminate any further claims, there was some incentive to reach
a compromise to move the process more quickly. This approach, however,
allowed for no appeal from the Indians to either the U. S. Court of
Claims or to the U. S. Supreme Court, as did the normal land- claims process.
The attorneys negotiated a compromise that represented the Southern
Paiute and Chemehuevi tribes. The precise value of the Paiute land
was never determined, since the compromise included both Paiute and
Chemehuevi lands; but the payment consisted of $ 8.25 million for
29,935,000 acres of land— thus, the Paiutes were to be paid about 27.5
cents an acre for their land. The Wilkinson law firm was advised informally
by the ICC that the compromise was fair and would probably be
accepted if first approved by the Indians and the Department of the Interior.
28 Each band was advised by the attorneys that the compromise
was the best deal for their land and future. On January 18, 1965, the
Southern Paiutes were awarded the sum of $ 7,253,165.19 for about 26.4
million acres of land, or 27.3 cents per acre.
After the settlement was accepted, however, another delay faced the
Paiutes while it was determined how to administer and distribute the
settlement. Once again, white paternalism would play a part in the lives
of the Paiutes. Several individuals and groups, including the governor of
Utah, went on record against per- capita payments to the Indians. A survey
by Leonard Hill indicated that, " the basis of the concern is the fact
that these people generally are impoverished, uneducated, unemployed,
and inexperienced in handling money of amounts expected to be disbursed
from the claim." 29 Neither the State of Utah nor the BIA wanted
to accept responsibility for oversight of the claims funds; this was especially
true in the case of the four terminated bands. Attorney John Boyden
played a major role in these negotiations as the attorney of record for the
case ( Docket No. 330) and as the chair of the Utah Governor's State Board
of Indian Affairs. In the end, the Paiutes had renounced, at least in the
eyes of the federal government, their rights to over 29 million acres; in
return, they had gained only a relatively small monetary payment.
Termination saw people unprepared on all sides. It took some people
at the BIA until 1965 to realize that the Indian Peaks and Cedar bands
were two different entities. 30 One of the studies used to establish early
land use and occupation also suggested how poorly the Paiutes were prepared
for being terminated. For many Paiutes the land claims money
that was supposed to facilitate their entry into the white world was soon
— 156— A History of Utah's American Indians
These Paiute Indians on the Shivwits Reservation in 1933 were playing a card
game, using buttons, needles, pins, and other small items to make wagers.
( USHS)
gone, and they were left with nothing: no land, no money, no trust relationship,
and no expectations for a brighter future. Some Paiutes did
improve their lives by remodeling their homes, and some new homes
were even built. The land claims process also increased Paiute political
activity and awareness. In many ways, the claims case laid the groundwork
for the 1980 restoration of tribal status to the Paiutes. 31 Talk for
reinstatement began as early as 1958. In many ways, it seems that termination
set the Paiutes twenty- five years behind many other tribes.
Many Paiutes continued to work as unskilled laborers, doing seasonal
farm work, and some found better work on the railroad. By this
time, the traditional knowledge base had deteriorated to the point that
less than half of the Paiutes spoke fluent Paiute, very few were tanning
deerskin, and very little storytelling or weaving of baskets and cradles
was taking place. Social gatherings were very infrequent. Alcoholism began
to affect more and more of the Paiutes, physically and socially. This
contributed to a low life expectancy of only forty- two years during the
early 1980s for Paiute males. The education drop- out rate ranged between
40 percent and 60 percent, with only an eighth- grade attainment
level possible for most. Social and health services were almost non- existent.
Many Paiutes were still living in substandard homes; but once again
the Paiutes proved their durability and adaptability.
The Paiutes — 157—
Restoration
Although the talk of reinstatement of tribal status for Native Americans
began as early as 1958, the first real effort came in 1973 when petitions
were circulated among the bands calling for the restoration of tribal
status. Utah State Director of Indian Affairs Bruce Parry contacted BIA
area director John Artichoker and then met with Morris Thompson,
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in Phoenix, Arizona. Both were supportive
of restoration efforts, and a report was drafted by Mary Ellen
Sloan, a law student working for the regional Solicitor's Office. Her nine-page
memo essentially established that the Paiutes had never met the
criteria established for termination and that promises made by Senator
Watkins were not kept. The report also provided a policy statement on
some of the errors and evils of termination.
In 1975 an Indian attorney named Larry Echohawk was approached
by a member of the Paiute Tribal Corporation Board and by Bruce Parry
to initiate the legal process required for restoration. Many meetings were
held during 1975 to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of restoration
and various forms of tribal government. The Menominee Restoration
Bill then in process was watched in hopes that it would provide a
useful precedent for Paiute restoration. Much support was given by the
Paiute bands and some was also received from local entities and the BIA.
The records of the meetings held made it obvious that the Paiutes were
overwhelmingly in favor of reinstatement of federal status. Utah Senator
Frank Moss requested that the BIA draft proposed legislation. Senator
Moss and Congressman Gunn McKay, both Democrats, were ready to
introduce and support the legislation when Moss was defeated by Republican
Orrin Hatch in 1976.
The original 1975 draft version of the restoration bill provided for
each Paiute band to be restored as a separate political entity, which was
essentially its pre- termination status. After some discussion concerning
sovereignty, population, and culture, a third draft of restoration legislation
was prepared in 1976 which proposed to include all the bands under
one tribal government. Newly elected Senator Orrin Hatch and Congressman
Dan Marriott became the supporters needed in Congress.
In 1978 Mary Ellen Sloan, who would later join the Echohawk law
firm and be its lead attorney, was asked by Larry Echohawk to write legislation
to create a federally recognized tribal entity for the Paiutes. The
bill, which was similar to the Siletz Tribe Restoration Bill, accompanied
by a study for a plan for a Paiute reservation, was presented to Senator
Hatch. In July 1979 the first meeting of the Paiute Restoration Commit-
— 158— A History of Utah's American Indians
tee was held. This group was formed in order to lobby for the Paiute
cause. The committee was composed of the Paiute Tribal Council and
various influential Utahns from diverse backgrounds. Tactics included
encouraging individuals with contacts to write letters of support, make
phone calls, and to encourage latent Mormon support and sympathy for
the Paiutes. Historical and other materials were compiled to support the
Paiute claims that they had suffered unjustly as a result of termination.
The essential strategy devised by Sloan and the committee was one
of legislative advocacy. 32 This approach was utilized and refined throughout
the process that led to restoration of tribal status and was applied,
with some brilliance, during the reservation phase of activity, which followed
restoration. The strategy was basically a search for support ( mostly
in the form of letters) from influential third parties. There was little interest
in ( although also little serious opposition to) restoration from the
white population in southern Utah. But there was opposition from conservative
circles to the idea of the inclusion of a reservation plan.
On August 29,1979, Senator Hatch held a meeting at Southern Utah
State College, in Cedar City, to assess opinion on Paiute recognition. At
this meeting, several Paiutes ( forty to fifty were in attendance) spoke
strongly in favor of restoration, the need for a land base for their people,
and of discrimination suffered by Indians from local whites. Several examples
of blatant discrimination against Paiutes were cited. This testimony
seems to have convinced Hatch that the Paiutes were in need of his
help. The president of Southern Utah State College noted that the Paiutes,
because of their terminated status, were unable to attend college, whereas
Indian students from recognized tribes were eligible for tuition and other
assistance. Speakers also included county commissioners of Duchesne
and Uintah Counties ( invited by Hatch), where the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation was located, who spoke strongly against restoration and made
comments that the Paiutes and others felt were racist. The lessee of the
Shivwits grazing land also spoke in opposition of a reservation.
Bruce Parry and Mary Ellen Sloan made a whirlwind tour of southern
Utah, meeting with the Paiute bands prior to House hearings on the
restoration bill ( H. R. 4996) in order to gather statistics on the current
socioeconomic status of the Paiutes. This information helped to document
the deplorable condition of many Paiutes after termination. This
brief survey concluded that Paiute per- capita income was $ 1,968, in contrast
to the $ 7,004 per- capita income of the average citizen of Utah.
A serious lobbying effort by the Paiute Restoration Committee, with
the aim of including a reservation plan in the restoration legislation, cul-
The Paiutes — 159—
This photograph of Beaverad, a Paiute Indian
reported to be nearly one hundred years old, was
taken in Milford about 1910. ( USHS)
minated when Jo Jo Hunt, staff attorney for the Senate Select Committee
on Indian Affairs, developed a series of fifteen amendments to a bill sponsored
by Senator Hatch that included a provision for new reservation
lands to be selected and presented to Congress within two years of restoration.
The committee chair approved this version, and it was adopted
through the acquiescence of Senator Hatch; even with the provision for
a reservation plan, he did not kill the bill.
Despite initial opposition from the Office of Management and Budget,
which had asked for further study without offering any money to
fund it, the restoration act, Public Law 96- 227, was signed by President
Jimmy Carter and became law on April 3,1980.
— 160— A History of Utah's American Indians
The Paiutes received a good deal of local support for the restoration
of the trust relationship; but when it came to receiving reservation lands,
such support often ended or became more covert. Throughout the entire
reservation planning process, it was made abundantly clear that the
Paiutes had the support of the local personnel of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. This support began at the Phoenix Area Office and was especially
strong at the Paiute Restoration Project Office, which was established
at Cedar City in November 1980 in order to implement the restoration
legislation. On June 1,1983, Interior Secretary James Watt signed
a measure giving final approval for the Cedar City office to become a
field station serving all of the Paiutes in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Full-scale
operations began on October 1,1983, when the field station began
to function as a Southern Paiute mini- agency.
Reservation Selection
The restoration act required the secretary of the interior to present
proposed legislation for a Paiute reservation to Congress by April 3,1982.
The Paiutes were faced with a monumental task, as they had to elect a
six- member interim council, establish a membership roll, write a tribal
constitution and by- laws, and then elect a council under the constitution.
An interim council was elected on May 31,1980, and a constitution
was adopted by the tribe on October 1,1981. An official tribal membership
roll listing 503 members was finished by August 1981. Reservation
planning began under the interim council with a September 1980 meeting
with Utah Governor Scott Matheson. The interim council was replaced
by the newly elected tribal council on October 24,1981. The fact
that the Paiutes were able to accomplish all of this within such a compressed
timeframe was a tribute to their leaders and to their hard work.
Then came the most exciting, controversial, and certainly most frustrating
aspect of the restoration: the reservation planning and selection.
Land selection was difficult. 33 Virtually all of the good land in southern
Utah was in private hands. Lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management
were marginal, and, while some U. S. Forest Service lands contained
valuable minerals, they were either leased to or under the watchful
eye of powerful interests. With only 503 members, the Paiute population
was small and almost destitute, and they seldom voted. Certain LDS
church leaders were asked to help with the reservation effort as the morally
right thing to do, with the end objective of raising the living standard
of Paiutes. Emphasis was placed on the Paiutes' desire for self-sufficiency
and the need for good reservation land in order to accom-
The Paiutes — 161—
Young Paiute pupils assemble in front of their school in Panguitch. ( Marriott
Library, University of Utah— U of U)
plish this goal. Pressure also was brought to bear on the Utah congressional
delegation and local political leaders during this phase through
personal visits, editorials, letters, and phone calls.
As various local and political opposition to reservation planning
mounted, the support of Senator Hatch waned. One point of contention
was that the Indians were being given special treatment not available to
the general population, being " given something for nothing." The general
white perception was that the Indians were being given land, not
that the land was being restored to its rightful previous owners; also involved
was the Mormon tenet that some form of work is necessary from
those receiving assistance. After many heated and emotional meetings,
five parcels were dropped from consideration. While the restoration legislation
called for the land selection from " available public land", some
officials in the U. S. Forest Service and other opponents maintained that
forest lands were " not available." However, in 1956, some Uintah National
Forest land had been returned to the Ute tribe, and, in 1974,100,000
acres of national forest land had been put in trust for the Havasupai
Indians of Arizona.
— 162— A History of Utah's American Indians
By 1984, tribal council members were resigned to take whatever was
offered to them; their mood was one of melancholy powerlessness. The
Paiute Tribal Council found itself in the familiar position of taking something
with the assumption that it was better than nothing. In the end,
H. R. 2898 provided the Utah Paiutes with 4,770 acres of land, less than
one- third of the 15,000 acres that the restoration legislation allowed them
to select. They could have followed the example of the Western Shoshonis
and refuse to settle; however, this possibly would have netted them nothing.
H. R. 2898 also authorized a trust fund of $ 2.5 million, with 50 percent
of the interest drawn for tribal government expenses and economic
development projects.
Paiute Indians Today
All the ingredients seemed to be in place for the Paiutes to be a " bu-reaucratized"
people who could function amid the red tape and legalities
of today's society. Efforts and energies now were needed to provide direction
and leadership for the future success of the Paiutes. Internal
squabbles, however, would hinder their progress, as some Paiutes had
learned the bureaucratic system all too well. The Paiute leadership of the
1980s proved to be able and sophisticated. The tribe has been well served
by strong leaders ( within the Paiute context) and capable staff. During
the restoration and reservation phases, interfamilial and band conflicts
were somewhat muted; however, during the latter part of the land-acquisition
process, internal squabbles began to increase, which made
progress and continuity a bit more difficult. More and more conflict was
evident as families sought the help of tribal, BIA, and state agencies in
matters pertaining to food, shelter, medical care, education, and jobs.
Since restoration in 1980, the trend has been toward the contracting
of functions previously the responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Utah Paiutes now contract almost all of their services; therefore,
the direct supervision of their lives by the BIA is minimal. There is
still a definite tendency of many tribal members to depend heavily on
tribal government and services. The Paiute tribal government acts as a
surrogate for the BIA and has become the continued focal point for Paiute
aspirations and frustrations. Turnover in the tribal council has been high.
Although health care has improved dramatically since 1980, major
problems still exist; for example, 95 percent of tribal deaths from 1981 to
1984 were alcohol related. The tribe hired an alcohol intervention specialist.
In 1984 the tribal health department estimated that 68 percent of
their people's health- care needs were not being met, and the life expect-
The Paiutes — 163—
ancy of a Paiute male in 1984 was forty- two years. Improvements were
made, however, and by 1989 not only were most private physicians in
southern Utah available to tribal members but also there was a special
clinic held at the tribal office building once a month. Dental, eye- care,
diabetes, well- baby, and general clinics are held. Travis Parashoonts noted:
" Prior to 1980, we had three deaths to every birth. We were a vanishing
tribe, slowly going into extinction. Restoration gave us access to health
service and we reversed those figures in three years." 34
Education has been and continues to be a high priority with the
Paiutes. After restoration they immediately hired a director of tribal education.
Prior to 1981 about 40 percent of Paiute children dropped out of
school by eighth grade, and only eight Paiutes had attended college in
the previous ten years. Now, however, the drop- out rate has stayed in the
single digits from 1982 to the present. By the spring of 1982, forty- four
Paiutes were either attending college or vocational school. Desire for education
is evident in the fact that of those between eighteen and forty
years of age, 71 percent have participated in higher education or vocational
training. Unfortunately, however, some progress remains to be
made: only about one in three has finished his or her degree or training
programs, and, of those, only about one- half have actually been able to
find work in their field. 35 Tribal leaders have worried that, as their children
graduate, they may find that the few jobs available in southern Utah
are closed to Paiutes because of prejudice. This would force the best and
brightest of the young Paiutes to find work away from their traditional
homeland.
The Paiute Economic Development Committee was established in
1984 to seek out economic development enterprises closer to home. A
sewing plant was established at Kanosh that employs twenty to thirty
people ( primarily Paiute women). 36 In the summer of 1989, a Cedar City
warehouse was refurbished to establish a second sewing plant. Plans are
currently underway to build a natural- gas, turbine- powered power plant,
and possible development of a golf course, both slated for the Shivwits
reservation.
Unemployment and underemployment still plague the Paiutes. In
1988, for example, with a labor force of 137 potential workers, seventy-seven
were unemployed at some point during the year, and fifty- two were
said to be actively seeking work. 37 Nonetheless, there is now a core of
college- educated Paiute professionals of both sexes who can act as role
models and help provide the lead in escaping the customary poverty conditions
of many Paiute Indians.
— 164— A History of Utah's American Indians
Three Paiute women with a baby in a beautifully crafted
cradleboard. ( USHS)
The Koosharem Band has begun to benefit from the parcel of land at
Joseph; five house trailers have been located there and twelve HUD homes
have been built. The tribal administration has done an excellent job of
acquiring HUD housing for tribal members at Cedar City, Shivwits, and
Joseph.
The Paiutes — 165-
Since they reacquired a landbase during the 1980s, the Paiutes have
become more visible throughout southern Utah. In 1981, to celebrate
their restored trust status, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah instituted a
Restoration Gathering, to be held in June of each year. This celebration
has become a major contemporary social event in the Paiute calendar.
The gathering marks the restoration of federal recognition of the Utah
Paiute tribe and includes a princess pageant, ball games and hand games,
and a parade through downtown Cedar City.
The effort that goes into producing and participating in this event
creates pride and solidarity among the participants. The intertribal aspects,
such as the dance contests and the hand games, create an opportunity
for the Paiutes to meet other Native Americans and exchange information
and songs. One of the primary benefits of the Gathering is its
visibility; it provides an opportunity for the Paiutes to express their ethnic
pride and say to the Anglo community that they are proud of of their
accomplishments and of who they are. The Paiute people never left their
homeland, nor do they ever intend to leave.
— 166— A History of Utah's American Indians
As* «
^ M3M$
i ^. ^ JmifeC-
* JKJ**.
"-'. .. -^ n
%* f
^ ^ tp
;?:•••'' ::: Vfi
iii
Antero's encampment in the Uinta Valley, photographed by John
K. Hillers of the John Wesley Powell expedition in 1873- 74.
( USHS) |
