Written and Compiled by Kurt Anderson, Ph.D.
Angie Debo: Historian and Political Activist
Beginning in the late 1960s, Angie Debo emerged as a passionate advocate for the land rights of Alaska’s native peoples. While that had been a topic of discussion in the 49th state for years, Indigenous leaders had begun organizing a more targeted effort, forming the Alaska Federation of Natives in 1966 to further the cause and ramping up political outreach. In the summer of 1967, Debo taught a seven-week course on the history of American Indians at the University of Oklahoma. Funded by the National Education Defense Act to support teachers of Native American children in public, mission, and Indian bureau schools, Angie used her lecture notes from the course as the basis for her next book, The History of the Indians of the United States (1970). In a chapter from the book titled, “The White Man Gets a New Chance,” Debo told the story of how Alaska Natives, overwhelmed by ever-increasing appropriations of their ancestral lands, had quietly appealed to the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA) for assistance. At the time she wrote the chapter, Angie had believed their situation to be hopeless. A trip to the forty-ninth state in August 1969 only discouraged her further. But after reading a concise summary of the Alaska Natives’ land claims which the AAIA included in its fall 1969 newsletter, she decided to initiate a letter-writing campaign in their behalf. In her 1969 Christmas letter, she included a brief summary of her own and asked her friends to write six letters each to their representatives and senators in Washington, D.C. The response she received far exceeded her expectations, and the number of her correspondents eventually reached 265. Some of her contacts published articles in their local newspapers; others were teachers who encouraged their students to write letters; still others mimeographed copies of Angie’s letter and started a chain reaction by mailing them out to their own friends; one of her correspondents was a college professor with enough influence to enlist his entire state delegation to the Alaska natives’ cause; and several church leaders recruited their congregations to write letters of support. In September 1970 Debo went to Washington where she submitted a statement to the Chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the House of Representatives in defense of the Alaska Natives’ land claims. Recalling past injustices to Native Americans, yet holding out hope for the future of those in Alaska, Angie’s statement concluded with the following challenge: “Why repeat this tragic cycle? We have a new chance to do it right. But the only hope lies with the next Congress, which may come up with a better bill.” On 23 March 1971 Oklahoma Senator Fred Harris entered Angie’s statement into the Congressional Record – Senate. Eight days later the House of Representatives began debating a bill that would grant Alaska Natives 40 million acres; on 6 April, President Richard Nixon offered his own version of a bill matching that acreage – the minimum required to sustain the Alaska Natives traditional subsistence economy. Then on 20 October the House passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; the Senate passed its own version of the bill ten days later. On 14 December both houses passed the bill granting 40 million acres in fee simple title to Alaska’s native peoples. The bill also guaranteed them $962 million as compensation for ceding their other land claims, 2 percent mineral royalties from federal and state lands, and the establishment of 12 regional corporations to be administered by Alaska Natives themselves under Bureau of Indian Affairs supervision. And in what was an unqualified victory for the Alaska Federation of Natives, as well as Angie Debo and her legion of letter writers, President Nixon signed the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) on 18 December 1971.
This resource focuses on Dr. Debo's correspondence regarding ANCSA, but it also includes contextual material that sheds light on this segment of her activism, such as the occasional interview excerpt or article clipping.
Alaska, Correspondence, 1969 – June 1970
Alaska, Correspondence, July – December 1970
Alaska, Correspondence, January – May 1971
Alaska, Correspondence, June – September 1971
Alaska, Correspondence, October – December 1971
--------------------------------------------------
P.O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 70356
November 3, 1969
The Honorable Henry Bellmon
Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Bellmon:
Your family like mine is descended from early Oklahoma [pioneer farmers] settlers. A good argument was advanced in opening the Cherokee Strip to homesteaders. The Indians were not using the land, and its cities, its wheat fields, its herds of Herefords or Angus have resulted from the change. But the barren tundra that the Eskimos need for subsistence, or the hunting and fishing area used by an Indian village in Alaska will never support farms and cities.
Respectfully,
Angie Debo.
--------------------------------------------------
Interviews with Angie Debo, #17.
Interview Date: June 8, 1985.
(Box 2/ folder 18)
I consider And Still the Waters Run my most important book, but because of its explosive character I had difficulty in publishing it. I have read, recently, stories about my efforts in this direction that are not quite accurate – and I’d like to straighten out the record.
When my Choctaw Republic came out, for some reason that I never have been able to understand, it was so widely reviewed that it gave me great encouragement. For ten years I had been with the West Texas State Teachers College, where I had been training high school history teachers in teaching methods, making demonstration teaching of high school students for them to observe, and guiding them in their practice teaching. But I felt as though I wanted to enter more deeply into the scholarly work of history, and that field was closed and locked against women. And I felt that when my Choctaw Republic came out and was so extensively and favorably reviewed, I felt as though I ought to break loose from a situation that wasn’t exactly satisfactory, and start out in free-lance writing. It was a difficult time because it was right in the depth of the depression, but I left the West Texas State Teachers College – where I had been for the last ten years – at the end of the summer of 1934. And came over to Marshall, Oklahoma where my parents lived, to start out my career if I could have one in historical writing.
So I thought I’d start out if I could, even in that difficult time, as a free-lance writer, and because I had written the tribal history of the Choctaws, I thought it was – one of the, because I’d written a tribal history of the Choctaws, one of the projects I had in mind was a continuation – a, just a minute, sequel – I thought I would write a sequel to the tribal history of the Choctaws, and describe the participation of the Five Civilized Tribes who had owned and governed the eastern half of Oklahoma, after their tribal institutions were liquidated, and they became citizens of the United States, and citizens of Oklahoma. That was one of my projects.
But I had no idea of the explosive character of the material that I would uncover. Much of the eastern half of Oklahoma which had been owned and governed by the Five [Civilized] Tribes was dominated by a criminal conspiracy to take away their land.
And so we decided that my next book to be published would be a sequel to my tribal history of the Choctaws, and neither one of us had any conception of what I was going to run into. I probably wouldn’t have been brave enough to have chosen that subject if I had known. If I had surmised how dangerous that subject was, how shocking, it was, but after having chosen it, I wasn’t willing to back down. I feel as though that when one is doing research for a historical, on a historical, subject that [one mustn’t] leave out something because it might offend somebody who is living, because it tells the truth about them, or about some of their ancestors. So I felt as though I had to tell the whole story no matter what it said. I read each – I did my writing at home – I read each chapter to my mother as I wrote it. She would say when I finished reading a chapter, “Nobody will ever publish that,” but I felt sure that Mr. Brandt would. So as soon as it was finished, I sent it to the university and he read it and his readers read it. And they praised it very highly and I still feel that it’s the most important book that I have ever written.
--------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
“I have always been an average citizen I suppose. Historians should be that just the same as a farmer, or a dentist, or anybody else. I felt as though the historian’s role was to discover the truth and publish it – present it to the electorate, present it to the people – and that my role was ended when I did that. I had never thought about starting a, well, a sort of forerunner of a Political Action Committee (PAC). I never thought about that; it just came about rather unexpectedly, but I didn’t deliberately set out to do it.” And here is how it happened:
Angie Debo taught a course in American Indian history at an NDEA (National Defense Education Act) Institute at the University of Oklahoma in the summer of 1967. In the course, she included a lecture about contemporary Alaska. She had a very unusual group of students. She had never seen students so interested; they were all teachers of Indian children who had been selected because of their superior interests and achievements. At the end of the course, they asked Angie if they could have her notes. They said they would have them mimeographed (copied) and take care of the expense because they wanted copies of Angie’s notes. That was the first time it occurred to her that maybe what she had might be the material for a book. Angie then approached the Director of the University of Oklahoma Press to see if he would be interested, and amazingly, he had been wanting just such a survey.
So she wrote The History of the Indians of the United States, which was published in 1970, and in it Angie told the story of Alaska’s native peoples. She still had the list of her students from the course, so Angie felt as though she ought to tell them about their situation. So she wrote to them in the fall of 1969, and told them that the book would be published the next year if they still wanted a copy, although she wasn’t exactly in the business of selling books. In her book there was a very accurate summary of the situation at that time in the chapter titled “The White Man Gets a New Chance.” Angie also included a copy of the newsletter of the Association on American Indian Affairs. It, too, related the whole story of the Alaska natives’ plight.
In a nutshell, Alaska, by virtue of its Statehood Act, had been given a large amount of land, and the different sports groups wanted large portions of it for hunting and fishing – especially for hunting. Land that the natives needed for their subsistence economy was being pulled out from under them – and many of them were not even aware of it. So Angie told them they should read the AAIA summary carefully. She admitted she had had nothing to do with writing it, but she guaranteed that it was true in every detail. Angie also suggested that they write six letters to hopefully influence Congress; that if they would write those letters it might do some good. And at first, she planned to stop right there. That was in the fall of 1969. Then Christmas came right after that.
--------------------------------------------------
Indian Affairs
Newsletter of the Association on American Indian Affairs
July-September 1969
Alaska: Deadline for Justice
The United States and its people were offered a priceless opportunity to do justice to its aboriginal people whose treatment in the past had reflected little glory on our nation.
A hundred years ago on the Western frontier, Indians and whites were killed each other for possession of the land. In twentieth-century Alaska, sixty thousand Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts fought to preserve their ancient rights and heritage, and save a fair portion of their lands from expropriation by the State. They waged a peaceful war for a decent share of America’s future. It was left to Congress to decide their fate. Alaska’s native people urgently appealed to the conscience of every American for help in their search for justice.
Alaska’s Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut citizens had conclusive legal (original Indian title) and moral rights to 340 million acres of land – 90 percent of the Alaska landmass. They asked Congress to grant them formal legal title to 40 million acres essential to their present livelihood and future well-being, and for just compensation for the remaining 300 million acres they felt were beyond the possibility of saving. Their hopes were expressed in legislation submitted to Congress by the Alaska Federation of Natives – the “AFN Alaska Native Claims Settlement Bill.”
The decision Congress would make would profoundly affect the lives of Alaska’s natives for generations and would reflect on the honor of the United States for centuries.
THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE
To the Alaska Natives, the land was their life; to the State of Alaska, it was a commodity to be bought and sold. Alaska Native families depended on the land and its waters for the food they ate. They existed by hunting and fishing just as they had done for thousands of years.
Living in some two-hundred remote villages scattered across a state three times the size of Texas, the natives needed large areas simply to survive. Often the yield from a thousand acres would support only one person. In some regions, a village of two hundred people required as much as 600 thousand acres to range over.
Cash was hard to come by.
Alaska Natives were the most impoverished of America’s poor. Village family income for those who had any income averaged less than one-quarter of the family income for white Alaskans. Only one out of every ten Native youngsters graduated from high school, and the average age at death was thirty-five.
Harsh though their living conditions were, the natives retained their independence and self-respect, although they feared that if title to their land passed to the State, they would be forced onto welfare rolls.
THE CONTROVERSY
The dispute between the state and the natives had its origins in a century of inaction by Congress. The state claimed the right to select 103 million acres from the public domain under a provision of the 1958 Statehood Act. The natives relied on a pledge by Congress in 1884 to respect their aboriginal claim; this was buttressed by a provision included by Congress in the Statehood Act that subjected the state’s selection to the natives’ prior aboriginal claim.
In 1867, when the United States acquired Alaska from Russia, it purchased not the land itself but only the right to tax and govern it. The United States government recognized at that time, in accordance with long-standing federal policy and Supreme Court precedent, that the land belonged to the original occupants – the native people of the villages.
Congress, in the Organic Act of 1884 established a territorial government in Alaska, and acknowledged the Natives’ right to the land, stating: “The Indians . . . shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupancy or now claimed by them.” However, it postponed for future legislation the matter of conveying title to the natives, and as late as 1969 Congress had yet to act.
Until the Statehood Act in 1958 there was no massive threat to native land rights or their way of life. In fact, prior to 1939 the natives were a majority in Alaska, and used only a minute fraction of the land. To protect land rights against the new State, Congress had provided that the “State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title . . . to any lands or other property (including fishing rights) the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts.”
Nonetheless the state subsequently moved to take over lands clearly used and occupied by Native villages and to claim, under the Statehood Act, royalties from federal oil and gas leases on native lands. The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Bureau of Land Management, without informing the villages affected and ignoring the claims they had on file, began to process the state’s selections. The lands of the Indians of Minto Village, where the lakes provide one of the best duck-breeding grounds in the world, were slated to be taken over by the state for the use of sports hunters and vacationers. The Indians of Tanacross Village discovered that their lands on beautiful Lake George had been offered for sale at the New York World’s Fair as “Wilderness Estates.” The multi-billion-dollar North Slope oil strike by Atlantic Richfield Company at Prudhoe Bay was on land the state had claimed from the Eskimos of Barrow.
As word of the State’s actions spread from village to village, the Natives began to organize regional associations for their common defense, and in 1962 the Tundra Times a native weekly, was founded to provide a voice for Native aspirations. In 1964, Indian and Eskimo leaders from across the State met in Fairbanks to mobilize their joint forces; and two years later the statewide Alaska Federation of Natives was formed to champion Native rights.
In 1966, then Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, with statutory responsibility to protect the interests of the natives, finally acted to block the state. After the Bureau of Land Management had granted the State of Alaska title to 6 million acres of native land and had tentatively approved the transfer of another 12 million acres, Secretary Udall, responding to Native appeals, halted the transfer of additional land and suspended the issuance of new federal oil and gas leases pending Congressional settlement of native land rights.
Alaska’s Governor Walter J. Hickel condemned this act as illegal, and the state filed suit against Secretary Udall in Federal Court to force him to complete the transfer of certain native lands. The case was eventually decided in December 1969 in favor of the natives.
In January 1969, as one of his last acts in office, Secretary Udall formalized his “land freeze” with the issuance of Public Land Order 4582. In so doing he stated: “This action will give opportunity for Congress to consider how the legislative commitment that the natives shall not be disturbed in their traditional use and occupancy of the lands in Alaska should be implemented. . . . To allow these lands to pass into other ownership in the face of the natives’ claim would, in my opinion, preclude a fair and equitable settlement of the matter by Congress. It would also deny the natives of Alaska an opportunity to acquire title to lands which they admittedly have used and occupied for centuries.”
President Richard Nixon appointed Governor Hickel to succeed Secretary Udall. At confirmation hearings on that appointment, Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, won a promise from Secretary Hickel that he would continue the freeze during the 91st Congress. Secretary Hickel made it clear, however, that unless Congress acted he would allow the Udall order to expire at the end of 1970, at which time he would continue transferring native lands to the state.
The hopes of the native people gained new force in July 1969 when Arthur J. Goldberg, a former Supreme Court Justice and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, agreed to represent their cause before Congress as a public service. Associated with him in that effort were Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General, and Thomas Kuchel, former U.S. Senator from California.
Ten years before few Alaskans in positions of power had recognized the validity and urgency of Alaska native land rights. But by 1969 the natives were united and their newly-discovered political strength had earned them respect for their cause.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Three alternative proposals to settle the Alaska land controversy were placed before Congress. Secretary Hickel proposed enactment of legislation with these major provisions:
The Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, an independent agency of the Executive Office, recommended a Congressional settlement with these major provisions:
The Alaska Federation of Natives, on behalf of the sixty thousand people it represented, offered in the “AFN Alaska Native Claims Settlement Bill” a solution with these major provisions:
Cash compensation in the amount of $500 million dollars (roughly $1.50 per acre) payable over a nine-year period with interest at 4 per cent: and a 2 per cent residual royalty on gross revenues from federal lands to which native title is extinguished.
Given the vast amount of land in Alaska and the extent of Native land rights and needs, 40 million acres is a reasonable request. It represents 10 per cent of the land for 20 per cent of the people who have valid claims to nearly 100 per cent of the land. The state would still have ample land from which to make its selection of 103 million acres, and a balance of about 230 million acres would be retained by the federal Government.
Justice further dictates that the natives enjoy fee-simple title to the lands that are to remain theirs. That would be consistent with repeated Supreme Court decisions that aboriginal land rights include all mineral rights. Without such title, a village not only would be denied its rightful benefits, but also would be at the mercy of the conservation practices of the oil and mining companies for protection of the subsistence value of the surface of the land.
Considering the fact that the lands to which the natives have legal rights have a value conservatively estimated in the tens of billions of dollars, the cash settlement proposed by the natives based on $1.50 an acre was a modest one. The State of Alaska expected to receive in 1969 alone $1 billion [it actually received over $900 million.] from bonus bids offered in September 1969 by oil companies for exploration rights to 431,000 acres of oil land it had taken from the Eskimos of the North Slope.
Measured against the needs of the natives at that time, the cash compensation was not substantial. Far more would have been required to raise their family income and standard of living to half that of white Alaskans.
The amount sought was, however, enough to provide a capital base for human and community development and could have been financed by the federal government from a fraction of the wealth it would derive from the lands to which native title would be extinguished. Moreover, the monetary settlement was not to be paid to individuals, but rather to native village and regional development corporations empowered to launch self-help programs in health, education, housing, employment and economic growth.
SUMMARY
In view of the natives’ legal rights and the nation’s moral obligations, their social and economic needs, and the value of the land to which they had rightful claim, the settlement the Alaska Federation of Natives sought was just, reasonable, and humane. It would have afforded a wise and courageous native people a meaningful opportunity for sell-determination and the base for a better life for themselves and their children.
--------------------------------------------------
Alaska, Correspondence, 1969 – June 1970
Angie Debo Papers (1988-013), SCUA, OSU Libraries
(Box 15/Folder 23)
P.O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 70356
November 3, 1969
The Honorable Henry Bellmon
Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Bellmon:
I am writing to urge your support of S.3041 settling the land problem of the Alaska natives. I am sure you are familiar with my books on the history of the West. My latest one, now in process of publication by the University of Oklahoma Press, is a general survey of Indian history. Its Alaska chapter is entitled, “The White Man Gets a New Chance.” It points out that it is possible, though not yet certain, that the sordid treatment of the Indians in the “Lower 48” will not be repeated in Alaska. The issue will be decided by the 91st Congress. Not only the welfare, even the existence, of the Alaska natives (Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos) is at stake, but the good name of the American people. As one whose published findings have recorded good and bad acts of government, I have become strongly aware of the verdict of history. I hope this final chapter will be one of [which] we shall not be ashamed.
The natives, in supporting S.3041, are not demanding technical justice – they have an aboriginal claim to all of Alaska – but a settlement that will enable them to survive and prosper without hampering the development of the state. Some bills now before Congress would allow them to retain a township or two where their villages are located and cut off the hinterland essential to their support. This would be equivalent to protecting a farmer’s title to his house and barns and cutting away his fields and pastures. Any settlement of native claims must take land use into consideration.
Your family like mine is descended from early Oklahoma [pioneer farmers] settlers. A good argument was advanced in opening the Cherokee Strip to homesteaders. The Indians were not using the land, and its cities, its wheat fields, its herds of Herefords or Angus have resulted from the change. But the barren tundra that the Eskimos need for subsistence, or the hunting and fishing area used by an Indian village in Alaska will never support farms and cities. The small share they are asking from oil and gas royalties will subsidize their educational and economic progress. True, they did not contribute to this exploration and development. Neither did my father on the farm he owned and from which I still receive royalty. (Probably the same is true of your farm.) The State of Alaska itself had nothing to do with oil discovery in the Prudhoe Bay area, which yielded more than $900,000,000 in the recent lease sale. I think of you as an Oklahoman with practical experience and educational training in oil and land and agricultural history as peculiarly fitted to understand and lead in a constructive policy for the Alaska natives.
Respectfully,
Angie Debo.
[EXPLANATORY NOTE]
I included the native land issue in the Christmas letters I sent to my relatives and friends. I was amazed and heartened at the number who wrote back to say they had sent for the material and written the six letters. (I believe those letters were to go to the committee chairmen, the writer’s senators and congressman, and the president.) I kept a list of these activists, and informed them of new developments; and the list kept growing. Here is the Christmas letter.
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Christmas 1969
My new book is now in process of publication by the University of Oklahoma Press. The title we finally chose is, Indians of the United States: A General History [A History of the Indians of the United States].
It has a chapter about the Alaska natives (Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts) entitled, “The White Man Gets a New Chance.” It is possible, though by no means certain, that the tragic history of the Indians in the “Lower 48” will not be repeated there. [And] this next year will determine the fate of the natives.
In this connection I have often thought of how Jesus pointed out the ironical fact that the righteous people of his day deplored their ancestors’ treatment of the prophets, and were certain that they would have done differently. All decent Americans regret our treatment of the Indians. The only chance to do it differently in our time is to influence Congress. So much depends on this that I am taking space in my Christmas letter to urge you to act. Write to the Association on American Indian Affairs and ask them for their publication, Indian Affairs and the letter that goes with it. Read the four-page summary (on my integrity as a historian I assure you it is accurate in every particular); and then, if you are convinced, write the six suggested letters. I know, because I have done it, that it is a task to write these letters, but it is the only way to express our good will in action.
I took a trip to Alaska in August. It was a purely commercial tour, no in depth study, but it was enjoyable. I saw glaciers, the highest mountains, wild life, tundra – the woks. I even went to Barrow and looked across the frozen Arctic to the North Pole. My field glasses were not quite strong enough to show Santa’s workshop; but no doubt he was busy, and I hope he will be good to you this Christmas.
I have not said anything about the Vietnam War, which is occupying so large a place in our thoughts. I am not pleased with its continuance, but it is some comfort to see it tapering off even so little rather than escalating.
--------------------------------------------------
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242
JAN 19 1970
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Kirven
5677 Calpine Drive
San Jose, California 95123
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kirven:
President Nixon asked me to thank you for writing of your concern regarding events affecting Alaska.
We, too, are very concerned about both the settlement of the land claims of the Alaska natives and the protection of the fragile environment in the state.
Recognizing the necessity for proper protection of Alaska’s arctic wilderness, President Nixon established a Federal Task Force directed to insure that arctic oil is developed “without destruction and with minimum disturbance.”
In regard to the land claims of the Alaska Indians and Eskimos, the Congress many years ago provided that Indians or other persons in Alaska shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in use or occupied or now claimed by them but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress.
Secretary Hickel has a firsthand knowledge of the native people’s needs and he is determined to do all in his power to obtain a fair, honorable and generous settlement of their land claims. Both as Governor of Alaska and as Secretary of the Interior, he has worked very closely with the native organizations in developing a satisfactory legislative proposal for the Congress. We are urging that each Alaskan native village be given up to 46,080 [at most 10 million] acres of land, and that the Alaska natives receive $500 million over a 20-year period as additional compensation to be largely managed by their leaders.
Sincerely yours,
Acting Commissioner
--------------------------------------------------
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN): Alaska Native Claims Settlement Bill
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN SOCIAL ACTION
January 28, 1970
Dr. Angie Debo
P.O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Dr. Debo:
We have your January 22 letter about your own history of the Indians and especially about the Alaskan natives. Dr. Maddocks has been promoted to New York but I will be glad to handle your concerns here.
The Senate Committee on Interior Affairs held hearings on the Alaska claims but has not made a decision on its position and apparently will not take action soon. Essentially there are three bills before the committee. One is the administration bill; one is based on the field hearings conducted by the committee and one is based on the proposal of the AFN. I consulted with the staff yesterday afternoon to be sure that I am up to date.
In the meantime, you have found a new friend on this issue. Reverend John R. Moyer is now heading up a special programs office in our UC Board For Homeland Ministries at 287 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10010. He telephoned me yesterday to say that he is taking the Alaskan native claim as a special program. He asked for a great deal of information and I visited the committee for him and you. I have arranged for the committee to send him a copy of bills and reports.
I will be glad to keep in touch with the committee. If there is anything you need we will try to get it for you. In the meantime, you should feel free to write directly to Mr. Moyer. I am sending him a copy of your letter.
Sincerely yours,
Tilford E. Dudley
Director, Washington Office
--------------------------------------------------
SAMPLE LETTER AND ENVELOPE
Date: [Mar 2, 1970]
Editor
News
100 Main Street
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Sir:
The Natives of Alaska – 60,000 Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts – are threatened with the loss of their ancestral lands. As a result of the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope, the rush for mineral riches threatens the Natives’ lands with expropriation and their way of life with extinction.
Alaska’s Native people are asking Congress to protect their rights and to fulfill a promise made to them in 1884 that they would receive legal title to the lands they have used and occupied for centuries. They ask for title to only 40 million acres – 10% of the land that was once entirely theirs, 2% mineral royalties, and just compensation for waiving their claims to more than 300 million acres of land.
Legislation is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to provide a comprehensive and just settlement of the Natives’ legal rights to their land. Let us not repeat the injustices and cruelties that were meted out to the Indians all over our country a hundred years ago. In the interests of justice and decency, support bill S. 3041 by immediately writing: The Honorable Henry M. Jackson, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. and your own two senators, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Signed: Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Stamp
Editor
News
100 Main Street
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN SOCIAL ACTION
March 4, 1970
Dr. Angie Debo
Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Dr. Debo:
Thank you for your February 7 letter and information that you are writing an article on the Alaskan problem for the United Church Herald.
The Alaskan Bill is still being actively considered by the Senate Committee. The decision has not been reached but one is expected in a few weeks. I understand that the payment of five hundred million dollars is now fairly well accepted; that the request for forty million acres is probably being reduced (perhaps to ten million acres) and that the hottest dispute is now on the question of two percent royalties. We plan to write each member of the Committee an individual letter supporting the AFN and I will try to see Scoop Jackson personally. I used to know him politically.
Sincerely yours,
Tilford E. Dudley
Director, Washington Office
--------------------------------------------------
Miss Angie Debo
P.O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
March 9, 1970
Dear Miss Debo:
It is always a matter of delight to get to read a new Debo book. I will be looking forward to adding Indians of the United States: A General History to my library.
Thanks for your letter of March 5 calling my attention to the book and for giving me information on a possible “steal” from the Indians of Alaska. This is something I shall certainly bear in mind in the consideration of legislation on the subject.
Sincerely,
[Representative] Carl Albert
Third District, Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Angie Debo
Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma
March 10, 1970
Dear Mrs. Debo:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning the settlement of the Alaska Native Claims now pending before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.
A settlement of this claim that will be equitable for all the natives of Alaska is the goal of the Interior Committee. The wishes of the native people are being given every consideration, and I feel that when the Committee does report the measure the final settlement will be satisfactory to all concerned.
Your interest in this area is appreciated and your comments should prove helpful in developing the measure.
Sincerely,
[Senator] Henry Bellmon
--------------------------------------------------
Angie Debo
P.O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
March 10, 1970
Friend Angie:
I appreciate your letter setting forth your feelings in regard to the Alaska Natives.
By our communications I am sure you are aware of my interest in this matter and the fact that I spent a few days in Alaska on the Native land claims.
I think it is well that the people in this Country are made aware of the problems of the Alaskan Natives and be aware of what they are proposing the United States does in this matter.
Again, thanks for your interest and I appreciate your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Happy Camp
Member of Congress
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Angie Debo
P. O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
March 11. 1970
Dear Dr. Debo:
Many thanks for your good letter and for enclosing a copy of your Letter to the editor. I think this is a fine idea, and hope it will help build support for a just settlement of the Alaskan Native Claims.
I am looking forward to reading your article in the United Church Herald – and your book when it comes out.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
[Representative] Ed Edmondson
--------------------------------------------------
Mr.[sic] Angie Debo
P. O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
March 17, 1970
Dear Dr. Debo:
Let me acknowledge receipt of your recent letter, together with a copy of your letter to newspaper editors in behalf of S.3041, both of which I have read with care.
As you know, this measure is presently undergoing action by the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and I will be glad to make your views known to contacts in the Senate, urging that every possible consideration be given the recommendation you have expressed to me. I appreciate receiving the benefit of your views, and will certainly have your interest well in mind whenever S. 3041 or a similar measure comes to the floor of the House for a vote.
With every best wish, I remain
Sincerely,
[Representative] John Jarman
--------------------------------------------------
Ms. Angie Debo
P. O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
March 18, 1970
Dear Ms. Debo:
I appreciated receiving your recent letter and the copy of the letter you sent to Oklahoma newspapers relating to the Alaskan Natives.
I, too, am most concerned over this matter. I have spoken out numerous times in support of the Alaskan Natives and I am enclosing for your information, a copy of my remarks on the Senate floor on March 4 concerning this matter.
I always appreciate having your views.
Sincerely yours,
Fred Harris
U. S. Senate
In the rush toward manifest destiny in the lower 48 States, by treaties and statutes – and indeed by force of arms – we took Indian lands. We extinguished their native titles to land and confined Indians in ways which were designed to destroy their cultures and patterns of life. In return, we paid them a bit of money and encumbered their lives and spirits with the white man’s paternalism and control.
The native people of Alaska, on their own initiative and after counseling and agreeing among themselves, now present this Congress with the unique opportunity to apply high standards of national policy, avoiding the errors of that sad history.
A recent circuit court opinion casts substantial doubt on the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to have issued any patents to the State on native lands without first having conducted hearings to determine validity of native claims.
The Alaska natives ask not for charity, but for compensation for what is theirs.
When we consider the value of the State of Alaska in 1970, what the native people ask in compensation seems modest indeed. They ask us to pay them $500 million in cash over a period of 8 years with interest on the unpaid balances. They ask us to confirm for the native villages fee simple title to 40 million acres of land from the public domain to which they now have aboriginal title. They ask us to provide that from the proceeds of sale of resources from the remainder of the public domain, to which they also have aboriginal title, they be given royalty of 2 percent.
We see the modesty of their asking price when we recall the generosity of Congress to the State of Alaska when Congress passed the Alaska Statehood Act in 1958. From the public domain of 365 million acres we gave the State the right to select 103 million acres. From the remainder of the public domain, we gave the State 90 percent of the revenues from minerals and liberal portions of receipts from other important resources. In only one sale of oil and gas leases on the North Slope the State of Alaska received $900 million in lease bonus payments. All agree that we have seen only the beginning discoveries of Alaska’s vast mineral resources.
The settlement bill proposed by the natives also provides for machinery to insure that the assets secured to the natives as compensation will be preserved and managed by the native people and for their benefit now and in the future.
--------------------------------------------------
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
VOLUME 18, MAY 1970, NUMBER 7
THE ONLY KIND OF
DEED THEY KNEW
By Dr. Angie Debo
“The history of the Indian in America . . . is a story of almost unrelieved tragedy.
“Yet this year the white man has a new chance to deal justly with the Indian on the last American frontier. If previously silent citizens fail to register their opposition, the sordid theft of native lands which took place in the lower 48 states . . . will be repeated in Alaska.”
This article, to appear in the May issue of United Church Herald, gives important factual information new to many readers, and outlines clearly our responsibility in the matter.
“The Statehood Act of 1958 . . . promised: ‘The state and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title . . . to any lands or other property (including fishing rights) the right and title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts.”
“When the Bureau of Indian Affairs tried to protect the natives it was thwarted by more powerful agencies in its own Department of the Interior. The Bureau of Land management (BLM) began to patent the state’s selections and to give away other land to any sports or recreation groups that wanted it.
“‘Our people always thought they owned the land where they lived and hunted. They did not lose it by war and they did not sell it. We still feel it is ours . . . .’”
If you would like to read the rest of this important article, subscriptions ($4 per year) or orders for the May issue (.35 each) may be sent to:
Circulation department
UNITED CHURCH HERALD
P. O. Box 7095
St. Louis, Mo. 63177
--------------------------------------------------
Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc.
Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
June 5, 1970
Dear Dr. Debo:
I read with great pleasure your article in the United Church Herald. It was certainly succinct and hard-hitting.
I am sending you our newsletter No. 75 and No. 76 as well as our latest newsletter No. 77.
I think action should now be concentrated on the House – particularly Congressmen Edmondson, Haley and Aspinall. I think the important point now to stress is the 40 million acres of land rather than cash or royalties.
I look forward to seeing your book.
Sincerely,
William Byler
Executive Director
--------------------------------------------------
ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC.
ANCHORAGE ALASKA
June 16, 1970
Miss Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma
Dear Miss Debo:
Please forgive the delay in answering your most gracious letter of April 23d.
We would be very much interested in receiving a copy of your book, “Indians of the United States: A General History.” Please let us know when it is published and where we can obtain a copy.
Thank you, too, for your generous check which you can be sure has helped greatly in our attempts to publicize the land claims of the Alaska Federation of Natives. We certainly appreciate your contribution.
Sincerely,
Eben Hopson
Executive Director
Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------
Alaska, Correspondence, July – December 1970
Angie Debo Papers (1988-013), SCUA, OSU Libraries
(Box 15/Folder 24)
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27109
July 10, 1970
Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma
Dear Dr. Debo:
I do not know any members of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs except for the Oklahomans. Roy Taylor, however, is a North Carolinian, from the western mountains where the Cherokees reside, and I shall address my note to him as well as to Aspinall. Ed Edmondson already knows my views!
Do tell Pat O’Neill and Ramona that, next time I am in Oklahoma, I propose to come to Marshall for their travelogue. And of course to see Angie Debo.
Faithfully yours,
J. R Scales
James Ralph Scales
President
--------------------------------------------------
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27109
The Honorable Roy A. Taylor
United States Congress
Washington, D. C.
July 10, 1970
Dear Congressman Taylor:
As a long-time student of Indian affairs and a descendant of the Cherokee people, I am very much concerned about the effect of the recent Alaskan oil rush on the natives of that state. I know that the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is working on a bill to confer title to forty million acres of land, much of it barren, on the Eskimos and Aleuts. By contrast to what was done for the late-coming whites in the Statehood Act of 1958, this legislation is modest enough. The title to the land in the native villages should be stabilized, and these destitute tribesmen helped by title to whatever lands remain in the public domain, in accordance with the House bill. The story of the North Slope can be made more palatable if justice is done to the native people.
Faithfully yours,
James Ralph Scales
President
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dr. James Ralph Scales, President
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109
July 13, 1970
Dear Dr. Scales:
Your letter of July 10, 1970 has been received. I am a member of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and am a Member of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee. We are giving study to legislation dealing with the land claims of the native Alaskans. Last October I went with a group from our Committee to Alaska. We visited a great many of the Indian villages and held public hearings in Fairbanks and Anchorage and met informally with many, many groups and listened to the statements made by witnesses.
I believe that the Eskimos and Indians and Aleuts do have much equity in their favor and that their land claims should be recognized and that they should be permitted to share with other Alaskans in the benefits from the oil discovery. I, too, hope that justice will be done to the native people.
Sincerely,
Roy A. Taylor
Member of Congress
--------------------------------------------------
1516 West Broadway
Enid, Oklahoma 73701
July 11, 1970
Dear Angie,
You are to be congratulated for all the work you are doing, not only for having written another book, but for letting your friends know some of what is going on in government.
Amy Carl and I received one answer for each of the four letters we each wrote. Mine was a very nice one from Mr. Happy Camp, but I have mislaid it some place. Amy wanted me to forward this one from Mr. Haley.
With very best wishes,
Helen Stewart
--------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
House of Representatives, U.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
Mrs. R. G. Carl
1806 West Maine
Enid, Oklahoma 73701
July 7, 1970
Dear Mrs. Carl:
I believe you should get your facts a little more accurate. If you have any evidence that exploitation has been the pattern of all our dealings with the Natives of Alaska I would be greatly surprised.
The problem of how to handle Native land claims is a difficult one, but such exaggeration does not help solve it.
Sincerely yours,
James A. Haley, Chairman
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dr. Angie Debo
July 13, 1970
Marshall, Oklahoma
Dear Dr. Debo:
Through the kindness of Raymond Bryson, I have just had the opportunity to read your very fine article in the May issue of the United Church Herald, dealing with the land rights of the Alaska natives. It is an eloquent argument for justice and you have summarized very well the importance of the land to the native people.
I am very pleased to hear that the National Council of Churches is supporting the Alaska Federation of Natives’ position and to know that you are in their corner. You may know that our House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs spent 10 days in Alaska within the last year, meeting with natives and hearing their arguments. It was a most memorable experience and most of us who made the trip will be doing what we can to help.
With best wishes and kindest personal regards,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Edmondson
--------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Association for Mental Health, Inc.
3113 CLASSEN BOULEVARD * OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA * (405) 542-1451
The Hon. Ed Edmondson
Second Oklahoma Congressional District
2402 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
July 15, 1970
Dear Mr. Edmondson:
I have received a letter from Dr. Angie Debo of Marshall, Oklahoma who credits you with a long familiarity with Indian Affairs, and is entirely sympathetic toward the Alaska Natives. She advises me that the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is now working on a bill intended to restore title to forty million acres to the Alaska Natives. Dr. Debo likens the effect of the bill reported out by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to “deeding a white farmer his house and barns, but cutting off his fields and pastures”. In her judgment, with which I agree, it seems best not to fight for the amendment for the Senate bill, but to concentrate on passage of the House bill on which your committee is now working.
This is to record my thanks for your activity and support.
Yours truly,
Wm. D. Welburn
--------------------------------------------------
Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc.
Dr. Angie Debo
Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
August 6, 1970
Dear Dr. Debo:
The House of Representatives will recess on August 14 and come back on September 9. During this time, Congressman [sic] will undoubtedly be back in their districts campaigning. I think it would be a good idea if you could try to see Congressman Edmondson in Oklahoma, and plan your Washington trip for some time in mid-September.
Also, we are preparing various materials critical of the Senate bill from the economic, social sciences, and legal points of view. I would appreciate very much a paragraph or two from you as a historian, looking at the proposed Senate settlement in light of the Natives’ demands.
The authors of the Senate bill feel that they were making a brand new departure from our historical treatment of natives in the past. It is my feeling that they are, in fact, repeating the errors of the past by taking more land than the Natives are willing to give up.
Another feature of the Senate bill that they regard as so new is the creation of corporations in which an individual Native would hold stock that he can sell at the end of 15 years. Does this smack of the old Oklahoma head rights approach?
In addition, children born after the date of the Act will receive no share in the corporation, unless they are fortunate enough to inherit a share from their parents. By 1990 the Native population will double, but the number of shares outstanding will remain fixed at the population level of 1970. Thus, in twenty years time [sic], half of the Native population will be without adequate land and without shares in the corporation. Even this is an optimistic picture, since undoubtedly a large number of shares will be sold to non-Natives by 1990.
Another aspect of the bill which bears scrutiny from the historical perspective is the declared intention on the part of the Senate to bring about the assimilation of Natives by the reduction of their land base. I think Oklahoma is perhaps an excellent example of the failure of this assimilation policy to achieve its goals, goals that are in themselves undemocratic.
Sincerely,
William Byler
Executive Director
--------------------------------------------------
SAMPLE LETTER AND ENVELOPE
Editor
News
100 Main Street
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Date:
Dear Sir:
Today, the House of Representatives has an important opportunity to do justice by securing to the Alaska Natives a fair settlement to their land rights. The Native – 60,000 Eskimos, Aleuts and Indians – have requested title to 40 million acres of land – only 10% of the land that has been theirs from time immemorial. The Alaska Claims Settlement Act of 1970 (Senate bill S.1830) passed on July 15, 1970 provides the Native peoples with title to only 10 million acres of land, less than 3% of the 350 million acres to which they have valid claims. The Alaska Natives depend upon the land and its waters for their present livelihood, hunting and fishing for subsistence as they always have. The land is also their chief resource for sharing in the economic growth and development of the State and nation, and equally important, it is the foundation of their rich and varied cultures.
The cash compensation offered in the Senate bill in return for extinguishing Native land rights will result in a net economic loss to the Native people. The present value of the land for subsistence hunting and fishing purposes, as well as its long-range commercial value, greatly exceeds what the Senate grants in cash settlement.
Please urge Congressman * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of your state, who are members of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to enact legislation that will confirm to the native villages of Alaska title to 40 million acres of their ancestral lands.
Signed: Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
*Ed Edmondson
John N. Happy Camp
Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
STAMP
Editor
News
100 Main Street
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
--------------------------------------------------
To Pres.
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
September 6, 1970
The Honorable Richard M. Nixon
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20501
Dear Sir:
For forty years I have been a student of American Indian history. My forthcoming book (the twelfth) summarizes it all: A History of the Indians of the United States. I am a historian, not an emotional writer; but even so, the cold facts add up to nineteen chapters of tragedy. Then Chapter 20 dealing with the land issue of the Alaska natives (Eskimos, Indians, Aleuts) is entitled, “The White Man Gets a New Chance.” And it is your administration that has this chance to support their claim to the forty million acres of land they need for their subsistence and thus prevent a repetition of the sad history of the Indians in the “Lower 48.” It is a chance that will never come again.
My book also records the insight and understanding you have revealed in your statements regarding Indians in general and specifically regarding the Alaska natives. I believe that you are sincerely concerned with justice for them. I hope future historians will be able to write a good ending to Chapter 20.
Most respectfully yours,
Dr. Angie Debo
--------------------------------------------------
Angie dear,
Belatedly I am sending last ditch letters to Nixon, Haley, Aspinall, Edmondson & Kastenmeier. You have done so much – I hope it will bring results.
Fondly,
Marguerite
R # 1, Box 390 Trail’s End
Stevens Point, Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Richard Nixon
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20501 November 15, 1970
Dear Mrs. Nixon:
From all I have read of you I find you a person of great compassion, as well as great charm. I know that you ache for earthquake victims in Peru, for disaster victims wherever you find them, and I am sure that you must have great empathy and concern for the minority groups of our own country, who are in a perpetual state of disaster.
My immediate concern is the Alaska Natives, for whom time is running out – by Christmas!
Last January I sent my plea to President Nixon, as have many others, but he has had many and imminent and horrendous problems to consider, and I doubt that he has given this his personal attention.
That is why I am writing to you, in the hope that you can get across the breakfast table to him what undersecretaries and undersecretaries’ secretaries have failed to comprehend.
President Nixon has this one last chance to prevent in Alaska what our forefathers did to the Indians across the continent. The ten million acres of the Senate bill is the equivalent of deeding a white farmer his house and barn, and confiscating his fields and pastures and woodlot.
For their lives, as well as any future improvement of their conditions, the Alaska Natives need the full forty million acres they are demanding. If they are deprived of it they will starve or be forced into a degrading and costly welfare program neither they or [sic] any other decent citizens want for them.
May I urge you to put into his hands the enclosed publication, which tells the Alaska Natives’ story in their own words. Then I hope his conscience will guide him to support the bill being formulated in the House of Representatives, and if action is not completed by the end of the year, to continue the land freeze another half year.
May I also call your attention to a new book, “A History of the Indians of the United States”, by Angie Debo, University of Oklahoma Press, 1970. Miss Debo is recognized as one of the foremost historians of the middlewest [sic] and of the Indians in particular. She has been a teacher (rural school through graduate studies), a minister, and librarian, as well as writer and historian. In her eightieth year she has traveled to Alaska to see for herself.
ha! In her chapter, “The White Man Gets a New Chance”, she tells the whole story. I know she would be honored to send the Nixons an autographed copy of the book if he would read it.
As she says, very simply, “Our country has many grave problems, but this is the only one that can be prevented by a simple act of justice before it starts.”
The time is short. Thank you sincerely,
A. Marguerite Baumgartner (Mrs. F. M.)
--------------------------------------------------
UNITED CHURCH BOARD
FOR HOMELAND MINISTRIES
Dr. Angie Debo November 16, 1970
Post Office Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Dr. Debo:
Thank you for your warm letter of November 8th in response to my participation on the panel with Wally Hays and Mike Gavel. Let me say also that I read your article in the United Church Herald with much appreciation. Your concern and study of this whole area is known and warmly appreciated by those of us who have become involved in the issue.
Let me say that I agree with you completely about the Senate Bill on the land issue. I think it is a total sell out. I must say in all honestly [sic], however, that, with the exception of Emil Notti who has left the Alaskan Federation of Natives, I did not find much willingness on the part of top AFN leadership to fight the bill. Even John Borbridge, who is most articulate on the issue of native land claims, seemed willing to go along with the advice of AFN lawyers to be willing to compromise. The fact is that the bill reported out by the Senate Interior Committee is worse than a proposal submitted by the Nixon administration! One of the chief “seller outers” was George McGovern for reasons which I am sure will be obvious to you.
The AFN now has a whole new slate of leaders. We will have to wait and see what their stance will be, but I understand that it is a younger group. My own private position has been that no legislation would be better than bad legislation, but it is difficult to be more militant than the target group!
Sincerely,
John R. Moyer
--------------------------------------------------
UNITED CHURCH BOARD
FOR HOMELAND MINISTRIES
Dr. Angie Debo November 24, 1970
Post Office Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Dr. Debo:
Thanks for your warm letter of November 19th, and also for the copy of your book which I have received. The book is next on my list to read, and I am looking forward to getting into it.
I just came from a conversation with Bill Byler who, like many others, spoke very highly of you. He corrected me on what I had heard about Senator McGovern, and I must pass on that correction to you. McGovern was theoretically committed to the AFN proposition of forty million acres, but was unwilling to fight for it. This is not so much a sellout as a cop out, I guess. My hunch is – and it is only a hunch – that he may have been miffed that Jackson would not turn the bill over to his subcommittee. Jackson, of course, is primarily interested in getting a bill passed in a hurry so that the oil issues can be settled. Most of the jobs from the Alaska oil boom will center in Washington rather than Alaska, and hence his vested interest.
I must admit, I was indeed being charitable about Gravel. I really do not know him, but was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t hold out much hope for any of the Alaska politicians. Perhaps Gravel is slicker than some. Byler feels that he would have voted for forty million acres, but that he would not fight for it. I have since pushed him on this, but without much success.
I appreciate your comments about Ramsey Clark. He spoke to our Board of Directors, and we have a number of Ramsey Clark fans on our staff. The major part of my work over the past five years has been in the area of the farm worker movement, and most particularly in support of the efforts of Cesar Chavez. Mr. Clark simply refused to throw any of his weight behind the green card issue when he was Attorney General. Your statement about his actions with respect to the AFN confirm [sic] the impressions I obtained when I was in Alaska this past summer.
I will be writing you about legislative strategy, and I am sure that your correspondence file will be important in the year ahead. The word I have is that your efforts with the House Committee have proved most valuable.
Sincerely,
John R. Moyer
--------------------------------------------------
R # 1 Box 390
Stevens Point, Wisconsin, 54481
November 30, 1970
President Richard M. Nixon
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear President Nixon:
I have just finished reading Miss Angie Debo’s History of the Indians of the United States (University of Oklahoma Press 1970).
At the end of this chronicle of horrors and official blundering, I found her evaluation of your interest in and sympathy for this most neglected of minority groups very heartening. It is good to know that our President is humane as well as an able statesman.
Particularly critical right now is the land settlement for the Alaska Natives, and we are praying that your concern will write a happy ending to that chapter.
I am requesting that a copy of Miss Debo’s book be sent to you, in the hope that you will have time to read at least the last two chapters: “The White Man Gets a New Chance”, and “The Indians Find New Hope”.
For their lives, as well as any future improvement of their conditions, the Alaska Natives need the full forty million acres they are demanding. If they are deprived of it, they will be starved or forced into a degrading and costly welfare program neither they or [sic] any decent citizens want for them.
The time is short. Thank you for your interest.
A. Marguerite Baumgartner (Mrs. F.M)
--------------------------------------------------
Alaska, Correspondence, January – May 1971
Angie Debo Papers (1988-013), SCUA, OSU Libraries
(Box 15/Folder 25)
ROGERS C. B. MORTON
FIRST DISTRICT, MARYLAND
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
January 8, 1971
Dear Ms. Debo:
Thanks so much for your recent letter of congratulations and expressing concern about Indian land claims in Alaska.
Let me assure you that one of my principal aims in life is to assist in making this great land of ours a better place in which to live. I welcome any and all suggestions which will help us achieve this goal. When I assume my duties in the vast Department of the Interior, I shall certainly strive to the best of my ability to reach decisions which are judicious and equitable.
Again, I appreciate having your views on this important matter.
Yours sincerely,
Rog Morton
Rogers C. B. Morton
--------------------------------------------------
Ms. Angie Debo
Post Office Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
HOWARD E. SPRAGG, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
UNITED CHURCH BOARD FOR HOMELAND MINISTRIES
DIVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND
THE AMERICAN MISSIONARY ASSOCIATION
WESLEY A. HOTCHKISS, GENERAL SECRETARY
JOHN R. MOYER, SECRETARY FOR SPECIAL PROGRAM
287 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10010
January 25, 1971
Dr. Angie Debo
Post Office Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Miss Debo:
I have read your History of the Indians of the United States, a copy of which you so graciously sent to me. Not only is your book an important work; it is a classic in American history. You write with compassion, with authority, and in a style that compels the reader to keep on. For me it was reading American history all over again, and then recognizing that what I had read before was not American history but a history written by men who had a romantic vision of what lay to the west of a frontier they had never crossed.
Your book, and I should say your life performs a service to those of us who try to work for justice but have for so long hardly scratched the surface of the lives of our neighbors. My life has been sheltered, and I have never known the pain of oppressed peoples. But no one can read your book without participating vicariously in the feelings of the Indians of this continent. Thank you for sharing it with me, and for writing it for all of us.
My work of late has been bound up in the farm workers’ movement and Cesar Chavez. The pressure of events has kept me from spending as much time as I would like on the Alaska situation. I am concerned with what is happening with the Alaska Federation of Natives. I have got to establish contact, but as you know, the leadership has recently changed. I am disturbed at what seems to be a difference of perspective between Donald Wright (the new president of the AFN) and Joe Upicksoun (president of the Arctic Slope Native Association). Mr. Wright, from a report in the New York Times, seems to be concentrating on the economic benefits of the proposed pipeline as they might benefit the native people. Mr. Upicksoun is saying that “phony economy” is not the issue but the land. My own views tend strongly toward Mr. Upicksoun’s, especially since power is in the ownership of the land, and the economic benefits from the pipeline will be felt mostly in Seattle over the long haul. The latter point is, of course, why Henry Jackson wants an expedient rather than a just settlement of the native land claims.
But it is difficult for us to move faster than the AFN is willing to move. I am disturbed that the executive director, Eben Hobson, has left his post to work for the new governor. The issue will be coming before the Congress early on in the new session. I suspect that our greatest hope lies with the House. Bill Byler feels Nixon may deliver on this issue now that Hickel is gone, and because he wants to be a “good guy” on this matter. I am not sure how to proceed at present, but will keep feelers out. What have you heard?
I hope that our paths will cross sometime. I would love to meet you.
Sincerely,
John Moyer
John R. Moyer
JRM/bd
--------------------------------------------------
N. Y. Times Feb 28
‘TAKE OUR LAND, TAKE OUR LIFE’
Legally and morally, the Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts of Alaska can claim 90 per cent of that state’s land. The Organic Act of 1884, which established the territorial government, properly acknowledged their rights, but in the ensuing 87 years Congress failed to convey title.
Now that it is about to do some of that conveying, the shocking question is whether the natives will get as much as 17 per cent of their land, which is what Senator Harris of Oklahoma would give them, or as little as 3 per cent, which is what they would get under the bill introduced by Senator Jackson of Washington.
The difference between the two approaches is far more than a question of accommodation on the one side or niggardliness on the other. It is a question of how much land the Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts need in order to live as they have always lived – by hunting and fishing – and whether they should be encouraged to retain that ancient pattern or be assimilated.
On the first of these questions, there is not a chance that the indigenous Alaskans could pursue their traditional way of life on the ten million acres which the Jackson bill offers. A reliable estimate is that a thousand acres are required to support one person, which is to say that the 60,000 natives need 60 million acres. That is precisely what they are asking.
With so meager a grant as the Jackson bill would provide, assimilation is inevitable. Aside from the question whether it would be a boon (few American Indians ever found it such), who has any right to opt for that solution but the natives themselves? That they would do so is hardly indicated by their poignant battle cry: “Take our land, take our life.”
--------------------------------------------------
INDIAN AFFAIRS
NEWSLETTER of the Association
432 Park Ave. South
New York, N. Y. 10016
on American Indian Affairs, Inc.
____________________________________
Number 80, March 1971, Circulation 55,000
Senate to Act on Alaska Land
Senate action to settle the century-old question of Alaska Native land rights is expected in the next few weeks. There are sharply conflicting views in the Senate and within the Nixon Administration on what would constitute a fair settlement. Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, is expected to press for passage of the same legislation that the Senate adopted last July. Senator Jackson’s bill (co-sponsored by Alaska’s two Senators) was severely criticized by Native leaders for failing to convey title to an adequate amount of land. Opposing Senator Jackson are a growing number of Senators who support the position of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). A vigorous Senate floor fight is certain.
The Native position is expressed in a bill (S. 835) co-sponsored by: Senators Birch Bayh (Ind.), Alan Cranston (Calif.), Mike Gravel (Alaska), Fred R. Harris (Okla.), Philip R. Hart (Mich.), Harold E. Hughes (Iowa), Hubert M. Humphrey (Minn.), Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), George McGovern (S.D.), Walter E. Mondale (Minn.), Edmund S. Muskie (Maine), Ted Stevens (Alaska) by request, John V. Tunney (Calif.).
There are many differences between S. 835, sponsored by the AFN, and Senator Jackson’s bill – but the fundamental difference between the two is the amount of land. Under the Jackson bill, the maximum amount of land to which Native people could acquire title is approximately 10 million acres.
The position of the Nixon Administration on the settlement of Alaska Native land rights is in a state of flux. Interior Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton on February 18, 1971, testified before the Interior Committee that he would submit legislation confirming title to a maximum of 1 million acres of land. The Alaska Federation of Natives filed an immediate protest with President Nixon expressing its “dismay, shock, outrage and disapproval” of Secretary Morton’s position. It stated that the Secretary’s recent testimony is “obviously and glaringly inconsistent with and contrary to President Nixon’s positon toward the Native people of Alaska.”
Subsequently, Vice President Agnew, in a speech to Indian leaders gathered in Kansas City on March 8, stated that the Nixon Administration would probably favor a bill which would provide for title to 5 million acres of land and hunting and fishing rights over 40 million acres. Mr. Agnew expressed disappointment with the 5 million acre provision and indicated that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (formerly the Bureau of the Budget) is strongly opposed to a better land-title provision.
Native leaders are hopeful that there is still a chance to substantially improve the position of the Nixon Administration before it becomes final. They would prefer no Administration draft of a settlement bill if it is similar to those suggested by Vice President Agnew and Secretary Morton.
The Natives of Alaska urgently need the active support of all Americans in their quest for justice and opportunity. In view of the Natives’ legal rights, their social and economic needs, and the value of the land to which they have rightful claim, the settlement the Alaska Federation of Natives seeks is just, reasonable, and humane. It will afford a wise and courageous Native people a meaningful opportunity for self-determination and the base for a better life for themselves and their children. The decision Congress makes will profoundly affect the lives of Alaska Natives for generations and will reflect on the honor of our Nation for centuries.
LATE BULLETIN: As this issue goes to press it is reported the Nixon Administration will now recommend that Congress grant the Natives title to 20 million acres of land – a sharp improvement over its previous recommendations, but still far short of meeting Native needs.
--------------------------------------------------
[Postmarked March 18, 1971]
Mrs. Debo,
Hello! I want to take this time to thank you for writing again. I appreciate it very much. My report went very well. I think I got a few students interested in the Indians. By the way, I made 91 on it.
The reason I’m so interested in Indians is because I am part Indian. My mother’s grandmother was a Comanche.
I have written to President Nixon and Sen. Bentsen. I hope they can do something to help the Indians.
Anytime there are new developments, would you please write me? I would appreciate it very much if you would keep me informed on all the happenings of the work for the Indians. If there are any other ways I could help, please write and tell me.
Thank you again.
Sincerely yours,
Becky Czimskey
--------------------------------------------------
Friday morning
April 9, 1971
Dear Miss Debo,
I would like to thank you for writing and sending the newsletter. I would have written sooner, but I have been busy with studying, choir, etc. I just haven’t had much time for anything.
I received a reply from Senator Bentsen about a week after I wrote him. He thanked me for writing and said how good it felt to hear from people in his home state. He also told me that he hoped I would continue to share my views with him.
I have heard so much talk about Senator Edward Kennedy trying to help the Indians. Do you happen to know what his job in this is?
I am sorry to say that I haven’t gotten to read your book yet. But, according to our high school librarian, I could probably get it through our public library. It handles the inter-library loan that you were talking about. So I plan to go down there tomorrow morning to see if I can get it. I hope I can because I am really looking forward to reading it.
I must go. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely yours,
Becky Czimskey
--------------------------------------------------
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
April 16, 1971
To my friends concerned about the Alaska native land issue:
On April 6 he sent a bill to Congress
You already know that Senator Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma introduced the natives’ own bill in the Senate on February 15. The number is 835. I sent you a list of Senate committee members and co-sponsors. (Better keep that list for future use.) No doubt you have already written to them. Now it is time to concentrate on the House of Representatives.
On March 31 Congressman Lloyd Meeds of Washington State introduced the natives [sic] bill in that House. The number is H.R.7039. It has 25 co-sponsors (the limit by the rules) and several oyher [sic] members are ready to co-sponsor an identical bill to be introduced when the House returns on April 19 after the Easter recess. If other names should be added I will send them to you. If a Representative from your state is listed as a co-sponsor, write to him to and express your appreciation. If one is on the House committee or subcommittee (and not a co-sponsor) write and urge him to support H.R. 7039, and don’t forget the 60 million acres. (Perhaps I should add that I do not know the position of Congressman Begich of Alaska. In general, Alaska would take all the land and give the natives nothing if it could. But Mr. Begich entered Congress just this year. He may be on the natives’ side. Or he may have given his name as a co-sponsor as a routine matter because they are his constituents.) Zip code
This letter has been delayed too long after the introduction of H.R.7039 on March 31 and the president’s action on April 6. The reason is that I have had trouble getting these lists I am enclosing They came only today and it will take a few more days to have them mimeographed.
--------------------------------------------------
4-28-71
Dear Miss Angie,
Just wanted to let you know I enjoyed the talk you presented at Phillips last week. I didn’t have time to say hello – had to hurry back to work at 11:00!
My folks and I sent letters to Senators & Congressmen in regard to the Alaska Land Issue last weekend as your letter suggested. The efforts you’ve made to inform people about this bill are tremendous – and you’re so right that it is a critical matter. Keep up the good work – and will continue to write letters to Washington as often as necessary.
Sincerely,
Shirla Swain
--------------------------------------------------
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
May 11, 1971
Dr. Angie Debo
P.O. Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma
73056
Dear Dr. Debo:
Thank you for the thoughtful letter regarding my co-sponsorship of S 835. I read your comments with great interest in view of your unique background on the settlements which our Indians and Alaskan natives have received in the past. I certainly would be glad to have an opportunity to read your book. Please do send me a copy.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Hubert H Humphrey
Hubert H. Humphrey
--------------------------------------------------
Saturday morning
May 15, 1971
Dear Miss Debo,
I am sorry I have taken so long in answering your letter, but with the end of school nearing I have been so busy.
Thank you for your information on Sen. Kennedy. I had read his article “Let the Indians Run Indian Policy” in the June 2, 1970 edition of Look Magazine. I think it said he was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Education. There were several articles about Indians in the magazines – they’re what really got me interested.
I am happy that President Nixon has asked for 40 million acres to be given o the Alaskan natives. I have written to both President Nixon and Representative Kazen.
I’m sorry, but I still haven’t gotten to read your book. I’ve gone to the library several times and the regular librarians haven’t been there – and the girl there doesn’t know anything about the inter-library loan. Now it looks like I’ll have to wait until school’s out to go again. But I’ll keep trying.
Sincerely yours,
Becky Czimskey
--------------------------------------------------
General Federation of Women’s Clubs
1734 N St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
May 26, 1971
Dear Dr. Debo:
Here is a copy of the letter which is being mailed today to Senator Harris and the other co-sponsors of S. 835, except the two Alaska Senators. (I think you will agree that those who “speak with forked tongue” do not deserve a letter of thanks.)
Mrs. Brown has given her approval to our writing to each member of the Senate and House Interior and Insular Affairs Committees. I hope to get a draft ready today for her to see. I will send you a copy.
Thank you so much for the letters and information you have sent. They have all been put to very good use and not only by me here at the office. One of the girls who works here used your book in preparing a paper about the Indians for her sociology class at the University of Maryland. It was providential that your history arrived at just the time she really needed it for her research. She also tried to find a copy of your “The Historical Background of the American Policy of Isolation” at one of the libraries here but I don’t think she was able to find it. She wanted me to be sure to say thanks to you for her.
I will write you again soon. Best regards.
Sincerely,
Mary Chittenden
Mrs. Joe D. Chittenden
Director of Research
enc.
--------------------------------------------------
I sent the Xerox copy she sent me to Wm. Byler. Here is a copy I made of it. It is signed by Mrs. Brown, president of GFWC. She sent carbons to the co-sponsors. I sent her the list.
Dear Senator Harris:
This letter is signed by only one but it represents the signatures of the 800,000 members of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs. It is a letter of thanks and appreciation to you and the co-sponsors of S.835, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
Our interest in this legislation can be simply stated. We wish the Alaska natives to be treated fairly. We believe as you do that anything less than 60 million acres in settlement would not be equitable. For anyone to suggest, as S.35 does, that the Alaska natives be “granted” title to only 10 million acres, less than 3 per cent of the lands to which they have recognizable legal claim, is unconscionable. Thank you for introducing S.835. It has the support of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs.
Best regards to you.
--------------------------------------------------
Alaska, Correspondence, October – December 1971
Angie Debo Papers (1988-013), SCUA, OSU Libraries
(Box 15/Folder 27
Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc.
432 Park Avenue South
New York, N. Y. 10016
Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
June 1, 1971
Dear Angie:
I was really delighted to get a copy of Mrs. Brown’s letter to Senator Harris endorsing the AFN position. In her letter to the House Committee she should, of course, mention H.R. 7039 as the bill the AFN favors.
Indications are now that Senator Jackson is getting a bit skittish about taking the lead in settling land claims – what with Presidential sweepstakes in the offing – and his growing awareness that he stands a good chance of getting beaten on the floor. Consequently he has decided to do nothing until the House Committee acts and he has further indicated that he will leave the leadership in the Senate up to Senators Stevens and Gravel. Senator Stevens has indicated in private conversations that he will actually “fight” for 60 million acres in Committee, as long as the title is granted to tracts around the villages rather than selected without regard to village location. Senator Gravel is still something of a puzzle. The upshot of all this is, I think, that the chances are growing that the Senate Committee could produce a 40 million acre bill – especially if the House reports out one for 40 million acres. There is little prospect that the House will do better. All of this, of course, goes to enhance the possibilities of gaining 60 million acres on the Senate floor – though the odds on this are still quite unfavorable.
The last two weeks in June (beginning June 21) will be the critical weeks in terms of House Subcommittee and full Committee voting. A last minute drive to lock up Happy Camp is needed. Anything you can do to get telegrams, letters and phone calls to Mr. happy Camp beginning June 15th or so, would be important. You might personally want to write to Happy Camp giving him a recapitulation of all the Oklahoma support there is for the Native position, stressing land acreage as the number one priority.
Will keep you posted.
Sincerely,
Bill
William Byler
Executive Director
I will suggest to Don Wright that he call on Mrs. Chittenden.
--------------------------------------------------
Monday evening
June 7, 1971
Dear Miss Debo,
I am sorry for the delay in writing back, but I wanted to see if I could get your book before I wrote back. I’m sorry but I can’t get the book through the inter-library loan. The librarian said that the only place they can get their books is from the Austin Public Library.
I received some very interesting information about the Indians today. President Nixon asked the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to write me & thank me for my concern over the Indians. They sent me a packet of information. Included was a copy of President Nixon’s speech concerning the Indians on July 8, 1970; information of the Alaska Native Land Claims, ways of helping the Indians, what the BIA is doing this year; a copy of the Indian Record; a copy of current Indian legislation. All of this was very interesting. It gave me an idea of what is currently being done for the Indians.
(over)
You suggested some time back that I wrote to my newspaper about the Indians. I never got around to it. But I finally did it tonight. Maybe I can get a few people interested in this cause.
If there is anything I can do around here to help the Indians, please let me know. I have eleven weeks of summer ahead of me before I go back to school with nothing to do with my time except get bored.
Sincerely yours,
Becky Czimskey
--------------------------------------------------
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242
JUN 3 1971
Mrs. Paul A. Bracken
Box 454
Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447
Dear Mrs. Bracken:
President Nixon has asked me to thank you for your recent letter expressing your views concerning the settlement of the Alaska Native land claims.
We are enclosing a brief report on the status of the Alaska Native land claims legislation and trust you will find it informative.
Your interest in the cause of the Alaska Natives is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Louis R. Bruce
Commissioner
Enclosure
--------------------------------------------------
Settlement of
Alaska Native Land Claims
Settlement of Native land claims in the State of Alaska is an issue of major proportions pressing for final legislative action in the current session of Congress.
The matter of settling the Native claims is in the hands of Congress. This is a consequence of the Act of May 17, 1884, providing for a civil government for the territory of Alaska. In this Act, Congress reserved for itself the terms under which future settlement of the Native land claims would be made. Section 8 of the Act reads as follows:
“That the Indian or other persons in said district (meaning Alaska) shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress.”
Unlike other parts of the United States, there were no treaties with the Alaska Natives, and with but a few exceptions, reservations were not generally established.
The formulation of legislation on this subject through two sessions of the 91st Congress and now the 1st Session of the 92nd Congress, has been essentially a search for equity. There has been no previous Congressional experience in settling a land claim of this particular kind and magnitude. The effort to work out a fair and equitable solution is clearly evident in the history of Congressional hearings and in a comparison of settlement bills in the sequence of their presentation to Congress.
There are four basic Native land claim bills now before the Congress which are as follows:
-S.35 was introduced on January 25, 1971, and is essentially the same as S. 1830, passed by the U. S. Senate in July 1970. An equivalent bill is H.R. 7039.
-H.R. 3100 is a House version of a settlement bill which has no antecedent in the previous Congress.
-S. 835 introduced February 17, 1971, was drafted by the Alaska Natives. Its antecedent in the 91st Congress was S. 1830, Amdt. No. 221. The major difference between the two bills is that the current bill, S. 835, proposes a settlement of 60 million acres as against 40 million acres in the previous bill S. 1830, Amdt. No. 221.
-S. 1571 introduced April 19, 1971, was submitted by Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton for the Administration. This bill is essentially a new bill since the benefits proposed far exceed those offered by its predecessor, the Department of the Interior bill S. 1830, Amdt. No. 112 of August 4, 1969. S. 1571 proposes a land settlement of 40 million acres.
Each of the foregoing bills has a variety of features designed to meet Native needs. Each provides areas for hunting and fishing to meet the subsistence requirements of those desiring such a means of livelihood now and for many generations in the future. Each bill provides for the conveyance of lands for villages and for private Native ownership.
Possibly the most unique feature of each bill is a provision calling for the establishment of a Native-owned and operated corporation to invest such funds as are received in settlement of land claims and to establish productive enterprises. This arrangement would provide a sustaining yield of income for present and future generations. It would discourage immediate consumption of new income and encourage more education, productive effort, and such other benefits that would bring about and expand productivity. This cites only the more significant of many features of the proposed legislation now under consideration by the Congress.
The options are numerous and it is hoped that the Congress can work out an optimum combination of these.
Single copies of the bills can be obtained by writing to: Senate Document Room, Room 5325, U. S. Capitol Building, Washington, D. C. 20510.
--------------------------------------------------
DAVID L. HACKETT ASSOCIATES
August 9, 1971
Dear Miss Debo:
This past Thursday, August 3, the House Subcommittee reported a bill, HR. 10367, sponsored by the following Subcommittee Members: Chairman Aspinall (ex-officio), Chairman Haley, and Congressmen Edmondson, Taylor, Mink, Meeds, Stephens, Begich, Abourzek, Kyl, Steiger, Camp, Sebelius, and Terry. The only Members who did not add their names were Saylor (hospitalized and strongly opposed), Lujan, and Melcher.
On the Senate side, we hope to improve HR. 10367, and especially to strengthen the land provisions as much as possible. Hopefully, the Senate Committee can be persuaded to report a bill with at least 40 million acres, so as to avoid a damaging floor fight. Whether it will be realistic to think in terms of 60 million acres in the Senate remains somewhat doubtful at this time.
Chairman Aspinall has made it clear that we need six additional votes (beyond the 14 co-sponsors of HR. 10367) to carry the day in the full Committee. I believe that you still have a list of the Committee. The following Members should be appealed to for all-out support of HR. 10367 in full Committee:
Harold T. Johnson (D. Cal)
Morris K. Udall (D. Ariz)
Phillip K. Burton (D. Cal)
Thomas S. Foley (D. Wash)
Robert W. Kastenmeier (D. Wis)
James G. O’Hara (D. Mich)
William F. Ryan (D. NY)
James Kee (D. WVa)
Abraham Kazen, Jr. (D. Tex)
Bill Burlison (D. Mo)
Joseph P. Vigorito (D. Pa)
Teno Roncalio (D. Wyo)
Don H. Clausen (R. Cal)
Phillip E. Ruppe (R. Mich)
John Dellenbach (R. Ore)
We need six firm commitments from this group of fifteen. Anything you can do to help will be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you need additional information.
With continuing warm regards,
Sincerely,
Fraser Barron
Fraser Barron
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Miss Debo,
Sat. night
Aug. 14, 1971
I just received your letter yesterday. I was very glad to finally hear some good news. I was beginning to wonder what was happening. I am glad that the House sub-committee has asked for as much as they did for the Alaska natives. It is a step forward.
By the way, in a letter you wrote me last May or June, you said you were going to write to my library about your book. Did you ever do that – or – that happened.
Well, I have to go. I’ll be looking forward to hearing more news after Labor Day.
Love,
Becky
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
August 16, 1971
Miss Angie Debo
Marshall, OK 73056
Dear Miss Debo:
Congressman Camp is out of the country during the August recess of Congress and in his absence has asked that I thank you for your recent letter.
I am enclosing for your information a copy of the bill which I am sure you will enjoy having. Rest assured that I will be bringing your remarks to the Congressman’s attention and if he can ever be of assistance to you on any matter, please feel free to contact him.
Sincerely,
Claire Geoghegan
CLAIRE GEOGHEGAN
Assistant to Happy Camp, MC
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
August 18, 1971
Miss Angie Debo
Marshall
Oklahoma 73056
Dear Miss Debo:
Congressman Edmondson is in Oklahoma during the congressional recess, but we felt sure he would want us to acknowledge receipt of your August 10th letter without delay.
Your letter will be brought to the Congressman’s personal attention immediately upon his return to Washington, and we know he will appreciate your kind words regarding his work on the Alaskan Natives claims legislation. We thought you might like to have the enclosed copy of the “clean” bill, H.R. 10367, which Ed has co-sponsored with other members of the Committee, and which will hopefully be acted upon by the House shortly after it reconvenes September 8th.
If our office can be of assistance in any way during the Congressman’s absence, please don’t hesitate to let us know.
With best wishes and kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
John Lynn
For:
ED EDMONDSON, M.C.
Enclosure
--------------------------------------------------
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 20, 1971
Dear Dr. Debo:
The President has asked me to thank you for your recent letter and to apologize for the delay in responding.
We do indeed believe that some new directions in Indian policy have been a long time coming, but now have been challengingly set forth not only in the President’s statement on the Alaska Native Claims bill but in his message to the Congress of a year ago. I enclose a copy of each of these for your personal library.
Just this week, the House Interior Subcommittee has voted out an Alaska Claims bill rather similar to that recommended by the President, so we are pleased at the prospect of real legislative progress.
We are most grateful for your letter of support.
Sincerely,
Leonard Garment
Leonard Garment
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Angie Debo
Post Office Box 133
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Attachment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 1971
Office of the White House Press Secretary
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Resolving issues concerning the Alaska Natives’ claims will be the last major Indian claims settlement in American history.
In a message to the Congress on January 26, 1971, I promised that an Alaska Native Claims bill would be submitted, to resolve equitably the Native claims in that State.
I have today approved Secretary Morton’s sending to the Congress a new administration bill which proposes what I consider a fair and equitable settlement – and one more generous to the Alaska natives than any heretofore put forward by a President or congressional committee. It goes beyond the bill proposed by the administration in 1969, and it goes beyond the bill passed by the Senate in 1970.
The economic development of all of Alaska, Native and non-Native communities alike, depends on the just resolution of this long-deferred issue.
Natives have asserted claims to 340,000,000 acres of the State of Alaska. A settlement which the Department of the Interior proposed in 1967 would have extinguished those claims in exchange for giving the Natives the right to sue in the Court of Claims and to be compensated in money at the 1867 value of the lands, while granting title to some 10,000,000 acres for village use.
The new bill being submitted by Secretary Morton, developed in close consultation with representatives of the Alaska Federation of Natives themselves, provides for a cash payment of $500,000,000 and also provides that the Natives shall have a 2 percent share, up to a maximum of $500,000,000, in the oil revenue generated in Alaska, that they shall have full title to 40,000,000 acres of land and that the Corporation which manages these assets shall be entirely Native-controlled. The Federation of course retains its freedom to advocate still further positions before the Congress.
I congratulate Secretary Morton on this new bill, and I am particularly pleased at the success of the consultative process which also involved Mr. Don Wright, the president of the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Vice President and Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
# # #
--------------------------------------------------
Sat. morning
September 25, 1971
Dear Miss Debo,
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to write back, but I’ve been so busy – with it being my senior year. They say your sr. year is the busiest – and I believe it.
Yes, I did get your letter of August 9 about the new bill. I was happy to hear it. In fact, one day this week, a boy in my civics class asked my teacher if the Indians ever got anything from Alcatraz. Then we got into a long discussion about the Indians. Mrs. Frost said she had heard something about the government giving millions of acres of land to the Alaska Indians. So I told her about the bill. She was really interested then. She thought it had already been settled. She didn’t know it was just in the House. She asked me if I thought that they would get the votes they needed. I told her that I thought they would. Have you heard anything more about it?
This year during my second period study hall, I work in the high school library. I was looking through the vertical files yesterday. I noticed that there were only about five articles on Indians – and they didn’t look too recent. So I thought I’d contribute some literature I received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to it. That way other students can learn more about the Indians.
I have to go. Please write as soon as anything develops.
Love,
Becky
--------------------------------------------------
Alaska, Correspondence, October – December 1971
Angie Debo Papers (1988-013), SCUA, OSU Libraries
(Box 15/Folder 27)
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
October 13, 1971
The Honorable John Jarman
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Jarman:
I am sure you are familiar with my books on Indian history. I hope you have read my recent one, A History of the Indians of the United States. Although I am not an emotional writer, the straight factual account of what happened to the Indians here in the “Lower 48” states adds up to a tragic story. But my Alaska chapter is entitled, “The White Man Gets a New Chance.” This chance will come on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.
As an Oklahoman I have been gratified by the efforts of Mr. Edmondson and Mr. Camp in committee to get the best possible terms for the Alaska natives, and they have accomplished it in HR 10367. But I am disturbed for fear an attempt will be made to add land use provisions or other amendments on the floor of the House. I myself am an ardent conservationist, but conservation should stand on its own merits. I am opposed to any amendment to the bill. This long-delayed justice to the natives should not be complicated by irrelevant issues.
Many Oklahomans – the state federation of women’s clubs, the Methodist women, other groups and individuals – have observed Mr. Edmondson’s and Mr. Camp’s work with approval and encouragement. They will feel the same as I do over anything that may hinder its consummation. I know that they would join me in urging you to vote against any amendment to HR 10367.
Sincerely,
Angie Debo
--------------------------------------------------
The Speaker’s Rooms
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 16, 1971
Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall
Oklahoma 73056
Dear Angie:
It is always good to hear from you and to get your opinion on matters of interest to the country and to Oklahoma.
We have programed H.R. 10367 for the week of October 18. You can be assured that I will follow the leadership of Ed Edmondson and Happy Camp on this matter. They both serve with distinction on the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs which will handle the bill on the floor.
Please come and see me the first chance you get.
Sincerely
Carl
The Speaker
CA/kk
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 18, 1971
Dr. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Dr. Debo:
This will acknowledge receipt of your October 13th letter, which I have read with care. I appreciate your giving me the benefit of your thinking on H. R. 10367, which is scheduled to come before the House of Representatives tomorrow. Rest assured that I will have your position firmly in mind and will be giving the entire matter the closest scrutiny and consideration.
With every good wish, I remain
Sincerely,
John Jarman
John Jarman, M. C.
JJ:jbm
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 18, 1971
Miss Angie Debo
Marshall
Oklahoma 73956
Dear Miss Debo:
I received your letter of October 13th regarding H. R. 10367, the Alaskan Native Land Claims bill which will come to the Floor of the House of Representatives for a final vote this week.
I certainly appreciate having the benefit of your thinking on this issue and assure you that I am well aware of the fine efforts of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and my colleagues, John N. “Happy” Camp and Ed Edmondson.
I will certainly be giving this legislation my careful consideration.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
Page Belcher
PAGE BELCHER
Member of Congress
PB:bwm
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 16, 1971
Mrs. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Dear Mrs. Debo:
Your letter of October 31 [sic] has just reached me, and it was good to hear from you again.
I am glad to know of your interest in H. R. 10367, the Alaskan Native Claims bill. This bill, as you know, was reported out of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee several weeks ago and is now scheduled for debate on the House floor on Tuesday. You may be sure I will keep your views in mind concerning amendments to the measure, and your interest is deeply appreciated.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Tom Steed
TOM STEED, M. C.
TS:mh
--------------------------------------------------
Congressman Steed’s mailing address:
2405 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone Number (area code 202) 225-6165
900 Halray, Apt. 205
Norman, Okla. 73069
October 20, 1971
Dear Angie:
Your S.O.S. of Oct. 14 reached me Saturday. Monday morning I put in a person to person long distance call to Congressman Tom Steed, but his secretary reported that he was seeing someone in his office at that time and would return the call. He hadn’t by 1 o’clock.
In the early afternoon, I called his office here in Norman, and Mr. Muldrow (I believe he said Fisher Muldrow) who runs the Steed office here, and from whom I got Mr. Steed’s Washington telephone number earlier in the day) said he would call the Washington office himself when I told him why I was trying to talk to Mr. Steed. I had to be out most of the afternoon, so could not sit here hoping Mr. Steed would return my call.
When I explained to Mr. Muldrow the purpose of my call and that I had been kept in touch with the legislation by you, he showed considerable interest and enthusiasm; said he is part Choctaw, I believe, that he knows you and were at your last autograph party. He called me back in a few minutes and reported he had talked to Mr. Steed’s secretary, who knew about HR 10367 and who assured him that Mr. Steed is for this bill, if it is not amended, which is what you are also urging, as I read your letter. He said if the bill is amended so that its whole intent is changed he would not be for it. I don’t hear anything about the bill on T.V. or radio. Nell B.
--------------------------------------------------
October 20, 1971
Dear Miss Debo,
I was so happy when I received your letter. I was so excited and thrilled to hear that the bill was finally reaching the House floor, that I immediately set out to write an announcement for school. Mr. Oliphant, our principal, okayed it. So yesterday at 10:00, I urged them to be one of the few high school students that wanted to get involved. I urged them to write to our Congressman & get him to vote for the bill. I stressed the importance of the bill. I told them how a group of young people like themselves had already helped to get the bill this far. I pleaded for their help & told them it was up to them. I didn’t know if my speech went over. See, THS students don’t like to get involved with anything. Their idea of involvement is yelling at a pep rally. But today the most wonderful thing happened. When I went into my Distributive Education class, Mrs. Bates (my teacher) told me the secretary wanted to see me. It turned out that quite a few students had come into the office asking for more information about the Natives & for the address of our Congressman. There are actually some more interested people! I was so happy to learn that my speech affected some people. It’s really great! Maybe now we will have more luck in this – the final effort.
Sincerely yours,
Becky
P.S. I am watching the 10 P.M. news – I just heard that the House just passed the bill. I was so happy, I just started crying. Now, it’s onto the Senate.
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 22, 1971
Mrs. Angie Debo
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
Because of your interest in enactment of the Alaska Native Land Claims bill, I am writing to let you know this measure passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday of this week, without amendment.
I was glad to cast my vote in favor of the bill.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Tom
TOM STEED, M. C.
TS:kl
Truman sends his best regards –
--------------------------------------------------
[Tulsa World, October 22, 1971]
The Alaskan Settlement
FOR ONCE, the United States Government seems ready to make good on some original promises to native Americans.
The House of Representatives has passed a bill giving the Eskimos, Aleuts and Indians of Alaska $925 million in cash and royalties and 40 million acres in settlement of their longstanding land claims. The Senate passed a similar bill last session and is expected to act on the matter again before the current session ends.
It has been 104 years since the United States secured Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, a transaction called at the time “Seward’s Folly.” During all that period, the natives were assured that they would not be dispossessed.
“The Indians shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them,” said the 1884 Organic Act which established a Territorial Government in Alaska. Cynics no doubt assumed that this would be ignored at the proper time as similar promises had been ignored in the case of Indian tribes in the other areas of the United States. The cynics were wrong.
Final passage of the bill will clear a major barrier to the development of Alaska’s vast petroleum resources.
By reserving huge tracts of land for public ownership, wildlife refuges and parks, the bill also, hopefully, will assure a permanent survival for a certain part of the continent’s last great wilderness.
Reps. ED EDMONDSON of Muskogee and HAPPY CAMP of Waukomis are both members of the House Interior Committee which has worked on the Alaskan Native Claims bill for three years. They, along with other members of the committee, have done a good job.
--------------------------------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 27, 1971
Miss Angie Debo
Marshall,
Oklahoma 73056
Friend Angie:
Well, at least we have the Alaska Native Land Claims bill on its way. It will be interesting to see the action of the Senate.
We are enclosing the pages of the Congressional Record that you requested, and if we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call upon us.
Sincerely,
Happy
Happy Camp
Member of Congress
HC/dlr
Enclosures
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Miss Debo, Oct. 28, 1971
I just received your letter today. It was so enlightening. You are right – the story of the Alaska Natives seldom gets into the news – especially in Texas. But the day after the House passed the bill, it did get into the Austin American – a newspaper in Austin, Texas. I did not see the article myself, but we have Current Events every day in Civics. One person picks any article from the newspaper & reads it to the class. A boy in our class chose that article. It really surprised me because he has always impressed me as one of those I told you about in my last letter – his idea of involvement is yelling at a pep rally. But he was really interested. Mrs. Frost, my teacher, asked me more about it. So we talked about it for awhile. She is really interested, too.
I want to thank you for wanting to send me your book. I have really wanted to read it, but I just couldn’t get enough money. I have just recently started working (4 wks. ago), so now I have a little money. I am really looking forward to reading it. Knowing that you wrote it, I know that it is a great book.
I just had an idea. I don’t know if it will work or not. I’d like you to write me back & tell me your opinion on it. I thought I’d go to the office & see if Mr. Baldwin, our assistant principal, would make an announcement for me. He probably won’t, he’ll tell me to do it – but that’s ok. Here is the announcement:
“Would all students who came to the office expressing an interest in the Alaska Natives & anyone else who is even remotely interested in helping, please come to the office during the week. There will be a piece of paper on the desk with a place for your name, address, phone, & 3rd period teacher. I’ll pick it up on Monday & I’ll contact you sometime during the week.”
I thought if enough were interested, we could start a club aimed at helping the Indians. What do you think? Do you have any ideas exactly how I could go about it?
I have to close. Thanks for your confidence. I love you.
Your friend forever,
Becky Czimskey
--------------------------------------------------
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
November 2, 1971
Dear friends of the Alaska natives:
Glorious news! The House of Representatives passed the land claims bill last Wednesday beating down destructive amendments. Yesterday the Senate passed its bill 76 to 5. This is the result of the good work you and others have done. When I think how hopeless this seemed ten years ago, or even one year ago –
Now here is some important work for you. If all goes well, the last. Both bills provide a similar cash settlement and 40 million acres of land, but they differ in details. The conference committee from the two houses will meet Monday to reconcile these differences. The land selection provision of the House bill is bad. (I didn’t tell you this because of Chairman Aspinall’s vindictive temper. His word to the natives: take it as it is, or I’ll ditch the whole thing.) The natives may select 18 million acres around their villages now. Then the state may select the 102,550,000 acres authorized by the statehood act. It has until 1984 to do this. Then the natives may select their remaining 22 million from what is left. The first 18 million is not enough to protect all their village land. The rest is open to state selection. When they get to their final 22 million, it will be undesirable and distant. (They want the land for subsistence, not for possible oil prospects.) Besides this, there is the delay. They need their land now so they can plan their future on a stable economic base. The provisions for the investment and use of the cash settlement by regional organizations is good in the House bill. They will handle it wisely, for education and economic development.
The Senate bill provides for immediate land selection by the natives. Write or wire the chairmen of both committees that you hope the conference will adopt this formula: 40 million acres in fee simple title immediately. Here are the two chairmen:
The Honorable Henry M. Jackson | The Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall
Senate Office Building | House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510 | Washington, D. C. 20515
Don’t antagonize them. Congratulate them for what they have done. Since Jackson formally announced his presidential candidacy last week he is anxious for public approval, and Aspinall loves praise. You can be sincere in this. They do deserve credit. The issue has gone unsettled for 104 years, and they have reversed the injustices done the Indians in the Lower 48. I have read the Congressional Record for the two days the bill was debated in the House, and Aspinall did a superb job of presenting the natives’ cause. So express your appreciation in the strongest terms; but urge letting the natives select all of their land immediately.
You may receive this in time to write, but your letter must reach the committee chairmen by Monday morning. Telegrams will be safer. Special rate to members of Congress: $1.00 for 15 words delivered the day after it is sent. If you need the phone number it is 224-3121 for both Houses, area code 202. The natives called me last night. They hope for thousands of letters and telegrams, preferably telegrams. A sizable number will come from you.
Trusting you,
Angie Debo
--------------------------------------------------
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
November 8, 1971
To Oklahoma friends of the Alaska natives:
Fresh news since last week. The conference committee, which will reconcile the differences in the bills passed by the two Houses, has postponed its meeting to November 16. Thus if you were unable to get your letters or telegrams in by today, you have more time. But you need not send any to Aspinall, only to Senator Henry M. Jackson (Senate zip code, 20510) Same message: express your appreciation to him for getting an adequate bill through the Senate, but say you hope the emerging settlement will allow the natives to select their 40 million acres immediately.
Now to those of you who did get your messages in last week, I promised that would be the last request. But I have another urgent call from the natives. Ed Edmondson and John N. Happy Camp have been appointed to serve on the conference committee. That is good news indeed. They have worked all the way for a just settlement. Write to tell them how glad you are that they are on that committee, and say you hope they will be able to get a provision for immediate selection of the 40 million acres. (House zip code, 20515) Letters from their home state will help them in committee.
Telegrams are pouring in from miners and other developers of Alaska who can’t bare bear to see the natives (20% of the population) retain 10% of the land. And the conservationists may get in some more licks. When the bill was before the House of Representatives, they formed an “Alaskan Coalition,” sent stacks of telegrams, and fought the natives on the floor. Some of these are fine organizations that I myself supported before conservation became fashionable, and shall continue to support; but they have only a vague idea of the actual situation in Alaska. Others are afraid the natives will close their land to sportsmen. (No doubt they will, I remember a statement drawn up by the Eskimos in 1961, when the very first organization was formed to get title to their land. “The problem is game laws and sport hunters. During last half of winter there are light planes that hunt polar bears and line up on ice in front of Kotzebue and other villages. These sport hunters take their kill, take the skin and leave the meat, the food. We find dead bears drifted ashore or untouched on ice with bullet holes in them.”) It is no accident that the National Rifle Association joined the Alaskans Coalition. And a writer representing the National Wildlife Federation (I won’t name him, but some of you know who he is) in an article in the Tulsa Tribune let the cat out of the bag when he argued that a land settlement for the natives “could close large areas of primary game lands” and “fishing streams” to the general public. Why can’t he be satisfied with the nine-tenths of Alaska relinquished by the natives? One of their defenders said in the House debate, “I have never heard of an Eskimo who went out to shoot a bear to get his picture taken with a trophy. I am not worried with regard to what they do about this land.” Neither am I; they have lived off it for millenniums [sic] without disturbing the ecology. I believe in conservation of land and wildlife, but I have studied all aspects of this issue and I can assure you that it isn’t endangered here. It is Homo sapiens that is the threatened species. Don’t be disturbed for fear you are harming the environment when you are protecting the people.
Hoping this will truly be the last appeal to you, my friends,
--------------------------------------------------
Marshall, Oklahoma 73056
December 15, 1971
Dear friends of the Alaska natives:
Last night a call from Washington brought me the news that Congress had just passed an adequate land claims settlement, which will certainly be approved by the president. Of course I have had no chance to read it, but I understand that it has the following provisions:
It gives the natives fee simple title to 40 million acres. (Not an excessive amount – 10 per cent of the area of Alaska, and much of it barren tundra – for a group forming 20 per cent of the population.) It is not perfect – some concessions were made to new state boosters – but the unjust selection formula of the House bill has been largely corrected. Twenty-five townships around each village are protected so that the state cannot pull the land out from under them until they select 22 million acres. The state may then acquire title to land it had tentatively selected before the gobbling process was stopped by the land freeze in 1966 (this includes the North Slope oil land); but four townships around each village are permanently exempted from this selection. After this, there is a complicated process of alternate selections by the natives of their remaining 18 million acres and by the state of its total 102,500,000.
For their surrender of 90 per cent of Alaska’s acreage the natives will receive: $462,500,000 to be paid out of the federal treasury in ten-year installments without interest; and 2 per cent of the mineral royalty from all federal and state owned land, until it reaches $500,000,000, a process that will take a number of years. Twelve regional corporations will be formed and controlled by the natives as voting shareholders. (This is in accordance with the natives’ wishes.) These will administer the cash payments as they come in. Also villages and individual natives will acquire only surface title to land; minerals will go to the regional corporations. This will eliminate the unpredictable chances of oil development (if there should be any) by distributing it among all the owners. This money will be used for social, educational, and economic development.
Since I am not entirely sure of my facts, I advise you to write to the Association on American Indian Affairs, 432 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 for their winter newsletter. Like me, they have been awaiting the passage of the bill, but the publication will be available immediately and it will be accurate. It is free. You and others like you throughout the general citizenship have brought this issue to a happy conclusion after 104 years. You deserve to know the terms of the settlement.
Two years ago the cause seemed hopeless. Some of you who worked the hardest had no faith in its ultimate success. I am convinced that except for you and those others the sad history of the Indians in the “Lower 48” would have been repeated in Alaska. Now these people have their chance to live. They will continue their subsistence economy – the only kind available to them now – and as the new state develops, their adaptability and mechanical aptitude will gradually fit them into the general structure.
You deserve a blessed Christmas. I noticed several of my friends in their Christmas messages this year are quoting the prayer of St. Francis, Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.” You have been such an instrument, for there can be no true peace without justice. You have settled one issue justly before it had time to grow into unsolvable complications. And don’t let your conscience worry you lest you have betrayed the cause of conservation. Some true conservationists were a little confused, not understanding that Homo sapiens was the endangered species; but others were sportsmen, fearing to see 10 per cent of the state closed to trophy hunters.
In deep thankfulness,
Angie Debo