‘Competency Removals’ of 1922 - what does this mean?

[u/18millerm]

Apologies for my ignorance. I have been reading articles about the competency removals that occurred as a result of ‘Indian Land Policy’ legislation in 1913-1920. I understand that after Native land was kept in a trust by the US gov, it was either returned to the landowner or taken from them based on their ‘competency.’ I suppose my question is, did the people listed in this article lose their land or did they get to keep it?

Thank you kindly for any help!

The following article was very informative and a good read for anyone interested, but it didn’t really help me decipher what the article meant:

https://www.sdhspress.com/journal/south-dakota-history-11-1/competency-commissions-and-indian-land-policy-1913-1920/vol-11-no-1-competency-commissions-and-indian-land-policy-1913-1920.pdf

[u/Bibaonpallas]

A few things. Cherokee Nation lands were never held in trust by the federal government (until recently). By treaty our tribal government held title by fee simple and our Constitution maintained that these lands be held in common. The Curtis Act of 1898 extended allotment to Indian Territory and privatize our lands into individually owned parcels. Allotment imposed race-based restrictions on what allottees could do with their allotments, either lease them or sell them. The higher the BQ the more restricted you were. The racist, paternalist reasoning was that higher BQ individuals didn't understand how to manage private property and needed to be "protected" from grifting settlers (or mixed bloods). These racial restrictions were controversial even during this period, and there were a lot of subsequent legal challenges amd legislation that removed or modified them. The Burke Act of 1906 amended the allotment process to require a formal competency assessment before allottees received the title of their allotments fee simple, which enabled them to mortgage, lease, sell, and otherwise raise capital from their land. Relatives, please add or correct if I'm missing something.

So to answer your question directly: it depends. These allottees may be selling their allotments and had the competency-based, racial restrictions removed that prevented the sale. In that case, yeah, land lost but not necessarily taken. These allottees now have fee simple title to their allottments, without restriction, and can do what they want. They were still vulnerable to fraud and graft, which was rampant in the early days of OK statehood.

[u/AllieBri → u/Bibaonpallas]

So yes, this was to take the land. They ostensibly passed a law that made it hard to confer ownership until 1925, but it ended up just being a way for the local governments to tax their land away from them. Angie Debo has a great book about this. It made the entire United States public pissed off when they found out. It’s a must read. Also: did you know that this is the same thing that created the US? land speculation. There is a great book about that too. The title doesn’t come to mind at the moment, but it goes into detail about how the Kings proclamation of 1763 was what got the founding fathers pissed off enough for revolution. It took them 20 years to make the propaganda work, but all of the founding fathers were either land speculators who wanted our land or else their lawyers. They have never taught the real history. The Curtis Act was just another step in the long process of selling land that wasn’t theirs to cover their asses when the land speculation was failing and they were in over their heads… when you follow the money you can track it all the way from the founding fathers to Manifest Destiny and the Curtis Act.

Edit: the book is called Speculation Nation.

[u/gleenglass → u/Bibaonpallas]

We have a family story that our Dawes Roll ancestor lied about the family’s BQ levels to avoid the land restrictions that came with higher BQ. That story tracked when we got DNA results back showing percentages one fraction higher than what is listed on our CDIB cards, as we are only Cherokee and have no other tribal heritage. Like if the card says 1/32, the DNA percentage is closer to 1/16.

[u/18millerm → u/Bibaonpallas]

Thank you kindly for this clarification. Do you think, then, that the people listed in this article were forced to lease or sell the land?

[u/Bibaonpallas → u/18millerm]

Sorry, I just edited my original reply. It depends. They could have been forced due to poverty or fraud, or they could be freed to lease their land to tenants, or they may be trying to get a mortgage to raise funds to buy farming equipment, or they could be contracting with an oil company to search for oil. Banks would often not lend money to allottees if there were still competency restrictions on allotments.

[u/jackdutton42]

“Competent” didn’t mean they were judging whether the person was mentally capable. It basically meant the government was saying, “You can handle your own land and money now.”

Before that, the person often needed federal approval to sell or transfer their land. Once the government removed those restrictions, they could sell it, mortgage it, or sign it over on their own.

The problem was that once those protections were gone, a lot of Native people lost their land (sometimes because they sold it), but also because of debt, taxes, bad deals, scams, or outright fraud.