American Indian Culture and Research Journal

Between 1945 and 1975, United States policy toward Native Americans underwent a 180-degree shift, from an assault on tribal authority to almost total recognition of it. Under presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, the federal government had sought to terminate its trust relationship with Indians and assimilate them into Anglo society. But this effort waned and the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson missed an opportunity to break with the past. During the 1960s, federal officials spoke of a “new emphasis” that moved away from termination and toward tribal self-determination without repudiating assimilation and economic development, Anglo style, as policy aims. In 1970, however, President Richard M. Nixon denounced termination and pledged to end the federal government’s “suffocating paternalism” toward American Indians. Five years later, Congress passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act which allowed tribes to run many federal programs themselves. Scholars have published a number of studies of recent Native American policy, but the role of Congress in shaping Indian policy, especially individual members and their Native American constituents, remains largely unexplored. Representative Carl Albert, Democrat of Oklahoma, possessed a limited vision regarding Native American self-determination. The “Little Giant” was one of the few congressmen who saw his career, from 1947 to 1977, span the era of termination, gradual assimilation, and self-determination. A nationally known figure who became majority whip in 1955, majority leader in 1962, and house speaker in 1971, Albert was in a position to influence federal policy. And he was conscious of Indian concerns, since the population of his home state was one-quarter American Indian and his district, the Oklahoma Third, included Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Seminoles, members of the Five Civilize Tribes. Yet Albert’s relations with the Choctaws, who first backed, then opposed termination, exemplifies the ambivalence of many Great Society liberals toward Native American self-determination.