In the Name of Progress: An Examination of Progressive Education at the Cushman Indian Trades School, 1870-1920

Michael Read

As children, many Americans listened to their parents and teachers expound on the benefits of an education. The notion of education underpins our belief that Americans may climb the ladder of social mobility. This idea is not new. In fact, founding father Thomas Jefferson believed that universal education was essential for a democratic nation to properly function. But since the time of Jefferson, America’s schools have taken many different shapes and have served many different purposes. However, throughout the history of American schools they have been seen as an avenue for betterment, for progress.

Between 1870 and 1920, Americans involved with the progress of Native Americans from “savagery” to “civilization” became obsessed with the idea of Indians and schools. To many Native Americans, education became synonymous with cultural extermination. But to many whites working to fix the “Indian problem,” education showed promise. As the nineteenth century progressed, “open” land became increasingly scarce and violent interactions with Indians reached a crescendo. With the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, the United States government attempted to solve the problem of American expansion and Indian barbarism with one grand stroke: compulsory Indian education. 

In the wake of the Dawes Act, across the nation, thousands of schools were erected to meet the educational needs of Native Americans. However, prior to its passage a groundswell had already begun in some of the major Indian population centers to create Indian schools. On the outskirts of Tacoma, Washington, on the Puyallup Reservation, the Puyallup School for Indian Education (renamed the Cushman Indian Trades School in 1910) was founded in 1870.[1] The Cushman Indian school was designed to serve both “the minds and the hands” of its pupils.[2] It was greeted by “friends of the Indian” as a welcomed addition to the uncivilized Indian landscape of the Pacific Northwest.[3] Across the nation, as Indian schools grew in popularity and prevalence and after nearly a half century of start-stop efforts, the U.S. government finally had what it believed to be a panacea of their woes in American – Indian relations.

The study of American Indian education between 1890 and 1920 is a revealing lens through which we may look at the overlapping nature of two fascinating phenomena in our nation’s past: the acquisition of the dominant white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant culture and the subsequent assimilation of a dominated, “barbaric” culture. Using the institution of American schools, we can examine the factors which helped create each of these phenomena, and the outcomes of the resulting transformations. This study will focus on the education of students at the Cushman School, how the Cushman fits with the historiography of Indian education in America, and more broadly, how the rise of Indian schools is part of the narrative of “Progress” in the United States. We will see that the Cushman school was successful in educating its students. At the Cushman Indian School, children were taught to speak English, trained to become individuals, instilled with Judeo-Christian beliefs, and infused with a sense of citizenship in, and patriotism for, their new mother country and father figure: America. But due to unending contradictions between means and ends, the United States government and the Cushman School was unsuccessful in creating the educated, independent, Judeo-Christian citizens they hoped for. Ironically, what they produced instead were students who were truly capable of being called American—all too American.

Before we can understand how “Progressive” education, national Indian schooling, and the Cushman School fit together, we must first evaluate them separately. Two educational theorists named John Dewey and Ellwood P. Cubberly helped to propagate the “Progressive” theory and made it popular within America during the late-nineteenth century.[4] Cubberly and Dewey created their “Progressive” theory of education in response to the overwhelming effect recently arrived immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were having on America’s free urban school systems. “Progressive” theorists saw the old system of American education as “too bookish, rigid, and un-diversified” as well as “ill-adapted to the great variety of students” which it was charged with educating.[5] This theory was radical in its time because it struck down one of the fundamental pillars of American thought: Americans are all created equal. Dewey and Cubberly understood that not every child was capable of being elected President or becoming a millionaire. They choose to live in what they considered to be a more realistic reality. Rather than dreaming the American Dream for all, they ambitiously set out to “scientifically” tailor their curriculum to appropriately match perceived student capabilities.[6] The realistic and scientific nature of their curriculum resides in their low expectations of the academic abilities for students of lower socio-economic status, namely, immigrants. And of course, they were proven right, time and time again because the dark side of “Progressive” education is that it is a circular, self-fulfilling prophecy. If an administrator believed a student was incapable, through heredity or circumstance, the student was tracked into a remedial course of study, and from that remedial coursework he or she would be relegated to finding menial work. Their menial labor would result in low wages, and a subsequent re-creation of the environment which produced them. So in the end, a “Progressive” track of education would prove the administrator’s initial prognosis of a student’s future to be correct. Ironically, while “Progressive” education removed the democratic nature of universal education, it also had as one of its main functions the creation of a democratic citizenry.[7] Dewey and Cubberly thought an essential element of schools were to socialize their students into the rules and norms of the society into which they were supposed to assimilate.[8] For students in the late-nineteenth century, the rule and the norm of society which they would learn above all others was a belief in the optimistic trajectory for American progress.

Progress, both individual and national, was at the center of the nation’s consciousness throughout the nineteenth century. In 1839, John O’ Sullivan captured the American imagination and communicated the United States’ divine right to Westward Expansion with a series of articles which introduced the term, Manifest Destiny.[9] With the word of God and the wind of progress at their backs, Americans moved west to settle the “uninhabited” lands of the North America. En route, white settlers encountered barbaric and uncivilized Indians. Using the gospel of God as their justification and the needs of an infant nation hungry for land as their motivation, whites tried to weave the threads of civilization into the fabric of “barbaric” Indian life.[10]

In 1872, artist John Gast reproduced the America’s sense of bravado and divine right with his painting, American Progress. The painting shows an angelic woman draped in white cloth, floating above the western plains, pushing back the veil of darkness that surrounds the Indians and the wilderness, all the while leading the way for pioneers, farmers, and a nation eager to expand. In her hand, she holds two items: a telegraph wire and a schoolbook. With textbook in hand, Gast’s allegorical woman symbolizes the importance America placed on education in taming the wild, barbaric Indians. Lewis H. Morgan helped lend academic credit to this sentiment when, in 1877, he wrote Ancient Society; or, Researches in the lines of human progress from savagery, through barbarism to civilization. Morgan posited an argument that North American Indians were uncivilized because they lacked two fundamental elements in American “civilized” society: nuclear families and the notion of private property.[11]

The U.S. Congress hoped to change Indian attitudes toward property and familial relations with passage of the Dawes Act in 1887.[12] The Dawes Act proposed to breakup Indian reservations in severalty. After having done so, based on family size, the Dawes Act allowed newly minted property owning Indians to sell their lands after a twenty-five year moratorium.[13] Thus, Indians would not only be encouraged to re-structure their society around the premise of a nuclear family, but they would also be forced into owning private, rather than communally held, property. The government failed to take into consideration how differently Anglo-Saxon Americans and Indians conceived of the notion of property, the cultural significance for each. This disregard for cultural heritage and blatant ethnocentricism on the part of the government will be important to keep in mind later on as we examine how ramifications from the Dawes Act would affect the Puyallup reservation and the students of the Cushman school.

The government, expressing what it conceived of as paternal benevolence, decided that legislative restructuring of Indian society would not go far enough. The government needed a way to create civilized people.  They decided to try to reach Indian children before the traditional ways of Indian barbarism could take hold in children.[14] The observations of a government agent involved with Indian affairs reflect the sentiments of Manifest Destiny and Indian educational policies:

It is rather the little children that must be taken in hand and cared for and nurtured, for from them must be realized the dream… of that day to come when the Indian, a refined, cultured, educated being [sic] will assume the title of an American citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and aspirations of that favored individual.[15]

By building Indian boarding and day schools the government began the process of educating Indians to become fluent in English, steeped with individualism, and Christianized so that they would become virtuous, democratic American citizens.[16]

For many, the desire to aid Indians in becoming civilized Americans was not a philanthropic enterprise. The driving force for white settlers was simply that Indians, in their “uncivilized and barbaric” state, needed vast quantities of land to sustain themselves. The thinking went if Indians were transformed into proper agriculturally minded citizens they would need less land and less federal assistance.[17] However, despite the overwhelming sentiments of the American people, a small cadre of individuals worked with the U.S. government as “friends of the Indian” to create a mutually beneficial relationship between a dominant government and dominated Indians.[18] Of this group, Captain Richard Henry Pratt was paramount. During the Civil War, Pratt served as a Union officer with an all-black “Buffalo Soldier” regiment. Building on this wartime experience, Pratt used his extensive military training and charismatic persona to bring the “problem” of Indian education, and his subsequent solution, to the attention of the American people.[19]

In its day, Captain Pratt’s Carlisle School for Indian Education became the flagship institution for progressive Indian assimilation through education. Always the micromanager, in the summer of 1879 Pratt traveled to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to collect his initial group of eighty-four Sioux students. He took them by way of train from Pine Ridge to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, to begin their education that fall. Pratt used military discipline, charisma and seemingly genuine affection for his pupils to establish an atmosphere in which the students would not only adopt white culture, but do so willingly.[20] His mantra was, “To civilize the Indian, get him into civilization. To keep him civilized, let him stay.”[21] In order to civilize his Indian pupils, Pratt’s method relied on the importance of student immersion in a white environment. He required that students be taken from reservations and placed in boarding schools so that their only contact with people would be with whites. Pratt was convinced in the “nature vs. nurture” debates that the inferiority of Indians stemmed from the backwards nature of their culture, and not an innate inferiority in their race. He once observed:

It is a great mistake to think that the Indian is born an inevitable savage. He is born blank, like the rest of us. Left in the surrounding of savagery, he grows to possess a savage language, superstition, and life. We, left in the surroundings of civilization, grow to possess a civilized language, life, and purpose. Transfer the infant white to the savage surroundings, he will grow to possess a savage language, superstition and habit. Transfer the savage-born infant to the surroundings of civilization, and he will grow to possess a civilized language and habit.[22]

He instituted a policy of closely cropped hair and strictly enforced uniforms.[23] By quickly and totally immersing Indian youths in white culture, the Carlisle school attempted to eliminate the confusion of assimilation for students straddling the social and cultural divide of the white and Indian worlds.

The Carlisle school achieved great success as a non-reservation boarding school and the government followed Pratt’s lead by establishing them across the West.

Historical scholarship on the topic of Indian schools has been biased by the large amount of research on the Carlisle, Hampton and Tuskeegee schools, which were, and are, of such national importance that to a certain degree, we have lost perspective on the micro-level picture of Indian schools nationwide. Which is not to say that there have not been any studies done on schools that do not fit the mold set forth by the likes of David Wallace Adams and Francis Paul Prucha, but it is fair to say that they seem to have “written the book” on the topic of Indian boarding schools. [24] As two of the primary researchers and authors which have helped to illuminate Indian education, they have, in effect, exacerbated this trend.[25] Rightly, they both spend significant time showing the importance Captain Pratt and the Carlisle played in making Indian boarding schools important to the American public. But to solely rely on the study of these “big-names” in Indian education is not enough. Relying on macro-histories of individuals and schools creates shortcomings in our understanding of how these schools operated within the contours and bounds of American Progressivism. These shortcomings and failures on the part of well-meaning historians arise from the broad strokes used to paint the picture of educational interaction between whites and Indians. By painting the picture of this narrative with such a broad brush, Adams, Prucha, and the other historians like them have left out the stories of tribal schools which do not fit the well-packaged national narrative. One such school, the Cushman Indian School, is among the non-conformists and deserves closer study.

 

CUSHMAN INDIAN SCHOOL

The idea for the Cushman School was born at the signing of the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854.[26] Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens and the tribes of the southern Puget Sound region of Washington gathered on December 24th of 1854 to negotiate a treaty between the numerous tribes and the U.S. government as to the future of government and Indian relations in the territory. The treaty created a reservation for the people of the Puyallup tribe southeast of Commencement Bay. Furthermore, the U.S. government, by word of Article Ten of the Treaty, agreed to build “within one year from the ratification hereof, and to support, for a period of twenty years, an agricultural and industrial school, to be free to children of the said tribes and bands.”[27] A year after the Medicine Creek Treaty was signed, a school was constructed on Squaxin Island. But the school was abandoned after a mere three years due to poor attendance.[28] Thirteen years later, Colonel Samuel Ross, Superintendent for the Puyallup Indians, urged the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington D.C to fulfill the government’s promise to the South Sound Indians in 1854. In a letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Ross wrote “if it is really the intention of the governing powers to civilize the Indians, to transfer the bold spirit of the daring savage warrior to the level, [sic] such an intellect should occupy in civilized life and save the red man” then, Ross went on to urge, it is “necessary to adopt a new mode for his civilization.”[29] This “new mode” was of course, compulsory schooling. And Ross’ words struck a cord with a government struggling with a solution to the so-called “Indian problem.”

Ross deftly touched on the paternal feelings the United States government had for the Indians of North America. He elicited these feelings by invoking the notion of the Indians as “bold spirit[s]” capable (with the help of their “Great Father”) of rising to the level of civilized society. In other words, Ross implored the Bureau of Indian Affairs to see the Cushman school not as a hand-out, but rather as a helping hand assisting the Indian to raise himself out of savagery and into the joys of civilization. At Colonel Ross’ behest, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made good on its promise. In the fall of 1870, with four thousand dollars in funds, construction for an industrial and agricultural school at the Puyallup reservation commenced.[30] Throughout the next twenty years funding would continue from the federal government for the purpose of educating the Indians of the Northwest.

For individuals such as Captain Pratt, Colonel Ross, and the various Commissioners of Indian Affairs, Indian education extended well beyond the academic realm. It was to be a complete restructuring of the values and attitudes of the individual pupil. To achieve the desired changes within the students, most Indian curriculum consisted of four parts: instruction in English, promotion of individuality, indoctrination with Christian principles and education in the value of democratic citizenship.[31] At the Cushman Indian School, administrators believed in most of the major tenets of Indian education nationwide. They believed that through formal literary and vocational training, a foundation would be built for students. This foundation of English language and job skills would serve them well to becoming citizens independent of the communistic nature of Indian tribes. The fundamental aspects of their training were also to be augmented by voluntary religious instruction. Slowly, as the four predominate tenets of Indian education became further imbedded in their psyche, students would grow into their roles as responsible independent democratic citizens, and become ambassadors of white virtue to their people.

Administrators and educators fully understood the fundamental importance of English to the education of their students. With the study of the tenet of English instruction we can see the ties between “Progressive” theory and the practice of Indian education. In a letter to Superintendent H.H. Johnson of the Cushman School, the Second Assistant to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, C.S. Hawke wrote, “In outlining lessons, [teachers] should remember that … correct forms in English should be taught by using them in practical conversational lessons based on the different activities that enter into the immediate lives of the children.”[32] The objective of the Cushman school was not to create William Shakespeare’s, Herman Melville’s and Emily Dickinson’s. The Cushman school’s objective was to create blacksmiths, tradesmen and farmers capable of speaking the language of citizenship and commerce. Strictly to be avoided were English lessons and memory drills on “forms and definitions that are never used by individuals in the common walks of life.”[33] And teachers were reminded that they “should have a definite purpose for each lesson to be taught and then teach it with the purpose ever in view. Aimless teaching never accomplishes anything and robs pupils of valuable time.”[34] With this directive, teachers at the Cushman school taught English with the belief their pupils would drop their mother tongue and use the language of whites, “the flower of all education.”[35]

While employees at the Cushman school had a relatively easy time understanding the role in educating students in English, their jobs became increasingly difficult in the instruction of Indian education’s second main tenet: individuality. The seeming contradiction of a centralized federal government informing teachers and administrators to create “individuals” from a group as diverse as the students at the Cushman school was lost on educators of the time. In fact, records at the Cushman show quite the opposite; teachers and administrators relished the notion of instilling individuality and saw it as an essential element to their work.[36] Harry Liston spoke at the Pacific Coast Institute of Indian education on the matter of instilling individuality into the consciousness of those raised with a community-based ethos. “Many of our boys and girls are prone to depend upon others” he chided, “right here is the time to direct them in self-reliance and decision, so that they may learn to work independent of others.”[37] Liston’s concern was echoed throughout the nation as American educators, steeped in the belief of Americans as “rugged individuals,” worried that Indian children would have a difficult time breaking free of the communal mentality of Native American tribes.

This training in “self-reliance, decision and independence” enveloped all aspects of student/adult interaction in the classroom, but the contradictions in formalized “individuality” training were also apparent in the physical classroom.[38] In his book, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience 1875-1928, historian David Wallace Adams examined the rigid and linear nature of Indian school architecture, designs of classrooms and layouts of school grounds. He then used the spatial differences between traditional Indian conceptions of space and those at the school as evidence for his intriguing argument that “nature existed to serve man’s ends. In the interest of symmetry and order, the wild must be tamed, just as the Indian must be civilized.”[39] One way of ‘taming’ the wild was to create Indians in the image of the dominant WASPs fundamental to the dominant culture of the time was a formal caste for perceived gender roles.

Fundamental in American civilization at the time was a strict adherence to gender roles. Men were the breadwinners and women were the home-makers. The Cushman Indian School was designed as an agricultural and vocational training school with the higher aims of creating American citizens through the toil of hard work of the hands and cultivation of the intellect. While Indian education was an agent of the government in changing the lives and behaviors of their barbaric protectorate, it was by no means an avenue for societal change. Cushman aimed to educate students to become a mirror of the society of civilization that surrounded them. The genderized curriculum is readily apparent, because teachers always were to teach “with the [future] purpose in view.”[40] Therefore, boys and girls would receive the same classroom training, but entirely different vocational training. For boys, vocational education meant training students to labor as blacksmiths, tradesmen, or the most prized of all, farmers. For girls, vocational education meant preparing students for future motherhood or domestic service.

At the Cushman School, educators and administrators tried to mold Indian girls into the ideal American woman at the time. Based on the curriculum for girls, the ideal woman was one who was moderately capable in academic subjects but incredibly well-versed in the “domestic sciences.”[41] Robert Trennert, in his article “Educating Indian Girls at Nonreservation Boarding Schools, 1878-1920,” argues that nationally the education of girls was of great importance for Indian educators. Citing Captain Pratt as the root of this ideology, Trennert writes:

Essentially [Pratt] viewed the education of native girls as a supportive factor in the more important work of training boys. To enter American society, the Indian male needed a mate who would encourage his success and prevent any backsliding … Thus, a woman’s education was supremely important, not so much for her own benefit as for that of her husband.[42]

In this way, Indian education allows a keen entrée into the perspective of male-dominated turn-of-the-century America. Women were not people in their own right, and likewise, their education was not for their own growth. They were simply brought along to assist whites in the civilization of their beloved husbands and fathers.

Nationally, Indian education for young men centered on the principles of agricultural training to replace their typical modes of subsistence. But as with indoctrination of Christianity, the Cushman school does not fit national narrative. Puyallup Indian boys were trained to abandon their traditional mode of subsistence—fishing—in favor of industry, rather than agricultural. In 1910, after a number of years of the BIA attempting to switch the focus of the Cushman from industry to agriculture, the Commissioner went against the typical agency agenda. In a letter to Superintendent Johnson, BIA Commissioner Valentine wrote, “while it will be impossible to make [the Cushman] exclusively a trade school, in my judgment its chief function should be that and every effort should be made to build up this side of the school.” The rationale for such a switch is obvious; the Cushman was situated on the Puyallup Reservation but its proximity to the Port of Tacoma and of the industrial areas of town created an atmosphere ill-suited for agricultural training. This difference in geography from the “typical” Indian schools such as the Carlisle, Hampton, Tuskeegee and schools of the Great Plains make the Cushman an anomaly.

In the summer of 1909, in a letter to Cushman Superintendent Johnson, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs wrote that through agricultural education “Indians may be led in an inductive way to see that they can largely improve their comforts, add to their general prosperity, and finally become self-supporting by their own efforts.”[43] Five years later, in a memorandum to all Indian school Superintendents, the Commissioner wrote that the main “opportunity for advancement among Indians is largely agricultural and stock raising. The Indians own the land and with proper encouragement can so develop their possessions as to insure ultimate self-support.”[44] Furthermore, the Commissioner went on to write that Indians, with their large swaths of grassland, have “within [their] reach” the opportunity to become the farming or “cattle king of America.”[45] Indian educators, the thinking went, could inductively aid this process of transforming slovenly, lazy Indians into industrious Christians by knowing the Indians and their needs well. But a contradiction lay in the Commissioner’s words. He advocated that employees should “understand their condition and substantially aid them in their forward march toward self-support and equipment for citizenship.”[46] Despite the Commissioners urging of his employees to “know” the Indians, the Commissioner did not seem to realize that Indians and their schools extended beyond the grasslands, great farms, open spaces and apparent bastions of rural democratic citizenship. For people living on the Puget Sound, the quaint notion of a forty acre farm and a log cabin simply was not reality.

The disparate values of the whites and of the Indians become readily apparent in the discussion of the third tenet of Indian education: Christianity. Nationally, Indian educators saw Christian indoctrination as a goal of utmost importance. In the minds of educators, Christianity’s dogmatic lessons on morality, character and virtue made it a logical choice for instruction and practice. But for whatever reason, the Cushman was not a center of Christianization. On Sundays, Protestant, Presbyterian and Catholic churches were all invited to hold services at the school.[47] Substantial numbers of students affiliated with Protestant denominations and so ministers of different Protestant and Presbyterian denominations did in fact give school services but fewer students than anticipated actually attended.[48] Interestingly, fully one-third of the students were self-proclaimed Catholics and the Catholic Church did not provide its Indian student congregation with on-site services.[49] In 1911, Cushman Superintendent H.H. Johnson sulked on this point because “during the time that Protestant children are in attendance at religious exercises, the Catholic children are at liberty. This is demoralizing to the discipline of the school….”[50] Though the extent to which the Catholic Church’s lack of presence actually did have a demoralizing effect of the discipline of the school is unknown, the fact that Johnson mentioned it in his letter to the Commissioner speaks to the importance Superintendent Johnson held with regards to the Church and Christianization of his school.

Though curriculum goals of English, individuality and Christian principles of morality were important to the educators at Indian schools, the larger aim was using these templates as agents towards Indian children becoming citizens. It is true that after the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887 all Indians on reservations became “citizens” of the United States. But it was not until the government was able to instill a sense of American history, government, and values that Indians could truly become Americans. To this end, in 1890, three years after the Dawes Act was codified into law, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs decreed, “The general purpose of the Government is the preparation of Indian youth for assimilation into the national life by such a course of training as will prepare them for the duties and privileges of American citizenship.”[51] As we have seen with the Christianization of Indian youth, sometimes national directives did not always funnel down to the Cushman School. However, in the case of citizenship training, they did. The Cushman school incorporated activities and exercises both in and out of the classroom in an effort to achieve these ends.

In the summer of 1913, in conjunction with George Washington’s birthday, the students of the Cushman School were invited to recreate a commemorative ceremony “in honor of the North American Indian.”[52] At this ceremony, the students would honor the “noble and worthy and virile qualities of Indian character” by celebrating their traditional heritage, complete with “native regalia” while listening, via phonograph, to the words of President Woodrow Wilson.[53] The original ceremony took place in Fort Wadsworth, New York, and was highlighted by the signing of a “Declaration of Allegiance” to the United States by the eleven tribes in attendance.[54]

The “Declaration of Allegiance” is a telling document about government perspective of Indian relations at the time and gives us insight into the government’s means of indoctrinating Native Americans. The Declaration, written from the Native American point of view, stated:

We, the undersigned representatives of various Indian tribes of the United States, through our presence and the part we have taken in the inauguration of this memorial to our people, renew our allegiance to the glorious flag of the United States, and offer our hearts to our country’s service. We greatly appreciate the honor and privilege extended by our white brothers who have recognized us by inviting us to participate in the ceremonies of this historical occasion.

The Indian is fast losing his identity in the face of the great waves of Caucasian civilization which are extending to the four winds of this country, and we want fuller knowledge, in order that we may take our places in the civilization which surrounds us.

Though a conquered race, with our right hands extended in brotherly love, and our left hands holding the Pipe of Peace, we hereby bury all past ill feeling and proclaim abroad to all the nations of the world our firm allegiance to this nation and to the stars and stripes, and declare that henceforth and forever in all walks of life and every field of endeavor we shall be as brothers, striving hand in hand, and will return to our people and tell them the story of this memorial, and urge upon them their continued allegiance to our common country.[55]

Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs Abbott aptly summarized the opinion of an elated government by remarking, “So beautiful and patriotic is the sentiment contained in this declaration that its influence cannot fail to be helpful to all who may read or hear it.”[56]

However telling Commissioner Abbott’s comments may be about the government’s perspective on the “Declaration of Allegiance,” it is important that we dissect this document more completely.

The “Declaration of Allegiance” exemplifies a number of important ways by which the government attempted to foster beliefs within students of the Cushman school that their traditional ways of life were antiquated, and that the government and civilization were the way of an inevitable future. Within the “Declaration,” the mention of the flag has special significance. This was an active effort to indoctrinate Indian youths with American icons, and mention of an “allegiance to the glorious flag” shows how the government tried to get Indians to affiliate with an idea, an icon, and not necessarily with the government itself. For the government, creating a connection between Indians and the “glorious flag” through events such as the re-creation of the Declaration ceremony helped them instill patriot American values within the Indian. The government’s attempt to create a connection between Indian and idea is evident in the passage stating that the “Indian is fast losing his identity in the face of the great waves of Caucasian civilization.” Here, government, white people and civilization are conflated into a wave that will sweep all Indians into one inevitable future.  

The words of Acting Commissioner Abbott show another, even more subtle way of linking up Indians nationally with the idea of the government, and the Indian’s future: technology. The Department of the Interior used a phonograph at this traveling re-creation of the signing ceremony to bring the voice of the President, the Secretary of the Interior and the power of white progress to the ears of Indians.[57] This examination of the obscure traveling re-creation of the “Declaration of Allegiance” is an elaborate, subtle and helpful way of understanding how the government shaped its message to Indian people, but is by no means the only example. Every day at the Cushman school the message of the government was consciously and sub-consciously sent to Indian students. But despite the efforts of well-intention educators at the Cushman school, with what they believed to be noble aims for the time, by the turn of the century it is clear that the vocational curriculum of which stressed training in English, individuality, Christianity, and citizenship had failed to produce the Americans they desired.[58]

By 1902, a problem had manifested itself for the “friends of the Indian” on the Puyallup Reservation and at the Cushman Indian Trades School. This year marked the end of the moratorium imposed by the Dawes Act on the sale of Indian reservation lands to whites. The removal of the Dawes moratorium was significant because it allowed Puyallups to sell the land surrounding the school. The land on the Puyallup reservation and surrounding the school (though miniscule in comparison to some other reservations), had acted as a partial buffer to the mingling of Tacoma’s citizens and the Cushman students. In short, after 1902, when land was able to be freely sold by the Puyallup Indians, the students at the Cushman began to have a progressively more intimate relationship with the white residents of Tacoma and its environs. To be sure, this mingling of the races had always occurred to a certain extent, but it would become increasingly frequent and problematic for the Cushman students.

Conversely, at off-reservation schools such as the Carlisle, student interaction with whites was controlled. Educators attempted to inculcate their students with white persons who personified the best the white race had to offer. At the Cushman, educators had no such luxury. The bounds between classroom learning about the “real-world” and participating in the “real world” became increasingly fluid. In the winter of 1910, Bureau of Indian Affairs Inspector, Samuel F. O’Fallon, issued a report to Cushman Superintendent Johnson. The reprimanded Johnson, among other things, stated that since his visit during year prior that the “[students] have not improved morally... and there is small hope of any great improvement in the future… You should in every way possible prevent the sale of intoxicants to these Indians.”[59] O’Fallon’s remarks strike at the heart of the issue facing Indian educators at the Cushman during this time. Despite their efforts in the classroom, the students were corrupted outside of the classroom. This issue puzzled O’Fallon as he went on to write “that the other tribes have not been adversely affected to any material extent by contact with the whites.”[60] And while we must be cognizant of the danger in taking O’Fallon’s summation at face value, it points to the possibility that there was something was unique about the Cushman. Other tribes had not been negatively affected by contact with whites, so why then would this problem arise at the Cushman?

The topic of the Cushman school and the state of the Puyallup reservation was broached in report to the Department of the Interior concerning Indians in the State of Washington. Charles M. Buchanan, Superintendent and Special Disbursing Agent for the Tulalip Reservation, issued an interesting statement regarding his Indian neighbors and protectorates, the Puyallup. Speaking of the Puyallups and the effect of the Dawes Act on the status of their citizenship, finances, real estate dealings and apparent collective alchoholism, Buchanan wrote:

The Puyallup Indians have had citizenship for some time, and now have the reputation among our people here of being a worthless lot of drunken Indians, who have lost most of their property, self-respect, health, homes, and all that they possessed, except their citizenship, which they still retain intact, but disfigured and shop worn from too much contact with exhilarating spirits.[61]

Buchanan’s tone indicates a certain degree of pessimism placed on the notion of citizenship. He writes of all the other losses the Puyallup Indians have encountered seemingly stemming from alcoholism, but then notes, almost as an aside, that they have retained their citizenship. He seems to place little importance on this fact, as if to wonder, “What good is citizenship in relation to what else is happening in their lives?” Buchanan’s point, while veiled beneath cynicism, is representative of the government’s perception of the Puyallup Indians.

To a certain degree, the government and the educators at the Cushman had just cause to carry a negative perception of the students. A fair number of the students, both male and female engaged in “immoral” behavior. Historian Charles Roberts, documents the promiscuity and truancy of the students in great detail in his essay, “The Cushman Indian Trades School and World War I.”[62] For the boys at the Cushman, World War I brought with it the promise of high wages, steady jobs and subsequently the desire to desert the school.[63] For the girls at the Cushman, World War I brought an influx of sailors and soldiers into Tacoma as they arrived on recreational leave, bringing with them alcohol, disease and the ability to tarnish a girl’s “good name.”[64]

Though school administrators lamented the loss of their female students to the world of ill repute, each time a young woman stepped off the reservation and got into trouble it strengthened the administrations belief in its own righteous cause. One such case occurred in the fall of 1918 when two girls escaped from the Cushman to see a picture show in downtown Tacoma. They met up with a couple of soldiers on leave and in a personal letter to a fellow Indian administrator, Superintendent Hammond wrote that the soldiers gave one of girls “all that was coming to her.”[65] And went on to state that the girl was not “amenable to gentler methods and will undoubtedly still further disgrace herself and her people” and so, he had her sent to a state reform school.[66] Another pair of female students would again sneak off to the picture show in Tacoma only to be returned by school officials to the police matron to be medically examined for signs of promiscuous behavior. The police matron reported no sexually behavior from the night before but informed Superintendent Hammonds and a police officer in attendance that one girl had already lost her virginity and another had a chronic case of gonorrhea. Both girls were dismissed from the school.[67] These cases are effectively used by Roberts to highlight the overtly “immoral” behavior and the resulting actions by the Cushman administration but are understood in context to be only a small sampling of a more pervasive problem with student behavior.

While the reports of the female students are troubling, it would seem that the behavior of the males is more understandable. Roberts treats male truants with more understanding because in his summation, the primary purpose for their poor behavior was a desire to capitalize on the surging economy and lack of labor in the Tacoma area. But again, like the administrators dealings with truant females, males who left the school grounds also reinforced the Cushman administration’s position of paternal benevolence. Though Superintendent Hammond admittedly understood that the males were leaving for higher wages but remained puzzled as to why students would be willing to “throw away their chances to graduate” in order to make a quick dollar.[68] Ever the loving father, Hammond went on to write that he stood “ready to help them in every way possible to make good” and become the Americans that they were capable of becoming.[69]

As Roberts’ reports in his essay, by the time of World War I such activity on the part of the students was not uncommon and in fact, discipline for truancies and immoral behavior became one of the major preoccupations of school administrators. To some, World War I provided an opportunity for boys to entrench their masculinity with respectable jobs and for girls to explore their emerging sexuality as adolescents of both sexes are prone to do. However this view of student behavior was not held at the Cushman. At the Cushman, reports of student truancy, sexual promiscuity as well as other adolescent student behavior was a serious insult to agents of the government because it undercut the high aims of the school—to create ideal Americans.

The ability for Puyallup Indians to sell their land and the burgeoning population of Tacoma coincided with the onset of World War I and the labor needs of a nation at war, to spell an end for the Cushman Indian Trades School during the early twentieth. Despite the best efforts of Cushman educators and “friends of the Indian,” the school eventually closed in 1920. It had served the Puyallup tribe and other Indians students in the Northwest for over fifty years. But the question remains: to what ends? Was the education of the students at the Cushman successful? This answer, of course, depends on one’s definition of success. But it is true that the students who graduated from the Cushman were literate, and as Buchanan stated, they were technically citizens. Their level of individuality is difficult to measure and their adherence to Judeo-Christian principles was widely varied and their patriotic sentiments are unknown. Herein lies one shortcomings of this particular examination. Little evidence is shown of Indian students and instead the focus is on merely on the role of Indian boarding schools and the federal government in the lives of Indian students. We now have a foundation for understanding the perspective of the government and Indian school administrators at the Cushman school but a crucial gap in our understanding lies in the lack of personal accounts by Indian students at the Cushman. Further study should include an approach which delves deeper into the lives of individual students, their time at the Cushman, and how they adjusted once they left the Cushman school all in an effort to answer, “Was the Cushman School actually able to transform “barbaric” Indians into the “civilized” Americans the government hoped they would become?

After having examined the goals, means, and ends of the Cushman school from the perspective of the government and Indian school administrators, the answer would seem to be that the students at the Cushman school did not become the Americanized individuals that the government desired. And their failure to do so was no fault of their own. The fault lies in the conception of what is truly American. The government wanted students who were educated, rugged individuals, with Christian beliefs, and a deeply rooted sense of patriotism for their country, for their government, for America. This desire on the part of a paternal government is flawed because the government was holding their desires for the “uncivilized Indian” to a higher standard than the white Americans. All around the Cushman students lurked whites looking to make a dollar off of the naivety of the Indian, people who professed their Christian beliefs and repented their sins on Sunday after a weekend of blowing their paycheck on booze and broads. It is correct to say that, like their white counterparts, an unfortunately high number of Indians on the Puyallup reservation lacked foresight in their real estate deals, proceeded to sell their land, got rich quick, got poor even faster, and apparently were drunk throughout. Students did not value their education and constantly depended on their newly appointed “Great Father” to take care of them. But whose fault is this?

Indian education at the Cushman School and at the hundreds of schools like it across the country during the era of Progress serve as a provocative and telling study of our nation’s past. Here, under the light of historical inquiry, the narratives of cultural assimilation, educational indoctrination and national progress all blend together in the name of helping Indian children “become more like white children.”[70] Due to the proximity of the Cushman to Tacoma, there existed a fluid barrier between American classroom education and “real-world” Americanization. At the Cushman, student learning did not exist in a vacuum. And it is on this point that the work of historians such as David Wallace Adams and Francis Paul Prucha falls short. They primarily examined schools which existed alone on the plains and in rural environs. The Carlisle was, in part, successful at its mission because there were no competing sources of Americanization. At the Cushman, in Tacoma, there were. For educators, part of the difficulty in “Americanizing” Indian children at the Cushman school is that students were quite adept at Americanizing themselves. So in a perversely ironic sense, Indian students at the Cushman failed to become the government’s Americanized ideal because they became did in fact become American—all too American and they did so in the name of progress.

 

PRIMARY SOURCES

Acting Chief Clerk to Superintendent of the Puyallup Indian School, H.H. Johnson, July 7, 1909, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration”, April 17 1909 to May 3 1910, National Archives and Records Administration, Seattle WA, Record Group 75.

Acting Commissioner Abbott of Indian Affairs to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, April 12, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913 NARA, RG 75.

Acting Commissioner Abbott of Indian Affairs to Superintendent of the Cushman Indian School H.H. Johnson, April 24, 1913, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913 NARA, RG 75.

Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, April 17, 1909, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration”, April 17 1909 to May 3 1910 NARA, RG 75.

Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, November 15, 1909, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration”, April 17 1909 to May 3 1910 NARA, RG 75.

Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs E.B. Merritt to Superintendent C.E. McChesney, February 14, 1914, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 3, July 7, 1913 to June 8, 1914 NARA, RG 75.

Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs E.B. Merritt to T.G. Bishop, President of the Northwestern Federation of American Indians, November 22, 1915, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 5, June 3, 1915 to December 29, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs E.B. Merritt to Superintendent of the Tulalip Indian School, Dr. Chas. M. Buchanan, March 31, 1915, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 4, March 1, 1915 to May 27 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, January 14, 1911, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 1, January 5, 1909 to March 30, 1911 NARA, RG 75.

Appendix: Briefs of Proceedings, Papers, and Discussions at Institutes Pacific Coast Institute. Report prepared for U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tacoma, WA: 1890-1910. Online. Available from http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT =/lctext&CISOPTR=1332.

Chief Clerk to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, July 7 1909, Correspondences with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder titled, “Educational Administration,” April 17 1909 to May 3 1910 NARA, RG 75.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs to All Reservation Superintendents (received by: C.E. McChesney), April 5, 1914, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 3, July 7, 1913 to June 8, 1914 NARA, RG 75.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Public Schools Contract for six Squaxin tribe student to be admitted to the Mason County Public School system, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 4, June 9, 1914 to February 16, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, November 4, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 1, January 5, 1909 to March 30, 1911 NARA, RG 75.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs E.B. Merritt to Superintendent Thomas B. Wilson, January 4, 1915, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 4, June 9, 1914 to February 16, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Superintendent Thomas B. Wilson, February 4, 1915, Correspondence with the Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 4, June 9, 1914 to February 16, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Superintendent Thomas B. Wilson, April 5, 1915, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 5, March 1, 1915 to May 27, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Superintendent Thomas B. Wilson, June 28, 1915, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 5, June 3, 1915 to December 29, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Comptroller Geo E. Downey to the Secretary of the Interior, October 22, 1913, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 3, July 7, to June 8, 1914 NARA, RG 75.

Cubberly, Ellwood P. Changing Conceptions of Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1909.

Department of the Interior. “Medicine Creek Treaty,” 3 March 1855. Accessed on 13 Nov. 2004; available from http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/ResearchCenter/ Indians-page%206.htm.

Department of the Interior, Superintendent and Special Disbursing Agent, Charles M. Buchanan, “Report to the Superintendent in Charge of Puyallup Consolidated Agency,” accessed on, 9 September 2004 available from http://content.lib.washington/edu/lctext/image/1901-391.gif.

Memorandum, “To All Reservation Superintendents,” April 5, 1914, Folder No. 3, July 7 1913 – June 8 1914 NARA, RG 75.

Report of Inspector Jimmy O’Fallon to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, January 17, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration”, April 17 1909 to May 3 1910 NARA, RG 75.

Second Assistant to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hawke to Superintendent H.H.             Johnson, March 14, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs,             Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913 NARA, RG 75.

Second Assistant Commissioner G.S. Hawke to Superintendent Thomas B. Wilson, February 11, 1915, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 4, June 9, 1914 to February 16, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

Secretary R.A. Ballinger to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, February 1, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration”, April 17 1909 to May 3 1910 NARA, RG 75.

Superintendent “Unknown” to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, May 3, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration”, April 17 1909 to May 3 1910 NARA, RG 75.

Superintendent H.H. Johnson to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs’ Private Secretary, August 20, 1913, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 3, July 7 1913 to June 8, 1914 NARA, RG 75.  

Superintendent H.H. Johnson to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, March 23, 1911, Press Copies of Letters to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 6, July 18, 1910 to March 31, 1911 NARA, RG 75.

Superintendent Thomas B. Wilson to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 28, 1915, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 5, June 3, 1915 to December 29, 1915 NARA, RG 75.

U.S. Congress. Senate. The Dawes Severalty Act of 1887. Accessed on 13 Nov. 2004; available from http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0600/frameset_reset.html.

 

SECONDARY SOURCES

Adams, David Wallace. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience 1875-1928. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1995.

Ahern, Wilbert H. “An Experiment Aborted: Returned Indian Students in the Indian School Service, 1881-1908.” Ethnohistory, 2nd ser., 44 (spring 1997), 263-304.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Ed. Squire, James. A New Look at Progressive Education Washington: ASCD, 1972.

Barsh, Lawrence Russell. “Puget Sound Indian Demography, 1900-1920: Migration and Economic Integration.” Ethnohistory, 1st ser., 43 (winter 1996), 65-97.

Harmon, Alexandra. Indians in the Making: Ethnic Relations and Indian Identities around Puget Sound. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Hoxie, Frederick E. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians 1880 – 1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

Lewis, David Rich. Neither Wolf Nor Dog: American Indians, Environment and Agrarian Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.  

Lomawaima, K. Tsianina. They Called It Prairie Light: The Story of the Chilocco Indian School. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

Marcson, Simon. “Ethnic and Class Education.” The Journal of Negro Education. 1st ser., 13 (winter 1944), 57-63.

Nolan, James L., Jr. The Therapeutic State: justifying government at century’s end. New York: New York University, 1998.

Porter III, Frank W. “In Search of Recognition: Federal Indian Policy and the Landless Tribes of Western Washington.” American Indian Quarterly, 2nd ser., 14 (Spring, 1990), 113-132.

Prucha, Francis Paul. Americanizing the American Indians: Writing by the “Friends of the Indians” 1880 – 1900. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

-----The Churches and the Indian Schools 1888-1912. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979.

-----The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Vol. II. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

Roberts, Charles. “The Cushman Indian Trades School and World War I.” American Indian Quarterly, 3rd ser., 11 (summer 1987): 221-239.

Spring, Joel. Deculturization and the Struggle for Equality: A Brief History of the Education of Dominated Cultures in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994.

Stephanson, Anders. Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right. New York: Hill and Wang, Division of Farrar, Strous and Giroux, 1995.

Trennert Jr., Robert A. “Educating Girls at Nonreservation Boarding Schools, 1878-1920.” The Western Historical Quarterly, 3rd ser., 13 (July 1982), 271-290.

-----“Selling Indian Education at World’s Fairs and Expositions, 1893-1904.” American Indian Quarterly, 3rd ser., 11 (summer 1987), 203-220.

 

Tyack, David B. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.

 


[1] Charles Roberts, “The Cushman Indian Trades School and World War I.” American Indian Quarterly, 3rd ser., 11 (summer 1987), 221. Memorandum, “To All Reservation Superintendents” from Commissioner for Indian Affairs, April 5, 1914, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. 3, July 7 1913 – June 8 1914. Information regarding the history of the Puyallup School for Indian Education to the Cushman Indian Trades School can be accessed at the National Archives and Records Administration, Seattle. Secretary of Washington State R. A. Ballinger to the Commissioner for Indian Affairs, February 1, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration,” April 17 1909 to May 3 1910, National Archives and Records Administration, Seattle, WA, Record Group 75.

[2] Pacific Coast Institute, August 20-25, Tacoma Wash., available from http://content.lib.washington.edu/ cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=1417., accessed on, 9 September 2004.

[3] Ibid.

[4] David Tyack, The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974), 130-2.

[5] Ibid., 180.

[6] Discussion of “social efficiency” and relations to student future found in, David Tyack, The One Best System, 180 and Ellwood P. Cubberly, Changing Conceptions of Education, 56-7.

[7] Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), James Squire, ed. A New Look at Progressive Education (Washington: ASCD, 1972), 7-8.

[8] David Tyack, One Best System, 130-2.

[9] John O’ Sullivan, “Manifest Destiny,” 1839. Available from http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/ index.asp?document=668., accessed on 9 November 2004.

[10] David Rich Lewis, Neither Wolf Nor Dog, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 13 and 16.

[11] Henry Lewis Morgan, Ancient Society; or, Researches in the lines of human progress from savagery, through barbarism to civilization, (New York: Holt and Company, 1877) and David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience 1876-1928 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 14

[12] U.S. Congress, Senate, The Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, Accessed on 13 Nov. 2004; available from http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0600/frameset_reset.html.

[13] Ibid.

[14] See David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 18.

[15] Ibid., 19.

[16] Pacific Coast Institute, 427., available from http://content.lib.washington.edu/ cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=1417. Charles Roberts, “The Cushman Indian Trades School and World War I.” Simon Marcson, “Ethnic and Class Education,”The Journal for Negro Education 1 st ser., 13 (winter 1944), 57-63. As well as David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 22-24.

[17] David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 20.

[18] David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 11.

[19] Ibid., 51.

[20] Ibid., 49.

[21] Ibid., 55.

[22] Captain Richard Henry Pratt, “The Advantages of Mingling Indians with Whites,” 56 Also, Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association, 1895, 2, 5, and Proceedings of the Lake Mohonk Conference of Friends of the Indian. Referenced from David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 52.

[23] Ibid., 100-107.

[24] One such study by Tsianina K. Lomawaima, They Called It Prairie Light: the story of the Chilocco Indian School, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994) is an excellent example of how other historians have been able to examine single-schools which do not necessary fall into the Carlisle, Hampton and Tuskeegee mold.

[25] Ibid.

[26] The name of the Puyallup Industrial Boarding School was changed to the Cushman Indian Trade School on February, 1st 1910 after in honor of Judge and Representative of Washington to the United States Congress, Francis W. Cushman, who was instrumental in creating legislation to continue Indian education in the state of Washington. Secretary of Washington State R. A. Ballinger to the Commissioner for Indian Affairs, February 1, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration,” April 17 1909 to May 3 1910, NARA, RG 75.

[27] Department of the Interior, “Medicine Creek Treaty,” signed, 26 December 1854, became law, 3 March 1855, accessed on 13 November 2004; available from http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/ResearchCenter/ Indians-page%206.htm.

[28] Memorandum, “To All Reservation Superintendents,” April 5, 1914, Folder No. 3, July 7 1913 – June 8 1914 NARA, RG 75.

[29] Memorandum, “To All Reservation Superintendents,” April 5, 1914, Folder No. 3, July 7 1913 – June 8 1914 NARA, RG 75.

[30] Ibid.

[31] David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 21-24.

[32] Second Assistant to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hawke to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, March 14, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913, NARA, RG 75.

[33] Ibid.

[34]Second Assistant to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hawke to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, March 14, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913, NARA, RG 75.                                                         

[35] Ibid.

[36] Pacific Coast Institute, August 20-25, Tacoma Wash., available from http://content.lib.washington.edu/ cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=1417., accessed on, 9 September 2004.

[37] Pacific Coast Institute, 427., available from http://content.lib.washington.edu/ cgi-bin/docviewer.exe? CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=1417.

[38] Pacific Coast Institute, 427., available from http://content.lib.washington.edu/ cgi-bin/docviewer.exe? CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=1417.

[39] David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 114.

[40] Second Assistant to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hawke to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, March 14, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913, NARA, RG 75.

[41] Acting Commissioner Abbott to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, April 12, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913, NARA, RG 75 .

[42] Robert A. Trennert, “Educating Indian Girls at Nonreservation Boarding Schools, 1878 – 1920,” 3rd ser., 13 (July 1982), 277.

[43] Chief Clerk to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, July 7 1909, Correspondences with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder titled, “Educational Administration,” April 17 1909 to May 3 1910, NARA, RG 75.

[44] Memorandum, “To All Reservation Superintendents,” April 5, 1914, Folder No. 3, July 7 1913 – June 8 1914, NARA, RG 75.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Superintendent H.H. Johnson to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, March, 23, 1911, Press Copies of Letters to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1910 – 1912, Folder No. 6, July 18, 1910 to March 31, 1911, NARA, RG 75.

[48] Superintendent H.H. Johnson to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, March, 23, 1911, Press Copies of Letters to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1910 – 1912, Folder No. 6, July 18, 1910 to March 31, 1911, NARA, RG 75.

[49] Ibid. It should be noted to this point that as to the legality of Christian education in a federally funded public school according to the work of this researcher, no objections were ever raised.

[50] Ibid.

[51] David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction, 24.

[52] Acting Commissioner Abbott to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, April 24, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913, NARA, RG 75.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Acting Commissioner Abbott to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, April 24, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913, NARA, RG 75.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Acting Commissioner Abbott to Superintendent H.H. Johnson, April 24, 1913, Correspondence with Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No.2, July 2, 1912 to June 1913, NARA, RG 75.

[58] Report of the Inspector, Samuel F. O’Fallon to Superintendent Johnson, Jan. 11, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration,” April 17 1909 to May 3 1910, NARA, RG 75.

[59] Report of the Inspector, Samuel F. O’Fallon to Superintendent Johnson, Jan. 11, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration,” April 17 1909 to May 3 1910, NARA, RG 75.

[60] Report of the Inspector, Samuel F. O’Fallon to Superintendent Johnson, Jan. 11, 1910, Correspondence with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Folder No. Unknown, Folder title, “Educational Administration,” April 17 1909 to May 3 1910, NARA, RG 75.

[61] Department of the Interior, Superintendent and Special Disbursing Agent, Charles M. Buchanan, “Report to the Superintendent in Charge of Puyallup Consolidated Agency,” accessed on, 9 September 2004 available from http://content.lib.washington/edu/lctext/image/1901-391.gif.

[62] Charles Roberts, “The Cushman Indian Trades School and World War I,” American Indian Quarterly, 3rd ser., 11 (Summer, 1987), 221-239.

[63] Ibid., 231-235.

[64] Ibid., 232-235.

[65] Ibid., 233.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Charles Roberts, “The Cushman Indian Trades School and World War I,” 234.

[68] Ibid., 232.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Department of the Interior, Superintendent and Special Disbursing Agent, Charles M. Buchanan, “Report to the Superintendent in Charge of Puyallup Consolidated Agency 1905,” accessed on, 9 September 2004 available from http://content.lib.washington/edu/lctext/image/1901-391.gif.