A Quickly Written Western History Paper
The Effects of the Bison Extermination
When we picture the American bison, we think of a large brown cow-like mammal, and rightfully so. It was practically the largest land mammal in North America, once numbering in the tens of millions across the “East of the Mississippi and West of the Rockies,” and their disappearance became one of the greatest transformations of The Great Plains (White, p. 216). While this paper focuses on how or why the near extermination of the bison in the late 19th century undermined the economic and cultural autonomy of Plains Indian Tribes, which arguably was due to white settlement and overhunting, it is important to recognize that other factors also played a significant role. These might be “drought, cold [weather], predators, and competition of other grazing animals account[ing] for much of the decline.” (Isenberg, p. 2). Before European arrival, there were many natural fluctuations in the bison’s population attributed to environmental conditions that exceed the scopes of this paper. Further, there is a common narrative that Native Americans were always conservative in their use of resources, with this seemingly profound connection to nature, taking only what they needed (i.e., this a concept called “aboriginal environmentalism”). Indeed, bison hunting and other resources held sacred meaning for many Native groups that would justify this behavior, though this assumption is not entirely accurate either, considering their transition to nomadism affected the amount of impact it would realistically create.
The introduction of horses would cause some tribes to “reinvent themselves as equestrian nomads in the High Plains,” there was incentive to stay active to avoid disease, track and follow animal migrations for food, and adapt to weather or seasonal patterns, all the while the rise of the fur trade provided opportunities to make considerable profit “sometimes wast[ing] large amounts of their kills” in pursuit of selling what they obtained (Isenberg, pp. 2–3; 10). In fact, there are many accounts describing this seemingly contrary behavior. For instance, a Hudson Bay Company agent Anthony Henday observed the Indians “kill[ing] [the bison] with bows and arrows” for their “tongues [which could be traded] and left the meat for the wolves” (Colloway, p. 275). Or look through Charles McKenzie’s observations, where “the [Cheyenne] often, for the mere sport, make an onslaught…select[ing] the part of the animal…that best suits his own tastes, and leaves the rest to decay” (Isenberg, p. 85). However, it is necessary to differentiate between practices done by “understanding its abundance in nature” and those “motivated by market profits.” The Sioux killing 1500 plus bison in a day to bring their tongues and hides to trading forts was much different than the Cheyenne killing less than 250 for an occasional social celebration (Isenberg, pp. 85, 103). There was a reason for both, yes, but the influences behind that reasoning are inherently mutually exclusive.
One might begin to characterize this as rooted in the idea of a “white’s nature exist[ing] as a collection of commodities,” gradually corrupting the Native peoples over time as they adapted in response (White, p. 212). Europeans came to believe that people who produced “only what they themselves could use” were really just “relics of backwardness and barbarism,” using their “resources inefficiently…and, because of that, they deserved to lose them” (White, p. 236). Hence, it is reasonable to believe that this mindset likely emerged from a capitalist perspective, one in which settlers sought to exploit Native populations, while many Natives, believing they were benefiting from trade and interaction (which in many cases they temporarily were), perhaps participated willingly. After all, Europeans had long since treated “imperialism as mercantilism,” to better serve the interests of the motherland overseas (White, p. 27). If they could find a way to insert themselves into an already established trading market or influence the production of more efficient ones with the existing, why would they not? Of course, this was more variable than what is provided or accounted for in this paper, some European countries were considerably “better” allies (perhaps like the French), with certain Native tribes gaining advantages through trade, offering them weapons or tools like guns, while others resorted to outright enslavement to get the resources they wanted (more commonly the Spanish). It all depends on the methods of conquering and ruling over locations, I suppose.
Many Native Americans even refused to participate, as exemplified by Pawnees who enjoyed their villages and denied the offer to become nomads, or Assiniboines still finding that the wild ox supplied them with everything they could possibly want (Isenberg, pp. 81, 114). This may suggest that mercantilist practices were not naturally adopted by Natives, but often had to be pressured or imposed upon them. Notice, there were undeniably racist motivations tied to these actions as well; consider, for instance, their interactions with the United States and the term “manifest destiny.” U.S. federal authorities “supported the [19th century] hunt because they saw the extermination of the bison as a means to force Indians to submit to the reservation system,” with General William T. Sherman reportedly telling the Army to absolutely slaughter the bison, instructing them to “send ten regiments of soldiers to the plains, with orders to shoot buffaloes until they became too scarce to support the Redskins” (Isenberg, p. 3; Smits, p. 317). Here, rather than seeking a sort of “integration,” as seen before, the perception of these tribes as “uncivilized,” combined with the desire for Westward expansion, became justifications for chasing their ideal of “progress,” of which, unfortunately, the Native Americans were seen as massive obstacles to this. We will revisit this topic later but realize that the bison, by being of value to the Natives, likewise “stood in the way of civilization and in the path of progress” (Smits, p. 333). This was their most prominent lingering concern.
Let us briefly focus on both aspects presented above—it is sensible to suggest that these animals made up a significant part of the Plains Indians’ diet and way of life. Not only was this the reason it was used as a threat, where the equivalence “every buffalo dead is an Indian gone” is made, but it provided the protein, trade commodity, and tools or clothing for Indians to survive (Smits, p. 328). Thus, whether the bison were targeted for trade profit or as a means of forcing submission, the result was the same, it meant taking away something essential to their survival and identity. On the other hand, one of these initial shifts was the significant reduction in farming, which, while unrelated to the bison extinction directly, reshaped many of their traditions and roles. Note, a sedentary lifestyle with agriculture and permanent villages is fundamentally different from a nomadic one, where constant movement would have rendered traditional farming practices difficult to maintain. Corn was once among the most prominent crops for them, which was cultivated across much of the continent. Native communities not only grew it in large quantities, but managed their agricultural land in sophisticated ways such as “divert[ing] streams to water wild plants” and using intentional “burning practices” to maintain or provide nutrients to the land, going on to foster wildlife they would later hunt (White, p. 3–4). But they did more than just farm corn, they practically revered it.
Tribes would sing “songs when the corn was knee-high, songs when the tassels were formed, songs when the ears were formed, [and] songs when they were ripe” (Calloway, p. 68). There are ancient stories about people transforming into corn as they return to the Earth; emphasizing this “new ideology [that] revered corn as the staple of life and women as its cultivators [who] were becoming economically empowered” (Calloway, p. 67). Many tribal women would use tools like hoes made from buffalo scapulas and tended their crops “as a mother cherishes her children” (Calloway, p. 112). Even Lewis and Clark on their expedition referred to these Native villages as a “cornucopia” that brought dozens of Plains tribes together for trading or sharing meals (Calloway, p. 113). My point is that while Plains tribes certainly hunted bison for protein and hide, respecting them just the same, there was less incentive to do so on a large scale before the European and white influence came in with their massive markets. This is why the earlier distinction between “subsistence” and “prosperity in profit” was necessary; the European and American influence on bison was exceptionally high on their cultural relation to natural crops and, as we will see next, the existence of bison herds. Additionally, it is generally easier to place less value on things as they begin to fade away or as they become too abundant, especially in this case.
Now, the paragraphs above were not meant to dismiss or ignore the cultural attachment to the bison; like the crops, there were many associated traditions that transferred or remained over the years. If anything, the lack of incentive early on shows how impactful and meaningful the relationship of having that noble bison sacrifice really was. One could simply imagine being made to adopt a new system of living, only to subsequently realize that the system itself was both deliberately imposed and becoming increasingly unsustainable. This would be devastating to anyone, no? As it turns out, in the 18th century, many societies that would become nomadic “abandoned their ecological safety nets in order to concentrate year-round on bison hunting,” as it was “more secure and profitable” in the sense it provided them with greater comforts and foods at the time (Calloway, p. 310; White, p. 21). Women, who had traditionally engaged in “horticulture or gathering or both,” took on new roles focused on the “dressing of meat and tanning of hides” (Isenberg, p. 47). After the devastating Smallpox epidemic, tribes like the Cheyenne and the Sioux completely abandoned agriculture and traveled around the plains, relying on trade as a new ecological safety net because it “ensure[d] a [greater] diversity of resources” (i.e., this is quite similar to the economic principle of “comparative advantage”) (Isenberg, pp. 47, 59). These practices might have been sustainable without foreign intervention, but any person could see that dependence on one item alone is inherently risky regardless of external circumstances.
Therefore, this can be seen as an all-or-nothing endeavor for these tribes, because what is secure does not necessarily have to continue to be secure. But they built their whole livelihood around hunting bison, hoping it would remain both profitable and tradeable, among themselves and within the markets created by Europeans. In doing so, they fully invested in a system that left little room to turn back—characterized as a “grave ecological liability” (Isenberg, p. 61). And when their prayers to bring the bison back from being slaughtered at large rates went unheard, they were left with little choice; ultimately creating a dependence on the very forces that had not only exacerbated the destruction, but went on to block the possibility of their recovery. Crow Chief Plenty Coups explains it quite well, “when the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not lift them up again. After this, nothing happened. There was little singing anywhere” (Smits, p. 338). Notice, the “singing” aspect is particularly interesting here, as earlier in this paper it reflected how Plains Tribes once expressed their spiritual connection to the crops and bison—they had rituals where they would sing and dance. It served as this measure of reverence, gratitude, and respect, showing that these resources were far more than material necessities. Their processes and methods were stolen from their deeply ingrained culture and way of life of which they sang for. Unfortunately for them, they were still left extremely vulnerable and susceptible to exploitation, and there was an up and coming nation that was ready to take advantage of just that.
We have finally arrived at the effects—the consequences of this shift in the 19th century, which, in the end, offered little benefit in the long run and much harm to the Plains Tribes. There were many accounts discussed above of how the situation changed Native cultural values and economies, but suppose that it was not simply about adapting anymore. As we will see here, Natives were actively prevented from finding a new way forward by Americans, who had positioned themselves in such a way with their recent independence that this “European influence” eventually withdrew (i.e., the American Revolution, purchase of the Louisiana territory, and so on). This era represented perhaps the most significant loss of sovereignty for the Plains Tribes, and the initial U.S. Army’s campaign against the buffalo or bison was caused by a range of political reasons that reflected this. We see treaties that were ratified to “specifically designate land to be sold to the railroads or to be sold by the government on the Indians’ behalf,” not only stripping Native tribes of their territory but placed in an effort to constrain them (White, p. 145). Note, by deliberately creating conditions of poverty and dependence, the United States government gained an advantage; “significant control over the social and cultural life of Indian people,” allowing them to place Natives wherever they wished, such as on reservations in Oklahoma, or more broadly limit their access to markets and land (White, p. 111). This further prompts the notion that it was likely more than containment and dependency they were chasing, it was a matter of surveillance and preference. Everything was regulated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or other government agencies, most of the time without the Indians’ representation in office. And the preference was almost always steering toward the white man as opposed to the colored that could never meet the mark.
The reservations themselves had Indians who “depended for survival on payments owed to them for their lands and on rations issued by the government” (White, p. 111). They would not know when these payments would come or whether they were guaranteed; simply left waiting, helpless, for the force that was tormenting them with all the cards. Agreements could change at any time as they never actually had representation or a voice to act against them. At the same time, the “elimination of…bison created an ecological vacuum on the Great Plains,” one that was quickly filled by the cattle industry, an American business that required a lot of land (White, p. 222). This demonstrates that any remaining markets that were not erased by European withdrawal were later consumed or dismantled by the rise of American mercantilism—recall the philosophy “imperialism through mercantilism.” When an entity controls the markets, they get to dictate what is valued through adjusting what is scarce and abundant. Some tribes, like the Comanches, fiercely resisted this encroachment, even going to war to protect their territory and hunting grounds. Yet despite their efforts, they “failed to end the slaughter, which may have exceeded 1 million bison a year” (Hamalainen, p. 503). This number is staggering not just because of governmental actions, but also the unrelenting migrations of settlers and commercial hunters, many of whom were incentivized by policies like the Homestead Act, which accelerated white settlement and Native displacement.
Even after the Dawes Act, which aimed to assimilate Native Americans by dividing and allotting them land to farm under the condition they “had to shed all that made them obviously Indian,” perhaps attempting to re-introduce their previous ways of life by not actually doing so at all, was unsurprisingly largely unsuccessful (White, p. 103). Indian allottees “could neither use the land as collateral for a loan nor sell unusable tracts of land,” and the parcels were often “too small to be efficient ranches” or could not be inherited through legal wills anyways (Carlson, pp. 129, 133, 139). Despite these “promises” to provide agricultural land, they ended up losing millions of acres of their land as newer policies continuously opened the door for white settlers to come and acquire it. It is not like this was unexpected or unlikely to occur—after all, Americans had been eyeing the West for years, exemplified in them purchasing and surveying the territory. Or continuous scruffles with the Natives since first arriving as a British colony. They wanted access to the land; it was a pressure that was building up and calling to them like a destiny. However, there were often spiritual attachments to the land Indians lost and the animals it sustained, “offerings of buffalo meat were central to Pawnee ceremonies,” for example, so they could “ensure continuance of the natural cycles that allowed humans to live on the planet” (White, p. 220). But such expressions of cultural survival were often met with violent suppression, culminating in massacres like Wounded Knee. Therefore, all of their cultural and economic freedom were tossed aside, same as their hopes for the future, and Native communities were given virtually no chance to succeed until roughly the 20th century.
In conclusion, the near extermination of the bison herds in the 19th century was not merely an ecological tragedy, it was the consequence of Plains Tribes becoming heavily dependent on a single means of survival, just as the European and later American forces exploited or altered that dependency to their own advantages. Their economies shifted to match changing conditions, which proved unfavorable, leaving many of them reliant on the U.S. government for support and resources when all was lost. They held significant cultural ties to their economic endeavors, whether rooted in crop cultivation or bison hunting, but their way of life was steadily overshadowed by the ambitions of Americans intent on expanding Westward. This went on to chip away at their cultural autonomy and economic success, until they gained better access to rights and sovereignty in the 20th century. Progress looks different for every party involved, and in this case, Plains Tribes were manipulated by those who held all the power, walking into it by accident.
References (MLA):
Carlson, Leonard A. Land Allotment and the Decline of American Indian Farming. Garland Publishing, 1981.
Calloway, Colin G. One Vast Winter Count: The Native American West before Lewis and Clark. University of Nebraska Press, 2003.
Hämäläinen, Pekka. Reconstructing the Great Plains: The Long Struggle for Sovereignty and Dominance in the Heart of the Continent. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Isenberg, Andrew C. The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750–1920. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Smits, David D. “The Frontier Army and the Destruction of the Buffalo: 1865–1883.” Western Historical Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3, 1994, pp. 312–338.
White, Richard. “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the American West. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.