In This Section: The 1854 Treaty of La Pointe, The Allotment and Assimilation Era, The Indian Reorganization Act

The 1854 Treaty of La Pointe: Reserving a Homeland

The foundational legal document for the Fond du Lac Band is the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe. While the United States government's goal in the negotiations was to gain access to the rich copper, mineral, and pine-forested lands of the Ojibwe, the Ojibwe leaders had their own non-negotiable demands.

Following the traumatic "Sandy Lake Tragedy" of 1850, where hundreds of Ojibwe died awaiting treaty payments in a harsh winter after a forced removal order, Ojibwe leaders like Chief Bizhiki (Buffalo) steadfastly refused to be removed from their homelands.

Therefore, the 1854 Treaty is significant not just for what the Ojibwe ceded, but for what they retained. In exchange for ceding territory, the Ojibwe leadership ensured that the treaty established permanent reservations in their home territories, including the Fond du Lac Reservation.

The most critical component of this treaty is its embodiment of the Reserved Rights Doctrine. This legal principle clarifies that in a treaty, tribes did not receive rights from the United States; rather, they retained (or "reserved") the pre-existing, inherent rights they had always possessed. In the 1854 Treaty, the Ojibwe explicitly reserved their rights to hunt, fish, and gather in the ceded territories. These rights never expired. They were famously upheld in federal court (e.g., the Voight Decision) and remain legally binding today. This 1854 legal document provides the direct, sovereign justification for the Fond du Lac Band's modern, sophisticated Resource Management Division, which actively manages and protects natural resources both on the reservation and within the broader ceded territories.

The Allotment and Assimilation Era: A Catastrophic Land Loss

The period following the 1854 Treaty saw the implementation of federal policies designed to destroy tribal sovereignty and assimilate Indigenous people. The most destructive of these were the General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) of 1887 and the Nelson Act of 1889.

These policies represented a direct assault on the communal structure of the Anishinaabe. The mechanism was simple: the communally-owned, tribal reservation land was broken up ("allotted") into small, 160- or 80-acre parcels, which were then distributed to individual tribal members. The U.S. government's goal was to force the Ojibwe to become individual farmers, replacing a communal worldview with one of private property.

Land that was "left over" after these parcels were distributed was declared "surplus" and sold by the federal government to non-Native settlers and, in particular, to timber companies.

The impact on the Fond du Lac Band was, in the words of a tribal legal filing, "catastrophic". By 1934, almost 75% of the Fond du Lac Reservation had passed into non-native ownership. This policy created the "checkerboard" landscape of ownership that the Band still contends with today and represents the central historical trauma from which many modern challenges stem.

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934: A Tool for Rebuilding

The "catastrophic" era of allotment was formally ended by the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. This act, which the Fond du Lac Band voted to accept along with five other bands, provided the legal framework for the Band to reorganize its government (leading to the formation of the MCT).

Most critically, the IRA empowered the Fond du Lac Band to end the sale of its lands and begin the slow, multi-generational process of re-acquiring its lost land base. The Band's long-term strategy of repurchasing its alienated lands has been remarkably successful, with the Band regaining control of just over half of the land within its reservation boundaries by 1981.

This historical context provides a powerful narrative arc that connects the past directly to the present. The devastating land loss from 1887-1934 is being actively and strategically reversed by the modern, sovereign Fond du Lac government. This context imbues seemingly simple contemporary actions with profound meaning. For example, a note in the Band's 2024 Annual Report celebrating the "purchase of 50 acres and two homes" is not a simple real estate update. It is a modern-day act of decolonization, a direct continuation of the multi-generational effort to heal the trauma of allotment and reclaim the Nagaajiwanaang homeland.