Frank C Brito – An American Hero, A Family Hero and one of the Teddy Roosevelt’s RoughRiders

An American Hero, an American Indian, an American Patriot and local Hero from Las Cruces New Mexico

Frank C Brito in the 1940 Census

---

 

Frank C. Brito Santa Fé, Territory of New Mexico

On our Military Regiments page, Frank C. Brito is listed as serving in Troop I. The document below is his Enlistment in the United States Military. He enlisted with his brother Jose.

Source: History of New Mexico, Its Resources and People, Volume I, Pacific States Publishing Co., 1907.

©New Mexico American History and Genealogy Project 2011 – 2023 Created 1996 by Charles Barnum & 2016 by Judy White

Rough Rider Frank Brito one ‘Tough Hombre’

On July 16, 1972, Art Leibson told the story of Frank Brito who, at the time, was one of three surviving members of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders:

Frank Brito who admits what his record proves — that he is one tough hombre — underwent major surgery last week in a local hospital and expects to be fully recovered by Aug. 24 when he will be 95 years old. And he expects to go right on living alone and liking it.

Brito’s spirit indomitable

Brito has the distinction of being one of three survivors of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders who stormed Kettle Hill in the battle for San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. When Dale walker, who combines folklore research with his publicity duties at the University of Texas at El Paso, discovered Brito living in Las Cruces, N.M., he wrote an article on the old soldier saying there was only one other Rough Rider still living. Since then he learned that a Dr. George Hammer, living in Florida and 99 last May, also rode with Roosevelt.

His eyes are dim, his hearing almost gone, but Brito’s spirit is indomitable. He lived alone in Las Cruces, right up to the time he entered the hospital for surgery, ignoring the please of his children to live with them. He did most of his own cooking, in a small adobe home, his only recreation being his radio. He largely ignored a TV set because of his eyesight.

A daughter, Mrs. Ramon Mendoza, of El Paso, is hopeful that her father will finally admit he can use help and move in with her when he eves the hospital.

Brito is the son of a Yaqui Indian prospector an as born in 1877 at Pinos Altos, N.M., then a mining boomtown. As Walker pointed out in his account of his career, he was born the year following Custer’s Last stand at Little Big Horn. Rutherford B. Hayes was President. source

Spanish American War Regiments

New Mexico in the Spanish American War, 1898

New Mexico’s part in the Civil war, when the Territory was very young and its citizens and its interests less thoroughly American than now, is only dimmed by the lustre shed on her military annals by the performance of her sons in the war with Spain. The deeds of the famous regiment of “Rough Riders.” to which New Mexico furnished a large share of volunteers, will be a cherished heritage to the Southwest as long as men are stirred to enthusiasm by the exploits of war.

At the opening of the Spanish-American war, in 1898, Congress authorized the raising of three cavalry regiments from among the rough riders and riflemen of the Rockies and the Great Plains. The command popularly known as the “Rough Riders” the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, was recruited principally from these western states, and the mustering places for the regiment were appointed in New Mexico, Arizona. Oklahoma and Indian Territory. Before the detailed work of organization was begun. Dr. Leonard Wood was commissioned colonel, and Theodore Roosevelt, then assistant secretary of war, lieutenant-colonel of the regiment.

Within a day or two after it was announced that such a unique command was to be organized, the commanding officers were deluged with applications from every part of the country. While the only organized Bodies they were at liberty to accept were those from the four territories, the raising of the original allotment of seven hundred and eighty to one thousand men allowed them to enroll the names of individual applicants from various other sources, from universities, aristocratic social clubs and from men in whose veins flowed some of the most ancient blood in America.

The regiment gathered and was organized at San Antonio, Texas. The bulk of the regiment was made up of men who came from New Mexico, Arizona. Oklahoma and Indian Territory. “They were a splendid set of men, these southwesterners,” wrote Colonel Roosevelt, “tall and sinewy, with resolute, weather-beaten faces, and eyes that looked a man straight in the face without flinching. They included in their ranks men of every occupation: but the three types were those of the cowboy, the hunter and the mining prospector, the man who wandered hither and thither, killing game for a living, and spending his life in the quest for metal wealth. In all the world there could be no better material for soldiers than that afforded by these grim hunters of the mountains, these wild rough riders of the plains. They were accustomed to handling wild and savage horses; they were accustomed to following the chase with the rifle, both for sport and as a means of livelihood. Varied though their occupations had been, almost all had, at one time or another, herded cattle and hunted big game. They were hardened to life in the open, and to shifting for themselves under adverse circumstances. They were used, for all their lawless freedom, to the rough discipline of the round-up and the mining company. Some of them came from the small frontier towns; but most were from the wilderness, having left their lonely hunters’ cabins and shifting cow-camps to seek new and more stirring adventures beyond the sea.

“They had their natural leaders, the men who had shown they could master other men, and could more than hold their own in the eager, driving life of the new settlements.

“The captains and lieutenants were sometimes men who had campaigned in the regular army against Apache, Ute and Cheyenne, and who, on completing their service, had shown their energy by settling in the new communities and growing up to be men of mark. In other cases they were sheriffs, marshals, deputy sheriffs and deputy marshals, men who had fought Indians, and still more often had fought relentless war upon the lands of white desperadoes.” There was Captain Llewellyn, of New Mexico, a good citizen, a political leader, and one of the most noted peace officers of the country; he had been shot four times in pitched fights with red marauders and white outlaws. There was Lieutenant Ballard, who had broken up the Black-jack gang of ill-omened notoriety, and his captain, Curry, another New Mexican sheriff of fame. All easterners and westerners, northerners and southerners, officers and men, cowboys and college graduates, wherever they came from, and whatever their social position, possessed in common the traits of hardihood and a thirst for adventure. They were to a man born adventurers, in the old sense of the word.”

On Sunday, May 29, the regiment broke camp and proceeded by rail to Tampa, Fla., the trip consuming four days. On the morning of June 14 the troops proceeded, on board the transport Yucatan, for Cuba. For six days the thirty or more transports which had left Tampa steamed steadily southwestward, under the escort of battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. On the morning of June 22 the troops began disembarking at Daiquiri, a small port near Santiago de Cuba, after this and other nearby points had been shelled to dislodge any Spaniards who might be lurking in the vicinity.

Before leaving Tampa the Rough Riders had been brigaded with the First (white) and Tenth (colored) Regular Cavalry under Brigadier-General S. B. M. Young, as the Second Brigade, which, with the First Brigade, formed a cavalry division placed in command of Major-General Joseph Wheeler. The afternoon following their landing they were ordered forward through the narrow, hilly jungle trail, arriving after nightfall at Siboney.

Before the tired soldiers (men who had been accustomed to traveling on horseback all their lives, for the most part, but now compelled to proceed on foot) could recuperate, the order to proceed against the Spanish position was given, and the first actual fighting was on. This was on Tune 24. During the advance against the Spanish outposts Henry J. Haefner, of Troop G., fell, mortally wounded. This was the first casualty in action. Haefner enlisted from Gallup, New Mexico. He fell without uttering a sound, and two of his companions dragged him behind a tree. Here he propped himself up and asked for his canteen and his rifle, which Colonel Roosevelt handed to him. He then began loading and firing, which he continued until the line moved forward. After the fight he was found dead.

After driving the enemy from their position at the American right a temporary hill followed. Fighting between the Spanish outposts and the American line was soon resumed, however. A perfect hail of bullets swept over the advancing line, but most of them went high. After a quick charge the enemy abandoned their main position in the skirmish line. The loss to the Rough Riders was eight men killed and thirty-four wounded; the First Cavalry lost seven men killed and eight wounded; the Tenth Cavalry lost one man killed and ten wounded. The Spaniards were under General Rubin. This fight, the first on Cuban soil, is officially known as the Battle of Las Guasimas.

On the afternoon of June 25 the regiment moved forward about two miles and camped for several days. In the meantime General Young was stricken with the fever. Colonel Wood then took command of the brigade, leaving Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt in command of the regiment. On June 30 orders were received to be prepared to march against Santiago. It was not until the middle of the afternoon that the regiment took its position in the marching army, and eight o’clock that night when they halted on El Paso hill. Word ^vent forth that the main fighting was to be done by Lawton’s infantry, which was to take El Caney, several miles to the right, while the Rough Riders were simply to make a diversion with the artillery.

About six o’clock the next morning, July 1, the fighting began at El Caney. As throughout the entire campaign, the enemy used smokeless powder, which rendered the detection of their location well-nigh impossible. Soon after the beginning of the artillery engagement. Colonel Roosevelt was ordered to march his command to the right and connect with Lawton, an order impossible to obey. A captive balloon was in the air at the time. As the men started to cross a ford, the balloon, to the horror of everybody, began to settle at the exact front of fording. It was a special target for the enemy’s fire, but the regiment crossed before it reached the ground. There it partly collapsed and remained, causing severe loss of life, as it indicated the exact point at which other troops were crossing.

The heat was intense, and many of the men began to show signs of exhaustion early in the day. The Mauser bullets drove in sheets through the trees and jungle grass. The bulk of the Spanish fire appeared to be practically un-aimed, but the enemy swept the entire field of battle. Though the troopers were scattered out far apart, taking advantage of every scrap of cover, man after man fell dead or wounded. Soon the order came to move forward and support the regulars in the assault on the hills in front. Waving his hat aloft. Colonel Roosevelt shouted the command to charge the hill on the right front. At about the same moment the other officers gave similar orders, and the exciting rush up ‘Kettle hill” began. The first guidons planted on the summit of the hill, according to Roosevelt’s account, were those of Troops G, E and F of his regiment, under their captains, Llewellyn, Luna and Muller.

No sooner were the Americans on the crest of the hill than the Spaniards, from their strong entrenchments on the hills in front, opened a heavy fire, with rifles and artillery. Our troops then began volley firing against the San Juan block-house and the surrounding trenches. As the regulars advanced in their final assault and the enemy began running from the rifle pits, the Rough Riders were ordered to cease firing and charge the next line of trenches, on the hills in front, from which they had been undergoing severe punishment. Thinking that his men naturally would follow. Colonel Roosevelt jumped over the wire fence in front and started rapidly up the hill. But the troopers were so excited that they did not hear or heed him. After leading on about a hundred yards with but five men, he returned and chided his men for having failed to follow him.

“We did not hear you. Colonel,” cried some of the men. “We didn’t see you go. Lead on, now; we’ll sure follow you.”

The other regiments joined the Rough Riders in the historic charge which followed. But long before they could reach the Spaniards the latter ran, excepting a few who either surrendered or were shot down. When the attacking force reached the trenches they found them filled with dead bodies. There were few wounded. Most of the fallen had bullet holes in their heads which told of the accurate aim of the American sharpshooters. “There was great confusion at this time,” writes Colonel Roosevelt, “the different regiments being completely intermingled, white regulars, colored regulars, and Rough Riders. We were still under a heavy fire and I got together a mixed lot of men and pushed on from the trenches and ranch houses which we had just taken, driving the Spaniards through a line of palm trees, and over the crest of a chain of hills. When we reached these crests we found ourselves overlooking Santiago.”

Here Colonel Roosevelt was ordered to advance no further, but to hold the hill at all hazards. With his own command were all the fragments of the other five cavalry regiments at the extreme right. The Spaniards had fallen back upon their supports, and our troops were still under a very heavy fire from rifles and artillery. Our artillery made one or two efforts to come into action on the infantry firing line, but their black powder rendered each attempt fruitless. In the course of the afternoon the Spaniards made an unsuccessful attempt to retake the hill. A few seconds’ firing stopped their advance and drove them into cover of the trenches.

The troops slept that night on the hill-top, being attacked but once before daybreak, about 3 A. M. and then for a short time only. At dawn the attack was renewed in earnest. The Spaniards fought more stubbornly than at Las Guasimas, but their ranks broke when the Americans charged home.

In the attack on the San Juan hills our forces numbered about sixty-six hundred. The Spanish force numbered about forty-five hundred. Our total loss in killed and wounded was one thousand and seventy-one.

The fighting continued July 2, but most of the Spanish firing proved harmless. During the day our force in the trenches was increased to about eleven thousand, and the Spaniards in Santiago to upwards of nine thousand. As the day wore on the fight, though raging fitfully at intervals, gradually died away. The Spanish guerrillas caused our troops much trouble, however. They were located, usually, in the tops of trees, and as they used smokeless powder it was almost impossible to locate and dislodge them. These guerrillas showed not only courage, but great cruelty and barbarity. They seemed to prefer for their victims the unarmed attendants, the surgeons, the chaplains and hospital stewards. They fired at the men who were bearing off the wounded in litters, at the doctors who came to the front and at the chaplains who held burial service.

The firing was energetically resumed on the morning of the 3rd, but during the day the only loss to the Rough Riders was one man wounded. At noon the order to stop tiring was given, and a flag of truce was sent in to demand the surrender of the city. For a week following peace negotiations dragged along. Failing of success, fighting was resumed shortly after noon of the loth, but it soon became evident that the Spaniards did not have much heart in their work. About the only Rough Riders who had a chance for active work were the men with the Colt automatic guns and twenty picked sharpshooters who were on the watch for guerrillas. At noon, on the nth, the Rough Riders, with one of the Gatlings, were sent over to the right to guard the Caney road. But no fighting was necessary, for the last straggling shot had been fired by the time they arrived.

On the 17th the city formally surrendered. Two days later the entire division was marched back to the foothills west of El Caney, where it went into camp with the artillery. Here many of the officers and men became ill, and as a rule less than fifty present were fit for any kind of work. All clothing was in rags; even the officers had neither socks nor underwear. The authorities at Washington, misled by reports received from some of their military and medical advisers at the front, became panic-stricken and hesitated to bring the army home, lest it might import yellow fever into the United States. The real foe, however, was not yellow fever, but malarial fever. The awful conditions surrounding the army finally led to the writing of the historic “round robin,” in which the leading officers in Cuba showed that to keep the army in Santiago meant its complete and objectless ruin. The result was immediate. Within three days orders came to put the army in readiness to sail for home. August 6 the order came to embark, and the next morning the Rough Riders sailed on the transport Miami which reached Montauk point, the east end of Long Island, New York, on the afternoon of the 14th. The following day the troops disembarked and went into camp at Camp Wyckoff. The regiment remained here until September 15, when its members received their discharges and returned to civil life.

Teddy Roosevelt & The Rough Riders of 1898

The last two surviving veterans of the regiment were Frank C. Brito and Jesse Langdon. Brito, from Las Cruces, New Mexico, whose father was a Yaqui Indian

source 1 source 2

The names of the Rough Riders from New Mexico, as obtained from the muster-out roll, are as follows:

Troop A

Troop B

Troop D

Troop C

Troopers

Troop E

Troopers

First Sergeant William E. Dame, Cerrillos, discharged per O. reg. commands, August 10, 1898
Sergeant, Frederick C. Wesley, Santa Fe, wounded July 1, 2 or 3, 1898, and discharged on account of disability August 26, 1898.

Troop F

Troopers***

Troop H

Troopers

Troop I

Troopers

Troop K
First-sergeant, Frederick K. Lee, Organ

Troopers

source: History of New Mexico

Frank Brito of the Rough Riders

1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, Troop I

(1877 – 1973) By Frank Brito (Grandson)

One April 1898 morning found Frank C. Brito out tending cattle with his older brother Jose for the Circle Bar Ranch near Silver City, New Mexico.  He was making $1 a day working as a 20-year-old cowboy.  He and Jose received a message from their father to return home immediately to Pinos Altos, a small mining town at the edge of the Gila Wilderness in southwestern New Mexico.  Their father was Santiago Brito, a Yaqui Indian mine owner and stage coach operator originally from Janos, Mexico.

Frank was born on August 24, 1877 in Pinos Altos, still a killing ground between citizens and the bands of Apaches under Geronimo, Victorio, Juh and Nana.  He studied at the local grammar school and became a printer’s apprentice, then a miner.  The average employee made no more than $30 a month and worked long hours, usually at hard labor in the mines, ore mills or outdoors.

After a long ride home and listening to their father, Frank and Jose did as they were told and were enlisted as volunteer privates at Santa Fé, New Mexico on May 6, 1898.  Frank was three months short of age 21 and his occupation listed as “miner.”  Lt. Col. Theodore Roosevelt and Col. Leonard Wood, as commander, formed the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, also known as the “Rough Riders,” to fight in the Spanish-American War.  They chose cowboys, miners and college athletes as their soldiers of choice.  The Brito brothers were assigned to Troop H captained by George Curry, a future New Mexico territorial governor.  Curry and Frank Brito were to remain lifelong friends.  Shortly thereafter they were transferred to Troop I captained by Schuyler McGinnis.  Here, Frank had as his bunkmate, Numa Frenger, later a District Judge in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

They were shipped to San Antonio, Texas where the men were drilled in cavalry basics until the end of May.  On the 29th, they were shipped to Tampa, Florida.  Because he was bilingual in speaking, reading, and writing in Spanish, Frank was placed in charge of the stockade established to deal with the potential Spanish prisoners of war. To his pleasure, he met Theodore Roosevelt and was nicknamed “Monte” by him, short for “Montezuma.”

The men had some time for enjoyment during the seemingly endless preparations for war. Frank Brito, described an event that occurred in a shooting gallery in Ybor City, Florida while the men were seeking some sort of entertainment to break up the monotony of camp life. The shooting gallery was quite popular among the many troops stationed nearby. Frank Brito stated:

“I went in one time with Tom Darnell [a Sergeant in H Troop from Denver, Colorado who was later killed, according to Mr. Brito, while trying to shoot up the town of Central City, near Santa Rita, New Mexico] and some other troopers and we paid 25 cents to get in. There were bales of cotton behind the moving targets to catch the .22 caliber bullets and the whole place was surrounded with a fence of chicken wire. We told the man we would use our own six-shooters instead of the .22’s and when we all started shooting, it scared hell out of everybody and people started jumping over that chicken wire fence. Somebody called the 10th Georgia Cavalry to quiet us down but we took the pins off our hats and nobody knew for a while that we were Rough Riders. The Colonel found out but by then it had all blown over. “

The revolvers used by the Rough Riders were Colt single action artillery models with a 5 ½” barrel and shot the powerful .45 Colt cartridge. The noise would have been deafening!

Unfortunately, Frank never made it to Cuba, remaining in Tampa with the stockade, most of the horses, the men of his troop and three other troops. The reason that Frank did not go to Cuba was that, because of a shortage of space aboard the transport ships, only eight of the regiment’s twelve troops were permitted to board for Cuba. Also, because of the space shortage, those that did go to Cuba went without their horses, which were left behind for Frank’s I Troop, joined by C, H, and M Troops, to care for.

The orders splitting the regiment met with protest. Roosevelt noted that “the four [Troops] left behind feel fearfully.” Later he added “To the great bulk of them I think it will be a life-long sorrow. I saw more than one, both among the officers and privates, burst into tears…”

Partially to assuage them, those remaining behind were told by Colonel Wood that they would shortly be taken to Cuba also. Brito commented “We were too angry to hear him, and if we had, I doubt we would have believed him. We had come a long way together and being left out at the last minute was not something any of us had counted on.”

At the war’s end, all the Rough Riders were reunited at Camp Wikoff, Montauk Point on Long Island, New York to recover from their wounds and tropical diseases.  Frank spent time in a New Jersey hospital recovering from malaria and dysentery prevalent in the Tampa area.

Frank was discharged from the Rough Riders on September 15, 1898.  His brother remained in the service, joining another military unit after the  Rough Riders were disbanded and was listed as “missing” in the Philippines during the latter phase of the Philippine-American War.  Jose never returned and was presumed dead.

Frank returned to mining in Pinos Altos and was involved in a tragedy in September 1900.  He returned home during the day and mistakenly killed his wife’s sister.  He was sentenced to the territorial prison for ten years but served only five.  Territorial Governor Miguel Otero granted him a full pardon.  In prison, he learned the emerging technology of electricity in operating dynamos and motors.  During this time, he was divorced from his first wife.

He worked as a hoisting engineer at various mines, which required a high degree of skill, lowering equipment and men into deep shafts.  Leaving Silver City, he moved to Las Cruces and was married a second time.  He was also an electrician for the city of Las Cruces after his mining days were over.  He later became a deputy sheriff, town constable, city jailor and game warden.  Frank C. Brito was praised for a long and useful law enforcement career.

In his first days in Las Cruces, Frank held a part-time job as bartender at various saloons.  He worked for John Barncastle’s saloon and Dan Read’s Cowboy Saloon.  At the Cowboy Saloon, he met and became friends with Pat Garrett, the law officer who tracked and killed Billy-the Kid.  Frank’s seven children went to school with several of Garrett’s children.

There were numerous reunions of the Rough Riders, the first taking place at Prescott, Arizona.  There is a statue of Bucky O’Neill in the city park with a plaque listing all the Rough Riders.  Frank’s name is not on this plaque, however, his brother’s name is on the plaque.  It was probably thought Frank and Jose Brito were the same person.  Both brothers’ names are listed on all the original regiment records so there is an opportunity for the City of Prescott to correct this oversight.  The later reunions were held at Las Vegas, New Mexico.  The Rough Rider Museum was established in Las Vegas to commemorate this patriotic group.  Las Vegas is not far from Santa Fé and this museum is worth visiting as it houses many artifacts dealing with this period.

Frank retired and spent his later life enjoying his family, friends, televised baseball, and stray cats.  He enjoyed talking about his Spanish American War year and was interviewed many times by magazines, newspapers and historians.  He was appointed as a Colonel and Aide-de-Camp to New Mexico Governor David F. Cargo on July 8, 1968 for his longevity as the sole remaining New Mexico Rough Rider and for many years of public service.

Frank C. Brito died on April 22, 1973, the penultimate Rough Rider to endure. He was 96 years old.

Bibliography: Brito Family – Information from Santiago and Frank Brito.

Jones, Virgil Carrington, Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. (New York: Doubleday, 1971) 57-58, 287.

Walker, Dale L., “The Last Rough Riders,” Rough Writings: Perspectives on Buckey O’Neill, Pauline O’Neill and Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. (Prescott, AZ: Sharlot Hall Museum Press, 1998) 13

Walker, Dale L., “The Next to the Last Man: Rough Rider Frank Brito,” Nova (a publication of the University of Texas at El Paso). February – April 1971 edition, vol.6, no.2.

source

http://www.donaanacountyhistsoc.org/HistoricalReview/2019/Review%202019%20WEB%20VER.pdf

The Rough Riders was a nickname given to the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, one of three such regiments raised in 1898 for the Spanish–American War and the only one of the three to see action. The United States Army was small and understaffed in comparison to its status during the American Civil War roughly thirty years prior. As a measure towards rectifying this situation President William McKinley called upon 1,250 volunteers to assist in the war efforts. The regiment was also called “Wood’s Weary Walkers” in honor of its first commander, Colonel Leonard Wood. This nickname served to acknowledge that despite being a cavalry unit they ended up fighting on foot as infantry.

The rough riders by Theodore Roosevelt full audiobook

Formation and early history

The volunteers were gathered in four areas: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. They were gathered mainly from the southwest because the hot climate region that the men were used to was similar to that of Cuba where they would be fighting. “The difficulty in organizing was not in selecting, but in rejecting men.” The allowed limit set for the volunteer cavalry men was promptly met. They gathered a diverse bunch of men consisting of cowboys, gold or mining prospectors, hunters, gamblers, Native Americans and college boys — all of whom were able-bodied and capable on horseback and in shooting. Among these men were also police officers and military veterans who wished to see action again, most of which had previously retired. Men who had served in the regular army during campaigns against Native Americans or served in the Civil War had been gathered to serve as higher ranking officers in the cavalry. In this regard they possessed the knowledge and experience to lead and train the men well. As a whole, the unit would not be entirely inexperienced. Leonard Wood, a doctor who served as the medical adviser for both the President and Secretary of War, was appointed the position of Colonel of The Rough Riders with Roosevelt serving as Lieutenant-Colonel. One particularly famous spot where volunteers were gathered was in San Antonio, Texas, at the Menger Hotel Bar. The bar is still open and serves as a tribute to the Rough Riders, containing much of their, and Theodore Roosevelt‘s, uniforms and memorabilia.

Equipment

Before training began, Lieutenant Colonel Roosevelt used his political influence gained as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to ensure that his volunteer cavalry regiment would be properly equipped to serve as any regular unit of the U.S. Army. For private soldiers and non-commissioned officers, this meant the M1892/98 Springfield (Krag) bolt-action rifle in .30 Army (.30-40) caliber: “They succeeded in getting their cartridges, revolvers (Colt .45), clothing, shelter-tents, and horse gear … and in getting the regiment armed with the Krag–Jørgensen carbine used by the regular cavalry.” Officers of the regiment each received a new lever-action M1895 Winchester rifle, also in .30 Army. The Rough Riders also used Bowie Hunter knives. A last-minute gift from a wealthy donor were a pair of modern tripod mounted, gas-operated M1895 Colt–Browning machine guns in 7mm Mauser caliber.

In contrast, the uniforms of the regiment were designed to set the unit apart: “The Rough Rider uniform was a slouch hat, blue flannel shirt, brown trousers, leggings, and boots, with handkerchiefs knotted loosely around their necks. They looked exactly as a body of cowboy cavalry should look.” This “rough and tumble” appearance contributed to earning them the title of “The Rough Riders.”

Training

Training was very standard, even for a cavalry unit. They worked on basic military drills, protocol, and habits involving conduct, obedience and etiquette. The men proved eager to learn what was necessary, and the training went smoothly. It was decided that the men would not be trained to use the saber as other cavalries often used, because they had no prior experience with that combat skill. Instead, they chose to have the men stick to the use of their carbines and revolvers as primary and secondary weapons. Although the men, for the most part, were already experienced horsemen, the officers refined their techniques in riding, shooting from horseback, and practicing in formations and in skirmishes. Along with these practices, the high-ranking men heavily studied books filled with tactics and drills to better themselves in leading the others. During times which physical drills could not be run, either because of confinement on board the train, ship, or during times where space was inadequate, there were some books that were read further as to leave no time wasted in preparation for war. The competent training that the volunteer men received prepared them best as possible for their duty. They were not simply handed weapons and given vague directions to engage in a disorderly brawl.

On May 29, 1898, 1060 Rough Riders and 1258 of their horses and mules made their way to the Southern Pacific railroad to travel to Tampa, Florida where they would set off for Cuba. The lot awaited orders for departure from Major General William Rufus Shafter. Under heavy prompting from Washington D.C., General Shafter gave the order to dispatch the troops early before sufficient traveling storage was available. Due to this problem, only eight of the twelve companies of The Rough Riders were permitted to leave Tampa to engage in the war, and many of the horses and mules were left behind. Aside from Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt’s first hand mention of deep, heartfelt sorrow from the men left behind, this situation resulted in a premature weakening of the men. Approximately one fourth of them who received training had already been lost, most dying of malaria and yellow fever. This sent the remaining troops into Cuba with a significant loss in men and morale.

Upon arrival on Cuban shores on June 23, 1898, the men promptly unloaded themselves and the small amount of equipment they carried with them. Camp was set up nearby and the men were to remain there until further orders had been given to advance. Further supplies were unloaded from the ships over the next day including the very few horses that were allowed on the journey. “The great shortcoming throughout the campaign was the utterly inadequate transportation. If they had been allowed to take our mule-train, they could have kept the whole cavalry division supplied.” Each man was only able to carry a few days worth of food which had to last them longer and fuel their bodies for rigorous tasks. Even after only seventy-five percent of the total number of cavalry men was allowed to embark into Cuba they were still without most of the horses they had so heavily been trained and accustomed to using. They were not trained as infantry and were not conditioned to doing heavy marching, especially long distance in hot, humid, and dense jungle conditions. This ultimately served as a severe disadvantage to the men who had yet to see combat.

Battle of Las Guasimas

Within another day of camp being established, men were sent forward into the jungle for reconnaissance purposes, and before too long they returned with news of a Spanish outpost, Las Guasimas. By afternoon, The Rough Riders were given the command to begin marching towards Las Guasimas, to eliminate opposition and secure the area which stood in the path of further military advance. Upon arrival at their relative destination, the men slept through the night in a crude encampment nearby the Spanish outpost they would attack early the next morning.

The Spanish held an advantage over the Americans by knowing their way through the complicated trails in the area of combat. They predicted where the Americans would be traveling on foot and exactly what positions to fire on. They also were able to utilize the land and cover in such a way that they were difficult to spot. Along with this, their guns used smokeless powder which did not give away their immediate position upon firing as other gunpowders would have. This increased the difficulty of finding the opposition for the U.S. soldiers. In some locations the jungle was too thick to see very far.

General Young, who was in command of the regulars and cavalry, began the attack in the early morning. Using long-range, large-caliber Hotchkiss guns he fired at the opposition, who were reportedly concealed along trenches, roads, ridges, and jungle cover. Colonel Wood’s men, accompanied by Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt, were not yet in the same vicinity as the other men at the start of the battle. They had a more difficult path to travel around the time the battle began, and at first they had to make their way up a very steep hill. “Many of the men, footsore and weary from their march of the preceding day, found the pace up this hill too hard, and either dropped their bundles or fell out of line, with the result that we went into action with less than five hundred men.” Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt became aware that there were countless opportunities for any man to fall out of formation and resign from battle without notice as the jungle was often too thick in places to see through. This was yet another event that left the group with fewer men than they had at the start.

Regardless, The Rough Riders pushed forward toward the outpost along with the regulars. Using careful observation, the officers were able to locate where the opposition was hidden in the brush and entrenchments and they were able to target their men properly to overcome them. Toward the end of the battle, Edward Marshall, a newspaper writer, was inspired by the men around him in the heat of battle to pick up a rifle and begin fighting alongside them. When he suffered a gunshot wound in the spine from one of the Spaniards another soldier mistook him as Colonel Wood from afar and ran back from the front line to report his death. Due to this misconception, Roosevelt temporarily took command as Colonel and gathered the troops together with his leadership charisma. The battle lasted an hour and a half from beginning to end with The Rough Riders suffering only 8 dead and 31 wounded, including Captain Allyn K. Capron, Jr. Roosevelt came across Colonel Wood in full health after the battle finished and stepped down from his position to Lieutenant-Colonel.

The United States had full control of this Spanish outpost on the road to Santiago by the end of the battle. General Shafter had the men hold position for six days while additional supplies were brought ashore. During this time The Rough Riders ate, slept, cared for the wounded, and buried the dead from both sides. During the six day encampment, some men died from fever. Among those stricken by illness was General Joseph Wheeler. Brigadier General Samuel Sumner assumed command of the cavalry and Wood took the second brigade as Brigadier General. This left Roosevelt as Colonel of The Rough Riders.

The order was given for the men to march the eight miles along the road to Santiago from the outpost they had been holding. Originally, Colonel Roosevelt had no specific orders for himself and his men. They were simply to march to San Juan Heights where over one thousand Spanish soldiers held the area and hold position. It was decided that Brigadier General Henry Lawton’s division would be the main fighters in the battle while taking El Caney, a Spanish stronghold, a few miles away. The cavalry was to simply serve as a distraction while artillery and battery struck the Spanish from afar. Lawton’s infantry would begin the battle and The Rough Riders were to march and meet with them mid-battle. In this way, The Rough Riders were not seen as a critical tool to the United States Army in this battle.

San Juan Hill and another hill were separated by a small valley and pond; the river ran near the foot of both. Together, this geography formed San Juan Heights. Colonel Roosevelt and The Rough Riders made their way to the foot of what was dubbed Kettle Hill because of the old sugar refinement cauldrons that lay along it. The battle of San Juan Heights began with the firing of the artillery and battery at the Spanish location. Soon after battery-fire was returned and The Rough Riders, standing at the position of the friendly artillery, had to promptly move to avoid shells. The men moved down from their position and began making their way through and along the San Juan River towards the base of Kettle Hill. There they took cover along the riverbank and in the tall grass to avoid sniper and artillery fire that was being directed towards their position, however they were left vulnerable and pinned down. The Spanish rifles were able to discharge eight rounds in the twenty seconds it took for the United States rifles to reload. In this way they had a strong advantage over the Americans. The rounds they fired were 7mm Mauser bullets which moved at a high velocity and inflicted small, clean wounds. Some of the men were hit, but few were mortally wounded or killed. Theodore Roosevelt, deeply dissatisfied with General Shafter’s inaction with sending men out for reconnaissance and failure to issue more direct orders, became uneasy with the idea of leaving himself and his men sitting in the line of fire. He sent messengers to seek out one of the generals to try to coax orders from them to advance from their position. Finally, the Rough Riders received orders to assist the regulars in their assault on the hill’s front. Roosevelt, riding on horseback, got his men onto their feet and into position to begin making their way up the hill. He claimed that he wished to fight on foot as he did at Las Guasimas; however he would have found it difficult to move up and down the hill to supervise his men in a quick and efficient manner on foot. He also recognized that he could see his men better from the elevated horseback, and they could see him better as well. Roosevelt chided his own men to not leave him alone in a charge up the hill, and drawing his sidearm promised nearby black soldiers separated from their own units that he would fire at them if they turned back, warning them he kept his promises. His Rough Riders chanted (likely in jest) “Oh he always does, he always does!” The soldiers, laughing, fell in with the volunteers to prepare for the assault.

As the troops of the various units began slowly creeping up the hill, firing their rifles at the opposition as they climbed, Roosevelt went to the captain of the platoons in back and had a word with him. He stated that it was his opinion that they could not effectively take the hill due to an insufficient ability to effectively return fire, and that the solution was to charge it full-on. The captain reiterated his colonel’s orders to hold position. Roosevelt, recognizing the absence of the other Colonel, declared himself the ranking officer and ordered a charge up Kettle Hill. The captain stood hesitant, and Colonel Roosevelt rode off on his horse, Texas, leading his own men uphill while waving his hat in the air and cheering. The Rough Riders followed him with enthusiasm and obedience without hesitation. By then, the other men from the different units on the hill became stirred by this event and began bolting up the hill alongside their countrymen. The ‘charge’ was actually a series of short rushes by mixed groups of regulars and Rough Riders. Within twenty minutes Kettle Hill was taken, though casualties were heavy. The rest of San Juan Heights was taken within the hour following.

The Rough Riders’ charge on Kettle Hill was facilitated by a hail of covering fire from three Gatling Guns commanded by Lt. John M*A*S*H. Parker, which fired some 18,000 .30 Army rounds into the Spanish trenches atop the crest of both hills. Col. Roosevelt noted that the hammering sound of the Gatling guns visibly raised the spirits of his men:

“There suddenly smote on our ears a peculiar drumming sound. One or two of the men cried out, “The Spanish machine guns!” but, after listening a moment, I leaped to my feet and called, “It’s the Gatlings, men! Our Gatlings!” Immediately the troopers began to cheer lustily, for the sound was most inspiring.”

Trooper Jesse D. Langdon of the 1st Volunteer Infantry, who accompanied Col. Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders in their assault on Kettle Hill, reported:

“We were exposed to the Spanish fire, but there was very little because just before we started, why, the Gatling guns opened up at the bottom of the hill, and everybody yelled, “The Gatlings! The Gatlings!” and away we went. The Gatlings just enfiladed the top of those trenches. We’d never have been able to take Kettle Hill if it hadn’t been for Parker’s Gatling guns.”

A Spanish counterattack on Kettle Hill by some 600 infantry was quickly devastated by one of Lt. Parker’s Gatling guns recently emplaced on the summit of San Juan Hill, which killed all but forty of the attackers before they had closed to within 250 yards of the Americans on Kettle Hill. Col. Roosevelt was so impressed by the actions of Lt. Parker and his men that he placed his regiment’s two 7mm Colt–Browning machine guns and the volunteers manning them under Parker, who immediately emplaced them—along with 10,000 rounds of captured 7mm Mauser ammunition—at tactical firing points in the American line.

Colonel Roosevelt gave a large share of the credit for the successful charge to Lt. Parker and his Gatling Gun Detachment:

“I think Parker deserved rather more credit than any other one man in the entire campaign…he had the rare good judgment and foresight to see the possibilities of the machine-guns..He then, by his own exertions, got it to the front and proved that it could do invaluable work on the field of battle, as much in attack as in defence.”

Siege of Santiago

Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders played a key role in the outcome of the Spanish–American War by assisting the American forces in forming a constricting ring around the city of Santiago de Cuba. The ultimate goal of the Americans in capturing the San Juan Heights (also known as Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill) was to attain a strategic position from which to move downhill and attack Santiago, a strong point for the Spanish military. The Spanish had a fleet of cruisers in port. The United States drove the Spanish cruisers out of their port by taking areas around Santiago and subsequently moving in on the city from multiple directions. Two days after the battle on San Juan Heights, the US navy destroyed Spain’s Caribbean cruiser fleet at Santiago Bay. This took a tremendous toll on the Spanish military due to their widespread empire and heavy reliance upon naval capabilities.

However, the sinking of the Spanish cruisers did not mean the end of the war. Battles continued in and around Santiago. By July 17, 1898, the Spanish forces in Santiago surrendered to General Shafter and the United States military. Various battles in the region continued on and the United States was continuously victorious. On August 12, 1898, the Spanish Government surrendered to the United States and agreed to an armistice that relinquished their control of Cuba. The armistice also gained the United States the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. This large acquisition of land elevated the United States to the level of an imperial power. The Spanish–American War also began a trend of United States intervention in foreign affairs which has lasted to the present day.

Return home

On August 14, the Rough Riders landed at Montauk Point on Long Island, New York. There, they met up with the other four companies that had been left behind in Tampa. Colonel Roosevelt made note of how very many of the men who were left behind felt guilty for not serving in Cuba with the others. However, he also stated that “those who stayed had done their duty precisely as did those who went, for the question of glory was not to be considered in comparison to the faithful performance of whatever was ordered.” During the first portion of the month that the men stayed in Montauk they received hospital care. Many of the men were stricken with Malarial fever (described at the time as “Cuban fever“) and died in Cuba, while some were brought back to the United States on board the ship in makeshift quarantine. “One of the distressing features of the Malaria which had been ravaging the troops was that it was recurrent and persistent. Some of the men died after reaching home, and many were very sick.” Aside from malaria, there were cases of yellow fever, dysentery and other illnesses. Many of the men suffered from general exhaustion and were in poor condition upon returning home, some twenty pounds lighter. Everyone received fresh food and most were nourished back to their normal health.

The rest of the month in Montauk, New York was spent in celebration of victory among the troops. The regiment was presented with three different mascots that represented the Rough Riders: a mountain lion by the name of Josephine that was brought to Tampa by some troops from Arizona, a war eagle named in Colonel Roosevelt’s honor brought in by some New Mexican troops, and lastly a small dog by the name of Cuba who had been brought along on the journey overseas. Accompanying the presented mascots was a young boy who had stowed away on the ship before it embarked to Cuba. He was discovered with a rifle and boxes of ammunition and was, of course, sent ashore before departure from the United States. He was taken in by the regiment that was left behind, given a small Rough Riders uniform, and made an honorary member. The men also made sure to honor their colonel in return for his stellar leadership and service. They presented him with a small bronze statue of Remington’s “Bronco Buster” which portrayed a cowboy riding a violently bucking horse. “There could have been no more appropriate gift from such a regiment … most of them looked upon the bronze with the critical eyes of professionals. I doubt if there was any regiment in the world which contained so large a number of men able to ride the wildest and most dangerous horses.” After the turning over of their gift, each and every man in the regiment walked by and shook Colonel Roosevelt’s hand and bid him a good-bye.

Disbandment

On the morning of September 15, 1898, the regimental property including all equipment, firearms and horses were turned back over to the United States government. The soldiers said one last good-bye to each other and the United States First Volunteer Cavalry, Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, was disbanded at last. Before they all returned to their respective homes across the country, Colonel Roosevelt gave them a short speech that commended their efforts in the war, expressed his profound pride and reminded them that, although heroes, they would have to integrate back into normal society and work as hard as everyone else. Many of the men were unable to gain their jobs back from when they lost them before leaving for war. Some, due to illness or injury, were unable to work for a long time. Money was donated by a number of wealthier supporters of the regiment and used to supplement the well being of the needy veterans, many of whom were too proud to accept the help.

A first reunion of the Rough Riders was held in the Plaza Hotel in Las Vegas, New Mexico in 1899. Roosevelt, then Governor of New York, attended this event. In 1948, fifty years after the Rough Riders disbandment, the U.S. Post office issued a commemorative stamp in their honor and memory. The stamp depicts Captain William Owen “Bucky” O’Neill, who was killed in action while leading troop A at the Battle of San Juan Hill, July 1, 1898. The Rough Riders continued to have annual reunions in Las Vegas until 1967, when the sole veteran to attend was Jesse Langdon. He died in 1975.

Last survivors

The last two surviving veterans of the regiment were Frank C. Brito and Jesse Langdon. Brito, from Las Cruces, New Mexico, whose father was a Yaqui Indian stagecoach operator, was 21 when he enlisted with his brother in May 1898. He never made it to Cuba, having been a member of H Troop, one of the four left behind in Tampa. He later became a mining engineer and lawman. He died April 22, 1973, at the age of 96.

Langdon, born 1881 in what is now North Dakota, “hoboed” his way to Washington, D.C., and called on Roosevelt at the Navy Department, reminding him that his father, a veterinarian, had treated Roosevelt’s cattle at his Dakota ranch during his ranching days. Roosevelt arranged a railroad ticket for him to San Antonio, where Langdon enlisted in the Rough Riders at age 16. He was the last surviving member of the regiment and the only one to attend the final two reunions, in 1967 and 1968. He died June 29, 1975 at the age of 94, twenty-six months after Brito.

World War I

Just after the United States entered the war against the Central Powers, the U.S. Congress gave Roosevelt the authority to raise up to four divisions similar to the Rough Riders. Roosevelt immediately selected eighteen officers (including: Seth Bullock, Frederick Russell Burnham, and James Rudolph Garfield) to raise a volunteer infantry division, and began corresponding with Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War. After several months, many more men joined Roosevelt’s World War I volunteers, but Baker refused to offer any assistance or guidance to the new unit. Frustrated, Roosevelt telegraphed President Woodrow Wilson requesting his assistance; however, as Commander-in-chief, Wilson refused to make use of the volunteers and Roosevelt disbanded the unit.

Muster roll

• Mustered In:

Officers: 56Enlisted Men: 994

• Mustered Out:

Officers: 76Enlisted Men: 1,090

• Total Number Accounted for on Muster Out Roll:

Officers: 52Enlisted Men: 1,185

• Losses While in Service:
• Officers:

Promoted or Transferred: 0Resigned or Discharged: 2Dismissed: 0Killed in Action: 2Died of Wounds: 0Died of Disease: 1Died of Accident: 0Drowned: 0Suicide: 0Murdered: 0Total Officer losses: 5

• Enlisted Men:

Transferred: 0Discharged for Disability: 9Discharged by General Court Martial: 0Discharged by Order: 31Killed in Action: 21Died of Wounds Received in Action: 3Died of Disease: 19Died of Accident: 0Drowned: 0Suicide: 14Murdered or Homicide: 0Deserted: 12Total enlisted Losses: 95

• Wounded:

Officers: 7Enlisted Men: 97

• (Source: The Adjutant General’s Office, Statistical Exhibit of Strength of Volunteer Forces Called Into Service During the War With Spain; with Losses From All Causes. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899) As presented in an Electronic Edition by the US Army Center of Military History)

Theatrical productions

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders were popularly portrayed in Wild West Shows such as Buffalo Bill’s Wild West and Congress of Rough Riders of the World and in Minstrel shows such as William H. West’s Big Minstrel Jubilee. Roosevelt himself had a hand in popularizing the legends of the Rough Riders, recruiting Mason Mitchell, a fellow Rough Rider with theatrical talent, to perform for the Republican State Committee of New York. More than anyone else, William Frederick Cody, better known as Buffalo Bill, can be credited with helping to create and preserve the dramatic myth of the Rough Riders and the American Old West. His extravaganzas glamorized it into an appealing show for Eastern American audiences and helped permanently preserve the legends.

source

The American Civil Liberties Union, along with 12 ACLU state affiliates, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union, along with 12 ACLU state affiliates, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — which establishes basic requirements to protect Native American children from continued forced removal from their families, tribes, and tribal culture — is slated to be reviewed by the Supreme Court this fall via Brackeen v. Haaland.

The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed by Congress in 1978 to address the nationwide epidemic of American Indian children being forcibly removed from their homes by child welfare agencies and placed into non-Native homes at disproportionate rates. Throughout history, federal and state governments have sought to undermine and threaten the existence of tribes via the forced separation and assimilation of Native children. ICWA requires state courts to make active efforts to keep Native families together. The law aims to prioritize the placement of Native children within their extended families or tribal communities, where their cultural identities will be understood and celebrated. If the Supreme Court overturns ICWA, states would once again be allowed to indiscriminately remove Native children from their families and culture while simultaneously depriving tribes of future generations — putting the very existence of tribes in jeopardy.

“Throughout history, the United States government has enacted countless policies to steal Indigenous children from their homes and to erase their identities,” said Theodora Simon (Navajo), Indigenous Justice Advocate with the ACLU of Northern California. “The explicit goal of these policies was, and continues to be, the complete erasure of Indigenous people. If the Indian Child Welfare Act is overturned, tribes will again be stripped of their right to keep their families together. This is a tragedy as we know that having connection to our cultures, languages, and identities is in the best interest of Native children.”

Tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves and make decisions on issues that affect their people — including Native children. The ACLU’s brief argues the Indian Child Welfare Act is constitutional and urges the Supreme Court to uphold the centuries-long legal precedent upholding tribal sovereignty — including tribes’ right and ability to preserve their unique cultural identities, raise their own children and govern themselves.

“Separating children from their families and communities remains one of the most tragic and traumatizing vestiges of colonialism in Alaska,” said ACLU of Alaska Executive Director Mara Kimmel. “We join this litigation to honor our constitutional promise of tribal self-determination and to ensure Alaska’s children and cultures thrive into the future.”

The brief was filed by the ACLU, ACLU of NorCal, ACLU of Alaska, ACLU of Arizona, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Montana, ACLU of Nebraska, ACLU of New Mexico, ACLU of Oklahoma, ACLU of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming chapter, ACLU of Texas, ACLU of Utah, and ACLU of Washington. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brackeen v Haaland on November 9, 2022.

This release can be found online here: 

A blog about the case can be found here: 

source 

MORE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: learn more….

• Supreme Court upholds Indian Child Welfare Act – read here PROTECTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT AT THE federal LEVEL
• Click Here for Indian Child Court Forms
• DOCKET NO. No. B314238 in L. A. Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. D.P. (In re Daphne G.) California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

• In re N.G. The Court also concluded that DPSS had to be ordered to further investigate N.G.’s paternal lineal ancestry

• L. A. Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Sandra C. (In re Ezra C.)

  • In Antoinette S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th 1401,Both California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A) and section 224.3 indicate that the ICWA notice requirement is triggered when a person who has an interest in the child “provides information suggesting that the child” is an Indian child. (Italics added.) Mother provided both a specific tribe and a specific family member from whom the ancestry followed. “The Indian status of the child need not be certain to invoke the notice requirement.” (Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 471.) “The determination of a child’s Indian status is up to the tribe; therefore, the [dependency] court needs only a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement.” (Nikki R., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 848.)

• • In In re Alice M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1189 (Alice M.),
    the court held that notice was required after the mother submitted an ICWA-020 indicating that the child may be eligible for membership in an Apache or Navajo tribe. The appellate court held that the information provided on the ICWA-020 “gave the court reason to know [the child] may be an Indian child… The ambiguity in the form and the omission of more detailed information, such as specific tribal affiliation or tribal roll number, do not negate appellant’s stated belief that [the child] may be a member of a tribe or eligible for membership.” (Id. at p. 1198.)

• • (In re J.T. (1997) 166 Vt. 173, 182-83 [693 A.2d 283, 289]),
    Section 224.3 requires notice to the tribe when there is information provided by “[a] person having an interest in the child… suggesting the child is a member of a tribe or eligible for membership in a tribe or [that] one or more of the child’s biological parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents are or were a member of a tribe.” (§ 224.3, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A) also specifies that “[t]he circumstances that may provide reason to know the child is an Indian child include…. [¶] [t]he child or a person having an interest in the child, … informs or otherwise provides information suggesting that the child is an Indian child to the court [or] the county welfare agency….” (Italics added.) “The determination of a child’s Indian status is up to the tribe; therefore, the [dependency] court needs only a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement.” (In re Nikki R. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 844, 848 (Nikki R.), italics added.)Determining whether enough information has been provided to trigger the ICWA notice provisions requires a fact-sensitive analysis. As noted in In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 186, “[t]he requisite notice to the tribe or [Bureau] serves a twofold purpose. First, it enables the tribe or [Bureau] to investigate and determine whether the minor is an ‘Indian child.’… [Citations.] Secondly, it advises the tribe or [Bureau] of the proceedings and the tribe’s right to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter or at least intervene in the proceedings. [Citations.]” (Fn. omitted.) Given these purposes “‘it is preferable to err on the side of giving notice and examining thoroughly whether the juvenile is an Indian child.’” (Dwayne P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 257, citing In re M.C.P. (1989) 153 Vt. 275, 289 [571 A.2d 627, 634-635].)

    The information required to trigger the ICWA notice provisions is minimal in comparison to the showing required “to establish a child is an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA.” (In re Miguel E. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 549; see also Dwayne P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 258 [the party initiating the dependency proceeding must “distinguish between a showing that may establish a child is an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA and the minimal showing required to trigger the statutory notice provisions”].) While eligibility to enroll and enrollment are central to a finding that the child is an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA, a lack of such information does not waive the court’s affirmative duty to provide notice when the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved. (§ 224.3; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A).)

2023 California Rules of Court

Rule 5.487. Petition to invalidate orders

• (a) Who may petition
  Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster-care placement, guardianship or conservatorship placement, custody placement under Family Code section 3041, declaration freeing a child from the custody and control of one or both parents, preadoptive placement, adoptive placement, or termination of parental rights; any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed; and the Indian child’s tribe may petition the court to invalidate the action on a showing that the action violated the Indian Child Welfare Act.
  (Subd (a) was amended effective January 1, 2020.)
• (b) Court of competent jurisdiction
  If the Indian child is a dependent child or ward of the juvenile court or the subject of a pending petition, the juvenile court is a court of competent jurisdiction with the authority to hear the request to invalidate the foster placement or termination of parental rights.
• (c) Request to return custody of the Indian child
  • If a final decree of adoption is vacated or set aside, or if the adoptive parents voluntarily consent to the termination of their parental rights, a biological parent or prior Indian custodian may request a return of custody of the Indian child.
    • (1)  The court must reinstate jurisdiction.
    • (2)  In a juvenile case, the juvenile court must hold a new disposition hearing in accordance with 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. where the court may consider all placement options as stated in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 361.31(b), (c), (d), and (h).
    • (3)  The court may consider placement with a biological parent or prior Indian custodian if the biological parent or prior Indian custodian can show that placement with him or her is not detrimental to the child and that the placement is in the best interests of the child.
    • (4)  The hearing on the request to return custody of an Indian child must be conducted in accordance with statutory requirements and the relevant sections of this rule.

Rule 5.487 renumbered and amended effective January 1, 2020; adopted as rule 5.486 effective January 1, 2008; previously amended effective January 1, 2013

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed by Congress in 1978 to protect American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and families. Before ICWA, as many as one-third of all AI/AN children were removed from their homes by state child welfare and private adoption agencies, and the vast majority of these children were placed outside of their families and communities. This mass family separation resulted in devastating losses of language, culture, and identity for individuals, families, and entire Tribes. ICWA was created to address this history and prevent further generational trauma.

ICWA was ahead of its time in recognizing core values and principles of child welfare best practice by requiring active efforts to keep children safely in their homes and connected to their families, communities, and culture. This law does not affect all children — its provisions apply only in child welfare cases involving members of federally recognized Tribes, and the Tribes, per their sovereignty, have the ability to define membership. However, the values and spirit embedded in ICWA are critical to the well-being of AI/AN children, youth, and families and should form the basis of child welfare practice for all.

This brief describes four key principles inherent in ICWA, provides examples of these principles in practice, and offers questions for consideration to help agencies further explore how they should apply these principles to support the permanency and well-being of both Native and non-Native children, youth, and families.^1,2

Principle 1: Children’s right to their families and communities

ICWA specifically promotes children’s right to be connected to their extended family, elders, community, and culture. Sheldon Spotted Elk, program director of tribal justice relations at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, describes these connections as concentric circles. When children are situated within these circles, they naturally build resilience. Awareness of connectedness to family, community, and environment has been found to be a protective factor for American Indian and Alaska Native youth.³

In recognition of the importance of these connections, ICWA has a higher standard to prevent removal of an Indian child from their families than other child welfare statutes — including a requirement that children may not be removed without the testimony of a culturally qualified expert witness, except in emergencies (narrowly defined as when a child is in danger of imminent harm). ICWA also governs placement decisions. When children must be removed from their homes, the law dictates that agencies and courts first consider placement with relatives or, if that is not possible, with other families within their Tribal community where they can remain connected to their culture and identity.

For Adams County (Colo.) Children and Family Services, this sometimes means putting extra supports in place or working with a family member to resolve barriers to placement approval. In one case, when a close family friend could take some but not all of a sibling group of four, the agency was able to license a second friend and neighbor to keep the siblings connected. As in this instance, tribal definitions of family relationships should be acknowledged in placement decisions whenever possible. 

The Native Village of Barrow (Alaska) lñupiat Traditional Government Children’s Code explicitly recognizes children’s right to family, extended family, and identity:

A child has the right to learn about and preserve his identity throughout his life, including the right to maintain ties to his birth parents, his extended family and his village. A child has the right to learn about and benefit from tribal history, culture, language, spiritual traditions, and philosophy.

The responsibility to support a child’s identity in these ways is assigned to parents, extended family members, and the Tribe as a whole. When separation from birth parents is necessary, the code specifies that the preferred placement is lñuguq, or placement with an extended family member. The word Iñuguq “refers to a traditional Inupiat adoption process in which a child gains, but does not lose, a parent.”  

Implementation of ICWA requirements currently falls far short of achieving the statute’s goal. AI/AN children are still three times more likely to be removed by state child welfare systems than non-Native children. While recognizing the particular urgency for AI/AN children, child welfare agencies also can act on the knowledge that all children fare best when they can remain safely with their own families, and that when they must be removed from their homes, placement with relatives produces the best outcomes. 

Questions to consider:

• In what ways do your agency’s policies assert and protect all children’s rights to their families, communities, and culture?
• How could your jurisdiction reassess removal criteria and keep more families safely together with in-home support? 
• How can your agency apply an equity lens to understanding and addressing the root causes of a family’s involvement with the agency?
• In what ways do your agency’s placement priorities and resource family approval policies align with ICWA by prioritizing placement for all children within their extended families and communities?
• How does your agency honor the definition of relatives as determined by the family, clan, and Tribe?

Principle 2: “Active efforts” to preserve and reunify families

ICWA’s requirement of “active efforts” is a higher standard of engagement than the Title IV-E program’s “reasonable efforts” requirement. Active efforts are defined in regulation as “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely” efforts by the agency to maintain or reunify children with their families.⁴ They are intended to help parents complete their case plans and access or develop resources necessary to keep or bring their child safely home. Examples include helping parents overcome barriers to services (such as making phone calls together rather than handing a parent a list of phone numbers), helping parents access supportive community resources (including housing, financial, and mental health support), and facilitating transportation to ensure parents and their children can attend appointments or visits.

Adams County acknowledges that providing active efforts can be time intensive. The county supports these efforts in ICWA cases by having a dedicated ICWA caseworker who is knowledgeable about the requirements. The county strives to keep that dedicated caseload low, when the agency’s workflow allows, to support spending extra time on each case. The ICWA caseworker also serves as an expert and resource throughout the agency, providing assistance to other caseworkers who may have ICWA cases.

ICWA requires that active efforts be provided in a culturally competent manner, and “in partnership with the Indian child and the Indian child’s parents, extended family members, Indian custodians, and tribe.” Regulations describe engaging with the child’s Tribe early to determine what types of services would be most culturally appropriate and what cultural resources or programs are available within the Tribe. It also includes ensuring all services are trauma-informed and follow best practices in addressing historical and intergenerational trauma. Being trauma-informed means that agencies must be skillful and patient in building trusting relationships with families and communities that may have significant personal and historical reasons to mistrust state and county government systems.

Questions to consider:

• What active efforts do your agency’s caseworkers regularly make to safely preserve and reunify all families? Do they equal the efforts everyone would want for their own families?
• What additional steps could help ensure that your agency’s efforts on behalf of all children and families are not just “reasonable” but “active”?
• In what ways does your agency consider children and parents’ culture when creating case plans and providing services? How could your agency better partner with families and their communities to ensure programs and services are culturally appropriate, and to ensure active efforts are successful? 
• In what ways could your agency’s services be more trauma-informed, particularly in addressing historical and intergenerational trauma? 
• How can your agency provide training and ongoing coaching and support to caseworkers to build relationships with families that are centered on trust and cultural humility? 

Principle 3: Valuing inclusive and diverse cultural practices

ICWA was created to address harm inflicted on AI/AN communities due to the imposition of dominant cultural values, including assimilation. Therefore, the law requires jurisdictions to view child welfare matters from a different cultural perspective — that of the family’s own tribal community. ICWA regulations state that jurisdictions are to “conduct Indian child-custody proceedings in a way that reflects the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.” 

One way this is done is requiring a qualified expert witness to testify from a social and cultural perspective as to whether children are at risk of serious emotional or physical harm, prior to removal. Jurisdictions with ICWA courts also have found that cultural training by local Tribes can greatly increase understanding and appreciation of a Tribe’s traditional child-rearing practices and cultural values. 

This change in approach requires cultural humility. In particular, child welfare professionals may need to critically analyze long-held assumptions about which family structures or communities can best support child well-being. For example, courts sometimes have required children in ICWA cases to be moved from unrelated foster homes to relatives’ homes, even after the children have bonded with the foster family. While this may contradict western ideas about the best interests of children, it is important to understand and honor Tribal values that prioritize long-term, multigenerational connections among family, Tribe, and culture over children’s short-term connections to one specific nuclear family. “The relationships that we develop with our tribal partners, and our understanding of their values, are so critical,” emphasizes District Judge Katherine R. Delgado, Adams County, Colo., ICWA Court, “I would encourage other judges and child welfare leaders to go visit some of their local Tribes, develop those relationships, and be open to understanding the issues that our Native Nations face.”

Questions to consider:

• What cultures are present among the children and families your agency serves? How can your agency learn more about the range of childrearing practices and values that exist in different cultures and communities?
• In what ways do dominant cultural assumptions influence agency decisions about the best interests of children? Is it possible that more children could remain safely with their families if these assumptions were reconsidered? What traditions and values are important to the family? 
• Are there language and literacy barriers to be mindful of? What kind of community support is needed for the family and caseworker to have a meaningful dialogue? 
• How could the concept of a culturally qualified expert witness be applied to non-ICWA child welfare cases?
• How might your agency work with local cultural resource providers to support greater cultural competence of services to families?
• How could your agency work alongside families and communities to better support healing for the generational and historical trauma experienced by children, youth, and families of color?

Principle 4: Authentic engagement with Tribes

ICWA provides for a Tribe to be included in child welfare cases concerning member children. Although the Tribe’s perspective does not always prevail, the law guarantees Tribes the right to participate fully in the case, be heard by the court, provide expert witnesses, and define placement preferences for their children. 

ICWA specialty courts make a particular effort to include Tribe leaders and representatives in all cases involving their children, something that COVID-era virtual hearings have made a little easier. This also can be facilitated by scheduling ICWA cases at a consistent date and time that is convenient for the Tribe so that representatives are present even at early shelter hearings that offer limited opportunities for advance notice. There is emerging evidence that when a Tribe representative is present at a child’s first hearing, permanency occurs four months faster on average and reunification occurs seven months faster. “I see big differences in how caseworkers are working with the Tribes, the response back from the Tribes, and their efforts to work together toward reunification,” notes Judge Kathleen Quigley, Pima County, Ariz., ICWA court, “Without the Tribe’s participation, our ICWA court would not be where it is.”

Some ICWA courts incorporate cultural art, Tribal flags, and Native practices such as smudging in the courtroom. Other jurisdictions have found that creating ICWA units with dedicated caseworkers, supervisors, and attorneys facilitates relationship-building and collaboration between the state, Tribe social workers, and any local culturally appropriate service providers. Family group conferences can offer another opportunity to invite Tribe representation and relinquish agency control of the process.

On a systems level, power-sharing might look like creating workgroups comprised of equal numbers of state representatives and Tribe members. For example, Washington’s Tribal State Workgroup is a joint effort to review and update the Department of Children, Youth, and Families’ ICWA policies and procedures.

Meeting Tribes and families where they are, beyond the walls of child welfare agency offices, demonstrates respect and can help build cross-cultural understanding. Judge Delgado of Adams County recalls the impact of a trip she took to visit several nearby tribal nations and meet with tribal judges: “That trip really cemented my passion for not only the black-letter law of ICWA, but the spirit of the law.” In Yellowstone County, Mont., members of the Yellowstone ICWA Court Team traveled more than 100 miles to meet with the Tribe’s Human Services Department to staff cases and to introduce themselves to new executive branch officials and Tribal Council members. During COVID, the State and the Tribe continue to collaborate on these cases through monthly zoom calls. This and other relationship-building efforts have resulted in increased kinship placements and fewer terminations of parental rights. 

Questions to consider:

• In what ways does your agency share power with families and communities by meeting them where they are? 
• How could community leaders and representatives have a greater voice in your agency’s services and decision-making (for example, by ensuring they are included in all family group conferences)? 
• How can your agency embrace and incorporate tribal culture and Native practices in its engagement with Native families both inside and outside the courtroom? 
• How can your agency incorporate culturally sensitive practices for any family it works with? 

1 Content of this brief was informed by consultation with members of the Knowledge Management Lived Experience Advisory Team on Oct. 5 and 21, 2021. This team includes youth, parents, kinship caregivers, and foster parents with lived experience of the child welfare system who serve as strategic partners with Family Voices United, a collaboration between FosterClub, Generations United, the Children’s Trust Fund Alliance, and Casey Family Programs. Members who contributed to this brief include Dee Bonnick, Sonya Begay, Aleks Talsky, Gloria Torma, and Jeremiah Donier.
2 Content of this brief was informed by interviews with Judge Kathleen Quigley, Pima County, Ariz., on Aug. 17, 2021; District Judge Katherine R. Delgado, Adams County, Colo., on Aug. 17, 2021; Judge Sally Tarnowski, St. Louis County, Minn., on Aug. 10, 2021; Sheldon Spotted Elk, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, on July 9, 2021; Shana King, ICWA Law Center, on July 13, 2021; Angela Cuellar and Peter Pace, Adams County (Colo.) Children and Family Services, on Sept. 7, 2021.
3 Saniguz Ullrich, J. (2019). For the love of our children: an Indigenous connectedness framework. AlterNative, 15(2), 121-130.
4 In determining whether active efforts have been met, the courts have discretion to consider the facts and circumstances.
5 source

The Supreme Court honored tribal nations with their decision

Indian welfare act

read a web version on a government site here

Passed House amended (10/14/1978)

(Measure passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 12533)

Indian Child Welfare Act – =Title I: Child Custody Proceedings= – Declares that it is the policy of Congress to establish minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families (extended families) and for the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect Indian culture.

Grants an Indian tribe jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over custody proceedings involving an Indian child who resides within the reservation of such tribe or is a ward of a tribal court except where jurisdiction is vested in the State by existing Federal law.

Allows the Indian tribe of a child to intervene at any point in a State Court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child.

Stipulates that, upon application by an Indian individual who has reached age 18 and who was the subject of an adoptive placement, the court which entered the final placement decree shall inform such individual of the tribal affiliation, if any, of his or her biological parents, and provide such other information as may be necessary to protect any rights flowing from his or her tribal relationship.

Allows any Indian tribe which became subject to State jurisdiction pursuant to Federal law to reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings upon approval of a petition by the Secretary of the Interior.

Provides for emergency removal of an Indian child, who is a resident of or domiciled on a reservation but temporarily located off the reservation, from the parent or Indian custodian and the emergency placement of such child under applicable State law, in order to prevent harm to such child. Stipulates that such removal or placement must be terminated immediately when no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical harm to such child.

=Title II: Indian Child and Family Programs= – Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to Indian tribes and organizations for the establishment and operation of Indian child and family service programs on or near reservations and for the preparation and implementation of child welfare codes. States that the objective of every Indian child and family service programs shall be to prevent the breakup of Indian families.

Authorizes every Indian tribe to operate and maintain facilities for: (1) the counseling or treatment of Indian families or individuals; (2) the temporary custody of Indian children; and (3) legal representation and advice to Indian families involved in tribal, State, or Federal child custody proceedings.

Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to Indian organizations to establish and operate off-reservation Indian child and family service programs.

=Title III: Recordkeeping, Information Availability, and Timetables= – Directs the Secretary to collect and maintain records of all Indian child placements which are affected under the date of this Act. Requires the Secretary to insure that the confidentiality of such information be maintained where the court records contain an affidavit that the identity of the biological parents remain confidential.

Directs the Secretary to promulgate, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

=Title IV: Miscellaneous= – Directs the Secretary to prepare, in consultation with appropriate agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a report on the feasibility of providing Indian children with schools located near their homes, and to submit such report to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. source

tHANKS for readings

Indian Child Court Forms

According to their oral history, the people of the Blackfoot Confederacy have lived in what is now known as Montana for ten thousand years. Their original reservation was established by the Lame Bull Treaty in 1855. In 1895, the Blackfeet negotiated an agreement with the United States government to sell 800,000 acres of mountainous land on the western border of the reservation for the sum of 1.5 million dollars. The Federal government acquired the land for the purpose of mineral exploration. This agreement also stipulated that the Blackfeet would retain the right to hunt, fish, and gather wood on this land so long as it remained publicly owned. After several years of advocacy, most notably by Louis B. Hill, president of the Great Northern Railroad, Glacier National Park was created by an act of Congress in 1911. The portion of the former Blackfeet Reservation sold to the Federal government in 1895 became part of the newly established Glacier National Park. With this transfer, the people of the Blackfeet Nation lost their access to this land they had used for generations.

This film, produced by Quinn Smith (Chickasaw) for the IACB, explores the history of the Blackfeet people in early twentieth century, particularly in relation to the creation of Glacier National Park. The historic photos used in this film come from the collection of the Museum of the Plains Indian in Browning, Montana. Many of these images were collected from various sources by Ralph Reiner of Billings, Montana, as part of his research for an unpublished manuscript The Blackfeet of Montana. Ernie Heavy Runner and Darrell Norman, both respected Blackfeet elders, narrate the film and share their knowledge of these events and people. These images and the oral histories shared by Mr. Heavy Runner and Mr. Norman, present a unique perspective on this era from a Native American viewpoint.

Glacier National Park, The Great Northern Railway and the Blackfeet Portraits of Winold Reiss.

James Hill was one of several “captains” of the railroad industry in the United States, who made a fortune from investment in the transportation of goods and people on railways that linked America from coast to coast after the Civil War. In 1893, Hill’s Great Northern Railway connected the Upper Mississippi River Valley to Puget Sound.

Great Northern RouteAll along the route from Minneapolis to the Pacific, Hill promoted the Northwest as a wonderland of natural beauty; a land that still possessed many of the desirable attributes inherent in the American frontier. Hill also cashed in on the growing popularity of what historians in the twentieth century describe as the mythic West; a perception of the West in the American mind, where the exploits of cowboys, frontier army and Indians denoted adventure and unbridled heroism. The Native Americans, in particular, were of interest because of their role in promoting the “Wild West” with their performances in Buffalo Bill Cody’s wild west shows, which toured the United States and Europe between 1883 and 1917. At every stop along the tour, Native Americans in the show helped to recreate the Indian wars of the plains, audiences loved the excitement of western America. In the early twentieth century, The Great Northern helped to keep this romantic image of Native Americans alive by promoting the Blackfeet Nation, whose reservation extended along the eastern boundaries of the park; a trip to Glacier brought visitors in close proximity to the Blackfeet and their culture.

and were included in a portfolio sold by the Great Northern Railway to promote Glacier National Park and rail travel to Blackfeet country in the 1940s.

Portraits of the Blackfeet people by Winold Reiss: