R. Warren Metcalf’s dissertation, Arthur V. Watkins and the Indians of Utah: A Study of Federal Termination Policy (Arizona State University, 1995), is a historical analysis of the federal “termination policy” and the central role played by U.S. Senator Arthur V. Watkins of Utah. The work situates Watkins within the broader mid-20th-century movement in federal Indian policy that aimed to end the government’s special legal and political relationship with Native American tribes and promote assimilation into mainstream American society.
The study explains how termination policy emerged after World War II as part of a shift in federal thinking about Native American affairs. Policymakers increasingly argued that tribal sovereignty and federal trust responsibilities should be dismantled, and that Native Americans should instead be fully incorporated as individual citizens under state jurisdiction. Metcalf examines how this ideology translated into concrete legislation, most notably House Concurrent Resolution 108 in 1953, which declared termination to be official federal policy.
A major focus of the dissertation is Arthur V. Watkins, who served as chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and became one of the most influential advocates for termination. Metcalf explores Watkins’ personal beliefs, political motivations, and legislative actions, arguing that he viewed termination as both an economic reform and a moral policy aimed at encouraging assimilation. The dissertation shows how Watkins used his position in Congress to advance termination efforts, particularly in western states like Utah.
Metcalf also closely examines how termination policy was implemented in Utah and its impact on Native communities, especially the Southern Paiute bands and segments of the Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. The study highlights how termination efforts often led to loss of federal recognition, breakdowns in tribal governance, loss of land and resources, and significant social and economic disruption. It also notes that tribal communities were not uniform in their responses, as internal divisions sometimes emerged over whether termination should be accepted or resisted.
Overall, the dissertation argues that termination policy in Utah was not simply a bureaucratic reform, but a deeply political process shaped by ideology, regional interests, and congressional leadership. Metcalf concludes that while termination was promoted as a pathway to equality and independence, it frequently resulted in long-term harm to Native communities and is now widely regarded as a failed policy experiment in federal Indian affairs.