it ROGRESSIVE-ERA BUREAUCRATS and the Unity of Twentieth1 Century Indian Policy" argues that the Indian New Deal was a continuation of what has been an historically consistent policy of assimilation of Indians. But it makes this argument not by studying the Indian New Deal and its chief leader, John Collier, but by a partial study of Progressive-era ideas about Indian policy. Moreover, it makes the remarkable claim that the ideas of a deservedly obscure non-bureaucrat, Arthur C. Ludington, somehow influenced or at least forecasted the Indian New Deal. The first task in evaluating these claims is to determine the extent to which Ludington's ideas agree with those of the Indian New Deal. First, Ludington supported the allotment policy because he believed that after it had had a chance to be effective, it would lead to "emancipation" of Indians and the abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The principal architect of the Indian New Deal, John Collier, strongly opposed allotment, and the first section of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) followed his lead by halting allotment. Although Congress would not go along with Collier's plans to force return of allotted lands to tribal ownership, it did agree to a provision allowing the purchase of lands to augment the Indian land base. Congress never appropriated enough funds to make this very meaningful, but the Indian land base did expand during the Collier era. Moreover, Collier never advocated either assimilation or the abolition of the BIA, objectives which are clearly diametrically opposed to his