Speech: Address to U.S. Officials and the President (Washington visit)

Context
During his 1879 trip to Washington, D.C., Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce sought an audience with federal officials and the President to press for justice after years of broken promises, forced removals, and war. The Nez Perce had been driven from their Wallowa Valley homeland and endured a brutal flight and surrender in 1877; by 1879 Joseph was acting as a spokesman for survivors who hoped negotiation and moral appeal might restore some measure of their lost security.
The visit took place against a backdrop of expanding American settlement, treaty violations, and federal Indian policies that prioritized relocation and assimilation. Chief Joseph's addresses and petitions framed his appeals in terms that American officials could not easily dismiss: law, honor, and the humanitarian consequences of policy.

Main Appeals
Chief Joseph urged restoration of his people's ancestral lands or, at minimum, humane and fair treatment under the government's care. He emphasized that the Nez Perce had sought peace and cooperation but had been repeatedly betrayed by treaties and officials who promised protection and then failed to uphold it. His language combined legal argument, reminding listeners of prior agreements and obligations, with moral force, insisting that the nation live up to its professed standards of justice.
Beyond land, Joseph pressed for concrete remedies: adequate protection from hostile settlers, fair enforcement of treaty terms, appropriate compensation or annuities, and improvements to the meager conditions on reservations. He spoke for the living needs of his people, food, shelter, and schooling for children, while also invoking the deeper wounds of dispossession and exile.

Tone and Rhetoric
Joseph's rhetoric was restrained but penetrating; he rarely indulged in bitterness for its own sake, preferring appeal to conscience and to the legal and moral expectations of the federal government. His speeches balanced grief and dignity, describing suffering without collapsing into invective. By invoking shared values such as honesty and the rule of law, he aimed to hold officials to standards they themselves proclaimed.
At the same time, his words carried moral urgency. He recounted the human cost of displacement, hunger, illness, broken families, and used that testimony to demand corrective action. The tone moved between personal appeal and formal petition, blending the dignity of a tribal leader with the practicalities of negotiating with a powerful state.

Specific Requests and Petitions
Chief Joseph asked for the reversal of decisions that had stripped the Nez Perce of their traditional lands, or for the creation of arrangements that would allow them to live with dignity and autonomy. He petitioned for the return of particular territories, relief from punitive restrictions, and better oversight of annuities and supplies promised by agents. When restoration was not immediately achievable, he sought improved reservation conditions, protection from encroachment, and guarantees that future treaties would be honored.
His petitions were often accompanied by formal written statements delivered to federal departments and to the President's office. These documents combined narrative of wrongs suffered with proposed remedies, aimed at creating a record that could be acted upon by Congress or the executive branch.

Legacy and Impact
Though immediate outcomes were limited and full restitution was not achieved, Chief Joseph's 1879 appeals contributed to public awareness of the Nez Perce plight and entered the historical record as a poignant example of Native American advocacy before the federal government. His dignified insistence on justice and his skillful blending of moral and legal argument have made these addresses lasting testaments to the struggle for indigenous rights.
The speeches continue to be cited by historians and advocates as emblematic of Native leadership confronting injustice through reasoned appeal rather than force. They remain a reminder of the human consequences of policy decisions and of the continuing moral questions about treaty obligations and the treatment of indigenous peoples.