Where Native America meets pop culture
Writerfella here -- Apparently this writer does not realize that Native Americans did not just become 'U.S. Citizens', they were ordered to become so by U.S. Laws and Regulations, exercising no choice in the matter. The so-called 'Blanket Law' made them U.S. citizens whether they wished to or not. Thus, they were under obeisance to American laws and that was that. How can you forfeit something (sovereignty) that you did not possess at the supposed time of forfeiture? The laws that created 'sovereignty' for Native 'Nations' DID NOT EXIST at the time of the enforcement of citizenship upon the tribes. Missed it by THAT much!All BestRuss Bates'writerfella'All BestRuss Bates'writerfella'
Which laws are you talking about? The Supreme Court rulings that codified the concept of tribal sovereignty have existed since the 1820s.
Writerfella here -- No, the Supreme Court decisions preceded the granting of 'sovereignty' but did not decide that state at the time they were made. It evolved, after the 'Blanket Law'. Check the timeline...All BestRuss Bates'writerfella'
Check the timeline? Okay.http://www.legendsofamerica.com/NA-Timeline2.html1831-1832: Two U.S. Supreme Court cases change the nature of tribal sovereignty by ruling that Indian tribes were not foreign nations, but rather were "domestic dependent nations." As such, both cases provided the basis for the federal protection of Indian tribes, or the federal trust relationship or responsibility.http://www.legendsofamerica.com/NA-Timeline5.html1882: Ex Parte Crow Dog Supreme Court decision--Crow Dog, a Sioux Indian who shot an killed an Indian on the Rosebud Reservation, was prosecuted in federal court, found guilty, and sentenced to death. On appeal it was argued that the federal government's prosecution had infringed upon tribal sovereignty. The Court ruled that the US did not have jurisdiction and that Crow Dog must be released. The decision was a reaffirmation of tribal sovereignty and led to the passage of the 1885 Major Crimes Act which identified seven major crimes, that if committed by an Indian on Indian land, were placed within federal jurisdiction.http://www.legendsofamerica.com/NA-Timeline6.html1917: World War I--When the US entered the war, about 17,000 Indians served in the armed forces. Some Indians, however, specifically resisted the draft because they were not citizens and could not vote or because they felt it would be an infringement of their tribal sovereignty.http://faculty.deanza.edu/parkergerri/stories/storyReader$221In 1861 the U.S. Civil War erupts. Many tribes including the Five Civilized Tribes (now living in Oklahoma Territory) side with the Confederacy which promises in return for Indian support to respect Indian sovereignty. Congress passes the Curtis Act (1898) which mandated allotment of tribal lands in Indian Territory and ended tribal sovereignty in the Territory.
In short, through Supreme Court decisions and Congressional acts, the US government has recognized tribal sovereignty since the 1800s. Subsequent laws may have affirmed or strengthened this sovereignty, but they did not create it.If you disagree, tell us the specific law(s) you think "created 'sovereignty' for Native 'Nations'." Good luck with your answer.
Writerfella here -- Thanks for your wish, as writerfella has the luck of the Iroquois. Indian self-government, and therefore sovereignty, was not recognized or acknowledged until the 'Indian Reorganization Act' of 1934, which restored tribal lands lost under the Dawes Act and permitted tribes finally to reorganize under specific Federal laws thereafter enacted for purposes of self-government. All laws affecting and effecting Native 'sovereignty' have been enacted since those particular pieces of legislation. Then came what Supreme Court Justice Felix Cohen wrote in 1942: "Indian sovereignty is the principle that those powers which are lawfully invested in an Indian tribe, are not delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which can never be extinguished." Geez, that was easy, which of course means it was NOT easy for the Natives who lived in such times...All BestRuss Bates'writerfella'
Well, you didn't cite any authority for your position, but at least you answered the question. That's a start.Felix Cohen was writing about the principle of Indian sovereignty as the Supreme Court acknowledged it in the 1820s and 1830s. To prove the point, here's another quote from Cohen:"Indians in this country enjoyed self-government long before European immigrants who came to these shores did. It took the white colonists north of the Rio Grande about 170 years to rid themselves of the traditional pattern of the divine right of king...and to substitute the less efficient but more satisfying Indian pattern of self-government."--Felix Cohen, "The Legal Conscience"
Here's a refresher course on the so-called Marshall Trilogy. This comes from the American Indian Policy Center by way of The Facts About Native Sovereignty:The three cases which are known as the Marshall Trilogy are Johnson v. McIntosh (1823); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831); and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) the Supreme Court concluded that tribal sovereignty, although impaired by European colonization, cannot be dismissed.Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall stated, "In the establishment of these relations [between Europeans and Indians], the rights of the original inhabitants, were in no instance, entirely disregarded. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with the legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion" (Getches, Wilkinson, and Williams, Jr. 1993, 144).Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) ruled that Indian tribes were "a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing [their] own affairs and governing [themselves]" (Getches et al. 1979, 162).
Post a Comment