Treaties In The Indian Territory

The Treaty of Hopewell in 1785 established borders between the United States and the Cherokee Nation offered the Cherokees the right to send a “deputy” to Congress, and made American settlers in Cherokee territory subject to Cherokee law. With help from John Ross they helped protect the national territory. In 1825 the Cherokees capital was established, near present day Calhoun Georgia. The Cherokee National Council advised the United States that it would refuse future cession request and enacted a law prohibiting the sale of national land upon penalty of death. In 1827 the Cherokees adopted a written constitution, an act further removed by Georgia. But between the years of 1827 and 1831 the Georgia legislature extended the state’s jurisdiction over the Cherokee territory, passed laws purporting to abolish the Cherokees’ laws and government, and set in motion a process to seize the Cherokees’ lands, divide it into parcels, and other offer some to the lottery to the white Georgians.

“…delegation of Seminoles should be sent at the expense of the United States to examine the country to be allotted them among the Creeks, and should this delegation be satisfied with the character of the country and of the favorable disposition of the Creeks to unite with them as one people, then the aforementioned treaty would be considered binding and obligatory upon the parties. And the undersigned Seminole chiefs,

First of all, the Indian tribes claimed their land. For example, article #2 stated, “ The Cherokee lived in what is now northern Georgia more than-one hundred years before the Georgians arrived.” This means that the Indian tribes started settling in the land way before the actual Georgians arrived. Also, article #2 stated, “ In the case of Worcester vs. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia couldn't force the Cherokee off of their land.” This shows that the U.S. even agreed that the Indian tribes had no right of moving from the land they claimed. Even though the U.S. government offered the Indian tribes more than “one square mile per person”

A policy of self-governance would end treaty violation, justly compensate tribes for land, prevent bureaucrats from obstructing the ability of Native Americans to participate in their religion, and prevent the serious cultural loss that may occur if the government continues to use Native American land for self-interested purposes. Arguments that these objectives are unattainable and unfounded do not hold up to analysis. Therefore, to provide a remedy for the ongoing infringement of Native American constitutional rights, Congress should both return non-privately owned land taken in violation of treaties and abolish federal plenary power over tribes, permitting greater self-governance.

Although the horrors of the American Civil War and Reconstruction within Indian Territory were fresh. Yet, the presence of Indian Territory changed drastically between 1865 and 1889, because of the “Second Trail of Tears”, the unrest of the Southern Plains tribes of western Indian Territory, and the impact of U.S. Polices on Indian Territory.

The government attempted to uphold relations with the Indians on the condition that they establish themselves in the beliefs and values of the United States people (Jackson, First Annual Message to Congress, 2). They wanted the Indians to be of the Christian faith and to learn their practices, such as their agricultural lifestyle and techniques, to help civilize and assimilate the Indian people. This really just rooted the settler’s supremacist temperament into place. The Supreme Court did back the Indians temporarily in the Worcester v. Georgia trial, in which the United States Supreme Court held that “the Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers” (Garrison, Worcester v. Georgia, 1). While it seemed a concerted effort, it eventually led to the forced signing of the Cherokee people at the “Cherokee capital of New Echota”, and furthermore, to the Trail of Tears and the downfall of the Indian nation (Garrison, Worcester v. Georgia, 1). The Americans ultimately made a frail attempt at civil dealings with the Indian people and their tribes, but when the Indians refused, the government used unnecessary force and aggression to get what they

This essay will outline the importance of the numbered treaties and the Native relations at the time. This includes the events that occurred in 1871-1877 and will specifically outline the importance of Treaty Number 6. Although the numbered treaties were intended to benefit both the Natives and the Canadian government, in many cases, the treaties were not as favourable or beneficial to the natives as they were to the state. The natives were forced to sign the treaties and even when the treaties were signed, the Canadian government did not keep the promises that the Natives were entitled to. Although the treaties were signed, the lack of interest in the aboriginal communities by the government caused dissatisfaction in the native communities. The growing disappointment in government led to retaliations and rebellions.

In 1831, the Cherokee nation went to court against the state of Georgia. They were disputing the state’s attempt to hold jurisdiction over their territory. Unfortunately, because they are not under the laws of the constitution, the Indian’s right to court was denied. It was not until 1835 that the Cherokee finally agreed to sign the treaty, giving up their Georgia land for that of Oklahoma.

If one thing is to be respected and understood about the American Indians, it would be that their history and culture goes much further back than contemporary American history. Consequently, the relationship developed between American Indians and the United States is as unique as it is complicated. This unique relationship started because the American Indians were the first faces seen by fresh colonials from Europe. Despite this fact, the American Indians have faced cultural appropriation on a level that cannot be compared to any other ethnic group or minority. Any American who has been through kindergarten can associate Indians and Pilgrims with Thanksgiving, but how many of those Americans can tell about the Battle of Little Bighorn or the Alcatraz Proclamation? The unique relationship between the United States and American Indians has grown over time to allow for the level of appropriation that can be observed today. It is this unique relationship that has allowed the American Indian culture to be exploited because

The lecture covered the basis on Indians’ treaties, the government, and how both (the treaties and government) clashed with the Native’s culture. The guest speaker was Gillian Allen, a lawyer, who worked on First Nations treaty-related affairs in Canada and an Aboriginal. She presented a lecture on Indian Treaty Rights in Canada and the U.S. During the lecture, I learned interesting information about the Natives and recognized some aspects of cognitive psychology. The aspects of cognitive psychology that were present were priming, categories of knowledge, and surface features/deep structure.

The United States federal government tried to resolve its bond with many different Native tribes by treaties. The treaties were formal agreements between the United States government and the Native Americans. Treaties were made by the executive branch on behalf of the president and then ratified by the United States Senate. The treaties made it where Native American Indians would give up their rights to hunt and live on huge sections of land that they had inhabited in exchange for trade goods, houses, and assurances that no further demands would be made on the said treaties (NebraskaStudies.Org). The United States broke many treaties between the Native Americans, but there were three major treaties that had an impact on the extinction of the

According to the Cherokee Memorials, "Great Britain established with them relationships of friendship and alliance, and at no time did she treat them as subjects and as tenants at will, to her power. In war she fought them as a separate people, and they resisted her as a nation. In peace, she spoke the language of friendship, and they replied in the voice of independence, and frequently assisted her as allies, at their choice to fight her enemies in their own way and discipline, subject to the control of their own chiefs, and unaccountable to European officers and military law" (1032-1033). Since Great Britain treated the Cherokees as a separate nation, the Cherokees were not viewed as a part of the American colonies. Therefore, the Cherokees are not subject to the rule of the United

The Indian Act was enacted in 1867 by the Parliament of Canada. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development administered the act. The act defines who an “Indian” is and the legal rights of the Aboriginal people in Canada. Regulation of the economic system between aboriginal people and the government of Canada is included in the Indian Act. It also includes the power the ministers have on the aboriginal people including children and disabled Aboriginals. If the laws are not obeyed, the punishment is written in the act. The Indian Act was influenced by the legislative foundation of the Royal Proclamation, 1763, which recognized Aboriginals as a distinct political unit (Residential schools). The Royal Proclamation, 1763, thought that it was their duty to protect the Aboriginal people from the Canadian society. The Royal Proclamation, 1763, had the responsibility for Aboriginal affairs in Canada with British imperial authorities. However, by the mid-1800s Britain began to transfer this responsibility to Canadian colonies. Then the Canadian authorities passed the First Indian Act. Over the years many amendments have been made to the Indian Act.The Indian act passed out a law that any children under the ages of 16 had to study at Residential schools (Residential schools), the children there were physically abused, especially girls. (Churchill, 55-56). The Indian act is significant today because on June, 11 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on behalf of the

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.

According to the general understanding of the law, reservation is related to the international treaties that describe territorial applications. Perhaps, it is a unilateral declaration that applies to each and every state that intends to exclude useful applications that were provided by the treaties. Also, the entire treaty that can contribute to the specific reasons for reservations. The unilateral declaration that is associated with treaties tends to modify some of the provision of the treaties that describe what a given territory constitutes (Bishop & Warner, 2008). Even though the cases that normally describes reservation to treaties might be similar, the purpose that is aimed by each and every state on a given treaty