Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) case also proved to be blow for tribal sovereignty. Among the other precedents it set, this case paved the way for the federal government to unilaterally abrogate Indian treaties (158). This meant that Congress could pass a law that made part or all of a treaty void and that clearly violates the idea of tribal sovereignty. The doctrine of implied repeals is discussed in this chapter as well. This term, implied repeals, means that Congress can decide if treaty languages disagrees with or contradicts later statues.
The people who settled the west were greatly dependent on the US government and the policies they adopted. The settling of the west in the late 19th century was similar to the settlement of the south in the 1830’s. Andrew Jackson drove out the indians so that the valuable land of the south could be secured by white settlers. Once again, the federal government made it possible to settle the west by forcing indians off of their lands. A recurring theme in American history is manifest destiny and the attempt to develop unsettled lands by the federal government.
Which proved for their security and steps to take against trespassers on their land, the enforcement of these laws was nowhere to be found. The lack of enforcement of these laws was seen as silent consent that it was indeed ok to take the lands from the Cherokee people. Ross wrote to John C. Calhoun in 1822, “Brother, we have repeatedly complained to your Government of the injuries done to our nation by our white Brethren of the frontier states, in direct violation of the good faith solemnly pledged by your Government. There appears to be a great relaxation in enforcing those obligations.
As few know, the very root cause of all the Pre-Civil War events was Manifest Destiny, a powerful and ruthless belief that had changed the course of history. Manifest Destiny caused the US to go for a greater goal that scarred others, driving all Natives off their land and expand until every other country knew of their power. They went from protecting newly freed countries, to taking all important possessions from the natives before them. The belief of the US to expand all over North America and be seen as a powerful nation has caused their minds to want more and more of what is around them, land.
The North and South bickered whether it had the right to secede or not, and it is still debated to this day. The Southern states did have the right to leave the union as secession was proved to be legal. Texas felt underpowered in federal government according to this quote in Document I, “ By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding
The Trail of Tears and the 1830 Indian Removal would be the beginning of a great division that would occur within the U.S. Americans would later watch in disguised WWII would occur speaking to the similarities of the events and the comparisons of leaders. But what remains fact is the 1830 Indian Removal was nothing short of ethnic
The ones that were mainly affected by the westward migration were the native Indians. But the relentless immigration of Americans to the West soon came to face one of its biggest obstacles; Indian tribes who refused to give up their territory. Even though we were able to take many territories from the Indians in Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi there were several tribes that resisted. As the Indians saw themselves without protection they turned to the British for backup. This bond between the British and the Indians played a part in causing the War of 1812.
Gibson, 1833.” Mahon addressed the federal government’s effort to reunite Seminoles with Creeks as “kindred friends,” but explained this position on White ignorance of Creek-Seminole relations. It is important, though, to emphasize that the difficulty in constructing the fate of the Seminoles relied on treaties written by the White Americans. Oftentimes the Seminoles were also dependent on Blacks both interpreting for, and representing, Seminole Indian interests; leaving speculation of divided
The first reason is that the 5th amendment states, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Taking the Native Americans land with the Indian Removal Act violates one of the amendments. The Native Americans did have a trial but nothing was done of it. Another reason the Indian Removal Act was unjust was because the Supreme Court said so! In the 1832 case Worcester vs. Georgia the court ruled the Cherokee Nation as being sovereign.
The assertion that the land should still belong to the Lakota because the United States violated the Fort Laramie treaty by acquiring the land without Lakota approval has been undermined however by the United States Supreme Court. In the case United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980) the 8-1 ruling was that the United States’ “sole legal shortcoming was the failure to pay just compensation” for the land (Pommersheim 116). Although the land was seized using moral justifications that ranged from questionable to outright egregious, the Lakota were just as expansionist when they arrived on the land less than 100 years before (Kurkiala 449). The United States continued to honor the law however, and proposed paying $17.5 million to the Lakota as compensation for the land. The court later revised this number to $122.5 million by compounding a 5% interest annually (Churchill 135) but the Lakota response to this was that they were no more willing to take the new offer than the old one.
The government of the United states sold some portion of the land to William M’Intosh (defendant) about 35 years later. Johnson filed an action to eject M’Intosh from the land Rule Land title transfers are only valid when made under the rule of the currently prevailing government. Holding (Marshall, J.) No. The plaintiffs do not exhibit a title which can be sustained in the Courts of the United States and that there is no error in the judgment
The document “Colonists Encroach on the Stanwix Line”, records a speech made by a Native American, John Killbuck to the governors of three separate English Colonies. He tells of the English and other European Settlers invading Naive American lands base on their own greed and compete against one another. The English haven’t always agreed on bringing about peaceful compromises on the lands they and other European Nations have conquered, instead, wars erupted and whoever were the victors reaped all the rewards, land that consisted of Native American tribes. The Native had tried to make a peaceful compromise of a land dispute by setting a boundary between Native American tribes and the English Colonies. However, with the increase of Europeans flooding
Native Americans had once dominated the land now called America, but eventually, their lives would be destroyed by European Colonization. In arrival/ settlement of Europeans, a drastic change for Native Americans occurred forcing them to submit to White settlers, choosing between assimilation into a White culture or preserving their heritage and ancestry. A number of negative results would occur including disease, loss of land, and loss right of self-governing, with no remorse to Native American culture. At this point in time five Indian tribes are recognized as civilized, those being; Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Cree, and Seminole Indians, because of their acceptance to the acculturation that George Washington had proposed.
The argument selected by Dylan was really interesting since I have native heritage. The argument “Ned Blackhawk, argues that Native American sovereignty is being threatened by a recent appeal to the Supreme Court by the Dollar General Corporation.” (Morales-Dacy, 2015). After reading the article myself I can agree with Dylan that the claim is valid in the argument.