How Did The Continental Congress Deal With Indians?
dealing with Indians (Jaimes, p141). The fledgling government understood that changing the worlds perception was paramount to the survival both politically and economically of the United States (Jaimes, p141). What the Continental Congress hoped to gain from the Natives was legitimacy as a nation. If the United States entered into treaties with these nations in the same fashion as other countries it would in turn signal to the world that the United States was recognized on some level as a nation. The tribes had been given national integrity and legitimacy by other European nations through treaty agreements and if these sovereign Native nations would then enter into treaties with the United States it would in turn add legitimacy to the new government and as such would demand that other nations assume a comparable recognition towards the new nation (Jaimes, p141). It is however surprising, when you know and understand the treatment of the Native Americans by the government of the United States, to recognize that both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States contain clauses that recognize Indian peoples as foreign powers and as such the dealing of these nations must adhere to policies put forth in both (Jaimes, p141). Following these influential documents, with yet another powerful
…show more content…
move, the United States issued the Northwest Ordinance. In 1789, the U.S. officially “renounced any aggressive intent concerning the nations, especially with regard to their land base (Jaimes, p141)”. This Ordinance states: “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indian; their land property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed – but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them” (Jaimes, p141).
Between 1174 and 1832 most treaties entered into between the United States and the American Indian nations closely resembled that of the treaty signed by Great Brittan and the United States that ended the revolutionary war. Just like the Treaty of Paris, these mutually signed pacts were the result of negotiations that stipulated agreed to terms with regard to establishing borders and policies on behaviors that both sides would adhere too (“American Indian Treaties”, 2016). For native populations, the signing of a treaty was a significant act. Most Native nations saw treaties in the same light that Americans see the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence; they also saw them as a way to preserve themselves and their way of life (“Treaties of the Past”, n.d). One can only imagine the complexity of these negotiations for both the Native and the Americans. The diversity in tribes was reflected in their governance. A small band may have a structure that is barely organized, while larger bands could have complex governing bodies and some were even autocratic in nature (Miller, p163). As diverse as they were, they shared some commonality in that they “exercised nearly unlimited sovereignty over their territories, varying amounts of political control and sovereignty over their territories, and citizens and a sovereign status that existed completely independent from European and American governments (Miller p163-4).” The diversity of the tribes does not stop with their politics, but carries over into geographical relations too. When one maps the location of each sovereign nation, it is a bit surprising to see that the continent is covered with a disjointed hodge-podge of territories; (Fig. 1) each one unique in its culture and history, and yet they all work together to make the fabric of a country that shares ideas, goals and common interests (Frantz, p293). As the lines of treaties changed the layout of the country, the blending of two very different cultures histories, morals, economics, politics, and essential spirits takes place (Frantz,p293). Men of great power came together to change the face of the nation. They agreed to terms and each expected the other to respect and honor these terms, but as history shows, this was never the case where the American government was concerned. For each treaty signed between two nations, it was only a matter of time it seems before the American’s or their government reneged on the words that had been written. It is obvious, that as time passed, and as more treaties were repeatedly violated, it grew increasing difficult for the leaders of the tribes to explain to the people of their tribes the importance of these treaties.
How do you explain that interpreters misrepresented terms, that the person who signed the treaty did not have the authority to do so, or that the verbal promises that were made were not what was written (“Treaties of the Past”, n.d)? It was also difficult to explain that the politicians had altered the treaty after it was signed, and many realized to late that coercion had played a role in their signing a treaty (“Treaties of the Past”,
n.d). Starting in 1832 and continuing until 1871, the status of the sovereignty of the native tribes changed and they were now considered domestic, dependent tribes and any new treaties that were negotiated had to have congressional approval (“American Indian Treaties”, n.d.). This changed again in 1871 when the “House of Representatives ceased recognition of individual tribes within the U.S. as independent nations with whom the United States could contract by treaty” which ended the process of making treaties between the United States government and the nations of Native Americans after nearly 100 years. (“American Indian Treaties”, n.d.). Until 1871, treaty negotiations between the United States government and a Tribal nation were handled in the same fashion as any treaty negotiated with a foreign government (Frantz, p45). It was at this time that the government ended treaty negotiations with the tribes as they no longer considered them to have equal rights as negotiating partners but instead to be wards of the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the BIA (Frantz, p17). During this time, the idea of reservations were introduced and quickly became the norm. Under this standard, tribes were allowed to set aside a small portion of their ancestral lands, or to reserve them on the condition that they give up rights to the remainder of their land (Frantz, p45). As it would turn out, most of these agreements were only temporary, even though it was conceded that the tribes still retained, at least in part, their ancient legal title to the land (Frantz, p45). By the beginning of the 19th century, the bulk of Indian lands had been declared as public, the American Indian had lost all decision-making authority with the U.S. government awarding itself the authority to decide which portion of the land would be reserved as Indian territory (Frantz, p45). Once the United States has established its legitimacy as a nation, it no longer felt the need to maintain the premise that it would deal fairly and justly with the many Nations that occupied this land prior
move, the United States issued the Northwest Ordinance. In 1789, the U.S. officially “renounced any aggressive intent concerning the nations, especially with regard to their land base (Jaimes, p141)”. This Ordinance states: “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indian; their land property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed – but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them” (Jaimes, p141).
Between 1174 and 1832 most treaties entered into between the United States and the American Indian nations closely resembled that of the treaty signed by Great Brittan and the United States that ended the revolutionary war. Just like the Treaty of Paris, these mutually signed pacts were the result of negotiations that stipulated agreed to terms with regard to establishing borders and policies on behaviors that both sides would adhere too (“American Indian Treaties”, 2016). For native populations, the signing of a treaty was a significant act. Most Native nations saw treaties in the same light that Americans see the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence; they also saw them as a way to preserve themselves and their way of life (“Treaties of the Past”, n.d). One can only imagine the complexity of these negotiations for both the Native and the Americans. The diversity in tribes was reflected in their governance. A small band may have a structure that is barely organized, while larger bands could have complex governing bodies and some were even autocratic in nature (Miller, p163). As diverse as they were, they shared some commonality in that they “exercised nearly unlimited sovereignty over their territories, varying amounts of political control and sovereignty over their territories, and citizens and a sovereign status that existed completely independent from European and American governments (Miller p163-4).” The diversity of the tribes does not stop with their politics, but carries over into geographical relations too. When one maps the location of each sovereign nation, it is a bit surprising to see that the continent is covered with a disjointed hodge-podge of territories; (Fig. 1) each one unique in its culture and history, and yet they all work together to make the fabric of a country that shares ideas, goals and common interests (Frantz, p293). As the lines of treaties changed the layout of the country, the blending of two very different cultures histories, morals, economics, politics, and essential spirits takes place (Frantz,p293). Men of great power came together to change the face of the nation. They agreed to terms and each expected the other to respect and honor these terms, but as history shows, this was never the case where the American government was concerned. For each treaty signed between two nations, it was only a matter of time it seems before the American’s or their government reneged on the words that had been written. It is obvious, that as time passed, and as more treaties were repeatedly violated, it grew increasing difficult for the leaders of the tribes to explain to the people of their tribes the importance of these treaties.
How do you explain that interpreters misrepresented terms, that the person who signed the treaty did not have the authority to do so, or that the verbal promises that were made were not what was written (“Treaties of the Past”, n.d)? It was also difficult to explain that the politicians had altered the treaty after it was signed, and many realized to late that coercion had played a role in their signing a treaty (“Treaties of the Past”,
n.d). Starting in 1832 and continuing until 1871, the status of the sovereignty of the native tribes changed and they were now considered domestic, dependent tribes and any new treaties that were negotiated had to have congressional approval (“American Indian Treaties”, n.d.). This changed again in 1871 when the “House of Representatives ceased recognition of individual tribes within the U.S. as independent nations with whom the United States could contract by treaty” which ended the process of making treaties between the United States government and the nations of Native Americans after nearly 100 years. (“American Indian Treaties”, n.d.). Until 1871, treaty negotiations between the United States government and a Tribal nation were handled in the same fashion as any treaty negotiated with a foreign government (Frantz, p45). It was at this time that the government ended treaty negotiations with the tribes as they no longer considered them to have equal rights as negotiating partners but instead to be wards of the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the BIA (Frantz, p17). During this time, the idea of reservations were introduced and quickly became the norm. Under this standard, tribes were allowed to set aside a small portion of their ancestral lands, or to reserve them on the condition that they give up rights to the remainder of their land (Frantz, p45). As it would turn out, most of these agreements were only temporary, even though it was conceded that the tribes still retained, at least in part, their ancient legal title to the land (Frantz, p45). By the beginning of the 19th century, the bulk of Indian lands had been declared as public, the American Indian had lost all decision-making authority with the U.S. government awarding itself the authority to decide which portion of the land would be reserved as Indian territory (Frantz, p45). Once the United States has established its legitimacy as a nation, it no longer felt the need to maintain the premise that it would deal fairly and justly with the many Nations that occupied this land prior