I think this is great that someone with as large a platform as Marlon Brando used said platform to promote such a cause. The unfortunate reality is that many might have overlooked the fishing rights issue had it not been for such a celebrity presence.

Would this apply to a child born to a member who resided on the reservation but whose other parent didn't? Or whose other parents wasn't a member of the tribe.

This seems like it could be a beginning of/contribution to the high amount of violence against Native American women.

This is angering that after all the struggle to keep their lands in the first place (and often they weren't even able to do so), Oklahoma tribes still faced stolen land through this falsification of documents.

On one hand this seems like a good way to protect Native Americans, however can still be harmful to those who do not have a high enough "blood quantum."

This is directly rewarding those who made moves to assimilate, and punishing those who didn't (or had fewer resources). It also seems quite paternalistic, as if anyone who does not speak english or able to read is automatically "less than."

This makes me both angry (on behalf of the Native Nations), as well as anxious for the future of salmon populations and the changing climate.

This is very concerning. Salmon plays a key role in the Washington ecosystem, and it is obvious that the government needs to be working with, rather than against, any group (especially native nations) who is trying to increase the salmon populations.

It's a shame that most people could only be okay with fishing restrictions once they physically saw that benefits, rather than using their sense to understand why this is necessary.

Does this mean that of all the catch that could be harvested sustainably, the Native Nations are entitled to half of it?

This makes it seem like Collier views Native Americans as a spectacle, something perhaps not as human or "civilized" as whites, and appears to have a rather paternalistic approach and view of Native American culture.

I wonder how someone would "prove" to the government that they had "Indian Blood?"

This is extremely distressing that a political party is against basic human rights. Political parties should concern themselves with economics and law--they have no business governing autonomy over one's own body and life.

Is this due to a failure on the part of the government to be more effective, or is it a conscious effort to make reporting rapes more difficult?

This is absolutely horrifying.

The "there was alcohol involved" argument reminds me of a Supreme Court Senate confirmation hearing from 2018. Sarah Deer makes a great point that that argument is ridiculous and should never be allowed in the first place.

It's a shame that in today's day and age juries (and people in general) will only believe something if it is written out and shoved under their nose. There seems to be no critical thinking being done in these courtrooms if a jury cannot listen to a woman's case and believe that she may actually be telling the truth.

Does this mean to treat Native American claims of statutory rights as less valuable than other peoples? As in, as less valuable than white people's rights?

This hardly seems fair, as the Oklahoma tribes were powerless to stop the policies of disestablishment and allotment in the past.

Essentially, the tribes were "autonomous" while at the complete mercy of the United States government?

Has there been any restitution of land to tribes since the allotment era? Has communal land been returned to tribes since?

When was "reservation" first used in Indian Law, and what is its legal definition?

Oklahoma relies on past precedent, rather than actual law to determine whether they prosecute or not?

I feel like there is often a huge generalization of Native Americans as a whole. Of course this derives from racist stereotypes and prejudices following the settlement of the United States, but it is clear that Americans today need to actively educated themselves against these generalizations.

Would her more positive experience at this school which is mostly known for its negative qualities have dissuaded the children from interviewing her?

I agree that there is something very communal and familial about the kitchen table, and think this analogy is quite astute.

I find it interesting that the space if referred to as "Indian Country," although the term "country" very clearly does not refer to an independent nation, but rather has the same connotation as "countryside" when in reference to a rural area.

Would it be safe to say that the "X-mark" is simultaneously a positive and negative aspect in Native peoples' lives?

I have never heard of this phrase, and it seems quite prejudiced, except that this concept of doing things when there is a sense of it being the "right moment" is rather beautiful. Perhaps in this sense it could be shifted to a more positive idea?

If he had refused to sign however, would the government had gone ahead with their plans regardless?

When was this? Was it well before the first white settlers appeared in North America?

Was the "X" due to the fact that many Native Americans were unable to read or write English? I know that for freed slaves following the Civil War, they often signed documents (marriage licenses, land deeds, etc) with an X if they could not read or write.

I am surprised at the allotment of a rifle to each man. It is an interesting inclusion.

Is this referring to Creeks who assimilated into white society within the official "U.S."

I am a little confused by this: Gorsuch is essentially saying that the only laws which are valid concerning tribal sovereignty are those which are strictly stated and written? Would that mean that tribal laws which are perhaps understood (but not written) as tradition in tribes are not "valid?"

I think she makes a great point here: it would be impossible to have one without the other.

It would seem that if a crime were to be committed on tribal land (regardless of who commits said crime), the tribal justice system should have the right to apprehend and prosecute.

By tribal leaders being "consulted," does that mean that their input would be heeded? Or that they would essentially be told how the new law would be enacted and then have no say in it?

Have tribes ever tried to sue to federal government or have this law overturned?

I think that while both were widely used to justify the laws concerning jurisdiction, the "states' rights" argument was used to justify underlying racial prejudices that ultimately fueled these laws/arguments in the first place.

So in the end, there were extremely vague laws concerning what was under federal, state, or (occasionally) tribal jurisdiction? And it was so vague mostly due to the fact that hardly anyone (of non-native heritage) bothered to even sort it all out?

So even though Worcester technically should have set precedent/confirmed that Native Nations have jurisdiction over their own lands, this case was largely ignored in favor of states automatically having jurisdiction?

What happened to those who chose to remain behind? Were they forced to assimilate? I would imagine it would be very difficult to earn a living following these treaties given the policies between the government and Native tribes.

I feel like right off the bat, the fact that the President Jackson sent his secretary of war to negotiate with the Choctaws says a lot about his intentions for the outcome. If he respected the any of the Native Nations as actual sovereign foreign states, he would have sent his Secretary of State. However by sending his Secretary of War he is immediately telling the Choctaws (as well as all other tribes), "failure to comply will mean war."

Would there have been any way for Cobell to have reached a settlement with the US government? I wonder if that could have been possible after the judge change.

What would it mean for Cobell to be victorious in her case? What sort of legal or monetary (and how much) restitution was she looking for?

I'm curious--who runs/works for the BIA? Is it primarily whites, American Indians, or a mix of the two? I'm not sure if this has already been addressed or not.

It is surprising that this law was never changed in the decades that it was in effect. However, it was essentially designed to be a way to withhold wealth from Native people, which seems to have been a rather common agenda.

I am curious as to why this was not seen as a blatant overstep of Federal power. The 10th amendment says that any power not expressly given to the Federal government resides with the states, and as is demonstrated by Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, there was nothing written into the Constitution regarding Indian Law.

This is alarming, as I had heard somewhere that Benjamin Franklin actually invited a few Iroquois to sit in on the Constitutional Convention, as the democratic union between Iroquois tribes was an inspiration to the US Constitutional system.

If it were possible to overturn this 1823 ruling of Johnson, would it be possible to consider Tribal Nations as foreign states?

I have learned of the Trail of Tears and other such Indian Removal in high school, however I have never learned of it to this extent. I think it horrible that such history has failed to be taught in schools. Furthermore, it reminds me of 1930's Germany, and the forced removal of certain ethnic groups. Yet it is not taught in the same way, when in fact they are extremely similar occurrences, and both are driven by such overt racism and cruelty.

This is essentially stripping the Cherokees of all their rights as humans. It is in cases such as this that I can scarcely believe the cruelty which is inflicted upon humans, by humans. And to add insult to injustice, there are still ramifications of these issues to this day.

I have taken multiple classes concerning constitutional law here at UCSD, and throughout the myriad of times we have discussed the Marshall Court, never once have these cases been referenced.

Isn't this undermining the ruling of the Indian Removal Act? In that ruling the Cherokee Nation is not treated as a sovereign nation, however in this case it seems to be treated as such.

I said that I believe the "doctrine of discovery" and idea that any indigenous populations held no property rights on land would most prominently affect Native Nations in the years to come. I think that from strictly a legal sense, it is easier to enforce/pass laws based on a lack of rights versus something people generally view as "inevitable." "Inevitability" hardly holds up in court, however, lacking the rights to something is more enforceable.

This basically confirms that in the eyes of the US gov., Native Americans do not own their own land. They merely reside upon it, but have no property rights of their own.

I find this interesting that McIntosh won the case. It is clear that Chief Justice Marshall saw this case as a way to set the precedent that the United States (regardless of any laws confirming or denying) really did have ultimate control of the land--even above the tribes who might have claimed it.

I've learned a bit about Chief Justice Marshall and all he has done in shaping the Supreme Court to what it is today, however I never knew he had so much to do with the relationship between the federal gov. and Native Americans.

In high school I was actually in a special program that used project-based learning and "graded" you based on improvement only. We worked closely with teachers and mentors and as long as you could show that you'd learned something or gotten better, you would be graded accordingly. It was honestly so much less stressful and I learned so much more.

Wouldn't this have been able to be argued (assuming that Sequoyah had indeed joined the Union)? According to the 10th amendment, any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Gov. resides with the states or the people. Therefore, though the Constitution is the supreme law for all states, if there was a state law regarding tribal boundaries or anything of the sort, unless it was specifically stated in the Constitution (I don't believe there is anything regarding Native populations and their government), such powers to determine these laws would reside with the state in which it is an issue.

Does this mean that the courts have upheld tribal law in Oklahoma? How does that work? Does Oklahoma state law cease to govern in tribal lands? My knowledge of supremacy in Tribal vs State vs Federal law is limited.

I find it extremely intriguing that the Five Tribes and their respective governments hold more power today than they did "on the eve of the proposed Sequoyah statehood." However, upon reflection, perhaps it makes more sense that tribes would have more autonomy today if concerted efforts are being made by the government to grant such powers. In an era where marginalized groups continue to fight for their rights, I would hope that Native American tribes have regained a few for themselves (however, I do know that this in no way makes up for the past injustices done to the tribes of North America).

This is an interesting idiom, and I have never heard it before.

I am a little confused by D.N. McIntosh; does he wish to work with the Federal Gov. and be under its jurisdiction?

This is I believe one of the core struggles between Native Americans and the US Government throughout American history. The question of self-government vs government under the Federal system has appeared time and again.

I am curious as to whether Warloope is referring to other Native Americans, white settlers, or perhaps a combination of the two groups (or perhaps even recently-freed slaves?). I would imagine that the white settlers may not respect the property of Native Americans, other tribes may be acting out of long-term ill-relations, and freed slaves may be desperate for any means of livelihood following the Civil War.

What language were they all speaking at the council? Other men recorded in this document have mentioned their desire or pursuit of learning English, however I would think that most of the attendees did not speak English well enough. Did everyone have an interpreter for English, or was the council conducted in a different language? Or perhaps was it conducted in many languages with many interpreters?

I see a common theme of assimilation and transition to the agrarian lifestyle by many tribes of the Great Plains.

I find it interesting (and heartening) to read the account from a Native American that his own men were treated well by the white soldiers. I unfortunately would have immediately expected some discrimination or poor treatment (and maybe there still was some), however a report of "kind treatment" is pleasant to read in this document.

It appears through the description of the lifestyles being led by the Caddo Tribe that many of its members have been assimilating to the lifestyle of the white settlers. They have begun raising livestock not native to North America and even use wagons (another invention foreign to North America).

I have found this article to be very prejudiced, and although I am not entirely surprised at the language and attitude toward the Native Americans, I would think that a news source would attempt to be a little more neutral. However, I think when one looks at the time period and culture around the relationship between whites and Native Americans, this was unfortunately the sad reality.

When the treaty mentions "Congress," is it referring to the Congress as it was created by the yet-to-be ratified Articles of Confederation, or the Continental Congress of 1776?

Was there any fallout from this clause in the years following the treaty? The infamous Trail of Tears is certainly a violation of this clause (and a violation of much of this treaty in fact).

I think that although the Sequoyah state would not have been a sovereign nation, it still as a state would have given much more autonomy to the Native people living there than they ended up having as parts of other states or territories.

Did the Homestead Act of 1865 include land that was a part of (or bordering) the land of Oklahoma Territory? I know that it was near the general monicher of "Indian Territory" (present day oklahoma, missouri, etc)

I said that I think the Okmulgee Constitution would protect tribal sovereignty because it followed the same bicameral legislature based on population and equal voting like the Congress of the United States. Though this is not a perfect system, I view it as an effective compromise, and think it would have worked for the united Native American government.

I think the most important aspect to a unified Native American government would be the ability for Native tribes to govern themselves and control their land. As they were often seen as part of the United States, the US government would want more control over Native peoples, however a united Native American population would have more power to advocate for itself.

This seems extremely problematic for the various tribes which were forced to create and live under this new consolidated government. Not only have they been forced to accommodate intrusive railroads into their land, but I can imagine the tribes all have their own unique ways of government, culture, and religion, therefore a common government might be difficult to form.

I've always found the treatment of Native American tribes as sovereign nations to be extremely backwards on the part of the United States government. There is no talking about the treaties made between the government and various tribes without immediately discussing how the treaty was then broken by the federal (or state) governments.

By "joining" the American side of the war, would the members of the Delaware tribe fight alongside soldiers of the Continental Army? Earlier in the blog post it mentions that George Washington consciously distanced himself and his army from the Native American tribes so as to be in less of an obligation to grant them land following the war.

To clarify, here Solomon Unhaunawwaunnutt is refering to being "conquered" by the British if the Colonist lost the Revolution, and "victorious" refers to the Colonists gaining independence?

It seems that prior to the American Revolution, there were quickly emerging three main interest groups all fighting for control of the land held by Britain in North America: the British Crown/Government itself, the British Colonists living in North America, and the Native tribes, who had lived on the land for thousands of years.

Would the "Children of the Great Father" refer to white settlers, with "Great Father" meaning the Christian God? I find it interesting that the Native Americans most strongly define the Europeans through their religion above any other characteristic.

I know that the Native American tribes of the Northeast fought alongside the French during the Seven Years' War (and ultimately both entities lost to the British); it seems here that there was continued resistance to British rule following the end of the war, however my knowledge of Native American actions (and their relationships with the Colonists and British) following 1763 is limited.