It is the scene, he writes, “played out in the wild and wordless wastes of colonial India, Africa, the Caribbean, of the sudden, fortuitous discovery of the English book.”

must continue to abide by the correct interpretation of the legal principles laid out in the Marshall Model of Indian Rights

Clearly one reason why Johnson, Cherokee Nation, and Worcesterare still being dutifully followed by the present- day Supreme Court is be-cause these three seminal opinions of the Marshall model were written by the person whom generations of American law students have been taught to regard as the greatest chief justice of all time. Generations of U.S. lawyers, in turn, have treated these three opinions by Marshall as if they were sacred texts, with oracular status when it comes to thinking and talking about Indians and their rights.

Amazingly, unlike with the decisions in Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, the justices of the Supreme Court continue to cite this trio of archaic, racist judicial precedents from the early nineteenth century in their present- day opinions on vitally important questions of Indian rights to property, self government, and cultural survival. The model of inferior and diminished Indian rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States laid out in these three seminal cases continues to defi ne the Court’s approach to all questions of Indian tribal rights

Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Geor-gia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832),7 Chief Justice John Mar-shall,

for all that over which civilization must tri-umph” in the Founders’ colonial imagination.4 Denied the right to exist as “truly other, something capable of being not merely an im perfect state of oneself,”5 the Indian’s doomed fate was inextricably tied to white America’s ascendant destiny on the continent. The rise of a superior form of civilization would necessarily entail the destruction of the sav-age race

colonial- era racial fantasy about the Indian’s ir-redeemable nature cannot be overstated

the idea of the Indian as hostile savage was received and perpetuated by the Founders through a diverse and infl uential set of sources, texts, and narrative traditions

The stereotypes of the Indian tribes on the frontiers of white settlement as uncivilized, war- loving, and irreconcilably savage enemies had been used by colonizing Europeans since their fi rst encoun-ters with the native peoples of the New World

"We've lost three people in the last week here[on the Blackfeet Reservation]who were beneficiaries to this settlement, and it hurts.

Finally, December 2009, the plaintiffs and new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a settlement. The United States would distribute $1.5billion among the plaintiffs to compensate for mismanagement of their accounts, provide $1.9billion dollars to purchase fractionated lands for consolidation in the tribe, and devote an addition$60 million for higher education scholarships. Cobell feltthatthe plaintiffs were due much more, but that they needed to accept the settlement. "Time takes a toll,” she said,“especially on elders living in abject poverty. Many of them died as we continued to struggle to settle this suit. Many more would not survive long to see a financial gain, if we had not settled now

t found, where the judge’s “professed hostility” was “so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.”

After all these years, our government still treats Native American Indians as if they were somehow less than deserving of the respect that should be afforded to everyone in a society where all people are supposed to be equal.[R]egardless of the motivations of the originators of the trust, one would expect, or at least hope, that the modern Interior department and its modern administrators would manage it in a way that reflects our modern understandings of how the government should treat people. Alas, our “modern” Interior department has time and again demonstrated that it is a dinosaur—the morally and culturally oblivious hand-me-down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist government that should have been buried a century ago, the last pathetic outpost of the indifference and anglocentrism we thought we had left behind.

Meanwhile, District Judge Lamberthhad become more and more frustrated with the defendants’inaction. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt was replaced by Secretary Gail Norton, and then Dirk Kempthorne, and the judge held each of them—as well as many other government officials and attorneys—in contempt, finding that they inexcusably failed to make progress toward compliance with their trust responsibilities, continued to destroy and fail to properly maintain records, and lied to the court about their progress.

Some even started to say that Cobell was just in it to secure a big payoff for herself

Largely with financing from the bank, her Blackfeet community, though still poor, developed 200 new businesses, mostly with financing from the bank she founded. She organized an annual fundraising gala in East Glacier Park, using the funding to start a recycling program and other projects. She initiated the first tribal land trust program, the Blackfeet Land Trust, to protect 1,200 acres of crucial grizzly bear habitat. One reporter called her a “dream source,” the person to talk to about any new initiative. And in the middle of it all, in 2005, Cobelldonated a kidney to her husband

Through the NACDC, she consulted with tribes and small businesses to create sustainable economic plans, and created financial literacy programs, including a mini-bank program for elementary school

Cobellstepped down as director of the Blackfeet National Bank when it became the Native American Bank,

government projects costing tens of millions of dollars, and dozens of experts and private firms working for the United States. By 2008, there were 3,504 entries in the judicial docket for the case and the case had been before the Court of Appeals nine times. It was a huge job just raising the moneynecessary to keep the lawsuit going. Cobell had funded the initial litigation with a $75,000 grant and a $600,000loan from the Otto Bremer Foundation.32She put in her $310,000 MacArthur Foundation grant as well. The Lannan Foundation donated another $4.1 million.33By the end, litigation had cost 11 million dollars—not including attorney fees—most of which Cobell raised from a variety of loans and grants

The caseinvolvedliterally miles of documents

The caseinvolvedliterally miles of documents,

The situation wasan invitation to misuse

Cobell started bringing hercomplaints to Washington. In the late 1980s, she testified in congressional hearings aboutthe trust accounts. In the resulting 1992 report, “A Misplaced Trust,” Congress declared, “It is apparent that top officials at the Bureau of Indian Affairs have utterly failed to grasp the human impact of its financial management of the Indian trust fund. The Indian trust fund is more than balance sheets and accounting procedures. These moneys are crucial to the daily operations of native American tribes and a source of income to tens of thousands of native Americans.” Two years later, Congress passedthe 1994 American Indian Trust Reform Act

Year after year, governmental auditors told the BIA to reconcile the accounts and institute basic procedures. Year after year, the BIA failed to do so, though itdidspentmillions of dollars on expensive private accounting programs that could not work because it the BIA could not provide accurate account information.

But the reasons for the loans were sometime more exotic—according to Cobell, they included the New York City’s 1975fiscal crisis, a Chrysler bailout, and writing down part of the national deb

This fractionation made it impossible for all of the owners to get together to manage the land themselves, and multiplied the difficulty for the BIA of figuring out who had what interest in the land

property descended to the heirs determined by state intestacy laws.

Allotmentwas a disaster. The majority of tribal land was declared surplus and lost to land-hungry whites

somewhere.”13In 1992, a comprehensive congressional report concluded, “[o]ne hundred sixty-three years later, Schoolcraft's assessment of the BIA's financial management still rings true.. . [W]hile mismanagement of the Indian trust fund has been reported for more than a century, there is no evidence that either the Bureau or the Department of the Interior has undertaken any sustained or comprehensive effort to resolve glaring deficiencies.”14The problem increased exponentially as a result of the federal allotment policy. In the lastpart of the nineteenth century, the United States decided that individual ownership of land would convince Indians to abandon their tribes and their cultures, and thereby provide the magic cure for the “Indian problem.” Not coincidentally, the policy would also transfer most Indian land to whites. As formalized by the 1887 Dawes Allotment Act, commonly held reservations would be divided among individual Indians in allotments of up to 160 acres. The allotments would be held in trust for twenty-five years, and then could be sold by the Indian owner. Anything left over after allotment was declared “surplus,”and opened up to states, railroads, and homesteaders

The trust account problem began almost two hundred years ago. Tribes across the nation ceded billions of acres of land to the United States; in hundreds of treaties, the United States promised payment for the lands. After 1820, rather than distribute payment to the tribes directly, the U.S. held the money for the tribes. If a tribe won a money award for illegal taking of their property, the United States held that money as well. The U.S. made the decisions about investing the money, and if a tribe wanted to use it themselves, it had to get federal permission first

Sometimes you get the feeling, especially in Indian country, that you'll never get a win. Somebody is always on your case.

In 1997, the MacArthur Foundation awarded Cobell a grantof $310,000 in recognition of her work with the bank and for financial literacy. The awards are nicknamed “genius grants.”

In 1987, the Blackfeet National Bank opened its doors.7It was the first bank in the country owned by an Indian tribe. When it opened, the bank had one million dollars in capital. In tenyears, itsassets multiplied to $17million.8In 2001, twenty tribes joined in the newly christened Native American Bank. Today, twenty-six tribes participate in the bank, which has assets of $82 million, and provides financing across Indian country.

Although she would wear many hats, Cobellremained a rancher for the rest of her life.

"She begged me to please stay in school," Cobellrecalled, but she thought, “I can go to school anytime."4She never did go back.

studied accounting

explanation. Good with numbers, and trying to understandthe poverty she saw around her, Cobell starting asking the BIA for an accounting of hertrust monieswhen she was just 18. The officials refused, telling her she wasn’t “capable” of understanding it.

That one room exposed her to theworld outside the reservation. "It opened my eyes and made me want to do a lot of things.

When Cobellwas four years old, her father managed to get a one-room schoolhouse built so localchildren would not have to go away to boarding school.

Driven by such stories, Cobellspent her life seeking accountability for government abuse of Indian property and restoring Indian control of their financial futures. Before she died in 2011, she had founded the firstNative American bank, won a MacCarthur “genius” grant, been honored as a warrior by her tribe, and madethe United States to agree to pay 3.4 billion dollars—the largest federal class action settlement ever made--for its mismanagement of Indian property

a mass grave for over 500 Blackfeetwho died of starvation and disease in the Starvation Winter of 1883 and 1884. Although the United States was supposed to provide rations under its treaties with the Blackfeet Nation, the local federal agent hoarded therations to sell on the black market.

We never asked for this system; it was imposed on us. Now, they are mismanaging our money--not appropriations or donations, but our own money--and we can't fire them. . . . All that's going to change.We are not going to let them off the hook. There has to be reform and restitution. There has to be justice

The hatchet shall be forever buried, and the peace given by the United States, andfriendship re-established between the said states on the one part, and all the Cherokeeson the other, shall be universal; and the contracting parties shall use their utmostendeavours to maintain the peace given as aforesaid, and friendship re-established

Cherokees to trade with them, and they shall be protected in their persons and property,and kindly treated

For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for the prevention of injuriesor oppressions on the part of the citizens or Indians; the United States in Congressassembled shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the Indians,and managing all their affairs in such manners as they think proper

If any citizen of the United States, or person under their protection, shall commit arobbery or murder or other capital crime, on any Indian, such offender or offenders shall bepunished in the same manner as if the murder or robbery or other capital crime, had beencommitted on a citizen of the United States; and the punishment shall be in presence ofsome of the Cherokees, if any shall attend at the time and place, and that they may havean opportunity so to do, due notice of the time of such intended punishment shall be sentto some one of the tribes

If any citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall attemptto settle on any of the lands westward or southward of the said boundary which are herebyallotted to the Indians for their hunting grounds, or having already settled and will notremove from the same with six months after the ratification of this treaty, such personshall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Indians may punish him or not asthey please-provided nevertheless,

The said Indians for themselves, and their respective tribes and towns, doacknowledge all the Cherokees to be under the protection of the United States of America,and of no other sovereign whosoever

The Commissioners of the United States in Congress assembled, shall restore allthe prisoners taken from the Indians, during the late war, to the Head-Men and Warriors ofthe Cherokees, as early as is practicable

The United States do allot to the Shawanoe nation, lands within their territory tolive and hunt upon, beginning at the fourth line of the lands allotted to the Wiandots andDelaware nations,

neglecting to give information thereof to the commanding officer ofthe nearest post of the United States, shall be considered as parties in such war, and bepunished accordingly: and the United States shall in like manner inform the Shawanoes ofany injury designed against them

The shawanoe nation having knowledge of the intention of any nation or body ofIndians to make war on the citizens of the United States

of the United States, or any of them, that nation shall deliver such offender, or offenders tothe officer commanding the nearest post of the United States, to be punished according tothe ordinances of Congress; and in like manner any citizen of the United States who shalldo an injury to any Indian of the Shawanoe nation, or to any other Indian Indians residingin their towns, and under their protection, shall be punished according to the laws of theUnited States

The Shawanoe nation, do acknowledge the United States to be the sole andabsolute sovereigns of all the territory ceded to them by a treaty of peace, made betweenthem and the King of Great-Britain, the fourteenth day of January, one thousand sevenhundred and eight-fou

HREE hostages shall be immediately delivered to the commissioners, to remainin the possession of the United States, until all the prisoners, white and black, taken in thelate war from among the citizens of the United States, by the Shawanoe nation, or by anyother Indian or Indians residing in their towns, shall be restored

they did not have title to their land—that belonged to the US, but they did have the rights of use and occupancy.

Utilizing a lot of racist presumptions and false historical narratives, Chief Justice John Marshall established that Native people could not be seen as having the same property rights as Americans.

whatever Britain had claimed through the “doctrine of discovery” was now under the possession of the United States.

The international component specifies that whichever European nation got to a portion of the “New World” first, they had “prior claim

Basically, the question came down to did Native people have the right to give a title to land to a private individual and have that title hold up in Court?Ultimately, John Marshall held that because the United States had acquired the land of the Illinois and Piankeshaws in the Revolution, the title of the land transferred to the United States—previous sales that had been negotiated by individuals and Native people had no standing.

The confederation had been finally defeated in the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794, after a long, protracted battle with American settlers and the American Army.

The Johnson case stemmed from the conflicts surrounding land that had been ceded to the United States by Great Britain after the Revolutionary War. Under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the lands located west of the Appalachian Mountains were not to be purchased by private individuals.

The Cobell case resolves claims that the federal government violated its trust duties by not providing proper accounting, mismanaging individual trust funds, and mismanaged management of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, and other resources. You’ll read much more about the case and the lead plaintiff, Elouise Cobell, in the short reading by Bethany Berge

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), also known in US history as the Office of Indian Affairs and the Indian Service, is the bureaucratic arm of the federal government responsible for maintaining the trust relationship.

“The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Indian tribes (Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942). This obligation was first discussed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). Over the years, the trust doctrine has been at the center of numerous other Supreme Court cases, thus making it one of the most important principles in federal Indian law

It is likely that a successful Sequoyah movement would have had negative impactson the future of other tribal governments as well. The allotment and assimilation policiesof the federal government6 2 were premised on the idea that Indians could be successfullybrought within the mainstream, as full citizens of the United States, leaving no need for acontinued tribal existence.63 A primary tool of "civilization" was the allotment process,where tribal land bases would be divided and parceled out to individual Indians, whowould then become agriculturalists and tribal governments would cease to exist

Given the fact that the Sequoyah Constitution made such detailed provisions forthe transfer of power from the tribes to the new state, it is inconceivable that the triballeaders expected a continued dual political existence. They fully expected the completeeradication of their tribal governments and in fact, petitioned Congress to facilitate thefinal transition from tribal to state governance.

The Sequoyah Constitution limits the discussion to rightsand privileges "as to person or property," making particular mention of lands forhomesteading and taxation purposes. The Sequoyah Constitution does not mention landsthat would continue to be held by tribal nations, nor does it mention a continued federalpresence or federal jurisdiction in Indian country

The Sequoyah Constitution notesthat the new state would become an "inseparable part of the Federal Union, and theConstitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Tribes have won several legal battles against Oklahoma's assertions thatOklahoma is somehow different than other states, having broader powers inside Indiancountry. Tribes have been successful in conflicts with the State of Oklahoma withrespect to tribal property rights,4 4 state and tribal taxation authority,4 5 and in the exerciseof tribal police powers to the exclusion of state criminal jurisdiction.

The federal legislation preserves the on-going primacy of federal law over Indian affairs,to the exclusion of the new state

Oklahoma's inclusion into the United States byact of Congress was a unilateral abrogation of at least one treaty guarantee from theUnited States to the Five Tribes: That the tribal nations would never be a part of aState.33 Although Oklahoma statehood meant that the Five Tribes would be physicallyand geographic included within the boundaries of the state, Oklahoma was admitted intothe federal union on the condition that rights of Indian persons and property remainunimpaired,34 thus leaving the Five Tribes on the legal periphery of Oklahoma

Byexamining the Sequoyah Constitution, the federal laws that impacted tribal governancein the intervening century, and the evolution of modem tribal sovereignty, I concludethat the defeat of the Sequoyah movement was in fact a blessing for the tribes.

TRIBAL SO VEREIGNTY AND THE STATE OF SEQUOYAHland to individual tribal citizens, who became U.S. citizens, with dual tribal citizenshipbeing phased out upon the termination of the tribal government on or before the March 4,1906 deadline. Under these agreements, once the conveyance of allotment deeds fromthe tribe was finalized, it was presumed the tribal governments would have no furtherbusiness to attend.28As the March 4 deadline approached, most tribal leaders viewed the Sequoyahmovement as the only viable option for the tribes to retain some political clout. If thetribes were going to become extinct and tribal citizens subjected to another system oflaws, it was crucial that tribes become engaged in that political process that would shapethat future.Most commentators rightfully praise the tribal leaders for their resilience ininitiating the Sequoyah movement, noting that these were true statesmen earnestly tryingto do the best for their nations in light of dreadful circumstances. The pragmatic wisdomand leadership is to be commended, and the work product from the Sequoyah conventionshould be praised. For purposes of this article, however, I turn the attention away fromdefeat of the Sequoyah movement, toward a critical discussion of the future of tribalsovereignty had the Sequoyah movement been successful.IV. THE "INEVITABLE" DATE THAT NEVER CAME TO PASSAlthough the tribal leaders fully believed that March 4, 1906, would bring the finalextinction of tribal political existence for the Five Tribes, Congress intervened prior tothat date by passing legislation that continued the tribes' existence in perpetuity.29 Thelegislation brought tribes back from the brink of extinction by revoking the March 4deadline and stating the "Five Tribes shall continue in full force and effect."

land to individual tribal citizens, who became U.S. citizens, with dual tribal citizenshipbeing phased out upon the termination of the tribal government on or before the March 4,1906 deadline. Under these agreements, once the conveyance of allotment deeds fromthe tribe was finalized, it was presumed the tribal governments would have no furtherbusiness to attend.

The movement was never intended to create a confederation of IndianNations18 and it was not a covert or tactical attempt to preserve tribal laws andinstitutions under a different name. To the contrary, the new state would have producedan abrupt transition from tribal governance based on tribal law to a new state government

This scenario, no matter how likely it appeared in 1907, did not come to pass.Instead, a series of unforeseeable events followed, leaving the tribal governments intactin spite of the newly formed State of Oklahoma

Tribal leaders actively sought congressional action, through lobbying and diplomacyefforts, but were met with opposition or indifference. While these measures were undercongressional consideration,

Following the convention, the Sequoyah Constitution was presented to eligiblevoters3 and the measure was ratified by an overwhelming margin of 56,279 to 9,073.4Approximately 75% of eligible voters participated in the election, including citizens ofthe Five Tribes and other U.S. citizens residing within Indian Territory in 1905 that hadnot previously established tribal citizenship

State of Sequoyah, which, if admitted, wouldbecome the forty-sixth state within the federal union.

American Indian legal history is replete with stories of foreseeable consequences.Most of these stories involve the United States failing to uphold treaty guarantees. Ineach of these stories, the United States ignores the tribal diplomatic efforts of the time,engages in unilateral federal action, and tribal autonomy is forever diminished. In thesestories, history will judge the federal treaty abrogation as the catalyst for a chain offoreseeable events that renders modem tribal governments weaker than their historicalpredecessors.

10. No person shall be imprisoned for debt.

Every citizen shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of this privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.

That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and they shall have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government as may be lawfully provided for

hen we saw the flag we went in. When we got in, the soldiers told us we must give up our horses and arms, which we did. Then the soldiers arrested thirty-one of our peo-ple and put them in irons. One young man thought he would rather be killed than put in irons, and when the soldiers came to arrest him he ran, and was fired upon by the soldiers and killed. This brought on the last war between the Cheyenne

had some trouble with the whites in Texas, and were going on the war path. Lone Wolf, of the Kiowas, medicine man Swan, an

I like my Agent, he has done me good. I allude to Agent Miles. He encouraged us to farm, and send our children to school. The Agent treats the children well. I will remember the good talk of the Indians, and I assure them that the Arapahoes will never fight again. I am for peace, with white man and red man.

I want to do as my friends the Chero-kees, Creeks and Choctaws are doing.

The Government in its wisdom has seen that there are elements calculated to destroy us, while standing singly, and in order to protect us she has given us these means and from year to year she has asked us to accept of them. Now, my friends, will we accept of them? or, Will we stand separate? Will we trust each other? or, Will we look upon each other with the eye of suspicion? And if we don't trust each other, whom will we trust? If the treaties have not been carried out, what is the cause I It is because we are isolated from each other, and cannot command the moral force to cause them to be ful-filled. There are two means to compel nations to comply with their contracts; one is by brute force, and the other is by moral force. Now we cannot compel the Government to abide by her treaty stipu-lations, by going to war. We have tried that, and. it has reduced us Irom large nations to mere handfuls of tribes.

But, breth-ren, let us come to the subject before us; it is simply this, to appoint a committee from this council to draft a constitution for our consideration. When this com-mittee is appointed they will consider what we can and what we cannot do. They will express their thoughts on paper, and lay it before us That com-mittee will examine and discuss all the difficulties that may possibly come in our way, and nlso the way. if any, to overcome them.

y the adoption of this Indian Government we do not expect to cut loose from the friendship of those meu, or to lose their good will, but we suppose that we will manufacture means that they can use to make them more powerful in our de-fense in the Congress of the United States. It has been said that we were in the way of civilization, and that we were not able to help ourselves; if we pass this bill it will muzzle our enemies and make our friends strong in our defense

It is true each tribe might have to concede something, but we suppose that they will look well into everything they concede and that they Avill reap a great reward for all such concessions. They would get a Govern-ment protecting life and property in the Indian Terri-tory.

If wTe should make a confederate government or league, we will necessarily have to concede some of our rights to this creation, which may prove a blessing or salvation, or what is more probable, it may prove the destruction of many of our rights, and finally sap the very foundation of our domestic gov-ernment.

The government that is in operation in my nation has been in successful working order for the last for-ty years, making laws pursuant to a constitution which clearly defines the power of the executive, leg-islative and judicial departments, and we feel incom-petent to launch out upon any governmental order which is more complex than ours.

All the good talk I have heard here, I am going to keep until I get home to my people, and tell them all the good news.

Superintendent, won't you help us ? Won't you write to Washington right away and get us implements so we can go to work? I know I am a right young man. I can work and I will work. I have four boys. I will send them to school, so they may learn to read and write. Every day I dont know what to do. Even' day the children cry for something to eat, and if I go to work like my brothers, my children will always get something to eat. I never feel tired. I used to run about in every direction. I now want to work. I do not like to lie down all the time. Something always happens. It is not good. A man that works every day feels good. My brothers, you know I only followed the chief

We want rights secured for our children, so that they will not lose their lands, if we should die.

sufficient food, and there being no competition, the prices are very high We want more traders. Our people need wheat and oats for seed. Our cou

hey moved to their present locations, and commenced again, and for five years succeeded very well. Then General Davidson and three companies of soldiers, came upon the wild Indians at the Wichita Agency, and tired upon them when our people were among them drawing their ra-tions, without giving us notice to get out from among them, as we would have done. In that fight, we again lost our property, but we will not give it up. This spring our people started their farms again, and if a favorable season, we expect to raise good crops. The young men are plowing; our people are purcha

Our people have started a great many houses, had a considerable number of rails made, land broken and fenced, and under cultivation; have about 68 houses up, and have made many improvements upon their farms. They have employed Seminoles, and paid them for their la-bor on their houses and farms, by selling them horses. We have about 500 hogs left, having lost about 2000 head during the hght last August, between the wild bands and the United States troops at the Wichita agency. We also lost some horses and a good many cattle. Our fences were destroyed and some houses were burned in that fight. We had very good corn. The drouth damaged it but little. The Indians en-gaged in the fight, destroyed it because we would not assist them against the United States. This caused considerable suffering from hunger Cherokees, and our other brethren in the eastern portion of the Terri-tory have better protection. We are more exposed to thieves and the lawless. As soon as we get a start in property, the wild Indians steal our corn and other produce, and kill our cattle and hogs. While we lived on the Brazos Reserve we had many horses, hogs, and cattle, and were living like the Creeks. We had houses and farms, raised wheat and oats, corn and vegetables. "VY hen we had a good start there, and doing well, the citizens of Palo Pinto and Earth counties, who wanted our reserve, came upon us, and made war against us, causing us to lose the greatest portion of the property we had.

If I could learn all that happens here, all that is said, all the papers that are handed in at the desk, and what the Chair-man says, I would be satisfied. But sometimes I see my brothers holding up their hands, and as I do not know what it is about, I have to go by guess-work. In every tribe of Indians there are three or four lead-ing men, and the rest take examples after them. My red brothers that are more advanced in education, I am sure would do perfectly right by me, but that is not it, I want to understand what is going on.

I wish to make a few remarks. I have been here now for a week attending this Council. I belong to the Kaw tribe, and we came down here without an interpreter. I do not think I have learned all of your proceedings yet, as I think the acting interpreter does not take as much pains with us as he does with the Osages.

I want to do what is right. I am the peacemaker between white man and red man. Government is strong, and I want to be at peace. I have no more to say.

e have a good school at the agency and send all our children that can be taken care of. There are in all nearly 100 scholars ; they are improving fast, many of them can read and write and are fast learning to talk the language of the white people. We want more school houses.

After the treatment our people had re-ceived at the hands of the Kiowas, our young men were very willing to take the war path against the Kiowas. About fifty of our men were enlisted, and some of them continued to serve until the last Kiowa was forced into Fort Sill. Our young men were treat-ed very kindly by the soldiers, and the subsistence derived from the military at Port Sill, was a great help to us in getting through the dreary winter that has just passed.

he Kiowas plundered our village, robbed us of all that we had, burnt our school house, destroyed our crops that we had gathered and laid by for winter use; in a few hours destroying all the results of our summer's work. We received word that the Government had forward-ed provisions for our winter supply, and although we were told repeatedly they were coming, they never came.

We want a deed for our reservation, that our places may go to our chil-dren, when the old people are gone. We do not want the land to be taken from our children.

hey did so, and have a start. They do not starve. They have cows, hogs, chickens, ponies, and a few have wagons. They are making a living for their children. They do not wait for the agent to do something for them. They do not wait for the agent to plow for them. They wait for nothing. What they have to do, they do it. Young men work on the farms, and the women cook and do the house work. They have the best start of any of the Indians on the Washita. They raise gardens. I do not number the acres of cultivated farms under fence. Have hewed log houses. I do not make my agricul-tural report till I see my people on the Canadian. Then I can make a true report, next year. I do not like to guess. The Caddos on the Canadian cook in stoves. They sell cows, hogs, and chickens, for mone

gentlemen

heirintention, which in any other people would be consid-ered a laudable one, is falsified, and then turned against',them to cover aid forward the design of the strong torob the weak

Hence, every action takenby the Indian Nations in concert, is narrowly watched;because there is the general apprehension that theymight by some action of their own, ward off for a longperiod the extinction of their nationalities

efore we could seriously think of fight-ing, we would have to go back beyond a century in time;resume the scalp dance and the warriors' paint, thebarbed arrow, and the tomahawk, and leave our farms,and schools,

he recommended a compliance with the wishes ofthe Indians, so far as "consistent with safety." Wherewas the danger? Did it threaten the Indians themselves?If we could suppose for a moment that the guardian wasso solicious for the welfare of the ward as to apprehenddanger to the latter from his own acts, then we wouldeither have to consider the guardian as a paragon ofgentleness and good intentions, or that the ward wasthe feeblest and most abject of human kind. Who,whether white or red is willing to accept either ofthese conclusions?

But nevertheless these Indians have rightswhich should be respected, and these rights the pro -posed legislation would treat with utter disregard.And this notwithstanding that there is every prospectthat the coveted country will be opened up to whitesettlement, under proper restrictions, by the Indiansthemselves, if they were permitted to go on in theirown way.

carried into effect would result inthe'establishment of a barbaric dominion within acivilized republic, subdivided into nearly twentydifferent nations, all speaking different languages,and each under its individual chiefs.

That a perpetual peace and friendship shall from henceforth take place, and subsist between the contracting: parties aforesaid, through all succeeding generations: and if either of the parties are engaged in a just and necessary war with any other nation or nations, that then each shall assist the other in due proportion to their abilities, till their enemies are brought to reasonable terms of accommodation: and that if either of them shall discover any hostile designs forming against the other, they shall give the earliest notice thereof that timeous measures may be taken to prevent their ill effect.

Would a Native state be the best way to protect the territories and rights of Native residents of Indian Territory?

Once white settlers had entrenched themselves, it was difficult to have them removed

o far

hav

All nations agreed to abolish slavery. The Seminoles, Creeks, and Cherokees were forced to grant citizenship and equality to their former slaves, the Choctaws and Chickasaws were not.

These tribes were called to a meeting with the Union at the end of the Civil War in 1865 and told that the treaties they had signed with the Confederacy meant that they had “rightfully forfeited all annuities and interests in the lands in the Indian Territory,” and they had to send delegates to Washington DC to sign new treaties of “peace and amity.”

Native land was believed to ultimately belong to the United States, although it was also recognized that Natives occupied the land, and that they could cede it to the US without duress.Natives were considered to be culturally and intellectually inferior to whites.Native tribes must nevertheless be treated as nations capable of entering into diplomatic negotiations and making war. [15]

And it is further agreed on between the contracting parties should it for the future be conducive for the mutual interest of both parties to invite any other tribes who have been friends to the interest of the United States, to join the present confederation, and to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have a representation in Congress.

These hopes were not answered for the Stockbridge community. Indeed, Wunder notes that, as the war neared its end, General George Washington avoided using Natives in his regiments and distanced himself from any commitments to them. Even though the Stockbridge Natives fought for the Americans and suffered greatly as a result of the war, their petitions to Congress went unanswered. The Oneidas in New York came to their aid and offered them land

This seems to be a pretty self-interested rewriting of all of the previous wars that had taken place between colonists and Native people, not to mention a generalized and monolithic version of all Natives

George Washington, who had bought thousands of acres in veterans’ claims to “bounty” land. Thomas Jefferson, who had participated in three different ventures that would have yielded him a total of 17,000 acres of land, were it not for the restrictions placed on the land from the Proclamation. Patrick Henry, who had joined in at least five land ventures between 1767 and 1773, and knew that his money would have been wasted if London had its way.

An army of two thousand Virginians attacked Shawnee and Seneca-Cayuga settlements and forced them to sign deeds granting all land east of the Ohio River, including all of Kentucky, to Virginia. When authorities in Britain refused to revoke the Proclamation because the deeds had been signed under duress, Virginia’s leading revolutionaries added the abolition of land speculation to their list of grievances against Britain

Furthermore, they tried to expand their anti-British coalition to include nations south of the Ohio River, including the Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, who were quite powerful and populous. None of these nations had joined in Pontiac’s Rebellion. Therefore, if any of them now joined the anti-British coalition, and if all the nations who fought with Pontiac agreed to fight again—the new confederacy would be the strongest the British had ever faced

Native nations of the Upper Ohio established a powerful diplomatic alliance, signaling to the British that they would not welcome the repeal of this proclamation.

the British gave them “two blankets and a handkerchief out of the Small Pox hospital.” About this incident, William Trent, a local trader, wrote in his journal in 1763, “I hope it will have the desired effect.”

Smallpox had broken out already.

By 1765, only four of the British posts remained

Neolin visited the Master of Life and had taken his message back to the Delawares

Nativist refers to a revival of indigenous cultures/religions in the face of acculturation— emphasizing the power and superiority of Native traditions over the traditions, religions, goods, life-ways, and culture of Europeans.

Neolin was one of many nativist prophets who preached their messages in the mid-to-late eighteenth centuries

to remove the British from posts recently occupied by the Frenc

Neolin, a Delaware religious prophet

defining political sovereignty

Treaty of the Week

The course is organized thematically rather than chronologically. This means we’ll be circling back to different critical events but varying the perspective and approach of how we assess those events.

History can be fun

We'll be using a lot of open source educational material in our class, which is all free! and open! to everyone! We’ll also be using stuff that is free to you as UCSD students

Hypothesis an

I like to analyze all of the messy and complicated relationships people have with each other, with the environment, with the state and politics, and with society and culture

I do my own grading!

I’m currently working on a book (based on my doctoral dissertation) about Native peoples’ access to welfare benefits in the World War II era. If you want to read more about me or my work, you can check out the About page on this website!

Indeed, research suggests that the common tendency of students to focus on grades doesn’t reflect an innate predilection or a “learning style” to be accommodated; rather, it’s due to having been led for years to work for grades. 

“many of the ‘high performing’ students were angry at first.  They saw it as unfair.  They viewed school as work and their peers as competitors….Yet, over time they switch and they calm down.  They end up learning more once they aren’t feeling the pressure” from grades

Some teachers, for example, evaluate their students’ performance (in qualitative terms, of course), but others believe it’s more constructive to offer only feedback — which is to say, information.

He meets with about three-quarters of them twice a term, in most cases briefly, to assess their performance and, if necessary (although it rarely happens) to discuss a concern about the grade they’ve suggested

I’ve had lots of kids tell me it’s changed their attitude about coming to school.”

offers comments to all of his 125 students “about what they’re doing and what they need to improve on” and makes abbreviated notes in his grade book.

Now, he offers comments to all of his 125 students “about what they’re doing and what they need to improve on” and makes abbreviated notes in his grade book.  At the end of the term, over a period of about a week, he grabs each student for a conversation at some point — “because the system isn’t designed to allow kids this kind of feedback” — asking “what did you learn, how did you learn it.  Only at the very end of the conversation [do] I ask what grade will reflect it… and we’ll collectively arrive at something.”

Kids were stressed out and also preferred to avoid intellectual risks.  “They’ll take an easier assignment that will guarantee the A.”

In fact, negative reactions to this proposal (“It’s unrealistic!”) point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.

First, they can stop putting letter or number grades on individual assignments and instead offer only qualitative feedback.

absurd

To address one common fear, the graduates of grade-free high schools are indeed accepted by selective private colleges and large public universities — on the basis of narrative reports and detailed descriptions of the curriculum (as well as recommendations, essays, and interviews), which collectively offer a fuller picture of the applicant than does a grade-point average.  Moreover, these schools point out that their students are often more motivated and proficient learners, thus better prepared for college, than their counterparts at traditional schools who have been preoccupied with grades

If it isn’t, then our obligation is to work for its elimination and, in the meantime, do what we can to minimize its impact.

“Like it or not, grading is here to stay”

it is a symbol of failure — failure to teach well, failure to test well, and failure to have any influence at all on the intellectual lives of students

If grades are based on state standards, there’s particular reason to be concerned since those standards are often too specific, age-inappropriate, superficial, and standardized by definition

The term “standards-based” is sometimes intended just to mean that grading is aligned with a given set of objectives

“When comments and grades coexist, the comments are written to justify the grade” (Wilson, 2009, p. 60).  Teachers report that students, for their part, often just turn to the grade and ignore the comment, but “when there’s only a comment, they read it,”

school is seen as a test, rather than an adventure in ideas,

If you’re sorting students into four or five piles, you’re still grading them.

Rubrics

the absence of grades is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for promoting deep thinking and a desire to engage in it.  It’s worth lingering on this proposition in light of a variety of efforts to sell us formulas to improve our grading techniques, none of which address the problems of grading, per se.

Portfolios, for example, can be constructive if they replace grades rather than being used to yield them.  They offer a way to thoughtfully gather a variety of meaningful examples of learning for the students to review.  But what’s the point, “if instruction is dominated by worksheets so that every portfolio looks the same”?

The result is that teachers may become more adept at measuring how well students have mastered a collection of facts and skills

To talk about what happens in classrooms, let alone in children’s heads, as moving forward or backward in specifiable degrees, is not only simplistic because it fails to capture much of what is going on, but also destructive because it may change what is going on for the worse.  Once we’re compelled to focus only on what can be reduced to numbers, such as how many grammatical errors are present in a composition or how many mathematical algorithms have been committed to memory, thinking has been severely compromised. 

There is certainly value in assessing the quality of learning and teaching

Assessment consultants worry that grades may not accurately reflect student performance; educational psychologists worry because grades fix students’ attention on their performance.

assessment must be done carefully and sparingly lest students become so concerned about their achievement (how good they are at doing something — or, worse, how their performance compares to others’)

the more students are led to focus on how well they’re doing, the less engaged they tend to be with what they’re doing.

Extrinsic motivation, which includes a desire to get better grades, is not only different from, but often undermines, intrinsic motivation, a desire to learn for its own sake

what counts is the nature of their motivation

“If you have one eye on how close you are to achieving your goal, that leaves only one eye for your task

no recent research has contradicted the earlier “big three” findings

For example, a grade-oriented environment is associated with increased levels of cheating (Anderman and Murdock, 2007), grades (whether or not accompanied by comments) promote a fear of failure even in high-achieving students (Pulfrey et al., 2011),

Grades tend to reduce the quality of students’ thinking.  They may skim books for what they’ll “need to know.” They’re less likely to wonder, say, “How can we be sure that’s true?” than to ask “Is this going to be on the test?”

Grades create a preference for the easiest possible task.  Impress upon students that what they’re doing will count toward their grade, and their response will likely be to avoid taking any unnecessary intellectual risks.  They’ll choose a shorter book, or a project on a familiar topic, in order to minimize the chance of doing poorly — not because they’re “unmotivated” but because they’re rational.  They’re responding to adults who, by telling them the goal is to get a good mark, have sent the message that success matters more than learning.

Grades tend to diminish students’ interest in whatever they’re learning.  A “grading orientation” and a “learning orientation” have been shown to be inversely related and, as far as I can tell, every study that has ever investigated the impact on intrinsic motivation of receiving grades (or instructions that emphasize the importance of getting good grades) has found a negative effect.

They remind us just how long it’s been clear there’s something wrong with what we’re doing as well as just how little progress we’ve made in acting on that realization.

Most of the criticisms of grading you’ll hear today were laid out forcefully and eloquently anywhere from four to eight decades ago

the use of letters or numbers as evaluative summaries of how well students have done, regardless of the method used to arrive at those judgments.

Collecting information doesn’t require tests, and sharing that information doesn’t require grades.  In fact, students would be a lot better off without either of these relics from a less enlightened age.

two-step dance.  We need to collect information about how students are doing, and then we need to share that information (along with our judgments, perhaps) with the students and their parents.  Gather and report — that’s pretty much it.

Suddenly all the joy was taken away.  I was writing for a grade — I was no longer exploring for me. 

The Case Against Grades