he guardian-ward analogy eventually became doctrine in the development of the trust relationship, in which the US acts as the trustee for the beneficiary tribe (and individual Indians) in regard to matters of trust land and natural resources, as well as “protecting” tribes from the states. Yet, it is not clear what the standard of “care” for the trustee was.

Cherokees were not citizens of the US, and the Cherokee Nation was not a state of the union, therefore, they reasoned they were a “foreign state.”

n Alabama, the general assembly passed laws in 1827, 1828, and 1829, which extended the state’s legal authority into all of the Creek Nation, with the proviso that no Indian would enjoy ‘any political or civil rights’ under state law. In 1832, they passed a law which prohibited the functioning of Creek national government.

Treaties were expedients by which ignorant, intractable, and savage people were induced without bloodshed to yield up what civilized people had a right to possess by virtue of that comment of the Creator delivered to men upon his formation—be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it.

The doctrine of discovery and the Johnson system was based on a racist worldview that assumed that Native people lacked civilization and Christianity, and that European willingness to “bestow” these gifts of civilization would be “ample compensation” for any resulting loss of land. Marshall justifies American ownership of Native land under this false anthropological distinction between the nature of Indian subsistence as compared to the “civilization” of Americans and Europeans.Another quote from Marshall quoted in the William’s reading:“But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.” [5

This doctrine was the norm of early international law—it was the assumption that there was enough land for all “discoverers” to divide amongst themselves. It presumed that those who were already on that land were inferior to those who had “discovered” it. Since the US had acquired land from Great Britain in the Revolution, whatever Britain had claimed through the “doctrine of discovery” was now under the possession of the United States.The domestic aspect of the doctrine focused on the relationship of the “discoverer” to the Native people, not to the other “discoverers.” 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

In 1818, the US government conveyed 11,560 acres of this land to William McIntosh, who took possession of it before the lawsuit by Johnson was initiated. The Court framed the issue in this way: “What is ‘the power of Indians to give, and private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the Courts of the country?’” The Court ruled that they had no such power.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. [2]

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 Berger.

The BIA has a complex and ambiguous relationship with Native people. Choctaw anthropologist Valerie Lambert notes that “opposition and hostility characterize many American Indian relationships with the BIA.” [1] However, since the 1960s, she notes that the political power of the BIA has weakened. The BIA is the largest employer of Native people (Walmart is the second largest). The relationship between Native people and the BIA is complicated, to say the least.So, the trust relationship, in the fewest possible words, the trust relationship is all about land and money.

The federal Indian trust responsibility is also a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages. In several cases discussing the trust responsibility, the Supreme Court has used language suggesting that it entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of understandings and expectations that have arisen over the entire course of the relationship between the United States and the federally recognized tribes.”

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.

A Sequoyah movement would have provided a perfect example for the perceivedwisdom of the allotment and assimilation policies. There would be a success story todemonstrate that tribal governments could be terminated and that former tribal citizenscould become citizens of the United States, fully participating in American democracy.

Treaties are never mentioned in the Sequoyah Constitution as a collectivetribal right. Treaties are only referenced for the purpose of individual Indian propertiesthat would continue under federal oversight on a temporary basis only. The OklahomaConstitution, on the other hand, specifically mentions Indian tribes or nations as entitieswith on-going existences.51

As 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

In the fifteen years leading up to the Sequoyah convention, the U.S. Congress hadpassed legislation to allot tribal lands without tribal consent, and tribal governmentalinstitutions had been crippled, if not abolished, by unilateral federal legislation.2 5 At thesame time, the United States executive branch had begun exercising control over triballands without tribal consent, despite the fact that the Five Tribes held fee title to the landswithin their territories.2 6 Tribal attempts to halt the continued onslaught of federalincursion into tribal property rights and internal tribal sovereignty were unsuccessful inlight of the United States Supreme Court's rejection of tribal challenges against federalincursion.

The only apparent option for future political influence was participation in the newOklahoma state government, where former tribal leaders would become mere citizens ofa new state, and the cycle of United States colonization in Indian country would becomplete. 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, President Theodore Roosevelt stated his preference thatboth Oklahoma and Indian Territory be admitted as a single state.11 Following thePresident's remarks, no action was taken in Congress with respect to Sequoyahstatehood.12 The majority adopted the single state option,13 and the Sequoyahmovement was defeated, paving the way for Oklahoma statehood in 1907.

a constitutional conventionwas convened in 1905 at the town of Muskogee, Indian Territory. The conventionproduced the governing document for the State of Sequoyah, which, if admitted, wouldbecome the forty-sixth state within the federal union. The new state would envelope thetreaty-guaranteed territorial boundaries of the Five Tribes,

So here we have the serious objections, whichhave become common however in the newspapers, eversince Governor Brown's figure of speech about theChinese wall

Whereas the enemies of the United States have endeavored, by every artifice in their power, to possess the Indians in general with an opinion, that it is the design of the States aforesaid, to extirpate the Indians and take possession of their country to obviate such false suggestion, the United States do engage to guarantee to the aforesaid nation of Delawares, and their heirs, all their territorial rights in the fullest and most ample manner, as it bath been bounded by former treaties, as long as they the said Delaware nation shall abide by, and hold fast the chain of friendship now entered into.

And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither shall entertain or give countenance to the enemies of the other, or protect in their respective states, criminal fugitives, servants or slaves, but the same to apprehend, and secure and deliver to the State or States, to which such enemies, criminals, servants or slaves respectively belong.

And the said deputies, on the behalf of their nation, engage to join the troops of the United States aforesaid, with such a number of their best and most expert warriors as they can spare, consistent with their own safety, and act in concert with them; and for the better security of the old men, women and children of the aforesaid nation, whilst their warriors are engaged against the common enemy, it is agreed on the part of the United States, that a fort of sufficient strength and capacity be built at the expense of the said States, with such assistance as it may be in the power of the said Delaware Nation to give, in the most convenient place, and advantageous situation, as shall be agreed on by the commanding officer of the troops aforesaid, with the advice and concurrence of the deputies of the aforesaid Delaware Nation, which fort shall be garrisoned by such a number of the troops of the United States, as the commanding officer can spare for the present, and hereafter by such numbers, as the wise men of the United States in council, shall think most conducive to the common good.

The issue of Native statehood presented itself again in 1905. At the turn of the twentieth century, American politicians began to propose the creation of a state government in Indian Territory. Oklahoma Territory had been carved out of Indian Territory in 1870. The question was whether Congress would admit one state or two states to the Union.

The Delawares decided to remain neutral in the Revolutionary War. But by 1778 it was clear that this could not last. The Delawares were faced with threats from the British Army on one side and the Wyandots, on whose land they had settled, on the other. White Eyes ended up sending a secret plea for protection to the Americans at Fort Pitt. With the 1778 treaty, the Delawares gave up their neutrality and pledged to join the American side of the war, and the Americans pledged to protect the tribe’s elderly, women, and children and to provide the tribe with badly needed goods.  In his diary entry from September 26, 1778, Moravian missionary David Zeisberger, ally of White Eyes, wrote:

t the beginning of the Revolution, many tribes saw the conflict as a family disagreement that they had nothing to do with. An Oneida leader made a statement to the governor of Connecticut in 1775: “Possess your minds in peace respecting us Indians. We cannot intermeddle in this dispute between two brothers. The quarrel seems to be unnatural. You are two brothers of one blood.”

Though the proclamation didn’t prevent white settlers from encroaching on Native land, it did change the legal nature of white land ownership. It effectively abolished land speculation in the area—speculators buy land in order to sell it to farmers at an increased price. Colonists who settled on this land did so illegally, but speculators could not evict them because they could not establish that they had clear title to the land while the proclamation remained in force. However, even if they could set up homesteads on this land, settlers feared what would happen when the proclamation was repealed, they might be evicted by someone who had secured the title.

Neolin was one of many nativist prophets who preached their messages in the mid-to-late eighteenth centuries. 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. [1]

In 1763, a pan-Native armed resistance movement attacked thirteen British posts that stood north of the Ohio and the Potomac and west of the Susquehanna rivers. This was known as Pontiac’s Rebellion.