Broken Promises, Enduring Legacies: A Historical Look at Native American Treaties
The story of the United States is inextricably linked to a complex and often tragic narrative woven through hundreds of treaties with Native American nations. These agreements, ostensibly made between sovereign entities, form the legal and historical bedrock of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the U.S. government. Yet, their history is predominantly one of broken promises, land dispossession, and a relentless struggle for survival and sovereignty. To understand the present-day landscape of Native American rights and self-determination, one must delve deep into the historical context of these treaties, tracing their evolution from early colonial encounters to the modern era.
The Dawn of Diplomacy: Early Encounters and Competing Worldviews
Before the arrival of Europeans, North America was a mosaic of diverse, thriving Indigenous nations, each with its own complex governance, spiritual beliefs, and sophisticated land management practices. The concept of land ownership, as understood by Europeans, was largely alien to many Native American cultures, where land was often viewed as a communal resource to be stewarded, not bought, sold, or exclusively possessed.
Early European powers – the Spanish, French, Dutch, and British – engaged with Native Americans through a mix of trade, warfare, and, crucially, treaties. These initial agreements were often driven by the Europeans’ desire for alliances against rival colonial powers, access to resources like furs, or secure passage through territories. For Native nations, treaties represented opportunities for trade, military assistance, or simply a means to manage the growing European presence. However, a fundamental misunderstanding, or deliberate misrepresentation, of land tenure and sovereignty often underpinned these early negotiations. Europeans frequently interpreted agreements as ceding outright ownership, while Native peoples often understood them as granting shared use or temporary access.
The Birth of a Nation: U.S. Treaties and the Marshall Trilogy
With the birth of the United States, the young republic inherited the practice of treaty-making. The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," implicitly recognizing tribal nations as distinct political entities. Furthermore, Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, declares treaties made under the authority of the United States to be "the supreme Law of the Land."
Early U.S. policy, particularly under President George Washington and Secretary of War Henry Knox, recognized the need to deal with Native nations as sovereign powers. Knox famously stated in 1789 that the "Indians, being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil… To dispossess them of it, by fraud or force, would be a violation of the fundamental laws of nature." However, this lofty rhetoric often clashed with the burgeoning nation’s insatiable demand for land to fuel westward expansion.
The legal framework for U.S.-Native American relations was profoundly shaped by a series of Supreme Court decisions in the early 19th century, known as the Marshall Trilogy:
- Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823): This case established the "doctrine of discovery," asserting that European powers, upon "discovering" new lands, gained a title that extinguished the Native inhabitants’ right to sell or transfer land, though it acknowledged their "right of occupancy." This legal fiction provided a convenient rationale for European and later U.S. land claims.
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831): The Cherokee Nation, facing encroachment from Georgia, sought to prevent the state from asserting jurisdiction over their lands. Chief Justice John Marshall famously described tribal nations not as foreign states, but as "domestic dependent nations," whose relationship to the U.S. was "that of a ward to his guardian." While recognizing some sovereignty, it also placed tribes under the protection – and ultimately, control – of the federal government.
- Worcester v. Georgia (1832): In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the Cherokee, declaring that Georgia law had no force within Cherokee territory. Marshall asserted that the Cherokee Nation was a distinct political community with territorial boundaries, and only the federal government, not individual states, had the authority to deal with them.
While these rulings affirmed tribal sovereignty to some extent, their practical impact was often undermined by political will. President Andrew Jackson, famously defiant, is said to have declared, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." This sentiment set the stage for one of the darkest chapters in U.S. history: the era of Indian Removal.
Manifest Destiny and the Trail of Tears
The 1830 Indian Removal Act, championed by President Jackson, authorized the forced relocation of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands in the southeastern United States to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, the Cherokee, along with the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations (collectively known as the "Five Civilized Tribes"), were forcibly removed in what became known as the Trail of Tears. Thousands died from disease, starvation, and exposure during the brutal forced march.
This period epitomized the fundamental conflict between treaty obligations and the ideology of "Manifest Destiny" – the belief that the United States was divinely ordained to expand across the North American continent. Treaties, once seen as agreements between sovereigns, increasingly became instruments of land acquisition, often signed under duress, coercion, or through the manipulation of unrepresentative tribal factions.
The Great Plains and the End of Treaty Making (1871)
As the U.S. expanded westward, the focus of treaty-making shifted to the Great Plains. The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, and later the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, were pivotal. The 1868 treaty, signed with the Lakota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and other tribes, established the Great Sioux Reservation, encompassing the sacred Black Hills, and guaranteed the tribes hunting rights in other unceded territories. It famously stated that "no white person or persons shall be permitted to settle upon or occupy any portion of the same; or without the consent of the Indians, first had and obtained, to pass through the same."
However, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills in 1874 led to a massive influx of prospectors, directly violating the treaty. The U.S. government, instead of upholding its agreement, attempted to purchase the Black Hills. When the Lakota refused, the U.S. Army launched a military campaign, culminating in the Great Sioux War of 1876 and the Battle of Little Bighorn. Ultimately, the Black Hills were seized without tribal consent or proper compensation, a grievance that remains a central issue in Native American land claims today.
The relentless pressure for land, coupled with the diminishing military power of Native nations after decades of warfare, led Congress to unilaterally end treaty-making with Indian tribes in 1871. A rider attached to an Indian Appropriations Act declared, "No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty." This act fundamentally altered the relationship, shifting from agreements between sovereign nations to legislative actions and executive orders dictating policy.
Allotment, Assimilation, and the Dawes Act
The period following 1871 saw a drastic shift towards policies of assimilation and the further erosion of tribal land bases. The most devastating of these was the General Allotment Act of 1887, also known as the Dawes Act. This legislation aimed to break up communally held tribal lands into individual parcels, typically 160 acres, to be assigned to individual Native American families. Proponents argued it would "civilize" Native Americans by turning them into yeoman farmers and integrating them into mainstream American society.
The results were catastrophic. After allotments were made, the "surplus" land – millions of acres – was declared open for non-Native settlement, often sold at bargain prices. Between 1887 and 1934, Native American landholdings plummeted from approximately 150 million acres to just 48 million acres. The Dawes Act shattered tribal communal structures, disrupted traditional economies, and left many Native families with inadequate land for subsistence. Coupled with the forced attendance of Native children at boarding schools, where their languages and cultures were systematically suppressed, the allotment era represented a concerted effort to eradicate Indigenous identities and sovereignty.
A Pendulum Swings: Reorganization, Termination, and Self-Determination
The failures of allotment and assimilation became increasingly apparent, leading to a period of reform. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, often called the "Indian New Deal," aimed to reverse the Dawes Act by halting allotment, restoring some land to tribal ownership, and encouraging tribal self-governance through written constitutions and elected councils. While a significant step away from assimilation, the IRA still imposed U.S. governmental structures onto tribal nations, sometimes undermining traditional forms of governance.
However, the pendulum swung back towards assimilation in the 1950s with the "Termination Era." Driven by a desire to reduce federal spending and integrate Native Americans fully into American society, Congress passed a series of acts to terminate the federal government’s trust relationship with numerous tribes. This meant ending federal services, selling off tribal assets, and subjecting Native lands and peoples to state jurisdiction. The results were disastrous, leading to widespread poverty, social dislocation, and the loss of land and cultural identity for many terminated tribes.
By the 1970s, a new era of "self-determination" emerged, championed by Native American activists and supported by federal legislation like the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. This policy shift empowered tribes to administer their own federal programs and services, manage their own affairs, and pursue economic development on their own terms. This era marked a crucial step towards respecting tribal sovereignty, recognizing the inherent right of Native nations to govern themselves and manage their resources.
The Living Legacy of Treaties
Today, the historical context of Native American treaties remains a living, breathing reality. Treaties, as the "supreme Law of the Land," continue to be the basis for tribal rights to land, water, natural resources, and self-governance. Legal battles over treaty rights – fishing rights, hunting rights, water rights, and land claims – are ongoing across the country, often reaffirming the enduring validity of these centuries-old agreements. The fight for the return of the Black Hills to the Lakota, for instance, remains a prominent example of an unresolved treaty violation.
The historical context reveals a pattern: from initial recognition of sovereignty to systematic efforts at dispossession and assimilation, followed by a gradual re-acknowledgement of tribal rights. The journey has been marked by immense suffering, but also by incredible resilience, cultural revitalization, and a steadfast commitment by Native American nations to uphold their end of agreements, even when the U.S. government has repeatedly failed to uphold its own. Understanding this history is not just about recounting past injustices; it is about recognizing the ongoing impact of these agreements on contemporary Indigenous communities and acknowledging the foundational role Native American treaties play in the very fabric of American law and society. The promises may have been broken, but the legacy of sovereignty endures.
