Okay, here is a 1200-word journalistic article in English on the early treaties between the U.S. government and Native American tribes.
Echoes of Broken Promises: The Formative Era of U.S.-Native American Treaties
In the annals of American history, the concept of a treaty holds a sacred place – a solemn agreement between sovereign entities, binding both parties to their word. Yet, for Native American tribes, the vast majority of these early compacts with the nascent United States government became a tapestry woven with threads of misunderstanding, coercion, and ultimately, betrayal. From the late 18th century through the mid-19th century, a relentless series of treaties carved out the landscape of a nation, simultaneously dispossessing Indigenous peoples of their ancestral lands and fundamentally reshaping their destinies.
This era of treaty-making was not a monolithic process; it evolved dramatically as the United States transformed from a fragile republic into a burgeoning continental power. What began as negotiations between relatively equal powers, seeking peace and defined boundaries, rapidly devolved into an instrument of land acquisition and forced removal, leaving an indelible scar on the nation’s conscience and a complex legal legacy that persists to this day.
The Dawn of a New Republic: Seeking Peace and Defining Borders (1780s-1790s)
Following the American Revolution, the newly formed United States found itself in a precarious position. Its western borders were ill-defined, and powerful Native American confederacies, many of whom had sided with the British, controlled vast territories. The Articles of Confederation government, weak and financially strained, initially sought peace and recognized tribal sovereignty as a pragmatic necessity. Treaties during this period often aimed to establish boundaries, secure trade routes, and prevent further conflict.
One of the earliest and most controversial examples was the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784) with the Iroquois Confederacy. Signed under duress following the Iroquois’s defeat in the Revolution, the treaty forced the Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Mohawk to cede significant portions of their traditional lands in western New York and Pennsylvania. It was a clear demonstration of the "winner-take-all" mentality, with American commissioners viewing it as a conquest rather than a negotiation. George Washington, reflecting on the challenges of Native American relations, famously noted, "The basis of our proceedings with the Indians, has been to supply their wants, and prevent their becoming formidable." This early sentiment, however, quickly morphed from genuine concern to strategic calculation.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, while establishing a framework for westward expansion, included a seemingly benevolent clause: "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress." This statement, however, would stand in stark contrast to the realities that unfolded.
The Shifting Tide: Land Cessions and the "Civilization" Project (Late 1790s-1820s)
As the United States solidified its government under the Constitution and its population expanded, the pressure for land grew exponentially. The focus of treaties shifted from mere boundary definition to outright land cession. Military campaigns, such as General "Mad" Anthony Wayne’s victory at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794, severely weakened Native American resistance in the Ohio Valley. This led to the Treaty of Greenville (1795), a landmark agreement that forced a confederation of tribes (including the Shawnee, Delaware, Miami, and Wyandot) to cede two-thirds of present-day Ohio and a significant portion of Indiana. In return, the tribes received a paltry sum of goods and annuities, and a promise of perpetual peace and the inviolability of their remaining lands – a promise that would prove fleeting.
President Thomas Jefferson, a fervent proponent of westward expansion, articulated a policy that was outwardly paternalistic but inwardly coercive. He believed that Native Americans could either assimilate into American society through farming and "civilization," or be "encouraged" to move westward. "Our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians," Jefferson wrote, "and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi." This seemingly benign policy masked a clear agenda of land acquisition, using treaties as the primary legal mechanism.
The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 further fueled this expansionist drive, bringing vast new territories under U.S. control and intensifying the push for Native American removal. Treaties during this period often involved complex land exchanges, with tribes ceding valuable eastern lands for tracts further west, frequently of lesser quality or already occupied by other Indigenous groups, sowing further discord.
The Era of Removal: A Legal and Moral Crisis (1820s-1840s)
The early 19th century witnessed the most devastating phase of treaty-making for many eastern tribes, particularly the "Five Civilized Tribes" (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) in the Southeast. These tribes had adopted many aspects of American culture, including writing systems, constitutional governments, and farming techniques, yet their lands were coveted by cotton planters and land speculators.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830, championed by President Andrew Jackson, formalized the policy of forced relocation. It authorized the President to negotiate treaties for the removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands in the southeastern United States to federal territory west of the Mississippi River, primarily in what is now Oklahoma. This act, passed by a narrow margin, ignited a fierce national debate about morality, states’ rights, and federal authority.
The Cherokee Nation, a sovereign entity with its own written constitution and a sophisticated legal system, fiercely resisted removal through legal channels. Their efforts led to two landmark Supreme Court cases:
-
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831): Chief Justice John Marshall, while acknowledging the Cherokee’s right to their lands, famously described them as a "domestic dependent nation," rather than a foreign state, thus denying the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in their suit against Georgia. This ruling, while limiting the Cherokee’s legal options, established a unique legal status for tribes, recognizing their inherent sovereignty, albeit subordinate to the federal government.
-
Worcester v. Georgia (1832): In a more direct rebuke to Georgia’s attempts to extend its laws over Cherokee territory, Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a distinct political community with territorial boundaries within which "the laws of Georgia can have no force." This was a clear victory for tribal sovereignty and federal treaty obligations.
However, President Jackson famously defied the Supreme Court, reportedly stating, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." He proceeded with the removal policy, often negotiating with minority factions of tribes who did not represent the will of the majority. The Treaty of New Echota (1835), signed by a small, unauthorized group of Cherokees known as the Treaty Party, ceded all Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for land in Indian Territory and financial compensation. The vast majority of the Cherokee Nation, led by Chief John Ross, vehemently rejected its legitimacy.
The tragic outcome was the Trail of Tears (1838-1839), the forced march of over 16,000 Cherokees, accompanied by U.S. Army troops, from their homelands to Indian Territory. Thousands died from disease, starvation, and exposure – a stark and horrifying testament to the human cost of broken treaties and the government’s disregard for Indigenous rights. Similar forced removals affected the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations, each with its own devastating story of displacement.
Mechanisms of Misunderstanding and Manipulation
Beyond outright military coercion, several factors contributed to the exploitative nature of these early treaties:
- Language Barriers and Cultural Differences: American commissioners often negotiated through interpreters, leading to misunderstandings of complex legal terms. Native American concepts of land use – often communal and focused on usufruct (the right to use and enjoy the profits of property belonging to another) – clashed fundamentally with European notions of fee-simple ownership and permanent cession. Many tribes could not conceive of "selling" land in perpetuity.
- Lack of Unified Tribal Representation: U.S. negotiators frequently sought out individual chiefs or factions willing to sign treaties, even if they lacked the authority to represent the entire tribe. This tactic sowed division and allowed the U.S. to claim legitimacy for agreements that were rejected by the majority.
- Fraud and Coercion: Bribes, alcohol, and threats were common tools used to induce signatures. Treaties were sometimes signed under duress, with tribal leaders facing the grim choice between seemingly inevitable removal through "legal" means or violent extermination.
- Unfulfilled Promises: Time and again, the U.S. government failed to uphold its end of the bargain. Promised annuities, goods, protection, and inviolable land boundaries were often delayed, reduced, or simply ignored, leading to further destitution and distrust among tribes.
A Lasting Legacy
By the mid-19th century, the landscape of Native American life east of the Mississippi had been irrevocably altered. The early treaties, intended by the U.S. government to establish a legal framework for expansion, instead became instruments of dispossession and cultural destruction. They laid the groundwork for the reservation system, a further confinement of Indigenous peoples, and set precedents for future federal Indian policy.
The legacy of these early treaties is profoundly complex. On one hand, they represent a dark chapter of American history, characterized by injustice, broken promises, and immense human suffering. On the other, they are foundational documents that define the unique legal relationship between tribal nations and the federal government. They form the basis of tribal sovereignty and are still cited in modern land claims and legal battles for treaty rights, fishing rights, and resource management.
The "utmost good faith" promised in the Northwest Ordinance rarely materialized in practice. The echoes of broken promises from the early treaty era continue to resonate in contemporary debates about justice, reconciliation, and the ongoing struggle for Indigenous self-determination, reminding us that the past is never truly past, but a living force shaping the present and future.
