My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8012
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:57 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 4:45:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8012
Author
Grand Canyon Trust.
Title
Colorado River Workshop, issues, ideas, and directions (February 26-28, 1996 Phoenix, Arizona) An open forum for discussion of management issues between managers, water users, and stakeholders of the Colorado River basin.
USFW Year
1996.
USFW - Doc Type
1996.
Copyright Material
NO
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
242
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />tural group in the United States is so heavily regulated. <br />This extensive regulation is in part a result of the ever <br />shifting relations between Native American tribes and <br />the federal government. Yet, throughout this relation- <br />ship the concept of the federal government's trust <br />responsibility to Native Americans has been central <br />aspect of their relations. The antecedents of this trust <br />responsibility is rooted in the early treaty making era. <br /> <br />In the early years immediately following the <br />Revolutionary War, the United States government <br />regarded Native American tribes as having the same <br />status as foreign nations and every effort was made to <br />obtain their allegiance. The necessity of getting along <br />with powerful Native American tribes, who outnum- <br />bered the inhabitants of this new nation, dictated this <br />policy as a matter of prudence and self preservation <br />(Cohen 1982: 55). The treaties that the United States <br />entered into with Native American tribes differed from <br />foreign treaties in at least two important respects. <br />Through the application of special canons of construc- <br />tion, Native American treaties were construed in favor <br />of the tribes. Further, the courts would not find that <br />Native American treaties had been abrogated by later <br />treaties or legislation unless there was a clear and spe- <br />cific demonstration that abrogation was intended <br />(Cohen 1982: 63). <br /> <br />An overriding goal of the United States during the treaty <br />making era was to obtain Native American lands, partic- <br />ularly after such lands became encircled by <br />Euroamerican settlements. In order to compensate <br />tribes for the loss of traditional land base, tribes were <br />often guaranteed the retention of inherent sovereign <br />authority including the right to fish, hunt, or gather at <br />usual and accustomed places, water rights, and protec- <br />tion, by the United States, from the encroachment, alien- <br />ation, or abrogation of these rights (Cohen 1982: 66). <br /> <br />These treaties, during the first decades of the United <br />States existence, embodied the premise that Native <br />American tribes were sovereigns (Cohen 1982: 69). <br /> <br />By the end of the treaty making period, however, both <br />treaties and statutes reflected a trend toward federal <br />control over matters involving Native American inter- <br />actions with Euroamericans, and away from tribal <br />autonomy. Basic principles developed during this peri- <br />od, however, have survived. Most notable are the gener- <br />al tenets that Native American tribes are governments, <br />that the United States has broad powers over Native <br />American affairs, that matters affecting tribal self-gov- <br />ernment are normally reserved to the tribes, that states <br />have very limited jurisdiction over Native American <br />lands, that the United States has a special trust obliga- <br />tion to Native Americans and that treaties and statutes <br />affecting Native Americans are construed according to <br />rules of construction that favor Native Americans <br /> <br />(Cohen 1982: 70). <br /> <br />Federal policy toward Native Americans abruptly <br />changed in 1828 when Andrew Jackson became <br />President of the United States. Jackson, well known for <br />his military campaigns against Native Americans, <br />implemented a policy of removing eastern tribes to the <br />west. This removal policy became "the dominant <br />Federal Native American policy" of the nineteenth cen- <br />tury (Pevar 1992: 4). During this time the Federal gov- <br />ernment abolished treaty making, because it was felt <br />that Native American affairs should be dealt with <br />through Federal legislation. Even though treaties <br />memorialized formal consent to land cessions, the <br />Federal government determined that the Native <br />Americans would "..have yielded to a necessity [west- <br />ward expansion] which they could not resist" and a <br />"radical" change in policy was implemented whereby <br />the Native Americans "... should be regarded as wards <br /> <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.