WSP04759 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tural group in the United States is so heavily regulated. This extensive regulation is in part a result of the ever shifting relations between Native American tribes and the federal government. Yet, throughout this relation- ship the concept of the federal government's trust responsibility to Native Americans has been central aspect of their relations. The antecedents of this trust responsibility is rooted in the early treaty making era. Jn the early years immediately following the Revolutionary War, the United States government regarded Native American tribes as having the same status as foreign nations and every effort was made to obtain their allegiance. The necessity of getting along with powerful Native American tribes, who outnum- bered the inhabitants of this new nation, dictated this policy as a matter of prudence and self preservation (Cohen 1982: 55). The treaties that the United States entered into with Native American tribes differed from foreign treaties in at least two important respects. Through the application of special canons of construc- tion, Native American treaties were construed in favor of the tribes. Further, the courts would not find that Native American treaties had been abrogated by later treaties or legislation unless there was a clear and spe- cific demonstration that abrogation was intended (Cohen 1982: 63). An overriding goal of the United States during the treaty making era was to obtain Native American lands, partic- ularly after such lands became encircled by Euroamerican settlements. In order to compensate tribes for the loss of traditional land base, tribes were often guaranteed the retention of inherent sovereign authority including the right to fish, hunt, or gather at usual and accustomed places) water rights) and protec- tion) by the United States) from the encroachment) alien- ation, or abrogation of these rights (Cohen 1982: 66). These treaties) during the first decades of the United States existence) embodied the premise that Native American tribes were sovereigns (Cohen 1982: 69). By the end of the treaty making period, however, both treaties and statutes reflected a trend toward federal control over matters involving Native American inter- actions with Euroamericans) and away from tribal autonomy. Basic principles developed during this peri- od) however) have survived. Most notable are the gener- al tenets that Native American tribes are governments) that the United States has broad powers over Native American affairs) that matters affecting tribal self-gov- ernment are normally reserved to the tribes) that states have very limited jurisdiction over Native American lands, that the United States has a special trust obliga- tion to Native Americans and that treaties and statutes affecting Native Americans are construed according to rules of construction that favor Native Americans (Cohen 1982: 70). Federal policy toward Native Americans abruptly changed in 1828 when Andrew Jackson became President of the United States. Jackson, well known for his military campaigns against Native Americans) implemented a policy of removing eastern tribes to the west. This removal policy became ((the dominant Federal Native American policy" of the nineteenth cen- tury (Pevar 1992: 4). During this time the Federal gov- ernment abolished treaty making, because it was felt that Native American affairs should be dealt with through Federal legislation. Even though treaties memorialized formal consent to land cessions) the Federal government determined that the Native Americans would "..have yielded to a necessity [west- ward expansion] which they could not resist" and a ((radical)) change in policy was implemented whereby the Native Americans "... should be regarded as wards 23