Native American tribes occupied various parts of America, but over time they were pushed away from their lands. The result was the creation of reservation lands that were considered to be independently owned by the native tribes. However, while the federal government considered native tribes to be sovereign entities, there were various legislations developed that highlighted the relationship that existed between these tribes and the federal government. Some of these legislations included the Dawes Act of 1887, the Citizenship Act of 1924, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and the Relocation Policy of 1948. Similarly, various bodies were created to check the affairs of native tribes, such as the formation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The paper, therefore, highlights the issues relating to Native American tribes and their recognition by the federal government.
History of The Relationship Between the Federal Government and Native Americans
Federal authority over native tribes in the 1700s and 1800s
The Marshall trilogy was a series of rulings that made it impossible for other Americans to purchase land from native tribes (Meyer, 2015). However, the decision increased the federal authority over native tribes by allowing the federal authorities to have trust responsibility for the tribes. Despite their sovereign nature, various tribes were considered to be domestic dependent nations that were subordinate to the power of the federal government. In this case, while Indians had control of their reservations, their title was only possessory, and the federal government could withdraw this title. An instance when the central authority was applied was when tribes in Alabama and Georgia were moved to the Oklahoma Indian territory (Carlson, 2015). Many natives died in the process, and it was considered one of the strategies used authority to eliminate the native communities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Indian Nonintercourse Act of 1790 further catapulted federal authority over the Indian tribes. According to the legislation, it was illegal for the states and Indians to engage in tribal land dealings without express approval from the federal government (Jurss, 2017). An advantage of this law is that it helped to reduce the sale of reservation land to private individuals. Still, a disadvantage is that it provided a leeway used by the federal government to appropriate these lands. At this time, the federal government had complete control over all matters relating to native tribes, and states had little influence on the same.
Native American communities lost most of their land during the 18th century because of various reasons. These included defeat by the US military, the establishment of multiple treaties by the government that was not honored, and their forceful eviction from their land. As a result, they settled in reservations whereby they operated semi-independently. John Marshall made the first attempt to define their legal status in the US in 1831 (De Costa, 2018). Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and he stated that Native Americans were domestic dependent nations.
According to Jurss (2017), despite the uniqueness of the native tribes, they were still part of America. Based on this statement, it was the duty of United States as a guardian to form policies that would ensure the assimilation of the tribes into typical American cultures. Similarly, it was also the duty of the federal government to take care of the tribes. Marshal’s statement, therefore, raised two conflicting arguments, whereby some policies formulated were aimed at assimilating the tribes, while others were meant to assist them.
However, Congress’ authority over native lands was not absolute, and all of the decisions relating to the tribes were made without equivocation. These decisions were supposed to be in favor of Native communities. Consequently, various legislations were formulated by Congress, given its plenary power over matters relating to native tribes. The Removal Act of 1830 was formulated to move native Indians from the Southeast to the west of the Mississippi River (Jurss, 2017). As more white Americans moved into Alabama and Mississippi, they were keen on these lands that were initially occupied by native tribes. According to the law, the federal government provided financial assistance to Indians willing to move while those resisting the move were threatened into the agreement.
The Dawes Act
The Dawes Act of 1887 was one of the policies formulated with the objective of assimilating Indians. According to the formulators of this legislation, Indian tribes were living in the darkness, and it was necessary to convert them to modern ways of life. Some of these changes included introducing them to modern clothes, teaching them English and eliminating their traditional religious beliefs, and introducing them to Christianity. Additionally, the law mandated the division of Indian Reservation lands into plots, and allocations were made to the natives (Meyer, 2015). However, there were certain conditions for these parcels of land. Upon allocation, the holder could not sell them for 25 years, after which they could be sold to anyone, including outsiders.
Based on this law, Indian land could be acquired by white Americans. The situation for the Indian tribes was made worse by the Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock decision by the Supreme Court, which enabled Congress to dispose of Indian land without their consent. In the case, Lone Wolf filed a complaint after Congress went against an earlier treaty, opening up two million acres of Indian land to be used by individuals who were not Indians (Jurss, 2017). According to Wolf, this decision was a violation of the treaty, which required that any changes would require approval by three-fourths of the tribes involved in the deal. However, the case was dismissed by the court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. While the Indians argued that the decision by Congress was under the Due Process clause, the court ruled that the judiciary had sole discretion over matters relating to Indian lands. There was, therefore, nothing illegal about the decision taken by Congress to open up the reservation land for outsiders.
These factors resulted in a significant decline in the land owned by Native communities in the US. Another essential element of the Dawes Act was that it stated that Native Americans who agreed to embrace civilization and the allotment policy would be eligible for American citizenship. Children were required to attend boarding schools, whereby they could forget their traditional ways and adopt modern lifestyles.
The Indian New Deal and John Collier
The Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to all Native tribes in the US. However, while the Indians were considered American citizens, they were still treated differently. They could not vote in most states, had limited access to healthcare, and proper housing, most of them were very poor, and the schools set aside for their use lacked resources and were overcrowded. According to a report on the tribes, the Meriam Report, while government efforts to assimilate the Indians was essential, it was wrong to force the tribes to change their culture and way of life (Bowes, 2018). A supporter of this logic was the Commissioner for Indian Affairs, John Collier. According to Collier, the lifestyle of the natives was to be respected, and he made it his goal to preserve their traditions. One of these strategies was to ensure that reservation land permanently belonged to the Natives and could not be transferred to third parties. The result was the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 that stopped the sale of Indian land, ended the allotment policy and ensured that all unallotted property was placed in the control of the tribes (Bowes, 2018).
Most importantly, the Native tribes were given some judicial and governmental autonomy. While the IRA was instrumental in protection of the rights and resources of Indian tribes, its opposers argue that the law was retrogressive since it aimed at ensuring the tribes continued with their traditional and ancient ways of life. Additional challenges faced by Collier was the lack of financial resources to facilitate economic development, and many Indians had already lost their land, making it challenging to become economically independent.
Impact of the Second World War on the Indian New Deal
After the war, there were several changes in operations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that further increased the marginalization of the native tribes. One of these changes was shift in the allocation of federal resources to activities linked to the war, resulting in a significant budget cut for the BIA activities. Secondly, some of the reservation lands were taken to build housings for personnel involved in the war and military facilities like gun ranges. Many natives also found employment in industries that came up to supply items for the war. It helped in the assimilation process, contrary to the objectives of BIA (Bowes, 2018). Seeking employment was inevitable for the native tribes since the cut in budget resulted in reduced financial assistance by the government, and getting jobs provided them with a steady source of income.
During the Civil War, one of the virtues considered necessary by US citizens was individual freedom compared to communism that was the norm in the USSR. As a result, the policies pushed for by Collier were considered to be another form of socialism. Some congressmen also disliked the plans because of the autonomy given to the native tribes, which gave them certain unique advantages (Jurss, 2017). Finally, running BIA and its activities was considered a financial burden on other Americans. All of these factors eventually contributed to the resignation of Collier.
Relocation of Indians
In 1948, the policy of relocation was introduced by William Brophy. The objective of this policy was to move the native tribes to urban areas, whereby they could access more opportunities. As a result, more than 30% of Native Indians, with financial support from BIA, moved to urban areas. However, the relocation was not as smooth as expected since they faced numerous challenges (Bowes, 2018). Some of these include lack of proper housing and adapting to modern lifestyles of using vehicles and other forms of technology like telephones. Based on these challenges, many of the Indians had to settle in slums as they lacked any sustainable employment. The financial assistance offered by BIA was also limited and offered a little reprieve to help the Indians with their challenges. Eventually, many of the relocated people moved back to the reservations to their traditional way of life.
The Indian Claims Commission was set up in 1946 to deal with claims of stolen land from the Indians since the US gained independence. It was therefore considered a critical step in dealing with injustices committed against the Indians, especially in relation to their loss of land (De Costa, 2018). According to the federal government, the commission was formed to deal with the Indian problem by offering financial compensation for their losses. Once this was done, the native tribes would not be given special advantages, and they would be treated as any other ethnic group in the US.
Endorsement of the House Concurrent Resolution 108
The ruling was adopted in August 1953 and played a critical role in the move by the federal government to terminate the reservations. According to the resolutions, all Indians were to be subjected to the same laws and responsibilities as other US citizens. Additionally, the Public Law 280 bill was also passed by Congress that ensured the transfer of criminal jurisdiction that was previously held by various Indian tribes to the state (Bowes, 2018). On the other hand, it repealed laws that banned the sale of multiple items to Indians, such as guns and alcohol. As part of the termination policy, reservation lands would be sold off and then the returns shared by members of the tribe. Part of the agenda by the federal government was to acquire some of the Indian lands that had vast natural resources such as timber. Despite the government support for this move, only a few tribes consented to the termination policy, and the rest formed a protest titled ‘Red Power.’
Importance of Federal Recognition of Native Tribes
There were various advantages that native tribes had when they obtain federal recognition. The first benefit related to the sovereignty of the particular tribes. Tribes recognized formed the tribal governments that had some autonomy. Tribes that were not identified could also form their governments, but they lacked sovereignty (O’Neal, 2015). While the federal government had absolute freedom in the US, the power could be shared, and this enabled recognized tribes to be considered as self-governing entities. These tribes were referred to as domestic dependent nations, which allowed them to form agreements with the US federal government. Despite this freedom, recognized tribes could only form agreements and treaties with the US and no other countries.
The second benefit was the protection of their natural resources, particularly their land. Reservation lands for recognized tribes could be put in trust, which safeguarded it from being taken over by third parties. However, tribes that lacked recognition could not have their lands placed in trust for them by the federal government since they were not considered as domestic dependent nations (O’Neal, 2015). Recognized tribes could also formulate their land-use and zoning laws within their territories without interference from the federal government.
Additional benefits for recognized tribes included exclusions from taxes at the state and local levels. They were also permited to undertake big gaming activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and exemptions from various state laws. Recognized tribes also received federal granting for different initiatives such as housing and healthcare.
Challenges Faced When Tribes Seek Federal Recognition
One of the main challenges faced by Indian tribes was the resistance by various states, that believed that recognition benefited the community but has a negative effect on the country, mainly the revenue earned from multiple taxes. Both Connecticut and California were vocal in opposing the federal recognition of various tribes (O'Neal, 2015). The recognition would lead to the construction of casinos on the reservations, which will be resulted in more traffic that wore down the state infrastructure. There would also be less tax revenue since recognized tribes are exempt from certain taxes.
In Connecticut, two tribes that were previously recognized by the state were acknowledged by the federal government. These were the Schaghticoke and Eastern Pequot tribes. While both tribes had sorted accreditation for several years, the decision was contested by the state through the attorney general. The argument presented was that the Schaghticoke Tribe was relatively new in the country and was not present when colonists moved into the area. In both instances, the state pressured the Bureau of Indian Affairs that it mandated with offering federal recognition, and the acknowledgment of both these states was revoked (Carlson, 2015). Based on this incident, Connecticut lawmakers drafted a proposal that would give them the power to revoke any applications approved by the BIA.
Additionally, while recognized tribes were free from federal litigation, the proposal aimed at making it possible for such tribes to face federal litigation. There were two federally recognized tribes in area, and all of them had casinos within their reservations. Lawmakers were worried that having more recognized tribes could lead to development of new casinos within the state.
Tribes in some states also lacked federal recognition because of a lack of historical documents, although they had resided in these territories for several hundred years. An example of this is the Pamunkey Nation and the Mattaponi Indian Nation tribes in Virginia. Both of these communities lacked genealogical records to prove that they had existed uninterrupted in Virginia. However, such documents were destroyed by officers in the 1920s, based on a law that stated that only colored and white people were residents of Virginia (Carlson, 2015). Similarly, records at the birth of Native Americans stated that they are colored, which gradually removed any mention of their exact origin. As a result, it was difficult for these tribes to get federal recognition.
Difference Between State Recognition and Federal Recognition
Across the US, 567 tribes were recognized by the federal government. However, there were over 60 tribes not formally recognized by central governments, but they receive recognition from the state. State recognition lacked the numerous benefits that were granted to federally recognized states. It played a critical role in facilitating collaborations between the states and the various tribes (Bowes, 2018). Recognition by the state acted as an acknowledgment of the cultural and historical contributions of these tribes. Additionally, various federal agencies within the US offered to fund tribes that were recognized by multiple states. These agencies included Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development. Some states allowed communities to be part of state commissions, which involve making decisions affecting their communities.
Since getting federal recognition was a lengthy process that could take several years, tribes were opting for state recognition. Various states developed legislation that provided a guideline of the procedures to be followed to recognize multiple tribes. Examples of these initiatives included the North Carolina Commission on Indian Affairs. The commission offered technical and educational assistance for tribes in the state. Some of the members of the commission were from the tribes recognized by the state (Carlson, 2015). In Alabama, the process of recognition was undertaken by the Alabama Indian Affairs Commission that formulated the administrative guidelines concerning native communities. Connecticut also had a formal recognition process for its indigenous tribes. In some cases, states lacked formal processes but have formulated procedures to facilitate their recognition. Such resolutions were adopted in California, Montana, and Texas.
There were various issues that rose, affecting the federal acknowledgment of Native American communities. Some of the benefits of getting federal recognition include being granted sovereignty, having tribal lands being placed under trust, and access to federal grants for various initiatives. However, tribes face numerous challenges, such as legislation by Congress, limiting the mandate of various tribes since the federal government has to balance the needs of the rest of the population and that of the native American tribes. Additionally, the process of federal recognition takes a lot of time, making it almost impossible for many tribes to be granted the status.
References
Bowes, J. P. (2018). Living with American Indians and American Indian History. The Chautauqua Journal , 2 (1), 11.
Carlson, D. J. (2015). Recognition, Sovereignty Struggles, and Indigenous Rights in the United States: A Sourcebook ed. by Amy E. Den Ouden and Jean M. O'Brien. The American Indian Quarterly , 39 (1), 98-100.
De Costa, R. (2018). Aboriginal Rights Claims and the Making and Remaking of History/The Land Is Our History: Indigeneity, Law, and the Settler State.
Jurss, J. C. (2017). American Indian Treaties: A Guide to Ratified and Unratified Colonial, United States, State, Foreign, and Intertribal Treaties and Agreements, 1607–1911 by David H. DeJong. The American Indian Quarterly , 41 (2), 185-187.
Meyer, S. N. (2015). The Marshall Trilogy and Its Legacies. In The Routledge Companion to Native American Literature (pp. 149-160). Routledge.
O'Neal, J. R. (2015). " The Right to Know": Decolonizing Native American Archives.
