American Indians and State Law: Sovereignty, Race, and by Deborah A. Rosen

By Deborah A. Rosen

American Indians and kingdom legislation examines the background of kingdom and territorial guidelines, legislation, and judicial judgements referring to local americans from 1790 to 1880. Belying the typical assumption that Indian coverage and legislation within the usa have been solely in the federal government’s area, the publication unearths how states and territories prolonged their legislative and judicial authority over American Indians in this interval. Deborah A. Rosen makes use of discussions of national styles, complemented through case stories targeting long island, Georgia, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, to illustrate the decentralized nature of a lot of early American Indian policy.This examine info how nation and territorial governments regulated American Indians and taken them into neighborhood felony courts, in addition to how Indians contested the activities of states and asserted tribal sovereignty. Assessing the racial stipulations of incorporation into the yankee civic neighborhood, Rosen examines the ways that country legislatures handled Indians as a unique racial crew, explores racial matters bobbing up in country courts, and analyzes shifts within the rhetoric of race, tradition, and political prestige in the course of nation constitutional conventions. She additionally describes the politics of Indian citizenship rights within the states and territories. Rosen concludes that country and territorial governments performed an immense function in extending direct rule over Indians and in defining the bounds and the that means of citizenship. (20080901)

Show description

Read or Download American Indians and State Law: Sovereignty, Race, and Citizenship, 1790-1880 PDF

Similar civics & citizenship books

Real American Ethics: Taking Responsibility for Our Country

The USA is an excellent and sumptuous state that provides its voters the broadest freedoms and the best prosperity on this planet. however it additionally has its percentage of warts. it truly is embroiled in a battle that lots of its voters think about unjust or even unlawful. It keeps to ravage the ordinary atmosphere and forget about poverty either at domestic and overseas, and its tradition is more and more pushed by way of materialism and consumerism.

Good Citizenship and Educational Provision

The paintings awarded here's very important for the way forward for academic coverage making and for school room perform. With citizenship schooling excessive at the government's schedule this ebook may be learn via a wide viewers.

Additional info for American Indians and State Law: Sovereignty, Race, and Citizenship, 1790-1880

Example text

15 The states’ attorneys countered Oakley’s arguments with two assertions. First, they said that the jury in this case only had the right to decide matters of fact, not matters of law, so the Supreme Court was not bound by the jury’s determination on the jurisdictional issue. Second, the treaties made with the Senecas were not evidence of their independent status. The language of those treaties actually supported the inference that the Senecas were signing the documents as a conquered people. 17 In fact, the Court never issued a formal opinion.

Again as a matter of “expediency,” the legislature pardoned Tommy Jemmy on April 12, 1822. 18 Other states routinely used their criminal courts to try Indians who 28 Tribal Sovereignty and State Jurisdiction were charged with committing crimes against whites on or outside of reservation territory. A few months after the Tommy Jemmy trial, for example, a Chippewa Indian defendant in the Michigan Territory, Ketaukah, used the Jemmy case to justify a claim of tribal sovereignty that would preclude criminal proceedings by local white juries.

Most notably, lawyer Abraham Van Vechten pointed out that the 1822 statute would have been unnecessary if Jemmy had been a citizen. Chancellor Kent, too, felt obliged to comment on the 1822 statute, given the weight Chief Justice Spencer had given to it. Since the statute did not destroy the political existence of the tribes, Kent did not think the statute affected the citizenship status of William Sagoharase. , if they were carrying on an illegal slave trade). ” If white writers’ use of the term “sovereignty” when referring to the Indians’ position in the Tommy Jemmy case of 1821 could be seen as possibly reflecting an understanding that Indians meant to assert their total independence of both the state and the United States, one can see evidence already in Kent’s 1823 decision that the word’s meaning to whites was shifting.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.90 of 5 – based on 27 votes