Q: What is "termination" policy? ANS: One of the "stages" of evolution of U.S. Government policy towards American Indians. A result of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, the termination policy was nominally intended to "emancipate" Indians from a dependency on the U.S. government by dismantling the administrative structure that had been developed. Had this policy endured, it would have removed Indians from their "dependent sovereign" status and voided the U.S. government trust responsibility toward Native Americans. The "termination policy" was superceded by the policy known as "self-determination" in 1961, a policy still in effect today. For a fuller description, including the Menominee Reservation termination and restoration, see: http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/ICW-97.html. [B. Hummel]
Q: Who was Vine Deloria, Jr.? ANS: Visit the "News and Announcements" page for a Wikipedia account of this activist/scholar who passed away November 13, 2005. Deloria was a prolific writer and spokesman for Native American cultures. His most famous book was Custer Died for Your Sins. He also authored Red Earth, White Lies, published in 1995, and the book with Clifford M. Lytle, American Indians, American Justice from which you have read several chapters. Formerly a professor of history, law, religious studies, and political science at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Deloria is, in my opinion, one of the most eloquent proponents of alternate views of human creation. In Red Earth, White Lies he argues that "western science is akin to a world history which discusses only Mediterranean peoples" and challenges readers to open their minds to alternative ways of knowing. In my view, students of science would do well to put Red Earth, White Lies on the bookshelf alongside of Donald Knuth's Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About. See Amazon.com for thought-provoking reviews of these fine books. [G. Spangler]
Q: When was the Bureau of Indian Affairs created? ANS: In 1824, Secretary of War, John C. Calhoun, created what he called the "Bureau of Indian Affairs" without authorization from Congress. He appointed Thomas L. McKenney as head, and with two clerks as assistants, the new office handled all appropriations and expenditures for the "civilization of the Indians" and decided on claims between Indians and whites arising from the Intercourse Act (see also the Intercourse Act of 1834, an improved stipulation of how relations would be managed between the U.S. and Indians, and among Indians themselves). Because it had not been authorized by Congress, this new "Office of Indian Affairs" (the name used by McKenney) was seen as an unimportant appendage of the War Department. McKenney drafted a bill that would place real authority for Indian affairs with a new head entitled "General Superintendent of Indian Affairs" but it failed to pass through two sessions of Congress. On July 9, 1831, an Act of Congress authorized the President to appoint a Commissioner of Indian Affairs in the Department of War who would respond to all matters relating to Indian affairs. This Office of Indian Affairs persisted until 1849 when it was moved to the newly created Department of the Interior, where it remains today despite efforts as early as 1867 to have it become a separate department of government. {More at http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/indians.htm, and http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Bureau%20of%20Indian%20Affairs} [G. Spangler]
Q: What are the legal origins of the status of Native Americans as "Domestic Dependent Nations?" ANS: Legal historians generally attribute this language to Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the Opinion of the Court (U.S. Supreme Court) in the case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. It is important to note, however, that the notion of trust supervision, in Marshall's words, "Their relation [the Indians] to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian" had its origins in a generally prevalent concept extant since the 16th Century (see Clinton, 1991, p. 15, citing Cohen, The Spanish Origin of Indian Rights in the Law of the United States). [G. Spangler]
Q: What tribes/bands were relocated from the southeastern United States in the "Trail of Tears" migration? ANS: Major cultural groups included Seminole, Waccamaw, Catawba, Cheraw, Cherokee, Yamasee, Creek, Tuskegee, Apalachee, Tekesta, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Tutelo and numerous others. See Fig. 3.10 in Atlas of the North American Indian, p. 33. For removal routes, see Fig. 6.13, p. 184. [G. Spangler]
Q: What are the state powers over Indian affairs? ANS: States have the right to regulate the affairs of persons within their borders, with one major exception. The U.S. Congress has exclusive authority over Indian affairs. As a general rule, unless Congress has authorized a state to apply its laws within an Indian reservation, it may not do so. This is excerpted from Pevar, The Rights of Indians and Tribes. Chapter VII, pp. 111-128. See also Chapter 8 "Public Law 280: A Federal Grant of Jurisdiction to the States. [G. Spangler]
Q: Did land discovery imply land title? Or, how could Thomas Jefferson have made the Louisiana Purchase from France, rather than from the Indians? ANS: Except for those Europeans of conscience, concessions to Indian wants and needs resulted from a profit motive, a defensive posture, or relations with competing colonials. "Sovereignty" of Indians was applied by Europeans to establish the credibility of their negotiated rights to previously held tribal lands. Thus, Thomas Jefferson bought the Lousiana territories from France, who had acquired them (for the second time) from Spain, who had claimed them by conquest following a northward and eastward expansion of holdings in what is now Mexico. Excerpted from Atlas of the North American Indian; see especially pp. 167-178, and Figs. 6.2 and 6.3. [G. Spangler]
Q: Do residents of the District of Columbia have the right to vote in federal elections? ANS: Yes, they send three delegates to the Electoral College to participate in the final balloting for the Executive Branch. Further research reveals that they also have a non-voting representative in the House of Representatives. Her name is Eleanor Holmes Norton (http://www.house.gov/norton/government.htm) and she can sponsor and co-sponsor bills, but she does not participate in floor votes. In this regard, the D.C. representative is like the representative from territories such as Puerto Rico. See also http://www.speakout.com/Issues/Briefs/1311/ for continuing debate on whether or not residents of D.C. should have a Congressional vote, especially after the Supreme Court recently ruled on this issue: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19671-2000Oct16.html [Thanks to Matt Scott and Senator Wellstone's staff for clarification on this question.]
Q: How does Canadian law differ from U.S. law in considering Indian affairs? ANS: Aboriginal rights in Canada, especially as they are currently being interpreted in northern regions, seem to acknowledge the Indians' superior right to access resources. A possible outcome is that when resources become limiting, the primary allocation is to aboriginals, making it entirely possible that recreational uses may have to be limited or terminated. Indian hunting and fishing rights in the U.S. (nationally, not just the midwest) are greatly restricted, even though it doesn't appear that way to many non-Indians. In many places in the U.S., Indian access to fish and wildlife is guaranteed by treaty, but this covers only a small portion of the nation. Most of the land area here is not under treaty jurisdiction, title (clear and fee simple) long ago having passed completely into private or government hands. "Aboriginal title" as legal experts use the term exists here only (if at all--some argument continues about this) in New York state. Our recent court decisions about fishing entitlement, perhaps most importantly, the 1974 Boldt decision in the Pacific northwest, clearly acknowledge that treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather must be exercised within conditions necessary for conservation and public safety. Thus, Indians may have a superior right to take fish (for example), but they are not entitled to endanger the conservation of the stocks. This is a matter of court interpretation, necessitated here (in the U.S.) by specific cases requiring contemporary reading of treaty entitlements. Most of (aboriginal occupied) Canada is not governed by such treaties, thus this judicial remedy for the possibility of over-exploitation may not exist there. [G. Spangler]
"The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota."
Date created: June, 2002
Last modified: March, 2006
Copyright ©2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 George R. Spangler