In United States history, an Indian agent was an individual authorized to interact with American Indian tribes on behalf of the U.S. government.
102-593: The federal regulation of Indian affairs in the United States first included development of the position of Indian agent in the Nonintercourse Act of 1793, a revision of the original 1790 law. This required land sales by or from Indians to be federally licensed and permitted. The legislation also authorized the President to "appoint such persons, from time to time, as temporary agents to reside among
204-536: A Nonintercourse Act claim. In order to establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show that: More recently (2008), the Second Circuit has stated: In order to establish a violation of the Non-Intercourse Act, the [plaintiffs] are required to establish that: (1) they are an Indian tribe; (2) the land at issue was tribal land at the time of the conveyance; (3) the United States never approved
306-515: A clear statement, can terminate a federal–tribal trust relationship; acts of state governments are irrelevant. Congress has done so with several tribes under Indian termination policy . Since South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe (1986) it has been understood that the Nonintercourse Act does not protect the lands of terminated tribes; there, the termination act was held to have triggered the state statute of limitations with respect to
408-1011: A conviction that carries an appropriate potential sentence when a serious crime has been committed. Our role as the primary prosecutor of serious crimes makes our responsibility to citizens in Indian Country unique and mandatory. Accordingly, public safety in tribal communities is a top priority for the Department of Justice. Emphasis was placed on improving prosecution of crimes involving domestic violence and sexual assault. Passed in 1953, Public Law 280 (PL 280) gave jurisdiction over criminal offenses involving Indians in Indian Country to certain States and allowed other States to assume jurisdiction. Subsequent legislation allowed States to retrocede jurisdiction, which has occurred in some areas. Some PL 280 reservations have experienced jurisdictional confusion, tribal discontent, and litigation, compounded by
510-422: A few cases voluntary moves based on mutual agreement. The removal caused many problems such as tribes losing the means of livelihood by being restricted to a defined area, poor quality of land for agriculture, and hostility between tribes. The first reservation was established by Easton Treaty with the colonial governments of New Jersey and Pennsylvania on August 29, 1758. Located in southern New Jersey , it
612-756: A five-year approval before 1850. Article two of the treaty claims "the reserves on the river Angrais and at Rifle river, of which said Indians are to have the usufruct and occupancy for five years." Indigenous people had restraints pushed on them by the five-year allowance. Scholarly author Buck Woodard used executive papers from Governor William H. Cabell in his article, "Indian Land sales and allotment in Antebellum Virginia" to discuss Indigenous reservations in America before 1705, specifically in Virginia. He claims "the colonial government again recognized
714-709: A forced mass migration that came to be known as the Trail of Tears . Some of the lands these tribes were given to inhabit following the removals eventually became Indian reservations. In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act which authorized the creation of Indian reservations in Indian Territory (which became Oklahoma). Relations between white settlers and Natives had grown increasingly worse as
816-563: A license from the Crown or governor for a private party to purchase lands from Indians. Indian reservation An American Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a U.S. federal government-recognized Native American tribal nation , whose government is autonomous , subject to regulations passed by the United States Congress and administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs , and not to
918-426: A lighthouse. The President of the United States of America was directly involved in the creation of new treaties regarding Indian Reservations before 1850. Van Buren stated that indigenous reservations are "all their reserves of land in the state of Michigan, on the principle of said reserves being sold at the public land offices for their benefit and the actual proceeds being paid to them." The agreement dictated that
1020-487: Is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha; 87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km ), approximately 2.3% of the total area of the United States and about the size of the state of Idaho . While most reservations are small compared to the average U.S. state, twelve Indian reservations are larger than the state of Rhode Island . The largest reservation, the Navajo Nation Reservation , is similar in size to
1122-665: Is a gas station and general store at Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho , and a museum at Foxwoods, on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Connecticut ). Tribal citizens may utilize several resources held in tribal tenures such as grazing range and some cultivable lands. They may also construct homes on tribally held lands. As such, members are tenants-in-common , which may be likened to communal tenure. Even if some of this pattern emanates from pre-reservation tribal customs, generally
SECTION 10
#17327720197721224-565: Is a legal designation. It comes from the conception of the Native American nations as independent sovereigns at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thus, early peace treaties (often signed under conditions of duress or fraud), in which Native American nations surrendered large portions of their land to the United States, designated parcels which the nations, as sovereigns, " reserved " to themselves, and those parcels came to be called "reservations". The term remained in use after
1326-544: Is attained ... an agent is successful or unsuccessful." By the 1870s, due to president Grant's Peace Policy , the average Indian agent was primarily nominated by various Christian denominations due to the increase in civilization reforms to Indian-white affairs, especially over land. Part of the Christian message of reform, carried out by the Indian agents, demonstrated the pervasive thought of Indian land ownership of
1428-655: Is repugnant to a law of the United States passed in 1803 entitled 'an act to regulate trade and intercourse with Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers'." Wirt also argued that the state statute violated the Cherokee treaties and the Contract Clause and the dormant Indian Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution . A similar argument was made in the Bill filed by Wirt in
1530-496: Is the security for the remainder of your lands. No State nor person can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty held under the authority of the United States. The general government will never consent to your being defrauded. But it will protect you in all your just rights. The first litigation of the Nonintercourse Act by an indigenous party to reach the Supreme Court was Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), which
1632-515: The Department of the Interior by 1849, so they began to make public complaints about the corruptive nature of the civilian presence in the job of Indian agent. Despite its deeply felt convictions that its Indian agents were appointed and removed on merit, the civilian Board of Commissioners was frequently deemed corrupt, portrayed derogatorily in print and propaganda, and inadvertently assumed
1734-694: The Indian Removal Act in 1830". A third act pushed through was "the federal government relocated "portions of [the] 'Five Civilized Tribes' from the southeastern states in the Non-Intercourse Act of 1834 ." All three of these laws set into motion the Indigenous Reservation system in the United States of America, resulting in the forceful removal of Indigenous peoples into specific land Reservations. Scholarly author James Oberly discusses "The Treaty of 1831 between
1836-594: The Office of Indian Affairs (now the Bureau of Indian Affairs) as a division of the United States Department of War (now the United States Department of Defense ), to solve the land problem with 38 treaties with American Indian tribes. Indian Treaties, and Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs (1825) was a document signed by President Andrew Jackson in which he states that "we have placed
1938-718: The U.S. state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States , while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This intersection of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties. The total area of all reservations
2040-713: The Umatilla Indian Reservation , after the individual parcels were granted out of reservation land, the reservation area was reduced by giving the "excess land" to white settlers. The individual allotment policy continued until 1934 when it was terminated by the Indian Reorganization Act . The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Howard-Wheeler Act , was sometimes called the Indian New Deal and
2142-415: The "New York Indians". This Treaty from 1831 is the cause of conflicts and is disputed because the land was good hunting grounds. The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 says "In the 1834 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, the United States defined the boundaries of Indian County." Also, "For Unrau, Indigenous Country is less on Indigenous homeland and more a place where the U.S. removed Indians from east of
SECTION 20
#17327720197722244-593: The "factory" as happened with the Treaty of Fort Clark in which the Osage Nation exchanged most of Missouri in order to access Fort Clark . According to U.S. Attorney General William Wirt : [T]he United States agree to pay [the Creek Indians] certain specific sums of money, out of which payments there is a reservation of $ 5,000 to satisfy claims for property taken by individuals of the said nation from
2346-665: The Bureau (Office) of Indian Affairs. Under federal law, the government patented reservations to tribes, which became legal entities that at later times have operated in a corporate manner. Tribal tenure identifies jurisdiction over land-use planning and zoning, negotiating (with the close participation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs) leases for timber harvesting and mining. Tribes generally have authority over other forms of economic development such as ranching, agriculture, tourism, and casinos. Tribes hire both members, other Indians and non-Indians in varying capacities; they may run tribal stores, gas stations, and develop museums (e.g., there
2448-515: The Court dismissed on the technicality that the court lacked original jurisdiction , so the result was the Cherokee did not have a standing as a foreign nation, but the opinion did not rule on the merits, leaving the door open for a ruling on a resubmitted case. Former Attorney General William Wirt , the Cherokee's lawyer, argued that the challenged Georgia statute was void, inter alia, "[b]ecause it
2550-765: The Dawes Act. However, the vast fragmentation of reservations occurred from the enactment of this act up to 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. However, Congress authorized some allotment programs in the ensuing years, such as on the Palm Springs/Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in California. Allotment set in motion a number of circumstances: The demographic factor, coupled with landownership data, led, for example, to litigation between
2652-684: The Devils Lake Sioux and the State of North Dakota, where non-Indians owned more acreage than tribal members even though more Native Americans resided on the reservation than non-Indians. The court decision turned, in part, on the perception of Indian character , contending that the tribe did not have jurisdiction over the alienated allotments. In a number of instances—e.g., the Yakama Indian Reservation—tribes have identified open and closed areas within reservations. One finds
2754-693: The Europeans encountered the New World, the American colonial government determined a precedent of establishing the land sovereignty of North America through treaties between countries. This precedent was upheld by the United States government. As a result, most Native American land was purchased by the United States government, a portion of which was designated to remain under Native sovereignty. The United States government and Native Peoples do not always agree on how land should be governed, which has resulted in
2856-587: The Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative which recognizes problems with law enforcement on Indian reservations and assigns top priority to solving existing problems. The Department of Justice recognizes the unique legal relationship that the United States has with federally recognized tribes. As one aspect of this relationship, in much of Indian Country, the Justice Department alone has the authority to seek
2958-450: The Indian agencies on reservations in order to teach Christianity to the Native American tribes. The Quakers were especially active in this policy on reservations. The policy was controversial from the start. Reservations were generally established by executive order . In many cases, white settlers objected to the size of land parcels, which were subsequently reduced. A report submitted to Congress in 1868 found widespread corruption among
3060-647: The Indians would be properly consulted when ascertaining and defining the boundaries of colonial settlement. The private contracts that once characterized the sale of Indian land to various individuals and groups—from farmers to towns—were replaced by treaties between sovereigns. This protocol was adopted by the United States Government after the American Revolution. On March 11, 1824, U.S. Vice President John C. Calhoun founded
3162-531: The Indians," and guide them into acculturation of American society by changing their agricultural practices and domestic activities. Eventually, the U.S. government ceased using the word "temporary" in the Indian agent's job title. From the close of the 18th century to nearly 1869, Congress maintained the position that it was legally responsible for the protection of Indians from non-Indians, and in establishing this responsibility it "continue[d] to deal with Indian tribes by utilizing agents to negotiate treaties under
Indian agent - Misplaced Pages Continue
3264-688: The Menominee Nation and the United States" in his article, "Decision on Duck Creek: Two Green Bay Reservations and Their Boundaries, 1816–1996", showing yet another treaty regarding Indigenous Reservations before 1850. There is a conflict between the Menomee Nation and the State of Wisconsin and "the 1831 Menomee Treaty … ran the boundary between the lands of the Oneida, known in the Treaty as
3366-1287: The Mississippi River and applied unique laws." The United States of America applied laws on Indigenous Reservations depending on where they were located like the Mississippi River . This act came too, because "the federal government began to compress Indigenous lands because it needed to send troops to Texas during the Mexican-American War and protect American immigration traveling to Oregon and California." The Federal Government of America had their own needs and desires for Indigenous Land Reservations. He says, "the reconnaissance of explorers and other American officials understood that Indigenous Country possessed good land, bountiful game, and potential mineral resources." The American Government claimed Indigenous land for their own benefits with these creations of Indigenous Land Reservations . States such as Texas had their own policy when it came to Indian Reservations in America before 1850. Scholarly author George D. Harmon discusses Texas' own reservation system which "Prior to 1845, Texas had inaugurated and pursued her own Indian Policy of
3468-436: The Nonintercourse Act. In Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State (1984) (" Oneida II "), the Supreme Court held that tribes have a federal common law cause of action, not pre-empted by the Nonintercourse Act, for possessory land claims based upon aboriginal title; the court also rejected the following affirmative defenses: limitations, abatement, ratification , and nonjusticiability . While Oneida II remains
3570-621: The Nottoway's land rights by treaty in 1713, at the conclusion of the Tuscaro War ." The indigenous peoples of America had land treaty agreements as early as 1713. The American Indigenous Reservation system started with "the Royal Proclamation of 1763 , where Great Britain set aside an enormous resource for Indians in the territory of the present United States." The United States put forward another act when "Congress passed
3672-702: The Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton (1st Cir. 1975), after the First Circuit held that the federal government was obliged to bring a suit on the tribe's behalf claiming 60% of Maine, Congress approved an $ 81.5 million settlement. In the case of the Narragansett land claim (D.R.I. 1976), Congress enacted a settlement after the court struck all the defendant's affirmative defenses (laches, statute of limitations/adverse possession, estoppel by sale, operation of state law, and public policy) and denied
3774-556: The Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act). Although federal tribal status is prima facie evidence of the first element, the Act also applies to unrecognized tribes. If the tribe is unrecognized, the defendant may defeat the plaintiff's prima facie case either by showing that the Indians did not constitute a "tribe" at the time of the conveyance, or at the time of the litigation; thus, the defendant may show that
3876-463: The Second Circuit in Mohegan Tribe , supra, held that the Nonintercourse Act applies to the entire United States, including the original thirteen . No defendant has yet persuaded a court otherwise. However, the defendant will defeat this element if the challenged conveyance occurred before 1790. The Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 may cover conveyances between 1783 and 1790, but
3978-434: The Supreme Court. William Wirt's arguments may have had a telling effect, for in a subsequent action, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the court reversed itself, holding that the Cherokee were a sovereign nation and thus the Supreme Court did have original jurisdiction. After Cherokee Nation , the next such case to reach the Court was Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy (1896). The New York Court of Appeals had dismissed
4080-456: The Tuscarora attempted to avoid the condemnation of their land by the construction of a federal dam. The court held the Act inapplicable, but noted: It is certain that if [25 U.S.C. § 177] is applicable ... the mere 'expressed consent' of Congress would be vain and idle. For § 177 at the very least contemplates the assent of the Indian nation or tribe. ... [I]t follows that
4182-673: The U.S." Texas was one of the States before 1850 that chose to create their own reservation system as seen in Harmon's article, "The United States Indian Policy in Texas, 1845–1860." The State of "Texas had given only a few hundred acres of land in 1840, for the purpose of colonization". However, "In March 1847, … [a] special agent [was sent] to Texas to manage the Indian affairs in the State until Congress should take some definite and final action." The United States of America allowed its states to make up their own treaties such as this one in Texas for
Indian agent - Misplaced Pages Continue
4284-405: The United States, shall be valid to any person or persons, or to any state, whether having the right of pre-emption to such lands or not, unless the same shall be made and duly executed at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States. The 1793 act provides: [N]o purchase or grant of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indians or nation or tribe of Indians, within
4386-508: The United States. By 1877, President Rutherford B. Hayes began phasing out the policy, and by 1882 all religious organizations had relinquished their authority to the federal Indian agency. In 1887, Congress undertook a significant change in reservation policy by the passage of the Dawes Act , or General Allotment (Severalty) Act. The act ended the general policy of granting land parcels to tribes as-a-whole by granting small parcels of land to individual tribe members. In some cases, for example,
4488-580: The act in force at the time of the illicit conveyance determines the law that applies. The courts have found few legal differences between the five versions of the act. For example, three dissenting justices in South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe (1986) noted that the 1793 Act expanded the scope of the 1790 Act by applying the prohibition not only to lands but "claims". The original act, passed on July 22, 1790, provides: No sale of lands made by any Indians, or any nation or tribe of Indians within
4590-530: The act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States , a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 . The first four acts expired after four years; the 1802 and 1834 acts had no expiration. The version of
4692-574: The anti-alienation provisions of the Allotment Acts. Conversely, individual Indians have no standing under the Act. This is true even if individual plaintiffs attempt the certify a class of all tribal members; the tribe itself must sue. Unlike the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 , the Nonintercourse Act applies to land within the boundaries of a state, including the original thirteen. The First Circuit in Passamaquoddy and
4794-458: The authority is clear that the Ex parte Young exception does not apply. Therefore, plaintiffs must obtain the intervention of the federal government or relegate themselves to suing local governments and private land owners. Further, in actions against states, Indians are not entitled to the presumption of 25 U.S.C. § 194, which applies only to "persons". Four dissenting justices would have barred
4896-464: The basis for hotel and conference facilities, to draw visitors and revenue to reservations. Successful gaming operations on some reservations have greatly increased the economic wealth of some tribes, enabling their investment to improve infrastructure, education, and health for their people. Serious crime on Indian reservations has historically been required (by the 1885 Major Crimes Act , 18 U.S.C. §§1153, 3242, and court decisions) to be investigated by
4998-437: The bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by a treaty or a convention entered into pursuant to the constitution ... The 1796 act provides: [N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity, in law or equity, unless
5100-430: The citizens of the United States subsequent to the treaty of Colerain, which has been or may be claimed and established agreeably to the provisions of the act for regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers. The Nonintercourse Act did not pre-empt the states from legislating additional restraints on alienation of Native American lands. Many states, including nearly all of
5202-471: The claim based on an interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act and an invocation of the statute of limitations for the state enabling act which enabled the Seneca to sue in state court; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine. The Act remained essentially unlitigated by tribes until Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation (1960), where
SECTION 50
#17327720197725304-632: The constitution ... The 1802 act provides: No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation, or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity, in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention, entered into pursuant to the constitution ... The 1834 act, currently codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177, provides: No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of land, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless
5406-632: The conveyance, and (4) the trust relationship between the United States and the tribe has not been terminated. The Passamaquoddy and Narragansett cases, supra, are examples where the plaintiff has prevailed despite not being federally recognized tribes (the Passamaquoddy obtained federal recognition through the Maine Indian Claims Settlement; the Narragansett gained federal recognition in 1983, five years after
5508-509: The duty of any judge of any court of Common Pleas of the county within which such lands shall be situated, on complaint made to him, and on due proof of the fact of such settlement or residence, to issue his warrant, under his hand and seal, directed to the sheriff of such county, commanding him, within ten days after the receipt thereof, to remove such person or persons so settling or residing, with his, her or their families, from such lands. A 1739 South Carolina Provincial Council statute required
5610-543: The federal Native American agencies and generally poor conditions among the relocated tribes. Many tribes ignored the relocation orders at first and were forced onto their limited land parcels. Enforcement of the policy required the United States Army to restrict the movements of various tribes. The pursuit of tribes in order to force them back onto reservations led to a number of wars with Native Americans which included some massacres. The most well-known conflict
5712-454: The federal government began to forcibly relocate nations to parcels of land to which they often had no historical or cultural connection. Compared to other population centers in the U.S., reservations are disproportionately located on or near toxic sites hazardous to the health of those living or working in close proximity, including nuclear testing grounds and contaminated mines. The majority of American Indians and Alaska Natives live outside
5814-756: The federal government, usually the Federal Bureau of Investigation , and prosecuted by United States Attorneys of the United States federal judicial district in which the reservation lies. Tribal courts were limited to sentences of one year or less, until on July 29, 2010, the Tribal Law and Order Act was enacted which in some measure reforms the system permitting tribal courts to impose sentences of up to three years provided proceedings are recorded and additional rights are extended to defendants. The Justice Department on January 11, 2010, initiated
5916-411: The forms of government found outside the reservation. With the establishment of reservations, tribal territories diminished to a fraction of their original areas; customary Native American practices of land tenure were sustained only for a time, and not in every instance. Instead, the federal government established regulations that subordinated tribes to the authority, first, of the military, and then of
6018-832: The government payroll were all replaced by school superintendents. Individuals who have served as Indian agents include the following: Nonintercourse Act The Nonintercourse Act (also known as the Indian Intercourse Act or the Indian Nonintercourse Act ) is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set boundaries of American Indian reservations . The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between White Americans and citizens of Indigenous nations . The most notable provisions of
6120-494: The idea before it was fully implemented, five tribes were terminated—the Coushatta , Ute , Paiute , Menominee and Klamath —and 114 groups in California lost their federal recognition as tribes. Many individuals were also relocated to cities, but one-third returned to their tribal reservations in the decades that followed. Federally recognized Native American tribes possess limited tribal sovereignty and are able to exercise
6222-587: The indigenous tribe sell their land to build a lighthouse. A treaty signed by John Forsyth, the Secretary of State on behalf of Van Buren, also dictates where indigenous peoples must live in terms of the reservation system in America between the Oneida People in 1838. This treaty allows the indigenous peoples five years on a specific reserve "the west shores of Saganaw bay". The creation of reservations for indigenous people of America could be as little as
SECTION 60
#17327720197726324-430: The jurisdiction of the Department of War ." In the 1830s, the primary role of Indian agents was to assist in commercial trading supervision between traders and Indians, while agents possessed the authority to both issue and revoke commercial trading licenses. In 1849, the Bureau of Indian Affairs decided to place the position of Indian agent under civilian jurisdiction. This came at a time when many white Americans saw
6426-562: The lack of data on crime rates and law enforcement response. As of 2012, a high incidence of rape continued to impact Native American women. A survey of death certificates over a four-year period showed that deaths among Indians due to alcohol are about four times as common as in the general U.S. population and are often due to traffic collisions and liver disease with homicide , suicide , and falls also contributing. Deaths due to alcohol among American Indians are more common in men and among Northern Plains Indians. Alaska Natives showed
6528-425: The land claim. Courts have considered and rejected several affirmative defenses to Nonintercourse Act suits. However, there are two affirmative defenses that have been accepted by some courts: state sovereign immunity and the equitable doctrine of laches . The structure of the original Constitution and the text of the Eleventh Amendment gives states sovereign immunity from most suits. There are exceptions: when
6630-400: The land reserves in a better state for the benefit of society" with approval of Indigenous reservations before 1850. The letter is signed by Isaac Shelby and Jackson. It discusses several regulations regarding the Native Americans and the approval of Indigenous segregation and the reservation system. President Martin Van Buren negotiated a treaty with the Saginaw Chippewas in 1837 to build
6732-437: The largest ever awarded under the Act. In addition to regulating relations between Indians living on Indian land and non-Indians, the 1834 Act identified an area known as " Indian country ". This land was described as being "all that part of the United States west of the Mississippi and not within the states of Missouri and Louisiana, or the territory of Arkansas". This is the land that became known as Indian Territory . One of
6834-411: The late 19th century: civilization can only be possible when Indians cease communal living in favor of private ownership. Many citizens still held the activities of Indian agents in poor esteem, calling the agents themselves "unprincipled opportunists" and people of low quality. When Theodore Roosevelt reached the presidency at the turn of the 20th century (1901–1909), the Indian agents that remained on
6936-559: The least incidence of death. Under federal law, alcohol sales are prohibited on Indian reservations unless the tribal councils allow it. Gang violence has become a major social problem. A December 13, 2009, article in The New York Times about growing gang violence on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation estimated that there were 39 gangs with 5,000 members on that reservation alone. As opposed to traditional "Most Wanted" lists, Native Americans are often placed on regional Crime Stoppers lists offering rewards for their whereabouts. When
7038-487: The majority of non-Indian landownership and residence in the open areas and, contrariwise, closed areas represent exclusive tribal residence and related conditions. Indian country today consists of tripartite government—i. e., federal, state and/or local, and tribal. Where state and local governments may exert some, but limited, law-and-order authority, tribal sovereignty is diminished. This situation prevails in connection with Indian gaming, because federal legislation makes
7140-487: The mere consent of Congress, however express and specific, would avail nothing. Therefore, if § 177 is applicable ... the result would be that the Tuscarora lands, however imperative for the project, could not be taken at all. This dicta inspired Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida Cnty. (1974) (" Oneida I "), where the Supreme Court held that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction for Indian land claims based upon aboriginal title and violations of
7242-417: The most defining aspects of the acts was the establishment of a series of " factories " which were officially licensed trading posts where Native Americans were to sell their merchandise (particularly furs ). The factories, which officially were set up to protect the tribes from unscrupulous private traders, were to be used as leverage to cause the tribes to cede substantial territory in exchange for access to
7344-683: The only court to consider it held that the Confederation Congress had neither the power nor the intent to prohibit conveyances to states within their borders. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 may cover conveyances between 1763 and 1783; however, the only court to examine such a conveyance found that it satisfied the requirements of the Proclamation. For example, the conveyances at issue in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) occurred on July 5, 1773 and October 18, 1775, but neither party to
7446-506: The only final judgement entered by a court in favor of a tribe bringing a Nonintercourse Act land claim, Oneida I inspired dozens of other land claims. After tribes won initial judgements in some of these claims, Congress reacted by extinguishing the claimed aboriginal title and compensating the tribal plaintiffs. These Indian Land Claims Settlements are collected in 25 U.S.C. tit. 19. For example, in Joint Tribal Council of
7548-822: The original Thirteen, enacted similar statutes for at least some lands during at least some time periods. Other state statutes, or constitutional provisions, incorporated the English common law as it had evolved up to that point. A New York State enacted March 31, 1821, provided: [I]t shall be unlawful for any person or persons, other than Indians, to settle or reside upon any lands belonging to or occupied by any nation or tribe of Indians within this state; and that all leases, contracts and agreements made by any Indians, whereby any person or persons, other than Indians, shall be permitted to reside upon such lands, shall be absolutely void; and if any person or persons shall settle or reside on any such lands, contrary to this act, it shall be
7650-505: The plaintiff is not the successor in interest to the tribe whose lands were illegally alienated. The leading case where the defendants prevailed on this element is Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp. (1st Cir. 1979). Alternatively, the action may be stayed until the Bureau of Indian Affairs makes a tribal status determination (and eventually dismissed if the BIA concludes the plaintiffs are not
7752-467: The present government of the United States was established, when the separate States and individuals under their authority, undertook to treat with the Indian tribes respecting the sale of their lands. But the case is now entirely altered. The general Government only has the power, to treat with the Indian Nations, and any treaty formed and held without its authority will not be binding. Here then
7854-557: The purpose of colonization. The passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 marked the systematization of a U.S. federal government policy of moving Native populations away from European-populated areas, whether forcibly or voluntarily. One example was the Five Civilized Tribes , who were removed from their historical homelands in the Southeastern United States and moved to Indian Territory , in
7956-601: The reservation (e.g., Enabling Act of 1910 at Section 20 ). As a general practice, such land may sit idle or be used for cattle grazing by tribal ranchers. In 1979, the Seminole tribe in Florida opened a high-stakes bingo operation on its reservation in Florida. The state attempted to close the operation down but was stopped in the courts. In the 1980s, the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians established
8058-545: The reservations, mainly in the larger western cities such as Phoenix and Los Angeles . In 2012, there were more than 2.5 million Native Americans , with 1 million living on reservations. From the beginning of the European colonization of the Americas , Europeans often removed Indigenous peoples from their homelands. The means varied, including treaties made under considerable duress, forceful ejection, violence, and in
8160-586: The reservations. Likewise, over two million acres (8,000 km ) of land were returned to various tribes. Within a decade of Collier's retirement the government's position began to swing in the opposite direction. The new Indian Commissioners Myers and Emmons introduced the idea of the "withdrawal program" or " termination ", which sought to end the government's responsibility and involvement with Indians and to force their assimilation. The Indians would lose their lands but were to be compensated, although many were not. Even though discontent and social rejection killed
8262-506: The right of reservations to operate other forms of gambling operations. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act , which recognized the right of Native American tribes to establish gambling and gaming facilities on their reservations as long as the states in which they are located have some form of legalized gambling. Today, many Native American casinos are used as tourist attractions, including as
8364-524: The right of self-governance, including but not limited to the ability to pass laws, regulate power and energy, create treaties, and hold tribal court hearings. Laws on tribal lands may vary from those of the surrounding area. The laws passed can, for example, permit legal casinos on reservations. The tribal council, not the local government or the United States federal government , often has jurisdiction over reservations. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate
8466-498: The role of Indian agent as largely inefficient and dishonest in monetary and severalty dealings with various Indian tribes. By 1850, many citizens had been calling for reform of the agents in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Their wish had been granted when in 1869 the bureau created the civilian-controlled Board of Indian Commissioners . The board "never more deeply felt, that Indian agents should be appointed solely for merit and fitness for their work ... and should be retained in
8568-522: The same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant the constitution. One of the earliest interpretations of the Nonintercourse Act comes from a speech by President George Washington to the Seneca Nation of New York in 1790, after the passage of the act: I am not uninformed that the six Nations have been led into some difficulties with respect to the sale of their lands since the peace. But I must inform you that these evils arose before
8670-417: The same be made by treaty, or convention, entered into pursuant to the constitution ... The 1799 act provides: No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity, in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention, entered into pursuant to
8772-585: The scapegoat for the perceived inefficiency of Indian-White affairs: the Indian agent. By the late 19th century, the job title of Indian agent began to change slightly in the wake of the recent attempts to 'civilize' Indians, assimilating them into American culture. Despite the public scorn for the agents, the Indian Office stated that the "chief duty of an agent is to induce his Indian to labor in civilized pursuits. To attain this end every possible influence should be brought to bear, and in proportion as it
8874-473: The service when they prove themselves to be efficient and helpful by their character and moral influence." This civilian run board was charged "with responsibility for supervising the disbursement of Indian appropriations" from state and federal governments. However, the United States Army command was extremely dissatisfied of the transfer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Department of War to
8976-599: The settlers encroached on territory and natural resources in the West. In 1868, President Ulysses S. Grant pursued a "Peace Policy" as an attempt to avoid violence. The policy included a reorganization of the Indian Service, with the goal of relocating various tribes from their ancestral homes to parcels of lands established specifically for their inhabitation. The policy called for the replacement of government officials by religious men, nominated by churches, to oversee
9078-548: The state a party to any contractual or statutory agreement. Finally, occupancy on reservations can be by virtue of tribal or individual tenure. There are many churches on reservations; most would occupy tribal land by consent of the federal government or the tribe. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agency offices, hospitals, schools, and other facilities usually occupy residual federal parcels within reservations. Many reservations include one or more sections (about 640 acres) of land for schools, but such land typically remains part of
9180-407: The state consents to suit; when the federal government abrogates sovereign immunity by statute; when the federal government is the plaintiff or plaintiff-intervenor; and the category authorized by Ex parte Young (1908). In several cases, Nonintercourse Act plaintiffs have satisfied one of these exceptions. However, the Nonintercourse Act itself does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. Moreover,
9282-405: The state of West Virginia . Reservations are unevenly distributed throughout the country, the majority being situated west of the Mississippi River and occupying lands that were first reserved by treaty ( Indian Land Grants ) from the public domain. Because recognized Native American nations possess tribal sovereignty , albeit of a limited degree, laws within tribal lands may vary from those of
9384-663: The state's motion to dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity and nonjusticiability. Similarly, in Mohegan Tribe v. Connecticut (D. Conn. 1982), Congress approved the creation of the Mohegan Sun after the court struck the defendant's affirmative defenses. With the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and Wampanoag , Congress enacted a settlement before the courts had a chance to enter any rulings. As stated in Narragansett , there are four elements to
9486-421: The successors in interest). The Pueblo were initially interpreted not to be "Indians" for the purposes of the Nonintercourse Act; however, this holding was subsequently overruled. The elements given above are for a tribe. The United States, acting in its capacity as a trustee, may bring, and has successfully brought, actions on behalf of a tribe. The federal government was vested with similar power to enforce
9588-504: The suit was indigenous. Through the policies of Indian removal in the East and Indian reservation -creation in the West, the federal government removed Native Americans from most of their ancestral land. However, examples of Congress approving a state action that alienated land are rare indeed. Congress would have to pass a statute with express language, or the Senate would have to ratify
9690-415: The surrounding and adjacent states. For example, these laws can permit casinos on reservations located within states which do not allow gambling, thus attracting tourism. The tribal council generally has jurisdiction over the reservation, not the U.S. state it is located in, but is subject to federal law. Court jurisdiction in Indian country is shared between tribes and the federal government, depending on
9792-535: The treaty alienating the land, to secure such federal approval. The view taken by several of the Indian Land Claims Settlements is that Congress may consent to such conveyances retroactively; this view has not been tested in court, although it is likely to be upheld because the power of Congress to extinguish aboriginal title without compensation is plenary . In Passamaquoddy , supra, the First Circuit held that only Congress, and only with
9894-417: The tribal affiliation of the parties involved and the specific crime or civil matter. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation. Most Native American reservations were established by the federal government but a small number, mainly in the East, owe their origin to state recognition . The term "reservation"
9996-483: The tribe has the authority to modify tenant-in-common practices. With the General Allotment Act (Dawes) , 1887, the government sought to individualize tribal lands by authorizing allotments held in individual tenure. Generally, the allocation process led to grouping family holdings and, in some cases, this sustained pre-reservation clan or other patterns. There had been a few allotment programs ahead of
10098-542: The tribes action based on laches in Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State (1985), a question the majority did not reach. The Second Circuit adopted the view of the dissent in Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki (2d Cir. 2005), and since then no tribal plaintiff has been able to overcome this affirmative defense in that circuit. Cayuga erased a damage award of $ 247.9 million,
10200-754: Was called Brotherton Indian Reservation and also Edgepillock or Edgepelick . The area was 3,284 acres (13.29 km ). Today it is called Indian Mills in Shamong Township . In 1764 the British government's Board of Trade proposed the "Plan for the Future Management of Indian Affairs". Although never adopted formally, the plan established the British government's expectation that land would only be bought by colonial governments, not individuals, and that land would only be purchased at public meetings. Additionally, this plan dictated that
10302-451: Was initiated by John Collier . It laid out new rights for Native Americans, reversed some of the earlier privatization of their common holdings, and encouraged tribal sovereignty and land management by tribes. The act slowed the assignment of tribal lands to individual members and reduced the assignment of "extra" holdings to nonmembers. For the following 20 years, the U.S. government invested in infrastructure, health care, and education on
10404-671: Was the Sioux War on the northern Great Plains , between 1876 and 1881, which included the Battle of Little Bighorn . Other famous wars in this regard included the Nez Perce War and the Modoc War , which marked the last conflict officially declared a war. By the late 1870s, the policy established by President Grant was regarded as a failure, primarily because it had resulted in some of the bloodiest wars between Native Americans and
#771228