DOCSLIB.ORG

Michigan's Tribal Economies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Michigan State University College of Law

INDIGENOUS LAW & POLICY CENTER
OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES

Michigan’s Emerging Tribal
Economies:
A Presentation to the
Michigan House of Representatives

Jake J. Allen, 2L, MSU College of Law Hannah Bobee, 2L, MSU College of Law
Kathryn E. Fort, Staff Attorney, Indigenous Law and Policy Center
Bryan Newland, 3L, MSU College of Law
Wenona T. Singel, Associate Director, Indigenous Law and Policy Center

Indigenous Law & Policy Center Working Paper 2007-07

April 13, 2007

Michigan's Emerging Tribal Economies

I. II.
Introduction Understanding Tribal Sovereignty
III. Michigan Tribal Economies, Past and Present IV. Resources

2

I. Introduction

The territory now known as the state of Michigan has been populated by indigenous peoples who have governed themselves since time immemorial. Today, Michigan has twelve Indian tribes recognized by the federal government as exercising sovereignty. The 2000 Census reported that Michigan has approximately 125,000 people who identify as entirely or partially American Indian.1 Of those who identified solely as American Indian, Michigan has the twelfth largest population nationwide and the fourth largest American Indian population east of the Mississippi River.

Each of the Tribes in Michigan exercise of the powers of self-government within the land defined as Indian country under federal law. Indian country is a legal term of art defined by federal statute, and it includes all lands within reservation boundaries, all allotments, and all dependent Indian communities.2 Trust lands, or lands which the federal government holds in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes, also constitute Indian country.3 In addition to Indian country, another term of art with significance for Indian selfgovernance is the concept of a service area. Service areas constitute clusters of counties within which each tribe provides important governmental services to the American Indian population. Examples of services include health care, housing assistance and social services.

Although Indian country and service areas are areas of critical importance for tribal governance, these areas only capture a portion of Michigan’s American Indian population. Nationwide, only about one third of all tribal citizens live on reservation land. In other words, about two-thirds of all tribal citizens live off reservation. Many live in urban areas and consider themselves urban Indians. In Michigan, urban areas with large American Indian communities include Detroit, Grand Rapids and Lansing. Detroit has the tenth largest urban Indian population in the nation.

The federally recognized tribes in Michigan are each part of a larger group known as the People of the Three Fires. The Three Fires Confederacy represents the Ottawas, Potawatomis and Ojibwe.4 Members of each of these tribes also refer to themselves as the Anishinaabeg.5 These tribes have been active in the economy of the region since before European contact, and the presence of these sovereigns is an economic and cultural benefit to the state of Michigan.

1 The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief (2002). 2 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2002).

3 Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 888 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1989) aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds 498 U.S. 505 (1991).

4 The Ottawas also refer to themselves as Odawa, and the Ojibwe also use Ojibway, Ojibwa and Chippewa to refer to themselves.

5

Clifton, James A., George L. Cornell, James M. McClurken, People of the Three Fires: The Ottawa, Potawatomi and Ojibway of Michigan (The Grand Rapids Inter-Tribal Council, 1986), iv-v

3

II. Understanding Tribal Sovereignty

Tribes are sovereign entities and were operating as such prior to European contact. Succinctly put, tribal sovereignty is the power to exercise self-rule.6 In Williams v. Lee, the first Indian law case decided by the Supreme Court in the modern era, the Court referred to tribal sovereignty as “the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.”7 Tribal sovereignty has two critical aspects. First, tribal sovereignty is an inherent power that predates European contact and the formation of the United States.8 As such, the sovereign powers exercised by tribes today constitute retained rather than delegated powers.9 Second, the scope and content of tribal sovereignty is not addressed in the United States constitution. Unlike the states, which waived aspects of their sovereignty to join the federal union, tribes did not participate in the Constitutional Convention and agree to the same concessions as the states.10 As a result, the Constitution’s restrictions on federal and state governments do not apply directly to tribes.11 The Constitution only refers to tribes in three brief sections described later in this paper. To understand the nature of tribal sovereignty and the retained rights of Indian tribes, we must look principally to the treaties entered into between tribes and the federal government and the opinions of the Supreme Court that interpret those treaties. The treaties negotiated by tribes generally constituted solemn agreements in which tribes retained the right to exercise self-government and agreed to cede portions of their territory in exchange for payments, services, and the permanent right to occupy reservations and exercise the power of self-government without the interference of nonIndians. In 1871, the federal government ceased treaty-making, but the treaties entered into prior to this moratorium remain the supreme law of the land, constitutionally guaranteed by the Supremacy Clause.12

A. Michigan Tribes and Treaties

Treaties involving Michigan Indian tribes included provisions that provided for cessions of land by the tribes in exchange for reservations or allotments, payments, and services. For example, the Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa Nation of 1836, also known as the Treaty of Washington, required the federal government to set aside certain tracts as

6 Joseph P. Kalt & Joseph William Singer, Myths and Realities of Tribal Sovereignty: The Law and Economics of Indian Self-Rule, Faculty Research Working Papers Series 7 (Harv. U. March 2004) (available at http:// ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP04-016?OpenDocument) 7 Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 219 (1959). 8 McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164, 172 (1973) (“[the tribe’s] claim to sovereignty long predates that of our own Government”).

9 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978).

10

Some courts have termed this relationship as “extraconstitutional” or even “preconstitutional.” United
States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 213 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“extraconstitutional”); Lara, 541 U.S. at 201 (“preconstitutional”). 11 Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, 382 (1896). 12 U.S. Const. Art. VI (“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”).

4reservations, provide annuity payments, and provide additional funds for education, agricultural necessities, and medical goods and services.13 While there are many treaties between tribes in Michigan and the federal government, two are especially critical: the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit.

The 1836 Treaty of Washington was an agreement between tribes in Michigan and the federal government for the tribes to cede a large portion of what became Michigan to the United States Government in exchange for money. The land ceded by the 1836 Treaty constituted roughly the northern third of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and the eastern half of its Upper Peninsula, with the exception of reservations that the tribes retained within this area. The Ottawa Chiefs and Headmen purchased lands in their name for all the members of their bands. Essentially, the tribes bought back parcels within the land that they had just sold, with the money they received in exchange for it. This was one way Michigan tribes were able to avoid the federal government’s attempt to remove them west of the Mississippi.14

The 1855 Treaty of Detroit was an agreement between certain tribes in Michigan and the federal government in 1855. The Treaty of Detroit ended the threat of forced removal to Kansas by the federal government by withdrawing from sale certain lands within the public domain to allow for the issuance of allotments and fee patents to individual Indians.15 The terms of this treaty required the United States Government to provide $538,400 for “the support of schools and to provide agricultural implants, household furnishings, and blacksmith shops.”16 The conditions on the land set aside for the tribes were extremely impoverished. The reduced land base led to complete economic dependence on the federal government for survival.

B. Tribes and the Federal Government

Because of the sovereign status of tribes, treaties, and certain portions of the Constitution, tribes and the federal government have a unique relationship. This relationship, sometimes called the trust relationship, is a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship. Aside from treaties, the political relationship between the tribes and the federal government can be traced to the Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause states, “the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”17 According to the Handbook of Federal Indian Law, “The commerce clause has become the linchpin in the more general power over Indian affairs recognized by Congress and the courts.”18 The Commerce Clause, therefore, “anticipat[es] and affirm[s] federal law singl[ing] out Indian nations and their members for separate treatment.”19

13 Art. 4, 6 Stat. 491 (1836)

14

Our Land and Culture: A 200 Year History of Our Land Use. Little Bay Band of Odawa Indians (Nov.
2005). 15 Treaty of Detroit (11 Stat. 633).

16 Id.

17 U.S. Const. Art. I, §8, cl. 3; Art. II, §2 cl. 2

18 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, §5.01[4] (2005) 19 Cohen, §14.03[2][b][i]

5
Generally, the federal government has the sole authority to deal with tribes. This has been both a curse and a blessing for tribes, as federal policy toward tribes has shifted considerably over time. In certain time periods the federal government has tried to extinguish tribes, either through allotment of tribal lands, or termination of the relationship between tribes and the federal government. In other time periods, the federal government has encouraged self-governance and tribal sovereignty. In 1970, President Nixon stated that it was time for a “new national policy toward the Indian people: to strengthen the Indian’s sense of autonomy without threatening his sense of community . . . and . . . that Indians can be independent of Federal control without being cut off from Federal concern and Federal support.”20 This has been interpreted to mean that the current federal policy era is one of tribal self-governance and self-sufficiency.

C. Tribes and the Supreme Court

Because the federal government has exclusive authority to deal with tribes, most litigation surrounding tribes takes place in the federal court system. The Supreme Court has been hearing Federal Indian law cases since 1823. Starting with Johnson v. M’Intosh in 1823 and ending with Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, the Supreme Court heard three Indian law cases now termed “The Marshall Trilogy” after then-Chief Justice John Marshall. The trilogy forms the base for what is termed “Federal Indian law,” the Supreme Court’s interpretation of treaties and statutes applying to American Indian tribes. Like the federal government, the Supreme Court has swung dramatically between affirming tribal sovereignty and limiting tribal authority.21 There are a few principles on which, however, the Court has been relatively consistent.

1. Political Status of Tribes and Tribal Members

In 1974, the Supreme Court upheld hiring preferences for qualified Indians to vacancies in the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the landmark case of Morton v. Mancari.22 The basis for giving preference in hiring was not an affirmative action, but based on the political status tribal members and tribal sovereignty. In Morton v. Mancari, Justice Blackmun reasoned that “[t]he preference, as applied, is granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities whose lives and activities are governed by the BIA in a unique fashion.” An equal protection analysis requiring a compelling state interest to justify overt racial discrimination is inapplicable to legislation

20 Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations for Indian Policy, H.R. Doc. No. 91-363, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess. (July 8, 1970), reprinted in Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, ed. David Getches, (4th ed., 1998) 226-7.

21 For example, compare Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) to United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), or Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968) to Oliphant v. Suquamish

Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

22 Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974).

6or governmental action toward tribal members because the policy of preference has been determined by the Court to be based on a political relationship, not race.23

Since that time, the Court has continued to affirm the political status of tribes and tribal members, and rarely subjects legislation to strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment which would likely not pass constitutional muster if targeted at other protected groups. But since Congressional classifications in this field are political rather than racial, the courts apply the rational basis test and tend to uphold these statutes.24 In 2004, a U.S. Court of Appeals held “we therefore hold that the preference in § 8014(3), by promoting the economic development of federally recognized Indian tribes (and thus their members), is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and thus constitutional.”25

2. Tribal Sovereign Immunity

As sovereigns, tribes also enjoy the protection of sovereign immunity. A tribe cannot be sued without its permission, either in tribal, federal or state courts. Sovereign immunity is an inherent aspect of sovereignty, and both states and the federal government have sovereign immunity, except when expressly abrogated.

Tribal sovereign immunity has been recognized by the U.S. Courts since 1895. In Thebo v. Choctaw Nation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that

it has been the policy of the United States to place and maintain the Choctaw Nation . . . so far as relates to suits against them, on the plane of independent states. A state, without its consent, cannot be sued by an individual. It is a well-established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts or any other without its consent and permission; but it may, if it thinks proper, waive this privilege and permit itself to be made a defendant in a suit by individuals or by another state.26

The Supreme Court, in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, also recognized that tribes have “long been recognized as possessing the common law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.”27 However, both cases also recognize Congress’s power to waive tribal sovereign immunity for specific cases and controversies, though the waiver must be express and unequivocal, much like the abrogation of a treaty.28 As

23 Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 99 S.Ct. 740, 58

L.Ed. 2d 740 (1979). 24 For example, see United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 646; and Mancari, 417 U.S. at 554

25

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States, 330 F.3d 513, 523-4 (D.C.

Cir.) cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1033 (2004).

26 Thebo v. Choctaw Tribe of Indians, 66 F. 372, 375 (8th Cir. 1895). 27 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 60 (1978). 28 Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 60.

7

recently as 1998, in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., the

Court upheld the doctrine and deferred to Congress for express abrogation of immunity.29 This area, like all areas of Federal Indian law, is still subject to litigation, particularly as tribes operate both as tribes and corporations.

D. Tribes and the State

As self-governing sovereign communities, tribes are not political subdivisions of the state. They co-exist within the state, but are not of the state. The Michigan Supreme Court recently acknowledged that Indian tribes are “‘distinct political communities,’” whose sovereignty can be limited only by Congress.30 An older Michigan Supreme Court case has also held, “[Indians and Indian tribes] did not occupy their territory by our grace and permission, but by a right beyond our control. They were placed by the constitution of the United States beyond our jurisdiction, and we had no more right to control their domestic usages than those of Turkey or India.”31 While this is the case, tribes and states still need to find ways to address pragmatic concerns from policing to taxation to shared economies. A strong, sovereign-to-sovereign relationship between a tribe and a state can lead to solutions that make sense for both governments.

In 2002, the State of Michigan entered into a Government-to-Government Accord with the 12 federally recognized tribes, acknowledging tribal sovereignty, tribal selfgovernance and cooperation between the state and tribes. This Accord was reaffirmed by the Governor in a 2004 Executive Directive. In doing so, the Governor demonstrated understanding of and respect to tribes as sovereigns, making it easier for the two governments to work together in other areas.

Tax Agreement

In 2002, seven tribes in Michigan signed Tribal-State Tax Agreements with the State of Michigan through the Department of Treasury.32 The tax agreements constitute negotiated agreements that clarify the extent to which Michigan’s Indian tribes and tribal citizens are exempt from and subject to several Michigan taxes. The clarification offered by the tax agreements is beneficial for the state and Michigan’s tribes because it offers certainty in an area where federal Indian law is riddled with broadly defined standards whose application is often difficult to predict. The taxes addressed by the tax agreements include the sales and use tax, the individual income tax, the motor fuels tax, the tobacco tax, and the single business tax. The tax agreements provide for limited waivers of sovereign immunity to allow for enforcement of the agreement’s terms, and they create “agreement areas” that specify the geographical areas within which the tax agreement’s provisions apply.

29 523 U.S. 751 (1998).

30 Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 685 N.W.2d 221, 227 (Mich. 2004) (quoting Worcester

v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 557 (1832)), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1146 (2005).

31 Kobogum v. Jackson Iron Co., 43 N.W. 602, 605 (1889)

32 Copies of the Michigan Tribal-State Tax Agreements are available at http://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,1607,7-238-43513_43517---,00.html.

Recommended publications
  • Treaty Responsibilities Between Settler and Indigenous Nations in the Western Lake Erie-Detroit River Ecosystem

    Treaty Responsibilities Between Settler and Indigenous Nations in the Western Lake Erie-Detroit River Ecosystem

    Treaty Responsibilities Between Settler and Indigenous Nations in the Western Lake Erie-Detroit River Ecosystem Kevin Berk, Faculty of Law and Great Lakes Institute of Environmental Research, University of Windsor, [email protected] Background The ecosystem that includes the Detroit River and Western Lake Erie is Indigenous land. These lands and waters are both the historical and current home of the Three Fires Confederacy (the Odawa, Ojibwe, and Potawatomi Nations) and the Wyandot. Additionally, the health of this ecosystem has profound impacts on nearby Indigenous nations (i.e. the Aamjiwnaang First Nation) who are impacted by the water and air which flows through this ecosystem. As today’s residents are living and working on Indigenous land, any legitimacy for their presence, and the presence of the states of Canada and the United States of America, must be rooted in the treaties executed between Indigenous nations, to whom the land belongs, and European settler colonial states. It is thus essential that work done in relation to the land and waters by settlers be conducted in accordance with not only the laws of the settler states and the state’s obligations under treaties, but also the laws of the Indigenous nations to whom the land belongs. History and Status The Foundational Treaties In 1613 as Dutch settlers moved up the Hudson River and into Mohawk territory, the Haudenosaunee met with the settlers and presented them with a treaty in the form of a Wampum Belt (Figure 1). In Canada’s Indigenous Constitution John Borrows describes this Wampum Belt as such: The belt consists of two rows of purple wampum beads on a white background.
  • Appellant-Brief

    Appellant-Brief

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Case No. 08-3621 OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA , Appellant, v. SEAN LOGAN, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Appellee. BRIEF OF APPELLANT OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA Richard D. Rogovin Matthew C. Blickensderfer Terrence M. Fay FROST BROWN TODD LLC FROST BROWN TODD LLC 2200 PNC Center 10 West Broad Street, Suite 2300 201 East Fifth Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (614) 464-1234 (513) 651-6162 (614) 464-1737 (facsimile) (513) 651-6981 (facsimile) Attorneys for Appellant Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST OTTAWA TRIBE OF : Case No. 08-3621 OKLAHOMA , : : Appellant, : : v. : : SEAN LOGAN, DIRECTOR, : OHIO DEPARTMENT OF : NATURAL RESOURCES, : : Appellee. : Pursuant to 6 th Cir. R. 26.1, Appellant Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma makes the following disclosure: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? NO If the answer is YES, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the named party: 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interest in the outcome? NO If the answer is YES, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financial interest: /s/ Matthew C. Blickensderfer August 27, 2008 Matthew C. Blickensderfer Date i TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST..................................................................................................................i
  • One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America

    One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America

    S. 1357 One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four An Act To reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationships of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians are descendants of, and political successors to, signatories of the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. (2) The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also descendants of the signatories to the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, have been recog- nized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes. (3) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians con- sists of at least 1,000 eligible members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the Little Traverse Reservation in the 1836 Treaty of Washington and 1855 Treaty of Detroit, which area is now known as Emmet and Charlevoix Counties, Michigan.
  • People of the Three Fires: the Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibway of Michigan.[Workbook and Teacher's Guide]

    People of the Three Fires: the Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibway of Michigan.[Workbook and Teacher's Guide]

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 321 956 RC 017 685 AUTHOR Clifton, James A.; And Other., TITLE People of the Three Fires: The Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibway of Michigan. Workbook and Teacher's Guide . INSTITUTION Grand Rapids Inter-Tribal Council, MI. SPONS AGENCY Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.; Dyer-Ives Foundation, Grand Rapids, MI.; Michigan Council for the Humanities, East Lansing.; National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH), Washington, D.C. REPORT NO ISBN-0-9617707-0-8 PUB DATE 86 NOTE 225p.; Some photographs may not reproduce ;4011. AVAILABLE FROMMichigan Indian Press, 45 Lexington N. W., Grand Rapids, MI 49504. PUB TYPE Books (010) -- Guides - Classroom Use - Guides '.For Teachers) (052) -- Guides - Classroom Use- Materials (For Learner) (051) EDRS PRICE MFU1 /PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *American Indian Culture; *American Indian History; American Indians; *American Indian Studies; Environmental Influences; Federal Indian Relationship; Political Influences; Secondary Education; *Sociix- Change; Sociocultural Patterns; Socioeconomic Influences IDENTIFIERS Chippewa (Tribe); *Michigan; Ojibway (Tribe); Ottawa (Tribe); Potawatomi (Tribe) ABSTRACT This book accompanied by a student workbook and teacher's guide, was written to help secondary school students to explore the history, culture, and dynamics of Michigan's indigenous peoples, the American Indians. Three chapters on the Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibway (or Chippewa) peoples follow an introduction on the prehistoric roots of Michigan Indians. Each chapter reflects the integration
  • Chronology of Michigan History 1618-1701

    Chronology of Michigan History 1618-1701

    CHRONOLOGY OF MICHIGAN HISTORY 1618-1701 1618 Etienne Brulé passes through North Channel at the neck of Lake Huron; that same year (or during two following years) he lands at Sault Ste. Marie, probably the first European to look upon the Sault. The Michigan Native American population is approximately 15,000. 1621 Brulé returns, explores the Lake Superior coast, and notes copper deposits. 1634 Jean Nicolet passes through the Straits of Mackinac and travels along Lake Michigan’s northern shore, seeking a route to the Orient. 1641 Fathers Isaac Jogues and Charles Raymbault conduct religious services at the Sault. 1660 Father René Mesnard establishes the first regular mission, held throughout winter at Keweenaw Bay. 1668 Father Jacques Marquette takes over the Sault mission and founds the first permanent settlement on Michigan soil at Sault Ste. Marie. 1669 Louis Jolliet is guided east by way of the Detroit River, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. 1671 Simon François, Sieur de St. Lusson, lands at the Sault, claims vast Great Lakes region, comprising most of western America, for Louis XIV. St. Ignace is founded when Father Marquette builds a mission chapel. First of the military outposts, Fort de Buade (later known as Fort Michilimackinac), is established at St. Ignace. 1673 Jolliet and Marquette travel down the Mississippi River. 1675 Father Marquette dies at Ludington. 1679 The Griffon, the first sailing vessel on the Great Lakes, is built by René Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, and lost in a storm on Lake Michigan. ➤ La Salle erects Fort Miami at the mouth of the St.
  • Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843

    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843

    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org $4.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Background 03 Trails and Settlements 03 Shelters and Dwellings 04 Clothing and Dress 07 Arts and Crafts 08 Religions 09 Medicine 10 Agriculture, Hunting, and Fishing 11 The Fur Trade 12 Five Major Tribes of Ohio 13 Adapting Each Other’s Ways 16 Removal of the American Indian 18 Ohio Historical Society Indian Sites 20 Ohio Historical Marker Sites 20 Timeline 32 Glossary 36 The Ohio Historical Society 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 2 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Ohio, the last of the prehistoric Indians, the Erie and the Fort Ancient people, were destroyed or driven away by the Iroquois about 1655. Some ethnologists believe the Shawnee descended from the Fort Ancient people. The Shawnees were wanderers, who lived in many places in the south. They became associated closely with the Delaware in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Able fighters, the Shawnees stubbornly resisted white pressures until the Treaty of Greene Ville in 1795. At the time of the arrival of the European explorers on the shores of the North American continent, the American Indians were living in a network of highly developed cultures. Each group lived in similar housing, wore similar clothing, ate similar food, and enjoyed similar tribal life. In the geographical northeastern part of North America, the principal American Indian tribes were: Abittibi, Abenaki, Algonquin, Beothuk, Cayuga, Chippewa, Delaware, Eastern Cree, Erie, Forest Potawatomi, Huron, Iroquois, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mohicans, Maliseet, Massachusetts, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mississauga, Mohawk, Montagnais, Munsee, Muskekowug, Nanticoke, Narragansett, Naskapi, Neutral, Nipissing, Ojibwa, Oneida, Onondaga, Ottawa, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Peoria, Pequot, Piankashaw, Prairie Potawatomi, Sauk-Fox, Seneca, Susquehanna, Swamp-Cree, Tuscarora, Winnebago, and Wyandot.
  • SO 007 959 AUTHOR Steele, Marilyn; Langs, Walter, Jr

    SO 007 959 AUTHOR Steele, Marilyn; Langs, Walter, Jr

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 099 264 SO 007 959 AUTHOR Steele, Marilyn; Langs, Walter, Jr. TITLE Michigan's Minorities at the Mid-Seventies: Indians, Blacks, Chicanos. INSTITUTION Mott (C.S.) Foundation, Flint, Mich. PUB DATE Feb 74 NOTE 180p.; Annual Conference of Michigan Foundations (2nd, Ann Arbor, Michigan, February 21-22, 1974) EDRS PRICE Mr-80.75 HC-49.00 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS American Indians; Census Figures; *Economic Factors; Employment; Foundation Programs; Housing Patterns; Literacy; *Living Standards; Low Income Groups; *Minority Groups; Negroes; Population Trends; Spanish Speaking; State Agencies; *State Surveys; Tables (Data) IDENTIFIERS Michigan; *Social Indicators ABSTRACT The purpose of this position paper is to create awareness' among decision makers and staffof Michigan foundations of the current status of Michigan residentswho are Indian, Black, and Chicano minorities. An historic overview of theIndian, Black, and Spanish language populations in Michigan begins the paper.Indicators of current conditions of life forminorities are presented in order of importance in sustaining human life. Thesurvival cycle is described as a measurable cluster of employment,income, poverty, health, housing, and education. Presentation of thesurvival cycle is divided into chapters on economic status, health,housing, and education. Data was obtained from either the census of1970 or from state agencies and from three specialstudies of the Michigan Health Survey. Other chapters deal with publicorder, group memberships, migrants, and grants to minorities. Summary charts foreach county present a profile of the key factorsdiscussed in the report. An analysis of Michigan's health and lists of personsinterviewed and of panel participants are appended. A bibliographyis included. (Author /KS M) U II DEPARTMENT OP MUM EDUCATION I WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT RAS SEEN REPRO OUCED exactLv AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN MING IT POiNtS Of VIE* OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPO MT OFF IC ii.
  • Northwest Ohio Quarterly Volume 25 Issue 1

    Northwest Ohio Quarterly Volume 25 Issue 1

    Northwest Ohio Quarterly Volume 25 Issue 1 Ohio B\' SISTER M. IMMACULATE Melody: AIII~ri(" Ohio'.., history, A jewel in memory, We now unfold: The virgin forests fair, Shark arrows swift in air, Quaint mounds all bui lt with care, Red men untold. The buckeye state we greet! We hear stout tramping fed; The redcoats sank. With Lincoln's flag her men, For peace her brawn and pct1, Her wealth for home an{[ kin Of every rank. Lake Erie's southern land Aglow with band and band Of grapes and grain; Glass, steel, and pottery Borne f:u o'er land and sea; Ohio, thine the key To trade and fame. From thee a president To OUf fine government Seven times till now! Then, praise, great state, the Lord; Each festive civic board, Sing high with one accord Sweet thanks and bow. , The President's Page THE OHIO SESQUICENTENNIAL Ohio's entry into the Union has been appropriately denominated "the first fruits of the Ordinance of 1787." Thirty-eight years later the renowned Daniel \Vcbster eloquently said: W eare aCCflstomed to praise the law-given 0/ antiquity-but I doubt whether any single law-giver, ancient or modern, has produced effect! of morc distinct, marked and lasting (haracter than the Ordi­ /lance of 1787. W e see ;fs consequences at Ihis moment and we shall never (CMe to see them, perhapl, while the Ohio shall flow. Section 1 of the Ohio En abling Act of April 30, 1802 provided: That the inhabitants of the ealtern division of the territofY north­ Ulest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to for m for IhemJe/ves a cons/ifllllon and state governmenl, all d to aumne stich name as they shalf deem proper, and the said state, whcn formed, shaff be admilled inlo the Union, upon the Mille foot/1Ig with the original stales, ill all respccts whatsoever.
  • Supreme Court of the United States ------♦ ------BARBARA GRUTTER, Petitioner, Vs

    Supreme Court of the United States ------♦ ------BARBARA GRUTTER, Petitioner, Vs

    No. 02-241 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BARBARA GRUTTER, Petitioner, vs. LEE BOLLINGER, JEFFREY LEHMAN, DENNIS SHIELDS, and the BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, et al., Respondents, and KIMBERLY JAMES, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF FOR THE BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS, HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY, KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, LAC VIEUX DESERT BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS, LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS, LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS, MATCH-E-BE- NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS OF MICHIGAN, NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF POTAWATOMI, ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, AND MICHIGAN INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES, AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- VANYA S. HOGEN* COLETTE ROUTEL FAEGRE & BENSON, LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 766-7000 * Counsel of Record ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST
  • MDOT-Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project FEIS Archeological

    MDOT-Woodward Avenue Light Rail Transit Project FEIS Archeological

    Table of Contents ABSTRACT 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 No Build Alternative .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Locally Preferred Alternative ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.3 Park and Ride Lot .................................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.4 Traction Power Substations ................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.5 Construction Staging Areas ................................................................................... 2-3 3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Research Goals ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Background Research ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1 National Historic Landmarks and Historic Districts .............................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Archaeological Sites .............................................................................................
  • LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS of ODAWA INDIANS 7500 Odawa Circle Harbor Springs, MI 49740

    LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS of ODAWA INDIANS 7500 Odawa Circle Harbor Springs, MI 49740

    LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS 7500 Odawa Circle Harbor Springs, MI 49740 TRIBAL RESOLUTION # 080507-04 Authorization to Stipulate to Entry of Consent Decree in the Inland Phase of United States v. Michigan WHEREAS the Waganakising Odawak, known as the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, is a nation of citizens with inherent sovereignty and right to self- governance; WHEREAS the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB or Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe under Public Law 103-324, and is a party to numerous Treaties with the United States, the most recent being the Treaty of Washington of March 28, 1836 (7 Stat. 491) and the Treaty of Detroit of 1855 (11 Stat. 621); WHEREAS Article VIII(C)(2) of the LTBB Constitution delegates to the Chairperson the power "to represent the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in an ambassadorial capacity" and Article VII(D)(23) delegates to the Tribal Council the power to "approve negotiations with any other governments, businesses or individuals by a majority vote of the Tribal Council;" WHEREAS in Article XIII of the Treaty of Washington of 1836 (7 Stat. 491), in which LTBB and the other signatory tribes ceded approximately 13,921,762 acres of land to the United States in what is now a large portion of the State of Michigan, “the Indians stipulate[d] for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement;” WHEREAS LTBB is a party to the case of United States, Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste.
  • Page 403 TITLE 25—INDIANS § 1300J This Title Or Any Other

    Page 403 TITLE 25—INDIANS § 1300J This Title Or Any Other

    Page 403 TITLE 25—INDIANS § 1300j this title or any other provision of this sub- EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1992 AMENDMENT chapter as having effected a taking under the Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, fifth amendment of the United States Constitu- see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note tion or as otherwise having provided inadequate under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial compensation shall be brought, pursuant to sec- Procedure. tion 1491 or 1505 of title 28, in the United States SUBCHAPTER LXXXI—POKAGON BAND OF Court of Federal Claims. The Yurok Transition POTAWATOMI INDIANS Team, or any individual thereon, shall not be named as a defendant or otherwise joined in any § 1300j. Findings suit in which a claim is made arising out of this subsection. The Congress finds the following: (1) The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indi- (b) Limitations on claims ans is the descendant of, and political succes- (1) Any such claim by any person or entity, sor to, the signatories of the Treaty of Green- other than the Hoopa Valley Tribe or the Yurok ville 1795 (7 Stat. 49); the Treaty of Grouseland Tribe, shall be forever barred if not brought 1805 (7 Stat. 91); the Treaty of Spring Wells within the later of 210 days from the date of the 1815 (7 Stat. 131); the Treaty of the Rapids of partition of the joint reservation as provided in the Miami of Lake Erie 1817 (7 Stat. 160); the section 1300i–1 of this title or 120 days after the Treaty of St.