DOCSLIB.ORG

1730-1840Ish

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1730-1840Ish 1730-1840 Themes: The Great Awakening The French and Indian War End of Salutary Neglect Virtual Representation Revolution vs. Evolution Liberty vs. Order following the 1783 Treaty of Paris Hamilton/Jefferson Debates Political Parties to the Jeffersonian ideal War and Quasi-War Era of Good Feelings The Marshall Court Reform, Transcendentalism and the 2nd Great Awakening Jacksonian Democracy Manifest Destiny Major Events: • 1730- Great Awakening • 1754- French and Indian War • 1763- Pontiac’s Rebellion • 1763- Proclamation of 1763 • 1776- Dec of Independence • 1777- Battle of Saratoga • 1783- Treaty of Paris • 1785- Shay’s Rebellion • 1789- Constitution • 1794- Whiskey Rebellion • 1798- XYZ & Alien/Sedition • 1800- Revolution of 1800 Road to Revolution: • 1764- Sugar Act • 1765- Quartering Act • 1765- Stamp Act • 1766- Declaratory Act • 1767- Townsend Duties • 1770- Boston Massacre • 1773- Tea Act/Tea Party • 1773- Intolerable Acts •The one thing you MUST write about • If the topic is 1763-1783: • The creation and demonstration of an AMERICAN IDENTITY as shown in the Stamp Act boycotts and the Declaration of Independence • If the topic is 1783-1800: • The balance of LIBERTY vs ORDER that led to the Constitution as shown with the transition from Articles of Confederation to Constitution Specifics: • THE GREAT AWAKENING in the 1730s • Jonathan Edwards (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) -God is angry only salvation through penitence. • George Whitefield – spread the ‘awakening’ throughout the colonies. New Light v. Old Light = rise in Baptists and Methodists that challenged entrenched philosophies. • So, in a nutshell, if common people could make their own decisions w/o higher authority then it was most likely natural that some would begin thinking politically different. i.e., The Enlightenment. The French and Indian War’s Impacts: • The Albany Plan (1754) – precursor to the revolutionary congresses in the 1770s. The plan called for unity in military presence and taxes. • Peace of Paris (1763) – French vanquished from North America, Canada acquired, Spain gained westward lands • Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763) Indian revolt in the North West (Ohio River Valley) from New York to Virginia • Proclamation of 1763 – attempt to appease tensions between colonials and expansion westward. • TAXES! Taxes and Problems Part 1: • Sugar Act (1764) – Revenue Act placed duties on sugar and certain luxuries. Reinforced the Navigation Acts. Those caught smuggling were tried in a royal court w/o juries. • Quartering Act (1765) – food and living accommodations • Stamp Act (1765) – required revenue stamps placed on most printed paper in the colonies (legal documents, newspapers, pamphlets, etc.). Led to the formation of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty who intimidated tax collectors. Stamp Act Congress formed to profess that only their elected representatives had legal authority to approve taxes (9 colonies). Led to Boycotts of imports and sharp revenue drops for London merchants (repealed in 1766). • Declaratory Act (1766) – Parliament had the right to tax and make laws for the whole of the British Empire in all cases whatsoever. • Most of the revenue collected was to pay for the British soldiers stationed in the colonies Taxes and Problems Part 2: • The Townshend Acts (1767) – taxes/duties to be collected on colonial imports of tea, glass, paper. Used to pay for Crown Officials in the colonies. Additionally the act allowed for the search of private homes which did not require a judge’s warrant, and suspended New York’s assembly for defiance of the Quartering Act. • Even though it was a indirect tax paid by merchants, the Act led to more protests, boycotts, smuggling, and an increase of British troops. • Led to the Boston Massacre in 1770 and it’s repeal by Lord North (except for taxing tea) • Committees of Correspondence (Sam Adams 1772) – renewed mistrusts of British policies. The Gaspee, British customs ship notorious for catching smugglers, ran aground and was destroyed by protesters in disguise. • Boston Tea Party (1773) – Parliament passed the Tea Act in 1773 in an effort to help merchants circumvent smuggling by making tea cheaper, even with the tax. But to buy East India Company’s tea and not the Dutch would be to recognize Parliaments right to tax the colonies…hence the violent destruction of property and a step towards liberty. cont.. • Intolerable Acts of 1774: • The Quebec Act – established Roman Catholicism as the religion in Quebec, no representative assembly, extended Canadian lands into the Ohio River Valley • The Coercive Acts – designed to punish mostly Boston • The Port Act closed the Boston Harbor until the destroyed tea was paid for • Massachusetts Government Act decreased the legislative power while increasing that of the royal governor • Administration of Justice Act allowed royal officials to be tried in Great Britain for accused crimes • Quartering Act #2 allowed for the possession of private homes by the British troops in all colonies • How did all of these ‘acts’ impact the formation of the Bill of Rights? The American Revolution • First Continental Congress (1774, all but GA) – designed to address the alarming threats to colonial liberties. Most did not want conflict, but rather a return to what had been in place prior to the French and Indian War. The main points achieved: 1. Suffolk Resolves was an immediate repeal of the Intolerable Acts. 2. The Declaration of Rights and Grievances urged the king to redress colonial grievances. 3. Continental Association was formed to workout economic sanctions of the Suffolk Resolves. 4. To meet again in 1775 should the issues not be resolved. • Lexington and Concord (April 18, 1775) – responding to hostile intentions, General Gage attempted to seize colonial military supplies. • Bunker Hill (June 1775) – British victory but at a huge loss, Colonial morale for the ensuing war increased throughout the colonies. The Second Continental Congress: • May 1775 – divided delegates over independence or resolution with Great Britain. • George Washington appointed commander-in-chief of the colonial army • July 1775 – Olive Branch Petition was drafted and sent to King George III. In which the King sided with Parliament and declared the colonies in rebellion, thus stopping all trade between them and Britain. • Declaration of Independence (July 1776) The War: • 1775 – 1783 • Patriots v. Loyalists v. Red Coats – most support came from New England colonies, most Tories from Georgia, New York, and New Jersey. Grossly overwhelmed forces under Washington (limited supplies, equipment, and poor pay). Loyalists made up about 20-30 of the colonial population (about 80K relocated to Canada). All this versus the number one military presence on the planet at the time. • 1775-1777: Bad for Washington (lost New York City, lost Philadelphia, and suffering at Valley Forge, all major ports under British control) • Saratoga (Oct. 1777): First major British defeat which caused the French to enter the war, later Spain and Holland. • Militias in the South – non-traditional fighting tactics upset the British • Yorktown (1781): French navy and military forces aided Washington for the ultimate surrender of Lord Corwallis who commanded the 2nd largest British army during the war. • News hit London, where the war was already unpopular due to loss of trade and revenue, and forced the Tory government of Lord North to resign. Whig leaders then began negotiating for an end to the war. • Treaty of Paris (1783): • Britain would recognize the United States of America • The Mississippi River would be the western border • Americans would have fishing rights in Canadian waters • Americans would pay debts owed to the British merchants and honor Loyalist claims for property confiscated during the war •The one thing you MUST write about • If the topic is 1800-1824: • The rise of nationalism as evidenced by the Supreme Court, American System, the 2nd Great Awakening, the Monroe Doctrine, and development of American Culture in the Hudson River School and American Literature • If the topic is 1824-1845: • The growth of sectionalism that will lead to the Civil War as shown by the Corrupt Bargain, Missouri Compromise, Tariff Crisis, Gag Rule, Bank Wars, and the Election of 1844 Major Domestic Events: • 1803- Louisiana Purchase • 1803- Marbury v. Madison • 1810- Fletcher v. Peck • 1816- Hartford Convention • 1819- Panic of 1819 • 1820- Missouri Compromise Major Foreign Events: • 1807- Embargo Act • 1809- Non-Intercourse Act • 1810- Macon’s Bill #2 • 1812- War of 1812 • 1814- Treaty of Ghent • 1817- Rush-Bagot Agreement • 1819- Adams-Onis Treaty • 1823- Monroe Doctrine • Major Domestic Events: • 1824- Corrupt Bargain • 1828- Nullification Crisis • 1830- Indian Removal Act • 1835- Texas Revolution • 1836- Gag Rule • 1837- Panic of 1837 • 1845- Texas Annexed • 1845- 1st use of the phrase Manifest Destiny The New Nation • The Articles of Confederation’s failures – taxing, military, executive, passing laws, weak central government • Daniel Shay – led a rebellion in MA against high State taxes. MA called upon the federal government for support – did not happen • The Philadelphia Convention – purpose was to revise the AoC. Key issues debated were representation (NJ v. VA plans = Connecticut Plan), slavery (3/5 compromise and 1808), trade (regulation of interstate commerce and foreign trade, including tariffs on foreign imports), and the Presidency (fear of mob rule led to the indirect election, ie Electoral College. Additionally four year term
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power
    Volume 39 Issue 3 Article 1 1994 Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power Katharine F. Nelson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Katharine F. Nelson, Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: Changing the Balance of Power, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 525 (1994). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol39/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Nelson: Resolving Native American Land Claims and the Eleventh Amendment: VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 39 1994 NUMBER 3 RESOLVING NATIVE AMERICAN LAND CLAIMS AND THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT: CHANGING THE BALANCE OF POWER KATHARINE F. NELSON* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 526 II. INDIAN TITLE AND THE NONINTERCOURSE ACT ........... 530 III. THE HISTORY OF TRIBAL ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS ................................................... 533 A. Before Oneida I and II. ....................... 533 B. O neida I .......................................... 542 C. O neida II ......................................... 543 IV. NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS ............................... 546 A. Land Claims ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Systematic Identification and Articulation of Content Standards and Benchmarks. Update. INSTITUTION Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab., Aurora, CO
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 403 308 TM 026 040 AUTHOR Kendall, John S.; Marzano, Robert J. TITLE The Systematic Identification and Articulation of Content Standards and Benchmarks. Update. INSTITUTION Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab., Aurora, CO. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Mar 95 CONTRACT RP91002005 NOTE 598p. AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF03/PC24 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Art; *Course Content; *Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Geography Instruction; Health Education; History Instruction; *Identification; Language Arts; Mathematics Education; Science Education; *Standards; Thinking Skills IDENTIFIERS *Benchmarking; *Subject Content Knowledge ABSTRACT The project described in this paper addresses the major issues surrounding content standards, provides a model for their identification, and applies this model to identify standards and benchmarks in subject areas. This update includes a revision of content standards and benchmarks published in, earlier updates and the synthesis and identification of standards in new areas. Standards and benchmarks are provided for science, mathematics, history, geography, the arts, the language arts, and health. Also included are standards in thinking and reasoning and an analysis and description of knowledge and skills considered important for the workplace. Following an introduction, the second section presents an overview of the current efforts towards standards in each of these subject areas. Section 3 describes the technical and conceptual differences that have been apparent in the standards movement and the model adopted for this study. Section 4 presents key questions that should be addressed by schools and districts interested in a standards-based strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maine Indian Land Claim Settlement: a Personal Recollection
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Maine Maine History Volume 46 Number 2 Land and Labor Article 5 6-1-2012 The Maine Indian Land Claim Settlement: A Personal Recollection John M.R. Paterson Bernstein, Shur Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal Part of the Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Cultural History Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Indigenous Studies Commons, Legal Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Social History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Paterson, John M.. "The Maine Indian Land Claim Settlement: A Personal Recollection." Maine History 46, 2 (2012): 195-225. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal/vol46/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MAINE INDIAN LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENT: A PERSONAL RECOLLECTION BY JOHN M.R. PATERSON From 1971 to 1980, the state of Maine grappled with one of the greatest legal challenges ever before it. That challenge had its origin in a suit brought by the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes against the U.S. Department of the Interior seeking the seemingly simple declaration that the department owed a fiduciary duty to the tribes based on a federal law adopted in 1790. That suit was eventually to lead to a suit by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Maine, and potentially 350,000 residents in the eastern two-thirds of the state, seeking return of land taken from the tribes in the latter part of the eighteenth century and first part of the nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • French and Indian War Causes Territorial Disputes European
    French and Indian War Causes Territorial Disputes European Conflicts Access to North American Resources Mercantilist Trade Native American Conflicts Strategies Control of Great Lakes Indian Alliances Naval Warfare Frontier Raids and Warfare Creation and Defense of Forts Albany Plan of Union – Failed British / Colonial Advantages Control of Eastern Seaboard Larger Population and Military Force Stronger Navy Disadvantages French Indian Alliance Conflicts Between Colonial and British Troops Outcomes Boost to Colonial Confidence Wrong Idea of Colonists by British Treaty of Paris 1763 End of Salutary Neglect End of French Menace on the Continent Proclamation Act of 1763 British Need for Revenue Pontiac’s Rebellion Expansion of British Territory Training of Colonial Leaders Revolutionary War Causes Taxation Representation Enlightenment Thinking Boston Massacre Intolerable Acts Trade Restrictions Strategies Defensive War Guerrilla Warfare Gain Alliances Colonial / United States Advantages Home Turf Time French Alliance “Cause” with Declaration of Independence Leadership of George Washington Disadvantages Weakness of Continental Army Lack of Money Inflation of Continental Script No Formal Military Training Outcomes Treaty of Paris 1783 Independence Land East of Mississippi, North of Florida, South of Great Lakes Fishing Rights British Military Out of United States Territory US Payment of Debts to British Merchants Ratification of Articles of Confederation 1781 Debt and Inflation Lack of Resolution British Forts Along Canadian Border Return of
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior OFFICE of the SOLICITOR Washington, D.C
    United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR washington, D.C. 20240 I'IAY 0 1 2020 Memorandum To: Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary Indian Alfairs From: Kyle Scherer, Deputy Solicitor for lndian Xtats ,7 9,-Z-."-- Eric Shepard, Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs Arr> //. Shfa"/ Subj ect: Federal Jurisdiction Status ofSan Pasqual Band ofDiegueno Mission Indians of Califomia in 1934 This Opinion addresses the statutory authority ofthe Secretary ofthe Interior ("Secretary") to acquire land in trust for the San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission lndians of Califomia ("San Pasqual" or "Tribe") pursuant to Section 5 ofthe Iadian Reorganization Act of 1934 ("In 4'1.t Section 5 ofthe IRA ("Section 5") authorizes the Secretary to acquire land in trust for "Indians." Section 19 of the Act ("Section 19") defines "Indian" to include several categories ofpersons.2 As relevant here, the first definition inchrdes all persons of Indian descent who are members of "any recognized Indian tribe now under federal jurisdiction" ("Category 1").3 In 2009, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") in Carcieri v. Salazar constnted the term 1 "now" in Category 1 to refer to 1934, the year of the IRA's enactment. The Supreme Court did not consider the meaning ofthe phrases "under federal junsdiction" or "recognized Indian tribe." ln connection with the Tribe's pending fee-to-trust application.5 you have asked whether the Tribe is eligible for trust land acquisitions under Category 1.6 For the reasons explained below, we conclude that there is evidence presumptively demonstrating that the Tribe was "under '1934.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic and Political Effects of the 1807-1809 Embargo on Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1995 Virginia Embargoed: The Economic and Political Effects of the 1807-1809 Embargo on Virginia John George Kinzie College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Economic History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Kinzie, John George, "Virginia Embargoed: The Economic and Political Effects of the 1807-1809 Embargo on Virginia" (1995). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626002. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-e608-9b15 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINIA EMBARGOED: THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL EFFECTS OF THE 1807-1809 EMBARGO ON VIRGINIA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by John Kinzie 1995 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Kinzie Approved, May 1995 CMndos Brown John Selbj L a j ^ L Aa a ± x LA/\ Carol Sheriff “ J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv ABSTRACT v CHAPTER I. PRELUDE TO THE EMBARGO 2 CHAPTER II. THE EMBARGO BEGINS 20 CHAPTER HI. THE MANUFACTURING SPIRIT 37 CHAPTER IV.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reports of Our Death Are Greatly Exaggerated - Reflections on the Resilience of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
    BYU Law Review Volume 2018 Issue 6 Article 5 Spring 5-1-2019 The Reports of Our Death Are Greatly Exaggerated - Reflections on the Resilience of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York Allison M. Dussias Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Allison M. Dussias, The Reports of Our Death Are Greatly Exaggerated - Reflections on the Resilience of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 2018 BYU L. Rev. 1231 (2019). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2018/iss6/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 002.DUSSIAS_FIN2_NOHEADERS.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/6/19 2:18 PM The Reports of Our Death Are Greatly Exaggerated— Reflections on the Resilience of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York Allison M. Dussias* CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1232 II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: DEFINING RESILIENCE, FOCUSING ON THE NATION .................................................................................... 1235 A. Defining Resilience ............................................................................. 1235 B. Focusing on the Oneida Indian Nation of New York........................ 1236 III. ONEIDA RESILIENCE IN THE FACE OF DISPOSSESSION OF LAND, DENIAL OF EXISTENCE, AND DENIGRATION OF SOVEREIGNTY .......................... 1238 A. “We Want Your Land—and We Are Willing to Break the Law to Get It. What’s Yours Is Ours.” ........................................................ 1239 1. The Oneida Nation: America’s “first ally” ................................. 1239 2. After the war was over: National treaty guarantees, state expropriation ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1977 Native American Rights Fund '
    Nationai India 1522 Broad~ nlaw Library Boufrfer ay ,0 ' co 803()2 Native American Rights Fund ' Annual Report • 1977 NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND ' STEERING COMMITTEE Executive Committee David Aisling, Jr. (Hoopa), Chairman Coordinator, Native American Studies, University of California-Davis California • Val Cordova (Taos Pueblo)* Educator, San Felipe Day School New Mexico Leo Laclair (Muckleshoot) Attorney, Commercial Fisherman Washington LaNada Boyer (Shoshone-Bannock) • Tribal Council Member Idaho Committee Members Robert Bojorcas (Klamath) Director of CETA Manpower Program Oregon Chief Curtis L. Custalow, Sr. (Mattaponi) Mattaponi Chief Virginia Lucille Dawson (Narragansett) Program Specialist, Administration for Native Americans Washington D.C. Renee Howell (Oglala Sioux) • Paralegal South Dakota Louis LaRose (Winnebago) Chairman, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Nebraska Leroy Logan (Osage) Rancher Oklahoma Janet McCloud (Tulalip) Washington Jerry Running Foxe (Coquille) Chairman of Coquille Tribe Oregon • John Stevens (Passamaquoddy) Governor of the Passamaquoddy Tribe Maine · *Until October, 1977 CORPORATE OFFICERS Executive Director John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) Secretary Lorraine P. Edmo (Shoshone-Bannock) Treasurer James A. Laurie STAFF ATTORNEYS* Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner Kurt V. Blue Dog (Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux) Richard B. Collins Raymond Cross (Mandan-Gros Ventre) Sharon K. Eads (Cherokee) Walter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) Daniel H. Israel Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) Timothy A. LaFrance (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) Arlinda F. Locklear (Lumbee) Don B. Miller Dennis M. Montgomery Robert S. Pelcyger Thomas N. Tureen A. John Wabaunsee (Prairie Band Potawatomi) Jeanne S. Whiteing (Blackf~et-Cahuilla) *as of December 31, 1977 Main Office: 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Branch Offices: Washington, p.C. and Calais, Maine DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1 THE PROGRAM 3 Purpose and Development .
    [Show full text]
  • Can Indian Tribes Sell Or Encumber Their Fee Lands Without Federal Approval?
    Can Indian Tribes Sell or Encumber Their Fee Lands Without Federal Approval? Mark A. Jarboe and Daniel B. Watts1 “This Court has never determined whether the Indian Nonintercourse Act, which was enacted in 1834, applies to land that has been rendered alienable by Congress and later reacquired by an Indian tribe.”2 I. The Issue A few years ago, an Indian tribe in the Pacific Northwest desired to purchase a hotel located on a parcel of land owned in fee by a non-Indian party and to finance the acquisition with a bank loan. The bank was willing to make the loan on terms acceptable to the tribe, including a requirement that the loan be secured by a mortgage on the hotel and site. The structuring and documentation of the loan overcame the normal hurdles and challenges until it hit an unforeseen obstacle: Could the tribe legally grant the required mortgage to the bank? What caused the concern was one of the oldest federal statutes still in effect: 25 U.S.C. §177, referred to as the “Indian Nonintercourse Act” (the “INIA” or the “Act”). The INIA states: No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, 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 the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution. Every person who, not being employed under the authority of the United States, attempts to negotiate such treaty or convention, directly or indirectly, or to treat with any such nation or tribe of Indians for the title or purchase of any lands by them held or claimed, is liable to a penalty of $1,000.
    [Show full text]
  • United States V. State of Washington, 384 F
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; No. 13-35474 SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE; SAUK-SUIATTLE TRIBE; D.C. Nos. STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE; HOH 2:01-sp-00001-RSM TRIBE; JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM 2:70-cv-09213-RSM TRIBE; LOWER ELWHA BAND OF KLALLAMS; PORT GAMBLE BAND CLALLAM; NISQUALLY OPINION INDIAN TRIBE; NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE; SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE; SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE; TULALIP TRIBES; LUMMI INDIAN NATION; QUINAULT INDIAN NATION; SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE; PUYALLUP TRIBE; CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA INDIAN NATION; QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE; MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE; SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY; MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. 2 UNITED STATES V. WASHINGTON Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 16, 2015 Seattle, Washington Filed June 27, 2016 Before: William A. Fletcher and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges, and David A. Ezra,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher * The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai’i, sitting by designation. UNITED STATES V. WASHINGTON 3 SUMMARY** Tribal Fishing Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s order issuing an injunction directing the State of Washington to correct culverts, which allow streams to flow underneath roads, because they violated, and continued to violate, the Stevens Treaties, which were entered in 1854–55 between Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest and the Governor of Washington Territory. As part of the Treaties, the Tribes relinquished large swaths of land, watersheds, and offshore waters adjacent to those areas (collectively, the “Case Area”), in what is now the State of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-94-157 Indian Issues: Eastern Indian Land Claims and Their
    United States General Accounting Offke Report to the Honorable GAO Rosa L. DeLauro, House of Representatives I June 1994 INDIAN ISSUES Eastern Indian Land Claims and Their Resolution United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-256712 June 22,1994 The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro House of Representatives Dear Ms. DeLauro: In late 1992, through a federal court action, the Golden HiIl Paugussett Indian Tribe claimed damages and the right to have large tracts of land in Connecticut restored to the tribe. The lawsuit was based, in part, on an assertion that land historically belonging to the tribe had been transferred without the congressional approval required by the Indian Nonintercourse Act of 1790. Concerned about the Congress’s apparent responsibilities under the act, the unpredictability of such claims, and the$hardships they place on c&rent landowners, you asked us to (1) provide mformation on land claims made by eastern Indians in the past 20 years, (2) determine how these claims were resolved, and (3) identify actions that the Congress might take to mitigate the unpredictability and impact of these claims. Over the last 20 years, at least 21 lawsuits claiming land have been Results in Brief initiated by 22 Indian tribes or groups in seven eastern states and Louisiana These claims generally have been based on the assertion that past transfers of land by the tribes were invalid because the transfers had not received the congressional approval required by the 1790 act. Both the Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe and, more recently, the Seneca Nation in New York have filed these types of land claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Country and the Territory Clause: Washington's Promise at the Framing
    American University Law Review Volume 68 Issue 1 Article 4 2018 Indian Country and the Territory Clause: Washington's Promise at the Framing John Hayden Dossett Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Dossett, John Hayden (2018) "Indian Country and the Territory Clause: Washington's Promise at the Framing," American University Law Review: Vol. 68 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol68/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Indian Country and the Territory Clause: Washington's Promise at the Framing This article is available in American University Law Review: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol68/ iss1/4 INDIAN COUNTRY AND THE TERRITORY CLAUSE: WASHINGTON’S PROMISE AT THE FRAMING JOHN HAYDEN DOSSETT* This Article explores the Territory Clause, Article IV, Section 3, as a source of power for federal laws in “Indian country,” as defined at 18 U.S.C § 1151. In contrast to plenary power doctrine, the Territory Clause offers a textual source of authority to regulate matters unrelated to commerce, such as criminal jurisdiction, in Indian country.
    [Show full text]