DOCSLIB.ORG

TREATIES, TRIBAL COURTS, and JURISDICTION: the TREATY of CANANDAIGUA and the SIX NATIONS’ SOVEREIGN RIGHT to EXERCISE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Carrie E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TREATIES, TRIBAL COURTS, and JURISDICTION: the TREATY of CANANDAIGUA and the SIX NATIONS’ SOVEREIGN RIGHT to EXERCISE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Carrie E TREATIES, TRIBAL COURTS, AND JURISDICTION: THE TREATY OF CANANDAIGUA AND THE SIX NATIONS’ SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO EXERCISE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Carrie E. Garrow* I. Introduction Since the United States Supreme Court’s refusal to recog- nize Indian nations’ sovereign right to exercise criminal juris- diction in 1978, Indian nations have worked to regain recognition of this right. In 1978, in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe,1 a non-Indian challenged the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s sovereign right to exercise criminal jurisdiction over him.2 The Court found that inherent tribal powers could be explicitly and implicitly divested, if these powers were inconsistent with their status as domestic dependent nations.3 The Court stated, “By submitting to the overriding sovereignty of the United States, Indian tribes therefore necessarily give up their power to try * Carrie E. Garrow, J.D., M.P.P. (Mohawk) is the Executive Director of the Center for Indigenous Law, Governance & Citizenship at Syracuse University Col- lege of Law and Adjunct Professor. She is a former prosecutor for the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office and the former Chief Judge of the St. Regis Mo- hawk Tribal Courts. She received her B.A. from Dartmouth College, J.D. from Stanford University, and M.P.P. from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 1. 435 U.S. 191 (1978). 2. Id. at 194. 3. Id. at 208-09. 250 JOURNAL OF COURT INNOVATION [2:2 non-Indian citizens of the United States except in a manner ac- ceptable to Congress.”4 Drawing a “protective cloak” of United States citizenship around Oliphant,5 the Court found Indian na- tions were implicitly divested of the power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.6 The Court did acknowledge, however, that an Indian nation possesses criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians if the Indian nation has a treaty to that effect.7 In 1990, in Duro v. Reina,8 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community could not as- sert criminal jurisdiction over a non-member Indian.9 The Court held that tribal authority did not extend beyond internal relations among members.10 The Court expressed particular concern about the tribal court exercising criminal jurisdiction over a person who was not a member, was not eligible to be- come a member, and could not vote, hold office, or serve on a jury within the tribal community.11 Congress quickly reversed Duro through an amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act, commonly known as the “Duro fix,” thereby acknowledging tri- bal courts’ criminal jurisdiction over non-member Indians.12 The United States government’s refusal to acknowledge the full extent of an Indian nation’s sovereign powers does not stop the practical day-to-day problems of crime in Indian coun- try. Focusing only on sexual assault, American Indian and Alaska Native women are about 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in general.13 And 34.1 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetime, while the rate for white women is 17.7 percent.14 Indian victims of violent crime indicate that over 66 4. Id. at 210. 5. See N. BRUCE DUTHU, AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE LAW 22 (2008). 6. Oliphant, 435 U.S. at 212. 7. Id. at 197. 8. 495 U.S. 676 (1990). 9. Id. at 679. 10. Id. at 685. 11. Id. at 688. 12. See 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (2006). 13. See STEVEN W. PERRY, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP’TOF JUSTICE, AMERICAN INDIANS AND CRIME: A BJS STATISTICAL PROFILE, 1992-2002 5 (2004), avail- able at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf. 14. PATRICIA TJADEN & NANCY THOENNES, U.S. DEP’TOF JUSTICE, FULL REPORT OF THE PREVALENCE, INCIDENCE, AND CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 22 (2000), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf. 2009] TRIBAL COURTS AND JURISDICTION 251 percent of these crimes are committed by non-Indian offend- ers.15 And in crimes involving Indian victims, the offender is more likely to be a stranger.16 Although national data often does not capture the crime rate within each Indian Territory, the Bureau of Justice Statistics illustrate, through three victimi- zation surveys in different Indian nations, the prevalence of crime on Indian territories.17 Each survey only captured a small amount of the tribal population and the surveys do not afford generalizations, but it is critical to note in one community 88 percent of survey participants report being victims of violent crime; 33 percent in another territory; and 25 percent in the third.18 Critically, “[c]rime against American Indians nation- wide seems to have risen dramatically even as Congress has steadily expanded the substantive scope of the Major Crimes Act.”19 Furthermore: [T]he crime rate seems worst in precisely the areas in which the federal government has been most aggressive. For example, de- spite the federal government’s extensive expansion of jurisdiction over Indian country sex crimes in the Major Crimes Act in 1986, the Department of Justice’s own study in the mid-1990s showed that Indian children under twelve are raped or sexually assaulted at a rate three-and-a-half times higher than the average child under age of twelve.20 15. PERRY, supra note 13, at 9. 16. Id. at 8. 17. See generally id. 18. See id. at 33-40. 19. Kevin K. Washburn, Federal Criminal Law and Tribal Self-Determination, 84 N.C. L. REV. 779, 828-29 (2006). The Major Crimes Act, ch. 341, § 9, 23 Stat. 385 (1885) (current version at 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (2006)), was enacted in 1885 by Congress in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), that in the absence of a federal statute limiting tribal court jurisdiction, In- dian nations possessed exclusive criminal jurisdiction. Id. at 571. The Major Crimes Act was the first assertion of federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country and was a response to a false perception of lawlessness in Indian country as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other officials did not understand tribal dispute reso- lution and wanted federal jurisdiction as a mechanism to assert control on Indian territories. See CARRIE E. GARROW & SARAH DEER, TRIBAL CRIMINAL LAW AND PRO- CEDURE 87 (2004). The Major Crimes Act does not remove jurisdiction from Indian nations, but rather grants federal courts concurrent jurisdiction over a list of desig- nated offenses. See id. 20. Washburn, supra note 19, at 829 (citing LAWRENCE A. GREENFELD & STEVEN K. SMITH, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP’TOF JUSTICE, AMERICAN INDIANS AND CRIME 38 (1999), available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ aic.pdf). Washburn notes that from 1992 to 1996, “Indian children under twelve were raped or sexually assaulted at a rate of seven incidents per thousand chil- dren” compared to children of all races, who experienced “two rapes or sexual assaults per thousand children.” Washburn, supra note 19, at 829 n.227. 252 JOURNAL OF COURT INNOVATION [2:2 The statistical data illustrate that crime by non-Indians against Indians is a serious problem that must be addressed to protect Indian people and nations. The federal government’s refusal to recognize the jurisdic- tion of tribal courts over non-Indians has left Indian people vulnerable to serious crimes. This vulnerability is further exac- erbated by the fact that non-Indian offenders often go unprose- cuted by the federal government.21 United States attorneys “have been widely criticized for decades for failing to give proper attention to Indian country cases.”22 This may be a result of the “non-reviewability of the decision to decline prosecution [along with] the weak . political accountability of federal prosecutors to Indian communities, and the lack of media inter- est in Indian country . .”23 Indian nations, and particularly tribal court judges, must find other ways to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians in order to achieve justice for the numerous victims within Indian country. While many individuals and na- tions are working to convince Congress to provide a legislative fix24 that restores recognition of tribal court criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, some tribal courts are looking for other solutions. One of the tools that tribal courts have begun to employ is their inherent authority to exercise jurisdiction over people within their territories, as recognized by treaties between Indian nations and the United States.25 This inherent authority is a crit- ical source of jurisdiction that all tribal court judges and advo- 21. Washburn, supra note 19, at 818 n.225. 22. Kevin K. Washburn, American Indians, Crime, and the Law, 104 MICH. L. REV. 709, 733 (2006). 23. Id. 24. Indian country advocates are working with Senator Byron Dorgan on the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2009, S. 797, 111th Cong. (as reported by S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, Sept. 10, 2009). Many advocates have argued for language that reverses Oliphant and restores recognition of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indi- ans. Other options have included a legislative fix that would allow Indian nations to petition the federal government for this recognition or enter into a compact with state and federal governments regarding restoration of criminal jurisdiction. The current bill does not include a legislative fix. However, there is also some discus- sion that Congress may sponsor a pilot project with one or two nations. Domestic violence advocates that have worked with Congress on the Violence Against Wo- men Act are also advocating restoration of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, as many domestic violence offenders are non-Indians.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indigenous People of Western New York
    FACT SHEET / FEBRUARY 2018 Indigenous People of Western New York Kristin Szczepaniec Territorial Acknowledgement In keeping with regional protocol, I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and by honoring the sovereignty of the Six Nations–the Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Seneca and Tuscarora–and their land where we are situated and where the majority of this work took place. In this acknowledgement, we hope to demonstrate respect for the treaties that were made on these territories and remorse for the harms and mistakes of the far and recent past; and we pledge to work toward partnership with a spirit of reconciliation and collaboration. Introduction This fact sheet summarizes some of the available history of Indigenous people of North America date their history on the land as “since Indigenous people in what is time immemorial”; some archeologists say that a 12,000 year-old history on now known as Western New this continent is a close estimate.1 Today, the U.S. federal government York and provides information recognizes over 567 American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes and villages on the contemporary state of with 6.7 million people who identify as American Indian or Alaskan, alone Haudenosaunee communities. or combined.2 Intended to shed light on an often overlooked history, it The land that is now known as New York State has a rich history of First includes demographic, Nations people, many of whom continue to influence and play key roles in economic, and health data on shaping the region. This fact sheet offers information about Native people in Indigenous people in Western Western New York from the far and recent past through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • JOURNAL of COURT INNOVATION Volume 2 Number 2 Fall 2009
    JOURNAL OF COURT INNOVATION Volume 2 Number 2 Fall 2009 SPECIAL ISSUE ON TRIBAL JUSTICE A Word from the Executive Editors Greg Berman, Juanita Bing Newton, Michelle S. Simon . v ARTICLES Full Faith and Credit and Cooperation Between State and Tribal Courts: Catching Up to the Law Paul Stenzel. 225 Treaties, Tribal Courts, and Jurisdiction: The Treaty of Canandaigua and the Six Nations’ Sovereign Right to Exercise Criminal Jurisdiction Carrie E. Garrow . 249 21st Century Indians: The Dilemma of Healing Carey N. Vicenti. 279 The State of Pretrial Release Decision-Making in Tribal Jurisdictions: Closing the Knowledge Gap John Clark . 297 Tribal Probation: An Overview for Tribal Court Judges Kimberly A. Cobb and Tracy G. Mullins . 329 INTERVIEWS Introduction Reflections on Tribal Justice: Conversations with Native American Judges . 345 Abby Abinanti, Chief Judge, Yurok Tribal Court, Klamath, California, and California Superior Court Commissioner . 347 P.J. Herne, Chief Judge, St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Court, Akwesasne, N.Y.. 359 B.J. Jones, Tribal Court Judge and Director, Tribal Judicial Institute at the University of North Dakota School of Law . 367 David Raasch, Judge, Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Court, Bowler, Wisconsin . 381 Barbara Smith, Chief Justice, Chickasaw Nation Supreme Court, Ada, Oklahoma . 391 Korey Wahwassuck, Associate Judge, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribal Court, Cass Lake, Minnesota . 405 BOOK REVIEWS Making Indian Law: The Hualapai Land Case and the Birth of Ethnohistory by Christian W. McMillen Aaron Arnold . 419 Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing: The International Problem-Solving Court Movement by James L. Nolan, Jr. Ben Ullmann . 425 American Juries: The Verdict by Neil Vidmar & Valerie P.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
    Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mckee Treaty of 1790: British-Aboriginal Diplomacy in the Great Lakes
    The McKee Treaty of 1790: British-Aboriginal Diplomacy in the Great Lakes A thesis submitted to the College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In partial fulfilment of the requirements for MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN Saskatoon by Daniel Palmer Copyright © Daniel Palmer, September 2017 All Rights Reserved Permission to Use In presenting this thesis/dissertation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis/dissertation in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis/dissertation work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis/dissertation or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis/dissertation. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis/dissertation in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of History HUMFA Administrative Support Services Room 522, Arts Building University of Saskatchewan 9 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A5 i Abstract On the 19th of May, 1790, the representatives of four First Nations of Detroit and the British Crown signed, each in their own custom, a document ceding 5,440 square kilometers of Aboriginal land to the Crown that spring for £1200 Quebec Currency in goods.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Canada, New York, and the Iroquois Six Nations, 1783-1815 Author(S): Alan Taylor Reviewed Work(S): Source: Journal of the Early Republic, Vol
    Society for Historians of the Early American Republic The Divided Ground: Upper Canada, New York, and the Iroquois Six Nations, 1783-1815 Author(s): Alan Taylor Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 55-75 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press on behalf of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3124858 . Accessed: 02/11/2011 18:25 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Pennsylvania Press and Society for Historians of the Early American Republic are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Early Republic. http://www.jstor.org THE DIVIDED GROUND: UPPER CANADA, NEW YORK, AND THE IROQUOIS SIX NATIONS, 1783-1815 AlanTaylor In recentyears, historians have paid increasing attention to bordersand borderlandsas fluidsites of bothnational formation and local contestation. At theirperipheries, nations and empires assert their power and define their identitywith no certainty of success.Nation-making and border-making are inseparablyintertwined. Nations and empires, however, often reap defiance frompeoples uneasily bisected by theimposed boundaries. This process of border-making(and border-defiance)has been especiallytangled in the Americaswhere empires and republicsprojected their ambitions onto a geographyoccupied and defined by Indians.Imperial or nationalvisions ran up against the tangled complexities of interdependentpeoples, both native and invader.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Law of the Land”
    Oneida Cultural Heritage Department By: Loretta V. Metoxen Edit, Revision, and Layout: Tiffany Schultz (09/13) “The Law of the Land” All treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land;…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” From the United States Constitution, Article VI. payments for all time to come. But the Oneida TREATIES THEN AND THEIR IMPACT leadership of the time rejected all offers and held NOW on to the Treaty Rights so that the Treaty of The Oneidas were party to the several Canandaigua is as valid today is it was when it Five Nations who were trading with them or was made more than two hundred years ago. attempting settlement in or near their ancient Furthermore, Article II of the Treaty of lands as early as 1613. The state of New York, Canandaigua was an important argument upon as one of the thirteen colonies of the Continental which the Supreme Court of the United States, Congress also treated with the Haudenosaunee— in 1985, determined that the Oneidas have collectively and separately. aboriginal title to the 270,000 acre reservation in The United States, after adoption of the mid-state New York. Constitution in 1789, also concluded treaties with the Oneidas and others of the Five Nations TREATY WITH THE SIX NATIONS, 1794 for cession of land, peace and friendship and to recognize services of the Tribes to the fledgling country. The Treaty with the Six Nations of 1794 is also referred to as the Treaty of Canandaigua (place of agreement) or The Pickering Treaty with reference to the United States Commissioner present.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730--1795
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2005 The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795 Richard S. Grimes West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Grimes, Richard S., "The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795" (2005). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4150. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4150 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730-1795 Richard S. Grimes Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Mary Lou Lustig, Ph.D., Chair Kenneth A.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua and the Taxation of Native Americans
    taxnotes federal Volume 171, Number 12 ■ June 21, 2021 The 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua and The Taxation of Native Americans by William A. Starna Reprinted from Tax Notes Federal, June 21, 2021, p. 1915 For more Tax Notes content, please visit www.taxnotes.com. © 2021 Tax Analysts. All rights reserved. Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. SPECIAL REPORT tax notes federal The 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua and The Taxation of Native Americans by William A. Starna constituted and ratified by the government, are William A. Starna is professor emeritus of anthropology at State University of New York regarded as the “supreme Law of the Land,” their interpretation and application relegated to College at Oneonta and a fellow of the New 1 York Academy of History. He would like to questions of law and fact. Nonetheless, Indian thank Patrick Brown, Jack Campisi, Erik M. treaties did not arise, nor were they negotiated, in Jensen, Arlinda Locklear, Eileen McClafferty, a vacuum. They were the product of historical Joseph Membrino, and Timothy Shannon for circumstances that for the United States and their helpful comments, guidance, and good American Indians required attention, made in graces in reading early drafts of this report. response to conditions on the frontier and the In this report, Starna examines the Treaty of immediacy for pragmatic solutions. By extension, Canandaigua, assessing how courts have treaties and the way parties contemplated their construed and applied the plain words reach into the future, and then their relevance in contained in its provisions. the present, frame a history worthy of Starna prepared a historical report on the examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Richardville and the Founding of the City of Miami by Meghan Dorey, Manager, Myaamia Heritage Museum & Archive As the City of Miami, Oklahoma, 1891
    An Official Publication of the Sovereign Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Volume 13, No. 3.4, Section A Published by Myaamia Publications - Miami, Oklahoma teekwaaki neehi pipoonwi 2015/16 125 Years Ago: Thomas Richardville and the Founding of the City of Miami By Meghan Dorey, Manager, Myaamia Heritage Museum & Archive As the city of Miami, Oklahoma, 1891. celebrates its 125th anniversary, Chief Richardville’s leader- we offer the following article to ship was integral to the decision provide our unique perspective to to remain a separate entity upon the history surrounding the birth of relocation, rather than consolidat- our namesake city. ing membership with the Peoria Tribe as allowed under the 1867 Waapimaankwa (also known as Treaty. His election to the position Thomas F. Richardville) was the of Chief came in the same year the great-grandson of pinšiwa (Chief town of Miami( Indian Territory) Jean B. Richardville), the son was established 125 years ago. Tribal News of a man known as pimicinwa or Wayland C. Lykins came Chief’s Report... 2A Crescent Richardville. from a well-respected family in Open House Event 3A Thomas was orphaned at a Miami County, Kansas. His father, Winter Gathering 4A young age and grew up in Indiana. David Lykins, had been a mission- Business Award 6A In 1873, he told of his childhood ary at the Baptist Mission in Paola near Kokomo, living with his for many years, and the entire Events 7A grandmother until her death. He Lykins family was adopted by the Vehicle Plates 8A also spent several years of his youth Peoria Tribe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intersection of Tribal and Environmental Law Presenters
    Beyond Standing Rock: The Intersection of Tribal and Environmental Law Presenters: Joseph Heath, Esq. Curt D. Marshall, Esq. Moderator: Amy K. Kendall, Esq. BEYOND STANDING ROCK: THE INTERSECTION OF INDIGENOUS NATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW MATERIAL FOR PRESENTATION BY JOSEPH J. HEATH, ESQ, ONONDAGA NATION GENERAL COUNSEL: A. Wm. Beauchamp map of Indigenous territories in New York, before colonization: B. Red paper on Treaties; C. Red paper on Nations not tribes; D. 1st ¶ of 2005 Onondaga Nation Land Rights Action Complaint; E. Map of Superfund sites in and around Onondaga Lake; F. U. S. Fish & Wildlife article on Traditional Ecological Knowledge; G. NYS DEC Consultation with Indian Nations Policy. A BRIEF HISTORY OF HAUDENOSAUNEE TREATY MAKING AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROTECT HAUDENOSAUNEE LANDS AND TO NOT DISTURB THE FREE USE AND ENJOYMENT THEREOF: March, 2012 In Article VI, the United States Constitution clearly mandates that: “[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. .” The United States Senate has recognized that the Constitution was heavily influenced by and modeled after the Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s founding principles, contained in the Great Law of Peace. Before reviewing a more complete history of Haudenosaunee treaty making, we will begin with the most recent treaty: the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, which was pursued by President Washington, because he very much needed to ensure that Haudenosaunee warriors would not join in the Ohio Indian wars, in which his armies were being defeated. Washington summoned the Six Nations Chiefs to Canandaigua by sending out wampum strings, as required by Haudenosaunee diplomatic protocol.
    [Show full text]
  • Grade 8 • INDIAN WARS 1 of 7 ACTIVITIES
    GRADE EIGHT INDIAN WARS OF THE 1790S INDICATORS Social Studies: HISTORY 1 Select events and construct a multiple-tier time line to show relationships among events. 8 Describe and analyze the territorial expansion of the United States including: a. Northwest Ordinance. Social Studies: PEOPLE IN SOCIETIES 2 Describe and explain the social, economic and political effects of: a. Stereotyping and prejudice; b. Racism and discrimination c. Institutionalized racism and institutionalized discrimination. 3 Analyze how contact between white settlers and American Indians resulted in treaties, land acquisition and Indian removal. Social Studies: SKILLS AND METHODS 3 Write a position paper or give an oral presentation that includes citation of sources. English Language Arts: WRITING APPLICATIONS 3 Write formal and informal letters (e.g., thank you notes, letters of request) that follow letter format (e.g., date, proper salutation, body, closing and signature), include important information and demonstrate a sense of closure. 4 Write informational reports that include facts and examples and present important details in a logical order. English Language Arts: ACQUISITION OF VOCABULARY8TOOLS AND RESOURCES 7 Determine the meanings and pronunciations of unknown words by using dictionaries, thesauruses, glossaries, technology and textual features, such as definitional footnotes or sidebars. Opening the Door West Plus! Grade 8 • INDIAN WARS 1 of 7 ACTIVITIES (See the resource listings below for Internet Resources, Opening the Door West Plus! Bonus Materials, and the WOUB/Shelburne Films DVD documentary Opening the Door West tie-ins to the activities.) Westward Expansion: The Human Toll • Draw a time line that compares the influx of settlers of European descent to the Northwest Territory and the corresponding expulsion of American Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Oneida Indian Nation: a Personal History
    Oneida Indian Nation: A Personal History Kandice Watson February 25, 2016 Kandice Watson is the Director of Education and Cultural Outreach for the Oneida Indian Nation, and is also Director of the Nation’s Shako:wi Cultural Center. y name is Kandice Watson. I am a member of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York. There are M three Oneida Indian Nations—two are in the United States (one in New York and one in Wisconsin), and the other is in Oneida, Canada. They are all independent of each other. They have their own governments, their own rules, their own everything. I am from New York, and I moved to the Oneida Indian reservation when I was about six years old, in about 1971. In case you are not aware—I was not aware of this myself until a few years ago—the area here around Juniata College has a very strong connection with the Oneida Indian Nation. I do a lot of traveling, and my husband and I drive through Pennsylvania to get to Washington, D.C., and every time we come through Pennsylvania we try to go a different route. One time we found ourselves driving through Oneida, Pennsylvania, and we wondered why on Earth there is an Oneida, Pennsylvania. When I got home I did some research and found out about Juniata and Oneida and the reason why they are here. There used to be an Oneida village here, a long time ago in the mid-1600s. We all know about Captain John Smith. He was the one who was with Pocahontas.
    [Show full text]