-
Preface
- University of Nebraska Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Preface During the century following the end of the Revolutionary War, the states governed American Indians in a variety of ways, belying the common assumption that Indian policy and regulation in the United States was exclusively within the federal government’s domain. With support from judges who accepted justifications based on state sovereignty, state legislatures extended their authority over Indians in two stages. During the early national period, states began regulating Indians, as well as whites’ interactions with Indians. After the Civil War a number of states took the next step and bestowed citizenship rights on Indians. Some states simply imposed citizenship on all resident Indians; others offered political rights on a basis that was both selective and elective, that is, available only to certain Indians deemed suited to citizenship and granted only upon the request of the individual Indian. In parallel fashion—though necessarily relying on different constitutional arguments—western territories also took on local management of Indians and determined the extent to which Indians would be made part of the political community. These state and territorial actions constituted significant advances toward incorporating Indians into American society and imposing direct rule over them.1 Thus, local governments took the lead in addressing key questions arising from the presence of Indians in territory over which whites claimed domination: Should Indians be permitted to remain in white settlement areas, and if so, should their autonomy be respected? Should Indians be subjected to obligations and laws defined by the white community? Should they have the privileges of membership in that community? Once admitted as members of the community, how should they be classified in the existing racial hierarchy? The states’ answers to these questions between 1790 and 1880 set important precedents for American Indian policy. How state and territorial officials approached these issues, and how they justi- fied their resolution, is the focus of this book. ix Preface x The one-sided manner in which the states posed these questions brushed aside the crucial underlying jurisdictional question and imagined the possibility of only one answer: The European discourse of conquest provided the foundation for whites’ continuing presumption that they held legitimate authority over Indians and their land. The belief was so entrenched that white Americans rarely questioned it. Thus, when states sought access to Indian territory and resources or wanted to exert control over Indians, they represented the federal government as the main barrier, ignoring the possibility that tribal sovereignty might reasonably present any legal or moral obstacle. Repeatedly, state officials injected the language of states’ rights into debates about the status of Indians within state boundaries. They placed questions of their authority over Indians within the framework of federalism.This approach not only provided them with considerable constitutional leverage in matters relating to Indians but also had the potential to reinforce state sovereignty arguments made in closely related contexts, such as defending against federal interference with slavery, asserting the right to grant or withhold state citizenship rights, and resisting federal civil rights legislation. State officials assumed not only that American legislatures had inherent authority to enact laws governing Indians but also that American courts were the sole appropriate judicial forums for discussing matters involving whites and Indians, and that Indian voices and opinions were not necessary or relevant to consider as part of the decision-making process.A state’s course of action was determined by its particular economic and political interests,and questions of how Indians should be treated were often shaped by whites’ racial and cultural prejudices. State lawmakers and judges had little incentive to weigh Indian perspectives or inherent rights when they made their case for authority over Indians. But that did not mean they did not take into account the reality of the Indian presence and Indian resistance ; they had to consider such factors in practice, even if they did not always speak openly about them. Because the subject of this book is state and territorial policies, laws, and judicial decisions pertaining to Indians, most of the primary sources were written and produced by white government officials. However, it is important not to treat government policy as a unilateral matter in which Indian voices played no part, nor as merely an abstract topic that excludes the relevance of Native American experiences . During the period under study, Indians spoke out vehemently on such issues as Indian status and land rights. Indians expressed themselves in courtroom proceedings, public speeches, and printed...