Notes
211 Notes INTRODUCTION 1. All Ojibwe names I have spelled in the Fiero orthography, as it is the most commonly used writing system among contemporary Wisconsin Ojibwe speakers. In all references to Ojibwe names I have included the rendering as it appears in the original document. See John D. Nichols and Earl Nyholm, A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995). 2. “Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Tribal Profile,” Wisconsin State Tribal Relations Initiative, http://witribes.wi.gov/section.asp ?linkid=284&locid=57. Throughout I use the term “tribal citizen” to refer to individuals enrolled in Native nations. While “tribal member” is more common , the use of the word “citizen” better conveys the sovereignty of Native nations. I mean both “tribal citizen” and “tribal member” to be synonymous. 3. Jeffrey Ostler, The Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded Knee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 2. 4. Patrick Wolfe, “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 392. 5. Patrick Wolfe, “Structure and Event: Settler Colonialism, Time, and the Question of Genocide,” in Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, ed. A. Dirk Moses (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 103. 6. Ostler, Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism, 3. 7. Donald Fixico, “Federal and State Policies and American Indians,” in A Companion to American Indian History, ed. Philip J. Deloria and Neal Salisbury (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002), 379. 8. Indian Removal Act of 1830, 4 Stat. 411 (1830). 9. Sidney L. Harring, Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1994), 13. 212| Notes 10. Major Crimes Act of 1885, 23 Stat. 362 (1885) and Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883). 11. Robert N. Clinton, “There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribes,” Arizona State Law Journal 34, no. 1 (2002): 113–260. 12. United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), and Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903). 13. Clinton, “There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribes,” 181. 14. For the legacy of plenary power, see Laurence M. Hauptman, “Congress, Plenary Power, and the American Indian, 1870–1992,” in Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations, and the U.S. Constitution (Sante Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 1992), 317–36. 15. Clinton, “There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribes,” 199. A similar legal rationale for a judicial overturning of plenary power is offered in Nell Jessup Newton, “Federal Power over Indians: Its Sources, Scope, and Limitations,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 132, no. 2 (1984): 236. 16. See Newton, “Federal Power over Indians,” 195–288. 17. For more on the foundations of the US recognition of the inherent sovereignty of Native Nations, see David Wilkins, American Indian Politics and the American Political System (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 52–54. For more on Native Nations and the Constitution, see Vine Deloria Jr. and David E. Wilkins, Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999). 18. Treaty with the Delaware Tribe, September 17, 1778, 7 Stat. 13. See Wilkins, American Indian Politics and the American Political System, 46. 19. An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio, July 13, 1787, and Trade and Intercourse Act, July 22, 1790, 1 Stat. 137. 20. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). In the Cherokee cases, Marshall crafted his decision to avoid a constitutional showdown with the executive branch that would have ended in defeat for the court. Crafting a decision that recognized the inherent sovereignty of the Cherokee would have exposed the violation of Cherokee treaties and the violation of constitutional supremacy of treaties as the “Law of the Land” by the executive branch. For an overview of the circumstances surrounding the Cherokee cases, see Jill Norgren, The Cherokee Cases: The Confrontation of Law and Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996). Early in Supreme Court decisions regarding Native nations, the court made decisions about the nature of individual Native nations that would apply to all the Native nations. 21. On the nature and fluidity of sovereignty, see Stephen D. Krasner, “Sovereignty ,” Foreign Policy 122 (February 2001): 20–29. For more on the [3.134.81.206] Project MUSE (2024-04-26 07...
OR
