Sovereignty & Nations Impacts on Native Peoples
The definitions of “sovereignty” and “nations” affected the Native nations due to the ideology based upon the European philosophy surrounding the Doctrine of Discovery which had been decreed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1493. If we remove ourselves from the partitions of any personal bias, or our own familiar accepted social norms we can begin to see how this is historically connected. In reference to sovereignty, Peter d’Errico states, “The concept was formulated by sixteenth century legal philosopher Jean Bodin and elaborated by many theorists since then” (d’Errico). This begs the question, where did the basis for the Doctrine of Discovery and Jean Bodin’s theory/definition of sovereignty come from?
To begin with, it is important to note that the European Reformation and Renaissance Era was a continuation of the Great European Expansion time frame in history which began in the year 1000 A.D. The Monastic, Mendicant, and Protestant Reformations which occurred throughout Europe greatly influenced interpretation of religious worship, education, and ultimately culture over the course of time. It should be noted that, many of today’s school and university subjects are direct products of these reform movements. Philosophers established visionary theories such as humanism and new utopian sentiments while the struggle to separate religion from governments took place. A sound contention can be put forth that, this age of “free thought” and reform not only influenced philosophers such as Jean Bodin, but in turn affected the Native Peoples of the North American continent because the colonists carried their beliefs (such as the Doctrine of Discovery) with them. “Known as the Age of Discovery, or the Age of Exploration, this period spanned the fifteenth through the early seventeenth century, during which time European expansion to places such as the Americas, Africa, and the Far East flourished.” (The European Voyages of Exploration ) The connection between the New World and Europe is historically linked through the imperialistic expansion of the colonies on the North American continent. The Doctrine of Discovery promoted colonization and sovereignty for the European colonists while limiting the political voices of the First Peoples. “Europeans came to North America to seek better lives, escape religious persecution, and pursue a host of ambitions. Indians were often seen as obstacles to those ambitions, especially when empires were engineering new colonial regimes in North America” (Treuer, Atlas of Indian Nations 13).
Shifting to the perspective of Native nations, the sovereignty among First Peoples prior to the arrival of the European colonists was established among each particular tribal group. “At a time when European governments were authoritarian and hierarchical, traditional tribal governments were based upon principles of democracy, equality, freedom, and respect” (Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party ). To enumerate, it is documented that upon “first contact” with the colonists there are significant indications of diplomacy particularly on the part of Native Peoples. A strong argument can be made that through trade and the cultural exchange of information beginning to take place is evidence of sovereignty existing among the Native Peoples long before colonization. To take this a step further, we can see that by looking at historical accounts regarding Native American culture, that the human processes of learned and inherited behaviors can adamantly establish sovereignty existed before “first contact” occurred. “Indians guided Europeans to salt, tobacco, wood, and fish which they managed to harvest and ship back across the Atlantic” (Nabokov 33). It is important to realize that, in order for this action to occur the Native Peoples had teach themselves how to survive by means of hunting, fishing, and harvesting crops. In other words, it is the survival of Native Peoples that establishes there was sovereignty before colonization, and this survival through their sovereignty enabled them to teach the European colonists.
One final example of sovereignty and diplomacy occurring through learned behavior which translated into cultural exchanges by both the European colonists and the Native Peoples is mentioned in Thunder, Dizzying Liquid, And Cups that do not Grow. Waioskasit (Menominee) states:
“When that was over, one of the white men presented to an Indian a gun, after firing it to show how far away anything could be killed. The Indian was afraid to shoot it, fearing the gun would knock him over, but the stranger showed the Indian how to hold it and to point it at a mark; then pulling the trigger, it made a terrific noise, but it did not harm the Indian at all, as he had expected. Some of the Indians then accepted guns from the white strangers.” (Waioskasit 37-38)
Limits on Political Voices of First Peoples
Moving forward, in order to identify effects which limited political voices of First Peoples and promoted colonization for the Europeans, we need to address the culture shifts through governmental policies forced upon Native tribes. As previously addressed, there were Native Peoples which welcomed the Europeans, but some moved to the west along with others which resisted the imperialistic takeovers occurring. “In the Great Lakes, Pontiac brought more than a dozen tribes together in 1763, burning down 9 of the 11 British forts there and putting the others under siege” (Treuer, Atlas of Indian Nations 15). With this in mind, it is important to focus on the sociological variables of tension that “first contact” brought to Native cultures. Thriving cultures for centuries had survived on the North American continent until the Europeans had arrived bringing disease, engaging in wars, taking slaves, and forcing assimilation. These variables not only interrupted a plethora of cultures, but destroyed sovereignty which had existed. Independent tribes which altered their way of life due to the Europeans ideologies and viewpoints erased much of the past culture which included family life, religion, and politics. “In the Southeast, some tribes actively evolved their cultures to become more like that of the British” (Treuer, Atlas of Indian Nations 15). To clarify, by the tribes of the Southeast evolving their culture, the definition of sovereignty was changing as well. It is important to note here, that sovereignty was shifting in the favor of the European ideologies. They held the belief that the Natives were uncivilized savages, and it was their belief to “Americanize” them. This is the connecting root which limited Native political voices, and became a continued theme for the justification of the United States government carrying out policies which aided expansion throughout the 1800s. As an illustration of this justification for expansion westward after the Revolutionary War, the United States government began enacting policies such as the Federal Naturalization Law, “degree of Indian blood” statutes, and land allotments in order to define a new sovereignty. In The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action John P. Rouche states, “No doubt the goals of the constitutionalists were “subversive” to the existing political order, but it is overlooked that their subversion could only have succeeded if the people of the United States endorsed it by regularized procedures” (Rouche 137). With careful attention to the wording here, we can see that John Rouche is referencing the Framers being supported by the people of the United States. Under the Federal Naturaliztion Law of 1790 which provided citizenship to the colonists it excluded Native Americans, Asians, slaves, freed slaves, and African Americans. The first sentence of the Rule of Naturaliztion Act of 1790 states, “Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for one year at least” (Citizenship and Migration Before the Civil War 78). — Here is a link for anyone wanting to read the full act–http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
Sovereignty although it appeared to be new under a now free United States had remained the same since “first contact” with the European colonists. “Blood quantum was first used in Virginia in the eighteenth century to restrict the rights of people with half or more native ancestry” (Treuer, Everything You Wanted to Know About Indians but Were Afraid to Ask 112). Native American sovereignty was no longer being defined from the cultures of each tribal group, but now being defined by a new power which was the federal government. For the European colonists, which were now citizens of the United States, these two policies (Federal Naturaliztion Law & Blood quantum) follow the ideology of “Americanizing” the Native Peoples. Furthermore, the land allotments through policies which include the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 and 1871, and the Dawes Act of 1887 were legal justifications by the United States government for the purpose of expansion. Ultimately, tribal powers were diminished through the divide and conquer tactics by the United States government which forced Native Peoples from their lands under the Manifest Destiny which was the Doctrine of Discovery with a different name. Expansion benefitted the citizens and the government of the United States while the territories of tribes were taken away along with their culture/sovereignty.
Sources of Contention between Indian Tribes and Federal & State Governments
Hunting, trapping, gathering, and fishing rights are sources of contention between Indian tribes and both federal and state governments due to treaty agreements. “Often, the U.S. government obtained title to Indian land but agreed to allow Indian people to retain their right to use the land, even the land which was just sold” (Treuer, Everything You Wanted to Know About Indians but Were Afraid to Ask 89). This creates controversy because there is actually a blending of sovereignties occurring here which brings legalities of enforcement into question. Usage of land was part of Native Peoples sovereignty prior to “first contact” because of its importance to culture. Once these agreements were signed the sovereignty of the United States government and the sovereignty of tribal peoples became somewhat unified at the federal level. “Controversy and protest have surrounded Native American hunting and fishing rights, as state governments and non-Indian hunters and fishers have fought to make Native Americans subject to state hunting and fishing regulations” (Native American Rights – Hunting And Fishing Rights). The key here is understanding history. Native tribes made agreements with the federal level of government regarding land usage not the state level of government. “In most cases, when Native Americans hunt or fish pursuant to their tribe’s treaty or executive order reserved rights, whether on or off the reservation, they are not subject to state regulation and are governed instead by regulations issued by the Tribe” (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ). By and large, this establishes tribal sovereignty as a separate entity from states and in certain cases from the federal government. “Until the passage of Public Law 280, tribes had authority over their own reservations, free from all but U.S. federal interference” (Treuer, Everything You Wanted to Know About Indians but Were Afraid to Ask 104).
Works Cited
“Citizenship and Migration Before the Civil War.” Ngai, Mae M. and Jon Gjerde. Major Problems in American Immigration History. Boston,MA: WadsWorth Cengage Learning , 2013. 76.
d’Errico, Peter. “”SOVEREIGNTY” A Brief History in the Context of U.S. “Indian law”.” n.d. Legal Studies Department for University of Massachusetts . 14 January 2018. <http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html>.
Nabokov, Peter. “Native American Testimony .” New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1999. 33 .
Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party . n.d. 15 January 2018. <https://nativeamericancaucus.org/resources/tribal-sovereignty-history-and-the-law/>.
Native American Rights – Hunting And Fishing Rights. n.d. 18 January 2018. http://law.jrank.org/pages/8750/Native-American-Rights-Hunting-Fishing-Rights.html.
Rouche, John P. “The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action .” SoRelle, James M. and Larry Madaras. Taking Sides Issues in American History, Volume I, The Colonial Period to the Reconstruction. Guilfod,Conn: The McGraw Hill Company , 2013. 137.
“The European Voyages of Exploration .” n.d. The Saylor Foundation . 14 January 2018. <https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HIST201-3.1.1-EuropeanExplorationIntro-FINAL.pdf.>
Treuer, Anton. Atlas of Indian Nations . Washington DC: National Geographic , 2013.
Everything You Wanted to Know About Indians but Were Afraid to Ask . St. Paul : Minnesota Historical Society , 2012.
Waioskasit, Menominee. “Thunder, Dizzying Liquid, And Cups That Do Not Grow.” Nabokov, Peter. Native American Testimony. New York,NY: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1999. 36-38.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife . n.d. 18 January 2018. <https://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/137/Why+do+Native+Americans+have+their+own+separate+hunting+and+fishing+seasons%3F.>
