Settlers and natives in North America

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813146.009

7 - Settlers and natives in North America

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Mahmood Mamdani

Edited by

Ian Shapiro ,

Susan C. Stokes ,

Elisabeth Jean Wood and

Alexander S. Kirshner

Show author details

Mahmood Mamdani: Affiliation:
Columbia University
Ian Shapiro: Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Susan C. Stokes: Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Elisabeth Jean Wood: Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Alexander S. Kirshner: Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A colonized population

The legal position of Native Americans under US law has been the subject of two key debates. The first revolves around state versus federal claims to sovereignty over Native Americans. The second is over the relationship of Indians to the political community that is the United States. The first debate has been resolved in favor of federal sovereignty. The second has revolved around two issues – tribal autonomy and individual citizenship rights – and has yet to reach a satisfactory resolution. Tribal autonomy is subject to federal plenary powers; at the same time, Native Americans are a special class of citizens: both citizens and wards of the United States, they are without any constitutionally guaranteed rights.

State sovereignty was historically the preferred shield for settlers wanting to advance local interests. States vied in the courts for full jurisdiction over Native Americans and African-Americans residing within their boundaries and, in extreme cases, went to war over it. State v. Forman (1835) was the first case to confirm state criminal jurisdiction over Indian tribes in direct contradiction to Supreme Court decisions to the contrary (Harring 1994: 42). By the 1880s, most states with significant Indian populations asserted such criminal jurisdiction and simply exercised it. Some, such as California, did so expressly by statute; others, such as Wisconsin and New Mexico, did so with support from judicial opinions under existing state law (ibid.: 49–50).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Political Representation , pp. 159 - 208

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813146.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amar, Akhil Reed. 2006. America's Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Castile, George Pierre and Bee, Robert L. (eds.). 1992. State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy. Tucson and London: University of Arizona Press.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. 1831. 30 US 1; 8 L. Ed. 25; 1831 US LEXIS 337. Decided, pp. 16.

Churchill, Ward. 2001. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers.Google Scholar

Cohen, Felix. 1942. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington DC: Department of the Interior.Google Scholar

Congressional Record, XXXVI: 567.

Deloria, Vine 1988. “The Red and the Black,” in Custer Died for your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 168–96.Google Scholar

Dred Scott v. Sandford. 1856. 60 US 393.

Ex Parte Crow Dog. 1883. 109 US 557.

Findlay, John M. 1992. “An Elusive Institution: The Birth of Indian Reservations in Gold Rush California,” in State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy, ed. Castile, George Pierre and Bee, Robert L.. Tucson and London: University of Arizona Press, 13–37.Google Scholar

Foner, Eric. 1988. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution. 1863–1877. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Hall, Anthony. 2005. The American Empire and the Fourth World: The Bowl With One Spoon, vol. I. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar

Harring, Sidney L. 1994. Crow Dog's Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoxie, Frederick E. 2001. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Huhndorf, Shari M. 2001. Going Native: Indians in the American Cultural Imagination. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, Kenneth W. 1973. “Sovereignty, Citizenship and the Indian.” Arizona Law Review 15 (4): 974–1003.Google Scholar

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 21 US 543.

Kiernan, V. G. 1978. America: The New Imperialism, From White Settlement to World Hegemony. London: Zed Press.Google Scholar

Macleod, William Christie. 1928. The American Indian Frontier. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Macpherson, C. B. 1964. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McRae, Kenneth D. 1964. “The Structure of Canadian History,” in The Founding of New Societies, ed. Hartz, Louis. New York: Harcourt Brace, 219–62.Google Scholar

Mamdani, Mahmood. 1996. Citizen and Subject. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Mekeel, Scudder. 1944. “An Appraisal of the Indian Reorganization Act.” American Anthropologist 46 (2): 209–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Newton, Nell Jessup. 1983–4. “Federal Power over Indians: Its Sources, Scope and Limitations.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 132 (2): 195–288.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pagden, Anthony. 1998. Lords of all the World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Prucha, Francis Paul. 1973. Americanizing the American Indian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Prucha, Francis Paul. 1976. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865–1900. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar

Prucha, Francis Paul. 1984. The Great Father, the United States Government and the American Indians, vol. II. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Smith, Rogers M. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Strickland, Rennard. 1985–6. “Genocide-at-Law: An Historic and Contemporary View of the Native American Experience.” University of Kansas Law Review 34: 713–55.Google Scholar

Talton v. Mayes. 1895. 163 US 376.

Trennert, Jr., Robert A. 1975. Alternative to Extinction: Federal Indian Policy and the Beginnings of the Reservation System, 1846–51. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

US v. Joseph. 1876. 94 US 614.

US v. Rogers. 1846. 45 US 567.

US v. Sandoval. 1913. 231 US 28.

Wilkinson, Charles F. 1987. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, Jr., Robert A. 2005. Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, and the Legal History of Racism in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, James. 1998. The Earth Shall Weep: A History of Native America. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar

Worcester v. Georgia. 1832. 31 US 515.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.