Honor Indian Treaties - Get Involved

To: Right Wing Professor

Do you vote in tribal elections?

Irrelevent. If you are a member of the tribe, you have voting rights, if not you don't. Pretty simple. Can I come to your state and vote in yoru state elections, or do I have to be a citize of your state? What's the process?

Do you pay state taxes?

Like pretty much every other individual american indian, yes I do. I pay federal taxes, too.

(I won't even mention AA here)

Well, I can't speak for many other american indians, but I refuse to answer the EEOC questionaires. Like any sensible person should.

81 posted on 10/29/2003 9:14:21 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (The Truth is to see The Gift)

To understand what treaty rights are, it is first important to understand what a treaty is. A treaty is an agreement between two sovereign powers. When Europeans first made contact with the Indians, they usually (although not always) treated them as sovereign, independent nations much like European nations such as France, Spain, and Great Britain. European countries made treaties with the Indian tribes principally to cement military and political alliances and to make peace. Prior to their contact with Europeans, Indians did not use written treaty agreements when they made alliances or peace with other tribes. However, they did have formal conferences whereby oral agreements were made. Usually, wampum belts were used to finalize the agreement. Wampum belts were made of white and purple shell beads woven into specific patterns, often in the form of a picture. Belts used to finalize agreements between Indian communities would often have images of two people shaking hands if the agreement were to form an alliance. If the agreement brought about peace between warring tribes, an image such as a peace pipe might be woven into the belt.

When Whites arrived, Indian and European customs merged. When treaties were made, Europeans and Indians would hold councils, come to oral agreements, and then written treaties and wampum belts were used to finalize the treaty. The United States used these same conventions in its dealing with the tribes. The United States made its first treaty with the Delaware in 1778. The last treaty to be made was in 1868 (the same year the 14th amendment was ratified, FYI), when the policy of making treaties with the Indian tribes ceased. After 1871, the United States instead used formal agreements between the Indians and the federal government as a replacement for treaties. The reason for this was that many White Americans believed that Indians, while still retaining much of their sovereignty, were no longer independent nations in the same sense that nations such as the United States and other countries were. Moreover, treaties only had to be ratified by the Senate in order to be approved. The House of Representatives wanted some say in the process. Even though formal agreements replaced treaties in 1871, Congress agreed that all treaties that had previously been ratified would continue to be honored by the United States.

Land Purchases and Reservations
The United States used treaties principally as means to purchase land from Indian tribes. When treaties were made, the Indians often asked for specific provisions to be written into them. Often, these provisions stipulated certain material items that the Indians were to receive from the United States in exchange for their lands. For example, when the Ho-chunk ceded their lands in southern Wisconsin to the United States in 1829, they received $18,000 a year for thirty years, three thousand pounds of tobacco and fifty barrels of salt for thirty years, and an immediate gift of $30,000 in goods such as rifles, blankets, and cooking utensils at the treaty council. The United States also agreed to provide a blacksmith's shop for the Indians at Prairie du Chien for thirty years after the treaty. Other treaties signed between the United States and tribes contained similar provisions. Most were for only a limited duration, rarely exceeding thirty years.

Tribes also requested other kinds of provisions in treaties. When they sold their lands, they often wanted to retain a portion of their original holdings for a permanent home. These lands would then be reserved for them and for their use. These are called reservations for this reason. Some Indian land reservations were created for the Indians after the treaty system ended in 1871. These reservations were created in other ways but--like reservations created under treaties--they belong to the Indians and are protected by the federal government.

top
Reserved Rights
Some provisions were included in the treaties for the Indians to continue to use the land they ceded to the government. Prior to selling the land, the United States recognized the Indians' ownership of the land. They also recognized that the Indians possessed usufructuary rights to the land. Usufructuary rights were the rights of the Indians to hunt, fish, and gather forest products off of the land. In some cases, the Indians sold their lands to the United States, but they reserved their usufructuary rights. In the case of the 1837 and 1842 Ojibwe treaties, the Ojibwe bands of Wisconsin sold their homelands to the United States, but they wanted provisions added to the treaties that recognized the continuance of their usufructuary rights. Thus, they no longer owned the land, but both the United States and the Ojibwe agreed that the Ojibwe could continue to use the land for hunting, fishing and gathering. Because they retained these rights in their treaties, these are referred to as reserved rights.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these reserved rights, especially those of the Ojibwe, were not always respected. The state of Wisconsin refused to recognize the Ojibwes' off-reservation hunting and fishing rights in their ceded territory, and the federal government did not always enforce the Indians' rights as they should have. Things began to change for the Ojibwe and other tribes in the United States during the 1960s, when federal courts began to look at Indian treaty rights in a more fair and unbiased fashion. What emerged were "canons of construction," or new legal interpretations that sought to preserve rights that Indians reserved in treaties. The United States Supreme Court established these canons, which asserted that:

treaties must be liberally construed to favor Indians;
ambiguous expressions in treaties must be resolved in favor of the Indians;
treaties must be construed as Indians would have understood them at the time they were negotiated;
treaty rights legally enforceable against the United States should not extinguished by mere implication, but rather explicit action must be taken and clear and plain language used to abrogate (or abolish) them.

top
Ojibwe and Oneida Treaties Reaffirmed
In 1983, a federal court used these canons when it handed down an important decision that ensured that the Ojibwe would be allowed to exercise their off-reservation rights. The court did not give the Wisconsin Ojibwe the right to hunt and fish on their ceded lands, it only confirmed that they reserved those rights in their treaties and that the state of Wisconsin had been wrong to impinge upon those rights.

The Oneida have also been successful in affirming their treaty rights. A 1996 court decision confirmed their rights to fish in Duck Creek, one of their reservation boundaries. Wisconsin argued that the west bank of the creek was the reservation boundary, and thus, the Oneida were not allowed to fish in the creek without a license. A judge in Green Bay ruled otherwise, stating that the Oneida could fish on the creek's west bank free of state interference.

top
Abrogation Unlikely
Other tribes have been frustrated in efforts to secure what they believe to be their legitimate treaty rights. The Menominee argued that their land cession treaties guaranteed their rights to hunt and fish on their ceded territories, but in 1996 a federal judge ruled that the tribe reserved no such rights during the treaty negotiations. Moreover, the Menominee chiefs who negotiated the treaty were not led to believe that they had done so. This is key, because even if the treaty did not specifically reserve certain rights, they may still exist if the Indians who negotiated the treaty were led to believe that such provisions were included in the treaty. The Menominee are currently deciding whether they want to appeal the decision in this case.

Lack of knowledge about treaty rights has caused a great deal of misunderstanding among non-Indians, particularly the off-reservation hunting and fishing right of the Ojibwe. During the 1980s, Whites in northern Wisconsin held emotional and often violent rallies to protest the Ojibwes' reserved treaty rights. The rancor has died down during the 1990s, but smoldering resentment still exists. There have even been calls in the last twenty years for the federal government to abrogate all reserved treaty rights of American Indians. This has not happened, and it will not happen as long as the U.S. government continues to recognize the treaties that it made with the Indian tribes

82 posted on 10/29/2003 9:21:35 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (The Truth is to see The Gift)

To: Chad Fairbanks

No matter who you are, as long as you're a US citizen, you can move to Nebraska and vote in any governmental election. You can live on the reservation, but unless you have the right fraction of the right race, you can't vote.

Like pretty much every other individual american indian, yes I do. I pay federal taxes, too.

Everyone pays federal taxes. If you're a tribal member, and living on the reservation, I'm pretty sure you're not liable for state tax. At least, you're not in this state.

83 posted on 10/29/2003 9:31:11 PM PST by Right Wing Professor

To: Right Wing Professor

Think of a reservation as a Dependent Nation within a nation - that's how it is, and that is how it's always been. Constitutionally it has been held up every time.

Everyone pays federal taxes. If you're a tribal member, and living on the reservation, I'm pretty sure you're not liable for state tax. At least, you're not in this state.

Apparently, I know Nebraska state taxation laws better than you do, then, because there are very few exemptions for indians there when it comes to state taxes. In order to be exempt from income tax there, the income for an individual indian has to have been earned completely within the reservation boundaries. Income (revenue) for businesses, however, are taxable. Indians there pay licensing and registration fees on vehicles, etc... need I go on?

84 posted on 10/29/2003 9:43:33 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (The Truth is to see The Gift)

To: Chad Fairbanks

Constitutionally it has been held up every time.

Sure. That doesn't mean it's an intelligent way to run a society.

In order to be exempt from income tax there, the income for an individual indian has to have been earned completely within the reservation boundaries.

That's probably true of a fair fraction of the people in the Winnebago, Omaha and Santee Sioux reservations. On the other hand, I'm not sure many people there have incomes that meet the threshold for state tax.

Look, I don't begrudge anyone anything on the reservation. Ours have the highest poverty rates in the state. Without gambling, they've been a disaster for their own people. The parts of the world that retain tribalism are the same way. This is an artifact of a long-gone era of American politics.

85 posted on 10/29/2003 9:56:44 PM PST by Right Wing Professor

To: Chad Fairbanks

Good post, and very helpful. Thanks.

I am familiar with Cherokee history, and their rights were abrogated with nary a fair-thee-well. They had everything on their side, law, lobbyists, and a long history of agreements, an impressive educational system, an impressive US-style legal system, their territory was modern for the time and open to non-Cherokee settlers.

It didn't matter even a little bit when the feds decided to abrogate their rights. It was breathtaking.

86 posted on 10/29/2003 11:30:26 PM PST by marron

To: Chad Fairbanks

I think you've nailed the real issue here - The indians ever surrendered their freedom the way others have in recent decades, and it appears that jealousy has taken over. Could it really be that simple?

Well, it's drilled into us everyday, Chad, that we are "to respect the Muslims and their religion" that have moved into our Country. That is fine. And I do. But when it's shoved down our throats and our own "Under God" is attached, something doesn't pass the smell test here.

Native Americans have been around longer even then when Columbus discovered this big piece of realestate.

I'm sure we all heard this week that the lawmakers are trying their DARNDEST to tax the INTERNET, and I believe that anything they can't touch for taxes is driving them nuts............

And that is why this is starting with the Native Americans. The lawmakers are really p*ssed that they can't touch them. heh!

87 posted on 10/30/2003 1:17:20 AM PST by SheLion (Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)

To: Right Wing Professor

Do you vote in tribal elections?

Do you vote in local elections? What does that have to do with anything?

Do you pay state taxes?

You better believe it.

(I won't even mention AA here)

My race is listed as "human" on any form I get.

88 posted on 10/30/2003 4:40:56 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Someone has it in for me....)

To: Chad Fairbanks

Maybe. There isn't a lot of consistency in the arguments.

We are poor and haven't made anything of ourselves so our land and rights should be taken away.

We are rich (ha!) and have made something of ourselves and so our land and rights should be taken away.

If they are so upset over taxes then why don't they just lower them for everyone? People wouldn't travel to the reservations to gamble and buy alcohol and tobacco if they weren't being taxed to death on it at their corner store.

But maybe it is a simple as that we have gone to court to defend our rights and won and they didn’t.

89 posted on 10/30/2003 4:51:56 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Someone has it in for me....)

"It's time to end the ridiculous fiction that Native Americans are citizens of mini-nations within the United States. It's been good for nobody;..."

It's time to end the ridiculous fiction that States should be able to set up their own governments and we should just roll them all into the Fed gov't. It hasn't been good for anybody, almost all of the states have huge debts and this proves they should be managed under the federal system!

90 posted on 10/30/2003 5:10:08 AM PST by CSM (Shame on me for attacking an unarmed person, a smoke gnatzie!)

"I'm not sure why Indians feel like they should escape the same loss of freedoms that the rest of us face."

Why should we support further erosions of personal liberty and freedoms, rather than reverse it and get back to support of the constitution as written? I say rather than continually look for freedoms to steal, our government should give back the freedoms already stolen from everyone!

91 posted on 10/30/2003 5:15:08 AM PST by CSM (Shame on me for attacking an unarmed person, a smoke gnatzie!)

I agree completely. Cut spending, cut taxes and the state will reap the benefits. Of course, since it isn't their ox, many on this thread think it is OK!

92 posted on 10/30/2003 5:18:14 AM PST by CSM (Shame on me for attacking an unarmed person, a smoke gnatzie!)

To: Chad Fairbanks

"....I really don't understand what all teh hullabaloo is about."

The hullabaloo, in this case, is that NYS hasn't been able to take complete control of all Tobacco in the State. This is a result of the ability to buy cigs and the state doesn't get any revenue. Of course, this control grab will result in unconstitional taxation on other products.

I support anyone fighting taxation and, in effect, forcing spending control by a government. I support these Indians and I hope they are successfull.

I am just curious, do the members of a reservation get representation in Congress and the Senate?

93 posted on 10/30/2003 5:23:53 AM PST by CSM (Shame on me for attacking an unarmed person, a smoke gnatzie!)

"I'm sure we all heard this week that the lawmakers are trying their DARNDEST to tax the INTERNET, and I believe that anything they can't touch for taxes is driving them nuts............"

They seem to think that if they can't tax it then there is something inherently wrong with the system. They feel it is their right to tax anything and all of us serfs should sit the F* down and shut the F* up!

And the circle continues!

94 posted on 10/30/2003 5:36:09 AM PST by CSM (Shame on me for attacking an unarmed person, a smoke gnatzie!)

To: Right Wing Professor

This is an artifact of a long-gone era of American politics.

True enough, but then again we are a people/cultuure/society that pre-dates America - which is apparently how the feds look at it. That, and they think we are all too stupid to take care of ourselves - something that even people off the reservation are starting to see as well...

95 posted on 10/30/2003 5:43:27 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (The Truth is to see The Gift)

I am just curious, do the members of a reservation get representation in Congress and the Senate?

As far as I know, it's the same as everyone else - if a reservation sits within the boundaries of a congressional district, that's who their representative is, and whichever state boundaries the reservation is within determines who their sebnators are. Not that the congressional delegations or senators give a damn about indian issues - unless the tribes have money to give, but that's pretty much true of politicians in general. We have it no diffeent in that regard.

The only real difference is, when individuals within the dominant culture resist tyranny, fight taxes, or struggle for property rights, they are called "patriots". When WE do the same, we are called something else...

96 posted on 10/30/2003 5:52:07 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (The Truth is to see The Gift)

To: Chad Fairbanks

Thanks for the clarification. I was going to make the "taxation without representation" statement, but obviously it would have been false.

Of course, my opinion remains the same. Reduce spending, reduce taxes. For all Americans!

97 posted on 10/30/2003 5:59:52 AM PST by CSM (Shame on me for attacking an unarmed person, a smoke gnatzie!)

Of course, my opinion remains the same. Reduce spending, reduce taxes. For all Americans!

Bingo! Personally, I would like to see the conservative movement in america get behind the indians in the fight for self-determination, and the fight against taxes, and the like - what could be more "American" than that? Unfortunately, the fact that conservatives don't is one of the reasons that indians have become a huge democrat voting block over the years... but we could change that.

98 posted on 10/30/2003 6:07:37 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (The Truth is to see The Gift)

To: Chad Fairbanks

The current conservatives (Neo-conservatives) are willing to have military bases in hundreds of foreign countries. That comes at a steep cost, which comes from taxing Americans. Americans who want to limit the size of governments are no longer in charge.

99 posted on 10/30/2003 6:15:27 AM PST by philosofy123

To: philosofy123

Americans who want to limit the size of governments are no longer in charge.

And we finally define the problem. BUt, as long as those in power (like what is happening in New York) can keep playing people off against each other, the prblems will continue and will never be solved...

100 posted on 10/30/2003 6:18:26 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (The Truth is to see The Gift)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794