Ya know, for a professor, you sure are lacking in research skills. As an Iroquois, I am intimately familiar with most aspects of American Indian History in the northeast, and new tork in particular. That being said, I'm going to ask you for documented proof that anyone "ignored" the treaty. Post proof. But good luck, because there is no indication that anyone ignored the treaty. However, there is ample proof that several of the tribes/bands effected by the original treaty had NO REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT, nor were they signatories of the treaties. Court appeals by those groups were undertaken. No on ignored it.
This was the entire problem with the 'treaties' of the 19th century; they treated the tribes as if they were bona-fide nations, with a leader who could negotiate for the whole tribe. So any time a treaty was signed, any subgroup could claim it wasn't done in their name, and walk. On that rationale, since I never voted for Martin Van Buren, why am I bound by a treaty he signed?
Strawman argument. Tell me, "professor" - how can ANYONE claim that the Oneida Indians, residing near Green Bay Wisconsin are to be bound by a treaty that was negotiated and signed by other tribes in NEW YORK? Hmmm...? That is just one example of what was wrong with these treaties. And one of several reasons why these treaties were renegotiated time and again - including corruption, briery, graft, and deception on teh part of the U.S. negotiators. Not because OUR government was corrupt or immature, but because YOUR government was corrupt and immature.
Secondly, you can thank the influence of the various Iroquoian tribes, and their system of government, for the very constitution that you and I enjoy today. So, before you badmouth the "native" governments, you might look a little closer...
The entire legal edifice of the treaties and 'sovereignty' has no place in the 21st century. Few treaties in fact laid out explicit governmental autonomy for the tribes; that's been taken since then as implicit in the existence of the treaty. The treaties gave the tribes land; I don't propose to change that; they often made other promises of annuities - I propose to pay those at full value. What they seldom ( I won't say never, because I don't know) say is that the tribes could run their own autonomous government with the legal backing of the United States.
Well, apparently the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and has many times. But what do they know?
They disagree with me about many things - abortion, for example. How about you - do you decide what's right or wrong based on the USSC's rulings?
This is the first time I've seen this particular myth posted on Free Republic, and I'm not going to just let it pass. It is taught in New York, I grant, due to the Iriquois lobby there.
However, I have never seen any actual documentary proof for it - I'd go so far as to say there is none. There is no evidence that Madison, or any of the other framers of the Constitution, was even aware of the structure of the Iriquois Nations, let alone was influenced by it. There were a few parallel ideas - and only a few - but that is a long way from saying they were a basis for the COnstitution.
I'd be interested in seeing what you profer as evidence for this claim. My own starting point in this is Arthur Schelsinger Jr.'s book, Disuniting of America - which was the first place I'd ever seen this claim, and seen it debunked. It is not on the web, sadly, so I can't give a link, but I'll see if I can find something on it.
Drew Garrett