[mrsmith]

"It was establish back in the Washington administration that war could not be waged on an Indian tribe without a declaration from Congress. "

Yes, a declaration of war much like the declaration of war that was passed for the Gulf War or the declaration of war passed after 9/11:

"Sen. Journal--FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1792
...we shall nevertheless concur in every necessary preparation for the alternative; and, should the Indians on either side of the Ohio persist in their hostilities, fidelity to the Union, as well as affection for our fellow-citizens on the frontiers, will insure our decided co-operation in every measure which shall be deemed requisite for their protection and safety..."

Washington sent an army under Hamar against the indians without consultation, then he sent an army under St Cyr with consultation, and then he sent "Mad" Wayne against them under the above authorization- which was only from the Senate BTW, though backed budgetarially by the House.

The war on terror is much like the Indian conflicts.
There is a lot we can learn from them about how the Founders would view our war- though we have to be very careful in drawing conclusions.

[inquest]

First of all, that quote looked very much to me like a simple promise of cooperation on the part of the Senate, not an authorization for anyone to do anything. Secondly, and more importantly, it didn't delegate to the President the power to determine whom we should be at war with, and when to initiate it, as the 9/11 resolution (unconstitutionally, IMO) does.