In Chapter 4 The Author Characterize Reserved Rights As

American Indians have been discriminated against since the Europeans came to North America. They were driven from their homes and forced to surrender their land. They tried to build an alliance with France during the Revolutionary war, but ultimately they were defeated by the English. From then on, they were referred to as “savages”. The Proclamation of 1763 tried to separate the Native American land from the American colonial land. In the end, the American Indians lost their land and were forced to occupy smaller land areas, referred to as reservations, which were given to them through treaties. In 1979, a report from America’s Compliance with Human Rights Accords stated that

During the end of the nineteenth century, the United States had formed policies which reduced land allotted to Native Americans. By enforcing these laws as well as Anglo-American ideals, the United States compromised indigenous people’s culture and ability to thrive in its society.

While their land diminished, certain rights that the Ojibwe wanted to secure had stayed with them. This was the right to hunt, fish, and gather on the land they ceded from the United States (66). These rights were important in each of their negotiations.

So second off let's talk about the Proclamation of 1763; In 1763 at the end of the french and indian war, the British (your people) issued a proclamation, to stop the Indians by checking the rights/territories of settlers on your lands. Years later from the creation of the proclamation, it has become one of the cornerstones of Native American law in the United States and Canada. So what this is saying is that you are trying to refuse the

This tension in race relationships is the third theme of Minnesota’s history post-1880. For example, the tense relationship between the Minnesotans and the Native Americans in the state. One of the main tensions that has plagued the relationship for many years in about Native Americans traditional fishing rights. Since the beginning of the government agency that sought to preserve game, fish, and other natural resources (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks: Ojibwe Family life and labor on the Reservation, 86). Throughout the late 19th and 20th century, the Native Americans and Minnesotans have created many agreements about how and where the Native Americans could fish. One example of this is how Red Lake was partitioned to the natives. In this partition, the Native Americans could not fish or access the eastern portion of Upper Red Lake (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 86). In addition, the tensions between the Native Americans and Minnesotans over fishing led to lawsuits and legal action by the Natives. These lawsuits attempted to establish that the treaties signed in the past gave natives the right to fish and sell their fish off the reservation (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 104). One of these cases reached the United States Supreme Court in 1999. This case ruled in favor of the Natives and

Sovereignty is a nation’s “relative independence from and among other states” (Cobb, 2005). In this case, tribal sovereignty of Native nations depends upon recognition by the United States. This is ironic; their tribal sovereignty has been “granted” to them by the Unites States federal government. No single nation is completely independent of foreign influence. Tribal nations more so

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.

A policy of self-governance would end treaty violation, justly compensate tribes for land, prevent bureaucrats from obstructing the ability of Native Americans to participate in their religion, and prevent the serious cultural loss that may occur if the government continues to use Native American land for self-interested purposes. Arguments that these objectives are unattainable and unfounded do not hold up to analysis. Therefore, to provide a remedy for the ongoing infringement of Native American constitutional rights, Congress should both return non-privately owned land taken in violation of treaties and abolish federal plenary power over tribes, permitting greater self-governance.

In the 1800’s tensions were rising between the whites and Indians over land. One of the Indian tribes called the Cherokee would be forced to leave their land due to a law passed by Congress called the Indian Removal Act, which detailed the relocation of Indian tribes to a new territory. Because of the law being passed, The Cherokee nation decided to make a strong case to the United States court for keeping their land in Georgia and North Carolina. In their plea to the government, the Cherokee people focused preserving the land of their ancestors and reminding the United States government, they were an independent nation whose rights should be protected under the law.

United States President Andrew Jackson was president from 1828-1832, and 1836-1840. In that time, it was questioned if Jackson was truly democratic or not, and democracy is important to America, it’s the basis of our government’s beliefs, so if Jackson wasn’t democratic at the time, how could you have trusted him? Although some people believe he wasn’t democratic, I believe he was, he was voted for by lots of people, and not just the rich, many of the farmers and poor voted for him, Jackson was praised by many for his very democratic views as well, he believed that people holding government office shouldn’t be chosen just because of their merit or wealth, he gave the Native Americans a district of their own, which nobody could make into a state

First of all, the Indian tribes claimed their land. For example, article #2 stated, “ The Cherokee lived in what is now northern Georgia more than-one hundred years before the Georgians arrived.” This means that the Indian tribes started settling in the land way before the actual Georgians arrived. Also, article #2 stated, “ In the case of Worcester vs. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia couldn't force the Cherokee off of their land.” This shows that the U.S. even agreed that the Indian tribes had no right of moving from the land they claimed. Even though the U.S. government offered the Indian tribes more than “one square mile per person”

Presidents prior to Mr. Jackson, my client, were imposed this burdensome decision of the Indian's Removal. Despite numerous requests of the United States citizens to finally act upon the Indian Spring Treaty, no President was able to step up to the plate. My client, however, was honoring his position and enforced a twenty year old treaty. Know I will now draw your attention to Document B, Worcester v. Georgia court case. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's verdict of Worcester v. Georgia, Document F, the Cherokee nation should be recognized as a nation since their life-style does not correlate to United States law. By this being, to remove Indians from their land, the United States government must sign a treaty

When the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) became enacted, it granted the Native American people many rights to themselves as well as their land. They were pretty much granted custody of their land (Imagine a custody battle over a child in which the land is the child and the Native peoples were the mother. The mother finally won.). Upon replacing the Dawes Act, the IRA authorizes for the Native Reservation to be given rightful

In 1828 Andrew Jackson was elected the first New Era Democratic President of the United States, But was he really that democratic. Before Andrew Jackson was elected President in 1828 he ran to be President in 1824 alongside John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford. But the votes were split and so it was up to the house of representatives to choose who would become President of the United States. Thanks to a little help from Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams won the presidency in 1824. After the vote of the people was silenced in the 1824 election Jackson was determined to create a new era of democracy and become the next President of the United States.

With the federal government’s support, many Native tribes have constructed Native Governments and Corporations where the rights to land and money are placed to their own responsibility. What this actually means is that the rights of the people’s land and monetary bonds are transferred from governmental trust to