IIRC the US Supreme Court in WORCESTER v STATE OF GEORGIA in 1823 enunciated the principle that the US govt had the power to deal with Indian nations and tribes as 'domestic dependent nations', meaning that native American groups were recognised within the treaty-making system as separate political and geographical entities within the domestic context, who could trade and sell land (exclusively) to the US govt and had their own control over tribal affairs, but had no standing as such in the wider international context and relied on the US govt to continue acknowledging their existence (according to my rudimentary recollection of the concept at this point in time- I'll have to do more research on Indian law). This principle AFAIK followed on from the practice ever since colonial times of European settlers recognising Indian possession of and title to the land, and acquiring land via treaty. But, could Indians at any point have ever been accorded recognition beyond 'domestic dependent nations', that is, actually become recognised as nation-states in their own right in a similar manner to European countries ? Coould there ever have been independent Indian nations, recognised by both the English settlers or US govt and other foreign countries (not just the French, Dutch, or Spanish directly involved in north America), of prominent tribes like the Powhatan, Wampanoag (before they were decimated by disease and war early on), Iroquois, Delaware, Cherokee, Sioux, or Navaho ?
Indian Nations more than 'domestic dependent nations'
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Melvin,
Your understanding of the "dependent sovereign" status of American Indian Tribes in the USA is good. There are probably several reasons this system evolved ONLY among the British - and especially in the USA after its independence:
(1) Because of their rapid depopulation from 16th century epidemics, few of the North American tribes - even the vaunted Iroquois Confederacy and the settled tribes of the southeast - exhibited the kind of governmental or technological institutions (kingship, clear and defended borders, urbanism and dense populations - standing armies, etc) which Europeans tended to see as what marked cultures to be treated as truly sovereign and quasi-equal nation-states. In most other areas, European experience had been with Middle Eastern, Asian, African, and Mesoamerican/Peruvian kingdoms which were both technologically more sophisticated and more highly organized than 17th and 18th century North American tribes. They could either be dealt with as fully independent nations and even potential competitors or conquered outright by overthrowing the native leadership cast and installing colonial governors and/or puppets in their place. This model did not fit most of north america.
(2) Racism. Unlike the Spanish (and to some extent the French) who tended to foster both the biological and cultural assimilation of conquered Indian peoples within their empires, the English and later Anglo-Americans never considered this. Thus the development of unified, multiracial, societies, with native people occupying the lower castes as found in Mexico and other areas of Latin America never occurred. In the USA the concept of sovereign dependencies was used to deny most Indians US citizenship until as late as the 1920's.
(3) So the British and Americans established empires whose borders included native peoples, but they were neither conquered and made direct subjects or citizens of these empires, nor were they seen as truly independent states powerful or sophisticated enough to be left in place.
Probably the only ways truly independent Native American nations could have developed would be if (1) a fairly highly organized group opted to move out of the Anglo-American sphere of influence and made a concerted effort to adapt and prepare for the later US/British contacts which were bound to come, and (2) if that group played the Europeans and Anglo-Americans off against each other - preferably securing French or Spanish protection. Just perhaps, They might have developed enough independence and influence that the expanding USA would accept their presence.
It would be tough, though.
I'm curious what the legal status of Aboriginal tribes is now in Ausralia. My guess it may be somewhat similar to the USA.
Your understanding of the "dependent sovereign" status of American Indian Tribes in the USA is good. There are probably several reasons this system evolved ONLY among the British - and especially in the USA after its independence:
(1) Because of their rapid depopulation from 16th century epidemics, few of the North American tribes - even the vaunted Iroquois Confederacy and the settled tribes of the southeast - exhibited the kind of governmental or technological institutions (kingship, clear and defended borders, urbanism and dense populations - standing armies, etc) which Europeans tended to see as what marked cultures to be treated as truly sovereign and quasi-equal nation-states. In most other areas, European experience had been with Middle Eastern, Asian, African, and Mesoamerican/Peruvian kingdoms which were both technologically more sophisticated and more highly organized than 17th and 18th century North American tribes. They could either be dealt with as fully independent nations and even potential competitors or conquered outright by overthrowing the native leadership cast and installing colonial governors and/or puppets in their place. This model did not fit most of north america.
(2) Racism. Unlike the Spanish (and to some extent the French) who tended to foster both the biological and cultural assimilation of conquered Indian peoples within their empires, the English and later Anglo-Americans never considered this. Thus the development of unified, multiracial, societies, with native people occupying the lower castes as found in Mexico and other areas of Latin America never occurred. In the USA the concept of sovereign dependencies was used to deny most Indians US citizenship until as late as the 1920's.
(3) So the British and Americans established empires whose borders included native peoples, but they were neither conquered and made direct subjects or citizens of these empires, nor were they seen as truly independent states powerful or sophisticated enough to be left in place.
Probably the only ways truly independent Native American nations could have developed would be if (1) a fairly highly organized group opted to move out of the Anglo-American sphere of influence and made a concerted effort to adapt and prepare for the later US/British contacts which were bound to come, and (2) if that group played the Europeans and Anglo-Americans off against each other - preferably securing French or Spanish protection. Just perhaps, They might have developed enough independence and influence that the expanding USA would accept their presence.
It would be tough, though.
I'm curious what the legal status of Aboriginal tribes is now in Ausralia. My guess it may be somewhat similar to the USA.
Hey Zoomar, thanks for your positive feedback, confirming that my knowledge of this concept wasn't as sketchy as I 1st imagined.
My reply to your query (without writing an essay or thesis- lol)
The status of the Aboriginal tribes in Australia has always actually lagged far behind the status of Indians in North America in terms of recognition of land ownership and political sovereignty. Since English 'discovery' and settlement of Aust in 1770 and 1788, European settlers in Aust never accorded Aborigines any recognition of their title to land, or legitimacy as political entities, which was based on a perception that, even compared to 'settled' native American nations, Aboriginal tribes exhibited no signs of 'civilisation' at all, according to the criteria which you mentioned- esp in Lockean terms of 'improving the land'- and the British felt there were no recognisable tribal 'chiefs' or 'kings' with whom they could acknowledge and deal with directly. There were also other factors which undercut any British intention to accord no recognition to indigenous land rights and sovereignty, such as the absence of other foreign European powers to compete for territorial control of Aust, and hence no necessity to recognise certain powerful tribes as auxiliaries in the intercolonial struggle- unlike the French, Dutch and Spanish in North America courting the Iroquois, Huron, Delaware, Cherokee etc. In this sense, even though there were ppl living there, the colonists felt that the land was 'terra nullius', literally belonging to nobody, and so they were entitled to claim it by right of discovery over ppl who were merely 'savages'. Accordingly, thruout Aust and Tasmania, many British settlers were able to simply forcibly take the land and, although being inhibited by effective Aboriginal guerilla resistance at 1st, exterminate or expel the pre-existing indigenous tribes from these lands in which they'd lived for thousands of yrs, although the British colonial govt did view the indigenous ppl as British subjects whose rights were not to be violated. Reservations in the American sense were never really established in Aust, with Aboriginal communities being based on Christian missions or govt-run camps which established themselves in the outback in order to 'civilise the natives', and which were never given political control over tribal affairs or land ownership, unlike on Indian reservations- instead, the govt and/or missionaries were fully in control of all aspects of Aboriginal life, including the now infamous policy of removing any children born to Aboriginal mothers who were partially European, in order to 'breed the colour' out of them ('Stolen Generations').
The effects of Aust colonial hist are still being felt today, with Aboriginal communities thruout the country, esp here in the NT, being continually faced with huge economic, social and cultural problems, such as high unemployment, suicide, substance abuse and poor hygiene rates. Aboriginal title to land was only fully recognised in Aust in 1992 in the High Court case of MABO v QLD, where the Court held that the doctrine of 'terra nullius' was unjust, and that native title to the land had existed since before Euiro settlement. This revolutionary precedent enabled indigenous Australians to increase their political hopes for greater recognition legally, politically and economically, and led in 1993 to the establishment of a National Native Title Tribunal to hear and adjudicate proposed native title claims by Aboriginal representatives of groups from thruout the country. However, there's been greater internal dissension since then over native title and land rights, esp since the 1996 WIK case which stated that native title could co-exist on the same land as pastoral leases. MABO also stipulated that only the 'beneficial' title to land, or actual physical ownership of it, existed for Aboriginal ppl pre-colonisation, and didn't say anything of the 'radical' title, re their status as pre-existing politically sovereign entities, so no judgments were established re Aboriginal sovereignty over the land. Hence, Aboriginal groups since have been advocating indigenous sovereignty as part of the land rights movement, including urging the formation of a treaty (MAKKARRATTA in 1 Aboriginal language) with the Aust govt, and with the promotion of Aboriginal self-determination as part of the Reconciliation movement (which for the last few yrs has attempted to achieve genuine acknowledgment of the past, in order to move on for the future, among black and other Australians).
There's also been a great deal of controversy thruout the last few yrs, since the Howard govt since coming to power in 1996 adopted a very anti-native title stance, introducing the 1997 10-Point Plan in response to the WIK decision, which extinguished any native title rights on pastoral land in favour of lessees, and seriously limited other entitlements initially afforded to native title claimants. There's also been a lot of criticism directed at the Howard govt for his refusal to apologise to Aboriginal ppl over the 200 yrs of genocide and oppression suffered since 1st settlement, esp re the 'Stolen Generations' and his refusal to establish a commission of inquiry or tribunal to consider such claims by individual Aborigines who were forcibly taken from their parents as babies and raised in govt institutions. (BTW, you can find many links to native title and 'Stolen Generations' issues thru the Aust Legal Info Institute, or AUSTLII, at http://www.austlii.edu.au) Thus, Aust still has a long way to go re issues of native title and substantive equality for Aboriginal ppl.
My reply to your query (without writing an essay or thesis- lol)
The status of the Aboriginal tribes in Australia has always actually lagged far behind the status of Indians in North America in terms of recognition of land ownership and political sovereignty. Since English 'discovery' and settlement of Aust in 1770 and 1788, European settlers in Aust never accorded Aborigines any recognition of their title to land, or legitimacy as political entities, which was based on a perception that, even compared to 'settled' native American nations, Aboriginal tribes exhibited no signs of 'civilisation' at all, according to the criteria which you mentioned- esp in Lockean terms of 'improving the land'- and the British felt there were no recognisable tribal 'chiefs' or 'kings' with whom they could acknowledge and deal with directly. There were also other factors which undercut any British intention to accord no recognition to indigenous land rights and sovereignty, such as the absence of other foreign European powers to compete for territorial control of Aust, and hence no necessity to recognise certain powerful tribes as auxiliaries in the intercolonial struggle- unlike the French, Dutch and Spanish in North America courting the Iroquois, Huron, Delaware, Cherokee etc. In this sense, even though there were ppl living there, the colonists felt that the land was 'terra nullius', literally belonging to nobody, and so they were entitled to claim it by right of discovery over ppl who were merely 'savages'. Accordingly, thruout Aust and Tasmania, many British settlers were able to simply forcibly take the land and, although being inhibited by effective Aboriginal guerilla resistance at 1st, exterminate or expel the pre-existing indigenous tribes from these lands in which they'd lived for thousands of yrs, although the British colonial govt did view the indigenous ppl as British subjects whose rights were not to be violated. Reservations in the American sense were never really established in Aust, with Aboriginal communities being based on Christian missions or govt-run camps which established themselves in the outback in order to 'civilise the natives', and which were never given political control over tribal affairs or land ownership, unlike on Indian reservations- instead, the govt and/or missionaries were fully in control of all aspects of Aboriginal life, including the now infamous policy of removing any children born to Aboriginal mothers who were partially European, in order to 'breed the colour' out of them ('Stolen Generations').
The effects of Aust colonial hist are still being felt today, with Aboriginal communities thruout the country, esp here in the NT, being continually faced with huge economic, social and cultural problems, such as high unemployment, suicide, substance abuse and poor hygiene rates. Aboriginal title to land was only fully recognised in Aust in 1992 in the High Court case of MABO v QLD, where the Court held that the doctrine of 'terra nullius' was unjust, and that native title to the land had existed since before Euiro settlement. This revolutionary precedent enabled indigenous Australians to increase their political hopes for greater recognition legally, politically and economically, and led in 1993 to the establishment of a National Native Title Tribunal to hear and adjudicate proposed native title claims by Aboriginal representatives of groups from thruout the country. However, there's been greater internal dissension since then over native title and land rights, esp since the 1996 WIK case which stated that native title could co-exist on the same land as pastoral leases. MABO also stipulated that only the 'beneficial' title to land, or actual physical ownership of it, existed for Aboriginal ppl pre-colonisation, and didn't say anything of the 'radical' title, re their status as pre-existing politically sovereign entities, so no judgments were established re Aboriginal sovereignty over the land. Hence, Aboriginal groups since have been advocating indigenous sovereignty as part of the land rights movement, including urging the formation of a treaty (MAKKARRATTA in 1 Aboriginal language) with the Aust govt, and with the promotion of Aboriginal self-determination as part of the Reconciliation movement (which for the last few yrs has attempted to achieve genuine acknowledgment of the past, in order to move on for the future, among black and other Australians).
There's also been a great deal of controversy thruout the last few yrs, since the Howard govt since coming to power in 1996 adopted a very anti-native title stance, introducing the 1997 10-Point Plan in response to the WIK decision, which extinguished any native title rights on pastoral land in favour of lessees, and seriously limited other entitlements initially afforded to native title claimants. There's also been a lot of criticism directed at the Howard govt for his refusal to apologise to Aboriginal ppl over the 200 yrs of genocide and oppression suffered since 1st settlement, esp re the 'Stolen Generations' and his refusal to establish a commission of inquiry or tribunal to consider such claims by individual Aborigines who were forcibly taken from their parents as babies and raised in govt institutions. (BTW, you can find many links to native title and 'Stolen Generations' issues thru the Aust Legal Info Institute, or AUSTLII, at http://www.austlii.edu.au) Thus, Aust still has a long way to go re issues of native title and substantive equality for Aboriginal ppl.
Let's put it this way:
If large enough Indian tribes were able to gain the status of "Indian nations", which ones would they be?
I'm guessing Iroquois, Sioux, and Cherokee.
If large enough Indian tribes were able to gain the status of "Indian nations", which ones would they be?
I'm guessing Iroquois, Sioux, and Cherokee.
Strategos' Risk said:
Hmm... I don`t know about an independant Iroquois Confederation, considering most of their territory was in New York and the surrounding area. (The original colonies). Perhaps if they were relocated. What I could see is a nation of the southwest, where not many whites populate even now, in comparison to the other states. Maybe some kind of Hopi, Navajo and Apache union? I`m not sure, though.
The Iroquios fell into civil war during the Revolution, I believe. I think that nixes them as a biggie.
Now, assuming Jackson actually enforces the law in the infamous case leading to the Trail of Tears (or we have a President besides Jackson), the Cherokee could have an "Autonomous Zone" or perhaps their own state in North Georgia and some contiguous areas. I don't see them lasting long as an "independent nation," surrounded as they are.
Now, assuming Jackson actually enforces the law in the infamous case leading to the Trail of Tears (or we have a President besides Jackson), the Cherokee could have an "Autonomous Zone" or perhaps their own state in North Georgia and some contiguous areas. I don't see them lasting long as an "independent nation," surrounded as they are.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I could see them potentially being admitted into the Union as a state. Their government was quite sophisticated, IIRC, and not entirely incompatible with the US. It certainly wouldn't be any more difficult than incorporating Deseret.Matt Quinn said:
tetsu-katana said:
What about an early POD, where the British assist the Iroquois enough so the Americans are forced to recognize them as a minor nation? In the Decades of Darkness TL, Bismarck III had an Indian Confederation that lived for a short while, but got decimated later. Maybe the Iroquois would be actually smart enough to decide to not bother the irate Colonials and stick to their own territory if they were granted soverignty.
Strategos' Risk said:
That`s not a bad idea, except for the fact that the Iroquois live in one of the original colonies. Perhaps if they moved a little eastward (maybe OTL Illinois?) and set up an independant nation, it would probably have British support. Eventually, though, it would probably be annexed by American expansionism, assuming the Revolution goes as planned. I doubt it would become powerful enough to hold off the Americans in a war. Perhaps it could have some kind of treaty with Britain that pledges British support so long as Britain will defend it in a war. (Much like the OTL Iceland/USA defense pact.) Then it might be able to survive.
Right, I was thinking about the British being more appreciative of a loyal group of Redskins, and that they might consider the Iroquois as "civilized savages" because of their proto-republicanism. The British would arm them much more than in OTL before the war is over, and pledge to protect them. They might also form deals with other powerful tribes as well, recognizing them as actual "nations" so that the U.S. would have to face more than just native attacks in their expansion; they would be considered waging actual war.
Additionally, maybe the Iroquois adopt Western culture, along the lines of the Cherokee in OTL. Of course, that was in a different century.
Additionally, maybe the Iroquois adopt Western culture, along the lines of the Cherokee in OTL. Of course, that was in a different century.
Grey Wolf said:
Tetsu is basically right. They just wanted to stay where they were and some of them hoped that by becomming essentally "white" in culture they would be allowed to remain - either as US citizens, citizens of the States in which they resided, or as some type of "dependent nations". However, one can overemphasize the Cherokees' (as well as the other "Five Civilized Tribes" - Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole and Choctaw) adoption of white ways as a calculated attempt to be accepted. It may well have happened anyway. These tribes were already settled agriculturalists with heirarchical social/political systems when whites showed up, and very quickly began to intermarry with whites, as well as accept technological/social innovations which improved their existing subsistence/social systems ("modern" agricultural practices, black slavery, literacy, written legal codes, etc). Among the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, the leadership class tended to become strongly mixed-blood English-speakers with affinities to both European/American and native culture. In many respects they were "classic southern gentlemen" with large plantations, lots of slaves,etc. When each tribe was forced to move to "Indian Territory" (Oklahoma) many in the leadership group accepted this and negotiated the removal treaties, while others resisted and/or went into hiding. Throughout their remainig history in Indian territory, these tribes remained strongly "southern" in outlook, most sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, and were among the last to give up 1865. Here in Oklahoma, General Stand Watie, a Cherokee and CSA general, is revered by many as the last Confederate general to surrender.
quote: If large enough Indian tribes were able to gain the status of "Indian nations", which ones would they be?
I'm guessing Iroquois, Sioux, and Cherokee.
What about also the Navaho, given that they're the largest contiguous native American nation today ?
Re the Iroquois, just to be precise, during the ARW, the Oneida and Tuscarora, who were more pro-American due to the influence of American missionaries, fell out with the rest of the Confederacy who were either pro-British or neutralist, thereby sundering the League for the 1st time in its hist. In more recent times, the League AFAIK has though still continued to exert some political influence re foreign affairs, such as declaring war against Germany during WWI, and retaining this declaration of war for WWII.
I'm guessing Iroquois, Sioux, and Cherokee.
What about also the Navaho, given that they're the largest contiguous native American nation today ?
Re the Iroquois, just to be precise, during the ARW, the Oneida and Tuscarora, who were more pro-American due to the influence of American missionaries, fell out with the rest of the Confederacy who were either pro-British or neutralist, thereby sundering the League for the 1st time in its hist. In more recent times, the League AFAIK has though still continued to exert some political influence re foreign affairs, such as declaring war against Germany during WWI, and retaining this declaration of war for WWII.
Strategos' Risk said:
I believe I've read bits and pieces of it at some point or another...
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/