Race, Racism and the Law 
Speaking Truth to Power!!

"(t)he utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress . . . . "

The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790

Trade and Intercourse Act, S 1.

"(N)o person shall be permitted to carry on any trade or intercourse with the Indian tribes, without a license of that purpose under the hand and seal of . . . such . . . person as the President of the United States shall appoint for that purpose . . . .").

Trade and Intercourse Act, S 4.

(N)o sale of lands made by any Indians, or any nation or tribe of Indians within the United States, shall be valid to any person or persons, or to any state . . . unless the same shall be made and duly executed at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States.

Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896).

Under equal footing doctrine, Wyoming has right to apply its laws, which place limits on the killing of game, to off reservation hunting by a member of the Bannock tribe, despite Bannock tribe's pre statehood treaty right to hunt "upon the unoccupied lands of the United States"

Non intercourse Act, FN184. Act of Mar. 1, 1793, ch. 19, S 8, 1 Stat. 329, 330.

No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution. Every person who, not being employed under the authority of the United States, attempts to negotiate such treaty or convention, directly or indirectly, or to treat with any such nation or tribe of Indians for the title or purchase of any lands by them held or claimed, is liable to a penalty of $1,000. The agent of any State who may be present at any treaty held with Indians under the authority of the United States, in the presence and with the approbation of the commissioner of the United States appointed to hold the same, may, however, propose to, and adjust with, the Indians the compensation to be made for their claim to lands within such State, which shall be extinguished by treaty.

Indian Removal Act, 4 Stat. 411 (1830).

In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in order to relocate eastern tribes to the West. Congressional control over the Native American tribes expanded with the enactment of laws emphasizing the "education and civilization" of Indian children in order to assimilate Native American culture into that of the majority culture.

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).

In Worcester, the Court voided a piece of Georgia legislation that contravened the Cherokee nation's right of tribal sovereignty. The Court interpreted treaty language stating that the United States would be "managing all [the tribes'] affairs," to refer primarily to managing trade with Indians and to exclude Indian self- government. The Court further explained that because the Cherokee nation was under the "protection of the United States," the tribe was receiving the protection of one more powerful but not abandoning their national character and submitting as subjects to the laws of a master. I The Court reasoned that to have "divested themselves of the right of self- government on subjects not concerned with trade ... could not be for the benefit and comfort" of the Indian tribes.

Civilization Fund Act (1819).

"Be it enacted ..., [t]hat for the purpose of providing against the further decline and final extinction of the Indian tribes, ... and for introducing among them the habits and arts of civilization ...."

Cherokee Nation v. State of Ga.

"Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.

They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the president as their great father. They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States, that any attempt to acquire their lands, or to form a political connexion with them, would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory, and an act of hostility.

These considerations go far to support the opinion, that the framers of our constitution had not the Indian tribes in view, when they opened the courts of the union to controversies between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states."

Worcester v. State of Ga., 31 U.S. 515, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L.Ed. 483 (Mem) (U.S.Ga., Jan Term 1832)

to prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power by persons under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians, and providing for imprisonment of persons who should reside among such Indians within the Cherokee Nation without first obtaining authority to do so from the governor of the state, is in violation of he constitutional provision granting to the United States the exclusive power to regulate intercourse with foreign nations.

The decision of a state court of last resort in a prosecution under a statute of that state for residing within the territory of an Indian nation in that state, contrary to law, overruling a plea that defendant entered such country with the permission of the Indian nation pursuant to a treaty between it and the United States, by which treaty the United States acknowledged such Indian nation to be a sovereign nation, and that the statute of the state prohibiting his residing therein was repugnant to such treaty, is a decision drawing in question the validity of a treaty of the United States, and also the validity of a state statute, because if its alleged repugnancy to the treaties and laws of the United States, and is in favor of the validity of such state statute, within Judiciary Act, S 25, 28 U.S.C.A. S 344, giving the supreme court of the United States jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts of last resort in such cases. 

"(t)he utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress . . . . "

The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790

Trade and Intercourse Act, S 1.

"(N)o person shall be permitted to carry on any trade or intercourse with the Indian tribes, without a license of that purpose under the hand and seal of . . . such . . . person as the President of the United States shall appoint for that purpose . . . .").

Trade and Intercourse Act, S 4.

(N)o sale of lands made by any Indians, or any nation or tribe of Indians within the United States, shall be valid to any person or persons, or to any state . . . unless the same shall be made and duly executed at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States.

Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896).

Under equal footing doctrine, Wyoming has right to apply its laws, which place limits on the killing of game, to off reservation hunting by a member of the Bannock tribe, despite Bannock tribe's pre statehood treaty right to hunt "upon the unoccupied lands of the United States"

Non intercourse Act, FN184. Act of Mar. 1, 1793, ch. 19, S 8, 1 Stat. 329, 330.

No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution. Every person who, not being employed under the authority of the United States, attempts to negotiate such treaty or convention, directly or indirectly, or to treat with any such nation or tribe of Indians for the title or purchase of any lands by them held or claimed, is liable to a penalty of $1,000. The agent of any State who may be present at any treaty held with Indians under the authority of the United States, in the presence and with the approbation of the commissioner of the United States appointed to hold the same, may, however, propose to, and adjust with, the Indians the compensation to be made for their claim to lands within such State, which shall be extinguished by treaty.

Indian Removal Act, 4 Stat. 411 (1830).

In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in order to relocate eastern tribes to the West. Congressional control over the Native American tribes expanded with the enactment of laws emphasizing the "education and civilization" of Indian children in order to assimilate Native American culture into that of the majority culture.

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).

In Worcester, the Court voided a piece of Georgia legislation that contravened the Cherokee nation's right of tribal sovereignty. The Court interpreted treaty language stating that the United States would be "managing all [the tribes'] affairs," to refer primarily to managing trade with Indians and to exclude Indian self- government. The Court further explained that because the Cherokee nation was under the "protection of the United States," the tribe was receiving the protection of one more powerful but not abandoning their national character and submitting as subjects to the laws of a master. I The Court reasoned that to have "divested themselves of the right of self- government on subjects not concerned with trade ... could not be for the benefit and comfort" of the Indian tribes.

Civilization Fund Act (1819).

"Be it enacted ..., [t]hat for the purpose of providing against the further decline and final extinction of the Indian tribes, ... and for introducing among them the habits and arts of civilization ...."

Cherokee Nation v. State of Ga.

"Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.

They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the president as their great father. They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States, that any attempt to acquire their lands, or to form a political connexion with them, would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory, and an act of hostility.

These considerations go far to support the opinion, that the framers of our constitution had not the Indian tribes in view, when they opened the courts of the union to controversies between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states."

Worcester v. State of Ga., 31 U.S. 515, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L.Ed. 483 (Mem) (U.S.Ga., Jan Term 1832)

to prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power by persons under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians, and providing for imprisonment of persons who should reside among such Indians within the Cherokee Nation without first obtaining authority to do so from the governor of the state, is in violation of he constitutional provision granting to the United States the exclusive power to regulate intercourse with foreign nations.

The decision of a state court of last resort in a prosecution under a statute of that state for residing within the territory of an Indian nation in that state, contrary to law, overruling a plea that defendant entered such country with the permission of the Indian nation pursuant to a treaty between it and the United States, by which treaty the United States acknowledged such Indian nation to be a sovereign nation, and that the statute of the state prohibiting his residing therein was repugnant to such treaty, is a decision drawing in question the validity of a treaty of the United States, and also the validity of a state statute, because if its alleged repugnancy to the treaties and laws of the United States, and is in favor of the validity of such state statute, within Judiciary Act, S 25, 28 U.S.C.A. S 344, giving the supreme court of the United States jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts of last resort in such cases.