Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T02:06:44.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Indigenous Sovereignties and Social Movements

from Part II - Competing Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2021

Brooke L. Blower
Affiliation:
Boston University
Andrew Preston
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

In 1903, the United States federal government narrowed the parameters of indigenous sovereignty in the formative Supreme Court case, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. The ruling followed in the wake of the Dawes Act of 1887, also known as the General Allotment Act, which authorized the disaggregation of communally held lands belonging to Native American nations. Although officials justified allotment on many grounds, including those framed as a humanitarian desire to prevent white settler violence, the policy opened up indigenous lands that exceeded tribal population – a number generated by the US census – to sale for white settlers. Secretary of the Interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock, who served under President William McKinley and President Theodore Roosevelt from 1899 to 1907, had come to superintend the bureaucratic machinery discharging this legislative mandate. Hitchcock drew fire from Native Americans, who protested this unequivocal land grab he oversaw through a variety of means, including legal appeals. The Kiowa leader Lone Wolf sued Hitchcock, claiming that allotment violated the Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek of 1867, one of hundreds of treaties defining US–Indian relations that specifically granted the Kiowa nation the right to reject sales of their land with a three-fourths majority vote. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hitchcock, effectively ignoring the legal precedent of recognizing treaties with indigenous nations as well as their status as semi-sovereign “domestic, dependent nations” – a status conferred in 1832 by Chief Justice John Marshall in earlier Supreme Court rulings. The dismissal of these legal precedents in 1903 with Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, further empowered Congress, instilled with newly articulated plenary power, to abrogate treaties and mobilize a variety of legal instruments to separate indigenous peoples from their ancestral and reservation lands.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×