Echoes of a Broken Promise: Unpacking the Complex Legacy of Native American Treaties
More than just dusty historical documents, Native American treaties are living agreements, potent symbols of nationhood, and enduring testaments to centuries of struggle, betrayal, and resilience. For the United States, they represent a foundational, yet often ignored, chapter in its legal and moral history. For Indigenous peoples, they are the bedrock of their sovereign rights, the source of both immense loss and persistent hope. To understand "What were Native American treaties?" is to confront the very soul of America’s relationship with its first peoples.
At their core, these treaties were formal, legally binding agreements negotiated between the U.S. federal government and various sovereign Native American nations. From the late 18th century through the late 19th century, over 370 such treaties were ratified, though hundreds more were signed but never ratified, or were simply coerced and fraudulent. They covered a vast array of subjects: peace and friendship, land cessions, trade, establishment of boundaries, rights to hunt and fish, and the provision of annuities (payments or goods) in exchange for territory.
The Paradox of Recognition: Early Encounters and U.S. Policy
The practice of treaty-making itself was a recognition, however grudging or self-serving, of Native American tribes as distinct, sovereign political entities capable of entering into international agreements. This concept stemmed from European international law, which held that independent nations could negotiate with one another. When the newly formed United States emerged from its own revolutionary struggle, it adopted this approach, largely out of pragmatism. Confronted with powerful Native confederacies, the young republic understood that outright conquest would be costly and protracted. Treaties offered a seemingly more orderly, if often disingenuous, path to expansion.
George Washington, in a letter to the Seneca Nation in 1790, affirmed the government’s commitment: "The General Government will never consent to your being defrauded, but it will protect you in all your just rights." This sentiment, however, rarely translated into consistent policy. While the U.S. Constitution (Article VI) declared treaties the "supreme law of the land," placing them on par with federal statutes, this legal weight was frequently undermined by political expediency, racial prejudice, and an insatiable hunger for land.
The Golden Age of Treaty Making (and its Cracks)
The period from the late 1700s to the 1830s saw a flurry of treaty activity. Early treaties, like the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784) with the Iroquois Confederacy or the Treaty of Hopewell (1785-86) with the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw, established boundaries and sought to regulate relations. They often involved Native nations ceding vast tracts of land in exchange for guaranteed territories, protection, and goods.
However, even in this early phase, fundamental misunderstandings and power imbalances were evident. For many Native nations, land was not a commodity to be "owned" or "sold" in the European sense; rather, it was a sacred trust, a source of identity, and a place of communal use (often called "usufruct" rights). The concept of drawing fixed lines on a map, or permanently relinquishing hunting grounds, was alien. Signatories on Native sides often represented only a faction, or lacked the authority to bind their entire nation, leading to internal disputes and future repudiations. The U.S., meanwhile, increasingly viewed treaties as mere instruments for land acquisition, temporary hurdles on the path to westward expansion.
The Dark Turn: Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears
The early 19th century brought a radical shift. With the Louisiana Purchase and the growing cotton economy, the pressure to expand into Native lands in the Southeast became overwhelming. Despite the "civilized tribes" (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) having adopted many aspects of American culture – written languages, constitutional governments, farming, and even slaveholding – their presence on valuable land was deemed an impediment.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830, championed by President Andrew Jackson, epitomized this betrayal. It authorized the forced relocation of Native peoples from their ancestral lands in the southeastern United States to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). This policy directly contradicted existing treaties that guaranteed their land rights.
The Cherokee Nation famously resisted through legal means, leading to the landmark Supreme Court cases Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In Worcester, Chief Justice John Marshall famously ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a "distinct community, occupying its own territory… in which the laws of Georgia can have no force." He affirmed that the Cherokee were a sovereign nation, and Georgia had no right to their lands.
However, President Jackson famously defied the ruling, allegedly stating, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." This defiance paved the way for the Treaty of New Echota (1835), signed by a small, unauthorized faction of the Cherokee Nation known as the "Treaty Party." Despite the overwhelming majority of the Cherokee Nation rejecting its legitimacy, the U.S. government used it as justification for the forced removal known as the "Trail of Tears" (1838-1839), during which thousands died from disease, starvation, and exposure. This event remains a stark reminder of how treaties, once solemnly agreed upon, could be brutally disregarded.
The Plains Wars and the Shrinking Reservations
After the Civil War, westward expansion accelerated dramatically, fueled by railroads, mining, and settlement. This led to renewed conflicts with the Plains tribes. Treaties continued to be made, but often under duress, after military defeat, or with the explicit intent of confining Native peoples to ever-smaller reservations.
The Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) is a poignant example. Signed with the Lakota, Arapaho, and Cheyenne, it ostensibly guaranteed the Lakota ownership of the Black Hills (Paha Sapa) "as long as the grass shall grow and the rivers flow," and established the Great Sioux Reservation. Yet, just six years later, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills led to an influx of miners, a violation of the treaty, and ultimately the U.S. government’s seizure of the sacred lands. The ensuing conflict included the Battle of Little Bighorn, where Lakota and Cheyenne forces defeated Custer’s 7th Cavalry, but ultimately resulted in the further subjugation of the tribes.
As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce famously lamented during his surrender in 1877, after a valiant but ultimately futile attempt to lead his people to freedom, "I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed… It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food; no one knows where they are – perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever." His words encapsulate the despair of nations whose treaties had been broken and their way of life destroyed.
The End of Treaty Making and the Allotment Era
The official era of treaty-making with Native American tribes ended abruptly in 1871. A congressional act declared that "hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty." This legislative axe fell, not because Native nations had ceased to be sovereign, but because it became politically inconvenient to treat them as such when their lands were desired. From this point forward, relations were managed through executive orders and congressional acts.
This shift ushered in the Allotment Era, dominated by the Dawes Act of 1887. This act aimed to break up communally held tribal lands into individual plots, with the stated goal of assimilating Native Americans into mainstream society by turning them into farmers and landowners. The "surplus" land, often millions of acres, was then opened to non-Native settlement. This policy led to the loss of approximately two-thirds of the remaining tribal land base and further eroded tribal sovereignty, violating the spirit and often the letter of previous treaty promises.
A Legacy of Resilience and Reaffirmation
The 20th century saw a slow, painful process of policy shifts. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ended the allotment policy and encouraged tribal self-governance. While this was a positive step, it was followed by the Termination Policy of the 1950s and 60s, which aimed to dissolve tribal governments and end federal recognition, another disastrous attempt at assimilation.
However, since the 1970s, the era of Self-Determination has brought a renewed emphasis on tribal sovereignty and the recognition of treaty rights. Native nations have increasingly used the U.S. legal system to enforce their treaty rights, leading to significant court victories concerning land, water, hunting, and fishing rights. These aren’t dusty relics; they are living legal documents that continue to shape the present.
For example, the ongoing struggle for water rights in the American West is often rooted in treaties that guaranteed access to resources essential for tribal survival. Casino gaming, a significant economic driver for many tribes, is often a direct exercise of tribal sovereignty stemming from their unique legal status, which itself is intertwined with the history of treaties.
Conclusion: A Path Forward
The story of Native American treaties is a complex tapestry woven with threads of diplomacy, betrayal, resistance, and resilience. They reveal a fundamental paradox: the U.S. government simultaneously recognized Native nations as sovereign entities while systematically undermining their autonomy and seizing their lands. The broken promises embedded in these agreements have led to enduring injustices, intergenerational trauma, and persistent poverty in many Native communities.
Yet, these treaties also represent the enduring strength and sovereignty of Native American nations. They are legal proof of a unique nation-to-nation relationship that predates the United States itself. Today, Indigenous peoples continue to fight for the honor of these agreements, for the recognition of their inherent sovereignty, and for the right to self-determination on their own terms. Understanding what Native American treaties were, and what they continue to mean, is not merely an academic exercise; it is essential for a true reckoning with American history and for charting a more just and equitable future. The echoes of those broken promises still reverberate, calling for justice and for the nation to finally live up to the supreme law of its own land.
