Desire for tribal land led President Thomas Jefferson to propose relocating tribes. Apart from yearning for tribal lands, Americans believed Indians were too inherently savage to coexist with whites. However, some tribes soundly disproved this notion. The Cherokee Nation was an exemplar of cultural evolution. The Cherokee Nation had a European-style agricultural economy by the early 1800s and a literacy rate triple that of their white neighbors. The Cherokee Nation also adopted a western-style constitution in 1827. This assertion of Cherokee sovereignty infuriated Georgia. Following Andrew Jackson’s election, Georgia extended its laws over the Cherokee Nation. In 1830, the United States enacted the Indian Removal Act. The Indian Removal Act allowed the president to strong arm tribes into relocating west of the Mississippi. Against this backdrop, the Cherokee Nation contested Georgia’s attempt to annex Cherokee land in the United States Supreme Court. The Cherokee Nation ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court; however, President Jackson refused to enforce it, leading to the Trail of Tears.

European arrival brought many hardships for tribes; however, tribes seized the new opportunities that arose. Tribes incorporated guns, horses, and other items into their cultures. Moreover, tribes organically modified their economic practices to effectively trade with Europeans. Tribal cultures influenced Europeans too. Europeans adopted Indigenous foods, medicines, housing, and political ideals.

Americans remained hungry for tribal land, and Congress’s newly discovered plenary power enabled Congress to enact the General Allotment Act of 1887 (GAA). The GAA was designed to open tribal lands to white settlement and convert Indians into farmers. To do this, Indian head of households were given 160-acre parcels of land. The land was placed in trust for twenty-five years. At the period’s conclusion, Indians were supposed to become American citizens. Lands remaining after Indians received their 160-acre parcels were opened to white settlement. Tribes resisted allotment; however, the Supreme Court ruled Congress possessed “paramount power over the property of Indians.” The federal government’s efforts to assimilate Indians included removing Indian children from their parents and sending them to distant boarding schools. Boarding schools were intended to “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.”

The United States assumed tribes were conquered after the American Revolution, but tribes refused to submit. Moreover, tribes had the military capacity to hold their own against the Americans. As a result, the United States entered treaties with tribes – agreements between nations. Still, the United States could not prevent its citizens from violating treaties. One of the United States Constitution’s goals was to reduce tribal conflicts. By granting the federal government exclusive authority over Indian affairs, the Constitution prohibited states from developing conflicting Indian policies. The Constitution recognized tribes as distinct and independent sovereigns; indeed, the Constitution drew upon Indigenous influences. Following the Constitution’s ratification, the United States continued entering treaties with tribes, but treaties did not stop Americans from invading tribal land. The United States enacted laws to regulate tribal trade. Unauthorized purchases of tribal land ultimately reached the Supreme Court in the 1823 case of Johnson v. M’Intosh.

As the United States expanded west, it encountered the tribes of the Great Plains. Many of these tribes had military cultures. Their warriors were skilled with the horse and gun, making them formidable foes. Unable to defeat them militarily, the United States slaughtered their primary food source – the buffalo. Lack of food forced warriors to lay down their arms and agree to life on reservations. On reservations, tribes were supposed to be able to self-govern, but the federal government exerted extreme control over tribes. When the Supreme Court ruled intratribal crimes were beyond the United States jurisdiction, Congress enacted the Major Crimes Act (MCA). The MCA allowed the United States to prosecute Indians for committing crimes against another Indian while on a reservation. Although the Supreme Court acknowledged that no constitutional provision enabled Congress to pass the law, the Court held Congress could enact the law because Indians were “the wards of the nation.”

While the federal government has adopted a policy of tribal self-determination, paternalism remains. The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians’ attempt to open a brothel is a prime example. Prostitution is legal in the surrounding state of Nevada; nevertheless, the Secretary of the Interior prohibited the tribe from doing so despite acknowledging it “is a profitable economic enterprise for non-Indians.” Though the federal government was supposed to ensure the Navajo Nation received a fair return on its natural resources, the United States Secretary of the Interior assisted in a private company in swindling the Navajo Nation. Similarly, the United States mismanaged Indian assets for more than a century. When Eloise Cobell sued the United States, the United States removed a federal judge who was ruling in favor of the Indian plaintiffs. The case was settled soon after. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board imposes regulations on tribes that it does not impose on other governments. The United States also prohibits tribes from accessing the bonds other governments use to fund infrastructure projects.

Territorial jurisdiction will require tribes to further develop their legal systems. People often assume tribal law is exotic, based upon ancient customs. While tribal law often includes customs, many legal systems do. Moreover, tribal law is often indistinguishable from state law. This is not assimilation; rather, this is to be expected. Many laws are universal because people generally want the same basic things. For example, theft and murder are prohibited everywhere. Likewise, tribes banned these offenses long before Europeans arrived on the continent. Though tribal law can deviate from standard Anglo-American law, different does not necessarily mean bad. Additionally, tribal courts usually resemble state and federal courts. Despite negative stereotypes, studies show tribal courts treat non-Indians fairly. Nevertheless, lack of funding – largely due to state taxation – inhibits tribes’ ability to develop bureaucracy. Lack of funding also prevents some tribes from publishing their laws. A possible solution to tribal institutional capacity is the creation of intertribal business courts. The intertribal nature of the tribunal will provide more resources to increase administrative capacity and help eliminate perceptions of bias.

Federal policy began to drift from tribal termination during the late 1950s. Navajo Nation citizens Paul and Lorena Williams argued they could not be sued in state court for events arising in Indian country, and the United States Supreme Court agreed in 1959, ruling state jurisdiction would infringe upon tribes’ ability to self-govern. The Supreme Court’s decision reinvigorated tribal sovereignty, and the Miccosukee leader Mostaki, better known as “Buffalo Tiger,” pushed the limits of tribal sovereignty. When the United States refused to recognize the Miccosukee as an Indian tribe, Buffalo Tiger led a Miccosukee delegation to Fidel Castro’s Cuba in 1959. Castro acknowledged the Miccosukee as an Indian tribe, and the United States was forced to do the same upon Miccosukee’s return. President Lyndon Johnson took an interest in Indian affairs and passed the controversial Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. However, President Richard Nixon became tribes’ greatest advocate. In 1970, he formally ended the termination era and set in motion policies that would lead to the present tribal self-determination era.

Tribes operated governments since time out of mind. Tribes developed institutions to manage their lands, people, and resources. While European arrival brought many hardships, tribes adapted, but eventually, tribes were forced onto reservations. Tribes endured attempts to exterminate their existence as distinct governments and cultures. Despite fifty years of the federal government’s tribal self-determination policy, tribes remain subject to excessive federal constraints on their sovereignty. Hence, tribes continue to struggle with crime and poverty. Tribes need greater autonomy to address the problems in their communities, and this requires treating tribes as nations again.

North America’s Indigenous inhabitants are often depicted as nomadic, hunter-gatherers who followed wild game across the Bering Strait. However, the story is more complex as several American sites predate the Bering Strait crossing. Moreover, Indians developed beyond hunter-gatherers. Historical evidence from sites such as Poverty Point, Cahokia, and Chaco Canyon reveal well-ordered societies. Tribes recognized private property rights, honored contracts, and punished crimes. Indigenous institutions allowed Indians to thrive.

Allotment was intended to destroy tribal governments, but tribes survived. In the early 1900s, Jim Thorpe proved Indians still existed and could outperform the world’s greatest athletes. By stripping Thorpe of his gold medals, the International Olympic Committee also showed Indians endured discrimination. Nonetheless, Indians volunteered to fight in World War I at higher rates than any other group of Americans. Indians’ valor in combat inspired the United States to grant all Indians United States citizenship in 1924 – though some Indians did not want United States citizenship as they believed it was a means of eliminating tribal sovereignty. In 1934, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act. The Act ended allotment, preserved tribal land bases, and was designed to foster tribal self-governance. Nevertheless, the Act imposed additional federal constraints on tribes. World War II pulled federal focus away from Indian affairs, and Indians’ successful service alongside whites prompted Congress to terminate tribal existence in order to assimilate Indians.

When tribes are allowed to operate as governments, states will push back because states fear tribal competition. In particular, states are concerned tribes will offer lower tax rates and other legal incentives to attract businesses to their land. This is a misguided concern. States already craft numerous exceptions to their laws, often designed specifically for their favorite corporations; plus, the source of state power over tribes is lacking. Apart from this, tribal development benefits states. New jobs in Indian country often employ non-Indians who purchase goods and pay taxes off reservation. Thus, tribal sovereignty also serves as a shield against state protectionism and promotes economic opportunities that benefit everyone.

Tribes struggle with many socioeconomic problems, including poverty and crime. Though the United States claims to support tribal self-determination, tribes remain subject to unique, federally imposed constraints on their sovereignty. This book argues removing the federal limitations on tribal sovereignty is the key to improving life in Indian country.