Significant Treaties with Native Americans

Why This Matters

Treaties between the United States and Native American nations represent far more than historical documents—they embody the legal foundations of tribal sovereignty, the mechanisms of colonial expansion, and the ongoing struggle for Indigenous rights. When you study these treaties, you're examining how the U.S. government constructed its legal authority over Native lands, how Native nations exercised diplomacy and resistance, and why treaty rights remain central to contemporary legal battles over land, resources, water rights, and self-governance.

You're being tested on your ability to recognize patterns: How did treaty-making evolve from early diplomatic recognition to tools of removal and assimilation? What do broken treaties reveal about federal Indian policy? Don't just memorize dates and land cessions—know what each treaty illustrates about federal-tribal relations, sovereignty, and resistance. Understanding these patterns will serve you well on essays asking you to trace policy shifts or analyze the legal status of tribes today.

---

Early Republic Treaties: Establishing the Framework

The first treaties after American independence reveal a young nation attempting to establish legitimacy while Native nations held significant military and diplomatic power. These agreements often recognized tribal sovereignty and land rights—a stance that would erode as U.S. power grew.

Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784)

• First post-Revolutionary War treaty—established the precedent that the new U.S. government, not individual states, would negotiate with Native nations
• Iroquois Confederacy land cessions created boundaries that the Confederacy disputed, as many member nations had not authorized the agreement
• Diplomatic weakness exposed—the treaty's contested legitimacy showed how the U.S. initially lacked power to enforce agreements, foreshadowing future conflicts

Treaty of Hopewell (1785)

• Cherokee sovereignty recognized—the U.S. acknowledged Cherokee territorial boundaries and governance, treating them as a distinct nation
• Mutual obligations established including provisions requiring the U.S. to prevent settler encroachment (a promise repeatedly broken)
• "Civilization" provisions introduced—early language encouraging Cherokee adoption of Euro-American practices, planting seeds for later assimilation policy

---

Military Defeat and Forced Cessions

As U.S. military power grew, treaties increasingly followed armed conflict and functioned as instruments of land seizure rather than diplomatic negotiation. The pattern: wage war, then formalize victory through treaty cessions.

Treaty of Greenville (1795)

• Ended the Northwest Indian War—forced cessions of most of present-day Ohio after the decisive U.S. victory at Fallen Timbers
• Established the "annuity" system where tribes received yearly payments for ceded lands, creating economic dependence on the federal government
• Set the template for future treaties: military defeat followed by land cession, confined boundaries, and promises of protection (rarely kept)

Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809)

• Over 3 million acres ceded in present-day Indiana by Potawatomi, Delaware, and Miami leaders—many of whom lacked authority to sign
• Tecumseh's resistance sparked—the treaty's questionable legitimacy fueled the pan-Indian movement opposing further cessions
• Demonstrates "divide and conquer"—U.S. negotiators deliberately sought out compliant leaders, bypassing traditional governance structures

Treaty of Fort Jackson (1814)

• Creek War conclusion forced the Creek Nation to cede 23 million acres in Alabama and Georgia—including lands of Creek factions that had allied with the U.S.
• Andrew Jackson's tactics punished allies and enemies alike, revealing that military outcomes mattered more than diplomatic relationships
• Opened the Deep South to cotton cultivation and slavery's expansion, connecting Native dispossession to the broader political economy

---

Removal Era: Treaties as Tools of Ethnic Cleansing

The 1830s marked a shift toward using treaties explicitly to relocate entire nations from their homelands. These agreements often lacked legitimate consent and served to provide legal cover for forced removal.

Treaty of New Echota (1835)

• Signed by unauthorized faction—the "Treaty Party" represented perhaps 500 of 17,000 Cherokee; Principal Chief John Ross and the Cherokee National Council rejected it
• Legal foundation for the Trail of Tears—despite protests and a Supreme Court ruling (Worcester v. Georgia) affirming Cherokee sovereignty, removal proceeded
• 4,000+ Cherokee deaths during forced relocation demonstrate how treaties could function as instruments of genocide when consent was manufactured

---

Plains Treaties: Reservation Confinement

Western expansion brought new treaty-making focused on confining Plains nations to reservations while opening territory to settlers and railroads. These treaties promised protection of reserved lands—promises systematically broken.

Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851)

• Defined tribal territories for Lakota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow, and other nations across the Great Plains—the first comprehensive mapping of Plains boundaries
• Safe passage guaranteed for emigrants on the Oregon Trail in exchange for annuities, attempting to prevent conflict
• Fundamentally misunderstood by U.S. negotiators who assumed centralized tribal authority; many bands never considered themselves bound by signatures of others

Treaty of Medicine Lodge (1867)

• Southern Plains reservations established for Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, Kiowa, and Plains Apache in Indian Territory
• Promised provisions and supplies that rarely arrived or arrived spoiled, creating humanitarian crises on reservations
• Hunting rights retained—tribes could hunt buffalo south of the Arkansas River, but the deliberate destruction of buffalo herds soon made this meaningless

Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

• Great Sioux Reservation created including the sacred Black Hills (Paha Sapa), with Lakota rights to hunt in unceded territories
• Red Cloud's War success—one of few treaties resulting from Native military victory; the U.S. abandoned Bozeman Trail forts
• Broken within a decade—gold discovery in 1874 brought illegal miners; the U.S. seized the Black Hills in 1877, a taking the Supreme Court later called unconstitutional (United States v. Sioux Nation, 1980)

---

Assimilation Policy: The End of Treaty-Making

Congress ended treaty-making with Native nations in 1871, shifting toward unilateral legislation. The Dawes Act represents this new approach: imposing policy without negotiation.

Dawes Act (1887)

• Allotment replaced treaty-making—individual 160-acre plots assigned to family heads, with "surplus" lands sold to white settlers
• 90 million acres lost between 1887 and 1934 as tribal land bases shrank by two-thirds through the allotment process
• Assimilation as policy goal—reformers believed private property ownership would "civilize" Native peoples by destroying communal land tenure and tribal governance

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two treaties illustrate the shift from recognizing Cherokee sovereignty to engineering Cherokee removal, and what changed in federal policy between them?

2. Compare the Treaty of Greenville (1795) and the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)—both followed warfare, but what made the 1868 treaty unusual in terms of military outcome?

3. How does the Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809) demonstrate the U.S. strategy of obtaining consent from unauthorized leaders, and what resistance movement did this spark?

4. If an essay asks you to explain why treaty rights remain legally significant today, which treaty provides the strongest example and why?

5. Compare the treaty era (pre-1871) with the Dawes Act approach—how did the legal relationship between the federal government and Native nations fundamentally change?