Talk:Indian country

An assertion
"It was understood that the law of the United States and the laws of individual states were unenforceable in Indian country (for all practical purposes), and tribes that lived on those lands had full sovereignty in those areas." I'm not sure what this means or if any part of it is true. It seem more reasonable that such matters depended on circumstances more than any thing else. For example a contract was not void because it was signed or performed in Indian country. Fur traders and fur trading companies operating in Indian country signed, honored, and enforced contracts. Additionally, I don't think the United States government recognized the sovereignty of any tribe in its full meaning, as might be applied to an internationally recognized state. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)