User:Natinoco/sandbox

AMST 140 - Wikipedia Project - ROUGH DRAFT

Our section on the US vs. Sioux Nation of Indians will be added to the wikipedia page Tribal Sovereignty in the United States under the section "20th Century Developments"

3.3 United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980)

The case brought before the Supreme Court in 1980 has its roots in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 which sought to peacefully resolve existing disputes between the United States and the Sioux people. Article II of the treaty designates the Sioux “the absolute and undisturbed right” to inhabit the Black Hills territory while prohibiting US citizens, with the exception of those earning special authorization, from passing through or settling on this land. (Sioux Treaty of 1868). However, the peace was not long-lasting, as US citizens continued entering and settling the land, and the US military heightened its presence by seeking to establish a fort within the Greater Sioux Reservation as one of the principal objectives of General George Custer’s Black Hills Expedition of 1874 (Lazarus, 74). While the Sioux were able to repel Custer’s encroachment at Little Bighorn, the passage of the Act or Agreement of 1877 by congress officially reincorporated the Black Hills territory into the United States and relegated the Sioux people to newly constructed reservations (Lazarus, 452). Despite initiating legal actions to recover the lost land and challenge the violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty had been pursued, however, it was not until 1979 that the US Court of Claims actually reached a decision that offered compensation totaling approximately $105 million with interest (Lazarus, 375).


 * Jose's Section on details of the 1980 supreme court case

The money awarded to the Sioux by the US Court of claims has since been held in an interest-bearing account, which by 2010, saw its value expand to more than $757 million (Dunbar-Ortiz, 207). However, members of the Sioux Nation have up till now refused to accept this compensation, arguing that the land that was seized from them in 1877 was never up for sale in the first place. Instead they have continued to press for the restoration of their own sovereignty over the Black Hills territory. In 1987, an attempt was made by congress to restore Sioux Nation sovereignty when Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey introduced legislation that sought to return 1.3 million acres within the Black Hills territory to the Sioux (New York Times, 1987). This territory would be only part of the original 7.5 million acres seized and would be composed entirely of US National Forest land only, not encroaching on any municipal or private lands (Huffington Post, 2011). Despite backing from tribal leaders, the bill failed to pass due to repeated blocking, initiated in part by South Dakota’s representatives, and the introduction of rival legislation by Phil Stevens which split support between the two bills, diffusing the momentum behind the project. (Huffington Post, 2011). This issue is currently at a standstill as Sioux leaders continue refusing compensation until they regain sovereignty over the Black Hills territory, and efforts to restore their ownership have failed.

Note: Still need to add links and update citation style to match wikipedia's - will be done this week

Bibliography:

1. Hermann, John Robert. "American Indians in Court: The Burger and Rehnquist Years (1969-1992 Terms)." Order No. 9536393, Emory University, 1995. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/304215597?accountid=14749.

2. United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).

3. Lazarus, Edward. “Black Hills White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus the United States, 1775 to the Present.” University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1991.

4. "Sioux Nation Black Hills Act." Indian Country Today (1983-1988), Jun 26, 1985. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/371471405?accountid=14749.

5. Canby Jr., William. “American Indian Law in a Nutshell Sixth Edition.” West Academic Publishing, St. Paul. 2015. Print.

Added Content. It turned out to be more on the history of how the case came to be rather than of the case itself

Amst 140 Wiki Post

Jose S. Section History

Senate Bill S590 (1876) (An attempt at a peaceful resolution)
After the "Army's withdrawal from its role as enforcer of the Fort Laramie Treaty" the previous year (1) and its subsequent return to prepare for a military campaign against the Sioux, Bill S590 was introduced to authorize "a peaceful settlement" with the Sioux Nation for the Black Hills (2). A proposed "five-member commission" would have asked the Sioux Nation to relinquish the "entire reservation" given to them under the Fort Laramie Treaty (link). From most "congressional and pioneer views" this was the "easy and practical method" of securing the Blacks Hills (2).

S590 was approved by the Senate with a vote of thirty to eight, with language that implied that the commission could acquire the entire reservation and relocate the Sioux (2). In the House Committee on Indian Affairs, it was amended to specify that "nothing in this bill could be construed or twisted to allow for the removal of the Sioux Nation to Indian Territory (2)." Peace efforts or "attempts to purchase the Blacks hills" could still proceed. Missourians praised the action since it would have kept the Sioux far from their borders (3).

However, after the Battle of the Little Big Horn public opinion turned against the Sioux and congress refused to address the bill. When asked why, congressman Omar Dwight opined that congress felt the need to “find out whether the Sioux have captured all our army before we go treating with them.” (4)

S590 went on to die in committee and congress approved the Indian Appropriations Bill of 1876 instead. It “illegally denied the Sioux all further appropriation and treaty-guaranteed annuities” until they gave up the Black Hills (5).