Treaties were often signed after warfare, when terms could be dictated.
Modern historians see even the famous treaties with the Iroquois.
confederacy not simply in terms of rights, but as part of British.
political strategies designed to deal with the French and with the .
other.
tribes further inland. .
The history involves warfare, brutality and manipulation. But it also.
clearly involves European colonial powers seeking to gain rights from.
the tribes, whether by warfare, alliances or negotiation. The tribes.
were outside the political power of the European colonizers and needed.
to be brought into the new colonial order in some way. The United .
States.
Constitution of 1787 is largely silent on Indians because the tribes.
were still outside the new constitutional and legal order of the United.
States. They would have to be brought into that order by treaties. .
This early recognition of the independence of the tribes was gradually.
undermined as European colonial powers gained greater and greater.
control in North America. When the British defeated the French, Indians.
could no longer play one colonial power off against another. The Royal.
Proclamation of 1763 reflected shifts in power. The Proclamation.
referred to the "nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are.
connected, and who live under our protection . . ." The proclamation.
provided that Indian tribes could no longer deal with other colonial.
powers or with private individuals; the British Crown had a monopoly on.
dealings with Indians. Ever since 1774 British law defined Indians as.
"British subjects," that is citizens, not aliens. These were unilateral.
assertions of power by England. England was now dominant, but the .
tribes.
remained separate political entities. United States law in a .
brilliantly.
ambiguous phrase, referred to the tribes as "dependent domestic.
nations." .
By the time of Canadian confederation in 1867, and the Rupert's Land.
transfer of 1869-70, Indian tribes were treated as "domestic," as .
