Fish in the Lakes, Wild Rice, and Game in Abundance
Testimony on Behalf of Mille Lacs Ojibwe Hunting and Fishing Rights
Michigan State University Press
Will be published approx. on 31. March 2000
Book
Hardback
582 pages
978-0-87013-492-0 (ISBN)
Description
On 13 August 1990 members of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota for interfering with the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights that had been guaranteed to them in an 1837 treaty with the United States. In order to interpret the treaty the courts had to consider historical circumstances, the intentions of the parties, and the treaty's implementation. The Mille Lacs Band faced a mammoth challenge. How does one argue the Native side of the case when all historical documentation was written by non- Natives? The Mille Lacs selected six scholars to testify for them. Published here for the first time, Charles Cleland, James McClurken, Helen Tanner, John Nichols, Thomas Lund, and Bruce White discuss the circumstances under which the treaty was written, the personalities involved in the negotiations and the legal rhetoric of the times, as well as analyze related legal conflicts between Natives and non- Natives. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the 1999 Opinion of the [United States Supreme] Court.
More details
Language
English
Place of publication
East Lansing, MI
United States
Target group
College/higher education
Dimensions
Height: 254 mm
Width: 178 mm
Thickness: 41 mm
Weight
1161 gr
ISBN-13
978-0-87013-492-0 (9780870134920)
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited or by the publishers or by their respective licensors: all rights reserved.
Schweitzer Classification
Persons
James M. McClurken is an ethnohistorian specializing in Great Lakes Native Americans in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He has published numerous books on North American Indian history and treaty rights.
Content
ContentsForewordSection 1Primary Testimony Presented on Behalf of the Mille Lacs Band in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (97-1337)Preliminary Report of the Ethnohistorical Basis of the Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Rights of the Mille Lacs ChippewaClelandCharles E.An Overview of Chippewa Use of Natural Resources in Historical PerspectiveThe Western Chippewa in the Early Nineteenth CenturyThe 1837 Treaty of St. PetersThe 1842 Treaty of La PointeChippewa-American Relations 1825-1850: A Clash of CulturesThe Treaty of Fond du Lac-1847Attempts to Remove the ChippewaThe Mille Lacs Chippewa in the 1850sThe Reservation Policy and the Treaty of La Pointe-1854The Treaty of WashingtonThe Treaties of 1863 and 1864Off-Reservation Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering in the Post-Treaty EraStatement of General ConclusionsThe Regional Context of the Removal Order of 1850WhiteBruce M.White Population Growth in the Minnesota RegionPolitical Leadership in Minnesota TerritoryPressure for RemovalImplementing the Removal OrderTragedy at Sandy LakeRemoval Efforts in 1851Suspension of the RemovalThe Watrous InvestigationThe Pleasure of the PresidentRemnants of the RemovalBeyond the Removal PolicyMille Lacs Treaty Rights at the End of the Removal PeriodSummary and ConclusionsWhy Call It the Removal Order of 1850?Were the Mille Lacs Ojibwe Subject to the Removal Order of 1850?How Many Ojibwe Were Actually Removed?The 1837 Treaty of St. Peters Preserving the Rights of the Mille Lacs Ojibwa to Hunt, Fish, and Gather: The Effect of Treaties and Agreements since 1855McClurkenJamesMille Lacs and the Treaty of 1855Treaties of 1863 and 1864Implementation of the 1863 and 1864 TreatiesThe Nelson Allotment Act, 1889Congressional Acts and the Mille Lacs ReservationSection 3Supporting TestimonyThe Mille Lacs Band and the Treaty of 1855TannerHelenThe 1837 and 1855 Chippewa Treaties in the Context of Early American Wildlife LawLundThomasThe Translation of Key Phrases in the Treaties of 1837 and 1855NicholasJonh D.AppendixMinnesota, et al., Petitioners v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians et al.; No. 97-1337 Opinion of the Supreme CourtO'ConnorSandra DayIndex