List Of Treaties Between The United States And Native American TribesEdit
The topic of treaties between the United States and Native American tribes covers a long arc of diplomacy, law, and policy that shaped land, sovereignty, and daily life across North America. These agreements, many of them drafted in the early years of the republic, were intended to orderly relations as settlers moved westward, and to define the rights of tribes within a growing nation. They sit at the intersection of diplomacy, property rights, and the evolving understanding of sovereignty. Under the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, such pacts were negotiated by the federal government and, once ratified by the Senate, became the supreme law of the land. The history is complex: some treaties created lasting arrangements and protections; others were broken or superseded as policy and power shifted. The record includes moments of formal recognition of tribal authority as well as periods of removal, coercion, and assimilation.
In discussing these treaties, it is helpful to keep in mind the central themes courts and lawmakers have emphasized: the binding force of sworn agreements, the fiduciary duty of the federal government to protect tribal lands and resources, and the limitations on neither side to honor commitments in a rapidly expanding country. Notable judgments, legislative actions, and political debates have framed how these treaties are interpreted today. For example, Worcester v. Georgia affirmed a concept of tribal sovereignty that influenced later debates about rights and jurisdiction, while Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock underscored the power of Congress to alter or abrogate treaty obligations in certain contexts. These and other developments feed into ongoing discussions about treaty rights, trust responsibility, and the balance between national sovereignty and tribal self-government. United States Constitutions and the broader body of constitutional law continue to provide the constitutional stage on which these issues are debated.
Notable treaties and agreements
Treaty of Hopewell (1785) (1785) — These agreements with the Southeastern tribes established a framework for peaceful relations and negotiated boundaries for the time. They reflect the early attempt to set terms for coexistence as the United States asserted its authority in the Southeast.
Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784) (1784) — This treaty with the Iroquois Confederacy sought to define and cede lands in the northern edge of the colonies’ settlement, influencing the shape of later settlement patterns in the region.
Treaty of Greenville (1795) (1795) — Following the Northwest Indian War, this pact established a broad process of land cession and defined boundaries that permitted further expansion into the Northwest Territory, while recognizing a degree of tribal rights and sovereignty within those limits.
Treaty of Detroit (1807) (1807) — A major land-cession agreement with the Odawa, Potawatomi, and Ojibwe peoples that opened up portions of the Michigan and surrounding regions to settlement and development.
Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809) (1809) — Ceded substantial tracts in present-day Indiana and parts of surrounding states, shaping settlement patterns and laying groundwork for future policy and disputes over land titles.
Prairie du Chien Treaty (1829) (1829) — This set of agreements involved the Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) and other tribes along the upper Mississippi, clarifying boundaries and affecting control of regional resources.
Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (1830) (1830) — One of the major removal-era treaties, whereby the Choctaw Nation agreed to relocate west of the Mississippi in exchange for protection and recognition of certain rights in the new homelands.
Treaty of New Echota (1835) (1835) — Controversial because it was signed by a minority faction of the Cherokee and led to the forcible relocation known as the Trail of Tears; the treaty’s legitimacy was disputed within Cherokee leadership and has remained a focal point in debates about how treaties were negotiated and who truly represented tribal interests.
Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851) (1851) — This treaty established defined territories for several Plains tribes and aimed to secure safe passage for settlers and traffic through the region, while recognizing tribal boundaries and hunting rights in designated areas.
Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) (1868) — Resulting from renewed conflict, this agreement created the Great Sioux Reservation in portions of the northern plains, including what would become the Black Hills region; it represented the closest federal acknowledgment of Sioux territorial claims in that era, though subsequent actions and gold discoveries led to profound disputes about compliance and ownership.
Treaty of Bosque Redondo (1868) (1868) — The Navajo were relocated to a designated reservation at Bosque Redondo; the agreement reflected a harsh policy of forced relocation and reorganization of Navajo life, later overridden by subsequent policy changes.
Medicine Lodge Treaty (1867) (1867) — A set of agreements with several Plains tribes (notably the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache groups) intended to establish reservations and pacify the region; the treaties were difficult to enforce and remained controversial due to ongoing conflict on the ground.
Treaty of Fort Bridger (1868) (1868) — This agreement with the Shoshone and allied tribes established a framework for peaceful relations in the Mountain West and acknowledged specific hunting and camping rights in exchange for certain future settlements and restrictions.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) — While not a treaty itself, this Supreme Court decision is central to understanding how federal law treated treaty obligations: the ruling upheld Congress’s power to modify or abrogate treaties, a point that has fueled ongoing debates about the durability and enforcement of treaty promises.
End of treaty diplomacy with tribes (1871) — The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 effectively ended the federal practice of treaty-making with Native tribes, shifting the legal framework away from foreign-nation-level diplomacy toward a domestic policy approach. This turning point frames much of the later legal and political discourse about tribal rights and recognition. Indian Appropriations Act 1871
Later and related policy shifts — The policy environment that followed included measures like the Dawes Act and the Indian Reorganization Act, which redefined landholding, governance, and tribal self-determination in ways that intersect with the treaty record, even when treaties themselves were no longer being negotiated. Dawes Act Indian Reorganization Act
Controversies and debates
Authenticity and representation in treaty-making — Critics from various perspectives have argued that many treaties were obtained under pressure, with limited representation from the broader tribal communities. Proponents of a more traditional, property-rights-centered view emphasize that the negotiated documents reflected agreements with recognized leaders who held authority on behalf of their people.
Sovereignty versus expansion — The tension between tribal sovereignty and U.S. expansion is a central theme. From one side, treaties are seen as the legal foundation of tribal rights and a binding contract with the federal government; from the other, critics argued that expansion often proceeded despite treaty constraints, leading to disputes over land, resources, and jurisdiction.
Broken promises and trust responsibility — A recurring controversy concerns the U.S. government’s enforcement of treaty obligations. Supreme Court decisions like Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock illustrate the legal complexities of enforcement, while later generations press for full recognition and restitution of rights grounded in long-standing treaties. The federal government’s fiduciary duty to protect tribal lands and resources remains a central point of ongoing policy discussions. See Trust responsibility for further context.
Removal and assimilation — The 19th century saw widespread removal of tribes from ancestral homelands and the imposition of assimilation policies. Proponents of the era argued removal reduced conflict and opened land for settlement; critics contend that removal disrupted tribal societies and violated treaty terms, a debate that continues in discussions of justice and reconciliation.
Modern status of treaty rights — Even after 1871, many treaties or their terms remain relevant in contemporary law, land rights, hunting and fishing rights, and resource management. Courts and federal agencies have continued to interpret and apply treaty language, sometimes in contentious ways that draw both support and criticism from different political and public-policy perspectives. See Native American treaty rights for a broader discussion.
Legacy and present status
Legal status of treaties — Treaties remain a cornerstone of federal-tribal relations in law, even as the federal government moved away from formal treaty-making after 1871. Many treaties survive on the books, their terms partially realigned by later statutes and executive actions, and they continue to influence land titles, resource rights, and tribal governance.
Interplay with other legal frameworks — Policy instruments such as the trust doctrine, federal judiciary decisions, and federal legislation interact with treaty language to shape rights and obligations on the ground. The interplay between sovereignty, property rights, and state authority remains a live area of legal and political discourse.
Contemporary negotiations and settlements — In the modern era, tribes often pursue settlements, settlements-in-kind, or legislative fixes to resolve longstanding disputes tied to historical treaties. These processes reflect ongoing national debates about federal obligations, tribal self-government, and how best to manage shared resources and responsibilities.