Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Black Freedmen in Indian Country

  • Chapter
African American Culture and Legal Discourse

  • 185 Accesses

Abstract

Most critical race theorists assume that the racial playing field in America is federal and state law and ignore the rising importance of American Indian law or the law of American Indian tribes. When questions of race discrimination arise, advocates for the victims of race discrimination turn exclusively to the Constitution or federal and state civil rights statutes. Even where the alleged perpetrators of discrimination are Indian tribes, advocates still turn to the Constitution and federal or state law. These advocates ignore or are unaware of the advantages of seeking relief from the proper sovereign—in this case, Indian tribes—because they fail to recognize the racial hierarchies in question. For the purposes of this chapter, most discussions of race identify rights as the central paradigm, metaphor, or fiction for challenging white supremacy because they posit the black-white binary and its handmaiden, antidiscrimination law, as the framework for understanding racial hierarchy. This chapter offers a different fiction, through the example of the black Freedmen, to ground a different role for law for promoting freedom and equality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).

    Google Scholar 

  • 25 U.S.C.§§ 1301–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • 25 U.S.C.§ 1603.

    Google Scholar 

  • 25 U.S.C.§§ 1901–1911

    Google Scholar 

  • 42 U.S.C. § 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleman v. Chugash Support Services, Inc., 485 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Jake. “Conducting Embryonic Stem Cell Research on Native Lands in Michigan.” Journal of Law & Medicine 11 (2007): 395–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baca v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians, No. CV 01–278 (Puyallup Tribal Court, February 25, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, George. “The Fourteenth Amendment as Related to Tribal Indians.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 28 (2004): 37–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Derrick, Jr. “Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Dilemma.” Harvard Law Review 93 (1980): 518–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Derrick, Jr.“Foreword: The Civil Rights Chronicles.” Harvard Law Review 99 (1985): 4–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton-Benai, Edward. The Mishomis Book: The Voice of the Ojibway. St. Paul, MN: Indian Country, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Bethany. “Justice and the Outsider: Jurisdiction over Nonmembers in Tribal Legal Systems.” Arizona State Law Journal 37 (2005): 1047–1125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffalo, William, and Kevin J. Wadzinski. “Application of Federal and State Labor and Employment Laws to Indian Tribal Employers.” University of Memphis Law Review 25 (1995): 1365–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F. 3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, Robert. “Sovereignty and the Native American Nation: The Dormant Indian Commerce Clause.” Connecticut Law Review 27 (1994): 1055–1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, Robert. “There Is No Federal Supremacy Clause for Indian Tribe.” Arizona State Law Journal 34 (2002): 113–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp. v. Orr, No. AP98-008 (Colville Confederated Tribes Court of Appeals, December 4, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitution of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, http://tb.orpe.ou.edu/constimtion/GTBcons3.html.

  • Danahy, Scott. “License to Discriminate: The Application of Sovereign Immunity to Employment Discrimination Claims Brought by Non-Native American Employees of Tribatly Owned Businesses.” Florida State University Law Review 25 (1998): 679–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloria, Vine, Jr. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. 1969. Reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Establishing Standards for the Placement of Indian Children in Foster or Adoptive Homes, To Prevent the Breakup of Indian Families, and for Other Purposes.” H.R. Rep. 95–1386. July 24, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Bringing Balance to Indian Gaming.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 44 (2006): 39–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “ICWA and the Commerce Clause.” In The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30: Facing the Future, edited by Matthew L. M. Fletcher, Wenona T. Singel, and Kathryn E. Fort. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Indian Bill of Rights.” In Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, vol. 2. Edited by Paul Finkelman, 806–10. New York: Routledge, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “The Insidious Colonialism of the Conqueror.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 19 (2005): 273–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “The Original Understanding of the Political Status of Indian Tribes.” St. John’s Law Review 82 (2008): 153–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Politics, History, and Semantics: The Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes.” North Dakota Law Review 82 (2006): 487–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Preconstitutional Federal Power.” Tulane Law Review 82 (2007): 509–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “In Pursuit of Tribal Economic Development as a Substitute for Reservation Tax Revenue.” North Dakota Law Review 80 (2004): 759–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Rethinking the Role of Custom in Tribal Court Jurisprudence.” Michigan Journal of Race & Law 13 (2007): 57–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Same-Sex Marriage, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution.” University of Miami Law Review 61 (2006): 53–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. Sawnawgezewog: “‘The Indian Problem’ and the Lost Art of Survival.” American Indian Law Review 28 (2003–2004): 35–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “Stick Houses in Peshawbestown.” Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal 2 (2004): 189–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. “The Supreme Court and Federal Indian Policy.” Nebraska Law Review 85 (2006): 121–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M.“Toward a Theory of Intertribal and Intratribal Common Law.” Houston Law Review 43 (2006): 701–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Matthew L. M. Tribal Employment Separation: Tribal Law Enigma, Tribal Governance Paradox, and Tribal Court Conundrum. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 38 (2005): 273–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Carole. “Individual Rights and Tribal Revitalization.” Arizorta State Law Journal 35 (2003): 889–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Citizenship, No. 2003–53 (District Court of the Muscogee [Creek] Nation, March 16,2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grand Traverse Band Code, vol. 6, § 104(c).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, 360 F.3d 920 (6th Cir. 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddock, David, and Robert Miller. “Can a Sovereign Protect Investors from Itself? Tribal Institutions to Spur Reservation Investment.” Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 8 (2004): 173–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopi Tribe v. Huma, No. AP-004-92 (Hopi Court of Appeals, January 13, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Bridget R. 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507 (Cal. App. 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Santos Y. 112 Cal Rptr. 2d 692 (Cal. App. 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joranko, Timothy, and Mark C. Van Norman. “Indian Self-Determination at Bay: Secretarial Authority to Disapprove Tribal Constitutional Amendments.” Gonzaga Law Review 29 (1993–1994): 81–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Randall. Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, James. “Federalist No. 42.” The Federalist Papers (1788). http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/.

  • McNickle, D’Arcy. “Indian and European: Indian-White Relations from Discovery to 1887.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 311 (1957): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meara, Emmet. “MHRC to hear complaint against Micmacs Unity College.” Bangor Daily News. June 16, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 105–43, United States Statutes at Large 111. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 n. 24 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 857 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Native American Church, of North America v. Navajo Tribal Council, 272 F.2d 131 (10th Cir. 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • Necklace v. Tribal Court of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation, 554 F.2d 845 (8th Cir. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, Nell Jessup et al., eds. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • One Hundred Eight Employees of the Crow Tribe of Indians v. Crow Tribe of Indians, No. 89–320 (Crow Court of Appeals, November 21, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Philip, Tom. “No Women, No Ride, Says Civil Rights Law.” Sacramento Bee. November 5, 1994, B7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Robert. “The Demise of the Ongwehoweh and the Rise of the Native Americans: Redressing the Genocidal Act of Forcing American Indian Citizenship upon Indigenous Peoples.” Harvard Black Letter Law Journal 15(1999): 107–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790–1834. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, Angela. “Good (Native) Governance.” Columbia Law Review 107 (2007): 1049–1125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, Angela. “(Tribal) Sovereignty and Illiberalism.” California Law Review 95 (2007): 799–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Election Board v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 439 F. 3d 832 (8th Cir. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, Thomas. “Sovereign Immunity: Should the Sovereign Control the Purse?” American Indian Law Review 24 (2000): 309–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, David. “Casinos Claiming Immunity from Basic Labor Laws, Status of Tribes Leaves Workers Unprotected.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, October 31, 1993, 1A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seneca Constitutional Rights Organization v. George, 348 F. Supp. 51 (W.D. N.Y. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swentzell, Rina. “Testimony of a Santa Clara Woman.” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 14 (2004): 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896

    Google Scholar 

  • Treaty with the Ottowas and Chippewas,Statutes at Large and Treaties, vol. 11, 621–29. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1859.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Effect of Fourteenth Amendment Upon Indian Tribes, S. Rep. No. 268,41st Congress, 3d Session (December 1870).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vann, Marilyn. “Loss of Cherokee National citizenship.” Indianz.com (accessed March 21, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington v. Washington Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn, 443 U.S. 658 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, George. Mem-Ka-Weh: Dawning of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Peshawbestown, MI: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, Charles. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Matthew L. M. Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Lovalerie King Richard Schur

Copyright information

© 2009 Lovalerie King and Richard Schur

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fletcher, M.L.M. (2009). On Black Freedmen in Indian Country. In: King, L., Schur, R. (eds) African American Culture and Legal Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230101722_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation