“Conquest Masquerading as Law”, an essay by Vine Deloria, Jr, lays out how the highest court in the US, the Supreme Court, did not uphold US treaties with Native American nations from at least the 1830s to the 1970s. It used racism in place of logic and legal precedent.
The turning point came in the 1830s when the state of Georgia wanted Cherokee lands and President Jackson ordered the Trail of Tears, forcing Cherokees off their land, sending them to the wastelands beyond the states, to what is now known as Oklahoma.
At first the Supreme Court upheld the treaty rights of Natives, but President Jackson would not obey the Court. Instead of forcing a constitutional showdown, the Court let it slide. Jackson had cowed the Supreme Court. After that, for over a hundred years, it wrote nearly all of its opinions concerning Natives to suit the President, Congress and the states, legal precedent be damned. Even if it had to write opinions that made no sense. But their decisions made it settled law. Conquest masquerading as law.
The Supreme Court excused overriding treaties by claiming that Whites were morally superior to Natives!
That idea goes back to the Doctrine of Discovery, “an agreement among thieves”, cooked up by one of Machiavelli’s evil popes, Alexander VI, shortly after Columbus “discovered” the Americas. It said that Christians had a right to any non-Christian land that they “discovered” – regardless of what the people already living there wanted or thought best.
In 1823 Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall put it like this:
“The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves, that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence.”
He added:
“Although we do not mean to engage in the defense of those principles which Europeans have applied to Indian title, they may, we think, find some excuse, if not justification, in the character and habits of the people whose rights have been wrested from them.”
In other words, Whites could rob and cheat Natives because Whites had better “character and habits”. It was Natives, not Whites, who were morally flawed.
The Court saw Natives as overgrown children in need of their “help”. The only decision Natives were capable of making on their own was giving up land to White people. Otherwise they were seen as unfit to manage their own affairs. That unfitness was determined not by, say, their level of (never defined) “civilization” – as the Cherokees and other civilized tribes found out – but by race.
The Court got its ideas about Natives not from Natives themselves but from White religious leaders, writers and scholars. The Court, by shaping the law, in turn shaped the outlook of those Whites. Round and round it goes.
Deloria:
“Law is often a means of expressing and enforcing the prejudices of the majority.”
See also:
And in US History books, we are taught to call them “settlers”.
Just thinking about it – a post on the Bureau of Indian Affairs might be good.
LikeLike
That idea goes back to the Doctrine of Discovery, “an agreement among thieves”, cooked up by one of Machiavelli’s evil popes, Alexander VI, shortly after Columbus “discovered” the Americas.
—————————————————————————————
This sounds suspiciously similar to how white people treated each other in Europe?
Indeed, the “idea” goes back much farther than that:
“Please allow me to introduce myself I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year Stole many a man’s soul to waste.
And I was ’round when Jesus Christ Had his moment of doubt and pain. Made damn sure that Pilate Washed his hands and sealed his fate.
Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name.
But what’s puzzling you Is the nature of my game.”
LikeLike
For some balance, would it make sense to do a post on how the Aztecs and Incas treated peoples they had conquered?
LikeLike
History doesn’t always repeat itself but it usually rhymes.
LikeLike
BTW, if you have a copy of Neely Fuller’s UICCSC, the subject of this post is an example of where his compensatory counter racist definition of “Law” comes from:
PG 273
LAW: Anything that has an effect.
(Ive also heard him define it as anything that is done)
LikeLike
George Ryder
Kiwi
When did Europeans sacrifice the people they conquered?
I did a google search but i couldn’t find anything.
—————————————————————————
When did klansmen lynch black people?
I did a search of klan archives but i couldn’t find anything.
LikeLike
@ biff
For balance I should do a post on that time when Aztecs took over Europe and wiped out nearly all Whites to spread the blessings of Aztec religion and civilization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
LOL!!
LikeLike
You could do one on atrocities committed by Attila the Hun, I guess.
LikeLike
This post was enlightening and tragic to read how Native Americans were treated. SMH.
LikeLike
You all know I gotta say it right?
* what are you gonna do about it?*
(beside shake your head?)
LikeLike
@biff,
So if more than one group commits the same atrocity, that makes it okay?
Any group that claims superiority over all others should be able to stand on its own without having to hide behind what everyone else did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At what point did Europeans stop being barbarians and start being civilized?
Ha-ha, I know, during their “Age of Exploration”. 😛
LikeLike
After perusing the internet Vine Deloria Jr. was native American which explains how he is able to expound in great detail on this subject. He knew his history and he was an activist and author among his other many accomplishments.
LikeLike
“Law is of a means of expressing and enforcing the prejudices of the majority” This simple quote by Vine Deloria Jr. Is this whole topic in a nutshell. Vital information for Native American month. I have been informed and enlightend today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see how Manifest Destiny and White Paternalism are germane to this topic as well. Thanks for adding to my learning Abagond.
LikeLike
“The Doctrine of Discovery a law cooked up by one of Machiavelli’s evil popes Alexander VI” It said that Christians had a right to any non-Christian land the “discovered” regardless of what the people already living there wanted or thought.” The little i have read about Niccholo Machiavelli who wrote the book “The Prince” and his “ends justify the means mindset. This is a very Machiavellian move. By any means necessary evil mindset to take the Native American’s land from them. Alexander VI was taught his nefarious practices.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
“Or you could do one on atrocities committed by Vikings. But they’re white, which means they’re civilized, so who cares, right?”
I have never heard anyone to make that argument.
I think to come to any valuable judgement on past civilizations, one has to judge them by their own standards.This applies to the Aztecs, but it also applies to pre-modern Europeans. Some developments were considered immoral then, for example slavery and forced labour of natives. But the conquest and conversion of heathens they saw not only as a right but a duty and it was an integral part of their thought.
LikeLike
George Ryder
europeans never stopped being barbarians. but they did stop sacrificing humans.
—————————————————————————————–
Some people claim capital punishment (death penalty) is the last vestige of contemporary human sacrifice and thats why most European nations have outlawed it; and why its no longer public where it is still practiced.
scape·goat/ˈskāpˌɡōt/
noun
(in the Bible) a goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Lev. 16).
LikeLike
Interesting how that fragile white mindset presents itself. “Bbbbbuuuuutttt they did it too!” *in that whiny shrill voice” lol. If you can’t take the heat get out the kitchen!
LikeLike
You got to be kidding me, how did it even come to the human sacrifices?. So Europeans had the right to commit a genocide against native Americans because… Aztecs made human sacrifices? SMFH.
So ridiculous, even more ridiculous because the public burnings and sacrifices of women accused of “witchcraft” in Europe didn´t stop till the end of the late eighteen century, but you know they are white, civilized and their skin is pink, so who cares. WHITE LOGIC lol
LikeLike
The Deloria quote:
I would add to that quote that law is also a means of enforcing the will of the powerful; especially those who hold a monopoly or near monopoly on coercive force (such as arms and taxes).
LikeLike