YaleLawJournal

abstract.TheSupremeCourthasdescribedtheIndianCommerceClauseastheprimaryconstitutionalbasisforfederalexclusiveandplenarypoweroverIndianaffairs.Recently,JusticeClarenceThomas,citingcurrentscholarship,hasarguedthattheClause’soriginalunderstandingdoesnotsupportthisauthority,withradicalimplicationsforcurrentdoctrine.

ThisArticleusesunexaminedhistoricalsourcestoquestionthisdebate’sfundamentalpremise.ItarguesthattheIndianCommerceClause,open-endedwhenwritten,wasaminorcomponentofeighteenth-centuryconstitutionalthought.ThisArticleinsteadpositsalternatesourcesforfederalauthorityoverIndianaffairs,drawingparticularlyontheWashingtonAdministration.Assertingfederalpoweragainstthestates,theAdministrationembracedaholisticconstitutionalreadingakintopresent-dayfieldpreemption.WithrespecttoauthorityoverIndians,theAdministration,throughlaw-of-nationsinterpretations,assertedultimateU.S.sovereigntyovertribes,whileacknowledgingNativeautonomybeyondtheselimitations.Yetthesesupposedlynarrowlegalprinciplesultimatelyformedthebasisforthelaterelaborationofplenarypowerovertribes.

Ontheonehand,thishistoryprovidesamoresolidfoundationfordoctrinalprinciplesderidedasincoherent.Ontheotherhand,itsuggestsmorecabinedfederalauthorityoverIndians.Ultimately,theArticledemonstratesthevalueofmorehistoricallygroundedreconstructionsofconstitutionalunderstandings.

author.SharswoodFellowinLawandHistory,UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawSchool;DoctoralCandidateinHistory,UniversityofPennsylvania.SpecialthankstoAkhilAmar,BethanyBerger,StephenBurbank,KristenCarpenter,StephanieCorrigan,MatthewFletcher,SarahBarringerGordon,DanielHulsebosch,SoniaKatyal,SophiaLee,SerenaMayeri,GerardMagliocca,DavePozen,RobertReinstein,DanRichter,AngelaRiley,TheodoreRuger,JudithResnik,JustinSimard,AlexanderTallchiefSkibine,CatherineStruve,KarenTani,andthemembersofthePennLawLegalHistoryWriter’sBloc(k)forfeedbackontheworkinprogress.IbenefittedfromcommentsonversionspresentedattheSocietyforHistoriansoftheEarlyAmericanRepublic,theUniversityofMarylandSchoolofLawLegalTheoryWorkshop,theAmericanSocietyforLegalHistory,andtheNewberryLibrarySymposiumonComparativeEarlyModernLegalHistory.

—JusticeClarenceThomas

—Onitositah(CornTassel),Cherokeechief

JusticeThomas’sprovocativeclaimsprovideanexcellentopportunitytorevisitfundamentalprinciplesoffederalIndianlaw.AlthoughJusticeThomas’shistoricalanalysisisunpersuasive—asthisArticlewillargue—hecapturesalargertruth.AsthisArticleexplores,thehistoryoftheIndianCommerceClause’sdrafting,ratification,andearlyinterpretationdoesnotsupporteither“exclusive”or“plenary”federalpoweroverIndians.Inshort,JusticeThomasisright:Indianlaw’scurrentdoctrinalfoundationintheClauseishistoricallyuntenable.

Thesesourcesrevealaverydifferentstorythanthattoldbypresent-dayscholarsandjudgespreoccupiedwiththeIndianCommerceClause.ThemostpressingissueforearlyAmericanswasfederalism:wouldthestatesorthenationalgovernmentpossessauthorityoverIndianrelationsTheWashingtonAdministrationinsistedthatthefederalgovernmentenjoyedexclusiveconstitutionalauthority,andmanystateofficialsagreed.ThisclaimrestednotontheIndianCommerceClausebutonthebroadpanoplyofdiplomaticandmilitarypowersgrantedtothenationalgovernmentanddeniedtothestates—aclaimsimilartothepresentdoctrineoffieldpreemption.ProponentsofstatepoweroverIndianaffairs,meanwhile,arguedfrominherentstatesovereignty;onlyintheearlynineteenthcentury,thisArticlewillshow,didtheyadvanceanarrowinterpretationoffederalpowerrootedintheIndianCommerceClause.

EarlyAmericansthusespousedlegaltheoriessimilarto,butimportantlydistinctfrom,modernIndianlawdoctrinesofexclusiveandplenaryfederalpower.Theseinterpretationsprovedinfluentialanddurable,profoundlyshapingtheSupremeCourt’sfoundationaldecisionsofthe1820sand’30s.Inkeyrespects,theAdministration’sviewsrepresenttheforgottenoriginsoffederalIndianlaw.

ThisArticleproceedsinthreeparts.PartIprovidesabriefhistoryofthedraftingandratificationoftheIndianCommerceClause.PartIIconsiderscompetingargumentsoverwhethertheIndianCommerceClausesupportsbroadfederalpoweroverIndianaffairsexclusiveofstateauthority.ThisPartfirstarguesthattheClauseitselfisopen-endedonthisquestion,thenmovesbeyondtheClausetoarguethatmanyearlyactorslocatedsupremefederalauthorityinIndianaffairsinaholisticinterpretationoftheConstitution.Othersdisagreedandsoughttocabinfederalauthority,buttheirargumentswerebasedprimarilyoninherentstatesovereignty.PartIIIturnstofederalplenarypoweroverIndiantribes.RatherthanlocatingthispowerintheIndianCommerceClause,earlyfederalofficialsclaimed—basedonthelawofnationsandterritoriality—limitedsovereigntyoverNatives.Theseargumentslaidthegroundworkforthedoctrineofplenarypower,buttheyalsoacknowledgedconsiderableNativeautonomy.TheArticleconcludesbyexploringtheconsequencesofthisaccountforcurrentdoctrineandIndianlawscholarship.

UnliketherobustdebatesaroundArticleIX,then,theIndianCommerceClauseprovokedlittlediscussioneitherattheConventionorafterward.Thesetraditionalsourcesoforiginalconstitutionalunderstandinggivemodernscholarsverylittleclearevidencetogroundpresent-daydoctrine,achallengeaddressedinthenextPart.

ThisPartarguesthatboththerevisionistandnationalistaccountsareinadequate,anditcontendsthattheClause’smeaningwasopen-endedwhendrafted:theterms“commerce”and“trade”haddistinctivemeaningsintheIndiancontextthatencompassedabroadrangeofinteractionswithIndians.ButexaminingtheIndianCommerceClauseinisolationisamistake.Duringandafterratification,proponentsofastrongerfederalgovernmentlocatedexclusivepoweroverIndianaffairsbyadoptingaholisticinterpretationoftheConstitutionanditsprovisionsonfederalpower;incontrast,opponentsarguedfrominherentstatesovereigntyratherthanrelyingonthetextoftheIndianCommerceClause.Textualistargumentsbasedonanarrowinterpretationofcommercedidnotgainascendanceuntilagenerationlater,whentheseargumentswerejudiciallyrejectedandlayquiescentuntilrevivedbycurrentrevisionistscholarsandjudges.

Both“commerce”and“intercourse,”though,weredwarfedbyeighteenth-centuryoccurrencesoftheterm“trade”todescriberelationswithNatives.JusticeThomaspresumesthatthemeaningofIndian“trade”requiresnofurtherexamination,assumingtradeencompassedonly“economic”activity.Historysuggestsotherwise.

Thepointisnotthatlateeighteenth-centuryslaveryisanalogoustopresent-dayvoluntaryadoptions,orthatthemoderncriminaljusticesystemisthesameasdiplomaticpaymentsformurder.Instead,recognizingthepast’sdiscontinuitywiththepresentexpandsthemeaningoftermslike“trade”inwaysthattextualsearchesaloneelide.“TradewiththeIndians”encompassedarichconstellationofexchanges,includingbuyingandsellingpeopleandlives.

TounderstandtheConstitution’simplicationsforfederalauthorityoverIndianaffairs,wemustlookbeyondtheIndianCommerceClause.The1780sand’90switnessedavibrantdebateoverfederalismandrelationswithIndians.YetlittleofthisdiscussionturnedontheClause,andlittleofitoccurredincourt.Thedebatewasoverthenewnation’sstructure,inwhichtheWashingtonAdministrationandstateexecutivesplayedoutsizedroles.

ThisPartreconstructstheseexecutiveconstitutionaldiscussions.PartII.C.1arguesthatmanyearlyAmericans,particularlythoseintheWashingtonAdministration,subscribedtoavisionoffederalsupremacysimilartopresent-dayfieldpreemption.Butthisviewwasnotuniversallyaccepted.PartII.C.2tracestheconstitutionalclaimsofadvocatesforstateauthorityoverIndianaffairs.Originally,theirargumentshingedoninherentstatesovereignty,particularlyterritorialsovereignty,ratherthantext.Notuntiltheearlynineteenthcenturydidtextualistargumentsgainascendance,whenproposednarrowreadingsoftheIndianCommerceClausefailedtobecomedoctrinebutsucceededinreshapingsubsequentdiscussionsoffederalIndianaffairspower.

TheAdministrationalsoagreedonthesourceoffederalpoweroverIndianaffairs:theinterplayofthenationalgovernment’sdiplomatic,military,andcommercialauthority.AsKnoxwrote:

Bothduringandafterratification,then,muchofthenation’spoliticalelitesharedaninterpretationofIndianrelationsinwhichtheIndianCommerceClauseplayedaminorrole.RatherthanrelyingontheClauseinisolation,membersofthiseliteclassarguedthattheConstitutionprohibitedtheexerciseofstateauthoritybygrantingthefederalgovernmentthecoreIndianaffairspowersinmultipleprovisions,andbybarringthestatesfromenteringtreatiesordeclaringwar.Inshort,theyunderstoodfederalsupremacyagainststatesasroughlyanalogoustopresent-dayconceptsoffieldpreemption:thatis,thefederalgovernmentconstitutionallyoccupiedthe“field”ofIndianaffairssocompletelyastoprecludeallstateauthority.

ChiefJusticeMarshall’sendorsementofthepreemptiveinterpretationoffederalauthorityechoedHenryKnox’sviewsfromfortyyearsearlier.YettheChiefJusticeplacedgreateremphasisontheIndianCommerceClausethanearlierthinkers,whoallbutignoredtheprovision.Asthisshiftreflected,theearlierstrainofconstitutionalthoughtpersisted,yetthejurisprudentiallandscapehadchanged—thankslargelytofederalsupremacy’sopponents.

TheembraceoffederalsupremacyoverIndianaffairswasnotuniversal,andheateddebatespersistedafterratification.Butlikeproponentsoffederalauthority,expansioniststatesadvancedargumentsbasedonconstitutionalstructure,nottheIndianCommerceClause.OnlylaterdidtextualargumentsrootedintheClauseemerge.

Asthehistoryunderscores,therevisionistsareright:despitetheSupremeCourt’sassertions,theIndianCommerceClausealonecannotjustifyexclusivefederalpoweroverIndianaffairs.Therevisionistserr,though,whentheyprojecttheirtextualismontothehistoricalsilencesurroundingtheIndianCommerceClause.TheinterpretationwiththebestclaimtobetheoriginalunderstandingofthefederalIndianaffairspowerwasbasedonastructuralinterpretationoftheConstitution;itreadmultipleprovisionsintandemtoprecludestateauthorityoverIndianaffairs.TextualistinterpretationsfocusedontheIndianCommerceClausewerealaterinnovationderivedfromaresults-orientedefforttoreinterprettheConstitutiontocabinfederalauthority.Thecurrentinconsistencybetweenthefederalgovernment’sbroadandexclusiveauthorityandtheIndianCommerceClauseisthusmanufactured.Asthepropsthatoncesupportedexclusivefederalpowerhavebeenknockedout,onlyasingleslenderpillarsurvivestosupporttheedifice.

ThisPartquestionsbothcurrentdoctrineandthescholarlycounternarrativeregardingplenarypoweranditsorigins.PartIII.Aobservesthat,contrarytomostscholarlyaccounts,theUnitedStatesinitiallyassertedpoweroverIndiansaggressively,buttheConstitutionandtheWashingtonAdministrationrejectedthisapproach.Nonetheless,thenewfederalgovernmentdidnotregardNativenationsasfullysovereign.PartIII.BexplorestheWashingtonAdministration’sconstructionoftheoriesofU.S.sovereigntyoverNativenations,theoriesgroundedinconstitutionalreadingsofinternationallawandterritoriality.Federalofficialsbelievedthattheauthoritytheyclaimed—limitsonNatives’internationallegalpersonality,includingtheirrighttofreelyalienateland—onlymodestlyrestrictedNativesovereignty,yetinpracticetheselimitationsevolvedintothedoctrineofplenarypower.PartIII.Cexploresthedoctrinalimplicationsofthishistory,suggestingthatrecoveringtheUnitedStates’originalassertionsofsovereigntyoverNativenationsmightsuggestcabiningplenarypower.

Historybothcomplicatesandsupportscritiquesoftheplenary-powerinterpretationoftheIndianCommerceClause.ThoughtheClausesayslittleaboutpoweroverNatives,itwasdraftedastheUnitedStateswasrepudiatingafailedefforttoaggressivelyassertauthorityagainstNativenations,particularlytheirlands.Inthiscontext,theClauseisbestreadaspartofabroaderreturntodiplomaticmodelsfornegotiatingwithNativesasindependentpolities.

Itiswrong,then,toassertthattheIndianCommerceClauseestablishedfederalplenarypower,butitisequallywrongtoassertthatfederalpoweroverIndiantribeswasunknownwhentheConstitutionwasdrafted.AbetterreadingofhistoryisthattheConstitutionobliquelyendorsedasignificantandsimultaneousshiftinAnglo-Americans’thoughtaboutNatives’status:therepudiationofatheoryofNativepeoplesasconqueredinfavorofagrudgingacknowledgmentofNativeindependence.Thisrecognitionhadlimits,asthefollowingsectionexplores.

ThecentralplaceofsovereigntyinIndianlawowesmuchtotheWashingtonAdministration.Embracinglawandrestraintoverclaimsofconquest,theAdministrationdrewonthelawofnationstodetermineNativestatus.Asaresult,federalofficialsframednearlyallissuesofIndianaffairs,includingthequestionoflandtitle,throughtheinternationallawconceptofsovereignty.

ThisfocusonthelawofnationsyieldedmixedresultsforNatives,asthissectionexplores.Inmanyrespects,internationallawprovidedamoreexpansivescopeforNativeautonomy.Butthelawofnationscouldbeaswordaswellasashield,interpretedbyAnglo-AmericanstolimitaswellasprotectNativesovereignty.AsPartIII.B.2considers,earlyfederalofficialsusedinternationallawtoclaimterritorialsovereigntyoverNativesandthecorrespondingrighttoserveastheirsole“protectors”withinthebordersoftheUnitedStates.PartIII.B.3tracesfederalinternational-lawargumentsthattheUnitedStateswasthesolelegalpurchaserofNativelands.Inbothinstances,Anglo-AmericansassertedthattherestrictionsplacedonNativesovereigntyandindependencewereminor.Natives,however,disagreed,andtheirassessmentprovedmoreaccurate:asPartIII.B.4argues,theseearlyconstraintsbecametherootsofplenarypower.

Jay’sviewswereignoredundertheArticles,buttheWashingtonAdministration,especiallySecretaryofStateJefferson,elaboratedthemintoalawofnationsdoctrinethattheAdministrationenunciatedinbordernegotiationswiththeBritishandSpanish.Thecoreofthisdoctrinewasthat,duetotheirinclusionwithintheUnitedStates,NativenationswerenotfreetonegotiateorassociatewithotherEuro-Americannations.InJefferson’swords,itwas

Asprevioussectionshaveunderscored,federalofficialsunderstoodthesovereigntytheyclaimedoverNativenationsasmodest.TheysawnocontradictioninacknowledgingNativesovereigntywhileassertingthatultimatesovereigntylay,forcertainpurposes,withtheUnitedStates.YetthesepurportedlynarrowrestrictionssappedNativepowerandprovidedtheseedsforthedoctrineofplenarypower.ThereisaclearintellectuallineagefromtheseearlyassertionstotheCourt’sclaimsofabsoluteauthorityoverNativesacenturylater.

RecoveringtheearlyconstitutionalhistoryofNativesalsohelpstoresolveacentraltensioninIndianlawscholarshipastowhetherthe“Founders”perpetuateddominationoverNativepeoplesorenshrinedNativenationsasindependentsovereigns.Theanswerisboth.ThoughtheConstitution’sdraftersandearlyinterpretersregardedmosttribesasseparatesovereignslargelyoutsideU.S.authority,andmanyusedfederalpowertoprotectNativerights,intheendthelegalordertheyconstructedwasimposedonNativenationswithouttheirconsent—indeed,overtheirvigorousobjection.AsNativespointedout,earlyAmericans’constructionofthecommunityofnationsdidnotacknowledgeNativenationsastheUnitedStates’equals.The“Founders”therebyplacedtheUnitedStatesontheideologicalroadtothedoctrineofplenarypowerandthedenialofNativesovereignty.

WhenwelookbeyondtheIndianCommerceClause—aminorandopen-endedpartofconstitutionalthinkingaboutIndianaffairs—theConstitution’s“originalunderstanding”becomesclearer.UndertheWashingtonAdministration,exclusivefederalpowerwasunderstoodtoderivefromtheentireConstitution,whilethelimitedsovereigntythattheUnitedStatesclaimedoverNativenationsstemmedfromthelawofnations.Yetsubsequently,evenasthefederalgovernmentassertedmorepoweroverNatives,thebasisforfederalauthoritynarrowedtothesingleconstitutionalprovisionthatexplicitlymentionedIndians.ThemismatchbetweentheClause’stextandthefederalgovernment’ssweepingpowerhasledtocallstorevisitfederalIndianlaw,oftenattribes’expense.Theseclaimsrestoninaccuratehistory.Indianlawisnotincoherent;itistheproductofconstitutionalthoughtthathasbeenforgotten.

UnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,219(2004)(Thomas,J.,concurring).

Tatham’sCharactersAmongtheNorthAmericanIndians,7Tenn.Hist.Mag.174,177(Sam’lC.Williamsed.,1921).

InthisArticle,Ifavortheterm“Native,”butoccasionallyemploy“Indian,”particularlywhenusedasatermofart,todescribetheindigenouspeoplesofNorthAmerica.Ialsoplacewordssuchas“Founder”and“Founding”inquotes.Thoughthesetermsarestandardinlegalscholarship,inmyviewtheyconnotetoomuchidentificationbetweenpresentandpastandprovidelittleclarityaboutanindividual’sparticularhistoricalrole.

Toavoidconfusionbetweenthesetwomeanings,Iusetheterm“exclusive”torefertofederalpoweroverIndianaffairsinexclusionofthestates,andreserve“plenary”torefertofederalpoweroverNativenations.SeeCohen’sHandbookofFederalIndianLaw§5.02[1](NellJessupNewtoned.,2012).

Tee-Hit-TonIndiansv.UnitedStates,348U.S.272,290-91(1955).

Lara,541U.S.at199-203.

InLara,forinstance,themajoritybrieflymentionedtheTreatyClause,aswellaspreconstitutionalauthority,aspossiblesourcesoffederalplenarypower.Id.at200-01.

US.Const.art.I,§8.

SeminoleTribevFlorida,517U.S.44,60(1996)(quotingCnty.ofOneidav.OneidaIndianNation,470U.S.226,234(1985)).

Id.at62.

CottonPetrol.Corp.v.NewMexico,490U.S.163,192(1989).

UnitedStatesv.Kagama,118U.S.375,378-79(1886)(“[W]ethinkitwouldbeaverystrainedconstructionofthisclause,thatasystemofcriminallawsforIndians...withoutanyreferencetotheirrelationtoanykindofcommerce,wasauthorizedbythegrantofpowertoregulatecommercewiththeIndiantribes.”).

Someofthemanyworksquestioningfederalplenarypower’sconstitutionalityincludeT.AlexanderAleinikoff,SemblancesofSovereignty:TheConstitution,theState,andAmericanCitizenship124-25(2002);RobertN.Clinton,ThereIsNoFederalSupremacyClauseforIndianTribes,34Ariz.St.L.J.113,115-16,133(2002);PhilipP.Frickey,DomesticatingFederalIndianLaw,81Minn.L.Rev.31,55-56(1996);andMarkSavage,NativeAmericansandtheConstitution:TheOriginalUnderstanding,16Am.IndianL.Rev.57,79(1991).

RobertG.Natelson,TheOriginalUnderstandingoftheIndianCommerceClause,85Denv.U.L.Rev.201,241-44,250(2007);SaikrishnaPrakash,AgainstTribalFungibility,89CornellL.Rev.1069,1089(2004);cf.NathanSpeed,Note,ExaminingtheInterstateCommerceClauseThroughtheLensoftheIndianCommerceClause,87B.U.L.Rev.467,472-78(2007)(arguingforanarrowreadingoftheCommerceClause,givenearlyCongresses’narrowlegislationundertheClause).NatelsonandPrakashalsoquestionfederalplenarypoweroverIndiantribes.Natelson,supra,at243-44,247-48;Prakash,supra,at1087-90.

UnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,214-15,224-25(2004)(Thomas,J.,concurring).

AdoptiveCouplev.BabyGirl,133S.Ct.2552,2570-71(2013)(Thomas,J.,concurring).

Id.at2567-70(citingNatelson,supranote14;Prakash,supranote14).

Asothershavenoted,JusticeThomas’swillingnesstoquestionprecedentoftenpressurestherestoftheCourttorespond,recastingthedebateandpotentiallyreshapingdoctrineRalphA.Rossum,UnderstandingClarenceThomas:TheJurisprudenceofConstitutionalRestoration214-21(2014);JeffreyToobin,Partners,87NewYorker40-51(2011).LastTerm,forinstance,JusticeThomassecuredthesupportofthreeotherJusticesinchallengingthelong-standingdoctrineoftribalsovereignimmunity.Michiganv.BayMillsIndianCmty.,134S.Ct.2024,2045-55(2014)(5-4decision)(Thomas,J.,dissenting).JusticeThomas’sBayMillsdissentdidnotexplicitlyquestionfederalauthority,ashisearlierconcurrencesdid.Nonetheless,heinvokedmanyofthesameprinciplesasinhisLaraandAdoptiveCoupleconcurrences,particularlysolicitudeforstatesovereigntyovertribalsovereignty.Id.at2047.

Cf.MarciaZug,AdoptiveCouplev.BabyGirl:Two-and-a-HalfWaystoDestroyIndianLaw,111Mich.L.Rev.FirstImpressions46,50-51(2013)(observing,priortotheruling,that“iftheCourtweretofindthatICWAisunconstitutionalbecauseitexceedsCongress’sauthorityundertheIndianCommerceClause,theimpactofthisdecisiononIndiantribeswouldbe...devastating”andwould“essentiallydestroy...themajorityofIndianlaw”).

Mortonv.Mancari,417U.S.535,552(1974).MortonaroseasanequalprotectionandstatutorychallengetoafederalstatuteprovidinganemploymentpreferencetoqualifiedIndians.Forbackground,seeAddieC.Rolnick,ThePromiseofMancari:IndianPoliticalRightsasRacialRemedy,86N.Y.U.L.Rev.958(2011).

See133S.Ct.at2566(Thomas,J.,concurring)(“Theassertionofplenaryauthoritymust,therefore,standorfallonCongress’powerundertheIndianCommerceClause.”).

Forexamplesofrecentworksonearlyconstitutionalhistorythatemployadiverserangeofsources,considertheConstitutioninlongertemporalperspective,andexploremultipleperspectiveswithinlegalthought,seeMarySarahBilder,TheTransatlanticConstitution:ColonialLegalCultureandtheEmpire(2004);DanielJ.Hulsebosch,ConstitutingEmpire:NewYorkandtheTransformationofConstitutionalismintheAtlanticWorld,1664-1830(2005);andAlisonL.LaCroix,TheIdeologicalOriginsofAmericanFederalism(2010)[hereinafterLaCroix,TheIdeologicalOrigins].

ThisArticledoesnotaddresstheissueofwhethertheconstitutionaltext’soriginalpublicmeaningisdispositive,thesubjectofanenormousbodyofscholarship.TheremaybeparticularreasontoquestionwhetherfidelitytotheConstitution’soriginalmeaningisdesirableinIndianlawgiventhedocument’simperialistorigins.SeeGregoryAblavsky,TheSavageConstitution,63DukeL.J.999(2014).

TheemergenceofthissharedlegalcultureisacentralthemeinRichardWhite,TheMiddleGround:Indians,Empires,andRepublicsintheGreatLakesRegion,1650-1815(1991).Seealsoinfratextaccompanyingnote368.

SeeinfraPartI.

AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at2569(Thomas,J.,concurring).

See,e.g.,NellJessupNewton,FederalPoweroverIndians:ItsSources,Scope,andLimitations,132U.Pa.L.Rev.195,200-02(1984)(brieflydiscussingearlyhistorybeforeturningtotheMarshall“trilogy”).

SeegenerallyDavidAndrewNichols,RedGentlemenandWhiteSavages:Indians,Federalists,andtheSearchforOrderontheAmericanFrontier98-189(2008)(describingfederalIndianpolicyundertheWashingtonAdministration).

JerryL.Mashaw,RecoveringAmericanAdministrativeLaw:FederalistFoundations,1787-1801,115YaleL.J.1256,1299-1300(2006)(“WhenCongresscametoexerciseitspowertoregulatecommercewiththeIndiantribes,forexample,itbasicallycededtheregulatoryauthoritytothePresident.”).

Forexamplesofexplorationsof“administrativeconstitutionalism,”focusingparticularlyonthetwentiethcentury,seeSophiaZ.Lee,Race,Sex,andRulemaking:AdministrativeConstitutionalismandtheWorkplace,1960tothePresent,96Va.L.Rev.799(2010);GillianE.Metzger,AdministrativeConstitutionalism,91Tex.L.Rev.1897(2013);andKarenM.Tani,WelfareandRightsBeforetheMovement:RightsasaLanguageoftheState,122YaleL.J.314(2012).RecentscholarshiphasemphasizedIndianaffairsintheconstructionoftheearlyAmericanadministrativestate.SeeStephenJ.Rockwell,IndianAffairsandtheAdministrativeStateintheNineteenthCentury(2010).

Seeinfratextaccompanyingnotes399-400.

LiketheIndianCommerceClauseintheConstitution,ArticleIXwasthesoleprovisionexplicitlygrantingauthorityoverIndianaffairsintheArticlesofConfederation.Forthatreason,beginningwithJamesMadisonandcontinuingwithChiefJusticeMarshallandJusticeThomas,scholarsandjudgeshaveturnedtoArticleIXtointerprettheIndianCommerceClause.Seeinfratextaccompanyingnotes107-108,123,172-173.

6JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,at1077-79(WorthingtonChaunceyForded.,1906).

ArticlesofConfederationof1781,artIX,para.4.

Id.

Ablavsky,supranote24,at1038-39.

2TheRecordsoftheFederalConventionof1787,at324(MaxFarranded.,1911).AnIndianaffairspowerappearedinthePinckneyplan,3idat607,andwasreferencedinmarginalnotesindraftsoftheCommitteeofDetail,2id.at143,butnotintheCommittee’sfinaldraft,id.at181-82.

2idat181.

Id.at367.

Id.at493,497,503.

Id.at495.

Id.at655.

TheFederalistNo42,at236-37(JamesMadison)(ClintonRossitered.,1961).

SeeSydney,TotheCitizensoftheStateofNewYork,N.Y.J.,June13-14,1788,reprintedin20TheDocumentaryHistoryoftheRatificationoftheConstitution1153,1156-67(JohnP.Kaminskietal.eds.,2004).EarlierscholarshipattributedtheSydneyessaystoRobertYates,buttherecentscholarshiponratificationhasestablishedthattheywerewrittenbyAbrahamYates,Jr.Seeid.at1153;Sidney,N.Y.J.,Oct.18,1787,reprintedin19id.at115.

ActofJuly22,1790,ch.33,1Stat.137.

ActofJune30,1834,ch.161,4Stat.729;ActofMar.30,1802,ch.13,2Stat.139;ActofMar.3,1799,ch.46,1Stat.743;ActofMay19,1796,ch.30,1Stat.469;ActofMar.1,1793,ch.19,1Stat.329.

Thisargumentisdevelopedinfrainthetextaccompanyingnotes168-171.

GibbonsvOgden,22U.S.(9Wheat.)1,60(1824).

30U.S.(5Pet.)1,18-20(1831).

See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,200(2004)(“[T]heConstitutiongrantsCongressbroadgeneralpowerstolegislateinrespecttoIndiantribes,powersthatwehaveconsistentlydescribedas‘plenaryandexclusive.’”(quotingWashingtonv.ConfederatedBandsandTribesofYakimaNation,439U.S.463,470-71(1979)));SeminoleTribev.Florida,517U.S.44,62(1996)(“[T]heStates...havebeendivestedofvirtuallyallauthorityoverIndiancommerceandIndiantribes.”);1Cohen’sHandbookofFederalIndianLaw,supranote4,§5.02[2](“Evenwhenunexercised,the[federal]powertoregulatecommercewiththeIndiantribesprecludestheexerciseofmoststateauthorityinIndiancountry.”);seealsoRobertN.Clinton,TheDormantIndianCommerceClause,27Conn.L.Rev.1055,1058(1994)(arguingforfederalsupremacyoverIndianaffairsbasedonconstitutionalhistory).

IaddressthequestionoftribalsovereigntymorefullyinthesubsequentPart.Seeinfratextaccompanyingnotes214-215.

SeeRandyE.Barnett,TheGravitationalForceofOriginalism,82FordhamL.Rev.411,417(2013)(notingthatoriginalists,inestablishingoriginalpublicmeaning,“aresearchingforanempiricalfact:whatinformationwouldthesewordsonthepagehaveconveyedtothereasonablespeakerofEnglishintherelevantaudienceatthetimeofenactment”).Idonotdelveintothevarietiesofhypotheticalreadersthatoriginalistshaveposited.

AdoptiveCouplev.BabyGirl,133S.Ct.2552,2567(2013)(Thomas,J.,concurring)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549,585(1995)(Thomas,J.,concurring)).

Id.(citingNatelson,supranote14,at215-16&n.97).

See,e.g.,Barnett,supranote56,at419(“[L]anguageisvagueinsofarasithasacoremeaningthatisclear,butithasapenumbralmeaningwhereitmaynotbeclearwhetherornotitappliestoaparticularobject....Withrespecttovagueness,...theoriginalmeaningofthetextcanrunout....”).

See,e.g.,AkhilReedAmar,America’sConstitution:ABiography107-08(2005);JackM.Balkin,Commerce,109Mich.L.Rev.1,24-25(2010).

AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at2567(Thomas,J.,concurring)(citingUnitedStatesv.Lopez,514U.S.549,585(1995)(Thomas,J.,concurring)).

SaikrishnaPrakash,OurThreeCommerceClausesandthePresumptionofIntrasentenceUniformity,55Ark.L.Rev.1149(2003);seealsoBalkin,supranote61,at13(“Whatever‘regulate’and‘commerce’referto,thereisastrongargumentthattheyhavethesamesemanticmeaningwiththe[sic]respecttoallthreeexamples.”);Natelson,supranote14,at216(“IhavebeenabletofindvirtuallynoclearevidencefromtheFoundingErathatusersofEnglishvariedthemeaningof‘commerce’amongtheIndian,interstate,andforeigncontexts.”(footnoteomitted)).

Prakash,supranote63,at1160.

OthershavecritiquedPrakash’sdoctrinalandlinguisticarguments.See,e.g.,AdrianVermeule,ThreeCommerceClausesNoProblem,55Ark.L.Rev.1175(2003);cf.MatthewL.M.Fletcher,ICWAandtheCommerceClause,inTheIndianChildWelfareActat30:FacingtheFuture28,31(MatthewL.M.Fletcheretal.eds.,2009)(describingtheinterpretationofthe“ThreeCommerceClauses”collectivelyasa“significanttrapthatwouldtendtoobliteratetheoriginalmeaningandintentoftheIndianCommerceClause”).

Seesupratextaccompanyingnotes36-42.

SeeAlbertS.Abel,TheCommerceClauseintheConstitutionalConventionandinContemporaryComment,25Minn.L.Rev.432,467-68(1941)(“TheIndiantradewasaspecialsubjectwithadefinitecontent,whichhadbeenwithinthejurisdictionofcongressunderthearticlesofconfederation....ItthusderivedfromatotallydifferentbranchoftheRandolphoutlinethandidthecontroloverforeignandinterstatecommerce.Nor...did[they]emergesimultaneouslyasco-ordinatedpartsofawhole....Byth[e]time[theIndianCommerceClausewasadded]thelargerpartofthediscussioninthefederalconventionrelativetocommercialregulationswasover,andinthatwhichdidtakeplacelaterthereisnolanguagerelatingevenremotelytotheIndiantrade.”).

TheArticlesaddressedtherightofstatecitizenstoenjoy“theprivilegesoftradeandcommerce”inanotherstate,ArticlesofConfederationof1781,art.IV,para.1,andendorsedfederalpowertoentertreatiesofcommerce,id.art.IX,para.1,butcontainednoprovisionanalogoustoitsgrantoffederalauthorityoverIndianaffairs.

See,e.g.,RandyE.Barnett,TheOriginalMeaningoftheCommerceClause,68U.Chi.L.Rev.101,114-25(2001)(surveyingusagesof“commerce”attheConventionandinstateratificationdebates,withoutasinglereferencetoIndiantribes).

AtthePennsylvaniaratifyingconvention,JamesWilsonnotedthatinhabitantsofthe“westernextremityofthisstate”would“carenotwhatrestraintsarelaiduponourcommerce,”withoutmentioningtheregion’sextensiveinvolvementintheIndiantrade.PennsylvaniaConventionDebates,11Dec.1787,in2TheDocumentaryHistoryoftheRatificationoftheConstitution550,558(MerrillJensened.,1976).

Seesupratextaccompanyingnotes47-48.

SeeWilliamEwald,TheCommitteeofDetail,28Const.Comment.197,229-30(2012).

LetterfromEdmundRandolphtoGeorgeWashington(Feb.12,1791),in7PapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries330,331-37(JackD.Warren,Jr.,ed.,1987).

Id.at334-35.

Id.at334.

Tobeclear,IamnotarguingthattheForeignorInterstateCommerceClausesdo,ordonot,requireacommercialnexus.Asthenextsectionexplores,therearesuggestiveparallelsbetweenthediplomaticcontextimplicatedintheIndianCommerceClauseandtheForeignCommerceClause.Mypoint,inthisandthefollowingsection,isthattheIndianCommerceClauseshouldbeunderstoodonitsowntermsandbasedonitsownhistory.“IndianAffairs,”Iargue,wasadistinctbodyofgovernance,andsoevidencedrawnfromtheotherCommerceClausesshouldnotbeextrapolatedlightlytotheIndianCommerceClause,andviceversa.

AdoptiveCouplev.BabyGirl,133S.Ct.2552,2567(2013)(Thomas,J.,concurring)(citingNatelson,supranote14,at215-16&n.97).Natelson’sargumentrestsonfull-textsearchesofeighteenth-centuryprintedtextsusingtheterm“commercewithIndians”or“commercewithIndiantribes.”Natelson,supranote14,at215-16&n.97.

Thisistheusageofthewordintheera’sdiplomaticcorrespondencewithandaboutIndiannations.See,e.g.,TreatyofPeace,Aug.3,1795,7Stat.49(describingtheintenttorestore“afriendlyintercourse”betweentheUnitedStatesandwarringtribes,anddiscussinglandcessionsintendedfor“convenientintercourse”).ChiefJusticeMarshallfamouslyconcludedthat“Commerce...isintercourse,”Gibbonsv.Ogden,22U.S.(9Wheat.)1,189(1824),andothercommentatorshavestressedtheimportanceofintercourseininterpretingtheInterstateCommerceClause.See,e.g.,Balkin,supranote61,at15-29.

See,e.g.,ThomasHutchinson,2TheHistoryoftheColonyofMassachusets-Bay,fromtheFirstSettlementThereofin1628,at474n.(1765)(quotingseventeenth-centurysourcesdiscussinghowIndiannations,through“commerce”withotherIndiannations,disseminatedideasabout“idolsandidolatry”(emphasisadded)).

See2ANewCollectionofVoyages,DiscoveriesandTravels72(1767)(“Somewouldbeapttosuspect[thatthesupposedlywhite-skinnedNativesofCentralAmerica]mightbetheoffspringofsomeEuropeanfather:butbesidethattheEuropeanscomelittlehere,andhavelittlecommercewiththeIndianwomenwhentheydocome....”);2MemoirsoftheRightHonorableLordViscountCherington368(1782)(recountinghisillnessafteravoyagetoBrazil:“IfirmlybelievemydisorderwascontractedbytoofreeacommercewithIndianwomen”).

SeeRev.C.Brown,ItinerariumNoviTestamentiapp.at20(1784)(recountingatraveler’sstorythatNativesinformedhimthat“yourBrethrenwillhavenoCommercewithIndians,andifanyofoursenterintotheirCountry,theyinstantlykillthem;neitherdoanyofyourbrethrenpassintoourCountry”);DebatesintheHouseofRepresentativesoftheUnitedStatesDuringtheFirstSessionoftheFourthCongresspt.2,at254(Bioren&Madan1796)(usingthephrases“commercewiththeIndians”and“intercoursewiththesetribes”assynonyms).

JosephMHall,Jr.,Zamumo’sGifts:Indian-EuropeanExchangeintheColonialSoutheast5(2009).ForotherworksstressingthecentralityofexchangebetweenIndiansandEuroamericans,seeKathrynE.HollandBraund,Deerskins&Duffels:TheCreekIndianTradewithAnglo-America,1685-1815(1993);DanielK.Richter,FacingEastfromIndianCountry:ANativeHistoryofEarlyAmerica174-79(2001);andDanielH.Usner,Jr.,Indians,Settlers,andSlavesinaFrontierExchangeEconomy:TheLowerMississippiValleyBefore1783(1992).

SeeFrancisPaulPrucha,AmericanIndianPolicyintheFormativeYears:TheIndianTradeandIntercourseActs(1790-1834),at85(1962)(“Itwasacommonplace[inearlyAmerica]thatIndianallegianceandfriendshipdependedultimatelyonthetenuoustiesoftrade.”).

LetterfromGeorgeWashingtontotheUnitedStatesSenate(Aug.4,1790),in6ThePapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries188,189(MarkA.Mastromarinoed.,1996).

LetterfromLeonardMarburytoGeorgeWashington(Apr.21,1792),in10ThePapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries302,303(RobertF.Haggard&MarkA.Mastromarinoeds.,2002).

See,e.g.,LetterfromWilliamBlountandAndrewPickenstoHenryKnox(Aug.1,1793),in13ThePapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries359,359-62(ChristineSternbergPatricked.,2007).

LetterfromWilliamBlounttotheSec’yofWar(Aug.13,1793),in4TheTerritorialPapersoftheUnitedStates297,298(ClarenceEdwardCartered.,1936);seealsoid.at297(“TheTradewiththeIndiansaffordsthepossessorsofitsomanyopportunitiestogivespringstotheiractionsandcomplexiontotheirnationalconduct....”).

LetterfromJosefIgnaciodeViarandJosefdeJaudenestoThomasJefferson(May25,1792),in26ThePapersofThomasJefferson118,119(JohnCatanzaritied.,1995).

ActofApr.18,1796,ch.13,1Stat.452.

Prucha,supranote87,at86-93ForathoroughhistoryofthefederalIndianfactoriesthatunderscorestheirdiplomaticrole,seeDavidNichols,TheEnginesofDiplomacy:AccommodationandManipulationattheUnitedStates’IndianFactories,1796-1822(forthcoming2015).

Forinstance,JeffersonfamouslysuggestedrunningupNativetradedebtsasameansofdispossessingtheirland.LetterfromThomasJeffersontoWilliamH.Harrison,Governor(Feb.27,1803),in10TheWritingsofThomasJefferson368,370(AlbertElleryBerghed.,1905).

See,e.g.,TreatyofPeaceandFriendship,U.S.-Creeks,art.III,Aug.7,1790,7Stat.35[hereinafterTreatyofNewYork];TreatyofHopewell,U.S.-Cherokees,arts.I&II,Nov.28,1785,7Stat.18.

RalphSandiford,ABriefExaminationofthePracticeoftheTimes22(BenjaminFranklin&HughMeredith1729)

Evenbehindthefrontier,thelegalissuesraisedbyIndianslaverypersistedbothinstatutesandinawidespreadjudicialdebateoverwhetherIndianscouldstillbeheldasslaves.SeeDeborahA.Rosen,AmericanIndiansandStateLaw:Sovereignty,Race,andCitizenship,1790-1880,at85-89(2007);GregoryAblavsky,Comment,MakingIndiansWhite:TheJudicialAbolitionofNativeSlaveryinRevolutionaryVirginiaandItsRacialLegacy,159U.Pa.L.Rev.1457,1494-1517(2011).

Foranintroductiontorecenthistoricalliteratureonthistopic,seeIndianSlaveryinColonialAmerica(AlanGallayed.,2009).In1790,thegovernoroftheNorthwestTerritorynegotiatedthereturnofanAmericanchildcapturedbyIndiansandresold,thenallegedlyheldassecurityforadebt.LetterfromArthurSt.ClairtoManuelPerez(May20,1790),in2TheTerritorialPapersoftheUnitedStates238,238(ClarenceEdwinCartered.,1936).

AdoptiveCouplev.BabyGirl,133S.Ct.2552,2567(2013)(Thomas,J.,concurring).

AdoptionofNativechildrenwaswidespreadintheearlyRepublic;AndrewJacksonfamouslyadoptedaCreekchild.SeegenerallyDawnPeterson,UnusualSympathies:SettlerImperialism,Slavery,andthePoliticsofAdoptionintheEarlyU.S.Republic(2011)(unpublishedPh.D.dissertation,NewYorkUniversity).

AlanTaylor,TheDividedGround:Indians,SettlersandtheNorthernBorderlandoftheAmericanRevolution28-33(2006)

JusticeThomasobservesthatregulatingIndiantradewasnecessarybecausetraders“alltoooftenabusedtheirIndiantradingpartners,throughfraud,exorbitantprices,extortion,andphysicalinvasionofIndianterritory,”which“provokedviolentIndianretaliation.”AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at2567-68(Thomas,J.,concurring).TheseexamplessuggestthatregulationoftheIndiantradestemmedfromadiplomaticunderstandingofexchange,inwhichabusesthreatenedpeacefulrelationsbetweenNativeNationsandAnglo-Americans.

ManyearlyAmericanssubscribedtoEnlightenmentnotionsthatdefinedtradeandcommerceinoppositiontoconquestandwarfare.Cf.J.G.APocock,3BarbarismandReligion317-24,373-74(1999).HencetheassociationinIndianaffairsof“trade”with“peace”and“friendship”;thetermwasrarelyusedtodescribewarfarewithNatives.

Twoothertextualargumentsmeritbriefdiscussion.First,JusticeThomasarguesthat,becausetheIndianCommerceClauserefersonlytotribes,itdoesnotprovidethefederalgovernmentauthorityoverindividualIndians.AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at2567-69(Thomas,J.,concurring).Thissharpdichotomyfindsnosupportinhistoricalevidence.FederalofficialsinthelateeighteenthcenturyregardedindividualIndiansastribalmembers,akintoforeigncitizens,andconsistentlydescribedthembasedontheirrespectivetribalaffiliation—asDelawares,Creeks,etc.TheTradeandIntercourseActcriminalizedunlicensedtradeboth“withtheIndiantribes”and“withtheIndians”interchangeably,aswellasbarringlandsalesmade“byanyIndians”andcriminalizingattacksagainst“anypeaceableandfriendlyIndianorIndians”withinIndiancountry.ActofJuly22,1790,ch.33,§§1,4-5,1Stat.137,137-38.

Second,Natelsonarguesthatreferencestotribesasnationsdonotsignifyacknowledgmentoftheirseparatesovereignstatusbecause“theword‘nation’didnotnecessarilyevoketheassociationwithpoliticalsovereigntyitevokestoday.”Natelson,supranote14,at259.Infact,perioddocumentssuggestthatthoseopposedtotribalsovereigntyunderstoodtheterm“nations”toconnoteindependentstatus,andsoadvocatedabandoningit.SeeJamesDuane’sViewsonIndianNegotiations(July/Aug.1784),in18EarlyAmericanIndianDocuments:TreatiesandLaws,1607-1789:RevolutionandConfederation299,299-300(ColinG.Callowayed.,1994)[hereinafterEarlyAmericanIndianDocuments](arguingthat,innegotiationswiththeHaudenosaunee,“Iwoudneversuffer[touse]thewordnations,orSixNations...oranyotherFormwhichwoudreviveorseemtoconfirm[theNatives’]formerIdeasofIndependence”).

Seesupratextaccompanyingnotes41-48.

Ihaveexploredthishistoryindetailelsewhere.SeeAblavsky,supranote24,at1009-38.

LetterfromJamesMadisontoJamesMonroe(Nov.27,1784),in8ThePapersofJamesMadison156,156(RobertA.Rutlandetal.eds.,1973).

33JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,at457,459(RoscoeR.Hilled.,1936).

ReginaldHorsman,ExpansionandAmericanIndianPolicy,1783-1812,at4-15,31(1967)

Natelson,supranote14,at235.

Clinton,supranote54,at1124-47.

AreportcondemningstateinterferenceinIndianaffairsfaileddespitethesupportoffifteenoftwentydelegates;withonlysevenstatespresent,passagerequiredunanimity.33JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,supranote112,at463.Delegatesfromthreeadditionalstatesalsovoted,butbecausethestateslackedthetwodelegatesrequiredundertheArticles,thesevoteswerepurelysymbolic.

See,e.g.,LetterfromJamesMadisontoJamesMonroe,supranote111,at157.

Ablavsky,supranote24,at1038-50.

AdoptiveCouplev.BabyGirl,133S.Ct.2552,2569(2013)(Thomas,J.,concurring).OntheClause’sdevelopment,seesupratextaccompanyingnotes41-48.

AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at3569.

Id.(“TheCommittee[ofDetail]’sversion,whichechoedtheArticlesofConfederation,wasfarnarrowerthanMadison’sproposal.”).

TheFederalistNo42(JamesMadison).

Sydney,supranote48,at1158.Natelson’sattributionofthisessaytoRobertYates,Natelson,supranote14,at248,perpetuatesanerrorrejectedbyhistoriansofratification,seesupranote48.

Sydney,supranote48,at1158.NeitherJusticeThomasnorNatelsondiscussesthisportionofYates’swriting,thoughbothcitehisviews.AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at2569(Thomas,J.,concurring);Natelson,supranote14,at247-48.Natelsonparaphrasesthequotationabove,omittingthesectionconcerning“Indianaffairs,”andthenwritesthatifareasonableinterpretationoftheIndianCommerceClause“includedplenaryauthorityoverIndianaffairs,[Yates]certainlywouldhavepointeditout.”Natelson,supranote14,at247-48.

Id.JusticeThomas’sinterpretationalsoreadsthelimitationsofArticleIXbackintotheIndianCommerceClause,despitetheomissionofthislanguage.

JusticeThomas’sevidencesupportsthispoint.Id.at2570(citingBrutus,(Letter)X,N.Y.J.,Jan.24,1788,in15TheDocumentaryHistoryoftheRatificationoftheConstitution462,465(J.Kaminski&G.Saladinoeds.,2012)).JusticeThomasimpliesthatAnti-Federalistconcessionswerelimitedtotrade,butevidencesuggestsabroaderscope.See,e.g.,FederalFarmer,LetterstotheRepublican,LetterI(Oct.8,1787),reprintedin14TheDocumentaryHistoryoftheRatificationoftheConstitution18,24(JohnP.Kaminski&GaspareJ.Saladinoeds.,1983)(“Letthegeneralgovernment[’s]...powersextendexclusivelytoallforeignconcerns,causesarisingontheseas,tocommerce,imports,armies,navies,Indianaffairs,peaceandwar...leavingtheinternalpoliceofthecommunity,inotherrespects,exclusivelytothestategovernments....”(emphasisadded)).

See,e.g.,AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at2570(Thomas,J.,concurring)(citingdiscussionsofafederalstandingarmyandacolloquyfromtheVirginiaratifyingconventioninvolvingIndianlandpurchases);seealsoAblavsky,supranote24,at1050-75(arguingforthecentralityoftheseprovisionsinratificationdebatesoverIndianaffairs).

Clinton,supranote54,at1164;RobertJ.Miller,AmericanIndianInfluenceontheUnitedStatesConstitutionandItsFramers,18Am.IndianL.Rev.133,151-55(1993).

Clinton,supranote54,at1064-1147.

Id.at1156(arguing“nochangeinthemeaningorscopeofmatterscommittedtoCongressappearstohavebeenintendedby”theshiftfrom“affairs”to“commerce”).

Id.at1158;seealsoPrucha,supranote94,at41(“Thelackofdebateonthequestion[ofIndianmatters]indicates,perhaps,howuniversallyitwasagreedthatIndianaffairsweretobeleftinthehandsofthefederalgovernment.”).

SeeFrancisG.Hutchins,TribesandtheAmericanConstitution67-69(2000)(notingthatstrongopponentsoffederalauthorityoverIndianaffairsattendedtheConventionandrecommendedratification).

SeeRosen,supranote98,at19-77(describingstateassertionsofauthorityoverIndianaffairsindefianceofthefederalgovernment);infraPartII.C.2.

SeeRichardBeeman,Plain,HonestMen:TheMakingoftheAmericanConstitution288-89(2009)(“[T]hedelegatesseemeddisinclinedeventoraisequestionsaboutmostofthespecificallyenumeratedpowers....[S]urprisingly—givensubsequentcontentionovertheextentandlimitsofcongressionalpower—withjustafewexceptionsthediscussionprovokedlittlecontroversy.”);seealsoMarkA.Graber,EnumerationandOtherConstitutionalStrategiesforProtectingRights:TheViewfrom1787/1791,9U.Pa.J.Const.L.357,373-77(2007)(“Littledebatetookplaceafter[theC]ommittee[onDetail]chosetoenumeratespecificfederalpowers....Whatmatteredweretherulesforstaffingthenationalgovernmentandtherulesformakingnationallaws,notlegallimitationsonnationalpower.”).

See2TheRecordsoftheFederalConventionof1787,supranote41,at143;CommitteeofDetailDocuments,135Pa.Mag.Hist.&Biography239,273(2011).

CompareArticlesofConfederationof1781,art.IX,withU.S.Const.art.I,§8,cls.5,7.

Seesupratextaccompanyingnote47(discussingMadison’sviewsoftheIndianCommerceClauseinFederalistNo.42).

Cf.BernadetteMeyler,TheNewOriginalisminConstitutionalLaw:AcceptingContestedMeanings,82FordhamL.Rev.803,819-26(2013)(arguingthatmanyconstitutionaltextspotentiallypossessmultiplecontestedmeanings).

SeeinfraPartII.C.1.

Seeinfratextaccompanyingnotes172-174.

SeeinfraPartII.C.2.

Cf.JosephA.Grundfest&A.C.Pritchard,StatuteswithMultiplePersonalityDisorders:TheValueofAmbiguityinStatutoryDesignandInterpretation,54Stan.L.Rev.627,628(2002)(“Legislativeambiguityreachesitspeakwhenastatuteissoelegantlycraftedthatitcrediblysupportsmultipleinconsistentinterpretationsbylegislatorsandjudges.Legislatorswithopposingviewscanthenclaimthattheyhaveprevailedinthelegislativearena.”).

Forinstance,Prakash’sinvestigationofthesourcesoffederalplenarypoweroverIndiansbeginswiththeIndianCommerceClause,thenproceedsthroughthePropertyClause,theTreatyPower,andtheWarPower.SeePrakash,supranote14,at1086-1102.

33JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,supranote112,at458.

SeeAblavsky,supranote24,at1038-49.

SeeSydney,supranote48,at1158;seealsosupratextaccompanyingnotes48,124-125.

Sydney,supranote48,at1158.

SeeAblavsky,supranote24,at1050-75.

See,e.g.,TheFederalistNo.3,at12(JohnJay)(ClintonRossitered.,1999);TheFederalistNo.24,at129(AlexanderHamilton)(ClintonRossitered.,1999);TheFederalistNo.25,at131(AlexanderHamilton)(ClintonRossitered.,1999).

LetterfromEdmundRandolphtoGeorgeWashington(Oct.28,1792),in11ThePapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries272,273(ChristineS.Patricked.,2002).

LetterfromGeorgeWashingtontoThomasMifflin(Sept.4,1790),in6ThePapersofGeorgeWashington,supranote88,at396.

ActofAug.7,1789,ch.7,1Stat.49,50(investingtheSecretaryofWarwith“suchdutiesasshall...beenjoinedon,orentrustedtohimbythePresidentoftheUnitedStates...relativetoIndianaffairs”).

LetterfromHenryKnoxtoIsraelChapin,Apr.28,1792,in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at231,232.

LetterfromHenryKnox,Sec’yofWar,totheGovernorofGa.(Aug.31,1792),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at258,259(“[Y]ourExcellencywilleasilydiscoverwhatisthedutyofthefederalandyourownGovernment.Theconstitutionhasbeenfreelyadopted;theregulationofourIndianconnexionissubmittedtoCongress;andthetreatiesarepartsofthesupremelawoftheland.”).

See,e.g.,LetterfromThomasJeffersontoHenryKnox(Aug.10,1791),in22ThePapersofThomasJefferson27,27(CharlesT.Cullenetal.eds.,1986)(arguingthat“neitherunderthepresentConstitutionnortheantientConfederationhadanyStateorpersonarighttoTreatwiththeIndianswithouttheconsentoftheGeneralGovernment”);LetterfromEdmundRandolphtoGeorgeWashington,supranote156,at273(arguingforanaggressivefederalroleinIndianaffairstotheexclusionofthestates).

LetterfromHenryKnoxtoGeorgeWashington(Jan.4,1790),in4ThePapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries529,534-35(DorothyTwohiged.,1993).

ThomasJefferson,OpiniononCertainGeorgiaLandGrants(May3,1790),in16ThePapersofThomasJefferson406,407(JulianP.Boydetal.eds.,1961).

LetterfromCharlesPinckneytoGeorgeWashington(Dec.14,1789),in4ThePapersofGeorgeWashington,supranote163,at401,404.

LetterfromtheGeorgiaHouseofRepresentativestoGovernorEdwardTelfair(June10,1790),in3TheDocumentaryHistoryoftheRatificationoftheConstitution:Delaware,NewJersey,GeorgiaandConnecticutmicrofilmsupp.no.59,doc.50(MerrillJensened.,1978).

VirginiaHouseofDelegates,JournaloftheHouseofDelegates,oftheCommonwealthofVirginia7-8,17

ActofJuly22,1790,ch.33,1Stat.137;seealsosupratextaccompanyingnotes49-51.

SeeActofMar.1,1793,ch.19,1Stat.329;ActofMay19,1796,ch.30,1Stat.469;ActofMar.3,1799,ch.46,1Stat.743;ActofMar.30,1802,ch.13,2Stat.139.

JackBalkinandAkhilAmarhavecitedtheAct’scriminalprovisionsasdemonstratingacomprehensivedefinitionof“commerce.”Amar,supranote61,at108;Balkin,supranote61,at24-25;cf.AkhilReedAmar,America’sConstitutionandtheYaleSchoolofConstitutionalInterpretation,115YaleL.J.1997,2004n.25(2006)(notingthatthe“IndianIntercourseActof1790...plainlyregulatednoneconomicintercoursewithIndiantribes”).Bycontrast,RobertNatelsonhasarguedthatthisprovisionwasanexerciseoftheTreatyPowercodifyingtheTreatiesofHopewell.Natelson,supranote14,at250-56;RobertG.Natelson&DavidKopel,CommerceintheCommerceClause:AResponsetoJackBalkin,109Mich.L.Rev.FirstImpressions55,59-60(2010).

See5DocumentaryHistoryoftheFirstFederalCongressoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,March4,1789-March3,1791,at988-97(LindaGrantDePauwetal.eds.,1986);13id.at977-82.Thebriefdebateoverthelawfocusedonissuesofpersonnelandfunding.Thecriminaljurisdictionprovisionswentundebated.

31U.S.(6Pet.)515(1832).

Id.at558-59.

Id.at559.

ForthehistoryofNewYorklandtransactionsinthe1790s,seegenerallyLaurenceM.Hauptman,ConspiracyofInterests:IroquoisDispossessionandtheRiseofNewYorkState58-97(1999);andTaylor,supranote102.NewYork’squestionablelandtransactionsbecamethesubjectofextensivelitigationinthetwentiethcentury,twicereachingtheU.S.SupremeCourt.Cnty.ofOneidav.OneidaIndianNation,470U.S.226(1985);OneidaIndianNationv.Cnty.ofOneida,414U.S.661(1974).

TreatyofNewYork,supranote96,art.IV.Duringthe1780s,GeorgiaconcludedtheTreatiesofAugustaandGalphintonwiththeCreeks;thetwotreaties,whichtheCreeksclaimedwerecoercedfromahandfulofrepresentativeswithoutauthority,purportedtograntlargeportionsofCreekterritorytoGeorgia.Horsman,supranote113,at26-30.

DavidA.Nichols,Land,Republicanism,andIndians:PowerandPolicyinEarlyNationalGeorgia,1780-1825,85Ga.Hist.Q.199,215-16(2001).

2DocumentaryHistoryoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,1789-1800:TheJusticesonCircuit,1790-1794,at224,333,366-67(MaevaMarcused.,1988).

ReportofFred’kDalcho,Surgeon’sMateintheLegionoftheUnitedStates(Sept.25,1793),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at414.

E.g.,2AnnalsofCong.1793(1790).

Id.Jacksonstressedthattreaties“cededawaywithoutanycompensation”over“threemillionsofacresofland,thepropertyoftheStateofGeorgia,guarantiedtothatStatebytheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.”Id.

ProtestoftheCommissionersoftheStateofGeorgia,in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at613-14(citingU.S.Const.art.1,§8,cl.17).

LetterfromJamesHendrickstotheComm’rsoftheUnitedStates(May31,1796),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at591.

ActofJan.7,1795,1795Ga.Laws3.

Id.§1.ThecontroversyoverthissaleculminatedintheSupremeCourtcaseofFletcherv.Peck,10U.S.(6Cranch)87,147(1810).

TheCommissionersoftheUnitedStates,ReportfromtheWashingtonAdministrationtotheSenate,TheCreeksandtheSevenNations(Jan.4,1797),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at591.

LetterfromJamesHendrickstotheComm’rsoftheUnitedStates,supranote185,at591;ProtestoftheCommissionersoftheStateofGeorgia,supranote184,at613-14.TheGeorgiancommissionersrepeatedlyspokeofthe“civilandactualjurisdictionalrightsoftheState,”id.at613,andoftheirrights“withinthelimits,andundertheactualjurisdictionoftheStateofGeorgia,”LetterfromJamesHendrickstotheComm’rsoftheUnitedStates,supranote185,at591.

LetterfromPatrickHenrytoEdwardTelfair,GovernorofGeorgia(Oct.14,1790),in2WilliamWirtHenry,PatrickHenry:Life,CorrespondenceandSpeeches507,507(1891);seealsoLetterfromPatrickHenrytoRobertWalker(Nov.12,1790),inHenry,supra,at508,509-10(arguingthefederalgovernmentwastreatingGeorgiaas“conquered”).

LetterfromThomasMifflin,GovernorofPa.,toGeorgeWashington(June14,1794),in16ThePapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries227,230-31(DavidR.Hoth&CarolS.Ebeleds.,2011).

Ontheconnectionsbetweenprerevolutionaryfederalismandsubsequenteffortstodivideauthority,seegenerallyBilder,supranote23;andLaCroix,TheIdeologicalOrigins,supranote23.

TheCommissionersoftheUnitedStates,supranote188,at597.

SeeG.EdwardWhite,TheMarshallCourtandCulturalChange:1815-1835,at8-9(abr.ed.1988)(arguingthatChiefJusticeMarshallusedalinguisticanalysis);cf.JeffersonPowell,LanguagesofPower:ASourcebookofEarlyAmericanConstitutionalHistory3-11(1991)(describingtheinterplaybetweentextualandextratextualconstitutionalargumentsfrom1791to1818).ThankstoJessicaLoweforthiscitation.

LetterfromBenjaminHawkinstoGeneralArmstrong,Sec’yofWar(June7,1814),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at858.

See,e.g.,LisaFord,SettlerSovereignty:JurisdictionandIndigenousPeopleinAmericaandAustralia,1788-1836,at130(2010)(“SovereigntytalkandjurisdictionalpracticechangedinGeorgiabetween1815and1830....[T]hestatebentallofitseffortstowardendingacenturyof(increasinglycontentious)pluralpracticeinGeorgia’sIndianCountry.”).

Caldwellv.State,1Stew.&P.327,330-31(Ala.1832);Statev.Tassels,1Dud.229,232-34(Ga.Super.Ct.1830);Murrayv.Wooden,17Wend.531,537-38(N.Y.1837);Statev.Foreman,16Tenn.(8Yer.)256,316-19(1835).Fordiscussionoftheseandsimilarcases,seeTimAlanGarrison,TheLegalIdeologyofRemoval:TheSouthernJudiciaryandtheSovereigntyofNativeAmericanNations(2002);Rosen,supranote98,at57-67.

UnitedStatesv.Bailey,24F.Cas.937(C.C.D.Tenn.1834).

Garrison,supranote199,at5-11.

Seesupratextaccompanyingnotes172-174.

Theliteratureonremovalislarge.Foranoverview,seeGarrison,supranote199.Seealso,e.g.,MichaelD.Green,ThePoliticsofIndianRemoval:CreekGovernmentandSocietyinCrisis(1982);JillNorgren,TheCherokeeCases:TheConfrontationofLawandPolitics(1996).

AdoptiveCouplev.BabyGirl,133S.Ct.2552,2567(2013)(Thomas,J.,concurring)(quoting25U.S.C.§1901(1));UnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,200-02(2004)(citing,besidestheIndianCommerceClause,theTreatyClauseand“preconstitutionalpowers”tosupportfederalplenarypower).

AdoptiveCouple,133S.Ct.at2567(Thomas,J.,concurring).

See,e.g.,Jefferson,supranote164,at407(citingvariousconstitutionalprovisions,includingArticleI,Section10oftheUnitedStatesConstitution,inthecontextofJefferson’sdesiretosecureexclusivepoweroverIndianrelationsforthefederalgovernment,andarguingthatGeorgia’sactionswereunconstitutional).

Forinstance,theCourthasnevercitedArticleI,Section10oftheUnitedStatesConstitution,whichrestrictsstatetreatypowerandthepowertokeeptroops,inanyIndian-lawdecision.

SeeNewMexicov.MescaleroApacheTribe,462U.S.324,334(1983)(“Statejurisdictionispreemptedbytheoperationoffederallawifitinterferesorisincompatiblewithfederalandtribalinterestsreflectedinfederallaw,unlesstheStateinterestsatstakearesufficienttojustifytheassertionofStateauthority.”);cf.McClanahanv.StateTaxComm’nofAriz.,411U.S.164,172(1973)(“[T]hetrendhasbeenawayfromtheideaofinherentIndiansovereigntyasabartostatejurisdictionandtowardrelianceonfederalpre-emption.”).DespitetheCourt’sclaimthatitappliesconflictpreemption,though,someofitsprecedentseemstoreflectafieldpreemptionapproach.See,e.g.,Bryanv.ItascaCnty.,426U.S.373,379-80(1976)(“TheseStateslackjurisdictiontoprosecuteIndiansformostoffensescommittedonIndianreservationsorotherIndiancountry,withlimitedexceptions.”(quotingH.R.Rep.No.83-848,at5-6(1953))).Nonetheless,incertainkeyIndian-lawcases,particularlytaxcases,afieldpreemptiveapproachwouldhavelikelyyieldedadifferentoutcome.SeeCottonPetroleumCorp.v.NewMexico,490U.S.163(1989).

SeeMatthewL.M.Fletcher,Retiringthe“DeadliestEnemies”ModelofTribal-StateRelations,43TulsaL.Rev.73(2007)(arguingthattheassumptionsunderlyingtheexclusionofstatesfromIndianaffairsatthetimeoftheConstitution’sdraftingshouldnolongerapply).

See,e.g.,AndrewKent,TheNewOriginalisminConstitutionalLaw:TheNewOriginalismandtheForeignAffairsConstitution,82FordhamL.Rev.757,778-79(2013)(“[T]heConstitutionwasunderstoodbysometohavegrantedmoreforeignrelationsandnationaldefensepowerstothefederalgovernmentthanparsingthestrictsemanticorlinguisticmeaningofitswordswouldseemtoconvey....[SomeFederalistsbelieved]thatthevestingofforeignaffairsandnationaldefensepowersinthenationalgovernmenthadbeensocompleteandexhaustivethatunmentionedpowersofthatnaturethatservedthesamepurposescouldbeconsideredimpliedlygranted.Thisimplicationaroseperhapsfromtheoverallstructureandpurposesofthedocument....”).OtherscholarshavefoundthatearlyAmericanjudicialdecisionsrarelyreliedontextualismasaprimaryinterpretivemethod.WilliamMichaelTreanor,AgainstTextualism,103Nw.U.L.Rev.983,986-98(2009);seealsoAmar,supranote29,at5-6(emphasizingtheshortcomingsof“clause-boundliteralism”ininterpretingmanyconstitutionalprovisions,whichmustberead“holistically”).

UnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,200(2004)(citingNegonsottv.Samuels,507U.S.99,103(1993);Washingtonv.ConfederatedTribesofYakimaNation,439U.S.463,470-71(1979)).Butseeid.at215(Thomas,J.,concurring)(“IcannotagreewiththeCourt...thattheConstitutiongrantstoCongressplenarypowertocalibratethe‘metesandboundsoftribalsovereignty.’...Icannotlocatesuchcongressionalauthorityin...theIndianCommerceClause.”(quotingid.at202(opinionoftheCourt))).

Numerousscholarshaveadvancedthisargument.See,e.g.,sourcescitedsupranote13.

See,e.g.,Lara,541U.S.at200(“ThisCourthastraditionallyidentifiedtheIndianCommerceClause...andtheTreatyClause...assourcesofthat[plenaryandexclusive]power.”(citationsomitted));Prakash,supranote14,at1081(“[T]hemajorityinUnitedStatesv.Larawascontenttomerelyreiteratetheexisting(andunedifying)textualargumentsforplenarypower.”).

See,e.g.,Clinton,supranote13,at147(“AtthetimetheConstitutionoftheUnitedStateswasdrafted,theFramersgenerallyacceptedthenotionthattheIndiantribesconstitutedseparatesovereignpeopleswhoweretotallyself-governingwithintheirterritory....”);Newton,supranote28,at200(“TheabsenceofageneralpoweroverIndianaffairsintheConstitutionisnotsurprisingtostudentsofhistory,foratthetimetheConstitutionwasdrafted,theframersregardedIndiantribesassovereignnations....”);Prakash,supranote14,at1082(“[T]heFoundersregardedIndiantribesassovereignnations,withtheabilitytomakewar,treaties,andlawsfortheirownpeople.”).

Thisperspectiveappearsin,forexample,SarahH.Cleveland,PowersInherentinSovereignty:Indians,Aliens,Territories,andtheNineteenthCenturyOriginsofPlenaryPoweroverForeignAffairs,81Tex.L.Rev.1,54-63(2002);MatthewL.M.Fletcher,PreconstitutionalFederalPower,82Tul.L.Rev509,555-60(2007);Newton,supranote28,at212-16;Prakash,supranote14,at1077-79.

TheapplicationofcolonialregulationsandcivilandcriminaljurisdictiontoNativesinMassachusettsisconsideredinYasuhideKawashima,PuritanJusticeandtheIndian:WhiteMan’sLawinMassachusetts,1630-1763(1986).Foradditionalbackground,seeDanielR.Mandell,BehindtheFrontier:IndiansinEighteenth-CenturyEasternMassachusetts(1996);andDavidJ.Silverman,FaithandBoundaries:Colonists,Christianity,andCommunityAmongtheWampanoagIndiansofMartha’sVineyard,1600-1871(2005).

See6JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,supranote36,at1077-78(recordingBraxton’sargumentforexcludingIndianswho“aretributarytoanyState”fromfederaljurisdiction);seealsoClinton,supranote54,at1140-41(arguingthatonlyIndianswho“hadbecomesubjecttostatelawandoversight...priortotheRevolution”wereincludedwithinstatejurisdictionundertheArticles).

SeeFletcher,supranote216,at555-60(suggestingthatthe“taxed”Indiansencompassedassimilated,nontribalIndians).

TheFederalistNo25,at163(AlexanderHamilton)(ClintonRossitered.,1961).

ExplorationsoftheroleofIndiansintheAmericanRevolutioncanbefoundinColinG.Calloway,TheAmericanRevolutioninIndianCountry:CrisisandDiversityinNativeAmericanCommunities(1995).TheriseofhatredofIndiansisthecentralthemeinPeterRhoadsSilver,OurSavageNeighbors:HowIndianWarTransformedEarlyAmerica(2008).SeealsoPatrickGriffin,AmericanLeviathan:Empire,Nation,andRevolutionaryFrontier(2007);Richter,supranote86,at189-236.

6JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,supranote36,at1078.

ProceedingsoftheUnitedStatesandtheSixNationsatFortStanwix,in18EarlyAmericanIndianDocuments,supranote105,at313,323-24.

25JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,at683-94(GaillardHunted.,1922).OntheTreaty’sconsequencesforNatives,seeFrederickE.Hoxie,ThisIndianCountry:AmericanIndianPoliticalActivistsandthePlaceTheyMade23-36(2012).

MatthewFletchersuggeststheexistenceofthiscategoryof“external”Indiannations.Fletcher,supranote216,at555-60.TheconfusionarisesfromMadison’sproposalattheConventionthatCongresspossesspoweroverIndians“within[and]withoutthelimitsoftheU[nited]States.”Seesupratextaccompanyingnote41.MadisonwasnotreferringtocontrolofIndiansoutsideU.S.boundaries,anauthoritytheUnitedStatesspecificallydisclaimed.SeeTreatyofCanandaigua,U.S.-SixNations,Nov.11,1794,7Stat.44,44-46(limitingthescopeofthetreatytoNatives“withintheboundariesoftheUnitedStates:FortheUnitedStatesdonotinterferewithnations,tribes,orfamilies,ofIndianselsewhereresident”).Instead,MadisonwasseekingtoabrogateArticleIXoftheArticlesofConfederationbyaffirmingcongressionalauthoritywithinandwithoutstateborders.

Manystatesmaintainedextensivewesternterritorialclaimsbasedoncolonialcharters,buttheyhadmostlycededthoseclaimstothefederalgovernmentby1787.PeterS.Onuf,TheOriginsoftheFederalRepublic:JurisdictionalControversiesintheUnitedStates,1775-1787,at149-72(1983).Thelastholdout,Georgia,cededitsclaimsin1802.Ford,supranote198,at24-25.

See,eg.,JamesDuane’sViewsonIndianNegotiations,supranote105,at299;TreatyofGalphinton,in18EarlyAmericanIndianDocuments,supranote105,at390.

TreatyofFortFinney,U.S.-ShawneeNation,art.II,Jan.31,1786,7Stat.26,26.

25JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,supranote224,at683-94;ActofApr18,1783,ch.2,1783N.C.Sess.Laws322,322-25.

Ablavsky,supranote24,at1018-33.

SeeJamesDuane’sViewsonIndianNegotiations,supranote105,at299.

TreatyofHopewell,supranote96,art.IX.Thetreaty’sstructureandpreamblesuggestthattheprovision—anear-verbatimquoteofArticleIXoftheArticlesofConfederation—wasintendedtoaddressauthoritytoregulatecross-culturalintercourse,nottribalgovernance.InCherokeeNation,JusticeJohnsonindissentarguedthattheCherokeeshad,throughthisprovision,relinquished“allpower,legislative,executiveandjudicialtotheUnitedStates.”CherokeeNationv.Georgia,30U.S.(5Pet.)1,24-25(1831)(Johnson,J.,dissenting).InWorcester,ChiefJusticeMarshallofferedamorepersuasivereadingthatlimitedtheprovision’sscope,thoughhemisseditsfederalismcontext.Worcesterv.Georgia,31U.S.(6Pet.)515,518-19(1832).

JamesDuane’sViewsonIndianNegotiations,supranote105,at299.

See,e.g.,LetterfromAlexanderMcGillivraytoAndrewPickens(Sept.5,1785),in18EarlyAmericanIndianDocuments,supranote105,at387,388(“[W]e[Creeks]knowourownlimits,...and,asafreenation...weshallpaynoregardtoanylimitsthatmayprejudiceourclaims,thatweredrawnbyanAmerican,andconfirmedbyaBritishnegotiator.”).

SeeJamesH.Merrell,DeclarationsofIndependence:Indian-WhiteRelationsintheNewNation,inTheAmericanRevolution:ItsCharacterandLimits197,202(JackP.Greeneed.,1987).

LetterfromCaptainJohnDoughtytoHenryKnox,Sec’yofWar(Oct.21,1785),in2TheSt.ClairPapers9,10(WilliamHenrySmithed.,Cincinnati,RobertClarke&Co.1882);seealsoSpeechoftheUnitedIndianNationstoCongress(Dec.18,1786),in18EarlyAmericanIndianDocuments,supranote105,at356,356-58.

SeeMerrell,supranote236,at202-03.

BothJamesMadisonandJamesMonroe,forinstance,foundNewYork’sassertionthattheSixNationswerestate“members”problematic.See,e.g.,LetterfromJamesMonroetoJamesMadison(Nov.15,1784),in8ThePapersofJamesMadison140,140(RobertA.Rutlandetal.eds.,1962)(questioning“whetherthelivingsimplywithintheboundsofaState,intheexclusiononlyofanEuropeanpower,whiletheyacknowlidgenoobidiencetoitslawsbutholdacountryoverwhichtheydonotextend,norenjoytheprotectionnoranyoftherightsofcitizenshipwithinit,isasituationwh.willeveninthemostqualifiedsense,admittheirbeingheldasmembersofaState”).

SeesupraPartIIB.2.

33JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,supranote112,at479;seealsoMerrell,supranote236,at203-04(discussingtheContinentalCongress’snewcourseofIndianpolicy).

See33JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,supranote112,at480.

SeeU.S.Const.art.1,§2,para.3(“RepresentativesanddirectTaxesshallbeapportionedamongtheseveralStateswhichmaybeincludedwithinthisUnion,accordingtotheirrespectiveNumbers,whichshallbedeterminedby...excludingIndiansnottaxed....”).FortreatyprovisionsprovidingforpossibleNativerepresentationinCongress,seeTreatyofHopewell,supranote96,art.XII,whichstates,“ThattheIndiansmayhavefullconfidenceinthejusticeoftheUnitedStates,respectingtheirinterests,theyshallhavetherighttosendadeputyoftheirchoice,whenevertheythinkfit,toCongress”;andTreatywiththeDelawares,U.S.-DelawareNation,art.VI,Sept.17,1778,7Stat.13,whichstates,“[I]tisfurtheragreeduponbetweenthecontractingpartiesshoulditforthefuturebefoundconductiveforthemutualinterestofbothpartiestoinviteanyothertribeswhohavebeenfriendstotheinterestoftheUnitedStates,tojointhepresentconfederation,andtoformastatewhereoftheDelawarenationshallbethehead,andhavearepresentationinCongress....”).

Seesupratextaccompanyingnotes41-48;Ablavsky,supranote24,at1038-50.

SeeSarahKrakoff,ANarrativeofSovereignty:IlluminatingtheParadoxoftheDomesticDependentNation,83Or.L.Rev.1109,1111(2004)(describingtheCourt’streatmentofsovereigntyaswellastheviewoftribemembers“forwhom‘sovereignty’isascommonandheartfeltatermas‘rights’istomostotherAmericans”).

Forbackgroundonthesedebates,seeinfranotes337-338andaccompanyingtext.

SeeTheDeclarationofIndependence(US.1776).ThisaspectoftheDeclarationisexploredinDavidArmitage,TheDeclarationofIndependence:AGlobalHistory25-62(2007).

ForanexplorationoftheRevolutionanditsaftermathaspartoftheAmericanefforttojointhecommunityofnations,seegenerallyGould,supranote33;andGolove&Hulsebosch,supranote29.

ThomasJefferson,forinstance,wrotethat“[t]heLawofNations...iscomposedofthreebranches.1.TheMorallawofournature.2.TheUsagesofnations.3.TheirspecialConventions.”OpinionontheTreatieswithFrance,28April1793,in25PapersofThomasJefferson608,609(JohnCatanzaritied.,1992).Onthetransitionfromnaturaltopositivelawineighteenth-centuryinternationallaw,seeStephenC.Neff,JusticeAmongNations:AHistoryofInternationalLaw144-213(2014).

SeeJenniferPitts,EmpireandLegalUniversalismsintheEighteenthCentury,117Am.Hist.Rev.92(2012).

See,e.g.,LetterfromGov.St.ClairtotheJudgesoftheNorthwesternTerritory(Aug.2,1788),in3TerritorialPapersoftheUnitedStates273,275(ClarenceEdwardCartered.,1934)(“AstotheNativestheyaregenerallyundertheProtectionoftheLawofNations....”);MemorialfromHouseofRepresentativesandCounciloftheSouthwestTerritorytoU.S.Congress,Sept.18,1794,in4TerritorialPapersoftheUnitedStates354-55n.21(ClarenceEdwardCartered.,1936)(urginganattackontheCreeksandCherokeesfortreatyviolations“accordingtotheusageandcustomofnations”).

SeeGordonS.Wood,EmpireofLiberty:AHistoryoftheEarlyRepublic,1789-1815,at112-22(2009).

Id.at123-38.

Cf.Gould,supranote33,at180-209(notingthesalienceoflawofnationsargumentsoverNativesindisputeswithBritainandSpain,albeitinalaterperiod).

OnVattel’sinfluenceinearlyAmerica,seeOnuf&Onuf,supranote33,at10-19.

Cf.S.JamesAnaya,IndigenousPeoplesinInternationalLaw20-23(2ded.2004)(describingVattel’simplicationsforNatives,butstressingVattel’sEuropeanfocus).Earlierlegalthought,particularlybytheSpanishscholarFranciscodeVitoria,hadfocusedonNatives’statusundernaturallaw.Id.at16-19;AntonyAnghie,Imperialism,SovereigntyandtheMakingofInternationalLaw13-31(2005);Neff,supranote250,at107-35.ButthisthoughtseeminglyhadlittleeffectonearlyAmericanIndianlaw.Cf.FelixS.Cohen,TheSpanishOriginofIndianRightsintheLawoftheUnitedStates,31Geo.L.J.1,17(1942)(notingthatVitoriahadlittledirectimpactonU.S.law,butarguingforindirectSpanishinfluence).

LetterfromHenryKnoxtoGeorgeWashington,supranote163,at529,529-35.

HenryKnox’sNotesontheStateoftheFrontier,Jan.1790,in5PapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries76,79(DorothyTwohigetal.eds.,1996).

LetterfromHenryKnoxtoGeorgeWashington,supranote170,at134-40.

NotesonCabinetOpinions,26February1793,in25PapersofThomasJefferson,supranote250,at271,272.

LetterfromThomasJeffersontoWilliamCarmichaelandWilliamShort(June30,1793),in26PapersofThomasJefferson,supranote92,at405,417n.28.Thequotationomitstheinsertionofthewords“anindependent”between“over”and“anation,”whichwasdeletedinthemanuscriptbutrestoredbythevolume’seditors.GuidetoEditorialApparatus,in26PapersofThomasJefferson,supranote92,atvii.

Thoughpost-ratificationIndiantreatiesrequiredtribestoplacethemselvesunderfederalprotection,thesetreatiesabandonedprovisionsrequiringrecognitionoffederalsovereigntyandreplacedthemwithguaranteesoftriballandsandimplicitacknowledgmentsofNativeautonomy.See,e.g.,TreatyofCanandaigua,U.S.-SixNations,Jan.21,1795,7Stat.44;TreatyofPeaceandFriendship,U.S.-CherokeeNation,Feb.7,1792,7Stat.39;TreatyofNewYork,supranote96.

LetterfromtheAtt’yGen.totheSec’yoftheTreasury(June19,1795),in2TerritorialPapersoftheUnitedStates520,520(ClarenceEdwinCartered.,1934)(“Therecanbenodoubt,thatallthelawsofCongress...are,intheiroperationcoextensivewiththeTerritoryoftheUnitedStates,andobligatoryuponeverypersontherein,exceptindependentNations&TribesofIndiansresidingonIndianlands....”).

ActofMar.30,1802,ch.13,2Stat.139;ActofMar.3,1799,ch.46,1Stat.743;ActofMay19,1796,ch.30,1Stat.469;ActofMar.1,1793,ch.19,1Stat.329;ActofJuly22,1790,ch.33,1Stat.137.NotuntilthefinalversionoftheTradeandIntercourseActin1834didtheUnitedStatesassertcriminaljurisdictionoverNatives.ActofJune30,1834,ch.161,§19,4Stat.729,732(codifiedasamendedinscatteredsectionsof25U.S.C.).

Ford,supranote198,at30-42

See,e.g.,LetterfromHenryKnoxtoGeorgeWashington(June15,1789),in2PapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialSeries490,493(DorothyTwohiged.,1987)(“Thetimehasarrivedwhenitishighlyexpedient,thataliberalsystemofjusticeshouldbeadoptedforthevariousindiantribeswithinthelimitsoftheUnitedStates.”);LetterfromGeorgeWashingtontotheComm’rstotheS.Indians(Aug.29,1789),in3PapersofGeorgeWashington,supranote170,at551-52,556(providinginstructionsforthecommissionersforconcludingtreaties“withtheindependenttribesornationsofIndianswithinthelimitsoftheunitedStates,southoftheriverOhio,”andurgingthemtoconcludeatreatywith“theCreekswhoarewithinthelimitsoftheUnitedStatesacknowledgethemselvstobeundertheprotectionoftheunitedStatesofAmerica,andofnoothersovereignwhosoever”);LetterfromEdmundRandolphtoGeorgeWashington(Sept.12,1791),in8PapersofGeorgeWashington:PresidentialPapers524,524-26(MarkA.Mastromarinoed.,1999)(discussingconstitutionalauthorityovernegotiationswith“Indiantribes,withinthelimitsoftheUnitedStates”).

LetterfromTimothyPickeringtoArthurCampbell(Aug.28,1795),Folder2,TimothyPickeringPapers,Ayers926,NewberryLibrary,Chicago,Ill.

EileenP.Scully,TheUnitedStatesandInternationalAffairs,1789-1919,in2TheCambridgeHistoryofLawinAmerica604,606-08,622-26(MichaelGrossberg&ChristopherTomlinseds.,2008).Theriseofterritorialsovereigntyisoftenassociatedwiththedevelopmentofthe“Westphalian”statesystemintheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,thoughitsrisebothpredatedandpostdatedtheTreatyofWestphalia.SeeKalRaustiala,DoesTheConstitutionFollowTheFlag:TheEvolutionofTerritorialityinAmericanLaw5-43(2009).SeegenerallyStuartElden,TheBirthofTerritory(2013)(describingthedevelopmentofterritoryinancientandmedievalthought).Anexplorationofterritorialsovereignty’sriseinearlyAmericaanditseffectonNativeindependencecanbefoundinFord,supranote198.Foraconsiderationofimperialconceptsofunevensovereigntyandtheirendurance,seeLaurenA.Benton,ASearchforSovereignty:LawandGeographyinEuropeanEmpires,1400-1900(2010).

Hoxie,supranote224,at23-36

LetterfromJoseph-MatthiasGérarddeRaynevaltoJohnJay(Sept.4,1782),in2JohnJay:TheWinningofthePeace:UnpublishedPapers1780-1784,at329,331(RichardB.Morrised.,1980).

LetterfromJohnJaytoRobertLivingston(Nov.17,1782),in6TheRevolutionaryDiplomaticCorrespondenceoftheUnitedStates11,24(FrancisWhartoned.,1889).

Id.Onpreemption,seeinfraPartIII.B.3.

NotesforaConversationwithGeorgeHammond(ca.Dec.10,1792),in24ThePapersofThomasJefferson717,717(JohnCatanzaritied.,1990).

NotesofaConversationwithGeorgeHammond(Dec.12,1792),in24ThePapersofThomasJefferson,supranote274,at728,728n.

LetterfromTimothyPickeringtoWilliamBlount(Mar.23,1795),in4TheTerritorialPapersoftheUnitedStates,supranote252,at386,387.

LetterfromThomasJeffersontoWilliamCarmichaelandWilliamShort(May31,1793),in26ThePapersofThomasJefferson,supranote92,at148,148.JayhadsimilarlyarguedbasedonexistingusageduringtheTreatyofParisnegotiations.SeeLetterfromJohnJaytoRobertLivingston,supranote272,at24(observing,inresponsetoSpanishquestioningofU.S.sovereigntyoverIndians,“thatMexicoandPeruhadbeeninthesamepredicament,andyetthathisCatholicmajestyhadhadnodoubtsofhisrighttothesovereigntyofthosecountries”).

NotesofaConversationwithGeorgeHammond(June3,1792),in24ThePapersofThomasJefferson,supranote274,at26,30.Onthejusgentium,seeNeff,supranote250,at151-66.

EmerdeVattel,TheLawofNations96(BélaKapossy&RichardWhatmoreeds,ThomasNugenttrans.,LibertyFund2008)(1758)(emphasizingthatinternalaffairsare“anationalconcern”inwhich“noforeignpowerhasarighttointerfere”).

Seesupranotes261-262,276andaccompanyingtext.

TreatyofPeaceandFriendship,supranote263,art.II;TreatyofNewYork,supranote96,art.II;seealsoTreatywiththeWyandots,Etc.,art.XIII,Jan.9,1789,7Stat.28(“[T]obeundertheprotectionofthesaidUnitedStates,andnootherpowerwhatever.”).

Washington’sMemorandaonIndianAffairs(1789),in4ThePapersofGeorgeWashington,supranote163,at468,472.

LetterfromJohnGalphintoJaredIrwin(Aug.21,1793),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at371,371.

Seesupratextaccompanyingnotes274,278.

UnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,201(2004).

Fletcher,supranote216.

US.Const.art.I,§8,cl.10.

OnthelawofnationsbackgroundtotheConstitution,seesupranote33.SeealsoOnuf&Onuf,supranote33,at108(“TheRevolutionaries’internationalistcommitmentsconvergedwithapowerfultendencyinAmericanconstitutionalismtowardnaturallawprinciples.Thedistinctionbetweenforeignanddomesticspheres,andthereforebetweeninternationalandconstitutionalthought,wasnotclearlydrawninthisperiod.”).

U.S.Const.art.VI,cl.2.

Id.art.IV,§3,cl.1.

Id.art.IV,§3,cl.2.

Foradiscussionoftheusageof“protection”asatermofartimplyingjurisdictionoverNativepeoplesinlateeighteenth-centuryNorthAmerica,seeLaurenBenton,ShadowsofSovereignty:LegalEncountersandthePoliticsofProtectionintheAtlanticWorld,inEncounters:OldandNew13-17(AlanKarras&LauraMitchelleds.,forthcoming2015).

Theliteratureonthistopicislarge.KeyworksincludeStuartBanner,HowtheIndiansLostTheirLand:LawandPowerontheFrontier(2005);LindsayG.Robertson,ConquestbyLaw:HowtheDiscoveryofAmericaDispossessedIndigenousPeoplesofTheirLands(2005);Taylor,supranote102;BlakeA.Watson,BuyingAmericafromtheIndians:Johnsonv.McIntoshandtheHistoryofNativeLandRights(2012);andRobertA.Williams,Jr.,TheAmericanIndianinWesternLegalThought:TheDiscoursesofConquest227-317(1990).

StuartBannerdistinguishespropertyfromsovereignty,Banner,supranote296,at6-9,butdoesnotaddressthatcontrastindiscussingpreemption,id.at156-68.

ThemostinfluentialsuchworkwasSamuelWharton,PlainFacts:BeinganExaminationintotheRightsoftheIndianNationsofAmerica,toTheirRespectiveCountries(1781).

NotesofaConversationwithGeorgeHammond,supranote274,at30.

32JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,at340(RoscoeR.Hilled.,1936).

LetterfromHenryKnoxtoGeorgeWashington,supranote267,at491.

InstructionstoBrigadierGeneralRufusPutnam(May22,1792),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at234,234.

SpeechoftheCommissionersoftheUnitedStatestotheDeputiesoftheConfederatedIndianNations,in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at352,353.

Id.at354.

Id.Jeffersonalsomentionedtherighttoregulatecommerce“between[Indians]andthewhites.”Id.

See,e.g.,17EarlyAmericanIndianDocuments:TreatiesandLaws,1607-1789:NewEnglandandMiddleAtlanticLaws1607-1789,at27,81,166,220,227,235,314,318,340,393,420,423,459,473,500,631,668,678,710,733,735,755(AldenT.Vaughan&DeborahA.Roseneds.,2004).

Banner,supranote296,at85-95;RobertNClinton,TheProclamationof1763:ColonialPreludetoTwoCenturiesofFederal-StateConflictovertheManagementofIndianAffairs,69B.U.L.Rev.329,356-57(1989).

FederalpowerofpreemptionappearedinBenjaminFranklin’sfirstdraftoftheArticles,2JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,1774-1789,at198(WorthingtonChaunceyForded.,1905),butitwasnotincludedinthefinaldraft.MadisonbelievedthestatesretainedtherightofpreemptionundertheArticles,LetterfromJamesMadisontoJamesMonroe,supranote111,at156,butelsewherecongressionaldelegatessuggestedthatthefederalgovernmentpossessedthepower,33JournalsoftheContinentalCongress,supranote112,at458.

LetterfromHenryKnoxtoGeorgeWashington,supranote163,at529,534-35.

LetterfromEdmundRandolphtoGeorgeWashington,supranote267,at524-25.Inthisletter,RandolphlistedthreeconstitutionalpowerswithrespecttoIndians:regulatingcommerce,makingtreaties,andprotectingtherightofpreemption.Id.Randolphdidnotspecifythesourceofthepreemptionright.

ActofJuly22,1790,§4,1Stat.137,138.

Watson,supranote296,at170

SeesupraPartII.C.1.

NotesofaConversationwithGeorgeHammond,supranote274,at29-30.

NotesonCabinetOpinions,supranote261,at272.

CityofSherrillv.OneidaIndianNation,544U.S.197,203n.1(2005)(quotingCnty.ofOneidav.OneidaIndianNation,470U.S.226,234(1985);Cnty.ofOneidav.OneidaIndianNation,414U.S.661,667(1974)).ThemostthoroughaccountoftheDoctrineofDiscovery’sroleinAmericanhistoryappearsinRobertJ.Milleretal.,DiscoveringIndigenousLands:TheDoctrineofDiscoveryintheEnglishColonies1-89(2010).Milleremploystheterm“DoctrineofDiscovery”broadly,however,toincludeinternationallawdoctrines—includingpossession,terranullius,andconquest—thatotherscholarshavetreatedasdistinct.Id.at6-8.Foradditionalbackground,seeWilliams,supranote296(tracingtheDoctrineofDiscovery’srootstomedievallegalthought).

See,e.g.,Cleveland,supranote216,at28-41;Frickey,supranote13,at55-60;Newton,supranote28,at207-11;RobertA.Williams,Jr.,TheAlgebraofFederalIndianLaw:TheHardTrailofDecolonizingandAmericanizingtheWhiteMan’sIndianJurisprudence,1986Wis.L.Rev.219,260-65.

SeeAndrewFitzmaurice,Discovery,Conquest,andOccupationofTerritory,inTheOxfordHandbookoftheHistoryofInternationalLaw840,841(BardoFassbender&AnnePeterseds.,2012)(“The‘doctrineofdiscovery’maybeausefulshorthandwhenappliedtothejustificationsofempireemployedbyStates,butitismisleadingifappliedtothehistoryofthelawofnationswhichhaslargelybeenopposedtotheprincipleofdiscovery.”);LindsayG.Robertson,JohnMarshallasColonialHistorian:ReconsideringtheOriginsoftheDiscoveryDoctrine,13J.L.&Pol.759,766(1997)(“ThehistoricalmandateonthestrengthofwhichtheDiscoveryDoctrineelucidatedinJohnsonv.M’IntoshwasadoptedintoAmericanlawwasnotclearlyeitherhistoricaloramandate.”).

Thiswasanimportantquestionduringpre-revolutionarydebatesoverBritishauthority.SeeJamesMuldoon,Discovery,Grant,Charter,Conquest,orPurchase:JohnAdamsontheLegalBasisforEnglishPossessionofNorthAmerica,inTheManyLegalitiesofEarlyAmerica25,40-41(ChristopherL.Tomlins&BruceH.Manneds.,2001);AnthonyPagden,Law,Colonization,Legitimation,andtheEuropeanBackground,in1TheCambridgeHistoryofLawinAmerica1,29-31(MichaelGrossberg&ChristopherTomlinseds.,2008).

SeeFitzmaurice,supranote319,at842-44(notingthatGrotiusrejecteddiscoveryoutright,whileVattelonly“concededaminorrolefordiscovery”inestablishingtitleaslongasitwasfollowedbyactualpossession);Pagden,supranote320,at18(“Ifsailingalongacoastcangivearighttoacountry,thenmightthepeopleofJapanbecome,assoonastheyplease,theproprietorsofBritain.”)(quotingRichardPrice,ObservationsontheNatureofCivilLiberty,thePrinciplesofGovernment,andtheJusticeandPolicyoftheWarwithAmerica17(9thed.1776),reprintedinPoliticalWritings20,40(D.O.Thomased.,1991)).

Pagden,supranote320,at24-29;seealsoBanner,supranote296,at110-11(discussingthewidespreadpracticeoflandpurchasesinearlyAmerica);KenMacMillan,SovereigntyandPossessionintheEnglishNewWorld:TheLegalFoundationsofEmpire,1576-1640,at179-207(2006)(stressingtheimportanceofRomanlawconceptsofprescriptionandeffectivecontrolinEnglishclaimstoNorthAmericanterritory);ChristopherL.Tomlins,FreedomBound:Law,Labor,andCivicIdentityinColonizingEnglishAmerica,1580-1865,at133-90(2010)(emphasizingtheroleofdiscoursesofuseandpurchaseinclaimingNativeland);Fitzmaurice,supranote319,at841,856(tracingthe“triumphoftheideaofoccupationoveritsrivalsdiscoveryandconquest”inthehistoryofinternationallaw).

21U.S.(8Wheat.)543,587-88(1823).

OfthemembersoftheWashingtonAdministration,onlyJeffersonoffered,atonepoint,ajustificationofpreemptionthattracedtooriginalsettlement,soundingintheDoctrineofDiscovery.Jefferson,supranote164,at407.Jefferson’saccountdivergedsharplyfromMarshall’slaterversion.Jeffersoninterpretedthishistoryasgrant“againstallothernationsexceptthenatives”andemphasizedthatNativetitlecouldbeclaimedonlythroughwarorpurchase.Id.(emphasisadded).

Id.;seealsoLetterfromThomasJeffersontoHenryKnox(Aug.26,1790),in17ThePapersofThomasJefferson430,430-31(JulianP.Boyded.,1965)(describingpreemptionas“thejusgentiumestablishedforAmericabyuniversalusage”).

SpeechoftheComm’rsoftheU.S.totheDeputiesoftheConfederatedIndianNations,supranote303,at353.

Id.at353-54.

SecretaryofWarTimothyPickeringoutlinedthisviewthoroughlyinalettertoGeneralAnthonyWayneinpreparationfortheTreatyofGreenville.TheIndians,heanticipated,wouldask,ifthelandwasacknowledgedtobetheirs,“Whyshallwenotsellittowhomweplease”HeproposedananswertoWayne:

TheWhiteNations,intheirtreatieswithoneanother,agreeoncertainboundariesbeyondwhichneitheristoadvance.[In]AmericawheretheseboundariesagreedonbytheWhitepeople,passalongthecountriesoftheIndians,themeaningofthetreatiesisthis,thatoneWhiteNationshallnotpurchaseor[take]possessionofanyIndianslandbeyondtheirboundarysoagreedonevenaltho’theIndiansshould[agree]tosellorgiveittothem....Foreachwhite[n]ationmakescertainrulesaboutIndianLandswhicheveryoneofthepeopleisobligedtofollowthemostimportantoftheserulesisthatwhichforbidsindividuals[takingholdof]IndianlandswithouttheconsentoftheNation;when[indi]vidualsdosuchthings,itisbecausetheywish[to]cheatnotonlytheIndiansbuttheirownnation[w]hichthereforehasarighttopunishthem&takeawaythelandssounlawfullyobtained.TheUnitedStateshavemadesucharulethe[de]signofwhichistoprotecttheIndianLands[a]gainstsuchbadmen.

LetterfromGen.CouncilofIndianNationstotheComm’rsoftheUnitedStates(Aug.16,1793),in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at356.

SeeTaylor,supranote102,at404(arguingthatpreemptionshouldnotbeconsidered“anythingmorethanapartisanfictionassertedtodispossessnativepeople”andnotingthatitdefeatedNativeeffortstoretainauthoritybyleasinglands“directlytoindividualsoftheirownchoice”);EricKades,TheDarkSideofEfficiency:Johnsonv.M’IntoshandtheExpropriationofAmericanIndianLands,148U.Pa.L.Rev.1065(2000)(describinghowfederalpreemptionrightsensuredtheefficientexpropriationofNativelands);seealsoWilliams,supranote296,at280,287-317(“SeldomhasthedynamicrelationshipbetweenAmericanracismandthedominantracialcaste’seconomicinterestsbeensoclearlyrevealedwithinthenormativefineriesofAmericanlegaldiscursivepractice...[asi]ntheRevolutionary-eradebateonthestatusandrightsofIndiansintheirlands....”).

LetterfromEdmundRandolphtoGeorgeWashington,supranote267,at524-26;seealsoBanner,supranote296,at163(“WhenIndianlandcouldbeboughtandsoldwiththeIndiansstillonit,theIndians’righttothelandstartedtofeel,tothebuyersandsellers,lesslikefeesimpleownership.”).BannertracesthesubsequentevolutionofdoctrinetowardIndianoccupancyratherthanfeesimpleownership.Id.at150-90.

OntheRevolutionasconstitutionalstruggle,seegenerallyJackP.Greene,TheConstitutionalOriginsoftheAmericanRevolution(2011);LaCroix,TheIdeologicalOrigins,supranoteError!Nobookmarknamegiven.23;GordonS.Wood,TheCreationoftheAmericanRepublic,1776-1787,at345-89(1969);andBarbaraA.Black,TheConstitutionofEmpire:TheCasefortheColonists,124U.Pa.L.Rev.1157(1976).

Theuseof“solecism”todismisstheconceptof“imperiuminimperio”isdiscussedinLaCroix,TheIdeologicalOrigins,supranote23,at226n.12.SeealsoDanielJ.Hulsebosch,ImperiainImperio:TheMultipleConstitutionsofEmpireinNewYork,1750-1777,16Law&Hist.Rev.319(1998).

SeeWood,supranote337,at374-89.

SeeLaCroix,TheIdeologicalOrigins,supranote23,at125-28.SeegenerallyHendrickson,supranote33(describingtheConstitution’soriginsasanexperimentininternationalcooperation).

SeeLaCroix,TheIdeologicalOrigins,supranote23,at221(“Betweenthemiddledecadesoftheeighteenthcenturyandtheearlyyearsofthenineteenthcentury,federalthoughtwastransformedfromaheterodoxwillingnesstotoleratemessy,multilayeredgovernmentintoanaffirmativebeliefthatsuchmultiplicity—untidythoughitmightbe—couldformthebasisforanewspeciesofunion.”)Ondividedsovereignty,seePowell,supranote196,at23-24.SeealsoZacharyS.Price,DividingSovereigntyinTribalandTerritorialCriminalJurisdiction,113Colum.L.Rev.657(2013)(arguingfortranslatingconceptsofdividedsovereigntyfromthestate-federalcontexttoIndianlaw).

US.Const.art.I,§10,para.1;art.IV,§3.

CompareReportonPublicLands,Nov.8,1791,in22ThePapersofThomasJefferson,supranote162,at274,285(recordingstatementbyJeffersonthat“inrespecttotheinternalregulationoftheIndians”theUnitedStatesexercisedonlythe“jurisdictionoverthem...prohibitingthemfromallowinganypersontoinhabittheircountry”withoutaU.S.license),withMassachusettsConventionDebates,Jan.23,1788,in6DocumentaryHistoryoftheRatificationoftheConstitution1313,1315(JohnP.Kaminski&GaspareJ.Saladinoeds.,2000)(recordingviewofFederalistdelegatethat“Congresshadnorighttoaltertheinternalregulationsofastate”).

See,e.g.,Chisholmv.Georgia,2U.S.(2Dall.)419,454(1793)(opinionofWilson,J.)(“TotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesthetermSOVEREIGN,istotallyunknown.”).States’primaryprotectioninthetextofthe1787Constitutioncamethroughthe“politicalsafeguardsoffederalism”—theirinclusionwithinfederalgovernance—asthesubsequentadoptionoftheTenthandEleventhAmendmentsthroughthatprocessunderscored.SeeHerbertWechsler,ThePoliticalSafeguardsofFederalism:TheRoleoftheStatesintheCompositionandSelectionoftheNationalGovernment,54Colum.L.Rev.543,546(1954)(arguingthattheU.S.Constitutionprotectsstateintereststhroughthestates’“crucialroleintheselectionandthecompositionofnationalauthority”).Nativenations,placedoutsidethepolity,lackedsimilarprotections.

SeeTaltonv.Mayes,163U.S.376,384(1896)(holdingthattheConstitutiondidnotapplytotheCherokeeNationas“thepowersoflocalselfgovernmentenjoyedbytheCherokeenationexistedpriortotheConstitution”).

MatthewL.M.Fletcher,TribalConsent,8Stan.J.C.R.&C.L.45,55-57(2012).

ReplyoftheSixNationstoaSpeechfromGen.Knox,U.S.Sec’yofWar,Apr.21,1794,in1AmericanStatePapers:IndianAffairs,supranote81,at481,481.

Id.On“freeandindependent”asatermofartintheeighteenth-centurylawofnations,seeBellia&Clark,supranote33,at754.

Merrell,supranote236,at202.

DanielK.Richter&TroyL.Thompson,SeveredConnections:AmericanIndigenousPeoplesandtheAtlanticWorldinanEraofImperialTransformation,inTheOxfordHandbookoftheAtlanticWorld:1450-1850,at500(NicholasCanny&PhilipMorganeds.,2011)(internalquotationmarksomitted).

Id.;seealsoJeremyAdelman&StephenAron,FromBorderlandstoBorders:Empires,Nation-States,andthePeoplesinBetweeninNorthAmericanHistory,104Am.Hist.Rev.814,838(1999).

Cf.Taylor,supranote102,at397-407(notingNativeeffortstopreserveautonomythroughpropertyinnovationandstressingthelimitsonNativepowerresultingfromrestrictionsontheirlandownership).

Banner,supranote296,at136-38

ThisphrasecomesfromthetitleofLindsayRobertson’swork.Robertson,supranote296.

Sadosky,supranote33,at200-05

Gould,supranote33,at205-06

Id.LeonardSadoskydescribesthisastheascendencyofthe“JacksonDoctrine,”whichsoughttodenyNatives“independentandunfilteredcommunicationswith...Europeanpowers.”Sadosky,supranote33,at200.TheendoftheWarof1812,heobserves,“markedtheremovalofAmericanIndiannationsfromcontactwiththeWestphaliansystem.”Id.at204.

30U.S.(5Pet.)1(1831).

Id.at20-31(Johnson,J.,concurring);id.at49-50(Baldwin,J.,concurring).

Id.at52-54(Thompson,J.,dissenting).

Id.at16(pluralityopinion).

Id.at17.

Id.at17-18.

Id.at17;cf.IanHunter,VattelinRevolutionaryAmerica:FromtheRulesofWartotheRuleofLaw,inBetweenIndigenousandSettlerGovernance12(LisaFord&TimRowseeds.,2013)(linkingMarshall’sdecisionstotheinternational-legalthoughtofthe1790s,butunpersuasivelyarguingthatthedispossessionofNativeswasconstruedasextralegal).

CherokeeNation,30U.S.at17.

Seesupratextaccompanyingnote277.

SeeAnaya,supranote257,at26(notingtheincorporationofMarshall’sdecisionsintoHenryWheaton’streatiseElementsofInternationalLaw);Benton,supranote269,at271-72(notingtheapplicationofMarshall’sholdingstoBritishIndiabyTraversTwissandothernineteenth-centuryinternationallawyers);cf.Ford,supranote198,at24-26,183-210(situatingCherokeeNationaspartofabroaderglobal“transformationofsettlersovereignty”encompassingtheUnitedStates,Canada,andAustraliathatshesuggestsbeganinGeorgia);LindaColley,EmpiresofWriting:Britain,AmericaandConstitutions,1776-1848,32L.&Hist.Rev.237,256-63(2014)(arguingfortheroleofwrittenconstitutionsinBritishandAmericanimperialprojectstoextendauthorityoverNativesandothercolonizedpeoples).

118U.S.375(1886).

Id.at378-79.

Id.at379.

Id.at383.

Id.at384.

SeeCleveland,supranote216,at7.

SovereigntyobviouslyremainedarealityfortheNativenationsthatcontinuedtoexerciseit,notwithstandingacknowledgmentvelnonbytheUnitedStates.

Foranintroductiontotheconsiderableliteratureonthistopic,seeReginaldHorsman,RaceandManifestDestiny:TheOriginsofAmericanRacialAnglo-Saxonism189-207(1981);Richter,supranote86Error!Nobookmarknamegiven.,at189-236;BethanyR.Berger,Red:RacismandtheAmericanIndian,56UCLAL.Rev.591,617-28(2009);andJoshuaPiker,IndiansandRaceinEarlyAmerica:AReviewEssay,3Hist.Compass1(2005).

Therelationshipbetweenpositivism,internationallaw,andimperialismisexploredinAnghie,supranote257;andAntonyAnghie,FindingthePeripheries:SovereigntyandColonialisminNineteenth-CenturyInternationalLaw,40Harv.Int’lL.J.1(1999).

NotesonCabinetOpinions,supranote250,at272

ThistransformationinSupremeCourtjurisprudenceoccurredrelativelyquickly.CompareMortonv.Mancari,417U.S.535,551-52(1974)(describingplenarypoweras“basedon...theassumptionofa‘guardian-ward’status”aswellasonIndians’statusas“anuneducated,helplessanddependentpeople”(quotingBd.ofCnty.Comm’rsv.Seber,318U.S.705,715(1943),andcitingUnitedStatesv.Kagama,118U.S.375,383-84(1886))),withCottonPetroleumCorp.v.NewMexico,490U.S.163,192(1989)(citingthissameportionofMortonforthepropositionthat“thecentralfunctionoftheIndianCommerceClauseistoprovideCongresswithplenarypowertolegislateinthefieldofIndianaffairs”).ForadescriptionoftheconstitutionalizationofplenarypoweroverIndianaffairs,seeCleveland,supranote216,at77-81.

UnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,214-15(2004)(Thomas,J.,concurring).

Id.at215.

Id.at223.ForworkscriticizingtheCourt’seffortstocraftcoherence,seePhilipP.Frickey,(Native)AmericanExceptionalisminFederalPublicLaw,119Harv.L.Rev.431(2005);andDavidH.Getches,ConqueringtheCulturalFrontier:TheNewSubjectivismoftheSupremeCourtinIndianLaw,84Cal.L.Rev.1573(1996).

ThisisthecentralargumentinCleveland,supranote216.SeealsoWilliamBaude,RethinkingtheFederalEminentDomainPower,122YaleL.J.1738,1800-05(2013)(suggestingthatpowersinherentinsovereignty“ha[ve]verylittlesupportinthetext,structure,orearlyhistoryoftheConstitution”andare“acreatureofalate-nineteenth-andearly-twentieth-centuryjurisprudentialtrend”).

MarkGraberhasmadeasimilarargumentconcerninginterpretationsofDredScott.MarkA.Graber,DesperatelyDuckingSlavery:DredScottandContemporaryConstitutionalTheory,14Const.Comment.271(1997).

See,e.g.,Frickey,supranote13,at74-94(arguingforapplyinginternationallawlimitationstofederalpoweroverIndians);Newton,supranote28,at237-47(arguingforheightenedscrutinyforcongressionalrestrictionsontribalsovereignty);Williams,supranote318,at293-99(urgingtheabandonmentofthe“guardianshipresponsibilitybywhichindividualEuropeancolonizersarrogatedtothemselvesanunquestionedauthorityoverIndianNations”).

See,e.g.,TranscriptofOralArgumentat55-56,Michiganv.BayMillsIndianCmty.,134S.Ct.2024(No.12-515)(2014).

Cf.MichalynSteele,ComparativeInstitutionalCompetencyandSovereigntyinIndianAffairs,85U.Colo.L.Rev.759,780-815(2014)(arguingthattheCourtshoulddefertoCongressonquestionsoftribalsovereigntybasedonananalogyfromtheCourt’streatmentofstatesovereignty).

ArticlesofConfederationof1781,artI.

ThoughIreferhereprimarilytothe1787Constitution,theTenthAmendmentdoesnotalterthisconclusion:totheextenttheAmendmentcodifiesaconceptofstatesovereignty,itdoessoobliquely,especiallycomparedtotheexplicitprotectionwrittenintotheArticlesofConfederation.

Youngerv.Harris,401U.S.37,44-45(1971).Thisinitialarticulationoftheprincipleinvokednospecifictextbutinstead“theprofounddebatesthatusheredourFederalConstitutionintoexistence,”arguingthat“thisslogan,‘OurFederalism,’bornintheearlystrugglingdaysofourUnionofStates,occupiesahighlyimportantplaceinourNation’shistoryanditsfuture.”Id.

See,e.g.,RichardA.Monette,ANewFederalismforIndianTribes:TheRelationshipBetweentheUnitedStatesandTribesinLightofOurFederalismandRepublicanDemocracy,25U.Tol.L.Rev.617(1994)(“[T]heforcesbehindUnion/statefederalism,whichinvokerepublicandemocracyandensurearoleforstates,havetoacertainextentguidedandshouldcontinuetoguidetheUnion/triberelationship.”);JudithResnik,DependentSovereigns:IndianTribes,States,andtheFederalCourts,56U.Chi.L.Rev.671,701(1989)(notingthat“thereismuchtolearnfromthinkingaboutboththedifferencesandthesimilarities”betweentribesandstates).

See,e.g.,Aldenv.Maine,527U.S.706,714(1999).

JusticeGinsburghastwicereferredtotribaldignityinherdissents,seePlainsCommerceBankv.LongFamilyLand&CattleCo.,554U.S.316,347(2008)(Ginsburg,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart);Wagnonv.PrairieBandPotawatomiNation,546U.S.95,121(2005)(Ginsburg,J.,dissenting),whileJusticeSotomayorsuggestedtheparallelsbetweenthedignityoftribalandstatesovereignsinarecentconcurrence,Michiganv.BayMillsIndianCmty.,134S.Ct.2024,2042(2014)(Sotomayor,J.,concurring).Cf.JudithResnik&JulieChi-hyeSuk,AddingInsulttoInjury:QuestioningtheRoleofDignityinConceptionsofSovereignty,55Stan.L.Rev.1921(2003)(exploringtheriseofconceptsofdignityintheSupremeCourt’sjurisprudence,andarguingithasrelevancewithrespecttotribes).

SeeDavidH.Getches,BeyondIndianLaw:TheRehnquistCourt’sPursuitofStates’Rights,Color-BlindJusticeandMainstreamValues,86Minn.L.Rev.267,345-48(2001);cf.WenonaT.Singel,TheFirstFederalists,62DrakeL.Rev.775,837-42(2013)(recountingthebenefitsofinnovationsintribalgovernance).SeegenerallyAngelaR.Riley,(Tribal)SovereigntyandIlliberalism,95Cal.L.Rev.799(2007)(describingjudicialandscholarlyhostilitytoexercisesoftribalsovereigntythatdivergefromliberalnorms).

Alden,527U.S.at724;seealso,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Windsor,133S.Ct.2675,2689-92(2013)(questioningtheDefenseofMarriageActfordepartingfromtheconstitutional“historyandtraditionofrelianceonstatelawtodefinemarriage”);ShelbyCnty.v.Holder,133S.Ct.2612,2623-24(2013)(invalidatingaportionoftheVotingRightsActforviolatingthe“fundamentalprincipleofequalsovereigntyamongtheStates”(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted));Nat’lFed’nofIndep.Bus.v.Sebelius,132S.Ct.2566,2602-03(2012)(limitingcongressionalpowertoconditiongrantstostatesundertheSpendingClausebecause“[o]therwisethetwo-governmentsystemestablishedbytheFramerswouldgivewaytoasystemthatvestspowerinonecentralgovernment”);Printzv.UnitedStates,521U.S.898,906-12(1997)(holdingthat,although“thereisnoconstitutionaltextspeakingtothisprecisequestion,”thefederalgovernmentmaynot“commandeer”stateofficialsbasedon“historicalunderstandingandpractice,...thestructureoftheConstitution,and...thejurisprudenceofthisCourt”).

Montanav.UnitedStates,450U.S.544,564(1981).

Thesehaveincludedrestrictionsoncriminaljurisdictionovernon-IndiansandnonmemberIndians,Durov.Reina,495U.S.676,685-86(1990);Oliphantv.SuquamishIndianTribe,435U.S.191,209-10(1978);onciviladjudicativejurisdictionovernonmemberswithinthereservation,bothonandofftriballand,PlainsCommerceBankv.LongFamilyLand&CattleCo.,554U.S.316(2008);Nevadav.Hicks,533U.S.353(2001);Stratev.A-1Contractors,520U.S.438(1997);Montana,450U.S.at563-66;andonlegislativejurisdiction,includingtaxation,overnonmemberswithinthereservation,AtkinsonTradingCo.v.Shirley,532U.S.645(2001).

TheCourt’sonlyseriousconsiderationofthehistoryofNativejurisdictioncameinOliphant,whereitoutlinednineteenth-centuryrestrictionsontribalcriminaljurisdiction.ButtheonlyprovisiontheCourtcitedpredatingtheeraofIndianremovalwasJusticeJohnson’sopinioninFletcherv.Peck,prefiguringhislaterconcurrenceinCherokeeNationdenyingNativesovereigntyaltogether.Oliphant,435U.S.at209(quotingFletcherv.Peck,10U.S.(6Cranch)87,147(1810)(Johnson,J.,concurring)).JusticeJohnson’sidiosyncraticopinionfromtwodecadesearlierisapoorinterpretiveguideforChiefJusticeMarshall’sholding.Italsoignoreshistoricalevidencesuggestingthatthefederalgovernmentnotonlypermitted,butoversaw,tribalcourtjurisdictionexercisingtribalsovereigntyovernon-Natives.SeeFord,supranote198,at60-63.

SeeAlexTallchiefSkibine,RedefiningtheStatusofIndianTribesWithinOurFederalism:BeyondtheDependencyParadigm,38Conn.L.Rev.667,667-68(2006)(arguingthattheimplicitdivestituredoctrineisbasedonthepresumptionoftribaldependency).

JudithResnikconvincinglysuggeststhattribes,states,andthefederalgovernmentare“inter-dependentsovereigns.”JudithResnik,Tribes,Wars,andtheFederalCourts:ApplyingtheMythsandtheMethodsofMarburyv.MadisontoTribalCourts’CriminalJurisdiction,36Ariz.St.L.J.77,134(2004).

TheFederalistNo39,at242(JamesMadison)(ClintonRossitered.,1961).

See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Wheeler,435U.S.313,323(1978)(“ThesovereigntythattheIndiantribesretainisofauniqueandlimitedcharacter.ItexistsonlyatthesufferanceofCongressandissubjecttocompletedefeasance.”).

See,e.g.,supratextaccompanyingnotes241,259,301-302.

Onstatesovereignty,seeAndrzejRapaczynski,FromSovereigntytoProcess:TheJurisprudenceofFederalismAfterGarcia,1985Sup.Ct.Rev.341,346,whichstatesthat“[t]herhetoricofstatesovereigntyisresponsibleformuchoftheintellectualpovertyofourfederalism-relatedjurisprudence.”Ontribalsovereignty,compareUnitedStatesv.Lara,541U.S.193,205(2004),whicharguesthatearliercases“makeclearthattheConstitutiondoesnotdictatethemetesandboundsoftribalautonomy,”withid.at228(Souter,J.,dissenting),whicharguesthat“ourpreviousunderstandingofthejurisdictionalimplicationsofdependentsovereigntywasconstitutionalinnature.”

ThisisclearestintheCourt’sjurisprudenceondeterminingwhichrightsare“deeplyrootedinthisNation’shistoryandtradition.”Moorev.CityofEastCleveland,431U.S.494,503(1977);seealsoMichaelH.v.GeraldD.,491U.S.110,127-28n.6(1989)(parsinghowtoidentifysuch“deeplyrooted”rights).

Seesupratextaccompanyingnote397.

Johnsonv.M’Intosh,21U.S.(8Wheat.)543,588(1823).SeegenerallyWalterR.Echo-Hawk,IntheCourtsoftheConqueror:The10WorstIndianLawCasesEverDecided(2010).

SeeFrickey,supranote384,at487(arguingthatthecoretensioninfederalIndianlawisthe“fundamentalnormativeconfusion”about“ourcreationofaconstitutionaldemocracythroughcolonialism.”);Resnik,supranote393,at697(“NoactofinterpretationandnoelaborationofconsenttheorycanexplainfederalexerciseofpoweranddominionoverIndiantribes.”).

Foranargumentforalternativelegalvisionsrootedinindigenousnorms,seeRobertA.Williams,Jr.,LinkingArmsTogether:AmericanIndianTreatyVisionsofLawandPeace,1600-1800,at3-12(1997);andWilliams,supranote318,at289-99.Notably,Williamsbaseshisaccountinhistory.

ThepossibilityofredemptionwithincurrentlawwasthesubjectofaprominentdebateinfederalIndianlawscholarship.SeeRobertLaurence,LearningtoLivewiththePlenaryPowerofCongressovertheIndianNations:AnEssayinReactiontoProfessorWilliams’Algebra,30Ariz.L.Rev.413(1988);RobertA.Williams,LearningNottoLivewithEurocentricMyopia:AReplytoProfessorLaurence’sLearningtoLivewiththePlenaryPowerofCongressovertheIndianNations,30Ariz.L.Rev.439(1988).Onconstitutionalredemptionmorebroadly,seeJ.M.Balkin,ConstitutionalRedemption:PoliticalFaithinanUnjustWorld(2011).

ThequotationisfromtheNorthwestOrdinance,ch.8,1Stat.50,52(1789).

ThisArticlehasonlybrieflyintroducedthedepthofNativeengagementwithinternationallawcreatedinanAnglo-AmericanandEuropeancontext,atopicIexploremorefullyelsewhere.SeeGregoryAblavsky,SpeciesofSovereignty:Native-ClaimsMakingandtheEarlyAmericanState(Oct.10,2014)(unpublishedconferencepaper)(onfilewithauthor).

CherokeeNationv.Georgia,30U.S.(5Pet.)1,18(1831).

ScholarshiphasstressedtheimportanceofNativelegalactivisminshapingIndianpolicy,buthasfocusedonthetwentiethcentury.See,e.g.,ChristianW.McMillen,MakingIndianLaw:TheHualapaiLandCaseandtheBirthofEthnohistory(2007);DavidE.Wilkins,HollowJustice:AHistoryofIndigenousClaimsintheUnitedStates(2013);CharlesF.Wilkinson,BloodStruggle:TheRiseofModernIndianNations(2005).ForconsiderationofNativesaslegalactorsintheearlymodernperiod,seeNativeClaims:IndigenousLawAgainstEmpire,1500-1920(SalihaBelmessoused.,2012);andWilliams,supranote411.