Indian Intercourse Act

Indian Intercourse Act

Overview
The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....

 in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834. The Act regulates commerce between Native Americans
Native Americans in the United States
Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as...

 and non-Indians. The most notable provisions of the Act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States
Aboriginal title in the United States
The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title...

, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763
Royal Proclamation of 1763
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7, 1763, by King George III following Great Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War...

 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 was a proclamation by the Congress of the Confederation dated September 22, 1783 prohibiting the extinguishment of aboriginal title in the United States without the consent of the federal government...

.


The first four Acts expired after three years; the 1802 and 1834 Acts had no expiration.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Indian Intercourse Act'
Start a new discussion about 'Indian Intercourse Act'
Answer questions from other users
Full Discussion Forum
 
Unanswered Questions
Recent Discussions
Encyclopedia
The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....

 in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834. The Act regulates commerce between Native Americans
Native Americans in the United States
Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as...

 and non-Indians. The most notable provisions of the Act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States
Aboriginal title in the United States
The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title...

, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763
Royal Proclamation of 1763
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7, 1763, by King George III following Great Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War...

 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 was a proclamation by the Congress of the Confederation dated September 22, 1783 prohibiting the extinguishment of aboriginal title in the United States without the consent of the federal government...

.

Text of the land provision



The first four Acts expired after three years; the 1802 and 1834 Acts had no expiration. The version of the Act in force at the time of the illicit conveyance determines the law that applies. The courts have found few legal differences between the five versions of the Act. For example, three dissenting justices in South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 , is an important U.S. Supreme Court precedent for aboriginal title in the United States decided in the wake of Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State ["Oneida II"]...

(1986) noted that the 1793 Act expanded the scope of the 1790 Act by applying the prohibition not only to lands but "claims."

The original Act, passed on July 22, 1790 provides:
[N]o sale of lands made by any Indians, or any nation or tribe of Indians within the United States, shall be valid to any person or persons, or to any state, whether having the right of pre-emption to such lands or not, unless the same shall be made and duly executed at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States.


The 1793 Act provides:
[N]o purchase or grant of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indians or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by a treaty or a convention entered into pursuant to the constitution . . . .


The 1796 Act provides:
[N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity, in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty, or convention, entered into pursuant to the constitution . . . .


The 1799 Act provides:
[N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity, in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention, entered into pursuant to the constitution . . . .


The 1802 Act provides
[N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation, or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity, in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention, entered into pursuant to the constitution . . . .


The 1834 Act, currently codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177, provides:
[N]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of land, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant the constitution.

Legislative history


One of the earliest interpretations of the Nonintercourse Act comes from a speech by President George Washington
George Washington
George Washington was the dominant military and political leader of the new United States of America from 1775 to 1799. He led the American victory over Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army from 1775 to 1783, and presided over the writing of...

 to the Seneca Nation of New York
Seneca Nation of New York
The Seneca Nation of New York, also known as the Seneca Nation of Indians is a federally recognized tribe of Seneca people in New York...

 in 1790, after the passage of the Act:
I am not uninformed that the six Nations have been led into some difficulties with respect to the sale of their lands since the peace. But I must inform you that these evils arose before the present government of the United States was established, when the separate States and individuals under their authority, undertook to treat with the Indian tribes respecting the sale of their lands. But the case is now entirely altered. The general Government only has the power, to treat with the Indian Nations, and any treaty formed and held without its authority will not be binding. Here then is the security for the remainder of your lands. No State nor person can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty held under the authority of the United States. The general government will never consent to your being defrauded. But it will protect you in all your just rights.

History


The first litigation of the Nonintercourse Act by an indigenous party to reach the Supreme Court was Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, , was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits...

(1831), which the Court dismissed for lack of original jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.-France:...

. William Wirt
William Wirt
William Wirt may refer to:* William Wirt * William Wirt...

, the Cherokee's lawyer, argued that the challenged Georgia statute was void, inter alia, "[b]ecause it is repugnant to a law of the United States passed in 1803 entitled 'an act to regulate trade and intercourse with Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers.'" Wirt also argued that the state statute violated the Cherokee treaties
Cherokee treaties
-Pre-American Revolution:Treaty with South Carolina, 1721 : Ceded land between the Santee, Saluda, and Edisto Rivers to the Province of South Carolina.Treaty of Nikwasi, 1730 : Trade agreement with the Province of North Carolina thru Alexander Cumming....

 and the Contract Clause
Contract Clause
The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:The Contract Clause prohibits states from enacting any law that retroactively impairs contract rights...

 and the dormant Indian Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...

. A similar argument was made in the Bill filed by Wirt in the Supreme Court.

After Cherokee Nation, the next such case to reach the Court was Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 , was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia , and the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v....

(1896). The New York Court of Appeals had dismissed the claim based on an interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act and an invocation of the statute of limitations for the state enabling act which enabled the Seneca to sue in state court; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because of the adequate and independent state ground
Adequate and independent state ground
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine is a doctrine of United States law governing the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review judgments entered by state courts.- Introduction :...

s doctrine. The Act remained essentially un-litigated by tribes until Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which determined that the Federal Power Commission was authorized to take lands owned by the Tuscarora Indian tribe by eminent domain under the Federal Power Act for a hydroelectric power...

(1960), where the Tuscarora attempted to avoid the condemnation of their land by the construction of a federal dam. The court held the Act inapplicable, but noted:
It is certain that if [25 U.S.C. § 177] is applicable . . . , the mere ‘expressed consent’ of Congress would be vain and idle. For s 177 at the very least contemplates the assent of the Indian nation or tribe. . . . [I]t follows that the mere consent of Congress, however express and specific, would avail nothing. Therefore, if s 177 is applicable . . . , the result would be that the Tuscarora lands, however imperative for the project, could not be taken at all.


This dicta inspired Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida Cnty. (1974) ["Oneida I"], where the Supreme Court held that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction for Indian land claims based upon aboriginal title and violations of the Nonintercourse Act. In Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State (1984) ["Oneida II"], the Supreme Court held that tribes have a federal common law cause of action, not pre-empted by the Nonintercourse Act, for possessory land claims based upon aboriginal title; the court also rejected the following affirmative defenses: limitations, abatement, ratification
Ratification
Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.- Private law :In contract law, the...

 or nonjusticiability.

While Oneida II remains the only final judgement entered by a court in favor of a tribe bringing a Nonintercourse Act land claim, Oneida I inspired dozens of other land claims. After tribes won initial judgements in some of these claims, Congress reacted by extinguishing the claimed aboriginal title and compensating the tribal plaintiffs. These Indian Land Claims Settlements
Indian Land Claims Settlements
Indian Land Claims Settlements are settlements of Native American land claims by the United States Congress, codified in 25 U.S.C. ch. 19.In several instances, these settlements ended live claims of aboriginal title in the United States...

 are collected in 25 U.S.C. tit. 19. For example, in Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 , was a landmark decision regarding aboriginal title in the United States...

(1st Cir. 1975), after the First Circuit held that the federal government was obliged to bring a suit on the tribe's behalf claiming 60% of Maine, Congress approved a $81.5 million settlement. In the case of the Narragansett land claim
Narragansett land claim
The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Oneida I decision...

 (D.R.I. 1976), Congress enacted a settlement after the court struck all the defendant's affirmative defenses (laches, statute of limitations/adverse possession, estoppel by sale, operation of state law, and public policy) and denied the state's motion to dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity and nonjusticiability. Similarly, in Mohegan Tribe v. Connecticut (D. Conn. 1982), Congress approved the creation of the Mohegan Sun
Mohegan Sun
Mohegan Sun, located in Uncasville, Connecticut, is the second largest casino in the United States with of gaming space. It is located on along the banks of the Thames River. It is at the heart of the scenic foothills of southeastern Connecticut, where 60 percent of the state's tourism is...

 after the court struck the defendant's affirmative defenses. With the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe
The Mashantucket Pequot are a small Native American tribal nation of the Algonquian language community in the state of Connecticut. Within the tribe's Reservation, in Ledyard, New London County, Connecticut, the Mashantucket Pequot operate Foxwoods Resort Casino, the world's largest resort...

 and Wampanoag, Congress enacted a settlement before the courts had a chance to enter any rulings.

Elements


As stated in Narragansett, there are four element to a Nonintercourse Act claim.
In order to establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show that:
1) it is or represents an Indian “tribe” within the meaning of the Act;
2) the parcels of land at issue herein are covered by the Act as tribal land;
3) the United States has never consented to the alienation of the tribal land;
4) the trust relationship between the United States and the tribe, which is established by coverage of the Act, has never been terminated or abandoned.


More recently, the Second Circuit has stated:
In order to establish a violation of the Non-Intercourse Act, the [plaintiffs] are required to establish that: (1) they are an Indian tribe; (2) the land at issue was tribal land at the time of the conveyance; (3) the United States never approved the conveyance, and (4) the trust relationship between the United States and the tribe has not been terminated.


Tribal status

The Passamaquoddy and Narragansett cases, supra, are examples where the plaintiff has prevailed despite not being federally recognized tribes (the Passamaquoddy obtained federal recognition through the Maine Indian Claims Settlement; the Narragansett gained federal recognition in 1983, five years after the Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act). Although federal tribal status is prima facie evidence of the first element, the Act also applies to unrecognized tribes.

If the tribe is unrecognized, the defendant may defeat the plaintiff's prima facie case either by showing that the Indians did not constitute a "tribe" at the time of the conveyance, or at the time of the litigation; thus, the defendant may show that the plaintiff is not the successor in interest to the tribe whose lands were illegally alienated. The leading case where the defendant's prevailed on this element is Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp. (1st Cir. 1979). Alternatively, the action may be stayed until the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government of the United States within the US Department of the Interior. It is responsible for the administration and management of of land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans in the United States, Native American...

 makes a tribal status determination (and eventually dismissed if the BIA concludes the plaintiffs are not the successors in interest. The Pueblo
Pueblo
Pueblo is a term used to describe modern communities of Native Americans in the Southwestern United States of America. The first Spanish explorers of the Southwest used this term to describe the communities housed in apartment-like structures built of stone, adobe mud, and other local material...

 were initially interpreted not to be "Indians" for the purposes of the Nonintercourse Act; however, this holding was subsequently overruled.

The elements given above are for a tribe. The United States, acting in its capacity as a trustee, may (and has, successfully) bring an action on behalf of a tribe. The federal government was vested with similar power to enforce the anti-alienation provisions of the Allotment Acts. Conversely, individual Indians have no standing under the Act. This is true even if individual plaintiffs attempt the certify a class of all tribal members; the tribe itself must sue.

Covered land

The First Circuit in Passamaquoddy and the Second Circuit in Mohegan Tribe, supra, held that the Nonintercourse Act applies to the entire United States, including the original thirteen
Thirteen Colonies
The Thirteen Colonies were English and later British colonies established on the Atlantic coast of North America between 1607 and 1733. They declared their independence in the American Revolution and formed the United States of America...

. No defendant has yet persuaded a court otherwise.

However, the defendant will defeat this element if the challenged conveyance occurred before 1790. The Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 was a proclamation by the Congress of the Confederation dated September 22, 1783 prohibiting the extinguishment of aboriginal title in the United States without the consent of the federal government...

 may cover conveyances between 1783 and 1790, but the only court to consider it held that the Confederation Congress had neither the power nor the intent to prohibit conveyances to states within their borders. The Royal Proclamation of 1763
Royal Proclamation of 1763
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7, 1763, by King George III following Great Britain's acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War...

 may cover conveyances between 1763 and 1783; however, the only court to examine such a conveyance found that it satisfied the requirements of the Proclamation. For example, the conveyances at issue in Johnson v. M'Intosh
Johnson v. M'Intosh
Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 , is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans...

(1823) occurred on July 5, 1773 and October 18, 1775, but neither party to the suit was indigenous.

Federal non-consent

Through the policies of Indian removal
Indian Removal
Indian removal was a nineteenth century policy of the government of the United States to relocate Native American tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river...

 in the East and Indian reservation
Indian reservation
An American Indian reservation is an area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs...

-creation in the West, the federal government removed Native Americans from most of their ancestral land. However, examples of Congress approving a state action that alienated land are rare indeed. Congress would have to pass a statute with express language, or the Senate would have to ratify the treaty alienating the land, to secure such federal approval. The view taken by several of the Indian Land Claims Settlements
Indian Land Claims Settlements
Indian Land Claims Settlements are settlements of Native American land claims by the United States Congress, codified in 25 U.S.C. ch. 19.In several instances, these settlements ended live claims of aboriginal title in the United States...

 is that Congress may consent to such conveyances retroactively; this view has not been tested in court, although it is likely to be upheld because the power of Congress to extinguish aboriginal title without compensation is plenary
Plenary power
A plenary power or plenary authority is the separate identification, definition, and complete vesting of a power or powers or authority in a governing body or individual, to choose to act on a particular subject matter or area...

.

Trust relationship

In Passamaquoddy, supra, the First Circuit held that only Congress, and only with a clear statement, can terminate a federal-tribal trust relationship; acts of state governments are irrelevant. Congress has done so with several tribes under Indian termination policy
Indian termination policy
Indian termination was the policy of the United States from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. The belief was that Native Americans would be better off if assimilated as individuals into mainstream American society. To that end, Congress proposed to end the special relationship between tribes and the...

. Since South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 , is an important U.S. Supreme Court precedent for aboriginal title in the United States decided in the wake of Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State ["Oneida II"]...

(1986) it has been understood that the Nonintercourse Act does not protect the lands of terminated tribes; there, the termination act was held to have triggered the state statute of limitations with respect to the land claim.

Affirmative defenses


Courts have considered and rejected several affirmative defense
Affirmative defense
A defendant offers an affirmative defense when responding to a plaintiff's claim in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, in criminal law. Essentially, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. ...

s to Nonintercourse Act suits. However, there are two affirmative defenses that have been accepted by some courts: state sovereign immunity and the equitable doctrine of laches
Laches (equity)
Laches is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim...in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party" When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, or doctrine...

.

State sovereign immunity

The structure of the original Constitution and the text of the Eleventh Amendment gives states sovereign immunity from most suits; there are exceptions: when the state consents to suit; when the federal government abrogates sovereign immunity by statute; when the federal government is the plaintiff or plaintiff-intervenor; and the category authorized by Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young, , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.-Facts:...

(1908). In several cases, Nonintercourse Act plaintiffs have satisfied one of these exceptions. However, the Nonintercourse Act itself does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. Moreover, the authority is clear that the Ex parte Young exception does not apply. Therefore, plaintiffs must obtain the intervention of the federal government or relegate themselves to suing local governments and private land owners.

Further, in actions against states, Indians are not entitled to the presumption of 25 U.S.C. § 194, which applies only to "persons."

Laches

Four dissenting justices would have barred the tribes action based on laches
Laches (equity)
Laches is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim...in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party" When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, or doctrine...

in Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 , is a landmark decision concerning aboriginal title in the United States...

(1985), a question the majority did not reach. The Second Circuit adopted the view of the dissent in Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki
Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki
Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 , is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Sherrill v...

(2d Cir. 2005), and since then no tribal plaintiff has been able to overcome this affirmative defense in that circuit. Cayuga erased a damage award of $247.9 million, the largest ever awarded under the Act.

Definition of Indian country


In addition to regulating relations between Indians living on Indian land and non-Indians, the 1834 Act identified an area known as "Indian country
Indian Country
Indian country is a term used to describe the many self-governing Native American communities throughout the United States. This usage is reflected in many places, both legal and colloquial...

". This land was described as being "…all that part of the United States west of the Mississippi and not within the states of Missouri and Louisiana, or the territory of Arkansas…" This is the land that became known as Indian Territory
Indian Territory
The Indian Territory, also known as the Indian Territories and the Indian Country, was land set aside within the United States for the settlement of American Indians...

.

Trading posts


One of the most defining aspects of the acts was the establishment of a series of "factories
Factory (trading post)
Factory was the English term for the trading posts system originally established by Europeans in foreign territories, first within different states of medieval Europe, and later in their colonial possessions...

" which were officially licensed trading post
Trading post
A trading post was a place or establishment in historic Northern America where the trading of goods took place. The preferred travel route to a trading post or between trading posts, was known as a trade route....

s where Native Americans were to sell their merchandise (particularly furs
Fur trade
The fur trade is a worldwide industry dealing in the acquisition and sale of animal fur. Since the establishment of world market for in the early modern period furs of boreal, polar and cold temperate mammalian animals have been the most valued...

). The factories, which officially were set up to protect the tribes from unscrupulous private traders, were to be used as leverage to cause the tribes to cede substantial territory in exchange for access to the "factory" as happened with the Treaty of Fort Clark
Treaty of Fort Clark
The Treaty of Fort Clark was signed at Fort Osage on November 10, 1808 in which the Osage Nation ceded all the land east of the fort in Missouri and Arkansas north of the Arkansas River to the United States. The Fort Clark treaty and the Treaty of St...

 in which the Osage Nation
Osage Nation
The Osage Nation is a Native American Siouan-language tribe in the United States that originated in the Ohio River valley in present-day Kentucky. After years of war with invading Iroquois, the Osage migrated west of the Mississippi River to their historic lands in present-day Arkansas, Missouri,...

 exchanged most of Missouri
Missouri
Missouri is a US state located in the Midwestern United States, bordered by Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska. With a 2010 population of 5,988,927, Missouri is the 18th most populous state in the nation and the fifth most populous in the Midwest. It...

 in order to access Fort Clark
Fort Osage
Fort Osage was part of the United States factory trading post system for the Osage Nation in the early 19th century near Sibley, Missouri....

.

Property claims


According to U.S. Attorney General William Wirt
William Wirt
William Wirt may refer to:* William Wirt * William Wirt...

:
[T]he United States agree to pay [the Creek Indians] certain specific sums of money, out of which payments there is a reservation of $5,000 to satisfy claims for property taken by individuals of the said nation from the citizens of the United States subsequent to the treaty of Colerain, which has been or may be claimed and established agreeably to the provisions of the act for regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers.

State nonintercourse acts



The Nonintercourse Act did not pre-empt the states from legislating additional restraints on alienation of Native American lands. Many states, including nearly all of the original Thirteen, enacted similar statutes for at least some lands during at least some time periods.

Other state statutes, or constitutional provisions, incorporated the English common law as it had evolved up to that point.

New York
A New York State enacted March 31, 1821 provided:
[I]t shall be unlawful for any person or persons, other than Indians, to settle or reside upon any lands belonging to or occupied by any nation or tribe of Indians within this state; and that all leases, contracts and agreements made by any Indians, whereby any person or persons, other than Indians, shall be permitted to reside upon such lands, shall be absolutely void; and if any person or persons shall settle or reside on any such lands, contrary to this act, it shall be the duty of any judge of any court of Common Pleas of the county within which such lands shall be situated, on complaint made to him, and on due proof of the fact of such settlement or residence, to issue his warrant, under his hand and seal, directed to the sheriff of such county, commanding him, within ten days after the receipt thereof, to remove such person or persons so settling or residing, with his, her or their families, from such lands.


South Carolina
A 1739 South Carolina Provincial Council statute required a license from the Crown or Governor for a private party to purchase lands from Indians.

External links