analyzing the significance of a historical event - Correct align with pre-think.ĭ. evaluating a work of scholarship -( Yes author put some light on a Work of Blue Clarke but this not the primary purpose.)Ĭ. identifying similarities in two different theories (not theories)ī. The author of the passage is primarily concerned withĪ. (Note by reading 1st line of P2 we may think that author will explain about Blue Clark’s study in this paragraph, but in last line it is clear that author is still talking about decision.)īy passage summary we can pre-think that author is discussing about decision. P2 :- About decision's far reaching impact. P1:- About decision in the case of Lone Walk and Blue Clark' study. The Lone Wolf decision ended this era of formal negotiation and finally did away with what had increasingly become the empty formality of obtaining tribal consent. But in reality, the federal government continued to negotiate formal tribal agreements past the turn of the century, treating theseĭocuments not as treaties with sovereign nations requiring ratification by the Senate but simply as legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress.
Many commentators believe that this change had already occurred in 1871 when following a dispute between the House and the Senate over which chamber should enjoy primacy in Indian affairs-Congress abolished the making of treaties with Native American tribes. In his study of the Lone Wolf case, Blue Clark properly emphasizes the Court’s assertion of a virtually unlimited unilateral power of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) over Native American affairs.īut he fails to note the decision’s more far-reaching impact: shortly after Lone Wolf, the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements with Indian tribes as a prerequisite for the implementation of federal Indian policy. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Line efforts of three Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlement without tribal consent. In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v.
But in reality the federal government continued to negotiate formal tribal agreements past the turn of the century, treating these documents not as treaties with sovereign nations requiring ratification by the Senate but simply as legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress. Many commentators believe that this change had already occurred in 1871 when-following a dispute between the House and the Senate over which chamber should enjoy primacy in Indian affairs-Congress abolished the making of treaties with Native American tribes. But he fails to note the decision’s more far-reaching impact: shortly after Lone Wolf, the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements with Indian tribes as a prerequisite for the implementation of federal Indian policy. In his study of the Lone Wolf case, Blue Clark properly emphasizes the Court’s assertion of a virtually unlimited unilateral power of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) over Native American affairs. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts of three Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlement without tribal consent.
0 kommentar(er)
