pp1 - RC - Essay 3 In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 小弟我这篇题目大概写的出来了 但是关於文章的因果还是有几个不太明白的地方想要跟大家请教： L v. H rejected the efforts of three tribes -> after Lone Wolf, the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements 为什麽否决了部落後，会有一个正面的结果（减少谈判）？ 照理来说否决了部落怎麽看都应该是个负面的事情？ 如果因为对部落事务的流程减少导致可以更灵活的为部落谋取权力， 从这样的角度不就正是 BC 所说的拥有过大的权利了吗？ 以上问题可能跟答题无关，但是有点困扰我理解这篇文章，希望有大大可以指南感恩 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 223.137.115.104 (台湾) ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/GMAT/M.1606464873.A.43D.html RRRR 我终於看懂了，原来这篇是在批判 BC 的批判不够严厉 看来是我太先入为主的以为批判一定要往相反方向了 ※ 编辑: FaLaSol (223.137.115.104 台湾), 11/28/2020 11:56:54