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. 小弟我這篇題目大概寫的出來了 但是關於文章的因果還是有幾個不太明白的地方想要跟大家請教： L v. H rejected the efforts of three tribes -> after Lone Wolf, the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements 為什麼否決了部落後，會有一個正面的結果（減少談判）？ 照理來說否決了部落怎麼看都應該是個負面的事情？ 如果因為對部落事務的流程減少導致可以更靈活的為部落謀取權力， 從這樣的角度不就正是 BC 所說的擁有過大的權利了嗎？ 以上問題可能跟答題無關，但是有點困擾我理解這篇文章，希望有大大可以指南感恩 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 223.137.115.104 (臺灣) ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/GMAT/M.1606464873.A.43D.html RRRR 我終於看懂了，原來這篇是在批判 BC 的批判不夠嚴厲 看來是我太先入為主的以為批判一定要往相反方向了 ※ 編輯: FaLaSol (223.137.115.104 臺灣), 11/28/2020 11:56:54