Further From the Sun by Kristy Augare of Blackfeet Community College

In 1932, centenarian and Cherokee citizen Rebecca Neugin sat down for an interview to share her early memories of the Trail of Tears. Although she was just a young child at the time, the episode left a deep, searing impression that undoubtedly haunted Rebecca her entire life. “When the soldiers came to our house my father wanted to fight, but my mother told him that the soldiers would kill him if he did and we surren­dered without a fight,” she recalled. After being torn from their home with only some bedding, cooking utensils, and the clothes on their backs, Rebecca’s family was forced into a stockade where they were held before being driven on the long journey from the Cherokee homeland in the East to Indian Territory, or what is today Oklahoma, far to the West.

Long before the federal troops came pounding on Rebecca Neugin’s door, the state of Georgia had been hounding the Cherokee Nation and claiming jurisdiction over their lands. A series of acts passed by the Georgia State Assembly restricted Cherokee rights, outlawed their tribal council, and shut down tribal courts. The newly established Georgia guard began patrolling within tribal boundaries and arrested Cherokees as well as American citizens for not abiding by state laws.

Legal-minded Cherokee leaders challenged what was a clear infringement on their sovereignty, culminating in the landmark Supreme Court case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Following the Georgia guard’s arrests of several missionaries working within the Cherokee Nation who had refused to take an oath of allegiance to Georgia, the court ruled that the state’s laws held no legal standing within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation, a sover­eign political entity that had a treaty-based relationship with the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall traced this relationship back to the colonial period, opining that treaties brokered with Native nations “involved, practically, no claim to their lands, no dominion over their persons. It merely bound the nation to the British crown, as a dependent ally, claiming the protection of a powerful friend and neighbour, and receiving the advantages of that protec­tion, without involving a surrender of their national character.”

But just as the Supreme Court recognized tribal sovereignty and the federal government’s trust responsibility, or duty of protection, Congress narrowly passed a controversial bill that would have more immediate consequences: “an act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.” President Andrew Jackson, who had all along supported Georgia’s usurpation of Cherokee sovereignty, celebrated the Indian Removal Act in his State of the Union address, proclaiming, “It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the government . . . in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settle­ments is approaching to a happy consummation.”

One cannot help but wonder what Rebecca Neugin’s parents thought when Jackson went on to declare, “Can it be cruel in this government when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.”

Jackson, or “King Andrew” as the Whig opposition called him, harbored what can only be described as a deep-seated disdain for the judicial branch of government. Upon reading some of his state­ments about Chief Justice Marshall and the court, eerie similarities with today’s news cycles abound. Fortunately, since those days, nearly 200 years of judicial precedent have in large part underscored the trust responsibility, of which American Indian education is an integral component.

In this issue of Tribal College Journal, we’re honored to include insights on the trust responsibility from former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland (Laguna Pueblo) and one of America’s fore­most legal scholars, Matthew L.M. Fletcher (grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians), who is the Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan. In his article, “Restoring Inaawendewin to the Trust Relationship,” Fetcher explains how the trust responsibility dates back centuries before colonists set foot on this continent. Unfortunately, the courts and the federal government have often interpreted the United States’ duty of protection as a guardianship, opening the door to all kinds of civil and human rights abuses. Professor Fletcher never­theless remains optimistic and sees hopeful signs that the United States is taking steps toward greater tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

One major step forward came under Deb Haaland’s tenure as sec­retary of the U.S. Department of the Interior when the president of the United States issued an official apology for the abuses suffered by Native children at government-sanctioned boarding schools. In her Voices article, “The Trust Responsibility Is a Promise Best Kept,” Secretary Haaland illuminates further positive developments, highlighting how New Mexico’s State-Tribal Collaboration Act assures that Native nations within the state’s boundaries have a voice in decisions—including those pertaining to education—that affect Pueblo, Navajo, and Apache citizens. It’s a blueprint the United States can follow to better undergird tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

When it comes to education, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium is hard at work making sure the federal gov­ernment lives up to its trust obligations. From the passage of the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act and the Equity in Educational Land-grant Status Act to a slew of executive orders that have strengthened federal support of TCUs, AIHEC has vigilantly reminded lawmakers that tribally controlled higher education is a cornerstone of the trust responsibility. Learn about the organization’s multifaceted efforts in the feature, “A Matter of Trust.”

For Native nations, America’s honor and integrity hinge largely on meeting its trust responsibility. As we commemorate the United States’ semiquincentennial, it is essential to reflect on not-so-pretty chapters in U.S. history such as Indian removal and the govern­ment’s failure to abide by its own treaties. In the long run, acknowl­edging these shortcomings makes the country stronger and points the way to a more just future.

Bradley Shreve, PhD, is the editor of Tribal College Journal.

REFERENCES

Perdue, T., & green, M.D. (2005). The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Beford/St. Martin’s.

Wall, S. (2023). American Indian Tribal Governance: A Critical Perspective. Durango, CO: Tribal College Press.

Wilkins, D.E., & Lomawaima, K.T. (2001). Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.