small interjection.

My favorite reader and friend Joe sent along a suggestion for clarification here... I'll put his comment and then I will add to it...

"try to explain tribal soveriegnty a little better, or the difference between soveriegn and tribal sovereign. I think people should know that the treaties that were signed were with sovereign nations, and it wasn't until later that the term "tribal sovereignty" came about, in an effective attempt to limit the powers of the tribes."

Joe's right. When the settlers came over, and they did want to settle, they had to come up with a way of coming to some sort of agreement with the indians. So they treated them as "sovereigns" - meaning they had the power, as an independent nation, to sign treaties and would be expected to uphold their end of the bargain under them.

But, as I will get into later when I discuss the "doctrine of discovery" (BOOOOOO!) the settlers didn't quite see the indians as equals. So while they saw them as sovereign - meaning independent and separate nations - when they needed them to fill that role; they kind of fudged for a while on how to tweak their definition of "sovereign" to fit their needs.

When all the dust settled, the US government had their "epiphany". The tribes would be PART of the United States, and that the government would have a relationship with them like a trustee relationship, meaning the US would be responsible for "protecting" them.

So TRIBAL sovereignty meant that yes, you are still a sovereign, but our sovereign (the united states) is bigger than your sovereign and your sovereign is a small part of the US and tribal sovereignty takes a different form. So while the tribes may be considered independent, and separate, they are sovereign at the pleasure of the US government, and subject to all sorts of rules and catches, which you will see later. Johnson v McIntosh and the Cherokee cases, which we will get into soon, will explain this better.

How's that, Joe? :o)