Posts
Sovereign on Paper Only
U.S.-Indigenous treaties and the Standing Silence — how the architecture of the record was built to ensure that one party to the agreement could never contest its meaning
There is a specific and consequential difference between Post I's Narrative Silence and Post II's Standing Silence. In the Reconstruction specimen, the record existed — Black legislators governing, constitutions being written, public schools being built — and the silence was constructed afterward, through the interpretive apparatus of the Dunning School and a century of hostile historiography. The record was present. The frame made it unreadable.
In the treaty specimen, the silence is earlier and more structural. It is not built over an existing record. It is built into the record-making process itself — at the moment of creation, before the document is signed, before it enters any archive. The treaty between the United States government and an Indigenous nation was produced through a process in which one party controlled the language of the document, the institutional procedures of ratification, the archive in which the document would be kept, and the legal system that would later adjudicate its meaning. The other party spoke, negotiated, and understood the agreement — but their understanding entered no document that the adjudicating system recognized as authoritative.
This is Standing Silence at its most foundational: not the erasure of a record that was made, but the structural exclusion of one party's record-making capacity from the system that determines what the record means. The treaty is a document of mutual agreement between two sovereigns. The archive contains only one sovereign's version of what was agreed.
The National Archives holds approximately 370 ratified treaties between the United States and Indigenous nations, spanning 1778 to 1871 — the year Congress ended treaty-making by statute, converting what had been diplomatic instruments into administrative unilateralism. These documents are preserved in Record Group 11, the same record group that holds the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. They are formally classified as the nation's most significant legal instruments. They are also, structurally, one-sided records of agreements negotiated between parties with profoundly unequal standing in the record-making process.
The conversion mechanism in the treaty silence is the legal doctrine of plenary power — the Supreme Court's assertion, beginning in the 1880s, that Congress has essentially unlimited authority over Indigenous nations and their affairs, subject to no meaningful constitutional constraint. The plenary power doctrine was built on the same archival foundation the Standing Silence produced: a legal record in which Indigenous nations appeared as subjects of U.S. authority rather than as co-equal sovereigns whose consent to that authority was recorded in binding agreements.
The conversion works through a specific archival-legal loop. The treaty record, produced under conditions of Standing Silence, contains the U.S. interpretation of what was agreed. Federal courts interpreting the treaties consult the federal record. Federal courts have developed doctrines — plenary power, the trust relationship, the political question doctrine — that defer to Congressional judgment on Indigenous affairs and limit judicial scrutiny of Congressional action. The deference is built on a record that was produced by the body being deferred to. The circle is closed. The silence is self-reinforcing.
In 1851, federal commissioners negotiated eighteen treaties with California Indigenous nations, covering approximately 8.5 million acres to be reserved for Indigenous use. The negotiations were conducted, agreements were reached, and the treaties were submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate rejected all eighteen and ordered them sealed — classified, kept from the public record and from the tribal nations whose lands were at issue.
For fifty years — from 1852 to 1905, when a researcher discovered them in the Senate archives — these treaties did not exist in any accessible record. California Indigenous peoples were dispossessed of the reserved lands, removed to reservations not covered by any agreement, and subjected to violence, forced labor, and near-extinction of entire communities, with no legal instrument they could invoke in their defense because the instrument that might have protected them had been deliberately removed from the record.
The unratified treaties represent the Standing Silence at its most precisely documented: not the inadvertent absence of a record, but the deliberate removal of one party's legal instrument from the archive that would have given it force. The treaties existed. Their existence was classified. Their classification served the interests of the party that classified them.
When the treaties were rediscovered in 1905, California Indigenous nations had already been largely dispossessed. The legal window for asserting treaty rights to the reserved lands had been effectively closed by fifty years of settlement and title transfer. The silence did not need to be permanent. It needed only to be long enough.
The conversion from Standing Silence to legal doctrine operates through the accumulation of judicial precedent built on the silenced record. Each Supreme Court decision interpreting treaty rights consults prior decisions and the treaty text as preserved in the federal archive. The Indigenous understanding of the treaty — the oral tradition, the memory of negotiators, the practices of governance the treaty was meant to protect — is present in tribal communities but absent from the judicial record. Each generation of decisions moves further from the negotiating context and deeper into the doctrinal edifice built on the silenced foundation.
The insulation of the treaty Standing Silence is the most durable in the series: it is built into the law itself. The treaties are in the National Archives. They are ratified instruments of the highest legal standing. They are, in a formal sense, among the most carefully preserved documents in the American record. The silence is not in their absence — it is in what they contain and what they structurally cannot contain. A document can be perfectly preserved and perfectly silencing simultaneously. The treaty archive is both.
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) is the most significant recent instance of a silence beginning to break — not through new documents but through the insistence, sustained over decades of tribal litigation, that the existing documents be read on their own terms rather than through the accumulated overlay of plenary power doctrine.
The case concerned whether the Creek Nation's reservation, established by treaty in the 19th century, had ever been legally disestablished. The federal government and Oklahoma argued it had been — through a series of congressional acts, allotment policies, and the practical reality of a century of Oklahoma statehood. The Creek Nation argued the treaty language was clear: Congress had never explicitly disestablished the reservation, and under the canon of construction that ambiguities in Indian treaties should be resolved in favor of the tribe, the reservation remained intact.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, agreed with the Creek Nation. The majority held that the original treaty language meant what it said — that the reservation had never been lawfully disestablished — and that a century of contrary practice could not substitute for the explicit congressional action the law required. Three million acres of eastern Oklahoma were confirmed as reservation land. Criminal jurisdiction over cases involving tribal members was affected across a vast swath of the state.
McGirt did not reopen the treaty archive or recover the oral understandings that the Standing Silence had excluded. It read the written record — the treaty text in the federal archive — more carefully than prior doctrine had. The silence broke not through new evidence but through the insistence that the existing evidence be taken seriously. That is, precisely, how Trouillot said silences break: not when new facts emerge, but when new actors with new standing insist that the existing facts be read differently.
The treaty archive does not misrepresent what was agreed. It represents, with perfect fidelity, what one party to the agreement was able to put into writing — and then adjudicates the agreement based exclusively on that writing. The silence is not in the document. It is in what the document was structurally unable to contain.
The Silence Architecture · Series AnalysisThe Standing Silence and the Narrative Silence of Post I are not the same mechanism. Post I's silence was constructed afterward, over a record that fully existed. Post II's silence was constructed at the moment of record-making, by a system in which one party had standing and one did not. Both are silences. Their structural positions in the production of the record are different, and the strategies available for breaking them are correspondingly different.
Post I's silence breaks when new interpretive authority challenges the dominant frame. Post II's silence breaks when the legal standing of the excluded party is recognized — when, as in McGirt, a court reads the treaty text and finds that the words mean what the subordinated party always said they meant. The silence architecture is not monolithic. Its mechanisms are distinct. And its remedies require understanding which mechanism is operating.
The 370 ratified treaty figure is from NARA's published holdings description for Record Group 11 and related treaty databases. The California unratified treaties (18 treaties, 1851–52) are documented public history; their Senate sealing, the 1905 rediscovery, and their content are established in the scholarly literature, including Valerie Sherer Mathes and Phil Brigandi's Reservation of the Mind: The Treaty of Temecula (2014) and Felix Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law. The interpreter problem is documented in contemporaneous federal records and the treaty scholarship; specific documented cases of mistranslation are noted in the literature without being individually cited here. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020) is public record; the three million acres figure and criminal jurisdiction effects are from the decision and subsequent reporting. The plenary power doctrine derives from Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) and subsequent cases in the federal Indian law canon. The claim about deliberate Senate sealing of the California treaties is documented historical fact, not inference.
No comments:
Post a Comment