Civic Literacy Exam Practice Test 2023

U.S.–Native American Treaties

Virtually all inhabitable land in North America was occupied by Native Americans when Europeans arrived. By the 1990s, Indian [Native American] reservations in the United States represented about 2.5 percent of the country. A study of treaties reveals the changing nature of Indian and white relations. . . .

Between 1778 and the early 1800s, federal power over Indians expanded dramatically, especially in the eastern states. Eventually all tribes came to be regarded as quasi-sovereign peoples, not national equals. This view led to diminished tribal control over their destiny, their increasing exploitation, and federal paternalism. Tribes came to be regarded as dependent nations, and treaties were considered in the same light as other statutes of the U.S. Congress. It may come as a surprise that, despite military conflicts between the federal government and various tribes, the United States never formally declared war on hostile Indians.

Treaties with Indians were negotiated by the president of the United States and were binding when approved by the Indians and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. It is important to note that a treaty could not provide funds for Indians; monetary commitments required separate congressional action. Nearly 400 treaties were negotiated. The greatest number, nearly 260, were arranged during the great westward expansion of white settlers following the War of 1812. The majority of these treaties, 230, involved Indian lands. A block of 76 treaties called for Indian removal from their lands and resettlement on other lands. Two tribes, the Potawatomi and Ojibwa (Chippewa), negotiated 42 treaties each, a record number. .

Source: Wendell H. Oswalt, This Land Was Theirs: A Study of Native North Americans, Eighth Edition, 2006

Question 1: 

What was the primary purpose of treaties between the United States and Native American tribes during the great westward expansion following the War of 1812?

U.S.–Native American Treaties

Virtually all inhabitable land in North America was occupied by Native Americans when Europeans arrived. By the 1990s, Indian [Native American] reservations in the United States represented about 2.5 percent of the country. A study of treaties reveals the changing nature of Indian and white relations. . . .

Between 1778 and the early 1800s, federal power over Indians expanded dramatically, especially in the eastern states. Eventually all tribes came to be regarded as quasi-sovereign peoples, not national equals. This view led to diminished tribal control over their destiny, their increasing exploitation, and federal paternalism. Tribes came to be regarded as dependent nations, and treaties were considered in the same light as other statutes of the U.S. Congress. It may come as a surprise that, despite military conflicts between the federal government and various tribes, the United States never formally declared war on hostile Indians.

Treaties with Indians were negotiated by the president of the United States and were binding when approved by the Indians and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. It is important to note that a treaty could not provide funds for Indians; monetary commitments required separate congressional action. Nearly 400 treaties were negotiated. The greatest number, nearly 260, were arranged during the great westward expansion of white settlers following the War of 1812. The majority of these treaties, 230, involved Indian lands. A block of 76 treaties called for Indian removal from their lands and resettlement on other lands. Two tribes, the Potawatomi and Ojibwa (Chippewa), negotiated 42 treaties each, a record number. .

Source: Wendell H. Oswalt, This Land Was Theirs: A Study of Native North Americans, Eighth Edition, 2006

Question 2: 

How were treaties with Native American tribes ratified in the United States?

U.S.–Native American Treaties

Virtually all inhabitable land in North America was occupied by Native Americans when Europeans arrived. By the 1990s, Indian [Native American] reservations in the United States represented about 2.5 percent of the country. A study of treaties reveals the changing nature of Indian and white relations. . . .

Between 1778 and the early 1800s, federal power over Indians expanded dramatically, especially in the eastern states. Eventually all tribes came to be regarded as quasi-sovereign peoples, not national equals. This view led to diminished tribal control over their destiny, their increasing exploitation, and federal paternalism. Tribes came to be regarded as dependent nations, and treaties were considered in the same light as other statutes of the U.S. Congress. It may come as a surprise that, despite military conflicts between the federal government and various tribes, the United States never formally declared war on hostile Indians.

Treaties with Indians were negotiated by the president of the United States and were binding when approved by the Indians and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. It is important to note that a treaty could not provide funds for Indians; monetary commitments required separate congressional action. Nearly 400 treaties were negotiated. The greatest number, nearly 260, were arranged during the great westward expansion of white settlers following the War of 1812. The majority of these treaties, 230, involved Indian lands. A block of 76 treaties called for Indian removal from their lands and resettlement on other lands. Two tribes, the Potawatomi and Ojibwa (Chippewa), negotiated 42 treaties each, a record number. .

Source: Wendell H. Oswalt, This Land Was Theirs: A Study of Native North Americans, Eighth Edition, 2006

Question 3: 

According to Wendell H. Oswalt, what is one historical circumstance surrounding the rights of Native Americans?

Selected Events in Native American Relations with the United States

1879 Carlisle Indian Industrial School founded

1887 Dawes Severalty Act allotted reservation lands to individual Native Americans

1924 Indian Citizenship Act granted United States citizenship to indigenous Americans

1934 Indian Reorganization Act attempted to reverse the impact of the Dawes Act by restoring land to reservations

1968 AIM (American Indian Movement) founded to ensure past treaties made with the United States honored; AIM occupied Alcatraz Island in 1969 and headquarters of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1972

1970 President Nixon called for a new era of self-determination for Native American peoples

1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act affirmed the right of Native Americans to conduct gaming operations (casinos, etc.) on tribal lands

2009 President Obama established White House Tribal Nations Conference to encourage dialogue between government and tribal leaders

Question 4:

Which event from the timeline represents a significant shift in the U.S. government's policy towards Native American self-determination?

Selected Events in Native American Relations with the United States

1879 Carlisle Indian Industrial School founded

1887 Dawes Severalty Act allotted reservation lands to individual Native Americans

1924 Indian Citizenship Act granted United States citizenship to indigenous Americans

1934 Indian Reorganization Act attempted to reverse the impact of the Dawes Act by restoring land to reservations

1968 AIM (American Indian Movement) founded to ensure past treaties made with the United States honored; AIM occupied Alcatraz Island in 1969 and headquarters of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1972

1970 President Nixon called for a new era of self-determination for Native American peoples

1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act affirmed the right of Native Americans to conduct gaming operations (casinos, etc.) on tribal lands

2009 President Obama established White House Tribal Nations Conference to encourage dialogue between government and tribal leaders

Question 5:

Based on this document, what is one effort to address the rights of Native Americans?

Document 4a . . .

While some steps have been taken to undo damage to Native American religious liberties and to sacred places, most remain threatened by extractive minerals production from gold to uranium and the runoff poisons used to mine them; by commercial and recreational development from strip malls to ski resorts; by housing and highway expansion from acceleration lanes to landfills; by dams and urban sprawl that dry up water resources and deplete the water tables; and by munitions storage, bombing ranges, and other military activity. One sacred place—a ceremonial, burial, and historic site of one Native nation—is even being buried by the construction of a casino and hotel resort of another tribe. . .

Federal-tribal agreements have been entered into for return of ownership and/or control of sacred places, for joint management or co-stewardship, or for other kinds of protections. Some of these legislative, administrative, or judicial agreements have been in place and working to the satisfaction of all parties for over 40 years. While details of these agreements are a matter of public record, information about some locations is not available, in order to prevent future violations. . . .

Document 4b

. . . Montana’s Indian Education for All Act [1999] is generally regarded as the most thorough attempt by any state to integrate teaching about the state’s Native American tribes into the curriculum of public schools. The law had its origins in the state’s 1972 constitution, which included a provision stating that Montana “recognizes the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indian and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural heritage.” . . .

Educators hope both that Montanans gain a greater appreciation of a significant part of their state’s history and population, and that Native American students will feel more at home in the public school system and will see their own cultures recognized and celebrated.

Question 6:

Based on Document 4a, what is one way federal-tribal agreements have helped protect Native American sacred places?

Document 4a . . .

While some steps have been taken to undo damage to Native American religious liberties and to sacred places, most remain threatened by extractive minerals production from gold to uranium and the runoff poisons used to mine them; by commercial and recreational development from strip malls to ski resorts; by housing and highway expansion from acceleration lanes to landfills; by dams and urban sprawl that dry up water resources and deplete the water tables; and by munitions storage, bombing ranges, and other military activity. One sacred place—a ceremonial, burial, and historic site of one Native nation—is even being buried by the construction of a casino and hotel resort of another tribe. . .

Federal-tribal agreements have been entered into for return of ownership and/or control of sacred places, for joint management or co-stewardship, or for other kinds of protections. Some of these legislative, administrative, or judicial agreements have been in place and working to the satisfaction of all parties for over 40 years. While details of these agreements are a matter of public record, information about some locations is not available, in order to prevent future violations. . . .

Document 4b

. . . Montana’s Indian Education for All Act [1999] is generally regarded as the most thorough attempt by any state to integrate teaching about the state’s Native American tribes into the curriculum of public schools. The law had its origins in the state’s 1972 constitution, which included a provision stating that Montana “recognizes the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indian and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural heritage.” . . .

Educators hope both that Montanans gain a greater appreciation of a significant part of their state’s history and population, and that Native American students will feel more at home in the public school system and will see their own cultures recognized and celebrated.

Question 7:

Based on Document 4b, what was a primary goal of Montana’s Indian Education for All Act of 1999?

. . . The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline since first learning about plans for the pipeline in 2014. But it’s only been in recent months that the issue has gained national attention, as thousands of protesters—including many Native Americans—have gathered in North Dakota in attempt to block the 1,200-mile project. And, with both supporters and opponents vowing to fight through the harsh North Dakota winter, the battle shows no signs of ending anytime soon. . . . Source: Justin Worland, “What to Know About the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests,” Time, October 28, 2016