RC - Lone wolf Vs Hitchcock

[RonPurewal]

I understand this as -
Many commentators had a belief that the change ( 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 ) had already occurred earlier. But, they were actually wrong.
In reality, the federal government continued to negotiate agreements till 1900. It was only after this case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, that the formal negotiation ended.

absolutely correct.

[RonPurewal]

Also, " 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 " - I found this part tough to understand.

just as in SC, you can get the main point by reading the 'core' (without all the attached modifiers):
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 basic idea is this:
• treaties were abolished.
• however, the government kept on doing the same thing. they just called it something else so that it no longer fell under the banned category of 'treaty'.
sneaky, eh.

analogy:
Joe swore off drinking—but he continued to consume alcohol, merely referring to it as 'medication' rather than 'drinking'.
same idea.
treaties --> drinking
legislation --> medication

[750plus]

Also, " 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 " - I found this part tough to understand.

just as in SC, you can get the main point by reading the 'core' (without all the attached modifiers):
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 basic idea is this:
• treaties were abolished.
• however, the government kept on doing the same thing. they just called it something else so that it no longer fell under the banned category of 'treaty'.
sneaky, eh.

analogy:
Joe swore off drinking—but he continued to consume alcohol, merely referring to it as 'medication' rather than 'drinking'.
same idea.
treaties --> drinking
legislation --> medication

Woah
This is great explanation indeed. Thanks again.

Warm Regards
Rajat Gugnani

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[MohitC978]

Hello Ron, I have read complete chain and I have one doubt regarding following question.
Q2. According to the passage, which of the following resulted from the Lone Wolf decision?

(A) The Supreme Court took on a greater role in Native American affairs.
(B) Native American tribes lost their legal standing as sovereign nations in their dealings with the federal government, but their ownership of tribal lands was confirmed.
(C) The federal government no longer needed to conclude a formal agreement with a Native American tribe in order to carry out policy decisions that affected the tribe.
(D) The federal government began to appropriate tribal lands for distribution to non-Indian settlers.
(E) Native American tribes were no longer able to challenge congressional actions by appealing to the Supreme Court.

I understand answer is C, but I was little bit confused due to option A also. As question says, “which of the following resulted from decision” definitely it was C, but didn’t Supreme court took greater role by giving that judgement? As from Paragraph
“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.”

[RonPurewal]

the "greater role" was given to Congress, not to the court.