M. Borsk, David C. Hsiung, Matthew Costello, Mary Kelley, M. Hale, K. Brown, C. Schmitt, G. T. Knouff, Tyson Reeder, Frederick C. Staidum, Lauren Duval, E. Connolly, J. King, Scott M. Strickland, G. A. Richardson, Hayley Negrin
{"title":"Conveyance to Kin: Property, Preemption, and Indigenous Nations in North America, 1763–1822","authors":"M. Borsk, David C. Hsiung, Matthew Costello, Mary Kelley, M. Hale, K. Brown, C. Schmitt, G. T. Knouff, Tyson Reeder, Frederick C. Staidum, Lauren Duval, E. Connolly, J. King, Scott M. Strickland, G. A. Richardson, Hayley Negrin","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.0000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Few accounts of preemption—the exclusive right of the British Crown, and later the U.S. government, to acquire Indigenous lands—consider the impact of Indigenous law and governance on this fundamental Euro-American legal principle. This article examines conveyances made between Indigenous nations and their kin after 1763 to track the development and eventual divergence of British and American interpretations of preemption. Given by Cherokee, Haudenosaunee, and Anishinaabe leaders to the children of Indigenous women and settler men, these conveyances to kin wove property rights from the bonds of kinship to keep land and people within the legal orders of Indigenous nations. When pushed to recognize such conveyances by the parties involved, crown and federal officials could neither ignore the origins of this property in kinship nor agree whether preemption prohibited such arrangements. A remarkable series of conveyances made by the Senecas and the Anishinabek to one family, the Allans, in the 1790s reveals that U.S. officials understood Indigenous nations to be the object of preemption’s restrictions whereas British officials did not. Then, as now, thinking about preemption, in all its guises, required thinking about kinship. Both shaped how Indigenous nations experienced property and dispossession in North America.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.0000","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract:Few accounts of preemption—the exclusive right of the British Crown, and later the U.S. government, to acquire Indigenous lands—consider the impact of Indigenous law and governance on this fundamental Euro-American legal principle. This article examines conveyances made between Indigenous nations and their kin after 1763 to track the development and eventual divergence of British and American interpretations of preemption. Given by Cherokee, Haudenosaunee, and Anishinaabe leaders to the children of Indigenous women and settler men, these conveyances to kin wove property rights from the bonds of kinship to keep land and people within the legal orders of Indigenous nations. When pushed to recognize such conveyances by the parties involved, crown and federal officials could neither ignore the origins of this property in kinship nor agree whether preemption prohibited such arrangements. A remarkable series of conveyances made by the Senecas and the Anishinabek to one family, the Allans, in the 1790s reveals that U.S. officials understood Indigenous nations to be the object of preemption’s restrictions whereas British officials did not. Then, as now, thinking about preemption, in all its guises, required thinking about kinship. Both shaped how Indigenous nations experienced property and dispossession in North America.
期刊介绍:
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.