 In the Matter of the Petition of Elihu Schooner for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1858) |
|
When Elihu Schooner was arrested as a fugitive from slavery, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Born free in Ohio, upon hearing the facts of the case, Schooner was released by the court.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Ham Hung Wah by Tom Sing for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1911) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Ham Hung Wah shows legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century. In this case, the twelve-year-old native-born son of Chinese immigrant parents was arrested and detained as "an alien Chinese person seeking unlawfully to land in the United States" after returning to America from China where he had been visiting his grandparents. To support his son's petition, Ham Hung Wah's father also submitted an affidavit from prominent white members of society testifying to the family's trustworthiness, membership in the Presbyterian Church, and adoption of the "habits of western civilization." The petition was eventually dismissed at the request of Wah's attorney. His fate is unknown.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of John Jones, alias John Cook, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1857) |
|
When John Jones was arrested as a fugitive from slavery, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Born free in Pennsylvania, upon hearing the facts of the case, Jones was released by the court.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1892) |
|
In this case, Juan Rey Abeita petitioned on behalf of his three sons against the superintendent of the Government Indian School in Albuquerque, who refused to allow his sons to return home. The writ was granted, but Abeita later withdrew the petition. Records in the Office of Indian Affairs indicate that the agency pressured the superintendent into releasing the children to avoid an unfavorable legal ruling.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of William M. Parkinson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1852) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of William M. Parkinson shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a father used habeas corpus in an attempt to retrieve his nine-year-old son from his ex-wife and her new husband. The child's fate is unknown.
|
| Indenture of John Johnson (1817) |
|
Following his successful petition for freedom, John Johnson entered into a contract of indenture for four years in exchange for the $150 loan Johnson secured over the course of obtaining his freedom.
|
| Indian Appropriation Bill (1902) |
|
This senate appropriation bill outlined amended laws related to the Dawes Commission and the Five Tribes, which set timelines for critical tribal citizenship processes.
|
| Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 |
|
The United States Congress passed several laws that ended treaty-making with Native American nations, eroding tribal sovereignty. This 1871 act stated that Native nations were no longer considered or recognized by the federal government as independent nations.
|
| Indian Appropriations Act of 1893 |
|
This appropriations act shows funding for a range of federal projects on tribal lands in the late nineteenth century. Monies were allocated toward payroll for agents, interpreters, surveyors, and boarding school superintendents, as well as traveling and various expenses for same; treaty stipulations and material support on reservations and treaty lands; boarding schools; and distribution on interest of trust fund stocks. The act shows key federal interventions in the establishment of institutions, as well as the commission later entitled the Dawes Commission.
|
| Indian Appropriations Act of 1902 |
|
Referred to as the "Dead Indian Act," this congressional act shows how privilege was given to guardians with the power to sell allotted land of minor heirs of deceased tribal citizens. The act also established a new federal judicial district in Indian Territory.
|
| Indian Appropriations Act of 1904 |
|
This act allocated funds for a wide variety of expenditures on Native lands including boarding schools, asylums, payroll, transportation, warehouses, police, judges, and medical supplies, and called for the liquidation of tribal land not already allotted to tribal citizens. It also removed alienation restrictions for some allottees on a case-by-case basis.
|
| Indian Major Crimes Act (1885) |
|
The Indian Major Crimes Act brought certain crimes committed on tribal lands under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government, weakening tribal sovereignty.
|
| Indian Removal Act (1830) |
|
The Indian Removal Act outlined the intent and plan by the federal government to forcibly remove Native Americans "residing in any of the states or territories" and relocate them west of the Mississippi River.
|
| Indian Territory Citizenship Act (1901) |
|
This act amended section six of the Dawes Act to give United States citizenship to all Native Americans residing in Indian Territory.
|
| James Ash v. William H. Williams (1843) |
|
In this successful freedom suit, James Ash was freed from enslavement by the Circuit Court of D.C., based on provisions in the will of his former enslaver. She stipulated that her enslaved people were not to be taken out of Maryland or sold. Should either event occur, they were to be declared free for life. Ash's new enslaver appealed the verdict, but it was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
|
| John Heo v. Robert H. Milroy (1880) |
|
In this habeas suit, John Heo was arrested by an Indian agent after he refused to reside on the reservation with his wife and children. Heo argued that he had severed his tribal relations, as had his parents, and that they never lived on a reservation or accepted government annuities. Despite "constantly living with the whites engaged in the pursuits of civilized life" and having "at no time lived with any tribe of Indians" or "acknowledged himself a member of any Indian tribe," the judge ruled in favor of the Indian agent, and Heo remained in custody.
|
| John Johnson v. Sosthene Allain (1816) |
|
John Johnson filed a petition for freedom in a New Orleans court, asserting that although born free in New York, he had been illegally sold into slavery and was now being held on a sugar plantation. Johnson and his attorneys invoked New York's gradual abolition laws to establish his free status. The Louisiana court ruled in his favor and Johnson claimed his freedom.
|
| Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that only the federal government could could purchase lands from Native Americans, not private citizens. Additionally, Native communities possessed the right to occupy land only, not to own it outright.
|
| Jones–Shafroth Act (1917) |
|
This act granted U.S. citizenship to anyone born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, reformed the Puerto Rican government, and included a bill of rights that paralleled the rights and privileges available to U.S. citizens in the states and territories.
|
| Julia, alias Mary Ann v. Robert Duncan (1834) |
|
This freedom suit was brought on behalf of Julia, a child under the age of 21 who was unlawfully enslaved in St. Louis by the man who sold her free mother into slavery in Louisiana. Although the court granted Julia her freedom, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by her mother two years later shows that Julia was still being held by her enslaver.
|
 Keeping Account (1885) |
|
This political cartoon, published in the wake of the Rock Springs Massacre that targeted Chinese laborers, depicted the practice of "indemnity," or compensation between nations in the wake of racial violence. The cartoon depicted Uncle Sam and the Emperor of China debating how and whether China would be compensated for the racial violence in Wyoming Territory.
|
| Letter from Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Superintendent, Round Valley, California (1902) |
|
This letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Superintendent of the Round Valley Reservation in California reveals the connections between appearance and progress towards civilization in the eyes of federal Indian policymakers during the Progressive Era. This federal document is an example of policies restricting Native American identity for the purpose of furthering assimilation. In it, racialized presumptions about civilization are tied to hair, Native practices of face painting, and clothing. The agent is encouraged to get his wards to wear their hair short, as it will "hasten their progress towards civilization." Hair is especially seen as an agent of regression for former boarding school students, who return to the reservation, let their hair grow long, and subsequently "adopts all the old habits and customs which his education in our industrial schools had tried to eradicate." Dancing and feasts are prohibited because of their effects on morality. The Commissioner suggests withholding employment and supplies from Native Americans who do not comply with these orders.
|
| Letter from Dorinda to Hamilton R. Gamble (1827) |
|
Dorinda, "a free woman of color," wrote to her attorney in the midst of her freedom suit to tell him that her enslaver had violated the court's order not to remove her from the court's jurisdiction and planned to "keep me out of your reach if possible."
|
| Letter from John Emerson to Thomas Lawson (1838) |
|
In this letter, Dred Scott's enslaver John Emerson wrote to his superiors requesting a change of post, citing numerous personal struggles including the fact that "one of my negroes in Saint Louis has sued me for his freedom." This is thought to be the only reference surviving in the historical record of the first freedom suit Dred Scott filed in Missouri courts.
|
| Letter from Nelson Harris to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (1867) |
|
In this letter, Choctaw Freedman Nelson Harris describes his treatment by the Choctaw Nation following the 1865 act. He draws upon the Treaty of 1866, asking for assistance in ensuring his rights to reside and work in the Choctaw Nation were respected.
|