No abstract

The U.S.-Dakota War was one of the formative events in Minnesota history, and despite the passage of time, it still stirs up powerful emotions among descendants of the Dakota and white settlers who experienced this tragedy. Hundreds of people lost their lives in just over a month of fighting in 1862. By the time the year was over, thirty-eight Dakota men had been hanged in the largest mass execution in United States history. Not long afterwards, the United States abrogated its treaties with the Dakota, confiscated their reservations along the Minnesota River, and forced most of the Dakota to remove westward.While dozens of books and articles have been written about these events, scholars have largely ignored an important legal development that occurred in Minnesota during the following summer. The Minnesota Adjutant General, at the direction of Minnesota Governors Alexander Ramsey and Henry Swift, issued a series of orders offering rewards for the killing of Dakota men found within the State. The first order authorized the creation of a corps of volunteer scouts that would scour the "Big Woods" in search of Dakota men. They were to be paid not only a daily wage, but an additional $25 for each scalp they were able to provide the Adjutant General's Office. Subsequent orders permitted individual citizens who were not part of the volunteer corps to claim up to $200 for proof that they had killed a Dakota. These bounty orders remained in effect until at least 1868, when their constitutionality was finally questioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Gut.Minnesota was not the only state that placed a bounty on their Indian inhabitants. Around the same time, a bounty system was enacted by the Territory of Arizona, and one was also implemented by private citizens and local governments within the State of California. Like the bounty system in Minnesota, these programs were creatures of state and territorial law, but they were implicitly and explicitly approved by the federal government. In fact, they could be viewed as part of a much broader extermination program that was at the heart of federal Indian policy during this time period.This article uses primary historical sources to describe the events leading up to the enactment of a bounty system in Minnesota, its creation, and subsequent on-the-ground implementation. In an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of "presentism," the legality of this bounty system is analyzed according to the laws in effect in 1863, when it was created. This article concludes that the Minnesota bounty system was illegal from its inception, as it was contrary not only the international law of war, but also the Lieber Code, which was issued by the U.S. Secretary of War in April 1863, and used to govern the conduct of Union soldiers during the ongoing Civil War.

The federal government's duty to consult with Indian tribes has been the subject of numerous executive orders and directives from past and current U.S. Presidents, which have, in turn, resulted in the proliferation of agency-specific consultation policies. However, there is still no agreement regarding the fundamental components of the consultation duty. When does the consultation duty arise? And what does it require of the federal government? The answers to these questions lie in the realization that the tribal consultation duty arises from the common law trust responsibility to Indian tribes, which compels the United States to protect tribal sovereignty and tribal resources, as well as to provide certain services to tribal members. In that respect, the federal government's duty to consult with Indian tribes has a unique foundation that distinguishes it from decisions to consult with State governments or encourage public participation through the Administrative Procedures Act. This Article argues that the duty to consult with Indian tribes is properly viewed as a procedural component of the trust responsibility. It further argues that a more robust, judicially enforceable consultation requirement would be the most effective way to ensure that the federal government fulfills the substantive components of its trust responsibility to Indian tribes, while avoiding the difficult line-drawing that would be inherent in direct enforcement of those components. In this way, the consultation duty could become a powerful tool to ensure that federal agencies know and consider the impacts their actions will have on Indian people, before those actions are taken.

No abstract