Comparing U.S. Treaties with Navajo and Western Shoshone
This paper examines two U.S. treaties with Native American tribes — the 1863 Treaty with the Western Shoshone and the 1868 Treaty with the Navajo Tribe of Indians — and argues that while most treaties favored American government interests, the Navajo treaty demonstrated comparatively greater fairness. The paper analyzes the concept of "boilerplate treaties," which used formulaic, culturally offensive language and gave the U.S. President sweeping authority over tribal life. It contrasts this with the Navajo treaty's more reciprocal language, specific government obligations, and protective provisions. The discussion concludes by acknowledging the U.S. government's broader record of broken treaty promises, while noting the Navajo treaty's enduring significance to the Navajo people.
- Introduction: Inequity in U.S.-Native American Treaties: Introduces degrees of inequity across U.S. treaties
- Boilerplate Treaties and Their Problematic Language: Defines formulaic boilerplate treaties and their harms
- The Western Shoshone Treaty: A Case Study in One-Sided Terms: Analyzes offensive and one-sided Shoshone treaty language
- The Navajo Treaty: More Equitable Language and Provisions: Examines fairer, reciprocal Navajo treaty provisions
- Comparing Government Obligations and Compensation: Contrasts compensation terms in both treaties
- Conclusion: The Navajo Treaty's Legacy: Reflects on Navajo treaty significance and broken promises
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in direct textual evidence, quoting specific treaty articles verbatim to support claims about tone, fairness, and intent.
- It uses a clear comparative structure, setting up one treaty as a negative example before analyzing the other as a relative improvement — a classic contrast essay technique.
- The conclusion avoids over-praising the U.S. government by acknowledging broken treaty promises, which adds nuance and prevents the argument from appearing naive.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates close textual analysis of primary source documents. Rather than relying solely on secondary commentary, the student quotes treaty language directly and interprets specific word choices — such as "bad men," "bands," and vague compensation phrases — as evidence of broader policy attitudes toward Native Americans. This technique is essential in history, law, and political science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis distinguishing between degrees of treaty inequity, then defines the concept of boilerplate treaties using a secondary source. It proceeds through a detailed critique of the Western Shoshone treaty before pivoting to the comparatively fairer Navajo treaty. A section directly comparing compensation language reinforces the central contrast. The paper closes with a brief acknowledgment of the Navajo treaty's historical importance and the U.S.'s broader record of non-compliance.
Introduction: Inequity in U.S.-Native American Treaties
Although it is fair to say that most of the treaties created between the United States government and the former rulers of the Americas — the native tribes — were inequitable and favored the interests of the American government rather than the native populace, it would be unfair to say that all of them were equally inequitable. For example, the 1868 Treaty Between the United States and the Navajo Tribe of Indians showed more consideration for the native tribes on reservations, granting them land and the watchful oversight of a commissioner to protect tribal members against injustices. This stands in profound contrast to the earlier 1863 United States Treaty with the Western Shoshone, which made the concessions supposedly granted by the American government entirely contingent upon the goodwill of the President. Specific provisions were not detailed in the treaty's language, and it referred to members of the native tribes as "bad" — implying savagery — rather than treating them as equal negotiating parties. Its language was formulaic rather than reflective of the unique nature of the tribe and its rights.
Boilerplate Treaties and Their Problematic Language
Formulaic treaties were often called "boilerplate treaties." In the case of these so-called boilerplate treaties between Native Americans and whites, the treaties were not specifically negotiated provision by provision. Rather, the final language of the treaties reflected not a mutual agreement between whites and Indian natives, but efforts by whites to make Indians sign a prepared text (Harring 252). When this was done repeatedly in certain instances — such as between the British Crown and Canadian Native Americans — the efficient British civil service even developed numbered references for standardized government documents. Not only was the language of such boilerplate treaties inflexible and designed to confuse the native signers, but in many instances it was blatantly offensive to native culture, reflecting the view that natives were violent savages.
Works Cited
Harring, Sidney L. White Man's Law: Native People in Nineteenth-Century Canadian Jurisprudence. Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Hopkins, John Christian. "For the Navajo, Treaty is Testimony to Leaders." The Independent. June 2007. Accessed March 30, 2009.
United States Treaty Between the United States of America and the Navajo Tribe of Indians. Historic Documents. Accessed March 30, 2009.
United States Treaty with the Western Shoshoni, 1863. Native Web. October 1, 1863. Accessed March 30, 2009. http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/ruby_valley.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.