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.
The Western Shoshone Treaty: A Case Study in One-Sided Terms
This can be seen in the language of the infamous boilerplate treaty known as the United States Treaty with the Western Shoshone, signed October 1, 1863. Article 2 stipulates that "the several routes of travel through the Shoshonee country, now or hereafter used by white men, shall be forever free, and unobstructed by the said bands, for the use of the government of the United States, and of all emigrants and travelers under its authority and protection, without molestation or injury from them. And if depredations are at any time committed by bad men of their [Indian] nation, the offenders shall be immediately taken and delivered up to the proper officers of the United States, to be punished as their offences shall deserve; and the safety of all travelers passing peaceably over either of said routes is hereby guarantied by said bands." Note how native sovereignty to punish violators is taken away from the tribe, along with the loaded language of "badness."
The Native Americans agreeing to the treaty are referred to as "bands," as if they were literally bandits rather than members of tribes protecting their territory from invasion — a framing that would never have been applied if the British had similarly imposed themselves upon American sovereign territory and freely trafficked through it. Article 4 contains the strikingly intrusive provision: "It is further agreed by the parties hereto, that the Shoshonee country may be explored and prospected for gold and silver, or other minerals; and when mines are discovered, they may be worked, and mining and agricultural settlements formed, and ranches established whenever they may be required. Mills may be erected and timber taken for their use, as also for building and other purposes in any part of the country claimed by said bands." In short, whites were openly permitted to exploit the natural resources of native land.
The American President was given absolute authority to confine the tribe to reservations in Article 6: "The said bands agree that whenever the President of the United States shall deem it expedient for them to abandon the roaming life, which they now lead, and become herdsmen or agriculturalists, he is hereby authorized to make such reservations for their use as he may deem necessary within the country above described; and they do also hereby agree to remove their camps to such reservations as he may indicate, and to reside and remain therein." The native roaming life is effectively ended — a form of cultural imposition that some might characterize as a kind of cultural genocide imposed upon the natural way of life of the treaty's native signers.
Conclusion: The Navajo Treaty's Legacy
Yet, before one grows too complimentary toward the American government and its relationship with the Navajo, it remains important to acknowledge that the U.S. made many treaties whose provisions it ultimately did not keep. Still, even among Navajos today, the treaty is considered a major concession: "The Navajo Treaty of 1868 was the last treaty the Navajos signed with the U.S., and it not only freed Navajos from captivity but returned them to the homeland they were forced to leave" in the wars between whites and natives (Hopkins 2007). The treaty thus stands as a relative — if imperfect — example of a more equitable framework within a largely one-sided history of U.S.-Native American treaty-making.
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
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.