Excerpts for this Supreme Court Case with Commentary
Montoya v US
US Supreme Court
Montoya v. United States, 180U.S. 261 (1901)
Montoya v. United States
No. 43
Argued December 14, 17, 1900
Decided February 11, 1901
180U.S. 261
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
"Where a company of Apache Indians who were dissatisfied with their surroundings left their reservation under the leadership of Victoria, to the number of two or three hundred, became hostile, and roamed about in Old and New Mexico for about two years, committing depredations and killing citizens, it was held that they constituted a "band" within the meaning of the act, that they were not in amity with the United States, and that neither the government nor the tribe to which they originally belonged were responsible for their depredations."
COMMENTARY - The Court of Claims ruled that the government nor the tribe to which they originally belonged were responsible for their depredations. The "band" was no longer part of the whole, it was its own separate entity.
"While, as between the United States and other civilized nations, an act of Congress is necessary to a formal declaration of war, no such act is necessary to constitute a state of war with an Indian tribe."
and
" We recall no instance where Congress has made a formal declaration of war against an Indian nation or tribe; but the fact that Indians are engaged in acts of general hostility to settlers, especially if the government has deemed it necessary to dispatch a military force for their subjugation, is sufficient to constitute a state of war. Marks v. United States, 161 U. S. 297."
COMMENTARY - While acting in accordance with Article 5 of the 1785 Hopewell Treaty, the Chickamauga killed the white, illegal, immigrant squatters on their Treaty Lands. This resulted in the colonial militias and the United States military attacking the Lower Towns of the Chickamauga on their Treaty Lands as recorded in the National Archives. In light of Montoya v United States, does this mean the United States declared war on the Chickamauga?
Further, in that era, only a sovereign could declare war against another sovereign. When the United States and the colonies took up arms against the Chickamauga, Justice Brown’s words become undeniable, “especially if the government has deemed it necessary to dispatch a military force for their subjugation, is sufficient to constitute a state of war.” The National Archives are replete with hundreds of examples of the state militias and the United States military taking up arms and engaging in hostilities against the Chickamauga.
"On the other hand, if the marauders are so numerous and well organized as to be able to defy the efforts of the tribe to detain them, in other words, to make them a separate and independent band, carrying on hostilities against the United States, it would be obviously unjust to hold the tribe responsible for their acts. It can hardly be supposed that Congress would impose a liability upon tribes in amity with the United States for the acts of an independent band, strong enough to defy the authority of the tribe, although it would not be inequitable to hold the tribe liable for individual members whom it was able, but had failed, to control. Gauged by these considerations, it is clear that the Court of Claims was justified in its ultimate finding that Victoria's band was, at and long before the occurrence complained of, "known and recognized as a band separate and distinct in its organization and action from the several tribes, then at peace, to which its members had formerly belonged, and that the band as thus constituted was not in amity with the United States.""
COMMENTARY - The break-away "band" is no longer part of the original. For the Chickamauga, we did not break away from the Cherokee, because we were not Cherokee and never have been Cherokee. According to academic verification requested by the Senate of the United States in 2019, the more than 500,000 pages of research is definitive: The Chickamauga are ethnically, culturally,and anthropologically a separate people from the Cherokee. The United States called the Chickamauga “Cherokee” because the Chickamauga spoke a dialect of the Cherokee trade language, like many other tribes, not because they were actually Cherokee. This is evidenced in many of the early treaties in which the United States addresses “all of the Cherokees.”
and
"A part of them resisted, and about four hundred, under the leadership of Victoria, began roaming about Old and New Mexico, committing depredations and killing citizens. These hostile demonstrations continued until December, 1878, soon after which Victoria made an offer of surrender on a condition that was not performed, and in the following spring he again took the field, pursued by the military forces into Arizona, and subsequently escaped into Mexico. . . . The Indians constituting this band seem to have belonged to different tribes of Apaches, and were about two hundred in number at the time this depredation was committed. They were evidently carrying on hostile acts against the settlers and military authorities of the United States, and the court expressly finds that such acts were "without the consent of the several tribes from which the members of the band came and to which they had previously belonged;" that they were denominated in various reports of military officers to the Secretary of War as "Victoria's band," and under that name were pursued for two years or more by the military authorities for their acts of war and hostility against the United States, until driven out of the country and destroyed."
and Finally
If the Mescalero tribe were held responsible for their acts, it would follow that every tribe members of which allied themselves with Victoria and shared in his acts of hostility would be pecuniarily liable for all damages inflicted by a band over whom they could have no control. Such consequences would be so inequitable we cannot suppose them to have been contemplated by Congress.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is
Affirmed
COMMENTARY - The Chickamauga Nation is unequivocally, Federally Recognized, by the Untied States of America as documented in the National Archives. The Chickamauga Nation has NEVER been terminated by the Congress of the United States. We therefore demand to be placed on the List of Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(C) This document was produced at the request of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on July 18, 2019, to document the History, Anthropology, Culture, Religion, and Archaeology of The Chickamauga Nation.