The current (Winter 2008-2009) issue of the Wisconsin Magazine of History features an article about the Brothertown Indians. "To Procure a Residence Amongst Their Brethren to the West," (pages 28-41) by Alanna Rice will help to fill a void - there isn't much awareness of the Brothertown Indians or knowledge of their history. Nevertheless, the article gave me a bad feeling - maybe it is because I'm a stickler: a stickler for accurate names.In her third footnote, Ms. Rice asserts: "The author will refer to both the Native community and tribe discussed in this article by the name 'Brotherton.'" Why? Because that was the name first used by Samson Occom. Reverend Samson Occom is a hero of mine, but his original name didn't really catch on like the name "Brothertown" did. [According to Caroline Andler (see her comment below), the two names were used "interchangeably."]
But it is about more than that. For me there is already plenty of confusion knowing that there was another community of Christian Algonkians that was known as the "Brotherton Indians." Because they were a small band that joined the Stockbridge Mohicans unofficially in about 1803 and made it legal in an 1823 treaty, there is even less awareness of the Brotherton Delaware Indians than there is of the Brothertown Indians.
As Ms. Rice admits, the people and the community she writes about were known by the name "Brothertown" throughout almost their entire existence. Brothertown, Wisconsin was never known as "Brotherton" and I don't think that historians should take poetic license with place names.
5 comments :
Preach on, Brother! I don't think historians should take poetic licence on anything. If they want to write fiction, they should be called fiction writers, not historians.
Brothertown or Brotherton Indians – the name has been used interchangeably since on November 7, 1784, on lands the Oneida Nation had given them in New York, Samson Occom named the new settlement. “But now we proceeded to form into a Body Politick – we named our Town by the Name of Brotherton, in Indian Eeyamqittoowauconnuck.” (See Occom’s Diary, Nov. 7, 1785)
The Brothertown Indian Nation has been known as the Brotherton Indians, the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin, and the Brothertown Indian Nation.
The Tribal Council, on June 21, 1997 adopted, by resolution, the name “Brothertown Indians.” This resolution was passed to clarify any confusion between the names “Brotherton” and “Brothertown,” which were used interchangeably for years by the federal government and even within the tribe when not using the traditional tribal name Eeyamquittoowauconnuck.
For example, the Treaty of Buffalo Creek between the United States and the Brothertowns, Munsee, Oneidas, St. Regis, Stockbridges, and Other New York Indian Nations (1838) refers to the tribe as the “Brothertowns residing in the State of New York.” In an article of agreement made and entered into at Vernon in the State of New York between various parties and the Stockbridge Indians regarding lands for Stockbridge and Brothertown Indians, Brothertown and Brotherton are used interchangeably throughout the document. While as a party to the Emigrant New York judgment award, the tribe was known as the “Brotherton” Indians. (The New York Indians v. United States, 30 Ct. Cl. 413 (1895); New York Indians v. U.S., 170 U.S. 1 (1898); New York Indians v. U.S., 170 U.S. 614 (1898). While “Brotherton” is not necessarily wrong, it is not contemporary, and the tribe has decided to use “Brothertown” for consistency. Additionally, “of Wisconsin” has been dropped from the tribal name by Council resolution.
The Brothertown Indian Nation submitted an acknowledgement Petition document on April 15, 1980 under the name “Brotherton Indians of Wisconsin.” On October 21, 1995, a documented Petition was submitted under the name “Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin.” The Brothertown Indians when submitting supporting documentation to its 1995 Petition, in December of 2005 did so under the name “Brothertown Indian Nation.”
Caroline K. Andler, Enrolled member of the Brothertown Indian Nation
Being a Brothertown Indian and also the Tribal Genealogist, Caroline Andler has more expertise on the topic of my post than I do. I welcome her participation and appreciate what she has added. Nevertheless, the only thing she wrote in her comment that appears to be inconsistent with my post is that the Brothertowns themselves used the two names "interchageably." So was I wrong to say that the name Rev. Occom gave to the town "didn't catch on"? Maybe, but not by much.
I welcome more participation in Algonkian Church History from Ms. Andler and other experts. Up to this point I have written all the posts, but I hope that guest bloggers will contribute in the future. Contact me if you'd like to do that.
Allegations Regarding the 1937 Adoption of the Stockbridge-Munsee Constitution, Treaty Conflicts, and Enrollment Violations
1. Invalid Constitutional Authority:
The defendant Enrollment Manager’s actions rely upon and enforce the Stockbridge-Munsee Constitution, adopted in 1937, which is constitutionally and legally invalid. The 1937 Constitution was adopted without proper tribal consent, failed to comply with tribal custom and federal requirements, and conflicts with prior tribal governance and membership rights.
2. Conflict with Treaty Rights:
The 1937 Constitution and its enforcement conflict directly with the tribe’s federally protected treaty rights, including rights secured under the 1831 Treaty of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community and subsequent treaties. These treaties explicitly guarantee tribal members’ rights to self-governance, membership determination, and protections for their descendants. The 1937 Constitution’s unauthorized changes to membership criteria and enrollment practices violate these treaty guarantees, which have the force of federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
3. Conflict with Membership Rights Under Tribal and Federal Law:
The 1937 Constitution’s adoption facilitated unauthorized enrollment alterations, including the creation and recognition of the “Citizen Party,” which unlawfully diluted the membership rolls. These actions directly violate Article III, Section 3 of the Stockbridge-Munsee Constitution (or prior governing documents) guaranteeing the exclusive authority of the Enrollment Committee over tribal membership.
4. Unlawful Enrollment Denials and Membership Manipulation:
By enforcing provisions of the 1937 Constitution, the Enrollment Manager has unlawfully denied or manipulated enrollment eligibility, including in the plaintiff’s case, resulting in the wrongful denial of constitutional membership rights and treaty-protected benefits.
5. Violation of Federal Laws, Including the Indian Child Welfare Act and Indian Reorganization Act:
The defendant’s enforcement of the 1937 Constitution and related enrollment policies violate federal protections for tribal membership and child welfare under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.) and the Indian Reorganization Act, which require adherence to tribal sovereignty, proper enrollment processes, and respect for treaty rights.
6. Harm to Plaintiff:
As a direct and proximate result of the defendant Enrollment Manager’s reliance on and enforcement of the invalid 1937 Constitution, the plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including but not limited to denial of tribal membership, loss of treaty and enrollment rights, deprivation of federally protected benefits, and violations of due process and equal protection rights.
Post a Comment