As stated in the essay question, Fritz postulates that popular sovereignty possesses an element of self-determination. This self-determination is seen through the actions of Americans in their quest for territorial expansion and economic development; observable through these actions is also the degree of difference between consent and compulsion that Banner explains. While these two concepts did not inflict direct change to the Constitution, they affected the understanding of the content of the famous document.
Banner explains the degree of difference in consent and compulsion in chapter four of How the Indians Lost Their Land through the discussion of land ownership between the Native Americans and the United States post the American revolution. …show more content…
Although the interest for obtaining Native land was present before the Revolution Banner explains that under imperial rule, land acquisition was less likely to occur due to the large distance between the colonists and the officials in Britain, as well as British officials implementing policies that were favorable for Britain and out of line with the colonialist’s wishes. Thus, as the colonies declared and obtained their independence from Britain, American self-determination encouraged citizens to seek new economic opportunities which in turn drove up the need for land amongst the Americans. Previously, land was acquired through payment to the Natives however, post-Revolution the land was forcibly taken; this change in policy upset the Natives and put America on the brink of war with the Natives so soon after the Revolution was ended. As such, through the actions of the 1787 Continental Congress the government’s view on the land policy reverted to pre-1783 views with the Natives owning their land therefore, the Natives must be compensated for any land …show more content…
In terms of the Constitution, Congress believed this policy to be justified through the commerce clause. Initially this policy was unenforceable as private purchase of Native lands was not a criminal offense; Congress later corrected this matter with the Intercourse Act of 1793. Although the buying of Native land by anyone but the Federal government was now illegal, it did not deter the people from continuing to do so. The public wanted more land, quickly and inexpensively; the Federal government took its time regarding the purchases, and while they bought the land cheaply, the land cost for the public to buy from the government was much costlier in comparison. For the Natives to obtain funds to adapt to their new environment with the Americans, they were compelled to sell their land – the only large asset they had available to
Banner explains the degree of difference in consent and compulsion in chapter four of How the Indians Lost Their Land through the discussion of land ownership between the Native Americans and the United States post the American revolution. …show more content…
Although the interest for obtaining Native land was present before the Revolution Banner explains that under imperial rule, land acquisition was less likely to occur due to the large distance between the colonists and the officials in Britain, as well as British officials implementing policies that were favorable for Britain and out of line with the colonialist’s wishes. Thus, as the colonies declared and obtained their independence from Britain, American self-determination encouraged citizens to seek new economic opportunities which in turn drove up the need for land amongst the Americans. Previously, land was acquired through payment to the Natives however, post-Revolution the land was forcibly taken; this change in policy upset the Natives and put America on the brink of war with the Natives so soon after the Revolution was ended. As such, through the actions of the 1787 Continental Congress the government’s view on the land policy reverted to pre-1783 views with the Natives owning their land therefore, the Natives must be compensated for any land …show more content…
In terms of the Constitution, Congress believed this policy to be justified through the commerce clause. Initially this policy was unenforceable as private purchase of Native lands was not a criminal offense; Congress later corrected this matter with the Intercourse Act of 1793. Although the buying of Native land by anyone but the Federal government was now illegal, it did not deter the people from continuing to do so. The public wanted more land, quickly and inexpensively; the Federal government took its time regarding the purchases, and while they bought the land cheaply, the land cost for the public to buy from the government was much costlier in comparison. For the Natives to obtain funds to adapt to their new environment with the Americans, they were compelled to sell their land – the only large asset they had available to