Page:Haaland v. Brackeen.pdf/96

14 That policy then gave way to a more forceful policy of removing Indians west, particularly during the administration of President Andrew Jackson. Id., at 233–249; Cohen §1.03[4], at 41–51; Prucha 193–195, 239–240.

But, at least until the War of 1812 (and, in large part, in the years after it), Founding-era Presidents’ primary goals in this area were to achieve peace with the Indians, sustain trade with them, and obtain Indian lands through treaties. See id., at 32–33, 59, 61, 93. By establishing a peaceful and trade-oriented relationship with the Indians, the new country further hoped to exclude British Canada and other European powers that might seek alliances with the Indian tribes. See Cohen §1.03[3], at 37–38, n. 102; 2 Stat. 6. During that time, the Federal Government’s relationship with the Indians thus remained (as it did for nearly the first hundred years of our Nation) “ ‘more an aspect of military and foreign policy’ ” than simple domestic law. See United States v. Lara, 541 U. S. 193, 201 (2004).

Notably, neither President Washington nor the first Congresses were particularly “concerned with the remnants of tribes that had been absorbed by the states and had come under their direction and control.” Prucha 92. The first Trade and Intercourse Acts specifically provided that “nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by settlements of the citizens of the United States, and being within the jurisdiction of any of the individual states.” §13, 1 Stat. 331; §19, id., at 474. And the Constitution’s Apportionment Clause provided that representatives would be apportioned by the population of each State, “excluding Indians not taxed”—implying that there were Indians who paid taxes and were incorporated into the bodies politic of the States. Art. I, §2, cl. 3.