User Profile

Blackhawk with some very relevant context for legislation in 1860s Arizona:

"Vast and uncharted, Arizona in 1864 had only a few white settlements...[T]he white population was only a fraction of the region's total population. Approximately six hundred white settlers ruled a territory that held thousands of ethnic Mexicans and untold numbers of tribal members. Other than the region's topography, place-names, and diversity of Indigenous communities, little from this era resembled Arizona of the twentieth century. Social, economic, and legal power became concentrated into the hands of settlers such as Woolsey and Arizona governor John Goodwin, both of whom advocated for the "extermination" of Indians...Hatred pervaded the region...

During the Civil War, territorial leaders, newspaper writers, and business leaders worked to maintain and harness the aggression. They drew upon discourses of manhood that carried expectations of martial defense, patriarchy, and racial solidarity. The Howell Code is full of provisions that upheld the authority of white men, the only members of the territory who could practice law. Settler fathers held exclusive legal authority to determine the marital choices for daughters under eighteen, and the code established criminal charges for women who did not carry pregnancies to term. None of the territory's five courts...could issue a divorce--only the territorial legislature could annul a marriage. Non-whites could not testify in criminal cases, and restrictive prohibitions limited interactions between Natives and settlers." (332-33)

On the "ambiguity of Indian policy" in the early Republic: "Contradictory understandings fueled contradictory policies...the Constitution's opaque category of "Indians not taxed" excluded Native peoples from state representation and taxation. While ceding exclusive authority over Indian affairs to the federal government, the Constitution maintained the vagueness found in the Articles of Confederation which held that Indians "were not members of any states." Such ambiguity invited rancor...

Contradictory and competing ideas soon hardened into contradictory policies. Ultimately, Jefferson's "enemy...within our bowels" could be either assimilated or removed. While steeped in debates about he capacity of Indians to accept "civilization," both policies offered Native people little space for autonomy. Each in fact became prescriptions for violence. As the Republic obtained unexpected lands, arguments for removal and assimilation hardened into contrasting ideologies...

An "Indian problem" quickly came to define the early Republic. By the time of Jackson's inauguration in 1829, the federal government maintained extensive practices of interior diplomacy and treaty making. These practices clashed with Jackson's belief that such practices were too conciliatory. Others believed trety making with Indians was unconstitutional. To many the only forms of autonomy tolerable within the Union were for white citizens." (p 224)

"The foundations of British authority in the interior were now crumbling. An emergent settler sovereignty had formed. Settlers used their own diplomatic reasoning, and collective violence to secure their goals and establish their legitimacy. Unleashed in the first year of Pontiac's War, such sovereignty hardened into a new political movement. It was both distinctive and growing, and it now targeted English soldiers. As one of Governor Penn's allies had blithely observed about his office's authority, 'There is no standing army to inforce its laws and support the government.'

Stopping interior trade, limiting the power of seaport elites, and driving Native peoples from the region formed the foundations of an emerging political culture in which negotiations were best conducted between armed parties.

The start of the fall of the British Empire in North America began on the Pennsylvania frontier, and it occured on March, 5, 1765, with [Black Boy leader] Smith's first raid. William Penn's 'Peacable Kingdom' had ended." (171-72)

In sum:

"In reality, the British proclaimed their strength and purpose when their authority seemed the most fragile. In fact, as we have seen in this book, British power in India was exercised sporadically. It was driven by a succession of short-term visceral passions. It did not have a systematic vision of peace and stability, nor a way of working able to produce order. It created chaos.

Rather than a coherent political vision, British rule in India was based on a peculiar form of power. Fearful and prickly from the start, the British saw themselves as virtuous but embattled conquerors whose capacity to act was continually under attack. From the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries, they found it difficult to trust anyone outside the areas they controlled. Their response to challenge was to retreat or attack rather than to negotiate. The result was an anxious, paranoid regime. The British state was desperate to control the spaces where Europeans lived. Elsewhere it insisted on formal submission to the image of British authority. But it did not create alliances with its subjects, nor build institutions that secured good living standards. The British were concerned to maintain the fiction of absolute sovereignty rather than to exercise any real power.

The result was that the British left South Asia a fragmented society."

(p. 481). Kindle Edition.