Most nineteenth-century political debates over U.S. citizenship revolved around the claims of people, often African Americans or immigrants, who aspired to that status. But Native American citizenship’s genealogy began instead with the United States assertion of the right to purchase or conquer the territory of its Indigenous neighbors, to replace them as its sole or primary inhabitants, and to make policy for the people thereby dispossessed. These very different histories of citizenship collided in 1866, when the U.S. Senate considered how to codify that status in the Civil Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment. This article interprets these debates as the collision of an array of distinct and divergent settler colonial processes and experiences. It argues that the ultimate resolution—a half-articulated commitment to let local settler communities decide—both contradicted the ostensible purposes of the Civil Rights Act and accurately reflected how the era’s settler colonial society understood the purposes and functions of Native citizenship.

中文翻译：

---

管辖权、文明和美洲原住民公民身份的终结：1866 年的观点

大多数 19 世纪有关美国公民身份的政治辩论都围绕着渴望获得美国公民身份的人们（通常是非裔美国人或移民）的主张展开。但是，美洲原住民公民的谱系始于美国声称有权购买或征服其土著邻国的领土，取代他们成为其唯一或主要居民，并为被剥夺权利的人民制定政策。这些截然不同的公民身份历史在 1866 年发生冲突，当时美国参议院考虑如何在《民权法案》和第十四修正案中编纂这种身份。本文将这些争论解释为一系列不同的定居者殖民过程和经验的碰撞。