University of Texas at Austin. Her publications appear in political science, history, and law journals and investigate the interaction between law, legal institutions, and politics. Her first book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts (2010), examined the role of the federal judiciary in U.S. immigration. She teaches and researches in U.S. constitutional law, federal courts, U.S. immigration policy history, federalism, American Political Development, and race/ethnicity.
Law applied the “Page 99 Test” to her new book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship: African Americans, Native Americans, and Immigrants, and shared the following:
On page 99 of Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship, readers will find:Visit Anna O. Law's website.Native nations living on land the Americans coveted influenced slave states delegates to vote for constitutional ratification. The framers sought to balance accommodation of regional interests with creating a robust national government that could defend against foreign and domestic insurrections that might destabilize the young republic. Gregory Ablavsky argues persuasively that the framers convinced reluctant states to ratify the Constitution by repeatedly invoking the threat of “savages” to justify the creation of a fiscally and militarily sturdy federal government. Both elements of centralized authority over Indian affairs and a stronger central government had been glaring deficits in the Articles of Confederation.The Page 99 Test doesn’t work for my book because it omits the central contribution of Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. My intervention is to synthesize into one study the histories and laws governing the citizenship and migration of groups that are usually read separately in disciplinary or time period silos. These are voluntary migrants, African Americans, and Native American. Page 99 only discusses Native Americans. If readers open to this page, they won’t be aware that voluntary migrants and free and enslaved African Americans are also part of the story and that their fates are intertwined.
In the founding era, the attempt to assign by subject matter the management of Indian affairs exclusively to the national government resulted in continuing conflict between the US and state governments given their divergent policy goals. From the confederation period forward, states often claimed Native land under colonial era charters. Congress putatively had the power to reconcile some of these sometimes-overlapping claims between former colonies but did not often step in to resolve conflicts. The legislative branch instead asked states to turn over their claims to the national government, and these requests were usually ignored. Through the colonial and confederation periods, states continued to operate by local laws and pass new ones regulating Native people in their territory. For example, states exercised their authority by regulating the sale and supply of Native land, driving down prices, and facilitating dispossession. Either by statute or by creation of systems, states continued to allow settlers to purchase Native American land without federal coordination and oversight and without any questions from the courts post-Revolution.
By claiming sole authority over Indian affairs, the federal government had the daunting responsibility to “make peace with Natives, restrain illegal settlement, and conciliate state assertions of sovereignty, all with limited funds and while seizing the land necessary to repay the national debt.” Even if the national government enjoyed the sole authority to manage these many tasks, with the cooperation of the states, it would have been a huge range of laws to enact and enforce.
Although we today think of these groups as unrelated, federal court opinions from the nineteenth century mention all these people in the same decisions. Take for example Mayor of New York v Miln (1837), a case brought by shipping companies against New York to challenge a NY migration law. The statute required ship captains to turn over passenger manifests listing travelers by name, and physical condition (whether they are disabled, or sickly). Failure to comply would result in a fine. The shipping companies hated these laws that were eating into their profits. In that same opinion, Supreme Court justices discussed the implications of striking down New York’s migration restrictions for slave states who had laws controlling the entry, movement, and settlement of free and enslaved Black Americans. Before the Civil War ended slavery and separated the two subject matter areas, slavery and voluntary migration laws were inextricably linked.
Page 99, though, spotlights Native Americans who some readers might find surprising to be in a book about voluntary migration. The land Indigenous peoples lived on and owned for generations was obtained and sold by states and the US government at subsidized prices to lure voluntary European migration to the colonies and the states through to the nineteenth century. States and the US government often gained Indigenous lands by treaty negotiations, levels of coercion, or outright fraud. For example, the US government funded and carried out the violent deportation of 80,000 Native Americans in the southeastern states in the 1830s. The US government did so after being goaded by the states for the expansion of the cotton crop and slavery. Thus, the ability of Native Americans to stay on their own land was inverse to settler migrants’ desire to possess and occupy that same area.
--Marshal Zeringue









