Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Dr. Miranda Melcher
Guest: Dr. Emilie Connolly
Episode: Vested Interests: Trusteeship and Native Dispossession in the United States (Princeton UP, 2025)
Date: January 21, 2026

Main Theme:
Dr. Emilie Connolly discusses the origins, mechanisms, impacts, and legacies of "fiduciary colonialism"—the use of trusteeship and financial mechanisms like annuities and trust funds as tools for the dispossession of Native American land and resources by the United States federal government. Far from being a dry bureaucratic history, Connolly’s analysis reveals how these financial structures were central to US colonial policy, reshaping Native sovereignty, federal-Native relations, and American economic development.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Author’s Background and Genesis of the Book

• Dr. Connolly teaches early American history at Brandeis University and began this project as a dissertation at NYU.
• Motivated by the overlap between the histories of capitalism and Native dispossession, she noticed that financial instruments, specifically trust funds, had not been deeply explored in the context of US-Native relations.

“Within that literature, colonialism and the history of Native people tended to be relegated to a kind of prelude...I wanted to explore how colonialism didn’t just set up the conditions for capitalism to emerge, but was really embedded in the capitalist economy.” — Emilie Connolly (03:06)

2. Defining Fiduciary Colonialism and Trusteeship

• Fiduciary colonialism: Imperial strategy built on controlling Native wealth (not just land) through the “language, ideology, and concrete legal forms of trusteeship.”
• US compensated dispossession by promising annual payments—annuities—for land, often managed as trust funds by the federal government.
• By controlling the timing and distribution of annuities, government officials wielded sustained leverage over Native peoples, using financial dependence as a means of coercion and control.

“You can think of it as kind of weaponizing compensation.” — Emilie Connolly (05:32)

3. How the Payment/Trust System Worked in Practice

• Annuities: Annual payments (originally goods, later cash) for land, specified in treaties; sometimes perpetual, more often fixed-term (20–30 years).
• Could be paid out by congressional appropriation or from interest on invested principal ("Indian trust funds").
• Principal for trust funds might come from Congressional funding or from proceeds of the land sales themselves.

“That trust fund principal would either be funded by a congressional appropriation again...or...accrue through the sale of the native land that was being ceded itself in the treaty.” — Emilie Connolly (09:43)

4. Financial Mechanisms as Tools for Dispossession

• By controlling annuity timing and release, officials could exert pressure—for example, to force new treaties, secure removals, or ensure peace.
• This payment structure turned compensation into an ongoing mechanism for dependency and further loss.

“They could coerce Native people into coming back to the negotiating council...compel forced removals...it was also a way of sort of purchasing peace.” — Emilie Connolly (11:52)

5. Historical Development: Why and When Did This System Emerge?

• Initial US policy sought to seize land by force, but Native military resistance (notably the 1791 defeat in Ohio country) forced a rethink.
• Buying land with deferred annuities was seen as cheaper and more practical than warfare.
• The 1795 Treaty of Greenville marked a turning point, instituting annuities as pacification and as a way to “wed Native nations to the attachments of the United States.”

“Engaging in compensated dispossession would ironically save them money. It would save them the costs of an all out war.” — Emilie Connolly (13:39)
“George Washington actually called them...annuities would sort of ‘wed Native nations to the attachments of the United States.’” — Emilie Connolly (16:38)

• Intellectual origins trace back to British colonial policies like the 1763 Proclamation and the idea of imperial “protection” and exclusive right to buy land from Natives.

6. Native Strategies, Adaptation, and Agency

• Native groups entered these financial arrangements under coercion but were not passive:
  • Annuities were sometimes seen as preferable to lump sums, allowing for planning and continuity.
  • Trust funds were recognized as a way for resources to grow over time; Native metaphors likened trusts to hens laying eggs or corn in a crib.
  • Leaders sometimes earmarked funds for priorities like education, leading to investment in future negotiators.

“They actually saw the prospect of regular, long lasting, predictable annual sums of compensation to be an advantage.” — Emilie Connolly (21:34)
“In many instances, actually train these leaders to be more effective negotiators.” — Emilie Connolly (24:28)

7. Expansion and Increasing Federal Control

• The system grew dramatically during the Jacksonian era of Indian Removal (1830s):
  • By Jackson’s departure, annuities had tripled in value; trust fund financing soared, as states ramped up borrowing for infrastructure.
  • States like Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee had significant portions of debt funded by Indian trust funds at crucial moments of economic turmoil (e.g., Panic of 1837).
  • These investments often happened through networks of patronage and mutual benefit among politicians and federal officials.

“In 1838...Indian trust funds held 11% of Alabama’s debt, 12% of Kentucky’s debt, and actually 17% of Tennessee’s debt...” — Emilie Connolly (29:34)

8. Secrecy, Information Asymmetry, and Native Legal Challenges

• Federal officials often concealed details about trust fund investments and management from Native nations.
• Some Native groups, over time, developed their own auditors or treasurers and lobbied for more transparency and influence, but obstacles persisted.
• Native legal claims and petitions prompted congressional investigations but were often met with further restrictions (e.g., barring contracts with attorneys).
• Over time, the federal government paid annuities per capita rather than to central tribal governments, undermining Native governance structures.

“There was a very deliberate strategy on the part of these government officials to keep this information from Native leaders.” — Emilie Connolly (33:13)

9. The Evolution and Afterlife of Trusteeship

• The end of treaty-making with Native nations in 1871 did not end trusteeship; instead, it became central to federal recognition of Native sovereignty.
• Trusteeship acts as a legal and diplomatic “cord” tying present-day Native-federal relations to the era of nation-to-nation treaty diplomacy.
• The concept continues to underpin contemporary federal Indian law, including rights and responsibilities regarding land, resources, and protection from state and corporate encroachment.
• The ongoing trust relationship has led both to opportunities for Native legal action (e.g., large class action suits over mismanagement) and threats from contemporary economic pressures (e.g., resource extraction for the “green transition”).

“There’s a broad and pervasive trust responsibility that the federal government is bound to uphold. That is rooted in this era of treaty diplomacy.” — Emilie Connolly (41:37)

“More than 75% of the rare earth minerals that are needed for the Green transition are within 35 miles of Native American reservations...these incentives to undermine federal Indian law and the trust responsibility are only going to intensify...” — Emilie Connolly (43:16)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the logic of annuities:
  “Weaponizing compensation...granted officials leverage...to further dispossess Native people of their land.”
  — Emilie Connolly (05:32, 11:52)

• On Native agency:
  “They actually saw the prospect of regular, long lasting, predictable annual sums...as an advantage.”
  — Emilie Connolly (21:34)

• On the expansion of fiduciary colonialism in the Jacksonian era:
  “By Jackson’s departure, the sum that the federal government was paying out as annuities had more than tripled in size.”
  — Emilie Connolly (25:16)

• On modern relevance:
  “There’s a broad and pervasive trust responsibility that the federal government is bound to uphold...And it endures today.”
  — Emilie Connolly (41:37)

• On future threats:
  “More than 75% of the rare earth minerals that are needed for the Green transition are within 35 miles of Native American reservations.”
  — Emilie Connolly (43:16)

Key Timestamps

• 02:42 – Dr. Connolly introduces herself and the book’s origins
• 05:32 – Explanation of fiduciary colonialism and treaty annuities
• 09:43 – Mechanics of annuities and trust fund investments
• 11:52 – The annuities system as leverage, not just compensation
• 13:39 – Historical context: why the US shifted to this model
• 16:38 – Washington’s rationale for annuities (“wed...to the attachments of the United States”)
• 20:09 – Native perspectives and strategies toward annuities/trusts
• 25:16 – Explosion of system during Jacksonian removal era
• 29:34 – How Indian trust funds financed state borrowing and expansion
• 33:13 – Lack of transparency and Native attempts at oversight
• 41:37 – Trusteeship’s continuing impact on law and policy today
• 43:16 – Contemporary threats: green transition and resource extraction
• 45:23 – Dr. Connolly’s next book project: taxes, Native sovereignty, and colonialism

Further Reading / What’s Next

• Dr. Connolly is now researching the connections between taxes, Native sovereignty, and the fiscal dimensions of US colonialism—how taxation was used as another strategy for expropriation and sovereignty denial.

“So this is another way of looking at colonialism as a fiscal and a financial process, not only one that's carried out through, you know, military or even solely legal means.” — Emilie Connolly (45:23)

Tone & Style Note

The episode is insightful, methodical, and accessible, blending clear exposition with engaging stories and big-picture implications. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Melcher maintain an encouraging, collaborative tone—demystifying complex financial and legal concepts, while emphasizing the enduring agency and adaptability of Native nations in the face of empire.