(03-21-2022 03:31 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(03-20-2022 09:58 PM)banker Wrote:  I have now educated myself. The treaty was signed by a separatist group within the Cherokee Nation. It was supported by less than 500 and opposed by over 17,000. It was so opposed that 3 of the 4 Cherokee leaders that signed it were all murdered by their tribe on the same day. The day it was to be ratified, the House was presented with the 17,000 signature petition in opposition to the treaty, a fight broke out in the House and it was never brought for a vote.

So now, 187 years later, the same tribe that murderously opposed the treaty and petitioned not to have it ratified wants one part of it honored. That’s what I get from my readings.

We treated them poorly as a nation, but they have little to stand on here. If they want this part of the treaty upheld they need to accept the whole of the document which would end their claims that their land was illegally taken. The document established the sale of all native lands East of the Mississippi, so they can’t have it both ways.

Wikipedia I presume?

No. I actually read several search results, none of which were Wikipedia.

(03-21-2022 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-20-2022 09:58 PM)banker Wrote:  I have now educated myself. The treaty was signed by a separatist group within the Cherokee Nation. It was supported by less than 500 and opposed by over 17,000. It was so opposed that 3 of the 4 Cherokee leaders that signed it were all murdered by their tribe on the same day. The day it was to be ratified, the House was presented with the 17,000 signature petition in opposition to the treaty, a fight broke out in the House and it was never brought for a vote.

So now, 187 years later, the same tribe that murderously opposed the treaty and petitioned not to have it ratified wants one part of it honored. That’s what I get from my readings.

We treated them poorly as a nation, but they have little to stand on here. If they want this part of the treaty upheld they need to accept the whole of the document which would end their claims that their land was illegally taken. The document established the sale of all native lands East of the Mississippi, so they can’t have it both ways.

Well the Supreme Court ruled that Jackson couldn't remove the Cherokee, but he did it anyway.

Actually, they ruled Georgia couldn’t, as Indian Affairs were regulated by the federal government. Jackson merely let Georgia declare open season on the natives.

Again, however it gets back to either accepting the entire document, or none of it. Not cherry-picking the parts you want. The Cherokee first broke the treaty by not vacating the lands by the agreed upon date after they accepted payment for the land (hence the origin of the old phrase “Indian-giver”). Jackson then ordered their removal and the claim that their lands were “stolen” when in truth they were purchased under the terms of the treaty.

You could argue that the lack of appointment is a retaliation for the breaking of the vacate provision and the continuing mischaracterization of the land sale as theft.

Well the people who approved the treaty didn't have authority.

And you may not be aware, but the whole thing was driven by the nation's first gold rush. They had to get the Indians out to get the gold in the Dahlonega area in North Georgia.

There was even a US mint in Dahlonega from 1837-1861.
https://www.usacoinbook.com/encyclopedia...dahlonega/

I'm 1/16... do I count as an oppressed group?

(03-21-2022 12:36 PM)b2b Wrote:  I'm 1/16... do I count as an oppressed group?

I'm about 16 generations back. Think that makes me about 1/32000th, but I have some Mexican Indian and am about 14% Indian overall. Should that make my Cherokee count?

(03-21-2022 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 12:36 PM)b2b Wrote:  I'm 1/16... do I count as an oppressed group?

I'm about 16 generations back. Think that makes me about 1/32000th, but I have some Mexican Indian and am about 14% Indian overall. Should that make my Cherokee count?

I've got an old photo somewhere of my great, great grandparents on my dad's side. GG grandma looks like she got stolen from the Rez by some white dude.

(03-21-2022 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the people who approved the treaty didn't have authority.

And you may not be aware, but the whole thing was driven by the nation's first gold rush. They had to get the Indians out to get the gold in the Dahlonega area in North Georgia.

There was even a US mint in Dahlonega from 1837-1861.
https://www.usacoinbook.com/encyclopedia...dahlonega/

Well, that’s the debate, as I pointed out earlier (500 supported, 17,000 did not) and also adds to the point that the cry for representation based on that treaty is dubious, at best. Why would they now rely on a specific portion of it for the one thing they want.

Another fun fact. The group that did represent the Cherokee in those negotiations were slave owning tribal members.

(03-21-2022 01:16 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the people who approved the treaty didn't have authority.

And you may not be aware, but the whole thing was driven by the nation's first gold rush. They had to get the Indians out to get the gold in the Dahlonega area in North Georgia.

There was even a US mint in Dahlonega from 1837-1861.
https://www.usacoinbook.com/encyclopedia...dahlonega/

Well, that’s the debate, as I pointed out earlier (500 supported, 17,000 did not) and also adds to the point that the cry for representation based on that treaty is dubious, at best. Why would they now rely on a specific portion of it for the one thing they want.

Another fun fact. The group that did represent the Cherokee in those negotiations were slave owning tribal members.

How much does that matter now? The US ratified the Treaty of New Echota as specified by the Constitution, and relied on it as the legal basis for removing the Cherokee from the South to Oklahoma. That negative event happened, so logically the Cherokee are now seeking to get a positive result promised to them by the same Treaty. If there is any doubt that the treaty was properly ratified it is on the Cherokee side, so if there is a splinter group of Cherokee who seek to overturn the whole thing then asking for this part of the treaty to be honored might undermine that. Does anybody think they would be successful in getting the US Supreme Court to undo the Trail of Tears and hand over large parts of Tennessee and Georgia? There is no undoing what happened to their ancestors nearly 200 years ago, so it makes sense to take this small win and claim their delegate.

(03-21-2022 10:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-20-2022 09:45 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  I have Cherokee blood and could not care less about some non-voting delegate in Congress that was not fully ratified years ago. We are looking at a potential World War, and you post some virtue-signaling stupidity because it makes you feel inclusive and virtuous. Get bent.

I've got a tiny bit of Cherokee as well. Somewhere about 16 generations back.

Next we will have 574 tribal governments insisting on a delegate.

I think we made a huge mistake in the 30s-60s promoting the autonomy concept. The whole casino thing is part of that. States can't stop Indian casinos. The mess at Wounded Knee in the early 70s was part of that. Worse could happen.

The Indians in best shape are those in Oklahoma, NOT on reservations, but integrated into society. We should start with the eastern and central time zone and buy out the rights of any tribe willing and make their reservations regular counties or cities. They get paid and self-government. We get rid of the autonomous zones.

I don't think we're in any danger of that, unless the US makes new treaties promising delegates. The only other Indian nation promised a delegate by treaty is the Choctaw in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, who have not appointed one. I would assume they probably will at some point once the Cherokee delegate is seated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voting..._delegates

The Cherokee broke the treaty by failing to willingly leave the land as agreed in the document causing their forced removal at great monetary and reputational cost to the US Government. To come back 187 years later and say “ Hey, we never supported the treaty, we were invalidly represented, to the point we killed the guys who signed it, and we willingly broke it by not following the conditions, but now you have to pay attention to this one clause” is, as I stated, disingenuous at best.

As someone with several native American and other indigenous people friends, I wonder about whether it would be good to do this:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) currently manages (in many cases, ineptly) about 240 million acres of federal land tat does not appear to have any purpose. What if, say, half of that land were returned to indigenous people to use as each tribe sees fit? Worst case, it is highly unlikely that they would do worse than BLM.

(03-21-2022 02:17 PM)banker Wrote:  The Cherokee broke the treaty by failing to willingly leave the land as agreed in the document causing their forced removal at great monetary and reputational cost to the US Government. To come back 187 years later and say “ Hey, we never supported the treaty, we were invalidly represented, to the point we killed the guys who signed it, and we willingly broke it by not following the conditions, but now you have to pay attention to this one clause” is, as I stated, disingenuous at best.

The U.S. government *enforced* the treaty and removed the Cherokee. Otherwise, the U.S. government forcefully removed the Cherokee without a treaty and should owe them reparations.

Give them their delegate.

(03-21-2022 03:48 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 02:17 PM)banker Wrote:  The Cherokee broke the treaty by failing to willingly leave the land as agreed in the document causing their forced removal at great monetary and reputational cost to the US Government. To come back 187 years later and say “ Hey, we never supported the treaty, we were invalidly represented, to the point we killed the guys who signed it, and we willingly broke it by not following the conditions, but now you have to pay attention to this one clause” is, as I stated, disingenuous at best.

The U.S. government *enforced* the treaty and removed the Cherokee. Otherwise, the U.S. government forcefully removed the Cherokee without a treaty and should owe them reparations.

Give them their delegate.

Typically a contract is no longer enforceable on one party after the other party has already willfully breached it. Perhaps the Cherokee should be the one paying reparations. They broke the treaty causing the US to undergo the expense of forcing the removal and resettlement. Punitive damages from the reputational harm that was incurred, and still exists to this day, would be astronomical.

(03-21-2022 04:03 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 03:48 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 02:17 PM)banker Wrote:  The Cherokee broke the treaty by failing to willingly leave the land as agreed in the document causing their forced removal at great monetary and reputational cost to the US Government. To come back 187 years later and say “ Hey, we never supported the treaty, we were invalidly represented, to the point we killed the guys who signed it, and we willingly broke it by not following the conditions, but now you have to pay attention to this one clause” is, as I stated, disingenuous at best.

The U.S. government *enforced* the treaty and removed the Cherokee. Otherwise, the U.S. government forcefully removed the Cherokee without a treaty and should owe them reparations.

Give them their delegate.

Typically a contract is no longer enforceable on one party after the other party has already willfully breached it. Perhaps the Cherokee should be the one paying reparations. They broke the treaty causing the US to undergo the expense of forcing the removal and resettlement. Punitive damages from the reputational harm that was incurred, and still exists to this day, would be astronomical.

25% of their population died during the forced eviction.

Give them their non-voting delegate.

(03-21-2022 12:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 12:36 PM)b2b Wrote:  I'm 1/16... do I count as an oppressed group?

I'm about 16 generations back. Think that makes me about 1/32000th, but I have some Mexican Indian and am about 14% Indian overall. Should that make my Cherokee count?

If high cheekbones and later a genetics test saying you might be 1/1024th counts then yes, yours can count as well.

How many votes do you need? Pelosi in charge of the House right now.

Wonder why they're pushing it now... She's a Dem.

(03-22-2022 11:19 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Wonder why they're pushing it now... She's a Dem.

Of course.

(03-20-2022 09:58 PM)banker Wrote:  I have now educated myself. The treaty was signed by a separatist group within the Cherokee Nation. It was supported by less than 500 and opposed by over 17,000. It was so opposed that 3 of the 4 Cherokee leaders that signed it were all murdered by their tribe on the same day. The day it was to be ratified, the House was presented with the 17,000 signature petition in opposition to the treaty, a fight broke out in the House and it was never brought for a vote.

So now, 187 years later, the same tribe that murderously opposed the treaty and petitioned not to have it ratified wants one part of it honored. That’s what I get from my readings.

We treated them poorly as a nation, but they have little to stand on here. If they want this part of the treaty upheld they need to accept the whole of the document which would end their claims that their land was illegally taken. The document established the sale of all native lands East of the Mississippi, so they can’t have it both ways.

a good and balanced analysis of the situation. Thank you for that.

(03-21-2022 04:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 04:03 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 03:48 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 02:17 PM)banker Wrote:  The Cherokee broke the treaty by failing to willingly leave the land as agreed in the document causing their forced removal at great monetary and reputational cost to the US Government. To come back 187 years later and say “ Hey, we never supported the treaty, we were invalidly represented, to the point we killed the guys who signed it, and we willingly broke it by not following the conditions, but now you have to pay attention to this one clause” is, as I stated, disingenuous at best.

The U.S. government *enforced* the treaty and removed the Cherokee. Otherwise, the U.S. government forcefully removed the Cherokee without a treaty and should owe them reparations.

Give them their delegate.

Typically a contract is no longer enforceable on one party after the other party has already willfully breached it. Perhaps the Cherokee should be the one paying reparations. They broke the treaty causing the US to undergo the expense of forcing the removal and resettlement. Punitive damages from the reputational harm that was incurred, and still exists to this day, would be astronomical.

25% of their population died during the forced eviction.

Give them their non-voting delegate.

I'll pull this quote and and let y'all ponder it:

Quote:Typically a contract is no longer enforceable on one party after the other party has already willfully breached it.

For a +3, name the one agreement that is negatively enforceable BECAUSE one party willfully breached it. For an extra +3 later, tell me how that even makes any sense. Lawyers and Legal wanna-bees?

(03-21-2022 04:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 04:03 PM)banker Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 03:48 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 02:17 PM)banker Wrote:  The Cherokee broke the treaty by failing to willingly leave the land as agreed in the document causing their forced removal at great monetary and reputational cost to the US Government. To come back 187 years later and say “ Hey, we never supported the treaty, we were invalidly represented, to the point we killed the guys who signed it, and we willingly broke it by not following the conditions, but now you have to pay attention to this one clause” is, as I stated, disingenuous at best.

The U.S. government *enforced* the treaty and removed the Cherokee. Otherwise, the U.S. government forcefully removed the Cherokee without a treaty and should owe them reparations.

Give them their delegate.

Typically a contract is no longer enforceable on one party after the other party has already willfully breached it. Perhaps the Cherokee should be the one paying reparations. They broke the treaty causing the US to undergo the expense of forcing the removal and resettlement. Punitive damages from the reputational harm that was incurred, and still exists to this day, would be astronomical.

25% of their population died during the forced eviction.

Give them their non-voting delegate.

They had two years to plan and prepare to leave on their own. They chose to ignore their obligations under the treaty.