Lakota Indians "Secede" from the US, Declaration of Continuing Independence

[st steven]

What land, protected by what/which provision/s of the treaties?

Specificity helps an argument. Piously rhetorical questions do not.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by st steven

What land, protected by what/which provision/s of the treaties?

Specificity helps an argument. Piously rhetorical questions do not.

Pursuant to a special jurisdictional statute which provided for de novo review of the merits of a decision of the Indian Claims Commission that an 1877 enactment effected a taking of the Black Hills from the Sioux Indians, the Court of Claims, 220 Ct.Cl. 442, 601 F.2d 1157, affirmed the Commission's decision and held that the Sioux were entitled to interest dating from 1877 on the principal sum of $17.1 million. Certiorari was granted, and the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Blackmun, held that: (1) the 1978 Act which provided for de novo review by the Court of Claims of the merits of the Indian Claims Commission's decision did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; (2) Congress had the power to waive an otherwise valid defense to a legal claim against the United States; (3) the legal analysis and factual findings of the Court of Claims supported its conclusions that an 1877 enactment which implemented an "agreement" whereby the Sioux relinquished their rights to the Black Hills effected a taking of tribal property which had been set aside for the Sioux by a prior treaty and that the taking gave rise to an obligation to make just compensation to the Sioux; and (4) the Government's obligation, including interest dating from 1877, was required to be paid.

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/US_v_Sioux_Nation_448_371.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians

Essentially, in 1980, the Sioux Nation successfully challenged the United States, arguing that the Fort Laramie Treaty was broken, and that land was illegally taken.

---
Regardless of that case, you had this in 1999 -
http://www.itvs.org/homeland/today7.html

Yet as recently as 1999, U.S. policy has continued to break treaties created by the U.S. government in the late 19th century. The Danklow Acts (also called Mitigation Acts I and II), signed by President Clinton in 1998 and 1999, gave over 90,000 acres along the Missouri River in South Dakota to the state of South Dakota, land guaranteed to the Sioux people by the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie Treaties

[al2six]

has the US gov responded to this at all yet?

[MayorOfChicago]

The Lakota people only have roughly 100,000 people - and the population of this area, including Omaha, Rapid City, Casper, etc. - is well over 1,200,000.

Whether or not they're "right", this will never ever happen.

[Marcu]

Not to rehash Lincoln's civil war argument, but...

Democracy may only function if parties work together and compromise to achieve their objectives. A minority party cannot just leave the table, or "succeed", if they feel that the majority has somehow wronged them. They can seek a remedy in court (an excellent option if a treaty was allegedly broken. In fact several Indian tribes won judgments this way in recent years), whine to Congress ("lobby"), or try to elect better officials the next election cycle. Imagine if the Republican Party decided to succeed when they lost their Congressional majority in 06. This is essentially what the Confederacy did and what the Lakota are doing here. Instead of raising awareness for their plight the same way as African Americans did in the 60s (by lobbying Congress and electing public officials), or the same way that Women's right groups re: abortion (by seeking a judicial remedy), they decide to take their toys and go home.

[Chef]

Russel Means is not part of any Lakota government. He has run for tribal office and lost. This is a publicity stunt by an activist. The various reservations probably can seceed but they haven't.

[FerrariEnzo]

"This is kind of a big deal"

mmmmm not so much. wont happen, will never happen, "next".

[Magnus1]

The Lakota were warriors who drove off many other tribes on the plains of SD, ND & Neb. They killed scores of Arikera, Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Pawnee to est. this lakota nation. They now obsess with the fact that they are now slave to their own method. An unfortunate situation. Such is the way of the world.

[satsuchan]

It's ironic how many Americans support Tibetan independence, but when it comes to letting go a little bit of their own stolen land, most Americans dismiss it out of hand. I don't think this will go anywhere for the same reason that Hu Jintao won't let Tibet go: because the party under whose watch this happens will never win another election again (rigged or otherwise).

[dollaztx]

I think we should just step out and let the people inside Lakota nation vote. Either become fully independent or become fully integrated to the US. Whatever the majority decide on will become so.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by satsuchan

It's ironic how many Americans support Tibetan independence, but when it comes to letting go a little bit of their own stolen land, most Americans dismiss it out of hand. I don't this will go anywhere for the same reason that Hu Jintao won't let Tibet go: because the party under whose watch this happens will never win another election again (rigged or otherwise).

Yeah, I keep wondering when the pro-Tibet factions in the U.S. will start advocating for the rights of the Confederacy.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by emathias

Yeah, I keep wondering when the pro-Tibet factions in the U.S. will start advocating for the rights of the Confederacy.

Topics such as the Lakota and Tibet situations have very little in common with the Confederacy, and it actually sort of bothers me to make such narrow comparisons. The former were cultures taken over by completely different monsters, whereas the confederacy was part of the Anglican cultures, and part of the US at its inception, only going against the ideal that all men are created equal, and to maintain slavery to compete economically. Where the Confederacy wanted to break away to continue human rights violations, the Lakota and Tibetans (some) would like independence from the violators who took them over for military or economic gain. In the case of the Lakota, it was a legally binding agreement, called a treaty. Unless we're calling the Constitution a treaty between states instead of inalienable rights and a mission statement, then the two are bunk for comparison.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by Magnus1

The Lakota were warriors who drove off many other tribes on the plains of SD, ND & Neb. They killed scores of Arikera, Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Pawnee to est. this lakota nation. They now obsess with the fact that they are now slave to their own method. An unfortunate situation. Such is the way of the world.

Russel Means has MPD?

He frightens me in a very David Koresh way.

[zilfondel]

Umm... Waco? I'm sure the ATF/FBI/Homeland security wouldn't mind sending in their stooges to put down a "riot" or "disturbance to the peace" and just shoot everybody. The Feds have been spending billions of $$$ to militarize local police forces. Even in the small town I grew up in, they have armored tanks and machine guns!

Most likely, however, the government will just ignore it. Citizens will pay their taxes, and life will go on as normal...

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Topics such as the Lakota and Tibet situations have very little in common with the Confederacy, and it actually sort of bothers me to make such narrow comparisons. The former were cultures taken over by completely different monsters, whereas the confederacy was part of the Anglican cultures, and part of the US at its inception, only going against the ideal that all men are created equal, and to maintain slavery to compete economically. Where the Confederacy wanted to break away to continue human rights violations, the Lakota and Tibetans (some) would like independence from the violators who took them over for military or economic gain. In the case of the Lakota, it was a legally binding agreement, called a treaty. Unless we're calling the Constitution a treaty between states instead of inalienable rights and a mission statement, then the two are bunk for comparison.

You're right that we can't compare the two, but as I stated in my previous posts, and will state again here, that we would be setting a very dangerous course if this were to gain any ground. By going ahead and allowing the Lakotas to secede, we would start a gradual chain reaction that would ultimately dissolve the U.S. as we know it. I know many people would be fine with that. I tell those people: Be careful what you wish for. I do understand the anger and hatred that people have for this country due to the sins of the past. But I also know that the country has done much to right many of those wrongs, and if we and future generations can't get past this with all of the opportunities that this country has to offer us, then we will ultimately fail and trust me, it wont be good. We're not called the "melting pot" for nothing. Regardless of our race, religion, sexual orientation, political affilliation, creed, etc., We have the most diverse 300 million group of people in the world, and it's hard to please everybody, but if we divide ourselves up, then we have learned nothing. At least that's how I feel about it.

[vid]

Has anyone thought to ask what the regular Lakota people living in this area think? From what I've heard, most think this group is insane.

[ginsan2]

Originally Posted by Xing

They've had land taken as recently as 1999, which was protected in those treaties. Are you completely oblivious to this?

When you're a conquered people and you lose, you shut up and lose. And then you move forward into the new situation as best you can, maybe apportioning your rightful feelings of angst and loss for campfire stories. I have no idea why the American government tolerates Amerindians as much as it does. No other conquering government in history has made such concessions as that of the US Feds.

And for what? Severe, crippling meth problems? Poverty that is so complete but so protected by some BS separationist legal system?

Originally Posted by Magnus1

The Lakota were warriors who drove off many other tribes on the plains of SD, ND & Neb. They killed scores of Arikera, Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Pawnee to est. this lakota nation. They now obsess with the fact that they are now slave to their own method. An unfortunate situation. Such is the way of the world.

Hear hear . Life sucks, you lose, you move on as best you can.

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Sure, but I have read Article VI and I think they have a constitutional right to do this. The U.N. has nothing to do with this.

One would think so, but as we all know the constitution doesn't mean squat to the feds anymore.