This web site is sponsored by the Seneca Nation of Indians
|
Posted on 10/29/2003 3:26:15 PM PST by SheLion
|
|||||||||||||
|
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_035300_seneca.htm
Efforts to remove Senecas from their lands culminated in the Treaty of Buffalo Creek in 1838, by the terms of which the four remaining Seneca reservations—Buffalo Creek, Tonawanda, Cattaraugus, and Allegany—were sold and provisions were made for the Senecas to remove to Kansas. The corrupt proceedings were protested, however, and a new Treaty of Buffalo Creek was signed in 1842. The new agreement stipulated the sale of Buffalo Creek and Tonawanda, but retained Allegany and Cattaraugus. As a result of the Buffalo Creek treaties, some Senecas moved to Kansas. Most did not, however, and of those who did, all but two returned.
Senecas of Tonawanda, who had not been present at the treaty proceedings in 1842, objected. By a treaty signed in 1857, they bought back most of their reservation with money set aside for their removal to Kansas. The Tonawanda Senecas maintain their government by hereditary chiefs, practice the Longhouse religion, perform traditional calendric rituals, and have medicine societies (a tradition separate from the Longhouse religion) for preventative and curative purposes
So translating this out of PC speak; they signed a treaty in 1838, broke it, signed another in 1842, broke that, and then some of them signed a third treaty allowing them to remain in New York.
So if you don't like the conditions under which a treaty was signed, you can simply ignore it?
This was the entire problem with the 'treaties' of the 19th century; they treated the tribes as if they were bona-fide nations, with a leader who could negotiate for the whole tribe. So any time a treaty was signed, any subgroup could claim it wasn't done in their name, and walk. On that rationale, since I never voted for Martin Van Buren, why am I bound by a treaty he signed?
The entire legal edifice of the treaties and 'sovereignty' has no place in the 21st century. Few treaties in fact laid out explicit governmental autonomy for the tribes; that's been taken since then as implicit in the existence of the treaty. The treaties gave the tribes land; I don't propose to change that; they often made other promises of annuities - I propose to pay those at full value. What they seldom ( I won't say never, because I don't know) say is that the tribes could run their own autonomous government with the legal backing of the United States.
Yep, "we" probably should have just exterminated them thar ungracious malcontents while we had the chance. Not abiding by the Constitution? Some nerve. Imagine them thinking they're free to make their own rules. Whatever gave em that dang fool idea? We are so much better than they.
/sarcasm
It has been determined by a U.S. Supreme Court decision (COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NY V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION 0)J- NEW YORK STATE -83, U.S. 1065 (1985)) and other litigation involving the Oneida Indian Nation, New York State and Oneida and Madison Counties that between 1785 and 1846 New York State acquired virtually all of the Oneida Indian territory through fraudulent and deceitful practices.
Ya know, for a professor, you sure are lacking in research skills. As an Iroquois, I am intimately familiar with most aspects of American Indian History in the northeast, and new tork in particular. That being said, I'm going to ask you for documented proof that anyone "ignored" the treaty. Post proof. But good luck, because there is no indication that anyone ignored the treaty. However, there is ample proof that several of the tribes/bands effected by the original treaty had NO REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT, nor were they signatories of the treaties. Court appeals by those groups were undertaken. No on ignored it.
This was the entire problem with the 'treaties' of the 19th century; they treated the tribes as if they were bona-fide nations, with a leader who could negotiate for the whole tribe. So any time a treaty was signed, any subgroup could claim it wasn't done in their name, and walk. On that rationale, since I never voted for Martin Van Buren, why am I bound by a treaty he signed?
Strawman argument. Tell me, "professor" - how can ANYONE claim that the Oneida Indians, residing near Green Bay Wisconsin are to be bound by a treaty that was negotiated and signed by other tribes in NEW YORK? Hmmm...? That is just one example of what was wrong with these treaties. And one of several reasons why these treaties were renegotiated time and again - including corruption, briery, graft, and deception on teh part of the U.S. negotiators. Not because OUR government was corrupt or immature, but because YOUR government was corrupt and immature.
Secondly, you can thank the influence of the various Iroquoian tribes, and their system of government, for the very constitution that you and I enjoy today. So, before you badmouth the "native" governments, you might look a little closer...
The entire legal edifice of the treaties and 'sovereignty' has no place in the 21st century. Few treaties in fact laid out explicit governmental autonomy for the tribes; that's been taken since then as implicit in the existence of the treaty. The treaties gave the tribes land; I don't propose to change that; they often made other promises of annuities - I propose to pay those at full value. What they seldom ( I won't say never, because I don't know) say is that the tribes could run their own autonomous government with the legal backing of the United States.
Well, apparently the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and has many times. But what do they know?
Yep, I think I'm going to make my own rules too. I'm abolishing state taxes on my homestead.
Whose 'they', anyway? Tribal membership is often based on what fraction of Indian ancestry one has. If someone is 1/8 Indian and 7/8 European ancestry, why is he Indian?
http://thorpe.ou.edu/OILS/blood.html
They disagree with me about many things - abortion, for example. How about you - do you decide what's right or wrong based on the USSC's rulings?
Well, ya know, there's only so many hatefilled freepmails and emails I've gotten over the years here that have made it personal. Lucky, many of those types are gone. Not all, though.
I think many people (myself included) feel that the sovereign immunity and other privileges granted to tribes are just plain unfair. Far from allowing tribes to have land to allow them to maintain some of their original autonomy and lifestyle, "tribal lands" have mostly become, in many cases, "where can we put up a casino next?"
Waaaa! You don't like it? Too bad. Treaties were made, the constitution backs them up, and that should be good enough for anyone. Period. You dont' like it? Amend the constitution.
I don't think it's fair that American Indians can be free of US income tax for money earned on the reservation, yet vote in elections. I say, choose whether you want to be an American citizen, or pick whether you want to be an Indian, with all of its attendant perks (free college, tribal dividend payments, etc.).
Well, for one thing, most (as in 90% at least) indians pay federal and state income taxes, so try a different argument. For another thing, Tribal Dividend payments are money paid by corporations to access resources on indian land - for example, when an oil company wants to drill on indian land, they pay a fee and royalties based on agreements. THey pay the money to the feds, who dole it out to the individual tribal members of the appropriate tribe - that is, when they ain't stealing it from us. So don't worry your self over the dividend payments, because it doesn't come out of your pocket, k? AS for the free college, I guess we'll just have to take away all those pell grants and such they give you you white people while we are at it, eh? Since it's "not fair".
As for treaties, and honoring the Constitution, it doesn't seem like the state or Federal governments have any respect for our federal constitution. I'm not sure why Indians feel like they should escape the same loss of freedoms that the rest of us face.
Ahhh... now I get it. Why should we indians enjoy some freedom if you white people are so willing to give away your own? The old "Misery loves company" idea?
I may not like or agree with all of their decisions, but I recognize all as the law of the land - and if I disagree strongly enough, I will work within the system to get it changed - legally and aboveboard. But I won't break the law to do so.
I say cut the welfare giveaways and leave the reservations alone. The state has lots more serious issues to deal with than the reservations. In fact, the Senecas did him/NYS a favor when they agreed to open a casino in Niagara Falls NY where for years the only sound heard (besides the falls) was people packing up and leaving or driving across to Ontario to do their gambling to the tune of 100 milion exiting the state per month.
Lots of people in Western NY have more sympathy for the Senecas than for RINO Pataki and the disgusting Democrats. Why? Casino jobs and lower prices for gas and cigarettes. The state has done nothing but tax everyone to death.
5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
