Skip to comments.
Honor Indian Treaties - Get Involved
http://www.honorindiantreaties.com/act/ ^
Posted on 10/29/2003 3:26:15 PM PST by SheLion
![alt](http://www.honorindiantreaties.com/images/header.jpg) |
New York State wants to break the law. Governor Pataki has already called it unconstitutional. And yet, its been adopted for the 2003-04 budget. Its a provision that calls for the State Department of Taxation and Finance to collect tax on the sale of tobacco and gasoline on Native American territories. The states unconstitutional action will cause over 1,000 Indians and non-Indians to lose their jobs, consumer prices to rise and businesses to close. Tell Governor Pataki to honor the supreme law of the land. Tell him that to break centuries old treaties would be to break the law. Click on the link below to send an email message to Governor Pataki. Because its wrong. Because its not fair. Because you wont let it happen. Contact the Governor: Call Governor Pataki at 518-474-7516 or send him an email message by visiting his web site (http://www.state.ny.us/governor/) and clicking on "Contact the Governor." If you wish to contact other state representatives, visit the state Assembly home page (http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/) or the state Senate home page (http://www.senate.state.ny.us/). We are also encouraging supporters to send letters to the editors of the daily newspapers in New York state. Links to most of the state's media outlets are on a web site called the Empire Page (http://www.empirepage.com/medialinks.html). |
Sample Message: If you wish, copy the text below and paste it into your message: |
|
This web site is sponsored by the Seneca Nation of Indians |
|
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: americanindians; pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-204 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
Following up.
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 reservationsBuffalo Creek, Tonawanda, Cattaraugus, and Alleganywere 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.
To: Right Wing Professor
Well, did you miss the part about "Corrupt proceedings"? I don't see where anyone on either side "broke" any agreements. They just protested a corrupt agreement and everyone renegotiated in good faith...
22
posted on
10/29/2003 4:30:36 PM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(The Truth is to see The Gift)
To: Right Wing Professor
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 reservationsBuffalo Creek, Tonawanda, Cattaraugus, and Alleganywere 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.
I found this, looks like the treaty was renegotiated in 1842 due to some sort of corruption and they ended up retaining two reservations in New York.
23
posted on
10/29/2003 4:35:03 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Right Wing Professor
A bit more I found, appears to be some bribery and forgery involved to get a low-ball price is what scotched the 1838 treaty:
Land that was appraised for two million dollars was bought for two hundred and two thousand dollars, a deficit of slightly under 1.8 million dollars. Some chiefs were bribed to sign this land treaty, while other Chiefs' signatures were forged or not obtained at all.
24
posted on
10/29/2003 4:40:14 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Chad Fairbanks
Well, did you miss the part about "Corrupt proceedings"?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.
To: Right Wing Professor
The U.S. should not break treaties with the tribes.
I do not like the setup per say - but breaking treaties is not the solution. These treaties were made in exchange for something the U.S. wanted and got - if the deal doesn't look good now - well.... hindsight's 20/20.
26
posted on
10/29/2003 4:41:20 PM PST
by
CyberCowboy777
(After taking several readings, I'm surprised to find my mind still fairly sound.)
To: Right Wing Professor
We can't keep the treaties, and still adhere to the constitution. How is an exclusive right to participate in a tribal election, based on race, consistent with the 14th amendment? How can we justify different laws for a white man and an Indian who live beside each other on a reservation?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.
27
posted on
10/29/2003 4:50:55 PM PST
by
lockjaw02
("The phenomenon of corruption is like the garbage. It has to be removed daily." -Ignacio)
To: Right Wing Professor
So if you don't like the conditions under which a treaty was signed, you can simply ignore it? 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?
28
posted on
10/29/2003 4:52:45 PM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(The Truth is to see The Gift)
To: Chad Fairbanks
"Not THAT surprising. I mean, it's just treaties with Indians - not tlike we are human beings or anything, the way some people act."
You seem to be taking this discussion awfully personally! Of course we are human beings!
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?"
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.).
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.
To: lockjaw02
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. 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
To: Chad Fairbanks
Well, apparently the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and has many times. But what do they know? 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?
To: Henrietta
You seem to be taking this discussion awfully personally! Of course we are human beings! 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?
32
posted on
10/29/2003 5:01:34 PM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(The Truth is to see The Gift)
To: Right Wing Professor
My grandfather and grandmother were both 1/4 Cherokee. They never received one "perk" of the heritage.
Those that choose to live and marry within the Tribe get to be "Indian" and I really do not envy them one iota.
33
posted on
10/29/2003 5:03:05 PM PST
by
CyberCowboy777
(After taking several readings, I'm surprised to find my mind still fairly sound.)
To: Right Wing Professor
Great idea. If only we had to sense to do it. I'm sick of the is/not is "sovereign nation" game the tribes get to play. They are sovereign when it suits them especially the fraudulent gaming tribes like the Mashantucket Pequot in Connecticut. It's members are barely Indians (1/32 blood etc.) and were not even a federally recognized tribe 20 years ago. The "tribal members" cannot recount a lick of Mashantucket Pequot culture.
34
posted on
10/29/2003 5:03:44 PM PST
by
dennisw
(G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
To: Right Wing Professor
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? 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.
35
posted on
10/29/2003 5:03:47 PM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(The Truth is to see The Gift)
To: Right Wing Professor
I agree with your assessment long range, but for the fact that Pataki/NYS has a nerve trying to get this passed while refusing to cut bloated social welfare programs in the state.
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.
36
posted on
10/29/2003 5:03:51 PM PST
by
eleni121
To: dennisw
Now we come to agreement. How they got recognized was a farce, and an abuse of the system by people (Whites, for what that's worth) to cash in on what they saw as "special rights" for the indians.
The indians are not to blame for that. White people were. But, we agree about the so-called "pequot?"...
37
posted on
10/29/2003 5:05:53 PM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(The Truth is to see The Gift)
To: Henrietta
I think many people (myself included) feel that the sovereign immunity and other privileges granted to tribes are just plain unfair.
Well, we all know that the Indians have it so much better than the rest of us and are living it up while we starve. The unfairness to us is just terrible, almost genocide.
38
posted on
10/29/2003 5:11:32 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Do we have to pay them in perpetuity? In Canada, different levels of gov't pay up to $10 Billion a year to natives, but many are still living in poverty. There is no accountability, but we do have a lot of rich chiefs and a load of poor natives.
Suggesting that is about time that natives become full and equal citizens, which means they have to work for a living and pay taxes, brings the usual screams of racism and bigotry.
How long does this have to go on for - settle all the land claims quickly then close it off and accept no more after that date. Pay them off gradually over a number of years, then say - thats it.. Time to be equal citizens
To: All
40
posted on
10/29/2003 5:13:36 PM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-204 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson