Technically, should the Amerindians own all American land west of the Mississippi?
Why just west of the Mississippi? Most of the tribes in Oklahoma were removed from the East Coast.
The Mohawk still claim most of Upstate New York (and have the treaties to back it up). I'm all for handing over Buffalo and Syracuse myself...
The Mohawk still claim most of Upstate New York (and have the treaties to back it up). I'm all for handing over Buffalo and Syracuse myself...
That meant that even the most advanced Indians at the time in the Mississippi Valley didn't attempt to make permanent habitation in Buffalo range land. You'd better believe they stayed out of the Great Plains.
So, absent a presence, no Indian claim can be made satisfactory to a court of equity. On the other hand, Congress has allowed some Indians to have reservations in that territory, but that's all based on events subsequent to DeSoto's interview.
But, back to the main thread here ~ should Texans, who like to shoot doves on powerlines, be accepted as legitimate commenters on Wisconsin's peculiar hunting traditions? Or, alternatively, should everyone give up on Wisconsin and return it to the Oneida (to whom the US government intended to give it) ~ this could have otherwise obscure but real benefits when we disperse the mind-numbed Liberal nexus at University of Wisconsin to the original homelands on college campuses in the East.
The water in Madison would be pure again.