By Michael Gale, Ronan, Montana
May 8, 2018
Thought I'd start out by sharing some thoughts from another message that erupted from my computer this morning and then move into the Treaty itself:
Inconvenient Truth #1211:
When I was growing up in the 50's and being educated in the 60's, I was taught that by our American laws, you could only pledge allegiance to one nation; duality was not an option. If you were born in this country, you were an American and your allegiance was to America. If your parents happened to be citizens of another country, that country might grant you citizenship under their laws but you were an American and your allegiance was expected to be to the United States. If you were an immigrant and you successfully completed the immigration process to become an American citizen, you pledged allegiance to the United States and agreed to give up any allegiance to any other country. Now, I don't know how you do that, in your heart, but it was required by our laws of immigration.
One nationality, one allegiance.
So, what happened?
In fact, how did we allow a man to be President of this nation who actually wrote that if the winds of change blew through this country, he would choose sides by religious affiliation and not by national allegiance? How insane is that?
How did we make it legally possible for an ethnic group (ONE single, apparently extra special, ethnic group) to hold allegiance to two nations? Ask any Indian (with feather, not dot), if they don't hold an allegiance to their tribe by virtue of their tribal sovereignty (and blood quantum) through the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act and allegiance to the United States through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Dual citizenship, dual allegiance to dual sovereign nations. I was taught that was not possible here, and yet, it exists and we support it and nurture it and enable it.
Chew on that for a while.
Maybe that begins to explain why we now have all the hyphenated Americans creating the extreme 'divided we fall' scenario juiced up by the United Nations and destructive community organizers like Obama. Do you believe that tax evaders like Al Sharpton or idiots like Jesse Jackson and good ole Opray preach unity - or do they preach "we are different and we shall overcome through national division and an assumed guilt complex that everyone else should carry in their kit bag" and allegiance be damned? If we are expected to still make up for un-nice actions by people 150 years ago, then I guess we should still be making the Germans pay for WWI, don't you think? Shouldn't they carry the guilt of both WW's forever? Shouldn't the British carry some sort of guilt for their "colonization" of all the countries they subjected to their "British" way of life for all those decades? Does the Queen of England look like she's carrying any sense of guilt? How about the Mongolians, who, under Genghis Khan caused more death and destruction than even the Assyrians or the Romans? Shouldn't the descendants of the Ottoman Empire be expected to still be paying reparations for all the pain and suffering they caused?
A nation can only truly be overcome from within. Even Sun Tzu knew it was useless to assault a city with a siege.....you will lose more than you could ever gain. We are being disassembled from within and we are doing nothing to prevent it. Oh, there are little voices of dissent and disgust and understanding of the process and some resistance, but we are being disassembled nonetheless. We didn't open the gate and let in a Trojan horse, we left the gates open and now have a herd of Trojan horses running wild through our streets and towns and counties and States pooping out more national destruction than we can clean up.
We have rays of hope in some of our citizens who are stepping up and running for positions within our myriad governments and government "agencies" and departments. How they will remain rational and maintain their inherent integrity and honored value systems once we throw them to the wolves of government is anybody's guess, but some of them offer us some hope. Elect them, support them, and remind them is about all we can do....those of us to lazy to do it ourselves by taking the same act of participatory governing responsibility through our unique American citizenship.
We are members of a very exclusive club on this planet. It would be a real shame to see it declare bankruptcy and close its doors forever.
* * *
ARTICLE I. The said confederated tribes of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the country occupied or claimed by them, bounded and described as follows, to wit:
Does anyone know what "Cede, Relinquish, and Convey" mean when followed by "all their right, title, and interest in"....in English? Does it sound like anything was kept or retained by the tribe?
ARTICLE II. There is, however, reserved from the lands above ceded, for the use and occupation of the said confederated tribes, and as a general Indian reservation....
Sounds to me like the United States "reserved from the lands above ceded" for the "use and occupation of the said confederated tribes". How is that morphed to "the tribes reserved the land for themselves" as interpreted by the Supreme Court and proudly declared by the Tribes?
Why would you "reserve" land for yourself for the simple "use and occupation"? Why not "ownership"?!!
All which tract shall be set apart, and, so far as necessary, surveyed and marked out for the exclusive use and benefit of said confederated tribes as an Indian reservation.
And the said confederated tribes agree to remove to and settle upon the same within one year after the ratification of this treaty.
The treaty was signed in 1855 and ratified by Congress and signed by the President in 1859. The last of the tribes moved on to the reservation in 1892. One non-Indian year must equal 33 Indian years.....
ARTICLE VIII. The aforesaid confederated tribes of Indians acknowledge their dependence upon the Government of the United States, and promise to be friendly with all citizens thereof, and pledge themselves to commit no depredations upon the property of such citizens.
I'm guessing that Article 8 was removed from the treaty that the Indians retained for their tribal library.
They push until we push back and then they run for the cover of Federal protection, ignoring this admonition to play nice.....
There is nothing in this treaty that says it is expected or intended to last for time immemorial. Most of the promises from the Federal side are for 20 years duration. Fifty years after the signing, the fed's started up the Land Allocation program with the obvious intention of decommissioning the reservation.
In 1924 the Indian Citizenship Act was implemented with the same intention; level the playing field and put everyone on an equal footing. That lasted for 10 years and then came the Indian Reorganization Act that pretended to protect the Indians from the Real World.
Explain to me how the Supreme Court of the United States can take a position that we, today, must interpret this Treaty as the Chiefs who signed and agreed to it over 160 years ago would have understood it. Did the members of the court actually attend school or were they assigned to the court based on their above average level of truancy?