Not another seccessionist movement...

[Darth InSidious]

They did, the only problem the white man was pretty persuasive and stubborn. The Native Americans fought, but the white man just kept coming.

Well, it's hard to say 'no' to the end of a gun-barrel.

 

Curious thing is, the Westminster government of the day instructed the settlers not to continue expanding. Then they had to pay to protect the settlers...and we know where that led.

The difference is, we have the power to defend our lands. They didn't. Welcome to the world of diplomacy, with all the crap taken off.

And tell me, do you really think that the Palmerston School of diplomacy is wise in a world of nuclear arms?

[John Galt]

I, on the other hand, don't think congress should be able to do whatever it wants(that's why we have a constitution, albeit one that's being trampled on). If they actually could get a supermajority of the population of those states to agree on secession, they should be able to secede. I'd draw this from the 10th amendment.

[Web Rider]

I, on the other hand, don't think congress should be able to do whatever it wants(that's why we have a constitution, albeit one that's being trampled on). If they actually could get a supermajority of the population of those states to agree on secession, they should be able to secede. I'd draw this from the 10th amendment.

To that much I agree too, if 3+ million people of the 4.5 million in the proposed secession area signed on, sure. Signatures from outside the area don't count, ie: anyone who supports the Lakota secession but isnt part of the tribe or living within the proposed area.

 

But we're still talking max some 70,000 people, and isnt the "number" for petitioning congress for a redress of greviences like, 600k?

[tk102]

If they actually could get a supermajority of the population of those states to agree on secession, they should be able to secede. I'd draw this from the 10th amendment.

I recall an earlier secession that didn't go very well despite the 10th amendment. Back in 1861-1865 I believe...

[Rev7]

Exactly, sadly I don't think that the Lakota Indians care about that that happened once, and lots of people died, and the ones who tried to secede lost...

[John Galt]

I recall an earlier secession that didn't go very well despite the 10th amendment. Back in 1861-1865 I believe...

 

If they had petitioned congress before lincoln took office, I think Buchanan would have let them leave. Lincoln simply refused to remove troops from what was in effect foreign soil(ft sumter), naturally causing a war.

[JediAthos]

Lincoln never recognized the CSA as a country or the right of those States to secede from the Union. He believed the Union had to be preserved and that the Federal government had jurisdiction over every state government which is how the constituion is written.

 

 

I'll be curious to see what the President and Congress do with this. Obviously there's no way they'll agree to what they Lakota are proposing. They will find some legal loophole or something of that nature or in an absolute worst case scenario they'll simply call up the National Guard to defend sovereign U.S. territory.

 

I don't know exactly what the treaties they're citing said, but I would be interested to see given that they are using them for a basis of their arguement.

 

At any rate, I'm pretty sure they've got a tough row to hoe. For them to pull this off without consent (which they won't get) they would almost have to become violent because there are U.S. citizens, government buildings, and military installations in all of they states they're referring to.

[Tommycat]

So Venezuela is in agreement with this? I'm curious when they will return the ancestral land to the Maya.

[Jae Onasi]

I've just scanned quickly through, so if this is a bit repetitive, forgive me.

 

I don't think they'll secede--they don't have the money necessary to sustain themselves. They'd lose all the financial subsidies/programs (e.g. financial support for fire/police/911/etc), welfare, health care, etc. They might have enough arable land to farm, but they have no industry except maybe tourism/casinos. They'd end up losing a lot by seceding.

[Web Rider]

So Venezuela is in agreement with this? I'm curious when they will return the ancestral land to the Maya.

 

Many people of the nations south of the US border believe themselves to be the true descendants of the Maya, not the bastard(context, it's correctly used) children of the Spanish/Portuguese and whatever native tribes were in the area.

[Rev7]

I don't think they'll secede--they don't have the money necessary to sustain themselves. They'd lose all the financial subsidies/programs (e.g. financial support for fire/police/911/etc), welfare, health care, etc. They might have enough arable land to farm, but they have no industry except maybe tourism/casinos. They'd end up losing a lot by seceding.

I never really thought about it from that point of view. They WOULD lose a lot. But all of these other countries that are "very interested in this declaration" might help support them in SOME of those areas. Key Word: MIGHT. I also don't think that it would be a very smart move on the Lakota's part. But, this is just some of my speculation...

[Tommycat]

I actually see it as a very dangerous proposition. I mean if we give the Lakota their land back, what about all of the other tribes. Wouldn't they also be demanding theirs back as well? That would significantly carve up the US into almost nothing. Not to mention there are several military installations around the country. I say if they want it back, fight for it. If we win again they have to live on even smaller land:D

[SilentScope001]

To be perfectly honest, the Lakota very likely may have very well kicked out the previous inhabitants of their lands when they first came there. So, maybe those previous inhabitans really deserve the land, not Lakota.

 

It's like it's the Canninates who really deserve the West Bank or the Gaza Strip or that huge chunck of land inbetween the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, neither the Arabs or the Israelis.

 

EDIT: It's suprising, but I still can't find any other nation willing to recognize Means' movement, after all this time. Without any external recoginiation, the movement is doomed to fail. Plus, the "liens" are likely enough going to be renounced as illegal in the court system.

 

International recogniation is the only thing that will SAVE Means, and even that is merely just a properganda stunt to help Means via his other goals. You must remember, had Britian intervened on behalf of the South, America may have very well lost the Civil War.

[Web Rider]

Plus, the "liens" are likely enough going to be renounced as illegal in the court system.

 

yes, it's rather difficult to file liens against somebody's property with the government you are attempting to secede from on the grounds that you're "country", which is the principle jurisdiction of the nation you are no longer part of, owns that land.

[SilentScope001]

UPDATE!

 

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/07/news/local/doc478294bd25eb5785538970.txt

 

Seccessionist movement fails (due to lack of support from the leaders of those who actually run Lakota according to those treaties).

 

EDIT: Altough the Republic of Lakota has their own wikipedia article now. Meanwhile, the Treaty Council which controls Laktoa may consider modifying the treaty in order to better suit their interests, possibly to allow for more reveunes from outside sources, in thier Jan. 30th Summit. Here's an article about said meeting, I think.

 

And Veneuzla does NOT recognize the Lakota government established by Russel Means. This is due to some interpertions, but since it was said in a radio interview why this happened, I don't know exactly why this is so.

[El Sitherino]

We'll keep you updated on this pointless story as it develops.

 

 

Uhm... way to troll?

 

So did you actually have any intent on a well thought discussion or did you just want to create waves?

[SilentScope001]

Uhm... way to troll?

 

So did you actually have any intent on a well thought discussion or did you just want to create waves?

 

Um. Er.

 

It was just made as a joke. I wanted to lighten up the mood, after all.

 

I'll take that comment off. Yeah, I want a serious discussion, just that, well, I do understand not everybody here actually sympathize with the seccesionists.

[Corinthian]

*Price is Right failure music*

 

Aww...so much for secession.

[Totenkopf]

Empires rise and fall. How many of the "natives" weren't beneficiaries of this ebb and flow over time. The "native american" lost out to the europeans who went on to conquer America. Facts are facts, however uncomfortable. Had the natives the ability to force the europeans out at the getgo, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Frankly, I'm unapologetically unsympathetic to seccesionist ideals and think we should do much more to push back the unchecked northern migration that's flooding this nation. More troops on the border, less talk with Mexico about how they feel about it. If they wish to start a war......that's their choice. They've heavily militarized their border with Central America and we should do the same to them. As for the Lakota and other "native" tribes on reservations throughout America, you're lucky you got to keep what you did. Perhaps now they should be reintegrated into the US and not as "set asides". Makes you wonder how many of you europeans are actually the descendants of conquerors rather than the original indigenous peeps. Just something to think about.....