UN to US: Give it back to the natives.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I'm not asking about the concerns of the first Continental Congress, I'm asking about the motivation to revolt against the Empire. The First Continental Congress concerned itself with presenting colonial grievances to the monarch, but the individual colonies each had different intentions, ranging from reaching a modus vivendi with Great Britain, to a break. The motivations of the citizenry to rebel, on the other hand, resides in the attitudes of the people themselves.

Also, the Brits never used germ warfare on the colonists.

So, can you document the concern the First Continental Congress felt for the natives? And can you demonstrate that that concern was widespread enough in the populace to help spark the revolt against the king?

[Seth]

No, I'm not asking about the concerns of the first Continental Congress, I'm asking about the motivation to revolt against the Empire. The First Continental Congress concerned itself with presenting colonial grievances to the monarch, but the individual colonies each had different intentions, ranging from reaching a modus vivendi with Great Britain, to a break. The motivations of the citizenry to rebel, on the other hand, resides in the attitudes of the people themselves.

Also, the Brits never used germ warfare on the colonists.

Are you sure?

So, can you document the concern the First Continental Congress felt for the natives? And can you demonstrate that that concern was widespread enough in the populace to help spark the revolt against the king?

How about this from the Declaration of Independence:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Here's some scholarly comment regarding the intentions of the Colonists to live in peace with the Indian tribes:

The United States adopted this tradition of dealing with Indian tribes as sovereign governments from the European powers. From the very beginning of its existence, the U.S. dealt with Indian tribes on an official governmental and treaty making basis. Political involvement in Indian affairs was a very important part of governmental life in early America. Indian tribes were very powerful in the 1700s and early 1800s in America and were a serious threat to the new United States. Hence, the United States government was heavily involved in negotiating and dealing with tribes as part of its governmental policies. The United States ultimately negotiated, signed and ratified almost 390 treaties with American Indian tribes. Most of these treaties are still valid today. The United States did not give Indian tribes anything for free in these treaties. Instead, the treaties were formal government to government negotiations regarding sales of land and property rights that the tribes owned and that the United States wanted to buy. The United States Supreme Court stated in 1905 that United States and Indian treaties are “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them — a reservation of those not granted.” Thus, while tribal governments sold some of their rights in land, animals, and resources to the United States for payments of money, goods, and promises of peace and security, the tribes held onto or reserved to themselves other lands and property rights that they did not sell in the treaties. The United States Supreme Court has likened these Indian treaties to contracts between “two sovereign nations.”

When the thirteen American colonies decided to rebel against England and seek their independence, they formed the Continental Congress to manage their national affairs. This Congress operated from 1774-1781 and dealt with Indian tribes on a diplomatic, political basis and signed one treaty with the Delaware Tribe in 1778. The political interest of the United States at that time was to keep the tribes happy with the new American government and to keep Indian tribes from fighting for the English in the American Revolutionary War during 1775-1781. This Congress engaged in diplomatic relations with tribes by sending representatives to the tribes bearing many gifts and promises of peace and friendship to keep the tribes neutral in the United States’ war with England.

The thirteen American colonies then adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and convened in a new Congress to manage their affairs on the national level. This Congress also had to manage Indian affairs and keep the tribes from fighting against the United States. The new Congress also sent diplomatic representatives to the tribes and promised friendship and peace, and ultimately it signed eight treaties with Indian tribes between 1781-1789, including treaties with the Iroquois Confederacy, the Cherokee Tribe, the Shawnee Tribe and numerous other tribes. However, this Congress’ power in Indian affairs was limited because the Articles of Confederation did not clearly give this Congress the exclusive power to deal with tribes. Thus, various states meddled in Indian affairs and actually caused wars between tribes and Georgia and South Carolina, for example, because the states were trying to steal Indian lands. The problems caused by states getting involved in Indian affairs led many people to call for the formation of a new and stronger United States government wherein the exclusive power over Indian affairs would be placed only in the hands of the national government and would be taken completely away from the states.

When the representatives of the thirteen colonies/states started drafting the United States Constitution, to form the United States government we now live under, the “Founding Fathers” of this nation had to carefully consider the role of Indian tribes in the political arrangement of the new nation. As James Madison pointed out, much of the trouble that England and the thirteen colonies had suffered with Indian tribes from the 1640’s forward arose when individual colonists or colonial governments tried to greedily take Indian lands. In those instances, the colonies and individual colonists would negotiate with tribes without the permission or the involvement of the English King or the American national leadership. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution tried to solve this problem by taking Indian affairs out of the hands of the colonies/states and individuals and placing the sole power to deal and negotiate with tribes into the hands of the U.S. Congress. Thus, Indian tribes and their people, and the United States relationship with tribes are addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

In Article I, the United States Constitution accomplishes the goal of excluding states and individuals from Indian affairs by stating that only Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . .” The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this language to mean that the Congress was granted the exclusive right and power to regulate trade and affairs with the Indian tribes. The very first United States Congress formed under our new Constitution, in 1789-1791, immediately assumed this power and in the first five weeks of its existence it enacted four statutes concerning Indian affairs. In 1789, the new Congress, for example, established a Department of War with responsibility over Indian affairs, set aside money to negotiate Indian treaties, and appointed federal commissioners to negotiate treaties with tribes. In July 1790, this Congress passed a law which forbids states and individuals from dealing with tribes and from buying Indian lands. This law is still in effect today.

Indian tribes are also referred to, but are not expressly designated, in Article VI of the Constitution where it is made clear that all treaties entered by the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” In 1789, the United States had only entered a few treaties with European countries while it had already entered nine treaties with different Indian tribes. Consequently, this treaty provision of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government’s treaties with Indian tribes are the supreme law of the United States.

Individual Indians are also mentioned in the Constitution of 1789, Article I, and again in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which was ratified in 1868. In counting the population of the states to determine how many representatives a state can have in Congress, Indians were expressly not to be counted unless they paid taxes. In effect, Indians were not considered to be federal or state citizens unless they paid taxes. After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States,” that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of other sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. This view was correct because most Indians did not become United States citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law making all Indians United States citizens. For many years after 1924, states were still uncertain whether Indians were also citizens of the state where they lived and in many states Indians were not allowed to vote in state elections.

American Indian tribes have played a major role in the development and history of the United States and have engaged in official, diplomatic governmental relations with other sovereign governments from the first moment Europeans stepped foot on this continent. Indian tribes have been a part of the day to day political life of the United States and continue to have an important role in American life down to this day. Tribes continue to have a government to government relationship with the United States and they continue to be sovereign governments with primary control over their citizens and their territory. It is no surprise, then, that the relationship between Indian people, tribal governments and the United States is addressed in the provisions of the United States Constitution. (emphasis added) Source:
American Indian & The United States Constitution
By ROBERT J. MILLER
PROFESSOR , http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm

Robert J. Miller is an Associate Professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland. He is the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and sits as a judge for other tribes. He is the author of Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny.

Further details about the book and other writings on the impact of Manifest Destiny on Native America can be found on Professor Miller's blog at http://lawlib.lclark.edu/blog/native_america/

[laklak]

Hand me my varmint gun, it's them pesky Redskins agin!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are you sure?

Insofar as it has not been mentioned in any history I've read, yes. If you have a reputable source claiming otherwise, I'd be interested in reading it.

So, can you document the concern the First Continental Congress felt for the natives? And can you demonstrate that that concern was widespread enough in the populace to help spark the revolt against the king?

How about this from the Declaration of Independence:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Jefferson is complaining that the British are endeavoring to ally with the natives against the colonists seeking to expand westward. This directly undercuts your point.

Here's some scholarly comment regarding the intentions of the Colonists to live in peace with the Indian tribes:

When the representatives of the thirteen colonies/states started drafting the United States Constitution, to form the United States government we now live under, the “Founding Fathers” of this nation had to carefully consider the role of Indian tribes in the political arrangement of the new nation. As James Madison pointed out, much of the trouble that England and the thirteen colonies had suffered with Indian tribes from the 1640’s forward arose when individual colonists or colonial governments tried to greedily take Indian lands.

Yes, this passage which you emphasized says nothing about the colonists revolting against the crown because of good will towards the natives; indeed, in the last sentence, it directly refers to colonists seeking to expropriate native lands, an unusual act for people whom you argue were stirred to revolution, in part, out of pity over the plight of those same natives at the hands of the British.

As your source also says:

The political interest of the United States at that time was to keep the tribes happy with the new American government and to keep Indian tribes from fighting for the English in the American Revolutionary War during 1775-1781.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

That's hardly a matter of the colonists revolting because the British engaged in germ warfare against the natives. If you have firmer evidence, I'll read it, but what you've presented thus far does nothing to convince me that the colonists cared about smallpox blankets when they were planning the Revolution.

[FBM]

You might want to make note of the dates involved, and the citizenship of the military officers who were involved.

Here's a clue: They were BRITISH MILITARY OFFICERS.

You see, the United States did not yet exist in 1763, so it's irrational to blame the United States for the actions of the British.

You can blame Great Britain as much as you like. Such heinous tactics were part of the reason that we kicked their sorry asses out of the United States of America.

That's just a labelling issue, though. Up until the US became independent, even those born and raised in the colonies were British citizens, most of who bacame American citizens immediately thereafter. Same people, different label. Substantially insignificant distinction, IMO.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hand me my varmint gun, it's them pesky Redskins agin!

Thompson Ad.jpg (64.16 KiB) Viewed 106 times

[Seabass]

You might want to make note of the dates involved, and the citizenship of the military officers who were involved.

Here's a clue: They were BRITISH MILITARY OFFICERS.

You see, the United States did not yet exist in 1763, so it's irrational to blame the United States for the actions of the British.

You can blame Great Britain as much as you like. Such heinous tactics were part of the reason that we kicked their sorry asses out of the United States of America.

That's just a labelling issue, though. Up until the US became independent, even those born and raised in the colonies were British citizens, most of who bacame American citizens immediately thereafter. Same people, different label. Substantially insignificant distinction, IMO.

So Europeans colonize the New World and fuck the natives, but we get stuck with the ancestral guilt? No thanks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My people came over from Ireland in the 20th C. I got no guilt.

[FBM]

You might want to make note of the dates involved, and the citizenship of the military officers who were involved.

Here's a clue: They were BRITISH MILITARY OFFICERS.

You see, the United States did not yet exist in 1763, so it's irrational to blame the United States for the actions of the British.

You can blame Great Britain as much as you like. Such heinous tactics were part of the reason that we kicked their sorry asses out of the United States of America.

That's just a labelling issue, though. Up until the US became independent, even those born and raised in the colonies were British citizens, most of who bacame American citizens immediately thereafter. Same people, different label. Substantially insignificant distinction, IMO.

So Europeans colonize the New World and fuck the natives, but we get stuck with the ancestral guilt? No thanks.

That's the way I read it. Fucking limeys!

[FBM]

My people came over from Ireland in the 20th C. I got no guilt.

Still in time to send them back, then?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My people came over from Ireland in the 20th C. I got no guilt.

Still in time to send them back, then?

That made less sense than I usually do.

[FBM]

My people came over from Ireland in the 20th C. I got no guilt.

Still in time to send them back, then?

That made less sense than I usually do.

Do what, now?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My people came over from Ireland in the 20th C. I got no guilt.

Still in time to send them back, then?

That made less sense than I usually do.

Do what, now?

Better, but put more top-spin on it.

[FBM]

My people came over from Ireland in the 20th C. I got no guilt.

Still in time to send them back, then?

That made less sense than I usually do.

Do what, now?

Better, but put more top-spin on it.

I ain't even finished skinnin' it yet. Dang.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My people came over from Ireland in the 20th C. I got no guilt.

Still in time to send them back, then?

That made less sense than I usually do.

Do what, now?

Better, but put more top-spin on it.

I ain't even finished skinnin' it yet. Dang.

Just knock the hooves and horns off and put on a plate. k tx