Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
delsydebothom

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #1 
This is a question I have been wondering about for a while. Every attempt I have made to research what really happened between white settlers and the various tribes of American natives has been stymied by imbalanced commentary, and my inability to find any primary sources related to the issue online.

I am wondering what legitimate claims American Indian Chiefs have over portions of the American continent. The difficulty in researching this is compounded by the fact that many American Indians had little to no concept of land ownership, and thus didn't know what they were doing when they "sold" their land to white settlers. Of course, in many, many cases, land was legitimately purchased from natives.

I'm going to continue to try to research this, but if anyone has already done some work in this area, I would be grateful if he would share the fruit of his labor. Pax!


BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #2 
Several tribal nations have retained sovereignty - some over small parts of their original holdings.

The 'Seminole' were a XIX century tribe - and have lands in the Everglades.

The Cherokee were a 'present at the founding' tribe and hold lands in Georgia and the Carolinas.

The Choctaw were among those the ceded lands in exchange for trading rights, but they still hold lands in Mississippi.

Most of the tribal nations (other than the Iroqui Confederacy) were, at the time of the white folk's arrival in a state that ranged from of 'armed peace' to 'full-on war' with their neighbors.

Their relations with the 'whites' varied with time, and the larger political conditions - both inter-tribe (on the aboriginals part) and inter-nation (on the white's part).

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
godwin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 188
Reply with quote  #3 

Quote:
Originally Posted by delsydebothom
This is a question I have been wondering about for a while. Every attempt I have made to research what really happened between white settlers and the various tribes of American natives has been stymied by imbalanced commentary, and my inability to find any primary sources related to the issue online.

I am wondering what legitimate claims American Indian Chiefs have over portions of the American continent. The difficulty in researching this is compounded by the fact that many American Indians had little to no concept of land ownership, and thus didn't know what they were doing when they "sold" their land to white settlers. Of course, in many, many cases, land was legitimately purchased from natives.

I'm going to continue to try to research this, but if anyone has already done some work in this area, I would be grateful if he would share the fruit of his labor. Pax!


Read A Nation of Statesmen.  This is about the history of the Mohicans and how they negotiated their land ownership with the whites. 

delsydebothom

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #4 

Both of these have given me some very interesting leads. Thank you!



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #5 
Maybe, you should try a book.  The book is the very first thing one turns to when doing research----not the internet.

Try Axtell The European and The Indian.
godwin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 188
Reply with quote  #6 
Delsydebothom,
In addition to books, you may want to read some of the actual treaties and agreements as well.  This may also be helpful in understanding the issues by focusing on a couple of specific tribes rather than trying to get your arms around the whole complex  of tribes, treaties and rights (I believe there are over 500 different tribes).  Anyway, you may want to read the following:

Treaty of 1851- Fort Laramie with the Sioux and Treaty of 1868-Fort Laramie with the Sioux (These were made with the Lakota nation). http://www.sioux.org

Fort Bridger Treaty of 1863 and 1868, Burnot Cession of 1872, McLaughlin Agreement of 1897 and 1904, and Restored Reservation of 1939 made with the Eastern Shoshone.  http://www.easternshoshone.net



ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #7 
Personally, I think that any American monarchy should incorporate the Indian lands under native control. The Navajo (340,000), Cherokee (320,000+), Ojibwe (175,000), Choctaw (160,000), Sioux (150,000+), Iroquois (125,000), Pueblo (according to the US government census), and Creek (60,000-70,000) have the largest populations. Most pure-blooded Indians reside on reservations such as the Navajo Nation and those in the Upper Midwest (especially the Dakotas) or in communities in Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, and California. There are many scattered communities throughout the West, whereas those who have mixed into bloodlines outside their tribes are generally assimilated into American popular culture and live in urban and suburban areas.

On basis of fealty a King should recognise a native nobility and rights over ancestral lands in exchange for tribute, service, and fidelity to the laws. In fact, the Indians could become the most supportive components of an American monarchy inasmuch as any such realm is governed according to the principles of customary localism, subsidiarity, and traditionalism.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

MozartBoy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 618
Reply with quote  #8 

Quote:
Originally Posted by godwin
Delsydebothom,
In addition to books, you may want to read some of the actual treaties and agreements as well.  This may also be helpful in understanding the issues by focusing on a couple of specific tribes rather than trying to get your arms around the whole complex  of tribes, treaties and rights (I believe there are over 500 different tribes).  Anyway, you may want to read the following:

Treaty of 1851- Fort Laramie with the Sioux and Treaty of 1868-Fort Laramie with the Sioux (These were made with the Lakota nation). http://www.sioux.org

Fort Bridger Treaty of 1863 and 1868, Burnot Cession of 1872, McLaughlin Agreement of 1897 and 1904, and Restored Reservation of 1939 made with the Eastern Shoshone.  http://www.easternshoshone.net



And of course, there is the question of what constitutes a tribe.


__________________
Monarchists are born; republicans are made.
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MozartBoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by godwin
Delsydebothom, In addition to books, you may want to read some of the actual treaties and agreements as well.  This may also be helpful in understanding the issues by focusing on a couple of specific tribes rather than trying to get your arms around the whole complex  of tribes, treaties and rights (I believe there are over 500 different tribes).  Anyway, you may want to read the following: Treaty of 1851- Fort Laramie with the Sioux and Treaty of 1868-Fort Laramie with the Sioux (These were made with the Lakota nation). http://www.sioux.org Fort Bridger Treaty of 1863 and 1868, Burnot Cession of 1872, McLaughlin Agreement of 1897 and 1904, and Restored Reservation of 1939 made with the Eastern Shoshone.  http://www.easternshoshone.net

And of course, there is the question of what constitutes a tribe.


True. For instance, the Iroquois are a matrilineal people whose property is owned matriarchally. Whereas the patriarch is the defender and hunter, the woman is the mistress of the home domain quite literally. Obviously this is inconsistent with the Catholic Faith and monarchy and would need to be explicitly reversed.

The complications for these matriarchal tribes come when one considers that any person who can prove that he is matrilineally at least 1/8 of tribal blood is considered a member of the tribe. At least, that is the case with my uncle who now receives cheques in the mail giving him a share in casino profits. In any case, I think this could easily be solved by treaty, defining a member of the tribe as a pure-blooded Indian or patrilineal descendant and so forth.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #10 

Tribes determine for themselves who is or is not a member.  It is a Part of Soveriegnty still to them pertaining.


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
Tribes determine for themselves who is or is not a member.  It is a Part of Soveriegnty still to them pertaining.


True enough. I agree except when such a statute violates natural law, such as through descent all female. Matriarchal descent and ownership is simply opposed to the natural order of man being the head of woman, according to Tradition, St Paul, and Genesis. Whereas sovereignty derives from God yet His creation is bound by the immutable natural law that reflects the Divine law, therefore matriarchy is unnatural and cannot be credibly supposed as legal in any sense.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #12 
The neat thing about sovereignty is that other's thoughts on the matter are of no importance.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
MozartBoy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 618
Reply with quote  #13 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The neat thing about sovereignty is that other's thoughts on the matter are of no importance.

not to totally sidetrack the thread, but that's my whole problem with things like the U.N and E.U.


__________________
Monarchists are born; republicans are made.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MozartBoy

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The neat thing about sovereignty is that other's thoughts on the matter are of no importance.

not to totally sidetrack the thread, but that's my whole problem with things like the U.N and E.U.

 
I take it you are against the usurpation of the Sovereignty of others....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
The neat thing about sovereignty is that other's thoughts on the matter are of no importance.


Sovereignty comes from God Himself, ergo no sovereign can make any binding or legal establishments or decrees contrary to the divine and natural laws. Thus, I must conclude that you are affirming my dismissal of matriarchy and the imaginary right of any tribe, person, government, or body to establish or maintain it.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.