• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cherokee Indians: We are free to oust blacks

teamosil said:
Its different to expel people that have already been in the group for generations than to form a group based on race.
Click to expand...

The question then becomes (as has been stated several times)... "Are they really part of the group?" That's really the crux of the discussion at this point, and it's something that none of us can say with certainty.
 
justabubba said:
it seems you missed my point
here is what was agreed:
now, please identify for us how many of those black slaves are still living among the Cherokee tribe
my guess is zero
that aspect of the treaty was properly met by the tribe
you - like the BIA - want that treaty to have agreed to things other than what was actually provided. i do not find any provision that the DECENDENTS of those slaves were to also enjoy classification as tribal members
but as i offered before, i very much solicit your showing me where such language exists in that treaty
if/when you do, i will re-evaluate my position
until then, it appears the Cherokee nation is well within its sovereign rights, consistent with its treaty obligations, to find that the descendents of those identified black slaves, who are without Cherokee blood, are hereafter rightfully denied recognition as enrolled members of the Cherokee nation


and no surprise that the federal government withholds that which it has agreed to provide to the Cherokee nation as a means to unilaterally revise its treaty obligations
that is a very old practice
our tribe has come to expect it
Click to expand...

As usual, your reading comprehensive is selective. I suspected I'd be wasting my time trying to educate you with facts. I was right. It's a mistake I won't make again.
 
DiAnna said:
As usual, your reading comprehensive is selective. I suspected I'd be wasting my time trying to educate you with facts. I was right. It's a mistake I won't make again.
Click to expand...
please
i have repeatedly asked you for the facts
show us the fact that the treaty provides for the descendents of the black slaves to now be found members of the Cherokee nation
all i see from your post as your frustration of being unable to defend your position
 
Tigger said:
The question then becomes (as has been stated several times)... "Are they really part of the group?" That's really the crux of the discussion at this point, and it's something that none of us can say with certainty.
Click to expand...

It may be their legal right, I don't know enough about Tribal law to say, but IMO including people for generations then booting them because of their race is no good.
 
DiAnna said:
Hmm, seems to me if the Cherokee signed a legal treaty giving the decendants of the Cherokee's black slaves tribal citizenship, then they are bound by that treaty and have to let their "Cherokee Freedmen" vote. If they violate the treaty, the the other signatory of the treaty, the USA, can now consider ALL covenants of that treaty, including the granting of sovereign Cherokee land, null and void.

I don't think the Cherokee want to press Uncle Sam on this issue. They won't like the way it turns out.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what I think of this, I have to think that they would just laugh in the face of the government if they were told that they needed to honor their treaties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom