Quote:
Originally Posted by PcolaFLGuy
I feel we need to return certain land to the Native Americans, especially if it's just sitting there like most BLM land.
|
Great, another fact-less emotion-based argument.
In International Law, there's an animal called Customary Law.
It's not a treaty. It's not even written down, but every country agrees to follow Customary Law.
The Customary Law of the Sea existed for 1,000 years before Britain wrote UNCLOS-I and UNCLOS-II.
Long before the Geneva Conventions were written, there was the Customary Law of Land Warfare.
And, there was the Customary Law of Land Usage.
The Customary Law of Land Usage says that any land that is developed, meaning there are permanent structures such as dwelling places, market places or storage structures or wells, roads, boundary markers delineating personal, clan or tribal property or field fortifications is considered to be owned even if there is no formal written property deed or title.
Since the Indian tribes on the Great Plains were nomadic, they did not have any developed land, so they did not own the land.
No land was stolen from them and I would point out they constantly slaughtered each other to hunt where other tribes were hunting.
The semi-nomadic Indian tribes like the Sac & Fox who roamed around Wisconsin and Illinois did not have any developed land, either, so no land was stolen from them. It was free for the taking for whoever wanted to develop it.
That's why the Dutch bought Manhattan Island from the Manhattan tribe, because that land was developed and under the Customary Law of Land Usage, it was owned by the Manhattan tribe.
That's also why British colonists in the 100+ New England Colonies and parts of New York didn't force the Indians off their land and they still live there today.
But, other Indian tribes like the Shawnee and Miami in Ohio and Indiana and the Hopi do have legitimate legal claims, because the United States forced them off the land.
The newly formed United States government did not subscribe to the Customary Law of Land Usage, because they were christians and god gave them the land and since Indians were heathens, it was all doubleplusgood.
If you want to rest your laurels on treaties, well, that fails because any party to a treaty can abrogate the treaty at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
And it fails because of the rank order of International Law.
You know how in the US the Constitution trumps everything, then federal statutes are next, followed by State constitutions, then State statutes, then county, borough or parish laws and ordinances and then municipal ordinances?
Well, International Law is like that.
No. 1 is
jus cogens. Nothing trumps that.
No. 2 is Customary Law.
No. 3 is treaties.
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the Indians didn't do much, except slaughter each other.
After Europeans arrived, they didn't much, either, except they still found the time to slaughter each other.
After they were put on reservations, they didn't do much of anything, either, but at least they weren't slaughtering each other.
Giving Indians land isn't going to help them, but moving into the 21st Century will.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
