Native Americans Were Doomed

Here one off the start... The Pilgrims and the Wampanoag tribe teamed up against the Narragansett tribe.

.


. When the Pilgrims landed in New England, after failing to make their way to the milder mouth of the Hudson, they had little food and no knowledge of the new land. The Wampanoag suggested a mutually beneficial relationship, in which the Pilgrims would exchange European weaponry for Wampanoag for food.

This chapter of American history opened in a surprisingly peaceful way in 1621 with the completion of a treaty between the Plymouth settlers and Massasoit (c. 1580–c. 1661), leader of the Wampanoag, the largest Indian nation in the region. Although these two parties managed to keep their bargain for forty years, other Native American tribes and newly arrived Europeans were not so amenable to peaceful agreement.

Now think about the Revolutionary war and the 1812 war where the Indian tribes divided up their loyalty between the British and the Americans looking for a deal.

Here the Creek war which was a civil war...


Do you want me to go into the 1870's and Indian scouts helping our armies... We divided the Indian people and it seems some Indian leaders figure it out and tried to d=create confederations... like Illini and the Iroquois and others...

I was interduce to the Discovery Doctrine the legal structure used by the West to take indigenous lands. It seem the Pilgrims not only had God but the law on their side to take abandon Native American lands cause by a plague. The Discovery Doctrine has many parts to it...



The discovery doctrine, also called doctrine of discovery, is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall explained and applied the way that colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, European Christian governments could lay title to non-European territory on the basis that the colonisers travelled and "discovered" said territory. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of modern governments, such as in the 2005 case of Sherrill v. Oneida Nation.

There is this...


A. First Discovery The first European country to discover new areas unknown to other Europeans gained property and sovereign rights over the lands and inhabitants.23 First discovery alone, without taking physical possession, created a claim of title but was usually considered to create only an incomplete title.24 This is why President Jefferson and others were concerned about the United States settling the Pacific Northwest so that actual possession could solidify the United States’ claim to title based on first discovery.25

B. Actual Occupancy and Current Possession To turn a first discovery into complete title, a European country or the United States had to actually occupy and possess the newly found lands.26 This was usually done by building forts or settlements. Physical possession had to be accomplished within a reasonable amount of time after first discovery to create a complete title

C. Preemption/European Title The discovering country acquired the power of preemption, that is, the sole right to buy the land from native peoples.28 This is a property right analogous to an exclusive option in land.29 The country that held the power of preemption prevented or preempted the Unites States, any European government, or any individual from buying land from the native owners.30

D. Indian Title After first discovery ,Indian nations were considered to have lost full ownership of their lands.31 They retained only the right to occupy and use their lands, albeit those rights could last forever if the native people never consented to sell.32 But if they did choose to sell, they could only sell to the government that held the power of preemption over their lands.33 Thus, “Indian title” is a limited ownership right

E. Tribal Limited Sovereign and Commercial Rights After first discovery, Indian nations and indigenous peoples were considered to have lost some of their inherent sovereign powers and the rights to free trade and international diplomatic relationships. Thereafter, they were only supposed to trade and engage in diplomacy with their specific Euro-American discoverer.

F. Contiguity Europeans always claimed significant amounts of land contiguous to and surrounding their actual settlements and the lands they actually possessed in the New World. Contiguity issues arose when different European countries had settlements somewhat close together. In that situation, each country held rights over the unoccupied lands between their settlements to a point half way between thesettlements.34 Moreover, this element provided that the discovery of the mouth of a river allegedly created a claim over all the lands drained by that river, even if it included thousands of miles of territory

G. Terra Nullius Terra nullius literally means land or earth that is null, void, or empty. 36 Under this element, the Doctrine provided that if lands were not occupied by any person or nation, or if they were occupied but were not being used or governed in a fashion of which European legal and property systems approved, then the lands were considered empty and available for Doctrine claims.37 Europeans and Americans often considered lands that were owned, occupied, and being actively utilized by indigenous peoples to be vacant and available for claims

H. Christianity Religion was a major aspect of the justification for, and the application of, the Doctrine and Manifest Destiny. Non-Christian peoples were deemed not to have the same rights to land, sovereignty, and self-determination as Christians. As a result, Indian nations and indigenous people not only lost fundamental rights, but they also experienced pressure to convert to Christianity in an attempt to recover them.

I. Civilization European and American definitions of civilization were important parts of Discovery. Euro-Americans argued that god had directed them to bring civilized ways, education, and religion to indigenous peoples and to exercise paternalistic and guardianship powers over them

J. Conquest The conquest element had two meanings. First, in Johnson v. M’Intosh, the United States Supreme Court stated the United States and European countries could legally acquire Indian title by military victories in just and necessary wars.39 Second, the Court defined “conquest” as transferring property rights to European countries and the United States automatically and immediately just by making a first discovery.40

Here is a good summary on Discovery Doctrine...


The Doctrine of Discovery was the inspiration in the 1800s for the Monroe Doctrine, which declared U.S. hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, and Manifest Destiny, which justified American expansion westward by propagating the belief that the U.S. was destined to control all land from the Atlantic to the Pacific and beyond.

In an 1823 Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M'Intosh, the Doctrine of Discovery became part of U.S. federal law and was used to dispossess Native peoples of their land. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshall writes, “that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands”[1] and Native peoples certain rights of occupancy.

diane said:

English Puritans and Pilgrims,

Click to expand...

Okay, Indian Tribes are not nations but much less more like states. Plus, the Discovery Doctrine gives limited sovereignty...


Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of American Indians and Alaska Natives to govern themselves. The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments and they have, with a few exceptions, the same powers as federal and state governments to regulate their internal affairs. Sovereignty for tribes includes the right to establish their own form of government, determine membership requirements, enact legislation and establish law enforcement and court systems.

Here is this take...

Tribal Governance | NCAI
https://www.ncai.org › policy-issues › tribal-governance

Tribal governments are an important and unique member of the family of American governments. The US Constitution recognizes that tribal nations are sovereign governments, just like Canada or California. Sovereignty is a legal word for an ordinary concept—the authority to self-govern.

the discovery doctrine is nothing but a means to feel better for wholesale theft - racism pure and ugly

rittmeister said:

the discovery doctrine is nothing but a means to feel better for wholesale theft - racism pure and ugly

Click to expand...

Well, yeah.

Although white people have taken land from other white people on a variety of flimsy pretenses too. Partitions of Poland mentioned in the OP. Anschluss. Crimea within the last decade.

Americans didn't invent Manifest Destiny. Wars of expansion to establish France's "natural border" on the Rhine. Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, the Muslim conquests, the Ottomans, Alexander the Great. Napoleon. Later Liebestraum and Mussolini's quest to restore the Roman Empire.

The more I learn about world history the less remarkable white conquest of Native Americans in the larger context of history. That doesn't make it okay. But the USA insists it's a special snowflake country so its abuses and atrocities must be special too.

Joshism said:

Well, yeah.

Although white people have taken land from other white people on a variety of flimsy pretenses too. Partitions of Poland mentioned in the OP. Anschluss. Crimea within the last decade.

Americans didn't invent Manifest Destiny. Wars of expansion to establish France's "natural border" on the Rhine. Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, the Muslim conquests, the Ottomans, Alexander the Great. Napoleon. Later Liebestraum and Mussolini's quest to restore the Roman Empire.

The more I learn about world history the less remarkable white conquest of Native Americans in the larger context of history. That doesn't make it okay. But the USA insists it's a special snowflake country so its abuses and atrocities must be special too.

Click to expand...

that the anschluß was some sort of evil conquest is a myth - none of your other examples came along with that sort of made up law behind it to make it legal and your special snowflake country (your words) can't claim that as jefferson knew where he got it from ...

In 1792, U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that this European Doctrine of Discovery was international law which was applicable to the new US government as well.

Click to expand...

... so that is not special but just convenient.

rittmeister said:

the discovery doctrine is nothing but a means to feel better for wholesale theft - racism pure and ugly

Click to expand...

But now we have a legal doctrine the we can use to conquer other planets, solar systems, and more... The Discovery Doctrine makes it legal...

Here the SCOTUS on Discovery Doctrine...


The Supreme Court decides the first of three major cases (the Marshall Trilogy) that set the foundation for Indian law. In Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall invokes the Doctrine of Discovery as a foundation for Indian removal and seizure of Native lands: “The principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands.” American Indians only have a “right of occupancy” and do not have title to their lands. The title to land (ownership) always lie with its “discoverer,” not the inhabitants. This decision not only sets the precedent for Indian removal (e.g., Trail of Tears) but also provides legal justification for the U.S. government to strip Native people away from their traditional homelands, territories they have lived on since time immemorial. Other cases in the Marshall Trilogy are Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832) (Native Voices, "1823: Supreme Court rules American Indians do not own land").

In 1843... the then Pope...


The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be "discovered," claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared that "the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself." This "Doctrine of Discovery" became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States’ western expansion. In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held "that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands." In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.

5fish said:

But now we have a legal doctrine the we can use to conquer other planets, solar systems, and more... The Discovery Doctrine makes it legal...

Click to expand...

you need to get there first

The Doctrine of Discovery is simply the mask the bandit puts on to steal your stuff. By Marshall's basic reasoning, I could come to your house and plant my flag and proclaim it's mine because I discovered it. (Bet I can find a preacher to cite a Bible verse supporting my claim, too!) Most invaders in Europe and Asia didn't bother with legal (or logical) fallacies. You need to get at why Marshall, a Virginian, arrived at this conclusion through his court's interpretation of the US Constitution through the eyes of the Old Dominion. Virginia at that time was very, very determined to grow, claiming its western border went all the way to the Pacific Ocean! (Never mind if somebody was already sitting in between...)

Tribes vs nations - still repeat: the US doesn't make treaties with tribes, only with nations. Sovereignty is a touchy issue in Indian Country, especially now. You do need to check on the California Rancheria system and compare it to the US reservation system - that small study (well, ok, it isn't so small) will very much shed light on the Native concept of sovereignty vs the US government's concept.

Pertinent to the doctrine is another doctrine, The Monroe Doctrine, which is directly based on the Discovery Doctrine and was proposed to the US by Imperial Russia, who had a lot to gain by it. It all still boils down to conquest - as long as there is no resistance possible, one group can make any law they see fit.

diane said:

only with nations.

Click to expand...

In the eyes of the courts tribal governments are similar to states not nations. In the statement let say "Creek Nation" as akin to saying "Raider Nation in football". It is just a way to designate a group of people. The word in "nation" in describing a tribe does not relate to the concept of country or nation state but to a group of people...

rittmeister said:

you need to get there first

Click to expand...

I feel when the end comes for our solar system or planet. We will shot off DNA Rockets/Missiles towards the Blue/Green planets we find from today until the end... Hoping one day man will arise on another world...

5fish said:

In the eyes of the courts tribal governments are similar to states not nations. In the statement let say "Creek Nation" as akin to saying "Raider Nation in football". It is just a way to designate a group of people. The word in "nation" in describing a tribe does not relate to the concept of country or nation state but to a group of people...

Click to expand...

Sorry, but there's a HUGE difference between the Creek Nation and the Raider Nation. (I think you should re-examine the word 'nation'.) To get federal recognition, there is criteria to meet - one being a continuous government.

5fish said:

I feel when the end comes for our solar system or planet. We will shot off DNA Rockets/Missiles towards the Blue/Green planets we find from today until the end... Hoping one day man will arise on another world...

Click to expand...

your 'dna-rockets' wouldn't work the way a bunch of colonists do, would they? we have no idea what happens to terran dna we might send to other planets (or whether such a planet had lifeforms of its own) - might end up like this ...



... or nothing at all

5fish said:

I feel when the end comes for our solar system or planet. We will shot off DNA Rockets/Missiles towards the Blue/Green planets we find from today until the end... Hoping one day man will arise on another world...

Click to expand...

Think you need a Stargate for that...

5fish said:

In the eyes of the courts tribal governments are similar to states not nations. In the statement let say "Creek Nation" as akin to saying "Raider Nation in football". It is just a way to designate a group of people. The word in "nation" in describing a tribe does not relate to the concept of country or nation state but to a group of people...

Click to expand...

bollocks - your raider nation is not a nation like the tartan army is not an army. a nation does not need to have a state (you want to have a look at the kurdish nation for that). a certain kind of madmen (adolf or vladolf spring to mind) want to unite their particular nation in a single state and cause nothing but trouble for the rest of the world.

diane said:

Think you need a Stargate for that...

Click to expand...

... or a lot of time

diane said:

Sorry, but there's a HUGE difference between the Creek Nation and the Raider Nation. (I think you should re-examine the word 'nation'.) To get federal recognition, there is criteria to meet - one being a continuous government.

Click to expand...

let alone the greek nation which actually has gotten a state of its own

States vs nation was what got the US a civil war but one has to notice the lack of provinces, as other countries have. Provinces usually are regional areas with like cultures, society, etc. Nowhere in the US at the time of independence was that true. What would hold these fairly autonomous states together as a nation, what would be a common denominator? Ah! Doctrine of Discovery...and westward, ho... Horace Greeley and all that.