what started the war then.
to quote the head of Indian affair at the time.
“without the receipt of any news of Sitting Bull’s submission, I see no reason why, in the discretion of the Hon. the Secretary of War, military operations against him should not commence at once.”
to quote the Sectary of the Interior at the time.
the said Indians are hereby turned over to the War Department for such action on the part of the Army as you may deem proper under the circumstances."
Samm
325
It is my understanding that they refused to agree to the cash settlement. So they haven’t been paid, even though that is of their own doing.
Yes because they were forced to sell their land or starve.
U.S Congress passed a law forbidding the army from giving them rations till their land was sold.
Samm
327
We are talking about the SCOTUS ruling that the US stole the property where the Mt. Rushmore Monument is today. That is wholly separate from the larger issue that you speak of.
Yes and the Land on which Mt Rushmore sit was sold under the Land or Starve provision passed by Congress as was the rest of reservation.
Samm
329
Yes, but it is that relatively recent Court ruling that we are talking about. All of the starving Indians that you brought up are long dead.
Aboriginal people are a odd bunch they don’t really care about money, I doubt the people of the Great Sioux Reservation will ever stop suing the federal government.
They will never get the land back since its pretty much 90% of South Dakota.
1 Like
Not that the Canadian Government is any better, we broke tons of treaties, one of the tribes on the great lakes had treaty giving them sole fishing right to a large section of lake huron.
so the government just ignored it, the tribe fought them for every inch they even got a Royal decree from the Queen of England
Canadian government just ignored it.
own land outside of the reservation? that land belonged to your elderly grandmother and she has sold it too the Canadian Government (its all here on these fake documents)
Give them a few months, they’ll get to it eventually.
the sell or starve rider 19 stat 192 attached to the indian appropriations act of 1876 (19 stat 176)
the act cut off all rations unless the sioux ceded the black hills
WuWei
335
Troy was never in Greece, it was always in today’s Turkey. The Spartans were the Greeks.
1 Like
WuWei
336
They build casinos because they like the architecture.
2 Likes
I want to win the lottery. 
Gives them something to do doesn’t it?
Well they have a good role model in DC who has quite the record for lawsuits.
But seriously, I don’t understand why some people just can’t accept the obvious that the Lakota lost the Black Hills because we unilaterally voided the Treaty of 1868. We broke a legal contract. And that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1980.
There can never be any doubt that we were going to get all the land we wanted. If it had taken killing or driving out every last Indian we would have done that. For a lot of our territory we did just that.
But in many cases we signed treaties in order to avoid the bloodshed. Many of those treaties are still in effect today (see: Treaty of Olympia (1855) as an example).
We took the Black Hills by violating a legal contract. Is that really so hard to admit?
Not exactly. This is a common myth. When the Sioux obtained horses, they moved into the black hills and and drove out the Pawnee and Kiowa tribes. In other words, they stole the land.
If the NY times wants us to give back Mt. Rushmore, shouldn’t they first set the example and give their building back to the Lenape tribe who were swindled out of the land?
That would entail the entirety of NYC and a couple of surrounding states and half of Pennsylvania. I don’t think the Times has the authority to do that.
