|Believes treaty law should be revisited|
Letter to the Editor:
As a 73-year-old, I am concerned about the monopolization of this state’s natural resources due to the most recent interpretations of Indian treaties.
How did the tribal attorneys manage to stifle the truth of the 1837, 1842 and 1854 treaties from our 7th District Circuit Court of Appeals? It seems that many of the historical documents related to the Voigt case and the best expert opinions have been totally ignored.It is believed that by silencing those who testified about the facts of the treaties in Judge James Doyle’s original Voigt decision, the 7th Circuit Court was only given manifested modern-day interpretations and revisions rather than the truth that the 1837 and 1842 treaties were removal treaties.
In these treaties, Washington instructed their negotiator Robert Stewart to secure such removal treaties with the Chippewa. The stipulation was that in order for the Chippewa to receive payment and goods, they would have to remove themselves to west of the Mississippi’s Indian lands in a given time, this time being their lives and the lives of their children, or 50 to 100 years. It was stipulated that there would be no land allotments or reservations permitted. This was understood by the Chippewa chiefs who negotiated and signed the 1842 treaty.
By 1847, the word spread that President Zachary Taylor was going to invoke the removal order early before the 100-year time limit as stated in the treaty. Soon, this pushed the Chippewa in the state of Wisconsin and Gov. Dodge and others to petition Washington requesting that the Chippewa be allowed to stay in Wisconsin on reservations. The treaty of 1854 allowed for these reservations, which would be governed by the individual Chippewa tribes and their rules and laws.
These researched facts can all be found in Transactions of the Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, Volume 75, 1985, “The Wisconsin Death March.”
According to the Constitutional Convention of July 23, 1787, terms of such treaties were outlined. In treaties, a breach of any one article by any of the parties freed the other parties from all engagements. The 1854 reservation treaty breached the 1842 treaty by allowing reservations that secured the Chippewa rights to remain in Wisconsin on reservations under their rules, but off reservations the laws of the state would govern them as all other citizens.
Was a new 20th century treaty given birth by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. This appears to be case! Please note that the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1801-1835, Honorable John Marshal, set forth this declaration: “The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A law repugnant to the Constitution is void and the courts as well as other departments are bound by this instrument.”
Yet some politicians, U.S. and state bureaucracy, such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Natural Resources and the tribes, view Indian treaties as the law of the land and above the U.S. Constitution.
Question: How many of our elected officials and some federal judges actually believe in the oaths of office they swore to uphold?
The U.S. Congress Indian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1871, page 566, set provisions that no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power with whom the U.S may contract by treaty.
Was not the revised treaties by the U.S. 7th District Court of Appeals a new 20th century treaty? It is time to address the real truth of the 19th century treaties.
|Tuesday, May 07, 2013 4:12 PM|