The Cherokee Nation was promised a seat in Congress in the 1835 Treaty of New Echota.

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Lerner, Feb 5, 2023.

Loading...
  1. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    • The Cherokee Nation was promised a seat in Congress in the 1835 Treaty of New Echota.

    • A recent congressional hearing suggested the tribe could be close to seating a delegate.

    • Kim Teehee, the proposed delegate, told Insider it would show the US can keep its promises to tribes.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-promised-cherokee-nation-seat-152000823.html
     
    MaceWindu and Johann like this.
  2. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    I've never heard her name before, but I'm impressed with Kim Teehee's bio. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Teehee

    I've had some interest in the Cherokee Nation for years, partly because Cherokee is in the same language family (Iroquoian) as those of Native Canadians where I live: "Six Nations of the Iroquois," Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, Seneca. Years ago, I took some Mohawk language lessons at the local Native Centre. Linguists believe that, about 3500 years ago, the Cherokee people lived around here. IIRC their name for themselves, in their own language, is Tsalagi - Cherokee is an English approximation.

    I look forward to seeing The US Government keep the promise made to the Cherokee, by a previous Government in 1835.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2023
    Maniac Craniac and Dustin like this.
  3. MaceWindu

    MaceWindu Active Member

    I do hope that they follow through and seat one.
     
    Johann and SweetSecret like this.
  4. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Oh lord. The U.S. is said to have an Original Sin, slavery, but really there are two. Treatment of our First Nations is the other. (Thanks to Canada for the term.)

    How would this work? A non voting delegate might be manageable but a voting member of the House? We don't even let Puerto Rico have a vote in congress and 3.5 million Americans live there.
     
    Maniac Craniac and MaceWindu like this.
  5. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I question the validity of such a treaty based on the (lack of) sovereignty of the tribe(s).

    I agree that both slavery and our treatment of indigenous peoples were reprehensible and reverberate to this day. But accommodating an outdated agreement with a shaky legal basis under modern circumstances may not be the way to go.
     
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  6. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    If this way gets it done - I think it is the way to go, ipso facto - unless there's a more acceptable alternative that will produce the same result - in the same time-frame. And I'm not aware of one. Not that it's any of my (Canadian) business really, but I DO like things that help Native peoples - anywhere - take a place in government, especially one their ancestors were promised, by ours - or yours. It's their land, too. (It was once ALL theirs.) I think it's a time to be results-oriented. Getting it done is the right thing to do. The only right thing, after so many wrongs.

    They're THIS close. After almost two centuries. I hope nobody blows it now. Excluding Native people from Government is wrong. If the "shaky" agreement isn't good enough - then write a new robust one TODAY that doesn't even refer to the old, get everybody to sign and go ahead. Quickly, please.

    I wish Kim Teehee and the Cherokee Nation every success.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2023
  7. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I started a long post on the so-called Right of Conquest but it got so dark and depressing I decided to keep it to myself.
     
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Enough to say that history is history and we have to deal with reality as it is now.
     
    Johann likes this.
  9. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Well-said! "Let's do this."
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2023
    MaceWindu likes this.
  10. MaceWindu

    MaceWindu Active Member

    The case for the Cherokee to seat a nonvoting member in Congress hinges upon the legitimacy of the treaty signed 188 years ago. Article 6 of the US Constitution plainly states that all laws and treaties of the US "shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

    "Just because the document is old, doesn't mean that it's less valid," Teehee said. "Just look to the US Constitution and know that it's still a living, breathing, valid document, just like treaties."
     
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Teehee is right enough so far as it goes but circumstances have changed radically since 1835. One change is that tribal members are U.S. citizens by birth. If they reside in any of the 50 states, they already have voting representation in congress. If they live in any territory or Washington D.C., they already have a non voting delegate.
     
    Rich Douglas likes this.
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This is where I sit. I don't think we need to have representation by race or ethnicity, or even tribal status. Should we even continue to treat tribes and tribal land differently? Is the status quo also the end game? Or do we look to (finally) fully integrate Native Americans into America? I can't say for sure, but I have seen first-hand the downside to it--poverty, public health, schooling, etc.
     
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  13. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    While we're at it, we could award dedicated delegates for African Americans. Or women. Or Asians. I've posted here before now that I am uneasy about awarding any group rights. We are Americans as individuals not as members of any sub group.

    But having said that, I am not sure that there's no place for group rights to address historical wrongs. I don't know that there should be group rights for that purpose either.
     
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  14. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Then there is the legal fact of tribal sovereignty. Congress has the power to extinguish or recognize such limited sovereigns and has chosen not to extinguish them. Tribal members being U.S. citizens does not affect that sovereignty. It's all very involved.
     
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  15. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I'd have no issue with Puerto Rico having representation. Any US citizen could fly down there right now and become a full fledged resident. But, a nation whose membership is exclusively dependent on ancestry? Yeah, no.

    For what it's worth, I say this as a person who meets the eligibility requirements to register as a member of the Cherokee Nation, but chooses not to. We can't undo history, we can only learn from it and be better. We can't compensate dead victims and we can't bring dead perpetrators to justice. Treating everyone as equal under the law is the best we can do.
     
    Rich Douglas likes this.
  16. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    How about legal heirs of dead (and alive) victims? I'm not saying I have any solution to any of these complex issues, but that's not a great argument.
     
  17. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, it is.
     
  18. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    No, it isn't.
     
  19. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    It may not be a perfectly satisfying argument but I can't come up with a better one.
     

Share This Page