View Single Post
Old 12-27-2011, 09:50 AM   #110
Teen Dancer
User InfoThanks / Tagging InfoGifts / Achievements / AwardsvBActivity Stats
ECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scaleECSN is off the scale
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 421
Credits: 0.00
Savings: 0.00
Now there is a treaty signed by several Western tribes and several Eastern tribes that does state the western tribes are NOT to come onto the Eastern tribe's areas to get into Eastern tribe's affairs.

I'll go thru my records to get the exact source and wording later.

Another thing Which these Western Federal tribes like to use against Eastern tribes to claim they are fake etc, is the Removal from East to West. There is many things they do not tell you as to what them removal acts actually state. Now they would like you to believe that if you did not get removed you gave up your right to claim Indian, gave up your right to continue your heritage and culture, etc etc. That is far from the truth.

In Andrew Jackson's Second Annual Message this is some of the stuff stated.

"It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community." "He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population."

Ok to brake this down for you, Andrew Jackson is talking about any indians in the east which has been fighting with the white settlers and continue to refuse to follow the laws of the USA government and states. The ones being removed is being removed so they can continue following their own laws and not have to follow USA and State laws. That is what these removals was pertaining to. The removal actually did not pertain to the indians which was living among the white settlers, worked among the white settlers, and was following the USA and State laws.

A majority of tribes on the east had already became tribulary to the USA Government and states and thus their tribes did not get removed and they continued to use their tribe name. Which proves if the indians wished to continue following laws and not fight with the white settlers, they could keep their tribal name, continue using their race, continue their heritage and culture. So the removal had no basis on this. It's only basis was on if you wanted to follow tribe law or USA government law, that is the only thing this removal effected.

As far as I know Creek indians did not even sign a removal treaty in the 1830's, and as far as I know in the 1830's alot "voluntarly" went to oaklahoma except for a few that got snatched up being thought to be Cherokee. There was around 15,000 creeks that the war department was told to remove to Oaklahoma however those was the ones warring with white settlers and refusing to follow USA and state laws, they was not part of the ones that was being peaceful.

If you look at villa rica, Ga history you'll see that Creek's was living among whites and working beside the white settlers peacefully and they every year in the 1830's would have a 3 day festival in Autumn in which the white settlers was invited to and they celebrated together. These type of indians would not of been forcefully removed as far as the actual removal acts and andrew jackson stated.

In fact the war department protected indians that had decided to follow USA and state laws and to not fight with the white settlers. Many of the white settlers even protested against the Removal completely, these white settlers was known for trying to protect any indians that was being threatened with forced removal.

Never once did the removal of the indians pertain to denouncing race, tribe name, culture, or heritage. It only pertains to following USA and state laws or wishing to go to oaklahoma to NOT follow USA and state laws. so basically the ones that did not end up in Oaklahoma became Tributary to the USA Government and would be more or less called USA indians while the Removed indians would more or less be called "non" USA indians.

So by wanna be hunters going to non federal tribes on the east coast and saying they are fake for not being removed, stating they gave up their indian race, heritage, tribal name, cultural etc by not removing is not telling the truth. In fact, going by what the USA government states about those that was removed, if they themself come off the lands out west and come back into the East, they themself are giving up their Indian laws etc and stating they want to become USA and State indians also and have no say so over the non recognized native people's indian status.

It is always quite funny what the wanna be hunters do not tell you.
ECSN is offline