Here is an item for the hardcore states rights, anti-tax zealots among you. The Lakota Indians have renounced their prior treaties and declared their independence from the U.S.A.
The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.
“We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,” long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.
A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.
. . .
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.The new country would issue its own passports and driving licenses, and living there would be tax-free — provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.
I wonder if the Ron Paul Liberty Dollar would be accepted currency in Lakota-land.
I expect that everyone that loves flying their “Stars ‘n Bars” will rally to their support. After all, that flag was never about race, but the ability to be free, right?
Yes, I know that this is a slightly different case.
Here’s a corollary — Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties, Indiana should declare independence from Indiana and join forces with Chicago which could declare independence downstate Illinois.
Even though taxes would be high, we’d have a pretty cool nation-state.
National Geographic had a story a few years back about the depopulation of the Great Plains, the aquifer drying up, land reverting back to grass, etc. It sounded like the natives and buffalo would be coming back at some point, but I didn’t think it would be this soon.
The Roe Conn Show (a radio talk show on WLS)talked about this tonight. They thought it was an interesting proposal; especially wondering if those treaties would hold up to court scrutiny today.
Scalia’s court opinion on this should make for interesting reading.
I would expect something to the effect of the idea that, by right of conquest, the U.S. has sovereignty over the whole area and that any special rights the Lakotas have are entirely within the discretion of the U.S.
I don’t blame the Lakota. I only wonder why the declaration was so long in forthcoming. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that they’ve been screwed for generations.
Actually, that makes the action something that should appeal far beyond “the hardcore states rights, anti-tax zealots among you”, and to those from any poitical stripe with an eye for justice, a sense of compassion, and a desire to see the underdog get his due.
To answer your question, Mike, from TFA:
Doug, what is “right of conquest”? Does that just mean that we have a bigger army than you, so sit down and shaddup?
Yeah, basically.
I’m no scholar on the subject, but my understanding is that sovereignty generally rests on some pretty ugly history; the relationship between government, laws, and the use of force being what they are. Anyway, legal scholars have to come up with a theory as to why the government is allowed to compel obedience from individuals who didn’t necessarily sign up for the program.
It’s called, “might makes right”, isn’t it?
Well, sure. But, historically, the victors like to dress it up a little bit. Lincoln talked about the sanctity of the Union when he compelled the Southern states to remain. Lots of the West was brought into the U.S. through “manifest destiny.”
At the end of the day, I think Mao was probably right about power sprouting from the barrel of a gun. If you can convince folks that your power is “legitimate,” that just means you have to use it less often.
I am reading “Wild Swans” an autobiographical story written by Jung Chang. It is the story of 3 generations of Chinese women starting with the grandmother, descending to the mother, and finally the daughter, Jung Chang. The story is set during the Pre-Revolution, Revolution, Cultural Revolution, and post Cultural Revolution years of Mainland China. Jung Chang has also written a biography of Chairman Mao. I received a gift certificate for Christmas from Borders Books and plan to purchase Jung’s biography of Chairman Mao.
To bring it full circle, the Chairman Mao quote is one often used as proof by the anti-tax crowd.
I will be in Lakota territory in July ’08, but I won’t even attempt to use my Ron Paul Liberty Dollar. I might sell it on ebay, though!
The American version of Mao’s observation comes from the old west: