In the discussion thread: U.S. must heal native peoples' wounds, return lands: U.N. [View all]
Response to sofa king (Reply #24)
Mon May 7, 2012, 05:18 PM
ieoeja (9,727 posts)
42. Did the Norman King treat with the English?
You wrote that entire piece backwards, so I will correct and try to answer....
"Did the Norman King treat with the English?"
"Did the King recognize their ownership of the entirety of England (there was no Great Britain at the time), and purchase it through treaties?"
William's claim to the throne was based on alleged promises by the English. I don't believe a purchase was involved. But he certainly recognized their right to give him the kingdom which meant he had to first recognize their ownership of England.
"Did the king cement the soverign relationship between the English and the Normans, put laws in place prohibiting individuals from one nation purchasing land directly from the other, hold English land in trust for the English, promise them annuities, wells, salt mines, schools, farming assistance, and blankets?"
He certainly promised them other specific things that would be the equivalent.
"Did the King write his treaties to be in effect in perpetuity."
Yes. The Magna Carta, for instance, was signed by a later Norman King, and it has expiration date.
"Because the King did all of that with Indian tribes, and the United States inherited that policy and continues it to this day."
The United States vacated and voided all British claims, laws, etc and established its own. Lord Baltimore, for example, owned the entire colony of Maryland. Colonists who thought they were purchasing land in the colony were actually only purchasing the right to use the land so long as Lord Baltimore saw it fit to allow them. Following the American Revolution, Baltimore's claims were vacated and certain prominent Marylanders filed claims on vast tracts of the new State. None other than Alexander Hamilton himself stole my family's farm.
But the main point that the United States followed Britain's lead eventually came to be true once they crossed the Mississippi. East of the Mississippi, where the large tribes were located, there was little pretense made of treating with the tribes in perpetuity. Though Cherokee almost became a fully assimilated State until Congress backed down in the face of a threatened military coup.
Now my turn:
Did the Chiefs treat with the United States?
Did the Chiefs recognize the right of the United States to enforce these treaties? Did they agree to let the United States soley punish violators of the treaties?
Did the Chiefs view treaties as void on numerous occasions when American citizen violated the treaties and American law despite the fact that the US Army probably spent as much or more time kicking settlers out of Indian land than they did fighting the Indians?
When the Chiefs viewed a treaty as void, should Americans have regarded them as still in affect? When the Chiefs waged war on the United States afterwards and were subsequently defeated, were Americans required to continue honoring a treaty that the Chiefs themselves considered void?
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|4th law of robotics||May 2012||#17|
|Baitball Blogger||May 2012||#2|
|sofa king||May 2012||#19|
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#18|
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#21|
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#23|
|sofa king||May 2012||#24|
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#25|
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#31|
|sofa king||May 2012||#34|
Did the Norman King treat with the English?
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#30|
|sofa king||May 2012||#35|
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#36|
|sofa king||May 2012||#38|
|Ron Obvious||May 2012||#39|
Please login to view edit histories.