The Sioux are standing (again) against corrupt government overreach

[Picaro]

You are one fucked up liar, boy.

Trail of Tears - Native American History - HISTORY.com

....

Finally, federal troops came to Georgia to remove the tribes forcibly. As early as 1831, the army began to push the Choctaws off their lands to march to Oklahoma. In 1835, some Cherokee leaders agreed to accept western land and payment in exchange for relocation. With this agreement, the TREATY OF NEW ECHOTA, Jackson had the green light to order Cherokee removal. Other Cherokees, under the leadership ofCHIEF JOHN ROSS, resisted until the bitter end. About 20,000 Cherokees were marched westward at gunpoint on the infamous TRAIL OF TEARS. Nearly a quarter perished on the way, with the remainder left to seek survival in a completely foreign land. The tribe became hopelessly divided as the followers of Ross murdered those who signed the Treaty of New Echota.

The Trail of Tears is the most sorrowful legacy of the Jacksonian Era.

The warfare between Ross and the other Cherokee was what caused the violent deaths, idiot and it is right there in you own post.

The federalis were in such number the Amerindian Cherokee did not attempt to fight them.

The majority died of the weather and illness.

And in addition the PEACEFUL Cherokee were allowed to remain and are STILL HERE IN THE EAST, dumbass.

Another lie you libtards like to pin on Americans proud legacy.

Yes. there is a lot bullshit spread about 'da Evul Jackson'. The Cherokee problems were self-inflicted, by their own greed and lying. They were an existential threat to everybody around them in those times; they liked to hire themselves out as killers to whoever paid the most, and even when not at war their men liked to raid surrounding farmsteads and steal whatever they could and murder when they could get away with it, by running back to their territory and hiding behind their' sovereignty' to avoid arrest and hanging, for one. They were paid millions of dollars and given much more in supplies, and had several years to go out west on their own time, but took the money and supplies and then refused to leave, having blown the money and the supplies, so they have no one to blame but themselves. they broke their word, cheated on an agreement, and paid for it by having to move at a bad time of year. Sucks, but it wasn't Jackson's fault, it was their own decisions.

 

[Picaro]

I say take the.oil out of the ground, truck it to Old fags neighborhood, dig a hole, dump it in, and then lay some pipe straight.over his kitchen.

Environmentalists are big.on telling.other people how.to.manage their surroundings....I

The Sioux were notorious for wiping out smaller tribes, genocide was a fun hobby for them. Even after reservations came along, they still bullied the smaller tribes, like the Osage, who traded some good land for a smaller parcel of crappy land in the hopes they would be left alone if they didn't have anything the other indians wanted to steal; the crappy land turned out to be the best oil lands in OK., and they became the richest tribe per capita in the country. Serendipity at work.

Irrelevant. The authority over land and water belongs to the.people who own it...and the gov't has no business getting involved. Let the.private land.owners drill to their heart's content. But the water doesn't belong to them...they can find a.different.place.for their pipeline. They should have given it some thought previous to laying.pipe.

Well, we certainly don't need any more pipelines; there are over 200,000+ miles of them already, and that oil and Canadian sludge was getting all the way to Port Aurthur, TX. just fine without a single new one, especially ones over aquifers, so I'll go with that. All the 'new' ones are for is to shave a few cents off the pipelines' costs of transport, a savings that won't get passed on to retail consumers anyway, so yeah, ban them.

No, no, no. You don't protest government overreach by using them to further restrict resource management.

You let the people lay their pipeline across land whose owners welcome it. If the rivers are a problem, figure something out.

Well, we'll have to disagree; riparian rights are very much a government function, and have been before the Revolution as well as after. 'Privatizing' it never worked any better than government has, unless you think those who can hire the largest private armies get to make the rules, as was literally the case in many western states into the 20th century in some remote counties. One of the first political acts the Republic of Texas began working on was adopting the Spanish riparian laws as the state laws, and they were not even remotely 'commies' and 'statists', and they did so for good reasons.

Unmitigated horse shit. They lie in order to gain control and seize resources...then they do as they please. Feds have no business meddling with land use.

Projection. Private armies aren't an improvement over Federal control in every case, and certainly not water rights. Nothing stopped those ranchers and farmers from homesteading or buying the land, they just preferred to not pay taxes on it and rent it from the Feds for a fraction of its real value, like the deadbeat Bundys' did. The Peanut Gallery can Google Scholar up what states like Texas charge for grazing rentals and the like versus what the Fed charges, and see what a bunch of whining mouches most of these losers are. And, all the Sioux want is to extort some bucks from the Fed to go away, which they always do, go away after getting a payoff, no different than your Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons do, so there is no real story here as far as the Sioux are concerned. They're just after money, is all.

 

[koshergrl]

I say take the.oil out of the ground, truck it to Old fags neighborhood, dig a hole, dump it in, and then lay some pipe straight.over his kitchen.

Environmentalists are big.on telling.other people how.to.manage their surroundings....I
Irrelevant. The authority over land and water belongs to the.people who own it...and the gov't has no business getting involved. Let the.private land.owners drill to their heart's content. But the water doesn't belong to them...they can find a.different.place.for their pipeline. They should have given it some thought previous to laying.pipe.

Well, we certainly don't need any more pipelines; there are over 200,000+ miles of them already, and that oil and Canadian sludge was getting all the way to Port Aurthur, TX. just fine without a single new one, especially ones over aquifers, so I'll go with that. All the 'new' ones are for is to shave a few cents off the pipelines' costs of transport, a savings that won't get passed on to retail consumers anyway, so yeah, ban them.

No, no, no. You don't protest government overreach by using them to further restrict resource management.

You let the people lay their pipeline across land whose owners welcome it. If the rivers are a problem, figure something out.

Well, we'll have to disagree; riparian rights are very much a government function, and have been before the Revolution as well as after. 'Privatizing' it never worked any better than government has, unless you think those who can hire the largest private armies get to make the rules, as was literally the case in many western states into the 20th century in some remote counties. One of the first political acts the Republic of Texas began working on was adopting the Spanish riparian laws as the state laws, and they were not even remotely 'commies' and 'statists', and they did so for good reasons.

Unmitigated horse shit. They lie in order to gain control and seize resources...then they do as they please. Feds have no business meddling with land use.

Projection. Private armies aren't an improvement over Federal control in every case, and certainly not water rights. Nothing stopped those ranchers and farmers from homesteading or buying the land, they just preferred to not pay taxes on it and rent it from the Feds for a fraction of its real value, like the deadbeat Bundys' did. The Peanut Gallery can Google Scholar up what states like Texas charge for grazing rentals and the like versus what the Fed charges, and see what a bunch of whining mouches most of these losers are. And, all the Sioux want is to extort some bucks from the Fed to go away, which they always do, go away after getting a payoff, no different than your Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons do, so there is no real story here as far as the Sioux are concerned. They're just after money, is all.

Lol..there is so much misinformation in that post, I don't even know where to start. So I won't. You are quite obviously wallowing in a sea of garbage that has no doubt been presented to you over the years in such a manner that you could have been present when the treaties were signed and the deals were struck with the ranchers...and you still would deny the reality.