5 ms·
All I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago. :)
by shaneprrlt 7y ago
All I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago. :)
- unchocked 7y agoThe Civil War happened subsequently, in which many Cherokee fought for the Confederacy. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 72 allows the President to declare treaties abrogated by tribes engaging in "actual hostility to the United States", which alliance with the Confederacy certainly was. So the issue is more complicated than you state. * addendum since this is likely flame bait. The Cherokee, having been betrayed by Andrew Jackson and by the United States in general, had plenty of reason to support the confederacy. Have a look at Wikipedia for a historical overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil...
- jeremyjh 7y agoA lot of people fought for the confederacy, but their descendants still have representation in congress because peace was made and status restored. Also I don't think you can make a case that the Cherokee Nation was at war with the United States during that time, just because some of its citizens joined irregular militias.
- COGlory 7y agoCherokee also have representation in Congress because they have senators and representatives that they vote for every year just like everyone else.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dajohnson89 7y agoI believe the sentiment is that Cherokees and other native american nations aren't sufficiently represented by their elected officials. in much the same way they have been marginalized for centuries.
- stickfigure 7y agoHonest question: Do you think "one [hu]man one vote" is wrong?
- dajohnson89 7y agoI don't quite understand your question. if you're asking whether I think the Cherokees deserve a vote in the house, I say "yes".
- vinay427 7y agoThey're probably referring to the fact that the Cherokee members are already represented by their US legislators in the same way that other US residents are. Providing them this vote would give them more representation, and they're asking if you believe that's a better solution.
- kbenson 7y agoWould it? I think it's possible that other laws may mean that they have one vote, and thus have to choose whether to have their vote apply in the congressional district they are physically in, or to the Cherokee representative seat they are alotted for a non-geographical district. That would retain one vote for one person. This isn't even all that weird, I assume. Do people with residences in multiple districts get to vote in each, or do they have to choose?
- vinay427 7y agoThey definitely have to choose, and many places I've lived in explicitly mention that also voting in another place (in the US) is a crime.
- ajdlinux 7y agoRelevantly - if their Cherokee delegate is a non-voting delegate, then while they may have two representatives on the floor of the house speaking for their interests, they only have one who can be involved in the formal exercise of said House's power.
- elif 7y agoIf "many Cherokee" can be classified as a "Cherokee alliance", Pemberton and Cooper, actual Confederate generals, should as well, applying these laws in context of the 14th ammendment. So no more representatives from PA or NJ?
- shaneprrlt 7y agoCherokees and Confederates? That's the oddest collab I could ever imagine. What was their official stance on the institution of slavery? That seriously is one of the strangest bits of US history I've ever learned.
- egdod 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>All I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago. It doesn't work like that when you make a deal with the government. Just ask a native American if you don't believe me. :)