Trump’s visit to the huge site that commemorates four US presidents was a violation of the historic treaties that the US government had signed with Native Americans that were meant to govern the sacred Black Hills, the Oglala tribal president said, adding that Trump should have asked permission for the trip from the seven Sioux tribal governments.
“The lands on which that mountain is carved and the lands he’s about to visit belong to the Great Sioux nation under a treaty signed in 1851 and the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and I have to tell him he doesn’t have permission from its original sovereign owners to enter the territory at this time,” Bear Runner said.
The 1868 treaty acknowledged Sioux sovereignty over the Black Hills in perpetuity but after gold was discovered in the area the federal government forced the Sioux to relinquish this part of their reservation. In 1980, the US supreme court ruled that tribal lands covered by the treaty had been taken from the Sioux illegally.
The Sioux were given the land by treaty, the US ignored the treaty till the Supreme Court said, in 1980, that the land properly belonged to the Sioux per the treaty. By that point the monument existed.
It’s a National Memorial run by the Park Service. If the Sioux actually owned the land they wouldn’t have to call for it to be destroyed. They could just do it.
The SCOTUS ordered the US to pay compensation for the land. The US offered a cash settlement that was rejected by the Oglala Sioux. They are demanding return of the land.
Yes I know it’s the Daily Mail.
n 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the land was seized illegally and ordered the government to pay compensation. The Sioux, however, rejected the money, calling for the return of the now public lands.
I don’t feel that’s the right interpretation of what the Supreme Court ruled. The Court didn’t overturn the treaty and return ownership of the disputed territory to the Sioux. What they ruled was that Congress had not paid fair compensation to the Sioux for the territory and directed Congress to make that payment.
The Sioux have refused to accept the payment and argue that because they have not accepted payment, they retain ownership. But I don’t think that’s a valid legal argument. The government has the power of eminent domain, which means it can take property even if the owners don’t want to sell. Refusing to accept the offered payment does not negate the taking of the property.
Don’t you have to go to court to take land via eminent domain? Was that done here?
And since when is refusing an offer mean you lose control of your property? If the US government sent someone to your door, handed you $10 and told you to get out have you lost control of your property because an offer was made so it does not matter if you refuse that offer?
It was their land by treaty. The US took it improperly. The US Constitution says:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Congress is required to pay you fair compensation. You would almost certainly win a court case arguing that ten dollars is not the value of your property. But that just means you would get a better offer. It does not mean you would get your property back.
The Sioux Nation was a foreign entity. US law didnt apply to them. Only the terms of the treaty mattered. I’m not sure that ED would even apply to any NA land today because they are separate political entities created by treaty.
But the courts didnt. The US was ordered to pay a cash equivalent. Lots of that land had become cities and were in private hands. Giving back the land would have caused lots of dislocation. There are similar issues in Maine.
