State Park Goes Back to the Tribe

Legal precedents are what they are, old contracts are still contracts yes?

There’s plenty of blame to our ancestral congressmen for even writing these up. Playing nice was not a very good way of assimilating the native population as most every conquering nation usually never did throughout history. But obviously assimilating a native population of practically opposite cultured people that didn’t speak your language, and was pretty heck bent on warfare, well, there’s that….

Really tough way forward, I suspect much more butthurt to come on this matter in the next several years unless potus changes parties, even then theirs a myriad of international crapshow items to address

Deuces wrote:

Legal precedents are what they are, old contracts are still contracts yes?

This really says it all doesn’t it?

There is a huge difference between treaties and contracts. Let’s not forget that.

jimmysiewert wrote:

There is a huge difference between treaties and contracts. Let’s not forget that.

how so???? arent they both agreed upon by both parties and signed off on???? making it a legal document???/

Deuces wrote:

Legal precedents are what they are, old contracts are still contracts yes?

There’s plenty of blame to our ancestral congressmen for even writing these up. Playing nice was not a very good way of assimilating the native population as most every conquering nation usually never did throughout history. But obviously assimilating a native population of practically opposite cultured people that didn’t speak your language, and was pretty heck bent on warfare, well, there’s that….

Really tough way forward, I suspect much more butthurt to come on this matter in the next several years unless potus changes parties, even then theirs a myriad of international crapshow items to address

All we have to do is review the Mille Lacs debacle for reference. You have the 1837 treaty followed with the 1850 executive order by President Taylor then look at the Supreme ruling. The ruling was directly split on the liberal/conservative line. The tribes were wise to push forward with this while the Supreme court had a liberal majority.

Lots of scholar studies done on the difference. Treaties are more a “political” statement where a contract is more a legal document.

Look through history and all the “treaties” that are broken – and not just in US. Just saying.

OG Net_Man wrote:

All we have to do is review the Mille Lacs debacle for reference. You have the 1837 treaty followed with the 1850 executive order by President Taylor then look at the Supreme ruling. The ruling was directly split on the liberal/conservative line. The tribes were wise to push forward with this while the Supreme court had a liberal majority.

The 1999 State of Minnesota et al. v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians et al. ?

Meant to say Supreme court ruling….. Yep, that would be the Supreme Court case that I was referring to

OG Net_Man wrote:

Meant to say Supreme court ruling….. Yep, that would be the Supreme Court case that I was referring to

Reef W wrote:

The ruling was directly split on the liberal/conservative line. The tribes were wise to push forward with this while the Supreme court had a liberal majority.

7/9 were appointed by Republican presidents and maybe O’Connor wasn’t “conservative enough” or something but I definitely don’t think she was “liberal”.

Reef W wrote:

7/9 were appointed by Republican presidents and maybe O’Connor wasn’t “conservative enough” or something but I definitely don’t think she was “liberal”.

It was a 5-4 decision, with the following justices making the majority decision and who appointed them: Justice Breyer (Clinton), Ginsburg (Clinton), Souter (HW Bush, but voted with the liberal wing regularly by end of his term, and retired in 2009 under Obama), Stevens (Nixon appointed but voted with the liberal wing by end of his time on the court, and retired during Obama’s term also), and O’Connor (Reagan and retired during W Bush’s term).

Another 40k acres on the giveaway block now, our fearful federal leaders (Tina Smith in this case) can’t get left behind the virtue signaling tour, especially since these are lands that she never even knew existed.

http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/tamarack-forest/

And back on the White Earth State Forest issue, here’s a MPR link and some telling quotes imo.

“We’ve never had the concept of owning land at all,” he explained. “That was brought onto us by the U.S. government in trying to make us farmers. It was a strange concept to us. The land should be used by everybody, not just one person.” Then why are you pursuing it? It’s public land now available to everyone and tribal harvest regulation extends.

“While acknowledging there might have been fraud in the past, Nelson believes the White Earth Land Settlement Act of 1985, which cleared the title to about 100,000 acres of private land, resolved past wrongs.

The 1985 act provided White Earth with $6.5 million for economic development — funds that were used to build a tribal casino. The act also returned 10,000 acres of land to the tribal government, a process that took 27 years to complete.”

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/04/16/tensions-build-as-white-earth-nation-tries-to-assert-authority-over-state-forest-land-use

Potawatomi Tribe has been given tribal status over land in Illinois they are seeking the state to hand over. They need Reservation status from Congress so they won’t pay real estate taxes for the land. This has been going on for decades but the Democrats intend to hand over the land.

I recall reading several books that talk of the Ojibwa and dakotas fighting over land. Sounds like ownership squabbles to me.

Another big chunk of land taken from the public.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/chippewa-national-forest-transfer-back-to-the-leech-lake-band-of-ojibwe-us-forest-service/89-ac4a1978-c123-4fe9-8cb3-448828d2764e

and what will be next??

Mike Schulz wrote:

and what will be next??

Raise taxes for the taxes lost.

that’s most likely right Dutch

To be fair I guess I doubt a national forest pays any taxes.

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/2024/06/13/hill-annex-mine-state-park-permanently-closed-allow-mining-resume#:~:text=Hill%20Annex%20Mine%20State%20Park,Minnesota%20DNR

This should be okay though right. I mean at least its going to a big corporation and not the tribes. In 75 years our great grandchildren can swim in the evergreen waters of the Hill Annex cess-pools. At some point we need to realize these parks are not for us but our kids and we cant just invest in them and then give them away again.

To be fair, the contract setup for the Hill Annex Park was that it was able to be returned to mining operations when requested. The park never would have been there had the mine never been dug and the mine owner turn it over to the state for temporary public use. This is nothing like the other land grabs.

Riverrat wrote:

This should be okay though right. I mean at least its going to a big corporation and not the tribes.

Are we not allowed to dislike both?