tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post116391479817350309..comments2024-03-08T07:09:46.527-07:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Opening the Gates of the Gulag (Pt. III): One Little VictoryWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-1164174044072042722006-11-21T22:40:00.000-07:002006-11-21T22:40:00.000-07:00cwmckee1 -- God bless your notable ancestor, and m...cwmckee1 -- God bless your notable ancestor, and may we cherish his memory!<BR/><BR/>drs, thanks for mentioning the longer and more detailed treatment of the Standing Bear case from TNA. The Chief's repudiation of his tribal citizenship left him effectively a man without a country; as you say, he wasn't considered a citizen, although he was "subject" to the U.S. But this wasn't really a change in status, since the deceptive treaty with the Poncas made the tribe, both jointly and severally, "subject" to U.S. jurisdiction anyway. Had Judge Dundy not ruled in Standing Bear's favor, the Chief would have remained in citizenship limbo for the rest of his life, in all likelihood.<BR/><BR/>My view on the subject of rights and citizenship is very much like Jefferson's: Rights inhere in individuals because they're made in God's image, not because of their citizenship. The question is always what government is PERMITTED to do to an individual, not what status it condescends to confer upon him. The government doesn't have plenary power over anyone.<BR/><BR/>Illegal aliens who are put on trial for crimes against persons and property have the same due process guarantees as citizens for exactly that reason: The state cannot take away a person's property, freedom, or life without meeting those standards. Since nobody has a right to enter our country illegally, expelling those who do so is NOT a violation of their inalienable rights.<BR/><BR/>The ironic complication in the case of Standing Bear, and other Indians dealt with as non-persons by the federal government is this:<BR/><BR/>These people were denied their legal standing as persons because they weren't considered citizens by a government created by, and for the benefit of, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON INDIAN LANDS. This is NOT just a flippant left-wing talking point: Go back and read any responsible history of the West, particularly the colonization -- nay, the blatant illegal seizure -- of the Black Hills, and tell me that I'm wrong. I dare you. :-)William N. Grigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-1164058467553362232006-11-20T14:34:00.000-07:002006-11-20T14:34:00.000-07:00Mega-thanks for the manifest clarity you bring to ...Mega-thanks for the manifest clarity you bring to historical events, Will. ;)<BR/><BR/>It's one thing to read about historical events from a staid book and reading about the same with a panoramic bent while simultaneously providing much detail, such as you manage to do so seamlessly. Notice I didn't say <I>text</I>book above, especially in the contemporary sense (as what's used in a pubic skewer system), but simply a staid book on history.<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, I'm always trying to get my hands on any old material, especially books, for safekeeping and to cross-reference and contrast with the contemporary stuff. I have a history book entitled <I>Beginner's History of the United States</I>, from which my grandmother (1909-99) had been taught history in her 4th grade class, that covers from Columbus coming to the New World up to 1915 just after the Panama Canal was completed. It doesn't, however, cover any details on the Indian atrocities of the mid-latter 19th century; but then, the book is only 315 pgs, not including index and doesn't cover any one area in major detail, being a 4th grade level book. But it does cover the Confederacy in a good light and "the days of darkness" during Reconstruction.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the way in in which it is written throughout is a major contrast to how contemporary history books are written today. In short, it probably indicates the opposite false extreme to how contemporary history books are bent - portraying the white man as without blemish - whereas today's history books, in general, portray the false extreme opposite. That is, all white folk (except the pimpers of this mantra, of course) are the absolute crud of the Earth.<BR/><BR/>Just to give an idea of the difference, here's the last paragraph from the last page as a sample:<BR/><BR/><I><B>The Panama-Pacific Fair at San Francisco.</B>--The exposition held at San Francisco during the greater part of 1915, in honor of the completion of the Panama Canal, not only marked the success of our government in opening a new highway for trade between the eastern and western seas, but it also showed by its most extensive display of products from field, forest, and factory, the wonderful resources of our country, and the wonderful industrial activities that have marked the New Era. These are only the the outward signs which show that our country has become large and great and strong. May the time soon come when all the people of our country shall be known as true and wise and good.</I><BR/><BR/>I especially note the last sentence and how, if that ever once existed in the first place and I indeed think that it did exist to some degree, that that description of the folk who now make up this country has obviously l-o-n-g ago died out and been put to pasture.dixiedoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-1164002914161787442006-11-19T23:08:00.000-07:002006-11-19T23:08:00.000-07:00Judge dundy was one of my ancestors. I am proud o...Judge dundy was one of my ancestors. I am proud of him for his courage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com