How Many Mississippi Voters Wish the South Had Won the Civil War?

[Razgovory]

Some of those treaties were signed under duress.  I find that problematic.

[Valmy]

Some of those treaties were signed under duress.  I find that problematic.

As I said so long as they want us to respect those treaties.

[grumbler]

There is nothing particularly problematic about them.  We should respect our treaties with them so long as they want us to do so and make sure they have full equal rights with everybody else.

You don't see anything problematic with the fiction that Indian tribes are sovereign nations, even though their citizens are now also US citizens, and so Congress can pass laws over-riding "national sovereignty" in these sovereign "nations?"  I see huge problems, and so does pretty much everyone who has to deal with them.  Sometimes state laws apply in them, and sometimes they don't.  The treaties are binding unless Congress explicitly changes them...

You should be accurate and say instead that you don't see anything "particularly problematic about them."

[Barrister]

There is nothing particularly problematic about them.  We should respect our treaties with them so long as they want us to do so and make sure they have full equal rights with everybody else.

You don't see anything problematic with the fiction that Indian tribes are sovereign nations, even though their citizens are now also US citizens, and so Congress can pass laws over-riding "national sovereignty" in these sovereign "nations?"  I see huge problems, and so does pretty much everyone who has to deal with them.  Sometimes state laws apply in them, and sometimes they don't.  The treaties are binding unless Congress explicitly changes them...

You should be accurate and say instead that you don't see anything "particularly problematic about them."

First nations sovereignty is sui generis.  That is how they are nations, and have some aspects of sovereignty, but not others.

[Valmy]

You don't see anything problematic with the fiction that Indian tribes are sovereign nations, even though their citizens are now also US citizens, and so Congress can pass laws over-riding "national sovereignty" in these sovereign "nations?"  I see huge problems, and so does pretty much everyone who has to deal with them.  Sometimes state laws apply in them, and sometimes they don't.  The treaties are binding unless Congress explicitly changes them...

You should be accurate and say instead that you don't see anything "particularly problematic about them."

I always speak for myself and myself only.  I do not see why I need to specify that since it applies 100% of the time.  Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig?

But ok I guess there might be a few problematic things in there.

[grumbler]

I always speak for myself and myself only.  I do not see why I need to specify that since it applies 100% of the time.  Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig?

"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.

[Valmy]

"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.

[garbon]

Eh even if they were a bunch of California valley girls living on that island their independence would be no less legitimate.  They are not fully part of the United States

What's wrong with California valley girls?

[Valmy]

What's wrong with California valley girls?

I was just trying to think of a population that was quintessentially American.

[garbon]

What's wrong with California valley girls?

I was just trying to think of a population that was quintessentially American.

Alright.

[Viking]

"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.

I have the reply to any and all grumbler posts in my sig... the words are not mine, but they speak my mind well enough.


Edit: or at least I had the reply but it seems that sig didn't survive the move

[Razgovory]

I always speak for myself and myself only.  I do not see why I need to specify that since it applies 100% of the time.  Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig?

"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.

Oh c'mon.

[PDH]

First nations sovereignty is sui generis.  That is how they are nations, and have some aspects of sovereignty, but not others.

And this is what often gets overlooked.  And, why it is so messy.

[Habbaku]

"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.

lol : grumblered

[JonasSalk]

Well, since it was pretty clear that Britain was perfectly ok with slavery in the colonies at the time, we can safely conclude that in fact the issue of slavery was not really relevant to the issue of American independence from Britain.

If the US was in fact attempting to free themselves from British rule in order to maintain slavery, then yes, it would be a huge mark against their ethical justification for rebellion. As it is, the hypocrisy of the "...all men are created equal..." rationalization for rebellion is in fact a moral black mark against the American Independence movement, albeit not a decisive one.

Since the USA and Lincoln were both okay with slavery in America at the time, doesn't that invalidate your first paragraph?

Your next one makes little sense. So long as America splits off from Britain for other reasons than slavery--but still maintains it--it's okay? How is it not a decisive black mark to maintain slavery for nearly 100 years in America after independence, despite the supposed claims of equality? The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?