? asked in Science & MathematicsGeography · 9 years ago

Has anyone ever heard of the Republic of Lakotah, a sovereign state within the boundaries of...?

...the United States? I was

surprised to learn that you need a passport to get in and out of this land within our borders. It covers thousands of square miles which includes areas of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana. Becoming a citizen of the Republic requires that you renounce your U.S. citizenship. So what gives here? It is secession although they may not call it by that name. Isn't this one of the reasons the Civil War was fought? Should something like this be allowed to happen within our borders?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    This "republic" is a gimmick produced by a group of activists. They set up a "nation" then go around seeking support. This type of ploy has been tried several times over the years. None of the others has become a recognized or functional nation. As memory serves, several tax protesters in this country have declared their homes to be independent states and therefore tax free zones.

    The 'republic" seeks to withdraw from treaties with the United States and declare they 'own" all the land in their "territory" Much of their thinking is based on native American tribes being "sovereign nations" with their own governments, police and special rights.

    To quote one site: "The recognition of Native American sovereign immunity dates back to the treaty period of the 1800s, and it has been upheld in several court cases. In Turner v. United States and Creek Nation of Indians, 248 U.S. 354, 357-358 (1919), the Court noted that “the Creek Nation [whose political structure had been terminated by Congress in 1906] was recognized by the United States as a distinct political community, with which it made treaties and which within its own territory administered its internal affairs. Like other governments, municipal as well as state, the Creek Nation was free from liability for injuries to persons or property" and

    "Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 that Native American tribes were domestic-dependent nations “which exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories. "

    http:// indigenousissuestoday.blogspot .com/2007/12/ legal-status-of-native-american-tribes .html

    Notice the phrase "within it's own territory." It doesn't give the organization the right to seize land, make treaties with other governments, coin money or function on par with the United States.

    The issue of succession from the United States was settled by the supreme court in "Texas v White." The ruling can be explained saying once a state joins it can't leave.

    While the group claims a broad sweep of land, not eveyone is supportive. Rodney Bordeaux, chairman of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, said his community had no interest in joining the group. "We're pushing to maintain and to keep the treaties there because they're the basis of our relationship with the federal government," Bordeaux said. There's also no published support from the actual tribal governments.

    No doubt several foreign nations may be supportive. Probably Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Hugo Chavez in Valenzuela would likely do this to embarrass the United States.

    There's nothing that says you can't do the same. As example, I'll declare New England and Canada's Eastern provinces the "Republic of Vinland" My ancestry is Norse and we set up a colony here a thousand years ago. Therefore we "own' all that land and so on. "Why you ask? Because we say so.

    Certainly there are valid issues between the Native Americans and the Native American tribes. However there's no mention that the "republic" is offering reparations to the United States citizens living in their 'border' or accepting any of the other financial responsibilities of a nation. Certainly they don't expect the United States and it's citizens to not be reimbursed for all the investment in the area or aid given the tribes.

    If you look back Russell Means have been an activist involved in several demonstrations. Wounded Knee, Alcatraz, Mt Rushmore, Plymouth Rock and others. Most were confrontational. Alcatraz was declared Indian land but is today still part of the United States and a recreation area. The same is true for the other sites mentioned.

    Mostly probable course? There will be some lawsuits, headlines and confrontations. After time the issue will be replaced with another one.

    http://www. republicoflakotah .com/

    http:// indigenousissuestoday.blogspot .com/2007/12/ legal-status-of-native-american-tribes .html

    Historic Supreme Court Decisions - by Party Name

    http:// supct.law.cornell .edu/supct/cases/ name .htm

    .did the Supreme Court ever rule on the legality of secession.?The answer is yes in the Texas v White case.

    http://www. associatedcontent .com/article/496203/ lakota_indians_declare_sovereign_nation .html?page=2

    http://www. russellmeans .com/ aim .html

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    I am not in favor of such a large monopoly on government as has become the United States. Not much of a fan of government in general [1], I have accepted that some amount of government is both inevitable and desirable in society to the extent that people organize. But the more local that this may be, the better. State sovereignty would be a step in the right direction. At a certain point, the "love it or leave it" crowd would have a point. If there were enough sovereign governments, it is more likely that you could find a community within which you would be happy. As it stands, a person telling you to "love it or leave it" means that you must entirely leave the society in which you live. That is such an affront to liberty that it sickens me. The Civil War did set a terrible precedent. Lincoln's success at putting down the South does not in any way change the morality of secession. I fear though that his precedent could lead to violence if any state or group of states declared independence.

  • 9 years ago

    It does upset. On reading the question the net was searched, and a dozen sites showed some information. There was a map and at other place 'North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Nebraska were listed. Lakotah nation!

    Need a deep breath, and a little rest to think over.

    How the Intelligence wing of USA working on this?

    Source(s): net sites
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I took a class on contemporary native american culture and was very interested to learn of this development. Most non native american people don't know that many tribes still retain 19th century treaty rights. For instance the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa tribe in wisconsin maintains its spearfishing rights despite great controversy from non native americans. In regards to the Republic of Lakotah, the tribes assert that they have the right to secede from the treaty of fort laramie due to the US government not protecting Indian rights. I personally do not believe that the US government will allow this but you can find more information on the wikipedia republic of Lakotah page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakota

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    The Lakotah Sioux have a reservation similar to the Navajo in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, in which they have certain self governing rights, but they do not possess soverignty and are ultimately responsible to the overall Governing authority of the United States of America.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Apparently it isn't allowed to happen. As of this date.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.