The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View

https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/27/tow...

Thomas Jefferson on exterminating the natives.

"This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate."

General Sherman on exterminating natives

"After the 1866 Fetterman Massacre, Sherman wrote Grant that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

The first governor of california - Peter Burnett.

Instead, the greed for gold wealth led to a second option which was, literally, termed a "war of extermination" by Governor Peter Burnett who declared warfare would not cease with Native Americans "until the Indian race becomes extinct"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hardeman_Burnett

The inescapable truth is this country ( and before if we include the pilgrims ) was subdued with conquest and series of genocides. Pretty much everyone political, academic and business leader implicitly or explicitly supported genocide. Of course some ( like Jefferson ) wanted to negotiate first but when push came to shove, they all supported explusion and/or genocide.

But they also did a lot of great things. You have to take the good with the bad. Else we are in an untenable position. Columbus was far more brutal to the natives and he didn't contribute anything to the growth of america ( like andrew jackson did ). George Washington was also far more brutal against the natives. What should we do? Rename Washington DC ( District of Columbia )?

The only reason Andrew Jackson is being targeted by the establishment today is because he was the most anti-central bank president we've ever had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War

In terms of his racist views and policies, he wasn't anything exceptional ( especially during the 1800s ). If we have to remove him, then we have to remove Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Sherman and an unending list of public figures. Where does it end? We should teach and accept that genocide and slavery was part of the making of america rather than try to hide it. And it's okay to praise Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc for their part in founding and building the country and also condemn them for their wrongs.

If a particular group with a narrow territorial claim is wiped out by disease (that is, population density drops to 0), it seems like 2 should apply to that narrow territory.

It's not like each the native of the Americas asserted a territorial claim on all territories of the Americas. There were different groups with different, sometimes competing, claims, and each enforced those claims with military power or lost them. This was true both before and after European arrival.

I think everyone here agrees that genocides did occur, especially in North America and the Carribean, but is pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the native population decline was due to diseases that few people understood and none could effectively control.

I think the argument is that when all the Taino are dead from disease, it's not clear that any of, say, the Algonquins have a better claim to any of the lesser Antilles than the Spanish crown does.

That subject to the jurisdiction thereof was not put in there without thought. It leaves room for a degree of interpretation. But for Indians residing on sovereign independent reservations there's no ambiguity whatsoever - they are excluded and there remains a supreme court ruling on the books upholding this. However, congress can choose to grant citizenship to whomever they choose and indeed a special exception was carved out for natives in the early 20th century - The Indian Citizenship Act. [1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

Any sort of large scale immigration is going to cause friction. That doesn't have to take the form of wars and ethnic cleansing though.

The Pilgrims showed up in 1620 and occupied land that had formerly belonged to a tribe that was wiped out with smallpox and generally had peaceful relations with the natives.

The Puritans started their caliphate (I'm unaware of a corresponding Christian term) in 1630 and shortly thereafter got into wars with the natives, engaging in literal witch hunts and were generally so disagreeable that they provided the motivation for people to settle further and further west (away from them) further encroaching on the natives. Everybody tends to white wash this because they had high literacy rates and treated women better than most at the time.

The early pre-US settlers varied widely in their relations with the natives. The French had a pretty darn good relationship with the natives until they sold out to the US but they didn't do much settling (which probably helped).

>The only reason Andrew Jackson is being targeted by the establishment today is because he was the most anti-central bank president we've ever had.

I agree this is definitely a large part of it. If Jackson was a highly regarded president for other reasons people wouldn't complain about his mistreatment of the natives but instead he opposed central banking which does not make people hold him in high regard today.

Virtue and compassion are not geographical traits.