i respectfully disagree with your conclusion at this time. Could you please explain how the treaty/contract is not broken when all evidence and one of the parties believe the contract/treaty to be broken? irrespective of the crowns "attitude" and willingness to engage in further violence, the crown was the "promiser", and the tribes the "promisee" if the crown had any intention of honouring the treaty, there would be a history of compensating the tribes for the trespass by the crown. Contracts/treaties require both parties to be in agreement - As the "promisee" believes the "promiser" has failed in their obligation, then the Contract/treaty which binds the two party's requires that the promiser compensate the promisee - There is a lot of damning evidence to support the claim by the "promisee".
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes many presume that violation of any of the terms of agreement means an outright cancellation but its not, until formally broken, any of the parties may continue laying claims against the other even when such party started or was involved in terms violation.
Thank you for your clarification, however you did not answer the question - yes the two parties to a contract/treaty can have disagreements, but a disagreement is not what this debate is about, it is about whether the violence committed by the crown makes the treaty null and void - Also how can the tribes formally nullify, break the treaty when the promiser i.e the crown is the one enforcing and controlling all of the courts that hold the power to officially say that it is broken? If your premise is correct, then the treaty can never be broken by the crown no matter what horrors and violence they unleash upon the tribes. Whilst ever the promiser is also the enforcer of the contract/treaty, it will always be a case of "do as i say not as i do, the rules i make don't apply to me" - You see this in most statute laws, it makes it quite clear that the crown is exempt from the statutes.
A simple example - punch your boss at work... and try and say that you have not broken your work contract by engaging in violence....You will find that your contract was void when the punch landed - and your employer will be more than happy to toss your ass to the kerb....
Now if your boss punches you at work, and you say that he has broken the work contract, he will laugh at you and tell you to get back to work or you will be either beaten further or he will have your ass thrown to the kerb....
The land belongs to the tribes - it is their land and they cannot and should not quit and walk away -
My response and initial postulation is based on general contract/treaty, but being specific using the situation you are pointing at, its long over due for the people involved to raise and formally invalidate the so called treaty as it no longer holds. The reason I believe in this arrangement is, going be what one party may loose in canceling this treaty formally, it may not willingly agree to this but when the public stand as one united people with one voice, the other party will start to recognize that the people has cancelled the dead treaty and may call for a round table discussion if its still willing to make peace.