ATTRIBUTES OF ORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY

 

       A Memorandum from the Kasigluk Elders Conference

                      September 19, 1991

                       Kasigluk, Alaska

 

The United States government has desired to characterize itself as the "Apostle of Democracy" for the world. However, the most recent developments in the Soviet Union, and the recognition of independence for the Baltic Republics by President Gorbachev on September 2, 1991 may surpass the United State's claim to democratic leadership.

 

By way of a historical comparison, the annexation of Alaska from the Russians to the United States is just as illegal as the secret protocol between Molotov of the USSR and Ribbentrop of Germany's  Third Reich. There, Eastern Europe was carved into the familiar spheres of influence; Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia fell into the Soviet Union. The Soviet forces in June of 1940 and annexed by the USSR in August 1940. This Soviet annexation has never been recognized by the United States.

 

To continue the analogy, the Alaska Native Nations have never ceded or recognized the annexation of Alaska by the Russians for the United States. This military occupation of Alaska by the United States must come to terms with the Alaska Native People's Declaration for the creation of the Republic of the Arctic. This occurred on August 1,1991 by the Kasigluk Elders of Alaska.

 

This Inuit declaration is more sacred than the one which was declared by the Americans on the Fourth of July, 1776. the Inuit claim to the sovereignty is based upon the longest peaceful coexistence on the North American continent. In contrast, the claim of the colonist of the 1700's was an experiment which was untried. The United States claim to the sovereignty was written on a blank piece of paper. This fledgling experience of the landed immigrants created a design of self-governance based upon simple desire.

 

While the United States government improved upon itself over the course of three centuries, the Indians of the contiguous states lost their lands, their political rights, their cultural existence and often their lives by undeclared wars. This forced removal of the Natives from the lands which became the 48 states amounted to one of the greatest quantative displacements of one people by another in recent world history. However, in our northern world, the Eskimos and the Indians of the circumpolar regions were never fought, never conquered, and never signed treaties relinquishing their rights to the land.

 

Today, the territorial reaches of the Constitution of the United States of America are in question by the Inuit of the Republic of the Arctic. In a series of the insular case, the American courts considered whether the inhabitants of these newly acquired possessions in the north enjoyed the full protection of the Constitution.

 

According to Article III of the Treaty of Cession, 1867, the population of the Russian Colonies was divided into three categories.

 

(1)  "The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years;

 

(2)  but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.

 

(3)  The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.

 

However, the terms "inhabitants" was denied to the uncivilized tribes" by the United States. Therefore the Constitution of the United States is a mere propaganda instrument which created apartness and apartheid. The Native people were not Americans nor protected by the Constitution.

 

Freon 1867 to 1924, "uncivilized" tribes as well as the former "settled aliens" and the Creoles continued their right to obtain the rights of American citizens. Thus, for example, on May 16,1904, in Fairbanks the court denied the application of John Minook (whose real name was Ivan Pavlov) to be recognized as a citizen of the United States. John Minook was the son of a Russian trader employed by the Russian American Company in the Mikhailovskii Redoubt (on Norton Sound) and an Eskimo woman. The parents were both members of the Russian Orthodox Church and had been married according to its rites. Their son was born in the Mikhailovskii Redoubt in 1849. The parents lived in Alaska at the time of its sale by Russia to the United States, and remained there until their death. John Minook married a "native" woman after 1887. They raised and educated their children according to the principles of the Christian religion. John Minook became a miner and, as a reward for his services and integrity, one of the largest mining streams of the Rampart mining district was named "Minook Creek" in his honor. John Minook, according to the evidence presented by the witnesses in the court, had acquired a way of life, clothing and customs characteristic of the "civilized people"; he spoke English and obeyed the laws of the United States. This case started in August, 1900. and lasted more than three years. The court declined John Mimook"s suit on the ground that at the time of the signing of the Treaty of 1868,he belonged to the category of "inhabitants", who preferred to remain in the ceded territory"; therefor, he was "not admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of the citizens of the United States." To John Minook this meant that he lost all rights to the gold he had discovered at Rampart, Alaska. Today there are may of his and his wife's descendants still in the Rampart area.

 

In review of another insular case, "In re Sah Quah" District Court  of Alaska, May 8, 1886, there is further proof of separate sovereignties. Sah Quah was a Tlingit slave. Here is text from re Sah Quah: "What then, is the legal status of Alaska Indians? Many of them have connected themselves with the mission churches, manifest a great interest in the education of their youth, and have adopted civilized habits of life. Their condition has been gradually changing until the attributes of their original sovereignty has been lost and they are becoming more and more dependent upon and subject to the laws of the United States, and YET THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS WITHIN THE FULL MEANING OF THAT TERM."

 

The court was not silent in re Minook, Naturalization of John Minook (2 AK Rept., 200/1904), Tee-Hitton Indians v.United States (348 U.S. 272), Edwardsen v> morton (369 F. Supp. 1359 D.D.C. 1973), United States v. Seveloff (1 AK Fed. Repts. 64, Fed. Case No. 16, 253 D Oregon 1872), and in Re Sah Quah (1 AK Fed Repts., 136 D. Alaska  1886).A study of these cases will make it clear that, for the purposes of citizenship and the Fifth  Amendment of the COnstitution of the United States, Alaska Natives are not "inhabitants", "people" nor "citizens".

 

Following the American court's logic in these five cases, it is conclusive that Alaska Natives and their territories are not part of the territory of the United States. Instead this congressional appropriation of the territory of Alaska and original Native peoples is highly immoral and unconstitutional in today's context. These self-fulfilling opinions by the United States, as to the legal rights of the Alaska Natives, cannot be justified at all.

 

The interlocutory process by the United States for their desired claim to Alaska is now challenged by the Inuit people and for the Inuit peoples' political and social fulfillment within the context of the longest peaceful coexistence and occupation of the Territory of the Arctic.

 

The constitutional relevance of the second sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence is of final significance for the Declaration of Independence by the Inuit for their Republic of the Arctic. Here it is in full:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its Foundation on such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."