Lakotah Unilateral Withdrawal
from All Agreements and Treaties with the United States of America
Lakotah Elder Russell Means Speaks Out!
Lakotah, formally and unilaterally
withdraws from all agreements and treaties imposed by the United
States Government on the Lakotah People.
Today is a historic day and our forefathers speak through us. Our
Forefathers made the treaties in good faith with the sacred Canupa
and with the knowledge of the Great Spirit, They never honored the
treaties, that is the reason we are here today...Garry Rowland,
Lakotah Unilateral Withdrawal from
All Agreements and Treaties with the United States of America
We as the freedom loving Lakotah
People are the predecessor sovereign of Dakota Territory as
evidenced by the Treaties with the United States Government,
including, but not limited to, the Treaty of 1851 and the Treaty of
1868 at Fort Laramie.
Lakotah, formally and unilaterally
withdraws from all agreements and treaties imposed by the United
States Government on the Lakotah People.
Lakotah , and the population therein,
have waited for at least 155 years for the United States of America
to adhere to the provisions of the above referenced treaties. The
continuing violations of these treaties’ terms have resulted in the
near annihilation of our people physically, spiritually, and
culturally. Lakotah rejects United States Termination By
Appropriation policy from 1871 to the present.
In addition, the evidence of gross
violations of the above referenced treaties are listed herein.
Lakotah encourages the United States of America, through its
Government ,to enter into dialogue with Lakotah regarding the
boundaries, the land and the resources therein. Please contact the
Republic of Lakotah at
Should the United States and its
subordinate governments choose not to act in good faith concerning
the rebirth of our nation, we hereby advise the United States
Government that Lakotah will begin to administer liens against real
estate transactions within the five state area of Lakotah.
Lakotah, through its government,
appointed the following representatives to withdraw from all the
treaties with the United States of America based on the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties entered into force in 1980 and the
U.N. Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples 2007:
known as Garry Rowland
as Russell Means
Mni yuha Najin Win
Heretofore known as Phyllis Young
Republic Of Lakotah P.O. Box 99 Porcupine Lakotah 57772,
Political and Diplomatic Relations
with the United States of America
The first official contacts between
Lakotah and the government of the United States of America began in
earnest after the United States conducted a commercial transaction
with France, commonly known as the Louisiana Purchase, in1803. Prior
to that time, Lakotah exercised complete and unfettered freedom and
independence in their territory.
According to the fantasy of United
States’ history, the Louisiana Purchase was a purported sale by
France to the United States of 530 million acres (2.1 million sq.km.)
for $15 million. Part of this sale included the territory of Lakotah
who, of course never had knowledge of, nor gave consent to, the sale
of their national territory.
The first treaty between the U.S. and
any segment of Lakotah occurred in 1805, , and various other
treaties of “peace and friendship,” between Lakotah and the U.S. As
citizens of the U.S. began to invade and encroach on the territory
of Lakotah in increasing numbers, tensions and violence erupted. To
prevent full-scale war, the Fort Laramie Treatyof 1851 was requested
by the U.S., to allow a transportation route through Lakotah
territory. The treaty did not impair the sovereignty or the
independence of Lakotah. In fact, the treaty expressly recognized
Lakotah as an independent nation, and the treaty respected “all
national business” of Lakotah.
After repeated violations by the
United States of the 1851 Treaty, warfare broke out between Lakotah
and the U.S.
Lakotah defeated the U.S. in the
so-called “Red Cloud War,” leading to the U.S. to call for another
treaty conference at Fort Laramie. The second treaty agreed for the
U.S. to abandon the Bozeman Road, and the accompanying military
forts that had been built along it, and promised to keep U.S. troops
and settlers out of Lakotah territory.
Almost immediately, the U.S. began
violating terms of the treaty, allowing railroad and mining
interests to trespass and steal Lakotah resources and territory. In
1874, the infamous U.S. military commander, George Custer, led an
invasion of the most sacred part of Lakotah territory, the Paha Sapa
(Black Hills), prompting an invasion of gold seekers, and provoking
another war between the U.S. and Lakotah. As a result of the war,
Lakotah territory was illegally occupied by the U.S., and billions
of dollars of natural resources have been stolen from the occupied
territories of Lakotah.
The United States has engaged in
multiple military, legal and political strategies for more than a
century to deny Lakotah our right to freedom and self-determination.
In 1876-77, in violations of the treaties that it had signed with
Lakotah, the U.S. engaged in a
sell-or-starve policy to coerce Lakotah to sell our national
homeland. Lakotah refused, and has consistently refused to the
In 1871, the U.S. decided no longer
to enter into treaties with indigenous nations, but the U.S.
treaty-ending legislation made explicit that the new policy of the
United States would in no way impair or limit those treaties already
in force between indigenous nations and the U.S. Lakotah have
consistently relied on the sanctity of the treaty between the U.S.
As mentioned above, the United States
has consistently violated the treaties between Lakotah and the U.S.,
resulting in the loss of life, resources, and territory for Lakotah.
Although the United States was willing to take the benefit of its
bargain (i.e., territory and natural resources) in signing treaties
with Lakotah, it was almost immediately unwilling to respect the
mutual bargain to the Lakotah. The U.S. began to use U.S. law and
policy to attempt to diminish the political, economic and cultural
freedom of Lakotah.
After signing the 1868 Fort Laramie
Treaty, the U.S. allowed its military, and its civilian citizens to
invade Lakotah territory to steal gold, silver and other natural
resources. The U.S. unilaterally violated the 1868 Treaty throughout
the 1870s and 1880s by coercing alterations in the Treaty onto
Lakotah, without the required 2/3 agreement of Lakotah, as required
in the Treaty.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court
recognized the ongoing freedom and independence of Lakotah in the
landmark case of Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883), two years later, the U.S.
Congress attempted to steal Lakotah independence through the passage
of the Major Crimes Act, that unilaterally extended U.S. criminal
jurisdiction into Lakotah territory.
These actions were followed by more
arrogant actions of the United States, culminating in the shocking
Supreme Court Case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903). Although Lone
Wolf involved the Kiowa and Comanche Nations in what is now the
State of Oklahoma, its impact adversely affected Lakotah. In Lone
Wolf, the United States not only said that it could violate, change
or abrogate treaties with Indian nations unilaterally, but it also
said that the U.S.
Congress possesses plenary (absolute)
power to legislate in any way in indigenous affairs without the
consent or consideration of indigenous nations.
By extension, Lone Wolf has been used
to violate hundreds of treaties between the U.S. and indigenous
peoples, including Lakotah. Through the operation of Lone Wolf, the
U.S. stole the sacred Black Hills, allowed the mining of billions of
dollars of gold from them, admitted that the Black Hills were taken
in violation of the 1868 Fort Laramie
Treaty, and then offered to
compensate Lakotah at 1874 land values. Lakotah have, to this day,
rejected the offer of payment, and continue to insist on the return
of the Paha Sapa (Black Hills).
An overview of violations follows:
- Homestead Acts
- Allotment Acts
- Citizenship Act forcing United
States citizenship upon all American Indians
- Indian Reorganization Act a.k.a.
Howard Wheeler Act (the first Apartheid Act)
- Forced relocation during the
decades of the 1950’s over the 1960’s.
- Supreme Court decision disallowing
- Even though we are citizens of the
United States of America, we are denied protections of the United
Constitution while living on Indian
reservations, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The operation of the United States in
the nefarious ways outlined above are a violation, not only of the
sovereignty and independence of Lakotah, not only of the solemn
treaty signed between the U.S. and Lakotah, but it
is a violation of the fundamental law
of the United States itself. Article Six of the United States
Constitution explicitly states that treaties signed by the United
States are the supreme law of the land, and must be respected by
every court and by every lawmaker, as such.
1. Treaties of Fort Laramie, 1851 and
Full text of these treaties can
be found at
2. Article VI of United States
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy,
All Debts contracted and Engagements
entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as
valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under
the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and
Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath
or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States.
3. Vienna Convention on Treaties
1969; specifically Article 49, Article 60 Parts I and II
Article 49- Fraud
If a State has been induced to
conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct govern questions not
regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, Have agreed
Scope of the present Convention
The present Convention applies to treaties between States.
Use of terms
1. For the purposes of the present
(a) ‘treaty’ means an international agreement concluded between
States in written form and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation;
(b) ‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’,
‘approval’ and ‘accession’ mean in each case the international act
so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its
consent to be bound by a treaty;
(c) ‘full powers’ means a document
emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a
person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting
or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent
of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other
act with respect to a treaty;
(d) ‘reservation’ means a unilateral
statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing,
ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it
purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain
provisions of the treaty in their application to that State;
(e) ‘negotiating State’ means a
State which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of
(f) ‘contracting State’ means a
State which has consented to be bound by the treaty, whether or not
the treaty has entered into force;
(g) ‘party’ means a State which has
consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in
(h) ‘third State’ means a State not
a party to the treaty;
(i) ‘international organization’
means an intergovernmental organization.
Termination or suspension of the
operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach
1. A material breach of a bilateral
treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach
as aground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in
whole or in part.
2. A material breach of a
multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous
agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part
orto terminate it either:
(i) in the relations between
themselves and the defaulting State, or
(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by
the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of
thereaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the
(c) any party other than the
defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operationof the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if
the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its
provisions by one party radically changes the position of every
party with respect to the further performance of its obligations
under the treaty.
3. A material breach of a treaty, for
the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not
sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision
essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the
4. The foregoing paragraphs are
without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the
event of a breach.
5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to
provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained
in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions
prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such
4. United Nations Declaration of
Indigenous Rights 2007; specifically Article 37
1. Indigenous peoples have the right
to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties,
agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States
or their successors and to have States honor and respect such
treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.
2. Nothing in this Declaration may be
interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous
peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive
5. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903)
Full text of the decision can be
precludes all litigation and political intrusions not relevant to