As of 2015 no American president has used the word genocide to describe the events of 1915 because they don’t want to upset turkey who is an important ally to United States it is important for an individual to do what is politically correct or to do what might be morally right even if it might upset some people? Is it different for a president?

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.  

us court of appeals for the 11th circuit

im going to go with b.